Chronology of the Life of Athanasius

This extensive chronology was prefixed to Saint Athanase by the well-known patrologist Ferdinand Cavallera (Paris: Bloud, 1908). Since it seems more comprehensive than anything else I could easily find, I translated it about as fast as I could type (so don’t be surprised by an error here or there). There may be disagreement about some dates and some events, but on the whole this is a very useful guide.

Chronology of St. Athanasius

295. Birth of St. Athanasius. —Classical and religious education.

312. Athanasius ordained reader. He spends six years in that office.

318. Beginnings of Arianism at Alexandria. —Bishop Alexander takes St. Athanasius as his secretary, already deacon. —Apologetic treatise in two books: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione Verbi.

320. St. Athanasius subscribes to the deposition of Arius.

325. Council of Nicaea; St. Athanasius, still a deacon, attends with his bishop.

328. June 7. St. Athanasius ordained bishop of Alexandria.

329. First Paschal Letter.

330. St. Athanasius visits the Thebaid.

331. Difficulties with the Melitians and the Arians, who accuse him before Constantine.

332. St. Athanasius, summoned to Nicomedia, defends himself clearly and returns before the feast of Easter. He visits the Pentapolis and the oasis of Ammon.

333. Letters from Constantine to the Catholics and the Arians. —Arius, summoned to the court, makes a profession of faith that satisfies the emperor; Athanasius refuses to receive him in his communion.

334. Visit to Lower Egypt. —New intrigues against St. Athanasius. —The censor Dalmatius, half-brother of Constantine, is charged with investigating the affair. —The Synod of Caesarea, before which Athanasius was charged, is dissolved; letter of Constantine condemning the enemies of the bishop of Alexandria.

335. Accusations renewed. —Council of Tyre: the majority, hostile to St. Athanasius, who has come to defend himself (July 11), names a commission of inquiry composed of adversaries of the bishop of Alexandria; the inquiry, made in Egypt with no contradictory debate, concludes that Athanasius is guilty. He betakes himself to Constantinople to demand justice. The Council of Tyre deposes him and prohibits him from returning to Egypt. —New session of the Council at Jerusalem (September); Arius is there admitted to the ecclesiastical communion. —The most influential members of the Council, called to Constantinople by the emperor, bring political accusations against Athanasius. —St. Athanasius is exiled to the Gauls, but no successor is named.

336. November 6. St. Athanasius arrives at Trèves, where he is detained. —Troubles in Egypt. —Letters from St. Anthony to Constantine in favor of Athanasius.

337. May 22. Death of Constantine; his son Constantine II sends St. Athanasius back to Alexandria (June 17). Athanasius encounters Constantius, Emperor of the East, at Viminacium and at Caesarea in Cappadocia; he returns to Alexandria November 23.

338. July. St. Anthony at Alexandria; new intrigues of Athanasius’ enemies; Pistos is consecrated bishop of Alexandria by the Arians; embassy sent to Pope Julius I to denounce St. Athanasius; synod of Alexandria and embassy of Egyptian clergy at Rome in his favor.

339. Pope Julius invites the Easterners to come to Rome to discuss the case of Athanasius in a plenary synod. —In March, Philagrius, Prefect of Egypt, announces that Alexandria has a new bishop, the Arian Gregory of Cappadocia. —March 18, bloody riot; the 22nd, entry of Gregory. —Athanasius secretly leaves Alexandria. —Letter of protest to the bishops: Encyclica ad Episcopos. He embarks for Rome.

340. Letter of the Easterners to the pope; they refuse to attend the council. Athanasius is recognized as innocent; Julius notifies the Easterners and Egyptians of that sentence of the council. —St. Athanasius by his descriptions acquaints the Westerners with the marvels of the cenobitic life.

342–3. Interview of St. Athanasius and the emperor Constans at Milan (May). —St. Athanasius in Gaul; he betakes himself with Hosius to the Council of Serdica or Sardica; letter of the Council recognizing his innocence; deposition of Athanasius by the schismatic Council of Easterners.

