Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T08:59:25.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

George of Laodicea: A Historical Reassessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

MARK DelCOGLIANO
MARK DelCOGLIANO
Affiliation:
University of St Thomas, 2115 Summit Avenue, Mail JRC153, St Paul, Mn 55105-1096, USA; e-mail: mark.delcogliano@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For nearly forty years George of Laodicea (c. 290–359) played a significant role in the fourth-century Trinitarian controversy. Yet among scholars of the period his contribution has been understudied, underappreciated and misunderstood. This article aims to reconstruct George's career in a way that eliminates earlier distortions, corrects certain oft-repeated mistakes and includes frequently omitted evidence. It argues that George was one of the principal leaders of the Eusebian alliance in its last two decades. It also suggests that his leadership role in the Homoiousian alliance was more significant than is usually thought: he was the catalyst for its formation and emerged as its champion in the aftermath of the failed leadership of Basil of Ancyra.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 667 - 692
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Dok.

Athanasius Werke, III/1: Dokumente zur Geschichte der arianischen Streites, 318– 328, iii, ed. Hanns Christof Brennecke, Uta Heil, Annette von Stockhausen and Angelika Wintjes, Berlin–New York 2007

GCS

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte

HA

Historia Arianorum; HE=Historia ecclesiastica

Urk.

Athanasius Werke, III/1: Urkunden zur Geschichte der arianischen Streites, 318– 328, i–ii, ed. Hans-Georg Opitz, Berlin–Leipzig 1934–5. Urk. and Dok. are cited by document number

George of Laodicea has long been considered one of the minor figures of the fourth-century Trinitarian debates. Yet he did not occupy such a marginal position in the eyes of his contemporaries. He seems to have been an especially annoying thorn in Athanasius' side and was a frequent object of the Alexandrian bishop's invective.Footnote 1 He was also active in the Trinitarian debates for about forty years; few participants had such longevity. He attempted to mediate between Alexander and Arius in the early 320s, emerged as a leading figure of the Eusebians in the early 340s,Footnote 2 and maintained his prominence in the Trinitarian controversy for nearly twenty years afterwards. He is best known for the pivotal role that he played in the Homoiousian alliance in the late 350s.Footnote 3 Homoiousians adapted and developed earlier Eusebian theology in ways crucial for fostering a rapprochement with the burgeoning pro-Nicene movement.Footnote 4

George of Laodicea has suffered badly at the hands of ecclesiastical historians, both ancient and modern. Following ancient pro-Nicene historians and polemicists, modern scholars generally describe him as ‘Arian’ or ‘Semiarian’. Indeed, many scholars prior to the twentieth century adopted the purported ancient assessment of him as one of the worst ‘Arians’ until Friedrich Loofs noted that this characterisation was based on a misreading of Athanasius.Footnote 5 Modern scholars have devoted neither a monograph nor even a journal article to the career or theology of George of Laodicea. While dictionary articles on him abound, they are incomplete or contain errors. In them, George for the most part remains characterised much as he was by fourth- and early fifth-century pro-Nicene historians and polemicists.Footnote 6 The goal of this article is therefore to tell the story of his careeer in a way that eliminates earlier distortions, corrects certain oft-repeated mistakes, and includes frequently omitted evidence. Two arguments will be advanced: first that George was one of the principal leaders of the Eusebian alliance in its last two decades, and second that his leadership role in the Homoiousian alliance was more significant than is usually thought.

A few words on the scope of this article and the categories it uses are in order. First, the study is intended to be strictly historical. It is conceived as a preparation or companion for a detailed theological study of George of Laodicea.Footnote 7 Hence discussion of theological issues is bracketed to the extent that it is possible and the theological assessments of other scholars are relied on where possible.

Second, ecclesio-political and theological divisions in the fourth century are conceptualised in terms of ‘alliances’. ‘Alliance’ means something quite different from ‘church party’ as traditionally understood.Footnote 8 It is notoriously difficult to account for the cohesiveness of discrete ‘church parties’ since any traditional typology of parties that relies principally upon simplistic or monolithic doctrinal criteria breaks down when the theologies of individuals placed within a single category are carefully examined.Footnote 9 In recent scholarship, the notion of an ‘alliance’ or ‘ecclesial alliance’ has been used instead of ‘church party’ to name groups or networks that arise because of some common value or are formed for the promotion of a specific agenda in the ecclesiastical sphere.Footnote 10 These values or agendas may or may not be theological. Such groups are characterised by features such as the performance of ecclesiastical communion, sufficient doctrinal agreement with respect to both principles and terminologies, the struggle with common enemies, the activity of mutual defence, the exercise of public ecclesio-political support, loyalty to revered figures, local ecclesiastical traditions, and personal friendship. No single feature, value or agenda is necessary to constitute an ecclesial alliance, and individuals or individual Churches may be part of a larger ecclesial alliance for different reasons. In this article George is placed at the heart of two fourth-century ecclesial alliances, the Eusebians and the Homoiousians.

Finally, ‘Eusebian’ is admittedly a problematic term, as recently discussed by David M. Gwynn.Footnote 11 Gwynn ably deconstructs Athanasius' description of his opponents as a collective heretical party, whom the Alexandrian bishop branded ‘the Eusebians’ (because he saw Eusebius of Nicomedia as the fountainhead of the ecclesio-political movement) and accused of ‘Arianism’ (because Eusebius and his allies defended Arius). Gwynn concludes that ‘the Eusebians' – as depicted by Athanasius – were neither a ‘party’ nor ‘Arian’, and that Athanasius' depiction of the fourth-century Church as polarised between his own ‘orthodoxy’ and the ‘Arianism’ of ‘the Eusebians’ is a polemical construct. Gwynn does not deny that those whom Athanasius called ‘Eusebians’ shared political and theological concerns, but proves that Athanasius' polemical construction of the group distorts the reality.Footnote 12 The term ‘Eusebian’ is used in this article in contrast to the Athanasian usage deconstructed by Gwynn and in line with other recent usage to name the ad hoc alliance of eastern bishops and theologians initially formed around the figures of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea that lasted from c. 320 to c. 355.Footnote 13 The alliance emerged when several eastern bishops rallied around Arius in common cause against what they deemed to be Alexander of Alexandria's doctrinal innovations and his mistreatment of Arius. But they did not agree with Arius' theology in every detail, and there were theological differences among them. In the ensuing years, the Eusebian alliance was animated by a common set of values and a shared agenda in the ecclesiastical sphere, but displayed considerable diversity in theology. The chief architects of Eusebian theology were Asterius the SophistFootnote 14 and Eusebius of Caesarea,Footnote 15 and it was decisively shaped by the emerging debate between them and Marcellus of Ancyra.Footnote 16 The Eusebians positioned themselves as advocates of a middle way between the extremes of Arius' theology and the purported neo-Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra. From the early 340s through the late 350s, the Eusebians orchestrated various councils which sought to achieve theological consensus by eliminating what they considered extreme views, those of Arius, Athanasius, Marcellus and Photinus of Sirmium. Tensions inherent in Eusebian theology caused the alliance to splinter in the late 350s, giving rise to new alliances, one of which was the Homoiousians.

The early years

George was a native of Alexandria and studied philosophy before becoming a presbyter by the early 320s at the latest.Footnote 17 If George was around thirty when he became a presbyter (as was typical), then he was probably born around 290. Nothing is known about his presbyterial ministry in Alexandria. At the time of outbreak of the controversy between Alexander and Arius, George was living in Antioch.Footnote 18 There is no evidence linking his residence in Antioch to his deposition by Alexander. He was there for unknown reasons and apparently keeping abreast of developments in his home city.

When the news of the breach reached him, George wrote at least two letters to the squabbling parties in Alexandria. Two fragments are preserved in Athanasius' De synodis and are brief enough to cite. To Alexander, George wrote, ‘Do not find fault with those around Arius (περὶ Ἄρειoν) they say: “There was once when the Son of God was not.” For Isaiah came to be son of Amos, and, while Amos was before Isaiah came to be, Isaiah was not before, but came to be afterwards.’Footnote 19 To the Arians in Alexandria he wrote:

Why do you find fault with Alexander the Pope when he says that the Son is from the Father? For you should not fear to say that the Son is from God. For if the Apostle wrote: ‘All things are from God’ [1 Cor xi.12], and it is clear that all things are made from nothing, and the Son too is a created thing and one of things that have been made, then it can be said that the Son is from God just as all things are said to be from God.Footnote 20

Athanasius cites these fragments written in support of Arius along with similar fragments from Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Anazarbus, and notes that others wrote similarly including Narcissus of Neronias, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Maris of Chalcedon, Paulinus of Tyre and Theodotus of Laodicea. George is the only one on this list who was not a bishop. While Athanasius probably cited George because of his later prominence, it is possible that, even as a presbyter, he was already recognised for his theological expertise.

