SOURCE: "Basil on the World Stage" in Basil of Caesarea, University of California Press, 1994, pp. 270-317, 365-87.

[In the essay reprinted below, Rousseau describes Basil's efforts to mediate ecclesiastical schisms and doctrinal disputes beyond the boundaries of the see of Caesarea. The critic contends that Basil's attempts to construct a cadre of like-minded bishops who would support the cause of orthodoxy were frequently motivated as much by collegiality and personal vindication as by theological ideology.]

'Lifting his head high and casting the eye of his soul in every direction, he obtained a mental vision of the whole world through which the word of salvation had been spread'.¹ So Gregory of Nazianzus described his friend. 'A trumpet penetrating the immensity of space, or a voice of God encompassing the world, or a universal earthquake resulting from some new wonder or miracle, his voice and mind were all of these'.² Praise, indeed; and so it may have seemed in later years, with Basil's old enemies in retreat. But just what broader significance did he acquire during his struggles on behalf of orthodoxy? For he knew well enough that success would depend on carrying to the furthest possible limits the battle against error: 'Who will allow me to step upon the stage of the wide world? Who will give me a voice clear and penetrating like a trumpet?'.³

Correspondence examined in previous chapters—about the division of Cappadocia, about Eustathius, and about Antioch—points to a growing awareness of place. Basil's failure with Gregory and success with Amphilochius included an element of purely territorial interest. Once he had become a bishop, he began to develop a clear sense of the geography of his world; a geography that allowed him not only to pinpoint interests rivalling his own but also to associate with different localities—different sees, different groups of supporters and antagonists—the varying components of his own theology, the theology not only of the Trinity but also of human nature and the community within which that nature had to operate.

Antioch occupied a central place in that network;⁴ Neocaesarea, and Armenia beyond it, also loomed large. A connection with Neocaesarea was only to be expected, given its prominence in Pontus, and the proximity of Basil's family property, some fifty kilometres to the west. We have already mentioned most of the important letters connected with the region. First came Basil's response to the death of the bishop Musonius, near the end of 371. He naturally recalled the heritage of Gregory, Neocaesarea's first bishop; but he betrayed anxiety also that a change of leaders might rob him of a potential ally and generally weaken the city's resistance to error in those trying days. He hoped for 'a token either of neighbourly sympathy, or of the fellowship of men of like faith, or, more truly, of the fellowship of men who obey the law of love and shun the peril of silence'.⁵ So he recalled the city's more recent resistance to error—'amid this great storm and tempest of affairs … unshaken by the waves'—and urged its people quickly to unite in their own defence around a new leader.⁶

The need to build up a community of churchmen who could present a common face against the forces that threatened them—the hope invested in Amphilochius not long afterwards—was felt most acutely at those moments when leaders died, and when the quality of their successors was uncertain. Basil struck the same note in a letter to Ancyra, following the death of its bishop Athanasius at around the same time: 'To whom shall we now transfer the cares of the churches? Whom now shall I take as partner in my sorrows? Whom as a sharer in my joy?'⁷ 'There is no little danger', he continued with some pointedness, 'that many will fall together with this support which has now been taken from under them [i.e., Athanasius], and that the rottenness of certain persons will be laid bare'. 'The struggle', he concluded, 'is not slight, that we may prevent the springing up again, over the election of a superintendent, of strifes and dissensions, and the utter overturning, as the result of a petty quarrel, of all our labours'.⁸

At Neocaesarea, Musonius was succeeded by Atarbius, a distant relative of Basil. The man was not inspired thereby with automatic affection; and he seems to have made no move to acknowledge either Basil's anxieties or his sense of loyalty to Neocaesarea itself. Eventually, Basil decided to open communications himself, in 373. He was anxious still that Atarbius should bestir himself more effectively in the dangerous struggle against the enemies of orthodoxy:

Unless we assume a labour on behalf of the churches equal to that which the enemies of sound doctrine have taken upon themselves for their ruin and total obliteration, nothing will prevent truth from being swept away to destruction by our enemies, and ourselves also from sharing in the condemnation, unless with all good zeal and good will, in harmony with one another and in unison with God, we show the greatest possible solicitude for the unity of the churches.

That was where Amphilochius had scored points, and where Atarbius had been particularly remiss:

Cast from your mind the thought that you have no need of communion with another.… Consider this—that if the evil of war which now goes on all about us should sometime come upon ourselves likewise … we shall find none to sympathize with us, because in the season of our tranquillity we failed to pay betimes our contribution of sympathy … to the victims of injustice.⁹

It was a theme very much to the fore at that moment, when not only was the policy of Valens, from a religious point of view, most oppressive, but also the division of the province had created new occasions for disunity. To the curia of Tyana, the see of his new rival, Anthimus, Basil wrote: 'We would never attribute so much to ourselves as to consider that single-handed we could surmount our difficulties, for we know very clearly that we need the help of each and every brother more than one hand needs the other'.¹⁰

Because of the way in which the controversy with Eustathius developed, Basil eventually accused Atarbius of Sabellianism. That represented, of course, a careful attempt to defend himself, and to preserve what allies he could, within the orbit of Neocaesarea itself. It is likely, however, that the opinions of Atarbius seemed bad enough in themselves, and deserving of censure, 'lest perchance, in addition to the countless wounds which the Church has suffered at the hands of those who have erred against the truth of the Gospel, still another evil may spring up'.¹¹ So he went about building up a wider circle of potential supporters. An obvious example was Olympius, a friend of long standing,¹² to whom he wrote about many aspects of the controversy, 'in order that you yourself may know the truth, and may make it clear to those eager not to let it suffer in the grip of injustice'.¹³ The cultivation of locally influential lay persons, even in letters not explicitly theological in content, was an important means of maintaining one's position among ecclesiastical peers and rivals.¹⁴ Nor was Olympius his only friend in the city.¹⁵

Basil actually travelled to Pontus in 376: so in a sense the letters discussed so far had been preparing the soil. The process continued in a long letter to the bishops of the coastal region. To some extent like Atarbius, they had been disturbingly quiet, slow to send either letters or envoys to comfort the embattled bishop of Caesarea. By this stage, several more reflective themes were beginning to come together in Basil's mind, following the breakdown with Eustathius and the continuing controversy over Apollinarius; and he now saw himself as the leader of the orthodox cause in Asia Minor generally: 'We, being publicly exposed to all, like headlands jutting out into the sea, receive the fury of the heretical waves'.¹⁶ Such a sense of destiny had already been hinted at in his earliest correspondence with the newly consecrated Amphilochius—'awaiting the calm which the Lord will cause as soon as a voice is found worthy of rousing Him to rebuke the winds and the sea¹⁷—and it seems confirmed in his letter to the curia at Tyana: 'If anyone follows us who are leading the way in this matter …, that is excellent, and my prayer is fulfilled'.¹⁸ The same sense of changed circumstance was expressed quite clearly in his long, self-justificatory letter to Patrophilus, written also in 376 (the moment when he rose to new heights of self-confidence in the De spiritu sancto):

Last year, having become ill with a most violent fever, and having approached the very gates of death, then being recalled by God's mercy, I was dissatisfied at my return, considering the evils upon which I was again entering; and by myself I inquired what in the world it was that lay in the depths of God's wisdom, whereby days of life in the flesh had again been granted to me. But when I understood these things, I considered that the Lord wished us to see the churches resting from the storm which they had experienced before this.¹⁹

Such was the spirit in which he wrote to his colleagues in Pontus. Yet Eustathius, Apollinarius, and Atarbius were never far from his mind: Basil wanted a local synod, in which he could be formally accused, instead of slandered behind his back, and where others could examine evidence, instead of merely listening to abuse.²⁰ He then went on to repeat, virtually, the imagery of his letter to Tyana, emphasizing the need for unity, just as limbs and organs in a body are in need of one another; and he repeated his warning to Atarbius not to think 'we who inhabit the sea-coast are outside of the suffering of the many, and have no necessity at all of aid from others'. He lamented the fact, as he had to Amphilochius, that no one felt shame in their being cut off from one another. The contrast was with that older model, represented by 'those fathers who decreed that by small signs the tokens of communion should be carried about from one end of the earth to the other, and that all should be fellow-citizens and neighbours to all'.²¹

From his temporary retreat in Pontus, Basil wrote three more long letters to Neocaesarea itself; and they probably represent the most carefully thought-out description of his state of mind on a number of issues beyond the immediate dissension.²² Writing to the clergy of the city, Basil addressed the question of Sabellianism, making little attempt to hide the fact (for it would have been obvious) that he was attacking Atarbius. Yet the letter hints at other disputes, which may have been going on for a long time, and which probably do more to explain the atmosphere of sourness and suspicion in which recent misunderstandings had been able to flourish. There seems to have been division, in the first place, over the liturgy; the complaint being that, in singing the psalms, Basil and his congregation were departing from the practice inherited from Gregory Thaumaturgus. There had also been misgiving over Basil's asceticism; in particular over the way in which he had introduced it into the very heart of his church. Such misgiving dated back, perhaps, to the early 360s, when Basil had made his choice between remote self-denial and involvement in church affairs. It reminds us not to expect total or automatic agreement among Basil's critics (in this case, between Atarbius and Eustathius).²³ In the second of the two later letters, Basil addressed the educated élite of Neocaesarea: that wider circle of potential allies from whom, for example, Olympius may have been drawn. To them he mentioned, as possible bases for sympathy, his family connections in the area, and the many years he had spent pursuing the ascetic life nearby.²⁴ He also recalled, as even more likely to awaken their sympathy, the way in which the city had tried to entice him there permanently, as a resident rhetor. The suspicions and disappointments of those years could now be forgotten: 'We do not consider the past, if only the present be sound'.²⁵ What mattered was to warn the informed and influential laity of the danger they faced: 'A subversion of faith is being contemplated among you, hostile to both apostolic and evangelical doctrines, and hostile to the tradition of the truly great Gregory and of those who followed after him up to the blessed Musonius, whose teachings are of course still fresh in your minds even now'.²⁶ He was referring to 'the evil of Sabellius'; but once again he became usefully specific: for the problem seems not to have been simply a general acceptance of the Sabellian tradition, but a debate within the city partly about the significance of not being able to 'name' the second person of the Trinity (for 'Only-begotten', was not, strictly speaking, a name), partly about supposedly ambiguous or obscure writings left behind by Gregory Thaumaturgus himself (writings that we no longer possess in full). So some of the philosophical and historical anxieties abroad in the region were quite specific, and older than any disagreement with Atarbius.²⁷

Basil's first letter to the city (by a slight margin the longest of the three) was broader in its reference and implication. As we would expect from his contemporary letters to others in the region, he wanted above all a just hearing, which meant open confrontation with his accusers; and he wanted (since the current dispute was over matters of faith and doctrine) an examination of his suspect writings (if they could find any!) by competent critics.²⁸ He did not disguise, however, his genuine affection for the community: it was among 'the greatest of the churches', 'the church most dear to us'; and he implied sadly that its antagonism towards him had lasted 'for almost a whole generation'.²⁹ Against that coldness he asserted the rights of his own historical association with the city.

The thrust of his argument has been already discussed—the early allusion to 'blood relationships'; the fact that 'both you and we have not only the same teachers of God's mysteries, but also the same spiritual fathers who from the beginning have laid the foundation of your church'; the evocation of 'the famous Gregory and all who … succeeded in turn to his chair'—preparing the way for the crucial passages, later in the letter, where he discussed both his family history and its relationship to, indeed its total involvement in, the ecclesial history of the region.³⁰ Now we can see the wider significance of his careful description of development—the development, as explained to Eustathius in the previous year, of the teachings of his grandmother Macrina.³¹ His more explicit understanding of the doctrine of the Spirit, and his associated move away from any middle-of-the-road theological party towards a careful and limited gloss upon the simple teaching in Nicaea, were precisely the issues at stake; and they contributed to a new sense of where he stood, doctrinally, as well as to a new acceptance of the paths he had followed in his career to date. 'We are conscious', he wrote, 'of having received into our hearts no doctrine inimical to sound teaching, nor of having at any time defiled our souls by the abominable blasphemy of the Arians'. So he felt able to excuse any association he may have at one time countenanced between himself and churchmen who were later exposed as suspect in their theology (thinking; no doubt, of Apollinarius, but also of his old 'semi-Arian' friends): 'If we ever received into communion anyone who came from that teacher, they concealed the malady deep in their hearts and uttered pious words or at least did not oppose what was expressed by us, and thus we received them'.³²

The last point embodied a principle he defended elsewhere: that one should not press too hard upon those in theological error, if they showed signs of repentance. Churchmen should ostracize and stigmatize as few as possible, enter into the warmest collegiality with the rest, and only then, when harmony had begun to do its work, press for additional 'clarification' … ³³ He also brought to his defence a letter from Athanasius (not extant), 'in which he has clearly ordered that, if anyone wish to come over from the heresy of the Arians by confessing the faith of Nicaea, we should receive him without making any discrimination in his case'.³⁴ To that extent Basil had now carried the dispute onto a broader plane.

He continued in that vein, demanding nothing less (even vis-à-vis Neocaesarea) than a universal council, brought together simply (so it would seem) to discuss the matters at issue between them. It was more likely that he wished, even if only in passing, to draw Neocaesarea into his wider plans for church unity: it seems scarcely credible that Atarbius alone could have been the excuse for so momentous a congregation. Basil's true purpose was to bring home the isolation Neocaesarea threatened to bring upon itself:

From the letters which are being conveyed from those regions [he listed more or less the provinces of the whole empire!], and from those which are being sent back to them from here, it is possible for you to learn that we are all of one mind, having the same ideas.… So let him who flees communion with us, who cuts himself off from the whole Church, not escape the notice of your keen mind. Look around you, brethren, and see with whom you are in communion; once you are not received by us, who henceforth will acknowledge you?³⁵

So he ended the letter bemoaning 'the wickedness of the age', which he contrasted, as on other occasions, with the practice of earlier days (thus clearly associating his programme for unity with an ancient model of the Church):

Question your fathers and they will tell you that even if the parishes seemed to be divided by geographic position, they were yet one in mind and were governed by one counsel. Continuous was association among the people, continuous was mutual visiting among the clergy; and among the pastors themselves there was such love for one another that each used the other as a teacher and guide in matters pertaining to the Lord.³⁶

The confrontation with Neocaesarea tells us a great deal about Basil's view of his own task and standing. It does so partly because it helps us to tie up loose ends in relation to Eustathius and Apollinarius, but mainly because it places firmly in its context the great exercise in self-definition vis-à-vis his own family, studied in the opening chapter. It also shows the extent to which, by 376, almost all the issues Basil faced were being drawn into the orbit of a universal ambition in the face of the Arian dispute. The ripples now covered the whole surface of the pond. We can see to what broader level of self-confidence he had now been able to raise himself—finding new friends, describing to his own satisfaction the path he had followed in life, articulating more clearly the principles he felt governed the inner lives of Christians, and identifying a single challenge and a single model within the Church, to which he might dedicate the energy of spirit miraculously reserved to him after so much sickness and disappointment. The sense of purpose is beyond doubt. Its fulfilment, as we shall see, was another matter.

Basil's activities in Armenia are no less difficult to disengage from his personal alarm, as he was faced with the errors of Eustathius and the suspicions of Theodotus of Nicopolis (a man with whom he had closely to work in his Armenian mission). Yet the circumstances were obviously of an importance far greater than could be encompassed by Basil's biography.³⁷

The unity, independence, and eventually Christian character of the kingdom of Arnenia, following the Roman defeat of Persia in 298, had made the area a sensitive buffer zone, and a scene of contentious struggle for influence, between the two rival empires. 'Unity' calls for some clarification. Armenia fell into at least three regions, which seem naturally divided one from another in the light of history and as a result of geography: the west, Armenia Minor, exposed to Hellenistic, Roman, and ultimately Christian influence; the north, more remote from both its powerful neighbours; and the south, adjacent to Syria, where local governors and aristocrats had long been susceptible to Roman influence, and where cities and peoples were naturally absorbed into Roman strategy, based upon Antioch, and reaching north as well as east.³⁸ Nor is 'independence' entirely appropriate. When Persian pressure induced fresh division, Constantine had been happy to appoint his nephew, Hannibalianus, king of what area he could control.³⁹ From then until 358, Rome demanded tax. During the middle years of the century, the interests of Armenia were easily sacrificed when it suited the emperors in Constantinople.