344. Constans vigorously demands of his brother Constantius the recall of Athanasius, then at Naissus.

345. June 25. Death of Gregory of Cappadocia. —Letters (3) from Constantius recalling Athanasius to Alexandria. —Athanasius quits Aquilaea; at Rome, Pope Julius gives him a letter for the Alexandrians.

346. From Rome he returns via Adrianople to the East; interview at Antioch with Constantius; Athanasius attends the synod at Jerusalem, which approves him; he returns to Alexandria October 21. —St. Anthony greets him.

347–50. Period of calm; various works; Orationes III contra Arianos; De Decretis Concilii Nicaeni; De Sententia Dionysii. Synod of Alexandria to confirm that of Sardica; Valens and Ursatius, old enemies of Athanasius, ask for his friendship. —Death of the emperor Constans (January 350) deprives Athanasius of a devoted protector. —New intrigues around Constantius against the bishop of Alexandria. —Constantius reassures St. Athanasius, who publishes his apology: Apologia contra Arianos.

351–2. Construction of the church of Caesareum furnishes a pretext for a calumny against Athanasius directed to Constantius. —Election of Pope Liberius (May 17). —Athanasius is denounced to him by various bishops. —The pope defends the bishop of Alexandria. —Letter to Amun, Epistula ad Amunem.

353. Legation of Serapion of Thmuis in favor of Athanasius, at Rome and Milan. —Liberius asks the emperor to convene a council to settle the questions definitively.

354. Constantius imposes the condemnation of Athanasius on the Synod of Arles. —All the bishops present succumb to the pressure, with the exception of Paulinus of Trèves, who is exiled to Phrygia. —Liberius, mortified, asks Constantius to convene a new synod.

355. In the spring, the synod meets at Milan, succumbs again; all the bishops sign the condemnation of Athanasius except Lucifer of Cagliari, Eusebius of Vercelli, Dionysius of Milan, who are exiled. —Athanasius’ Letter to Dracontius. —In August, first alert at Alexandria. —The notary Diogenes tries to make Athanasius leave of his own free will and to stir up the population against him. —On the strength of Constantius’ promise (in 350), Athanasius demands a written order.

356. Signatures are collected against St. Athanasius throughout the West. —Hilary of Poitiers and Rhodianus of Toulouse, then Pope Liberius and Hosius of Cordoue, refusing to abandon communion with Athanasius, are exiled. —At Alexandria, January 5, second alert. —The dux Syrianus clashes with Athanasius, meets same refusal. —In the night of February 8–9, a traitor to his promises, he invades the church of Theonas, whence St. Athanasius is able to escape furtively. —Violence and threats. —Protests of the Catholics; Constantius orders the bishops of Egypt to abandon communion with Athanasius, who is actively pursued. —June 14: the churches are handed over to the Arians. —Letter of St. Athanasius to the bishops of Egypt, Epistula ad episcopos Ægypti et Lybiæ. —Death of St. Anthony.

357. February 24: entry of the intrusive George of Cappadocia; the dux Sebastian terrorizes Egypt.

357–61. Athanasius in the desert. —Numerous works, polemical, dogmatic, or personal: Apologia ad Constantium; Apologia de fuga; Historia arianorum ad monachos; Epistula de morte Arii; Epistula ad monachos (358). —On the controversy over the divinity of the Holy Spirit, at about this time St. Athanasius writes the Epistulas ad Serapionem (359). —According to certain critics the Orationes contra Arianos should also be attributed to this time. —Lucifer takes up his defense in his De sancto Athanasio. —Athanasius writes the Life of St. Anthony.

357. Liberius, exiled, subscribes to the deposition of Athanasius; at the second synod of Sirmium (summer) Hosius, while accepting an objectionable theological document, energetically refuses to imitate Liberius.

358. Before Easter, Synod of Ancyra; Third of Sirmium; in August, at Alexandria, revolt against George; he abandons the city October 2. —Athanasius secretly spends a few days in Alexandria.

