Rarely do historians have access to the voices of religious minorities. The Greek writer Philostorgius (circa 368–circa 439 c.e.) left us an unusual example of a surviving minority source from ancient Christianity.Footnote 1 Philostorgius was an educated layman from Cappadocia in the eastern half of the later Roman Empire who identified with the non-Nicene theological teachings of his fellow Cappadocian, Eunomius of Cyzicus (circa 335–circa 393).Footnote 2 Sometime in the first half of the fifth century he composed a historical work commonly referred to as the Ecclesiastical History.Footnote 3 We know almost nothing about Philostorgius's life. There are no contemporary sources explicitly mentioning him, aside from the history itself. Philostorgius may have been aware that he was likely to be erased from history, as he wove his name into his text through an acrostic, with the first letter of each of the twelve books spelling out his name.Footnote 4 From his history we know that Philostorgius was brought up in Eunomian Christianity from childhood.Footnote 5 He is the only individual that we know of who acquired his belief through upbringing, in contrast to the other proponents of Eunomianism who forged their faith in the heated theological disputes of the fourth century. As a young man he moved to Constantinople, and evidence suggests that he conducted his career from the capital for the rest of his life. His literary output also included an encomium of Eunomius and a refutation of the Neoplatonist Porphyry, both now lost.Footnote 6 The text of his history survives, however, in the form of a ninth-century summary and in other fragments.Footnote 7 Although scholars have mined Philostorgius's work for raw data on ecclesiastical and political events between 320 and 425, few have considered him as a historian in his own right.
By analyzing his depiction of the relationship between bishops and emperors, I hope not only to reassess Philostorgius as a historian but to raise broader questions about late antique historiography as a whole. First, I will consider Philostorgius's place in current debates about history writing in late antiquity, focusing on the common depictions of ecclesiastical historiography. Second, I will provide a discussion of the few existing scholarly considerations of church and state in his History. Finally, through a close study of divine signs and the interactions between bishops and emperors, I will argue that Philostorgius viewed a close relationship between imperial and ecclesiastical leadership as ideal for the Roman Empire. Additionally, his History shows that the Eunomian historian viewed the revelation of divine will as essential to understanding the events of the past. Ultimately, I seek to place Philostorgius back into the broader literary culture of late antique historiography he saw himself participating in.
I. Philostorgius and History Writing in Late Antiquity
Traditionally, Philostorgius's writing has been categorized within the genre of ecclesiastical history, albeit of the heretical, anomalous variety. Scholars have long asserted that, in his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesarea (circa 260–circa 340) presented a new vision of Christian and imperial history that laid the foundation for the so-called genre of church history, marking a definite break with the classical past.Footnote 8 The Nicene ecclesiastical historians writing between 400 and 450 are viewed as followers of Eusebius's model.Footnote 9 These include the Latin writer Rufinus, who translated and continued Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, and the Greek historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, in the past referred to as the “synoptical” historians.Footnote 10 If included in this category, Philostorgius is always described as a deviation from these Nicene church historians; frequently, he is not mentioned at all. This is despite the fact that Philostorgius was one of the first continuators of Eusebius.Footnote 11 We know this because he mentions Eusebius and evaluates the quality of that bishop's Ecclesiastical History early on in his own history.Footnote 12 While we could read Philostorgius as a pioneer in new forms of writing about the past, frequently scholars have instead viewed him in terms of how he measures up to the Nicene historians.
Accordingly, Philostorgius's history has suffered derision as nothing more than “Arian” polemic and thus as more partisan than its pro-Nicene counterparts.Footnote 13 Recent scholarship, specifically several fine works on “Arianism” in the past generation, has seriously challenged the facile heresy/orthodoxy dichotomy as a model for the historical study of Christianity.Footnote 14 Yet these methodological advances have had only a limited effect on treatments of ecclesiastical history, and labeling Philostorgius “the Arian historian” has become commonplace.Footnote 15 This is problematic for several reasons. In the first place, the historian would not have identified himself as an Arian and would have even found such a categorization offensive.Footnote 16 The persistence of the incorrect appellation is puzzling, since Joseph Bidez clearly argued that Philostorgius would have preferred “Eunomian” back in 1913.Footnote 17 Second, to imply that Philostorgius's “radical Arianism” rendered his history more polemical than those of his Nicene counterparts is to forget the degree to which the Nicene narrative became dominant and elided over the tenuous nature of ecclesiastical politics in the fourth century. Simply put, Philostorgius was no more polemical or partisan than the other historians of his day.
These tendencies to exclude Philostorgius from ecclesiastical historiography or to compare his work unfavorably to the Nicene narratives lead to broader questions about late antique historiography as a whole. Since the pioneering work of Arnaldo Momigliano in the 1960s and 1970s,Footnote 18 studies of historiography in late antiquity have only proliferated in recent decades.Footnote 19 A significant portion of this scholarship perpetuates many of the same stereotypes and dichotomies, such as a sharp distinction between Christian and “pagan” forms of history writing. However, several historians have questioned whether or not Eusebius established a new genre of church history, since his continuators differed so much from the “Eusebian model” and the lines between literary genres were quite blurred.Footnote 20 Nevertheless, the concept of genre is still crucial for the study of historiography in late antiquity. David DeVore has pointed out that Eusebius himself was unaware that he was pioneering a new genre, but he was aware of the various classical genres available to him.Footnote 21 DeVore shows how Eusebius made deliberate generic choices to communicate his conception of Christian history. In the process, Eusebius drew on a variety of conventions from different genres.Footnote 22 Thus, while evaluating late antique historians in terms of genre can illuminate important aspects of their work, it is important to keep in mind that authors could approach genre with flexibility.
Moreover, the traditional narrative of post-Eusebian historiography has been challenged by scholars who emphasize the need to include non-Nicene historians and to assess the distinctive characteristics of all these historians’ works, even though they covered many of the same events.Footnote 23 As Hartmut Leppin points out, “For all that they have in common, the three so-called ‘synoptical’ Church historians are individual authors with divergent views, whose works illustrate the intellectual richness of the Theodosian age.”Footnote 24 Additionally, Brian Croke has argued that the various divisions in late antique historiography have been overemphasized and that Christian historians and the non-Christian, so-called classicizing historians of the fifth century likely shared a reading audience.Footnote 25 We also know that at least some of the Nicene historians read and responded to Philostorgius's text.Footnote 26 As Alanna Nobbs has rightly argued, the church historians felt the need to respond to Philostorgius's alternative version of events and thus saw him as part of the same literary tradition.Footnote 27 Building on these insights, this essay seeks to diminish the emphasis on church history as a genre and to question some of the traditional divisions in late antique historiography.Footnote 28 This approach allows us to see Philostorgius as one of many voices participating in the composition of historical works for the elite readership of Constantinople rather than as a completely marginal figure.