Events came to a new head in 363. Cut down unexpectedly in his grandiose war against Shapur II, and leaving no obvious successor, Julian bequeathed to the empire the need for a swift and bitter choice. War had to be abandoned, and a new emperor secured. Persia naturally took advantage of Roman embarrassment. Among the provisions of the treaty forced upon the empire, as Jovian strove to establish his authority, was an agreement (binding on both parties) not to interfere in the affairs of Armenia.⁴⁰ The result in practice was that the kingdom fell apart, to everyone's advantage but its own.

Arshak, the king, experienced particular humiliation. He had been, in latter years at least, a loyal friend to Rome. He had come to power around 350, when both Romans and Persians were preoccupied on other fronts—Constantius with the usurper Magnentius, and the Persians with frontier raids.⁴¹ As time went by, he found it either useful or attractive to adopt a religious position more favourable to the Arianism espoused by Constantius. Inclination to the Roman cause brought tax relief in 358, and an arranged marriage with Olympias, daughter of Ablabius, Constantine's great Praetorian Prefect.⁴² It also led soon after to the exile from Armenia of Nerses, the orthodox catholicos.⁴³ Nerses had been educated in Caesarea. His relationship with Gregory the Illuminator had made his succession as Christian leader in Armenia (after a period in the service of the king) impossible to challenge. He had been consecrated, also in Caesarea, in 353. It is not unlikely, therefore, that Basil, after his return from Athens to Cappadocia three years or so later, would have learned of this distinguished figure and might have begun to follow his career with some interest. Seeking the tax relief of 358, the successful Armenian embassy, led by the catholicos, may have met the emperor in Caesarea itself.⁴⁴ Finally, Nerses had known, and had been influenced by, Eustathius of Sebaste, making it a mark of his administration to encourage both the ascetic life and the care of the poor and sick. All those associations would have encouraged the interest and admiration of Caesarea's future bishop.⁴⁵

Nerses was not able to regain his see until 368 or 369. Arshak, meanwhile, fell victim to changed circumstance. As soon as Jovian had made his enforced peace, Shapur invaded Armenia, captured and imprisoned Arshak, and may have been directly responsible for his death soon after. The king's son, Pap, took refuge in Neocaesarea.⁴⁶ Gradually, Roman interest encouraged and supported Pap in a reclamation of his heritage. By the time Valens had completed his campaigns against the Goths in 369, Pap was on the path to full kingship. The comes Terentius was appointed dux Armeniae in that year and took a direct hand in regaining for Pap his royal authority.⁴⁷

Nerses had not been idle since 359, cultivating his friends among the Armenian aristocracy. He returned to the kingdom in triumph on the back of Pap's own success, representing once again a temporarily welcome alliance with Rome. The visibly ad hoc friendship of emperor, king, and catholicos, however, could not last. Nerses had never been able to reserve his criticism—'Those whom he blessed were blessed, and those whom he cursed were cursed'⁴⁸—and Pap resented his resistance to immorality and persecution.

Valens, meanwhile, found Pap difficult to keep in place. The Persians had not viewed recent events with equanimity; and in 371 it proved necessary to forestall, with a considerable show of strength, a Persian attack. Roman forces penetrated far to the east, to Bagravand, the high country between the upper valleys of the Aras and the Murat. It was what Themistius called 'saving Armenia'.⁴⁹

Basil, in a sense, travelled in their wake, for it was in the context of that 'settlement' that he received the command from Valens to put in order the affairs of the churches in Armenia.⁵⁰ Judging by his subsequent correspondence, his responsibility (or at least his successful influence) was restricted to Armenia Minor in the west: he does not seem to have played any part in affairs further east than Satala, barely a hundred kilometres up the Lykos (Kelkit) valley from Nicopolis. It may seem unnecessary, therefore, to speculate about further relations with Nerses at that late stage; but one incident is bound to awaken our curiosity. At some point in 373, relations between Nerses and Pap reached breaking point, and Nerses was murdered at the command of the king himself.⁵¹ Surely such an event would have coloured Basil's view of affairs, even in Armenia Minor, had he known of it. He did not make his journey until the middle months of the year and seems to have been back in Caesarea during August. Nerses may not have died until the end of July.⁵² It leaves little time for an overlap. However, there is no way of telling whether Basil heard of the death of the catholicos while he was away from home, or whether he received the news of the funeral (conducted amidst Pap's carefully expressed grief) just across the border south of Satala, where Nerses had once resided and Pap had a fortified lodge.⁵³

Pap continued to claim his attention. Before we examine what Basil actually did in Armenia, we should therefore pursue the more general story just a little further. Still within the context of the most recent Roman intervention, Pap himself was murdered, either in 374 or 375. Valens's long-term plan was to transfer support to his cousin Varazdat, who reigned until 378. Much more was involved, however, than simple dynastic strategy. The murder itself, ostensibly committed on the spur of the moment at a banquet, was the work of Traianus, comes rei militaris in the East since 371 and Roman commander in Armenia. Basil may have been his correspondent.⁵⁴ The deed seems likely to have won the approval, if not to have sprung from the intrigue, of Valens himself.⁵⁵ Terentius, no lover of Pap, and similarly in touch with Basil, may also have been involved. He had his connections with Samosata, where his daughters were deaconesses, and maintained friendships with orthodox aristocrats in the south of the kingdom (naturally aggrieved by, among other things, the treatment of Nerses). He had actually accused Pap to Valens's face and thereby engineered the king's virtual arrest for a time in Tarsus, from which he escaped only with some difficulty. His murder would have seemed no more than an astute alternative.⁵⁶ In the aftermath, Rome mounted a great drive in 377, to confirm its support of Varazdat. However, the Gothic revolt in the Balkans demanded a sudden and massive redeployment of troops. That could have opened the way for a significant reassertion of Persian might; but by one of those remarkable accidents of history, just in the year when Valens was meeting his death at Hadrianople, Shapur II died also. Armenia, divided now between two kings, was able to enjoy a brief period of fragmented independence.

With this survey of events, we seem to have thrust Basil onto the 'world stage' with a vengeance. It was, indeed, a moment of some importance for our understanding of his career and personal development. On the one hand, far from disappearing into the mountains on some obscure mission, he was thrust into the heart of a political and military situation crucial to the survival of the empire. On the other hand, many different incidents in his life were now given new significance by conjunction: the division of Cappadocia, the confrontation with Valens, the estrangement from the two Gregorys and other bishops, the enmity of Demosthenes, the confrontation with Eustathius, the involvement with Neocaesarea, the correspondence with high officials, and the interest in Antioch. It has often seemed difficult to explain why Valens, so much a villain in sources closely associated with Basil himself, should have appointed him for a mission of such delicacy.⁵⁷ Yet Valens knew that he could not afford to sacrifice strategic security to theological passion, and that any potential division in Armenia was dangerous to the wider interest. The natural association of Caesarea with the Armenian church and Basil's personal connections around Neocaesarea would have made him an attractive envoy. Their meeting in 372 could not have disguised from Valens Basil's reputation and personal authority and may even have awakened his reluctant admiration. He knew, on the other hand, that the division of Cappadocia had clipped the bishop's wings a little, even if that had not been its direct intention. He knew that Basil's orthodoxy was still a relatively isolated and threatened advantage. He knew that lesser officials like Demosthenes could be relied on to keep the man in his place. He may even have known that Basil badly needed to maintain the friendship of bishops further east, not least Theodotus of Nicopolis himself, in order to gain the upper hand against Eustathius and to defend his own theological position. He was useful, in other words, but unlikely to prove offensive. It is sobering to observe how Basil might be thought of when viewed from such a height!

Setting out in June 373, Basil appears to have returned to Caesarea by August. It was from there that he sent a report of his conduct to Terentius, a personal friend, but, as we have seen, closely interested in Armenian affairs.⁵⁸ The comes had had a hand in transmitting to Basil the emperor's original wishes.⁵⁹ What Basil had to report was that 'I was not permitted to turn my desire into action', thanks to the unfriendly attitude of Theodotus, 'the bishop assigned to co-operate with us'. As we know, the cause of that problem was Eustathius. The letter proceeds to offer a long description of their dispute; but one new point commands attention: Basil seems to have travelled first, or certainly at a very early stage of his trip, to Getasa, where Meletius of Antioch was residing. His first significant port of call, in other words, in fulfilment of a government commission, was the temporary home of his Antiochene hero. That tells us something about the context in which Basil viewed his opportunity in Armenia, even if relations with Eustathius had also been at issue. However, Theodotus was there as well (it was at Getasa that he and Meletius taxed Basil further on the reliability of Eustathius's declarations to date). The plan was that they should travel on together to Satala. Theodotus did not do so. It is likely that Basil did, and that he received his rebuff at Nicopolis after that. He certainly went to Satala; and he described to Terentius what he achieved there: he 'established peace among the bishops of Armenia', urged them 'to put aside their habitual discord',⁶⁰ and supplied certain disciplinary 'rules. …' The Christians in Satala then asked him to appoint a bishop; and he reconciled their community with 'Cyril, the bishop of Armenia', against whom slander had been 'falsely fomented by the calumny of his enemies'. Basil was well aware that, beside his own difficulties, those achievements were 'trivial and of no importance' (for once, tactful humility was near the mark), and therefore not up to the emperor's expectations.⁶¹

Filling the bishopric at Satala seems not to have been an easy matter, nor swiftly accomplished: Basil had to make his eventual plans known by a later letter. The man chosen was a certain Poimenius, a longstanding friend and distant relative. His own city and family were very reluctant to see him go, and the probability is that Basil had drawn upon personal connections further west in making his choice.⁶² When problems recurred in the region, Basil continued to address Poimenius with complete trust.⁶³

He maintained his interest in Armenian affairs⁶⁴—hence his anxiety in the face of a new problem that surfaced the following year (Poimenius may have been the first to hear of his complaints). 'Armenians', he warned, would be travelling through Satala, escorting one Faustus, consecrated (as catholicos of Armenia) by Anthimus of Tyana in direct opposition to Basil, who traditionally had that right, and who was reluctant for the moment to have anything to do with the man. A letter from Poimenius, however, would satisfy Basil that Faustus was orthodox; and he was prepared to overlook Anthimus's slight if Poimenius would speak on behalf of the new catholicos, 'bearing witness for him, if you see that the life of the man is good'. He could, moreover, if such were the case, 'urge the rest to do likewise'. Poimenius was thus authorized to exercise at least moral authority on Basil's behalf over the church in Armenia.⁶⁵ Basil sent a letter on the same topic to Theodotus of Nicopolis, expressing dismay that Faustus should have demanded consecration, when he had been unable to produce a reassuring letter 'from your Reverence and from the rest of the bishops'.⁶⁶ He also wrote finally to Meletius. He regarded the consecration of Faustus not only as an example of arrogance on the part of Anthimus but also as further evidence of opposition in Armenia to the Cyril mentioned in the letter to Terentius; 'In consequence Armenia has become filled with schisms'.⁶⁷

Behind these developments lay the increasing estrangement of Pap from policies favourable to the empire, in church affairs as elsewhere. Rejection of Cyril was hardly likely to endear the king to such advocates of the orthodox cause as Terentius and Traianus. The events do show, moreover, that Basil's association with Armenia proper was not just a consequence of his status as bishop of Caesarea but was directly connected with his responsibilities (albeit ad hoc) in Armenia Minor, and with his ability to place in a strategic frontier see a childhood friend who was also a member of his own family.

Events took another turn in the following year: Theodotus of Nicopolis died. Basil, with other bishops, was faced with the task of filling another vacancy. His solution was to recommend the transfer of Euphronius from his 'distant spot' at Colonia. The first task was to assuage natural dissatisfaction in Colonia itself (whose Christian citizens even threatened legal proceedings). Basil did so by recommending to the clergy of the city the broadest principles of church government. The decision had been no 'human arrangement … prompted by the reasoning of men' but had been made, rather, by 'those who are committed with the care of the churches of God' through their 'union with the Spirit'. The, clergy of Colonia were exhorted, moreover, to 'impress this source of their action upon [their own] minds, and strive to perfect it. …⁶⁸ Distrust of 'the reasoning of men …, dated back several years; but the reference to the Spirit was characteristic of Basil's more recent interests, with its accompanying exhortation to an inner change, and to moral improvement. He also wished to make it clear that Colonia was part of a wider world and would benefit from a secure succession at Nicopolis, whereas weakness in the mother church would undermine all efforts elsewhere. An accompanying letter to the leading citizens of Colonia was less intense in its address, asking more for 'pardon' than for ecstatic insight; but it did impress upon them, 'situated on the outskirts of Armenia', that they needed to take account of dangers and advantages just a little more distant than their own preoccupations.⁶⁹

Then Basil had to assuage, for different reasons, the people of Nicopolis itself, where he had never found an easy reception. To the clergy he repeated his conviction that a task undertaken by 'pious persons' was pursued 'with the counsel of the Spirit': 'no human consideration is present', and 'it is the Lord who is directing their hearts'.⁷⁰ He was specific about the identity of those 'pious persons': chief initiator was no less a person than Poimenius of Satala. The plans set in motion in 373 were still having their effect. Nor was he the mere instrument of Basil's distant wishes: 'He did not resort to postponements of the matter and thus give an opportunity for defence to those who are opposing, … but he immediately brought his excellent plan to fulfilment'.⁷¹ To the laity of the city, Basil was briefer in his comments, exhorting them to support in their own way the task of the new bishop.⁷²

The outcome, perhaps predictably, was not a success. Eustathius in particular had seen the death of his old critic too good an opportunity to be missed. Not without the support of Demosthenes, he and others had intruded another candidate against Euphronius, named Fronto; and they proceeded to consecrate him as a rival bishop.⁷³ Fronto had at first succeeded in creating the impression of unsullied theological respectability, employing 'both words of faith and affectation of piety all for the deception of those who met him'.⁷⁴ Once he had emerged in his true colours, he became 'a common abomination to all Armenia'; but he could still muster enough accomplices to force those more amenable to Basil's viewpoint out of the city, at least to the extent that they were denied the use of the church and forced to worship in the open air.⁷⁵ That may call into question Basil's own assertion that Fronto's party represented only a minority, although it may also demonstrate how little a community could do, when faced with Arians confident of government support.⁷⁶ Other letters written later in that year continued to describe the depredations of Demosthenes.⁷⁷ All Basil was able to do was impress upon the clergy at Nicopolis that their misfortune was not unique in history. They should see themselves in a tradition of martyrs and confessors, whose enemies had not been able to triumph in the long run. ⁷⁸

By that time, Pap was dead. Although, for another year or so, Rome continued to play a forceful role in Armenian affairs, the diplomatic subtleties that may have seemed relevant in 373 might now have proved less useful. Failure at Nicopolis, and in the kingdom of Armenia itself (given the difficulties of Cyril), was a disappointing conclusion to Basil's efforts. Other preoccupations, however, had already begun to override the significance of the area in his mind. In the midst of his Armenian involvements, Eusebius of Samosata had been exiled, imparting a new emotional intensity to events in Syria. The need to maintain pressure on the Arian party had also drawn Basil further afield, at least in his correspondence. This is the moment, therefore, to marshal together the references, first to Antioch and its schism, and then to the Arian conflict, as fought out on a wider field. The question still remains, however: was Basil driven more by the fortunes of his own friends, and by a need to vindicate himself in the face of personal enemies, than by any elevated concern with ideological debate in the empire more generally? Was it possible for any bishop of the time to rise above divisions of language, cultural history, and political convenience, and to think in anything approaching 'universal' terms?

