Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T22:10:57.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rufinus and the Logic of Retribution in Post-Eusebian Church Histories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

G. W. Trompf
Department of Religious Studies, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia


It is no secret that the great orthodox ecclesiastical historians of the fourth and fifth centuries were purveyors of the new Christian imperial ideology. They as much as any group of writers laid the foundations of Byzantinism, by demonstrating from the course of events how it paid for emperors to be pious according to the prescriptions of the Catholic tradition, or how much better it was for the security, prosperity and destiny of the Roman Empire when the state and the (true) Church were consonant and false religion abandoned. So successful was the campaign in which they were engaged that by the sixth century, even though virtually all the Western provinces had fallen into barbarian hands, a clash between Church and State had become unthinkable, and no other ‘single hope for the permanency of the Empire’ had become possible but ‘the favour of God Himself, as Justinian, the energetic champion of reunification, proclaimed to all his successors.1 Such sentiments were in large measure the results of the works of those who had created attractive historical images of good Christian rulers.2 It was above all Eusebius Pamphilus, Tyrannius Rufinus, Socrates ‘Scholasticus’, Salmaninius Sozomen, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Gelasius of Cyzicus who bequeathed to future generations an unblemished, idealised picture of Pax Constantiniana, a paradigm also reinforced by other Christian historians such as Lactantius and Athanasius.3 It was Rufinus who set the

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1 [Justinian 1] Corpus Juris Civilis, ed. Schoell, R. and Kroll, W., Berlin 1928, iii. 517; Gerostergios, A., ‘The Religious Policy of Justinian I and his Religious Beliefs; unpubl. PhD diss., Boston University School of Theology, Ann Arbor 1974, 210 (University Microfilm).Google Scholar

2 Among other authors, Theodorus Lector, taking his own account to the beginning of Justinian's reign (527), sought to appeal to these earlier images in his predecessor's works to reinforce the imperial ideals of the sixth century; Opitz, H. G., in Pauly, A. and Wissowa, G. (eds) Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Allertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart 18941957, cols. 1869–81.Google Scholar

3 To this list one might safely add Gelasius of Caesarea (d. 395), and Philip Sidetes (early fifth century) although only fragments of their ecclesiastical histories remain. Other Christian historians, such as Sabinus, Orosius and Gennadius of Marseilles, should not be forgotten in this connection.Google Scholar

4 Rufinus, HE xi (= ii). 1734; Socrates, HE vii. 22, 34, 47–8, and also v. 18, 25; Sozomen, HE prolog., ix. and also vii. 12, 22–4; Theodoret, HE v. 36, and also v. 5–8, 17, 2425.Google Scholar

5 Trompf, G. W., esp. in The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought, Berkeley–London 1979, i. 85–106, 155–81, 231–41, 283–91;Google Scholar ‘The logic of retribution in Eusebius of Caesarea’, in Croke, B. and Emmett, A. M. (eds), History and Historians in Late Antiquity, Sydney-Oxford 1983, 132–46;Google Scholar ‘Augustine's historical theodicy: the logic of retribution in Augustine's De civitate Dei’, in Clarke, G. (ed.), Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, Canberra-Oxford 1990, 291ff.Google Scholar

6 Idem. Payback: the logic of retribution in Melanesian religions, Cambridge 1992, proleg.Google Scholar

7 ‘See esp. Eusebius, Historia Ecdesiaslica (hereinafter cited as HE) ix. 12.8-14 and Vita Constantini ii. 25.28; Julian, e.g. Epist. ad Sacerd. 293A. On Theodosius, seeGoogle ScholarKing, N. O., The Emperor Theodosius and the Establishment of Christianity, London 1961, ch. iii.Google Scholar

8 Versions of which are in Eusebius, Vita Const, iv. 9–13; Theodoret, HE i. 25.1, 56 Gelasius (Cyzenicus), HE iii. 11.1, 34. On the question of‘original’ versions, see n. 17 below. On dating, Theodoret's positioning of the letter would have it very late in Sapor's reign, but others do not see why it should not be placed earlier. See Sozomon, HE ii. 15, and of lateGoogle Scholar, Eilers, W., ‘Iran and Mesopotamia’, in Yar Shater, E. (ed.), Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge 1983, vol. iii/i. 485; T. Barnes, personal communication, 1988.Google Scholar

