Eusebius of Caesarea

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA. - Father of ecclesiastical history.

I. LIFE

Born ca. 265, died at Caesarea in Palestine in 339 or 340. His particular gratitude toward the martyr Pamphilus, whose name he took, Εὐσέβιος τοῦ Παμφίλου, has led to the supposition that E. was his slave, but it seems rather that the noble and learned Pamphilus, whom he met at Caesarea in the time of Bishop Agapius (Hist. eccl., VII, 32, 25), was his beneficent friend and teacher, as St. Jerome attests (De viris illustribus, 81; PL 23, 727). E. attended the learned Antiochene priest Dorotheus (Hist. eccl., VII, 32, 2-3), but it was above all at Caesarea, seat of the rich library founded by Origen, that he completed his scientific formation and that Pamphilus initiated him into the Alexandrian philological method.

During the great persecution (303-11), which he later described with moving touches, he witnessed the destruction of sacred buildings, the burning of sacred books and savage scenes of martyrdom not only in Palestine, but in Phoenicia and even in distant Thebaid. At Caesarea he was at the side of Pamphilus (cf. Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 118; PG 103, 396-400), imprisoned on 15 Nov. 307, and with him he collaborated on the drafting of the Apologia pro Origene, interrupted by the martyr's decapitation (16 Feb. 310), to which he later added a sixth book. Spared by the persecution (there was later malicious gossip about this singular exception: cf. the words of Potamon at the Synod of Tyre of 335, in Epiphanius, Panarion, Haeresis, 68, 8; PG 42, 197), he was elected bishop of the important metropolitan see of Caesarea between 313 and 315 ca., in any case before the great festivities for the dedication of the church of Tyre (ca. 315-16), in which he took part with a panegyric (Hist. eccl., X, 4). At the Council of Nicaea, entrusted with the official address to Constantine, according to the Vita Constantini (III, 11; Socrates, Hist. eccl., I, 18; whereas Theodoret, Hist. eccl., I, 7 attributes the speech to Eustathius of Antioch), he brought the contribution of his vast and sure erudition to the fixing of the date of Easter, causing the Alexandrian nineteen-year cycle to triumph. With the bishops of the Council of Tyre (335), he went to Jerusalem for the solemn dedication of the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, then came to Constantinople where he delivered the occasional speech for Constantine's Tricennalia. At Caesarea E. continued to enrich the library, dear inheritance of the admired Origen and of his great teacher Pamphilus. The scriptorium too, the necessary complement of the library, received a new impulse from E.; suffice it to recall the fact, to demonstrate its activity, that Constantine turned to E. to obtain 50 codices of Holy Scripture (cf. Vita Constantini, IV, 36-37).

The day of his deposition is remembered in the Breviarium Syriacum, on 30 May; in the Hieronymian Martyrology, on 21 June: "In Caesarea Palestinae deposita Eusebi episcopi historiographi" (Martyr. Hieronymianum, p. 328), a notice later passed into the Martyrology of Usuard (cf. ed. J.-B. Du Sollier, Acta SS. Juni, VI, Venice 1745, pp. 350-51) and into the Roman one, until the revision by Baronio. Acacius, E.'s successor at Caesarea, wrote his life (Sozomen, Hist. eccl., I, 4), which has not yet been found.

His attitude toward Arianism has always been much discussed: an enemy of the ἐξοδόξιος, an expression that to him smacked of Sabellianism, he received Arius at Caesarea and defended him, extolled his doctrine and reinstated him in his functions (323-24); the Council of Antioch (end of 324) excommunicated him; at the Council of Nicaea (325) he signed, after some hesitation, the formula of faith containing the "consubstantial" because it was suggested (more precisely, sponsored) by the Emperor, as he skillfully writes in the letter of justification to his diocesans (Socrates, Hist. eccl., I, 8). After Nicaea E. continued to favor Arius and his party and worked to remove from their sees the defenders of the "consubstantial," such as Asclepiades of Gaza in 326, Eustathius of Antioch in 330, but he refused to succeed him, and above all Athanasius in 335, and Marcellus of Ancyra in 336. In his writings E. shows himself more cautious; his Trinitarian doctrine and especially his Christology is imprecise, as was the Origenist one which, in order to combat Sabellian modalism, fell into subordinationism. However benign one may wish to be in interpreting not a few of his Christological expressions, the fact remains that with his namesake friend, bishop of Nicomedia, he figures among the most formidable opponents of the "consubstantial," given also the prestige he enjoyed as a learned man with Constantine and the episcopate of the East. This easily explains the appellation of δίγλωσσος given to him (Socrates, Hist. eccl., I, 23), and the severe judgments passed on his orthodoxy by St. Athanasius (cf.

