THE BEGINNINGS OF DONATISM

known. For the polemic which still survives reveals that both

THElaterearliest
of were
Donatism
will
Donatists and years
their opponents
almost as ignorant
of itsnever be mo
beginnings as any modern investigator. The statements of Optatus and
Augustine, no less than the arguments of both Catholics and Donatists
at the conference of Carthage in 411, all appear to be based on a single
dossier, composed late in the reign of Constantine, which contained
documents particularly relevant to the issues of whether Felix, bishop of
Abthungi, had validly ordained Caecilanus as bishop of Carthage, and

whether Felix or the Donatist bishops had compromised themselves

in the Great Persecution.1 The dossier still survives, at least in part,

appended to Optatus' work against the Donatists, as the Gesta apud

Zenophilum (320) and the Acta purgationis Felicis (315). Both documents
are preserved by a single manuscript, and both are defective, the former
at the end, the latter at the beginning (p. 197 Ziwsa).2 Also appended
to Optatus in the same manuscript are six letters of Constantine, a letter
from the Council of Aries (314), and a warrant from the pretorian pre
fects giving Donatist representatives free transport from the imperial
court at Trier to Africa (28 April 31s).3
None of these last eight documents appears to be quoted or alluded to
by any subsequent writer of antiquity, and their value as evidence has
sometimes been severely impugned.4 But their authenticity is now com

pletely vindicated, and scholarly treatment of Donatism has of late

tended to concentrate on broader questions than the genuineness of these
1 L. Duchesne, 'Le dossier de Donatisme', Mlanges d'archologie et d'histoire,

(i8go), pp. 589-650.

2 Optatus and the appended documents are quoted from the edition of
. Ziwsa, C.S.E.L. xxvi (1893). The edition is variously defective (see C. H.
Turner, J.T.S. xxvii (1926), pp. 287 ff.), but I believe that my arguments
nowhere depend upon questionable readings.
2 Optatus, App. iii-ix (pp. 204-16 Ziwsa).

4 For the controversy before 1930, see . H. Baynes, Constantine the Great
and the Christian Church (1931), pp. 75 ff. The genuineness of some items in the

appendix has more recently been questioned by W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist

Church (1952), pp. 152-3 (App. only); H. Kraft, Kaiser Konstantins religiose
Entwicklung, Beitrge zur historischen Theologie, xx (1955), pp. 172 ff. In

refutation, see respectively H. Chadwick, J.E.H. (1954), p. 104; H. U.

Instinsky, Gnomon xxx (1958), pp. 130 ff.
[Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., Vol. XXVI, Pt. 1, April 1975]

14 T. D. BARNES
documents.1 At the same time, however, a questionable assumption tends
to be madethat if the documents are genuine, they require no further
scrutiny, and can be used without hesitation as valid evidence for the
history of Donatism. Yet authenticity does not necessarily entail veracity.

Four apparently minor questions of fact are crucial to understanding or

interpreting Donatism as a historical phenomenon. Were the Numidian

bishops who denounced Felix as a traditor themselves self-confessed

traditores ? Was the Donatus who gave his name to the dissident party
a Numidian? What was the date and precise historical context of the
eruption of schism ? What was the precise purport of the Donatist appeal
to Constantine ? On these questions a wide uniformity of opinion seems
to prevail. The Numidian bishops (it is held) were traditores and there
fore insincere; Donatus was either a Numidian by birth or bishop of

a Numidian see; the dispute began no earlier than 311 or 312; the
appeal marks 'one of the decisive moments in the history of the early

Church', when 'appeal had been made to the State' and 'for the first
time schism or unorthodoxy could become an offence punishable by
law'.2 In all four cases, the present enquiry seeks to disprove, or at least
to challenge, these interpretations of the available evidence.
Nundinarius

Nundinarius was a deacon of the church of Cirta during or shortly after

the 'Great Persecution'. Later, after the sub-deacon Silvanus became

bishop of Cirta, he quarrelled with him. Unable to prevail inside the

local community, the deacon was stoned and sought support from other

churches, whose bishops (among them Purpurius of Limata) he per

suaded to write on his behalf both to Silvanus and to the clergy and
seniores at Cirta (pp. 189-92). But when the differences proved irrecon
cilable, Nundinarius resorted to threats as well as pleading, and began to
side with the Catholics against the now firmly Donatist Silvanus. He is
next discovered on 13 December 320 at Cirta, actively assisting Domitius
Zenophilus, consularis of Numidia, in a judicial investigation of Silvanus'
conduct during the 'Great Persecution' (p. 185. 4 ff.). The full record of
these interesting proceedings originally contained the reading of a docu
ment which Nundinarius himself produced: the account of a council of
Numidian bishops, held at Cirta shortly after persecution ceased, with
1 Note esp. various articles and reviews by P. Brown collected in Religion and
Society in the Age of Saint Augustine (1972), pp. 237-338.

