DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

Athanasius' First Exile 

H A. Drake 

T HE EXACT SEQUENCE of events during the summer and fall of 
A.D. 335 that culminated in the exile of Athanasius to Gaul 
quickly became lost in religious polemic, as muddled accounts 

written barely a century later show. Fortunately, the dedicated and 
frequently brilliant efforts of a series of scholars in this century have 
succeeded in resolving much of the confusion, so that only a few 
uncertainties remain. The picture that emerges helps us to under­
stand the system of cooperation between Church and State that was 
emerging in this period. 1 

The general outline of what happened during these months is quite 
clear. The Council of Tyre, called by Constantine to resolve the 
charges brought against Athanasius by the Meletians, went into ses­
sion in July 335. Even by the standards of that contentious period, its 
proceedings were raucous. Athanasius, despairing of a fair hearing, 
quit the meetings and took his case directly to the emperor, who re­
sponded by summoning the council to meet in his presence in Con­
stantinople. Only a handful of bishops actually came to the capital, 
but the upshot was that on 7 November 335 Athanasius entered 
the first of the three exiles he would endure during his lengthy 
episcopate. 

But when exactly did Athanasius see the emperor, and how and 
why was he exiled? Was it a decision of the emperor, or of a synod? 
Two key documents allow this very general outline to be filled in 
more completely. The first is the Index to Athanasius' Festal Letters, 
compiled in Egypt late in the fourth century, which has proved to be 

1 These events are first mentioned in Book 4 of Eusebius of Caesarea's essay De vita 
Constantini, published between 337 and 339. Eusebius was an eyewitness and a partici­
pant, but his discussion, while still important, is too general to be of more than mar­
ginal use. The accounts of Socrates (HE 1.27-35) and Sozomen (HE 2.25-28) depend 
heavily on Athanasius' Apologia contra Arianos (Apol.sec., ed. H. G. Opitz, Athanasius' 
Werke II.1 [Berlin 1938-40] 88-168), written to justify restoration to his see, probably 
in 357 (Opitz 167n.). The opposite, but equally tendentious, account of Philostorgius 
survives only in an epitome. On this last see W. Rusch, "A la recherche de l'Athanase 
historique," in C. Kannengieser, ed., Po/itique et theologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie 
(Paris 1974) 161-77. 

193 



DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

194 ATHANASIUS' FIRST EXILE 

quite reliable once certain peculiarities are recognized.2 Index 8, for 
the year 335/6, reads, in Robertson's translation: 

In this year he went to that Synod of his enemies which was 
assembled at Tyre. Now he journeyed from this place [Alexandria] 
on xvii Epiphi [11 July], but when a discovery was made of the 
plot against him he removed thence and fled in an open boat to 
Constantinople. Arriving there on ii Athyr [30 October], after eight 
days [6 November] he presented himself before the emperor Con­
stantine, and spoke plainly. But his enemies, by various secret 
devices, influenced the Emperor, who suddenly condemned him to 
exile, and he set out on the tenth of Athyr [7 November] to Gaul 

3 

The other is Constantine's letter to the bishops at Tyre, reproduced 
by Athanasius in his Apologia. Here Constantine describes how a 
scarcely recognizable Athanasius accosted him as he rode into the city 
on horseback: 

Victor Constantine Greatest Augustus to the Bishops gathered in 
Tyre: 

I do not know what has been decided amid the tumult and fury of 
your synod, but it seems somehow that the truth has been distorted 
by a certain turbulent disorder, clearly through that squabbling 
(ipEUXEAiaV) with your neighbors which you want to prevail, not 
taking into account what is pleasing to God. But it will be an act of 
divine Providence both to dissipate the evils of this love of strife 
that has come into the open and to disclose whether those who 
met in that place paid any attention to the truth and whether you 
judged the issues without any favor or enmity. Therefore I wish all 
of you to assemble before my Piety with all haste, so that you 
yourselves may present a precise account of your activities. 

The reason I have thought fit to write these things to you and 
summon you to me by this letter you will know from the following. 

