[Ebooks PDF] download The church histories of theodore lector and john diakrinomenos kosinski full c
The Church Histories
of Theodore Lector and John Diakrinomenos Kosinski
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/the-church-histories-of-theodore-lector-and-john-diakr inomenos-kosinski/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
John Zonaras' Epitome of Histories Theofili Kampianaki
The Church Histories of Theodore Lector and John Diakrinomenos
Edited by Rafał Kosiński and Kamilla Twardowska, translated from Greek and Latin sources by Aneta Zabrocka and Adrian Szopa
Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Reviewed by Prof. Dr Dariusz Brodka and Prof. Dr Mirosław J. Leszka
This book has been published as part of a grant of the National Science Centre (Poland) „Przygotowanie opatrzonej wstępem oraz komentarzem historycznym bilingwicznej (w dwóch wersjach: grecko-angielskiej oraz grecko-polskiej) edycji dzieł Historia Kościoła Jana Diakrinomenosa oraz Teodora Lektora” (UMO-2015/17/B/HS3/00506).
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Berlin 2021 All rights reserved.
Peter Lang – Berlin ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien
All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed.
www.peterlang.com
Preface
We are glad to be able to present this translation of two works without which any reconstruction of the history of the Roman Empire in the late fifth – early sixth centuries, particularly relating to the reigns of the emperors Zeno and Anastasios, appears to be virtually impossible�
In spite of the significant role of Theodore Lector’s Church History in particular in research on this period, the surviving fragments have never been translated into any modern language� The reason for this is first of all the state of the preservation of the source, which is fragmentary and reconstructed, for the most part, only hypothetically� Nonetheless, no one has ventured to offer a new translation with commentary since 1972 (i�e�, when Günther Christian Hansen’s critical edition of Theodore’s work was published)�
Our publication is intended to address the absence of a modern language translation of this source� It has been our objective to provide the reader with a comprehensive edition of the Church Histories by John Diakrinomenos and Theodore Lector, which contains the original Greek, Latin, and Old Church Slavonic texts along with translations into English and a commentary�1
The present work is not a carbon-copy of the Hansen edition, with complementary translations and commentary� Rather, we have aimed to offer a completely new edition, very far removed in character from a critical edition� Our overriding idea was to prepare a convenient tool to be used by scholars and researchers in the field of Late Antiquity� Hence, we have made a clear distinction between what is certainly the content that comes from Theodore and the later transmission of the factual information derived from his Church History as can be found in various Byzantine works� In the part on Theodore Lector’s composition, our publication consists of three sections which are preceded by accounts concerning the author: 1) excerpts from the Church History, 2) two extensive collections of excerpts from the History — the Latin one, which Victor of Tunnuna incorporated into his Chronicle, and the Greek-language Epitome, 3) borrowed fragments dispersed in various Byzantine works, drawn from the original History or the Epitome, which we have referred to as “further Theodorean tradition”� This term is used to denote those sources which draw on Theodore’s work or its Greek Epitome systematically (e�g� Theophanes) or only infrequently, in the form of one
1 The present publication has been preceded by a edition of the relevant texts and their Polish translation; see Kosiński/Szopa/Twardowska 2019�
or several mentions (e�g� John Moschos), but with multiple alterations and distortions to the information derived� In the Hansen edition, the texts found in the latter section are complementary to the fragments of Theodore’s original work and the Epitome, which would often lead scholars to consider some passages from George the Monk’s Chronicle or Theophanes’ Chronography as authentic fragments of the incompletely preserved Epitome or passages from Victor’s Chronicle as supposedly containing the information corresponding to the original composition�2 In the present edition, all those elements of the further Theodorean tradition are clearly distinguished� Moreover, we have also attempted, in each particular instance, to trace the connection between the transmission in the works falling under the third group and Theodore’s composition�
A number of other modifications have been made, with some of Hansen’s attributions questioned and others proposed instead� At some places, we choose to refer to the manuscripts directly, presenting the original text in a form different from the critical edition (Epitome, Pratum Spirituale by John Moschos)� Despite such significant emendations, we do not claim to call our publication a critical edition, as our primary goal has been to make the Hansen edition more accessible for the purpose of academic research rather than to replace it� For this reason, we have decided to avoid presenting a very elaborate critical apparatus� Instead, we have favoured the option of referring the readers to some more recent critical editions, which we have basically used for the purpose of this publication, or of providing only the most important details about interpretations of uncertain or corrupt passages� It is our hope that such a form of publication will make it a very useful tool not only for historians of Late Antiquity, but also for researchers and students of Byzantine literature�
This book has been published as part of a grant of the National Centre of Science 2015/17/B/HS3/00506, entitled “Preparation of a bilingual edition (in two versions: Greek-English and Greek-Polish) of the Church History by John Diakrinomenos and the Church History by Theodore Lector, with an introduction and historical commentary”� It would not have been possible without the several-year-long efforts of a group of co-authors, each of them responsible for a specific portion of the publication, but also for mutual collaboration and consultation� Aneta Zabrocka and Adrian Szopa are co-authors of the translation from the classical languages, for which the commentary notes have been written by Kamilla Twardowska, while Rafał Kosiński has been responsible for the general
2 For more on the conception and the objectives of the present edition, see Kosiński 2017a, 111–124�
concept of the entire publication, selection and preparation of the original texts, as well as for the introductions to the individual sections�
In conclusion, we would like to acknowledge all those without whom this book would have contained a number of flaws or errors and would have most probably never been possible in its current form� For all their participation and assistance, we would like to thank Dariusz Brodka, Zofia Brzozowska, Elissavet Chatziantoniou, Paweł Filipczak, Piotr Guzowski, Andrzej Kompa, Anna Kotłowska, Mirosław Leszka, Marie-Aude Monégier du Sorbier, Józef Naumowicz, Jan Prostko-Prostyński, Maciej Salamon, Michał Stachura�
Finally, we wish to express our thanks to Philip Rance and Geoffrey Greatrex, whose comments and suggestions have helped us to avoid making a number of errors in our translation� Their invaluable assistance has contributed to the eventual shape of this edition� Nevertheless, the Authors assume the full responsibility for any mistakes or shortcomings of the present work�
