This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 16 November 2013, At: 18:00Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Symbolae Osloenses:Norwegian Journal of Greekand Latin StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sosl20

Hierocles the lover of truthand Eusebius the sophistTomas Hägg aa University of BergenPublished online: 29 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Tomas Hägg (1992) Hierocles the lover of truth and Eusebiusthe sophist, Symbolae Osloenses: Norwegian Journal of Greek and Latin Studies,67:1, 138-150, DOI: 10.1080/00397679208590864

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00397679208590864

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Symbolae Osloenses Vol. LXVII, 1992, 138-150

HIEROCLES THE LOVER OF TRUTH ANDEUSEBIUS THE SOPHIST

TOMAS HÄGG

University of Bergen

Apropos the new edition of Contra Hieroclem in "Sources Chréti-ennes", the title and number of books and editions of Hierocles'lost treatise are discussed. In the latter part of the article, thevarious attempts to date Contra Hieroclem are examined, and thequestion is raised whether Eusebius of Caesarea is really its author.

Among the extant works of Christian apologetics, Eusebius'Contra Hieroclem (hereafter: CH) has probably been the mostneglected. Slim in volume and idiosyncratic in its main concern- detailed polemics against Philostratus' Vita Apollonii {VA) - ithas attracted nothing like the attention given by Patristic scholarsto, for instance, Origen's Contra Celsum. But neglect, when deal-ing with literary works of classical antiquity, is of course just arelative concept. Beyond Patristic and Eusebian studies, CH hasthrough the centuries been secured life and potential readershipas a regular appendix to the editions of VA, starting with theAldina (1501-02) and ending with the Loeb (1912).1 Recently, thehistorical interest of the treatise has been explored by TimothyBarnes,2 and Manfred Kertsch has provided an Ehrenrettung forits philosophical-rhetorical contents.3 It has also been adducedby Eugene Gallagher and Patricia Cox in discussions of the

1. Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, ed. F. C. Conybeare, Vol. ii(1912), with text based on C. L. Kayser's Teubner edition of 1870. This pioushabit of not letting the pagan saint have the last word, was first broken withV. Mumprecht's Tusculum edition of VA, München 1983.

2. "Sossianus Hierocles and the Antecedents of the 'Great Persecution'", HSPh80, 1976, 239-252, and Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge, Mass. & London1981, 164-167 (referred to below as Barnes, "Soss. Hier." and C&E, respec-tively).

3. "Traditionelle Rhetorik and Philosophie in Eusebius' Antirrhetikos gegenHierokles", VChr 34, 1980, 145-171.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Hier ocles the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist 139

divine man in antiquity.4 And finally it has been accorded thehonour of a critical edition of its own, in the "Sources Chrétien-nes",5 closely followed by a concise lexicon article by WolfgangSpeyer.6

The new critical text is by Edouard des Places, while Marguer-ite Forrat is responsible for the translation and notes and thegreater part of the introduction, which deals extensively andcompetently with the historical background, the figure of Apol-lonius, and the contents and character of the treatise itself. Inaddition, des Places provides some basic information on manu-scripts, editions and the constitution of the text. Thus we nowpossess an excellent tool for further research on CH. The follow-ing notes are offered as a supplement on some issues which, tomy mind, have not been adequately treated in the new edition,or not raised there at all.7 They will concern both Hierocles' lostpamphlet and Eusebius' answer.8

4. E. V. Gallagher, Divine Man or Magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus (SBLDiss. Series, 64), Chico, Cal. 1982, 165-172; P. Cox, Biography in Late An-tiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1983, 73-80.

5. Eusèbe de Césarée, Contre Hiéroclès. Introduction, traduction et notes parM. Forrat, texte grec établi par É. des Places (Sources Chrétiennes, 333), Paris1986. (Hereafter: Forrat & des Places, or, with reference to introduction andtranslation only, as Forrat.)

6. "Hierokles I (Sossianus Hierocles)", RLAC Lief. 113, 1989, 103-109 (referredto below as Speyer).

