THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, CHAPTERS II & III
CHAPTER II.
THE WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS.
EUSEBIUS was one of the most voluminous writers of antiquity, and his
labors covered almost every field of theological learning. In the words of
Lightfoot he was "historian, apologist, topographer, exegete, critic, preacher,
dogmatic writer, in turn." It is as an historian that he is best known, but the
importance of his historical writings should not cause us to overlook, as modern
scholars have been prone to do, his invaluable productions in other departments.
Light-foot passes a very just judgment upon the importance of his works in the
following words: "If the permanent utility of an author's labors may be taken as
a test of literary excellence, Eusebius will hold a very high place indeed. The
Ecclesiastical History is absolutely unique and indispensable. The Chronicle
is the vast storehouse of information relating to the ancient monarchies of the
world. The Preparation and Demonstration are the most important contributions
to theology in their own province. Even the minor works, such as the Martyrs of
Palestine, the Life of Constantine, the Questions addressed to Stephanus and to
Marinus, and others, would leave an irreparable blank, if they were
obliterated. And the same permanent value attaches also to his more technical treatises.
The Canons and Sections have never yet been superseded for their particular
purpose. The Topography of Palestine is the most important contribution to our
knowledge in its own department. In short, no ancient ecclesiastical writer has
laid posterity under heavier obligations."
If we look in Eusebius' works for evidences of brilliant genius we shall
be disappointed. He did not possess a great creative mind like Origen's or
Augustine's. His claim to greatness rests upon his vast erudition and his sterling
sense. His powers of acquisition were remarkable and his diligence in study
unwearied. He had at his command undoubtedly more acquired material than any man of
his age, and he possessed that true literary and historical instinct which
enabled him to select from his vast stores of knowledge those things which it was
most worth his while to tell to the world. His writings therefore remain
valuable while the works of many others, perhaps no less richly equipped than himself
for the mission of adding to the sum of human knowledge, are entirely
forgotten. He thus had the ability to do more than acquire; he had the ability to
impart to others the very best of that which he acquired, and to make it useful to
them. There is not in his writings the brilliancy which we find in some others,
there is not the same sparkle and freshness of new and suggestive thought,
there is not the same impress of an overmastering individuality which transforms
everything it touches. There is, however, a true and solid merit which marks his
works almost without exception, and raises them above the commonplace. His
exegesis is superior to that of most of his contemporaries, and his apologetics is
marked by fairness of statement, breadth of treatment, and instinctive
appreciation of the difference between the important and the unimportant points under
discussion, which give to his apologetic works a permanent value. His wide
acquaintance, too, with other systems than his own, and with the products of Pagan
as well as Christian thought, enabled him to see things in their proper
relations and to furnish a treatment of the great themes of Christianity adapted to the
wants of those who had looked beyond the confines of a single school. At the
same time it must be acknowledged that he was not always equal to the grand
opportunities which his acquaintance with the works and lives of other men and
other peoples opened before him. He does not always reveal the possession of that
high quality of genius which is able to interpret the most various forces and to
discover the higher principles of unity which alone make them intelligible;
indeed, he often loses himself completely in a wilderness of thoughts and notions
which have come to him from other men and other ages, and the result is dire
confusion.
We shall be disappointed, too, if we seek in the works of Eusebius for
evidences of a refined literary taste, or for any of the charms which attach to
the writings of a great master of composition. His style is, as a rule, involved
and obscure, often painfully rambling and incoherent. This quality is due in
large part to the desultoriness of his thinking. He did not often enough clearly
define and draw the boundaries of his subject before beginning to write upon
it. He apparently did much of his thinking after he had taken pen in hand, and
did not subject what he had thus produced to a sufficiently careful revision, if
to any revision at all. Thoughts and suggestions poured in upon him while he
was writing; and he was not always able to resist the temptation to insert them
as they came, often to the utter perversion of his train of thought, and to the
ruin of the coherency and perspicuity of his style. It must be acknowledged,
too, that his literary taste was, on the whole, decidedly vicious. Whenever a
flight of eloquence is attempted by him, as it is altogether too often, his style
becomes hopelessly turgid and pretentious. At such times his skill in mixing
metaphors is something astounding (compare, for instance, H. E. II. 14). On the
other hand, his works contain not a few passages of real beauty. This is
especially true of his Martyrs of Palestine, where his enthusiastic admiration for and
deep sympathy with the heroes of the faith cause him often to forget himself
and to describe their sufferings in language of genuine fire or pathos. At
times, too, when he has a sharply defined and absorbing aim in mind, and when the
subject with which he is dealing does not seem to him to demand rhetorical
adornment, he is simple and direct enough in his language, showing in such cases that
his commonly defective style is not so much the consequence of an inadequate
command of the Greek tongue as of desultory thinking and vicious literary taste.
But while we find much to criticise in Eusebius' writings, we ought not to
fail to give him due credit for the conscientiousness and faithfulness with
which he did his work. He wrote often, it is true, too rapidly for the good of
his style, and he did not always revise his works as carefully as he should have
done; but we seldom detect undue haste in the collection of materials or
carelessness and negligence in the use of them. He seems to have felt constantly the
responsibilities which rested upon him as a scholar and writer, and to have
done his best to meet those responsibilities. It is impossible to avoid
contrasting him in this respect with the most learned man of the ancient Latin Church,
St. Jerome. The haste and carelessness with which the latter composed his De
Viris Illustribus, and with which he translated and continued Eusebius' Chronicle,
remain an everlasting disgrace to him. An examination of those and of some
others of Jerome's works must tend to raise Eusebius greatly in our esteem. He was
at least conscientious and honest in his work, and never allowed himself to
palm off ignorance as knowledge, or to deceive his readers by sophistries,
misstatements, and pure inventions. He aimed to put the reader into possession of the
knowledge which he had himself acquired, but was always conscientious enough to
stop there, and not attempt to make fancy play the r"le of fact.
One other point, which was mentioned some pages back, and to which
Lightfoot calls particular attention, should be referred to here, because of its
bearing upon the character of Eusebius' writings. He was, above all things, an
apologist; and the apologetic aim governed both the selection of his subjects and
method of his treatment. He composed none of his works with a purely scientific
aim. He thought always of the practical result to be attained, and his selection
of material and his choice of method were governed by that. And yet we must
recognize the fact that this aim was never narrowing in its effects. He took a
broad view of apologetics, and in his lofty conception of the Christian religion
he believed that every field of knowledge might be laid under tribute to it. He
was bold enough to be confident that history, philosophy, and science all
contribute to our understanding and appreciation of divine truth; and so history
and philosophy and science were studied and handled by him freely and fearlessly.
He did not feel the need of distorting truth of any kind because it might work
injury to the religion which he professed. On the contrary, he had a sublime
faith which led him to believe that all truth must have its place and its
mission, and that the cause of Christianity will be benefited by its discovery and
diffusion. As an apologist, therefore, all fields of knowledge had an interest
for him; and he was saved that pettiness of mind and narrowness of outlook which
are sometimes characteristic of those who write with a purely practical motive.
- 2. Catalogue of his Works.
There is no absolutely complete edition of Eusebius' extant works. The
only one which can lay claim even to relative completeness is that of Migne:
Eusebii Pamphili, Caesarea Palestin' Episcopi, Opera omnia qu' extant, curis
variorum, nempe: Henrici Valesii, Francisci Vigeri, Bernardi Montfauconii, Card.
Angelo Maii edita; collegit et denuo recognovit J. P. Migne. Par. 1857. 6 vols (tom.
XIX.-XXIV. of Migne's Patrologia Gr'ca). This edition omits the works which
are extant only in Syriac versions, also the Topica, and some brief but important
Greek fragments (among them the epistles to Alexander and Euphration). The
edition, however, is invaluable and cannot be dispensed with. References to it
(under the simple title Opera) will be given below in connection with those works
which it contains. Many of Eusebius' writings, especially the historical, have
been published separately. Such editions will be mentioned in their proper
place in the Catalogue.
More or less incomplete lists of our author's writings are given by Jerome
(De vir. ill. 87); by Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. VI. 37); by Ebedjesu (in
Assemani's Bibl. Orient. III. p. 18 sq.); by Photius (Bibl. 9-13, 27, 39, 127);
and by Suidas (who simply copies the Greek version of Jerome). Among modern works
all the lives of Eusebius referred to in the previous chapter give more or
less extended catalogues of his writings. In addition to the works mentioned
there, valuable lists are also found in Lardner's Credibility, Part II chap. 72, and
especially in Fabricius' Bibl. Gr'ca (ed. 1714), vol. VI. p. 30 sq.
The writings of Eusebius that are known to us, extant and non-extant, may
be classified for convenience' sake under the following heads: I. Historical.
II. Apologetic. III. Polemic. IV. Dogmatic. V. Critical and Exegetical. VI.
Biblical Dictionaries. VII. Orations. VIII. Epistles. IX. Spurious or doubtful
works. The classification is necessarily somewhat artificial, and claims to be
neither exhaustive nor exclusive. [1]
I. HISTORICAL WORKS.
Life of Pamphilus (<greek>h</greek> <greek>tou</greek>
II<greek>amfilou</greek> <greek>biou</greek> <greek>analrafh</greek>; see H. E. VI. 32). Eusebius
himself refers to this work in four passages (H. E. VI. 32, VII. 32, VIII. 13,
and Mart. Pal. c. In the last he informs us that it consisted of three books.
The work is mentioned also more than once by Jerome (De vir. ill. 81; Ep. ad
Marcellam, Migne's ed. Ep. 34; Contra Ruf. I. 9), who speaks of it in terms of
praise, and in the last passage gives a brief extract from the third book, which
is, so far as known, the only extant fragment of the work. The date of its
composition can be fixed within comparatively narrow limits. It must of course have
been written before the shorter recension of the Martyrs of Palestine, which
contains a reference to it (on its relation to the longer recension, which does
not mention it, see below, p. 30), and also before the History (i.e. as early
as 313 A.D. (?), see below, p. 45). On the other hand, it was written after
Pamphilus' death (see H. E. VII. 32, 25), which occurred in 310.
Martyrs of Palestine (<greek>peri</greek> <greek>tpn</greek>
<greek>en</greek> II<greek>alaistanh</greek> <greek>marturhsantwn</greek>). This work is
extant in two recensions, a longer and a shorter. The longer has been preserved
entire only in a Syriac version, which was published, with English translation
and notes, by Cureton in 1861. A fragment of the original Greek of this work as
preserved by Sirecon Metaphrastes had previously been published by Papebroch in
the Acta Sanctorum (June, tom. I. p. 64; reprinted by Fabricius, II. p. 217),
but had been erroneously regarded as an extract. from Eusebius' Life Cureton's
publication of the Syriac version of the Martyrs of Palestine showed that it was
a part of the original of that work. There are extant also, in Latin, the Acts
of St. Procopius, which were published by Valesius (in his edition of
Eusebius' Hist. Eccles. in a note on the first chapter of the Mart. Pal.; reprinted by
Cureton, Mart. Pal. p. 50 sq.). Moreover, according to Cureton, Assemani's Acta
SS. Martyrum Orient el Occidentalium, part II. p. 169 sq. (Rom', 1748)
contains another Syriac version of considerable portions of this same work. The Syriac
version published by Cureton was made within less than a century after the
composition of the original work (the manuscript of it dates from 411 A.D.; see
Cureton, ib., preface, p. i.), perhaps within a few years after it, and there is
every reason to suppose that it represents that original with considerable
exactness. That Eusebius himself was the author of the original cannot be doubted.