2 So, among many others, W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church (1952),

pp. iff., 147.

THE BEGINNINGS OF DONATISM 15

Secundus, bishop of Tigisis, presiding.1 At this council (so it was

revealed), all those present confessed to being traditores, while some
admitted having burnt incense and Purpurius of Limata even conceded
that he had murdered the sons of his sister.

This remarkable document was gratefully exploited by Optatus and

Augustine: it proved that those who accused Felix of Abthungi of

traditio and who argued that his traditio rendered his subsequent ordi
nation of Caecilianus as bishop of Carthage invalid were themselves
guilty of the same offence.2 More surprisingly perhaps, modern histor
ians continue to credit the accounts in Optatus and Augustine, and to
exploit them as crucial evidence on the nature of the Donatist schism.
For the 'cynical confessions at Cirta reveal the other face of Donatism',
disprove its moral integrity, and encourage the assumption that the
issue of traditio was in no sense the cause of the Donatist schism, but

merely its 'superficial occasion'.3 Almost the only note of scepticism

was sounded by . H. M. Jones, who invited the reader to 'judge for
himself whether the minutes of so incriminating a meeting are likely

to have been taken or preserved'.4 Such doubts can be considerably

strengthened.
All extant reports of the council of Cirta derive from the document

produced by Nundinarius, whom his change of side and role in

investigating Silvanus indicate as less than impartial. Nundinarius had
already given proof of his skill in using documents : on his own showing,

it was a libellus rei gestae or libellas in quo omnia sunt conscripta which
induced other bishops to write to Cirta after he quarrelled with Silvanus

(p. 189. 16; 190. 2-3). Now, having fallen out completely with the
1 Optatus, i. 14, p. 16. 9-16: 'hi et ceteri ... in domum Urbani Carisi conse

derunt die iii. Iduum Maiarum, sicut scripta Nundinarii tunc diaconi testantur
et vetustas membranarum testimonium perhibet, quas dubitantibus proferre

poterimus. harum namque plenitudinem rerum in novissima parte istortim

libellorum ad implendam fidem adiunximus' ; Augustine, Epp. liii. 2.4 : 'recita illi

gesta apud Zenophilum consularem, ubi Nundinarius quidam diaconus iratus

Silvano, quod ab eo fuerit excommunicatus, haec omnia iudiciis prodidit, quae

certis documentis et responsionibus testium et recitatione gestorum et multarum

epistularum luce clarius constiterunt.'

2 Optatus, i. 14 ff. ; Augustine, C. litt. Petil. i. 21.23 (C.S.E.L. Iii, p. 18);

c. Cresc. iii. 27. 30 (C.S.E.L. Iii, pp. 435 ff.); De unico bapt. 17. 31 (C.S.E.L.
liii, p. 32); C. Gaud. i. 16. 17; 37. 47 (C.S.E.L. liii, pp. 212, 246).
3 P. Monceaux, Histoire littraire de l'Afrique chrtienne, iv (1912), p. 14;

J. Danilou and H. I. Marrou, The Christian Centuries, i (trans. V. Cronin, 1964),

p. 244; K. Baus, Handbook of Church History, i (1965), p. 418.

* . . M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (1949), p. 123.
The 'Acts of the Council of Cirta in Numidia, 4 March 305' are included, with
no word of doubt or caution, in J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius. Documents
illustrative of the history of the Church to A.D. 337 (1957), pp. 308-10, no. 266.

l6 T. D. BARNES

Donatist party, he turned on them and produced proof that their leaders

had committed the crime which they made the basis of their case
against Caecilianus. But if they really were all guilty of traditio them
selves, why did they make the traditio of Felix the central issue of the

dispute? They could have chosen to take their stand on some other
aspect of the case. Moreover, the Cirtan council was not necessarily
a provinical synod of all Numidian bishops. It was rather a small
informal gathering in a private house of about a dozen bishops.1 The
meeting presumably occurred and those named presumably attended.
But for our knowledge of what they did and said, we ultimately seem to

depend on Nundinarius' word alone. There is, therefore, even at the

lowest count, a distinct possibility of deliberate fraud or malicious
invention.