As I was going into our eponymous and all-blessed city of Con­
stantinople (as it happened, I was on horseback at the time), sud-

2 A. Martin and M. Albert, edd., Histoire 'acephale' et Index syriaque des Lettres festales 
d'Athanase d'Alexandrie (= Sources chretiennes 317 [Paris 1985]) 73ff. Lietzmann's brief 
treatment of the first exile, "Chronologie der ersten und zweiten Verbannung des 
Athanasius," ZWT 44 (901) 380-82, failed to unravel the method of dating, which 
had already been explained in A. Robertson, ed., Select Writings and Letters of A thana­
sius (=Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers IV.2 [New York 1891]) 500ff. O. Seeck tested 
the dates in "Urkundenfli!schungen des 4. Jahrhunderts," ZKG 30 (I909) 407f. 

3 Robertson (supra n.2) 503. For the text cf Martin and Albert (supra n.2) 232ff. 
These editors have repunctuated their translation, so that Athanasius arrives in Con­
stantinople eight days after leaving Tyre. The sequence of events makes this construc­
tion unlikely (n.12 infra). 



DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

H.A.DRAKE 

denly the bishop Athanasius came into the middle of the street 
with certain others whom he had with him, so unexpectedly as 
even to give cause for alarm. For as God who sees all is my wit­
ness, I neither recognized him nor was I able to tell at first sight 
who he was, until certain of our companions, when we asked to be 
informed, as was fitting, reported to us both who he was and the 
injustice he had suffered. 

I neither conversed with him at that time nor agreed to a meet­
ing. But although he kept demanding to be heard, I declined and 
was about to order him driven away, when with greater outspoken­
ness he claimed he wanted nothing more from me than your sum­
mons, so that he could complain in your presence about what he 
had been forced to suffer. Since this seemed reasonable to me and 
fitting to the times, I readily ordered these things be written to 
you, so that all you who made up the synod that met in Tyre (TT,V 
uVvoaov TT,v EV Tvpcp yevoJ,UV'rw) would immediately hasten to 
the court of my Clemency and show clearly by the very facts the 
pure and unperverted nature of your judgment to me, who you 
would not deny am a true servant of God. For through my service 
to God, peace reigns everywhere and the barbarians themselves, 
who until now were ignorant of the truth, truly bless the name of 
God. 

Clearly, he who knows not the truth cannot know God. But 
nevertheless, as has already been said, even the barbarians now 
through me, the true servant of God, know God and have learned 
to reverence him, who they have seen by the very facts shields me 
and everywhere provides for me. Now these know and reverence 
God primarily for fear of us. But we who are supposed to advocate 
(for I would not say defend) the holy mysteries of his Grace, we, I 
say, do nothing but that which encourages discord and hatred and, 
to speak frankly, which leads to the destruction of the human race. 

So hasten, as already has been said, and take care that all may 
come to us swiftly, persuaded that I will try with all my might to 
set things straight, so that those things may be protected which in 
God's law are especially inviolate, against which neither blame nor 
any ill repute will be able to be attached, when the enemies of the 
law-whoever under the guise of the holy name proffer many and 
varied blasphemies-are clearly scattered and wholly crushed and 
completely obliterated.4 

195 

4 Apol.sec. 86.2-12 (Opitz 164f). The version of the letter in Gelasius HE 3.18 (G. 
Loeschcke and M. Heinemann, edd., GCS 28 [Leipzig 1918] 179ff) does not include 
Constantine's refusal to speak with the bishop, replacing it instead with further testi­
mony to his piety. Its authenticity must remain dubious, despite a valiant effort by N. 
H. Baynes, "Athanasiana," JEA 11 (1925) 61-65, esp. 63, to attribute the difference to 
editing by an embarrassed Athanasius (supported by T. D. Barnes, "Emperors and 
Bishops, A.D. 324-344," AJAH 3 [1978] 53-75, esp. 74 n.65, calling attention to 



DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

196 ATHANASIUS' FIRST EXILE 

Athanasius follows the letter with the remark that, "When those 
around Eusebius [sc. of Nicomedia1 learned this, knowing what they 
had done, they forbade the other bishops from coming along, and 
went alone, by themselves .... "5 Now this comment is clearly in 
error. Given the constraints imposed by the Festal Index, there was 
scarcely time for Constantine's letter to reach Tyre, much less for the 
bishops to have travelled thence to Constantinople, before the meet­
ing that led to Athanasius' exile. A delegation of bishops, their meet­
ing at Tyre concluded, must already have been en route to the capital 
with their decisions at the time of Constantine's summons, unaware 
that such a letter had ever been written. Even without the time 
limitation imposed by the Index, only such a reconstruction can 
explain why Constantine received the delegation, instead of finding 
the entire Council guilty of ignoring his summons. 

But the solution to this one problem creates another. It is com­
monly held, on the basis of the Index, that Athanasius first saw the 
emperor eight days after his arrival, which would be November 6, the 
day before his exile. This leaves precious little time for Constantine's 
letter to be drafted, the bishops to arrive, and the decisive con­
frontation to occur. One solution was to propose that the bishops had 
outpaced their prey and were already in Constantinople waiting for 
him to surface. But Baynes showed that this position is untenable, 
for in that case there would have been no need for the letter of sum­
mons.6 

Peeters, who has resolved so many of the chronological problems 
raised by this event, concluded that there never had been a second 
confrontation. After the encounter in the street, Athanasius was held 
under a kind of house-arrest while agents of his enemies, already in 
the capital, brought new charges to the emperor, who reacted by 
ordering immediate exile.7 This reconstruction agrees with the bish-

transliteration of the technical Latin term processus at 3.18.4 as evidence for authentic­
ity). It is hard to imagine Athanasius either adding the refusal or removing the flattery. 
Cf E. Schwartz, "Ztir Geschichte des Athanasius VIII," GottNachr 1911, 367-426 
(= "Von Nicaea bis zu Konstantins Too," Gesammelte Schri/ten III [Berlin 1959] 188-
264), esp. 422 n.1. See also C. T. H. R. Ehrhardt, "Constantinian Documents in Gela­
sius of Cyzicus, Ecclesiastical History," lAC 23 (980) 55f. 

5 Apol sec. 87.1 (Opitz 165): Tawa 1J.lX(JE,rrE<; oi 1TEpi Eva-E/3w II, Kai Ei8<iTE<; & 1TE1TOL-
7}KaUL, TOV<; ~II aAAov<; E1TLCTK01TOV<; EKwAvuall aIlEA(JELII, mhoi 8E ~IIOL ... aIlEA­
BOIITE<; .... Later church historians preferred to depict the meeting breaking up in dis­
array, with most of the participants scurrying for the cover of their respective sees: Soc. 
HE 1.33-35, Soz. HE 2.28. However satisfying dramatically, timing prevents such a 
scene from ever having been played. 

6 lRS 18 (928) 221. 
7 P. Peeters, "L'epilogue du Synode de Tyre en 335," AnaiBoll63 (945) 131-44. 



DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

H.A.DRAKE 197 

op's own complaint that Constantine acted without granting him a 
hearing (Apol.sec. 87.2 [Opitz 166]): w<; ijKOVCTE TT,V TOc.aVT7JV Bc.a­
{3o'A:rJV, EV(JV<; E1TVpW(Jr." Kat a VTi T7]<; aKpoaCTEW<; Ei<; Tl~<; r a.\.\ia<; 
i,JUi<; a7TECTTE«'.\EV. But it also raises the question how Athanasius 
knew about either Constantine's letter or the meeting that was held 
without him. 

Peeter's own answer was that the bishop, held incommunicado 
until spirited aboard ship by Constantine's emissaries, did not in fact 
know the reason for his exile and simply constructed circumstances 
to explain the letter, which came into his possession much later.8 

Others have been more skeptical, especially in light of Epiphanius' 
account of a blistering exchange between bishop and emperor.9 No 
matter how much credence one is willing to give Athanasius, it 
seems clear that he was hard put to explain why an emperor who, on 
his account, supported him so fervently should have reversed himself 
so suddenly. 