Abbreviations
ACO — Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum
tomus primus, Concilium universale Ephesenum, ed� E� Schwartz, Berlin — Leipzig 1924—1930; tomus alter, Concilium universale Chalcedonense, ed� E� Schwartz, Berlin — Leipzig 1932—1938; tomus tertius, Collectio Sabbaitica contra Acephalos et Origeniastas destinata. Insunt Acta Synodorum Constantinopolitanae et Hierosolymitanae A. 536, ed� E� Schwartz, Berlin 1940; series secunda, volumen tertium, Concilium universale Nicaenum secundum, ed� E� Lamberz, Berlin — New York 2008—2016�
AS Synody i Kolekcje Praw, vol� 6, Acta Synodalia ab anno 431 ad annum 504, eds� A� Baron, H� Pietras, Cracow 2011�
BHG — F� Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, Brussels 1957�
CA Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab. a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII datae, Avellana quae dicitur collectio, ed� O� Günther, pars I, Prolegomena. Epistulae I—CIV, [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 35], Wien 1895�
CE — The Coptic Encyclopedia, 7 vols�, New York 1991�
CI — Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol� ii, Codex Iustinianus, ed� P� Krueger, Berlin 1906�
CIC — Corpus Iuris Civilis, Berlin 1889—1895�
CLRE — R�S� Bagnall, A� Cameron, S� R� Schwartz, K� A� Worp, Consuls of the Later Roman Empire, Atlanta 1987�
CTh — Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, eds� T� Mommsen, P�M� Meyer, vol� i, Berlin 1905�
DHGE — Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique, Paris 1909-
DSP — Dokumenty Soborów Powszechnych. Tekst grecki, łaciński, polski, vol� I (325—787), Nicea I, Konstantynopol I, Efez, Chalcedon, Konstantynopol II, Konstantynopol III, Nicea II, eds� A� Baron, H� Pietras, Cracow 2001�
EI — Encyclopedia Iranica, London 1982-
EK — Encyklopedia Katolicka, 20 vols�, Lublin 1973—2014�
EKB — Encyklopedia kultury bizantyńskiej, ed� O� Jurewicz, Warsaw 2002�
Lampe — G�W�H� Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1969�
LSJ — H�G� Liddell, R� Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H�S� Jones, Ninth edition with a revised supplement, Oxford 1996�
LTK — Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, dritte Auflage, Freiburg im Breisgau 1993—2001�
MGH AA — Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores antiquissimi, Berlin 1877—1919�
MGH SRLI — Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI—IX, Hanover 1878�
ODB — The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed� A�P� Kazhdan, New York-Oxford 1991�
ODLA — The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, ed� O� Nicholson, Oxford 2018�
PChBE — Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire tome ii, Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne (313—604), eds�
C� Pietri et L� Pietri, vol� 1—2, Rome 1999—2000; tome iii, S� Destephen, Prosopographie du Diocèse d’Asie (325—641), Paris 2008�
PG — Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca, Paris 1857—1866�
PL — Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, Paris 1844—1855�
PLRE i — The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, eds� A�H�M� Jones, J�R� Martindale, J� Morris, vol� i, A� D� 260—395, Cambridge 1971�
PLRE ii — The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, ed� J� R� Martindale, vol� ii, A�D� 395—527, Cambridge 1980�
PMBZ — Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, [on-line] https:// www�degruyter�com/view/db/pmbz�
PO — Patrologia Orientalis, Paris 1903—
PS — E� Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-philologische Klasse, n� s� 10�4, Munich 1934�
RE — Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 24 (erste Reihe) + 10 (zweite Reihe) + 15 (Supplemente) vols�, Stuttgart 1890—1978�
Sophocles — E�A� Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (from B. C. 146 to A. D. 1100), New York 1900�
Thiel — Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, ex schedis clar. Petri Coustantii aliisque editis, adhibitis praestantissimis codicibus Italiae et Germaniae, ed� A� Thiel, vol� i, a S. Hilaro usque ad S. Hormisdam ann. 461—523, Brunsberg 1868�
TRE — Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 36 vols�, Berlin 1977—2004�
Introduction
I. Introductory remarks
John Diakrinomenos and Theodore Lector were writing their church histories during a period of intense Christological controversies, which were centred around the orthodoxy of resolutions adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. As their views of this council are radically different, the works of these two authors have a voice in this dispute, while the events portrayed are profoundly marked by the propaganda of their respective parties.
The decrees of Chalcedon were, of course, just one episode in a series of Christological controversies, primarily with respect to the precise definition of the Divinity and humanity of the Person of Christ. This particular conflict, it should be emphasized, was above all a theological dispute, although some political and geo-ecclesiastical factors, as well as the personal ambitions of individual protagonists, also came to play a role. Yet we must not ignore the fact that the actual motivation for a majority of the bishops and monks, but also for those lay people who became involved in supporting one or the other side of the controversy, was the question of protecting the orthodoxy of the Church against what was perceived as heterodoxy. Even the frequent cases of high-ranking clergymen changing their views most often occurred as a result of the development of theological thought and the emergence of new interpretations of Church doctrine, even if we know of many instances of figures who would go on to change their position for their own advantage or out of fear.
1. New forms of synodal life
The development of Church orthodoxy at this time was essentially a matter of collective effort, inasmuch as it took shape primarily at gatherings of bishops known as synods, where particular positions would often clash with one another, attempts were made to seek compromise definitions of faith, combining various theological traditions, and the views espoused by people accused of tainting orthodox doctrine with heresy were appraised and judged.1 The principal form of assembly in the Church was a local synod of bishops, convened under the direction of a metropolitan bishop of one province, even though we do know of
1 For overviews of the role of synods in Late Antiquity, see Saxer 1995, 63–68; Kosiński 2010c, 289–290; Bralewski 2015, 343–346.
synods that were “extra-provincial”, especially around the foremost bishoprics of the Church in late antiquity: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Carthage. The territorial range of a specific synod, as if a “sphere of influence” around its main centre, was usually determined not only by the significance of a given Church, but also by some practical considerations: for example, as bishops had to travel to synods at their own expense, the venues could not be very distant. In addition, summoning a large number of bishops to come to a synod required the efficient operation of the administrative apparatus of the metropolitan or patriarchal church. Nonetheless, the magnitude of the Christological controversy in the fifth century resulted in a situation where the mitigating measures, and at the same time the healing of the various internal rifts, required a collegial decision of the entire Church.