To a degree, modern evaluations of Philostorgius and his place in late antique historiography stem from a much earlier critic—the man to whom we owe the preservation of the history. The History mainly survives in the form of an extensive summary by the prominent ninth-century scholar and patriarch, Photius I of Constantinople (circa 810–circa 893).Footnote 29 Photius, among other things, is famous for his prolific literary output and revival of learning in Constantinople.Footnote 30 Apparently, in the city's library he discovered Philostorgius's forgotten history in two sets of six books each, totaling the twelve books of the history. Photius summarized the History twice; once briefly in his entry on Philostorgius in the Bibliotheca, a massive work summarizing and reviewing over two hundred works from antiquity to Photius's own day;Footnote 31 and he composed the separate, much longer summary, which is the main source for our knowledge of the text. As far as we know, the patriarch did not craft summaries of comparable length for any other texts. It is somewhat of a mystery why he decided to do this.Footnote 32 Regardless, the Byzantine patriarch simultaneously preserved the History yet derided it as heresy and fabrication. For example, he asserts, “The history runs counter to nearly all the church historians. It exalts all those of Arian sympathies, and heaps scorn on the orthodox, so that his history is not so much a history as it is a eulogy of the heretics, and undisguised criticism and condemnation of the orthodox.”Footnote 33 Echoes of this sentiment are present to this day.
Since the History mainly survives in Photius's text, this has made hearing Philostorgius's voice challenging. Thankfully, Photius's editorializing remarks are easy to discern. Moreover, Bidez compiled all additional relevant fragments together with the material preserved by Photius in a single narrative. The words and passages that overlap exactly are highlighted in the edition to potentially indicate Philostorgius's actual word choice. Nevertheless, this analysis mainly relies on the narrative episodes as a whole rather than on specific language. While the secondhand nature of the text complicates its interpretation, the History enables us to access the beliefs and activities of a minority religious community that was largely erased from the historical record. This does not imply, however, that the historian wrote only as an apologist for his sect, eulogizing his coreligionists and demonizing their opponents. Rather, Philostorgius's History provides an opportunity to examine the intersection between the development of historiography and the establishment of orthodoxy at a critical juncture in the development of ancient Christianity.
II. Church and State
While building on the work of other scholars who have treated Philostorgius as an equal player within late antique historiography, this essay will focus on the theme of church and state in Philostorgius in particular.Footnote 34 Although Philostorgius made few explicit statements about appropriate relations between bishops and emperors,Footnote 35 imperial leadership is a major concern throughout his Ecclesiastical History. Of course, for Philostorgius the modern distinction between church and state would have been nonsensical. He condemned emperors favoring the Nicene Creed because he believed that an empire should explicitly foster the right approach to the divine in order to ensure God's blessing. He shared this belief with Nicene Christians, “pagans,” and other elite Romans of his era. The categories of empire and religion were inextricably intertwined, but the exact nature and implications of that interconnectedness varied depending on the context and the perspectives of different writers. Philostorgius's view on this relationship is important for several reasons. First, he was writing at a critical juncture in the evolution of relations between imperial and ecclesiastical authority. By 381, Theodosius I had made a series of pronouncements that were part of the complex process of establishing Nicene Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire; yet the consequences of the Theodosian establishment were still being worked out, with even more religious strife on the horizon. Second, as a member of a persecuted minority group, Philostorgius offers a unique perspective on imperial involvement in religious affairs, particularly in light of specific anti-Eunomian legislation originating during the reign of Theodosius II.Footnote 36 While it is important not to reduce Philostorgius's text to a polemic, it is equally important to pay attention to his version of the historical narrative, since the same events have been preserved almost exclusively through the eyes of the Nicene historians.Footnote 37 Finally, a study of Philostorgius's representation of the relationship between bishops and emperors will show the kind of cooperative leadership he deemed proper for a Christian Roman Empire. Ultimately, a close analysis of Philostorgius's history is a first step in bringing Philostorgius back into conversation with his contemporaries and will provide a fuller picture of both the development of history writing and the process of the establishment of orthodoxy.
Hartmut Leppin has examined Philostorgius's political ideology, focusing on his view of each individual emperor.Footnote 38 Leppin states that he expected Philostorgius to view imperial rule differently from the Nicene historians because Philostorgius was a Eunomian. Since he discovered that Philostorgius's view generally lines up with the perspective of the other historians, Leppin concluded that “his intellectual horizon is not wide enough to transcend the idea of the Roman empire.”Footnote 39 While the negative judgment of Philostorgius seems unwarranted, Leppin rightly observes that in many ways he agreed with other ecclesiastical historians in his characterization of emperors and bishops.Footnote 40 In keeping with Eusebius, the fifth-century church historians tended to agree in their conviction that Roman emperors were legitimate, that good emperors were the “orthodox” Christian rulers, and that emperors should listen to bishops. Yet Leppin describes Philostorgius's history as a “work of resignation” because he employs the same categories of thought about the empire as do the other church historians.Footnote 41 Writing around the same time for the same elite readership, Philostorgius understandably shared similar aims and similar perspectives on imperial rule.Footnote 42 However, upon close examination of his history, one can see that Philostorgius was far from “resigned” to the Nicene empire.
In his Italian monograph and a later article, Gabriele Marasco has also noted the importance of the themes of “church and state” in Philostorgius's history.Footnote 43 However, the assumptions that form the foundation of his analysis are problematic. “In this analysis,” Marasco writes, “we must not forget that the work of Philostorgius is not, in fact, a history of the Christian church; it is, however, at first a history of the Arian church and then the Eunomian church.”Footnote 44 While Philostorgius clearly had a unique perspective on the events of the Roman Empire, this dichotomy between a history of the Christian church and a history of an Arian/Eunomian church presents several problems. First, it assumes that all parties at the time knew that Eunomian or other non-Nicene forms of Christianity would not survive, which was certainly not the case. Second, Marasco's dichotomy begs the question: what is the Christian church and who writes its history? He seems to discount Philostorgius's own claim to be writing the true version of the history of the Christian Roman Empire. His assumptions inevitably lead to the conclusion that Philostorgius only supported imperial intervention in church affairs when it was to the Eunomian advantage.Footnote 45 A closer look at the narrative will show that this is not the case.
It is easy to read the History as the polemic of an angry heretic if we assume that Philostorgius inhabited a separate cultural and literary space from that of the other late antique historians, Christian or otherwise. In fact, however, they wrote during the same period, had similar education, lived in the same cities, and shared the same interests—history, Christianity, and empire.Footnote 46 It seems odd to judge Philostorgius for inhabiting the same cultural space as the Nicene historians or to assess how he measures up to these historians (whom he precedes). I propose, instead, to consider how Philostorgius's work reflects his own distinctive theory of history, which at the same time reflects a broader literary culture of history writing in late antiquity.
