Journal Title: The Journal of ecclesiastical history.hasft Vol. 42, Is. 2 Month/Year: 1991-04 Pages: 202-217 Article Title: A Reassessment of the Early Career and Exile of Hilary of Poitiers. Article Author: Williams, D H For: DH_Williams Status: Faculty Department: Religion - Arts&Sciences CONNECT “LIBRARIES ‘Supplied to you by Baylor University Libraries Interlibrary Services One Bear Place, #97148 Waco, TX 76798 Phone 254-710-6707 Fax 254-710-1710 Email BU_ILSFIH@baylor.edu BU Library Use Only BU OsoFast TN# 341943 (DA Location miper Call # Shelved By Title Ship Viaz OsoFast Document Delivery BU OsoFast TN# 341943 ‘ACO Baylor Patron: Daniel H. Williams Barcode: 21263889780423 Te cca 10/22/2009 8:39:11 PMJoral of Ecclisia Hig, Vol. gr, Ne. 2, Api saps A Reassessment of the Early Career and Exile of Ehilary of Poitiers by D. H. WILLIAMS led from his see in the year 356, Hilary of Poitiers suddenly Rézicr. And itis at this juncture, perhaps, that hagiography hee made its Ge infiuential mark. Accounts by Sulpicius Severus, John Cassian, Gregory of Tours and others® have contributed te the development of a crane segetPus, Seiporum cecesiaticorum Iatnorum; CSL = Corpus Chistian rum, series latina; ME = Flstia Ecdetatva; RB = Rives Davee ‘pig. aembly of the available evidence for his early iene trary works ee OF arehardt Hilary of Pin ale the din Convey, The Hag eae * Vita Hiei. 5 moeeticts Severs, Gir i. 99, “Hiarus...intr procells penecuvonum ia Carag i t pe invctae fide! ortadinem eam contasoris cope cagote Feces, Be ceratine vis 24: PLL 290-1. But it in the erieees ees {oftunata and Gregory of Tous (both sith century) that Hisey ec a Forage FaeeBraphie sccouns of important aint in Gath, Inthe fae pene ot Posranata Vite Sec ani Eicapi Peace, PL ems tap gh ie a oe Gregan en count of his faith and how he continued stesahar in she moot hoe Gurzany alo notes that “Hilary, blased defender ofthe undiadea Troe oe gee Fre ime eile, was both restored to his own country and carer en ee aed nya as. O.M. Dalton, Hit ofthe Pes Sy Ghee oy eee | SUG 227, Hilary having obtained the satus of ‘confer’ ned ie ee Bo 'n Her smd, and Gregory, De gra batran cnfesoran, PL ge } 202EARLY CAREER AND EXILE OF HILARY OF POITIERS Lure of an individual who stood in the vanguard of the defence of Fedox faith in the West amid Arian oppression and aggression. *s courageous support of Athanasius, as well as his bold leadership 7 Wide Gallic bishops against heresy, is what ultimately led to his ‘tanyrdom’ by banishment. Suprisingly, the above caricature of Hilary is widely reflected in most f modem assessments of his role in the later Arian controversy. Not “aypically, the bishop is described as ‘a champion of the orthodox fary.i Gaul’ and as being ‘animated by one single idea which filled {sie and constituted its unity: the fight against Arianism’ There can eso question that Hilary was very active in opposing the defenders of Homocanism in Gaul and North Italy, both politically and literarily, after kis return from exile (probably in the spring of 360). But was his earlier career typified by such concerns as well? After all, Hilary himself states athe had never heard of the Nicene Creed until he was about to go into aile: ‘Fidem Nicaenam numquam nisi exsulaturus audivi. | The problem with this passage is determining exactly what it proves. Jsthow ignorant was Hilary of the theological and political issues of his, ty? Some have argued that his reference to the symbolum of Nicaea need tot rule out previous knowledge on his part of the Eastern trinitarian eatoverses. And the degree to which the Nicene faith was known in the West prior to Hilary’s exile is itself a matter of dispute. Paul Burns has concluded from his study of Hilary's commentary on Matthew that Hilary had some awareness of the content of Arian arguments. The ‘ommentary, which is generally considered to be one of Hilary's earliest works and’ precedes his exile, manifests specific polemical arguments zinst a subordinationist Christology.” But the basis for Burns's view ‘rts on a two-pronged presupposition — that Hilary was exiled at Béziers tanber of miracles that took place at his tomb. The bishop's reputation for fearlessly ‘oping the Arian heresy is expecially revealed in Gregory's account of King Clovis’ ailary exploits agsint the (Arian) Goths. When the Frankish army came © the ‘ighbourhood of Poitiers and pitched camp, Clovis ‘saw a fery beacon issue from the durch of the holy Hilary and come over above his head; it signified that aided by the light the blesed confesior Hilary he might more surely overcome the host of those heretics ‘zinst whom the saint himself had s0 offen done battle forthe faith": Hist. Fran ii. 37 "Respectively, T.S. Holmes, The Origin ond Decelopment of the Christian Chuck n Gaal, von roti, 148, and J. R, Balanque et al, The Chuck in the Christian Raman Empire, tas. Emest ©. Messenger, New York 1953, 281. For similar coneeptions, see E. C5, Gioon, cee and Post-Nicne Fathers 617, 4m. McKenna, ‘Introduction’, Fathers of tke Okuckxav, New Vork 1954, p. viz Nora K. Chadwick, Poetry and Lats in Early Christian Ga, London 1955, 116. Mf. Mein