9 Eusebius, Vita Const, iv. 11; Theodoret, HE i. 25, lines 56Google Scholar(divisions and lines are taken from Parmentier's, L. edn of Griechischen christlichen Schriftsleller, Leipzig, 1911); Gelasius, HE iii. 11, lines 34 (divisions and lines from the G. Loeschcke and M. Heinemann edition).Google Scholar

10 Theodoret, HE i. 25, 89, cf. 3; Gelasius, HE iii. 11.7–9.Google Scholar On how Constantinian pronouncements became embedded in the Theodosian code, see King, N. Q., ‘The Theodosian Code as a source for the religious policies of the first Byzantine emperors’, Nottingham Mediaeval Studies vi (1962), 1415.Google Scholar

11 Thus Trompf, Recurrence, 266–7 (esP- on Livy, Ab Urbe iii. 36.2, 5; 37; iv. 13.1–16.8, and Cicero, De Amicitia viii. 28, etc.).Google Scholar

12 For various key references, see Plato, Rep. viii. 562a576a, Wisdom vi. 9, Eccles xi. 5, Polybius, Hist. ii. 47.3; vi. 7.5–7; viii. 32.33; xiii. 6.2, etc. 4 Mace. viii. 15; ix. 15, etc., Josephus, Bell. Jud. i. 70.1011, etc.Google Scholar

13 Theodoret, HE i. 25.1 (line 6). That this usage is official and not a device of ecclesiastical historians is confirmed by [?] Ammianus Marcellinus, e.g. Excerpta, 12, cf. Eutropius, Breviar. x. 3 (on Maxentius‘ seditio), Zosimus, Hist. Nova. vi. 1, yet see iv. 35.3, 37.13, 54.1, v. 40 for an implicit rebuttal of this ideology. For usages in connection with Theodosius I'S triumphs over Western usurpers, such as Eugenius, see n. 67 below. Note also Augustine, De civit. Dei v. 25–6.Google Scholar

14 Eusebius, esp. HE ix. 8.15–9.1; x. 69; Vita Const, i. 1.Google Scholar

15 Note also the ethical terms which have a prior biblical usage in the epistle (at Vita Const, iv. 11; Theodoret, HE i. 25.5). For Eusebius on Edessa, see HE i. 13.2–36; ii. 1.6Google Scholar, and on the Eusebius-Constantine connection, see Drake, H. A., In Praise of Constantine, Berkeley 1975, 4-8, 59-60, 75–9;Google ScholarBarnes, T., Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge, Mass. 1981, 226, 231, 261.Google Scholar

16 On the provenance of Theodoret's history, esp. his Epist. 119, 123, and on the location of his retreat at Nicerte:Google ScholarNaaman, P. P., Theodoret de Cyr et le monastere de Saint Maroun, Beirut 1971, 38.Google Scholar For the apparently surprising historical priority of Theodoret's extant version, see n.17. On the context of the letter, see Theodoret, HE i. 25–34, and for Sozomen's paraphrasing of Constantine in HE ii. 15 in a comparably significant way, see Grillet, B. in the introduction to the Sources Chrétiennes edn., Paris 1983,Google Scholar

17 A detailed argument as to why Gelasius (Cyzenicus) - rather than the present edition of Eusebius’ Vita Const. - contains a virtually complete original of Eusebius’ epistolary draft or translation from an official Latin prototype, must be left aside here. I can only summarise a long footnote in my forthcoming work To Forgive and Forget? The logic of retribution in early Christian historiography (Berkeley). In that context I conclude: (1) that (c. 450) Theodoret slightly ‘doctored' the Eusebian original in his possession; (2) that the editors of Vita Const., when attempting to complete Eusebius’ unfinished historiographical enterprise (by the late fifth century?) (see esp.Google ScholarWinkelmann, F., Die Textbezeugung der Vita Constantini des Eusebius von Caesarea, Berlin 1962, 7off.,Google Scholar I42ff.), apparently possessed a version shorter than the original by seven lines, but incorporated into their version some of what they had of Theodoret's phraseology; and (3) that Gelasius subsequently reproduced the most complete version, probably the original for it contains character- istically Eusebian phrases and stylistic touches (c. 480).