7. I can dispense with discussing the title of Eusebius' work, since this matterhas already been raised in a review article by E. Junod, "Polémique chrétiennecontre Apollonius de Tyane", RThPh 120, 1988, 475-482. As Junod rightlyobserves, the conventional title Contra Hieroclem both lacks manuscript sup-port (though des Places fails to give the pertinent information) and is mislead-ing as to the character of the work: this is not a second Contra Celsum -Eusebius does not think Hierocles merits the honour of a refutation, especiallybecause Origen already said what has to be said - but (as the mss. have it)Eusebius' Reply to Philostratus' Life of Apollonius occasioned by Hierocles'comparison between him and Christ. (I understand προς as "in reply to" [LSJs.v. C.I. 4] rather than "against" [Loeb], "contre" [Forrat, also Junod].) Insteadof Contra Hieroclem we should consequently speak of Eusebius' Ad VitamApollonii (or similarly).

8. Some of the issues were touched upon in my article "Eusebios vs. Hierokles.En senantik polemik kring Apollonios från Tyana och Jesus från Nasaret",Religion och Bibel 44, 1985, 25-35. I wish to thank Per Beskow and theCollegium Patristicum Lundense for the opportunity to discuss further thesematters in a seminar at Lund University in December, 1988.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

140 TOMAS HÄGG

I. Hierocles' pamphlet: title, number of books and editions

Hierocles' lost work is known to us through two secondary sources,CHand Lactantius' Divinae Institutiones (5.2.13-3.26). In the for-mer, it is referred to in such a manner that most scholars assumeits title to have been ό Φιλαλήθης, "The Lover of Truth".9 Forrat,without discussion, follows this practice, calling the treatise Phila-lèthès, "l'«Ami de la Vérité»", throughout; Speyer (105) likewisetranslates "der «Wahrheitsfreund»". Lactantius, on the otherhand, says that Hierocles ausus est libros suos nefarios ac deihostesφιλαλήθεις adnotare (Div. Inst. 5.3.22). Some regard this as theexact title: "Wahrheitsliebende Reden"10 (or similarly). Our firstproblem, then, is: Did the author, in the title of his work, referto himself as a "lover of truth", or did he rather characterize hispamphlet as "truth-loving", "truthful"? (I leave aside a third possi-bility, apparently favoured by Lampe, PGD, s.v. 2, that the titlewas in the neutre: (το) Φιλάληθες, "Love of Truth".)

The adjective φιλαλήθης of course primarily refers to humanbeings (thus all the instances registered in LSJ). But it may alsobe used in a transferred sense, as when Origen (Cels. 6.16) speaksof Scripture as αϊ φιλαλήθεις γραφαί. It is precisely this use, Icontend, that we encounter in Hierocles' title: he called his pam-phlet Φιλαλήθης λόγος (in the singular)11 - and he did so withclear reference to its forerunner, Celsus' 'Αληθής λόγος. Whetherhe knew Celsus directly or through Origen, we cannot tell; buthe probably used Celsus' arguments, perhaps even borrowed hiswords, as may be inferred from CH 1.3-21.12 It is true thatEusebius here speaks quite generally of Hierocles' shameless

9. E.g., Barnes, C&E, 22. In "Soss. Hier.", 242, η. 15, Barnes censures the fewexceptions to the rule.

10. Thus R. Hanslik in Der Kleine Pauly 2, 1975, 1133.11. Earlier Eusebian scholars like E. Schwartz (loc.cit. below, n. 19) and G.

Bardy (in his ed. οf Hist. Eccl., Vol. 4, Paris 1960, 24) without discussionreferred to the pamphlet by this name; but now that the incorrect title seemsto prevail - and risks continuing to do so through the influence of Barnes,Forrat & des Places and Speyer - the reasons for preferring Φιλαλήθης λόγοςneed to be spelled out.

