Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
John R. C. Martyn,
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
Book One
Chapter 1: Entry of Vandals into Africa...................................................... 5
Chapter 2: Vandal Savagery ........................................................................ 6
Chapter 3: Demolition of Buildings ............................................................ 7
Chapter 4: Destruction of Carthage ............................................................. 9
Chapter 5: Expulsion of Clergy ................................................................. 10
Chapter 6: Faith of Sebastian..................................................................... 11
Chapter 7: Heavy Persecution ................................................................... 13
Chapter 8: Virtues of Deogratias ............................................................... 14
Chapter 9: Thomas the Confessor.............................................................. 16
Chapter 10: Maxima, other Martyrs and Confessors ................................. 16
Chapter 11: Completing their Martyrdoms................................................ 18
Chapter 12: Persecution Worsens.............................................................. 20
Chapter 13: Martyrdoms of Reader and Others......................................... 20
Chapter 14: Remarkable Event.................................................................. 21
Chapter 15: Confessor Mascula, Master of Mimes ................................... 23
Chapter 16: Faith of Saturus...................................................................... 23
Chapter 17: End of Geiseric’s Persecution ................................................ 25
Book Two
Chapter 1: Beginning of Huneric’s Reign ................................................. 26
Chapter 2: Bishop’s Consecration Allowed............................................... 27
Chapter 3: Virtues of Eugenius ................................................................. 28
Chapter 4: Start of Persecution .................................................................. 29
Chapter 5: Huneric Treats his Family Savagely ........................................ 30
Chapter 6: Visions before Persecution ...................................................... 32
Chapter 7: Heavy Persecution ................................................................... 34
Chapter 8: Faithful Forced into Exile ........................................................ 35
vi Table of Contents
Prologue..................................................................................................... 73
Chapter 1 ................................................................................................... 76
Chapter 2 ................................................................................................... 77
Chapter 3 ................................................................................................... 80
Chapter 4 ................................................................................................... 83
Chapter 5 ................................................................................................... 85
Chapter 6 ................................................................................................... 87
Chapter 7 ................................................................................................... 88
Chapter 8 ................................................................................................... 90
Conclusion ................................................................................................ 96
Book Four
Victor of Vita
Chapter 1: False Accusations by Arians ................................................... 97
Chapter 2: Huneric’s Edict against Catholics ............................................ 97
Chapter 3: Savagery towards Catholic bishops ....................................... 102
Chapter 4: Deceived by Trickery............................................................. 103
Chapter 5: Forced into Exile.................................................................... 104
Book Five
Chapter 1: General Persecution ............................................................... 106
Chapter 2: Suffering of Servus ................................................................ 108
Chapter 3: Bravery of Victoria ............................................................... 108
Chapter 4: Faith of Martyr Victorian....................................................... 109
Chapter 5: Two Brothers, Confessors...................................................... 110
Chapter 6: Amazing Faith of Typasitans: Great Miracle......................... 111
Chapter 7: Vandals’ Savagery to their own People ................................. 112
Chapter 8: Constancy of an Exiled Matron ............................................. 112
Chapter 9: Struggles of Clergy in Carthage. Muritta’s Splendid Deed... 113
Chapter 10: Clergy Forced into Exile ...................................................... 115
Chapter 11: Antony’s Savagery towards Eugenius ................................ 116
Chapter 12: On the Holy Habetdeum ...................................................... 117
Chapter 13: Violent Acts by the Arians................................................... 118
Chapter 14: Woman’s Egregious Deed ................................................... 119
Chapter 15: Confessors’ Deaths in Deserts ............................................. 121
Chapter 16: Holy Habetdeum .................................................................. 121
Chapter 17: Serious Famine .................................................................... 122
Chapter 18: Morality of Barbarians......................................................... 125
Chapter 19: Lamentation for Africa ........................................................ 127
Chapter 20: Author Invokes the Saints .................................................... 128
Chapter 21: Huneric’s Reign ................................................................... 129
viii Table of Contents
The Arian controversy broke out in Alexandria some time during the
second decade of the fourth century and was soon to present the Church
with its greatest intellectual crisis to date. Though scarcely making
inroads in the west for any significant period of time, it effectively
destabilized the Church in the eastern part of the Roman Empire for the
next sixty years until the Council of Constantinople (381) and the vigorous
anti-Arian measures of Theodosius. By the life-times of the three Victors
in the fifth and sixth centuries, ‘Arianism’ had long been regarded as the
archetypal Christian heresy: the word ‘heresy’ being a technical term
signifying a particular theological opinion deemed to be unacceptable and
dangerous to religious belief; a Christian innovation, borrowed from the
polemics of the rival philosophical schools by second century writers.
