ت عتب
. ينة... ...
... ...
به مدينه. ..
. ..س موم
جدید
ح
ب یبی به پسر. ....... مه مه .
ب ::
م
:م. - -هي مهمیدن
-. . مصننمنم...نسدس
نه من يوم
:
:
... همه ی مه
....
:
:
مه .. و مه به., بمد: نمود. مهمه و همه می دهد
.به
:
و ....
مه مه ...
":
"
"
"
.
.
.
A
979,870
:
}
,
ء
.
*
ا
*
}
|
|:
....
"
-
"
و
.
. '
'
انا
:
:
.
..
,
ه
::
نعت سنت
:::.
کی
لوگو
د
ندیم
دم تک۲
منها
او نه هامه
عده از
نے جتي .دغه م و په شبنم :
م
ن
بين
تقديره سن و رفتنی
نیست
می
تعین متنی که
به دست و پینه بسته به
جهت تمیز می بینیم
. م. -
ميدانية تتبع
میشه
به دیو
ا
ن خانگی در بحرین
را به
عنتين
...
بن ..... من

• EX
LIBRIS
G
:
.
.
:
.
.
AASIH
OF
THE
VPAPACY
MANDELL CREIGHTON.
WHARRIS Brown, Ia;
From
the author
24272
се

B
MUNHUOLUL
Multi
1817AVDULINDUNUun
SULLIRITTIHITIS
YA
SCIENTIA
ARTES
VEDTAS
LIBRARY LERUTAS OF THE
VIVERSITY OF MICHIC
ԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱԱՍՑ
.
UMILINI. LARARAAKUTAHTHAMINAAMA
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
irt.
SAL.PLURIA
schweh
SA2-
25.
ya
aumlu
L AR
RO
11
4.)?
w
.
ya
WS
,
.
0
ine
2
.
WE
UNUT
1.
MU
16
51.QUERIS.PL
KRIS-PENINSULAMAMS
AMCNAME
1
CIRCU
www
S
CUMSPICE
.
-
-
-
.
UCULWZW.0DWWDEVUDUZU. MIMID.
Milutinititin lininianluiltaminta mamuhidi
WISU
vinum
ՀԱՄԱԼՍԱՐԱՆՈՒՄ:
TOPILIPINDRIAALAALALALALUOLALANILADRIADIT..!!!!!!SALL
1-TTU
B
ANANTERRITOITUT KITEM
MITTEILUMINUTU TANTALICE
B דיוויי דיירי רוזונחון דיויויויויון
וחוויות והחד ווה
BR
207
..S42
ULFILAS
APOSTLE OF THE GOTHS
An Historical Essay
ULFILAS
APOSTLE OF THE GOTHS
TOGETHER WITH AN ACCOUNT OF
The Gothic Churches and their Decline
BY
CHARLES A ANDERSON SCOTT, B.A.
NADEN DIVINITY STUDENT AT ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
"He would not discount life, as fools do here,
Paid by instalment”
Cambridge
MACMILLAN AND BOWES
1885
PRINTED BY J. PALMER
JESUS LANE
01-14-37, ambe
To my Father
•)-12-17
PREFACE.
THE flood of barbarian invasion, which for the first
six centuries of our era was beating round the Roman
empire, is broken by a few towering crests; in all the
indistinguishable sea of human beings there appear
two or three men whose genius and majesty have made
an impression on the memory as well as on the history
of Europe. Attila, Alaric, and Theodoric have found a
place among the household names of history, as well
as a niche in popular mythology. These all planted
their renown on the field of battle; by their achieve-
ments as chieftains, generals, and conquerors, they
“made themselves for ever known.” There is one
name alone which rests its claim to be remembered on
a different foundation. Sole among all these countless
numbers, Ulfilas is known and remembered for works
of peace, for achievement in literature, for the triumph
of the Cross.
The race to which he belonged, and for which he
worked, provides a background not unworthy of this
unique figure. The fortunes of the Goths in the his-
tory of Europe command an interest such as few other
episodes in that great epic can surpass. Of no other
viii
Preface.
DAY
Teutonic race were the conceptions so bold, the achieve-
ments so great, and the ultimate failure so complete.
Geographically their line of influence extends from the
Bosphorus to the Pillars of Hercules. Chronologically
their history covers the transition from the Roman
empire to modern Europe. In the history of religion
they are contemporaries and spectators of the passage
from paganism to papacy. Their position from these
different points of view is strangely similar. Driven
like a wedge into the eastern side of Europe by the
superincumbent weight of the Huns, they pass along
the whole length of it, to be similarly thrust out at the
west by the Franks. During this whole course they
hold a place intermediate between barbarism and civili-
sation. They are not nomads, yet they are not able to
found a state. Their political fate is matched by their
ecclesiastical. They are not heathens, yet they are not
acknowledged as Christians. Planted in an indefen-
sible position by their Arian creed, they are crushed
between the opposing masses of heathendom and
Catholicism.
It is this additional quality, the relation between
their fortunes and their faith, which gives to the his-
S
1
į
among the “barbarians," we see in them the working
race in that long series, in material achievement sur-
Preface.
passed by none, they present also a quality of mind to
which, so far as we know, there was no parallel in any
of their competitors. It may indeed be said by some
that the thought which they appropriated and pre-
sented was a trifle, a crotchet at most, and their adhe-
sion to it only to be reckoned as obstinacy. But even
obstinate adhesion to a crotchet would be sufficiently
unique among the nations of that period; while, if their
faith be regarded from their own view-point under all
the dignity of a worthy conviction, bitten in indelibly
upon the national consciousness, then such a national
apprehension and tenacious grasp of an idea is a
phenomenon of the highest interest. Such an idea is
the one embodied in the Gothic Church. It is the
object of this essay to trace the working of this idea in
Gothic history, to observe its first planting through the
teaching of Ulfilas, its fostering under the power of his
influence and memory, and its great and fatal effect
upon the political development of the people.
Its ultimate effects upon the history of the Goths
are not far to seek. The map of Europe bears no trace
of their wanderings or their settlements. Three Gothic
kingdoms, the most short-lived of which endured at least
a century, passed away without leaving a sign. For
two centuries they professed themselves Christians; yet
their Church left fewer marks of its existence even
than their State. The annals of the Christian Church
Preface.
record with honour the one name of that Gothic king
who broke with the traditions of his people to become
a Catholic. In our own century their name has been
ingenuously borrowed as a term of reproach wherewith
to brand an unpopular style of architecture! And by
popular phraseology they have been planted alongside
their Vandal cousins in a pillory of splendid disgrace.
History has done them hardly more justice than
tradition. Their enemies are their chroniclers. Their
own records have perished. Yet, when all the shreds
of information regarding them are pieced together,
even in the poor tapestry that results, we see indubit-
able marks of greatness, the indelible qualities of race.
We see in a marked degree the presence of vitality,
of tenaciousness, and of the power of initiative.
These three qualities reveal themselves conspicu-
ously, as in the race, so in the representative man. Two
great monuments of Gothic history are the memory
of Ulfilas, and the fragments of his book. In the
following pages an attempt has been made to collect
the facts relating to this man, to estimate his position,
to note the marks which he left upon his people and
his age, and to trace the stream of his influence, as it
affected the history of his people, till it was at last
exhausted and forgotten.
How imperfectly I have succeeded in this task few
can be more conscious than myself. The very extent of
Preface.
the history, the multiplicity of relations secular and
ecclesiastical into which the Goths during these three
centuries entered, the complications of doctrinal contro-
versy in which every student of the fourth century is
involved,-may explain my failure, though they may
not excuse my attempt. It is in this consciousness of
having left much undone and imperfectly worked out,
that I have noted with some fulness the authorities,
especially so much of the modern literature bearing on
the various sections as has come within my reach. In
the usual alternative between a punctilious citation of
the authorities and unattested assertion, I have had, as
I conceive, no choice. In dealing with a subject where
the evidence is so widely spread and so thinly scattered,
the paramount desire to bring out the truth makes
constant reference to the authorities imperative. It is
with this view also that I have collected in the Ap-
historians bearing on the ecclesiastical position of
Ulfilas, and the vexed question of the conversion of
the Wisigoths. A minute comparison of these is very
instructive.
In English I do not know of any book which deals
directly with either Ulfilas or the Gothic Churches.
In German the works of Aschbach, Krafft, Pallmann,
and Helfferich are all more or less closely concerned
with these subjects. In French there are Maimbourg
xii
Preface.
1
and Revillout dealing with them from the side of the
history of Arianism. I wish, however, to acknowledge
especially my indebtedness to Felix Dahn’s great work
Die Könige der Germanen (of which the volumes
dealing with the Goths are now complete), to Bessell's
very minute study of the authorities for the life of
Ulfilas, and to Mr. Gwatkin's Studies in Arianism.
I recall also with gratitude the memory of the Rev.
John Hulse, through whose benefaction I have been
encouraged to study in this by-path of Church history,
and enabled to publish these all too unworthy results.
Our actual information regarding the life and labours
of Ulfilas is still very limited. Of original sources there
are probably not more than three. Of his Translation
large portions are still lacking. I cannot help cherish-
ing a hope that there is lying buried in some nook
of Germany, Italy, or Spain, and yet to come to light,
some further record of the great spiritual Father of the
Goths.
. C. A. S.
CAMBRIDGE,
October, 1885.
CO
CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER I.
EARLY HISTORY OF THE GOTHS ...
...
...
...
10
1
CHAPTER II.
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE GOTAS;
LIFE OF ULFILAS ... ... ... ... ..
NOTE.-The Identification of Athanaric with the
“Sacrilegus judex” . ... ... ... ...
17
+
CHAPTER III.
THE GOTHS AND THE EMPIRE
NOTE.-Bessell's account of the movement of the
Goths after Adrianople ... ... .. ...
67
CHAPTER IV.
THE PERSECUTIONS OF 370-375; AUDIANISM; THE
CONVERSION OF THE WISIGOTAS
S
...
...
70
CHAPTER V.
THE ARIANISM OF ULFILAS AND THE GOTHS; THE GOTHIC
BIBLE; DEATH OF ULFILAS ..... ... ... ...
104
CHAPTER VI.
THE DECLINE OF THE GOTHIC CHURCHES IN THE EAST
NOTE.--Bessell's emendation “ Psathyropolistae”...
141
157
xiv
Contents.
PAGE
CHAPTER VII.
THE GOTHIC CHURCHES IN ITALY AND GAUL, AND THEIR
DECLINE ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
160
CHAPTER VIII.
THE GOTHIC CHURCH IN SPAIN, AND ITS DECLINE ...
191
APPENDIX.
224
I. AUTHORITIES CONNECTED WITH LIFE OF ULFILAS-
(1) Account of Ulfilas in Philostorgius ... ... 223
(2) Last Journey of Ulfilas, according to Auxentius
II. THE CONVERSION OF THE WISIGOTAS IN—
(1) Socrates (2) Sozomen (3) Theodoret 225-229
. (4) Orosius (5) Jordanis (6) Isidore 230, 231
III. TABLE OF DATES CONNECTED WITH GOTHIC HIS-
TORY ... ... ... ... ... ... 231
IV. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF WISIGOTHIC KINGS ... 232
T
INDEX ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
235
ERRATA.
p. 88, line 9 from below, for 'only' read early.'
p. 127, „3 from above, » ‘118 „ '188.'
The number of sheets now extant, after being reduced by
theft to 177, is restored to 187. See note by Peters,
in Bartsch's Germania, 1885.
CHAPTER I.
EARLY HISTORY OF THE GOTHS.
AUTHORITIES FOR CHAPTER I.
SOURCES :
Jordanis, de rebus Geticis, ed, Closs (Stuttgart, 1861).
Sozomen, Hist. Eccl.
LITERATURE :
Pallmann, Völkerwanderung, Abth. i,
v. Wietersheim, Geschichte der Völkerwanderung, 2nd ed., Dahn (1880).
Dahn, die Könige der Germanen, esp. Abth. ii. and v.
Bessell, “ Gothen” in Ersch und Gruber.
Kaufmann, die Germanen der Urzeit (1880).
Platner, Veber die Art der Deutschen Völkerzeige in Deutsche Forschungen,
. Fol. xx.
IF it might be deemed not unworthy of the sobriety of
history to give play for a moment to fancy, we might
frame for ourselves an allegory of Europe's middle
age, a rough generalisation of our period, which might.
serve to correct the proportions, and illustrate the ulti-
mate value and meaning of the details which follow.
We might image to ourselves the prospect of time and
its events presented to an observer withdrawn beyond
its conditions and the reach of their effects as an avenue
of centuries. Down one section of it there moves a
man somewhat bowed with years, robed in fine vesture,
and bearing treasures of art and thought, the heritage
of the past. His step is slow and languid, and his
treasures seem ready to fall from his loosening grasp;
but ever and anon he collects himself, erects his head,
gathers with a firmer hand his “foot-catching robes,"
and makes a determined effort to throw off the dull
languor and the feebleness of age. To join him there
VI
2.
Early History of the Goths.
.
comes down a branching alley a child clad in simple
white, carrying in his hand a book. He is young,
hardly yet conscious of himself; but his frank eyes
have a look of confidence and assurance that claims for
him the future. Of his book, as yet his sole possession,
he has mastered the letters, but hardly yet begun to
grasp the meaning. The man beholds the child at first
with undisguised scorn, then with suspicion which
changes to alarm. He knows not how to treat him ;
tries indifference, harshness, and cajolery in turn,—then
gives him his hand. So they move on together, now
joined, now separate, as the old man recognises his own
feebleness and need of support, or is dismayed by the
growing vigour of his companion. One by one the
possessions of the old man are transferred to the boy.
Yet there remains a danger, a double one, between the
boy and the fulfilment of the destiny which appears
written on his face. The old man's strength is still
more than a match for his, and in a fit of jealous fury
he may fall upon him and kill or cripple him. Again,
his treasures are too many and too various for the boy
to bear as yet, and should the old man fail now or soon,
his gifts must perish with him.
So, behind and between them steps a third, out
from another alley,—a true son of the forest, rough
handed, gentle hearted, obstinate in opinion, pliable in
sentiment. He looks with wonder and amazement on
the gems and robes with which the old man is decked;
with wonder and awe on the face of the child, with its
“ tranced yet open gaze.” This second figure is received
by the old man at first with contempt of the great
childish giant who is dazzled by the jewels, and subdued
The Work of the Barbarian.
by the glance of the child; then, recognising the value
of his arm as a stay for himself, he tolerates his presence
with a blustering mien of mingled arrogance and humni-
liation. Nor does the boy here shew himself much more
generous. He views his new companion at first with dis-
trust, and grudgingly accepts his proffered aid and pro-
tection. He has shared already in some of the old man's
possessions, and despises now the plain homeliness of the
new-comer; besides, he is conscious of his own coming
vigour, and will not be hampered by any alliance now,
that might lead to inconvenient claims in the future. The
new-comer resents this treatment. He snatches at the
old man's treasures, lays sometimes a rough hand upon
the child, or again relapses into humble submission and
henchmanship, trying all means to overcome the puny
arrogance of the one and the cold and cautious reserve
of the other. Meanwhile he is doing his appointed
work, supporting the old man's tottering footsteps,
helping and protecting, half unconsciously perhaps, the
growing youth, bearing and transferring gradually the
possessions of the Old World to the New. He is the
“Barbarian,” so called in contempt by both those whom
he served; he is the “Scourge of God," but also the
Sheath over God's new graft. It was under cover of
his protection that the New entered upon the heritage
of the Old. When the transfer has been made sure,
the old man drops aside, the son of the forest falls
behind; but the child, now grown to manhood and
consciousness of self, marches forward, bearing the gifts
of the Ancient, reaping the strength of the Barbarian.
• Some such picture might the stage of Europe pre-
sent during the first five centuries of our era, if vieweil
Early History of the Goths.
through an “inverted glass.” Such, or something like
it, was the rôle played during that period by the
Barbarian in relation to the Old World and to the
D
New.
Foremost among these barbarians (whether we take
account of numbers, of weight and duration of influence,
of intensity of national consciousness, or of the long roll
which, though classed under various names, are yet
derived from the common Gathic stock. Their history
may be roughly divided into two parts. The great epoch
in their national life, as in that of the other Teutonic
stocks, is the hour of their first contact with the Roman
Empire, the rich.depositary of Latin traditions of law and
government, as of Greek achievements in art, literature,
and philosophy; the depositary also since the Christian
era of Hebrew Monotheism, and of the cosmopolitan
Christian faith, which claimed government and law,
philosophy, literature, and art as its subjects, and all the
world for its throne. This turning-point in their history
came to the Goths about the beginning of the third
century, when Rome was losing her right to be con-
sidered the centre of the Roman empire, when the
State religion of heathenism had long degenerated
from a. faith to a superstition, which was supported by
**indifferent rulers and sceptical philosophers only as a
safeguard against popular enlightenment and liberty;
at a time, too, when the new faith had differentiated
itself in the eyes of the Roman world from Judaism,
but had raised furious indignation and alarm by pro-
claiming the pernicious doctrine of equality for all men.
It was on the edge of an empire thus pregnant with
Their Original Home.
1
wouly.
change that the Goths arrived towards the beginning
of the third century.
Their history up to this point is involved in ob-
scurity. Whence they had come; whether they were
autocthonous in Europe, or had migrated thither from
the East some time in the dim past; what place they
held, in the latter case, in the sequence of Aryan stocks,
and how long they had been in Europe—these and
many similar questions must remain unanswered.
There are no records. Only on the question of the
quarter whence they started on their great out-wander-
ing do the legends of the people, and a few vague
statements of early travellers and topographers, throw a
little dubious light. Of their origin and wanderings,
of their habits of life and thought, of their constitu-
tion and religious ideas and practices we can have no
knowledge more secure than the inferences drawn from
long-descended and highly-embellished legends, and
from a comparison of what we know of other related
stocks. :
It is true that much information may be gathered
from various sources, which seem to refer authorita-
tively to Gothic history; and modern writers have
actually constructed out of the numerous references in
old historians and chroniclers to Goths, Scythians,
and Getae a long and continuous account of Gothic
history, constitution, and religion. Such accounts are
all but valueless. As sources of Gothic history, these
references are open to a double objection. Many of
them are untrustworthy in themselves, and the ap-
plication of any of them to the Goths rests upon
an untenable assumption. This is the ancient and
Tn
Early History of the Goths.
persistent assumption which identifies the Goths of
the third and following centuries with the Getae
of the earlier empire,' and through them with
the Scythians of a still more distant period. This
ethnological theory, which must have arisen from
chance similarities of name, locality, and relation to
the empire, is of very early origin, and has given rise
to most serious confusion. Critical or even careful
enquiry was no part of the early annalist's accepted
task, and when a people bearing a name so similar
appeared in the same locality as the Getae were known
to have occupied, he concluded without question that
they belonged to the same stock. A theory counte-
nanced by the very earliest and contemporary writers
of Gothic history was naturally accepted by their suic-
cessors, and the usage of Scythicus and Geticus; Scythia
and Getica for Gotthus and Gotthicus is in some writers
undeviating. Many later accounts of the Goths illus-
trate the effects of the natural converse tendency to
refer to them all the notices in earlier historians of
both Getae and Scythians. Apart from the natural
1 Thus Shakespeare, referring to Ovid's banishment, “ I am here
with thee and thy goats, as the most capricious poet, honest Ovid,
was among the Goths” (As You Like It, III. 3).
2 The opinion, Gotthi = Getae, has received in recent times the
weighty support of Jacob Grimm on philological grounds; cf.
Gesch, der Deutschen Sprache, cc. 9 and 13. Krafft, Kirchen- '
gesch., etc., follows Grimam, and adduces evidence from history,
common religious ideas, customs, etc. On the other side stand all
later writers of note-Pallmann, Bessell, Wattenbach (die von J.
Grimm vertheidigte Identität kann als antiquirt betrachtet
werden, p. 59, notė); but see esp. v. Wietersheim, vol. i., and
Dahn's Excursus at end of Wietersheim-Dahn, vol. i. The greater
part of Krafft's book stands or falls with this theory.
Goths and Getae.
7
.
confusion of the names, and the absence of critical
interest or skill among the early chroniclers, a distinct
motive for this identification can be traced in the desire
to provide the Goths with a farnous ancestry, and to
shew that they were not the “parvenus” in Europe
which they were supposed to be, but were lineally
descended from races which had fought the Romans
for centuries, and figured even in the pages of Herodotus
and Thucydides.
Another fruitful source of confusion lies in the
great number of names by which different sections of
the Gothic stock were known, and the loose way in
which the annalists use them sometimes of particular
sections, at other times to denote the whole nation.
But when all historical notices of Getae and
Scythians have been excluded, except those where it
can be shewn that the writer under one of these names
meant to refer actually to the Goths, the materials for
their history are very much curtailed, and the date of
their contact with the Roman empire brought down to
the reign of Caracalla. From this point onwards they
appear ever more frequently on the pages of the his-
torian, as the necessity for expansion, want of means of
i That this was the “tendency” of the work of Cassiodorus,
which is the foundation of Jordanis de Rebus Geticis, is ante-
cedently probable, Theodoric being anxious to reconcile the Romans
to submission to his dynasty; and it is further confirmed by Atha-
laric's message to the Senate concerning Cassiodorus (Varr. ix. 25),
“ Iste Amalos cum generis sui claritate restituit," etc.
%e.g. Greutungi, Thervingi, Rugii, Vandals, Taifali, Victohali, . '
and many others.
3 See v. Wietersheim-Dahn ; Dahn, ii. 52. Others find the first
indications of their presence fifty years earlier.
:
Early History of the Goths.
8
subsistence, hunger after the good things of tbe empire,
and the pressure of peoples behind them, urged them
forward first to skirmishing inroads, then to a close-
locked struggle, and finally to conquest. It might be
thought that under these circumstances the history of
the Goths, at any rate after the date of their arrival on
the frontiers of the empire, would have attracted the
attention of their contemporaries in the empire, and
ensured us a trustworthy account of the people at this
. important stage. But this is not the case; apart from
the fragments of Dexippus, there is no account of the
Goths written by a contemporary till tbe last years
before their entrance within the empire, while the
authorities most relied upon are actually separated
from the earlier period of their history by one, two, or
three centuries.
Of the sources available for the pre-Christian era,
the most valuable is that contained in the work of
Jordanis (or Jornandes, as he is also called). Under
the title of a history of the Getae he compiled an
account of the Gothic peoples extending from their
earliest myths or traditions down to the fall of Vitigis.
Jordanis was apparently a bishop, settled in the south
of Italy about the middle of the sixth century. That
he was hiniself a Goth lends interest, but does not of
itself add to his authority as an historian of the people.
Living and writing three centuries after they began to
play a part in Roman history, and many centuries after
they had left the early home of which he gives an
account, he was eye-witness and contemporary only of
events which are sufficiently well known from other
sources; and for the rest, the value of his statements
Early Records.
IV
must be measured by the value of his authorities and
his skill in using them. His own account of his work
shews that it was a compilation, and that he had not
even his main authority before him when he wrote.
This was the history of Cassiodorus, the minister and
secretary of Theodoric. · Jordanis, before he began to
write his own history, got the loan of the manuscript
for three days, and seems to have made copious though
hurried extracts, which he afterwards incorporated in
his text. The rest of the work was made up from
other authorities, from the traditions and folk-lore of
the people, and, for the later period, from the records
of his own memory. The work of Cassiodorus in its
turn was drawn from various older sources, chiefly from
historians whose works are now lost, but also to some
extent from popular songs and traditions.?
Through this mingling of Saga that may be partly
history, and history that is more than half Saga, the
beginnings of the Gothic peoples are dimly portrayed
to us. The Saga and the history are so intertwined,
however, that they may be distinguished only herein
perhaps, that while the story tells us too little the Saga
accounts for too much. Through this misty haze we
see the ancient home of the race, that to which they
looked back as their earliest, on the shores of the
Baltic Sea. Some of their accounts stopped short at
For Jordanis and his history see, especially the following:
Schirren, de ratione quod inter Cassiodorum intercedat et Jor.
danem ; Köpke, Deutsche Forsch. 1859, pp. 50 ff.; V. Sybel, de
Fontibus Jordanis ; Wattenbach, Geschichtsquellen, i. 62 ff.;
Hodgkin, Italy, vol. i. pp. 43 ff. “He is careless and uncritical.”
--(Freeman.)
% Jord. c. 1, $ 3.
10
Early History of the Goths.
the southern coast, others looked beyond and across the
sea to Sweden itself (Scanzia). This gives occasion to
refer the three most famous divisions of the stock to
the 'crews of the three ships which carried the migrat-
ing people, and the laggard progress of the third boat
earned for her crew and their descendants the name of
Gepidi. Whether there be a kernel of fact embedded
in this legend of migration from Sweden or not, the
land to the south of the Baltic was undoubtedly the
point of departure for their migration to the south.
At what time this took place cannot now be ascertained,
and the different dates assigned by different historians
depend on the date they fix for the first appearance of
the Goths on the borders of the empire, and on the
time they allow for their progress across the centre of
Europe.
The first distinct mention of Goths in connexion
with the Roman empire is in the reign of Caracalla
(A.D. 215), against whom the sarcastic jest was made that
he ought to be called Geticus Maximus,“ because he
had killed his brother Geta and conquered the Gothi,
who were at that time called Getae.” Bessell, however,
has shewn good reason for referring this rather to the
Dacians, who even in the time of Dion Cassius were
confused with the Getae. Passing over this and another
1 Jord. C. 4, § 17. See Bessell, Pytheas und Seine Zeit.
Sweden is frequently mentioned as the early home of German
tribes. Their familiarity with the sea and seamanship when they
l'eached the Black Sea has also been observed as evidence of a
previous home by the sea.
2 Hodgkin translates “Torpids."
3 Spartianus, Vit. Caracallae, c. 10.
Migration from the North.
11
-
.-.
.
.
.-
e
doubtful allusion, we may fix the first appearance of the
Goths' on the edge of the Roman empire in or about
A.D. 238. And, as it is scarcely credible that they had
settled down and remained as peaceful neighbours for
any length of time, while there is at least one instance
of a tribe moving from the North Sea to the Roman
boundaries within the space of a year, their migration
from their northern settlement may very well have
taken place in the early years of the third century.
Impelled by what motives we know not, whether by
fear behind or by hope before, they streamed up the
basin of the Vistula, over the watershed, and down the
valley of the Pruth, till they reached the Euxine and
the frontiers of the Roman empire. Here they settled
in the ill-defined district known to the historians as
Scythia, which included the south-east corner of Russia
as far as the Maeotis or Sea of Azov, and the country
north of the lower Danube, answering to wbat was in
much later times known as Moldavia and Wallachia.
Whether’ the distinction between Ostrogoths and
Wisigoths arose first in their new settlement, or (as is
more probable) was already existing when they left
tbeir northern home; and whether again these names
were originally based on the relative geographical posi-
tions of two tribes, or were connected with the names
of kings or royal families ;—these are questions that do
not concern us here: at any rate, the relative position
of the two peoples in their new settlement was in
accordance with the geographical interpretation of their
i Dahn, accepting the account of the parentage of the Emperor
Maximin, places the arrival of the Goths as early as A.D. 160.
2 See especially Dahn, Könige, ii. 83 ff.
12
Early History of the Goths.
.
names. For whether the Ostrogoths, according to the
alternative offered by Jordanis,' were so called after one
of their kings, Ostrogotba, or because they dwelt to the
east of their kindred, the latter explanation at least
agreed with the fact. The dividing line, though it
cannot be supposed to have been very rigidly observed,
must have been at or near the river Pruth; eastwards
lay the Ostrogoths, and westwards the Wisigoths. The
usage of these and other names for different sections
of the Gothic race is obscure. Besides the main
division into Ostro- and Wisigoths, there are many
other names recorded, applying to larger or smaller
sections; and among the Wisigoths especially there
was a tendency after the break-up of the joint king-
dom to split off into separate tribes each under their
own chief. The names Ostrogoth and Wisigoth were
not applied by either nation to themselves; each side
called themselves "Goths” and their neighbours "west”
and “east Goths” respectively. The same two peoples
were distinguished in their earlier history under the
names of Greutungi and Thervingi, which are still used
by the historians of the empire simply as alternative
names for the Ostrogoths and Wisigoths. Each section
had, moveover, its royal house. The Amaluugs among
the Ostrogoths and the Baltbungs among the Wisigoths
were held in the highest honour, and had an hereditary
claim to the headship of their respective peoples; while,
so long as the two sections were ruled by one king, he
.
.
-
---
--
-
IL
1 Jordanis, c. 14: “pars eorum qui orientalem plagam tenebant,
eisque praeerat Ostrogotha, incertum utrum ab ipsius nomine an a
loco, id est orientali, dicti sunt Ostrogothae, residui vero Veso-
gothae in parte occidua.”
Ostrogoths and Wisigoths.
13
was chosen from the Amalung stock. The question of !
the “United Kingsbip” among the Goths has given
rise to much debate. It has been held, on the one
hand, that down to the fall of the kingdom of Herma-
naric the Ostrogothic kings held double sway over both
Ostrogoths and Wisigoths; but this has been called in
question by later writers; the passage in Jordanis which
it is founded upon can bear another interpretation, and
the continuous existence of a united kingdom down to
Hermanaric would involve contradictions with other
statements of the same writer. The best supported
account appears to be that the two peoples came to a
political as well as a local separation after the joint rule
of Ostrogotha; and though the widely extended autho-
rity of Hermanaric cannot fail very early to have reached
his own kinsfolk and immediate neighbours the Wisi-
goths, yet whatever submission they made to him, there
was no real surrender of independence, and they con-
tinued to make peace and war with the Romans or
among themselves, uncontrolled by the Ostrogothic
overlordship
We find this race, therefore, at the date of their first
inroad upon the empire (A.D. 238), occupying a territory
in central Europe of undetermined depth, but in length
extending from the Crimea to the Sereth; divided
about the middle of this line by some far-descended
distinction into east and west folks, and ruled by
princes of two royal houses.
Of their religion as of their manners and mode of
1 For full discussion of the “Gesammt Königthum” see Pall-
man, p. 40 ff.; Dahn, Könige, ii. p. 84 ff.
14
Early History of the Goths.
thought, at and before this epoch, nothing can be ascer-
tained with certainty. Attempts have indeed been
made to find the names of deities in those of the tra-
ditional fathers of the stock, by connecting, for example,
Gapt? or Gaut with Geat (one of the names of Wotan),
or Balthen with Balder; but the very nature of the
attempt is an index of the poverty of our information.
Traces of a mythology and of a worship of some sort
are perhaps to be found in two passages of Jordanis, —
in one of which he states that after a great victory the
chiefs of the people, through whose good fortune it had
been gained, were hailed not as simple men but as
demigods, that is Anses, where there can be little
doubt that we have an allusion to the “Aesir,"s or
upholding deities of northern mythology. In a second
passage," he relates a similar case where the king and
conqueror Tanausis was “worshipped after death among
the deities of his people.” Of sacred objects or of a
national cultus there are very few traces. In the
account given by Sozomen of the persecution under
Athanaric we read of a wooden image set upon a wagon,
which was carried round from one village to another to
receive worship. This recals the procession of Freya
among the northern peoples, when an image was simi-
1 See Grimm, Deut. Myth. 4th ed. i. p. 20.
2 Jordanis, c. 13.
3 Goth."anz," plur.“anzes.” Cf. Luke vi. 41, where it=“beam."
Grimm, Deut. Myth., ut supra.
4 Jordanis, c. 6.
5 Sozomenus, 6, 37. Téryetat rydp is 71 Góavov è d' áppapáčys
εστώς καθ' εκάστην σκηνήν περιάγοντες .... εκέλευον τούτο
προσκυνείν και θύειν.
Traces of a Cultus.
15
M
*
larly carried through the country, and also the account
given by Tacitus of the rites of the goddess Nerthus
or “Mother Earth” among the Lombards. And, if
credence may be given to the details of the description
in Eunapius of the passage of the Dapube in 380
(? 376), the heathens who were then crossing brought
with them both sacred objects and heathen priests and
priestesses. Lastly, in a highly interesting passage in
Jordanis," we may find traces of a belief among the
Goths in certain supernatural beings well known in
northern mythology. The popular legend of the origin
of the Huns is there given; namely, that they were the
offspring of a union between certain witches whom the
Gothic king "discovered among his people, and holding
them in suspicion ejected from the country” with cer-
tain "unclean spirits wandering through the desert.”
It has been conjectured that here, under the phraseo-
logy of Cassiodorus coloured by his biblical knowledge,
there lies an allusion to the Teutonic dwarfs or “skohls”
dwelling in this case not in the caves and holes, but on
the outlying uninhabited steppe.
These scanty indications of the stage of religious
consciousness which the Goths had reached at the time
of their first contact with Christendom are yet sufficient
to warrant the assumption that their natural religion
was similar to that of the other Teutonic races, that
their Valhalla was tenanted by gods removed from
i See Krafft, p. 370.
2 Tacitus, German. C. 40: “vectamque bubus feminis multa
cum veneratione prosequitur,” etc.
3 Eunapius, frag. 46, ed. Niebuhr, p. 88.
4 Jordanis, c. 24.
Early History of the Goths.
humanity more by the heroism of their deeds than by
their morality, benevolence, or even their all controlling
power; while the earth and the darkness were peopled
by unknown beings, partly benevolent and partly
malicious. It was a brave, simple-hearted people,
panting for the treasure, the comfort, and the secure
sustenance to be found only within the Roman empire.
To them Christianity came with winning grace, with
gifts in her hand of knowledge, of power, and of peace.
CHAPTER II.
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE GOTHS.
AUTHORITIES FOR CHAPTER II.
SOURCES :
Philostorgius, Hist. Eccl. Photii epitome.
Zosimus, Hist. Eccl., book i.
Theodoret, Hist. Eccl., book i.
Basilius Magnus, Epistolae.
LITERATURE:
Krafft, Kirchengeschichte der Deutschen Völker, Abth. i. (18
Waitz, Ucher das Leben und die Lehre des Ulfilas (1840).
Bessell, Ueber das Leben des Ulfilas, und die Bekehrung der Gothen zum Chris-
tenthum (1860)..
H. M. Gwatkin, studies of Arianism (1882).
THE necessity, laid upon us by the results of modern
inquiry, of withdrawing from the theory of the early
writers who connected Gothi with Getae, deprives us at
the same time of a great deal of information on the
early history, mythology, worship, and civilisation of
the Goths; for the history and habits of the Getae are
comparatively well known. From their first appearance
in the narrative by Herodotus' of Darius' march against
the Scythians in B.C. 456, allusions to them are fre-
the very length of continuous existence in one district,
which is assumed by those who accept the chain, Scy-
thians-Getae-Goths, the persistency of this one nation,
while all the peoples round them were being moved,
subdued, annihilated, or absorbed, is in itself so unlikely,
that the burden of proof lies fairly upon those who
? Herodotus iv. 93.
2
18 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
To
maintain such a continuity of more than .600 years,
rather than on those who call it in question. More
than one writer, after accepting or demonstrating the
reality of this connexion, has been able to give a full
and interesting account of the ancestors of the Goths,
and especially of their mythology; but as this can no
longer be maintained, we are thrown back for informa-
tion on the very slender sources of Jordanis, and scanty
allusions in other historians. From these, as well as
from the natural probability arising from their close
relationship, it may be gathered, as we have seen, that
the Gothic mythology corresponded pretty closely to
the well-known system of the German peoples. Poly-
theists they certainly were; their gods were of the
Homeric stamp, raised above mankind solely by their
power; while even that was limited by fate, either
personified or impersonal.
The introduction of Christianity among this people
took place during the space of 130 years, less or more,
when they were settled north of the Danube and of
the Euxine. Standing thus in contact with the Roman
empire along their whole southern boundary, they were
also in contact with Christianity. But the time for
missionary enterprise, the age of devoted bands of
missionaries going out from the empire to work among
the barbarians, was not yet. In the third century the
new faith was still struggling for recognition, from
time to time struggling for very existence. Its prospect
of ultimate supremacy was to all appearance very
slight. It was held in the balance against the heathenism,
(D
S
1 e.g. Krafft, Kirchengeschichte d. Deutschen Völker, Part I.
· Due to no Organised Agency.
19
which rested on the traditions of centuries,--and not
rarely within these two centuries, during which the
Goths played their great part without and within the
judge, that the old faith, aided by chance, by the policy
of the imperial court, and by dissension within the
young church, would succeed in crushing its rival. It
would scarcely be expected that a church, struggling for
patronage, with difficulty holding its own against hea-
thenism, and distracted by controversy, if not yet rent
by schism, should shew any great aptitude or enthusiasm
for missionary work; the seeds of Christianity were
carried beyond the Danube by no organised effort,
by no church-supported labourers detached for the
CA
at tbe cost of much misery and suffering.
It has been observed that the first indisputable
appearance of the Goths in European history must be
dated in A.D. 238, when they laid waste the South-
· Danubian province of Moesia as far as the Black Sea.
In the thirty years (238—269) that followed, there
took place no fewer than ten such inroads. Emperor
after emperor marched against the same devastating
barbarians, and whether he achieved victory, or en-
countered defeat, his successors had alike to reckon
with the same foe,-a people, who descended like locusts
upon the fertile plains of Moesia, urged not by desire of
conquest, nor as yet by hope of settlement, but by the
imperious necessity of obtaining food, and by the reports
of a land of plenty and riches, lying across the dividing
See Capitolinus, Vita Maximi, c. 16; cf. id. V. Gordiani,
c. 22.
20 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
stream. The attempt to satisfy these craving hordes
with an annual subsidy failed no less than the attempt
to hold them in check by force of arms. A victory
cost the Emperor Decius 30,000 men. A defeat cost
the lives of the whole Roman army and of the emperor
himself.' Nor had the enemy themselves tilled fields,
valuable cities, or rich treasures to lose, through which
retaliation might be inflicted and a warning brought
home to them. It became at length the despairing
hope of the Roman subjects south of the Danube, that
the winter might pass without the ice on the river
becoming strong enough to afford the barbarians a safe
and easy passage, wherever they chose to cross. Nor
were they content with the plunder of Moesia alone;
but, extending their range, took shipping on the Euxine,
and scoured the coasts of Asia Minor from Trebizond
to Ephesus. Achaia was attacked both by land and by
sea. Even large and fortified towns did not escape
their furious onset or patient blockade, however long
they might have defied their arts of siege ;— Philippo-
polis and Athens, in Europe, Chalcedon, Nicomedia,
and Ephesus, în Asia, fell into their hands.
From these expeditions they returned with immense
booty,~corn and cattle, silks and fine linen, silver and
gold, and captives of all ranks and of all ages. It is to
these captives, many of whom were Christians, and not
a few clergy, that the introduction of Christianity among
1 See Gibbon, c. 10.
2 cf. Libanius, Orat. in Constantium et Constantem, ed. Reiske,
iii. 303; Pallmann, p. 49..
3. A.D. 257, Zosimus, i. 32.
. 4 A.D. 267, Zosimus, i. 39.
Manner of its Introduction.
21
7
.-
.
-
..
.
-
-
-
--
--
.
the Goths is primarily due. Of this we have direct
testimony. Sozomen, relating how, at the time of
Constantine, “the church multiplied throughout the
whole Roman world,” adds as follows: “To almost all the
barbarians the opportunity of having Christian teaching
proclaimed to them was offered by the wars which took
place at that time between the Romans and the other
races, under the reign of Gallienus and his successors.
For when, in those reigns, an untold multitude of mixed
folk passed over from Thrace, and overran Asia, while
from different quarters different barbarian peoples did
in like manner by the Romans alongside them, many
priests of Christ were taken prisoners and abode with
them. And when they were found healing the sick
there, cleansing those who had evil spirits, by simply
naming the name of Christ, and calling on the Son
of God, and, further, holding a noble and blameless
conversation, and overcoming their reproach by their
manly walk, the barbarians marvelled at the men, their
life and wonderful works, and acknowledged that they
themselves would be wise and win the favour of God,
if they were to act after the manner of those, who
thus shewed themselves to be better men, and, like
them, were to serve the Right. So, getting them to
instruct them in their duty, they were taught and
baptised, and subsequently met as a congregation.”
It is of course not to be mistaken that this account,
written nearly a century later, is coloured, especially in
its details, by the ecclesiastical experience of the writer,
and is, in these particulars, little more than a statement
Sozomen. Hist. Eccl. ii. 6; cf. de Vocatione gentium, ii. 33;
Krafft, p. 213.
22 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
-
-
-
-.
.
-.....
TO
of probabilities; but there can be no doubt about the
main fact, that the Christian captives spread the know-
ledge of their faith among their “masters.” This is
further attested by Philostorgius,' who both lived nearer
to the events he described, and was himself a native of
one of the districts of Asia Minor which the Goths had
laid waste. His account is similar to that of Sozomen:
in the reign of Gallienus and Valerian a great body of
Goths had overrun Europe and even crossed into Asia,
Galatia, and Cappadocia, and had carried off from
thence many captives, including members of the clergy;
this "captive and pious crowd” had turned "not a few
of the barbarians” to a life of piety and a Christian
way of thinking.
The influence of such captives on their captors, and
their means of obtaining the respect and affection of
their masters, may be illustrated by the case of the
Iberians, which is given with much detail by Sozo-
men. A captive Christian woman (perhaps a virgin
or nun), named Nouné, first by her blameless and self-
denying life, then by her skill or simple prudence exerted
in healing the sick wife of the king, and finally through
certain strange deliverances and successes, which were
ascribed to her prayers, brought to the faith both the
king and the people, and it is recorded that they built
a church, and sent to Constantine to ask him to provide
them with priests and teachers. Whatever may have
been the foundation for this story, which appears in a
highly-elaborated form, it is easy to see how knowledge
i Philostorg. Hist. Eccl. ii. 5.
2 Sozomenus, ii. 7; cf. Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 27; Moses
Chorenensis, ii. 86; Revillout, p. 17.
Influence of the Captives.
and skill would come to the aid of devotion and purity,
of life, in winning for the Christians from the south
a powerful influence over the simple, unlearned bar-
barians of the north.
These accounts are confirmed, and the sympathy
excited by the fate of the captives throughout the whole
Church is shewn, by an allusion to the circumstances of
this period, which is preserved in one of the letters of
Basil. In a letter, which he addressed to Damasus,
bishop of Rome, beseeching the sympathy and support
of the churches in the west for the churches of his own
diocese, which were suffering from various causes, he
reminds him that there is a precedent for such help in
the assistance rendered by a former bishop of Rome,
Dionysius; for, at that time of the Gothic inroads, be
had condoled with the church in Cappadocia on their
losses and sufferings, and had sent envoys to “redeem
the brethren who were captives.”
· The period of the inroads, which so strangely formed
a sowing-time for Christianity, was followed by a long
period of tranquillity, during which the new faith took
root and spread. The great victory won by Claudius,
after he had almost despaired of the state, was followed
up with the greatest persistency and military skill; and
Aurelian, his successor, had given proof in the same way
of his strength and courage, before he signalised his
wisdom also by withdrawing his garrisons from Dacia,
and deciding henceforth to defend the Danube as the ..
frontier of the Roman empire. The province thus
abandoned was occupied chiefly by the Thervingi or
' Basil. Mag. Ep. 70, ed. Migne.
? At Naissus, A. D. 270 (Gibbon, c. xi.). .
.24 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
Wisigoths;' though some part of it came into the pos-
session of the Taiphali or Victohali, who were probably
smaller branches of the same stem. · On the Goths, thus
at peace with the empire, and established on its
borders, the influence of the Roman world now began to
be more freely exercised. It was one of the conditions
of peace that they should provide a large body of troops,
chiefly cavalry, to serve under the emperor; and though
Aurelian's early death would shorten the period of their
service under himself, yet the arrangement was con-
tinued, and it became more and more the practice for
bodies of Gothsto take service alongside the Roman
legion, and even in the emperor's body guard. While
these emigrants thus came into contact with Roman
manners and Roman opinions, a lively commercial inter-
course, which sprang up between the north and south
banks of the Danube, would bring the same within the
reach of their countrymen at home. The cession of
Dacia bad been followed by the withdrawal of most of
the Roman settlers; but not a few, on the other hand,
had preferred to trust their new masters rather than
leave their old home. These would now become agents
and distributors of the products of the southern pro-
vince, and of the luxuries which a generous treaty of
peace, as well as the security of numerous hostages,
· hindered the Goths from carrying off by force. So
important indeed did this commercial intercourse be-
.Eutropius viii. 2.
? cf. Jordanis, c. 21: “nam sine ipsis dudum contra quasvis
gentes Romanus exercitus difficile decertatus est.”
3 J. Capitolin. in Maximin. 139: “cum Gothis commercia
exercuit.”
Exiles from Persecution in the Empire.
25
TA
come, that its enforced cessation during the war of A. D.
369 was one of the most effective inducements to the
Goths to sue for peace. But if I am right in my con-
jecture as to the reason which had induced some at
least of these “Romans” to remain in the country of
their adoption, they must have had more than an indirect
influence on the propagation of Christianity. The per-
secutions of the Christians, which occurred at intervals
throughout the third century (notably in 235 and 250),
together with the general insecurity of life and property
which they experienced at all times, led many of them
to seek from the barbarians the welcome and protection
which they failed to find in the empire. There has been
preserved a remark of Constantine, which shews that
these migrations had attracted the attention of the em-
peror, and had withdrawn from the empire worthy and
valuable citizens. “The barbarians," he said, “are now
boasting over these very men, even they who received
the men who at that time fled from among us." It may
easily be supposed that settlers who bad left the southern
province for such a cause would be not improbably
found among those who refused to follow the garrisons
when they were withdrawn from the Roman outposts.
It is to the faithful work and pure lives of men such
as these, who had fled from Roman civilisation for con-
science sake, to the example of patience in misfortune
and high Christian character displayed by the captives,
1
1 Amm. Marcell. 27,.5, 7: “quod commerciis vetitis ultima
necessariorum inopia barbari stringebantur.”
2 ap. Euseb. Vit. Const. ii. 53: “Avxoûoi vûv Ćtêneivois oi
βάρβαροι οι τους κατ' εκείνον καιρον εξ ημών φύγοντας υποδε-
δεγμένοι, και φιλανθρωποτάτη αιχμαλωσία τηρήσαντες.”
26
Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
and to the instruction of the presbyters sprinkled among
them, that we must look, as the source of Christianity
among the Goths.?
The peaceful relation between the Goths and the
empire remained undisturbed, except by occasional raids
made by small parties of Goths on the southern bank,
until the reign of Constantine. Nor is it very easy to
trace the causes or the progress of the hostilities which
then broke out. . The transference of the capital from
Rome to Constantinople, and the necessity of securing
the frontier, which lay comparatively near to the new
capital, no doubt made Constantine more ready to take
the offensive; but the conditions of peace, which were
offered and accepted, as well as the statements that he
agreed to pay a subsidy to the barbarians, give weight
to the supposition that his object was not so much to
subdue or terrify them as to enforce a favourable
alliance and obtain guarantees for their conduct. Cam-
paigns were carried on against the Goths probably
in the years 323 and 332 (in the latter case under the
younger Constantine), and at the conclusion of the
latter the Goths submitted, gave hostages for future
good behaviour (amongst whom was found the son of
the king Aorich), and further agreed to provide a
contingent of 40,000 troops for the imperial army.*
? cf. Bessell, Goths, p. 132 (in Ersch und Gruber).