is one ofthe few to recognise that our depiction of ty has been misconstrued historically because ofthe influence of hagiography, “ilaire Ala crise Arienne’, in Hilaire et som temps: Att da Collogue de Pats 29 Septembre 3Octaie 1968 & Pacason de XV Le centnaite dela art de Sant Hilaire, Pats 1969, 19 © De yas xci, PL. 5458. * A catalogue of Hilary's works is found in Jerome's De vrs iltatribse. C.J. Doignon, Hive de Paes sur Maten i Paris 1978, 20. See the monograph by Paul Burns, The Chritology in Hilery of Pitas’ Commentary on atte, in Studia Epkeneridis" Augstinanem’, Rome 1981, 13-22, which briefly surveys 203DoH. WILLIAMS [P5 his opposition to Arianism, and that he prepared his anti-Arian Liber adversus Valentem et Uriacium in light of the Controversies Valenen tro that council® Since the ‘Liber 1° of the habe Why was Hilary of Poitiers exiled at Béziers? It is a question that | Central to ate schelaes of the late-fourth-century Arian conuroventa Central to this inquiry is the widely held assumtion thag Hilary was seen that this is a view grounded in the belief that at Béziers in $56 paralleled the course of events at Aree (353) and Milan {B35),* There is, however, sufficient evidence to warn eys rejection of fie atiove assumption: Hilary could not have been calles the same Bred Bases fo theological reasons) a the dissenting bishops ot Ale and Milan he Same as the ‘epistola synodica’ from the Synod of + who, along with several other bishops, was exiled by that synod. This ‘epistole synodica’ clearly ‘Arann Betecea he rakes teaser to understand the speed of Haey osetion no cern between the Counc of Milan and his own ee ate Go enon OP ti me ae yg ibid 12-235 Cl, Borehand, lary of Pann ay iar amtumption can be observed at workin Minera ee article, “Hilary of| srpsets and the Arian ers in the Westin Patology he ag Berardino, Westminster, MD. 1986, 345. becsctim 2b mperatre proponitr, ut qui in damnationem Athanas non 1 ee Epernt in eum pellrentur™ Clon i goa: CSEL ae gar ela fa Pspeel Come ioeay cine 870, include Rhodanius of Toulouse s_ pant CAREER AND EXILE OF HILARY OF POITIERS “i to the principal elements of the edict at Arles, specifically; coreaing subscription against Marcellus Photinus and Athanasius."? serra narrative, Sulici succinctly stats when describing the events from Arles to Milan that the same controveny was sat thout any interruption of bitterness." Tei also known that an cavint vas made by the ‘orthodox’ bishops atthe awe synods to engage 2a eagues in a discussion about matters of true faith 25 Jn both cases tempt failed, and all in attendance were foreed (0 sign oF face the consequenes. mseqverience for the Synod of Béziers is very blurry, and it is complicated by the fact that many ancient historians (only Prosper and Joome are excepted)"® think Hilary was exiled, at Milan (355): Joorally the sole witnesses to what happened at Béziers come from (9 rage penned by Hilary several years after the event. These are #8 fillows:™ iL Asallof you are aware, brother, cther having heard me ox through personal ci aime that I, foresecing long in advance the very great danger to dhe Fits ecg myo withthe Calie bhopr five year ago fom the communes. oF Fee Valens and. Ursacus after the exiles ofthe holy men Paulinus, Eustis, sas Dionysiue..Being compelled afterwards to attend the synod of Bézis aap devicg of these poeudoaposdes, I presented a ase which made mani his tnresy (Un Costantiom is spring 360). a. Lejoiced inthe Lord that you kept yourselves undefiled and wnkarmed from sy cing etabie heresy, and as partakers of my cule, into which Saturinus bad se ce having deceived the emperor and fearing his own conscience, you have cee iia cammatnion for the whole of theee years unto now (De sedi Tate 358 oF carly 359). In accordance with the presupposition that Hilary was already a strong advocate of the Athanasian cause and/or Nicene orthodoxy, many 1 KM Girardet, ‘Constance m, Athanase et L'Edict d'Arles (353)', in Potitgue ot sng chee Athanase& Aleandrie, ed. Charles Kannengieser, Paris 1974, 72, 8 Cheeni. 99 3, CSEL i. 92 2 Hees a Syed Sardcnis adConstetim Imperator i. 3 = “Tiber vad Cons SEL lew. 187; Sulpicius, Cho. i. 39:3 ™ Prosper, Chr, 10963 Jerome, De ais illus. 100. © gulp, Chon. 997, Socrates, HE, g6;Sozomen, HE‘. o; Ruins (ES. 2) Foe oe nasbrguous on the subject, for he writes after the exile of Eusebies, Paunnas Rhodanius and Lucifer: Hilary also was joined to these others who were ether jgnorant or didnot believe the fraud.” ean Sega, ratees, ut mihi omnes, quiime vel audiunt wel famliritate cognitrt abel eas sunt, gravisimum fide! penculum longeantea pracidens, pos anctorunt Fant ee ee uinl, Eusebii, Lucifer, Dionysii, quinto abhinc anno, 2 Saturmini ct Re einer communionc me cum Gallcanis episcopis separavi Qui postes Pet clones Coram poeudoapestolorum ad Biterrensem synodum compulsus, cognitions demonstrandae ius haereseos obculi"s PL x. 578-9 Te) Geatulsv sum in Domino, incontaminatos vos et Mlacsos ab, omal congo dene cas haerescos perstse, voaque compartcipescxsili me, in quod me Saturninis, eee entam svar verits, Grcumvento imperatore dtrasrat,negata ‘PH wsaue foe tempus toto jam triennio communione’: PL x. 481. 