‘Arianism’ was regarded as the archetypal heresy because in emphasizing
the essential difference between God and the Son it ultimately drew into
question the core tenets of Christianity regarding the nature of salvation
and the long established liturgical practices of the Church.
pious teachers and fully in line with the doctrine of the bishop. There are
two chiefly historical factors that functioned as catalysts to this intellectual
crisis.
The first can be traced back to the brutal and sustained persecution of the
Church in the eastern part of the empire from 303 to 313 by Diocletian and
his fanatically anti-Christian successor, Galerius. Martyrdom was
common in Egypt in particular, and had the effect of weakening the
hierarchical authority in the Alexandrian community. The bishop of
Alexandria, Peter, was martyred in 311, having been absent previously for
long periods through hiding. During the vacuum caused by his absence,
another bishop, Melitius of Lycopolis, ordained clergy for Alexandria
without the permission of Peter, who evidently could be reached without
too much difficulty, thereby causing a major schism. The second factor
has to with the rather unique nature of authority in Alexandria at the time.
Since the late second century, beginning with the shadowy figure of
Pantaenus, but following on by the more palpable figures of Clement, and
Origen, and continuing through to the fourth century, presbyters of the
Churches and teachers in that city enjoyed considerable independence,
with several regarding themselves as charismatic leaders. Arius himself,
like several of his predecessors, claimed to be a teacher ‘instructed by
God’, espousing the idea that the charismatically inspired teacher was
more authoritative than the hierarchical leader. Arius was born in Libya
and was probably already an old man when the crisis broke. He is
described as a skilled dialectician and seems to have had some facility in
philosophy, although this does not imply that he had received a formal
philosophical education. By the end of the second half of the fourth
century Arius is firmly anchored in Alexandria as a pastor of the Baukalis
church, a very popular preacher famous for his asceticism. Thus, when
Alexander succeeded Peter as bishop of Alexandria in 313, he inherited
not only a Church fractured by schism but also a parochial system, with
the bishop presiding over a college of near equals. To the rest of Egypt the
bishop of Alexandria was ‘papa’, in his own city he was ‘primus inter
pares’.
sake of his other works, before the creation of the earth, abyss and
mountains. The interpretation of this passage evidently had a long history
of debate in Alexandria. In the early third century Origen used the passage
to refute the Sabellian blurring of the distinction between the Logos and
the Father. His pupil, Dionysius of Alexandria, carried this anti-Sabellian
exegesis even further, declaring ‘that the Son of God is a creature and
something made, not his own by nature, but alien in essence from the
Father … Being a creature, he did not exist before he came into being’, an
interpretation which later compelled Athanasius to perform some fancy
footwork in his attempt to absolve his predecessor from any proto-Arian
inclinations. For Arius himself, this text provided an interpretation crux
illustrating the substantial difference between God and the Logos. His
solution is elegant: if God creates the Logos, he cannot be eternal
alongside God; he must exist because God wills him to exist. ‘There was
when he did not exist’ is purported to be one of Arius’ slogans.
‘We acknowledge one God, the only unbegotten, the only eternal, the only
one without cause or beginning, the only true, the only possessed of
immortality, the only wise, the only good … the begetter of his only Son
before endless ages … giving him subsistence by his own will … the
perfect creation of God, but not like one among other creatures…’
Arius goes on to distinguish this teaching from various heresies and errors
which make God out to be a material and divisible being, by suggesting
that the Logos is a όµοούσιος portion of divinity, or reduce the Logos to
an impersonal function of God or to one among other aspects of God.