In the first place, the Arian conflict was consistently associated in Basil's mind with conflict in the church of Antioch itself. That conflict had been a feature of the city's life for decades already.⁷⁹ Eustathius had been chosen its bishop in 325; and for more than fifty years loyalty or opposition to his name and policy lay at the heart of the city's divisions. At Nicaea, he had been a clear opponent of Arius; but he subsequently tangled both with Eusebius of Caesarea (who accused him of too forceful a condemnation of Sabellius) and with Eusebius of Nicomedia (whom he accused in his turn of undermining all that Nicaea had attempted to achieve). Mostly as a result of that perceived impudence, Eustathius was deposed at a synod in Antioch in 330 and exiled to Thrace.

Not surprisingly, given the passions that Arius had aroused, and the accusations that had been bandied about between Eustathius and his immediate enemies, there followed a turmoil of succession to the see. Some of the effects we have noted already. The council held at Sardica in 343 calmed matters somewhat, largely because it made very clear the division of opinion (on Arianism as on other matters) between the eastern and western sectors of the empire (a division exacerbated by the shared rule and divergent opinions of Constans and Constantius, lasting until 350). Leontius, bishop from approximately 344 until 357, gained for Antioch a long and relatively stable period of church government, a period marked also by Constantius's engagements with Persia (always important for the city), and by the violent administration of the Caesar Gallus from 351. It was also the period during which Aetius began to come to prominence.⁸⁰ In 357, Leontius was succeeded by Eudoxius. The latter's appointment was not regular, and he maintained his position only with government support. In return, he agreed to the formula of Sirmium in 357, then supported more openly the Anomoean party, and maintained friendly relations with Aetius. It was after his deposition at Seleucia in 359 that the see passed to Meletius, whose position was confirmed at Constantinople in 360.⁸¹

Meletius, who maintained his rights in the see of Antioch for the rest of Basil's life and for a short while thereafter, and who will claim most of our attention, came originally from Melitene. He had been appointed formerly to the see of Sebaste in 358, in place of the other Eustathius; but he failed to gain acceptance there and lived at Beroea. In 359, at Caesarea in Palestine, he had signed the formula of Acacius, confirmed at Seleucia, which specified only that the Son was [omoios]. Evidently he came to regret the move. He later made a declaration of his revised opinions to Constantius, which represented certainly greater caution and probably orthodoxy.⁸² Not surprisingly, he was exiled from Antioch (to Armenia Minor). His place was taken by Euzoius (who would later baptize the emperor Constantius as he headed north and west to meet the challenge of Julian).

At that point, matters became complicated in ways that would not be unravelled for at least two generations. With the pagan Julian in power (and it would not be unjust to describe his approach to Christian episcopal politics as meddlesome), Meletius was allowed back to Antioch. The city now had two bishops. Very shortly afterwards, a third appeared: Paulinus, consecrated in 362, with no respect for canonical regularity, by the unsavoury Lucifer of Cagliari. As a priest, Paulinus had long provided a focus in the city for those faithful to the memory of Eustathius himself. Consequently, he and his supporters were thought by others to incline towards Sabellianism. They had, nevertheless, the possibly dubious advantage of having been encouraged in their loyalties by Athanasius himself, who visited Antioch in 346. Yet they remained a minority. Most of the orthodox in Antioch had gathered around two other clerics, Diodorus and Flavianus, who had been unswerving in their opposition to Leontius and his immediate successor. They now transferred their allegiance to Meletius and were explicitly careful to avoid Sabellianist positions.

The confusing turn of events naturally caused concern elsewhere, not least in Alexandria (where Athanasius had also benefitted from Julian's 'tolerance'). A meeting of bishops was held there in 362; and part of the resulting synodal letter, which was widely addressed, attempted to wean some of Meletius's supporters away and awaken greater loyalty towards Paulinus. The document emphasized the formula of Nicaea and the belief that the Holy Spirit was not a creature. Its chief appeal was to the ideas of the Antiochene Eustathius, as expressed at the time of Nicaea itself; and it paid much less attention to the tangled legalities (or more often illegalities) of subsequent episcopal succession in the city.⁸³

An embassy travelled to Antioch to announce the decisions reached at Alexandria. Perhaps fortunately, the churchmen involved were chary about the rights of Paulinus, for they soon discovered that matters were even more complicated than Athanasius and his immediate associates might have supposed. The two Apollinarii, father and son, at Laodicea had been firm supporters of Athanasius for many years; and the younger Apollinarius had sent a representative to Alexandria. He also had a finger in the Antiochene pie, bringing his influence to bear in the cause of the priest Vitalis, who was a firm adherent to the traditions of Nicaea and headed what was virtually a fourth party in the city. (More than ten years later, he managed to gain episcopal consecration also, although Damasus of Rome had eventually come to suspect his orthodoxy.)⁸⁴ The reputation of Apollinarius in the early 360s, and the seeming orthodoxy of his protege, may have made Paulinus less obviously acceptable in the eyes of the delegates from Egypt. Later, when Apollinarius himself had become more compromised and western support for Paulinus more entrenched, Vitalis was less able to maintain his claims.

The accession of Valens in 364 brought to an end the chaotic fruits of Julian's cynical indifference. Antioch's strategic position made its social stability important to the emperor; and he was bound to defuse tensions as far as he could. Meletius once again attracted censure and was exiled.⁸⁵ Collaboration with the West seemed to moderate parties the best way of strengthening their position against an emperor of uncertain orthodoxy. It was at that point that supporters of Basil of Ancyra, with Eustathius of Sebaste, went to the West, gained communion with Liberius of Rome, and returned in triumph to their synod at Tyana early in 367.⁸⁶ Yet endeavours of that sort were soon under serious threat. Meletius may have been able to return to Antioch briefly, while Valens was preoccupied with the revolt of Procopius and with his campaigns against the Goths in the late 360s; but he was certainly absent from the city again by 370.⁸⁷ The tone of eastern church affairs at that stage was best symbolized by the ambiguities and ill-defined promises of Demophilus, recently appointed to the see of Constantinople, and by the growing ambition and influence of Euzoius, even closer to Valens (who had soon moved to Antioch).⁸⁸

We have come now to the beginning of Basil's own episcopate. It should be clear that the whole Antiochene saga had close connections with the Arian controversy. Eustathius of Antioch's original stand had been taken in that context; and successors and rivals had benefitted or suffered from the patronage or misfortune of conflicting parties in the dispute. There were elements, nevertheless, peculiar to Antioch itself. The clerical body in particular was obviously fractured by intense and local loyalties, which may have had little to do with the major theological issues of the day. As Basil put it, the city was not only 'completely divided by heretics' but also 'torn asunder by those who affirm that they hold identical opinions with one another'.⁸⁹ The support of great sees, such as Alexandria and Rome, or the shifting favour of the government of the day, may have been no more than opportunistic interference (when viewed from outside) or convenient but temporary reinforcement (when viewed from within).

We can avoid an extensive history of Antioch itself;⁹⁰ but it has to be added that its status in other respects had a direct effect on the course and variety of its religious difficulties. For the pagan Julian, it symbolized the vitality, cultic as well as political, of the traditional Hellenic polis. The degree to which he underestimated the strength of its ancient Christian traditions was revealed both in his own petulant comments and in the social unrest his intransigence appeared to unleash.⁹¹ Like any great city in the empire, Antioch, with its large population, was always potentially volatile, making any tendency to faction a dangerous indulgence in the government's eyes.⁹² Caution was increased by the fact that, from 371, Valens made the city his place of residence. Also established there, as a permanent feature, was the residence of the Praetorian Prefect of the East. Basil, as we have seen, was related to Antioch at that level also, in his dealings with Modestus.⁹³ The added presence of the emperor probably explains the vicious 'treason trials' that took place in Antioch, vividly described by Ammianus Marcellinus, and proof of the intrigue and paranoia that had infected the community at many social levels.⁹⁴

Antioch was also the city of Chrysostom. It was there he developed his views of theology, discipline, and ecclesial order, long before he achieved prominence as the patriarch of Constantinople at the end of the century.⁹⁵ The city produced great literary figures also. There was Ammianus Marcellinus, already mentioned, whose view of the empire as a whole, of Valens, and of political ideology has done so much to colour our own interpretations of the age and springs so directly from much that is recognizably Antiochene.⁹⁶ There was Libanius, a correspondent of Basil himself, perhaps the greatest orator of the age, a loyal chronicler of the city he loved, and among the most vivid symbols of pagan literary and religious survival in a Christian empire.⁹⁷

Finally, Antioch was, for Rome, the gateway to Persia. It was always the imperial headquarters in any military confrontation; and the significance of such confrontation would always dwarf (fatally, no doubt), in the imaginations of those in power, any threat or chance of glory on the Danube or the Rhine.⁹⁸ So the emperor was a frequent and sometimes lengthy visitor, and the army a constant presence.

In all those respects, Antioch was a microcosm of Roman society at the time; culturally, politically, religiously, and strategically. It set its face boldly against the Syrian interior and against Mesopotamia beyond, declaring itself the best symbol of all that was precious in the Hellenic past and of all that challenged the alternative polities of the Orient. How much less central, therefore, but how much more dangerous might its little schism now appear! How much easier it is to understand why Basil, placed midway at Caesarea on the major route between Antioch and the capital, would have found its affairs of importance in his provincial life.

Let us examine, therefore, in more detail the phases of his involvement. They related chiefly to embassies, sent or encouraged by Basil, to Alexandria and Rome; and to that extent they followed the major shifts of the Arian dispute itself. The first phase began in 371—almost at the beginning of Basil's episcopate.⁹⁹

Dorotheus, a deacon of Meletius (now in exile again), was sent with a letter to Athanasius.¹⁰⁰ Basil had in mind at that stage a broad campaign: 'I recognize but one avenue of assistance to the churches in our part of the world—agreement with the bishops of the West'. Athanasius would be crucial in making such an appeal: 'What is more venerated in the entire West than the white hair of your majestic head?' So Basil exhorted the patriarch to send a deputation from Alexandria itself, 'a number of men who are mighty in the true doctrine'.

He also had much to say about Antioch. Athanasius should have a special sense of responsibility towards that church (Basil would have known, of course, of his earlier interventions), not least because unity achieved there would 'calm the confusion of the people, put an end to factional usurpations of authority, subject all men to one another in charity, and restore to the Church her pristine strength'.

Dorotheus carried also a letter to Meletius, to be delivered en route. In that note, Basil presented the embassy to the West as his own idea, designed to bring pressure to bear on the eastern government to rescind the various decrees of exile then current. He asked Meletius to prepare letters of his own, for Dorotheus to take to Italy, hoping that their western colleagues would then mount an embassy in the reverse direction.¹⁰¹

All those plans were apparently set awry by the arrival of a messenger from Alexandria. The news he brought prompted Basil to write instead a longer letter to Athanasius.¹⁰² He still wanted the patriarch to provide companions for Dorotheus from his own church; but he now decided that they should carry a letter from himself to Damasus. Again, he wanted the West to send an embassy in return. He described his motives in cryptic terms: 'When all this has been done without the knowledge of any one [his chief hope being that they would formally reverse the compromises of Ariminum], our thought is that the bishop of Rome shall quietly, through a mission sent by sea, assume charge of affairs here so as to escape the notice of the enemies of peace'. Quite what species of unobtrusive infiltration he had in mind is hard to judge: presumably an attempt to persuade churchmen one by one, rather than to direct their address to the secular authorities, since the hoped-for ambassadors were to be 'capable, by the gentleness and vigour of their character, of admonishing those among us who are perverted'.¹⁰³

There were other issues to be addressed. Basil hoped that such an embassy would declare itself strongly against Marcellus of Ancyra. His error (being, in Basil's eyes, at the other extreme from that of Arius) had escaped the desirable degree of censure in the West.

'Above all they must be solicitous for the Church at Antioch'.¹⁰⁴ There was a particular twist to those expectations, which we shall come across again. 'The result will be that henceforth we shall be able to recognize those who are of one mind with us, instead of being like those who fight a battle at night—unable to distinguish between friends and foes'.¹⁰⁵ That was a further hint of Basil's feeling that doctrinal division was often a front for more serious disloyalties, which raises at once the question of what he thought were the issues that divided him from other churchmen.

What Basil intended to say to Damasus himself we shall come to shortly. Unfortunately, yet another interruption postponed his plans. A certain Silvanus arrived from the West, with a letter; and this prompted Basil to write yet a third message to Athanasius, presumably to be substituted for the two already penned. It seems, in any case, that Dorotheus was not entirely happy with what Basil had said so far, demanding perhaps that he should make absolutely clear, both to Athanasius and to the West, that he was in favour of Meletius and confident that he could bring together the various factions in his city: 'He stands at the head of the whole body of the Church, so to speak, while the residue are, as it were, segments of its limbs'. Basil claimed (what is not altogether easy to believe) that Silvanus had brought a similar opinion from 'your co-religionists in the West'.¹⁰⁶

Basil's drafted letter to Damasus gave central place to the Arian debate: 'The heresy, sown long ago by Arius, the enemy of truth, and now already grown up into shamelessness, and, like a bitter root, producing a deadly fruit, at last prevails'. What was required, therefore, was a delegation from the West: 'Send us men of like mind with us'. One should note the scale of anticipated achievements: the westerners 'will either reconcile the dissenters, or restore the churches of God to friendship, or will at least make more manifest to you those who are responsible for the confusion'. The last ambition may have been the most realistic, and the closest to Basil's heart: 'It will thus be clear to you also for the future, with what men it is proper to have communion'. Meletius was not mentioned by name; but what we know of the accompanying messages would have made that point entirely in his favour.¹⁰⁷

Thanks to the many interruptions and delays, it is quite possible that none of that correspondence was carried further than Antioch—certainly no further than Alexandria.¹⁰⁸ A third visitor now arrived, calling into question the viability of the whole exercise: Sabinus of Milan, bringing with him a letter from Damasus, Confidimus quidem, which recounted decisions made at a synod in Rome in 368.¹⁰⁹ Amidst many other disappointments, the written material made no mention of Antioch. Basil decided to rethink his plans and wrote to Meletius, bringing him up to date (by this time it was early 372). Once again, Meletius was to write his own letters to the West, to accompany what were now several from Basil, so that they could take advantage of Sabinus's return (although Dorotheus was to go as well). Nor had Basil lost all hope that Athanasius would help, even though communion between Alexandria and Meletius had not yet been achieved.¹¹⁰ Yet it was the interests of Meletius that Basil had at heart, far more than any international front that might be mounted on the basis of Athanasius's reputation. It was loyalty to Meletius that now drove him to greater initiative and leadership, not any sense that he was about to take up the mantle of the great champion of orthodoxy (who was, after all, still very much alive).¹¹¹

So, from that first phase, we have a series of letters that started and finished with a concern for Antioch and for the fortunes of its exiled bishop. Alexandria was drawn into play but then faded again. Relations with the West were yet to take on a clear form. The truth is that the issues at stake had engaged Basil's attention for some time before he hatched his plan to invite wider authorities to his aid. In a letter to Eusebius of Samosata, written early in 371, before the correspondence with Athanasius, he referred to 'the affairs of Antioch'.¹¹² A letter to Meletius himself may have been earlier again and hinted at some scheme that extended further in scope than his own troubles in Caesarea.¹¹³ So the letters to Athanasius have to be read with some care, if we are to make correct sense of what Basil valued most in the eastern church, and of what he hoped might be achieved by an approach to Damasus and the bishops of the West.

Basil recognized in Athanasius a 'great solicitude for all the churches', as great as 'for the one especially entrusted to you'; and this at a time when 'most men deem it sufficient to look each to his own particular charge'.¹¹⁴ The compliment summed up both his hopes and his convictions. Athanasius also possessed 'beyond the rest of us the guidance of the Spirit …', which made his 'counsels … more nearly unerring …'. 'Your years and your experience in affairs' also carried weight.¹¹⁵ Soon Basil was able to feel that 'the Lord has appointed you the physician to heal the maladies of the churches'. 'You assuredly can see', he added, 'from the lofty watch-tower, so to speak, of your mental vision, what is happening on every hand'.¹¹⁶ That was partly because Athanasius had been at the centre of the Arian dispute for so long—indeed, since Nicaea itself. He was a man 'who from childhood has struggled in the contests in defence of the faith',¹¹⁷ a man 'who has experienced the pristine tranquillity and concord of the churches of the Lord touching the faith'.¹¹⁸ 'Just as greater sorrow devolves upon your Excellency', Basil wrote, 'so we hold that it is proper for your prudence also to bear a greater solicitude for the churches'. The intensity of those appeals, and the broad theological terms in which they were expressed, make it all the more striking that Basil should have abandoned his appeal, as soon as he saw that antagonism between Alexandria and Antioch might render his efforts useless, if not disadvantageous.

