devore jla 2014 eusebius letters-libre

7/26/2019 DeVore JLA 2014 Eusebius Letters-libre

1/30

Journal of Late Antiquity 7.2 (Fall): 223252 2014 Johns Hopkins University Press 223

David J. DeVore

Character and Convention in the Letters

of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History1

Letters inserted into Eusebius Ecclesiastical History can be interpretedfruitfully within the context of the usage of embedded letters in imperialGreek literature. Elite Greek narrative texts regularly attributed letters to

famous Greeks of the past in order to model elite convention and to revealheroic character. Similarly, Eusebius subtle and manipulative reproductionof letters by past Christians foregrounds these Christians as exemplars of

proper ecclesiastical conduct. Eusebius letters represent wide communica-tion, harmonious resolution of differences, and conformity to past Chris-tians conduct as essential to Christian identity, particularly in his narrativesof the paschal and rebaptism controversies. Eusebius presented epistolaryconventions so as to render Christian character acceptable to elite Greek-speaking audiences.

Eusebius of Caesareas Ecclesiastical History offers a representative example ofthe power of letters to represent character in late-antique literature. Eusebius quo-tes dozens of letters2and cites Christian epistles in many additional passages.3

1 I thank Jason Klazmer, Noel Lenski, Jesse Torgerson, and the anonymous reviewer forhelpful comments on drafts of this paper; James Corke-Webster, Susanna Elm, Aaron John-son, Rebecca Lyman, and Megan Hale Williams for stimulating discussion; Patrick Clark forhelp with references; and Corke-Webster, Caillan Davenport, and Adam Schor for access tounpublished work.

2 Eus. Hist. 1.7.216, 1.13.68, 1.13.10, 2.15.2, 2.22.35, 3.4.7, 3.15, 3.31.34, 3.36.79,3.36.11, 3.36.1315, 4.15.3, 1545, 4.23.1013, 4.26.1314, 5.1.363, 5.2.27, 5.4.2, 5.19.23,5.20.48, 5.24.28, 5.24.1217, 5.25, 6.2.6, 6.11.3, 6.11.56, 6.14.89, 6.19.1214, 6.40, 6.4142, 6.43.520, 6.44.26, 6.45, 6.46.4, 7.1, 7.5.12, 7.5.46, 7.6, 7.7.15, 7.8, 7.9.15, 7.10.29,7.11.219, 7.11.2025, 7.21.210, 7.22.210, 7.30.217, 8.10.210 (GCS 6: 5462, 8688, 140,162, 194, 228, 264, 27680, 336, 34052, 37678, 38688, 40226, 42830, 434, 47880, 48284, 49092, 49496, 498, 520, 542, 552, 56062, 59698, 600612, 61422, 62426, 628, 636,63840, 64244, 64648, 64852, 65462, 70612, 76064).

3 E.g. Eus. Hist. 1.12.2, 1.13.3, 2.17.12, 2.22.17, 2.23.25, 3.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.4, 3.4, 3.16, 3.25,3.36, 3.38, 4.15.46, 4.23, 5.3.4, 5.20, 5.23.23, 5.26, 6.2.1, 6.12.1, 6.20.12, 6.28.1, 6.31.1,6.31.3, 6.36.3 4, 6.39.5, 6.46, 7.7.6, 7.9.6, 7.20, 7.22.1112, 7.26, 7.27.2 (GCS6: 82, 84, 16264,174, 188, 18890, 190, 190, 230, 25052, 284, 352, 432, 48084, 48890, 498, 518, 544, 566,582, 58486, 586, 5902, 59496, 62628, 64446, 648, 674, 682, 700).


2/30


3/30

DVORE ^Character and Convention 225

The second assumption, one that dominates scholarship on the Eccle-siasticalHistory, is that Eusebius narrative reflects practices and mental-ities particular to Christians. Studies of the History rarely contextualize

the text within non-Christian (and non-Jewish) textual practices.10

Muchrecent scholarship, however, has shown that Eusebius writingsincludinghis General Elementary Introduction, Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evan-gelica, Oration for the Building of Churches, and Life of Constantineemployed Greek literary genres and joined longstanding Greek debates.11Like these works, the Ecclesiastical History was directed at educated Greekreaders who, as Marie Verdoner has recently shown, were not necessarilyChristian.12 I contend that reading the Historys embedded letters againstthe background of epistolary usage in Greek literature can illuminate Euse-

bius authorial agenda.This paper discusses how Eusebius used letters in the Ecclesiastical His-

tory that are attributed to Christians and addressed to other Christians.13The church historian, I argue, adapted earlier uses of epistolary excerpts inGreek literature to paint an image of the church that would be attractive toeducated Greeks. In their paideia, elite Greeks of Eusebius day learned toview letters both as a highly conventional communicative medium and aswindows into letter-writers personalities. In elite genres such as biography,letters purport to exemplify the ethos of their putative authors, even as theseletters also narrate events and construct long-distance communities. Letterswere therefore useful vehicles for depicting the character of famous individu-als and for modeling normative elite conventions. Eusebius likewise excerptedChristian letters so as to represent the ethos of the Christian church. The

3.36.411, 4.23, 5.19, 5.20, 5.24.1117, 6.2.1, 6.12.1, 6.19.1114, 6.407.26 (GCS 6: 27478,37678, 47880, 48284, 49496, 518, 544, 564, 596700).

10 Cf. DeVore 2013b. Notable exceptions: Momigliano 1963, 8991; Timpe 1989, 19497;Carotenuto 2001, 99106; Morlet 2005, 510.

11 On Eusebius General Elementary Introduction,see Johnson 2011. On the Praeparatio andDemonstratio Evengelica, see Johnson 2006a; Johnson 2006b, 7586; Morlet 2009, 5063,7476. On the Panegyric on the Building of Churches, see Smith 1989. On the Life of Constantine,despite their disagreements, Barnes 1989 and Cameron 1997 concur that Eusebius intermingledtraditional Greek genres in theLife.

12 Verdoner 2010.13 I therefore omit imperial rescripts quoted in the Historyat Eus. Hist. 4.9, 4.13, 7.13, 8.17,

9.7.314, 9.9a.19, 9.10.711, 10.57 (GCS 6: 31820, 32630, 666, 79094, 81420, 83438,84244, 88391). To be sure, Eusebius quotes many genres of text besides letters in the History:excerpts from heresiographies, narrative histories, apologies, commentaries, and sermons appear

alongside epistolary quotations. Since my interest here is not in Eusebius quotational habit asa whole but in his specific use of letters, this discussion is restricted to themes and rhetoric thatappear frequently in the letters of the History, but are less common in nonepistolary texts quotedby Eusebius. Carotenuto 2001 is the most comprehensive study of quotations in the History; seealso Inowlocki 2006.


4/30

226 Journal of Late Antiquity

Historys epistolary quotations encapsulate the creation and maintenanceof long-distance networks between Christian leaders of different regions.Eusebius presents this interconnected church as unified and harmonious by

restricting his quotations to a single, decisive voice in each narrative unit, avoice that often itself counsels unity and harmony, as close examination of hisnarratives of the famous rebaptism and Easter controversies reveals. Finally,Eusebius frequently quotes epistolary passages that appeal to the conduct ofprevious Christian heroes, a motif that systematically represents Christiancharacter as emulating a shared canon of renowned predecessors. By high-lighting Christian leaders interconnectedness, harmony, and traditionalism,Eusebius constructed a church acceptable to Greek elites familiar with theepistolary literature that he emulated.

Letters in Greek Culture and Literature:Between Conventionality and Character

The educated, elite Greek speakers for whom Eusebius intended the Ecclesi-astical History were well versed in epistolary communication. Two connectedexperiences conditioned these readers expectations for what quoted letterswould do in a narrative text like the History. The first experience was theirparticipation in paideia, the standard Greek-language educational system;14

the second was their reading of letters in other Greek narrative texts.15Theuses of letters in both fields of practice encouraged readers to understand

14 All educated Greek speakers in antiquity, Christian or pagan, underwent the same paideia.See Beavis 2000, 417420.

15 I omit Jewish and Christian texts from consideration. While such Jewish narratives as theSeptuagintal Esther and 12 Maccabees reproduce some epistolary texts, Eusebius does not seemto have read these texts especially closely (Carriker 2003, 162), and moreover these texts fromthe Hellenistic period are probably not as representative of contemporary practice as the third-century texts adduced below as comparanda. As for Christian texts ,few preEusebian Christiannarrative texts featured embedded letters. The only Christian texts of which I am aware thatquoted letters are Acts 15.2428, 23.2630 (Aland et al., eds. 1993, 367, 394), a Coptic recen-sion of the Acts of Paul and Thecla that includes the Pauline Third Letter to the Corinthians (seeLuttikhuizen 1996, 7778), and some pseudonymous letters associated with Clement of Romethat may have been incorporated into the Clementine Recognitions (see Pouderon 2000). WhileEusebius obviously knew the Acts of the Apostles well, he is unlikely to have read the Acts ofPauland Thecla and the Clementine Recognitionscarefully even if he knew them, cf. Carriker2003, 199200,233.

It might also be asked whether Pauls letters provided some precedent for Eusebius epistolary

interests. Eusebius seems uninterested in Paul as letter-writer. In the History, Paul is a missionaryand martyr (Eus. Hist. 2.1.14, 2.3.34, 2.12.2, 2.18.9, 2.22, 2.25.58, 3.1.3, 3.31.1 [GCS 6: 108,11214, 132, 156, 16264, 17678, 188, 264]), and Eusebius quotes Pauls letters to confirm histori-cal assertions, and not to narrate events or characterize the church, Eus. Hist. 2.1.45, 2.22, 3.2,3.3.5, 3.4.1 (GCS6: 104, 16264, 188, 190, 192; cf. 3.24.4; GCS 6: 24446); cf. Gordray 1992.


5/30

DVORE ^ Character and Convention 227

embedded letters as signs of the speakers character and conformity to pre-scribed convention.

Letter-writing was a highly conventional activity. The composition of let-

ters was an indispensable skill for educated elite males in the Roman Empire.When boys were between ten and fourteen years old, they began to writeepistolary compositions under the tutelage of an intermediate teacher.16Thewriting of letters was important enough that ancient educational theoristswrote handbooks that guided advanced students in the composition of let-ters.17 Our two surviving letter-writing handbooks attempt to model let-ters for many communicative situations, enumerating fifty epistolary genresbetween them along with a model letter for each genre.18By conceptualizingletters through an ostensibly comprehensive typology, the handbooks exerted

control over ancient students conception and execution of their letters.19Although such meticulous prescription obviously restricted self-

expression,20 letters were nonetheless thought by the ancients to reveal thewriters character with exceptional clarity. In a famous passage, a Hellenis-tic rhetorical theorist known as Demetrius compared the power of letters todisplay individual character to that of dialogues: The letter should containplentiful characterization (... ), as the dialogue also does;indeed, each individual writes his letter as virtually a likeness of his soul().21Such perceptions sug-gested that letters offered unmediated access to the individual personality oftheir writers.