In addition to this longer recension there is extant in Greek a shorter form of
the same work which is found attached to the Ecclesiastical History in most
MSS. of the latter. In some of them it is placed between the eighth and ninth
books, in others at the close of the tenth book, while one MS. inserts it in the
middle of VIII. 13. In some of the most important MSS. it is wanting entirely,
as likewise in the translation of Rufinus, and, according to Lightfoot, in the
Syriac version of the History. Most editions of Eusebius' History print it at
the close of the eighth book. Migne gives it separately in Opera, II. 1457 sq. In
the present volume the translation of it is given as an appendix to the eighth
book, on p. 342 sq.
There can be no doubt that the shorter form is younger than the longer.
The mention of the Life of Pamphilus which is contained in the shorter, but is
not found in the corresponding passage of the longer form would seem to indicate
that the former was a remodeling of the latter rather than the latter of the
former (see below, p. 30). Moreover, as Cureton and Lightfoot both point out, the
difference between the two works both in substance and in method is such as to
make it clear that the shorter form is a revised abridgment of the longer.
That Eusebius himself was the author of the shorter as well as of the longer form
is shown by the fact that not only in the passages common to both recensions,
but also in those peculiar to the shorter one, the author speaks in the same
person and as an eye-witness of many of the events which he records. And still
further, in Chap. 11 he speaks of having himself written the Life of Pamphilus in
three books, a notice which is wanting in the longer form and therefore must
emanate from the hand of the author of the shorter. It is interesting to inquire
after Eusebius' motive in publishing an abridged edition of this work. Cureton
supposes that he condensed it simply for the purpose of inserting it in the
second edition of his History. Lightfoot, on the other hand, suggests that it may
have formed "part of a larger work, in which the sufferings of the martyrs were
set off against the deaths of the persecutors," and he is inclined to see in
the brief appendix to the eighth book of the History (translated below on p.
340) "a fragment of the second part of the treatise of which the Martyrs of
Palestine in the shorter recension formed the first." The suggestion is, to say the
least, very plausible. If it be true, the attachment of the shorter form of the
Martyrs of Palestine to the Ecclesiastical History was probably the work, not
of Eusebius himself, but of some copyist or copyists, and the disagreement among
the various MSS. as to its position in the History is more easily explained on
this supposition than on Cureton's theory that it was attached to a later
edition of the latter work by Eusebius himself.
The date at which the Martyrs of Palestine was composed cannot be
determined with certainty. It was at any rate not published until after the first nine
books of the Ecclesiastical History (i.e. not before 313, see below, p. 45),
for it is referred to as a projected work in H. E. VIII. 13. 7. On the other
hand, the accounts contained in the longer recension bear many marks of having been
composed on the spot, while the impressions left by the martyrdoms witnessed
by the author were still fresh upon him. Moreover, it is noticeable that in
connection with the account of Pamphilus' martyrdom, given in the shorter
recension, reference is made to the Life of Pamphilus as a book already published, while
in the corresponding account in the longer recension no such book is referred
to. This would seem to indicate that the Life of Pamphilus was written after
the longer, but before the shorter recension of the Martyrs. But on the other
hand the Life was written before the Ecclesiastical History (see above, p. 29),
and consequently before the publication of either recension of the Martyrs. May
it not be that the accounts of the various martyrdoms were written, at least
some of them, during the persecution, but that they were not arranged, completed,
and published until 313, or later? If this be admitted we may suppose that the
account of Pamphilus' martyrdom was written soon after his death and before the
Life was begun. When it was later embodied with the other accounts in the one
work On the Martyrs of Palestine it may have been left just as it was, and it
may not have occurred to the author to insert a reference to the Life of
Pamphilus which had meanwhile been published. But when he came to abridge and in part
rewrite for a new edition the accounts of the various martyrdoms contained in
the work On Martyrs he would quite naturally refer the reader to the Life for
fuller particulars.
If we then suppose that the greater part of the longer recension of the
Martyrs was already complete before the end of the persecution, it is natural to
conclude that the whole work was published at an early date, probably as soon
as possible after the first edition of the History. How much later the
abridgment was made we cannot tell. [1]
The differences between the two recensions lie chiefly in the greater
fullness of detail on the part of the longer one. The arrangement and general mode
of treatment is the same in both. They contain accounts of the Martyrs that
suffered in Palestine during the years 303-310, most of whom Eusebius himself saw.
Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms (<greek>arkaiwn</greek>
<greek>marturiwn</greek> <greek>sunagwgh</greek>). This work is mentioned by Eusebius in his H. E.
IV. 15, V. pr'f., 4, 21. These notices indicate that it was not an original
composition, but simply a compilation; a collection of extant accounts of
martyrdoms which had taken place before Eusebius' day. The work is no longer extant, but
the accounts of the martyrdom of Pamphilus and others at Smyrna, of the
persecution in Lyons and Vienne, and of the defense of Apollonius in Rome, which
Eusebius inserts in his Ecclesiastical History (IV. xS, V. 1, V. 21), are taken, as
he informs us, from this collection. As to the time of compilation, we can say
only that it antedates the composition of the earlier books of the History (on
whose date, see below, p. 45).
Chronicle (<greek>kronikoi</greek> <greek>kanones</greek>). Eusebius
refers to this work in his Church History (I. 1), in his Pr'paratio Evang. X. 9, and
at the beginning of his Eclog' prophetica'. It is divided into two books, the
first of which consists of an epitome of universal history drawn from various
sources, the second of chronological tables, which "exhibit in parallel columns
the succession of the rulers of different nations in such a way that the reader
can see at a glance with whom any given monarch was contemporary." The tables
"are accompanied by notes, marking the years of some of the more remarkable
historical events, these notes also constituting an epitome of history." Eusebius
was not the first Christian writer to compose a work on universal chronology.
Julius Africanus had published a similar work early in the third century, and
from that Eusebius drew his model and a large part of the material for his own
work. At the same time his Chronicle is more than a simple revision of Africanus'
work, and contains the result of much independent investigation on his own
part. The work of Africanus is no longer extant, and that of Eusebius was likewise
lost for a great many centuries, being superseded by a revised Latin edition,
issued by Jerome. Jerome's edition, which comprises only the second book of
Eusebius' Chronicle, is a translation of the original work, enlarged by notices
taken from various writers concerning human history, and containing a
continuation of the chronology down to his own time. This, together with numerous Greek
fragments preserved by various ancient writers, constituted our only source for a
knowledge of the original work, until late in the last century an Armenian
translation of the whole work was discovered and published in two volumes by J. B.
Aucher: Venice, 1818. The Armenian translation contains a great many errors
and not a few lacun', but it is our most valuable source for a knowledge of the
original work.
The aim of the Chronicle was, above all, apologetic, the author wishing to
prove by means of it that the Jewish religion, of which the Christian was the
legitimate continuation, was older than the oldest of heathen cults, and thus
deprive pagan opponents of their taunt of novelty, so commonly hurled against
Christianity. As early as the second century, the Christian apologists had
emphasized the antiquity of Judaism; but Julius Africanus was the first to devote to
the matter scientific study, and it was with the same idea that Eusebius
followed in his footsteps. The Chronology, in spite of its errors, is invaluable for
the light it throws on many otherwise dark periods of history, and for the
numerous extracts it contains from works no longer extant.
There are good and sufficient reasons (as is pointed out by Salmon in his
article in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography) for supposing
that two editions of the Chronicle were published by Eusebius. But two of these
reasons need be stated here: first, the chronology of the Armenian version
differs from that of Jerome's edition in many important particulars, divergencies
which can be satisfactorily accounted for only on the supposition of a difference
in the sources from which they respectively drew; secondly, Jerome states
directly that the work was brought down to the vicennalia of Constantine,--that is,
to the year 325,--but the Chronicle is referred to as an already published
work in the Eclog' prophetic' (I. 1), and in the Preparatio Evang. (X. 9), both of
which were written before 313. We may conclude, then, that a first edition of
the work was published during, or more probably before, the great persecution,
and that a second and revised edition was issued probably in 325, or soon
thereafter.
For further particulars in regard to the Chronicle see especially the
article of Salmon already referred to. The work has been issued separately a great
many times. We may refer here to the edition of Scaliger, which was published
in 1606 (2d ed. 1658), in which he attempted to restore the Greek text from the
fragments of Syncellus and other ancient writers, and to the new edition of
Mai, which was printed in 1833 in his Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, Tom.
VIII., and reprinted by Migne, Eusebii Opera, I. 99-598. The best and most recent
edition, however, and the one which supersedes all earlier editions, is that of
Alfred Schoene, in two volumes: Berlin, 1875 and 1866. Ecclesiastical History
(<greek>ekklhsiastikh</greek> <greek>istoria</greek>). For a discussion of this
work see below, p. 45 sq. Life of Constantine (<greek>eis</greek>
<greek>ton</greek> <greek>bion</greek> <greek>tou</greek> <greek>makarioh</greek>
<greek>kwnstantinou</greek> <greek>tou</greek> <greek>basilews</greek>).For particulars
in regard to this work, see the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, on pp. sq., of
this volume.
II. APOLOGETIC WORKS.
Against Hierocles (<greek>pros</greek> <greek>tous</greek>
<greek>uper</greek> A<greek>pollwniou</greek> <greek>tou</greek> <greek>tuanews</greek>
I<greek>erokleous</greek> <greek>logous</greek>, as Photius calls it in his Bibl.
39). Hierocles was governor of Bithynia during the early years of the Diocletian
persecution, and afterwards governor of Egypt. In both places he treated the
Christians with great severity, carrying out the edicts of the emperors to the
fullest extent, and even making use of the most terrible and loathsome forms of
persecution (see Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 16, and Eusebius, Mart. Pal. 5,
Cureton's ed. p. 18). He was at the same time a Neo-Platonic philosopher,
exceedingly well versed in the Scriptures and doctrines of the Christians. In a work
against the Christians entitled <greek>logos</greek> <greek>filalhqhs</greek>
<greek>nros</greek> <greek>tous</greek> <greek>kristianous</greek>, he brought
forward many scriptural difficulties and alleged contradictions, and also instituted
a comparison between Christ and Apollonius of Tyana, with the intention of
disparaging the former. Eusebius feels called upon to answer the work, but
confines himself entirely to that part of it which concerned Christ and Apollonius,
leaving to some future time a refutation of the remainder of the work, which
indeed, he says, as a mere reproduction of the arguments of Celsus, had been
already virtually answered by Origen (see chap. 1). Eusebius admits that Apollonius
was a good man, but refuses to concede that he was anything more, or that he can
be compared with Christ. He endeavors to show that the account of Apollonius
given by Philostratus is full of contradictions and does not rest upon
trustworthy evidence. The tone of the book is mild, and the arguments in the main sound
and well presented. It is impossible to fix the date of the work with any
degree of certainty. Valesius assigns it to the later years of the persecution, when
Eusebius visited Egypt; Stein says that it may have been written about 312 or
313, or even earlier; while Lightfoot simply remarks, "it was probably one of
the earliest works of Eusebius." There is no ground for putting it at one time
rather than another except the intrinsic probability that it was written soon
after the work to which it was intended to be a reply. In fact, had a number of
years elapsed after the publication of Hierocles' attack, Eusebius would
doubtless, if writing against it at all, have given a fuller and more complete
refutation of it, such as he suggests in the first chapter that he may yet give. The
work of Hierocles, meanwhile, must have been written at any rate some time
before the end of the persecution, for it is mentioned in Lactantius' Div. Inst. V.