'Donatus of Casae Nigrae'

In the fourth century there seems to have been no doubt about the
identity of the Donatus who was involved in the origins of the schism
which bears his name : he was 'Donatus of Carthage', sectarian bishop

of the city in succession to Maiorinus, and the predecessor of Par

menianus. In the early fifth century, however, there appears a 'Donatus
of Casae Nigrae', who became prominent at the conference of 411 when
both Catholics and Donatists stated that it was he whom a Council at

Rome condemned in October 313, not Donatus of Carthage. The dis

tinction was bogus:2 since 'Donatus of Casae Nigrae' disappears as soon
as Donatus of Carthage appears, the two descriptions clearly belong to

one individual.3 But why 'from Casae Nigrae' ? Perhaps Donatus was
a bishop of Casae Nigrae, deposed before moving to Carthage.4 Better,
he was a native of Casae Nigrae, and thus by origin a Numidian.5 It has
consequently been conjectured that he 'led some sort of rigorist cam
paign' and exhibited schismatic tendencies in Numidia, before he ever
went to Carthage.6 Both explanations assume that whoever first stated

that Donatus was of Casae Nigrae discovered an authentic item of

information. Doubts should be entertained.
1 Augustine, C. partem Donati post gesta 14. 18 (C.S.E.L. liii, p. 115): vix
undecim vel duodecim episcopi fuerunt.
2 This important fact is obscured by Ziwsa, whose index purports to dis
tinguish the two (pp. 230-1).

3 J. Chapman, Revue bndictine, xxvi (1909), pp. 13 ff. ; P. Monceaux,

Histoire littraire, (1920), pp. 100 ff.

4 Ibid., iv (1912), p. 16.

5 Chapman, op. cit., p. 13.
6 Frend, Donatist Church, p. 14.

THE BEGINNINGS OF DONATISM 17

The evidence for 'Donatus of Casae Nigrae' needs closer and more
accurate attention than it has sometimes received.1 There are only two
items. First, Augustine's Contra Cresconium, written c. 406 :
per Donatum non tantum Carthaginis, qui hanc haeresem maxime
roborasse perhibetur, sed etiam maiorem Donatum a Casis Nigris, qui
altare contra altare in eadem civitate primus erexit, magnum scandalum
factum est (ii. x. 2).2
Second, the conference of 411. For the relevant part of the debate, the

full minutes are lost. The proceedings must thus be hazardously re

constructed from the chapter-headings which introduce the minutes
and Augustine's brief popular account. The distinction between the two
Donati was perhaps introduced by a Catholic, but was certainly accepted
by the Donatists with eagerness.3 Both the reports, however, reveal
clearly the evidence on which the distinction was based:
Prosecutio Donatistarum, qui dicunt alium Casae non fuisse Donatum.

Catholicorum ad ista responsio, quod in actis Miltiadis Donatus

Casensis evidenter expressus sit.

Ubi Petilianus episcopus partis Donati impedimento raucedinis agere se
non posse testatur.

Ubi Catholici testantur, ideo se Petilianum excusationi subtrahere

voluisse, quod ei Donatus Casensis ex gestis evidenter ostensus est
{Capitula gestorum Coll. Carth. iii. 539-42) ;4
legi coepit etiam episcopale iudicium Miltiadis . . . ubi etiam Dona
tus a Casis Nigris in praesenti convictus est adhuc diacono Caeciliano
schisma fecisse Carthagine {Brev. Coll. iii. 12. 24);
cum et de Donati nomine contendissent quod non Carthaginiensis, sed
Casensis Donatus in iudicio Miltiadis adversus Caecilianum adstitisset,

quod et catholici concedebant, aliquando transitum est {Brev. Coll. iii.

20. 38).5
All the evidence that Donatus had any connection with Casae Nigrae
clearly derives from the acts of the Roman council of 313. More speci
fically, it comes from the occurrence there of the words Donatus Casensis.

It is possible that 'Carthaginiensis' or an abbreviated form of the word

was misread as 'Casaenigrensis' or 'Casensis'.6 That would explain the

late appearance of 'Donatus of Casae Nigrae' in the history of the

schismand remove all the evidence which connects him with Numidia.