There might seem to be a tension between the conventionality prescribedby the epistolary handbooks and the individuality implicit in Demetrius viewof letters. To educated Greeks, however, conformity to convention and expres-sion of individual personality need not have been contradictory. Some think-ers argued that a proper education, grounded in the study of elite male heroes

16 Cribiore 2001, 2159.17 Two such handbooks survive. The first is the Epistolary Types, which survives with a rhetori-

cal manual attributed to Demetrius of Phaleron and therefore is often called Pseudo-Demetrius;the second, the Epistolary Styles, is sometimes attributed to Libanius and sometimes to Proclus.See Poster 2007, 2428.

18 The different kinds of letter in each manual are enumerated by Poster 2007, 2830.19 Surviving epistolary papyri confirm that ancient letter-writers formulated their letters accord-

ing to the prescriptions laid out in the manuals, see Cribiore 2001, 21617, Poster 2007, 4041;

but cf. Hutchinson 2007.20 Under the conventions outlined in the epistolary manuals, letter-writers could exercise creativ-

ity through a mixed genre of letters by juxtaposing conventional genres in unexpected ways: cf.Pseudo-Libanius, Epistolary Styles45, 92 (Malherbe 1977, 72, 80).

21 Pseudo-Demetrius, On Style227 (Malherbe 1977, 18).


6/30


from the classical Greek past, shaped (elite male) students moral character.22Indeed, the educational curriculum was designed in part to improve thesestudents character,23and the composition of pseudonymous letters written in

the name of a hero from the glorious Greek past was regularly assigned as anexercise to promote understanding of the character of a famous Greek hero.24If a student had completed his education, including the composition of manysuch letters, it was assumed thathe had tempered his personality to accordwith proper elite male norms. Such conformity to conventional ideals thenmanifested itself in epistolary communication.

The capacity of letters to reveal conventionalized character motivated eliteGreek authors, steeped as they were in the practices ofpaideia, to incorporatethem into longer narratives as mirrors of a characters soul. Imperial Greek

historians and novelists inserted letters into their narratives in order to drivenarratives forward and reveal the personality of characters.25But the closestparallels to Eusebius usage of letters emerge in the regular use made of lettersby Greek biographers, such as Diogenes Laertius and Philostratus of Lem-nos.26In biographies, letters exchanged between two acquaintances providedreaders with glimpses of the normative character of the communities in whichthe two epistolary speakers interacted.

Letters quoted in biographies could reveal extensive interpersonal net-works that unified a group of individuals. In the first book of his Lives andOpinions of the Famous Philosophers, Diogenes Laertius quotes a series ofletters showcasing the mutual interactions of renowned sages from archaicGreece (Thales of Miletus, Solon of Athens, Epimenides of Crete, etc.).27Through letters these sages communicate closely with each other, and with

22 Plutarch associated paideia and virtue most explicitly among imperial Greek thinkers: seeSwain 1996, 13745; Duff 2008. Swain 1996: 309 notes similar ideas in Lucians writings.

23 See in general Marrou 1948,passim, especially 3023; Morgan 1998, especially 12049, 228;Cribiore 2001, 2035.

24 The educational author Aelius Theon (Bud 460: 115), among others, recommended the com-position of letters for reproducing the character of famous Greek heroes, Cribiore 2001, 216.

25 The earliest letters embedded into Greek narratives appear in Herodotus and Thucydideshistories, both of which feature letters attributed to famous statesmen, see Herod. 1.124, 3.40,3.128, 8.22 (ed. Hude, OCT); Thuc. 1.128.7, 1.129.3, 1.139.4, 7.1115 (eds. Jones and Powell,OCT), with Rosenmeyer 2001, 4560. Second- and third-century Greek historians sometimesincluded the text of letters in their narratives, see e.g. Arrian, An. 2.14.49 (Loeb 236, 17476),Herod. 5.1.28 (Loeb 455, 210), Herennius Dexippus, Scythica fragment 26 (Brills New Jacoby100). On letters in Greek novels, see Rosenmeyer 2001, 133192.

26 In addition to evidence presented in the following paragraphs, note Diog. Laert. 2.45, 2.44,3.2122, 7.79, 8.4950, 8.8081, 9.1314, 10.35116, 10.12125 (ed. Long, OCT), and Porph.Vit. Plot. 17, 19 (Loeb 440, 46 48, 5254).

27 Diog. Laert. 1.4344, 1.5354, 1.6467, 1.73, 1.81, 1.93, 1.99100, 1.105, 1.113, 1.122 (ed.Long, OCT). The only recent study of these letters is Dhrsen 1994.


7/30


famous Greek tyrants and kings, across the distances that separated them.The sages show interest in each others ideas, ask to read each others writ-ings, and travel to learn from each other.28Rulers invite the sages to their

courts,29

but the sages refuse to become mere court attendants, and theirmultiple voices speak out unanimously against overbearing rulers, but alsoexpress willingness to advise these rulers.30When one sage (Solon) goes intoexile, other sages offer him refuge.31These letters act as windows into differ-ent sages personalities while at the same time contributing to the construc-tion of a composite personality for the ideal Greek wise man. Moreover,in various voices, the sages exhibit consistent patterns of conduct in theirinteractions with one another and with tyrants, while binding themselvesinto a cohesive network.32

Where Diogenes Laertius creates networks through a variety of epistolaryvoices, Philostratus Life of Apollonius of Tyana weaves an epistolary networkaround the power of one epistolary voice. Through letters quoted by Philos-tratus, Apollonius persuades his addressees to curb inappropriate habits,33and Philostratus accompanying narrative makes it clear that these lettersspurred improvements in the lives of their recipients. In other letters Apollo-nius praises other famous philosophers and maintains ties with them,34and heexerts political influence through occasional epistolary dialogue with Romanemperors.35When, as is typical, Apollonius is the only epistolary speaker, hetransforms his addressees; when he converses with an emperor, Apolloniusreceives praise that confirms his philosophical authority. The almost exclusivereproduction of Apollonius effi cacious voice reinforces the unique philosoph-ical greatness with which Philostratus clothes the philosopher.

In sum, the letters embedded in elite Greek biographies showcased thecharacter of famous individuals in action. This function of letters fit Euse-bius purposes well, as the church historian makes it clear that helike otherGreek authorsis promoting his subjects exceptionally virtuous character.36

28 Diog. Laert.1.43, 1.99, 1.122; cf. 1.105 (ed. Long, OCT).29 Diog. Laert. 1.54, 1.81, 1.99. (ed. Long, OCT)30 On rebuffi ng and speaking out against tyrants, see Diog. Laert. 1.6567, 1.81, 1.113. On

advising tyrants, see Diog. Laert. 1.64, 1.73; cf. 1.100 (ed. Long, OCT).31 Diog. Laert. 1.44, 1.93, 1.113 (ed. Long, OCT).32 Cf. Dhrsen 1994, 10811.33 Philostr. Ap.1.15.3, 4.27 (Loeb 17.1: 66, 378)34 Philostr. Ap. 2.41, 3.51, 4.46.25, 6.33 (Loeb 17.1: 22426, 31618, 420; 17.2: 19092).35 Philostr. Ap.5.41.24, 6.29.2, 8.7.11; cf. 6.33 (Loeb 17.2: 86, 184, 336; 19092).36 See e.g. Eus. Hist. 1.4, 2.17, 2.23.27, 4.15.9, 5.20.48, 6.23, 6.9, 6.19.414 (GCS 6: 3844,

14252, 16468, 338, 48284, 51828, 53840, 55862); cf. 1.2, 3.27, 5.3.2, 6.43, 7.30.218,7.32 passim, 8.13.16 (GCS 6: 1028, 25456, 432, 61422, 70614, 71630, 77072); on


8/30


There was, however, a major difference between Eusebius Christian cul-ture and that of previous Greek authors. In the early fourth century,37whenChristians were a small minority and their religion barely legal,Christians had

a less-established canon of famous individuals from the past than educatedGreeks. While the gospels and other early Christian texts brought renownto Jesus and his earliest followers, post-apostolic Christianity seems to havegenerated few narratives that were shared so widely. The dearth of previousnarratives about the church placed Eusebius, as the first church historian,in the position to determine which Christians of the past would become thechurchs exemplary bishops, intellectuals, and martyrs.38It is likely that Euse-bius intended his portraits of these figures to establish the ethos expected ofholders of these roles.39Moreover, since Eusebius had at his disposal numer-

ous texts written by or about Christian leaders, hewas also poised to deter-mine which past Christians would become the exemplary heroes for futuregenerations. Indeed, for long stretches Eusebius portrays such individuals asPolycarp, Irenaeus, Origen, and Dionysius as ideal practitioners of Christianvirtue.40Like Diogenes Laertius Livesof the Seven Sages, then, the Historyboth promoted a series of exemplary Christian leaders and displayed an idealChristian character.

Correspondents and Their Networksin the Ecclesiastical History

As Williams observed in the quotation at the opening of this article, acentral trait of the character of Eusebius church was persistent epistolary

Eusebius aim of representing an idealized Christian character, see Johnson 2004 and 2006a,94125, 198233.

37 Under the now widely accepted dating hypothesis of Burgess 1997, Eusebius wrote three edi-tions of the History, dated respectively to 313/314 (roughly, books 19 of the History), 315/316(adding 10.17), and 324/325 (books 110.4 and 10.89). Some politically motivated revisionbetween editions notwithstanding, the History probably reflects Eusebius perception of the statusof Christians after the so-called Edict of Milan legalized the religion in the eastern Roman Empirein May of 313, but before Constantine became sole emperor late in 324. I do not accept the recentdating hypotheses of Neri 2012 and of Cassin, Debi, and Perrin 2012, for reasons noted in DeVore2014, 141.

38 Eusebius was well aware that he was creating the first composite narrative of the Christianpast, cf. Hist.1.1.34 (GCS 6: 68).

39 The first sentence of the Historyannounces as the texts subjects Christian clergy, intellectu-als, and martyrs, as well as heretics, Hist.1.12 (GCS 6: 6).