2.
Eusebius' work has been published by Gaisford: Eusebii Pamph. contra
Hieroclem et Marcellum libri, Oxon. 1852; and also in various editions of the works
of Philostratus. Migne, Opera IV. 795 sq., reprints it from Olearius' edition
of Philostratus' works (Lips. 1709).
Against Porphyry (<greek>kata</greek> II<greek>orfurion</greek>).
Porphyry, the celebrated Neo-Platonic philosopher, regarded by the early Fathers as the
bitterest and most dangerous enemy of the Church, wrote toward the end of the
third century a work against Christianity in fifteen books, which was looked
upon as the most powerful attack that had ever been made, and which called forth
refutations from some of the greatest Fathers of the age: from Methodius of
Tyre, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Apollinaris of Laodicea; and even as late as the
end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century the historian Philostorgius
thought it necessary to write another reply to it (see his H. E. X. 10).
Porphyry's work is no longer extant, but the fragments of it which remain show us
that it was both learned and skillful. He made much of the alleged contradictions
in the Gospel records, and suggested difficulties which are still favorite
weapons in the hands of skeptics. Like the work of Porphyry, and all the other
refutations of it, the Apology of Eusebius has entirely perished. It is mentioned
by Jerome (de vir. ill. 81 and Ep. ad Magnum, § 3, Migne's ed. Ep. 70), by
Socrates (H. E. III. 23), and by Philostorgius (H. E. VIII. 14). There is some
dispute as to the number of books it contained. In his Ep. ad Magn. Jerome says that
"Eusebius et Apollinaris viginti quinque, et triginta volumina condiderunt,"
which implies that it was composed of twenty-five books; while in his de ver.
ill. 81, he speaks of thirty books, of which he had seen only twenty. Vallarsi
says, however, that all his MSS. agree in reading "twenty-five" instead of
"thirty" in the latter passage, so that it would seem that the vulgar text is
incorrect.
It is impossible to form an accurate notion of the nature and quality of
Eusebius' refutation. Socrates speaks of it in terms of moderate praise ("which
[i.e. the work of Porphyry] has been ably answered by Eusebius"), and Jerome
does the same in his Ep. ad Magnum ("Alteri [i.e. Porphyry] Methodius, Eusebius,
et Apollinaris fortissime responderunt"). At the same time the fact that
Apollinaris and others still thought it necessary to write against Porphyry would
seem to show that Eusebius' refutation was not entirely satisfactory. In truth,
Jerome (Ep. ad Pammachium et Oceanum, § 2, Migne's ed. Ep. 84) appears to rank
the work of Apollinaris above that of Eusebius, and Philostorgius expressly
states that the former far surpassed the latter (<greek>epi</greek>
<greek>polu</greek> <greek>kratein</greek> <greek>hUwnismemn</greek> E<greek>usebiw</greek>
<greek>kat</greek> <greek>autou</greek>). The date of Eusebius' work cannot be
determined. The fact that he never refers to it, although he mentions the work of
Porphyry a number of times, has been urged by Valesius and others as proof that
he did not write it until after 325 A.D.; but it is quite possible to explain
his silence, as Lardner does, by supposing that his work was written in his
earlier years, and that afterward he felt its inferiority and did not care to
mention it. It seems, in fact, not unlikely that he wrote it as early, or even
earlier than his work against Hierocles, at any rate before his attention was
occupied with the Arian controversy and questions connected with it.
On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients (<greek>peri</greek>
<greek>ths</greek> <greek>ppn</greek> <greek>palaipn</greek> <greek>andrpn</greek>
<greek>polupaidias</greek>). This work is mentioned by Eusebius in his Praep. Evang.
VII. 8. 20 (Migne, Opera, III. 525), but by no one else, unless it be the book to
which Basil refers in his De Spir. Saneta, 29, as Difficulties respecting the
Polygamy of the Ancients. The work is no longer extant, but we can gather from
the connection in which it is mentioned in the Preparatio, that it aimed at
accounting for the polygamy of the Patriarchs and reconciling it with the ascetic
ideal of the Christian life which prevailed in the Church of Eusebius' lifetime.
It would therefore seem to have been written with an apologetic purpose.
Preparatio Evangelica (<greek>proparaskeuh</greek>) and Demonstratio
Evangelica (E'<greek>uaUUelikh</greek> <greek>apodeixis</greek>). These two
treatises together constitute Eusebius' greatest apologetic work. The former is
directed against heathen, and aims to show that the Christians are justified in
accepting the sacred books of the Hebrews and in rejecting the religion and
philosophy of the Greeks. The latter endeavors to prove from the sacred books of the
Hebrews themselves that the Christians do right in going beyond the Jews, in
accepting Jesus as their Messiah, and in adopting another mode of life. The former
is therefore in a way a preparation for the latter, and the two together
constitute a defense of Christianity against all the world, Jews as well as heathen.
In grandeur of conception, in comprehensiveness of treatment, and in breadth of
learning, this apology undoubtedly surpasses all other apologetic works of
antiquity. Lightfoot justly says, "This great apologetic work exhibits the same
merits and defects which we find elsewhere in Eusebius. There is the same
greatness of conception marred by the same inadequacy of execution, the same profusion
of learning combined with the same inability to control his materials, which we
have seen in his History. The divisions are not kept distinct; the topics
start up unexpectedly and out of season. But with all its faults this is probably
the most important apologetic work of the early Church. It necessarily lacks the
historical interest of the apologetic writings of the second century; it falls
far short of the thoughtfulness and penetration which give a permanent value
to Origen's treatise against Celsus as a defense of the faith; it lags behind
the Latin apologists in rhetorical vigor and expression. But the forcible and
true conceptions which it exhibits from time to time, more especially beating on
the theme which may be briefly designated 'God in history,' arrest our attention
now, and must have impressed his contemporaries still more strongly; while in
learning and comprehensiveness it is without a rival." The wide acquaintance
with classical literature exhibited by Eusebius in the Preparatio is very
remarkable. Many writers are referred to whose names are known to us from no other
source, and many extracts are given which constitute our only fragments of works
otherwise totally lost. The Preparatio thus does for classical much what the
History does for Christian literature.
A very satisfactory summary of the contents of the Pr'paratio is given at
the beginning of the fifteenth book. In the first, second, and third books, the
author exposes the absurdities of heathen mythology, and attacks the
allegorical theology of the Neo-Platonists; in the fourth and fifth books he discusses
the heathen oracles; in the sixth he refutes the doctrine of fate; in the
seventh he passes over to the Hebrews, devoting the next seven books to an exposition
of the excellence of their system, and to a demonstration of the proposition
that Moses and the prophets lived before the greatest Greek writers, and that
the latter drew their knowledge from the former; in the fourteenth and fifteenth
books he exposes the contradictions among Greek philosophers and the vital
errors in their systems, especially in that of the Peripatetics. The Pr'paratio is
complete in fifteen books, all of which are still extant.
The Demonstratio consisted originally of twenty books (see Jerome's de
vir. ill. 81, and Photius' Bibl. 10). Of these only ten are extant, and even in
the time of Nicephones Callistus no more were known, for he gives the number of
the books as ten (H. E. VI. 37). There exists also a fragment of the fifteenth
book, which was discovered and printed by Mai (Script. vet. nova call. I. 2, p.
173). In the first book, which is introductory, Eusebius shows why the
Christians pursue a mode of life different from that of the Jews, drawing a distinction
between Hebraism, the religion of all pious men from the beginning, and
Judaism, the special system of the Jews, and pointing out that Christianity is a
continuation of the former, but a rejection of the latter, which as temporary has
passed away. In the second book he shows that the calling of the Gentiles and
the repudiation of the Jews are foretold in Scripture. In books three to nine he
discusses the humanity, divinity, incarnation, and earthly life of the Saviour,
showing that all were revealed in the prophets. In the remainder of the work
we may assume that the same general plan was followed, and that Christ's death,
resurrection, and ascension, and the spread of his Church, were the subjects
discussed in this as in nearly all works of the kind.
There is much dispute as to the date of these two works. Stroth and Cave
place them after the Council of Nica'a, while Valesius, Lightfoot, and others,
assign them to the ante-Nicene period. In two passages in the History Eusebius
has been commonly supposed to refer to the Demonstratio (H. E. I. 2 and 6), but
it is probable that the first, and quite likely the second also, refers to the
Eclog' Proph. We can, therefore, base no argument upon those passages. But in
Pre second a'p. Evang. XII. 10 (Opera, III. 969) there is a reference to the
persecution, which seems clearly to imply that it was still continuing; and in the
Demonstratio (III. 5 and IV. 6; Opera, IV. 213 and 307), which was written
after the Preparatio, are still more distinct indications of the continuance of
the persecution. On the other hand, in V. 3 and VI. 20 (Opera, IV. 364 and 474)
there are passages which imply that the persecution has come to an end. It seems
necessary then to conclude, with Lightfoot, that the Demonstratio was begun
during the persecution, but not completed until peace had been established. The
Pr'paratio, which was completed before the Demonstratio was begun (see the
pro'mium to the latter), must have been finished during the persecution. It contains
in X. 9 (Opera, III. 807) a reference to the Chronicle as an already published
work (see above, p. 31). The Preparatio and Demonstratio are found in Migne's
edition of the Opera, III. and IV. 9 sq. A more recent text is that of Dindorf
in Teubner's series, 1867. The Preparatio has been published separately by
Heinichen, 2 vols., Lips. 1842, and by Gaisford, 4 vols., Oxon. 1843. The latter
contains a full critical apparatus with Latin translation and notes, and is the
most useful edition which we have. Seguier in 1846 published a French
translation with notes. The latter are printed in Latin in Migne's edition of the Opera,
III. 1457 sq. The French translation I have not seen. The Demonstratio was also
published by Gaisford in 2 vols., Oxon. 1852, with critical apparatus and
Latin translation. H'nell has made the two works the subject of a monograph
entitled De Eusebio Caesariensi religionis Christianae subject of'e Defensore (Gotting
Christianae subject of a monograph entitled', 1843) which I know only from the
mention of it by Stein and Lightfoot.