Both Arius and Alexander were influenced in part by Origen who taught
that, although the Son depended on the Father, there was no interval prior
to the generation of the Logos, as God’s self-expressive action must be
eternal. Arius’ main concern was to secure the uniqueness of the Father
and the contingency of the Logos on the Father’s decision. Alexander, in
contrast, emphasized the Son’s co-eternal nature: ‘always God, always the
Son.’ He picks up Origen’s insight that there is a distinction between
eternal existence and independently necessary existence: an eternal Son,
sharing in all the Father’s qualities without reserve, except for the single
fact that the Father has no origin, is reconcilable with the fact that the
Father alone is the source of all. The Son does not exist because of God’s
choice: he is the natural expression of God’s nature, the eternal and perfect
xiv Historical Preface
cement loyalty and unity within the State, and thus had great interest in
resolving what was turning out to be a violently disruptive quarrel in the
Churches. In response to extensive lobbying, probably from both sides,
Constantine summoned a general Council of as many bishops as possible,
from every part of the Roman Empire, which was to meet in Nicaea in
early summer of 325. The exact number of bishops who attended will
never be known. Earlier witnesses only give round numbers but most
estimates are around the 300 mark.
‘We believe in one God, Father Almighty, Maker of all things, seen and
unseen: and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten as only-
begotten of the Father, that is of the substance (οὐσία) of the Father, God
of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made,
consubstantial (ὁµοούσιος) with the Father, through whom all things came
into existence, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men
and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man,
suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens, is
coming to judge the living and the dead: And in the Holy Spirit.’
But to those who say “there was a time when he did not exist,” and “before
being begotten he did not exist,” and that “he came into being from non-
existence,” or who allege that the Son of God is of another ύπόστασις
(hypostasis) or οὐσία, or is alterable or changeable, these the Catholic and
Apostolic Church condemns.
Alexander himself had never described the Son’s relation to the Father
with ousia and its cognates. The word όµοούσιος probably had a loose
meaning but there were several problems with the word not having a
scriptural basis, and some historical and philosophical associations,
including that of an implied materiality, which even those who were not
wholehearted Arians would eventually find unpalatable.
It is reported that the creed, even though it included the terms οὐσία and
όµοούσιος, was received by an overwhelming majority at the time of the
Council. The loose nature of these terms could allow someone like
Eusebius of Caesarea, who was by no means an opponent of Arius’ views,
to persuade himself to accept the creed. He claims, rather unconvincingly,
that the emperor himself qualified the addition of consubstantial
(όµοούσιος) by saying that:
The other remarkable point about the creed is the condemnation in the
anathemas at the end in the view that the Son is “of another ύπόστασις
(hypostasis) or οὐσία” from the Father. The fact is that at the time of the
making of the creed there was a great deal of semantic confusion over the
terms ύπόστασις (hypostasis) and οὐσία indeed for many they had pretty
much the same meaning. By the standard of later orthodoxy, as achieved
in the Council of Constantinople in 381, it is patently heretical, allowing
for a Sabellian doctrine of the successive ‘modes’ of divine being. Some
supporters of Nicaea, notably Marcellus of Ancyra, really did teach
something that approached Sabellianism.
In its letter to the Egyptian and Libyan Churches, the Council recorded its
condemnation of Arius’ person and views: he was excommunicated and
probably degraded from his priesthood. The Libyan bishops Secundus and
Theonas refused to sign the creed and shared his fate. Eusebius of
Nicomedia was also banished some short time after the Council, after
receiving and communicating with some Arian presbyters in his See.
Within ten years they had all been restored by Constantine. Arius was
able to present a non-committal creed to the emperor and his ecclesiastical
Arians and Vandals of the 4th-6th Centuries xvii
advisors, where he affirmed that “the Son is begotten from the Father
before all ages,” but remained silent on homoousios. Evidently this was
enough to satisfy Constantine and he was restored, although he was not
reconciled with the See of Alexandria. Arius died in 336, suddenly, his
opponents tell us, just prior to his being readmitted into communion, on a
public toilet, after experiencing such violent diarrhea that ‘his bowels
came out.’ As Rowan Williams succinctly puts it, ‘the emperor and the
city were duly shocked and edified.’
It was soon apparent that Nicaea did not prove to be the workable
consensus that Constantine hoped for, and for the next thirty or forty years
several replacement creeds were drawn up. The majority of eastern
bishops had genuine misgivings about the όµοούσιος term in the creed.
These anti-Nicenes thought of themselves as being ‘Catholics,’ as
mainstream Christians, and regarded both Athanasius and his supporters,
on one hand, and the aggressive Arians like Eunomius, on the other, as
isolated extremists.