III. Divine Signs
Before beginning an analysis of the historian's views on the relationship between bishops and emperors, it is important to establish how crucial divine signs are as an interpretive key to Philostorgius's text. The history is full of divine signs that point to the significance of the events and reveal Philostorgius's perspective on them. Of course, the historian was no different from the other ecclesiastical (and non-Christian) historians of his day in assuming some type of divine involvement in the events of history. Naturally, Philostorgius shared much of the same worldview with his contemporaries and was not as much of an outlier as he is often portrayed. On the other hand, analyzing Philostorgius's particular perspective on divine signs and portents allows for a better understanding of the goals and aims of his history.Footnote 47 Philostorgius uses divine signs and omens as an interpretive framework for his history to a greater extent than a number of his contemporaries. His descriptions of portents are more detailed than any of the other historians, and his use of signs is more apocalyptic in tone and content.Footnote 48
In addition to the extensive use of divine signs, Philostorgius also stands out as having a unique theological emphasis on the relationship between divine revelation and history. In keeping with his Eunomian theology, Philostorgius emphasized that God's will is knowable.Footnote 49 The emphasis on the knowability of God's will stemmed from the Eunomian belief in the knowability of God's essence.Footnote 50 This is apparent in the extant fragments of the writings of Eunomius. He insisted that any assertions of God's unknowability threatened the reality of God's revelation and providence.Footnote 51 Naturally, he argued that only right-minded individuals possessed correct knowledge or understanding.Footnote 52 This theological point was clearly crucial to Philostorgius's belief as he emphasizes it numerous times throughout his history. For example, he made a point of condemning Arius for claiming that God is unknowable and incomprehensible.Footnote 53 Moreover, he may have linked the importance of God's knowability to the writing of history in the first paragraphs of his History. Judging by the fragments in Photius's summary, the opening parts of the history contained discussions of good and bad histories from the past, including the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.Footnote 54 In the context of the discussion of the merits of Eusebius's historical work, Philostorgius insisted that Eusebius's “error . . . was that he considered the divinity to be unknowable and incomprehensible.”Footnote 55 Photius's summary of the passage goes back and forth between describing an assessment of Eusebius's historical writing and his theology, suggesting that Philostorgius was stressing the link between God's revelation and the events of history from the very beginning of his work. Finally, the text of the History itself serves as the best evidence for Philostorgius's belief in the knowability of God's will. To Philostorgius, all the events and lives in the Ecclesiastical History are signs pointing to God's will. Thus, divine signs are key indicators of the historian's understanding of the proper relationship between church and state.
IV. Signs of Divine Favor Vary for Emperors and Bishops
Philostorgius's History presents divine favor for emperors differently from divine favor for bishops, highlighting their distinct roles in the leadership of the Christian Roman Empire. Divine approval of emperors is signified by successful building projects, military victories, and auspicious portents. He stresses that the emperor Constantius received special grace from the very beginning of his reign by drawing parallels between descriptions of the emperor's success and descriptions of success from the preceding narrative of Constantine's reign.Footnote 56 Constantine embarked on an impressive building program; so did Constantius.Footnote 57 Moreover, Constantius built a church in conjunction with the erection of Constantine's tomb right next to it and received divine sanction through the successful translation of important relics.Footnote 58 Thus, Philostorgius marks the auspiciousness of Constantius's reign with these building endeavors and explicitly notes the parallel with the deeds of his father. And, most significantly, just as Constantine received a sign in the sky on the occasion of his victory over a usurper, so did Constantius.Footnote 59 According to Philostorgius, the emperor won an initial battle against the usurper Magnentius and then experienced a symbol of God's grace:
Constantius, then, was victorious over the usurper, and at that very time the sign of the cross appeared; it was enormous, and its stunning rays outshone the daylight. It appeared in Jerusalem most visibly around the third hour of the day, on the Feast called Pentecost. That God-sent image was seen extending from the place called Calvary all the way to the Mount of Olives, with a great rainbow completely encircling it like a crown. The rainbow signified the goodwill of the one crucified and taken up, while the crown represented the emperor's victory.Footnote 60
The usurper had regrouped following his initial defeat, but when his men saw such a display, it struck fear into their hearts and emboldened Constantius's troops, leading to a complete victory. Thus, not only did God communicate his favor of Constantius through this sign, but he also used it to ensure the emperor's triumph. Constantius received the same sign as Constantine did, including the detail of a rainbow encircling the sign. This example of Constantius's triumph highlights the kind of imagery Philostorgius used to communicate signs of divine favor for emperors. Rufinus does not use such detailed imagery in his history, not even when describing the Nicene emperor Theodosius I's victory over the usurper Eugenius.Footnote 61 Rufinus associated imperial success with imperial piety, but divine signs do not play a large role in his understanding of the relationship between Christianity and empire in history. In contrast, Philostorgius includes numerous detailed descriptions of revelatory celestial occurrences in his history.
Philostorgius clearly envisioned the leadership of bishops as distinct from that of emperors in the Christian Roman Empire. Whereas God commends emperors through external signs, like celestial phenomena or military victories, divine approval of bishops is revealed in their internal character and corresponding deeds or behavior. Bishops act virtuously, display great learning, and perform miracles. The account of Theophilus the Indian contains numerous details that illustrate the complementary qualities of exceptional virtue and wonder-working that set these bishops apart as divinely approved.Footnote 62 In Philostorgius's account, Theophilus played a prominent role in the Eunomian community and enjoyed some degree of success within the church-court circle of Constantius.Footnote 63 According to Philostorgius, Theophilus had been a hostage in Constantinople as a youth, but he did not allow this time to go to waste and “formed his character to the highest degree of virtue and his beliefs in accordance with orthodoxy, choosing to live in celibacy.”Footnote 64 These virtues of asceticism and Eunomian “orthodoxy” set Theophilus apart and prepared him for the leadership role he would fulfill later in life. Philostorgius also emphasizes that Theophilus received consecration as a deacon from the non-Nicene bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom the historian refers to as “the Great.”Footnote 65 Eusebius of Nicomedia was also known for miracles and virtue in the history, so Theophilus's consecration by him signals his orthodoxy and piety.Footnote 66 While Philostorgius distinguished between the individual signs of divine approval for bishops and emperors, in most cases, the actions of each occur within the context of interaction with each other.
V. On Cooperation between Bishops and Emperors
Beginning with the reign of Constantine, Philostorgius depicted emperors and bishops cooperating with each other. This does not mean that he always presented either the emperor or the bishops taking the lead in matters of the faith; this seems to vary with the circumstances. But he certainly assumed that both emperors and bishops would and ought to lead together in ecclesiastical affairs. Thus, when Emperor Constantine summoned the bishops to Nicaea, he was acting in accordance with his role as a good Christian emperor.Footnote 67 While Constantine exemplified his divinely-approved role as a Christian leader in convoking this council, he also displayed restraint as he waited for the bishops to come to an agreement, highlighting the necessity of god-approved bishops to lead the empire together with the emperor.Footnote 68
The mission narratives of Theophilus the Indian and Ulfila the Goth represent the two most unequivocally positive representations of the cooperation between bishop and emperor in the History.Footnote 69 Philip Amidon suggests that, in Philostorgius's view, the faith remained uncorrupted only outside the empire.Footnote 70 In a sense, therefore, these missions do not pertain to the relationship between bishops and emperors within the empire. Nevertheless, these mission narratives reveal the ideal interaction between bishops and emperors. There are other examples of cooperation within the empire, but perhaps the fact that perfect cooperation exists only beyond imperial borders reflects Philostorgius's concern about the current direction of the Christian Roman Empire.
