From Palladius to Maximinus: Passing the Arian

Torch
Neil McLynn

The fifth-century Latin manuscript from the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris,

Par. BN Lat. 8907, is a key source for the history of Latin Arianism. 1 The
contents amount to a potted history of the sect's defeat in the fourth century:
Hilary of Poitiers is represented by his systematic demolition of Arian
doctrines, De Trinitate, and two accounts of the resistance to the heresy, De
Synodis and Contra Auxentium; then come the first two volumes of
Ambrose's refutation of Arianism, De Fide, and the Acts of the Council of
Aquileia of 381, which show Ambrose in action, securing the condemnation
of the Arian bishops Palladius and Secundianus.

The manuscript is our oldest witness to these texts, but its real interest lies in
the margins. These contain two blocks of scholia: one begins with De fide,
and continues for a third of its length (ff. 298r-311v); another block then
fills the margins of the Acts of Aquileia, continuing almost to the end (ff.
336r-349r). And these scholia contain in effect the Arian response to the
main text: both sections discuss the council of Aquileia, reviling Ambrose
himself (as everything from a "vexatious litigator" to a "servant of
Antichrist"), his council ("brigandage") and his Nicene beliefs (a
"blasphemy" and "shipwreck of faith").

For all the consistency of its focus, this attack has now been shown to have
been delivered in two quite separate installments. Questions of composition
and authorship have been resolved decisively by R. Gryson, who produced
the first modern edition of the scholia in 1980, together with an [End Page
477] invaluable concordance and, with L. Gilissen, a full paleographical
study. 2 Gryson conclusively identifies the material in the second block of
scholia as the work of Ambrose's opponent Palladius himself, and thus a
firsthand account of the proceedings at Aquileia. The force of this account
has been widely recognized, and Palladius' stock has risen
accordingly. 3 The scholia in the first block, and a brief note appended to the
conclusion of the second, have meanwhile been convincingly attributed to
the same Arian Bishop Maximinus who confronted Augustine; Gryson
demonstrates that they were added to the manuscript after 438 (and after the
work by Palladius had been copied there) by several hands, one of which he
tentatively identifies as the autograph of Maximinus himself. 4 For Gryson,
however, the interest of Maximinus' contributions is largely paleographical.
Exposing the purely derivative nature of the bishop's account, he faults him
severely for his lack of intellectual rigor, artistic skill, and above all, of
historical sense; 5 this verdict has been widely echoed. 6 The purpose of this
paper is to propose a more positive assessment of Maximinus and his work.

It must be admitted that Maximinus' scholia lack any obvious coherence. He

begins by quoting extracts from the Acts of Aquileia and commenting on
these, his contributions consisting mainly of exclamations and
further quotation (1-24 [1-19]), 7 until eventually (after covering less than a
fifth of the Acts in ten extracts) he lapses into a long stretch of continuous
quotation (25-34 [20]). He then abruptly breaks off, referring the reader to
the main text, and turns instead to a brisk summary of the council's
proceedings (35-36 [21]). Among a number of supporters for
Palladius' [End Page 478]doctrines he invokes the Gothic bishop Ulfila,
who he claims accompanied Palladius to the court of Theodosius after
Aquileia (37-41 [22-23]); there follows the quotation, in full, of a long letter
by another Arian bishop, Auxentius, describing Ulfila's faith, his life, and
his final journey to Constantinople in 383 for the abortive Conference of
Sects (42-63 [24-40]): all of which is of great interest to the modern
historian but seems out of all proportion to its relevance to Palladius' case.
Maximinus resumes with a short (and unfortunately much mutilated)
passage asserting that Palladius and Secundianus were also present at the
Conference of Sects (64 [41]). He then abruptly declares that he must
discuss an isolated statement by Auxentius, about how the Nicenes had
"reconsidered" the Conference; during the discussion he soon turns to an
apparently unrelated remark attributed to Palladius in one of the extracts he
had quoted earlier from the Acts of Aquileia: "We come as Christians to
Christians" (65-70 [42-45]). Maximinus then returns to the same two
snippets to draw further morals from each (71-80 [46-52]). His concluding
remarks are largely illegible.

There is nothing here to add to the sum of our information concerning the
Council of Aquileia. But emphasis upon Maximinus' deficiencies as a source
for the fourth century has led to neglect of his own fifth-century context. Yet
perhaps the principal fascination of our manuscript, especially in the light of
Gryson's findings, is that it embodies, in physical form, the transmission and
adaptation of the Arian interpretation of Aquileia from one generation to
another. The focus of the following pages will therefore be the document's
significance for its fifth-century Arian readers. This requires that Maximinus
and his scholia be placed, as far as possible, in context. The following two
sections will therefore discuss the historical and geographical setting of
Maximinus' episcopate, and the circumstances of his encounter with
Augustine, the one directly attested event of his career. This will provide the
basis for an assessment of his objectives in writing the scholia, and a
reevaluation of their merits. Maximinus' scholia, I shall argue, have a force
and subtlety that make their author a worthy heir of Palladius.
The Illyrican Background

Maximinus identifies himself as a bishop; his recognition as such by

Augustine at their debate in 427/8, and his own acknowledgment of his
opponent's seniority, fixes his birth somewhere between 354 and (since
thirty was the minimum canonical age for consecration) 398/9. 8 Certainty is
impossible, [End Page 479] but the most plausible date is roughly midway
between these termini. 9 A novice bishop would probably not have been
allowed such liberties as Maximinus took with the eminent septuagenarian
Augustine; on the other hand, Palladius and Auxentius were already
"patristic" sources for Maximinus, who claims no direct knowledge of the
events of the 380s. 10