The majority saw the Logos as the perfect and internal image of God,
existing independently, but in such a way as to reveal God definitively.
Arius’ stress on the infinite qualitative difference between God and the
Logos was generally unfavorable. By the 350’s there was a substantial
group who took the middle ground by supporting the term όµοιούσιος ‘of
similar substance,’ adding an iota to the offensive term, as a designation of
the Son’s relation to the Father. These were called the Homoians. Others
perceived that this did not clearly distinguish the natures of the Father and
Son sufficiently, but simply raised again the problem of two first
principles. The latter were the Anomoians for they believed that the
xviii Historical Preface
Father and Son were ἀνοµοιος ‘dissimilar’ in substance. Since the Father
was unbegotten, an essential attribute of divinity, and the Son is begotten,
he could have nothing in common with the Father. By the late 350’s, the
Anomoians had gained a considerable power base, usually at the expense
of the pro-Nicenes and the Homoians, from the support of Constantine’s
son and successor, Constantius.
The 360’s would provide the turning point, where the creed of Nicaea
would gradually begin to become more appealing to the majority. This is
attributable to two factors. The first is political. In 361 the East witnessed
the accession of a passionately anti-Christian emperor, Julian ‘the
Apostate.’ Julian was evenhandedly hostile to pro-Nicenes, Homoians,
Anomoians, and everyone else in the Christian world. His policy was to
allow most exiled bishops to return to their Sees, so that factions could
fight their battles directly, without state intervention. His hope was that
they would effectively destroy each other. His accession removed the
power bases previously enjoyed by any of the factions that led many to
look elsewhere for alliances in this new and precarious situation.
how can even the most exalted creature help in the process? If the
incarnate Son makes us sons and daughters of the eternal Father, what
does it mean that the Son too has to be made a son? Does he also need a
mediator? What the Son gives he must have; if he has by grace and not by
nature, there must be a process by which he acquires these gifts, which
introduces the risk of making salvation dependent on actions other than
God’s. In short, for the Son to give God’s gifts, the Son must act with
God’s action, and not be passive to the act of grace.
retains a certain priority as the primary cause, although the works and
natures of the three persons are indistinguishable.
Pro-Nicene fortunes changed for the better when Valens died and was
succeeded by Theodosius (379-395). Theodosius, born and raised in
Spain, was a son of a general with distinguished service suppressing
rebellion and restoring order in Britain and Africa. He had been called
from retirement by Gratian to share the burden of imperial rule. In
February 380, he issued an edict known as Cunctos Populos, declaring the
Nicene doctrine of the Trinity to be the official doctrine of the Empire.
His subjects were ordered to hold to ‘the single divinity of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit within an equal majesty and an orthodox Trinity.’ He
deposed the Arian bishops in Constantinople and Alexandria appointed
under Valens. On January 10th 381, Theodosius issued an edict addressed
to the Praetorian Prefect of the diocese of the Oriens, known as Nullis
haereticis, prohibiting heretics (specifically Eunomians, Photinians and
Arians), from occupying any Church building for worship, or even from
gathering together within the walls of any town for that purpose. In May of
that year he convened a Council in the imperial city of Constantinople to
settle the ecclesiastical affairs of the Eastern Church.
“We now order that all Churches are to be handed over to the bishops who
profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory,
of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but
the order of the Trinity by recognizing the persons and uniting the
Godhead.”
The Vandals were ardent Arians, having accepted that form of Christianity
under Valens during the third quarter of the fourth century. However, the
xxii Historical Preface
Vandals did not see themselves as Arians, but regarded themselves rather
as ‘reformed’ Christians. Their persecutions of Roman Catholics in Africa
were at times fierce, particularly during the last years of the reign of
Geiseric’s successor, Huneric (reigned 477-484). North Africa was a
province long accustomed to religious persecution. The Vandals applied
the same punishments to Catholics as Augustine had proposed against the
Donatists. Under Vandal rule, Catholic bishops were punished with
deposition, exile or death. Other people were excluded from office and
frequently suffered confiscation of their property. The following treatises
by the three Victors are first hand accounts of those who lived under their
rule and who suffered for adhering to their Catholic faith.
