Six
"Non in Sermone Regnum Dei" : Fifth-Century Views on Debate at Nicaea

The later fourth-century concerns over dialectical debate were inscribed into the subsequent tradition in a number of ways. Sermons on the in-comprehensibility of God represented the more subtle expression of the desire that Christian communities not be consumed by mutual testing over propositions about the divine nature; emphasis on the study of the physical cosmos served more directly to stem the flood of arguments concerning the Deity; the emphasis on an anagogic path based on the created order effectively obviated gnostic elitism. Still more direct articulations of the evils of competitive disputation became woven into later recollections of the Constantinian era. One such polemic was associated with the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Toward the Council of Nicaea

Soon after Constantine established himself as the sole master of the oikoumene after defeating Licinius in September 324, he called for a congress of his Christian subjects, particularly those from the newly incorporated Greek east. This first universal council, originally planned to meet in Ancyra, eventually took place in the Bithynian city of Nicaea. Though it would be speculative to wonder whether Constantine anticipated the subsequent import of the council and its enduring reputation

as a touchstone of orthodoxy, it is easy to see that the emperor had more immediate concerns. He called for the council to meet in May 325, just two months prior to the celebrations of his own vicennalia , the twentieth year of his accession, which were scheduled to occur at nearby Nicomedia, the civic rival of Nicaea.^[1]

Many Christians journeyed to the council at public expense using the cursus publicus both to greet their new patron and to celebrate the good fortunes of church and state, as the council was to last until the end of July and overlap with the vicennalia .^[2] Though some rancor existed among the participants in the opening days of the council, a more festive mood soon prevailed when, at Constantine's promptings, most attempted to demonstrate goodwill in public. In an irenic gesture, Constantine publicly burned the libelli that many Christians had brought for the purpose of accusing each other before their sovereign.^[3]

Somber though the business of confronting Christian "heresy" was, it constituted only a portion of the council's agenda. Neither the Arian party of Eusebius of Nicomedia nor the partisans of Alexander of Alexandria dominated the council of more than three hundred bishops, the vast majority of whom, especially those from the Latin west, were not as well-schooled as these two camps and had no strong interest in the prevailing theological controversies. Further, this council, unlike later imperial councils with extant invitation lists, included not only bishops and priests but also those outside the ecclesiastical hierarchy, such as confessors bearing the stigmata of persecution and other lay Christians.^[4] It is conceivable that pagan philosophers such as Iamblichus' student Sopater (who visited the court of Constantine in 327) also attended the meeting. In the final tally, nonpartisans were a significant presence at the council.^[5]

[1] Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3.15-16; Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.16; Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.25; Jerome, Chronicon 313F (Helm, ed., 231). See Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius , 219. On the rivalry between Nicomedia and Nicaea during the high empire, see L. Robert, "La titulature de Niche et de Nicomédie: la gloire et la haine," HSCP 81 (1977), 1-39.

[2] On Nicaea and imperial victory celebrations, see M. McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1986), 104-5.

[3] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.8; Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.17.

[4] C. Guarnieri, "Note sulla presenza dei laici ai concili fino al VI secolo," Vetera Christianorum 20 (1983): 77-91. Guarnieri argues that there was no general requirement for lay presence in councils in the second and third centuries.

In Constantine's imperial summons, the reason for the council was vague, perhaps deliberately so.^[6] The emperor indeed sought to reconcile the feuding parties in the so-called Arian dispute, but it is not dear how he thought the council could contribute to this goal. We can guess more confidently what the council was not supposed to do. In earlier attempts to mediate the controversy, the emperor had expressed deep dissatisfaction with philosophical dialectic as a sophistic technique that allowed the worse argument to prevail over the better one. From this we may reasonably deduce that he ruled out open dialectical debate on the contested issues from the councils program.^[7]

Perhaps confusion as to the aims of the council explains why no detailed stenographic records of the proceedings appear to have been kept, as was done at other important church synods.^[8] The precedents of previous ecclesiastical and secular proceedings, together with the dictates of practical wisdom, would have demanded that some record be maintained, even published, had the predominant goal of the council been to secure a formal refutation of a particular theological position.^[9] Thanks largely to the tireless and painstaking efforts of Otto Seeck, Hans Opitz, and other modem scholars engaged in the task of historical reconstruction, we now possess fuller and much more critically assessed knowledge about the Council of Nicaea than has been available since

[7] Oratio ad sanctos (originally dated 317 by Barnes, now dated 321 by him); see T. D. Barnes, "The Emperor Constantine's Good Friday Sermon," JTS n.s. 7 (1976): 414-23. R. Lane Fox has situated this sermon in Antioch on Good Friday of 325; see Pagans and Christians (New York, 1987), 627-35, esp. 634-35.

[8] Besides the symbol, we possess the twenty canons and the synodal decree that were produced by this first Christian imperial council. On the products of Nicaea, see A. Wickenhauser, "Beitrage zur Geschichte der Stenographie auf den Synoden des vierten Jahrhunderts nach Christus," Archiv für Stenographie 59 (1908): 4-9, 33-39; idem, "Zur Frage nach der Existenz von nicaenischen Synodalprotokollen," in F. Dölger, ed., Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit (Freiburg, 1913), 122-43; P. Batiffol, "Les sources de l'histoire du concile de Nicée," Échos d'Orient 24 (1925): 385-402.

[9] Constantius later recorded his private audiences with "troublesome" bishops, whom he tried to persuade with threats and cajoling; see the literature cited in T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), 276n. 56.

the mid- to late-fourth century.^[10] Yet even now the exact procedure at Nicaea remains a vexed, and seemingly insoluble, question.^[11]

It was certainly not for lack of interest that contemporaries neglected to consult and pass on the records of this council. Many factors contributed to the fact that the meetings proceedings quickly became obscure even as its outcomes proved (historically and juridically, if not theologically) important.

Though Arius' position and a handful of lesser bishops were condemned, there were few clear winners at Nicaea.^[12] Afterward, the dissatisfied parties gave their own conflicting interpretations of the council to promote their own interests.^[13] Much of this partisan literature was too deeply invested with immediate polemics and apologetics to be relevant to posterity.^[14]

Because the council arose from the failure of discussion, persuasion, and the normative exercise of authority to achieve peaceful resolutions to disputes in a number of important eastern congregations,^[15] subsequent overemphasis on unity rendered a set of acta unnecessary and undesirable. By contrast, the "products" of the council, the canons even more so than the symbol, were seen by some (especially those who championed a consensual process of decision making) as infinitely more important than the precise processes that led to them because they stood for unity and order.^[16]

Even so, the Nicene symbol,^[17] which subsequently became the cornerstone of orthodox definition, was not fully crystallized until the

[10] O. Seeck, "Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des nicänischen Konzils," ZKG 17 (1897): 1-71, 319-62; Opitz, Urkunden .

[11] See R. E. Person, The Mode of Theological Decision Making at the Early Ecumenical Councils: An Inquiry into the Function of Scripture and Tradition at the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus (Basel, 1978), 44. A possible second session is discussed in C. Luibhéid, "The Alleged Second Session of the Council of Nicaea," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 34 (1983): 165-74. Generally, it is wise to observe the caution of Hanson, in Search for the Christian Doctrine of God , 172: "The evidence available does not admit of our forming ingenious, elaborate and highly nuanced theories about the Council of Nicaea. Reconstructing the course of the Council is an interesting but rather futile pastime."

[12] The deposed bishops were Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarike, both subsequently recalled by Constantine; see Philostorgius, Hist. eccl . 1.10.

[13] See Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.1; Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.1.

[14] See, e.g., W. D. Hauschild, "Die antinizänische Synodalaktensammlung des Sabinus von Heraklea," VChr 24 (1970): 105-26, on Sabinus' Syntagma as a homoiousian reaction against Athanasius' De synodis (circa 363-67) and the latter's views about the significance of the Council of Nicaea.

[15] See Theodoret, Hist. eccl . 1.5-6.

[16] See Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.20.

[17] In Opitz, ed., Urkunden 22:4-6 and 24 (Athanasius Werke III , 43 and 51-52). The texts of the two creeds vary greatly.

Council of Constantinople in 381.^[18] Furthermore, the reaffirmation of the Nicene formulation as a criterion for orthodoxy in 381, after the promulgation of more than a dozen anti-Nicene creeds between 341 and 360,^[19] obscured the less edifying aspects of the first general council (the effects of which were effectively annulled after Constantine's death in 337) by focusing on Nicaea's product rather than on its context and process. The reinterpretation of Nicaea 325 in light of Constantinople 381 was echoed by the recasting of Constantine, the patron of the first general council, into the image of Theodosius I, the patron of the second council.^[20] Because of this dialectical relationship, the history of the early fourth century can only be seen through the refracting lens of the late fourth.

By the last quarter of the fourth century, the ranks of the antagonists of the earlier controversies and those who attended Nicaea had been considerably thinned by old age and sickness. The death of Athanasius, who attended the council as a young priest at the side of his bishop Alexander, marked the advent of the post-Nicene age. With all eyewitnesses dead, legends about Nicaea began to emerge.

At the time of the death of Theodosius I in 395, a new generation of Christians born after 325 had already grown to a ripe old age in an empire largely tolerant, if not always decidedly supportive, of the Christian cause. Local traditions, sacramental and liturgical practices, and theological tracts probably kept alive fragmented memories of this past, but there existed no coherent account like Eusebius' Historia ecclesiastica to detail the perceived triumph of Christianity under the reign of Constantine.^[21]

After Eusebius brought his grand processional narrative to a dose with Licinius' defeat by Constantine in 324, the genre of ecclesiastical

[18] See R. M. Grant, "Religion and Politics at the Council of Nicaea," Journal of Religion 55 (1975): 1-12; F. E. Sciuto, "Dalla Nicea a Costantinopoli: osservazioni sulla prima fase della stabilizzazione teologico-politica cristiana (325-381)," in La trasformazioni della cultura nella tarda antichità (Rome, 1985), 1:479-90; A. d'Alès, "Nicée, Constantinople: les premiers symboles de foi," RSR 26 (1936): 85-92; A. de Halleux, "La réception du symbole oecuménique, de Nicée à Chalcédoine," Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 61 (1985): 5-47. For the creeds subsequent import, see Evagrius Scholasticus, Hist. eccl . 3.14, on Zeno's henotikon letter of 482.