40 Polycarp: Hist. 4.1415 with 5.20.57 and 5.24.4, 1617 (GCS 6: 33254, 48284, 49092,496); Irenaeus: Hist. 5.4, 5.68, 5.20, 5.24.1118 (GCS6: 43234, 43850, 48084, 49596); Ori-gen: Hist. 6.16, 6.8, 6.14.86.16, 6.1819, 6.21.34, 6.2327, 6.30, 6.3233, 6.366.39 (GCS6: 51834, 53436, 55054, 55666, 568, 57080, 584, 58688, 59096 but cf. note 119 below);Dionysius, Hist. 6.4046, 7.211, 7.13, 7.2026 (GCS 6: 596628, 63664, 666, 674700).


9/30


communication. Like Diogenes Laertius on the Greek sages, Eusebius set outto describe a self-identified group whose members resided in distant cities.Since the long distances that separated Christian communities would seem

to forestall ecclesiastical unity, Eusebius used letters to display Christiansconnectedness.Eusebius numerous catalogues of correspondence by Christians draw

readers attention to the recipients of letters, and in particular, to the places ofresidence of recipients. Eusebius most extensive display of addressees comesin his quotation of the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, whose epistolaryvoice dominates much of books 6 and 7 of the History. These chapters noteno fewer than twenty-two Christian correspondents of Dionysius, correspon-dents who resided everywhere from Rome in the western Empire to Armenia

and Mesopotamia in the east.41Dionysius is thus the central node of a for-midable Christian network. Several other Christian leaders maintain compa-rable epistolary networks.42

Beyond his notices of addressees, Eusebius also regularly quotes cosignersof bishops letters, their notices of the names of supportive leaders, and otherindirect signs of epistolary communication. In the letters cited by Eusebius,for example, Dionysius drops the names of twelve elite Christians from out-side of his own community.43Eusebius quotes cosigners of a letter of Serapion

41 Fabius, the bishop of Antioch at Eus. Hist. 6.41.1, 6.44.1 (GCS 6: 600, 624); Novatian ofRome at Hist. 6.45 (GCS6: 626); Hermammon (presumably an Egyptian cleric) at Hist. 7.1, 7.10.1,7.22.12 (GCS6: 636, 648, 682); Conon of Hermapolis, Origen in Caesarea, Thelmyrides of Laodi-cea, and Merozanes of Armenia at Hist. 6.46.2 (GCS6: 628); Cornelius of Rome at Hist. 6.46.3(GCS6: 628); Stephen of Rome at Hist. 7.34 (GCS6: 638): Xystus of Rome at Hist. 7.5.3, 7.9.1(GCS6: 640, 646): Philemon of Rome at Hist. 7.7.1, cf. 7.5.5 (GCS6: 642, 640); Dionysius ofRome at Hist. 7.7.6, 7.26.1, cf. 7.5.6 (GCS6: 64446, 700, 640); Flavius, Domitius, and Didymus(not otherwise described) at Hist. 7.20 (GCS6: 674); Hierax, a bishop in Egypt, at Hist. 7.21.2(GCS 6: 678); Ammon of Bernike at Hist. 7.26.1 (GCS 6: 700); Telesphorus, Euphranor, andEuphorus at Hist. 7.26.12 (GCS6: 700); a boy named Timothy at Hist. 7.26.2 (GCS6: 700);and Basilides of the Pentapolis at Hist. 7.26.3 (GCS 6: 700). Dionysius also wrote his opinion() to the bishops who ousted Paul of Samosata from the Anciochene episcopacy, Hist. 7.27.2(GCS 6: 702). On the networks centered around Dionysius, see also Schor forthcoming.

42 Ignatius of Antioch writes to churches in Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia,Smyrna, and to Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, seeHist. 3.36.56, 10 (GCS6: 27478). Diony-sius, the second-century bishop of Corinth, corresponds with churches in Sparta, Athens, Nicome-dia, Gortyn, Amastris and the churches of Pontus, Cnossus, and Rome, as well as a woman namedChrysophora, cf. Hist. 4.23.12, 46, 9, 13 (GCS6: 37478). Eusebius makes it equally clear thatsuch famous Christian leaders as Origen (Hist. 6.2.6, 6.19.1214, 6.28, 6.31.1, 6.36.34, 6.39.5[GCS 6: 520, 562, 582, 58486, 59092, 59496]), Alexander of Jerusalem (Hist. 6.11.36,

6.14.89, 6.19.1718, 6.20.1 [GCS6: 54244, 55052, 564, 566]), and Serapion of Antioch (Hist.5.19, 6.12.1 [GCS47880, 544]) maintained extensive epistolary networks.

43 Germanus (an episcopal opponent), at Eus. Hist. 6.40.1 (GCS6: 596); Chaeremon (anotherdistant bishop) at Hist. 6.42.3 (GCS6: 610); Helenus of Tarsus at Hist. 6.46.3; 7.5.1, 4 (GCS6:628, 638, 640); Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia at Hist. 6.46.3; 7.5.1, 4 (GCS 6: 628, 638,


10/30


of Antioch, which include a witness (), a bishop, and a greetingappended by a former Jerusalemite bishop to his successors letter.44The mostextensive display of signatories comes when Eusebius quotes the greeting of

a letter announcing the removal of Paul of Samosata from the episcopacy ofAntioch in the 260s, a document cosigned by sixteen clerics that claims tospeak for all the others who reside in the nearby cities and nations, bishops,presbyters, and deacons, and the churches of God.45

In addition to noting the writers and cosigners of letters, Eusebius framesletters so as to stress the frequency of Christian epistolary communication.To use Dionysius again as an example, in three separate chapters Eusebiuscatalogues letters of Dionysius that he does not quote.46Eusebius many cata-logues of Christian writings often mention epistolary activity.47These cata-

logues extend Christians long-distance communication beyond the confinesof Eusebius narrative, alluding to numerous letters that Eusebius wants read-ers to know he could have quoted but chose not to.

These greetings and cosigners confirm Williams observation that forEusebius, the stature of a bishop is evidently measured in part by the rangeof his recorded correspondence.48Yet it is not only bishops or even individu-als who correspond at long distances. Eusebius also excerpts the greetingsof two anonymous martyr narratives, focusing his readers attention on theaddressees of these letters. The Martyrdom of Polycarp is addressed in thename of the church of Smyrna to Christians in the obscure city of Philome-lium as well as to all the communities of the holy catholic church in everyplace,49implying the circulation of an important text even to an apparentlyinsignificant community, but with the hope that after further circulation,

640); Theotecnus of Caesarea in Palestine at Hist. 6.46.3, 7.5.1 (GCS6: 628, 638); Demetrianusof Antioch at Hist. 6.46.4, 7.5.1 (GCS6: 628, 638); Alexander of Jerusalem at Hist. 6.46.4 (GCS6: 628); Marinus of Tyre at Hist. 7.5.1 (GCS6: 638); Mazabanes of Jerusalem at Hist. 7.5.1 (GCS6: 638); Heliodorus of Laodicea at Hist. 7.5.1 (GCS6: 638); Nepos, a theologian, at Hist. 7.24.4(GCS6: 686); and Corcorian, another theologian at Hist. 7.24.9 (GCS6: 690). In one passageDionysius claims that he could cite his reception of news from more bishops, but has named onlythe most illustrious bishops (), Eus. Hist. 7.5.1 (GCS6: 638); he also notes acertain man from among the brothers from Rome who were present, perhaps the courier of Dio-nysius correspondence with Rome, Eus. Hist. 7.11.3 (GCS6: 654).

44 Eus. Hist. 5.19.3; 6.11.3 (GCS 6: 47880, 542).45 Eus. Hist. 7.30.2 (GCS 6: 706).46 Eus. Hist. 6.46, 7.19, 7.26 (GCS 6: 6268, 67274, 700).47 Eus. Hist. 3.16, 3.36, 3.38, 4.14.8, 4.23, 5.19, 5.20.1, 6.31, 6.36.34, 6.46.24, 7.26 (GCS

6: 230, 27480, 284, 334, 378, 47880, 48082, 58486, 59092, 628, 700). On Eusebius cata-logues of Christians (and Philos and Josephus) writings in the History, see Alexandre 1998.

48 Williams 1989, 12.49 Hist.4.15.3 (GCS 6: 336) = Martyrdom of Polycarppraef. (Loeb 24: 366). Obscure city: see

Moss 2010, 78 with note 17.


11/30


Christians everywhere would read it. At the beginning of book 5 Eusebiusquotes the greeting of the Martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, where communi-ties in Gaul address other communities in Asia and Phrygia.50The distance

between the letters senders and its addressees highlights the reach of eccle-siastical communication. Eusebius emphasizes this distance by noting beforethe greeting that the Rhone River, which flows round the entire country [ofGaul] with a powerful current, passes through both Lyons and Vienne.51This detailthe only geographical description I have found in the Ecclesiasti-cal Historyintroduces the location of the martyrdoms as remote, unknownterritory, inviting readers to ponder the distance between Lyons and the Asianand Phrygian addressees of the Martyrs. In Eusebius telling, then, Christianstransmitted the memories of heroic martyrdoms to obscure communities as

well as churches halfway across the Roman Empire.Thus, Eusebius cataloguing, quotations, and framing of letters weave

a wide-ranging epistolary network, much like the networks constructedby the sages letters in Diogenes Laertius Lives and Opinionsand Apollo-nius letters in PhilostratusApollonius. Yet whereas Diogenes Laertius andPhilostratus epistolary networks are static and constant, since both pre-sume that acquaintances all remain in contact with one another, Eusebiuspresents a more dynamic network by narrating new connections betweencorrespondents.

One epistolary quotation that tightens the Christian network comessoon after Eusebius reproduction of the Martyrs of Lyons, marking the firstappearance of the great heresiologist Irenaeus as a character in the History.

The same martyrs also recommended Irenaeus, who at that particularpoint was a presbyter of the community in Lyons, to the aforementionedbishop at Rome, testifying to many of the mans qualities (), as the words that concern him state in the following way:We pray that you rejoice in God now and always, father Eleutherus. This

letter we urged our brother and community-member Irenaeus to deliver toyou, and we encourage you to hold him in your commendation, since he isan ardent supporter of the covenant of Christ. For if we knew that anyonesposition implied righteousness, we would be presenting him first of all as apresbyter of the church, which is his very position.52

Through this letter of recommendation, the martyrs of Lyons introduce a lead-ing member of their community to the bishop of Rome, who resided hundreds

50 Eus. Hist. 5.1.3 (GCS 6: 402).51 Eus. Hist. 5.1.1 (GCS 6: 400402).52 Eus. Hist. 5.4.12 (GCS 6: 434).


12/30


of miles away from Lyons. Eusebius quotation of the letter offers a glimpse ofefforts to forge links between Christians of distant communities: readers canimagine themselves in Eleutherus position, weighing the martyrs praise for

Irenaeus and finding good reason to welcome and (presumably) host Irenaeusin Rome. Several other times Eusebius quotes letters designed to introducepreviously unacquainted Christians.53These letters suggest constant efforts tointegrate individuals into the network as an essential method for promotingChristian cohesion.