Athanasius views these letters in support of Arius merely as evidence of the heresy of their authors, but the situation is more complex. In writing to both Alexander and Arius, George does not seem to be choosing sides but rather trying to find common ground between the two parties. He here emerges as a mediator attempting to broker a theological reconciliation.Footnote 21 Viewing his letters simply as disingenuous, as some scholars do, is merely to accept the polemic of Athanasius.Footnote 22 In his letter to Alexander, George attempts to argue that Arius' language about the Son is valid because it has a scriptural basis. In his letter to the Arians, he similarly argues that Alexander's statement that ‘the Son is from the Father’ can be understood in a scriptural way that would be acceptable to Arius. Admittedly, the exegetical and theological arguments of George's letters are, in terms of later orthodoxy, flimsy and border on the sophistical – indeed, this is how Athanasius and the historian Socrates viewed them.Footnote 23 But they must not be judged ahistorically. The crux of the matter is that George seeks to effect a reconciliation based on shared scriptural language that could none the less be receptive of two divergent interpretations. This stance points to the context of the two letters. They were probably written shortly after 321, when Arius had been condemned and driven from Alexandria and was actively seeking ecclesiastical support elsewhere in order to be reinstated.

In his first foray into the Trinitarian controversy, then, George emerges neither as a vehement partisan of Arius nor an implacable enemy of Alexander, but as a proponent of theological consensus rooted in Scripture. As Pierre Nautin notes, while Athanasius unconditionally supported Alexander against Arius, George did not, who ‘being more subtle, knew how to discern what was also legitimate in the doctrinal position of Arius (which he knew directly and not by means of the caricature of it handed on to the present day)’.Footnote 24 While the theology that George endorses in these two fragments indicates that he has more in common with Arius' theology than Alexander's, it may be the case that Athanasius has simply refrained from citing any of George's passages that would indicate his commonalities with Alexander. None the less, the fact that George even wanted to mediate between Arius and Alexander is a more reliable witness to his theology than the two fragments preserved by Athanasius.Footnote 25 So it is true that George was sympathetic to the Alexandrian theological trajectory to which Arius belonged and was willing to disagree, as Arius had, with his bishop. But he was no ‘Arian’.Footnote 26

George's intervention in the affair, and lack of unilateral support for his bishop, undoubtedly disappointed Alexander, but these actions alone were not responsible for his deposition from the Alexandrian clergy. The circumstances and date of this are not clear, but it most likely occurred after the Council of Nicaea because of George's continued communion with the excommunicated Arians. The charges against George adduced by Athanasius represent either slander or remote motivations for the deposition, not the sufficient grounds for it. The ‘impiety’ and ‘wickedness’ of which Athanasius accuses George and to which he ascribes Alexander's deposition of him is surely his theological sympathy for Arius.Footnote 27 Athanasius also complains of George's dissolute life, but this is likely to be a mere polemical jab.Footnote 28 Thus these reasons do not help to specify the exact circumstances of George's deposition.

It is clear that Alexander did not depose George along with Arius and his allies in c. 321 because he is not listed among those condemned at that time.Footnote 29 This is also evident from a letter written in about 324 from Alexander to Sylvester of Rome.Footnote 30 That letter does not survive, but a summary by Hilary of Poitiers does:

There remains a letter of Alexander, once a bishop, to Sylvester of blessed memory, in which he indicated that, before the ordination of Athanasius, eleven presbyters and deacons were cast out of the church because they followed the heresy of Arius. Certain ones from among these now placed outside the catholic church are said to have found for themselves places of assembly, with which it is declared that also George, the presbyter in Alexandria, communicates through letter.Footnote 31

While this shows that George was not among those excommunicated with Arius, it also reveals Alexander's complaint of George's communion with the Arians through letter. Here is the basis for Alexander's deposition of George. By communicating with the excommunicated Arians, George was contravening a serious ecclesiastical ruling. But it is not clear whether Alexander complained of George's communication with the Arians after they were excommunicated by the local Alexandrian synod in c. 321 or after they were excommunicated at the Council of Nicaea in 325. It is more likely that George's deposition occurred after Nicaea, when Arius had been excommunicated from ‘the catholic church’, as Hilary reports, not merely from the Alexandrian Church. After Nicaea, Alexander could legitimately and uncontroversially depose his presbyter George, who was far away in Antioch, for communion with a person and his supporters who were excommunicated from the universal Church.

Once deposed from the Alexandrian clergy, George would have had to find a city that would reinstate him. This did not happen in Antioch where George was then residing and Eustathius was bishop. Eustathius is known to have expelled George and other supporters of Arius shortly after Nicaea.Footnote 32 Hence George presumably left Antioch in late 325 and sought readmission elsewhere.

George in Arethusa?

There is some evidence that George found refuge and reinstatement in the Syrian city of Arethusa (present day Ar-Rastan in the Syrian Arab Republic), about ninety-five miles south-east of Antioch on the bank of the Orontes. In the aftermath of the deposition of Eustathius of Antioch in about 327, the sudden deaths of his first two successors after tenures of only a few months, and Eusebius of Caesarea's rejection of the see in around 328,Footnote 33 Constantine nominated the presbyters Euphronius of Cappadocian Caesarea and George of Arethusa as candidates for the bishopric.Footnote 34 George of Arethusa and George of Laodicea are probably one and the same person. The strongest evidence for this is the report that George of Arethusa was known to have been ordained presbyter by Alexander of Alexandria.Footnote 35

But another argument can be made. After Eustathius expelled George from Antioch in about 325, George would have sought to be reinstated among the clergy in a city whose bishop was not opposed to his association with Arius and his supporters. Bishop Eustathius of Arethusa seems to have been one such. This Eustathius attended and subscribed to the decrees of the councils of Antioch in 324, Nicaea in 325, and Antioch in 328. He was not among the fervent supporters of Arius. Not signing the decrees of Antioch in 324 or Nicaea in 325 risked condemnation, and only the most vociferous of the supporters of Arius refused to do so and were deposed, albeit provisionally at Antioch in 324. But at Antioch in 328 the Eusebians were in control.Footnote 36 So it seems likely that Eustathius of Arethusa was a moderate supporter of Arius, unwilling to risk his own position by supporting him but none the less in sympathy with his views. He was not one of the handful of eastern bishops who gave strong political support to Arius, endangering their own ecclesiastical standing. So Arethusa seems to have been a place that would have been hospitable to George. The Arethusan Church could have seen the theological tradition of George and Arius as amenable to their own, and thus been willing to enrol George in their presbyterate.

Constantine proposed Euphronius and George as candidates in order to effect his agenda in the city, that is, the cessation of disorder and violence and the restoration of peace. Constantine was not in favour of the Eustathians, who were contravening his policies. If the two candidates were not directly known to Constantine, perhaps the leading Eusebians recommended them as alternatives to Eusebius of Caesarea when he declined the see. There is no information on Euphronius. But George, as a former resident presbyter in Antioch, would have been well-known to the Eusebians of Antioch but of course disfavored by the Eustathians because of his past associations. Because of these, George hardly seems to have been the candidate who would have quelled the disturbances in Antioch. Perhaps the candidacy of George was meant to antagonise the Eustathians. In any event Euphronius was elected bishop of Antioch, though he too died shortly afterward and was replaced by Flaccillus. As events in Antioch passed George by, presumably he remained in Arethusa for the time being.

George, bishop of Laodicea

At some point after his candidacy for the see of Antioch (c. 328), George became bishop of Laodicea ad mare in Roman Syria (present day Latakia in the Syrian Arab Republic). Much older scholarship views the year 335 as the terminus ad quem for his consecration since it is maintained that George attended the Council of Tyre in 335, where Athanasius and Marcellus were deposed for the first time.Footnote 37 Yet recent scholarship has been reluctant to place George at Tyre.Footnote 38 Though the lists of the attendees are admittedly incomplete, it appears that in this case the older scholarship is correct.

The placing of George at Tyre in 335 is based on a comment in a circular letter which some Egyptian bishops attending an Alexandrian council in 338 had written in defence of Athanasius and which was later included in Athanasius' Apologia contra Arianos.Footnote 39 In it the Egyptian bishops charge that George had been incompetent to adjudicate at the Council of Tyre since he had been deposed by Alexander.Footnote 40 Athanasius' lifelong hostility toward George is even more understandable if in fact George was one of those who found him guilty and deposed him in 335. Therefore, since George was present at the Council of Tyre in 335, the date of his consecration can be narrowed down to around 328–35.

