1. Smulders, P., “Remarks on the Manuscript Tradition of the De Trinitate of Saint Hilary of Poitiers,” in Studia Patristica III (=Texte und Untersuchungen 78) (Berlin, 1961), pp. 129–137;Google Scholaridem, “Two Passages of Hilary's Apologetica Responsa Rediscovered,” Bijdragen 39 (1978): 234–243.Google Scholar

2. The manuscript evidence for his letters to the emperor (see Rocher, A., Hilaire de Poitiers: Contre Constance [Paris, 1987], pp. 142–144) establishes that the preferred title of the work is In Constantium, as Jerome referred to it (De vms illustribus 100), over the traditionally accepted Contra Constantium.Google ScholarOn Hilary's preeminence, see Kannengiesser, C., “L'Heritage d'Hilaire de Poitiers,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 56 (1968): 435–450 for a survey of fourth to eighth century cognizance of Hilary's writings.Google Scholar

3. Sulpicius, Severus, Chronicum 2.45.7: “Illud apud omnes constitit unius Hilarii beneficio Gallias nostras piaculo haeresis liberatas,” Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiastkorum Latinorum (Vindobonae, 1866-), 1. 99.5–7 (hereafter CSEL).Google Scholar

4. Altercatio Heracliani laici cum Germinio in Caspari, C. P., ed. Kirchenhistorische Anecdota 1 (1883): 134.Google Scholar

5. The major studies are Doignon, J., Hilaire de Poitiers avant L'Exil (Paris, 1971);Google ScholarBorchardt, C. F., Hilary of Poitiers' Role in the Arian Struggle (The Hague, 1966);CrossRefGoogle ScholarBrennecke, H. C., Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofsopposition gegen Konstantius II (Berlin, 1984). The latter two works do discuss some of the issues concerning Hilary's departure from exile and his consequent literary labors, but very little. Borchardt, for example, devotes a total of six pages to Hilary's post-exilic period.CrossRefGoogle ScholarThe recent publication of a new critical edition of the In Constantium by Andre, Rocher, Hilaire de Poitiers: Contre Constance (Paris, 1987)Google Scholar, is a much needed and welcome study of a seminal work of Hilary w ritten after the latter returned to Gaul. It is unfortunate that Rocher's historical analysis tends to reflect a dependence on traditional views about Hilary's career at several critical points. See Barnes's, T. D. review in Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 609–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Rufinus, , Historia ecclesiastica 1.21 (Migne, J. P., ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina [Paris, 1844-] [hereafter PL], 21. 494A–B);Google ScholarSocrates, , Historia ecclesiastica 2.37 (Migne, J. P., ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca [Paris, 1864—]Google Scholar [hereafter PG], 67.320A–324A); Sozomen, , Historia ecclesiastica 4: 17–19Google Scholar(Bidez, J., ed., Die Gnechischen Christlichen Schnftsteller der Ersten Jahrhunderte [Berlin, 1960] [hereafter GCS], 50.162–169). It was not until the late 350s that the Nicene creed began to play a predominant role in western confessional theology. We should not, therefore, overstate the significance of the bishop's abandoning the Nicene creed at Ariminum. The overwhelming majority of these prelates were willing to surrender the Nicaenum for an alternative formula which they believed insured orthodoxy and ecclesiastical peace. It must be remembered that Athanasius had accepted homoios as a perfectly sound means of articulating the relationship of the Son to the Father (see Expositio fidei 1 [PC 25.201A];Google ScholarOratationes contra Arianos 1.2.40; 2.15.17; 2.16.22; 2.18.34; 3.25.20 [PC 26.96A; 181C; 192C; 220B; 364C-365A]). And as late as 358, Hilary counseled his Latin colleagues in De synodis 73 that similem could be read with the same meaning as homoousios.Google Scholar

7. Sulpicius, , Chromcum 2.42.2–3 (CSEL 1.95).Google Scholar

8. In Constantium 14.3 (Rocher, p. 196).Google Scholar

9. “I tell you that he [the Son] is unlike God, but he can be understood as one like the Father, because the Father wished to fashion a creature of a kind that was like Himself; and so is like the Father in that the Son is like the Father in will rather than in divinity. Therefore, he is unlike God because he is neither God nor originated from God, that is, from the substance of God.” ibid, 14.14–19 (Rocher, pp. 196, 198). In his notes, Rocher has incorrectly identified this segment as Eunomian doctrine (p. 243).

