Paul of Samosata Even if, therefore, we suppose that the reply was not given in the context
of the reconquest of , would it not still have been influenced by politi-
cal considerations? It is certainly very difficult, but not absolutely impossible
(text to n. above), to argue that it could have been given by Aurelian in
ignorance of the Palmyrene occupation of Syria. None the less, it is notable
that the indication given by Eusebius of its terms contains no reference to
Palmyra. It is possible tointerpretthe description of the orthodox party—
‘‘those with whom the bishops of Rome and Italy were in communication’’—
as a veiled reference to their loyalty to Rome. But it cannot be emphasised
too strongly that,asitstands, the definition is strictly ecclesiastical. How then
did Aurelian arrive at this remarkable formulation? Two hypotheses, not in-
compatible, are possible. The first is that it is quite evident from a number
of examples of imperial letters that emperors in formulating a response very
often took the passive course of following closely the wording of the request
presented to them.^165 Thus Aurelian may well have taken over a description
which the orthodox party gave to themselves. The second is that, whether or
not the delegation was finally heard in Italy, or Rome itself, it may have been
actively supported by bishops from there. For what it is worth, Zosimus, our
only more or less coherent narrative source, shows Aurelian setting out from
Rome at the beginning of his reign, going to Aquileia, then to Pannonia, and
subsequently returning to Italy.^166 The delegation from Antioch could well
have obtained a hearing somewhere in Italy before or after these campaigns.
All this, however, remains a hypothesis. Aurelian’s decisionmaywell not
have come until , and in either case the formulation of itmayhave related
to divisions in the Antiochene church, which themselves reflected political
allegiance to Rome or to Palmyra. All that can be asserted is that, if we set
what we are actually told by someone relatively close to the event against
the wider background of what we know of the nature of the Roman Em-
pire, then we do not need an explanation in terms of contemporary politics
for either the appeal to Aurelian or his reply. The relevance of these con-
siderations to the early contacts of the church and Constantine need not be
stressed.
. The parallel case of the repetition by the emperor of the wording of the original
letter when replying to a provincial governor is patent in the case of Pliny and Trajan; see
A. N. Sherwin-White,TheLettersof Pliny(), ff. For letters in reply to city embassies,
see F. Millar,The Roman Empire and Its Neighbours(n. ), .
. Zos. , –. See Alföldi (n. ).