359. Councils of Rimini (Western) and Seleucia (Eastern). —Athanasius in his de Synodis makes advances to the moderate faction of his adversaries, the partisans of Basil of Ancyra.

360. Synod of Constantinople in January.

361. November 3, death of Constantius. —November 26, Georges returns to Alexandria; in December, riot against him; he is imprisoned, and on December 25 snatched from his prison by the pagan mob and slaughtered.

362. Beginning: Julian recalls all the exiles. —Athanasius returns to Alexandria, February 21. —Council of Alexandria presided over by St. Athanasius: Tomus ad Antiochenos. —Decree of expulsion, launched against him by Julian, does not take effect until the following October 24. —Athanasius reaches Memphis and the Thebaid; he visits Tabennisi and its monks. Epistula ad Rufinianum.

363. June 26, death of Julian. His successor Jovian invites Athanasius to return to Alexandria. —Interview of Athanasius and Jovian at Antioch: Epistula ad Jovianum. —Talks on union between Athanasius and Meletius, bishop of Antioch, come to nothing; Athanasius recognizes Paulinus, rival of Meletius. —Fruitless attempts against St. Athanasius by the Arians.

364. February 17, death of Jovian. Valentinian and Valens emperors.

365. May 4: The edict of Valens is posted at Alexandria repealing that of Julian in favor of the exiles. The Alexandrians protest for their bishop. Athanasius leaves Alexandria alone, October 5. That same night the prefect vainly has him searched for in order to send him into exile. —Athanasius remains hidden in the country near Alexandria for four months.

366. February 1: The imperial notary Bresidas, on the order of Valens, brings Athanasius back to Alexandria and replaces him definitively in possession of the churches. For the bishop, the is the end of the persecutions. —July 11, the pagans burn a church and are punished.

367. The self-styled Arian bishop Lucius introduces himself into Alexandria in September; riot, from which he escapes with great effort; he leaves the city and will not reappear there until after the death of Athanasius. Athanasius builds churches and peacefully occupies himself with the religious administration of Egypt. He is in communion with more than four hundred bishops.

368. Letter to the Bishops of Africa; various letters, in particular to Horsisius, successor to Abbot Theodore.

369–70. On the instigation of Athanasius, Pope Damasus deposes Auxentius, bishop of Milan. —Christoplogical controversies: troubles on that subject in the church at Corinth. —Athanasius consulted, refutes the principal errors in a letter to the bishop Epictetus; two other analogous writings also date to this time (Epistula ad Epictetum, ad Adelphium, ad Maximum.)

370. St. Basil, holy bishop of Caesarea, sends notice of his election to St. Athanasius.

371–73. Correspondence with St. Basil on the subject of the affairs of Antioch and the East. —Dorotheus, deacon of Meletius, comes to Alexandria; Peter, priest of Alexandria, goes to the East and to Basil. —Negotiations with the Easterners; they send the Milanese deacon Sabinus to Athanasius. —St. Athanasius takes up the defense of St. Basil, whose orthodoxy is suspected (Epistula ad Joannem and ad Palladium). —Marcellus of Ancyra sends him a legation to defend himself against accusations of heresy. —Athanasius excommunicates the governor of Libya.

373. May 2: Death of St. Athanasius.

Leunclavius Defends Zosimus

The German historian, classicist, and orientalist Johannes Leunclavius published a translation of Zosimus, and he felt obliged to defend the pagan Zosimus (the last important pagan historian of Rome) from his Christian detractors. In the best tradition of Renaissance scholarship, he enthusiastically debates the ancient authors as if they were alive today and right in front of him. This translation of Leunclavius’ Apology appeared in an English translation of Zosimus published in 1684.