Yet the correspondence of the first phase had afforded him an opportunity to express his views on the nature of the Church, seen now as extending beyond the confines of his recently acquired diocese. We find emphases already touched upon: in particular, that the laity were the chief victims of disunity, either docile in the face of confused leadership or enslaved by the enemies of orthodoxy.¹¹⁹ We have also mentioned Basil's fear that apparent doctrinal division could overlay and even obscure the more fundamental problem of disloyalty to friends. Conveniently labelled factions set at odds with one another churchmeii who should have been more effectively united against their true theological enemies. Petty, private scores were also being settled in the name of religion.¹²⁰ The central concept, which occurs significantly enough in his letter to Damasus, was that of an 'ancient love',… which had characterized in better days the life of the Church and relationships among its leaders.¹²¹ As in the letters to Athanasius, appeal was made to a sense of shared destiny and mutual responsibility. That counted for more than (though it did not exclude) the seniority or reputation of this churchman or that. Basil was now applying on a world scale the principle of collegiality that had inspired him in his relations with bishops in Cappadocia and Armenia, joined with the same sense of history.

The second phase opened in 372 with the return journey of Sabinus to the West, accompanied by Dorotheus. They carried with them letters to churchmen in the West generally, to Valerian of Aquileia, and to bishops in Italy and Gaul. There were no doubt other letters in their baggage—from Meletius, for example, as Basil had requested.¹²² No reply was received until the following year. Basil should have known, from the very character of Sabinus's original embassy, that his overtures were likely to fail. Damasus and his colleagues were working to different agenda. For them, Arianism had entered its final phase. Valentinian was proving a tolerant emperor favourable to the Nicene cause—which in itself raises the question of whether principles of church unity could be applied in a divided empire.¹²³ It was now possible to appoint orthodox bishops quite easily to vacant sees, and doctrinal positions and opponents were more clear-cut. As for Antioch, the position of Paulinus would be hard to undermine, in the face of what had been from the beginning a western commitment to his episcopacy.

For us, therefore, the chief interest attaching to the doomed missives carried by Dorotheus and his companion will continue to be the image of the Church that they so forcefully projected. Central still was the notion of the 'ancient love', hallmark of earlier days.¹²⁴ The vocabulary of admired antiquity was repeated elsewhere—'the old order of things',… the 'ancient glory of orthodoxy'.¹²⁵ … To accompany that clear historical appeal, Basil and his colleagues seem now to have acquired a broader sense of geography also. The crisis afflicted the whole of the East, 'from the borders of Illyricum to the Thebaid'; 'half the world [was] swallowed up by error'.¹²⁶ The West was seen as a contrasting territorial unit, where harmony and fearless proclamation of the truth were safely established. On the basis of that security, the West should now be able to come to the easterners' aid. History was still of relevance in that territorial contrast. A debt was about to be repaid, in return for the ancient expansion of the faith: 'There must come from you a renewal of the faith for the East, and in due time you must render her a recompense for the blessings which you have received from her';¹²⁷ 'Do not allow the faith to be extinguished in those lands where it first flashed forth'.¹²⁸

In order to arouse further the sympathy of his readers, Basil and Meletius presented two pictures: one institutional, outlining the effect of error on the fabric of religious society; the other theological, describing the false formulae and the methods of argument now widely favoured among their enemies. In his general letter to the West, Basil complained that 'the shepherds are driven away, and in their places are introduced troublesome wolves who tear asunder the flock of Christ. The houses of prayer are bereft of those wont to assemble therein; the solitudes are filled with those who weep'. Again, an historical note was struck: 'The elders weep, comparing the past with the present; the young are more to be pitied, since they know not of what they have been deprived'.¹²⁹ In the more detailed letter to the bishops of Italy and Gaul, those points were expanded and more vividly expressed. 'Lust for office' … had taken possession of the Church. 'Those who have obtained power for themselves through the favour of men are the slaves of those who have conferred the favour'. As a result, church leaders no longer dared to say publicly what the laity had grown unaccustomed to hearing. They were eager, rather, to score points against one another, using 'the vindication of orthodoxy' … to further their 'private enmities'.¹³⁰ … Meanwhile, 'the laity who are sound in faith flee the houses of prayer as schools of impiety' and, 'having poured forth in front of the walls, offer up their prayers under the open sky, enduring all the discomforts of the weather with great patience, while they await assistance from the Lord'.¹³¹

When it came to theological method, the emphasis made was what we would expect of Basil himself: 'None are left to tend the flock of the Lord with knowledge'. ¹³² … In his general letter to the West, he lamented the casting aside of 'the teachings of the Fathers' and 'the apostolic traditions'. In their place 'the fabrications of innovators are in force in the churches', produced by men who 'train themselves in rhetorical quibbling and not in theology; the wisdom of the world takes first place to itself, having thrust aside the glory of the Cross'.¹³³ It was the language entirely of the Contra Eunomium and of its time,¹³⁴ and it included a characteristic reference to baptism: 'May the good teaching of our fathers who met at Nicaea shine forth again, so that the doxology in harmony with saving baptism … may be duly rendered to the Blessed Trinity'.¹³⁵

What strikes one most in these letters is their intensity and logical rigour. Great stress was laid on consolation and hope, entirely in the spirit and with the same vocabulary we find in letters more technically designed to express sympathy. Basil was making those statements to western churchmen at exactly the time he was bringing such sentiments to bear upon his more personal sense of sinfulness, misfortune, isolation, and ineptitude.¹³⁶ 'The tempest-tossing and confusion in which we now find ourselves' would be calmed, he felt, by the prayers and intervention of the West. Their 'strict harmony and unity with one another' was at once a cause of hope and an assurance of healing and peace.¹³⁷ There was a melding, in other words, of various elements—the ancient love, the effect of unity, the contrasting 'famine of love' that afflicted the East. The very intensity of feeling with which anguish was betrayed and optimism asserted became, as it were, a model of the order and orthodoxy hoped for. Indeed, it made the Church most obviously and intimately present within the individual (in this case, Basil himself): 'Embracing us with your spiritual and holy yearning … you have engendered in our souls an ineffable affection'.¹³⁸ …

And what would that lead to? What was the outcome Basil hoped for? Here logic came into force. A series of steps was suggested, a recipe that would provide the ferment of a new church order. One of the fruits of western unity, so Basil wrote to Valerian, was 'that without hindrance the proclamation of the true faith is being made among you'.¹³⁹ … 'proclamation', was the crucial word. Basil expanded the argument in his general letter to the West:

Let us also pronounce with boldness … that good dogma of the Fathers … which overwhelms the accursed heresy of Arius, and builds the churches on the sound doctrine …, wherein the Son is confessed to be consubstantial with the Father, and the Holy Spirit is numbered with them in like honour and so adored; in order that the Lord through your prayers and your co-operation may also bestow upon us that fearlessness in the cause of truth …, and that glory in the confession … of the divine and saving Trinity, which He has given to you. ¹⁴⁰

[Kepugma], therefore, and the accompanying [pappesia], represented a free-flowing clarity of expression among Christians, which was the only guarantee of sound structure, of that combination of healthy discussion, domestic balance, and simple adoration, which summed up for Basil the essence of the Church. Behind that conviction there lay, moreover, a traditional association between openness and order in ancient society.¹⁴¹

In these three letters, therefore, Basil achieved, with the support of his allies, a full and satisfying synthesis of ideas on the nature of the Church. Particularly impressive, in only the third year of his episcopate, was his ability to combine historical, geographical, theological, and personal elements in one ecclesial vision. Nor were his immediate ambitions petty in scale. It may even have been another council of the Church he had in mind:

Remember that there is need of haste, if those who are still left are to be saved, and of the presence of several brethren, that they in visiting us may complete the number of the synod. … so that by reason not only of the high standing of those who have sent them, but also of the number of the delegates they themselves constitute, they may have the prestige … to effect a reform; and may restore the creed which was written by our fathers at Nicaea, may banish the heresy, and may speak to the churches a message of peace by bringing those of like convictions into unity. ¹⁴²

In his lifetime and on his terms, that was not to be; but the patterns of thought reflected in his letters to the West were equally prominent in correspondence of a more limited scale. His attachment to Athanasius continued to wane. In a letter to Ascholius of Thessalonica, he acknowledged that 'zeal … for the most blessed Athanasius gives the clearest possible evidence of your soundness in the matters of greatest importance'.¹⁴³ He was still recalling the patriarch's authority in 376, in his long letter to the people of Neocaesarea.¹⁴⁴ The new association with Ascholius led, however, to more protracted reflections, incorporating the broad view of church affairs that Basil had now developed. Reading Ascholius's letter,

we thought that we were back in the olden times …, when the churches of God flourished, taking root in the faith, united by charity, there being, as in a single body, a single harmony of the various members; when the persecutors indeed were in the open, but in the open were also the persecuted; when the laity, though harassed, became more numerous, and the blood of the martyrs watering the churches nurtured many times as many champions of religion, later generations stripping themselves for combat in emulation of their predecessors. Then we Christians had peace among ourselves, that peace which the Lord left to us, of which now not even a trace any longer remains to us, so ruthlessly have we driven it away from one another.¹⁴⁵

The theme was now familiar. In that period of 'old-time happiness …, one knew who was enemy and who was friend. Basil feared cautious deceit and a false sense of party almost as much as he feared error itself. How much more reassuring had been the conflicts of the martyrs, now no more than a memory. Their herosim had allowed issues to remain clear, whereas now the obscure and shifting intensities of schism made resolution all the harder.

Athanasius died at the beginning of May 373, having dominated the Arian debate for half a century. Basil felt obliged to build a new relationship with his successor, Peter. His first attempt was cautious. Gone was 'the intimacy engendered through long association' (which was an exaggeration, anyway): one had to fall back on 'true love … formed by the gift of the Spirit'. He hoped that Peter, 'having been the spiritual nursling of so great a man', would 'walk in the same spirit' as Athanasius, 'guided by the same dictates of piety'; but he took nothing for granted, asking simply for regular news and continued regard.¹⁴⁶ The sequel would prove that his caution had been justified.

He also kept in touch with Meletius, chiefly in connection with events in Armenia.¹⁴⁷ He maintained contact with Antioch, too. A letter on Christian style to Diodorus, written in late 372, we have examined elsewhere.¹⁴⁸ Now, towards the end of 373, he wrote a long and important letter on more specifically ecclesial matters to the whole community at Antioch, over which Diodorus, together with Flavianus, presided in Meletius's name. The themes of sin, trial, hope, and consolation were repeated once more. There was a hint that the end of suffering might be in sight: 'Presently He will come who will take our part; He will come and not delay. For you must look forward to affliction upon affliction, hope upon hope, for yet a little while, yet a little while'. ¹⁴⁹

The third phase began when at last news was brought back from the West. Evagrius (the later friend of Jerome, and translator of the Life of Antony) delivered (in 373) a specific request that Basil and other bishops should endorse Confidimus quidem and send a new delegation to Rome.¹⁵⁰ Basil relayed the news, together with his own misgivings, to Eusebius of Samosata.¹⁵¹ With his close friend he was able to share a rather different view of how embassies should be conducted, both locally and further afield:

And yet it does not seem best to me to estrange ourselves entirely from those who do not accept the faith, but we should show some concern for these men according to the old laws of charity … and should with one accord write letters to them, offering every exhortation of kindliness, and proffering to them the faith of the Fathers we should invite them to join us [demanding, in other words, as little as possible, fearing to drive them otherwise into intransigent opposition]; and if we convince them, we should be united with them in communion; but if we fail, we should ourselves be content with one another, and should remove this present uncertainty from our way of life, taking up again that evangelical and guiltless polity in which they lived who from the beginning adhered to the Word.¹⁵²

That was still how he felt the Arian dispute should be resolved, as also the schism at Antioch. Even more fundamental was the principle of consulting 'the good of our neighbours', since otherwise 'the ruin of each of us is involved in the common disaster'.¹⁵³ It was becoming clear, perhaps, that Damasus and his colleagues had rather more peremptory procedures in mind, which were likely to cause as much dissension as they relieved.

Even more shattering, however, was the news that Damasus had decided to give his unqualified support to Paulinus. Writing to Evagrius himself, Basil made no attempt to hide his dismay, or to play down his contrasting principles of mediation. The hope was still the same: that 'all those who are not divided from one another in mind [and that was the important point, so often obscured by the follies of party] shall fill the same assembly'.¹⁵⁴ Such an achievement would depend on delicacies of policy that Damasus, by implication, had failed to preserve: 'Evils which have been strengthened by time need time first of all for their correction'. Then 'the complete elimination of suspicions and of the clashes arising from controversies is impossible, unless there be some trustworthy man to act as a mediator in the interest of peace'.¹⁵⁵ Moreover, mediation had to be conducted face to face: letters were not enough. Basil took it also as a personal slight, not unnaturally, that in the midst of other tensions and disappointments Evagrius had seen fit not to share communion with Dorotheus—anticipating, of course, the sharper lines that were about to be drawn in Antioch.

As for setting up yet another embassy to the West, Basil was strikingly hesitant. He left it very much to Evagrius, saying that he could not think of anyone among his own circle who could either lead or take part in such a venture. Whether that arose from pique, which is far from impossible, or whether it reflected a sense of isolation on Basil's part, is hard to say. It may have been simply the result of his embroilments elsewhere: that was the year, after all, of his trip to Armenia. Subsequent journeys were undertaken, as we shall see, and may suggest that Basil had not lost hope in the West completely, as he had been forced to do in relation to Alexandria; but there is no doubt that the setback represented by Evagrius's mission seriously modified his view of what could be achieved in collaboration with Rome.

During the next two years Basil continued to afflict himself with indignation over the recognition of Paulinus. He also directed a number of letters to church communities in Syria, bemoaning above all the success of Valens in controlling their affairs. No doubt he saw a connection between the two problems.

