Basil the Great: Faith, Mission and Diplomacy in the Shaping of Christian Doctrine

Regarded as one of the three hierarchs or pillars of orthodoxy along with Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom, Basil is a key figure in the formative process of Christianity in the fourth century. While his role in establishing Trinitarian terminology, as well as his function in shaping monasticism, his social thought and even his contribution to the evolution of liturgical forms have been the focus of research for many years, there are few studies which centre on his political thought. Basil played a major role in the political and religious life between Cappadocia and Armenia and was a key figure in the tumultuous relationship between Church and State in Late Antiquity. He was a great religious leader and a gifted diplomat, and developed a ‘special relationship’ with Emperor Valens and other high imperial officials.

Nicu Dumitraşcu is currently professor of Patristics, Mission and Ecumenism at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology ‘Episcop Dr. Vasile Coman’, University of Oradea, Romania. He is widely published in several journals worldwide. His most recent books include Christian Family and Contemporary Society (2014), and The Ecumenical Legacy of the Cappadocians (Collected Essays) (2015).

Basil the Great: Faith, Mission and Diplomacy in the Shaping of Christian Doctrine

Nicu Dumitrașcu First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Nicu Dumitrașcu The right of Nicu Dumitrașcu to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Dumitrașcu, Nicu, author. Title: Basil the Great : faith, mission, and diplomacy in the shaping of Christian doctrine / Nicu Dumitrașcu. Description: New York : Routledge, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017045936| ISBN 9781472485861 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315568775 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Basil, Saint, Bishop of Caesarea, approximately 329–379. Classification: LCC BR65.B36 D86 2018 | DDC 270.2092—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017045936

ISBN: 978-1-4724-8586-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-56877-5 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman by Keystroke, Neville Lodge, Tettenhall, Wolverhampton Contents

Foreword by Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia vii Preface by Professor Pablo Argárate ix Acknowledgements xi

PART 1 St Basil and Emperor Valens: dignity versus authority 1

1 St Basil, Emperor Valens and Christianity in Cappadocia 3 2 St Basil and the history of his royal meeting(s): two authorities in confrontation 22

PART 2 St Basil, St Nerses and Armenia: mission and church diplomacy 39

3 St Nerses the Great, Armenia and his blessed mission 41 4 St Basil the Great and his mission in Armenia 61

PART 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy: meetings, methods and correspondence 77

5 St Basil’s church missionary strategy and society 79 6 Mission and counter-mission in St Basil’s correspondence 97 7 St Basil and St Athanasius, epistles and the unity of the church 113 vi Contents PART 4 St Basil as model for a leader of Christian opinion: dignity, humility and culture 129

8 Christ, religious leader and communities 131 9 St Basil and his diplomacy towards the Greek culture 142 10 The art and the value of teaching leaders of the future 161

General Conclusions 177 Bibliography 180 Index locorum 192 Index nominum 194 General index 200 Foreword

St Basil the Great is chiefly remembered for two things: first, for his defence of the full Nicaean faith; and second, for his insistence upon the social and philanthropic service rendered by monasticism. In the present book, Fr Nicu Dumitrașcu, Professor at the University of Oradea, Romania, examines an aspect of Basil’s life that is less well known, yet of great interest: his involvement in missionary work, and more especially his relations with Armenia. Basil is seen here not only as an eminent theologian but as a bridge-builder and diplomat, as a church leader of firm principles but also of moderation, strict, yet at the same time, gentle. Nicu Dumitrașcu is already well known in the field of patristic studies through the excellent collective volume that he has edited, The Ecumenical Legacy of the Cappadocians, to which he himself contributed a sensitive account of St Basil’s friendship with St Gregory of Nazianzus. Here he enters more deeply into the personality and ministry of Basil. In convincing terms, he shows us how the Archbishop of Caesarea combined dignity with humility, holy fear and wide- ranging generosity. This is a significant addition to Basilian studies, and should be welcomed by scholars of patristics, church history, and their students too. Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

Preface

Strategies for communion Regarded alongside Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom as one of the three ‘hierarchs’ or pillars of orthodoxy, Basil is a key figure in the shaping of Christianity in the fourth century. While his role in establishing Trinitarian terminology has been the focus of research for many years as well as his function in shaping monasticism, in his social thought and even in his contribution to the evolution of liturgical forms, there are few studies which throw light upon his political thought, this being understood as regarding general politics within the Roman empire of his time, in Basil’s problematic and atypical relationship with the emperor, Valens, but also in connection to Church politics. Against this background, we have to consider Professor Dumitraşcu’s book and his contribution to contemporary scholarship. He is deemed to be one of the foremost Patristic scholars in Eastern Europe and internationally well known as his various articles and books bear witness. In the present work, he focuses on Basil’s diplomatic skills and strategies in the context of the presence of an emperor opposed to the Nicaean party and launching policies against this. Dumitraşcu privileges Basil’s letters as a genuine source for his strategies of impacting political power in favour of his own views. A highly significant contribution is the author’s insights into the relevance of the Armenian mission carried out by the Cappadocians on behalf of the emperor in the years 372–373. Dumitraşcu articulates his study in four parts. In the first, he deals with the Cappadocian bishop’s confrontation with Valens in Epiphany 372 and what was at play. He is correct in seeing in this event as a highly significant one, a paradig- matic case of the (difficult) interaction between political and ecclesiastical powers. The difficulties and tensions that precede this conflictive meeting are analysed in detail as well as the consequences of this unexpected understanding of the leaders of opposition. The main consequence is the topic of the second chapter that deals with Basil’s relevant mission (in the name of the emperor!) to Armenia, which Dumitraşcu analyses in parallel with the two missions to Constantinople carried out by the Armenian catholicos Nerses a few years before (358–360). Nerses was a highly prominent leader operating within a conflictive relationship between church and state in Armenia between 353–373. The possibility of the x Preface influence of Basil’s ‘Basiliads’ upon social institutions created by Nerses in Armenia after the year 368, are also taken here into consideration. Highly interesting is the third part, where the author researches an essential aspect, not often taken into account when analysing epistolography: the practical problem of (material) communication. Indeed, bringing a letter to its addressee was a complex task due to the lack of an official postal service, the challenge of acquiring appropriate couriers (who were supposed to provide much more than simply delivering the letter), due to lack of ability, the vagaries of weather, and strong likelihood of theft and robbery, among others. Finally, in the last chapter, Dumitraşcu summarises his previous points by proposing Basil as a ‘model for Christian opinion leader’. Within this context, he considers Basil’s attitude to Greek culture through a detailed presentation of his biography and then concluding by an analysis of Ad adulescentes, particularly of its addressees. Dumitraşcu delves into Basil’s character as a leader in his responsibilities, especially towards those who were in different camps, and holding opposing views. In many aspects, the book fills gaps in our knowledge not only of Basil, but of the churches of his time. In this regard, Basil can be deemed to be an ‘ecumenist’ avant la lettre, in the sense of his deep awareness of the problem of unity among the various local churches. As a matter of fact, the entire book focuses on Basil’s strategies of achieving communion through letters to targeted officials of the imperial court, as also seen in his mission in Armenia towards the communion of churches. Not least is his mission to find common views in Greekpaideia . Among the huge bibliography referring to the Bishop of Caesarea, there are some included with connections to this book. Here I am referring among others to: Baudry, Bernardi, Fedwick, Gain, Garsoian, Hauschild, Pouchet, Ritter, Rousseau, Sterk, Uluhogian, Raymond van Dam. Nevertheless, none of these exactly covers the topic researched by the present book. Not least, this provides us with the particular views of Eastern European theologians. Professor Pablo Argárate Head, Institute of Ecumenical Theology, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Patrology Faculty of Catholic Theology University of Graz Austria Acknowledgements

As a graduate student I was fascinated by the personality of St Athanasius the Great, the Bishop of Alexandria, whom I later chose as the subject for my doctoral thesis. My principal supervisor, Constantin Voicu (University of ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu), instilled in me a special feeling for the fourth century Church Fathers. I am so grateful to him for that. Later on, I had the privilege of working with Metropolitan Kallistos Ware under the umbrella of ‘The Theological Exchange Programme’ (Oxford) for completing my doctoral thesis. During my two years at the University of Oxford, I also became more interested in the life and theology of the Cappadocian Fathers, and discovered that Basil of Caesarea fitted much more with my soul. I studied Basil’s existential universe with a heightened curiosity discovering the amazing variety of his activities and I was grieved to discover how many people, clerical and lay, local and imperial, had opposed him. What followed was a long and inspired spiritual journey, at home and abroad, during which time I published a number of articles concerning the little-known aspects of St Basil’s life. A few of them have been re-written in more detailed versions, using new information discovered during my studies over a period of several years and have informed the content of this work. Therefore, each chapter is a unit in itself and consequently may be read independently of the others. However, there is a clear continuity throughout. This book would not have been written without grants which I received from The Nicaean Ecumenical Trust, The SLG Charitable Trust and The Fellowship of St Alban & St Sergius which enabled me to do research at the Bodleian and College libraries at the University of Oxford. Porticus greatly facilitated basic research at the Catholic University of Leuven. I am so grateful to all of these institutions. I am indebted also to many people, directly or indirectly, and I am afraid I will not be able to mention them all here. First of all, I would like to express my special gratitude to His Eminence Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (University of Oxford) for his interest in my work and for the invaluable foreword. He was a continuous source of inspiration and encouragement for me during the years that I worked on this book. In particular, from conversations and correspondence with Pablo Argaráte, University of Graz, xii Acknowledgements I have learnt very much. He has been very supportive over many years and kindly provided the preface for the book. I am very grateful to Margery Roberts (The Nicaean Ecumenical Trust) for assisting me in editing most of the texts and encouraging me at every stage of composition. Thanks are also due to the Revd Mark Oxbrow (Faith2Share) for his kind hospitality, good conversation and for editing some parts of the manuscript; to Sister Stephanie Therese (Community of the Sisters of the Love of God, Oxford); Carrie Frederick Frost and Michael Abrahamson (St Sophia Ukrainian Orthodox Seminary, New Jersey). I am particularly grateful to Sr Benedicta Ward (University of Oxford) who kindly read the manuscript and provide much valuable advice, comment and suggestion. I owe Roxana Lung a great debt of gratitude for, over many years, translating several texts from Romanian into English, which are included in this book. Alexandru Szabo (University of Leuven) provided me with books and articles which have helped at different stages the production of the manuscript. Finally, many thanks to Fr John McGuckin (Columbia University), Fr Hugh Wybrew, Fr Stephen Platt, Sister Helen (Oxford), Peter De Mey and Thomas Knieps (KU Leuven), Dr Victor Yudin (Leuven/Brussels), Hector Scerri (Malta), Constantin Dancu (New Jersey), Malcolm and Claire Larner (Cheltenham, UK). My deepest gratitude is owed to my family, first and foremost to my wife, Mirela, who has had to live with my project on St Basil for such a long time. This book could never have come to life without her love and support and therefore it is completely dedicated to her. Nicu Dumitrașcu University of Oradea 2 July 2017 The Feast of St Stephen the Great, Voivode of Moldavia (1457–1504) Part 1 St Basil and Emperor Valens: dignity versus authority

1 St Basil, Emperor Valens and Christianity in Cappadocia

The fourth century is unique in the history of the universal Church. Then took place the most important events, the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325) and the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381), then lived the most well- known Church Fathers, and were written some of the most important theological works of all time. Moreover, at that time, the most interesting meetings between emperors and bishops took place which marked the evolution of relations between State and Church: imperial power and religious authority. Among them is also included the famous confrontation between Emperor Valens, who ruled in the Balkan and Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, and St Basil, the uncontested leader of the church in Cappadocia and probably the most complex personality of the Christian world of the time. To better understand the importance and short and long-term consequences of such a meeting, on church life from the empire and, especially from Cappadocia, a brief overview of the evolution of military and religious policy of the time will be necessary.

Brief historical insight After the death of Emperor Constantine the Great (337) a desperate struggle took place between his three sons to monopolise all power, although each received a significant part of the territory of the empire and, they would have hadun- doubtedly, enough reasons to work together for the good of the state. The eldest, Constantine II, received the provinces of Gaul, Britain and Spain, with the capital at Augusta Treverum (Trier), Constantius II received the prefectures of Egypt, Orient, Asia and Pontus, with the capital at Constantinople, and to Constans was entrusted Italy, Africa, Pannonia, Illyricum and Thrace, with the capital at Sirmium.1 Unfortunately, their personal ambitions, intrigues, lack of political and proper social preparation, dictatorial behaviour and outright involvement in the church’s policies, brought them into conflict and made them to lose the popular and military support that was given to their father. None of them achieved the dignity and glory of their father. Two sons, Constantine II and Constans, died too young to be able to demonstrate any qualities, and the third, Constantius II, although he reached at the time of his maturity, he tried to find his own place in the history of the Roman Empire.2 4 Part 1 Dignity versus authority Constantine the Great’s sons were raised and educated in a Christian spirit and they did what they believed would strengthen the Christian faith and to make it triumph over the pagan world, but their religious orientations were not uniform. While Constantine II and Constans were confirmed defenders of those subject to the decisions of the Synod of Nicaea, Constantius proved to be an adept of Arianism, which he supported and promoted with great perseverance. It seems that his plan to declare it an official doctrine of the Church was curtailed by his own sudden death.3 Moreover, after his death, the political and religious situation in the Eastern part of the Empire underwent significant change. Constantius had no male descendants, and the imperial throne passed therefore to his cousin Julian, who held different views.

A surprising intermezzo Admired by some, detested by others, feared rather than adored, Julian remains in history as a character enveloped in mystery. More interested in philosophy and literature, he did not seem to have anything to do with his uncle’s military policy. However, the Emperor Constantius decided to raise Julian to the dignity of Caesar in 355, when he was only 23 years old.4 Two years later, in 357, he sent him to fight in Gaul and to the surprise of Constantius, who saw him as a young man in training, as a possible substitute in the perhaps more distant future, Julian proved to have admirable military qualities that transformed him from a faint hope into a certainty. He succeeded in overcoming the resistance of the Gauls and stabilised the border of the empire in Gaul along the Rhine. This unexpected success led Constantius to doubt the wisdom of this choice therefore, with caution, at the beginning of 361, he decided to move a large part of the army under Julian’s leadership into Eastern parts of the empire, on the pretext of strengthening the Eastern frontier. The army rose to proclaim Julian co-emperor in the West, or Augustus. Constantius felt betrayed, refused to recognise him, and decided to prepare a military campaign to punish the younger general, who had now become a forceful opponent. The battle did not take place, because before they met on the battlefield, Constantius became sick and died, thus Julian became the sole emperor of the Roman Empire, East and West.5 As far as Julian’s religious policy was concerned, there appeared to be an unanticipated and radical change which would lead to massive disturbances among the population. Raised and educated in Christian spirit, as indeed, were all the other members of the Constantinian dynasty – it was even thought that he might pursue clerical office – once he had become emperor, he radically changed his attitude, becoming a declared adversary of Christianity.6 Even if he did not show it openly and immediately, the measures taken by Julian demonstrate that he was considering a long-term strategy to destroy Christianity and restore the ancient, pagan religions.7 By virtue of the principle that every citizen is free to practise his own faith, he commanded the reopening of pagan temples and restoration of sacrifices to the 1 Christianity in Cappadocia 5 gods. At the same time, he granted religious freedom to all the Christian heretics with the dissimulated hope that they would enter into conflict with each other, and with the official Church, thereby destroying each other and weakening Christian unity to the point of destruction. He also changed the signs and the Christian edifices in the army and removed Christian inscriptions from the Imperial coins models; he dismissed Christian servants from civil service, he removed soldiers from the Imperial Guard. Whoever did not obey was exiled or died as a martyr. In order to better camouflage his intention to restore the Greek-Roman religion, he conceived a hybrid ideological system, with elements taken from both neo-Platonic philosophy and Christianity.8 He even wrote a book entitled Against the Galileans, in which he tried to prove the uselessness of the Gospel,9 and published a decree (17 July 362) that indirectly prohibited the activity of Christian teachers in public schools.10 His actions would certainly have caused much greater damage to the Christian Church had he not suffered an early and unexpected death, on the night of 26–27 June 362, during the military campaign against Persians.11 After the short reign of the Emperor Jovian (d. 17 February 364), in which peace was restored among Christians, a new era began in the history of the Roman Empire. The new emperor, Valentinian, a distinguished general from Pannonia, recognised for his military achievements and his devotion to the public good, required an associate: a respectable, trustworthy and competent person, to lead with him. He chose his younger brother, Valens. With the division of the empire, Valens received the Eastern side, from the Danube to the borders with Persia, with the capital in Constantinople, and Valentinian reserved for himself the Western part, which included the prefectures of Illyria, Italy and Gaul, with the capital in Milan (Mediolanum). They both professed religious tolerance towards pagans and gave full freedom of public display to both the beliefs of the empire, Christianity, and paganism. If Valentinian was a convinced follower of the Nicaean faith, which he protected, without the intention to declare reprisals against the other Christian groups, his brother, Valens, turned out to be an open defender and protector of the Arians, which would later lead to conflicts of a religious nature.12 If in the West, Valentinian led wisely, being concerned to improve administration, legislation and taxation; to strengthen the western boundaries of the empire and was less engaged in religious matters (except when certain groups, by their rigid behaviour, affected the interests of the State), Valens proved otherwise and was inferior to his brother, both in terms of military, political, administrative and religious strategy.

Emperor Valens and religious and political ideology Valens assumed the religious policy of the Emperor Constantius II, although in his case we should consider his lack of religious education. After all, he was a modest Pannonian, raised with strict military discipline, who spoke very little Greek.13 Under these circumstances, we may assume that he had serious difficulties in understanding the deeper meanings of the Christian faith, particularly the linguistic or semantic subtleties that made the difference between the Nicaean and Arian 6 Part 1 Dignity versus authority or Semi-Arian doctrines. Valens believed that his will to impose the Semi-Arian belief formula from Rimini (359), from the time of the Emperor Constantius, upon all Christians, irrespective of their doctrinal orientation whether Homoiousians, Anomoeans, Novatians, Pneutomachians (Macedonians) or Nicaeans, was completely acceptable.14 It seemed to the most logical approach as a means of preserving unity of the empire and stability among the various communities. He was aware that, although secondary, the religious factor was important, because the lack of internal cohesion could be extremely dangerous as in the case of wars with the other military forces of the time, the Goths and the Persians (Sassanids). Valens did not have a clear religious doctrine, did not promote an ideological system of his own, but rather militated for a more flexible Christian philosophy, that could be accepted by all Christians, being convinced that complex theological speculations were not for the people, but for the enlightened minds of the Church. In this point, he was probably correct; it is hard to believe that people of a simple Christian faith were able to understand theological subtleties, that even today would confuse most of those who attend Church, and if we are to be honest, even some of those with serious academic study in the field. If Valens could not himself participate in high theological dialogue, he was clever enough to realise that it was necessary to engage good counsellors do it on his behalf. This led to a so-called double manipulation. On one hand, he was being manipulated by hired counsellors, and on the other, it was about manipulation of the people, most of them being uninitiated in theology and naive enough to believe in the good intentions of their leaders. Effective means of communication were most often reduced to official communiqués coming from the Imperial Court and rumours that circulated from mouth to mouth and which, after a while, lost much of their original truth. There are therefore many suspicions, questions or concerns about the actual, personal motives and interests of Emperor Valens, about the persecutions directed against the Nicaean party and the support of the Arian and Semi-Arian groups, or specifically, those who practised the Homoean (Acacian) formula, adopted in Rimini (Ariminium), in 359.15 Especially because Valens, at the beginning of his reign, issued an edict (5 May 365) to exile all the bishops recalled by Julian, and to the end, in 377, before the campaign against the Goths, by another decree, he commanded them to return to their cities as it might be seen below. The analysis of this dual measure with which he treated the religious issues, is interesting not only for the discovery of the truth itself, but, in our case, to better understand his attitude, radical and extreme to the point of death, yet also most admiring of St Basil, the only Nicaean hierarch, who could not be subjected to his will. It is possible, that Valens may have been the victim of complex internal and external factors and military conflicts, to which perhaps may be added though to a lesser extent, his own religious orientation. The first years of his reign appear to be concerned with strengthening imperial authority, especially after the suppression of Procopius’s revolt, and the heightening of his military prestige in the battles against the Goths on the Danube borders; his direct involvement in the religious life of his subjects seems to be a secondary factor. 1 Christianity in Cappadocia 7 In 371, after a series of military conflicts in Armenia, a new wave of fighting against the Persian Empire, was opened. For better preparation of this military campaign, Valens moves his residence to Antioch, where he remained until the end of his reign.16 A new stage in Emperor Valens’ religious policy began with his arrival in Antioch. Not sufficiently familiar with the theological sensibilities of the various Christian groups and more concerned with ensuring the unity of the State, he fell, slightly, under the influence of the Semi-Arian bishop Euzoius, a friend and confidant of Arius from the time of his adolescence. He became the Emperor’s principal advisor and was responsible for Valens’ most important religious measures.17 Conscious of the power with which he had been invested, Euzoius tried to remove bishops that might have contested his plans. If St Basil, the spiritual prince of Cappadocia, proved to be too hard nut to crack for these first ambitions, he tried and succeeded in sending two former friends into exile, namely: Meletius, an old rival who now testified to the Nicaean faith, and the venerable Bishop Eusebius of Samosata. Euzoius persuaded Valens to grant military support to dethrone Peter, the descendant of St Athanasius, from the episcopal seat of Alexandria, and to install instead Lucius of Samosata, against the will of the believers.18 His strategy was clear: replacing the persons who were uncomfortable, hard to convince, firm in their faith, with others: malleable, capable not only of any compromise, but also of committing cruel acts, which had nothing to do with the Christian faith, but rather with blind subjection to anyone who protected their own interests. However, it is hard to know whether Valens really understood the political dimension of these measures and its consequences on a society which was, anyway, in a state of tension, owing on the one hand, to ethnic and religious diversity, and on the other hand, to the instability of borders, always in a state of alert due to constant threat. It is possible that his own beliefs may have met with Euzoius’s desire to destroy his opponents and to establish the reign of Arianism, at all costs, yet it is reasonable to think also of certain fears and hesitations that he might have had because of his brother, Valentinian, a confessor of the formula of faith adopted at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. There is no evidence in this regard, although a letter that seems to have been written in 375, perhaps not long before Valentinian’s death, might contradict us. Was this the beginning of a conflict between the two and a desire to persuade Valens to abandon the measures directed against the adherents of the homoousios formula? Otherwise, how can it be explained that, although probably written by order of Valentinian, this letter was countersigned by his son (whom he had associated to his reign), and also by his brother Valens? After Valentinian’s death, we find no evidence that Gratian exerted any pressure on his uncle in this direction, his only involvement in the religious life of the Eastern part of the Empire would occur only after Valens’ death, in 378, when he signed an edict of religious tolerance.19 Moreover, nothing remarkable happened in Valens’ religious politics until the death of Euzoius, in 376, when persecution against the Nicaeans lost intensity.20 Maybe, this more moderate attitude is related to his brother, Emperor Valentinian I with whom he wanted to avoid confrontation, and who sent a letter (countersigned by himself!) in which the Christians of the Diocese of Asia are persuaded to confess the 8 Part 1 Dignity versus authority Nicaean Christian formula, namely that the Son is the same divine substance as the Father.21 It is not possible to know Valens thoughts and intentions. It is certain that, after his brother’s death in 375, and the taking over of the credentials of Augustus in the West by his son, Gratian, there followed a period that found Valens totally unprepared and unable to manage events that took place at great speed. In the midst of a military crisis aggravated by deterioration of relations with the Persian Empire, Valens, instead of seeking a peaceful solution to the religious conflicts that still shook the stability and unity of the empire, triggered, in error a new wave of persecution against all those who opposed the Homoean formula (Council of Constantinople, 360) agreed by him and his supporters. Valens did not understand that it is not good to open several fronts of battle at the same time, even when supported by a considerable and loyal military force, on the contrary, it is preferable to attempt a diplomatic solution to internal conflict, especially a religious one. Due to political failure, and with imminent danger of a confrontation with the Persians, he found himself forced to prepare for war also with the Goths. Valens reacted by making a gesture of clemency towards his opponents and exerted a rapid change of his religious policy. He allowed the return of the Nicaean clergy in exile, hoping for a strengthening of the social unity of the empire and loyalty to the army. This is how, Peter returned to Alexandria, Meletius to Antioch, and Eusebius in Samosata, or Evloghios in Edessa.22 The strategy was sound, but it was too late. The Emperor died in battle with the Goths, and his death was intepreted as a divine punishment for his misdeeds, cruelty and brutality. Paradoxically, the disaster caused by the humiliating defeat of the Roman army in Adrianople, coincided with the rebirth of the Church. In three years, up until 381, the Homoeans, together with the other Neo-Arian groups, receded from the forefront of religious life and gradually disappeared. The wounds of misunderstandings and confrontations healed, honouring the triumph of the Nicaean Christian party in declaring the Christian religion as the official religion of the State by the new emperor of the Eastern Empire, Theodosius, and by the organisation of the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (381).23

Christianity in the province of Cappadocia It is known that the edict of Mediolanum (313), the organisation of the First Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea (325), the moving of the capital to Constantinople (330), or the ‘baptism’ of the Emperor Constantine the Great on his deathbed (337), did not lead automatically to the Christianisation of the empire, although some eastern provinces, such as Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor, were Christianised in a much greater proportion.24 In the fourth century, Cappadocia, in the heart of Asia Minor,25 also went through the process of converting the population to Christianity, it was perhaps carried out with greater rapidity and intensity due to the presence of the three great parents of the Church, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa.26 Their contribution to the flourishing of Christianity in this province, full of history and suffering, is indisputable and can be measured by the example set in 1 Christianity in Cappadocia 9 their own lives, lived in simplicity and humility, by the numerous works they left to posterity, by the power and courage of confessing the truth to unbelievers, through their conduct with Christian dignity and authority whenever the Church of Christ was persecuted and their existence was endangered. Each of these three, excelled in one area or another. It is hard to do justice to one by definition. Some may prefer, perhaps, Gregory of Nazianzus, the theologian par excellence, Christian poet and the humble monk who, although he ran from the priesthood and accused Basil of wanting ecclesiastical preferment when elected the Metropolitan of Caesarea of Cappadocia, himself became the Patriarch of Constantinople. Others will think of the other, Gregory of Nyssa, a hierarch whose biographical trajectory shows him as being somewhat hesitant in discovering his own faith, withdrawn in his thoughts, but who erupts as a sleeping volcano and ‘casts’ from his heart waves of incandescent theological lava, being considered, only after the death of his brother Basil,27 the greatest mystic of the fourth century.28 For me, however, Basil is by far, the greatest of all, because he has not excelled only in one field, but embodies through his complexity, all the aspirations of a Christian, regardless of his field of activity, his degree of preparation, the level of his faith or unbelief. St Basil is unique. No aspect of Christian experience was unknown or indifferent to him. Attentive to every detail, rigorous in expression, open to decent and arguable dialogue, humble and perhaps fearful deep in his soul, but firm in attitude when the situation demanded and when God imposed on him, Basil was a redoubtable adversary to anyone.

St Basil – the spiritual prince of Cappadocia St Basil returned from studies in Athens, in the time of the Emperor Constantius II sometime between 356–357. After a brief period of uncertainty about his immediate future, at the urging of his sister Macrina he decided to be completely dedicated to God’s service.29 He was however, unhappy with the state of the Church, with its unreliability and lack of involvement of several ministers, particularly when it came to the danger of the spread of Arian doctrine. Even bishop Dianius, the guarantor and defender of the Nicaean faith, had signed in 360, a Semi-Arian confession of faith, influenced by the Homoiousians.30 Caesarea and in general, Cappadocia, was still a bastion of defence of the Homoousian faith, but beyond its borders and in almost all the Eastern Christian area of the empire, the situation was disastrous. Followers of Arian groups prevailed and with the help of state authorities, they occupied the most important episcopal and parochial positions. There was only one hope, namely, the Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria. Nothing was able to defeat him. Despite multiple periods of exile, each time, he returned even stronger and more determined not to give up. He fought for over thirty years and well into old age. For Basil, Athanasius was the true patriarch of the Orient. It seems like he knew that when this brave man, of low stature, with an aquiline nose, with a sharp and daring look, easy going, with his back bent, but always walking as a prince of the Church,31 he, Basil will ought to be in the head of the army of Christ, the Son of God, the same being with the Father. He will become, if not the 10 Part 1 Dignity versus authority patriarch of all, certainly, the spiritual prince of Cappadocia. The time had not come yet. He was not ready for it, and perhaps he had a nostalgic idea of a saintly existence, living as his sister Macrina or of his mother Emmelia did, not considering that he might aspire to such spiritual heights! But he was determined to try. Therefore, he decided to set up a small hermitage on land owned by his family in Pontus, on the banks of the river Iris, not far from the village Annesi. Here he would examine his conscience, give himself up to prayer, fasting and contemplation, and invite his good friend, Gregory to join him. Later, to better understand the monastic spirituality, he went on a journey of initiation among the monks of Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia. He needed to see for himself what it truly meant to be soldier of Christ, to admire innocence, humility, perseverance in prayer, silence and of the simplicity of fasting, the joy and light of the soul of those who have retired from the world, to pray for it and to save it. On his return home, he then retired to the small monastery he had founded himself on one of his estates. It seems that he might have remained there forever, together with his friend Gregory, with whom he established the bases of Philokalia and wrote the monastic Rules,32 had he not been called by the new bishop Eusebius to the capital, to be consecrated and entrusted with an important role in the pastoral activity of the diocese.33 If during the ministration of Dianius he had little interest in the internal affairs of the Church, when the installation of the new bishop was accomplished, his attitude changed radically. Soon, everything he had learned in his family, in schools in Caesarea, Constantinople or Athens, found their sense, a fulfilment. Although he thought that his place was in a monastery, in reading and quiet contemplation, God showed him that he was wrong. He was prepared undertake a practical ministry for the people. From now on the Holy Liturgy and the ministration of the believers would be his most important concerns. In a short time, he won over clerics, monks, ordinary believers, and became the help and most important adviser to Eusebius. The new bishop, despite his unconventional election, without being a member of the clergy, with minimal theological and liturgical training, but with a certain reverence and nobility recognised by everyone, managed the most important move in the cold war that was triggered by the emperor Julian to all Christians in the empire and implicitly, to those in Cappadocia.34 Eusebius however was too easily influenced by Basil’s detractors and this led not only to envy of Basil, but also to hatred, and a need to humiliate and offend him. With recklessness, Eusebius’ caused a fracture within the Christian communities in Cappadocia which might have escalated into a real schism. Basil knew that if he will give a single sign, it would have triggered the disaster. He was in trouble. He must be gone through very difficult moments, when one decision could change the life of a community, of a city or province, or even of an entire people. He required, as he did every time when he went through similar moments – and they were not few – God’s help, in prayer. And God certainly revealed the way for him. He left the city of Caesarea, quietly, without telling anyone anything, convinced that he had taken the wisest decision.35 Being back in his small monastery, he returned to an ascetic life, dealing with the reorganisation of the monastic life in Pontus, but also in the nearer lands, in Cappadocia and Armenia, while Eusebius faced the 1 Christianity in Cappadocia 11 healing of the wounds caused by the separation from the one who was not cherished by him, as he should be. Several years have passed, instead of the apostate Julian, is now Valens, an emperor decided to introduce the Arianism, in its moderate aspect, with any price, in all Eastern provinces of the empire. Cappadocia is in turmoil. Basil’s name is still on the lips of those who knew him. This time, also the old friends and the former enemies, urged Eusebius to call him. It was needed of a clever priest who would make everyone to understand the meaning (content) of the various formulations of doctrine on the relationship between Father and Son, heard by the believers – we know that Eusebius was barely familiar with the theological subtleties – who would assume the dignity of a religious leader, able to unite the various factions still existent in the Church, but also to engage in a dialogue on an equal footing with the leaders of the cities and with the representatives of the imperial power. Eusebius decided to be persuaded, but no one knew how Basil will react. He left being grieved by all the scandal around him and the most that hurt him was undoubtedly, the inappropriate unfair and abusive behaviour, of his bishop. However, at the request of his friend Gregory – otherwise, the official delegate of Eusebius – but mostly because of the sense of duty to the Church and his unshakable faith in God’s power, he decides to return. His return to Cappadocia occurs, however, with some delay.36 While many believe that his return to the capital took place in 364, immediately after the election of the Emperor Valens, it seems that it occurred later. Moreover, it is much more likely to have been a while, until Valens’ religious reforms to have made their effect in all provinces and especially in Cappadocia, where as it was known, most of the Christians are Nicaeans. It seems that Basil had decided to return to the capital in the autumn of 365, shortly after Valens, being in Cappadocia, hearing of the revolt of Procopius, decides to return immediately to Constantinople to punish the usurper.37 In support of this assertion, which I am confident that will be challenged by most of the people or they will look at it with a certain reluctance, because tradition is usually more reliable than a reinterpretation of events that remain into probability, without the existence of some proving documents, are still a few solid arguments, namely:

1. After the disagreements aroused between the bishop Eusebius and the priest Basil, ended by returning of the latter, in 362, in the silence of his hermitage on the banks of Iris, Basil is fully committed to the reorganisation of the coenobitic monastic life in the areas of Pontus and its surroundings; He rewrites (correct) his ascetic works, he organises new monastic communities, or he reorganises the old ones, but he sets in their vicinity, also hermitages for ascetics and hermits, for those who want to live a lonely life, but still being in communion with each other and all with the Church; he is dealing with the education of the Christian people and especially of the young people who, after was given the decree of the Emperor Julian, that prohibited to the Christian teachers to teach in the public schools, were in danger of losing their religious identity, and he writes his famous work, Address to Young Men. 12 Part 1 Dignity versus authority 2. Eusebius does not think to contact him during the religious tolerance established (even for a short time) by the Emperor Jovian, who opened the way for an unprecedented neo-Arian proselytism, supported in public by Eunomius and his followers. St Basil responds by writing a work entitled Against Eunomius, where he abolishes point by point, the philosophical theology of an emanating structure, of Eunomius, but his bishop remains in silent and he indulges in his ignorance and inability, instead to take the first step towards a historical reconciliation, for the good of Christ’s Church in Cappadocia. The same happens also later, when, in the middle of the storm triggered by Valens, who was threatening in case of a disobedience to replace the disobedient priests and bishops with those who were obedient, or even with the dissolution of the communities of Christians and closing the rebellious churches, the bishop Eusebius, instead of asking to his priest Basil to come back to him and to be with him, assuring him that all the differences between them are gone long time ago, he prefers to slander him even to his friend Gregory. In these conditions, we suppose that must be passed long time until the bishop stepped on his heart and decided to take the first step towards reconciliation and also as long until St Basil, despite the entreaties of Gregory, was convinced of the sincerity of Eusebius, but also of the opportunity of his returning to the world of the real confrontation, as long as he had already become a kind of Avva for all the monks from Pontus and also from Cappadocia and Armenia, eager to meet him, to listen to him and to learn as much from the secrets of theology that were taught by this great scholar of the Church. Why to go to a place where he had the first disappointment as a priest? 3. The presence of Valens in 365 at Caesarea in Cappadocia, when he was informed of the revolt of Procopius and his self-proclamation as emperor in Constantinople, is historically attested. It is very likely that Valens to have met with the Bishop Eusebius, to have had even discussions between the imperial representative and those of the Church of Cappadocia, perhaps quite blunt, considering that always was brought to the emperor news about the disobedience of this province, but Basil had not arrived yet. We cannot find anywhere any information according to which, St Basil, about whom it was spoken everywhere that he is a theologian par excellence, of Cappadocia, after his return, to have participated in such a meeting. If he had been there is almost impossible to not have even a reference. 4. The claim that St Basil returned to Cappadocia in the second half of the year 364, and around the coming of Valens he retired, strategically, because of fear, to his hermitage in Pontus, or in another unknown location, is unsustainable and casts a shadow of a doubt on his firm attitude, proved in many other circumstances, much more dangerous. It is possible that some will support his so-called run, invoking the episode of his unexpected departure of a few years ago, in the middle of a scandal that could divide the Christians from Cappadocia, but the situations are very different and even contradictory. In the first case, he left for the good of the Church, for the peace and tranquillity of Christians, now – if that would have really happened – he would have done it 1 Christianity in Cappadocia 13 because of fear and cowardice, leaving the Christian and his fellow defenceless, facing a war that they certainly would not be able to win, by themselves. It is hard to believe, for someone who could understand the way of thinking of St Basil, strength of character, confidence in the power of the Spirit, that the Saint, could think and act in such a way. All these should make us think that his coming back to Caesarea took place really, after much parsimony, after much prayer and after much inner turmoil, when he was convinced that Bishop Eusebius and the Church of Cappadocia really need his presence, his brilliant mind, power of persuasion, his ability to organise and his diplomatic art of making friends to help him, and enemies to respect him and to look at him sometimes with admiration.

History and rumour Before speaking about the first effective meeting between Valens and Basil, taking into account the nature of the imperial religious policy, which was in favour of Neo-Arianism, we could say that a sort of long distance confrontation took place between those two, at the end of the summer or the beginning of the autumn of 365.38 Emperor Valens was from the beginning of his reign under the influence of Eudoxius and Euzoius. Therefore, his attitude towards Basil is not in any way surprising as Basil the presbyter was a declared enemy of the Arian sympathisers. Radical differences between the Bishop of Caesarea`s teachings and those uttered at the Imperial Court is admirably stressed by St Gregory of Nazianzus.39 Valens was a persecutor of the Nicaeans and a descendent of another persecutor, while Basil was a ‘symbol’ of defence of the Nicaean Creed and the unofficial successor of the great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. Valens was not an apostate as Julian was, but nonetheless there was no improvement for the Christians who respected the decisions of the first ecumenical synod of Nicaea (325). He looked for any opportunity that would enable him to intervene in the internal problems of the Church and turn these to his advantage. Thus, on his way from Nicomedia to Antioch (365), the emperor decided to pass through Caesarea of Cappadocia and take advantage of the withdrawal to Pontus of Basil, the most feared enemy of the Arians, to install a new leadership of the Church there. Valens did not come alone to Caesarea, but together with a number of clerics, who supported him in an attempt to ‘entrust’ the churches to the Arians and to deprive in this way the Bishop, Eusebius, of any authority in the territory.40 Valens was convinced that he would not encounter too much resistance to his plan, given Bishop Eusebius’s lack of experience in such cases. Also, he was aided by the fact that he had cordial relations with his main collaborator, who caused Eusebius to leave the city, and, the divisions between the Church leaders of Cappadocia, who did not heartedly support Basil. More specifically, the emperor believed that, given these ‘cracks’ of communication within the Church of Cappadocia, his mission would be quite easy.41 14 Part 1 Dignity versus authority Finally, by the autumn of 365, Caesarea became the scene of a series of theological confrontations. The atmosphere had become increasingly charged with the party of Neo-Arians (strongly supported by Emperor Valens) gaining Sees, almost monopolising the most important positions, both in the administrative ecclesiastic staff and in the state offices. Without St Basil’s pivotal role (which, although he was not yet part of the hierarchy, he nonetheless was the voice of the ‘unofficial theology’ of the Church of Cappadocia), the Arians would have likely succeeded in their coup.42 Seeing the danger, Bishop Eusebius asked the young Gregory to go to Annesi and beg his friend Basil to return and to overlook the small misunderstandings that they had had, being aware that his presence in Caesarea was very important.43 The reputation that St Basil enjoyed had already reached the Emperor’s ears, and would count enormously in the conduct of ‘hostilities’ in Caesarea. Thus, informed by the ‘plot’ which was against the believers of the Nicaean Creed in Caesarea, Basil returned to the city and resumed his communion with his bishop, both now responsible for each other in defence of the same teaching of faith. St Gregory of Nazianzus stated he went himself to Pontus to bring Basil back to Caesarea.44 Even if St Basil had held some resentment against his bishop because he had not supported him enough in his projects, he did not give way to small slights that would place the unity of the Church at risk, but rather preferred diplomacy instead of confrontation. In support of this finding stands the witness of his friend Gregory, who stated he was met with great joy and excitement, with St Basil not hiding his intention to immediately come back to Caesarea.45 Before his return to the capital, Valens, along with his attendants, left Caesarea in a hurry, leaving theological disputes unresolved. Even if some enthusiast scholars should believe that the mere news of the returning St Basil had a tremendous impact on the Arian party – although this is questionable, as he was then only a priest, and so, at least officially, had limited authority – I think that, rather the news of the rebellion caused by Procopius46 is the reason that led the Emperor to change immediately his priorities and to go to Constantinople. It might be possible also both events had competed equally in Valens’ mind.47 The fact is the two did not meet, for at the time of Basil’s arrival in Caesarea, the Emperor had left the city.

Military conflict delayed the religious confrontation During his stay in Cappadocia, Valens received the news that Procopius, a relative on his mother’s side to the former Emperor Julian, and therefore an alleged member of the Constantinian dynasty, had decided to claim his right to the imperial throne.48 Seen at first with distrust and suspicion, the news turned into a frightful reality. The messages which came from the capital were contradictory, which, of course, created a state of restlessness and uncertainty. Valens had reason to fear because Procopius proved to be a good strategist, ready to use all the means he had at his disposal to strengthen his authority among the military and the population and to prove his legitimacy to the throne of Constantinople. Procopius was a master of 1 Christianity in Cappadocia 15 manipulation, a man who quickly understood the power of propaganda focused in very precise directions. First, he tried to inculcate in the minds of the people that he was the descendant designated by the Emperor Julian himself, his cousin. That he had handed him a purple cloak at the beginning of the Persian expedition (363), and on his death bed he had directly designated him.49 Second, he claimed to be the last descendant of the Constantinian dynasty and as a sign of acknowledgment of this, at any public occasion, he presented them the widow of Constantius II, Faustina and their daughter, Constantia Postuma, as being his blood relatives and the clearest proof of his legitimacy as emperor.50 By virtue of this, he sent a message to the Visigoths, reminding them of the treaty signed with Constantine I in 332, whereby they were obliged, in case of war, to send troops to help. The messenger had the mission to remind them of this arrangement and to present Procopius as the only person who had the legitimacy and the right to request it from them.51 Third, he was convinced of the easiness with which the crowd could be manipulated if it was repeated on every occasion, in any public, religious, or civil ceremony, that he was the successor of Constantine the Great, and that, the former emperor, Julian, his blood relative, had presented him both by a symbolic gesture in the sight of the world, and by word on his death bed, that he, Procopius, was his legitimate successor.52 To gain popular support, he would take care during the revolt, as he made a series of victories, to treat the losers with respect and attract them to his side.53 In parallel, convinced that taking over the leadership of an empire is done not only through beautiful words and by proving the hereditary heritage, but by concrete actions meant to ensure his security and consolidate his power, he gathered around him more military commanders along with their troops, beginning with those stationed in the capital of the empire, Constantinople. He then proceeded to arrest the most important representatives of the state, whom he replaced with others loyal to himself. With the financial help of one of the richest dignitaries, Eugenius, as well as from others who suffered under the new emperors, Valens and Valentinian,54 or who just wanted to take advantage of the new opportunities, he paid them all to buy their fidelity, at least for a while, as it will be seen. Procopius took care to have the assured support of the Thracian troops, led by General Julius, who had been sent by Valens to secure the border against the Visigoths. Using the old strategy, he called Julius to consultations in the capital, but as soon as he arrived he was arrested and replaced by a certain Andronicus. Fearing an attack from the West, from Valentinian, he closed the Bosphorus chan- nel and cut the fastest means of communication between the brothers.55 Apart from the Illyricum province, which he had not managed to convince to join him, he seemed to have military control over the European regions.56 Finally, convinced that all the preparations had taken place as he wanted, he withdrew to Chalcedon, where he had a huge support from the people, to wait for the inevitable confrontation with Valens. However, he did not take into account the versatility of the military leaders, and perhaps thought that all was working in his favour. The situation was dramatic for Valens. Far from the capital, he needed to move quickly to take the necessary steps to prevent the rebellion from spreading throughout the Eastern Empire. Only his indisputable military qualities and luck 16 Part 1 Dignity versus authority allowed him to find the financial resources, the right people to listen to his orders, and the ability to organise himself in such a way as to strengthen his army and to strike Procopius’s army when he was ready. But he did not have much information about the extent of the revolt, nor about the situation of the troops from Constantinople, or that of the troops from Thrace. Therefore, surrounded by a small army, he moved to Galatia and established his headquarters in Ancyra.57 There he recruited new soldiers from the native population and waited for reinforcements from the East. After several battles in which more military commanders from both armies were involved, some of them moving easily from one camp to another, it seemed that Procopius would be victorious. His army managed to conquer Nicaea, Bithynia and Cyzicus, where he took up residency.58 Everything begins to change when Valens’ army, reinforced by the arrival of new troops from the East, at the end of 365, is placed under the command of General Arintheus, who enjoyed a tremendous prestige among the soldiers.59 His fame was well known since the expedition in which he joined Emperor Julian in 363. Arintheus won some important battles and, moreover, he drew to his side several other generals.60 But the decisive moment in changing fortunes came most likely when one of the richest and most influential people in the high imperial society, Arbitio, disturbed by Procopius’s lack of respect, insistence and unacceptable behaviour, decided to support Valens, with all his strength.61 Being at an honourable age, the former great general of Emperor Constantine I and Constantius II, appeals with all his power of persuasion to force Procopius’ prominent commanders to leave him and join Valens. The first who decided to change camp was Gomoarius,62 Procopius’s main com- mander, followed by Hormisdas, who opposed a minor resistance and then escaped from the battlefield,63 as did some other junior commanders with their troops. Some of them may have left him anyway – we will never know – but it is certain that Arbitio’s authority was decisive and that it hastened the end of Procopius’s rebellion. The final battle took place on 26 May 366, in Nacolia, Phrygia, but it quickly ended with the desertion of General Agilo, who was followed by some of Procopius’s troops. A day later, the one who was self-proclaimed emperor, was captured and beheaded by Valens. His head was sent to the Emperor Valentinian in the West on a route that passed through all the territories previously controlled by Procopius, to prove to everyone that the revolt had come to an end.64 In order for the victory to remain in the memory of everyone but especially of himself, Valens gave his son Valentinian, the supra-name of Galates, after the province in which he started this military campaign.65 Galates would be the reason for the eventual meeting that was to take place between the two leaders of the Eastern world of that time, Valens the emperor, the political leader of half of the empire, and Basil the metropolitan, the religious and moral leader of the same half. This was to happen later, in a few years. Now, however, in the autumn of 365, the two did not meet because in the moment of the arrival of the priest Basil, the Emperor, accompanied by his suite, had left the city for Constantinople, where he would arrive much later, after the cessation of the revolt initiated by Procopius. 1 Christianity in Cappadocia 17 Concluding remarks Therefore, the roads of the two protagonists of the events have not crossed in the first part of the reign of the Emperor Valens. Although they were of the same generation, they had nothing in common, nor origin, nor education, nor the religious orientation, nor the vision on the social welfare or on the prosperity of the populations of the empire. For almost five years, until the death of Bishop Eusebius, St Basil undertake a remarkable activity both theologically, being the ideologue and the rightful defender of the Nicaean party from the capital of the province, but also pastoral and administrative. His perfect behaviour, his directly involvement in all the great problems of the Church, starting with the disproof of the manoeuvres made by the Arians and their supporters, headed by the emperor, imperial officials, the local authorities, up to the organisation of the institutions of charity for the poor, orphans and the elderly, the hospitality to foreigners or the developing of the operating rules for the parish and monastic communities, made him practically, the rightful ruler of the Metropolitan of Caesarea of Cappadocia. His name was uttered with reverence and devotion by all Christians; friends enjoyed that the church has finally found a minister who was as great as the tumultuous times they crossed, and the enemies, made their plans to discredit and to remove him. Of course, all the achievements of the young priest Basil reached to the Emperor Valens, who did not see kindly his fulminating ascension and he was thinking how to act. He did not need such people to ruin his plans to impose the Arian faith in all communities in the eastern empire. He ought to be stopped. He will do what is necessary, but not now. Will carefully monitor the situation in Caesarea, and when the time will come to elect a new bishop to replace Eusebius, he will take care to choose one who will carry out his orders, without hesitation. He had at the imperial court advisors and strategists able to advise him on this matter, but it seems that none of them was able to realise that St Basil was the man of God, that he will fulfil a providential work. In other words, God’s plans were different. By the mid of the year 370, after the death of Eusebius, St Basil is elected archbishop or metropolitan of Caesarea of Cappadocia, despite the manoeuvres held in the shadow by the emperor and his local representatives, the envy and malice of some bishops who saw him as being an uncomfortable character, too smart to accept any compromise on the support of the half-Arian teaching for the stability and unity of the state, too righteous to be seized in their group of personal interests and much too devoted to the serving of God by the directly ministry of the poor and powerless, to keep his eyes closed to the luxury and the waste he saw in the church.66 St Basil, aware of the responsibility that presses on his shoulders exhausted by suffering, did everything he could to live up to the level of his responsibilities. Many opponents were defeated by the power of his word, being a peerless rhetoric, others were defeated by him through virtue and simplicity, without treating them with arrogance or malice, but rather with gently firm.67 But there were plenty that were not fully convinced by him, despite of his attempts, even if at some point in their existence they understood that Basil is a man of God, that he is not inhabited by lie and rancour, but by peace, forgiveness and joy of the repentance of a lost 18 Part 1 Dignity versus authority soul. And most important of them must have been the emperor Valens, about whom we will discuss in this chapter.

Notes 1 David Hunt, ‘The successors of Constantine’, Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13, The Late Empire A.D. 337–425, 2nd edn, ed. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 4–5; Ioan Rămureanu et al. (ed.), Istoria Bisericească Universală (The Universal Church History), vol. 1 (1–1054) (Bucharest: Institutul Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House [EIBMBOR], 1987), 259. 2 Constantine II died in 340, at the age of 24 near the town of Aquileia in Italy, during a battle against his younger brother Constans, who in turn died in 350 (aged 30), in Gaul, following a plot organised by the captain of his own guards, Magnentius (Flavius Magnus Magnentius). Thus, Constantius II remained emperor until 357, then together with his cousin Julian, until his death in 361 (Rămureanu, Universal Church History, 327–330). 3 Rămureanu, Universal Church History, 329–330. 4 Hunt, ‘The successors of Constantine’, 28. 5 For the ‘confrontations’ between Constantius and Julian see David Hunt, ‘Julian’ in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13, The Late Empire A.D. 337–425, 2d edn, ed. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 56–60. 6 Although his negative attitude towards Christians and Christianity seems incomprehensible to an emperor who came from a great imperial family with a clear Christian orientation and who had studied in the great schools of the time or individually with personalities recognised by their Christian eloquence, it seems that the influence of his pagan teachers was much stronger, more decisive, and that, he more mimed his attachment to the Church for the fear he had of Constantius and the other important members of the family (Rămureanu, Universal Church History, 261). 7 For an account of his education and religious policy, see Garth Fowden, ‘Polytheist religion and philosophy’ in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13, The Late Empire A.D. 337–425, 2nd edn, ed. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 543–548. 8 For this see, in particular, Ioan Rămureanu, Persecuția împăratului Iulian Apostatul împotriva creștinismului [Emperor Julian the Apostate’s Persecutions against Christianity] (Bucharest: Anastasis, 2009): 119–178. For the best account of Emperor Julian’s life and his relationship with the pagan culture, see Polymnia Athanassiadi, Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981). 9 Rămureanu, Persecutions against Christianity, 154–167. 10 Rămureanu, Persecutions against Christianity, 193–199; see also Hunt, ‘Julian’, 66. 11 Hunt, ‘Julian’, 76. 12 John Curran, ‘From Jovian to Theodosius’ in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire A.D. 337–425, 2nd edn, Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (eds) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 81. 13 Rochelle Snee, ‘Valens’ Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 26/4 (1985): 414; see also John Vanderspoel, Themistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty, and Paideia from Constantius to Theodosius (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1955), 157. 14 Snee, ‘Valens’ Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda’, 413–414. 15 Rămureanu et al. (ed.), The Universal Church History, 320. Snee, ‘Valens’ Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda’, 413. 16 Snee, ‘Valens’ Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda’, 416. 17 Snee, ‘Valens’ Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda’, 414. 1 Christianity in Cappadocia 19 18 Snee, ‘Valens’ Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda’, 414. 19 Snee, ‘Valens’ Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda’, 415. 20 Noel Lenski, Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 261. 21 Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 7, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996): 111–113. 22 Snee, ‘Valens’ Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda’, 397. 23 Unfortunately, following Valens’ death, St Basil cannot celebrate the end of persecution and the abolition of repressive measures by Gratian, because a few months later, on 1 January 379, he goes to the kingdom of God. See Gabriel Roman, ‘Aspecte Religioase și politice în Imperiul Roman de Răsărit în vremea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare [Religious and political aspects in the Eastern Roman Empire in St Basil the Great’s time]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 3., Emilian Popescu et al. (eds) (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 206]. 24 Rămureanu, Universal Church History, 272. 25 See G. Bernardakis, ‘Notes sur la topographie de Césarée’, Échos d’Orient 11 (1908): 22–27. For the Roman roads, cities and bishoprics of Cappadocia, distances and frontiers to the provinces of Pontus and Armenia, see William Mitchell Ramsay, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London: William Cloves and Sons, 1962), 267–330; Vincent W. Yorke, ‘A Journey in the Valley of the Upper Euphrates’, The Geographical Journal 8.5 (1896): 462–472. 26 Raymond Van Dam, Family and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 2. 27 Van Dam, Family and Friends, 14. 28 Nicu Dumitrașcu and Constantin Voicu, Patrology (Bucharest: EIBMBOR Press, 2004), 175. 29 Ioan G. Coman, ‘Personalitatea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare [The Personality of St Basil the Great]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare: Închinare la 1600 de ani de la săvârșirea sa, Bartolomeu Anania et al. (eds) (Bucharest: EIBMBOR, 1980): 27–28. 30 Stelianos Papadopoulos, Viaţa Sfântului Vasile cel Mare [The Life of St Basil the Great] (Bucharest: Bizantina Press, 2003), 61. 31 Dumitrașcu and Voicu, Patrologie, 127–128. 32 It is unanimously recognised that The Longer Rules were written between 358–362, and The Shorter Rules were written later, most probably before the second period of collaboration with Bishop Eusebius, when frictions and tensions between them were replaced by mutual support (see for details, Mihai Colibă, ‘Regulile Monahale ale Sfântului Vasile cel Mare în istoria vieții religioase monahale și a cultului creștin [The Monastical Rules of St Basil in the history of the religious and monastical life and of Christian cult]’, Studii Teologice 3/4 (1965), 241–245). 33 Although most historians and patristic scholars mention that Saint Basil was called to the priesthood in 364, in reality it seems it had occurred earlier in 362 (Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 141. We will see that the year 362 fits much better with more detailed analyses of Basil’s priestly life and activity in cooperation with Eusebius and with dialogue with Valens at a distance. If I did not already convince those who prefer to preserve the tradition about this, without taking into account a possible chronology of events from the later period of the election of Eusebius as Bishop of Cappadocia, in the logic of a collaboration which began enthusiastically and suddenly ended when Basil decided to live in isolation (seclusion) at Annesi, I will probably ignite, at the very least, their interest in combating it. 34 The intentions of the Emperor Julian, who under the guise of so-called religious tolerance, attempted to reintroduce the pagan principles in the Church and society, he had just signed the decree which put up, practically, the banning of the Christian education in public schools. Eusebius had no preparation, no ability to understand the 20 Part 1 Dignity versus authority negative impact and the long-term consequences of such decisions on the life and Christian culture (Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 143); see also W.R. Halliday, ‘St Basil and Julian the Apostate: A Fragment of Legendary History’, Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 7.3–4 (1916): 89–106. 35 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 143–145. 36 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 167. 37 Valens was in Caesarea when he heard for the first time about the revolt of Procopius [Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354–378), 26.7. Selected and translated by Walter Hamilton with an introduction and notes by Andrew Wallace- Hadrill (Bungay: The Chaucer Press, 1986), 324]. 38 St Basil was still in Pontus when the Emperor rushed back from Cappadocia to deal with the Procopius’s crises (see John A. McGuckin, St Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), viii). 39 Cf. Gregory of Nazianzen, The Panegyric on S. Basil, 30–33, in The Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, ed. Henry Wace and Philip Schaff (1893; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 405–406. 40 Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire, (26.7), 324. It is assumed that among those accompanying Valens in Caesarea were also Eudoxius and Euzoius, who were eager to receive a privileged position among Cappadocian clergy, where they could serve with more ardour the interests of the Neo-Arians and the Emperor. 41 However, it seems that his calculation did not match with the people’s wishes, whose enthusiasm for the Nicaean faith was much greater than the one professed by different Semi-Arian groups. As in other times, when bishops were wavering in faith (as now), people knew what was best. While he did not know theology, he had the right faith, with enough knowledge to follow through, via prayer, what their leaders often tried to discover through judgements (Papadopoulos, The Life of Saint Basil the Great, 170). 42 Even if the doctrinal positions of the two parties did not appear radically different, there were tensions caused thereby nonetheless, and they posed a real danger to the unity of the Church of Cappadocia. On the other hand St Basil himself engaged to defend the orthodoxy of Nicaea before any detractor, leaving in second place, almost subtly so, the dispute between him and the Emperor Valens (Cf. Gregory of Nazianzen, The Panegyric on S. Basil, 32, NPNF 7, 406). Therefore, the call St Basil received was the result of an urgent need, and his personal qualities had proved to be capable in overcoming the divisions caused by these controversies. 43 Here, not only St Basil, but also Bishop Eusebius proved to possess true qualities of diplomacy, they placed the needs of the Church above their own personal interests or ambitions. They both served it with the same love and devotion (Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 165). 44 Cf. Gregory of Nazianzen, The Panegyric on S. Basil, 31, NPNF 7, 406. 45 Perhaps St Basil did not react immediately when he found out about the news that came to him through other sources. Perhaps, however, he had deliberately acted this way, in the name of religious diplomacy? To expect that the pressure had reached such intensity that even his opponents wanted his return, and the Emperor to believe that it is harder to meet him, than to accuse him or confront him? 46 Procopius was close to representatives of the Neo-Arians and to Eunomius in particular (Thomas A. Kopecek, A History of Neo-Arianism (Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979), 425–428). As is known, he became rich during the time of Julian the Apostate, Procopius even being related to the Emperor. Moreover, he lived in the house of Eunomius from Chalcedon when he was preparing to trigger the revolt. Therefore, it seems natural that Aetius and Eunomius should return to Constantinople during the brief period when Procopius held control. Later, we discover Eunomius intervening with Valens’ supporters, on behalf of Procopius when he occupied the Cyzicus. In all this we can add Cappadocian links between the two. They both had many properties in Cappadocia, near Caesarea (Sozomenos, The Ecclesiastical History, 1 Christianity in Cappadocia 21 VI, 13, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1996), 387–388). 47 The revolt in itself does not seem to have any religious connotation, but if we look at the relationship between Procopius and Emperor Julian, a certain sign of suspicion appears (Pio Grattarola, ‘L’usurpazione di Procopio e la fine dei Constantinidi’,Aevum 60 (1986): 83–84; 90–94]. 48 For a short presentation of his life (on the ground of information provided by contemporary historians, see: A.H.M Jones, J.R. Martindale and J.Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. I. A.D. 260–395 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 742–743); see also a short reference in Alan E. Wardman ‘Usurpers and internal conflicts in the 4th Century A.D’,Historia 33 (1984): 233–234. 49 Norman J.E. Austin, ‘A Usurper’s Claim to Legitimacy: Procopius in A.D. 365/6’, Rivista storica dell’antichità 2.1–2 (1972): 187–188. 50 Ian Hughes, Imperial Brothers: Valentinian, Valens and the Disaster at Adrianopole, (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books Ltd, 2013), 42; Norman J.E. Austin, ‘A Usurper’s Claim to Legitimacy’, 189–190. 51 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 43. It is surprising this sending of the delegation to the Visigoths, as they did not value the hereditary succession in their social governing system, but the elective. However, it might be about a complexity of factors, namely, to have relied on the huge respect that they still had for the Emperor Constantine I, but perhaps even more, on the imminent war that Valens was about to start against the Visigoths (Austin, ‘A Usurper’s Claim to Legitimacy: Procopius in A.D. 365/6’, 190). 52 Austin, ‘A Usurper’s Claim to Legitimacy’, 191. 53 Austin, ‘A Usurper’s Claim to Legitimacy’, 192. 54 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 40. 55 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 42. 56 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 43. 57 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 43–44. 58 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 45. 59 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 45. 60 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 45. 61 Austin, ‘A Usurper’s Claim to Legitimacy’, 191. 62 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 47. 63 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 47. 64 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 48. 65 Hughes, Imperial Brothers, 48. 66 In another paper, I have explained in detail the circumstances in which St Basil was elected as Metropolitan of Caesarea, succeeding with few bishops who were committed to the Nicaean cause and also to himself, but supported unconditionally by the Christian people which had not forgotten how much good he did for them (‘The Atypical Friendship of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus’, in The Ecumenical Legacy of the Cappadocians, ed. Nicu Dumitrașcu (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015): 63–81). 67 Coman, ‘The Personality of St Basil the Great’, 29. 2 St Basil and the history of his royal meeting(s): two authorities in confrontation

While Emperor Valens was engaged at the Danube frontier, St Basil consolidated his position, becoming the most authoritative ‘clerical voice’ in Cappadocia. His theological knowledge, his remarkable personality, as well as his wealth and social rank must have played an important part in this respect. In the year 368 Cappadocia was faced with a great famine, and St Basil succeeded in bringing comfort to the poor by selling a part of his fortune.1 In spite of this, when the time came for his election as Bishop of Caesarea, after the death of Eusebius, he still had to face many difficulties. He had many enemies, both of a lay and clerical order. Among his supporters were the elderly bishop Gregory of Nazianzus and Eusebius of Samosata who were openly supportive at the synod.2 It seems reasonable to assume that the opposition came first of all from the aristocrats of Caesarea, who had been disturbed by St Basil’s assistance of the poor by selling a part of his own inheritance.3 He was therefore identifying with them, and his example could well have brought upon a shift in the relationship between the wealthy landowners and the people who worked on their estates, resulting in riots or rebellion. There is also the opinion that St Basil would have had objectors within the monks who were concerned about the fact that he did not pronounce himself against the new Pneumatomachian heretics. It is known that the monks were the staunchest supporters of the Nicaean Creed,4 and St Basil’s friendships with some of the Semi- Arian bishops could lead to suspicions regarding his orthodoxy.5 An explanation of the situation is evident in his Church policy, one in which diplomacy played an extremely important part. St Basil wanted to maintain relationships with many hierarchs who were still hesitating to choose between orthodoxy and Semi- Arianism, convinced that inflaming religious atmosphere in the territory would not have been in his favour both from the point of view of Emperor Valens and of the majority of the dignitaries from his court. Therefore, without ‘trumpeting’ his opinions, but remaining strongly attached to Nicaean values, he tried to convince the undecided and to avoid stirring up people in opposition to himself. But it was difficult for those who lived in seclusion or in monastic communities far from the noise and complexities of life in the cities of the empire to understand such a position, where other laws, created according to other principles, functioned.6 2 Two authorities in confrontation 23 Opposition could also have come from the supporters of Eunomius. Eunomius himself might have spent the firstpart of his exile in Cappadocia by the time of the Emperor Valens between the years 368 and 370.7 It is difficult to establish who the most important opponent of St Basil was by the time of his election as a bishop of Caesarea in the autumn of the year 370, but we certainly know that by that time the Church was divided.8 Even his uncle Gregory was against him, a situation that lasted only for some months, while his relation to another uncle, Atarbios, bishop of Neocaesarea, remained tense all of his life, the latter having joined the Sabellianist movement.9 In the same year, 370, the situation of Constantinople was confused. After irreconcilable differences on doctrinal matters between Eunomius and Eudoxius, there followed another event which caused more serious trouble. Valens had returned to Constantinople by the end of March for the consecration of the church, ‘The Holy Apostles’, on 9 April. After this event, the emperor left the city heading for Antioch. But when he arrived at Nicomedia, in Bithynia, he was informed about the death of his spiritual mentor, Eudoxius, an event which unleashed a terrible battle between the Nicaean people and the Arians for the throne of Constantinople.10 The Arians selected Demophilus from Berea near Thessalonika, while the Nicaean party, taking advantage of the confusion resulting from the disagreements between the diverse Arian fractions, came up with a certain, and little known, Evagrius who had been ordained by Eustathius of Antioch, one of the survivors of the Arian controversy from the beginning.11 Emperor Valens sent troops from Nicomedia in order to support Demophilos, who proved to be even more unscrupulous than Eudoxius, and his installation created great difficulty for the Nicaean party. By order of the emperor, but also by the agency of the new bishop of Constantinople, Eustathius was exiled to Byzia, in Thrace, Evagrius to another (unknown) place, and some of their supporters sent to prison, some were beaten, suffered torments and were deprived of fortunes and titles.12 It was a brief, but extremely violent period of persecution against the orthodox party.13

The meeting(s) with Emperor Valens The meeting between Emperor Valens and the bishop of Caesarea represents an important reference in the history of the fourth century Christian Church. Opinion is still somewhat divided on the time, place, and details of this confrontation. However, some information about the activity of Emperor Valens is known during the period 370–372, when this meeting must have taken place.14 Church sources unanimously describe the confrontation of two parties: the Arians, supported by Valens, and Nicaean orthodoxy, represented in a somewhat idealised manner by Basil. The statement is based both on the theological differences between Valens and Basil, but also on the fact that the persons who presented their meeting were the two Saints Gregory of Nyssa, his brother, and of Nazianzen, friend of St Basil the Great. The two accounts have different objectives, and their chronology is always accurate, as chronology plays a secondary part in the 24 Part 1 Dignity versus authority narration. The texts that we are going to analyse represent the primary material for the analysis of the circumstances in which the confrontation between the emperor and the bishop occurred.