In the same passage, however, Maximinus supplies the important

information that he had "often" heard the Fathers' version of events
confirmed in Constantinople. 11 His association with that city, added to the
western orientation implied by his journey to Africa, provides powerful
corroboration for what might in any case have been supposed, that--like his
hero Palladius, who had connections with the Arian bishop Demophilus of
Constantinople, Secundianus and indeed almost every other known Latin-
speaking Roman Arian--he was based in the Danube area. 12 There is
therefore good reason for the consensus that has situated him within the
history of fifth-century Illyrican Arianism. Less secure, however, is his
characterization within this conventional account, as a last embattled
spokesman for a cause that had been lost when Ambrose eliminated its last
leaders at Aquileia in 381. 13

The flaw in this account is the assumption that the government had put its
authority behind the sentences of Aquileia. Maximinus himself protests that
the council "decided to take churches away from the Christians," and that
the Nicenes "violently snatched basilicas" from them (74, 76 [47, 49]); but,
as Gryson has shown, his testimony has no independent value. His source,
Palladius, gives no indication in his Apology that he had actually been
removed from his see. 14 The council itself wrote to ask the Emperor [End
Page 480] Gratian that Palladius and Secundianus be "kept from the
thresholds of their churches," so that "holy priests might be introduced in
their stead." 15 A second letter followed, proclaiming the confident belief
that "effect will not be lacking for the decrees of the council"; 16 then came a
third: "We think that, after the sentence of the council, attention will be paid
to the two heretics by the favor of Your Clemency." 17 The thinking begins
to sound somewhat wishful. Governments frequently ignored conciliar
decisions; an outcome which best explains the Council of Aquileia's notable
failure to register either with the ecclesiastical historians or with Ambrose's
own biographer. 18 Nor are there grounds to postulate an intervention from
the eastern court, under whose jurisdiction eastern Illyricum had temporarily
fallen. 19 The region was not represented at Theodosius' council of
Constantinople in 381, or provided for in his ecclesiastical legislation of that
year. 20

It is important to recognize how little is actually known about the progress

of Nicene orthodoxy along the Danube during the two generations after
381. 21 Information for the churches of Maximinus' most likely home, the
old Arian heartland of Pannonia II, Moesia I and Dacia Ripensis, is
especially paltry. 22 There is no trace whatever of the once eminent see of
Mursa, or of Secundianus' Singidunum. Nicene bishops of Viminacium and
of Palladius' own Ratiaria, as the metropolitans of their respective provinces,
may be identified among the addressees of papal circulars in the 420s; but
these advertisements of Roman pretensions tell us nothing about the position
of the recipients, how much authority they exercised and what competition
they faced. 23 Only two sees are directly attested. Bishop Anemius was
installed at Sirmium shortly before 381 by the [End Page 481] personal
intervention of Ambrose against strong Arian opposition; 24 he is
subsequently reported only in Italy, and without any Pannonian suffragans,
at Ambrose's councils of Aquileia (which he interrupted with a notably
strident outburst) and Rome. 25 His successor Cornelius is attested only for
his imprudent involvement with a heretic, and a subsequent bishop for a
miscarried attempt to insure himself during a Hun invasion. 26 Far more
consequential dealings with the Huns were meanwhile being conducted by a
contemporary bishop of Margus, the only other orthodox churchman from
these three provinces recorded in the period: he provoked a Hun invasion in
440 by a grave-robbing expedition across the Danube, and avoided the anger
of his flock by deserting to the enemy and betraying the city to them. 27

A much fuller, if highly impressionistic, picture of Danubian Christianity in

this period is available in the corpus of post-Theodosian Latin Arian
literature. 28 Historians have tended to misrepresent this material by
selective quotation. The anonymous Commentary on Job, for example,
contains a famous allusion to the "storming and plundering of the church"
by the "trionymous heresy" of Nicene Trinitarianism. 29 But this is an
exercise in erudite wordplay, to bring a long passage of exegesis to a
dramatic conclusion; there is little suggestion of crisis in the remainder of
the book. 30 [End Page 482] The same applies to the massive and often
vehement Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum, probably produced by one of
Maximinus' Illyrican colleagues, where polemic remains firmly
subordinated to sophisticated exegesis (which indeed was what ensured the
survival of this blatantly "heretical" text). 31 A pastoral stability is
presupposed, which has been overlooked by scholars who have (for
example) interpreted the author's conceit about being "absent in body" (that
is, as a writer from his readers) to mean that he had been sent into
exile. 32 He grudgingly admits, rather, to not being persecuted; 33 and his
dramatic imagery of a storm-tossed church should not be taken too
literally. 34 Although the "heretics" loom large in his work, their
blandishments, persuasions and threats probably posed a less immediate
danger to the unity of his people than the dissension sown by the everyday
sins of avarice, envy, pride and vanity. 35 Diligent preaching could still be
rewarded by full churches, and the catechumenate continued to inject new
blood; 36 the admitted worldwide numerical supremacy of the Nicenes (a
mere reflection of the prevalence of wickedness) 37 had therefore perhaps
not yet been translated into local predominance. The author was by no
means the first Christian leader to realize that heresy, although dangerous,
could be useful: 38 through these enemies the community of the faithful
could be defined. [End Page 483]

