¹ For an assembly of the available evidence for his early life and literary works see Borchardt, C. F., Hilary of Poitiers' Role in the Arian Controversy, The Hague 1966, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Vita Hilarii i. 3.Google Scholar

³ See Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii. 39, ‘Hilarius...inter procellas persecutionum ita immobilis perstitit, ut per invictae fidei fortitudinem etiam confessoris ceperit dignitatem’: Cassianus, De incamatione vii. 24Google Scholar: PL 1. 250–1. But it is in the writings of Venantius Fortunatus and Gregory of Tours (both sixth century) that Hilary's life becomes included among the hagiographic accounts of important saints in GaulGoogle Scholar. In the ‘Liber primus of Fortunatus’ Vita Sancti Hilarii Episcopi Pictaviensis, PL lxxxviii. 439–54, it is told how Hilary was exiled on account of his faith and how he continued steadfast in the face of heresyGoogle Scholar. Gregory also notes that ‘Hilary, blessed defender of the undivided Trinity and for its sake driven into exile, was both restored to his own country and entered Paradise’: Historia Francorum prol. iii, trans. Dalton, O. M., History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours ii, Oxford 1927Google Scholar. Hilary having obtained the status of ‘confessor’ and saint, both Fortunatus, in Liber secundo, and Gregory, De gloria beatorum confessorum, PL lxxi. 830–1, record a number of miracles that took place at his tomb. The bishop's reputation for fearlessly opposing the Arian heresy is especially revealed in Gregory's account of King Clovis's military exploits against the (Arian) Goths. When the Frankish army came to the neighbourhood of Poitiers and pitched camp, Clovis ‘saw a fiery beacon issue from the church of the holy Hilary and come over above his head; it signified that aided by the light of the blessed confessor Hilary he might more surely overcome the host of those heretics against whom the saint himself had so often done battle for the faith’: Hist. Franc, ii. 37.Google Scholar

⁴ Respectively, Holmes, T. S., The Origin and Development of the Christian Church in Gaul, London 1911, 148Google Scholar, and Palanque, J. R. et al. , The Church in the Christian Roman Empire, trans. Ernest C. Messenger, New York 1953, 281Google Scholar. For similar conceptions, see Gibson, E. C. S., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers i, 617, 411Google Scholar; S. McKenna, ‘Introduction’, Fathers of the Church xxv, New York 1954, p. viGoogle Scholar; Chad wick, Nora K., Poetry and Letters in Early Christian Gaul, London 1955, 116Google Scholar. M. Meslin is one of the few to recognise that our depiction of Hilary has been misconstrued historically because of the influence of hagiography, ‘Hilaire et la crise Arienne’, in Hilaire et son temps: Actes du Collogue de Poitiers 29 Septembre–3 Octobre 1968 à I'occasion du XVIe centenaire de la mort de Saint Hilaire, Paris 1969, 19.Google Scholar

⁵ De synodis xci, PL x. 545 A.Google Scholar

⁶ A catalogue of Hilary's works is found in Jerome's De viris illustribus c. Cf. Doignon, J., Hilaire de Poitiers sur Matthieu i, Paris 1978, 20.Google Scholar

⁷ See the monograph by Paul Burns, The Christology in Hilary of Poitiers' Commentary on Matthew, in Studia Ephemeridis ‘ Augustinianum’, Rome 1981, 13–22Google Scholar which briefly surveys the broad spectrum of views on the subject - ranging from Galtier's position that the whole commentary was designed to refute Arianism to Doignon's attempt to depict the work more as an example of Western (Tertullianic) Christology. Burns concludes that Hilary had some awareness of Arianism and that it does seem to be an object of his commentary, which ‘makes it easier to understand the speed of Hilary's reaction to Arianism between the Council of Milan and his own exile at the Council of Beziers in the very next year’: ibid. 22.

⁸ Ibid. 12–13; Cf. Borchardt, Hilary of Poitiers, 14, 26–7.