Athanasius was deposed at Tyre in 335 because he was found guilty of crimes, not because of his doctrinal stance, despite what he himself claimed. For the next twenty-five years he would have nothing but disdain for George, faulting him not only for his heretical doctrine but also for his moral turpitude. Athanasius placed George among the ‘Eusebians’ whose doctrine was wholesale ‘Arianism’. Athanasius' polemic is not to be taken at face value, and he misrepresented George's theology.Footnote 41 And so, George's actions as a newly-elected bishop, which clearly sided with the Eusebians, do not mark him as an ‘Arian’ in spite of what Athanasius claimed. The beginning of George's episcopal career is marked by the enmity of Athanasius, who was undoubtedly already biased against George because of his lack of unreserved support for Alexander a decade or so earlier.

George would have been an attractive candidate to the Laodicean Church, recently bereft of Theodotus. In both his place of origin and his education, George stands out as remarkably similar to his episcopal predecessors there: like Eusebius and Anatolius (bishops from 264 to 268 and from 268 to 282/283, respectively), he was from Alexandria, and like Anatolius and Stephen (bishop from c. 282/283–c. 303/313), he was educated in philosophy. George was also likely to have been of the same Alexandrian theological trajectory of which both Eusebius and Anatolius had been a part and which had decisively shaped Laodicean theology.Footnote 42 George's election therefore would have reaffirmed the ecclesiastical and theological bonds between Alexandria and Laodicea. George would also have been a worthy successor to Theodotus, for even during the lifetime of his episcopal predecessor he had demonstrated his Eusebian credentials. By becoming bishop of Laodicea, George was poised to take on a more prominent role in the Eusebian alliance, as Theodotus himself had once done.Footnote 43

George and the Eusebian alliance, 335–57

George's accession to the see of Laodicea marks the beginning of over twenty years of active ecclesio-political involvement in the Eusebian alliance. Increasingly he assumed a leadership role. George's first-known action as bishop was his attending the Council of Tyre. Though his participation in this council unmistakably marked him as Eusebian because of its anti-Athanasian and anti-Marcellan agenda, at this point he was not a prominent figure within the alliance. He is not included in the several fragmentary lists of the participants that appear in the sources, nor was he a member of the so-called Mareotis Commission, consisting of six prominent Eusebians who went to Egypt during the Council of Tyre to investigate the charges against Athanasius.

Since George participated in the Council of Tyre in 335, it may be the case that he also attended the Council of Jerusalem later that same year, which dedicated the church of the Holy Sepulchre and readmitted Arius to communion.Footnote 44 There is admittedly no concrete evidence for this and it remains a conjecture.Footnote 45 If George did participate in the readmission of Arius, it would have further incensed Athanasius and cemented his participation in the Eusebian alliance.

George next shows up at the Council of Antioch in the winter of 338/339. Some background is needed to demonstrate this. After Athanasius had been deposed, the Eusebians promoted a certain Pistus as his replacement, but eventually lost interest in him. In the winter of 338/339 a council met at Antioch which condemned and deposed Athanasius and Marcellus.Footnote 46 The council next chose Gregory of Cappadocia as the new bishop of Alexandria, and Constantius instructed the Prefect of Egypt to install him. George entered Alexandria on 22 March 339, and soon after Athanasius fled to Rome.

Sara Parvis correctly surmises that George was present at the council in the winter of 338/9.Footnote 47 Socrates and Sozomen record that a certain Eusebius, originally from Edessa (who was later made bishop of Emesa), was offered the see of Alexandria before it was offered to Gregory of Cappadocia, but that he refused it, well aware of the hostility any replacement of Athanasius would encounter.Footnote 48 Only then did the choice fall upon Gregory of Cappadocia. Here Socrates and Sozomen rely on an encomium of the life of this Eusebius written by George of Laodicea. Socrates relates that George was present when the bishopric of Alexandria was offered to Eusebius. Accordingly, George must have been present at the Council of Antioch in the winter of 338/339. At this council George worked with the Eusebian alliance to enforce the decisions against Athanasius passed at Tyre in 335.

George's relationship with Eusebius of Emesa reveals another facet of his participation in the Eusebian alliance. After rejecting the Alexandrian bishopric, Eusebius from Edessa was made bishop of Emesa sometime between 339 and 341, possibly even at the Dedication Council of 341, which he is known to have attended.Footnote 49 But when Eusebius went to assume charge of the Church of Emesa, he was driven out by the populace on the charge of astrology. He fled to Laodicea to seek George's help. Together they went to Antioch, where George successfully interceded with Flaccillus of Antioch and Narcissus of Neronias for his return to Emesa.Footnote 50 While this shows that George had enough clout with some of the leading Eusebians at the time, it also reveals his friendship with Eusebius. Sozomen called George the “close friend” (ἐπιτήδειος) of Eusebius of Emesa.Footnote 51 Indeed, the connections between George and Eusebius must have been frequent and strong, since it was George who wrote and presumably delivered his encomium when he died.Footnote 52 The friendship of George with Eusebius of Emesa resembles that between his predecessor Theodotus and Eusebius of Caesarea, and constitutes one of the factors that contributed to his participation in the Eusebian alliance.Footnote 53

While George was not among the prominent Eusebians in the mid to late 330s, he emerged as one of their leaders at the Council of Antioch in 341 and that of Serdica in 343. The Dedication Council at Antioch in 341 set the course of Eusebian theology for years to come because the creeds that it promulgated became the basis of eastern conciliar statements for nearly twenty years. While George is not one of the addressees of Julian of Rome's letter to the council,Footnote 54 he is listed among the prominent Eusebians who participated in the council and subscribed to the Second Creed. Sozomen states that not only Eusebius of Constantinople (recently translated from Nicomedia), but also Acacius of Caesarea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theodore of Heraclea, Eudoxius of Germanicia and Gregory of Alexandria ‘were acknowledged at that time to think the same things as one another’, then adds the names of Dianius of Cappadocian Caesarea and George of Laodicea to this group.Footnote 55 The absence of George in Julian's letter and Sozomen's addition of his name (along with Dianius) to the other prominent Eusebians indicates that George was not at this point among the upper echelons of the Eusebian leadership. But the fact that he was listed at all suggests an above-average role in the alliance. And so, at the Council of Antioch in 341, George is once again linked with the Eusebians but this time emerges as one of the foremost among them.

George did not attend the disastrous Council of Serdica in 343, but was deposed anyway along with the other leaders of the Eusebians.Footnote 56 It is not clear why George did not attend.Footnote 57 Some contemporaries claimed that he avoided the council out of fear, or that he was prevented from attending because of his earlier deposition by Alexander and communion with ‘Arians’, but these excuses have a polemic ring to them.Footnote 58 None the less, by this time George was clearly acknowledged as among the leaders of the Eusebian alliance, as his deposition in absentia indicates.

George's career is also intertwined with that of Apollinarius, who was a presbyter in Laodicea and became infamous for Christological heresy long after George's death. Like his predecessor Theodotus, George excommunicated Apollinarius.Footnote 59 Though this event was probably recorded only because of the later notoriety of Apollinarius, it does provide further evidence of George's participation in the Eusebian alliance and hence is worth analysing. It is hard to determine what led to the excommunication, and the sources betray a lack of clear information on the matter. Socrates, feebly basing his account on the story of Theodotus and Apollinarius, states that when George could not convince Apollinarius to break off his association with Epiphanius the sophist, he excommunicated him. But he adds that this might not have been the reason, but that Apollinarius might have separated from George over the inconsistency of his theological views. Sozomen, however, says that George excommunicated Apollinarius because he received Athanasius in communion. This would have occurred in 346 when Athanasius was making a roundabout trip from Trier to Alexandria after his exile and visited Syria.Footnote 60 But since Constantius had restored Athanasius to Alexandria in 345 after the death of Gregory of Cappadocia, Athanasius' replacement bishop,Footnote 61 George would have had no legal basis for excommunicating Apollinarius. This is not to say that George did not attempt to do so.

Sozomen also notes that there was personal animosity between George and Apollinarius, and this could have been a contributing factor to their conflict. And that the split between George and Apollinarius was due to theological differences cannot be ruled out, though not in a manner that might be expected. Kelley McCarthy Spoerl has recently argued that Apollinarius shared an anti-Sabellian, anti-Marcellan stance with George, but in contrast to his bishop, perhaps influenced by Athanasius' recovery of imperial favour, was beginning to see Athanasius, who had also come to adopt an anti-Marcellan position, as being sympathetic to their theology.Footnote 62 Hence Apollinarius may have seen Athanasius as evolving toward a Trinitarian theology akin to George's and sought communion, whereas George still refused to see such a development in his enemy. The situation that Spoerl describes may underlie Socrates's conjecture that Apollinarius viewed George's theology as inconsistent. In any event, George could not depose Apollinarius simply because of personal dislike or theological differences, and may have used his communion with Athanasius as the pretext. If so, the questionable legality of such a move would explain Apollinarius' persistent attempts to be reinstated. At any rate, George's excommunication of Apollinarius reveals his continued Eusebian opposition to Athanasius.