1 Chapman asserted that the distinction never appeared before 411 (op cit.,
p. 13), while Frend alters the order of the minutes of the conference (Donatist

Church, p. 287). 2 C.S.E.L. lii, p. 362.

3 Chapman, op. cit., p. 19.

4 J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum concliorum nova et amplissima collectio, iv (1769),
col. 49 = P.L. xi, col. 1256.

5 C.S.E.L. liii, pp. 72, 88.

6 For the two forms, Thes. Ling. Lat., Onom. ii, col. 223.
3336 C 74

l8 T. D. BARNES

Chronology

No precise date is known in the early history of Donatism between the

meeting of Numidian bishops in Cirta (305)1 and the letter which the
proconsul Anullinus wrote to Constantine, when he forwarded a peti

tion from the Donatists together with one from their opponents
(April 313).2 Nevertheless, most modern accounts assume the same
definite chronology, and assign the disputed election from which the

schism arose to 311 or 312.3 Optatus provides the sole evidence:

correctly interpreted, he indicates a significantly earlier date.

Optatus states explicitly that the Numidian bishops began the

schism by ordaining Maiorinus not long after the council at Cirta
(i. 15, p. 17. 9: 'non post longum tempus').4 He then describes how the
rich Lucilla fomented trouble when the church was still at peace, before

the storm of persecution (i. 16). Next (p. 19. 3: 'isdem temporibus'),
the deacon Felix was arraigned for writing a scurrilous letter 'de tyran

no imperatore' (p. 19. 4), and Mensurius, then bishop of Carthage,

concealed him, and publicly refused to surrender the fugitive. The
governor reported to the emperor, and Mensurius was summoned to the
imperial palace. After making provision for his church's property, he

set out and appeared in court, but died before he could return to
Carthage (i. 17). Then persecution ended. Freedom was restored to the
Christians when Maxentius granted toleration. Caecilianus was elected
bishop of Carthage and ordained by Felix of Abthungi in the absence of
the Numidian bishops (i. 18). When they arrived, they deposed Caecili

anus and ordained Maiorinus (i. 19).

By tyrannies imperator (it has been assumed), Optatus intended to
designate the usurper Maxentius.5 Now this identification would indeed

follow from Optatus' words if tyrannus invariably meant 'usurper' in

writers of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. But, though this is
1 Augustine, Brev. Coll. iii. 17. 32 (C.S.E.L. liii, p. 81). Observe, however,
that c. 406 Augustine had quoted the proceedings with a consular date of 303
(C. Cresc. iii. 27. 30), and that the Donatists in 411 disputed the authenticity of
the whole document and especially that of the date (Brev. Coll. iii. 15. 27).
1 Augustine, Epp. lxxxviii. 2.
3 W. Jiilicher, RE iii (1899), col. 1173, s.v. Caecilianus 9; P. Monceaux,
Histoire littraire, iv (1912), pp. 16 f. ; E. Groag, R.E. xiv (1930), col. 2464,
s.v. Maxentius ; H. Schoenebeck, Beitrge zur Religionspolitik des Maxentius und
Constantin. Klio, Beiheft xlii (1939), p. 14; Frend, Donatist Church, pp. 15 f.;
A. Chastagnol, Les Fastes de la Prfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire (1962), p. 55.

4 P.L.R.E. states that Maiorinus was elected bishop of Cirta (i, p. 517,

Lucilla).
5 Optatus' words are actually translated as 'the usurping emperor [sc.
Maxentius]' in J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius (1957), p. 314.

THE BEGINNINGS OF DONATISM 19

the most common meaning, and perhaps the only meaning which the
word bears in political contexts,1 Christian writers often use it in a quite
different sense, to signify 'persecutor'.2 Optatus must clearly be using

tyrannus in the latter sense, as he does elsewhere (vii. 1, p. 167. 26:

'tyrannus Antiochus'). Otherwise the phrase tyrannus imperator
contradicts itself. Moreover, Optatus refers to Maxentius by name in the

next chapter as acting at God's behest (p. 19. 18: 'iubente deo indul
gentiam mittente Maxentio'), and Maxentius never persecuted the
Christians.3 Accordingly, the 'persecuting emperor' must be another.
Only three possibilities are available: the Augustus Maximianus, who
abdicated on 1 May 305 ; Severus, who was created Caesar on 1 May 305
and who controlled Africa for the next year and a half; and Domitius
Alexander, who rebelled against Maxentius and ruled in Africa for two
years (308-10).* But there is no evidence that any of the persecuting

edicts was enforced in Africa after Maximianus abdicated.5 Almost

certainly, therefore, the emperor who summoned Maiorinus was

Maximianus.