[19] See A. Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche (Breslau, 1897; 3d ed., Hildesheim, 1962), 183-209; Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius , 229-32 (app. 10, "Creeds and Councils 337-361").

[20] See J. Taylor, "The First Council of Constantinople (381)," Prudentia 13 (1981): 47-54, 91-97.

[21] On the rehearsal of past events as part of the process of creating a community and its historical memories, see B. Lewis, History Remembered, Recovered, Invented (Princeton, 1975).

history was left largely untended for two to three generations.^[22] Then, from the end of the fourth century into the fifth, a blossoming of historical writings interweaved the story of the Christian church with affairs of state and the formerly fallow field yielded an abundant harvest.

The obvious point of departure for these new histories was the reign of Constantine, the Augustus who had done so much to end official persecution against Christians and to promote their interests. Eusebius, having somewhat compromised himself with questionable theological views and by his involvement in the proceedings at Nicaea, had prudently stopped short of the early Arian disputes in his Historia ecclesiastica . Thus to others fell the task of explaining why, as the Christian church approached its moment of triumph, bitter divisions arose within its ranks, with the consequences that remained dear to any casual observer in the fifth century.

One of the first of this new generation of histories was Gelasius of Caesarea's Historia ecclesiastica , composed circa 386-400. It is no longer extant, but fragments have been gleaned from later works.^[23] Gelasius' history quickly became the basis for a number of other works, notably the tenth and eleventh books of Rufinus of Aquileia's Historia ecclesiastica , which augmented his translation into Latin of Eusebius' history. Other works soon followed.

Because Nicaea was where Christian leaders from throughout the newly united empire met their patron and self-proclaimed koinos episkopos ,^[24] the council naturally became a focal point for later Christians attempting to understand their past. These legends about Nicaea are inherently interesting to the modem historian, not because accurate information can be mined from them but because they tell us much about the period in which they arose and circulated.

In the following pages, I examine the multiform story of an encounter between a confessor and a philosopher at Nicaea. In the four major versions of the story contained in the later histories (dating from the late

[22] See G. F. Chestnut, The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius (Paris, 1977); A. Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.," in idem, ed., The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963), 79-99; G. Downey, "The Perspective of the Early Church Historians," GRBS 6 (1965): 57-70; F. J. Foakes-Jackson, A History of Church History: Studies of Some Historians of the Christian Church (Cambridge, 1939), 71-86; L. Cracco Ruggini, "The Ecclesiastical Histories and the Pagan Historiography: Providence and Miracles," Athenaeum n.s. 55 (1977): 107-26.

[23] See the discussions of Gelasius of Cyzicus' Syntagma and Georgius Monachus' Chronicon below.

[24] See J. Straub, "Constantine as KOINOS EP IS KOP OS : Tradition and Innovation in the Representation of the First Christian Emperor's Majesty," DOP 21 (1967): 37-55.

fourth to the fifth century), a "debate" occurs either during or before the formal session of the council. Discounting slight variations for the moment, I can summarize the story as follows: There came to pass a hotly contested debate between a polytheistic philosopher and the assembled bishops at Nicaea. The philosopher was extremely adept at dialectical disputation, and none of the bishops was able to gain advantage over him. After a long series of exchanges, the precise nature or content of which is not given in any of the sources, the stalemate was finally ended when an unlearned and elderly confessor stepped forward to confront the philosopher with a terse credal formula, and simply asked his stunned opponent whether he believed the statement or not. The philosopher assented to the truth of the old man's words, admitted defeat, and (in some versions) accepted baptism at the confessor's hands.

The story appears for the first time in an extant source in Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica , but is conspicuously absent from more contemporary accounts such as the writings of Eustathius of Antioch,^[25] Eusebius' Vita Constantini and Letter to His Community about the Council of Nicaea,^[26] and Athanasius' slightly later Epistula de decretis Nicaenae synodi.^[27] Thus, when we approach this episode in Rufinus, and later in the writings of Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, and Gelasius of Cyzicus, we are faced with a complicated historiographical and historical problem.

The story is almost certainly spurious—our first extant attestation is a Latin source composed seventy years after Nicaea—yet it is significant because it crystallized and foregrounded a profound bias against the adoption of public dialectical disputation as a means of settling Christian theological differences. Socrates Scholasticus, whose version departs most significantly from the others', blamed the public discussion of theology for the divisions within the church of his time.^[28] Though I do not rule out the stated arguments against debate in these various accounts, I propose that the polemic must be read in light of such post-Nicene developments as the Anomoean controversy and the social and urban conditions of the late fourth (Rufinus), mid-fifth (Socrates, Sozomen), and late-fifth (Gelasius of Cyzicus) centuries.

I will show that, partly because of its placement within the larger works and partly because of the elevation of certain forms of authority

[25] In Theodoret, Hist. eccl . 1.8.1-5 (Parmentier and Scheidweiler, eds., 33-34). Eustathius' work was composed circa 329; see Batiffol, "Les sources de l'histoire du concile de Nicée," 390-92.

[26] In Opitz, ed., Urkunden 22 (Athanasius Werke III , 42-47).

[27] Text in Opitz, ed., Athanasius Werke II , 1-45. Dated to 352-53 by Barnes in Athanasius and Constantius , 198-99 (app. 4).

[28] For example, Socrates, Hist. eccl . 2.2, 2.30; more on this point below.

at the expense of others, the story functioned to valorize particular social processes tied to particular social structures and assumptions about power. The story expressed the decisive rejection of a certain form of social contact with religious outsiders, and the preference for the irenic ideology of the mia ekklesia , the unified church of Christ, where disputes were alien and diabolical intrusions.^[29]

My examination of how this debate was narrated by the four writers secures a framework for discussing the way this bias operated in the larger context of their histories. Most of the fifth-century histories picked Up the thread of the story where Eusebius' Historia ecclesiastica left off, and the opening narratives of the council effectively framed the rest of the accounts. By weaving the story of this debate into their reports of a council where many charismatic Christian heroes and bishops came together to express Christian unity (), the authors used the triumph of the simple confessor over the philosopher to drive home a point of deeper import than the mere defeat of arrogance by Christian simplicity.

The only previous study of this episode that examines all the variants is E. Jugie's eight-page article, "La dispute des philosophes païens avec les pères de Niche," published in 1925.^[30] As the title implies, Jugie is primarily interested in the account in Gelasius of Cyzicus' Syntagma (see later in this chapter) and describes the other versions only in passing. This is unfortunate, for the shifting shape of the multiform story reveals much about how fifth-century people in different stations of life used the context of Nicaea, around which a tradition had already grown up,^[31] to discuss their reception of public dialectical disputation in a Christian culture.

The Historiae Ecclesiasticae of Gelasius of Caesarea and Rufinus of Aquileia

Rufinus says in the preface to his Historia ecclesiastica that he translated the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius into Latin at the urgings of Chromatius of Aquileia, with the hope that the product would comfort fellow

[29] See Daniélou, "MIA EKKL HS A," 129-39.

[30] See E. Jugie, "La dispute des philosophes païens avec les pères de Niche," Échos d'Orient 24 (1925): 403-10. Contrast with the more ad hoc interpretations of this multiform story in, e.g., G. A. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton, 1983), 201-2.

[31] This happened very early on; see Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3.8-9.

Christians at Aquileia, who at that time (circa 401) were threatened by Alaric's Gothic incursions.^[32] Scholarly discussion of the relationship between Rufinus' rendition and Eusebius' original is involved and need not be rehearsed here at length.^[33] The options of source dependency are best laid out in E. Honigmann's "Gélase de Césarèe et Rufin d'Aquilée," though his own hypothesis of an independent Rufinus-Gelasius source (based on Gelasius of Cyzicus' attestation of )^[34] as distinct from the Greek translation of Rufinus (Rufin grec ) is questionable because of the uncertainty of statements in Gelasius of Cyzicus and Photius and also because his overly zealous postulation of sources that are no longer extant goes against the scholars preference for economic

[32] Rufinus, In libros Historiarum Eusebii (M. Simonetti, ed., [Rome, 1961], CCSL 20: 267). Rufinus was himself in the besieged town at the time; see C. P. Hammond, "The Last Ten Years of Rufinus' Life and the Date of His Move South from Aquileia," JTS n.s. 28 (1977): 372-429, at 373. The intended audience for the translation was probably the group of ascetics gathered around the figure of Chromatius, Rufinus' friend and loyal supporter; see Rufinus, Apologia contra Hieronymum 1.4 (Simonetti, ed., 39).

[33] See J. E. L. Oulton, "Rufinus' Translation of the Church History of Eusebius," JTS 30 (1929): 150-75. Oulton undertakes a critical comparison of Rufinus' translation with the Greek text of the original and concludes that, although Valois' original negative assessment of the value of Rufinus' rendition remains fundamentally valid, Rufinus' significant departures from his source were in fact newly incorporated material. This assessment is echoed by M. Villain, "Rufin d'Aquilée et l'Histoire ecclésiastique ," RSR 33 (1946): 164-210, who adds that the faithfulness of a translation is a modern scholarly criterion that does not take into account late antique stylistic emphases. Furthermore, the last books in Eusebius' work may have seemed intrinsically unsatisfactory to Rufinus. T. Christensen, "Rufinus of Aquilea and the Historia Ecclesiastica , lib. VIII-IX, of Eusebius," Studia Theologica 34 (1980): 129-52, argues that the patchy nature of books 7 to 9 was due to his revision of a first draft after Constantine defeated Licinius in 324, and to his use of diverse sources. Given his ars interpretandi and his concern for the Innerzusammenhang of the narrative, Rufinus had no choice but to deviate significantly. The scholarly consensus now holds that Rufinus was not merely a translator but a redactor of Eusebius' Hist. eccl . Besides rearranging book 10, Rufinus added two books, allegedly his own work, to advance the history chronologically to the death of Theodosius I in 395. Such arguments revolve around the nature of the dependence between Rufinus and Gelasius of Caesarea (d. 404), Cyril of Alexandria's nephew, whose Hist. eccl . is now lost but exists in fragments contained in the works of others; see A. Glas, Die Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios yon Kaisareia: Die Vorlage für die beiden letzten Bücher der Kirchengeschichte Rufins , Byzantinisches Archiv 6 (Leipzig/Berlin, 1914); F. Scheidweiler, "Die Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios yon Kaisareia," BZ 46 (1953): 277-301; E. Honigmann, "Gélase de Césarée et Rufin d'Aquilée," Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique , Classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques ser. 5, 40 (1954): 122-61; F. Winkelmann, "Charakter und Bedeutung der Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios yon Kaisareia," Byzantinische Forschungen 1 (Amsterdam, 1966): 346-85; idem, "Zu einer Edition der Fragmente der Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia," Byzantinoslavica 34 (1973): 193-98; J. Schamp, "The Lost Ecclesiastical History of Gelasius of Caesarea (CPG , 3521): Towards a Reconsideration," Patristic and Byzantine Review 6 (1987): 146-52; idem, "Gélase ou Rufin: un fait nouveau: sur des fragments oubliés de Gélase de Césanée (CPG , no. 3521)," Byzantion 57 (1987): 360-90.