2 Sozomenus i. 8; Eusebius iv. 5; Socrates i. 18.
3 Julian. Caesares, c. 24.
4 Jordanis, c. 21, who adds, " quorum et numerus et militia
usque ad praesens in republica nominantur; id est Foederati.”
These “ Foederati” were still extant in the reign of Zeno (A.D. 477);
. cf. Malchus, Hist. Byz. ed. Niebuhr, i. 237.
Early References to Christian Goths.
IS
Up to this point we have found no direct allusion in
the writers of the time either to Christianity or to a
church among the Goths; and the coincidence is cer-
tainly remarkable that the earliest distinct reference to
them as Christians comes from the champion of the
orthodox faith against the heresy which they afterwards
adopted. Athanasius, writing before the Council of -
Nicaea, mentions among the list of barbarian peoples
who had received the gospel of Christ both Scythians and
Goths. They, together with Aethiopians and Armenians,
had shewn the power of Christianity by changed. lives, by
abandoning cruelty and massacre. Even wars they no
longer loved, but had betaken themselves to peaceful
pursuits; and the hands that had grasped the sword
they now stretched out in prayer. 'Nay, so strong was
their faith, they even despised death, and some of them
had already become martyrs of Christ.
The allusion in Cyrila is less direct; for though
among the races whom he claims as Christian the
Goths certainly find a place, yet the challenge is ex-
pressed in such general language, and is so obviously
rhetorical, that we should hardly be justified in con-
cluding (as some have done) that he meant to assert that
among them also was found a fully-organised church,
possessing “ bishops, presbyters, deacons, monks, virgins,
i De Incarnatione Verbi ($ 51, 52), A.D. 320. Cf. Neander,
trans. iii. 177, Bessell, Ulfilas, p. 116, and Krafft, p. 214, all of whom
connect this passage with the Goths. Cf. also Libanius, ed. Reiske,
iii. 303, where he states the problem, and gives his own solution,
viz. what induced the Scythians “ τους άρει τετελεσμένους και
δυστύχημα την ησυχίαν κρίνοντας ειρήνην μεν αγαπήσαι κατα-
θέσθαι δε τα όπλα.”
2 Cyril, Cat. xvi. 22; cf. xi. 19 and xiii. 40.
28 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
0
)
and laity besides.” Nor can we refer even the state-
ment of Athanasius to the Goths of the Danube; far
more probably had he in mind a community and a
church in the Crimean peninsula. The fact (to which
we shall have to refer later), that, of all the sea raids
undertaken by the Goths between the years 238 and
269, the Wisigoths took part in only two, while the
Ostrogoths, who were settled in Southern Russia along
the coast of the Euxine from the Crimea to the Dneister,
were engaged probably in all of them, makes it very
unlikely that the captives mentioned by Philostorgius
were carried anywhere else than to the eastern settle-
ments. To the influence of these Asian Christians,
exerted mainly, if not entirely, upon the Ostrogoths,
must be added the ever-increasing intercourse carried
on by sea between the Crimea and both the southern
shore of the Euxine and Constantinople. To these
probabilities has now to be added the fact that the
only. traces. of an organised Gothic Church existing
before the year 341 are clearly to be referred to a .
community in this neighbourhood. Among the bishops
who were present at the Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325),
and who signed the symbol which was then approved,
we find a certain. Theophilus, before whose name stand
the words “de Gothis," and after it the word "Bosphor-
itanus.” There can be little doubt that this was a bishop
· representing a Gothic Church on the Cimmerian Bos-
phorus; and if, following the Paris MSS., we read further
i Concilior. coll. ampl. ed. Mansi, ii. 696; Socrates ii. 41;
vide Tillemont, Mem. p. Serv. Hist. Eccl. x. 2; Waitz, p. 35.
Krafft (p. 216) alone, so far as I know, tries to connect Theophilus
with the Byzantine Bosphorus.
Church in the Crimea.
down the list the name Domnus Bosphorensis or Bos-
phoranus, we may find here another bishop from this
diocese, and regard Theophilus as chief or arch-bishop
of the Crimean churches. The undoubted presence
at this council of at least one bishop of the Goths, and
the conclusion drawn therefrom in favour of the ortho-
doxy of the Gothic Church in general, led afterwards
to the greatest confusion. Failing to distinguish be-
tween the Crimean and Danubian communities, the
bistorians often found their information contradictory,
and altered it in the readiest way to suit the condition
of the Church which they had specially in view.
One other figure, which is little but a shadow, must
be placed between the Nicene Council and the general
conversion of the Goths. In the touching and affec-
tionate letter of Basil to Ascholius," thanking him for
the gift to the Church of Cappadocia of certain relics of
Gothic martyrs, we hear for the first and only time of
Eutyches, a Cappadocian, a friend and probably contem-
porary of Basil, who had gone to Europe, and in some .
way become a missionary among the Goths. These
martyrs had been fruits of his ministry. The letter of
- Ascholius had reminded Basil of his friend, for he says,
“You gladdened me by the remembrance of the old
days, while you saddened me by the testimony of what
I saw; for no one of us stands near to Eutyches for worth
—we, who are so far from bringing to gentleness the
barbarian by the power of the spirit and the exercise of
the gift received from Him, that even those who are
e
1 Bessell, Ulfilas, p. 116.
2 S. Basilii Magni, Epp. pp. 254, 255; Ep. 164, ed. Migne.
· 30 Beginnings of Christianity among the Gotls.
gently disposed are made fierce by the exceeding num-
ber of our sins."
Eutyches, being dead, had yet spoken to his old
friend through the relics and in the story of the suffer-
ings of his disciples; and perhaps Basil half regretted
that his lot had kept him in an organised Christian
community, whence “love was fled," and where, though
there were “beavy tribulations, there was found none
of the martyr spirit. He wrote this letter during his
bishopric, that is to say, between 370 and 379, and as
he was himself born in 329, we may place the activity
among the Goths of Eutyches his friend between the
years 355 and 365...
We are now met, almost simultaneously, by the fact,
of which the consequences were niost serious, and by the
man, whose influence for good and evil was most momen-
tous, for the Gothic Church,—by the personality of Ulfilas
and by the Arianism of the Goths. For it was soon
known in the Christian world that the Gothic Church
was Arian in its creed, fatally and stubbornly attached
to some form of that teaching which had been con-
demned at Nicaea, and thus hopelessly alienated from
the party which had triumphed there, and eventually
made good its claims to represent the only orthodox
faith. It was also widely known that the conversion
of that section of the nation, which became the Gothic
Church, was due to the apostolic labours of one of
their own race,-the great missionary bishop Ulfilas.
But to him too was to be traced the heresy in which
they stopped short on the way from heathenism to a
complete Christian faith. To the ecclesiastical mind
of the fourth century this was a condition more des-
Their Arianism.
:
31
perate, and an attitude more hostile to the true Church,
than open heathenism or blatant infidelity. It was a
battle for life and death between the two parties, and
certain even of those courtesies which obtain between
ordinary foes were suspended in this internecine struggle:
The victory fell ultimately to the Athanasians; and the
Arians suffered by the fortune of war, what there is no
reason to doubt they would have inflicted had victory
been theirs, the fate of having their history written by
contemptuous and unscrupulous enemies. Thus, in
the period which we now approach the first age. of
the Gothic Church—there is added to the insecurity
which inevitably belongs to the statements of historians
writing from fifty to eighty years after the events they
record, the distrust which is raised by the obvious and
even avowed partisanship of the writers. In the matter
of the Arian Gothic Church of Ulfilas, the relation of
these three terms, the Church, the Man, and the Creed,
is presented in every possible variation. Each one of
them appears in turn as the parent of the others, and it
is only too clear that, when the events in their historical
sequence did not coincide with the ecclesiastical (or
anti-ecclesiastical) views of the writer, they were not
seldom re-arranged, or even distorted to that end. It
is fortunate, however, that historical works dealing with
this period, and founded to some extent at least on
contemporary authorities, are preserved in sufficient
numbers to make a comparison possible. Such a com-
parison ought to yield a precipitate of truth; and while
we must decline to follow the most thoroughgoing
foreign critic the full length of his destructive criticisin
in this field, it may prove possible to construct a har-
32 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
mony of the authorities, and to ascertain with some,
nearness to certainty what were the events, and what
their sequence, which lie behind these apparently con-
tradictory accounts. We must be prepared to find that
round Ulfilas, as the central figure in the Gothic Church,
or rather as the only name of a spiritual leader of the
Goths known to most of the historians, much has
gathered that does not of right belong to him. His
was the name that suggested itself to be attached to
any nameless ecclesiastic who crossed the stage of
Gothic history; his influence the deus ex machina to
be summoned to solve all historical puzzles. In like
manner, when attempts came to be made in much later
times to collect the scattered scraps of information
regarding the Gothic Church, his is the figure round
which they have all been grouped; so that, to take one
example, we are gratified by a list of four or five Gothic
bishops, “successors of Ulfilas,” though he in all proba-
bility had no successor, or at most but one, who can be
identified.
The materials for a life of Ulfilas and an estimate of
his character and position, inadequate as they are even
now, were still more unsatisfactory till within the last
fifty years. Up till 1840 we were dependent entirely
upon the Church historians of the fifth century, whose
unfriendly attitude towards a heretic of the preceding
century, and uncritical handling of the traditions on
which they founded, furnished but a meagre and
untrustworthy account of the great bishop. It was the
good fortune of Waitz to discover, in a MS. in the
library of the Louvre, a new and authentic account,
written by an Arian, a contemporary, and indeed a
TY
The Document discovered by Waitz.
33
1.
scholar, of Ulfilas. The importance of the discovery is
obvious. We can now behold the man, and the eccle-
siastic, from two sides, as he had left his mark on the
memories of his opponents, and as he was known by his
intimate friend, adherent, and pupil, Auxentius.
The foundation of an enquiry into the history, of
which Ulfilas was the centre and the pivot, will perhaps
best be laid by an account of this document. For, though
it is true that of the points in dispute in regard to his
life but few are touched on by Auxentius, yet in his
evidence we shall find firm ground from which to
approach the debated questions. This memoir is con-
tained in a MS.,' the proper contents of which are
certain writings of Hilary, two books of. Ambrose de
fide, and a copy of the proceedings of the Council of
Aquileia, held in 381| The object of this council,
where the Catholics were led by Ambrose, was to bring
to reason or submission the western Arians, who were
represented by Palladius and Secundianus. There was
little courtesy shewn to opponents in such councils, and
small respect for the rights of minorities. Ambrose, no
doubt, conducted himself overbearingly towards the
heretics, but what they resented most bitterly was that
their pleadings and replies were' misrepresented or
omitted in the official account of the proceedings. To
correct these misrepresentations and supply the omis-
sions, another Arian has made use of the broad margin
of his copy of the Acta to make a fresh copy of his own,
.
.
.
VU
1 In the Paris Library, Supplement Latin No. 594, partially
deciphered and edited by Georg Waitz in Ueber das Leben und die
Lehre des Ulfilas (Hanover, 1840); described and critically
examined by Bessell, Tcher das Leben des Ulfilas, etc. (1860).
3
34 ,Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
inserting remarks and corrections, as well as some
longer documents bearing on the proceedings of the
pages, with a wide interval of twenty-five pages in the
middle, whose margin is left blank. It is unfortunately
much injured. For not only has one whole line at the
top and at the bottom of almost every sheet been cut
away in the binding, as well as many letters from the
fore-edge, but the text itself also has been defaced in
several places, and that so systematically, that it can
hardly have been caused by accident. The writing is an
autograph of the compiler himself, and from his regular
expression in introducing his own remarks, we learn
that his name was Maximin, and that he was a bishop.
That he was also an. Arian is clear from the whole scope
of the document, and from the tendency of these remarks,
which is uniformly to correct the Acta in favour of the
Arian representatives.
The fragmentary character and partial illegibility of
the MS. is very unfortunate, and a hiatus frequently
occurs just where it was most important to have a
continuous text; for Maximin took occasion to add to,
or introduce into, his version of the Acta sundry docu-
ments, whose character and relation to the council
could only be ascertained with certainty if the context
were complete. But one consequence of the mutilation
of the MS. is that it is no longer possible to discover
exactly at what point, and by what connecting link, the
i Cf. Actt. conc. Aquil. p. 399, and Waitz's MS. : “et his
apparet quomodo pro sua voluntate scripserunt, quod eos libuit”;
see Bessell, p. 3.
2 e.g. “Maximinus episcopus interpretans (rel disserens) dicit.”
Auxentius and Ulfilas.
· 35
writer passes from his revised or annotated copy of
the transactions to the document, which is of such
value and importance for the life of Ulfilas. Never-
theless, from references which are made to it in other
parts of the MS., both its author and its subject may be
ascertained beyond doubt.
: The writer was Auxentius, an Arian bishop of
Dorostorus (Silistria), and it is Ulfilas whom he describes
thus: “A man whom I am not competent to praise
according to his merit, yet altogether keep silent I dare
not. One to whom I, most of all men, am a debtor,
even as he bestowed more labour upon me. For from
my earliest years he received me from my parents to be
his disciple, taught me the sacred writings and mani-
fested to me the truth, and, through the tender mercy
of God and the grace. of Christ, brought me up both
physically and spiritually as his son in the faith." In
the first line, which is legible, of this account, drawn up
by Auxentius, he is found distinctly referring to one,
who can be no other than this his master, as “of most
upright conversation, truly a confessor of Christ, a
teacher of piety, and a preacher of truth.” To this there
follows immediately an exposition of the doctrinal
position of Ulfilas, and of his teaching regarding the
qualities and relations of the Father and the Son.
This is very full, and includes a description of his
attitude towards each of the parties which were promi-
nent in the Church at that time, with reasons for his
dissent from each. Leaving the doctrinal position of
Z A
VO
--
--
+
U
1 Waitz, ut sup. p. 33; Bessell, p. 1, seq.
... 2 MS. fol. 284.
36 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
to
ti
Ulfilas for future examination, we find the epochs of
his life given by Auxentius thus. He died at Con-
stantinople at the age of seventy, when he had been
bishop and preached “in the one and only church of
Christ” for forty years, having been consecrated at the
age of thirty, the earliest canonical age. Previous to his
consecration he had been a “lector” or reader; as bishop
he worked for seven years among the Goths on the far
side of the Danube, till, a cruel persecution having risen
against them, he sought and obtained leave from “ the
emperor Constantius” to move his flock across the
Danube, and settle with them in Moesia; here he spent
(so far as we learn from Auxentius) the remaining three
and thirty years of his bishopric and his life, till he
(undertook his last journey to Constantinople “upon
imperial request," and died almost as soon as he reached -
the city.
The facts of his life are given very briefly and
tersely, especially when compared with the account of
his teaching; and it is worthy of note that no direct
mention is made of his great work of translation;
hence we feel that the object of the writing was not
primarily historical or biographical or even commemo-
Irative, but doctrinal if not polemic. It is quite in
accordance with this view that the climax and the close
of the work is the creed of Ulfilas, solemnly introduced
by the words :: “And he, moreover, at his departure,
leven in the moment of death, through his testament,
left for the people committed to him a statement of his
faith.” Then follows the creed, and though the con-
clusion is unfortunately lost through the defective state
1 MS. ed. Waitz, fol. 286.

L
The
1.
A
T
.
.
II
.
*
'
.
..
.
.
Data of Auxentius for Life of Ulfilas.
37
Tinn
1
of the MS., yet enough remains to shew that it was
distinctly Arian in its tendency; while, on the other
hand, it corresponded exactly with none of the many
creeds which were at the time the watchwords of as
many parties. Of the utmost importance, however, for
the history of the Gothic Church is the first clause,
which runs, _“I, Ulfilas, bishop and confessor, have
always thus believed.” Ulfilas was at no time in his
life an adherent of the Athanasian party. .
It will at once. be seen that the most important date!
for fixing the chronology of his life is that of the year
when he journeyed to. Constantinople, and died. The
object of his visit has been lost through the fragmen-
tary state of the MS. at this point; but at the very
end of the MS. the second part of which consists of a'
polemical work by Palladius addressed to Ambrose, we
find an independent allusion to Ulfilas, and to a journey
which he made to Constantinople, attended “by the
other bishops.”It is also stated that their object was
to induce the emperor to summon a general council.
They obtained his promise ; whereupon the leaders of the
opposite (Athanasian) party were alarmed, and brought
so much pressure to bear upon the emperor that he
not only withdrew his promise, but also issued a
decree4. forbidding the holding of any discussion con-
. 1 “Ego Ulfila episcopus et confessor semper sic credidi, et in
hac fide sola et vera testamentum facio ad Dominum meum."
2 Bessell, Ulfilas, p. 17.
3 “ ceteris consortibus.”
4 “Ut lex daretur quae concilium prohiberet, sed nec privatim
in domo, nec in publico vel in quolibet loco disputatio de fide habe-
retur.”—(MS. ed. Waitz, fol. 327, p. 23.)
38 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
D
Y
cerning the faith “either in private at home, or in
public, or in any place whatsoever.” 1
The date of the composition of the principal work
which Maximin has inserted in this marginal script,
that of Palladius, which forms the second part of the
(MS. (ff. 314-327)—could be fixed with some certainty,
(1) between the death of Auxentius, bishop of Milan,
and the appointment of an Arian successor, Mercurin
(Auxentius II.), that is between 374-386; (2) between
the Council of Aquileia and the death of Damasus,
bishop of Rome, that is between 381-384. Taking
note of the fact that the writing contains no reference
to the Acta Concil. Aquil., which could scarcely have
happened, if it had been compiled after the publication
of the Acta, and further that the interest in the whole
controversy subsided very rapidly after the same council,
Il we should date the work nearer to 381 than to 384.
If it could be assumed, therefore, that this clause, which
brings the MS. to a conclusion, is in vital connexion with
the rest of the work, and part of the same composition,
the date of Ulfilas' death would be ascertained to within
one or two years; for it would be mentioned in a docu-
ment which cannot be placed earlier than 381 or later
than 384. But, however probable this date may on other
grounds be shewn to be, it cannot be supported from
the general date of the composition of this polemic of
Palladius. The last clause is not homogeneous with
the whole work. It is preceded in the MS. by a passage
of impassioned appeal, which might most fitly form a
peroration by itself. After a rhetorical allusion to Italy
1 MS. Waitz, “an de mediolanensi (scil. Auxentio) qui sine
successore decessit.” cf. Tillemont, Elist. Eccl. x. 165, 746.
The Last Paragraph an Independent Addition. 39
CU
ny
and Rome, "which have been held worthy to behold
the martyrdoms of apostles, and to hold their sacred
relics in possession,” Palladius challenges the Atha-
nasians, “if they have any assurance of faith,” to meet
their adversaries in public disputation before the senate
at Rome, and promises on behalf of the Arians that
their defences, drawn up at all points according to the
authority of all the Scriptures, should then be forth-
coming. Amongst the audience he hoped they would
permit the presence of “followers of heathenism” as
well as Christians, citing the mission of Paul to the
Gentiles, and of Peter to the Jews, as a proof that the
“ Apostolic summons excluded none from hearing of
religion.” “For, so it shall come to pass, that when
truth, which is in the meanwhile crushed by your
hostile attack, begins to breathe again, those who now
appear to be without will become servants of God.”
Finally, he declares that, wheresoever it may please
them to hold a council, by the help of God through
His only begotten Son, Palladius of Ratiara, and
Auxentius, out of the rest of the bishops, will not be
found wanting. It is at the close of this impassioned
address to Ambrose that there follows immediately the
notice of the last journey of Ulfilas to Constantinople,
which is related in the matter-of-fact style of an
annalist, and supported by a reference to the narrative.
of “Saint Auxentius," which had been inserted in the
first section of Maximin's MS.
The conclusion cannot be avoided that the notice of
Ulfilas forms no integral part of the writing of Palladius,
but is, in truth, a pendant to it added by Maximin.
Hence the date of the composition of Palladius' polemic
40 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths..
cannot be taken to define the date of the death of
Ulfilas, which must be ascertained upon independent
evidence. Now, the tenour of this concluding para-
graph is as follows: "When they (presumably Palladius
and Auxentius), together with Ulfilas and the rest of
their fellow-bishops, had reached Constantinople, and
the emperors, moreover, were present there, after that a
council had been promised to them, as Auxentius has
set forth, the heads of the heretic party did use all their
influence to have a decree issued to forbid a council,
and to provide that neither privately at home, nor
publicly, nor in any place whatsoever, should any dis-
putation concerning the faith be held—as is shewn
by the text of the decree.” Regarding this statement
by itself, we would gather that Palladius pursued his
plan of a council, but wished it now to be held not at
Rome, but at Constantinople. The Arian bishops, with
Ulfilas amongst them, met in the capital. If this is
called a council or synod by Maximin, it is, nevertheless,
nothing more than a conference of Arian bishops.
They had come not to meet or form a general council,
but to demand one; and, furthermore, the presence
of the emperors in Constantinople seerns to be re-
garded by the chronicler as an accident, and one
favourable to their design. Their mission appeared at
first likely to be crowned with success. The much-
desired council was promised to them. Upon this the
Athanasians (here called “heretics,” according to the
common practice of the Arians, who regarded themselves
as alone the true Church), took alarm, and brought such
pressure to bear on the emperors that not only was the
1 “ibique etiam et imperatores adissent.”
Evidence from Decrees cited in MS.
41
promise rescinded, but a decree was issued, which finally
crushed the hopes of the Arian party by prohibiting .
religious discussions of any and every kind. This
· two decrees of Theodosius, which profess to embody the
legislation referred to in the text, the origin of which
has been thus described. Now these laws are dated in
388 and 386 respectively. The former of the two,
however, is seen to refer more directly to such circum-
in the Codex of Theodosius, the year of the journey of
the bishops, the year of the death of Ulfilas, has been
fixed at 388. I
It cannot be denied that there appears to be cir-
cumstantial evidence here of the strongest kind; so
much so that, in spite of the convergence of many other
lines of proof on 381 as the date of Ulfilas' death,
Waitzt was compelled, with not a little reluctance, to
accept the year 388, and to assign dates to the different
events of his life by reckoning backwards from that year
as the year of his death. Thus his birth falls in 318,
his consecration as bishop in 348, and his flight with
his people in 355.
The reluctance to accept the date thus forced upon
him by the connexion set up between Ulfilas' last journey
to Constantinople and the laws of 388 and 386, is well
founded; the difficulties and contradictions that follow
are many and insuperable. In the first place, there is
po trace of an assembly of bishops at Constantinople in
388. The church historians, well-informed as they are
on the events of the time in question, have no mention
i Waitz, p. 47 f.
42 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
S
7
of it, and, moreover, a council in that year can be shewn
to have been out of the question, since the emperor,
who, according to Auxentius, must have been at Con-
stantinople, was absent from the capital during the
greater part of the year. In the next place, the legisla-
tion of the year 383 had been already such as to destroy
all possibility of a council for the settlement or even for
the discussion of the Arian question. In fact, the
policy of suppression, which had been persistently and
systematically followed out by Theodosius since his
accession, had long before 388 so reduced the numbers
and influence of the Arian party in the Church that
proposals for a council at that time would have been
absurd, even if they had been legally possible. Thirdly,
the laws quoted at the end of the MS. prove, on
examination, to be quite inappropriate, and even futile
in regard to their ostensible purpose,-namely, to
rescind a promise just given, and absolutely to forbid
the proposed council.
But these very laws thus quoted, which give
rise to the difficulty, contain also the clue to its solu-
tion. It is admitted that, in the MS. of Waitz, we
have the actual autograph of the compiler, Maximin,
who made use of the wide margin of his copy
of the Acts of the Council of Aquileia to engross
thereon some portion of the same Acta, with a few
1 This had not escaped Waitz. "Freilich wissen wir nichts von
einer Versammlung von Bischöfen zu Constantinopel im Jahre,
· 388.” p. 47.
2 It is true that Waitz reads, “Nulli . . . . concilii aliquid
deferendi patescat occasio," but, apart from the difficulty of con-
struction and sense involved, the text of the codex gives consilii
without any v.l.
Their Citation not Justified.
43
remarks of his own interjected, a quotation from
Cyprian, the writing of Auxentius, and the letter which
Palladius had publicly addressed to Ambrosius. Who
Maximin himself was, there is nothing beyond bis own
writing to shew; but from this it appears that he was
a bishop, an Arian, and had been in all probability a
personal friend of Palladius, Secundian, and Auxentius, ·
with whose ephemeral works he is so well acquainted,
and whose opinions he defends so earnestly. At what
time he collected for himself these documents, bearing on
the Arian controversy, cannot be distinctly ascertained.
On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the
appended laws, together with the statement derived
from Auxentius, of which they are offered in confir-
mation, and which has been shewn above to be in-
dependent of the foregoing Palladian document, were
not written here before 438. The evidence for this
statement is very curious. The second of these two
laws (the year of whose issue has unfortunately been
defaced in the MS.) is identical in its wording with
the law of 386, Codex Theodosianus XVI. 4, 1.
The most cursory exarnination of this law, however,
shews that it is incomplete; for neither has it any
grammatical construction, nor does it convey any
effective sense. In fact, a comparison with Cod. Theod.
XVI. 1, 4, shews that it is nothing more than an
incomplete sentence taken from that law, which here
appears as independent and complete. Thus, not only
is the ostensible application of the second law dis-
credited, by which it is referred to the prohibition of
Arian conferences at Constantinople, but it proves to be
a fragment of a law issued by Valentinian at Milan,
'Y
I
1
nin
44 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
)
1
under special circumstances, and actually in favour of
the Arian party, while this particular clause was directed
against the Catholics, “who think that to themselves -
alone the liberty of assembly has been granted.” Now,
since it cannot be supposed that this detachment of a
sentence of the law Cod. Theod. XVI. 1, 4, and the
erection of the fragment into an independent law, took
place twice-once in the hands of the collator of the
Codex, and again in those of Maximin-it follows that
the latter drew his quotation from the published Codex.
But the Codex was not collected and published till the
year 438. With this second law we must connect also
the first one, which immediately precedes it in the
Codex, and assume that Maximin, having the statement
of Auxentius before him, searched the Codex for an
edict or edicts to confirm it, found these two in im-
mediate proximity to one another, under the very
appropriate title, “De his qui de fide contendunt,"
and hastily added them to his text.
If, therefore, the connexion of the year 388 with the
last journey of Ulfilas to Constantinople depends only
on the evidence of Maximin, writing later than 438,
and conjecturally assigning the laws he quotes to the
circumstances in the text, we are at liberty to neglect
this evidence in favour of the otherwise converging
testimony in favour of a date between 381 and 383. One
of the objections to the date of 388 for the futile
application for a council was, that there was no trace of
such negotiations in the historians, nor would such an
attempt have been possible under the historical cir-
cumstances as we know them. This objection does not
apply to 381. We are aware of a situation and a
Situation Corresponding to that in Auxentius. 45
IT
wan
I
1
course of events which, though differing in detail,
are yet in striking agreement with the situation and
events described by Auxentius. | Sozomen, in intro-
ducing a story of readiness and address displayed by an
aged bishop in the presence of Theodosius, explains
that “the Arians, being still a considerable body, on
account of the support given them by Constantius and
Valens, were assembling with more boldness, and holding
public discussion concerning God and the divine sub-
stance; and they were for persuading the officers
of the palace, who were like-minded with themselves,
to make trial of the emperor. For they thought to
succeed in their attempt, having regard to what hap-
pened in the time of Constantine. But this also raised
anxiety and alarm in the party of the Catholics."
From this point the account goes on to speak of
Eunomius as the object of special fear among the
Catholics, in relation to the emperor; and describes
how, by the influence of his wife, and the parabolic
instruction of a courageous bishop, "he became more
cautious, and did not admit those who held the con-
trary opinion;"? and a decree was issued, forbidding
discussion and assemblies in the public market, and
“making it very unsafe to discuss the nature and sub-
stance of the Godhead in the same way as before.” The
correspondence of this account with Auxentius is suf-
ficiently remarkable. In both, the emperor is the
1 Soz. vii. 6; cf. Theodoret, v. 16; cf. Tillemont, Mem. Hist.
Eccl. vi. 627, and note 104. The reasons put forth for disregarding
the chrorfological arrangement of Sozomen are insufficient.
2 ασφαλέστερος γενόμενος oυ πρoσίετο τους παρά τούτο
enčášovias.
46 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
central figure; inclining at first to admit the heretics
to negotiations, raising thereby the alarm of the Catho-
lics.; being diverted, through their influence, from his
tolerant purpose, and destroying all hope in the heretic
party by. the issue of an edict forbidding all public
discussion. This account is placed by Sozomen be-
tween the arrival of Theodosius in Constantinople and
the consequent banishment of Demophilus, and the
meeting of the Great Council of Constantinople, that
is to say, between' November, 380, and June, 381.
Turning now to the Codex Theodosianus, XVI. 5, 6, we
find an "edict of January 10th, 381, which answers
exactly to the.circumstances and the foregoing negotia-
tions as described by betla Auxentius and Sozomen, while
we cannot but find a distinct reference to the promise
hastily given by the emperor in one of the opening
sentences : “Let all men know, that even if anything
have been obtained by men of this kind by any special
authority whatever, craftily obtained, it is of no value.”
Finally, the transfer of the date of Ulfilas' death,
from 388 to 381, provides an immediate solution of a
very perplexing statement in another historian. In an
account of Ulfilas, given by Philostorgius (368—430),
who, after Auxentius, stands nearest to him in point of
time, and is further connected with him by the ties of a
common creed His consecration to the bishopric is
described thus :3 “Having been sent by the rulers of
X
i Bessell, Ulfilas, p. 30. 2 See Waitz, p. 36.
3 Philostorg. Hist. Eccl. ii. 5, • Toivuv Ouppilas OÛTOS
καθηγήσατο της εξόδου των ευσεβών, επίσκοπος αυτών πρώτος
καταστάς κατέστη δεν ώδε, παρά του την αρχήν άγοντος του
έθνους επί των Κωνσταντίνου χρόνων είς πρεσβείαν συν άλλοις
Philostorgius' Account of Ulfilas.
47
100
11
LIU
Atvy
the nation on an embassy, with certain others, in the
time of Constantine, ... he was appointed by Eusebius,
and the bishops with him, to be bishop over the
Christians in Gothia.” As the history of Philostorgius
is preserved only in the epitome which is given of it by
Photius, who is, moreover, of opinion that Philostorgius
taken much pains to mould the extracts he made into a
harmonious account, it is not difficult to understand
how the embassy, and the selection for the office of
bishop, are carelessly put together in one sentence, and
0
VOIR
of Constantine (who died in 337). But no similar
account can be given of the express assertion that
Ulfilas was made bishop by “ Eusebius, and the bishops
with him.” That is a fact on which Philostorgius is as
likely to be paccurate as Photius is unlikely to have
invented it. And as Eusebius, of Nicomedia, who
alone can be referred to,' died in 342, to place the
consecration of Ulfilas in 348 involves a hopeless con-
tradiction to the authoritative statement of Philostor-
gius. On the other hand, if 381 be accepted as the
year of Ulfilas' death, reckoning back the forty years of
his bishopric, we arrive at 341 as the year of his
consecration, and that is within the lifetime of Eusebius.
Nor was a fitting opportunity lacking in that year. At
the Council of the Dedication, held at Antioch in 341,2
αποσταλείς- και γάρ και τα τη δε βάρβαρα έθνη υπεκέκλιτο τω
τονείται των εν τη Γετική χριστιαναζόντων.
| Eusebius of Caesarea died circa 338.
2 See especially Gwatkin, p. 114 f.
48 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
there were present some ninety bishops of the Eusebian
party, and Eusebius was the leading spirit there. It
can, of course, be only a conjecture, but if the consecra-
tion of Ulfilas took place at this time, and during this
council, then the expression of Philostorgius, ÚTÒ Evoe-
Biov kaì Tôv olv aŭto ÉTI LOKÓT Wv, becomes fully in-
telligible.
These are the grounds upon which the conclusion of
Waitz may be set aside, and the year 381 accepted in
place of 388 as the year of Ulfilas' death. The other
dates follow accordingly. He was born in 311, con-
secrated bishop of the “ Christians in Gothia” in 341,
and migrated with his persecuted flock into Moesia in
348. In 380 he journeyed to Constantinople in
obedience to a summons from the emperor, and there
he died, either at the end of the same year, or in the
very first days of 381. So much may be established upon
the testimony of Auxentius, the simplicity of whose
account, together with the entire absence of “ tendency,"
which is implied in the fact that the biographical
notice is quite apart from, and subordinate to, the main
purpose of the document, entitle him to the fullest
fcredit. L Unfortunately, he went no farther; and from
the man, whose familiarity with the people, the scene,
the circumstances, and the chief actor, would have
enabled him to give most valuable information, we
have, so far as regards the outward history of Chris-
tianity among the Goths, little more than the bare
facts collected above.
| Seeking now to fill in these outlines, we have to
depend on less satisfactory authorities, who wrote, for the
most part, fifty or sixty years after the death of Ulfilas,
Y
AAC
5
Account of Ulfilas by Philostorgius.
49
and had views of church history, and of church and state
policy, to support, which were an almost irresistible temp-
tation to accept or reject statements according to their
bearing on these points, if not in some cases to modify
them in the direction of their own sympathies. The
passage in Philostorgius, to which reference has already
been made,' supplies important information concerning
Ulfilas, which goes far to fill up the outlinė given.
by Auxentius. Beginning with the remark that “ about
this time Ulfilas (Ourphilas) is said to have brought
across into Roman soil a large body of people from
among the Scythians beyond the Danube (whom the
ancients called Getae, but the moderns, Goths),”-he
proceeds to describe the origin of Christianity among
this people, as has been shewn above, and refers especially
to Asia, Galatia, and Cappadocia, as districts from
which Christian captives were carried off. “To this
body of captives belonged also the forefathers of Ulfilas,
being Cappadocians by race, from a township near to
Parnassus, and a village called Sadagolthina. This
port, sufficient almost to induce conviction, from the fact
that Philostorgius, as a Cappadocian and an Arian him-
self, may be presumed to be well-informed on the point
in question. But this support is only apparent, and the
statement itself, in the absence of attestation from any
collateral evidence, can at best be regarded as a tradition
preserved by a writer to whom it was a matter of per-
sonal interest. The following points are to be noted :
1 Philostorg. Hist. Eccl. ii. 5. .
2 Waitz, p. 36.
4
50 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
First, the connexion of Philostorgius with Cappadocia
does not really add weight to his testimony regarding
the descent of Ulfilas from a Cappadocian captive, carried
off thence to some place beyond the Danube. He
stands even less near to original information on this
point than a Byzantine writer would do. Indeed, such
a fact could hardly be known to any one, writing forty
or fifty years after the death of Ulfilas, except by
a tradition derived from Ulfilas himself.
Secondly, it is to say the least, highly improbable
that any captives carried away from Cappadocia were
so carried away by the Goths of the Danube; still less
probable that such could be the case in the expedition
to which Philostorgius refers the captivity of an ancestor
of Ulfilas. This expedition, in the reign of Valerian and
Gallienus, took place in 267, and in so far as it was the
only one which penetrated to Cappadocia, the account
of Philostorgius is confirmed. But in all the sea-
expeditions, except that of 258, in which the Wisigoths
also took part, but which reached nº further than Nico-
media, the marauders were Ostrogoths from the Crimea
and the coast of the Euxine, who had quickly learnt to
make use of the highway of the sea, perhaps had only
to recall their experience acquired on the Baltic. Hence
we should naturally look for Cappadocian captives, and
traces of their influence, in the Crimea, but not among
the Goths of the Danube.
Thirdly, it is not easy to understand how the
descendants of a captive family could, in the third
generation, have risen to such importance among the
Goths that one of them, at the age of 17 or 23, should
1 See Pallmann, i. 64.
Alleged Cappadocian descent of Ulfilas.
51
represent the people at the court of Constantinople,
either as a hostage or as an ambassador. Yet this is
what Philostorgius has related of Ulfilas just before.
His object in connecting Ulfilas with Cappadocia was,
no doubt, to enforce the idea that Arianism was a much
earlier factor than had been supposed (compare the
immediately following account of Theophilus, also or-
dained by Eusebius as deacon to go to the Indians);
and the groundwork of the account may probably have
been the work among the Goths of the undoubted
Cappadocian, Eutyches, and the testimony borne thereto
in the letters to and from Basil, and in the martyr
relics presented to the Church in Cappadocia.
Leaving undetermined the question of the credibility
of Philostorgius on this subject of the nationality of
Ulfilas, we thank him, nevertheless, for the following.
Sometime in the reign of Constantine, Ulfilas was "sent
by the ruler of the nation on an embassy, with others.”
This event in his life is the earliest of those mentioned
by Philostorgius, and was no doubt taken by Photius
as the point round which to collect his excerpts from
that writer on the subject. If this be so, the phrase
with which the whole passage is introduced, .kard
τούτους τους χρόνους, may be pressed so as to give a
clue to the date of the event which was earliest, but is ·
thus by Photius confusedly combined with the event
which was most important,—his consecration by Euse-
bius. The “times” referred to are seen, from the
chronological position of the narrative, to be those
immediately succeeding the Vicennalia, hence the year
327 or 328. And if, as seems probable, the anxiety of
Constantine to secure the frontier, to which his newly-
D
I
52 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
founded capital was in perilous proximity, determined
him first to over-awe, and then to make peace with, the
Goths on the Danube, the presence at his court of repre-
sentatives of that nation, either as hostages or as envoys,
would readily be explained." If this were not the occasion,
however, the conclusion of the important treaty in 332
would provide another opportunity. From this time we
must suppose that Ulfilas resided, possibly as a hostage,
at Constantinople or, at any rate, within the empire;
for to this period, and the opportunities which such a
residence would offer, we ascribe his knowledge and
command of both Greek and Latin, and the commence-
ment of his great task of the Translation, his work as
“lector," and his acquaintance with Eusebius, which led
to his appointment as bishop. His command over three
languages is doubly attested by Auxentius, who describes
him as preaching constantly in the Greek, the Latin,
and the Gothic tongue, and also as having left behind
“several treatises and many expositions in those .very
three languages”; and if in explanation of this, and
other indications of opportunity for study and familiarity
with the Roman world, we assume for Ulfilas a sojourn
of some years within the empire, we can find room for
his activity as a “lector” either among the large body
of Goths, who were, after the peace of 332, attached to
the Roman army, or among those of his countrymen
who were drawn in ever-increasing numbers to settle in
the empire, where, since the peace, they were admitted
to many high offices. Whether his conversion to
)
See Bessell, Goths ; the building of the bridge across the river
took place in 328. Chron. Alex. Law of July 13th in this year
shews that Constantine was at Discos, on the Lower Danube.
'. His Preparation for his work.
53
Christianity is to be ascribed to the same period or not,
there can be little doubt that it was then that he first
learnt and embraced the Arian doctrines, which in one
form or other would be found wherever he might be
- stationed in the empire.
The question of the form of Arianism, adopted and
represented by Ulfilas, must be reserved for later dis-
cussion; sufficient for our present purpose that he had
become an Arian, and had worked as a “lector” among
his countrymen before his ordination by the semi-Arian
· Eusebius. In the latter circumstance we may find the
simplest and readiest motive for the undertaking of the
great work, which marks Ulfilas as a leader among men,
the Luther as well as the Moses of his people, the
father of all Teutonic literature, the first translator of
the Scriptures into the mother tongue of the barbarians,
in whose hands was the future of the world. The need
of such a work would be obvious from the first moment
of his undertaking to be a "reader" of Christian truth
among his own countrymen. Nowhere else, and at noi
other time of his life, would the opportunity be so
favourable for both conceiving and carrying out such a
design. · Living, as I imagine him to have done, in
some part of the province of Asia,' possibly moving
That Ulfilas worked at this period of his life elsewhere than
in the land of his birth, is supported, I think; by general probability,
and also by Auxentius (Waitz, p. 50): “ita et iste sanctus, ipsius
Cristi dispositione et ordinatione et in fame et penuria predicationis
indifferenter agentem ipsam gentem Gothorum secundum evangeli-
cam et apostolicam et profeticam regulam emendavit, etc. A
passage which could hardly have appeared in this form had he been
active there before. Cf. also Philostorgius : Xelpotoveitai Tŵy év
τη Γετική χριστιαναζόντων.
54 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
from one garrison to another with the Goths who served
under the Roman standard, he would come in contact
with many men, especially of the Eusebian party, from
whom he would obtain both encouragement and assist-
ance; and his ordination by bishops of that party, at
the earliest canonical age, is indirect proof both of
their intimate acquaintance with him, and of zeal and
ability displayed by him in his previous work.
The death of: Constantine, the persistent and
powerful champion of union in the Church, was the
signal for renewed activity among the Eusebian party ;?
they held a council at Antioch in 338 for the purpose
of deposing Athanasius, and met there again in 341 to
consecrate the Golden Church of Constantine, and also
to reply to the letter of Julius. At the same tima we
find Philostorgius relating, in immediate connexion with
these councils, the appointment by Eusebius of two
men to work among the heathen, of Ulfilas as bishop
and of Theophilusas diakonus, wherein we cannot fail
to see striking evidence of a determination among that
party to widen their influence by missionary enterprise.
Under such auspices was Ulfilas sent forth to preach
the Gospel to the large body of his countrymen on the
far side of the Danube, possibly with some part at least
of his translation completed and in his hand. The
Wisigoths, or Thervingi, were at that time ruled by
a prince or chief, whose great figure, looming through
the haze, makes us wish that some of the historians had
been at pains to tell us more, and more accurately, about
* See esp. Gwatkin, p. 111.
2 Philostorgius, Hist. Eccl. ii, 6; cf. iii. 3 and 12.
3 See note at the end of this chapter.
His work as Bishop among his People.
55
him and his deeds, and sufferings. The political con-
nexion of these Wisigoths and their prince with the
Ostrogoths, and the wide-ruling Ermanaric, is very
obscure, but it seems probable that if any dependence
at all were admitted by the former, it was little more
than nominal. When the gentile, or topographical,
distinction between Ostrogoths and Wisigoths deepened
into a political separation, which took place either during
or before the reign of Ermanaric, and certainly before
the onset of the Huns, the Wisigoths did not apparently
come under the rule of one king, chosen from among
themselves, but fell into separate tribes, whose chiefs or
princes were independent of one another, and shortly,
if not immediately, became independent of the Ostro-
gothic king. The ruler of the people, among whom
Ulfilas went to work, bore the title not of king, but of
"judge,"3 which may, according to Grimm's suggestion, be
a Latin attempt to render the Gothic“ faths,” i.e. herr, or
“over-lord.” Among a Gothic people, thus ruled by an
“irreligious and impious over-lord,” Ulfilas worked
until the success of his efforts roused the alarm or sus-
picion of the ruler, and gave rise to a cruel persecution,
“So that Satan," as Auxentius quaintly phrases it,
“who was eager to work mischief, against his will
worked weal; for those whom he hoped to make
? See Dahn, Könige, ii. 84, 92; v. 1 seq.
2 Jordanis, c. 24, “rex Hunnorum in Ostrogothorum partem
movit procinctum, a quorum societate jam Vesegothae quadam inter
se contentione sejuncti habebentur.”
3 Gibbon, C. XXV.; Themistius, Orat. 10; Ammian. Marcell.
27, 5, 6, “ Athanaricum judicem potentissimum”; 31, 3, 4,
“ Athanaricus Thervingorum judex." But see Dahn, in Forsch. %.
D. Gesch. xxi.
· 56
Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
deniers of the faith and renegades, Christ aiding and
defending them, became martyrs and confessors. Where-
upon, after the glorious martyrdom of many servants
and handmaids of Christ, because the persecution was
still in terrible fashion over-hanging them, after ful-
filling only seven years in his bishopric, this most
saintly man,- Ulfilas, of blessed memory; was driven.
forth by the barbarians, together with a great body of
the faithful, and received with honour on Roman soil by
God, by the hand of Moses, did set free his people from
the power and violence of Pharaoh and the Egyptians,
and caused them to pass through the Red Sea, and
procured them to be his servants, so did God, by
the hand of Ulfilas, set free from the barbarian the
confessors of his own only begotten Son, and caused
them to pass over the Danube, and to serve him
according to the manner of his holy ones.” What
follows in the narrative of Auxentius is rather frag-
mentary, but it is clear that he carries out the parallel
between the two leaders, pointing out that Ulfilas also
judged the people forty years in all. This account
is confirmed by Philostorgius in the passage already
referred, to, though, in consequence of the confusion
introduced by Photius' epitome, the nigration is made
to take place under Constantine. Ulfilas settled with
his Christian Goths in Moesia at the foot of the range
of Haemus, round about Nicopolis, and near the site of
the modern Tirnova. Here Jordanis, or his authority,
knew them, —"a very numerous people, but poor and
1 Jordanis, c. 51, "populus immensus, ... gens multa sed
paupera et imbellis nihil abundans, nisi armento diversi generis,
He leads his Flock across the Danube.
57
S
unwarlike, rich in nothing except cattle of different
kinds, pastures, and forest trees; not having much
wheat, though the soil is fertile in all other kinds
of produce.” This is evidently the picture of a peaceful
pastoral people, drawn probably by the hand of one
(not Jordanis himself) who could not appreciate the
gentler manners of the once terrible barbarians, or the
hidden source of their new civilization. It is not a
little remarkable that this is the only place where
Jordanis mentions Ulfilas. “There were," he says,
"other Goths indeed, who are called 'Gothi Minores,' a
numerous people, with their chief priest, or primate,
Ulfilas, who is also said to have taught them letters.”
The meagreness of this account, his only reference to
the famous bishop, is an indication in itself of the
narrowness of the sources from which the historian of
the Goths drew his information.
We must now leave Ulfilas working among his
people, safely and peaceably established at the foot
of the Balkan mountains, preaching, writing, and carry-
ing on the work of his translation ; his people were
Arians, because he himself held Arian doctrines in some
form or other, and on his death-bed he could say, “I,
Ulfilas, have always thus believed.”
The Gothi Minores do not again appear in history;
no doubt their settlement became a rallying point for
Arians of other nationalities, and when the severe
legislation of Theodosius forced the adherents of the
pecorum et, pascua silvaque lignorum; parum habens tritici, cete-
rarum specierum est terra foecunda. Vineas vero nec si sunt alibi
certe cognoscunt, ex vicinis locis vinum negotiantes; nam lacte
aluntur plerique.”
