From Palladius to Maximinus: Passing the Arian Torch

The fifth-century Latin manuscript from the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, Par. BN Lat. 8907, is a key source for the history of Latin Arianism. ¹ The contents amount to a potted history of the sect’s defeat in the fourth century: Hilary of Poitiers is represented by his systematic demolition of Arian doctrines, De Trinitate, and two accounts of the resistance to the heresy, De Synodis and Contra Auxentium; then come the first two volumes of Ambrose’s refutation of Arianism, De Fide, and the Acts of the Council of Aquileia of 381, which show Ambrose in action, securing the condemnation of the Arian bishops Palladius and Secundianus.

The manuscript is our oldest witness to these texts, but its real interest lies in the margins. These contain two blocks of scholia: one begins with De fide, and continues for a third of its length (ff. 298r–311v); another block then fills the margins of the Acts of Aquileia, continuing almost to the end (ff. 336r–349r). And these scholia contain in effect the Arian response to the main text: both sections discuss the council of Aquileia, reviling Ambrose himself (as everything from a “vexatious litigator” to a “servant of Antichrist”), his council (“brigandage”) and his Nicene beliefs (a “blasphemy” and “shipwreck of faith”).

For all the consistency of its focus, this attack has now been shown to have been delivered in two quite separate installments. Questions of composition and authorship have been resolved decisively by R. Gryson, who produced the first modern edition of the scholia in 1980, together with an invaluable concordance and, with L. Gilissen, a full paleographical study. ² Gryson conclusively identifies the material in the second block of scholia as the work of Ambrose’s opponent Palladius himself, and thus a firsthand account of the proceedings at Aquileia. The force of this account has been widely recognized, and Palladius’ stock has risen accordingly. ³ The scholia in the first block, and a brief note appended to the conclusion of the second, have meanwhile been convincingly attributed to the same Arian Bishop Maximinus who confronted Augustine; Gryson demonstrates that they were added to the manuscript after 438 (and after the work by Palladius had been copied there) by several hands, one of which he tentatively identifies as the autograph of Maximinus himself. ⁴ For Gryson, however, the interest of Maximinus’ contributions is largely paleographical. Exposing the purely derivative nature of the bishop’s account, he faults him severely for his lack of intellectual rigor, artistic skill, and above all, of historical sense; ⁵ this verdict has been widely echoed. ⁶ The purpose of this paper is to propose a more positive assessment of Maximinus and his work.

It must be admitted that Maximinus’ scholia lack any obvious coherence. He begins by quoting extracts from the Acts of Aquileia and commenting on these, his contributions consisting mainly of exclamations and further quotation (1–24 [1–19]), ⁷ until eventually (after covering less than a fifth of the Acts in ten extracts) he lapses into a long stretch of continuous quotation (25–34 [20]). He then abruptly breaks off, referring the reader to the main text, and turns instead to a brisk summary of the council’s proceedings (35–36 [21]). Among a number of supporters for Palladius’ doctrines he invokes the Gothic bishop Ulfila, who he claims accompanied Palladius to the court of Theodosius after Aquileia (37–41 [22–23]); there follows the quotation, in full, of a long letter by another Arian bishop, Auxentius, describing Ulfila’s faith, his life, and his final journey to Constantinople in 383 for the abortive Conference of Sects (42–63 [24–40]): all of which is of great interest to the modern historian but seems out of all proportion to its relevance to Palladius’ case. Maximinus resumes with a short (and unfortunately much mutilated) passage asserting that Palladius and Secundianus were also present at the Conference of Sects (64 [41]). He then abruptly declares that he must discuss an isolated statement by Auxentius, about how the Nicenes had “reconsidered” the Conference; during...