⁹ This assumption can be observed at work in M. Simonetti's recent article, ‘Hilary of Poitiers and the Arian crisis in the West’, in Palrology iv, ed. A., di Berardino, Westminster, MD. 1986, 34–5.Google Scholar

¹⁰ ’Edictum ab imperatore proponitur, ut qui in damnationem Athanasii non subscriberent in exilium pellerentur’: Ckron. ii. 39. 2; CSEL i. 92.Google Scholar

¹¹ Chron. ii. 37. 7Google Scholar; 39. 3. Prosper, Chron. 1090, and Jerome, Chron. 2370, include Rhodanius of Toulouse.

¹² CCSL ix. 119.Google Scholar

¹³ Girardet, K. M., ‘Constance 11, Athanase et L'édict d'Arles (353)’, in Politique et the'ologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie, ed. Charles, Kannengiesser, Paris 1974, 72, 82.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Chron. ii. 39 3, CSEL i. 92.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Hilary, Oratio Synodi Sardicensis ad Constanlium Imperatorem ii. 3 = ‘ Liber 1 ad Const.’, CSEL lxv. 187; Sulpicius, Chron. ii. 39. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Prosper, Chron. 1096; Jerome, De viris Must. 100.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Sulpicius, Chron. ii. 39–7Google Scholar; Socrates, HE ii. 36; Sozomen, HEiv. 9; Rufinus (HEi. 20). Rufinus is somewhat ambiguous on the subject, for he writes after the exile of Eusebius, Paulinus, Rhodanius and Lucifer: ‘Hilary also was joined to these others who were either ignorant or did not believe the fraud’.Google Scholar;

¹⁸ (I) ‘Ego, fratres, ut mihi omnes, qui me vel audiunt vel familiaritate cognitum habent, testes sunt, gravissimum fidei periculum longe antea praevidens, post sanctorum virorum exsilia Paulini, Eusebii, Luciferi, Dionysii, quinto abhinc anno, a Saturnini et Ursacii et Valentis communione me cum Gallicanis episcopis separavi... Qui postea per factionem eorum pseudoapostolorum ad Biterrensem synodum compulsus, cognitionem demonstrandae huius haereseos obtuli’: PL x. 578–9. (2) ‘Gratulatus sum in Domino, incontaminatos vos et illaesos ab omni contagio detestandae haereseos perstitisse, vosque comparticipes exsilii mei, in quod me Saturninus, ipsam conscientiam suam veritus, circumvento imperatore detruserat, negata ipsi usque hoc tempus totojam triennio communione’: PL x. 481 A.

¹⁹ Griffe, E., La Gaule chréetienne à I'e'poque romaine i, Paris 1964, 224Google Scholar; Newlands, G. M., Hilary of Poitiers: a study in theological method, Bern 1978, 7.Google Scholar

²⁰ Borchardt, Hilary ofPoitiers, 24–5; Emmenegger, J. E., The Functions of Faith and Reason in the Theology of Hilary of Poitiers, Washington 1947, 5Google Scholar; Rusch, W., The Later Latin Fathers, London 1977, 12Google Scholar. See A. Rocher's newly published commentary, Hilaire de Poitiers: Contre Constance, Sources chretiennes cccxxxiv. 57, for the most recent adoption of this viewpoint.Google Scholar

²¹ Griffe, La Gaule, 224–5; Borchardt, Hilary of Poitiers, 26.Google Scholar

²² Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofsopposilion gegen Konstantius II, Patristische Texte und Studien xxvi, Berlin 1984Google Scholar. I have been able to locate only two reviews of the book. One is by Doignon, J., ‘Hilaire de Poitiers “Kirchenpolitiker”?’, Revue d'Histoire Eccle'si- astique lxxx (1985), 441–54Google Scholar, who (not surprisingly) finds Brennecke's attempt to diminish Hilary's anti-Arian role at BÉziers unsatisfactory (see esp. p. 447); the other is a short, purely descriptive review by R. Klein in Das Gymnasium xciii (198), 381–4Google Scholar. There is no notice of Brennecke's book in English-language periodicals with the exception of a brief review in Patristics xix.i (1990), 6–7 by Vessey, M..Google Scholar