58 Beginnings of Christianity among the Goths.
-
-
-
-
defeated party to leave the capital, it was in Moesia
that many of them took refuge, among whom Demo-
philus, the late bishop of Constantinople, was the
most noteworthy. Possibly some of the Gothi Minores
were swept along with Alaric's host, and found their
way to Greece and Italy. Otherwise the people
became absorbed in the ordinary population of Moesia.
Of Ulfilas himself, from the time of the migration,
we hear nothing for twenty years, except that in 360
he was present at the synod of Constantinople, at
which the creed of Ariminum was accepted and con-
firmed. But we may see traces of his influence on
his fellow-countrymen across the Danube in their sub-
sequent history; and whether or not we claim for him
all the active participation which is ascribed by the
historians, we can well believe that during these twenty
years he built up that great influence, described by
Socrates, which, from that historian's point of view, he
used for evil. “For the Goths having been instructed
by him in the things belonging to the faith, and having
been by him made sharers in a more civilized way of
life, readily obeyed him in all things, being fully
persuaded that nothing of what was said or done by
him was bad, but that all tended to the advantage
of the zealous believer."2 The part taken by Ulfilas in
the events following 367, and the questions arising
in that connexion, are so intimately connected with the
general conversion of the Wisigoths, that they can be
best discussed in a subsequent chapter. .
1 Socrates ii. 41; Sozomen. iv. 24; vi. 37.
2 Sozomenus vi. 37, p. 273, ad fin.
His Influence with his people.
NOTE.-Although it has been generally, and almost tacitly,
et sacrilegus judex," by whom Ulfilas was persecuted and forced to
quit the country of the Wisigoths in 348 (355 according to Waitz's
own chronology), was no other than Athanaric, yet it must be
pointed out that there is no direct evidence for the identification; in
fact, the evidence in this case is no more complete than that which
connects Ulfilas with the “presbyter Christiani ritus” of the
negotiations before the battle of Adrianople. The passages from
Ammian and Themistius prove that Athanaric was known as
“ Judex,” or dekaotijs, or the Gothic equivalent to these titles, and
he was also " barbaricus," a heathen, and a persecutor; but this was
in 370, and the earliest mention of him by name is at the commence-
ment of his war with Valens in 366 or 367, that is to say, twelve
years after the date of the persecution of Ulfilas, even according to
Waitz's date. It is quite possible that " Judex ” was the title of
several · Wisigothic chiefs, and of some predecessor of Athanaric,
unknown to us by name; and in view of the great length which his
connexion with the persecution of Ulfilas would demand for his
reign (348—381), it is at any rate better to leave it an open
question.
CHAPTER III.
THE GOTHS AND THE EMPIRE.
AUTHORITIES FOR CHAPTER III.
SOURCES :
Ammianus Marcellinus.
Eunapius.
Socrates and Sozomen (as before).
LITERATURE:
Kaufmann, Kritische Untersuchungen zu dem Kriege Theodosius des Grossen
mit den Gothen in Deutsche Forschungen, sii.
Gueldenpenning, Theodosius der Grosse.
Richter, das Weströmische Reich unter Gratian, Valentinian und Valens.
Dahn, Könige der Germanen, Abth. ii. and v.
Gwatkin, Studies in Arianism.
Pallmann and v. Wietersteim (as before).
The history of Christianity among the Goths in the
succeeding period is so closely bound up with their civil
and political history, that it will be necessary, even for
the proper understanding of the questions which have
to be treated, to give here a short sketch of the relations
of this people to the empire, reserving for the present
any point that is held in dispute.
The peace of 332, “the last of Constantine's great
services to the empire,"governed the relations between
the Goths and the Romans for many years. It was
certainly to the advantage of both parties to preserve it
unbroken. Apart from the security they had given in
their hostages, the Goths had motives of self-interest,
binding them to good behaviour, in the advantages of a
peaceful intercourse with the empire, and the career
which was opened up to many a barbarian in the army
See Gwatkin, p. 83.
Constantine and the Goths.
61
:
or in the palace. On the other hand, the emperor,
besides the services of the auxiliaries, whom the Goths
were bound to provide, enjoyed, through their tran-
quillity, a security along the northern frontier, which
was of the utmost importance at a time when the
empire was engaged in frequent struggles with Persia.
These peaceful relations continued throughout the
reign of Constantius (337—361). In the reign of Julian
the sounds of discontent and coming danger first made
themselves heard. But it was not till the reign of
Valens that hostilities actually broke out. The causes
and the details of the war of 367—369 are very
obscure, and do not concern us here; it ended in a
peace concluded between Valens and Athanaric, which
was arranged and ratified on board a ship moored
in the river. From this time forward there appears on
the scene .a new and famous figure,—another chief of
some section, tribal or otherwise, of the Wisigoths,
namely Frithigern, whose relations to Athanaric on the
one hand, and to Christianity on the other, form one of
the kernels of the whole question. But whatever was
the position of the parties, now three in number, in the
years immediately after the peace of 369, all these
relations were thrown into the greatest confusion by the
sudden appearance on the stage of European history of
the Huns.
I See esp. Libanius iii. p. 303, ed. Reiske.
. See Bessell, Goths, p. 137; Gwatkin, p. 237; Dahn, Könige.
3 Ammianus Marcell. 27,5,7-10.
4 For the Huns, see Jordanis, c. 24; Ammian. Marcell. 31, 2:
31, 3, 1, etc.; Eunapius, ed. Niebuhr, p. 48; Dahn, Könige, i.
214; and v. Wietersh. ii. 25.
The Goths and the Empire.
· At what time the terrible "riding folk” first passed
the Gate of the Nations, and entered Europe, cannot be
ascertained with certainty, but in or before the year 375
the shock of their onset upon the Goths of the Volga
made itself felt upon the banks of the Danube. The
empire, or great federation, governed by Ermanaric
went to pieces. One part of the Ostrogoths submitted
to the dominion of the new comers, and was absorbed
in the great wave that rolled forward toward Europe.
Another part fled before the wave, and, falling back
upon their brethren, the Wisigoths, crushed Athanaric
and his subjects back into the Carpathians, while they
thrust Frithigern and his people forward to the very
waters of the Danube. From the far side of the
dividing stream, while the whole people, men, women,
and children, were massed up to the banks, looking back
with terror for the approach of the dreaded foe behind, a
homeless, starving multitude, stretching out their hands
to the land of plenty and of safety which lay in front,
Frithigern sent envoys to Valens, asking him to receive
his flying people, and give them leave to settle on
Roman soil. Valens, after long debate with his ad-
visers, gave his consent, and, almost before the negotia-
tions were completed, the impatient people began to
cross. Some plunging into the river were drowned in
an attempt to swim over; others crossed on rafts; while
the main body were transported by boats, the passage
lasting “through days and nights,”—200,000 fighting
1 Alavivus in Ammian; probably both. For the whole, see
esp. Ammian. Marcell. 31, 3 and 4; also cf. Eunapius, ut supra,
and see Pallmann, p. 111. The whole account in Eunapius is full in
detail, and very graphic.
The Passage of the Danube.
63
YT
men, according to Eunapius, with their weapons and
their families.
Whatever were the conditions on which the bar-
barians were allowed to enter the empire, it is certain
that they were not observed on either side. Valens was
in distant Antioch; and the carrying out of the whole
operation was necessarily entrusted to officials. They
scandalously abused their position. On the one hand,
the Goths were not compelled to lay down their arms;
and on the other, the provisions which had been
promised, and which were absolutely necessary for the
starving multitude, were cruelly withheld till the people
were fain to part with their gold and their jewels--
nay, even with their children to buy a piece of meat:**
The madness of such conduct is inexplicable. Lupi-
cinus and Maximus were blinded by their greed, and
they saw their own folly too late, when the people who
had gradually been stripped of their goods, their trea-
sure, their children, and their honour, of all but their
arms, rose against their oppressors, destroyed the small
force which Lupicinus had at his command, and poured
forth over the whole peninsula, carrying back as they
returned not only much booty, but their own treasure
and their own children from every town. The Em-
peror Valens, engaged on the opposite frontier of the
empire in negotiations and hostilities with the Per-
sians, and most unwilling to leave that quarter till he.
had brought affairs to an issue, trusted to the lieu-
1 Jordanis, c. 26.
2 Eunapius, ed. Niebuhr, p. 51; Chrysostom, ad Vid. i. 421 :
xopetovtes uāllov moleuoûvtes; Themistius, Orat. 14 and 16:
“an Iliad of Misfortune."
64
The Goths, and the Empire.
tenants whom he sent, and to the assistance of Gratian,
emperor in the west, to subdue the revolt of his new
subjects. But his generals Profuturus and Trajanus
were defeated in the Dobrudscha, and Gratian, after
reaching the frontier, was compelled to divert bis forces
to meet a sudden inroad of the Alemanni. on the
Rhine; and not till Valens himself returned to the seat
of war were the Goths compelled to desist from plun-
dering far and wide, and to fight not only for land and
liberty, but for their very existence as a nation.
The opposing armies drew together in the neigh-
bourhood of Adrianople. Whether from fear at the
greatness of the stake, which depended for him and his
people on the issue of the conflict, or from an honoura-
ble desire to obtain by negotiation and without blood-
shed all they demanded-namely, the fulfilment of the
late compact, securing to the Goths a free settlement in
Moesia, and proper sustenance till they could support
themselves—Frithigern, under whose leadership the
other tribes seem to have united themselves with the
Wisigoths, made several attempts to come to terms. The
envoy, who passed between the camps, is described by
Ammian as “a presbyter, as they themselves. call him,
of the Christian religion,” who was sent by Frithigern
" as an envoy with other humble men.” This presbyter?
1 Ammianus Marcell. 31, 12, 8: “Christiani ritus presbyter ut
ipsi appellant, missus a Fritigerno legatus cum aliis humilibus venit
ad principis castra.” What persons precisely are referred to as
“humiles” it is difficult to say ; probably it means only “suppliants,"
but perhaps "monks.”
2 Bünau, Teutsche K. U. R. H. i. p. 826 (who thinks the ,
bishop's name is also mentioned by Ammian under the corrupted
form of Alavivus); Waitz, p. 40; Bessell, Ulfilas, 58.
1
Relation between Wisigoths and Moeso-Goths. 65
has been commonly identified with Ulfilas, but only on,
the ground that he would be a persona grata to Valens,
and the most likely and competent man to undertake
the mission. Pleasing as it would be to find Ulfilas on
so rich an opportunity using his great influence for the
highest good of both nations, we must point out that
the idea is quite unsupported by any ancient authority..
Even Socrates and Sozomen, who are elsewhere very
ready to introduce Ulfilas into their account of other
transactions, know nothing about him on this occasion.
On the other hand, Isidore, deriving his information, no
.
represents the relation between the immigrant Wisigoths
and their former countrymen, the Moeso-Goths, as de-
cidedly hostile. The latter absolutely declined to form
an alliance with the new comers (and had even to
defend their independence with the sword); and though,
for reasons which appear later, we must reject (perhaps
as a private comment of the compiler) the concluding
sentence, which tacitly contrasts these Moeso-Goths as
Christians and Catholics with the later immigrants as
heathens or Arians, yet the passage, as a whole, points
to a relation between the two peoples, such as would
make it very improbable that Ulfilas would be found in
the camp of Frithigern. Ammian states distinctly that
the envoy, besides the public demands of the Goths, was
entrusted with a private message from Frithigern. It
has been conjectured that this referred to the question
of religion, and perhaps included an offer to conform to
Valens' wishes in the matter, but in the absence of any
1 Isidore, era 416.
66
The Goths and the Empire.
information on this point, and, above all, of any results
that followed, the speculation is unnecessary, if it be not
precluded by the previous fulfilment of all such con-
ditions as Frithigern might have offered.
The envoy was dismissed with an ambiguous reply
(this again was scarcely likely if Ulfilas had been the
man); and a smilar attempt, twice renewed, only met
with similar success. A fierce, and for a long time
a doubtful, battle ensued. But a furious charge of bar-
barian cavalry, under Alatheus and Saphrax, decided
the day. The defeat of the Romans was so complete
that Adrianople was called the second Cannae. Two-
thirds of the army perished by the sword or in the
morass; and the emperor himself was carried wounded
to a small hut, to which the barbarians, ignorant of
their opportunity, set fire, and so destroyed the enemy
of their nation and the champion of their faith.
Valens was succeeded by Theodosius, who displayed
both high military skill and great political shrewdness in
his treatment of the Goths. The victory of Adrianople
had put south-eastern Europe at the mercy of the bar-
barians; but with the danger that had threatened them,
there disappeared the only bond that held them together.
Having failed in one attempt to take Adrianople by
assault, and in another to seize Constantinople by sur-
prise, they broke up into roving bands who scoured the
whole peninsula, succeeded in doing much damage, but
often fell victims to the cautious and watchful generals
of Theodosius. It is probable also that about this time
the uniting influence of Frithigern was withdrawn by
his death,—at any rate, he is not mentioned later than
the year of the great battle. The serious and prolonged
Pacification effected by Theodosius.
67
1
illness which attacked the emperor at Thessalonica, and
detained him there from February to December, 380,
obliged him to leave the work of clearing the province
of Thrace of the barbarians to his generals. Moreover,
several of the other tribes, who were always moving up to
the Danube to take the place of those who had crossed
the river, emboldened by the perilous condition of
Theodosius, forced their way across, and strengthened
the barbarian resistance in Moesia. But the emperor did
not confine himself to the attempt to drive the Goths
out of Thrace by force, but opened negotiations with
them, which led even sooner to a complete pacification,
the barbarians receiving permission to settle in different
places along the line of the Danube, from Pannonia to
Moesia. The Goths were now fairly established within
the empire, and the crowning proof and symbol of the
new relations established between the two was the
appearance at Constantinople of the fierce old heathen
Athanaric, who, coming in his old age to make sub-
mission to the power which his nation had conquered,
was received by Theodosius with most distinguished
honour. He entered the city on January 11th, 381;
but fifteen days afterwards the old chief died, and was
buried with the greatest pomp. It were strange indeed
if, as we have reason to believe, he died in the same
month, in the same city of strangers, and under similar
circumstances with Ulfilas, the Christian whom he had
persecuted and driven from his fatherland.
. NOTE.-Bessell's account, of the movements of the Goths after
the battle of Adrianople is far from satisfactory : his ultimate
1 Jordanis, c. 28.
68
The Goths and the Empire.
object being to shew that the general conversion of the Wisigoths
under Frithigern took place in 380, and that, on the occasion of
their crossing the Danube, he has to shew how Frithigern and his
subjects were on the far side of the river at all at that time. But
there is really no authority for supposing that Frithigern re-crossed
the river; if it be Zosimus on which Bessell relies (he gives no refer-
ences, vid. article Gothen in Ersch und Gruber, 181 a), the passage
(iv. 24, 34) is full of the greatest contradictions and improbabilities
(see esp. Pallmann, 141), and even for a fact, not in itself improba-
ble, would supply very little confirmation. On the other hand, the
fact is in itself very improbable, for what course was more unlikely
than that, after a victory like that of Adrianople, which laid open to
the Goths possibilities far greater than they can ever have conceived,
the victorious general should withdraw with his people from the
very ground they had fought to obtain ? It could be neither to seek
for provisions that they went from a land of plenty to one of
scarcity, nor to obtain reinforcements that he crossed the river, on
the other side of which whole tribes were waiting for a signal;
strangest of all would be the reason alleged, that he crossed to give
battle to Athanaric.
Again, how could so striking a success as the expulsion of the
dreaded enemy beyond the frontier they had crossed three whole
years before fail to have been celebrated by the historians, chroniclers,
and panegyrists of Theodosius' reign ? And we have to go no
further than Jordanis himself to see the unlikelihood, if not the
implicit denial of such a theory; for on the one hand, after the
death of Valens, he tells how the Wisigoths at that time began to
settle in the provinces of Thrace and Dacia by the river, “as if they
were holding the land of their birth.”1 And on the other hand, the
success which he attributes to the troops of Theodosius, encouraged
as they were by the advent of an emperor of better stamp than
Valens, is explicitly limited by him to "driving them from the
1 Jordanis, c. 26, ad fin. "Quo tempore Vesegothae Thracias
Daciamque ripensem post tanti gloriam tropaci tanquam solo genitali
potiti coeperunt incolere.”
2 Jordanis, c. 27. - At vero ubi milites principi.meliore mutato
fiduciam acceperunt, Gothos impetere tentant eosque Thraciae finibus
pellunt.” We lose the guidance of Ammian after the repulse of the
· Goths from Constantinople.
Bessell's Theory.
frontiers of Thrace," that is to say, back over the Balkans into
Moesia. This is immediately followed by the renewed advance into
the southern provinces of the Goths in two divisions, Frithigern
leading his section towards Epirus and Greece.
It is, therefore, on a review of these facts, impossible to accept
the theory that Frithigern and his Wisigoths crossed the Danube
twice, once in 376, and a second time in 380. Those who crossed in
the latter year were new tribes, attracted by the success and perhaps
by the invitation of Frithigern, and may have belonged partly to
the Wisigothic and partly to the Ostrogothic stock.
CHAPTER IV.
THE PERSECUTIONS OF A. D. 370-375. AUDIANISM.
AUTHORITIES FOR CHAPTER IV.
SOURCES :
Basilius Mag. Epp. 164 and 165.
Hieronymus, Chronicon.
Orosius, Jordanis, and Isidore.
Epiphanius, Adv. Haereses, ed. Oehler.
Acta S. Sabae; Acta Sanctorum, April 12th.
Acta S. Nicetae.
The references are collected in Tillemont, Mem. Hist. Eccl. x. 2.
Ammianus Marcellinus, } for crossing of Danube.
Eunapius,
LITERATURE :
Waitz, Ulfilas, p. 39.
Wietersheim-Dahn, ii. 9, 10.
Krafft, Kirchengeschichte der deutschen Völker, esp. p. 369.
Köpke, Deutsche Forschungen.
On the persecutions, the best bandling of the sources is by Pallmann, though he
rejects the evidence of the Acta SS. too completely. Bessell, on the other hand,
claims too much certainty for the results of his analysis (Ulfilus, p. 80).
For the crossing of the Danube, the sources are critically examined and the sub-
ject ably discussed by Bessell; but his conclusion is altogether untenable, and the
importance which he attaches to Eunapius, on whom he mainly relies, is unfortunate,
considering the open and malicious hostility of this writer to Christianity. See also
Pallmann, pp. 76, 110; Dalin, Könige, v. 1; Krafft, 223; Aschbach, 46; Richter,
das Weströmische Reich, p. 444; v. Wietersheim, 1st edit.'iv, 98.

HAVING thus sketched the external history of the
Wisigoths from the peace of Constantine to their pacifi-
cation and settlement within the eastern empire under
Theodosius, we return to trace the progress of Chris-
tianity and the fortunes of the Church among the Goths
during the latter part of the same period. The earlier
part of this period is marked by the work of Ulfilas on
the far side of the Danube, and perhaps by that of
Eutyches. The middle part, from the flight of Ulfilas
to the second persecution, is unfortunately a perfect
blank in the records preserved to us, and it is not until
Persecution by Athanaric.
71
the year 370 that we can take up the thread at a point
twenty years after Ulfilas dropped it. In the year 370,
or possibly in the year immediately preceding, the
opposition of the heathen governor of the Wisigoths to
the ever-growing body of Christians broke out in fierce
persecution. The date is fixed by evidence converging
from several independent sources. Jerome, in his
chronicle under the year 370, relates that Athanarić,
king of the Goths, raised a persecution against the
Christians, slew a great number, and drove out the
Christians from their fatherland on to Roman soil. An
opportunity for such persecution would be found after
the conclusion of peace with Valens; and in the ill-
success that had attended Athanaric we may perhaps see
the motive for his taking vengeance on the unbelievers,
to whose presence among the people the anger of the
heathen gods was frequently ascribed.
This persecution of Christians among the Goths is
not to be confounded with the previous one which had
issued in the migration of Ulfilas with his flock. Both
are sufficiently attested as independent persecutions,
taking place at an interval of over twenty years.
Ulfilas, with his Arian Goths, had been settled all that
time in Moesia. Who, then, were these Christians who
fell under the displeasure of Athanaric in 370 ? Who
had planted the seed that was bearing such fruit, and
was their steadfastness to the credit of an Arian or of an
Athanasian creed ?
It is clear that these same questions were raised by
those who were all but contemporaries of the persecuted
i Cf. letter of Basil, 164, written in 373; Orosius vii. 32;
Isidore, era 407, though the latter may depend on Jerome.
72
The Persecutions of 370—375.
Christians, and were not satisfactorily answered even
then. But there can be no doubt that the orthodox
opinion was that the Gothic Christians who suffered
at this time were not Arians but Catholics. Thus
Augustine, referring to this persecution, distinctly
claims its victims as Catholic martyrs; and so strongly
emphasizes the fact that none but Catholics were ex-
posed to it, giving as his authority “certain brethren
who had been present there as boys,” and were eye-
witnesses of their sufferings, that he even appears to
be controverting a different opinion. Thus Theodoret
also speaks of the Goths as having been brought up in
“the teaching of the Apostles." Jerome would never
have alluded to them in such an unqualified way if he
had had any inkling of unorthodoxy in their Church.
Nor would Basil have received so gratefully the relics
of an Arian martyr. And, not to multiply the indica-
tion of this opinion, Ambrose, in the commentary on
Luke, mentions the Gothic martyrs in direct distinction
to those who tolerated even the discussion of the Arian
doctrines.
i De Civitate Dei, xviii. 52. Nisi forte non est persecutio
computanda quando rex Gothorum in ipsa Gothia persecutus est
Christianos crudelitate mirabili, cum ibi non essent nisi Catholici,
quorum plurimi martyrio coronati sunt. Sicut a quibusdam fratri-
bus, qui tunc illic fuerant . . . . audivimus.
2 Theod. iv. 37. To îs åmootoliko îs évetpépovto dórquaol.
3 Ambrosius, Expos. evang. Sec. Luc. i. c. 37. “Gothis non
imperabat Augustus, non imperabat Armenis, imperabat Christus.
Acceperunt utique Christi censores qui Christi martyres ediderunt.
Et ideo fortasse nos vincunt, ut praesentia docent, quoniam quem illi
oblivione sanguinis fatebantur, huic Ariani quaestionem generis in-
ferebant.”
On what Church did they Fall ?
73
On the other hand Socrates, describing the general
conversion of the Wisigoths, which he places at any
rate before 375, mentions a persecution cruelly carried
on against the Christians by Athanaric, and especially
adds, “So that there suffered martyrdom at that time
barbarians who were of the Arian party.” And yet
another sect claims a share in the persecution, if we add
the statement of Epiphanius that the Audians, whom
he knew on the banks of the Euphrates in 375, had
been driven out of “Scythia, that is the land of the
Goths,” four years before.
Taking a general view of these and similar passages
that might be added, we cannot escape the conclusion
that the persecution which lasted, with alternations of
greater or less severity, from the end of 369 till 373 or
374, fell upon both Catholics and Arians, and found
victims among Athanasians, Arians, and Audians alike.
And the supposition is not in itself an unlikely one.
The withdrawal of Ulfilas with his Arian flock need by
no means necessarily have left Christianity unrepre-
sented among the Wisigoths. Not a few of his own
followers even might prefer to take their chance of the
persecution dying away when the great body of con-
fessors and their energetic leader were departed; and
even if we have not any direct evidence on the point,
we can scarcely believe that Ulfilas left either his con-
verts who remained behind or his heathen countrymen
uncared for. No doubt those twenty years after the
CU
i Socrates, iv. 33. ó ’Adavápixos ús rapaxapartouévns tñs
πατρώου θρησκείας πολλούς των Χριστιανιζόντων τιμωριας υπέ-
βαλλεν ώστε γενέσθαι μάρτυρας τηνικαύτα βάρβάρους 'Αρειανί-
Govtas.
74
The Persecutions of 370—375.
first migration, though a blank to us as regards Ulfilas,
were filled with active missionary work, carried on by
his converts and scholars who were sent out from the
Arian community in Moesia.. Again, the Catholic
Christians, of whom we must always assume the pre-
sence among the Goths of the fourth century, whether
as individuals or as small communities, would be un-
affected by the departure of Ulfilas except in so far as
they shared in the general cessation of persecution that
followed. And with the ever-increasing communication
in both directions between the barbarians and the
Romans, these Catholic Christians must have received
both encouragement and support from their co-reli-
gionists within the empire. Of this we shall find
indirect proof in the bonds of familiarity and sympathy
which undoubtedly existed at this time between the
“Church in Gothia" and the Church in Cappadocia.
Lastly, there were the Audians, who were probably
a more important factor in Gothic Christendom than
the meagreness of our information would lead us to
suppose. Our chief source of information concerning
the sect and their founder is Epiphanius, who found
them pretty numerous in the neighbourhood of the
· Euphrates, and devoted to them one of his treatises
“against heretics.” Audius, we learn, was of . Mesopo-
tamian descent, but dwelling in Syria, when, “at the
time of Arius," he founded his sect. A man of great
purity of life himself, and ardentlý zealous for the
1 For Audians and their founder Audius, or Audaeus, see Tille-
mont, Hist. Eccl. vi. 691; Richter, p. 446. The principal sources
besides Epiphanius are Hieronym. anno 341, and Theodoret, 4, 10.
2 Epiphanius, ed. Oehler, vol. iii. pp. 11–39.
The Sect of Audians.
75
purity of the Church, he did not hesitate to expose the
irregularities and lash the vices of the clergy by whom
he was surrounded. Encountering, as was natural,
great dislike and misrepresentation, he nevertheless
persisted in his work as censor, “studying in the mean-
while to be separated as little as possible from the
fellowship and society of the Church," until actual
violence, to which he and his disciples had been ex-
posed, forced him to leave the communion where his
strict morality and shrewd tongue 'were so unpopular.
The influence of his life and his earnestness was, how-
ever, strong enough to attract to his side many of the
laity; and the bishops of Syria," alarmed lest a serious
schism should arise, laid a complaint before the emperor,
who sustained it, and banished Audius to Scythia. Up
to this time it would appear that he had not at any.
rate published the opinions which afterwards marked
him out as a heretic; but they were probably known
to a few of his supporters, and must have been rapidly
developed after his banishment. From the land of his
exile he exercised an influence which must have been
great indeed to produce such results as are described
by Epiphanius. He speaks of monasteries, convents,
and congregations spreading as far as the Taurus
mountains, Palestine, and Arabia, though at his own
day the Audians were reduced to an insignificant sect,
having then only two settlements. But what chiefly
1 Epiph. c. 14.
| 2 lbd. exe udoTa ĐaTp Buon cacs và 7 poợu BcCv 109
και εις τα εσώτατα της Γοτθίας πολλούς των Γότθων κατήχησεν,
αφ' ούπερ και μοναστήρια εν Γοτθια εγένετο και πολιτεία και
παρθενία τε και άσκησις ή ου τυχούσα.
76
The Persecutions of 370—375.
concerns us is that Audius made his way into the very
interior of Gothia, “and instructed many of the Goths
in Christian doctrine.” In fact, it is on the side of
Audianism alone that we have a picture of a real
ecclesiastical organisation among the Goths, for Epi-
phanius goes on to describe how, through Audius, there
arose monasteries and an organised religious life, recog-
nised vows of virginity, and a general discipline of no
common kind. But Audius was an old man already
when he was sent into exile, and most of this work
must have been done by his successors. Several bishops
joined his communion, and carried on his work after his
death, among whom one Uranius is specially noted.
But the Goths also were not backward in this respect,
and it appears that Audius himself, who had been
ordained by a bishop in Palestine (one who had left
the Syrian Church for similar reasons), ordained Goths
to the same office;' and the succession must have been
maintained, for we hear of a certain Silvanus,“ bishop
in Gothia,” after whose death the churches dwindled.
But the principal cause of the decline of the Audians
in Gothia was a severe persecution which they under-
went together with other “ Christians of our own com-
munion.” And the way in which Epiphanius describes
the persecution leaves no doubt that it was the same as
that which fell on all Christians alike in 370. “More-
over, the most part of them were chased out of Gothia,
and not they alone, but also our own Christians in the
same place, through a great persecution which arose
1 Epiph. c. 2. Űotepov dè metà Tò égewoonvai tîms ékkinolas
από άλλου επισκόπου τα αυτά συζητούντος και αναχωρήσαντος
της εκκλησιας χειροτονείται ούτος επίσκοπος.
..
The Sect of Audians.
under a barbarian king.” The cause of the persecution,
he adds, was the anger of the king against the Romans
on account of their emperors being Christians. In this
remark we may find remarkable confirmation of the
reason suggested for Athanaric's persecution, namely,
chagrin at the conditions of peace imposed on him by
the Christian king, Valens. In consequence of the
persecution, many Audians among the Goths fled from
their country and betook themselves to Mesopotamia,
where they had been living already three or four years
when Epiphanius wrote.
In judging Audius and the Audians, Epiphanius
finds more to blame in their schismn than in their false
doctrines. After describing the latter, he adds, “What
is worse than all the rest, and more terrible, is that they
do not pray with any one, even if he be known to be a
virtuous man, if only he be connected with the church,"
that is, with the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the
doctrinal position and the ritual of Audius, in two points
at least, divided him very sharply from the Orthodox
Church. He and his followers refused to follow the
direction of the Nicene Council regarding Easter, and
persisted in celebrating it according to the Jewish
calendar, believing themselves herein also to be keeping
the purity of early practice in opposition to an innova-
tion dictated by subservience to Constantine. A more
1 cf. Köpke, Deutsche Forschungen. “Ein Rückschlag des
Volkslebens gegen die Niederlage die es soeben erlitten hatte."
2 το δε δεινότερον πάντων και φοβερώτερον ότι ουκ εύχονται
μετά τινος, κάν τε των δοκίμων φανείη, και μηδέν είς κατηγόρησαν
εχόντων μηδε μέμψιν πορνείας ή μοιχείας ή πλεονεξίας, άλλ' ότι
και τοιούτος εν τη εκκλησία συνάγεται.
78
U
The Persecutions On
of 370–375.
serious point of difference lay in the opinion held by
Audius concerning the corporeal nature of God. Taking
the account given in Genesis of the creation of man,
and especially the texts Genesis i. 27, and ii. 7, as the
basis of his teaching, he sought to shew that, man being
made in the image of God and at the same time formed
out of the dust of the ground, therefore God Himself
must be conceived as possessing a corporeal existence.
For this theory he sought further support in such
anthropomorphic expressions as Ps. xxxiv. 15: “The
eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and His ears
are open to their cry."1 This teaching was not a new
thing in the Church, as Krafft points out, for one
Melito, bishop of Sardes, had written a work entitled
περί ενσωμάτου Θεού, in which the same doctrine was
propounded. A reference to it may perhaps be found
also in Augustine, who classes with the Anthropo-
morphites a certain sect called Vadiani, which may be
a corruption of Audiani. Modern writers point out
that an anthropomorphic conception of the Deity would
recommend itself to the heathen Goths, both as easier
to comprehend, and as more nearly related to their own
conception, wherein the full deity was only a step
beyond the demigod, and removed from the hero more
by antiquity than by omnipotence, infinity, or incom-
prehensibility. But there is no ground for supposing
that Audius deliberately adopted this view in order to
effect more quickly the conversion of the Goths. On
the other hand, there can be no doubt that the austere
1 He laid stress also upon Isai. lxvi. 1; Dan. vii. 9.
2 In the second century. See Krafft, p. 365, and reff.
3 August. de Haeres. c. 50.
Victims found in all the Churches.
79
L
UA
life led by the monks of Audius would deeply impress
the barbarians, and appeal, moreover, to sympathies
buried deep in the heart of the Teutonic race. Epipha-
nius has nothing but praise for the Audians in this
respect. “For indeed,” he says, “this method is alto-
gether admirable in its fashion, and everything within
these monasteries is ordered well, apart from these
controversies.”
We believe, therefore, that all these forms of belief
had representatives among the Christian Churches and
communities on whom Athanaric's anger broke forth,--
Nicenes, Arians, and Audians; and all alike, no doubt,
furnished victims to the roll of martyrs. Tradition has
preserved to us the names of some of these; while of
many others we know only the perseverance and the
cruel fate. Nor is it necessary to attempt, as some have
done, to claim the heroes of the persecution for any
particular church. Those within hearing of the con-
flict, but outside the ring of the flames of persecution,
might grasp eagerly at proofs of the steadfastness shewn
by adherents of their own creed. But upon the very
field of battle, and within reach of the fire that tried
all parties alike, such distinctions would surely melt
away. When the scorned and hated idol was drawn
through the village, and they were called to do homage
to it, Arian, Nicene, and Audian, who were there
to glorify one Master, and looked with steadfast eyes to
receiving the same eternal crown, would hardly stay to
think of the trivial points that distinguished them from
their neighbours, such as whether the Creator made
man in the image of a divine body, and whether the
Lord God the Son were begotten or made, equal or
80
The Persecutions of 370—375.
second to His Father in the Godhead. Those who died,
died not in defence of the creed of a council, nor of the
teaching of a bishop, however noble, but as subjects of
one King, confessors of one Redeemer, children of one
God.
After the great work of Ulfilas, the most interesting
monument of the Gothic Church is the document which
forms the basis if not the entire contents of the Acts of
St. Saba, one of the Gothic Christians who fell in this
persecution by Athanaric. This is the letter which was
sent by the suffering Church in Gothia to the Church
in Cappadocia, accompanying or following the remains
of the martyr, which they had sent to their sympathetic
fellow-Christians in testimony of their steadfastness and
gratitude. The salutation runs thus: “The Church of
God which is in Gothia to the Church of God which is
in Cappadocia, and to all Christians of the Catholic
Church wheresoever in the world they dwell-mercy,
peace, and love of God the Father and Jesus Christ
our Lord be fulfilled.” Then follows a quotation from
Acts x. 35, which leads at once to the mention of Saba
as one who feared God and worked righteousness, and
had indeed been accepted by Him. He was a Goth by
birth, who had been a Christian from boyhood, and had
led so holy and noble a life, and witnessed so glorious
a confession, that the Church was moved to describe
his works and sufferings for the instruction and edifica-
tion of the faithful. After a eulogy on his character,
in which his justice, devotion, and peaceableness are
celebrated in turn, the third paragraph takes up his
1 Acta Sanctorum, April 12; edit. Paris, 1866. April. Vol. iii.
and Appendix.
.
History of the Martyr Saba.
history at the beginning of the persecution “by the
princes and magistrates of Gothia," who insisted on the
Christians renouncing their faith publicly by eating
meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Some of the
heathens, touched with compassion for their Christian
neighbours, combined to give them means of escape by
substituting secretly for the forbidden meat portions of
meat that had not been thus polluted; but Saba, when
he understood the subterfuge, refused to profit by it,
and openly warned the Christians that no true Christian
could accept escape on such a condition, “and thus he
warned them to avoid the snare of the devil.” The
heat of the persecution seems then to have cooled for a
season, but broke out again with a general inquisition
for Christians, from which Saba's would-be friends again
sought to shield him by swearing that there were no
Christians in the village. But Saba broke into the
assembly and loudly exclaimed, “Let no one swear for
me, for I am a Christian.” Summoned before the chief
persecutor, he was contemptuously dismissed, on the dis-
covery of his great poverty, as one who could do neither
good nor harm. Afterwards there arose a third and
more determined persecution, during which the holy
man set out to keep the feast of Easter with a presbyter
named Gutthica; but, commanded by a vision which
met him on the journey, turned back to find another
presbyter named Sansala, unexpectedly returned to his
native country, and with him he kept the festival. On
the third night after the celebration, “ Atharidus, the
son of the King Rhotesteus," broke into the village
with a body of impious bandits, and carried off both
the presbyter and Saba bound and naked. Treated by
TTT
82
The Persecutions of 370—375.
his persecutors with the harshest cruelty, the saint bore
with them with steadfast patience. Left for the night
bound to a log, he was released by a woman who had
pity on him, but he refused to make his escape. In
spite of both torture and cajolery, he refused to eat the
meat offered to idols. At length, after he had several
times escaped death as it seemed by a miracle, Atharidus
ordered him away for execution. Led away to be thrown
into the river Musaeus, he inquired of his executioners
what his companion had done “that he should not
deserve to die," and his last words testified to his faith
in God and praised the name of His Son. He died by
"wood and water," for a beam was fastened to his neck
that he should sink. He was only thirty-eight years
old when he thus confessed his Master by his death,
the week after Easter week,” that is to say, on the
12th of April. His body was sought out and obtained
by Julius Soranus,“ dux Scythiae," who was himself a
Christian, “who hath sent it to Cappadocia to your
Church by permission of the presbytery, a precious gift
and glorious fruit of the faith. Wherefore do ye, hold-
ing a celebration on the day of his martyrdom, make
this known to the rest of the brethren, that rejoicing
with all the Catholic and Apostolic Church they may
praise God, who chooseth His own servants for Himself.
They salute you who with us do suffer persecution.”
And this letter from the persecuted Church in Gothia
cluded with the Doxology. :
Most interesting confirmation of this account has
been curiously preserved in certain letters of Basil, who
Correspondence with Church in Cappadocia. 83
was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, from the year
364. The first? is addressed to “ Julius Soranus," who
was at the time (373) “Governor in Scythia,” and ap-
pears from the letter to have been a sincere Christian,
and held in high honour by the bishop. It is at the
conclusion, after discussing matters of purely personal
interest, that he writes : “But in all the good thou
doest, thou layest up treasure for thyself; and if thou
providest relief for them that are persecuted for the
name of the Lord, that thou preparest for thyself
against the day of reward.” But thou wilt do well if
thou do also send to thy fatherland relics of the
martyrs, since, as thou hast reported, the persecution
is even now causing martyrs for the Lord.” This is
clearly in answer to a letter from Soranus offering
to procure some of the precious relics for his native
Church. That he did so, and that they were those of
the martyr Saba is clear from two other letters of Basil,
himself. The first is in answer to a letter from Ascholius,
which must have had reference to the Church in Gothia
and the martyrdom of Saba. Basil, in his despair at the
state of his own Church, the coldness of the love, the
strife of parties, the zeal which caused bitterness, but
2 καλώς δε ποιήσεις, εάν και λείψανα μαρτύρων τη πατρίδα
ÉKTÉL Yms.
3 Basil, as above, 164 and 165. The title of the latter is, “To
Ascholius, Bishop of Thessalonica”; but that this is a mistake is
clear from the contents; esp. udptupi .... try everykowoav
ÈTiunoas. Ascholius was a native of Thrace, but Soranus of
Cappadocia. See Krafft, p. 380.
84
The Persecutions of 370—375.
1-
(D
neither roused nor could support persecution, had been
encouraged by the testimony to the faith of the Church
in Europe, conveyed by the relics of a martyr from
among the barbarians beyond the Danube.' And when
he recurs further on in his letter to the letter of
Ascholius, be takes up some of his language: “Thine
own relation also, the agonies, the bodies that were
torn for the sake of the Faith, the anger of the bar-
barian when he was despised by the men of unquailing
heart, all the various tortures of the persecutors, the
steadfastness through all of the sufferers, the wood,
the water, which were the final trials of the martyrs.”
The reference here to the sufferings of Saba, if not to
the actual narration of them, in the letter to the Church
in Cappadocia, is too distinct to be called in question,
and it has been supposed that the letter of Ascholius,
to which Basil was replying, was the identical narrative.
The second letter, addressed to Soranus, conveys to him
directly the tbanks of Basil for the precious gift that he
had made to his fatherland,“ like a grateful husband-
man sending of his first-fruits to those who had provided
the seed.”
Another record of the same persecution is contained
in the Greek Calendar, which celebrates, on March 26th,
the martyrdom of six-and-twenty Goths, of whom two,
Bathusis and Verékas, were presbyters, and the rest
were of the laity, both men and women. These
suffered, according to this record, in the reign of
Valentinian and Valens, through the cruelty of the
1
1 μάρτυς δε ημίν επεδήμησεν εκ των επέκεινα Ίστρου βαρβά-
ρων, δι' εαυτού κηρύσσων της εκεί πολιτευομένης πίστεως την
ακρίβειαν.
Records of the Victims.
85
Gothic king, Jungerich (Athanaric), by whom they were
burnt together in a church. Then follows a long
account of the removal of the relics by a pious queen,
who, with her daughter, brought them to Cyzicum.
The memory of the same event is also preserved in the
fragments of a Gothic calendar, which were discovered
in the library at Milan early in this century. One of
the seven festivals therein noted is on the 29th of the
month preceding November, which is marked as “Re-
membrance of the martyrs among the Goth-folk who
were burnt with Veréka, a presbyter ( papa'), and with
Batvin, the servant of the Catholic Church.”3
In the same month the calendar also commemorates
the many martyrs among the Goth-folk, and “Fripa-
reikeis,"4 where it has been proposed, either with or
without a change of reading, to find an allusion to
Frithigern, not indeed as a martyr, but as a champion
of the faith. This would be illustrated by the dedica-
tion of a day in November to " Constantine, King," but
the reading seems established, and, apart from the first
syllable, it is hard to find the name of the Gothic chief
underlying the word in the MS. The other persons
commemorated are “Dorotheus, Episcopus," “ Philip,
Apostle in Hierapolis," " the forty venerable virgins in
1 Mai, Ulphilae partium specimen, Massmann, Ulfilas, p. 590 ;
Bernhardt (ed. 1884), p. 200.
. ? Not October, since it has only 30 days. See Massmann.
3 “Gaminpi martyre pize be Verekan papan jah Batvin bilaif
aikklesjons fullaizos ana Gutpidai gabrannidai.” The meaning of
“fullaizos” is doubtful, but even if it =“catholic” it would apply
equally to Arians in an Arian document. See below.
+ "pize ana Gutpidai managaize martyre jah Fritpareikeis.”
86
UV
The Persecutions of 370—375.
Beroea,” and “ Andrew, Apostle."1 This curious relic of
the early Gothic Church appears to belong to its
Thracian period, and hence to the close of the fourth
century.
This persecution of Athanaric would seem to have
been prolonged with varying intensity over several
tion of the Audians, described by Epiphanius, must be
placed in or before 372, the death of Nicetas, which is
also commemorated in the Acta Sanctorum, belongs
apparently to the year 374, or the beginning of 375.
The accounts given of Nicetas in the Acta, and of
the persecution in general by Sozomen, are obviously
connected, and refer to the same period. But it is
clear on the face of it that the account of Nicetas in the
received copious additions, suggested by the editor's
knowledge or ignorance of the history of the time.
Passing over for the present the perplexing questions
that arise in this connexion, we learn here something
about the later stage of the persecution. Nicetas, like
Saba, was by birth a Goth, and brought up in the
midst of barbarian surroundings. “All men know the
Ister, renowned among rivers for its size, called in the
language of that neighbourhood the Danube. It had,
moreover, for dwellers on its banks, Goths, who at
that time had moved out of their own country." Here
lived Nicetas, by birth and nurture, but neither by
life, character, nor faith, a Goth. In his youth he had
i Concerning these, see Krafft, p. 385.
2 The relation between the Acta and Sozomenus is important,
but very obscure. See further below.
Martyrdom of Nicetas.
drawn from the streams of the teaching of Theophilus.
Now in the reign of Gratian, the impious and blood-
thirsty Athanaric began to shed the blood of the
faithful, and taught his subjects to do the like.
Nicetas, in spite of his threats and cruelties, “nothing
heeding, persevered in preaching the faith.” At length
he was seized and put to torture, but nothing could
induce him to abandon his confession, and, after one
or two miraculous deliverances from death, he received
the crown of martyrdom along with many others. A
certain Marianus of Cilicia, who was a believer, having
by means of a miracle obtained possession of the body
of the saint, transported it to Mopsuestia, where cer-
tain miracles followed, of which an account is given.
This portion of the Acta (which is included in the $$ 1,
4, 5) is probably, as we shall see later, independent of
both of the intervening paragraphs, and perhaps repre-
sents the original account, which would be drawn up
presumably by Marianus himself. From Sozomen’ we
learn that, of the Christians, some were brought to
trial and boldly confessed their faith; others were
destroyed without an opportunity being allowed them
of speaking. A wooden idol placed upon a waggon was
drawn through the villages, and the Christians were
summoned to come forth from their houses to worship
and offer sacrifice; upon their refusing, the heathens
1 Except the reference to Theophilus. For the whole account,
cf. Bessell, Ulfilas, p. 80.
2 Sozomen vi. 37.
3 Krafft, p. 370, compares the procession of the goddess Nerthus
among the Lombards, etc., described by Tacitus (Germania, c. 40),
and similar processions in the north with an idol representing Freyr.
88
The Persecutions of 370_ 375.
burnt their dwellings to the ground with the occupants.
One act of barbarous cruelty is recorded. Several
Christians, who had been driven by fear or force to offer
sacrifice, fled with their wives and children “ to the tent
of the church at that place,"1 but only to be pursued by
their enemies and there burnt alive together. These
are probably the victims whose memory is preserved in
the calendar.
The statement in the Acta Nicetae that the perse-
cution in which he fell took place under Gratian, if it
be a genuine record, would fix the date later than the
exaltation of that prince in 374. On the other hand, it
may have taken a place at any time between that and
the death of Athanaric in 381. The statement that
the Goths had then migrated “frorn their own country”
must be regarded as an insertion of the editor to make
all his statements tally, and could at no time be true of
subjects of Athanaric. On the whole, it seems most
probable that this persecution was a continuation of
the former one, and took place only in 375. Whatever
we may have afterwards to say concerning the con-
current political events, the general results of these
persecutions were disastrous to Athanaric, whose power
dwindled as that of his rival Frithigern increased.
We have thus observed the appearance of a Chris-
tian Church among the Goths under two successive
phases: first, as the organised result of the labours,
of Ulfilas, professing in the main an Arian creed, fleeing
1 επί σκήνης της ενθάδε εκκλησίας.
? Bessell contends for 380 (p. 88); but this is part of his
generally untenable position that the conversion of the Wisigoths
took place in that year.
The Conversion of the Wisigoths.
89
before the first cruel persecution to settle with their
beloved teacher in Moesia, whence they continued to
work for the conversion of their brethren. Secondly,
there appears among the Goths, who remained across
the Danube, a more sporadic Christianity, scattered con-
to one or other of the various parties, according as they
or Nicenes. They, too, felt the blast of persecution, and
many of them no doubt took refuge with their country-
men beyond the river. Others, however, found a refuge
and a rallying-point with Athanaric's rival, Frithigern,
who, about this time, proclaimed himself a Christian, or
at least a protector of the persecuted. Thus was formed
the kernel of the future Christian Gothic state. From
this rivalry proceeded the general conversion of the
Wisigoths.
This raises one of the most perplexing and debated
questions in connexion with the Gothic Church. It is
a double one. When and under what circumstances
did the Wisigoths as a nation, or the great bulk of
them, accept Christianity ?—and why was the Christian
scheme of doctrine which they adopted an Arian one ?
