Christopher Sweeney : Potamius of Lisbon's Return to Orthodoxy?: Reconsidering Potamius' Career in Light of New Understandings' of Arian Identity

Potamius of Lisbon, a fourth century bishop, is known in the ancient sources as an Arian heretic, yet on the basis of his own surviving writings, modern scholars argue that later in his career the renegade bishop returned to orthodoxy. While no direct testimony of such a conversion survives, scholars suggest that his use of the word substantia in his surviving works and the lack of any obvious subordinationist claims are evidence of this conversion. In this paper, I re-examine the evidence for Potamius’ supposed conversion in light of new understandings of Arian identity and belief in the fourth century. Where scholars once understood Arianism as a heresy whose theological core was the rejection of the teaching that the Son was “consubstantial” with the Father, scholars of Arianism have come to recognize a number of aspects of Arian identity of at least equal importance, especially their soteriology and philosophy of emotion. Re-examining Potamius’ small surviving corpus, I argue that Potamius’ thought corresponds with this new assessment of Arianism and that his works need to be reevaluated as an important source for understanding the nature of fourth century Arianism.

Luke Freeman: Arian Anti-Modern Traditionalism in the 4th and 18th Centuries

There is growing interest in the role of Arianism (and more generally in anti-Trinitarianism) as it occurred in early modern European philosophical, scientific, and political thought (M. Wiles, 1996; S. Snobelen, 2004; B. Sirota, 2013; P. Gilliam 2015). Alternatively, the late antique scholarship of Rowan Williams understands 4th-century Arianism as a non-Nicean traditionalism (R. Williams, 1987/2001). When taken together these scholarly perspectives can shed light on how scholars of late antiquity frame the Arian debate itself in terms that are informed by 18th-century British Arianism. Thisshort communication will take a new perspective on Arianism, understanding Arius’ 18th-century proponents not as positively asserting his theology, but as rejecting the Athanasian defense of Nicea for the sake of a kind of anti-modern traditionalism. By taking this approach, I shall place recent late antique scholarship (e.g., Ayres, 2004; Anatolios, 2011) in the context of British Arianism and its anti-modern traditionalism. I will focus on Athanasius’ Defense Against the Arians and the Defense of the Nicene Definition, which were critical texts for William Whiston (1667-1752), probing why they caused him such difficulty. I will conclude by examining the implications of my argument for understanding British Arian and non-Nicean writings in a confessional light, rather than simply as examples of a rising tide of philosophical atheism or as merely political.

Rebecca Lyman: Arius and Porphyry: Eusebius and Athanasius on Images of God

The shape and content of Arius' theology remains controversial not only because of the few extant fragments, but also due to the reading of the events in Alexandria through rather narrow theological lenses. In this paper I want to place Arius' apophatic and monotheistic theology within the contemporary context of the legacies of persecution and martyrdom in Alexandria in the early fourth century. This includes not only the shifting policies of Constantine and Licinius, but the emerging apologetic theologies of Methodius, Eusebius, and Athanasius. These conflicts provide a new background to the familiar issues of the early Nicene controversy including the repudiation of materialism in regard to the divine and conflicting interpretations of image with regard to both divinity and anthropology. In this brief paper I will compare the fragments of Arius to discussions by Eusebius in Praeparatio Evangelica and by Athanasius in Contra Gentes with regard to monotheism and image in response to Porphyry. These passages provide evidence of a contemporary debate on representation and mediation which provoked original Christian theologies with regard to divine transcendence and epistemology. Placing Arius into this larger debate elucidates several of his problematical formulas with regard to divine self-revelation and the problem of changeability.

Sara Parvis: How the Novatians won the Arian controversy: The 'Council of the Sects' of 383

The entry of Theodosius I into Constantinople in late 380 was followed by a series of church councils aimed at establishing an ecclesiastical consensus in the East, including over who should be considered the rightful bishops of Constantinople and Antioch, and what terms, if any, should be accorded to other ecclesiastical groupings.
The somewhat messy councils of 381 and 382 were followed by one which appears to have been rather more comprehensive, in which a number of those excluded by the earlier councils were invited to a debate that became a demand to sign a pre-Nicene florilegium of statements about the Trinity, and finally an exchange of professions of faith. This council was attended among others by Ulfila the Goth, Agelius the Novatian, Eunomius, Demophilus of Constantinople and Eleusius of Cyzicus. Of these, Agelius was accepted as orthodox, and the rest apparently rejected. By way of explanation, the ecclesiastical historian Socrates takes the view that one Novatian theologian in particular, Sisinnius, was largely responsible for the council's theological strategy.
In this paper, I shall consider the rival claims of Theodosius' Gothic policy, Agelius' opportunism and problems associated with the Antiochene schism as the driving forces behind this synod.