The chronology of the early years of the Donatism schism must be

constructed on this basis,6 and the following dates should be approxi
mately correct:

304 Felix accused of insulting Maximianus

305 Mensurius dies
November 306 Africa recognises Maxentius
1 e.g. Prudentius, C. Symm. i. 22, 410 (Maximus and Eugenius), 463, 482
(Maxentius). Prudentius also designates Alaric as Geticus tyrannus (C. Symm.
ii. 696).
2 Note particularly the practice of Prudentius, who uses tyrannus almost as
a generic term for all enemies of God, of the Jews, of Jesus, and of the Christians.

Hence the word is applied, not only to usurpers, but also to (1) the Devil:
Hamart. 175, 500, 721; C. Symm. ii. 876; (2) the Egyptian Pharaoh: Cath. xii.
150; Nebuchadnezzar: Cath. iv. 43; Apoth. 129; Perist. vi. in ; King Antiochus:
Perist. v. 534; X. 766; (3) King Herod: Cath. xii.93; (4) a persecuting emperor:
Perist. x. 1115 (Galerius); or, most common of all, the magistrate who tries and
executes a martyr: Perist. iii. 127; v. 168, 429; x. 76, 520, 676; xiii. 65; xiv. 21.

3 A secure inference from the silence of Lactantius, cf. J.R.S. liii (1973),

pp. 43 ff.

For the allegiance of Africa in 306-7, see C. H. V. Sutherland, Roman

Imperial Coinage, vi (1967), p. 417; on the chronology of Alexander, Chastagnol,

op. cit., pp. 55 f
s Nor was the fourth and most severe edict ever enforced there, though it was
issued c. February 304, cf. G. . M. de Ste. Croix, H.T.R. xlvii (1954), pp. 84 ff.
6 O. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs des antiken Welt, iii' (1921), pp. 323,
509 (also adducing Augustine, Epp. xciii. 10. 43); . Stein, Geschichte des spt
romischen Retches, i (1928), pp. 128, 152 = Histoire du Bas-Empire, i (trans, and
revised by J. R. Palanque, 1959), pp. 84, 100.

20 T. D. BARNES

? November 306 Maxentius restores freedom to the Christians of

Africa

Early 307 Caecilianus elected bishop of Carthage

307 Carthaginian council installs Maiorinus in his
stead.

The Appeal to Constantine

'rogamus te, Constantine optime imperatorquoniam de genere iusto

es, cuius pater inter ceteros imperatores persecutionem non exercuit, et ab
hoc facinore immunis est Gallia, nam in Africa inter nos et ceteros

episcopos contentiones suntpetimus ut de Gallia nobis iudices dari

praecipiat pietas tua. datae a Luciano, Digno, Nasutio, Capitone, Fidentio'

et ceteris episcopis partis Donati (Optatus, i. 22).1

'We ask you, Constantine the best of emperorsbecause you are of

a just race, whose father did not enforce persecution with the other
emperors, and Gaul is immune from this crime, for in Africa there are
disputes between us and the other bishopswe beg that your piety may
order arbitrators to be given us from Gaul. Submitted by Lucianus,
Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius' and the other bishops of the party of

Donatus.

This famous document has not always been interpreted or translated

with due attention or respect for the text. O. R. Vassall-Phillips surrep
titiously changed the order of clauses and translated: 'We beseech . . .
that we be granted judges from Gaul; for between us and other Bishops
in Africa disputes have arisen.'2 H. Grgoire rendered nam into French

as 'donc', . H. M. Jones into English as 'whereas', and W. H. C.

Frend simply omitted it altogether from his rendering.3 But nam is
a coordinating conjunction and the implied logical connection between
the clauses which it joins ought not to be reversed or concealed. Further,
the tense of the verb in the phrase immunis est has sometimes been dis
regarded, it means neither 'est reste indemne', nor 'was immune', nor
'remained free', but 'is free' in the present.
Such misrepresentation of the document is not deliberate, but the con
sequence of interpreting it in the light of two probable misconceptions :
1 The last five words are Optatus' (or another's) summary of an originally
longer list, cf. L. Duchesne, Mlanges, (1890), pp. 608 f.