10. Despite Hilary's conclusion it should be recognized that later Homoians, such as Palladius of Ratiaria, vehemently rejected the charge that they were teaching “dissimilis.” See Palladius's, response to Ambrose's De fide, fragment 336r, 7 in Gryson, Scolies ariennes sur le concile d'Aquilee (Paris, 1980), p. 264.Google Scholar

11. CSEL 65.197–205.Google ScholarCompare with Ad Constantium Augustum, Liber Secundus (PL 10.563–564). Since it has now been shown that the so-called “Liber I” is really part of the western synodical letter from Sardica, the title “Liber II” cannot be accurate. The letter is best identified simply as Ad Constantium following Jerome's description in De viris illust. 100: “Est eius et ad Constantium libellus quem viventi Constantinopoli porrexerat” (There is a book of his [Hilary's], To Constantius, which he presented while living in Constantinople) (PL 23.699).Google Scholar

12. Ad Const. 2.4 (CSEL 65.199.10–14).Google Scholar

13. Jerome, , Chronicum Anno domini 363 (sic) (PL 27. 691–692);Google ScholarSeeck, O., Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr. (Stuttgart, 1919), p. 207.Google Scholar

14. Duval, Y.-M. treats this question and weighs the various evidence in one of the only other studies on the return of Hilary to the west. See “Vrais et faux problemès concernant le retour d'exil d'Hilaire de Poitiers et son action en Italie en 360–363,” Athenaeum 48 (1970): 253–266.Google Scholar

15. “Cum sancto Hilario comperisset regis paenitentia potestatem indultam fuisse redeundi” (When the holy Hilary learned that, through the repentence of the king, permission had been granted for his return), Sulpicius, Chronicum 6.7 (CSEL 1. 117). There is no evidence that Constantius ever "repented" of his actions toward religious dissenters in addition to the sheer unlikelihood of such an event.Google Scholar

16. Sulpicius, , Chronicum 45.4 (tr. in Schaff, P. and Wace, H., eds., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series [Grand Rapids, 1986], 11: 118).Google ScholarFor its acceptance, see among other things Galtier, P., Saint Hilaire de Poitiers: Le Premier Docteur de L'Eglise (Paris, 1960), p. 71;Google ScholarBorchardt, , Hilary of Poitiers' Role, p. 173;Google ScholarGriffe, E., La Gaule chretienne à l'epoque romaine, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1964), p. 260; and most recently Rocher in his introduction to Contre Constance, p. 26.Google Scholar

17. Duval, , “Vrais et Faux,” p. 261.Google ScholarMeslin, M., “Hilaire et la crise arienne,” in Hilaire et Son Temps (Paris, 1969), p. 37.Google Scholar

18. Ammianus, Marcellinus, Res, Gesta, Seyforth, W., ed., Ammiani Marcellini Rerum Gestarum Libn Qui Supersunt (Leipzig, 1978) 10.4.4 and following (hereafter “Ammianus);Google ScholarSocrates, , HE 3.1 (PG 67.373B), or at least Julian wished to claim that the initiative began with the army. Julian, the younger nephew of Constantius, was elevated to the imperial rank of Caesar in November 355, whereafter he commanded a series of successful military campaigns against the Franks and Alamanni in the Gauls.Google Scholar

19. Ammianus, 10.8.20–21; 10.9.5 and 8 (in March); 10.10.1.Google ScholarFurther evidence of Julian's sovereignty can be seen from the coins minted at Aries and Lyons in honor of his quinquennalia (6 November 360) which depict the portraits of the two augusti (Bowersock, G., Julian the Apostate [Cambridge, Mass., 1978]), p. 53.Google Scholar