In answering these questions, if an answer can be found
for them, we shall also meet the subordinate yet im-
i The phrase, “conversion of the Wisigoths,” is adopted in
default of a more accurate, but not too cumbrous an expression,
though it is doubly defective. The “Goths who crossed the Danube
under Frithigern” would be more exact; for they included certain
Ostrogothic tribes, but excluded the Wisigoths under Athanaric,
and perhaps some other sections. These were the Goths whose
conversion and whose creed were so momentous for themselves and
the empire.
90
Conversion of the Wisigoths.
portant question-What part was played by Ulfilas in
this act of his nation's history?
This conversion of the Wisigoths to Arian Chris-
tianity is closely connected with their migrations across
the Danube in 376 and the following years, and also
with the relations between Athanaric and Frithigern.
The rivalry of these two chiefs represents the struggle
between the old faith and the new, between proud
barbarian independence and a subject-alliance with the
empire, between the old national spirit that stiffened.
its back against misfortune and distress, and a more
supple statesmanship, with wider views, wbich per-
ceived how by a small surrender it was possible to
secure an immense advantage. The third political
element in the matter is the Emperor Valens, a prince
of Arian leanings in the hands of a strongly Arian
court. In these circumstances it is hopeless to look for
an impartial record of the events that led to the con-
version. None of the authorities except Eunapius and
Ammian can claim to be heard as contemporaries.
Most of them wrote sixty or more years later. Their
partisanship, unchecked by any true historic sense, took
its own way with the facts. Even before comparing
one authority with his fellows, we feel that the accounts
are coloured by the influence of all that has gone
between, affected by the rise of new parties as well as
by the extinction of old ones. Caution has, moreover,
to be observed in handling these authorities, lest too
much weight be given to a manifoldness of concurrent
testimony, which may after all have but one original
source underlying it. This, while it involves much
careful comparison, at the same time opens the door to
Obscurity of the Authorities.
91
1
much destructive criticism. But between the rocks of
partial and ill-supported assertion and the whirlpool of
scepticism a course may yet be shaped.
The one undisputed fact is that the Wisigoths pro-
fessed Christianity and held it under an Arian creed in
381. That it was more to them than a mere outward
profession, and that the form was not less important in
their eyes than the essence itself, is clear from the facts
that they transmitted the faith and the form together
to their brethren the Ostrogoths, to the Vandals,
and other Teutonic tribes, as well as to their own
posterity; and moreover that, rather than abandon the
form, they sacrificed opportunities such as were offered
to no other barbarian race, foredoomed themselves to
failure in the noblest and most patient struggles to
invigorate the effete Roman race and decaying empire,
and accepted the ruin of one kingdom after another,
though it had been erected with an infinitude of
patience.
More open to question, but yet extremely probable,
is the opinion that the definite transference of their
national allegiance from heathenism to Christianity
took place on an occasion of their crossing the Danube,
and being received within the empire. We are defend-
ing a position when we say that it could only have
taken place under an Arian emperor, and that he could
have been no other than the Emperor Valens; and we
are on much disputed ground when we maintain that
the occasion was the general immigration in the year
376, that the act was a national act by the chiefs act-
ing as representatives of the nation, and took place by
agreement between Frithigern with his fellow chiefs and
92
Conversion of the Wisigoths.
Valens, either upon the offer of the one party or on the
demand of the other; while it is quite possible that
previous communications between Frithigern and the
emperor had laid the foundation of Gothic Arianism.
If we turn now to the authorities, we find one group
which must be dealt with together. The accounts of
the conversion of the Wisigoths given by Orosius,
Jordanis, and Isidore are thrown into one group by a
curious remark which, with individual variations, is
common to all of them, but which could scarcely bave
occurred to each of them independently. At the
close of the account, after the death of Valens, they
each remark on the “judgment of God;" which in-
flicted upon Valens in this life the same torture of
burning which, by perverting their faith, he had
secured for the Goths in the life to come. From this
we conclude either that one of these writers was the
source from which the others drew, or what is most
probable, that all three depended on a fourth authority.
In either case we cannot cite two of the three in
support of the third. But there is good ground for
believing that Jordanis depended either directly or
indirectly on a document which carried the history
down to 417;s and it is important that we can shew
that this source was accessible to and in part at least
used by Sozomen who might otherwise be looked
upon as an independent authority. This is proved by
i The passages referred to in Orosius, Jordanis, and Isidore are
given in Appendix.
? A comparison of the passages will shew in the verbal con-
currence and divergences the undeniable relation between the three.
3 Bessell, p. 56.
Inter-relation of the Authorities.
93
a comparison of the accounts given in both writers of
the first contact of the Huns with the Ostrogoths;? the
legend of the popular notion that the peoples were
divided by an impassable sea, which was only removed
when some hunters saw an “infuriated cow” or “a stag."
crossing the shallow water, is common to both Sozo-
men and Jordanis, and undoubtedly betrays a com-
mon source; and since Sozomen wrote in 440, this
may very well have been the document of 417.
Jordanis' account of the conversion is as follows.
The Wisigoths, after being long in perplexity as to
what they should do to escape the Huns,“ by general
consent” despatched envoys to the Emperor Valens,
saying that if he would give them a portion of Thrace
or Moesia to settle in they would live according to his
laws and submit to his authority. “And that he might
have more abundant confidence in them they promised,
if he would give them teachers in their own tongue, to
become Christians. When Valens had heard this, he
soon afterwards granted with much satisfaction what
he would fain have been the first to ask, and received the
Goths in certain parts of Moesia, where he planted
them as a wall against other races; moreover, because the
Emperor Valens, smitten by the perverted faith of the
Arians, had at that time suppressed all the churches
belonging to our party, he sent them for preachers
supporters of his own creed. And they imbued the
Goths, who came thither ignorant and unlearned, with
the poison of their own perverted faith; so in this
way the Wisigoths, through the Emperor Valens, were
i Compare Sozom. vi. 37, elávdavov de mpoo oikoûvtes ámý-
2015, k.7.1., with Jordanis, c. 24, Hujus ergo gentis, etc.
94
Conversion of the Wisigoths.
*
made Arians rather than Christians. Moreover, they
themselves sent preachers to carry the Gospel in the
same form to the Ostrogoths and Gepidi, nations of the.
same stock as themselves; and in this way all the
nations of the same speech were drawn into the same
sect.”
In Orosius the account is much shorter, all details
as well as motives being omitted, but the course of
events is the same. The Arianism of the Goths is
traced to an application made to Valens and acceded
ito,—that “ bishops might be sent to them from whom
they might learn the rule of Christian faith.” Turn-
ing to Sozomen, we find indications that the same
original document was at his disposal, and probably
formed the basis of his narrative; but he has tried to
combine it with, and perhaps to assimilate it to, a sup-
plementary account either written or oral, which added
- two new factors, a quarrel between the heathen Athan-
aric and the Christian Frithigern, and the influence of
-1 Ulfilas. He diverges from the account of Jordanis at
the point where the embassy was despatched to Valens.
“The head of this embassy is said to have been Ulfilas,
the bishop of the nation.” Then, after the migration,
a quarrel broke out among the Goths, the different
sides being led by Athanaric and Frithigern. Frithi-
gern having been beaten in battle, applied to Valens
for help. The imperial troops in Thrace having been
sent to his aid, he won a great victory, and put Athan-
aric and his party to flight. Then, out of gratitude to
the emperor, he adopted his religion, and induced his
followers to do the like. But Sozomen is not satisfied
.] Sozomenus vi. 37.
The Account of Sozomen.
95
that this was the only reason for the Arianism of the
Goths, and accordingly he introduces Ulfilas as another
agent in their conversion. Ulfilas, who was then their
bishop, bad originally held the faith in full accordance
with the Catholic Church; and though, in the reign of
Constantius, he had “without due consideration ” taken
part with Eudoxius and Acacius at the Synod of Con-
stantinople (360), he had continued nevertheless in
communion with those who held the Nicene faith.
But when he came to Constantinople on this embassy
he met there the chiefs of the Arian persuasion, who
plied him both with arguments, and with promises of
their support in his appeal to the emperor, if he only
would join them, until either from pressure of the
necessity of his mission, or from honest conviction, he
joined the Arian communion, and severed his whole
people from the Catholic Church. For he had boundless
influence over them, through his long devotion to their
cause, and the sufferings and perils he had gone through
for their sake and the Church. This narrative of Sozo-
men, so far as it is distinct from Jordanis, is related
in a degree too striking to be overlooked to the Acta
of Nicetas, and especially to sections 2 and 3 of that
document, which it is further to be noticed are not
unreasonably suspected of being themselves an inser-
tion made by a later editor into the original account
of Nicetas.
Fortunately, it is not necessary for our inquiry
to decide precisely what is the nature of the relation
between these two accounts, whether one is the parent
of the other, or both are founded upon a third and
1 τα μεν πρώτα ουδέν διεφέρετο προς την καθόλου Εκκλησίαν.
96
Conversion of the Wisigoths.
.
earlier document. Nevertheless, I incline to the opinion
that these paragraphs in the Acta Nicetae were pro-
bably drawn up later than the account of Sozomen,
and were not the foundation of that account. Bessell,
for whose theory of the conversion it is of importance to
shew that the Acta Nicetae were the foundation of the
accounts of the Church historians, lays stress on the
manya special traits "in the Acta which he would
regard as indications of greater closeness to the time of
action”; but the traits to which be refers are little
more than stock epithets, and are consistent with the
generally artificial character of the style, which gives an
impression much more of a revision in the spirit of a
triumphant and much later ecclesiasticism, than of the
original work of one who was immediately or closely
connected with the events. .
This account, which is common to Sozomen and
the Acta Nicetae, and which we may for convenience
refer to as the second document of Sozomen, was also used
by Socrates, and one obvious blunder of the former
1 Bessell, Ulfilas, p. 80; esp. 83.
2 e.g. Alavapex Tum TaeTà ốc vụ: 400Taboos Too CouTuiep-
νου: Ουάλεντι τω μισοχρίστω.
3 Compare: Sozom. où toldų dè Űotepov após ogās aŭrojs
otagiáoavtas, dcxñ òcaipedîvai with Actt. Nicet. ÉTTEL Ĉè où molùs
εν μέσω διέβη χρόνος, και το Γότθων έθνος εις αντιπάλους
διερράγη; or Sozom. κακώς πράξας εν τη μάχη Φριτιγέρνης
edeiro Pwmaíwr Bondeîv aŭto with Actt. Nicet. 60€v petlyépvns
απορρηθείς προς την ρωμαϊκήν απέβλεψε δεξίαν.
4 Socrates iv. 33, and 34. Bessell (Goths, E. and G. p. 1406
and 152; Ulfilas, p. 80) rejects this quarrel and civil war, con-
cluded by Roman aid, as altogether unhistorical,-a piece of de-
structive criticism not justified, and unjustifiable, in the face of the
evidence.
Relations between Athanaric and Frithigern. 97
1
writer, which arose either from an attempt to reconcile
his document with some previous notions of his own, or
from careless handling of it, is corrected by a refer-
ence to the latter. This blunder is contained in the
description of strife between Athanaric and Frithigern
as breaking out after the Hunnish invasion, and after the
general migration across the Danube; an arrangement
of events which is quite unhistorical, and is contradicted
not only by the account in Socrates, but also by the
thoroughly trustworthy and fully detailed narrative of
Ammian. But having made this obvious correction,
there is no reason why we should not accept the civil
war between Athanaric and Frithigern as historical, and
as leading to important consequences for the Goths.
Whether the cause of this discord was originally
political or religious it is not easy to decide; but
whichever element appeared first, it is certain that the
other quickly followed. Whether Frithigern was a rival
chief, who strengthened his hands by giving protection
to Christians who fled from Athanaric's persecution, or
whether he was a Christian of noble family who was
driven to appear as a political rival to the heathen
Athanaric, the issue was the same. His party were
defeated. He crossed the river to ask help from
Valens; returned with Roman troops, and retrieved his
defeat by a victory which drove Athanaric northward
and eastward, and excluded him and his followers from
finding asylum with their countrymen in the Roman
empire when the Hunnish thundercloud burst upon
them.
Passing on to the second part of Sozomen's ac-
count, that which introduces Ulfilas as an actor in
93
Conversion of the Wisigoths.
the drama, we find it to be open to much suspicion.
A comparison with Socrates shews that this intro-
duction of Ulfilas as an important figure in the
negotiations was either absent from the document with
which he, Socrates, and the editor of Acta Nicetae
were all directly or indirectly acquainted, or was
ignored by the better informed Socrates. Again,
the very clumsy way in which Sozomen introduces
Ulfilas and his influence as a further explanation of
what has been sufficiently explained already in the
conversion of Frithigern and his influence on his sub-
jects, followed by that most strange account of his
" thoughtlessly” joining Eudoxius and Acacius in 360,
but, nevertheless, remaining in communion with the
Nicaeans, betrays traces not so much of the smooth
course of an original and authentic document as of an
attempt to foist into such a record some previous
opinion or tradition which the writer himself held. It
will suffice to indicate one more point which raises
suspicion against the genuineness of this record. The dis-
cussions between Ulfilas and the heads of the Arian party,
and the meetings during which pressure was brought to
bear, and promises were held out of influence to be
exercised with the emperor, are represented as taking
place at Constantinople. Now Valens, to whom the
embassy was directed, was at Antioch ;is it then to be
1 ου τούτο δε μόνον οίμαι αίτιον γέγονεν εισέτι νύν παν το
φύλον προστεθήναι τοίς τα Αρείου δοξάζουσιν.
2 Valens was absent from Constantinople, and in the East
(principally in the neighbourhood of Antioch) from 371 to 378, when
he returned to Constantinople on May 30th. See Gwatkin, App.
2, p. 295.
Ulfilas Share in the Conversion. 99
-
supposed that Ulfilas, if he had been one of the envoys,
knowing the stress and terror of his people on the
far bank of the Danube, would pause in his journey to
Antioch to discuss points of doctrine with the Arian
leaders at Constantinople ? But Sozomen is evidently
under the impression that the emperor was actually at
Constantinople, a place to which he did not return for
fifteen months after the Goths had crossed the Danube.
By Socrates, Ulfilas is also introduced, but only paren-
thetically; and all that he has to tell is incorporated by
Sozomen in his perverted account. Thus we conclude
that of these church-historians, Socrates stands nearest
to the original source; that Sozomen, coming next,
had access to Socrates' account, and also directly or
indirectly to the document on which Jordanis founded
his; but that he introduced matter of his own apart from
either of these authorities, which is of very doubtful
value. Lastly, that the Acta Nicetae, SS 2 and 3, are
not the source of Socrates, but represent either an
independent contamination of the same authorities, or,
as seems much more probable, a version of Socrates
worked up and embellished for insertion in the original
Acta. .
Theodoret ;' but as his account shews no indications of
resting on different or better authority than the fore-
going, and contains only one variation of moment for our
enquiry, it need not detain us long. It shews the
bitterness, if not also the unfairness, of the odium
theologicum more clearly than the other historians do.
i Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. iv. 37. For Theodoret, see Bessell,
Ulfilas, p. 91.
no
100
Conversion of the Wisigoths.
The condition that the Goths should become Arians is
made to proceed from the side of the emperor on
the instigation of “Eudoxius the badly named."1 For
he said they had long ago received the rays of divine
instruction, and were being brought up in the teachings
of the Apostles; and a common faith would prove a
stronger pledge of peace. To Eudoxius also (or
Euzoius ?) he ascribes the conversion of Ulfilas, whom
he charges with having been brought over by means
not of argument alone, but of bribes.? Ulfilas, moreover,
whose influence over his people is here again described
as supreme, lightly persuaded them to adopt the new
form of faith by saying that there was no doctrine
of importance involved in the dispute, which was merely
a matter of party jealousy, and a battle about words.
The greater part of this version falls to the ground at
once when tested with the touchstone of the Auxentian
document; but the suggestion that the proposal that
the Goths should become Arians proceeded from Valens
is quite a reasonable one, though hardly to be preferred
to the statement of the converse.
Finally, we have an interesting and graphic account
given by Eunapius, who was actually a contemporary
1 Εύδοξιος και δυσώνυμος; but this should almost certainly
be Euzoius, for Eudoxius died at Constantinople in 370 (vide
Socrates iv. 14); whereas Euzoius was bishop of Antioch when
Valens was there. See Annot Valesii, ad Soc. loc. cit., and the
introduction to Acta Nicetae, ed. Paris, 1866.
2 τούτον και λόγους και χρήμασι δελεάσας.
3 Eunapius, Frag. 46, ed. Niebuhr, p. 82. This account is the
one chiefly relied upon by Bessell in his attempt to shew that the
Goths as a nation were heathen till 380, and first passed over to
Christianity in that year.
The Account of Eunapius.
101
TT
writer, of the passage of the Danube, from which
Bessell has tried to draw conclusions concerning the
date and probable motives of the conversion of the
Wisigoths. No doubt he is right in maintaining that
the reference here is to a different and later passage of
the river than that in 376, namely to one in 380. But
if this be the case, according to our conception of the
history, the body of Goths who crossed in 380 were not
Frithigern's Goths of 376, returned to their country
after their great victory, and now hurling themselves
anew upon the empire. That is an altogether untenable
theory. They were bands of Ostrogoths, and perhaps :
of remaining Wisigoths, who, either at the summons of
Frithigern or upon the news of the disabling illness of
Theodosius, flocked to share in the victories and the
booty of their comrades who had crossed before.
Statements concerning Christians, or professing
Christians, coming from a heathen, and avowedly hostile,
writer like Eunapius,' are obviously to be received with
caution. But some of the details which he gives are too
curious to be passed over. After describing the tribes
crossing in great numbers, he adds that each tribe
brought along with it its national sacred things or idols,
together with the priests and priestesses belonging to ;
them. But about these the most deep and “adaman- ,!
tine” silence was preserved, and all the open and osten-
sible signs of religion were prepared to “deceive the
I Though Niebuhr has dated both narratives in 376: but compare
the circumstances; the remorseless cutting down of those who swam
over on the first occasion with ÊTCÒLÉBaivov oỦdévos kwlúovtos on
the second.
? See Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, i. 129.
102
Conversion of the Wisigoths.
U
enemy.” They had dressed up some of their number in
robes to represent bishops, and made them advance in
front and in the middle of the line. Monks also they
had provided themselves with, and that without much
difficulty, for it “sufficed if they swept along in dark
robes and tunics, and both were, and were thought to
be, scoundrels." All this was done to deceive some
people who met them on the opposite bank, not further
specified, who were “so sunk in foolishness that they
were clearly and immoveably convinced that they were
Christians and followed all the rites.”
We are now in a position to collect the evidence
thus sifted, and briefly to describe the course of events
which we believe to have led to the conversion of the
Wisigoths. After the peace of 369 concluded between
Valens and Athanaric, the latter was left with his heart
full of wrath, and his hands free to avenge upon the
Christians the insults which their unbelief offered to his
native gods. Ulfilas, through his disciples, had probably
carried on the work of evangelisation among his old
countrymen, particularly among the dependents of a
smaller chieftain, Frithigern; but the faith had also
found adherents among the subjects of Athanaric. The
cruel persecution of the Christians by Athanaric raised
the rivalry of the two chiefs to an open quarrel.
Frithigern, whether out of conviction or of policy, took
the part of the Christians, who soon learnt to know
their champion, and flocked to him. In the war which
followed, Frithigern was defeated, and hastened across
the Danube to seek help from the Roman emperor.
The only pretext for such a request, or for the assistance
accorded to him, would be the claims of persecuted
The Probable Course of Events.
103
Christians on a Christian emperor. And whether the
church-historians are right or not in ascribing the
chief's own conversion wholly to his gratitude on this
and his faith encouraged. The Roman troops led the
Goths, who owed allegiance to Frithigern, to a victory
which secured the position of the latter as an inde-
pendent chieftain, and internal peace for the period
that intervened before the inbreaking of the Huns.
To this period, and to the communications between
Valens and Frithigern, I ascribe the application for,
and sending of, "preachers from whom they might
learn the rule of Christian faith,” though the his-
torians, with the foreshortening inseparable from their
method, have connected this with the embassy of 376.
Before the latter year arrived, these labourers, assisted
perhaps by missionaries of Ulfilas, may have converted
no small section of the Goths to the simple form which
the faith took, outside the reach of theological con-
troversies, and so the famous embassy of 376 may very
well have carried sincere proposals for the acceptance by
the whole nation of the faith of the emperor, which was
already known and accepted by a considerable section.
While on the other hand, if the true view lies with
Theodoret, it may have been Valens who dictated a
condition which could be of service to the peace of the
empire only if a large part at least of the incoming
people could accept it with sincerity. This seems to
me to be the only account of the conversion of the
Wisigoths reconcileable with a fair and comprehensive
survey of the authorities.
CHAPTER V.
THE ARIANISM OF ULFILAS AND THE GOTHS:
THE GOTHIC BIBLE.
AUTHORITIES FOR CHAPTER V.
SOURCES :
Ulfilas' Version of the Bible, edition of Gabelentz and Loebe.
Arian documents discovered by Cardinal Mai, and edited by him in Corpus
Veterum Scriptorum, vol. iii.
Arian MS., edited by Waitz.
Skeireins, edited by Massmann.
LITERATURE:
Castillione, de Ulfilae et Gothorum Arianismo-Excursus at the end of the
Epistle to Philippians.
Krafft, de fontibus Ulfilae Arianismo. Review of the same by Bessell in
Göttingen Gel. Anz. 1861.
Gwatkin, Studies in Ariunisin.
Kölling, Geschichte der Arianischen Haeresie.'
Lange, der Arianismus in seiner weitern Entwickelung in Illgen's Zeitschrift,
vol. 7, 1.
The literature and editions of the Gothic Version are collected in Goedeke's
Grundriss zur Geschichte der Deutschen Quellen,
THE acceptance of Christianity by the Goths in the
modified form of Arianism, as described in the last
chapter, was an event of most serious importance for
their future development, and, as it proved, of hardly
less importance for the future of the Roman empire.
Provided thus with a platform that lay between the
darkness of heathenism and the light of a full-orbed
Christianity, they came to a fatal halt. In this dim
twilight of Arianism the figure of the Christ appeared
familiar to them, and comprehensible by its resemblance
to their own old deities who stood between man and the
absolute divine,—the All-Father. It did not cost them
much to exchange these demigods, who were just one
The Arianism of Ulfilas.
105
step removed from heroes, for one heroic figure in whom
all the powers and qualities of the rest should combine.
But the All-Father remained as far removed as ever
from reach and contact of buman needs. Christ was
not God come down from heaven to reveal the Godhead
in the flesh, to deliver man from sin, having made
atonement for it, and so to exalt him to an original
state of glory and holiness. He was a creature like
man–the first and highest of creatures, it is true-and
as such worthy to be honoured and adored next to God, :
but exalted above man by the design and will of the
Father, not by virtue of his own divine essence. Least
of all was his essence to be regarded as identical with
that of the Father, for “the transition from one who
walked on earth to equality with the All-Father is so
great as to be almost inconceivable."! It was thus that
the Arian Christ found responsive acceptance in the
Teutonic mind. They pictured him as a true king
upon earth, moving about the highways of Palestine,
attended by troops of loyal followers, from among whom
he had chosen the Twelve as captains. When he
“ went up into a mountain," and took his seat, his
captains stood in obedient readiness before him, and all
below and around the faithful host was waiting to hear
his commands and ready to execute them. Or if at any
time the Teutonic mind took a deeper and more spiritual
view of the Saviour's work, it was as the Healer that
they loved to behold him, moving about among
1 Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, ii. 265.
? This is the picture in the Saxon Heliand of the ninth
century.
106
The Arianism of the Goths.
.
suffering humanity, touching for the evil, restoring
sight, and power, and hearing.
Teutonic Arianism is nevertheless to be carefully
distinguished from Hellenic Arianism. Even if the two
0
the moral value of the same faith was very different in
and for the two parties who had approached it from
different directions. For the Goth, in spite of the
assistance he may have found in the likeness between
his demigods and the Arian Christ, it was nevertheless a
distinctly upward step in faith when he confessed a
belief in a historic revelation, and submitted himself to
the teaching of the Gospel, through which Jesus was
manifested as the Son of God. For the Hellenic
Christian, on the other hand, the acceptance of an Arian
creed, or any of the post-Nicene compromises, was a
step backwards and downwards. He left the high level
of conception of the nature of God to which, after a
great struggle and, as it were, by a supreme effort the
Nicene Council had sprung; and he fell back upon
a philosophical heathenism, which began by denying
the Godhead of Christ, and afterwards sought to bring
about a compromise of faith with reason at the cost of
second degree.”
Nor is the Arian Teuton morally superior to the
Arian Hellene in theory only, but still more remarkably
in practice. Here the moral tendency of the race came
to the aid of a defective faith.” In the Arian Church
1 The “Neriende Krist” of the Heliand.
2 Well described by F. D. Maurice: “The result I arrived at
was,—that the feeling of religious awe and mystery was that which
Teutonic v. Hellenic Arianism.
107
in:
of the empire the surrender to heathen philosophy
seemed to be followed by a surrender of Christian
morality. At a time when neither party can claim to
have illustrated the ethics of the Gospel by their
conduct, the Arians distinguished themselves above
their rivals in their display of worldliness, and their
unscrupulous recourse to treachery and intrigue. In
the matter of “works," if we may trust the report
of writers like Salvian, the Goths, on the other hand,
approached nearer to the full ideal of Christian life than
their stunted faith would warrant us to expect. They
had learnt to curb their passions, to respect women, and
to honour truth. Nevertheless it was a stunted faith,
nor was there much hope that it would develop to a
fuller, richer form. For the bitterness of schism proved
a more impervious barrier to the fostering of a more
perfect faith than the ignorance of heathenism bad
been to the introduction of true light.
The effect of this conversion on the political history
of the Goths will appear in subsequent chapters. For
the Roman empire also, whose subject-allies they now
became, the form of their creed, and the tenacity with
which they clung to it, involved important conse-
quences. The conversion of the Goths arrested the
decay of the Arian cause, which would otherwise have
collapsed, under the pressure of persecution upon its
hollow and divided frame, before the fourth century had
come to a close. But the same day that planted this
new buttress of the party within the empire saw it
shattered at its foundation by the death of its champion,
belonged to the Celts, as the moral feeling, reverence for relation-
ships, marriage, etc., especially characterised the Gothic race."
108
The Arianism of the Goths.
Valens, by the consequent loss of court support, and its
ultimate transfer to the opposite party. The gain of a
nation could not atone to the Arian party for the loss of
an emperor. Three years later the Arian bishop and
clergy of Constantinople had to surrender the churches,
and submit to laws suppressing all the gatherings of
their flocks, or leave the capital. Most of them chose
the latter alternative, and the Arian Church became
little more comprehensive than the Gothic Church, had
few fixed habitations, but wandered over southern
Europe with these its latest converts, and only staunch
supporters.
But it must not be supposed that the Arianism of
the Gothic Church presented that many-fashioned creed
in its coldest and most brutal form. The distinctions
had been fined down till, on the main point at issue,
they might seem to any but a trained theologian
practically to disappear, and it is hard to say that the
language of homage and adoration for the Son of God,
God and Creator of all other created things, which
comes from the pen of Auxentius, and came to him
from the lips of Ulfilas, --it is hard to say that this is
the language of any but a Christian in the full sense of
the term. The form of faith which was held by Ulfilas,
and taught by him to the Goths, may be studied in the
manuscript of Auxentius, to which he appended his
beloved master's creed. The latter is unfortunately
only a fragment as it has come down to us in the tran-
scription of Maximin, but it may nevertheless honour
these pages,—the first Teutonic Confession of Faith.
Auxentius introduces it thus: “And he, even at his
1 Waitz, p. 21.
Ulfilas' Confession of Faith.
109
departure, at the very hour of death, left for the people
committed to his charge a written confession of his
faith, saying thus :
"I, Ulfilas, bishop and confessor, have always thus
believed, and in this one and true faith I make my
testament before my Lord.
" I believe there is one God the Father, alone un-
begotten and invisible, and I believe in His
only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, Creator
and Maker of the whole creation, not having
any like unto Him—therefore there is one
God of all, who is also God of our God?_and
in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sancti-
fying power—as Christ says for warning to
His Apostles : “Behold, I send the promise of
my Father upon you; but do ye dwell in the
City of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with
power from on high. And again : “And ye
shall receive power coming upon you by the
Holy Spirit')-neither God nor Lord, but the :
minister of Christ . ..."
At this point the MS. becomes fragmentary, and the
sentence is incomplete; only we can ascertain that he
believed the Spirit to be “subjected and in all things
obedient to the Son," and the Son to be “subjected and
obedient in all things to God the Father.” Thereafter
the creed seems to have closed with a doxology ad-
dressed to the Father“ through Christ ....” and “ by
the Holy Spirit.” The creed thus presented is expanded
by Auxentius in the account of his master's teaching,
1 Waitz had read “ideo unus est omnium Deus, qui et de
nostris (?) est Deus," where Bessell (p. 42) would read “qui et dei
nostri.”
110
The Arianism of the Goths.
which fills the greater part of the document. He had
“never hesitated to proclaim openly and freely to
willing and unwilling hearers alike, one only true God,
the Father of Christ, and the second rank of Christ
Himself; well knowing that this, the alone true God, is
alone unbegotten, without beginning, without end,
eternal, . . . . incorruptible, incommunicable, of incor-
poreal essence, not combined of parts, single, unchange-
able, . . . . incomparably greater and better than all;
who being alone, not unto the division or diminution of
His Godhead, but unto the display of His goodness and
property, by His alone will and power,—passionless did
passionlessly, incorruptible did incorruptibly, immove-
able did without motion create and beget, make and
establish an only-begotten God. According to the
tradition and authority of the divine Scriptures, that
this second God and Author of all things existed of the
Father, and after the Father, and for the Father, and
for the glory of the Father, this was never concealed by
him; but that He was both great God and great Lord,
and great King, and great Mystery, . . . . . Redeemer,
Saviour, . . . . . just Judge of quick and dead, yet
having a greater God, even His Father; this he did
'always set forth according to the blessed Gospel.”
After this exposition of the positive views of his
master, Auxentius proceeds to define his position nega-
tively, setting forth his condemnation of one party after
another, with the reasons which he added for the sake
of his pupils. We recognise here at once the man who
joined the synod at Constantinople in 360, and there
signed (not åtePLOKÉTTWS, as Sozomen? would have it)
? Sozomenus iv. 24.
1
Auxentius' Exposition of his Master's Views. 111
the creed of Ariminum with the addendum that the
words υπόστασις and ουσία should cease to be used in
reference to the Godhead. One after the other the
parties, whose watchwords are compounded with ovo ía,
are unsparingly condemned.
The kernel of the creed of Nicaea lay in the word
ouoouo lov, which was inserted after much debate and
with widespread reluctance. The objections to it on the
conservative side were many. Its value in the eyes of
the Athanasian party was that it held the Arians in a
vice. There was no eluding its searching analysis of the
various compromises proposed; and the efforts of the
Arians who had accepted it to disguise its force to their
followers, and to explain their own conduct in signing a
creed which made use of it to define the relation of the
Father to the Son, only served to attest its value as a
discerner of the false from the true. Two bishops alone
had the courage to refuse their signatures, and to share
with Arius the consequences --removal and banishment.
Two others, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognius of
Nicaea, chose the less heroic alternative, and signed
with reservations. But either the reservations became
too widely known, or their sympathy with Arius was
afterwards too openly displayed, for three months
later they had to accept the same sentence as their
bolder comrades.
This is the Eusebius who afterwards selected Ulfilas
to be bishop among the Goths, and with whose views the
young “lector” must have been very familiar, to whose
party indeed he most likely belonged. For Eusebius
did not long remain in exile, and on his return to his
see became one of the leaders of that reaction against
112
The Arianism of the Goths.
the Homoousion, which set in immediately after the
council had separated. For the next fifty years the
authority of their creed trembled in the balance. One
coalition after another attacked and condemned the
Nicene decision, and attempted to set up a watchword
of their own. “Homoiousion” was the first. Eusebius,
of Caesarea, had had his own creed returned to him
spoiled by the insertion of one word. It did not express
his faith, but he signed it, issuing to his flock an expla-
nation of his reasons for doing so. He took the word to
designate "likeness in respect of essence," not "sameness
of essence"; and the many who felt with Eusebius did
the like, and formed the party who were known as
Homoiousians. In so far as they represented a protest
against the obnoxious word óuocúolov, they had a large
and increasing body of supporters. The centre party at
the council had hardly confirmed the new creed before
they began to take alarm at what they had done. The
new word was not in the Scriptures. That they had
insisted on before, but had been overruled by the
Athanasians, "who maintained that, if Scripture was to
be limited to any particular meaning, they must go
outside Scripture for technical terms to define that
meaning.". But now the full effect of this innovation
was felt outside the council; and, what was worse, in
the anxiety to repel Arianism, they had sanctioned
a word which was distinctly open to question on the
ground of Sabellianism. The controversy slumbered,
but the reaction gathered force and volume in the time
that intervened before the death of Constantine. The
1 Neander, vol. iv. p. 26.
2 Gwatkin, p. 4o.
Homoiusians Condemned.
113
death of this emperor removed the court and state
support, which had done so much to enforce the creed
of Nicaea. The Eusebian party were ready and quick
to seize the opportunity. The council at Antioch in
339, and the council of the Dedication in 341, follow
one another in quick succession. The consecration of
Theophilus to work among the Indians, and of Ulfilas as
bishop among the Goths, marks a determined missionary
activity in the party, and the general adhesion of the
men whom they chose to the doctrines they repre-
sented. But if Ulfilas was a follower of Eusebius in
341, at a later period of his life he heartily opposed his
teaching, and appears to have joined a new party, which
took shape and acquired influence before the council of
Constantinople in 360.
In Auxentius' exposition of the teaching of his
master we learn that he condemned Homousians and
Homoiusians alike. Nevertheless, it is interesting to
trace in his language a difference in the manner, though
not in the measure, of the condemnation. “The de-
testable and abominable confession of the Homousians
ke spurned and trampled on as an invention of the
devil and the teaching of demons.” But “of the
Homoiousians also be deplored and shunned the error
and impiety, being himself most carefully instructed out
of the Holy Scriptures, and having also been earnestly
confirmed therein in many consultations of saintly
bishops.” And again, his attitude to the two sects is
described, and the same distinction may be traced.?
? Quapropter homousionorum sectam destruebat, quia non con-
fusas et concretas personas, sed discretas et distinctas credebat:
omoeusion autem dissipabat quia non comparatas res sed differentes
114
The Arianism of the Goths.
The sect of the Homousians he would destroy, because
he believed “non confusas et concretas personas, sed
discretas et distinctas.” The Homoiusians, moreover, he
would scatter because “non res comparatas sed dif-
ferentes adfectus defendebat.” There is an obvious
softening in the phrasing, even a little touch of tender-
iness in reference to the errors of the Homoiousians or
Eusebian party, which would be very natural in one
who in earlier life had been connected with them.
Fortunately, we are not called upon here to trace
the history of the parties in the Church in the fourth
century, a history of strife and intrigue, of base de-
pendence on court favour, of unsparing and unscrupulous
use of any short lease of power. The softer sort of
Arianism, which Eusebius represented, held the party
together till a slight change of front, in which őolov
κατά παντά and ομοιούσιον became “more and more
the watchwords of conservatism," alienated the fiercer
spirits, who formed together a party which, returning
to the doctrines of Arius in their most simple form,
took or received the name of Anomoeans. The direct
contradiction of their doctrine was offered by a party
who were naturally known as the Homoeans, and
to this party Ulfilas, at least after 360, belonged.
Auxentius gives his positive teaching on this point
briefly thus: “That the Son is like to His Father, ....
according to Holy Scripture and tradition.” This
party appears, by its leaders, at the parallel councils of
adfectus defendebat, et filium similem esse patri suo non secundum
Macedonianam fraudulentam pravitatem et perversitatem contra
scribturas dicebat, sed secundum divinas scribturas et traditiones,
i For the rise of the Homoean party, see Gwatkin, p. 163.
Adherence to the Homoean Party.
115.
Ariminum and Seleucia. The course of time and the
rise of new parties had tended to draw more closely
together the Nicenes and the semi-Arians, who were
now representing the old Eusebian party, and defended
the ομοιούσιον against the ομοούσιον. But in the face of
a new and common foe an alliance was brought about,
partially through the judicious mediation of Hilary of
Poictiers. The representatives of the new Homoean
party met this combination, Ursacius and Valens at
Ariminum, and Acacius at Seleucia. Outwardly worsted
at both places, they nevertheless contrived to get a creed
of their own approval accepted by a joint conference at
Constantinople, and confirmed their victory by a council
which they held at the same place a few days later
(January, 360). At this latter council Ulfilas was
present, and took part with Acacius, as we learn from
Sozomen.'
Thanks to the disunion and weakness of the other
parties in the east, and to the court influence and com-
manding position enjoyed by Acacius and his successor,
-the Homoeans maintained their superiority until the
fall of Arianism with the death of Valens, and the new
attitude of the court under Theodosius. That period
coincides with the last twenty years of the life of
Ulfilas, and during it we must regard him as a steadfast
adherent of that party.
Whatever were the views he held, he maintained
them with determination and very little tolerance for
those who dissented from him. “In preaching and ex-
pounding he declared all heretics to be not: Christians,
but Anti-Christs; . . . . . not in hope, but without
i Sozomenus vi. 37.
..
"
116
The Arianism of the Goths.
lope; not worshippers of God, but without God; not
leaders, but misleaders."1 Auxentius adds a list of the
heretics whom he denounced, which contains the names
of thirteen sects, including both the Homousians and
the Homoiusians. One name on the list, that of Antro-
piani, may possibly refer to the Anthropomorphite sect
of the Audians, against whom the phrase "incorporeal
in His substance," which occurs in the account of his
teaching, may be specially directed.
On the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the specific
discussion of which, though it was involved in the
Arian controversy, was bequeathed to a later age,
Ulfilas differed widely from what was subsequently the
orthodox belief. His teaching on that point was,
that the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son,
but made before all things by the Father through the
Son; that He is not first nor second, but placed by the
First through the Second in the third rank; that He is
not unbegotten nor begotten, but created by the Unbe-
gotten through the Only-begotten in the third rank. In
support of this doctrine he was wont to quote John i. 3,
and 1 Cor. viii. 6. It followed from the foregoing that
the Holy Spirit could not be said to be either Advocate,
or God, or Lord; but from God through the Lord
received power to be not Author nor Creator, but
Illuminator, Sanctifier, Teacher, ... Minister of Christ,
and the Distributor of Grace. Ulfilas further main-
tained the unity of the Church of the living God," the
pillar and foundation of truth," the unity of the flock of
Christ“our Lord and God, one Virgin, one Spouse, one
* Auxentius, ap. Waitz, p. 19.
? Auxentius, ut supra.
LU
TV
117
Concerning the Third Hypostasis.
"on
UUT
U
Queen"; and, as the converse of this, he firmly declared
that, as there was but one community of Christians,
“all other conventicles were not churches of God, but
synagogues of Satan.” For all points of his teaching he
relied almost exclusively on the Scriptures (“ tradition"
is once mentioned by Auxentius). This was character-
istic of the Homoeans, who were distinguished for it
even in an age which had been put upon its guard
against non-Scriptural expressions by the troubles that
had arisen from the Homousion. In this short account
of Ulfilas by Auxentius, the general appeal to “Holy
Scripture” is made four times; four texts are quoted,
and at the close he adds: “Let the reader understand
that all these things were taught by him, and have
been described by us according to the Holy Scrip-
tures."
Such was the teaching of Ulfilas, especially on those
questions which were threatening in his day to rend the
Church. Our only authority hitherto has been Auxen-
tius. Attempts have been made to deduce confirmation,
and perhaps amplification, of his report from Ulfilas'
rendering of crucial passages in the New Testament.
But the results of this enquiry are slight and dubious at
best. There remain one or two Arian documents
discovered this century, written in Latin or in Gothic,
in which traces of the hand or teaching of Ulfilas have
been found. The Ambrosian codices, which were
brought to light by the researches of Cardinal Mai at
Milan, are two MSS. of great interest and value in
1 And so the Arians in general, whose doctrine has been said to
be “supported by alternate scraps of obsolete traditionalism and
uncritical text-mongering."
118
The Arianism of the Goths.
8
connexion with the Gothic Church. The first is a
palimpsest containing, in the upper script, a “thesaurus"
of the works of Augustine written about the seventh
century. The lower script, the writing of which is “far
better and fairer,” dates from the fourth or fifth century,
and contains large fragments of a commentary on the
Gospel of St. Luke, which bears clear traces of an Arian
origin. The second MS. is also a palimpsest. The
original codex having been broken up, the parchments
came to form part of two volumes, one of which lies in
Milan and the other at the Vatican. When collected
together the original manuscript yielded fragments of a
commentary on St. John, written in the language
of Ulfilas, and several fragments of dogmatic treatises
written in Latin, and even more pronounced than the
first document in the Arian character of their doc-
trine. Reserving for the present the description of the
Moeso-Gothic manuscript, we may find in the dogmatic
fragments valuable illustrations of the Arianism of the
Goths.
The ancient home of both these MSS. had been the
famous monastery of Bobio. The monastery of Bobio
was founded in 612 by Columbanus, the Irish monk,
who left his early home in the monastery of Bangor, and
after some years of missionary work with his companion
Gallus in Burgundy and Neustria, left the latter to carry
on his work on the shores of the Bodensee, and himself
pushed on to Italy. Here, in a secluded nook of the
Apennines, he planted his new monastery, an outpost of
1 Mai, Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, ii. 186.
2 See Hertel, in Zeitschrift für historische Theologie, 1875;
Wattenbach, Geschichtsquellen, i. 99; Revillout, p. 367.
The Library of Bobio.
119
CA
the Catholic faith, in the midst of the Arian Lombards.
Eager and vehement in all he undertook, Columbanus
set about to gather round him a magazine of Arian
literature,' out of which to forge new weapons for the
destruction of the stubborn heresy. One of these
palimpsests is inscribed, “The book of S. Columbanus of
Bobio."? That he used his library with effect we learn
from his biographer, who says of him “that he laid bare
as with a cautery, and dissected the deceits of the
Arian heresy;" and further, that he issued against
them a book displaying a rich acquaintance with the
controversy. To the possession of this hostile student
of Arian literature we may trace this manuscript. It
would be still more interesting if we could ascertain its
author. Cardinal Mai, in editing these fragments, con-
fesses that he is unable to point out the author of them;
but of this much he is convinced,—the date of the
MS. is to be placed at the end of the fourth century or
at latest in the fifth ; the author was a bishop;: but the
style is unpretentious and provincial. The fragments
are, in his opinion, the remains of three treatises, ---one,
“Concerning the Son of God”; a second,“ Concerning
the Holy Spirit”; and a third, “ Concerning ecclesias-
tical questions."
The documents, thus published by Mai, have re-
S
i We may judge of the number of Arian documents which must
at one time have existed from Hilary, adv. Const. 7: “impiissimis
Arianorum blasphemiis plenae omnes ecclesiarum chartae, plenique
jam libri sunt."
2 Vit. S. Columb. ap. Surium, Nov. 20, chap. 29, cit. Revillout.
3 Mai: “episcopum fuisse valde arbitror.” “Stilus utriusque
operis perinde humilis ac subrusticus."
120
• The Arianism of the Goths.
cently been examined by Krafft, who came to con-
clusions more decided about the authorship. The
MS. belongs clearly to the fourth or beginning of the
fifth century. The doctrine expounded therein coin-
cides with none of the well known forms of Arianism;
it approaches most nearly to the scheme set forth by
Eunomius before the Emperor Theodosius, but there are
discrepancies even when compared with his creed. In a
word, the only teaching with which they entirely agree
is that of Ulfilas, as set forth by Auxentius. With
this, the correspondence is very remarkable, even in
details. The phrase "secundum divinarum scribturarum
traditionem” is a favourite with Auxentius, and the
writer of the treatises alike. On the subordination of
the persons of the Godhead, obedience of the Son to the
Father, and the Spirit to the Son, as well as in many
expressions used to define the Divine nature, they agree.
The anonymous writer repudiates the title of Arians
imposed upon his party, and in the exposition of his
faith justifies the disclaimer. For he, as Auxentius
does, exalts the Son as God and Lord, while, on the
other hand, he maintains doctrines foreign to pure
Arianism, namely, that the Son did not make progress
in the character of his divinity, but was at once made
perfect;and again, that though not eternal “a priori”
he was eternal “in posterum,"3 The verbal coincidences
i Krafft, de fontibus Ulfilae Arianismi.
2 “Hunc non proficientem in posterum, sed statim perfectum,"
fol. 209.
3 “ Sempiternum autem sic dicimus filium quia cum initium
habeat finem tamen non habiturum sed mansurum in aeternum,"
fol. 149; cf. Comm. on Luke i. 33.
The Milanese Documents.
121
with Auxentius are very striking, especially when we
take into consideration the brevity of the exposition the
latter has given. In both, we find not only the orthodox
(" those who so call themselves"), but also the Homoiu-
sians and the Macedonians condemned. And in the
anonymous treatise the last receive especial attention,
their distinction from the orthodox being pointed out as
well as their distinction from the writer. In style also
there is a remarkable correspondence; that which
Cardinal Mai notes in both documents as an unpre-
tentious and rather rustic style, to which, indeed, the
anonymous writer makes an apologetic allusion at the
beginning of his treatise, is characteristic of Auxentius
also. On the combined evidence of corresponding
style, identical phrases, arguments, and quotations from
Scripture, taken in connexion with the undoubted date
of the MS., Krafft ascribes these fragments to the same
pen as that which wrote the exposition of Ulfilas'
teaching, that is, to Auxentius. The date of the
composition may be ascertained approximately from a
consideration of one sentence, where the writer declares
his chief object of attack to be “ those who call them-
selves orthodox, who have forced their way into our
churches, and do now hold them in tyrannical fashion
declaring that the Son is in all things equal to God
the Father.” This can only refer to a time succeeding,
and probably immediately succeeding, the legal sup-
pression of Arianism in Constantinople by Theodosius
and the occupation of all the churches of the sect by
their triumphant rivals.
1 “Non sublimitate sermonis vel compositae orationis verbo
confidentes, quorum omnino studium non habuimus."
122
The Arianism of the Goths.