12. I quote CH by chapter and line in Forrat & des Places.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Hierocles the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist 141

robbery of arguments "from others" (7 εξ έτερων, 21 έτέρωθεν);but his recommendation to the reader to turn to Origen forrefutation, makes the inference natural.

But what is the precise meaning of Φιλαλήθης λόγος? It iscommon to translate Celsus' 'Αληθής λόγος as "The True Doc-trine", with a Platonic ring, rather than, e.g., "A True Dis-course".13 I am not convinced that this is correct; but whatmatters here is that Hierocles, at least, obviously did not catch(or bother about) the potential Platonic allusion: his own title,modelled on that of Celsus, must mean simply "A Truth-Loving(or Truthful) Discourse (or Treatise)". A "doctrine" can be"true", but not, I assume, "truth-loving".

Lactantius provides an additional piece of information whichseems to confirm the interpretation of λόγος as "discourse" (Div.Inst. 5.2.13): composuit enim (sc. Hierocles) libellos duos, non contraChristianos, ne inimice insectari vider etur, sedad Christianos, ut hu-mane ac bénigne consulere putaretur. In Greek terms, this wouldbe "not κατά Χριστιανών, but προς Χριστιανούς", and presumablythese words were part of the title: Φιλαλήθης λόγος προς Χριστιαν-ούς, "A truthful discourse (directed) to the Christians".14

This brings us to the next issue: Does Lactantius' reference totwo φιλαλήθεις books (libri, libelli) mean that he knew of twoseparate treatises by Hierocles with the same title, as some havethought,15 or, as others have argued,16 that he knew only a later

13. Lastly in R. J . Hoffmann's translation, Celsus, On the True Doctrine, NewYork-Oxford 1987. J . Quasten (Patr. 2, 52), on the other hand, translates"True Discourse". On the debate, see A. Wifstrand, "Kelsos' stridsskrift motkristendomen", Svensk teologisk kxartalsskrift 18, 1942, 1-18, pp. 3 f., andM. Borret in Origène, Contre Celse, Vol. 5 (Sources Chrétiennes, 227), Paris1976, 24-28 (himself voting for "Discours véritable").

14. Eusebius CH 1.4 and 2.32 (quoted below) refers to the book as τον Kaff ημών... λόγον, but I take this as a description of its character rather than aquotation of its title.

15. See Forrat (18, n. 3) who rightly dismisses this idea.16. E.g., Barnes, "Soss. Hier.", 242 f., and C&E, 165. Forrat (25) too believes in

two editions, but in the reverse order, adding a freely invented reason forthe alleged abbreviation: "Hiéroclès publia les deux livres originels en unseul, ce qui leur donnait une force de persuasion beaucoup plus grande."(On this hypothesis, why in ca. 310 should Hierocles still have referred tohimself as vicarius Orientis, which he obviously does [as Forrat (13) admits]in the version Eusebius read? Cf. below, II (2).) Speyer (105) follows Forrat.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

142 TOMAS HÄGG

(enlarged) edition than the one which Eusebius read, theΦιλαλήθης λόγος? In my opinion, neither conclusion is warranted.The word liber is here used in the meaning "volume" {OLD s.v.2.b): the truth-loving λόγος, "discourse", consisted of two λόγοι(LSJ s.v. vi.3.d) or βίβλοι, libri, "books".17 It may well be, asSpeyer (107) suggests, that the first book contained the generalattack on the Christians, while the second was devoted to thecomparison between Jesus and Apollonius; but Eusebius doesnot say so. He does not find it necessary even to mention thatHierocles' treatise consists of two books; while Lactantius, refer-ring to Hierocles' characterization of his own "books" asφιλαλήθεις, does not intend to give the accurate title of the work.