20. Ad Const. 2.2.1: “nee levem habeo querellae meae testem dominum meum religiosum Caesarem tuum Iulianum, qui plus in exilio meo contumeliae a malis, quam ego iniuriae, pertulit" (Nor do I have for my complaint, an unimportant witness [in] my religious lord, your Caesar Julian, who endured more than I in my exile the injurious abuse from evil men), CSEL 65.198. As Meslin points out, Hilary would have scarcely been able to say anything false in such a context (“Hilary et la crise arienne,” p. 24). Since Hilary refers to Julian in the Ad Constantium as “Caesar,” it is doubtful that Hilary wrote the letter after receiving word of Julian's usurpation.Google Scholar

21. Julian celebrated the Epiphany, 6 January 361, in the church of Vienne (“Ammianus,” 21.2.5).

22. Sulpicius, , Chronicum 2.45.5: “frequentibus intra Gallias conciliis” (in frequent councils within the Gauls), CSEL 1.98.29.Google Scholar

23. Socrates, , HE 3.1 (PG 67.376C–377A).Google Scholar

24. Socrates, (HE 3.1 [PG 67. 376C8377A]) and Philostorgius (HE 6.7 [GCS 21. 75]) place the edict of tolerance after Constantius's death (3 November 361).Google ScholarBut a passage from the Historia ‘Acephala’ Athanasii 3.2–3 (Martin, A., Histoire ‘Acephala’ el Index Syriaque des Leltres Eestales d'Athanase d'Alexandrie [Paris, 1985], p. 150) may imply that this edict, which allowed for the return of all bishops who were exiled for reasons of religion and was not published in Alexandria until February 363, stems from an earlier pronouncement that had already been in effect in the west (I am grateful to Professor T. D. Barnes of the University of Toronto for suggesting this interpretation to me).Google Scholar

25. Rocher, , introduction, p. 76.Google Scholar

26. In Const. 10.13–14 (Rocher, p. 186) and 5.1–3 (Rocher, p. 176).Google Scholar

27. See ibid., chs. 1–4, 7, 10 (Rocher, pp. 166–174, 180, 186–187).

28. Rocher offers a complicated schema for successive stages of redaction (pp. 29838), but that it was not published in whole until after Constantius's death (per Jerome). He contends that Julian's position politically was not strong enough for Hilary to have written such things with immunity. In effect, the In Constantium is a result of Julian's edict (Febrary 362) (Rocher, p. 55), and was probably written as an “en hommage de reconnaissance” to Julian as benefactor and liberator of Gaul (p. 52).Google ScholarIf the document was not published until the winter of 361/2, the complete absence of any reference to the many councils which had already met in Gaul and the new situation under Julian is very hard to explain. See Williams, D. H., “A Reassessment of the Early Career and Exile of Hilary of Poitiers,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 42 (1991): 208, n. 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. “But now listen, rapacious wolf, to the fruit of your works”; “You forbid anything to be said what is not in Scripture”; “listen to the public sentiment which condemns heresy and understand that you are an enemy of divine religion.”

30. This does not necessarily mean that Hilary agreed to or actually supported Julian in his usurpation as Brennecke concludes, Hitarius von Poitiers, p. 362.

31. Sulpicius, , Chronicum 2.45.5 (CSEL 1.98.29–31).Google Scholar

32. In Feder, A., ed. Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (hereafter CAP) A 1 (CSEL 65.43–46) “Incipit Fides Catholica Exposita apud Pariseam Civitatem.” This synod was not the first to meet since Saturninus, Hilary's archnemesis, had already been excommunicated by previous assemblies as mentioned in Parisian letter A 1.4 (4): “a quo iam Saturinum, qui statutis salubribus impiissime contradixit, secundum fratrum nostrorum geminas iam litteras excommunicatum ab omnibus Gallicanis episcopis caritas vestra cognoscat” (For this reason our affection learned that Saturninus, who most impiously opposed sound decrees, according to both letters of our brothers, has already been excommunicated by all Gallic bishops), CSEL 65.46.Google Scholar The synod cannot be dated with certainty and scholarly estimations range from the spring of 360 to the middle of 361. Much of the question hinges on whether Julian was present in the city at the meeting of the synod, but an exact date is not necessary for our discussion here and we need not enter into the intricacies of the problem here. See Duval, , “Vrais et Faux,” pp. 264–265 for discussion.Google Scholar