Mark DelCogliano: Did Arius learn from Asterius?

Athanasius repeatedly presents Asterius as the advocate (sunêgoros) of Arianism. This is commonly taken to mean that he judged Asterius to be prominent among those Eusebians who supported the cause of Arius in the years leading up to the Council of Nicaea and afterward. It is furthermore usually interpreted by scholars to mean that Arius, if not a source, was at least a foil for Asterius: Asterius defended Arius even as he developed his thought (e.g. Kopecek, Hanson). But Markus Vinzent has suggested that Asterius perhaps be called the "mentor" (Vordenker) of Arius. Given the shared themes in the theologies of Arius and Asterius, the question of influence in either direction cannot be resolved on the basis of similarity of teaching; external indications are needed. Vinzent's claim seems to be based only upon two passages in De decretis, in which Athanasius states that Arius borrowed from Asterius, not vice versa. Vinzent's claim has been noted by others, but has not generated any substantial comment. The purpose of this communication is to take up the topic which others have declined to treat. It takes two approaches. First, the paper briefly discusses whether the evidence of De decretis should be interpreted as a global statement of the theological relationship between Arius and Asterius. Second, the paper attempts to establish the relative chronology of the Syntagmation of Asterius and the Thalia of Arius, to gauge the possibility of Arius being influenced by the former text in the composition of the latter.

Vincenzo Messana: Massimino ariano e la Sicilia: il dibattito storiografico negli ultimi decenni su una vexata quaestio

Key points of the article: 1. the complex historical context of Sicily, decidedly affected by the Vandal event, by the depredationes of Genseric and by the 440 A. D. siege of Palermo (details from Prosper Aquitanus to Victor Vitensis, from Cassiodorus to Beda, etc.; important information in Novella 9 and, especially, in Novella 1 of Valentinian III); 2. the matter of whether the Sicilian Church was harmed and had suffered in these situations; 3. the peculiar recount by Hydatius of Genseric's siege of Palermo and of the deed of the Arian bishop Maximinus; 4. the animated historiographical debate about the identity of Maximinus Arian and his relation with Sicily, and the different views and hypotheses of scholars in recent decades with regard to specific aspects of the intricate vexata quaestio: from Francesco Giunta to Vito A. Sirago, from Alberto Pincherle to Manlio Simonetti, from Roger Gryson to Luis A. García Moreno, from Mario Mazza to Salvatore Pricoco, from Lellia Cracco Ruggini to Francesco P. Rizzo, etc.

Ewa Dusik-Krupa: Politician, theologian, tutor. Luciferi Calaritanis using of Holy Scripture

St. Athanasius in one of his letters writing to Bishop of Calaris with this words: It came to us namely, that Your Holiness residing in the middle of scorpions, however enjoy the freedom of spirit, so that you bring the erring to the light of true, whether exhorting, whether teaching or rebuke (CSEL XIV, p.323). I this way he draws attention to the wide range of Lucifer's works.
Lucifer when writing his works against the Arians and Constantius the Second tries in fact, according to the rules of ancient rhetoric, support all his arguments with examples drawn from the Holy Scripture. Analyzing the ways of his quotations, either New or Old Testament, we can divide them, following Athanasius, in three different ways: theological. Political, educational. There is no doubt, that all the Lucifer's intentions are not characterized by identical priorities in his work. In examining the writings of Bishop of Calaris we should pay special attention to the goals that he wanted to achieve by means of the quoted examples. Through analysis of the quoted passages of Holy Scripture we can clearly identify the Lucifer's position towards the imperial power and how, in his opinion, relations between State and Church should develop. What is more, which is equally important, thanks to those quotations we can see how the translations of Holy Scripture were formed before Jerome's translation, known as Vulgate.