There is thus no foundation for the idea of two editions of thepamphlet to be found in Eusebius' and Lactantius' different waysof referring to it. Nor is one entitled to draw such a conclusion- as Barnes {C&E, 165) and others do - from Lactantius' state-ment that Hierocles' written attack on the Christians was sub-sequent to the start of the persecution proper (Div. Inst. 5.2.12quo scelere non contentus, etiam scriptis eos quos afflixerat insecu-tus est, composuit enim...), while the reverse - and no doubthistorically correct - order is implied by CH (see below, II). Thisis an insignificant (and natural) mistake on the part of Lactantius:he will have taken notice of the treatise only after its author andmessage had passed from theory to practice. It is also possiblethat the public recitations of the discourse in Nicomedia, asdistinct from readings in private circles (Lact. Mort. pers. 16.4calls Hierocles auctor et consiliarius adfaciendam persecutionem),started only after February, 303. This would amount to a kindof "publication", and Lactantius will not have been in a positionto know that the treatise had been written (and probably circu-lated) earlier.18

It remains to explain why the title Φιλαλήθης λόγος is not

17. Photius, Bibl. cod. 39 (p. 8a26-29) too speaks of Hierocles' "books" in theplural:... τους όπερ 'Απολλώνιου τοΰ Τοανέως Ίεροκλέους λόγους. But Photius'testimony has no independent value since it was Eusebius' treatise, not thatof Hierocles, he read.

18. Similarly Forrat, 18-20.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Hierocles the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist 143

clearly spelled out in CH. In a number of instances, it is obviousthat Eusebius makes a point of calling Hierocles, ironically, "thelover of truth", just in order to show how ill this designation fitsits object (e.g. CH 4.2). Thus, for the rhetorical effect, he transfersthe adjective from the book to its author. But in four cases, allin the first two chapters, it is his explicit intention to give thetitle. I do not think it is a coincidence that the word λόγος infact does occur in all four contexts, although only once next tothe adjective:

CH 1.3 προς μεν γαρ τα λοιπά των εν τώ Φιλαλήθει, ούτω γαρευ εχειν αύτώ τον καθ'ημών έπιγράφειν εδόκει λόγον, ...

CH 1.11 ... εν δλοις οκτώ συγγράμμασι τοις Ώριγένει γραφεΐσιπρος τον άλαζονικώτερον τοΰ Φιλαλήθους έπιγεγραμμένονΚέλσου 'Αληθή λόγον, ...

CH 1.18 ... φέρε μόνην επί τοΰ παρόντος την κατά τον κύριον ημώνΊησοΰν Χριστον τοΰ Φιλαλήθους τουτουι λόγου παράθεσινέπισκεψώμεθα, ...

CH 2.32 ταΰτα ρ'ήμασιν αύτοΐς Ίεροκλεΐ τω τον καθ' ημώνεπιγεγραφότι Φιλαλήθη λόγον εϊρηται.

With the highly affected style which characterizes the treatise(see below, II (7)), this kind of hide-and-seek game should comeas no surprise. The alternative that Eusebius should have got thetitle wrong, consequently missing the allusion to Celsus' title,seems less probable, especially in view of the second instancequoted. The third instance may even be interpreted as giving atitle that includes the word λόγος. We should thus probablytranslate it, not (with Forrat) "ce traité, P«Ami de la Vérité»" or(with Conybeare, the Loeb translator) "this treatise called the«Lover of Truth»", but rather "this «Truthful Discourse»". Thesame of course applies to the fourth example.

To sum up: There is only evidence for one edition of Hierocles'treatise; it was called Φιλαλήθης λόγος προς Χριστιανούς, consist-ed of two books, and was composed before the start of thepersecutions in February, 303.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

144 TOMAS HÄGG

II. Contra Hieroclem: date and authorship

The date of CH is disputed. To start with the most recent esti-mates, Barnes {C&E, 165) places it "shortly before 303, afterthe army had been purged of Christians but apparently beforeDiocletian issued persecuting edicts which affected Christian civ-ilians". His main reasons are: Eusebius twice {CH 4.39-40;20.1-2) refers to his adversary "in a way which implies thatHierocles was vicarius Orientis at the time of writing" (ibid.),which he was until he, in or shortly before February 303, becamegovernor of Bithynia (Barnes, "Soss. Hier.", 243); there is in CH"no hint that Christians are still being or have recently beenexecuted" (ibid., 242); and, more specifically, Eusebius - unlikeLactantius - shows no sign of knowing that in 303 Hierocles thepamphleteer became Hierocles the active persecutor of Chris-tians.