David O’Brien
Lecturer in Theology, Trinity College, Melbourne
INTRODUCTION
The translations will include some notes, but most will explain the Biblical
quotations, and a few Classical ones. With three such different works, it
1
John Moorhead’s trans., notes and introduction to Victor of Vita: History of the
Vandal persecution was vol 10 in Liverpool Univ. Press’ Translated Texts for
Historians (1991). The translation has useful notes, but unfortunately it very often
omits words and distorts the sense of the Latin. For this work, to which I am
indebted, an M will be used in the notes hereafter. Other poor or very dated
translations in German (1883 and 1884), in Italian (1859), in Dutch (1568), in
Polish (1930) and in French (1563, 1664 and 1921) are briefly noted by Christian
Courtois in his Victor de Vita et son Oevre, p. 89. For Courtois, CVV will be used
for his work on Victor de Vita, and CA for work on les Vandales et l’Afrique. For
his praise and others’ criticism of Courtois’ works, see M p. ix.
2
For Pope Gregory, see John R. C. Martyn The Letters of Gregory the Great, tr.
with intro. & notes, in 3 Vols, (PIMS, Toronto, 2004). For Bishop Gregory, see
John R. C. Martyn A Translation of Abbot Leontius’ Life of Saint Gregory, Bishop
of Agrigento, tr. & comm. (Edward Mellen, Lampeter, 2004). Note also that a new
Association pour l’Antiquité Tardive, at the C.N.R.S. Paris, has just released a vol.
of 506 pp. on L’Afrique Vandale et Byzantine, Tome 10, 2002, with a 2nd volume
due this year. See my review in Parergon 21.1, 2004, 155-7.
xxiv Introduction
would take many months for all the relevant primary and secondary
scholarship to be assessed and incorporated in each section, adding many
pages to what is essentially an attempt to reveal relatively unknown texts
in English, not to provide a definitive historical or editorial work. For
Victor of Vita’s history, several notes will cover textual matters, where
readings affect the logic of a passage, a normal requirement for a
translator. The chronicle of Victor of Tonnena covers 120 years, replete
with controversial religious and political history; a few hundred pages
would be needed to annotate it in full. Basic notes are included.
3
See CVV pp 5-10, and M note 15, p. xv.
4
See M p. xv for Victor as priest, and xvi-xvii for his work’s completion in 484.
5
See CVV 17-22 and M p. xvii. Both rightly support this hypothesis. To judge
from his quotes from Cicero, Juvenal, Lucretius, Ovid and Virgil (Aen. and Gcs)
and reference to Sallust, it is likely that he had a basic education in the Classics.
Arians and Vandals of the 4th-6th Centuries xxv
There has also been some uncertainty over the identity of the second
Victor, who wrote the Chronicon, and seems to have suffered the same
sort of life as the young Sicilian Bishop Gregory. As a youthful bishop of
Tonnena, this Victor was first imprisoned and beaten in Alexandria, and
was then carted off in 564 to Constantinople, with five other rebellious
bishops, to be imprisoned in local monasteries until they were all ready to
accept the Catholic Church’s position on the divisive Three Chapters
issue, that figures so extensively in his Chronicon, and in Pope Gregory’s
letters, and caused such trouble for the Emperors. Victor reappears in
North Africa as the reinstated bishop of Tonnena in the letters of Pope
Gregory, dated September 601 (Epp 12.3, 8 and 9), sent about thirty seven
years after his departure to Constantinople. How long he had been back in
Africa before the Pope’s letters reached him is unclear. But by then he
was supporting the orthodox position and was ready to condemn the Three
xxvi Introduction
Chapters, following the lead of the inspiring and persuasive new Pope,
Gregory the Great. In his final years, Victor became a very senior bishop,
in fact the Primate of Numidia.6
Victor, bishop of Vita, made use of a great many biblical quotations in his
history of the Vandals, especially from the Psalms (15 times) and for his
own lamentation in chapter 19, ten being taken from Lamentations.7
Victor clearly took part in the Catholic opposition to the cruel and
unending attack on his fellow priests and their churches by the tyrannical
Kings Geiseric and Huneric, and for most of the dramatic scenes he was
clearly an eyewitness. He also did all he could to collect information from
the many clergy and laity whose sufferings and extraordinary courage
were later described by him in his history of the Vandals. Like a reporter
or a photographer in a modern war, he must have faced many crises
himself, risking his own life while investigating the deaths and exiles of so
many of his friends. He was strictly orthodox himself, as is revealed by
6
He is called ‘Primate among you’ in Letter 12.8, to Columbus, Bishop of
Numidia.