In regard to the first preoccupation, a letter to the comes Terentius (appointed once again to a position of responsibility in Antioch) expressed his chief misgivings.¹⁵⁶ Paulinus and his followers had apparently received further written encouragement from Rome (this letter to Terentius was written towards the end of 376). Basil did not mince his words. The fresh correspondence from the West, he said, 'entrusts to them the episcopate of the church at Antioch' but also 'misrepresents the most admirable bishop of the true church of God, Meletius'. He asserted without hesitation that western churchmen were 'absolutely ignorant of affairs here …'. He wasted little time in pretending to respect opinions held in Rome: 'This is my position: not only shall I never consent to dissemble just because somebody has received a letter from human beings and is elated over it; nay, not even if it came from the very heavens but does not agree with the sound doctrine of faith, can I regard him as sharing in communion with the saints'.¹⁵⁷ He was careful to follow up this letter with shorter messages to Meletius and to Dorotheus.¹⁵⁸ In a slightly earlier letter to a community of ascetics, Basil showed how readily he connected affairs at Antioch with his own difficulties in relation to Eustathius of Sebaste. His more local opponents had begun to feel by this time that their interests might be additionally served if they sought an alliance with Euzoius in Antioch. In the process, therefore, they had begun to express more explicitly Arian doctrines, thus undermining, of course, the achievements they had boasted of, and the western support to which they had laid claim, at the synod of Tyana.¹⁵⁹

As for his Syrian connections, Basil had been careful from the beginning of his episcopate to keep in touch with Christian communities in various parts of the region.¹⁶⁰ We have already discussed his long and cautious letter to the community at Chalcis, written in 375.¹⁶¹ He also continued to encourage the church at Beroea: having received news of their' daily struggle and vigorous opposition on behalf of religion', he was able to assure them that 'your example has set many churches aright'.¹⁶² Contacts of that sort continued during the next phase of events. The priest Sanctissimus (of whom we shall say more below) brought Basil news of the dispersal of some at least of the orthodox community at Beroea, and of similar disruptions in the church of Batnae.¹⁶³ All his letters of that period testify not only to continuing anxiety and involvement but also to the success that Valens and the Arian party generally were enjoying in the churches of the region. Heroism and the postponement of hope were all that Basil now could bank on: 'In this we rejoice with you, and pray that the God of all, Whose is the struggle, Whose is the arena, and through Whom are the crowns, may create eagerness, may supply strength of spirit, and may bring your work to complete approval in His sight.¹⁶⁴

The fourth phase is represented by the preparations for, and the results of, a third journey undertaken to the West.¹⁶⁵ Events may have been precipitated by the exile of Eusebius of Samosata in 374. It was Eusebius who recognized, at the latest by 375, that some response would have to be made to the demands brought back by Evagrius in 373. That prompted Basil, early in 375, to write to Meletius, saddling him in effect with the responsibility of acting upon Eusebius's advice.¹⁶⁶ He suggested using the services of Sanctissimus, a priest from Antioch loyal to Meletius. The idea was that Sanctissimus would travel around various communities, seeking ideas and support for a new embassy. Basil's recent letters to Beroea and to Abramius of Batnae may be seen, therefore, as having taken the first steps; and Sanctissimus also carried back to Syria this very letter to Meletius.¹⁶⁷ A letter to Eusebius of Samosata, written towards the end of the process, shows us what Basil continued to regard as the important issues.¹⁶⁸ There is, it has to be said, more than a hint of confusion in his mind, which may explain why he passed on Eusebius's idea so quickly to Meletius in the first place: 'What message, then, I ought to send through them [Dorotheus and Sanctissimus], or how I am to come to an agreement with those who write, I myself am at a loss'. His enduring pessimism in regard to the bishop of Rome may be reflected in his observation that 'proud characters, when courted, naturally become more disdainful than usual'. After all, he said, 'if the Lord has been reconciled to us, what further assistance do we need? But if God's anger abides, what assistance can we have from the supercilious attitude of the West?' He did make a passing reference to Marcellus of Ancyra, which no doubt points to associations that endured in his mind; but otherwise all he could think of doing was sending a covering letter with Sanctissimus's eventual document, making the point that 'they should not attack those who have been brought low by trials nor judge self-respect to be arrogance'. His loss of confidence could not have been more clearly expressed.

Sanctissimus, meanwhile, had gathered together the threads of a new declaration to the West and had developed his own ideas about what should be emphasized. Basil betrayed once again that he was slightly out of touch with what was afoot: 'If the letter to the people of the West appears to contain anything that is important for us, be pleased to draft it and send it to us'.¹⁶⁹ There was only one point that he himself felt obliged to emphasize, and it had much more to do with his vision of church order than with the intricacies of the Arian controversy itself. He wanted to urge western churchmen

not to receive indiscriminately … the communion of those coming from the East, but after once choosing a single portion of them …, to accept the rest on the testimony of these already in communion; and … not to take into communion everyone who writes down the Creed as a supposed proof of orthodoxy.' ¹⁷⁰

In this way, presumably, he hoped that authorities in the West would not be able to ignore (as they seemed to have done in the case of Paulinus) a carefully prepared consensus, such as Sanctissimus and Dorotheus were about to present. Basil's motives were once again ecclesial rather than strictly doctrinal. He was dealing still with the old and different problem of people who opposed one another, even though they appeared to subscribe to the same doctrines. If the westerners did not follow his advice, they would 'find themselves to be in communion with men prone to fight, who often put forward statements of doctrine which are identical, but then proceed to fight with one another as violently as the men who are of opposite opinions'.¹⁷¹

As soon as the spring or early summer of 376 advanced, Sanctissimus and Dorotheus set out. Exactly what they carried with them, in the way of documentation, is not entirely clear from the surviving writings of Basil himself. Of the two letters that occur in the relevant section of his correspondence, one is clearly a draft of a letter already taken to the West by Dorotheus in 372. It is unlikely that it was taken again. The other is almost certainly a personal letter from Basil, designed to accompany and to endorse whatever documents Sanctissimus had been able to collect during his journey seeking support in the previous year.¹⁷²

This second letter was filled with characteristic anxieties. It included a fairly mild version of his habitual grouse: some westerners with authority should come on a visit, 'in order that they may see with their own eyes the sufferings of the East, which it is impossible to learn by report, since no words can be found that can set forth our situation clearly to you'.¹⁷³ He then expressed a more fundamental misgiving: 'The most oppressive part of this is, that neither do those who are being wronged accept their sufferings in the certainty of martyrdom, nor do the laity reverence their athletes as being in the class of martyrs, because the persecutors are cloaked with the name of Christians'.¹⁷⁴ The lines of division, in other words, were obscured by the apparent theological unity of those in conflict.

A clear policy among the persecutors was laid bare by Basil's plea: 'Shepherds are being persecuted that their flocks may be scattered'. As a result, whole communities were torn apart. Basil described the destruction not in terms of theological argument but of decay in the conduct of cult. To begin with, 'the pious are driven from their native places, and are exiled to desert regions'. The results were quite specific:

Our feasts have been turned into mourning; houses of prayer have been closed; idle are the altars of spiritual service. No longer are there gatherings of Christians, no longer precedence of teachers, no teachings of salvation, no assemblies, no evening singing of hymns, nor that blessed joy of souls which arises in the souls of those who believe in the Lord at the gatherings for Holy Communion and when the spiritual blessings are partaken of. It is fitting for us to say: 'neither is there at this time prince, or prophet, or leader, or oblation, or incense, or place of first-fruits before the Lord and no place to find mercy'.¹⁷⁵

There was a frank admission, therefore, that theological oppression, so to speak, was in no way so powerful a weapon as manipulation of cultic practice:

The ears of the more simple-minded … have become accustomed to the heretical impiety. The nurslings of the Church are being brought up in the doctrines of ungodliness. For what are they indeed to do? Baptisms are in the heretics' hands, attendance upon those who are departing this life, visits to the sick, the consolation of those who grieve, the assisting of those who are in distress, succour of all kinds, communion of the mysteries; all of these things, being performed by them, become a bond of agreement between them and the laity. Consequently after a little time has passed, not even if all fear should be removed, would there then be hope of recalling those held by a long-standing deception back to the recognition of the truth. ¹⁷⁶

Those emphases count for much more, in the letter as a whole, than do the half dozen or so sentences that make more explicit reference to theological argument.

There was also a specific point being made ad hominem, tailored, as Basil must have thought, to the prevailing indifference of the western church. 'Consider', he wrote, 'that our sufferings are yours'. Here he was recalling a point made in earlier correspondence with the West:

Since the gospel of the kingdom, having begun in our region, has gone forth to the whole world, on this account the common enemy of our souls strives that the seeds of apostasy, having taken their beginning in the same region, may be distributed to the whole world. For upon whom the light of the knowledge of Christ has shone, upon these the darkness of impiety also contrives to come.¹⁷⁷

The struggle was above all in defence of history, of tradition, of what Basil called 'our common possession—our treasure, inherited from our fathers, of the sound faith'.¹⁷⁸ Everything expressed here had already coloured entirely his conduct and attitude within the local church.

While the ambassadors were absent in the West, Basil had occasion to write to Epiphanius of Salamis. He refused to be drawn into a detailed discussion of the Arian issue, falling back in his characteristic way on the belief that 'we can add nothing to the Creed of Nicaea, not even the slightest thing, except the glorification of the Holy Spirit'.¹⁷⁹ He did have more to say about the situation at Antioch. He lamented once again the way in which 'orthodoxy has itself also been divided against itself'. He reasserted his support for Meletius, on the significant grounds of his 'great affection for him because of that steadfast and unyielding stand he made' (during 'that noble contest in the reign of Constantius'). He insisted that Athanasius had desired communion with Meletius at heart and had simply been misled 'through malice of counsellors'. As for himself, 'we have never accepted communion with any one of those who entered the see thereafter [including Paulinus, of course, as well as Euzoius], not because we considered them unworthy, but because we were unable to condemn Meletius in anything'. He recommended that Epiphanius should avoid taking sides and should concentrate more on effecting a reconciliation.¹⁸⁰ Basil was digging in his toes, in other words, and allowing himself to say less and less.

That brings us in effect to the fifth and final phase of Basil's 'international' career. Sometime in 377, Dorotheus and Sanctissimus came back from the West. They brought with them a letter from Damasus condemning Arianism in general terms, and also Apollinarius.¹⁸¹ It was scarcely satisfactory; and the two long-suffering ambassadors were soon on their way to the West again, carrying a precise set of demands from Basil. Arianism, he said, was no longe the issue. That 'reckless and impudent heresy … being plainly cut off from the body of the Church, remains in its own error, and harms us but little … because their impiety is evident to all'.¹⁸² Once again, it was internal enemies, appearing to share with him a common belief, who caused him most concern. He wanted them exposed, named formally, condemned explicitly by a general declaration from the West, so that they would no longer be able 'through an unguarded communion to share their own disease with their neighbours'.¹⁸³

Who were those villains? They are by now familiar enough to us: Eustathius, Apollinarius, and Paulinus. Basil's portrayal of Eustathius was particularly skilful, given the diplomatic context. He had been able, as Basil put it, to gain acceptance at the hands of the unsuspecting Hermogenes of Caesarea. He had then proceeded to undermine the purity of Nicaea at the various gatherings at Ancyra, Seleucia, and Constantinople. Then came his journey to the West, his favourable consultation with Liberius in Rome, and his triumphant return to Tyana. Basil implied, without much attempt at subtlety, that Liberius had been fooled. Certainly, 'this man now tries to destroy that creed on the basis of which he was received'. The bishops of the West had helped to create that situation: they should now take steps to correct it:

Since, then, his power to harm the churches came from your quarter, and since he has used the privilege granted him by you for the downfall of the many, from you must come also his correction, and you should write to the churches what the conditions are on which he was received, and how now, having undergone a change, he nullifies the favour that was granted to him by the fathers of that time.¹⁸⁴

Apollinarius, meanwhile, was having a pernicious effect, largely through the widespread distribution of his many writings, remarkable above all for their misleading obscurity. Finally, their protege in Antioch, Paulinus, was 'inclined towards the teachings of Marcellus [of Ancyra]'.… ¹⁸⁵

Basil concluded that ideally a council of East and West together should expose those individuals once and for all, so that they would either seek communion on orthodox terms or find themselves publicly excluded from the unity of the Church.¹⁸⁶ Yet now, he said, was not the moment. That feeling may have been connected with his earlier admission that he currently lacked the authority to take part in such a gathering: 'Statements made by us are suspected by the many, on the ground that we perhaps, through certain personal quarrels, hold ill-will towards them'.¹⁸⁷ Quite frankly, Basil gave little sign here that he had made any attempt to extend himself beyond the orbit of his personal relationships and their attendant antagonisms.

The final embassy to the West had not been, in any case, a great success. All it managed to bring back was a deep sense of grievance and another ineffectual letter from the bishop of Rome.¹⁸⁸ It seems that the frustration of Dorotheus's hopes had been due to the intervention of Peter of Alexandria, who was in Rome at the time, and who commanded much more respect in western eyes, both because of the status of his see and because of his natural association with the reputation of Athanasius.¹⁸⁹ Peter had gone so far as to accuse Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata of Arian sympathies. The suggestion was, quite frankly, ridiculous and irresponsible; and Basil showed remarkable self-control in his subsequent letter to Peter himself. While continuing to defend his colleague in Antioch, he also warned the patriarch to tread more cautiously, if he wished to help in the achievement of any harmony among the eastern churches:

We all need each other in the communion of our members, and especially now, when the churches of the East look to us, and will take your harmony as a start towards firmness and strength; but if they perceive that you are somewhat suspicious of each other, they will relax and will slacken their hands, so that they should not raise them against enemies of the faith. ¹⁹⁰

Basil seems to have reconciled himself, in any case, to the fact that authoritative aid from the West was no longer to be hoped for. He began, in his correspondence, to clarify for his own sake how matters now stood generally. Eustathius and Apollinarius still occupied the centre of the stage; but two other points made greater sense in relation to Antioch. First, Basil continued to associate Paulinus and his party with the teachings of Marcellus of Ancyra.¹⁹¹ Second, he wished at least to create the impression that communication with the West had reinforced the weight of opinion against his own adversaries and had made more obvious their geographical isolation: 'Look about on the world, and observe that this portion which is unsound is small, but that all the rest of the Church, which from one end to the other has received the Gospel, abides by this sound and unchanged doctrine'.¹⁹² He was still attempting to encourage his scattered allies to see themselves as belonging to a larger party, whose interests and beliefs they should take more carefully into account, before they accepted or rejected the leaders of this group or that.¹⁹³

Conflict within Antioch itself did not end at that point. After the death of Valens at the battle of Hadrianople in 378, Meletius and Eusebius were able to return from exile. In the following year, Meletius held a synod at Antioch and seems to have gained recognition in the West. Certainly in 381, he presided over the Council of Constantinople, a vindication of his perseverance and perhaps the peak of his career. He lived long enough to see Gregory of Nazianzus briefly installed as bishop of the eastern capital; but he died shortly afterwards. It is a great sorrow that Gregory's funeral oration has not survived. Paulinus was still alive, and this might have been taken as the opportunity to settle matters once and for all; but a Meletian rival, Flavianus, was also installed as bishop, and the schism continued for many years yet.¹⁹⁴

By that time, Basil was dead. His final letters hint in several ways that he may have felt his enemies' days were numbered, and that the end of the Arian controversy was now in sight.¹⁹⁵ To Peter of Alexandria, he was willing to admit (and it may not have been merely self-deluding consolation) that the Church possessed strengths scarcely affected by mere theological discord: 'We have given thanks to the Lord, that a remnant of the ancient good discipline … is being preserved in you and that the Church has not lost her strength in our persecution. For the canons … have not also been persecuted along with us'.¹⁹⁶ Yet he admitted also to a certain numbness of spirit, after so much struggle:

But be informed, our most honoured and beloved brother, that continuous afflictions, and this great tumult which is now shaking the Churches, cause us to be astonished at nothing that takes place. For just as workers in smithies, whose ears are struck with a din, become inured to the noise, so we by the frequency of strange reports have at length become accustomed to keep our heart unmoved and undismayed at unexpected events. Therefore the charges that have from of old been fabricated by the Arians against the Church, although many and great and noised throughout the whole world, can nevertheless be endured by us.¹⁹⁷

As usual, it was the hidden enemies, 'men of like mind and opinion with ourselves', that caused him more anxiety. Those remained much more closely associated in his eyes with the narrow arena of his own experience and preoccupation. The letter to Peter is the last from his pen that we can clearly date—in the moving words of one historian, 'le dernier echo qui nous soit parvenu de sa noble voix'.¹⁹⁸ It was the voice, we have to admit, of a man by now weary, isolated, and robbed of many hopes.

Notes

¹ GNaz Orat. 43. 41, tr. p. 62.

² GNaz Orat. 43. 65, tr. p. 83. The same sentiment occurs in GNaz Ep. 46. 2: …, ed. Gallay, 1: 59.

³Hom. 342. 1. Could Gregory have known of this sermon?

⁴ The connection was emphasized strongly by Fedwick, Charisma, p. 102.

⁵Ep. 28. 3, C 1: 69f., D 1: 169. See chapter 3, at n. 102, and chapter 4, at n. 33.

⁶Ep. 28. 1, C 1: 67, D 1: 163.

⁷Ep. 29, C 1: 71, D 1: 173. Not that Athanasius had been the warmest of colleagues: see Ep. 25. Indeed, Musonius could have been placed in the same category: see Ep. 28. 3.

⁸Ep. 29; C 1: 71; D 1: 171/173, 173/175.

⁹Ep. 65, C 1: 156, D 2: 25/27.

¹⁰Ep. 97, C 1: 210, D 2: 163.

¹¹Ep. 126, C 2: 36, D 2: 273.

¹² See Ep. 4, 12, 13.

¹³" Ep. 131. 2, C 2: 46, D 2: 301; but Deferrari's slightly different text ends with obscurity.… See also Ep. 211.