Eusebius also assumes that Christian epistolary networks endure beyondthe moments of composition and reception of individual letters. One techniquefor portraying a connection as lasting is to quote series of letters between thesame recipients. Accordingly, Dionysius of Alexandria sends six letters about

baptism to three different clerics at Rome.54Eusebius also depicts epistolaryrelations as resulting in extra-epistolary interactions. Irenaeus recommen-dation from the martyrs appears to win him acceptance among Christiansin Rome, as Eusebius is able thereafter to refer matter-of-factly to Irenaeusacquaintance with the Roman church.55Similarly, Bishop Alexander of Jeru-salem sends a letter to Origen introducing himself to the great Christian phi-losopher, and after this Origen travels to Caesarea to meet Alexander, andeventually settles in Caesarea, where, along with other bishops, Alexanderattends () him.56 Eusebius narration through such lettersforegrounds tight relationships that affect subsequent events in the History.57

Eusebius reproduction of epistolary greetings and narration of tighteningepistolary relationships create the impression of constant long-distance cor-respondence that Williams noted. Church leaders appear to write frequentlyto other Christians, and their letters reach numerous cities from Lyons to

53 Eus. Hist. 6.11.6, 6.14.89 (GCS 6: 542, 550); cf. 3.36.15, 5.19.2 (GCS6: 280, 47880),where Christians introduce other Christians by circulating their writings.

54 Eus. Hist. 7.4; 7.5.3; 7.7.1, 6; 7.9.1, 6 (GCS 6: 64048). In one of these letters Dionysius evenshows enough trust in a colleague from Rome to admit uncertainty and solicit advice about a ques-tion of ritual, cf. Hist.7.9.1 (GCS6: 646).

55 Eus. Hist. 5.5.95.6.5, 5.20.1, 5.24.1117 (GCS6: 43840, 48082, 49496).56 Eus. Hist. 6.14.89, 6.19.1619, 6.27 (GCS 6: 552, 562, 58082).57 Eusebius even quotes letters bidding heretics to enter the orthodox epistolary network.

For example, after Novatian (whom Eusebius Greek sources call Novatus) argues against thecontemporary bishop of Rome, that apostates could never gain readmission to the church (Eus.Hist. 6.43.1 [GCS6: 612]), Dionysius writes to Novatian asking him to stand down from a dis-pute with other bishops (Eus. Hist. 6.45 [GCS6: 626]). Eusebius quotation of this letter is hardly

necessary for Eusebius narrative and even appears to strain the Eusebian churchs usual unity (seebelow), as a few pages before this quotation Eusebius quotes a harsh condemnation of Novatian byCornelius of Rome (Eus. Hist. 6.43.520 [GCS 6: 61422]). Nonetheless, Dionysius outreach tothis wicked heretic appears as a mark of a virtuous Christian leader. Note also Irenaeus similaroutreach at Eus. Hist. 5.20.48 (GCS6: 48284).


13/30


Mesopotamia. Eusebius not only presumes the existence of this Christian net-work, but often presents efforts to forge new bonds within it.

Indeed, Eusebius thorough notices of who was in contact with whom may

seem to elevate the fact of epistolary contact to a more important status thanthe content of the letters being exchanged.58In fact, however, the content ofepistolary communications is essential for Eusebius vision of Christian char-acter, since, as we will see, the content he excerpted reinforces the impressionof intense interconnection.

Univocality and Unity in Eusebius Epistolary Narration

As seen above, Greek narrators differed in the number of voices they quoted

and in the unity of characterization that these quoted voices created. Whereletters in the Life of Apollonius emphasize Apollonius voice, Diogenes Laer-tius exhibits a range of voices. On the other hand, multiple voices did notnecessarily a diverse community make, as the letters of various Greek sagesin Diogenes Laertius Lives and Opinions construct a unified, conventionalimage of the Greek wise man. Like Diogenes Laertius, Eusebius quoted numer-ous voices, yet in practice these voices project a highly conventional and evenhomogeneous ethos of the ideal Christian.

On the surface Eusebius appears to have opted for a multivocal epistolary

presentation, as he quotes twenty different Christian letter-writers verbatim.59The appearance of multivocality, however, masks a deeper homogeneity. First,each of the letter-writers quoted by Eusebius is an orthodox Christian.60As no heretics voice is allowed to intrude, the Historys letters become aparade of orthodox correspondence. Second, Eusebius restricts his excerptsto a small elite within orthodox Christianity. Of the twenty Christian letter-writers quoted by Eusebius, seventeen are apostles, bishops, or intellectuals,and two more of the epistles he incorporates are the ecclesiastical letters dis-cussed above.61Eusebius allows only the voices of elite orthodox leaders to

speak for the church.

58 Williams 1989, 13, hints that contact trumped content by emphasizing that Eusebius paintsin his history a vivid picture of a catholic church whose unity is actually articulatedin a steady flowof literary exchange. . . . (italics original) and by characterizing bonds among Eusebius Christiangroups as domestic and so overcoming Christianitys sharp disagreements over quite funda-mental points of practice.

59 References in note 61.60 Abgar of Edessa (Eus. Hist. 1.13.68; GCS6: 8688) becomes an orthodox Christian as a

result of his correspondence; I therefore count him as a Christian in the next note.61 Apostles: Peter, at Hist. 2.15.2 (GCS6: 140) and Paul, at Hist. 2.1.45, 2.22, 3.2, 3.3.5,

3.4.1 (GCS6: 104, 16264, 188, 190, 192). Bishops: Polycrates of Ephesus, at Hist. 3.31.34,5.24.28 (GCS6: 26466, 49094); Ignatius of Antioch, at Hist. 3.36.79, 11 (GCS6: 27678):


14/30


The third and most telling sign of Eusebius epistolary univocality is hissilencing of dialogue between quoted letters. Aside from Abgar of Edessasrequest for healing and Jesus reply and another exceptional passage discussed

below, no narrative unit features more than one epistolary voice.62

Thus, forexample, readers encounter excerpts from Irenaeus letter to the ValentinianFlorinus without hearing Florinus reasoning for accepting this heresy.63Again, Eusebius quotes Bishop Cornelius defamation of the rigorist presby-ter Novatians character at considerable length without allowing Novatian todefend himself.64Eusebius exclusion of any response to these bishops lettersimplies that these bishops speak for the entire orthodox church. As thechurch appears unanimous in passage after passage, lasting ecclesiastical divi-sions or tensions are minimized.

Williams has noted the unity exhibited by Eusebius letters, observingthat, In two cases recorded by Eusebius, the bishop of Rome is censuredfor breaking communication over such issues: he is reminded by other bish-ops of the legitimate variety of inherited traditions of former churches. . . .65The two cases Williams cites are the controversy of the 190s surrounding theproper date for celebrating Easter and that in the 250s between the churchesof Rome and Carthage over rebaptizing former heretics.66 Here, Wil-liams assumption that the Historyconstituted a record of historical eventsobscures Eusebius manipulation of his sources to create a false impressionof ecclesiastical unity. Close reading of these two narrative units shows that

Polycarp of Smyrna, at Hist. 3.36.1315 (GCS6: 280); Dionysius of Corinth, at Hist. 4.23.1013(GCS37678): Melito of Sardis, at Hist. 4.26.1314 (GCS6: 38688); Serapion of Antioch, atHist. 5.19.23 (GCS47880); Irenaeus of Lyons, at Hist. 5.20.48, 5.24.1217 (GCS 6: 48284,49496); a council of Palestinian bishops, at Hist. 5.25 (GCS6: 498); Alexander of Jerusalem, atHist. 6.11.3, 5, 6, 6.14.89 (GCS6: 542, 55052); Dionysius of Alexandria, at Hist. 6.407.23

passim(GCS596684); Cornelius of Rome, at Hist. 6.43.520 (GCS6: 61424); a council ofeastern bishops, at Hist. 7.30.217 (GCS6: 70612); and Phileas of Thmuis, at Hist. 8.10.210(GCS6: 760 64). Intellectuals who were not bishops: Julius Africanus, at Hist. 1.7.216 (GCS6: 54 62) and Origen of Alexandria, at Hist. 6.2.6, 6.19.1214 (GCS6: 520, 562). Ecclesiasti-cal letters: the Martyrdom of Polycarp, at Hist. 4.15.3, 1545 (GCS 6: 336, 34052) and theMartyrs of Lyons and Vienne, atHist. 5.12passim(GCS6: 40230). The noncleric, nonintel-lectual: King Abgar of Edessa, at Hist. 1.13.68 (GCS6: 8688). Note also the letter attributedto Jesus at Hist. 1.13.10 (GCS6: 88).

62 Eus. Hist. 1.13.610, 5.24 (GCS 6: 8688, 49096); cf. Hist. 4.23.78 (GCS6: 376), whereEusebius summarizes a letter of Dionysius of Corinth to Pinytus of Cnossus and Pinytus response,although Eusebius does not quote either letter verbatim; cf. also Hist. 6.31.1, 7.2.25 (GCS 6:58486, 63640); the latter is discussed below.

63 Eus. Hist. 5.20.48 (GCS 6: 48284).64 Eus. Hist. 6.43.520 (GCS6: 61422).65 Williams 1989, 13.66 Eus. Hist. 5.2325; 7.25 (GCS 6: 48898, 63640).


15/30


Eusebius omission of other voices represented these two censures as speakingfor the entire church and settling the respective controversies, even though theHistorydoes not state that the controversies ceased.

Eusebius framing of the controversy over rebaptism implies that Dionysiusof Alexandria singlehandedly healed a rift between the Roman and Carthag-inian churches.67In the second chapter of book 7, after introducing Stephenas a new bishop of Rome, Eusebius states that Dionysius wrote the first ofseveral epistles on baptism to Stephen, since at that time no small disputewas stirred up about whether those who were converting from any heresy hadto be baptized.68Eusebius then notes the Roman custom of allowing thosebaptized by heretics to enter the orthodox church.69Eusebius immedi-ately contrasts this with the Carthaginian policy advocated by Cyprian to

admit Christians baptized originally by heretics only after a second ortho-dox baptism, a custom that, Eusebius says, Stephen denounces as a deviationfrom normative Christian practice.70

Thus, Eusebius makes it clear that the bishops of Rome and Carthage havetaken opposing positions in the controversy over rebaptism. Yet he allowsneither Stephen, nor Cyprian, nor any other voice to defend his communitysnorm.71 That Eusebius describes these bishops positions in his own voice,in only a line or two each, without allowing either to speak,72marginalizes

67 Eus. Hist. 7.25 (GCS 6: 63640)68 Eus. Hist. 7.2 (GCS 6: 638): ,

69 .70 Eus. Hist. 7.3 (GCS 6: 638).71 In the historical controversy, as we know from Cyprians letters, Stephen and Cyprian cor-

responded with one another, see, e.g., Burns 1993, Ferguson 2009, 38385, 38892; cf. Bienert1978, 18593.