17
LI
There is not so much evidence to be found for the
other suggestion advanced by Krafft," that the commen-
tary on St. Luke is actually the work of Ulfilas. The
style and doctrine, so far as opportunity is afforded by
the passagés commented on for bringing forward pecu-
liarities of doctrine, correspond with the style and doc-
trine of the treatises. Certain words differing from
the correct Latin spelling shew traces of Gothic influ-
ence, and some of the characteristic teaching of the
treatise is reproduced very exactly. Moreover, there is
one passage in the commentary which is undoubtedly
more appropriate to the circumstances of Ulfilas and
his flock than to any other church extant about the
period at which the MS. must be dated. On Luke
v. 11, which is thus paraphrased—“And they drew
their ships to land, and left all, and followed the
Saviour and His saving words, the comment is as
follows: “I believe they were saying, 'the earth shall
receive our boats as a mother her offspring; let us
leave parents and all things, that we may find a better
parent and all things made ready; let us learn with our
ships to leave behind our bodies, and imitating the
master to consecrate our victorious spirits to a martyr's
death, that seeking sky instead of earth, instead of this
world, paradise, we may win a kingdom; and let us with
Paul boast triumphantly, I follow after, etc.” Though
it may be hard to say where the transition takes place
Krafft is surely mistaken when he says “idem codex in quo
hic commentarius invenitur, alterum ut supradictum est commen-
tarium continet lingua, qua Ulfila usus est, conscriptum.” At any
rate, Mai's introduction does not bear this out.
se.g. aecclesiam for ecclesiam; cf. aikklêsjo.
The Commentary on St. Luke.
123
here between the imagined words of the Apostles and
the exhortation of the speaker to his flock, it is clear
nevertheless that the flock was threatened with, perhaps
in the very midst of, a persecution unto death. It may
fairly be asked to what flock in Europe, except to that
over which Ulfilas was bishop, could such words have
been addressed during the half century within which
this MS. must fall. Take further into consideration
the connexion of the commentary with the treatises,
and that of the treatises with the commentary on
St. John in the Gothic tongue of Ulfilas, and in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary, we have at
least a strong presumption in favour of this theory of
the authorship. But we cannot suppose that Ulfilas
would compose a commentary so obviously addressed,
in the first instance, to his own people in what was to
most of them a foreign tongue. Rather is it probable
that this is a translation from the Gothic original made
either by Ulfilas himself or, as it seems more likely,
by his admiring pupil Auxentius.
Interesting as this investigation is, and doubly
interesting though the discovery would be if it could
be proved that we have here a genuine work of Ulfilas,
yet the direct addition to our knowledge would be
small. The very exactness of the correspondence be-
tween the treatises and the exposition of Auxentius,
while it is the most striking evidence for identity of
origin, at the same time subtracts from their value as
sources of additional information; and the commentary
1 That Ulfilas did write such works, and could have written one
in Latin, we know from Auxentius: “qui et ipsis tribus linguis
plures tractatus, et multas interpretationes ... post se dereliquid.
124
The Gothic Bible.
yields even less to supplement the information from
Auxentius. In fact, his invaluable exposition of the
faith of his master supplies all we know, but that is all
we need to know of the position of Ulfilas in the Church
of his time, and of the faith which he handed down to
his followers.
The work of Ulfilas for his people was not con-
fined to the preaching of the Gospel, the organisation of
the Church, and the civilising influence of his great
personality. Enduring as were the results of these
labours, and widely as his influence was spread thereby,
he achieved in his translation of the Bible into Gothic
a work whose issues were wider and more enduring
still. He was not only the Moses but the Luther also
of his flock; had not only led them forth out of the
land of their oppressors, but had also given them the
Bible in their mother-tongue. To believe the chroniclers,
he was their Cadmus too, and had devised the alphabet
in which their speech first became a written language.
:: The fact that Ulfilas had translated the Scriptures
into Gothic was vouched for by the early authorities.
Philostorgius, in the passage frequently referred to,
relates of Ulfilas, that “besides all the other ways in
which he ministered to his people, he also invented for
them letters of their own, and translated into their own
tongue the whole of the Scriptures, except indeed the
books of Kings,"2 which he omitted because of their
stirring narratives of war, with which his people were
? Bessell, Göttingen Gel. Anz. 1861, p. 211, will have none
of Krafft's conjectures.
2 Philostorgius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 3.
The Work of Ulfilas.
125
already too familiar. The other authority is that repre-
sented by a group of writers, of whom we may take
Socrates as representative. He says that “at that
time, Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths, invented Gothic
letters, and having translated the Holy Scriptures into
the Gothic tongue, prepared the way for the barbarians
to learn the divine teaching.” The only important
addition to the statement of Socrates is that the trans-
lation was made “out of the Greek.”2
Excluding those statements of intermediate his-
torians, which are clearly based on one or other of these
authorities, there are only two traces of a version of
the Bible in Gothic to be found between these early
authorities and the sixteenth century. One is in a
note which appears at the end of the Codex Brixianus,
warning the reader not to suppose that one thing is
written in the Greek and another in the Latin, or in the
“so-called Gothic." This indicates that a Gothic ver-
sion was in existence, and held in the same estimation
with the Latin, and evidently belongs to a time when,
on the one hand, Greek was but little understood, while
Latin and Gothic, on the other hand, had about equal
acceptance, a relation between the three tongues only
to be found in the era of the kingdoms of Theo-
doric and of Toulouse. The second allusion to a
Gothic version is found in a writer of the ninth
i Socrates iv. 33; Sozomenus vi. 37; Acta Nicetae.
? Acta Nicetae.
3 “Ne legenti videatur aliud in graeca lingua aliud in latina vel
gotica designata esse conscripta," quoted in Gabelentz, Prolegomena,
p. 12, with reference to Semler, Versuch einer Erläuterung einer
alten Spur einer Gothischen Uebersetzung.
126
The Gothic Bible.
century. Walafrid Strabo, abbot of the Monastery of
Reichenau in 842, referring to the Goths, says that
“learned men of that nation have, translated the sacred
books into their own tongue,” and adds that their work
was then extant."
After these two notices, six centuries intervene
before we hear again of a Gothic Bible. Then, in the
fifteenth or beginning of the sixteenth century, à manu-
script is discovered in the Monastery of Werden, near
Cologne, from which one visitor after another copies
short extracts, which are published, and rouse the
curiosity of the learned world. The Lord's Prayer was
copied by Antonio Morilloni, and given by him to
Becanus, who printed it in his Origines Antverpiane in
1569. Then the language of the new MS. was declared
to be Gothic, and it was at once concluded that this was
a copy of the translation of Ulfilas. At the end of the
century the MS. was transferred either by purchase
or by robbery to Prague, whence it was carried off after
the siege in 1648, and presented by the victorious
Königsmark to Queen Cristina of Sweden. From
Stockholm it passed in a mysterious manner into the
hands of Isaac Vossius, in whose possession it was when
the first complete transcript was made and published
by Franciscus Junius in 1655. It was then discovered
that the manuscript had originally contained the four
1 The whole passage is of interest: "Gothi, qui et Getae, eo
tempore quo ad fidem Christi licet non recto itinere perducti sunt,
in Graecorum provinciis commorantes, nostrum, i.e. theotiscum ser-
monem habuerunt, et ut historiae testantur, post modum studiosi
illius gentis divinos libros in suae locutionis proprietatem trans-
tulerunt, quorum adhuc monumenta apud nonnullos exstant."
Discovery of the Version.
127
Gospels in Gothic, arranged in the following order :
Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark. But, as of the original
number of 318 sheets only 118 could then be found,
large portions of each Gospel were missing. Junius
printed such portions as were still preserved in parallel
columns with an Anglo-Saxon version, while copious
uotes, as well as a glossary, were added at the end. We
learn from an introductory tetrastich' that the MS. was
already known as the Codex Argenteus, a name which
it has borne ever since. Its uncial letters are formed in
silver upon a surface of purple vellum, and, before the
silver was blackened with age and the purple faded, the
MS. must have been a most brilliant one. A poem,
dedicatory, consisting of some three hundred lines in
elegiac metre, gives a history of the Goths founded on
Jordanis and the Church historians, and offers the work
to the patronage of the Count de la Gardie, who
had bought the MS. from Vossius and restored it to
Sweden. After having it bound in a heavy silver case,
he presented it to the University of Upsala, where
it now lies, one of the greatest literary treasures of the
north.
For many years the Codex Argenteus remained the
only discovered monument of Gothic literature; and of
TU
i Composed by “ Thomas Mareschallus, Anglus,” who edited the
Anglo-Saxon MS., and wrote some of the notes. It runs thus:
6. Quae dudum e tenebris sacra duxit pagina Gothos
Nunc tandem e tenebris ducitur ipsa suis.
Aurea sic gaza ex Argenti codice cusa est
Chalcographi, quamvis ferrea secla, typis.”
% A similar MS. was found in Calabria, 1879,-a Greek liturgy
written in silver uncials upon a purple ground; described and edited
by Harnack and Gebhardt in 1880.
128
The Gothic Bible.
the translation of the whole Bible made by Ulfilas
no trace had yet appeared beyond these portions of the
Gospels. But in 1736 a MS. was brought to light at
Wolfenbiittel, which proved to contain large portions of
the Epistle to the Romans in Gothic. The letters
of this, the so-called Codex Carolinus, closely resemble
those of the Codex Argenteus, though they appear to
have been more hastily formed. Still more valuable,
inasmuch as they contain passages from the Old Testa-
ment also, are the MSS. discovered in 1817 by Cardinal
Mai. They had formed part of the library of Bobio,
and belong apparently to the sixth century. Of these,
the so-called Milanese codices, the first (Codex A) con-
tains, beneath the homilies of Gregory Nazianzen, large
portions of each of the Epistles of Paul. Codex B
contains smaller portions of several epistles and the
whole of 2 Corinthians. The third, which is specially
known as the Ambrosian, yields 'portions of the Gospel
of St. Matthew, some of which were lacking in the
Codex Argenteus; and a fourth MS. of three sheets con-
tains also, beneath a later writing, some verses from
Nehemiah and Esdras. The fifth MS. contains the
fragments of a Gothic commentary on St. John, now
published and known as the Skeireins. The MSS. thus
enumerated, and the portions of Scripture they contain,
represent all that has yet been discovered of a Bible in
the Gothic tongue. Of the New Testament there are
yet lacking the Acts of the Apostles, the Catholic
Epistles, and the Apocalypse. Of the Old Testament
very little has been found; but indications which appear
1 See the table of facsimiles in Gabelentz and Loebe.
Ulfilas Author of the Translation.
129
..
CU
TQ
LO
in the Skeireins, e.g. a quotation from the Psalms and
allusions to passages in the Books of Genesis and
Numbers, leave no doubt that there was a complete
version in existence in the sixth century.
· Have we then before. us in these MSS. portions
of the great work of Ulfilas ? Few have denied this,
but all must admit that it is but an assumption. “It is,
in fact, difficult either to assert or to deny that the frag-
ments which have been preserved to our time belong to
that version which was completed by Ulfilas.”? But
the probability remains exceedingly strong that, in the
Codex Argenteus and the Milanese MSS., we have a
version of the New Testament at least, which is in the
main the work of Ulfilas. That Ulfilas made such a
translation, and that his translation was held in the
highest authority among his own people and their
descendants, makes it very improbable that any of his
successors would attempt either to add or to substitute
a new version. But with respect to the fragments of
the Old Testament the presumption is in the other
direction; for, short as they are, it can be shewn that
they are translated from Italian MSS. of the Septuagint,
which formed the basis of the Complutensian edition.
Now, taking the material collected in these manu-
scripts, and assuming that in the version of the New
Testament we have in the main a portion of the work
of Ulfilas, we can learn much concerning his translation,
its basis, its method, and its probable history. That the
translation of Ulfilas was founded on Greek authorities
is both directly asserted in the Acta Nicetae, and con-
.
i Gabelentz, Prolegg. xv.
2. Ibid, xxiii. .
130
The Gothic Bible.
firmed by a close examination of the Gothic text. He
has even been accused of a too slavish adherence to the
text of the Greek original; but the censure is easily
removed on consideration, both of the only purpose that
could have sustained him in such a work (namely,
to make the Scriptures intelligible to his whole people),
and also of several passages and phrases which deviate
from a literal translation with the obvious intention of
securing that that they should be understood by the
unlearned folk. Nevertheless, in adhering to the order:
of words in the Greek, even against the rhythm of his
own language, where the meaning or force could thereby
be better brought out, in the frequent use of the dual
number, and various other delicate characteristics, he
has left good evidence to shew what was the language
out of which he translated.?
It is true, however, that a connexion can be even more
distinctly traced between these 'Gothic MSS. and the
early Italian version. Added words and phrases, which
are rejected by the Greek codices but acknowledged by
the Latin, appear in the Gothic version. In many pas-
sages the readings are those characteristic of the Latin
and variant from the Greek authorities. Hence the
influence of Latin authority on the Gothic MSS. must
be admitted. It has been explained in various ways.
The opinion that Ulfilas translated from Latin sources
only has scarcely been seriously held, and is refuted by
the exposition of the fundamental connexion with
Greek authorities. Another explanation offered has been
that Ulfilas used both Greek and Latin manuscripts.
. 1 The doxology at the close of the Lord's Prayer is present in the
Gothic, but universally absent from the Latin versions.
Influence of the Italian MSS.
131
But apart from the improbability either that he would
be at the unnecessary pains to collate authorities when
all that was wanted was a simple translation of the
Scripture, or that the Latin versions would be held of any
authority in the east in the end of the fourth century, it
can hardly be explained why, if Ulfilas had the Latin
authority before him, he used it so seldom; or why he
passed it over in so many places where its assistance
would have helped him to avoid mistakes and mis-
apprehensions. The only tenable explanation is that
the work of Ulfilas, passing out of Moesia with the
Goths into Italy, was there compared by later Gothic
theologians with the Latin versions which they found
there; that they added glosses and corrections, which
afterwards became incorporated in the text, and gave it -
a distinctly Latin character. Thus, to take some of the
more obvious additions, it must have been after com-
parison with the Latin version (for the corresponding
words are found in none of the Greek MSS.) that
the words were introduced which mark the beginning
and the close of certain books.? The Euthalian sub-
scriptions to the Epistles, some of which appear in
Codex B, must have been added some time after 458,
when they were first drawn up, and the immediate
source of these also was probably one of the Latin
versions. Which of these versions it was which formed
1 Prolegg. xxiii. Mark, “anastodeith” = incipit; so Luke, and
with a similar word 2 Cor. and Ephesians. Romans, ad finem
“ustauh” = explicit; cf. also Epistles to Galatians and Ephesians.
? For readings differing from the Greek MSS. and corresponding
with Latin, cf. Lukei. 3: “jah ahmin veihamma”=et Spiritu sancto.
Luke ix. 43: “Kvath paitrus, Frauja du hve veis ni mahtedum,” etc.
132
The Gothic Bible.
the basis of the revision cannot be ascertained. The
changes introduced in the Gothic correspond exactly
with the text of no one of the known Latin versions ;
but the Itala and the Brixian Codex seem to have been
the source of many of the new readings. With the
Vulgate the Gothic corresponds more rarely than with
any other of the Latin versions.
The first evidence of a subsequent revision is
afforded by a comparison of the MSS. where certain
passages have been preserved in duplicate, which
plainly indicates the existence of two recensions; and
on the margin of the Gospel of St. Luke in the Codex
Argenteus the various readings and glosses · which
appear there shew how a second recension might very
easily be formed. The relations between the different
MSS. and the original work of Ulfilas on the one hand,
and the Greek and Latin MSS. on the other, belong to
textual criticism, and require to be thoroughly sifted
before it is possible to make use of the Gothic version
for the textual criticism of the New Testament. It is
sufficient for the present sketch to ascertain the pro-
bable origin and history of the translation, and to
indicate the problems to which it gives rise..
That Ulfilas, far from slavishly adhering to his
original and reproducing a Greek book clad in Gothic
words, allowed himself some freedom in adapting his
translation to the needs of an uninformed people, is
clear from many passages and phrases. Thus, to take
one example, he transposed the method of reckoning
i Prolegg. xix., note 54, referring, I take it, to 1 Tim. iii. 16
(not iii. 6); but, in spite of the note, the editors read “ Saei” and
not “Guth," which points to ó or os, not to Deos.
Idiomatic Renderings.
133
by years and new moons, which he found common
in the Gospels, into the method with which his people
were more familiar, and counted by “winters” and
“full-moons."1 On the other hand, many variations
from the original are to be explained as due to mis-
readings and false renderings, or to ignorance of the
customs of the Jews. Of each of these classes of
mistakes many examples have been collected by
Gabelentz.
Does this translation by the great Arian bishop
contain no traces of his distinctive doctrines ? This is
naturally a question of great interest, and the absence
of all such traces from the MSS. known to him led one
critic to doubt whether Ulfilas were actually the author
of the translation which they contained. But it must
be remembered that in accordance with the exposition
of Ulfilas' doctrinal position given in the last chapter,
the uncompromising doctrines of the extreme Arians
were absent from his creed, and there are few passages
in the New Testament where he would have any
opportunity or temptation to colour his translation
according to his views. We have seen that he main-
tained, however illogical the position may seem to us,
that the Son was God and would be God to all eternity,
but in secundo gradu; hence, there was nothing in
his creed to make him shrink from applying to the
Son any or all of the titles he found applied to Him in
the New Testament; and it is in vain that we look for
traces of his Arianism even in such passages as might
1 cf. the use of“ galga” for “ cross ” even metaphorically.
* See Prolegg. xxv.
134
The Gothic Bible.
be crucial for an extreme Arian. Unfortunately, the
opening of the Gospel of St. John, which would have
been particularly interesting in this connexion, is still
wanting in our MSS.; but in Rom. ix. 5, the important
passage is rendered without deviation from the original, ·
-—“Saei ist ufar allaim guth thiuthiths in aivam."
Nevertheless, there can be distinctly traced, in one
translator's views. The difficult verse, Philipp. ii. 6, òs
έν μορφη Θεού υπάρχων ουκ άρπαγμόν ηγήσατο το είναι
ioa Deo, is rendered “Saei in guthaskaunein visands ni
vulva rahnida visan sik galeiko gutha," where galeiko
represents a distinct deviation from the Greek text;
for the adjective “galeiks” in all other passages corres-
ponds to όμοιος, and here alone answers to a Greek ίσος.
Comparing Auxentius—“he maintained that the Son is
like unto his Father according to Holy Scripture and
tradition," —we cannot avoid the conclusion that here the
translation bears witness to the translator's doctrinal
opinions. The substitution of likeness for equality in
the description of the relation between the Father and
the Son is the point most characteristic of the party to
which Ulfilas belonged.
It would be another interesting enquiry how far the
translation is coloured by Teutonic modes of thought,
and what traces can be found in its language of their
1 “Galeiks," (cf. Germ. gleich, Eng. like) = Őuolos; Mark xii.
31: "jah anthara galeika thizai.” Luke vii. 31: “Hve nu galeiko
thans mans this kunjis jah hve sijaina galeikai.” On the other hand,
loos is rendered by "ibns," e.g. Luke xx. 36, loáyyelos; and once
by “samaleiks.”
Traces .of Teutonic Ideas.
135
redemption. The apprehension of “law” in the Gothic
mind, if we may judge from the word they used to
express it,was not that of a command issued (as
“gebot,") or of a line of action laid down and confirmed
by a superior authority (cf. lex, law, gesetz), but it was
rather viewed subjectively and as contained in that
which is known to a man, so that these Gentiles were,
in a strangely exact sense, “a law unto themselves.”
Sin and the sinful state of man were looked at from two
points of view. In the first of these, sinº was the
transgression of the law, and exposed the transgressor to
the payment of a penalty. This notion of penalty
incurred by crime or sin, and the necessity of its
discharge, was one of the deepest convictions of the
Teutonic consciousness ;: the notion of guilt and the
notion of debt coincided, one word served for both. So
also the word by which Ultlas represented κατακρίνειν,
condemnation either for this world or for the next, was
coloured by the local circumstances and position of his
people. In the age and among the tribes, where every
stranger was a foe, the simplest and the worst punish-
mentan injured community could inflict was to drive the
offender from their midst. He became a wanderer on
the face of the earth, or in Teutonic phrase a “vearges”
1 “Vitoth,” cf. “vitan" = eidévat, ovviéval; cf. “vitubni”
=yvãous.
z åpaptía is always rendered by“fra-waurhts” =“ver-wirkung,"
cf. fro-ward.
3.cf. Tacitus, Germania, c. 12. “Distinctio poenarum ex
delicto ..... equorum pecorumque numero mulctantur. Pars
mulctae regi vel civitati, pars ipsi qui vindicatur vel propinquis
ejus exsolvitur.” cf. also c. 21.
136
The Gothic Bible.
.
or wolf; and Ulfilas, making use of “ga-varjan” and its
derivatives, pictured the sinner after judgment as the
outcast and the wanderer. To render ã ons he used the
word “halja," the hollow place, knitting up the new
scheme of Christianity with a fragment of the old Teu-
tonic mythology, in which Hel was already known as the
goddess of the place of darkness and the newly departed.
The word yćevva, wherever it occurred, he wisely did not
attempt to translate, but transliterated it into“gaiainna."
Parallel with the notion of sin as a crime, and
redemption as the payment of the penalty it bad
entailed, was the conviction, deep rooted in Teutonic
thought and language, that sin was a disease, and the
Redeemer a healer. This also might be abundantly
illustrated from the Gothic version. The Greek CÓ CELD
with all its forms and derivatives, is represented by the
Gothic (“nisan”)." nasjan” and its derivatives. “Salva-
tion” was regarded as “healing"; above all the "Saviour”
was the “Nasjands,” “Heiland," the Healer.
Such was the gift that Ulfilas gave to his people,
and to all the folk who used the same tongue; not a
bald and characterless reproduction of the words of his
original, but a vivid and vigorous presentation of its
spirit; not careless of its true meaning, but clothing it
in the idioms, even allowing it to be coloured by the
earlier ideas of his people, doing everything that the
book might come to them in no strange garb, but might
become readily familiar and be truly a national pos-
session. That they regarded it as such for many
generations after his death we know. Goths and
Vandals alike carried it with them on their “wander-
ings" through Europe. Whether in simple piety or in the
Treasured by the Nation.
137
superstitious hope of reading the future on the chance-
appointed page, it was consulted on the battle-fields of
Gaul before the fight began. In Italy it was diligently
compared with the Latin authorities, and notes were
made of the discrepancies. To Spain the Vandals
carried it before the Goths, and in their hands it
crossed to Africa and even came round again to Rome
when Geiseric tried to win where Hannibal had
failed.
In a wider sense but not less truly, Ulfilas made a
great gift to the world. Though it has lain buried for
so many centuries, it is none the less the foundation-
stone of all Teutonic literature. Whether he invented
an alphabet for the language, adapting to its needs
signs taken from neighbouring alphabets, or whether he
found a written language but no literature, are ques-
tions for the philologist. In either case he was the
first to raise a barbarian tongue to the dignity of a
literary language, and made for himself and his Goths
. a monument even more lasting than their deeds.
That Ulfilas was not content with having given his
people a version of the Bible in their own tongue we
learn from Auxentius. In the three languages, which
he could wield, he composed“ treatises, and made many
translations for use and edifying”; and, as we have
seen, certain fragments of a commentary in Latin and
of doctrinal treatises which have come down to us, have
been ascribed to his pen or to his dictation. Another :
of the. Milanese MSS. contains a fragment of an
exposition or a commentary on the Gospel of St. John,
which is written in the same language as the version of .
the Bible (Moeso-Gothic), and with characters similar to
138
The Gothic Bible.
those of the Codex Argenteus, while in its coutents it
agrees with the Latin MSS. in the form of Arianism
which it upholds and displays: Hence it has been
conjectured that this fragment, the so-called Skeireins,
is part of one of the works of Ulfilas; but, though any
evidence to the contrary is lacking, the conjecture
remains one of which there is small hope of proving the
truth.
If by such works as these, by the labours of his
pupils and disciples, and above all by the leavening
power of the Scriptures now opened to their under-
standing, Ulfilas carried on indirectly the work of
conversion among his heathen countrymen who remained
on the other side of the Danube, among his own people
he moved in person, preaching and teaching the word of
God, “ giving thanks to God the Father through Christ
with gladness.” So he fulfilled the years of his
bishopric. His pupil delights to compare him to David,
who for thirty years was“ king and prophet to rule and
teach the people of God and the children of Israel”;
or to Moses, by whose hand God had brought his people
out of the land of bondage and caused them to pass
through the Red Sea, and brought them into a land of
promise; or even with the ministry of “our Lord and
God Jesus Christ," inasmuch as like his Master, Ulfilas
at the age of thirty began “to preach the Gospel and to
feed the souls of men.”
But his work was done; hardships as well as years
must have combined to make him an old man, when in
381 he was sent for to Constantinople. The emperor
required his presence. The reason can only be con-
The Death of Ulfilas.
139
jectured.? A split had taken place among the Arians
in Constantinople. Party riots were too common there,
and a fierce dispute over a theological dogma however
abstruse, placed the peace of the city, if not the security
of the palace, in jeopardy. Ulfilas was summoned to
meet the innovators, and either by argument or by
influence to induce them to surrender the opinion that .
caused the dispute. “In the name of God,” he set out
upon his way, hoping to prevent the teaching of these
new heretics from reaching “the churches of Christ, by
Christ committed to his care.” No sooner had he
reached Constantinople than he fell sick, “having
pondered much about the council,” and before he had
put his hand to the task which had brought him, “he
was taken up after the manner of Elias the prophet.”
“Only observe the high desert of the man who by the
hand of God was brought to die at Constantinople, call
it rather Christianople, where the holy and spotless
priest of Christ might receive such strange and brilliant
honours at the hands of so great a multitude of
Christians.”
The figure of Ulfilas may have seemed vaster when
less was known of him. A knowledge of his great in-
fluence with his people led historians to introduce that
figure at critical points of his nation's history, to summon
that influence to their aid to explain the problem of
the Gothic creed. But as the figure has become less
mysterious, and his influence on outward events less
universal and imposing, the man has come nearer
to us. We see him not negotiating in courts and
1 I follow Bessell's restoration of the text of Auxentius. See.
Bessell, Ulfilas, p. 37.
140
The Gothic Bible.
1
camps, but preaching the word of life with unwearied
patience to his flock; not moving as an energetic
missionary from the Save to the Dneister, but ex-
tending a silent influence over the whole Gothic-
speaking race through his translation of the Scripture;
not entering into the arena of a fierce controversy;
where the champions of the different parties did open
battle, or descending to the conduct of policy and
intrigue which more surely secured success, but training
up round him a church that cherished his name, and a
band of disciples who carried forth his doctrines and
fostered them among all the branches of his own nation
for many generations after his death. Auxentius has
described his life in outline, and lets us see the affection
of the pupil as well as the admiration of a fellow-
worker. But Auxentius only confirms what the master's
work already proclaims. By birth thought worthy to
be a hostage for his nation, by education fitted to take
an enviable position among the officials of the palace or
the foreign leaders of the army, at a time when the
Goths were ever becoming more valuable to the throne,
-Ulfilas must have thrown away ambition when he
became first a humble lector and then a bishop, a mis-
sionary bishop among the Danubian tribes. To all the
other qualities that make up a leader of men he added
the head that planned and the patient heart that carried
out the hitherto unheard-of task of clothing the story
of Israel and the message of the Gospel in a barbarian
tongue. He must have loved his people and he must
have loved his Master. “Quem condigne laudare non
sufficio, et penitus tacere non audeo.”
CHAPTER VI.
THE DECLİNE OF THE GOTHIC CHURCHES IN
THE EAST.
AUTHORITIES FOR CHAPTER VI.
The SOURCES are fewer, but the accounts more detailed:
Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret (as before).
Chrysostom, esp. his letter to Olympias.
The letters of Nilus.
The letter of Jerome to Sunnia and Fretela .
In the latter part of the chapter the references to raediæval travellers are taken
from Massmann, Ulfilas, etc. Krafft pays special attention to the missionary
activity of Chrysostom, and to the letter of Jerome. Pallmann, p. 187, discusses the
· relation of parties at the court of Theodosius.
TT
THE defeat of Valens at Adrianople was the most
paralysing shock which the Roman world had received
since the fatal day of Cannae. The army was utterly
cut to pieces, the emperor slain, and the whole of south-
eastern Europe lay open to the victors, who might turn
their steps whither they pleased. The policy of the
previous years, wherein the emperor had relied ever
more exclusively on barbarian auxiliaries to fight the
battles of the empire, now reaped a bitter fruit. The
townspeople, the farmers, and the peasants of the pro-
vinces had not only been discouraged from joining the
legions, but had been restrained from equipping or
training themselves, had even been forbidden to leave
their homesteads. And now the empire, in its hour of
need, had no reserve on which to fall back, no source.
from which to draw new defenders. Stunned by the
news of the disaster, the Western Emperor Gratian, who
had been advancing to the assistance of Valens, fell back
;
142 Decline of the Gothic Churches in the East.
T
upon Sirmium, and took the wisest and most prudent
step in summoning the young Spanish general Theodo-
sius to take over the throne of the East, with all
its attendant perplexities and dangers. Guided by his
military skill and political shrewdness, the Eastern
empire passed through the terrible crisis. Fortunately
the fenced cities that defied their attack, and the booty
that destroyed their discipline and cohesion, had already
done much to diminish the once overwhelming danger
of the Gothic mastery. The hope of conquest which
had for a moment gleamed before the Goths was
quenched when they were repulsed by a handful of
Saracens from the walls of Constantinople. They fell
back on their original demands,—the fulfilment of the
treaty they had made with Valens, and the right to
settle in the Balkan peninsula. Theodosius knew his
own strength too well to push the enemy to extremity.
The empire must have peace to restore its losses, and
the army time to recover from the demoralisation of
Adrianople; so both parties found relief in coming to
terms. Perhaps a third of the fighting strength of the
nation passed over into Roman service; the remainder
settled down in the plains of Thrace and Moesia.
On the other hand, the battle of Adrianople dealt a
The Homoean party, which for twenty years had been
supreme, and had all but crushed the rival sections of
the Arian body, was itself supported almost wholly on
the influence of the court. Valens, who had been
both open in his adhesion, and zealous in lending his
support, to Arianism in its struggle with the Nicene
party, had favoured the Homoean form to the ex-
Attitude of Theodosius.
143
0
O
clusion of all others. At his death Homoeanism, and
Arianism with it, crumbled away. Gratian, in the
interval of sole government between the death of
Valens and the appointment of Theodosius, issued an
edict of toleration which removed from the Nicenes, at
least, the pressure of the legislation of Valens. This
was the first step towards their final victory. The long
and dangerous illness of Theodosius was an accident
which issued greatly in their favour. While he lay at
Thessalonica he was converted by Ascholius, the bishop
of that.city, and professed the Nicene faith. He went
further, and, perhaps in the expectation of death, he
accepted the rite of baptism, to which even Constantine
had submitted only during, the illness which proved his
last. Pledged then by his formal admission to the
Church, and impelled perhaps by grateful zeal on his
recovery, Theodosius became no inactive ally of the
Nicene party. Already, in February, 380, a decree
issued from Thessalonica, ordering all men to hold the
Nicene faith “as committed by the Apostle Peter to
the Romans, and now professed by Damasus of Rome
and Peter of Alexandria.” But during the illness of
the emperor the new policy did not take effect. It was
not till he arrived in Constantinople in the end of the
same year that the Arians fully experienced the change
in their position involved in the change of emperors.
Then the alternative was offered to the Arian bishop
Demophilus, either to deny his faith and accept the
1 For a picturesque account of the position of the Nicene Church in
Constantinople at this time, v. Stanley, Christian Institutions, p. 295.
2 See Socrates v. 7; Gibbon, c. 27; Greg. Nazianz. contra
Arianos et de seipso.
1
V
144 Decline of the Gothic Churches in the East. :
Nicene creed, or to surrender the cathedral and the
churches of Constantinople to the opposite party. He
chose the latter; and, having summoned his people to
meet him in the great church, announced to them that
from thenceforth they would worship outside the walls.
What a reversal of position this involved for the Nicene
party who entered upon the churches thus vacated may
: be gathered from the fact that Gregory, the Nicene
bishop, at that time "was holding his meetings in a little
house of prayer," which was, in fact, a dwelling-house
that had been “altered into the fashion of a church by
certain of his flock.” But, beyond replacing the Arians
by the Nicenes in the churches of Constantinople,
Theodosius did not at once take measures to suppress
the heretics. Not till three or four years had passed
did he issue and enforce edicts of persecution. We
may suppose, with some degree of confidence, that his
hand was held in some measure by the consideration of
his new subjects, in whom a comprehensive and deter-
mined attack on the form of faith which they professed
would be certain to raise distrust and indignation that
might even endanger the newly established relation.
New blood had been infused into the dying party of
Arianism by the arrival of the Gothic nation, and their
settlements in Moesia provided at once a ready asylum
for those who fled from Constantinople, and a rallying
point for members of any discontented faction; while
in Constantinople an ever-increasing resident body of
Goths, attracted to the service of the court and of the
army, would be a formidable obstacle to any high-
handed measures in favour of the Nicene party.
Sozomenus vii. 5.
OF
Attempts at Reconciliation.
145
The vacillating policy of the emperor in the years
380—387 becomes clear when we perceive the presence
of a body of Arians with an ill-defined power of disturbing
the peace of the empire, which might at one time seem
threatening enough to induce the emperor to employ
mediation rather than persecution, and at another
would appear so problematical that he might boldly
risk their anger. His first step, after establishing the
Nicene party in the churches of the capital, was to
call a general council, at which the semi-Arians were
strongly represented. An attempt to reconcile them
with the dominant party having failed, they had to
submit to lose their churches. The triumph of the
Nicene party was complete. On the other hand, two
new and more determined attempt to secure unity in
the Church, not by crushing out the heretics, but by
bringing about a general reconciliation. The deprived
Arians were proving troublesome in many quarters of
the empire. Theodosius summoned once more the
an account of the points on which they differed. He
had his dream, like Constantine, of a strong unbroken
Church, the best ally of the State; and he, too, thought
that a frank discussion of the points at issue was all
that was required to make all parties see their errors
and accept a common basis of doctrine. His failure
was even more complete. The discussion never took
place. The heads of the different parties-Homoiu-
sians, Arians, Eunomians, etc.—presented the creeds
i Sozomenus vii. 12 ; Socrates v. 10.
10
146
Decline of the Gothic Churches in the East.
W
.
of their particular sects. But upon their followers
clamouring that these creeds did not fairly represent
their faith, the emperor threw up the attempt, and
the only result of the Synod of 383 was a severe decree
forbidding all heretics to hold meetings, to give in-
structions concerning the faith, or to ordain either
bishops or inferior clergy,
Evidence both of the continued numerical import-
ance of the Arian party in Constantinople, even after
their political influence had disappeared, and of the
important position which the Goths held, is afforded by
a controversy which broke out among them in the early
years of Theodosius' reign, and the attention which is
given to it by the Church historians. Though, according
to its chronological position in the narrative of Socrates,
the Psathyrian schism appears to take place after the
Italian expedition of Theodosius—that is to say, after
387-yet it had probably broken out some years
earlier. The point at issue illustrates very well the
nature of many of the controversies of this whole
period. It was, whether the Father was to be regarded
as already Father before the Son was called into
existence. A certain Marinus, who “had been sum-
moned from Thrace” to be a bishop or leader of the
Arian party (after the death of Demophilus), had for
some reason or other to give way to a rival Dorotheus,
who had been brought from Antioch to take his place.
Dorotheus denied the eternal Fatherhood of God;
Marinus, either of conviction or out of contentiousness,
asserted it. The former party remained in possession
of their churches; the latter, who insisted on with-
drawing, bad to build new ones. They were popularly
The Psathyrian Schism. .
: 147
AV
I
known as Psathyriani, as the historians explain, be-
cause a certain Syrian cakeseller or confectioner (Halv-
porróżns) was an energetic supporter of the party. But
they were also known as the party “of the Goths,"
whose bishop, Selenas, held with Marinus. Here we
may see a possible explanation of the circumstances.
Marinus, “ called out of Thrace," may have been the
candidate for the Arian bishopric whom the Goths
supported. His teaching of the eternal Fatherhood
would be entirely in sympathy with the doctrine of
Ulfilas, though, so far as we know, Ulfilas did not enter
upon the question. On the other hand, Dorotheus,
brought up from Antioch and denying the eternal
Fatherhood, was probably the candidate of the non-
Gothic section of the Arian Church at Constantinople;
and either through the superior number of his sup-
porters, or through some intrigue, he was preferred to
his rival or exalted in his place.
Almost all the barbarians (i.e. Goths), as we learn,
followed Marinus and worshipped with his party.
Ulfilas had found a successor who bore the mantle, and
with it some of the influence of his master, in one
Selenas. He had been the amanuensis of the great
bishop, and the people accepted him and "followed him
most gladly.” Hence his attachment to the cause of
Marinus ensured the adhesion of the greater number of
the Gothic Christians. This party itself shortly be-
i For the Psathyrian schism, see Socrates v. 23; Sozom. vii. 17.
The statement that the schism was healed thirty-five years after its
outbreak by Plinthas in his consulship (419) seems to refer the
dispute to 384, a date which is more probable than 387 from the
known relations between the Arians and the government.
148
Decline of the Gothic Churches in the East.
came a prey to schism. The cause of the dispute is
obscure; a certain Agapius, whom Marinus had raised
to the bishopric of Ephesus, claimed the “primacy."
The contention that ensued was so bitter that, we are
told, many of the clergy withdrew altogether, and joined
themselves to the Catholic Church. The Goths took
the side of Agapius in this controversy, abandoning
their allegiance to Marinus, a proceeding which, in the
absence of any further information, seems quite in-
explicable. The schism lasted for many years; until,
for the Arians of Constantinople at least, it was healed
through the mediation of Plinthas, an ex-consul, in the
year 419.
The legislation of Theodosius against the Arians
affected the Gothic Church in Thrace only indirectly.
As“foederati,” the settlers were allowed to follow their
own choice in matters of religion. Nevertheless, the
issue of some fifteen persecuting edicts in as many
years cannot fail to have roused the sympathetic indig-
nation of the Goths. That disturbances and remon-
strance did not follow is due to the fact that these
decrees were very imperfectly executed. Almost any
one of the number, if rigidly carried out, would have
sufficed to eradicate Arianism or, at any rate, to force
its adherents to seek safety in obscurity; but they
probably represent less a decided purpose of suppressing
heresy than repeated concessions to the demands of the
chiefs of the Nicene party. Theodosius was encouraged
to disregard the feelings of his subject-allies by the
opposition between two sections of the nation. There
was all along a party among the Goths who adhered to
the old paganism. They were especially strong in the
Disunion among the Goths.
149
capital, where they furnished many valuable and
trusted officers to the court and to the army. The
Arianism of the main body estranged them from the
emperor, whereas the heathen Goths found more ready
access to his favour. Thus, over against the national
party, there appeared a court party, which latter took
rise, perhaps, with the invitation and reception of Atha-
naric, whose followers, heathens doubtless, remained in
the emperor's service after the death of their chief.
Theodosius could regard this antagonism with com-
placency, and even when it led to high words at his
own table between the pagan Fravitta and the Christian
Eriulf, he bore the insult with indifference. The separa-
tion of interest between Constantinople and Thrace,
which was the result of this policy, produced serious
effects after the emperor's death.
For fifteen years the Goths in Thracia lived a
settled life, learning the arts of peace, occupied with
pasturage and tillage. Here the various tribes were
gradually welded together. The sense of religious
separation fostered the growth of national conscious-
ness. The followers and pupils of Ulfilas carried on his
work; the seeds of his teaching took root, and bore
fruit in a national character to which later historians
were to bear warm testimony.
Auxentius at Dorostorus (Silistria) and Palladius at
Ratiara (near Widdin), were working either in the midst
of or close beside the young nation. But their allegiance
was given to Selenas, who was called the successor
of Ulfilas, who, like his master, was “ well-fitted to
instruct the people in the church,” having command
of the Greek as well as of his mother-tongue. The
1
150
Decline of the Gothic Churches in the East.
position of the clergy, and their identification with the
life of the nation, is shewn by their frequent appearance
as envoys and negotiators. From the time of the battle
of Adrianople down to the battles on the plains of Gaul
the Arian presbyters appear frequently as the repre-
sentatives of their nation.
The death of Theodosius revealed the effects of the
fifteen years of tranquil development. The Goths were
no longer to plunder, but to conquer; to play a part on
the stage of Europe no longer as a collection of tribes
loosely beld together by common hope of spoil or by
common danger, but as a nation with a purpose. That
the religious isolation into which they were thrown
the encouragement which the defection of the hea-
then party received from him, did much to mould
their development can hardly be doubted. The
Arianism of the Goths was full of consequence for the
empire.
With the general break up of the nation in 395 the
Gothic Church in Thracia disappears. The greater part
of the nation took part in the out-wandering. Those
who remained behind have left no trace. Many, no
doubt, were drawn by the persuasive efforts of Chrysos-
spot alone, within the Balkan peninsula, the Gothic
name and Church was recognised in the ninth century,
though we cannot tell whether the little Gothic rem-
nant, who preserved their mother speech at Tomi in
the ninth century, preserved also the memory and the
teaching of their great first bishop.
For half a century all parties in the Church had
Advent of Chrysostom.
151
been alike in the absence from their ranks of men of
commanding genius and influence, who might compare
with the heroes of the first half of the century. The
leaderships had descended from Athanasius, Arius, and
Eusebius to court intriguers and factious strivers for
political ends. No party had clean hands; all had at
one time or other been soiled by intrigue, surrender of
friends, or cowardly abnegation of teaching and prin-
ciples. But at the end of the century the man at last
appeared, and appeared on the side for which victory
had already declared. Theodosius, dying in 395, was
succeeded in the east by his weakling son Arcadius..
In the early years of his reign John, called Chrysostom,
was brought a presbyter from Antioch, and made
Bishop of Constantinople. We have not to trace the
history of the succeeding years, or describe his influence
in any direction save one. He sealed the victory of the
Catholic party. He achieved what all the edicts of
Theodosius failed to do; detached the populace of Con-
stantinople from their persistent and often tumultuous
support of Arianism, and, before the end of his brief
opportunity, made them devoted adherents of himself,
and through himself, of the Catholic Church. He ex-
tended the sphere of his diocesan work till it included
all Thracia. Here he was in contact with the remnants
of the Church of Ulfila:s, and no doubt added many of
the Thracian Goths to the Catholic faith. In Constanti-
nople he laboured with especial care and devotion for
the same people. A church was set apart for their
worship, and a staff of presbyters, deacons, and readers
1 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. v. 28.
2 Ibid, v. 30.
-152 Decline of the Gothic Churches in the East.
of the Scriptures appointed to minister to them in their
own tongue; and he himself frequently taught them
from the same pulpit, using an interpreter to transmit,
as well as possible, his wonderful eloquence. It is no
strange thing that such efforts and such devotion met
with success; for “many of them which had been
deceived he recalled, shewing to them the truth of the
preaching of the Apostles.”
In the midst of these aggressive measures against
Gothic Arianism Chrysostom was called upon to defend
the Church against an attempted inroad from the same
quarter. Gainas, by birth a Goth, through his good
service and determination raised to be Master of the
troops, made to his imperial master a request, which
was equivalent to a demand, that one of the churches
in the city should be transferred to the Arians, his
fellow-believers. The emperor was prepared to yield,
but the proposal met with most determined opposition
from Chrysostom. Whether the demand was a sincere
one or an insolent pretext for a quarrel, the result was
one of the most serious tumults that ever raged in Con-
stantinople. During the absence of Gainas from the
city the gates were shut; the populace rose and put
to death seven thousand barbarians, whom they found
within. The church which Chrysostom had set apart
for the Goths offered them an asylum in vain. Religious
hatred, added to a political distrust, had infuriated the
1 That Gainas was sincere in desiring a place of worship for his
followers appears most probable from the lengthy correspondence
that passed between him and Nilus, the disciple of Chrysostom.
See the letters of the latter, Epp. bk. i. 70, 79, 114, 116, 205, 206,
286, ed. Migne.
Influence of Chrysostom.
153
.
mob to such a pitch that they fired the building, and all
the refugees perished in the flames.
It was not long in the power of Chrysostom to
labour to repair this disaster; the synod of the Oak,
confirmed by the cabal under Theophilus of Alexandria,
pronounced his deposition and authorised his banish-
ment. But even from the distant wilds of Asia he
continued to exercise his influence, and his interest in
the Goths remained undiminished. Already, before his
banishment, he had received and acceded to a request
from the "king of Gothia," that he would send a bishop
to the Church of his country. There can be no doubt
that by this “king of Gothia” we must understand the
ruler of a tribe which dwelt on the north shore of the
Euxine, probably round the Cimmerian Bosphorus, in
the modern Crimea. Here a remnant of the subjects of
Hermanaric had established themselves after escaping
from the Huns, or shewing such resistance as might
secure them till the storm had passed. To this people
Chrysostom had sent one Unila (or Wunnila) to oversee
their Church. But three years later, word came to him
in his banishment that Unila was dead, and a Gothic
mission was once more in Constantinople to obtain
a bishop for their Church. The anxiety of Chrysostom
was raised lest his rival Arsacius should introduce
heresy and schism into the Gothic Church by appointing
an Arian to be bishop. Accordingly, he took steps to
i Socrates vi. 6; Sozomenus viii. 4; Theodoret v. 33. The
accounts vary, especially in the order of events; I have not thought
it necessary to attempt to reconcile them.
2 Chrysostom, Ep. ad Olympiadem, xiv. 1.
3 Procopius, B. G. iv. 2.
154
Decline of the Gothic Churches in the East.
have the envoys detained by friends of his own in
Constantinople, cherishing the hope that before long he
himself would be recalled, and might nominate a
successor to Unila. His letters, to the wealthy widow
Olympias, whose house in Constantinople was thrown
open to bishops, monks, and churchmen, together with
his letter to the deacon Theodulus," shew his great
affection for the Gothic Church of the Crimea, and express
his gratitude to the monks who remained faithful to him,
though they found him banished from Constantinople,
and had to meet the persecution of Arsacius for their
persistent adherence to his rival.
We have already seen reason to believe that these
Goths received the seeds of Christianity from the Cap-
padocian captives mentioned by Philostorgius, and never
deviated from the Nicene faith of their first teachers;
and also that the Bishop of Gothia, who signed the
Nicene creed, was the representative of the Church in
the Crimea. Conımunications passed between this
church and another father of the Church besides
Chrysostom. Among the letters of Jerome is preserved
a reply which he sent to two of the Gothic clergy
named Sunnia and Fretela. Unfortunately, the letter
which drew forth this reply has not been preserved.
But it is clear that the tenor of it was to enquire
concerning several passages in the Psalms where the
Greek text of the Septuagint was at variance with the
Latin text. To Jerome they appealed to learn the
i Ibid, Ep. 206.
2 Hieronym. Opera, ed. Erasmus, Paris, 1534, iii. p. 28.
“Quaeritis a me rem magnae operis et majoris invidiae in qua scri-
bentis non ingenium sed eruditio comprobetur: ut in opere Psalterii
Correspondence with Jerome.