18 Theodoret, HE i. 25.1 (line 6) and 7 (line 15), Eusebius, Vita Const, iv. 11, cf. Gelasius, HE iii. 11.1 (line 6) and (line 7).Google Scholar Readers should be warned that Jackson's, B. translation of Theodoret at i. 25, 7, (Nicaean and Post-Nicaean Fathers, N.S. 3,Google Scholar reads Gelasius’ sense back into the text.

19 HE v. 39 (sect. 40 is a kind of appendix). On the question of chronological misplacement see n. 8 above and observe that Theodoret locates Constantine's letter prior to the Council of Tyre in 335 (i. 27).

20 HE v. 39. 24–5.

21 See Trompf, Recurrence, esp. pp. 94–7, 147–8, on Herodotus, Thucydides, etc.Google Scholar

22 For the argument that Lactantius did not write this work from Nicomedia as usually supposedGoogle Scholar, see Stevenson, J., ‘The life and literary activity of Lactantius’, in Aland, K. and Cross, F. L. (eds), Studia Patristica, Berlin, 1957, i/1. 675–6;Google ScholarCreed, J. L., ‘Introduction’, to his edn. of Lactantius’ De mart, persec, Oxford 1984, pp. xxxiii-xli.Google Scholar For the quotation, see Momigliano, A., The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, Oxford 1963. 79.Google Scholar

23 Lactantius, De mort. persec. v. 3–7. The Tpo-rrcnov in Vit. Const, iv. 11 (40), Theodoret, HE i. 25.7 is probably a sarcastic allusion to this sacrifice: Lat. tropaeum. That Eusebius knew only of Valerianus’ captivity and not the details of his death is suggested by HE vii. 13.1Google Scholar, but there is no reason why he was not made better informed at a later stage, perhaps even through the Lactantius-Constantine connection? See Barnes, T., Constantine and Eusebius, 14, 43, 47, 74–5).Google Scholar

24 Ephrem, Hymni cont. 07. i. 2, 10–11, 27; iii. 1–3, 9, 14; iv. 58.Google Scholar

25 For background, esp. Jaeger, W., Paideia: the ideals of Greek culture, trans. Highet, G., Oxford 1947, ch. iii, and 1944 edn, vol. iii, passim.Google Scholar

26 Thus Trompf, Recurrence, 242 cf. Diodorus, Biblioth. i. 1, 1, 3, 4; Livy, Ab Urbe i, proem., 1012, cf. Tacitus, Annal. iii. 55, Josephus, Antiq. ii. 20, etc., and note the continuation of this in the ongoing Byzantine tradition: Trompf, Recurrence, 242 n. 306.Google Scholar

27 E.g., Xenophon, Hiero xi. 11–15; Agesilaus i. 1–16; Plutarch, esp. Vit. (Aristides and Marcus Cato compared) i. 1–4; Diogenes Laertius; v.t. Philos; Valerius Maximus, iFact, et die. memorabiliumGoogle Scholar; Cornelius Nepos, De excell ducib. ext. gentium, cf. Aelianus, Varia hist.

28 E.g. Herodotus, Hist. iii. 108; Diodorus, Biblioth. i. 1–3, etc. (on fortune as providential overlord), [om. Polybius, Hist.]; LXX Dan. vi. 19; 4 Mace. ix. 24, xiii. 19, etc., cf. Philo Judaeus, De immut. ii. 814.Google Scholar

29 Thus Polybius, Hist. xv. 20.4–5. See Trompf, Recurrence, esp. pp. 97104 for the most relevant references. For cultural-political background see A. Momigliano, ‘Empieta ed Eresia nel Mondo Antico’, Rivista Storica Italiana lxxxiii (1971), 771–91 (although little is made of historiographical conceptions in this article).Google Scholar

