Strong as was the position of Athanasius in Egypt upon his return from exile, his hold upon the country grew with each year of the decade. When circumstances set Constantius free to resume the Arian campaign, it was against Athanasius that he worked; at first from the remote West, then by attempts to remove or coax him from Alexandria. But Athanasius was in an impregnable position, and when at last the city was seized by the coup de main of 356, from his hiding-places in Egypt he was more inaccessible still, more secure in his defence, more free to attack. Now the extraordinary development of Egyptian MONACHISM must be placed in the first rank of the causes which strengthened Athanasius in Egypt. The institution was already firmly rooted there (cf. p. 190), and Pachomius, a slightly older contemporary of Athanasius himself, had converted a sporadic manifestation of the ascetic impulse into an organised form of Community Life. Pachomius himself had died on May 9, 346 (cz/r. p. Ix., note 3, and p. 569, note 3: cf. Zheolog. Literaturztg. 1890, p. 622), but Athanasius was welcomed soon after his arrival by a deputation from the Society of Tabenne, who also conveyed a special message from the aged Antony. Athanasius placed himself at the head of the monastic movement, and we cannot doubt that while he won the enthusiastic devotion of these dogged and ardent Copts, his influence on the movement tended to restrain extravagances and to correct the morbid exaltation of the monastic ideal. It is remarkable that the only letters which survive from this decade (pp. 556—560) are to monks, and that they both support what has just been said. The army of Egyptian monks was destined to become a too powerful weapon, a scandal and a danger to the Church: but the monks were the main secret of the power and ubiquitous activity of Athanasius in his third exile, and that power was above all built up during the golden decade.
Coupled with the growth of monachism is the transformation of the episcopate. The great power enjoyed by the Archbishop of Alexandria made it a matter of course that in a prolonged episcopate discordant elements would gradually vanish and unanimity increase. This was the case under Athanasius: but the unanimity reflected in the letter ad Afros had practically already come about in the year of the return of Ath. from Aquileia, when nearly every bishop in Egypt signed the Sardican letter (p. 127; the names include the new bishops of 346-7 in Letter 19, with one or two exceptions). Athanasius not infrequently (pp. 559 sg. and Vit, Pach. 72) filled up vacancies in the episcopate from among the monks, and Serapion of ‘Thmuis, his most trusted suffragan remained after his elevation in very close relation with the monasteries.: Athanasius consecrated bishops not only for Egypt, but for the remote Abyssinian kingdom of Auxume as well. The visit of Frumentius to Alexandria, and his consecration as bishop for Auxume, are referred by Rufinus i, 9 (Socr. i. 19, &c.) to the beginning of the episcopate of Athanasius. But the chronology of the story (Gwatkin, pp. 93 sgg., D.C.B. ii. 236 where the argument is faulty) forbids this altogether, while the letter of Constantius (p. 250) is most natural if the consecration of Frumentius were then a comparatively recent matter, scarcely intelligible if it had taken place before the ‘deposition’ of Athan. by the council of Tyre. Athanasius had found Egypt distracted by religious dissensions; but by the time of the third exile we hear very little of Arians excepting in Alexandria itself (see p. 564); the ‘ Arians’ of the rest of Egypt were the remnant of the Meletians, whose monks are still mentioned by Theodoret (cf. p. 299 sg.). An incident which shews the growing numbers of the Alexandrian Church during this period is the necessity which arose at Easter in one year of using the unfinished Church of the Czsareum (for its history ef. p. 243, note 6, and Fist. Accph. vi., Fest. Ind. xxxvii., xxxviii., xl.) owing to the vast crowds of worshippers. The Church was a gift of Constantius, and had been begun by Gregory, and its use before completion and dedication was treated by the Arians as an act of presumption and disrespect on the part of Athanasius. eee t See below, DEATH OF CONSTANS. COUNCIL OF MILAN. xlix (2.) But while all was so happy in Egypt, the ‘profound peace’ of the rest of the Church was more apparent than real. The temporary revulsion of feeling on the part of Constantius, the engrossing urgency of the Persian war, the readiness of Constans to use his formidable power to secure justice to the Nicene bishops in the East, all these were causes which compelled peace, while leaving the deeper elements of strife to smoulder untouched. The riva Idepositions and anathemas of the hostile Councils remained without effect. Valens was in possession at Mursa, Photinus at Sirmium. Marcellus was, probably, not at Ancyra (Zahn 82); but the Arians deposed at Sardica were all undisturbed, while Athanasius was more firmly established than ever at Alexandria. On the whole, the Episcopate of the East was entirely in the hands of the reaction—the Nicene element, often large, among the laity was in many cases conciliated with difficulty. This is conspicuously the case at Antioch, where the temporising policy of Leontius managed to retain in communion a powerful body of orthodox Christians, headed by Diodorus and Flavian, whose energy neutralised the effect of his own steadily Arian policy (particulars, Gwatkin, pp. 133, sgg., Newman, Arians +4, p. 455—from Thdt. Hi. E. ii. 24). The Eustathian schism at Antioch was, apparently, paralleled by a Marcellian schism at Ancyra, but such cases were decidedly the exception.