205frequently interpreted as indicating that, soon after the Synod ef : Hilary, along with other Gallic bishops, dissociated himselt Satuminus, Ursacius and Valens ‘on seco of ‘their Ariane Policies being enforced in the West.2! Not all studies of Hilary support the above Feconstruction. A recent, yet relatively ignored," monograph by FG. Brennecke has questioned mmany ofthe traditional assumptions, and afew offi arguments are worth porcidering in some detail. It will, however, bese apparent in the Peeeectg analysis thar the challenges which Brennecte hhas posed to the Witional scenario are pethaps more valuable thee’ the conclusions which he has drawn, {Mith Brennecke, we may well wonder whether the general tendency to attribute a role of noteworthy prominenee ta Hilary at this stage in his ‘omes more conspicuous ‘dence can be discovered from a Gallic syned ey a fm aatitt movement in response to Arles or Milan Auge implication rene alition from the fe Constantium passage wa he carefully weighed in light of Hilary's context and perspective inhe spring of 360. There is also {he Question whether Hilary, bishop of a village on the periphery of Christian Gaul, would have possessed the authority to bring together such # representative gathering of bishops.®* fa Pas Ge crea np rmaine', Pass gh, 224; G. M. Newlands, ah Pati esi thal math Bern the Recher Flay of Pitas. ages). Eonar The Functions of Faith and Reson indo ln of Bites, Wathington ony, Rec ee Father, seetROghers ney published commentary leh be le sn SCM 57 fr the most recent adoption ike neaoane sinlnysde Bischof oppasion gegen Kowtentos I, Patrntsche Texte und aby Bagel ABBE Thave been able hese cal Pat of the book. One 5s by J. Doignon, ‘Hilalre de Peres “Kirchenpoliiker"?", Recee Hissin Eide iit Bx 1005), agt-58, who finds Brennecke’s attempt 9 diminish Piney cseriptve review by R. Klin in Dar Grune rok (1986), 381-4. There is no the exception of a brief ns Pont was brought out long ago EJ Reinkens, Hilarias som Poitiers, SchaMansn 1864, 114 n.2, who flows A Vieni eke Pictacinss geschilde it 206ye uanuy CAREER AND EXILE OF HILARY OF POITIERS og tneseconcers, Brennecke has raised the question, ifsucl von pression of resentment did exist against the policies of thy was this not demonstrated earlier at Milan?" Tris a Ft hat mess conser on While it is true that mo organised riGjon against Constantius’ policies as such can be detected ot | Te peennecke’s treatment of the events at this synod is hardly sisPrrory. In particular, Brennecke assumes that there was no | COTY re Nicene Creed in the West before 357 (Le, before Hilary cated it to the West).** He is too willing to reiett reliable evidence iaMipere was Jn fact an offensive plan enacted By pro-Athanasian faricipants at Milan in which the Nicene Creed was presented for Eratres before any other action could be taken. 2 tis quite likely that srayas referring to this very episode when be tellus he had heard of Mey cone fides just before he was banished.” If there is no reason. © {pestion the historicity ofthis event then it permits the conclusion that the eee reed was known in the West by 355 at the latest, and probably Neen fice The question at stake is not whether the creed was known 3¢ Stim the West but, rather, who knew oft. It cannot be forgotten that #0 4g Hosis ele obliged to reassure Julius of Rome that the purprs in Bling the Sardican Creed was not to replace the Nicene.* When raat ns Vercelli presented the Nicene Creed for signatures at Milan frelve years later, he was working on the assumption that those Wester ahops would recognise the creed as an acceptable symbol of orthodoxy, tener Mat Hilary was not aware of the creed until 356 does not so much Jove that the ereed was unknovn in the West as betray how peripheral Tr ereed had been in the task of theological definition over the last three dead If anything, Hilary’s ignorance of the creed underlines his slevess from, and uninvolvement with, the actual iswues of the controversy prior to his banishment at Béziers ‘ince Hilery clearly says in Jn Constantum ii that he, along with 2 portion of Gallic bishops, separated themselves from Saturninus, Ursaci Ina cole scam Kane gegen den Aviioas, 960: “Hilaivs war nicht Metropalit und kone bens ease eee uch war die Situation einer solchen Verarmlung geen 20% Cee sna menee Setumin Keineswegs gomsg.” Unfortunately, Reinkens docs not mould Erect pis observation, Breanecke, Hila on Pins, 216 See ge See Brennecke’s excorsus, ‘Zur angeblichen Vorlage des Nisinam aut dey Sy 2a Masland durch Eusc von Verellac (rat en Potion, 170°92), Fader Synod a eanmae the episode recorded by Hilary as unhistorial, given i panels eto fe dacs not evel wy he intent on denying Che appearance of Heer aera rig ime, except to insist that Hilary, in his Liber adeesus Valens Ce ie nt introduce the Latin verion of the symbian to the West ibid 505 id 306s Constantium’, vi, CSEL lv. 187. Liberis'leters to Constantius, CSEF be gy eh A Petcbis of Vere, COSI ix, 122-5, demonstrate the existence Fee ane tc the part of some Western bishops to reverse the decisions of Ades fhia) seat innate the Nicene Creed asthe basis of orthodony 8 point avo made by Mein, *Piaire’, 22 Seen Sue i v2, The bie eter i found in PLN: 839-49, + . 