St Gregory of Nyssa’s Against Eunomius One of the oldest accounts of the confrontation of Emperor Valens with St Basil15 is rendered by the latter’s brother, St Gregory of Nyssa, in his work, Against Eunomius.16 The main aim of the author was to prove that Eunomius’ doctrine was wrong, groundless, and illogical, and it was meant as an answer to all the critical opinions regarding St Basil’s teaching and standpoint related to a heresy that was about to become imperial policy. The history of the conflict with Valens demonstrates the fact that the bishop of Caesarea felt no fear in expressing his opinions, irrespective of the danger to which he might have been exposed. Eunomius seemed to have made a series of false statements regarding St Basil’s behaviour during the Council of Constantinople in the year 360, and St Gregory wanted to explain the issues then, even if at a relatively distant time, which gives cause for some reservations by modern scholars. The first thing that should be taken into consideration when analysing St Gregory’s narration regarding his brother’s standpoint about Eunomius’s concepts is that it was consistent with that of the whole church world of the time. He cannot be accused of being subjective (which will be relevant under other circumstances due to their familial relationship) when he simply documented what was very well known. He does not limit himself to stigmatising the emperor’s attitude towards the Nicaean Christians and their churches, whom he accuses of imperial pride, but he also reveals who was behind him, namely Eudoxius. Why Eudoxius and not Eunomius? Because Eudoxius was the one who succeeded in reaching the highest clerical rank, that of Patriarch of Constantinople, and while enjoying this extensive authority he apparently appointed Eunomius as bishop of Cyzicus. Another aspect that should not be omitted is that St Gregory’s account is not meant to be a chronological excursus. Therefore, he does not insist upon the details and their ordering in time, but presents the facts in an almost random order, each of them bearing its well-defined significance and importance. For instance, he speaks of Eudoxius of Germanicia, where he had been a bishop before he installed himself in Antioch, without giving details about what he did after he had been removed by the Emperor Constantius, or that he died during the confrontation between Valens and St Basil. However, chronological evidence is given by placing the events in the context in which Bithynia and Galatia had already been devastated by the Arian fury, openly supported by the emperor. Also, that the meeting with the prefect Modestus took place when the emperor left Constantinople for the East, satisfied by his recent victory against the barbarians. All this might have happened after the war with the Goths, by the end of the year 369. As a consequence, the spring of the year 370 could be the most likely time for the meeting of St Basil and the prefect, which is somewhat contradictory with the time of his ordination as a bishop, which seems 2 Two authorities in confrontation 25 to have taken place in the autumn of that year.17 The impression left by the author was that the bishop of Caesarea had been subjected to an indictment by the prefect Modestus, fully empowered by Emperor Valens. It was the first confrontation between the two; the tone of the imperial representative seemed final, but Basil’s responses amazed him and convinced him to change his views. St Basil only expressed some of the moral principles that governed his existence, but with such dignity and self-control that he made Modestus pass from astonishment to admiration.18 Therefore, when he was summoned to meet him again, he adopted a more conciliatory tone, and was himself disposed to have a discussion on equal terms, being concerned about reaching a compromise that would satisfy both parties. In the second meeting of the two dignitaries, Valens was also actively involved. Accompanied by a certain Demosthenes, ‘imperial kitchens higher official’, surrounded by his retinue, and having a letter full of accusations addressed to St Basil upon him, and with Modestus as a forerunner, the emperor entered Caesarea of Cappadocia. There must have been a great deal of tension, each party thinking about the moment they would meet and about the way the discussion would take place. Another ‘court’ was prefiguring, but before attaining the culminating point, St Gregory decided to change the record of his account, considering that his objec- tive had already come to an end. Therefore, the time of the meeting is implied by the large discrepancy between the way Valens treated the greatest part of the imperial provinces and what happened in Cappadocia. The final part of this account leaves many questions. The author reviews the many places where the emperor’s fury devastated the Orthodox churches: the entirety of Syria and Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Palestine, Arabian Egypt, the Libyan tribes from the borders of the civilised world, Pontus, Cilicia, Lydia, Pysidia, Pamphylia, Caria, Hellespont, Thrace, and the peoples along the Danube, ending by saying that the only people who did not suffer such wrath were the people of Cappadocia. That victory was credited to St Basil, who was able to find within himself the power and the ability to oppose the emperor in a certain manner which elicited the emper- or’s admiration. St Basil is presented as a fearless fighter for faith, an inflexible, powerful soul, a rock which could not be moved by the waves of faithlessness. However, there must have been a ‘truce’ whose terms seem to remain a mystery even to St Basil’s closest friends. St Gregory does not specify clearly that the two of them met, but the manner in which his account ends leaves the impression that the event did occur. Neither of them would have wanted to make that meeting known due to the very clear differences of opinion, but they would have gained mutual respect. St Basil knew that a violent confrontation without detailed preparation, with more schemes, more possibilities of negotiations, unwillingness to surrender certain positions in order to keep them under control, would have no chance at all for success. On the other hand, Valens, informed by his closest partners, was aware of the authority, fame, and prestige of the bishop of Caesarea, and he would not have wanted to risk outright religious revolt, which combined with political opposition could have resulted in his own destruction. Therefore, the information provided by another 26 Part 1 Dignity versus authority source, according to which they met later, in a time of serious trouble and distress for the emperor (his son being deathly ill) at the head of Galates,19 should be taken into consideration (as well as their private meeting which might have taken place secretly). However, the latter might be considered a supposition.

St Gregory of Nazianzus’ Panegyric The panegyric written by St Gregory of Nazianzus at the death of his friend represents our main source for the life of St Basil. All the accounts related to the subject refer in a way to the same text.20 Before concentrating on the events of Cappadocia, St Gregory provides a general ‘overview’ of the political and religious activities of Valens.21 There are details referring to the events that followed the Arian Demophilus’s installation as bishop of Constantinople, for instance, setting on fire the ship that should have taken back the Orthodox priests’ delegation who had complained to the emperor about the inhuman treatment they were subjected to by the Arian party, and to the events in Alexandria after the death of St Athanasius, in the year 373. An interesting aspect of this section is the fact that the author makes clear distinctions between the heretics, admitting even that there were priests whose opinions were much more extremist than those of the emperor Valens. Cappadocia is depicted as the last bastion of Orthodoxy.22 It was the first time that Valens found himself in difficulty, as he did not want a direct confrontation with St Basil, nor to concede victory. The confrontation seems rather to have been a series of negotiations with a number of officials who represented the emperor: commissioners, military officers, judges, eunuchs, and even the chef of the imperial court. The author says that there were many eye-witnesses to these meetings who could provide details. It is also specified that more imperial delegations had been sent to the Bishop Basil, thus leaving the impression that Valens was not at all interested in his removal, but on the contrary, that he tried more than once to amicably prevent any conflicting situation.23 St Gregory of Nazianzus insists upon the part Modestus played during those negotiations. He sees him as a model for all the imperial negotiators, loyal to the interests of the emperor whom he did not want to expose to certain embarrassing situations, but firm and resolute facing all the ‘enemies’, irrespective of their hierarchical position in the state or the Church. He was a loyal subject who preferred patience and dialogue instead of the harsh, bloody treatment for which he was commissioned.24 However, in the account of St Gregory of Nazianzus, when Modestus reported to Valens the conversation he had with the bishop of Caesarea, he recommended violence as the only way by which St Basil could be ‘dealt’ with. But the emperor did not allow such a treatment.

Two authorities in confrontation25 In the fourth century, during the era of the great Cappadocian Fathers, Nativity and Epiphany were celebrated on 6 January.26 Therefore, the preparations being made 2 Two authorities in confrontation 27 for this moment must have been as it was for the event, particularly where St Basil the Great served, when they spread far beyond the borders of the province of Cappadocia. This province, at least until the winter of 371–372, seemed to enjoy a special status granted by the Emperor Valens; because it still resisted his most repressive measures against opposition, as happened in almost all major cities of the Empire.27 History has proven that this situation was not the result of chance or hazard, but of the will of God, manifested on the one hand through the faith and credibility of the Bishop of the city, on the other hand through Basil’s diplomacy to persuade a number of Imperial advisers to temper the destructive and revanchist enthusiasms of the Emperor. Before examining the encounter between Emperor Valens and St Basil upon the occasion of the 6 January Liturgy in 372, in the Cathedral of Caesarea we should try to understand the psychological state that possessed the two, a view gained only by looking beyond the exact chronology of events. The emperor knew that he was not meeting with a simple clergyman responsible for the administration of religious affairs of a certain province, but the Bishop could not ignore the fact that he also faced a declared adversary of the believers of Nicaea, who would not hesitate to use any means to impose his will, including force.

Ignorance, compromise or dialogue In reference to Emperor Valens, if he had wanted to avoid a public confrontation with St Basil the Great he had three options: to ignore him, to undermine him, or to meet him in private and try to persuade him about the righteousness of his religious measures. He could ignore him if he were an ordinary clergyman who had no influence on such an important community. In practice, to deliberately ignore someone in a calculated, intentional, and cold way means to condemn him to marginality, especially if that person is unable to keep the ‘balance of forces’ stable with an exemplary decency and ability to discuss. It is usually an effective long-term method, but not for Valens, because on the one hand, Basil was a great figure of the time who he himself was curious to meet, and on the other hand, because he needed an immediate solution for the religious situation in Cappadocia. The Emperor, beyond his Arian beliefs (if they really existed), was probably more interested in maintaining the internal unity of his empire, which he believed could be accomplished only by forced constraint of the Arian doctrine.28 Therefore, Valens could not afford to ignore a Bishop whose name was already infused with the endurance and authority of a saint. He could, however, compromise him, as has often happened in history, because when the enemy cannot defeat you through a direct fight with equal arms and within the limits of honourable agreements, he can try to compromise you, either by assigning to you acts that you have not committed29 or by making you allies with people who are already com- promised, morally and socially. Yet, Valens resorted to another stratagem, a more sophisticated means of manipulation, namely, to decrease Basil’s judicial authority from behind the scenes. He did this by dividing the Metropolitanate of Cappadocia in two, and then appointing a former Orthodox competitor of St Basil (Antymus, 28 Part 1 Dignity versus authority now converted to Arian belief),30 just to demonstrate the means and location of dialogue with imperial power, namely, by obedience. This method was not sufficient because St Basil, far from falling into despair, reacted immediately and responsibly, creating new Dioceses, especially at the boundary between the two religious poles. By making this move, Basil risked putting old and solid friendships to the test,31 yet, by so doing, he preserved and strengthened his spiritual authority over religious centres outside his jurisdiction where worthy bishops ministered, even if not as bravely as himself. Therefore, it is conceivable that Emperor Valens had been involved, in a certain way, in organising serious opposition to the election of St Basil to the seat of the Caesarean Diocese. The evidence, primarily, is the extremely diverse social composition of his contestants: religious opponents (Arians), representatives of state authorities, high-class members of society, and even duplicitous clergy members, who, whether out of fear or in hope of certain favours, would have left him without any remorse. In the end, Valens opted for the third possibility, that is, a direct meeting with the Bishop of Caesarea, believing that via a private dialogue between the two (though opponents in opinions) could find compromising solutions in his favour. There remained a risk that such a public dialogue could be turned into a public defeat for the Emperor, which would generate a need for immediate and violent action on his part. When it occurred, the meeting was indeed an intimate encounter, as we shall see, but it had a public debut in the Metropolitan Cathedral, placing those who had the ‘privilege’ to be close to the two opponents under an unimaginable pressure. It is clear that Valens tried repeatedly, through his emissaries, to persuade Basil to renounce his faith, but without result.32 Therefore, in the end, he was forced to come to Caesarea of Cappadocia to personally ‘fix’ this situation, which was embarrassing for him as a (supposedly powerful) political leader.

Holy fear, dignity, and diplomacy If we should talk more of St Basil the Great’s qualities, we need to discuss three other character traits that defined his personality and psychological state before his direct confrontation with Emperor Valens, namely: holy fear, dignity, and diplomacy. Why was St Basil not afraid? We know that today we suffer from fear, even if we do not want to recognise it, we are afraid to say what we think, afraid to show ourselves as we ‘really are’, fear of being ourselves. Why? That is because we do not have strong faith. When we face a challenging situation, we tend to retreat. Saints themselves, too, were often reluctant to do what was expected of them; they had human moments of weakness, being afraid and uncertain. But they remained with God and asked His help continually, and over time clarified their own doubts. After all, they were saints not from the beginning but had won their holiness through everything they did during their earthly lives. Should we assume that St Basil had no fear of the Emperor Valens? Perhaps he was afraid as we are but in another way. He had other experiences to rely upon. 2 Two authorities in confrontation 29 Because he believed that the power of an emperor could not be compared with that of God Almighty, therefore, a man like him with a weakened body, but with a big heart, could be transformed by prayer, either in private or in a church that he served with his whole heart. There were no gaps in Basil’s programme of prayer; he ceased not to pray to God, so to discover the best path by which to defend his orthodox people from the new-Arian persecution. The fear of a saint is not to make mistakes, not to be focused upon the way he should go to the kingdom of heaven. His extremely complex life exhibited both humility and dignity, although some could say these two traits are not complementary, but contradictory. Do not forget, however, that the dignity of a saint is measured through elements that are placed in a different horizon of understanding. He is not subject to the same rules of interpretation as we are; he has other priorities, because he lives the realities of this world sacrificing himself, not for his reputation but for his fellow. St Basil fits perfectly into this profile.33 He was an ascetic par excellence, modest and humble, but also voluntary, energetic, and dignified. His modesty should not be taken as weakness, but rather as a victory over sin, and his humility must be read only in the alphabet of a divine dignity. Therefore, in a confused society dominated by religious and social inequities, with an Emperor who believed that he had complete power over anyone and everything in all degrees, St Basil showed an extraordinary strength of character and an impeccable consistency in the expression of the truth. He specifically assumed his Christian identity, was strong in his beliefs, dignified in attitude, and balanced in his decisions. Because for him, the true dignity was gained on his knees before God in prayer, and not from the people. Thus, Emperor Valens had to deal not only with a man, about whom he had heard many great things, but with a Saint, whose personality and authority he would fully experience. St Basil the Great was a fine psychologist and a gifted diplomat. His diplomacy was a perfect combination of holy fear and the dignity of a saint, also paradoxically coupled with his austere profile and an unshakably strong nature. He knew how emperors, perhaps especially emperors, could be influenced by those around them. Therefore, he realised very quickly that at the imperial court, the confronta- tional, cold, and vindictive attitude of the new-Arian people could be overcome only by the balanced, impartial attitude of those who were undecided on the controversies, or by the benevolent and open attitude of the (officially undeclared) Nicaean people.34 Therefore, Basil tried, through letters (or through mutual friends), to maintain a close relationship with all who held state or military honours, especially with people he personally knew.35 This was key in that many important people of the Empire (some even close to the Emperor) were Cappadocians.36 He was also fully aware that such a strategy could help him when persecution against the people of Nicaea begun by Valens was amplified and rapidly approached Cappadocia. Due to his native gifts, doubled by his indisputable diplomatic abilities, the personality of St Basil demanded respect not only of the clergy (regardless of what side of the barricade they were, because even enemies appreciate uprightness and dignity of a rival, especially when they accept that they are not capable of such 30 Part 1 Dignity versus authority courageous attitudes themselves), but also of state officials and, in some way, even of the Emperor. And indeed, when he needed support, in addition to God’s help, he felt the solidarity of those who had loved him and understood the greatness of his ideals.

Preparation for a confrontation St Basil’s meeting with the Emperor Valens during Epiphany, 372 took place in an extremely tense social and religious atmosphere. We have discussed what options Emperor Valens had and what decision he had taken and, also, how the Bishop of Caesarea had prepared for this moment. The time did not work well for the Emperor but against him, in that all his emissaries to St Basil ended up accepting the fact that an agreement, rather than a confrontation, between the two men would be preferable. All the tests through which he had passed before strengthened St Basil’s conviction that he had chosen the right way and that God would not leave him. It seemed that he prayed with more force than ever, and his true friends exceeded their personal restraints (perhaps based upon their fear of facing the Emperor, even if not directly); it was an apparent calm which predicted the storm. In prayer, divine grace descended upon his head with such power that his infirmities disappeared as if by magic and they were replaced by light, forgiveness, peace, and joy. Then all these gifts were poured both on those who shared his faith, anxieties, and concerns, as well as upon his opponents, declared and undeclared. Valens himself must have felt, from a distance, the amazing power of St Basil the Great. He was his enemy. He wished to have him obey his rule, but at the same time his military stature caused him to respect St Basil. He wanted to have a resounding public victory, for no one ever dared to face him and to contest his authority, but the news he had received from his delegates made him understand that this time the confrontation he faced would be more demanding than any on the battlefield, where he was fully in control. Furthermore, his curiosity grew. Who was the one, who, despite his manoevres, continued to oppose him? He would go to meet him, even on his territory, in the Cathedral. After all, he thought, he was the leader of the known world and the Bishop, even before his altar, would recognise this fact also. But events developed differently than (perhaps) the Emperor thought. Too confident, too anxious, or – who knows? – maybe too superior in the face of God, Valens would discover his limits and fears.

The meeting After several failed attempts to persuade Basil, via state dignitaries, to fully obey him, Valens decided to meet him personally. He was curious to see how the Metropolitan of Caesarea, about whom he had heard so many surprising and contradictory things, would react in the presence of the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. He had no doubt that the meeting would cast any doubt on the fate of Caesarea of Cappadocia. And to ensure the devastating impact of their meeting on the Christian people faithful to the Metropolitan and the Nicaean faith, he chose 2 Two authorities in confrontation 31 to arrive at the feast, together with his retinue, at the cathedral where St Basil was ministering the Divine Liturgy to confront him directly and publicly. He was prepared for a resounding victory, but what happened there completely changed the details of the problem and the imminent confrontation between the two turned into a kind of diplomatic chess that was not won by the Emperor, but by the Metropolitan. Or, if we were to look at all the aspects of the events that followed, it was rather a draw accepted by both of them. Valens entered the cathedral with all the pomp proper for a monarch. He was probably convinced that when he appeared all the community present there would give him the proper honours, forget that they were in the Church during the Divine Liturgy, and worship him to the ground, recognising his royal aura and absolute supremacy. But the reaction of the crowd and its Metropolitan was surprising. No one said a word nor, most probably, did they bow. He entered as a king, but he was treated as a simple Christian, as Basil himself taught: that they were all equal before God. Valens believed, probably, that the service would be interrupted for him, that the bishop would come to meet him, lead him to the place of honour at the imperial pew, and the people would show the sign of total obedience. None of this happened. The believers quietly prayed together with the clergy from the altar, where St Basil continued his ministry unhindered as before.37 The emperor felt that he was losing his power, he had a slight dizziness, more from embarrassment than weakness, looked to the left, looked to the right, and remained almost immobile with the gifts in his hand (wafer and wine) that he brought as an offering, not knowing what to do. Deacons and priests were aware of the Emperor’s embarrassing situation, but they did not dare to make any gesture without Basil’s permission. Finally, perhaps at the discreet sign of the bishop, they took the offerings from the emperor’s hand and he sat down disconcerted and confused on the place reserved for state dignitaries.38 He believed that his arrival there would turn the Church of Christ into an imperial court, Basil would swear faith and blind obedience to him, but he now realised that in fact, the imperial court of God was the Church, and that Basil reigns in this place in the name of the Heavenly Father. He had time to reflect and, ultimately, to consider a change of strategy. Instead of a war he was about to lose, he must be satisfied with a convenient peace, written in terms that both the emperor and the metropolitan could accept. That is why at the end of the service, after taking off the garments, St Basil came in front of the holy divine doors to salute him and a little later they both retired for a private discussion (most probably in an auxiliary space of the cathedral39) which remains unknown in itself, but to some extent reveals its content through the subsequent measures that will have unpredictable consequences on the stability and tranquillity of the Church of Cappadocia. Some might say there was no confrontation here, rather a dialogue of the highest authorities of the Eastern Christian world. This is not necessarily wrong because by meeting him in person, Emperor Valens began to see St Basil and his followers’ activity in a different light. Actually, after this meeting St Basil agreed to go to Armenia on a religious-political mission, which was really very 32 Part 1 Dignity versus authority surprising, and Emperor Valens decided to concede more acceptance for St Basil’s Cappadocia and the Nicaean faith.

Father Emperor and Father Basil An episode less well-known and discussed is the illness of Valens’ son. If it is rightly said that in times of distress, of sorrow, people become more forgiving, capable of gestures and decisions in sharp contrast to their normal way of life, this fact was proved by Valens’ behaviour when confronted with a fight he could not win, that with death. Terrified at the prospect of losing his son, the emperor appealed to all the famous doctors, but the boy did not respond to any treatment. Then, the emperor abandoned science for faith and sent a message to Bishop Basil’s residence calling for him immediately, not for himself, but for his son who was struggling for his life. St Basil received the invitation with a certain amount of mistrust because he had heard that some of the Imperial dignitaries, sympathisers of Arianism, had persuaded the Emperor to send him into exile. The signature was the only thing that was missing, but this was only a matter of time. He did not know what to believe, but he decided to trust in God as he had done so many times, and would do until the end of his life. St Basil went to the imperial palace and found Valens’ son in a state of unconsciousness, with a severe fever and little chance of survival. However, he assured the Emperor that his son would recover if he were to be raised in the faith of the Church established at the Council of Nicaea. Tradition records that after St Basil’s prayers the child’s health improved, but his father did not respect the arrangement and entrusted him to the Arians. Shortly after Eudoxius baptised him, he died, and his Arian friends blamed St Basil and advised the Emperor to sign his expulsion decree.40 What happened next was another sign from God that not following the oath and violating the promise made before Him, or before the one who did the good deed by invoking the divine power, does not remain without a consequence. Valens, blinded by sorrow and determined to put an end to this state of uncertainty about the religious situation of Cappadocia, sat down at the writing table, took a quill pen to sign the decree, but it broke. The same happened with the second and the third, and eventually he decided to let go of it, realising that his will was not also God’s will.41 This story seems rather a legendary one, but it must also be seen symbolically, as the struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness, between truth and lie. It is hard to believe that St Basil, whose fate depended on a single word or gesture of Valens, would have given him any condition to heal his son. On the other hand, who can judge the behaviour of a man of God in extreme situations, when he is not the one who speaks and acts, but the power of the grace he has received from above! That is why I tend to believe that this meeting took place, and St Basil, though not with these words and perhaps not in a direct form, but by making use of his unmistakable pastoral tact and the diplomacy that characterised him, would have suggested to the Emperor to let the child be raised according to the faith of the one who prayed to God for his healing. And Valens, as a father, not as a king, would let his son follow any faith, only to get well. Unfortunately, as soon as he saw the 2 Two authorities in confrontation 33 signs of his child’s recovery, he forgot that he was a father and behaved like an emperor. In spite of these suspicions, if the story is true then it should be placed somewhere between the years 370–371. It would make no sense to date it after the Epiphany reconciliation in the year 372, especially when its beginning speaks of a decree, already signed, waiting to come into force, which included St Basil’s exile! Its place in the narration is rather meant to show that St Basil and the emperor Valens had no close relations at the beginning of his office as bishop, but that later a series of events took place which succeeded in changing the situation. A last aspect that should be underlined is the repetition of the negotiation process between the imperial representatives and the Bishop of Caesarea, whenever it was necessary. Negotiations followed a very distinct procedure, meant to defuse, as much as possible, the tension that persisted between the Arian and Orthodox people. And Modestus was one of the most gifted officials for this kind of mission.

Concluding remarks Even if St Basil and Emperor Valens had placed themselves on opposite positions as to the Christian doctrine and its importance for salvation, both of them avoided radical actions. Preparations for their meetings were difficult and lengthy, and nobody knows for certain which were the agreements they had and the terms that lay at their basis. For St Basil, meeting with Valens, known as the Arians’ firm supporter, and defusing the crisis in which the church from Caesarea of Cappadocia was involved, represent, perhaps, the most important mission of his entire career as a bishop because everything he achieved in theology, administration, charity, etc, could not happen except under the circumstances of a social, lasting peace, placed/based on solid principles, accepted both by the state and the Church. If we are to summarise his entire political activity to a single major conclusion, then we should say, as it was seen, that in a confrontation of the two authorities, human authority, even if it is imperial, dictatorial, and without any democratic support, will never defeat divine authority, the only legitimate and impeccable authority. The error which Emperor Valens made has been repeated throughout history by many rulers, but the result has always remained the same. Duplicity, hypocrisy, opportunism, lies, and demagogy are attributes of a small and mercantil- ist attitude, one unfortunately so present in our world, yet the authority of the Saints provides the only road to immortality.

Notes 1 Cf. Gregory of Nazianzen, The Panegyric on S. Basil, 34–36, NPNF 7, 406–408; see also Ioan G. Coman, ‘Personalitatea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare [The Personality of St Basil the Great]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare: Închinare la 1600 de ani de la săvârșirea sa, Bartolomeu Anania et al. (eds) (Bucharest: EIBMBOR, 1980), 28. 2 Cf. Gregory of Nazianzen, The Panegyric on S. Basil, 37, NPNF 7, 408. 3 For that moment and for his entire charitable work, see in particular: Benoît Gain, L’église de Capadoce au IV siècle d’aprés la correspondance de Basil de Cesarée 34 Part 1 Dignity versus authority (330–379), in Orientalia Christiana Analecta’, no 225 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientale, 1985): 277–289; for more details see Chapter 6 of the present work. 4 See, for instance the case of the monks Flavianus and Diodorus of Antioch, Aphraates or Julianus, Antonius of Alexandria, or those from the Chalcidian desert or the district of Zeugmatenses and others (Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History, IV. 25–26, NPNF 3, 128–129. 5 Manlio Simonetti, La crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 1975), 406. 6 In favour of such a supposition could be the two letters of St Athanasius the Great to John and Antiochus, respectively Paladius, in which the author expresses clearly his conviction that the bishop of Caesarea is a confessor and follower of the Nicaean truths, whose good faith and religious tolerance should not be mistaken as weaknesses. St Basil was highly esteemed by Athanasius the Great and if the bishop of Alexandria showed no restraints with him, then, undoubtedly, any accusation would become superfluous (Cf. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Letters LXII–LXIII, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (1891; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 579–580. 7 It was believed that, as a consequence of Basil’s ‘close relations’ to the imperial court, the prefect Modestus would have exiled Eunomius to Naxos, although the information does not accord with what happened by that time in Cappadocia, either historically or politically (Kopecek, A History of Neo-Arianism, 430–431). 8 For the details concerning his election as Arcbishop of Caesarea see: Stanislas Giet, Sasimes: Une Méprise de St Basile (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1941): 55–66; Nicu Dumitrașcu, ‘The Atypical friendship of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus’, 70–73. 9 St Basil the Great, Letter 126, NPNF 8, 196. 10 Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 14, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1996), 103; Sozomenos, The Ecclesiastical History, VI, 13, NPNF 2, 354–355. 11 Some authors consider that Evagrius was rather a moderate Semi-Arian ordained by Eustathius, but not of Antioch, because he couldn’t have been alive by that time, but by Eustathius of Sebaste (see Simonetti, La crisi Ariana nel IV secolo, 403, n 6; Hanns Christof Brenneke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer: der Osten bis zum Ende der homöischen Reichskirche (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988), 224). Their assertion, although interesting, is not supported by the historian Socrates, who was closer to the events, and as a consequence more reliable (Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 14, NPNF 2, 103. And if we take into consideration the fact that even Athanasius of Alexandria was alive by that time, we may consider that the latter opinion was more consistent. 12 Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 15, NPNF 2, 103. 13 A delegation of eight Nicaean clerics, led by Urbanus, Theodore and Menedemus went to Nicomedia to complain to the emperor. Valens was upset by their boldness and directed them to be killed. The chronicles say that they embarked on a ship that was set on fire by the crew immediately after they arrived in the middle of the Astacian Gulf (Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 16, NPNF 2, 104). 14 At the beginning of April 370, he was in Constantinople for the consecration of the Church ‘The Holy Apostles’. One month after his departure, when he arrived in Nicomedia, he heard about the death of Eudoxius. By the 30 April he arrived in Antioch, and after that we no longer know anything until 10 August, when his presence in Hierapolis was indicated. On 30 October, we trace him back in Antioch, and on 8 December in Constantinople, where he stayed until May 371. As a consequence we may suppose that in the spring of the year 370 Valens passed, in his travel from Constantinople to Antioch, near Caesarea of Cappadocia (For details, see: Raymond Van Dam, ‘Emperors, Bishops and Friends in Late Antique Cappadocia’, Journal of 2 Two authorities in confrontation 35 Theological Studies NS 37(1986): 53–76, Appendix I and II); A.H. Sayce, ‘The Early Geography of South-Eastern Asia Minor,’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 43 (1923): 44–49; Valens might also have visited Caesarea in the summer of the year 371, about which we know nothing. In any case, the most probable date for his presence in Caesarea of Cappadocia is January 372, when most of the historians place the meeting between the two people, in St Basil’s cathedral (Martin Percival Charlesworth, Trade- routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire (Cambridge: University Press, 1924); 131ff). 15 We say one of the oldest accounts of that moment because, chronologically speaking, another work of St Gregory of Nyssa was dated January 380, or 381. The author speaks about their meeting but the main purpose of the writing is to establish a feast day for his brother in martyrology. A series of very interesting parallels between the varied hypostasis St Basil appeared during his multiple activities, with characters from the Old and New Testament, among which the most interesting is that of him and St John the Baptist, are included. The author focuses more upon the conflict between Valens and bishop Basil than upon his meeting with the prefect Modestus. (Encomium of St Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, on his brother St Basil, archbishop of Cappadocian Caesarea: a commentary with a revised text, introduction and translation, ch. 14, Series Patristic Studies. Vol. 17 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University Press of America, 1928): 31–33; 11–18; 19–39; 41–51; See also for the dating of the ‘Encomium’ and in particular for the parallels between St Basil and many historical Old Testament figures: Andrea Sterk, ‘On Basil, Moses, and the Model Bishop: The Cappadocian Legacy of Leadership’ Church History 67.2 (1998): 231–239). 16 Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, book I, 12, NPNF 5, 47–49. The work was dated in the year 382, but there are also opinions according to which it might have been drawn up within the period 379–380, as an answer to Eunomius’s book, in two parts, ‘Apologia Apologiae’, which must have appeared in the year 378 (Cf. Kopecek, A History of Neo-Arianism, 493). The answer of St Gregory of Nyssa was considered to have come soon enough, but due to the typing and delivery conditions, we believe that the year 382 is much closer to the truth. 17 These possible mismatches are generally due to the lack of a very accurate dating of the events in the official and unofficial documents of the time. 18 See Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, I, 12, NPNF 5, 48. 19 Cf. Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 19, NPNF 3, 121–125. 20 The date generally accepted for the wording of this panegyric is 1 January 382. It seems that, together with another speech, referring to the debates of the second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, they formed initially a diptych. 21 St Gregory Nazianzen, Panegyric on S. Basil. Oration 43. 46, NPNF 7, 410. 22 St Gregory Nazianzen, Panegyric on S. Basil. Oration 43. 47, NPNF 7, 410. 23 We can imagine the intense political – religious correspondence between Antioch and Caesarea, after the election and installation of St Basil as bishop of Caesarea. 24 See the persecution of Edessa where, impressed by the faith of a woman who went for martyrdom together with her child, he announced Emperor Valens, stopped the fury unleashed on the believers of Nicaean, giving them the alternative of the communion with the Arian bishop, or the exile instead of death (Cf. Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History, IV. 17, NPNF 3, 120). 25 For this section see in particular Nicu Dumitrașcu, ‘Sfântul Vasile cel Mare și împăratul Valens într-o confruntare a autorităților [Saint Basil the Great and Emperor Valens in a confrontation of the Authority; Romanian Text]’, in Revelații ale Unității la Sfinții Părinți Capadocieni, ed. I. V. Leb et al. (Cluj-Napoca: The University of Cluj Press, 2013): 143–150. 26 While the Western Church has celebrated the Nativity, since the third century, on 25 December based on the tradition that the census of Caesar Augustus had taken place on this day, in 754 since the foundation of Rome, as some sources say, even at the 36 Part 1 Dignity versus authority beginning of Christianity in the East things were a little different. Here, until the second half of the fourth century, the Feast of the Nativity was celebrated together with the Baptism of the Lord; meaning on 6 January considering that the Saviour had been baptised in the Jordan, at the age of 30, on exactly the day He was born. The first reliable information about the separation of the two feasts and, of course, the moving of the Nativity feast to the 25 December, we have them from the year 375, from Church of Antioch, which shows us that, indeed, in Cappadocia, in the winter of 371–372 we have this situation (For more details about the two feasts, see Ene Branişte, Liturgica Generală (Bucharest: EIBMBOR Press, 1985): 194–204). 27 It would seem even that, apart from those in Cappadocia and Pontus, the other cities were required to embrace the Arian trend, for nobody dared to oppose the Emperor. Conversely, they sharpened his pride and soothed his arrogance: ‘Caesarea, you were sent by God and many are your years, you are our Saviour! Unfortunately, Caesarea still shows disobedience to your Highness. There is no something seriously, but do not derive from this a rebellion!’ (Papadopoulos, The Life of Saint Basil the Great, 164). 28 It is very difficult to dissociate intentions of purely military, political, strategic types of the Emperor from his religious beliefs. Often, those from the latter are subjected to political interests and contrasts with even the most intimate experiences of the sovereign. (Papadopoulos, The Life of Saint Basil the Great, 216). 29 It was believed that St Basil perfectly understood this method to discredit one, because he was repeatedly faced with it, and therefore, he was prepared to meet any situation with dignity and wisdom. He did not act instinctively, fast and furiously, but, conversely, he investigated and analysed each situation, trying to find the best solution, not necessarily the most convenient, but certainly the best. No matter how prepared he was for these moments, they produced in him desolation and sadness (Ioan G. Coman, ‘Saint Basil the Great and Atarbios or between calumny and honesty, ignorance and discernment, isolation and ecumenicity’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani (Saint Basil the Great, worship at the years 1630) Studia Basiliana 1., ed. Emilian Popescu (et al.) (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009): 636–637; Papadopoulos reserved an entire section to calumny in his work but he also notes the words of St Basil that ‘defamation brings him a great spiritual benefit’, Papadopoulos, The Life of Saint Basil the Great, 273–281, and 209). 30 See Papadopoulos, The Life of Saint Basil the Great, 235–238. 31 The disappointment and bitterness that Basil bestowed on his friend, Gregory, is acknowledged. By calling him to be Bishop of Sasima (a place that the latter would describe it as a ghost town, located at the junction of dangerous roads subject to the use of thieves and robbers, without vegetation and life, which pulsated of an ineffectual life, without opportunities for its few and ignorant locals, a place in which he stayed only a short time, not to return) he felt much aggrieved. However, without knowing it at the time, Sasima would play an important role in Gregory’s future life [See Papadopoulos, The Wounded Eagle: The Life of Saint Gregory the Theologian (Bucharest: Byzantine Press, 2002): 89–92]. 32 See, in particular, the known confrontation between St Basil and the prefect Modestus which transformed a feared opponent into great admirer, showing not only his qualities as leader of the Christians of Caesarea of Cappadocia, taking St Athanasius of Alexandria as an example and model, but also those of a skilled diplomat. Basil was able to transform a conflict into an opportunity to share Christian love and an opportunity to work, even with those hostile to him, to the benefit of his parishioners (Papadopoulos,The Life of Saint Basil the Great, 240–242). 33 For a general overview of his pastoral and ecumenical profile, see Coman, ‘The Personality of Saint Basil the Great’, 31–35. 34 Perhaps, therefore, he adopted a fairly relaxed policy on those who, for various reasons, had decided to abandon their Arian beliefs in favour of the communion with those who embrace the faith promulgated at Nicaea. It is possible that some may have been 2 Two authorities in confrontation 37 insincere but instead of mistrust and suspicion he opted for a concessionary attitude, a move surprising to some people, such as St Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, known for his radicalism. In sum, a bishop like St Basil, with a moral and doctrinal authority beyond all doubt, can afford to be gracious, without it being counted against him (Coman, Saint Basil the Great and Atarbios or between calumny and honesty, ignorance and discernment, isolation and ecumenicity, 639). 35 Nicu Dumitrașcu, ‘Trei emisari ai lui Valens în vederea pregătirii misiunii Sfântului Vasile cel Mare în Armenia [Valens’ three emissaries to prepare the mission of St Basil the Great in Armenia; Romanian Text]’, Orizonturi Teologice 4 (2001): 20–28. 36 Emilian Popescu argued this hypothesis in his brief intervention, after the lecture of Professor Stelianos Papadopoulos, during the debates of the international congress dedicated to St Basil the Great, Bucharest, 1–4 November 2009. See also Popescu, ‘Sfântul Vasile cel Mare despre sine și familie în scrisorile sale [St Basil the Great about himself and family in his letters]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 3., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 16. 37 Sabine McCormack draws an interesting comparison between this moment, astonishing by its intensity of feelings, and that of Constantius’s entrance in Rome (in Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, Berkeley, CA: 1981, pp. 33 ff): see also Raymond Van Dam Raymond, Becoming Christian: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 165–166. 38 St Gregory Nazianzen, Panegyric on S. Basil. Oration 43. 52, NPNF 7, 412. Henry Chadwick may not be correct on this account or description. He said that St Basil was embarrassed not Valens, because he would enter in communion with the Emperor in front of his large Christian audience (Henry Chadwick, ‘Orthodoxy and heresy from the death of Constantine to the eve of the first council of Ephesus’ in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire A.D. 337–425, 2d edn, ed. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 576). Actually, Chadwick creates confusion between the significance of ‘quasi-communion’ and that of ‘communion’ which is Eucharist. The first is a kind of polite gesture that means the bishop greeted the emperor inviting him to discuss, the other implies that both bishop and Emperor share the same faith, the same Christian customs. We do not know what happened exactly because St Gregory ends the account at that point. However, it is unlikely to have given him the Eucharist, taking into account their different religious sympathies. 39 However, we may never know what really happened in the cathedral of Cappadocian Caesarea, on the Epiphany day of the year 372; all we know is after the Liturgy Emperor ‘entered within the veil’ (St Gregory Nazianzen, Panegyric on S. Basil. Oration 43. 53, NPNF 7, 412). That is Valens entered the altar and had probably a short protocol conversation, and then both went to a proper room to discuss the official matters. Anyway, we may presume that Basil admitted Valens to the holy place but ‘refusing him communion’ (Cf. George Huntston Williams, ‘Christology and Church– State Relations in the Fourth Century’, Church History 20: 4 (1951), 4). 40 Maisie Ward, ‘Saint Basil and the Cappadocians’, in In Honor of Saint Basil the Great +379 (Still River, MA: St. Bede’s Publications, 1979), 18. 41 M. L’Abbé Fleury, The Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2, 16 ( London: Printed by T. Wood, for J. Crokatt, at the Golden Kay near the Inner-Temple in Fleet Street, 1728), 438.

Part 2 St Basil, St Nerses and Armenia: mission and church diplomacy

3 St Nerses the Great, Armenia and his blessed mission

The history of Christianity has recorded the famous controversy between St Basil and the Emperor Valens over the relationship, in terms of the exercise of authority, between the Church of Cappadocia and imperial power, in which periods of both tension and stability were experienced. But there has been only a brief mention of the existence of a certain understanding, a certain compromise reached by the two, after which Valens ceased his persecution against Basil and the latter agreed to make a missionary trip to Armenia, as a delegate of the emperor. The declared aim was to put the religious life of the Armenian dioceses in order, but it seems that the mission also had a political purpose. Armenia was, over time, in the area of influence of both the Eastern Roman Empire and the Persian Empire. Therefore, in order to better understand the importance of this trip, we will analyse, in the first part of this chapter, the life and work of another great father of that era, St Nerses the Great. It is known that he was a contemporary of St Basil and, in the view of many people, was influenced directly or indirectly by the Bishop of Cappadocia and the Church from this great Christian province.

St Nerses the Great in the Armenian historiography Nerses was one of the most important hierarchs of the Armenian Church, or, rather, one of the great leaders, both religious and political, of Armenia. We have no information as to the date and place of his birth, but this is unsur- prising, because the same is also true of Armenian kings. The lack of the Armenian alphabet (written language) which was made only in the early fifth century,1 means that we have to try to reconstruct a chronology of the life of political and religious leaders of Armenia in the early centuries, using, especially, the information recorded in the writings of Roman and Persian historians, contemporary with the persons concerned and, of course, witnesses to the events in which they took part.2 In addition we will also use two Armenian sources, but these were produced much later and contain a great many uncertainties and non-synchronisations both in date and location.3 If we can only approximate the date of his birth (most likely around 325, year of the First Council of Nicaea) we know with certainty that he was ‘great- great-grandson of Gregory the Illuminator’.4 More specifically, he was the son of 42 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy At’anagines, who was son of Yusik, who was son of Vratnes, son of Gregory the Illuminator.5 We also know that he was educated in Cappadocia and he married very young. In connection with this important moment in his life, the records are contradictory. If PB does not mention the name of the future wife or of her father,6 MK says that she was the daughter of a nobleman named Aspion.7 However, another later Armenian source suggests – which seems credible – that Nerses would not have married a girl from a noble family in Caesarea, but with one of the ‘family Mamikonean’, Sandukht, daughter of Vardan Mamikonian, who gave him a son named Sahak the Great.8 St Nerses was undoubtedly the dominant figure of the Armenian Church in the second half of the fourth century, leading in the period 353–373.9 As Catholicos of Armenia he preserved the political and religious line (orientation) of his predecessors.10 Here, it is worth looking at some aspects of St Gregory, to better understand how his legacy was taken and developed by Nerses, but also Nerses’ relationship with Basil, by affiliation to Caesarea and in similarity regarding the missionary–pastoral work.

A short historical and political discussion of Armenia in the fourth century After the death of Tiridates III, his son Xosrov III was placed on the throne (330– 335) and the Armenian kingdom experienced a period of development and prosperity.11 After nearly 40 years had passed since the agreement of Nisibis (297–298), according to which the Sasanids recognised the independence of Armenia under the Roman suzerainty and placed the Persian satrapies under Roman directorship as civitates feoderatae liberae et immunes (free territories), asking for their loyalty to the imperial interests,12 in 335, Shapur II (309/310–379) restarted hostilities against Byzantium with the desire to recapture the territories and to take control over the Caucasus. Just a few months before the war started, Constantine the Great died. During the time of his successors in the East: Constantius II (337–361), Julian the Apostate (361–363), Jovian (363–364), Valens (364–378) and Theodosius the Great (379–395), the two major forces of the time, Roman and Persian were in perpetual conflict, with only brief periods of peace. Armenia became the battle- ground between the two, due to its geographical position, and the king (whoever he was) was in the unpleasant and dangerous situation of proving loyalty to both.13 At the same time, the position of religion must not be overlooked. On the one hand, there was the Zoroastrian Iran, to which many princely houses looked, even after the conversion of Armenia to Christianity, from political interests, and on the other, there was the Eastern Roman Empire, to which the peoples of the Caucasus belonged in cultural and spiritual terms.14 Therefore, the issue of maintaining good relations with both empires without endangering the existence of the Church and even more without losing their national identity and political autonomy represented a great challenge for Armenia. Let us not forget that the structure of feudal society in the Caucasus, and in particular of Armenia, was private because it was composed 3 St Nerses and his blessed mission 43 of many princely houses (naxarars), and the king did not have a higher status than primus inter pares.15 Armenia, a largely mountainous country, consisted of separate regions, led by nobles. Their power in the provinces they controlled rivalled that of the king. There were many conflicts among them, each trying to consolidate his authority and to protect his interests by any means. They were therefore, very reluctant to adopt and support a policy in common with the royal, official one.16 The existence of centrifugal attitudes often obstructed the formation of a strong central government that could effectively and consistently oppose the two major powers in the neighbourhood. It is no secret that the biggest danger to the stability of a nation is the existence of internal political divisions. The same was true in Armenia, where they were not only encouraged, but also induced and exploited to the maximum extent by Persians and Romans alike. And the first to be won over was, undoubtedly, the king himself.17 Knowing how changeable the minor royals were, who were within the boundaries of the great empires, always ready to succumb to the pressure of one or the other, depending on the momentary interests and the ‘assessment’ of a possible winner, Byzantines employed all known means, from relief of the taxes and political blood kinship, to bribery, as Constantius had done with Arshak II.18 The situation remained tense also during the reign of Julian the Apostate, but after his death, Jovian was forced to sign a humiliating treaty with Shapur II, giving up the traditional Roman claims to Mesopotamia and especially Armenia, to which were also added the territories of Iberia (Georgia) and Caucasian Albania.19 The consequences of this act would be disastrous for Armenia because, from this point, in addition to the political influence of Sassanid, who would take control in the regions mentioned above instead of Rome, the religious influence of the Zoroastrian Iranian religion would play an important role in Armenia. After the betrayal and arrest of the Armenian King Arshak II, by the agents of Shapur II (who was no longer reliable, being in collaboration with Constantius and Julian) Armenia was isolated, with no help or protection from Christian defenders, and was practically, absorbed into the Persian Empire. Therefore, the situation of the Christian Church of Armenia was difficult and unstable, because there was no way in which it could detach itself from the political situation. It was natural that the Armenian people would be under the Roman sphere of influence, but in reality, there were many situations where noble houses, wavered between Christianity and Zoroastrianism or Mazdeism.20 This indecision of the local leaders was about to play an important role in the future doctrinal controversies and within internal church divisions.21 Some princes would always oscil- late between the Romans and Persians, between Christianity and Zoroastrianism, without any problem. The family interest, of caste, was more important than any religious or political consistency.22 This situation changed in 370, when the Emperor Valens became involved in Caucasian politics, after he consolidating his military position. He understood that the Eastern Roman Empire could no longer afford to leave a clear path for the Persian influence in the territories of Armenia and sent a contingent with the 44 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy mission to support the young king Pap, the son of Arshak, against both princes loyal to Iran and therefore against the empire itself.23 In the next year the king also sent 12 legions in the north-eastern part of Armenia, and in Georgia, with the aim of depriving the king Aspacures, installed by the Persians, and to make the return of the former king, Sauromaces possible, as their vassal. Naturally, Shapur saw Valens’ actions as a violation of the Treaty of Nisibis, signed with Jovian, overlooking the fact that he himself had not fully respected it. In the spring of 371, the Roman-Persian war took place at Bagawan, and Armenia fought alongside Valens. The conflict ended with the defeat of the Sassanid; the Persians were forced to leave the Caucasus, but it did not lead to resolution of the political situation of the Armenians. Finally, in the time of Theodosius the Great, an unequal division of Armenia was made between the Eastern Roman Empire, with a fifth of the territory, and the Persian, with four-fifths.24 This agreement was signed after many negotiations, over three years (387–390),25 between the two empires and had, as a direct effect, the fall of the Arsacid Armenian kingdom under the two spheres of influence. The Byzantine part practically ended its existence, because, after the death of the King Arshak III (390), it was transformed into an imperial province, under the leadership of a governor.26 At this point we can refer to a complete separation of the Church here from its spiritual centre that remained in the Persian part, which automatically led to a process of dissolution of its Armenian character, now being integrated into the sphere of influence of the Byzantine Church and therefore, controlled by it.

Conversion of the Armenians The conversion of the Armenian people is linked to the names of two great personalities from the end of the second century and the beginning of the next century, Tiridates III and Gregory the Illuminator.27 Tiridates III, son of Xosrov II, was a General in the Roman army and, after the peace following Nisibis (298), he was sent by the Emperor Diocletian as King of Armenia in order to ascend the throne of his ancestors from the Arsacida dynasty. On the way, he wanted to thank the gods, but he discovered that one of his servants was a Christian and he had refused to execute the order. This was Gregory, a noble young Parthian, closely related to his Arsacida dynasty. As a child he had been taken to Cappadocia and educated there, in a Christian atmosphere, very well organised.28 Because he did not respect the desire of the King to worship idols, he was tortured. Moreover, when the King found out about his identity, he ordered that ‘obstinate Christian’ to be sent to Artašat and thrown into a subterranean prison. Gregory was released only after 13 years, at the same time as the conversion of his people to Christianity.29 AG relates, of course in miraculous terms, that during the time he was imprisoned, there were several extraordinary events in the capital of the Armenian kingdom of that time, Vałaršhapat. A group of virgins arrived in Armenia, most likely because of the persecution in Byzantium, and King Tiridates III fell in love with one of them, Hřip‘simē. Despite repeated attempts to dishonour her, he failed and in retaliation ordered the martyrdom of the entire group. The 3 St Nerses and his blessed mission 45 King became sick, and in his dream it appeared that the only one who could cure him was Gregory. He sent someone to bring Gregory and he was healed with his prayers. Tiridates was convinced that before him was a saint sent by God and he decided, at that moment, to become Christian and to proclaim the new religion as the state religion. Consequently all the people were baptised and Armenia became the first Christian nation in history.30 Beyond the legendary aspect and historical inaccuracies, it should be noted that this was the moment when radical change occurred in the life of the King Tiridates III, and therefore, automatically, of his subjects. From being a persecutor of Christianity, like Saul, he became promoter and protector of it, and Gregory, from being a confessor of Christ, tortured, persecuted and forgotten in prison, became the one to bring enlighten- ment to the Armenian nation. Soon after his ordination in Caesarea of Cappadocia as Catholicos of Armenia,31 Gregory began to be very industrious in a number of different fields, totally supported by Tiridates III. He proved to be not only a gifted preacher of the word of Christ, but also a very qualified leader and organiser of his Church. His mission took place primarily in the entire territory of his own country, and also across the border in Georgia (Iberia), Caucasian Albania and Lazicum lands.32 He built a large number of churches, instead of pagan temples. He ordained priests and bishops in many places, for the Armenian communities, as well as for others from abroad. He founded schools where they learnt Greek and Syriac, some of which were intended exclusively for the training future priests.33 He personally coordinated all administrative activities in his church, laying the foundations for the great work of his successor, St Nerses, over a half of century in Armenia, and St Basil in Caesarea of Cappadocia.

St Nerses the Great: Catholicos of Armenia St Nerses was ordained as a bishop, like his illustrious predecessor, Gregory, and, of course, like his contemporary, Basil, in Caesarea of Cappadocia. His rise to the rank of Catholicos of Armenia was a moment of great joy,and he was accompanied by a large and diverse suite of princes and bishops, including a bishop from Georgia.34 This was celebrated not only by Armenians, but also by the people who were in the political and ecclesiastical wake of the kingdom of Arshak. Therefore, immediately after the moment of his recognition as Patriarch of Armenia, he also received the title of Archbishop of Georgia and Albania.35 That is why, when the bishop of Georgia died, he ordained Yakob, his own deacon, and send him in the place of that bishop.36

Mission and diplomacy in the historical sources Both St Nerses and St Basil received from their political leaders diplomatic assignments, which shows us not only their personal qualities as good negotiators and mediators, but demonstrates the role the Church played in the foreign policy of states in the fourth century. In the case of Basil, of whom we will talk later, things seem to be clearer than that of Nerses because of difficulties in correlating historical data. 46 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy Nina Garsoian makes a pertinent analysis of this information, using three primary sources, trying to compose the true historical picture of the relations between the Byzantine Empire and the Armenian kingdom in the time of Nerses, and the importance of the diplomatic missions that he undertook. She concludes that we can talk about two missions of Nerses, regardless of their purpose or time.

First historical source: P’awstos Buzand (PB)

The first mission With regard to the purpose of this mission, sources discussed by Garsoian largely disagree and put us in a dilemma. And this is because PB speaks about a first mission, placed about the early reign of Arshak II, which would be aimed at renew- ing the peace treaty (in terms of vassalage, of course) and was a real success for Armenia, but a disaster for Nerses. More specifically, the Primate of Armenia, accompanied by an impressive delegation, went to the imperial court, where he was received by ‘Valens’ with specific honours for an official in his rank (both religious and political). The mission was successfully accomplished and the entire delegation returned home with the certain promise of political stability, evidenced also by the release of the two grandchildren of the king, Gnel and Tirit.37 He, however, was punished and exiled by the Emperor.38 Here we are faced with some uncertainties, first, ‘Valens’ as he appears here in text, is actually Constantius, because he is both contemporary with Arshak (especially if we consider the mission at the beginning of his reign) and also with Shapur, king of Persia, with whom he concluded, after a long war, a peace treaty in 350.39 Second, PB ascribes to Nerses the episode regarding the ‘healing of the son of Valens’ that would occur later between Basil and Valens, trying to explain the exile of the first as being due to his refusal to intervene over the support of Arianism by the Emperor. Moreover, the alleged meeting between the two, Nerses and ‘Valens’, is described in terms that indicate rather a doctrinal confrontation focused on the divinity of the Son and its significance for salvation. In other words, Nerses possessed the knowledge required to expound the Nicaean doctrine in front of an emperor who was not only Arian, without suspecting him of who knows what theological abilities, but who also had a great suffering, the disease of his son! This does not seem to be credible. And then, how is this Basilian interpolation explained? For what reason has PB, included this episode in his history? Did he use unreliable data or did he include false information knowingly? The answer could come from a historian’s desire to create a special aura for his favourite bishop, Nerses, to glorify his deeds and transform him into a legend. He is not the only writer who did this kind of thing. Let us remember Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, who almost sanctified Constantine and his sons. It is obvious that building his history in the early fifth century, when Christianity became the state religion in the Eastern Roman Empire and the figures of the great Cappadocian fathers were alive in the collective memory, PB tried to transfer some of the merits of the most prominent Cappadocian Bishop, Basil, 3 St Nerses and his blessed mission 47 upon the primacy of his church, that of Nerses, drawing attention to their similar struggles, both against the state power, as cruel and despotic, in both empires, and also against the Arians and Neo-Arians.40

The second mission The second mission of Nerses would have concerned – although PB does not mention his name in that delegation – bringing Ablabios daughter, Olympias,41 from Byzantium, as a wife for King Arshak, following the contemptuous attitude that his first wife displayed. She was none other than the widow of his grandson, Gnel, named P ̔aŕanjem.42 It is hard to believe, however, that Nerses, after directly accusing Arshak of the death of Gnel, after the plot hatched by another nephew, Tirit (who would also die by order of his uncle) would have participated in another delegation to Constantinople with a mission so noble. Otherwise, PB himself says that after the confrontation between the two, Nerses would never meet again with Arshak. The King deprived himself of Nerses’ services, bringing in his place another bishop, Č‘unak, who was, as the author calls him ‘the slave of slaves of the King’. In other words, a docile man, devoid of personality, willing to do whatever the king said without saying a word of opposition.43 This profile of this hierarch is well known in Eastern religious tradition, but it has been multiplied many times since, so that today these hierarchies isolate themselves from capable people who might advise them well, in favour of humble servants, whose only quality is that of pleasing them. Therefore it is about two missions.

The second source: Life of St Nerses The Life of St Nerses (which I have not had available), according to Garsoian, mentions the events recorded above by PB, but in a different chronological order, ranging between rigorous historical analysis and an imaginative and epic construction. For example, the death of Gnel is placed before the first mission of Nerses, which had meant to bring the princess Olympias as wife for King Arshak, and the second mission was, to have been caused by the attack launched by the Emperor of Constantinople against Armenia when he heard that his relative was poisoned. Putting the two delegations of the Armenian primacy in this order leads to some ‘logical and temporal inconsistencies,’ such as: the failure of the council responsible for the exile of Nerses, reduction of this exile from nine years to nine months, or the release of the prisoners, starting with prince Gnel (obviously we could say, because at that time he should already be dead!). So it must be understood Arshak’s alleged expedition against the Roman Eastern Empire which would not be further from Chrisopolis, Valens’ death due to the supernatural intervention of Nerses, or the release of the latter by Theodosius and his participation at the work of the two ecumenical synods in Constantinople in the year of 381. Based on the information we have now, we can say with certainty that this work has a symbolic importance rather than historical. Some information presented 48 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy here, taken together, is found in the other stories, but most of it has no historical value. It is sufficient to mention the presence of Nerses at Constantinople in 381, although it is widely accepted that he died in 373.44

The third source: Moses Khorenats‘I (MK) The third source that we will discuss here is History of Armenia of Moses Xoneraci.45 It is the only one that has substantial arguments for the existence of two missions of Nerses, because, unlike PB, it mentions the name of the Armenian primate in connection with the first and also for the second Armenian delegation to Byzantium.

The first mission The account relates how the first mission is the result of Arshak’s contemptuous attitude when he received the letter from the emperor Valentinian, urging him to give up his allegiance to King Shapur of Persia and become his ally, under conditions of bondage, paying tribute and being faithful to the Eastern Roman Empire. Rather than answer the emperor and enjoy the prospect of a secure protection by the Romans, respecting the terms of a strong political partnership, even if it was in unequal conditions, he decided not to give him any response and chose to deal with the imperial messengers with arrogance and contempt, spending his time in feasts and dances, believing that no danger could reach him.46 His lack of respect was punished severely and quickly by Valentinian.47 His brother, Trdat, was killed, and General Theodosius was sent as the head of a large army to crush Armenia and punish its king. Facing this heightened danger, Arshak sent Nerses as the head of an official delegation to defuse the conflict that he himself had created. Therefore, the primate of Armenia went to Constantinople and succeeded not only in settling the conflict, by paying a significant and long-term tribute, but in releasing the prisoners from the imperial court, headed by Gnel, son of his brother Trdat. He also returned with Olympias, a young noblewoman and relative of the king, to be Arshak’s wife and thus strengthen the link between the leaders of both states.48

The second mission The second mission is placed after the death of Gnel and Olympias, and also of Valentinian, more precisely when Arshak was in conflict both with Sasanids and with his own court and the imperial Roman army was at the borders. In this situation, Arshak enlisted once again the help of Nerses whom he begged, with promises of good behaviour and obedience to the precepts of the Gospel, to come and rescue him from the hand of the Romans. His appeal was also supported by the one of the nobles (with whom he was not in the best relationships, quite the contrary) and even by a gathering of bishops (probably also persuaded by him), telling him that he could not be indifferent to the destruction of his own country. 3 St Nerses and his blessed mission 49 This change in attitude was not very surprising, since both the political and religious worlds have not changed too much. Then, as now, political-religious re-orientation was common. A dictator such as Arshak was like a chameleon, who changed his behaviour depending on the situation he faced at any given point. There was absolutely no problem in making empty promises in exchange for a very strong political support. Nerses accepted. He returned and prepared his mission. The King and nobles (except two) thanked him. The nobles met as a council and signed an agreement which was given to the king, obliging him to rule justly and in return they would obey him. Nerses went to the Roman army and asked them not to attack the country, but to agree to receive a tribute and the king’s son, along with other nobles, sons of nobles, as hostages, and to return home. General Theodosius accepted and returned to his country, also taking Nerses with him, with Arshak’s letter.49 It seems that ‘Valens’ (Constantius) did not read the letter, and did not meet with Nerses, but ordered that he must be exiled, and all hostages must be killed.50 This version presented in the history of MK seems more logical and well articulated, but even it cannot be fully supported. We do not intend to analyse here, in detail, each discrepancy (Nina Garsoian has already done so), but we will try to reconstruct the possible dual mission of Nerses in Byzantium, co-ordinating the information contained in the sources mentioned above in a speculative scenario, rather than as concrete history. We are less interested in the history of these missions, than in their motivation and also the discovery of some common elements with that of Basil in Armenia. Why did he accept the missions? When did they occur? Why was he exiled? What is the difference between the relationship of Nerses and Arshak / Pap and between the one of Basil and Valens?

Mission and diplomacy: A new interpretation

Possible scenario Although Nerses’ missions cannot be dated with certainty, regarding the first one, the year 358 proposed by Nina Garsoian seems most appropriate,51 since it would largely cover a range of other information present in the two stories, PB and MK. The details are as follows: Nerses went to Constantinople (or to Sirmium) to Constantius, (not Valens), to reconfirm the existing alliance between the Romans and Armenians, with a substantial tribute and promise of a full support when it came to the Sassanid threat; his message was received with great joy and, as a sign of its acceptance, the emperor loaded him with presents, released the hostages headed by Prince Gnel and promised to king Arshak that he would give Olympias to be his wife, from the imperial family. Nerses returned, perhaps only with Prince Gnel and nobles released by the emperor. Olympias, accompanied appropriately for a princess of her rank, came later with an official delegation, perhaps at the end of the next year, or even in 360. This historical classification of the first mission of Nerses accords quite well with some other information which, although not fully supporting each other, completes a very coherent picture of the events. His presence at the imperial court of Constantinople could not have taken place any earlier 50 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy because it may not otherwise be explained why, in 358, King Arshak received a special dispensation from the emperor, for himself and his family, in terms of taxes collected for tribute. The information must be linked to the decision to strengthen his political alliance with a family one, by marriage with Princess Olympias. Then, Nerses would have had enough time to return in his country and to be a witness at the death of Prince Gnel (for the reasons noted above), which we know occurred on 29 August 359. Other major events related by PB and MK could have taken place in later years, namely: death of Prince Tirit, guilty of the conspiracy hatched against his cousin, Gnel, the forced marriage of the latter’s wife, P ̔aŕandzem with the King Arshak, and the poisoning of Arshak’s second wife, Olympias. The second mission of the Armenian Patriarch in Constantinopol seems to have taken place between 359–360, but certainly before the death of Constantius, which we know was on 3 November 361. According to historical scholarship, soon after he found out about the heinous crime committed by Arshak against his nephew Gnel, Nerses accused the king of wrongdoing and left the royal court, coming out of his entourage and refusing any further collaboration with the murderous king. That is why he was not present at the other murder provoked by the P ̔aŕandzem’s jealousy of Olympias. He returned to the front line when Arshak, seeing that there was no escape from the Persian danger, from the revolt of the Armenian nobles and from the imminent arrival of the Roman army led by Theodosius, promised severe penance and total obedience to the Patriarch, on condition that he agree to be his emissary of peace to the imperial court in Constantinople. Love for his own people was greater than disbelief in the words of his king, as was confirmed by the further development of his behaviour52 and, as is noted above, by his leading the peace delegation to Constantius. Dating this mission to a period between 359–360 is supported also by the fact that it fits quite well with his exile of nine years, as we know from the sources that he reappeared on the Armenian political stage to support King Pap, Arshak’s son, in the years 368/369. Moreover, his exile could be linked to the two important councils of Seleucia53 and Constantinople54 which ended with the deposition and banishment of the anti- Arian bishops, some of them even from Armenia Minor.55 Although Nerses’ name does not appear in the documents of those councils, the period during which he was banished along with his friends fully accords with the religious events that occured in that period. Constantius was concerned with resolving the Arian controversy and he watched carefully what happened at the Council of Rimini, in the summer of 359, where all Western bishops were convened, and the Council of Seleucia, for the Eastern bishops, in September 359. He wanted to declare, on 1 January 360, that he had restored religious peace in the empire.56 There is, therefore, enough evidence to support such a scenario.

A non-assumed mission Garsoian raises another piece of information, which further complicates things, namely the arrival of a Persian official delegation in the capital of the Eastern 3 St Nerses and his blessed mission 51 Roman Empire, on 23 February 358,57 led by ‘a certain Narses’.58 It can easily be seen that there is a surprising correlation between the first mission of Nerses (as was stated earlier) and this one invoked now, both in terms of the time when they allegedly took place and the names of their leaders.59 In connection with this we might note the fact that, in 359, King Shapur II began a compaign against the Romans. However, at first sight this tells us very little, because both routes and objectives remain unknown. However, if we speculate a little, we might agree with Lightfoot, who thinks that, actually, Shapur intended to attack the Roman army in Armenia Minor and Cappadocia by a ‘flash assault’.60 In this context, it might be possible that there has simply been confusion over names.

New comments and suppositions Although it is tempting to identify the two references in the person of Nerses the Great, as Garsoian reports, based on assumptions which are cleverly constructed and well motivated,61 I do not think that it can be possible, for a number of reasons. First, a historian so well informed regarding the Persian aristocracy or nobility as was Ammianus Marcellinus, even if he did not know the Armenian primate personally, would not have written the name of the leader of the Persian delegation equivocally. Second, if we try to give some credit to such identification, it is incomprehensible that there is no information, no mention, no allusion, even a small one, regarding a Persian delegation to the imperial court in Byzantium led by the Armenian Catholicos in the stories of PB and MK. Clearly, these two important sources for the history of the Armenian people, which are full of inaccuracies regarding the time, but which were designed to construct a legendary image for the Patriarch Nerses, would not only have inserted the event itself, but would certainly have added numerous details calculated to enhance his brilliance and to perfect his aura. This is made even more likely by the fact that they wrote their stories later, in the century after the unfolding of these alleged meetings. So they would have had the time, the motivation and the necessary elements for such an approach, but they did not. Third, if we consider the nature of the first mission, it is very clear that even Nerses did not know how to conduct such a meeting with an emperor whom he had never met and whose likely reactions were unknown to him. Therefore, he did not have the experience, nor the qualifications for a mission which was so complex and on which the fate of his people depended.

Impossible scenario If we consider the identification of the head of the Persian Delegation as being Nerses the Great Catholicos, then we must be able to identify both missions. This, however, leads us into the realm of speculation, or even of subjectivity. In other words, to support such a theory with its somewhat fanciful character, we should assume that there was a secret agreement between Shapur and Arshak regarding a double goal for the same mission, assumed by both parties, namely: on the one 52 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy hand, to secure peace between the Armenian kingdom and the Byzantine empire, strengthened by the payment of a tribute by the Armenian to the Byzantine, with all appropriate assurances of fidelity in such an approach, a proposal accepted and confirmed by the surprising blood kinship; on the other hand, the signing of a treaty favourable to the Sassanid in front of their traditional adversaries, within the limits permitted by the principal messenger. This could be an explanation for the serious discrepancy between the stiffness of the terms in which the letter for the Persians was written and the diplomatic and elegant manner in which it was sent to the Emperor Constantius. That also might explain the changing tone of such presentations. A Persian official would not have dared to change anything in the tone of a message from his king because he could have paid for it with his life. But a Christian cleric, familiar with the turbulence of ecclesiastical diplomacy, would have had the courage, and also the ability, to do so. And indeed, if the mission had failed (here I refer to its Sassanian appearance) it would have been said that it had not really involved the Sassanid diplomacy, but involved a message sent through an intermediary who had failed to perform as was appropriate to his delegation. This construction keeps us in the area of speculation and cannot be supported by any reliable data. However, if we consider the duplicitous behaviour of Arshak II who was capable of changing his position on a whim, but yet in imminent danger of being crushed by the power of two major empires, it is not surprising that he would have appealed to any who might be able to protect him, by any political or diplomatic strategy, including some that might be seen as suicidal. For what could be more dangerous than trying to convince two great ‘referees’ in the world of the first centuries that you are a friend to both of them, knowing that they are in constant conflict with each other, psychologically, if not actually at war. But such a diplomatic–religious scenario might, possibly, be a future topic of debate. But as we have not intended to develop this line of enquiry, but only to determine the nature and powers of a secular mission led by a cleric to defend his own nation, we will look only at some comments and assumptions, designed to provide us with a clearer image of the role played by Nerses in the history of Armenia, both ecclesiastical and political, compared to the role played by Basil.