Of the mass of instances where the bishops were not Arian but simply conservative, the Church of Jerusalem is the type. We have the instructions given to the Catechumens of this city between 348 and 350 by Cvri1, who in the latter year (Hort, p. 92) became bishop, and whose career is typical of the rise and development of so-called semi-Arianism. Cyril, like the conservatives generally, is strongly under the influence of Origen (see Caspari iv.
146-162, and cf. the Cazecheszs in Heurtley de Pid. et Symb. 62 with the Regula Fidei in Orig. de Princ.1). The instructions insist strongly on the necessity of scriptural language, and while contradicting the doctrines of Arius (without mentioning his name; cf. Athanasius on Marcellus and Photinus in pp. 433— 447) Cyril tacitly protests against the éuoovciov as of human contrivance (Cat. v. 12), and uses in preference the words ‘like to the Father according to the Scriptures’ or ‘in all things.’ This language is that of Athanasius also, especially in his earlier works (pp. 84 5gg.), but in the latter phase of the controversy, especially in the Dated Creed of 359, which presents striking resemblances to Cyril’s Catecheses, it became the watchword of the party of reaction. The Church of Jerusalem then was orthodox substantially, but rejected the Nicene formula, and this was the case in the East generally, except where the bishops were positively Arian. All were aggrieved at the way in which the Eastern councils had been treated by the West, and smarted under a sense of defeat (cf. Bright, Introd. to Hist, T>., p- xviii. ).
Accordingly the murder of Constans in 350 was the harbinger of renewed religious discord. For a time the political future was doubtful. Magnentius, knowing what Athanasius had to fear from Constantius, made a bid for the support of Egypt. Clementius and Valens, two members of a deputation to Constantius, came round by way of Egypt to ascertain the disposition of the country, and especially of its Bishop. Athanasius received them with bitter lamentations for Constans, and, fearing the possibility of an invasion by Magnentius, he called upon his congregation to pray for the Eastern Emperor. The response was immediate and unanimous: *O Christ, send help to Constantius ’(p. 242). The Emperor had, in fact, sought to secure the fidelity of Athanasius by a letter (pp. 247, 278), assuring him of his continued support.
And until the defeat of Magnentius at Mursa, he kept his word. That victory, which was as decisive for Valens as it was for Constantius (Gibbon, ii. 381, iii. 66, ed. Smith), was followed up by a Council at Sirmium, which successfully ousted the too popular Photinus (cf. pp. 280, 298; on the appeal of Photinus, and the debate between him and Basil of Ancyra, apparently in 355, see Gwatkin, pp. 145 sg., note 6). This was made the occasion for a new onslaught upon Marcellus in the anathemas appended to a reissue of the ‘fourth Antiochene’ or Philippopolitan Creed (p. 465; on the tentative character of these anathemas as a polemical move, cf. Gwatkin, p. 147, note 1). The Emperor was occupied for more than a year with the final suppression of Magnentius (Aug. 10, 353), but ‘the first Winter after his victory, which he spent at Arles, was employed against an enemy more odious to him than the vanquished tyrant of Gaul’ (Gibbon).