7
Psalms (in the Vulgate): 16, 17, 34, 37, 38, 41, 48, 58, 68 (2), 74, 77 twice 105
and 143. Lamentations: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.10, 1,11, 1.12, 1.17, 1.19, 2.3, 2.16,
4.1, 4.5. See note 74 on his use of the Greek Septuagint, the Vulgate and his own
adaptation.
Arians and Vandals of the 4th-6th Centuries xxvii
8
For the Latin of Victor’s history, see Migne: Patrol. C. C. Vol. 17, 1058, De Viris
illustribus 77. The founder of the Arians' heretical sect, Arius, lived c.250 – c.336,
and after studying in Antioch was ordained in Alexandria, by its Bishop
Alexander, who later excommunicated him for teaching the subordinate position of
Christ. Condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325), but forgiven and recalled, he
died in a street in Constantinople. Orthodoxy prevailed, except for the Teutonic
tribes, which used Ulphilas’ Gothic bible and liturgy, heretical versions to Victor
of Vita. See the preface above for the wide and long-term impact of Arianism.
xxviii Introduction
from the gospel of John (5), Proverbs (3), I Corinthians (2), Colossians
(2) and Jeremiah (2), with one from Luke, Acts, Hebrews and I John.
The third Victor was the bishop of Cartenna, and he lived from 428-477 in
North Africa, where he wrote a quite lengthy book of thirty-three chapters
(pp. 1060-1094 in Migne) on ‘Penitence’ (De Poenitentia: Liber Unus).
See below for his interesting and often quite original work. Besides Saint
Ambrose’s defense of the faith mentioned above, I shall finally provide, as
stated, a translation of the Greek Defense of the Faith (Ἔκθεσις Πίστεως)
credited to Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria (328-373), who spent
most of his life (even when in exile) attacking the heretical bishop, Arius,
and his misguided followers, and thwarting the vigorous encroachments by
the dominant Melitians.9 I have also included the Notitia, possibly based
on interviews and note-taking by Victor of Vita himself. The names still
need some work on them, for modern equivalents in particular, but at least
they are available here, and are relevant to Victor’s text.
9
Most modern scholars argue against Athanasius having been the author, despite a
very similar style, language and approach. For the Saint’s output on the first of
these schisms, see his Orationes contra Arianos (356) and Historia Arianorum ad
Monachos (358). For an interesting study of Athanasius’ relationship with heretics
and four emperors, see Henric Nordberg's ‘Athanasius and the Emperor.' I made
use of Nordberg’s Greek text as the basis for my version of the ‘Defence’ by
pseudo-Athanasius. See the preface to this Greek defence in (E) below and the
Preface to this book.
A. VICTOR OF VITA
A translation of the third book, that sets out to defend the Catholic faith,
has been included, although its author is not certain. But I shall show that
Victor of Vita has the strongest claim. Certainly in its literary style and
vocabulary, it suggests the same author as in the historical account that
incorporates it.
This document (book 3a) is said to have been written by the bishops for
the king’s synod, some time beforehand, and then presented by the
archbishop of Carthage, the saintly Eugenius, as Bishop Victor himself
pointed out: ante nostri praevidentes, libellum de fide conscripserant
(‘our bishops had foreseen this beforehand and had written a pamphlet on
faith’). It may possibly have been the work of the ten bishops chosen to
represent the rest, but they had little chance to do so before the finale.
More probably the earlier author was a single person, the erudite bishop of
Vita, who describes himself as an observer. With his many other duties, it
is unlikely that the pious Archbishop Eugenius could have written it
before the proceedings. But if the first draft did by any chance derive
from the ten bishops or from the archbishop or from the mass of bishops,
the bishop of Vita certainly expanded and revised it for publication. This
2 A. Victor of Vita
At the end of this statement, four bishops, two from Numidia (Januarius
and Villaticus) and two from Byzacena (both called Boniface) are given
the unenviable task of presenting it. These four are not said to have
composed it, but were used as representatives of all the Catholic bishops
in their presentation of this defense of their orthodox faith to the king.