The definition had a physical aspect, which returns us to Maximinus. Like

the scholia, the Opus Imperfectum laments how, in the previous generation,
the Nicenes had "seized the Church"; they had established there the
"Abomination of Desolation" (the homoousion). 39 The same complaint
recurs in the Bobbio fragments. 40 The significance of the continued vigor of
this protest (the only concrete grievance contained in these Arian writings),
sixty years after Aquileia, is that it suggests the difficulties the Nicenes
faced in legitimizing their hold upon these stolen cathedrals. In
Constantinople, where Theodosius was present with his army to enforce the
installation of the Nicenes in 380, the Arians had managed to win a moral
victory by their dignified withdrawal, and to retain the support of perhaps a
majority of the capital's Christians for two decades. 41 The Arians of the
Danube had this example to inspire them, a better established local
ascendancy, and (especially given the political vicissitudes of the Illyrican
prefecture) far less government pressure to contend with; 42 at least some
local potentates could also still be expected to maintain a formal
allegiance. 43 As Nicene claimants eventually stepped forward, the basilicas
would have to be yielded to comply with Theodosius' legislation. But the
process would be one of piecemeal negotiations, and there is good reason to
suspect that the new Nicene order on the Danube remained precarious.
Perhaps, indeed, the bishop of Margus was not so much wicked, as alienated
from a still largely Arian flock: hence his people's readiness to hand him
over, and his to betray them. But what matters for the present argument is
that Maximinus can be envisaged as the pastor of a secure community,
which had descended directly from the "established" Arianism of Palladius'
generation. [End Page 484]

Maximinus in Africa

Maximinus' domestic security bears upon his encounter with Augustine, the
only recorded incident of his career. His visit to Africa, in the company of
Count Sigisvult and his largely Gothic troops, has usually been interpreted
on the assumption that he had been uprooted from Illyricum: he is therefore
seen as a grateful hanger-on, a military chaplain to these presumably Arian
soldiers. 44 But there is no evidence for this, and no parallel for a bishop in
this role. 45 A far more likely reason for his presence is in connection with
Sigisvult's mission, to impose terms on the recalcitrant general Boniface.
Boniface had recently acquired an Arian wife, much to the dismay of
Augustine: Maximinus, who protests to Augustine that he had come "for the
sake of peace," may well have seemed a potential intermediary with the
rebel's entourage. 46

The debate which Maximinus held with Augustine, at the latter's instigation
and upon his home ground at Hippo, seems from its transcript an unedifying
farce: Maximinus first agrees to respond to Augustine on points of theology,
but soon descends into speechifying, and finally hijacks proceedings with a
huge and elaborate disquisition that used up so much time that Augustine
was unable to reply. 47 Augustine's biographer Possidius has Maximinus
departing promptly to Carthage, boasting of his loquacity and bragging of
victory; Augustine meanwhile produced an extensive (and in the event
definitive) rebuttal of his opponent's case. 48 The sheer length of Maximinus'
final speech--which covers as many pages in the transcript as the rest of the
debate together--has seemed to justify Augustine's exasperation [End Page
485] (repeated constantly from the very outset of the debate) at his empty
verbosity. 49 But this is to dismiss Maximinus too easily. Facing Augustine
on the latter's home ground and before his loyal congregation, he naturally
had no hope whatever of winning recognition for the claims of his
(technically illegal) faith; he could only respond to his opponent's questions,
which were designed to trap him in either self-contradiction or deviation
from Scripture. 50 In the same setting, Augustine had twenty years earlier
stage-managed the surrender of the Manichee spokesman Felix. 51 We
should therefore not underestimate Maximinus' achievement in simply
having his say, and at such length. He must have had considerable presence
thus to impose himself upon a hostile audience: that in his long, final speech
he not only dared to throw a controversial point open to the floor, but was
able to reply on his listeners' behalf, testifies to the force of his authority. 52

We might go further. Augustine's complaint that Maximinus had "taken up

the whole day" has led to the linked assumptions that this final speech had
lasted until nightfall, that this was when the debate had been scheduled to
end, and that proceedings could not have been further prolonged. 53 But
there is no basis for any of this; and Augustine had good tactical reasons to
terminate a meeting which, he must by now have realized, could not be
forced to a successful conclusion. Tactics might also be suspected,
moreover, in the speech by Augustine that preceded Maximinus' peroration.
The debate with Felix in 404 had take place over two sessions, each
apparently lasting half as long as the Collatio: roughly as long, that is, as
the Collatio would be without Maximinus' final intervention. 54 This might
suggest the order of local expectations. And Augustine's contribution, twice
as long as Maximinus' preceding one, reads as if he intended it to be a
magisterial summing up: his eventual conclusion, that he had "replied
to [End Page 486] all points," and that Maximinus should "be taught" or
else be brief, does not invite further argument. 55 It might therefore be that
Augustine, not Maximinus, was attempting the filibuster.

On this reading, Maximinus was not leadenly talking out his allotted time,
but was unexpectedly turning the tables upon his opponent, upstaging
Augustine's peroration by using it to launch into his own virtuoso flight. On
any interpretation his performance is notable. He improvises a seamless
argument from Augustine's preceding statements, quoting him directly on
some thirty points and patronizing him remorselessly with alternate
commendation and rebuke for his choice of words. His dense collage of
Biblical texts, meanwhile, fully makes good his expressed desire, reiterated
twice in a sonorous closing sentence, to be regarded as a "disciple of the
divine Scriptures." 56

Maximinus thus escapes from Augustine's trap. In his closing passage,

moreover, he offers a glimpse of what was at stake in the contest. He
declared that he was speaking solely in order to "gather together the
fraternity" that was "with" him, whose assent his opponent was hoping to
win to his own profession; 57 Augustine had not only tried to deprive
Maximinus of their "discipleship" through the spoken word, but had
apparently also disseminated written propaganda among them. 58 By these
"brethren" Maximinus clearly means the small Arian congregation of Hippo,
which was apparently composed largely of immigrants. 59 Augustine
elsewhere makes much of the recantation of a single member of this
community; 60 he might realistically have hoped to make a more decisive
impression upon them, as he had previously done with Manichees and
Donatists, by inflicting a public embarrassment upon their distinguished
visitor. Instead, however, [End Page 487] Arian morale in Hippo will have
received a considerable fillip from the episode. According to the rules by
which such events were governed, Maximinus has a just claim to be
considered the victor of the encounter. 61