It is unnecessary to detail the tedious and unedifying story of the councils of Arles and Milan. The former was a provincial council of Gaul, attended by legates of the Roman see. All present submissively registered the imperial condemnation of Athanasius. The latter, delayed till 355 by the Rhenish campaign of Constantius, was due to the request of Liberius, who desired to undo the evil work of his legates, and to the desire of the Emperor to follow up the verdict of a provincial with that of a more representative Synod. The number of bishops present was probably very small (the numbers in Socrates ii. 36, Soz. iv. 9, may refer to those who afterwards signed under compulsion, p. 280, cf. the case of Sardica, p. 127, note 10). ‘The proceedings were a drama in three acts, first, submission, the legates protesting; secondly, stormy protest, after the arrival of Eusebius of Vercelle; thirdly, open coercion. The deposition of Athanasius was proffered to each bishop for signature, and, if he refused, a sentence of banishment was at once pronounced, the emperor sitting with the ‘ velum > drawn, much as though an English judge were to assume the black cap at the degénnzng of a capital trial. He cut short argument by announcing that ‘he was for the prosecution,’ and remonstrance by the sentence of exile (p. 299); the wep ey BovAopat todro Kkavev put into his mouth by Athanasius (p. 281) represents at any rate the spirit of his VOL. IV. d 1 PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IL, § 7.
proceedings as justly as does ‘la tradizione son’ to’ that of the autocrat of a more recent council, At this council no creed was put forth: until the enemy was dislodged from Alexandria the next step would be premature. But ‘a band of exiles were sent in strict custody to the East, of some of whom we shall hear later on (pp. 561, 481, 281, cf. p. 256, and the excellent monograph of Kriiger, Lucifer von Calaris, pp. 9—23).
Meanwhile, Athanasius had been peacefully pursuing his diocesan duties, but not without a careful outlook as the clouds gathered on the horizon. The prospect of a revival of the charges against him moved him to set in order an unanswerable array of documents, in proof, firstly of the unanimity, secondly of the good reason, with which he had been acquitted of them (see p. 97). He had also, in view of revived assertions of Arianism, drawn up the two letters or memoranda on the rationale of the Nicene formula and on the opinion ascribed to his famous predecessor, Dionysius (the Afology was probably written about 351, the date of the de Decr., and de Sent. Dion.? falls a little later). In 353 he began to apprehend danger, from the hopes with which the establishment of Constantius in the sole possession of the Empire was inspiring his enemies, headed by Valens in the West, and Acacius of Ceesarea in the East. Accordingly, he despatched a powerful deputation to Constantius, who was then at. Milan, headed by Serapion, his most trusted suffragan (cf.
p. 560, note 3 a; p. 497, $3, copied by Soz. iv. 9; Lest. Jnd. xxv.). The legates sailed May 19, but on the 23rd Montanus, an officer of the Palace, arrived with an Imperial letter, declining to receive any legates, but granting an alleged request of Athanasius to be allowed to come to Italy (p. 245 sg.). As he had made no request of the kind, Athanasius naturally suspected a plot to entice him away from his stronghold. The letter of Constantius did not convey an absolute command, so Athanasius, protesting his willingness to come when ordered to do so, resolved to remain where he was for the present. ‘All the people were exceedingly troubled,’ according to our chroniclers. ‘In this year Montanus was sent against the bishop, but a tumult having been excited, he retired without effect.’ Two years and two months later, i.e., in July—Aug. 355 (p. 497), force was attempted instead of stratagem, which the proceedings of Arles had, of course, made useless. ‘In this year Diogenes, the Secretary of the Emperor, came with the intention of seizing the bishop, ‘and Diogenes pressed hard upon all, trying to dislodge the bishop from the city, and he afflicted all pretty severely; but on Sept. 43 he pressed sharply, and stormed a Church, and this he did continually for four months...until Dec. 23. But as the people and magistrates vehemently withstood Diogenes, he returned back without effect on the 23rd of December aforesaid’ (Zest.
Ind. xxvii., Hist. Aceph. iii.). The fatal blow was clearly imminent. By this time the exiles had:begun to arrive in the East, and rumours came? that not even the powerful and popular Liberius, not even ‘ Father’ Hosius himself, had been spared. Athanasius might well point out to Dracontius (p. 558) that in declining the bishopric of the ‘country district of Alexandria’ he was avoiding the post of danger. On the sixth of January the ‘ Duke’ Syrianus arrived in Alexandria, concentrating in the city drafts from all the legions stationed in Egypt and Libya. Rumour was active as to the intentions of the commandant, and Athanasius felt justified in asking him whether he came with any orders from the Court. Syrianus replied that he did not, and Athanasius then produced the letter of Constantius referred to above (written 350—351). The magistrates and people joined in the remonstrance, and at last Syrianus protested ‘ by the life of Caesar’ that he would remain quiet until the matter had been referred to the Emperor. ‘This restored confidence, and on Thursday night, Feb. 8, Athanasius was presiding at a crowded service of preparation for a Communion on the following morning (Friday after Septuagesima) in the Church of Theonas, which with the exception of the unfinished Caesareum was the largest in the city (p. 243). Suddenly the church was surrounded and the doors broken in, and just after midnight Syrianus and the ‘notary’ Hilary ‘entered with an infinite force of soldiers.’