[34] Gelasius of Cyzicus, Syntagma 1.8.1 (Loeschcke and Heinemann, eds., 13).

simplicity.^[35] However, any solution to the source dilemma must assume a number of intermediate compilations and sources now lost, a fact that suggests a greater contemporary demand for the history's information than would be the case if one assumed a single line of transmission.

As Rufinus wrote in Latin some seventy-five years after Nicaea,^[36] it is tempting to dismiss the story as a spurious invention. But there are some indications that Rufinus may have adapted the story from an earlier, and therefore potentially more reliable, source, namely, Gelasius of Caesarea's Historia ecclesiastica .^[37] Interestingly, this Gelasius, the uncle of Cyril of Jerusalem, was also the author of a work against the Anomoeans (now lost), according to Photius.^[38]

In the present discussion, I set aside the question of source dependency to examine Rufinus' redactional Tendenz , which is significant even if his version was lifted from traditional material. As I will illustrate later, there are many resonances between the way Rufinus redacted Eusebius' Historia ecclesiastica and his treatment in the tenth and eleventh books of his own Historia ecclesiastica .

Books 10 and 11 of Rufinus' Historia Ecclesiastica

Book 10 of Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica began with the circumstances leading to the Council of Nicaea. The episode of the convocation of the council hinged on the underlying assumption that the protagonists were divided into two camps: Christian priests on one side, and distinguished philosophers and dialecticians—whether all pagans or Christians is not dear from the text—on the other. Immediately, Rufinus explicitly advertised his wish to illustrate the virtue of simplicity in matters of faith:

We acknowledge how great a merit resides in the simplicity of belief, even from those accounts in which the deeds are mentioned. That is, when on account of the zeal of the dutiful emperor [Constantine], the priests of God came together from every place; likewise, driven by

[35] See Rufinus on his own work, in In libros Historiarum Eusebii (CCSL 20:267-68): "Decimum uero uel undecimum librum nos conscripsimus partim ex maiorum traditionibus, partim ex his, quae nostrae iam memoria comprehenderat et eos uelut duos pisciculos, supra scriptis panibus addidimus."

[36] 402-3 is the estimated date of Rufinus' Hist. eccl. ; see F. Thélamon, "Une oeuvre destinée à la communauté chrétienne d'Aquilée: L'Histoire ecclésiastique de Rufin," Antichità altoadriatiche 22 (1982): 255-71.

[37] See Rufinus, Hist. eccl . 1.3; Winkelmann, "Character und Bedeutung," 351.

[38] Photius, Bibliotheca 88.

reputation, philosophers and dialecticians, exceedingly elevated and of the highest repute, convened. Among them was a certain person who was distinguished in the dialectical art, who from day to day carried out a contest of supreme rivalry with our bishops, men who were not unlikely similarly learned in the dialectical art. And there arose an enormous spectacle (ingens spectaculum ) for the learned and lettered men who came to listen. Nevertheless, the philosopher of neither side was able to be boxed in or be trapped by any other. He [the philosopher] confronted the challenges raised with such skill in speaking that, where he was considered to be most confined he would slip out from the narrow spots as if he were greased. But in order that God may show that the kingdom of God consists not in speeches but in virtuous action, a certain one of the confessors, a man of the simplest disposition, and who knew nothing except Jesus Christ and that he was crucified, was present among the rest of the bishops in the audience. This person, when he saw the philosopher insulting us, and boasting in the cunning art of argumentation, begged the floor^[39] from all present: he wanted to exchange a few words (sermonicari ) with the philosopher. . . . He said, "In the name of Jesus Christ, O philosopher, listen to what is true. [He then retired a credal formula.] Do you believe that this is the case, philosopher?" And he, as if he had never said anything to the contrary since he was confounded by the virtue of what was said, became completely quiet, and was only able to say this in response: "Yes, it so appears, truth is none other than what you said." Then the elderly man said, "If you believe that these words are true, rise and follow me to the Lord, and receive the seal of his faith." And the philosopher turned to his disciples, or to those who had come together in order to listen: "Listen," he said, "O learned men. . . ."^[40]

Françoise Thélamon, whose exemplary reading of this story from Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica appears within the context of her broader study of the relationship between pagans and Christians, sees this episode as a complete fabrication as well as a typological drama: "All the actors are nameless, none of the protagonists has real existence inasmuch as each represents a type: the confessor, the pagan philosopher, the bishop-dialectician" (Tousles acteurs sont anonymes, chacun des protagonistes n'a d'existence, qu'autant qu'il représente un type: le confesseur, le philosophe païen, les évêques dialecticiens).^[41] For her, the tale is a moral one about the encounter of simplicitas fidei and ars dialectica .

[39] The Latin is locum ; see Glas, Die Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios yon Kaisareia , 21.

[40] Rufinus, Hist. eccl . 1.3; translation mine.

[41] E Thélamon, Païens et chrétiens au IV siècle. L'apport de l' "Histoire ecclésiastique" de Rufin d'Aquilée (Paris, 1981), 431 (translation mine). Valois, in PG 67:60, also sees it as an invention. But F. X. Murphy argues that the story is not implausible a priori in Rufinus of Aquileia (345-411): His Life and Works (Washington, D.C., 1945).

Indeed, Rufinus throughout portrays skill in dialectic as a moral flaw associated with other value-laden words: dolus, fraus, callidior, simulatio .^[42] But Rufinus did not brand dialectic as categorically un-Christian, because he asserted that many of the bishops debating with the philosophers were themselves well versed in the dialectical art.^[43]

For Rufinus, the proper use of dialectic depended on the practitioner's mental attitude, his way of life, and the immediate context of the debate. Rufinus' praise of Didymus the Blind openly proclaimed without apology the dialectical art as one of the many skills in which the Alexandrian excelled.^[44] Similarly, though Rufinus in his Apologia (401) criticized Jerome for his use of Porphyry's Eisagoge , he did not deny his own expertise in the matter^[45] but emphasized that knowledge of dialectic should be balanced by the virtue of asceticism.^[46]

A proper understanding of Rufinus' version of the episode lies partly in Eusebius' Historia ecclesiastica : the two more books that Rufinus appended to his translation of Eusebius' work not only advanced the narrative to the end of the reign of Theodosius I, but also served as a commentary on the Constantinian past for a late-fourth-century Latin-speaking audience that did not have access to the original. In particular, book 7 of Eusebius' Historia ecclesiastica containing the famous description of the debate between Paul of Samosata and Malchion in Antioch provides a relevant basis for comparison.^[47]

According to Eusebius, after a number of preliminary meetings of bishops gathered from every direction, a final council was held.^[48] There Paul of Samosata, derided by Eusebius as no bishop but a sophist and a quack (),^[49] was exposed and later unanimously condemned and excommunicated by the assembled bishops. Though Eusebius did not recount the actual proceedings, he excused this omission by saying that the acta from the council were still in wide circulation in his day, thanks to Malchion himself:

[42] Thélamon, Païens et chretiens , 430-35.

[43] Rufinus, Hist. eccl . 1.3: "viris, adaeque in dialectica non improbabiliter eruditis."

[44] Rufinus, Hist. eccl . 2.7.

[45] Rufinus, Apologia contra Hieronymum 2.9 (Simonetti, ed., 90-91).

[46] See Rufinus, Apologia contra Hieronymum 2.13-16 (Simonetti, ed., 93-96).

[47] See G. Bardy, Paul de Samosate , 2d ed. (Louvain, 1929); De Riedmatten, Les actes du procès de Paul de Samosate .

[48] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 7.28.1-2.

[49] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 7.30.9 (Oulton, ed., 2:218-19).

Malchion did most to call Paul to account and to refute him, concealed as he was. He was a man of immense learning who was the head of a school of rhetoric, one of the Hellenic institutions of education in Antioch, and who, in view of the exceeding genuineness of his faith in Christ, had been chosen as presbyter of that community. Malchion, by arranging for stenographers to take notes (which we know to be extant to this day) at his disputation with Paul, was the only person who succeeded in exposing him as an evasive and wily man.^[50]

The above is my translation based on the Greek text of Eusebius' Historia ecclesiastica . Rufinus' Latin translation, apart from stylistic differences, contains two main changes that are noteworthy and telling,^[51] shown here in italics:

Insistente plurimum et disceptationibus valdissimis perurgente Malchione presbystero Antiochenae ecclesiae, viro fidelissimo et omnibus virtutibus adornato ; cui accedebat etiam hoc, quod erat dissertissimus et potens in verbo atque in omni eruditione perfectus, denique oratoriam in eadem ipsa urbe docuerat. huic igitur ab omni episcoporum concilio permittitur disputatio cure Paulo , excipientibus notariis. quae ita magnifice ab eo et adcurate habita est, ut scripta ederetur et nunc quoque in admiratione sit omnibus. solus etenim potuit dissimulantem et occultantem se Paulum confessionibus propriis publicare.

While Rufinus used the ablative absolute (excipientibus notariis ) to render Eusebius' genitive absolute (episemeiomenon tachugraphon ), his placement of the phrase significantly understates the importance of this measure to Malchion's eventual success. Rufinus instead chose to augment Eusebius' account in ways that conform to the Tendenz already established in his treatment of the Nicene debate discussed earlier. First, Rufinus consistently underscored the vital importance of moral character and ascetic attainments (omnibus virtutibus adornato ); second, he made it seem that permission to refute erroneous views must be obtained from proper episcopal authority: "The disputatio with Paul is thus granted (permittitur ) by the entire council of bishops."^[52]

This implicit restriction on the freedom to debate even a known heretic bespeaks the deep gulf between Rufinus' hierarchizing ecclesi-

[50] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 7.29.2 (Oulton, ed., 2:212-13).