Ecumenical synods
To have all the bishops of the Empire gathered together at one place in the fifth century was obviously an unfeasible enterprise, as even the deployment of the entire state apparatus would not make this possible. In practice, the point was to achieve a proper representation of the Church. For instance, Theodosios II, when calling the bishops to attend the general council of Ephesos in 431, summoned all the metropolitans of the East and the more important suffragan bishops picked by them.2 Even then, this sort of representation was limited to the Eastern Roman Empire, as the emperor would normally invite, as representatives of the western Empire, only the Bishop of Rome and some other occasionally selected bishops, whose voices could make a significant contribution to the debate.
Despite the fact that imperial synods had been convoked since the reign of Constantine I, it was specifically the three ecumenical synods in the fifth century (even if the legitimacy of one of them was subsequently questioned) that would eventually establish the procedures whereby such larger-scale episcopal assemblies, known as “councils”, could function. The right to summon a council was the exclusive domain of the emperor, which was acknowledged even by the Bishops of Rome, who at times fruitlessly appealed to the emperor to convene such a synod. This was mainly due to the previously mentioned practicalities, as in the fifth century no one except the emperor possessed the resources to convey the bishops to the selected venue on time, provide for their food and lodging, as well as arrange for their return to often very remote parts of the Empire. The tremendous costs of such an endeavour exceeded the means that any other
2 ACO I 1.1, 114–116; cf. Destephen 2008, 103–118.
authority, secular or clerical, could possibly afford. However, the fact that the general councils were organized by the emperor, followed by the enforcement of their decisions by the state authority, might allow the emperor to exert pressure on the bishops attending the convocation, as can be discerned at each of the three ecumenical synods of this period. Although representatives of the emperor actively participated in the sessions of the Council of Chalcedon,3 the emperor’s personal interference in the proceedings was limited. This is exemplified in Theodosios II’s largely ineffective efforts to achieve consensus among the bishops gathered at Ephesos in 431, where two parallel synods were conducting their proceedings at the same time, eventually failing to produce any common position.4 The case of the Council of Ephesos also highlights another critically important aspect. The recognition of a given assembly of bishops as a general council, able to determine the orthodoxy deemed obligatory for and within the whole of the Church, was effectively decided by later ecclesiastical tradition, and not by imperial decree. It was precisely the tradition of the Church that acknowledged the bishops gathered around Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria at Ephesos as constituting a general council, unlike those who had participated in the proceedings under Patriarch John of Antioch.
A synod endemousa
Sometimes the resolution of an issue to be presented to the emperor was urgent but not sufficiently fundamental to set the whole machinery of the state administration in motion, which always entailed great expense. In these cases, another larger-scale assembly of bishops that gained importance during this period was the so-called synod endemousa, which assembled those bishops then residing (endemountes, ἐνδεμοῦντες) in Constantinople.5 Although the origins of this convocation can probably be traced back to the second half of the fourth century (for which we have no conclusive evidence), its position within the structure of the Church was ultimately given shape during the period covered by John’s and Theodore’s writings, when the sources mentioned it by this name for the first time. The synod endemousa was presided over by the Bishop of Constantinople and the participants were bishops who were present in the city at the time of the assembly, with the principal aim of resolving or settling current affairs that were recognized as matters of greater or lesser importance by the metropolitan bishop
3 See below on p. 26–28.
4 On Theodosios II’s efforts to reach a consensus at Ephesos, see Ilski 1992.
5 On the synod endemousa, see Hijjar 1962.
(or the emperor). Items on the synod’s agenda may have concerned doctrine, as was the case with the most famous gathering of the period, the synod endemousa of November 448, which was convened to pass judgement on the question of the monk Eutyches’ orthodoxy,6 as well as issues relating to the sphere of church organization, such as the autocephalous status of the Cypriot Church, as recorded in the Laudatio Barnabae by Alexander the Monk.7 The synod also had to consider some unresolved disciplinary and liturgical matters. Unlike local synods, this type of assembly would not have had a permanent roster of bishops, but was more flexible in character, whereby bishops who were attending to various matters in the imperial capital were summoned to the convocation in an ad hoc manner. Nevertheless, the significance of this kind of synod grew systematically, in line with the ever-increasing status of the Bishop, later Patriarch, of Constantinople, who would begin to function as the de facto supreme church figure in the Empire, with decisive influence over the emperor and his current religious policy.
Consultation by correspondence8
In 457, the opposition to the Council of Chalcedon reached such a level that once again the unity of the Church was in danger and Leo I, who had succeeded to the throne upon the death of Marcian, decided that his view of the council’s decrees, as well as the legitimacy of the consecration of Timothy Ailouros, the anti-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, should be reassessed by the bishops. On this occasion, in order to receive a prompt reply from the pope, but also from the entire episcopate of the Eastern Roman Empire, and to avoid the resurgence of problems normally arising at general councils, the emperor resolved to choose the path of consultation by correspondence, addressing the so-called “encyclical” (a circular letter) to all the provinces, which local synods under the guidance of their metropolitan bishops were expected to answer. This was a unique initiative, which would not be repeated, at least in the period under consideration, but the decisions obtained as part of the bishops’ response proved to be of pivotal importance to the emperor. Leo continued to rely on the result of this consultation and founded his religious policy on the groundwork of this response until the end of his reign.