72

Could Eusebius have reproduced Stephens or Cyprians words? He certainly had the requisiteknowledge and means. First, Eusebius possessed some of Cyprians letters (Eus. Hist. 6.43.3 [GCS6: 614]), which he summarizes, and Eusebius claimed the capacity to translate Cyprians tongue,Latin (Eus. Hist. 4.8.8 [GCS 6: 318]; cf. 2.2.4, 6.43.3, 9.7.3, 9.10.7, 10.5.1 [GCS 6: 110, 614,814, 842, 883]); moreover, Latin dominated the public epigraphy of Eusebius home city, CaesareaMaritima, through the turn of the fourth century and was the language of the Roman offi cials whoresided there, making Eusebius acquaintance with Latin very likely, cf. Eck 2007, 168, 19194.Second, Eusebius was also suffi ciently well-connected to travel as far as the Fayyum in Egypt dur-ing the Diocletianic persecution (Eus. Hist. 8.9.4 [GCS 6: 756]). Third, Eusebius had access tothe resources needed to travel, given the numerous booksa luxury commoditythat he had athis disposal in the library of Origen and Pamphilus. On the high price of books, see, e.g., Bagnall2009, 5057; cf. Carriker 2003, 21, on the obscurity surrounding Eusebius ownership of thelibrary. Fourth, Eusebius sometimes did bother to acquire texts from distant churches (Eus. Hist.1.13.5, 6.20.1 [GCS6: 8486, 566]). Finally, even if access to Stephens and Cyprians words wouldhave been diffi cult, Eusebius could have inferred enough about their positions from Dionysius let-ters to reproduce their perspectives at greater length.


16/30


the events, ideas, and arguments that motivated their opposing positions.73Indeed, the roles of Stephen and Cyprian are reduced to a deadlock waitingfor a referee to break it.

On cue, Dionysius acts as that referee,74

intervening with a series of let-ters. Eusebius begins this intervention by quoting a passage from Dionysiusletter to Stephen declaring that bishops in eastern churches, from Antioch,Caesarea Maritima, Tyre, Laodicea, Cappadocia, and as far away as Arabia,Mesopotamia, Pontus, and Bithynia, are likeminded (), livingin unexpected peace, and exulting everywhere in concord () andbrotherly love.75Eusebius selection of this part of the letter for quotationis revealing, for, although the stated topic of the letter is baptism, Eusebiusquotation says nothing about baptism. Rather, Dionysius display of eastern

ecclesiastical unity describes an ideal that, Dionysius implies, the westernchurches should implement. Eusebius message in choosing these particularquotations is that unity in the church should take priority over doctrinaldifferences.

Directly after this Eusebius quotes from a second Dionysian letter onbaptism.76This letter, addressed to Stephen of Romes episcopal successorXystus, implies that Stephen has broken communion with churches in Cili-cia, Cappadocia, and Galatia because they, like the Carthaginians, rebaptizeheretics. Eusebius quotation expresses dissent from the excommunica-tion, noting that the greatest synods of bishops have decreed rebaptismof former heretics to be proper doctrine. Dionysius here complements hisoriginal argument from eastern ecclesiastical concord with an argumentfrom ecclesiastical authority.

Eusebius final excerpt on the controversy is a section of the same Dio-nysian letter to Xystus.77Here, Eusebius states that two presbyters in Rome,

73 In his narratives of the rebaptism and Easter controversies Eusebius tucks the doctrinal ques-tions at issue into genitive absolutes (see notes 68 and 84, and Eus. Hist. 5.23.1 [GCS6: 488]),relegating doctrine to the status of background information needed to understand the bishopsepistolary interventions. The Historys neglect of doctrine has often been noted, e.g., Grant 1980,59; Junod 2009, 42122.

74 The appearance of impartiality that Eusebius confers upon Dionysius is misleading. See n. 81below.

75 Eus. Hist. 7.5.12 (GCS 6: 63840).76 Eus. Hist. 7.5.45 (GCS 6: 640).77 Eus. Hist. 7.5.6 (GCS 6: 640). Although Eusebius quotes from two more letters on rebaptism

two chapters later (Eus. Hist. 7.7 [GCS6: 64246]), he does not present them within the same

narrative unit. Instead, a chapter intervenes about Dionysius response to Sabellius Trinitarianheresy (Eus. Hist. 7.6 [GCS6: 642]), while the title of History 7.7 (On the Utterly Defiled Deceitof the Heretics and on the God-sent Vision and on the Ecclesiastical Standard that he Received)and the content of the quotations in the chapter focus on a miracle and on how Dionysius gener-ally dealt with heresies, and not on the rebaptism controversy. Cf. Eus. Hist. 7.9.15 (GCS 6:


17/30


Philemon and (a different) Dionysius, had previously () concurredwith Stephen on baptism and written to Dionysius of Alexandria about it.Although Eusebius excerpt does not say explicitly whether the two presbyters

in Rome accepted Dionysius of Alexandrias arguments, his quotation of Dio-nysius of Alexandrias notice of the Roman presbytersprevious disagreementimplies that, by the moment when Dionysius wrote the present letter, Phile-mon and Dionysius of Rome had assented to Dionysius of Alexandrias posi-tion.78After this quotation Eusebius declares the controversy closed.79Thisbreak in the narrative implies that the dispute over rebaptism subsided afterDionysius of Alexandria sent this letter. To all appearances, then, Dionysiushas succeeded in convincing the bishops in Rome not to break off relationswith churches that rebaptize heretics.

Univocality marks Eusebius narration of the controversy over rebap-tism. Eusebius frames the controversy as a deadlock between the churches ofRome and Carthage that Dionysius of Alexandria works tirelessly to break.Eusebius exclusive reproduction of Dionysius voice implies that the histori-cal participants in the controversy were listening closely to Dionysius,80 asreaders of the History are. Eusebius selects excerpts that present Dionysiusas an impartial arbitrator who stands above the frayindeed, Eusebius sup-presses the Alexandrian bishops endorsement of Stephens position, knownfrom other fragments of Dionysius writings.81 Finally, Eusebius narrationsuggests, without specifying it, that Dionysius communications were decisivein reconciling the feuding churches. In the History Dionysius has not just thelast word but the only word.

The second censure of the bishop of Rome noted by Williams comesin the controversy over the date of Easter that erupted in the final decades ofthe second century.82Although this passage uncharacteristically quotes morethan one epistolary voice, it proves to be the exception that proves the rule:

64648), an excerpt from one of Dionysius letters on baptism that likewise does not narrate thecontroversy.

78 Eusebius later report that Dionysius of Rome became bishop of Rome after Xystus (Hist. 7.7.6[GCS6: 64446]) may further imply that the church of Rome adopted Dionysius of Alexandriasposition on rebaptism. But see the previous note.

79 Eus. Hist. 7.6 (GCS 6: 642): Anyway, these are the events surrounding the aforementioneddispute (). The chapter then notes the controversyover the Trinitarian heretic Sabellius.

80 Which the participants were not, see Burns 1993, 378; Ferguson 2009, 39899.81 As Ferguson 2009, 398, has noted, an excerpt from Dionysius first letter to Xystus, preserved

in Armenian translation, criticizes the practice of rebaptism harshly. The excerpt is translated byConybeare 1910, 113.

82 Eus. Hist. 5.235 (GCS 6: 48898).


18/30


even where Eusebius quotes letters by multiple authors, these letters commu-nicate a univocal message.

In Eusebius telling, the controversy arose because the churches of the

province of Asia celebrated Easter on the same calendrical date every year (14Nisan on the Jewish calendar), irrespective of the day of the week on whichthis date fell, whereas all other Christian communities celebrated Easter onlyon Sundays.83This difference of liturgical practice, Eusebius says, promptednumerous episcopal synods throughout the world, all of which with a unifiedresolution () determined that Easter could be celebratedonly on Sundays.84Yet Eusebius only lists these bishops, rather than quotingthem. Their voices do not grace his pages.

Despite supposedly unanimous opposition from churches elsewhere, the

churches of Asia held fast to their Easter practice. Eusebius gives voice to theAsian dissent by quoting two passages from a letter of Polycrates, the bishopof Ephesus.85 The first passage offers a catalogue of great stars () of Asian Christianity who celebrated Easter on 14 Nisan, includingthe evangelist Philip and his prophetess daughters, John the apostle, Polycarpthe bishop and martyr of Smyrna, Melito the bishop of Sardis, and two otherbishop-martyrs.86From among numerous texts about the controversy, Euse-bius quotes a display of regional unanimity. He then excerpts a further displayof unity: Polycrates claims to speak for so many bishops that he cannot recordall of their names.87

After these excerpts Eusebius states that Victor, the bishop of Rome,responded to Polycrates by excommunicating the Asian churches.88Tellingly,Eusebius does not allow readers to hear any justification of Victors excom-munication, just as he omits Cyprians or Stephens voices while narratingthe baptismal controversy.89Victors rejection of Polycrates, Eusebius implies,deserved no defense. Indeed, Eusebius quickly isolates Victor by noting thatseveral bishops castigated () the Roman bishop.90

83 Eus. Hist. 5.23.1 (GCS 6: 488). As in the baptismal controversy, here the doctrinal differenceis relegated to a genitive absolute, see notes 68 and 73 above.

84 Eus. Hist. 5.23.2 (GCS 6: 488).85 Eus. Hist. 5.24.28 (GCS 6: 49092).86 Eus. Hist. 5.24.27 (GCS 6: 49092).87 Eus. Hist. 5.24.8 (GCS 6: 492).88 Eus. Hist. 5.24.9 (GCS 6: 494).89 Nor does Eusebius note any bishops who might have supported Victors excommunication

of the churches of Asia. After mentioning synods of bishops from Palestine, Pontus, Osrhoene,Gaul, and mainland Greece as meeting to deliberate over the issue (Eus. Hist. 5.23.34 [GCS 6:48890]), did Eusebius expect readers to believe that none of these supported Victors excommu-nication of the churches of Asia?

