III

1.  In general, G. Delling, Geschlechtsverkehr, R.A.C. 10 (1978) 812.

2.  Schneider, R.A.C, Abtreibung, for texts; Exod. 21.22–3; F. J. Dölger, Ant. u. Christ. (1934) 1–61, esp. 7; two stages, in Tert., Anim. 37 (with Waszink’s note); Cypr., Ep. 52.2–3; Elvira, Can. 63, etc.

3.  Act. Andr. 5 and esp. F. Nau, Rev. de l’Orient Chrétien (1909) pp. 25–6, canons 10, 11, 18, 20 (Antioch, 325 A.D.); Can. Neocaesarea 2 (on brothers).

4.  P. Coleman, Christian Attitudes to Homosexuality (1980) restates the truth; J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (1980) is quite unconvincing: note esp. Rmn. 2.22; Tit. 1.10; 1 Tim. 1.10; 1 Cor. 6.9.

5.  J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance (1980) 137–40, excellent on this; Lev. 11.5 with Ep. Barn. 10.

6.  Most recently, M. Crouzel, Mariage et Divorce, Célibat et Caractère Sacerdotaux (1982).

7.  In general, H. Crouzel, L’Egl. Primitive Face au Divorce (1971); Mk. 10.1–12; on Qumran, G. Vermes, J.J.S. (1974) 197; woman, D. Daube, N.T. and rabbinic Judaism (1956) 365; Jos., A.J. 4.253 and Vita 426; Mthw. 19.9–10 with the valuable study of J. A. Fitzmeyer, Theol. Stud. (1976) 197, though I still consider Mark to be the original text.

8.  Epiph., Haer. 30.18 with H. J. Schoeps, Studia Theol. (1949) 99; A. H. M. Jones, Later Roman Emp. (1964) II.973–6.

9.  Luke 2.36.

10. 1 Cor. 7.39 and 7.10–11; Rmn. 7.2–3; cf. 1 Tim. 5.2.

11. E.g. Hermas, Mand. 4.1; Clem., Strom. 3.12.82.3; Tert., Ad Ux. 5–8; Exh. Cast. 3; Monog. 1.4 with full survey by C. Munier, in the S. Chrét. edition of Ad Uxorem (1980), intro., passim.

12. B. Kötting, R.A.C. 3.1022, s.v. Digamoi.

13. M. Humbert, Remariage à Rome (1972) esp. 309–51.

14. Ps.-Clem., Recog. Bks. 9–10; I quote Ps.-Clem., Hom. 13.1.

15. Can. Elvira 70; Can. Elvira 72; M. Humbert, Le Remariage… (1972) 346–7.

16. E.g. Clem., Strom. 3.6.3.12: cf. Athenag., Leg. 33; on Origen, H. Crouzel, Virginité et Mariage Selon Origène (1963); J. T. Noonan, Contraception… (1966) 76–8, with Lactant., D.I. 6.23.13; on Gnostics, Noonan, pp. 95–6 and 121 (Manichees).

17. Dioscor., Mat. Med. 1.135: cf. Homer, Od. 10.510; Aristot., De Gen. An. 726A; Christian virgins, in Method., Symp. 4.3: cf. Orig., In Exod. 9.4 and in general, H. Rahner, Z.K.T. (1932) 231.

18. I owe this estimate to data from Father T. Radcliffe, of Blackfriars; Revel. 14.1 with John Sweet’s note, p. 222.

19. Luke 20.35; Clem., Strom. 3.48.1; Nicaea, Can. 1; Justin, 1 Apol. 29 with Dig. 48.8.4.2.

20. 1 Cor. 7.25; Iren. 1.6.3; Hermas, Vis. 2.2.3 for “sisters”; cf. Tert., Ad Ux. 1.6 and Clem., Strom. 3.53.3 and 6.100; Method., Symp. 9.4; baptism, R. Murray, N.T.S. (1975) 58; S. P. Brock, Numen (1973) 1.

21. Clem., Strom. 3.12.81–2, with R. M. Grant, J.T.S. (1954) 62; Eus., H.E. 4.23 with P. Nautin, Lettres et Ecrivains Chrétiens (1961) 16.

22. R. M. Grant, V.C. (1961) 129, on Gosp. of Philip; Y. Tissot, in Les Actes Apocryphes des Apôtres, ed. F. Bovon (1981) 109; on Thecla, Tert., De Bapt. 17; Act. Paul et Thecl. 9; R. Söder, Die Apokr. Apostelakten u. die Romanhafte Literatur… (1932), still valid. Summing-up by P. J. Parsons, in a London book review.

23. A. Paul et Thecl. 7; Act. Andr. (trans. M. R. James, Apocryphal N.T., 1975), p. 352; in general, Y. Tissot, op. cit.

24. A. Thom. 12 and 98.

25. P. Nagel, in Gnosis u. Neues Testament, ed. K. W. Tröger (1973) 49–182.

26. M. R. James, Apocryphal N.T. (1975, ed.) 303; Aug., C. Adeim. 17.5.

27. S. L. Davies, The Revolt of the Widows… (1980) actually argues that “widows,” or virginal women, were authors of our Apocryphal Acts.

28. Tert., Adv. Marc. 1.29; Iren. 1.27.3; R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom (1975) 74–5; 2 Clem. 12.1; Clem., Strom. 3.92.2; Gosp. Thom. 22 with A. F. J. Klijn, J.B.L. (1962) 271; Act. Thom. 147 (ed. Klijn).

29. H. Chadwick, in Alexandrian Christianity (1954) 25.

30. Clem., Strom. 7.70 and 6.100.3; in general, B. Prete, Matrimonio e Continenza (1981).

31. Hebr. 13.4, plainly hortatory, in view of following verses: B. F. Westcott (1889), ad loc.

32. C. Rambaux, Rev. Et. Aug. (1976) esp. 24; R. Braun, in Epektasis… J. Danielou (1972) 20.

33. Cypr., De Mort. 15; Ps.-Clem., Recogn. 9.10–11.

34. Tert., Virg. Vel. 14.

35. A. Voöbus, Hist. of Asceticism in Syr. Orient, I (1958) 64, for dating.

36. Ps.-Clem., De Virg. 1.3 (boasting); 1.10 (advice).

37. Ps.-Clem., 1.12 (exorcism); 2.1–5 (advice to travellers); 2.5 with Hippol., Ref. 9.11 and the brilliant study of E. Peterson, Frühkirche, Judentum… Gnosis (1959) 221.

38. E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian… (1965) 34; well diverted by J. Gager, Religion (1982) 358: “we need to ask not ‘where does it come from?’ but ‘what does it say?’”

39. Ps.-Clem., De Virg. 2.6.

40. Athenag., Leg. 31.3 with M. Aur., Med. 6.13; R. Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians (1949) 15; cf. Tatian, Or. 32.2; Tert., Apol. 9.19; Justin, Apol. 1.15.6.

41. Soranus, Gynaec. 1.28–33, esp. 30 ff.; Galen is still attacking Epicurus’s view, in Oribas. 6.37.

42. H. I. Marrou, Le Pédagogue I (1960) 51–52.

43. 1 Cor. 7.5; Orig., On Prayer 21.4; 1 Pet. 2.9 with Exod. 19.5–6.

44. R. Schilling, R.S.R. (1961) 113, on their differences; contra, M. Beard, J.R.S. (1980) 26.

45. Tert., Praescr. Her. 40; cf. Exh. Cast. 13; Clem., Strom. 3.57 has difficulty in distinguishing Christian continence from pagan types.

46. T. Thornton, J.T.S. (1972) 444–5, most recently: Philo is not exactly a representative source, and Josephus had “dropped out” in his youth in the desert.

47. Protev. Jac. 20.1; Jer., Epist. 49;J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome (1975) 93–4, for the Roman girls.

48. W. Bauer, on Mth. 19.12, in Neutest. Studien fur Georg Heinrici (1914) 235; on Luke, P. Nagel, Die Motivierung der Askese… (1966) 34–9.

49. On 1 Cor. 7, R. Braun, in Epektasis… J. Daniélou (1972) 20 and C. Jenkins, J.T.S. (1908) 500; I discuss 1 Cor. 7.9, 5, 29, 32–3, respectively. On Peter, Mth. 8.14 and prob. 1 Cor. 9.5.

50. J. Massingberd-Ford, N.T.S. (1964) 361–5.

51. Orig., Hom, in jer. 20.4; Syriac texts in A. Voöbus, Hist. of Asceticism… I (1958) 40 ff., 45 ff. and p. 43.

52. Clem., Strom. 3.12.89; on T.’s deceit, good survey in detail by C. Rambaux, Rev. Et. Aug. (1976) 1 and (1977) 18–42.

53. Luke 23.29; Mark 13.17; 1 Cor. 7.28–9; full refs. to Dead Sea sect now in E. Schürer (rev. Vermes-Millar), Hist. of Jewish People vol. 2 (1979) esp. 570 and 578; R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom… (1975) 17; G. Vermes, J.J.S. (1974) 197; B. Janowski, H. Lichtenberger, J.J.S. (1983) 31, on purity and eschatology.

54. Method., Sympos. 2.

55. E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian… (1965) 27.

56. K. S. Frank, Angelikos Bios (1964) esp. 12–47; Ton H. C. van Eijk, in Epektasis… J. Daniélou (1972) 213, a good survey; P. Nagel, Die Motivierung der Askese… (1966) esp. 51 ff.; on androgyny and creation, M. Delcourt, Mélanges H. C. Puech (1976) 117; P. Pisi, Genesis e Phthora (1982).

57. J. Amstutz, Haplotes (1968) and F.J. Klijn, J.B.L. (1962) 271; Cypr., Hab. Virg. 20; Frank, Angelikos Bios (1964) 1–13.

58. Novatian, On Purity 7.

59. P. Schaefer, Rivalität zwischen Engeln u. Menschen… (1975), a fine study.

60. Ep. ad Diogn. 5.6–13, on not exposing children; age, C. Vogel, Rev. Droit Canonique 16 (1966) 355; M. K. Hopkins, Population Studies (1964–5) 319/20; Didasc. Apost. (ed. Connolly) chap. 17 p. 152; A. Rousselle, Annales (1980) 1108.

61. Aug. Epist. 3(e). J. Divjak, C.S.E.L. 1981; Tert., Virg. Vel. 13.2.

62. Ancyra, Can. 19; Elvira, Can. 13; B. Kötting, R.A.C. 9 (1976) 1055–99 with J. Schniewind, G. Friedrich, Epangelia, in G. Kittel, Th. Wb. 2.573–83.

63. A. Voöbus, History of Asceticism… I (1958) 64, 72, 104–5; S. P. Brock, J.J.S. (1979) 217–8 with bibliogr. and a possible Jewish model.

64. Tert., Exh. Cast. 1.

65. Tert., Exh. Cast. 12; De Monog. 16; tithes, in Apost. Const. 8.30.

66. E.g. Tert., Virg. Vel. 10; Cypr., De Hab. Virg. 9–11.

67. Eus., H.E. 7.30.12, for the 260s in Antioch; Tert., Virg. Vel. 13.2.

68. Cypr., Ep. 4 with Elvira, Can. 27; Nicaea, Can. 3; H. Koch, Virgines Christi (1907) 76.

69. 1 Cor. 7.36–8, with C. K. Barrett, ad loc. for the other views; I still follow H. Achelis, Virgines Subintroductae (1902) 7–9; 20–9; cf. Ign., Ad Smyrn. 13.17.

70. Ign., Ad Polyc. 5.2; Tert., Virg. Vel. 15.

71. Cypr., Hab. Virg. 24 (copycats).

72. Cypr., Hab. Virg. 17.

73. R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom (1975) p. 86 suggests this; “aphthartos,” in G. W. Lampe, Patristic Lexicon.

74. Tert., De An. 41, with Waszink’s note; 2 Cor. 11.2, with Eph. 5.27; Hermas, Vis. 4.2.1; H. Koch, Virgines Christi (1907) 97–112; F. C. Coneybeare, A.R.W. (1905) 376; (1906) 73. J. C. Plumpe, Mater Ecclesia (1943);J. Gager, Religion (1982) esp. 356 ff. for ideas of body symbolism. I would agree the “body stood for something else,” but not that this “something” was a “condensed statement about the relation of society to the individual” (p. 347). “Society” seems wrong here.

75. Tert., Exh. Cast. 13; Res. Cam. 61; I quote Virg. Vel. 16; Cypr., Hab. Virg. 20; in general, D. B. Vismanos, Virgenes Cristianas de la Iglesia Primitiva (1949) 151 ff. and 161 ff. (adultery); Jer., Epist. 22.

76. M. Beard, J.R.S. (1980) 14–15; E. Giannelli, La Tipologia Femminile nella Biografia… Christiana… (1980) 28.

77. Most recently, A. Martimort, Les Diaconnesses (1983).

78. Tert., De Cult. Fem. 1.1 and 4; Irenae. 3.22.4 and 5.19.1; sects, in Epiph., Haer. 42.4 and my chap. 8, below.

79. Housework, Tert., Exh. Cast. 12; dowdy, Tert., C. Fem. 2.11; hair, A. Paul et Thecl. 25; Gangra, Can. 17.

80. Cypr., Hab. Virg. esp. 8–11 and 21.

81. Tert., Virg. Vel. 10; Exh. Cast. 3.4; Praescr. Her. 3.5.

82. A. Rousselle, Annales (1980) 1111–2, with texts; Galen, Util. Part. 14.10–11; on dreams, cf. my chap. 8 below, with a long text of John Cassian, Coll. 22. On fasting, H. Musurillo, Traditio (1956) 1 ff.

83. P. R. L. Brown, Augustine of Hippo (1967) p. 249, brilliantly expressed.

84. Didasc. 3, p. 26 (Connolly); Cypr., Hab. Virg. 19.

85. Greg. Naz., Epist. 246 and 248 (Budé).

86. E.g. Can. Elvira 7, 12–4, 47, 61, 64, 68–71, all fascinating. On bestiality, Ancyra, Can. 16 and the puzzling Can. 17, with the full note on textual and historical problems in J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance… (1980) 178 n. 33. My trans. is, I think, correct: the Latin West, esp. the Franks, cited it, wrongly, against homosexuals: cf. Boswell, p. 178.

87. Jo. Chrys., P.G. 58.677; in general, H. Selhorst, Die Platzanordnung im Gläubigenraum der altchristlichen Kirche (1931).

CHAPTER 8

No single book centres on this subject, but much is implied in Peter Brown’s Making of Late Antiquity (1978) and E. R. Dodds’s Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (1965) chaps. 2 and 3; I have been helped most of all by Martine Dulaey’s Le Rêve dans la Vie et Pensée de S. Augustin (1973). There is an admirable survey of early medieval texts of visions and the subtle discussions by Gregory the Great: M. Aubrun, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 23 (1980) 109; see now J. Amat, Songes et Visions: L’Au-Delà dans la Littérature Latine Tardive (1985).

I

1.  Gosp. of Thomas 88; H. C. Puech, En Quête de la Gnose I (1978) 124–7 for interpretation; cf. Mth. 16.27; Didache 13.

2.  B. Billet, ed. Vraies et Fausses Apparitions dans l’Eglise (1973); P. Marnham, Lourdes (1980) 184–5, which I owe to Kay Boswell. W. Christian, Apparitions in Late Medieval and Renaissance Spain (1981) is excellent here; p. 2, for what follows.

3.  W. Christian (1981) p. 2.

4.  Mth. 17.1; Mark 9.2; Origen, C. Cels. 2.64; C. Rowland, The Open Heaven (1982) p. 367, with bibliogr.; cf. Orig., Comm. in Mth. 12.36–40; Frag. in Luc. 5.243 (Lommatzsch).

5.  H. C. Puech, En Quête de la Gnose I (1978) 133 (darkness); J. Jeremias, Theophanie (1965). esp. 87 ff. (effects on natural world); in general, E. Pax, R.A.C. 5.861–7; John 14.28–9 (thunder).

6.  E. Pax, Epiphaneia (1955) 101–44 and esp. 159–71; C. Rowland, The Open Heaven (1982), esp. on visionaries’ experiences.

7.  P. Herrmann, Das Testament des Epikrates (1969); I.L.S. (Orelli) 4775; Lucian, Philops. 27 and Pliny, Ep. 7.27; note Plut., Cim. 1; Prop. 4.7.

8.  Gal. 1.18; 1 Cor. 15.5; Luke 24.34 (Peter, 24.36 and John 21.4 and Mth. 28.16, possibly), to the Twelve; in general, J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (1975) 95–132.

9.  Mth. 28.9; John 20.27; Acts 1.4; John 21.9.

10. Mth. 28.17; I. P. Ellis, N.T.S. (1967/8) 574.

11. John 20.15–16 and 21.7; Luke 24.13–32.

12. Luke 24.49, with Acts 1.1–5 and E. Haenchen, commentary.

13. John 20.20, 20.26; E. Pax, Epiphaneia (1955) 136 and 164 on awe; Mark 16.8 with R. H. Lightfoot, Gospel Message of St. Mark (1950) 92.

14. Luke 27.47 ff.

15. Acts 12.7, 27.23; cf. Acts 7.59; E. Pax, Epiphaneia (1955) 217–21. A. Wikenhauser, in Pisciculi… F. J. Dölger (1939) 320; P.G. 85.565, 87.3469A and much else.

16. G. Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English (1962) p. 76.

17. Acts 12.15; Hebr. 13.2; 2 Peter 1.16.

18. Coloss. 2.18 with a good study by A. L. Williams, J.T.S. 10 (1909) 413: esp. 435–7, as all travellers know. Despite the “sabbaths” in 2.16, I do not think this angel worship is necessarily Jewish (contra, Williams, Ramsay et al.); “embateuein” is a pagan word, and at Claros, see my chap. 5, part 1, note 20; F. O. Williams, W. Meeks, Conflict at Colossae (1975) 197 equate it too closely with “mysteries.” I suspect a pagan angel (in general, L.R., Hellenica 11–12, 1960, 433 n. 1–3). For Michael nearby, Williams, op. cit., p. 436 and Robert, Villes d’Asie Mineure, p. 105.

19. Coloss. 2.15 with G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers (1956) 80 and E. Peterson, Frühkirche, Judentum… (1959) 51.

20. 2 Cor. 3.18; on “glory,” the Jewish Philo, De Spec. Leg. 1.45; 2 Cor. 12.1–7, with P. Schaefer, now in Jo. Jew. Studies (1984) 19.

21. Rev. 5.4.

22. Text, ed. M. Whittaker (G.C.S. 48, Berlin, 1967); review survey by H. Chadwick, J.T.S. (1957) 274; Orig., Comm in Rom. 10.31, on his identity in Rmn. 16.14 (doubted by Chadwick, 276). I stand by Hermas, Vis. 2.4.3 against the “Muratorian Fragment” which alleges that H. was brother of Pius, the bishop of Rome, c. 140 A.D. (on its character, Chadwick, 277–8): an old and able defence of my view by G. Salmon, Dict. Christ. Biogr. 11 (1884) 912. I reject the theory of a composite book, although the part from Vision 5 onwards did circulate independently (Michigan papyr., and K. Lake, H.T.R. 1925, 279–80): for the most recent Mss. study, I. Mazzini, Prometheus (1980) 181. I cannot pursue here the fascinating matter of Hermas’s Greek style, its Latinisms and “Semitisms”: I think the “Semitisms” do not amount to much, outside the LXX, but cf. A. Hilhorst, Semitismes et Latinismes dans le Pasteur… (1979). Also the (indirect) analogies with themes in the Qumran texts.

23. Seventeen are now known: refs. in J. Lenaerts, Chron. d’Eg. (1979) 356.

24. Most recently, D. Hellholm, Das Visionenbuch des Hermas als Apokalypse (1982), whose bibliogr. I assume; M. Dibelius, Der Hirt des Hermas (1923), esp. 419–31, is ingenious, but I cannot follow him in his conclusions, and he disliked the book. J. Reiling, Hermas and Christian Prophecy (1973) is the best recent survey.

25. E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian… (1965) 59.

26. As, essentially, by W. J. Wilson, H.T.R. (1927) 21.

27. Despite E. Peterson, Frühkirche, Judentum… (1959) 275 n. 14, who overdoes the “traditional,” non-biographical approach. His essays, however, are the outstanding studies of Hermas.

28. Peterson, Frühkirche… (1959) p. 266, on “aphypnosa.”

29. Against Jungian “analysis” of Hermas, R. Joly, L’Antiquité Classique (1953) 426–8, not, however, always cogently: Jung’s wild, but entertaining, “analysis” is in Psychological Types (E. T., 1923) 276 ff.

30. E. Peterson, Frühkirche… (1959) 261–5; Artemid. 2.35.1.

31. E. Peterson (1959) 287, on text of Vis. 4.1.2, restoring “kampenos,” acutely, from Cod. Athos and abolishing the “Via Campana”! M. Whittaker, in the G.C.S. ed., still retains it, without notice.

32. A. J. Festugière, Révélation d’Hermes… (1944) 1.317–24.

33. Vision 2.2.3–4.

34. Vis. 2.3.4.

35. L. Pernveden, The Concept of the Church in the Shepherd of Hermas (1966); cf. the Jewish Jos. and Asenath 8.11 (ed. Philonenko), for idea of the “pre-existent elect.”

36. Vis. 3.5–7.

37. O. Seitz, J.B.L. (1947) 211 and N.T.S. (1958) 327.

38. Vis. 4.8–14 with R. J. Bauckham, J.T.S. (1974) 27; E. Peterson, Frühkirche… (1959) 299 is not convincing.

39. H. Musurillo, Traditio 12 (1956) p. 2, for evidence and texts on what follows; Basil P.G. 30. 684B connects eating and sexual desire; Apoc. Bar., Vis. 28.3.1; Apoc. Esdr., Vis. 3.29.2–4.

40. K. E. Kirk, Vision of God (1931) 167.

41. Mand. 4.4.

42. Simil. 5, esp. 5.3 with H. A. Musurillo, Traditio (1956) 35 ff.

43. Simil. 6.8–20; for correction, 7.4 and 7.7.

44. Simil. 2.7–11 (rich and poor); for progress, Simil. 9.1.

45. Simil. 9.5, never considered in Virgilian scholarship, for which see B. Snell, Discovery of the Mind (1953) 281, not convincing; on the episode, W. Schmid, Convivium: Festgabe K. Ziegler (1954) 121.

46. Artemid. 1.50.

47. Simil. 10.4.5.

48. E.g. R. Joly, L’Antiquité Classique (1953) 427–8.

49. Hippol., Ref. 9.13.1–4: I accept the Trajanic date, and assume the book reached the West later. A. Henrichs, H.S.C.P. (1979) 362, for doubts about E.’s historicity (excessive); for the dating, A. F. J. Klijn, Patristic Evid. for Jewish-Christian Sects (1973) 56 n. 1, with Hippol., 9.16.4: the Parthian War may be relevant to E.’s vision.