¹⁴ See Ep. 63… It refers to news carried by one Elpidius (not the bishop mentioned below in n. 15), who fulfilled a similar function in Ep. 64 (more closely concerned with affairs in Cappadocia itself: see Ep. 72), and was associated with the disgraced official Therasius of Ep. 77 and 78.…

¹⁵ See Ep. 208 and (perhaps) 209. In pursuit of the same general cause, he wrote assiduously to a bishop Elpidius, no friend of Eustathius (see Ep. 251. 3). He wanted above all, with Elpidius's help, to bring the bishops of the region together, 'to uproot the troubles which arise from our present suspicions of one another, and strengthen the love without which the Lord Himself has declared to us that the performance of every commandment is incompleté, Ep. 205, C 2: 182, D 3: 177.

¹⁶Ep. 203. 1, C 2: 168, D 3: 145.

¹⁷Ep. 161. 2, C 2: 93f., D 2: 415.

¹⁸Ep. 97, C 1: 211, D 2: 165.

¹⁹Ep. 244. 8, C 3: 81, D 3: 469. The extent to which he now felt that the hopes of earlier years were closer to fulfilment may be revealed by another comparison with that letter to Tyana: 'We ourselves, nevertheless, neither see nor hear anything but the peace of God and whatsoever leads to it. For even if others are powerful, and great, and confident in themselves, we, on the contrary, are nothing, and worth nothing', Ep. 97, C 1: 210, D 2: 161/163. His own confidence, if not self-piteous, would seem to have been bought at the cost of esteem and status.

²⁰Ep. 203. 2.

²¹Ep. 203. 3, C 2: 170f., D 3: 149/151.…

²² The two later letters appear to have responded to a silence that had greeted the first; and they did so by attending to quite particular points.

²³Ep. 207 passim.

²⁴ This was the letter he wrote while staying with his brother Peter: see Ep. 216 and chapter 3, n. 18.

²⁵Ep. 210. 4, C 2: 194, D 3: 207.

²⁶Ep. 210. 3, C 2: 191f., D 3: 201. 'Even now was a nice touch: it was still possible for them to segregate Atarbius from that respectable genealogy.

²⁷ The 'naming' anxiety was closely associated with central points of debate in the Arian dispute: for the ability to name, in a purely logical sense, the three persons of the Trinity was closely connected with the ability to distinguish characteristics of each one of them. n e, while safeguarding a unity of [ousia].

²⁸ On the importance of limiting disputes to written statements, see chapter 4, at nn. 94f.

²⁹Ep. 204. 1, 7; C 2: 172f., 180; D 3: 155, 173.

³⁰Ep. 204. 2, C 2: 173f., D 3: 157.

³¹Ep. 223. 3. For all these points, see chapter 1, at nn. 69f.

³²Ep. 204. 6, C 2: 179, D 3: 169/171.

³³Ep. 113 to Tarsus, C 2: 17, D 2: 225. See Fedwick, Charisma, p. 74 and n. 170. See also Ep. 114. For a fuller analysis of these letters, see Michael A. G. Haykin, 'And Who Is the Spirit? Basil of Caesarea's Letters to the Church at Tarsus'.

³⁴Ep. 204. 6, C 2: 179, D 3: 171.

³⁵Ep. 204. 7, C 2: 180, D 3: 173.

³⁶Ep. 204. 7, C 2: 180, D 3: 173/175.

³⁷ Two general surveys have proved particularly useful: R. H. Hewsen, 'The Successors of Tiridates the Great: A Contribution to the History of Armenia in the Fourth Century'; and Roger C. Blockley, 'The Division of Armenia between the Romans and the Persians at the End of the Fourth Century A.D.'. Much can still be gained from Norman H. Baynes, 'Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century': clarity and grace compensate for the imperfections of an older scholarship.

³⁸ See Matthews, Ammianus, p. 53.

³⁹ Matthews, Ammianus, pp. 136, 499 n. 14, with cautious comment on the nevertheless invaluable article by T.D. Barnes, 'Constantine and the Christians of Persia'.

⁴⁰ Ammianus Marcellinus 25, 7. 12f.

⁴¹ Ammianus Marcellinus 14, 3. 1; 14, 5.

⁴² Ammianus Marcellinus 20, 11. If.; Cod. Theod. 11, 1. 1. For the date (358 rather than 360), see Nina G. Garsoian, 'Politique ou orthodoxie? L'Arménie au quatréme siècle', p. 305. On Ablabius, see Eunapius Lives B 463f. in W 384f.

⁴³ Nerses did not have a metropolitan see, as was normal for church leaders within the empire, but exercised a wandering authority over bishops he had appointed.

⁴⁴ Ammianus Marcellinus 20, 9. 1, 11. 1-4. For Nerses' involvement, see Nina G. Garsoäan, 'Quidam Narseus? A Note on the Mission of St. Nerses the Great'.

⁴⁵ Nina Garsoïan, 'Nerses le Grand, Basile de Césarèe et Eustathe de Sebaste', pp. 148f., was of the opinion that the connections dawned on Basil only later—perhaps an unnecessary caution: albeit 'remote' in Pontus, Basil could easily have heard reports. (I am much less open to Garsoïan's suggestion, p. 149, that the 'Narses' of Ep. 92 was the Armenian prelate.) For Nerses' own relations with Eustathius, see the same article, esp. pp. 164f., and her 'Sur le titre de protecteur des pauvres', esp. p. 29. The plentiful references to Basil in Armenian sources are frequently unreliable; but see Faustus of Byzantium 4, 3f.; 5, 24. For Faustus, I have relied on the French translation of Jean Baptiste Emine.

⁴⁶ Ammianus Marcellinus 27, 12. 9. For Pap specifically, see Roger C. Blockley, Ammianus Marcellinus: A Study of His Historiography and Political Thought.

⁴⁷ See PLRE 1: 881f., s.v. Terentius 2.

⁴⁸ Faustus of Byzantium 5, 21; tr. p. 289.

⁴⁹ Themistius Or at. 11,149B … ed. Schenkl and Downey, 1: 224. See also Ammianus Marcellinus 29, 1. 2.

⁵⁰Ep. 99. 1, C 1: 214 … See the points already made in chapter 5, at nn. 178f.

⁵¹ The Armenian sources give wonderfully full accounts. See n. 45 above and n. 53 below.

⁵²PLRE 1: 666, s.v. Papa, suggests with apparent confidence 25 July 373; but I have been unable to discover on what authority. Faustus and Moses (on whom see the following note) appear to be silent. The tenth-century Généalogie de la famille de saint Grègoire et Vie de saint Narse, 14, has the phrase (in the French translation, which I have been given no reason to doubt) 'dans le mois de hroditz [more properly, Hrotic'], le jour de jeudi', in Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l'Arménie, ed. Victor Langlois, 2: 41. Hrotic' ran from early July to early August: V. Grumel, La Chronologie = Traité d'études byzantines, 1: 301. J. R. Russell was kind but equally at a loss.

⁵³ At Khakh and Til respectively. See Moses of Chorene (Moses Khorenats'i), History of the Armenians, 3. 38, tr. Robert S. Thompson, pp. 298f.

⁵⁴ See Ep. 148 and 149. PLRE 1: 921f., s.v. Traianus 2, seems assured, as is Garsoïan, 'Politique', 316f. See also Treucker, Studien, pp. 47, 51. Yet we cannot be completely certain that we are dealing with the same man.

⁵⁵ Ammianus Marcellinus was appalled, 30, 1. 18f., and one detects irony (obvious also to Traianus) in his phrase 'modo serenae mentis Valentis indices litteras tradens', 19, in Rolfe, 3: 304. Traianus remained in favour, acting as magister peditum in Thrace in 377; but he was killed at Hadrianople.

⁵⁶ Ammianus Marcellinus 30, 1. 2f. Compared with Traianus, Terentius may have experienced more censure (as much in relation to his own orthodoxy): PLRE 1: 881f., s.v. Terentius 2.

⁵⁷ Fedwick, Charisma, makes little reference; and the reasons adduced on p. 104 n. 9 are not corroborated. Gain's allusions are scattered in pursuit of other interests: 'ce qui ne manque pas de piquant, vu leur affrontement', Église, p. 81; and 's'explique par des raisons politiques', p. 322 n. 148. Courtonne, Témoin, esp. pp. 120f., places matters firmly in the context of the Arian controversy. Brennecke, Geschichte der Homöer, p. 195, may overestimate Basil's success ('im Auftrage des Kaisers, doch eigentlich gegen seinen Willen'), and he is surprisingly vague in assessing Valens's motives, picking out, as I would, Basil's impressive personality, and adding his friendships with those in high places and his reluctance to indulge in the fiery excommunication of Homoeans.

⁵⁸Ep. 99. See also his earlier report concerning Apollinarius, Ep. 214.

⁵⁹ 'Both the Imperial ordinance and the friendly letter of your Honour': Ep. 99. 1, C 1: 214, D 2: 171/173.

⁶⁰ … not quite Deferrari's 'customary indifference'.

⁶¹Ep. 99. 4, C 1: 217f., D 2: 181/183.

⁶²Ep. 102, with confirmation in 103.

⁶³ See Ep. 122, to be discussed shortly.

⁶⁴ Hence his improving relationship with Theodotus (Ep. 130), and other letters (now lost) addressed to the region (see Ep. 195).

⁶⁵Ep. 122, C 2: 28, D 2: 251/253.

⁶⁶Ep. 121, C 2: 27, D 2: 251.

⁶⁷Ep. 120, C 2: 26, D 2: 249. See Gain, Eglise, pp. 77 (with n. 71), 81.

⁶⁸Ep. 227, C 3: 30, D 3: 345. This letter was discussed in chapter 5, at n. 182.

⁶⁹Ep. 228, C 3: 33, D 3: 351.

⁷⁰Ep. 229. 1, C 3: 33f., D 3: 353.

⁷¹Ep. 229.1, C 3: 34, D 3: 353/355.

⁷²Ep. 230. See chapter 5, at nn. 145f. It would seem that Ep. 127 and 128 to Eusebius of Samosata were written in 373 rather than in 375, which would bring all the Colonia and Nicopolis involvements closer together. Ep. 128 in particular is filled with reference to the Spirit and 'the old laws of charity'—matters touched upon already and to be touched upon again.

⁷³Ep. 237. 2.

⁷⁴Ep. 238, C 3: 58, D 3: 413. The same point is made in Ep. 239. 1.

⁷⁵Ep. 239. 1, C 3: 60, D 3: 417. For other references to enforced worship in the open, see Ep. 238, 240. 2. Theodoret corroborates these other instances, Hist. relig. 2 (Julian). 15.

⁷⁶ See Ep. 238 at C 3: 58, lines 16f.; and 240. 3: 'Now that they have seen that the laity are provoked they are again pretending orthodoxy', C 3: 64, D 3: 425; …

⁷⁷Ep. 246, 247.

⁷⁸Ep. 240. 1; but the whole letter makes the point.

⁷⁹ In what follows I have depended heavily on the clear and detailed account given by Courtonne, Témoin, and with slightly more caution, the older study by Robert Devreesse, Le Patriarcat d'Antioche, depuis lepaix de l'Église jusqu'à la conquête arabe. Behind both works stands F. Cavallera, Le Schisme d'Antioche (IV^e-V^esiècles). Of comparable importance are the references to Antioch in Brennecke, Geschichte der Homöer. Note also his convincing scepticism about a persecution in Syria under Valens, pp. 233f. Basil's heroes and friends did most to isolate themselves from the mainstream of church opinion. Fedwick's chronology, Charisma, pp. 108f., is different from older works, but his narrative no less useful. Lukas Vischer, Basilius der Groβe: Untersuchungen zu einem Kirchenvater des 4. Jahrhunderts, is also particularly clear. A focus on Antioch is central to the argument of E. Amand de Mendieta, in an excellent and indispensable study, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome: Les causes de l'echec de leurs negociations', marred only by confessional anxieties over the status of the bishop of Rome (see, for example, nn. 126, 158 below). More balanced is the useful account by Justin Taylor, 'St. Basil the Great and Pope St. Damasus I'. He is content to leave Basil at once orthodox and indignant, while showing a shrewd sympathy for Damasus's difficulties. His dating, however, is open to revision. Important criticisms are levelled on Basil's behalf by Wilhelm de Vries, 'Die Ostkirche und die Cathedra Petri'. Reference back to the early sections of chapter 4 may sometimes prove helpful.

⁸⁰ See chapter 4, at nn. 5f.

⁸¹ The circumstances of those events, and the startling transfer of Eudoxius to the see of Constantinople, have all been discussed in chapter 4, as just noted above. It is important to stress the association of Meletius with the synod of Constantinople. Whatever move towards a clearer espousal of Nicaea he may have made, it happened gradually and later. See Brennecke, Geschichte der Homöer, pp. 69f.

⁸² See Epiphanius Panarion 70. 3. 29f. Courtonne, Témoin, p. 248, observes: 'Le discours de Mélèce était d'un homme attaché à l'orthodoxie'.

⁸³ Athanasius Tom. ad Ant. 3f., PG 26. 798f.

⁸⁴ Vitalis actually went to Rome in 375 and gained some favour; but that ebbed with time. See Damasus's letter to Paulinus, Per filium (his Ep. 3), PL 13. 356f., together with his Ep. 7 against Apollinarius, PL 13. 369f. Also Epiphanius Panarion 77. 20f.; and Basil's Ep. 258, to which we shall return. Behind more recent accounts of the relations between Damasus and Basil lies the important textual study of E. Schwartz, 'Über die Sammlung des Cod. Veronensis LX'. See also his 'Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts'.

⁸⁵ See Rochelle Snee, 'Valens' Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda', p. 414. Jovian's brief reign had encouraged Meletius and his supporters to move closer to a Nicene position, chiefly because of their alarm at the conduct of Eunomius. Valens, restoring churchmen to the positions they had enjoyed under Constantius, simply (and successfully) ignored the intervening confusions caused by Julian and Jovian. See Brennecke, Geschichte der Homöer, pp. 173f., 209.

⁸⁶ See chapter 4, at n. 17, and chapter 7, at n. 24.

⁸⁷ Snee, 'Recall of the Exiles', p. 413 n. 103, following Gwatkin, is happy to think so. Brennecke, Geschichte der Homöer, p. 233 n. 64, implies as much.

⁸⁸ For Demophilus, see Ep. 48; for Euzoius, see Snee, 'Recall of the Exiles', pp. 414f. According to Brennecke, Geschichte der Homöer, p. 232, Valens's final settlement in Antioch ensured that Meletius would find no place in the city.

⁸⁹Ep. 66. 2, C 1: 158, D 2: 33.

⁹⁰ See Glanville Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest; A. M. J. Festugiere, Antioche paienne et chretienne: Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie; Jones, Cities; J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire; Petit, Libanius et la vie municipale a Antioche (see chapter 2, n. 31); and D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East. Recall the point made in chapter 3, n. 54, about Basil's early interest in Syria generally, and the usefulness of Theodoret's Historia religiosa (extensively quoted by several of the authors referred to above).

⁹¹ His Misopogon gives the fullest impression. See especially the accounts of Bowersock and Browning, and Maude W. Gleason, 'Festive Satire: Julian's Misopogon and the New Year at Antioch'.

⁹² In addition to the general material listed in n. 90, the following add useful reflections (even if dated) and references to sources: Glanville Downey, 'The Economic Crisis at Antioch under Julian the Apostate'; Robert Browning, 'The Riot of A.D. 387 in Antioch: The Role of the Theatrical Claques in the Later Empire'; and Timothy E. Gregory, 'Urban Violence in Late Antiquity'. The necessary caution had governed the imperial handling of church affairs in Antioch since the early days of Constantius's reign. See Brennecke, Geschichte der Homoer, pp. 66f.

⁹³ For Modestus, see appendix 2, at nn. If.

⁹⁴ See Ammianus Marcellinus 29, If.

⁹⁵ In addition to the study by Festugiere mentioned in n. 90, see J. C. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time; and Matthews, Western Aristocracies, pp. 121-45.