207 reneDo, WILLIAMS and Valens, we must ask when this happened. But before this question can Oe, addressed, it is important frst to examine the context of then Gorlantin and then compare it with Hilary's other reference to his aie in De synodis. Tue tn Constantin’? is a vindictive and angry letter, in which th Smperos far from receiving the standard compliments of pious spiritual, is sleseribed as ‘omnium crudelium crudelissime” (c. vil), ‘lupe raped! (x), *seeleste’ (xxv) and having a “diabolici ingenium’” (wh), Merk energy is invested by Hilary to show the extreme difference between i impiety which characterises the emperor and his followers and the uee faith which Hilary and the pro-Nicene bishops represent. In the court his argument, a pattern of solidarity is established among the supporten of orthodoxy, especially since alll mention of homoousias oF homoioneor hed een recently outlawed by the Council of Constantinople in 360 (xx). Hilary is eager to demonstrate to the apostate emperor how the advocates of the Nicene faith have maintained their unity and. perseverance throughout his persecutions over the last seven or eight years (xi). This ‘contrast between the persecuted but unified orthodox bishops and the eee reision in the dating of this document is difficult to obtain. Jerome tells us that | ae els to Constantius while Ising in Constantnop and tht he wrt | wother, in Constantium, quem post mortem ejus seriprit": De vrs las, PL ai Sop Jerome's description corresponds to earlier ass which establish the ttle of the work ar Constantino rather than the more commonly accepted Contra Cinstetian: Rocher Goat Constance, 42-3. Rocher has developed an elaborate scheme in which Hilary wrote the ork, not a8 a unitary composition, but on separate occasions from 459-61, ibid 2 To {ake Jerome literally would place'the Conra Costatinm after 3 Nov. $61, the date Of Constantius’ death, According to Rocher, when Hilary learned of the death of the {fmperor, he assembled the different sections together and added a prologue (ch. i) around Dec. 361. While T cannot offer a critique of Rocher’ redactional thesry here, Tam in agreement with T. D. Barnes's assesment that the scheme is overly and unnecesarly complex, seemingly intended to square Jerome's description ‘with the evident internal indications of composition’ during Constantius’ ifetime, JTS, xxxix (1988), 610. 1 8 pot at all certain, however, that Jerome is correct. Intesnal features of ft Constntiom seem to,demand an earlier date, Tes clear that Hilary sees his treatise as a manifesto of ‘revolt: “The time has come for speaking for the time of keeping silent is past’ «1. His ‘pporition to the policies of the emperor is now loudly voiced as he recounts the deeds Nhich Constantius has perpetrated in alliance with the heretics. The treatiee concludes by {ummarising the events at the Council of Seleucia (late 459), and their calmanation at Constantinople (360), where the prohibition of homoousis, hemoiasas and ibitantie Was {Entified, ¢- 25, No other events of g6o are recorded. There is no mention of the pivotal 'ynod of Paris (summer 360) or any ofthe ether counter-councis that met over the next two years in reaction to Rimini and Constantinople. This ie particularly, hard © understand as, i Hilary wrote the Jn Constantiom after Nov. 461, he would have been it Gaul. Nor is there any hint in the treatise that Constantius has died: Instead, the wor always treats him as a present threat and calls upon all wh love the true faith to oppost him and hs policies. A date of early 360 sems oft this work best. Hilary's outspokerness is due in part to the fact that he has just returned from eaile and now enjoys religious ty from Constantius under the new Augustus of the West, Julian, It may also stem from Hilary's declared desire to be a martyr for the faith, which would have sversdden Any concems for his own personal safety. 208,gant CAREER AND EXILE OF HILARY OF POUTIERS seat bishops is readily discernible in chapter 2. Now, half a decade iilary reflects on a specific period (353-6) when he and other tas Pipahops were exiled for cheir faithfulness “The phrase ‘quinto fem non chapter 2, therefore, cannot be referring toasingle event, 2 Milan, for he is obviously conflating the Tat of bishops who were sh path Arles and Milan. ‘The J* Canstantum, posse ‘ought to be ail M pore as a reflection of theological” hindsight ‘which Hilary Suir in his struggles with the Homocans, Furthermore, since the aaif Valens and Ursacius appear nowhere else chan bere with regard er, iis tempting to think that the inclusion of these name is also wo aertion, For nox, after having been in exile and having achieved a 2a insight into the intricacies of partisan politics, Hilary realises that anand Ursacius were in league with Saturninus all along, “ine passage from De syodis presents a different picture. 