A recent study by T. D. Barnes accepts the second, confrontational 
meeting, and presents the only logical conclusion: if Athanasius did 
not see Constantine until November 6 and was sent away a day later, 
and if his opponents could not have been in the city earlier, then 
they must have arrived "only a few hours" after dispatch of the letter 
and made their case directly.lO Yet had all this transpired so swiftly, it 
is difficult to conceive how Athanasius could even mistakenly have 
thought that the bishops had come in response to Constantine's 
summons. 

Barnes relied heavily on Peeters for his chronology.! 1 But one of 
the most significant results of the Bollandist's studies was to open up 
the interval between Athanasius' flight and his arrival in Constan­
tinople. The bishop is often depicted as sailing directly to the capital. 
Yet Peeters observed that his dramatic flight must have taken place, 
at the latest, in early September, almost two months before his ar­
rival in the capital.12 He also noted that the Syriac word usually ren-

8 Peeters (supra n.7) 144. 
9 Adv.haer. 68 (Migne, PG 42.197). See esp. Schwartz (supra n.4) 423. 
10 T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge [Mass.] 1981) 240. See also 

Barnes (supra n.4) 62f. 
11 Barnes (supra n.4) 62f. 
12 Athanasius' decision to quit the council was prompted by the appointment of the 

fact-finding commission, which he considered prejudiced against him: Apol.sec. 82. 
Since the commission was in Egypt on September 8 (n.14 infra), it could not have 
been appointed later than the end of August. See P. Peeters, "Comment S. Athanase 
s'enfuit de Tyr en 335," BAB V.30 (1944) 131-77, esp. 160. There is, moreover, no 
indication that Athanasius attended the Encaenia celebration in Jerusalem, to which 
Constantine bade those attending the Council of Tyre adjourn (Eus. VC 4.43). Since 



DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

198 ATHANASIUS' FIRST EXILE 

dered 'open boat' in translations specifically means 'log raft', a tra­
ditional form of local conveyance in Phoenicia. Properly read, he 
concluded, the Festal Index does not say that the bishop sailed di­
rectly to Constantinople in such a craft, but only that he used it to 
elude the harbor watch in his escape from Tyre.13 Given the time 
involved, it is not inconceivable that he proceeded overland rather 
than by sea, no doubt exercising caution to evade any pursuers. 

But the larger question is, what did the bishops do during these 
two months? It is clear that they were not free to take up the chase 
themselves. In early September, a fact-finding commission sent by 
the council to Egypt was still taking depositions.14 Even if the bishops 
had not waited for its return, but taken Athanasius' flight as admis­
sion of guilt, they still were obliged to remove themselves to Jerusa­
lem for a lavish, eight-day ceremony to dedicate Constantine's new 
Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Encaenia festival lasted from 
September 13 to 20. The bishops, now sitting as the Council of Jeru­
salem, used their time well. Following Constantine's instructions they 
readmitted Athanasius' arch-enemy Arius to communion and bade all 
other churches in the East to to do likewise.15 

In all likelihood the bishops did wait for the return of the fact­
finding commission before condemning Athanasius: to do otherwise 
would have been to play into the hands of an adversary whose de­
fense from the start had stressed the prejudice of his accusers. Thus 
the formal finding of guilt would not have been made until after the 
Encaenia festivities, hence in late September or even early October. 
Less certain is whether the bishops returned to Tyre or continued to 
sit in Jerusalem. In his letter Constantine refers to the synod in the 
past tense, indicating that he thought it was no longer meeting at 

the celebration began on September 13 (n.15 ilifra), the summons must have arrived, 
at the latest, in the first week in September. Athanasius' absence from Jerusalem thus 
corroborates early September as the time of his departure from Tyre. 

13 Peeters (supra n.l2) 152-65; cf Peeters (supra n.7) 134f. The most recent transla­
tors opt for the more conservative 'barque': cf. Martin and Albert (supra n.2) 233 and 
n.21. 

14 Athanasius' partisans responded to the presence of the commission with a flurry of 
letters and protests, reproduced in Apol.sec. 73-79. One sent to imperial officials (76) 
was formally dated 10 Thoth (September 8). 