The Scholia

Maximinus' debate with Augustine is of direct relevance to the scholia he

composed a decade or more later. Understood in relation to its
circumstances and audience, the Collatio reveals Maximinus as a shrewd
thinker and an imposing presence; similar qualities may be discerned in the
scholia, once account is taken of their character and their audience. Scholia
are not for the general reader, and--since the bishop's annotations were
available only to those with access to his library--the required specialist
audience can most plausibly be found among Maximinus' own clergy. If, as
might reasonably be supposed, Maximinus returned from Africa to his
Danubian see, we might envisage him among an establishment of presbyters
and deacons like that portrayed in the Opus Imperfectum. 62 To make sense
of the bishop's commentary we must pay it as close attention as would such
readers: for indeed, indications survive of detailed scrutiny. Maximinus'
secretaries (and Maximinus himself, if we accept Gryson's attractive
suggestion that the principal hand of the scholia is his autograph) were not
professional scribes, and the frequent slips of their pens have in many cases
been corrected in what seem clearly to be different hands. 63

Our manuscript bears traces not only of its readers, but also of its
circulation. The main text will have originated in Nicene
circles; 64 moreover, Palladius' Apology had in all probability already been
inserted (by a presumably Arian reader, who had recognized its relevance to
the Acts of Aquileia) before Maximinus acquired the volume. Palladius'
work is transcribed in the bookish hand of a professional copyist; the
somewhat awkward way in which Maximinus' comments straddle this
shows them to [End Page 488] have been a subsequent, quite separate
addition. 65 Since Maximinus' citations of the Acts of Aquileia reflect a text
substantially different from the Parisinus, we must suppose that he
possessed his own copy of this work. Indeed, he seems to have paid only
cursory attention to the Parisinus' version of the Acts; 66 moreover, he quite
ignored the rest of the manuscript's original contents (despite his interest in
Arian creeds, for example, he fails to mention the notorious "blasphemy at
Sirmium," which was reproduced in Hilary's De Synodis). 67 So although it
is not impossible that he himself was responsible for having the Apology of
Palladius transcribed into the margins, more probably it was precisely for
the sake of this work that he acquired the volume.

This picture of the evolution of the scholia helps explain a crucial point
about Maximinus' marginalia. As a "Commentary on the Acts of Aquileia"
they are peculiarly inept, being placed in the margins of a wholly different
work, De fide (to which Maximinus never refers at all); nor do they attempt
to elucidate the text of the Acts (Maximinus' comments are barely longer
than the extracts he quotes, and nearly half of them consist in further direct
quotation). But such criticisms miss the point: for Maximinus was not
writing a commentary on Aquileia but an introduction to Palladius' Apology.
His work should be regarded as an attempt to relate this precious text to
other documents in his possession, and to make it intelligible to fifth-century
readers without requiring them to concern themselves unduly with the
blasphemies of Ambrose and his friends. Maximinus therefore cites the Acts
not to explicate but to dismiss them, and did not intend his advice that
anyone who wished to pursue the council's "brusque and ridiculous course
of action" should "read it in the full text which is in this collection" (35 [21])
to be taken literally. Nor indeed do Arian readers of our manuscript appear
to have paid the same attention to the main text as they did to Maximinus'
annotations. His version of the Acts is often superior to that of the
beautifully produced but highly corrupt Parisinus; but although the latter
text has been heavily corrected, like the scholia, there seems to have been no
systematic attempt to collate text [End Page 489] and
margin. 68 Maximinus' scholia thus appear to have been read in isolation
from the main text of the manuscript.

Having dismissed Ambrose, Maximinus of course proceeds to lead his

readers into grave historical error. His main thesis is a purported connection
between the Council of Aquileia and the abortive Conference of Sects of
383 in Constantinople: he has Palladius and Secundianus travelling to
Constantinople with Ulfila in order to participate in the conference, only to
be thwarted when Ambrose made the emperor Gratian make the emperor
Theodosius cancel it (64, 72-73 [41, 46]). Every single part of this
reconstruction--as Gryson points out 69--is false. But the criticism again
misses the point. We should instead give Maximinus, who evidently had no
direct knowledge of the events, credit for the brilliance of his hypothesis: he
posits the supposed journey to Constantinople by combining Palladius'
constant appeal to his "eastern colleagues" in the Acts with his mention of
Auxentius in the Apology (140 [94]); having established a connection with
the Conference through Auxentius, he infers Ambrose's intervention by
relating Auxentius' account to a synodal letter of the council of Aquileia,
transmitted together with the Acts in the Parisinus (and presumably in
Maximinus' own version). 70 These texts are then collated with two laws
from the recently published Theodosian Code, which Maximinus cites as an
appendix (141-142 [95]). All this is highly ingenious, and bears witness to
the resources of Maximinus' library; we should also note that refutation is
only possible because of Maximinus' punctiliousness in supplying the
documents upon which he based his reconstruction.