66 the time of et iitary has been in exile for about three years-* ‘Addressing his Trunk shops in Gaul and Britain,* he rejoices over the fact that they roo eps mnmunion with Saturninus for nearly three years and have Ber fejected the formula from Sirmium (357), which Mery later degnates asthe “Dlasphemia.™ But what is striking is thas there is no seers passage, or esewhere in De sods, that Hilary, united with the Galle bishops, had severed communion with Saturninus, Ussacis and Galle bishops ely after the Synod of Milan. In fact, as Brennecke has Tally pointed out, the united posture of a portion of the Gallic bishops teint Saturninus comes as a great and welcome surprise {OF Hilary. aginst Saturninysscate that there could not have been any kind of ‘pscopal coalition with Hilary as its leader or else Hilary would surely ave Rnown his colleagues’ position before he went into exile. Drommecke goes a step further by raling out any possibility that [ia may have enjoyed the support of some sort of network of bishops prior to aaa eee But his assesment is surely overdrawn since the Tanguage in both Jn Conlantium and De syodis undeniably sorumes So aaa a Coepiscopal sympathy for Hilary's position. What speciic form this migh have taken is very dificult to tell. Itrmust have been Mots form this might Have Taditional scenario allows. Two much-neglected The dating of De suis based on Hilany’s knowing tha she earthquake wie a ann eee eAug, gp8 caused change of location of one of the Te Taek Nemet announced by Constantius: De oe. But Wilary doesnot Mote Nene ea nally chosen asthe alternative sometime early in the fallowing Year Sean ibid xi Breaneke, Hiarias rm Poe 2 1 Bem saws hinelf tobe aware ofthe problem but offers a wholly unsatstaciory ae wie Hilary was in exile, he Rep sac clove contact wh 0 San, He propose tha hee wat a“ gantge und sakramentale Grpenechal’ Soot Bihops (itso eg) Cntrary to thin explanation, Hilary, ia De gm. comply i and them ib, cai prolonged sence” sce He has Been neal cen OG [phin flow sno ao sa prevsus ocasions. This hardly eubstanates the vd be has writen to th oF sence speaks while Hilary was in eve. TsersineseaPayis oo aa ad some Ld of bond wits his flow bishops Gaul bore is tele and he is reflecting upon in De 9 i 209, obeing misunderstood by his fellow bishops. In the introduction, Fig” tind hey, Teaders not to prejudge him nor te dee thei antl they have finished reading the entire trentee His concern fain, this time more strongly, in the conchaaees 7 do not {aut Thave expounded the faith, whether it nena be as pleasant to arcoagat the Lord Jesus Christ, as it would be tein carefree. Th ir conclusions is echoed know, now Tetum > had refused to subscribe the condemnation of Athanasius and was subsequently exiled, he could hare hardly claimed that he was Sondlemned on account of false charges.” Nore of those banished at Arles ind Milan because of their solidarity with Athanasius claimed they had been condemned on the basis of false charges. Indeed, no other charges sire; ‘Netcio an tam jucundum est ad vos in Domino Jesu Christo revert, quam Securum est mori’: €.6, PL'x s46 is arn Ext autesn non crimine, sed facone er ‘untis synodi ad te imperatorem Iter cet aliquam criminum meorum consent ‘impios hominesdelatus..falsa tus, circumvento imperatore detruserat” latenss episcopi De ais lt ‘regard this as one of the most convincingEARLY CAREER AND EXILE OF HILARY OF POITIERS withthe emperor as Hilary does when he isin Constantinople in ageet in be concluded, therefore, that Hilary was not condemned $sJicafor the same reasons as were the bishops: at Arles and Mitty then was Hilary after being forced to come to Bésiers, condemned sabbhed into exile? Unfortunately the bishop never tells us the exact aa pattn tight ofthe fact that Hilary has refered to false charges as the aon Mie exile, and that, four years after his banishment at 1 antinople, he isstill adamantly seeking audience with the emperor in como confont his accuser directly with these charges, it may be that Ge seasons for his exile were not theological, but political in nature. ‘ns letter to Constantius, which was cited earlier, Hilary is quick to pant out that Julian is sympathetic (0 his cause, referring to him as his Pines” and “pious lord’ Secking a personal audience with the ‘nperor, Hilary is in no position to give false information, and his words, fovever baffing, should be taken literally. Intrigued by his attachment toJalian, Meslin thinks it makes the most sense if Hilary is seen trying to deactivate an accusation of a political nature. This hearkens back to a proposal made by Henry Chadwick over three decades ago which fteyerted that Hilary may have been accused of supporting the revolt of Sivanus, who proclaimed himself Augustus on 11 August 355."* Now, rust recently, Brennecke has adopted the idea, claiming that the turbulent aftermath of Magnentius’ and Silvanus’ usurpations makes sich a denunciation of treason very probable—and sure to receive Constantius’ immediate attention.*® Tn support of this scenario, we know such denunciations are not unique. A similar accusation was aimed at Athanasius for his correspon- dence with Magnentius.