Preparatio Ecclesiastica ('E<greek>kklhsiastikh</greek>
II<greek>roparaskeuh</greek>), and Demanstratio Ecclesiastica ('E <greek>kklhQiastikh</greek>
'A<greek>podeixis</greek> ). These two works are no longer extant. We know of the
former only from Photius' reference to it in Bibl. 11, of the latter from his
mention of it in Bibl.
Lightfoot says that the latter is referred to also in the Fus
Greco-Romanum (lib. IV. p. 295; ed. Leunclav.). We know nothing about the works (except
that the first according to Photius contained extracts), and should be tempted to
think them identical with the Preparatio and Demonstratio Evang. were it not
that Photius expressly mentions the two latter in another part of his catalogue
(Bibl. 10). Lightfoot supposes that the two lost works did for the society what
the Pr'p. and Dem. Evang. do for the doctrines of which the society is the
depositary, and he suggests that those portions of the Theophania (Book IV.) which
relate to the foundation of the Church may have been adopted from the Dem.
Ecclesiastica, as other portions of the work (Book V.) are adopted from the Dem.
Evang.
If there is a reference in the Pr'p. Evang. I. 3 (Opera, III 33) to the
Demanstratio Eccles., as Lightfoot thinks there may be, and as is quite possible,
the latter work, and consequently in all probability the Pr'p. Eccles, also,
must have been written before 313 A.D. Two Books of Objection and Defense
('E<greek>leUkou</greek> <greek>kai</greek> 'A<greek>poloUias</greek>
<greek>loUoi</greek> <greek>duo</greek>). These are no longer extant, but are mentioned by
Photius in his Bibl. 13. We gather from Photius' language that two editions of the
work were extant in his time. The books, as Photius clearly indicates,
contained an apology for Christianity against the attacks of the heathen, and not, as
Cave supposed, a defense of the author against the charge of Arianism. The
tract mentioned by Gelasius of Cyzicus (see below, p. 64) is therefore not to be
identified with this work, as Cave imagined that it might be.
Theophania or Divine Manifestation (<greek>qeoFaneia</greek>). A Syriac
version of this work is extant in the same MS. which contains the Martyrs of
Palestine, and was first published by Lee in 1842. In 1843 the same editor issued
an English translation with notes and extended prolegomena (Cambridge, 1 vol.).
The original work is no longer extant in its entirety, but numerous Greek
fragments were collected and published by Mai in 1831 and 1833 (Script. vet. nov.
call. I. and VIII.), and again with additions in 1847 (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 110
and 310; reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 607-690. Migne does not give the
Syriac version). The manuscript which contains the Syriac version was written in
411, and Lee thinks that the translation itself may have been made even during the
lifetime of Eusebius. At any rate it is very old and, so far as it is possible
to judge, seems to have reproduced the sense of the original with comparative
accuracy. The subject of the work is the manifestation of God in the
incarnation of the Word. It aims to give, with an apologetic purpose, a brief exposition
of the divine authority and influence of Christianity. It is divided into five
books which handle successively the subject and the recipients of the
revelation, that is, the Logos on the one hand, and man on the other; the necessity of
the revelation; the proof of it drawn from its effects; the proof of it drawn
from its fulfillment of prophecy; finally, the common objections brought by the
heathen against Christ's character and wonderful works. Lee says of the work:
"As a brief exposition of Christianity, particularly of its Divine authority, and
amazing influence, it has perhaps never been surpassed." "When we consider the
very extensive range of inquiry occupied by our author, the great variety both
of argument and information which it contains, and the small space which it
occupies; we cannot, I think, avoid coming to the conclusion, that it is a very
extraordinary work, and one which is as suitable to our own times as it was to
those for which it was written. Its chief excellency is, that it is
argumentative, and that its arguments are well grounded, and logically conducted."
The Theophania contains much that is found also in other works of
Eusebius. Large portions of the first, second, and third books are contained in the
Oratio de Laudibus Constantini, nearly the whole of the fifth book is given in the
Dem. Evang., while many passages occur in the Pr'p. Evang.
These coincidences assist us in determining the date of the work. That it
was written after persecution had ceased and peace was restored to the Church,
is clear from II. 76, III. 20, 79, V. 52. Lee decided that it was composed very
soon after the close of the Diocletian persecution, but Lightfoot has shown
conclusively (p. 333) from the nature of the parallels between it and other
writings of Eusebius, that it must have been written toward the end of his life,
certainly later than the De Laud. Canst. (335 A.D.), and indeed it is not
improbable that it remained unfinished at the time of his death.
III. POLEMIC WORKS.
Defense of Origen ('A<greek>poloUia</greek> <greek>uper</greek>
<greek>Wrisenous</greek>). This was the joint work of Eusebius and Pamphilus, as is
distinctly stated by Eusebius himself in his H. E. VI. 33, by Socrates, H. E. III.
7, by the anonymous collector of the Synodical Epistles ( Ep. 198), and by
Photius, Bibl. 118. The last writer informs us that the work consisted of six books,
the first five of which were written by Eusebins and Pamphilus while the
latter was in prison, the last book being added by the former after Pamphilus' death
(see above, p. 9). There is no reason to doubt the statement of Photius, and
we may therefore assign the first five books to the years 307-309, and assume
that the sixth was written soon afterward. The Defense has perished, with the
exception of the first book, which was translated by Rufinus (Rufin. ad Hieron. I.
582 ), and is still extant in his Latin version. Rufinus ascribed this book
expressly to Pamphilus, and Pamphilus' name alone appears in the translation.
Jerome (Contra Ruf. I. 8; II. 15, 23; III. 12) maintains that the whole work was
written by Eusebius, not by Pamphilus, and accuses Rufinus of having
deliberately substituted the name of the martyr Pamphilus for that of the Arianizing
Eusebius in his translation of the work, in order to secure more favorable
acceptance for the teachings of Origen. Jerome's unfairness and dishonesty in this
matter have been pointed out by Lightfoot (p. 340). In spite of his endeavor to
saddle the whole work upon Eusebius, it is certain that Pamphilus was a joint
author of it, and it is quite probable that Rufinus was true to his original in
ascribing to Pamphilus all the explanations which introduce and connect the
extracts from Origen, which latter constitute the greater part of the book. Eusebius
may have done most of his work in connection with the later books.
The work was intended as a defense of Origen against the attacks of his
opponents (see Eusebius' H. E. VI 33, and the Preface to the Defense itself).
According to Socrates (H. E. VI. 13), Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and
Theophilus all wrote against Origen. Of these only Methodius had written before the
composition of the Defense, and he was expressly attacked in the sixth book of
that work, according to Jerome (Contra Ruf. I. 11). The wide opposition
aroused against Origen was chiefly in consequence not of his personal character, but
of his theological views. The Apology, therefore, seems to have been devoted in
the main to a defense of those views over against the attacks of the men that
held and taught opposite opinions, and may thus be regarded as in some sense a
regular polemic. The extant book is devoted principally to a discussion of
Origen's views on the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is not printed in Migne's
edition of Eusebius' Opera, but is published in the various editions of Origen's
works (in Lommatzsch's edition, XXIV. 289-412). For further particulars in
regard to the work, see Delarue's introduction to it (Lommatzsch, XXIV. 263 sq.),
and Lightfoot's article on Eusebius, pp. 340 and 341.
Against Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra (<greek>kata</greek>
M<greek>?rkellou</greek> <greek>tou</greek> 'A<greek>Ukuras</greek> <greek>episkopou</greek>).
The occasion of this work has been already described (see p. 25), and is
explained by Eusebius himself in Book II. chap, 4. The work must have been written
soon after the Council at which Marcellus was condemned. It aims simply to expose
his errors, exegetical as well as theological. The work consists of two books,
and is still extant (Opera, VI. 707-824).
On the Theology of the Church, a Refutation of Marcellus
(<greek>oi</greek> <greek>pros</greek> M<greek>arkellon</greek> <greek>eleUkoi</greek>
<greek>peri</greek> <greek>ths</greek> <greek>ekklhsiastikhs</greek>
<greek>QeoloUias</greek>). The occasion of this work is stated in the first chapter. In the
previous work Eusebius had aimed merely to expose the opinions of Marcellus, but in
this he devotes himself to their refutation, fearing that some might be led
astray by their length and plausibility. The work, which consists of three books,
is still extant, and is given by Migne in the Opera, VI. 825-1046. Both it and
the preceding are published with the Contra Hieroclem in Gaisford's Euseb.
Pamph. contra Hieroclem et Marcellum, Oxon. 1852. Zahn has written a valuable
monograph entitled Marcellus von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867).
Against the Manicheans. Epiphanius (H'r. LXVI. 21) mentions, among other
refutations of the Manicheans, one by our Eusebius. The work is referred to
nowhere else, and it is possible that Epiphanius was mistaken in his reference, or
that the refutation he has in mind formed only a part of some other work, but
we are hardly justified in asserting, as Lightfoot does, that the work cannot
have existed.
IV. DOGMATIC WORKS.
General Elementary Introduction ('H <greek>kaqolou</greek>
<greek>stoikeiwdhs</greek> <greek>eisaUwUh</greek>). This work consisted of ten books, as we
learn from a reference to it in the Eclog' Propheticae, as we learn from a
reference to it in the Eclog', IV. 35. It was apparently a general introduction to
the study of theology, and covered a great variety of subjects. Five brief
fragments have been preserved, all of them apparently from the first book, which
must have dealt largely with general principles of ethics. The fragments were
published by Mai (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 316), and are reprinted by Migne (Opera,
IV. 1271 sq.). In addition to these fragments, the sixth, seventh, eighth, and
ninth books of the work are extant under the title:
Prophetical Extracts (II<greek>roFhtikai</greek> 'E<greek>kloUai</greek>).
Although this formed a part of the larger work, it is complete in itself, and
circulated independently of the rest of the Introduction. It contains extracts
of prophetical passages from the Old Testament relating to the person and work
of Christ, accompanied by explanatory notes. It is divided into four books, the
first containing extracts from the historical Scriptures, the second from the
Psalms, the third from the other poetical books and from the prophets, the
fourth from Isaiah alone. The personality of the Logos is the main topic of the
work, which is thus essentially dogmatic, rather than apologetic, as it might at
first glance seem to be. It was composed during the persecution, which is
clearly referred to in Book I. chap. 8 as still raging; it must have been written
therefore between 303 and 313. The date of these books, of course, fixes the date
of the General Introduction, of which they formed a part. The Eclog' are
referred to in the History, I. 2. On the other hand, they mention the Chronicle as a
work already written (I. I: Opera, p. 1023); a reference which goes to prove
that there were two editions of the Chronicle (see above, p. 31). The four books
of the Prophetical Extracts were first published by Gaisford in 1842 (Oxford)
from a Vienna MS. The MS. is mutilated in many places, and the beginning,
including the title of the work, is wanting. Migne has reprinted Gaisford's edition
in the Opera, IV. 1017 sq.