50. Brilliantly seen by Ε. Peterson, Frühkirche, Judentum… (1959) pp. 259–61; 265–8; Mand. 11, with J. Reiling, Hermas and Christian Prophecy (1973); Act. Thom. 151, for a curious, magical “transfiguration” of Thomas.

51. For Hermas and Ep. to James, a speculative view by O. F. J. Seitz, J.B.L. (1944) 131·

52. Celsus, in Orig., C. Cels. 7.8–11.

53. In general, C. J. Lindblom, Gesichte und Offenbarungen (1968); Athanas., P.G. 25.169, on “merely” appearing.

54. Justin, Dial. 56–62; Iren., Adv. Haer. 4.10; Lindblom (1968) p. 104–12.

55. Revel. 2–3; Mth. 18.10; on Thera, most recently, D. Feissel, B.C.H. (1977) 209–14, with L.R., B. Epig. (1941) 106; P. R. L. Brown, Making of Late Antiquity (1978) 68–76; H. Grégoire, Byz. Ztsc. (1929–30) 641–4, a fine insight.

56. Tert., De Bapt. 6, with P. R. L. Brown, Making of Late Antiquity (1978) 52–3; Orig., De Princip. 3.3–4 and Hom. in Luc. 12.35, Comm. in Matt. 14.21: Comm. in John 20.36, all drawing on Hermas.

57. Hebr. 12.22–4; Orig., On Prayer 31.5; Hom, in Jos. 20.1; Hom. in Luc. 23; 32. J. Daniélou, Les Anges et Leur Mission (1952) 84–7; I owe this to Κ. T. Ware.

58. On the festival, E. Pax, R.A.C. 5.902.

59. Throughout, M. Dulaey, Le Rêve dans la Vie et Pensée de S. Augustin (1973), a fundamental book to which I am indebted; for later healing dreams and the problem of possible literary fiction, D. P. Antin, R.E.L. (1963) 358 ff.

60. Tatian, Oratio, passim, esp. 16–20; on wet dreams, Tert., De An. 45.4 and 47.1; Aug., De Gen. Ad Litt. 12.14 (cf. Confess. 10.30, 41, however); Dulaey, pp. 135 ff.

61. Aug., De Gen. Ad Litt. 12.18.

62. Hippol., Trad. 16; cf. Deut. 13.2–6.

63. Cypr., Epist. 11.4; Act. John 19.21 and 48; Acta Thom. 154; cf. Tert., De Anim. 47.2; cf. Miracl. St. Theclae 2, pref., for dreams of saint being “true, simple, coherent.”

64. E.g. Pass. Mar. et Jac. (ed. Musurillo) 7.3–4; Perp. et Fel. 4.9; 10.2, and other dreams of combat.

65. Dulaey, pp. 110 ff. on “ostensio”; Aug., Gen. Ad Litt. 12.8.

66. Interesting inconsistency in Philo, heir to this school theme: does the soul reach “ecstasy” of its own accord, or with God’s grace? Mig. Abr. 184–95, for former.

67. Tert., De An. 45.

68. Clem., Paedag. 3.1 with Isai. 53.2; contrast Origen, and C. Bigg, Christian Platonists (1913) 209 ff.; Tert., De Pud. 7.10.12 with A. Grabar, Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins (1969) pp. 7 and 11.

69. W. Wishmeyer, V.C. (1981) 253 on the Cleveland Museum’s statuettes: the dating is still an open question, though he argues well for c. 250–280.

70. Can. Elv. 36; Clem., Paed. 3.59.2, distorted by C. Murray, J.T.S. (1977) 322–4: (i) 3.12.1 is a false reference, (ii) C. is not answering “inquiring Christian converts, used to the iconographic oddities of Gnostic gems.” He is attacking “licentious” (3.60.1) and “idolatrous” subjects, the living heart of great art. Murray, J.T.S. (1977) 303 ff. cites evidence from post- and pre-Constantinian dates without due distinction; she does not emphasize the absence of Christian figure sculpture and portraiture and is unconvincing in her contention that the “early” Church was not hostile to art.

71. Iren., Adv. Haer. 1.25.2–6 on Carpocratians; Acts of John 27 with A. Grabar, Christian Iconography… (1969) 66–9; on Roman objects, Grabar p. 69.

72. E. Kitzinger, in Age of Spirituality: A Symposium, ed. K. Weitzmann (1981) 142.

73. Epitaphs, e.g. W. Wishmeyer, Jhb. A. u. C. (1980) 22; E. Werner’s marvellous musical study, The Sacred Bridge (1959).

74. E.g. Dan. 9.1; 4 Ezra 6.38; Aug., Conf. 8.12.29; Greg. Naz., P.G. 35.999.

75. Exod. 33.20; Orig., Homil. on Song of Songs 1.7; A. Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition (1981) 42–74; Orig., Comm. in John 32.27; Plato, Rep. 518C; Orig., Comm. in John 1.9 and the good studies by P. Rousselot, Les Yeux de la Foi, Rech. Sci. Relig. 1 (1919) 241 and 444.

76. Rev. 4.3; Iren., Adv. Haer. 4.9; Rev. 14.14; J. Sweet, Revelation (S.C.M. Pelican Bible Comm., 1979) p. 125 and passim, for an admirable discussion; Rev. 5.9, 7.14, 9.18, 5.6 and Sweet, p. 70, quoting Jung, Answer to Job (1979) p. 124.

77. Best in T. Boman, Das Hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit dem Griechischen (1952) 140 ff.

78. C. Rowland, The Open Heaven (1982) is excellent here: esp. pp. 85–6.

79. Cypr., Ep. 11.4; M. Perp. et Fel. 10.8; Pass. Mar. et Jac. 7.3; Mont. et Luc. 8.4.

80. In general, H. Musurillo, Traditio (1956) 1; esp. R. Arbesmann, Traditio 7 (1949) 32 ff. Did. 8; Socr., H. E. 5.22, 38 and Ps.-Ign., Philipp. 13; Eus., H. E. 5.3.2 is very nice; Iren., in Eus., H. E. 5.24.12; “superimposing,” in Pass. Mar. et Jac. 8. 1 with Greek “hypertithenai” in Dionysius. Ep. to Basileides (ed. Feltoe) p. 102 and Arbesmann p. 34 n. 29.

81. Apost. Const. 5.18; Jer., Ep. 41.3.

82. R. Arbesmann, Traditio 7 (1949–51) esp. 25 and 60 ff.; Galen 6.833 (Kühn); Tertull., De Jej. 12 (“extorting” a vision by xerophagy); Tert., De Anim. 48, passim, where 48.4 does not mean T. himself never dreamed when fasting, but that his dreams were so profuse that he no longer knew when they stopped. On “familarem dei,” Arbesmann, p. 65 n. 76, acutely.

83. Literary visions, in my view, are Act. John 18; Act. Peter (Vercelli) 1, 5, 16, 17; Act. Thom. 29. At baptism, Act. Thom. 121 (voice); Act. Peter 5; Syriac setting, R. Murray, N.T.S. (1974) 59.

84. W. Christian, Apparitions in Late Medieval Spain (1981) 64–5; Act. John 88–9, 93; probably developing 1 John 1.1; for a similar tradition known to Clement (not, however, the Act. John), cf. T. Rüther, Theol. Quart. (1926) 251.

85. Act. Peter, 20–21, H. C. Puech, En Quête de la Gnose, II (1978) 84 ff.

86. A. D. Nock, Essays 1.377; E. Peterson, Frühkirche, Judentum… (1959) 203; on Satan, Ps.-Ignat., Phil. IV.

87. G. G. Stroumsa, V.C. (1981) 412.

88. Gosp. Phil. 57.30–58.10; 61.30; on baptismal visions, E. Peterson, Frühkirche, Judentum… (1959) 194 ff.; Apocr. John 2.1–10; Orig., Excerp. ex Theod. 23.4; Comm. in Mth. 12.31.

89. Contra E. Pagels, Gnostic Gospels (1979) chap. I and also in Gnosis: Festschrift fur H. Jonas, ed. Β. Aland (1978) 415.

90. Orig., C. Cels. 1.46.

91. W. Christian, Apparitions… (1981), for later “lost” statues. For martyrs’ altars, Codex Can. Eccles. Africa. 83 = Can. Co. of Carthage, 401, no. 17. Ps.-Clem, Homil. 17.14 and 19; Iren. 1.23.4; E. Pagels, in Gnosis… H. Jonas, ed. B. Aland (1978) 415. For Mani, see chap. 11, part II.

92. Ps.-Clem., Recog. 2.62; Homil. 17.14 and 19.

93. Acts 27.23.

94. Cypr., Ep. 16.4.

95. Tert., De Anim. 53.5 with Waszink’s note; F. E. Brenk, In Mist Apparelled (1977) 214 ff.; for martyrdom and prisons, see my chap. 9, Part II, and for Jewish traditions of Isaac and his vision, R. Hayward, J.J.S. 32 (1981) 127. M. Dulaey, Le Rêve dans la Vie et Pensée du S. Aug. (1973) p. 44 quotes the First Circle.

96. W. H. C. Frend, J.E.H. (1954) 25–37; T. D. Barnes, Tertullian (1971) 167–8.

97. Proof of Greek, now, by L. Robert, C.R. A.I. (1982), esp. 253–6, the basic study; I quote M. Perp. et Fel. 4; there is no hint that P. was a Montanist herself, despite T. D. Barnes, Tertullian (1971) 77; E. Dodds, Pagan and Christian (1965) 51 n. 2, 53; F. J. Dölger, Ant. u. Christ. II (1930) 1–40; L. Robert, C.R.A.I. (1982) 254–66, fundamental on the “umpire.”

98. Tert., De Cor. 3.3, on milk and baptism; Saturus, in M. Perp. 11 and 13; for the contrast, L. Robert, C.R.A.I. (1982) 276 n. 235; C. Rowland, Open Heaven (1982) mistakenly overinterprets P.’s own visions, at pp. 396–402; A. Fridh, Le Problème de la Passion des S. Perpétue et Félicité (1968) 58, arguing that Saturus, too, used Greek.

99. V. Lomanto, Forma Futuri… Studi M. Pellegrino (1975) 566 is best. P.’s influence; Pass. Mar. et Jac. (ed. Musurillo) 8.

100. Mar. et Jac. 7.

101. E.g. M. Polyc. 5.2; M. Perp. 10, 12; M. Pot. et Bas. 6; Mar. et Jas 6.5 and 11; Pontius, Vita Cypr. 12; Mont. et Luc. 5.2, 7, 21. Also the Donatist martyrs, P.L. 8.763 Β and 770; in fiction, A. Paul, et Theclae 21.

102. P. Mont. et Luc. 11; M. Perp. 12; on recapturing childhood, H. C. Puech, En Quête de la Gnose II.277–82, for apocryphal ideals.

II

1.  Hermas, Mand. 11.2–12 with the fine study of J. Reiling, Hermas and Christian Prophecy (1975), which I presuppose here.

2.  C. H. E. Haspels, Highlands of Phrygia I (1971) no. 40, p. 313; she offers no commentary.

3.  T. D. Barnes, J.T.S. (1970) 403, undermining Epiphanius, Panar, 48.1.2: we do not know the crucial date, Gratus’s gov. of Asia (Eus., Η. Ε. 5· 16.7), but R. Syme, Z.P.E. 53 (1983) 280–3 has ruled out Epiphanius’s “156/7” and the 160s are filling up; a good argument, on other grounds, for the mid-150s by G. Salmon, Dict. Christ. Biogr. (1882) III.939·

4.  Epiphan. 48.4.

5.  There are two outstanding studies: P. Labriolle, La Crise Montaniste (1913), with the separate Les Sources de l’Histoire du Montanisme (1913), and the admirable article Montanus, by G. Salmon, Dict, of Christ. Biography (ed. Smith and Wace, 1882) III.935 ff.

6.  Millennial, by T. D. Barnes, Tertullian (1971) P. 131; Phrygian, by W. Schepelern, Montanismus (1929): woman, Epiph., Panar. 49.1; on Pepuza, A. Strobel, Das Heilige Land der Montanisten… (1980) fails to establish a site, but evokes one part of Phrygia very well and prints many inscriptions, some new (pp. 117–8).

7.  Jer., Epist. 49.4; A. Strobel, Das Heilige Land (1980) 234 ff., on these “parallels”; L. Robert, C.R.A.I. (1978) 267–9; Eus., H. E. 5.18.2 is by a critic, and perhaps excessive: “hōde” in Epiph. 49.1 is not clear.

8.  Epiph. 48.4; 48.11; Eus., H. E. 5.16.17, “according to Urbanus,” with Labriolle, Crise, p. 35; Tert., De Fuga 9; Epiph., 48.9; Hippol, Ref. 8.13 (fasts); Tert., De Res. Cam. 63; Tert., De Pud. 27.

9.  “Uberior disciplina”: Tert., De Virg. Vel. 1.

10. Lucian, Alex. 23.36; Eus., H. E. 5.18.2.

11. E. Gibson, G.R.B.S. (1975) 433–42; I am less sure than C. H. E. Haspels, Highlands of Phrygia, I (1971), pp. 215–6 and no. 107 is really Montanist. The text does not mention “ecstasy” (pace Haspels): lines 10–11 are of uncertain scope (whose is the voice? hers, or God’s?) and not every biblical “prophetess” in Phrygia was Montanist. The question stays open.

12. Epiph., 49.2 (Eve, etc.) with Labriolle, Crise Montaniste, 509; Tert., De Fuga, 9; Montanist “militants” are further dispelled by E. Gibson, Christians for Christians… (1978), with S. Mitchell, J.T.S. (1980) 202–3.

13. Orig., C. Cels. 7.4–5.

14. K. Aland, Kirchengeschichtliche Entwürfe (1960) 105: on ecstasy, P. Labriolle, Crise Montaniste (1913), pp. 155–75, with all sources, and p. 338 n. 2 on Tert.’s lost work, De Ecstasi.

15. Labriolle, Crise Montaniste (1913) 324 ff., on Tert.’s use of “Paraclete” and its sense.

16. Apollonius, in Eus., H. E. 5.18.14; cf. Jerome, Ep. 41.1, to Marcella, rebutting the Montanists by citing Acts and Pentecost: it is this, in my view, the Montanists tried to outflank. For the arguments of “Alogoi” against the Apocalypse, Epiph. 51.33, with Labriolle, Crise Montaniste 196 ff.; L. assumes the Montanists, by contrast, accepted Revelation, but nothing in the early texts proves it; for Jezebel, Epiph., Panar. 51.33; Rev. 2.20.

17. Epiph. 48.4; for Philo and others, H. C. Puech, R.E.G. (1933) 311, a fine study, suggesting a Jewish origin (not convincing); cf. Quis Rerum Div. Heres 249 ff.; Labriolle, Crise Montaniste (1913) 165 ff., with Plut., Mor. 437D-E; Philostr., Imag. 1.7.20, for plectrum/lyre imagery in pagan contexts.

18. G. Salmon, Dict. Christ. Biography (1882) 3.937 for this acute suggestion.

19. Eus., H. E. 5.3–4; 5.6; 5.18.

20. G. Salmon, D. Christ. Biog. (1882) 3.938, 940–2, whom I accept on this; note the hint of glory for the “humble Christian” in Montanus’s “oracles”: Epiph., Panar. 48.10, very touchingly; J. Rezette, Antonianum (1974) 14, takes Tert., De Bapt. to show that the Spirit was manifest at baptism only.

21. G. Salmon, D.C.B. (1882) 3.941.

22. 2 Cor. 11.14.

23. Acts 15.28.

24. Apost. Const. 3.8; Cypr., Ep. 16.3. Cypr., Ep. 66.8 with A. Harnack, Z.N.T. (1902) 177 and P. R. L. Brown, Making of L. A. (1978) 79–80.

25. P. R. L. Brown, Making of L. A. (1978) 71 is, I think, misleading here: P.G. 11.44A is Africanus, not Origen, discussing Daniel’s prophetic gifts, not contemporary Christians. Orig.’s answer, in P.G. 11.72B-C still leaves open the possibility of “inspiration” as well as dreams, guidance and so forth. The text does not reveal a watershed.

26. Cypr., Ep. 39.1; cf. Eus., Η.Ε. 6.11.1–2 for the dream and the heavenly voice to the Christian community in Jerusalem, telling them whom to choose as bishop!

27. Tert., De An. 9.4: with Waszink, but I do not think “nos” means “we Montanists,” nor does 48.4 prove T. was alluding in this work to specifically Montanist experiences.

28. Cypr., Ep. 11.3 and 66.10.

29. Dionys., ap Eus., H. E. 7.7; creed, for Gregory, in Greg. Nyss. P.G. 46.911C.

30. Cypr., De Mort. 19.

31. M. Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell (1983) for these differences and full bibliogr.: Holy Week reading, Soz. H. E.7.19.

32. Full summary of views and the few texts in J. Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory (E. T., 1984) 29–57, rightly following the received view; Tert., Adv. Marc. 4.34 and L. De Bruyne, Riv. de Arch. Crist. (1958) 87 and (1959) 183 on the refrigerium debate.

33. J. Le Goff, Birth of Purgatory (1984) 82.

34. C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society, Belief (1979) 68–71, on Coptic; for the texts, J. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (1979) with introduction p. 15: not a single “Library.” Cod. 6.5 (Plato); 3.3 and 5.1 (Eugnostos); 6.6, 7, 8 (Hermes).

35. Codex 6.7 with Robinson’s trans. p. 299; cf. p. 53, p. 194.

36. J. Barns, in Essays on N.H. Texts… In Honour of P. Labib, ed. M. Kruse (1975) 9.

37. F. Wisse, in Gnosis… Festschrift H. Jonas (1978) pp. 431–40, a brilliant study; in essentials, supported now by T. Orlandi, H.T.R. (1982) 85, another central discovery.

38. G. M. Browne, J. C. Shelton, the late J. Barns, ed. N.H. Codices: Greek and Coptic Papyri from the Cartonnage… (1981) 5–11 is much more sceptical, though Letter C6 is still suggestive, more than p. 11’s conclusion allows.

39. R. M. Ogilvie, Library of Lactantius (1978) 33–6; earlier, Hermes in Athenag. Leg. 28.6.

40. Plato, Rep. 589A-B with J. Robinson, N.H. Library (1979) p. 291, for translation.

41. Mark Edwards reminds me that this slight Zostrianos can hardly be the same text as provoked forty books from the philosophic Amelius (Porph., V. Plot.

42. V. Pachom. Prima 22; H. Chadwick, in the Byzantine Saint…, ed. S. Hackel (1981) 23, Vita Prima 42–3, 122; Vita 1.135 (visions); H. Quecke, Die Briefe Pachoms (1975) for the “code” in letters.

43. M. Dulaey, Le Rêve dans la Vie et Pensée de S. Augustin (1973) on monks; cf. Pachom., Vita 1.60; F. Refoulé, Rêve et Vie Spirituelle Chez Evagre, Vie Spirituelle, Supplem. (1961) 470, is very pertinent.

44. J. Robinson, ed., N.H. Library in English (1977) 295.

45. In general, A. Meredith, J.T.S. (1976) 313; D. E. Groh, R. C. Gregg, Early Arianism: A View of Salvation (1981) 131–63 (unconvincing); Athan., V. Anton. 35, 36, 43.

46. H. Grégoire, Byz. Zeitschr. (1929) 641–4; “angelic state,” e.g. Vie de Théodore de Sykeon, ed. and trans. Festugière (1970) chaps. 1–10.

47. Apophtheg. Patr., Antony, 1; cf. 12, a very subtle story.

48. Apophtheg. Patr., Olympius 1, with P. R. L. Brown, Making of Late Antiquity (1978) 92–5: the monks’ own reaction is significant and not entirely suited to the case he presents.

CHAPTER 9

The outstanding study of the grounds of persecution is G. E. M. de Sainte Croix’s “Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?” in Past and Present 26 (1963) 6, reprinted in M. I. Finley, ed., Studies in Ancient Society (1974) 210. Recent work has mainly amplified its observations: T. D. Barnes, Tertullian (1971) 143–86 is a clear survey. D. Stockton, in The Ancient Historian and His Materials, ed. B. M. Levick (1975) 199 focusses on the 1st cent. A.D.; W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution (1965) is a spirited study, better on the former topic than the latter. I regret that G. W. Clarke’s admirable commentary on the letters of Cyprian, S.C.M. (1984) reached me too late for use, here and elsewhere: we differ on the role of certificates in the Decian persecution. W. C. Weinrich, Spirit and Martyrdom (1981) is a recent survey of Christian and Jewish ideals. G. Lanata, Gli Atti dei Martiri Come Documenti Processuali (1973) is the most recent study of the texts’ claims to authenticity. For Augustine’s criteria, see the intriguing new letter 29, ed. J. Divjak, C.S.E.L. (1981).

I

1.  K. T. Ware, Orthodox Church (1980) 20.

2.  Migne, P.L. 115.703–870 (Eulogio, the eventual archbishop of Toledo); P.L. 221.500–56 (Alvaro). These fascinating texts were discussed most recently by N. Daniel, The Arabs and Medieval Europe (1975) chap. 2.

3.  Passio Perp. et Fel. 21 with H. Musurillo, Acts of Christian Martyrs (1972) 131 n. 21.

4.  L. Robert, Les Gladiateurs… (1940) 188; 301 ff.; pl. 12 and J.R.S. (1981) 137 with n. 222. Pass. Perp. et Fel. 20.

5.  Marcus, Med. 11.3; P. A. Brunt, Studies in Lat. Lit… ., ed. C. Deroux I (1979) 484–94 is, I think, too logical in deleting this as a gloss.

6.  M. Pion. 8.4; M. Polyc. 9–10, where I assume the “oath” is among the “other usual things they say.”

7.  Acta Phil., Col 8. 125 f.; M. Pion. 19.10.

8.  Ε. A. Reymond and J. W. B. Barns, Four Martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan Coptic Codices (1973) pp. 146 and 148, with preface, 9 ff.

9.  Acts 7–55; Aristot., Hist. An. 491B; Polemo, in Scriptores Physiog. Graeci (ed. Foerster-Hoffmann) 1.274; also “criminal,” in Adeimant. (ed. Foerster-Hoffmann) 1.335 and 338. Didascalia (ed. Connolly) chap. 19, on martyr as God’s “angel” and reflector. Mth. 10.32, on denying: a very favourite text in Cyprian’s writings.

10. Eus., H. E. 5.1.20; M. Pal. 11.8–13.

11. G. E. M. de Sainte Croix, Past and Present (1963) 6–38 is fundamental; T. D. Barnes, J.R.S. (1968) 32, for the individual evidence, and Tertullian (1971) chap. 11, for general view.

12. Eus. 4.26.5–6, with de Sainte Croix, J.T.S. (1967) 219 and Brunt (1979, op. cit.) 501; M. Apollonii 24 (Greek text; ed. Musurillo); Eus. 6.28, with G. W. Clarke, Historia (1966) 445.