Despite Constantius' restoration of Athanasius after the death of Gregory, the Eusebians chose George of Cappadocia as Athanasius' new replacement at a council in Antioch in the late 340s.Footnote 63 While elected at this time, he did not enter Alexandria until 357, after Athanasius' third exile commenced in 356. It is possible that George of Laodicea participated in the council that elected George of Cappadocia. Of the thirty eastern bishops who are known to have attended, the names of only five are known: Narcissus of Neronias, Theodore of Heraclea, Eugenius of Nicaea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis and Menophantus of Ephesus.Footnote 64 Thomas Kopecek is confident that Leontius of Antioch, George of Laodicea and Acacius of Caesarea should be added to the list.Footnote 65 These eight bishops would thus represent the leadership of the Eusebian alliance in the late 340s, and they continued to oppose Athanasius.

George's involvement in the Eusebian alliance was not limited to his participation in councils. He is also implicated in the downfall of Paul of Constantinople.Footnote 66 Paul became bishop of Constantinople in about 332 and was deposed and exiled some four years later. Over the next ten years or so he repeatedly attempted to resume his see when he saw a favourable opportunity, sometimes causing murderous rioting, as in 341. Sara Parvis has argued that Paul had the backing of the western emperor Constans, who, through Paul, was trying to influence ecclesiastical affairs in Constantius' eastern empire.Footnote 67 Paul's theological position is ambiguous.Footnote 68 While Athanasius claims him for his side,Footnote 69 Paul is known to have voted to condemn Athanasius at the Council of Tyre in 335.Footnote 70 Paul seems to have been more interested in politics, in regaining and holding onto his see, than in theological debate. The eastern bishops opposed him mostly because he was tainted, the object of Constantius' displeasure, and best-known for the violent disturbances that his attempts to regain his see had caused. Despite his popular support in Constantinople, Paul was generally unsuccessful in his attempts to return until around 345 when he managed to gain hold of the see for a few consecutive years. He remained in power until about 349 when Constans's authority began to wane. In early 350 the usurper Magnentius was proclaimed western emperor and Constans was killed shortly afterward. With Constans dead, Paul's grip on his see would have been precarious, and he would have been in need of political support.

There is evidence that at this time George of Laodicea, Theodore of Heraclea, Narcissus of Neronias and other Eusebians approached Paul to try to convince him to communicate with them.Footnote 71 Recall that these three bishops were part of the leadership of the Eusebian alliance in this period. It may be the case that the bishops were acting on behalf of Constantius, attempting to secure Paul's loyalty. In any event Paul refused to communicate with them, and the Eusebians plotted his downfall. By 351 they had managed to have him exiled on the charge of collaboration with Magnentius – a charge which may not have not unfounded. For when he refused to communicate with George and the other Eusebian bishops, Paul may have rejected the overtures of Constantius and might have turned instead to Magnentius, whom the eastern emperor considered a rebel and a usurper. Paul was exiled to Armenia, where he died in about 351. This incident concerning Paul demonstrates further how George was enmeshed in the ecclesiastical politics of his time on behalf of the Eusebian cause, possibly even acting on behalf of Constantius.

But George maintained his animosity toward Athanasius. Soon after the Alexandrian bishop commenced his third exile in early 356, George of Laodicea, Narcissus of Neronias and Leontius of Antioch charged him with cowardice.Footnote 72 Athanasius' Apologia de fuga sua (from mid-357) is a response. As the charge was meant to erode support for Athanasius, especially in Alexandria, and to reduce his authority, it was necessary for Athanasius to refute it.Footnote 73 By accusing Athanasius of cowardice, George and his allies hoped to tarnish Athanasius' reputation so that Alexandrians would be more amenable to his replacement, George of Cappadocia. George of Laodicea can therefore once again be seen participating in the ecclesio-political agenda of Constantius and the ecclesiastical struggles of the Eusebians.Footnote 74

And so, in the course of his episcopate, George of Laodicea emerged as one of the leaders of the Eusebian alliance. At the Council of Tyre in 335 and that of Antioch in 338/9 (and possibly Jerusalem in 335), George is clearly aligned with the Eusebians though not among the most significant. At Antioch in 341 he is listed among the prominent bishops and his deposition at Serdica in 343 shows that he had by this time come to be regarded as one of their leaders. His excommunication of Apollinarius reveals his continued opposition to Athanasius. His subsequent actions undertaken together with the leaders of the Eusebian alliance, namely, the election of George of Cappadocia in the late 340s, the overtures to Paul of Constantinople around 350, and accusations of cowardice against Athanasius around 356–7, demonstrate that George represented the leadership of the Eusebian alliance in this period. But he was not active in the Eusebian alliance only by participation in councils and machinations against common Eusebian enemies. His friendship with Eusebius of Emesa represents another factor that contributed to his involvement.

The last years: George and the Homoiousian alliance, 357–9

In councils of the 350s can be traced an increasing reluctance to use ousia language when speaking about the relation between the Father and the Son, viewed as problematic because of its associations with the ‘Sabellian’ positions of Marcellus and Photinus. The Eusebian alliance was splintering over this issue, no longer able to tolerate the divergent opinions which it had been able to contain for so many years. One of the offshoots of the disintegrating alliance was the Homoiousian alliance, whose leaders were Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea. The attention that scholars have given to Basil's position in the alliance has obscured the key role played by George in its initial formation, its theological consolidation and its ecclesio-political battles. Indeed, it can be argued that Basil's leadership was a failure and that George attempted to rescue the alliance in the wake of it before death cut short his efforts.

At Sirmium in 357 a small council of bishops met and produced a confession of faith which condemned all use of ousia language.Footnote 75 This confession is clear in its anti-Nicene bias, explicitly condemning the use of the term homoousios. It is also condemns the term homoiousios (‘like in substance’) – in fact, the Sirmium Confession of 357 marks the first appearance of this term.Footnote 76 The confession's theology also rejects the Dedication Creed of 341, that classic statement of Eusebian theology that had found widespread use throughout the east. The Sirmium Confession of 357 sent shockwaves throughout the east due to its stark subordinationist agenda, and catalysed all participants in the Trinitarian debates to take stock of their own positions and to formulate responses.

In late 357 or early 358 Leontius of Antioch died and was succeeded by Eudoxius of Germanica. Eustathius had banished this same Eudoxius from Antioch after the Council of Nicaea along with George and other supporters of Arius. After the death of Leontius, Eudoxius managed to be installed as bishop of Antioch without the assent of George of Laodicea, Mark of Arethusa and other Syrian bishops to whom the traditional right of episcopal consecration pertained.Footnote 77 While this irregularity on the part of Eudoxius would have offended George, the new bishop of Antioch's subsequent actions alarmed him so much so that the Homoiousian alliance was born.

Soon after his acquisition of the see, Eudoxius convened a synod in Antioch which voiced its approval of the Sirmium Confession of 357. He also welcomed Aetius to his see, where he propagated his radical teaching sometimes called ‘Heteroousian’ theology because it emphasised that the Son was ‘different in substance’ (heteroousios) from the Father.Footnote 78 The label ‘Heteroousian’ has been used in recent scholarship as a term preferable to misleading older labels for the same group such as ‘Neoarian’ or ‘Anomoian’.Footnote 79 It is worth emphasising that Heteroousian theology could be expressed without specifically using the term heteroousios.Footnote 80 For many churchmen at that time, the teaching of Aetius would have appeared to be the logical conclusion of the broadly Homoian theology of the Sirmium Confession of 357.Footnote 81 Indeed, in this period there was no clear line of demarcation between Homoian and Heteroousian theology. The reticence of Homoian theology allowed for various – and at times widely divergent – interpretations. It is also recorded that Eudoxius excommunicated those in his Church who opposed the teachings of Aetius.Footnote 82

Eudoxius' promotion of the Sirmium Confession of 357 and his sanction of Aetius' teaching sparked opposition. What is called ‘the Homoiousian alliance’ came into existence in response to the challenge of Aetius. In their surviving texts, the Homoiousians themselves actually preferred to say that the Son was ‘like the Father in substance’ (ὅμοιον τòν υἱòν τ πατρὶ κατ’ οὐσίαν) and so seem not to have used the term homoiousios.Footnote 83 In spite of this, the standard scholarly practice is still to label the members of this alliance and their theology as ‘Homoiousian’.Footnote 84 Homoiousians followed a programme of theological consensus that meant to exclude the extreme ‘Sabellian’ views of Marcellus and Photinus on the one side (following the longstanding Eusebian position) and the newer Heteroousian theology of Aetius and his supporters on the other.

