Two Speeches by Eusebius Barnes, T D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1977; 18, 4; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 341 Two Speeches by Eusebius T. D. Barnes S OMB MANUSCRIPTS of Eusebius' Life of Constantine contain not only the four books of the Life and Constantine's Speech to the Assembly of the Saints but also two speeches which are conventionally known by a single title as Laus Constantini, Laudes Constantini, De laudibus Constantini, or the "Tricennial Oration," and which all editors of Eusebius so far have published as a Single work. l That the two speeches are in fact separate compositions ought to be clear, and some obvious differences between the first ten chapters in the traditional numeration and the last eight were stated long ago.2 Nevertheless, some scholars still continue to treat the whole as a single speech,3 so that it will be necessary to preface a discussion of the dates of the two speeches by restating the decisive arguments for dividing the text into two halves. Both external attestation and internal criteria point to two separate and distinct works. First, all three primary manuscripts have traces of a break between chapters 10 and 11, and the most reliable of them explicitly marks the two parts as bearing distinct titles (vi~., "TpuXoKovTaETTfPLK6C" and "jlacLAtK6e" respectively).' Second, each part constitutes a logical and stylistic unity, which differs from the other in tone and purpose.s The first ten chapters are a panegyric addressed to Constantine in his presence (1.1), with a formal preface and an easily recognisable conclusion (10.7).6 The last eight chapters, in con­ trast, read like a sermon on a solemn occasion: they justify Constan­ tine's building of churches, particularly his building of the Church of 1 The most recent edition is that of I. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke 1 (GCS 7,1902) 195-259. Although he prints a continuous text, not even marking a lacuna between 10 and 11, he argues in his introduction that "eine neue Schrift" begins with ch.ll (ibid. civ-cvi). I P. Wendland, BPW 22 (1902) 232f (reviewing Heikel); E. Schwartz, RE 6 (1909) 1428f. 3 So, recently, S. Calderone, Le Culte des souverains dans l'empire romain (Entretiens Hardt 19, 1973) 220. 'Heikel, op.cit. (supra n.l), on 223.22, 259.29, cf on 196.14. 5 H. A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius' Tricennial Orations (University of California Publications, Classical Studies 15, 1976) 311f. • Eusebius looks forward to Constantine's reception into heaven-a Christian version of the traditional closing prayer for an emperor's longevity, cf AJP 96 (1975) 444. 341 342 TWO SPEECHES BY EUSEBIUS the Holy Sepulchre, repeat many well-worn apologetical arguments in favour of Christianity, and advance an interpretation of human history as culminating in the Christian Empire (11-18). Thirdly, the two parts present themselves as delivered in different places: the panegyric was delivered in the imperial palace (praef 4), with Constan­ tine and the Caesar Constantius present (1.1; 3.4, cf VC 4.49), while the eleventh chapter, despite its invocations of Constantine in the second person (11.1; 11.7; cf 18.1), refers to Jerusalem as 7TO),£WC rijc8£ (11.2)-which implies that Eusebius was speaking in that city. More­ over, a passage towards the end of the whole refers back to a sentence in chapter 11 as occurring "at the start of the speech" (16.9, cf 11.4). The traditional designation, therefore, embraces two quite separate works: the preface and chapters 1-10 are a panegyric on Constantine, chapters 11-18 a treatise on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Both panegyric and treatise can be dated precisely by reference to external events. Constantine celebrated his tricennalia for a full year, with the principal festivities occurring on 25 July 335 and 25 July 336 (Chr.min. 1.235). The extant panegyric genuinely deserves the title Laudes Constantini or "Tricennial Oration," for it is the speech in honour of Constantine's tricennalia which Eusebius promised to append to his Life eVC 4.46). Although some scholars have dated it to 25 July 335,7 or even to early September 335,8 Eusebius alludes to the Caesar Dalmatius, who was raised to the purple on 18 September 335 (3.4, cf Chr.min. 1.235). Since, moreover, Eusebius delivered the speech on an occasion when Constantine was also praised by other panegyrists (praef), and in Constantinople (1.1; VC 4.46), the correct date must be 25 July 336.9 The treatise, however, was composed for the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which was solemnly inaugurated by a council of bishops on 13 Sep­ tember 335.10 Hence it is chronologically impossible to argue (as several scholars have done)l1 that Eusebius composed the treatise 7 A. Harnack, Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (Leipzig 1904) 117; J. Quasten, Patrology III (Utrecht and Westminster [Md.] 19(0) 326; B. Altaner and A. Stuiber, Patrologie7 (Freiburg 1966) 220. 8 A. Piganiol, L'Empire chretien (Paris 1947) 82 n.62; Calderone, op.cit. (supra n.3) 220 n.l. • H. A. Drake, Histona 24 (1975) 345ff. 10 For the very varied evidence attesting the dare. see A. Bludau, Die Pilgerreise der Aetheria (Studien Zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 15.1-2. 