13. Pliny 10.96 f.; on Hadrian, E. Bickermann, Riv. di Fil. (1968) 296–315, a fine study.

14. N. Lewis, Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (1983) p. 140.

15. Justin, Apol. 2.2; Hippol., Trad. 9; M. Pion. 9; M. Agape, Chione et al., 1 and 5 (perhaps fearing denunciation by family to officials); M. Perp. et Fel. 3.

16. G. Lopuszanki, L’Antiqu. Classique (1951) 1 ff. is excellent on the texts and their meaning.

17. Melito, ap. Eus., H. E. 4.26.5; Marinus, ap. H. E. 7.15.2.

18. Dionys., Eus., H. E. 7.11.9; Tert., Ad Scap. 4.1–4; Cypr. Ep. 55.2, on incense.

19. Brunt, Studies in Lat. Lit… ., ed. C. Deroux 1 (1979) 514, for this point.

20. In detail, F. Millar, Entretiens du Fondat. Hardt 19 (1972) 145 ff.

21. Tert., Apol. 28.2–36.4; cf. Dionys., Eus., H. E. 7.11.8; Acta Scill. 3.

22. Acta Scill. 20; de Sainte Croix (1963) n. 209, showing that “flagitia” were known to Greek and Latin authors alike; on Fronto, Min. Fel. 9.6, ingeniously placed by E. Champlin, Fronto and Antonine Rome (1980) 64–6.

23. Insults, in Jos. C. Αρ. II.79–96; 109–14: on converts, Mth. 23.15.

24. Gibbon, vol. II, chap. 16 (ed. Bury, 1909) 80.

25. On sacrifices, Philo, Leg. 157, 317; Jos., C. Αρ. II.77, with E. M. Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule (1976) 147 and n. 20; on views of Rome, esp. N. R. M. de Lange, in Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. Garnsey-Whittaker (1978) 255–81; on prayer, E. Schürer, Hist. of jewish People II (1979, rev.) 461 section 12. On loyalty formula, P. M. Fraser, Ptol. Alex. I (1972) 282 ff.; on Sardis, B.A.S.O.R. 187 (1967) p. 25, though the reading may be Severus, not Verus, and the exact context is unclear; M. F. Squarciapino, Archaeology (1963) 203.

26. E. M. Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule (1976) 120 ff., for Jos. C. Ap. 2.44 and A.J. 12.147–53, both of which I accept, noting the later prominence of Jews in these areas. For Caesar’s rulings, A.J. 14.215–6; 221: A.J. 13.27 ff. presumes military exemption.

27. A. Plassart, R.E.G. (1967) 372–8 for G.’s date: the older, “long” chronology, bringing Paul to Rome in 60 is now most implausible. E. Haenchen, The Acts (1970) p. 71, where I disagree with his interpretation of 24.27 (p. 68); M. T. Griffin, Seneca (1975) 449–51, for a short scheme, perhaps rightly, but 20.31 is then difficult, as she sees. I cannot pursue this open question here, but I reject Eus.-Jer.’s date for Festus’s arrival.

28. Acts 27.24, refuting Cadbury’s idea that Paul was never tried.

29. Acts 23.25; in papyri, H. Zilliacus, Unters. zu den abstrakten Andredeformen und Hôflichkeitstiteln im Griech (1949) esp. 54 ff. is the best survey; in early Imperial epigraphy, note O.G.I.S. 614.4–5 (governor of Arabia); 629.168 (Corbulo); 667.4 (prefect of Egypt); in texts, Jos. A.J. 20.12 (governor of Syria). Josephus, C. Apion 1.1 is an exact parallel for use in a preface: on either view, Epaphroditus was a very prominent person.

30. Luke 23.47, with G. D. Kilpatrick, J.T.S. (1942) 34–6.

31. P. Garnsey, J.R.S. (1968) 51 stressed the delay, but denied the “appeal,” suggesting the arcane “reiectio Romam” instead: its very existence is uncertain (H. M. Cotton, J.R.S. 1979, 39). A. W. Lintott, A.N.R.W. 1.2 (1972) esp. 263–7 restates the case for appeal, rightly, and notes the argument from language (Acts’ epikaloumai = provoco): Acts 25.11.

32. H. J. Cadbury’s excellent Making of Luke—Acts (1958) 310 ff. stressed the Gospel trial and Acts’ apologetic hearings.

33. A. N. Sherwin-White, Rmn. Society and Rmn. Law in the N.T. (1963) 108 and n. 1 for discussion: I do not agree that Paul was tried long after the “two years” of open arrest, as that makes Acts’ ending most odd. For Nero’s laziness, cf. p. 111.

34. Juv., Sat. 1.155–7, no stray association of ideas, to my mind. Tac, Ann. 14.57 and M. Griffin, Seneca (1975) 363 for T. and an earlier scapegoat.

35. I Clem. 1.1, reasserted by L. W. Barnard, Studies in Church History and Patristics (1978) 139–42, convincingly.

36. Suet., Dom. 13.2.

37. Eus., Chronicon II.218 (P.G. 19.531), quoting Bruttius, on whom see R. Syme, Historia (1960) 374–6 and H.S.C.P. (1982) 189 with n. 50: a Bruttius also tried the Scillitan martyrs in 180: was he our source? Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, 1829) p. 650 uses Eus. Ε. M. Smallwood, C.P. (1956) 8–9 does not convince me (p. 13 n. 39 mistook Bruttius).

38. Eus., H. E. 3.19 ff., dismissed, admittedly, by T. D. Barnes, J.R.S. (1968) 35 and his Tertullian (1971) 105, not, I think, conclusively.

II

1.  Tert., De Fuga 5 and 12–14; L. W. Countryman, The Rich Christian… (1980) 135, 188. De Fuga 5.3, on Rutilius.

2.  Cypr. 77.3 and J. G. Davies, Univ. Birmingham Hist. Jo. 6 (1957–8) 20.

3.  Orig., C. Cels. 3.8.

4.  A. M. Emmett, S. R. Pickering, Prudentia (1975) 95.

5.  See now A. Pietersma, The Acts of Phileas (1984) 14–23.

6.  M. Polyc. 18.3 with 22.3 ff. and W. Rordorf, Irenikon (1972) 315.

7.  Cypr., Ep. 39; P. R. L. Brown, The Cult of the Saints (1981) for a brilliant study of the aftermath.

8.  Melito F 10; cf. already Hermas 9.28.6; Hippol., Apost. Trad. 19.2; even a catechumen’s sins are wiped out. Tert., De Anim. 55.4–5.

9.  Justin, Apol. 1.57; on combat, F. J. Dölger, Ant. u. Christ. (1933) 177.

10. Mth. 10.19; Cypr., Ep. 10.4, in early April 250 (the Pythian games?).

11. M. Lyons (ed. Musurillo) section 41.

12. 4 Macc. 17.8; cf. 2 Macc. 7.9 ff.; on dating, A. Dupont-Sommer, Le Quatrième Livre des Macchabées (1939). I am indebted to lectures and discussion by G. E. M. de Sainte Croix, the connoisseur of this subject, for several points which follow.

13. 4 Macc. 16.25; 4 Macc. persistently uses athletic imagery for martyrs: e.g. 17.15 ff. St. Paul was not innovating.

14. Jos., B.J. 1.33.2–4; Schürer, Hist. of Jewish People (revised, 1973) 1, pp. 552–3 for Bar Kokhba martyrs; H. Fischel, J.Q.R. (1946–7) 265 and 363, and T. W. Manson, B.J.R.L. (1956–7) 463 for martyr prophets, some of whose texts are late and may be a response to Christian martyr writings; Hebr. 11.37, surely alludes to Isaiah’s hideous death.

15. Acts 7.55–6; cf. Isaac, in G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition (1961) 195 n. 6; Fischel, J.Q.R. (1946–7) 364–71; Rev. 7.14–15.

16. O. Perler, Riv. di Archeol. Crist. (1949) 47 emphasized this, at times too strongly.

17. Ign., Eph. 11.

18. 4 Macc. 17.22 with Ign., Eph. 8.1 and K. Bommes, Weizen Gottes (1976) esp. 221 ff.; Orig., Exh. Mart. 30 and 50 and esp. Comm. in John 6.54, on martyrs as “scapegoats.”

19. H. von Campenhausen, Sitzb. Heidelb. (1957) Abh. 3, 1–48 wrongly presumed a later “Gospel redactor.” Cf. Cypr., Ep. 27.3, 36.2 and 37.4 and H. Paulsen, Studien zur Theologie des Ignatius (1978) 180 ff.

20. E.g. M. Lyons 19 and 56 (ed. Musurillo).

21. M. Mar. and Jas. 6.12, 11.9.

22. Cypr., Ep. 10.2–3.

23. W. H. C. Frend, Religion Popular and Unpopular (1976) 27–37.

24. Acta Scill. 15 and the rose-bunch vision in M. Mar. and Jas. 11.5–6.

25. M. Perp. 10 with L. Robert, C.R.A.I. (1982) 228 ff.; FEMINISTS have overemphasized 10.7.

26. Against excessive theories of the text’s influence, V. Lomanto, in Forma Futuri… Studi. M. Pellegrino (1975) 566–86; despite P. Godman, Poetry of the Carolingian Renaissance (1985) 66, I can see no evidence of Perpetua’s influence on Notker’s poetry.

27. Cypr., Ep. 31.3 ff.

28. Cypr., Ep. 21.1–2; Lucian, in Cypr., Ep. 22, an amazing letter: I assume the “claritas” in 22.2 is Christian, and symbolic.

29. Eus., H. E. 5.3.4; T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981) 199.

30. Tert., Apol. 50.15 (rhetorical question) and Justin, Apol. 2.12, claiming only that martyrs made him doubt the tales of flagitia. M. Perp. 17.2–3, omitted, recently, by R. MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (1984) 29–30; cf. M. Pion. 7.1.

31. E.g. Cyprian Ep. 31.3 and M. Lods, Confesseurs et Martyrs (1958) 54.

32. Tert., Ad Scap. 5; G. de Sainte Croix, H.T.R. (1954) 83, 93, 101–4, a constant reminder of volunteers; Eus., H. E. 7.12.

33. Clem., Strom. 4.10.76–7; 7.11.66–7; Orig. in John 28.23; also M. Polyc. 4, Tertull. Cor. Mil. 1, on protesters at “cupido mori”; Acta Cypr. 1.6 and Cypr., Ep. 81.1; Ignat., Ad Rom. 4.

34. E.g. M. Ptol. and Luc. (Musurillo) 15; M. Lyons 9; Passio Perp. 4.5; M. Basileides 9.3–7; Eus., H. E. 6.41.16 and 22–3; Acta Cypr. 5.1; Mar. and Jas. 9.2–4; Acta Phileae (Latin) 7, Eus. M. Pal., is abundant in cases, listed by de Sainte Croix, H.T.R. (1954) 101–3; M. Pal. 5.2–3 and 11.15–19 for those I quote.

35. M.P. 3.2–4 and Acta Eupli (Musurillo), with T. D. Barnes, New Empire (1982) 177, doubting the concluding sections.

36. Petr. Alex., Canon. Epist. sections 8 and 11; G. W. Clarke, Historia (1973) 655–8 for texts.

37. Cyprian, De Lapsis 16; Ep. 21.2, on Lord’s anger; importantly, compare Didascalia (ed. Connolly) chap. 19.

38. Mth. 10.23; Ign., Ad Rom. 1 and 4.

39. E. Dassmann, Sündenvergebung durch Taufe, Busse u. Martyrer Fürbitte (1973) 153 ff., for texts. E.g. Orig., Comm. in Cant. 3: In Lev. Hom. 4.4; Exh. Mart. 30.

40. M. Polyc. 7.2–3; M. Fruct. 3.6; Eus., M.P. 8.10; M. Mont. et Luc. 3.4; Ign., Ad Eph. 11.

41. M. Perp. 10.4–6 with F. Dölger, Vorträge der Bibliot. Warburg (1926) 196.

42. Ign., Rom. 4; M. Polyc. 17.1; M. Fruct. 6.3, where I cite only the short recension; Act. Thom. 170.

43. M. Perp. 8 with F. Dölger, Ant. u. Christ. 2 (1930) 1; M. Pot. and Bas. 6 ff.; Act. Paul. et Theclae 28–29; M. Perp. 17.

44. Survey in T. Klauser, Christlicher Märtyrerkult…, originally in Arbeitsgemeinsch. für Forsch. des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Heft 91 (1960). He cites Num. 19.16, but pp. 37–8 look to problems of authority and tradition in the early Church for a further answer, to my mind unconvincingly. Mth. 23.29–31, with J. Jeremias, Heiligengräber in Jesu’s Umwelt (1958), whom I follow here: these graves were not “official.”

45. Didasc. 19 (Connolly), cited by Klauser, p. 34 n. 29.

46. V. Cronin, The Wise Man from the West (1984, ed.) p. 181.

47. Forgiveness, in mid-2nd-cent. texts, already: Eus., H. E. 5.1.45; 5.2.5; 5.18.6 (against Montanus’s “martyrs”); cf. Cypr., Ep. 15–16; 17.2; 20–3; 27; 35–6; Dionys., H. E. 6.42.5–6.

48. Tert., De Pud. 22; Ad Ux. 2.4.1; with Ad Mart. 1.6; De Paen. 9.4; Scorp. 10.8.

49. I. Goldziher, Muslim Studies, II (1971 ed.) pp. 350–4. Shi’ite martyrs were, however, different.

50. Cypr. Ep. 37.1, for confession; note M. Perp. 7, when P. knows she must now die.

51. 1 John 5.16; continuing confessor letters, in Can. Elvira 25 and Aries 9.

52. A necessary preliminary to the great study by P. R. L. Brown, J.R.S. (1971) 80.

III

1.  G. W. Clarke, Historia (1966) 445 for this case.

2.  Cypr. Ep. 16.4.

3.  Orig., C. Cels. 3.15, with H. Chadwick’s preface pp. xiv.

4.  Eus., Η. Ε. 6.41, “mantis kai poiētēs”: the translation “prophet and cause” would also be possible.

5.  P. J. Parsons, J.R.S. (1967) 134 and P. Oxyr. 3046–50; on the 290s, Optatus’s edict and Domitian’s revolt, T. D. Barnes, New Empire (1982) 11–12, 230–1, with bibliogr.

6.  R. Syme, Emperors and Biography (1971) 195–8; on coins, K. J. J. Elks, The Coinage of Trajan Decius (1971), with bibliogr. to earlier studies.

7.  J. H. Oliver, G.R.B.S. (1978) 375: the “Eis Basilea” is a mid-3rd-cent. work.

8.  Syme, Emperors and Biography (1971) 198–9, for wars; on famine, Mart. Pionii 10.7–8, not isolated, I assume.

9.  E.g. Greg. Nyss., P. G. 46.944B.

10. Ann. Epig. (1973) no. 235, with C. L. Babcock’s suggestions, A.J.P. (1962) 157; Syme, op. cit. 197 and n. 7, on D.’s connections.

11. Eus. 6.39.1; Or. Sib. 13.86–8 is no support; (i) the reading “pistōn” is only Wilamowitz’s in line 87; (ii) nothing else in the text requires a Christian author; (iii) the Ms. reading “autika d’au piptōn” inclines me to read “autika kappesetai” (cf. line 80) and thus carry on from the preceding gen. absolute. The next words then start a separate clause. This would ease the problems.

12. H. A. Pohlsander, Historia (1980) 463, for texts; G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (1983) pp. 125–6 does not distinguish the “rumour” from E.’s other material.

13. Dionys., ap. Eus., H. E. 6.41.9 and H. E. 7.10.3, a very telling aside.

14. Cypr., Ep. 39.2 and 22.2 with the excellent study of G. W. Clarke, Antichthon (1969) 63 ff.; p. 64 n. 5: his ancestry.

15. Eus. 6.41.11; in Antioch, one of the festivals for Babylas’s death falls in January, but he died in prison (H. E. 6.39.5 ff.) and it may be 251, not 250.

16. G. W. Clarke, B.I.C.S. (1973) 118; Historia (1973) 650; Latomus (1972) 1053 for details; the M. Pionii suffices to prove Jews were exempted.

17. Cypr., Ep. 20 is classic here; 20.2 mentions impious libelli and goes on to allude to what seems to be Letter 15. Its review of past letters is in sequence, and Ep. 15 is placed in May. “Libelli” were known (and first offered?) from mid-April, at least.

18. Most recently, P. Keresztes, Latomus (1975) 761; texts in J. R. Knipfing, H.T.R. (1923) 345; J. Schwarz, Rev. Biblique (1947) 365, with important discussion; P.S.I. 778; P. Oxy. 2990.

19. Knipfing 11, 26: cf. Schwarz, op. cit. for other details; the Arsinoite one is numbered, whereas Theadelphian ones are not: perhaps they were discarded first.

20. P. Keresztes (1975), for this idea: I incline to it, as the Mart. Pionii does not mention “libelli,” despite its exact observations in Feb./Mar. 250. Cypr., Ep. 20.2 is the first ref: ? early May 250.

21. Knipfing, H.T.R. (1923) no. 3; on scribes and papyri, Schwarz, p. 367.

22. Working from Knipfing (1923): some women do cite children too. P.S.I. 778: also females. Cf. Cypr., Ep. 6.3; 55.13; De Lapsis 2.

23. E.g. Knipfing (1923) nos. 5; 20; 21; Mart. Pion. 11.2, with part IV of this chapter; on households, Cypr. 55.13.

24. Cypr., Ad Don. 10.

25. Cypr., De Lapsis 11 with the notable comments of L. W. Countryman, The Rich Christian (1980) pp. 190 ff.

26. Slaves: e.g. Knipfing, no. 20; perhaps Cypr., De Lapsis 25 and Ep. 15.4; cf. Peter of Alexandria, Can. Epist. 5–8.

27. Cypr. Ep. 11.1; 13.4; 14.3; 15.3; De Laps. 16; De Unitate 20: “fraudes, stupra et adulteria.”

28. I quote Cypr. Ep. 27.1; 15.4; 20.1; 15.4, again.

29. Cypr., Ep. 6.1.1–2.

30. Cypr., Ep. 21.4, on confessors; Ep. 66.8, end.

31. Acta Acaci (Knopf-Krüger) 57–60; Trypho, in Studi e Testi (1908) 27; Polyeuctus, Mon. of Early Christianity, ed. F. C. Conybeare (1894) 126; S. Binon, Essai sur le Cycle de S. Mercure (1937); on Cassian, J. B. Keates, Companion Guide to Shakespeare Country (1979) p. 111.

32. Eus. 4.15.46–7; H. A. Musurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs (1972) xxviii-xxix. On the texts, S. Gero, J.J.S. (1978) p. 164 n. 1, with bibliogr. The Armenian, in M. Srapian, Wiener Ztschr. fur d. Kunde d. Morgenlandes 28 (1914) 376, which was checked for me by Prof. C. Dowsett; the Slavonic, in Codex Suprasliensis, ed. S. Severjanov, vol. I (1904) 124: Prof. J. Fennell kindly translated it for me.

33. R. Naumann, S. Kantar, in Kleinasien u. Byzanz (Istanbuler Forsch. 17, 1950) 70–114 with L. Robert, O.M.S. IV. 325; for a glimpse of the goddesses, L. Robert, B.C.H. (1982) 376.

34. M. Pion. 3.7, with Musurillo’s remarkable mistranslation. A. Chastagnol, M.E.F.R.E. (1981) p. 386 line 28 (Orcistus); I.G.R.R. IV.1414; L.R., Op. Min. Sel. II 1349–50 with n. 3; Chastagnol, p. 406. Prof. C. Dowsett has helped me with the “kibotia”; Armenian “arkel” = cases, or boxes, but Srapian’s “hütten” is also possible: “kibotia” may derive from Iranian or Pahlavi “kywt,” Turkic (Tobol) “kibit” (booth); Russian “kibitka” (nomad felt tent); whence our “caboodle” (German-Yiddish dim. in –1). “Whole caboodle” = German “der ganze Kram” (tent, or booth cover, and thus booth, or stall).

IV

L. Robert has long promised a full commentary on this martyrdom, which will doubtless correct and enlarge what follows; Hellenica 11–12 (1960) 269 n. 9; R.E.A. (1960) 319 n. 1; Ann. Collège de France (1960) 331; for an unpublished lecture in Warsaw, 1968, see his Op. Min. Sel. IV, 325. Meanwhile, the most helpful discussion and translation is by C. J. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna (1938) pp. 374 ff.

1.  Despite C.J. Cadoux, Anc. Smyrna (1938) 306 n. 1, the “Life of Polycarp” is a patent fake, though a fascinating one: cf. H. Delehaye, Les Passions des Martyrs (1966) 33 ff., decisively.

2.  B.M.C. Ionia, p. 263.

3.  M. Agape 5.8; Tert., De Monog. 15; Apolog. 50; Eus., H. E. 6.5; Jhb. Ant. u. Christ. (1960) 70–111.

4.  P. Herrmann, Denkschr. Akad. Wien 77 (1959) no. 7, pp. 10–11; L. Robert, Villes d’Asie Mineure, 2nd ed., p. 410 n. 2 for the area; G. Barbieri, L’Albo Senatorio (1952) no. 347 for husband.

5.  J. B. Pighi, De Ludis Saecularibus (1965, rpr.) 140 ff.

6.  J. B. Pighi (1965) 157.

7.  G. Hanfmann, From Croesus to Constantine (1973) chaps. 3–4; B.A.S.O.R. 177 (1965) 24–5 and C. R. Morey, Sardis, 5.1.

8.  W. M. Calder, B.J.R.L. (1923) esp. 29–41.

9.  Cf. Orig., C. Cels. 5.20–1 (Socrates); Tatian, Or. 19.12 (Anaxarchus’s “doxomania”); Tert., Apol. 50.

10. (a) Mionnet, III.237; (b) “sophist”: B.M.C. Ionia, 283–4; 287; 291; (c) Under Gordian, Mionnet III.249. For a Rufinus, distinct from these, in Marcus’s reign, cf. C.I.G.II. 3176. It is, of course, possible that “Rufinus the sophist” under Gordian is a kinsman of the Claudius Rufinus under Severus.

11. R. Münsterberg, Num. Zeitschr. 8 (1915) 119, a very acute study, omitted, however, by Bowersock’s longer Greek Sophists (1969) and even by the penetrating study of sophists by E. L. Bowie, Y.C.S. (1982) 29.

12. Str. 14.446, on books; Robert, Et. Anat. 137 ff.; Magie, Roman Rule II. 1445 n. 47; I.G.R.R. IV. 1446–7; 1449.

13. E.g. Claudius Proclus the sophist under Hadrian, Marcus and Verus. R. Münsterberg, Die Beamtennamen (1911) p. 105.

14. Philostr., V.S. 272; C. Habicht, Die Inschr. des Asklepeions (1969) 76–7.

15. B.M.C. Ionia; p. 283 and pl. 29.10; S.I.G.³ 876; I differ on the detailed context from Bowersock, Greek Sophists (1969) 41 and V. Nutton, J.R.S. (1971) 54.