Social activity in question St Nerses had, besides his many missionary assignments, an important social activity,62 although it remains questionable, at least in relation to its source of inspiration. As Nerses was a contemporary of St Basil the Great, who is credited with being the creator of a social care system, revolutionary for its time, which was taken over, developed, and perfected in the centuries following,63 we tend to think that Nerses was also aware of the existence of such activities, which would influence him, decisively. But there are also contrary opinions, from some competent researchers, and it is interesting to see how they argue their positions. In this study, we will refer only to one, namely, Nina Garsoian, whom I have cited earlier in this chapter.64 3 St Nerses and his blessed mission 53 Garsoian says that it is impossible for the bishop of Caesarea to have had influence on Nerses due to the chronological mismatch. At first glance, it seems that she is right. But if we take into account all aspects of this issue and especially the source used by Garsoian to support her assumptions in this regard, the reality seems more slightly more nuanced and, anyway, several questions arise. One problem is that she uses the same source for her claims as, elsewhere, she criticises adversely for chronological inconsistencies, foreign interpolations and a tendency for them to be mythical in character rather than historical. This is the source PB. There is, therefore, a natural question: why sometimes PB is considered a source with a mythical nature, unreliable, because it is full of impossible historical ‘episodes’ and sometimes one worthy to be noticed? How does Garsoian deal with the distinction between the contradictory information presented in this work and what she regards as reliable?

A possible explanation and interpretation The official dating of when the social activity was organised, under its countless manifestations, in Cappadocia, known as Basiliad, is accepted as being 372 (373), while that of Nerses could be located (according to Garsoian) much earlier, in the 350s, probably after 353, when it is assumed that he had been ordained as Catholicos of Armenia; more specifically between 353–358/359, when it appears that he was sent into exile. The only information on the organisation of a social assistance in Armenia of Nerses, is in PB, a source which, as I mentioned earlier, is unreliable.65 In fact, why should not this related episode also be a Basilian interpolation, as was demonstrated in the case of the so called miraculous healing of the son of Valens carried out by Nerses? If we consider the turbulent history of Armenia at the time of Nerses, when the political situation was highly variable and unfavourable for organised social activities because of competing Roman and Persian influences and also because of the interests of the ruling houses, we might think that the ‘Basiliad’ of Nerses was an institution that was rather fragile and difficult to compare with the true one, of St Basil. Therefore, the author PB, who would have had every incentive to transfer a recognised activity of Basil into the account of Nerses, provided it was credible, placed it in the rural world. Why? Because Armenia at that time was a country torn by internal fighting, ruled by dukes or princes who exerted the same authority over their lands as the king himself, and the development of a social assistance system would doubtless follow the political organisational system. The great houses of nobility had their own army and their own propagandist literature; skilled historians glorified the weaponry of their members and they also had churches, funded by them and which, in addition to religious assistance, offered social assistance too.66 So, it can be said about rural social assistance that it was perfectly adapted to the political situation. Organising the provision of social care in a rural setting needed this type of specificity. If this image is closer to the truth, then PB had justification in transferring a part of the greatness of Basiliad of the Bishop of Caesarea towards Nerses of Armenia. 54 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy Nina Garsoian, supports her claim that Basil would not have had any influence on Nerses, by arguing that the establishment of a temporal correspondence between the two would have been impossible. At first glance this too seems correct. Most historical sources state that Nerses would have been born around 325 (making him only a few years older than Basil) and that he was ordained Catholicos, through an exceptional combination of circumstances (which I have already described), very young, in 353. St Basil could not have attended his ordination, either as an officiant, or as a participant, assisting the bishop Eusebius as a priest,67 because at that time he was studying in Athens.68 If he, somehow, had participated in the ordination of Nerses officiated by Bishop Eusebius of Cappadocia, then he would have done it only in the capacity of observer, maybe in a vacation, which is extremely unlikely, especially if we consider that Basil was baptised only in 357, after his return from Athens. Therefore, I think, at least regarding the historical dating of the ordination of Nerses, that Garsoian’s arguments are indicative and reliable. Regarding, however, her comments about the possible Cappadocian influence (perhaps not directly of St Basil) on the social activities carried out under the pontificate of Nerses in Armenia, these are not sufficiently supported by the evidence and other considerations. First, I have great doubts about the start of community activities in Armenia by Nerses immediately after his ordination, partly because of his youth and lack of experience, and also partly due to the sociopolitical upheavals in which he was forced to become involved (for example, the two diplomatic missions which he received, as exceptional tasks outside his direct concerns). Second, if there was some activity in this area, it cannot be considered as a social assistance system, but rather an attempt to set up a few disparate social centres,69 depending on the tolerance and the financial support received from the dukes (naxarars). In addition, it must have suffered greatly, perhaps leading to extinction, during his exile of nine years. We know that Nerses had returned home by around 368/369, which opens here, another perspective in approaching this problem. If we focus more on the period after 368/369, which seems logical, then we could link more easily the emergence of an activity coordinated in the socio-religious field, in Armenia, the phenomenon that had already begun in Cappadocia. Even if the official certification ofBasiliad is 372–373, it is understood to have begun to operate, if not as a whole system, after the selling of the second part of Basil’s fortune, during a time of famine in Caesarea in 368. Then he was a priest and the closest associate of his bishop, who in addition to other activities gave him the express task of dealing with the provision of social assistance from his diocese. Therefore, we come to a very interesting coincidence, namely, that 368 was the year when Basil began to build his famous charitable institution, but also the year when Nerses returned from exile. Why not, therefore, consider this year as being the point from which we can talk about a correlation between the church-based social welfare in Caesarea of Cappadocia and in Armenia? Therefore, considering all the above corroboration, we may conclude that Nerses could have been influenced, even indirectly, by St Basil the Great in the 3 St Nerses and his blessed mission 55 development and consolidation of a social assistance system like that of Caesarea, with a pronounced rural specificity, in Armenia.70 If these assumptions were to be demolished by arguments which were more logical and coherent, on the basis of some documents that have not, so far, become available, then the issue of the social assistance could be approached in a different manner, starting from the relations that the two would have had, directly or indirectly, with Eustathius of Sebaste, whom I have mentioned briefly. Eustathius, Armenian of origin, was a model and an inspiration for St Basil, and also for his family. In addition to his influence on the spiritual life of one of the most important Cappadocian Christian families, he dealt also with the practical side of religious activity, establishing a series of settlements with a social profile.71 Therefore, he could be the source of inspiration for both Nerses and Basil.72 However, the person who stands out in history for the establishment of a coherent social welfare system which remained as a model for all his followers, both in the East and in the West, was Basil. We owe the complex social system that we see today in our churches to him. Nerses, by contrast, was able to promote social welfare only episodically, due, as I have said, to the extremely complicated history of his people, who were forced to survive under adverse conditions, sometimes under one dominion, sometimes under another, when there could be little continuity on provision for the sick and needy.

Final considerations St Nerses the Great enlightened the political and church history of the Armenian Kingdom in the fourth century in a manner somewhat different to that of St Basil in Cappadocia. Being in an area of political interference, Armenia was forced to reconsider its position many times, depending on the historical evolution of the two great empires, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Persian Empire, in the wake of which it existed, developing its own strategy of survival as it went along and calling on all means at hand. On several occasions, the Armenian king considered it appropriate to seek the assistance of the Church and, directly, its head. Without neglecting his pastoral work, despite being kept away from his faithful believers through imprisonment and exile. St Nerses pursued his religious-political involvement in order to preserve the territorial unity and the Nicaean Christian faith. He undertook two missions of a political nature from the king to the Roman imperial court, in periods of great threat to the fate of his people. He brought them to completion with little recognition of his great achievement. St Nerses conducted a complex pastoral ministry that contributed, in the end, both to strengthening and consolidating Christianity in a country troubled by many internal fissures, because of the self-interest of groups, families and the noble class. He also contributed to the relief of much suffering by his people, especially through the social settlements he established, financed and headed by him, directly or indirectly. He was not able to see his work accomplished, but he opened a road, as did also St Basil in Cappadocia, that was to become a source of inspiration for his followers. He died in 373, and, after a short time, Armenia was divided unevenly 56 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy between the two great powers of the time. It did however, develop both politically and culturally, not least by the composition of the Armenian alphabet and, therefore, its own written language.

Notes 1 Koriwn says that Mashtots, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, would have died in the first year of the reign of Jazdegerd II, the son of Vram [cf. Vark‘Mashtots‘i, A photoreproduction of the 1941 Yerevan Edition with a modern translation and concordance and with a new introduction by Krikor H. Maksoudian (New York: Caravan Books, 1985): 52], namely in 438, if we take into account the fact that Jazdegerd II started his reign on the 4 August 438 [cf. History of Vardan and the Armenian War, translation and commentary by Robert W. Thomson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1982): 60, n. 8]. Consequently, since Koriwn says the alphabet was created in the 8th year of the reign of Jazdegerd I, we come to the conclusion that 403 might be the year in question. For details concerning the alphabet see especially: Achot Hovhannissian, ‘L’alphabet arménien et son action historique’, Revue des Études Arméniennes NS 2 (1965): 361–373; James R. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations; Cambridge, MA: National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, 1987): 135– 136; Malachia Ormanian, The Church of Armenia: her history, doctrine, rule, discipline, liturgy, literature, and existing condition, 2nd rev. edn (London: A.R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd, 1955): 15, 17–19; René Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie des origines à 1071 (Paris: Payot, 1947): 171–177. 2 See Cyrille Toumanoff, ‘The Third-Century Armenian Arsacids. A Chronological and Genealogical Commentary’, Revue des Études Arméniennes, NS 6 (1969): 233–281. Toumanoff makes a synoptic work by overlapping the names, historical data, major events, meaning the battles or treaties of peace, and other information, using, in particular, the chronology of Roman emperors and Persian kings and the interaction between themselves and between them and Armenian kings, in order to determine the chronological order of the kings of Armenia from the third century until the ascent to the throne of Tiridates III, during whose time the Christianisation of the people by St Gregory the Illuminator took place. Finally, he presents a coherent picture, which, regardless of territorial divisions and reunifications that occurred (which we do not discuss here), presents Vologases II, as founder of the Arsacid dynasty (180–428), followed by Chosroes I, Tiridates II, Chosroes II, Tiridates III and then Tiridates IV, or Tiridates the Great (298–330). R.H. Hewsen, ‘The Successors of Tiridates the Great: A Contribution to the History of Armenia in the Fourth Century’, Revue des Études Arméniennes, NS 13 (1978–1979): 99–124, after he discusses in detail the events from the next century, he also sets the chronological order of ascent to the throne of his followers, the most significant is Arsaces II (337/338–367), Pap (367–374). After Pap, a period of disorder and internal struggles for the throne followed. Also, Armenia was divided, 387, and ruled by many successors, worthy or less worthy, for shorter or longer periods; the last king of the Eastern side, who ends the dynasty, is Artaxias IV (422–428). Nina Garsoian, ‘L’Arménie ou quatrième siècle’ in Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians [London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 353 ff.] provides, in parallel, besides a picture of major events in the Roman Empire, starting with the death of Constantine the Great (337) and until the installation of Theodosius the Great, and also, one of both political and religious events in Armenia, starting with the restoration of the kingdom by Tiran (Arshak II) in 338, until the death of Nerses the Great (373) and enthronement of his son Šahak Korčeay (381). 3 The Epic Histories attributed to P‘awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmos‘iwnk) translation and commentary by Nina Garsoian (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 3 St Nerses and his blessed mission 57 Press, 1989) and Moses Khorenats‘i, History of the Armenians, translation and commentary on the literary sources by Robert W. Thomson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978). The first will be mentioned from now on asPB , and the second as MK. I also had at my disposal the works History of Eliseus (Ełišē) or Ełišēi patmut‘iwn Vardananc‘ (Tiflis, 1913), the English version, named Eŀishē,History of Vardan and the Armenian War, translation and commentary by Robert W. Thomson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1982); History of Eusebius (Sebēos) or Patmut‘iwn Sebēosi episkoposi i Herakln (Tiflis, 1913), the English version, under the title: Sebēos, Bishop of Bagratunik, The Armenian history attributed to Sebeos, translation and commentary by Robert W. Thomson (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999) and The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, translated by Robert W. Thomson (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholar Press, 1991. The last mentioned refer to the events of the later history of Armenians, and I used these sporadically. For the beginning of the history of Christianity in Armenia and for the exposing of the personality of the two heroes of the Christianisation, St Gregory the Illuminator and the King Tiridates IV, I used the work of Agat’angelos, History of Armenians, translation and commentary by Robert W. Thomson (New York: Albany State University of New York Press, 1976), hereafter AG. 4 He is a descendant of St Gregory’s family (Cf. Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie des origines à 1071 (Paris: Payot, 1947), 135; see also Robert W. Thomson, ‘Caesarea and Early Christian Armenia’ in Armenian Kesaria/Kaisei and Cappadocia ed. Richard G. Hovannisian (Costa Mesa/California: Mazda Publishers, 2013), 52. 5 PB IV, 3, 109; see also Jean Mécérian, Histoire et institutions de l’Église arménienne: Évolution Nationale et Doctrinale, Spiritualité – Monachisme (Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique, 1965): 42–43; 6 PB IV, 3. 109. See also note 3 from MK III, 17, 270. 7 MK III,17, 270. 8 Life of Nerses (Patmut‘iwn Drboyn Nersisi Pat‘ewi), Veneţia, Sop’erk 6 (1853), in MK III. 17, n 3. The name of his son is mentioned also in MK III, 49, 313. 9 Unfortunately, there is little information about him. Even in the doctoral thesis of Gorun Kojababian, The Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches [according to the Armenian sources, 300–610], D.Phil. Hilary Term, 1977 (Oxford, Mansfield College), the author does not give him more than one page, 23. Thisis inexplicable if we are talking about his role in preserving, strengthening and developing the spiritual heritage left by Gregory the Illuminator. The thesis was published later under the name of Gorun Babian. 10 Gorun Babian, The Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches [according to the Armenian sources, 300–610], (Antelias, Lebanon: Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, 2001), 26. 11 For the Armenian Arsacid dynasty, see Chahin, Mack, The Kingdom of Armenia: A History, 2nd rev. edn (Richmond: Curzon, 2001), 216–222. 12 Simon Payaslian, The History of Armenia from the Origins to the Present (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 31–32. 13 Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 125 14 Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 126–129. 15 Robert H. Hewsen, An Ecclesiastical Analysis of the Naxarar System: A Re-examination of Adontz’s Chapter XII, in ‘From Byzantium to Iran. Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina G. Garsoian’, ed. by Jean-Pierre Mahé and Robert W. Thomson (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholar Press, 1997), 98 ff. 16 See Robert H. Hewsen, ‘Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography’, Revue des Études Arméniennes NS. 13 (1978–1979): 80–84, 95; Ormanian, The Church of Armenia: her history, doctrine, rule, discipline, liturgy, literature, and existing condition, 15. 17 Babian, The Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 33. See also Garsoian, ‘Armenia in the Fourth Century. An Attempt to Re-Define the Concepts “Armenia” and “Loyalty”’, 341–352. 58 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy 18 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire, 21.6, 361. 19 Jovian was not a failure because in his short time (as king) he managed to bring religious peace in the empire. He had allowed St Athanasius, the symbol of the resistance of the church against the imperial control, to return from exile in Alexandria, and also, he tried to bring close both friends and enemies (generally, supporters of Julian) through lengthy negotiations, not by force, convinced that this was the better way. But capitulation in favour of the Persians was fatal to him (David Potter, Emperors of Rome. The Story of Imperial Rome from Julius Caesar to the Last Emperor (London: Quercus Publishing House, 2011)): 211. 20 Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 126–127. 21 Babian, Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 35, n. 12. 22 David Marshall Lang, Armenia: Cradle of Civilization (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1980), 160–162; for an extensive discussion about Christianity and Zoroastrianism/ Mazdeism in Armenia see, in particular, Edward G. Brown, A Literary History of Persia. From the Earliest Times until Firdawsí (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1902): 154–165. 23 Babian, Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 35, n. 15. See also Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire, 27.12.13, 349 and PB V.I, 235–239. 24 Rămureanu et al., The Universal Church History, 274; Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 130–131. 25 For the entire history of this separation, see in particular R.C. Blockley, ‘The Division of Armenia between the Romans and the Persians at the End of the Fourth Century AD’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte Bd.36 H2 (1987): 222–234. 26 Lang, Armenia: Cradle of Civilization, 163. 27 For details regarding his life and activity, see: Solomon Caesar Malan, The Life and Times of S. Gregory the Illuminator the founder and patron saint of the Armenian Church (London, Oxford, and Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1868): 107–338. See also: Mécérian, Histoire et institutions de l’Église arménienne, 32–42. 28 Babian, Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 16. 29 Babian, Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 16. 30 AG 2–23, 30–190; AG 99–101, 535–545; AG 105–111, 567–590; Also, Babian, Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 16, n. 3. see also Jean Mécérian, Histoire et institutions, 33–37; Ormanian, The Church of Armenia, 8–10; Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 125. 31 Babian, Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 21; See especially Paolo, Ananian, ‘La Consecrazione di S. Gregorio Illuminatore’, Le Muséon: Revue d’études orientales 74.1/2 (1961): 315–360; see also Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, 124–125; Thomson, ‘Caesarea and Early Christian Armenia’, 47–49. 32 Babian, Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 20, n. 13; See also Mécérian, Histoire et institutions, 41–42; Robert W. Thomson, ‘Syrian Christianity and the Conversion of Armenia’, ed. by Werner Seibt (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002): 160–167; Ernst Honigmann, ‘Le liste originale des pères de Nicée’, Byzantion 14 (1939), 60 ff. 33 Babian, Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 22; see Ormanian, The Church of Armenia, 15. 34 Babian, Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 27, apud Mesrop Erēc, Chronicles of Armenia and Georgia (Madras, 1775). 35 Babian, Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 27, apud Drasxanakerdc‘i, History of Yovhannēs Catholicos (Jerusalem, 1867). 36 Babian, Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, 27, apud Brosset M.F., Additions et éclaircissements a l’Histoire de la Géorgie (depuis l’antiquité jusqu’en 1469 de JC (St. Pétersburg, 1851). 37 PB IV.5, 116–117. There was the custom that to ensure that minor kings would respect the terms of vassalage, children and close relatives were held as hostages in the courts of the great empires. This rule was perpetuated over centuries; local and regional 3 St Nerses and his blessed mission 59 leaders had to obey it when a Great Emperor or later the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire dictated the foreign policy in many other small countries in Europe, Asia or Africa. 38 PB IV.5, 122. 39 Valens ascended the throne in 364 when Arshak was already a prisoner in Persia (see Nina Garsoian, ‘Politique ou orthodoxie? L’armenie au quatrième siècle’, in Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians [London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 309 [the chronological table]. 40 Van Dam, Becoming Christian: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia, 164–165. 41 Garsoian says he would have married her in 359 (cf. Quidam Narseus? A Note on the Mission of St. Nerses the Great’, in Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians), [London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 157. 42 PB IV. 15, 140. 43 PB IV.15, 146. 44 Cf. Thomson, ‘Caesarea and Early Christian Armenia’, 53. 45 For the accuracy of information provided by this historical work see Hans Levy, ‘The Date and Purpose of “Moses of Chorene’s History”’, Byzantion 11 (1936): 81–96. 46 MK III.19, 273. His behaviour seems somewhat inexplicable if we consider that Armenia was surrounded by two great powers, Eastern Roman Empire and Sassanid Empire that could conquer it at any time. Was Arshak so clever that he tried a double play, to force the hand of the Romans, treating them with the specific arrogance of a player who cannot lose because he has a strategy for any situation, thinking that they cannot miss having his help against the Persian threat? Or, conversely, was he a man without intelligence and diplomacy, not understanding his own limits, considering himself stronger than he really was? Or perhaps a combination of cunning, arrogance and morbid diplomacy: he did not respond to the king and behaved with superiority, treating any proposal, even if came from the most important man on the planet at that time, with disdain. Was it to show also to the other combatant, Shapur, how much he might need him, knowing that he would offend the pride of the Roman emperor who would not hesitate to execute his closest relatives (brother and nephew), a danger to any king, regardless of age? 47 Actually, it is Constantius, as has been already mentioned. 48 MK III.21, 275–276. 49 See the letter in MK III.29, 286. 50 Nerses is exiled, but the other nobles are also sent home with gifts (PB IV.5, 123–124). 51 Nina Garsoian, ‘Le rôle de l’hiérarchie Chrétienne’, Revue des Études Arméniennes NS, 10 (1973/1974): 123–124. 52 Arshak forgot what he promised and trampled on the promises he made. This would ultimately lead him to destruction (See MK 3.31, 287 ff.). 53 See details in Sozomenus, The Ecclesiastical History, 4.22, NPNF 2, 316–318. For both councils see Karla Baus (et al.), The Imperial Church from Constantine to the Early Middle Ages (London: Burns & Oates, 1980), 47–50. 54 Sozomenus, The Ecclesiastical History, 4, 24, NPNF 2, 319–321. 55 Sozomenus, The Ecclesiastical History, 4, 24, NPNF 2, 320–321. There are mentioned here a couple of names, such us: one Eustathius or Elphidius. It is possible for him to be the bishop of Sebaste. 56 Sozomenus, The Ecclesiastical History, 4.23, NPNF 2, 319. 57 Nina Garsoian, ‘Quidam Narseus? A Note on the Mission of St. Nerses the Great’, 149–164. 58 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (17.5), 123–125. 59 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (18. 5), 150–151. 60 Christopher Sherwin Lightfoot, The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire with special reference to the Reign of Constantius II, D.Phil. Michaelmas Term, 1982 (Oxford, St John’s College), 141. 60 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy 61 Garsoian brings in her favour both the historical and diplomatic arguments. In the first case she says that, in the fourth century, south west Armenia was under the Roman protectorate, enjoying a degree of autonomy, while most of the Armenian kingdom was, in a sense, a satellite of Sassanid Persia. Consequently, using a messenger, in the role of the leader of the delegation in Armenian territories would have been a good strategy if we also consider other aspects, namely: to avoid an alleged diplomatic failure assigned to a representative of Persian nobility, or – why not? – use a messenger of the same religion as the Romans. In the second case, the discrepancy between the text of the letter and how it was transmitted was considered highly and, to some extent, unusually diplomatic. The argument would be that a Persian messenger would not have dared to change anything in the ‘tone’ content of the text itself, meaning to ‘soften’ the message of the letter (‘Quidam Narseus? A Note on the Mission of St. Nerses the Great’: 157 ff). This explanation does not really stand because these were skilled diplomats, and always ready for additional assignments. 62 Lang, Armenia: Cradle of Civilization, 160. 63 Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 250–256; see also Ion Vicovan, ‘Sfântul Vasile cel Mare –teologul și modelul filantropiei’ [St. Basil the Great – the philanthropic model and theologian], in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 3., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009): 144–158. 64 I take into account here her work ‘Nērses le Grand. Basile de Césarée et Eustathe de Sébaste’, in Armenia between Byzantium and the Sasanians (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 145–169. 65 PB IV.iv, 113. 66 Robert Hewsen, ‘Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography’, Revue des Études Arméniennes, NS. 13 (1978–1979): 80–84. 67 The episode of his consecration as ‘chief-bishop of Greater Armenia (Katholikos)’ is mentioned in PB IV, iv, 111–112. Fedwick placed the ordination of Nerses in 363/364, when St Basil participated as a priest, in the synod led by Eusebius [Paul Jonathan Fedwick, Basil of Caesarea. Christian, Humanist, Ascetic. Part Two (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981), 473]. This dating is possible, as Basil was ordained in 362. And if we agree with the year 364 for the ordination of Nerses, we could more easily test the connection between him and St Basil and between the social and political state of Cappadocia and that of Armenia. The year 363 could be considered the year of election or designation by the king, and 364 being both the year of his ordination as a bishop and of the return of the priest Basil to Cappadocia, after two years on retreat in Annesi. Thus, there can be a temporal correlation between the two. Anyway, the evolution of the events in this succession might not gather too many supporters, and remains in some doubt. 68 Cf. Gabriella Uluhogian, ‘Basilio il Grande, L’Armenia e Gli Armeni’ in Basilio tra Oriente e Occidente eds. S. Brock, M. Cortesi, A. De Vogüé and J.R. Pouchet (Bose: Comunità di Bose, 2001), 183. For details concerning the time spent in Athens by St Basil, see: Ioan G Coman, ‘Studiile universitare ale Părinților Capadocieni [The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers’, Studii Teologice 9–10 (1955): 531–554. 69 Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie des origines à 1071, 136. 70 I agree with Garsoian on the rural aspects of St Nerses’ social system (Nina Garsoian, ‘Introduction to the problem of early Armenian monasticism’ in Studies on the Formation of Christian Armenia ed. by Nina Garsoian (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010): 180–181. 71 For relations between St Basil and Bishop Eustathius of Sebaste, see: Jean Gribomont, ‘Eustathe le Philosophe et les voyages du jeune Basile de Césarée’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique LIV (1959): 115–124; Terrence G. Kardong, ‘Who was Basil’s Mentor? Part 1’, The American Benedictine Review 60.2 (2009): 191–201. 72 Cf. Garsoian, ‘Nērses le Grand. Basile de Césarée et Eustathe de Sébaste’, 158–161; Susan R. Holman, ‘Rich City Burning: Social Welfare and Ecclesial Insecurity in Basil’s Mission to Armenia’, 199–200. 4 St Basil the Great and his mission in Armenia

The interest of Emperor Valens in Armenia was of a strategic order, because both the Byzantines and the Persians often interfered in the home affairs of this country. The Armenians had formally been converted to Christianity by the end of the 3rd century by St Gregory the Illuminator, who was ordained in Caesarea of Cappadocia and who later became their religious leader,1 which determined very close relations between the Church of Caesarea of Cappadocia and the Church of Armenia. Consequently, St Basil’s involvement in the organisation of the Armenian Church should not seem surprising as he was someone who could establish a connection between the Cappadocian Orthodoxy to which St Gregory belonged traditionally and the Christian Armenian community itself, his homeland. However, Emperor Valens was Arian. He was one of the fiercest persecutors of the Nicaean Creed, while St Basil was a true follower of the Athanasius of Alexandria, who, in spite of the hardships suffered, had defended unflinchingly the divine humanity of Jesus Christ. It may seem surprising that there was cooperation between a great Orthodox bishop and an Arian Emperor, enemies in faith, but allies in keeping under semi-control a region located in the vicinity of an empire that promoted religious dualism. How could Basil agree to discuss the terms of a common action with a person who ‘ordered the exile of 80 Christians, bishops and laymen alike because they had protested against the designation of a notorious Arian, Demophilus, as the bishop of Constantinople, and once they had embarked on the ship, gave an order to set the ship on fire?’2

Preparation of the mission of St Basil in Armenia Many would say that beyond the numerous qualities that defined Basil as a manifold personality, excelling in all the activities he performed,3 he also had one more: he was a distinguished religious diplomat; he knew when and what to say, he could use any context in favour of the Church he served so faithfully and devotedly. He knew that, by accepting a mission entrusted to him by an Emperor, even an Arian one, he would succeed not only in consolidating his position but also his authority. The most important source, if partial, for reading about the meetings and discussions between the Bishop of Caesarea with Valens is represented by the 62 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy series of negotiations (mentioned briefly by both Gregory of Nyssa, his brother, and the theologian, his friend) with people of high military rank and state dignitaries.4 It seemed that one of the crucial moments for the Emperor’s decision to cooperate with the Bishop in order to extend his domination in to the lands of Armenia was when Valens sent a delegation asking Basil to come to the imperial residence in order to pray for the healing of his son.5 Most of those who have studied this topic have identified the messengers sent to St Basil by Valens as the following: Victor, Arintheus, and Terentius because all of them are mentioned in St Basil’s letters and all of them are known from other sources.6 It was, perhaps, the confidence that both leaders had in the power of mediation by the imperial messengers that allowed them to prepare for the bishop of Caesarea to travel in the Armenian territory with discretion and diplomacy.7

Imperial and diplomatic messengers: Arintheus, Victor and Terentius Arintheus was a military noble who had held important positions in the state since the reign of Constantius.8 He ordered and led the left wing of Julian’s cavalry during the Persian expedition9 and he was involved in the negotiations that led to the speedy pact between the Persians and Jovian.10 It seems that he was one of the people who upheld Valentinian’s position and fought against Procopius.11 As a result of his loyalty during that rebellion, he was probably appointed magister peditum in 366, an office which he held till the end of his life. He played an important part in the first Gothic war under Valens and, together with Victor, negotiated the treaty which put an end to it. In 370–371 he was sent to Armenia in order to prevent a Persian invasion.12 In the year 374 Basil sent him a letter, asking for his intervention in a trial in which one of his friends was involved, a friend about whom he says that he was ‘a famous man as far as his long line of ancestors is concerned, worthy of greater honour and respect due to the gentleness of character which is seeded in himself’, a friend placed in danger because of a serious calumny.13 Basil describes himself as being one of Arintheus’ intimates, but the politeness and tone of his writing could be construed as conventional, taking into account the diplomatic expertise of the great hierarch. However, the supposition that their relations were quite close becomes evident in the other letter, sent to the dignitary’s wife, at the time of the news about Arintheus’ death.14 Basil speaks about the grief the news of Arintheus’ death caused him, as the latter had esteemed him, had honoured him, and had offered a general protection to God’s churches. After that, he passed to a more typical form of Christian consolation. Arintheus died at a mature age, having been baptised a short time before:

. . . our Creator fashioned that man for us as a model of what human nature ought to be. All eyes were attracted towards him, and every tongue told of his deeds. Painters and sculptors fell short of his excellence, and historians, when 4 St Basil and his mission in Armenia 63 they tell the story of his achievements in war, seem to fall into the region of the mythical and the incredible. Thus, it has come about that most men have not even been able to give credit to the report conveying the sad tidings, or to accept the truth of the news that Arintheus is dead. Nevertheless, Arintheus has suffered what will happen to heaven and to sun and to earth. He has died a bright death; not bowed down by old age; without losing one whit of his honour; great in this life; great in the life to come; deprived of nothing of his present splendour in view of the glory hoped for, because he washed away all the stain of his soul, in the very moment of his departure hence, in the laver of regeneration.15

Some indirect written sources suggest that the friendship between Basil and Arintheus was based on the fact that both of them had their origins in the Pontus- Cappadocian aristocracy. An inscription, discovered in 370 in Amasea in honour of an unknown noblewoman, mentions one of his relatives by the name of Arinthea, perhaps the sister or daughter of Arintheus.16 Another theory might suggest a Germanic origin for Arintheus, but this is extremely difficult to prove.17 Perhaps we should take into consideration a third hypothesis, namely, that Arintheus’ family might have been of Germanic origin, but they might have also settled in Cappadocia, in which case it would not be a contradiction but a harmonisation of the two former versions of his ethno-social background.18 The friendship between Bishop Basil and Arintheus could also be explained by the fact that they had their origins in the same social class, from the same part of the world, separated only as far as the choice of their own careers was concerned. That is why Arintheus should not be considered only as an official appointed to act as a mediator between Emperor Valens and Bishop Basil, chosen on account of his military diplomatic qualities, proved especially in the case of the treaties with the Persians and the Goths, or of his long career spent in the office of so many emperors, but rather as one who adopted the faith confessed by the bishop of Caesarea, which underpinned the feelings that made him approach Valentinian I and Jovian, and who was very committed to the values of the Nicaean synod in 325. Victor, the general whose career overlaps with that of Arintheus, according to sources, is also the addressee of two letters (152 and 153) from St Basil. In his case, we cannot make any local connection as he was a Sarmathian,19 but he also served the interests of Orthodoxy at the imperial court. Basil uses only laudatory words about him, and the text of the letters underlines their mutual appreciation, a fundamental condition for initiating and maintaining a real dialogue even if at a distance:

If I did not write to someone, could I be blamed for laziness or forgetting, but how could I forget you whose name is spoken of by all the people? And how could I be lazy towards you, who raises through the greatness of your service above almost all the people from the Empire? Nevertheless the cause of my silence is not difficult to guess: I was afraid of troubling such an important 64 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy man. But as to your other virtues you also added that of not only receiving the letters sent by me, but also of looking for which of them have been left apart, therefore I am writing to you this time being confident and I am asking the Good Lord beforehand to reward you by the same honour you nourish for me, because you were more persistent than me in your prayers for the Church when you accomplished everything I had asked you for. In everything you do, you do not want to please the people, but to please God, Who has honoured you, Who has granted you fortunes in this life and shall grant you others in the life to come because you have walked on the path of truth, keeping your spirit in the rightness of faith from the beginning to the end.20

It seems that Victor was a close friend of St Gregory of Nazianzus, a lifelong friend of the bishop of Caesarea, and had met John Chrysostom and Isaac the monk. Therefore, we are inclined to believe that a military man with connections of such high spiritual order proved to be yet another suitable candidate for the mediation between Valens the Emperor and the bishop of Caesarea, St Basil the Great.21 Terentius is the third person directly involved in the mediation process between the two leaders, who held irreconcilable religious positions at that time, but both were capable – as we will see –of making radical changes in their attitudes in specific circumstances. Terentius seems to have been even closer to Basil.22 Their relationship went so far as for them to ask the Emperor for a church for the Nicaean believers:

Terentius, an excellent general, distinguished for his piety, had set up trophies of victory and returned from Armenia. On being ordered by Valens to choose a boon, he mentioned one which it was becoming in a man nurtured in piety to choose, for he asked not gold nor yet silver, not land, not dignity, not a house, but that one church might be granted to them that were risking their all for the Apostolic doctrine.23

Emperor Valens’ reaction to such an unusual request was typical, in a way, of his entire religious politics. Receiving this request and seeing its contents, he became angry, tore it up and ordered him to ask for anything else. Terentius succeeded in appeasing his anger, by a gesture and a word that should have defined him as a great personality, beyond any unworthy suspicions. It was said that he put together the written request, scattered in pieces on the floor, and said: ‘I have my reward, sir, and I will not ask another. The Judge of all things is Judge of my intention.’24 Even so, some did not like him and interpreted his obedience as a kind of duplicity.25 He was the prominent figure in Valens’ attempt to place King Pap on the throne of Armenia in 367, as well as in his removal a few years later.26 He and his family were practising Christians, in comparison to many other close associates of Basil who were mere sympathisers. The correspondence between St Basil and Terentius’ family shows very clearly the very close relationship between them, the confidence they had in each other. Basil did not hesitate to send him two letters in which he addressed Terentius as a real and old friend, even though they had never personally met.27 4 St Basil and his mission in Armenia 65 The first epistle (99) shows what Gregory of Nazianzus and, later, other patristic authors, did not succeed in imparting about bishop Basil’s meeting with Valens ‘behind the curtains’ in the church of Caesarea on January 372. Valens on that occasion entrusted bishop Basil, whose religious convictions he did not share, but whom he nonetheless highly esteemed, with visiting Armenia in order to appoint bishops and organise the Armenian Church.28 The letter shows that Terentius should have a kind of jurisdiction over the home affairs of Armenia (from the imperial court of Valens),29 as St Basil refers to a ‘report’ about the mission he was charged with.

Friendship, faith and suspicions The problem was rather complicated. The Emperor had charged Basil to appoint bishops in Armenia, by the agency of the high dignitary Terentius. The mission had to be accomplished together with Theodotus, the venerable and high Orthodox hierarch of Nicopolis. But Theodotus was suspicious about the long friendship between Basil and Eustathius of Sebaste, whom he suspected of heterodoxy. This suspicion remained in spite of the fact that Basil maintained that the accusations against Eustathius were groundless. Even so, Theodotus still refused to communicate with Eustathius. St Basil also included in his argument in favour of Eustathius the good offices of Bishop Meletius, who was exiled to Getasa, but even that addition could not persuade Theodotus to change his negative attitude. As a consequence, Basil wrote to Terentius to say that it was almost impossible for him to accomplish any of the orders he had been charged with, or to appoint any bishop in Armenia. He had hoped to find the right people from Theodotus’ diocese, ‘reverend and learned men, skilled in speech, and acquainted with the other pecu- liarities of the nation’,30 who were able to give him necessary help. He was quite sceptical about the success of his mission. However, in the very next paragraph, Basil says that, at the least, he had succeeded in bringing peace among the Armenian bishops, and in accomplishing one of the Emperor’s requests, namely to give one bishop to the Church of Satala. Finally, Basil said that he had investigated the accusations brought against the Armenian bishop Cyril, accusations that proved to be groundless, and he thus re-established in a positive fashion the relationship between Cyril and the lay people of Satala.31 The fact that the relations between bishop Basil and the great General Terentius were of a different nature from those between two dignitaries of the same empire who should cooperate in order to accomplish a common task, is emphasised by analysing the second letter (105) sent by the bishop of Caesarea to the daughters of Terentius, deaconesses at Samosata. The advice given belongs to a spiritual father, and, at the same time, to a close friend of their family:

As to the present, when I found that my son Sophronius was setting out to you, I gladly delivered him this letter, to convey you my salutation, and to tell you how, by God’s grace, I do not cease to remember you, and to thank the Lord on your behalf, in that you are goodly scions of a goodly stock, fruitful in good works, and very like lilies among thorns. Surrounded as you are by the terrible 66 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy perversity of them are corrupting the word of truth, you do not give in to their wiles; you have not abandoned the apostolic proclamation of faith, you have not gone over to the successful novelty of the day. Is not this cause of deep thankfulness to God? Shall not this rightly bring you great renown? You have professed your faith in Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. Do not abandon this deposit!’.32

There are plenty of reasons for considering Terentius as representing one of Emperor Valens’ best choices for establishing cooperation with Basil, a prominent figure of church life from the second half of the fourth century. St Basil understood better than anyone else at that time the importance of maintaining good diplomatic relations between the Church and the imperial court. Therefore, he developed the friendship he had with some high state dignitaries and tried through it to cultivate Christian religious feelings and deference for the Church’s dogmas confirmed during the first ecumenical synod of Nicaea (325), which represented the basis of every faith confession. Arintheus, Victor and especially Terentius are but three of those who won the confidence of the great Cappadocian hierarch and thus succeeded in negotiating between an Arian emperor and an Orthodox bishop, having in view the stability of the religious and political life of the empire. However, in spite of these diplomatic actions, nothing of greater significance would happen until the Emperor decided to meet Bishop Basil in person. Two great men of that time were going to face one another and discuss religious and political matters in plain language. Nobody knew when and if that meeting would really take place in the near future.

A mysterious and unanticipated encounter The description of Emperor Valens’ visit to the Church of St Basil provides an opportunity to reflect thatany official, no matter how high his hierarchical position, is under God’s will, because this visit placed the divine authority over human authority. Here is how Professor Papadopoulos describes this meeting based on the information he finds in the writings of St Basil’s closest friend, Gregory of Nazianzus33:

The official Imperial chariot, the watchmen who were riding and the henchmen were waiting near the Emperor’s residence. It was a brilliant cortege which proceeded to the Metropolitan Church. All were filled with bewilderment, but nobody said anything. Along the way, crowds marvelled. Was it with a good or a bad state of mind that the Emperor was going to the Metropolitan’s place? He descended with slow and measured movements, carrying something valuable in his left hand. Proud of himself, he entered into the Church and went further. Astonished, the believers gave way, not believing their eyes. And it was true that on the Emperor’s face was absolutely no harshness. On the contrary, Valens himself was no less amazed. He was so impressed by the 4 St Basil and his mission in Armenia 67 crowd which was in prayer, by the discipline and atmosphere existing inside the Church, that he felt dizzy. He was guided to the holy altar and he saw the fearless face serving flushed by the divine light. The slight dizziness made Valens feel helpless. The powerful features of his face had softened. But nobody observed. He went a little further. He stopped near the royal doors, to provide, as a believer, the gifts he brought himself, holy bread and wine. Inside himself, he felt that he was losing his powers. None of the astonished noblemen had any idea about his drama. He gave the gifts that he carried with him. The deacons and priests saw this, but nobody moved and nobody took them. All hesitated. Would St Basil receive them? Tension was at the highest level. The nerves of the unmerciful Emperor failed. He felt that his knees were weak and he wobbled ready to collapse. The hands of a priest held him firmly by the arm, supporting him. So, the shame was avoided. Slowly, he came to his senses. The event was like a knock on the door of the Holy Spirit. The gifts were taken into the Holy Altar. Illuminated, the serving priest saw everything even that he was looking elsewhere. He made a sign and a deacon picked up the gifts of the unfaithful Emperor. How enlightened and how holy Basil must have been to receive the holy bread and wine of a heretic, persecutor of the Orthodox belief, a killer of so many clergymen! What he was thinking about, what he was guessing, this holy Bishop, over this action of the Emperor, while he was serving, we do not know. But he received the gifts. Gestures that transcend the religious norms, when they are made by the saints, cannot be judged by ordinary people. The Divine Liturgy ended. Motionless, Basil waited. With careful movements, he removed the bright vestment and remained in his old cassock which wrapped his small and insignificant body. He went to the left door of the Holy Altar and he himself met the Emperor Valens there. We know that St Basil was not used to making formalities. But all those who loved him distinguished in his face and his behaviour a deep generosity, a natural goodness. These features he had in abundance in that hour, because he had just finished the Holy Liturgy and was thus full of love, goodness, and truth. So, he was solemn, but also very gentle, when he talked to Valens. This had been a great desire of the Emperor, which only now was about to be realized.34

If we have to summarise this beautiful description we should say that the emotions and feelings which Valens experienced, were those of someone preparing to take part in a private encounter with the Emperor, because, on this occasion, the church was ‘the imperial court’, and St Basil was the Emperor. This time, the bishop himself acted in the highest imperial style, remaining completely motionless, inside the altar, still exercising his competences of service without any ostentatious emotion.35 Valens, after some hesitation, took his place among the community, probably in the ‘imperial pew’, with no one daring to approach him, because he did not know whether Bishop Basil intended to enter into communion with him. The meeting 68 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy held between these two leaders, at the end of the Liturgy, ended speculation about the fate of the Cappadocian Church and its Bishop. It seems that it had not, in fact, taken place, as Professor Papadopoulos says, at the front door on the north side,36 because to do so would have violated protocol (on both sides), but inside an auxiliary space of the church,37 where they could freely talk. The arguments in favour of this claim are that, after this meeting, Valens saw St Basil’s attitude with different eyes. He would be (if we overlook the episode in which he was unable to sign for him the exile decree) more reserved in his relations with Basil,38 and the Bishop of Caesarea would, on his part, begin a missionary call in Armenia, a crucial region in the military strategy of the Emperor.39

The mission of St Basil the Great in Armenia The geographical spread of the mission of St Basil the Great in Armenia is still uncertain, that is, whether it was Armenia Major or Armenia Minor.40 Over time, the hypotheses alternated, the imperial mandate still remaining extremely controversial.

Does it concern Armenia Major or Armenia Minor? On one hand, if we take into consideration the fact that St Basil, in one of his letters, entertained the hope of support from some pious and wise people, speakers of the local people’s language,41 in order to accomplish his mission, he undoubtedly referred to the less Romanised part of Armenia, namely to the East of Euphrates, which we refer to as Armenia Major. This hypothesis can be supported by the idea that General Terentius, who played an important part in the preparation of St Basil’s mission in the territory, seemed to be the representative of Emperor Valens for the whole of Armenia, and not just for a portion of it. If we also take into account that the General was the one who reinstated King Pap, in 370, and before an army consisting of 12 legions, nonetheless forced Saurmag (Sauromaces), King of Georgia, to leave the territory of Armenia, which he had occupied by force.42 On the other hand, there is the opinion according to which, when Greek Church writers speak of Armenia, they generally speak of Armenia Minor, to the West of the upper Euphrates.43 This contrary hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the geographical position of the walled cities of Nicopolis and Satala, in Armenia Minor, where the bishop of Caesarea involved himself actively in the solution of the problems of the respective dioceses.44 While it is certain that, in speaking of the religious activity in Armenia, one could be speaking either of Armenia Major or Armenia Minor, both of which bear the stamp of the political interest that Valens had in that province during the years 370–374. Therefore, it is often rather difficult to harmonise the information from the imperial documents with the Armenian documents, the latter being perhaps more reliable. Armenian sources are inclined to present the history of their country in the fourth century as one of permanent conflict between heretical kings and orthodox religious leaders, over the decisions of the first two ecumenical synods, among which the most important in the context is Nerses the Great.45 However, the 4 St Basil and his mission in Armenia 69 relationship between the bishop of Caesarea and Nerses is a very special one for those times, especially if we take into account the extremely fragile political position of Armenia, situated between the Roman and Persian Empires. It is difficult to know if Basil and Eustathius were really so close,46 or, purely and simply, that the author wants to place Eustathius of Sebaste as a second level ‘bone of contention’ between St Basil and Bishop Theodotus, which might be, in fact, the model and the source of inspiration for the charitable and self-denying activities both for St Basil of Cappadocia and for Nerses in Armenia.47

Issues with the Church of Armenia in St Basil’s correspondence While we do not know if St Basil had initially a mission for all the Armenian territories, it is by no means certain that he was involved with Armenia Minor, for his correspondence (including some letters that enlighten us as to the Arian danger that threatened the unity of the respective Churches) concerns the direct intervention of St Basil in order to stop some of the abuses of the bishops loyal to Eustathius of Sebaste or to King Pap.48 For instance, in Letter 120, it is shown that he sent to the bishop Meletius of Antioch, possibly in the year 375,49 by the agency of a priest named Simplicios, a report, which, after having been sanctioned and completed by him, would have been returned to the sender. Then it was to be sent, together with all the signatures of those he was in communion with, to all the western bishops.50 Beyond those steps, in accordance with his general church policy, which aimed at maintaining the church unit, in this letter Basil says that Anthimus of Tyana ordained as bishop a certain Faustus, ‘who is together with Papas’ and took the place of Cyril, bringing Armenia into a state of schism. In Letter 121, Basil sent the same news to the bishop Theodotus. Faustus had come to him for ordination, having a letter from a ‘Papa’, but as the bishop of Caesarea had requested a recommendation from Theodotus and from other bishops, Faustus gave up waiting and found an ‘understanding’ with Anthimus.51 In Letter 122, addressed to the diocese of Poemenius, Bishop of Satala,52 Basil explains why he gave a letter to the Armenians – namely to Faustus and his friends – who would have passed through the diocese of Poemenius on their way home. The reasoning is the same. St Basil was deeply offended by the ordination of Faustus; Anthimus is described as a noble man by all accounts, someone who had played an important part in bringing peace to the region, although Basil’s words and tone might have an ironic nuance. Correlating the details of Basil’s three letters with those from the history of Faustus de Byzance53 we could create a plausible image about the cooling of the relations between the Churches of Cappadocia and Armenia in the year 375.54 Everything may have started from the well-known disagreement between King Pap of Armenia, and Nerses the Great, the church leader of this province. The ancient Armenian sources even maintain that Pap, angry about the critical attitude of Nerses, would have ordered, in secret, his poisoning, having the intention of replacing him with a Bishop Jousig, who was easy to manipulate into following 70 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy the church politics of the King. The Armenian Church declared itself to be autocephalous, but the truth was that it would pass through a period of serious internal troubles, until it divided itself, and only six years later, in 385, when the country was annexed by the Persians (in proportion of 4/5) and the Byzantines (1/5)55 the part played by the Church in keeping the unity of its people was purely ornamental. The archbishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia considered it his duty to intervene and try to gain control over most of the bishops’ sees which belonged until then to St Nerses the Great. The death of the one who had been a friend or, at least, a real supporter of the religious politics of Basil, determined the latter, taking into account the circumstances in which it occurred, to consider the appointment of his successor in the person of Faustus, as usurpation, and to regard the King as an enemy of the truth. However, the attitude of St Basil the Great remained a mystery, and, even today, we can make only certain assumptions. The attitude of St Basil remains a mystery. All we know now is the result of corroboration of the historical and religious dates from those two main sources, Roman and Armenian, which not only are in contradiction with each other many times, but have a degree of uncertainty and a loss of synchronisation in themselves.

Faustus and ‘Pap’ or Faustus and ‘Papa’ There is a question mark over the identity of this Faustus because his name appears in situations that cannot all be matched up.56 For instance, a person called ‘Faustus’ appears in the history of Byzance on three different occasions: upon Nerses’ ordination as a deacon,57 at his funeral58 and also as a former coordinator of the social care activities in the time of the same bishop of Armenia, still in power by the end of the fourth century.59 Actually, it seems less plausible that that the ‘Faustus’ who participated in Nerses’ ordination as a deacon was the same ‘Faustus’ who was present at his funeral (we would rather assume that there is a greater likelihood of identifying the latter with the person who was in charge of supervising the whole charitable work of the great Armenian bishop). In any case, only assumptions remain. This raises the question: Why would Basil have refused to ordain Faustus if he had been King Pap’s favourite candidate for Episcopal Office which was held until then by such a great personality as Nerses, a well-known defender of Nicaean Orthodoxy? Might St Basil have known very well who supported that ‘Faustus’, irrespective of the person, and who sent him to be ordained? And, in fact, it was not King Pap behind that manoeuvre because he mentioned another name, not Jousig, but ‘Papa’, who could be identified with another person, an influential and powerful person, both in the religious and political environment. From the Armenian sources, we find out that Faustus, the one who was supervising the social care institutions of Nerses, had an anchorite brother, who led a life of seclusion.60 If we take into account the geographical location, we could assume that Faustus and his brother could have been under the spiritual influence of Eustathius of Sebaste,61 due to the fact that the latter was known as a monk of an ascetic rigorous life, also called Papa. 4 St Basil and his mission in Armenia 71 This could be an explanation, to a certain extent, for Basil’s delay in ordaining Faustus, and also for the appeal to Theodotus, who should have known more details about the relationship between the bishop of Sebaste and the two brothers. It is also possible that St Basil might not have wished to offend Theodotus again. Basil was charged with an imperial mission in order to organise Armenian church life, but we do not think that his mission also included succession to the Patriarchate of Armenia. He simply obeyed the terms of his mission, trying to settle the existing disputes and ordaining bishops (in agreement with Theodotus) who would defend the orthodox teaching of the Church. Certainly, he would have been very indignant about his meeting with Faustus if he had known that he had before him the King’s preferred candidate who would have been involved in Nerses’ killing. But, either he did not know the fact, in which case King Pap would have been the same person as Papa, or it related to his relationship with Eustathius whom he knew as being called Papa, whom he respected and whom he was trying, as much as possible, to separate from the Arian groups, so that he had a very reserved and cautious attitude. The assumption that King Pap would have been the same person as the ‘Papa’ of Letter 120 was based on the fact that Faustus should not only have been supported in his intention by a very powerful person, but also by the similarity between the two names,62 an assumption that is far from the truth. It is more plausible that the identification of ‘Papa’ should be with Eustathius of Sebaste. After all, a hierarch of such a stature and with such abilities would have been more likely in the situation to send Faustus to be ordained by Anthimus of Tyana, without the approval of the other Armenian clergymen, as the canons in force stipulated, in order to remove Cyril, an opponent of himself but also because, in this way, he manifested his independence from the bishop of Caesarea, a difficult opponent to control. Another argument in favour of the idea that ‘Papa’ from the letters of St Basil (120–122) is not King Pap of Armenia, is of a literary order because we assume that the Holy Father did not refer to ‘Papa’ as to a simple name or title and, therefore, this name should not be construed as belonging to any political leader, e.g., King Pap, nor a religious leader, who is normally only referred to in an official manner, that is, only in the third person.

Concluding remarks At the end of this second part of the chapter, we shall note down some brief considerations, which we think are more plausible. The mission entrusted to St Basil by the Emperor referred not only to Armenia Minor, but to the whole Armenian territory, and the respective period of the mission was probably in 373– 374. Based on many and varied reasons, the actions of the bishop of Caesarea did not, in all probability, extend beyond Satala, in Armenia Minor, as he himself said to General Terentius in the Letter 99, the person who organised and ‘supervised’ his mission. Furthermore, King Pap is not the same person as ‘Papa’ in the Letters, in that all the information leads rather to the latter’s identification with Eustathius, Bishop 72 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy of Sebaste. Faustus is thus the ‘protégé’ of Eustathius, ready to serve the same interests, a fact demonstrated by his having been ordained by Anthimus of Tyana, the one who was the beneficiary of the division of the Caesarea diocese by Emperor Valens. Therefore, St Basil’s attitude is not surprising as far as the quasi-paradoxical situation is concerned, namely: he was entrusted with an imperial mission to re-organise the Armenian Church, with apparently unlimited powers. Yet, he had to make almost all the decisions together with Theodotus, who would prove to be a difficult partner, extremely reluctant to make decisions, and in the meantime, he had to face the development of a half-Arian axis, i.e., Eustathius of Sebaste, Faustus, Anthimus of Tyana and Emperor Valens. This would have been too much a burden for a lesser soul to bear. If we were going to sum up in a couple of sentences the comparable achievements of the two great hierarchs of the fourth century, we would say that: if Nerses excelled in his political-religious involvement to keep the unity of the state, without neglecting his pastoral work, in Basil’s case, things were somewhat different, in the sense that he was engaged in complex activity within the Church, which also helped, finally, to strengthen the Christian state. Neither one nor the other ever had the chance to see his work completed. Nerses died in 373, and, in the years to come, Armenia would be divided between the Romans and Persians. Basil died some years later, in 379, before the second ecumenical council of Constantinople (381), which consecrated the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but his contribution in putting an end to the disorders which initially related to the disproof of the divinity of the Son, and then of the Holy Spirit, was recognised by all Christians over the centuries.

Notes 1 Gregory, a member of a royal Armenian family (although it is thought by some historians that he was, in fact, Cappadocian) escaped from the Persian invasion, where he could have lost his life, by taking refuge in Caesarea. There he met bishop Firmilianus, who would become a mentor for him. He embraced the Christian faith and returned to his country. Although at the beginning he was persecuted by King Tiridates II (261–317) and imprisoned, after a miraculous healing that took place (a healing assigned mostly to Gregory), he was freed and sent in Caesarea in order to be ordained. After his return, the King himself, together with his nobles, and followed certainly by the people, were baptised, and Gregory began the organisation of the Armenian Church at Etchmiadzin, see Rămureanu et al., The History of the Universal Church, 274. 2 Teodor Bodogae, ‘Corespondenţa sfântului Vasile cel Mare şi strădania sa pentru unitatea Bisericii creştine [Correspondence of Saint St Basil the Great and His Efforts for the Unity of the Christian Church]’, in Saint St Basil the Great: dedication at 1600 years from his death, ed. Alexandru Elian (Bucharest: EIBMBOR, 1980), 268. 3 Nicu Dumitraşcu, Teologi Pre şi Post Niceeni (Ante- and Post Nicene Theologians) (Cluj-Napoca: Napoca Star Publishing House, 2002), 149. 4 Gregory of Nazianzen, ‘The Panegyric of St. Basil (Orationes 43, 47)’, NPNF 7, 410. 5 St Basil the Great, ‘Prolegomena’, NPNF 8, xxiii–iv; see the comments of Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 232–233. 4 St Basil and his mission in Armenia 73 6 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354–378), selected and translated by Walter Hamilton with an introduction and notes by Andrew Wallace- Hadrill (Bungay/Suffolk: The Chaucer Press, 1986). 7 For details concerning his mission in Armenia see, in particular, Robert Pouchet, Basile le Grand et son univers d’amis d’après sa correspondance: une stratégie de communion (Roma: Institutum Patristicum ‘Augustinianum’, 1992), 276–289. 8 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (15.4), 71. 9 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (24.1), 266. 10 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (25.7), 303. 11 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (26.8), 327. 12 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (27.12), 348. 13 St Basil the Great, Letter 179, NPNF 8, 221. 14 St Basil the Great, Letter 269, NPNF 8, 307. It seems that Arintheus died shortly before the battle of Adrianopole, or likelier during the battle (see Alan D. Booth, ‘The Chronology of St. Jerome’s Early Years’ Phoenix 35 [1981]: 237–259; Pierre Maraval, ‘La date de la mort de Basile de Césarée’ Revue des études augustiniennes, 34 [1988]: 25–38). A parallel could be drawn between Arintheus’ baptism and that of Valens, which took place on the eve of the First Gothic War (Booth, ‘The Chronology of St. Jerome’s Early Years’, 18). 15 Saint St Basil the Great, ‘Letter 269’, NPNF 8, 308. 16 John Anderson, Eugène and Franz Cumont (ed.), Studia Pontica III, 99, Brussels, 1910. A.H.M. Jones, J. Martindale and J. Morris (ed.) Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. I, Anonyma 10, AD 260–395, 102–103. 17 John Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1989), 457. The name of Arintheus mentioned in Reatia in 355, together with two officers, Seniachus and Bappo would lead to such a hypothesis (see Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (15.4), 71. 18 There is also the hypothetical location of St Basil’s family in the Hellespont, based on the idea that Emmelia and Macrina had built their monastery at Ibora (cf. Van Dam, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia, 107). 19 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (31.12), 433; Gain holds that he was Cappadocian too, like Arintheus or Terentius (Benoît Gain, L’église de Capadoce au IV siècle d’après la correspondance de Basil de Cesarée (330–379), 267). 20 St Basil the Great, Letter 152, NPNF 8, 209. 21 Gilbert Dragon, ‘Les Moines et la ville: le monachisme à Constantinople jusqu’au concile de Chalcédoine (451)’, in Travaux et mémoires du centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Monographies 4 (Paris: Editions de Boccard, 1970), 231–232. 22 Terentius was an old friend of Basil, probably Cappadocian, like Hesychios, Elpidios or Hilarios (rethor in Caesarea) (Cf. Emilian Popescu, ‘Sfântul Vasile cel Mare despre sine și familie în scrisorile sale [St Basil the Great about himself and family in his letters]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 3., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 16; see also Gain, L’église de Capadoce au IV siècle d’aprés la correspondance de Basil de Cesarée (330–379): 267. 23 Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 29, NPNF 3, 130. 24 Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 29, NPNF 3, 130. 25 He is described as a hypocrite, always humble and submissive, but in fact willing to cause discord and conflicting situations [Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus,The Later Roman Empire (30.1), 387]. 26 Some consider Terentius as the main person responsible for the removal of Pap (PB V, 32, 213–214. 27 St Basil the Great, Letter 214, NPNF 8, 253. 28 Some maintain that it was about the year 373, as for example: Fedwick, Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic (A Sixteen Hundredth Anniversary Symposium), 74 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy Part Two, 16; Gain, L’église de Capadoce au IV siècle d’après la correspondance de Basile de Césarée (330–379), in ‘Orientalia Christiana Analecta’, no 225 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientale, 1985), 394. 29 It seems that he really ruled Armenia when King Pap was called to answer in front of the Emperor Valens, at Tars, in 374 (according to Mary Margaret Fox, The Life and Times of St. Basil the Great as Revealed in His Works (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1939, 113). 30 St Basil the Great, Letter 99, NPNF 8, 184. 31 St Basil the Great, Letter 99, NPNF 8, 184. 32 St Basil the Great, Letter 105, NPNF 8, 186. 33 See St Gregory of Nazianzen, Introduction to Oration, XLIII (The Panegyric on S. Basil), NPNF 7, 412. 34 See Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 229–230. (My own translation). 35 MacCormack makes an interesting comparison between this moment, amazing by the force of its experiences, and the entry of Constantius in Rome (Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, 33ff.). 36 Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 230. 37 See Chapter 2, The Meeting, pp. 30–32. 38 Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 233–234; It might be possible that Valens would have given him ‘land to endow Basil’s new foundation, the hospitals, etc., near Caesarea’ (Cf. William Mitchell Ramsay, ‘Basil of Caesarea’ The Expositor 13 (January 1896), 55, apud St Basil the Great, Prolegomena, NPNF 8, xxiv). 39 See Nicu Dumitrașcu, ‘Sfântul Vasile cel Mare în Armenia: o misiune surprinzătoare primita de la împăratul Valens [St Basil the Great in Armenia: a surprising mission received from the Emperor Valens]’, in The Cappadocian Fathers ed. Petre Semen and Liviu Petcu (Iasi: Academic Foundation ‘Axis’ Publishing House, 2009): 63–70. 40 For the distinction between Armenia Major and Armenia Minor see: Robert H. Hewsen, ‘Date and Authorship of the Ašxarhac‘oyc‘’, Revue des Études Arméniennes, NS 4 (1967): 424–32; St Basil’s mission in Armenia and his relation with Nerses the Great and Eustathius is discussed in Holman, ‘Rich City Burning: Social Welfare and Ecclesial Insecurity in Basil’s Mission to Armenia’, 197–202. 41 St Basil the Great, Letter 99, NPNF 8, 184. 42 Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (27.12), 346. He is portrayed as a ‘loyal friend’ of St Basil (cf. Gerald F. Reilly, Imperium and sacerdotium according to St Basil the Great (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1945), 121. 43 See Nina Garsoian, ‘Nērses le Grand, Basile de Césarée et Eustathe de Sébaste’ Revue des Études Arméniennes NS 17 (1983), 141, n. 29. 44 St Basil the Great, Letter 99, NPNF 8, 183–184; see also N. Garsoian, ‘Nērses le Grand’, 153, n. 57, where it is specified that the problem of the language cannot be decisive in such a controversy, especially because, for instance, one century later, in the fifth century, a bishop apologised to the emperor for the flaws in his language. 45 The existence of some divergent opinions regarding the faith problems between the political and religious leaders of Armenia could be the result of the cultural and religious acquisitions which the population in the 4th century made due to the Persians [see Nina Garsoian, ‘Politique ou Orthodoxie? L’Armenie au quatrième siècle’, 301, n. 20; Paul Peeters, ‘L’intervention politique de Constance II dans la Grande Armenie, en 338’, Recherches d’Histoire et de Philologie Orientales vol.1, Subsidia Hagiographica 27 (1951), 222–250]. 46 There is also the opinion that St Basil would have participated at the ordination of Nerses as bishop, an event that would have happened 10 or 20 years before his own ordination (Cf. N. Baynes, ‘Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century’, English Historical Review XXV (1910): 625–643). 4 St Basil and his mission in Armenia 75 47 Garsoian tries to make a distinction between the social care institutions established by St Basil in the walled cities, constituted as a solely urban activity controlled mostly by its founder, and those established by Nerses, of a smaller range, placed in rural areas, even in almost deserted places (‘Nērses le Grand’, 158–161). She might have had the intention of giving a rather general commentary, because Basil’s establishments did not aim only at urban people, and some of them, although not under his direct control, benefited from his unconditional blessing and support (See St Basil the Great, Letters 142 and 143, in NPNF 8, 205). It is also worth mentioning that Nerses was never asked to deny his friendship with Eustathius of Sebaste, as happened with Basil. 48 For the mission of St Basil in Armenia, see in particular: Uluhogian, ‘Basilio il Grande, L’Armenia e Gli Armeni’, 187–195. 49 I think the date of this letter (as well as of the others about Armenia, 121 and 122) should be placed around the year 375, and not in 372 (Cf. Garsoian, ‘Nērses le Grand’, 158), or 373 (St Basil the Great, Epistles, in Părinți și scriitori Bisericești, ed. and trans. into Romanian by Constantin Cornițescu and Teodor Bodogae (Bucharest: EIBMBOR,1988), 300) based on more reasons, namely: it was during that period (372–373) that the fight for jurisdiction between the two Cappadocian provinces reached its climax, and the text of the letters itself shows that the bishop of Caesarea had been reconciled with Anthimus, his rival and beneficiary of Valens’ Arian policy, and then, it is inexplicable that there was a non–canonical intervention of a diplomat and friend of Basil on Nerses’ territory, while he was still alive. 50 St Basil had tried before to call the attention of the Western bishops to the Arian danger by sending other letters, but he did not receive any answers (See St Basil the Great, Letters 70, 90 and 92, NPNF 8, 166–167, 176–179). 51 More evidence that the letters mentioned above (121 and 122) had, most likely, been written in the year 375, in March, is the beginning: ‘the winter is severe and protracted, so that it is difficult for me even to have the solace of letters’. At the time of its writing, Faustus’s visit to Caesarea and his ordination by Anthimus had already taken place (St Basil the Great, Letters, NPNF 8, 193). 52 St Basil the Great, Letters, NPNF 8, 193. 53 Faustus de Byzance, Biblioteque Historique (introduction et traduit pour la première fois de l’armenien en français par Jean-Baptiste Emine), in ‘Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Armenie’, V, 24, 25 and 29, 2nd edn, ed. Victor Langlois (Lisbon: Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian, 2001): 201–310. 54 The breach between the two Churches, that of Caesarea of Cappadocia and that of Armenia, should have taken place, most likely, in the year 375 because by the end of the year 374 Pap was no longer king (Cf. Hewsen, Successors of Tiridates the Great, 125), and, as a consequence, the death of Nerses cannot be placed after this date [as it is erroneously dated in Ioan Rămureanu et al., The World Church History, 1 (1–1054), 274). 55 See Ioan Rămureanu et al., The World Church History, 274. 56 Then, if somebody wishes to approach the persons of Faustus and Jousig, thinking that Nerses’ follower should be just Pap’s ‘protégé’, he would have to deal with a difficult etymological identity as there is only the slightest similarity between the two names. For discussion over the identity of Pap (Papa), see Uluhogian, ‘Basilio il Grande, L’Armenia e Gli Armeni’, 192. 57 Faustus de Byzance, Bibliothèque historique, IV, 3, 108–111. 58 Faustus de Byzance, Bibliothèque historique, V, 24, 203–205. 59 Faustus de Byzance, Bibliothèque historique, VI, 5–6, 235. 60 Faustus de Byzance, Bibliothèque historique, V, 29, 209–210. 61 The assumption may be based on the possible origin of Faustus in Armenia Major, so, in a geographical context where Eustathius had control. St Basil begins his letter to Poemenius, bishop of Satala, in the following way: ‘When the Armenians returned by your way you no doubt asked for a letter from them’ (Saint Basil the Great, Letter 122, 76 Part 2 Mission and church diplomacy NPNF 8,193). Satala was situated in the extreme North-Eastern part of Armenia Minor. It had been built primarily as a frontier town by Trajan in order to house the ‘Legio XV Apollinaris’ [for details, see Arnold Hugh Martin Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces 2nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1971), 171]. As a consequence, if someone had to return home from Caesarea by that town, it means that that ‘home’ should be situated more in the East, namely in Armenia Major. 62 See Louis Duchesne, The Early History of the Church, from its foundation to the end of fifth century, vol. II (London: Murray, 1924), 324, n. 4. On the other hand, if we date the respective letters in the year 375, which is most likely, then the letters would have had another sender because Pap was already dead by then. Everything remains at the level of hypothesis because, due to the difficulties in communication at that time, the letters might have been written in the autumn of the year 374 and yet only arrive by the next spring! Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy: meetings, methods and correspondence

5 St Basil’s church missionary strategy and society

St Basil and the beginning of his ecclesiastical mission In a period in which the Church was faced with major internal problems, primarily caused by the Arian political and religious leaders (more interested in the unity of their empire on earth rather than the unity of the Church), the appearance of an educated missionary cleric, open to dialogue and communication, sympathetic to human failings, but with a firm faith and convictions, represented a huge challenge. When the bishops were proving (in a significant number) to have divided loyalties, when kings were attracted more by aberrations than by the ‘Word of Truth’, when the only defenders of the Nicaean faith were despatched on far-flung exiles, when the orthodox believers could be easily manipulated, it was really difficult to find genuine leaders to coagulate combine all Nicaean forces. The years after the first ecumenical synod of Nicaea (325 A.D.) led to a regroup- ing of Arian forces, under similar names and doctrines, designed to forge a formula for compromise between the Orthodox party and the other Christian factions, as were the decisions of Serdica synods or the four formulas from Sirmium.1 None of them, however, led to the relief in the tension that persisted with the world church at that time. A person was required who possessed outstanding diplomatic skills, deeply rooted in the apostolic and post-apostolic tradition, raised in the spirit of sacrifice of the martyrs in periods of persecution, educated in the great schools of history, aware of the value of prayer and sacrifice for one’s neighbour, stable in their confession, yet balanced and conciliatory in dialogue. The great bishop of Caesarea, St Basil, fitted the missionary challenge as no-one else could.