15 Their encyclical is reproduced in part at Apol.sec. 84 and more fully in Athan. De 
synod. 21. For the Council of Jerusalem see Eus. VC 4.43-47. The date of the En­
caenia, firmly established in numerous Eastern synaxaries, appears in the Paschal 
Chronicle as September 16-23 because of a mistake in calculating the dates of the 
Egyptian month Thoth. See H. Vincent and F.-M. Abel, Jerusalem: Recherches de topo­
graphie, d'archi!ologie et d'histoire II (Paris 1914) 204 n.2; G. Garitte, Le calendrier pa­
lestino-georgien du Sinaiticus 34 (= SubsHagiogr 30 [Brussels 1958]) 328f. 



DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

H.A.DRAKE 199 

Tyre; but the letter also shows that as of the time of his encounter 
with Athanasius he still did not know what it had decided-unusual if 
it had, indeed, concluded almost two months earlier. For present 
purposes date is more important than place.I6 

More important, too, is the bishops' response to Athanasius' flight. 
Knowing the outcome, historians have assumed that the bishops also 
knew from the start that Athanasius' destination was Constantinople. 
Yet from a contemporary perspective he would have been even more 
likely to head for Egypt, which had sheltered him so effectively in the 
pastP Conceivably the bishops did not learn otherwise until the 
return of their commissioners from Egypt. At this point, did they 
panic? Constantine's letter suggests otherwise. 

Relying on Athanasius' own account, and even more on the elab­
orations of later church historians, scholars typically describe this as 
an angry letter, sent by a Constantine outraged by the violence done 
to so saintly a churchman. But as it stands in the pages of Athana­
sius, it is a curiously contradictory document, sending perplexingly 
mixed signals. It is angriest at the beginning, denouncing the contro­
versy and disorder of which he has heard. Yet even here Constantine 
makes clear that he does not yet know the outcome of the proceed­
ings, and is asking the bishops to come to him so that he may have a 
full account.18 Then the tone changes, from peremptory to concilia­
tory. Constantine explains the reason for his summons-his encoun­
ter with Athanasius in the street-and then (something odd for an 
outraged partisan of Athanasius) takes pains to assure the bishops 
that he had refused to speak with the accused and was even prepared 
to drive him from his presence. Indeed, Constantine protests that he 

16 Schwartz (supra n.4) 423 thought it procedurally impossible for the Council of 
Jerusalem to begin before the Council of Tyre had ended, and took Constantine's 
language to mean that that Council had adjourned. But this solution fails to explain 
why Constantine would not then have known of the council's decision. Barnes (supra 
n.10) 239 places the decision after the Encaenia and assumes that the bishops returned 
to Tyre. Significantly, Athanasius (Apo/.sec. 87) does not say where the bishops were 
when they received Constantine's letter; Socrates (HE 1.33-35) says it reached them 
in Jerusalem. By this time, however, the delegation must already have been en route 
to Constantinople (supra n.5). 

17 Athanasius hid with the monks in upper Egypt to avoid attending the council 
called to judge him in Caesarea in 334 (Soz. HE 2.25). A papyrus published by H. I. 
Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt (London 1924) 53ff, shows him vacillating prior to 
leaving for Tyre in 335, despite receiving a specific order from Constantine himself. 

18 Apol.sec. 86.2 (Opitz 164f): EYW ,uv O:Yvow Tiva EUTL Ta Vrro rij<; V/-LE'TEpa<; uvvo­
~ov /-LETa 8opvf30v Kat XEL,."wvo<; Kpt8Evm. ~OKEL & 1TW<; Vrro 'TtVO<; o:mgia<; mpaxwoov<; 
ij aA7]8Eta ~tEUTpacp8at .... TOtyapovv ij 1TELY",,£VW<; 1Tavm<; v,."as 1TPO<; rT,v E/-LT,V 
uvvElI.8ELV Ei'UE/3EtaV f30vll.o,."at, iva rT,v TWV 1TE1Tpay,.,,£vwv vJi1v O:Kpi/3EtaV ~t' v,."wv 
aVTwv 1TapaUT7](1)TE. 



DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

200 ATHANASIUS' FIRST EXILE 

had only stopped, to begin with, because he had not recognized Ath­
anasius. Finally, all he would consent to was a meeting at which the 
accusers would also be present.19 

What can explain this eagerness to justify his summons and to 
assure bishops who purportedly have so roused his ire that he refused 
to speak with their adversary? As Peeters reasoned, it is likely that 
during these two months communications passed between bishops 
and emperor.20 Given the problem created by Athanasius' earlier 
delaying tactics, it is not difficult to surmise the contents of such 
letters. In summoning the Council of Tyre, Constantine had given 
express guarantees, in language more than a little similar to that of 
this second letter, to preserve order and punish resisters.21 Upon 
Athanasius' flight, the bishops must have sought and received assur­
ances that these guarantees would be honored. Hence this new letter, 
showing a Constantine exasperated by the reports of dissension but 
still careful to show that he was abiding by his agreement. 

Even more significantly, Constantine's letter helps us interpret the 
Festal Index. As we have seen, scholars have taken the Index to 
say that Athanasius' encounter with Constantine in the streets did 
not occur until eight days after his arrival, on November 6, raising 
the question of what prompted the bishop to bide his time. In fact 
the language of the Index is more compressed: it merely states that 
Athanasius arrived on October 30 and met with the emperor eight 
days later.22 It was evidently Larsow who, by adding a footnote that 
linked the two in his German translation of 1852, first determined 
that the meeting eight days after Athanasius' arrival and the incident 
in the street described in Constantine's letter were one and the 
same.23 Yet in his letter Constantine states explicitly that he refused 
an interview at the time of this encounter and only agreed to meet in 
the presence of others. In view of the brevity of the Index, which is 
clearly meant to give only highlights and not a complete chronology, 
it seems reasonable to conclude that the mention of Athanasius' 
encounter with Constantine eight days after his arrival refers to 
this formal meeting. Hence there is good reason to date the en­
counter in the street to the day of Athanasius' arrival in Constan-

19 Apol.sec. 86.8 (c! supra n.4). 
20 Supra n.12: 167ff. 
21 Eusebius quotes the letter at VC 4.42. 
22 The Syriac ethpe'el-meaning either 'had himself seen by' (i.e., 'presented himself 

to') or 'was seen by' -is sufficiently vague to suggest either a formal meeting or a 
chance encounter. I am grateful to Professor William Countryman of The Church Di­
vinity School of the Pacific for translating and advising me on this passage. 

23 Die Fest-Briefe des Heiligen Athanasius (Leipzig 1852) 28 n.2. 



DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

B. A. DRAKE 201 

tinople (October 30) and to assume that the Index passes over this 
event in silence. 

A potential obstacle to this conclusion appears in the Justinianic 
Code, where a law of Constantine from this year is quoted with the 
subscription D. X kal. Nov. Nicopoli.z4 If Constantine was in Nicopolis 
to promulgate this law on October 23, he is unlikely to have been 
back in the capital on October 30. This absence would justify the 
traditional reading of the Index and also explain why Athanasius 
waited eight days: Constantine was away from Constantinople until 
that date.Z5 There is, however, good reason to question the subscrip­
tion to this law, for two others in the Theodosian Code show that the 
emperor was in the capital at least on October 21, and possibly as late 
as October 22, making it impossible for him to have been in Nico­
polis a day later.26 For this reason the editor of the Justinianic Code 
suggested emending the Nicopolis law to read 'posted' instead of 
'given'-a matter of changing D. to PP.27 

With or without emendation, the present state of the evidence 
clearly does not require Constantine's absence from the capital on 
October 30; on the other hand Athanasius' bedraggled and histrionic 
condition, implied by Constantine's failure to recognize him, along 
with the noisy demonstration Constantine describes, fit well with 
the day of Athanasius' arrival at Constantinople in a state of physical 
and emotional near-collapse after two harrowing months of living 
in fear for his life. The alternative, while possible, is not pleasant 
to consider: that the bishop had eight days to rest, think, and weigh 
his options before staging one of history's more striking coups de 
theatre. 

Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that Athanasius encountered 
the emperor the day he arrived in Constantinople, October 30, and 
gained the opportunity he sought to confront his accusers on their 
own arrival eight days later.28 Although there would not have been 
time for the bishops to receive Constantine's letter in Tyre and travel 
to the capital, the interval would have been enough, perhaps, for 
Athanasius to think, with blurred memory some twenty years later, 
that they had come in response to such a summons. 

24 Cod. lust. 40.4 (CIC II, P. KrUger, ed. [Berlin 1877] 85). 
25 Barnes (supra n.10) 239; cf. Barnes (supra n.4) 74 n.64. 
26 Cod. Theod. 16.8.5, 9.1, both of which represent different parts of Const.Sirm. 4. 

Slight differences in the dates are displayed in the edition of Mommsen-Meyer (1.1 
ccxxiii). 

27 See KrUger (supra n.24) ad lac. 
28 Schwartz (supra n.4) 421ff recognized this possibility. 



DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

202 ATHANASIUS' FIRST EXILE 

Most of the chronological problems posed by the limited and con­
tradictory evidence for Athanasius' first exile are thus resolved by 
taking the Index to refer only to the formal meeting between Athana­
sius and his accusers that occurred on November 6 and precipitated 
his departure on the morning's tide. 

The chronology of the events during these months may be illu-
strated as follows: 

July 11: Athanasius leaves for Tyre (Festal Index 8) 
Sept. 1-10: Athanasius flees Tyre (Apol.sec. 82) 
Sept. 13-20: Encaenia. Council of Jerusalem (VC 4.43f) 
ca Oct. 1: Athanasius condemned by Council 
Oct. 30: Athanasius arrives in Constantinople; confrontation in 

street (Festal Index; letter to bishops) 
ca Nov. 5: Arrival of bishops from Tyre 
Nov. 6: Interview with Constantine; Athanasius ordered into 

exile (Festal Index) 
Nov. 7: Athanasius sails for Gaul (Festal Index) 

There remains the question of what precisely led Constantine to 
reverse himself so completely. Athanasius' own account, followed by 
most historians, is that the bishops realized that their decisions at 
Tyre were now tainted, and so brought forward a new charge: the 
imperious bishop was conspiring to prevent the grain fleet from 
sailing to Constantinople from Alexandria (Apol.sec. 87). 

It has long been recognized that fairness to his adversaries was not 
uppermost in Athanasius' mind. Some have even suspected that the 
chief aim of his account was to demonstrate that his exile was not 
due to the decision of a properly constituted synod.29 Nevertheless 
Athanasius' claim to have been exiled on a trumped-up charge has 
appealed to supporters and detractors alike: for his admirers the 
charge is easy to dismiss as a complete libel, whereas even for schol­
ars more skeptical of the bishop's methods such a conspiracy has 
seemed sufficiently within the realm of possibility to explain Constan­
tine's sudden action. 

It simply cannot be. The grain fleet was Constantinople's lifeline 
and the key to its domestic tranquility. Interference with its arrival 
amounted to high treason, and called for sterner measures than exile: 
for Sopater it meant the axe.30 Constantine might have shrunk from 

29 c;r O. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt2 IV (Stuttgart 1921) 57. 
For a useful recent discussion see also T. Orlandi, "Sull' Apologia secunda (contra 
Arianos) di Atanasio di Alessandria," Augustinianum 15 (975) 49-79. 

30 The story of Sopater's execution on a charge of blocking the trade winds appears in 
Eunap. VS 62.2. 



DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

H. A. DRAKE 203 

visiting so severe a fate on a Christian patriarch, but, as Peeters 
pointed out, deportation with orders that he be shown every consid­
eration without even being removed from his see simply does not fit 
such a charge. It may be that Athanasius intentionally drew this red 
herring across the trail of his exile. Or there might be some kernel of 
fact in it if the Sopater incident occurred about this time, for the 
atmosphere in the capital then would have been conducive to con­
spiracy charges against others than the hapless philosopher. Athana­
sius may have remembered, or chosen to remember, one such ac­
cusation against himself. In any case his sentence shows that Con­
stantine did not take it seriously.31 

Baynes found a more plausible solution embedded in Socrates' 
account. At precisely the point where he seems to be using a source 
other than Athanasius, he writes: "There are those who say the 
emperor had done this with the aim of unifying the church, since 
Athanasius avoided all communion with the Arians. "32 This pas­
sage suggests that the answer is not to be found by examining the 
Church's concerns, but rather Constantine's. 