George of Laodicea played a crucial role in the formation of the Homoiousian alliance.Footnote 85 He was responsible for broadcasting the Heteroousian threat to the wider Church and for marshalling opposition to it. Two actions of his demonstrate this. First, in early 358 he wrote to Macedonius of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra,Footnote 86 Cecropius of Nicomedia and Eugenius of Nicaea, who were convened for the dedication of a church in Ancyra, to alert them to the situation in Antioch.Footnote 87 The letter was carried by some of those recently excommunicated by Eudoxius, undoubtedly allowing personal testimony to the situation in Antioch to corroborate George's letter.Footnote 88 In it George apprised them of Eudoxius' active promotion of Aetius and his teaching, and warned them that if Aetius was not checked, his doctrine would spread beyond Antioch and ‘shipwreck’ the entire Church.Footnote 89 He encouraged the recipients of the letter to persuade Eudoxius to desist from promoting Aetius' views by expelling him and his disciples from the clergy. Even if allowance is made for hyperbole, George clearly views the teaching of Aetius as an utter distortion of Christian truth. This letter prompted Basil to hold a synod in Ancyra in concert with the dedication of the church to respond to the teachings of Aetius.Footnote 90 It met shortly before Easter 358 and produced a long doctrinal statement that constitutes the initial statement of Homoiousian theology.Footnote 91 George did not attend this council, nor did he subscribe to the statement afterwards.Footnote 92

After the conclusion of the council, Basil of Ancyra headed a delegation to Constantius in Sirmium to secure the deposition and banishment of Eudoxius, Aetius and Aetius' pupil Eunomius, whom Eudoxius had made a deacon. They were successful.Footnote 93 Note that the delegation had abandoned George's idea of persuading Eudoxius to drop Aetius; it chose rather to condemn him for both his theology and irregular seizure of the Antiochene church.Footnote 94 Philostorgius mentions that seventy others were condemned and exiled through the influence of Basil of Ancyra.Footnote 95 Constantius then convened a meeting in Sirmium (some time after Easter 358) at which imperial endorsement was given to Homoiousian theology, though the doctrinal statement produced at this gathering does not survive.Footnote 96 So, while Basil of Ancyra consolidated the Homoiousian alliance politically, it was George who was its initial spark. George was responsible for initiating the ecclesiastical movement against Aetius and Heteroousian theology, though Basil took the reins from him in the political sphere. Note, however, that Basil's retributive measures, namely, his orchestration of the condemnation and exile of the Aetians instead of their expulsion from the clergy, and his engineering of the deposition of Eudoxius, far exceeded the measured recommendations of George. Basil's blatant opportunism would in time marginalise him and lead to his downfall.

George's second action is a letter (no longer extant) that he wrote on the life of Aetius, probably also in 358 – undoubtedly a highly critical and unfavourable biography of his enemy. A personal attack upon one's opponent was typical in the polemics of the period. This letter was later used by Gregory of Nyssa in his Contra Eunomium,Footnote 97 and it is possible that Basil of Caesarea used it as well.Footnote 98 George's letter may also lie behind the later accounts of Aetius' early life composed by Philostorgius and Socrates.Footnote 99 And so George initiated the campaign of defamation against Aetius; the heresiological tradition against Aetius starts with George.

Perhaps thinking that Homoiousian theology could achieve lasting consensus, Constantius planned a large council for later that year. Nicomedia was initially chosen as the locale, but an earthquake on 24 August 358 made the city unsuitable, whereupon it was decided that the western bishops would meet at Ariminum in Italy and the eastern bishops in Seleucia in Cilicia.Footnote 100 The Council of Seleucia met in September 359 and the other met first in late May at Ariminum and then transferred in mid-summer to Niké in Thrace. Before this double council met, however, Constantius convened a meeting in Sirmium in early 359 to compose a statement of faith, a ‘working-document’, that could be presented to both sessions of the double council. This statement is called the ‘Dated Creed’ because the date of its promulgation has been preserved: 22 May 359.Footnote 101 It was intended to be a document that would find acceptance among Homoiousians and Homoians, but exclude Heteroousian and Homoousian theologies.

But in the year that had passed since Basil instigated the downfall of Eudoxius, Aetius and the rest, Basil's influence with Constantius had begun to wane in the face of the Homoians' reprisal for the purge of those sympathetic to Aetius. The influence of the Homoians is reflected in the Dated Creed. The Homoiousians preferred to say that the Son was ‘like the Father in substance’ (μοιον τòν υἱòν τ πατρì κατ’ oὐσίαν) whereas the Homoian Dated Creed affirmed that the Son was ‘like the Father in all respects’ (μοιον τòν υἱòν τ πατρì κατὰ πάντα) and condemned the use of all ‘substance’ (οὐσία) language. The Dated Creed's abrogation of substance language intentionally undermined the Homoiousian position. Basil of Ancyra signed it with trepidation, including a note with his signature giving the Dated Creed a Homoiousian interpretation.Footnote 102 At this juncture the Homoiousians recognised that Constantius' desire to effect theological consensus, coupled with the increasing influence of the Homoians, threatened to compromise their theology.

It may be the case that Basil's subscription to the Dated Creed, despite its provisoes, was viewed as a kind of betrayal of Homoiousian theology. For shortly after this, between the promulgation of the Dated Creed and the Council of Seleucia, George, together with Basil, composed a defence of Homoiousian theology against Heteroousian theology, seen as a competing – and mistaken – way of interpreting the Homoian theology of the Dated Creed.Footnote 103 In it he appears to be arguing that the Homoiousians have not abandoned their theology because Basil of Ancyra had signed the Dated Creed.Footnote 104 By this document George reasserted the Homoiousian position in the face of attempts to compromise it, thereby consolidating the Homoiousian alliance theologically.

The Council at Seleucia met in September 359, but things did not unfold as Constantius had hoped.Footnote 105 The fragile agreement reached between the Homoians and Homoiousians at Sirmium in 358 and early 359 quickly fell apart over theological differences. George of Laodicea was one of the principal leaders of the Homoiousians, along with Eleusius of Cyzicus and Sophronius of Pompeiopolis. Basil of Ancyra had been accused of some unspecified misdemeanour which limited his participation in the council.Footnote 106 He did not even put in an appearance at the first session (27 September 359). When he showed up at the second (29 September 359), the Homoians demanded that he not be allowed to attend because he was accused of crimes.Footnote 107 The Homoiousians agreed to this: Basil had become a political liability. Thus neutralised by his political opponents and perhaps still viewed suspiciously by Homoiousians for signing the Dated Creed, Basil's political efficacy at this point was nil. George of Laodicea thus emerged at the Council of Seleucia not only as one of the key formulators of Homoiousian theology, but also as one of its foremost defenders in the realm of ecclesiastical politics. The Homoians were led by Acacius of Caesarea, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre and the recently restored Eudoxius of Antioch. After three sessions of fruitless debate, the council president attempted to dissolve the council. But the Homoiousians reassembled in order to adjudicate on the case of Cyril of Jerusalem and other bishops whom Acacius of Caesarea had recently deposed. When Acacius refused to attend, he was deposed, along with some of his Homoian supporters. And so the débâcle of the Council of Seleucia ended.

Each side then sent embassies to Constantius at Constantinople, where through coercion and trickery both the Homoians and Homoiousians agreed to subscribe to a modified version of the Dated Creed, sometimes called the Creed of Niké because it had been drawn up at Niké in Thrace, whence the Council of Ariminum had been translated in mid-359. While the Dated Creed had declared the Son ‘like the Father in all respects (μοιον κατὰ πάντα), as the holy Scriptures also declare and teach’ and condemned the use of all oὐσία language, the Creed of Niké omitted the phrase ‘in all respects’, an omission that excluded the very possibility of its Homoiousian interpretation. The Homoiousian embassy in Constantinople signed the Creed of Niké on 31 December 359. And thus, in the words of R. P. C. Hanson, ‘the frail hope of the Homoiousian party, “like the Father in all respects,” had been destroyed’.Footnote 108

But by this time George was dead. He died at some point after the conclusion of the Council of Seleucia but before the signing of the Creed of Niké.Footnote 109 Thus he escaped the fate that most of the prominent Homoiousian bishops met at the Council of Constantinople in January 360: deposition. But his untimely death should not obscure the key role that George played in the alliance's formation, its theology, and its ecclesio-political leadership. George's prominence is especially evident in his attempts during the summer and fall of 359 to rescue the Homoiousian alliance in the face of Basil's failed leadership and loss of political capital and the growing Homoian influence with Constantius.