De decretis Nicaenae Synodi, 3: PG 25, 420), St. Epiphanius (cf. Panarion, haeresis, 68, 8: ibid., 42, 197), St. Jerome (cf. Epist. 133 ad Ctesiphontem, 3: CSEL 56, p. 247; Adversus Rufinum, I, 8 and II, 15: PL 23, 421, 457), by the Second Council of Nicaea (Mansi, XIII, 316-37), by Photius (cf. Bibliotheca, cod. 13: PG 103, 53, cf. also cod. 127: ibid., 408) and by many others.

E. was without doubt the most learned bishop of his time: he was an orator, exegete, apologist, theologian, historian, topographer and bibliophile, for which reason Constantine esteemed him very highly. Scarcely commendable for his character and his excessively courtly bearing, he presents himself as a tireless worker endowed with a versatile intelligence and above all with a most tenacious memory. His erudition stands on a par with that of Origen, but as a thinker and writer he does not rise above the common average. E. has been remembered with admiration through the centuries for his numerous works, the fruit of accurate research and thorough reading, especially in the rich collections of the Libraries of Caesarea and Jerusalem. To fully appreciate the Eusebian work and its method it suffices to say that without his researches we would know very few things about the first centuries of Christian life. That E. had an apologetic intent in composing his works is evident, yet neither this purpose nor the various defects found in them are such as to obscure his scientific probity.

More than a historian in the strict sense of the word, E. was a collector of literary and archival sources, and herein lies his principal merit.

II. HISTORICAL WORKS

The historical writings constitute the best part of Eusebius' literary production,

(from Eusebius Wacke, V., in CB 38, Lipsus 291, pp. 183, 227)
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA - Chronicle of E. of C. in the Armenian version.

Arrangement of the dates and of the text according to the editor J. Karst.

it has not been recovered except for a few fragments; a complete Armenian version survives (ca. 600) and a partial one in Latin made in 381 at Constantinople by St. Jerome, who enriched the text with notices relating to Roman history, extending it down to 378 (cf. letter to Vincent and Gallienus: PG 19, 315-16); a Syriac one must have existed, used by the author of the Chronicle (775) of pseudo-Dionysius (cf. ed. J. B. Chabot, in Corpus Script. Christ. Orientalium: Scriptores Syri, 3rd series, II, Paris 1923, p. vii; to this E. owes the fact of being the best-known and most exploited ecclesiastical writer.

Collectio veterum actuum martyrum (Ἀρχιῶν μαχτυρίων [ὡ μαχτύρων] συναγωγῆς), a work written before 103, lost, containing Acts of martyrs prior to the Diocletianic persecution; these acts formed part of the material collected for his History, where in fact they are mentioned (cf., e.g., IV, 15, 47; V, 4, 3, 21, 5). The author of the Greek Martyrology (4th cent.), of which we have an abridgment in the Breviarum Syriacum, contained in a manuscript of 411-12, used this collection and mentions it with the expression ἐκ τῶν Ἀρχιῶν, added to a certain number of martyrs (cf. L. Duchesne, in the preface to the diplomatic edition of the Hieronymian Martyrology, in Acta SS. Novembris, II, 1, Brussels 1894, pp. L-XVI; in particular p. LXVII; A. Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen u. homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche, I (Texte u. Untersuchungen, 50, 1) Leipzig 1937, pp. 1-17.