The ascetic, the theologian and society After his journeys to the Middle East, St Basil retired to his small property in Annesi,2 in a family house, to lead a life of silent asceticism, where in search of self, through prayer and contemplation, he could study the Holy Scripture and the work of the great parents of the Church.3 Yet something troubled him. He could not completely separate himself from the challenges of the society he had known so well; he was interested in people and their problems, he listened carefully to the stories of those who came to visit him, about the theological controversies of 80 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy the time and to the passive attitude of the representatives of Nicaean thought, led by its bishop Dianius. He received correspondence from acquaintances, dignitaries, from both the secular and church world, he received children with great joy and taught them what he believed to be appropriate for their spiritual growth.4 He took part with all his heart in the joys and tribulations of his friends in the laity, whether Christian or not, giving comfort and support when it was needed. He was aware of everything that happened ‘outside’ in the real world, but he did not really want to return to it. He experienced a real dilemma. He longed for the silence of the simple monastic life, yet he also experienced a desire to be with those who needed him. That is why, when his friend Gregory himself sent a letter asking him for help in a matter of theological terminology, he struggled to respond.5 He experienced an inner struggle between his monastic and theological vocations. Could he do both of them? To live as a monk in the world and to carry his humble, yet rebellious spirit in the middle of the struggle for the defence of Christian truths and values, with the loss of inner peace towards which he had looked with such a great yearning in the years of his studies and immediately afterwards? We do not know if Basil resolved this inner conflict. It is certain that Gregory’s letter had awakened in him the thrill of the theologian, it disturbed and provoked him at the same time. He sensed that the Church needed him and decided to go to Caesarea. Not knowing whether he could assist, but having a reputation for eloquence and theological knowledge, he visited the elderly bishop Dianius, whom he cherished for his gentleness and humbleness, and realised that the anxiety within the church was due to the influence of the homoiousians in the public and religious life of Cappadocia.6 Eustathius of Sebaste, a close friend of his family and a highly respected hierarch in the monastic world in the regions of Pontus, Cappadocia and Armenia,7 had joined the homoiousians, and therefore had cut himself off from the Nicaean faith.8 The Bishop Dianius could not oppose it. It is known that he was not a great theologian and his bohemian nature did not qualify him as a great fighter for defending the Nicaean formula, especially as he was a member of a minority. The great majority of the bishops of the time were either homoians, the most, or anomoians or homoiousians.9 St Basil felt lost and uncertain in this tumultuous sea of the church world. He decided to follow Dianius at the Council of Constantinople, in January 360, but there he discovered a world of intrigues, clan and group interests, servilism, and theological ignorance.10 If this was the world in which he was supposed to live, then he did not belong to it in any way. That is why he did not remain until the end of his proper work, because the result was a predictable one, dictated by the emperor’s will, not by the ‘conclave’ of the bishops, namely the elimination of the homoousios formula, and the replacement of it with an ambiguous and deceptive one, proposed by the homoians, that destroyed the essence of the Nicaean doctrine, namely the full unity between the Father and the Son.11 The Declaration that the Son is ‘like the Father’ or homoios, was considered inconsistent, vague and useless, both by radical Arians and the Orthodox.12 Even so, it became the official creed of the Arian people, in particular for the Germanic 5 Church missionary strategy and society 81 peoples of the Danube. The creed had spread through territory of the Roman Empire and beyond13 and thus laid the foundations of the homean doctrine (homeanism), namely the theological teaching which would become the chosen religion of the imperials for more than two decades.14 This followed a series of decisions not all made for the same reasons. The Arian extremist Aetius, a deacon in Antioch, was exiled because of his own radical Arian vision, which was at odds with the Semi- Arian position in Constantinople. In his opinion, as long as the distinction of essence between the Son and the Father was not clearly asserted, the formula of faith was unacceptable.15 On the other hand, Eunomius, who (allegedly), was encouraged to accept the decisions of the council was rewarded with the Episcopal chair of Cyzicus ‘as a prize for his impiety’.16 St Basil’s visit to Constantinople, with all its shortcomings, was in a way, beneficial. He had time to reflect on what he would do next. Without allies, he felt ill-prepared for theological debate. At home in Caesarea, there was also same oppressive atmosphere without hope on the horizon. Bishop Dianius, sensing his anxiety, gave him permission to go to Nazianz to see his friend and to try together to find a way to combat the wickedness and mischief that the Arian plague had brought in almost all the imperial provinces. The two met and spent a while together discussing the Church’s urgent theological problems. They even thought of a place of refuge for asceticism and prayer, but ultimately, they parted with the hope of meeting in better conditions for all.17 He returned to Caesarea, then he went to Pontus, where he discovered the place he had always dreamed of, where he would spend his time in prayer and contemplation, with his books around him and with the quiet of the intimate encounter with nature and its beauties, a real corner of heaven.

There is a lofty mountain covered with thick woods, watered towards the north with cool and transparent streams. A plain lies beneath, enriched by the waters which are ever draining off from it; and skirted by a spontaneous profusion of trees almost thick enough to be a fence . . . What need to tell of the exhalations from the earth, or the breezes from the river? Another might admire the multitude of flowers, and singing birds . . . However, the chief praise of the place is, that being happily disposed for produce of every kind, it nurtures what to me is the sweetest produce of all, quietness.18

At Pontus, he waited for Gregory, here they would perhaps experience the most wonderful spiritual experiences that would strengthen both of them for the mission that God had given to them.

The art and skill (ability) in choosing the Trinitarian terminology In the tranquillity of the hermitage at Pontus, St Basil probably had the most significant theological revelation with which he actually began his journey to fame. Since he had heard that Bishop Dianius had signed a confession of homoiousian faith, sadness and disappointment had overtaken him. He knew that Dianius had 82 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy been deceived by George of Laodicea’s very well-concocted presentation, which stipulated that the substitution of the word homoousios from the Nicaean symbol did not mean much to the whole of that teaching and that it was ultimately done for the sake of preserving the Christian unity between the homoousians and homiousians against the doctrinal radicalism promoted by the anomoians and the homoians, but he tried to understand the principle of this new terminology. It was essential for him to understand it because Bishop Dianius’s gesture had led to disorder within the Church of Cappadocia, and friends or acquaintances of his, both clergy and laymen, wrote to him to request clarification of the subtleties of a formulation which they did not fully understand and its consequences they could not predict.19 St Basil began to study very carefully the evolution of the theological teaching and its reception in the tradition of the Church and discovered that, when the question of assuming a proper terminology arose, the fundamental criterion was to highlight the truth rather than the way in which it was expressed. In other words, the affirmation of a faith could be made in one or more formulas, with the condition that none of them would cancel or alter in any way the truth contained in the actual confession. St Basil came to the conclusion that the terminology or the form of expression of the truth might be changed, with the condition that the truth must remain, even when the terminology was recognised and approved by the decisions of an ecumenical council.20 True to his beliefs, but sometimes opposed by some of his adversaries, he proposed an alternative formula to the homoousios, but which did not affect its primordial meaning, namely, that the Son is entirely similar in nature to the Father (The Son is entirely like the Father in any respect). This could be received and ultimately accepted, also by the homoiousians, as long as they were sincere and had no hidden interests. The formula itself, though different from the homoousios, expressed the same truth, and left no room for any insinuation of the inferiority of the Son to the Father. The words entirely protected the Son’s stature and expressed the same truth as the words of the same being (homoousios). His proposal was welcomed in his church by those who understood his theological acumen and the diplomatic manner by which he tried to bring together the two pro-Nicaean trends, one which kept ad litteram the formula approved in 325, the other which wanted to distance itself, in a way in which ambiguity and uncertainty were still dominating, of those who had adopted a wholly alien position to the spirit of the Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea.21 In fact, his formula must be corroborated with another similar one that had been elaborated and proposed to the Church by the great Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, and in a way validated by him.22 For, if the very ‘champion’ of the Council of Nicaea (Athanasius), with all his intransigence, well-known throughout the Christian world, from one side to the other of the Empire, had found it appropriate that, for the good and the unity of the church there was no mistake in using the alternative formulas to express the same truth, then who could have challenged the initiative shown by St Basil? St Athanasius, like St Basil, perfectly understood the complexity of the problems concerning disunity in the Church. Therefore, although, perhaps, it had been very difficult for him to make such a decision, in his wisdom, he found an inner power 5 Church missionary strategy and society 83 to propose to the same homoiousians, with the same hope as that of St Basil, an even simpler formula, but which, in turn, had the same truth of the identity of being between the Son and the Father, namely Son by nature. In other words, the Son has the same nature as the Father.23 Moreover, as a bishop and indisputable leader of the Nicaeans, he summoned a council to Alexandria in 361, in order to persuade the homoiousians to join the Nicaeans and to contribute to the strengthening of the Christian unity, based on a formula acceptable to all. He, like his younger colleague, Basil, would be accused by the most radical of the Nicaean people, perhaps honest in their approach, perhaps unable to understand the course of history and the genius of those who write it effectively, or simply because of malice, envy or ignorance, betrayal of Orthodoxy and of the tradition of the Nicaean fathers. Unfortunately, the good intentions of these two coryphaei of the Christian world of the fourth century did not lead to a lasting solution to the problems faced by the Church; it showed that non-involvement, fear, inconsistency and obtuseness in the face of evidence are the appanages of weak people but not of the powerful, who are able to change the world. Though his theology had begun to be known and in Cappadocia his name was now spoken with reverence and hope, St Basil did not leave his hermitage. Here he received all who wanted to share his wisdom, hosted them and feasted them with great joy from the few vegetables he cultivated alone. His friend Gregory finally decided to join him and together they laid the foundations of the Phylokalia and completed the monastic rules. He received Eustathius and his disciples, whom he hoped to convince of the mistake they made when they joined the homoiousians; and again, he would welcome Gregory after his initial departure from the priesthood after ordination as priest at Nazianzus. He would rebuke him for his reluctant and hesitant nature and, he would persuade him to return, on the eve of Easter 362, to enjoy the gift he received and to resume his responsibilities.24 Nothing seemed to disturb his spiritual repose, prayer, study, and the joy of feeling solidarity with the God-created nature in whose company he felt as though he were in an earthly heaven, until he received a letter from Bishop Dianius. Although, after the mistake made by him in signing the confession of homoiousian faith, their relationship had cooled, when he received the news of his illness, he became sad, because in the depths of his soul he loved Dianius, had forgiven him and prayed for him. That is why Basil rushed to Caesarea. The meeting was significant, resembling that between father and son, the first asking forgiveness for his apathy, assuring him that, in his soul, he was never separated from the faith as laid down in Nicaea. Dianius really wanted the young Basil to know this perhaps because the Holy Spirit had told him that he would end up defending, with all his being, not only the Church of Cappadocia, but also the entire East. After Dianius’s death, Eusebius, a man in whom St Basil had great hopes, would arrive on the episcopal seat of Caesarea of Cappadocia. Eusebius was pious, although not ordained as a clergyman and familiar with the problems of the church, having come from the nobility or aristocracy of the time. St Basil probably believed that it was better for the Church to choose someone who had not been touched by the Arian virus in its multiple forms of manifestation, and his 84 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy first encounters with the new bishop made him believe that he was right. He was ordained priest and given great responsibilities in the pastoral and administrative work in the capital of Cappadocia.25 Unfortunately, the spell was soon broken, and the honest, fair, friendly and affable man, was replaced by one who was crushed by complexities, susceptible to rumours and gossip. In order not to create conflict that might lead to the destabilisation of the fragile unity of the Church, Basil left the capital and retreated to his hermitage in Pontus where he could resume his ascetic life; he would however, remain permanently connected to the evolution of the political and church events from outside.26

St Basil, imperial power and church diplomacy His brief experience as a priest in Caesarea had an effect on his choice of priorities. He was not simply a monk, but also a shepherd and he took care not only of those who were close to him, but of all Christians whom he considered his brothers and to whom he felt a great responsibility. Concerned by the decisions of the Emperor Julian, who aimed to restore paganism to the schools of the empire and to reduce Christian education to nothing, he wrote the Address to Young Men. He continued to organise monastic life and made pastoral visits not only to the hermitages or monasteries set up by himself, but also to those established by Eustathius of Sebaste, with whom he continued to keep a strong link, despite their differing doctrinal opinions. He carefully analysed the Eunomian doctrine and criticised it point by point, with great precision and accuracy, in the work Against Eunomius.27 He sensed the danger that would follow the installation of the new emperor, in the person of Valens, an open advocate of Arianism, and he prepared for an unavoidable ‘confrontation’ with the followers of this Christian trend. But, for the time being, he watched the events from a distance, not being officially involved in any concrete action. Although the Arians (anomoians and homoians) quickly took over most of the churches in the East of the Empire, there remained a bastion of Nicaean believers in Cappadocia and part of Pontus. Bishop Eusebius realised too late that alone he could not oppose the Emperor’s will to impose Arian law everywhere. He needed strong people capable of facing any confrontation, religious, ideological, political and even social. He needed eloquence of St Paul, skill and power of persuasion, and finally, after several hesitations and indirect invitations, even through Gregory, he begged Basil to come to the capital and help him.

St Basil and the ‘complicated’ ecclesiastical scene It was a difficult time for the Church and his city, so that St Basil, despite his own fears and perhaps to the surprise of many clergy who knew the tensions between them, returned and was at the disposal of his bishop. From now on the relationship between them would change radically. The interests of the Church and the danger to which the Nicaean believers were exposed were much more important than anything else. There was no room for personal ambition, or grievous gestures. St Basil was in charge of the entire eparchial administration. This courageous act 5 Church missionary strategy and society 85 of both clergy was one of a great inspiration, proving over time to be beneficial to the Church of Cappadocia, but also to the Christian world in general. St Basil knew when and how to respond to all the challenges he was subjected to. Back in the capital, he initiated, in agreement with Bishop Eusebius, a catechetical program at the level of the whole diocese, with the purpose of training clerics and believers for theological confrontations and also for the understanding of their own confessional identity. At the same time, he developed a highly active religious policy and tried to strengthen his authority not only in the seats of the city of Caesarea but also in all its exarchates.28 To better understand the difficulty faced by the future bishop of Caesarea, his initiative in the context of the religious horizon developed by Valens (that was never unitary) must be considered.29 The Emperor had demonstrated some tolerance towards the homoiousians, allowing them to meet and take theological decisions, he persecuted continuously the homoousians and as it is known, he protected the homoians. In the year 364, at Lampsacus, the homoiousians condemned the decisions from Rimini and Constantinople and returned to the decisions of the synod of Antioch (from the year 341) which had posited ‘four forms (formulas) of faith’ of reconciliation towards orthodoxy. The Arian heresy was thus ostensibly combated, but adopting the homoousios position, a fundamental step to avoid any future doctrinal error, had not yet occurred.30 After a series of regional synods in western Asia Minor (held in 365 in Smyrna, Pisidia, Isauria, Pamphylia and Lycia), the homoiousians decided to send a delegation to Pope Liberius.31 St Basil had not been present at Lampsacus or at the other synods from western Asia Minor, but he met with the delegation on its way to Rome and surely welcomed their intention. Even if he was not convinced as to their sincerity, he hoped that a new experience in the presence of Pope Liberius, would unify them more than the Christian truths uttered by the Synod at Nice four decades earlier. The delegation that travelled to the West was composed of Eustathius of Sebaste, Silvanus of Tarsus and Theophilus of Castabala, and departed during the second half of 365 or perhaps in spring of 366. An additional goal was to persuade supporters of Valentinian to join them however, they were too far from the western frontier. At the beginning of the meeting, Pope Liberius was quite reserved. He initially did not want to receive the Eastern bishops, believing them heretical, but because they had signed the Nicaean Creed he reconsidered.32 Out of politeness or perhaps ignorance, he did not ask them what they understood by the term homoousion. He was also unaware of the new heresy that already simmered in the group who visited him, because at that moment the crisis regarding the nature of the Holy Spirit had not yet begun. Although he had been given a letter from the 59 Eastern bishops promising to remain Orthodox, upon their return home, members of that delegation returned to their old habits, providing evidence that their failure to discuss and clarify the term homoousion had been a major shortcoming. St Basil supported Eustathius of Sebaste, for he had seen in his approach the only way by which he could regain his place among the Orthodox bishops of 86 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy Nicaea. Unfortunately, his efforts were always unsuccessful, which cooled relations between them. However, in the following year (367) at the Synod of Tyana, a partial reconciliation between the Orthodox and Semi-Arian bishops was achieved.33 This resulted from a lessening of the Orthodox vigilance in the face of a new challenge, that is to say, how the divinisation of the Holy Spirit was held to have occurred. Bishop Eusebius participated at the Tyana Synod, and, in normal circumstances, Basil would also have been present.34 It is interesting that Eusebius had not participated in a similar synod during the time of Jovian,35 but he participated now when his relations with St Basil were very close. Does this mean that the influence of the Holy Father over Eusebius had become so strong, or that he had already retrieved part of his powers? The message received from the West was particularly encouraging so plans were made for a council of all the bishops of East and West to take place at Tarsus. But Valens, at the urging of Eudoxius,36 did not agree. Another problem was the death of Pope Liberius in September 366. Everything thus remained as it was, and with this unresolved project, the Church would soon begin to face another great heresy, that of the Pneumatomachians.

A timeless work In the years following, St Basil continued his work in strengthening religious unity. Beyond the problems of the organisation of parishes, with his bishop’s commitment, he ably performed a vast range of social work that would become, over the centuries, an example for any bishop in any place and any time. The fact that he was held in great respect in Caesarea, even before becoming bishop, is clear from the correspondence that he maintained with the major personalities of the time, clergy or laity. What was needed, and what he provided, was more finesse, much perseverance and wisdom to address to the bishops and officials of the state in a world whose moral principles had been severely shaken. His diplomatic skills would prove to be of great service to him, especially when, in 370, he would become Bishop of Caesarea and would have to face both the Arian, and the Pneumatomachian heresies. He maintained a balance in his diocese between the faithful and those who were more easily swayed, in order to develop a dialogue with the Emperor and his dignitaries in favour of the Orthodox people and of his Church, and to reconcile within himself the office of theologian with the manager of the most important charitable system in the history of Christianity. God surely helped Basil to carry out his all multiple tasks well and truly.

The challenges of social diplomacy St Basil was not concerned only with the strictly religious matters of his time, the disturbances caused by heresies and schisms, but also with the life of society as a whole.37 Christianity as promoted by him was a realistic, concrete, humanist one, which at first created some anxiety among those who viewed the Church as a purely clerical institution, and not as one in which all could find a place for 5 Church missionary strategy and society 87 themselves, priests and simple believers. He was a great thinker and an exceptional theologian, an intellectual of the Church and an authentic monk, but also a simple man devoted to Christian principles he would never leave. Therefore, in addition to the importance of religious education, of God’s service in his Church, he sought to fulfil the word of the gospel of Christ in practice through a very effective social and political missionary strategy.38 He tried, by all possible means, to bring into the souls of people, regardless of their social condition or religious beliefs, the idea of solidarity, because he believed in the social vocation of man, in collaboration and communication, not in isolation and seclusion.39 Man cannot be perfected by himself, but only through the one who is beside him, because he cannot love God in a selfish way, but only through the concrete love that he shows to his neighbour.

Individual social missionary strategy He became an intermediary between the rich, those in positions of political, military or church authority, and the poor and the weak, with the conviction that this was his Christian duty.40 St Basil deplored the difficult conditions of the poor and defenceless, and decided to act in their favour, so that they also had the chance to enjoy some joy, wellbeing and justice in this earthly life. It was not a risk-free mission, as it could be understood today, because it contradicted the mentality of the world in which he lived. He knew that the relationships between the social classes were well-defined, had precise rules, and the possibilities of communication were rather difficult, but he was convinced that true Christian love could break down all barriers. This would be, moreover, the clerical (spiritual) weapon he would use in his approach to bring people together and to plant in their soul the desire to be unified. St Basil believed in the re-creative power of God’s love in the hearts of men. On the other hand, he knew how hard it was for someone who was part of the nobility,41 or who held public office whether in imperial or local government, or even for those who had high commissions in military institutions or the Church, to overcome certain prejudices and to also look upon the poor as being people in whom the image of God was found. St Basil had always been involved in public life, even before taking up any official position in the Church. Located in Pontus, in his place of seclusion, he sent a letter of thanks to the Imperial Treasurer for his extremely benevolent attitude towards the citizens of the metropolis, which he wished to be continued in the future.42 The fact that he wrote to a dignitary, from the silence of his monastery, shows, on the one hand, that although he was far away from the agitation of the outside world, nothing was indifferent to him, being aware of everything that was happening there; and, on the other hand, that his innate talent to prepare, cultivate and maintain a desirable relationship of friendship, even at a formal level, with those who, at a given moment, could play an important role in the life of the Church and the society from which he was part. Of course, it all became easier when he himself became a public figure, known in all social, political and military environments of the time, as a metropolitan at Caesarea of Cappadocia. The preparation of his social ministry had begun long 88 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy before however, during a famine that had occurred in his youth (367–369).43 Then, not yet being prominent in Church life, he had donated half of his wealth the poor, who were at the limit of subsistence.44 How would this gesture be received by those with a similar financial and material situation? Some might consider him an eccentric who dispensed family money to help those who were already doomed, considering that they themselves had no responsibility for them, because that was the will of God; others would consider him heroic, while not following his example, considering it to be dangerous to them and to the welfare of their family; and a few others might also have copied Basil, helping as far as possible those who were unable to help themselves.45 Moreover, the terrible situation of the population of Cappadocia and the neighbouring provinces overlapped with the onset of his physical sufferings that kept him bedridden for periods of time, preventing him from visiting one of his most good and loyal friends,46 or even relatives, in danger of death.47 His permanent presence in the capital was necessary in sharing supplies and coordinating philanthropic activity,48 because, as happens in times of war, revolt or plagues and epidemics, alongside the people who were willing to volunteer, there were also the profiteers and speculators, who sought to obtain profit from any situation, without any scruples.49 Later, however, when he asked the help of the state’s dignitaries and the wealthy to help him in supporting the social institutions he would establish, this gesture would matter a great deal. The experience gained in the years before becoming a metropolitan of Caesarea would give him some insights and self-control in dealing with the representatives of the local or central authorities to whom he would address several letters of support for those who had suffered certain injustices, either from the ranks of the clergy, or as simple human beings, but without any possibility of defending themselves against those who had done them wrong. Of course, in order to be able to intervene in solving situations that most often crossed the religious framework, he needed the permanent cultivation of friendly relations with many of those who occupied important positions in the state. He fully used his powers of persuasion, his charisma, recognised even by his adversaries, and, above all, his profound faith that God was working through men, when and how he thought it appropriate. But his duty, as he understood it, was make himself available to God through the means of communication and persuasion he had at his disposal. When he decided to intercede for a person who was in a difficult situation he proposed various ways of action. He wrote a letter in which his intervention was very radical, and, if this was without chance of success, it was followed by another one, written in softer terms much more acceptable to the receiver, and if this one was refused as well, the letter was replaced by a third one, apparently inoffensive, difficult to reject, but which solved a large part of the situation. In that way, on many occasions in his letters addressed to the imperial or local authorities, the proposal was either to cancel certain taxes and dues that had brought many to the point of despair and bankruptcy, to reduce them or, at the very least, to postpone them. Those concerned, who were unable to pay their debts to the state, lost their properties, were thrown into the street, and were forced to live as beggars. St Basil was with these people, suffered with them, and tried to influence those dignitaries 5 Church missionary strategy and society 89 who could stop these traumas, if they wanted. Most likely, before doing so, he asked other wealthy people about the human quality of the person concerned, if he was capable of a noble gesture, or, on the contrary, if he was impassive to suffering. Only after that, he worked according to a well-established plan in which his diplomatic skill was evident, but also his trust in the words of Christ: ‘Therefore I say to you, believe that you have received everything you pray and ask for, and you shall have it’ (Mark 11:24). When writing to a preceptor or tax inspector, he took care to highlight the status he enjoyed, reminding them respectfully that he was occupying his position by the will of God, and therefore was obliged to show love for all men and to treat them with justice and understanding, for the divine reward would surely come.50 The same happened when he went to the governor to solve a dramatic situation in the family of an old man who, after experiencing the tragedy of losing his own son, found himself forced also to endure the removal of his nephew, thanks to an impersonal royal decree. St Basil asked the governor, in the name of the friendship that bound them, but also of the principles they both shared, not to permit harsh laws, which supported only the interests of the institutions and almost always disregarded the sentiments of the people, to turn into abuse and to destroy lives and destinies.51 The same happened when he appealed to the goodwill of a state representative who was in charge of collecting the taxes for the manufacture of military garments. St Basil asked him to postpone this operation or to reduce the payment in gold of the city for a while, so that there was time to inform the officials residing outside the city in order to prevent disturbances and tensions among the population.52 St Basil utilised his entire diplomatic arsenal in his approach to the local representatives of the government, to persuade them to make allowances for the needy. He gave them credit for their good deeds and the benefits they provided for the poor, in other situations and other conditions, and asked them to consider his demands as well. He chose wholesome messengers, trusted people, able to demonstrate and to explain to them the need for a fiscal dispensation, or even of some aids, to those who found themselves in critical situations and might not survive.53

Basiliad: piety and philanthropy St Basil tried to help as many people as possible, without making a distinction between them, but his greatest concern was for those in poverty and suffering, assuming for himself, in a very concrete manner, the message of the Saviour Jesus Christ regarding the care that any good Christian must have for those in a difficult situation, whom He calls My little brothers (Matt. 25:40, 45).54 He entered into the dramas of men as if they were his own and treated them all with the same love, perhaps understanding better than many others what it meant to suffer, because he himself faced it every day. It is known that St Basil suffered from liver disease for which there was no complete and permanent cure; he later suffered the shivers of malaria were added later.55 That is why he may have been more sensitive to the sufferings of the sick. On the other hand, there was also a 90 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy tradition in his family about the care of the sick. In this connection, the special relationship that his grandparents and great-grandparents had with St Gregory the Miracle-Worker (Gregory Thaumaturgus), should be noted. He was a true apostle of the lands of Cappadocia, from whom they inherited the inclination to relieve suffering, especially of the sick. He himself kept up, all through his life, a connection with the doctors Eustathius56 and Meletius57 who became in time friends, confidants and partners in theological dialogue. In addition to his individual actions taken at certain times towards various state dignitaries in favour of some disfavoured, sick, lonely people unable to earn their living, or to defend themselves against injustice, St Basil decided to establish institutions to provide permanent social assistance to those in need, not just at random or accidentally; a complex of buildings that would shelter all the necessary social activities that would bring hope to the sick, to receive the trust of the poor in better times, to educate those who would not otherwise have a chance to live better, to receive foreigners, to re-educate those who did wrong, and to provide a refuge for the lonely. Tradition has named these institutions after their founder: the Basiliad.58 There is no clearer proof of the manifestation of Christian love for others than this one. His thought was primarily directed to the sick, because, in society at that time, they were often marginalised and left to suffer in solitude and hardship. They could not be sustained by the occasional sharing of gifts or other aid offered by the rich, or even a daily hot meal that though it was however, a small demonstration of human solidarity. St Basil’s radical project entirely changed the charitable or philanthropic system of the time.59 The complex itself, spread over a large area outside the city, included, not only hospitals, schools for children’s education, shelters for lepers, workshops for those who, although in poor health or with certain infirmities, could still work to further support the activities here, but also houses for victims and aliens.60 The description given by St Gregory, his best friend, of this mini- city, outside the capital of Cappadocia, helps us to understand its grandeur and usefulness:

A noble thing is philanthropy, and the support of the poor, and the assistance of human weakness. Go forth a little way from the city, and behold the new city, the storehouse of piety, the common treasury of the wealthy, in which the superfluities of their wealth, aye, and even their necessaries, are stored, in consequence of his exhortations, freed from the power of the moth, no longer gladdening the eyes of the thief, and escaping both the emulation of envy, and the corruption of time: where disease is regarded in a religious light, and disaster is thought a blessing, and sympathy is put to the test.61

Of course, the building up of such an edifice from the ground was not an easy one, both because of its novelty and of the exclusive church patronage, as well as the huge costs. Therefore, once again, as he did in the years of famine of 367–369, St Basil was the first who provided to the builders all that remained ofhis inheritance. Then, as he always did, he used his diplomatic refinement to try to 5 Church missionary strategy and society 91 convince as many as possible to join him in this unique and grand project, whether members of the local aristocracy, local or imperial governors, or merchants who had made fortunes out of the extremely active trade in the capital of Cappadocia. To these many others were added, perhaps more, not as rich and powerful as the others, but closer to the Church, to its message, and to this great foundation of authentic Christian love. In addition, the emergence of this new social institution was a novelty that attracted many visitors, pilgrims or the simply curious who, in turn, were impressed by the eloquence and simplicity of St Basil’s life and his willingness to listen and to help all those who came to him. They left solid donations and promised support for the future. As a fine psychologist, confident of the nobility of the soul of man touched by the sense of spiritual fulfilment, balanced in his words and master of dialogue, St Basil knew that the existence, development and survival of his social settlements depended largely on the degree of awareness of their necessity among the population, and, especially, of those who had the financial and political power to support them. That is why, through his friends in the political and ecclesial world, through open talk or epistles, and through people with less visibility or notoriety, he managed to create a true network of collaborators able to support his philanthropic system, directly or indirectly, through financial and material aid, tax and giving relief, cancellation of debt or taxes.62 It goes without saying that this social institution, with so much diversified activity, in which human labour was happily met with the help of God, was very well received by most of the population, as was normal, but there were also contes- tations, which, because of envy, malice, or the inability to overcome the political or religious differences, triggered a campaign of denigration of St Basil. One of the accusations was that St Basil had substituted himself for the authority of the governor of the province, Elias, by usurping his official position, since only the latter could build such a social settlement that surpassed both the physical structure and the aims and practices of any other similar institution. Apart from the fact that these accusers were concerned rather with the formal observance of general social provision, than with the usefulness of the social complex built by St Basil for the benefit of all, they were also intending to create and develop tension and confrontation between the Church’s authority represented by the bishop of the place and the administrative political one represented by the governor.63 Perhaps in their hearts they appreciated what St Basil did, but, outwardly, they resented the fact that someone had come up with a better idea than the authorities and also that they were helpless witnesses of the increase of St Basil’s prestige. Their actions were all the more pernicious and detrimental as they knew very well that, during war or other regional conflicts, the imperial armies retreated, and with them also the local administration, and the only authority remaining with the people, regardless of the dangers, was the bishop of the place. And when the bishop was a man loved by all, not because he had this title, but because he identified himself entirely with their needs, troubles, and sufferings, then surely, between them, an unshakeable, powerful and strong connection was created, perhaps even greater than the relationship between family members. When the accusations multiplied, and when the governor himself seemed to start listening to them, courteous 92 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy and rational, St Basil addressed him directly, dismantling the arguments with enviable ease:

But to whom do we do any harm by building a place of entertainment for strangers, both for those who are on a journey and for those who require medical treatment on account of sickness, and so establishing a means of giving these men the comfort they want, physicians, doctors, means of con- veyance, and escort? All these men must learn such occupations as are necessary to life and have been found essential to a respectable career; they must also have buildings suitable for their employments, all of which are an honour to the place, and, as their reputation is credited to our governor, confer glory on him.64

In other words, doing good deeds, no matter who did them, in what form and with what help, was well received by God. Moreover, goodness returned with all its gifts to those who sustained it, both to those who did everything that was possible for it to occur, and also to those who, tacitly or not, accepted its commission. We do not know whether St Basil believed in his destiny as the maker of a new social missionary concept, or whether he simply put into practice his inner impulse, his unswerving desire to share his genuine love for others. His project was not just a missionary one; it also had an ecumenical dimension because St Basil did not build his social facilities only for his believers, but for all those who needed social assistance, regardless of their religious orientation, political beliefs, race or culture.

Concluding remarks St Basil remains significant in the history of the universal Church through his countless contributions to the theological, monastic, liturgical, missionary and social fields. There remains, however, a question that has probably been on the lips of all those who have studied his life and his work over the course of time. How did he manage to shine in so many fields of activity in a relatively short lifetime of 49 years and only nine of those within the Episcopate? As a rule, a man chooses which way to go: if he enters into monasticism, then he dedicates himself to prayer and perhaps to the study of the Holy Scripture and theology in general; if he man- ages to hold a position in the Church hierarchy, then he tries to carry out his tasks, either by serving at the altar, or in the administrative apparatus, or in the missionary or social fields; if he enters theological education, then his preoccupations are directed towards didactic and research activity, and, if he is a cleric, to a certain extent also to the pastoral work of a parish. And it is natural for this to happen, because God has given people different gifts, and they are called to discover and to value them by faith, striving and understanding. At the same time, however, he plants in their souls also the desire to share the gifts with others, because only the mutual sharing of gifts can lead to the welfare and spiritual prosperity of society. St Basil is an exception to the rule because he discovered within himself many gifts, and he knew that he had the strength, the patience and the intelligence to 5 Church missionary strategy and society 93 cultivate them all, not for his own sake, but for the good of others, and for the glory of God, to whom he dedicated his whole life. He was a true monk, a man of prayer, of science and of study, a perfect intellectual of the time, but he knew that to remain only in a state of contemplation of the beauty of this world was not enough. He sought the essence of Christian teaching which, beyond its doctrinal and terminological accuracy, the nobleness and noble dimension of its spirituality, was the salvation of man. Man, as God’s image, was his primordial preoccupation. St Basil never saw the Church as being simply an institution, not even when he was fully preoccupied with the observance of Nicaean teachings, with all the pre- vailing controversies about his position and his leniency towards the Arian groups in order to work for the unity of the Church through direct dialogue or correspondence. Above all, he saw the Church as a living, breathing, being, who understood all the weaknesses of her sons. To him everything was natural; there was no separation between word and deed because in Basil’s soul they were part of a whole and they were in complete harmony. It was therefore natural for St Basil to develop a practical theology in which the words of the Saviour Jesus Christ were perfectly embodied, who said that the greatest commandment for a true Christian is to love God from all his heart, with all his soul and all his conscience, and his neighbour as himself (Matt. 22:37–39). His social mission, his compassionate projects, and his main duty were found in the phrase: ‘Christian love without deeds of mercy, without a concrete manifestation in the world, is a form without foundation, it is dead’ (James 2:20). Nothing fulfilled him more spiritually than the sacrificial love of the sick, of those in distress and in trouble, in poverty and loneliness. It was not about pride or lack of humility, or a desire for vain glory, as some of his enemies might have said, as long as he himself gave up to all that would have prevented him to confess his faith in the saving power of love to the other, despite the innumerable obstacles that came up against him. Although he was an extremely wealthy man, he used all his material resources to comfort the sufferings of others, he lived as a monk in the world, and devoted himself, to his last breath, to defending the faith and spiritual well-being of his believers. Those who tried to minimise his achievements, either in the theological or administrative and social sphere, were small people, unable to understand his genius, or invaded by such malice and envy that they denied the evidence with so much strength and vehemence that they became the prisoners of their own imaginary reality.

Notes 1 Rămureanu et al. (ed.), The Universal Church History), vol. I (1–1054), 324–331. 2 About the name and the topography of Annesi (or Anissa or Annesa) as one of the estates of St Basil’s family, see George Huxley ‘Saint Basil the Great and Anissa’, Analecta Bollandiana 107 (1989): 30–32; Jones, Martindale and Morris, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, I, 178–179. 3 Anne Gordon Keidel, ‘Hesychia, Prayer and Transformation in Basil of Caesarea’, Studia Patristica 37 (2001): 110–120. 94 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy 4 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 111–113. 5 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 99–100. 6 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 100. 7 For an accurate account of the nature of his monastic philosophy see Susanna Elm, ‘Virgins of God’: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 106–11; see also Daniel Stramara, ‘Double Monasticism in the Greek East, Fourth through Eighth Centuries’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.2 (1998): 274–280. 8 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 101. 9 In a short examination of the various forms of Neo-Arianism in St Basil’s time, we may say that, on the far ‘left’, we may place Aetius and later on, Eunomius ‘who argued that the Son was unlike (anomoios) the essence of the Father’ and they could be called anomoians; on the far ‘right’, we may place Marcellus of Ancyra and his followers ‘who so emphasised the likeness of Son and Father that they apparently failed to identify any eternal distinctions between the two’, and between there is a large spectrum of beliefs and variety of positions [Morwenna Ludlow, The Early Church (London/New York: I.B. Tauris & Co., 2009)], 127. 10 Van Dam, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia, 30; see, for details, Stanislas Giet, ‘Saint Basile et le concile de Constantinople de 360’, Journal of Theological Studies NS 6 (1955), 94–99. 11 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 101–105. 12 The problem with the term homoios is that it can be interpreted in many ways: The orthodox theologians such as Athanasius of Alexandria could see it as proper for emphasising the equality of Son with the Father, the followers of Eunomius could use it to suggest the subordination of the Son to the Father; others including Basil of Ancyra agreed with it as long as it is associated with another term, ousia, in a formulation like this ‘the Son is like the essence of the Father’, and Aetius rejected it totally (Ludlow, The Early Church, 127). 13 Cf. Ioan Rămureanu et al. (ed.), The Universal Church History, 330. 14 Cf. Kopecek, A History of Neo-Arianism, 352–353. 15 See Christine Shepardson, ‘Defining the Boundaries of Orthodoxy: Eunomius in the Anti-Jewish Polemic of his Cappadocian Opponents’, Church History 76.4 (2007), 704–705. 16 Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, book I, 2, NPNF 5, 36; Shepardson, ‘Defining the Boundaries of Orthodoxy’, 705. 17 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 105–108. 18 St Basil the Great, Letter 14, NPNF 8, 124–125; see also Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), 287. 19 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 114–115. 20 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 117. 21 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 117. 22 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 117. The influence of St Athanasius’ thinking over St Basil’s Trinitarian theology is discussed in Mark DelCogliano, ‘The Influence of Athanasius and the Homoiousians on Basil of Caesarea’s Decentralization of “Unbegotten”’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 19.2 (2011): 197–223. 23 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 117–118. 24 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 132–135; for the date of his ordination see Pouchet, Basile le Grand et son univers d’amis a’après sa correspondance: une stratégie de communion, 129–135. 25 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 141. 26 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 143–146. 27 See, for this in particular, Dumitru Stăniloae ‘Învățătura despre Sfânta Treime în scrierea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare ‘Împotriva lui Eunomiu’ [Teaching on the Holy 5 Church missionary strategy and society 95 Trinity in St Basil’s ‘Against Eunomius’; Romanian Text]’ in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1600 de ani de la săvârșirea sa, ed. Bartolomeu Anania et al. (Bucharest: Institutul Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House, 1980): 51–69. For the teaching of Eunomius, see Richard Paul Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 28 It is not to be inferred that St Basil, only a priest at that time, substituted himself for his hierarch, but only that he was the one who put into practice what they decided together, which may be an unusual arrangement for clergy to adopt, but it constituted a very good preparation for the moment when he would become a bishop. The experience gained then would be of great help to him when he would have to make decisions on his own. 29 It seems that in the first three years of his reign, Valens was not too preoccupied with religious issues, or, rather, he did not make the persecution of homoousian Christians his first priority. The idea of quasi-total control over the religious rulers of theempire became an integral part of his general policy only after the death of Emperor Valentinian, although, it cannot be said that, until then, he missed any opportunity to persecute the Orthodox [André Piganiol, L’Empire Chrétien, 2e (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1972), 181]. 30 Rămureanu et al., The Universal Church History, 326. 31 Rămureanu et al., The Universal Church History, 326–327. 32 See Karl Joseph von Hefele – Henry Leclerq, Histoire des Conciles d’après les documents originaux, vol. 11 (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1907–1952), 976; Sozomenos, The Ecclesiastical History, VI, 10, NPNF 2, 352; Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 12, NPNF 2, 100–101. 33 It was a partial reconciliation, because there was not a common position between the Semi-Arians. Some were still undecided whether to accept the Nicaean Creed (stressing the importance of the term homoousion), others, numbering 34, driven probably by Cyzicus of Eleusis while meeting in a Synod at Antioch, in Caria, contrarily decided to remain with the faith confessed at the Synod of the year 341, in the same locality (Sozomenos, The Ecclesiastical History, VI, 12, NPNF 2, 353–354). 34 Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 12, NPNF 2, 100–101. 35 Sozomenos, The Ecclesiastical History, VI, 4, NPNF 2, 348–349. 36 Eudoxius was the court bishop of Valens. He thus used every opportunity to increase his influence over the Emperor (see especially: Sozomenos,The Ecclesiastical History, 6–12, NPNF 2, 349–354). It even seems that he received from Eudoxius before setting out for the first military campaign against Goths (Cf. Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 12–13, NPNF 3, 115. 37 St Basil was very familiar with many facts about society, administration, law, taxpayers’ view of taxation, the householders’ views on the safety of properties and merchants, etc., William Mitchell Ramsay, ‘Basil of Caesarea’, 4. 38 See especially, Stanislas Giet, Les idées et l’action socials de Saint Basile (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1941): 150–153; Marcella Forlin Patrucco, ‘Social Patronage and Political Mediation in the Activity of Basil of Caesarea’, Studia Patristica 17 (1982): 1102–1107. 39 Susan R. Holman ‘Rich City Burning: Social Welfare and Ecclesial Insecurity in Basil’s Mission to Armenia’, 208–209. 40 Patrucco, ‘Social Patronage and Political Mediation in the Activity of Basil of Caesarea’, 1103. 41 He knew this very well because he himself belonged to the privileged social class of Cappadocia. See Thomas Kopecek, ‘The Social Class of the Cappadocian Fathers’ Church History 42.4 (1973): 453–454; 461–466; Patrucco, ‘Social Patronage’, 1103; Peter Brown, The Body and Society, 285. 42 St Basil the Great, Letter 15, NPNF 8, 125. 96 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy 43 For the famine and his thought about the hunger, poverty and their consequences in the society, see Susan R. Holman, ‘The Hungry Body: Famine, Poverty and Identity in Basil’s Homily 8’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1999): 337–363. 44 Ilias Mastroghiannopoulos, ‘Bizanț, o lume a spiritului și a dragostei (1) [Bizantion, a world of love and spirit]’, Mitropolia Olteniei 1–2(1973): 68–69; Maisie Ward, ‘Saint Basil and the Cappadocians’, 13–15; Evelyne, Patlagean, ‘The Poor’, in The Byzantines, ed. Guglielmo Cavallo (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 20. 45 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 184–188. 46 St Basil the Great, Letter 27, NPNF 8, 132. 47 St Basil the Great, Letter 31, NPNF 8, 134. 48 St Basil the Great, Letter 31, NPNF 8, 134. 49 Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 185–188. 50 St Basil the Great, Letter 83, NPNF 8, 173. 51 St Basil the Great, Letters 84 and 86, NPNF 8, 173–175. See Patrucco, ‘Social Patronage and Political Mediation in the Activity of Basil of Caesarea’, 1102; David Hunt, ‘The Church as a public institution’, Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire A.D. 337–425, 2nd edn, ed. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 270. 52 St Basil the Great, Letter 88, NPNF 8, 175. 53 St Basil the Great, Letters 142, NPNF 8, 143 and 144, 205. 54 Mastroghiannopoulos, ‘Bizantion, a world of love and spirit’, 70–74. 55 Gain, L’église de Cappadoce au IVe siècle d’après la correspondance de Basile de Césarée (330–379), 51–53. 56 St Basil the Great, Letter 151, NPNF 8, 209; Letter 189, 228–232. 57 St Basil the Great, Letter 193, NPNF 8, 233–234. 58 For details concerning the setting up, the aim, activity and the impact of the social institutions of Basiliad, especially see: Stanislas Giet, Les Idées et L’Action Sociales de Saint Basile (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1941), 266–310; 400–423; Samir Gholam, ‘Vasiliada sau instituția de binefacere a Sfântului Vasile cel Mare [Basiliad or the Philanthrophical Institution of St. Basil the Great]’, Glasul Bisericii 7–8 (1973): 735– 748; Pouchet, Basile le Grand et son univers d’amis d’après sa correspondance: une stratégie de communion, 299–306. 59 Susan G. Holman, The Hungry are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001): 74–75; Peter Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (Hanover, NH; London: [Published for Brandeis University Press by] University Press of New England, 2002): 38–42; Peregrine Horden, ‘The Earliest Hospitals in Byzantium, Western Europe, and Islam’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 35.3 (2005): 365–366. 60 For St Basil’s philanthropic system and foundations see in particular Gain, L’église de Cappadoce, 277–289. 61 S. Gregory Nazianzen, Panegyric on S. Basil. Oration 43. 63, NPNF 7, 416. 62 Mastroghiannopoulos, ‘Bizantion, a world of love and spirit’, 71–73. 63 See for details: Thomas A Kopecek, ‘The Cappadocian Fathers and Civic Patriotism’, Church History 43.3 (1974): 301–303; Ward, ‘Saint Basil and the Cappadocians’, 18–20. 64 St Basil, Letter 94, NPNF 8, 180; see also Reilly, Imperium and sacerdotium according to St Basil the Great, 125–128. 6 Mission and counter-mission in St Basil’s correspondence

St Basil remained in the consciousness of all those who came into contact with his work and life as a person endowed with a multitude of qualities. His remarkable achievements in a period of great upheaval are recorded in historical sources and have transformed him into a true legend for posterity. Considering the extraordinary power of the word transmitted through any form of communication, one of the most interesting aspects of his work refers to the way in which messages are sent to society. He was a fine psychologist who knew how to use all the means of communication of the time to keep in touch with the other Nicaean clergy, and the most important of these was the sending of letters by means of highly experienced couriers. If the recipients were also trustworthy people whom he knew personally or through common friends, and if they were also from the same province of Cappadocia, then things were undoubtedly simplified and the chance that his plans would be carried out successfully was much greater. Unfortunately, in many cases he had to confront dishonest and duplicitous people who developed a counter mission which threatened the unity and prosperity of the Church of God.

Messengers and their challenges The rapid succession of political and religious events of this ‘golden century’ of Christianity has ‘made history’ allowing both the Church hierarchy and the people to seek the best and fastest means of communication between them, and the most inventive and gifted at this was St Basil. He developed a peerless epistolary mission theology, both for his innate diplomatic skills, aided by a science of composition, logic and argumentation, which he acquired during the time of his studies, and also because of periods of illness which restricted him to bed for months on end. Since he was not as mobile as he might have wished, he developed a network of communication through letters that allowed him to stay in contact with his supporters, clerics and lay people. Through his correspondence, he could also attempt to resolve conflict within the Church, to preserve unity of faith and transmit important messages to the Church for the clarification of doctrinal issues or of aspects of social life.1 The process of communication by letter was not without of danger, or indeed, risk of death for messengers. They were required to be persons of trust and 98 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy confidence. Therefore, their identity was most often secret, as were their entrusted missions or ‘true adventures’ undertaken at great peril to their lives. It is assumed that they enjoyed the facilities of the most diverse conditions both in travel itself and in daily life. However, it was difficult to find a messenger, and the correspondence was conducted rarely and ponderously. Not a few times, letters went astray and were lost. There were situations in which those wishing to send important messages were forced to wait months, maybe even up to a year to find the right person for such a mission, to have faith that the message would reach the destination safely.2 The intention of this chapter is to present some of the most important obstacles that St Basil the Great faced in his attempt to establish cooperative relations with both the Eastern and Western bishops, and so to strengthen church unity through letters.

Lack of messaging experience St Basil regrets that he cannot send a letter to Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, because of the lack of an experienced courier:

I wrote some time ago in reply to the questions of your reverence, but I did not send a letter, partly because from my long and dangerous illness I had not time to do so; partly because I had no one to send with it. I have but few men with me who are experienced in travelling and fit for service of this kind.3

Sometimes, however, he tried to use travellers who happened to be going in the direction he desired. And if between them there was a man which he knew from another occasion who had the quality to communicate by word of mouth that which could not be written on paper, then the only thing remained for him was to thank God and trust in the success of this occasional courier.

I am attacked by sickness after sickness and all the work given me, not only by the affairs of the Church, but by those who are troubling the Church, has detained me during the whole winter, and up to the present time. It has been therefore quite impossible for me to send any one to you or to pay you a visit . . . It was now about to send someone to get me accurate information about your condition. But when my well-beloved son Meletius, who is moving the newly enlisted troops, reminded me of the opportunity of my saluting you by him, I gladly accepted the occasion to write and had recourse to the kind services of the conveyor of my letter. He is the one who may himself serve instead of a letter, both because of his amiable disposition, and of his being well acquainted with all which concerns me.4

In fact, apart from other qualities otherwise specific for a runner in that time, St Basil enormously valued the one of ‘active intermediary’: Sanctissimus,5 a priest, is one example of a gifted messenger with quality of relating very accurately what he heard about the problems faced by St Basil and the Western bishops: 6 Mission and counter-mission 99 The anxious care which you have for the Churches of God will to some extent be assuaged by our very dear and very reverend brother Sanctissimus the presbyter, when he has told you of the love and kindness felt for us by all the West. But, on the other hand, it will be roused afresh and made yet keener, when he has told you in person what zeal is demanded by the present position of affairs. All other authorities have told us, as it were, by halves, the minds of men in the West, and the condition of thing there. He is very competent to understand men’s minds, and to make exact enquiry into the condition of affairs, and he will tell you everything and will guide your good will through the whole business.6

In the same category was also included Sabinus, who was an intermediary between the bishop of Caesarea and the Fathers of the Western Church,7 proving he was capable of summarising those views in St Basil’s letter, and also of reporting back clearly and concisely.8 All of this made him invaluable for the highly complex mission of St Basil the Great to preserve the unity of the Church in the face of Arian danger by diverse modes of action.9 Two other important messengers were Dorotheus and Jobinus. Dorotheus was sent to the Western bishops and provided them many other details omitted in the letter with the hope they would understand that they must act together with the bishops of the East to stop Arian expansion.

By God’s mercy instead of many we have sent one, our very reverend and beloved brother the presbyter Dorotheus. He is fully able to supply by his personal report whatever has been omitted in our letter, for he has carefully followed all that has occurred, and is jealous of the right faith. Receive him in peace, and speedily send him back to us, bringing us good news of your readiness to succour the brotherhood.10

He also was sent to St Athanasius the Great, bishop of Alexandria, with the intention of convincing the great bishop, then at the twilight of his career, to assist in efforts to inform the Western bishops about the disorders threatening the Church and to advise them to give all to defend the unity of the Church and to preach the right knowledge.11 Actually, Dorotheos himself was a great warrior for the restoration of peace in the Church of Christ.12 Jobinus, an Armenian bishop, was the bearer of a short epistle to Eusebius of Samosata, and he had also the opportunity to make himself a more complete description of the events that he knew very well about: the non-canonical ordination of Faustus by Antymus of Tyana. That was an act that could have caused a deep crisis which the Church of Armenia had confronted, and might also explain a cooling in the relations between St Basil and the Armenian bishop.13 When, after several attempts, St Basil failed to find an adequate courier, he even tried to obtain help from people with less experience, yet reliable, who would do the utmost to carry out the mission entrusted to them, as was the case of his servant Elpidios.14 Although impressive with nothing until then, the fact that he dared to 100 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy bring a letter to his good friend, Elpidios would rise to a great honour, for in the opinion of St Basil:

I find few opportunities of writing to your reverence, and this cause me no little trouble. It is just the same as if, when it was in my power to see you and enjoy your society very often, I did so but seldom . . . Now, however, Elpidius is going home to his own master, to refute the calumnies falsely got up against him by certain enemies, and he asked me for a letter. I therefore salute your reverence by him and commend to you a man who deserves your protection, at once for the sake of justice and for my own sake. Although I could say nothing else in his favour, yet, because he has made it of very great importance to be the bearer of my letter, reckon him among our friends, and remember me and pray for the Church.15

The fact that he could not send and receive so many letters as was needed for the smooth running of his ecclesiastical affairs, caused him great offence, that may be only reason that his social care lost its impetus. St Basil was distressed at losing an opportunity to send a letter to his relative Junius Soranus, dux of Scythia16, because of the negligence of a member of his family, who had not informed him that he was going to Scythia.17 He was eager to send a letter to Soranus to respond to false accusations that had put distance between the two otherwise close friends.18 In such a context, the regret of St Basil must also be taken into account, because he failed to write to the Alexandrians, when they were subjected to persecutions made up by the pagans:

With these thoughts for a long time we sat still, dazed at the news of what happened, for, in sober earnest, both our ears tingled on hearing of the shame- less and inhuman heresy of your persecutors. They have reverenced neither age, nor services in society, nor people’s affection. They inflicted torture, ignominy and exile; they plundered all the property they could find; they were careless alike of human condemnation and of the awful retribution to come at the hands of the righteous Judge.19

Only physical frailty prevented St Basil visiting the Alexandrians during the persecution they were subjected to by Valens. Moreover, until he found Eugene (a monk worthy of confidence) he had failed to find a courier to send an encouraging letter from him to them. And for all this, he asked for forgiveness from the Alexandrian brothers and requested that they remember him in their prayers.20

The problem of distance The difficulty in finding a messenger was sometimes due to the fact that almost no-one travelled from Caesarea to the distant places where St Basil was trying to send letters.21 Therefore, his epistles passed through several hands before they reached their recipients. A certain letter addressed to Euphronius, bishop of 6 Mission and counter-mission 101 Colonia in Armenia, arrived very late, because Basil had to change ‘the bearer’ several times on the way to its final destination. St Basil arranged to pass the letter through the hands of the bishops en route, in order for it to be handed, in the end, to bishop Euphronius:

Colonia, which the Lord has placed under your authority, is far out of the way of ordinary routes. The consequence is that, although I am frequently writing to the rest of the brethren in Armenia Minor, I hesitate to write to your reverence, because I have no expectation of finding anyone to convey my letter. Now, however, that I am hoping either for your presence, or that my letter will be sent to you by some of the bishops to whom I have written, I thus write and salute you by letter.22

In other words, the messenger himself was charged to personally deliver the letter to the bishop where he stopped, and this one, in turn, found another trusted messenger for the next stage and so on, until the last runner gave it to the bishop of the fortress to whom it was addressed. Despite St Basil’s intelligence and determination to maintain a regular correspondence with all the religious leaders of his time, it was almost impossible to achieve.23 A very special case is that of Eusebius, bishop of Samosata. During his exile in Thrace,24 Eusebius reproaches St Basil for not receiving news from him, while waiting with great impatience.25 When Basil the Great tells him about the difficulties he faced to find a messenger to go in that direction, Eusebius ask him why he did not delegate the mission to one of his clerics. After reminding him about the severity of such trips, because the weather was ‘so severe that all roads were stalled until the Easter days’, the bishop of Caesarea says he did not find someone brave enough and experienced to dare to go on a so long trip to Thrace: ‘For although our clergy do seem very numerous, they are men inexperienced in travelling because they never traffic, and prefer not to live far away from home, the majority of them plying sedentary crafts, whereby they get their daily bread.’26 St Basil expressed his regret in this letter that Eusebius had not received any of his four previous letters.27 What was somehow surprising to Eusebius because the bishop of Caesarea, thoughtful as always, had sent the letters sealed in Nicaea via a certain Leontius, who fulfilled an extremely important function, that of overseer of recalling taxes on land held by the people and who responded directly to the Prefect. From there the letters should be entrusted to another trusted person from his house, Sophronius, the one who had the task of finding a messenger to lead them in Thrace.28 Obviously, somewhere between these people the letters of St Basil the Great, written to his friend Eusebius of Samosata, must have been lost, but no blame on them was mentioned.

Other obstacles to Christian couriers A major problem faced by all who wanted to send letters to other cities was danger on the open road. Although the route was long and dangerous, St Basil sent Paul, 102 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy one of his priests, to Thrace to find out if Eusebius of Samosata was safe, because he had heard from deacon Libanius, who had just returned from those lands, that Goetians looted Thrace and ‘dangers of war threatened on from all sides’. St Basil said that he could only pray for his friend’s life not to be put in danger. No gifts were included in the despatch for Eusebius so as to not jeopardise Paul’s life:

Of all the measures taken against you, up to the arrival of our beloved brother Libanius the deacon, I have been sufficiently informed by him while on his way. I am anxious to learn what happened afterwards. I hear that in the mean- while still greater troubles have occurred where you are; about all this, sooner if possible, but, if not, at least by our reverend brother Paul the presbyter, on his return, may I learn, as I pray that I may, that your life is preserved safe and sound. But on account of the report that all the roads are infested with thieves and deserters, I have been afraid to entrust anything to the brother’s keeping, for fear of causing his death.29

Anxious and fearful for the life of his friend in exile, St Basil assured Eusebius that, once the roads became safer and peace restored, another messenger would go via the Thracian road to check up on him, to see him and share gifts from him. Another substantial obstacle facing messengers was the weather, especially in winter, when only the most reckless person would go ‘on the road.’ In winter, Basil writes to Theodotus, the Bishop of Nicopolis, that he missed the services of a messenger thereby also missing the consolation of a letter.30 Once he himself stopped one messenger from going on a trip due to unfavourable weather. The messenger was one of his priests, who in his desire to show his devotion to his bishop said he had wanted to lead the mission in any circumstances. But this was not the wish of St Basil. He stopped his audacious priest until the weather improved, considering that it was a real mistake to go until then, especially since the priest had no travel experience and, apparently, neither the correct physical constitution to enable such an arduous journey.

Our dear brother Eusebius the reader has for some time been anxious to hasten to your holiness, but I have kept him here for the weather to improve. Even now I am under no little anxiety lest his inexperience in travelling may cause him trouble, and bring on some illness; for he is not robust.31

In summary, despite the weather, the dangers that frightened travellers at every step, the possible neglectful attitude of some messengers, underestimation of the importance of the mission, and many other problems, we may yet note that fourth century Christians from different parts within the empire, or outside it, did communicate with one another through letters. Effective and successful couriers entered into the service of both religious and state officials and, as professionals, were able to make a living from this form of employment. St Basil the Great, used every opportunity to send letters to his friends or colleagues, clerics of lay people, either from East or from West. St Basil employed a new kind of strategy that we may call 6 Mission and counter-mission 103 an epistolographic mission in order to strengthen canonical, liturgical and dogmatic unity in the Church of Christ. However, he used this means of communication for maintaining good relationships with everybody who could contribute to the prosperity both of the Church and Christians. As might be expected however, others used the same means to create disorder, confusion and chaos, being concerned only to manipulate the population due to self-interest.

Anti-missionary activities St Basil’s increasing prestige and considerable achievements in his spiritual, political and social endeavours inevitably attracted ill-will and a certain degree of envy. This was to persist throughout his life.

St Basil out of his time St Basil was undoubtedly a man out of his time in which he lived. That is why, perhaps, he was not fully understood and he was criticised for his openness to dialogue with those who had a doctrinal orientation different from the Nicaean, as happened with the Eustathians. St Basil’s missionary diplomacy was regarded with mistrust and disinterest, especially by some of the friends and by those who, traditionally, should have been close to him. He imposed a rather liberal missionary model which, however, fell within both the letter of the Gospel and the limits of the Nicaea decisions. Some accused him of weakness in the face of heretics, by others of too much indulgence in attempting to bring them to the table of dialogue, in the hope that sooner or later, they would return to the bosom of the true Church. St Basil efforts came from what we might call a ‘holy boldness’ that allowed him to openly talk to anyone without any fear. He did not seek to impose on the others a certain obligatory missionary model, but proposes instead, one in which the ecumenical spirit prevails over pseudo-Christian tendencies to encapsulate the Church of Christ. Or, more clearly, he proposed a model of the love of the Father for the prodigal son, who has not only the power to forgive his foolish son, but receives him and re-installs him in the honour that he himself has forsaken. His missionary model was functional only in conditions of mutual trust and the respect of basic moral principles. Unfortunately, St Basil’s good intentions often encountered duplicity or hypocrisy from his partners in dialogue, which led to the emergence of an anti-missionary model whose main characteristic was manipulation.

Duplicity as counter mission If St Basil’s mission is based on truth, consistency and balanced tolerance, the contrary mission is the result of an inconsistent, false and duplicate attitude, and one of the examples that perfectly illustrates this situation is that of Eustathius, the Bishop of Sebaste, an extremely controversial religious figure of the fourth century. Born in Caesarea of Cappadocia around the year 300, he studied at the same time as Arius in Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch refused his ordination 104 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy because of his Arian beliefs and he returned to his homeland. Bishop Eulalius, who apparently was even his father, was more lenient and ordained him without further investigation of his faith (331), but he was soon defrocked because of his refusal to wear priestly garments. He was re-ordained by the new Bishop Hermogenes, but only after confessing the faith adopted in Nicaea. After Bishop Hermogenes’ death, Eustathius went to Constantinople where he became a disciple of Eusebius, the former bishop of Nicomedia, an old supporter of Arius, returning to his former Arian preoccupations. In 342, he was again defrocked and returned to Caesarea where he became a reliable collaborator of Bishop Dianius, who influenced him considerably in order to make him to embrace further the Arian doctrine. In the following years, he discovered his monastic vocation and set up a several monastic communities, imposing on them very severe rules of living. Around 357, when St Basil returned to his own country from Athens, Eustathius was elected Bishop of Sebaste, with the help of the Arians. His ascetic nature, his intelligence and monastic rigours gave him a certain aura specific to the fourth century fathers. He was respected not only in Armenia, but also in Cappadocia and in the lands of Pontus, with many disciples trying to follow his ways.32 Unfortunately, the inclination to prayer and piety was not combined with a faithful confession of faith. He was uncertain and indecisive, capable of sudden changes in attitude, able to entirely deny today what he confessed yesterday. In other words, he was an emotionally unstable, ambiguous and duplicitous man, for whom the spiritual comfort was more important than the truth or doctrinal consistency. Formerly the disciple of Arius, he oscillated all his life on the formula of faith that would best define the relationship between the Son and the Father. Finally, he opted for a more moderate Arianism, his disciples and followers being known as homoiousians or Eustathians. They did not affirm that the Son is a creature, but a superior being of a nature similar to that of the Father; in regard to the Holy Spirit they said that he is a spirit who ministers as the angels do, so a creature. St Basil anticipated the direction in which Eustathius was heading, but did not rebuke him directly and did not break communion with him right away. They had a special relationship both because of their common Cappadocian origins, family ties and also for the fact that, when he and his friend Gregory laid the foundations of a monastic life at Annesi, St Basil drew inspiration not only from what he had seen with his eyes during the pilgrimage he made in the Near East, but also from the experience of Eustathius who had introduced this way of living in Asia Minor.33 Basil’s connections with the Eustathians were old. Prior to becoming a priest, St Basil often visited them, and they regarded him as a great scholar, some of them later even became his disciples. He wrote their monastic rules and when he was in need of skilled and trustworthy collaborators, he used people sent by Eustathius. That is why, despite the fact that Eustathius did not seem to change his views on the state of the Son – not to mention the fact that the Holy Spirit counted little for him – St Basil gave him almost unlimited credit, with the risk of being himself accused of doctrinal deviations. His compassion towards his elderly friend would bring him countless tribulations, but he remained faithful to his belief that patience and prayer would eventually return all heretics of the 6 Mission and counter-mission 105 time back into the bosom of the Church. In this spirit, he wrote to his friend Eusebius of Samosata that:

Not that I think it is absolutely our duty to cut ourselves off from those who do not receive the faith (the Nicaean faith, my note), but rather to have regard to them in accordance with the old law of love, and to write to them with one consent, giving them all exhortation with pity, and to propose to them the faith of the fathers, and invite them to union. If we succeed we should be united in communion with them; if we fail we must be content with one another and purge our conduct of this uncertain spirit, restoring the evangelical and simple conversation.34

However, the situation deteriorated. This is proof of the fact that indulgence must be verified, controlled, and re-evaluated. Two of the disciples St Basil had taken from Eustathius, Basil and Sophronius, who had initially shown themselves devoted and faithful to the Christian principles, suddenly became slanderous without remorse. St Basil had received them as friends, and they rewarded his friendship and trust with hatred and cunning.35 By the time St Basil became aware of their duplicity the damage was done. They had scattered the venom of the lie all over where they had walked, among the enemies of St Basil, to increase their hatred, as well as among his friends or acquaintances to denigrate him and to sow doubt in their hearts. That is why St Basil thought to write to Eustathius, hoping that he would be able to distinguish truths from lies thereby hoping to salvage their friendship. To prove how much he valued him, St Basil decided to send to Sebaste his brother Peter, who would not only hand his letter safely to him but also would explain to him in detail what he would have told him if he had met him personally.36 It is hard to know whether St Basil still believed sincerely at that moment, in Eustathius and in his possible return to the Church, or was in fact, aware of his weakness and susceptibility. St Basil did not want to break the last bridge between him and the Bishop of Sebaste, especially as the enemies of the unity of the Church maintained this state of uncertainty and distrust in such a way, that one or the other would trigger any action that would lead to schism. St Basil had, until then overlooked all the vacillations of Eustathius despite the overwhelming evidence of instability and passivity that he had shown before to him. It is sufficient to remember St Basil’s journey to Armenia. Where, after several days and nights of discussion on the Trinitarian terminology, and also after the common prayer, St Basil had persuaded his elderly friend to sign a Nicaean confession of faith, that would not only end the suspicions of the authenticity of his own confession, but also the disturbances that destroyed the unity of the Church there. However, once he left the region to come along with two other clergy, as witnesses to the great victory for the unity of the Church, Eustathius no longer recognised this confession of faith.37 Unfortunately, Eustathius’ attitude was not singular. St Basil was confronted throughout his life with such people, whether from the clerical or secular world. His uncle, Bishop Gregory, who instead of supporting and joining him, did not recognise his authority and behaved like a true enemy, most likely from clerical 106 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy envy;38 or the Bishop Theodotus of Nicopolis, who, although he supposedly assis- ted him in his mission in Armenia to join him in trying to persuade Eustathius of the importance of his return to the Nicaean faith, when he was with him, promised all his support, but as soon as they parted, denigrated his faith.39 In signing contradictory confessions of faith and by maintaining a sense of mistrust in the orthodoxy of St Basil’s faith, Eustathius promoted a counter-mission within the Church, because he appeared to encourage the appearance of separatist groups and confessional segregation, resembling distrust and suspicion amongst his disciples and among the bishops with whom he kept in touch. He cultivated the doctrinal confusion, rather than the unity of faith. He was more interested in forms of faith, than in the essence of it. No one can deny that Eustathius made a significant contribution both to the development of the monastic life40 and to philanthropic activity by setting up orphanages, hospitals, or dormitories for foreigners, but these do not excuse his duplicitous behaviour.41 The simplicity and sincerity of Eustathius’ ascetic life can be questioned, because there is an incom- patibility between the monastic vocation, which presupposes first the assumption of an angelic state, in which nothing is more important than the truth, and his proverbial ‘versatility’. Denying or undermining the confession of the truth every time, means denying or disregarding Jesus Christ himself. Or, the confession of Christ in a two different ways, depending on the personal interests, from fear or servility, or simply from the pleasure of not recognising the evidence that another supports with more wisdom and discernment, is against mission and brings a disservice to the whole Church. History has shown that, sometimes, in the shadow of the great ascetic experiences, there are hidden frustrations, infirmities and dissatisfactions that have nothing to do with the teaching of Christ.