33. CAP A 1.2 (CSEL 65.43). “From your letters which you entrusted to Hilary our beloved brother and fellow-priest, we learned of the diabolic deceit and ingenious conspiracy of the heretics against the Lord's church in that we were deceived, being divided in the eastern and western regions, by opinions differing from one another.”Google Scholar

34. ibid, A 1.4 (CSEL 65.45.15–16). It mentions Auxentius (of Milan), Ursacius, Valens, Gaius, Megasius and Justinus by name.

35. ibid, A 1.4 (CSEL 65.20–25).

36. Sulpicius, , Chronicum 2.45.7 (CSEL 1.99.5–7).Google Scholar

37. HE 1.30 (PL 21.501A). Compare with Sulpicius, Chronicum 2.45.5 (CSEL 1.98);Google ScholarSocrates, , HE 3.10 (PG67.405B).Google Scholar

38. See Duval, “Vrais et Faux,” p. 267;Google ScholarBorchardt, , Hilary of Poitiers' Role, p. 179;Google ScholarGaltier, , Saint Hilaire de Poitiers, p. 163.Google Scholar

39. Flavius Taurus was PPO Italiae et Africae from 355 to 361 when he was forced out by Julian's advance. For his continued faithfulness to Constantius he shared the consulate with Florentius in 361.Google ScholarJones, A. H. M., Martindale, J. R., and Morris, J., The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1971), 1.879–880.Google Scholar

40. Ammianus, 21.5.12; 8.1 (Germanianus).

41. Szidat, J., “Zur Ankunft Iulianus in Sirmium 361 N. Chr. auf seinem Zug gegen Constantius II,” Historia 24 (1975): 375–378, contrary to the more conventional interpretation of Ammianus which has Julian leaving for Sirmium not until July (so Bowersock, Julian the Apostate, p. 58,Google Scholarand Bidez, J., La Vie de l'Empereur Julien [Paris, 1965], pp 192–193).Google Scholar

42. Ammianus, 21.9.4; 11.1–3; 12.1–20; 12.24.Google Scholar

43. This was observed nearly ninety years ago, when Turner, C. H. remarked “that Eusebius must have been a more important personage than we are accustomed to think.” “On Eusebius of Vercelli” Journal of Theological Studies 1 (1900): 126.Google Scholar

44. See Eusebius's letter written to his congregation from Scythopolis, Bulhart, V., ed., Eusebii Vercellensis Episcopi Quae Supersunt in Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (Turnholt, 1957), 9: 104–109.Google Scholar

45. As summarized by Athanasius in his letter to Rufinianus, PC 26.1180B-C.

46. Rufinus, , HE 1.29 (PL 21.499C).Google Scholar

47. HE 1.31 (PL 21.50IB). “Thus, those two men, like bright lights of the world, spread their radiance in Illyricum, Italy and the Gauls with the result that everything hidden in corners and places of concealment of the heretics' darkness was put to flight.”Google Scholar

48. Contra Auxentium 15 (PL 10.619C; 13 (PL 10.617B).Google Scholar

49. Allercatio Heracliani laici cum Germinio (Caspari, p. 134).Google Scholar

50. Socrates, , HE 3. 25 (PG 67.452B–453A; 456A).Google Scholar

51. By the time of Ambrose, episcopal jurisdiction was effective over the whole of the political diocese of Italia Annonaria which included Aemilia, Liguria, Venetia, the two Rhaetias, the Cottian Alps, Flaminia and Picenum, and part of Tuscia. Dudden, F. Homes, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1935), 1: 64.Google Scholar