6 On this synod, see below on p. 25.
7 See p. 388–389.
8 For more on Leo’s Encyclical, see p. 31.
2. The main protagonists in the dispute9
The Bishop of Constantinople10
The growth of the Bishop of Constantinople’s position in the Church was, of course, closely connected with the rising status of the capital city, and particularly with the eventual localization of the imperial residence on the Bosporus. By the turn of the fourth and fifth centuries, emperors no longer took an active part in military campaigns or expeditions. The ruler ceased to act as commander-inchief of the army, entrusting this task to professional military officers, and he would only very rarely leave the city or its immediate environs. Imperial power was concentrated in Constantinople, where the court, the senate and the highest offices were located. The capital city thus became the place visited by many delegations arriving from all the provinces and corners of the Empire, representing cities or municipalities, but also by individuals who wished to bring their personal affairs or petitions to the attention of the court. As the careers of high officials depended on the emperor’s decision, being present in the capital of the Empire in order to seek his favour simply became a matter of necessity.
The same reality governed the affairs in the Church. Bishops would often travel to the capital to lobby on behalf of their city or to appeal decisions taken by the metropolitan or a synod, if they believed them to be unjust. Likewise, monks appealed to the emperor in disputes with their local bishops or when they wished to exert influence on his attitude towards a theological controversy. Very frequently, the emperor ordered the Bishop of Constantinople to resolve disputes or consider settling matters submitted by bishops, whereupon he would often take action with the aid of the aforementioned synod endemousa.
In addition, the metropolitan bishop, who was the senior church dignitary closest to the emperor, served as the ruler’s advisor in ecclesiastical affairs or presented to him, personally, various matters from the provinces on behalf of specific bishops. A good example is the case of Bishop Martyrios of Antioch, who was accused of heresy by Peter the Fuller, but managed to secure the emperor Leo’s support, thanks to Patriarch Gennadios’ intercession, even though Peter was reputedly backed by Zeno, the emperor’s son-in-law.11 The
9 For relations between the individual patriarchates, see especially the excellent studies by Philippe Blaudeau (2006 and 2012).
10 On the Church of Constantinople and the increasing role of its bishop, see Dagron 1974, 367–517; M.B. Leszka 2011, 350–400.
11 For more on this event, see Theodore Lector, Epitome 55 [390]–56 [391].
patriarchs tended to have an enormous influence on the general framework of the emperor’s policy towards the Church. It seems that Leo I relied on Patriarch Gennadios’ counsel, while Akakios cooperated closely with Zeno, supporting him in his appointment decisions, even when they might have sometimes been contrary to the patriarch’s own view. It was only the reign of Anastasios that would bring significant changes to this model of cohabitation, as the emperor found himself embroiled in conflicts with two patriarchs, Euphemios and Makedonios, both of whom he eventually deposed and condemned to exile.
It is also worth recalling that the patriarchs usually enjoyed considerable support among the faithful. Futhermore, the city of Constantinople, unlike Alexandria, Antioch or Rome, never experienced an internal schism in this period. It is notable that Akakios was even in a position to resist the policy pursued by Basiliskos, by inciting the people of the city to revolt against his authority, which eventually forced the emperor to leave Constantinople in fear for his own safety.
The Patriarch of Alexandria12
Since the enactment of Theodosios I’s constitution Cunctos populos (27 February 380), the Patriarch of Alexandria had been the most significant authority on orthodoxy in the East.13 The theological stature of this status had been built on the groundwork laid by Patriarch Athanasios, who was a relentless adversary of Arianism. Nevertheless, the high position of the Church of Alexandria, following the greatest triumphs of the two patriarchs, Cyril and Dioskoros (the former caused the downfall of Nestorios, Bishop of Constantinople, in 431, whereas the latter similarly ousted Bishop Flavian of Constantinople in 449), would gradually decrease over the following decades. From an ecclesiological point of view, this development was related to the growth of the Bishop of Constantinople’s position, while from a theological perspective, the Church of Alexandria’s support for Miaphysitism and its opposition to the Council of Chalcedon had an adverse effect on the continued treatment of the Alexandrian patriarch as a viable touchstone of orthodoxy by those rulers who decided to adhere to the decisions adopted at that council, and by the pope as well. In addition, internal
12 On the Church of Alexandria, see Maraval 1995, 883–901; Wipszycka 2018, esp. 135–198.
13 CTh xvi 1.2.
divisions within the Patriarchate of Alexandria would also contribute to the weakening of its position in the overall structure of the Church. In the latter half of the fifth century, the emperor had several patriarchs representing different Christological factions banished (such as Dioskoros, Timothy Ailouros and John Talaia), choosing to replace them with figures who had very little support among the populace. In consequence, the faithful would often refused to remain in communion with the emperor’s appointees.
The Patriarch of Antioch14
The Church of Antioch experienced a considerable, and somewhat surprising, deterioration in its position during the period under consideration. It was considerable, inasmuch as the range of its jurisdictional authority had been dramatically reduced as a result of the loss of some important provinces, caused, for example, by the establishment of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the emancipation of the Cypriot Church.15 At the same time, it was surprising, because, in spite of several conflicts in the midst of this Church, first during the episcopates of Martyrios and Peter the Fuller, then under Flavian,16 the Church of Antioch continued to remain, essentially, an exponent of theological teachings consistent with those in the main stream of the Church and in agreement with the emperor’s religious policy. It is significant that, following a fiasco at the Council of Ephesos (431), Theodosios II entrusted the task of reaching a consensus to Patriarch John of Antioch, and that the last patriarch of this period was Severus of Sozopolis, the preeminent anti-Chalcedonian theologian of the time, whose appointment was carried through thanks to the emperor’s nomination.17 Nonetheless, aside from the influence exercised by Severus, Antioch would remain somewhere on the sidelines of the major axis of conflict, the confrontation between Alexandria and Constantinople.
14 On the Church of Antioch, see the somewhat outdated study by Devreesse (1945), with a number of its passages emended in Downey’s extensive work (1961, 414–519). For the patriarchate of Severus of Antioch, see Alpi 2009.
15 On the establishment of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, see Honigmann 1950, 240–247; for the autocephaly of the Church of Cyprus, see below.
16 On the issue of Martyrios and Flavian, see below.
17 On John’s role after the council, see Camelot 1962, 70–72; Fraisse-Coué 1995, 542–550; cf. also Fairbairn 2007, 383–399. On Severus, see below.