Leunclavius’s Apology for Zosimus

Although I were either to Dispute against Men even of a different Religion, or were not to undertake the defence of a Man, who, for having professed the old exploded Pagan Superstition, would certainly at first sight lose any manner of favour that he could expert in his cause among Men of our times; yet encouraged and supported with evident Arguments from Truth it self, and the weakness of those which are brought against him by his Adversaries, I will not fear but that what I have to say will with impartial Men obtain. But I foresee his Defence is like to prove no easie Province, being to reply to those Men who under the pretence of defending the Christian Religion and those Princes who were the most celebrated Patrons of it, charge one of the most elegant and useful Historians with lying and calumniating; and who because he was no Christian must not be admitted to be a proper or a faithful reporter of those things which were transacted in the Commonwealth. For mankind is generally so unhappily built, as easily to believe those Men whom they find of the same Opinions with themselves, even in things indifferent, but especially in matters of Religion, crying down in the mean while Men of different Sentiments, although the things they deliver do not appear repugnant to truth. But seeing there is that force in Virtue in general, but especially in truth, that we cannot but approve it even in an Enemy; we hope you will hear what we have undertaken to say in a few words in defence of Zosimus, and that Men not too perverse and disingenuous will acknowledge that matters of fact may with candour and integrity be transmitted to future Ages by Men even of a different Religion from our selves.

Infanticide Is Illegal in Thebes

From Book II of Aelian’s Varia Historia, a remarkable and unusual custom of the Thebans:

CHAP. VII. That the Thebans expose not Children.

This is a Theban Law most just and humane; That no Theban might expose his Child or leave it in a Wilderness, upon pain of death. But if the Father were extremely poor, whether it were male or female, the Law requires that as soon as it is born it be brought in the swadling-clouts to the Magistrate, who receiving it, delivers it to some other for some small reward, conditioning with him that he shall bring up the Child, and when it is grown up take it into his service, man or maid, and have the benefit of its labour in requital for its education.

Obviously it is not worth recording unless Thebes is the only place Aelian can recall that has such a law. Instead of killing their unwanted children, the Thebans make slaves of them, which is far more just and humane than most other people are willing to be.

Aelian lived around the year 200, when the illegal Christian cult was growing rapidly. His remarks on this unusual Theban custom illustrate Rodney Stark’s hypothesis that the Christians’ rejection of infanticide was one of the reasons the cult grew so steadily: not only did Christians not kill their own children, but they took in children “exposed” by their neighbors.

In Roman Africa, Even the Lower Classes Spoke Latin

In his book Roman Africa, Gaston Boissier argues that the evidence from inscriptions is clear: people of the lower classes in Roman Africa were Latin-speakers on the same level with Latin-speakers in all the other Latinized provinces. (There is another translation of this book by Arabella Ward, but this new translation, which appeared first in Dr. Boli’s Random Translations, is better.)

It must have been in the last centuries of the Empire, at the moment when Christianity was triumphing, that Latin became the dominant language in Africa. Not only was it spoken in the cities, but there is no doubt that it had penetrated into the countryside as well; a portion of the 20,000 inscriptions that compose our epigraphic collections come from thence. There, as everywhere, the epitaphs are what tell the story: they show us that people of all conditions, and the lowest conditions at that—tailors, butchers, cobblers, freedmen and slaves, wished to have a few words of Latin on their tombs.