²³ This point was brought out long ago by Reinkens, J. H., Hilarius von Poitiers, Schaffhansen 1864, 114Google Scholar, n. 2, who follows Viehhauser, A., Hilarius Pictaviensis geschildert in seinem Kampfe gegen den Arianismus, 1860Google Scholar: ‘Hilarius war nicht Metröpolit und konnte keine Synode versammeln; auch war die Situation einer solchen Versammlung gegen den Kaiser und gegen Saturnin keineswegs günstig.’ Unfortunately, Reinkens does not mould his conclusions to his observation. 24Google Scholar

²⁴ Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers, 216.Google Scholar

²⁵ CSEL lxv. 187. See Brennecke's excursus, ‘Zur angeblichen Vorlage des Nizänum auf der Synode zu Mailand durch Euseb von Vercellae’: (Hilarius von Poitiers, 178–92)Google Scholar. Brennecke tries to minimise the episode recorded by Hilary as unhistorical, given its polemical character. He does not reveal why he is so intent on denying the appearance of the Nicaeanum at this time, except to insist that Hilary, in his Liber adversus Valentem el Ursacium, was the first to introduce the Latin version of the symbolum to the West cf. Ibid. 306.

²⁶ ‘Liber 1 ad Constantium’, viii, CSEL lxv. ge187. Liberius’ letters to Constantius, CSEL lxv. 93, and to Eusebius of Vercelli, CCSL ix. 122–3, demonstrate the existence of an offensive movement on the part of some Western bishops to reverse the decisions of Aries (353) and t0 instate the Nicene Creed as the basis of orthodoxy.Google Scholar

²⁷ A point also made by Meslin, ‘Hilaire’, 22.Google Scholar

²⁸ Sozomen, HE iii. 12. The brief letter is found in PL l vi. 839–40.Google Scholar

²⁹ Precision in the dating of this document is difficult to obtain. Jerome tells us that Hilary wrote a libellus to Constantius while living in Constantinople, and that he wrote another, ‘in Constantium, quern post mortem ejus scripsit’: De viris Must, c, PL xxiii. 699Google Scholar. Jerome's description corresponds to earlier MSS which establish the title of the work as In Constantium rather than the more commonly accepted Contra ConstantiumGoogle Scholar: Rocher, Contre Constance, 142–3Google Scholar. Rocher has developed an elaborate scheme in which Hilary wrote the work, not as a unitary composition, but on separate occasions from 359–61,Google ScholarIbid. 2gff. To take Jerome literally would place the Contra Constantium after 3 Nov. 361, the date of Constantius’ death. According to Rocher, when Hilary learned of the death of the emperor, he assembled the different sections together and added a prologue (ch. i) around ‘ Dec. 361Google Scholar. While I cannot offer a critique of Rocher's redactional theory here, I am in agreement with T. D. Barnes's assessment that the scheme is overly and unnecessarily complex, seemingly intended to square Jerome's description ‘with the evident internal indications of composition’ during Constantius’ lifetime, JTS, xxxix (1988), 610Google Scholar. It is not at all certain, however, that Jerome is correct. Internal features of In Constantium seem to demand an earlier date. It is clear that Hilary sees his treatise as a manifesto of revolt: ‘The time has come for speaking for the time of keeping silent is past’: c. 1. His opposition to the policies of the emperor is now loudly voiced as he recounts the deeds which Constantius has perpetrated in alliance with the heretics. The treatise concludes by summarising the events at the Council of Seleucia (late 359), and their culmination at Constantinople (360), where the prohibition of homoousios, homoiousios and substantiae was ratified, c. 25. No other events of 360 are recorded. There is no mention of the pivotal Synod of Paris (summer 360) or any of the other counter-councils that met over the next two years in reaction to Rimini and Constantinople. This is particularly hard to understand as, if Hilary wrote the In Constantium after Nov. 361, he would have been in Gaul. Nor is there any hint in the treatise that Constantius has died. Instead, the work always treats him as a present threat and calls upon all who love the true faith to oppose him and his policies. A date of early 360 seems to fit this work best. Hilary's outspokenness is due in part to the fact that he has just returned from exile and now enjoys religious immunity from Constantius under the new Augustus of the West, Julian. It may also stem from Hilary's declared desire to be a martyr for the faith, which would have overridden any concerns for his own personal safety.Google Scholar