16. G. W. Lampe, Lexikon, s.v. kenodoxein, for a rich list of parallels, esp. in Jo. Chrys.

17. I.G. II/III² 4218–9 with Barnes, J.T.S. (1968) 531. The Chronicon Paschale (ed. Bonn) 1.504 tacks Pionius’s death onto its year 251, but the connection is loose and clearly a derivative error for 250, stemming from its ultimate source, our text.

18. B.M.C. 265 and 294 with M. Pion. 18.3 and 8.

19. M. Pion. 11.2; P. Herrmann, Sitzb. Akad. Wien 265 (1969) 43–4 with L.R., Villes d’Asie Min., p. 32; B.C.H. (1887) p. 86 n. 5 and p. 311; on assizes, Pliny, Ν.H. 5.111; J.R.S. (1975) 71–2; cf. J. and L. Robert, Hellenica 6 (1948) 16–26.

20. Cypr., Ep. 10.1–2 and Eus., H. E. 6.41.16–21.

21. Monuments of Early Christianity, ed. F. C. Conybeare (1894) 146.

22. L. Robert, C.R.A.I. (1982) 228.

23. I forbear to give chapter and verse to the texts, printed in H. A. Musurillo, Acts of Christian Martyrs (1972); most recently, F. Dolbeau, Rev. Et. Aug. (1983) 39–82.

24. M. Pion. 10.5 and 18.13, for the “we” passages; H. Delehaye, Les Passions des Martyres et les Genres Littéraires (1921) 34.

25. M. Pion. 11.7; e.g. I.G.R.R. IV. 1446–7.

26. Cypr., Ep. 31.4–5; Codex Sinaiticus, Fol. 19 with W. Bousset, Texte u. Unters. (1894) 45·

27. M. Pion. 9.1; Dionys., ap. Eus., H. E. 7.11.6.

28. M. Pion. 19.1; R. A. Coles, Atti dell’ XI Congr. Internaz. di Papirol. (1968) 118–25; L.R., Et. Anat. 137 ff. with Ruinart, Acta Mart. (1859) 451 ff.

29. H. Delehaye, Les Passions des Martyrs…, pp. 33–6, most ingeniously; with him I accept the short ending (M. Polyc. 22.2–3), and also the longer one, in the Moscow Ms., which amplifies Irenaeus’s part: I see no reason why P. could not have written this longer ending too. Contra, L. W. Barnard, Kyriakon (1970) 192–3. M. Polyc. 22.3 does not presuppose the (4th-cent.) bogus Vita Polycarpi. Discussion now in B. Dehandschutter, Martyrium Polycarpi (1979) 63.

30. Pliny, Ep. 3.5.4, with C. A. Behr, Aelius Ar. (1968) p. 46 n. 2.

31. Cypr., Ep. 21.3: “vel in terra dormiens” is, I think, a general reference to his dreams (like Joseph’s), not to his dreams in prison only.

32. S. Byman, Amer. Hist. Rev. 83 (1978) 625, for ideas on this.

33. Ael. 16.15; 21.14; 22.8; C.I.G. II. 3165; L.R., Jo. des Sav. (1961) 155, praises of towns’ sites.

34. C.I.G. II.3202.

35. M. Mar. and Jas. 12.7.

36. L. Robert, Villes d’Asie Min., pp. 280–317; also in Anatolia (1958) 33–4: I will discuss Typhon and his lairs elsewhere.

37. Ael. Ar. 16.11; Sacred Tales 2.7, 2.50, 3.43; L.R., Villes d’Asie Min., p. 291 n. 2.

38. H. Windisch, Ztschr. Deutsch. Palästin-Vereins 48 (1923) 145; A. E. Harvey, J.T.S. (1966) 401 and now, the superb study by Ε. D. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage… (1982). Eus., Η. Ε. 4.26.14 (Melito); Jer., De Vir. Illustr. 54 (Firm.); Orig., C. Cels. 1.51; 4.44; Comm. in John 6.41; for the Cave, Protev. Jac. 18. Note Eus., Dem. Ev. 6.13.7.

39. Orig., P.G. 11.604C; H. Kruse, Studien zur Offiz. Geltung des Kaiserbilds… (1934) 79–85; L.R., R.E.A. (1960) 319 n. 1; Reymond-Barns, Four Martyrdoms…, p. 21.

40. M. Pion. 8.4: for “kai” in this sense, cf. 7.2.

41. M. Pion. 7.1.

42. W. Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (1965) 24–5, but he underplays this continuing” contrast.

43. Jos., B.J. 4.476; Tac., Hist. 5.6; Paus. 5.7.4–5; Galen 11.690 (Kuhn).

44. Cypr., Ep. 11.1; De Laps. 5.

45. J. Parkes, Conflict of Church and Synagogue (1934) 144–5 nobly took the scene as an open offer of protection, but his reasons were unconvincing, and I cannot follow him.

46. M. Pion. 13.8, where the Christians “conjure up” Jesus (cf. 14.14; mistaken by Musurillo); “with the sign of the cross,” surely, not “appearing with his cross” (despite S. Gero, J.J.S. 1978, 168, n. 3–4). E.g. Tert., Cor. Mil. 3, on use of sign of cross.

47. P. W. Van Der Horst, V.C. (1971) 282, for later discussion; cf. R. Hirzel, A.R.W. (1908).

48. Tert., De Anim. 56, with Waszink’s full notes; E. Klostermann, Origenes, Eustathius u. Gregor v. Nyssa über die Hexe von Endor (1912), for details; Jos., A.J. 6.14.2 thinks a demon appeared; Justin, Dial. 105.4 and Orig., Hom, on I Kings 28 disagree. For more, K. A. Smelik, V.C. (1979) 60 and on Jewish texts, S. Gero, J.J.S. (1978) 164–8, with the Caesarea dialogue in Β. Shab. 152B, at his p. 167 n. 20.

49. L.R., Hellenica 11–12 (1960) 260–2, esp. 262 n. 9; C.I.J. 739.

50. C.I.J. 742, well explained by A. T. Kraabel, J.J.S. (1982) 455.

51. C.I.J. 740–1 and 743; E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols II, pp. 79–81, on buildings of Jews in Smyrna; L.R., Hellenica 11–12 (1960) 391 n. 2; S. Reinach, R.E.J. 7 (1883) 166 on Rufina’s origins.

52. Rev. 2.9; M. Polyc. 17.2.

53. E.g. L.R., Hellenica 10, pp. 249–51 (Jew, strategos at Acmoneia); cf. L. R., Jo. des Sav. (1975) 158–9; Hellenica 11–12, p. 384 (Ephesus); 436 ff. (Eumeneia); H. Leclercq, D.A.C.L. 1.2 (1907) 2515 ff., on Apamea and the Ark; L.R., Nouvelles Inscr. de Sardes (1964) 56–7 and A. T. Kraabel, in Mélanges M. Simon, ed. A. Benoît (1978) 13–33, arguing on p. 19 for a possible late date for Jewish ownership of the Sardis building. Jos. 14.235 and 260 ff. for their “place” earlier in the city: the history of the complex is necessarily uncertain in its details.

54. A. T. Kraabel, Studies G.M. A. Hanfmann, ed. D. G. Milten (1971) 77, on Melito.

55. Jo. Chrys. P. G. 48.847, 861, 907 and M. Simon, Mélanges Cumont (1936) 403; J. Parkes, Conflict of Church and Synagogue (1934) 175–6; M. Simon, Verus Israel (1948) 144 ff.

56. E.g. Tert., Adv. Marc. 3.23, “seminarium infamiae nostrae”; Adv. Jud. 1.13; Justin, Dial. 17.1 alleges a worldwide smear campaign in the Apostolic age.

57. N. R. M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (1976), FOR texts, though his use of later rabbinic sources is questionable.

58. Orig., C. Cels. 1.28 ff.; on Panthera, Chadwick, C. Celsum, p. 31; Eus., Eccl. Proph. 3.10; on a possible early date for the “anti-Gospels,” S. Gero, J.J.S. (1978) 164 ff.

59. P. Franchi de Cavalieri, Scritti Agiografici II, in Studi e Testi 222 (1962) 79 ff. is fundamental, linking the text to M. Nestor, and (p. 84) suggesting a local “laboratorio agiografico”: p. 84 n. 1 does not prove dependence on our M. Pion., however. At M. Cononis (ed. Musurillo) 2.1, the “father,” at this date, would have to be an honorary title, not a civic office. The “singularii” and the city’s own “regiment of the Eirenarch” are convincing details. For the site, R.E. xiv (1928) 521; J. C. Mossop, N.C. (1970) 319–20.

60. L.R., Rev. Philol. (1958) 40–7, synagogue at Side, one of several: the Beth Shearim inscription cited on p. 40 n. 1 is differently punctuated, perhaps rightly, by M. Schwabe, Beth Shearim II (1974) 190–1.

61. M. Polyc. 3.1; for dating, T. D. Barnes, J.T.S. (1968) 512 and now R. Syme, Z.P.E. 51 (1983) 280–2, decisive on Quadratic’s governorship: Eus.’s date is wrong again. On the Philippus crux, C. A. Behr, Aelius Ar. (1968) p. 98 n. 15, for solutions. 155/6 or 156/7 seem secure, now, for M. Polyc.

62. G. Talamanca, L’Organizzazione del “CONVENTUS” del Praef. Egypti (1974), discussing changes over time and citing the basic works by Wilcken; G. P. Burton, J.R.S. (1975) 92 ff.; against C. P. Jones, Roman World of Dio (1978) p. 67, I doubt that Dio 35.15 means “in alternate years,” for Phrygia’s assizes: “par’ etos” also means “yearly.” On Asia, Pliny N.H. 5.110–20 with L.R., Hellenica 7 (1949) 206, a brilliant study confirmed by C. Habicht, J.R.S. (1975) 64; cf. Ν. Lewis, B.A.S.P. (1982) 119.

63. Dig. 1.16.6 (legates can only give prelim. hearing): cf. 1.16.11.

64. Plut., Mor. 501 E-F, with C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (1971) 14.

65. Aelius Ar. 17 and 21 (Keil): 21.16, for governors.

66. M. Polyc. 12.2; L. Robert, Les Gladiateurs dans l’Orient Grec (1940) 202–14; 233; 284; 309 ff.

67. Moral. 501 E with Pliny N.H. 5.120 (Maced. Hyrcani in Smyrna’s district) and A. B. Cook, Zeus II.2, p. 873 for Smyrna’s Zeus; we should read “Akraios” not (with Wilamowitz) “Askraios” in Plut.’s text.

68. Ael. Ar. 17.6; Philostr., V.S. p. 106 (Loeb); L.R., B. Epig. 1968.402, for festivals and assizes.

69. Most recently, but unsuccessfully, W. Rordorf, Pietas… fur B. Kötting, Jhrb. A. u. C. Erganzbd. 8 (1980) 243.

70. John 19.31.

71. I. Elbogen, Der Jüd. Gottesdienst… (1962) 155–9.

72. J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers. Part II (1889) 710–12, for this theory: M. Goodman has helped me to accept it, citing C. Theod. 16.8.18, but pointing out that there are problems for 250, if we assume Purim fell on 14th or 15th Adar (depending on Smyrna’s status: Danby, Mishnah p. 201). By E. J. Bickermann, Chronology (1968) pp. 139–40 and the table of new moons, Purim fell on February 22/23 in 251, not 250. I cannot reject our Martyrdom’s firm consular dating, and the whole scene belongs in 250, when the edict was in its early days. I assume some local complication in calendar equations; alternatively, as M. Goodman remarks, the Sabbath before Purim was Shabbat Zachor, when Deut. 25.17–19 was read to recall the past enemies of the Jews (Danby, Mishnah, p. 205). But I doubt if this was a “great Sabbath” and I stand by Purim 250.

73. Contrast W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution (1965) 130: a “people apart”; Abodah Zarah 1.1, on avoiding festivals; H. Chadwick, Early Christianity and Classical Culture (1967) 125.7 on “Iao Dionysus”; Plut., Qu. Conv. 4.6.1 with M. Stern, Gk. and Lat. Authors on Jews and Judaism 1 (1974) 259; Tac., Hist. 5.5.

74. Admirably seen by G. P. Burton, J.R.S. (1975) P.96 n. 42–4; Tert., Ad Scap. 3.3; Cypr., Ep. 81.1; Acta Cypr. 2.3. I agree with G. W. Clarke, Latomus (1972) 1053 that T. D. Barnes, Tertullian (1971) 260–1 has not established a July arrival for governors in Africa in the 2nd–3rd cent.

75. Cypr., Ep. 82.1.

76. Pontius, Vita 12–13.

77. L.R., Rev. Phil. (1934) 276; Hellenica 7 (1949) 223; Dio Chrys. 35.15; Acts 19.38; Ael. Ar., Sacr. Tal. 4.77.

78. •L. Robert, Et. Anatol. (1938) 147.

79. M. Fruct. 3.1; cf. A. Phileae col. 12.120; 13.205. Pontius, Vita 14.

80. M. Mar. and Jas. 6.5–10.

81. M. Pion. 10.4 (fasces); G. W. Clarke, Antichthon (1969) 73 n. 78 on Christian bribery in prisons, and esp. Libanius, Or. 45, esp. 9–10.

82. M. Pion. 15.4–5 for the princeps, with G. Lopuszanki, L’Ant. Class. (1951) 34–7 for his high rank; cf. A. Cypr. 2.4.

83. With H. Delehaye, Anal. Boll. (1940) 146, I prefer the Latin to the Greek text, poorly defended by H. Lietzmann, Kl. Schriften I.239 ff. The Greek makes Agathonice a “volunteer,” against the Latin’s sober account: Greek sec. 45 (ed. Mus.) is a stock theme in bogus Acts, e.g. A. Paul and Thecla 32. The Greek’s October date conflicts with April in the early martyrologies. On “Optimus,” Delehaye p. 147.

84. M. Carp., Pap., Agath. (Latin) 4.5. Note Carpus is not sentenced in his home assize district (Julia Gordos marches with Sardis, J.R.S. 1975, 65). J. den Boeft, J. Bremmer, V.C. (1982) 384–5 wrongly suggest a date before 215 because Papylus, from Thyatira, would have been tried there, not at Pergamum, once Thyatira became an assize centre. Martyrs in 250 were tried where they were arrested, cf. M. Pion., 11.2 for a Karenite at Smyrna, not Sardis. For Eleusis, I.G. II/III² 4218–9.

85. T. D. Barnes, Tertullian (1971) 163 n. 3.

86. M. Pion. 21.5, with Ε. Peterson, Frühkirche, Judentum… (1959) 15, for the East, and the Moscow Ms. ending to M. Polyc. 22.3, Pionius’s own, I believe (with Delehaye). The ‘Sabbath’ in M. Pion. 23.1 is a mistake; P. was arrested on a Sabbath, Feb. 23 (2.1) and killed on Tuesday, Mar. 12. The Armenian rightly preserves the Tuesday: M. Srapian, Wien. Zts. Kunde des Morgenlandes 28 (1914) p. 405 n. 24.

CHAPTER 10

On bishops, I wrote without knowledge of The Role of the Christian Bishop in Ancient Society, ed. E. C. Hobbs and W. Wuellner (Center for Hermeneutical Studies, Berkeley, Protocol of 35th Colloquy, 1980), with papers by Professors Brown, Grant, MacMullen and especially Chadwick, taking the subject into the 4th and 5th cents.; on Gregory, I was helped by the audience at an Oxford seminar in 1981: the panegyric and its stories then received an article by R. van Dam, in Calif. Stud. in Class. Antiquity 13 (1982) 272: he considers “Gregory may have been perceived as an ‘icon’ during his own lifetime.” I doubt that. R. MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (1984) 59–61 has revived the argument that the most “trustworthy derivative” of lost early work on Gregory is a Syriac version of his career. This view, advanced by V. Ryssel in 1894, was refuted decisively by P. Koetschau, in Zts. für Wiss. Theol. (1898) 211: the Syriac is a variant of our legendary panegyric, with its own touches of imaginary colour.

I

1.  Apoc. Petr. in Nag Hammadi Library (ed. J. Robinson, 1977) p. 343; cf. Tripartite Tract. on pp. 64–9.

2.  Hermas, Vis. 3.9.7–10.

3.  M. Perp. et Fel. 13.

4.  Cypr. 31.5: “gloriosus episcopus”; Cypr., Ep. 23.

5.  B. Kötting, Jhrb. A. u. C. (1976) 7: Hippol., Trad. 9; Cypr., Ep. 61.3.

6.  G. Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls (1977) 90–9, on the mebaqqer; pp. 215–9, more generally.

7.  E. Schürer, Hist. of Jewish People 2 (1979) 433–6, with texts; P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les Cultes de Delos… (1970) 489, for chairs; I.G.R. 4.655, for Acmoneia; Smyrna, I.G.R. IV. 1452 and cf. R.E.J. (1901) 2; on buildings, e.g. C.I.J. 722.

8.  See esp. L. Robert, Rev. Phil. (1958) 40 ff.; Cod. Theod. 16.8.1, 2, 4, 13–14; on Elders, an open question, A. E. Harvey, J. T. S. (1974) 318 and C. H. Roberts, J.T.S. (1975)403.

9.  On rulers, J. B. Frey, C.I.J. I (1956) LXXXII; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Emp. Romain II (1914) 161–2, on floggings; both, in C.I.J. 265 and 553; entry fee, at Tlos, T.A.M. II (1930) 612, “fathers” etc., M. Hengel, Z.N.W. (1966) 176–8 and for civic (not cultic) use, most recently, R. van Bremen, Images of Women…, ed. A. Cameron, A. Kuhrt (1983) 241.

10. S. L. Greenslade, J.T.S. (1943) 162.

11. M. Goodman, State and Soc. in Rmn. Galilee (1983), pp. 97–8 and p. 120, with refs.; Cod. Theod. 16.8.2,4; in inscrips., E. R. Goodenough, J.Q.R. (1956–7) 221–4, inc. Dura, and L.R., Hellenica 10–11 (1960) 382–4, a brilliant note. “Priestess” in Rome: C.I.J. 615; in Sardis, Samoe the priest (late date); in Dura, C. Kraeling, The Synagogue… (1956) VIII. 1 p. 263.

12. L. I. Levine, A.N.R.W. 19.2, pp. 649, esp. pp. 663–72, with refs.; against, M. Goodman, State… in Rmn. Galilee (1983), pp. 111–18 (excellent), although I trust Orig., P.G. 11.84; “apostles,” in Justin, Dial. 17 (but cf. Cod. Theod. 16.8.14, 399 A.D.).

13. Best text in M. Hengel, Z.N.W. (1966) 145 ff.; I follow M. Goodman, p. 242 n. 296; cf. Cod. Theod. 16.8.1–2.

14. Cypr., Ep. 49.2, Eus. 6.43.11, both remarkably similar.

15. 1 Clem. 42.4–5 with Isai. 60.17 and C. A. Evans, V.C. (1982) 105; L. Abramowski, J.T.S. (1977) 103–4, on Iren.; Tert., De Praescr. Her. 32; Cypr., Ep. 33.1 and 3.3.

16. E.g. Ign., Eph. 5.3–6.1; Magn. 3; Trail. 2.1–2; Phil. 7; Smyrn. 8–9.1.

17. Jer., Ep. 146 with W. Telfer, J.E.H. (1952) 4–6, on Egypt’s Elders; F. D. Gilliard, H.T.R. (1975) 17, on Gaul; in general, E. G. Jay, in The Second Century 1 (1981) 125.

18. I cite the Didascalia in Connolly’s ed. and trans.: I presuppose chaps. 4–12, 17–18 on bishops.

19. Didasc. chap. 11, esp. p. 115 (murder court); 7.54 on threats.

20. Didasc. 7.56 (Last Day).

21. I quote 5.40; cf. pp. 52–3.

22. J. Gaudemet, Rev. Sc. Rel. (1949) 64; Gal. 1.8–9; 1 Cor. 5.9–13; 1 Cor. 16.22:1 Tim. 1.19–20: in 3 John 10, “ekballein” is the action of wicked Diotrephes: for the orthodox, following suit, e.g. Can. Elvira 20, 41, 49, esp. 52, 62.

23. Didasc. 12.4–5; Orig., In Mth. 16.8 (P.G. 13.1393B).

24. Didasc. 9.

25. 1 Tim. 3.1–7; Tit. 1.7–9; Ign., Trail. 3.1; Magn. 3.2; Smyrn. 9.1.

26. H. Chadwick, H.T.R. (1950) 169, on silence; I quote Eph. 6.1 and 15; Trail. 3 and Magn. 6.

27. I differ from P. R. L. Brown, Making of Late Antiquity (1978) 58–9.

28. Ign., Ad Polyc. 2–4: Eus., H.E. 7.30.12, against Paul of Samosata; on virgins, L. Mitteis-U. Wilcken, Grundzüge u. Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde (1912) 1 no. 131, a marvellous text.

29. Ign., Ad Polyc. 5.2; Tert., De Pudic. 1.

30. Orig., Hom. in Num. 22.4.

31. M. Bevenot, J.T.S. (1979) 413–29; bishop as “God’s elect,” Cypr., Ep. 48.4, 49.2, 55.8, 59.4, 66.1; no opposition: Cypr., Ep. 3; cf. 59.4, 66.3.

32. H. Chadwick, The Early Church (1967) 49–50; C. H. Roberts, J.T.S. (1975) 404–5; W. Telfer, The Office of a Bishop (1952) 64–88.

33. Aug., Sermo 17.2 and Brown, Augustine (1967) 196–7.

34. Pontius, V. Cypr. 16; Cypr., Ep. 3.1, on the “chair”; Brown, Augustine (1967)251.

35. Didasc. 11 (seating); Cypr., Ep. 4.4 and 52.3 (expulsion).

36. Didasc. 9 (choice); Cypr., Ep. 38–40; in general, R. Gryson, Rev. Hist. Ecc. (1973) 353.

37. Cypr., Ep. 29 and 32, on his clerics.

38. Cypr., Ep. 41.2 and 5.1.

39. A. H. M. Jones, Roman Economy (ed. Brunt 1974) 348 ff.; double share, 1 Tim. 5.17; first fruits, Hippol., Trad. 31; Didasc. 13.3–7; Orig., Hom. in Num. 11.2; tithes, R. M. Grant, Early Christianity and Society (1978) 139; Apost. Const. 8.30. Salaries: Eus., H.E. 5.18.2; 5.28.2; Hippol., Ref. 9.12.13.

40. Didasc. 9.86–7.

41. Cypr., Ep. 67.5.

42. Eus., H.E. 6.43.8; Cypr., Ep. 24.2; Nicaea, Can. 4; Arles, Can. 20.

43. Iren., Adv. Haer. 3.2.2; Hippolyt., Ref. Haer. 1. Praef. 6; Cypr., Ep. 3.3.

44. Cypr., Ep. 43.1, with more in J. Spiegl., Rom. Quart. (1974) 30 and R. Gryson, Rev. Hist. Eccles. (1973) 377 ff.

45. Hippol. Trad. 2–3, with K. Richter, Archiv. für Liturgiewiss. (1975–6) 7; E. Segelberg, Stud. Patr. (1975) 397·

46. Cypr., Ep. 72.3 and 73.22, for bishops’ autonomy; K. M. Girardet, Historia (1977) 95, excellent on “bishop of bishops” with Tert., De Pud. 1.6, Cypr., Ep. 66.3 and the passage in his p. 97 n. 3.