*” And if Kopecek is correct, an accusation (by Basl) of a treasonous alliance with Gallus led to the initial downfall of Aetius, Eudoxius and Theophilus." On the other hand, there is no direct evidence to sustain a revival of Chadwick’ thesis as Brennecke tries todo. All that can be said is that, for reasons unknown, Saturninus was succesful in convincing the emperor that Hilary was guilty of charges severe enough to warrant a speedy hearing and banishment. Hilary describes these as ‘false charges’ and requests a new hearing before the © Like Hi. 1 ‘Hilaire et a crise, 24. Meslin concludes, ‘Done, mesure de police et non sanction canonique, la sentence ni fut rendve a plus tard dans 'été 350", 25, Meslin docs not seem to sce the implications ofthis conclusion for his later arguments; see n. 57 below. “ sHilariue von Poitiers (ca 315-967)", Die Religion in Geschcke and ego iliy 317- Chadwick regards Hilary a8 the leader of opposition against Constantius, who saw a favourable opportunity in Silvanus’ revolt, But Silvanus was murdered and Hilary was, ‘exudemned for high treason. SAH ML Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 84-602, i, Oxford 196, 116 Brennecke, Hilrias con Pats, 239-40. pol ad Crt i Thomas A. Kopecek, History of Neo-Aranim, i, Cambridge, Mass. 1979, 174; based on Philostongius, HE iv. 8. auDot. WILLIAMS emperor to have them reviewed. We are left with the Saudemnation at Beziers had litle to do with theolog witnessed at Arles and Milan, Saititionalist, Hilary may have posed an obstruction to the attempts of Saturninus to create a common front among the Gallic bishops in suppor of the new religious policies of Constansius Certainly the enforce banishment at Arles (which was the see of Saturninus) of Paulinus, who Wrenably presided at the synod, cannot have been popules among the qHestemers. Its likely that the Arian bishop was proce cid Supported the banishments at Milan as well. But whatever the Feasons, there was CpeRoNal duality to this inter-piscopal strife: ‘Hilary's Fequest to Constantius in the ‘Liber nto review hi as (@ how Hilary might have become involved and 1 of Saturninus. Meorrect, the above reconstruction has major impli ot lilary’s now fragmentary work described by J adversus Valentem et Ursacium, historiam Ari Ried! continens’. Scholarly opinion has generally been sects follow Wilmart’s and Feder’s conclusion that the work as probably punted in three stages, the first of which Hilary prepared ie rece e his condemnation at Béziers, jn 1907, Wilmart established that the so-called ‘Ad Constantium liber Bpimus’ was in fact part of a letter addressed to Convene: by the Western bishops at the Synod of Sardica.** This document, along with an Gplenatory narrative by Hilary, is included in a dossier of heen nn Which Feder has entitled in his eritical edition “Lin, 29" oe soot Mes in Let dro € Oxide 205-30, Pass 196, 94 states that Sarurninws was nodical eter Goer en Valet et, at Milan, based on the evidence af ee Tirek Me TA COSE: 09, However, the text ofthe letter case es meh Notin does acknowledge ina footnote, iid. 3p hgh as na AM 8 sgnennlmar, "L’Ad Constantium Liber primus de Sage Hiei a tes {agments historique’, AB xiv (1907), 159-60, Mont insigaing aie ye Contant Arcee Vincents of Capua and Euphrates of Caloger pened Constantius in Antioch, 167-8, 2 Se: SEL Inv st, According to the arangement of Feder, this douier como of Baca nna Ad Constantium Tiber primus, CSEL hv, seep nee const of sean bishops of the Sarcican council withthe names of nerevea cea subscribers, 48-785, Brea iam the Wester bishops at Sardica to all churches sop eB: Junge” bishops at Sarica to Julius, 1a6-go; two lent of Gia Valens, one 10 AER SAS Ahe other to Adhanais, 453 a copy of the par ns Yale oe 1 Se nant ablation, 150-43 and preface with infomation vt ee Arles, Srnec et th deus Valin et Union was compli ee en stages. See agrees Hegent Helpfl summary of the editorial progresion of ac iee “Fragmenta historia’, in Patelogy iv. 46.8. 212panty CAREER AND EXILE OF HILARY OF POITIERS ved that Hilary took the Sardican document out of its original bend included i in his own survey of synods up until the time of Clr hr ——— Fl liber Mian (955% ablished by the fact that it was already exercising Hiterary inser by the end of 357 oF 358, since Phocbadius of Agen uses several mee lfom it in his Contra Arrianos.®* Tt is generally agreed that same s wrote against the Sirmium Declaration of 957, but before the Post of Rimini (359)- Thus, Phoebadius’ work can be roughly dated Gre end of 357 OF 358. It may be safely assumed, therefore, that the amphi histonque’, oF early ‘Liber 1" of Hilary is dated ‘sometime tefore Phocbadius’ work. Tr vother artile a year later, Wilmart concluded that Hilary, who dirested the contents of the Adversus Valentem et Ursacium against the agents ofthe Avian cause in the West, must have published the ‘Liber 1” in 356 a vesult of the synod of Béziers.»* Likewise, Feder proposed that Hilary not been able at Béziers to present his defence against the accusations WSaturminus, Valens and Ursacius and subsequently wrote the “Liber 1° fxbre he left Gaul for exile.