Chronicle, in two books, called in the Egiogos prophetices: Χρονικοὶ τώνους καὶ ἐπιταμὴ παντοδαπῆς ἱστορίας Ἑλλήνον τε καὶ βαρβόρων (I, 1: PG 22, 1024). The Greek text in two redactions (the 1st ca. 303, the 2nd in 325)

P. Keesling, Die Chronik des Eusebius in syrischer Überlieferung, in Oriens Christianus, 2nd series, 1 [1926], pp. 23-48, 223-41; 2 [1927], pp. 33-56). The versions do not faithfully reproduce the original, since the translators manipulated its content. Book I, that is the Ἀρανυγρασία, contains an abridgment of the history of the most famous ancient peoples: Chaldeans, Assyrians, Hebrews, Greeks and Romans, with the relevant lists of rulers, on the basis of the best ancient historians and of the Bible. E. often cited entire passages from his sources (mentioned especially in ch. 41: PG 19, 267-68; for Babylonian history, cf. P. Dhorme, Les sources de la Chronique d'Eusèbe, in Revue biblique, new series, 7 [1910], pp. 233-37) and discusses their value. Book II, the Ἀρανικαὶ κάνους, contains ingenious chronological-synchronic tables for sacred and profane history, of which one may gain an idea of the arrangement by consulting our reproductions. In the Greek original the dates were arranged in columns and written, as the case might be, in red, red and black, and black, which is why St. Jerome commends it to the attention of copyists (cf. letter to Vincent and Gallienus: PG 19, 313-14). This Book II, in the Latin version of St. Jerome, was the best-known manual of Syriac chronology of the Western Middle Ages. The apologetic intent in the work is evident: Hebrew and Christian civilization stand, by their divine origin, at the summit of history.

Edd. complete Latin text with fragments in Greek: PG 19, 99-508; Chronicle in the version of St. Jerome, ed. by R. Helm, Eusebius Werke, VII, 1-2, in CB 24, 34. Leipzig 1913, 1926; J. K. Fotheringham, The Bodleian Ms. of Jerome's version of the chronicle of Eusebius reproduced in collotype, with an introduction, Oxford 1905; German version of the Armenian version edited by J. Karst, Eusebius Werke, V, in CB 20, Leipzig 1911 (with critical introduction).

Historia ecclesiastica, in 10 books, of which the Xth is dedicated to Papilio, bishop of Tyre. A truly new work in the Church, to which he devoted more than twenty-five years of labor. The first seven books refer to the history of the Church from its origins to 305; the VIIIth and IXth to the Diocletianic persecution down to the death of Maximinus (313); the IXth describes the vigorous recovery of the Church at the time of the peace down to the victory of Constantine over Licinius and the unification of the Empire (323). The work was written after the compilation of the chronological-synchronic tables of the Chronicle, in which E. had fixed the cornerstones of his chronology. The various redactions of the Historia run from 305 to ca. 326. Schwartz distinguishes 4 of them and places them in the following years: the 1st in 312-13, the 2nd in 315, the 3rd in 317, the 4th, that is the "textus receptus", in ca. 323 (cf. R. Laqueur, Eusebius als Historiker seiner Zeit, Berlin 1929, with the observations of H. Delehaye, in Anal. Boll., 48 [1930], pp. 100-91, and of H. Janne, in Byzantion, 8 [1933], pp. 741-49). Rufinus in 403 translated it into Latin and continued it down to 395; Rufinus's work sometimes has the appearance of a reworking. A good Syriac version of the end of the 4th cent. exists, retranslated into Armenian.

E. circumscribes the subject of his work and outlines the method he will follow at the beginning of Book I. He will describe, beginning from the economy of the Savior, that is from the divine plan relating to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the successions of the Apostles, the great events of ecclesiastical history, the illustrious men who directed the major communities, the heralds of the divine word both as orators and as writers, the propagators of errors, the fate of the Jewish nation after the attempt against the Savior, the persecutions suffered and the champions of the faith, and finally how the Savior with his mercy and goodness took upon himself the defense of the Church (I, 1, 1-2). As for the method, since this was a work not previously attempted, he will have recourse to earlier writers who left only partial accounts, borrowing from their writings the necessary citations and fusing them into an organic whole (I, 1, 3-4).

Whether E. succeeded in amalgamating into an organic whole, as was his intent, the immense literary material (in the first seven books) and archival material (in the last three books) collected and transcribed in his History, cannot be said. Nevertheless, even despite the serious defects noted in it, such as ignorance of Western sources, disproportions, faulty criticism, partiality in judgments, exposition of contemporary history in a sycophantic spirit, the author knew how to maintain the plan he had set for himself and left to posterity a historical work worthy of trust not only but often the sole surviving source of information.