Historians, looking back through a theological lens, have often 
depicted Constantine's religious policy in this period as wavering or 
even opportunistic, veering from Arian to orthodox and back.33 In 
fact it was remarkably consistent. Throughout his reign he favored 
those who valued unity over purity, and common sense over a rigid 
adherence to principle; thus he considered the decisions of councils 
binding in matters of faith.34 Earlier in the year, Constantine had 
pronounced himself satisfied with Arius' confession, and the bishops 
just meeting at Jerusalem had ordered him restored to communion. 
Had Athanasius refused in the emperor's presence to honor this 
decree, as he surely would have done, Constantine in turn would 
have found the bishops' complaints about his intransigent and over­
bearing behavior valid, and his counter-charge of ill-treatment with­
out merit. Transport to Gaul with a charge to re-examine his position 

31 Peeters (supra n.12) 170r. Sopater's death is usually dated earlier than 335, but 
Barnes (supra n.lO) 253 speculates that it might have occurred at this time. 

32 HE 1.35. SOZ. HE 2.28.14 also includes concern for unity as an optional explana­
tion. See Baynes (supra n.4) 64f; F. Winkelmann, "Konstantins Religionspolitik und 
ihre Motive im Urteil der literarischen Quellen des 4. und 5. lahrhunderts," ActaAnt 9 
(I961) 243. 

33 "Un pauvre homme qui tattonait," in the famous judgment of Andre Piganiol, 
L 'Empereur Constantin (Paris 1932) 226. 

34 His express aim in summoning the Council of Tyre had been to restore concord 
and unity: see Eus. VC 4.42; on his general policy, N. H. Baynes, Constantine the Great 
and the Christian Church 2 (London 1972) 12ff. 



DRAKE, H. A., Athanasius' First Exile , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 
(1986:Summer) p.193 

204 ATHANASIUS' FIRST EXILE 

was entirely appropriate under these circumstances, and leaving him 
in titular possession of his see a politically wise gesture.35 

There is a certain ironic justice in this denouement. At Nicaea Ath­
anasius had succeeded in using Constantine's overriding concern for 
unity to isolate those Arians whose theological principles were too 
pure to allow them to accept the tainted word homoousios. But his 
foes had learned well: a decade later Athanasius was hoisted on his 
own petard. 

This new look at the details of Athanasius' first exile may rob 
historians of certain appealing vignettes: the bishop's calculated dis­
play of hysteria, the fear and trembling of his enemies at Tyre, the 
melodramatic arrival of the accusers in hot pursuit at Constantinople. 
But it may enable us to see a bit more clearly Constantine's goals and 
methods. 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA 

June, 1986 

35 K. Girardet, Kaisergericht und Bischojsgericht (Bonn 1975) 73. Barnes (supra n.4) 
74 n.66 dismisses this position as "totally impossible," because Constantine's letter of 
summons "implicitly annuls the decisions of the council" (63). It is perhaps better to 
think of Constantine acting as Eusebius describes him at VC 4.27.2: "And he ratified 
the rules of bishops which had been made known in synods" (KaL 'TO';"" 'TOJv E1TW'K01TWV 
& oPOlJf; 'TO';"" EV (TtJvo&n~ a1TOc/Kx,,8E"'Ta~ E1TEu4>pa:yU;.E'To). That is, in acting as a court 
of appeal Constantine did not nullify the synod's decision but agreed to review it. 
Had he found for Athanasius, he would have sent the case back to the bishops; since 
he did not, he merely enforced the decision already made, making a further synod 
unnecessary.