⁹⁶ See Matthews, Ammianus, esp. chaps. 2 and 18. Some excellent points are succinctly presented in his 'Ammianus' Historical Evolution'.

⁹⁷ For Libanius, see n. 90 and chapter 2, nn. 6, 16, 31.

⁹⁸ Julian's dismissive comment that the Goths were a less worthy enemy, for an emperor, than the Persians, may not have been idiosyncratic: Ammianus Marcellinus 22, 7. 8.

⁹⁹ Considerable difficulties attach to the dating of the various embassies between East and West. On the whole I have followed Fedwick, Charisma. Detailed variations very rarely affect my own argument; but a few alternatives will be noted as we proceed. I have numbered my phases simply in the interests of clarity. Different divisions are used by Courtonne, Temoin, Fedwick, Charisma, and Amand de Mendieta, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome'. A detailed account is contained in Charles Pietri, Roma Christiana: Recherches sur l'Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son ideologie de Mithrade a Sixte IXI (311-440), esp. 1:791-872. In spite of the fact that Basil's involvement was evident from 371, I question Taylor's view, 'Basil and Damasus', p. 187, that 'he came to his episcopal office with a grand strategy already worked out'.

¹⁰⁰ For what follows, Ep. 66, C 1: 156f., D 2: lit

¹⁰¹Ep. 68. The reference to Euippius brings the letter within the context of Arian conflict more generally but also relates to the growing dispute with Eustathius. See also Ep. 128.

¹⁰²Ep. 69. I take it that this letter was to be carried by Dorotheus on the same first-planned journey: it appears from the text that he was still considered to need a full introduction; and Deferrari's 'we have again sent to your Piety' (2: 41) is an unjustified gloss on the Greek.

¹⁰³Ep. 69. 1, C 1: 162, D 2: 43. One does need to keep constantly in mind the question of what Basil wanted from Damasus specifically: his early intentions must have coloured his later disappointment. Concerning Basil's relations with the bishop of Rome, in addition to the material cited above in n. 79, see Perikles-Petros Joannou, Die Ostkirche und die Cathedra Petri im 4. Jahrhundert—a book useful for bringing together documents and references, but lacking in overall judgement of any significance.

¹⁰⁴Ep. 69. 2, C 1: 164, D 2: 47. On the prolonged and central attention to Marcellus, see Amand de Mendieta, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome, p. 144.

¹⁰⁵Ep. 69. 2, C 1: 163, D 2: 47. See below, at nn. 122, 131.

¹⁰⁶Ep. 67, C 1: 159f., D 2: 35. See chapter 4, n. 17.

¹⁰⁷Ep. 70, C 1: 164f., D 2: 49f. This was the only letter Basil ever tried to write to Damasus personally.

¹⁰⁸ Fedwick, Basil, 1: 12 n. 72.

¹⁰⁹ Following Fedwick, Charisma, p. 109 n. 29. This is Damasus's Ep. 1, PL 13. 347-349, also edited by Schwartz, 'Sammlung'. Amand de Mendieta, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome, p. 127, follows Schwartz in dating the synod concerned to 372. Basil acknowledged receipt of the material in Ep. 90.

¹¹⁰ We can almost certainly catch the final cadence of his optimism in another, vaguely expressed and vaguely dated, letter to the patriarch, Ep. 82.

¹¹¹Ep. 89. 2.

¹¹²Ep. 48, C 1: 128f., D 1: 315.

¹¹³Ep. 57.

¹¹⁴Ep. 69. 1, C 1: 161, D 2: 39.

¹¹⁵Ep. 69. 1, C 1: 162, D 2: 41.

¹¹⁶Ep. 82, C 1: 184, D 2: 97.

¹¹⁷Ep. 82, C 1: 185, D 2: 99.

¹¹⁸Ep. 66. 1, C 1: 157, D 2: 27.

¹¹⁹ The siavery image occurs at the beginning and end of Ep. 70, … and … C 1: 165f. Thus heretics were given satanic status: see Hom. 354. 3. In Ep. 66, it is not certain whether … [this] refers to bishops, C 1: 157; but episcopal leadership seems to be implied somewhere in the sentence, as the translations of Deferrari and Courtonne both suggest. For the associated misfortune of the laity see chapter 4, at n. 121, and, for the corresponding bond between clergy and laity, chapter 5, at nn. 126f.

¹²⁰Ep. 69. 2. See above, n. 105. The theme was developed very fully in Ep. 92. 2, discussed below.

¹²¹Ep. 70, C 1: 164, D 2: 49. Deferrari's phrase 'an old affection' appears to limit it to a description of the relationship between Basil and Damasus. The letter as a whole, however, makes clear reference to an ecclesiology, which 'we know through a continuous tradition', … C 1: 165, D 2: 51. Amand de Mendieta, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome', stresses with justice the importance of this … but is less successful in presenting it as a species of history (although note his discussion of 'la conception primitive', pp. 148f.). It is a major point in Pietri, Roma Christiana, that two different views of the Church were being stressed one against the other.

¹²² It is difficult to decide who wrote what. Amand de Mendieta, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome', p. 127, follows Lietzmann in suggesting that Ep. 92 was written by Meletius, while 90 represented Basil's additional thoughts; but both letters bear Basil's mark.

¹²³ Snee, 'Recall of the Exiles', p. 415. I am not sure that Amand de Mendieta, however, makes suitable contrasts. Damasus was just as concerned as Basil with maintaining ecclesial alliances—as Amand de Mendieta, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome', p. 136, admits. 'Attention aux problemes moraux et humains ainsi qu'a leurs solutions pratiques', p. 135,' was not an attitude exclusive to the West! Nor should it be considered grounds for criticism, if Basil and his colleagues were 'imbus d'hellenisme et epris de liberte intellectuelle', p. 158.

¹²⁴ In the opening phrase of Ep. 91.

¹²⁵Ep. 92. 3; C 1: 201, 203; D 2: 141/143.

¹²⁶Ep. 92. 2f., C 1: 201 f., D 2: 137/141.

¹²⁷Ep. 91, C 1: 198, D 2: 131.

¹²⁸Ep. 92. 3, C 1: 202, D 2: 141. Concrete evidence that Damasus appreciated the point, while pleading more local preoccupations of his own, may be supplied in the inscription discussed by Henry Chadwick, 'Pope Damasus and the Peculiar Claim of Rome to St. Peter and St. Paul': 'Discipulos Oriens misit, quod sponte fatemur;… Roma suos potius meruit defendere cives'.

¹²⁹Ep. 90. 2, C 1: 196, D 2: 125/127. See n. 119 above.

¹³⁰Ep. 92. 2, C 1: 200, D 2: 137/139. See above, at nn. 105, 121.

¹³¹Ep. 92. 2, C 1: 201, D 2: 139/141. The same emphasis was made in the earlier draft of this letter (Ep. 242. 2)—see Fedwick, Basil, 1:13. Similar events had been witnessed in Armenia: see above, at n. 75.

¹³²Ep. 92. 2, C 1: 200, D 2: 137.

¹³³Ep. 90. 2, C 1: 195f., D 2: 125.

¹³⁴ See chapter 4, esp. at nn. 97f., 125f.

¹³⁵Ep. 91, C 1: 198, D 2: 131.

¹³⁶ As discussed in chapter 5, at nn. 73f.

¹³⁷ So Ep. 91, C 1: 197, D 2: 131; but the point was made extensively in the opening sections of Ep. 90, 92 (and 242), all with reference to storm and calm.

¹³⁸Ep. 91, C 1: 197, D 2: 129.

¹³⁹Ep. 91, C 1: 197, D 2: 131. See chapter 7, at nn. 160f.

¹⁴⁰Ep. 90. 2, C 1: 196, D 2: 127. The contrast is with … Ep. 92. 2.… The civic echoes of such vocabulary should never be overlooked.

¹⁴¹ See chapter 5, after n. 43 and at nn. 187f.

¹⁴²Ep. 92. 3, C 1: 202, D 2: 141; but there is no hint of this in the draft, Ep. 242; which may support the view that a general council was Meletius's idea only (since Ep, 92 may have been his reworking of the original text). See Taylor, 'Basil and Damasus', 196f. Basil did, however, entertain the notion eventually: see n. 186 below.

¹⁴³Ep. 154, C 2: 79, D 2: 379.

¹⁴⁴Ep. 204. 6. See above, at nn. 29f.

¹⁴⁵Ep. 164. 1, C 2: 97f., D 2: 423.

¹⁴⁶Ep. 133, C 2: 47, D 2: 303. Ep. 139 was also addressed to Alexandria and made the same points as the letter to Ascholius quoted above, Ep. 154. This seems an odd letter to have sent to Egypt, in that it suggests that, in better health, Basil would have travelled there; but we have no reason to doubt its editorial title.…

¹⁴⁷ It is useful to recall here Ep. 99 to Terentius, and events discussed above, at nn. 58f.

¹⁴⁸Ep. 135. See chapter 2, at nn. 67, 76f.

¹⁴⁹Ep. 140. 1, C 2: 61, D 2: 335. The importance of Flavianus and Diodorus (see above, after n. 82) was stressed by Theodoret Hist. relig. 8. 7. The vocabulary recurs in Ep. 238 of the year 376. We shall have occasion to discuss the theme further at n. 195 below. For other points connected with Ep. 140, see chapter 4, at n. 110, and chapter 5, at n. 98. Ep. 113 and 114 to Tarsus show how Basil thought open unity was best achieved: do not press those in error further than necessary. That point is well handled by Fedwick, Charisma, pp. 73f., and has occurred already in chapter 4, at n. 112 (and see chapter 6, n. 157).

¹⁵⁰ For Evagrius, see the several useful references made throughout his work by Kelly, Jerome. That one should have some sympathy for Damasus is a point made by Joannou, Ostkirche, pp. 14f.: he was caught between Liberius's earlier recognition of Meletius and Athanasius's persistent resistance. He also felt the need for a signed declaration of orthodoxy, as had been forthcoming from eastern delegates to Julius and Liberius before him. Basil, on the other hand, remembered such incidents precisely for their hidden tolerance of Marcellus of Ancyra and their encouragement of Eustathius's deceit. See Pietri, Roma Christiana, 1:801f.

¹⁵¹Ep. 138. 2: 'Our own letter he has brought back to us again on the ground that it was not pleasing to the more strict of the people there', C 2: 55f., D 2: 323. There was some irony in this attempt by Damasus to gain a clearer picture of Basil's theology: he may have remembered how Eustathius had fooled Liberius some ten years before—a point made, of course, by Basil himself! See n. 86 above, and Taylor, 'Basil and Damasus', p. 199.

¹⁵²Ep. 128. 3, C 2: 39, D 2: 281/283. One should notice, again, how much interwoven with other concerns the point was: in this instance, affairs at Colonia, and Eustathius, discussed in the previous chapter. Compare the letters to Tarsus mentioned above in n. 149.

¹⁵³Ep. 136. 2, C 2: 52, D 2: 315, also discussed in chapter 7, at n. 104.

¹⁵⁴Ep. 156. 1, C 2: 82, D 2: 385.

¹⁵⁵Ep. 156. If., C 2: 82, D 2: 387.

¹⁵⁶Ep. 214. We have already examined this letter as an example both of theological advice to a layman and of Basil's wish that matters of discipline associated with heresy should be left to churchmen: see chapter 5, at nn. 151, 183 (and see chapter 3, at n. 47).

¹⁵⁷Ep. 214. 2, C 2: 203f., D 3: 229/231. Here is perhaps the clearest indication that Basil rejected Damasus's point of view. It is probably true, however, that he did not fully understand the chief anxieties of the bishop of Rome; in which case, it is anachronistic to suppose he was preoccupied with the confessional issues that might later focus on papal expectations—see Amand de Mendieta, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome', p. 149. We are dealing here simply with his reaction to Vitalis's attempt to curry favour in the West, and to Damasus's Ep. 3: see n. 84 above.

¹⁵⁸Ep. 214 and 215 (probably in that order, although any lapse of time between them would have been insignificant). It was in the latter that Basil criticized Gregory of Nyssa as a potential diplomat: see chapter 1, at n. 20.

¹⁵⁹Ep. 226. It is not clear whereabouts this community was situated. Later editors have entitled the letter …; but the content does not immediately suggest Basil was addressing people well known to him.

¹⁶⁰ For example, Ep. 184 to Eustathius of Himmeria, and Ep. 185 to Theodotus of Beroea.

¹⁶¹Ep. 222. See chapter 5, n. 89, and at n. 144, and chapter 7, at n. 37.

¹⁶²Ep. 220, C 3: 4, D 3: 277/279. The Acacius mentioned here was later bishop of Beroea, which links this correspondence with that addressed to Dorotheus and Meletius, mentioned at n. 158 above. See Theodoret Hist. relig. 2 (Julian). 9. Ep. 221, also written in 375, makes the same points.

¹⁶³ See Ep. 256 (which also mentions Acacius). Ep. 132 was addressed to Abramius, bishop of Batnae, but then resident in Antioch.

¹⁶⁴Ep. 221, C 3: 5, D 3: 281.

¹⁶⁵ Dating problems are numerous. I have accepted 376, taking into account the narratives of Devreesse and Courtonne and points made more recently by Fedwick, Basil, 1:16, and Gain, Eglise, pp. 374f. This does not mean that I have unravelled the obscurities to my own satisfaction; and I have had to rest content with the ambition of describing ideas rehearsed by Basil over the course of a year or so. Note that this 'fourth' phase corresponds to Lietzmann's third—a solo journey by Dorotheus, made in 374—as described by Amand de Mendieta, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome', pp. 128f.

¹⁶⁶Ep. 120. The move may have been associated with the burst of frustrated correspondence between Basil and Eusebius himself, discussed in Ep. 198 (of the same year).

¹⁶⁷ There is further confusion over dating. Fedwick, Basil, 1: 16, suggests, contrary to the accounts of Devreesse and Courtonne, that Ep. 253, 254, and 255, to Antioch, Laodicea, and Carrhae respectively, were also written at this juncture. The alternative suggestion is that they were written after the next journey to the West, announcing its success. Given the several references to recent western experience, I am inclined to agree with that view.

¹⁶⁸ For what follows, Ep. 239. 2, C 3: 60f., D 3: 419/421.

¹⁶⁹Ep. 129. 3 (to Meletius, the year before), C 2: 41, D 2: 287.

¹⁷⁰Ep. 129. 3, C 2: 41, D 2: 289.

¹⁷¹Ep. 129. 3, C 2: 41, D 2: 289.

¹⁷²Ep. 242 and 243. The first is a draft of Ep. 92 (see nn. 125f. above). The detailed list of bishops at the beginning of Ep. 92 describes, no doubt, Sanctissimus's careful itinerary through Syria. The second reflects Basil's correspondence with Eusebius of Samosata, Ep. 239 (see n. 167 above).

¹⁷³Ep. 243. 1, C 3: 69, D 3: 437.

¹⁷⁴Ep. 243. 2, C 3: 69, D 3: 437.

¹⁷⁵Ep. 243. 2, C 3: 70, D 3: 437/439, 441.

¹⁷⁶Ep. 243. 4, C 3: 72f., D 3: 447. This preoccupation with cultic control was much more important to Basil than any sense of moral failing on the part of Arians: compare Amand de Mendieta, Ascese, p. 175; and see chapter 4, at n. 121.

¹⁷⁷Ep. 243. 3, C 3: 71, D 3: 443/445. See above, at nn. 127f.

¹⁷⁸Ep. 243. 4, C 3: 71, D 3: 445.

¹⁷⁹Ep. 258. 2, C 3: 101f., D 4: 41.

¹⁸⁰Ep. 258. 3, C 3: 102f., D 4: 43/45. Basil was gaining much greater confidence in the face of the ambiguities involved. Ep. 257 was the herald, perhaps, of a new sense of release.

¹⁸¹ According to Fedwick, Charisma, p. 110 and n. 33, this was Ea gratia. According to an older account, reflected in Amand de Mendieta, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome', p. 130, it was Illud sane miramur. Schwartz, 'Sammlung', considered these, along with Non nobis, to be fragments of separable letters, although they are presented as Damasus Ep. 2 in PL 13: 350-354. By this time, Damasus had had second thoughts about Vitalis and had committed himself much more to Paulinus (witness his Per filium): see n. 84 above. Taylor, 'Basil and Damasus', pp. 262f., may have a point in suggesting the influence of Jerome at this point; but other forces were sufficient to explain the hardening of western attitudes.