What modern historians too easily miss here is how effectively Maximinus
applies his thesis to sustain an Arian perspective upon recent history. The
Acts and Palladius together provide material for a compelling case against
Ambrose; and condemnation of Ambrose would undermine the whole basis
of the Nicene restoration in both east and west, for this had been sealed in
383 by Theodosius' abrupt cancellation of the Conference of Sects, which
denied the Arians their promised opportunity to argue their case--and
Maximinus had now succeeded in tracing responsibility for this cancellation
back to the proven villain Ambrose. For Arian [End Page 490] readers, this
version of events decisively confirmed their right to the moral high ground.
Maximinus also has a more concrete goal. The last part of his commentary,
as mentioned earlier, revolves around two short citations from the texts he
had quoted. His historical reconstruction hinges upon Auxentius' outburst
against the "reconsidered holding" of the Conference of Sects, which he had
previously quoted in full; 71 but he also applies a phrase from the same
sentence ("condemned of themselves") to Palladius' statement, which had
appeared in his last extract from the Acts of Aquileia: "We come as
Christians to Christians" (66 [42]). He argues that Palladius had given the
Nicenes their chance at Aquileia, going to them as brothers exactly as Isaiah
had urged, and in accordance with Paul's instructions to Titus: by their
refusal to take this chance the Nicenes were, indeed, "condemned of
themselves" (67-68 [42-43]). And the significance of this self-
condemnation, Maximinus announces, is that it justified his own rigorist
position, which denied any validity to the Nicene sacraments of baptism,
ordination and the Eucharist. For otherwise, he says, the Arians must accept
Palladius' deposition: "How could their sentence lack validity, if we granted
them the licence to baptize? If they have the licence to baptize, they also
have that to ordain priests. If they have the licence to ordain, they also have
that to depose" (77 [50]). Rigorism is always difficult to sustain in practice;
and one can easily imagine the temptations, in the Arian communities of the
Danube, to reach accommodations with the Nicenes, whose grip upon the
central institutions of Roman Christianity was now secure. Maximinus
supplied a tract for the times, stiffening backbones with the remorseless
logic of his detailed cross-references.

Maximinus' conclusion is thus focused firmly on the present; it also draws

together, with considerable skill, the threads of his argument. He begins his
peroration by returning to the shouts of anathema raised against Palladius by
Ambrose's minions (79 [52]), which he had invoked twice previously when
resuming his argument after the quotation of the Letter of Auxentius (65, 70
[42, 45]). These cries, moreover, had also appeared earlier in his work. They
figure conspicuously in the long, final extract from the Acts (25-34 [20]: at
27, 30, 32) which Gryson took to mark the final flagging of Maximinus'
inspiration. But the subsequent reverberation of the anathemas in the text
advertises the importance of this passage, which when taken as a whole can
be seen to provide, in fact, the basis for Maximinus' case. The shouts are
framed at the beginning of the citation by Palladius' [End Page 491] crucial
statement about "coming as Christians" (25 [20]), and at the end by the
Nicenes' quotation from the Letter of Arius (33 [20]) which, because the
crucial word ingenitum was suppressed, provides Maximinus with his
conclusive evidence of Ambrose's dishonesty (37-38 [21-22]). 72

Nor does Maximinus emphasize the anathemas merely for dramatic effect.
He introduces them in terms cited verbatim, and explicitly, from a passage
near the beginning of Palladius' Apology (65 [42],73 his only other citation
from Palladius, this time unannounced, is taken from the same passage, and
comes at his final dismissal of the Acts (36 [21]). 74 Together, these two
allusions signal to the attentive reader who moves directly from the first
block of scholia to the second a connection that modern scholars have
missed: Maximinus breaks off from the Acts at exactly the point where
Palladius would take up the story of the council. 75

Maximinus' final sentences are largely illegible; but further echoes of his
dismissal of the Acts are apparent, reinforcing the overall unity of his
work. 76 Such touches ought not to surprise us. Maximinus' entire
contribution is in fact rather shorter than his final speech at Hippo, in which
he had woven a far more complex web of cross-references and allusions. So
although Gryson's view of the scholia as a hasty, improvised production is
probably correct, his verdict upon their aimlessness and lack of inspiration is
deeply unfair. To the alert, intelligent reader (for whom alone they are
intended) Maximinus' comments reveal the workings of the same tenacious
intelligence that had outlasted Augustine.

The status of the foregoing arguments must be kept clear. It will be objected
that I have done to Maximinus much of what he did to Palladius, foisting
upon him a historical setting based on tendentious textual interpretation and
much conjecture. There is of course no evidence that he returned to
Illyricum to write his scholia; his Danubian origins are no more than a
reasonable [End Page 492]hypothesis; and the interpretation of Arian
history sketched here runs counter to current orthodoxy. But the basic
argument of this paper does not depend, ultimately, upon the specific setting
I have proposed for the scholia's composition. The crucial point is that
Maximinus was writing in order to help a distinct group of readers to tackle
the Palladian material contained in the Parisinus--and that he did so with
subtlety and skill. Neither Maximinus nor his readers were historians. For
them, Palladius was a famous name from a past generation (and we must
never forget how quickly, in antiquity, the past became blurred) 77 who had
come unexpectedly to life in the margins of a (second-hand) book.
Maximinus' achievement was to relate his testimony to other documents
from the Arian tradition--and more importantly, to the contemporary
circumstances of the church. In demonstrating so comprehensively the
relevance of Aquileia to his own day he helped keep alive, for a new
generation, the flame of Latin Arianism.

Neil McLynn teaches in the Faculty of Law at Keio University, Japan.

Notes
1. The term "Arianism," fraught with difficulties, is retained here for its
convenience; its ramifications are discussed by R. P. C. Hanson, The Search
for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh, 1988), esp. 99-128 ("The
rationale of Arianism").

2. R. Gryson, Scolies ariennes sur le concile d'Aquilée, Sources chrétiennes,

no. 267, (Paris, 1980); Littérature arienne latine, 1: Débat de Maximinus
avec Augustin: Scolies ariennes sur le concile d'Aquilée: Concordance et
index, Informatique d'étude des textes, no. XI.1 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1980);
R. Gryson and L. Gilissen, Les scolies ariennes du Parisinus Latinus 8907:
Un échantillonage d'écritures latines du Ve siècle, Armarium codicum
insignium, no. 1 (Turnhout, 1980). Gryson's text is reproduced (with
different numeration of chapters) in his edition of Scripta Arriana
Latina (CCL87), 1982.