[51] See E. Schwartz and T. Mommsen, eds., Eusebius Werke II (Leipzig, 1908), 705; Rufinus, Hist. eccl . 7.29.

[52] See Rufinus, Hist. eccl . bk. 10.

astical world in the late fourth century and the more autonomous, fluid Christian communities of Origen's and even Arius' time described so well recently by Rowan Williams—when the importance of charismatic figures considerably overshadowed that of church officeholders.^[53] Indeed, we certainly do not expect to find debates in which anyone could intervene at will, although Rufinus' confessor at Nicaea requested the floor from all present (poscit ab omnibus locum ) less in obedience to the protocols of church disputations than in acknowledgment of his own unsuitability for agonistic public debate.

A disputation was a war of words in which a simplex vir was normally a source of embarrassment and a liability: this presupposition was stressed in Rufinus' account as well as in later versions of the story. That a theological debate was an event appropriate only for a select few, preferably ordained and educated priests, would have struck a familiar chord with the Aquileian Christians to whom Rufinus was writing. The imposing Ambrose of Milan, the prime mover behind the Council of Aquileia of 381, frustrated his opponent Palladius by arranging for a restricted debate in which only priests were allowed.^[54]

Returning to the debate between Paul and Malchion and the light it might shed on the Nicene debate, we note that an important theme of both accounts is the impossibility of defeating even indubitably erroneous opponents by logical argumentation alone. No elenchos came about at Nicaea because of the philosopher's crafty ability to argue himself out of fight spots: "Ubi maxime putaretur adstrictus, velut anguis lubricus elaberetur." The eventual outcome was all the more ironic and meaningful in that it required the unlooked-for intervention of a humble confessor, who prevailed because of, not despite, his sancta simplicitas.^[55]

This, therefore, was a poignant story for readers who might find themselves tempted into disputing with other Christians or pagans using the art of dialectic. Fancy rhetorical tricks were not only inappropriate tools for the settling of differences among Christians but also unreliable weapons with which to confront heretics or unbelievers even for skilled practitioners like Malchion and some of the bishops at Nicaea. Jerome, in 383, before his bitter falling out with Rufinus, regarded so-

[53] Williams, Arius. See Dissertatio Maximini 14.300v (R. Gryson, ed., Scholies ariennes sur le concile d'Aquilée SC 267 [Paris, 1980], 216-17) for a proud, classic assertion of the primacy of episcopal authority: "Constat ergo Arrium episcopos secutu(m) fuisse, non episcopos Arrium."

[54] See Meslin, Les ariens d'occident , 90.

[55] This account may be profitably compared with the story of Copres' "debate" with a Manichaean in Rufinus, Historia monachorum 9.7 (Schulz-Flügel, ed., 320-21; PL 21: 426C-427B). See Chapter 3 for a fuller discussion of this episode.

phistic arguments and logical acumen as no real defense against the attacks of heretics.^[56]

For Rufinus, even records of discussions between Christians were unedifying for Christian readers. In Eusebius' Historia ecclesiastica , Malchion specifically arranged to have his debate with Paul noted by stenographers, presumably so that the exchange could be transcribed and disseminated later on. But Rufinus was altogether reluctant to report debates, and not only the understandably embarrassing intra-Christian ones. For example, in his Historia monachorum he pointedly left out the discussions of his friend Evagrius of Pontus with pagan philosophers in Alexandria, discussions that clearly existed in his main source, the anonymous Greek Historia monachorum.^[57]

Guillaumont's analysis of Rufinus' description of Evagrius, based on a comparison of the Greek and Latin texts of the Historia monachorum , reveals a consistent editorial bias: "Rufin met moins l'accent sur la science et les activités philosophiques d'Evagre et insiste d'avantage sur ses vertus."^[58] Rufinus legitimized his narrative of the Council of Nicaea by enveloping it in the palpable presence of divine pleasure in men of God such as Paphnutius and Spyridon, whose virtutes were visibly exhibited in the mirabilia that they effected.^[59]

Here we witness a shift of emphasis in the definition of virtue. Rufinus' cultural hero was no longer Eusebius' learned, shrewd but faithful Christian presbyter; instead, he was the inexperienced and hence faithful confessor: a simplicissimae naturae vir.^[60] The confessors simplicity was singled out as a moral exemplum for other Christians to contemplate. Implicitly, Rufinus argued that simplicitas was not only a noble trait but

[56] De perpetua virginitate beatae Mariae adversus Helvidium 2 ( PL 23:185A): Divine intervention, as expressed through Jerome's inspired exegesis, is preferred to eloquence and dialectic as a means of refuting Helvidius' contentions.

[57] See Rufinus, Historia monachorum 27 (Schulz-Flügel, ed., 363; PL 21:448B-449A); E. Preuschen, Palladius und Rufinus: Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkunde des ältesten Mönchtums (Giessen, 1897), 86. On the textual question of dependence, see A.-J. Festugière, "Le problème littéraire de l'Historia monachorum," Hermes 83 (1955): 257-84; A. Guillaumont, Les 'kephalaia gnostica' d'Évagre le pontique et l'histoire de l'origénisme chez les grecs et chez les syriens (Paris, 1962), 71-73, esp. 71 n. 99.

[58] Guillaumont, Les 'kephalaia gnostica, ' 72. See E Rousseau, Ascetics, Authority, and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian (Oxford, 1978), 25-27; Palladius on Didymus in Historia lausiaca 4.4; S. N. C. Lieu, "The Holy Men and Their Biographers in Early Byzantium and Medieval China: A Preliminary Comparative Study in Hagiography," in A. Moffatt, ed., Maistor: Classical, Byzantine, and Renaissance Studies for Robert Browning (Canberra, 1984), 113-47, at 142-43.

[59] See Thélamon, Patens et chrétiens , 436-40.

[60] On the emphasis on the confessor in the Latin west as a corollary to the widespread concern over the lapsi , see M. Lods, Confesseurs et martyrs (Neuchâtel, 1958), 66-67.

a pragmatic one, an effective response to opponents and questioners. The best answer to others' taunting challenges was also the simplest one: to recite the words of a creed and ask one's opponent to assent to its truth. One was not to debate but to preach, repeating after the confessor: "O philosopher, in the name of Jesus Christ, listen to the truth."

The lack of reciprocity between what the philosopher was asking and what the confessor said in response is almost absolute. The confessor was decidedly not adhering to the rules of disputation. Thélamon observes that, at this point, "on est passé d'une démarche intellectuelle àune experience religieuse, de la discussion à la conversion."^[61] Whether her implication that the philosopher underwent a religious conversion can find support in Rufinus' description is not clear—it can be read as intellectual enlightenment as well. Even so, the eventual conversion of the philosopher became a feature that emerged with marked emphasis in later variants.^[62]

Rufinus' portrayal of this scenario is consistent with his advice to Christians concerning the unshakable core of religious belief, the kernel of truth that a Christian must accept without question: "That God is the Father of His only Son Our Lord is something we ought to believe in rather than debate on. Nor is it permitted for a slave to debate the origins of the Master." (Credendus est ergo Deus esse Pater unici Filii sui Dominis nostri, non discutiendus. Neque enim fas est seruo de natalibus domini disputare ).^[63] In contrast, busybody meddling into the secrets of the divine mystery was a tricky and dangerous business: "De Deo etiam uera dicere periculosum est."^[64] One did better to embrace the virtues of humility and simplicity of heart. When interrogated by a polytheist as to the precise manner in which one believed in Christ, one ought to respond simply and straightforwardly, without apology or embarrassment. This was the advice given to Palladius at the Council of Aquileia in 381: "But you will have to declare the liberty of your faith in simplicity. If a nonbeliever were to demand from you in what manner you

[61] Thélamon, Païens et chrétiens , 433.

[62] Within the pagan philosophical tradition there was already a trend to deemphasize protreptic reason in favor of some notion of divine intervention in the conversion of individuals to a life in philosophy; see J.-P. Dumont, "Les modules de conversion à la philosophie chez Diogène Laërce," Augustinus 32 (1987): 79-97. On philosophical conversion in general, see A.D. Nock, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (Oxford, 1933), 164-86.

[63] Expositio symboli 4 (Simonetti, ed., Rufini Opera CCSL 20:139); emphasis mine. The use of slave/master language is interesting here.

[64] Expositio symboli 1 (Simonetti, ed., 133).

believed in Christ, you ought not to feel embarrassed to confess it" (Sed deb[e]bis fidei tuae simpliciter prodere libertatem. Si ate gentilis exigeret quemadmodum in Cr(istu)[m cr]ederes, c]onfiteri erubescere non deb[eres]).^[65]

This simplicitas christiana was based on steadfast adherence to a recited creed,^[66] and entailed the good sense to know which topics were fit for discussion and which were out of bounds. Even when challenged, common Christians were not to be lured into debate over the central axioms of the faith. In this respect, ordinary Christians had much to learn from the athletes of God, whose presence in Nicaea was treated as a central theme in Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica as well as in later histories. Among these living exemplars, Paphnutius and Spyridon stood out; they also dominated Rufinus' Nicene narrative to an extent that can only be partly explained by Rufinus' profound interest in heroic Christians, or by his reliance on received traditions.

Rufinus regarded credal statements as immutable truths rooted in local traditions reaching back to the apostolic age.^[67] This authority and the charisma of heroic confessors were a winning combination, not only historically—though I think that may be shown—but particularly in a narrative.^[68] When interrogated, neither one ventured far from rehearsed formulae (as in aporiae literature) to explain theological minutiae.^[69]

Thus for Rufinus, hagiography took on the additional role of a polemic against heretics, a perspective (or bias) that unexpectedly reintroduced dogmatic controversies into the mainstream of everyday life, into

[65] In Dissertatio Maximini 10.299r; Gryson, ed., 210. Upon this, Maximinus comments (in Dissertatio Maximini 13.299v; Gryson, ed., 210-13) that Cyprian successfully countered Demetrianus with silence in their dispute. But this validation of Cyprian's tactic was not universally shared; Lactantius, in his Divine Institutes 5.4, objects to Cyprian's refusal to use reasoned arguments with Demetrianus because, though Cyprian's stubborn reliance on scriptural prooftexts alone might indeed silence one's enemies, it could not confirm Christians in their belief.