90 Eus. Hist. 5.24.10 (GCS 6: 494). But did no bishops rise to Victors defense?


19/30


Among the voices raised against Victor, Eusebius excerpts two passagesfrom Irenaeus letter. Eusebius prefaces these excerpts by summarizing theopening of Irenaeus letter, where, Eusebius admits, Irenaeus agrees with Vic-

tor that churches should celebrate Easter on Sunday.91

This summarizing ofIrenaeus endorsement of Victors liturgical preferences downplays Irenaeusagreement. Irenaeus own voice emerges with a remark about ecclesiasticaldisunity over the number of days in which fasting was required, which epito-mizes Irenaeus main point, that different Christian communities had longpracticed distinct customs ( ) sur-rounding Easter, yet upheld concord with other Christians.92Irenaeus appealto traditional practice parallels Polycrates appeal to the Christian luminarieswho practiced a late Easter. Eusebius thus inserts statements from Irenaeus

that parallel precisely Polycrates plea to respect the Asian practices.Eusebius then quotes a second excerpt from Irenaeus letter that parallels

Polycrates argument even more closely. The excerpt begins by naming fivebishops in Rome before Victors time who, although they did not celebrateEaster according to the Asian tradition, still kept communion with those whocelebrated Easter on different days.93Where Polycrates appealed to previousAsian church leaders, Irenaeus evokes Victors forerunners.94Irenaeus voiceproceeds to tell an anecdote in which Victors and Polycrates respective epis-copal predecessors, Anicetus and Polycarp, met in Rome. When Polycarp andAnicetus realized that their convictions about the celebration of Easter dif-fered, they debated the issue but kept peace between their churches.95Indeed,according to Irenaeus, Anicetus administered the Eucharist to Polycarp. Euse-bius ends the quotation with Irenaeus affi rmation that the two departedfrom one another with peace, keeping the peace of the entire church (), among those who observed [the right datefor Easter] and those who did not observe it.96If previous bishops of Romeand Asia Minor could get along despite their differences, Irenaeus asserts, so

should Victor keep peace with Polycrates.

91 Eus. Hist. 5.24.11 (GCS 6: 494).92 Eus. Hist. 5.24.13 (GCS 6: 494), especially . . .

, .93 Eus. Hist. 5.24.1415 (GCS 6: 49496).94 While Irenaeus calls these five clericsAnicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xystus

presbuteroirather than episkopoi(Eus. Hist. 5.24.15 [GCS 6: 496]), Eusebius has already intro-

duced each of them in his own voice as part of the episcopal successionof Rome (Hist. 4.4, 4.5.5,4.10, 4.11.67, 4.14.1, 4.19, 5.6.4 [GCS 6: 304, 306, 320, 324, 332, 368, 438]), a subtle reinforce-ment of Irenaeus claim.

95 Eus. Hist. 5.24.16 (GCS 6: 496).96 Eus. Hist. 5.24.17 (GCS 6: 496).


20/30


Thus, the voices of Polycrates and Irenaeus concur in advocating respect forlocal ecclesiastical traditions. Both bishops appeal to the authority of famousChristians of the past, with each evoking the figure of Polycarp of Smyrna

(see further below). Their voices thus take the same position on the samegrounds. Meanwhile, the dissenting voices of Victor and of any other bishopsopposed to rapprochement with the Asian churches find no place on Eusebiuspages. Polycrates and Irenaeus shared respect toward local liturgical customsappears representative of proper Christian conduct, whereas, faced with uni-fied dissent, Victors policy appears isolated as well as aggressive.

But did Victor revoke the excommunication? Eusebius concludes hisexcerpts from Irenaeus letter in such a way as to lead readers to think so:97

Irenaeus, a man true to his name who was a peacemaker in his actual con-duct ( ), encouraged and lobbied with suchactions for peace among the church, communicating himself on successivematters through letters not only with Victor, but with many different headsof churches () about the disputethat had been pushed to a head.98

Eusebius remark is a clever piece of misdirection. By calling Irenaeus a peace-maker, Eusebius implies that Irenaeus succeeded in brokering concord in this

particular controversy, even though the History never specifies that Victorassented to Irenaeus pleas.99Eusebius ensuing notice of Irenaeus commu-nication with numerous churches, without noting any replies, insinuates thatIrenaeus has awed other interlocutors with similarly convincing arguments asthose that Eusebius has quoted. In this way Eusebius leads readers to believe,without quite saying so, that the sheer force of Irenaeus correspondence hasreconciled the divided churches.100

Eusebius narrative of the paschal controversy shows that, even where hehas excerpted multiple epistolary voices, unity remains central to Christian

character in his eyes.101Indeed, beyond the unity manifested in this quotational

97 Though later in the History(7.32.1419 [GCS6: 72226]) Eusebius gestures at subsequentcontroversy by inserting some words about the date of Easter from the Paschal Canons of Anato-lius of Laodicea.

98 Eus. Hist. 5.24.18 (GCS 6: 496).99 As far as I am aware, the only scholar who has noted this is Gerlach 1998, 323, who tren-

chantly declares, The entire section on the paschal controversy is not about the paschal con-troversy at all. It is Eusebius story about an eirenic Irenaeus who sues for peace amid liturgical

diversity, at the same time soundly lecturing Victor. . . . (italics original). See also Gerlach 1998,33233.

100 Eusebius concludes this narrative of the Easter controversy with a brief notice that the Pales-tinian bishops circulated a description of their own tradition, Hist. 5.25 (GCS6: 49698).

101 Along similar lines, compare Eus. Hist. 6.43 with 6.45 and 7.8 (GCS6: 61224, 626, 646).


21/30


juxtaposition, unity is the very quality that his epistolary excerpts counsel.Polycrates and Irenaeus practice what their quoted voices preach. Meanwhile,the absence of any dissenting reply implies that these letter-writers restored

the church to its normal harmony. The individuality of each voice dissolvesinto an overriding ecclesiastical unity.The juxtaposition of Polycrates and Irenaeus voices thus parallels the

baptismal letters of Dionysius in advising and enacting ecclesiastical unity.Where Dionysius argues that the churches of Rome and Carthage should agreeto disagree about rebaptism, Irenaeus and Polycrates advise the churches ofRome and Asia to continue practicing divergent local customs without break-ing relations. In both passages, moreover, Eusebius excerpting of these par-ticular letters implies, without explicitly saying so, that these bishops pleas

rang out throughout the Roman Empire and mended ecclesiastical divisions.In the absence of corroborating evidence, we must read these apparent resto-rations of peace as Eusebian constructions.102

In sum, Eusebius excerpts from letters constitute a series of monologuesrather than ecclesiastical dialogue. His exclusion of dissenting opinions mar-ginalizes division in the orthodox church, and the univocality of lettersquoted in each narrative unit mirrors the unity that the letter-writers he quotesurge and purportedly create. Eusebius interweaving of univocal epistolaryexcerpts thus enshrines unified, harmonious interrelation as an essential con-vention for Christian character.

Appeals to Predecessors, Canonization of Christian Heroes

While Eusebius epistolary excerpts endow the church with unity betweengeographically disparate correspondents, his letters also construct Christianunity across time. Eusebius creates a diachronically unified church by repro-ducing numerous epistolary appeals to the actions of previous Christian lead-ers. These appeals show that the actions and ideas of past Christian heroes

in one Christian community held authority in other communities, creating aninventory of translocal exemplars for contemporary Christian conduct.

As already noted, both letters quoted about the Easter controversy citeChristian heroes of the past as models for contemporary policies about Easter.

102 Pace Williams 1989, 13, who argues that Eusebius, of course, has a consistent interest in rep-resenting the life of the church as essentially peaceful and harmonious; but this does not mean thathe is to be mistrusted in these matters. On the contrary: consciously or not, he paints in his history

a vivid picture of a catholic church whose unity is actually articulated in a steady flow of literaryexchange between its parts, an exchange which is by no means always easy or harmonious, butwhose continuance is crucial to the health and continuity of the whole. . . . (italics original). Onthe contrary, Eusebius selection of excerpts that counsel harmony from among the other content ofletters at his disposal betrays his consciousness that his excerpted letters were advocating harmony.


22/30


In his letter to Victor of Rome Polycrates appeals to the practice of the apostleJohn as well as Philip and his daughters, recognizable Christian heroes fromthe New Testament, as well as several other martyrs and bishops.103 After

Victor excommunicates Polycrates Asian churches, Irenaeus invokes both thepolicies of Victors episcopal predecessors and Polycarps meeting with bishopAnicetus of Rome as precedents for tolerating different Easter celebrations.104Not only do both Polycrates and Irenaeus counsel concord, but Eusebiusquotes precisely the sections of their respective letters that appeal to greatChristian heroes of the past as exemplars. Eusebius reproduction of theseexcerpts leaves readers with the impression that appeals to past exemplarswere the most convincing arguments that Irenaeus and Polycrates could bringagainst Victor. Eusebius implication that Irenaeus letter persuaded Victor to

relent from his attack on the Asian churches makes Irenaeus appeal to pastChristian heroes appear decisive.105

Eusebius quotes such epistolary appeals to predecessors throughout theHistory. Two excerpts from Dionysius of Corinths letter to Soter of Romepraise the past deeds of church leaders in Rome.106Eusebius quotes Serapionof Antiochs letter against the Montanists that not only appeals to the Hier-apolitan bishop Apollinarius previous opposition to the heresy but evencirculates Apollinarius polemic.107Eusebius quotation from Irenaeus letterto the heretic Florinus describes in some detail Irenaeus tutelage under thebishopmartyr Polycarp.108Alexander of Jerusalem includes greetings fromhis episcopal predecessor Narcissus of Jerusalem and tries to create a bondwith Origen by calling Origens teachers, Pantaenus and Clement, his mas-ters.109 A quotation from a letter of Origen, in turn, names two Christian

103 Eus. Hist. 5.24.26 (GCS 6: 49092). Moreover, the phrase with which Eusebius concludeshis first excerpt from Polycrates letter to Victor cites an older authority than any of these heroes:It is necessary to obey God rather than men, affi rms Polycrates. This quotation of Peters speechbefore the Sanhedrin in the Acts of the Apostles (5.29; Aland et al. 1993, 334) implies Polycratesadherence to apostolic example in undergoing a public trial before a more powerful authorityfigure.

104 Eus. Hist. 5.24.1417 (GCS 6: 49496).105 Eus. Hist. 5.24.18 (GCS 6: 496). Williams 1989, 13 notes correctly that in Eusebius nar-

ratives about the Easter and rebaptismal controversies, Roman bishops are reminded by otherbishops of the legitimate variety of inherited traditions in local churches, although Eusebiusquotations emphasize inherited heroes more than inherited traditions.