Methods and techniques of manipulation One of the techniques of annihilation of a person’s presence and prowess is the attempt to marginalise that person. Apparently harmless, it goes unnoticed by the majority, because no one knows for certain under what conditions a person, who should have been in a certain place at some point, is missing. At first, the situation may be a little embarrassing, leaving many assumptions about the motivation of these absences, but slowly it turns into habit. Those who would like to invite him to an event are discreetly advised to give up because, as is known (!), the person in question will not honour the invitation and, moreover, will have the same behaviour also towards his other friends, what turns him into a sort of outcast person. Naturally, nothing is true of all this because the one in question knows nothing about what is being discussed about him, and therefore does not feel the need to exonerate in any way. There is a risk, however, that he himself falls prey to pessimism, believing that there is no point in fighting for the triumph of the truth. On the one hand, he feels that he is not wanted and begins to feel some frustration that can turn into repulsion later towards all who, despite their substantive differences, are together just because they are linked by the self-sufficiency and fear of associating with more 6 Mission and counter-mission 107 intelligent and capable people than they are. On the other hand, the others are accustomed to the idea that it is better not to have people around them who would mess them up by their frankness, lack of prejudices, awareness of their own worth, and/or the ability to ask and to pose inconvenient questions. In a word, they try to avoid as much as possible the company of a person who would dominate them from all points of view; they prefer the entourages of the people without great ideals, interested only in small purposes, to which they can easily associate themselves. Value is inconvenient, truth disturbs, and intelligence is a danger. St Basil has been confronting all his life such people for whom the manipulation, denigration, and slander of the others was a way of living, especially if through it they managed to conserve or to consolidate a particular social or religious statute. The most dangerous were those who lived voluptuously this moral promiscuity, enjoying all the evil they had done. In order to better understand the dimension of the confrontation between St Basil, an authentic aristocrat of the word and also a perfect monk, and those who merely mimic a form of a formal Christianity but without ‘substance’, it is important to mention three situations that can be considered normative to the Christian world of his time, but that can be found even today, of course in more refined forms, in accordance with the evolution of mass manipulation. The first situation relates to the immediate actions of the disciples and their allies after the breaking of communion between St Basil and Eustathius.42 Aware of the fact that St Basil is still a significant figure in church life, esteemed and appreciated both by clergy and by important members of the imperial or local power, Eustathius’ disciples and their allies began a campaign of denigration and misinformation regarding his faith,43 relation with certain people suspected of heresy meant to diminish his prestige, like Appolinaris of Laodicea44 to diminish his authority and to sow the doubt in the hearts of those who would have been harder to convince.45 They knew it was not easy, because St Basil was a great name in church life; respected and cherished among clergy, simple believers or representatives of the imperial and local authorities, St Basil was almost untouchable, but the spread of false information about him in repeated and various ways, in different places, even though they were not recognised immediately, could at least cause doubt and raise questions. On the other hand, if we consider the large number of homoiousians and their friends, some of them being high-ranking people in society, it means they had a huge propaganda apparatus that, once set in motion, could also convince slowly Basil’s greatest defenders. The second situation places Demosthenes in the forefront, an important imperial dignitary in the time of Valens,46 who would have remained a secondary character in the State–Church equation if he had not used his political power to regulate the relationships among Christians in the Church, therefore outside his own responsibilities. He knew St Basil personally (he had been ridiculed by him in some way at their first meeting in the presence of the Emperor Valens).47 Proud and arrogant, unable to understand the theological subtleties which separated Christians, Demosthenes tried by several methods to diminish the influence and authority of St Basil, presenting him to everyone in a gross manner, bringing 108 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy ungrounded accusations about him and accusing the Bishop of Caesarea of untrue confession of faith, non-existent friendship, and imaginary deeds. Knowing that St Basil was sick in bed for months, and consequently unable to communicate directly with the bishops who shared his ideas or who, even if they had no courage to follow and support him publicly, admired him and listened carefully to his exhortations. This is why, in addition to the persecution against the Nicaean Christians in Pontus, Cappadocia and Armenia, Demosthenes convened synods with bishops who could be blackmailed, who were inconsistent when it came to the faith, even to the point of heresy, and to which he even invited St Basil. It was not a conciliatory gesture but rather a manipulative one.48 If St Basil did not attend the meeting, he would have been looked upon with some suspicion and mistrust, because very few knew how serious his health problems were and, therefore, his influence on the decisions was null. But if he had participated, it would have been impossible not to interact with the others, even if only to combat them, but the decisions made would have been legitimised by his full participation. Therefore, Demosthenes wanted to ensure that whether St Basil attended or not, he would find himself marginalised. The third situation was perhaps the most painful because it referred to his fellow countrymen, the clergy and believers from Neocaesarea, who, naturally should have been close to him, compromising rumours. After all, he was one of them, they knew him personally, he grew up there, they knew his family and they could have understood much easier that it was nothing but imaginary guilt. Unfortunately, the one who was supposed to be his first defender, the bishop Atarbios, was his fiercest opponent, and the one who most influenced the souls of the simple Christians through misleading words from which it could be understood that St Basil departed both from their faith and from their tradition.49 Moreover, he started a campaign of denigration against the monastic communities. Atarvius described asceticism and the monastic life as about a dangerous invention of St Basil, a type of church eccentricity that was outdated. Today we may question how it was possible that they believed that St Basil would reject the beliefs of his mother, grandmother, or of his older sister Macrina, but considering the power of manipulating the masses, especially if it is about simple, uneducated people whose only source of information was the rumour that they transmitted from one to the other and the more it circulated the greater was the power of conviction, ultimately being simply transformed into certainty. Atarvius was well aware of this technique of manipulation and he stakes, on the one hand, his power of persuasion, and the reduced ability of the listeners to deeply analyse his words, on the other hand, on Basil’s reserve to publicly defend himself against his fellow countrymen, because if he was challenged even by those who knew him well, how could he convince the foreigners of the truth of his words.50 However, St Basil wrote to his fellow citizens in a clear and trenchant manner, appealing to them and reminding them that he had been raised with the faith of his grandmother Macrina who had taught him the words and faith of Gregory Thaumaturgus; that he went to the East to meet those who follow the canons of the Church and that his attitude towards the lost is validated even by the great Athanasius of Alexandria.51 Can they deny these things? If some of those who have 6 Mission and counter-mission 109 returned from their wandering and signed the confessions of faith of the Church and then rejected them again, then he is not the guilty one, but instead guilt lies with those who confessed with their mouths, but not also with their hearts. And then, if they need other testimonies, do not forget any of those who challenge him, that he is in communion with all the bishops who follow the true faith and he is recognised as such by all the peoples who were then part of the Roman empire, from Asia Minor to Italy and from Africa to the lands where the Spanish and Gauls live.52 So how can they question his faith and attachment to the Tradition of the Church and believe all the impostors who say only lies about him? Atarvius, however, was a small man, crushed by his own frustrations and weaknesses, incapable of understanding and accepting the greatness of St Basil. He was a contemporary of a genius, with a man who wrote an important page in the history of the universal Church, and instead of taking part in this spiritual feast, he decides to publicly show his antipathy and hostility to him,53 and to attract into his game simple Christians, innocent people in their natural ignorance. All of them, Eustathius, Demosthenes, and Atarbios, held personal agendas that corresponded only with self-interest and not with those of the Church. Thus, this is clear evidence not only did they distance themselves from the truth and from the Saviour’s command to make mission in his name from one end of the earth to the other, but in doing so have served the devil, whose role is precisely to stop the spread of the truth and of peace in the world, and the sowing of hatred and discord or enmity among people and among civilisations. They were the exponents of those who were working against the mission of the Church. They were not the mis- sionaries of Christ, but His direct adversaries. They were all the more dangerous because, in the name of Christ, they were conducting an anti-missionary and anti- evangelical policy. Although they seemed unbeaten, they were weak and helpless, while St Basil was powerful because his power came directly from his full confidence in God’s righteousness. St Basil was possessed by an extraordinary inner force, inexplicable to us as we are today, ground down by petty desires, incapable of remaining in the will of the Holy Spirit, still believing with all our being that what we will ask for will be fulfilled. He led the diocese directly or indirectly through his most loyal collaborators, he wrote to his friends or enemies, and bishop colleagues from the East and West, statesmen, or simple Christians, fulfilling the greatest commandment that Jesus Christ left in his Gospel: ‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your mind’. This is the chief commandment. The second is: ‘You must love your neighbour as yourself’ (Matt. 22:36–39). He had a resolve and, sometimes, a certain terrible vehemence, in all that he proposed to do, which defined his personality and individualised him among the great Fathers of the fourth century. When the doubt was trying to control his mind, then he was either kneeling or staying in bed because of the helplessness and weakness of the body and he was praying to God that all should happen at His will, not as he thinks appropriate, a weak man and a man who is making mistakes. It is hard to know what this saint ‘alive’ felt facing the manoeuvres made by his adversaries to marginalise him, to manipulate the faith of those who were not in a 110 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy position to know him and to hear St Basil directly speaking. What a waste of grace were these people doing, who remained in history more because they were opponents of Basil and because, in one way or another, their life intersected with his own, not for some special merits! Of course, we do not have to generalise. Some, even from those who disagreed with him, were themselves important men of the time, but none can be compared with St Basil.

Final word St Basil succeeded in accomplishing many of his projects, primarily because of his unwavering faith in God and in the power of His grace to change men, and secondly because of his own qualities that he discovered and refined throughout his whole life. St Basil was generally a modest man, immune to excessive praise, if a little conceited, not because of vanity, but rather because of the huge responsibility he assumed when he accepted the role of Bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, despite the promises he had made together with his friend Gregory in Athens. He was modest and indulgent because only powerful people, who have the awareness of their own value, can afford not to show their qualities ostentatiously and to try to help others without thinking of any reward – in contrast to those who are perky, arrogant, self-glorious people, who always try to show their superiority and safety, but who, in reality, live unrealistic dramas, frustrations that poison their soul and destroy their silence. In fact, modesty is the attribute of strong people, confident in themselves and in their beliefs, is not at all a sign of insecurity or weakness. St Basil was a free man, without prejudice and fear, because he was not connected to anything material and his life was centred on the Gospel of Christ.

Notes 1 St Basil was a genuine artist of the word, a master of dialogue and a redoubtable polemicist. For his versatility in writing and stylistic virtuosity, the diversity of topics and complexity of thinking, see in particular Goffredo Copola, ‘L’archetipo dell’epistolario di Basilio’, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica NS 3.2(1923): 137–150; see also L’Abbé Marius Bessièrs, La tradition manuscrite de la correspondance de S. Basile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), iii. 2 For more information about correspondence, messengers and the difficulties they had to face, see Denys Gorce, Les voyages, l’hospitalité et le port des lettres dans le monde chrétien des IVe et Ve siècles (Paris: Auguste Picard, 1925), 205–247; Yves Courtonne, Un Témoin du IVe Siècle Oriental: Saint Basile et son Temps d’après sa correspondance (Paris: ‘Les Belles Lettres’, 1973), 15–30. 3 St Basil the Great, Letter 199, NPNF 8, 236. 4 St Basil the Great, Letter 200, NPNF 8, 240. 5 Despite his Latin name, it seems that he was of Eastern origin. For details about his missions, see: Jean-Rémy Palanque, Gustave Bardy, Pierre de Labriolle et al., ‘Histoire de l’Église depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours’, 3, De paix constantinienne à la mort de Théodose (Paris: Boud & Gay, 1936), 270–272. 6 St Basil the Great, Letter 253, NPNF 8, 292. 7 ‘The Lord has also extended His consolation to me by means of reverend deacon Sabinus, my son, who has cheered my soul by giving me an exact narrative of your condition.’ (St Basil the Great, Letter 90, NPNF 8, 176). 6 Mission and counter-mission 111 8 ‘But when you have learnt all, specially what has not hitherto reached yours ears, from our reverend brother the deacon Sabinus, who will be able to narrate in person what is omitted in our letter, we do beseech you to be roused both to zeal for the truth and sympathy for us’ (St Basil the Great, Letter 92, NPNF 8, 177). Although it is never mentioned, a messenger like this, loyal and intelligent, ready for any kind of travel and able to provide details that could possibly be missing from the text itself, either deliberately or due to reduce volume of the message, should have been highly valued and provided with some privileges. 9 For his mission and his missionary abilities, see in particular: Marcel Richard, ‘Saint Basile et la mission du diacre Sabinus’, Analecta Bollandiana 67 (1949): 178–202. 10 St Basil the Great, Letter 243, NPNF 8, 285. 11 St Basil the Great, Letter 69, NPNF 8, 165. See also Nicolae Corneanu, Patristica Mirabilia (Bucharest: Polirom Press, 2001), 115. 12 St Basil the Great, Letter 69, NPNF 8, 165–166. 13 St Basil the Great, Letter 127, NPNF 8, 196. 14 He had, however, as important, namely: was able to discern virtues people encounter and understand the message he is bringing or would receive it (St Basil the Great, Letter 64, NPNF 8, 162). 15 St Basil the Great, Letter 231, NPNF 8, 272. 16 St Basil the Great, Letter 155, NPNF 8, 210. 17 St Basil the Great, Letter 155, NPNF 8, 210. 18 St Basil the Great, Letter 155, NPNF 8, 210. 19 St Basil the Great, Letter 139, NPNF 8, 203. 20 St Basil the Great, Letter 139, NPNF 8, 203. 21 Here, for example, is what Basil wrote to Theodotus, bishop of Berea: ‘use whatever opportunities you have of writing to me, to the end that I may both be cheered by hearing news of you, and have occasion to send you tidings of myself (Letter 185, NPNF 8, 223). 22 St Basil the Great, Letter 195, NPNF 8, 234. 23 When a new bishop was made in Satala, in North East of Armenia, St Basil had to wait for a long time to send a proper message for such an event (St Basil the Great, Letter 102, NPNF 8, 185). 24 The emperor Valens sent him into exile in Thrace in 374, where he remained until 379. He received deportation with dignity, and he also continues to exhort the believers from a distance to protect the apostolic dogma. After 379, he returned to Samosata, where he endured a martyr’s death at the hands of the Arians. (Cf. Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History, IV. 14 (7); V. 4 (8.9), NPNF 3, 117; 134). 25 It was mentioned that bishop Eusebius, disguised as an officer, crossed Syria, Phoenicia and Palestina in order to encourage and sustain the Nicaean believers, in their fight against diverse arian heretic groups, which were continuing to sow disorder and torment among Christian communities (Cf. A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, ed. Henry Wace and William C. Pierce (London: J. Murray, 1911), 342. 26 St Basil the Great, Letter 198, NPNF 8, 236. 27 St Basil says that ‘there were more than four epistles’ (Letter 198, NPNF 8, 235) 28 St Basil the Great, Letter 198, NPNF 8, 235–236. 29 St Basil the Great, Letter 268, NPNF 8, 307. 30 St Basil the Great, Letter 121, NPNF 8, 193. 31 St Basil the Great, Letter 198, NPNF 8, 236. 32 Cf. A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, 338; For more information about the life and professional career of Eustathius and his relation with St Basil, see in particular Jean Gribomont, ‘Eustathe de Sebaste’, Saint Basile: Evangile et Eglise, Melanges I (Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1984), 95–106; Jean Gribomont, ‘Eustathe le Philosophe et les voyages du jeune Basile de Césarée’, 115–124. 112 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy 33 Philip M. Beagon, ‘The Cappadocian Fathers, Women and Ecclesiastical Politics’, Vigiliae Christianae 49.2 (May 1995), 167, 169. For Eustathius’ monastic influence on St Basil, see in particular Charles Frazee, ‘Anatolian Asceticism in the Fourth Century: Eustathios of Sebastea and Basil of Caesarea’ The Catholic Historical Review 64.1 (1980): 16–33. 34 St Basil the Great, Letter 128, NPNF 8, 197. 35 Papadopoulos, The Life of Saint Basil the Great, 276. 36 St Basil the Great, Letter 119, NPNF 8, 192. 37 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 260–264; see also Beagon, ‘The Cappadocian Fathers, Women and Ecclesiastical Politics’, 169. 38 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 212–213. 39 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 262. 40 This is questionable because his monasticism was so radical that he was condemned in a synod of 340 in Gangra in Paphlagonia (James Eric Cooper and Michael J. Decker, Life and Society in Byzantine Cappadocia (London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 109. 41 What is really surprising and paradoxical, is that the name ‘Eusthatios’ means ‘stable’, whereas in reality he was ‘unstable’, changeable and duplicitous (Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 276). 42 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 276–281. 43 They accused St Basil of Sabellianism (Cf. Beagon, ‘The Cappadocian Fathers, Women and Ecclesiastical Politics’, 169. 44 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 278; Beagon, ‘The Cappadocian Fathers, Women and Ecclesiastical Politics’, 169. For a long discussion on the purported correspondence between the bishops of Caesarea and Laodicea, see in particular George. L. Prestige, St Basil the Great and Apollinaris of Laodicea, ed. from his papers by Henry Chadwick (London: SPCK, 1956): 1–65. 45 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 278–279. 46 He was ‘superintendent of the imperial kitchen’ and later on ‘vicar of Pontus’ (cf. Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 16, and nt. 1, NPNF 3, 120). He was an enemy of St Basil and friend of his theological opponents (Lenski, Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD, 254). 47 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 302 (cf. Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 16, NPNF 3, 120). 48 Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 313. 49 St Basil the Great, Letters 204, 65 and 126, NPNF 8, 243–245; 162–163; 196. 50 See excellent work of Ioan G. Coman, ‘St. Vasile cel Mare și Atarbios, sau între calomnie și onestitate, ignoranță și discernământ, izolare și ecumenicitate [St Basil the Great and Atarbios, or between calumny and honesty, ignorance and discernment, isolation and ecumenicity]’, Mitropolia Banatului 9–10 (1983): 550–555. 51 St Basil the Great, Letter 204, NPNF 8, 245. 52 St Basil the Great, Letter 204, NPNF 8, 245. 53 Van Dam, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia, 27. 7 St Basil and St Athanasius, epistles and the unity of the church

In the second half of the fourth century, the Church was in major crisis. Although, at the first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325, the truth of the identity of the Son with the Father, encapsulated by the well-known formula homoousios to patri, had triumphed. After the death of the Emperor Constantine the Great and the division of the empire between his three sons, there began a process of relativisation of the importance of complying with the judgements at Nicaea. Gradually, little by little, an ambiguous formula was propagated, that is, the Son is like the Father, which should not agitate any Christian sect, or at least to leave room for discussion and ‘negotiation.’ Of course, this formula, with its various nuances of expression, founded on Eusebians, Marcelians, Acacians, Eudoxians, Eunomians, and many others, did not really benefit anyone, instead it opened the way for doctrinal struggles that lasted for several decades at least. That is how, despite the attempts of the great hierarchs and theologians of the fourth century to bring peace among Christians, the Church went through an unprecedented crisis; synods convened in various places in the West – and particularly in the East – whether Rome (341), Antioch (341 and 345), Serdica (343–344), Sirmium (351, 357 and 358),1 Rimini (359) and Seleucia (359) or Constantinople (360), to which could be added many other creeds, made in other synods or local assemblies, proposed or imposed by certain church leaders, supported by the local or imperial authorities, all failed to bring peace within the Church.

St Basil and his ecumenical vision of unity St Basil could not remain indifferent to the destruction of ecclesiastical unity due to the obtuseness or the petty interests of some, the malice, or simply the ignorance of others. Shortly after his election to the metropolitan seat of Caesarea, he developed his missionary strategy for defending the truths the Nicaean creed: a prodigious correspondence, elaborated in a balanced ecumenical manner, which included all the Eastern and Western hierarchs. He probably felt alone many times, but the faith in God and the triumph of his sincere evangelical love in spite of the indifference servitude of some of his colleagues, gave him hope that his actions would sooner or later contribute to a settlement of misunderstandings within the Church and to establishing a natural climate of peace and collaboration. 114 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy From intention to deed is, often, a long way. His friends, though honest and strong in faith, were few. Emperor Valens had been attracted to heretics, and the local authorities in the East followed his example. Heresy was widespread in the empire. Clerics, just like the faithful, were easily manipulated, or compliant for personal reasons, which had nothing to do with the Church and its teaching. The priesthood was no longer gained on merit, but by material means, such as the archiepiscopate dignities. That is why the place of competent and faithful clerics was now taken by incumbent priests and bishops, lovers of wealth and power, uneducated, capable of inflicting misery and hard labour, fiery supporters of Arianism, either from incomprehension or from servilism. The elite of the Church, as well as the great mass of the believers of many imperial regions, was dominated by these spineless people, driven by immediate, personal or group interests, that eroded the unity of the church from inside. One of the brightest Patrologists of the last 50 years, Stelianos Papadopoulos, noted with bitterness:

The East was filled with such bishops. They were the biggest plague. First, because they had nothing good to give. Then, because even if they had, they could not. They were forced to say and do what those who helped them to become bishops wanted them to do. Meaning, they were simply servants and slaves of the worldly rulers. And when the bishop, the spiritual man, loses his courage, then there is a need for many like Jeremiah to cry for their demise. Basil noticed with sorrow the decadence of the heretics, and he was horrified when he saw the horrible influence they will have on the Church. The Tradition of Dogmas and canons, which are the proof of the Church’s health, were trampled. And what was worse, they were defamed and mocked, and lost the sense of the good and Christian truth, of the true thought’.2

St Basil proved himself to be an ecumenical spirit from the beginning of his episcopate, capable of breaking down any barrier to communication when it came to the interest of the Church. He believed in communion and collaboration, and furthermore, he believed that regardless of the region or local tradition, Christians everywhere must confess Christ as God and Man and ‘fight’ to preserve the unity of the Church.

Unity and oikumene St Basil understood the unity of the Church as an external reflection of the internal unity of the Holy Trinity.3 It must not be considered just as a desideratum but a definite necessity because Jesus Christ accepted that the whole Church must be called His body, and therefore, all Christians of the East and the West are bound to one another by the love that the Son of God, embodied, pours over them.4 The unity of the Church must engage all of them because it provides peace, tranquillity and collaboration in the same Spirit of harmony and inner order. A single fissure in the body of the Church can lead, over time, to serious divisions and even to an unpredictable and uncontrollable internal war. That is why the appeal to the Western 7 Epistles and the unity of the church 115 bishops is a natural one, as among brothers of faith, who have the same interests and follow the same Gospel.

As then we reckon your mutual sympathy and unity an important blessing to ourselves, so do we implore you to pity our dissensions; and not, because we are separated by a great extent of country, to part us from you, but to admit us to the concord of one body, because we are united in the fellowship of the Spirit.5

The unity of the Church is the duty of all Christians and clergy everywhere, because there is a kind of interdependence enshrined in their nature, sustained and strengthened by the presence of the Holy Spirit. St Basil makes an interesting parallel, according to the Pauline model, between the mode of the functioning of the human body and the body of Christ, the Church. Without going into pneumatological details (for reasons of missionary strategy), he says that the Holy Spirit is the one who assures the good functioning of each human organ in its part, in complete harmony, according to its own features and qualities, just as the Church in its wholeness is alive and active because of the unifying activity of each of its members, according to the charisma received by him, from God (Rom. 12:5).6 Or, in other words, just as God has placed limbs in each person’s body, as He has thought, the limbs still take care of each other in a manner of spiritual communion, because there is a mutual solidarity and affection. In St Basil’s conception, unity is a law of nature and free will that work in a wonderful way, following the model of the unity of the creation itself, over which God proclaimed it was good, that is, precisely with the features they needed to accomplish their purpose in collaboration with each other. Therefore, in its divine-human structure, integrating itself into both the universe and the human society according to the unity of creation, the Church must do everything possible to return to primordial unity and peace.7

Pneumatology under question For some, the relationship between the unity of the Church and the pneumatological theology of St Basil might be a little surprising, for he never used the homoousios expression also for the Holy Spirit. It is not my intention to make a thorough analysis of this subject, as others have done before me, and in an exceptional scientific manner, but only to introduce it in the context of our discussion and to highlight Basil’s diplomatic skill in dialogue with those who had other opinions, both with regard to the divine status of the Son, but especially with that of the Spirit. St Basil avoided fighting, as far as possible, theological wars on several fronts at the same time, knowing that he alone would never be able to win. In his struggles against Arian and Neo-Arian groups that continued to deny the divinity of the Son, though it had been officially proclaimed and recognised by an ecumenical council, he preferred not to further stir up the spirits by using the same expression, homoousios, also in connection with the Spirit, but instead employed another term, homotime, that practically meant the same thing. If homoousios 116 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy refers to the existential identity (of essence) of the Son with the Father, homotime means the identity or equality in honour and worship of the Spirit with the other two persons.8 St Basil hoped that his mentor Eustathius of Sebaste, to whom he was bound by an enduring friendship, and who, along with his followers, taught that the Son is not a creature, but a superior being of a Father-like nature, promoting a kind of moderate Arianism,9 would return, sooner or later, to a more positive attitude to the official Nicaean doctrine of the Church. At the same time, he faced a series of suspicions coming from his best friends. At one point, even St Gregory informed him about the rumours that seemed to come to the attention of St Athanasius, whom they both considered to be the only and the most important authority in the matter of faith.10 Faced with such situations, St Basil sets forth his position in several letters in which he tries to answer as accurately as possible all questions, suspicions, misunderstandings that lie upon him concerning the person of the Holy Spirit. The genius of St Basil consists in the fact that, without breaking any of the divine status of the Holy Spirit, he finds many alternative expressions which highlight, in an indirect manner, the essential identity with the Father and the Son.

You have professed your faith in Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. Do not abandon this deposit; the Father – origin of all; the Son – Only begotten, begotten of Him, very God, Perfect of Perfect, living image, shewing the whole Father in Himself; the Holy Ghost, having His subsistence of God, the fount of holiness, power that gives life, grace that maketh perfect, through Whom man is adopted, and the mortal made immortal, conjoined with Father and Son in all things in glory and eternity, in power and kingdom, in sovereignty and godhead; as it is testified by the tradition of the baptism of salvation.11

He never attributes to the Holy Spirit the call of God, but he does so only because of the oikonomia (dispensation), not to upset adversaries which might cause a rejection of dialogue and at the same time to be able to remain in discussion with them.12 Therefore, he proposes to all those who desire the good of the Church, a minimum confession of faith, namely: the acceptance of the judgements of the Council of Nicaea made in 325, and the teaching according to which the Holy Spirit is not a creature; too little, would say the most radical of the bishops or believers, too much would object those who followed Eustathius, Eunomius, Aetius and others. His invitation to respect these two formulas of faith is not, inci- dentally, because the Nicaean faith symbol (Creed) is the fruit of the collaboration of all the hierarchs present there, that oikumene of the year 325, under the patronage of the Emperor Constantine but under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – that is why nobody is allowed to change a word – to place the Holy Spirit among crea- tures would jeopardise or create suspicions about the legitimacy and compulsion of the Nicaean judgements themselves.13 His approach is not in doubt or uncertainty of his pneumatological theology, because if it is carefully analysed his broader attributes and wording regarding the Holy Spirit and the clarity of his doctrinal beliefs will easily be noticed.14 St Basil is an artist of the word, a stylist of the forms of expression and a theologian of a 7 Epistles and the unity of the church 117 rare depth, able to confess in an indirect way, unquestionable truths of faith. For example, we note only a few of the attributes or qualities attributed to the Holy Spirit which places it in full equality with the Father and the Son. St Basil says that the Ghost ‘is not a creature’,15 but ‘is the same nature and one Godhead with the Father and the Son’,16 and ‘cooperates with the Father and the Son’,17 ‘fount of holiness’18 or ‘the power that gives life’.19 Besides, we do not find any degree of hierarchy among the names that are given to the divine nature, in the sense that those attributed to the Father would be superior to those attributed to the Son, or those attributed to the first two Trinitarian persons would in any way be superior to those attributed to the Spirit.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost alike hallow, quicken, enlighten, and comfort. No one will attribute a special and peculiar operation of hallowing to the operation of the Spirit, after hearing the Saviour in the Gospel saying to the Father about His disciples, sanctify them in Thy name (John 17:17). In like manner, all other operations are equally performed, in all who are worthy of them, by the Father and by the Son and by the Holy Ghost; every grace and virtue, guidance, life, consolation, change into the immortal, the passage into freedom and all other good things which come down to man.20

The formula ‘Glory to the Father with the Son and with the Holy Ghost’ itself unquestionably underscores the equality of honour and essence (nature) of the Trinitarian persons and introduces us into a true mystic and Trinitarian godliness.21 In other words, the Trinity cannot be separated, and consequently:

As we received from the Lord, so are we baptised; as we are baptised, so we make profession of our faith, so do we offer our doxology, not separating the Holy Ghost from Father and Son, nor preferring Him in honour to the Father, or asserting Him to be prior to the Son.22

When Arianism began to lose ground, it regrouped under the ‘umbrella’ of the vehement challengers of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and St Basil wrote a special work which, with the same skill and professionalism, perfectly portrays the divine portrait of the Holy Spirit without using direct language, but an implicit one. If we want to summarise this monumental work, we could say that: nothing of importance is missing, and none of what is irrelevant, is in excess.23 St Basil knew that progress on the path of achieving the full unity of the Church of Christ implied an extraordinary effort; it needed time, good and understanding people, solid relationships built on mutual trust, and finding formulas of faith that would not dilute the essence, but tame the hearts of those who supported the opposite, awakening their interest in reflection and analysis. That is why every word is carefully weighted, and the arrangement of his sentences reflect the harmony of his thinking, in all its complexity. His diplomatic intelligence allowed him to have a dialogue for the unity of the Church with all the bishops and the believers everywhere, from the East and the West, despite the differences of 118 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy interpretation or of the suspicions based on linguistic or semantic misunderstandings of the main theological tenets. Neither friends nor adversaries could have accused St Basil of any doctrinal deviation, as long as all of his formulations led, even indirectly, to the affirmation of the truth of the Holy Trinity.

The art of defending the integrity of faith In almost the entire Orient (as far as Egypt and Illyria), Christians who held to the Nicaean faith had been practically excluded from public life, and were obliged to meet for prayer and communion outside cities and villages, in the open air and in all weathers. They lived constantly under threat: the loss of their liberty, confiscation of wealth and even with death. St Basil needed to act fast in shaping a strategy that would have coherence, consistency and continuity. Most episcopal chairs were led by the Arians, openly supported by the imperial power. St Basil’s friends were fearful and few, some were sent into exile, others feared the loss not only of their bishoprics, but also their lives. St Basil felt more and more isolated. His diocese remained as an island of the faith confessed at Nicaea, in a neo-Arian sea. The people were weak, their only hope was in God. Familiar as he was with ecclesiastical diplomacy, he tried to consolidate his old friendships, to build other bridges with those who could support his ideas and still further, to be closer to the most powerful and respected figure in the Christian world at that moment. This is how he came to ask for help, from the beginning of his episcopate, from St Athanasius, who was considered the true ‘Patriarch of the Orient,’ a hierarch who had faced numerous battles against the Arians or Neo- Arians, bearing the ‘stigmas’ of five exiles and over 40 years of pontificate, respected by both friends and enemies, whose fame received an aura of holiness and whose deeds had easily passed from history into legend. He was regarded with respect both by the Eastern and Western people, a symbol of the struggle for the truth and Church unity. The Emperor Valens himself entirely gave up on his ‘great’ plans to enforce the Arian heresy in the diocese of Alexandria, precisely because of Athanasius, with whom he would have wanted to avoid conflict, for fear of popular anger. I believe that beyond political or military reasoning, the Emperor must have felt a kind of empathy with Athanasius, as it is beneficial for statesmen who, even though adversary, can appreciate the value of one another. The same was also true, when it comes to the relationships between the Emperor Valens and St Basil. I do not intend here to enter into details of the historical or doctrinal nature of the correspondence between the two great parents, unparalleled in my opinion, each in his own way, but only to make some considerations of opportunity with regard to the epistolary dialogue from a distance, initiated by St Basil and, inexplicably, unsupported, as it was expected, by St Athanasius.

St Basil’s mono-dialogue A trip to Alexandria could not be had for two reasons: the precarious state of Basil’s health and the risk that after his departure, the enemy would ‘steal’ the faithful and 7 Epistles and the unity of the church 119 turn them against him, by crafty words and vain promises. Therefore, St Basil appeals to his strategic weapon of choice, the letter, as he did in many other cases. He was a brilliant ‘scriptwriter’, he knew how to put in every word the exact measure of its meaning, so that the sent message would not lose any of his power of conviction, almost as if it was verbally transmitted from person to person. St Basil writes to the great Alexandrine hierarch, in the hope that he will find in him support for the struggle he now led, almost alone, against those who through the relativisation of the Nicaean doctrinal formula regarding the divine status of Jesus Christ, opened the door to the fragmentation of the unity of the Church. His hopes were justified, because Athanasius himself was confronted during most of his pontificate with a similar situation and had not only the experience, but also the knowledge and the necessary determination to support the continuation of this battle. Yet his answer was rather elusive, late and with a lack of consistency. Many have questioned themselves, over the time, why the Nicaean-based champion, once extremely active and impetuous, did not immediately declare his support for St Basil (who had proved to be a worthy follower), why he remained remote, with an almost suspicious detachment? It is difficult to answer, and while we must certainly remain in the realms of speculation, nothing can stop us from doing an imaginative exercise, which may, however, come closer to reality, in a certain extent.

Epistles, hopes and disappointments It is known that St Basil sent six letters to his counterpart in Alexandria24 of which five were kept, and only one answer, short and lacking detail, to which we will return later. In his first epistle, he exposes in detail to St Athanasius the problem of the painful situation of the Christian communities in the East and asks him to intervene directly to the Western bishops as he did in his years of exile. The reasoning was correct. Since Athanasius himself had done the same in times of great disruption of the Church, he expected that an intervention would be successful this time as well. At the same time, in the second part of the letter, he asks him to become personally engaged in solving the schism that produced so much harm to the Church of Antioch.25 The situation was not at all simple, since it seems that the very bishops – or some of them – that St Basil was referring to were the same bishops who were sustaining the state of disorder in the Church of Antioch, probably not wanting to see a Patriarchate of Antioch united and strong. And then we are faced with a paradox from which we cannot really extricate ourselves. More clearly, St Basil wrote to St Athanasius to ask the Western bishops to contribute to the strengthening of the unity of the Eastern Church, including in Antioch, while they themselves, tacitly supported the disorder and the schismatic state of this great and important Eastern Patriarchate! The question is whether St Basil knew all these things or hoped that Athanasius’ persuasive power was so great that the Western bishops acted accordingly from friendship, respect and Christian love, despite their ‘strategic’ interests, not to contribute to the strengthening and consolidation of the unity of the Eastern Church, in order to always have an ascendant on it. It is 120 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy hard to know. It seems that St Basil was not aware of all the ‘subversive games’ made by some of the Western bishops, perhaps supported also by those from the East, for various reasons; or, if my interpretation is wrong, then he risked, playing it all on a single card, that unfortunately, did not turn out to be the winning hand. St Basil strengthens his words in the second epistle and makes some clarifica- tions, as he thought that Athanasius did not quite understand how he proposed to solve the Antiochian problem. The great surprise is that St Basil asks Athanasius to support Meletius at the head of the Church of Antioch, although the most important Western hierarchs, including the Bishop of Rome, were on Paulinus’s side. Even the great Athanasius recognised Paulin’s legitimacy on a trip made to Antioch to meet the Emperor Jovian, although at the beginning of the schism he had advised all to recognise Meletius. It is, therefore, almost incomprehensible that Basil’s insistence on persuading Athanasius to join him was unsuccessful. Following this letter comes the only answer of Bishop Athanasius, through Peter the priest, probably more diplomatic than he expected, as it results from his mentioning in a third letter, in an eclectic manner, namely:

Now, from the sacred ranks of your clergy, you have sent forth the venerable brother Peter, whom I have welcomed with great joy. I have also approved of the good object of his journey, which he manifests in accordance with the commands of your Excellency, in effecting reconciliation where he finds opposition, and bringing about union instead of division.26

Despite the somewhat discouraging response, St Basil does not give up and insists on the help of St Athanasius. He sends the deacon, Dorotheus to Alexandria with the request to give to St Athanasius, besides the necessary advice, letters for the road and a few able companions to guide him on the safest roads to help him get to Rome safely, before the Pope Damasus. St Basil hoped that the good relations between the two great bishops, from Rome and Alexandria, would extend their benefits over all the Eastern churches.27 The reasoning was correct and, under normal circumstances, it would have had favourable odds. Unfortunately, this did not happen. We do not know whether Athanasius accepted Basil’s requests. Most likely, he confines himself to giving encouragement rather than demonstrating action, in fact, similar to his only letter of response. Otherwise, we cannot explain why St Basil remembers it, only in passing, as it has been seen, and in the next two written letters he confesses either the disappointment in which it can be seen a glimmer of hope when he says ‘I implore, to pray for our souls and to rouse us by your letters. Did you but know of what service these are to us you would never have lost a single opportunity of writing!’,28 or even despair when saying ‘When I turn my gaze upon the world, and perceive the difficulties by which every effort after good is obstructed, like those of a man walking in fetters, I am brought to despair of myself’.29 However, he tries for the last time, with great humility, to persuade St Athanasius to support his demarches, by sending a letter to each of the bishops, advising them 7 Epistles and the unity of the church 121 to forget their misunderstandings and to join in prayer for finding the beneficial peace, or a circular to all, to persuade them to meet in one Synodic assembly to discuss at leisure all the issues that separate them in order to find a solution accepted by all, for the good of the whole Church. If none of these variants suits him, he asks that Athanasius release him of the responsibility he has assumed out of the love for peace and fraternal union, namely the restoration of the inter-communion of the Churches.30 By the latter remark, St Basil appeals directly to the heart of the elder Hierarch from Alexandria with a word that cannot conceal a trace of disappointment. Even a man so powerful as was St Basil must have had moments in which doubt has taken the place of hope, and certainty has turned into uncertainty.

A meeting that did not take place Reading these letters is confusing. We know that St Athanasius knew Arianism very well since the beginning of its appearance. None of what was connected with the manifestation of this heretical plague in the Christian world was strange to him. He had been the fiercest adversary of the Arians and of the groups that arose after the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea from Arianism, no matter what they called themselves. He had suffered enormously from his intransigence before all the compromising formulas that the emperors had proposed, at the request of their bishops, or from extra-religious reasons, and spending more than 20 years in exile. He became a legend in his own lifetime, and seen as an example by all those who had to struggle with the heretical groups of the time. There were also others who had put themselves in the service of defending the truth, of the teaching about the deity of the Son, but none felt more painfully the drama of the Church from the decades that followed the first Nicaea Ecumenical Synod. It can be said that none of his contemporaries had the courage, determination and perseverance to defend the Nicaean faith and the unity of the Church, as he did. No one was more trained in the doctrinal struggles and in the political-religious conflicts than Athanasius. All these had transformed him into a sort of champion of the homoousios formula he had defended with all firmness throughout his life. He was a symbol that no one could afford to touch in any way. That is why the question arises: how was it possible for Athanasius not to directly and unconditionally support his younger ‘companion in arms’ in all his actions, not only inspired by his own experience but also could and ought to be considered as a continuation of the missionary strategy that he himself had adopted during the confrontations with the Arians and Neo-Arians? Was there perhaps a trace of ‘professional envy’ that arose with age, when even the most selfless or great man might suffer an alteration of conscience about his own worth, or a hyperbolisation of the role he played at some point in history? We should not speculate but instead focus on more concrete things that, even if they cannot be proven, can be counted as part of the logic of some broader reasoning, and therefore, they could have a greater degree of credibility. First, I think that there is some kind of a temporal non-synchronisation. St Basil becomes Bishop of Caesarea in 370, full of creative force, full of enthusiasm and 122 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy eager to defend and consolidate the doctrinal unity of the Church in the Nicaean formula, and to promote the spirit of communion among all the Eastern bishops, despite the suffering that slowly ground down his body and forced him to be extremely inventive about the pastoral and missionary strategies adopted throughout his pontificate. At that time, St Athanasius was already 75 years old, an age more than venerable, especially for the fourth century, and his concerns must have been related rather to prayer for unity and peace in the Church, and less to concrete actions, especially outside his jurisdiction. Second, and to a certain extent in relation to what I have mentioned above, I believe that St Basil ascribed Athanasius a holiness that no longer corresponded to the present situation, but rather to the last few decades, when St Athanasius was of a similar age, and despite the exiles and the attempt of the emperors to keep him away from the decision-making area in the Church, he remained firm in his Nicaean faith. Now, however, his image had become a kind of symbol that worked on the mind and imagination of those who had grown up with him and with his legendary deeds with the power of undeniable evidence. Surprisingly, St Basil, otherwise a keen analyst of the political and religious realities of his time and endowed with a unique intelligence among the great Cappadocian fathers, falls into the trap of not being able to distinguish the difference between reality and hyperbole. Third, it is surprising the insistence that St Basil mentions Antioch in his epistles and also the name of Bishop Meletius; he must have been aware of the reserve that Athanasius manifested against the Orthodoxy of the faith of the latter. It is necessary to remind ourselves that in Alexandria, in 362, there had been a synod chaired by Athanasius, at the end of which a very important decision was made according to which, any bishop who accepts and testifies the divinity of Jesus Christ is to be received in communion with others. It was undoubtedly a chance for all those who had doubts about the importance of the linguistic clarification of the faith formulas that had invaded the Christian world and produced countless disruptions, but also for the Church itself, which was constantly seeking a way to restore internal unity. In this sense, a year later, in 363, Athanasius personally moved to Antioch, in an attempt to reconcile the Christian factions who had been in conflict for years. The intention was to convince them all to unite under the direction of Meletius, whom he saw as being the best in that context, thanks to his soft temperament, obedience and the respect he enjoyed among all. It seems, however, that Athanasius was disappointed by Meletius’ ambiguous attitude towards the Nicaean doctrine, this he saw as unacceptable and intolerable because it came from Athanasius, the one who had dedicated his whole life precisely to support this teaching. He therefore recognised Paulinus instead Meletius and gave him his support. It is hard to believe that St Basil did not know about this episode. A man as well-informed as he, with an exceptional theological training, which undoubtedly included the recent history of inter-church relations, who kept in touch with the leaders of the Christian world through a rich epistolary correspondence, must have known in detail what happened between the two bishops, Athanasius and Meletius, in 363, in Antioch. With this knowledge, how could Basil have made such a strategic mistake! 7 Epistles and the unity of the church 123 Fourth, and perhaps the most important of all, is that St Basil never met St Athanasius. This must have been a major obstacle to establishing much closer relations, compared to those restricted by protocol and by the exchange of letters. It is a known thing that an encounter between two people may turn into a long- standing friendship, or simply, be concluded with a handshake, a greeting and a polite word of separation. Unfortunately, we are talking about a meeting that never happened, though maybe both of them would have liked it. I strongly believe, however, that if the two had met personally, the church history of those years would have been very different. St Basil would have had the opportunity to see that in front of him, there was no longer a youthful Athanasius, with his unmistakeable strength and resolve, capable of making any sacrifice to defend the truth of his faith, but instead an elderly man who would have probably preferred to live out his old age quietly, at peace with everybody, as long as the Emperor Valens also had decided not to bother him anymore. Then he might have had the opportunity to discuss the missionary strategy he should have followed, given the benefit of extraordinary, unique experience of St Athanasius and the countless friendships he had been able to cultivate with all the Western bishops, headed by the Bishop of Rome, not to mention the respect he enjoyed from their Eastern colleagues. There was no need for exaggerated appreciation, which does not belong to the current speech in general, but rather to the idealist rhetorical discourse, whose art he knew very well, as we discover in his epistles, but to choose the right words to express the real needs of the Church of the era. Certainly, the situation of the Bishop Meletius would have been clarified, the uncertainty about his doctrinal fidelity tothe Nicaea judgements (325), or the need for a more flexible approach to the problems of reinstatement in the Church of those who, after a longer period of reflection, decided to confess the truths of faith for which they themselves had fought forever. This did not happen, and suspicions and questions about the lack of collaboration between the two great titans of the of the fourth century church will remain forever.

The ecumenical dimension of his correspondence St Basil had not lost hope that, sooner or later, St Athanasius would meet his demands, but time was running out fast and the disturbances caused by the Arianism broke his soul. He loved Athanasius but maybe it was too late for him. He had to act, although there would be enough people to wonder why he did not act further than his own bishopric. With what right and under which mandate had he assumed these responsibilities! St Basil knew what his colleagues from the East thought, knew their fears, understood their perplexities, and forgave their weaknesses. He felt that God had chosen him for a much larger mission that would go beyond the borders of Cappadocia. Under these conditions, St Basil looked to the bishops of the West, where the Arian heresy had not caused the same ravages as in the East, and where the Churches had not faced similar situations. St Basil is an example of tolerance and understanding of the various forms of confession and ritual practice, as long as they are circumscribed to the formulas of faith accepted 124 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy by the judgements of the Nicaean Council. That is why he addressed the Bishop of Rome and the other Western bishops as if he were addressing his brothers in the East, perhaps with even more confidence and hope because they proved that they could fight the Arian trials that had produced confusion, disturbance and disorder within the Christian communities more effectively. His appeal to the Bishop of Rome does not clearly reveal in itself any form of judicial subordination, but shows instead one of condescension and politeness. St Basil was a vanguard of the cooperation between the West and the East for maintaining the unity of the universal Church. In fact, the Church from Caesarea, or any other Eastern Church, has never been in the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, as, unfortunately, many Catholic theologians have sustained over time. Moreover, besides a single epistle which appears to be addressed to the Bishop Damasus of Rome (although the recipient is not mentioned!),31 St Basil addressed all the Western bishops together, without the Bishop of Rome having any role of mediator, nor does he request approval. The more so, as St Basil’s letters to his colleagues in the West were encyclical, which clarifies to us the ‘mystery’ of his intervention. On the one hand, St Basil shows that – despite his well-known humility – he felt a responsibility arising from his sincere faith in love and unity, to remind his Western brothers of their obligations; on the other hand, he shows that the bishop of Rome did not have – in his view – any greater power over them or any judgemental role with regard to their actions, because otherwise, he would not have gone over the bounds of his authority. Especially, if we consider that at that time the bishop of Rome was Damasus, acknowledged for his absolutism and his autocratic way of leadership.32 It is much closer to the truth that St Basil did so not because Damasus had a primacy of power, but because he had the wealth of truth and ministry, the only acknowledged primate being that of the truth, which is not imposed, but proposed and accepted in so far as it is perceived by all other bishops. An eloquent example in support of these statements is demonstrated by the worrying situation in which the Church of Antioch found itself. St Basil does not ask the Bishop of Rome to intervene in the internal affairs of this Church, but asks the Western bishops to meet with those from the East in a common council, to discuss and take the most urgent steps to stop the expansion of the heresies in the territory of the Empire, and within these debates to also find a solution to the schism from Antioch. St Basil considered both the need for the collaboration of all bishops to strengthen the unity of the Church, and also a solution to the situation in which those from the West had been, in a way, directly involved. Let us not forget that Paulinus, whom St Basil considered as being illegitimate, had been ordained by Bishop Lucifer de Cagliari and then recognised by Rome.33 Therefore, the intervention of those from the West and of the Pope himself in solving this serious situation encountered by the Church of Antioch was perfectly legitimate and necessary. This tended to cause much more corruption also in other dioceses, due to the sympathies of the other bishops towards Paulinus, or Meletius, the two protagonists of this internal 7 Epistles and the unity of the church 125 separations. St Basil’s attitude towards the Bishop of Rome is correct and consistent with the realities of the time. He did not consider Damasus as being equal to the other Western bishops, because for him, Rome was equal only to Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The Bishop of Rome was undoubtedly the coryphaeus of the Western bishops, but without dictating through him the church politics to the others, instead conducting it on the basis of a primacy of honour, equal in grace, and leader in action.34 St Basil tries to maintain an equilibrium of power among the great bishops of the age, in order to bring them to the same table of discussion, in which to take precedence the desire of unity, not of separation and segregation, on the basis of some jurisdictional claims, important for the world, but irrelevant to God. Unfortunately, despite the arguments, requests and insistence of St Basil, those from the West remained impassable, incapable of understanding the gravity of the times they lived, or perhaps as at many times in history, pride and arrogance overcame the sensitivity of the brotherly love that the gospel of Christ shows us. What we certainly know is that all the help was limited to a few letters of encouragement from a distance, nothing more. Perhaps this duplicitous attitude of the West would discourage anyone, especially in the difficult conditions in which the communities of those faithful to Nicaea lived in the eastern parts of the empire, but not St Basil. He began this correspondence after his installation at the head of the Church in Cappadocia and, with hope or sometimes with despair, continued until the end of his life.

Final word The critics of St Basil would have formulated over time all sorts of disparaging remarks about his attempts to assume a role as a saviour of the unity of the Church, as long as the Bishopric he led was not part of the pentarchy recognised in the Christian world. It is possible that even this may have triggered a sort of ab initio rejection of his approaches, naturally acceptable by all those who seek to achieve a particular desideratum; all the more so, when it comes to those who serve God. Let us not forget, however, that the Church has always been a hierarchically organised institution, where order and discipline were often as important as that of the military. The believers themselves were called ‘soldiers of Christ’. The combination between respect of superior authority, the envy of his peers, and the crisis situation in which the Church really was, probably led to a state of uncertainty and a confusion over the legitimacy of St Basil’s initiative, critical to the preservation of unity within the universal Church. It is certain that when St Basil decided to do everything possible to persuade all the Eastern and Western peoples, both adepts of the Nicaean faith or its adversaries, that preserving the unity of the Church must be an obligation stemming from the very name ‘Christian’, there was no one more prepared to do it, and the events that took place especially in the years after his death, proved him entirely right. 126 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy Even if his efforts were not followed by an immediate success, they eventually had positive consequences on the church life throughout the Christian world. That is why I think we could conclude that his epistolary policy as a whole, for the strengthening, preservation and consolidation of the ecclesial unity centred on the Nicaean doctrine, was a necessary one that later fulfilled its goals. St Basil confessed this in a letter addressed to his fellow countrymen from Neocaesarea.

[The fair thing would be to judge of me, not from one or two who do not walk uprightly in the truth, but from the multitude of bishops throughout the world, connected with me by the grace of the Lord. Make enquiries of Pisidians, Lycaonians, Isaurians, Phrygians of both provinces, Armenians your neighbours, Macedonians, Achaeans, Illyrians, Gauls, Spaniards, the whole of Italy, Sicilians, Africans, the healthy part of Egypt, whatever is left of Syria; all of whom send letters to me, and in turn receive them from me.] From these letters, alike from all which are dispatched from them, and from all which go out from us to them, you may learn that we are all of one mind, and of one opinion.35

In fact, the doctrinal and spiritual heritage of St Basil will be found in the decisions of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381, when finally, the last chapter of the series of conflicts triggered by the greatest and perhaps the most dangerous heresy the Church has ever faced throughout its history will be concluded.

Notes 1 Four formulas of faith were prepared in Sirmium, but the latter will be subjected to debates and approval in the councils in Rimini and Seleucia in 359 (Corneanu, Patristica Mirabilia, 112). 2 Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 246. 3 St Basil the Great, Letter 189, NPNF 8, 231. 4 St Basil the Great, Letter 243, NPNF 8, 283. 5 St Basil the Great, Letter 90, NPNF 8, 176. 6 Constantin Voicu, ‘Unitatea Bisericii în Oikumene după Sf. Vasile cel Mare’ [The Unity of the Church in Oikumene according to St Basil the Great]’, Mitropolia Banatului 4–6 (1979), 280. 7 Corneanu, Patristica Mirabilia, 20. 8 Boris Bobrinskoy, Împărtășirea Sfântului Duh (Communion of the Holy Ghost), trans. into Romanian by Măriuca & Adrian Alexandrescu (Bucharest: EIMBOR, 1993), 255; see also Bernard Sesboüé, Saint Basile et la trinité, un acte théologique au IVe siècle: le rôle de Basile de Césarée dans l’élaboration de la doctrine et du langage trinitaires (Paris: Desclée, 1998): 142. 9 Actually, Eustathius ‘was a leading figure in the Homoiousian party in 360s and 360s’ (Cf. Beagon Philip M., ‘The Cappadocian Fathers, Women, Ecclesiastical Politics’, 169) and never returned to the Nicaean doctrine. 10 Cf. St Gregory of Nazianzus, Letter 58, NPNF 7, 454–455. 11 St Basil the Great, Letter 105, NPNF 8, 186. 12 St Basil the Great, Letter 113, NPNF 8, 189–190. See, for this, Bernard Sesboüé, Saint Basile et la trinité, in particular, Chapter VI, ‘Le Saint-Esprit hypostase trinitaire’, (139–148), 144–146. 7 Epistles and the unity of the church 127 13 St Basil the Great, Letter 113, NPNF 8, 190; see also the comments in Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 269–272. 14 See for this: M.G.A. Haykin, ‘“A Sense of Awe in the Presence of the Ineffable”: I Cor. 2.11–12 in the Pneumatomachian Controversy of the Fourth Century’, Scottish Journal of Theology 41.3 (1988): 341–357; Nicolae Chifăr, ‘The Contribution of St Basil the Great to Combating Pneumatomachism’, in The Ecumenical Legacy of the Cappadocians ed. Nicu Dumitrașcu (London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015): 105–115. 15 St Basil the Great, Letter 8, NPNF 8, 120. 16 St Basil the Great, Letter 210, NPNF 8, 250. 17 St Basil the Great, Letter 8, NPNF 8, 121. 18 St Basil the Great, Letter 8, NPNF 8, 120; Letter 105, NPNF 8, 186. 19 St Basil the Great, 105, NPNF 8, 186. 20 St Basil the Great, Letter 189, NPNF 8, 231. 21 Bobrinskoy, Communion of the Holy Ghost, 222. 22 St Basil the Great, Letter 251, NPNF 8, 292. 23 St Basil the Great, On the Spirit, in NPNF 8, 1–50. In this work St Basil proves his talent (skill) in discovering the most formulas of indirect confession of the divinity and equality of the Holy Ghost with the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity. That way, he said that Holy Ghost ‘is not a creature, but Creator’, ‘is united with the Father the Unique, and completes the Holiest and Happiest Trinity’, takes part in the process of creation of the earth and heaven because ‘Father creates through Son and makes perfection through Spirit’. ‘Holy Ghost is equal with the Father and the Son’ and has the same divine attributes: ‘in power infinite’, ‘unmeasured by times or ages’, ‘in magnitude unlimited’. In short, Holy Ghost is ‘the principle of the moral order’, the one who watches over keeping the harmony in the world and universe. In other words, Holy Ghost is the key with whom the Son opens widely the door to Christians allowing them to see the Father. Whoever does not believe in Holy Ghost, does not believe in Son as well, and consequently will not be able to know the Father forever. See for the comments on this work, especially: Pablo Argárate, ‘Basil’s Treatise On the Holy Spirit’, in The Actuality of St Basil the Great, ed. by Gunnar Hällström (Turku: Åbo Akademi Press, 2011): 10–42; Ioan Chirvasie, ‘Învățătura despre Sfântul Duh la Sf. Vasile cel Mare [St Basil the Great’s teachings on the Holy Spirit]’, Studii Teologice 7–8 (1958): 475–484; Constantin Cornițescu, ‘Învățătura Sfântului Vasile cel Mare despre Sfântul Duh [St Basil the Great’s teachings on the Holy Spirit]’, Ortodoxia 1 (1979): 108–114. 24 Joseph T. Lienhard ‘Basil of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and “Sabellius”’, Church History 58.2 (1989), 161. 25 St Basil wrote to St Athanasius asking him to send a messenger to the bishop Damasus of Rome urging him to confirm Basil’s support for Meletius’s election and also for condemning Marcelus of Ancyra (Lienhard ‘Basil of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and ‘Sabellius’’, 160–162). 26 St Basil the Great, Letter 69, NPNF 8, 165. 27 For his extraordinary epistolographical policy towards the strengthening of relations between Eastern and Western bishop, in particular with Athanasius of Alexandria and and Pope Damasus, see, in particular, Justin Taylor, ‘St Basil the Great and Pope St Damasus I–I’, The Downside Review 304 (July 1973): 186–203: Justin Taylor, ‘St Basil the Great and Pope St Damasus I–II’ The Downside Review 305 (October 1973): 262–73; See also Ward, ‘Saint Basil and the Cappadocians’, 21–23. 28 St Basil the Great, Letter 80, NPNF 8, 171–172. 29 St Basil the Great, Letter 82, NPNF 8, 172. 128 Part 3 St Basil and the art of diplomacy 30 St Basil the Great, Letter 82, NPNF 8, 173. 31 Methodius G. Fouyas, ‘St Basil the Great and the Roman See’ (Paper delivered at the Fourth International Congress on Patristic Studies in Oxford, September 1963) (Manchester: 1965): 3–5. 32 Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 245. 33 Fouyas, ‘St Basil the Great and the Roman See’, 7. 34 Fouyas, ‘St Basil the Great and the Roman See’, 7–8. 35 St Basil the Great, Letter 204, NPNF 8, 245. Part 4 St Basil as model for a leader of Christian opinion: dignity, humility and culture

8 Christ, religious leader and communities

St Basil was undoubtedly one of the most famous fathers of the universal Church. Hierarch and devoted pastor of souls, theologian and scientist, monk by vocation and wise missionary, he left a huge spiritual heritage behind him which, unfortunately, has probably never been harnessed to its fullest potential. Church historians and all those interested in the patristic world explored almost exclusively, his theological work, his role in preserving and strengthening the Nicaean faith, or his social and pastoral missionary activity, but less his diplomatic art put to the service of witnessing the Gospel of Christ in a society marked by religious and social inequalities, where an instinct for survival was more important than truth. Aware of the mission entrusted to him by God, St Basil proposed to his contemporaries the model of an authentic Christian leader who can create, with wisdom and humility, but also with authority, a bridge between two cultures apparently irreconcilable, the Christian and the pagan, that complete each other, rather than exclude or reject each other.

Building leadership in church and society St Basil openly undertook a mission of great courage, which was regarded with circumspection and surprise by some, including his colleague Gregory, or with a kind of disguised admiration by others, whether we are talking about his friends from the imperial court, or even of his opponents led by Emperor Valens. He tried and succeeded to keep a balance of power between Church and State, despite adverse political and religious conditions. He cultivated friendships with significant public or military positions, he mediated the majority of the conflicts in the Church, he bore all the unfounded criticism which came from his opponents both within and without; all with humility, believing that his power and wisdom came directly from God, through an inner illumination and through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Besides, all his activities are in the service of the Church, but not just of the institution itself, but also of the people who are clearly part of it. He tried to meet the challenges faced by those who seek God, or, on the contrary, deny Him and despise His will. For those people, he himself had to approach the truth with all his being, then to live this truth, and later to express it, to interpret and to support it without any restraint. Only in this way he could transmit the faith to others, but also 132 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture the power to confess that faith in any circumstance, before anyone, with joy and determination.1 His theology was not an abstract, but rather a practical one, because he addressed it to real people, with their problems, troubles or sufferings. It was more deed than word, although he excelled equally in both.2 Basil knew that to preserve the unity of the Church, its tenets of faith, peace and co-operation between Christians, especially between Christians and people of other religions or doctrinal ideologies, presupposed the existence of well-trained leaders, able to take part in dialogue with anyone, in any condition and on any topic. Moreover, he was convinced that the Church had in itself all the information needed by a Christian leader to become an leader of opinion, respected alike by friends and enemies. His source of inspiration was always the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition. As a great military strategist consults and analyses all the relevant information about the enemy, trying to intuit any movement that could be done by him during the confrontation, so did St Basil plan his campaign. We will see that he urges his listeners (readers) to study philosophy and to anticipate their opponents in order to be able to respond effectively and efficiently to them, with indisputable arguments. St Basil does not have in mind only the formation of religious leaders, priests or bishops who will take care of strictly church problems because his faithful belonged to both the State and the Church, but also leaders able to meet all the challenges faced by the Church and the society as a whole, in a deeply Christian manner, according to firm moral principles. In fact, he did not view the State and the Church as being two authorities that are in a perpetual opposition, but rather as two institutions that must work together in a fair and honest way for the material and spiritual development of their members.3 However St Basil understood respect of state authority as a dogmatic principle because it was the commandment of Jesus Christ (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25), taken up and expressed in a personal manner by the Apostles (Romans 13:1–2; 1 Tim. 2:1–2), which has become mandatory for all Christians.4 However, between the two powers there must not be a relationship of subordination, neither for the Church nor for the State.5 Therefore, Basil states that it is necessary that the Church and State, although two different bodies, both as origin and also as structure and means used for the fulfilment of their own goals, must work in perfect harmony, for the benefit of both, so that the first must not lose something of its specificity and its independence, and the second must not turn into a fundamental- ist ideological republic. In other words, Church and State should not have their identities confused, nor be entirely separated, but work together for the good and prosperity of the nation. St Basil believed in the coexistence and harmonious collaboration between the two institutions. Nothing can be built on confrontation, on distrust, on suspicion, but instead on dialogue and on the shared respect of agreed upon principles that are meant to represent the will of the majority and to strengthen the confession of truth. As no society has developed over time in a chaotic way, capable leaders need all the energies that are favourable to such an approach to coalesce around them. That is why St Basil tries to promote the image or prototype of a Christian leader, starting from the internal structure and operation of the Church, which 8 Christ, religious leader and communities 133 bears the seal of its head Jesus Christ, to whom it is inseparable. He is the guarantor of freedom and the salvation of men, and the duty of the authentic leader is to follow Him completely and to become, in turn, a witness of Christ, as an adopted son of God the Father.

Christ is the head and the leader of the church The Church is the body of Christ; a body made up visibly of Christians, baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity, each with his personal story, qualities and faults, accomplishments and failures, strong in faith or weakened by the power of temptations, aspiring to the kingdom of heaven or dominated by worldly interests, man or woman, elder or child. They are all, regardless of ethnic or group affiliation, adoptive sons of the heavenly Father. Church life and development depends upon the mutual cooperation of all its members and the reception in fellowship of each member’s gift. St Basil the Great compares the Church to a body whose members work in harmony, interdependence and unity. At the same time, the unity of the body members implies the diversity of their actions, according to the distinct functions of each member. The most eloquent example is given in his epistle addressed to the city of Tyana, following the splitting up of the province of Cappadocia in the year 371, the place of residence for the bishop Anthimus, who was at that time a metropolitan:

Truly, from our own bodily constitution, the Lord has taught us the necessity of fellowship. When I look to these my limbs and see that no one of them is self-sufficient, how can I reckon myself competent to discharge the duties of life? One foot could not walk securely without the support of the other; one eye could not see well, were it not for the alliance of the other and for its being able to look at objects in conjunction with it. Hearing is more exact when sound is received through both channels, and the grasp is made firmer by the fellowship of the fingers. In a word, of all that is done by nature and by the will, I see nothing done without the concord of fellow forces. Even prayer, when it is not united prayer, loses its natural strength and the Lord has told us that He will be in the midst where two or three call on Him in concord.6

Therefore, the Church manifests itself through the agency of its members. For no member includes in itself all the qualities and functions capable of defining the body of Christ as a whole, but together the members provide the body’s functionality at the proper gracious stature. As in the case of a human body, where every organ submits to a hierarchic order and to a general harmonious functionality, without overlooking the value of one member to the detriment of another, the same applies to the Church, where the unity of action and manifestation is commanded by the diversity of the attributes and purposes assigned to each individual member. The body functions harmoni- ously on the basis of a principle which substantiates the interdependence of each 134 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture organ, in the same way as the Church, in its visible aspect, comprises an impressive number of members, obeying the natural principle of growth into one community:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has deigned to style the universal Church of God His body, and has made us individually members one of another, has moreover granted to all of us to live in intimate association with one another, as befits the agreement of the members. Wherefore, although we dwell far away from one another, yet, as regards our close conjunction, we are very near. Since, then, the head cannot say to the feet, I have not need of you, you will not, I am sure, endure to reject us; you will, on the contrary, sympathize with us in the troubles to which, for our sins, we have been given over, in proportion as we rejoice together with you in your glorying in the peace which the Lord has bestowed on you.7

Community life is the model of living according to Christ because by simply com- muning with one another people discover their position as adoptive sons of God. The abundance of gifts endowed to people with must lead to a status of permanent communication with one another, in the sense of communion, which these gifts presume. The acceptance that one cannot fulfil oneself except through one’s ‘neighbour’ must constitute the distinctive symbol of discovering the way to perfection. Each believer lives his own circumstance in the Church, but has the prospect of fulfilment through solidarity with other believers, manifested in all its aspects, from the common greeting or handshake, to concrete acts of unifying faith. The Church is the laboratory where all the centrifugal tendencies are re-orientated, centred in the single person that is Jesus Christ. He is the one who assumes all our thoughts, aspirations and needs, and who transforms them, through His divine power, from incertitude to certitude. He comprises in His own person all the human attributes, qualities and emotions, imparting to us His divine power, so that we, in our turn may strengthen ourselves through communion with Him. Christ’s role as leader of our lives is not something created or acquired through men’s will, but it comes through divine filiation, by being one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He may be contested, as has happened and still happens today by those who do not know Him, or who have received distorted teachings about Him, but he may never be ignored. His Power is so great that even those who are trying to deny His presence end up believing, or by being at the very least to discover more about Him. Christ is the Lord and Leader of all Christianity and this title brings along with it not only a theoretical confession of our commitment, but also an adapting of our lives to the commands and principles He ordained for humankind. Only those who keep alive the spirit of harmony, peace and humility through practical deeds, avoiding division, conflict or envy, and, at the same time cultivating love, are true members of the body of Christ and are truly led by Him. In other words, as St Basil states, the only valid test by which a member of the Church may be considered as belonging to Christ is led by observing and obeying His commandments. Moreover, he states the following: ‘Then even if a man seems to confess the Lord and hear His 8 Christ, religious leader and communities 135 words, but does not obey His commands, he is condemned, even though, by some divine concession, he be vouchsafed an endowment of spiritual gifts’.8 In other words, Christ’s role as leader of all Christians on the path to salvation is given by His own example. Each of us is invited to watch Him and imitate Him in His humble activity on earth. He is the supreme example of love and humility, of obedience to the Father in all respects.