On the Paschal Festival (<greek>peri</greek> <greek>ths</greek>
<greek>tou</greek> <greek>paska</greek> <greek>eorths</greek>). This work, as Eusebius
informs us in his Vita Const. IV. 34, was addressed to the Emperor Constantine,
who commends it very highly in an epistle to Eusebius preserved in the Vita
Const. IV. 35. From this epistle we learn, moreover, that the work had been
translated into Latin. It is no longer extant in its entirety, but a considerable
fragment of it was discovered by Mai in Nicetas' Catena on Luke, and published by
him in his Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. p. 208 sq. The extant portion of it contains
twelve chapters, devoted partly to a discussion of the nature of the Passover
and its typical significance, partly to an account of the settlement of the
paschal question at the Council of Nic'a, and partly to an argument against the
necessity of celebrating the paschal feast at the time of the Jewish Passover,
based on the ground that Christ himself did not keep the Passover on the same day
as the Jews.
Jerome, although he does not mention this work in his catalogue of
Eusebius' writings (de vir. ill. 81), elsewhere (ib. 61) states that Eusebius composed
a paschal canon with a cycle of nineteen years. This cycle may have been
published (as Lightfoot remarks) as a part of the writing under discussion. The date
of the work cannot be determined with exactness. It was written after the
Council of Nic'a, and, as would seem from the connection in which it is mentioned
in the Vita Canstantini, before the Emperor's tricennalia (335 A.D.), but not
very long before. The extant fragment, as published by Mai, is reprinted by Migne
in the Opera, VI. 693-706.
V. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL WORKS.
Biblical Texts. We learn from Jerome (Pr'f. in librum Paralip.) that
Eusebius and Pamphilus published a number of copies of Origen's edition of the LXX.,
that is, of the fifth column of the Hexapla. A colophon found in a Vatican
MS., and given in fac-simile in Migne's Opera, IV. 875, contains the following
account of their labors (the translation is Lightfoot's): "It was transcribed from
the editions of the Hexapla, and was corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen
himself, which also had been corrected and furnished with scholia in his own
handwriting; whence I, Eusebius, added the scholia, Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected
[this copy]." Compare also Field's Hexapla, I. p. xcix.
Taylor, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, III. p. 21, says: "The
whole work [i.e. the Hexapla] was too massive for multiplication; but many
copies of its fifth column alone were issued from Caesarea under the direction of
Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius, and this recension of the LXX. came into
common use. Some of the copies issued contained also marginal scholia, which gave
inter alia a selection of readings from the remaining versions in the Hexapla.
The oldest extant MS. of this recension is the Leiden Codex Sarravianus of the
fourth or fifth century." These editions of the LXX. must have been issued before
the year 309, when Pamphilus suffered martyrdom, and in all probability before
307, when he was imprisoned (see Lardner's Credibility, Part II. chap. 72.
In later years we find Eusebius again engaged in the publication of copies
of the Scriptures. According to the Vita Const. IV. 36, 37, the Emperor wrote
to Eusebius, asking him to prepare fifty sumptuous copies of the Scriptures for
use in his new Constantinopolitan churches. The commission was carefully
executed, and the MSS. prepared at great cost. It has been thought that among our
extant MSS. may be some of these copies which were produced under Eusebius'
supervision, but this is extremely improbable (see Lightfoot, p. 334).
Ten Evangelical Canons, with the Letter to Carpianus prefixed
(<greek>kanones</greek> <greek>deka</greek>; Canones decem harmoniae evangeliorum pr'missa
ad Carpianum epistola). Ammonius of Alexandria early in the third century had
constructed a harmony of the Gospels, in which, taking Matthew as the standard,
he placed alongside of that Gospel the parallel passages from the three others.
Eusebius' work was suggested by this Harmony, as he tells us in his epistle to
Carpianus. An inconvenient feature of Ammonius' work was that only the Gospel
of Matthew could be read continuously, the sequence of the other Gospels being
broken in order to bring their parallel sections into the order followed by
Matthew. Eusebius, desiring to remedy this defect, constructed his work on a
different principle. He made a table of ten canons, each containing a list of
passages as follows: Canon I. passages common to all four Gospels; II. those common
to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; III. those common to Matt, Luke, and John; IV. those.
Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. VI. 104) reports that the following works are extant
in MS.: Fragmentum de Mensuris ac Ponderibus (MSS. Is. Vossii, n. 179); De
Morte Herodis (MS. in Bibl. Basil.); Pr'fatio ad Canticum Mosis in Exodo (Lambec.
III. p. 35).
CHAPTER III.
EUSEBIUS' CHURCH HISTORY.
- 1. Date of its Composition.
THE work with which we are especially concerned at this time is the Church
History, the original Greek of which is still extant in numerous MSS. It
consists of ten books, to which is added in most of the MSS. the shorter form of the
Martyrs of Palestine (see above, p. 29). The date of the work can be
determined with considerable exactness. It closes with a eulogy of Constantine and his
son Crispus; and since the latter was put to death by his father in the summer
of 326, the History must have been completed before that time. On the other
hand, in the same chapter Eusebius refers to the defeat of Licinius, which took
place in the year 323 A.D. This gives a fixed terminus a quo. It is not quite
certain from Eusebius' words whether the death of Licinius had already taken place
at the time he wrote, but it seems probable that it had, and if so, the
completion of the work must be put as late as the Summer of 324. On the other band,
not the slightest reference is made to the Council of Nic'a, which met in the
summer of 325; and still further the tenth book is dedicated to Paulinus, at one
time bishop of Tyre and afterward bishop of Antioch (see Euseb. Contra Marc. I.
4, and Philost. H. E. III 15), who was already dead in the summer of 325: for
at the Nicene Council, Zeno appears as bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius as bishop
of Antioch (see for further particulars Lightfoot, p. 322). We are thus led to
place the completion of the History in the year 324, or, to give the widest
possible limits, between the latter part of 323 and the early part of 325 A.D.
But the question has been raised whether the earlier books may not have
been composed some years before this. Lightfoot (following Westcott) supposes
that the first nine books were completed not long after the edict of Milan and
before the outbreak of the quarrel between Constantine and Licinius in 314. There
is considerable to be said in favor of this theory. The language used in the
dedication of the tenth book seems to imply that the nine books had been
completed some time before, and that the tenth is added as a sort of postscript. The
close of the ninth book strengthens that conclusion. Moreover, it would seem from
the last sentences of that book that Constantine and Licinius were in perfect
harmony at the time it was written, a state of affairs which did not exist
after 314. On the other hand, it must be noticed that in Book IX. chap. 9 Licinius'
"madness" is twice referred to as having "not yet" seized him (in § 1
<greek>oupw</greek> <greek>manentos</greek> <greek>tote</greek>, and in § 12
<greek>o</greek><?><greek>nw</greek> <greek>tote</greek> <greek>ef</greek>
<greek>hn</greek> <greek>usteron</greek> <greek>ekpeptwke</greek> <greek>manian</greek>,
<greek>thn</greek> <greek>dianaian</greek> <greek>ektrapeis</greek>). It is
necessary either to interpret both these clauses as later insertions (possibly by
Eusebius' own hand at the time when he added the tenth book; cf. also p. 30,
above), or to throw the composition of the ninth book down to the year 319 or later.
It is difficult to decide between these alternatives, but I am inclined on the
whole to think that Westcott's theory is probably correct, and that the two
clauses can best be interpreted as later insertions. The very nature of his
History would at any rate lead us to think that Eusebius spent some years in the
composition of it, and that the earlier books, if not published, were at least
completed long before the issue of the ten books as a whole. The Chronicle is
referred to as already written in I. 1; the Eclogae Proph. (? see below, p. 85) in
I. 2 and 6; the Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms in IV. 15, V. preface, 4, and
22; the Defense of Origen in VI. 23, 33, and 36; the Life of Pamphilus in VI.
32, VII. 32, and VIII. 13. In VIII. 13 Eusebius speaks also of his intention of
relating the sufferings of the martyrs in another work (but see above, p. 30).
That the composition of a history of the Church was Eusebius' own idea,
and was not due to any suggestion from without, seems clear, both from the
absence of reference to any one else as prompting it, and from the lack of a
dedication at the beginning of the work. The reasons which led him to undertake its
composition seem to have been both scientific and apologetic. He lived, and he
must have realized the fact, at the opening of a new age in the history of the
Church. He believed, as he frequently tells us, that the period of struggle had
come to an end, and that the Church was now about entering upon a new era of
prosperity. He must have seen that it was a peculiarly fitting time to put on
record for the benefit of posterity the great events which had taken place within
the Church during the generations that were past, to sum up in one narrative all
the trials and triumphs which had now emerged in this final and greatest
triumph, which he was witnessing. He wrote, as any historian of the present day would
write, for the information and instruction of his contemporaries and of those
who should come after, and yet there was in his mind all the time the
apologetic purpose, the desire to exhibit to the world the history of Christianity as a
proof of its divine origin and efficacy. The plan which he proposed to himself
is stated at the very beginning of his work: "It is my purpose to write an
account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have
elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate how many and
how important events are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and
to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most
prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine
word either orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to give the names and the
number and the times of those who through love of innovation have run into the
greatest errors, and proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge, falsely
so-called, have, like fierce wolves, unmercifully devastated the flock of
Christ. It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately
came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our
Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in which the divine word has been
attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various
periods have contended for it in the face of blood and tortures, as well as the
confessions which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and
kindly succour which our Saviour afforded them all." It will be seen that
Eusebius had a very comprehensive idea of what a history of the Church should
comprise, and that he was fully alive to its importance.
- 3. Eusebius as a Historian. The Merits and Defects of his History.
The whole Christian world has reason to be thankful that there lived at
the opening of the fourth century a man who, with his life spanning one of the
greatest epochs that has occurred in the history of the Church, with an intimate
experimental knowledge of the old and of the new condition of things, was able
to conceive so grand a plan and possessed the means and the ability to carry it
out. Had he written nothing else, Eusebius' Church History would have made him
immortal; for if immortality be a fitting reward for large and lasting
services, few possess a clearer title to it than the author of that work. The value of
the History to us lies not in its literary merit, but in the wealth of the
materials which it furnishes for a knowledge of the early Church. How many
prominent figures of the first three centuries are known to us only from the pages of
Eusebius; how many fragments, priceless on account of the light which they shed
upon movements of momentous and far-reaching consequence, have been preserved
by him alone; how often a hint dropped, a casual statement made in passing, or
the mention of some apparently trifling event, gives the clue which enables us
to unravel some perplexing labyrinth, or to fit into one whole various
disconnected and apparently unrelated elements, and thus to trace the steps in the
development of some important historical movement whose rise and whose bearing must
otherwise remain an unsolved riddle. The work reveals no sympathy with
Ebionism, Gnosticism, and Montanism, and little appreciation of their real nature, and
yet our knowledge of their true significance and of their place in history is
due in considerable part to facts respecting the movements or their leaders
which Eusebius alone has recorded or preserved. To understand the development of
the Logos Christology we must comprehend the significance of the teaching of
Paul of Samosata, and how inadequate would our knowledge of the nature of that
teaching be without the epistle quoted in Book VII. chap. 30. How momentous were
the consequences of the paschal controversies, and how dark would they be were
it not for the light shed upon them by our author. How important, in spite of
their tantalizing brevity and obscurity, the fragments of Papias' writings; how
interesting the extracts from the memoirs of Hegesippus; how suggestive the
meager notices from Dionysius of Corinth, from Victor of Rome, from Melito, from
Caius; how instructive the long and numerous quotations from the epistles of
Dionysius of Alexandria! He may often fail to appreciate the significance of the
events which he records, he may in many cases draw unwarranted conclusions from
the premises which he states, he may sometimes misinterpret his documents and
misunderstand men and movements, but in the majority of cases he presents us with
the material upon which to form our own judgments, and if we differ with him
we must at the same time thank him for the data which have enabled us
independently to reach other results.