Showing the possibilities of fruitful cooperation between ecclesiastical and imperial authority, the bishop Ulfila plays an interesting role in Philostorgius's narrative. Evidence suggests that Ulfila was a homoean supporter; so he was not a direct hero of Philostorgius's Eunomian heteroousianism but rather an opponent, as were other homoeans in the narrative.Footnote 71 Yet Philostorgius included an extensive and very flattering portrayal of Ulfila in his work.Footnote 72 Philostorgius recounts that the Roman emperor enthusiastically sent Ulfila on a mission to the Goths following his consecration by Eusebius of Nicomedia.Footnote 73 While Ulfila does not convert anyone in the History, his relationship with the emperor and his willingness to go are prominent features of the account.Footnote 74 For Philostorgius, Ulfila serves as the perfect example of a good bishop whose leadership qualities are valuable to the emperor. He serves as a leader of refugees, he takes care of them in the territory of the empire, he uses his skills as a scholar to civilize barbarians, and he provides a diplomatic service to the emperor.Footnote 75 The narrative presents a positive relationship of mutual reliance between the bishop and the emperor. While the emperor clearly possesses the authority to direct Ulfila's actions, he simultaneously relies on the bishop's virtue and leadership qualities to fulfill his own imperial objectives.
Philostorgius's narrative of Theophilus's mission to the Kingdom of Himyar further reveals his assumptions about the right relationship between bishops and emperors. He relates that Constantius appointed Theophilus to head an embassy to the Himyarites, the bishop performed numerous miracles, the king converted, and the “embassy was successful.”Footnote 76 The narrative does not omit Constantius's substantial role in this mission or the political and diplomatic concerns at stake. Rather, the two elements of the triumph of true Christianity and the fulfillment of imperial diplomatic goals complement each other. It is a mark of Theophilus's distinction as a man of God that Constantius so singled him out and honored him by appointing him to this mission. On the other hand, Constantius, despite his sumptuous display of wealth and power, could not achieve the conversion of the king of Himyar without the wonders worked by Theophilus. Philostorgius twice stresses how crucial the bishop's miracles were to the success of the mission and even the subsequent construction of churches—the king was so impressed with Theophilus's wonder-working that he wanted to compete with him in religiosity and so funded the churches himself, not using Constantius's money.Footnote 77 Theophilus's missionary activity reveals that the bishop's authority is evidence of his virtue, wonder-working, and right belief. The imperial sponsorship of the mission confirms that Theophilus is a man of God, as he has received recognition from the emperor himself. Simultaneously, the mission reflects the importance of Constantius's promotion of the true faith and serves as a sign of God's approval of the emperor. After all, Constantius initiated the mission, which at the same time converted a foreign ruler to Christianity and enabled the emperor to protect Roman trade interests in the region. Thus, the mission to Himyar presents Philostorgius's ideal model of cooperation between bishops and emperors as well as his conviction that the events of history reveal the will of God.
Apart from Philostorgius, none of the other ecclesiastical historians include the story of Theophilus's mission to South Arabia. Most likely they purposefully omit the story to revise the non-Nicene account. Similarly, Philostorgius ignores Rufinus's narrative of the Christianization of Aksum and Iberia (Georgia) and gives Ulfila a larger role, possibly because Rufinus leaves him out completely.Footnote 78 Rufinus's account of the Roman Frumentius's adventures in Aksum from the Nicene perspective provides a valuable source of comparison with the account of Theophilus, as Philostorgius is clearly responding to Rufinus with his narrative of the mission to Himyar.Footnote 79
From the beginning, Rufinus's missionary account stands out as strikingly different from that of Philostorgius. In Philostorgius's narrative, as described earlier, Theophilus is chosen by the emperor himself to embark on the embassy for the purpose of converting the king. In Rufinus's story, the beginning of Christianity in Aksum occurs when a Roman traveling on the Red Sea is shipwrecked, everybody on board is killed, and only two young boys are spared. These boys—now captives—grow into valuable members of the royal court at Aksum. As an adult, Frumentius takes the initiative to take care of Roman merchant Christians living in and traveling to Aksum.Footnote 80 In this case, Philostorgius records a similar situation with Theophilus attending to the resident aliens in Himyar.Footnote 81 However, he presents the initial impetus for the mission completely differently than Rufinus's account.Footnote 82
In Rufinus's account of the conversion of Aksum, on the one hand, Frumentius is an accidental missionary, finding himself in Aksum not by his own will and certainly not sent by an emperor, as in Philostorgius's account of Theophilus. On the other hand, Frumentius displays remarkable initiative as the one who begins attending to the needs of the Christian Roman merchants. Rufinus states, “God put it into his mind and heart to begin making careful inquiries if there were any Christians among the Roman merchants, and to give them extensive rights, which he urged them to use, to build places of assembly in each location, in which they might gather for prayer in the Roman manner.”Footnote 83 This passage emphasizes the apostolic character of Frumentius, evident both from his own initiative and from God's calling him to take care of Roman Christians.
Philostorgius similarly presents Theophilus as taking the initiative in the mission narrative. Before he is even sent on the mission, Theophilus takes advantage of his status as a hostage at the Roman court to embrace a life of virtue, orthodoxy, and celibacy.Footnote 84 Then, upon his arrival in Himyar, Theophilus—even though he is only one of the leaders of the embassy—attempts to persuade the king to convert to Christianity and succeeds through his performance of miracles.Footnote 85 Philostorgius shows that Theophilus not only exhibited initiative similar to that of Frumentius but also had full imperial support as well as miraculous powers. He does not explicitly say that God inspired Theophilus to take initiative during his mission, as Rufinus relates about Frumentius. This is possibly due to the limitations of Photius's epitome, but it also fits with the way Philostorgius constructed his history. God's pleasure and displeasure, and therefore the lack or abundance of divine gifts, do not need to be explicitly stated because they are evident in the lives of men like Theophilus. In keeping with his understanding of the Eunomian community, Philostorgius represents Theophilus as possessing Constantius's support. This community included the type of men to whom God showed his divine favor by giving them eloquence and the ability to perform miracles. Divine favor was also evident since these men were close to the imperial court and enjoyed the support and praise of the emperor himself. Philostorgius viewed this close connection to the imperial court as positive for members of the Eunomian community, as it reflected their active engagement in the affairs of the world. Philostorgius further revises Rufinus by recounting that Theophilus not only established relations with one foreign kingdom—as did Frumentius—but that, after his mission in Himyar, he traveled on “to the rest of the Indian country”; there he corrected certain Christian practices and confirmed the orthodoxy of Christian teaching in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean arena of trade.Footnote 86 Furthermore, Theophilus also stopped in Aksum on his way home and “took care of matters there.”Footnote 87 Comparison between representations by Rufinus and Philostorgius thus reveals how differently these historians perceived the nature of Christian history and leadership. Specifically, both emphasize God's providential role in the Christianization of foreign peoples, but Philostorgius gives the emperor a greater role than does Rufinus because of his belief that imperial favor confirms Theophilus's divine favor and virtue.