[66] Expositio symboli 3 (Simonetti, ed., 135-37). See Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses 18.22, for the public profession of the creed after baptism; see also Apostolic Constitutions 8:40-41. When Rufinus himself was accused of heresy, he cleared his name by reaffirming the appropriate creed and by uttering a "negative creed" or anathema; see Rufinus, Apologia ad Anastasium 8 (CCSL 20:28).

[67] See Rufinus, Expositio symboli 1-2 (Simonetti, ed., 133-35).

[68] See Thélamon, Païens et chrétiens , 437: "Les Confesseurs—Rufin joue sur les différents sens que ce terme a acquis à son époque—sont au nombre des plus fermes opposants d'Arius: le Confesseur est l'antitype de l'évêque arien."

[69] Yet Paphnutius was portrayed as speaking on behalf of the legitimacy of married priests before the canons governing church discipline were ratified at Nicaea. He did so by citing Paul's famous dictum urging the maintenance of the status quo; see Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.23.

the heart of the social debates over different forms of authority and the institutions they supported. This story opens up to us a world in which people were expected to find the urbane utterances of sophists and orators not only uninteresting but alien and repugnant. Rufinus was probably correct in supposing that the Christians of northern Italy, living apprehensively in the shadows of pillaging Goths, would prefer the tangible power of charismatic confessors to the subtle verbal power of philosophers. After all, the latter was prized only in a very limited cultural context, a context essentially coterminous with the domain of the classical polis .^[70]

Socrates Scholasticus' Historia Ecclesiastica

The next extant variant of our story is found in Socrates Scholasticus' Historia ecclesiastica , a work that resumes where Eusebius' history leaves off and that continues to 439. The author was born and raised in Constantinople, where he met an elderly Novatian priest who claimed to have been present at the Council of Nicaea.^[71] Yet, for his description of the council, Socrates did not rely solely on this oral tradition, but drew liberally from Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica . The first two extant books of Socrates' history come from his revised second edition (circa 440), which he composed after reading Athanasius' writings and becoming dissatisfied with his own previous overindebtedness to Rufinus.^[72] Knowing this, we can examine the differences between the treatment in the two books and the treatment in their known precedent to uncover a particular critical reception of Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica in late antiquity.

After encomiastic descriptions of Paphnutius and Spyridon, Socrates digressed to recount our story, contrasting the two charismatics with the simple confessor. Socrates placed the debate prior to the formal session of the council, contradicting his model Rufinus, who had placed it in the midst of the full session. It is unclear whether Socrates made this change on the basis of new information, but rather than postulate unknown sources it is more sound to suppose that he had difficulty accepting Rufinus' attribution of this episode to the formal proceedings of

[70] See P. R. L. Brown, "The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity," JRS 61 (1971): 80-101.

[71] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.1:3; 2.38.

[72] See Foakes-Jackson, History of Church History , 76. See A. Ferrarini, "Tradizioni orali nella storia ecclesiastica di Socrate Scholastico," Studia Patavina 28 (1981): 29-54.

the council. His own experience with the procedures of ecclesiastical councils—procedures by then well established—may have suggested that such a debate was too incompatible with the nature of imperial councils to have been authentic.

Socrates' story also differs radically from Rufinus' in its treatment of details. His narrative is shorter and accords the debate less symbolic weight as a paradigmatic confrontation of good versus evil; it is less an anecdotal, almost folkloric, moral tale. He specifies that the participants in the debate were Christians, but does not associate them with particular doctrinal positions. For Socrates, the precise cognitive (i.e., theological) nature of the issues debated was less important than the form of the debate:

There were also present among each party () many laypeople skilled in dialectic who were eager to plead for their own side. But while Eusebius of Nicomedia (whom I mentioned earlier), and Theognis and Maris (the first was the bishop of Nicaea while the latter, Maris, was the bishop of Bithynian Chalcedon) were in support of the opinion of Arius, Athanasius, who, while still a deacon in the church of Alexandria, was esteemed highly by the bishop Alexander (which made him the target of envy, as we shall narrate), nobly contended ( ) with them. Just before () the unified meeting of the bishops, the dialecticians conducted preliminary contests of words () before () many people.^[73]

Casting Athanasius as the hero of Nicaea was anachronistic, though understandable. Socrates did not indicate whether the dialecticians who engaged in preliminary logical skirmishes were connected with Eusebius of Nicomedia or with Athanasius, but the lack of such a distinction hardly lessened the impact of Socrates' story, with its genetic and timeless quality. Next, the confessor entered the fray:

When many were drawn by the lure of the reasoning (), a certain one of the confessors, a layman and an old man who has good judgment (), opposed the dialecticians, and said to them: "Did Christ and the apostles hand down to us the dialectical art? . . ."

In this version, the confessor not only enjoyed the respect due his advanced age but was deemed in possession of good judgment, no doubt precisely because he spoke against the exercise of dialectic in Christian debates. Because all the participants were already Christians, Socrates ended this episode not with a conversion but by stressing the confessors success in putting a felicitous end to harmful disputations.

[73] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.8 (PG 67:64A); my translation.

The old man's intervention had a decisive outcome: "Then the disruptive uproar () arising out of dialectic was stopped."^[74]

A negative evaluation of disputation shaped Socrates' narrative throughout his Historia ecclesiastica . For him, the preeminent cause of the controversies that lasted until his own time was the practice of dialectical debate among Christians. He said that one of his reasons for composing the history was to combat the "dialectical and vain deceit [that] confused and at the same time dispersed the apostolic faith of Christianity"; he wished to narrate in a continuous fashion the historical progress of orthodoxy, so that his readers would not be so easily swayed by the sophistry of the moment.^[75]

Socrates' conviction that disputation was the chief cause of Christian theological controversies pervaded his treatment of historical material. According to Socrates, the early Arian dispute began when Alexander of Alexandria attempted to publicly explain the Trinity with more precision than his theological acumen warranted.^[76] His imprudent words aroused in Arius, "a man not unlearned in the dialectical art," a spirit of contentiousness (),^[77] and the subsequent disagreement between the two became the catalyst for factionalization throughout eastern Christian communities. When Alexander sent out his circular epistles to bishops of other cities, the recipients of his letters "were thereby excited to contention." Disputation spread like a plague, splitting Christian congregations into warring camps, with "some attaching themselves to one side, others to the other," as congregants witnessed their priests wrangling in debates.^[78]

The most striking evidence that Socrates considered disputation a major cause, and not just a manifestation, of Christian controversy lies in his narrative of events following the Council of Constantinople in 381.^[79] Socrates praised Theodosius for convoking the synod, noting that the emperor innocently supposed that a fair and open examination of the disputed matters would result in universal agreement. But however noble Theodosius' motives, the proposed discussions would not further the cause of unity. Or so thought Socrates, who demonstrated his skepticism by the manner in which he narrated the episode.

Nectarius was then the orthodox bishop of Constantinople and The-

[74] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.8 (PG 67: 64B); my translation.

[75] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.8 (PG 67:64B).

[76] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.5.

[77] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.5. See R. Williams, "The Logic of Arianism," JTS n.s. 34 (1983): 56-81.

[78] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.6 (PG 67: 52c).

[79] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10.

odosius' confidant.^[80] Informed of the emperor's intentions for the council, the bishop grew uneasy, in part because he lacked the experience to preside over such an event. He conferred with Agelius, the bishop of the Novatian Christians in the city, who confessed that he too was not fit to oversee such a debate because of his ignorance of the art of disputation.^[81] He, however, had a reader Sisinnius (who later succeeded him as Novatian bishop) who was well versed in both philosophical knowledge and scriptural exegesis. When consulted, this reader expressed the opinion that "debates () not only do not heal schisms, but they make the heresies even more contentious (). On account of this he offered this advice to Nectarius."^[82] This sentiment, echoing the general characterization of the christological controversies by Socrates, himself a Novatian Christian, was highlighted by its attribution to one who allegedly advised Theodosius in the organization of an important imperial Christian council.

The emperor's original designs were represented as commonsensical but misguided. Sisinnius proposed to Theodosius (via Nectarius) that the bishops at the forthcoming council "ought on the one hand to avoid dialectical combats () and to call instead into witness the ancient authorities."^[83] This learned reader's voluntary disavowal of philosophical argumentation as a means of resolving theological disputes conveyed a moral more subtle than that contained in Rufinus' tale of the simple confessor and the philosopher.^[84] Here was an accomplished champion in philosophical disputation who nevertheless disapproved of its use in mending Christian theological divisions. A genuine expression of mature and informed judgment, the rejection of formal debate could no longer be dismissed as an expedience allowing the unlearned to hide their ignorance.

Theodosius assented to this wise counsel, and asked the leaders of the sects appearing in Constantinople in June 383 to submit to the views of "those teachers who lived previous to the dissension in the church."^[85] This request may be regarded as part of the germinating ideological justification for the patristic florilegia that would play a large role in

[80] See Baur, John Chrysostom , 1:150-51; E. Getland, "Die Vorgeschichte des Patriarchates von Konstantinopel," Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 9 (1932): 217-30, at 226-28.

[81] See T. E. Gregory, "Novatianism: A Rigorist Sect in the Christian Roman Empire," Byzantine Studies 2 (1975): 1-18.

[82] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:585A); my translation.

[83] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:585A); my translation.

[84] See De Ghellinck, "Quelques appréciations de la dialectique," 9-10.

[85] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:585B). "Previous to the period of dissension" refers to the time before 318.