But the value of Eusebius' Church History does not lie solely in the fact
that it contains so many original sources which would be otherwise unknown to
us. It is not merely a thesaurus, it is a history in the truest sense, and it
possesses an intrinsic value of its own, independent of its, quotations from
other works. Eusebius possessed extensive sources of knowledge no longer accessible
to us. His History contains the results of his extended perusal of many works
which are now irrecoverably lost, of his wide acquaintance with the current
traditions of his day, of his familiar intercourse with many of the chief men of
the age. If we cut out all the documents which he quotes, there still remains an
extensive history whose loss would leave an irreparable blank in our knowledge
of the early Church. How invaluable, for instance, to mention but one matter,
are the researches of our author in regard to the circulation of the books of
the New Testament: his testimony to the condition of the canon in his own time,
and to the more or less widespread use of particular writings by the Fathers of
preceding centuries. Great as is the value of the sources which Eusebius
quotes, those that he does not give are still more extensive, and it is the
knowledge gained from them which he has transmitted to us.
The worth of these portions of his History must depend in the first place
upon the extent and reliability of his sources, and in the second place upon
the use which he made of them.
A glance at the list of his authorities given in the index, reveals at
once the immense range of his materials. The number of books which he either
quotes or refers to as read is enormous. When to these are added the works employed
by him in the composition of his Pr'p. Evang., as well as the great number
which he must have perused, but does not mention, we are amazed at the extent of
his reading. He must have been a voracious reader from his earliest years, and he
must have possessed extraordinary acquisitive powers. It is safe to say that
there was among the Fathers, with the possible exception of Origen, no more
learned man than he. He thus possessed one of the primary qualifications of the
historian. And yet even in this respect he had his limitations. He seems to have
taken no pains to acquaint himself with the works of heretics, but to have been
content to take his knowledge of them at second hand. And still further, he was
sadly ignorant of Latin literature and of the Latin Church in general (see
below, p. 106); in fact, we must not expect to glean from his History a very
thorough or extended knowledge of western Christendom.
But his sources were not confined to literary productions. He had a wide
acquaintance with the world, and he was enabled to pick up much from his
intercourse with other men and with different peoples that he could not have found
upon the shelves of the Caesarean or of any other library. Moreover, he had access
to the archives of state and gathered from them much information quite
inaccessible to most men. He was thus peculiarly fitted, both by nature and by
circumstances, for the task of acquiring material, the first task of the genuine
historian.
But the value of his work must depend in the second place upon the wisdom
and honesty with which he used his sources, and upon the faithfulness and
accuracy with which he reproduced the results thus reached. We are therefore led to
enquire as to his qualifications for this part of his work.
We notice, in the first place, that he was very diligent in the use of his
sources. Nothing seems to have escaped him that might in any way bear upon the
particular subject in hand. When he informs us that a certain author nowhere
mentions a book or an event, he is, so far as I am aware, never mistaken. When
we realize how many works he read entirely through for the sake of securing a
single historical notice, and how many more he must have read without finding
anything to his purpose, we are impressed with his untiring diligence. To-day,
with our convenient indexes, and with the references at hand which have been made
by many other men who have studied the writings of the ancients, we hardly
comprehend what an amount of labor the production of a History like Eusebius' must
have cost him, a pioneer in that kind of work.
In the second place, we are compelled to admire the sagacity which our
author displays in the selection of his materials. He possessed the true instinct
of the historian, which enabled him to pick out the salient points and to
present to the reader just that information which he most desires. We shall be
surprised upon examining his work to see how little it contains which it is not of
the utmost importance for the student of early Church history to know, and how
shrewdly the author has anticipated most of the questions which such a student
must ask. He saw what it was in the history of the first three centuries of the
Church which posterity would most desire to know, and he told them. His wisdom
in this respect is all the more remarkable when compared with the unwisdom of
most of his successors, who filled their works with legends of saints and
martyrs, which, however fascinating they may have been to the readers of that age,
possess little either of interest or of value for us. When he wishes to give us a
glimpse of the persecutions of those early days, his historical and literary
instinct leads him to dwell especially upon two thoroughly representative
cases,--the martyrdom of Polycarp and the sufferings of the churches of Lyons and
Vienne,--and to preserve for posterity two of the noblest specimens of
martyrological literature which the ancient Church produced. It is true that he sometimes
erred in his judgment as to the wants of future readers; we could wish that he
had been somewhat fuller and clearer on many points, and that he had not so
entirely neglected some others; but on the whole I am of the opinion that few
historical works, ancient or modern, have in the same compass better fulfilled
their mission in this respect.
In the third place, we can hardly fail to be impressed by the wisdom with
which Eusebius discriminated between reliable and unreliable sources. Judged by
the modern standard he may fall short as a literary critic, but judged by the
standard of antiquity he must be given a very high rank. Few indeed are the
historians of ancient times, secular or ecclesiastical, who can compare with
Eusebius for sound judgment in this matter. The general freedom of his work from the
fables and prodigies, and other improbable or impossible tales which disfigure
the pages of the great majority even of the soberest of ancient historians, is
one of its most marked features. He shows himself uncommonly particular in
demanding good evidence for the circumstances which he records, and uncommonly
shrewd in detecting spurious and unreliable sources. When we remember the great
number of pseudonymous works which were current in his day we are compelled to
admire his care and his discrimination. Not that he always succeeded in detecting
the false. More than once he was sadly at fault (as for instance in regard to
the Abgarus correspondence and Josephus' testimony to Christ), and has in
consequence been severely denounced or held up to unsparing ridicule by many modern
writers. But the wonder certainly is not that he erred as often as he did, but
that he did not err oftener; not that he was sometimes careless in regard to
the reliability of his sources, but that he was ever as careful as, in the
majority of cases, he has proved himself to be. In fact, comparing him with other
writers of antiquity, we cannot commend too highly the care and the skill with
which he usually discriminated between the true and the false.
In the fourth place, he deserves all praise for his constant sincerity and
unfailing honesty. I believe that emphasis should be laid upon this point for
the reason that Eusebius' reputation has often suffered sadly in consequence of
the unjust imputations, and the violent accusations, which it was for a long
time the fashion to make against him, and which lead many still to treat his
statements with distrust, and his character with contempt. Gibbon's estimate of
his honesty is well known and has been unquestioningly accepted in many quarters,
but it is none the less unjust, and in its implications quite untrue to the
facts. Eusebius does dwell with greater fullness upon the virtues than upon the
vices of the early Church, upon its glory than upon its shame, and he tells us
directly that it is his intention so to do (H. E. VIII. 2), but he never
undertakes to conceal the sins of the Christians, and the chapter immediately
preceding contains a denunciation of their corruptness and wickedness uttered in no
faint terms. In fact, in the face of these and other candid passages in his work,
it is the sheerest injustice to charge him with dishonesty and unfairness
because he prefers, as almost any Christian historian must, to dwell with greater
fullness of detail upon the bright than upon the dark side of the picture.
Scientific, Eusebius' method, in this respect, doubtless is not; but dishonest, no
one has a right to call it. The most severe attack which has been made upon
Eusebius in recent years is found in an article by Jachmann (see below, p. 55). The
evident animus which runs through his entire paper is very unpleasant; the
conclusions which he draws are, to say the least, strained. I cannot enter here
into a consideration of his positions; most of them are examined below in the
notes upon the various passages which he discusses. The whole article, like most
similar attacks, proceeds upon the supposition that our author is guilty, and
then undertakes simply to find evidence of that which is already presupposed. I
submit that few writers could endure such an ordeal. If Eusebius is tried
according to the principles of common justice, and of sound literary criticism, I am
convinced, after long and careful study, that his sincerity and honesty of
purpose cannot be impeached. The particular instances which have been urged as
proving his dishonesty will be discussed below in the notes upon the respective
passages, and to those the reader is referred (compare especially pp. 88, 98, 100,
111, 112, 114, 127, 194).
Eusebius' critics are wont to condemn him severely for what they are
pleased to call the dishonesty displayed by him in his Vita Constantini. Such
critics forget, apparently, that that work pretends to be, not a history, but a
panegyric. Judging it as such, I am unable to find anything in it which leads me to
entertain for a moment a suspicion of the author's honesty, It is true that
Eusebius emphasizes the Emperor's good qualities, and fails to mention the darker
spots in his character; but so far as I am aware he misstates no facts, and
does only what those who eulogize deceased friends are accustomed to do the world
over. For a discussion of this matter the reader is referred to the prolegomena
of Dr. Richardson, pp. 467 sq. of this volume. I am pleased to learn from him
that his study of the Vita has shown him nothing which justifies the charge of
dishonesty brought against Eusebius.
One of the most decisive marks of veracity upon the part of our author is
the frankness with which he confesses his lack of knowledge upon any subject
(cf. IV. 5), and the care with which he distinguishes between the different kinds
of evidence upon which he bases his statements. How frequently the phrases
<greek>logos</greek> <greek>ekei</greek>, <greek>fasi</greek>,
<greek>legetai</greek>, &c., occur in connection with accounts which a less scrupulous historian
would not hesitate to record as undoubted fact. How particular he is to mention
his sources for any unusual or startling event. If the authorities seem to him
quite inadequate, he simply omits all reference to an occurrence which most of
his con-temporaries and successors would have related with the greatest gusto;
if the testimony seems to him strong, he records the circumstance and expressly
mentions his authority, whether oral tradition, the testimony of
eye-witnesses, or written accounts, and we are thus furnished the material from which to
form our own judgments.
He is often blamed by modern writers for what they are pleased to call his
excessive credulity. Those who accuse him thus seem to forget that he lived in
the fourth, not in the nineteenth century. That he believed many things which
we now declare to be incredible is perfectly true, but that he believed things
that other Christians of his day pronounced incredible is not true. Judged, in
fact, according to the standard of his age--and indeed of eleven succeeding
centuries--he must be pronounced remarkably free from the fault of over-credulity,
in truth uncommonly skeptical in his attitude toward the marvelous. Not that
he denies the occurrence of prodigies and wonders in his own and other ages, but
that he always demands the strongest testimony before he allows himself to be
convinced of their truth. Compare, e.g., the care with which he gives his
authorities for the anecdote in regard to the Thundering Legion (V. 5), and his
final suspension of judgment in the matter; compare also the emphasis which he lays
upon the personal testimony of the Emperor in the matter of the appearance of
the sign of the cross in the sky( Vita Const. I. 28 sq.), a phenomenon which he
himself tells us that he would have believed upon ,no ordinary evidence. His
conduct in this matter is a sign rather of a skepticism uncommon in his age than
of an excessive and unusual credulity. Gibbon himself gives our author due
credit in this respect, when he speaks of his character as "less tinctured with
credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of
his contemporaries" (Decline and Fall, chap. XVI.).