** Both he and Wilmart believed Hilary was ‘ondemned at Béziers on the same anti-Athanasian grounds as were the bihops at Arles and Milan, Tt is not surprising, therefore, that they believed that Hilary prepared this series of anti documents in his defen ‘This proposed dating and historical context of “Liber 1” of the Adversus Valenen et Ursacium has been widely accepted by patrologies and studies on Hilary ®* A variation on the same theme is revived by Borchardt, who contends that Hilary probably prepared this dossier of documents to use in dispate with his opponents at Béziers."" This idea has found reinforcement in Paul Burns's recent article “Hilary of Poitiers’ con- fiontation with Arianism’."* + Vimar, “L’Ad Constantum’, 159-60. In checking the citations which Phoebadius ‘ssi o have borrowed from the Liber (also annotated in Feders notes in CSEL Ixy) T ind only thrce of ix occasions convincing: Orato oy. Sardicass iy CSEL Inv. 183 ni6, aml Gouna Ar. PL ax, 23D; Orato se Sardis i, CSEL lv. 18. 46-17, and Grey se (Peter wrongly cites Contra dr xi, PL xx. 24B; “Tacipit Fides apud eam «y CSEL lev. 154 #3, and Cora Ar. vi, PL. 170), Les Rayment Mitorijues ele Synede de Beziers en 356", RB xv (1908), 226. 4 Shady na Hilarie von Poitiers I. Die sogenannte “fragmenta histoica” und der segenanmee Liber tad Constantiam lmperatorem” nach iher Dberieferung, inhalicher Bteutung und Enttebune' in Sicengibercte Acad. Wim clxii/¢ (1910), ¥8415 ee Nac Paselgy 426:D.J, Chapman, The contested eters of Pope Liberia’, Bb wack feo), gs Emvennegger, Pucins of Fail, 243 Metin, “Hilaire etl ee" Bi M Fgura’ Dus Kichcetons ds Hers cc ois, Preiborg Bt, 2635 Stone, Fragmenta historic, 45 Tg anit Milan of Pate, 43-4. The origination ofthe argument goes back t0 Baten tel Zeugen fr die Hleskunft der Fragment 1 und des sogenannten Opus Kirin « Hilary, Thelogischen Quarts xxi (1900), 408-6 Cert: ga rms B Ere Philadelphia 185, 8 213D-H. WILLIAMS However, itis true that Hilary was not exiled at Béziers for am sentiments, then there is no necessity for the “Liber” to have been direst Felted (othe events at Beziers. Nor is there any compeling respekt Hilary had to have compiled the work before his exile. Indeed, it sem, more reasonable that he would have learned of the Sardican letes ony in exile, particularly the Epistula synodi Sardicensis Orientalium, a documerg with which he clearly shows familiarity in another exilic work, De gynodis.” Another document that looks suspiciously out of place in a collection of pre-exilic materials is the Nicene Creed. Hilary wrote that he had heard of the Nicene fides just before going into exile. But in the ‘Liber rhe not only quotes the creed in its entirety but is able to expound on its meaning as well. This can only be explained by the theological education Hilary received once he was in exile,"! an education which eventually enabled this receptive bishop to produce his magnum opus, the De Tritt. Lastly, if i is corect to assume that Valens and Ursaciws were not at Béziers, then it is most unlikely that Hilary would have compiled a polemical broadside entitled ‘Adversus Valentem et } Ursacium” in preparation for, or in reaction to, Béziers. If not Béziers, what then was the occasion for the Adoersus Valentem et Ursacium liber 12 ‘The probable answer is the publication of the Sirmium Declaration in 357 by Valens and Ursacius, which Hilary soon afterward scorns as the ‘blasphemia’.** It was the unveiling of this ‘Manifesto’ (as ‘Gwatkin called it), which ruled out any discussion of ousia as unscriptural, that so horrified and angered the West. And it was this formula that called forth Hilary's indignant response, moving him to write De synodis* in order to alert his Western episcopal colleagues to the threat which lay before them. The documents of the ‘Liber 1° and their intent seem to fit this context best. OF course, for Phocbadius to have utilised some material from the “Liber primus’ in his own response to the Sirmium formula, Hilary would have had to have sent his Adversus Valentem et Ursacium to the West very soon after the publication of the ‘blasphemia’,** But is the timing for this tiArian ‘ s ' 4 \ & Des, xxiv Bi 10, 11, CSEL bw. 150-4. : © He appears to have spent much time with Basil (of Ancyra) and Eleusius (of Cyzicus; see Dr sm. xc. He also appeats to have absorbed fom them a great deal of his perspective ofthe Contemporary theological controversies, “Nam absqu episcopo Eleusio auc cum co, ex major pate Asana decem province, ir qua con, vee eum nesciunt...Sed horum episcoporum dolor se intra silentium non contine= tnitatem fide! hus quaert™s Dee, fil, PL, 22-3, By the time he writes De wd (see above n. 29), Hilary is flly able to criticise the positions of fomeoasas and homaiousi®. ‘The insight required to frame together the documents ofthe Liber” also seem to bespeak such intellectual exposure t the theological world. © Des. xia view also taken by Brennecke, Hileris con Poitiers, $11, 326-7. © See De sm. vi The assembly at Sirmium (theres no reason to assume twas actually a council) et in cither the summer oF autumn of 357. Older studies (eg. HM. Gwatkin, Stdies it Ariasimm, London 1889, 89) tend to prefer the earlier date. Since Constantius does n0t aig,gan:y GAREER AND EXILE OF