Examples of cooperation within the Roman Empire also feature in the History. Just as Theophilus collaborates with the emperor during his mission abroad, so does Philostorgius present him as collaborating within the empire. In addition to his virtues of holiness and wonder-working, Philostorgius stressed the importance of Theophilus's relationship with the imperial court, affirming that he was “shown great honor by the emperor upon his return.”Footnote 88 In this section, Philostorgius points to the recurring theme of imperial recognition of the virtue of bishops, which all the members of the religious community under Theophilus's charge also recognized. For Philostorgius, imperial recognition both signaled the bishop's virtue and contributed to the bishop's authority. In fact, others could not but honor and admire him as “the man was greater than words can describe; he was like an image of the apostles.”Footnote 89 Indeed, his apostolic status is confirmed by his ability to bring a Jewish woman back to life in Antioch.Footnote 90 Philostorgius connects the bishop's virtuous lifestyle, wonder-working, and apostolic authority with imperial recognition. In Philostorgius's view, bishops acted out their virtues in the public arena, especially on the stage of imperial politics. The righteousness of their involvement with the imperial court was evident every time God worked a miracle through such men as Theophilus. Again, Philostorgius presents the emperor's favor of Theophilus as evidence of the bishop's greatness and godliness, not a limitation of his authority. While the emperor clearly benefits from this relationship, as we will see in the case of Caesar Gallus, the cooperation between the two does not last within the borders of the empire. The historian wanted to communicate to his readers that divine signs throughout history clearly indicated God's preference for a cooperative relationship between bishops and emperors. In much of the History, however, Philostorgius would recount the failure of that ideal.
VI. The Challenge of Cooperation: The Case of Caesar Gallus
Gallus, Constantius's cousin and Emperor Julian's half-brother, plays a prominent and positive role in Philostorgius's history, which stands in striking contrast with the caesar's depiction by other pagan and Christian historians in his actual minor role in imperial politics.Footnote 91 Philostorgius presents Gallus in a favorable light, extolling him for his consistency in matters of the faith.Footnote 92 Philostorgius's depiction of Gallus reveals the complexity of his views on the relationship between emperors and bishops. The story of Gallus celebrates the caesar's piety and cooperation with god-fearing bishops yet simultaneously laments his tragic death. Gallus's anger and acceptance of bad advice lead to tragic events that cannot be stopped, even by the intercession of bishops. Thus the story of Gallus points to the ideal relationship between bishop and emperor, yet it also reveals the flaws in the leadership of the Roman Empire.
The actions of Constantius during the events surrounding Gallus's life demonstrate the risk of emperors rejecting the influence of divinely inspired bishops in the sphere of the imperial court. Simultaneously, the story of Gallus illustrates Philostorgius's emphasis on imperial right belief and the perils of bad advice. Facing war on two fronts, Constantius appointed his cousin Gallus as caesar in 351 and gave him his own sister, Constantia, as a wife.Footnote 93 Gallus's relationship with one of the founding leaders of the Eunomian party, Aetius, features prominently in the account of the caesar's rule. Philostorgius relates that, initially, Gallus was misinformed about Aetius by enemy bishops and even ordered the man to be tortured. In the History, Gallus did so because “he trusted bishops and was moved to anger.”Footnote 94 This shows that, on the one hand, Philostorgius expects and celebrates Gallus's piety of listening to bishops; yet, on the other hand, he shows that even pious rulers such as Gallus can fall victim to anger and the advice of bad bishops. This passage points to the importance of collaboration with bishops who can be recognized by their virtue and wondrous works. Once Gallus was correctly informed about Aetius, he spared him and then even had a special meeting with him. Theophilus the Indian introduced Aetius to Gallus, and the caesar formed a high opinion of the Christian leader. He was so impressed, in fact, that he appointed Aetius as a teacher of “sacred sciences” and sent him to Julian in hopes of preventing his brother from falling into apostasy.Footnote 95 Gallus thus benefited from the counsel of both Theophilus and Aetius, and his piety in this regard blessed the whole empire; he was courageous and victorious against the Persians—a clear sign of divine approval for emperors.Footnote 96
In Philostorgius's version of subsequent events, Gallus approved of the killing of two imperial officials at the instigation of his wife, Constantia.Footnote 97 Constantius did not view this act as a legitimate use of the authority he had conferred upon Gallus, and he thus first exiled Gallus and then later had him executed. Theophilus's role in these events was crucial. Philostorgius relates that the bishop traveled with Gallus on a journey to placate the emperor and even successfully interceded on the caesar's behalf when Constantius had sent a general to enact the banishment.Footnote 98 Theophilus's success was short-lived, however, as Constantius recognized that the bishop was hindering him from properly punishing Gallus. So, Constantius exiled Theophilus.Footnote 99 Yet despite Theophilus's erratic treatment at the hands of Emperor Constantius, his presence at the side of the caesar signals that the bishop participated in events crucial to the development of both the empire and the Eunomian faith.
Philostorgius also indicates that Theophilus was instrumental in the development of Gallus's positive qualities; the historian presents the caesar as pious and orthodox. Theophilus introduced Aetius to Gallus as well as witnessed and mediated the initial oaths between the caesar and Constantius. The bishop had the power and ability to promote the virtues of friendship and good faith. Furthermore, he embodied those virtues. He did not leave Gallus's side and even interceded on his behalf, despite the situation clearly portending it would end with an expression of Constantius's wrath. In addition to being a force for peace and goodwill in the highly contentious politics of Constantius's court, Theophilus's actions possessed divine approval, for he survived his exile. Philostorgius places Theophilus right in the middle of the political and ecclesiastical events of Constantius's reign, stressing his conciliatory and wonder-working virtues. But despite Theophilus's positive intervention and influence on both Gallus and Constantius, the advice of wicked men led to the execution of Gallus. Constantius even gave a last minute order for a stay of execution, but the caesar's enemies at court prevented the order from reaching the executioner on time.Footnote 100
Additionally, Gallus's death functions as an explanation for the reign of Constantius; the emperor's treatment of Gallus becomes one of the reasons for his own eventual downfall.Footnote 101 Philostorgius showed that, if emperors listened to advice from righteous bishops, then God showed signs of his approval, but if they did not pay attention to divine will, negative consequences would follow—even for such favorites as Constantius and Gallus. The case of Gallus not only illustrates the importance of church-state cooperation to Philostorgius's narrative but also demonstrates how the historian did not simply celebrate his coreligionists.
VII. Bishops and Emperors in Conflict
Overall, tensions between bishops and emperors predominate in the epitome of the history over examples of mutual cooperation. Emperors and bishops live in a relationship of mutual distrust. While emperors hold a monopoly on power and frequently exile non-compliant bishops, bishops simultaneously act independently and accomplish their objectives by regularly duping the emperor. Multiple accounts of such interactions leave the impression of a constant back-and-forth struggle, a dramatic inversion of the harmonious relationship Philostorgius depicts as the ideal.
While the events in the lives of Constantius and Theophilus communicate to the reader that both enjoyed divine favor, the tumultuous nature of ecclesiastical politics show the respective strengths and weaknesses of bishops and emperors as well as their need to rely on each other. These events also demonstrate the tragic consequences of abandoning right belief and injuring those whom God has clearly marked as special representatives of his will. In the history, Constantius frequently calls councils and repeatedly exiles, recalls, summons, approves, and appoints bishops.Footnote 102 These instances establish his strength and independence in the relationship between bishops and emperors. Yet Philostorgius also reveals his assumption about the weakness of the emperor in these interactions by showing how bishops manipulate emperors on a regular basis. Either the emperor was persuaded by bishops to act in a certain way or was tricked into it.