52. Socrates, , HE 2.37 (PG 67.304B).Google ScholarFor a full dossier on the background and career of Auxentius, see “Aussenzio (Sec. IV)”, by Alzati, C. in Dizionario della Chiesa ambrosiana, 1: 302–304;Google Scholar“Auxence, eveque arien de Milan,” by Zieller, J., Dictionnaire d'histoire el de géographie ecclésiastique, 15 vols., Baudrillart, A., ed. (Paris, 1931—), 5: 935;Google ScholarMeslin, M., Les Ariens d'Occident 335–430 (Paris, 1967), pp. 41–44; 291–293.Google Scholar

53. Athanasius, , De synodis 9 (PG 26.696B);Google ScholarSocrates, HE 2.37 (PG 67.308B).Google Scholar

54. See n. 34.Google Scholar

55. Compare De vita el obitu beati Filastrii by Gaudentius (CSEL 68.186) and Sulpicius's Vita Martini 6.4 (CSEL 1.116).Google Scholar

56. PL 10.609–618. There is no other notice in any other ancient source known to this writer. Of course the silence may be due to the fact that the failure to remove Auxentius was negative blot on the “orthodox” memory which was best forgotten. Not surprisingly Hilary's biographer, Venantius Fortunatus, makes no mention of it. The Contra Auxentium, therefore, is an exceedingly valuable document among our patristic sources of this period. Ironically, the Contra Auxentium is still in need of a critical edition.Google Scholar

57. Jerome, , De viris Must. 100. Coustant lists three different titles found in the manuscripts: Epistula ad Calholicos de Auxentium (sic), Liber contra Auxentium Arianum Episcopum Mediolanensem, and more commonly, Contra Arianos vel Auxentium Mediolanensem liber (PL 10.609–610).Google Scholar

58. CA 1 (PL 10.609C). “Nos, Fratres dilectissimi, et amissam quarere, et turbatam componere, et repertam tenere curavimus.”Google Scholar

59. CA 7 (PL 10.613C).Google Scholar

60. Although Valentinian did not reach Milan until the third week in October. Seeck, Regesten, p. 218.Google ScholarThe identity of the Quaestor and the Magister is never specified by Hilary but almost certainly refers to Valentinian's first appointments, Ursacius of Dalmatia as magister officinorum and Viventius of Siscia as quaestor sacn palatii (Ammianus, 26.4.4).Google ScholarRegarding the ten unidentified bishops, Simonetti, M. assumes the bishops were already supportive of Hilary's petition to the emperor (La crisi ariana net IVsecolo [Roma, 1975], p. 381), but this is based upon Hilary's tendentious remark that the ten bishops “considentibus una nobiscum” (CA 7, PL 10.614A).Google Scholar

61. Hilary, , “Exemplum Blasphemiae Auxentii” (PL 10.617–618).Google Scholar

62. CA 8 (PL 10.614C).Google Scholar

63. CA 14 (PL 10.617C).Google Scholar

64. See CA 5 (PL 10.612A);Google ScholarCA 6 (PL 613A–B);Google ScholarCA 9 (PL 615A).Google Scholar

65. For instance Meslin, Les Aliens, p. 43;Google ScholarDuval, , “Vrais et Faux,” p. 268 and following;Google ScholarSimonetti, , La crisi anana, p. 381;Google Scholaridem, Patrology 4.46;Google ScholarHanson, R., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 (Edinburgh, 1988), p. 507.Google Scholar

66. “Sed si aliqui ex plebe, qui numquam communicaverant, nec his qui ante me fuerant episcopis, nunc amplius excitati ab Hilario et Eusebio, perturbantes quosdam, haereticum me vocaverunt” (But if anyone of the people who were never in communion, nor with those bishops who were before me, called me a heretic, they are now even more agitated by Hilary and Eusebius who are disturbing some to say such things), PL 10.617B.Google Scholar

67. Meslin, , “Hilaire et la crise arienne,” p. 40.Google Scholar

68. CA 15 (PL 10.618B).Google Scholar