30 Cf. esp. Trompf, Recurrence, 93101, 164–74,Google Scholar etc- On uv/ucpopai, note also Chesnut, G. F., The First Christian Histories; Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius, Macon 1986, 49.Google Scholar

31 As well as Cassiodorus, of course, who based his highly influential compilation on Epiphanius’ translation. WhatGoogle ScholarDowling, J. G. wrote of these matters a century and a half ago still holds good (An Introduction to the Critical Study of Ecclesiastical History, London 1838, 44–5, 51–3), although he had no knowledge of the German version of Cassiodorus, recently edited by C. Boot (Amsterdam 1977). See also, on Evagrius' recognition of his three great predecessors, HE prolog.Google Scholar

32 For usages of the relevant works in different types of historical studies, seeGoogle ScholarLietzmann, H., Geschichte der alten Kirche, Berlin-Leipzig 1932–44, esp. vol. iii;Google Scholarvon Harnack, A., Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichle, Freiburg, 1894–7, esP–vol– iii;Google ScholarKelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines, London 1960, 239–40, 406–8,Google Scholar and more recently, P. Allen, ‘The use of heretics and heresies in the Greek Church historians: studies in Socrates and Theodoret’, paper presented to the Australian National University Humanities Research Centre Conference ‘Reading the Past in Late Antiquity’, 21 may 1988.

33 E.g. Grant, R. M., Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought, Amsterdam 1952;Google ScholarMeslin, M., Le Christianisme dans I’empire romaine, Paris 1970, esp. p. 168;Google ScholarThdlamon, F., Paiėns et Chrétiens au IVe siècle; l’apport de l‘Histoire ecclésiastique’ de Rufin d’Aquileé, Paris 1981, pt. 3.Google Scholar

34 The work of G. F. Chesnut and G. Downey notwithstanding. See esp. Downey, G., ‘The perspective of the early Church historians’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies vi (1965), 5770.Google Scholar

35 ‘The logic of retribution’, 135–40.Google Scholar

36 For this self-perception, Rufinus, prolog. (Mommsen-Schwartz edn., p. 951); Philostorgius, HE: i. 2, Socrates, HE i. 1, Sozomen, HE i. 1, Theodoret, HE i. 1, and even Evagrius, HE i. prolog.Google Scholar

37 See esp. Murphy, F. X., Rufinus of Aquileia (345–411): his life and works, Washington 1945, chs iii-v, cf.Google Scholar Eusebius, HE vi. 2, 8, 19–26, 30, 32, 36, etc.

38 Students should note that, in their masterly edition, Mommsen and Schwartz have chosen to present two tenth books of Rufinus, the first of these placed in beside Eusebius' Greek whenever an attempt at translation appears to apply (thus pp. 859–63, 893903, before Rufinus' own book x, pp. 957 ff.).Google Scholar For discussion of Rufinus' decision not to translate Eusebius' panegyric, see Oulton, J. E. L., ‘Rufinus’s translation of the Church History of Eusebius’, Journal of Theological Studies xxx (1928), 152.Google Scholar

39 Here we accept Rufinus’ and not Gelasius of Caesarea's authorship of the two additional books, following especially Peeters, P., ‘pLes débuts du christianisme en Géorgie’, Analecta Bollandiana 1 (1932), 558;Google ScholarDiekamp, F., ‘Gelasius von Caesarea in Palaestina’, Orientalia Christiana Analecta cxvii (1938), 1632,Google Scholar and Murphy, Rufinus, 160–3 rather than Glas, A., Die Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia, Leipzig 1914, 13.Google Scholar See also n. 3 above. Note also Photius, Codex 189 on his view that Gelasius merely translated Rufinus' history: Treadgold, W. T., The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius, Washington 1980, 63.Google Scholar

40 Rufinus, HE x. 1 actually follows on very neatly from Eusebius1 conclusions at HE vii. 32.30–1. Whereas Eusebius viii–x (= Rufinus vii–ix) was treated as a special block of materials covering Eusebius’ own day, Rufinus might have perceived his predecessor's major binding theme to be ecclesiastical 5αSoxr (see Eusebius, HE i. 1.1, vii. 32.32, viii prolog.), and immediately picks this up with his reference to successio in HE x. 1.Google Scholar