Considering that these bishops were supposed to be men of exceptional virtue, Philostorgius recounts a surprising number of instances of episcopal deception. One of the favorite tactics of bishops was to subscribe to what they did not believe in order to manipulate the emperor.Footnote 103 Philostorgius relates that God displayed his displeasure through an earthquake for the anti-Nicene bishops who falsely subscribed the Creed of Nicaea.Footnote 104 While divine wrath seems like a logical consequence of lying about one's faith, the subsequent bizarre details of this account reveal much about the complex relationship between bishops and emperors. After the earthquake, the bishops repented and then confessed their deception to the pro-Nicene emperor. Emperor Constantine exiled them for their initial dishonesty. The fact that Philostorgius chose to relate a story wherein the bishops felt that they needed to make a public admission of guilt to the emperor while risking punishment shows that good Christian leadership in accordance with God's will is associated with public cooperation between bishops and emperors. Moreover, it reveals Philostorgius's view that the emperor's involvement—even if it results in the exile of such good bishops as Eusebius of Nicomedia—was an appropriate outcome to this account of the exiled non-Nicene bishops, which was really about the triumph of “true” Christian faith.
Other narratives of bishops tricking both each other and emperors highlight the role of unorthodox bishops and the negative consequences of emperors listening to them. Oddly, Philostorgius's narrative of bishops constantly duping Constantius presents the emperor in a positive light, as the historian approved of emperors who listened to episcopal counsel. The narrative also functions to remove some of the blame from the emperor; his guilt is at least partly diminished because he is prey to bad counsel.Footnote 105 However, these numerous episodes inevitably raise questions about the emperor's leadership since he is repeatedly tricked on numerous occasions. For example, anti-Eunomian bishops bring false but damning accusations against Eunomian leaders, and Constantius falls for the deception. Specifically, the homoiousian (the belief that described God the Father and God the Son as being similar in substance) bishop Basil of Ancyra convinces Constantius that Aetius and Theophilus participated in Gallus's alleged revolt. Not only does Philostorgius state that the emperor was duped but that Basil was able to deceive him “especially because of the women”—presumably the female members of the imperial court.Footnote 106 As a result, the emperor banished several bishops, and others “he handed over to the authority of those who had accused them.”Footnote 107 This suggests that bishops had the authority to deal with their opponents as they saw fit, an authority they exercised in this case by exiling opposing bishops.Footnote 108 Other bishops attempted to petition Constantius and tell him the truth, but Basil intercepted Eunomius while he was on his way to see the emperor and exiled him. Thus, there are very serious consequences when bishops lie to and are believed by the emperor.
Frequently, the machinations of bishops were even more elaborate. After their success in eliminating the Eunomian bishops from the scene, Basil of Ancyra and his fellow bishops held a disputation in front of the emperor in which they promulgated a creed acceptable to Constantius but phrased in such a way that it concealed their true purpose of reaffirming the homoousian doctrine (the Nicene formulation of the Son being of the same substance as the Father).Footnote 109 The creed originally promulgated at this conference had the force of conciliar decree and imperial approval and hence bolstered their authority. Once they had accomplished this feat of deception, Philostorgius claims, they traveled around with this imperial authority to promote the homoousian doctrine.Footnote 110 Their deceitful intervention fooled the emperor, other bishops, and lay people. In fact, in addition to the emperor, Philostorgius frequently presents bishops as lying to and coercing other bishops and believers. In this case, Basil and company traveled around persuading other bishops to join their side by “applying a combination of force and persuasion” and exiling any intractable bishops they found.Footnote 111 Bishops appear to be acting independently, but their dependence on the emperor is evident in their need to trick him to support their cause. This is a distorted version of the appropriate cooperation between bishop and emperor which Philostorgius elsewhere presents as an ideal.Footnote 112 Thus, even the ostensibly independent activity of bishops exists within the context of imperial cooperation.
The consequences of Basil's deceitful activities reveal once again Philostorgius's assumption about the necessity of the emperor's involvement in church affairs while bringing into question the quality of Constantius's own leadership. Eventually, other bishops traveled to Constantius and informed him that Basil and his party had been promoting the homoousian doctrine when they had just led him to believe that they upheld the opposite view. Some time had already passed before the emperor heard of Basil's deception, and he was “astonished and deeply grieved.”Footnote 113 To be sure, Constantius comes across in this episode as easily manipulated and woefully ignorant of affairs in his own empire. Yet the passage also presents Constantius as piously and justifiably concerned about such matters. Philostorgius believes that it is right for the emperor to stay involved in matters of the church, even though he may make bad decisions based on bad advice. In fact, once he had learned of the deception, the emperor's response to the crisis was to return those whom he had wrongly exiled and to call another two councils, one in the west and one in the east.Footnote 114
Events surrounding these two councils emphasize that God makes his will perfectly clear and that both bishops and emperors just needed to pay attention to divine signs. An earthquake prevents the first council in Nicomedia, Philostorgius maintains, because almost everyone connected with it was a homoousian; it was therefore not representative.Footnote 115 Of course, the council reconvened in another location, but Basil again managed to manipulate the proceedings and divide the council.Footnote 116 Philostorgius shows that God distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate council proceedings. Thus, he notes that Basil and company “met by themselves” while, in contrast, Eunomius and his party “ratified the doctrine of ‘other in substance’ in writing and sent their document to every place.”Footnote 117 Philostorgius is clearly making a distinction between proper and improper proceedings. Basil contrived the meeting, focused on deposing his opponents, met separately with his own party, and ordained a bishop. Eunomius and his followers, by contrast, did not behave in such an irregular manner.Footnote 118
Several examples of lying and conniving bishops suggest a fear of the emperor. Perhaps they serve as a statement about imperial power and responsibility, but they also argue for the need for upright bishops who would not bend to imperial pressure. Philostorgius relates that certain bishops “yielded to the currents of the times and put the emperor's will before what they considered to be the truth.”Footnote 119 In this instance, he is not just ranting against his opponents but decrying former supporters of Aetius who could not see the truth or display good leadership. Given that the emperor so readily exiled opponents and dissenters, it makes sense that bishops would fear taking a stand against the theological fashion of the day, but Philostorgius laments their weakness and untruthfulness. As we have seen, the emperor could also exile bishops for being deceitful.Footnote 120 Thus, Philostorgius paints a picture of bishops on both sides of the debate subscribing to statements they do not believe because of fear of the emperor. By their behavior, they risked either imperial wrath for their lying later or immediate repercussions for wrong belief. Once again, these accounts of fear of the emperor are an inversion of the appropriate relationship between bishop and emperor. Emperors and bishops may both err, but it is the duty of both to pay attention to divine signs. Unfortunately, bishops and emperors are instead constantly duping and exiling each other.Footnote 121
Given the chaotic relationship between Eunomians and the imperial court, it would make sense for episcopal leadership to eventually distance itself from imperial power. It is possible that this is what Eunomians in fact did, but Philostorgius did not seem to portray them that way. The History includes an extensive section on Eunomian ordinations and division of responsibilities. It has been interpreted as describing the actual creation of a separate Eunomian episcopal hierarchy.Footnote 122 Peter Van Nuffelen has also argued that this passage describes the separation of Eunomians not only from the existing church hierarchy but from the state.Footnote 123 If one reads the history as a whole, however, it is clear that Philostorgius did not see bishops and emperors succeeding without each other's support. According to Philostorgius, Eunomian bishops who were ordaining bishops outside of the imperially-supported ecclesiastical hierarchy were anticipating a time of greater imperial support. Moreover, this passage highlights the separation of the Eunomian bishops from other homoean bishops rather than from the imperial court. Philostorgius's account of these ordinations also communicates the righteousness of the Eunomian bishops’ independence and shows how they were providing good Christian leadership for the empire. Based on this passage, Van Nuffelen has argued that the bishops wanted institutional purity by ridding itself of members with suspect theology.Footnote 124 Nevertheless, Philostorgius stresses connections to the imperial court even in the midst of constant conflict.
