Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

On Peter, bishop of Alexandria, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 54. According to that chapter he suffered in the ninth year of the persecution; that is, at least as early as April, 312.

The presbyter Lucian, who is mentioned also in Bk. VIII. chap. 13, above, was one of the greatest scholars of the early Church, and with Dorotheus (see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 9) at the head of the famous theological school at Antioch. He produced a revised version of the LXX, which enjoyed a wide circulation (see Jerome’s de vir. ill. 77, and Westcott’s Hist. of the N. T. Canon, p. 392 sq.); and also wrote some books on Faith (see Jerome, ibid. ), some epistles (see ibid., and Suidas, s.v. ), and a commentary on Job, of which a Latin fragment has been preserved and is given by Routh, Rel. Sacræ, IV. p. 7–10. His works have perished, with the exception of a brief fragment of an epistle, the fragment from his commentary on Job just referred to, and a part of his defense before Maximinus (referred to in the present chapter) which is preserved by Rufinus, H. E. IX. 6, and is probably genuine (cf. Westcott, ibid. p. 393). These extant fragments are given, with annotations, by Routh, ibid . p. 5 sq. Lucian’s chief historical significance lies in his relation to Arianism. On this subject, see above, p. 11 sq.

See above, chaps. 2 and 4.

These decrees must have been published in this way in June, 312, or thereabouts; for in chap. 10, §12, we learn that they were thus made public a little less than a year before the final edict of toleration, which was apparently issued in May, 313.

See chap. 5.

οὐκ εἰς μακρὸν τἀναντία περὶ ἡμῶν ἐβουλεύσατο τε καὶ δι᾽ ἐγγρ€φων νόμων ἐδογμ€τισε . Crusè translates, “So that he did not long devise hostilities and form decrees against us.” It is true that the phrase οὐκ εἰς μακρόν may in general bear the meaning “not for long,” as well as “not long afterward”; but an examination of the numerous passages in which the words are used by Eusebius (e.g. I. 11. 1; I. 13. 4; II. 6. 5; II. 7; III. 5. 7; IV. 7. 12; VII. 13. 1) will show that, with a single exception, he uniformly employs them in the sense of “not long afterward.” The single exception occurs in Bk. IV. chap. 7, §12, where the phrase is clearly used with the other meaning—“not for long.” In view of this preponderance of instances for the former use of the phrase in this single work, it seems best in the present case—the only doubtful one, so far as I am aware—to follow Valesius, Stroth, and Closs in translating “not long afterward,” which is in full accord with the context, and more in harmony than the other reading with the structure of this particular sentence.

Matt. xxiv. 24 .

ἅνθραξ : “ a carbuncle, malignant pustule (acc. to some, small-pox ).” Liddell and Scott. Eusebius is the only writer to tell us of this famine and pestilence during Maximin’s reign, though Lactantius ( De Mort. pers. 37) does refer in a single sentence to a famine, without giving us any particulars in regard to it, or informing us of its severity or extent.

We do not know when Christianity was first preached in Armenia, but late in the third century Gregory, “the Illuminator,” an Armenian of royal blood who had received a Christian training in Cappadocia, returned as a missionary to his native land, which was mainly heathen, and at the beginning of the fourth century succeeded in converting the king, Tiridates III., and a large number of the nobles and people, and Christianity was established as the state religion (see the articles Armenia and Gregory, the Illuminator, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. ). The Armenians had been friends of the Romans for many generations and allies in their wars with the Persians on many occasions. The present war is mentioned, so far as I know, only by Eusebius. According to §4, below, it ended in a defeat for Maximinus. It cannot have been a war of great consequence. It was very likely little more than a temporary misunderstanding, resulting perhaps in a few skirmishes between troops on the border, and speedily settled by a treaty of some kind or another. Maximinus at any rate could not afford to quarrel long with his Eastern neighbors, in view of the struggle with Licinius which he knew must come in time. Whether the Armenians or the Romans were the aggressors in this affair, Eusebius does not tell us. It is very probable, as Mason suggests, that Maximinus tried to put down Christianity in Lesser Armenia, which was a Roman province and therefore under his sway, and that their brethren in the kingdom of Armenia took up arms against Rome to avenge their kindred and their faith.

See the previous chapter, § 8.

An Attic drachm was a silver coin, worth about eighteen or nineteen cents.

αὐλῶν τε καὶ κτύπων.

All the mss. , followed by Valesius and Crusè, give this as the title of the next chapter, and give as the title of this chapter the one which I have placed at the head of chapter 10. It is plain enough from the contents of the two chapters that the titles have in some way become transposed in the mss. , and so they are restored to their proper position by the majority of the editors, whom I have followed.

See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13.

On Licinius, see ibid. note 21. Constantine and Licinius were both Augusti, and thus nominally of equal rank. Nevertheless, both in the edict of Galerius, quoted in Bk. VIII. chap. 17, and in the edict of Milan, given in full in the De Mort. pers. chap. 48, Constantine’s name precedes that of Licinius, showing that he was regarded as in some sense the latter’s senior, and thus confirming Eusebius’ statement, the truth of which Closs unnecessarily denies. It seems a little peculiar that Constantine should thus be recognized as Licinius’ senior, especially in the edict of Galerius; for although it is true that he had been a Cæsar some time before Licinius had been admitted to the imperial college, yet, on the other hand, Licinius was made Augustus by Galerius before Constantine was, and enjoyed his confidence and favor much more fully than the latter.

On Maxentius, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 1.

i.e. Maximinus. For an account of his defeat by Licinius and his death, see below, chap. 10.