Edd. The Greek editio princeps is due to R. Estienne, Paris 1544; Greek text, Latin version and learned annotations edited by H. de Valois (Valesius, ibid. 1659), several times reprinted and reproduced in PG 20; critical ed. by E. Schwartz (Eusebius Werke, II, 1-3, in CB 9, 1-3, Leipzig 1903, 1908, 1900, the third volume contains the critical introduction) with the version of Rufinus edited by Th. Mommsen facing it. Of the Greek text established by E. Schwartz there exists a manual ed., Eusebius Kirchengeschichte, 4th ed., ibid. 1932. Syriac version ed. by W. Wright and N. Mac Lean, Cambridge 1898; Armenian version, Venice 1877. Modern translations: French by E. Grapin, 3 vols., Paris 1905, 1911, 1915 (the general introduction is prefixed to vol. III); English by H. J. Lawlor-J. E. L. Oulton, 2 vols., London 1927-28 (the introduction is in vol. II); German by Ph. Häuser, Munich 1932, 1938, with an introduction by A. Bigelmair; Italian by G. Del Ton, 2 vols., Florence 1943. For the specific bibliography, in addition to that contained in the introduction mentioned above, recourse should be had to the works of a general character cited below.

Life of Pamphilus (d. 310), a biography of his famous teacher and unconquered martyr, written around 310-11, now lost. E. makes a precise reference to it in his Hist. eccl. (VI, 32, 3); in it he had inserted a catalogue of the books of the Library of Caesarea, whose principal holdings consisted of the works of Origen. It is not improbable that St. Jerome borrowed from it the list of the works of the great writer (cf. De viris illustribus, 54: PL 23, 698-703).

On the Martyrs of Palestine, a work written around 313, it recounts the glorious deeds of the Palestinian martyrs during the great persecution (303-11); the author was often a witness to the events he narrates. In the Contarini manuscripts the History is frequently inserted between Book VIII and IX, sometimes even after Book X. Two recensions of it are known: a short one, which is the common version (ed. E. Schwartz, in CB, 9, 2, pp. 907-50; Italian trans. by A. Soldatelli, in C. Gallina, I martiri dei primi secoli, Florence 1939, pp. 345-390), and a long one, preserved in a Syriac version contained in a manuscript of 411-12 (ed. W. Cureton, London 1861) and in some Greek fragments published by Fr. H. Delehaye (cf. Eusebii Caesariensis de martyribus Palestinae longioris libelli fragmenta, in Analecta Bollandiana, 16 [1867], pp. 11-39; the same author discusses this work in St Romain martyr d'Antioche, ibid., 50 [1932], pp. 241-83). The little work, although local in character, completes Books VIII and IX of the History, which are devoted, as has been said, to the great persecution.

Life of Constantine, in 4 books, not mentioned by St. Jerome in the list of E.'s works (cf. De viris illustribus, 8: PL 23, 726-27). Traditionally it was believed to have been written by E. immediately after the Emperor's death (May 22, 337). It is a panegyric in which the commendable sides of the hero are enthusiastically set forth and his dark and reprehensible sides skillfully passed over in silence, which led Duchesne to say: «C'est le triomphe de la réticence et de la circonsolition» (Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise, II, 4th ed., Paris 1910, p. 191). Constantine appears as the authentic servant of God, the θεοπαβής (I, 3), the new Moses (I, 21), and the author often takes pains to put himself in the foreground.

And the most discussed work of E. and modern historical criticism has run riot in judging it: from an authentically Eusebian writing, albeit reticent and encomiastic, scholars have gone so far as to discern Arianizing reworkings from the time of Constans and even to make of it an apocryphal work that would have been due (ca. 400) to E.'s successor in the see of Caesarea, Euzoius, an Arian (H. Grégoire). The controversy has intensified in particular over the 15 documents that the author inserted into it: here too one passes from the most absolute authenticity to reworking, arriving even at forgery. Whatever the author of the current "textus receptus" of the Life may be, the doubts raised about certain documents and points of its content are such as to counsel a prudent use of it.