Vladimir Latinovic: Arius Conservativus? The Question of Positioning of Arius Theology

In this short communication I would like to present a chapter from my recently defended dissertation “Christology And Communion: Emergence of homoousian Christology and its Repercussions for the Reception of Eucharist” (University of Tübingen 2014). My intention is to give a brief overview of scholarship on the question of whether Arius belonged to the so called Alexandrian or Antiochian “school” (I am aware their existence is disputed) as well as briefly discuss other philosophical and religious influences on his theology. The question of positioning Arius’ theology within a broader context is very important because we are able to partially compensate for the lack of Arius’ original writings by answering it. As can be deduced from the title, which is an allusion to the studies conducted by Bruns (Arius hellenizans) and Lorenz (Arius judaizans), my intention is to postulate that Arius himself was rather a conservative theologian (traditionalist) and that as such he belonged to the older Alexandrian theological tradition, which would explain why he had a dispute with Alexander and Athanasius, who are seen as representatives of the modern (progressive) Alexandrian school of thought (party). This view provides the solution for many questions regarding the so called “Arianism”, such as the rapid spread of the movement throughout the entire known world in less than a few decades as well as the refusal of a majority of those labeled “Arian” to accept this label both for their person and their theology.

Hajnalka Tamas: Hagiography, Liturgy, and Orthodoxy in 5th and 6th Century Aquileia

Although the council of Aquileia is said to have nominally ended the Arian controversy in the Western Roman Empire, the city and its hinterland remained long after the focus of religious controversy. The 5th century Gothic incursions ‘ensured' the continued presence of Arianism, whereas among the refugees from Illyricum, groups of Photinians also settled in the region. This situation was further complicated in the 6th century by the so-called Three Chapters Controversy, setting Aquileia against Rome. Conversely, the Aquileian hagiography composed in this period of quest for identity amidst religious diversity and conflict abounds in elaborate confessional statements with doctrinal and liturgical significance, such as: Passio Donati, Venusti et Hermogenis (BHL 2309), 2.5: "scio unum Deum uiuum et uerum, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, qui est trinus et unus Deus." It is the purpose of this paper to examine, through an audience-oriented analysis, the doctrinal content of Aquileian hagiographic texts of the 5th and the 6th century as an identity-forming mechanism. Their appeal to larger audiences through liturgical usage and through the cult of saints rendered these texts suitable to instill a desirable doctrinal content. This paper will highlight the way in which the confessional statements contributed to the substantiation of a (distinct) Aquileian doctrinal agenda in the local religious memory.

Han-luen Kantzer Komline - WORKSHOP Title: Via est qua imus: Perspectives on Augustine’s Christology PAPER Title: Augustine on the Two Wills of Christ

In a recent essay, Brian Daley has considered the evidence that Maximus the Confessor knew Augustine’s theology based on a number of foundational resonances between the thought of the two fathers (Daley, 2008).  These include the affirmation, by both Augustine and Maximus, of two distinct wills in Christ: a human will and a divine will.  Building on this observation, this paper considers Augustine’s insistence, in the early fifth century, on the idea that Christ had two distinct wills.  

Focusing on Augustine’s affirmation of this notion in his Enarratio of Psalm 93 and his treatise Contra sermonem Arianorum, the paper evaluates how Augustine articulates the idea of Christ’s two wills in each of these contexts and explores his possible motivations for developing the notion as he does in each case.  It considers, in other words, the role of Augustine’s affirmation of Christ’s two wills in the polemical contexts of the debates, late in his life, with Pelagianism and with the Homoian Arianism represented by Palladius of Ratiaria and the Arian bishop Maximinus.  

With respect to the latter case, this paper will show how Augustine posits two wills in Christ to secure a Christologically appropriate interpretation of a litany of scriptural quotations, cited by his “Arian” opponents, in which Jesus submits to the will of the Father.  Reading John 6:38 (“I came down from heaven, not to do my will, but to do the will of him who sent me”) through the lens of Romans 5:15-21, Augustine shows that the submission of Christ’s human will to the divine will signifies, not his lack of a fully divine nature, but rather his possession of a fully divine and human nature in one person.  In Augustine’s exegesis of John 6:39, the very possibility of Christ’s human will overcoming the natural human temptation to oppose God autonomously (his capacity to say “not my will) presupposes his possession of a fully divine nature and will.  Thus, in this exegetical-polemical context, Augustine’s affirmation of the two wills of Christ secures his affirmation of Christ’s possession of a divine substantia as well as a human substantia. 