³⁰ The dating of De synodis is based on Hilary's knowing that the earthquake which struck Nicomedia on 28 Aug. 358 caused a change of location of one of the two forthcoming councils announced by Constantius: De syn. viii. But Hilary does not know that Seleucia was finally chosen as the alternative sometime early in the following year.

³¹ De syn. i.

³² Ibid, x, xi.

³³ Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers, 219.

³⁴ Brennecke shows himself to be aware of the problem but offers a wholly unsatisfactory answer. He proposes that, while Hilary was in exile, he kept such close contact with fellow bishops (‘ist so eng’) that there was a ‘geistige und sakramentale Gemeinschaft’ between him and them, ibid. 221. Contrary to this explanation, Hilary, in De syn. i, complains to his fellow bishops about their ‘prolonged silence’ since he has been in exile, even though he has written to them on several previous occasions. This hardly substantiates the kind of close contact of which Brennecke speaks while Hilary was in exile. It seems inescapable that Hilary must have had some kind of bond with his fellow bishops in Gaul before his exile and he is reflecting upon in De syn. II.

³⁵ C. 6.

³⁶ C. 92: ‘Nescio an tarn jucundum est ad vos in Domino Jesu Christo reverti, quam securum est mori’: c. 6, PL x. 546.Google Scholar

³⁷ ‘ Hilaire et la crise’, 23–.Google Scholar

³⁸ ‘Exulo autem non crimine, sed factione et falsis nuntüis synodi ad te imperatorem pium, non ob aliquam criminum meorum conscientiam per impios homines delatus... falsa autem eorum omnia, qui in exilium meum procurauerunt, non in obscuro sunt’: Liber II ad Constantium ii. i, CSEL lxv. 198; ‘cuius ministerio exulo, usque ad confessionem falsorum, quae gessit’: c. 3.Google Scholar

³⁹ ‘Circumuentum te Augustum inlusumque Caesarem tuum ea confidens conscientiae meae condicione patefaciam’: Liber II ii. 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ ‘Saturninus, ipsam conscientiam suam veritus, circumvento imperatore detruserat’: PL. x. 481. Cf. Jerome, ‘factione Saturnini Arelatensis episcopi’: De viris Must. c.

⁴¹ See Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers, 237–8. I regard this as one of the most convincing sections of his argument.Google Scholar

⁴² Liber II ii. 1.

⁴³ ‘Hilaire et la crise’, 24. Meslin concludes, ‘Done, mesure de police et non sanction canonique, la sentence d'exil fut rendue au plus tard dans l'ÉtÉ 356’, 25. Meslin does not seem to see the implications of this conclusion for his later arguments; see n. 57 below.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ ‘Hilarius von Poitiers (ca 315–367)’, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart iii, 317. Chadwick regards Hilary as the leader of opposition against Constantius, who saw a favourable opportunity in Silvanus’ revolt. But Silvanus was murdered and Hilary was condemned for high treason.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ M.Jones, A. H., The Later Roman Empire, 284–602, i, Oxford 1964, 116.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers, 239–40. 47 Apol. ad Const, viGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Apol. ad Const, vi.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Thomas, A. Kopecek, A History ofNeo-Arianism, i, Cambridge, Mass. 1979, 174; based on Philostorgius, HE iv. 8.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Meslin, M., in Les Ariens d'Occident 335–430, Paris 1967, 34, states that Saturninus was a co-signataire with Ursacius, Valens, etc.,Google Scholarat Milan, based on the evidence of a surviving synodical letter, CCSL ix. 119Google Scholar. However, the text of the letter yields no names, a fact which Meslin does acknowledge in a footnote, ibid. 35 n. 15.