Religious leader and communities of faith In St Basil the Great, we find that Christian doctrine has a social and community aspect. One can neither live alone nor aspire to perfection by isolating oneself from the community.9 Love and other virtues may be fulfilled and only have a real meaning in our life by living and being in permanent communion with one another. Therefore, beyond the undeniable significance of the teaching concerning the spiritual leader role of Jesus Christ and his witness in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, the definition is also necessary (in our current understanding) of the image of a Christian leader, working in support of and for his fellow men, and following very clear principles. St Basil believes that people need to be led by men who should observe the charismatic structure of the Church. He bases his reasoning on the internal constitution of the Church. There are two distinct categories of function within the Church community, each with its specific duties: the clerical one has the power and duty to supervise the entire activity of the Christian community, to take the most important decisions, being responsible for the guidance of people on the path to salvation, and the other category, the laity, charged with obeying, understanding, observing and accomplishing all decisions.

There are two general orders: those who are entrusted with leadership and those whose part is to accede and obey. I consider that the one entrusted with the leadership and care of the many ought to know and learn everything by heart, that he may teach the whole of God’s will and show to each his duties. But let each of the others . . . to learn his own duties diligently and practice them, not busying himself about anything else.10

St Basil describes this relationship between the Christian leaders of a community and its members by way of extremely interesting metaphorical language.11 He compares the role of the Christian leader for his community with the role of the eyes and lips for the body. The role of the eye is to perceive the surrounding reality and to discover its inner moral structure, to be able to plan, foresee events and pursue their fulfilment. This is also the duty of a religious leader, to work for his community as the eye works for the body. That is to assume responsibility for the ‘growth’ and edification of the life in faith of his church members.

Thus, the one to whom general supervision is entrusted, who appraises what has already been accomplished and plans and provides for what is still to be 136 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture done, exercises the function of the eye, so to speak. Another does the work of the ear or the hand hearkening to orders and executing them, and so on for each member of the body.12

Through the other metaphor, of the lips, it is suggested that the duty of a leader within the community is to communicate with them in order to show them the path of moral conduct and salvation. Otherwise, they make themselves guiltier than the others before God.

It is of the greatest importance, [then], that the superior be convinced that if he fails to offer his brother the proper guidance he will draw down upon himself heavy and inescapable wrath.13

St Basil the Great understands too, the relationship between a Christian leader and his community, not only by observing certain imperative gospel principles, or based on his charismatic power, but also on the basis of human rules, established by those whom he has the duty to guide. The religious leader is the one who must assume the entire responsibility of defending the faith, tradition and unity of a Christian community. An eloquent example to this is given by the epistle addressed to the population in Neocaesarea, in the year 368, after the death of the bishop Musonius. As he could not be present at the funeral, St Basil found it proper to eulogise the virtues of the deceased bishop in writing, emphasising the fact that he was a true Christian leader, to whom is mostly owed the preservation of Christian identity and tradition among the respective community.14 Bishop Musonius was a true example for his contemporaries,15 a warrior for truth and justice, and a reliable friend to all:

A man has passed away who surpassed all his contemporaries in all the good things that are within man’s reach; a prop of his country; an ornament of the churches; a pillar and a support of the truth; a stay of the faith of Christ; a protector of his friends, a stout foe of his opponents; a guardian of the principles of his fathers; an enemy of innovation; exhibiting in himself the ancient fashion of the Church, and making the state of the Church put under him con- form to the ancient constitution, as to a sacred model, so that all who lived with him seemed to live in the society of them that used to shine lights in the world two hundred years ago and more.16

The authority of the bishop within the community he attends is fundamental for the imposing of Church rules. He has been called to oppose any innovations in faith that could thoroughly shake the Christians’ conscience and their form of ritual manifestation. He is the representative of Christ in the Church and must guarantee the preservation of unity in his diocese through his gracious power, increased by wisdom, diplomacy and especially, impartial love. 8 Christ, religious leader and communities 137 A Christian leader, a model for the faithful St Basil the Great is the perfect outline of a true Christian leader.17 He, who was not just a spiritual leader, but, in many cases, a true leader of opinion of the community he attended, should be a model, a source of inspiration, but also a figure that ought to give pause to those who would pose as leaders today.18 In society, as in the Church, a true leader must have not only the esteem of other Christian leaders and the respect of his own electors (as bearer of their hopes), but also a charisma which enables him to implement his projects. According to St Basil, the Christian leader is an ‘instrument’ of divine choice, called by God himself, elected by Him as the kings, prophets and apostles used to be elected.

Blessed be God Who from age to age chooses them that please Him, distin- guishes vessels of election, and uses them for the ministry of the Saints. He has netted you in the sure meshes of grace, and has brought you into the midst of Pisidia to catch men for the Lord, and draw the devil’s prey from the deep into the light. . . . .Play the man, then, and be strong, and walk before the people whom the Most High has entrusted to your hand. Like a skilful pilot, rise in mind above every wave lifted by heretical blasts; keep the boat from being whelmed by the salt and bitter billows of false doctrine; and wait for the calm to be made by the Lord so soon as there shall have been found a voice worthy of rousing Him to rebuke the winds and the sea.19

As instrument, he is elected and used by God for liturgical and social office. He is the one who must guide and teach the others, and certain interests should never lead him, or other people prompted by self-interest. He must be entirely devoted to God and to people, according to the grace he was given, being ready to correct other people’s faults, starting with himself. He is ‘the voice’ of the church community, the defender of the institutions and rules established by the saintly Fathers and transformed by the Holy Tradition into church law. By word and deed, he represents the model of all Christians and the example for attaining wisdom, for searching and finding the way to salvation. He is the protector of the community and the guarantor of the observance of faith and societal rules. He is the shepherd and the spiritual father of all members of his diocese. He thus represents the ‘co-ordinating centre’ of all ecclesiastic activity through prayer, liturgical office, pastoral and epistolary mission. The Christian leader is assigned to deal both with the spiritual and the corporeal needs of Christians.20 He is responsible for the observance of discipline and good order within the particular communities.21 A significant principle, defended by St Basil the Great in his church policy, (very evident in his epistles) is that of efficiency of ‘sole leadership’ in the Church, and also that of a reasonable autonomy in relation to the imperial power. Renowned for his diplomacy when he had to defend the interests of his diocese in front of the imperial authorities, St Basil, not only cultivated relationships with the officials of his times, but he also found an efficient language to impose his point of view, in the terms of a dialogue not lacking risks. Such is the case when Terentius, 138 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture a great dignitary (a count) in the time of Valens, is trying to pacify the spirits in the Church of Antioch, although a convinced Orthodox, he would be proved as the supporter of the other party, the Arian. Then, St Basil addresses to him an epistle, where he proves again his exceptional qualities of mediator between the church and the imperial authorities, emphasising the autonomy of the former:

There is one point which I should like to have pressed on your excellency, that you and all who like you care for the truth, and honour the combatant in the cause of true religion, ought to wait for the lead to be taken in bringing about this union and peace by the foremost authorities in the Church, whom I count as pillars and foundations of the truth and of the Church, and reverence all the more because they have been sent away for punishment, and have been exiled far from home. Keep yourself, I implore you, clear of prejudice, that in you, whom God has given me as a staff and support in all things, I may be able to find rest.22

The bishop is a guarantor of the unity of the diocese he attends through the power of God, but at the same time is a guarantor of respect for civil rights of the faithful. As there was often the case when the community took the likeness of its shepherd, the more this happened in the case of a bishop. Consequently, the sainted Father cautions strongly on the possible election of Christian leaders who might not have the necessary qualities. No one presuming himself capable of fulfilling such an office may actually be capable of doing so. Therefore, the concerns of St Basil the Great are to be seriously taken into consideration:

But it is not easy to find fit men. While, then, we are desirous of having the credit that comes of numbers, and cause God’s Church to be more effectively administrated by more officers, let us be careful lest we unwittingly bring the word into contempt on account of the unsatisfactory character of the men who are called to office, and accustom the laity to indifference . . . Perhaps therefore it might be better to appoint one well approved man, though even this may not be an easy matter, to the supervision of the whole city, and entrust him with the management of details on his own responsibility. Only let him be a servant of God ‘a workman that needed not to be ashamed’, not ‘looking on his own things’, but on the things of the most, ‘that they be saved’.23

Thus, two situations occur which are apparently in contradiction, namely: the need for a religious leader, having the necessary qualities to lead a community toward the salvation through his word, but especially through his deeds, through his personal example, and, at the same time, the relatively small number of those who answer entirely to these requirements. In the St Basil’s vision, a true Christian leader is the one who puts the community’s interest before self-interest, a humble man not a proud one, not eager for glory or ‘sensitive’ to vain words, but capable at any time of denying himself for the neighbour’s welfare, devoted to his mission 8 Christ, religious leader and communities 139 up to the supreme sacrifice according to the Evangelical words: ‘If anyone wants to be first he must be last of all and the servant of all’ (Mark 9:35).24

Final word A true leader is a man of substance, a generous man, a man emanating generosity and not arrogance. He should not be a greedy, but generous, showing not an ostentatious generosity but instead a humble one, full of piety,25 without the tendency to transform a virtue into a kind of obsessive authority. A leader of opinion is a person who embodies at a certain time the aspirations of his people. He is an exponent of society, having more accountability than any other individual, a man for whom sacrifice means precisely the concept of existing. A genuine leader does not have a strictly personal agenda, does not seek obscure interests, of family or clan, but he aims to serve others, being the one who serves, not the one who is served. But to reach this stage it takes time, a lot of teaching, consistency, guidance and a strategy that is learned with labour, to which it is necessarily added, cultivation of moral and ascetic virtues. At the same time, it is necessary for him to completely understand the complexity of the society in which he operates, so that, without betraying his own feelings and aspirations, without abandoning his ethnic or religious identity, he is able to discover the truth, beauty and joy in what is foreign or even hostile to him. Therefore, St Basil was always very attentive to the needs of others, regardless of political, religious or cultural orientation, trying to harmonise their differences and to exploit their slightest similarities. The certainty of faith, the versatility of his education, coupled with a unique diplomatic skill, led him in time, despite the ignorance and evil of his enemies, to shape the portrait of a true Christian leader. He understood better than anyone, that anything that is useful must not be removed, because God was generous to everyone. He sought to promote values, to develop wise curiosity and to support the searches of those who are interested in truth and purity of mind. He wanted to leave a legacy to his followers the living spirit of a Christian leader which must be permanently placed above the minor interests that destroy and dehumanise, and to take upon him all the responsibilities of the world he leads with humility and selfless love, believing that this way leads to the kingdom of heaven.

Notes 1 His friend Gregory called this strategy the ‘divine ordinance’ that Basil did not abandon until the end of his life (Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 206–207). 2 Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 207–208. 3 Nicolae Chițescu, ‘Aspecte ecleziologice în opera Sfântului Vasile cel Mare’ [Ecclesiological aspects in St. Basil’s work]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1600 de ani de la săvârșirea sa [Saint Basil the Great: dedication at 1600 years from his death], ed. Alexandru Elian (Bucharest: IBMBOR, 1980): 179–180. 4 Iorgu Ivan, ‘Opera canonică a Sfântului Vasile cel Mare și importanța ei pentru unitatea Bisericii’ [St. Basil’s Canonical Work: Its Significance for the Unity of the Christian 140 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture Church]’, in Studia Basiliana I, ed. Emilian Popescu et.al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 286. 5 Chițescu, ‘Ecclesiological aspects in St. Basil’s works’, 180. 6 St Basil, Letter 97, NPNF 8, 181. 7 St Basil, Letter 243, NPNF 8, 283. 8 St Basil ‘Ascetical Works’, Herewith begins the Morals, Rule Seven, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 9, trans. by Sister M. Monica Wagner (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950), 80. 9 Chițescu, ‘Ecclesiological aspects in St. Basil’s works’, 180. 10 St Basil, Short Rules 235 in Anna M. Silvas, The Asketikon of St Basil the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 401. 11 This method had been very efficiently used by the Athanasius the Great, the Alexandrian bishop, when he had explained the relationship between the Father and the Son, or Father, Son and Christians [Nicu Dumitrașcu, Doctrina hristologică a Sfântului Atanasie cel Mare în controversele ariane și post ariene [The Christological Doctrine of Saint Athanasius the Great in the Arian and post-Arian controversies] (Cluj-Napoca: Napoca Star Press, 1999): 90–109. 12 St Basil ‘Ascetical Works’, Long Rules, 24, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 9, 286. St Basil speaks in a rather similar manner on other occasions, such as: ‘For while the eyes discharge their functions, the hands can do their work as they ought, the feet can move without tripping, and no part of the body is deprived of due care’ (St Basil, Letter 222, NPNF 8, 262). 13 St Basil ‘Ascetical Works’, Long Rules, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 9, 293. 14 At the same time, St Basil does not deny the fact that every Christian – by virtue of being baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity – has a duty to protect the treasure of faith which had been given to him, in communion with others: ‘Each man making what is being done his own immediate business, each reckoning that he will be the first to reap the consequences of the issue, whichever way it turn out, lest your fate be that which so very frequently befalls, every one leaving to his neighbour the common interests of all; and then, while each one makes little in his own mind of what is going on, all of you unwittingly draw your own proper misfortunes on yourselves by your neglect’ (St Basil, Letter 28, NPNF 8, 133). 15 Van Dam, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia, 27. 16 St Basil, Letter 28, NPNF 8, 132. 17 St Basil was actually ‘the leader of the leaders of the people’ (Van Dam, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia, 33). 18 For both Gregory, of Nyssa and of Nazianzus, St Basil was the perfect model of ecclesiastical authority, that gained dominance over the all Eastern Christianity of his time (Sterk, ‘On Basil, Moses, and the Model Bishop: The Cappadocian Legacy of Leadership’, 227–228). 19 St Basil, Letter 161, NPNF 8, 214. 20 St Basil convinced not only by word, but also by actions. Nobody has done more than him for the sick, the poor, the orphans, the widows or the elders. The social establishments set up and coordinated by St Basil constituted an example of practical Christian love both for his contemporaries and for posterity, until the present day. His ‘Basiliad’ remained as a model and source of inspiration for all those who wanted to be in the service of the many and the needy (see, for details, Samir Gholam, ‘Vasiliada sau instituția de binefacere a Sfântului Vasile cel Mare’, 735–748. 21 The leader must have the wisdom to reprove those in error, for the first time in particular, and if the concerned ones do not reform, to submit them to public trial, and the sentence should not be conjectural but must be based on truth and justice, and the one in error should not to forget to control (examine) himself before all. 22 St Basil, Letter 214, NPNF 8, 254. 8 Christ, religious leader and communities 141 23 St Basil, Letter 190, NPNF 8, 232. 24 St Basil ‘Ascetical Works’, Long Rules, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 9, 293–294. 25 For a proper example, see the episode of the famine in Caesarea during 367–369, when St Basil – after the second distribution of his wealth to the poor – succeeds through prayer and speech to make the rich follow his example, thus saving the population of the city from death (Papadopoulos, The Life of St. Basil the Great, 185–187). 9 St Basil and his diplomacy toward the Greek culture

Although it might seem strange that there is a relationship between St Basil’s attitude toward the Greek culture and what we have already called in this work his ecclesiastical diplomacy, this should not surprise, but rather inspire us. Let us recall that once he ascended to the imperial throne, Julian completely forgot his first contacts with the Church of Christ, and sought by all means to destabilise the roots of Christianity and instead restore the rule of pagan culture.1 Julian’s adopted strategy was – we must recognise it! – highly effective, namely, prohibition of any form of Christian education in schools of the empire, being convinced that during a generation, Christianity would lose its importance or would completely disappear.2 There was the danger of the systematic replacement of the Christian faith with one polytheistic religion,3 or, at best, with a mystical Neo-Platonic religion.4 In this context, a strong response from the Church was needed. But was it wise for Basil to openly oppose the new imperial policy, or perhaps better to seek a compromise? And if so, what kind of compromise? Clearly, one which on the one hand would not expose the Church (and implicitly its Christians) to more severe sanctions, that could go to the restoration of the persecution, and on the other hand, to assure the preservation of doctrinal identity and the freedom to perform Christian rituals and take part in worship. Basil found a suitable antidote for this new challenge faced by the Church, namely: to promote not a compromise, but rather a conciliation between the value systems of the two traditions, paganism and Christianity.5 It was an appropriate response because it came from someone who knew them both very well. The principle underlying his entire argument is discovering, understanding and exploiting the moral precepts from the works of the pagan authors in a Christian spirit.6 However, the question arises: how could a champion of orthodoxy, a figure almost legendary for the whole history of the universal Church, display such an indulgent attitude towards the classical pagan literature, while St John Chrysostom, another great student of the famous Libanius, chose to manifest much more caution or indifference, even if he did not declare that he was an opponent of the pagan culture?7 It is possible that for some Basil’s attitude seems to be odd, incomprehensible, even reprehensible, but, as we shall see, truly it is prophetic, visionary and 9 Diplomacy towards Greek culture 143 genius. We may find the answer in his biographical route, whose sketch we will mention here.

Biographical Sketch It is known that St Basil was born into a wealthy and highly religious family,8 in 330, but he was not satisfied simply with the prospect of a peaceful and plentiful life, as was the case with many young people of his age (and, of course, of his social class); he tried to assert his own identity, in which are reflected both his ethnic and spiritual origins, but also his desire for intellectual and cultural development, according to the wonderful gifts received by him from God. If he heard the first Christian teachings from the grandmother, Macrina the old, at the family property in the village of Annesi somewhere on the bank of the river Iris from the province Helenopontus (Neocaesarea),9 he took the first lessons of grammar and literature from his father Basil, orator in Neocaesarea and a master of eloquence and logic.10 Then he followed, naturally, the courses of public education of Caesarea in Cappadocia,11 where it is believed that he met Gregory12 for the first time, with whom he began his longest and most lasting friendship, despite many differences of temperament and vision.13 After a rather uncertain period spent at school in Cappadocia young Basil went to Constantinople while Gregory took the road to Palestine and Egypt.14 At Constantinople he studied, probably for a short time, until 349/50 under the guidance of the famous teacher Libanius,15 because thereafter we find him headed towards Athens,16 (no one can know with certainty, but most sources place his departure to Athens between 349–50 and 51) where he reunited with Gregory and where he stayed nearly seven years.17 Also here, it seems that he met the future emperor Julian the Apostate.18

The return home He returned to his homeland in 355/6 with the desire to start a career as a rhetorician, like his father, although he was asked by the citizens of Neocaesarea to come there to become the teacher of their children.19 Only after two years and after long entreaties from his sister Macrina, he gave up his career in philosophy and decided to be baptised.20 More specifically, things were as follows. While he was more concerned with philosophy and rhetoric, in 356, his mother and sister decided to withdraw from the world and to devote themselves to an ascetic life, forming a community of this kind on the property in Annesi. Basil, probably to enlighten on his own destiny, decided to make a pilgrimage to several monastic settlements of Antonian tradition from Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia.21 He returned to Caesarea and he was baptised during the time when Dianius was bishop in about the year 357 or 358. He decided to establish a monastic settlement on the other side of the river Iris, adjacent to the one of his mother and his sister, probably also on land belonging to his family; a community of men determined to give up the earthly life and to dedicate themselves to prayer, contemplation and manual labour.22 He acquired here, the experience that we will find in theMonastic rules; 144 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture he laid here the foundation of Philokalia with his friend Gregory who, after he returned from Athens and spent some time with his parents at Nazianz, joined the community.23 In 359 he accompanied his bishop to Constantinople, at a synod that debated the conflict still open between the Nicaean and the Arian, where he experienced disappointment at the outcome of that. Moreover, he broke connections with his bishop who had decided to adopt the confession of faith from Arminium in 360. He decided to retire at Annesi for the entire year of 361, when he received the news that his bishop was dying and he ensured that he came back to the Nicaean faith, and thus the two were reconciled. After the death of Dianius, the new bishop, Eusebius, although only a catechumen at the moment of his ordination, was considered the providential person to set up peace in an extremely troubled and divided community. It seems that the good reputation of Basil, not only among Christians, but also among the other citizens of the city, of other religions and faiths, prompted Eusebius to ordain him priest in 362 and to give him many duties. Despite the many tensions that existed between the two (which I will not detail here) it seems that Basil did for Eusebius what Gregory did for his father in Nazianz, meaning, he worked as an administrator to better organise the diocese.24 He is the one who took care of almost all social problems. He admirably organised the social activity when the population was faced with a terrible famine, becoming personally involved. He not only persuaded the wealthiest to help the poor, but also used a part of his inheritance from his parents. Perhaps these years, even before 370, when he became the Metropolitan of Caesarea, he had begun to develop that network of social assistance, now known worldwide as the Basiliad. For a period of nine years he led with iron hand (in velvet glove), the destiny of this region, which remained in the time of Emperor Valens as an island of the Nicaean faith in a vast Arian and neo-Arian ocean.

The Athens of St Basil (351–356/7): the old university world In the fourth century, student life in Athens was similar in many respects to most of the great universities of our time. It was characterised by a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, where young people from around the world came to study with the most renowned teachers of the time, and also to enjoy the privileges of a thrilling life, full of unforeseen events, where almost everything was allowed, based on an unwritten custom in which intelligent minds experience numerous behavioural extravagances. It is enough to mention here the rite of initiation, of which – at least we know – the only one who escaped was Basil, thanks to the intervention of his friend Gregory, who told their fellow students about his sobriety and convinced them to show a respectful attitude to his intellectual stature and the prestige he had gained in other universities. The charade in which many Athenian students took part had some comical aspects, appreciated by intelligent people, full of humour, but there were coarse accents which accompanied those events, which generated consternation in addition hilarity.25 9 Diplomacy towards Greek culture 145 The aim of this initiation rite named Attic law was to attract a newcomer to one of the student groups, organised in societies and associations, where the enthusiasm, jokes or irony sometimes had overtones of vulgarity and violence. A new arrival would find himself facing the older students, he would be interrogated about his nationality, his interest in a specific field of study or the person who had sent or financially supported him. The questions were personal and were meant to defeat the pride of the new student and to make him submissive and obedient. After that, the newcomer was taken to the public bath in an indescribable uproar (shouts, threats, challenges) in procession, and pushed inside. When he emerged, he was received with cheers and accepted as being one of them. The funny part of this initiation was that, immediately after the ritual itself, the students disappeared with great rapidity as if nothing had happened.26 In addition to the religious–magical and moral elements, combined with certain standards and practices of the time, this ritual – it must be said – was not helpful to the students concerned in a practical way. Groups of students were in constant competition for new members. Interest was high because each new ‘acquisition’ increased the prestige of a group, which was organised by ethnic or professional criteria. In the societies organised by nationality, the new student was forced into the lifestyle of that group and, in the second case, if the group attended certain courses and some teachers, he was obliged to do so, which was not a good thing because every newcomer needed some time to discover his own skills and to hear the teachers whom he wanted. This ritual might be understood as a mixture of humour and seriousness, a sort of popular mime, but with great symbolic value. Rowdiness was the most visible aspect of it, but seriousness was the primitive religious background that involved the moment of moving from an old life to a new one. This interpretation, in a symbolic reference with the Christian baptism that was to be treated by Basil, all his life, with great care and responsibility, is confirmed by the end of the initiation: the bath. The ritual bath and the clothing of the student’s uniform symbolised leaving the former life and entering into Athenian student life.27

Athens: the dream of every young person in the fourth century Athens still represented the world of the elite. Some of the students were recipients of scholarships from institutions or individuals, but the vast majority of the young people who could afford to study in Athens came from wealthy families who could support them financially.28 Let us take the case of Basil. His family had extensive estates in three provinces: Pontus, Cappadocia and Armenia and in all likelihood, although the information we have will always remain speculative, their land covered nearly 60,000 hectares.29 Yet, even with this family legacy, Basil never saw wealth as a mere means of material wealth, as probably did most of his contemporaries, but rather as a gift from God to be used in order to gain salvation through both forms of social life: family and monasticism.30 The university curriculum was totally different from a typical course of study today; it was a more general education. The focus was on acquiring general 146 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture knowledge across many disciplines.31 Young people came from all over the world and had the chance to discover themselves; to realise what attracts them more and to specialise in one area or another by participating in numerous courses which they chose alone or at the instigation of their senior colleagues or their teachers. This general education was intended to develop an encyclopaedic knowledge in the student. We know that St Basil studied rhetoric, with which he had a very special affinity, and where he became a real master, unmatched by his peers,32 but without also acquiring the immorality of the famous orators of antiquity. He was also concerned with grammar, so necessary to deepen his understanding of the Greek language, the metric and the laws of poetry, and of philosophy, with all of its internal compo- nents (practical and speculative philosophy, dialectic with demonstration, antith- esis, the logic and its controversies) without which – he was aware – he could not reach the heights of wisdom and mastery. He did not neglect astronomy, geometry and arithmetic, in order to be prepared for any scientific confrontation. And, as a more personal feature of his studies, we mention also medicine. All this study, however, was directed at the most important concern of his: namely Christian virtue, the creed of his earthly existence.33

A specific note on his studies Students in Athens did not shine with discipline and virtue; the old democratic spirit was blended with a moribund culture and with the practices of a polytheistic morality. Most of them, even if we talk about those who were in the aristocratic world of the time, were not as concerned with study as they were with amusement, parties and entertainment. They formed a confused mass of people who could not stop their impulses, were able to include any interested individual, and elimi- nated anyone who did not align to their unwritten rules. They lived the moment at maximum intensity, without care for the future.34 St Basil was not like this. For him, life in Athens did not mean an abandonment of his identity in order to comply with the rules of a society to which he could not belong, simply because it was fashionable. For him, it was an occasion to rediscover his ego under the paradoxical conditions of academic excellence and moral decay. Therefore, in addition to the subjects he traditionally studied, Basil, like his friend Gregory, was concerned with the daily exercise and practice of virtue. He was not an unsociable, solitary or unapproachable man and he did not seek loneliness deliberately, but he was selective in choosing his friends, knowing that, in the words of Gregory, the faster the disease is taken the health is given, just as studies can strengthen both virtue, and evil. Therefore, the principle of selection led to the choice of the subjects of study and teachers, as the manner in which course were taught depended to a large extent on the teachers themselves as well as the colleagues in the classroom. The acquisition of virtue remains a primary theme of St Basil’s life, which he will not abandon until his death. It is therefore natural that he placed high 9 Diplomacy towards Greek culture 147 importance on virtue in his speech to young people that we will analyse in the second part of this chapter.

Professors in Athens It seems strange that Basil did not mention by name the renowned teachers of the time, given that he was perhaps the most famous student in Athens, one of the great humanists of the Christian Church, who cited often from pagan authors, even rec- ommending them to young learners. Historians recorded the names of the teachers in Athens, but the reasons for Basil’s silence on this subject, as well as his friend Gregory’s, remains a mystery. Two likely professors of Basil are known by name today, and they both influenced, to a lesser or greater extent, not only his convictions but also how to address theological issues in a society marked by permanent ideological confrontations, and also the code of practices and procedures used in his many activities: administrative, religious, or even political. Himerius, native of Bithynia,35 was one of the most important sophists of the fourth century, who was an experienced teacher in Athens around the same time that Basil, along with his friend Gregory, studied there. Although we have no direct evidence that the two friends studied under Himerius, scholars are in agreement that it is likely. This conclusion is the result of a logical deduction from an extrapolation of other information as follows: Himerius himself states that among his students he had young people from Cappadocia, without mentioning their names which makes us think that among them, might be also Basil and Gregory. To this assumption, we add the definite information that Gregory (we immediately associate also Basil) was a fellow student in Athens of Eustochius, who was clearly a student of Himerius. Therefore, corroborating the above information we can naturally conclude that Himerius was the teacher of the two friends of Cappadocia.36 Regarding his faith, we know that he was pagan and often adversarial towards Christians. However, it seems that Basil discovered in Himerius’ subtle and elegant manner of argument an inspiration for his future ideological confrontations. Basil was able to select from Himerius’ religious philosophy and from his Hellenistic mysticism, the beauty of argumentation, the power of eloquence and refinement of speech. Prohaeresius was Armenian,37 which may have been a reason for a rapprochement between himself and Basil, since, as we have seen, not only they were provincial neighbours, but Basil’s family had properties in Armenia Minor; Basil likely could understand them, might have spoken their language or known their customs, although we have no evidence in this regard. One of his former students described him as being a handsome man, with a special prestige, with a body still robust despite being 80 years of age, and renowned for his oratorical genius. He was so popular, so famous that after a series of conferences held in Rome, it is said that they built there a statue in his honour. What interests us particularly is his attitude towards the radical decision of the Emperor Julian to exclude the Christian teachers from all the schools of the time. Although that decree does not concern also him – because he was teacher to the emperor in Athens and therefore he received a 148 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture special indulgence – Prohaeresius resigned and gave up his academic career, most likely as a sign of solidarity with his other colleagues.38 We might believe that this gesture proves the intransigence of his Christian convictions, although some would consider it more like a desire to add to his oratorical glory, to add a halo of martyrdom, because his lectures were riddled with elements of pagan mythology and his faith was a sort of a religious syncretism. If it were so, surely such an inquisitive mind as Basil’s would have easily discovered the truth. Prohaeresius’ synthesis between Christianity and Hellenism seems to have played a dominant role in the formation of Basil’s benevolent attitude towards profane culture. Of course, Basil, who in turn became a celebrity in the Eastern Christian world, takes care to find the best formula for harmonisation of the pagan culture with the Christian teachings. He is a true master of valuing the most important ideas of the profane writings in developing a practical and effective Christian doctrine for his contemporaries.

Why Athens? Basil could have continued to study in other famous schools of the time. Lovers of philosophy and science could go to Alexandria; Berytus (Beirut today) had a famous law school, rhetoric was taught at a very high level not only in Constantinople, but in Antioch, Smyrna, Pergamum and Nicomedia.39 Also, Athens did not have a very good reputation in the first Christian millennium.40 Some say that it even had an odious reputation. Then, why did St Basil decide to come here? For some Basil’s choice seems to be a mystery, because he does not speak highly of Athens anywhere,41 as does, for example, his friend Gregory. For Gregory, Athens was more than a symbol of science and eloquence, it was the city of his time, was a place of beauty, rhetoric and erudition; it does not compare to any other city of the world. Moreover, he would say later that the memory of his years in Athens, in its peerless intellectual climate, remained with him for the rest of his life.42 And yet for St Basil, Athens must have seemed a homeland for beautiful speech, and he sought the place and environment in which to complete his training in rhetoric, a place where he could excel. Clearly it was a challenging environment. He was aware of the glorious history of Athens, of the invaluable literary and philosophical legacy of Greece.43 On the other hand, he realised very quickly the superficiality of Athenian society and, disappointed, he asserted that Athens represented an empty happiness, perhaps the most succinct characterisation of the city of the Areopagus of the fourth century. It was a world of paradoxes that Basil loved yet hated at the same time.44 To be in this great cultural city of the world and therefore able to compare Christian philosophy with pagan must have played a major role in his selection. Perhaps the best answer would be one that comprises two truths which do not exclude, but rather complement each other. It was an interior encounter of two intense longings: one being his honest passion for Greek culture and philosophy, and the other, the desire to put this culture to the service of his evangelical mission, that he will assume later in a special way and with an incomparable magnitude. 9 Diplomacy towards Greek culture 149 The necessity for youth education and culture As was mentioned earlier, Basil (like his friend Gregory) was concerned even from childhood and adolescence with the acquisition of a solid culture, in order to allow him to easily distinguish between good and evil, between what is useful and harmful for his spiritual and intellectual growth. Therefore, his desire to study and his consistency in this direction seems a natural thing. It was not the same for all young people of his age. Most of them wished for a simple life, and an established routine that they accepted with serenity. Is this not the case today? The vast majority of young people think about a certain profession, a family, a life without worries. Few would want to leave a daily comfortable lifestyle, which allows them some spiritual and material balance occasionally seasoned with small or large joys, even if somewhat lacklustre in the absence of an ongoing learning process. St Basil sets an example for his generation in terms of attitude to culture, being aware of its importance not only for himself and for his own intellectual formation, but in particular for healing a society shaken by the competition between two major philosophical currents, Christian and classical. Culture is not the preserve of a certain social category, it is not inherited, but accumulated over time, through study, by hearing great teachers and through direct access to libraries and reposito- ries of knowledge. Culture is the result of a process of knowledge that ennobles man and makes him capable of high aspirations, leads him to the path of moral perfection and helps him understand his mission/purpose in society, in his relationships with others and with God. Culture is not a unilateral or restrictive process, it does not refer to a certain philosophical or humanist orientation, nor to a single ideology or doctrine, but it is rather a process of selection based on personal values and aspirations. Basil understood like no other in his time what this process of choice for human life meant. Due to his natural qualities and also to his extraordinary capacity for analysis and synthesis, coupled with the firmness of his own convictions, he managed to escape any trace of doctrinal fundamentalism and to patiently gather from the pagan philosophy everything that could prove useful to a good Christian. Not everyone can enter so easily in the world of the great pagan philosophers, historians, poets or classic prose writers, but only someone, who has studied them in depth and realised how many useful lessons can be collected from their work. Basil was not afraid to cite, interpret and deliver to his disciples texts from pagan literature and philosophy, believing that any work of art and classical culture held something useful both for himself and especially for those who believed in his values and in his cultural universe.45 He left us as a legacy the principle that things are not good or bad in themselves, but instead their value lies in the usefulness or uselessness given to them by man. A Christian must take from the pagan culture what leads him to study and contemplation, and reject everything would turn him to demons and towards the abyss of destruction. In other words, culture involves a complex selection of the most useful elements of any creation, regardless of its nature or artistic orientation, with the aim of cleansing, uplifting and ennobling the 150 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture soul. Or, in the time of Basil ‘the offer’ was extremely generous and therefore, the selection quite difficult.46 In the fourth century, Hellenic culture was considered, generally, to be pagan, rich and diversified; comprising creations, beliefs and orientations unique in human history from Latin, Egyptian, Indian, Syrian, Phoenician, or Babylonian, sources.47 Basil faced not only the lack of criteria for selection, but also the existence of some reluctant attitudes regarding the importance of knowing the Hellenic culture. At that time, there was a negative understanding about the relationship between the pagan and Christian culture, in the sense that between them there cannot be any connection. There was another view, however, that argued for a very strong link between the two and it should become more visible. Basil had a balanced attitude, inclining towards valuing the positive elements from Hellenic culture, whereby the process of educating a person implies first, the ability to study, to do scientific research, and second that of contemplation, meaning to be enlightened by faith. Although this rapprochement between science and faith is sometimes seen with circumspection, it was regarded with great interest and trust by Basil, because scientific research is based on reason and truth, precious values for the Christian culture and spirituality because that reason must enable man to discover the beauty of the road to salvation.48 The criteria of the selection mentioned above, does not refer to all categories of the pagan culture, such as: idolatry, slavery, gladiatorial conflict, child abandonment, prostitution etc.; themes repudiated from the beginning by Christianity, but expressly, to the Hellenistic literary publications circulating in schools during that era and that might corrupt the souls of young people.49 Basil noticed this danger because he himself had faced a similar situation in the schools he attended, but the earlier Christian education received especially in his family, accompanied by a very solid personal training, made him able to easily distinguish what was valuable and what was dangerous in these works. Therefore, aware of the power of attraction, of the spell exercised by the works of poets, prose writers or pagan philosophers on young people, he decided to write a paper, unique in its way, to give them an opportunity to make the right choices for their intellectual and spiritual development.50 Of course, useful teachings for the life of young people and Christians in general, are present in all his writings, but here we consider the work, Address to Young Men on Reading Greek Literature, which illustrates in an exemplary manner that there is fierce competition between Christianity and classical culture,51 and also a necessity to make a critical selection, as young people of the time had to do.

‘Address to Young Men’ Education has always been the most important means of emancipation of man and society. Acquiring a solid culture, both secular and religious, was not available to everyone because it required both financial support and also a continuing interest for study and the firm belief in its necessity. It can be said with certainty that, although humanity has reached a stage of unprecedented development in all 9 Diplomacy towards Greek culture 151 aspects and in all areas, the need for education, knowledge and permanent training remains important. The challenges faced by young people in Basil’s time, although certainly in a more stylised and more elaborate forms, but just as radical, are faced also by young people today. Opportunities and differences are manifested also today, even if not the same as then, and the conflict between the secular and religious culture erupts like a sleeping volcano, awakened occasionally by external reverberations of some consciences troubled by uncertainties. Basil gave to the Christian world a small work, but with a very clear message that remains pertinent to the present day: Address to Young Men. This brief work, which scholars say is neither part of his homilies nor his sermons,52 was over time one of the most important arguments (if not the most important) for the study of the classical culture within the Church and especially in Christian schools. Let us not forget that the greatest universities in the world were founded by the Church and supported by it!53 The work of Basil was also used by the humanists of the Renaissance, and then later (in the nineteenth century) by the Jesuits with the same purpose. The work was part of the curriculum of the Gymnasium to remind students why and for what reason they needed to study the Greek classics. But in the last century, interest in this little literary masterpiece of Basil was diminished, the thought being that that neither the content nor arguments justified the importance given to it in the past. However, especially in the context of secularisation generalised at a planetary scale, I think that it is necessary to re-assess this work of Basil and the interpretation of its role in keeping the interest in real culture. Here we might think of our Romanian society, which is unfortunately in a perpetual transition period, with various educational experiments that compromise our future, such as the reduction of Romanian language and history classes and even the removal of Latin from the curriculum. Of course, even the discussion itself seems to be outdated because it implies that young people still want to read and that they do not know to choose what is best for their souls, when we notice not a matter of choice, but one of desire to become more literate.

Why is re-evaluation of his work still necessary? To better understand this, we should think about the reason for which the work was written: we are in the fourth century, in the context of a permanent confrontation between the classical Greek culture and the Christian, which is now in a period of intense development and accumulation and which offers another vision of life. People are confused, especially so the young people. Today we have, in a way, the same situation, intellectual and cultural possibilities are extremely rich, but everywhere cultural surrogates can be found that are more attractive and easier to be assimilated. Superficiality lurks everywhere. Basil was aware of the danger of contamination of the youth with useless or even poisonous teachings for their souls. St Basil did not want to deprive them of what could be useful for them; because he himself had passed through important schools, worked with great teachers, he 152 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture understood that in addition to interest for study, the ability to distinguish between good and bad was also necessary, between what is good and what is dangerous for the intellectual development of a young person. He spoke to them as one who had managed to acquire all that was positive from pagan teachings, because in any philosophical system, there are common values that may be shared by Christians.

The historical context of the work Outside of the content of this Basil’s unique work, a brief analysis of the historical context in which it was written and its intended audience is also needed. It seems that despite countless studies that have dealt with these two issues it still cannot be said with certainty when it was written and to whom it was addressed.54 Some people place the appearance of the work in Basil’s final years, others speak of an earlier draught of the work immediately after the arrival from Athens. Also, some believe that it is addressed to his grand nephews, and others say that it was intended from the beginning to the public at large. It is difficult to navigate the arguments about the date of this work that are opposition to each other, but, we will see, each argument contains a kernel of truth.55 In the category of those who consider a later dating of the work, possibly towards the end of his life we find Aimé Puech. He supports his hypothesis on the basis of two arguments, namely: words from the introduction, which seem to be directed towards some adolescents in his family, and the familiar tone that concludes the work, indicating that it is intended not only as advice, but also to convince them that he will stay close to them on the road of finding their own self. In other words, if the listeners are his nephews, assured of his caring also in the future and thus their special relationship of kinship is clear, the date of publication of this work should be pushed as late as possible, to the last years of his life, because only then he could have had children of that age in the general secondary school.56 His arguments, though at first glance seem quite solid, leave room for interpretation and, viewed with more attention, they might even contradict themselves. Specifically, if we look in a broader framework the formulation ‘Through the kinship of blood I am for you soon after those who gave birth to you and I love you as much as your parents’, we will see that it does not preclude the possibility that this kinship was referring also to that between priest (bishop) and his flock. The nickname of father for a priest was kept throughout the history until today. And the second invoked formulation ‘the other, I will tell them to you throughout life’ fits perfectly in the same reasoning.57 However, we may suppose that the work was intended not just for his sister’s children, but for young people everywhere. Even in this case, it cannot be said with certainty that he ought to be in his last years. Why? Let us analyse the situation in his family. It is known that there were ten children in the family of Basil and that he was the eldest of four boys, but much younger than Macrina, but about his other five sisters we do not have information. However, if we consider that the age difference between Macrina and Basil must have been 10 or 11 years,58 it is very likely that some, if not all, of the other sisters must have been older than Basil. 9 Diplomacy towards Greek culture 153 Therefore, when he returned from studies from Athens in 356, when he must have been about 26 years old, it is likely that they would have had children who were at the age of those who went to general secondary school. So, if Basil wrote this work to his younger relatives, we must date the writing as late as possible. On the other hand, if this date is maintained based on the beginning of the work, we would reach to the same conclusion, because it is not necessary to have be elderly to invoke age, tests, experiences or knowledge gained from one’s teachers. The work is addressed to adolescents, therefore the issue of age is reduced rather to a contrast between speaker and audience; on the other hand, he would have already undergone countless examinations at university before he was ordained as a bishop. The notion or concept of an elderly man has no power of argument in this case.59 Then, if we consider the fact that at the time of writing he was no longer a teacher of rhetoric, because he says to his students (listeners) ‘who frequent the teachers every day . . .’ we could propose the following supposition: It is known that Basil’s return from Athens in Caesarea was during the year 356. If we assume that he worked as a teacher of rhetoric for a short time (autumn 356 to spring 357) and then he made the pilgrimage to Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia, we may conclude that the end of the year 357 would be a suitable one for the date of this work. Another argument in this regard would be that, in order to quote so easily from the Greek classics, his readings (about which we will talk later) must have been fresh in his mind and he had accumulated a lot of experience in the schools he attended. Also, during the journey of initiation which he had in the Middle East he was no longer a rhetorician, and his age gave him the status of a mature man, certainly not old (because he did not reach old age, dying at the age of 49), by contrast with the youth of those he addressed. It might, however, be that this dating is still too early and should be pushed a few years later, closer to the year of his ordination as priest (362), or the most probably in the 362–3, when he was on retreat in his monastery of Annesi, following the conflict between him and the bishop Eusebius. Moreover, this period might allow us a better harmonisation between the crisis caused by Emperor Julian’s decree on public schools, and the dating and possible audience of St Basil’s Address to the Young.

The audience in question Regarding the audience, the information and conclusions are somewhat contradictory.60 St Basil forced somehow by the appearance of numerous currents in the cultural and spiritual revival of the fourth century, tried to find the most effective ways through which, on the one hand, to oppose to the ‘avant-garde’ trends and inclinations of the educated social class of his time and, on the other, to secure Christian traditions and principles, giving especially to the young people the necessary tools by which they could distinguish between harmful and useful teachings for their spiritual life. A Greek theologian, Constantine Bonis assumes that this work is not just a ‘special treaty’ composed of a simple theoretical motivation, but rather it should be seen as a homily given most likely in two sequences or moments before an 154 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture audience of young people that either wanted to become priests (to be ordained), or to be committed to a monastic or solitary life, or perhaps to become the true Christian leaders of a society which was facing an avalanche of philosophical currents that produced confusion and uncertainty. The same author believes that the work belongs to the St Basil’s earlier years and therefore, it could be dated in the years before his ordination.61 As for the recipients, Bonis is unsure that St Basil would have had nephews, at least from the four married sisters. He may have had nephews from cousins or other relatives. His judgement is based on several considerations about the family of St Basil which he takes from the study by Emile Pfister,62 namely that Basil was the third child, after Macrina and another brother who died when he was a baby, followed by four sisters (who, we assume, married, at the average time – and about whom we know nothing) and the three brothers, Naucratius, Gregory and Peter. If St Basil was born in 330, and the youngest of the brothers, Peter, in 347, Bonis thinks that his sisters might have been born between 336/337–345/346, and therefore, around the years 362–363, around the appearance of the homily addressed to the young, he could not have nephews of an age capable of understanding the extremely complex content of the respective work. Specifically, if we consider the specified range (336/7–345/6) and that they must have been married at an age of 16–20 years, then indeed, their children (the nephews of St Basil) could have had been only few years old, perhaps they were even at the age of infancy(!). However, seems to be a rather strained analysis.

Possible explanation If we consider that all the four sisters of St Basil are younger than him, the above- mentioned range should be extended, namely 331–346. Or if they had been born (if not all, at least two) in the years 331/3, then around the years 362/3 they could have been more than 30 years of age, and if they would have married much earlier, as it was the custom in ancient times, perhaps around the age of 16, they could have had children about 14–15 years old, or even older. This age perfectly fits in the secondary education cycle of his time.63 Here is how, without unnecessarily stretching the boundaries of this range, we may reach a different conclusion. There remains – at least from my perspective – the difficulty of understanding such a very complex text that involves extensive knowledge of history, philosophy, literature and mythology, which seems unlikely to be accessible for the teenagers who are in training. Therefore, it is unlikely that the recipients of this little work were his nephews or only nephews. But it does not mean that his nephews (if we consider the above analysis) would not necessarily have been the only recipients of his wisdom. Most likely, it is addressed to a wider audience, given the goal about which we have already discussed.64

Final comment I concur with Bonis at the conclusion of his study, as follows: St Basil was considered a kind of a second father, closely following the birth parents, to all his 9 Diplomacy towards Greek culture 155 disciples65 because he was their teacher and their spiritual mentor.66 Therefore, he felt the need to explain to them in very clear terms, the position of Christianity towards classical literature and philosophy. In other words, he tries to show them what they (the disciples) should take from the pagan philosophy, how to use the arguments present in the classical literature in favour of their own teaching, and also, how to cope with any inherent ideological confrontation in a historical epoch in which cultural changes occurred at a rapid speed. Besides, this will be the main theme for the Christians throughout their history until today, namely: how they will relate to all the ideological–cultural currents in different eras, and how, regardless of sometimes very harsh conditions, they will survive and greatly contribute to the development of humanity in all its aspects. This is even more true in today’s times, dominated by materialism, by religious indifference, intolerance and individualism that has led to a highly damaging self-isolation both for the individual and for society as a whole. Therefore, the re-evaluation of this little masterpiece of Basil is not only welcome, but could become a testament to the soul for all generations of Christians to come.

Notes 1 In St Basil’s time, it said that there was a Hellenistic spirit in all major areas of Christianity: treaties of dogmatic and polemic, history, chronology, textual criticism or exegesis, poetry. The Christian spirit approached to the Hellenistic methods, without thereby, occur any alteration of their originality. However, it seems that the emperor Julian, familiar with both philosophies, feared that Christianity was not only equal with paganism in terms of literary taste, but that it might overcome it (Cf. Pierre de Labriolle, La Réaction Païenne (Paris: L’Artisan de Livre, 1934), 424; For details concerning the relation between Emperor Julian and Christian culture, especially see 369–436). 2 This refers to the decree of 17 June 362, which stated very clearly that, a teacher may not be employed in the Roman Empire, without the approval of the city council and the emperor himself. At first glance, the decree appears to regulate a certain disorder in the existing educational system, but it hides in fact, a radical measure to eliminate Christian principles, because hiring teachers depended more on a so-called moral competence, than professional. In other words, Christian teachers who, naturally, repudiated pagan gods would not be able to teach from the works of the profane authors, otherwise than lying, thus having a questionable morality, they had no chance to practice (Ernest L. Fortin, ‘Christianity and Hellenism in Basil the Great’s Address Ad Adulescentes’ in Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought ed. by H.J. Blumenthal and R.A. Markus (London: Variorum Publications Ltd, 1981), 198. 3 It seems that Emperor Julian wanted to create ‘a polytheist church militant which would destroy Christianity’ (Fowden, ‘Polytheist religion and philosophy’, 545). 4 See Deno J. Geanaklopos, ‘St. Basil, “Christian Humanist” of the “Three Hierarchs” and Patron Saint of Greek Letters’, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review XXV.1 (1980): 95. 5 Constantin C. Pavel, ‘Atitudinea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare față de cultura și filosofia antică [The Attitude of St Basil the Great toward classical culture and philosophy]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 1., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 446–447. 6 Geanaklopos, ‘St. Basil, “Christian Humanist”’, 95–96. 156 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture 7 Geanaklopos believes that Chrysostom launched into long tirades against paganism, without making a selection of those texts, because especially of his zeal for oratory, which did not happen with Basil (‘St. Basil, “Christian Humanist”’, 99). This may be correct, but I think that the gap should be sought in the general horizon of the understanding of the realities faced by the Church and by the society of their time. While Basil proved to be a clever politician seeking to resolve any incident or conflict either with the imperial leadership or with his religious rivals, through dialogue and negotiation, of course in the acceptable limits of his faith, Chrysostom showed a certain rigidity towards the faults or frailties of others. This inflexibility, particularly evident in the dignity of archbishop of Constantinople, isolated him and ultimately, led him to the known tragic end. 8 There are three theories about the origin of his family. The first claims that he belonged to an Iranian-Persian ‘country aristocracy’; the second argues that he belonged to the Roman ‘senatorial class’, and the third asserts he was member of the ‘Cappadocian curial class’. He was most probably a descendant of the ‘local aristocracy’. For details concerning all these theories see: Thomas Kopecek, ‘The Social Class of the Cappadocian Fathers’, 453–466; Stanislas Giet, ‘Basil était-il sénateur?’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 60 (1965): 429–444; William Mitchell Ramsay, Pauline and other studies in early Christian history [especially ‘The Life in the Days of St. Basil the Great] (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1906): 376–377; Endre Ivánka, Hellenisches und Christliches im frühbyzantinischen Geistesleben (Wien: Herder, 1948): 39–41; Charles A. Frazee, ‘Late Roman and Byzantine Legislation on the Monastic Life from the Fourth to the Eighth Centuries’, Church History 51.3 (1982), 265. 9 Charles Harrell, St.Basil the Great as Icon: A study in late antique and byzantine historiography, hagiography and iconography (Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 1998), 24. 10 Alphonse Benoit, Saint Grégoire de Nazienze, sa vie, ses ouvres et son époque (Marseille: Marius Olive, 1876), 54. 11 It seems that it happened after his father’s death (345/6), most probably between 346–348 (Harrell, 25; see also Sebastian Brock et al. (eds), Basilio tra Oriente e Occidente (Bose: Comunità di Bose, 2001), 283). It must be mentioned that Caesarea was at that time, not only an important political and administrative center, but also a cultural-educational one. If at the secondary schools, grammar was the fundamental discipline, at the upper, all revolved around rhetoric. (Jean Bernardi, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze. Le theologien et son temps (330–390), (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1995), 86–87). 12 Edouard Fleury, Hellénisme et Christianisme. Saint Grégoire de Nazienze et son temps (Paris: Beauchesne, 1930), 17–19; Paul Gallay, La vie de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze (Lyon/Paris: Vitte Emmanuel, 1943), 31–32. 13 If is often said that those who are alike meet each other, for the two young friends, what persuaded them to remain faithful to each other, it was rather the attraction of opposites, of course if we miss, yet, their love for Church and for study, which convinced them to remain spiritually, all the time, beside each other (see my study ‘The Atypical Friendship of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus’, 63–81). 14 See Benoit, Saint Grégoire de Nazienze, sa vie, ses ouvres et son époque, 54; Gallay, La vie de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, 32–35; Stanislav Giet, Sasimes: Une Méprise de Saint Basile (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1941), 23–24; Papadopoulos, The Wounded Eagle. The Life of St. Gregory the Theologian, 26–30. 15 This meeting remains questionable because our sources disagree. According to Puech, in 346 Libanius was in Nicomedia, where he established a school of rhetoric and where he remained for five years; At Constantinople, we find him, most likely between 350–352, where he taught; Basil might well have been his student for a short time (Histoire de la littérature greque chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à la fin du IVe siècle, III. iii (Paris: Société d’édition ‘Les Belles Lettres’, 1930), 20–21; see also 9 Diplomacy towards Greek culture 157 Philip M. Beagon, ‘Some cultural contacts of St. Basil in Antioch’, Studia Patristica 32 (1997): 67–68). The fact is that in 354 Libanius returned permanently to his hometown of Antioch (Cf. Bernardi, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze: Le theologien et son temps (330–390), 11; Labriolle, La Réaction Païenne. 439–430). On the other hand, Benoit claims that Basil had left Constantinople much earlier, in 346(!) for Athens (Cf. Benoit, Saint Grégoire de Nazienze, 54). 16 It is not certain, but most sources place his journey to Athens between 349–350, or 351 (Cf. Harrell, St. Basil the Great as Icon, 25; Brock, Basilio tra Oriente e Occidente, 283). 17 For details concerning his time in Athens, see: Philip Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994): 31–60; Coman, ‘The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers’, 531–554; Stanislas Giet, Sasimes: Une Méprise de Saint Basile, 23–36. 18 Gallay claims that the meeting of the two Cappadocian friends with the future emperor Julian, occurs with certainty in Athens (Cf. Gallay, La vie de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, 60), based on information certified by history, namely: Julian spent some time in Athens during 355, studying also with Himerius and Proheresius and also with Priscus, who became a close adviser following his proclamation as emperor. Benoit also claims, in his turn, that the encounter between Basil and the young Julian took place in Athens after 354 (Cf. Benoit, Saint Grégoire de Nazienze, 61). It may have been also an earlier meeting but it would not be held in Constantinople (Cf. Fleury, Hellénisme et Christianisme. Saint Grégoire de Nazienze et son temps, 47) but even in Caesarea of Cappadocia. A solid argument in this regard is the fact that Julian spent several years (342–347/8) in one of the most luxurious imperial properties near Caesarea (Macellum). There he had George as a teacher, among others, the predecessor of Dianius at Caesarea, who was moved then to Alexandria to replace St Athanasius. He was a very diligent student, who not only read a large part of the library of Bishop George, but showed a major interest in the Christian faith, being lecturer (legibly) in the church from Caesarea. Furthermore, he also financed the building of an altar dedicated to the martyr Menas (Susanna Elm, Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church. Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012): 68–69) Therefore, it seems somewhat surprising his anti-Christian attitude manifested itself overtly through the trial to reintroduce the pagan culture in the empire. It is true that Julian visited Athens when Sts Basil and Gregory were studying there and met (Cf. Papadopoulos, The Wounded Eagle, 41–42), but it is ‘most improbable that a close friendship can have been formed between them’ (Halliday, ‘St Basil and Julian the Apostate: A Fragment of Legendary History’, 103). He seems to think that Julian stayed in Athens just a couple of weeks in 355 (cf. Hunt ‘Julian’, 47). 19 St Basil, Letter 210, NPNF 8, 249. Cf. Harrell, St. Basil the Great as Icon: A study in late antique and byzantine historiography, hagiography and iconography, 27. 20 Actually, she was a mentor for St Basil throughout his entire life (Cf. Terrence G. Kardong, ‘Who was Basil’s Mentor? Part II’, The American Benedictine Review 60:3 (2009): 299–309). 21 It seems that he was persuaded by her sister Macrina and his spiritual mentor Eustathius to devote himself to the monastic life, and the pilgrimage was most probably a direct result of this decision (Cf. Caroline White, Christian Friendship in the Fourth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 80]; see also Marvin Jones, Basil of Caesarea: His Life and Impact (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2014), 42–43. 22 Harrell, St.Basil the Great as Icon, 28. 23 See Giet, Sasimes: Une Méprise de Saint Basile, 37–54. 24 Harrell, St. Basil the Great as Icon, 32. 25 St Augustine, for example, condemns these events in harsh words, that he considers to be true demonic actions which have no point in a university as it is Athens 158 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture (Confessiones, III, 6, apud Fleury, Hellénisme et Christianisme, 30). On the other hand, his attitude is quite normal and understandable, as long as after he had radically changed his life, he had developed a true psychosis blaming his youth (Coman, ‘The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers, 538). For details concerning St Basil’s stay and study in Athens, see Fleury, Hellénisme et Christianisme, 17–53). 26 Gregory of Nazianzen, Panegyric on S. Basil. Oration 43. 16, NPNF 7, 400–401; see comments in Coman, ‘The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers’, 538–539; Corneanu, Patristica Mirabilia, 105. 27 For more details about Attic Law see Nicu Dumitrașcu, ‘The Atypical Friendship of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus’, 64. 28 Gallay, La vie de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, 52. 29 Cf. Bernardi, Saint Gregoire de Nazienze, 107; see also Thomas A Kopecek, ‘The Social Class of the Cappadocian Fathers’, 465. 30 We know that most members of his family have decided to follow the monastic path, of prayer and serving God in poverty and simplicity, some occupying even high church dignities and others basing their families after all the ordinances of the time, also living, a clean life after the word of the Gospel. 31 The education received by St Basil in Athens was so called enklyklios paideia, the term used in his time for a large number of subject studies, as it is mentioned in a note below, the capstone for a Christian being the divine science, theology (Geanaklopos, ‘St. Basil, “Christian Humanist” of the ‘Three Hierarchs’ and Patron Saint of Greek Letters’, 97). 32 The description of his public confrontation with the Armenian students is remarkable. Although convinced of his prestige and oratorical talent, the students did not want to be defeated by a newcomer, even though his reputation had preceded his arrival, and they sought by every means, even dishonest, to ensure their victory. The dispute, which was meant to establish a certain intellectual hierarchy, was arbitrated by Gregory, who oscillated between the desire to preserve the fame and glory of Athens (because having arrived earlier, he considered himself already Athenian, as Armenians), and the desire to see a countryman as being the winner, whom he admired and who would later become his best friend. Finally, Basil won the confrontation and obtained the respect of all (Dumitrașcu, The Atypical Friendship of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus, 65–66). 33 In fact, he only followed the usual programme of the Academy of Athens, which included the study of the seven liberal arts, divided into two cycles, called trivium (grammar, rhetoric and logic) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, astronomy, music and geometry) with certain changes according to his own intellectual and spiritual interests, namely: he placed the rhetoric atop the list of the subjects from trivium, and included logic in the broader study of philosophy and from the quadrivium, he replaced the music with medicine, and added the Christian morality as a jewel to his studies (see Gallay, La vie de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, 54; Papadopoulos, The Life of St Basil the Great, 41–42; Dumitrașcu, ‘The Atypical Friendship of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus’, 67) 34 Coman, ‘The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers’, 538. 35 For his family, place and date of birth, his teaching career in Constantinople and Athens, see in particular T.D. Barnes, ‘Himerius and Fourth Century’ Classical Philology 82 (1987): 207–210; see also Aaron Wenzel, ‘Libanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Ideal of Athens in Late Antiquity’, Journal of Late Antiquity 3.2 (2010): 272–273; Raymond Van Dam, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia, 24. 36 Coman, ‘The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers’, 541–542. 37 Ensslin believes he was born in Cappadocia in 276 (Cf. W. Ensslin, ‘Proairesios’ (1) Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 23 (1957): 30–32; see also Van Dam, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia, 24; Gallay, La vie de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, 52; Giet, Sasimes: Une Méprise de Saint Basile, 25–7. 9 Diplomacy towards Greek culture 159 38 Coman, ‘The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers’, 542. 39 Gallay, La vie de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, 38. 40 Bernardi, Saint Gregoire de Nazienze. Le Theologien et son temps (330–390), 112. 41 Coman, ‘The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers’, 547. 42 For a large account of his education in Athens, see in particular John A. McGuckin, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography (Crestwood, NY, 2001), 35–84. 43 For description of St Basil’s life and for the impact of the various forms of academic teaching in Athens, see: Samuel Rubenson, ‘The Cappadocians on the Areopagus’, in Gregory of Nazianzus. Images and Reflectionsed. by Jostein Børtnes and Tomas Hägg (University of Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2006): 113–131. 44 Wenzel, ‘Libanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Ideal of Athens in Late Antiquity’, 274; Dumitrașcu, ‘The Atypical Friendship of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus’, 66. 45 Ioan G. Coman, ‘Sfântul Vasile cel Mare despre folosul culturii elene pentru educația creștină [St Basil the Great about the utility of the Hellenic culture for the Christian education]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 2., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 424. 46 St Basil makes the process of selection simpler, namely ‘whatever serves as preparation for the soul’s eternal life with God is useful; whatever contributes to only to the earthly life of the body is not’ (Cf. Arthur G. Holder, ‘Saint Basil the Great on Secular Education and Christian Virtue’, Religious Education 87.3 (1992), 403. 47 Coman, ‘The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers’, 549. 48 Coman, ‘St Basil the Great about the utility of the Hellenic culture for the Christian education’, 417–418. 49 Coman, ‘The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers’, 549. 50 Holder ‘Saint Basil the Great on Secular Education and Christian Virtue’, 401. 51 Cf. Labriolle, ‘La Réaction Païenne’, 424; see also for this Roy J. Deferrary, ‘The Classics and the Greek Writers of the Early Church: Saint Basil’, The Classical Journal 13/8 (1918): 579–591. Address to Young Men is probably one of the most valuable patristic piece of works ‘to deal directly with the conflict relationship between secular learning and Christian faith’ (Holder, ‘Saint Basil the Great on Secular Education and Christian Virtue’, 399). 52 Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta, ‘The Official Attitude of Basil of Caesarea asa Christian Bishop towards Greek Philosophy and Science’, in Derek Baker (ed.), Papers Read at the Fourteenth Summer Meeting and the Fifteenth Winter meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1976): 26. 53 Wendy Helleman (ed.), Christianity and the Classics: The Acceptance of a Heritage (New York: University Press of America, 1990), 31. 54 Rousseau is sceptical about the capability of dating the treatise and its addressees (Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea, 48–57). 55 For a valuable but short account of the discussion on the date of its writing, see Jennifer Helen Gane, Fourth Century Christian Education: An Analysis of Basil’s ‘Ad Adolescentes’. PhD Thesis, in the School of Historical Studies, October 2012, Newcastle University, 12–15, published as Fourth Century Christian Education (Newcastle: Newcastle University Press, 2012). 56 Aimé Puech, Histoire de la littérature greque chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à la fin du IVe siècle, III. iii, 277–278. 57 In my opinion, his argument is rather better placed in the other category because if we talk about the fact that for the others, he will tell them throughout their lives, this supports a theory for younger man who believes that he has many years ahead of him. 58 See Marjorie Colville Strachey (1882–1962), Saint and Sinners of the Fourth Century (London: William Kimber, 1958): 56 (apud Ann Moffat, ‘The Occasion of St Basil’s Address to Young Men’ Antichthon 6 (1972), 76). 160 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture 59 Moffat, ‘The Occasion of St Basil’s Address to Young Men’, 76–77. 60 See the comments in Gane, ‘Fourth Century Christian Education’, 15–21. 61 Constantine G. Bonis, ‘Did St Basil the Great have “Nephews”?’ θεολογια 47 (1976), 925. 62 See Emile Pfister, ‘A Biographical Note: The Brothers and the Sisters of St. Gregory of Nyssa’, Vigiliae Christianae 18 (1964): 108–113. 63 Moffat says that in the school of Libanius – the fourth century – students who were of 11–12 years old studied with a ‘Grammarian’ – a teacher in the second cycle of the traditional education system – from the age of 11/12 years old until they were 15 years old, when they went into a superior cycle to study rhetoric). It seems that his potential nephews could have been 12–15 years old (‘The Occasion of St Basil’s Address to Young Men’, 76). As it is shown in my demonstration, they must have been even more mature (around 15 years old), meaning that they were even at the beginning of the higher education cycle. Marrou states that following the principles of the Hellenistic education system, children were studying the special authors according to a schedule which contained four stages, namely: 1. They chose the text; 2. They were reading fluently and aloud; 3. Literal and literary analysis; 4. ‘judgement’ of the text, not necessarily aesthetically, but morally (Henri Irénée Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (London/New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956, 243]). 64 Here I also consider the statement of Mario Naldini according to which Basil refers to the young people who attend school (I, 5) among whom is supposed to be also found his grandchildren (I, 3); on the other hand, tradition rather invoked the general framework, meaning that it refers to the young people in general [in Basilio di Cesarea, Discorso ai Giovani. Oratio ad Adolescentes. Con la versione latina din Leonardo Bruni. A cura di Mario Naldini (Firenze: Nardini Editore – Centro internationale del libro, 1984): 15.] 65 Certainly, we need to include his nephews among his disciples but the work was not destined for them alone. 66 Bonis, ‘Did St Basil the Great have “Nephews”?’, 927. 10 The art and the value of teaching leaders of the future

St Basil studied Greek literature, poetry and philosophy intensely, as well as Greek legends and histories. His encyclopaedic knowledge of these sources can be seen very clearly in the Address to Young Men on Reading Greek Literature. By studying the sources Basil cites, one can create an index of the works studied by him during his student years, especially in his years at Athens. Moreover, the fact that in most cases he uses the indirect method of citation shows how well Basil knew those works. He does not reproduce the text literally, but paraphrases and analyse it in a personal manner, which shows us the ease with which he could ‘move’ between different genres. St Basil was a master of the rhetorical sciences. He knew how to build each argument, so that the message of his speech reached his listeners in a pure state, untainted, and, set his detractors at a disadvantage from the outset.