3. Gryson, Scolies, 96-97. Palladius' testimony is central to Hanson's

account of the council: Search, 109-110, 667-669. See also McLynn, "The
'Apology' of Palladius: Nature and Purpose," JThS 42 (1991): 52-76.

4. Gryson, Scolies, 63-79, 97-100; Gryson and Gilissen, Scolies, 9-23. The
conclusions of C. P. Hammond Bammel, "From the School of Maximinus:
The Arian Material in Paris Ms. Lat. 8907,"JThS 31 (1980): 391-402, are
based on an inferior edition of the scholia; for decisive criticism, see Gryson
and Gilissen, "Paléographie et critique littéraire: Réflexions
méthodologiques à propos du 'Parisinus 8907,'" Scriptorium 35 (1981): 334-
340.

5. Gryson, Scolies, 53-54, 162-165.

6. For an example, see McLynn, Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a

Christian Capital (Berkeley, 1994), 373-374.

7. References to the scholia are to Gryson's Sources chrétiennes edition,

with the Corpus Christianorum reference added in square brackets.

8. "Maximinus episcopus Arianorum": Augustine Contra Max. 1, praef.; for

Maximinus' remark, "aetate praecedis," see Aug. Collatio cum Maximino 11
(PL 42, 715A).

9. Cf. W. A. Sumruld, Augustine and the Arians: The Bishop of Hippo's

Encounters with Ulfilan Arianism (Selinsgrove, 1994), 91; the suggestion of
"about 365" nevertheless depends upon a false inference drawn by
Hammond Bammel (above, n. 4).

10. "ut ergo ab ipsis patribus nobis est expositum" (71 [46]), in relation to
the reasons for the cancellation of the Conference of Sects: see the
discussion by Gryson, Scolies, 77-79.
11. "sed et ipsi in memoratam urbem saepius audivimus" (71 [46]).

12. For Palladius' association with Demophilus of Constantinople, see

his Apology (140 [94]): his dealings with the western court, at a time when
his province was under the jurisdiction of the eastern government, also
indicate the double political aspect of the region. The centrality of Illyricum
to fourth-century Arianism is emphasized by M. Meslin, Les ariens
d'Occident, 335-430 (Paris, 1967), 59-99, and illustrated by his map facing
p. 146.

13. Gryson, Scolies, 144 ("L'arianisme latin se trouva effectivement réduit à

l'état de survivance marginale").

14. The key passage is Pall. 112-120 [75-79], where Palladius deplores his
and Secundianus' being "consortio episcopali . . . abiciendos" and
"iudicandos": there is no mention of enforcement.

15. Gesta Conc. Aquil., Ep. 2 (Amb. Ep. extra coll. 4 [Migne ed., Ep. 10]) 8,
11.

16. Amb. Ep. extra coll. 5 [11] 1.

17. Amb. Ep. extra coll. 6 [12] 3.

18. For the political context of the council, see McLynn, Ambrose of Milan,
124-149.

19. For the complex question of the Illyrican prefecture, see R. P. V.

Grumel, "L'Illyricum de la mort de Valentinien Ier (375) à la mort de
Stilicon (408)," REB 9 (1951): 5-46.

20. The only guarantors of communion established in Europe

by C.Th. 16.1.3 were the bishops of Marcianopolis and Tomi, both in the
prefecture of Oriens; the only other Balkan representative at Constantinope
was Acholius of Thessalonica.

21. The fundamental account is still J. Zeiller, Les origines chrétiennes dans
les provinces danubiennes de l'Empire romain (Paris, 1918), 344-376.

22. I confine discussion to these provinces, as better suiting Maximinus'

connections with both east and west than either Moesia II (where a Nicene
hierarchy is more fully attested: Zeiller, Origines, 600) or Pannonia I.

23. Zeiller identifies them among the nine addressees of Celestine, Ep. 3
(Origines, 149, 368, 370-371).
24. Paulinus Vita Ambrosii 11.

25. Acta Conc. Aquil. 16 ("Anemius episcopus dixit: 'caput Illyrici non nisi
civitas est Sirmiensis, ego igitur episcopus illius civitatis sum'");
Theod. HE 5.9.1.

26. See respectively Innocent Ep. 16 (with C. Pietri, Roma christiana [Paris,
1976], 1084); and Priscus fr. 11.2, p. 262 Blockley (fr. 8 Müller-Dindorf).

27. Priscus fr. 6.1 Blockley (fr. 2 Müller-Dindorf).

28. On this literature, the remarks of Zeiller, Origines, 474-505, remain

fundamental; cf. the often speculative discussion by Meslin, Ariens, 103-
249. The Illyrican origin of the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum is
reasserted by R. van Banning, "The Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum: Its
Provenance, Theology and Influence" (Oxford, D. Phil. thesis, 1983), 4-12,
115-116, against P. Nautin, "L' 'Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum' et les
ariens de Constantinople," RHE 67 (1972): 381-408, 745-766. For the
Illyrican provenance of the Bobbio Fragments on Luke and "Theological
Fragments," see Gryson, CCL 87 (1982), xxiii, xxv. Twelve recently edited
Arian sermons (R. Étaix, "Sermons ariens inedits," RecAug 26 [1992]: 143-
179) have been plausibly attributed to a Gothic Arian bishop from eastern
Illyricum, from the late fourth/early fifth century: R. Gryson, "Les sermons
ariens du Codex latinus monacensis 6329: Étude critique," REAug 39
(1993): 333-358.