⁵⁰ De viris Must. c.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Wilmart, A., ‘L’Ad Constantium Liber primus de Saint Hilaire de Poitiers et les fragments historiques', RB xxiv (1907), 159–60Google Scholar. Most intriguing is his idea that this section was part of the letter which Vincentius of Capua and Euphrates of Cologne presented to Constantius in Antioch, 167–8.Google Scholar

⁵² See CSEL lxv. 191. According to the arrangement of Feder, this dossier consists of the so-called ‘Ad Constantium Liber primus’, CSEL lxv. 181–7Google Scholar; the letter from the Eastern bishops of the Sardican council with the names of heretics and subscribers, 48–78Google Scholar; a letter from the Western bishops at Sardica to all churches, 103–26Google Scholar; a letter from the Western bishops at Sardica to Julius, 126–30Google Scholar; two letters of Ursacius and Valens, one to Julius, 143–4Google Scholar, the other to Athanasius, 145; a copy of the symbolum from Nicaea with a detailed explanation, 150–4Google Scholar; and a preface with information about the events at Aries, 98-102Google Scholar. The rest of the Adversus Valentem et Ursacium was compiled in two later stages. See Simonetti's brief but helpful summary of the editorial progression of this collection, ‘Fragmenta historica’, in Patrology iv. 46–8.Google Scholar

⁵³ Wilmart, ‘L'Ad Constantium’, 159–60Google Scholar. In checking the citations which Phoebadius is said to have borrowed from the ‘Liber i’ (also annotated in Feder's notes in CSEL lxv), I find only three of six occasions convincing: Oratio syn. Sardicensis iii, CSEL lxv. 183. 12–16, and Contra Ar. xv, PL xx. 23D; Oratio syn. Sardicensis vii, CSEL lxv. 186. 16–17, and Contra Ar. xv (Feder wrongly cites Contra Ar. xvi, PL xx. 24B; ‘Incipit Fides apud Nicheam’ v, CSEL lxv. 154. 1–3, and Contra Ar. vii, PL xx. 17C).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ ‘Les fragments historiques et le Synode de BÉziers en 356’, RB xxv (1908), 226.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ ‘Studien zu Hilarius von Poitiers I. Die sogenannte “fragmenta historica” und der sogenannte “Liber 1 ad Constantium Imperatorem” nach iher Uberlieferung, inhaltlicher Bedeutung und Entstehung’, in Sitzungsberichte Acad. Wien clxii/4 (1910), 114–15.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Altaner, E. g., Patrology, 426; Chapman, D. J., ‘The contested letters of Pope Liberius’, RB xxvii (1910), 328Google Scholar; Emmennegger, Functions of Faith, 21; Meslin, ‘Hilaire et la crise’, 25; M. Figura, Das Kirchenverstandnis des Hilarius von Poitiers, Freiburg 1984, 263Google Scholar; Simonetti, ‘Fragmenta historica’, 45.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Borchardt, Hilary of Poitiers, 33–4. The origination of the argument goes back to B. Marx, ‘Zwei Zeugen fur die Herkunft der Fragmente 1 und 11 des sogenannten Opus historicum s. Hilarii’, Theologischen Quartalsschrift xxviii (1906), 4037–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ In Arianism: historical and theological reassessments, ed. R. C., Gregg, Philadelphia 1985, 288.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ De syn. xxxiv-xxxvii.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ B ii. 10, n, CSEL lxv. 150–4.Google Scholar

⁶¹ He appears to have spent much time with Basil (of Ancyra) and Eleusius (of Cyzicus); see De syn. xc. He also appears to have absorbed from them a great deal of his perspective of the contemporary theological controversies. ‘Nam absque episcopo Eleusio et paucis cum eo, ex majori parte Asianae decem provinciae, intra quas consisto, vere Deum nesciunt... Sed horum episcoporum dolor se intra silentium non continens, unitatem fidei huius quaerit’: De syn. lxiii, PL x. 522–3. By the time he writes De synodis (see above n. 29), Hilary is fully able to criticise the positions ofhomoousios and homoiousios. The insight required to frame together the documents of the ‘Liber 1’ also seem to bespeak such intellectual exposure to the theological world.