41 Eusebius, HE ii. 1.8–9, 3.3, 9.1–4. 15.1–4, 22.1–8; iii. 5.2, 17, 32.1–33.3; iv. 15.1–17.13; 1.1–3, 3, 21; vi. 7,28, 39.1,40.2, 43.16; vii. 10.2–3, 11.1–20, 12, 30.20–1, 22, 32.22, 28, 31; viii. 1.1, 7–9, 13.1 i-ix. 2–3. On the stereotype of between five and ten identified from the complexities of Eusebius' material, see Trompf, Recurrence, p. 219, n.183. As for Rufinus, I do not take HE x. 1 nor 14 to refer to distinct persecutions.Google Scholar

42 For background in Eusebius see Trompf, ‘The logic of retribution’, 137.Google Scholar

43 HE x. 1, 16, 21, 25; xi. 3, 20, cf. Eusebius, HE ii.1, 13; iii. 26–32; iv. 22–4; v. 4, 13–19 etc. (heresies), Rufinus x. 1, 12–14, 22, 28; xi. 3, 10, etc. cf. Eusebius, esp. ii. 2, 4.19–20; v. 6; vi. 34–46 (Alexandria and Rome), Rufinus x. 7–9, 37–9; xi. 5, 20, cf. Eusebius, i. 9–13; iii. 5–10; iv. 6; v. 12; vi. 8–9; vii. 32. 29, etc. (Holy Land, Edessa, etc.), Rufinus, x. 6, 14 (Alexander on Athanasius as a youth), 17 (parts of a report on interchange in council proceedings), 29, Eusebius, i. 11.13; ii. 17, 23–5; iii. 37–9; iv. 15; v. 1; vi. 41–5 etc. (easily identifiable quotations), Rufinus, x. 5, 8–10, 35, 37–9; xi. 4, 29–30, cf. Eusebius, esp. v. 4.4; viii. 7.2–6, (the miraculous). For further backgroundGoogle Scholarsee Grant, R. M., Eusebius as Church Historian, Oxford 1980, chs vi-x.Google Scholar

44 See his uses of deterriti in x. 39 and frustratio at xi. 33, the end of each book.Google Scholar

45 Rufinus omits references to the 6: of the tyrants at the end of Eusebius’ work [HE ix. 7.2; x. 8.2) and thus transfers the emphasis on overcoming tyrannical impiety to the end of his work instead. He also knows by hindsight that the confidence Eusebius expresses in Constantine's sons is ill-founded (Eusebius, HE x. 9.9) and leaves the phrase Koci TOTS OUTOO iraiaiv untranslated. On the other hand, while surely knowing of Theodosius I'S untimely death, he transposes the notion of imperial foresight to this emperor instead (HE xi. 34), and does not even report the death, even though, as we can easily learn elsewhere, Theodosius had to make ad hoc arrangements from his death-bed: Socrates, HE v. 36, Sozomen, HE vii. 29, Theodoret, HE v. 24.Google Scholar

46 According to J. Straub, who has made too much of comments in HE xi. 13 interpreting them as a statement of Rome's decline: ‘ Christliche Geschichtsapologetik in der Krisis des romischen Reiches’, Historia i (1950), 55. Note too that Rufinus did not always translate Eusebius' TrpovoTcc as providentia but as sometimes dementia (e.g. HE iii. 7–8), and also as in HE viii. 1.7–8 translates T 6EICC xpi'ais as divinaprovidentia. For significant uses of providentia in his own history, see xi. 19, 28, and also xi. 1. (divina dementia), 29 (Dei favor).