This discussion of George's historical significance has made it clear that it is erroneous to view him in the polemical way that he was viewed through the nineteenth century, namely, as an ‘Arian’ who become a ‘Semiarian’, as if such a move on George's part was a radical break with his former allegiances.Footnote 110 He did not relinquish his ‘membership’ in one church party to join another. Rather, there is much continuity in his actions and in his thought.Footnote 111 George was active in the Eusebian alliance from its earliest days until its splintering in the late 350s. He represents that trajectory of the Eusebians that could initially in some ways accommodate the views of Arius without their wholesale endorsement, that considered the theology of Alexander, Athanasius and Marcellus as opposed to longstanding theological orthodoxies, that believed the Heteroousian theology of Aetius and Eunomius to be a departure from some thirty years of Eusebian theological reflection. He was an early advocate of achieving theological consensus between opposed parties, a trait that came to characterise the best of Eusebian theology (as well as Homoiousian theology). Within a few years of his consecration as bishop of Laodicea in 335, George emerged as one of leaders of the Eusebians. He participated in several Eusebian councils, was involved in machinations against common Eusebian enemies such as Athanasius and Paul of Constantinople, and had a personal friendship with Eusebius of Emesa. Perhaps nothing speaks as convincingly for his prominence in the Eusebian alliance as Athanasius' frequent expressions of utter disdain for him. The defence of Homoiousian theology that he wrote in the summer of 359 represents his last attempt at theological consensus. Here one encounters a theology that had been refined through the many extremes that he combated: Arius, Alexander, Athanasius, Marcellus, Photinus and, finally, Aetius and Eunomius. It is the final testimony to a lifetime of theological reflection undertaken for the sake of ecclesial unity.

Greater prominence should be given to George in the leadership of the Homoiousian alliance. His importance to the alliance is frequently overlooked by the attention paid to Basil of Ancyra. It was George who provided the initial impetus for the political consolidation of the Homoiousian alliance when he wrote to Basil of Ancyra about Eudoxius in early 358, and it was George who began the smear campaign against Aetius. Basil of Ancyra was moved to action by the rallying cry of George.

While Basil initially consolidated the Homoiousian alliance politically by achieving the deposition and condemnation of Eudoxius, Aetius, Eunomius and their allies, subsequent to this his forays into ecclesiastical politics must be judged a failure. Basil overplayed his hand in deposing so many supporters of Eudoxius and Aetius; in the counteroffensive by Acacius of Caesarea and other Homoians, he lost clout with Constantius. He was forced to sign the Dated Creed, which may have perhaps been viewed by some as a betrayal of Homoiousian theology. Basil was effectively neutralised at the Council of Seleucia and hardly played a role. Finally, after the death of George, he signed the Creed of Niké and was deposed and condemned at the Council of Constantinople in early 360.

As Basil's influence began to wane, George emerged as the de facto leader of the alliance that he had initiated. His defence of Homoiousian theology, written in the summer of 359, sought to undo the damage of Basil's subscription to the Dated Creed, and George was one of the leading Homoiousians at the Council of Seleucia. Admittedly, he failed to engineer a victory for the Homoiousians in that period of rampant strife and factionalism. And only by timely death was he spared the experience of the utter defeat of the Homoiousians in January 360. But these facts do not negate George's role as the principal catalyst for the formation of the Homoiousian alliance and as its champion in the aftermath of Basil of Ancyra's failed leadership.

References

1 For example, Apologia de fuga sua 1.1–3; 26.4, ed. Opitz, Hans-Georg, in Athanasius Werke, II/1: Die Apologien, Berlin 1935–41, 68–86Google Scholar. For reasons why Athanasius bore such animus toward George see p. 10 below.

2 What I mean by ‘Eusebian’ is described at pp. 669–70 below.

3 The use of the word ‘alliance’ in detailed at p. 669 below.

4 The usage of ‘pro-Nicene’ follows that of Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its legacy: an approach to fourth-century Trinitarian theology, Oxford 2004, 236–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 This was based on Athanasius, De fuga 26.3. See, for example, E. Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, in William Smith and Henry Wace (eds), Dictionary of Christian biography, literature, sects and doctrines, London 1880, ii. 636–8 at p. 637, and Gummerus, Jaakko, Die homöusianische Partei bis zum Tode des Konstantius, Leipzig 1900, 31Google Scholar. However, Friedrich Loofs points out that the phrase actually refers to Narcissus of Neronias: ‘Georg von Laodicea’, in Albert Hauck (ed.), Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, Leipzig 1899, vi. 539–41 at p. 539.

6 Modern historiography on George began in the seventeenth century; in this article reference will be made only to the most important studies since then and particularly to twentieth-century scholarship.

7 This is tentatively entitled ‘George of Laodicea: a theological reassessment’.

8 For my use of ‘alliance’ see DelCogliano, Mark, ‘Eusebian theologies of the Son as image of God’, Journal of Early Christian Studies xiv (2006), 459–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The Eusebian alliance: the case of Theodotus of Laodicea’, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum xii (2008), 250–66Google Scholar.

9 Idem, ‘Eusebian alliance’, 250.

10 See Ayres, Nicaea, 13; DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian theologies’, 480–3.

11 Gwynn, David M., The Eusebians: the polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the construction of the ‘Arian controversy’, Oxford 2007Google Scholar.

12 See DelCogliano, review this Journal lix (2008), 97–8Google Scholar.

13 For a definition of the category see Ayres, Nicaea, 52, and Lienhard, Joseph T., Contra Marcellum: Marcellus of Ancyra and fourth-century theology, Washington, DC 1999, 34–5Google Scholar. For work on the theological and ecclesio-political cohesiveness of the Eusebians see DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian theologies’ and ‘The Eusebian alliance’.

14 On Asterius' theology see Ayres, Nicaea, 53–4; Hanson, R. P. C., The search for the Christian doctrine of God: the Arian controversy, 318–381, Edinburgh 1988, 32–8Google Scholar; Lienhard, Contra Marcellum, 89–100; and Vinzent, Markus, Asterius von Kappadokien: die theologischen Fragmente, Leiden 1993Google Scholar.

15 On Eusebius' theology see Ayres, Nicaea, 58–60; Hanson, Search, 46–59; and Lienhard, Contra Marcellum, 104–35.

16 On Marcellus' theology see Ayres, Nicaea, 62–9; Hanson, Search, 217–35; Lienhard, Contra Marcellum, 49–68; and Vinzent, Markus, Markell von Ankyra: die Fragmente [und] der Brief an Julius von Rom, Leiden–New York–Cologne 1997Google Scholar. On Marcellus' career see Parvis, Sara, Marcellus of Ancyra and the lost years of the Arian controversy, 325–345, Oxford–New York 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica viii.17, ed. Joseph Bidez and Friedhelm Winkelmann, in Philostorgius: Kirchengeschichte, 3rd edn, GCS xxi, Berlin 1981; Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium i. 26, PG lxxxiii.

18 Athanasius, De synodis 17.5, Athanasius Werke, II/1, 231–78.

19 Urk. 12 = Dok. 6.

20 Urk. 13 = Dok. 7.

21 Loofs, ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 459, and ‘George of Laodicea’, in Samuel Macauley Jackson (ed.), The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge, New York–London 1909, iv. 459, and Pierre Nautin, ‘Georges (46), évèque de Laodicée’, in Alfred Baudrillart (ed.), Dictionnaire d'histoire et géographie ecclésiastique, Paris 1984, xx. 629–30 at p. 629.

22 Examples are Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637; Bardenhewer, Otto, ‘Georgius von Laodicea’, in his Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur, Freiburg 1912, iii. 264–5 at p. 264Google Scholar; and Othmar Perler, ‘Georgios, bish. v. Laodicea’, in Michael Buchberger (ed.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Freiburg 1966, iv. 702–3 at p. 702.

23 Athanasius, De synodis 17.7; Socrates, HE ii.45.14, ed. Günther Christian Hansen with contributions by Manja Širinjan, in Sokrates: Kirchengeschichte, GCS n.s. i, Berlin 1995.

24 Nautin, ‘Georges (46)’, 629.

25 Loofs, ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 539.

26 Contra Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637; Bardenhewer, ‘Georgius’, 264; Perler, ‘Georgios’, 702; Manilo Simonetti, ‘George of Laodicea’, in Angelo Di Berardino (ed.), Encyclopedia of the early Church, New York 1991, i. 343; G. Röwekamp, ‘George of Laodicea’, in Siegmar Döpp and Wilhelm Geerlings (eds), Dictionary of early Christian literature, New York 1998, 250; and Frederick W. Norris, ‘George of Laodicea (fourth century)’, in Everett Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopedia of early Christianity, 2nd edn, New York 1998, 460.

27 ‘George himself was deposed by Alexander because, among other things, he was revealed as impious (ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἀσεβὴς ἐϕάνη)’: De synodis 17.7, Athanasius Werke, II/1, 245; ‘George who as a presbyter was deposed because of his wickedness (διὰ τὴν κακίαν αὐτo)’: De fuga 26.4, Athanasius Werke, II/1, 86.