Christian councils. Here, the reaction of Theodosius to Christian controversy recalls Socrates' earlier characterization of Constantine's attitude toward the disputing parties during the opening phases of the Arian controversy.^[86]

The emperor's decision put the disputing parties in a quandary, for they had come with their champions in dialectical disputation ().^[87] They had dearly expected the council to be a dialectical contest (), and were utterly at a loss when that prospect did not materialize. Perceiving that the attending bishops' fear that an appeal to traditional authorities would undermine their causes, Theodosius, to eliminate trickery and evasion, ordered each of the sects to submit in writing a statement of its dogmatic beliefs, which he would then use as the basis of his final decision.^[88] On the appointed day, bishops representing each of the sectae were called to the imperial palace to deliver their creeds,^[89] after which the emperor

betook his own counsel, and began praying assiduously that God would help him make the true decision. Then after reading each of the written doctrinal statements, he accepted and praised only the one which contained the homoousion ; all the rest he condemned on account of the fact they introduced a separation of the Trinity.^[90]

In this manner, the creed from the Council of Nicaea, after a number of setbacks at regional councils, again received its formal reinstatement at Constantinople. The happy outcome was attributed strictly to the agency of a pious emperor who, praying to God for the wisdom of discernment, had the good sense to halt destructive theological debates.^[91]

Socrates' distrust of verbal disputation was probably informed by his perspective as a professional lay Christian.^[92] Ammianus Marcellinus,

[86] See a letter from Constantine to Alexander of Alexandria and Arius quoted in Eusebius' Vita Constantini 2.64-72.

[87] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:585-94).

[88] See F. Dvornik, "Emperor, Popes and General Councils," DOP 6 (1951): 3-23.

[89] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:588A).

[90] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 5.10 (PG 67:589A-92A); my translation. On Constantine's daily secluded prayers, see Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4.22.

[91] See Codex Theod . 16.4.1 (386), 16.4.2 (388), in Krueger, Meyer, and Mommsen, eds., 1:853-54. On the importance of the emperor's prayer, see Socrates' account about Theodosius' prayer before the Battle of Frigidus, in Hist. eccl . 5.25.

[92] See Foakes-Jackson, History of Church History , 77:

Socrates was by profession a lawyer (scholasticus ), and was on the side of all which made for peace and good government. He notices that whenever the Church is distracted, civil disturbances ensue, and he has the practical objection of a layman to disputes on theological subtleties being allowed to disturb public tranquility.

an army officer and a polytheist, shared Socrates' view to a remarkable degree when he criticized Constantius for importing complexity and subtlety into Christian quarrels, arguing that the frequent meetings of the bishops made a bad situation worse.^[93] On his part, Socrates was aware of pagan criticisms of Christian disunity and sought to rebut them in his work.^[94]

Socrates believed in a bond of cosmic sympathy between the affairs of state and church, and that Christian quarrels could bring down on the empire such calamities as barbarian invasions. This theory does much to explain Socrates' wish for peace and eutaxia in the church: he was troubled by Christian factionalism not only for sectarian reasons but because it affected the very well being of Rome and its people.^[95] Belief in a dose causal connection between ecclesiastical unity and the manifestation of pax Dei could easily lead to a totalitarian vision of ecclesiastical affairs. Surprisingly, Socrates was one of the most tolerant of late antique church historians in his treatment of those ordinarily considered unorthodox.^[96]

We must remember that, according to the prevailing orthodoxy of his time, Socrates himself belonged to a schismatic sect, the Novatians. He pleaded not for the forceful suppression of religious dissidents but for a consensus gentium that was moderate, tolerant, and conducive to the common good of the Roman world. The goal of polite coexistence was often hurt when opposing sides articulated their differences dearly and publicly, whereas a measure of mutual ignorance could help the cause of peace. This profoundly pragmatic and secular perspective left little room for debates on complex theological issues, which our author confessed not to understand in any case. A peace-loving attitude counted for more than precise knowledge: the new emperor Jovian, besieged by bishops competing for his favor, declared his hatred of contentiousness, adding that he would favor those individuals who promoted concord.^[97]

[93] Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae 21.16.18. See also, in Anecdota 13, the similar reservation shown later by Procopius in his characterization of the disastrous consequences of Justinian's excessive zeal in pursuing religious controversy.

[94] See Downey, "Perspectives of the Early Church Historians," 59-63.

[95] See, e.g., Socrates, Hist. eccl . 2.10, where he connected the pro-Arian council of Antioch with the invasion of the Franks and an earthquake near Antioch. See also Chestnut, "Kairos and Cosmic Sympathy."

[96] Socrates' treatment of fellow Novatians such as Agelius and Sisinnius is generous to a fault. In contrast, his negative judgment of Nestorius stemmed from his hatred of the man both as a troublemaker and a "busybody" heresy hunter; see Socrates, Hist. eccl . 7.29; Foakes-Jackson, History of Church History , 78.

[97] Socrates, Hist. eccl . 3.25.

A trained scholastikos in the late Roman Empire, Socrates had little reason to regard argumentation as a necessary, let alone healthy, component of sound government, whether secular or ecclesiastical.^[98]

Sozomen's Historia Ecclesiastica

Salamanes Hermeias Sozomenos began writing his ecclesiastical history circa 439 and dedicated the completed work to Theodosius II in 443-44.^[99] He was born in Bethelea near Gaza circa 380, and later moved to Constantinople.^[100]

For Sozomen, monks and confessors represented the ideological antithesis to reliance on eloquence and dialectic for authority by earning their claim to respectful consideration through ascetic practices and suffering. Their virtuous deeds guaranteed the truth of their beliefs, making verbal articulation or defense unnecessary.^[101] Sozomen prefaced his discussion of the controversies of the church by describing the edifying lives of these ascetic Christians, who demonstrated

the truth of their doctrines by their virtuous way of life. In fact the most useful gift that man had received from God is their philosophy. They ignore many aspects of mathematics and the contrived argumentation of the dialectical art () because they viewed such pursuits as meddling (), and a profitless waste of time since they contribute nothing to living uprightly. . . . For they do not

[98] In 426, Valentinian III issued the "Law of Citations" (Codex Theod . 1.4.3) to regulate the function of juristic opinion in legal decision making. Thenceforth, court rulings were to be based on a corpus of five authorities: Gaius, Julius Paulus, Ulpianus, Modestinus, and Papinianus. Judges were instructed to follow the five jurists where they were in consensus, to follow the majority view when opinion was divided, and, when equally divided, to adopt the decision of Papinianus. This rule has been regarded by scholars as a prime indicator of the decline of Roman jurisprudence in late antiquity because the "tyranny of the majority" was set over juristic rationalization; see P. Dalloz, Institutions politiques et sociales de l'antiquité (Paris, 1984), 428; W. W. Buckland, A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian , 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1932), 27. Under this law, there was no longer room for local discussion or individual judgment in matters already ruled upon by the ancient jurists. Suggesting that this law ought to be seen as part of a broader and more persistent trajectory toward authoritarianism, Dalloz (428) traces the development back to around 325, when the Sententiae Pauli , a collection of decisions by the famous jurist Julius Paulus (fl. circa 210) was compiled sans argumentation.

[99] See C. Roueché, "Theodosius II, the Cities, and the Date of the 'Church History' of Sozomen," JTS n.s. 37 (1986): 130-32.

[100] He probably also attended the school of law at Gaza; see B. Grillet's introduction to A.-J. Festugière and G. Sabbah, eds., Sozomène: Histoire ecclésiastique livres I-II , SC 306 (Paris, 1983), 19n. 1.

[101] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.1.

use demonstration to show their virtue (), but they practice it, dismissing as nothing the reputation before men.^[102]

Sozomen's preface to his Nicene account describes the lives and deeds of confessors and monks more fully than did the work of Socrates.^[103] This may be seen as a function of Sozomen's general belief, expressed later in his discussion of the Anomoean controversy, that all the "monk-philosophers" were faithful supporters of the Nicene creed. It was through the widely admired, heroic, and god-loving Christians that the common people also came to hold the right belief.^[104]

Sozomen also told a story about Spyridon not found in Socrates' Historia ecclesiastica . At a meeting of the local bishops on Cyprus, a certain Triphyllius,^[105] the bishop of the Ledri and a scholastikos , quoted the scriptural phrase "Take up the bed and walk" but substituted the literary word for "bed," skimpous , for the humbler krabbatos in the original. Hearing this, Spyridon flew into a rage and reproached Triphyllius for daring to improve the scriptures. He made this outburst so that all present might learn a lesson, for according to Sozomen,

he was teaching them to keep a man who was proud in words within bounds (); and he was worthy to give this rebuke because he was reverenced and enjoyed the highest reputation from his deeds, also at the same time he happened to be more advanced in age and in priestliness.^[106]

Eloquence was not in and of itself an evil art,^[107] unless employed in a spirit of contention or in the persistent investigation of out-of-bounds topics. For Sozomen, the close examination of a subject by its very nature led to differences: "

[102] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.12 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 162-63). See pp. 85-86 on Sozomen's preference for the monks' simplicity and ignorance.

[103] For Sabinus of Heraclea's account of Nicaea, see Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.8. For Sozomen's use of Sabinus' account of Nicaea, see G. Schoo, Die Quellen Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos (Berlin, 1911).

[105] See Jerome, De viris illustribus 92.

[106] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.11 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 160-61).

[107] According to Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.20, the emperor Constantine, after listening to speeches by the respective parties in the palace, "applauded those who spoke well, [and] rebuked those who displayed a tendency to altercation." The definition of "speaking well" was of course at issue here.

."^[108] He thus shared Socrates' assessment of debate as an unhelpful, even unhealthy, process. He also unabashedly professed his own lack of understanding of the controverted issues.^[109]

Writing his Historia ecclesiastica about a decade after Socrates had finished his, Sozomen often used his description of theological debates to emphasize the superiority of the Christian life and the manifestation of divine grace.^[110] Sozomen either deliberately chose not to use Socrates' idiosyncratic second edition, or he based his work on the latter's unrevised books 1 and 2, which may have represented the debate at Nicaea much as in Rufinus' version. In effect, Rufinus' version resurfaced in Sozomen's work; Sozomen also developed one of the potential trajectories of Rufinus' story into an exemplary demonstration of Christian arete by linking the confessors triumph over the philosopher with another story in which a pious Christian confounded pagan sophistry.

At a meeting before the day the council was to be formally convoked, many bishops and their accompanying clergy, all of them skilled in debate () and trained in the rules of disputation (), met to conduct a public debate.^[111] Foremost among the participants was Athanasius, who even as a deacon took a leading position in the deliberating process (). Having told this much, Sozomen digressed into two "miraculous" stories before proceeding with the account of the disputation. The first is a variant of the multiform story we have been discussing:

While these disputations were being carried on, certain of the pagan philosophers became desirous of taking part in them; some, because they wished for information as to the doctrine that was inculcated; and others, because, feeling incensed against the Christians on account of the recent suppression of the pagan religion, they wished to convert the inquiry about doctrine into a strife about words, so as to introduce dissensions among them, and to make them appear as holding contradictory opinions ().^[112]

Of Sozomen's two explanations for the presence of pagan philosophers at a Christian convention, the first—sheer curiosity about the upstart religion—seems reasonable enough, although mere plausibility

[108] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.17 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 196-97); see also Hist. eccl . 3.13 on the disruptive effects of verbal contests.