The author added to it (it often appears as l. V) Constantine's discourse Ad coetum Sanctorum, mentioned in l. IV, 32 and delivered to an assembly of clergy in 323, which some critics reject as apocryphal (cf. the bibliography in Norman H. Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, London 1930, pp. 50-56). There follows the De laudibus Imperatoris Constantini, an oratio delivered on the Tricennalia. The transmission of the text is very defective. Chapters 1-10 constitute the discourse properly so called, delivered in 335, of the type of the λόγος βασιλικός, while chapters 11-18 probably contain the discourse delivered by E. for the dedication of the Holy Sepulchre (cf. Vita Constantini, IV, 46): E. explains to the Palestinian pagans why Constantine built a sumptuous basilica over the tomb of Christ, the only-begotten of God (cf. ch. 11); the doctrinal part has evident connections with the first books of the Theophania. The joining of the two pieces is probably the work of E. himself.

Edd. di H. de Valois, in PG 20; di J. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke, I, in CB. 7, Lipsia 1903. Alla bibl. «pro e contrala Vita Constantini, contenuta in Norman H. Baynes, op. cit., pp. 40-50 e in I. Daniele, I documenti costantiniani della «Vita Constantini» di E. di Cesarea (Analecta Gregoriana, 13), Roma 1938, si aggiunga: H. Grégoire, Eusebe n'est pas l'auteur de la «Vita Constantini» dans la forme actuelle et Constantin ne s'est pas converti en 312, in Byzantion, 13 (1938), pp. 561-83; id., La vision de Constantin «liquide», ibid., 14 (1939), pp. 341-51; la stroncatura dello studio di I. Daniele, p. 357, risente troppo la polemica; più equanime la recensione di J. Zeiller, Revue d'hist. ecclés., 36 (1940), pp. 406-408; J. Zeiller, Remarques sur la «vision de Constantin», in Byzantion, 14 (1939), pp. 331-39; A. Alföldi, The conversion of Constantine and pagan Rome, Oxford 1948; J. Vogt, Berichte über Kreuzeserscheinungen aus dem 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr., in Mélanges H. Grégoire, I, Bruxelles 1949, pp. 593-606.

III. APOLOGETIC WORKS

As has already been said, the whole literary output of E. has an apologetic character; nevertheless, some of his writings belong more strictly to apologetics, of which he left, one might say, a complete course, directed partly at the pagans and partly at the Jews. Even in these works E. followed his usual method, that is, of placing before the readers' eyes abundant and choice extracts from sacred and profane authors.

Generalis elementaris introductio (Καθόλου στοιχειώδης εὐαγγελή) in ten books, of which four whole books survive, entitled: Προφητικαὶ ἐκλογαί (ed. Th. Gaisford, Oxford 1842, reproduced in PG 22, 1021-1262) and fragments of books I, IV and X. The four surviving books contain a collection of the messianic prophecies, accompanied by a commentary. Book IV is dedicated to the prophet Isaiah. The work can be dated to ca. 310, and E. declares that these four books must be considered as a corollary of his Chronicon (PG 22, 1023).

Contra Hieroclem (PG 22, 795-868; ed. Th. Gaisford, Oxford 1852), written ca. 311-13, and directed against the governor of the province of Bithynia, Hierocles, author of a λόγος φιλαλήθης, which took up the ancient accusations of Celsus and the more recent ones of Porphyry, adding to them a comparison between Jesus Christ and Apollonius of Tyana. The positive part of the work, where the historian is felt, is better than the philosophical part, in which E. moves [with difficulty].

Preparatio evangelica, in 15 books, written between 315 and 320 and dedicated to his friend Theodotus of Laodicea, to vindicate the Christians from the accusation of having abandoned the religion of their fathers in order to pass over to Judaism. Books I-VI deal with the polytheistic religions; the rest of the work is particularly devoted to Greek philosophy, which E. shows by chronological data (X, 14; PG 21, 838) to be later than the Hebrew "theologians and prophets," and therefore indebted to the "barbarians," highlighting its points of contact and contrast with Christianity. E. thus demonstrates to the pagans that Hebrew monotheism and, all the more, Christian monotheism proves superior to their polytheism. The whole work is crammed with extracts from earlier authors, so much so that it proves a veritable archive for the study of the ancient religions, in particular of their cosmogony. Also noteworthy is the spirit of tolerance toward his pagan adversaries. It seems that E. intended above all to refute Porphyry.