1927) 185ff; P. Peeters. Bulletin de I'Acadbnie royale de Belgique. Ciasse des Lettres 30 (1944) 167 n.l. 11 Thus Calderone, op.cit. (supra n.3) 220 n.l. T. D. BARNES 343 for the ceremonies in Jerusalem in September 335 and later combined it with the already written panegyric to form a single speech which he delivered in Constantinople in the late autumn of that year. If the panegyric belongs to 336, then the treatise is not only a separate work, but earlier in date. The hypothesis that chapters 11-18 of the Laudes Constantini were delivered twice represents an attempt to solve a dilemma which Eusebius' own references to orations about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre appear to impose. The Life 0IConstantine mentions a speech or speeches which its author composed on this church in three passages. In the first, Eusebius states that he delivered a speech "about the monument of our salvation" in the imperial palace and that Constantine insisted on standing throughout its delivery (4.33). Second, a passage which is partly corrupt in the manuscripts alludes to a speech which Eusebius gave in Jerusalem when the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was dedicated in September 335 (4.45.3). As printed by the most recent and most careful editor, it reads as follows: €v()a o~ Kat ~/J,ELC TWII trrr€p ~ILac aya()wv.;,gLwILEvoL 7ToLKLAaLc TaLC ,\ \ \:' \ 'e \, \, - \ \ - Q \ ~ EtC 1'0 KOtVOV oLall£s £CL TTJV £oPTTJv £TLILWIL£V, 1'01'£ IL£v TWII JJaallE"L .J.. \ .J.. I \, .J.. I I \ \:,\ I 7T£'f'LIlOC0'f'TJIL£vWII Tac £K'f'pac£Lc 7TOLouIL£vOL, 1'01'£ O£ KaLpLouc CUIL{3bAOLC Tac 7Tpor/>TJTLKaC iPIL'1)II£VOVT£C \ ~ I Kat TOtC 7TPOK£LIL£IIOLC ()£wpLac. 12 The third passage (4.46.1) immediately follows that quoted, and in it Eusebius describes briefly a speech which he intends to append to the Life in the appropriate place: t ~,~ - - ~.. \ ,., .,. , f o OC U 0 TOU CWTTJpOC v£wc, 0 LOV 1'0 CWT'1)pLOV aVTpOII, 0 LaL 1'£ aL {3acLAEwc r/>LAoKaAtaL ava()'1)ILcx"wII 1'£ 7TA~()'1) £V xpuccp 1'£ Kat " '\I() I , \~I '" apyupttJ KaL ilL OLC TLILLOLC 7T£7TOL'1)IL£VWV, KaTa uuvaILtV £11 OLK£LttJ cvyypaILILaTL 7Tapa8oVT£C aVTcp {3acLA£L 7Tpoc£r/>w~caIL£v, It has been assumed that all three passages allude to the same speech: hence it seems natural to combine the second and third passages, which are almost consecutive, and to deduce from them that Eusebius presented the speech of September 335 a second time, before the 11 F. Winkelmann, Eusebius Werke 1.1 2 (GCS, 1975) 139. The main textual variants are these: (1) Winkelmann, following Heikel, deletes 8,a ypaf'f'aTOC after TOT€ f'£"; (2) '7T£tfx).oco­ tfwif'£VWV V '7T£t/nAoKt:V.71f'£vWV J NAB; (3) '7TOtOVf'€Vo, and tPf'71v£VOVT£c have been trans­ posed-an emendation whose necessity Valesius had detected. 344 TWO SPEECHES BY EUSEBIUS emperor, when he came to Constantinople in November of that year.13 Yet the contents of the speech which Eusebius states that he delivered before Constantine do not match the extant speech, since this lacks any physical description of the site or buildings. From the contradiction one of two unwelcome corollaries appears inevitably to follow. Either identity of the two orations must be sustained by the hypothesis that Eusebius removed the description when he gave the speech a second time,a or the speech to which Eusebius alludes must be different from the speech which survives.1s But Eusebius does not explicitly say that the speech which he delivered in Con­ stantinople was the same as he had spoken in Jerusalem, and the juxtaposition of the two references need not imply identity. If the speeches of September and November 335 were in fact different, then all the evidence falls neatly into place. The speech which Constantine heard standing is clearly the speech of November 335, since the panegyric of 25 July 336 was only the second occasion on which Eusebius glorified God in the imperial palace (VC 4.46). But the speech of September differed in content from the one which he delivered before the emperor: it did not describe the site, the building or the emperor's dedications in gold, silver and precious stones, but dealt with the philosophical assump­ tions from which Constantine's actions proceeded and their theolog­ ical explanation. Now the content of the extant speech corresponds, not to the speech which Eusebius delivered before the emperor and which he promises to append to the Life, but to the one which he affirms that he delivered in Jerusalem. Moreover, the extant speech was in fact delivered in Jerusalem (11.2), and its invocations of Con­ stantine in the second person need not imply that it was ever spoken in his presence.16 On the available evidence, it should thus be concluded that the 11 So, recently, F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 B.C.-A.D. 337) (London 1977) 607. 14 Drake, op.cit. (supra n.5) 44f. The phrase tfo/p€ 81/ at the very beginning of II does not (as Drake urges) suffice to prove that something has been omitted: for apparently resump­ tive beginnings to speeches, cf. Euseb. C.Hier. 1; Themist. Or. 24.1 (aMa Kat); 25.1 (aM' €l); Julian. Or. 8 (aM&); Liban. Or. 25.1 (Ta, 8~ ovo"an TOVTW). 15 I. A. Heikel, Kritische Beitritge ~u den Constantin-Schrijien des Eusebius (Eusebius Werke I) (Texte u. Untersuchungen 36.4, 1911) 81ff. 11 For similar invocations of an absent emperor, note Pan. Lat. 4 (10) 3.1; Themist. Or. 13, cf. HSCP 79 (1975) 329; Liban. Or. 19; 20,cf. A. F. Norman, Libanius' Autobiography (Oration I) (London 1965) 222. - T. D. BARNES 345 speech which survives is the speech which Eusebius delivered in September 335. Why this has been preserved, and not the speech promised in the Life, can readily be explained. Eusebius died with his Life of Constantine unfinishedP The man who added the chapter­ headings and published it knew Eusebius' intentions and attempted to put them into effect. But Eusebius had left two speeches on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and his literary executor unfortunately appended the wrong one. UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO October, 1977 17 G. Pasquali. Hermes 45 (1910) 386; Winkelmann. or.cit. (supra n.12) lvii.