155
true significance of the Hebrew original. He opens his
reply with an expression of his astonishment and thank-
fulness that the barbarian Gothic. tongue should be
seeking to know the truth of the Hebrew; and that,
while the Greeks are slumbering or disputing, Germania
herself is searching the Scriptures. Thereafter he ex-
plains the relation between the Kolvý and his own
Hexapla version, where he had carefully rendered the
better text into Latin. The body of the letter is taken
up with a categorical reply to their several questions, in
the course of which the warning is frequently repeated
to “avoid foolish and superfluous discussions where
there is no actual difference of meaning involved”; and
while he carefully answers the most minute questions,
he interjects general comments on the true method of
translation.
The nation of Goths, from whom the letter to
Jerome had proceeded, was known to the Greeks as the
τετραξιται. They maintained considerable intercourse
with Constantinople, and were in alliance or subject-
alliance with the Emperor Justinian, to whom they
made application that he should send them a bishop.
This he did, and from that time forward the Church of
the Crimea was connected with the Byzantine Church.
The seat of the bishopric was at Kapha, and the name
of the bishop appears as ó l'ordías in the acts of the
Byzantine Synod down to the eighteenth century.
juxta distinctionem schedulae vestrae, ubicunque inter Latinos
Graecosque contentio est, quid magis Hebreis conveniat, significem."
1 Procopius, B. G. iv. 4, 5.
2 Massmann, Introduction, xxvii., cites Notitia graecorum
episc. Leonis, and Oriens Christiana, Le Quien, i. 1240.
156
Decline of the Gothic Churches in the East.
A
One of their bishops, Johannes of Parthenope, was
present at the Church Council at Nicaea, and keenly
opposed the Iconoclasts.
Traces of the people, if not of the churches, are
found at intervals throughout the middle ages: The
Minorite Ruysbroeck of Flanders, on the journey which
he undertook for Louis IX. in 1253, found, “between
Chersun and Soldaja," forty villages, among whose
inhabitants he says there were many Goths, whose
language was “deutsch.” Later still Josafa Barbaro,
sent by the republic of Venice to the Black Sea in 1436,
mentions Goths who spoke “deutsch" as dwelling in
“Gothia," with whom his German servant could con-
verse freely. In the next century they attracted the
attention of three travellers, the last of whom, Busbek,
though he did not visit their country, met two of their
envoys in Constantinople, and obtained information
from them concerning the manners and customs of their
countrymen. He collected from them a number of
words and phrases, which prove to be not only distinctly
Teutonic, but in some cases indisputably Gothic in
form and root. Joseph Scaliger states, moreover, that
the remnant of the Goths, who dwelt among the
Pericopean Tartars, possessed the Scriptures of both
the Old and the New Testament in the same lan-
1 Josafa Barbaro, Travels to Tana and Persia, by J. B. and
Ambrogio Contarini, published by Hakluyt Society, 1873.
2 Matthias von Miechow, Monk of Cracow; Tractatus de
duabus Sarmatiis. Conrad Gesner, Mithridates, 1555. Busbe-
quius Augerius, The Four Epistles of A.B. concerning his
Embassy into Turkey (London, 1694). New translation by Forster
and Daniell, 1881, vol. i. p. 355.
Observations of Mediaeval Travellers.
157
guage and the same characters as those of Ulfilas'
translation.
Lastly, in 1750, a Jesuit monk of Vienna, named
Mondorf, conversed with a galley slave whom he bought
from the Turks, and learnt that among his countrymen
in the Crimea, where a language related to the German
was still spoken, the Christian faith had become ex-
tinct, and the worship of the people was paid to a log of
wood. The small Christian community in the Crimea
lost its connexion with the Christian world when the
Eastern empire fell; and the intrusion between it'and
the West of the Tartar and Ottoman tribes produced an
isolation which indefinitely weakened the resisting power
of the faith. The tide of heathenism, in which all the
countries round the Black Sea were engulfed, overflowed
also the little Church which had received first, and
possessed longest, the simple faith of the Gospel.
NOTE ON BESSELL'S EMENDATION “PSATHYROPOLISTAE.”-
The document of Auxentius contained in the Parisian marginal MS.,
which was edited by Waitz, is unfortunately most seriously defaced
at the account of the last journey of Ulfilas to Constantinople. As
recovered by Waitz, the passage appears thus: “qu. c .. pre-
cepto imperiali completis quadraginta annis ad Constantinoplitanam
urbem ad disputationem ... ... contra p...ie .....t. stas per-
rexit," etc. Waitz suggests “qui cum” or “itaque cum” for the
first words, but leaves the rest without comment, merely remarking
that the second letter before the st. stas” looks like a “p."
Bessell, who attacks the whole passage and restores it with great
ingenuity, proposes for the part quoted above, “qui cum precepto
1 Joseph Scaliger, Isagog. iii. 347.
2 Büsching, Geographie Universelle (Strasburg, 1785; London,
1762).
158
Decline of the Gothic Churches in the East.
imperali, etc., ad disputationem ...... contra psathyropolistas per-
rexit.” “ Psathyropolistas” he defends as a legitimate form of
Psathyriani, comparing the double use of "Apollinariani” and
“ Apollinaristae”; also the fact that in Socrates the god-father of
the sect is actually described as Yabupotú9. Ulfilas, he con-
cludes, was summoned by the emperor to meet these disturbers of
ecclesiastical peace and reconcile them with their brethren.
The brilliancy of the restoration is obvious; the letters corres-
pond in number with what would be required to fill the space shewn
in Waitz's reproduction: from Waitz's “p," two places before the
66t” to the end of the word the only change required for the reading,
66 polistas” is the obvious one of “t” to “l”; the rest of the word
is more entirely conjectural.
Yet there are some serious objections in the way of the accept-
ance of the restoration. It will be noticed that Bessell has left
blank the space before “contra," which might represent a word
which would alter the effect of the sentence. But the reasons for
withholding assent are as follows:
1. Accepting, as we have done, the date fixed by Bessell for the
death of Ulfilas, namely 381, and very early in that year, this
reading pushes back the controversy too far; for it must already
have reached serious dimensions before the emperor took steps to
allay it. But, according to its position in the narratives of Sozomen
and Socrates, we might put the breaking out of the controversy in
387, since it appears after the narrative of Theodosius' Italian
expedition; and though there are .good reasons for disregarding
this consideration (firstly, because Plinthas in 419 healed the
breach thirty-five years after it arose; secondly, because in 387 the
relations of the Arian party to the empire would scarcely admit of
the public disruption of the kind), yet the supposition that it is
misplaced by seven years is hardly to be justified.
2. Since the strife must have broken out some time before
Ulfilas was summoned, and therefore at least before Demophilus
surrendered the churches in Constantinople, how comes it that two
new mein appear as heads of the opposite party, one of whom had
been brought from Antioch to be. (in the room of the other) chief of
the Arian party in Constantinople, for “Dorotheus quidem qui
Antiochia accitus in locum Marini Arianis praesidebat”? (Sozome-
nus vii. 17.)
Bessell's Emendation " Psathyropolistae.”
159
3. The effect of the proposed reading is to bring Ulfilas to oppose
the Psathyropolistae; but this is hardly credible, not only because
their doctrine that the name Father was to be ascribed to God the
Father from eternity is altogether consonant with what we know
otherwise of Ulfilas' views, but also because we are actually told
that this Psathyrian party was the one to which both the Goths,
as a body, and their bishop, Selenas, attached himself. Can it be
supposed that the Goths and their bishop became the notorious
supporters of a cause which their great leader, a few years before,
had gone up to Constantinople to attack ?
It appears, therefore, that Bessell's theory of the date of Ulfilas'
death and his proposed reading of Psathyropolistae in the text of
Auxentius are not compatible.
CHAPTER VII.
THE GOTHIC CHURCHES IN ITALY AND GAUL,
AND THEIR DECLINE.
AUTHORITIES FOR CHAPTER VII.
SOURCES :
Salvianus Massiliensis, de Gubernatione Dei.
Cassiodorus, Historia tripartita (ed. Migne).
Sidonius Apollinaris.
LITERATURE :
Dahn, Könige 111., Verfassung des Ostgoth. Reichs in Italien,
„ V. and řI., Aissere Gesch, und Verfassung der Westgothen.
Italy and her Invaders, yols. i. and ii.
Kohl, Zehn Jahre Ostgothischen Geschichte, 526-536.
Kaufmann, Veber das Foederatverhältniss des tolosanischen Reichs zu Rom.
Deutsch Forsch. 11.
Fauriel, Histoire de la Gaule Méridionale sous la domination des Conquérants
Germains.
Zschimmer, Salvianus der Presbyter von Massilia und Seine Schriften.
Baret, Oeuvres de Sidoine Apollinaire.
Loening, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts in Gallien.
Revillout, de l'Arianisme des peuples Germaniques qui ont envahi l'empire
Romain.
Ho
The death of Theodosius in the year 395 marks the
close of an epoch in the world's history. The powerful
hand was then removed which for one moment had
placed arrest on the decline of the empire. Called first
to govern in the East, he had displayed foresight, tact,
and determination in the rescue of the State from the
perils of the Gothic invasion. Thence his influence
had been extended beyond the Eastern empire, and he
was the last to hold in one grasp the undivided empire
from the Bosphorus to the pillars of Hercules. His
policy was approved by success in his lifetime, and
might have prospered still had his successors possessed
a little of his genius or a spark of his determination.
Consequences of the Death of Theodosius. 161
X
But under the nominal government of Arcadius and
Honorius the empire rushed impetuously to its fall.
Within the year of the death of Theodosius the
Gothic nation was in arms against the empire. Arca-
dius had withdrawn or reduced the subsidy which
Theodosius had prudently paid to his subject-allies.
The young nation, who knew their strength and saw
their opportunity, caught the pretext, and threw off the
irksome allegiance which bound them to the empire.
The next five years saw all South-eastern Europe laid
waste by the host of Alaric. From the walls of Con-
stantinople to the plains of Argos, from Athens to
Sirmium, they carried war and desolation. Then came
the decision, on whose issue two emperors might well be
trembling. The fate of the East and of the West was
in the balance, one against the other. Constantinople
escaped. The word was given to march on Italy, and
in 401 the storm broke on the devoted land.
Alaric himself was no stranger to its northern
frontier, and the Goths had played a part already in the
political and ecclesiastical history of North Italy. Part
of the auxiliaries, who took service with Theodosius at
the peace of 380, had been sent to garrison Milan, and
had appeared in the background of the struggle be-
tween Justina and Ambrose. The Western Church
found her Chrysostom a few years earlier than the
Eastern, in Ambrose. There is a strange correspondence
between the history of Milan in 385 and of Constanti-
nople in 400. Events and figures are alike in both.
The central figure is the bishop who resists the empress,
refuses a demand to permit one of the churches to be
set apart for Arian believers, and triumphs over the
оос 1Сцс,
11
162
The Gothic Church in Italy.
11
court through the affection and enthusiasm of the
populace. And in both dramas the Arian Goths form
the background; they are the pretext, real or ostensible,
of the demand, and on them the fury of the populace
is poured out.
The Arians had held Milan for at least twenty years
in the person of their bishop, Auxentius, when he died
in 374. In his successor, Ambrose, they found an
opponent no less able than determined, and to Justina,
the widow of the former emperor and mother of the
young Emperor Valentinian, they had to look for credit
and support in their falling state.
The activity of the Arian party in Milan, however,
which specially marks the years 385 and 386 corres-
ponds with the presence of Gothic auxiliaries, whose
Arianism would at once attach them to the cause of the
empress. An Arian, named Mercurinus, was appointed
bishop of the party in Milan, and took the name of his
predecessor, Auxentius. The reproach addressed to him
by Ambrose that he was only bishop in the estimation
of a handful of foreigners points to the Goths at the
court of Justina, who probably represented the extent
of his diocese. The empress then moved the emperor
to demand of Ambrose the use of the Basilica “in Porta
Romana," which was outside the walls of the city; but
the bishop stoutly refused. A second demand for
possession of a new church within the walls met with
the same repulse. By order of Justina the new church
was surrounded by soldiers, probably Goths, who were
1 cf. esp. J. H. Newman, Historical Sketches, ii. 339 seqq.
2 Tillemont x. pp. 165, 746; Ambr. Ep. 13, p. 20.1.
3 Sozomenus vii. 13.
Justina and Ambrose.
.
163
interested in this attempt to assert the rights of their
faith, and preparations were made within the building
that on the succeeding Sunday, which was Easter Day,
Auxentius might celebrate the offices of the day. But
the opposition of the populace became so threatening
that the emperor had to withdraw the troops, and
Justina, persisting in her support of the Arians, induced
Valentinian to issue an edict granting free right of
assembly to all who accepted the creed of Arianism,
which had been · confirmed at Constantinople, and
menacing with death all those who put obstacles in
their way. The Catholics resented this edict, which
placed the heretics on the same footing with them-
selves, and denounced it as an edict of persecution.
1
law, to obtain the church of Porta Romana for the
Arians, and the persistent opposition of Ambrose, issued
in the plot to seize the bishop and the famous siege,
which he and his devoted people sustained in the
cathedral and episcopal palace. It may be left unde-
cided whether it was the discovery of famous relics
within the beleaguered Church and the redoubled en-
thusiasm of the people, or the news of the death of
Gratian, and the political troubles which followed, that
compelled the empress-mother and her son to yield.
The victory of Ambrose was complete; but it was not
till two years later, when the death of Justina had
: 1 Sozomenus vii. 13; Cod. Theod. xvi. 4, 1. The edict was
issued January 21st, 386, having been dictated by Auxentius. Lee
Tillem. x. 177.
2 See Gibbon, c. 27. .
164
The Gothic Church in Italy.
removed the principal obstacle, that Theodosius “set
in order the ecclesiastical affairs in Italy."1 Perhaps
he withdrew the obnoxious Gothic garrison.
If the Wisigoths who overran Italy under Alaric
left no political monument of their presence after their
withdrawal under Athaulf in 412, it can hardly be ex-
pected that there are many traces of that Arian Church
of which they were in some sense the representatives.
They suffered doubly at the hands of the historians,-
as barbarians and as heretics. While nothing too
scornful could be said of them as barbarians, nothing
was too harsh to say of the heretics. What might have
been to their credit as Christians is ascribed to their
childishness and inexperience as barbarians; what stains
their name with violence and bloodshed as barbarians is
attributed to their wickedness and perversity as heretics.
We are asked to believe that many acts of clemency,
many withdrawals from a doomed city, were due to the
effect on the barbarian mind of the gorgeous pomp and
solemnity of a religious procession. But the Wisigoths
were not children, wild and untutored savages fresh
from the forests of central Europe. For thirty years
and more they had been dwelling within the empire,
living a settled and peaceful life. Some had tilled the
plains of Thrace, and had held frequent communica-
tions with Constantinople; while others had visited the
chief cities of the empire as garrison troops, had fought
under Theodosius as legionaries, and with him had
conquered Maximus. These were not the people to be
Tuis
i Sozomenus vii. 14. After the death of Maximus, kai tá tepi
της εν Ιταλία εκκλησίας ευ διέθηκε' συνέβη γάρ και Ιουστίναν
αποθανείν.
Injustice of History.
165
1
overawed by a procession, however imposing. It is fair
to suppose that with them self-control meant something
more than childish awe, and clemency was not due alone
to-superstition, however skilfully played upon.
Of the heretic Gothic Church itself only one trace
has come down to us. The upstart Attalus,' whom it
suited Alaric's purpose for a moment to use as a
puppet-emperor, though still at heart a beathen, found
it to his interest to seek baptism and admission to
a Christian Church. The Church, of course, was the
Arian-Gothic, and there was found with the Gothic
host a bishop, Sigesarius, who administered the rite
“ to the great gratification of the Goths, and of Alaric
himself.”
We may argue, from this case and from the general
practice of the Vandals, that the Gothic army, as well
as the people who followed, was accompanied even to :
the field of battle by their bishops. The external form
and rites of the Church were necessarily adapted to the
circumstances of the people. We have already observed
the use of a tent-church among the Goths, when, during
the persecution of Athanaric, an erection of this kind
sought asylum within. To a portable building of a
similar kind Ambrose, no doubt, alluded in the sarcastic
remark that “those had formerly used wagons for
dwellings, now used a wagon for a church.”3
If the traces of the Gothic Church at this time are
Sozomenus is. 9.
2 Hieronym. Ep. ad Heliodorum.
3 Ambr. Ep. xx. 12: “Quibus ut olim plaustra sedes essent
166
The Gothic Church in Italy.
1
very few, we may yet observe the working of the
Christianity which it fostered. The siege and “sack”
of Rome, either as a whole or in detail, may be taken
as testimony to a spirit and a character which were
strangely modified from the early savagery of the
barbarians. It were a shallow criticism that should
object at the outset that war, conquest, and plunder
should altogether have been shunned by a Christian,
people. It would be difficult in modern, as it would
be impossible in ancient history, to point out a siege
and sack, of which such episodes are recorded as dis-
tinguished the capture of Rome by Alaric. Augustine
himself points out that Rome did not suffer so severely
in the days that followed the capture by Alaric as under
the avenging return of Marius or Sulla. Far from
emulating the cruelties of the latter, the Goths “spared
so many senators that it was rather a matter of obser-
vation that they slew some.”
Though it was not in Alaric's power to deny the
spoil of the great city to his long restrained troops, he
gave orders that fire was not to be applied to any of the
buildings, and proclaimed that he and his people would
respect the right of asylum, especially in the churches
of SS. Peter and Paul. It is true that the first of
D
1 For capture of Rome, see Gibbon, c. 31; Pallmann i. 310;
Hodgkin i. c. 8; Sozomenus ix. 10; Hieronym. ad Principiam;
Orosius vii. 39; Procop. bk. v. i. 9..
2 Aug. de civitat. Dei, iii. 20: “Gothi vero tam multis sena-
toribus pepercerunt ut magis mirum sit quod aliquos peremerunt."
Ibid: “Syllana porro tabula plures jugulavit senatores, quam Gothi
rel spoliare potuerunt.”
3 Orosius vii. 39; cf. Augustine, de civit. Dei, v. 29, 23.
The Capture of Rome by Alaric.
VI
167
these orders failed to secure its object; much damage
was caused by fires, which were raised either by acci-
dent or by design. But the second general order
which, as Augustine remarks, was “contrary to all
custom of war in previous wars," was honourably ob-
served. If we may judge from a somewhat obscure
sentence in Augustine, the Goths shewed much more
hostility to the heathens, and wreaked their fury on
the many remains of heathen worship and edifices.
Even the heathen inhabitants of the city, who had been
most clamorous against the Christians during the siege,
were not slow to take advantage of the asylum which
was secured in their churches. In all the scene of
terror and confusion, in all the opportunity for cruelty
and rapine, lives were spared, women's honour was
respected, nuns were conducted by Gothic soldiers to a
place of safety. One episode which is related at length
by Orosius is very remarkable. A soldier had burst
into a house and found there an aged nun in charge of the
great sacred vessels of the Church of SS. Peter and
Paul. Amazed at the value of his discovery, but warned
by their guardian that he would lay hands on them at
his peril, he sent word to Alaric. The Gothic chief
despatched at once an escort of soldiers by whom the
vessels were protected as they were transferred across
the city to the place of asylum, the Church to which
y
ITY
.
l'Augustine, de civitat. Dei, v. 23: “ipsisque daemonibus atque
impiorum sacrificiorum ritibus, de quibus ille praesumserat, sic
adversarentur pro numine christiano ut longe atrocius bellum cum
eis quam cum hominibus gerere viderentur."
2 Sozomenus ix. 10. He carefully points out the Arianisin of
the Goths, and the Catholicism of the nuns.
168
The Gothic Church in Italy.
they belonged, followed by a great crowd of Christians
and pagans who were drawn by the strangeness of the
spectacle. The gold and silver vessels were borne along
on the shoulders of men; the Gothic escort closed in
on either side and behind; and the city rang with the
shouts and chants of those who followed in the pro-
cession."
I have referred to these events of the capture of
Rome by Alaric, because in the paucity of direct
reference to the Gothic Church at the time, it has
been a satisfaction to find the Goths purged from the
charge of uncontrolled licence, and displaying a con-
tinence and a moderation not commonly ascribed to
barbarians, which may not unreasonably be referred to
the influence of Christian teaching.
Eighty years after his faithful followers had diverted
the little stream beside Cosenza to bury Alaric in its
bed, and then turned their backs upon Italy which he
had conquered, to seek a home in Gaul, another section
of the Gothic race became masters of Italy. The Ostro-
goths had been swept along with the wave of Huns in
their westward course, had faced their Wisigothic kins-
men on the field of Châlons, and out of the wreck of the
Hunnish confederacy which was dissipated at the death
of Attila, they had risen an independent and powerful
people. Under their noble prince Theodoric they over-
threw the semblance of a government which existed in
Italy, and established the kingdom of the Ostrogoths.
Then began that most interesting experiment, the
1 Orosius vii. 39, describes the procession with much detail.
Theodoric's great Experiment.
169
0
attempt. of Theodoric to combine two races in one
kingdom, and by blending Gothic vigour and bravery
with Roman traditions and cultivation, to restore the
famous empire to some of its old prestige. It was a
great scheme and it was pursued with a persistency and
a patience which surely deserved success, and renders
almost pathetic the failure that was the all but inevitable
issue. There were many obstacles to such a scheme,
and it may be that the methods of Theodoric were not
most wisely chosen for its execution, but the rock on
which it split was the difference of faith. The Ostro-
goths, like their brethren the Wisigoths before them,
were Arians. Once more an Arian-Gothic Church stood
up against the Catholic-Latin Church, and once more
the latter was victorious. The Latin Church was the
greatest and the most consolidated power which faced
Theodoric in Italy, and in its unrelenting opposition to
the Arian king lay the secret of his failure.
Theodoric was the first genuine apostle of toleration;
he was willing even to suffer for the principle. Firm in
maintaining his own faith, he was no less determined
in protecting the liberty of others. He defended the
Jews from the malice and persecution of the Italians,
enforcing a general levy to compensate their losses in a
riot. Towards the Catholics he shewed the greatest
consideration, accepted the post of arbitrator between
rival candidates for the Papacy, and decided with most
careful judgment; paid honour to their saintly men,
and sent contributions to their famous shrines. Had he
been a pagan he would have been extolled. He might
1 Gibbon, c. 39; Dahn, Könige ii. 123; Hodgkin, Italy ii.
170
The Gothic Church in Italy.
have been led through a form of conversion, celebrated as
defender of the faith, and ultimately canonized. Being
a heretic, his best efforts were, accepted with sullen
distrust; he earned nothing but misapprehension and
dislike. His watchword was enough to condemn him,
—“We cannot impose a religion by command because
no one can be compelled to believe against his will.”
The elevation of Justinian to the throne of the East,
an orthodox emperor pledged to root out heresy, brought
about a rapprochement between the Church of Italy
with the shadowy senate at Rome and the Byzantine
court, and this was an alliance fatal to the projects of
Theodoric. This silent opposition, impervious to all his
advances and threatening the future of his throne and
house, embittered the last years of the great king. The
extravagant honours paid by the Byzantine Court to
Pope John on his mission to Constantinople, conveyed,
as no doubt they were intended to convey, to Theodoric
the sense of his own isolation and of the hopelessness of
his task. He became suspicious of all his envoys, even
of his true friends Symmachus and Boethius; and their
imprisonment and death at the close of his reign have
stained a noble record for ever.
The purpose of this fatal embassy concerns our.
subject. The orthodox emperors, Justin and Justinian,
had given proof of their attachment to the true Church
by a determined attempt to suppress heresy. An
(D
1 Var. ii. 27 : “religionem non imperare possumus, quia nemo
cogitur ut credat invitus.” cit. Dahn.
2 On the relation between the Church and the Roman senate at
this period, see Usener, der Romische senat und die Kirche in
der Ost-gothenzeit.
Causes of Theodoric's Failure.
171
1
earlier decree, directed against the survivors of the
Arian party, had made an express exception in favour
of the Goths, but the new alliance between the Eastern
court and the Latin Church encouraged a bolder policy;
and the subsequent decree which issued in 523 or 524, ex-
posed to persecution the Arians throughout the empire
without any exception. This was a direct blow at Theo-
doric, who had hitherto observed some semblance of
political dependence on the Eastern emperor. The
isolation of the Goths as heretics was proclaimed and
emphasised, and hiş own policy of toleration rendered
hopeless, if not ridiculous. Moreover, while for his
own subjects there was no danger of persecution, there
remained within the jurisdiction of Justinian many
Goths whom he was bound, if possible, to protect.
Hence the necessity of sending the embassy, for wbich
he selected men of the highest rank and inflence. The
Bishop of Rome was sent, perhaps becaụse he could
best represent the danger of retaliation upon the
Catholics in Italy.? Three senators and a patrician were
his colleagues. Whether the bishop sincerely urged the
request of Theodoric for the removal of the obnoxious
decree, and the toleration of his fellow-countrymen and
believers, or only arranged with the emperor a common
plan of operations against the heretic king, their mission
failed of its object. The envoys returned with empty
hands, and the king, in anger or suspicion, threw the.
pope into that prison whence he was released only by
(D
. i The Moeso-Goths who had retained their settlements together
with Ostrogoths and other Wisigoths, who had not joined the
general out-wandering.
2 So Dahn.
172
The Gothic Church in Italy.
death. The obsequious senate tried, and condemned
unheard, their own member Boethius, whose sentence,
at first mitigated by the clemency, was afterwards
enforced by the frenzied suspicion of Theodoric. The
king's own death following shortly afterwards was hailed
as the judgment of God, and good Catholics believed
with satisfaction that their heretic benefactor was con-
signed at once to the volcano furnace of Lipari.
After the death of their great king the Ostrogoths
struggled against their fate for nearly thirty years. But,
at last worn out by victories and defeats alike, they
yielded finally to Narses, and the last remnant of them
entered the Byzantine service.
Of the Church among the Ostrogoths in the period
of their rule in Italy almost no record is preserved. It
is mentioned by Cassiodorus that Theodahat shewed
great liberality towards his own Church, and enriched
it with lavish gifts; and some records have been dis-
covered which refer to clergy, churches, and church-
lands. The first of these is found at Naples, and belongs
to the reign of Totila, about the year 550. The Gothic
Church of S. Anastasia had received an advance of 120
"skillings” from a certain Petrus Defensor, in security
for which they pledged a piece of marsh land to the
value of 180 "skillings.” On receiving the balance of
60 “ skillings” they surrendered possession of the land
by the document which has been preserved. In the
1 Cassiod. XII. Ep. ii. “Veniamus ad illam privatae Ecclesiae
largissimam frugalitatem quae tantam procurabat donis abun-
dantiam.”
2 Bernhardt, Gotische Bibel, etc. (Halle, 1884), p. 216; Gotische
Urkunden.
Traces of its Organisation.
173
list of signatures, which are partly in Latin and partly
in Gothic, there occur the names of a presbyter (who,
through weak eyesight, was unable to sign with his own
hands), a “papa," a' deacon, a sub-deacon, and certain
other clergy. We have here the record of a Gothic Church
with a large staff of clergy, and lay officers (ustiarii)
holding land as a corporation, and conducting their
affairs through a notary, all which points to a long
established Church, which was itself, no doubt, one of
many such. A very similar record of a similar trans-
action was found at Arezzo, but has since been lost;
our imperfect facsimile shews that a certain deacon sold
to another deacon some part of the farm of Caballaria.
But the presence and power of the Gothic Church is
manifested apart from any other records by the influence
it exerted on the policy and life of Theodoric, and
on the whole history of the Ostrogothic kingdom. It
cannot be supposed that the Church, for whose faith
Theodoric sacrificed a sound basis for his kingdom, and
the success of his whole policy, existed only in the past.
Nor did his successors flinch from the position he had
taken up; and these records are only a material proof
of the existence of the Church which must have nourished
the Arian faith, to which they adhered till the end.
I
.
The great king of the Ostrogoths was not the first
who had cherished the noble idea of resuscitating a
Roman empire, in which Roman forms and traditions
should provide a framework for the vigour of his own
young race, and barbarian license and impetuosity be
restrained and moulded by having incorporated with it
YLU
174
The Gothic Church in Gaul.
the heritage of the past. Athaulf, who led the Wisi-
goths from the grave of Alaric to find in Gaul a home
which they had sought in vain elsewhere, began his
reign with "an ardent desire to blot out the Roman
name and make all Roman soil an empire of the
Goths," 1 in which himself should play the rôle of
Augustus. But having learnt by long experience that
his people would not be bound by the laws of a state,
“ without which a state is no state,” he determined" to
seek glory for himself by restoring to its former glory
the Roman name” by infusing the hardihood of his
own race into the decrepit members of the decaying
empire. The scene of this experiment was in the south
of Gaul, whither the Wisigoths withdrew two years
after the death of Alaric. Honorius must have seen
with relief the departure of his dangerous guests, and it
is quite possible, though it can hardly be proved, that
they were encouraged to turn their steps in that
direction by a treaty with the emperor and a concession
of land for settlement. Such a concession could be of
but slight actual value, implying little more than leave
to hold what land they could conquer for themselves;
but it was characteristic of the Goths that they desired
1 Orosius vii. 43. “Se in primis ardenter inbiasse ut obliterato
romano nomine romanum omne solumn Gothorum imperium et
faceret et vocaret, esset que, ut vulgariter loquar, Gothia quod
Romana fuisset fieretque nunc Ataulphus quod quondam Caesar
Augustus; atque ubi inulta experientia probavisset neque Gothos
ullo modo parere legibus posse propter effrenatam barbariem, neque
reipublicae interdici leges oportere, sine quibus respublica non est
respublica, elegisse se saltem ut gloriam sibi restituendo in integrum
augendoque romano nomine Gothorum viribus quaereret," etc. See
Dahn, Könige, v. 64, on the passage.
The Scheme of Athaulf.
175
Iul
nothing so much as settlement under the shadow of the
empire. The old name of Rome had not lost its
glamour, and very striking is the eager willingness of
the barbarians to accept all the responsibilities of self-
defence and nominal dependence for the shadowy
privilege of the imperial alliance. It was this strange
sentiment alone, whether we call it awe, reverence,
or affection, that secured the barbarians to Rome
as childlike dependents rather than as ungovernable
destroyers. Unmanageable, of course, they were, and
the empire could make no pretence to chastise them,
but the fiction of the “foedus” was always maintained.
Quickly disregarded by the stronger party whenever it
saw its advantage, it was as readily revived after each
escapade. We do not require to follow the windings of
policy and intrigue on either side, during which the
circle of Roman influence steadily contracted at the
same time as its power within that circle as steadily
diminished. The Goths, on the other hand, under a
succession of able and warlike rulers, gradually extended
their boundaries at the expense of the Roman pro-
vince, and differentiated their power from that of the
empire till their king became no more, even ostensibly,
the channel of delegated authority, but, in name as well
as in fact, an independent sovereign.
Under Athaulf and Wallia, the kings first and third
whole nation, and it seemed for a moment as if Spain
1011
the Wisigothic kingdom in Spain was not to rise for a
century yet, and after overrunning the greater part of
? See Table of Wisigothic kings.
176
The Gothic Church in Gaul.
the peninsula as far as Cadiz, and making an unsuc-
cessful attempt to carry out Alaric's cherished idea of
seeking a home in Africa, the Goths turned back and
retraced their steps to the eastern side of the Pyrenees.
Here, in the Roman province of Aquitanica fecunda,
they settled. It suited Roman policy at the time to.
attach the barbarians as dependent allies within the
reach of nominal control rather than to leave them free
to carve out a kingdom for themselves in distant Spain.
To the Goths, on their part, no doubt the fertile plains
of Aquitaine were more attractive than the less luxuriant
fields of Spain. By the treaty concluded between
Wallia and Honorius, the whole basin of the Garonne
was open to the Goths for settlement. With this
territory there came into their hands the towns of
Bordeaux, Angoulême, Poictiers, and others; and the
famous city of Toulouse, in which Wallia established his
capital, afterwards gave its name to the kingdom. .
The kingdom of Toulouse lasted for close on a
hundred years. Under four kings in succession the
alternations of peace and war with the empire issued
alike to the advantage of the Goths. On the field of
Châlons, Wisigoths fighting with and for the Romans,
met Ostrogoths marshalled under the banner of Attila.
The second Theodoric proclaimed and supported Avitus
as Roman emperor in succession to Maximus. Now
with, and now without, the pretext of Roman authority,
the Goths made expeditions to Spain, and gradually
established there a claim to supremacy in the peninsula.
TTYY
Y
i Salvian, de Gub. vii. 2. “Nemini dubium est Aquitanos
ac Novempopulos medullam fere omnium Gallianum et uber totius
fecunditatis habuisse.” cf. also c. 5.
The Kingdom of Toulouse.
177
But the kingdom reached its widest limits, and the
Goths their most brilliant position, under the successor
of Theodoric, his brother Euric. The changes in the
Western empire which had afforded transient oppor-
tunities to his predecessor, were now so frequent as to
give this vigorous prince almost continuous occasion to
profit by the distraction and vacillation of the nominal
sovereigns of Gaul. In fact, the real obstacle to the
complete conquest of Southern Gaul by the Goths was
found not in the desire or determination of the emperors
to maintain their hold over their fertile province, but in
the stubborn resistance offered to the barbarians by the
provincial nobility, and to the heretics by the Catholic
clergy. The flood of barbarian conquest had swept over
the plains of Narbonne and Lower Auvergne long
before it reached Upper Auvergne, where Ecdicius,
representing the Roman laity, and Sidonius Apollinaris,
the bishop of Clermont, held the high table-land for
Roman civilisation and Catholic unity. But when Julius
Nepos, last but one on the roll of Western emperors,
formally withdrew the claim of Rome to the territory
which his predecessors had for so long neglected to
defend, Ecdicius and Sidonius abandoned their un-
tenable post, and the Gothic kingdom was now only
bounded by the Loire, the Rhone, and the two seas.
It was at this time that the kingdom of Toulouse
reached its climax. Four years before the death of
Euric another race had hailed as chief a young prince,
before whom the Gothic power in Gaul should crumble
to dust. Before Euric had been dead a year, the Franks,
I Jordanis, c. 45.
2 Situation well sketched by Baret, Sidoine Apoll. p. 42.
Y
178
The Gothic Church in Gaul.
under Chlodwig, had crushed in the thin bulwark of
Roman rule that lay across the centre of France, and
there stood face to face the two peoples, to one of whom
the dominion of the West must fall. It is not too
much to say that the issue of this momentous contest
was never in doubt, that it was decided in advance by
one fact,—the Arianism of the Gothic Church.
The Gothic kings of Toulouse and their people bad
remained faithful to the teaching of Ulfilas, and the
Arianising form of doctrine which had been transmitted
to them by their fathers. But the difficulty of presenting
an adequate picture of the Gothic Church in Gaul is
not less than in the case of the Church in Italy, and
arises from the same causes.' The disappearance of the
nation, the extinction of the Church, the malignity of
their opponents, have ensured the destruction of all the
records and monuments on the side of the heretics ;
while lack of sympathy, or of any interest deeper than
the polemical, debarred the victorious party from leaving
any adequate or trustworthy account of the Church of
their rivals. Nevertheless, we may perceive from a
number of slight indications that the Gothic Church in
Gaul had a well-developed organisation, providing for
its adherents throughout the kingdom the offices and
ministers of a regularly established Christian Church.
In the works of Gregory of Tours there is mention of
controversies, both public and private, between bishops
and presbyters of the two parties, and these so frequent
1 Revillout, p. 96. “Il est donc bien difficile d'établir avec de
pareils secours la comparaison des deux Eglises, et l'historien se trouve
le plus souvent réduit en l'absence de faits concluants, à hasarder
des inductions et des conjectures.”
A Fully-Organised Arian Church.
179
as to pre-suppose the existence of two bodies of clergy
similar in numbers, organisation, and distribution. Few
of the Arian clergy appear by name in the records
of their opponents. Yet we know that Sigesarius, the
bishop who baptized Attalus at Rome, accompanied
Athaulf to Gaul and Spain, and had charge of his
children at the time of their father's death. That the
Arian Church distributed its clergy over the country,
1
place of, the Catholic clergy, may be seen from one or
two indications given by Gregory. Thus, in the diocese
of Arisitum, the fifteen parishes of which it was com-
posed had all been held by Gothic presbyters.? Near the
town of Reuntium (Rions) the Goths had possessed
themselves of a Catholic church, and “transferred it to
the foul service of their sect."3 Here, on the eve of
Easter, they proceeded to baptize the children of the
village, in the hope that as the Catholic priest was
denied the opportunity of baptizing, “the people might
be more easily entangled with their sect.” The Catho-
lic party, not to be foiled, held their baptismal service
in a large house adjoining, and their triumph was
complete when all the children who had been baptized
by the heretics died within the octave of Easter.
Whereupon the Arians restored the church to the
Catholic party.
Ie.g. Greg. Tur. Mirac. i. 80, where presbyters of the rival
parties met at supper. Ibid. 81: “Arianorum presbyter cum
diacono nostrae religionis altercationem habebat,” etc.
2 Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. v. 5.
3 Greg. Tur. de gloria confess. c. 48, “ villa est in qua cum
esset ecclesia Catholica, advenientibus Gothis, ad suam sectae im-
180
The Gothic Church in Gaul.
The Arian worship and ritual seems not to have
differed very much from that of the Catholic Church;
scarcely more, perhaps, than various uses within the
Church differed from one another. Some of the variations
which can be traced owed their presence to the Eastern
connexions of the Gothic Church. Certain offices which
took place with the Catholics during the morning were
celebrated by the Arians at daybreak (antelucani). It
was this office which, as Sidonius? tells us, Theodoric,
the successor of Wallia, attended daily. The connexion
of this early service with Arian use is curiously illus-
trated by the accusation of Arian practices which was
laid against a certain Pamphilus;the complaint against
him was that he devoted himself to holy offices from
midnight onwards, but ceased at daybreak. It was also
a custom peculiar to the Arian Gothic Church that
a special cup was provided for the royal family at the
communion.
While the Arian Church thus strove to present itself
as highly organised and as efficient for ministering to
its adherents as its rivals, it did not neglect opportunities
for propagating its tenets among the neighbouring
peoples. Sidonius* reports having seen one Modaharius,
“brandishing darts of heresy,” working as a missionary
of the Arians among the Burgundians. Thus, wherever
1 Sid. Apoll. Ep. i. 2, "antelucanos sacerdotum suorum coetus
minimo comitatu expetit.”
2 Bolland, Vit. S. Pamphili, April 28: “quapropter plerique
civium rem inique aestimantes illum Ariani ritus apud pontificem
criminantur.”
3 Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. iii. 31.
4 Sid. Apoll. Ep. vii. 6.
Testimony of Salvian.
181
we catch a glimpse of it, the Gothic Church is seen to
be acting out in its methods and organisation the theory
of its existence as stated by Salvian'—"so firmly do
they consider themselves to be Catholics that they
insultingly distinguish us by the title of heretic."
The controversies, of which many are recorded, are
unfortunately recorded only by pronounced partisans.
They all result in the same way. The heretic is
silenced. Similarly the tests and ordeals which are
proposed declare invariably and unmistakably for the
Catholic side, while the efforts of the heretics to produce
miracles or undergo ordeals are futile, or worse than
futile. Gregory accuses the Goths, moreover, of cowardice
and timidity, which are characteristics scarcely to be
looked for in a people with such a history.
Another contemporary writer, on the other hand, has
drawn a picture of Gothic character, and described a
state of public and private morals, which bears testi-
mony to the efficacy of their belief, if not to the
theological accuracy of their creed. Salvian, the pres-
byter of Marseilles, in his book on The Government of
God, when he is upbraiding the feebleness, and lashing
the vices, of the Roman and Catholic Christians, again
and again places before them, as examples of Christian
life and practice, the “ill-instructed” barbarians who
sojourned in the land. Their life was better than
1 Salvian, de Gub. v. 2: “Nam in tantum se Catholicos
esse judicant, ut nos ipsos titulo haereticae appellationis infament.”
2 Salvian, de Gub. v. 3: “ut quandoque haereticos patientia
Dei faciat plenam fidei noscere veritatem, maxime cum sciat eos
forsitan Catholica non indignos fide quos videat Catholicis vitae
comparatione praestare.”
182
The Gothic Church in Gaul.
their creed; how much worse was that of his own flock.
“As concerns the conversation of the Goths and
Vandals,” he says, “wherein could we either prefer or
compare ourselves ? To speak first of love and charity,
—all barbarians, one may say, who are of one race and
under one king, love one another; all Romans mostly
persecute one another. The poor are pillaged, the widows
mourn, the orphans are trampled under foot, so much so
that many of them flee to the enemy,--seeking, I sup-
pose, Roman humanity among the barbarians when they
could no longer bear barbarous inhumanity among the
Romans. So, in spite of differences of worship and
habits, they pass over to the Goths.” “Treacherous, but
chaste," is the label which Salvian attaches to the
Goths in his list of races;' and elsewhere he enlarges
on the fact that they scorned the licentiousness and
debauchery that was undermining Roman vigour, and
was such a foul blot even upon the Church itself.
The attitude of this Arian people and government
towards the Catholic inhabitants of their country was,
on the whole, one of great tolerance. Princes and
peoples alike treated the Catholic clergy with honour
and reverence. Portrayed as their conduct is, by those
who were alien by race and by creed, and likely to
I de Gub. vii. 15: “Gothorum gens perfida sed pudica est.
· Ibid. vii. 6: “Impudicitiam nos deligimus, Gothi exsecrantur. Esse
Ancient Christianity, ii. 64, seqq.
? e.g. Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ix. 24. (Fronimius episcopus)
a Leuvane magnifice est receptus.
3 Salvian, de Gub. vii. 9, "cum illi (Gothi) etiam in alienis
sacerdotibus Deum honorarent, nos etiam in nostris contemneremus.”
Tolerance towards the Catholics.
183
KU
(D
compulsion, there is nevertheless no trace in the records
of the earlier kings of any measure of repression or open
hostility. Nor was this for lack of provocation. There
must have been a deliberate purpose in the policy of the
kings of Toulouse,-patiently to live down the oppo-
sition of the Catholic clergy, or to bring about the
supremacy of the Arian Church by careful fostering and
gradual spread of its doctrines. It cannot be that king
after king who reigned at Toulouse was blind to the
fact that the greatest hindrance to union and tran-
quillity within his kingdom, and to extension beyond
it, lay in the resistance, passive or active, of the Catholic
clergy. The semi-feudal constitution of the nation
placed over against the king a body of nobles, from
amongst whom he himself frequently had been raised
to the throne, and whose jealousy and insubordination
were rendered formidable by their independent following
of vassals. In the Catholic clergy, who had learut
independence and to know their own power under the lax
government of the declining empire, the Gothic kings
found a new and unexpected factor with which they had
to reckon. Always in opposition so long as the kings
remained heretics, pitilessly immoveable by any con-
cessions short of complete submission, this third party
checked the king at every step. They provided a
rallying-point for Roman laity and disaffected Goths
within the kingdom, and a fulcrum for any crafty foe
without. We shall not be surprised, therefore, to find
that the king who had the greatest ambition, shewed
the highest state-craft, and enjoyed the most favourable
opportunities, found himself compelled to abandon as
184
The Gothic Church in Gaul.
untenable the position of toleration taken up by his
predecessors; and adopt a policy of repression against the
Catholics. This repression, which might conceivably be
justified as politically necessary, has been magnified and
distorted in the hands of the annalists till it appears
as a ruthless and unjustifiable persecution. Euric is
branded with the name of persecutor, and his reign
supplies dates for many martyrdoms; yet it is more
than doubtful whether he can fairly be regarded as
a persecutor or his victims as martyrs.
To Sidonius Apollinaris we owe a graphic account of
this persecution of the Catholics by Euric. In a letter
addressed to Basil, the bishop of a neighbouring diocese,
he describes the condition of the Church under Euric.
After a complimentary preface, he opens his subject by
saying: “I do not do wrong in bewailing to you the
way in which that wolf, who fattens on the sins of
perishing souls, is gnawing at the entrances of the
Church biting in secret with a tooth as yet un-
noticed.” He accuses himself, with other shepherds, of
having given the enemy an advantage by slumbering at
his post; in spite of the pain it gives him he will set
forth the whole truth. Euric (Evarix) is not to be
judged by himself or his correspondent for defending or
extending his frontiers; but it is a case of Dives and
Lazarus, of Pharaoh marching with his diadem, and the
Israelite with his basket; of Assur thundering in royal
insolence, and Jeremiah with his people bewailing the
spiritual Jerusalem. He comforts himself with the
1 Euric had built a church at Briuda (Brivas) in honour of St.
Julian. Dahn, Könige, v. 101, note ref. to Sid. Apoll. Ep. ii. 1;
but I have not been able to find the reference.
i
CA
Euric's Persecution.
185
11
reflection that this is not what he deserves, and that
affliction purifies the soul. He must, however, confess
that he is in dread that Euric is likely to undermine
not so much Roman bulwarks as Christian institutions."
“The mention of the name of Catholic acts like vinegar,
they say, on his face as on his heart, so that you cannot
tell whether he is more truly chief of his nation or of his
sect." Then after characterising Euric as distinguished
as a warrior, as a statesman, and as a man of affairs,
he gives a list of nine dioceses whose bishops or arch-
bishops have been “cut off by death”;2 and as no other
bishops have afterwards been appointed in their place
(by whom, of course, the lower orders of clergy are ap-
pointed); wide-spread spiritual ruin has been the result.
“This ruin would move even an arch-heretic, spreading
as it does, while the fathers are dying, day by day.
The parishes are without priests. The churches are
falling into decay; alas, even round the altar-stones the
cattle may be found cropping the grass. Look more
deeply into the injury inflicted on the spiritual mem-
bers,—it is clear that the more bishops are removed, the
more of your people will find their faith endangered.
I forbear to mention your own colleagues, Crocus and
Simplicius, who have been removed from the chairs
that were entrusted to them."4 He concludes with an
1 “Sed, quod, fatendum est, praefatum regem non tam Romanis
moenibus quam Christianis legibus insidiaturum pavesco.”
2 “Summis sacerdotibus ipsorum morte truncatio nec ullis
deinceps episcopis in defunctorum officia suffectis (per quos utique
minorum ordinum ministeria subrogabantur) latum spiritualis
ruinae limitem traxit."
3 “Quanti subripiuntur episcopi tantorum fidem periclitaturam.”
4 « Cathedris sibi traditis eliminatos."
186
The Gothic Church in Gaul.
appeal to Basil to devise with his colleagues some
remedy for the unhappy state of matters in the vacant
dioceses."