Edd.: PG 21; by E. H. Gifford, Oxford 1903, with English translation; H. Doergens, Eusebius als Darsteller der phönizischen Religion, Paderborn 1915; id., Eusebius als Darsteller der griechischen Religion, ibid. 1922; P. Henry, Recherches sur la préparation évangélique d'Eusèbe et l'éd. perdue des oeuvres de Plotin publiée par Eusèbe, Paris 1935; id., Les états du texte de Plotin, ibid. 1938.

Demonstratio evangelica, in 20 books, of which the first ten and fragments of book XV survive, written between 315 and 320 and dedicated to Theodotus of Laodicea, like the preceding one. E. replies to the Jews — not writing against them, but for them — who directed at the Christians the accusation of having changed their religion and moreover corrupted it. He demonstrates very calmly that Judaism prepared the way for Christianity, its natural culmination, for which reason it is superior to it. In book IV he deals with the two natures of Christ. From book VI onward he deals with the earthly life of Christ, reviewing the many biblical texts that refer to it. The numerous biblical quotations contained in the work are particularly useful for the reconstruction of the text [of the Septuagint].

Edd.: PG 22; I. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke, VI, in CB 23, Leipzig 1913.

Theophania, in 3 books, rediscovered in a Syriac version contained in a codex of 411 preserved in the British Museum (ed. H. Gressmann, Eusebius Werke, III, in CB 11, 2, Leipzig 1904). A popular apologetic treatise on the Incarnation, with references to the Demonstratio evangelica; the second part of the De laudibus Constantini has points of contact with the Theophania, written, it seems, in the last decade of his life. The Greek text, fragmentary, is preserved in passages of the Catena on Luke by Nicetas of Heraclea (PG 24, 609-89), some of which also allude to a second Theophania, which, according to Schwartz (Pauly-Wissowa, VI, 1, coll. 1431-32), would have dealt with the second coming of Christ.

Some apologetic writings of E. are now lost: Contra Porphyrium, in 25 books; Reputatio et Apologia, of which Photius (cf. Bibliotheca, cod. 13; PG 103, 53) knew two recensions; these were pagan objections against Christianity. Photius (op. cit., cod. 11, 12) speaks of a Praeparatio ecclesiastica and a Demonstratio ecclesiastica, to be identified either with the Introductio or with the Praeparatio and the Demonstratio.

Particular mention deserves the Apologia pro Origene, in 6 books, completed together with Pamphilus, to which he later added book VI after the death of the glorious martyr. "The purpose — he writes in the Hist. eccl. (VI, 33, 4) — of this Apologia, which the two of us composed with care, was precisely to refute the judgments of malicious people," in order to vindicate his ill-treated memory. Of this work there remain to us only the first book in the version of Rufinus (PG 17, 541-616) and an analysis by Photius (cf. op. cit., cod. 118; PG 103, 396-400). It was a filial homage to the great writer.

Of little importance is the discourse In laudem Martyrum, delivered at Antioch and preserved in a Syriac version (ed. W. Wright, in The Journal of sacred literature, 5 [186], pp. 403-408).

Of the first category, a large part of the commentary on the Psalms is now available (PG 25, 65-1206; G. Mercati, Opere minori, II [Studi e Testi, 77], Vatican City 1937, pp. 58-66); id., Osservazione e premi del Salterio di Origene, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Cirillo Aless, and others [Studi e Testi, 142]. Vatican City 1948) and the much more fragmentary one on Isaiah. Already St. Jerome noted the immense bulk of the commentary on the Psalter. Eusebius of Vercelli (v.) made a Latin translation of it, free from every Arianizing expression (cf. Jerome, Epist., 61, 2: CSEL 54, p. 377; Epist., 112, 20: ibid., 55, p. 390). No trace remains of the Latin reworking, whereas the complete Greek text is preserved for Psalms 50-95, derived from a single manuscript, and the fragmentary text, but of notable completeness especially after the identifications of Mai and Mercati, for Psalms 96-150. For the first Psalms, on the other hand, the fragments are rather modest. In general, moreover, doubts persist about how much of what comes from the Catenae is authentic (cf. R. Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques grecques, in DBs, I, coll. 1122-24). The commentary In Ieniam (PG 24, 89-526) appears less prolix. As to its division into books, St. Jerome contradicts himself, speaking now of 15 books (In Ieniam prologus: PL 24, 21) and now of 10

