Rebecca Lyman: Constantine's Letter to Arius (333 C.E.) as Theological Ridicule and Historical Evidence

This communication is part of my current project of re-examining the theology of Arius in light of recent research on Marcellus of Ancyra and the later non-Nicenes.  Here I will look at the Letter of Constantine to Arius (c. 333 C.E.;  Opitz Urkunde III 34, 69-75) with regard to three points.  First, the relation of this letter, described by Rowan Williams as “extraordinary in its venom and abusiveness” (Arius. Heresy and Tradition, 77) to the larger use of derisive laughter and the performance of justified anger in contemporary rhetoric.  As shown by Maude Gleason in Making Men   and William Harris in Restraining Rage, ridicule was an important elite tool to expose the errors of opponents and demonstrating one’s superiority through derision.  Christians used these techniques as a means of combating heretical errors not only by argument, but also by the exposure and humiliation of their opponents.  Secondly, this letter reveals a sophisticated theological vocabulary and perspective in the choice of themes used by Constantine in response to Arius’ own account of his theology. These will be evaluated in relation to Constantine’s earlier The Oration to the Saints and earlier correspondence on the Nicene controversy. Thirdly, a significant problem in recovering the thought of Arius has been the distrust of rhetorical sources that exaggerated or misreported his theology.  This paper will argue that in fact we may recover significant theological themes from comparing the content of Constantine’s letter to earlier historical evidence of the theology of Arius.  

I would like to be scheduled with Professor Susanna Elm who is proposing a paper on derisive laughter with regard to Eunomius.