29. Anon. in Job, PG 17, 428B: "Sic namque etiam nunc memorata trionyma
haeresis praesertim praedatur atque expugnat ecclesiam."

30. This particular passage (introduced at 427B: "Post quae universa, o

amici, ultimam audite disputationem") rounds off a long discussion begun at
420B; the wording is based on Gal 1.13. Comparable "contemporary"
references cover the Easter liturgy (374C-D), Arabian asses (385C),
celebrating festivals (393D), parental duties (397D), and many other non-
controversial matters.

31. The best appraisal of this work is Van Banning, "Opus Imperfectum";
his forthcoming edition (cf. his preliminary study, CCL 87B, 1989) is
eagerly awaited. See also M. Simonetti, "Note sull'opus imperfectum in
Matthaeum," Studi Medievali 10 (1969): 1-84.

32. "Legite, inquam, fidelissimi, hortor, fratres, legite vobiscum . . . ut

vobiscum corpore absens efficiar in Christo vobiscum praesens in fide" (Op.
Imp., PG 56, 798-799). Most recently interpreted as a reference to
persecution and exile by Van Banning, "Opus Imperfectum," 1.
33. Op. Imp. 684 ("non aperte nos persequuntur"). The author is using past
grievances tendentiously, rather than describing the present, at 896:
"haereticorum ecclesia non solum persecuta est patres nostros, et iam
cessavit: sed eadem filii eorum faciunt nobis. . . ."

34. The passage printed as "Homilia xxiv" (Op. Imp. 754-756), which shows
the Church as a boat menaced by temptation and persecution, and
confronted by the strident claims of heretics, has now been conclusively
attributed to Chromatius of Aquileia (5 Tract. in Matth. 42: CCL 9A [1974],
400-404).

35. Causes of quarrels: Op. Imp. 857 (cf. 792-793). Reasons for defections
to heretics: 743 (cf. 798, on "daily" defections; 824, heretics seduce
"many").

36. Full churches: Op. Imp. 832; cf. 679, 792. Casual allusions to
catechumens (e.g., 662, 790, 910) imply the continued functioning of the
institution.

37. Op. Imp. 898; cf. 622, "vix paucissimi Christiani" remain in the true
church.

38. Op. Imp. 736: "Haeresis quidem periculosa res est sed utilis valde." For
the role of heresy in the rhetoric of Gregory of Nazianzus, see McLynn,
"Christian Controversy and Violence in the Fourth Century," Kodai 3
(1992): 15-44, at 30-33.

39. Op. Imp. 896 ("ecclesiam quam perfidi occupaverunt violentia," and see
quotation in previous note); 907.

40. Fragmenta Theologica, fr. 7 (CCL 87, 239): "eclesias nostros invaserunt
et more tyrannico obtinent."

41. Soc. HE 5.6-7 (withdrawal of Arians); 6.8 (Arian strength in 397); cf.
Soz. HE 7.5-7, 8.8.

42. On the status of Illyricum, Grumel, "L'Illyricum," remains fundamental

but needs modification. K. G. Holum suggests a lack of sympathy among
fifth-century prefects of Illyricum for the religious policies of
Constantinople (Theodosian Empresses [Berkeley, 1982], 119-120). No
governors of the Middle Danubian provinces are recorded in our period: the
most prominent government figure to visit the area, the general Plinta who
negotiated the treaty of Margus in 338/40, was an Arian (Priscus fr. 2; for
his Arianism, Soc. HE 5.23, Soz. HE 7.17).
43. Op. Imp. 683: "Non solum hareticus, sed etsi aliquis ex potentibus qui
videntur esse Christiani. . . ."

44. Meslin, Ariens, 94-95; Sumruld, Augustine and the Arians, 92.
Possidius' statement that Maximinus came to Africa "cum Gothis" (V.
Aug. 17.7), which probably reflects his own subsequent encounter with (the
same?) Gothic federates at Hippo (28.12), has no independent value: his
account of the episode depends solely on the transcript of the debate (17.8:
"quae si studiosi diligenter legere curaverint . . ."). Cf. the passages cited
below, n. 46.

45. The relevant evidence is collected by A. H. M. Jones, "Military

Chaplains in the Roman Army)," HTR 46 (1953): 239-240.

46. At Hippo Maximinus claims to be "missus a comite Segisvulto" (Coll.

cum Max. 709D); cf. the heading to Aug. Serm. 140, "cum Segisvulto
comite constitutus in Africa." For Boniface's wife, and the Arian baptism of
his daughter, Aug. Ep. 220.4: the latter naturally implies direct dealings with
Arian churchmen.

47. The transcript is published among the works of Augustine: Collatio cum
Maximino, PL 42, 709-742. For discussion, see Sumruld, Augustine and the
Arians, 94-99, 121-134; also M. Simonetti, "S. Agostini e gli
Ariani," REAug 13 (1967): 55-84, at 68-84.

48. Poss. Vita Aug. 17. Contra Maximinum: PL 42, 743-814; for full
discussion, see Sumruld, Augustine and the Arians, 101-119.

49. F. Van der Meer, Augustine the Bishop (London, 1961), 123:
"Maximinus . . . completely lost himself in a mass of quite secondary
matters." Augustine begins the belittling of his opponent early: "multa
dixisti . . . breviter mihi dic" (Coll. cum Max. 712B); "necessarium tempus
absumis" (713A). He presumably had forewarning of Maximinus'
resourcefulness from Eraclius (709D).

50. For Augustine's line of argument, see Simonetti, "S. Agostini," 68-70.

51. For this debate, see R. Lim, "Manichaeans and Public Disputation in
Late Antiquity," RecAug 26 (1992): 233-272, at 260-266, with important
observations on the "choreography" involved.