47 Christensen, , Rufinus of Aquileia and the Historia Ecclesiastica Lib. VIII-IX, of Eusebius, Copenhagen 1989, 9,Google Scholar cf. E. Schwartz in Mommsen-Schwartz edn. of HE ii/3, pp. xivii-lxi; Lacqueur, R., Eusebius als Historiker seiner Zeit, Berlin-Leipzig 1929;CrossRefGoogle ScholarJanne, H., ‘Schwartz et Lacqueur comme les Dioscures de la critique eusdbienne’, Byzantion viii (1933), 749;Google ScholarLietzmann, Geschichte der alien Kirche, iii. ch. vi on difficulties and signs of revision in the Eusebian text of books viii-ix. See also Christensen, ‘The so-called Appendix to Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica VIII', Classica el Mediaevalia xxxviii (1983), 177ff.Google Scholar

48 Idem. Rufinus, 10, 333–6 and passim and ‘Rufinus of Aquileia and the Historia Ecclesiastica, lib. VIII-IX, of Eusebius’, Studia Theologica xxxiv (1980), 129ff.Google Scholar

49 Idem. Rufinus, 28, and also 1719, 21.Google Scholar

50 For the details, ibid. 24–36, 41–6, 52–4, 58–78, 89–103, 108–12.

51 Ibid. 127–8.

52 Ibid. 127–32. See also Christensen, , C. Galerius Valerius Maximinus, Copenhagen 1974, 103ff.Google Scholar

53 Cf. Lactantius, De mortib. persec. 24. Christensen suggests Rufinus and Lactantius both used a common ‘imperial’ source here: Rufinus, 130.Google Scholar

54 Ibid. 140, and also 142–3.

55 Ibid. 192.

56 Christensen, Galerius, ch. v; idem. Rufinus, 194–6 (p. 194 for the quotation). Cf. Lactantius, De mortib. persec. 33, where, as in Eusebius, this tone is entirely absent and, on the other hand Orosius, Hist. adv. Pag. vii. 28, who is apparently following Rufinus.Google Scholar

57 In Rufinus’ account, Maximin's persecution appears to be more geographically limited than in Eusebius: Christensen, Rufinus, 242.Google Scholar

58 Ibid. 280 (quotation), 294–8, but see Eusebius, HE ix. 9. 3; Vit. Const, i. 32; Lactantius, De mortib.persec. 414; Panegyr. ix. 17; anon. Vales, iv. 12;Google Scholar and Lawlor, H. J. and Oulton, J. E. L. (ed. and trans.), Eusebius, Bishop o/Caesarea: the ecclesiastical history and the martyrs of Palestine, London, 1954, ii. 299.Google Scholar

59 Christensen, Rufinus, 127.Google Scholar

60 HE, esp. x. 2, 78, 11; for gratia see also i. 9.Google Scholar

61 HE x 30, ‘erga instaurandas ecclesias’, referring mainly to the work of Hilary and Eusebius of Vercelli.

62 See Philostorgius, HE vii. 1; Socrates, HE iii. 11 (the closest to Rufinus in this); Sozomen, HE v. 13, Theodoret, HE iii. 1 (more emphasis on ‘concealed impiety for a considerable time’).Google Scholar

63 The use of lupus here also has a unifying effect on his whole enterprise in both translating and continuing Eusebius: HE i. 1.2. On the element of arbitrariness in Rufinus’ phrase ‘sed haec omnia post Athanasii obitum’ in xi. 2, note that Athanasius died in 373, in the middle of Valens’ reign (364–78), which was more generally known for its persecutions (see e.g. Socrates, HE iv. 6; Theodoret, HE iv. 5; Hilary of Poiters, Hist. frag. (Colled.), apud Jerome, De viris illustr. 100).Google Scholar

64 Cf. Orosius, Hist. adv. Pag. vii. 35. See also Zosimus, Hist. nov. iv. 46; Socrates, HE v. 14; Sozomen, HE vii. 14.Google Scholar

65 Rufinus probably develops a parallel here with Eusebius’ account of the Christian seditio and its tyrannical elements, which emerged before Constantine conquered the three tyrants (HE viii. 1.7–8) (see also nn. 12–13 above).Google Scholar

66 For other Latins extolling Theodosius’ victory over tyranny, see esp. Paulinus of Nola, apud Gennadius, De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, 49; Prudentius, Contra Symmachum i. 41 off.; Ambrose, De obitu Theodosii, PL xvi. 1385ff. See also King, Emperor Theodosius, 90–2.