Athanasius (his fullest account is p. 263): calmly took his seat upon the throne (in the recess of the apse), and ordered the deacon to begin the 136th psalm, the people responding at each verse ‘for His mercy endureth for ever.’ Meanwhile the soldiers crowded up to the chancel, and in spite of entreaties the bishop refused to escape until the congregation were in safety. He ordered the prayers to proceed, and only at the last moment a crowd of monks and clergy seized the Archbishop and managed to convey him in the confusion out of the church in a half-fainting state (protest of Alexandrians, p. 301), NN 2 In de Sent. Dion. 23, 24. Arius is spoken of in a way con- 3 All the following dates are affected by Leap-Ve sistent with his being still alive. But the phase of the Arian | Table C, p. sor, and correct p. 246, note a fae 6s oe controversy to which the tract relates begins a decade after Arius’ 4 Definite inforination came only after Feb. 8, see p. 248.
death, and we therefore follow the indications which class the de Sent. with the de Decr.
COMMENCEMENT OF THIRD EXILE. li but thankful that he had been able to secure the escape of his people before his own (p. 264). From that moment Athanasius was lost to public view for ‘six years and fourteen days’ (Hist. Aceph.. i.e., Mechir 13, 356—Mechir 27, 362), ‘for he remembered that which was written, Hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast ’ (pp. 288, 252, 262). Constantius and the Arians had planned their blow with skill and delivered it with decisive effect. But they had won a ‘ Cadmean Victory.’
§8. Zhe Third Exile, 356—362.
__ The third exile of Athanasius marks the summit of his achievement. Its commencement is the triumph, its conclusion the collapse of Arianism. It is true that after the death of Constantius the battle went on with variations of fortune for twenty years, mostly under the reign of an ardently Arian Emperor (364—378). But by 362 the utter lack of inner coherence in the Arian ranks was manifest to all; the issue of the fight might be postponed by circumstances but could not be in doubt. The break-up of the Arian power was due to its own lack of reality: as soon as ‘t had a free hand, it began to go to pieces. But the watchful eye of Athanasius followed each step in the process from his hiding-place, and the event was greatly due to his powerful personality and ready pen, knowing whom to overwhelm and whom to conciliate, where to strike and where to spare. This period then of forced abstention from affairs was the most stirring in spiritual and literary activity in the whole life of Athanasius. It produced more than half of the treatises which fill this volume, and more than half of his entire extant works. With this we shall have to deal presently; but let it be noted once for all how completely the amazing power wielded by the wandering fugitive was based upon the devoted fidelity of Egypt to its pastor. Towns and villages, deserts and monasteries, the very tombs were scoured by the Imperial inquisitors in the search for Athanasius; but all in vain; not once do we hear of any suspicion of betrayal. The work of the golden decade was bearing its fruit.