The paper will conclude by contrasting how and why Augustine articulated the notion of Christ’s two wills in these two instances with the motivations and polemical concerns that led Maximus to strikingly similar conclusions in the seventh century.  

David Newheiser - Foucault and the Discontinuity of Tradition

"Foucault and the Discontinuity of Tradition"

This paper argues that, among the many ways in which the work of Michel Foucault may usefully contribute to the field of Patristics, his attention to the invention of concepts represents a valuable corrective to the tendency to read ancient texts through the lens of later settlements. The temptation to construe the history of doctrine as an harmonious process of development is frequently motivated by the conviction that tradition represents a sort of continuity; in response, Foucault's method helps to clarify the ruptures involved as new ways of thinking emerge. Taking the debate concerning the Nicene homoousion as an example, I aim to show that Athanasius's interpretation of Nicaea represents a genuine novelty despite his own claim to represent a univocal tradition.

      In his work on the history of sexuality, Foucault shows that, whereas concepts such as "sexuality" are often used to interpret the past,  these concepts take form in particular historical periods. Thus, whereas some historians discuss the forms of sexuality prevalent in ancient Greece, Foucault suggests that this approach is distorting insofar as "sexuality" itself is a modern invention, one that is foreign to the ancient Greek context. Instead, he suggests, the eccentricity of ancient texts and their distance from later formulations ought to be allowed to stand.

      Athanasius's appropriation of the council of Nicaea provides a prime example of the tendency to read later concepts onto the past. Writing more than thirty years after the fact, Athanasius claims that the bishops at Nicaea included the term homoousion in order to definitively exclude the Arian heresy; however, the council's immediate context suggests that the term actually had a more vague and problematic sense. Athanasius may thus be seen to have given the contested term a new meaning, but this fact is obscured by his own claim to represent a univocal tradition. In this way, then, Foucault's fine-grained sensitivity to the historical formation of concepts helps to clarify the vital heterogeneity of Patristic theology.

Michael Williams - Auxentius of Milan: From Orthodoxy to Heresy

The aim of this paper is to re-examine the evidence for the position of Auxentius of Milan against the background of the ongoing debates and shifting definitions of orthodoxy and heresy in the middle decades of the fourth century AD. Our evidence regarding Auxentius’ doctrinal stance can be divided into two (overlapping) categories. Firstly there are the claims and accusations of Athanasius and those who aligned themselves with him, of which the pre-eminent example is the Contra Auxentium of Hilary of Poitiers; and secondly there is the identification of Auxentius as playing a leading role in the 359 Council of Ariminum, before his apparent condemnation by Damasus of Rome in 369. This, it must be admitted, is more than enough to suggest that Auxentius’ stated Christological beliefs were significantly different from what would become the orthodoxy of the western empire. Yet it may not be enough to establish him firmly as a standard-bearer for Arianism in the west. 

Thus recent work by Lewis Ayres and David Gwynn, among others, has recognised the instability and tendentiousness of many of the doctrinal labels applied to individuals in this period; and Gwynn in particular has emphasised the extent to which an idea of organised ‘Nicene’ or ‘Arian’ (and by extension ‘Neo-Arian’ or ‘Homoian’) parties or factions may be misleading. It is far from clear, therefore, that Auxentius can be regarded as having consciously adopted his doctrinal position in contradistinction to a predominant ‘Nicenism’ in the west, or indeed in Italy or in his own see of Milan. That he acquired his position with the support of the Arianising Constantius II is one thing; but that he retained it with the support of Valentinian I -- hardly a fierce supporter of the Arian interpretation -- would suggest that he had more than his beliefs in his favour. Similarly, we might pay less attention to Hilary’s claims in his Contra Auxentium than to his failure to persuade the people of Milan (or Valentinian) to dismiss their bishop. For all that hostile witnesses, in the fourth century and since, have sought to paint Auxentius as a fanatic, it seems possible that the evidence would allow a different image: of an Auxentius whose chief concern was not ideological but rather more pragmatic; whose doctrinal positions were those which were the most mainstream and authoritative of his time; and who enjoyed the support not only of emperors but perhaps also of a majority of his Milan congregation.

Javier Fuertes - Lack of understanding or demons’ seals? The animal image of Arians in Athanasius of Alexandria’s Life of Antony.