On the other hand, Eusebius as an historian had many very grave faults
which it is not my wish in the least to palliate or conceal. One of the most
noticeable of these is his complete lack of any conception of historiography as a
fine art. His work is interesting and instructive because of the facts which it
records, but that interest is seldom if ever enhanced by his mode of
presentation. There is little effective grouping, almost no sense of perspective, utter
ignorance of the art of suggesting by a single line or phrase a finished picture
of a man or of a movement. He was not, in other words, a Thucydides or a
Tacitus; but the world has seen not many such as they.
A second and still more serious fault is our author's want of depth, if I
may so express myself, his failure to look beneath the surface and to grasp the
real significance of things, to trace the influence of opinions and events. We
feel this defect upon every page. We read the annals, but we are conscious of
no masterful mind behind them, digesting and comprehending them into one
organic and imposing whole. This radical weakness in our author's method is revealed
perhaps most clearly in his superficial and transcendental treatment of
heretics and heresies, his failure to appreciate their origin and their bearing upon
the progress of Christian thought. Of a development in theology, in fact, he
knows nothing, and hence his work lacks utterly that which we now look upon as the
most instructive part of Church history,--the history of doctrine.
In the third place, severe censure must be passed upon our author for his
carelessness and inaccuracy in matters of chronology. We should expect that one
who had produced the most extensive chronological work that had ever been
given to the world, would be thoroughly at home in that province, but in truth his
chronology is the most defective feature of his work. The difficulty is chiefly
due to his inexcusable carelessness, we might almost say slovenliness, in the
use of different and often contradictory sources of information. Instead of
applying himself to the discrepancies, and endeavoring to reach the truth by
carefully weighing the respective merits of the sources, or by testing their
conclusions in so far as tests are possible, he adopts in many cases the results of
both, apparently quite unsuspicious of the confusion consequent upon such a
course. In fact, the critical spirit which actuates him in dealing with many other
matters seems to leave him entirely when he is concerned with chronology; and
instead of proceeding with the care and circumspection of an historian, he
accepts what he finds with the unquestioning faith. of a child. There is no case in
which he can be convicted of disingenuousness, but at times his obtuseness is
almost beyond belief. An identity of names, or a resemblance between events
recorded by different authors, will often be enough to lead him all unconsciously to
himself into the most absurd and contradictory conclusions. Instances of this
may be seen in Book I. chap. 5, and in II. 11. His confusion in regard to the
various Antonines (see especially the note on the preface to Book V.) is not at
all unusual among the writers of his day, and in view of the frequent and
perplexing use of the same names by the different emperors, might be quite excusable
in a less scholarly man than Eusebius, but in his case it is evidence of
unpardonable want of care. This serious defect in our author's method is not
peculiar to him. Many historians, critical almost to a fault in most matters, accept
the received chronology without question, and build upon it as if it were the
surest of foundations. Such a consideration does not excuse Eusebius; it relieves
him, however, of the stigma of peculiarity.
Finally, the character of the History is greatly impaired by our author's
desultory method. This is a characteristic of his literary work in general,
and, was referred to in the previous chapter. All his works are marred by it, but
few suffer more noticeably than the History. The author does not confine
himself as strictly as he should to the logical limits of the subject which he is
treating, but allows himself to be led away from the main point by the suggestions
that pour in upon him from all sides. As Lightfoot remarks, "We have not
unfrequently to pick out from various parts of his work the notices bearing on one
definite and limited subject. He relates a fact, or quotes an authority bearing
upon it, in season or out of season, according as it is recalled to his memory
by some accidental connexion." This unfortunate habit of Eusebius' is one into
which men of wide learning are very apt to fall. The richness of their
acquisitions embarrasses them, and the immense number of facts in their possession
renders a comprehension of them all into one logical whole very difficult; and yet
unless the facts be thus comprehended, unless they be thoroughly digested and
arranged, the result is confusion and obscurity. To exclude is as necessary as
to include, if one would write history with the highest measure of success; to
exclude rigidly at one time what it is just as necessary to include at another.
To men like Eusebius there is perhaps nothing more difficult than this. Only a
mind as intensive as it is extensive, with a grasp as strong as its reach is
wide, can accomplish it, and few are the minds that are blessed with both
qualities. Few are the writers whose histories stand upon our shelves that fail not
sadly in the one or in the other; and in few perhaps does the failure seem more
marked than in our author.
And yet, though it is apparent that the value of Eusebius' work is greatly
impaired by its desultory method of treatment, I am confident that the defect
is commonly exaggerated. The paragraph which Lightfoot quotes from Westcott on
this subject leaves a false impression. Altogether too often our author
introduces irrelevant matters, and repeats himself when repetition "mars the symmetry
of his work"; and yet on the whole he follows a fairly well ordered plan with
fairly good success. He endeavors to preserve a strictly chronological sequence
in his arrangement of the books, and he adheres for the most part to his
purpose. Though there may be disorder and confusion within the various periods, for
instance within the apostolic age, the age of Trajan, of Hadrian, of the
Antonines, &c., yet the periods themselves are kept reasonably distinct from one
another, and having finished his account of one of them the author seldom returns to
it. Even in his treatment of the New Testament canon, which is especially
desultory, he says most of what he has to say about it in connection with the
apostles themselves, and before passing on to the second century. I would not
overlook the exceeding flagrancy of his desultoriness and repetitiousness in his
accounts of the writings of many of the Fathers, especially of the two Clements,
and yet I would emphasize the fact that he certainly had an outline plan which he
designed to follow, and for which due credit should be given him. He compares
favorably in this respect with at least most of the writers of antiquity. Only
with our modern method of dividing history into periods, separated by natural
boundary lines, and of handling it under clearly defined rubrics, have we become
able wholly to avoid the confused and illogical treatment of Eusebius and of
others like him.
- 4. Editions and Versions.
The original Greek of Eusebius' History has been published in many editions.
1. The editio princeps is that of Robert Stephanus, which appeared at
Paris in 1544, and again, with a few changes, and with the Latin translation of
Christophorsonus and the notes of Suffridus Petrus, at Geneva in 1612.
2. Henr. Valesius (de Valois) published his first edition of the Greek
text, with a new Latin translation and with copious critical and explanatory
notes, at Paris in 1659. His edition was reprinted at Mainz in 1672, but the reprint
is full of errors. In 1677, after Valesius' death, a revised edition was
issued at Paris, which in 1695 was reprinted with some corrections at Amsterdam. In
1720 Valesius' edition of Eusebius, together with his edition of Socrates,
Sozomen, and the other Greek historians, was republished at Cambridge by William
Reading, in three folio volumes. This is the best edition of Valesius, the
commentary being supplemented by MS. notes which he had left among his papers, and
increased by large additions from other writers under the head of Variorum. A
reprint of Reading's edition was issued in 1746-1748, but according to Heinichen
it is not as accurate as that of 1720. For the elucidation of Eusebius' History
we owe more to Valesius than to any other man. His edition of the text was an
immense advance upon that of Stephanus, and has formed the basis of all
subsequent editions, while his notes are a perfect storehouse of information from which
all annotators of Eusebius have extensively drawn. Migne's edition (Opera, IL
45-906) is a reprint of Valesius' edition of 1659.
3. F. A. Stroth (Halle, 1779). A new edition of the Greek text, of which,
however, only the first volume appeared, comprising Books I.-VII.
4. E. Zimmermann (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1822). A new edition of the Greek
text, containing also the Latin translation of Valesius, and a few critical
notes.
5. F.A. Heinichen (Leipzig, 1827 and 1828). An edition of the Greek text
in three volumes, with a reprint of the entire commentary of Valesius, and with
the addition of Variorum notes. The critical apparatus, printed in the third
volume, is very meager. A few valuable excursuses close the work. Forty years
later Heinichen published a second edition of the History in his Eusebii Pamphili
Scripta Historica (Lips. 1868-1870, 3 vols.). The first volume contains the
Greek text of the History, with valuable prolegomena, copious critical apparatus
and very useful indices; the second volume contains the Vita Constantini, the
Panegyricus or De laudibus Constantini, and Constantine's Oratio ad Sanctorum
coetum, also accompanied with critical apparatus and indices; the third volume
contains an extensive commentary upon the works included in the first two volumes,
together with twenty-nine valuable excursuses. This entirely supersedes the
first, and is on the whole the most complete and useful edition of the History
which we have. The editor made diligent use of the labors of his predecessors,
especially of Laemmer's. He did no independent work, however, in the way of
collecting material for the criticism of the text, and was deficient in critical
judgment. As a consequence his text has often to be amended on the basis of the
variant readings, which he gives with great fullness. His commentary, is made up
largely of quotations from Valesius and other writers, and is valuable for the
material it thus contains as well as for its references to other works. It
labors under the same incompleteness, however, that mars Valesius' commentary, and,
moreover, contains almost nothing of independent value.
6. E. Burton (Oxford, 1838). The Greek text in two volumes, with the
translation of Valesius and with critical apparatus; and again in 1845, with the
critical apparatus omitted, but with the notes of Valesius, Heinichen and others
added. Burton made large contributions to the criticism of the text, and had he
lived to superintend the issue of the second edition, would perhaps have
succeeded in giving us a better text than any which we now possess, for he was a far
more sagacious critic than Heinichen. As it is, his edition is marred by
numerous imperfections, largely caused by the inaccuracy of those who collated MSS.
for him. His text, with the translation, notes, and critical apparatus omitted,
was reprinted by Bright at Oxford in 1872, and again in 1881, in a single
volume. This is a very handy edition, and for school use is unsurpassed. The
typography is superb, and the admirable plan is followed of discarding quotation marks
and printing all citations in smaller type, thus making plain to the eye at a
glance what is Eusebius' own and what is another's. The text is preceded by a
very interesting and graphic life of the historian.
7. Schwegler (Tübingen, 1852, in one volume). The Greek text with critical
apparatus, but without translation and notes. An accurate and useful edition.
8. Laemmer (Schaffhausen, 1859-1862). The Greek text in one volume, with
extensive critical apparatus, but without explanatory notes. Laemmer had unusual
opportunities for collecting material, and has made larger additions to the
critical apparatus than any one else. His edition was issued, however, in a most
slovenly manner, and swarms with mistakes. Great care should therefore be
exercised in the use of it.
9. Finally must be mentioned the text of Dindorf (Lips. 1871), which is
published in the Teubner series, and like most of the volumes of that series is
handy and convenient, but of little value to the critical student.