28 De fuga 26.4.

29 Urk. 4b.2 = Dok. 2.2.2.

30 For the date see Hanson, Search, 136.

31 Urk. 16 = Dok. 18.

32 Athanasius, HA 4.2, Athanasius Werke, II/1, 183–230.

33 On the deposition of Eustathius of Antioch and its aftermath see Parvis, Marcellus, 101–10; Hanson, Search, 208–11; Barnes, Timothy D., Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge–London 1981, 227–8Google Scholar; and DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian alliance’, 259–60.

34 Eusebius, Vita Constantini iii.2.2–3, ed. Heikel, Ivar A. and Winkelmann, Friedhelm, Eusebius Werke, I/1: Über das Leben Kaisers Konstantins; 2nd edn, GCS vii/1, Berlin 1991Google Scholar; Sozomen, HE ii.19.5–7, ed. Hansen, Günther Christian, in Sozomenus: Kirchengeschichte, GCS n.s. iv, Berlin 1995Google Scholar.

35 This identification is endorsed by Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637; Loofs, ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 539; Loofs, ‘George of Laodicea’, 459; Bardenhewer, ‘Georgius’, 264; Perler, ‘Georgios’, 702; Nautin, ‘Georges (46)’, 629; Simonetti, ‘George’, 343; and Röwekamp, ‘George’, 250.

36 Parvis, Marcellus, 48–9.

37 Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637; Loofs, ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 540; Gummerus, Die homöusianische Partei, 30; Loofs, ‘George of Laodicea’, 459; Bardenhewer, ‘Georgius’, 264.

38 See Parvis, Marcellus, 125–6, 258. Parvis estimates that around sixty bishops attended, twenty-six of whose names are known. See also Barnes, Timothy D., Athanasius and Constantius: theology and politics in the Constantinian empire, Cambridge 1993, 22Google Scholar, and Annik Martin, ‘Athanase et les Mélitiens’, in Charles Kannengiesser (ed.), Politique et théologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie, Paris 1974, 31–61 at p. 51 n. 48.

39 On the date of the circular letter see Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 36.

40 Athanasius, Apologia secunda 8.3, Athanasius Werke, II/1, 87–168.

41 On Athanasius' label ‘Eusebian’ see pp. 669–70 above. Gwynn identifies George of Laodicea as a member of Athanasius' ‘Eusebians’, but reserves judgement on the specific character of his theology: The Eusebians, 111–13, 115, 123, 219.

42 DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian alliance’, 253–6.

43 Ibid. 256–62.

44 On this council see Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 23.

45 This conjecture is only offered by Du Pin, Louis Ellies, Nouvelle Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclesiastiques, Paris 1693, ii. 481–2 at p. 482Google Scholar, and Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637.

46 Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 45–6.

47 Parvis, Marcellus, 156. See Socrates, HE ii.9, and Sozomen, HE iii.5. Both Socrates and Sozomen conflate the Antiochene council of winter 338/339 and the Dedication Council: Parvis, Marcellus, 156; Hanson, Search, 285 n. 32.

48 Sozomen, HE iii.5–6; Socrates, HE ii.9–10.

49 Sozomen, HE iii.6.

50 Socrates, HE ii.9; Sozomen, HE iii.6.

51 Sozomen, HE iii.6.5.

52 Cf. Socrates, HE ii.9. It is generally thought that Eusebius of Emesa died in early 359, since Paul was bishop of Emesa at the Council of Seleucia in September 359. See Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.26.3, ed. Karl Holl and Jürgen Dummer, in Epiphanius III : Panarion adversus haereses 65–80; De fide, 2nd edn, GCS xxxvii, Berlin 1985. David Woods suggests that Eusebius of Emesa is to be identified with Eusebius Pittacas, who was executed by Gallus Caesar in Antioch in 354: ‘Ammianus Marcellinus and Bishop Eusebius of Emesa’, JTS n.s. liv (2003), 585–91Google Scholar. Whenever the encomium was written, the historian Socrates used it for background information on Eusebius of Emesa: Buytaert, É. M., L'Héritage littéraire d'Eusèbe d'Émèse, Louvain 1949, 44–50Google Scholar.

53 See DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian alliance’, 256–62.

54 Dok. 41.8.

55 Sozomen, HE iii.5.10. For a discussion and list of the known attendees see Parvis, Marcellus, 163, 260.

56 Sozomen, HE iii.12; Athanasius, HA 17.3; Theodoret, HE ii.6, ed. Günther Christian Hansen, in Theodoretus Cyri: Kirchengeschichte, GCS n.s. v, Berlin 1998; Athanasius, Apologia secunda 36.6; 47.3; Hilary, Collectanea antiariana parisina B II.7, ed. Alfred Feder, in S. Hilarii pictaviensis opera, pars 4, CSEL lxv, Vienna 1916. See also Parvis, Marcellus, 221. On Serdica see Hanson, Search, 293–306; Ayres, Nicaea, 122–6; and John Behr, The way to Nicaea, Crestwood 2001, 79–81.

57 Hanson implies that George did not attend Serdica because he had just recently been ordained bishop of Laodicea, but this is mistaken: Search, 261.

58 Hilary, Collectanea antiariana parisina B II.7, and Athanasius, Apologia secunda 47.3, who is followed by Theodoret, HE ii.6.

59 Sozomen, HE vi.25.7; Socrates, HE ii.46. See DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian alliance’, 260–1.

60 Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 92.

61 Ibid. 90.

62 For a provocative reconstruction of the sources of Apollinarius' theology see Kelley McCarthy Spoerl, ‘Apollinarius and the first Nicene generation’, in Ronnie J. Rombs and Alexander Y. Hwang (eds), Tradition and the rule of faith in the early Church: essays in honor of Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J., Washington, DC 2010, 109–27.

63 See Sozomen, HE iv.8.4. The date of this council is contested. For the relevant literature see Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 98–9, 268 nn. 35, 37. He proposes a date of 349. , Thomas A. Kopecek proposes the year 347 or 348: A history of Neo-Arianism, Philadelphia 1979, 103–4Google Scholar.

64 Sozomen, HE iv.8.4.

65 Kopecek, History, 104.

66 On the complicated career of Paul of Constantinople see Hanson, Search, 279–84; Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 212–17; and Parvis, Marcellus, 200–6, 222.

67 Parvis, Marcellus, 200–6.

68 Hanson, Search, 283; Parvis, Marcellus, 206.

69 For example, Athanasius, HA 7; De fuga 3.6.

70 Hilary, Collectanea antiariana parisina A IV.13.

71 Historia acephala 1.2–3, ed. Annik Martin, in Histoire «Acéphale», SC cccxvii, Paris 1985. While the text names ‘Georgius’ without mentioning his see, Martin (p. 174 n. 10) identifies him as George of Laodicea. See also Hanson, Search, 282.

72 Athanasius, De fuga 1.1; 26.3–4. See also Socrates, HE ii.26.9, which is based on Athanasius. On Athanasius' third exile see Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 121–6, and Hanson, Search, 341–3. There is no need to posit an anti-Athanasian council in Antioch in 356 as does Kopecek, History, 134–6. See Jeffrey N. Steenson, ‘Basil of Ancyra and the course of Nicene orthodoxy’, unpubl. DPhil. diss. Oxford 1983, 114–15 n. 65.

73 Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 124.

74 Mistakenly believing that the Council of Antioch which elected George of Cappadocia as Athanasius' replacement occurred in 357, Nautin, ‘Georges (46)’, 629, suggests that Athanasius directed his Apologia de fuga sua against George, Narcissus and Leontius (see De fuga 1.1; 26.3–4) because they were the bishops responsible for Cappadocian George's election. While it is likely that all three did participate in this election, in actuality this council was likely held in the late 340s (see n. 63 above). It seems more likely that their recent accusations of cowardice rather than their election of George of Cappadocia explains the mention of them in Apologia de fuga sua.

75 Hilary, De synodis 11, PL x. 479–546. On this council see Hanson, Search, 343–7, and Ayres, Nicaea, 137–40.

76 Hanson, Search, 346–7.

77 ‘When the emperor was still residing in the West, it was announced that Leontius the bishop of Antioch had died. As that Church needed superintendence, Eudoxius asked the emperor if he could return to Syria. When permission was granted, he eagerly seized Antioch and took possession of the bishopric without the agreement of George the bishop of Laodicea and Mark of Arethusa, who were at that time the [most] notable of the bishops in Syria, or of the others to whom the episcopal consecration belonged [οἷς ἡ ξειροτονία διέφερε]’: Sozomen, HE iv.12.3–4, GCS n.s. iv, 154, lines 23–39. See also Socrates, HE ii.37.7–11. Nautin (‘Georges [46]’), 629, and Simonetti (‘George’, 343), erroneously interpret this passage as indicating that George himself aspired to the see of Antioch. But all it says is that Eudoxius ignored the traditional Antiochene procedures at his installation, an action that would have offended George, Mark and other Syrian bishops.