Short introduction Basil says that his intention to teach young people how to choose their path in life, how to distinguish between right and wrong, how to make the most appropriate choices, is based on his knowledge gained by his own experience regarding human affairs.1 He does not speak to them about topics he does not know nor impose on them certain restrictions in their education, but suggests that they cherish any source of information, as did he, convinced that sooner or later all additional knowledge, will help them unravel the mysteries of the secret teachings from Holy Scripture.2 He does not forget, however, to warn them that they must learn the art of selection, to allow no pagan author, no matter how famous, to take over their minds, because it would be extremely dangerous and harmful for their entire existence.3 He urges them to remain awake and not to confuse the little things of this life with the great joys brought by the eternal life, about which however, he does not venture to speak too much, due to the lack of preparation and the youth of his audience. To talk about the hidden truths of the Holy Scripture, the ultimate goal of any educated Christian who is aiming for a public or church position in the future, his young listeners needed a gradual preparation, to master all means of persuasion and communication characteristic to the intellectual duel, to attain self-control in the process of discernment of what can be useful for them in this world, as a foretaste of the indescribable goodness of the eternal life.4 That is why 162 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture he teaches them not to be afraid of classical culture. On the contrary, they must try to access everything for the care of the soul: ‘We must associate with poets and writers of prose and orators and with all men from whom there is any prospect of benefit with reference to the care of our soul’.5 This is quite natural, given that the young people targeted by Basil studied literature, classical poetry or philosophy in the schools they attended as part of the official curriculum. If they had spurned these works it would have disadvantaged them because they would not have understood why these had to be studied in depth and, moreover, they would have entered into an open conflict with the public education system. On the other hand, there was the danger that his young learners would be reluctant about or resistant to everything that was said to them by Basil.6 Therefore, establishing a certain hierarchy and succession in his programme of study is probably the most efficient way of creating some emotional balance throughout the whole process of intellectual formation of young people. St Basil says that the study of the pagan literature is useful in any condition, either of similarity or of contradiction with the Christian one. If there is any relationship between these two, then their knowledge is very useful, if, on the contrary there is a difference, then, analysing them in parallel means the student will learn which one is the best. Once Basil demonstrates to them that the profane teachings are not useless, they should not be avoided or, worse, condemned for their content that is often inconsistent with the Christian values, he explains to them the manner/ method of use thereof. The principle that young people should follow is that of selection. They should not rush to imitate the pagan gods or heros of legend in everything they do, even if sometimes their power of seduction is great, but they must try to discover in the profane writings the buds of the Christian virtues that will adorn their life.7 And he gives them the example of bees who know how to distinguish between what is helpful and unhelpful:

It is, therefore, in accordance with the whole of the bees, that we should participate in the pagan literature. For these neither approach all flowers equally, nor in truth do they attempt to carry off entire those upon which they alight, but taking only so much of them as is suitable for their work, they suffer the rest to go untouched. We ourselves too, if we are wise, having appropriated from this literature what is suitable to us and akin to the truth, will pass over the remainder. And just as in plucking the blooms from a rose- bed we avoid the thorns, so also in garnering from such writings whatever is useful, let us guard ourselves against what is harmful.8

How Basil uses the classical culture to the good of Christianity shows his overall vision for a training programme which was essential for a future leader. The world in which Basil lived was cosmopolitan, with many cultures, many religions, many ideologies. Therefore, a future leader needed a solid and extremely diverse education to be able to answer to any challenge, in any situation, at any time, without aggression, but with diplomacy, elegance and eloquence, knowing that the weapon of the intellectual seduction is very effective.9 10 Teaching leaders of the future 163 Consistency is also part of the fighting arsenal of an educated man. That is why daily exercise is very important. Continuous study produces self-control and the ability to find solutions even where they seem absent. And Basil was a master of arguments, able to dialogue endlessly, with calmness and wisdom, so that the outcome was favourable for him. A leader without education is just a puppet, a false personage that without consistency. Basil knew this well; he had met enough people of this type. He shows to the young people the principles that they must follow if they want to occupy public or religious office in the future. He tries to compose a moral portrait of such a leader by juxtaposing the teachings of the classical and Christian culture. The fundamental principle that defines his conception about an authentic leader is the existence of a full harmony between word and deed.10 Any discrepancy between what a man says in public and believes or practices in private can lead to an inner imbalance and to an external attitude of mistrust and suspicion. More so for an opinion leader, whose actions can have serious consequences on society. Such a model may be disastrous for the lives of those who depend on him in one form or another. Basil knows that this issue has a long history and he tries to convince his young listeners to be vigilant, to learn also from the examples offered by the classical culture. Disagreement between word and deed is a scourge which is always current in people’s lives, as says also Euripides, whom he quotes in a slightly different manner, in an indirect language, suited to his pastoral strategy, ‘The tongue swore, but the mind did not take part in oath’.11 If we had to summarise in one word all the instruction that Basil teaches the young people, it is that they should seek virtue, the only right and true way, in order to ennoble their life.12 Therefore, we will insist here, first of all, on the importance that they must give to acquiring virtue in general through the proper reporting of the danger of sins which he himself found in the works of the pagan authors and which he hopes to discover and avoid, through their own experience and study, also by the young people to whom he addresses.13 The text itself contains numerous quotations from classical authors, which he uses to transmit clear, concrete teachings to his listeners, with the hope that they will use them to acquire virtue, and to protect them from the greatest temptations and sins, namely: wealth, power, excessive praise, or anger. I do not intend here to make a detailed analysis of each classical author used by Basil in his work,14 but just to provide some examples as an introduction to the world of his thinking and teaching strategy.15

Virtue or moral integrity St Basil was a walking encyclopaedia of his time in which poetry, literature and pagan philosophy had their well-defined place. His attitude to the classics is probably one of the most balanced in the whole history of the Eastern spirituality. He recommends the study of pagan literature for several reasons. On the one hand, he believed that young people needed education as diversified as possible, including very well-articulated speech, with clear and solid arguments, excellent rhetoric 164 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture and aesthetic, and also a good grounding in scientific matters.16 On the other hand, he recommends to his young listeners the study of the laymen authors’ works mostly to stimulate them to practise virtue, and also to prepare them to better understand the Holy Scripture.17 He himself went through an extraordinary life experience, studying at the most important schools of the time so that he could share with others the knowledge gained by him, with the hope that they could contribute to the formation of some strong personalities, able at one time, to take on responsibilities before God and man. However, I think that he was doing it also with a great delight, because his interest in pagan literature, with its elegance, style, many forms of expression and the grace of the word, was never diminished, but remained alive in his soul up to the end. St Basil understood better than most of the others that all these qualities of pagan literature come to nothing if they are not backed up by an exercise of virtue, the only thing able to keep man in permanent moral balance. More so, this emotional state must be very well controlled in the inner world of those who perform prominent public functions in society. Some might say that Basil was an idealist, believing that his strategy would lead to the formation of moral characters who were able to change the face of the world in which he lived, after the supreme model of Jesus Christ. It is possible, but it is also the attribute of the saints, those who try to unite this world with the other by the power of prayer and of a life totally dedicated to God. St Basil tried to build a bridge between the pagan world, with its extraordinary culture, and the Christian one with an irreproachable morality, on which to move from the former to the latter, only good ideas, clean and uplifting. With certainty, he was aware of the difficulties faced as a young person aspiring to perfection. The road he must follow starts very early and basically, never ends. St Basil tries to convince the young, even from the beginning, that the preparation that will eventually lead them to the acquisition of virtue must be intense, but selective, because it is not lost, and remain with them from the earthly life to eternal life. And he quotes lyric poets Solon and Theognis, and the philosopher Prodicos from Chios, or other pagan writers whose names he does not remember.18 These writers more or less praise virtue and condemn vice or sin, and Basil urges his listeners to put their words into practice. The road from ignorance to knowledge is difficult and often full of traps and temptations. For this reason, Basil’s language is simple, his forms of expression are clear, providing examples as much as possible and adapted to the understanding level of his listeners. He is trying to instil in their hearts the courage to use all sources of inspiration, without fear or suspicion, and the wisdom to choose only what is useful for their intellectual and spiritual development. Basil urges them to read the works of pagan poets and writers, prudently and with caution, because they are not useless for the soul.19 Therefore, he tells them to imitate those people who do good deeds, for they cultivate virtue, and to beware of evil men and their words, because habit with bad words can be a way to vice and sin. Specifically, Basil advises young people to consider those writings in which the pagan writers have praised the virtue or condemned the vice.20 10 Teaching leaders of the future 165 At the same time, he warns them that the acquisition of virtue is not an easy thing, but, on the contrary, full of hardships that demands total dedication, a fighting spirit, hard work, consistency and perseverance; so as Hesiod said in one of his works, and whom Basil quotes in several occasions:

Rough at first and hard to travel, and full of abundant sweat and toil, is the road which leads to virtue, and steep withal. Therefore, it is not given to everyone to climb this road, so steep it is, nor, if one essays to climb it, easily to reach the summit. But when once one has come to the top he is able to see how smooth and beautiful, how easy and pleasant to travel it is, and more agreeable than that other road which leads to vice, which it is possible to take all at once from near at hand.21

Also, Hesiod is invoked when he advises young people to be patient, to complete their preparation calmly, carefully, taking care of every detail, because life will put them in situations that will require from them all qualities of a true leader; to store up a benefit, or to draw a line from every activity or meeting, having the starting point, in the poet’s words ‘adding little to little’, which does not refer to the accumulation of material wealth, but to the enrichment of knowledge.22 In support of his conviction that an intelligent man, who wants at some point to make a contribution to the spiritual and material welfare of his people, must constantly cultivate virtue. He quotes Homer, about whom a good interpreter of the pagan poets said that all his work is a praise of virtue and in fact all his poetry, in one way or another, praises virtue, and the example he mentions has in its foreground, Odysseus.23 Similarly, he quotes also the poet Solon or the sophist Prodicus of Chios,24 who, in their turn, talk about virtue and about its importance in the process of the spiritual and intellectual perfection of youth. He was convinced that a true Christian leader needs time and preparation to reach a level of wisdom that would allow him to take the best decisions in all circumstances. Moreover, many pagan poets, writers, philosophers and historians speak of virtue as an intrinsic process of forming the moral character of young people and, by extension, of those who will occupy in the future important positions in society. A genuine leader must have, in addition to a mandatory charisma, also a remarkable intellectual preparation grafted on a very solid internal spiritual structure. Basil was convinced that a genuine Christian leader must be a wise man, to judge with justice every case, in every situation, regardless of the parties in conflict or disagreement. The virtue of a leader is measured not only in concepts or fine speeches, but in concrete facts, that are the fruit of wisdom and of measure or righteous reckoning, because, if he will remain just with words, not also with deeds, virtue itself is at risk. Therefore, Basil decides to strengthen the role of virtue in the formation of the character of a young man aspiring to a career in public or religious life through the development of some adjacent themes, such as anger, lying, wealth and flattery. Personal experience, coupled with a rapid capacity of analysis and control of the limited situations faced by him so often in life made St Basil a guide for anyone 166 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture who sought political, social or religious responsibilities. Although St Basil uses in his argumentation many examples from the works of the classical authors, he does not forget to warn his listeners that they are only simple sources for a possible outline of virtue.25 As a matter of fact, his entire focus, from the beginning to the end, is built on the idea of accumulating virtue. That is because all the instruction that he wants to send to the young people in the hope that they will play a major role in building a Christian society based on the principles of the gospel of Christ refers not only to this life, but especially to eternal life. Nothing in this world, neither greatness nor honesty nor honour that people give to others, even the highest dignity to which they may reach, can equal the happiness of acquiring of the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, he urges young people to be aware of what is truly valuable for their soul, because everything that is a pleasure for the body is often tricky:

if one sums up all the happiness together from the time men have first existed and collects it into one whole, he will find that it is equivalent not even to a trivial part of those other goods, but that the total of the goods of the present life is more removed in value from the least among the former goods of the other life than shadows and dreams fall short of reality. Nay, rather – that I may use a more suitable illustration – to the degree that the soul is more precious than the body in all respects, so great is the difference between the two lives.26

At the same time, he reminds them that repentance is needed for this endeavour, with confidence in their own forces, without fear of failure, with a vision that is anchored in the past, but embodied in the present to create the possibility for a better future.27 Basil ends with the promise that their education does not end here and that he himself will continue to ‘monitor’ their work throughout his life,28 which makes us think that he had a very clear plan with each of them. Based on the conviction that this work was prepared before becoming a bishop, we can assume that he was thinking of a not too distant future when he himself would be able to rely on their help, in the eventuality that they might hold important positions at the imperial court, in the army, in the local government, in educational or in the religious world.

The seductive power of wealth St Basil is trying to convince young people that the mirage of wealth can become a temptation which is extremely difficult to counteract, if there is not a conscious boundary between necessity and pleasure. Those who exceed that boundary will most likely lose their inner balance and self-control. Basil was not against wealth itself, but its power of seduction. Thus, he was following Jesus Christ, who also, did not despise rich people. Let us not forget that Christ had rich friends. Lazarus was not a poor man, since he was preparing costly feasts for many guests. Joseph of Arimathea, who gave the grave for Jesus, or Nicodemus; both were wealthy. 10 Teaching leaders of the future 167 So, Basil did not despise nor wealthy people, nor wealth. Perhaps the most obvious example is Zacchaeus, who was excessively rich; Jesus dined with him against all existing prejudices of that time about tax collectors. St Basil develops this prominent evangelical theme, to define the moral profile of an opinion leader, making a direct reference to the work and experience of the pagan writers. Wealth creates addictions. The greater the wealth, the stronger the desire or lust for enrichment.29 And if lust for enrichment is born, the real criteria for gathering wealth disappears, namely, honest work. There is no sin if a man wisely and with intelligence invests his financial resources in a particular business to prosper and get rich. But if, in his work, he uses unfair means, taking money from illicit sources, deceiving both employees and business partners, then he commits a major sin.30 St Basil does not contest the value of money. Since ancient times money has been an instrument of civilisation because it facilitates trade. Money itself is neither good nor bad; man gives it its moral value. St Basil the Great says avarice itself is characterised by a constant concern to turn everything into gold.31 Therefore, he supports austerity, showing contempt for the accumulation of material goods, despite the appearance of a social comfort and a social political authority, material greed robs man of his power of decision and cancels his freedom and brings loneliness in its place. When referring to the treasures from heaven, invoked by Christ as the only alternative for entry into the kingdom of God, Basil understands them as the good deeds that are the true spiritual wealth. Any good deed is a spiritual gold coin that you have assured in heaven. Over time, they will be deposited for your soul for when it enters the Kingdom of heaven. God’s mercy opens the gate into the kingdom of heaven, and so also the good deeds we do during this earthly life. If he gathers his treasure on earth, then his heart and soul will stay there. But if he gathers his treasure in heaven, then the gates of heaven will be opened for him. For where the treasure is, there will be man’s heart and soul (Luke 18:22). Basil says that only God is the one that tips the balance between people, once on one side, then on the other side, on one time they are rich, the other they have nothing.32 In another work, he said that the rich man cannot hope that by earning wealth he will redeem the sins he has committed, because wealth does not have a redemptive function in the Christian sense. The rich take their reward only during their earthly life. After their death, they will not take anything with them other than the injustices they have committed, but these will not help, rather they will condemn them.33 St Basil condemns wealth and its mirage, and admires Theognis who is saying: ‘I do not love to be wealthy, nor do I desire it. May it be granted to me to live with a little, suffering no evil’.34 Thus, the issue of wealth is discussed through more references to pagan works. For example, he remembers the contempt shown by Diogenes to all that are human (given the willingness of his contemporaries for an excessive accumulation of material goods) by comparison with some of the richest people of the past times, like Pitios;35 or he mentions the beauty of the Socratic wisdom on the art of using wealth.36 He uses these examples to highlight that, no matter how many types of 168 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture finery a man can accumulate in this world, none of them can adorn his soul more than the virtue of living by the word of the gospel of Christ.37 Basil passes easily from the theme of weath to the theme of power and excessive praise, which he considers as being a very grave threat to the soul of a man, and, if he is about to become a leader, for the health and stability of the whole society.

Power and spiritual corruption Basil goes further in his configuration of the moral profile of a Christian leader, placing wealth in a very close relationship with power and also with flattery or duplicity. More specifically, wealthy people often become powerful and the powerful become rich and this interdependence is built through growing flattery and servility and behaviour that is hypocritical and without any scruples. The situation mentioned by Basil is found also today, in the modern society, of course, in a more refined version, in accordance with the‘ evolution of mankind’. A man who possess wealth, or who controls media institutions or real estate, has relationships in all fields, has employees whose lives depend on his decisions, has power. And a man who holds high political and administrative functions with the power of decision and influence in the highest spheres of civil society, can become a wealthy man, through his business skills. In other words, there is a kind of inter-compliance between wealth and power, noting that, once acquired, they can transform a master into a slave. In other words, wealth makes an individual, more often, lose his internal balance and think that everything is permitted, and believe that nothing is impossible with enough money. Wealth is delusory, gives him the feeling that he holds the power and control, but in fact he is just a tool, without free will and without freedom, acting under the impulse of purely material interests. Moreover, he feels that his will is incontestable and therefore he is always right. He does not allow himself to be contradicted, to be criticised and defeated. He demands respect and appreciation, whether he is worthy of it or not, he sees himself as superior; the higher he climbs the political or social ladder, the more he needs honour and submission. His rationality is in darkness. His conscience is perverted and his value system reverses its hierarchy. In short, he turns into someone whose heart no longer belongs to him. The antidote St Basil proposed to his contemporaries to protect them from this lethal combination between wealth and power, that drives one to dehumanisation, is Jesus Christ and His Gospel. Christ was Himself a true leader, stronger and richer than anyone else, but His power was defined as ministry and his wealth as renunciation. He said that The Son of Man did not come into the world to be served, but to serve, and to be the servant of everybody (Mark 10:45). Jesus comes to replace the materialistic way of thinking with a spiritual or sacerdotal one. Actually, the legacy that Jesus Christ left us is to serve one another. Each of us received a gift from God, and our duty is to enjoy each other’s gift. Regardless of whatever field in which we work, whether in education, health or in public office or in the Church, we have to be aware that through our work, carried out with 10 Teaching leaders of the future 169 fervour and conscience, we put ourselves in the one another’s service. This is the definition of interpersonal communion that God wants from all of us.38 St Basil had this in mind when he thought to transform the image of his society, dominated by huge social inequalities, by the intellectual and moral training of his young listeners, whom he saw as future leaders, Christian leaders, who would be able to put into practice the word of the gospel for the spiritual and material welfare of his people. His exhortation is towards temperance and humility, which he never confuses with servility and flattery, as often happens with a weak man who is enslaved by the desire for power and possession. Basil tells them to seek wisdom:

There is nothing which a prudent (wise) man must shun more carefully than living with a view to popularity and giving serious thought to things esteemed by the multitude, instead of making sound reason his guide of life, so that, even if he must gainsay all men and fall into disrepute and incur danger for the sake of what is honourable, he will in no wise choose to swerve from what has been recognised as right.39

There was nothing accidental in his speech, but everything was carefully calculated, so that even the most sceptical would be prompted to think in his own way asking serious questions about how to govern the world in which they lived and to try to change it from within, step by step, by placing truth, value, competence, correctness, in above lies, deception and dishonesty.

Exaggerated praise and the corruption of simplicity of mind In terms of praise, it is welcome when it is realistic and in the right measure, while flattery is undeserved praise. But flattery is pleasant and inviting and insinuates itself little by little within the human soul. It becomes even more dangerous in someone who holds a high position in society, in politics, business, or even in the Church. St Basil was himself a great man of the time and he knew very well how dangerous duplicitous behaviour can be. He knew that if a leader is told constantly that he is good-looking, smart, endowed with gifts that no one else has, he assumes a new identity; he lives with a great pleasure, and finally he cannot distinguish between a lie and a truth. Furthermore, Basil believes that consciously assuming duplicity is not only a sin, but also a great injustice that someone can do to others.40 Basil had met men of servility and he tried to keep young people away from the scourge that kills and corrupts the soul. Repetition of some lies by someone aiming to obtain special favours, or simply due to his human nature, is dangerous both for him and for the beneficiary. For he who flatters is lying to himself; but he is also lying to the man whom he has assigned qualities that do not belong to him. Flattery is a sin because he who flatters inoculates the person he is addressing with pride and arrogance, meaning that he is attempting to ruin his soul and heart. St Basil believes that a true leader must have the ability to break away from the lure of beautiful words. Otherwise, he will change his behaviour and decisions 170 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture only for fame and vain glory.41 A genuine leader is insensitive to free compliments, but very attentive to criticism because it is what really defines him. Consistency in affirming truth, promoting justice and doing good for the people must represent his code of conduct, from which he will never fail. Basil is convinced that it is not easy for a man to remain virtuous, because the temptations are great and laziness has great influence in life, but the daily exercise of doing good deeds is the best source of his power and continuity.42 St Basil calls flatterers, those who change their views according to their own interests, chameleons that adapt to every situation without restraint. They are so versatile that they can survive in any condition; they have no conscience, nor prejudice. And to be very clear in expression, but also to show the historical magnitude of this phenomenon, he makes a comparison that he takes, in an easily adapted manner, from the work of the same lyric poet, Theognis, and says: ‘And just as they say, the polypus changes its colour according to the ground upon which it lies, so this man will change his mind according to the views of those are with him’.43

Anger and the disfigurement of the soul St Basil briefly refers to another sin, anger, which leads to very serious offenses and brings great harm to any person, regardless of their training, position in society or in the church. In this regard, he reminds the young people how three great men from ancient times behaved in extreme situations. Their attitude towards anger and violence happily prefigures the morality of the Gospel of Christ. The first being Pericles, who, despite the fact that he was insulted by a man in the public square all day, was not angry, but, instead, when the evening came, he drove him home by lamplight, explaining to him how his behaviour was inappropriate. Truly, it is an exercise of wisdom. Second, Euclid, did not react with hardness, he did not seek revenge on the person who threatened him with death, but instead tried to calm and quell his anger; and Socrates, who when struck on the face, turned the other cheek, leaving the offender to be consumed by his own anger. Basil urges young people to imitate these three, because their deeds are identical to our Christian teachings, namely: what Pericles and Euclid did, is like the command from the Gospel which teaches us to bear those who harm us, to love those who hate us, to bless those who curse us and to pray for those who persecute us; it can be summarised as the famous evangelical phrase: ‘If anyone slaps you on your right cheek turn the other to him also’(Matt. 5:39 and Luke 6:29). Anger is undoubtedly an emotion of the soul that may corrupt any man, no matter what his intellectual training, social, political or religious position. It is a germ that can infect anyone, a poison that can bring a man to the brink of destruction, if he does not find within himself, the power to put himself in balance, because even he cannot recognise himself and therefore, he cannot manifest as a normal person. Anger is a mortal enemy to the self. Any act committed by a man when he is angry mostly reflects upon him; makes him weaker against spiritual and physical battles and more; he becomes a feared weapon in the hands of enemies of any kind.44 10 Teaching leaders of the future 171 In other writing dedicated to the sin of anger, Basil says that anger dehumanises the person in question, makes him commit reckless acts, an enemy to himself and therefore, to his family and friends, and if he is in a public situation, society as a whole:

For this cause [anger], brothers have lost sight of their brotherhood; parents and children have forgotten their natural bond. Angry men become strangers first to themselves, then to all their friends as well. Like mountain torrents which converge their streams in the valleys and sweep along with them everything in their path, the violent and uncontrolled onset of an angry man carries all before it. The wrathful have no respect for old age, nor for a virtuous life, nor ties of kinship, nor favours received in the past, nor for anything else worthy of honour. Anger is a kind of temporary madness.45

Basil continues and makes a true portrait of the angry person, who is like a demonised man, possessed by dark spirits able to destroy him completely. Anger transforms man into a slave who is acting under the pressure of an external force, is a wild delirium where both soul and body sink, there is no rational control; man becomes a puppet of his own passions. Anger is almost always accompanied by a kind of psychomotor agitation; his behaviour is erratic, accompanied by aggressive manifestations reaching to disfigure man even physically:

Persons possessed by the Devil (from whom angry men differ not at all, either in appearance or state of soul). In those who are thirsting for revenge, the blood boils around the heart as if it were seething and bubbling over a high fire. Bursting forth to the surface, his passion reveals the angry man under a different aspect from his habitual one that is well known to all. It is as if a theatrical mask altered his appearance. His friends do not discern in his eyes their characteristic and wonted expression. His glance is wild and presently darts fire. He gnashes his teeth like a charging boar. His face is livid and suf- fused with blood, his body swells, his veins burst, his breathing is laboured because of the tempest raging within. His voice is hoarse and strained, his utterance thick, his words without logic, sequence, order, or meaning. When his anger has, by aggravation, reached the point of uncontrollable fury, like a flame abundantly fed, then, indeed is the spectacle indescribable and unbearable to witness.46

Interestingly, Basil associates anger with pride and arrogance. Manifestation of a so-called superiority towards others and of a disregard against all, feeds, anger, if indirectly. This can be turned into various forms: ingratitude, visceral hatred against the person who has a different opinion, who thinks and lives differently. Basil opposes pure humility to the wrath of this nature the only effective spiritual medicine – some might call it natural – checked over the time by most of the great Christian Fathers of the two millennia of Christianity. Humility is in itself the advice to follow Jesus Christ and his Gospel, and Basil managed to turn this advice into a principle of life.47 172 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture Therefore, also in the context of the analysis of the opportunity to study secular works, where the topics of discussion are extremely varied, humility is present. Although it is not specifically mentioned in the texts itself, it is implicit in the word, arguments and reasoning of Basil; addressed to his young listeners, simply to help them to build a complete personality, where balance, moderation, calmness and wisdom will take priority over rigidity and aggression of any kind, hasty decisions, illogical, destructive and harmful to everyone.

Concluding remarks Basil’s Address is not only a small literary masterpiece where Basil urges his young listeners to pick from the fountain of the pagan wisdom only those teachings that lead them to acquire virtues, as bees collect from flowers all that is necessary for them to survive, but also a manual of practical moral advice that they need to know and constantly practise. St Basil was a free spirit, hard to control, aware of his own worth, firm in actions, extremely rigorous in writing, yet flexible in dialogue. He was therefore, an uncomfortable person for all those who did not live according to the evangelical principles, friends or enemies. A good strategist, with a broad vision of the world in which he lived, he was convinced that education was the only thing that could make people understand each other, despite the numerous differences that separated them, because it supported dialogue, replacing war, the herald of suffering, pain and death, with a war of words. Acquiring a solid education, a culture that includes all the necessary ingredients to form strong characters, with no fear in the face of threats – whatever form they may come – was undoubtedly, a very important goal for him. St Basil wanted to introduce into society the prototype of a Christian leader about whom Jesus spoke in the Gospels, although he was convinced of the weight of such an approach in the context in which human relationships were determined by group interests, by family interests, and by mutual service for the good of the whole society. The mentality of the time was quite refractory to the Gospel message which says that a leader must be the servant of all. Therefore, Basil tried to break this traditional shell when he decided to cultivate virtue in the hearts of the young people, so that they could penetrate the mystery of Jesus’ words and put themselves at the service of the people and God. Assuming an evangelical way of life would have brought with itself also the certainty of the formation of authentic leaders, who could change the face of the world in which he lived, a world dominated by injustice, selfishness and huge social inequalities. Endowed with an exceptional diplomatic sense, Basil did not try to impose a model of radical leader, because he could not ignore the existing educational system, in which the pagan culture was dominant, but he offered one that was meant to bring vitality to the life of the city, in the spirit of the Gospel, without trying to disregard in any way the history and tradition of the era. It was a very brave step because, certainly there were casual opponents, but this one was deeply motivated and proved to be very popular over the centuries by the entire Christian world. It was needed then, it is needed, perhaps more than ever, today of genuine 10 Teaching leaders of the future 173 Christians leaders who are willing to defend the Christian values facing secularisation, that is expanding at a rate difficult to control, with arguments, professionalism, and above all, with a great love for God and man.48 Today Christian and religious diversity is not a novelty, maybe just its way of expression. Basil was a father to all, Christians, Jews or pagans. He did not militate against one or the other, but he promoted mutual knowledge, for the valorisation of the positive aspects of every religious culture in part by opening a real dialogue, and not one of complacency, where insensitive, cold politics are replaced by a friendly ones, warmed by fraternal love. St Basil was convinced that the intellectual formation of a young man is a very complex process and requires a long and arduous journey that he must undertake with confidence and hope. His message has lost nothing of its force and content over time, but, on the contrary, kept its freshness and timeliness.49 Young people today, like those of Basil’s time, need, in addition to a well-informed guide who will be able to facilitate their search and inspire their choice, to rediscover the pleasure of reading and education. It was exactly what St Basil said to his audience at the beginning of his discourse, using the words of a well-known epic poet: ‘The man is altogether best who considers all things himself and marks what will be better afterwards and at the end; and he, again, is good who listens to a good adviser; but whoever neither thinks for himself nor keeps in mind what another tells him, he is unprofitable man’.50

Notes 1 St Basil the Great, Address to Young Men on Reading Greek Literature, with an English translation by Roy J. Deferrary and Martin R.P. McGuire, in The Loeb Classical Library ed. by T.E. Page, E. Capps and W.H.D. Rouse, IV (London: William Heinemann, 1934), 379; see also the comments in Geanaklopos, ‘St Basil, “Christian Humanist” of the “Three Hierarchs” and Patron Saint of Greek Letters’, 99. 2 Geanaklopos, ‘St Basil, “Christian Humanist”’, 96. 3 Coman, ‘St Basil the Great about the utility of the Hellenic culture for the Christian education’, 423. 4 Constantin C. Pavel, ‘The Attitude of St Basil the Great toward classical culture and philosophy’, 447. 5 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 385. 6 Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea, 52. 7 Coman, ‘St Basil the Great about the utility of the Hellenic culture for the Christian education’, 420. 8 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 391–393. 9 Geanaklopos, “St. Basil, ‘Christian Humanist”’, 97–98. 10 Holder, ‘Saint Basil the Great on Secular Education and Christian Virtue’, 406; Coman, ‘St Basil the Great about the utility of the Hellenic culture for the Christian education’, 436. 11 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 401. Actually, the text cited is ‘My tongue is sworn indeed, but my hearth’s unsworn’ (Euripides, Hyppolytus, v. 612, ed. Walter Stockert (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1994), 47. 12 Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea, 53–54; Fox, The Life and Times of St. Basil the Great as Revealed in His Works, 86–89; Holder, ‘Saint Basil the Great on Secular Education and Christian Virtue’, 405–408; Cristian Gagu, ‘Sfântul Ierarh Vasile cel Mare, modelul 174 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture umanistului bizantin [St Bishop Basil the Great, the model of Byzantine Humanism]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 3., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009): 187–188. 13 Coman, ‘St Basil the Great about the utility of the Hellenic culture for the Christian education’, 423–425; 432–438. 14 As it is known, the education in the time of St Basil was a profoundly Hellenistic one. He was educated himself in Greek tradition, with professors instructed in this spirit. If he had studied many dramatic, lyric or epic poets, famous historians and philosophers, none left his mark on the Christian culture as did Plato (see Theodore Leslie Shear, The Influence of Plato on Saint Basil (Baltimore: J.H. Furst Company, 1906): 59). For a complete list of classical authors cited directly, or indirectly, by Basil in his work, see Gane, ‘Fourth Century Christian Education: An Analysis of Basil’s Ad Adolescentes’, 32–33. 15 For a comparative analysis of the content of St Basil’s work with texts took over from the pagan authors, I referred to Leo V. Jacks, St Basil and Greek Literature (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1922). 16 Coman, ‘St Basil the Great about the utility of the Hellenic culture for the Christian education’, 424. 17 Coman, ‘St Basil the Great about the utility of the Hellenic culture for the Christian education’, 419. 18 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 397. 19 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 387. 20 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 391. The parallel between virtue and vice, taken over from the profane philosophy and literature, is a recurrent topic in St Basil’s discourse to the young. Jacks thinks that he (Basil) resumes here – in an extremely concise manner – a more developed argumentation of Plato (Jacks, St Basil and Greek Literature, 75–76, with reference to PLATO, Republic, Book 2, 377–383, translated from the New Standard Greek Text, with an introduction by C.D.C. Reeve (Indianapolis/ Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 2004): 57–65; see also Shear, The Influence of Plato on Saint Basil, 54–55. 21 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 393–395. 22 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 431. Actually, Basil takes over in a shorter version the following passage ‘If you add only a little to a little, and do this often, soon will that little become great’. [Hesiod, Works and Days, (I), verse 361–362, Edited with prolegomena and commentary by M.L. West (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980): 113]. 23 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 395–397. 24 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 397. 25 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 431. 26 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 383. 27 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 431–433. 28 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 433. 29 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 425; see Coman, ‘St Basil the Great about the utility of the Hellenic culture for the Christian education’, 429–431. 30 St Basil ‘Exegetical Homilies’, Second Homily on Ps. 14, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 46, 182. 31 St Basil said on other occasion and in another work that if the wealth poured like a river, the faithful would not stick his hearth to it! (St Basil ‘Exegetical Homilies’, Homily on Ps. 61, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 46, 349; When somebody is touched by the fever of enrichment, he/she thinks only of gold. He/She dreams about it when sleeping and is in his/her mind when is awake (see the comment on this in Teodor Damșa, ‘Bogăția și sărăcia în lumina Omiliilor Sfântul Vasile cel Mare’ [Richness and Poverty in the Light of St Basil the Great’s Homilies]’, Mitropolia Banatului 4–6 (1979): 304–305. 10 Teaching leaders of the future 175 32 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 397. Basil cited from memory, but quite accurately a classical text, as: ‘For Zeus forces the scales down for one way, and for another way, making some rich and others have nothing’, in Theognis (Theognis Megareus), Elegia I, verse 157–158, in Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, Fasc. 2, ed. Ernestus Diehl, edition Tertia Libsiae (Leipzig): Teubner, 1950), 12. 33 In short, the human being is invited to think about priority for the soul or for the body, for the eternity or for the temporally. In more concrete words: ‘to choose a temporary pleasure and through it to receive eternal death, or, having chosen suffering in the practice of virtue, to use it to attain everlasting delights’ (See St Basil ‘Exegetical Homilies’, Homily on Ps. 61, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 46, 347); see also the comments in Mihai Georgescu, ‘Idei morale și sociale la Sfântul Vasile cel Mare [Moral and Social ideas of St Basil the Great]’, Studii Teologice 7–8 (1958), 471. 34 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 425. The text is accurately taken from Theognis (Theognis Megareus), Elegia I, v. 1157–1158, in Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, Fasc. 2, 69. 35 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 425–7. St Basil takes into account a short story taken from the history of Persians (Cf. Herodotus, VII, 27–29, The Histories (New Edition) translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt (1954). Revised with introductory matter and notes by John Marincola (1996) (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1996): 385–386. 36 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 427–429. 37 St Basil reminds his listeners, from the beginning of his discourse, that the only and truly wealth is the getting of eternal life, and this is obtained through the permanent exercise of the moral virtues (Fortin, Christianity and Hellenism in Basil the Great’s Address Ad Adolescentes, 191). 38 For the theology of gifts, see Theodor Damian, ‘Aspecte ale teologiei darului în sinteza părintelui Stăniloae’ [Aspects of gift theology in the synthesis of Father Stăniloae]’, ‘Glasul Bisericii 5–8 (1999): 25–34. 39 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 429. 40 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 401. Basil cites from memory a platonic text, namely: ‘For the extreme injustice is to be believed to be just without actually being so’ (Plato, Republic, Book 2 (361), 39. 41 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 429. 42 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 413. St Basil cites Pittacus, ‘It is difficult to be good’ (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Liber I, Pittacus fr. 76, edited with an introduction by Tiziano Dorandi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 113. 43 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 429 (Cf. Jacks, St Basil and Greek Literature, 32). The original text quoted is: ‘Keep from the rage of the much wreathing polypus which, once twined upon the rock, seems to appear like the rock itself. Now, indeed, it occupies itself with this rock; formerly it was another colour, and the craftiness in its moveless- ness becomes more evident’ [Theognis (Theognis Megareus), Elegia I, v. 215–218, in Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, Fasc. 2, 16.] 44 Basil quotes in a fairly free manner, one of the dramatic poets of the pagan culture, whose verse was like this: ‘Anger arms the hand against foes’ (Pseudo-Euripides, Rhesus, 84, edited with an introduction and commentary by Almuth Fries (Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter, 2014), 70. 45 St Basil ‘Ascetical Works’, Homily 10: Against those who are prone to anger, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 9, 448. 46 St Basil ‘Ascetical Works’, Homily 10: Against those who are prone to anger, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 9, 449–450. 47 St Basil writes a special Homily in which he shows the healing power of humility upon every sin committed by a human being, having in mind the Christ’s example, who said: ‘Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for your souls’(Matthew 11:29). See for comments, Ioan Zăgrean, 176 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture ‘Probleme morale în opera Sfântului Vasile cel Mare’ [Ethical Issues in St Basil’s Works]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana I., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009): 347–349. 48 See the valuable comments on this idea in Holder, ‘Saint Basil the Great on Secular Education and Christian Virtue’, 411–412. 49 Coman, ‘St Basil the Great about the utility of the Hellenic culture for the Christian education’, 418–419. 50 Address to Young Men, LCL IV, 379. The text St Basil refers to is: ‘That man is entirely best who considers all things himself and judges what will be better at a later time and at the end, and that man is good who listens to a good counsellor, but he who does not think for himself and does not remember what another warns him is of no worth’. (Hesiod, Works and Days, (I), v. 293–297, Edited with prolegomena and commentary by M.L. West (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980): 109–110. General Conclusions

St Basil is a true institution of the early Christian Church. None of what happened in the life of Christians was alien to him whether we refer to cult, church organ- ization, monastic and social life, politics, art, science, education, mission or diplomacy. A person so complex that any attempt to describe him represents a great challenge. During the writing of this volume, which does not specifically refer to St Basil’s theology, although inevitably, in some contexts, I had to bear in mind his contribution to the development of the Trinitarian terminology, I faced an unusual situation. The more I studied the life and activity of St Basil, the more I had the feeling that I knew less and less. That is why I have postponed publication of this book for several years. Gradually, I began to understand why I had this feeling and became used to it. I was in an unknown universe that looked more and more like a labyrinth; every time I felt that I was close to the exit, another room opened before me. I decided to stop, to write down what I learned and to prepare for yet another adventure that might eventually bring me towards the light. It will probably be an even longer journey, but I hope to have as my companion St Basil himself, to whom I will pray for illumination on the path and to reveal to me the mysteries of his miraculous life. It is very difficult to emphasise the most important features of St Basil’s personality because they are part of a unique combination, each facet shines in its own way, yet at the same time defines and completes them. However, I have tried in this study to highlight some of them, with the risk of exposing myself to the criticism that I may have been somewhat limited. St Basil was a diplomat of the highest order in a world dominated by cruelty, in which law was overruled by the will of the Emperor. Understanding that alone one could not achieve anything, he sought allies both at the Imperial Court and in the offices of the Prefect. He developed and maintained connections with powerful military figures, representatives of central and local government, governors in positions of power who could exert significant political and religious influence, and, of course, with his own colleagues, Bishops, whether friends or enemies. In critical situations, when his life might depend on the caprice of the Emperor, or on a hasty decision, given as advice by his adversaries, only his strong belief in God’s guidance and his own diplomatic talent saved him. The most eloquent example of this is undoubtedly the meeting with Emperor Valens in the 178 Part 4 St Basil: dignity, humility and culture metropolitan cathedral, on the occasion of the Epiphany in 372. This episode is totally ignored – or only referred to in passing – in patristic theology or treatises of Christian history, and yet it had enormous consequences on the evolution of Christianity and the stability of the Roman Empire of the East. Moreover, this encounter, which ended with a tacit agreement between the two great leaders of the civil and religious world of the epoch, showed very clearly the power ratio between human authority as represented by the Emperor and the divine as represented by the metropolitan of Caesarea of Cappadocia. St Basil was a skilled missionary in troubled times for the Church and for the State. Although he was not physically robust, and journeys in his time were not without danger, following his meeting with Emperor Valens, he assumed an imperial delegation in Armenia, on the Eastern alignment of the empire at the border with the Persian kingdom. The stated goal was to place new bishops in the cities from Armenia Minor, but his mission was not only a church one, but also a political strategy, to strengthen the unity of the State in a region at the confluence of two major cultures, and also under the political influence of both the Roman and Persian empires. We do not know the exact terms of the agreement between St Basil and Valens. It was most likely a compromise. The first was committed to the appointment of new hierarchs in the border area to ensure stability within the Church and thereby within its respective communities, and as a consequence the State, and the second to cease persecution against Cappadocia, considered a bastion of the defence of the Nicaean faith. Although Basil’s mission to Armenia could not be considered a success, Valens would assume more balanced and less hostile attitude towards the Cappadocian Church. St Basil defended the doctrine of Nicaea in a period when most Christians, and also hierarchs of the Eastern Roman Empire, along with Emperor Valens, supported different formulas of semi-Arian faith and when challenges to the divine status of the Holy Spirit began to emerge. He wrote a work, On the Holy Spirit, whose principles underpinned the elaboration of the decisions of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381), confirming the divinity of the Holy Spirit. St Basil was able to elucidate the relationship of the Holy Spirit with the other two persons of the Holy Trinity, in a manner similar to that established in Nicaea, but without directly using the term homoousios. At the same time, he initiated an unparalleled epistolographic strategy, in order to persuade the great religious leaders of the epoch, including St Athanasius and Pope Damasus, to put aside any kind of reservation and to collaborate with him in order to strengthen the unity of the Church. St Basil was also a defender of justice for the poor in a society dominated by social inequality, he could not remain indifferent to the suffering of the many and the insignificant, those lacking power to defend themselves against the abuses of the great and the powerful, but he attempts to help them by all means necessary. Writing to prefects, governors and great dignitaries, he tries to persuade them to show consideration of those cannot pay their taxes either because of infirmity or ignorance, or family crisis, or because they can no longer support themselves risk losing their homes. Due to his great love of people, he established the most advanced General conclusions 179 social care system of the early Christian ages, still known as the ‘Basiliad’, and which became the source of inspiration for his descendants to the present day. St Basil was a perfect Christian pedagogue in times of reckoning for religious education and the preaching of Christianity. When the Emperor Julian decided to restore paganism throughout Roman society and especially in schools, by the use of abusive measures against Christian teachers, St Basil addressed young people in his own unmistakable style, firm in his beliefs, but flexible and versatile in his way of expression. He was a true artist of the word, a master of dialogue and a redoubtable polemicist. He was a generous man who did not think only of himself, or of the ‘victories’ he had gained over his opponents, or of the consolidation of his own prestige in the world, but of what the world itself would become after his death. He valued the present, respected the past, but he was also very preoccupied with the future. A true visionary, a man who understood better than any of his contemporaries that education and culture were the most important weapons for anyone who aspires to leadership, either religious or political. This is because he himself was an equally religious and political unparalleled leader of his time. He established a programme document for the training of young people, unique in the history of the first centuries, which will be no doubt be forgotten and then rediscovered, many times, by both ancient scholars and indeed, those of the present day. St Basil does not reject a priori anything that is good for the human soul, even if it is pagan philosophy and literature, instead he focuses primarily on man’s ability to select what is valuable and useful to his soul. Intelligence, intui- tion, attention and inspiration are the indispensable qualities of a true leader, but St Basil places above all, character, morality, integrity and of course, faith in God and His final judgement. St Basil stands in history, as it is well-known, by his many achievements in almost all areas of activity, made in a very short period of time. No-one has been able to offer so much to the Christian world. It is a real miracle that, despite the many oppositions he faced during his lifetime, including the disease that tormented his frail body and the enemies who appeared from all sides, he managed to leave us an astonishing spiritual heritage, one which still has many undiscovered treasures, waiting to be capitalised upon in the future. Bibliography

Primary Sources

Armenia Life of Nerses (Patmut’iwn Drboyn Nersisi Pat’ewi), Veneţia, Sop’erk 6 (1853). Agat’angelos (Agat‘angeghos), History of Armenians, translation and commentary by Robert W. Thomson (New York: Albany State University of New York Press, 1976). Agat’angelos (Agat‘angeghos), The Teaching of Saint Gregory: An Early Armenian Catechism, translation and commentary by Robert W. Thomson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970). The Epic Histories attributed to P’awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmos’iwnk’) translation and commentary by Nina Garsoian (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989). Faustus de Byzance, Bibliotheque Historique (Introduction et traduit pour la première fois de l’armenien en français par Jean-Baptiste Emine), in ‘Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Armenie’, V, 24, 25 and 29, 2nd edn, ed. Victor Langlois (Lisbon: Foundation Calouste Gulbenkian, 2001). The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, translated by Robert W. Thomson (Atlanta, GA: Scholars’ Press, 1991). History of Vardan and the Armenian War, translation and commentary by Robert W. Thomson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1982). Moses Khorenats‘i, History of the Armenians, translation and commentary on the literary sources by Robert W. Thompson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978). Eŀishē, History of Vardan and the Armenian War, translation and commentary by Robert W. Thomson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1982). Sebēos, Bishop of Bagratunik, The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos, translation and commentary by Robert W. Thomson (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999). Vark‘Mashtots‘i, A photoreproduction of the 1941 Yerevan Edition with a modern translation and concordance and with a new introduction by Krikor H. Maksoudian (New York: Caravan Books,1985).

Church Fathers Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Letters LXII–LXIII, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, [NPNF] vol. 4, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (1891; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). Bibliography 181 Saint Basil the Great, ‘Letters”, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (1894; rep. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Sfântul Vasile cel Mare, ‘Epistole’, in Părinți și Scriitori Bisericești (PSB), ed. and transl. into Romanian by Constantin Cornițescu and Teodor Bodogae (Bucharest: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House [EIBMBOR], 1988). St Basil, Ascetical Works, ‘Herewith begins the Morals, Rule Seven’, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 9, trans. by Sister M. Monica Wagner (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950). St Basil, Exegetical Homilies, ‘Homily on Psalms’, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 9, trans. by Sister Agnes Clare Way (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963. St Basil the Great, Address to Young Men on Reading Greek Literature, with an English translation by Roy J. Deferrari and Martin R.P. McGuire, in The Loeb Classical Library IV, eds. T.E. Page, E. Capps and W.H.D. Rouse (London: William Heinemann, 1934). Gregory of Nazianzen, The Panegyric on S. Basil, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, ed. Henry Wace and Philip Schaff (1893; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Saint Gregory of Nazianzen, Letters, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (1893; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book I, 12, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (1892; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1996). Encomium of Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, on his brother Saint Basil, Archbishop of Cappadocian Caesarea: A commentary with a revised text, introduction and translation, Patristic Studies, ch. 14, vol. 17 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University Press of America, 1928). Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History, IV, 12, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1996). Sozomenos, The Ecclesiastical History, VI, 13, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1996). Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (2nd series), vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996).

Ancient Authors PLATO, Republic, Book 2, 377–383, translated from the New Standard Greek Text, with an introduction by C.D.C. Reeve (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 2004). Hesiod, Works and Days (I), vv. 361–362, Edited with prolegomena and commentary by M.L. West (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980). Theognis (Theognis Megareus), Elegia I, vv. 157–158, in Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, Fasc.2, ed. Ernestus Diehl, Edition Tertia (Leipzig: Teubner, 1950). Herodotus, VII, 27–29, The Histories (New Edition) translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt (1954). Revised, with introductory matter and notes by John Marincola (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1996). Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Liber I, Pittacusm fr. 76, edited with an introduction by Tiziano Dorandi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Euripides, Hyppolytus, v. 612, ed. Walter Stockert (Stuttgart/Leipzig: Teubner, 1994). Pseudo-Euripides, Rhesus, 84, edited with an introduction and commentary by Almuth Fries, (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2014). 182 Bibliography Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (AD 354–378), selected and translated by Walter Hamilton with an introduction and notes by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill (Bungay/ Suffolk: The Chaucer Press, 1986).

Secondary Sources Ananian, Paolo, ‘La Consecrazione di S. Gregorio Illuminatore’, Le Muséon: Revue d’études orientales, 74.1/2 (1961): 315–360. Anderson, John, Eugène Cumont and Franz Cumont (eds), Studia Pontica, III, 99 (Brussels, 1910). Argárate, Pablo, ‘Basil’s Treatise on the Holy Spirit’, in The Actuality of St Basil the Great, ed. by Gunnar Hällström (Turku: Åbo Akademi Press, 2011). Athanassiadi, Polymnia, Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981). Austin, N.J.E. ‘A Usurper’s Claim to Legitimacy: Procopius in AD 365–366’, Rivista storica dell’antichità (RSA) 2 (1972): 187–194. Babian, Gorun, The Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches [according to the Armenian sources, 300–610], (Antelias, Lebanon: Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, 2001). Barnes, T.D, ‘Himerius and Fourth Century’, Classical Philology 82 (1987): 200–225. Baynes, Norman H., ‘Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century’, English Historical Review, 15 (1910), 625–643, reprinted in Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London: Athlone Press, 1960), 186–208. Baus Karl, The Imperial Church from Constantine to the Early Middle Ages, vol. 2, The History of the Church Series, eds, Hubert Jedin and John Patrick Dolan (London: Burns & Oates, 1980). Beagon Philip M. ‘The Cappadocian Fathers, Women, Ecclesiastical Politics’, Vigiliae Christianae 49.2 (1995): 165–179. Beagon Philip M. ‘Some cultural contacts of St Basil in Antioch’, Studia Patristica 32 (1997): 67–71. Benoit, Alphonse, Saint Grégoire de Nazienze, sa vie, ses ouvres et son époque (Marseille: Marius Olive, 1876). Bernardi, Jean, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze: Le theologien et son temps (330–390), (Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1995). Bernardakis, G. ‘Notes sur la topographie de Césarée’, Échos d’Orient 11 (1908): 22–27. Bessièrs, L’Abbé Marius, La tradition manuscrite de la correspondence de S. Basile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). Blockley R.C. ‘The Division of Armenia between the Romans and the Persians at the End of the Fourth Century AD’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd.36 H2 (1987): 222–234. Bobrinskoy, Boris, Împărtășirea Sfântului Duh (Communion of the Holy Ghost), translated into Romanian by Măriuca and Adrian Alexandrescu (Bucharest: EIBMBOR, 1993). Bodogae, Teodor, ‘Corespondenţa sfântului Vasile cel Mare şi strădania sa pentru unitatea Bisericii creştine [Correspondence of Saint Basil the Great and His Efforts for the Unity of the Christian Church]’, in Saint Basil the Great: Dedication at 1600 Years from his Death, ed. Alexandru Elian (Bucharest: EIBMBOR, 1980), 265–283. Bonis Constantine G. ‘Did St Basil the Great have “Nephews”?’ θεολογια 47 (1976): 924–927. Booth, Alan D. ‘The Chronology of St Jerome’s Early Years’, Phoenix 35 (1981): 237–259. Bibliography 183 Branişte, Ene, Liturgica Generală [Romanian Text] (Bucharest: EIBMBOR Press, 1985). Brock S., Cortesi, M., De Vogüé, A., Pouchet, J.-R. et al. (eds), Basilio tra Oriente e Occidente (Bose: Comunità di Bose, 2001). Brenneke, Hanns Christof, Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer: der Osten bis zum Ende der homöischen Reichskirche (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988). Brown, Edward, G. A Literary History of Persia. From the Earliest Times until Firdawsí (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1902). Brown, Peter, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2002). Brown, Peter, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008). Chadwick, Henry, ‘Orthodoxy and heresy from the death of Constantine to the eve of the first council of Ephesus’, inCambridge Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire A.D. 337–425, 2nd edn, ed. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 561–600. Chahin, Mack, The Kingdom of Armenia: A History, 2nd rev. edn (Richmond: Curzon, 2001). Charlesworth, Martin Percival, Trade-routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire (Cambridge: University Press, 1924). Chifăr, Nicolae, ‘The Contribution of St Basil the Great to Combating Pneumatomachism’, in The Ecumenical Legacy of the Cappadocians, ed. Nicu Dumitrașcu (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 105–115. Chirvasie, Ioan ‘Învățătura despre Sfântul Duh la Sf. Vasile cel Mare [St Basil the Great’s teachings on the Holy Spirit]’, Studii Teologice 7–8 (1958): 475–484. Chițescu, Nicolae, ‘Aspecte ecleziologice în opera Sfântului Vasile cel Mare [Ecclesiological Aspects in St Basil’s works]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1600 de ani de la săvârșirea sa, ed. Bartolomeu Anania et al. (Bucharest: EIBMBOR, 1980), 158–180. Colibă, Mihai, ‘Regulile Monahale ale Sfântului Vasile cel Mare în istoria vieții religioase monahale și a cultului creștin [The Monastical Rules of St Basil in the history of the religious and monastical life and of Christian cult]’, Studii Teologice 3/4 (1965): 241–253. Coman, Ioan G. ‘Studiile universitare ale Părinților Capadocieni [The University Studies of the Cappadocian Fathers]’, Studii Teologice 9–10 (1955): 531–554. Coman, Ioan G. ‘Sfântul Vasile cel Mare despre folosul culturii elene pentru educația creștină [St Basil the Great on the use of the Hellenic culture for Christian Education]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare: Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 2., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 635–641. Coman, Ioan G. ‘St Vasile cel Mare și Atarbios, sau între calomnie și onestitate, ignoranță și discernământ, izolare și ecumenicitate [St Basil the Great and Atarbios, or between calumny and honesty, ignorance and discernment, isolation and ecumenicity]’, Mitropolia Banatului 9–10 (1983): 550–555, reprinted in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare: Închinare la 1630 de ani (Saint Basil the Great, worship at the years 1630). Studia Basiliana 1., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 443–457. Coman, Ioan G. ‘Personalitatea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare: profil istoric și spiritual [The Personality of St Basil the Great: A historical and spiritual profile (330–379)]’,in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare: Închinare la 1600 de ani de la săvârșirea sa, ed. Bartolomeu, Anania et al. (Bucharest: EIBMBOR, 1980), 24–50. Copola, Goffredo, ‘L’archetipo dell’epistolario di Basilio’, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica NS 3.2 (1923): 137–150. 184 Bibliography Corneanu, Nicolae, Patristica Mirabilia (Bucharest: Polirom Press, 2001). Cornițescu, Constantin, ‘Învățătura Sfântului Vasile cel Mare despre Sfântul Duh [St Basil the Great’s teachings on the Holy Spirit’, Ortodoxia 1 (1979): 108–114. Courtonne, Yves, Un témoin du IVe siècle oriental: Saint Basile et son temps d’après sa correspondance (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1973). Curran, John, ‘From Jovian to Theodosius’, in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire A.D. 337–425, 2nd edn, eds, Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 78–110. Damian, Theodor, ‘Aspecte ale teologiei darului în sinteza părintelui Stăniloae [Aspects of gift theology in the synthesis of Father Stăniloae]’, Glasul Bisericii 5–8 (1999): 25–34. Damșa, Teodor, ‘Bogăția și sărăcia în lumina Omiliilor Sfântul Vasile cel Mare [Richness and Poverty in the Light of St Basil the Great’ s Homilies]’, Mitropolia Banatului 4–6 (1979): 301–313. Deferrary Joy R. ‘The Classics and the Greek Writers of the Early Church: Saint Basil’, The Classical Journal 13.8 (1918): 579–591. DelCogliano, Mark, ‘The Influence of Athanasius and the Homoiousians on Basil of Caesarea’s Decentralization of “Unbegotten”’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 19.2 (2011): 197–223. Dragon, Gilbert, ‘Les Moines et la ville: le monachisme à Constantinople jusqu’au concile de Chalcédoine (451)’, in Travaux et mémoires du centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance: Monographies 4 (Paris: Editions de Boccard, 1970). Duchesne, Louis, The Early History of the Church, from its foundation to the end of the fifth century, vol. II (London: Murray, 1924). Dumitrașcu, Nicu, Doctrina hristologică a Sfântului Atanasie cel Mare în controversele ariene și post ariene [The Christological Doctrine of Saint Athanasius the Great in the Arian and post-Arian controversies]’ (Cluj-Napoca: Napoca Star Press, 1999). Dumitrașcu Nicu, Sfântul Vasile cel Mare și împăratul Valens într-o confruntare a autorităților [Saint Basil the Great and Emperor Valens in a confrontation of the Authority]’, in Revelații ale Unității la Sfinții Părinți Capadocieni, ed. I.V. Leb et al. (Cluj-Napoca: The University Cluj Press, 2013), 143–150. Dumitrașcu, Nicu and Voicu, Constantin, Patrology (Bucharest: EIBMBOR, 2004). Dumitrașcu, Nicu, ‘Trei emisari ai lui Valens în vederea pregătirii misiunii Sfântului Vasile cel Mare în Armenia [Valens’ three emissaries prepare the mission of St Basil the Great in Armenia]’, Orizonturi Teologice 4 (2001): 20–28. Dumitrașcu, Nicu, Teologi Pre şi Post Niceeni [Ante- and Post Nicene Theologians] (Cluj–Napoca: Napoca Star Press, 2002), 149. Dumitrașcu, Nicu, ‘Sfântul Vasile cel Mare în Armenia: o misiune surprinzătoare primita de la împăratul Valens [Saint Basil the Great in Armenia: a surprising mission received from the Emperor Valens]’, in The Cappadocian Fathers, ed. Petre Semen and Liviu Petcu (Iasi: Axis Academic Foundation Press, 2009), 63–70. Dumitrașcu, Nicu, ‘The atypical friendship of Sts Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus’, in The Ecumenical Legacy of the Cappadocians, ed. Nicu Dumitrașcu (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 63–81. Elm, Susanna, ‘Virgins of God’: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). Elm, Susanna, Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church. Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2012). Ensslin, W. ‘Proairesios’ (1) Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaf 23 (1957): 30–32. Bibliography 185 Fedwick Paul Jonathan (ed.), Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic (A Sixteen Hundredth Anniversary Symposium), Part Two (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1981). Fleury, M. L’Abbé, The Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2, 16 (London: Printed by T. Wood, for J. Crokatt, at the Golden Kay near the Inner-Temple in Fleet Street, 1728). Fleury, Edouard, Hellénisme et Christianisme. Saint Grégoire de Nazienze et son temps (Paris: Beauchesne, 1930). Fortin, Ernest, L., ‘Christianity and Hellenism in Basil the Great’s Address Ad Adulescentes’, in Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought, ed. by H.J. Blumenthal and R.A. Markus (London: Variorum Publications Ltd, 1981). Fowden, Garth, ‘Polytheist religion and philosophy’, in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire A.D. 337–425, 2nd edn, ed. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 538–560. Fox, Mary Margaret, The Life and Times of St Basil the Great as Revealed in His Works (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1939), 113. Fouyas, Methodius G., St Basil the Great and the Roman See (A paper delivered at the Fourth International Congress on Patristic Studies in Oxford, September, 1963) (Manchester: 1965). Frazee, Charles A. ‘Anatolian Asceticism in the Fourth Century: Eustathios of Sebastea and Basil of Caesarea’, The Catholic Historical Review 64.1 (1980): 16–33. Frazee Charles, A. ‘Late Roman and Byzantine Legislation on the Monastic Life from the Fourth to the Eighth Centuries’, Church History 51.3 (1982): 263–279. Gagu, Cristian, ‘Sfântul Ierarh Vasile cel Mare, modelul umanistului bizantin [St Bishop Basil the Great, the model of Byzantine Humanism]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare: Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 3., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 180–197. Gain, Benoît, L’Église au IVe siècle d’après la correspondance de Basile de Césarée (330– 379) (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Orientale, 1985). Gallay, Paul, La vie de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze (Lyon/Paris: Vitte Emmanuel, 1943). Gane, Jennifer H. ‘Fourth Century Christian Education: An Analysis of Basil’s Ad Adolescentes’. PhD thesis, School of Historical Studies, October 2012, Newcastle University; published as Fourth Century Christian Education (Newcastle: Newcastle University Press, 2012). Garsoian, Nina G. ‘Politique ou orthodoxie? L’Arménie au quatrième siècle’. Revue des études arméniennes (REArm) 4 (1967): 297–320. Reprinted in Armenia between Byzantium and the Sassanians, ed. N.G. Garsoian (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 352–375. Garsoian, Nina G. ‘Quidam Narseus’ – A Note on the Mission of St Nerses the Great’, in Armeniaca: Mélanges d’études arméniennes (Venice: Île de Saint Lazare des Armenians, 1969), 148–164. Reprinted in Armenia between Byzantium and the Sassanians, ed. N.G. Garsoian (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 148–164. Garsoian, Nina G. ‘Nērses le Grand, Basile de Césarée et Eustathe de Sébaste Nerses’, REArm 17 (1983): 145–169. Reprinted in Armenia between Byzantium and the Sassanians, ed. N.G. Garsoian (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 148–164. Garsoian, Nina G. ‘Le rôle de l’hiérarchie chrétienne dans les rapports diplomatiques entre Byzance et les sassanides’, REArm 10 (1973): 119–138. Reprinted in Armenia between Byzantium and the Sassanians, ed. N.G. Garsoian (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 119–138. 186 Bibliography Garsoian, Nina G. ‘Armenia in the Fourth Century: An Attempt to Re-define the Concepts “Armenia” and “Loyalty”’, in Armenia between Byzantium and the Sassanians, ed. N.G. Garsoian (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 341–352. Garsoian, Nina, “Introduction to the problem of early Armenian monasticism” in Studies on the Formation of Christian Armenia, ed. by N.G. Garsoian (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), 177–236. Geanaklopos, Deno, J., ‘St Basil, “Christian Humanism” of the “Three Hierarchs” and Patron Saint of Greek Letters’, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, XXV.1 (1980): 94–102. Georgescu, Mihai, ‘Idei morale și sociale la Sfântul Vasile cel Mare [Moral and Social ideas of St Basil the Great]’, Studii Teologice 7–8 (1958): 463–474. Gholam, Samir, ‘Vasiliada sau instituția de binefacere a Sfântului Vasile cel Mare [Basiliad, or the Philanthropical Institution of St Basil the Great]’, Glasul Bisericii 7–8 (1973): 735–749. Giet, Stanislas, Les idées et l’action socials de Saint Basile (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1941). Giet, Stanislas, Sasimes: Une méprise de Saint Basile (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1941). Giet, Stanislas, ‘St Basile et le concile de Constantinople de 360’, Journal of Theological Studies NS 6 (1955): 94–99. Giet, Stanislas, ‘Basil était-il sénateur?’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 60 (1965): 429–444. Gorce, Denys, Les voyages, l’hospitalité et le port des lettres dans le monde chrétien des IVe et Ve siècles (Paris: Auguste Picard, 1925). Grattarola, Pio, ‘L’usurpazione di Procopio e la fine dei Constantinidi’, Aevum 60 (1986): 82–105. Gribomont, Jean, ‘Eustathe le Philosophe et les voyages du jeune Basile de Césarée’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique LIV (1959): 115–124. Gribomont, Jean, ‘Eustathe de Sebaste’, Saint Basile: Evangile et Eglise, Melanges I (Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1984), 95–106. Grousset, René, Histoire de l’Arménie des origines à 1071 (Paris: Payot, 1947). Halliday, W.R., ‘St Basil and Julian the Apostate: A Fragment of Legendary History’, Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 7. 3–4 (1916): 89–106. Harrell, Charles Lebre, St Basil the Great as Icon: A study in late antique and byzantine historiography, hagiography and iconography (Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 1998). Haykin, M.G.A. ‘“A Sense of Awe in the Presence of the Ineffable”: I Cor. 2.11–12 in the Pneumatomachian Controversy of the Fourth Century’, Scottish Journal of Theology 41.3 (1988): 341–357. Hefele, Karl Joseph von / Leclerq, Henry, Histoire des Conciles, d’après les documents originaux, 11 vols (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1907–1952). Helleman, Wendy, Christianity and the Classics: The Acceptance of a Heritage (New York/ London: University Press of America, 1990); especially the chapter ‘Basil’s Ad Adolescentes: Guidelines for Reading the Classics’, 31–51. Hewsen, Robert H. ‘Date and Authorship of the Ašxarhac‘oyc’, Revue des Études Arméniennes, NS 4 (1967): 409–432. Hewsen, Robert, H. ‘Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography’, Revue des Études Arméniennes NS. 13 (1978–1979): 77–96. Hewsen, Robert H. ‘The Succesors of Tiridates the Great: A Contribution to the History of Armenia in the Fourth Century’, Revue des Études Arméniennes NS 13 (1978–1979): 99–125. Bibliography 187 Hewsen, Robert H. ‘An Ecclesiastical Analysis of the Naxarar System: A Re-examination of Adontz’s Chapter XII’, in From Byzantium to Iran. Armenian Studies in Honor of Nina G. Garsoian, ed. by Jean-Pierre Mahé and Robert W. Thomson (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholar Press, 1997). Holder, Arthur G. ‘Saint Basil the Great on Secular Education and Christian Virtue’, Religious Education 87.3 (1992): 395–415. Holman, Susan G. ‘The Hungry Body: Famine, Poverty and Identity in Basil’s Homily 8’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1999): 337–363. Holman, Susan G. The Hungry are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Holman, Susan R. ‘Rich City Burning: Social Welfare and Ecclessial Insecurity in Basil’s Mission to Armenia’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 12.2 (2004): 195–215. Honigmann, Ernst, ‘Le liste originale des pères de Nicée’, Byzantion 14 (1939): 17–76. Horden, Peregrine, ‘The Earliest Hospitals in Byzantium, Western Europe, and Islam’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 35.3 (2005): 361–389. Hovhannissian, Achot, ‘L’Alphabet Armenien et Son Action Historique’, Revue des Études Arméniennes NS 2 (1965): 361–373. Hughes, Ian, Imperial Brothers: Valentinian, Valens and the Disaster at Adrianopole (Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Books Ltd, 2013). Hunt, David, ‘The successors of Constantine’, in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire A.D. 337–425, 2nd edn, ed. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1–43. Hunt, David, ‘Julian’ in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire A.D. 337– 425, 2nd edn, ed. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 44–77. Hunt, David, ‘The Church as a public institution’, in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire A.D. 337–425, 2d edn, ed. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 238–276. Huxley, George, ‘Saint Basil the Great and Anisa’, Analecta Bollandiana 107 (1989): 30–32. Ivan, Iorgu, ‘Opera canonică a Sfântului Vasile cel Mare și importanța ei pentru unitatea Bisericii [St Basil’s Canonical Work, its Significance for the Unity of the Christian Church]’, in Studia Basiliana I, ed. Emilian Popescu et.al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 267–287. Ivánka, Endre, Hellenisches und Christliches im frühbyzantinischen Geistesleben (Wien: Herder, 1948). Jacks, Leo V. St Basil and Greek Literature (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1922. Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971). Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin, J.R. Martindale and John Morris. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 1: A.D. 260–395 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971). Jones, Marvin, Basil of Caesarea: His Life and Impact (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2014). Kardong, Terrence G. ‘Who was Basil’s Mentor? Part I’, The American Benedictine Review 60:2 (2009): 191–201. Kardong, Terrence G. ‘Who was Basil’s Mentor? Part II’, The American Benedictine Review 60:3 (2009): 299–309. 188 Bibliography Keidel, Anne Gordon, ‘Hesychia, Prayer and Transformation in Basil of Caesarea’, Studia Patristica 37 (2001): 110–120. Kojababian, Gorun, The Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Churches [according to the Armenian sources, 300–610], D.Phil. Hilary Term, 1977 (Oxford: Mansfield College). Kopecek, Thomas A. ‘The Social Class of the Cappadocian Fathers’, Church History 42.4 (1973): 453–466. Kopecek, Thomas A. ‘The Cappadocian Fathers and Civic Patriotism’, Church History 43.3 (1974): 293–303. Kopecek, Thomas A. A History of Neo-Arianism (Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979). Labriolle, Pierre de. La Réaction Païenne (Paris: L’Artisan de Livre, 1934). Lang, David Marshall, Armenia: cradle of civilization (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1980). Lenski, Noel, Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002). Levy, Hans, ‘The Date and Purpose of “Moses of Chorene’s History”’, Byzantion 11 (1936): 81–96. Lienhard, Joseph T. ‘Basil of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and “Sabellius”’, Church History 58.2 (1989): 157–167. Lightfoot, Christopher Sherwin, The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire with special reference to the Reign of Constantius II, D.Phil. Michaelmas Term, 1982 (St John’s College, Oxford. Ludlow, Morwenna, The Early Church (London/New York, I. B. Tauris & Co., 2009). MacCormack, Sabine, G. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Malan, Solomon Caesar, The Life and Times of S. Gregory the Illuminator the founder and patron saint of the Armenian Church (London, Oxford, and Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1868), 107–338. Maraval, Pierre, ‘La date de la mort de Basile de Cesaree’, Revue des études augustiniennes, 34 (1988): 25–38. Marrou, Henri Irénée, A History of Education in Antiquity, translated by George Lamb (London/New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956). Mastroghiannopoulos, Ilias, ‘Bizanț, o lume a spiritului și a dragostei (1) [Bizantion, a world of love and spirit]’, Mitropolia Olteniei 1–2(1973): 68–87. Matthews, John, Frederick, F. The Roman Empire of Ammianus (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). McGuckin, John A. St Gregory of Nazianzus: A Intellectual Biography (Crestwood/New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001). Mécérian Jean, Histoire et Institutions de L’ Église Arménienne: Évolution Nationale et Doctrinale, Spiritualité – Monachisme (Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique, 1965). Mendieta, Emmanuel Amand de, ‘The Official Attitude of Basil of Caesarea as a Christian bishop towards Greek Philosophy and Science’, in Derek Baker (ed), Papers Read at the Fourteenth Summer Meeting and the Fifteenth Winter meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 25–49. Moffatt, Ann, ‘The Occasion of St Basil’s Address to Young Men’, Antichthon 6 (1972): 74–86. Naldini, Mario, Basilio di Cesarea, Discorso ai Giovani. Oratio ad Adolescentes. Con la versione latina din Leonardo Bruni (Firenze: Nardini Editore – Centro internationale del libro, 1984). Bibliography 189 Ormanian, Malachia, The Church of Armenia: her history, doctrine, rule, discipline, liturgy, literature, and existing condition, 2nd rev. (London: A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1955). Palanque, Jean-Rémy, Gustave Bardy and Pierre de Labriolle, ‘Histoire de l’Église depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours. 3’, De paix constantinienne à la mort de Théodose (Paris: Boud & Gay, 1936). Papadopoulos, Stelianos, Viaţa Sfântului Vasile cel Mare [The Life of St Basil the Great], (Bucharest: Bizantina Press, 2003). Papadopoulos, Stelianos, Vulturul Rănit: Viaţa Sfântului Grgorie de Nazianz [The Wounded Eagle: The Life of St Gregory the Theologian] (Bucharest: Bizantina Press, 2002). Patlagean, Evelyne, ‘The Poor’, in The Byzantines, ed. by Guglielmo Cavallo (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997). Patrucco, Marcella Forlin, ‘Social Patronage and Political Mediation in the Activity of Basil of Caesarea’, Studia Patristica 17 (1982): 1102–1107. Payaslian, Simon, The History of Armenia from the Origins to the Present (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007). Pavel, Constantin, C. ‘Atitudinea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare față de cultura și filosofia antică [The Attitude of St Basil the Great toward classical culture and philosophy]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 1., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 443–457. Peeters, Paul, ‘L’intervention politique de Constance II dans la Grande Armenie, en 338’, Recherches d’Histoire et de Philologie Orientales, vol. 1, Subsidia Hagiographica 27 (1951), 222–250. Pfister, Emile J. ‘A Biographical Note: The Brothers and Sisters of St Gregory of Nyssa’, Vigiliae Christianae 18 (1964): 108–113. Piganiol, André, L’Empire Chrétien, 2e (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1972). Popescu, Emilian, ‘Sfântul Vasile cel Mare despre sine și familie în scrisorile sale [St Basil the Great about himself and family in his letters’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 3., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009): 11–34. Potter, David, Emperors of Rome: The Story of Imperial Rome from Julius Caesar to the Last Emperor (London: Quercus Publishing House, 2011). Pouchet, Robert, Basile le Grand et son univers d’amis d’après sa correspondence: une stratégie de communion (Roma: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum, 1992). Puech, Aimé, Histoire de la littérature greque chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à la fin du IVe siècle, III. iii (Paris: Société d’édition ‘Les Belles Lettres’, 1930). Ramsay, William Mitchell, ‘Basil of Caesarea’ The Expositor 13 (January 1896): 49–61. Ramsay, William Mitchell, Pauline and other studies in early Christian history (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1906). Ramsay, William Mitchell, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London: William Cloves and Sons, 1962). Rămureanu Ioan, et al. (ed.), Istoria Bisericească Universală [The Universal Church History], vol. 1 (1–1054) (Bucharest: EIBMBOR, 1987). Rămureanu, Ioan, Persecuția împăratului Iulian Apostatul împotriva creștinismului [Emperor Julian the Apostate’ s persecutions against Christianity] (Bucharest: Anastasis, 2009). Reilly Gerald, F. Imperium and Sacerdotium according to St Basil the Great (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1945). Richard, Marcel, ‘Saint Basil et la mission du diacre Sabinus’, Analecta Bollandiana 67 (1949): 178–202. Roman, Gabriel, ‘Aspecte Religioase și politice în Imperiul Roman de Răsărit în vremea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare [Religious and political aspects in the Eastern Roman 190 Bibliography Empire in St Basil the Great’s time]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 3., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009), 198–221. Rousseau, Philip, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Rubenson, Samuel, ‘The Cappadocians on the Areopagus’, in Gregory of Nazianzus: Images and Reflections, ed. by Jostein Børtnes and Tomas Hägg (University of Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2006). Russell, James R. Zoroastrianism in Armenia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations; National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, 1987). Sayce, A.H. ‘The Early Geography of South-Eastern Asia Minor’, Journal of Hellenic Studies (1923): 43. Sesboüé Bernard, Saint Basile et la trinité, un acte théologique au IVe siècle: le rôle de Basile de Césarée dans l’élaboration de la doctrine et du langage trinitaires [in particular Chapter VI (Le Saint-Esprit hypostase trinitaire, 139–148) (Paris: Desclée, 1998). Shear, Theodore Leslie, The Influence of Plato on Saint Basil (Baltimore: J.H. Furst Company, 1906. Shepardson Christine, ‘Defining the Boundaries of Orthodoxy: Eunomius in the Anti-Jewish Polemic of his Cappadocian Opponents’, Church History 76.4 (2007): 699–723. Silvas, Anna M., The Asketikon of St Basil the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Simonetti, Manlio, La crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1975). Snee, Rochelle, ‘Valens’ Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian Propaganda’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 26/4 (1985): 395–419. Stăniloae, Dumitru, ‘Învățătura despre Sfânta Treime în scrierea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare ‘Împotriva lui Eunomiu [Teaching on the Holy Trinity in St Basil’s “Against Eunomius”]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1600 de ani de la săvârșirea sa, ed. Bartolomeu Anania et al. (Bucharest: EIBMBOR,1980): 51–69. Sterk, Andrea, ‘On Basil, Moses, and the Model Bishop: The Cappadocian Legacy of Leadership’, Church History 67.2 (1998): 227–253. Strachey, Marjorie Colville, Saints and Sinners of the Fourth Century (London: William Kimber, 1958). Stramara, Daniel F. ‘Double Monasticism in the Greek East, Fourth through Eighth Centuries’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.2 (1998): 269–311. Taylor, Justin, ‘St Basil the Great and Pope St Damasus I-I’, The Downside Review 304 (July 1973): 186–203. Taylor, Justin, ‘St Basil the Great and Pope St Damasus I-II’, The Downside Review 305 (October 1973): 262–273. Thomson Robert, W. ‘Syrian Christianity and the Conversion of Armenia’, ed. by Werner Seibt (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), 160–167. Toumanoff, Cyrille, ‘The Third-Century Armenian Arsacids. A Chronological and Genealogical Commentary’, Revue des Études Arméniennes, NS 6 (1969): 233–281. Thomson, Robert W. ‘Caesarea and Early Christian Armenia’, in Armenian Kesaria/Kaisei and Cappadocia, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2013), 43–56. Bibliography 191 Uluhogian, Gabriella, ‘Basilio il Grande, L’Armenia e Gli Armeni’, in Basilio tra Oriente e Occidente ed. S. Brock, M. Cortesi, A. De Vogüé and J.R. Pouchet (Bose: Comunità di Bose, 2001), 181–208. Vaggione, Richard Paul, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). Van Dam, Raymond, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003). Van Dam, Raymond, Becoming Christian: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003). Van Dam, Raymond, ‘Emperors, bishops and friends in late antique Cappadocia’, Journal of Theological Studies NS 37 (1986): 53–76. Vanderspoel, John, Themistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty, and ‘Paideia’ from Constantius to Theodosius (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1955). Vicovan, Ion, ‘Sfântul Vasile cel Mare – teologul și modelul filantropiei [St Basil the Great – the philantropic model and theologian]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana 3., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009): 144–158. Voicu, Constantin, ‘Unitatea Bisericii în Oikumene după Sf. Vasile cel Mare [The Unity of the Church in Oikumene according to St Basil the Great]’, Mitropolia Banatului 4–6 (1979). Wace, Henry and William C. Pierce (eds), A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, (London: J. Murray, 1911). Ward, Maisie, ‘Saint Basil and the Cappadocians’, in In Honor of Saint Basil the Great +379 (Still River, MA: St Bede’s Publications, 1979), 1–36. Wardman, Alan E. ‘Usurpers and Internal conflicts in the 4th Century A.D’, Historia 33 (1984): 220–237. Wenzel Aaron, ‘Libanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Ideal of Athens in Late Antiquity’, Journal of Late Antiquity 3.2 (2010): 264–285. Williams, George Huntston, ‘Christology and Church–State Relations in the Fourth Century’, Church History 20:4 (1951): 3–26. Yorke, Vincent W. ‘A Journey in the Valley of the Upper Euphrates’, The Geographical Journal 8.5 (1896): 453–472. Zăgrean, Ioan, ‘Probleme morale în opera Sfântului Vasile cel Mare [Ethical Issues in St Basil’s Works]’, in Sfântul Vasile cel Mare: Închinare la 1630 de ani. Studia Basiliana I., ed. Emilian Popescu et al. (Bucharest: Basilica Press, 2009): 336–364. Index locorum