52. Coll. cum Max. 733C: "In auditorum sane erit arbitrium quid eligant
alterum de duobus. . . ."
53. Aug. Contra Max. 1.1: "spatium diei absumpsit," enlarged upon by
Possidius, V. Aug. 17.9. Cf. G. Bonner, Saint Augustine of Hippo: Life and
Controversies, 2d ed. (Norwich, 1986), 144: "Night found the Arian still
speaking. . . ."

54. This is based simply on the length of the transcript as published

in PL. The two sessions of Augustine's earlier debate with Fortunatus are
even shorter.

55. Coll. cum Max. 724A.

56. Coll. cum Max. 740D.

57. Coll. cum Max. 740A: "studio colligendae fraternitatis quae nobiscum
est (aut ob quam forte et ipse provocare nos dignatus es ut responsum
demus, ut in nobis illi denotati sic tuae consentiant, ut dixerim, professioni),
necesse fuit me . . . dare tibi responsum."

58. Coll. cum Max. 740a: "non tantum verbis me nudare conatus es a
discipulatu eorum, verum etiam et tractatum tuum dedisti. . . ."

59. Augustine gives the history of the community at Tract. in Ioh. 40: Hippo
had formerly been free of the heretics, "sed posteaquam multi peregrini
advenerant, nonnulli et ipsi venerunt": see A.-M. la
Bonnardière, Recherches de chronologie augustinienne (Paris, 1965), 91-99.
There is no basis for Van der Meer's assumption (Augustine, 123) that these
Arians were Goths.

60. Serm. Morin Guelferbytanus 17.4 (PLS 2, 584): the convert was one of
four Arians who had somehow incurred Augustine's "severity" (the other
three, significantly, seem to have remained obdurate). La
Bonnardière, Recherches, 95, dates the sermon to c. 421/3.

61. Modern readings have been unduly influenced by the fact that Augustine
eventually had the final word, with the massive Contra Max.; we may doubt
whether Maximinus ever had an opportunity to reply.

62. Van Banning, "Opus Imperfectum," 165-180, suggesting that it was

written by a bishop for his priests (178).

63. Gryson and Gilissen, Scolies, 10-11, list some two dozen such
"corrections de lecteurs qui n'ont pas bien compris le texte ou qui ont cru
devoir l'améliorer"; 21-22, for the practised, intellectual hand of "Scribe A,"
and his tentative identification as Maximinus.
64. I am not persuaded by the thesis of J.-P. Bouhot, "Origine et
composition des 'scolies ariennes' du manuscrit Paris, B. N., Lat.
8907," RHE 11 (1981): 306-310, that the collection was designed to serve as
a reference tool for Arian disputants.

65. For the priority of the second block of scholia, see Gryson, Scolies, 93-
94, cf. Gryson and Gilissen, Scolies, 22, for details of the palaeography.

66. Gryson plausibly attributes a series of corrections in the Parisinus (P)

text to Maximinus: "Le texte des actes du concile d'Aquilée
(381)," Scriptorium 38 (1984): 132- 139, at 135-136. But any such
campaign was hasty and superficial: note especially Acta 11/Max. 23 [18],
where a statement by Palladius makes fair sense in P but not in Maximinus'
version; the latter's indignant complaint of scribal sabotage (Max. 24 [19])
shows that he had neglected to consult the relevant passage in P (cf. below,
n. 68).

67. De syn. 10-11. The manuscript also contains Hilary's Contra

Auxentium, which discusses the creed of Ambrose's Arian predecessor at
Milan.

68. At Acta 11/Max. 23 [18], an interjection by Evagrius is nonsensical in P

(see text and apparatus in M. Zelzer's edition, CSEL 82.3 [1981], 332) but
coherent in Maximinus; for Palladius' retort, and the reverse problem, cf.
above, n. 66. At Acta 12, Max. 25-26 [20] offers seven readings preferable
to P; most are minor, but note "oblaturum" for "ablaturum" (Zelzer, p. 333,
supplemented by Gryson's edition).

69. Scolies, 162-165.

70. The letter is transmitted as Gesta Conc. Aquil., Ep. 2 (5Amb. Ep. extra
coll. 4; Ep. 10 in the Maurist edition); Maximinus refers to c.8 (cf. above, n.
15) at 72 [46].

71. Max. 65 [42], quoting Aux. 61 [39]: "recogitato ab impiis de statu

concilii ne arguerentur miseris miserabiliores proprio iudicio damnati et
perpetuo supplicio plectendi."

72. The extract continues briefly to include the beginning of the following
exchange between Ambrose and Palladius (34 [201]), to illustrate the
"prosecutio" of each (35 [21]).

73. 65 [42]: "magna cum vociferatione, ut exposuit sanctus Palladius"; cf.

Pall. 98 [64], "anathema magna cum vociferatione subclamasti."
74. 36 [21]: "paria de filio exigebant"; cf. Pall. 99 [65]: "paria de filio . . .
exigenda duxisti." Both passages also claim Sabellian assumptions behind
the questioning.

75. Palladius' Apology begins with an extract from his attack on De

Fide (81-87 [53-56]), and then discusses the preliminary, unofficial
exchanges at Aquileia, which were not recorded in the Acta(88-96 [57-62]).

76. "Prosecutio sancti Palladi" (80 [52]) recalls "sanctum Palladium

prosecutum fuisse," (35 [21], the last legible phrase, "stultitia hereticorum"
(80 [52]), reiterates the emphatic verdict at 35 [21]: "stulte."

77. Cf. the limited information available to Ambrose's biographer Paulinus:

for parallels with Maximinus, see McLynn, Ambrose, 374-375.