78 Sozomen, HE iv.12.4–7. On Aetius and Heteroousian theology see Kopecek, History; Ayres, Nicaea, 144–9; and Vaggione, Richard Paul, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene revolution, Oxford 2000Google Scholar.

79 See, for example, Vaggione, Eunomius, passim, and Ayres, Nicaea, 145. The term heteroousios was first used by the opponents of Heteroousian theology such as Athanasius in his De decretis and De synodis, and was later adopted by the historian Philostorgius to describe the theological position of his hero Eunomius: see especially HE iv.12.

80 For example, Aetius never uses this term in his Syntagmation nor Eunomius in his Apologia. Aetius likely used heteroousios prior to writing the Syntagmation since it appears in one of the six Heteroousian fragments recorded in the Homoiousian defence from the summer of 359: Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.21.4. On Aetius' authorship of these six fragments see Morales, Xavier, ‘Identification de l'auteur des citations néo-ariennes dans le Traité de Basile d'Ancyre’, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum xi (2008), 492–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 As Ayres notes, the subordinationist impulse in Homoian theology could be pushed even further to interpret Homoian ‘likeness’ as ‘indicating a fundamental distinction in essence’: Nicaea, 139. In addition, Eudoxius' promotion of Aetius ‘created the impression of a logical direction to the Homoian programme’: Nicaea, 139 n. 18. Ayres concludes his analysis of Eunomius' theology by saying that ‘These complexities help to reveal ever more clearly how the distinct theology of Eunomius was for many seen as the natural term of Homoian theology’ (p. 149).

82 Sozomen, HE iv.13.1.

83 The term homoiousios may have been in use before the formation of the alliance that bears this name since the Sirmium Confession of 357 condemned its usage. But we do not what or who prompted the framers of the Confession to issue that condemnation.

84 For example Gummerus, Die homöusianische Partei; Kopecek, History; Steenson, ‘Basil of Ancyra’; Hanson, Search, 348–71; and Ayres, Nicaea, 149–53. Ayres notes (p. 151) that this label ‘is misleading if it leads us to understand [Homoiousian] theology as focused around defending a compromise term for the relationship between the Father and Son’. Scholars continue to use ‘Homoiousian’ for lack of a better label and as preferable to other even more misleading names such as ‘Semiarian’. Epiphanius (Panarion lxxiii.1.5) first called the Homoiousians ‘Semiarians’ in order to tar the movement as a kind of ‘Arianism’. Some modern scholars have retained this label for George: Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637; Norris, ‘George’, 460.

85 Only Cave, William, Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia literaria, Oxford 1740, i.208Google Scholar, calls George a ‘Homoiousian’ before Loofs, ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 539 and ‘George of Laodicea’, 459. After Loofs, virtually all scholars describe him thus.

86 George's decision to write to the bishops assembled at Ancyra was probably calculated to elicit a response from Basil who had been in conflict with Aetius since the early 350s: Kopecek, History, 111–12; Vaggione, Eunomius, 158–61.

87 Sozomen, HE iv.13.1–3. For a reference to this letter see Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.2.8.

88 Sozomen, HE iv.13.1.

89 Ibid.13.2–3.

90 Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.2.1. Apparently the council was hastily convened to coincide with the dedication of the church. As this was taking place at the end of winter, it would have been hard for bishops to attend. Thus, its attendees were bishops of sees near Ancyra, such as Eustathius of Sebasteia.

91 The statement is preserved in Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.2–11.

92 Contra Simonetti, ‘George’, 343, and Hanson, Search, 349. Hanson states that ‘George of Laodicea signed the statement issued afterwards, though he was not present at the council.’ George is not one of the signatories of the statement (see Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.11.11) nor is there any evidence for his subscription.

93 Sozomen, HE iv.13.4–14.7; Philostorgius, HE iv.8. On Basil's response to Aetius see Hanson, Search, 349–57, and Ayres, Nicaea, 149–53.

94 Kopecek, History, 173.

95 Philostorgius, HE iv.8.

96 Sozomen, HE iv.15.1–4. On this council see Kopecek, History, 172–6; Hanson, Search, 357–62; and Ayres, Nicaea, 152–3.

97 Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium i.37, ed. W. Jaeger, in Gregorii Nysseni opera, I: Contra Eunomium libri, I et II: pars prior: libri I et II (vulgo I et XII B), Leiden 1960. Gregory mentions that it was Athanasius of Ancyra, Basil's successor as bishop of Ancyra, who showed him George's letter on Aetius.

98 Basil of Caesarea says of Aetius that ‘I will not mention in what sort of customs he was reared from the beginning of his life and how, when he grew up, he intruded perniciously into the churches of God, lest I seem to focus on abusing him and to neglect the refutations’: Contra Eunomium i.1, ed. Sesboüé, Bernard, in Basile de Césarée, Contre Eunome, SC ccic, cccv, Paris 1982–3, i.144, lines 28–31Google Scholar, trans. DelCogliano, Mark and Radde-Gallwitz, Andrew, in St. Basil of Caesarea: Against Eunomius, Washington, DC 2011, 82Google Scholar. Basil's knowledge of Aetius' early life and his negative view of it may have come by way of George's letter.

99 See Philostorgius, HE iii.15; Socrates, HE ii.35.1–14.

100 Socrates, HE ii.39.2–4; Sozomen, HE iv.16.2–5; Theodoret, HE iv.16.

101 The Dated Creed is preserved in Athanasius, De synodis 8.3–7, and Socrates, HE ii.37.18–24. On the Dated Creed see Hanson, Search, 363–5, and Ayres, Nicaea, 158.

102 Basil of Ancyra's subscription verbosely attempts to endorse the Dated Creed by interpreting it in a Homoiousian way, yet without explicitly saying that the Son was like the Father in substance (κατ’ οὐσίαν), a phrase that the Creed had explicitly prohibited: Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.22.7–8.

103 On the date see Hanson, Search, 365–7, and Ayres, Nicaea, 158. The defence is preserved in Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.12.1–22.4. Before presenting the two extant Homoiousian documents, Epiphanius says at Panarion lxxiii.1.8, GCS xxxvii. 268, lines 27–9, that ‘Here I will insert the letter which each of them wrote: Basil wrote one, and George of Laodicea, together with Basil and those with him, wrote another.’ This means that George may not have been the only author of the defence. None the less, since Epiphanius seems to think of George at least as the primary author, and the letter consistently speaks in the first person singular, it is legitimate to refer to this as George's. I am not convinced by the arguments of Steenson, ‘Basil of Ancyra’, 212–14; Alfried Löhr, Winrich, Die Entstehung der homöischen und homöusianischen Kirchenpartien: Studien zur Synodalgeschichte des 4.Jahrhunderts, Witterschlick–Bonn 1986, 142, 237Google Scholar; and Morales, Xavier, La Théologie trinitaire d'Athanase d'Alexandrie, Paris 2006, 32–4Google Scholar, who deny that George is the author and ascribe the text solely to Basil of Ancyra: DelCogliano, Mark, ‘The literary corpus of George of Laodicea’, Vigiliae Christianae lxv (2011), 150–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Hanson, Search, 366. See also Kopecek, History, 195–6, 200. See also Eleusius of Cyzicus' comments at the Council of Seleucia in Sozomen, HE iv.22.22.

105 On this council see Ayres, Nicaea, 161–4, and Hanson, Search, 371–80.

106 Socrates, HE ii.39; Sozomen, HE iv.22.

107 Socrates, HE ii.40.3–5; Sozomen, HE iv.22.11–12.

108 Hanson, Search, 380.

109 See DelCogliano, Mark, ‘The death of George of Laodicea’, JTS n.s. lx (2008), 181–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 Venables states this view most clearly and most erroneously: ‘At first an ardent admirer of the teaching of Arius, he subsequently joined the ranks of the semi-Arians, but seems ultimately, outstepping his original position, to have united with the Anomoeans, whose uncompromising opponent he had once been, and to have died professing their tenets’: ‘Georgius (3)’, 637. But this was the view of virtually all scholars before the twentieth century. See, for example, Johann Albert Fabricius and Gottlieb Christoph Harles (eds), Bibliotheca graeca, Hamburg 1804, ix.293: ‘modo Arianas partes, modo iterum adversarias Eunomianis Homoeusianorum sequutus est’. See also Norris, ‘George’, 460.

111 Loofs writes that ‘The new attitude of George after 358 can hardly be called a change of conviction since the homoiousian formulas may be traced back to the Christology of Alexander of Alexandria who influenced his youth’: ‘George of Laodicea’, 459. Loofs had said the same in his earlier article where he adds that ‘die Entwicklung G.s erscheint auch hier normal’: ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 540.