The Bishop of Rome18
In spite of the fact that contemporary Christological controversies were essentially disputes taking place within the Greek-speaking Church, the pope continued to remain, throughout the period covered in John’s and Theodore’s accounts, an important participant, who became involved at the instigation of the eastern bishops. In the East, the pope was viewed as a guardian of orthodoxy and the final instance of appeals in conflicts between the main antagonists rather than an authority on theology (the only theological treatise written in Rome that would resonate in the East was Pope Leo’s Tome). The pivotal role of the pope was also due to the fact that he represented an authority that was, in a sense, external in relation to the groups directly involved in the particular stages of the Christological controversy in the Eastern Church. This “externality” was based upon two premises. First, the pope (especially in the period when Arian rulers held power in Italy) was not de facto subordinate to the emperor’s authority and was thus able to retain much of his independence, and a more principled attitude, in relations with imperial rule, particularly in the context of conducting his own religious “policy” without much regard to pressure from the emperor. Second, the pope embodied the theological world of the Latin language, whereas the Christological conflicts of the period were born in and then spread across the Greek-speaking world, where the meanings of individual notions and terms often played a key role in the understanding of contemporary theological discourse. This latter factor would frequently make it more difficult (though not impossible) to achieve a common platform of understanding between the East and the West. Nevertheless, the bishops in the East (or at least those who followed the decrees of Chalcedon) continued, throughout this period, to look to the pope for support or even for arbitration in resolving their own disputes. It is also significant that despite certain reservations voiced by the eastern bishops regarding the orthodoxy of Pope Leo and his Tome, the popes of the period had always been exponents of theological views that would ultimately be recognized as orthodox across the main stream of the Church; first, in their support of Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria during his dispute with Nestorios, and, later on, when they acted against Eutyches and Patriarch Dioskoros, while eastern
18 On the Church of Rome, see Caspar 1933; Richards 1979; Guyon 1995, 771–798; Sotinel 1998, 279–319. For relations between the papacy and the emperor, particularly during the pontificate of Gelasios, see Koch 1935; Ziegler 1942; Dvornik 1951, 111–116; Ullmann 1981.
patriarchs (Nestorios, Timothy Ailouros and Peter the Fuller) would often come to embrace teachings subsequently considered heretical.
3. The emperor’s role19
The emperor’s support for one of the opposing parties would often prove to be crucial in attaining the upper hand over their adversaries. Modern historical scholarship has sometimes used the terms “imperial Church” or “state Church” to refer to the main ecclesiastical community of the Empire, which had developed under state protection since the fourth century. Nevertheless, this designation does not seem to be correct, as the Church in question was not, strictly speaking, a state church, as it would, on many occasions, adopt positions differing from those favoured by the reigning emperor. Furthermore, as noted above, fifth-century emperors, in principle, took decisions on religious issues on the basis of earlier synodal resolutions or through consultations with a greater number of bishops. It seems therefore that a more adequate expression is the aforementioned “main stream of the Church”, as opposed to many marginal religious communities (such as Arians or Novatianists), to which various legal restrictions were applied.
Even if the designation “imperial Church” is to be avoided, one could not deny the fact that the emperor played a prominent role and all the parties involved in disputes tended to seek his support. The Empire’s majesty and authority continued to have an important influence on the bishops and often inclined them to attempt to reconcile their views with those of the emperor. Yet the vast majority of the episcopate were not opportunists, while some of them resisted imperial religious politics on many occasions, sometimes risking their lives, as in the case of Patriarch Akakios during the usurpation of Basiliskos. Nevertheless, this would not change the fact that many of the bishops preferred to avoid falling into their ruler’s disfavour. Generally speaking, as depicted in John’s and Theodore’s accounts, emperors did not, with the exception of Anastasios, have any theological conceptions of their own. In the second half of the fifth century, they were primarily military men who would strive to achieve reconciliation and championed the idea of unity in a Church torn by divisions – a unity that could ensure prosperity and God’s protection for the Empire. In order to succeed in attaining this goal, they had to rely on the group which, in their opinion, formed a majority at a given time or could provide the ruler with some immediate benefits. The emperor’s role would then consist in achieving a majority vote, chiefly by
19 For the emperors’ religious policies, see esp. Bralewski 2018.
means of episcopal assemblies whose decisions, strengthened by the sanction of imperial authority, they were to implement. In reality, the bishops had no effective means of duress at their disposal, such as could assist them in enforcing their decrees were they to meet with opposition, hence the state had to take on the role of the enforcer of those formally adopted decrees, as was the case in Palestine in the period following the Council of Chalcedon.
4. Monks
Although the task of defining orthodoxy in the Church belonged to the bishops, the fifth century saw the rise of a new factor that would attempt to usurp this prerogative, namely the monastic circles of the period, who could be regarded as the most radical proponents of specific Christological options.20 Their activities were not limited, as one might be tempted to think, to serving as a sort of task force for particular bishops, deployed in putting pressure on other bishops, officials or even the emperor, but would also be manifested in the field of theological dispute or controversy. Monks of this period wrote treatises, while some of them even became leaders of various Christological factions on a par with bishops, as is clearly evident in the case of Severus of Sozopolis, a figure whose influence on the emperor Anastasios cannot be overestimated.21 Yet there can be no doubt that the radical attitudes of some monks were a cause for concern among members of the hierarchy, who were often intimidated or harassed by them. On multiple occasions, monastic circles questioned the policies pursued by their bishops (the monks of Constantinople were in opposition to first Nestorios, then Akakios; Palestinian monks resisted the authority of Juvenal; Egyptian monks were as opposed to the pro-Chalcedonian patriarchs as they were to the anti-Chalcedonian patriarch Peter Mongos), but they also posed a threat to their personal security. Aware of this growing danger, the bishops convened at the Council of Chalcedon proceeded to draw up canons that effectively subordinated the monastic movement, until then informal in practice, to episcopal authority.22 Those canons were implemented, but not at once and not everywhere: first, the decrees of Chalcedon were not uniformly acknowledged across the Empire; second, the position of bishops with respect to monks seems not to have been very secure in many regions.