1 The Work of St. Optatus (1917), p. 43. The transposition of clauses is

retained in J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius (1957), p. 317, no. 271.

3 H. Grgoire, Byzantion, vii (1932), p. 650; Jones, Constantine (1949),

p. 104; Frend, Donatist Church, p. 147.

J.R.S. liii (1973), p. 45

THE BEGINNINGS OF DONATISM 21

first, that Optatus has quoted the petition in its entirety;1 second, that
the facinus mentioned is persecution.2 In fact, nam surely implies that
the facinus is not persecution, but schism or quarrelling among Chris
tians, and this interpretation in turn permits immunis est to be taken as

referring to the present. The Donatists give two reasons for asking
Constantine to send tudices from Gaul: first, the emperor's justice or
righteousness ; second, the fact that Gaul is free from dissensions of the

type which the iudices are to adjudicate. But, if this is the sense of
ab hoc facinore, then the phrase refers back to something which Optatus
either does not or could not quote.3

The consequences are important. If the petition is incomplete, then

it cannot be adduced to prove that the Donatists had not yet heard of
any action by Constantine in favour of the Christians.4 On the contrary,
if this is one of the two documents which Anullinus forwarded in April
313, they already knew that Constantine had instructed Anullinus to

hasten the restoration of property to 'the Catholic Church of the

Christians' (Eusebius, H.E. x. 5. 15-17), and Constantine's reply con
tains the firm assertion, myself await the judgement of Christ' (i. 23).

What sort of iudices did the Donatists request? It is sometimes

assumed that they are Roman officials or magistrates with judicial

powers, and hence that the Donatists invoked 'the secular arm' against
the Catholics.5 But the logical structure of the petition surely implies
that the Donatists were thinking specifically of Gallic bishops as arbi
trators.6 Constantine, at least, seems to have construed their request in
this sense.7 As indices he appointed Maternus of Cologne, Reticius of
Autun, and Marinus of Aries, who were to judge the case with Miltiades,
the bishop of Rome, and one other, who might conceivably be Merocles
the bishop of Milan.8
1 Duchesne so stated, emphatically (op. cit., pp. 598, 608).
2 Hence Frend translates ab hoc facinore as 'from that crime' (Donatist Church,
P- 147)
3 Optatus' knowledge of the petition may derive entirely from the emperor's

reply, cf. i. 23 (p. 26.6 ff.): 'quibus (i.e. the petition) lectis Constantinus pleno
livore respondit. in qua responsione et eorum preces prodidit, dum ait : petitis
a me in saeculo iudicium, cum ego ipse Christi iudicium expectem.'
* As argued by H. Grgoire, Byzantion, vii (1932), p. 650; J. Moreau, Scripta
minora (1964), p. 120.
5 Frend, Donatist Church, p. 147.
6 H. U. Instinsky alleged that all previous interpreters had assumed that the
Donatists were asking for bishopsand himself argued the contrary thesis,
Bischofstuhl und Kaiserthron (1955), p. 70.
' Similarly Augustine, Epp. liii. 2.5: 'preces Donatistarum ad Constantinum,
ut propter ipsam causam inter Afros episcopos dirimendam iudices ex Gallia
episcopos mitteret.'
8 The MSS. of Eusebius call him {.. . S 18), . Seeck proposed the

22 T. D. BARNES

Conclusion

It has not been the aim of these pages to write a history of the early
years of Donatism, or to set the known events and documents in their full

context. They have merely challenged some traditional interpretations

in the hope that this history may some day be rewritten on a sounder

basis. The Donatist leaders were not necessarily the scoundrels and
hypocrites whom Nundinarius depicted; Donatus himself may have
had no connection with Numidia; the schism probably began in the
immediate aftermath of persecution ; and neither the fact nor the known
contents of the Donatist petition to Constantine manifest a radically new
attitude of Christians to the Roman state.1 T. D. Barnes

T. D. Barnes

emendation ) {Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. (i88), p. 512). In defence of

the transmitted text, however, see H. Kraft, Kaiser Konstantins religiose Ent
wicklung (1955), pp. 168 f.

1 Note Eusebius, H.E. vii. 30. 19 (an appeal to the pagan Aurelian). On the
circumstances and significance of the earlier appeal, see F. Millar, J.R.S.

lxi (1971), pp. 14 ff.