VIII. Julian the Apostate: An Exception?
Julian is a problematic figure for the assessment of Philostorgius's understanding of church and state because he is represented as a pagan emperor. He does, however, function in the narrative similarly to the other bad emperors, like Theodosius. Yet Philostorgius clearly presents Julian in a negative light while even Theodosius possesses divine blessings. Also, his ascension to the throne functions as a punishment for Constantius's bad behavior.Footnote 125 On the other hand, Julian had a positive view of Aetius and recalled him from exile, which was important and beneficial for the Eunomian community's ability to thrive as a whole.Footnote 126 Julian recalled other bishops who had been exiled for ecclesiastical reasons, but he also had a personal relationship with Aetius.Footnote 127 Moreover, Julian hated Athanasius.Footnote 128 Together, all of these contradictory aspects of Julian's personality and reign must have been problematic for Philostorgius. There is not much more information from Photius's epitome. But the state of the text is not as bad as Amidon suggests when he affirms that there is no indication what Philostorgius thought of Julian.Footnote 129 Amidon states that “it is clear at least that he explained Julian's accession as punishment for Constantius's banishment of his hero . . . but how he then dealt with the paradoxical policies of this new Alexander is something that Photius's epitome does not reveal.”Footnote 130 In fact, Philostorgius's use of divine images and signs gives numerous indications of what he thought of Julian and his relationship with bishops.
Julian himself definitely did not see any contradiction in being heavily involved in the religious matters of his empire. Philostorgius presents Julian's reign as a time of Christian suffering and heroism equivalent to the experience of pre-Constantinian martyrs. He depicts Julian's pronouncements not as imperial religious policies that are misguided, “heretical” ones but as forms of persecution that lead to widespread distress. Julian persecutes Christians mercilessly, and miracles reveal the error of his promotion of paganism. The battle is fought through contests over sacred spaces and other holy objects, such as shrines, relics, and statues.Footnote 131 In the meantime, the Eunomian community continues much in the same way that it had been operating before. Philostorgius shows that his coreligionists continued to contend with unrighteous bishops but now had no emperor with whom to cooperate. He suggests that even Julian received great grace from God in the form of his relationship with Aetius.Footnote 132 Oddly, Philostorgius also seems to imply that Julian's positive assessment of the bishop is a credit to Aetius because it shows his greatness that even a pagan emperor could recognize.Footnote 133 Amidon suggests that Philostorgius would have interpreted Julian's recall of Aetius and other bishops from exile as a sign, potentially in favor of Julian.Footnote 134 It seems unlikely, however, that Philostorgius perceived this recall as a special event for the Eunomian community, as they had witnessed both the exiling and recalling of bishops under every other emperor.
IX. The Deaths of Emperors: The Ultimate Sign
God shows his will through cautionary deaths on numerous occasions in Philostorgius's History. Just as signs and omens may indicate divine favor, these kinds of cautionary deaths can signal divine disapproval and provide clues to the historian's understanding of relations between church and state. In Philostorgius's view of history, the very lives and deaths of emperors are signs from God.
Although Philostorgius celebrates Emperor Constantine's achievements, the historian presents his death as a sign of divine displeasure. Even though God gives Constantine a lot of grace, the emperor fails to make the right choices. Falling for the wiles of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, he supports the creed of Nicaea and banishes Arius.Footnote 135 Consequently, Constantine himself meets a tragic end when he is poisoned by his own brothers.Footnote 136 Philostorgius makes clear his sentiment on the ultimate meaning of the legacy of the first Christian emperor's reign by ending the account with the worship of a statue of Constantine after his death.Footnote 137 He claims that the Christians were “worshipping with sacrifices the image of Constantine set up upon the porphyry column . . . paying homage to it with lamp-lighting and incense or praying to it as to a god, and . . . offering it supplications to avert calamities.”Footnote 138 He lists the offerings to emphasize the parallel with pagan polytheism. The emperor received numerous positive divine signs, but he chose to ignore them and incurred the full measure of divine displeasure.
Philostorgius similarly assesses the fate of Constans, Constantine's youngest son and co-emperor in the west, whom he describes as sexually immoral.Footnote 139 Philostorgius explicitly states the reasons for Constans's demise, writing that he “lost his life in the usurpation of Magnentius because of his zeal for Athanasius.”Footnote 140 From Philostorgius's perspective, there could be no doubt of a direct correlation between Constans's earlier support for the fervently pro-Nicene Athanasius and the emperor's violent death at the hand of assassins.
Even though God showed Constantius much grace by providing him with guidance from such virtuous bishops as Theophilus, that emperor, too, turned away from God and met his ruin. Basil of Ancyra and his fellow conniving bishops convinced the emperor to exile Aetius and depose him from the diaconate.Footnote 141 This event sealed Constantius's doom. Philostorgius clearly makes the connection between Constantius's lack of imperial success and his bad ecclesiastical policy. “While Constantius usually was victorious in war,” he explains, “he suffered defeat in battle with the Persians because he had defiled his right hand with the blood of his own kin and had let himself be persuaded by Basil's accusations to banish Theophilus, Aetius . . . and their party.”Footnote 142 Constantius died on his way to suppress the usurpation of Julian, whose rise to power served as a punishment for Constantius's abandonment of the Eunomian party.Footnote 143 Describing the emperor's death, Philostorgius intertwines the imperial issue of Julian's revolt with matters of ecclesiastical orthodoxy:
While Constantius was weighing these matters [the most recent false accusations against Eunomius], he got wind of Julian's revolt. He made his way at once to Constantinople, at the same time calling a council to meet in Nicaea to look into the doctrine of ‘other in substance.’ But when he reached the place called Mopsucrenae, he fell ill, and then, having received baptism from Euzoius, he departed from life and realm together, and from the councils that had promoted heresy.Footnote 144
It is not surprising that Philostorgius believes that emperors who abandon Eunomians fall into apostasy and ruin, but his striking emphasis on events and the lives of individuals as portentous and revelatory of God's will, linked with his assumptions about the appropriate interconnected relationship between bishops and emperors, stands out in ecclesiastical historiography. Rufinus incorporates portentous signs sparingly into his continuation of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History. And as we have seen, his understanding of the relationship between bishops and emperors also differs from Philostorgius's. Socrates embraces the role of divine revelation in history—albeit cautiously—while definitely favoring the need for unity and compromise as the operative force in the history of the empire and Christianity.Footnote 145 Sozomen and Philostorgius appear most similar to each other in their emphasis on revelatory signs and miracles. In Philostorgius's history, Constantius's reign demonstrates most clearly the potential of emperors to effectively support the church while also pointing to the dangers of failing to cooperate with virtuous bishops.