47. On deposition, Cypr., Ep. 67; contrast Ep. 3.2!

48. O. Lepelley, Les Cités de l’Afrique… (1979), vol. I, 140 ff., esp. n. 94 for African evidence; Dig. 49.1.12 and 48.14.3–4, with Paul, Sent. 5.30, probably refer to these cities; Cod. Theod. 12.5.1 (325). Church historians have not made enough of this setting and usage.

49. Esp. the brilliant study by G. de Sainte Croix, Brit. Jo. Sociology (1954) 33, at p. 35, using Cyprian; cf. P. Granfield, Theol. Studies (1976) 41, for more on C.’s usage: Ep. 43.1–2; 55.8; 59.5; 67.3; 68.2.

50. Eus.,H.E. 6.29; and H.E. 6.9–11; 6.11.1–2 on God’s “oikonomia” and bishops’ agreement.

51. Eus., H.E. 7.32.5 and 7.32.21.

52. Pontius, Vita 6.

53. Greg. Nyss., Ep. 17 on rich candidates.

54. E. Peterson, Heis Theos (1926) 144 ff., with Apul., Apol. 73 (see now C. Roueché, J.R.S. [1984] 187); Eus. 6.29.4; Cypr., Ep. 43.1; G. de Sainte Croix, Orig. of Pel. War (1972) 130–1 and Appendix 24 on “shouting, not vote.”

55. J. Spiegl, Röm. Quart. (1974) 39, emphasizing that “iudicium Dei” does not overlap with popular “suffrage” in C.’s usage; “testimony,” Cypr., Ep. 44.3.2; and note esp. Crig., Hom. in Lev. 6,3, quoting 1 Tim. 3.7. It is also used for “clergy and bishops” role: Ep. 8.4. For “agreement” after election, R. Gryson, Rev. Hist. Eccles. (1973) 384–5, cautiously.

56. Can. Co. Serdica (343) 2; Gesta Apud Zenoph., in C.S.E.L. edit, of Optatus (ed. Ziwsa, 1893) p. 189; cf. Orig., Hom. in Num. 9.1.

57. Cypr., Ep. 61.3; 63.1: “divina dignatio”; 3.1–3, for sanctions; cf. M. Bevenot, Rech. Sci. Rel. (1951) 397.

58. In general, E. Göller, in Ehrengabe für J.G.H. zu Sachsen (Freiburg, 1920) 603, a valuable collection of texts: esp., on bad bishops, Orig. Hom. in Judice. 4.3; Orig., Comm. in Mth. 16.21–2; C. Cels. 3.9; Hom. in Josh. 7.6.

59. Orig., Hom. in Num. 22.4 (Moses); Eus. 5.24.6, 7.32.2; Pass. Mont, et Luc. 23.4.

60. H. Chadwick, H.T.R. (1960) 171–95.

61. 1 Clem. 44–8.

62. Cypr., Ep. 68, 67; 44 ff.

63. Cypr., Ep. 29.1 and 80.1: clergy carry letters of bishop.

64. F. G. B. Millar, J.R.S. (1971) 1–17 and Eus. 7.27–30, for the affair; F. G. B. Millar, Emperor in Roman World (1977) 572–3.

65. Tert., De Praescr. Her. 4.1; Iren., Adv. Haer. 1.13.4.

66. Orig., Hom. in Josh. 23.2.

67. Jo. Chrys., Hom. in Act. III (P.G. 60.38–40); esp. 39, on inefficacy of “fear of God.”

68. V. Tcherikover, Eos (1956) 169: the main audience, I think, not the sole one, though I cannot pursue this here.

69. Of. H. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (1967) 26.

70. Greg. Nyss., P.G. 10.893–957; Latin legend, W. Telfer, J.T.S. (1930) 142 and 354; a Syriac legend, deriving from the panegyric’s stories and of no independent historical value: P. Koetschau, Z. Wiss. Theol. (1898) 211 refuted V. Ryssel, Theol. Schweiz. (1894) 228 on this. On the letters, H. Crouzel’s case, Gregorianum (1980) 745, is mine.

71. Eus., H.E. 6.30, where E.’s words on their concern for “Greek and Roman” studies can only derive from Greg.’s own surviving letter: in Pamphilus’s library?; cf. 7.14, 7.28. Pace T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981) 86, E. does not claim personal knowledge.

II

1.  Greg., Ep. ad Orig. (E.O.) 5.49–50.

2.  Dig. 27.1.41.

3.  P. Moraux, Imprécation Funéraire à Néocaesarée (1959), esp. 43–50.

4.  L. Robert, C.R.A.I. (1978) 241, esp. 250–1.

5.  Greg., E.O. 5.59–60; F. Millar, Emperor in Roman World (1977) 94–7; 251. Studia Pontica III. 129 no. 103, with Dig. 1.22.3.

6.  F. Millar, in Colloque sur les Martyres de Lyons (1978) 187 ff., for one aspect; Greg., E.O. 5.65–8.

7.  Men. Rhet. 2.432–3.

8.  H. Crouzel, intro. to Gregory’s Lettre de Remerciement, Sources Chrétiennes ed. (1969), esp. p. 22 (date): Eus., H.E. 6.27, on O. and Firmilian.

9.  E.g. Orig., P.G. 11.61A; 12.1541C; 13.743; 11.381; 12.1269B.

10. Piety, E.O. 6.78; protreptics, 6.79–80; 6.85–92 (Jonathan).

11. E.O. 4.40–7; 5.71–2; P. R. L. Brown, Making of L.A. (1978) 71; Orig., De Princ. 3.6.9.

12. Eus., H.E. 6.14.8–9.

13. O.’s school: H. Crouzel, Bull. Lit. Eccles. (1970) 15; Greg., E.O. 11.143, with P. Courcelle, Connais-Toi Toi Même… (1974) 97–101; classes, E.O. 7.93–12.149; Bible, 15.173–88; philosophy, 13.150–73; barbarians, 13.153, with Epicurus, 13.152.

14. W. A. Bienert, Dionysius v. Alexandrien: Zur Frage des Origenismus (1978); creed, P.G. 10.912D–913 A; H. Crouzel, Gregorianum (1980) 745 compares Greg., E.O. 4.35; L. Abramowski, Zts. für Kirchengesch. (1976) 145, argues against authenticity, too forcefully.

15. Text in V. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus (1880) 73–99, with trans. Accepted by U. W. Knorr, Evangelisches Missionsmagazin, 110 (1966) 70, suggesting it shows G. with his catechumens (p. 75): nothing requires this. Dismissed, on theological grounds, by L. Abramowski, Zts. für Kirchengesch. 89 (1978) 279; reply by H. Crouzel, Gregorianum (1980) 754–5, not convincing.

16. P.G. 10.987 ff.

17. M. Hengel, Hellenism and Judaism (1974) 1.115–30, with II. 143 n. 694 for D.S.S. fragments.

18. Greg., P.G. 10. 987 ff.; I refer to Eccles. 4.11, 12.1–4 and esp. P.G. 10.1016C.

19. E.g. Jer., P.L. 23.1048; E. Lucchesi, V.C. (1982) 292; Didymus, Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes, vols. I–IV (ed. G. Binder, 1969–79).

20. In general, S. Leanza, L’Esegesi di Origene al Libro dell’Ecclesiaste (Reggio, 1975); Orig., Exh. ad Mart. 22 misuses Eccles. 4.2; Orig., Comm. in Cant. (Rufinus) Prol. 3; P. Nautin, Origène (1977) 373–5.

21. Eus., H.E. 7.26.3, with W. Bienert, Dionysius… (1978) 56–8 and esp. in Kleronomia (1973) 305–14, for new evidence; I quote E. L. Feltoe, Dionysius of Alexandria (1904) 208.

22. Dionys., Comm. in Eccles. 2.24; Orig., On Prayer 23.4.

23. Orig., Sel. in Ps., P.G. 12.1080.

24. Greg., E.O. 15.179–80: W. Bienert, Dionysius… (1978) 119–23, on the question; Eus., H.E. 7.25.6.

25. Orig., Ep. ad’Greg. (E.G.) 3, also in Crouzel’s S.C. edition; on Ad Theop., see note 15.

26. Basil, Ep. 210.5, with H. Crouzel, R.S. Rel. (1963) 422.

27. Feltoe, Dionysius… (1904) 127–64, against Epicureans.

28. Greg., E.O. 1.7; cf. L. Robert, Rev. Phil. (1967) 60–61 and n. 1; on style, Crouzel, pp. 42–3.

29. Of. Lucian, Alex. 48, How to Write Hist. 29, calling Roman troops “ours,” with J. Palm, Rom, Römertum u. Imperium (1959) 54–5; Greg., E.O. 1.7, best analysed by J. Modrzjewski, Rév. Hist. du Droit Fr. et Etr. (1971) 313: on “synkeimenoi,” I agree with M. p. 318 against A. M. Honoré, Tribonian (1978) 3; against M. p. 319, I see no obvious ref. to Imperial rescripts.

30. In general, M. Villey, Rech. sur la Litt. Didact. du Droit Rom. (1945), with R. Taubenschlag, Op. Min. II (1959) 159; on Gaius, A. M. Honoré, Gaius (1962), with P. Oxy. 2103 (his p. 126), and pp. 110–2 and 97–116 on the book’s manner.

31. Ulp., Dig. 1. 1. 1, an analogy pressed (though too far) by P. Frezza, Studia et Doc. Hist. et Jur. (1968) at 367 ff.

32. Of. J. Modrzjewski, R.H.D.F.E. (1971) 318; on Beirut (already “a trusted school,” E.O. 5.62), esp. P. Collinet, Syria (1924) 359 and his fine Hist. de l’Ecole de Droit de Beyrouth (1925); cf. K. M. T. Atkinson, S. Afr. Law Jo. (1970) esp. 53–9; Lib., Ep. 652, on “mother”; Ep. 1652 on groups; Collinet, pp. 91–111 on ambience with Kugener’s ed. of Zach. Schol., Vie de Sévère (P. Or., 1903) pp. 64–7. Eus., M.P. 4.3–5 specifically praises Appianus’s self-control in Beirut.

33. L. R., Hellenica 11–12 (1960) 414–29; H. Leclerq, “Avocats” in D.A.C.L. I.3243.

34. Orig., Ep. Greg. 2–3 (Exodus); 1, where “eboulomén” and “an euxamén” are significant tenses.

35. Greg., E.O. 18.184–19.206.

36. Cf. Dionys., Eus., H.E. 7.22.1–10.

37. C.J. 10.50.1 (to “Arabi scolastici”).

38. J. F. Gilliam, Z.P.E. 13 (1974) 147; name, Eus., H.E. 7.28.1, with Crouzel, p. 14; did the later Gregory, missionary to Armenia, copy ours deliberately?

III

1.  Date, G. May, in Ecriture et Culture Philosophique dans la Pensée de Grégoire de Nysse, ed. M. Harl (1971) 56–9·

2.  Creed: Greg. Nyss., P.G. 46.913 A; Basil, Ep. 204.6; Basil, De Spir. Sanct. 74, on Greg. stories and “Moses.”

3.  On legend, W. Telfer, J.T.S. (1930) 142 and 354.

4.  P.G. 46.909C and 953D; A. Harnack, Mission and Expansion II (1908) 206.

5.  P.G. 46.899–909, with errors.

6.  E.g. Greg. Nyss., Ep. 13; P.G. 46.920A-D, entry; 915C, the Emperor.

7.  Comana, 933B–940B.

8.  P.G. 940C, with P. Devos. An. Boll. (1975) 157.

9.  W. J. Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor… I (1842) 343, with P.G. 925D: note the “army” they were preparing from their dependents, with Basil, Ep. 74–6, for similar action by rival bishops.

10. Musonius, in 920D-C, with Basil, Ep. 28.1 and 210.3; church, in 924 B-C.

11. Heretics, Eus., H.E. 7.2–9; Rome, Basil, Ep. 70 (citing documentary evidence); Paul, H.E. 7.28.1–2.

12. P. R. L. Brown, Cult of Saints (1981) 29.

13. Basil, De Spir. Sanct. 29; R. van Dam, C.S.C.A. (1982) 275 cites Lucian, Salt. 64, but this charming story is anecdotal and the “barbarian neighbours” would be Goths, Scyths, etc., not “Pontikoi.”

14. X. Loriot, Bull. Soc. Nat. Ant. France (1976) 44, excellent study.

15. Greg. Nyss, Vita Macr. 8 (with P. Maraval’s note, in the S.C. ed. p. 169), G. Mathew, Studies… D. Talbot Rice, ed. G. Robertson, G. Henderson (1975) 217; for bears in the forests (and arenas), S. Pontica II. 168.

16. P.G. 913D; Studia Pontica (S.P.) II (1906) 259–95; 170–1; Basil 258.4, with L.R., Rev. Num. (1976) 37–8 n. 60, on Mithres the bishop at Nicaea.

17. X. Loriot, B.S.N.A.F. (1976) 44 ff.

18. M. Price, B. Trell, Coins and Their Cities (1977) 91 ff., 159–161; S.P. III. 109.

19. Cabeira, Strabo 12.566; Price-Trell, figs. 178–9 (see below); W. J. Hamilton, Researches… I (1842) 365 and S.P. II. 145–8.

20. M. Price, B. Trell, Coins and Cities, pp. 92–3 with fig. 163 (sacrifice); 159 (hill); 159 and 164 (temples) and Strabo 12.561.

21. Strabo 11.512; with Price-Trell, Coins and Cities, figs. 263, 304, 362–3, 384; S.P. III. 233–5; W.M. Ramsay, Hist. Geog. of Asia Minor (1890) 321.

22. J. Ebersolt, Sanctuaires de Byzance (1921) 54; in Cappadocia, the Comana shrine became a church (Procop., Wars 1.17.15).

23. Strabo 12.556; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor I (1950) 180 and II p. 1071 n. 11. Against W. Ruge, Pauly R-E 16 (1939) 2409–13, I cite the double shrine in Price-Trell, figs. 178–9, explaining their problem by Cabeira’s past.

24. Strab. 12.557–60; W. Ruge, Pauly R-E 11 (1922) 1126; Price-Trell, fig. 351 (198 A.D.) Greg. Nyss., P.G. 46.778A (wine).

25. B.M.C. Pontus, 32 no. 2, for league cities and constant “metropolis” slogan. C. Picard, B.C.H. (1922) 191; Claros, from “metropolis” already. Coins, Price-Trell, p. 123 with figs. 71, 165–75; 178–9; 414.

26. On Amaseia as metropolis, Samml. v. Aulock, Pontus, 20–44; G. C. Anderson, J.H.S. (1900) 153 and S.P. III. 132–6. Asterius, Hom. IV, P.G. 40.218–9:1 am not persuaded by M. Meslin, La Fête des Kalendes de Janvier (1970) that this is a late innovation. S.P. III. 152–3 (actor); 134–6 (gladiator).

27. P.G. 944C-D.

28. B.M.C. Pontus, 34.12–15 and Samml. v. Aulock, s.v. Pontus no. 107 (Aktia, first known under Gordian: earlier games, no. 104, Severus). For a parallel, C. Roueché, J.R.S. (1981) 119; afterlife, Samml. v. Aulock, Pontus 114, 116; B.M.C. Pontus, 35.17 (Gallienus). P.G. 953B-D, for motives: doubted, perhaps too fully, by P. R. L. Brown, Cult of Saints (1981) 31–3.

29. T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981) 258, citing date and bibliogr.

30. P.G. 10.1020A ff., with J. Dräseke, Jhrb. für Prot. Theol. (1881) 724–56, on text.

31. A. Alföldi, Berytus (1937) 55–6, preferable to M. Salamon, Eos (1971) 116; Zos. 1.27. 1 (253?): for boats, cf. Tac, Hist. 3.47.3.

32. A. M. Ramsay, in Studies in Hist. and Art of East Rmn. Prov., ed. W. Ramsay (1906) 22, on this title; also, E. W. Benson, Cyprian (1897) 29.

33. Greg., Can. Ep. 7 with Strabo 12.559 (emended to Pontikoi, rightly).

34. Not class war, despite de Sainte Croix, C.S.A.G.W. (1981) 477–8.

35. Greg., Can. 1 with Mth. 15.11 and Deut. 22.26–7.

36. Greg., Can. 4 with Deut. 22. 1–3; Exod. 23.4; Josh. 7 and Can. 3.

37. Can. 2 and Can. 6 (thunderbolts).

38. Can. 8 (confession); Can. 7–9 and 11, which I accept as original.

39. Cypr., Ep. 30.3; 33–6; 43, Didasc. 6.52 (Connolly); Dionys., in Eus., H.E. 6.46. 1. Of. Cypr., Ep. 32, sending copies of his views to other bishops: I am not sure that the “pappas” in the Can. Ep. would strictly rank in Greg.’s own episcopal “provincia.”

40. J. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (1967) 169, on Roman law being less savage to thieves than English law before 1800. On “only the guilty,” D. Halic. 8.80 and F. Schulz, Principles of Roman Law (1936) 203.

41. J. Danielou, Romanitas et Christianitas… J. H. Waszink (1973) 71; the fine C.S.L. ed., by G. F. Diercks (1972) is basic, now; Cypr., Ep. 60.3; Novat., De Spect. 2.1–3 and 2.10.

42. E. Gallicet, Forma Futuri… M. Pellegrino (1975) 43 and S. Deléani, Rev. Et. Aug. (1977)221.

43. S. L. Greenslade, J.T.S. (1943) 172 ff.; I quote Cypr. 59.5 with Deut. 17.12–13 and 1 Sam. 8.7; Cypr., Ep. 74.10 is another case.

44. Eus., H.E., 7.10.8.

45. C. Feltoe, Dionysius of Alexandria (1904) 102 ff.; de Sainte Croix, C.S.A.G.W. (1981) 557 n. 26.

46. Didascalia, ed. Connolly, pp. 68–74.

47. Cyprian, II (Ante-Nicene Library, xiii, 1869) 211.

48. Aug., Ep. 22.5.

49. So, acutely, P. Brown, Making of L. A. (1978) 71.

50. P. R. L. Brown, Religion and Society in the Age of Augustine (1972) 89.

CHAPTER 11

A stirring account of Christian triumph is given by W. H. C. Frend in his Martyrdom and Persecution (1965) chaps. 14–15, citing a range of evidence which I would interpret rather differently: Peter Brown’s review in Religion and Society in the Age of Augustine (1972) 74–93 and his fine chapters in The World of Late Antiquity (1971) suggest other perspectives. R. MacMullen’s Roman Government’s Response to Crisis (1976) is an essay on the other problems of the age; W. H. C. Frend, in M. I. Finley, ed., Studies in Ancient Society (1974) 263 gives a fine study of the failure of persecution.

I

1.  Cypr., Ep. 11.1; Eus., H.E. 8.1.7 ff.

2.  Dionys., ap. Eus. 6.42.5 (Antioch); 6.46.1 (generally): 6.46.2–5 (Rome, and Armenia, surely Armenia Minor, centred on Sebaste, just near his former schoolmate Gregory).

3.  In general, M. M. Sage, Cyprian (1975) 212–65; PP. 295 ff.

4.  Cypr., Ep. 54.3: Novatianists on “tares” in pure wheat of Church (cf. Orig., Hom. in Josh. 22.1); Eus. 6.43.2, their ejection; T. Gregory, Byz. Studies 2 (1975) 1. their future; H. J. Vogt, Coetus Sanctorum (1968) 53, their ideals.

5.  M. M. Sage, Cyprian (1975) 231–65; 280–5.

6.  Cypr., Ep. 60; Sage, 284–7.

7.  Eus., H.E. 7.11; Cypr., Ep. 80.1.

8.  F. Millar, Emperor in Roman World (1977) p. 277 and p. 570 for this: Acta Cypriani 1.

9.  Death as “koimesis” was not unknown in pagan epitaphs; on the word “cemetery,” F. Blanchetière, Le Christianisme Asiate… (1981) 459.

10. Act. Cypr. 1 and 3; Eus., H.E. 7.11.

11. Firmil., ap. Cypr. Ep. 75.10; Orig., Comm. in Mth. 39; Cypr., Ad Dem. 2–3; Arnob., Adv. Gentes, 1.3.

12. M. Pion. 15.5; Act. Cypr. 2.2; M. Fructuos. 1; Mar. and Jas. 2.4, 3.1 and esp. 4.3.

13. Eus., H.E. 7.13, the edict: P. Keresztes, A.N.R.W. 23.1.375 ff., on aftermath; T. D. Barnes, however, thinks “Christianity remained technically a capital crime,” Constantine and Eusebius (1981) 13. Martyr in Caesarea: Eus., H.E. 7.15; military martyrs listed in P. Keresztes, op. cit.

14. Dionys., ap. Eus. 7.10–11 and 7.23, esp. 7.23.4 where the “festival” is not necessarily Easter; C. Andresen, A.N.R.W. 23.1, esp. 416–28 and 420 for the dating: his entire study is important for what follows.

15. Eus., H.E. 7.11.8 and 7.10.8, with Ex. 20.5.

16. Eus., H.E., 7.21.2, with Andresen, A.N.R.W. 23.1.427/8 and pp. 428 ff.: the letter belongs with Aemilianus’s revolt, during spring 262.

17. Eus., Η.Ε., 7.32.5: this Eus. left Alexandria for Syria and the affair of Paul in Antioch, after the events of the siege (7.32.8). The siege is not, then, in Aurelian’s reign, but belongs in the 260s: cf. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution (1965) 446–7. In general, Andresen, op. cit., pp. 428 ff. and Eus., H.E. 7.32.10, for the vote and the council (synedrion): Eus. is perhaps exact in his formal language here.

18. Eus. 7.13, to others elsewhere.

19. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution (1965) 440–77, most vigorous, but not convincing.

20. Orig., Hom. in Jer. 4.2–3: cf. Hom. in Jos. 21.1: Comm. in Mth. Series 61.

21. Tert., De Pud. 1.6; Hippol., Ref. 9.12.21, on adultery: Cypr., Ep. 55.6 and 55.13, Eus., H.E., on lapsing.

22. Cypr., De Laps. 35, on penance; J. Burnaby, Amor Dei (1938) 237.

23. L. W. Countryman, The Rich Christian (1980) 183 ff.

24. Cypr., De Laps. 28.1.

25. Didascalia Apostolorum, ed. R. H. Connolly (1929), the fundamental study to whose introduction, text and index I refer for what follows. On dating, P. Galtier, R.H.E. 42 (1947) 319: a pre-Decian date does not entirely affect my use of it.