οὔπω μανέντος τότε . This refers to Licinius’ hostility to the Christians, which made its appearance some years later, and resulted in a persecution (see below, Bk. X. chap. 8). The clause, if a part of the original, obliges us to suppose that the ninth book was composed after Licinius had begun to persecute, but there are strong reasons for thinking that the first nine books were completed before 314 (see above, p. 45); indeed, we cannot explain Eusebius’ eulogistic words in speaking of Licinius here and elsewhere in this book on any other ground. It seems necessary, therefore, to regard this clause and the similar clause in §12, below, as later insertions, made possibly at the time of the addition of the tenth book (see p. 45).

See above, note 2.

Constantine’s battle with Maxentius, described in this chapter, took place on the sixth anniversary of the latter’s accession, Oct. 27, 312 (see Lactantius, De Mort. pers. 44 and 46). For particulars respecting Constantine himself and his campaign against Maxentius, see Dr. Richardson’s prolegomena to his translation of the Life of Constantine, p. 416. sq. of this volume.

Ex. xv. 4, 5 . The phrase translated “charioteers” is ἀναβ€τας τριστ€τας , which is employed in the LXX to translate the Hebrew שָׁלִישָׁיו . The word שָׁלִישׁ , which means literally a “third,” and hence a “third man” (Greek τριστ€της , is used, according to Gesenius, to denote a chariot warrior, who was so called because “three always stood upon one chariot, one of whom fought, while the second protected him with the shield, and the third drove.”

Ex. xv. 5 .

Psa. vii. 15, 16 .

Ex. xv. 10 .

Ibid . verse 1 . Eusebius, in this and the next passage, follows the LXX, which differs considerably from the Hebrew.

The LXX, followed by Eusebius, reads δεδοξασμένος ἐν ἁγίοις to translate the Hebrew נֶאְדָּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ . It seems probable both from the Hebrew original and from the use of the plural δόξαις in the next clause, that the LXX translator used the plural ἁγίοις , not to denote “saints,” as Closs renders (“durch die Heiligen”), which would in strictness require the article, but “holiness.” I have therefore ventured to render the word thus in the text, although quite conscious that the translation does not accurately reproduce the Greek phrase as it stands.

Ex. xv. 11 .

Upon Constantine’s conversion, see Dr. Richardson’s prolegomena, p. 431, below. On the famous tale of the flaming cross with its inscription τούτῳ νίκα , related in the Life of Constantine, I. 28, see his note on that passage, p. 490, below.

Σεε αβόε, νοτε 5.

This is the famous edict of Milan, which was issued late in the year 312, and which is given in the Latin original in Lactantius’ De Mort. pers. 48, and in a Greek translation in Eusebius’ History, Bk. X. chap. 5, below. For a discussion of its date and significance, see the notes upon that chapter.

This epistle or rescript (Eusebius calls it here a γρ€μμα , just below an ἐπιστολή ) of Maximin’s was written before the end of the year 312, as can be seen from the fact that in §17, below, his visit to Nicomedia is spoken of as having taken place in the previous year. But that visit, as we learn from the De Mort. pers. chap. 36, occurred in 311 (cf. chap. 2, note 1, above). It must therefore have been issued immediately upon the receipt of the edict of Constantine and Licinius. As Mason remarks, his reasons for writing this epistle can hardly have been fear of Constantine and Licinius, as Eusebius states, for he was bent upon war against them, and attacked Licinius at the earliest possible moment. He cannot have cared, therefore, to take any special pains to conciliate them. He was probably moved by a desire to conciliate, just at this crisis, the numerous and influential body of his subjects whom he had persecuted, in order that he might not have to contend with disaffection and disloyalty within his own dominions during his impending conflict with Licinius. The document itself is a most peculiar one, full of false statements and contradictions. Mason well says: “In this curious letter Maximin contradicts himself often enough to make his Christian subjects dizzy. First he justifies bloody persecution, then plumes himself upon having stopped it, next apologizes for having set it again on foot, then denies that it was going on, and lastly orders it to cease. We cannot wonder at what Eusebius relates, that the people whose wrongs the letter applauded and forbade, neither built church nor held meeting in public on the strength of it; they did not know where to have it.”

On Sabinus, see above, chap. 1, note 3.

Νοτηινγ χουλδ βε φαρτηερ φρομ τηε τρυτη τηαν τηισ ανδ τηε φολλοωινγ στατεμεντ.

That is, after the death of Galerius in the year 311. “Maximinus, on receiving this news (i.e. of the death of Galerius), hasted with relays of horses from the East that he might seize the provinces, and, while Licinius delayed, might arrogate to himself the Chalcedonian straits. On his entry into Bithynia, with the view of acquiring immediate popularity, he abolished the tax to the great joy of all. Dissension arose between the two emperors, and almost war. They stood on the opposite shores with their armies. But peace and friendship were established under certain conditions; a treaty was concluded on the narrow sea, and they joined hands” (Lactantius, De mort. pers. 36). See above, chap. 2, note 1.

On these embassies, see ibid . note 3.

There is no sign of such consideration in Maximin’s rescript, quoted in chap. 7, above. The sentences which follow are quite contradictory. Certainly no one could gain from them any idea as to what the emperor had done in the matter.

σεισμούς , literally, “shakings,” or “shocks.” The word is doubtless used to translate the Latin concussio, which in legal language meant the extortion of money by threats or other similar means. The words concussio, concussor, concutit, are used very frequently by Tertullian in this sense; e.g. in his De fuga in persecutione, chap. 12, ad Scap. chaps. 4 and 5, Apol. chap. 7. See especially Oehler’s note on the word in his edition of Tertullian’s works, I. p. 484.

βενεφικιαλίων , a simple reproduction of the Latin beneficiarii. These beneficiarii were “free or privileged soldiers, who through the favor of their commander were exempt from menial offices” (Andrews’ Lexicon). We are