20 On the radical attitudes of monks, see e.g. Teja 1997, 3–19; Hatlie 2006, 13–25.
21 On this issue, see pp. 47–53.
22 Council of Chalcedon in 451, Canon 4 and 8 (ACO, ii 1.2, 159–160).
II. Christological Controversy
1. Theological essence of the dispute
The Christological controversy that afflicted the Church throughout the fifth and sixth centuries can be traced back to the views of Bishop Apollinarios of Laodikeia (d. 382). He preached the doctrine according to which the Divinity of the Son (Logos) could have accomplished the act of redemption only if it had directly fused with Christ’s body, creating one single nature (μία φύσις) within him, comparable to the unity of body and soul in other humans. From the perspective of the human nature, this particular union would entail Jesus Christ’s human mind being replaced by the Divine Logos.23 Apollinarios’ views had been condemned as early as the 370s by a number of synods as well as in Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople (381).24
The teachings of Apollinarios met with opposition especially among those circles identified with the Antiochene school of theology. Theodore of Mopsuestia, one of the distinguished proponents of this school, held the view that if the Logos had not assumed a human soul upon His incarnation, the redemption of man would not have been possible. This Antiochene theologian referred to the actual union of the divine and the human nature in one Person, assuming the oneness of Christ and the existence of His two complete natures.25 One of Theodore’s disciples was Nestorios, who preached that both natures (human and divine) in Christ should be clearly distinguished. He attached great significance to the assertion that the Incarnation could not have caused the impassible Word to be subjected to any change or suffering. Christ was to live a truly human life, as His full humanity was the prerequisite for redemption. Yet, the truly human experience would not have been possible if the human nature of Christ had been fused with His divine nature or if the latter had prevailed over the former. Hence, Nestorios claimed, the two natures, divine and human, had to live alongside one another, not separated and not confused, but, because God’s will united them both, they remained in the most inherent relation to each other. The problem of Nestorios’ teaching was the absence of a precise definition of the term for unity itself. Although he would sometimes refer to “unity” (ἕνωσις), the term that he
23 For Apollinarios’ views, see Norris 1963, 79–122; Grillmeier 1987, 329–343; Kelly 1968, 289–295.
24 Council of Constantinople (381), Canon 1 (DSP, 70).
25 On the Christology of Theodore, see Sullivan 1956; Greer 1961; Grillmeier 1987, 421–439; Kelly 1968, 303–309.
used more readily was “combination” (συνάφεια), which appeared to be free of any suspicion of the two natures being mixed or dissolved. He also attempted to safeguard himself from accusations of preaching the unreality of the union by using such adjectives as “perfect”, “exact” and “constant” to describe the said combination. Christ was thus, in his view, a single being, with one will and intellect, inseparable and indivisible, but dual in His nature.26
The views of Nestorios were contested by Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria. The starting point of Cyril’s Christology was the Person of the Word, existing in a substantial union with the Father eternally, who became a human upon the coming of “the fullness of time”. According to Cyril’s view, the “body” represents the human nature, which is complete owing to its possession of a rational soul. The pre-existent Logos becomes identified with the incarnated One. Upon being incarnated, He assumes the human body along with the rational soul, which constitutes the full and integral human nature. In the accomplishment of this, the Logos retains the full quality of His divine hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) – hence the assumed human nature does not possess its own person. Both before and after the Incarnation, the Logos has been one and the same Person, unaltered in His essence of divinity, with the difference that the Son hitherto existing “beyond the body” has now become “embodied”. Cyril used the terms πρόσωπον, φύσις and ὑπόστασις most often as synonyms, attaching to them the meaning of the intrinsic substance. For this reason, there is only one ὑπόστασις and one φύσις in the Word Incarnate, from which originated Cyril’s formula referring to the one incarnated φύσις of the Divine Word, which might have been perceived as an expression of Apollinarianism. In Antiochene circles, the key word φύσις, meaning “nature”, signified humanity or divinity understood as a specific conglomeration of characteristic features or attributes. Alternatively, Cyril preferred to understand the term φύσις in the sense of a specific entity or an independent being. In this meaning, φύσις was closer to ὑπόστασις, without actually being its synonym. With reference to what the Antiochenes termed as “natures”, he preferred to use expressions such as “natural property”, “mode of being” or “natural quality”. To Cyril, Nestorios’ teaching of the two natures would also signify two hypostases, united in one person (πρόσωπον), which he deemed as tantamount to the doctrine of the “two sons”, and thus a contradiction of the actual union or
26 For the Christological views of Nestorios, see Scipioni 1956; Braaten 1963, 251–267; Grillmeier 1987, 443–519; McGuckin 1988, 93–129.
a reduction of the oneness to a mere combination. To Cyril, Nestorios postulated only the existence of a moral (not physical or ontological) union.27
The tumultuous conflict was not resolved conclusively at the Council of Ephesos in 43128 and it was only on the emperor Theodosios II’s orders in 433 that Bishop John of Antioch worked out a compromise Christological definition that achieved the reconciliation between the views held by the Antiochene theologians and Cyril. The formula was complete in its embrace of the integrity and the inviolability of the human nature of Christ, who was consubstantial with the Father as well as with humans. Although both natures retain their properties, they form a union so deep that it is impossible to talk of anything other than one Christ, one Son and one Lord.29
As it turned out, none of the parties to the Christological controversy was fully satisfied with the Formula of Reunion and such sentiments would emerge especially after the death of Cyril in 444. The situation was exacerbated when the Constantinopolitan monk Eutyches began to espouse the view that Christ had two natures, but only prior to the Incarnation, while afterwards He would possess only one, namely the Divine nature that absorbed the human one.30 In this way, Eutyches would strive to defend the oneness of Christ at any cost against any attempt to divide it. In all probability, he regarded φύσις as a specific being and hence his attachment to the Cyrillian formula of μία φύσις.31 In 448, Eutyches was condemned by Bishop Flavian of Constantinople and his synod endemousa, but this only led to the outbreak of a new Christological dispute.32
Flavian received support from Pope Leo I (440–461), who addressed to him a letter, known as the Tome, in which he presented a general interpretation of western Christology.33 Leo was particularly concerned to emphasize the identity
27 For Cyril and his Christology, see Grillmeier 1987, 473–483; Kelly 1968, 317–323; Gavrilyuk 2003, 190–207; McGuckin 2004.