(De viris ill., 81: ibid., 23, 727). The same author judges this work severely, though he made extensive use of it in his own commentary. E. allegorizes too much, even though he had promised to make the two exegeses, historical and allegorical, proceed in parallel (cf. Jerome, In Iesium liber V, prologus, 18, 2: ibid., 24, 136, 184). This criticism, however, is explained by the particular character of the book it contains. Elsewhere, in fact, the Stridonian shows himself a great admirer of E. not only as a historian but also as an exegete (cf. De viris ill., 81: ibid., 23, 727). Of a commentary on the Gospel of Luke, unknown to Jerome, only passages drawn from the Catenae have been printed (PG 24, 529-606). The brief notes come rather from other books of E. (cf. R. Devreesse, op. cit., col. 1187; see also: I. Sickenberger, Die Lukas-Katene des Niketas, Leipzig 1902, p. 86 ff.).

It is undeniable that the commentaries of E. show a great dependence on Origen; but now and then the positive spirit of the author also emerges, who knew history well, besides Palestinian life, and also had a smattering of Hebrew. E. usually speaks of the literal sense (Πρὸς λέξιν-Κατ' ἱστορίαν-Κατὰ τὴν πρόχειρον διάνοιαν) as of something imperfect, which often must give way to a more recondite sense, capable of grasping the true idea of the sacred book. He generally calls this higher sense διάνοια or θεωρία. E. affirms that the use of one or the other exegesis is determined by individual cases (cf. Demonstratio evang., VII, 1, 113: CB 23, p. 320). Often a biblical pericope is susceptible of both exegeses (καὶ πρὸς λέξιν καὶ πρὸς διάνοιαν: ibid., V, proemium 35: CB 23, p. 209). Very rarely does E. affirm that the literal exegesis exhausts the meaning of a biblical text (cf. Demonstratio evang., VII, 1, 120 ff.: CB 23, p. 321); whereas with a certain frequency he proposes the spiritual interpretation as the only possible one (cf. op. cit., IV, 33: ibid., p. 181). The position of E. seems well outlined by the text of Demonstratio evang., IX, 1, 12 (ibid., pp. 403-406), where he affirms the principal aim (ὁ προηγούμενος... σκοπός) of biblical exegesis to be that of teaching "mystical and divine things," but, against an exaggerated allegorism, he also adds that the literal sense must be maintained (καὶ τὴν πρόχειρον διάνοιαν σώζεσθαι) in historical narratives.

The Onomasticon. Much more useful than the various biblical commentaries is another work of E., namely the Onomasticon or book "of the places" (Περὶ τῶν τοπικῶν ὀνομάτων) mentioned in Sacred Scripture. It is a convenient repertory of biblical geography and topography. Given his knowledge of Palestine, E. constitutes a first-rate authority on the subject, notwithstanding certain of his statements that are too vague and erroneous and a certain disorder in the material. The work had a notable influence not only among Greek authors. It was immediately translated into Latin: Jerome, then, in 389-91 produced a new, more elegant translation of it, reworking the material somewhat as well. Given the fame of the Stridonian, the Onomasticon was highly esteemed and used by medieval exegetes and even now is a precious source for the historical geography of Palestine.

and four evangelists (canon I), to three (canons II-IV) and to two of them (canons V-IX) were recognized by the corresponding numbers in the various vertical columns. Finally, in four subdivisions of canon X, E. indicated the passages proper to each evangelist.

It is in practice a Gospel synopsis without text, but with all the cross-references necessary to know the mutual relation of the various Gospels and their particularities. A marginal reference (number of the pericope and of the canon) allows one to pick out, in reading a gospel, the various parallel passages. These canons still appear in Nestle's critical edition (cf. 10th ed., Stuttgart 1930, pp. 28-33). In manuscripts they are often adorned with beautiful miniatures.

The De quaestionibus et solutionibus in Evangelii (Greek title: Περὶ τῶν ἐν Εὐαγγελίως ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων) or Περὶ διαφωνίας Εὐαγγελίων; cf. Jerome, De viris, ill., 81: PL 23, 727; In Matthaeum, 1, 16: ibid., 26, 24) is preserved only in very extensive fragments (PG 22, 879-1016). The work in two books is a kind of Consensus evangelistarum, which intends to resolve certain apparent contradictions and difficulties. The texts preserved concern in particular the period of the infancy, the Passion and the Resurrection of Christ. There is no lack of some excellent observations and ingenious solutions.