The author discusses the specific image of Arians in Life of Antony where Arians are mainly described in terms of senseless, and always appear related with both mules and demons. He analyzes all references to Arians within the work in order to explain their particular appearance and to determine its roots, focusing specially on the impressive vision of Antony in chapter 82 (VA 82: 6-13). He proposes two hypotheses. The first option would make the Arian image stemming from Athanasius. The bishop, in direct conflict with the heretics, considered them Devil’s supporters who, having lost the sentiments of humanity had became like wild beasts, cruel and lacking in reason, as he defends in other contemporary works (i.e., Hist. Arian. 33, 62, 64). Thus, Athanasius might have used the mule figure to represent Arians drawing on the idea of the pack-animal used in the Bible (Psalm 32: 9; 49: 20) as a metaphor to describe those who lack understanding. The second alternative would make the Arian image stemming from the idea of the disfigured soul of those who have succumbed to the demons and who unwittingly carry in their soul the image of the passions, conceived as animals, through which evil spirits seek to alter the soul. This notion, present in Clement of Alexandria (Stro. II, 20: 110-113), Origen (On First Prin. III, 3: 3) and Evagrius Ponticus (Keph. Gnos. Cent. V, 9, 11), places Arian appearance in the Life of Antony within the spiritual mood of Egyptian monasticism and would make it come from Antony himself.

Han-luen Kantzer Komline - Via est qua imus: Perspectives on Augustine’s Christology

Since the publication of T.J. van Bavel’s Recherches sur la christologie de saint Augustin in 1954, a watershed contribution that decisively overturned the sharply negative appraisal of Augustine’s Christology O. Scheel had advanced at the turn of the previous century, Augustine’s Christology has begun to see some attention.  This attention, while including a growing number of excellent monographs and articles, especially in French and German, has amounted to nothing more than a trickle in comparison with the flood of interest in other aspects of Augustine’s thought in recent decades.  Much remains to be done to fill out the complex picture of Augustine’s ways of speaking about Christ, and how they changed throughout his career.  This workshop brings together four researchers interested in Augustine’s Christology as they engage this issue from diverse perspectives.  Mirjam Kudella (University of Tübingen, Germany) builds on her previous work on Augustine and Manichaeism in her paper, “Augustine’s Polemics against Manichaean Christology: A Question of Demarcation,” in which she considers Augustine’s argumentation against the Manichaean Christology from which he became so concerned to distance himself.  Ron Haflidson (University of Edinburgh, UK) offers a resolution to questions about the structure of book twelve of the Confessions in his paper “The Mediation of Christ in Confessions XII” by showing that Augustine connects the two parts of this book via the analogous mediation of Christ in creation and in the Church.  Han-luen Kantzer Komline (University of Notre Dame, USA) addresses Augustine’s attribution of two wills to Christ in his Enarratio of Psalm 93 and his treatise Contra sermonem Arianorum, exploring how and why Augustine may have developed this notion in the context of his debates with Pelagianism and Arianism.  Finally, Sarah Stewart-Kroeker (Princeton Theological Seminary, USA) examines Augustine’s appropriation and modification of the Plotinian image of the journey to God as a voyage to the Homeland in her paper, “A Journey for the Feet: Augustine’s Incarnational Appropriation of Plotinus,” illuminating the significance of this incarnationally reconfigured image for Augustine’s vision of the ethical life.  These diverse perspectives promise to stimulate further breadth and depth in the work of each individual contributor, and in the ongoing conversation about Augustine’s Christology.

Jacquelyn Winston - The Making of an Emperor: Constantinian Identity Formation in his Invective Letter to Arius