Forrat (20-26), for her part, does not accept Barnes' argu-ments, but places CH after 311. In her opinion, the general toneof the book, esp. Chs. 4 and 48, shows that Christianity hasalready triumphed over its persecutors. She believes that while itis true that Hierocles' pamphlet was written and distributedbefore the great persecutions started in 303, it remained unknownto Eusebius, in Palestine, until after Galerius' death in 311, andthat he wrote his refutation not long before he prepared forpublication his two other, greater apologetical works, the Praepa-ratio Evangélica and Demonstrate Evangélica. This, in turn,means that it was probably composed in the same few years asEusebius also wrote his voluminous refutation of Porphyry'sAdversus Christianos (Forrat, 23, n. 2,25 f.) and his De martyribusPalaestinae and published the first edition of his Historia Ecclesi-astica.

In dating CH, Barnes and Forrat thus take the same oppositepositions as Adolf von Harnack and Eduard Schwartz,19 respec-tively, did in the beginning of the century.20 Besides the more

19. E. Schwartz, "Eusebios von Caesarea", RE VI: 1 (1907) 1370-1439, col. 1394.20. For the history and bibliography of the debate, see Barnes, "Soss. Hier.",

240.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Hierocles the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist 145

subjective or speculative arguments, both sides dispose of whatseems to be more objective proof for their respective conclusions.We shall look at the arguments in turn, also bringing in materialthat has no direct bearing on the question of date, to see whetherthere is any as yet untried way of solving the contradictions.

(1) The final victory of the Christian faith over paganism isconfidently anticipated in CH. This may mean composition eitherbefore the start of the great persecution (spring 303) or after itsend (311 or later, dependent of geographical standpoint). Forrat'sargument that the years immediately preceding 303 should notin fact have given rise to such confidence, even if historicallycorrect, does not preclude that some Christians at that time mayindeed have felt confident and secure. Hindsight should not makeus favour 311+ rather than 3 0 3 - .

(2) CH refers to Hierocles as being vicarius Orientis. This doesnot, as Barnes thinks, exclude a later-than-spring-303 date forCH. It is enough that Hierocles in his treatise referred to himselfas holding that position and that the author of CH, at thetime of writing, had no further - external - information aboutHierocles' later positions (governor of Bithynia, prefect ofEgypt).

(3) CH does not - in contrast to Lactantius - indicate with aword that Hierocles also became a prominent practising per-secutor of Christians, not just a theorist (and an insignificant oneat that). Forrat thinks that Eusebius, from his Palestinian pointof observation, need not have had any knowledge of Hierocles'role as a leading persecutor in Bithynia and, later on, in Egypt.This does not seem very credible in itself and is bluntly contradict-ed by the fact that Eusebius in his De martyribus Palaestinae(5.3, only in the longer recension)21 does mention Hierocles byname as personally responsible in Alexandria for the martyrdom,in January 310, of a prominent Palestinian, the philosopher Aede-sius. At that place, in turn, Eusebius does not mention that

21. On the two recensions, cf. Bardy (above, n. 11) 36. According to Barnes,C&E, 148-150, and idem, "Some Inconsistencies in Eusebius", JThS 35,1984, 470-475, pp. 470 f., the long recension is the original one, written inthe summer or autumn of 311.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

146 TOMAS HÄGG

Hierocles had been the author of an anti-Christian pamphlet -to which Eusebius himself had devoted an apologetical work!This is indeed one of the apparently insoluble contradictions: ifCH was composed first, why is Eusebius in Mart. Pal. silentabout Hierocles' earlier "merits", and vice versa? Could he reallyhave forgotten all about it since 303-? Advocates of the 311 +date are in a still more difficult position: If the two works werewritten in about the same time, Eusebius (Forrat [22 f.] proposes)either did not think it proper to go outside his immediate topic- "d'exalter la résistance des martyrs" - in Mart. Pal, or hewanted in CH to conduct his argument "sur le seul plan idéolo-gique".