Naturally the Latin of these poor people is often a very poor Latin. Faults abound in it; we have no cause for astonishment. Yet some have tried to draw quite extraordinary conclusions from it: it seemed that it was a proof of barbarism, and it has been claimed that a society in which Latin was so badly spoken had only been lightly touched by Roman civilization. But the truth is exactly the reverse. If the inscriptions were of irreproachable correctness, we might suppose that they were composed only by professional literary men, and that below that level only the idioms of the country were understood. The improprieties of terms, the grammatical errors, the solecisms and barbarisms that are encountered on almost every line show us that we are dealing with ignorant people; that they spoke Latin badly, but at least they spoke it. Thus it is not simply a scholarly and official language, which certain pedants use on account of vanity; it is a language in use, and, like every living language, it adapts to the people who use it and changes with their degree of culture. However much the epitaphs in general may be made up of set formulas, which could be copied almost without understanding them, there are some in Africa that escape that banality, and in which one is surprised to catch a sincere and personal expression. We must suppose, therefore, that the Africans ended up making themselves masters of a language that was at first foreign to them, since they used it to express the sentiments that meant the most to them. A native, from whom death had just taken his child, writes on the little tomb he raises these words, into which he has poured his soul: Birsil, anima dulcis! [C.I.L., 16582.] Once in a while we sense an effort to find words that express the deepest feelings. Epithets accumulate in praise of a lost wife or mother (piissima, pudica, laboriosa, frugi, vigilans, sollicita, etc.); or, in the case of a young girl, the most joyous images are borrowed from nature (ut dulcis flos, ut rosa, ut narcissus) without ultimate satisfaction. Often prose is not enough for these desperate mourners; they write the verses that grief dictates to them:

Hos pater inscripsi versus dictante dolore [Ibid., 1359.]

Grief, we must admit, often dictates detestable verses to them, but their very faults have this advantage: that they prove that Latin was spoken at all levels of African society.

Furthermore, these faults are perfectly similar to those committed elsewhere at the same era. This is what the publication of the Corpus of Latin inscriptions has permitted us to state with confidence. In that Corpus we see that there is very little in the Africans’ solecisms and barbarisms that belongs particularly to Africa; they are almost always shared with the rest of the Empire. We had already seen that those who spoke Latin well spoke it nearly the same way; the inscriptions show us that there were no more different ways of speaking it badly. To mention only the Africans’ most frequent errors, we see that they are foggy in their grammar; they confound the conjugations; they do not distinguish the tenses of verbs well; they no longer know which cases prepositions govern; but, if we open the epigraphic collections of other countries, we shall see that the people of Spain and Gaul were no more able or scrupulous grammarians. In Africa, as elsewhere, they mix up genders incessantly; they can hardly tell masculine from feminine, and the neuter is on its way to being suppressed. I do not insist on the habit the Africans had of not taking account of final consonants which must have been sounded very lightly when they were pronounced; that suppression was very convenient to those who presumed to make verses, and permitted, for example, a bereaved husband to write on his wife’s tomb:

Et linguit dulces natos et conjuge dignu. [C. I. L., 9117.]

for conjugem dignum, which could not end a hexameter. But the old Latins did not write otherwise, and the same thing was done throughout the Latinized provinces. As was natural, these alterations with time became more serious. Latin soured as it spread; it was spoken worse and worse the more it was spoken by poorer and more ignorant people. Toward the end of the Empire, in a little city in Byzacena, speaking of a Christian who had lived forty years, five months, and seven hours, this was the expression used: Bixit anos quragita, meses cequ, ora setima. [C. I. L., 12200.] Here we seem to have the peak of barbarity, and a way of speaking that smells Libyan and Numidian; and yet there were, at the same era, in the very capital of the Empire, people who wrote no better. The catacombs are full of equally barbarous inscriptions, and in them we can find almost every word used by that Christian of Byzacena. There are likewise other errors that the poor people of Africa committed; nearly every one of them will be found elsewhere.

——Gaston Boisset, L’Afrique romaine, promenades archéologiques en Algérie et en Tunisie.

Toy Letters in the Late 300s

This is the sort of tiny detail that jumps out at me from ancient writings, because it draws a picture of daily life that would otherwise be invisible to us. Gregory of Nyssa describes the hard life of an honest farmer:

“He was one of those farmers who are always bent over the plough, and spend a world of trouble over their little farm; and in the winter, when he was secured from agricultural work, he used to carve out neatly the letters of the alphabet for boys to form syllables with, winning his bread with the money these sold for.” ——Against Eunomius, I.6.

Now I know that little boys in the eastern part of the Roman Empire used to play with toy wooden letters in Gregory of Nyssa’s time (he wrote Against Eunomius in about 380).