This famous account of the "persecution” of Euric
has been reproduced at some length, in order that its
tone may be apprehended as well as the facts which
it contains; for in the tone we fail to find the earnest-
ness of those who have “resisted unto blood” for con-
science' sake, and are led to doubt whether, on calm
examination, even the facts related justify a charge of
persecution against the king. For what is described
here except a political struggle between the Gothic
government and the third party in the state, who were
using their position as spiritual princes for political
ends? We have here, in fact, the prototype of the
kulturkampf of the nineteenth century. The method
adopted by the State in its contest with the Church is
identically the same. The episcopal sees as they fall
vacant are not allowed to be filled up; the ordinations
of the lower clergy cannot take place; and the conse-
quence of a few years of bloodless conflict is that many
country parishes are found without spiritual officers, the
services of the Church are suspended, and the churches
fall into disrepair. But a policy like this is not to be
placed in the same category with the attempts of Decius
1 Sid. Apoll. Ep. vii. 6.
2 It is interesting to observe the use that can be made of these
authorities: e.g. Maimbourg, History of Arianism (Eng. trans.
1729), ii. 179. “Evaris (misprinted, Odoacer) turned his arms
against the true religion, expelled the bishops and pastors from their
churches, some he put to death, caused most of the churches both
in town and country to be destroyed, etc.” cf. Revillout, p. 138, seqq.
The Actual Extent of the “Persecution.”
187
or Diocletian to suppress Christianity, or of the Stuarts
to enforce prelacy upon the Scottish Covenanters. If
“persecution" means the tyrannical and cruel application
of temporal power to control or crush liberty of opinion
and spiritual independence, the word cannot also be used
without qualification to describe the action of the State
in an imperative attempt to grapple with high treason
in the Church. That was the justification of the
policy of Euric, and the issue of the struggle in the
reign of his successor only confirmed it.
Nor do the details of the persecution, which may
-
conclusion. The passage in Gregory,” which is chiefly
relied on, is obviously a digest of the letter of Sidonius,
to which, indeed, express reference is made at the end
of the chapter; and, a careful examination and com-
parison would shew that even if its authenticity be
admitted, it is of no value as an independent authority.
Passing from this, the individual cases of the persecu-
tion which are alleged all resolve themselves into
suspected, and, as the event proved, only too justly
suspected, of holding treasonable intercourse with the
Franks. In the records of the bishops of his own diocese of
Tours, Gregory mentions two who were banished from
Those who maintain the cruelty of the “persecution," and
that it was an attempt “ faire prévaloir partout l'arianisme” (Revil-
lout), infer from the expression of Sidonius, “ truncatis morte,” that
the bishops suffered a violent death; but this certainly requires
proof, which is not forthcoming, especially when compared with
other expressions in the same letter, passim,-e.g. "per singulos
dies morientum patrum," “ excessu pontificum," etc.
2 Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii. 25, cit. Revillout.
188
The Gothic Church in Gaul.
1
their see by the Goths. In each case the reason was
the same; they were “suspected of desiring to submit
themselves to the rule of the Franks.” But the interval
of eleven years, during which the second ruled un-
molested, does not at least betoken any undue im-
patience or nervousness on the part of the Gothic king.
The conversion of Chlodwig was the decisive event for
the history of Gaul. Henceforward the whole weight
of Catholic influence was given to the Franks. The
struggle between a heathen nation with a heathen chief
and the united forces of Gothic and Roman Christianity
might have been a doubtful one; but the submission of
the Frank to the Catholic Church secured him the
friendship of a party within the camp of the Goths, whose
influence, thanks to their organisation and tenacity of
purpose, was out of all proportion to their numbers.
“Thy faith is our victory," said the Catholic to the new
convert; and a very few years proved the truth of the
prophecy.
Euric had been succeeded by a son who had neither
the ability nor the tenacity of his father (A. D. 485). When
Alaric weakly surrendered Syagrius to Chlodwig, be
made a fatal confession of weakness," by which the Frank
was not slow to profit. The interview with the chief of
the Franks, sought and obtained by Alaric, produced
only a very transient security. The Catholic Church
in the south was waiting eagerly for their champion to
D
1 Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. x. 7, 8. Volusianus and Verus;
both appear to have died natural deaths.
2 Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii. 27, “ at ille metuens, ne propter
eum iram Francorum incurreret, ut Gothorum pavere mos est,
vinctum legatis tradidit."
Results of the Conversion of Chlodwig.
189
take the first step towards their freedom; "all men
were desiring with anxious longing that they should
reign."1 Nor did Chlodwig hesitate to take up the
rôle thus assigned to him. “It likes me not at all that
these Arians should hold any part of Gaul. Let us
march by the help of God, overthrow them, and subject
the country to our own rule."2 With this address to his
men Chlodwig opened the campaign. No opportunity
was overlooked of keeping up the religious character of
the struggle. Parties sent to neighbouring shrines
along the route brought back the encouraging responses
of the Church; and Catholic clergy with the army
marched to meet their brethren, who were oppressed
by the hand of the heretics.
The conduct of Alaric at this crisis might be ascribed
either to the exasperation of conscious weakness or to
cool calculation and discrimination. What might be
branded as feeble inconsistency in the one view might
equally be regarded as determined and far-sighted
policy in the other. On the one hand he suppressed
with promptitude more than one revolt which the
impatience of some of the bishops brought prematurely
to a head. Other outbreaks were nipped in the bud
by the removal from their sees of other bishops,
Caesarius from Arles, Quintian from Ruthena, and
Verus from Tours. The appointment some years later
i Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii. 23,"omnes eos amore desiderabili
cuperent regnare.” Ibid. 36, “Multi jam hinc ex Galliis habere
Francos dominos summo desiderio capiebant."
2 Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii. 37.
3 Detailed with naive admiration by Maimbourg, bk. x.
4 e.g. Galactorius of Bearn, and in Tortosa. See Dahn v. 104.
190
The Gothic Church in Gaul.
of Quintian to the bishopric of Clermont by the Franks
is a measure of the justness of the king's suspicions.
On the other hand, he formally abandoned the attempt
of his father to force them to compliance with his
rule by systematic repression. He permitted vacant
bishoprics to be filled up at Bearn, Bigorre, and many
other places, and sanctioned the assembling of a council
at Agde. This combination of firm and judicious policy
failed to avert the doom cf the Gothic kingdom of
Toulouse. Chlodwig, always rapid in his operations,
was determined to anticipate the arrival of the Ostro-
gothic reinforcements, for which Alaric had appealed to
Theodoric. Alaric's captains resented his cautious
policy of withdrawal towards the coming succour. The
Catholics of Clermont, the town which had been the
last to submit to the Goths, fought bravely and obsti-
nately for their conquerors. But the forces of Alaric
were no match for the Franks and their allies, the
Burgundians. At the battle of Vouglé the king himself
fell fighting, and was spared the pain of seeing his
country overrun by the enemy and the destruction of
his kingdom. “By the help of God," as the Catholic
historian puts it, the orthodox barbarian had won the
victory and secured Gaul for the Franks.
1
2 Description of the battle in Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii. 37,
“rex Chlodvechus deo adjuvante victoriam obtinuit."
2 A. D. 507.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE GOTHIC CHURCH IN SPAIN, AND ITS DECLINE.
AUTHORITIES FOR CHAPTER VIII.
SOURCES :
Isidorus Hispalensis.
Joannis Biclarensis.
Paullus Emeritensis.
Gregorius Turonensis.
Canons of the Council of Toledo III.
LITERATURE:
Dictionary of Christian Biography, Articles - Euric," " Leovigild.”
Pius Gams, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien.
Helfferich, Entstehung und Geschichte des Westgothenrechts.
Der Westgothische Arianismus, und die Spanische Ketzergeschichte.
Lembke, Geschichte Spaniens.
Menandez y Pelayo, Historia de los Heterodoxos Españoles. .
Görres, Die Anfänge des König's Leovigilds in Deutsche Forsch. XII. and XIII.
Kritische Untersuchungen über den Aufstand und das Martyriuin des
Hermenegild in Zeitsch. für Hist, Theol. 1873.
Leovigild's Stellung zum Katholicismus und zur Arianischen Stauts-
kirche, ibid.
The disastrous day of Vouglé put an end to the Gothic
kingdom of Toulouse. The death of the king on the
field of battle, the youth and immaturity of his legiti-
mate heir, and the disputed succession which followed,
exposed the country to the ravages of Frankish armies,
unchecked by any opposition from a regular govern-
ment. The issue of many complications was that, after
long delay, Theodoric, the Ostrogoth, interfered to pro-
tect his kindred, gradually cleared Southern Gaul of
the Frankish troops, and established a boundary be-
tween Goths and Franks which roughly corresponded
with the course of the Garonne. He saw, moreover,
that it concerned the safety of his own kingdom that
there should be a strong and stable government in
192
The Gothic Church in Spain.
Southern Gaul to hold these new foes in check; and
accordingly, under pretext of guardianship of Amalaric,
son of the late king Alaric, and his own grandson,
Theodoric took into his own hands the Wisigothic
government. But the home of the Wisigothic folk was
no longer chiefly in Gaul, but in Spain. Large numbers
of them had been forced across the Pyrenees by the
southward pressure of the Franks, and by their occupa-
tion of Gallia Gothica; and these being added to the
numerous bands of earlier conquerors and settlers, it
came about that the bulk of the Wisigothic stock was
planted in Spain, and Gallia Gothica became a de-
pendency of a new Spanish-Gothic kingdom. This,
however, was not fully established till the death of
Theodoric, when his daughter and his grandson, Ama-
laric's ability to govern his own kingdom, and the
Ostrogothic control ceased. Only that part of the old
kingdom of Toulouse which was east of the Rhone
remained in the hands of the Ostrogoths; and the
province of Narbonne or Septimania, west of the Rhone
and south of the Garonne, became an adjunct to the
new Gothic kingdom in Spain.
Here, in Spain, was played the last act of this long
the Gothic kingdoms of the West. One of these had
already crumbled to ruin, sapped by religious strife and
disaffection. A second laboriously-erected kingdom,
that of Theodoric, in spite of the military success and
skill of its founder, after thirty years of his fostering
care was at this very moment beginning to totter, and
about to shew, by one more instance, the hopelessness of
The Third Course --Submission.
193
IC
0
the attempt to build a throne above the quicksand of
ecclesiastical schism. Now the same problem was once
again presented under new circumstances. It was
solved in a new way. The Spanish monarchy, after a
long struggle to maintain the ancient faith, saved itself
by submission to the Catholic Church. In the kingdom
of Toulouse the Goths had tried first by toleration to
conciliate, then by repression to disarm, the enemies
who hated them even worse as heretics than they
despised them as barbarians. In Italy the attempt to
find a modus vivendi was yet more patiently and
perseveringly pursued, the Gothic government giving
to the Catholic Church all the pledges of impartiality
and all tokens of respect. In Spain the Wisigoths at
last confessed themselves beaten; overcome by the
subtle unrelenting pressure of organised, though often
passive, resistance. There are but three forms which
the relations between two such parties can take. Two
of these had been tried in turn by the temporal power
of the Goths; toleration had been rejected, repression
had failed, there remained only submission.
But even after Vouglé it took eighty years of con-
test and disaffection to bring this fact home to the
nation. They were years of confusion and insecurity.
Of the earlier kings belonging to this portion of Wisi-
gothic history little or nothing has come down to us,
“except their names and the manner of their violent
deaths."1 Not one of the first six who occupied the
throne established his house even for two generations.
Hardly do they seem to have contemplated it. The
indifference to the future, which this fact implies,
i Dahn.
/
13
194
The Gothic Church in Spain.
explains much of the history, and especially how so
many princes cherished their old creed, without dis-
covering it to be a hopeless obstacle to their policy.
They had no policy. The first who had a policy, and
aspired to found a dynasty, came at once into. sharp
collision with the Catholics, towered by the force of
genius and determination, and fell. His son succeeded
him, it is true, but only to surrender to the Catholic
party, and conform with all his people to the Catholic
faith. .
. Little is recorded of the kings who reigned before
Leovigild, but there remains enough to shew that they
adhered obstinately to the creed of their fathers. Ama-
laric, no doubt, followed a prudent policy when he allied
himself with the Frankish court by marrying Chroti-
child, a daughter of the Merowings. But the refusal of
his bride to conform to her husband's creed caused the
1
her fellow-Catholics that, instead of an alliance, he
brought down upon himself the vengeance of her brother
Childibert. Of another of these kings, Athanagild, it was
said that he was secretly a Catholic before he died; but
the authority is insignificant. He it was, however,
who, while yet a pretender to the crown, took the fatal
step of summoning the Byzantines to his aid. Justinian
was only too ready to accept the opportunity thus
offered of planting his foot within the breach of another
Gothic kingdom. Athanagild gained his purpose, but
sixty years afterwards his successors were still struggling
to dislodge the Byzantines, and loosen their grasp upon
1 See Aschbach, 196; Lembke i. 65; Dahn v. 126. The only
authority is Lucas of Tuy.
Isolation of the Wisigoths.
195
the land. Two daughters of Athanagild and his wife,
Gosvintha, were sought in marriage by two of the
Merowing princes; each of these, on her arrival at her
bridegroom's home, was induced to abandon the Arian
creed and accept the Catholic faith of her husband.?
In the same reign the collective Arianism of the Ger-
manic races suffered a serious loss, and the pressure on
the remaining adherents of the creed in Spain was
much increased by the conversion of the king of the
Suevi and the whole body of his subjects to the
Catholic faith. The isolation of the Wisigoths was now
complete. On every frontier they were hemmed in by
nations whose racial antipathy was embittered by dog-
matic separation. To the north-east lay the Franks,
ever pressing southward and westward. On the north
the Suevi were on the alert to turn the internal
dissensions of the kingdom to their own advantage and
aggrandisement. And the cities of the south, and
along the coast, contained many nests of: Byzantines
and Byzantine sympathisers, who kept open the com-
munications between the disaffected in the Gothic
kingdom and the ever-watchful Eastern emperor.
To rule this kingdom, watched by so many jealous
eyes without, and racked by such distractions within,
Leovigild was called first as coadjutor, and afterwards
as successor, to his brother Liuva. His reign “marks
the last attempt to firmly establish the Gothic dominion
011
application of all available remedies against its similarly
1 Isid. de reb. Goth. p. 124; “ quos postea submovere a finibus
regni molitus non potuit, adversus quos huc usque confligitur.”
% Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. iv. 27, 28.
196
The Gothic Church in Spain.
inherited perils."1 Five months of interregnum had
only increased the difficulties of his task. Yet he
attacked them with equal boldness and sagacity.
Foreign foes and domestic rebels alike felt the effects
successor of Theodoric and Euric. He was the first
Gothic king of whom it could truly be said that he was
master of the Iberian peninsula.
Towards the Catholic Church the attitude of this
Arian prince was, throughout the first ten years of his
reign (569–580), one of consistent toleration. This
absence of a persecuting spirit in Leovigild is needed to
give colour to the story, which was current in later times,
that he married for his first wife an undoubted Catholic,
Theodosia, a sister of the famous bishops, Leander and
Isidore. Apart from the unimportant testimony of Lucas
of Tuy, there is no reason to suppose that the king's first
wife was anything but an Arian like himself. They had
died before Leovigild came to the throne. In a second
marriage he took to wife Gosvintha, the widow of his pre-
1 Dahn.
? Persecution of the Catholics by Leovigild is asserted to have
taken place before the revolt of Hermenegild by Külb, “ Johannes
von Biclaro”in Ersch und Gruber, and by Helfferich, Westgothenr.
p. 11; discredited by Dahn v. 136, and Görres, Leovigild's Stellung,
p. 548.
3 The statement appears first in Lucas of Tuy; it is accepted by
Aschbach, 203, Dahn v. 135, vi. 366, and Helfferich; contested
by Görres, Anfänge Leovigilds, p. 593. Helfferich supposes that,
under the guidance of Leander, Theodosia brought up her two sons
as Catholics.
4 Joann, Bicl. Ann. vii. Justini, “ duos filios suos ex amissa
conjugę.” .
Early Toleration of Leovigild.
. 197
T:
decessor Athanagild, a woman notoriously and fanatically
Arian. To the fanatical influence of this woman some
have ascribed the blame for most of the evils which fol-
lowed. But it is unnecessary to see in Gosvintha the sole
cause of events, for which many other agencies were pre-
paring the way. In the heart of the king himself the
promptings of his wife against the Catholics would only
sound familiarly as the echoes of his own experience.
His task of government was infinitely complicated by the
double antipathy of race and of creed between the two
sections of the people whom he ruled. His policy
during the earlier part of his reign, when he was mainly
occupied in reducing to obedience ambitious and tur-
bulent vassal-nobles, bad naturally produced great
discontent, and raised against him a number of re-
bellious-minded chiefs, whose power for mischief was
not destroyed, though he had forced them to a show of
submission. With these, as well as with all other
enemies of his throne, he found the Catholics ever
was spread over his whole kingdom, the ends of which
communicated with his enemies beyond its borders, with
the Suevi within the peninsula, with the Franks in Gaul,
with the Byzantines in the coast-cities, and, through
them, with the court of the Eastern empire. It would,
therefore be no matter for surprise if there grew up in :
the mind of Leovigild a sense of the impossibility that
his own government could co-exist with so formidable and
hostile a power as that wielded by.the Catholic Church.
But it was neither this growing conviction of the king
1 Joann. Bicl. Ann. viii. Mauricii, “Goisvintha Catholicis semper
infesta”; Greg. Tur. v. 39, “ caput hujus sceleris Goisvintha fuit."
198'
TI
The Gothic Church in Spain.
2y
nor the persuasions of Gosvintha that led to the actual
crisis. Nevertheless this arose within the family of the
king. Leovigild, like some of his predecessors, had sought
to strengthen his house by an alliance with the Franks,
and had obtained, as a wife for his elder son Hermene-
gild, Ingundis, daughter of Sigebert and Brunichild, that
Brunichild, who, being a Wisigothic princess, had become
a Catholic on her marriage. According to that precedent,
and according, no doubt; to the expectation of her
husband's nation, Ingundis should have taken his faith
when she came to be his wife. But she had been brought
up by her mother as a strict Catholic; and, moreover, on :
her journey to Spain, passing through the diocese of Agde,
she had been specially warned by Fronimius, the bishop,
to shun the Arian heresy as poison. She accordingly
refused to change her creed. A sharp quarrel ensued
between Ingundis and her grandmother, Gosvintha (who
had now become her stepmother-in-law). The princess
was little more than a child, but she remained obsti-
nately true to her creed. A story of barbarous cruelty,
inflicted on her by Gosvintha, is told by Gregory of
Tours. It finds no place, however, in the chronicles of
our most sober and trustworthy authority for this period,
John of Valclara, who was also a contemporary witness ;
and the truth of the story has latterly been called
in question. Nevertheless, this refusal of Ingundis
For a detailed account, with analysis of the authorities, see
Görres, Kritische Untersuchungen über den Aufstand und das
Martyrium Hermenegilds, in the Zeitschrift für hist. Theol.
1873.
2 Görres, Untersuchungen, p. 7. Gregory's own authority is
vague, “ut asserunt multi”: so Wachter,“ Ingundis” in Ersch
und Gruber. Dahn v. 137, and Helfferich p. 11, (undecided).
-
Conversion of Hermenegild.
no
199
-
X
e
to conform to the religion of her adopted country was a
severe blow to the policy of Leovigild. His long
struggle with his nobles and his neighbours was at
last concluded. He had brought peace to his people,
and looked forward now to years of tranquillity and the
peaceful succession of his son. But a yet greater blow
fell on him. In the same year that his son was
married, Leovigild appointed him viceroy or governor
of part of his kingdom, probably the province of
Baetica, where he resided in Seville, the capital.Here
he came under the combined influence of his wife and
of Leander, afterwards bishop of Seville, a most able and
persuasive champion of the Catholic faith. The an-
nouncement of his conversion to the orthodox Church
followed in the same year.
The significance of this step was greater than be-
longs, at first sight, to the simple change of creed. In
the political situation of the kingdom the transfer of
the allegiance of the heir apparent from the Arian to
the Catholic confession both involved and proclaimed a
withdrawal of his allegiance to the king. This ecclesiasti-
cal defection was necessarily accompanied by a political
rebellion. All the elements of opposition in the country
.
1 Joann. Bicl. Ann. ii. Tiberii,“ extinctis undique tyrannis, et ::
pervasoribus Hispaniae superatis sortitus requiem propria cum pace
resedit."
2 Joann. Bicl. Ann. iii. Tib., "provinciae partem ad regnandam
tribuit”; Greg. Tur. v. 39, “ dedit eis unam de civitatibus, in qua
residentes regnarent.”
3 Greg. Magn. Dial. iii. 31: "Sicut multorum, qui ab Hispani-
arum partibus veniunt, relatione cognovimus, nuper Hermenegildus
rex ab Ariana haeresi ad fidem Catholicam Leandro praedicante
conversus est.” So Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. v. 39.
200
The Gothic Church in Spain.
would rejoice at the new prospects opened up by the
conversion of Hermenegild; orthodox neighbouring
princes, Roman provincials mindful of their conquered
state, Catholic clergy determined with iron will to use
every means to root out the detested heresy, Gothic
nobles smarting under the bonds and strokes of disci-
pline, one and all regarded the new convert as the hope
and mainstay of their cause.
To Leovigild himself there was but one course open
at this time. His former policy of toleration was no
longer tenable; and between the two extremes of in-
tolerant Arianism and intolerant Catholicism, he had
no longer any choice. Even if he had ever been
inclined to consider the advisability of submitting to
the Catholic party, the action of his son had made such a
step henceforward impossible. If the success and com-
parative ease with which his second son and successor
carried out that course might lead us to think that
Leovigild would have been wiser had he recognised the
fatal hopelessness of prolonging the struggle, we have
only to remind ourselves how the national pride of
the king, and the injured pride of the father, would
certainly outweigh counsels which could only appeal
to a far-sighted politician in his coolest mood. From
this time forward his policy in Church matters was one
D
creed of the country to the destruction of the Catholic
Church, which, either by force or by persuasion, should
Into the details of the political strife which followed
the conversion of Hermenegild we do not require to
enter. The son became a rebel by the very force of
:
Attempt to form a Single State-Church. 201
circumstances. After a prolonged struggle the father
prevailed, Hermenegild surrendered, and was exiled to
Valentia. A year later (585) he was imprisoned at
Tarragona, and there put to death. Whether his father
was directly responsible for his death cannot be ascer-
tained. The principal chronicler is unaccountably silent
on this point; but public opinion a few years later was
obviously against Leovigild. The Catholic Church ac-
knowledged Hermenegild as one of her martyrs when
he was canonised by a decree of Pope Sixtus VI. .
Leovigild had succeeded in crushing the rebellion
headed by his son, but his attempt to undermine the
Catholicism, from whose support the rebellion had derived
its strength, met with very partial and transient success.
Keeping firmly in view this one end, the absorption,
voluntary or compulsory, of the Catholic in the Arian
Church of his kingdom, he used all the means that
offered to that end. He pursued alternately, or it might
be simultaneously, a policy of coercion and of conciliation.
He has been branded as a cruel persecutor; and were we
called upon to accept in all its details the picture drawn
by Gregory of Tours, the justice of the charge could
hardly be denied. But in the vagueness of this writer's
authority, in the obvious connexion of the passage with
the account of Gosvintha, which is drawn up with
. 1 Joann. Bicl. Ann. iii. Maur., “in urbe Tarraconensi a Sisberto
interficitur.”
2 Fully discussed in Görres, Untersuchungen, p. 59.
3 Hist. Franc. v. 39: “Magna eo anno in Hispaniis Christianis
persecutio fuit, multique exsiliis dati, facultatibus privati, fame
decocti, carcere mancipati, verberibus affecti, ac diversis suppliciis
trucidati sunt."
202
The Gothic Church in Spain.
unsparing, perhaps unscrupulous, hostility, and in the
absence of corroboration for the details, we may find
good grounds. to suppose that the picture is over-
drawn. There is no evidence whatever of a general
persecution of the Catholics.
The king's coercive measures affected mainly, if not
exclusively, the higher clergy; •and for checking the
activity of these he could plead such justification in
their political conduct as might well acquit him of
the charge of religious persecution. Leander, wbom he
sent into exile, had been the instrument of the con-
version of Hermenegild, and indirectly the cause of
the civil war that inevitably followed. During that
war he had even journeyed to Constantinople to invoke,
on behalf of the rebels, the help of the Byzantine
emperor. Fronirnius, bishop of Agde, escaped out of the
dominions of Leovigild, either at the instance of an
accusing conscience, or because he heard that Leovigild
had sent out assassins to slay him. Against two other
prominent men, whom the king banished from their
respective cities, there is no suspicion of complicity in
the rebellion or of political disaffection. But Mausona
of Merida and Joannes, afterwards of Valclara, were both
Goths by birth, and nothing was likely to embitter the
king more than to find his policy checked by the
apostacy, as it seemed to him, of his own subjects.
1 Dahn v. 141: “Die von Leovigild in dieser Zeit nothwendig
verhängte Verfolgung der Kirche hat man sehr übertrieben;"
vi. 366, “ theils Nothwehr, theils Ausübung des Strafrechts.”
2 Greg. Magn. lib. mor. in lib. Job. praefatio. See esp. Görres,
Untersuchungen, p. 103.
3 Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ix. 24.
Leovigild as “ Persecutor."
203
Leovigild had made great efforts to bring over Mausona
to the Arian side; and when they failed, he sent one
Sunna, a violent upholder of Arianism, to be bishop in
the same see. Fierce disputes naturally followed, and
on the representation or misrepresentation of Sunna,
Mausona was banished to Complutum. 'One other case
of persecution was charged against Leovigild. A cleric,
whose name is not known, is said to have been first
tempted with bribes, and then, as he would not submit,
put to the torture by Leovigild, and actually beaten to
death in his presence. This is a good example of the
evidence on which exaggerated reportså of the cruelties
of the persecution are based. The story as it stands,
even in Gregory, is that the man rejected the king's offer
saying, “I abhor thy gifts as filth”. ; whereupon
Leovigild ordered him to be scourged; but so far was
he.from being killed (and this is the only instance that
can be alleged as evidence of bloody persecution)—“he
departed rejoicing, and returned to Gaul.”
Leovigild is further charged with appropriating to
the public treasury Church revenues, and annulling the
immunities of the clergy. And this is confirmed by the
statement made by two authorities, that Reccared, his
1 The story is told with much fanatical exaggeration by Paull.
Emerit. 12, 14, 17. See Görres in Zeitsch. für wissentsch. Theolo-
gie, 1885.
. 2 Greg. Tur: de Glor. Mart., i. 82.
. 3 e.g. Maimbourg, ii. 245; Revillout, p. 237 : “Il fit assassiner
les plus redoubtables (des évêques] et se débarassa de presque tous
les autres par l'exil; il détruisit les priviléges des églises et s'empara
de leurs revenus, les laissant ainsi sans chefs et sans pouvoir."
. 4 Isid. Hist. Goth. aera 606, “ecclesiarum reditus et privilegia
abstulit.”
204
The Gothic Church in Spain.
WC
son, restored to the Church the estates which his father
had impounded. But the persecution of Leovigild
resolves itself into the banishment from their sees of
certain violent and intriguing Catholics, and the con-
fiscation for public use of certain Church property. .
On the other hand, Leovigild never ceased to shew
to the shrines and offices of the Catholic Church the
respect which was due from all Christians. Those who
accused him of being a barbarous persecutor, taunted
him also with hypocrisy because he offered prayers at
the shrines of the martyrs, and in the Catholic churches.?
Nor did he hesitate to make known his own faith in a
form which shewed the distinction between the Catholic
and the so-called Arian faith narrowed to a single point.
A Frankish ambassador to the court of Leovigild informed
Gregory of Tours that the king proclaimed his faith in
Christ, the Son of God, as “equal with the Father; but
the Holy Spirit I do not believe to be God; because he.
is not said in any of the Holy Scriptures to be God.”
This admission of the equality of the Son may have
been a momentary concession of the king, and is not to
be taken as defining the position of the Gothic Church
in Spain. For it is at variance with another passage in
Gregory, where one of the acts of persecution is repre-
sented as beginning with an entreaty of the king to a
Catholic that he would confess both the Son and the
Spirit to be inferior to the Father. It is also a departure
from the creed of Ulfilas, hitherto so unflinchingly
maintained by the Goths; and if such a concession had
i Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. vi. 18. “Sed rex novo nunc ingenio
· eam [catholicam fidem] nititur exturbare, dum dolose et ad sepulcra
martyrum et in ecclesiis religionis nostrae orare confingit."
Conformity Facilitated.
205
been permanent or general it would certainly have been
formulated at the Council of Toledo, where so great a
stride towards unity could not have been overlooked."
For apart from a personal attitude, thus ostentatiously
friendly to the well-disposed Catholics, the king took
public measures also to bring about an absorption of the
Catholics in the Arian Church. One of the obstacles
which hindered the admission to the Arian Church of
Catholics, otherwise disposed to conform, was the
requisition that the new converts should submit to
re-baptism. This had always been a serious check on
the growth of the Arian Church, and Leovigild resolved
that it should be removed. Accordingly he summoned
a council of Arian bishops and clergy? with some or all
of the Gothic notables to meet at Toledo, and from them
he procured a decree that, “Converts from the Roman
faith to our Catholic faith need not be baptized; but
require only to be purified by the laying on of hands
and partaking of communion, and to give glory to the
Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost.” In this
way was the obnoxious formality dispensed with, and
the transfer of allegiance from the one confession to the
other made to look as insignificant and to be as
.
1 See Görres, Leovigild's Stellung, p. 560. Maimbourg, Hist. of
Arianism (transl.) ii. p. 287, asserts that this was actually proclaimed
by Leovigild’s Council; but he quotes no authority, nor can I find such.
2 Joann. Bicl. Ann. iv. Tib.: “Synodum episcoporum sectae
Arianae congregat, et antiquam haeresim novello errore emendat
dicens de Romana religione venientes ad nostram Catholicam non
debere baptizari." See Helfferich, Westg., 5; Dahn v. 142. The
horror against the practice of re-baptism-"abominatio gehennae"-
can hardly have been universal; e.g. the chronicle of Fredegar
describes Reccared as admitted to the Catholic Church by baptism.
The Gothic Church in Spain.
perfunctory as possible. Great pressure was now brought
to bear on the Catholics to induce them to make use of
the new opportunity of making submission to the wish
of the king. No doubt bribes and cajoleries were freely
employed, and a certain specious and temporary success
was obtained. Large numbers of Catholics, both clergy
and laity, passed over to the Arian side,' and one of the
bishops, Vincent of Saragossa, was found among the
converts.
It is clear that this council at Toledo was the master
stroke of Leovigild's ecclesiastical policy. It caused
disunion and uncertainty in the Catholic camp, and
probably lightened effectively the task of suppressing
the rebellion. But although large numbers of individual
Catholics may have been gained to the Arian Church,
Leovigild was as far as ever from achieving his main
object. This policy, at once the boldest and the most
cunning which a Gothic king had yet devised to meet
his inherited difficulty, produced but little result in the
direction of union of the discordant elements, or con-
solidation of the kingdom. The attempt to arrive at a
fair idea of the relations between the two parties,
Catholics and Arians, to recover traces of their re-
spective standards—intellectual, moral, and doctrinal-
is checked in this province of Gothic history, as in
others, by the entire absence of material for estimating
one party from their own works, and the consequent
1 Joann. Bicl. 1.c.: “per hanc ergo seductionem plurimi
nostrorum cupiditate potius impulsi in Arianum dogma declinat.”
Isid. Hist. Goth. aera 124: "plerosque sine persecutione illectos auro
rebusque decepit . . . . . et non solum ex plebe, sed etiam ex
sacerdotalis ordinis dignitate, sicut Vincentium Caesaraugustanum,"
&c. See Görres Leovigild's Stellung, p. 568.
The Arian Council of Toledo.
207
impossibility of viewing the relation from more than
one side. With the single exception of the record
of the Council of Toledo just referred to, the Gothic
Arianism of Spain has not left any literary monument
of its existence. Yet it is impossible to believe that a
century and a half of Gothic occupation had passed
without producing some literary fruit, or that the con-
troversy which raged through all these years left no
monument in the shape of polemical pamphlets and
tractates. What became of the liturgies, the copies of
the version of Ulfilas, the commentaries, of which we
had a specimen in the Skeireins, the apologies and
expositions of the Arian creed, and the Church records?
The entire disappearance of all these records of the
existence of an Arian .Church could only be ascribed to
an organised and successful attempt to destroy every
trace of the heresy. So we are not surprised to find it
recorded that the next king, in the fresh ardour of
his conversion to Catholicism, ordered all the Arian
books to be gathered and handed over to him. They
were then piled together, set fire to, and consumed to
ashes.
The Gothic Church in Spain, like its sister-churches
elsewhere, has thus to be judged entirely on the
evidence of its opponents, and scrupulous fairness to an
adversary was not a common characteristic in church-
men of the sixth century. Nevertheless, we may get a
glimpse of the character of the Arianism upheld by the
I Fredegar, Chronicon. C. viii.: “Omnes libros Arianos
[Richaridus] praecepit ut sibi praesententur: quos in una domo
collocatos incendio concremare jussit.” See Görres, Leovigild's
Stellung, p. 555; Dahn iv. 367; aliter Aschbach, p. 224.
208
The Gothic Church in Spain.
Spanish Church, and of the arguments by which they
defended it, from two interesting passages from Gregory
of Tours. He describes, at some length, the discussions
which he held with two several ambassadors of Leovi-
gild to Chilperic, who had halted at Tours on their
journey. The bishop naturally gives greater prominence
to his own share in the conversations, and perhaps
states his own case with more force than that of his
collocutors, while he is not superior to the temptation to
depreciate both their natural ability and their accom-
plishments;? nevertheless, some valuable light is thrown
by these narratives on the Arianism of the time. Both
discussions are concerned with the old question of the
equality of the first and second Hypostases of the
Trinity. On the first occasion, Agila, the Arian
envoy, bases his position on the text “My Father
is greater than I”;3 on the sorrow of Jesus at the
approach of death, and on His commending His spirit
to the Father, “as though possessed of no power in
Himself”; and he concludes that “the Son is always
inferior to the Father.” To this the bishop replies
both with text and with argument; whereupon the
Arian turns the discussion to the question of the
equality of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead. “The
Holy Spirit, whom ye put forward as equal to the
Father and the Son, is regarded (by us) as inferior.
For no one promiseth except that which is subjected
to his control; and no one sendeth except one inferior
to himself,--as He Himself caith in the Gospel, “If I
i Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. v. 44; vi. 40.
2 " Virum nullius ingenii aut dispositionis ratione peritum."
3 John xiv. 28.
Discussions with Arian Clergy.
209
ITI
go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
if I go, I will send him unto you.” To this, again, the
bishop makes his reply, and the discussion is conducted
with calmness until the Catholic stirs the indignation of
the heretic by citing the death of Arius as a proof of
God's displeasure at his doctrine. “Blaspheme not the
law which thou dost not observe," he breaks in; “We,
who believe not what you believe, nevertheless blaspheme
not; for with us it is not accounted an offence to worship
this and that. For we say in our common speech, 'It is
no harm if a man, passing between heathen altars and
a church of God, make his reverence in both directions.'”
A conception of religion so broad as this passed the
apprehension of a bishop of the sixth century, who
began to adjure the heretic by the law and the prophets
to abandon so dangerous a creed, by professing his faith
in the Trinity, and receiving the benediction from his
own hands. Agila, however, angrily declared that he
would rather die than receive the benediction from
“any priest of your creed.” So the conversation broke
up, the bishop referring with great distinctness to the
saying about the pearls and the swine.
Oppila, the Arian champion in the second case,
began by announcing that he believed “what the
Catholics believe," by going to the Catholic church on
Easter Day, and attending the celebration of the mass.
But he refused to give the kiss of peace, or to partake
of the elements, and the bishop found that he had
uncloaked an Arian. At supper Gregory asked him
once more to state his belief, and why he did not com-
municate. He replied that it was because of the form
in which the Catholics repeated the Gloria, and pro-
14
210
The Gothic Church in Spain.
ceeded to maintain that the Arian form, “Glory to the
Father through the Son," was more scriptural. Where-
upon Gregory, at some lengtb, justifies the practice of
the Church in giving “Glory to the Son."
We observe in both these narratives, and especially
in the former, what has claimed our attention already,-
the strongly practical way in which the Arian theology
appealed to the Gothic. religious sense. The simple
texts, in which emphasis is laid on the human nature
and humiliation of Christ, were proof sufficient for them
of a scheme of subordination, which was recommended
already by its consonance with the principles of Teutonic
mythology. There is no trace here, or anywhere else
in the history of Gothic Arianism, of the speculations
based on the absolute Being, and Simplicity, of an unbe-
gotten God, or of other philosophical refinements into
which Arians, like Aetius and Eunomius, proceeded.
Both these narratives present to us a Church tenacious,
after two centuries of opposition and failure, of the
creed left to them by Ulfilas, yet willing to manifest, by
fellowship and common worship, how much they held
in common with their opponents. Theirs was a more
stunted creed, but they had worked out a larger
tolerance. It does seem a strange freak of language, or
perhaps a monument to the misrepresentations of their
adversaries and historians, that this nation should lend
its name (Wisigoth) to the modern tongues of Europe
as a synonym for religious intolerance— bigot.??.
Leovigild survived his elder son but one year,
during which he met with some success in an attempt
1 Dahn: “ pas sans probabilité” (Littré); so "cagot” = "canis
Gothicus” (Littré, Dahn).
(D
Death of Leovigild..
.
211
to recall his new subjects, the Suevi, to their former
Arian faith. The Catholic writers have a story about
a deathbed repentance for the murder of his son, and
submission to the Catholic Church with which he had
struggled so long. But the report, which, when it first
appears, is admittedly based on rumour only, finds no
countenance in the best contemporary annalists, and
bears on the face of it the stamp of improbability. The
source of the story may readily be found in the desire
of the new king, his successor, and his councillors, to
throw down something to bridge the chasm over which
they were about to step and lead the Gothic people.
A well-circulated report of Leovigild's repentance and
conversion would do much to soften the severity of the
change, when his creed and his policy came to be
condemned and abandoned, and would weaken the will
of the Arians to resist this new departure. In fact, this
application of the story peeps out from Gregory's report,
in which the repentant king adjures his hearers “ that
no one may be found adhering to that heresy.” But
the report of such a conversion is implicitly condemned
by one of the contemporary records, wherein Paul of
Merida, after describing the death of the king, contem-
plates with amiable satisfaction the doom of his soul
· Evidence and examination in Görres, Leovigild's Stellung,
p. 584.
2 Greg. Mag. Dial. iii. 31, and Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. viii. 26.
Accepted by Maimbourg ii. 286, with reserve by Revillout, 248;
rejected by Aschbach, 216; Dahn v. 156; Görres, Leovigild's
Stellung, 590.
3 Greg. Tur. 1.c.: "ut quidam asserunt, poenitentiam pro errore
heretico agens, et obtestans ne huic haeresi quisquam reperiretur
consentaneus.”
212
Vo
The Gothic Church VI
.
.
in Spain“ to suffer the everlasting tortures of Erebus," and to
“boil in waves of bubbling pitch."1
Leovigild was succeeded by Reccared, the younger
brother of the murdered Hermenegild. This prince,
who had more of the character of a diplomatist than
that of a warrior, cut the knot which his predecessors
had struggled so long to undo, by abandoning the
Arianism which had so long entangled their steps, and
making full submission to the Catholic Church. That
he was already secretly a Catholic before the death of
his father is, in the light of his relation to his brother,
very improbable. But the experience of a few months
of government, added to the knowledge of affairs which
he had gained during his father's life-time, convinced
him that any attempt to follow up the lines of his
father's policy would end in failure. In the tenth
month of his reign Reccared professed himself a Catho-
lic, and was admitted to the Church by the rite of
Confirmation.
i Paull. Emerit. xvi. This writer's rancour against Leovigild
and the Arians is almost incredible. Two examples out of many :
c. xi.-" Crudelissimus tyrannus, vas irae fomesque vitiorum, ac
frutex damnationis.” c. xvi.—“Igitur cum non praesset sed obes-
set, magis perderet quam regeret, Leovigildus Hispaniam.” For a
just and appreciative estimate of the king's career, see Revillout, p.
248. In ecclesiastical matters : "Il ne su jamais comprendre l'esprit
religieux de son temps, et provoqua un pouvoir auquel appartenait
l'avenir.”
» Aliter Aschbach, p. 222, with those who hold the king's mother
to have been a Catholic, Theodosia.
3 Joann. Bicl. Ann. v. Maur.:"primo regni sui anno mense
X. Catholicus Deo juvante efficitur." Greg. Tur. ix. 15: “se Catho-
licae legi subdidit, et accepto signaculo beatae crucis cum chrisma-
retur unctione, credidit Dominum Jesum Christum aequalem Patri.”
Conversion of Reccared..
213
While making all due allowance for the reality and
influence of his personal conversion, it is fair to observe
what considerations of policy would combine with
growing conviction to urge upon him this step. The
church-policy of Leovigild bad met with that compara-
tive success which is little better than absolute failure.
The Arian Church was still far from outnumbering its
rival in adherents, and markedly inferior to it in the
culture of its clergy and in intensity of purpose. The
best reply to the charge of barbarous persecution
against the late king was the present state of affairs.
If he had really executed so many bishops and banished
all the rest, how came it that the sees were full at
his death? It was, no doubt, a great grievance that,
in many dioceses, he set up Arian bishops alongside of
the Catholic ones; but it would be strange to insist
upon this charge if he had already slain or banished
all the latter. Leovigild's enticing methods had more
effect, and withdrew not a few Catholics from the
Church; but these were her weakest members, and, as
a power in the State, Leovigild left the Catholic Church
nearly as he found it, but with all the added prestige of
persecution. Moreover, the creed which they cherished
exposed the Goths to an isolation from help and sym-
pathy, which, as they settled down into a civilised state,
must have been very irritating to an ambitious king.
But nothing was so effective to open the eyes of
a ruler to the disadvantage of adhesion to the heretic
creed as the ambition to found a dynasty; nothing, on
the other hand, so calculated to display the advantages
of alliance with the Catholic Church. In the absence.
of any acknowledged hereditary claim to the throne
214
The Gothic Church in Spain.
the ruler in the Gothic State for the time being was at
best "prinus inter pares.” The nobles who had chosen
him, or suffered him to usurp the crown, held a position
that bordered dangerously near on independence. Leovi-
gild had spent the first ten years of his reign in a con-
tinuous struggle to establish his royal authority over
these vassals in name, but rivals in effect. It was a
mark of his success that his son succeeded unchallenged
to the throne. But the new king, knowing with whom
he had to deal, and shrewdly casting about for an alliance
to strengthen the power of the crown, would naturally
set his eye on the Catholic Church. He would observe
how strong it was in that highly developed organisation
which has always proved so elastic, yet so unbreakable,
a framework. He would perceive, too, that in the
growing influence of the papacy, the centralisation of
Christianity at Rome, and the continuity and coherence
which followed for the Church at large, there was
promise of ever-increasing power for the Catholic
Church in Spain. Compared with this widely ramified
and highly organised system, the Arian Church had
nothing to offer by way of support to the throne. The
position of entire dependence on the king which Ger-
man tradition imposed upon it, checked all independent
growth. It could offer no profitable alliance to the
king, who was already its head. Some influence, too,
must be allowed to the character and cultivation of
the Catholic clergy compared with their rivals. How-
ever good Christians the Gothic clergy might be, yet, as
men of the world, they were no match for highly-trained
cosmopolitans, of whom Leander is a type; and in being
reconciled to the Church, Reccared would not only
Considerations leading to the Conversion.
215
IT
DY
secure the alliance and support of the only organised
power which could balance the influence of the nobles,
but he would also obtain for himself and his house the
counsel and support of the most polished intellects and
most highly-trained statesmen of his kingdom.
The public announcement of the conversion of the
king was variously received by different sections of the
nation. The most thoughtful and observant must have
been ripe for the change; the careless would follow
indifferently where the king was pleased to lead.
Hence we are told that, when Reccared summoned
the Arian clergy to meet him, and “in a wise address ”.
expounded his new views, he readily overcame their
scruples, and induced a large number of them to follow
the example which he had set. Many of the nobility
also followed in the steps of the king and the clergy,
and more tardily, but not less surely, the common folk
were gathered in. The Catholic Church wisely refrained
from requiring re-baptism, and converts were admitted
by the laying-on of bands. Confirmation of the
rumoured repentance and conversion of Leovigild would
be given by the execution at this time of Sisbert,
who had been instrumental in the death of Hermene-
gild. Whether Leovigild were really guilty of the death
of his son, or had it unjustly imputed to him, the
execution of this official, who was said to have acted
..
1 Joann. Biel. Ann. v. Maur.: “Sacerdotes sectae Arianae
ratione potius quam imperio converti ad Catholicam fidem facit."
“Secuti dominum nostrum ad dei ecclesiam transivimus," say the
Gothic bishops at the Council of Toledo.
2 Joann. Bicl. 1.c.: "Sisbertus interfector Hermenigildi morte
turpissima perimitur.”
216
The Gothic Church in Spain.
on authority, was an indication of Reccared's having
utterly broken with his father's policy, and a shock to
the Arian party.
On the other hand, opposition to the new de-
parture, and that of a strenuous kind, was not
wanting. Many of the bishops and clergy were not
prepared so hastily to give up their cherished creed.
Many of the nobles viewed this momentous step
of Reccared, not unnaturally, as a breaking with the
national tradition as well as with the national creed,
and a betrayal of the national consciousness to the
ambition of the royal house. No less than three
distinct risings took place in different parts of the
country; each of these was headed by a bishop of the
Arian Church. The most serious was one that broke
out in Narbonne, where Athalocus and two of the
nobles threw off their allegiance, and, with support from
the Burgundian Franks, made war on the Catholics of
the province. At the opposite end of the kingdom
Sunna, Leovigild's bishop of Merida, with Segga and
Witterich, headed a conspiracy of determined Arians,
whose object was to dethrone Reccared and replace him
by Segga. Still a third rising occurred in the same
year. The king's step-mother, Gosvintha, after momen-
tarily conforming with the faith of her son, joined an
Arian bishop, Uldila, in alliance with the Franks, to
attempt to dethrone Reccared and restore Arianism.
But the prompt measures taken by the king were
sufficient to repress these risings, one by one, before
they became really formidable. Athalocus died, it was
said, of a broken heart; Gosvintha died, either by her
own hand or by the sword of the executioner; Sunna,
Revolts against Reccared's new Policy.
217
made prisoner, and offered pardon and replacement in a
bishopric, if he would repent and renounce his Arian
error, indignantly refused, saying: “Repentance I know
not, and a Catholic I will never be; but in the form in
which I have lived I will live, or for the religion
in which I have remained from my earliest years I will
most gladly die." He withdrew into exile in Africa,
and with his departure the Arian-Gothic Church ceased
to exist.
There remained only to write its epitaph, and to
ratify the conversion of its members. This was done in
589, when Reccared summoned a general council of the
Catholic Church in his dominions to meet at Toledo.?