¹⁸²Ep. 263. 2, C 3: 122, D 4: 91. If Basil died later in 377 (a possibility to be discussed in the next chapter and in appendix 3), this and associated letters can still easily be dated to the early months of that year.

¹⁸³Ep. 263. 2, C 3: 122, D 4: 93.

¹⁸⁴Ep. 263. 3, C 3: 124, D 4: 97.

¹⁸⁵Ep. 263. 5, C 3: 125, D 4: 99.

¹⁸⁶ A universal council seems implied by Basil's phraseology …, Ep. 263. 5, C 3: 125. On a smaller scale, he had used the same technique against Neocaesarea in Ep. 204. 7: see above, at n. 35.

¹⁸⁷Ep. 263. 2, C 3: 122, D 4: 93. Fedwick, Charisma, p. 65 n. 134, is anxious to stress that Basil did not wish to see Paulinus explicitly condemned, and that this was the first time the possibility of his heresy was raised. See also Gain, Eglise, pp. 371f.; Taylor, 'Basil and Damasus', pp. 192, 268. Amand de Mendieta, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome', p. 124, highlights the importance of Basil's perceived lack of authority.

¹⁸⁸ Probably Non nobis quidquam and Illud sane miramur: Fedwick, Charisma, p. 112 n. 43. See nn. 84 and 181 above.

¹⁸⁹ He had become, in Amand de Mendieta's words, 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome', p. 127, 'le conseiller attrite pour les affaires d'Orient'. According to his account, all this would have predated the first journey made by Dorotheus and Sanctissimus.

¹⁹⁰Ep. 266. 2, C 3: 135f., D 4: 127. On dating, see n. 182 above.

¹⁹¹Ep. 265. 3. See n. 104 above.

¹⁹²Ep. 251. 4, C 3: 93, D 4: 17. See also Ep. 265. 3.

¹⁹³ Very much the point of Ep. 265, esp. 3. We have already touched upon this and Ep. 251 in chapter 7, at n. 37, and in chapter 4, at n. 98.

¹⁹⁴ The dating of these events will be discussed at the beginning of the next chapter and in appendix 3, in the light of Snee, 'Recall of the Exiles'.

¹⁹⁵ See Ep. 264 to Barses of Edessa. Ep. 267 suggests that this letter may not have reached its destination.

¹⁹⁶Ep. 266. 1, C 3: 134, D 4: 123.

¹⁹⁷Ep. 266. 1, C 3: 133, D 4: 121. The sentiment was in some ways analogous to the calculated humility of his letter to Tyana: see n. 19 above. Yet scarcely months before he had considered himself 'a byword all over the earth, and, I shall add, even over the sea', Ep. 212. 2, C 2: 199, D 3: 221. The resignation of tone in the letter quoted here seems the jaundiced successor of what might earlier have been taken as spirited confidence: 'The topsy-turvy condition of the times has taught us to be vexed at nothing', Ep. 71. 1, C 1: 167, D 2: 55.

¹⁹⁸ Devreesse, Patriarcat, p. 34; but Pierre Maraval, 'La Date de la mort de Basile de Cesaree', p. 34, may reserve that distinction for Ep. 267. Fedwick, Basil, 1: 18, places Ep. 268, 269, and 196 in the year 378; but that must now be questioned in the light of the recent controversy over the date of Basil's death, to be discussed in the next chapter and in appendix 3.

Abbreviations

Adul. Basil Ad adulescentes.

B Regulae brevius tractatae = Short Rules.

C Yves Courtonne, editor of Basil's Letters.

CE Basil Contra Eunomium.

D Roy J. Deferrari, translator of Basil's Letters.

DSS Basil De spiritu sancto.

Ep. Epistula(e).

F Regulae fusius tractatae = Long Rules.

GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte.

GNaz Gregory of Nazianzus.

GNyss Gregory of Nyssa.

HE Historia ecclesiastica.

Hex. Basil Hexaemeron.

Hom. Basil Homilia(e). (The numbering of Basil's homilies is explained in the supplement to the Bibliography.)

Jones, LRE A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602. First published 1964. Reprinted in two paperback volumes. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

Laud. Gregory of Nyssa In laudem fratris Basilii.

N Basilio di Cesarea, Discorso ai Giovani (Oratio ad adolescentes), ed. Mario Naldini.

Orat. Oratio(nes).

PG Patrologia Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne.

PL Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne.

PLRE The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, edited by A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, and J. Morris. Vol. 1, A.D. 260-395. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.

R Rufinus's Latin translation of Basil's 'Rules'.

VMac. Gregory of Nyssa Vita s. Macrinae.

Bibliography

Sources

… Ammianus Marcellinus. The most convenient edition is the revised three-volume edition in the Loeb Classical Library, with an English translation by John C. Rolfe (London and Cambridge, Mass.: Heinemann and Harvard University Press, 1950, 1952).

Basil of Caesarea. Ad adulescentes. PG 31. 563-590. Basilio di Cesarea, Discorso ai Giovani (Oratio ad adolescentes), con la versione latina di Leonardo Bruni, ed. Mario Naldini (Florence: Nardini editore, 1984). See also Saint Basil on the Value of Greek Literature, ed. N. G. Wilson (London: Duckworth, 1975); and Saint Basile, Aux jeunes gens sur la maniere de tirer profit des lettres helleniques, ed. and tr. Fernand Boulenger, Collection Guillaume Bude (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1952). English translation in Saint Basil, The Letters, 4: 379-435.…

——. Epistulae. PG 32. 219-1112. Saint Basile, Lettres, 3 vols., ed. and tr. Yves Courtonne, Collection Guillaume Bude (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1957, 1961, 1966). English translation: Saint Basil, The Letters, 4 vols., tr. Roy J. Deferrari, Loeb Classical Library (reprint, London and Cambridge, Mass.: Heinemann and Harvard University Press, 1950-53). See also Saint Basil, Letters, 2 vols., tr. Sister Agnes Clare Way, Fathers of the Church 13, 28 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1951, 1955; reprint, 1965, 1969).…

——. Homilia(e). PG 29. 209-494; 31. 163-618, 1429-1514. English translations of homilies on the Psalms by Agnes Clare Way in Saint Basil, Exegetic Homilies, Fathers of the Church 46 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1963).…

Epiphanius. Panarion ['The Refutation of All Heresies']. Epiphanius (Ancoratus und Panarion), ed. Karl Holl, vol. 3, GCS 37 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1933).

Eunapius. Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists. Philostratus and Eunapius, The Lives of the Sophists, tr. Wilmer Cave Wright, Loeb Classical Library, rev. ed. (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952).

Faustus of Byzantium. French translation by Jean Baptiste Emine in Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de 1 'Armenie, ed. Victor Langlois, 1: 209f. (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1880).…

Gregory of Nazianzus. Contra Julianum. Gregoire de Nazianze, Discours 4-5, Contre Julien, ed. and tr., with intro. and notes, Jean Bernardi, Sources chretiennes 3Q9 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1983).…

——. Epistulae. Saint Gregoire de Nazianze, Lettres, 2 vols., ed. and tr. Paul Gallay, Collection Guillaume Bude (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1964, 1967). See also Gregor von Nazianz, Briefe, ed. Paul Gallay, GCS 53 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1969).…

——. Oratio 43 (on Basil). PG 36. 493-605. English translation by Leo P. McCauley in Funeral Orations, pp. 27-99.…

Moses of Chorene (Moses Khorenats'i). History of the Armenians, tr., with notes, Robert S. Thompson (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978).…

Themistius. Themistii orationes quae supersunt, 3 vols., ed. Heinrich Schenkl, completed by Glanville Downey (Leipzig: Teubner, 1965-74).

Theodoret of Cyrrhus.…

Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Historia religiosa. Theodoret de Cyr, Histoire des moines de Syrie: 'Histoire Philothe' I-XAII, 2 vols., ed. and tr., with intro. and notes, Pierre Canivet and Alice Leroy-Molinghen, Sources chretiennes 234, 257 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1977, 1979). English translation: A History of the Monks of Syria by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, tr., with intro. and notes, R. M. Price, Cistercian Studies 88 (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1985).…

Secondary Works

Amand de Mendieta, Emmanuel (David Amand). L 'Ascese monastique de saint Basile: Essai historique. N.p.: Editions de Maredsous, 1949.…

——. 'Basile de Cesaree et Damase de Rome: Les causes de l'echec de leurs negociations'. In Biblical and Patristic Studies, edited by Birdsall and Thomson, pp. 122-66.

Barnes, T. D. 'Constantine and the Christians of Persia'. Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1985): 126-36.…

Baur, J. C. John Chrysostom and His Time. Translated by M. Gonzaga. 2d ed. Vaduz: Buchervertriebanstalt, 1988.…

Baynes, Norman H. Byzantine Studies and Other Essays. London: University of London Athlone Press, 1955.

——. 'Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century'. English Historical Review 25 (1910): 625-43. Reprinted in his Byzantine Studies and Other Essays, pp. 186-208.…

Birdsall, J. Neville, and Robert W. Thomson, eds. Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey. Freiburg: Herder, 1963.

Blockley, Roger C. Ammianus Marcellinus: A Study of His Historiography and Political Thought. Collection Latomus 141. Brussels, 1975.

——. The Division of Armenia between the Romans and the Persians at the End of the Fourth Century A.D.'. Historia 36 (1987): 222-34.…

Bowersock, Glen W. Julian the Apostate. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Bowie, Ewen Lyall. 'Apollonius of Tyana: Tradition and Reality'. In Aufstieg undNiedergang der romischen Welt II. 16. 2, edited by Wolfgang Haase, pp. 1652-99. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1978.

Brennecke, Hanns Christof. Studien zur Geschichte der Homoer: Der Osten bis zum Ende der homoischen Reichskirche. Beitrage zur historischen Theologie 73. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1988.…

Browning, Robert. The Emperor Julian. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975.

——. 'The Riot of A.D. 387 in Antioch: The Role of the Theatrical Claques in the Later Empire'. Journal of Roman Studies 42 (1952): 13-20.

Cavallera, F. Le Schisme d'Antioche (IV' V siecles). Paris: Picard, 1905.…

Chadwick, Henry. History and Thought of the Early Church. Collected Studies 164. London: Variorum, 1982.

——. 'Pope Damasus and the Peculiar Claim of Rome to St. Peter and St. Paul'. In Neotestamentica et patristica, edited by Van Unnik, pp. 313-18. Reprinted in his History and Thought.…

Coleman-Norton, P. R., ed. Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951. …

Courtonne, Yves. Un Temoin du IV^e siéle oriental: Saint Basile et son temps d'apres sa correspondance. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1973.…

Croke, Brian, and Alanna Emmett, eds. History and Historians in Late Antiquity. Sydney: Pergamon Press, 1983.…

Devreesse, Robert. Le Patriarcat d'Antioche, depuis le paix de l'Eglise jusqu'a la conquete arabe. Paris: Gabalda, 1945.

De Vries, Wilhelm. 'Die Ostkirche und die Cathedra Petri'. Orientalia Christianaperiodica 40 (1974): 114-44.…

Downey, Glanville. 'The Economic Crisis at Antioch under Julian the Apostate'. In Studies in Roman Economic and Social History, edited by Coleman-Norton, pp. 312-21.…

——. A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.…

Fedwick, Paul Jonathan, ed. Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, A Sixteenhundredth Anniversary Symposium. 2 vols. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1981.

——. The Church and the Charisma of Leadership in Basil of Caesarea. Studies and Texts 45. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1979.

Festugiere, A. M. J. Antioche paienne et chretienne: Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie. Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d'Athenes et de Rome 194. Paris: Boccard, 1959.

Gain, Benoit. L'Eglise de Cappadoce au IV^e siecle d'apres la correspondance de Basile de Cesaree. Orientalia Christiana analecta 225. Rome: Pontificium institutum Orientale, 1985.…

Garsoian, Nina G. Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians. Collected Studies 218. London: Variorum, 1985.…

——. 'Nerses le Grand, Basile de Cesaree et Eustathe de Sebaste. Revue des etudes armeniennes, n.s. 17 (1983): 145-69. Reprinted in her Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians.

——. 'Politique ou orthodoxie? L'Armenie au quatrieme siecle'. Revue des etudes armeniennes, n.s. 4 (1967): 297-320. Reprinted in her Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians.

——. 'Quidam Narseus? A Note on the Mission of St. Nerses the Great'. In Armeniaca: Melanges d'etudes armeniennes, pp. 148-64. Ile de Saint Lazare Venise, 1969. Reprinted in her Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians.

——. 'Sur le titre deprotecteur despauvres'. Revue des etudes armeniennes, n.s. 15 (1981): 21-32. Reprinted in her Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians.…

Gleason, Maude W. 'Festive Satire: Julian's Misopogon and the New Year at Antioch'. Journal of Roman Studies 76 (1986): 106-19.…

Gregory, Timothy E. 'Urban Violence in Late Antiquity'. In Aspects of Graeco-Roman Urbanism, edited by Marchese, pp. 138-61.…

Grumel, V., ed. La Chronologie. Traite d'etudes byzantines, vol. 1, edited by Paul Lemerle. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1958.…

Haykin, Michael A. G. 'And Who Is the Spirit? Basil of Caesarea's Letters to the Church at Tarsus'. Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987): 377-85.…

Hewsen, R. H. 'The Successors of Tiridates the Great: A Contribution to the History of Armenia in the Fourth Century'. Revue des etudes armeniennes, n.s. 13 (1978-79): 99-126.…

Joannou, Perikles-Petros. Die Ostkirche und die Cathedra Petri im 4. Jahrhundert. Pipste und Papsttum 3. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1972.

Jones, A. H. M. The Cities of the East Roman Provinces. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.…

Kelly, J. N. D. Jerome, His Life, Writings, and Controversies. London: Duckworth, 1975.

Langlois, Victor, ed. Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l'Armenie. 2 vols. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1880.…

Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.…

Maraval, Pierre. 'La Date de la mort de Basile de Cesaree'. Revue des etudes augustiniennes 34 (1988): 25-38.…

Marchese, Ronald T., ed. Aspects of Graeco-Roman Urbanism: Essays on the Classical City. British Archaeological Reports, international ser., 188. Oxford, 1983.…

Matthews, John. 'Ammianus' Historical Evolution'. In History and Historians in Late Antiquity, edited by Croke and Emmett, pp. 30-41. Reprinted in his Political Life and Culture.…

——. Political Life and Culture in Late Roman Society. Collected Studies 217. London: Variorum, 1985.

——. The Roman Empire of Ammianus. London: Duckworth, 1989.

——. Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364-425. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.…

Petit, Paul. Libanius et la vie municipale a Antioche au IV siecle apres J.-C. Paris: Geuthner, 1955.

Pietri, Charles. Roma Christiana: Recherches sur I'Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son ideologie de Mithrade a Sixte IXI (311-440). Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d'Athenes et de Rome 224. Rome: Palais Farnese, 1976.…

Schwartz, E. 'Ober die Sammlung des Cod. Veronensis LX'. Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 35 (1936): 1-23.

——. 'Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts'. Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 34 (1935): 129-213.…

Snee, Rochelle. 'Valens' Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda'. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 26 (1985): 395-419.…

Taylor, Justin. 'St. Basil the Great and Pope St. Damasus 1'. Downside Review 91 (1973): 186-203, 262-74.…

Treucker, Barnim. Politische und sozialgeschichtliche Studien zu den Basilius-Briefen. Bonn: Habelt, 1961.…

Van Unnik, W. C., ed. Neotestamentica et patristica: Eine Freundesgabe Herrn Prof Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag uberreicht. Leiden: Brill, 1962.…

Vischer, Lukas. Basilius der GroJ3e: Untersuchungen zu einem Kirchenvater des 4. Jahrhunderts. Basel: Reinhardt, 1953.…

Wallace-Hadrill, D. S. Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.…