106 Eus. Hist. 4.23.10, 11 (GCS6: 37678).107 Eus. Hist. 5.19.2 (GCS 6: 47880). See further note 53 above.108 Eus. Hist. 5.20.58 (GCS 6: 48284).109 Eus. Hist. 6.11.3, 6.14.9 (GCS 6: 542, 552). According to Eus. Hist. 6.6 (GCS 6: 534) Clement

was Origens teacher.


23/30


philosophers, Pantaenus and Heraclas, as Origens role models in pursuingGreek learning.110

In all of these passages Eusebius quotes only a portion of the letter that

appeals to a famous predecessors example. It can hardly be coincidental thathe excerpted so many epistolary citations of predecessors.111 The excerptsimply that appeals to the conduct of famous predecessors were frequent andpersuasive in Christian epistolary discourse and thus integral to Christianconvention.112

Eusebius reinforces the importance of the predecessors in letters throughthe mini-biographies that he integrates throughout the History, which describeleading Christian intellectuals through topoi reminiscent of Greek biogra-phies of philosophers.113The appeals to Christian leaders in Eusebius letters

frequently describe Christian leaders profiled in these mini-biographies. Forexample, before Irenaeus appeals to Polycarps example in his letters to Florinusand Victor, Eusebius has already profiled Polycarp extensively.114His readersknowledge of Polycarp includes Polycarps discipleship from the apostles, par-ticularly the apostle John, his edition of the letters of the martyrbishop Igna-tius of Antioch, his travel to Rome and conversion of heretics, and his nobleand brave martyrdom.115Readers thus observe Polycarps orthodoxy, intellec-tual acumen, and courage before seeing epistolary invocations of the Smyrneanbishop. Eusebius portrait of Polycarp primes readers to see Irenaeus and Poly-crates appeals to the formers discipleship from Polycarp, to Polycarps celebra-tion of Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan, and to Polycarps amicable meetingwith Eleutherus of Rome as compelling evocations of Christian norms.116Nineother Christian leaders are the subject of Eusebian profiles before an epistle

110 Eus. Hist. 6.19.1213 (GCS 6: 562). See also Hist 7.7.4, 7.30.35 (GCS 6: 644, 7068); cf.7.7.5 (GCS 6: 644).

111 It is true that Eusebius also quotes appeals to predecessors from nonepistolary texts: see e.g.Eus. Hist. 3.39.34, 4.14.38, 5.17.23, 5.28.46 (GCS 6: 286, 33234, 470, 500502). Still, asignificantly higher proportion of Eusebius epistolary excerpts seem to appeal to predecessors, andEusebius does not integrate nonepistolary appeals to predecessors into longer narratives as he doeswith the epistolary texts, depriving the nonepistolary appeals of the intradiegetic readers who madethem appear convincing.

112 Appeals to predecessors may actually have been frequent in Christian letters before Euse-bius day: Schor forthcoming notes the prevalence of narratives about the recent Christian past inCyprians epistles. Nonetheless, Eusebius stripping away other content to reproduce appeals to

earlier Christians elevates the importance of the appeals.113 DeVore 2013a; DeVore 2013b, 3839, 4144.114 Eus. Hist. 5.20, 5.24.1117 (GCS 6: 48084, 494496).115 See respectively Eus. Hist.3.36.1, 3.36.1415, 4.14.57, 4.15 (GCS 6: 276, 280, 332, 33652).116 See respectively Eus. Hist. 5.20.58, 5.24.5, 5.24.1617 (GCS 6: 48284, 492, 496).


24/30


appeals to them.117Eusebius biographical profiles thus offer the informationthat readers need to see Christians cited in letters as worthy of emulation.

Appeals to past Christian leaders construct a widely shared heritage of

authoritative Christian exemplars. By naming the addressees of the appealswhile omitting epistolary responses (see above), Eusebius insinuates thatboth speaker and addressee not only believed these predecessors to beworthy of imitation, but knew about the predecessors in the first place. IfChristians could assume that other Christians from far away knew the sameecclesiastical heroes as they, then Christians across the Mediterranean andNear East must already have had a shared inventory of heroes who embod-ied a Christian ethos. When stories about them are so regularly exchanged,the predecessors become a treasury of exempla that subsequent Christians

can proffer and even a language by which distant Christian leaders can com-municate, so that the study of forerunners becomes in turn a defining con-vention of Christian leaders.

These exhortations to imitate a canon of famous Christians paralleleda convention central to paideia. As the system of paideia encouraged studyand imitation of Greek heroes, so the frequency of appeals to predecessors inEusebius quoted letters encouraged the imitation of Christian heroes of thepast. Eusebius thus implied that Christians had already long been emulatingan alternative heroic canon, with a concomitant alternative system of alter-native social conventions. Conveniently, future Christians would now haveEusebius Ecclesiastical History as a guide to these already canonized eccle-siastical exemplars.

The appeals to predecessors, and the imitation of these predecessors thatthe appeals suggest, thus imply that Christian leaders actively studied, talkedabout, and imitated an established constellation of ecclesiastical heroes. Euse-bius excerpting of these appeals adumbrated a convention of emulation aimedat replicating that ethos in each coming generation.

117 Among the exemplars appealed to in Christian letters, Eusebius also profiles John the apostle(profiled: Hist. 3.18.13, 3.23, 3.31.23, appealed to: 5.24.3 [GCS 6: 23032, 23644, 264, 490]);Philip the Evangelist (profiled: Hist. 3.31.16; appealed to: 5.24.2 [GCS 6: 264 66, 490]); Clementof Rome (profiled: Hist. 3.1516, 3.38; appealed to: 4.23.11[ GCS 6: 22830, 284, 378]); Melitoof Sardis (profiled: Hist. 4.26; appealed to: 5.24.5 [GCS 6: 38088, 492]); Apollinarius of Hier-apolis (profiled: Hist. 4.27, with 5.16.322; appealed to: 5.19.2 [GCS 6: 388, 46066, 47880]);Pantaenus of Alexandria (profiled: Hist. 5.10; appealed to: 6.14.9, 6.19.1213 [GCS 6: 45052,552, 562]); Clement of Alexandria (profiled: Hist. 5.11, 6.136.14.7; appealed to: 6.14.89 [GCS

6: 45254, 54650, 552]), Narcissus of Jerusalem (profiled: Hist. 6.910; appealed to: 6.11.3 [GCS6: 53840, 542]); Heraclas of Alexandria (profiled: Hist. 6.3.2, 6.15; appealed to: 6.19.1314,7.7.4 [GCS 6: 524, 552, 562, 644]); and Dionysius of Alexandria (profiled: Hist. 6.35, 6.40, 6.46,7.7, 7.9, 7.11, 7.20, 7.2426; appealed to: 7.30.3 [GCS 6: 590, 59698, 62628, 64246, 64648,65464, 674, 706]).


25/30


Conclusions

In his quotation of the letters of Christians, Eusebius deployed literary tech-niques pioneered in imperial Greek literature. Where Greek biographers such

as Diogenes Laertius and Philostratus had used letters to construct networksaround wise men, Eusebius letters elaborate the extent of earlier Christiannetworks. As Diogenes Laertius and Philostratus embedded letters had high-lighted the character of famed individuals of the past, Eusebius letters painteda Christian character around Irenaeus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and otherletter-writing exemplars of Christian virtue. Just as the Greek educational sys-tem aimed at inculcating proper conduct by presenting famous Greek heroesas exemplars, Eusebius depicted Christian leaders as appealing to Christianforerunners as exemplars of proper Christian convention.

Greek epistolary theorists show no awareness of any contradiction betweena letters capacity to reveal individual personalities and the scripted conven-tionality of letters; it was suggested that the conventions learned throughpaideiaconformed character to convention. Eusebius careful presentation ofChristian letters portrays a similar process of acculturation, but to Chris-tian conventions. Eusebius Christian leaders communicate with other Chris-tian leaders, share pertinent traditions, learn proper conduct from Christianforerunners, and imitate these forerunners examples amid present dilemmas.

Eusebius omission of all but the most carefully selected epistolary passagessuggests that the original addressees listened to the letters he quotes andadjusted their conduct accordingly. Such conduct, recurring across a parade ofletter-writers in the History, appears representative of Christian convention.Those Christians who embody this convention most regularlysuch as Poly-carp, Irenaeus, and Dionysius of Alexandriabecome the churchs heroes.Christian heroes become heroes precisely because they most conspicuouslyconform to the ethos of the church as represented by Eusebius.118Eusebiusclaims to have reproduced an ethos already long in existence, yet closer scru-

tiny of his careful excerpting betrays how heavily his hand shaped that ethos.

118 Of course, the most memorable Christian in the History is Origen, see Hist. 6.16, 6.8,6.14.819.19, 6.2326, 6.30, 6.3233, 6.3639 (GCS51834, 53438, 55066, 56880, 584,58688, 59096). Yet even though Eusebius devotes much of the Historys sixth book to Origen,and even though he claims to have possessed many of Origens letters (Eus. Hist. 6.36.3; cf. 6.2.1[GCS 6: 590, 518]), Eusebius quotes from Origens letters only twice, both times briefly (Eus. Hist.6.2.6, 6.19.1214; cf. 6.31.1 [GCS 520, 56062, 584]). Perhaps Origens well-known idiosyncra-

sies and conflicts with other Christian leaders would have complicated Eusebius ideal of a homoge-neous and univocal church, cf. hints of these tensions in Eus. Hist. 6.8.5, 6.19.1719, 6.26 (GCS 6:536, 56466, 580). Moreover, whereas previous scholars have usually assumed that Eusebius wasportraying Origen unequivocally as the ideal Christian philosopher, Corke-Webster 2013,passimhas now argued that Eusebius shows great ambivalence about Origen.


26/30


He excerpted letters at least as much to model an ideal church for the presentas to retell the past.