26. Can. Elvira 67, on hairstyles (viri cinerarii!).

27. Bathing in R. Ginouvès, Balaneutike (1962) 220–2; Clem. Alex., Paedag. 3.5.

28. Didascalia, ed. Connolly, p. 120.

II

Mani and his Gospel have attracted some of the outstanding scholarship of this century: the best brief book is still H. C. Puech, Le Manichéisme (1949), while F. C. Burkitt, The Religion of the Manichees (1978, repr.) is also valuable. W. Sundermann, Mitteliranische Manichäische Texte Kirchengeschichtlichen Inhalts (Berlin, 1981), with bibliography of his earlier articles, and Mary Boyce, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (1975) are brilliant studies of the Central Asian material; the various papers by W. B. Henning, edited now by M. Boyce (1978, Acta Iranica 15–16) in two volumes, are masterpieces of wide learning and insight. The Greek Codex is published by A. Henrichs, L. Koenen in Z.P.E. 5 (1970) 97, 9 (1975) 1, 32 (1978) 87 and 48 (1982) 1; the first parts are translated into English by R. Cameron, A. J. Dewey, The Cologne Mani Codex… (1979) in Texts and Translations 15, of the Society of Biblical Literature, with bibliography. For the discovery, A. Henrichs, H.S.C.P. (1979) 339. In North Africa, F. Decret, L’Afrique Manichéenne (1978); in the Roman Empire, P. R. L. Brown, J.R.S. (1969) 92, a brilliant study of wide interest, and the memorable chap. 5 of his Augustine of Hippo (1967). I. Gruenewald, Manichaeism and Judaism, Z.P.E. 50 (1983) 29 has most of the recent bibliography; the studies of S. N. C. Lieu in J.T.S. (1981) 153, Jhb. Ant. U. Christ (1983) 152 esp. 190 ff. and B.J.R.L. (1979–80) 132 break new ground, especially on Manichaeism in China and the East. I owe a general debt to his advice and also to his introductory The Religion of Light (1979), published by the Centre of Asian Studies, Hong Kong University: his forthcoming book will greatly enlarge our knowledge of this subject.

1.  H. I. Marrou, C.R.A.I. (1973) 533; in general, M. Simon, Early Christian Lit.… In Honor, R. M. Grant (ed. Schoedel, Wilken, 1979) 101.

2.  Journeys, in A. Henrichs, L. Koenen, Z.P.E. 48 (1982) 1–3 and W. Sundermann, Acta Orientalia (Copenhagen) 1974, 135 ff. and Act. Orient. (Hungar., Budapest) (1971) 82 ff.

3.  Advice, in W. Sundermann, Mitteliranische Manichäische Texte… (1981) 35.

4.  F. F. Church, G. G. Stroumsa, V.C. (1981) esp. p. 49.

5.  W. B. Henning, B.S.O.A.S. 10 (1942) 949 ff.; W. Sundermann, Mitteliranische Manich. Texte (1981) 130 ff. on Kustaios, the possible source for these traditions, and also M.’s interpreter, Bar Nuh.

6.  S. N. C. Lieu, J.T.S. (1981) 161–2, on hierarchy; Kephalaia 154 and H. C. Puech, Le Manichéisme (1949) 62–4, on universality.

7.  M.’s writings, esp. W. B. Henning, B.S.O.A.S. 11 (1943–6) 52–4; Parthian, in M. Boyce, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian… (1976) 40, “Greek, Indian, Syriac,” in Sundermann, Mitteliranische Manich. Texte (1981) 87.

8.  China, in S. Lieu, Religion of Light (1979) 26; Roman persecution, E. H. Kaden, in Festschr. H. Lewald (1953, Basel) 55; Byzant., now in Lieu, Jhb. A. u. C. (1983) 152; Aug., in Conf. 3·11·9·

9.  Coptic Studies, surveyed by A. Böhlig, in Mysterion u. Wahrheit, Gesammelte Beiträge… (1968) 177–87; A. Henrichs, H.S.C.P. (1979) 352–4, on the new Codex as a “highly problematic source,” a timely warning to historians.

10. A. Henrichs, H.S.C.P. (1973) 23, on Baptists; H.S.C.P. (1979) 354–67, on Elchesai with Eus., H.E. 6.38.

11. C.M.C. 3.2–5.3; 13.2, with L. Koenen, Illin. Class. Stud. (1978) 167–76; C.M.C. 18–23 and 63 (the great Vision); C.M.C. 63–8 (grace).

12. C.M.C. 89–91 (Baptists’ attack); 77–9 (dark Vision).

13. C.M.C. 33.1, 40.1 (Helper); 45–62 (tradition).

14. Sundermann (1981) 117–9 and P 41 (vision for the Syrian, probably sister of Zenobia); the Twin, e.g. C.M.C. 164.

15. Sundermann (1981) 102–4.

16. On hunting, Z.P.E. 48 (1982) 23–7 and Sundermann (1981) 116 for another hunter and tree pruner; Z.P.E. 48 (1982) 6 and n. 17 for important doubts (which I share) about these stories’ historicity: they reinforce points in Manichaean teaching, which perhaps caused their invention.

17. Most recently, I. Gruenwald, Z.P.E. 50 (1983) 29; C.M.C. 48.1–63 (Baraies’s defence of Mani).

18. C.M.C. 80–93, the quarrel; on M.’s debts to earlier thinkers, B. Aland and also A. Böhlig, in Syncretismus im Syrisch.–persisch. Kulturgebiet, ed. A. Dietrich (1975) pp. 123 and 144.

19. A. Henrichs, B.A.S.P. (1979) 85; Aug., De Morib. Manich. 29; S. N. C. Lieu, J.T.S. (1981) 168–72.

20. Best accounts in H. C. Puech (1949), P. R. L. Brown, Augustine (1967) chap. 5 and Brown, J.R.S. (1969) 92.

21. Charity, in S. Lieu, Jhb. A. u. C. (1983) 211 with Aug., Conf. 3.10.8. F. C. Burkitt, Religion of the Manichees (1925) 64–5 on the 1,468 years, known also to Al-Nadim, the bookseller-polymath in 10th-cent. Baghdad.

22. C.M.C. 66.4–7 and S. Lieu, Jhb. A. u. C. (1983) 197, on Christ; E. Rose, Die Manichäische Christologie (1979).

23. Well stressed by P. Brown, Augustine, p. 56.

24. V. Arnold-Doeben, Die Bildersprache des Manichäismus (1978), on imagery.

25. W. B. Henning, B.S.O.A.S. 12 (1947–8) 306, the folio; pp. 310–1, the drawings.

26. P. W. Van Der Horst, J. Mansfield, An Alexandrian Platonist Against Dualism (1974) chap. 12; on Mani’s Book of Giants, a brilliant study by W. B. Henning, B.S.O.A.S. 11 (1943) 52–74, arguing for the importance of the Book of Enoch. Mani never used Iranian mythology.

27. F. Decret, L’Afrique Manichéenne 1 (1978) 176–7 (traders) and esp. 205–10, on ages, occupations and the “apologetique du souk.” His pp. 354–77 give a prosopography, to which add S. and J. Lieu, J.T.S. (1981) 173; soldier, in Epiphan. Panar. 66.1.

28. F. Decret, L’Afr. Manichéenne 1 (1978) 205; Z.P.E. 48 (1982) 15.

29. W. Sundermann (1981) 92, with 105–6 (Shapur’s letter of protection); cf. 58 ff.; on the Shahburagan, two fine recovery jobs by D. Mackenzie, B.S.O.A.S. (1979) 500 and (1980) 288.

30. Sundermann (1981) 39, on Mar Ammo.

31. On Zenobia, H. Schaeder, Gnomon (1933) 344; Sundermann, pp. 41 ff. and 123; on Z.’s Jewish/Christian “sympathies,” F. Millar, J.R.S. (1971) 12–13, omitting, however, the Manichaean evidence.

32. Esp. Z.P.E. 48 (1982) 13–15; at Hira, J. S. Trimingham, Christianity Among the Arabs (1979) 157–8, with bibliogr.

33. C. H. Roberts, Rylands Papyr. 469.

III

1.  Generally, R. MacMullen, Roman Government’s Response to Crisis (1976), for the issues. F. Millar, The Roman Empire and Its Neighbours (1981) 239–49, on building; R. M. Harrison, Actes du Colloque sur la Lycie Antique (1980) 109; F. Millar, J.R.S. (1969) 12.

2.  C. Foss, Ephesus after Antiquity (1979) 3 n. 3; L. Robert, Hellenica (1948) 119; P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972) 16; W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution… (1965) 442–5 and 458–9; S. Johnson, Late Roman Fortifications (1983); Cod. J. 11.42.1, for funding.

3.  A. H. M. Jones, Later Roman Empire 26–32; 37–70, with R. MacMullen, Klio (1981) 451; R. Duncan-Jones, Chiron (1978) 541 and P. A. Brunt, J.R.S. (1981) 170–1.

4.  R. MacMullen, Response… (1976) 16–22 doubts the broader theories which have been built on art. However, in most cases, the patrons’ tastes were relevant, and historically significant. The boldest account is still G. Mathew’s brilliant Byzantine Aesthetics (1963) chaps. 1–3.

5.  E. R. Dodds, Pagans and Christians… (1965) 137; W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution (1965) 461; cf. the legends of martyrs in Ancyra, of no historical worth for the 270s, in C. Foss, D.O.P. (1977) 32.3.

6.  J. Geffcken, The Last Days of Greco-Roman Paganism (1978, Eng. ed.) 25.

7.  On theology, J. H. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change… (1979) 243.

8.  Inscr. Did. 159; Or. Sib. 13 (composed in the 260s), passim.

9.  B.M.C. (Ionia) p. 45; Himerius, Or. 11.3, for 4th-cent. Claros: J. Geffcken, Last Days… (1978) 27, on Delphi.

10. I. Did. 159, with L. Robert, Hellenica 4 (1948) 25 and 75; 6 (1948) 119–21 and 10–11 (1960) 440, improving on Rehm’s commentary; Makarios’s paganism, in Milet 1.9 no. 339.

11. L. Vidmann, Syll. Inscr. Relig. Isiac. et Serapiac. (1969) no. 282, with bibliogr.

12. C. Roueché, J.R.S. (1981) 119; Wessely, Stud. Pal. 5.121, with L. Robert, Hellenica 5.61–2 and 11–12 (1960) 355; lines 14–15 show these Olympics were (revived by) the gift of Gallienus; P. Oxy. 2476 with Chron. d’Eg. (1971) 136 and L.R., B. Epig. (1972) 612; P. Oxy. 3367 and 3116 with J. D. Thomas, Collectanea Papyrologica (ed. A. E. Hanson, 1976) 471; P. Oslo 3.85.

13. J. D. Thomas, op. cit. (1976) 473, with G. Méautis, Hermopolis la Grande (1918) 152–5.

14. On a “grant,” L. Robert, H.S.C.P. (1977) 33, Hellenica 11–12 (1960) 359–68 and B. Epig. (1972) 500 insists it is not financial, a more natural interpretation; Imperial victories and games in P. Oxy. 3116 and 3367.

15. Wilck., Chrest. 425 and P. Oxy. 2903, with P. J. Parsons, Collectanea Papyrologica (ed. A. E. Hanson, 1976) 438–40, importantly; cf. P. Oxy. 2892 with E. G. Turner, H.S.C.P. (1975) 16.

16. N. Cardus, Autobiography (1955) p. 137.

17. L. Robert, Hellenica 11–12 (1960) 365–7.

18. L. Robert, B. Epig. (1982) 420, for quotation.

19. P. Oxy. 1025; P. Mert. 1.26, with C. H. Roberts, J.E.A. (1934) 21–6; P. Oxy. 1256.12; for a Serapis festival at this date, F. Wormald, J.E.A. (1929) 239–42; G. Ronchi, Lexicon Theonymon… Fasc. 2 (Milan, 1974) 479–80, for letters, though the whole lexicon has many others too, a useful key; at Hermopolis, C.P. Hermopolis 125, with G. Méautis, Hermopolis (1918) 175–6.

20. C.I.L. 8.8457; H. Graillot, R.A. 3 (1904) 322.

21. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution (1965) 452; but see A. Beschaouch, C.R.A.I. (1975) 117 for counter-evidence, with Ann. Ep. (1969–70) 657.

22. I.G.L.S. 1799–1800, with H. R. Baldus, Uranius Antoninus (1971) 250, for Cronos; H. Seyrig. Mél. Univ. St. Jos. 37 (1960–1) 261, for Nemesis.

23. P. Oxy. 2144.

24. P. A. Février, A.N.R.W. 10.2 (1982) 351–2, with texts; Thala, Ann. Epig. (1905) 35.

25. Above all, C. Lepelley, Les Cités de l’Afrique Romaine au Bas-Empire (1979), a fundamental study; vol. 1.304–6, for list, with pp. 345–6 for pagan cults; the sequel, Lepelley, 343–69 and 376 ff. (on Augustine).

26. Survey and bibliogr. in C. Lepelley, Les Cités de l’Afrique… (1979) 243–303; I am not denying the renewed “euergetism” in Africa from 275 to 439, summarized on his p. 303 and p. 315. In general, I am following A. H. M. Jones, e.g. Later Roman Empire, II. 726 ff. and, by implication, P. R. L. Brown, Making of L.A. (1978) 45–51; J.H. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change… (1979) 231–4, a clear statement.

27. Evidence all in C. Foss, Z.P.E. 26 (1977) 161; dating, in J.-M. Carrié, Z.P.E. 35 (1979)213.

28. A. Laumonier, Les Cultes Indigènes en Carie (1958) 234 ff., esp. 286 ff., 322 ff. (the mysteries): I disagree with P. R. L. Brown, Making of L.A. (1978) 51: “the third century, as we know it, does not appear to have happened in Stratonikeia.”

IV

1.  T. D. Barnes, J.T.S. (1973) 431 rightly reduces the fragments, but I do not accept his new dating; see now B. Croke, Journ. Rel. Hist. (1984) 1 for reasons, most of which I endorse.

2.  J.-M. Demarolle, G.R.B.S. (1971) 49 for this, now invalid, evidence.

3.  Lact., M.P. 12.2–4 on the “fanum editissimum”; Acta Purg. Felicis (in Optatus, ed. Ziwsa, C.S.E.L. 26, 1893) p. 199.10–11, basilicas at Zama and Furni; A. Ferrua, Riv. di Arch. Crist. (1977) 225–8, the text from Altava.

4.  Eus., H.E. 8.11.1 with Lact., Div. Inst. 5.11.10, not, I think, big Eumeneia (though no bishop from E. is attested at Nicaea); A. Chastagnol, M.E.F.R.E. (1981) 381 toys with Orcistus as the place.

5.  F. Blanchetière, Le Christianisme Asiate… (1977) 338–45 and esp. 473, best list of Phrygian texts, with bibliogr.

6.  J. B. Segal, Edessa and Harran (1963); Eus., Onomast. s.v. Anaia, Jetheira, Kariatha; I will argue (against T. D. Barnes, Const. and Eus. 1981, pp. 110–1) for the traditional date elsewhere.

7.  Gesta ap. Zenoph. (Optatus, ed. Ziwsa, in C.S.E.L. 26, 1893) p. 194, esp. 25; cf. W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church (1952) 11–12, considering the crowd to be “fanatically Christian.” This cannot be right: the witnesses wish to contrast this rabble with the laity, the “populus dei.”

8.  J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia (1969) 429–30 with P. R. L. Brown, J.R.S. (1969) 97; on army, A. H. M. Jones, in Conflict Between Paganism… ed. Momigliano (1963) 33. Cf. my chap. 12.

9.  Porphyr., ap. Eus., Prep. Ev. 5.179D.

10. C. Pietri, Rev. Et. Aug. (1978) 3, an essential counter to the older views of R. Vielliard on the “identifiable” early tituli in Rome; on catacombs, a very open question, H. Brandenburg, Jhb. A. u. C, Ergänzbd. 11 (1984) 11; the Hypogaeum of the Aurelii does not, I think, show Christian influence, or “syncretism,” at this date: N. Himmelmann, Das Hypogäum der Aurelier (Mainz, 1975), but F. Bisconti, Augustinianum (1985) 889 still holds to this view, with good bibliogr.

11. Epiph., Panar. 69.2, with A. Martin, Rev. Et. Aug. (1984) 211, esp. 220–1: great uncertainty still remains; in Rome, note D. M. Novak, Anc. Society (1979) 281.

12. C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief… (1979) 1–25 and 64 ff.; list of papyri, some uncertainly Christian, in E. A. Judge, Jhrb A. u. C. (1977) 48–50; I reject his nos. 5 and 7, doubt 3 and cannot date 4. I cite P.S.I. 1492, dated 270–300 by J. Van Haelst, Proc. 12 Intern. Congr. Pap. (1970) 497; on Oxyrhynchus, P. Oxy. 1.43, with Judge 60–1 and A. Kasher, Jo. Jew. Stud. (1981) 151 (on Jews).

13. P. Bas. 17; P. Oxy. 2276 and wills in P. Oxy. 2404 and 907.

14. R. S. Bagnall, B.A.S.P. (1983) 105, for names; note, however, F. Blanchetière, Le Christianisme Asiate… (1981) 460–1 for pagan names in Christian families, attested on Phrygian epitaphs: B.’s “statistics” may on several counts be misleading.

15. A. Martin, Rev. Et. Aug. (1979) 6–7.

16. Cypr., Ep. 62.4; Eus. 7.22.7 ff. (not expressly to heathen too); Eus. 9.8.3–14, esp. 9.

17. On pagan grain distribution, note esp. the summary by E. G. Turner, H.S.C.P. (1975) 16–24.

18. Eus., H.E. 9.7 with R. M. Grant, in Christianity, Judaism… Studies for Morton Smith, ed. J. Neusner (1975) vol. 4, p. 161, n. 86 (very acute on multi/pleistoi in translation).

19. I quote T. D. Barnes, Cons. and Eus. (1981) 161.

20. Recent survey in Barnes, Cons. and Eus. (1981) 18 ff., 148 ff.

21. J. R. Fears, Princeps A Diis Electus (1977) 279; P. A. Brunt, J.R.S. (1979) 173–4.

22. J. H. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change… (1979) 237–44.

23. On Golden Age, Pan. Lat. 5.18.4–5 and A. D. Nock, J.R.S. (1947) 107 n. 57.

24. C.I.L. 3.4413, exaggerated by W. Seston, Bibl. Ec. Fr. d’Ath. et de Rome (1946) 225; in general, M. Simon, Acta Iranica (1978) 457, rightly minimizing Mithras as the main “opponent” of Christianity.

25. J. H. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change… (1979) 282–3; H. Seyrig, Syria (1971) 337 (important); Plato, Laws 945E–946; for Hadrian, M. Le Glay, B.C.H. (1976) 355.

26. Lib., Or. 61.7 with the portrait in J. Inan, E. Rosenbaum, Roman and Early Byz. Portrait Sculpture… (1966) pl. 39; T. D. Barnes, H.S.C.P. (1976) 240, G.R.B.S. (1978) 105 and J.T.S. (1973) 439 on the three persons; on Hierocles, Lact., Div. Inst. 5.2.12 does imply his book appeared after the persecution began, against Barnes, H.S.C.P. (1976) 240–3, unconvincing in his earlier dating.

27. E.J. Bickermann, Riv. di Filol. (1968) 298.

28. Mos. et Rom. Leg. Collatio 6.4, with H. Chadwick, in Studies in Hon. R. M. Grant (ed. W. Schoedel, R. L. Wilken) 1979. 135.

29. Collat. 15.3.2; T. D. Barnes, H.S.C.P. (1976) 246, for the dating, with bibliogr.; independently, I had concluded likewise, though I suppose it is not proven. R. M. Grant, in Ex Orbe Religionum… Studia G. Widengren (1972) 437, for opposite notions.

30. Eus., V.C. 2.50, on the philosopher-prophet. Eus., Prep. Εv. 4.135D–136A, an important text.

V

1.  T. D. Barnes, Const. and Eus. (1981) 150, for survey; G. E. M. de Sainte Croix, H.T.R (1954) 75 is still basic: I quote p. 104; on his pp. 91–2,1 take the “natural view” of the mention of sacrifice in the African Passio Crispinae 4.1.

2.  Eus., H.E. 9.5, with R. M. Grant, in Christianity, Judaism… Festschrift for Morton Smith, ed. J. Neusner (1975) vol. 4 p. 144, though white-robed priests are not a sign of Egyptianizing paganism; they were standard practice (contra his p. 159).

3.  Gesta ap. Zenoph. (Optatus, C.S.E.L. 26, ed. Ziwsa), pp. 197–204 and C. Lepelley, Les Cités de l’Afr. Romaine… I (1979) 335 ff., an excellent treatment; compare Aug., Contr. Cresc. 3.30.

4.  J. W. Barns, H. Chadwick, J.T.S. (1973) 445; Act. Phileae, Col. 2.

5.  Canons, in M. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae (1846) 23–45, 52 ff.; I cite Canon 3; 9 (volunteers); 11 (money); 10 (clergy); 14 (suffering); 6–7 (slaves); 5 (documents).

6.  P. Oxy. 2601.

7.  Eus., H.E. 9.7.2 and C.I.L. 3.12132.

8.  Eus., H.E. 9, 9A.4 (images).

9.  Eus., H.E. 9, 8.13–14.

10. Text in P. Franchi de Cavalieri, Studi e Testi 6 (1901): latest study by S. Mitchell, Anat. Studies (1982) 93, a very important addition: I differ only in doubting the full historicity.

11. Best in F. C. Burkitt, Euphemia and the Goth (1913); I quote pp. 105, 107 and 126 of his translation.

12. Habbib, p. 115 (Burkitt).

13. Burkitt, pp. 109 and 127–8 (I quote); records, on p. 101, p. 127.

14. Topography, brilliantly seen by S. Mitchell, Anat. Stud. (1982) 93 ff. and J. B. Segal, Edessa (1970) 83 ff. and Burkitt (1913) 43 ff.

15. I agree with Burkitt, p. 31, on the general reference of the synchronism in Shmona and Gurya 68; the prefatory dates may be corrupted by later tradition. “The governors’ names, Mysianus/Ausonius, are not yet verifiable: Burkitt, pp. 165 and 175, for their possible corruptions. The refs. to Constantine in the Habbib story are not credible if we accept a 312 dating: I am more uneasy about Habbib’s authenticity than about the other text’s but as yet Burkitt, pp. 5–34, is the basic summary of the case “for” and “against.” Segal, p. 82, rightly contrasts other Edessene martyrdoms, patently glorifying families known in the 5th-cent. city, to give them a “Christian” ancestry. These two texts are not obviously of that type.

16. W. H. C. Frend, Past and Pres. (1959) 10.

17. Discussions in D. Chitty, The Desert a City (1966); A. Guillaumont, Aux Origines du Monachisme Chrétien (1979) 218–27; H. Chadwick, in The Byz. Saint, ed. S. Hackel (1981) 11.