The invective letter of Constantine the Great to Arius and the Arians is often mentioned, but seldom examined.  In one of the few published English translations, P.R. Coleman-Norton (1966) introduced the letter by stating “it is valuable not so much for its repertoire of imperial invective, as for its evidence of the emperor’s interest in securing uniformity of theological belief among his subjects” (Coleman-Norton, vol. 1:185).  This paper challenges that supposition, asserting that this letter is valuable particularly because of its repertoire of invective.   Why does it appear that Constantine loses his emotional composure in an intellectual environment where self-control was a highly prized virtue?  What possible threat did Arius’s challenges pose to arouse such rancour?  Or is Constantine’s response in this letter instead a calculated use of declamatory methods designed to portray Arius and his affiliates as “other” by employing normative literary techniques based on Roman commonplaces?  An examination of the invective letter of Constantine to Arius and the Arians, written c. 333 CE, discloses Constantine’s use of common rhetorical strategies learned by Roman elites through their education in paideia.  In the fourth century, many Christian heresiologists, educated in similar venues, adapted these same rhetorical strategies to create discrete zones of religious and social authenticity which they labelled orthodoxy and heresy.  Physiognomic invective, argument from tradition, and argument from antiquity were three ways that Constantine sought to silence the threat which Arius posed to Christian unity, and above all to his imperial and religious legitimacy.  The cultural, political, and religious role of pontifex maximus did not disappear with Constantine’s elevation of Christianity, instead the well-worn patterns of the pagan emperors and Roman elite before him became the basis for his reconfiguration of the mos maiorum using the Roman rhetoric, symbols, and might of empire.  Constantine’s invective letter to Arius and the Arians is one example of his multi-pronged approach to assert his authority as the legitimate head of the fourth century Roman Empire and the progenitor of Christendom.  

Khaled Anatolios - Athansasius's Orations Against the Arians: Between Asterius and Marcellus

The last several decades of Patristic scholarship have considerably enlarged our knowledge of the cast of characters involved in the fourth century Trinitarian debates. One of the results of this development has been the reading of Athanasius’s Orations against the Arians as a thoroughgoing engagement with Asterius, an approach most extensively presented by Charles Kannengiessers’s  Athanase d’Alexandrie, évêque et écrivain : une lecture des traités Contre les Ariens (1983). On the other hand, there is still some scholarly ambivalence about the nature and extent of Athansius’s theological engagement with Marcellus of Ancyra, given the complicated history of their ecclesiastical interaction and the lack of explicit literary interaction. However, I argue that in the Orations against the Arians, Athanasius is not only preoccupied with refuting Asterius but also with discreetly but unmistakeably distancing himself from Marcellus. In the Orations, Athanasius is interacting not only with Asterius’s doctrine but with Marcellus’s refutations of Asterius and Eusebius of Caesarea’s refutations of Marcellus. As a central example, Athanasius aligns himself with Asterius and Eusebius, rather than Marcellus, in identifying the Word and Son as “Image” of the Father in his divinity, even as he argues that this Image must be eternal and “from the ousia” of the Father. By arguing for the eternal and full divinity of the Son while qualifying Marcellus’s emphasis on the radical singularity of God, Athanasius is in effect making a bid in these Orations to supplant Marcellus as Asterius’s principal critic.   

Thomas Brauch: FROM VALENS TO THEODOSIUS: NICENE AND ARIAN FORTUNES IN THE EAST AUGUST 9, 378 TO NOVEMBER 24, 380

The death of Valens created a two-year hiatus in Eastern Roman imperial religious policy until Theodosius I inaugurated his pro-Nicene program soon after he entered Constantinople in late 380. Historians often view the period 378 to 380 as preparatory to the Nicene victory over Arianism: without imperial support, the Arians gave way to the Nicenes even before Theodosius began his policy.

This view is contradicted by our sources. Contemporary fourth century authors and the fifth century church historians do not substantiate a developing Nicene ascendancy in the East during these years. The writings of the three Cappadocian Fathers evidence continued strife between the Nicenes and the Arians without a foreseeable winner. The church historians Socrates and Sozomen claim that Arians of all sects developed and openly debated their doctrines amid the suspension of imperial religious policy, and Philostorgius reports the aggressive proselytizing of the Neo-Arians during these years. The church historians reveal the often violent resistance that Nicene prelates suffered from Arians, and the difficulties of Gregory of Nazianzus at Constantinople exemplify the opposition that Nicene missionaries endured at this time. 

Our sources also show that the Nicenes made little headway in the East during this period. The East-West Nicene accord signed by the Council of Antioch in 379 did not significantly advance the Nicene cause in the East.  Internal divisions, especially over the disputed see of Antioch, undermined Nicene efforts against their opponents.  The Nicenes also incurred opposition from other homoousions over the Holy Spirit and Apollinarian doctrines.

Only the support of Theodosius enabled the Nicenes to defeat their opponents. The Nicene victory in the East was not inevitable had ordinary competition with non-Nicenes continued without imperial intervention.