[109] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 7.17 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 41, 48-49, esp. n. 5).

[110] See Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 41.

[111] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.17 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 196-97).

[112] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.18 (trans. from NPNF 253; Greek text in Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 198-99); see Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 37-41 on Sozomen's treatment of miracles.

does not prove its authenticity. The second explanation—a scheme to undermine Christian unity and discredit the religion by introducing dialectical disputation—appears much more insidious, as it reiterates a prejudice against philosophical reasoning as the primary cause for discord within the church catholic. Following this expository introduction, Sozomen adhered more closely to his source, Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica , in depicting the confrontation between the philosopher and the confessor:

It is related that one of these philosophers, priding himself on his acknowledged superiority of eloquence (), began to ridicule the priests, and thereby roused the indignation of a simple old man, highly esteemed as a confessor, who, although unskilled in logical refinements and wordiness, undertook to oppose him. The less serious of those who knew the confessor, raised a laugh at his expense for engaging in such an undertaking; but the more thoughtful felt anxious lest, in opposing so eloquent a man, he should only render himself ridiculous (); yet his influence was so great, and his reputation was so high among them, that they could not forbid his engaging in the debate.^[113]

The confessor stepped into the fray, recited his credo, and exhorted the philosopher not to waste his time in attempting to understand what could only be grasped with humble, unmeddling faith (). The philosopher, dumbfounded by the confessors words (), assented to their truth. He even professed that his enlightenment had been brought about by nothing less than divine intervention ().^[114]

It is significant that Sozomen chose to reject Socrates' shorter and more idiosyncratic variant in favor of Rufinus'.^[115] But unlike Rufinus' story, which Thélamon characterizes as a typological drama, Sozomen's account was transformed by the second "miraculous" story into a folk tale.

Sozomen introduced the second tale as a similar marvel (), a bit of hearsay () most likely picked up in the bustling streets of Constantinople.^[116] It certainly had a strong local flavor. After Constantine founded his new imperial capital, a number of the philosophers from the incorporated pagan city of Byzantium approached Alexander, the first bishop of Christian Constantinople, to find out whether he dared to debate with them. Although Alexander, a

[113] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.18 (trans. from NPNF 253-54; Greek text in Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 200, and Bidez, ed., 39-40).

[114] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.18 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 200-201).

[115] See Schoo, Die Quellen Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos , 19, 26.

[116] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.18 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 200-201).

virtuous man (), was untrained in the philosophical discourse of the schools (), he agreed to meet their challenge, perhaps because he considered his upright way of life a sufficient guard against subtle words.^[117] The philosophers gathered, eager for debate (), but before their chosen spokesman could say a word Alexander said: "In the name of Jesus Christ, I command you to be silent ()." After these words, the philosopher could not utter a sound.^[118] An anticlimactic ending perhaps, but telling in its crude abruptness.

From dialectical debate to quiet virtue to the silencing of adversaries: this movement was for Sozomen the outline of a Christian miracle and triumph.^[119] His high regard for the self-chosen ignorance and virtuous silence of Christian ascetics informed Sozomen's choice to favor Rufinus' version as well as the particulars of his own treatment of the story.^[120]

Sozomen's respect for asceticism was born of close personal involvement. The entire city of Bethelea, where Sozomen's family was among the first of the aristocratic families to become Christian, had been converted when Hilarion, an anchorite from the Egyptian desert, cast a demon out of Alaphion, a citizen of Bethelea and possibly Sozomen's relative.^[121] To one who grew up in a tradition validating the miraculous power of charismatic Christian ascetics, the power of persuasion naturally paled by comparison.^[122]

Gelasius of Cyzicus' Syntagma

Gelasius of Cyzicus' version of the episode in his Syntagma , written circa 475-76, contains two separate confrontations between philosophers and

[117] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.18 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 200-201).

[118] Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.18 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 200-201). Compare this scenario with the abject fate of Julia in Pseudo-Mark the Deacon's Vita Porphyrii as discussed in Chapter 3.

[119] See Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 1.18 (Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 200-203). The miracle doublet (one occurring at Nicaea and the other at Constantinople) are favorably compared to pagan propaganda about Julian the Chaldean, who reputedly cleft stones with bare hands.

[120] Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 85-86: "[Sozomène est un] fervent admirateur de la simplicité des moines, de cette ignorance volontaire qu'il dédare être la suprême sagesse."

[121] See Sozomen, Hist. eccl . 3.14, 21-28 (Bidez, ed., 121-22) and Valois' comments in PG 67:1259n. 11. See also Jerome, Vita Hilarionis (PL 23:29-54); Van Dam, "From Paganism to Christianity," 8-10.

[122] Sozomen may not have been simply pandering to his audience, the character of which remains a matter for discussion; see F. Paschoud, Cinq études zur Zosime (Paris, 1975), 212; Festugière and Sabbah, eds., 78n. 1. The former argues for an elevated audience, the latter a popular one.

bishops.^[123] The first is the multiform story we have been examining; the second, more substantial segment is a dialogue between a philosopher named Phaidon and a number of bishops at Nicaea. The connection between the debate and the dialogue is one of the two major textual questions of this tradition; the other is the relationship of the versions of Rufinus and Gelasius of Caesarea. Gelasius of Cyzicus claimed that his detailed book 2 derived from a record made of the Council of Nicaea by Dalmatius, the bishop of Cyzicus who had attended the meeting. The Liber Dalmatii , purportedly transcribed from the stenographic notes of the proceedings at Nicaea, later passed into the keeping of Gelasius' father, a presbyter of the Cyzican church.

The question of whether a set of stenographic acta at Nicaea ever existed is too complex to be treated here. Suffice it to say that while Loeschcke,^[124] the editor of Gelasius' Syntagma , is inclined to acknowledge the authenticity of the dialogue fragment, the majority of scholars have decided against this judgment.^[125] The strongest arguments against its authenticity are the lack of attestation of the existence of stenographic records from the Nicene proceedings, and the fact that the theological content of the dialogue dearly indicates a polemic against both Anomoean and Macedonian views, suggesting a date of redaction, if not outright composition, in the late fourth or early fifth century. The dialogue records verbatim a series of acerbic interchanges between a pagan philosopher named Phaidon and a number of prominent bishops, including Eustathius of Antioch, the council president Ossius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Leontius of Caesarea. While not impossible, it is highly imaplausible that a pagan was chosen as spokesman for the Arian "opposition" and engaged so many famous bishops in a lengthy debate based on scriptural premisses. Furthermore, the assertion that the bishops spoke on behalf of the entire synod has the air of an ex post facto

[123] This section from book 2 of Gelasius of Cyzicus' late-fifth-century compilation of the history of Nicaea, the Syntagma , was, according to the author's own report, derived from a source called the Liber Dalmatii , containing two accounts of philosophers who argued Arius' case before an assembly of pious bishops in full council. The first is the multiform story that appeared in the Historiae ecclesiasticae of Rufinus, Socrates, and Sozomen, and is told in the third person. The second debate, comprising the bulk of the Liber , purports to be a transcription of a stenographic record of the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea in 325, a record not noted in any contemporary sources. This section was marked off according to the convention of a dialogue, with alternating remarks by the philosopher Phaidon and various bishops speaking on behalf of the entire synod.

[124] G. Loeschcke, "Das Syntagma des Gelasius Cyzicenus," RhM 60 (1905): 594-613; 61 (1906): 34-77; idem, Das Syntagma des Gelasius von Cyzicus (Bonn, 1906).

[125] See Jugie, "La dispute des philosophes païens," who sees a later tradition, contra Loeschcke, Das Syntagma des Gelasius yon Cyzicus .

conception of what Nicaea was all about: the unified consensus of the fathers in stout opposition to the provocations of self-seeking and wrong-thinking individuals.

The dialogue itself is an exegetical contest, with both sides pitting scriptural arguments (martyria ) against each other. Thus even a pagan philosopher accepted scriptural proofs as adequate premisses for his apodeixeis . One rather suspects the adaptation of one or more florilegia or patristic catenae to a dialogue form bearing greater resemblance to question-and-answer dialogues (eroteseis kai apokriseis ) than to literary or philosophical ones. The level of the reasoning is not very high: the coup de grâce that brought the philosopher to confess Christ is a clumsy analogical argument comparing the persons of the Trinity to fire, emanation, and light.

Thus it is understandable that the scholarly consensus questions the authenticity of Gelasius of Cyzicus' Syntagma , particularly the Liber Dalmatii , and its value as an independent source for Nicaea.^[126] Most recently, Ehrhardt has argued that Gelasius' Syntagma , though worthless as a source for the fourth century, is useful as a document about more contemporary controversies.^[127] This conclusion is sufficient here because we are primarily interested in the document as evidence for the reception of Nicaea in the fifth century.

The multiform story opens with a new characterization of the philosopher as a hireling () of the Arians. According to Gelasius of Cyzicus, the debate occurred during the formal session of the council:

A certain person, among those who were in the hire of Arius, was a philosopher admired above all others. He stoutly maintained many and numerous contentions for Arius' sake against our bishops for a good number of days in front of all the rest who were exceedingly astounded. This resulted in a large audience every day on account of the encounter () of words (), with the majority of the assembled crowd thrown into confusion, while the philosopher was advancing the impious blasphemies of Arius against those who were arguing on behalf of the holy synod, and saying concerning the Son of God that "there was a time () when he was not" and "he is a fashioned and created being made out of nothing and from other substances () and hypostases ." He put forth [lit., "there was to him"] a great contest () for the sake of the polluted teachings of Arius and showers of speeches (). He fought against the Son of God and inveighed against the of those saintly priests.^[128]

[126] See Person, Mode of Theological Decision Making , 53.

[127] See C. T. H. R. Ehrhardt, "Constantinian Documents in Gelasius of Cyzicus' Ecclesiastical History," JAC 23 (1980): 48-57.

[128] Gelasius of Cyzicus, Syntagma 2.13.1-2 (Loeschcke and Heinemann, eds., 61).