(4) Another crux: It is stated in CH (1.22-25) that Hierocleswas alone in setting up Apollonius as a rival to Jesus. This is notcorrect, since Porphyry obviously had done the same.22 HadEusebius not yet read Porphyry's Adv. Christ, in 303- (Barnes,"Soss. Hier.", 241, C&E, 174)? Or did he, in 311 + , regard Por-phyry's use of the parallel as too insignificant to mention (Forrat,27, 46-55)? Besides hardly being compatible with the wording inCH,23 the latter suggestion is psychologically not very credible,seeing that Eusebius in these years writes 25 books in refutationof Porphyry's treatise and also, when composing his Praep. Ev.and Dem. Ev., all along "demeure obsédé par cet auteur commePascal le sera par Montaigne et Voltaire par Pascal", to use J .Sirinelli's words quoted with approval by Forrat (23, n. 2) herself.

The real cruces are thus (3) and (4), both involving incompati-bility between CH and other works by Eusebius. They evaporate- both as cruces and as dating criteria - if we try the hypothesisthat Eusebius of Caesarea is not in fact the author of CH. Sucha hypothesis, once put forward, would seem to receive supportfrom some other odd facts about CH:

22. The fragments in question (Nos. 4, 60, 63 Harnack) are discussed by Forrat(46-48).

23. Forrat is in fact forced to overinterpret εξαίρετος ... γέγονεν, "was chosen",in the relevant passage of CH (1.22-25) to suit her own explanation: "... seulparmi tous les écrivains qui nous ont jamais attaqués, Hiéroclès a récemmentmis au premier plan le parallèle et la comparaison entre cet homme et notreSauveur" (italics mine).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Hier ocles the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist 147

(5) Eusebius never in his voluminous writing refers back toCH. It is not only that he does not do so in connection withHierocles in Mart. Pal, but contrary to his usual practice24 henever reuses material from CH in any other context.25 For in-stance, he could easily have incorporated parts of his commentson Philostratus' Neopythagorean hero Apollonius in his Praep.Ev. Was CH perhaps a work of his youth which he had halfforgotten in later years, or regarded as immature?26 Hardly, in303 he was already forty (and there are in his later productionseveral "Selbstzitate" from another work more securely datedabout 303, the Chronicle).21 Had he lost his copy? Or was CHsimply not his work?

(6) The Bible is never quoted in CH. In Eusebius' Praep. Ev.there are more than four hundred biblical quotations or allusions(one on every second or third page), in his Hist. Eccl. some sixor seven hundred. Is this to be explained just by the fact thatCH is a rather idiosyncratic specimen of the apologetic genre, anAd Vitam Apollonii rather than a Contra Hierocleml2*

(7) The style is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of CH.Forrat (78 f.) speaks of "une tonalité bien différente de ce qu'onlit habituellement sous la plume de l'apologiste chrétien", andfurther: "Eusèbe se montre, dans le Contre Hiéroclès, préoccupéd'effets stylistiques, ..., et ce souci d'élégance dans la critiquen'est pas sans conférer à certains passages de cet ouvrage l'«agré-ment» et l'«éclat» que lui ont toujours déniés les critiques, qu'ils

24. Cf. Schwartz (above, n. 19) 1388: "Es gehört zu den Eigentümlichkeiten desE. daß er seine schriftstellerischen Produktionen immer von neuem wiederaufnimmt, ausbaut und überarbeitet."