⁶² De syn. xi, a view also taken by Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers, 311, 326–7.Google Scholar

⁶³ See De syn. viii.

⁶⁴ The assembly at Sirmium (there is no reason to assume it was actually a council) met in either the summer or autumn of 357. Older studies (e.g. H. M. Gwatkin, Studies in Arianism, London 1889, 89) tend to prefer the earlier date. Since Constantius does not return to Sirmium until 17 Oct. (O. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Päpsste fu¨r die Jahre31 bis 4j6n. Chr., Stuttgart 1919, 204), the latter is more likely. On the other hand, nowhere in the citations of the formula is the emperor said to be present. See Athanasius, De syn. xxviii; Hilary, De syn. xi; Socrates, HE ii. 30.

⁶⁵ For the treatment of Eusebius of Vercelli (exiled at Milan) and Liberius of Rome, see M. Goemans, ‘L'exil du pape Libère’, in MÉlanges offertes à Mile. Christine Mohrmann, Utrecht 1963, 184–9.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Hilary's transition statement from discussing the Sirmium formula in De syn. xii to the Ancyran council gives the reader the impression that the latter was mostly anti-Sirmium in its intent. ‘ His itaque et tantis impietatis professionibus editis, has rursum e contrario Orientales episcopi in unum congregati sententiarum definitiones condiderunt’: PL x. 489–90. In fact, however, the ‘Ancyran council was an attempt to derail Aetius’ proselytising activities in Antioch, Sozomen, HE iv. 13, even though the stress on homoiousios must surely have represented a rebuttal to Sirmium's ban on the term.

⁶⁷ ‘Nam cum frequenter vobis ex plurimis Romanarum provinciarum urbibus significassem, quid cum religiosis fratribus nostris Orientis episcopis fidei studiique esset, quantaque, sub occasione temporalium motuum, diabolus venenato ore atque lingua mortiferae doctrinae sibila protulisset; verens ne in tanto ac tarn plurium episcoporum calamitosae impietatis vel erroris periculo, taciturnitas vestra de pollutae atque impiatae conscientiae esset desperatione suscepta (nam ignorare vobis frequenter admonitis non licebat)’: PL x. 479–80.

⁶⁸ ‘ Meministis namque in ea ipsa scripta proxime apud Sirmium blasphemia’: De syn. x, PL x. 486.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ These letters of Liberius are placed by Feder in ‘ Liber 11’ of the Adversus Valentem et Ursacium; see CSEL lxv. 92.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers, 311–12Google Scholar. Brennecke argues that these letters of Liberius, datable to 353–7, thematically suit the ‘Liber 1’ better than the ‘Liber 11’, which is concerned with the Synods of Rimini and Seleucia. The letters categorised in ‘Liber 11’ (Feder's enumeration) are as follows: A VII (‘ad Constantium’), B m (‘ad Orientales episcopi’) and B VII (‘Quamvis sub imagine‘, ‘Nolo te’, ‘Inter haec’, ‘Pro deifico’, ‘Quia scio’ and ‘Non doceo’).Google Scholar

⁷¹ The Liber pontificalis, ed. L., Duchesne, 2nd edn, Paris 1955, 208, provides only the day and the month (2 Aug.) of Liberius' re-entry into Rome.Google Scholar

⁷² Cross, F. L. and E. A., Livingstone (eds), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford 1974, 649Google Scholar. The phrase seems to have originated with Karl A. Hase, Kirchengeschichte, Leipzig 1836², 137: ‘durch Thaten, Leiden und Schriften der Athanasius des Abendlandes’ (Borchardt, Hilary of Poitiers, p. vii)Google Scholar