The implicit connection in Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica between the philosopher and the Arian cause has now been made explicit.^[129] This description mobilized in one stroke two deeply ingrained late Roman prejudices against the philosopher and his cause: he acted on the base motive of material gain, and his position as a hireling suggested a low social station.

During the debate, the philosopher abandoned all sense of decorum, behaving like a Corybant, with the abandon normally associated with frenzied females in Greek culture. This portrayal discredited the philosopher as lacking the self-restraint so important to late antique elites, and tarnished the practice of disputation itself as conducive to a loss of self-control.^[130]

The philosopher's zeal was insufficient for helping him carry the day. As in the other versions, the philosopher was destined to be worsted by the confessor. Struck dumb and humbled, he conceded defeat and was led by the old man to a church to be baptized.^[131] Faced with this felicitous and unexpected outcome, "the entire synod rejoiced" ().^[132]

From the typological drama of Rufinus to the miracle story of Sozomen, this story had evolved almost imperceptibly^[133] into an account of exorcism in Gelasius' Syntagma . Here the word dynamis was given back one of its concrete meanings as the power to effect miracles; God, "in order to show that his kingdom consists not in speech () but in power (), not only silenced but also forcibly cast out () the evil spirit speaking through () the philosopher by means of one of his servants there."^[134]

This episode marked the complete demonization of the process of verbal argumentation, now termed the "diabolical skill of words ()."^[135] The philosopher even told his disciples that, though he formerly opposed logoi with logoi , "when a certain di-

[130] Chrysanthius of Sardis also associated disputation with the rousing of one's thumos ; see Eunapius, VS 502. The disciples of Chrysanthius who delighted in disputation were specifically described as behaving like Corybants.

[132] Gelasius of Cyzicus, Syntagma 2.13.15 (Loeschcke and Heinemann, eds., 64).

[133] Jugie does not seem to have noticed this addition in his "La dispute des philosophes païens."

[134] Gelasius of Cyzicus, Syntagma 2.13.6 (Loeschcke and Heinemann, eds., 62).

[135] Gelasius of Cyzicus, Syntagma 2.13.4 (Loeschcke and Heinemann, eds., 14).

vine power () proceeded from the mouth of the questioner in the place of words (), words are unable to withstand the Power any further, for man is not able to withstand God."^[136]

Some Later Traditions

As authentic records of the events that took place at Nicaea, the above traditions contain little to commend themselves. However, as records of the reception of Nicaea and of the conciliar process in general, they speak volumes about how particular authors construed the role of disputation in settling Christian theological differences.^[137]

Our multiform story was to enjoy a long and varied life beyond the fifth century. It resurfaced in various compilations, including Theodore the Reader's Historia tripartita , an "ecclesiastical history from the time of Constantine to the reign of Justinian," according to the Suidas.^[138] In this writing, Sozomen's second story has completely usurped the place of the Nicene debate: Alexander, the bishop of Byzantium, confronted by one of several philosophers who wished to debate () him concerning his faith (), silenced his challenger with the words, "In the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, I command you to be silent and not to utter a sound ()."^[139]

In the Chronicon of Georgius Monachus the Sinner (), the role of the simple intervener is played by none other than Spyridon, the Cyprian bishop.^[140] He also appears as a refuter of heretics at Nicaea

[136] Gelasius of Cyzicus, Syntagma 2.13.14 (Loeschcke and Heinemann, eds., 64).

[137] See Ehrhardt, "Constantinian Documents."

[140] In C. de Boor, ed., Georgii Monachi chronicon (Leipzig, 1904), 506. See Paul Van den Ven, La légende de Saint Spyridon, évêque de Trimithonte (Louvain, 1953). He discusses mostly earlier sources: Athanasius, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Gelasius of Caesarea (whom he accepts as "Rufin-grec ," 31) and Gelasius of Cyzicus (30-33). See 27-30 on whether or not Spyridon was a confessor. The ambiguity caused by the confessors lack of a concrete rank in the ecclesiastical hierarchy is now resolved in the story; see also E. R. Hardy, "The Decline and Fall of the Confessor-Presbyter," SP 15 (1984): 221-25; Apostolic Constitutions 8.23.

in the illuminated manuscript of the London Psalter.^[141] In the Chronicon , Spyridon commanded the philosopher to listen, "in the name of Jesus Christ," to the doctrines of truth (). As before, the dogmata turned out to be a credal formula.

The identification of the simple confessor with Spyridon only made concrete a connection hinted at in Rufinus' Historia ecclesiastica , where the debate was placed adjacent to stories of charismatic confessors, signifying the natural alliance between Christian virtue and holy simplicity against the empty sophistry of words. In contrast, Spyridon's status as a bishop suggests a shift from a world of freewheeling charismatic Christians to a more settled and hierarchical Christian empire.

In the west, the story was preserved not only through Rufinus but also in Cassiodorus' Latin Historia tripartita , comprising excerpts from the works of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Understandably, Cassiodorus juxtaposed Sozomen's two stories with Socrates' markedly different version without trying to harmonize them,^[142] separating them by "fertur enim et aliud."^[143]

Why is this interesting episode absent from Theodoret's Historia ecclesiastica , and what can explain his decision to omit it from his account of Nicaea? It may be that he was suspicious of the story's authenticity; more likely, he did not share the bias against public debate that was a hallmark of all versions of the story. Theodoret, the author of a treatise that demonstrated the truth of Christian dogma with syllogisms, reported that Eustathius of Antioch attributed the Council of Nicaea's failure to condemn the Eusebians to the absence of thorough discussion.

[141] London Psalter folio 107v. See C. Walter, L'iconographie des conciles dans la tradition byzantine , Archives de l'Orient Chrétien 13 (Paris, 1970), 256-57 and fig. 121.

[142] Cassiodorus, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita 2.3.1-2 (CSEL 71:87) (= Socrates, Hist. eccl . 1.8):

Cumque plurimi disputationis delectatione traherentur, unus quidam ex confessoribus laicis simplicem habens sensum dialecticis obviavit dicens: "Audite igitur, Christus et apostolici non nobis artem dialecticam tradiderunt vanamque verborum fallaciam, sed puram scientiam fide et operibus bonis observandam." Haec dicente iuvene et animo sene praesentes quidem mirati sunt dictumque probaverunt, dialectici vero satisfactione suscepta cessarunt rationem quippe simplicem veritatis audientes.

[143] Cassiodorus, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita 2.3.3 (CSEL 71:87).

This was because, we are told, crypto-Eusebians at the council, "under the pretext of maintaining peace, silenced all who were deemed to be the best speakers ()," for fear that a rational discussion would expose their heretical ideas before a hostile "majority."^[144] This attitude blamed the ability of the Eusebian party to evade detection at Nicaea, and ultimately the failure of the conciliar process, on a lack of serious and critical debate.

The many versions of this Nicene tradition on be explained in part by the authors' different narrative strategies and redactional biases. Yet a remarkably consistent theme emerges—a matrix linking the Christian bias against public disputation to stories about charismatic ascetics, to irreducible credal formulations, and to the ideology of Christian unity () expressed liturgically through vocal expressions of consensus ().

Another consistent theme that surfaces in these variants is a hint that perhaps theological and philosophical differences were given insufficient opportunity for discussion at Nicaea. Such a suspicion would certainly not be unjustified in light of Constantine's opening address urging unanimity and harmony: "Having forsaken contentious dispute (), let us find the solution to the matters under investigation from the inspired words."^[145]

Even our incomplete records make dear that the Council of Nicaea was no meeting of a debating society; as Mushy points out in his study on Rufinus, debates most likely did not take place at Nicaea in a "democratic" fashion.^[146] Subsequent councils were even less "democratic," the more so because they emulated traditional Roman senatorial proceedings with their emphasis on correct procedure, seniority in the offering of sententiae, written documents such as creeds and hupographai , traditional authorities, and even acclamations.^[147]

The fear that a single dialectician could disrupt imperial Christian council by engaging the assembled bishops in disputation may well have

[144] Theodoret, Hist. eccl . 1.8.3 (Parmentier and Scheidweiler, eds., 34).

[145] Teodoret, Hist. eccl . 1.7.12 (Parmentier and Scheidweiler, eds., 32). See also Constantine's letter to Alexander in Eusebius, Vita Constantini 2.64-72. After the synod, Constantine emphasized in a letter (with perhaps too much zeal to be convincing) that all the controverted points had indeed (rumor notwithstanding) been given careful consideration. For a discussion of Constantine's prominence at the council and his many interventions in the process, see Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius , 215-19.

[146] See Mushy, Rufinus of Aquileia , 345-411.

[147] See H. Gelzer, "Die Konzilien als Reichsparlamente," in idem., Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1907), 142-55. For a fuller exposition of these conciliar trappings, see Chapter 7.

appeared reasonable in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, a transitional period when much was uncertain. Once a consensual conciliar tradition was firmly rooted, the bishops were able to hold their own, and the temporary services of a charismatic confessor were no longer required to confront an equally charismatic dialectician-philosopher. In this respect, one might say that, although the bishops in the story lost, the victory ultimately belonged to them. As if to drive this point home, a letter of Ambrose, himself a vocal advocate of the dangers of relying on dialectic in Christian disputes,^[148] was read at the Council of Ephesus in 431 as part of the patristic testimonia . In it, the bishop of Milan freely paraphrased I Corinthians 2:4:

Sileant igitur inanes de sermonibus quaestiones, quia regnum dei, sicut scripture est, non in persuasione verbum est, sed in ostensione virtutis.^[149]

Let the empty questions regarding speech cease now, for the Kingdom of God, as it is written, consists not in the persuasion of words but in the exhibition of virtuous deeds.

[148] See Palladii Ratairensis fragmenta (R. Gryson, ed., Scholies ariennes sur le concile d'Aquilée , SC 267 [Paris, 1980]), where Ambrose discussed the character of Arian Christians, including the Anomoeans: "Omnem enim vim venenorum suorum in dialectica disputatione constituunt, quae filosoforum sententia definitur, non adstruendum habentes studium, sed studium destruendi. sed in dialectica conplacuit d(e)o salvum facere populum suum."

[149] ACO 1.2, 17.25 (Schwartz, ed., 56). Latin text from Collectio Veronensis ; Greek text from Collectio Vaticana in ACO 1.1.2, 54 (Schwartz, ed., 42-43).