25. Thus Forrat, 10.26. Thus Barnes, referring also to Harnack, in JThS 24, 1973, 440.27. See Schwartz (above, n. 19) 1376.28. See above, n. 7. P. Maraval, in a review of Forrat & des Places in RHPhR

68, 1988, 360-361, notices the absence of biblical quotations, "ce qui est bienle signe qu'il s'adresse ici en priorité aux païens cultivés". But the first linesof the treatise show that the friend to whom it is (or pretends to be) dedicatedwas a Christian, though in Eusebius' view liable to be influenced by paganpropaganda, and (pace Forrat, 69-72) the author's ironic and condescendingtone throughout towards pagan beliefs makes it evident that CH was intendedfor internal use.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

148 TOMAS HÄGG

soient anciens ou modernes." Eduard Schwartz, editor of Hist.Eccl, formulates his impressions of CH in the following manner:"Die Form des Werkchens ist von einer bei Efusebius] ungewöhn-lichen Affektation, wozu ihn vielleicht die Lektüre Philostratsverführt hat."29 Edouard des Places, editor also of Praep. Εν.,testifies from his point of view (Forrat & des Places, 89 f.): "Lestyle d'Eusèbe dans le Contre Hiéroclès diffère sensiblement decelui des grands traités apologétiques, la Préparation et la Dé-monstration évangéliques; ramassé, incisif, il se rapproche de laseconde sophistique dont Philostrate était un des représentants;parfois aussi de Lucien." Friedhelm Winkelmann, in a review ofthe new edition of CH, doubts that the last word has beensaid about its date, because of, among other things, "zu starkeStilunterschiede zu den nach 311 abgefaßten Werken".30

In a separate article entitled "La seconde sophistique au servicede l'apologétique chrétienne",31 des Places exemplifies what heconsiders as Philostratean (or generally rhetorical) influences inthe text of CH. He ends by expressing his disagreement withBarnes' judgement of Eusebius, uttered (something des Placesforgets to mention) with specific reference to the Praep. Ev. (C&E, 183): "Nor, either in his own statements or in his treatmentof quotations, does [Eusebius] show any interest in style for itsown sake; he is completely impervious to the stylistic dictates ofthe Second Sophistic movement." Barnes, in his turn, refers toanother editor of Praep. Ev., Karl Mras, who wrote: "Eusebiusist als Stilist kein Purist. So sehr er gedanklich und sachlich vonClemens abhängig ist, in seinem Stil ist er von diesem (der mitder zweiten Sophistik kokettiert) ganz unbeeinflußt."32

29. Schwartz (above, n. 19) 1394. Cf. J . Moreau in RLAC 6, 1966, 1067, with adifferent explanation: "Der Stil der kleinen Schrift ist besonders gepflegt. E.hat sich bemüht, den rhetorisch geschulten Staatsbeamten mit seinen eigenenWaffen zu schlagen." Contrast Barnes, C&E, 167: "... an ephemeral work,composed in haste to meet the sudden needs of controversy."

30. ThLZ 113, 1988, 680 f.31. CRAI 1985, 423-427.32. K. Mras in Eusebius, Werke 8:1 (GCS 43:1), 2. Aufl., Berlin 1982, ix, further

substantiated in "Ein Vorwort zur neuen Eusebius-Ausgabe (mit Ausblickenauf die spätere Gräzität)", RhM N. F. 92,1943, 217-236. The dissertation ofΕ. Fritze, Beiträge zur sprachlich-stilistischen Würdigung des Eusebios (Borna-Leipzig 1910) does not immediately help us in this matter, since it treats only

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

Hier ocles the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist 149

As we have seen, Schwartz and des Places both ascribe thedifferent stylistic character of CH in comparison with Eusebius'other works to a more or less deliberate imitation of Philostratus'style. In my opinion, Eusebius' usual stylistic indifference, asdefined by Mras, Barnes and others, does not make such aproposition very likely - unless CH were some kind of schoolexercise of his youth, which, however, chronology excludes (Hier-ocles' treatise, which he answers, cannot be much earlier than303). If one even believes, with Schwartz, Forrat and des Places,that CH was written in the same busy years as Eusebius broughtout his great works of apologetics, such an act of stylistic cha-meleonship seems downright incredible.

