‘In the rest of the works of Athanasius there is no trace of Antony’s existence. Considering the grandeur of the saint’s position, and his intimate relations with the bishop of Alexandria, this fact alone should be decisive.’ Observe the argument from silence, which is enlarged upon in the remainder of the paragraph. 1. The treatise is addressed to the monks of the West, whereas ‘monasticism was unknown in Europe in the reign of Valentinian, and at Rome in particular when Jerome went into the East in 373; and at Milan it had only lately been introduced by Ambrose at the time of Augustine’s visit in 385.’ 2. ‘Apart from its numerous miracles, the general tone of the _Vita_ is unhistorical. It is a perfect romance of the desert, without a trace of human sinfulness to mar its beauty. The saint is an idealized ascetic hero, the _mons Antonii_ a paradise of peaceful holiness. We cannot pass from the _Scriptores Erotici_ to the _Vita Antonii_ without noticing the same atmosphere of unreality in both. From Anthanasius there is all the difference of the novel writer from the orator—of the _Cyropaedia_ from the _de Corona_.’ 3. ‘Though Athanasius had ample room for miracles in the adventures of his long life, he never records anything of the sort.... But miracles, often of the most puerile description, are the staple of the _Vita Antonii_, and some of them are said to have been done before the eyes of Athanasius himself, who could not have omitted all reference to them in the writings of his exile.’ Again, the argument from silence. * * * * * 4. ‘Antony is represented as an illiterate Copt, dependent on memory even for his knowledge of Scripture.’ Yet he alludes to Plato, Plotinus, &c., and in general reasons like a learned philosopher. 5. ‘The _Vita Antonii_ has coincidences with Athanasius in language and doctrine, as we should expect in any professed work of his.... But the divergences are serious’.... 6. It is implied throughout the _Vita Antonii_ that the monks were extremely numerous throughout the East during Antony’s lifetime. Now there were monks in Egypt, monks of Serapis, long before; but Christian monks there were none’ (_Studies of Arianism_, pp. 100-2). Now I am not for a moment going to disparage this display of learning. It is very clever; it is very scholarly: in the state of knowledge when it was written it was at least very excusable in its statements. Altogether it was as brilliant a piece of criticism as one would wish to see. To this day the objections read quite formidably. And yet the inference drawn from them is pretty certainly wrong; indeed the whole array is little more than an impressive bugbear. * * * * *