18. Pachom., V. Prima (Greek) chap. 5 and Chitty p. 12.

19. E. A. Judge, Jhrb. A. u. C. (1977) 72–89, though I do not accept his tentative suggestions that Isaac was more an “apotaktikos” than a solitary like Antony and thus corrects Athanasius’s emphasis. Athanas., V. Anton. 46, if historical, already shows monks known to pagan officials before 312: D. Chitty, The Desert… (1966) p. 6 n. 25.

20. Method., Sympos. 1.1.

21. On this aspect of Arius, R. C. Gregg and D. E. Groh, Early Arianism (1981) 88, quoting Bishop Alexander. Their overall case is not convincing: see now E. F. Osborn, Prudentia (1984) 51, for some counter-arguments.

22. Esp. S. N. C. Lieu, J.T.S. (1981) 153, with C.M.C. 89.9 and Z.P.E. 5 (1970) 169: food tests, P. Brown, J.R.S. (1969) 100 n. 100. Athan., V. Ant. 68 is interesting, as R. M. Grant, Studia… G. Widengren (1972) 438 saw.

23. Esp. P. R. L. Brown, Making of L.A. (1978) 81–101; on changes in village landholding, see A. K. Bowman, J.R.S. (1985) to appear, discussed previously in Oxford seminars. Brown’s thesis finds support, particularly, in the Abinnaeus archive, ed. H. I. Bell (1962).

24. Eus., H.E. 6.42.2; Athan., V. Ant. 3; Mart. Agape, Chione… 5.5; Habbib (ed. Burkitt) 6 ff.; Gesta ap. Zenophilum (C.S.E.L., vol. 26, 1893, ed. Ziwsa), p. 186 line 6. On wanderers in Egypt, compare H. Braunert, Die Binnenwanderung… (1964).

25. H. J. Drijvers, in The Byz. Saint (1981), ed. S. Hackel, p. 25 ff., for the religious motivation; P. Brown’s classic paper, J.R.S. (1971) 80, overstresses the social function in accounting for the rise, to my mind: many holy men positively shunned a role as “patron.”

26. W. Till, ed., Koptische Heiligen und Martyrerlegende (1935–6) 69.

27. J. Monat, in his De Opificio (S. Chrét. ed. 1974) 12–15 for theories of his early life. I owe a general debt to O. P. Nicholson and his Lactantius: Prophecy and Politics in the Age of Constantine (Oxford, D.Phil. 1981) chaps. 1–3. On retreat, Lact., Div. Inst. 4.18.2; the new Cicero, Div. Inst. 1.1.11; 6.1.2.

28. Lact., Div. Inst. 7.15–21, for the Sibyls; on the End, Div. Inst. 7.15.11.

29. T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981) 106–58, for survey; he argues for his datings in G.R.B.S. (1980) 191, but most of them are not convincing: I cannot argue the traditional case here, but will publish it elsewhere.

30. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981) 111–20, for content: the synchronism for 276/7 (Barnes p. 111) does not prove a first edition ended there. No Ms. supports this notion: E. emphasized the dating, perhaps simply because he borrowed it from Anatolius.

31. T. D. Barnes, Const. and Eus. (1981) 167–74, on form and content.

32. I will argue the datings of M. Pal. elsewhere, diverging from Barnes, 149–50.

33. Contra Barnes, G.R.B.S. (1980) 191; I cannot argue every point, but would emphasize H.E. 6.32.3. E. refers to Pamphilus there as a martyr and, above all, implies that the whole shape of his treatment of Origen in Bk. 6 has been shortened because of existing work, done in the Life of Pamphilus. This destroys the case for a Bk. 6 composed in the 290s. Note, too, the other post-Pamphilan passages, in a footnote to Barnes, G.R.B.S. (1980) 201: they are “later insertions,” in his view. On pp. 110–11 of Const. and Eus. the argument for Petra’s early inclusion in Palestine attaches to the text now in P. Oxy. 3574: this concerns Petra in Egypt, not Nabataea. Argument persists on its list, but not so as to support B.’s argument. The Onomasticon belongs in the 320s, making sense of Jerome’s sequence (contra, Barnes, p. 111).

34. Eus., H.E. 8.1.7.

CHAPTER 12

I

I have not multiplied primary references, as the fundamental book of T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981) has recently brought them and the bibliography together so accessibly: the older account by A. H. M. Jones, Constantine the Great and the Conversion of Europe (1949) is the best short work. J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (1979) 277–301 is also excellent; H. Dörries, Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins, Abhandl. der Akad. Wiss. Göttingen, Phil. Hist. Klasse, 3. Folge XXXIV (1954) is an indispensable work of cross-reference to the concepts and language in Constantine’s writings. His Constantine and Religious Liberty (1960, trans. R. H. Bainton) discusses a central issue. H. Chadwick, Conversion in Constantine the Great, Studies in Church History, 15 (1878, Oxford), ed. Derek Baker, pp. 1–15 is the most recent English discussion I have used. The outstanding study remains N. H. Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (1929, repr. 1972), a magisterial lecture with essential notes and bibliography.

1.  Lact., Μ.P. 15.I: generally, these women are seen as crypto-Christians: e.g. J. Vogt (1963).

2.  Ν. Η. Baynes (1972) 3.

3.  Barnes (1981) 38: Rome; prison disputes, Epiphan. Panar. 68.3.3. and Acta Saturnini 17.

4.  H. I. Marrou (1973) 533, esp. 535–6 with Epiphan. Panar. 69.2.1–7. Marrou, p. 538 on Dionysius.

5.  Eus., Vita Constantini (V.C. henceforward) 3.47.2. J. Vogt (1977) 135 produces no real evidence for his conjecture that Helena was a Jewess.

6.  Contra, Barnes (1981) 4.n.11.

7.  Barnes (1981) 194 thinks Helena and Const, “may have heard Lucian teach” in Nicomedia: no evidence of this. Lact., Μ.P. 24.9, with Barnes, J.R.S. (1973) 43·

8.  Pan. Lat. 6 (ed. Mynors, henceforward) 21.4, with R. Syme, History in Ovid (1978) 17 n. 3: R. MacMullen, Constantine (1968) 67 is slightly too trusting.

9.  Pan. Lat. 5.8.4.

10. V. C. de Clercq (1954), at length; A. Lippold (1981) and note F. Paschoud (1971) 342–3, citing a possible core of fact in Zos. 2.29. The list in O.’s keeping: Eus., H.E. 10.6.2.

11. Eus., H.E. 9.9A.4; Pan. Lat. 8.8.4.

12. Eus., H.E. 9.9.3; Pan. Lat. 9.14.3.

13. Pan. Lat. 12.2.4; cf. Arr. Anab. 4.4., or Suet., Otho 8.3 ff. for examples.

14. Eus., H.E. 9.9.

15. Lact., Μ.P. 44.5, with Barnes (1981) 306 n. 146:1 reject Grégoire’s insertion, translating the text as transmitted to refer to a “staurogram”: its word “Christum” is inexact.

16. K. Aland (1967), developing the observation of J. de Savignac (1963); E. Dinkier (1951) on a more remote Jewish background to these sorts of sign.

17. Eus., V. C. 1.27, with Barnes (1981) 266 n. 69–70.

18. Eus., V.C. 2.49; Liebeschuetz (1979) 279 n. 7 and 280.

19. D. Hoffman (1969) 173, a shrewd insight.

20. Contra Baynes (1972) 63, I accept that “caeleste signum” does mean “sign seen in the heavens”: the alternative, “most high,” is very strained. I accept, with M. Black (1970) 319 ff., that L. has muddled the “staurogram” with the “Christogram.” For an early Eastern origin of L.’s De Mort. Pers, see the important study of T. D. Barnes (1973).

21. Baynes (1972) 58 n. 31 for “Times” reports; also Barnes (1981) 306 n. 148, citing “Sky and Telescope” (1977–8) 185.

22. M. Guarducci, The Tomb of St. Peter (1960), esp. III, has not established that any of the “chi-rho” signs belong before 312, contrary to her own conclusions. For Phrygian inscriptions before 312, the same point emerges, summarized by F. Blanchetière, Le Christianisme Asiate… (1981)470–3.

23. Grenfell-Hunt, note on P. Oxy. 1611.56; compare E. G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (1971) no. 58.

24. P. Bruun, R.I.C. VII (1966) 62.

25. Barnes (1981) 43 n. 150 is wrong to trust the etymology discussed by J.-J. Hatt, Latomus (1950) 427: philologically, “labarum” from Celtic “labar” is possible, but Hatt cannot evade the problem of meaning: “speaking” or “babbling,” hardly therefore a “terrifying” sign (p. 429). H. Grégoire, Byzantion 4 (1927–8) 477 proposed “laureum,” distorted into Greek. Baynes accepted this on p. 64, but the distortion is very irregular and the word “laureum” is indeed “un terme incorrect du latin des camps” for the object. Did a Greek misunderstand a poorly Romanized German or Gaul’s pronunciation? It is a long shot, alas. I am grateful to Drs. J. H. Penney and J. B. Hains worth for confirming these points.

26. Eus., H.E. 9.9.10 and V.C. 1.40.2 are decisive against the reinterpretations by A. Alföldi (1939): Baynes 62–3 also accepts the cross.

27. R. MacMullen (1969) 77–8 is a recent sceptical account of the “reality”; I draw less of a line between the psychological pattern and what, therefore, was noticed. At more length, his article in G.R.B.S. (1968).

28. B. Berenson (1954) 56–7.

29. S. MacCormack, C.Q. (1975) 131, esp. 137–8; 146–7. In 69 A.D., note Suet., Galba passim; Vitell. 14.4; F. A. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law… (1954), esp. 81 ff.

30. Lact., Μ.P. 27.

31. Pan. Lat. 10.14.3–6 and Liebeschuetz, esp. 270–1; Christian’s Livy in P. Oxy. 4.657 and 668 (an early- and late-3rd-cent. pair of texts).

32. I well remember this analogy in an Oxford lecture by Peter Brown, in 1970; it did not, of course, express his own view of C.’s religious position.

33. H. A. Drake (1976) 61–79 is the most recent exploration of this.

34. This cardinal point in H. P. L’Orange and A. von Gerkan (1939) 110–11.

35. H. P. L’Orange and A. von Gerkan (1939), with S. MacCormack (1981) 33 ff.; McC. implies the ceremonial changed (p. 35), but we only know that its depiction on one monument was different (p. 36). The change is less if seen not against Republican precedent, but against the scenes on Galerius’s arch, admittedly with more pagan divinities: M. S. Pond Rothman (1977) 442.

36. Pan. Lat. 11.8.3–4.

37. Lact., M.P. 46.6 with V.C. 4.20 and A. Piganiol (1932) 76.

38. Lact., M.P. 48.1 with Eus., H.E. 10.5.4. ff.; L. has “quicquid (est) divinitatis” whereas E. has “ho ti pote theiotētos kai ouraniou pragmatos.”

39. H. von Soden, Urkunde, no. 11. H. Grégoire, Byzantion (1932) 650 and F. Millar, Emperor… (1977) 585–7 air the early date of 311/2. This is untenable: C. would not then have given the Christian reply, cited in Optatus 1.25. For a later date, Barnes (1975) 21. The double reference to Gaul suggests C. was there when the Donatists wrote: Barnes (1981) 65 and n. 26–7 reveal C. was in Gaul in spring/early summer 313. This solves the problem. The Donatists wrote in early 313; our text, I suspect, is their “libellus without a seal,” handed in at Carthage on April 15: August., Ep. 88.2. Against Barnes, with Millar, I take “hoc facinore” as persecution, not schism, and I punctuate before, not after, “nam.” Schism arose through persecution, so the distinction between the translations is slender.

40. Baynes (1972) 96 n. 3.

41. C. Theod. 7.20.2 with Barnes (1981) 309 n. 42 and (1982) chap. 5 n. 102, changing the date to 307. E. Gabba (1978) 45 proposes 326. B.’s early date is quite arbitrary: we cannot exclude a group of “Velovoci” in Thrace. If anything is wrong, may it not be “civitate”? Might not C. be addressing a Gallic group, one of many in his own army? Or perhaps Gauls had been settled as colonists in Thrace: Pan. Lat. 4.21 knows of settlements in the reverse direction, to (depopulated?) Velovoci. R. von Haehling (1978) helps to make the greeting unsurprising, even in 320.

42. Lib. Pontific. (ed. Duchesne) 172–5; 179–81; cf. C. Pietri, Roma Christiana I (1976) 6 ff, esp. 8 n. I. and 11–7.

43. Eus., V.C. 2.46 (“apply to governors and Praet. Pref.”): V.C. 3.31.

44. Eus., H.E. 10.7, to Anullinus (a pagan), with Baynes 10–11.

45. C. Theod. 16.2.1–6 and 14; Eus., H.E. 10.7.1–2; T. G. Elliott (1978) 326.

46. Orig., C. Cels. 8.75.

47. C. Theod. 16.2.3, 6.

48. C. Theod. 16.2.4: “decedens”; “supremae voluntatis.”

49. Barnes (1981) 50–3; J. Gaudemet (1947); A. Watson (1983) 61, on C. Theod. 9.12.1–2; A. Ehrhardt (1955) 127, on role of drafters.

50. H. von Soden, Urkunde no. 31; for August.’s disgust, Ad Don. Post Gesta 31.54; 33.56.

51. Barnes (1981) 54–61; Millar (1977) 584–90.

52. H. Dörriesi Das Selbstzeugnis (1954) 256–7 for “servant”; 76–7, for anger.

53. V.C. 2.28 and Optatus (C.S.E.L. XX, ed. C. Ziwsa, 1896) Appendix V.30.

54. Optatus (1893 ed.) 206.

55. Jerome, Chron. (ed. R. Helm, G.C.S. 1956) p.231 (Arnobius); Min. Fei., Octav. 16–40.

56. On Moses, Orig., C. Cels. 8.69 and Eus., H.E. 9.9.5.

57. Eus., V.C. 4.15.1, for C.’s involvement in one coin type: Eus. is perhaps exaggerating C.’s own role. P. Bruun, R.I.C. VII (1966) 61–4, on continuing Sun. S. Price, C.R. (1979) 278 for texts connecting Emps. to coins: it was surely exceptional.

58. Liban., Or. 30.6; Zos. 2.29;Julian, 336 Α–B; F. Paschoud (1971); S. M. Stern (1968) esp. 171 ff.

II

The Oration was first published by R. Stephanus in 1544 and discussed as genuine by J.-P. Rossignol, Virgile et Constantine le Grand (1845). My own view of it was given in an Oxford seminar in June, 1981; at that time, I was unaware that D. De Decker, in Lactance et Son Temps (1978) 85, ed. J. Fontaine, M. Perrin, had raised the possibility of a dating at the Antioch Council in April 325 (“peut fort bien constituer l’occasion”). He had, however, adduced no arguments for this suggestion. S. Mazzarino, Antico, Tardoantico ed Era Constantiniana I (Storia e Civilita 13, 1974) had also suggested 325, again not to my knowledge, but had thought of Constantinople as a venue, impossibly. Other discussions varied from 313 to “after 325,” never, however, at Antioch. I owe my detailed interest in the text to the very important study by T. D. Barnes in J.T.S. (1976) 414, which opted, however, for Serdica in 317 (cf. Barnes [1981] 71 ff, suggesting 321–324 instead). As this book goes to final proof, H. A. Drake, A.J.P. 106 (1985) 335 has argued that “concern to find an exact date may be profoundly misleading.” He also believes that the rejoicing people in Oratio 22.1 are the Christians of Rome: “a stunning admission with implications for interpreting the Oration, indeed for interpreting Constantine’s whole career, that have yet to be assessed.” This assessment is not needed: nothing in Drake’s study makes me wish to modify the exact date and setting given in what follows.

1.  A. H. M. Jones, T. C. Skeat (1954), following a suggestion by C. E. Stevens.

2.  Eus., V.C. 4.32.

3.  Baynes, Constantine the Great (1972) 56 n. 19.

4.  Photius, Cod. 127.

5.  John Lyd., De Magistr. 3.33.

6.  V.C. 4.29 + 4.33.

7.  E.g. E. Schwartz, P.-W. R.E. vi. 1427 and the oratio obliqua with accusative reflexive pronouns as (e.g.) 179 line 8 (ed. Heikel); A. Kurfess, Theol. Quart. (1950) esp. 165 n. 38; further list of “Latinisms,” in Kurfess (1920) 94. E. A. Fisher (1982) 173, esp. 178–82, on this and other Greek translations of Latin.

8.  V.C. 3.13, e.g.

9.  A. Kurfess, Mnemosyne (1912) 277, listing eight traces of Virgil’s Latin, six of which are irrelevant and two not conclusive. Kurfess (1920) extends the argument to chap. 21, but it is clear that Oratio, p. 186, 21–2 in Heikel’s text (G.C.S., Eusebius I, 1902) comment on the Greek Eclogue, lines 3 ff. of the page. K.’s case is unfounded: this issue is soluble, and I will survey it elsewhere.

10. E. Fisher (1982) 299–307; Eus., H.E. 8.17.2 or 2.2.4 and 2.25.3.

11. Barnes, Phoenix (1976) 184 on Oration, 16 and V.C. 1.19: a vital discovery.

12. Heikel, on p. 155.21, inserted a needless “ekklesia.” The double “te” joins two figures: the “naukleros” (surely a person?) and then the “tithēnē” (Church), p. 154.5–6, for “leaders and the rest”; 155.30 ff, for experts.

13. Orig., C. Cels 3.51; Basil, Letter 243.2: syllogos as “Christian congregation.” On saints, E. Williger, Hagios (1922) 83 ff.

14. Orat. 25; Heikel 191.27. On p. 156.16 the perfect passive has force; at p. 163 line II, it does not. As I doubt the “independent Latin original,” I do not believe it renders Latin “captus est.”

15. Barnes (1981) 76–7; Licin. as Diocl.’s successor: the contemporary Praxagoras FGH 219 T1 line 16. Barnes (1981) 214: the strangling. Barnes (1976) 422–3 opts for Lic. on general grounds.

16. 188.1–2, whereas 188.10 names Rome in a detached manner; 190.1.24 names Nicomedia likewise. Both, then, are distinct from the “dearest city.”

17. Barnes (1976) 418–20, but he then emends “Maximin” arbitrarily to “Maximian” (Galerius).

18. Barnes (1981) 39–41; 62–4.

19. Lact., M.P. 43–2, 44.10.

20. Eus., H.E. 9.2.2: 9.11.5: Prep. Ev. 4.2.10. Gelasius (in Theodoros Anagnostes, G.C.S. 1971, ed. F. C. Hansen) 158 connects Theotecnus with “Maximian,” a cave and oracles; cf. Theophanes 9.30 (de Boor), who goes on to reveal confusion with Maximin (33 ff.). Neither mentions statues or images, and their story is a patent confusion of Maximin with Galerius and (probably) the Didyma affair. Barnes, H.S.C.P. (1976) 252 is more indulgent to it.

21. Liban., Or. 11.121, with P. Petit, Libanius (1959) 173; G. Dagron, Byzance: Naissance… (1974) 57. Both these are admittedly later.

22. Liban., Or. II.94; Philostr., V.A. I.16; Eustathius in Dionys. Perieg. 916, for the very laurel. D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements (1947) I.211 ff., for a local picture. This is one objection to the argument of R. P. C. Hanson, J.T.S. (1973) 505. There are others.

III

1.  V.C. 2.23; 2.24–42 (First Letter to Heathen); 2.46 (buildings); 2.48–60 (Second Letter to Heathen), with H. Kraft (1955) 74–86; also, in Eusebius’s view, V.C. 2.44–45 (the bans on sacrifice).

2.  V.C. 4.8–13, with Barnes (1981) 397 n. 144 and 212 with notes.

3.  V.C. 2.28; 4.9–10 (Persia).

4.  V.C. 2.55; 57–8; 60.

5.  CIL. III.352 with A. Chastagnol (1981).

6.  Barnes, A.J.A.H. 3 (1978) 53 has also discussed these details; he does not, however, bring C. to Antioch for Good Friday and thus my reconstruction differs.

7.  P. Oxy. 1261; 1626; V.C. 2.72.

8.  P. Bruun, R.I.C. VII (1966) 77 and 664; Malalas 318–9 (Bonn) does actually bring C. to Antioch, a local “fact” he may recall correctly.

9.  Barnes (1975) 173; Porfyrius (ed. Polara) 1.1–9; Poem 24 (adultery).

10. Porfyr. 5.I and 14.9–12 and 25.

11. Most recently, A. Wlosok (1984) 257–62, with the full doxography; Lact., Phoen. 151–2 (Loeb, Minor Latin Poets, ed. J. W. Duff). Wlosok airs a date of 303/4; note the phoenix coin in 326, at Rome: Bruun, R.I.C. VII.328.

12. John Salisb., Policratic. 411B (Webb, Oxford, 1909): three correct classical events precede this, all derived from Justin. I am indebted to O. P. Nicholson for the germ of what follows.

13. O.G.I.S. 720, and J. Baillet (1922) 282; Lact., Phoen. 169–70.

14. Barnes (1981) 202–6.

15. Baynes, 20–1 and C. Foss (1977) 29: note, too, p. 36 (possible visit by C. before 327), Barnes (1981) 2.

16. Barnes (1978) 53 for the evidence in detail: Opitz, Urkunde 18.3, for the new Antioch bishop. Athan., Apol. Sec. 74.; 76.3 for Ossius in Alexandria, an event which I date early in 325, before the Antioch Council.

17. E. Schwartz (1905) 271, with E. Seeberg (1913) and J. R. Nyman (1961); D. Holland, Z.K.G. (1970) 163 adds nothing of substance.

18. H. Chadwick (1958) 292; Athanas., Apol. De Fug. S. 2: Ossius presided at each council he attended.

19. Barnes, J.T.S. (1976) 417 lays weight on C.’s titles in the Oratio Mss. Const, became “Niketes/Victor” after Nov. 324: the longer Ms. ignores this honour. However, so does the Eusebian heading to the Sapor letter (V.C. 4.9); the varying Mss. readings for the Oratio’s heading suggest no one official, full titulature had been transmitted. The omission, then, is not evidence for a date before 324; the Sapor letter is probably after Nov. 324/5, perhaps long after, C. T. Ehrhardt, Ζ.P.Ε. 38 (1980) 180 n. 22 also observes that “victor” is used in several inscriptions dated before Nov. 324: the title then, is not a firm criterion. I forbear to quote each chapter and verse of the Oratio for the running analysis which follows.

20. Orat. 6, with Maximin, Eus., H.E. 9.7.8.

21. Orat. 7, with Pan. Lat. 6.22.1–2: an addition to the intriguing study of W. Speyer (1977) 39.

22. Orat. 16, with Barnes H.S.C.P. (1976) 251, a vital observation.

23. V.C. 3 49·

24. Orat. 18, with A. Kurfess (1936) and (1952); M. L. Guillaumin (1978), with bibliogr.

25. Orig., C. Cels. 7.53 and 56; Lact., Div. Inst. 4.15.28.

26. Cic, De Div. 2.56; Aug. Civ. Dei 18.23 quotes the acrostic, without the last seven lines, spelling “Stauros”: this does not prove they have been interpolated into the Oratio: Baynes, Constantine the Great (1972) 51–2 for the controversy.