(8) In addition to the style proper, the general attitude of theauthor and the generic peculiarities of the opusculum are untyp-ical of Eusebius. A small sample of recent comments will illustratethis. Pierre-Marie Hombert says that CH "nous révèle un aspectmoins connu d'Eusèbe: l'ironie mordante d'un polémiste".33 DesPlaces, in his most recent contribution to the topic, speaks of"l'originalité du Contre Hiéroclès dans l'œuvre d'Eusèbe", of "leton allègre du pamphlet", and further defines the work "unexemple isolé de la diatribe dans l'œuvre d'Eusèbe" (suggesting,however, that the lost Contra Porphyrium might have had asimilar character).34 CH thus reveals, still according to des Places,"un aspect méconnu dans la personnalité complexe d'Eusèbe deCésarée". Once we have started questioning the authenticity ofCH, these positive statements necessarily appear in another light.

The above considerations are of course not enough to provethe inauthenticity of CH. Authors do sometimes produce workswhich are not quite "in character", and there are perhaps otheraspects of language or thought to link CH with Eusebius and

a selection of Eusebius' works (Vita Const., Laus Const., Hist. Eccl.); but ofcourse Fritze's work, esp. his section on rhetorical figures, would providevaluable comparative material for a closer study of the stylistic features ofCH.

33. In a review of Forrat & des Places in MSR 45, 1988, 111-112.34. É. des Places, "Le Contre Hiéroclès d'Eusèbe de Césarée à la lumière d'une

édition récente", in E. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patrística 19, Leuven 1989,37-42.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013

150 TOMAS HÄGG

outweigh the differences.35 The fact that it is unanimously trans-mitted as a work of Eusebius, and was known as such to Photiusand Arethas, of course carries weight.36 But our hypothesis hasthe merit of solving the contradictions concerning the date aswell as the paradox of "Eusebius the sophist", and would thusdeserve being examined in more detail by Eusebian scholars, inparticular by experts on his style. Thanks to des Places, CH isnow for the first time available in an edition suitable for such acomparative stylistic analysis; in the earlier editions, some of thesophistic peculiarities were hidden through emendation or theacceptance of the more trivial readings of late manuscripts.

If through such a study it should prove possible to show thatCH was probably not written by Eusebius of Caesarea, the nextquestion will inevitably be: Was it added to the Eusebius corpusjust because of its apologetic character, or can it perhaps beattributed to another Eusebius? Not until the question of author-ship is settled, one way or other, will it be time to return to theproblem of date and historical context. It may have to be resumedon quite a different basis.

35. Kertsch (above, n. 3) does point to some parallels between CH Ch. 6 andother works of Eusebius (esp. Laus Const.), but their nature of rhetorical-philosophical topoi makes them less useful in a discussion of authorship.Interestingly, however, for our present concern, Kertsch (n. 26) observes thatEusebius, while (according to des Places in Aegyptus 32, 1952, 223-231)generally quoting Plato literally, in CH 6.2-3 gives a free paraphrase of Leg.715e-716a. I f of general application, this difference in quotation techniquemight support the case for CH's inauthenticity. But the matter obviouslyneeds further investigation (cf., e.g., the almost literal quotation of the samePlatonic locus classicus in CH 47.20-22 and the free one in Praep. Ev. 15.5.2!).

36. Photius (Bibl. cod. 39) refers to the work as by ΕδσεβίοΌ τοΰ Παμφίλου. Sodoes our oldest ms., the famous apologetics codex Paris, gr. 451 copied in914 for Arethas. On the other hand, it should be noted that CH is absent inSt. Jerome's catalogue of Eusebius' writings (De Vir. Ill. 81); it is true, though,that it may hide under the concluding multaque alia.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

18:

00 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2013