JHTARY oF POITIERS aro tight? Tt is probably not the ase Unlike the solitary srement imposed upon many 7 clesiastical exiles,” Hilary enjoyed ea degree of freedom of movement ‘and was allowed to fraternise pr homever he wished. Being in the company of men like Basil and whothitstandard-bearers forthe doctrine ‘of homoiousios, the report bee Deslaraion’ would have been readily accessible to Hilary. He was ite Tare of the impact which the dacumen) ‘had on this group, since it wel in pat directed against theit confessional position. For the purposes Pip own later work, De srodis, Hilary Tists twelve of the nineteen hemas from the synodical statement ‘of Ancyra (358) immediately aening his citation ofthe “lasphemia’ js reasonable, therefore, to Savina Hilary's state of exile not only did 08 impede his learning of sets nium Formula but, rather, made it posse for him to receive it all se Sie quickly. a fact, there is evidence in De ‘gnodis i that Hilary had she py sent to his Western fates certain documents ‘and elaborations the affairs of the Eastern bishops. Forsnce thd frequently informed you om many dies of he RO provinces what eer a peers of our religios brethren, the easier, OP fand how the seth te dards of themes spewed out Me ce doctrine with poisonous Hifi ataid that your sence was indicative of 9 llated and impious conscience, Sm [gen ehat so many bishops ae woe in #4 Soo impiety oF error. Frere ould not atibute to yous you had been 109 frequently warned.” Ihisensrely posible that some parts or all of what is now referred to ashe Tiber’ were included in those things that Hilary transmitted to aie aaper olleagues for their illumination, The charactet of the Spodital dossier well suits the context of the aboxe neg and it is, aera at his readers were alrcady aware of the Sirmium ‘Declaration sem Siri yn 1 Oct. (O- Seok, Regen de air wed Pape 6 TOY fis "nw Sci a ater more ely On the other Ha nowhere in G4 Oe Sagar 191920) peor said tobe present Se Athans, DF 7% sus Hilary, De syn. xis Socrates, HE i. 30 oi lay, De ms ets Vercall (eed at Milan) and Lt A Gexmany, Lea 6 pape bbe in Meee rts 9 Mile, Crisine Mokrmars, seh 1965, 188 Tas Scan statement rom dscssing the Sin formula in De gm ito the acy conc give the eae the imprest at Oe, ‘monly antiSimi Sintene. “Mo aque etn ime "ofesconbus edits, has resum ¢ conan San cei ia conan congregal SMEETn ‘ondiderunt': Peer Pia ie, however, che Aneyran coun was 28 ANTE derail Acts’ eosin Andoch, Soromen, HE is 13. Sen neh the stress on osning actives fn epresented a rebuttal to Siiam’s ban on mir mat Suey Na bie x plrimis Romanarum, Pron ‘rbibus Sc regio ratios ness sens SPAEOPY studlique eset Selene, caine remporaiam mune, dsb oro sigue Lingua Stantaqu, 8 om alse vere i A 3 Ce eae Ioriera docu vel erors pico acturitas et de Pe impiatae calamitrae impettgperatione sucepta. (nam ignorare vob fFeqnenice ‘admonitis non Tcebat)*: PL x. 479780. 215,If itis the case that the ‘Liber 1" was compiled in x Sirmium Declaration of 357, then the dng’ of its publication ought roe Pushed forward from the traditional dace 0f 356 to the end Problems. For example sretes oxne letters, especially the peroneal Gh 3s the letter to Vincentius (‘Non docece ) oF to Valens, Germinius (‘Quia scio*), whereas ay, ‘encounter with Liberi heme from exile (360) could easily seen for his 2 August 958" allows for the possibility ihue his letters, written in exile, may have been almost as late. Ifso, Hilary could never have had access ‘ them in time. and purpose. Jn sum, whatever set of circumstances lay behind the motive for Plotting Hilary’s exile in 356, i canner concluded that the grounds for Unacien; see CSEL tev. ign ” See Brean x betus datable to 959-7, thematically oh itt Lite potas, L. Duchesne, and edn, and the month (2 Aug.) of Liberius weentey Soe 216 1955.2 les only the day ! Ret 95,20 vse te dey |BARLY CAREER AND EXILE OF HILARY OF POITIERS ssesile and the context of Béziers were parallel with the events of Arles fbf Milan. This should serve as a warning against too readily attributing fpHilary an assumed anti-Arian role at this early stage of his career. On the fenrary, removal of the hagiographic veneer reveals a litte known Gallic | Shbop who may have been relatively ignorant of the theological and ical complexities which had grown out of the early Arian controversy. fe harmony with this conclusion we were also led to regard Hilary's ‘Liber’ of Adeersus Valentem et Ursacius as a product of his exile rather than reaction to (or in preparation for) it. This, too, would confirm the development of Hilary’s convictions about the Nicene Creed and its opponents after 356. And while it still may be accurate to bestow upon the bishop of Poitiers the ttle * Athanasius of the west’,”® such an appellation isjusified only after the exile had begun and this Western bishop had bis eyes opened in the East. 7 F.L. Cross and E, A. Livingstone (ds), The Oxford Dictionary ofthe Cristian Chrc, ford. 1974, 64g. ‘The phrase seems to have originated with Karl A. Hase, rhegechichi, Leipig 1836%, 137: durch Thaten, Leiden und Schriften der Athanasius ts Abendlandes (Borchardt, Hilary of Piers, pv 217