(1.) On leaving the church of Theonas, Athanasius appears to have made his escape from the city. If for once we may hazard a conjecture, the numerous cells of the Nitrian desert offered a not too distant but fairly inpenetrable refuge. He must at any rate have selected a place where he could gain time to reflect on the situation, and above all ensure that he should be kept well informed of events from time to time. For in Athanasius we never see the panicstricken outlaw; he is always the general meditating his next movement and full of the prospects of his cause. He made up his mind to appeal to Constantius in person. He could not believe that an Emperor would go back upon his solemn pledges, especially such a voluntary assurance as he had received after the death of Constans. Accordingly he drew up a carefully elaborated defence (Af. Const. 1—26) dealing with the four principal charges against him, and set off through the Libyan *° desert with the intention of crossing to Italy and finding Constantius at Milan. But while he was on his way, he encountered rumours confirming the reports of the wholesale banishment not only of the recalcitrants of Milan, but of Liberius of Rome and the great Hosius of Spain. Next came the news of the severe measures against Egyptian bishops, and of the banishment of sixteen of their number, coupled with the violence practised by the troops at Alexandria on Easter Day (p. 248 sg.); however, his journey was continued, until he received copies of letters from the Emperor, one denouncing him to the Alexandrians and recommending a new bishop, one George, as their future guide, the other summoning the princes of Auxumis to send Frumentius (suv. p. xlviii.) to Egypt in order that he might unlearn what he had been taught by ‘the most wicked Athanasius’ and receive instruction from the ‘venerable George.’ These letters, which shew how completely the pursuers were of: the scent (p. 249), convinced Athanasius that a personal interview was out of the question. Hereturned ‘into the desert,’ and at leisure completed his apology (pp. 249—253), with the view partly 0: possible future delivery, partly no doubt of literary circulation. Before turning back, however, he appears to have drawn ‘up his letter to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, warning them against the formula (see p. 222) which was being tendered for their subscription, and encouraging them to endure persecution, which had already begun at least in Libya (Ep. Eg.); the designation of George (§ 7) was already known, but he had not arrived, nor had Secundus (19) reappeared in Egypt, at any rate not in Libya (he was there in Lent, 357, p. 294). The letter to the bishops, then, must have been written about Easter, 356; not long after, i h i: into. The cautious vague- =O f Magnentius had come from Italy ¢hrough | a most dangerous territory to venture into, 1 Lib es ed The ‘desert’ (Agol. Const. 27, 32) must | ness of his language, Eo. Ag. 5, while it baffles even our be ‘he roa between Alxa. and Cyrenaica, not Palestine as | curiosity, yet favours the hypothesis that the events referred to Tillem. viii. 186, infers from ZZ. 4@g. 5. There is no evidence belong to the Zgyféian persecution. that Ath. left his province during this exile, and Palestine was ad 2 lit PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER il, § 8 (1).
a em because it contains no details of the persecution in Egypt; not before, for the persecution had already begun, and Athanasius was already in Cyrenaica, whence he turned back not ae “_ April (to allow tine for Constantius (1) to hear that Athanasius was thought to have fle o Ethiopia, (2) to write to Egypt, (3) for copies of the letter to overtake Athanasius on his way to Italy. Constantius was at Milan Jan.—April).
Meanwhile in Alexandria disorders had continued. The ‘duke’ appears to have been either unable for a time, or to have thought it needless, to take possession of the churches; but we hear of a violent dispersion of worshippers from the neighbourhood of the cemetery on Easter Day (p. 249, cf. the Virgins after Ses but before Heraclius, p. 288); while throughout Egypt subscription to an Arianising formula was being enforced on the bishops under pain of expulsion. After Easter, a change of governor took place, Maximus of Niczea (pp. 301 599., 247) being succeeded by Cataphronius, who reached Alexandria on the roth of June (Hist. Aceph. iv.). He was accompanied by a Count Heraclius, who brought a letter from Constantius threatening the heathen with severe measures (pp. 288, 290), unless active hostilities against the Athanasian party were begun (this letter was not the one given p. 249; Ath. rightly remarks ‘it reflected great discredit upon the writer’). Heraclius announced that by Imperial order the Churches were to be given up to the Arians, and compelled all the magistrates, including the functionaries of heathen temples, to sign an undertaking to execute the Imperial incitements to persecution, and to agree to receive as Bishop the Emperor’s nominee. These incredible precautions shew the general esteem for Athanasius even outside the Church, and the misgivings felt at Court as to the reception of the new bishop. The Gentiles reluctantly agreed, and the next acts of violence were carried out with their aid, ‘or rather with that of the more abandoned among them’ (p. 291). On the fourth day from the arrival of Cataphronius, that is in the early hours of Thursday, June 13, after a service (which had begun overnight, pp. 290, 256 fix., Hist. Aceph. v.), just as all the congregation except a. few women had left, the church of Theonas was stormed and violences perpetrated which left far behind anything that Synianus had done. Women were murdered, the church wrecked and polluted with the very worst orgies of heathenism, houses and even tombs were ransacked throughout the city and suburbs on pretence of ‘ seeking for Athanasius.