Eusebius idealized church was designed to appeal to his audience of edu-

cated Greek speakers attracted to pagan texts such as Diogenes LaertiusLives and Opinions and Philostratus Apollonius. Eusebius similar quotationof letters, I suggest, reinforced his argument that Christians were an excep-tionally civilized people.119The emphasis on civilization explains why, as Iargue elsewhere, Eusebius emulated this and other literary techniques at homein Greek lives of philosophers, such as Diogenes Laertius and Philostratusbiographies as well as Porphyrys Life of Plotinus.120 Because philosopherswere seen as the epitome of educated Greek culture in the late third and earlyfourth centuries,121Eusebius epistolary quotations represent one additional

technique for bringing Christian leaders into a favorable comparison withthem. Although Eusebius epistolary appeals to Christian role models mirrorGreek philosophers imitation of their teachers, the character trait that Euse-bius letters conveyed most prominentlyecclesiastical unitycontrastedstrongly with the discord and tensions that marked most Greek philosophicalsects.122

The Historys all but explicit comparison between Christians and Greekphilosophers underscores Eusebius thorough use of Greek literary habits. TheCaesarean scholar read the same texts as other educated Greeks and appliedthe same literary techniques in his own writings. His audiences were likewisesteeped in Greek literature and could not avoid reading the History withoutrecalling the classical texts that Eusebius was emulating. He could hardlyhave told the Christian past without drawing upon his Greek literary heri-tage. Eusebius use of letters demonstrates the need for a more comprehensiveexamination of the History as Greek literature and not just as a text engagednarrowly with Christian (and Jewish) discourses. Instead of lying passive as

119 See Johnson 2006a, especially 20118.120 DeVore 2013a; DeVore 2013b, 3839, 4144.121 See e.g. Ewald 1999; Dillon 2004; Digeser 2012.122 Much of books 14 and 15 of Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica (SCh 369) argue against the

philosophers on the grounds of their discord () and disagreement (). Philosophi-cal biographies reinforce the divided image of Greek philosophical society: Diogenes LaertiusLives and Opinions is structured around the disparate successions of Greek philosophical schools(Socratics are the subjects of book 2, Plato and the Academics occupy books 3 and 4, the Peri-

patetics take up book 5, etc.), while Philostratus Apollonius(Philostr. Ap. 5.2739, 6.79, 6.13,7.36 [Loeb 17: 4854, 10812, 14244, 29498]) and Porphyrys Life of Plotinus(Porph. Plot.10, 1620 [Loeb 440, 3234, 4462]) both describe disputes among philosophers at length. Theprimordial harmony of Diogenes Laertius archaic Greek sages, noted above, constitutes an excep-tion to this image.


27/30


fodder for data about the earlier church, the Historys letterswere integralfeatures of a subtle, ideological, and deeply Hellenic late-antique text.

Ball State [email protected]

References

Aland, Barbara, et al. 1993. Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition. Stuttgart:Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Alexandre, Monique. 1998. Lapproche des vies dcrivains dans lHistoire ecclsias-tiquede Eusbe de Csare. In Actes de la table ronde Vies anciennes dauteurs

grecs: mythe et biographie, edited by Philippe Brunet and Marie-Pierre Nol,117144. Tours: Universit Franois Rabelais.

Bagnall, Roger. 2009. The Early Christian Book in Egypt. Princeton: Princeton Uni-versity Press.

Barnes, Timothy D. 1981. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

. 1989. Panegyric, History, and Hagiography in Eusebius Life of Constan-tine. In The Making of Orthodoxy, edited by Rowan Williams, 94122. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bauer, Walter. 1964. Rechtglubigkeit und Ketzerei im ltesten Christentum, 2ndedition, edited by Georg Strecker. Beitrge zur historischen Theologie 10. Tbin-

gen: Mohr Siebeck.Beavis, Mary Ann. 2000. Pluck the rose but shun the thorns: The Ancient School

and Christian Origins. Studies in Religion29: 411423.Bienert, Wolfgang. 1978. Dionysius von Alexandrien: zur Frage des Origenismus im

3. Jahrhundert. Patristische Texte und Studien 21.Berlin: de Gruyter.Burgess, Richard. 1997. The Dates and Editions of Eusebius Chronici Canonesand

HistoriaEcclesiastica.Journal of Theological Studies48: 471504.Burns, J. Patout. 1993. On Rebaptism: Social Organization in the Third Century

Church.Journal of Early Christian Studies1: 367403.

Cameron, Averil. 1997. Eusebius Vita Constantiniand the Construction of Con-stantine. In Portraits. Biographical Representation in the Greek and LatinLiterature of the Roman Empire, edited by Mark Edwards and Simon Swain,145174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carotenuto, Erica. 2001. Tradizione e innovzaione nellaStoria Ecclesiastica di Euse-bio di Cesarea.Istituto italiano per gli studi storici 46. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Carriker, Andrew. 2003. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. Supplements to Vigil-iae Christianae 67. Leiden: Brill.

Cassin, Matthieu, Muriel Debi, and Michel-Yves Perrin. 2012. La question desditions de lHistoire ecclsiastiqueet le livre X. In Eusbe de Csare. Histoireecclsiastique. Commentaire, vol. 1: tudes dintroduction, edited by SbastienMorlet and Lorenzo Perrone, 185206. Paris: Belles Lettres, ditions du Cerf.

Conybeare, F. C. 1910. Newly Discovered Letters of Dionysius of Alexandria to thePopes Stephen and Xystus. English Historical Review25: 11114.


28/30


Corke-Webster, James. 2013. Violence and Authority in Eusebius of CaesareasEcclesiastical History. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Classics, Universityof Manchester.

Cribiore, Raffaella. 2001. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenisticand Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

DeVore, David. J. 2013a. Eusebius Un-Josephan History: Two Portraits of Philo ofAlexandria and the Sources of Ecclesiastical Historiography. Studia Patristica66: 16179.

. 2013b. Genre and Eusebius Ecclesiastical History. In Eusebius of Cae-sarea: Tradition and Innovations, edited by Aaron Johnson and Jeremy Schott,1949. Hellenic Studies 60. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.

. 2014. Review of Sbastien Morlet and Lorenzo Perrone, Eusbe de Csare.Histoire ecclsiastique. Commentaire, vol. 1: tudes dintroduction. Zeitschrift

fr antikes Christentum18: 138142.Digeser, Elizabeth. 2012. A Threat to Public Piety: Christians, Platonists, and the

Great Persecution. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Dillon, John. 2004. Philosophy as a Profession in Late Antiquity. In Approach-

ing Late Antiquity: The Transformation from Early to Late Empire, edited bySimon Swain and Mark Edwards, 40118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Duff, Timothy. 2008. Models of Education in Plutarch.Journal of Hellenic Studies128: 126.

Dhrsen, Niels Christian. 1994. Die Briefe der sieben Weisen bei Diogenes Laertios.

Mglichkeiten und Grenzen der Rekonstruktion eines verlorenen grieschischenBriefromans. In Der Grieschiche Briefroman. Gattungstypologie und Text-analyse, edited by Niklas Holzberg and Stefan Merkle, Classica Monacensia 8,84115. Tbingen: Gunter Narr.

Eck, Werner. 2007. Rom und Judaea. Fnf Vortrge zur rmischen Herrschaft inPalaestina. Tria Corda: Jenaer Vorlesungen zu Judentum, Antike und Christen-tum 2.Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Ewald, Bjrn. 1999. Der Philosoph als Leitbild: ikonographische Untersuchungenan rmischen Sarkophagreliefs. Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchaeologischenInstituts, Rmische Abteilung, Ergnzungsheft 34. Mainz: von Zabern.

Ferguson, Everett. 2009. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Lit-urgy in theFirst Five Centuries. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Gerlach, Karl. 1998. The Antenicene Pascha: a Rhetorical History. Liturgia con-denda 7. Leuven: Peeters.

Gordray, Peter. 1992. Paul in Eusebius and other Early Christian Literature. InEusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, edited by Harold Attridge and Gohei Hata,139165. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Grant, Robert. Eusebius as Church Historian. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.Hutchinson, G. O. 2007. Down among the Documents: Criticism and Papyrus Let-

ters. In Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography, editedby Ruth Morello and Andrew D. Morrison, 1736. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.


29/30


Inowlocki, Sabrina. 2006. Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Techniquein an Apologetic Context. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 64. Leiden:Brill.

Johnson, Aaron. 2004. Ancestors as Icons: The Lives of Hebrew Saints in EusebiusPraeparatio Evangelica. GRBS44: 24564.

. 2006a. Ethnicity and Argument in EusebiusPraeparatio Evangelica. OxfordEarly Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

. 2006b. Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica as Literary Experiment. InGreek Literature in Late Antiquity: Dynamism, Didacticism, Classicism, editedby Scott Johnson, 6789. Aldershot, Burlingame, VT: Ashgate.

. 2011. Eusebius the Educator: The Context of the General Elementary Intro-duction. In Reconsidering Eusebius. Collected Papers on Literary, Historical,and Theological Issues, edited by Sabrina Inowlocki and Claudio Zamagni,

99118. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae107. Leiden: Brill.Junod, ric. 2009. Les hrtiques et lhrsie dans le programme de lHistoire

ecclsiastique dEusbe de Csare. Rivista di storia del christianesimo6: 41734.

Luttikhuizen, Gerard. 1996. The Apocryphal Correspondence with the Corinthi-ans and the Acts of Paul. In The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, edited by

Jan Bremmer, 7591. Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 2. Kampen:Kok Pharos.

Malherbe, Abraham, ed. 1977. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. Sources for Biblical

Study 19. Atlanta: Scholars Press.Marrou, Henri-Irne. 1948. Histoire de lducation dans lantiquit. Lunivers his-

torique. Paris: ditions du Seuil.Momigliano, Arnaldo. 1963. Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth

Century .. In The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the FourthCentury, edited by Arnaldo Momigliano, 7999. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Morgan, Teresa. 1998. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Morlet, Sbastien. 2005. crire lhistoire selon Eusbe de Cesare. Linformationlittraire57: 315.

. 2009. La Dmonstration vanglique dEusbe de Csare: tude surlapologtique chrtienne lpoque de Constantin. Srie Antiquit 187. Paris:Institut dtudes Augustiniennes.

Moss, Candida. 2010. On the Dating of Polycarp. Early Christianity1: 53974.Nautin, Pierre. 1961. Lettres et crivains. Chrtiens des IIe et IIIe sicles. Patristica

2. Paris: ditions du Cerf.Neri, Valerio. 2012. Les ditions de lHistoire ecclsiastique (livres VIIIIX): bilan

critique et perspectives de la recherche. In Eusbe de Csare. Histoire ecclsi-astique. Commentaire, vol. 1: tudes dintroduction, edited by Sbastien Morlet

and Lorenzo Perrone, 15183. Paris: Belles Lettres, ditions du Cerf.Poster, Carol. 2007. A Conversation Halved: Epistolary Theory in Greco-Roman

Antiquity. In Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the


30/30


Present: Historical and Bibliographic Studies, edited by Carol Poster and LindaC. Mitchell, 2151. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Pouderon, Bernard. 2000. La littrature pseudo-pistolaire dans les milieux juifs etchrtiens des premiers sicles. In Epistu