Adrianopole, 21n50, 73n14, 187 158n34, 159n42, 159n43, 159n44, Africa, 3, 59n37, 109 161, 191 Albania, 43, 45 Augusta Treverum (Trier), 3 Alexandria, xi, 7, 8, 9, 13, 26, 34n4, 34n6, Austria, x 34n11, 36n32, 37n34, 58n19, 61, 82, 83, 94n12, 99, 103, 108, 118, 119, 120, Bagawan, 44 121, 122, 125, 127n27, 148, 157n18, Beirut (Berytus), 148 Berea, 23, 111n21 180 Bithynia, 16, 23, 24, 147 Ancyra, 16 Britain, 3 Annesa/Anissa 93n2 Brussels, xii, 73n16, 182 Annessi, 14, 10, 79, 19n33, 60n67, 104, Byzia, 23 143, 153 Antioch, 7, 8, 13, 23, 24, 34n4, 34n6, Caesarea, vii, x, xi, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 34n11, 34n14, 35n23, 36n26, 69, 81, 20n37, 20n40, 20n46, 21n66, 22, 23, 85, 95n33, 103, 113, 119, 120, 122, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34n6, 34n8, 124, 125, 138, 148, 157n15, 182 34n14, 35n14–15, 35n23, 36n27, Armenia, i, v, vii, ix, x, 7, 10, 12, 19n25, 36n32, 37n39, 42, 45, 46, 53, 54, 55, 31, 37n35, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 57n4, 58n31, 59n44, 60n67, 61, 62, 63, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 72n1, 73n22, 56n1–2, 57n3–4, 57n11–14, 57n16–17, 73n28, 74n38, 75n49, 75n51, 75n54, 58n20, 58n22, 58n24–26, 58n30–34, 76n61, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 59n39, 59n41, 59n44, 59n45, 60n61– 88, 93n3, 94n22, 95n37–38, 95n40, 62, 60n64, 60n67, 60n70, 60n72, 61, 96n51, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 108, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 110, 112n33, 112n44, 113, 121, 124, 73n7, 74n29, 74n39–40, 74n45–46, 127n24–25, 141n25, 143, 144, 153, 75n48–49, 75n54, 75n56, 76, 80, 156n11, 157n17–18, 157n21, 159n52, 159n54, 173n6, 173n12, 178, 181, 184, 95n39, 99, 101, 104, 105, 106, 108, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191; 111n23, 145, 147, 178, 180, 182, 183, Neocaesarea/Helenopontus, 23, 108, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191; 126, 136, 143 Major, 68, 74n40, 75–76n61; Minor, Cappadocia, i, v, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 50, 51, 68, 69, 71, 74n40, 76n61, 101, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 19n25–26, 20n38, 147, 178 20n42, 20n46, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, Aquileia, 18n2 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34n7, 34n14, Asia, 3, 7, 8, 59n37; Minor, 8, 19n25, 35n14, 36n26–27, 36n32, 37n37, 41, 35n14, 85, 104, 109, 189, 190 42, 44, 45, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57n4, 59n40, Athens, 9, 10, 54, 60n68, 104, 110, 143, 60n67, 61, 63, 69, 70, 73n18, 75n54, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 152, 153, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 157n15, 157n16, 157n17, 157n18, 94n10, 95n41, 96n59, 97, 103, 104, 157–158n25, 158n31, 158n32, 158n33, 108, 110, 112n40, 112n53, 123, 125, Index locorum 193 133, 140n15, 140n17, 143, 145, 147, 103, 104, 113, 116, 118, 121, 123, 125, 157n18, 158n35, 158n37, 178, 187, 191 178 Caria, 95n33 Nicomedia, 13, 23, 34n13, 34n14, 104, Castabala, 85 148, 156n15 Chalcedon, 15 Nicopolis, 65, 68, 102, 106 Cheltenham, xii Nisibis, 42, 44 Chios, 164, 165 Nyssa, 8, 9, 23, 24, 35n15, 35n16, 35n18, Cilicia, 25, 57n10, 182 62, 94n16, 140n18, 160n62, 181, 189 Colonia, 101 Constantinople, ix, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Oradea, vii, xii 14, 15, 16, 20n46, 23, 24, 26, 34n14, Orient(e), 3, 9, 19n25, 60n68, 118, 35n20, 47, 48, 49, 50, 61, 72, 73n21, 156n11, 157n16, 182, 183, 191 80, 81, 85, 94n10, 104, 113, 125, 126, Oxford, xi, xii, 18n8, 57n9, 58n27, 59n60, 143, 144, 148, 156n7, 156n13, 157n18, 76n61, 94n7, 95n27, 96n59, 110n1, 158n35, 178, 184, 186 128n31, 140n10, 159n52, 174n22, Cyzicus, 16, 20n46, 24, 81, 95n27, 95n33, 176n50, 181, 182, 184, 185, 187, 188, 191 190, 191

Edessa, 8, 35n24 Palestine, 8, 10, 25, 143 Egypt, 3, 8, 10, 25, 118, 126, 143, 153 Pamphylia, 25, 85 Pannonia, 3, 5 Galatia, 16, 24 Paphlagonia, 112n40 Gangra, 112n40 Pergamum, 148 Gaul, 3, 4, 5, 18n2, 109 Persia, 5, 46, 48, 58n22, 59n39, 60n61, Georgia (Iberia), 43, 44, 45, 58n34, 68 183 Getasa, 65 Phoenicia, 25, 111n25 Germanicia, 24 Phrygia, 16 Graz, x, xi Pisidia, 85, 137 Pontus, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19n25, Hierapolis, 34n14 20n38, 25, 36n27, 63, 80, 81, 84, 87 104, 108, 112, 145 Illyricum/Illyria, 3, 5, 15 Iris, 10, 11, 143 Rimini (Ariminium), 6, 50, 85, 113, 126n1 Isauria, 85 Rome, 34n3, 34n5, 35n26, 37n37, 43, Italy, 3, 5, 18n2, 109, 126 58n19, 74n28, 74n35, 74n46, 85, 113, 120, 123, 124, 125, 127n25, 147, Jerusalem, 58n35, 125 157n18, 182, 185, 189, 190

Laodicea, 82, 107, 112n44 Samosata, 7, 8, 22, 65, 99, 101, 102, 105, Lampsacus, 85 111n24 Leuven, xi, xii Satala, 65, 68, 69, 71, 75n61, 76n62, Lycia, 85 111n23 Scythia, 100 Macellum, 157n18 Seleucia, 50, 113, 126n1 Malta, xii Serdica, 79, 113 Mesopotamia, 10, 25, 43, 143, 153 Sibiu, xi Milan (Mediolanum), 5 Sirmium, 3, 49, 79, 113, 126n1 Moldavia, xii Smyrna, 85, 148 Spain, 3 Nacolia, 16 Naxos, 34n7 Tarsus, 85, 86 New Jersey, xii Thessalonika, 23 Nicaea, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, 20n42, 27, 29, Thrace, 3, 16, 23, 25, 101, 102, 111n24 32, 36n34, 41, 66, 79, 82, 83, 86, 101, Tyana, 69, 71, 72, 86, 99, 133 Index nominum

Ablabios, 47 Austin, N.J.E., 21n49, 21n50, 21n51, Aetius, 20n46, 81, 94n9, 94n12, 116 21n52, 21n53, 21n61, 182 Agat’angelos (AG), 57n3, 58n30 Agilo, 16 Babian/Kojababian, G., 57n9, 57n10, Alexandrescu, A., 126n8, 182 57n17, 58n21, 58n23, 58n28–36, 182, Alexandrescu, M. 126n8, 182 188 Ammianus Marcellinus, 20n37, 20n40, Baker, D., 159n52, 188 51, 58n18, 58n23, 59n58, 59n59, 73n6, Bappo, 73n17 73n8–12, 73n17, 73n19, 73n25, 74n42, Bardy, G., 110n5, 189 182, 188 Barnes, T.D., 158n35, 182 Amphilochius (of Iconium), 98 Bartolomeu, A., 19n29, 33n1, 95n27, 183, Ananian, P., 58n31, 182 184, 190 Anderson. J., 73n16, 182 Basil the Great (of Caesarea), i, iii, v, vi, Andronicus, 15 vii, ix, x, xi, xii, 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, Anthimus (of Tyana), 69, 71, 72, 75n49, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19n23, 19n29–30, 75n51, 133 19n32–32, 20n34–36, 20n38–39, Antiochus, 34n6 20n41–45, 21n66–67, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, Appolinaris (of Laodicea), 107 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33n1–3, 34n6–9, Arbitio, 16 35n14–15, 35n21–23, 35n25, 36n27–33, Arinthea, 63 37n34–36, 37n38–40, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, Arius, 7, 103, 104 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 60n63–64, 60n67–68, Arintheus, 16, 62, 63, 66, 73n14, 73n17, 60n71–72, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 73n19 69, 70, 71, 72, 72n2, 72n4–5, 73n7, Arius, 7, 103, 104 73n13–15, 73n18–20, 73n22, 73n27, Arsaces II, 56n2 74n28–36, 74n38–46, 75n47–52, 75n56, Arshak II, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 75n61, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 51, 52, 56n2, 59n39, 59n46, 59n52 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 93n2–3, Arshak III, 44 94n4–6, 94n9–12, 94n17–26, 95n28, Argárate, P., v, x, xi, 127n23, 182 95n37–40, 95n42, 96n43–53, 96n55–58, Aspacures, 44 96n60–61, 96n63–64, 97, 98, 99, 100, Aspion, 42 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, At’anagines, 42 109, 110, 110n1–4, 110n6–7, 111n8–23, Atarbios, 23, 108, 109 111n26–32, 112n33–39, 112n41–52, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, v, xi, 7, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 9, 13, 26, 34n6, 34n11, 36n32, 37n34, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 126n2–6, 58n19, 61, 82, 94n12, 94n22, 99, 108, 126n8, 126n11–12, 127n13–29, 113, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 128n30–35, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 127n25, 127n27,140n11, 157, 178, 180, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 139n1–4, 184 140n5–10, 140n12–14, 140n16–20, Athanassiadi, P., 18n8, 182 140n22, 141n23–25, 142, 143, 144, 145, Index nominum 195 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 159n38, 159n41, 159n45, 159n47–49, 154, 155, 155n1–2, 155n4–6, 156n7–9, 173n3, 173n7, 173n10, 174n13, 156n11, 156n13–15, 157n15–24, 174n16–17, 174n29, 176n49, 183 158n25–27, 158n31–33, 158n37, Constantia Postuma, 15 159n43–46, 159n50–52, 159n54–55, Constantine I (the Great), 3, 4, 8, 15, 16, 159n58, 160n59, 160n61, 160n63–64, 18n1, 18n4, 21n51, 37n38, 42, 46, 160n66, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 56n2, 59n53, 113, 116, 182, 183, 187 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, Constantine II, 3, 4 173n1–4, 173n6–7, 173n9–10, 173n12, Constantius (II), 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 15, 16, 18n2, 174n13–17, 174n20, 174n22, 174n29– 18n5–6, 18n13, 24, 37n37, 42, 43, 46, 31, 175n32–33, 175n35, 175n37, 49, 50, 52, 59n47, 59n60, 62, 74n35, 175n40, 175n42–47, 176n48–50, 177, 188, 191 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, Constans, 3, 4, 18n2 187, 188, 189, 190, 191 Copola, G., 110n1, 184 Basil (disciple of Eustathius of Sebaste), Corneanu, N., 111n11, 126n1, 126n7, 105 158n26, 184 Baudry, É., x Cornițescu, C., 75n49, 127n23, 181, 184 Baus, K., 59n53 (vezi Karla!!!), 182 Cortesi, M., 60n68, 183, 191 Baynes, N.H., 74n46, 182 Courtonne, Y., 110n2, 184 Beagon, Ph. M., 112n33, 112n37, 112n43, Crokatt, J., 37n41, 185 112n44, 126n9, 157n15, 182 Cumont, E., 73n16, 182 Benoit, Al., 156n10, 156n14, 157n15, Cumont, F., 73n16, 182 157n18, 182 Č‘unak, 47 Bernardakis, G., 19n25, 182 Curran, John, 18n12, 184 Bernardi, J., x, 156n11, 157n15, 158n29, Cyril, 65, 69, 71 159n40, 182 Bessièrs, L’Abbé M., 110n1, 182 Damasus, bishop of Rome, 120, 124, 125, Blockley, R.C., 58n25, 182 127n25, 127n27, 178, 190 Blumenthal, H.J., 155n2, 185 Damian, Th., 175n38, 184 Bobrinskoy, B., 126n8, 127n21, 182 Damșa, Th., 174n31, 184 Bodogae, T., 72n2, 75n49, 181, 182 Deferrary, J.R., 159n51, 173n1, 184 Bonis, C., 153, 154, 160n61, 160n66, 183 DelCogliano, M., 94n22, 184 Booth, A. D., 73n14, 183 Demophilus, 23, 26, 61 Børtnes, J., 159n43, 190 Demosthenes, 25, 107, 108, 109 Branişte, E., 36n27, 183 De Vogüé, 60n68, 183, 191 Brock, S., 60n68, 156n11, 157n16, 183, Dianius, 9, 10, 80, 81, 82, 83, 104, 143, 191 144, 157n18 Brenneke, H. Ch., 34n11, 183 Diehl, E., 175n32, 181 Brown, E., 58n22, 183 Diocletian, 44 Brown, P., 94n18, 95n41, 96n59, 183 Diogenes (Laertius), 167, 175n42, 181 Dolan, J.P., 182 Cameron, A., 18n1, 18n5, 18n7, 18n12, Dorandi, T., 175n42, 181 37n38, 96n51, 183, 184, 185, 187 Dorotheus, 99, 120 Capps, E., 173n1, 181 Dragon, G., 73n21, 184 Chadwick, H., 37n38, 112n44, 183 Duchesne, L., 76n62, 184 Chahin, M., 57n11, 183 Dumitrașcu, N., iii, iv, vii, ix, x, xii, Charlesworth, M.P., 35n14, 183 19n28, 19n31, 21n66, 34n8, 35n25, Chifăr, N., 127n14, 183 37n35, 72n3, 74n39, 127n14, 140n11, Chirvasie, I., 127n23, 183 158n27, 158n32–33, 159n44, 183, 184 Chițescu, N., 139n3, 140n5, 140n9, 183 Chosroes I and II, 56n2 Elian, Al., 72n2, 139n3, 182 Colibă, M., 19n32, 183 Elias, 91 Coman, I.G. 19n29, 21n67, 33n1, 36n29, Eŀishē, 57n3, 180 36n33, 37n34, 60n68, 112n50, 157n17, Elm, S., 94n7, 157n18, 184, 185 158n25, 158n26, 158n34, 158n36, Elphidius, 59n55 196 Index nominum Elpidios, 73n22, 99, 100 Galates, 16, 26 Emine, J.B., 75n53, 180 Gallay, P., 156n12, 156n14, 157n18, Emmelia, 10, 73n18 158n28, 158n33, 158n37, 159n39, 185 Ensslin, W., 158n37, 185 Gane, J.H., 159n55, 160n60, 174n14, 185 Euclid, 170 Garnsey, P., 18n1, 18n5, 18n7, 18n12, Eudoxius, 13, 20n40, 23, 24, 32, 34n14, 37n38, 96n51, 183, 184, 185, 187 86, 95n36 Garsoian, N.G., x, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, Eugenius, 15 53, 54, 56n2–3, 57n15, 57n17, 59n39, Eulalius, 104 59n41, 59n51, 59n57, 60n61, 60n70, Eunomius, 12, 20n46, 23, 24, 34n7, 60n72, 74n435, 75n47, 75n49, 180, 35n16, 35n18, 81, 84, 94n9, 94n12, 185, 186, 187 94n15–16, 95n27, 116, 181, 190, 191 Geanaklopos, D.J., 155n4, 155n6, 156n7, Euphronius, 100, 101 158n31, 173n1–2, 173n9, 186 Euripides, 163, 173n11, 181; (Pseudo), George (bishop of Alexandria), 82, 175n44, 181 157n18 Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, 7, 8, 22, Georgescu, M., 175n33, 186 99, 101, 102, 105, 111n25 Gholam, S., 96n58, 140n20, 186 Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea of Giet, S., 34n8, 94n10, 95n38, 96n58, Cappadocia, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 156n8, 156n14, 157n17, 157n23, 19n32–34, 20n43, 22, 54, 60n67, 83, 158n37, 186 84, 85, 86, 144, 153 Gnel, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea of Palestine, Gomoarius, 16 46 Gorce, D., 110n2, 186 Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, 104 Gratian, 7, 8, 19n23 Eustathius of Antioch, 23, 34n11, 103 Grattarola, P., 21n47, 186 Eustathius of Sebaste, 34n11, 55, 59n55, Gregory of Nazianzuz/Nazianzen, i, vii, 60n71, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74n40, ix, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20n38–39, 75n47, 75n61, 80, 83, 84, 85, 103, 104, 20n42, 20n44, 21n66, 22, 23, 26, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111n32, 112n33, 33n1–2, 34n8, 35n21–22, 36n31, 116, 126n9, 157n21 37n38–39, 64, 65, 66, 72n4, 74n33, 80, Eustathius (doctor), 90 81, 83, 84, 90, 96n61, 104, 110, 116, Eustochius, 147 126n10, 131, 139n1, 140n18, 143, 144, Euzoius, 7, 13, 20n40 146, 147, 148, 149, 156n13–14, Evagrius, 23, 34n11 157n18, 158n26–27, 158n32–33, Evloghios, 8 158n35, 159n42–44, 181, 184, 185, 188, 189, 190, 191 Faustina, 15 Gregory of Nazianzus, the elder, 22 Faustus, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75n51, 75n56, Gregory of Nyssa, 8, 9, 23, 24, 25, 75n61, 99 35n15–16, 35n18, 62, 94n16, 140n18, Faustus de Byzance, 69, 75n53, 75n57– 154, 160n62, 181, 189 60, 180 Gregory (St Basil’s uncle), 23, 105 Fedwick P. J., x, 60n67, 73n28, 185 Gregory the Illuminator, 41, 42, 44, 45, Firmilianus, 72n1 56n2, 57n3–4, 57n9, 58n27, 61, 72n1, Fleury, E., 156n12, 157n18, 158n25, 185 180, 188 Fleury, M. L’Abbé, 37n41, 185 Gregory Thaumaturgus/Miracle-Worker, Fortin, E.L., 155n2, 175n37, 185 90, 108 Fouyas, M.G., 128n31, 128n33–34, 185 Gribomont, J., 60n71, 111n32, 186 Fowden, G, 18n7, 155n3, 185 Grousset, R., 56n1, 57n4, 60n69, 186 Fox, M.M., 74n29, 173n12, 185 Frazee, C.A., 112n33, 156n8, 185 Hägg, T., 159n43, 190 Fries, A., 175n44, 181 Halliday, W.R., 20n34, 157n18, 186 Hällström, G., 127n23, 182 Gagu, C., 173n12, 185 Hamilton, W., 20n37, 73n6, 182 Gain, B., x, 33n3, 73n19, 73n22, 74n28, Harrell, C.L., 156n9, 156n11, 157n16, 96n55, 96n60, 185 157n19, 157n22, 157n24, 186 Index nominum 197 Hauschild, W.D., x Julius (general), 15 Haykin, M.G.A., 127n14, 186 Julius Caesar, 58n19, 189 Hefele, K.J., 95n32, 186 Helleman, W., 159n53, 186 Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, v, vii, xi Hermogenes, 104 Kardong, T.G., 60n71, 157n20, 188 Herodotus, 175n35, 181 Keidel, A., 93n3, 188 Hesiod, 165, 174n22, 176n50, 181 Khorenats‘i, Moses, (MK), 42, 48, 49, 50, Hesychios, 73n22 51, 57n3, 57n6–8, 59n46, 59n48–49, Hewsen, R.H., 56n2, 57n15, 57n16, 59n52, 180 60n66, 74n40, 75n54, 186, 187 Kopecek, T.A., 20n46, 34n7, 35n16, Himerius, 147, 157n18, 158n35, 182 94n14, 95n41, 96n63, 156n8, 158n29, Holder, A.G., 159n46, 159n50–51, 188 173n10, 173n12, 176n48, 187 Holman, S.R., 60n72, 74n40, 95n39, Labriolle, P., 110n5, 155n1, 157n15, 96n43, 96n59, 187 159n51, 188, 189 Homer, 165 Lang, D.M., 58n22, 58n26, 60n62, 188 Honigmann, E., 58n32, 187 Łazar P‘arpec‘i, 57n3, 180 Horden, P., 96n59, 187 Lazarus, 166 Hormisdas, 16 Leb, I.V., 35n25 Hovannisian, R.G. 57n4, 191 Leclerq, H., 95n32, 186 Hovhannissian, A., 56n1, 187 Lenski, N., 19n20, 112n46, 188 Hřip‘simē, 44 Leontius, 101 Hughes, I., 21n50–51, 21n54–60, Levy, H., 59n45, 188 21n62–65, 187 Libanius, the deacon, 102 Hunt, D., 18n1, 18n4–5, 18n10–11, Libanius, the teacher, 142, 143, 156– 157n15, 158n35, 159n44, 160n63, 191 96n51, 157n18, 187 Liberius, the Pope, 85, 86 Huxley, G., 93n2, 187 Lienhard, J.T., 127n24–25, 188 Lightfoot, C.S., 51, 59n60, 188 Isaac (the monk), 64 Lucius, Bishop of Samosata, 7 Ivan, I., 139n4, 187 Ludlow, M., 94n9, 94n12, 188 Ivánka, E., 156n8, 187 MacCormack, S., 74n35, 188 Jacks, Leo V., 174n15, 174n20, 175n43, Macrina the young 9, 10, 73n18, 108, 143, 187 152, 154, 157n21 Jazdegerd I and II, 56n1 Macrina the old, 108, 143 Jedin, H., 182 Magnentius, F.M., 18n2 Jeremiah, 114 Mahé, J.P., 57n15, 187 Jobinus, 99 Malan, S.C., 58n27, 188 John the Baptist, 35n15 Maraval, P., 73n14, 188 John Chrysostom, i, ix, 64, 142, 156n7 Marincola, J., 175n35, 181 John the presbyter, 34n6 Markus, R.A., 155n2, 185 Jones, A.H.M., 21n48, 73n16, 76n61, Marrou, H.I., 160n63, 188 93n2, 187 Mastroghiannopoulos, I., 96n44, 96n54, Jones, M., 157n21, 187 96n62, 188 Joseph of Arimathea, 166 Matthews, J.F., 73n17, 188 Jousig, 69, 70, 75n56 McGuckin, J.A., xii, 20n38, 159n42, 188 Jovian 5, 12, 18n12, 42, 43, 44, 58n19, 62, McGuire, M.R.P., 173n1, 181 63, 86, 120, 184 Mécérian, J., 57n5, 58n27, 58n30, 58n32, Julian, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18n2, 188 18n5, 18n8–11, 19–20n34, 20n46, Meletius, the bishop of Antioch, 7, 8, 65, 21n47, 42, 43, 58n19, 62, 84, 142, 143, 69, 120, 122, 123, 124, 127n25 147, 153, 155n1, 155n3, 157n18, 179, Meletius, the messenger of St Basil, 98 182, 185, 186, 187, 189 Meletius, the doctor, 90 Julianus the monk, 34n4 Mendieta, E.A., 159n52, 188 198 Index nominum Menedemus, 34n13 Peter, priest, 120 Modestus, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34n7, 35n15, Pfister, E.J., 154, 160n62, 189 36n32 Piganiol, A., 95n29, 189 Moffatt, A., 159n58, 189 Pitios, 167 Mohr, J.C.B., 34n11, 183 Plato, 174n14, 174n20, 175n40, 181, 190 Musonius, 136 Popescu, E., 19n23, 36n29, 37n36, 60n63, 73n22, 140n4, 155n5, 159n45, 174n12, Naldini, M., 160n64, 189 176n47, 183, 185, 187, 189, 190, 191 Naucratius, 154 Potter, D., 58n19, 189 Nerses, v, ix, x, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, Pouchet, R., x, 60n68, 73n7, 94n24, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56n2, 57, 96n58, 183, 189, 191 57n8, 59, 59n41, 59n50, 59n57, 60n61, Procopius, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20n37– 60n63, 60n67, 60n69, 60n72, 68, 69, 38, 20n46, 21n47, 21n49, 21n51, 62, 70, 71, 72, 74n40, 74n43–44, 74n46, 182 75n47, 75n49, 75n54, 75n56, 180, 185 Prodicos, 164 Nicodemus, 166 Prohaeresius/Proairesios, 147, 148, 158n37, 185 Odysseus, 165 Puech, A., 152, 156n15, 159n56, 189 Olympias, 47, 48, 49, 50 Ormanian, M., 56n1, 57n16, 58n30, Ramsay, W.M., 19n25, 74n38, 95n37, 58n33, 189 156n8, 189 Rămureanu, I., 18n1–3, 18n6, 18n8–10, Page, T.E., 173n1, 181 18n15, 19n24, 58n24, 72n1, 75n54–55, Palanque, J.R., 110n5, 189 93n1, 94n13, 95n30–31, 189 Palladius, 34n6 Reeve, C.D.C., 174n20, 181 Pap, 44, 49, 50, 56n2, 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, Reilly, G., 74n42, 96n64, 190 73n26, 74n29, 75n54, 75n56, 76n62 Richard, M., 111n9, 190 Papa(s), 69, 70, 71, 75n56 Ritter, A., x Papadopoulos, S., 19n30, 19n33, Roman, Gabriel, 19n23, 190 20n34–36, 20n41, 20n43, 36n27–32, Rouse, W.H.D., 173n1, 181 37n36, 60n63, 66, 68, 72n5, 74n34, 74n36, 74n38, 94n4–6, 94n8, 94n11, Rousseau, Ph., x, 157n17, 159n54, 173n6, 94n17, 94n19–26, 96n45, 96n49, 173n12, 190 112n35, 112n37–39, 112n41–42, Rubenson, S., 159n43, 190 112n44–45, 112n47–48, 114, 126n2, Russell, J.R., 56n1, 57n13–14, 58n20, 127n13, 128n32, 139n1–2, 141n25, 58n24, 58n30–31, 190 156n14, 157n18, 158n33, 189 P ̔aŕanjem, 47 Sabinus, 99, 110n7, 111n8–9, 190 Patlagean, E., 96n44, 189 Sahak the Great, 42, 56n2 Patrucco, M.F., 95n38, 95n40–41, 96n51, Sanctissimus, 98, 99 189 Sandukht, 42 Paul, the apostle, 84 Sauromaces/Saurmarg, 44, 68 Paul, the priest, 101, 102 Sayce, A.H., 35n14, 190 Paulinus, 120, 122, 124 Schaff, Ph., 19n21, 20n39, 21n46, 34n6, Pavel, C.C., 155n5, 173n4, 189 34n10, 180, 181 P’awstos Buzand (PB), 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, Sebēos, 57n3, 180 50, 51, 53, 57n3, 57n5–6, 58n23, Seibt, W., 58n32, 190 58n37, 59n38, 59n42–43, 59n50, Sélincourt, A., 175n35, 181 60n65, 60n67, 73n26, 180 Semen, P., 74n39, 184 Payaslian, S., 57n12, 189 Seniachus, 73n17 Peeters, P., 74n45, 189 Sesboüé B., 126n8, 126n12, 190 Pericles, 170 Shapur (II), 42, 43 (the second), 44, 48, Petcu, L., 74n39, 184 51, 59n46 Peter, bishop of Alexandria, 7, 8 Shear, Th.L., 174n14, 174n20, 190 Peter, bishop of Sebaste, 105, 154 Shepardson, C., 94n15–16, 190 Index nominum 199 Silvanus (of Tarsus), 85 Vaggione, R.P., 95n27, 191 Silvas, A.M., 140n10, 190 Valens, i, v, ix, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, Simonetti, M., 34n5, 34n11, 190 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18n13–17, 19n18– Simplicios, 69 20, 19n22–23, 19n33, 20n37, 20n40, Snee, R., 18n13–17, 19n19–20, 18n22, 20n42, 20n46, 21n50–51, 22, 23, 24, 190 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, Socrates, the historian, 34n10–13, 95n32, 34n13–14, 35n14–16, 35n24–25, 95n34, 181 37n35, 37n38–39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, Socrates, the philosopher, 170 47, 49, 53, 59n39, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, Solon, 164, 165 66, 67, 68, 72, 73n14, 74n29, 74n38– Sophronius, the disciple of St Basil, 65, 39, 75n49, 84, 85, 86, 95n29, 95n36,100, 107, 111n24, 112n46, 114, 101 118, 123, 131, 138, 144, 177, 178, 184, Sophronius, the disciple of Eustathius, 187, 188, 190 105 Valentinian, 5, 7, 15, 16, 21n50, 48, 62, Soranus, J., 100 63, 85, 95n29, 187 Sozomenos, 20n46, 34n10, 95n32–33, Van Dam, R., x, 19n26–27, 34n14, 37n37, 95n35–36, 181 59n40, 73n18, 94n10, 112n53, 140n15, Stăniloae, D., 94n27, 175n38, 184, 190 140n17, 158n35, 158n37, 191 Sterk, A., x, 35n15, 140n18, 190 Vanderspoel, J., 18n13, 191 Stockert, W., 173n11, 181 Vardan (Mamikonian), 42, 56n1, 57, 180 Strachey, M.C., 159n58, 190 Vark‘Mashtots‘i, 56n1, 180 Stramara, D.F., 94n7, 190 Vicovan, I., 60n63, 191 Victor, 62, 63, 64, 66 Taylor, J., 127n27, 190 Vogüé, De., 60n68, 183 Terentius, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 71, 73n19, Voicu, C., xi, 19n28, 19n31, 126n6, 184, 73n22, 73n26, 137 191 Theodore, 34n13 Vologases II, 56n2 Theodoret, 19n21, 34n4, 35n19, 35n24, Vram, 56n1 73n23–24, 95n36, 111n24, 112n46–47, Vratnes, 42 181 Theodosius, the emperor, 8, 18n12–13, 42, Wace, H., 19n21, 20n39, 34n6, 111n25, 44, 47, 56n2, 184, 191 180, 181, 191 Theodosius, the General, 48, 49, 50 Wagner, M.M., 140n8, 181 Wallace-Hadrill, A., 20n37, 73n6, 182 Theodotus, Bishop of Nicopolis, 65, 69, Ward, M., 37n40, 96n44, 96n63, 127n27, 71, 72, 102, 106 160n63, 188, 191 Theodotus, Bishop of Berea, 111n21 Wardman, A.E., 21n48, 191 Theognis, 164, 167, 170, 175n32, 175n34, Way, A.C., 181 175n43, 181 Wenzel, A., 158n35, 159n44, 191 Theophilus, 85 West, M.L., 174n22, 176n50, 181 Thomson, R.W., 56n1, 57n3–4, 57n15, Williams, G.H., 37n39, 191 58n31–32, 59n44, 180, 187, 190, 191 Wood, T., 37n41, 185 Tiridates (II), 56n2, 72n1; (III), 42, 44, 45, 56n2; (IV – the Great), 56n2, 57n3, Xosrov II, 44 75n54, 187 Xosrov III, 42 Tirit, 46, 47, 50 Trajan, 76n61 Yakob, 45 Toumanoff, C., 56n2, 191 Yorke, V.W., 19n25, 191 Trdat, 48 Yudin, V., 12 Yusik, 42 Uluhogian, G., x, 60n68, 75n48, 75n56, 191 Zacchaeus, 167 Urbanus, 34n13 Zăgrean, I., 175n47, 191 General index

Arianism, 4, 7, 11, 22, 32, 46, 84, 104, 60n67, 60n70, 61, 62, 64, 66, 72, 72n1, 114, 116, 117, 121, 123; Anomoians/ 72n2, 73n28, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, Anomoios, 80, 82, 84, 94n9; 89, 90, 91, 93, 94n7, 94n22, 95n29, Anomoeans, 6; Arians, 5, 13, 14, 23, 28, 96n43, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 32, 33, 47, 80, 84, 104, 111n24, 118, 109, 111n25, 111n32, 113, 114, 115, 121; Eudoxians, 113; Eunomians, 113; 118, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, Eunomian doctrine, 84; Eusebians, 113; 127n23, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, Eustathians, 103, 104; Homean/ 137, 138, 139, 139n4, 140n11, 140n14, Homeanism, 81; Homoean/Acacian, 6, 140n20, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 8; Homoians/Homoios, 80, 82, 84, 85, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 94n12; Homoiousians, 6, 9, 80, 81, 82, 155n1, 155n2, 155n4, 155n6, 156n7, 83, 85, 94n22, 104, 107, 184; 156n8, 157n18, 157n21, 158n31, Marcelians, 113; Neo-Arianism 13, 158n33, 159n45, 159n46, 159n48, 20n46, 34n7, 35n16, 94n9, 94n14, 188; 159n50, 159n51, 159n52, 159n55, Neo-Arians, 14, 20n40, 20n46, 47, 118, 160n60, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 121; Semi-Arians, 6, 7, 9, 20n41, 22, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 34n11, 81, 86, 95n33 173n1, 173n2, 173n3, 173n7, 173n9, 173n10, 173n12, 174n13, 174n14, Basiliad(a), x, 53, 54, 89, 90, 96n58, 174n16, 174n17, 174n29, 176n48, 140n20, 144, 179, 186 176n49, 177, 178, 179, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191; Christ, vi, 9, 10, 12, 31, 45, 61, 87, 89, 93, Christianisation, 8, 56n2, 57n3; 99, 103, 106, 109, 110, 114, 115, 117, Christianisme, 156n12, 157n18, 119, 122, 125, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 158n25, 185 136, 137, 139, 141, 142, 164, 166, 167, Christology, 37n39, 191; Body of Christ, 168, 170, 171, 175n47; Jesus, 61, 89, 115, 133, 134; Lord, 36n26, 64, 65, 101, 93, 106, 109,114, 119, 122, 132, 133, 109, 110n7, 117, 126, 133, 134, 137; 134, 135, 164, 166, 167, 168, 171, 172 Son (of God) Christianity, i, v, ix, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, Church(es), i, v, vii, ix, x, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18n6, 18n8, 18n9, 18n10, 19, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18n1, 18n2, 18n3, 21, 36n26, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 55, 18n6, 18n15, 19n24, 19n34, 20n42, 57n3, 58n22, 58n32, 61, 86, 94n18, 97, 20n43, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 107, 134, 140n18, 142, 148, 150, 155, 33, 34n14, 35n15, 35n26, 36n26, 155n1, 155n2, 155n3, 159n53, 162, 37n39, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 171, 175n37, 178, 179, 183, 185, 186, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 56n1, 57n9, 189, 190; Christian(s), i, iii, vi, x, 3, 4, 57n10, 57n16, 57n17, 58n19, 58n21, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18n6, 19n32, 58n23, 58n24, 58n27, 58n28, 58n29, 19n34, 21n66, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 58n30, 58n31, 58n32, 58n33, 58n34, 36n32, 37n37, 37n38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 58n35, 59n53, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 52, 55, 57n4, 58n31, 59n40, 59n44, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 72n1, 72n2, 74, General index 201 75n54, 75n55, 76n62, 79, 80, 81, 82, 181, 185, 187, 188, 190, 191; 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, Catholicos(ate), ix, 42, 45, 51, 53, 54, 93n1, 94n9, 94n12, 94n13, 94n15, 57n10, 58n35, 182; Deacon(s), 31, 45, 95n30, 95n31, 95n41, 96n51, 96n63, 67, 70, 81, 102, 110n7, 111n8, 120; 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 105, 106, 107, Deaconesses, 65; Father (clergymen), 108, 109, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 94n27, 175n38, 184; Priest(s)/ 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, presbyter(s), 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 26, 126n6, 127n24, 131, 132, 133, 134, 31, 45, 54, 60n67, 67, 69, 83, 84, 87, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140n4, 140n8, 95n28, 98, 99, 102, 104, 114, 120, 132, 140n12, 140n13, 141n24, 142, 147, 144, 152, 153, 154; Priesthood/priestly, 151, 155n3, 156n7, 156n8, 156n13, 9, 19n33, 83, 104, 114; Metropolitan, v, 157n18, 158n30, 159n51, 168, 169, vii, xi, 9, 16, 17, 21n66, 28, 30, 31, 66, 170, 174n30, 174n31, 175n32, 175n45, 87, 88, 113, 133, 148, 178 175n46, 177, 178, 181, 182, 184, 185, Church/Ecclesiastical matters: 187, 188, 189, 190, 191; Byzantine Ecclesiastical affairs/preferment, 9, Church, 44; Cappadocian Church, 68, 100; Ecclesiastical analysis, 57n15, 178; Eastern Church, 119, 120, 124; 187; Ecclesiastical authority, 140n18; Local churches, x; Orthodox Church, Ecclesiastical history, 19n21, 20n46, 25; Universal church, 3, 18n1, 18n2, 34n4, 34n10, 34n11, 34n12, 34n13, 18n3, 18n6, 18n15, 19n24, 58n24, 35n19, 35n24, 37n41, 59n53, 59n54, 72n1, 92, 93n1, 94n13, 95n30, 95n31, 59n55, 59n56, 73n23, 73n24, 95n32, 109, 124, 125, 131, 134, 142, 189; 95n33, 95n34, 95n35, 95n36, 111n24, Western Church, 35n26, 99 112n46, 112n47, 159n52, 181, 185, Church Father(s), xi, 3, 19n21, 20n39, 188; Ecclesiastical mission, 79; 21n46, 26, 34n6, 34n10, 41, 46, 60n68, Ecclesiastical politics, 52, 112n33, 65, 71, 74n39, 83, 86, 95n41, 96n63, 112n37, 112n43, 112n44, 126n9, 182; 99, 104, 105, 109, 112n33, 112n37, Ecclesiastical powers, ix; Ecclesiastical 112n43, 112n44, 122, 126n9, 131, 136, scene, 84; Ecclesiastical unity, 113; 137, 138, 140n8, 140n12, 140n13, Doctrine, i, iii, 4, 6, 9, 11, 24, 27, 33, 141n24, 152, 156n8, 157n17, 157n18, 46, 56n1, 57n16, 64, 72, 79, 80, 81, 84, 158n25, 158n26, 158n29, 158n34, 104, 116, 122, 126, 126n8, 126n9, 135, 158n36, 159n38, 159n41, 159n47, 137, 140n11, 148, 149, 178, 184, 189, 159n49, 171, 173, 174n30, 174n31, 190; Faith, i, iii, vii, xii, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 175n33, 175n38, 175n45, 175n46, 180, 14, 17, 20n41, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188 34n6, 35n23, 36n34, 37n38, 55, 61, 63, Church hierarchy: Bishop(s)/ 64, 65, 66, 72n1, 74n45, 79, 80, 81, 82, archbishop(s), vii, ix, x, xi, 3, 6, 7, 9, 83, 85, 88, 92, 93, 95n33, 97, 98, 99, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19n32, 19n33, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 20n41, 20n43, 21n66, 22, 23, 24, 25, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34n6, 34n7, 124, 125, 126n1, 131, 132, 133, 134, 34n14, 35n15, 35n23, 35n24, 36n31, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140n14, 142, 144, 37n34, 37n38, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 147, 148, 150, 156n7, 157n18, 159n51, 53, 54, 57n3, 59n55, 60n67, 60n71, 61, 178, 179; Nicaean faith, vii, 5, 7, 9, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 20n41, 30, 32, 79, 80, 105, 106, 116, 72n1, 74n44, 74n46, 75n49, 75n50, 118, 121, 122, 125, 131, 144, 178 75n61, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, Community, xii, 10, 27, 31, 54, 61, 67, 91, 95n28, 95n36, 96n59, 98, 99, 100, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 143, 144 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, Communion, ix, x, 11, 14, 35n24, 36n34, 110, 111n21, 111n23, 111n25, 112n44, 37n38, 37n39, 67, 69, 73n7, 94n24, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 96n58, 104, 105, 107, 109, 114, 115, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127n25, 127n27, 118, 121, 122, 126n8, 127n21, 134, 132, 133, 136, 138, 140n11, 140n18, 135, 140n14, 169, 182, 189 143, 144, 152, 153, 156n7, 157n18, Council (synod), 3, 7, 8, 24, 32, 35n20, 159n52, 166, 174n12, 177, 178, 180, 37n38, 41, 47, 49, 50, 59n53, 72, 80, 202 General index 81, 82, 83, 86, 113, 115, 116, 121, 124, v, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 126, 126n1, 155n2, 178, 183; 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 84; Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, 3, 7, 32, Ecclesiastical diplomacy, 52, 118, 142; 41, 82, 113, 116, 121, 124; Ecumenical Missionary diplomacy, 103; Religious Council of Constantinople (381), 3, 8, diplomacy, 20n45; Social diplomacy, 86 35n20, 72, 178; Council of Dogma(tic), 66, 103, 111n24, 114, 132, Constantinople (360), 8, 24, 126; 155n1 Council of Ephesus (431), 37n38, 183; Doxology, 117 Councils of Seleucia (359), 50, 126n1; Council of Constantinople, 50; Council Eternal death, 175n33 of Rimini (359), 50, 12n1; Council of Eternal life, 159n46, 161, 164, 166, Alexandria (361), 83 175n37 Creed, 13, 14, 22, 61, 80, 81, 85, 95n33, Exile, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18n13, 18n14, 18n15, 113, 116, 146 18n16, 18n17, 19n18, 19n19, 19n22, Culture, vi, x, 18n8, 20n34, 92, 129, 131, 23, 32, 33, 34n7, 35n24, 46, 47, 49, 50, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 143, 144, 53, 54, 55, 58n19, 59n50, 61, 65, 68, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 79, 81, 100, 101, 102, 111n24, 118, 119, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 121, 122, 138, 190 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 179, 183; Christian/Religious Family, xii, 10, 18n6, 19n26, 19n27, culture, 20n34, 131, 150, 151, 155n1, 37n36, 42, 43, 49, 50, 55, 57n4, 63, 64, 163, 173, 174n14; Greek/Hellenic 65, 72n1, 73n18, 73n22, 79, 80, 88, 89, culture, vi, x, 140, 142, 143, 145, 147, 90, 91, 93n2, 100, 104, 108, 139, 143, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 155, 157, 159, 145, 147, 149, 150, 152, 154, 156n8, 159n45, 159n48, 173n3, 174n16, 158n30, 158n35, 171, 172, 178, 189; Brother(s), 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 18n2, 174n17, 174n29, 183; Pagan/Profane 21n50-60, 21n62-65, 23, 24, 35n15, 48, culture, 18n8, 131, 142, 148, 150, 151, 59n46, 62, 70, 71, 84, 89, 99, 100, 102, 155n5, 157n18, 162, 163, 164, 172, 105, 111n8, 115, 120, 124, 136, 154, 173n4, 173n7, 173n10, 174n13, 160n62, 171, 181, 187, 189; Cousin, 4, 175n44, 176n49, 189 15, 18n2, 50, 154; Daughter, 15, 42, 47, 63, 65; Father, 3, 32, 33, 42, 104, 143, Dignity, v, vi, vii, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 144, 154, 156n11; Grandmother, 108, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 143; Mother, 10, 14, 108, 143; Nephew, 32, 34, 36, 39n29, 64, 111n24, 129, 132, 47, 50, 59n46, 89, 152, 154, 160n61, 134, 136, 138, 140, 144, 146, 148, 150, 160n63, 160n65, 160n6, 183; Sister(s), 152, 154, 156, 156n7, 158, 160, 162, xii, 9, 10, 63, 108, 140n8, 143, 152, 164, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178 154, 157n21, 160n62, 181, 189 Diocese, 7, 10, 28, 41, 54, 65, 68, 69, 72, Friendship(s), vii, 22, 28, 63, 65, 66, 85, 86, 109, 118, 124, 136, 137, 138, 75n47, 87, 89, 105, 108, 116, 118, 119, 144; Bishopric (s), 19n25, 118, 123, 123, 131, 143, 157n18, 157n21; 125; Episcopate/Archiepiscopate, 92, Atypical friendship, 21n66, 34n8, 114, 118; Episcopal (seat/chair etc), 7, 156n13, 158n27, 158n32, 158n33, 9, 70, 81, 118, 183; Jurisdiction(al), 28, 159n44, 184; Friend(s), 7, 10, 11, 12, 65, 75n49, 122, 124, 125; 13, 14, 17, 19n26, 19n27, 23, 25, 26, Metropolitanate, 27 29, 30, 32, 34n14, 36n31, 50, 52, Diplomacy, i, iii, v, vi, 14, 20n43, 20n45, 58n19, 62, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 73n18, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 73n22, 74n42, 75n49, 80, 81, 82, 83, 49, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59n46, 60, 62, 88, 90, 91, 94n10, 97, 100, 101, 102, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 77, 80, 82, 84, 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 112n46, 86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 112n53, 114, 116, 118, 131, 132, 136, 103, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 139n1, 140n15, 140n17, 144, 146, 147, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 136, 137, 148, 149, 156n13, 157n18, 158n32, 142, 143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 153, 155, 158n35, 158n37, 166, 171, 172, 177, 157, 159, 162, 177; Church diplomacy, 191; Friendly, 84, 88, 173 General index 203 God, xii, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19n23, 27, 28, 29, 68, 87, 89, 95n36, 118, 125, 131, 132, 30, 31, 32, 36n27, 45, 62, 64, 65, 66, 177 81, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94n7, Mission(s), i, iii, v, ix, x, 13, 15, 31, 33, 97, 98, 99, 109, 110, 113, 114, 115, 116, 37n35, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 118, 123, 125, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 137, 138, 139, 143, 145, 149, 158n30, 59, 59n41, 59n57, 60, 60n61, 60n72, 159n46, 164, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 177, 179, 184; Divinity, 46, 72, 115, 72, 73, 73n7, 74, 74n39, 74n40, 75, 117, 122, 127n23, 178; Glory (of God), 75n48, 76, 79, 81, 87, 93, 95, 97, 98, 3, 93, 116, 117; God(s), 5, 44, 155n2, 99, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 109, 162; Godhead, 116, 117; Godliness, 117 110n5, 111, 111n9, 123, 131, 137, 138, 148, 149, 177, 178, 184, 185, 187, 190; Heresy, 24, 37n38, 85, 86, 100, 107, 108, Anti-missionary (activity), 103, 109; 114, 118, 123, 126, 183; Heretic(s), 5, Counter-mission, v, 97, 99, 101, 103, 22, 26, 67, 103, 104, 111n25, 114; 105, 106, 107, 109, 111; Missionary Heretical, 68, 85, 121, 137 (activities), v, vii, 41, 42, 52, 68, 79, 92, Heterodoxy, 65 111n9, 131; Missionary challenge, 79; Holiness, 28, 102, 116, 117, 118, 122 Missionary cleric, 79; Missionary Holy Scripture, 79, 92, 132, 135, 161, 164 diplomacy, 103; Missionary strategy, Home(land), xi, 10, 46, 49, 54, 59n50, 61, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 113, 65, 69, 76n61, 81, 85, 101, 101, 104, 115, 121, 122, 123; Skilled missionary, 168, 143, 148, 157n15, 170, 178 178 Humility, vi, vii, 9, 10, 29, 93, 120, 124, Monasticism, i, vii, ix, 60n70, 92, 94, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 112n40, 145, 186, 190; Monastic 140, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, communities, 11, 17, 22, 104, 108; 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 169, 170, Monastic life (world), 10, 11, 19n32, 171, 172, 174, 175n47, 176, 178 80, 84, 92, 104, 106, 108, 154, 156n8, 157n21, 177, 183, 185; Monastic Leader(s), i, vi, vii, ix, x, 3, 6, 11, 13, 15, philosophy, 94n7; Monastic rules, 10, 16, 20n41, 28, 30, 36n32, 41, 43, 45, 19n32, 83, 104, 143, 183; Monastic 48, 51, 59n37, 60n61, 61, 62, 64, 68, settlements, 143; Monastic spirituality 69, 71, 74n45, 79, 83, 101, 113, 122, (path), 10, 158n30; Monastic vocation, 125, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 80, 104, 106 137, 138, 139, 140n17, 140n21, 141, 154, 161, 162, 163, 165, 167, 168, 169, New Testament, 35n15 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 178, 179; Leadership, 4, 13, 15, 35n15, 44, Old Testament, 35n15 96n59, 124, 131, 135, 137, 140n18, Oikonomia, 116 156n7, 179, 183, 190 Oikumene, 114, 116, 126n6, 191 Light, ix, 10, 30, 31, 32, 67, 90, 136, 137, Orthodox(y), i, ix, x, 12, 20n42, 22, 23, 174n31, 177, 184; Enlighten(ment), 6, 25, 26, 27, 29, 33, 37n38, 59n39, 61, 45, 55, 67, 69, 117, 143, 150 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 74n45, 79, Liturgy, 10, 27, 31, 37n39, 56n1, 57n16, 80, 83, 85, 86, 94n12, 94n15, 94n16, 67, 68, 189; Liturgical (activities), i, ix, 95n29, 106, 122, 138, 142, 155n4, 183, 10, 92, 103, 137; Prayer(s), 10, 13, 185, 186, 190 20n41, 29, 30, 32, 45, 64, 67, 79, 81, 83, 92, 93, 93n3, 100, 104, 105, 118, Pagan(s/ism), 4, 5, 18n6, 18n8, 19n34, 45, 121, 122, 133, 13, 141n25, 143, 84, 100, 131, 142, 147, 148, 149, 150, 158n30, 164, 188; Worship, 31, 36n29, 152, 155, 155n1, 155n2, 156n7, 44, 116, 142, 183 157n18, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, Loneliness, 93, 146, 167 172, 173, 174n15, 175n44, 179 Patristic(a/s), vii, ix, 19n33, 20n46, 34n5, Military (activities), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 35n15, 65, 73n7, 93n3, 95n38, 111n11, 16, 26, 29, 30, 36n28, 43, 62, 63, 64, 126n1, 126n7, 128n31, 131, 157n15, 204 General index 158n26, 159n51, 178, 181, 182, 184, Divine light, 67; Divine nature, 117; 185, 188, 189, 190 Divine status, 115, 116, 119, 178; Person(al/ally), 3, 5, 6, 7, 15, 17, 20n42, Divine substance, 8; Essence, 80, 81, 20n43, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 41, 45, 93, 94n9, 94n12, 106, 116, 117; Father, 51, 55, 61, 64, 66, 70, 71, 73n26, 8, 9, 11, 31, 66, 80, 81, 82, 83, 94n9, 75n56, 79, 84, 88, 89, 97, 98, 99, 101, 94n12, 103, 104, 113, 116, 117, 127n23, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111n8, 133, 134, 135, 140n11; Holy Spirit/ 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 122, 123, Ghost, 66, 67, 72, 83, 85, 86, 104, 109, 127n23, 132, 133, 134, 138, 139, 144, 115, 116, 117, 126n8, 127n21, 127n23, 145, 146, 149, 150, 152, 161, 163, 164, 131, 134, 178, 182, 183, 184 165, 169, 170, 171, 172, 177, 178; Trinity (Holy), Son (of God), 8, 9, 11, 46, Personality, vii, xi, 3, 18n6, 19n29, 66, 72, 80, 81, 82, 83, 94n9, 94n12, 21n67, 22, 28, 29, 33n1, 36n33, 44, 47, 103, 104, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 121, 57n3, 61, 64, 70, 86, 109, 164, 172, 127n23, 133, 140n11, 168; Divinity of 177, 183 Christ (of the Son), 46, 72, 115, 122, Philosophy, 4, 5, 6, 18n17, 94n7, 132, 143, 127n23; Divinity of the Holy Spirit, 146, 147, 148, 149, 154, 155, 155n3, 117, 127n23, 178; Humanity of Jesus 155n5, 158n33, 159n52, 161, 162, 163, Christ, 61; Homoousios/Homoousion, 173n4, 174n20, 179, 185, 188, 189; 7, 80, 82, 85, 95n33, 113, 115, 121, 178; Platonic/Neoplatonic, 5, 142, 175n40; Homoousians, 9, 82, 85, 95n33; Neoplatonism, 155n2, 185; Hypostasis (se), 35n15, 126n12, 190; Philosopher(s), 149, 150, 164, 165, Ousia, 94n12; Subsistence, 116; 174n14, 175n42, 181 Substance (divine), 8; Trinitarian Pneumatology, 115; Pneumatomachians, terminology/theology, i, ix, 81, 94n22, 86; Pneumatomachism, 127n14, 183 105, 177; Trinitarian persons/godliness, Poverty, 89, 93, 96n43, 96n59, 158n30, 117 174n31, 183, 184, 187 Unity, v, x, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 17, 20, 27, 55, Sabellianism, 112n43 69, 70, 72, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 93, 97, Salvation, 33, 46, 93, 116, 133, 135, 136, 98, 99, 103, 105, 106, 113, 114, 115, 137, 138, 145, 150 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, Sin(ners), 29, 134, 163, 164, 167, 169, 126n6, 127, 132, 133, 136, 138, 139n4, 170, 171, 175n47, 190 178, 182, 187, 191; Unity of the Slave(s)/slavery, 47, 114, 150, 168, 169, Church, v, x, 14, 20n42, 69, 70, 72n2, 171 79, 82, 84, 93, 97, 98, 99, 105, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, Theology, i, x, xi, 6, 12, 14, 20n41, 33, 83, 125, 126n6, 127, 132, 136, 138, 139n4, 92, 93, 94n22, 97, 115, 116, 127n14, 178, 182, 187, 191; Unity of the empire/ 132, 158n31, 175n38, 177, 178, 184, state, 6, 7, 8, 17, 27, 72, 79, 178; Unity 186 of the faith/doctrine, 82, 83, 86, 97, 103, Tradition(s), 11, 19n33, 32, 35n26, 47, 79, 106, 122, 126 82, 83, 90, 108, 109, 110n1, 114, 116, 132, 135, 136, 137, 142, 143, 153, Wisdom, 4, 36n29, 82, 83, 86, 106, 131, 160n64, 172, 174n14, 182 136, 137, 140n21, 146, 154, 163, 164, Trinity (Holy), 72, 95n27, 114, 117, 118, 165, 167, 169, 170, 172 127n23, 133, 140n14, 178, 190; Divine attributes, 127n23; Divine filiation, 134; Zoroastrianism/Mazdeism, 43, 56n1, Divine Grace, 30; Divine human 57n13, 57n14, 58n20, 58n22, 58n24, structure, 115; Divine humanity, 61; 58n30, 58n31, 190