67 Trompf, Recurrence, 235; idem. ‘The logic of retribution’, 138–9 on Eusebius, yet neglecting Rufinus.

68 See esp. HE i. 8.8; ii. 1.12; 7; iii. 5.6, 7.1, 8; v. 1.26; ix. 10.14 ipoena); i. 8.3; ii. 6.8; ix. 11.1 {ultio); ii. 10.1; iii. 5.3; v. 1.60 {vindicta).

69 Thus HE i. 1.2; iii. 7.8–9, 11.1. See also n. 39 above and Trompf, ‘Logic’, 136.

70 Yet see Socrates, HE iii. 1,21; Sozomen, HE vi. 2, Theodoret, HE iii. 8–9. Note also Philostorgius, HE vi. 5; vii. 15 for comparisons.

71 In his favour see Snee, R., ‘Valens’ recall of the Nicene exiles and anti-Arian propaganda’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies xxvi (1985), 395419,Google Scholar although she does not consider these historiographical points. Orosius, Hist. adv. Pag. vii. 33 agrees with Rufinus on the recall.

72 Note that neither Zosimus nor Rutulius Namatianus mention Alaric's sack of Rome in the West! See also n. 46 above.

73 Hist. adv. Pag. vii. 35.

74 Long before comparable accounts by the Greek continuators Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, Augustine provides a variant of this incident in De civitate Dei v. 2.6. See also Orosius, Hist. adv. Pag. vii. 35.

75 Both emphases at xi. 33. Rufinus characterises Eugenius as pagan when he was probably a Christian with pagan supporters (King, Emperor Theodosius, 83); and the presbyter is vague about the losses incurred against his Gothic auxiliaries. See e.g. Zosimus, Hist. nov. v. 58; Socrates, HE v. 35; Sozomen, HE vii. 34.

76 Thèlamon, esp. pp. 468–72 and passim.

77 Brown, P., ‘The problem of Christianization’, unpublished seminar paper, 9 Apr. 1991, Dept. of History, University of Sydney 1991.Google Scholar

78 In the history Lucius has had more pejorative things said about him than any other person, probably because of the vehemence expressed in oral sources during his time in Alexandria.

79 See x. 2–5, 11–21, 27–9, 33–4 with Athanasius’ Apologiae, De Synodis, etc. in mind. Yet see Socrates HE ii. 1 where the accusation is that Rufinus does not have enough information about Athanasius' career (see below). Note also the quotation (x. 6) of the Nicene decisions. Perhaps Sabinus was more important for Rufinus as a source of documents: Socrates, HE i. 8,Google Scholar and Lohr, W. A., ‘Sabinus ofHeraclea: a reassessment of the scope and tendency of his work’, unpublished paper, 10th International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford 1987.Google Scholar

80 Hist. Arian. esp. i. 7; ii. 14; vii. 57, cf. iv. 30, vii. 51, on the retributive emphasis, and Constantius as AntiChrist: viii. 67.

81 At least by 415: Altaner, B., ‘Augustinus und Eusebios von Kaiserea. Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung’, Byzantische Zeitschrift xliv (1951), 1ff.Google Scholar

82 For an analysis, see Trompf, ‘Augustine's historical theodicy’, 303ff.Google Scholar

83 E.g. Terence, Eunuchus ii. 2.44; Cicero, Tusc. Oral. v. 26.69 [vicissitudo); Augustus apud Suetonius, Claud. 4 {fluctio as alternation).

84 ‘Vopiscus’, Vita Cari {Script. Hist. Aug.) i. 2. One Alexandrian tradition of thought – history as a process of avco KCH KOCTCO – may lie behind both the Eusebian and Rufinian methods. See Trompf, Recurrence, i. 1678.

85 Idem. ‘Augustine's historical theodicy’, 292ff.

86 Idem. Recurrence, i. 222–5. Orosius would be better characterised as an historian of recurrent disasters than of vicissitudes (p. 225).Google Scholar