There are few writings of the Fathers which more sadly need and more
richly deserve a new critical edition than the History of Eusebius. The material for
the formation of a reliable text is extensive and accessible, but editors have
contented themselves too much in the past with the results of their
predecessors' labors, and unfortunately those labors have not always been accurate and
thorough. As a consequence a new and more careful collation of most of the MSS.
of the original, together with those of Rufinus' translation, must lie at the
foundation of any new work which is to be done in this line. The publication of
the Syriac version will doubtless furnish much valuable material which the next
editor of the History, will be able to use to advantage. Anything less than
such a thorough work as I have indicated will be of little worth. Unless the new
edition be based upon extensive and independent labors, it will be little if any
improvement upon that of Heinichen. It is to be hoped that a critical text, up
to the standard of those of some other patristic works which we already
possess, may yet be issued, which shall give us this, one of the noblest productions
of the ancient Church, in a fitting and satisfactory form.
Translations of Eusebius' History are very numerous. Probably the earliest
of all is the ancient Syriac version which is preserved in great part in two
MSS., one of which is at St. Petersburg and contains the entire History with the
exception of Book VI. and large portions of Books V. and VII. The MS. is dated
462 A.D. (see Wright's description of it in his Catalogue of the Syriac MSS.
in the British Museum acquired since the year 1838, Part III. p. xv. sq.). The
second MS. is in the British Museum, and contains Books I.-V., with some
mutilations at the beginning of the first book. The MS. dates from the sixth century
(see Wright's description of it in his Catalogue, p. 1039). From these MSS.
Wright was engaged in preparing an edition of the Syriac, which remained unfinished
at the time of his death. Whether he left his work in such shape that it can
soon be issued by some one else I have not yet learned. The version was probably
made at a very early date, possibly within the lifetime of Eusebius himself,
though of that we can have no assurance. I understand that it confirms in the
main the Greek text as now printed in our best editions.
The original Latin version was made by Rufinus in the early years of the
fifth century. He translated only nine books, and added to them two of his own,
in which he brought the history down to the death of Theodosius the Great. He
allowed himself his customary license in translating, and yet, although his
version is by no means exact, it is one of our best sources for a knowledge of the
true text of Eusebius, for it is possible, in many doubtful cases where our
MSS. are hopelessly divided, to ascertain from his rendering what stood in the
original Greek. The version of Rufinus had a large circulation, and became in the
Western Church a substitute for the original throughout the Middle Ages. It was
first printed, according to Fabricius (ib. p. 59), in 1476 at Rome, afterward
a great many times there and elsewhere. The first critical edition, which still
remains the best, is that of Cacciari (Rome, 1740), which has become rare, and
is very difficult to find. A new edition is a great desideratum. An important
work upon Rufinus' version is Kimmel's De Rufino Eusebii Interprete, Ger', 1838.
A new Latin translation, by Wolfgang Musculus, was published in Basle, in
1549, and again in 1557, 1562, and 1611, according to Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. VI.
p. 60). I have myself seen only the edition of 1562.
Still another Latin version, from the hand of Christophorsonus, was
published at Louvain in 1570. This is the only edition of Christophorsonus which I
have seen, but I have notices of Cologne editions of 1570, 1581 and 1612, and of
a Paris edition of 1571. According to Fabricius the Paris edition, and
according to Brunnet the Cologne edition of 1581, contain the notes of Suffridus
Petrus. A revision of Christophorsonus' version is said by Crusè to have been
published by Curterius, but I have not seen it, nor am I aware of its date.
Another translation, by Gryn'us, was published at Basle in 1611. This is
the only edition of Gryn'eus' version which I have seen, and I find in it no
reference to an earlier one. I have been informed, however, that an edition
appeared in 1591. Hanmer seems to imply, in his preface, that Grynseus' version is
only a revision of that of Musculus, and if that were so we should have to
identify the 1611 edition with the 1611 edition of Musculus mentioned by Fabricius
(see above). I am able, however, to find no hint in Gryn'us' edition itself that
his version is a revision of that of Musculus.
The translation of Valesius, which was first published in 1659 (see
above), was a great improvement upon all that had preceded it, and has been many
times reprinted in other editions of Eusebius, as well as in his own.
The first German translation was published by Caspar Hedio. The date of
publication is given by Fabricius as 1545, but the copy which I have seen is
dated 1582, and contains no reference to an earlier edition. It comprises only nine
books of Eusebius, supplemented by the two of Rufinus. The title runs as
follows: Chronica, das ist: wahrhaftige Beschreibunge aller alten Christlichen
Kirchen; zum ersten, die hist. eccles. Eusebii Pamphili C'sariensis, Eilff Bücher;
zum andern, die hist. eccles. tripartita Sozomeni, Socratis und Theodoreti,
Zw"lff Bucher; zum dritten die hist. eccles. sampt andern treffenlichen
Geschichten, die zuvor in Teutschef Sprache wenig gelesen sind, ouch Zwolff Bucher. Von
der Zeit an da die hist. eccles. tripartita aufhoret: das ist, yon der jarzal
an, vierhundert nach Christi geburt, biss auff das jar MDXLV, durch D. Caspar
Hedion zu Strassburg verteutscht und zusamen getragen. Getruckt zu. Franckfurt am
Mayn, im jar 1582.
A second German translation of the entire History (with the exception of
the Martyrs of Palestine, and the Oration an the Building of the Churches, X.
4), together with the Life of Constantine, was published by F. A. Stroth in
Quedlinburg in 1777, in two volumes. Stroth prefaced the translation with a very
valuable Life of Eusebius, and added a number of excellent notes of his own. The
translation is reasonably accurate.
A much more elegant German version (including the Oration, but omitting
the Martyrs of Palestine) was published by Closs in Stuttgart in 1839, in one
volume. This is in my opinion the best translation of the History that exists. Its
style is admirable, but pure German idiom is sometimes secured at the expense
of faithfulness. In fact the author has aimed to produce a free, rather than a
literal translation, and has occasionally allowed himself to depart too far
from the original. A few brief notes, most of them taken from Valesius or Stroth,
accompany the translation.
More recently a German translation has been published by Stigloher
(Kempten, 1880) in the Kempten Bibliothek der Kirchenväter. It purports to be a new
translation, but is practically nothing more than a poorly revised edition of
Closs' version. The changes which are made are seldom improvements.
Fabricius mentions a French translation by Cloudius Seysselius, but does
not give the date of it, and I have not myself seen it. Dr. Richardson, however,
informs me that he has a copy of this translation (which is from the Latin,
not from the Greek) bearing the following title: L'Histoire ecclesiastique
translate de Latin au Français, par M. Claude de Seyssel, evesque lors de Marseille,
et depuis archevesque de Thurin. Paris, 1532 [or 33], f°. He informs me also
that there exist editions of the years 1537 and 1567.
More than a century later appeared a new French translation by Louis
Cousin, bearing the following title: Historic de l'Eglise écritoric de l'Eglise
acrité par Eusebe Cesaree, Socrate, Sozomene, Theodoret et Evangre, avec l'abrege
de Philostorge par Photius, et de Theodore par Nicephore Calliste. Paris,
1675-1676. 4 vol. 4°. Another edition appeared in Holland in 1686, 5 vol. 12°.
The first English translation was made by Hanmer, and was issued in 1584,
and, according to Crusè, passed through five editions. The fourth edition,
which lies before me, was published in London in 1636. The volume contains the
Histories of Eusebius, of Socrates, and of Evagrius; Dorotheus' Lives, and
Eusebius' Life of Constantine.
Another translation is said by Crusè to have been published about a
century later by T. Shorting, and to be a decided improvement upon that of Hanmer. I
have seen no copy bearing Shorting's name, but have examined an anonymous
translation which bears the following title: The Ecclesiastical. History of Eusebius
Pamphilus in ten books. Made into English from that edition set forth by
Valesius, and printed at Paris in the year 1659; together with Valesius' notes on
the said historian, which are done into English and set at their proper place in
the margin. Hereto also is annexed an account of the life and writings of the
aforesaid historian, collected by Valesius and rendered into English. Cambridge:
John Hayes, 1683. This is evidently the translation of Shorting referred to by
Crusè, for it answers perfectly the description which he gives of it.
An abridgment of this version, made by Porker, is mentioned both by
Fabricius (ib. p. 62) and by Crusè, but I have not myself seen it. Fabricius gives
its date as 1703, and Dr. Richardson informs me that he has seen an edition
bearing the date 1729, and that he has a note of another published in 1703 or 1720.
The latest English translation was made by the Rev. C. F. Crusè, an
American Episcopalian of German descent, and was published first in Philadelphia in
1833, with a translation, by Parker, of Valesius' Life of Eusebius prefixed. It
has been reprinted a great many times both in England and America, and is
included in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library. In Bohn's edition are printed a few
scattered notes from Valesius' commentary, and in some other editions an historical
account of the Council of Nic'a, by Isaac Boyle, is added. The translation is
an improvement upon its predecessors, but is nevertheless very faulty and
unsatisfactory. The translator is not thoroughly at home in the English, and,
moreover, his version is marred by many serious omissions and interpolations which
reveal an inexcusable degree of carelessness on his part.
The literature upon Eusebius' History is very extensive. Many of the
editions already mentioned discuss, in their prolegomena, the History itself and
Eusebius' character as a historian, as do also all the lives of Eusebius referred
to above, and all the larger histories of the Church. In addition to these we
have numerous important monographs and essays, of which the following may be
mentioned here: M"ller, de Fide Eusebii in rebus christianis enarrandis, Havn.
1813; Danz, de Eusebio C'sariensi Hist. Ecclesiastiae Scriptore, Jen', 1815. This
was mentioned in Chapter I. as containing a valuable discussion of the life of
Eusebius. Its chief importance lies in its treatment of the sources of the
Church History, to which the author devotes the whole of Chap. III. which bears the
title, de fontibus, quibus usus, historiam ecclesiasticam conscripsit
Eusebius, pp. 76-144. Kestner, de Eusebii Historiae Eccles. conditoris auctoritate, et
fide diplomatica, sive de ejus Fontibus et Ratione qua eis usus est, Gotting',
1816; and by the same author, Ueber die Einseitigkeit und Partheiligkeit des
Eusebius als Geschichtschreibers, Jen', 1819; Reuterdahl, de Fontibus Historiae
Eccles. Eusebian', Londini Gothorum, 1826; Reinstra, de Fontibus, ex quibus
Histori' Eccles. opus hausit Eusebius Pamphili, et de Ratione, qua iis usus est,
Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1833; F. C. Baur, Comparatur Eusebius Histori' Eccles. Parens
cum Parente Histori' Herodoto, Tüb. 1834; and pp. 9-26 of the same author's
Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung, Tüb. 1852; Dowling, Introduction to
the Critical Study of Eccles. History, London, 1838, pp. 11-18; Hély, Eusèbe de
Césaree, premier Historien de l'Église, Paris, 1877; J. Burckhardt, Zeit
Constantins, 2d ed. 1880, pp. 307 sq. Burckhardt depreciates Eusebius' value and
questions his veracity. The review articles that have been written on Eusebius'
History are legion. I shall mention only Engelhardt's Eusebius als
Kirchengeschichtschreiber, in the Zeitschrift für hist. Theol. 1852, pp. 652-657; and
Jachmann's Bermerkungen über die Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius, ib. 1839, II. pp.
10-60. The latter contains one of the most unsparing attacks upon Eusebius'
honesty that has ever been made (see above, p. 49).