28 On the proceedings of the Council of Ephesos, see esp. McGuckin 2004, 53–107 and Bevan 2016, 149–204.
32 The proceedings of the synod endemousa of 448 were read out during the first session of the Council of Chalcedon on 8 October 451 and can be found in the council’s acts; cf. ACO ii 1.1, 100–145. See also Schwartz 1929 and Bevan/Gray 2008, 617–657.
33 On Pope Leo I and his Christological views, see Jalland 1941 and Wessel 2008.
of the Person of the God-Man with the Person of the Divine Logos. The divine and human natures co-exist in this one Person unconfused and unmelded, as each one retains its own natural properties intact in that union. On the other hand, Eutyches gained support from Patriarch Dioskoros of Alexandria (444–451).34 In order to resolve the dispute, the emperor summoned a new synod to Ephesos, which commenced its proceedings on 8 August 449. During its sessions, the adherents of Dioskoros managed to gain the upper hand. As a result, Eutyches was rehabilitated, while Flavian and the other leading representatives of the Antiochene school of theology were deposed and exiled.35
The judgements of the council at Ephesos failed to put an end to the controversy. Pope Leo I took steps against its decisions, finding support among some notable figures, such as the emperor’s sister Pulcheria.36 The sudden death of Theodosios II on 26 July 450 and the fact that Pulcheria became the wife of the new emperor, Marcian, buttressed the position of those who opposed the decisions of the Council of Ephesos (449). The new imperial couple decided to convoke a new council to resolve the Christological question in the Church once and for all.37
The council sessions, held in the Church of St Euphemia at Chalcedon (8–31 October 451), were from the beginning overseen by high-ranking imperial officials, which was clearly a departure from Theodosios II’s policy of non-interference in synodal proceedings.38 In the course of the council, the bishops unanimously adopted the creeds promulgated by the councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), as well as Cyril’s letters to Nestorios, while Pope Leo’s Tome aroused opposition among the bishops from Illyricum and Palestine, who found that some of the pronouncements it contained were contrary to Cyril’s teaching.39 During the fourth session, Leo’s Tome was eventually cleared of the
34 Lebon 1946, 515–528.
35 The acts of the Council of Ephesos (449) were read out during the first session of the Council of Chalcedon (8 October 451) and incorporated into the acts of the latter council. There is also a Syriac translation of the acts of the Council of Ephesos; cf. ACO ii 1.1, 68–195 and Syriac Acts of the Second Synod of Ephesos in 449
36 On Pulcheria’s involvement during the Council of Chalcedon, see Goubert 1951, 303–321 and Chew 2006, 207–227.
37 Emperor Marcian’s sacra of 23 May 451 summoning the bishops to the Council of Nicaea, ACO ii 1.1, 27–28 and ACO ii 3.1, 19–20. On the council, the preceding events and its consequences, see in particular Grillmeier/Bacht (eds.) 1951–1954.
38 For this question, see esp. Ilski 1992 and Haacke 1953, 95–107.
39 The second (third, according to the Greek acts) session of the council, dated 10 October 451, ACO ii 1.2, 69–84 and ACO ii 3.2, 3–17. For the role of Cyril as a pillar
accusation of heresy and acknowledged to be in agreement with the teachings of the councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381) and Ephesos (431), as well as with Cyril’s theology.40 One of the emperor’s representatives nonetheless used a veto as a pretext for demanding the formulation of a new uncontroversial definition of faith that would be acceptable to both Rome and the Cyrillian bishops. The crux of the matter was that the emperor required a foundation for his religious policy that aimed to achieve a reunification of the Church. For this purpose, clearly and unanimously defined Christological terminology was necessary.41
Despite the bishops’ reluctance to create a new definition, one was drawn up at the expressly stated request of the emperor, who had nonetheless left its final shape to the bishops.42 The council’s Christological definition affirmed the mystery of the Incarnation by resorting to four terms: inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. The formula was structured in such a way that, despite the use of the phrase “in two natures” (ἐν δύο φύσεσι), instead of the Cyrillian “of two natures” (ἐκ δύο φύσεων), it was not possible to render it in any sense contrary to Cyril’s Christology.43 The definition, thus formulated, was not a new credo, as the council considered the creeds adopted at Nicaea and Constantinople to be fully sufficient. On 25 October 451, in the emperor’s presence, 454 bishops solemnly subscribed to this definition of faith.44 Furthermore, the council carried through the deposition of Dioskoros for his abuses of canon law45 and rehabilitated, under pressure from the pope and the emperor, two influential bishops who had been condemned by the Second Council of Ephesos, Theodoret of Kyrrhos and Ibas of Edessa, on condition that they both condemn Nestorios.46 The greater part of the bishops decided to adopt the Chalcedonian formula out of conviction, not because of any opportunistic attitude. It was only subsequent of orthodoxy, as seen by the bishops at Chalcedon, and the doubts over Pope Leo’s Christology, see Galtier 1951, 345–387. Cf. also Meyendorff 1989, 171–175.
40 The fourth session of the council, dated 17 October 451, ACO ii 1.2, 84–121 and ACO ii 3.2, 102–128.
41 Emperor Marcian’s letter addressed to the bishops at the fifth session of the Council of Chalcedon, dated 22 October 451, ACO ii 1.2, 124–125 and ACO ii 3.1, 132.
42 Gray 1979, 12 and Grillmeier 1987, 108–109.
43 ACO ii 1.2, 126–130 and ACO ii 3.2, 134–138. Promulgation of the definition: ACO ii 1.2, 130–158 and ACO ii 3.2, 138–180.