The De solemnitate poschali (PG 24, 693-706) is a pamphlet of more liturgical and dogmatic importance (texts concerning the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass) than exegetical. The work was occasioned by the discussion of the paschal question at the Council of Nicaea, and is dedicated to Constantine; it was composed in 332.

V. DOGMATIC WORKS

Although he played a notable part in the complex Arian question, E. cannot be called a theologian. In vague and sometimes captious formulas, he always declared himself a fervent orthodox; but no one can deny his Arianizing bent. He wrote only two polemical-theological works, which do not always shine for clarity and precision of terminology. Against Marcellus of Ancyra (v.), condemned by the Arian Synod of Constantinople (336), E. composed a work in two books (Against Marcellus: PG 24, 707-824; ed. E. Klostermann, Eusebius Werke, IV, in CB 14, Leipzig 1906, pp. 1-58). It is a confutation of a work by the bishop of Ancyra whose title is unspecified. In practice E., with a great display of biblical quotations, combats Sabellianism (v.). Without doubt the confutation is close-knit and effective, even if modern criticism is still perplexed about the doctrinal position of Marcellus, who always showed himself most attached to the formula of the Council of Nicaea. Less perspicuous, on the other hand, appears the attitude of E., who seems to reproduce in generic terms a subordinationism based on certain original texts. In practice the work is more the expression of the spite of the Eusebians (v. EUGENIO di NICOMEDIA), who made use of the pen of the influential bishop of Caesarea, against Marcellus than a serene theological dispute.

E. took up and completed this work with three other books under the title De ecclesiastica theologia (Greek: Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας; PG 24, 825-1046; ed. E. Klostermann, Eusebius Werke, IV, in CB 14, pp. 60-182). Its purpose is to show the legitimacy of the accusation against Marcellus, whose theological doctrine is defined as Judaic (=Ebionite) and Sabellian (v. SABELLIO), since at one moment it would deny the existence of the Word before creation and at another reduce the Word to a simple "mode" of the Father (cf. De eccl. theologia, II, 1, 2: ed. cit., pp. 99, 101). The writing ever more precisely defines Sabellianism, showing its heretical character, but clarifies little the doctrine proper to E.

VI. LETTERS

Of E.'s vast correspondence only 4 letters are known. One — the one to Carpianus on the Gospel Canons — deals with biblical material; the others concern dogmatic questions. The one to Flaccillus bishop of Antioch, is more a dedication than a letter (PG 24, 823-26; CB 14, p. 60). E. briefly explains his polemic against Marcellus and presents the three books De ecclesiastica theologia.

Much more interesting is the letter ad Caesarienses (PG 20, 1535-44), preserved by St. Athanasius in the De decretis Niceuae synodi. In it E., having recalled his preeminent position at the Council of Nicaea, explains to his faithful how he allowed himself to be induced to subscribe to the always avoided and suspected ὁμοσύνη. He then affirms that the much-discussed adjective was meant only to specify the absence of likeness of the Word to created things, since he is like (ὁμοσύνη) only to the Father, from whose hypostasis and substance (ὁμοσύνη) interpreted as ἐκ τῆς ὀλᾶς derives his being. This interpretation is the clearest proof that E. was a supporter of ὁμοσύνη (v. ARIANESIAIO) though without denying the divinity of Christ.

Of another letter addressed to Constantia, sister of Constantine, only extracts remain. To the illustrious personage, who had questioned him about an image of the Savior, E. replies in a peremptory manner, declaring the use of carving statues and painting images of the Divinity and of the saints to be idolatrous (PG 20, 1545-50). The writing, as was natural, was the object of lively discussions at the time of iconoclasm (v.). It is mentioned in the second Council of Nicaea (cf. Mansi, XIII, pp. 313-17). St. Nicephorus of Constantinople (v.) produced an extensive confutation of it (cf. Antirheticus, in J.-B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense, I, Paris 1852, pp. 371-503).

Angelo Penna

(bl. Est. Cato)
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA. - Canones Evangeliorum, - Canon ten - in which the passages peculiar to the individual Gospels are indicated. Sacred Bible (13th cent.) - Cava dei Tirreni, Abbey, Cod. I (formerly XIV).