27. Orat. 19 line 25 (Heikel).

28. Κ. Prüm (1929); most recently, C. Monteleone (1975).

29. A. Kurfess, Mnemosyne (1912) 277 listed eight signs of the Latin, of which six are not evident, one is ambiguous and one is a single word (“epainoi” for “laudes”: p. 184.10), which may be fortuitous.

30. At 183.18–19, I read “ollut’ enīpē Loigios Assuriōn,” against Wilamowitz’s conjectures, and I punctuate before “thallei”: Greek text and commentary then coincide neatly.

31. Orat. 21, with our Sib. Or. 8.195; at Ecl. 4.62, C. and his translators read “cui,” not “qui,” a useful addition to the text’s history, omitted in the O.C.T. Virgil (ed. Mynors).

32. R. G. M. Nisbet (1978) 59 is most convincing: I presume Lact., Div. Inst. 7.24.12 quotes lines from a pre-Virgilian Sibyl, supporting Nisbet’s argument. For Pollio, Jos. A.J. 14.388; 15.343.

33. Lact., M.P. 14.1.

34. Kraft (1955) 146: “kein Theologe oder Philosoph.” J. Μ. Rist (1981) 155–9 suggests three near-Arian errors in Orat. 9: (i) the absence of the word “homoousios.” This, he admits, only emerged after Nicaea. (ii) The speaker implies the second “ousia” owes its “hyparxis” to the first. This (he suggests) was already suspect at Antioch and its council’s letter avoids “hyparxis” altogether. However, the Letter survives only in Syriac, in which these fine distinctions are not obviously expressible: Rist argues from the Greek version, composed in this century by E. Schwartz (Opitz, Urkunde 18). (iii) Father as “Father of the Logos” was denied already in the Antioch Letter. True, the Letter does have an anti-Arian tone, but the Son is expressly called the “begotten son of the Father.” After Nicaea, Orat. 9 would seem dangerously Arian, but not (in my view) at Antioch, in a sermon in April, 325. For the ambiguities of Antioch, see esp. L. Abramowski, Zts. für Kirchengesch. 86 (1975) 356, an excellent study.

35. V.C. 2.69 and 71: a crafty letter, not to be taken literally. I must emphasize again that I date Ossius’s synod in Alexandria to before the Antioch Council: above, n. 16.

36. Opitz, Urkunde 20: cf. V.C. 3.6, for haste. We do not know where C. was when he wrote this. Perhaps he left Antioch by ship (as Ossius would); Antioch to Nicaea is 706 miles by land (Itin. Bordeaux Pilgrim), quite manageable between April 18 and May 31.

37. Optatus I.22.

38. I differ here from Millar (1977) 594–7 and 605–7, whose account tends to emphasize the role of petitions and independent Church activity, rather than C.’s own initiative.

39. V.C. 3.15–6.

40. V.C. 3.10 and 13.

41. H. Chadwick (1960) 371; Philostorgius 1.9A (G.C.S., ed. Bidez: 1981 ed.) p. 10 lines 25 ff.; Optatus 1.26, for his role in 315.

42. Socr., H.E. I.10, diverging from the preface of Eus., V.C. 3.64, perhaps correctly.

IV

1.  Men. Rhet. 422.16 and 423.25 (ed. Russell-Wilson). Orat. II.

2.  M. R. Alföldi (1964) 10, a fine study, but I reject her choice on pp. 13 ff.

3.  C. Theod. 16.10.1 and V.C. 4.62.

4.  Baynes, Constantine the Great (1972) 29 n. 76, on C. and unity.

5.  E. Heck (1972) on Div. Inst. 1.1.13 and 7.26.11; J. Gaudemet (1980) 401, reviewing the C.-Lact. question.

6.  M. L. Guillaumin (1978) 185; Div. Inst. 4.15; 1.19.5; 7.24.

7.  Lact., third book, “To Probus,” in Jerome, Comm. in Ep. ad Gal. 50.2: cites Sib. and Virg. on whiteness of Gauls’ bodies.

8.  Justice, e.g. Bk. 5 and Div. Inst. 1.1.13.

9.  M. Perrin (1978) 203 and R. M. Ogilvie (1978) 79–80, on Plato; J. M. Pfattisch (1910), esp. 411 ff., contrasting the Oratio’s Plato with Eusebius’s uses.

10. Barnes, J.R.S. (1973) 69, on these differences and dates.

11. Div. Inst. 2.3–5; 4.25; 7.5; 4.29; 4.21; Ogilvie (1978) 33 ff. on Hermes, with 6.25, 7.4, 7.9, 7.13 and 7.18. Cross: 4.26–7.

12. Pan. Lat. 6.21.4; Porfyr. 14.3 ff.: also P. Courcelle (1957) for other examples, including Carausius’s earlier, Virgilian coin slogan.

13. M. Perrin (1978) 203, on L.’s Plato.

14. J. M. Dillon (1977) 401 ff. is decisive here, against J. Waszink.

15. Barnes (1981) 74 claims a “marked similarity”; nor is there any evidence of Numenius’s On the Good (a dialogue: Numenius, F3–4, Des Places). N.’s Supreme god, notoriously, was not a Creator, or involved in Creation.

16. Ogilvie (1978) 79–80 acutely observed that Lact. (Epitome 63.1) did not use Calcid. 29E: did the trans, not yet exist?

17. I know of no study of the Const.-Lact.-Ossius axis which does justice to these personal elements, C.’s own, in his Oration; Heim (1978) 56, for C.’s other possible initiatives.

18. E. R. Dodds, Pagans and Christians… (1965) 80 n. 2, quoting Wilamowitz.

19. Orat. 2.2; 3.3.; 5.1; 15.2; 26.1–2 on God’s benefits to C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: I

K. Aland, Bemerkungen zur Alter und Entstehung des Christogrammes, Studien zur Überlieferung des N.T. ν Seines Textes (1967) 173.

A. Alföldi, Hoc Signo Victor Eris, Pisciculi…, F. J. Dölger, A. u. C. Ergänzbd. I(1939) I.

T. D. Barnes, Lactantius and Constantine, J.R.S. (1973)29.

T. D. Barnes, The Beginnings of Donatism, J.T.S. (1975) 13.

T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981).

N. H. Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (1972, 2ND ed.).

Β. Berenson, The Arch of Constantine (1954).

M. Black, The Chi-Rho Sign: Christogram or Staurogram?, Biblical and Historical Essays…, F. F. Bruce, ed. Gasque and Martin (1970) 319.

V. C. de Clercq, Ossius of Cordova (1954).

E. Dinkier, Zur Geschichte des Kreuzsymbols, Z.T.K. (1951) 148.

Η. A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine…, Univ. of California Publ. Class. Stud. 15(1976).

A. Ehrhardt, Constantins des Grossen Religionspolitik u. Gesetzgebung, Ζ.S.S., Röm. Abt. 72 (1955) 127.

Τ. G. Elliott, Tax Exemptions Granted to Clerics by Constantine and Constantius, Phoenix (1978) 326.

E. Gabba, I Cristiani dell’Esercito Romano del Quarto Secolo, in Transformations et Conflits au I Vèrne Siècle. Colloque 1970 (1978, Bonn) 35.

J. Gaudemet, La Législation Religieuse de Constantin, Rev. de l’Hist. de l’Eglise de France 33 (1947) 25.

R. von Haehling, Die Religionszugehörigkeit der Hohen Amtsträger… seit Constantin I bis 455 n. Chr. (1978).

J.-J. Hatt, La Vision de Constantin au Sanctuaire de Grand et l’Origine Celtique du Labarum, Latomus (1950) 427.

D. Hoffmann, Das Spätromische Bewegungsheer u. die Notitia, Epigraphische Studien, 7.1 (1969).

A. Lippold, Bischof Ossius von Cordova und Konstantin der Grosse, Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch. 92 (1881) I.

S. MacCormack, Roma, Constantinopolis, the Emperor and His Genius, C.Q.(1975) 131.

S. MacCormack, Art and Ceremonial in Late Antiquity (1981).

R. MacMullen, Constantine and the Miraculous, G.R.B.S. (1968) 81.

H. I. Marrou, L’ArianismeComme Phénomène Alexandrin, C.R.A.I. (973) 533·

F. G. Β. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (1977)·

H. P. L’Orange and A. von Gerkan, Der Spätantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinbogens (1939).

F. Paschoud, Zosime 2.29 et la Version Paienne de la Conversion de Constantin, Historia (1971) 334.

A. Piganiol. L’Empereur Constantin (1932).

M. S. Pond Rothman, The Thematic Organization of the Panel-Reliefs on the Arch of Galerius, A. J. A. (1977) 442.

J. de Savignac, Bodmer Papyrus XIV and XV, Scriptorium 17 (1963) 50.

S. M. Stern, ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s Account of How Christ’s Religion was Falsified, J.T.S. (1968) 128.

J. Vogt, Pagans and Christians in the Family of Constantine the Great, in Paganism and Christianity…, ed. A. Momigliano (1963) 38.

J. Vogt, Helena Augusta: The Cross and the Jews, Classical Folia 31 (1977) 135.

A. Watson, Roman Slave Law and Romanist Ideology, Phoenix (1983) 61.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: II

T. D. Barnes, The Emperor Constantine’s Good Friday Sermon, J.T.S. (1976) 414.

T. D. Barnes, Sossianus Hierocles and the Antecedents of the Great Persecution, H.S.C.P. (1976) 239.

T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981).

E. A. Fisher, Greek Translations of Latin Literature in the Fourth Century, Y.C.S. (1982) 173.

A. H. M. Jones, T. C. Skeat, Notes on the Genuineness of the Constantinian Documents in Eusebius’s Life of Constantine, J.E.H. (1954) 196.

A. Kurfess, Observatiunculae ad Eclogae Quartae Interpretationem et Versionem Graecam, Mnemosyne (1912) 277.

A. Kurfess, Vergili Vierte Ekloge in Kaiser Konstantins Rede an die Heilige Versammlung, Jhrsber. des Philolog. Vereins zu Berlin 64 (1920) 90.

A. Kurfess, Zu Kaiser Konstantins Rede an die Versammlung der Heiligen, Theologische Quartalschrift (1950) 145.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: III

L. Abramowski, Die Synode von Antiochien 324/5 und ihr Symbol, Zts. Für Kirchengesch. 86 (1975) 356.

J. Baillet, Constantin et le Dadouque d’Eleusis, C.R.A.I. (1922) 282.

T. D. Barnes, Publius Optatianus Porfyrius, A.J.P. (1975) 173.

T. D. Barnes, Emperors and Bishops, A.D. 324–44: Some Problems, A.J. A.H. 3 (1978) 53.

T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981).

H. Chadwick, Ossius of Cordova and the Presidency of the Council of Antioch, J.T.S. (1958) 292.

H. Chadwick, Faith, Order and the Council of Nicaea, H.T.R. (1960) 171.

A. Chastagnol, L’Inscription Constantinienne d’Orcistus, M.E.F.R. (1981) 381.

C. Foss, Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara, D.O.P. (1977).

M. L. Guillaumin, L’Exploitation des Oracles Sibyllins par Lactance et par le Discours à I’Assemblée des Saints, in Lactance et Son Temps, ed. J. Fontaine, M. Perrin (1978) 185.

H. Kraft, Kaiser Konstantins Religiöse Entwicklung (1955).

Α. Kurfess, Ad Vergilii Eclogae IV Versionem Graecam, Philolog. Wochenschr. (1936) 364.

A. Kurfess, Kaiser Konstantin und die Erythräische Sibylle, Zts. für Relig. u. Geistesgesch. (1952) 42.

C. Monteleone, L’Egloga Quarta da Virgilio a Constantino (1975).

R. G. Μ. Nisbet, Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue: Easterners and Westerners, B.I.C.S. (1978) 59.

J. R. Nyman, The Synod at Antioch: 324/5. Studia Patristica IV (1961) 483. Κ. Prüm, Das Prophetenamt der Sibyllen in kirchl. Lit… ., 4 Ekloge Virgili Scholastik 4 (1929) 54.

J. M. Rist. Basil’s “Neoplatonism,” in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, ed. P.J. Fedwick, vol. I (1981) 155.

E. Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 3 (1959) 117–87.

Ε. Seeberg, Die Sýnode von Antioch in 324/5 (1913).

W. Speyer, Die Ursprung Warmer Quellen nach Heidn. und Christ. Deutung, Jhrb. A. u. C. (1977) 39.

A. Wlosok, Originalität, Kontinuität und Epigonentum in der Spätrömischen Literatur, in Proc. of VII Congress of Internat. Fed. of Soc. of Classical Studies, ed. J. Harmatta, vol. II (1984, Budapest) 297.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: IV

M. R. Alföldi, Die Sol-Comes Münze vom Jahre 325…, Mullus: Festschrift Τ. Klauser, Jhb. für A. u. C, Erganzbd. I (1964) 10.

A. Bolhuis, Die Rede Konstantins der Grossen an die Versammlung der Heiligen u. Lactantius, V.C. (1956) 25.

P. Courcelle, Les Exégèses Chrétiennes de la Quatrième Eglogue, R.E. A. (1957) 294·

D. de Decker, Le Discours à l’Assemblée des Saints… et l’Oeuvre de Lactance, in Lactance et Son Temps, ed. J. Fontaine, Μ. Perrin (1978) 75.

J. Μ. Dillon, The Middle Platonists (1977).

J. Gaudemet, Constantino e Lattanzio, Labeo XXVI (1980) 401.

M. L. Guillaumin, L’Exploitation des Oracles Sibyllins par Lactance…, in Lactance et Son Temps, ed. J. Fontaine, M. Perrin (1978) 185.

E. Heck, Die Dualistischen Zusätze u. die Kaiseranreden bei Lactantius (1972).

F. Heim, L’Influence Exercée par Constantin sur Lactance, in Lactance et Son Temps, ed. J. Fontaine, M. Perrin (1978) 56.

A. Kurfess, Zu Kaiser Konstantins Rede…, Theol. Quartalschr. (1950) 145.

R. M. Ogilvie, The Library of Lactantius (1978).

M. Perrin, Le Platon de Lactance, in Lactance et Son Temps, ed. J. Fontaine, M. Perrin (1978) 203.

J. M. Pfattisch, Plato’s Einfluss auf die Rede Konstantins an die Versammlung der Heiligen, T.Q. (1910) 399.

J. Schwartz, A Propos des Ch. 4 et 6 du De Mortibus Persecutorum, in Lactance et Son Temps, ed. J. Fontaine, M. Perrin (1978) 91.

CHAPTER 13

1.  Socr., H.E. I.I.

2.  Ruf., H.E. 10.2; Socr., H.E. 1.8.

3.  G. Downey, History of Antioch… (1961) 342–6.

4.  L. Duchesne, Mél. Renier (1887) 159–74 lies behind datings before 303, while H. Koch, Z.N. W. (1916) 61–7 is the basic study for a date c. 309; I have been encouraged in the preference for a later date by an important, long paper by G. de Sainte Croix, as yet unpublished; Elvira, Can. 25 (confessors); 60 (idols).

5.  G. de Sainte Croix, H.T.R. (1954) 76, for the edicts in the West; Aries, Can. 13; Ancyra 1–9.

6.  Elvira 70 (husbands); 64–5 (wives); 48 (deathbed); Neocaes., Can. 4 and bestiality in Ancyr. 16, with J. Boswell, Christian., Social Tolerance… (1980) 197. S. Laeuchli, Power and Sexuality… (1972) is an excessively hostile, but worthwhile, study of the council and its patterns.

7.  I cite Elvira 79, 6, 49, 81, 62, 36.

8.  Arles 7; Elvira 56.

9.  Eus., V.C. 2.45, believed, however, by T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (1981) 210.

10. E.g. the evidence in R. Bagnall, B.A.S.P. (1982) 10.5; J. A. Martin, Rev. Et. Aug. (1979) 1; J. H. Liebeschuetz, in Studies in Ch. History, ed. D. Baker, 16 (1979) 17; the rise of holy men is part of the same new presence in the countryside.

11. Cod. Theod. 16.2.2; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius 51, with 318 n. 82; legacies, Cod. Theod. 16.2.4; dodgers, 16.2.3 and 6.

12. Eus., V.C. 3.31.1–3, 32.1–2; on melting down, Eus., Tric. Or. 8.

13. On doles to Christian poor, Eus., V.C. 4.28 and 3.58; E. Patlagean, Pauvreté Economique et Pauvreté Sociale… (1977) esp. 186 ff.

14. Father Gregory, the former “hypsistarius”: note J. Bernardi, in the S.C. ed. of Greg. Naz., Orations (1978) I. p.8 and n. 3; Elvira, Can. 1–4.

15. P. R. L. Brown, J.R.S. (1961) esp. 8–9 on this.

16. Amm. Marc. 22.5.4; “gentleness” in 22.11.5, a very telling passage.

17. Cod. Theod. 15.12.1 andG. Ville, M.E.F.R. (1960) 312.

18. On churches, Cod. Theod. 4.22.1; 9.45.4 (asylum: 431 A.D.); Aug., Conf. 3.3.5, girlfriend.

19. Eus., V.C. 3.50; on Constantinople, caution advised by G. Dagron, Byzance… (1974)388–400.

20. E.g. A. H. M. Jones, Later Roman Empire (1964) 732–57; J. H. Liebeschuetz, Antioch (1972) 167 ff.: Liebeschuetz, p. 60, on ephebes; on gymnasia, A. H. M. Jones, Roman Economy (1974) 106 and E. G. Turner, Greek Papyri (1968) 84, whom I quote; contrary views in Alan Cameron, Circus Factions (1976) 216–17.

21. J. F. Matthews, Western Aristocracies and the Imperial Court (1975) 99–100; K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses (1982), an outstanding study; on pagan–Christian contrasts in giving, note L. Robert, Hellenica 11–12 (1960) 571.

22. Cod. Theod. 16.2.20 and 2.28, on legacies.

23. Cod. Theod. 8.8.1; 3.7.2.

24. Eus., V.C. 3.25 f. (Jerusalem); 3.55–6 (Aphaca and Aigai); Eus., P.E. 4.135C–136A (Antioch and Didyma); Aigai, Philostr., V. Ap. 1.13 with, most plausibly, N.J. Richardson, P. Burian, G.R.B.S. (1981) 283–5.

25. Firmicus, De Errore 16.4, with R. Turcan, Budé ed. (1982) 7–28.

26. G. Fowden, J.T.S. (1978) 53, an excellent survey; on Shenoute, J. Barns, Actes du 10 Congr. Internat, des Papyrologues (1964) 151–9, very chilling.

27. J. J. O’Donnell, Traditio (1979) 45 ff., for this aspect and much else; Aug., Ep. 16, fin. for “discord,” a very telling passage. Soc, H.E. 5.10, for a different response.

28. Eus., V.C. 3.57.4.

29. On Menas, Μ. Guarducci, Inscr. Creticae, II.303–4; A. Wilhelm, Jahreshefte 25 (1929) 54, a superb study of Attic examples; cf. B.C.H. (1958) 681, in Christian era; L. Robert, Hellenica 4.55–7, Philostr., V. Ap. 4.34.2; Damascius, ap. Phot. 131; L. Robert, B.C.H. (1977) 87, excellent.

30. Eus., V.C. 3.54.6.

31. Hiatus, in S. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony (1981) 35; tomb, in E. D. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage… (1982) 7–23, with V.C. 3.26; others, in V.C. 3.41–3.

32. V.C. 3.52.1, with E. D. Hunt, Holy Land… (1982).

33. E. D. Hunt, Holy Land… (1982) 131–5 is excellent, here.

34. Elvira, Can. 36 and R. Grigg, Viator (1977) 1–32, rejecting details in Lib. Pont., probably rightly; note V.C. 3.49 (Daniel); at Mambre, however, note Eus., Dem. Εν. 5.9.7–8.

35. Eus., Tricenn. Orat. 18; cf. Artemid. 2.35.1.

36. Suggestively sketched by P. R. L. Brown, Studies in Ch. History, ed. D. Baker, vol. 13 (1976) 14–15, with bibliogr.

37. On icons, Theod., Hist. Relig. 26 and the fine survey by E. Kitzinger, D.O.P. (1954) 85; his pp. 102–3 discuss the intensified interest in “presence.” Saints’ icons, best known in Thessalonica: R. S. Cormack, A.B.S.A. (1969) 17, esp. 22–3, 50–2; I suspect these were widespread elsewhere before 480–500, but cannot prove it. In Alexandria, before c. 600 A.D., Mir. Cyr. et Joh., P.G. 87.3560, with Kitzinger, 106 n. 66: icon of Christ.

38. N. Fernandez Marcos, Los Thaumata de Sofronio (1975); Basil, P.G. 85.608–12, with Philostr., V.S. p. 186 (Loeb); Therapon, in L. Deubner, De Incubatione (1900); on angehe presence and holy men, H. Chadwick, J.T.S. (1974) 63–5.

39. P. R. L. Brown, Making of Late Antiquity (1978) 92–3, 101.

40. Hermas, Mand. 11; Co. of Antioch, ed. F. Nau, Rév. de l’Orient Chrét. (1909) pp. 25–7, Can. 15, 23.

41. G. M. Brown, B.I.C.S. (1970) 96; cf. Ill. Class. Stud. (1976) 53–8; I quote questions 44.9 and 98.

42. H. C. Youtie, Z.P.E. (1975) 253, with P. Oxy. 925, 1150, 1926, etc.

43. P. R. L. Brown, The Cult of Saints (1981), with discussion by J. Fontaine, An. Boll. (1982) 16.

44. E. D. Hunt, Holy Land… (1982) 131 ff.

45. Oil, in (e.g.) P.G. 87.3669A; cf. T. Nissen, Byz. Zeitschr. (1939) 349–81; in general, L. Deubner, De Incubatione (1900); A. J. Festugière, Vie de Sainte Thecle; Côme et Damien; Cyr. et Jean (1971).

46. P. R. L. Brown, J.R.S. (1971) 80, esp. 87–8, slightly overstressing the social arbitration, as opposed to the intercession for sins before the Last Judgement; on Mary, A veril Cameron, J.T.S. (1978) 104–5.

47. G. Wolff, De Novissima Oraculorum Aetate (1854) 46–9, for texts; I accept his p. 36 on Claudian’s evidence (cf. p. 48).

48. Eus., P. Ev. 4.135C–136A.

49. Theos. Tub. (ed. Erbse) 6; Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexikon, s.v. theosophia.

50. A. Grabar, C.R.A.I. (1969) 264.

51. In general, A. de Waal, Ara Coeli oder die Sibylle des Augustus (1902) and H. Leclercq, Marie in Ara Coeli, D.A.C.L. 10 (1931–2) 2075, with bibliogr. The earliest version may have cited a prophetic “pythoness,” not a Sibyl.