At the first sitting of the council the king addressed the
members, recalling the long period during which Spain
had “struggled with the errors” of heresy, and the
change which had been beneficially.effected since his
accession, and recommending them to take measures
for the restoration of discipline, which had suffered from
long disuse. On another day the king again appeared,
and delivered, to be read to the council, a written
document in the form of a speech from the throne. In
this he set forth, at great length, a statement of his
own faith, and concluded by reciting the creeds of Nicaea
and “Constantinople, and the Formula of Chalcedon.
their assent by affixing their signatures.
Then followed a public recantation of their errors by
1 Paull. Emerit. c. xviii.
2 Mansi ix. 977; Dahn vi. 425.
3 This “ tomus” was ordered to be prefixed to the Acta of the
Council.
218
The Gothic Church in Spain.
the Gothic clergy and the noble laics, who had been
present at Leovigild's council. in 580, and had subscribed
to the “detestabilis libellus,” then drawn up and
promulgated “for the perversion of Romans to the
Arian heresy."! This recantation and profession of the
orthodox faith is signed by eight formerly Arian bishops,
and was subscribed also by " the rest of the presbyters
and deacons who were converted from the Arian heresy," 2
and by several of the nobles. In the two and twenty
anathemas which they were called on to pronounce,
they condemned, besides Arius and all his adherents
with their works, the “detestabilis libellus” of Leovigild
and the “sacrilegious practice of re-baptism." The
canons of the council, which then proceeded with its
work, deal chiefly with discipline. In connexion with
the repentant Arians, it was ordained that their clergy
should put away the wives, whom they had been
suffered by their former discipline to take, and that
the Arian church-edifices should pass into the hands
of the Catholic bishops, in whose dioceses they were
severally situated. It would appear that those bishops
and presbyters of the Arian Church who made their
submission on this occasion were received into the
ranks of the Catholic clergy.
The second Council of Saragossa, which met three
years later, decreed that “presbyters who have been
1 Conc. Tolet. III. Anath. xvi.: “Quicunque libellum detestabilem
duodecimo anno Leovigildi a nobis editum, in quo continetur
Romanorum ad haeresem Arianam transductio,' etc.
2 Conc. Tolet. III.; Mansi ix. p. 979.
3 Ibid. Can. v. .
4 Ibid. Can. ix.
Councils of Toledo and Saragossa.
219
i
converted to the holy Catholic faith from the Arian
heresy, if they have maintained pure faith and holy
lives, are to be ordained afresh by the presbyterate, and
discharge their office in purity and holiness." Those
who had failed to fulfil these conditions, were to be
deposed from their office. The same rule was to apply
to deacons also. This council further decreed that
“all relics of the Arian heresy," wherever they might
be found, should be handed over by the clergy of the
Church where they were discovered to the bishop, that
they might be “ tried by fire,” an ordeal which we have
seen reason to suppose that none of them survived.
The offence of concealing any such relics was punished
by excommunication. Finally, all churches which had
been consecrated by Arian bishops were to be conse-
crated anew by the Catholic. In this way the Council
of Saragossa took measures not only to eradicate the
Arian heresy, but also to blot out all traces of its exist-
ence,-so completing the work of the Council of Toledo.
It was surely fitting that one of the acknowledged
leaders at the great Council of the Conversion should
be Leander, the great bishop of Seville, who saw now
the consummation of his life's work in the conversion of
the Gothic conquerors of Spain, and the union of
. Conc. Caesar Aug. II. i.: "Accepto denuo benedictione presby-
teratus.”
2 This admission of converted heretics to the orders of the
Church was in contradiction to the decision of the Synod of Elvira
(Can. li.). “Ex omni haerese fidelis si venerit, minime est ad
clerum promovendus: vel si qui sunt in praeteritum ordinati sine
dubio deponantur.” See Dale, Synod of Elvira, p. 79.
3 Conc. Caesar Aug. II. ii., “ut reliquiae de Ariana haeresi ....
igne probentur.”
220
The Gothic Church in Spain.
“Romans” and “barbarians” under the banner of the
Catholic Church.
The last of the Gothic Churches was now extinct.
Its members had been absorbed within the great organi-
sation which covered Southern Europe from Byzantium
to Cadiz with a network of Christian influence. The
struggle to maintain an independent existence had been
a long one; but the Arians had had the losing side
since the death of Valens. The causes of their failure
lie on the surface of the foregoing account, but may be
briefly summed up. The faultiness and inadequacy of
their system of Christian doctrine was of course at the
base of their defeat. To this was added-weakness of
organisation compared with the complete and elaborate
system of their opponents; the entire dependence of the
clergy on the court, which was traditional since the
time of Valens and a fundamental characteristic of
Teutonic society; the stern and unyielding opposition
of the Catholic Church, bearing upon Arianism both
directly, and indirectly through the government, with
irresistible pressure; and, finally, the lack of men of
conspicuous ability and commanding influence. It is
true that the proper records of the Church were lost at
its downfall, and we know its leaders not at all, or
only through the pages of their adversaries. Neverthe-
less, it is a striking and suggestive fact that, so far
as we know, there appeared only once in the Gothic
Church a man of grandeur, and a true leader of men.
But the influence of that man for good and for evil
moulded the destiny of his people for more than two
hundred years.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX.
AUTHORITIES CONNECTED WITH LIFE OF ULFILAS.
1. PHILOSTORGIUS, Hist. Eccl. 11. 5:
Ulfilas brings across the Danube a great body of .persecuted
people-origin of their Christianity-captives from Gothic inroads
-Ulfilas descended from Cappadocian captives—how he came to be
bishop-he invents Gothic letters and translates the Scriptures
except the books of Kings—a favourite with the emperor-“the
Moses of our age.” .
"Οτι Ούρφίλαν φησί κατά τούτους τους χρόνους εκ των πέραν
"Ιστρου Σκυθών, ούς οι μέν πάλαι Γέτας, οι δε νυν Γότθους
καλούσι, πολύν εις την Ρωμαίων διαβιβάσαι λαόν, δι' ευσέβειαν
εκ των οικείων ηθών ελαθέντας χριστιανίσαι δε το έθνος τρόπο
τοιωδε. βασιλεύοντος Ουαλεριανού και Γαλλιηνού, μοίρα Σκυ-
θών βαρεία των πέραν του "Ιστρου διέβησαν εις την Ρωμαίων.
και πολλήν μεν κατέδραμον της Ευρώπης" διαβάντες δε και είς
την Ασίαν, τήν τε Γαλατίαν, και την Καππαδοκίαν επήλθον, και
πολλούς έλαβον αιχμαλώτους, άλλους τε και των κατειλεγμένων
τω κλήρω" και μετά πολλής λείας απεκομίσθησαν οίκαδε. ο δε
αιχμάλωτος και ευσεβής όμιλος συναστραφέντες τους βαρβάροις,
ουκ ολίγους τε αυτών είς τό ευσεβές μεταποίησαν, και τα χριστιανών
φρονείν αντί της Ελληνίδος δόξης παρασκεύασαν. ταύτης της
αιχμαλωσίας γεγόνεσαν και οι Ούρφίλα πρόγονοι, Καππαδόκαι
μέν γένος, πόλεως δε πλησίον Παρνασσού, εκ κώμης δε Σαδαγολ-
θινά καλουμένης. ο τοίνυν Ούρφίλας ούτος καθηγήσατο της
εξόδου των ευσεβών, επίσκοπος αυτών πρώτος καταστάς κατέστη
δε ώδε. παρά του την αρχήν άγοντος του έθνους επί των Κων-
σταντίνου χρόνων είς πρεσβείαν συν άλλοις αποσταλείς-και γάρ
• και τα τη δε βάρβαρα έθνη υπεκέκλιτο τη βασιλεί-υπό Ευσεβίου
224
Appendix.
και των συν αυτώ επισκόπων χειροτονείται των εν τη Γετική
χριστιανιζόντων, και τα τε αλλά αυτών επεμελείτο, και γραμ-
μάτων αυτούς οικείων ευρετης καταστάς, μετέφρασεν εις την αυτών
φωνήν τας γραφάς απάσας, πλήν γε δη των βασιλειών, άτε των
μεν πολέμων ιστορίαν έχουσών, του δε έθνους όντος φιλοπολέμου,
και δεομένου μάλλον χαλινού της επί τας μάχας ορμής, αλλ'
ουχί του προς ταύτα παροξύνοντος όπερ ισχύν έχει ταυτα
ποιείν, σεβάσμιά τε μάλιστα νομιζόμενα, και προς την του θείου
θεραπείας τους πειθομένους καταρυθμίζοντα. ιδρύσατο δ' και
βασιλεύς τον αυτόμoλον τούτον λαόν περί τα της Μυσίας χωρία,
ως εκάστω φίλον ήν. και τον Ούρφίλαν διά πλείστης ηγε τιμής,
ως και πολλάκις ο εφ' ημών Μωσης λέγειν περί αυτού.
λίαν δε ούτος τον άνδρα θειάζει, και της αιρετικής αυτού δόζης
εραστήν αυτόν τε και τους υπ' αυτόν αναγράφει.
ως πάστα Φιλονόμολον του κι
2. THE LAST JOURNEY OF ULFILAS TO CONSTANTINOPLE :
Vid. supra, pp. 36–-44, and p. 138; Bessell, Ulfilas, p. 34
seq. The account of his master's last journey, given by
Auxentius, is much defaced in the MS. of Waitz. With the
lacunae filled up according to the conjectures of Bessell, it
would read thus: “Qui cum precepto imperiali, conpletis
quadraginta annis (scil. espiscopatus) ad Constantinopolitanam
urbem ad disputationem . .. . . contra p[sathyropoli]stas
perrexit et eundo in [dni di n nomine ne xpi eccl]esias sibi a
x[po dedi]tas docerent et contestarentur, intrabat, et ingr[es-
sus in supradictam civitatem, recogitato ei im .... de statu
concilii, ne arguerentur miseris miserabiliores, proprio judicio
damnati, et perpetuo supplicio plectendi, statim coepit in-
firmari.”
The concluding passage in Waitz's MS. is important.
Palladius, addressing his opponent Ambrosius, challenges him
to a meeting and a public disputation between the Arians
and the Catholics on the points at issue; he concludes thus:
"Et quamvis Aucxenti ita meministi, ut non indicares, de
quo dixeris, utrum de superstite, id est Dorostorensi, an de
Mediolanensi, qui sine successore decessit, tamen scito tam
Appendix.
225
.... Palladium Ratiarensem, Auxentium inter ceteros con-
sortes, .sancto et omni reverentia digno ac fidelissimo doctori
Demofilo ubicumque examen haberi placuerit, Deo omnipo-
tente per unigenitum suum Jhesum dominum auxilium ferente,
glorioso ac salutari certamini non defuturos.
“Unde et cum sancto Hulfila ceterisque consortibus ad
alium comitatum Constantinopolim venissent, ibique etiam et
imperatores adissent, adque eis promissum fuisset concilium,
ut sanctus Auxentius exposuit, agnita promissione, prefati
prepositi heretici omnibus viribus institerunt, ut lex daretur,
quae concilium prohiberet, sed nec privatim in domo nec in
publico vel in quolibet loco disputatio de fide haberetur, sicut
textus indicat legis.” [Here follow the two decrees cited from
the Codex Theodosianus, ut supra, p. 41.]
11.
CONVERSION OF THE WISIGOTHS IN THE
HISTORIANS.
1. SoCRATES, Hist. Eccl. IV. 33, 34:
Strife between Athanaric and Frithigern-Frithigern, with aid
of Valens, victorious-Frithigern in gratitude becomes a Christian
and an Arian-Ulfilas invents Gothic letters, translates the Scrip-
tures, and teaches the people-persecution of Athanaric-interval of
peace-arrival of Huns-Valens permits Goths to settle in Dacia-
no mention of conditions.
Οι πέραν του "Ιστρου βάρβαροι οι καλούμενοι Γότθοι, έμφύ-
λιον προς εαυτούς κινήσαντες πόλεμον, εις δύο μέρη ετμήθησαν
ών του ενός ηγείτο Φριτιγέρνης, του δε ετέρου 'Αθανάριχος
επικρατεστέρου δε του Αθαναρίχου φανέντος, Φριτιγέρνης προσ-
φεύγει Ρωμαίοις, και την αυτών κατά του αντιπάλου επεκαλείτο
βοήθειαν. γνωρίζεται ταυτα τα βασιλεί Ουάλεντι και κελεύει
τους ενιδρυμένους κατά την Θράκην στρατιώτας, βοηθείν τοις
βαρβάροις κατά βαρβάρων στρατεύουσι και ποιούνται νίκην
κατά 'Αθαναρίχου πέραν του "Ιστρου, τους πολεμίους εις φυγήν
15
226
Appendix.
τρέψαντες. αύτη πρόφασις γέγονε του χριστιανούς γενέσθαι των
βαρβάρων πολλούς και γάρ Φριτιγέρνης χάριν αποδιδους ών
ευεργετείτο, την θρησκείας του βασιλέως ήσπάζετο, και τους υφ'
εαυτό τούτο ποιείν προετρέπετο· διό και μέχρι νυν πλείους οι
Γότθοι της 'Αρειανής θρησκείας όντες τυγχάνουσι, τότε διά τον
βασιλέα ταύτη προσθέμενοι. τότε δε και Ούλφίλας και των Γότθων.
επίσκοπος γράμματα εφεύρε Γοτθικά και τας θείας γραφάς εις
την Γότθων μεταβαλών, τους βαρβάρους μανθάνειν τα θεία λόγια
παρεσκεύασεν. επειδή δε Ουλφίλας ου μόνον τους υπό Φριτι-
γέρνην, αλλά και τους υπό 'Αθανάριχον ταττομένους βαρβάρους
τον χριστιανισμόν εξεδίδασκεν, ο Αθανάριχος ως παραχαραττο-
μένης της πατρώου θρησκείας, πολλούς των χριστιανιζόντων
τιμωρίαις υπέβαλλεν, ώστε γενέσθαι μάρτυρας τηνικαύτα βαρβά-
ρους αρειανίζοντας, αλλά 'Αρειος μέν προς την Σαβελλίου του
Λίβυος δόξαν απαντήσαι μη δυνηθείς της ορθής εξέπεσε πίστεως,
πρόσφατον θεόν τον υιόν του θεού δογματίσας: οι δε βάρβαροι,
απλότητι τον χριστιανισμόν δεξάμενοι, υπέρ της εις Χριστόν
πίστεως της ένταύθα ζωής κατεφρόνησαν" ταύτα μεν περί των
χριστιανιζόντων.
* Ουκ εις μακράν δε οι βάρβαροι φιλίαν προς αλλήλους σπεισά-
μενοι, αύθις υφ' ετέρων βαρβάρων γειτνιαζόντων αυτούς των
καλουμένων Ούννων καταπολεμηθέντες, και της ιδίας εξελαθέντες
χώρας, είς τήν Ρωμαίων γήν καταφεύγουσι, δουλεύειν τω
βασιλεί συντιθέμενοι, και τούτο πράττειν, όπερ άν ο Ρωμαίων
προστάξειε βασιλεύς. ταύτα εις γνώσιν ήκει του Ουάλεντος και
μηδέν προϊδόμενος, κελεύει τους ικετεύοντας οίκτου τυχεϊν, προς
εν τούτο μόνον οικτίρμων γενόμενος. αφορίζει ούν αυτοίς τα
μέρη της Θράκης, ευτυχείν τα μάλιστα επί τούτω νομίσας: ελογί-
ζετο δε ώς είη έτοιμος και ευτρεπές κτησάμενος κατά πολεμίων
στράτευμα ήλπιζε γάρ βαρβάρους Ρωμαίων φοβερωτέρους έσεσ-
θαι φύλακας, και διά τούτο ήμέλεια του λοιπού, τους Ρωμαίων
στρατιώτας αυξήσαι και τους μεν ήδη πάλαι στρατευομένους, και
κατά τους πολέμους γενναίως αγωνισαμένους υπερεώρα τον δε
συντελούμενον εκ των επαρχιών κατά κώμας στρατιώτην εξαργύ-
ρισεν, όγδοήκοντα χρυσίνους υπέρ εκάστου στρατιώτου τους
συντελεστές απαιτείσθαι κελεύσας, ου πρότερον τας συντελείας
κουφίσας αυτοίς. τούτο αρχή γέγονε του δυστυχήσαι τότε προς
όλίγον την Ρωμαίων αρχών.
Appendix.
227
2. SOZOMENUS, Hist. Eccl. vi. 37:
Goths driven in by Huns cross the Danube-legends concern-
ing the Huns--Gothic embassy to Valens-Ulfilas at the head of it
-Valens accedes to their request-n0 condition mentioned-strife
between Athanaric and Frithigern-Frithigern, with aid from
Valens, victorious—in gratitude he becomes a Christian and an
Arian, and persuades his people to do the same-this not the only
cause of Gothic Arianism-Ulfilas-first a Catholic-how he became
an Arian—his great influence-inventor of their letters and trans-
lator of the Scriptures—the cruel persecutions by Athanaric-details.
Γότθοι γαρ, οι δή πέραν "Ίστρου ποταμού το πρίν ώκουν,
και των άλλων βαρβάρων εκράτουν, εξελαθέντες παρά των
καλουμένων Ούννων, εις τους Ρωμαίων όρους επεραιώθησαν.
τούτο δε το έθνος, ώς φασιν, άγνωστον ήν προτού θραξί τοίς
παρά τον Ίστρον και Γότθοις αυτοίς: έλάνθανον δε προσοικούντες
άλλήλοις, καθότι λίμνης μεγίστης εν μέσω κειμένης, έκαστοι :
τέλος ξηράς ώοντο είναι την καθ' αυτούς οικουμένην" μετά τούτο
δε θάλασσαν και ύδωρ απέραντον. συμβάν δε βουν οιστρoπλήγα
διαδραμείν την λίμνην, επηκολούθησε βουκόλος και την αντιπέ-
ραν γήν θεασάμενος, ήγγειλε τους ομοφύλοις, άλλοι δε λέγουσιν,
ως έλαφος διαφυγουσα, τισί των Ούννων θηρώσιν επέδειξε τήνδε
την οδον, εξ επιπολής καλυπτομένην τοίς ύδασι τους δε τότε
μέν υποστρέψαι, θαυμάσαντας την χώραν, αέρι μετριώτερον, και
γεωργία ήμερον έχουσαν" και το κρατούντι του έθνους άγγείλαι
α εθεάσαντο δι' ολίγων δε τα πρώτα καταστήναι εις πείραν τοίς
Γότθοις' μετά δε ταύτα, πανσυδεί επιστρατεύσαι, και μάχη κρατή-
σαι, και πάσαν την αυτων γην κατασχεϊν τους δε διωκομένους,
είς την Ρωμαίων περαιωθήναι και τον ποταμόν διαβάντας,
πρέσβεις πέμψαι προς βασιλέα, συμμάχους του λοιπου έσεσθαι
σφας υπισχνουμένους, και δεομένους συγχωρείν αυτοίς ή
βούλoιντο κατοικείν ταύτης δε της πρεσβείας άρξαι Ούλφίλαν,
τον του έθνους επίσκοπον κατά γνώμην δε αυτούς προχωρησάσης,
επιτραπήναι ανά την Θράκην οικείν' ού πολλώ δε ύστερον προς
σφάς αυτούς στασιάσαντας, διχη διαιρεθήναι: ηγείτο δε των μεν
'Αθανάριχος, των δε Φριτιγέρνης. έπει δε προς αλλήλους επολέ-
μησαν, κακώς πράξας έν τη μάχη Φριτιγέρνης, εδείτο Ρωμαίων
βοηθείν αυτό του δε βασιλέως επιτρέψαντος βοηθείν και συμμα-
228
Appendix.
χεϊν αυτό τους εν Θράκη στρατιώτας, αύθις συμβαλών ενίκησε, και
τους αμφί 'Αθανάριχον εις φυγήν έτρεψεν. ώσπερ δε χάριν αποδι-
δούς Ουάλεντι, και διά πάντων φίλος είναι πιστούμενος, εκοινώ-
νησε της αυτού θρησκείας και τους πειθομένους αυτω βαρβάρους
έπειθεν ώδε φρονείν, ου τούτο δε μόνον οίμαι αίτιον γέγονεν,
εισέτι νυν παν το φύλον προστεθήναι τοίς τα 'Αρείου δοξάζουσιν
αλλά γάρ και Ούλφίλας και παρ' αυτούς τότε ιερωμένος, τα μεν
πρώτα ουδέν διεφέρετο προς την καθόλου εκκλησίαν επί δε
της Κωνσταντίου βασιλείας, απερισκέπτως οίμαι μετασχών τοίς
αμφί Ευδόξιον και Ακάκιον της εν Κωνσταντινουπόλει συνόδου,
διέμεινε κοινωνών τους ιερεύσι των εν Νικαία συνελθόντων ως
δε εις Κωνσταντινούπολιν αφίκετο, λέγεται διαλεχθέντων αυτω
περί του δόγματος των προεστώτων της 'Αρειανής αιρέσεως,
και την πρεσβείαν αυτό συμπράξεις προς βασιλέα υποσχο-
μένων, ει ομοίως αυτοίς δοξάζοι, βιασθείς υπό της χρείας,
ή και αληθώς νομίσας άμεινον ούτω περί θεου φρονείν, τοίς
'Αρείου κοινωνήσαι, και αυτόν και το παν φύλον αποτεμεΐν της
καθόλου εκκλησίας. υπό διδασκάλω γάρ αυτώ παιδευθέντες οι
Γότθοι τα προς ευσέβειαν, και δι' αυτού μετασχόντες πολιτείας
ημερωτέρας, πάντα ραδίως αυτό επείθοντο" πεπεισμένοι μηδέν
είναι φαύλον των παρ αυτου λεγομένων ή πραττομένων άπαντα
δε συντελείν εις χρήσιμον τοίς ζηλουσιν. ου μην αλλά και
πλείστην δέδωκε πειραν της αυτού αρετής μυρίους μέν υπομείνας
κινδύνους υπέρ του δόγματος, έτι των ειρημένων βαρβάρων
ελληνικής θρησκευόντων" πρώτος δε γραμμάτων ευρετης αυτοίς
έγένετο, και εις την οικείαν φωνήν μετέφρασε τας ιεράς βίβλους:
καθότι μέν ούν ως επίπαν οι παρά τον "Ίστρον βάρβαροι τα
'Αρείου φρονούσι, πρόφασις ήδε, κατ' εκείνου δε καιρού, πλήθος
των υπό Φριτιγέρνην διά Χριστόν μαρτυρούντες, ανηρέθησαν και
γάρ 'Αθανάριχος, και τους υπ' αυτώ τεταγμένους Ούλφίλα
πείθοντος χριστιανίζειν αγανακτών, ώς της πατρώας θρησκείας
καινοτομουμένης, πολλούς πολλαίς τιμωρίαις υπέβαλε και τους
μεν εις ευθύνας άγαγών, παρρησιασαμένους άνδρείως υπέρ του
δόγματος τους δε, μηδε λόγου μεταδούς, ανείλε, λέγεται γάρ
ώς τι ξόανον εφ' άρμαμάξης εστως, οι γε τούτο ποιεϊν υπό
'Αθαναρίχου προσετάχθησαν, καθ' εκάστην σκηνήν περιάγοντες
των χριστιανίζειν καταγγέλλομένων, εκέλευον τούτο προσκυνείν
και θύειν" των δε παραιτουμένων συν αυτούς ανθρώποις τας
Appendix.
229
σκηνας ενεπίμπρων. περιπαθέστερον δε τότε και έτερον συμβήναι :
πάθος επυθόμην' άπειρηκότες γάρ πολλοί τη βία των θύειν
αναγκαζόντων, άνδρες τε και γυναίκες, ών αι μεν παιδάρια επή-
γοντο, αι δε άρτότοκα βρέφη υπό τους μαζούς έτρεφον, επί
την σκηνήν της ενθάδε εκκλησίας κατέφυγον προσαψάντων δε
πυρ των Ελληνιστών, άπαντες διεφθάρησαν. ούκ είς μακράν δε
οι Γότθοι προς αλλήλους ώμονόησαν και εις άπόνοιαν επαρθέν-
τες, τους θρακας έκακούργουν, και τας αυτών πόλεις και κώμας
εδήoυν.
3. THEODORETUS, Hist. Eccl. iv. 33: .
Goths cross the Danube and make treaty with Valens-Eudoxius
offers to bring them to the Arian faith-he fails in dealing with the
chiefs—but brings over Ulfilas-partly by bribes-and persuading
him, as he afterwards persuaded his people, that the controversy
turned upon phrases.
Εγώ δε προύργον νομίζω, διδάξαι τους αγνοούντας, όπως οι
βάρβαροι την 'Αρειανικήν εισεδέξαντο νόσον. ότε τον Ίστρον δια-
βάντες, προς τον Ουάλεντα την ειρήνην έσπείσαντο, τηνικαύτα
παρών Ευδόξιος και δυσώνυμος, υπέθετο τω βασιλεί πείσαι αυτω κοι-
νωνήσαι τους Γότθους πάλαι γάρ τας της θεογνωσίας ακτίνας δεξά-
μενοι, τους αποστολικοίς ένετρέφοντο δόγμασι βεβαιοτέραν γάρ,
έφη, το κοινόν τού φρονήματος την ειρήνην εργάσεται. ταύτην
έπαινέσας την γνώμην ο Ουάλης, προύτεινε τοίς εκείνων ηγεμόσι
των δογμάτων της συμφωνίαν, οι δε ουκ ανέξεσθαι έλεγον την
πατρώαν καταλείψειν διδασκαλίαν. κατ' εκείνον δε τον χρόνον,
Ουλφίλας αυτών επίσκοπος ήν, ώ μάλα επείθοντο, και τους
εκείνου λόγους ακινήτους υπελάμβανον νόμους τουτον και
παρεσκεύασε τους βαρβάρους την βασιλέως κοινωνίαν ασπάσασ-
θαι: έπεισε δε, φήσας εκ φιλοτιμίας γεγενήσθαι την έριν, δογμά-
οι Γότθοι μείζονα μεν τον Πατέρα λέγουσι του Υιού κτίσμα δε
τον Υιόν είπείν ουκ ανέχονται, καίτοι κοινωνούντες τοίς λέγουσιν.
αλλ' όμως ού, παντάπασι την πατρώαν διδασκαλίαν κατέλιπον και
γάρ Ουλφίλας Ευδοξία και Ουάλεντι κοινωνήσαι πείθων αυτούς,
ουκ είναι δογμάτων έφη διαφοράν, αλλά ματαίαν έριν έργάσασθαι
την διάστασιν.
230
Appendix.
4. Orosius, dist. adv. pag. vii. 33 (immediately after an
account of the death of Valens):
“Gothi antea per legatos supplices poposcerunt, ut illis
episcopi, a quibus regulam Christianae fidei discerent, mitte-
rentur. Valens imperator exitiabili pravitate doctores Ariani
dogmatis misit. Gothi primae fidei rudimentum, quod ac-
cepere, tenuerunt. Itaque justo Dei judicio ipsi eum vivum
incenderunt, qui propter eum etiam mortui vitio erroris arsuri
sunt."
5. JORDANIS, de reb. Get. c. 25:
“ Vesegothae . . . . quidnam de se propter gentem Hun-
norum deliberarent, ambigebant, diuque cogitantes tandem
communi placito legatos ad Romaniam direxere ad Valentem
imperatorem, fratrem Valentiniani senioris, ut, partem Thraciae
sive Moesiae si illis traderet ad colendum, ejus legibus vive-
rent, ejusque imperiis subderentur.
: “Et, ut fides uberior illis haberetur, promittunt se, si
doctores linguae suae donaverit, fieri Christianos. Quo Valens
comperto mox gratulabundus annuit, quod ultro petere voluis-
set, susceptosque in Moesiae partibus Getas quasi murum
regni sui contra ceteras gentes statuit; et quia tunc Valens
imperator Arianorum perfidia saucius, nostrarum partium
omnes ecclesias obturasset, suae partis fautores ad illos
dirigit praedicatores, qui venientibus rudibus et ignaris illico
perfidiae suae virus infundunt. Sic quoque Vesegothae a
Valente imperatore Ariani potius quam Christiani effecti. De
cetero tam Ostrogothis quam Gepidis, parentibus suis, pro
affectionis gratia evangelizantes, hujus perfidiae culturam
edocentes, omnem ubique hujus linguae nationem ad culturam
hujus sectae invitavere. Ipsi quoque, ut dictum est, Danu-
bium transmeantes, Daciam ripensem, Moesiam Thraciasque
permisso principis insedere.”
C, 26, ad finem : “Imperator .... crematus est : haud
secus quam dei prorsus judicio, ut ab ipsis igne combureretur,
Appendix.
231
"
quos ipse veram fidem petentes in perfidiam declinasset,
et ignem caritatis ad gehennae ignem detorsisset.”
6. ISIDORUS, Chron. Goth. era 416 :
“Et merito ut ipse (Valens) ab eis vivens temporali
cremaretur incendis, qui tam pulcras animas ignibus aeternis
tradiderat."
III.
TABLE OF DATES CONNECTED WITH
GOTHIC HISTORY.
238 First Gothic inroad.
251 Decius defeated by the Goths.
270 Claudius defeats the Goths at
Naissus.
311
Birth of Ulfilas. al. 318.
331 Gothic war of Constantine.
337 Death of Constantine.
341
348
Ulfilas and his flock migrate
into Moesia.
Arian council at Constantinople.
360
364 Valens emperor.
367 First Gothic war of Valens. ·
370
Second persecution of Christians
in Gothia.
376
Wisigoths under Frithigern cross
378 Battle of Adrianople; death of
Valens.
379—395 Theodosius emperor. 381 Death of Athanaric.
395 Revolt of the Goths under Alaric. 381 Death of Ulfilas. al. 388.
410 Capture of Rome by Alaric. 398.–404 Chrysostom, arch-
bishop of Constantinople.
412—507 Gothic kingdom of Toulouse.
493-526 Theodoric, king in Italy.
507 Battle of Vouglé; Alaric II. slain.
507—711 Wisigothic kingdom in Spain.
553 End of Ostrogothic kingdom in 586 Conversion of Reccared.
Italy.
232
Appendix.
IV.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF WISIGOTHIC KINGS.
ALARIC I.
395—410
ATHAULF
410-415
SIGRICH...
:
i
415
WALLIA...
THEODORIC I. ...
THORISMUND ...
THEODORIC II....
EURIC
ALARIC II.
iii iii
415-419
419-451 killed at Châlons.
451-453
453_466
466-485
485-507 killed at Vouglé.
( GESALIC...
| AMALARIC
THEUDIS
THEUDIGISEL
AGILA ...
ATHANAGILD
( LEOVA I.
( LEOVIGILD
::::::
iiiiii
507–511507-526, Theodoric
507—531the Great as regent.
531-548
548–549
549-554
554–567
567-572
567-586
RECCARED
586–601
1 See Dahn, Könige, v. Appendix.
INDEX
INDEX.
ADRIANOPLE, battle of, 66; its
results, 141.
Agapius, 148.
Agde, Alaric II. permits council
at, 190.
Agila, Arian enyoy, 208.
Alaric raises the Goths in revolt,
161; captures Rome, 166.
Alaric II., king in Toulouse, sur-
renders Syagrius, 188; his re-
lation to Catholics, 189; defeated
and killed at Vouglé, 190.
Amalaric, 192.
Ambrose at Council of Aquileia,
33; resists Justina and the
Arians at Milan, 162.
66 Anses," 14.
« Antelucani,” 180.
Aquileia, Council of, 33.
Arian Christ, the, 105.
Arian books destroyed, 207; docu-
ments connected with Gothic
Church, 117 f.; party after
Nicaea, 112; worship and ritual,
180.
Arianism, platform between hea-
thenism and Christianity, 104;
condition more desperate than
paganism, 30; its relation to
Teutonic ideas, 105; Teutonic
compared with Hellenic, 106;
crushed at Adrianople, 142.
Arians expelled from churches in
Constantinople, 144; demand a
council, 39; find a place of
refuge in Moesia, 58; their con-
tinued importance, 146; call
Athanasians heretics, 40.
Athalocus revolts against Rec-
cared, 216.
Athanagild, 194.
Athanaric makes peace with Va-
lens, 61; begins the second
persecution, 71; its date, 88,
duration, 86, and probable mo-
tive, 77; journey to Constanti-
nople and death, 67.
Athanaric and Frithigern, the
hostilities between, 68; Sozo-.
men's account, 97.
Athanasius, testimony to Christi-
anity among the Goths, 27.
Atharidus, 81.
Athaulf, his plan, 174.
Attalus baptised into Arian Church,
165.
Ascholius, correspondence with
Basil, 84.
Audians, described by Epiphanius,
75; persecuted, 73; peculiari-
ties of doctrine and practice, 77;
their exemplary life, 79.
Audius, bishop in Syria, 74; cas-
tigator morum, 75; banished,
founds a sect, 75; belief in
corporeal nature of God, 78.
Augustine on Gothic sack of
Rome, 166.
Aurelian abandons Dacia, 23.
Auxentius, pupil of Ulfilas, 35;
his account of Ulfilas, 36 f. ;
account of his master's teaching,
110; character of his testimony,
48; his work as bishop at Do-
rostorus, 149.
Auxentius, Arian bishop of Milan,
162.
ರ
BADDO, wife of Reccared, 217.
Barbarian, the work of the, 3.
Barbaro, Josafa, finds traces of
Gothic people, 156.
2
236
Index.
Basil the Great, letter to Ascho- | Constantinople, · Arian council at,
lius, 29; correspondence with 115; situation of affairs in 381,
Julius Soranus, 83; letter to 44.
Damasus, 23.
Conversion of Wisigoths, according
Bathusis, Gothic presbyter and to Orosius, etc., 92; Jordanis,
martyr, 84.
93; Sozomen, 94; Socrates, 96;
Becanus first prints portion of Theodoret, 99; probable course
Gothic Bible, 126.
of events, 102.
Bessell, his theory of conversion Council of Dedication, 47, 113.
of Wisigoths, 96; conjecture of - of Toledo, Arian, 205.'
“Psathropolistae," 157.
-- of Toledo III., 217.
“Bigot,' derivation, 210.
- of Saragossa II., 218.
Bobio, Gothic MSS. from library | Crimea, Gothic Church in, 28,
of, 118.
153.
Busbek converses with Gothic Cyril, testimony to Christianity
envoys, 156.
'among the Goths, 27.
Byzantines invited to Spain, 194.
DEMOPHILUS, Arian bishop of Con-
CAPPADOCIAN Church corresponds stantinople, 143.
with Church in Gothia, 80. Dorotheus, 146.
Captives, influence of, 21.
Caracalla, called Geticus Maxi ERIULF, 149.
mus, 10.
Ermanaric, kingdom of, 13, 53;
Chlodwig, chief of the Franks, its destruction, 62.
178; his conversion, 188; war Eudoxius, “the badly named,"
with Goths, 189; victory at 100.
Vouglé, 190.
Eunapius, account of the crossing
Christianity among the Goths, its of the Danube, 100.
introduction, 18, 20 f.; early Euric, king of Wisigoths in Tou-
references to, 27; two succes louse, 177; accused of persecu-
sive phases, 88; first persecu tion, 184; its actual extent,
tion, 56; second persecution, 186 f.
date, 88; duration and details, Eusebius of Caesarea and the
86; on whom did it fall, 72. Nicene Creed, 112.
Chrysostom, his influence, 150; Eusebius of Nicomedia, 111; or-
special interest in Goths, 151; dains Ulfilas, 47; activity of his
refuses demand of Gainas for a I party after death of Constantine,
church, 152; communications
with Gothic Church in Crimea, Eutyches, missionary among the
153.
Goths, 29.
Claudius, his victory at Naissus, 23.
Codex Argenteus, history of, 126; FRAVITTA, 149.
number of sheets in, note at end Fretela, 154.
of Preface.
Frithigern, chief of the Wisigoths,
Codex Theodosianus, decrees cited 61; applies to Valens to receive
from, 43, 46.
his people, 62; anxious to re-
Columbanus at Bobio, 110.
store peace, 64; probable period
Commentary on St. Luke ascribed of his death, 66. See under
to Ulfilas, 122.
Athanaric.
Constantine, war with the Goths, Fronimius, bishop of Agde, 198,
60; peace with the Goths, 26. 1 202.

54.
237
GAINAS demands church for Arians 5, 17: divided into Ostro- and
within. Constantinople, 152. Wisi-Goths, 11; traces of an
Gepidi, origin of name, 10; evan early cultus, 14; natural reli-
gelised by. Wisigoths, 94.
gion of Teutonic type, 15; in-
Getae, their alleged connection fluence of settlers and exiles, 23;
with Goths, 5, 17.
first migration across Danube,
Gosvintha, wife of Athanagild, 56; second migration, 62; war
194; marries Leovigild, 196; with Valens, 63; finally estab-
quarrel with Ingundis, 198; lished within the empire, 67;
heads revolt against Reccared, in the army of Theodosius, 141;
216.
revolt after death of Theodosius,
Gothi Minores, 57.
161; at Milan, 162; under Jus-
Gothic Arianism, its character, tinian, 171. See under Wisi-
108; not speculative, 210.
goths.
Gothic Bible, character of transla Gregory of Tours, account of
tion, 129; influence of Italian Euric's persecution, 187; dis-
MSS., 131; subsequent revi cussion with Arian envoys, 208.
sion, 132; translated out of the Gutthica, Gothic presbyter, 81.
Greek, 125; traces of Teutonic
ideas, 134; of Arian leanings, HERMENEGILD (son of Leovigild),
133; treasured by the nation, his mother, 196; marries In-
136. See under Codex Argen gundis, 198; converted to Ca-
teus.
tholicism, 199; his rebellion
Gothic books, destruction of, 207. and death, 200; canonised, 201.
Homoean party, rise of, 114; fall
Gothic Church, causes of its fail after Adrianople, 143.
ure, 220; Arianism of, 30.
Gothic Church in Crimea, 153; filas, 113.
correspondence with Jerome, Homousians condemned by Ul-
154; under Justinian, 155; filas, 113.
extinct, 157.
" Homousion,” force and results
Gothic Church in Italy, Milan, of, 111,
167; under Alaric, 164 f.; Si Huns, legend of their origin, 15;
gesarius, 165; clemency and arrival in Europe, 62.
self-control, 166; surviving re-
INGUNDIS, wife of Hermenegild,
Gothic Church in Gaul, 178 f.; 198.
worship and ritual, 180.
Gothic Church in Spain, 200, JEROME, correspondence with
204 f., 210; extinct, 217.
Gothic Church in Crimea, 155.
Gothic inroads, 19, 28, 50.
Johannes of Parthenope, Gothic
Gothic kingdom in Italy, causes of bishop of Crimea, 156.
its fall, 173.
Gothic kingdom in Gaul, founda- || to Isidore, etc., 92; account of
tion, 173; climax, 177; toler conversion of Wisigoths, 93.
ance towards Catholics, 182; Junius, Franciscus, first publishes
fall, 190.
Gothic Bible, 126.
Gothic kingdom in Spain, 192 f. Justina, controversy with Am-
Goths, early history, 5; on the brose, 161.
Baltic, 9; migration from the Justinian finds a footing in Spain,
North, 11; confused with Getae,' 194; suppresses the Arians, 171.

238
Index.
219
LEANDER, bishop of Seville, 199; | PALLADIUS, bishop of Ratiara, 33,
his work crowned with success, 40, 149.
Pamphilus accused of Arian prac-
Leovigild, king of Wisigoths in tices, 180.
Spain, 195 f.; early toleration, Philostorgius'account of Ulfilas, 46.
196; marries Gosvintha, 196; Profuturus, general of Valens, 64.
difficulties of his position, 197; Psathyrian schism, 147.
Psathyropolistae, Bessell's. conjec-
tempt to forni single State ture, 157.
Church, 201; charge of perse-
cution, 202 ; taunted with QUINTIAN, bishop of Arles, 189.
hypocrisy, 204; summons Arian
Council of Toledo, 205; his RE-BAPTISM, 205, 218.
death, 210; alleged conversion, Reccared, his mother, 196; suc-
211; failure of his policy, 213. ceeds Leovigild, 212; his con-
Lupicinus, 63.
version, 212; considerations to
move him thereto, 213 f.; sum-
MAI, Cardinal, Arian documents mons Council of Toledo, 217;
edited by him, 118.
Marinus, 146.
Rome, Alaric's capture of, 166.
Maurice, F.D., estimate of the
Goths, 106 n.
people, 156.
Mausona, bishop of Merida, 202.
Maximin, compiler of Waitz's MS., SABA, Acts of his martyrdom, 80;
34, 40.
a Goth by birth, 80; his bold-
Milan, Goths at, 161.
ness and sufferings, 81; body
Modaharius, Arian missionary, sent to Cappadocia, 82.
180.
Salvian, testimony to Gothic cha-
Moeso-Goths, settlement under racter and morals, 181 f.
Ulfilas, 56; relation with Wisi Sansala, Gothic presbyter, 81.
goths, 375, 65. .
Scaliger, mention of the Goths of
Mondorf, last traveller to find Crimea, 156.
Scythians, their alleged connection
Monks, Eunapius' idea of, 102. with the Goths, 5, 17.
Selenas, successor to Ulfilas, 149.
NICENE Creed, its purpose and Sidonius Apollinaris, bishop of
results, 111.
Clermont, 177; his account of
Nicenes obtain possession of Euric's persecution, 184.
churches in Constantinople, Sigesarius, baptises Attalus, 165;
144.
accompanies Athaulf to Gaul,
Nicetas, account of his martyrdom, 179.
87.
Nouné, story of, 22.
dius, 76.
Sisbert, 2011., 215.
OPPILA, Arian envoy, 209.
Soranus, Julius, 82.
Orosius' account of conversion of Sozomen, account of conversion of
Wisigoths, 94.
Wisigoths, 94.
Ostrogoths, the name, 11; evan- | Strabo, Walafrid, 126.
gelized by Wisigoths, 94; de- | Suevi, converted to Catholicism,
scend upon Italy, 168. See 195; partially recalled by Leo-
under Gothic kingdom in Italy. | vigild, 211.
Index.
239
Sunna, Arian bishop of Merida, identified with presbyter of
202; revolts against Reccared, Adrianople, 64.
216; banished, 217.
His creed, 109; all his life an
Sunnia, 154.
Arian, 37; Sozomen's account
of his belief, 95; adherent of
Homoean party, 115; present
THEODORET, account of conversion
at Arian Council of Constanti-
of Wisigoths, 99; accuses Ul-
nople, 58; condemns Homoi-
filas of corruption, 100.
usians and Homousians, 113;
Theodoric the Ostrogoth, 168 f.;
doctrine of Holy Spirit, 116;
toleration towards Jews and
refers almost exclusively
Catholics, 169; bis embassy to
to
Scripture, 117.
Constantinople, 170; occupies
Translation of Bible into
Southern Greece, 191; his death
Gothic, 124, 129 (see also Gothic
and destiny, 172.
Theodosius, succeeds Valens, 60,
Bible); master of three lan-
142; his conversion, 143; de-
guages, 52, 137; commentary on
cree of conformity, 143 ; sup-
Št. Luke ascribed to him, 122;
his lasting influence, 30, 58, 220.
pression of Arianism, 42, 148;
Unila, bishop of Gothic Church in
pacifies the Goths, 66; his vacil-
Crimea, 153.
lating policy explained, 145;
Uranius, bishop in the Audian
his death, 150; its consequences,
sect, 76.
160.
Theophilus, 28.
VADIANI, 78.
Tomi, last trace of Gothic Church
Valens, first war with Goths, 61;
in Balkan peninsula, 150.
Toulouse. See under Gothic king-
admits the Goths to settle in
Dacia, 62; recalled from Persia,
dom in Gaul.
64; his death, 66; results of his
death, 107.
ULFILAS, materials for his life, 32; | Verékas, Gothic presbyter and
epochs of his life, 36; dates of | martyr, 84.
his life 'revised, 48; sent as Vincent, bishop of Saragossa, 206.
envoy or hostage to Constanti Vouglé, battle of, 190.
nople, 51 ; becomes a "lector,"
36, 52; appointed bishop by WAITZ, the Paris MS. discovered
Eusebius, 47; his work beyond by, 32; last paragraph a later
the Danube, 55; leads his flock addition, 39; reluctant to ac-
across the Danube, 56; last cept his own date for death of
journey to Constantinople, 37; 1 Ulfilas, 41. .
last years, 138; death, 139; Wisigoths, the name, 11; cross
date of his death, 38 seq.; cha the Danube, 62; defeat Valens
racter and influence, 139.
at Adrianople, 66; their con-
Legends gather round him, version, 89 f.; invade Italy
32; his descent from Cappa under Alaric, 161; capture Rome,
docian captives, 49; share in 166; pass into Gaul, 173; into
conversion of Wisigoths, 95, 97; I Spain, 175.
J. PALMER, PRINTER, JESUS LANE, CAMBRIDGE.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
IND
3 9015 00899 1815
..
-
.
.
* Passa. ...
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARDS
.
-
-
1
''
-------------
*.
-
-
-
-
' • : ,
: '. .
.
.
.
* - *
-
-
:
*
:
*
-
*
4
*
.
-
*
.
-
1.
-
' .. ! ', . .
-
*
1
.
*, *
'
',
!
.
4
.
:
- ..
.
...
.
- -
1
-
i.
,
+
*
T
-
.
,
+
+
* -
..
.
.
i, . -
."
-
' ' .
..
*
* *
*
+- '
"
.
..
+
.
1
T
-
*
"I
-
-
-
--
*
*
t
*
""'
'.
. 10
*
ட
-
*
-
*,
1
,
1
.
.
'
'
' ' '
'
*
-:.
*
*
'''
*
4
:... - : '/* !'+ ..
'
'
'
4
-
.
*
*
+
1
*
.
'
.1
*
. t .
''
.
F
++'
-
*
- ', '
-
*
'
.
'
-
.
-
.
.
-

|.
--
-
..
-
**
- . -
--
*
.
*
* ' . ,
'
ம்
..
1
11
1
.'
.
1-
-
-
- - -
*
"'.
.1.
|
+
+
'
*
T
'ப'
-
-
.
*
*
''
.
''
..
|
.
1
: +
..
-
படர்
-
.
.
*
'
'
'
.
' '
'
-'
. '.
*
*
F
1
---
.
-
-
--
--
-
.
F
..
|
-
+
.*
,
1
-
R
-
பாகம்
+1+T
LE
--
-
-
-
-
பக்கமாககவகைபக்கடங்கப்படைக்காப்பகமாக சாப்பாடக்க கட்டடம் காக்கபடாமையைப்பா
'
-
-
-
-
பம்
NE
-
+
.
.
TTERIES,
44
F TET''
+- -- -
-
-
.
44
-
-