44 Text of the definition: ACO ii 1.2, 126–130 and ACO ii 3.2, 134–138.
45 ACO ii 1.1, 114–117 and ACO ii 3.1, 94–96 and ACO ii 1.2, 28–29.
46 Session VIII (IX) of the council, dated 26 October 451 (the case of Theodoret), ACO ii 1.3, 7–11 and ACO ii 3.3, 10–15, and sessions IX and X (X and XI) of the council, dated 26 and 27 October 451 (the case of Ibas), ACO ii 1.3, 11–42 and ACO ii 3.3, 15–52.
developments, coupled with the dissemination of anti-Chalcedonian writings, that would persuade some of the participants to embrace the argumentation of the anti-Chalcedonian opposition.
2. From acceptance to opposition
Anti-Chalcedonian attitudes would begin to appear and spread very soon after the council, even among its former participants. The emperor attempted to enforce the acceptance of its decrees by enacting some rigorous laws directed at those who questioned the legitimacy of Chalcedon.47 He also required such approval from Pope Leo, who was initially unwilling to comply because of the privileges that the Council of Chalcedon had conferred on the Church of Constantinople, but eventually (in letters dated 21 March 453) he approved the council’s decisions concerning the faith, yet without recognizing the privileges in question.48
The opposition to the resolutions of Chalcedon incited particular resonance in Palestine. Already during the course of the council a group of Palestinian monks led by Theodosios had left Chalcedon and hurried to the Holy Land, where they began to spread the news that the council was restoring Nestorianism.49 Following Bishop Juvenal’s arrival at Caesarea in Palestine, the monks wanted to make him retract his acceptance of the council’s decrees. Since he refused, they prevented him from assuming the patriarchal throne of Jerusalem, compelling him to seek refuge in Constantinople.50 Thereafter, the adversaries of Juvenal consecrated, in his place, the aforementioned Theodosios as Bishop of Jerusalem, while the other sees, with their pro-Chalcedonian bishops removed, would very
47 Emperor Marcian’s constitution of 7 February 452, Greek text: ACO ii 1.3, 120–121, Latin text: ACO ii 2.2, 21–22. Emperor Marcian’s constitution of 13 March 452, Greek text: ACO ii 1.3, 119–120, Latin text: ACO ii 2.2, 23–24. Emperor Marcian’s constitution of 6 July 452, Greek text: ACO ii 1.3, 121–122, Latin text: ACO ii 3.2, 89–90. Emperor Marcian’s constitution of 18 July 452, Greek text: ACO ii 1.3, 122–124, Latin text: ACO ii 3.2, 90–93. Cf. Grillmeier 1987, 95–98 and Dovere 1992, 1–34.
48 Pope Leo I’s letter of 21 March 453 to Emperor Marcian (ep. 115), ACO ii 4, 67–68, to Empress Pulcheria (ep. 116), ACO ii 4, 68–69, to Julian, Bishop of Kios (ep. 117), ACO ii 4, 69–70, and to the bishops at the Council of Chalcedon (ep. 114), ACO ii 4, 70–71. Cf. Hofmann 1953, 15–18 and Grillmeier 1987, 118–120.
49 Pseudo-Zacharias iii 3; Evagrios ii 5; Theophanes AM 5945.
50 John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi 47 and 76; John Rufus, Plerophoriae 25 and 56; Pseudo-Zacharias iii 3.
soon be taken over by the anti-Chalcedonians.51 The ensuing disturbances and riots resulted in many casualties.52 The situation in Palestine was disturbing to the court in Constantinople. The emperor initially attempted to restore peace in the Holy Land through diplomatic measures,53 but it was only military intervention and the violent suppression of the riots that made it possible for Juvenal to return to his see in mid-453.54 Theodosios and the other leaders of the rebellion were imprisoned or managed to escape.55 The suppression of the revolt did not put an end to the radically anti-Chalcedonian sentiments in Palestine, and some measure of détente began to appear only after the death of Juvenal in July 458.56
In Egypt, the emperor promptly secured the elevation of the Alexandrian priest Proterios in place of the deposed Bishop Dioskoros,57 but a majority of the Egyptian Christians did not recognize him as their new patriarch.58 As riots also broke out in Alexandria, resulting in a number of deaths, order in the city was only restored by the army.59 When Dioskoros died in exile in 454, his followers recognized that the throne of Alexandria was vacant.60 On the news of the emperor Marcian’s death on 16 March 457, two bishops consecrated Timothy Ailouros as the new Patriarch of Egypt, who would very soon win favour with the
51 Pseudo-Zacharias iii 4; Evagrios iii 6; John Rufus, Plerophoriae 52; John Rufus, De obitu Theodosii 2; John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi 78; Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Euthymii 27; cf. Perrone 1980, 92–95.
52 John Rufus, Plerophoriae 10 and 56; Pseudo-Zacharias iii 3; Emperor Marcian’s letter to the archimandrites and monks of Palestine, ACO ii 1.3, 124–127. For more on these events, see Honigmann 1950, 249–250, Perrone 1980, 91–92 and Horn 2006, 83–87.
53 Emperor Marcian’s letter to the archimandrites and monks of Palestine, ACO ii 1.3, 124–127. Empress Pulcheria’s letter to the archimandrites and monks of Palestine, ACO ii 1.3, 128–129.
54 Pseudo-Zacharias iii 5–9; John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi 81; John Rufus, De obitu Theodosii 2; John Rufus, Plerophoriae 10; Emperor Marcian’s letter to the archimandrites and monks of Palestine, ACO ii 1.3, 125–127. Cf. Honigmann 1950, 256; Horn 2006, 91–92 and Chitty 1999, 89–90.
55 John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi 82; Pseudo-Zacharias iii 7; John Rufus, De obitu Theodosii 2 and 8. Cf. Honigmann 1950, 255–257.
56 Honigmann 1950, 262–266.
57 Pseudo-Zacharias iii 2; Liberatus 14, 99.
58 John Rufus, Vita Petri Iberi 83; Pseudo-Zacharias iii 2; Liberatus 14, 98; Michael the Syrian viii 12, and Emperor Marcian’s letter to the Praetorian Prefect Palladios of 1 August 455, ACO ii 2.2, 24–26.
59 Pseudo-Zacharias iii 2; Theodore Lector, Epitome 326; Evagrios ii 5; Theophanes AM 5945. Cf. Blaudeau 2006, 143–145.