Philostorgius demonstrates that God clearly expressed his will and granted Constantius numerous chances. For example, when Constantius received a report that the local bishop was treating the exiled Aetius too kindly, he ordered the exiled bishop be transferred to a region allegedly infamous for its barbarous inhabitants. Philostorgius then relates that “when Aetius, by his intercession with God, broke the intolerable drought and plague gripping the region, as our heretic falsely claims [Photius's comment], the goodwill and reverence shown him by its inhabitants knew no bounds.”Footnote 146 Clearly, Constantius should have paid better attention to the signs, for his own sake and for the empire.
X. Theories of Church and State
No discussion of Philostorgius's view of Christian leadership would be complete without consideration of two explicit programmatic statements on church and state relations in his History. Neither of the relevant passages appears in the epitome of Photius but rather in separate fragments: one from the tenth-century Byzantine encyclopedia, the Suda, and another from the pre-ninth-century Artemii Passio (an account of the legendary martyrdom of Artemius under the emperor Julian).Footnote 147 Both statements occur in the form of stories, which must be set in their context both within these fragments and within the narrative of Philostorgius's History in order to assess their possible significance.
The first passage occurs in an entry from the Suda describing the interactions of Bishop Leontius of Tripolis with Emperor Constantius and his wife Eusebia.Footnote 148 The writer of the Suda asserts, “That ill-minded Philostorgius associates himself in his book with this Leontius as a sharer in his Arian perversity.”Footnote 149 This is the only sentence in the fragment that one can be certain contains content from Philostorgius's History. It is possible that the writer continued to quote from Philostorgius after that sentence, though he more likely moved on to another source.Footnote 150 Nevertheless, it is worth examining. Before relating the events concerning Eusebia and Constantius, the narrative begins with a story about Leontius's son. The writer claims that the bishop had one son who from a young age did not show any promise of having a good character. Leontius prayerfully decided to have him killed while he was still young to prevent him from committing a sin.Footnote 151 This account sets the context for describing Leontius's character and conflict with the imperial court. According to the narrative, Bishop Leontius was the only one who did not attend a council where Eusebia was “putting on airs and receiving the reverence of the bishops.”Footnote 152 Eusebia did not take kindly to such a slight and attempted to compel him to visit her with the promise of building him a great church. Leontius responded that if the empress wanted to build a church it would benefit her soul, but if she wanted a visit from him she would have to meet certain conditions. The bishop instructed her as follows:
But if you wished to receive a visit in a way that would maintain the respect due to bishops, then when I entered, you would come down at once from your lofty throne, advance to meet me respectfully, bow your head to my hands, and request my blessings. Then I myself would again be seated while you remained standing out of respect; you would be seated when I bade you by giving the signal. If you agreed to this, I would pay you a visit. Otherwise, you could not give gifts so many or so great that we would transgress the sacred law of the priesthood by surrendering the honor due to bishops.Footnote 153
Eusebia was predictably angered by such a reply and complained to her husband. Perhaps unexpectedly, Constantius commended Leontius's “freedom of attitude” and calmed Eusebia. This episode does not so much argue for a separation of imperial and ecclesiastical matters but for the subordination of earthly authority to holy authority. Immediately after the conclusion to this story, the text launches into an account of a direct conflict between Constantius and Leontius which should be read in the context of the preceding passage about Eusebia.
Continuing the entry on Leontius, the writer of the Suda relates that Constantius was presiding at another council where he “was seated before the bishops with the intention of governing the churches too.”Footnote 154 All the other bishops applauded the emperor's statements, but Leontius alone said nothing. Upon being asked by the emperor the reason for his silence, the bishop replied: “I am surprised to find you taking charge of matters other than those for which you were appointed; you are to manage military and civil affairs, and here you are issuing orders to bishops about what pertains to bishops alone.”Footnote 155 Constantius immediately ceased trying to “impose his will in these matters.”Footnote 156 The narrative concludes with: “This is how frank Leontius was.”Footnote 157 This story, advocating the separation of ecclesiastical and imperial authority, stands out as uncharacteristic of the overall picture Philostorgius presents of the relationship between bishops and emperors. As we have seen in other passages of the History, Philostorgius presents Constantius's active involvement in ecclesiastical affairs, both in the appointments or depositions of bishops and in the calling of councils.
Another explicit statement on the separation of church and state is found in the narrative about the church policy of Valentinian.Footnote 158 It does not occur in the epitome by Photius but only in a fragment from the Artemii Passio. The writer relates that, soon after Valentinian's accession to the throne, bishops “of the pure and orthodox faith” asked the emperor to call a council. It is unclear who the orthodox bishops are; if the passage is quoting Philostorgius, then they are Eunomians, but the text may be from a Nicene point of view. Valentinian responded: “To me God has subjected the things of the world, while to you the churches. I therefore have nothing to do with the latter. Hold a council, then, wherever you wish.”Footnote 159 This account is really about the ecclesiastical policy of Valentinian, who was known to prefer to let church matters sort themselves out, and is not necessarily a reflection of Philostorgius's view.Footnote 160 Additionally, the text is corrupt, so it is unclear which parts come from Philostorgius and whether Valentinian is dealing with Nicene or non-Nicene bishops.Footnote 161
Consequently, these two statements advocating the separation of episcopal and imperial authority—one from a bishop, the other from an emperor—stand out from Philostorgius's narrative as a whole. It is difficult to interpret such passages in the context of the numerous other accounts depicting cooperation between bishops and emperors. Perhaps Philostorgius did not see a contradiction. But it is interesting to note that the only two such statements in the history occur in fragments that are not in the epitome. Although the emphasis on separate realms for church and state in these two passages are peculiar in the History, the interactions between Bishop Leontius and Emperor Constantius and between Emperor Valentinian and the bishops both accord with Philostorgius's belief that it was best for emperors to listen to good, orthodox bishops.
Whether leaders are deemed good or bad, throughout the History Philostorgius consistently demonstrates that the signs of divine favor and displeasure are clearly visible. His conviction that God makes himself perfectly clear was central to his understanding of history. He not only included traditional omens, such as signs in the sky or earthquakes, but even the very lives of emperors and bishops were portentous. By pointing out that certain emperors received explicit signs of divine grace and blessing, the historian showed that these emperors were on the right track in their role as Christian rulers. Alternatively, numerous negative signs in the lives of bishops and emperors pointed to divine discontent. The accounts of emperors in Philostorgius's history show that he believed they should be actively involved in affairs of the church, heeding the explicit signs of God's will. This involvement, however, could have negative consequences if the emperor failed to follow the example and counsel of god-inspired bishops and instead followed the lies of heretics.
In contrast to several modern interpretations, Philostorgius did not compose a history of “resignation” but was purposefully advocating for his particular memory of the past and interpretation of the present. Additionally, a careful study of his representation of emperors and bishops shows that he did not simply support imperial intervention when it was advantageous to Eunomians. Rather, Philostorgius had a complex view of the interaction between religious and imperial authority. Furthermore, his work reveals a distinctive theory of history. For Philostorgius, history constituted the revelation of God's will through signs illuminating the intertwined fates of Christianity and empire.