Sebastian the Manichee, who about this time succeeded to the military command of Syrianus, appears to have carried on these outrages with the utmost zest (yet see Ast. Av. 60). Many more bishops were driven into exile (compare the twenty-six of p. 297 with the ‘sixteen’ p. 248, but some may belong to a still later period, see p. 257), and the Arian bishops and clergy installed, including the bitterly vindictive Secundus in Libya (p. 257). The formal transfer of churches at Alexandria took place on Saturday, June 15 (zuz/r.. p. 290, note 9): the anniversary of Eutychius (p. 292) was kept at Alexandria on July 11, (AZartyrol. Vetust. Ed.
ance (Feb. 24, 357™, third Friday in Lent). for the second bishopric in Christendom.
After a further delay of ‘eight months and eleven days’ George, the new bishop, made his appear- His previous career?* and character?3 were strange qualifications He had been a pork-contractor at Constantinople, and according to his many enemies a fraudulent one; he had amassed considerable wealth, and was a zealous Arian.
His violent temper perhaps recommended him as a man likely to crush the opposition that was expected. The history of his episcopate may be briefly disposed of here. force. At Easter he renewed the violent persecution of bishops, clergy, virgins, and lay people.
11 This date, coming from the common source of the Historia Acephala and Festal Index (i.e. from the accredited Alexandrian chronology of the period), must be accepted unless there is cogent proof of its incorrectness. No such proof is offered: we have no positive statement to the contrary, but only (1) the fact that the intrusion of George is related, dZo/. Fug. 6, immediately after an attack on the great church, possibly the coup de main of Syrianus, but more probably that ofp. 290, note 9, without any hint of a long interval. This is true, and zf there were no evidence the other way might justify a guess that George came in Lent, 356; but no one would claim that the passage is conclusive by itself; (2) the ‘improbability’ of George delaying his arrival so long. Improbability is a relative term; we know too little of George’s consecration or movements to justify its use in the present connection. All the evidence goes to shew that the court party were far from sanguine as to the nature of his reception, and that their misgivings were well-founded. The above considerations look very small when we compare them with the mass of positive evidence the other way. (1.) The civil Governor had changed: Maximus held the post on Feb. 8, 356 (st. Av. 81, &c.), Cataphronius when the churches were transferred to the party of George, see below, 6. (2.) The military Commander had changed: Syrianus was replaced by Sebastian, who appears just after the transfer of churches, Hzst. Av. 55—60 (Dr. Bright in D.C.B. i. 194, ote, seems to admit that Sebastian belongs to a later date than the Lent of 356). (3.) The Wednesday (and Thursday) of Hist. Ar. 55 were not ‘in Lent.’ They suit the data of Hist. Aceph. perfectly well. (4.) Had George arrived before Easter 356, Athan. would have heard of it ‘in the Desert,’ Afol. Const. 27; but he has only heard of his nomination evoudcOn 28, probably from the letters given in §§ 30, 31). (5.) The Letter to the Egyptian bishops was written from Libya or Cyrenaica, when the coercion of the episcopate had begun: it postulates some time since his expulsion, but George was then (§ 7) only in contemplation. (6.) There is no evidence that the coup de main of Syrianus was other than unpopular in the city. This was reported to Const., who after the (Easter) outrages on the Virgins (AZ. Const. 27; Hist. Ar. 48), and @/ter the expulsion of the sixteen bishops (Hist. Ar. 54, this was probably about Easter, AZ. Const. 27) sent Heraclius (with the ‘ discreditable’ letter), 72 whose contpany (Hist. Ar. 55) the new Prefect Cataphronius first appears. This let loose the refuse of the heathen population as described, ib, 55—60. (7.) Here the precise statement of the Hist, Aceph.
He entered upon his See in Lent, 357, with an armed In the week fits in exactly. The Presbyters and people of Ath. remained in possession of the Churches until the arrival of the new Prefect, with Count Heraclius,on June 10. (8.) Heraclius is expressly called the Jrecursor of George (p. 288), and is evidently sent to disarm the reported hostility of the (even heathen) public to the appointment. It may be added that if we are to take ‘probabilities’ into account, it is easier to imagine a reason for a court nominee like George having been slow to take up a dangerous post, than for the Alexandrian chronologists of the day having invented a year’s interval when none had existed. Montfaucon had already noticed that ‘a good deal must have happened’ between the irruption of Syrianus and the entry of George. The data of Athanasius are for the first time clearly explained by the light thrown on them by the chroniclers. I should also have urged the fact that the commemoration of George’s Pentecost Martyrs on May 21 in the Roman Martyrology szits 357 and not 356, had I succeeded in tracing the history of the entry, which has, however, so far eluded my efforts.