INFORMAnON TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, coIored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the authOr did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs induded in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy.
Higher quality 6- x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contad UMI directfy to order.
Bell & Hewell Information and learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600
Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy Susan Wessel Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2000
UMI Number: 9970314
UMf UMI Microform9970314 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howelllnformation and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
02000 Susan Wessel All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy Susan Wessel Through an examination of the complex events leading to the Council ofEphesus and beyond (400-451 AD), my dissertation "Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy" attempts to understand the fonnation of Byzantine orthodoxy from an historical and cultural perspective. In particular, my dissertation examines a wide variety of Greek and Latin texts, including conciliar acts. christological and exegetical treatises, homilies, letters, and ecclesiastical narratives. I conclude that Cyril's method of rhetorical argumentation contributed not only to Cyril's victory at the Council of Ephesus, but to his elevation as one of the great church fathers of Byzantine Christianity, a rise to prominence that was mirrored by Nestorius' eventual downfall into exile and despair.
Table of Contents Acknowledgements
u
lntroduction
1
1.
Confrontation in the Early Episcopacy
24
2.
Political Alliance and the Onset of Controversy
106
.J.
The Reception ofNicea
158
4.
The Meeting of the Council
196
5.
Cyril's Logos and the Art of Invective
259
6.
Nestorius'
7.
Ephesus and its Aftennath: 431-451 AD
344
Epilogue
393
Select Bibliography of Secondary Sources Appendix
399 420
.,
Logo.~
and the Rhetorical Tradition of Antioch
315
Acknowledgments This dissertation would not have been possible without the expert guidance of Roger Bagnall~ who served as dissertation sponsor. and Alexander Alexakis, who served as second reader. Roger Bagnall provided helpful criticism and thoughtful advice throughout all stages of the dissertation, from prospectus to completion; Alexander Alexakis spent countless hours over the last six years teaching me to read Byzantine Greek and to decipher the complexities of conciliar texts. and for that [ am grateful. Both advisors patiently read through numerous drafts and offered many necessary corrections. Susan Harvey was particularly generous in allowing me to participate as a visiting student in her Graduate Seminar at Brown University, where I received insightful comments from all participants in the Seminar. and where I began my work on the Council ofEphesus. While serving as Chair of the department of Religion and Director of Graduate Studies. Robert Somerville graciously facilitated my research and writing of the dissertation. To these scholars I am grateful for their assistance. and for what they have taught me.
ii
1
Introduction
In the city ofEphesus in 431 AD, an ecumenical council of bishops gathered together, ready to address the vexing problems of christological interpretation raised by Cyril of Alexandria's protracted dispute with Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople. Christological concerns, in particular, flourished during this period of controversy, as monks, clerics and laity vigorously debated the relationship between the human and divine natures in Christ. While the Alexandrians, during the early years of the Nestorian controversy represented by Cyril bishop of Alexandri~ believed that Christ's human and divine natures were intimately bound together into one single nature of God enfleshed (tllav niv Toii 6EOii CPVOlV oeoaplCc..>I.lEVTlv), their opponents, the Antiochenes,
staunchly declared a dual nature Christ, whose separate human and divine natures were ultimately linked by a single prosopon (lTpooc..>lTov). The debate was not simply an intellectual one, for the outcome of this christological controversy produced grave soteriological consequences according to both sides of the dispute. Just as the Alexandrians believed that a single nature Christ, with an emphasis on Christ's divinity, was a necessary component of their soteriological scheme, the Antiochenes believed that the preservation of Christ's humanity, distinct and separable from His divinity, was essential to ensure complete salvation. Modem scholars have ascribed these christological differences to the varied response to Arianism formulated by the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools. Arius had evidently adduced much scriptural evidence of Jesus' lowly nature in order to confirm his subordinationist conception of the divine
Lo~s.
Young represents the majority scholarly
view when she explains that Alexandrian christology, starting with Athanasius, responded
2 to Arianism's claims for a mutable, derivative LOW by asserting that ""[t]he LoWS himself did not experience weakness, suffering and death in his essential Being; it was the flesh he took which was subject to these human limitations. "I The Logos, therefore, under the Alexandrian christological scheme, ""remained the subject of the incarnatio~" a christological assumption rejected by the Antiochenes. 2 Instead, the Antiochenes attributed weakness, fallibility and passion only to Christ's human nature, the ""man that he assumed "3 Scholars such as Wilken and Young suggest, therefore, that controversy arose between the schools of Alexandria and Antioch because of these divergent responses to Arianism.4 Though much indebted to this lucid, christological scheme, the present study, nonetheless, rejects this model for understanding the christological debates of the fifth century in favorofa literary and historical approach. By examining the theological arguments made by both sides of the Nestorian debate, including doctrinal treatises, letters. homilies, conciliar acts and ecclesiastical narratives, this study plans to show that Cyril adopted the language of anti-Arianism as part of a broader polemical strategy, by which Cyril and his followers effectively appropriated the discourse of Nicea F. M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background (London, 1983), p. 179. 1
2
Ibid. p. 179.
3
Ibid. p. 180.
4 See R Wilken, "Tradition, Exegesis, and the Christological Controversies," Church History 34 (1965), p. 123-145. F. M. Young, fmm Nicaea !QChalcedon, p. 178-289. For a discussion of the Word-Flesh, Word-Man understanding of the Alexandrian and Antiochene christological schools, see J. N. D. KelJy, ~ Christian Doctrines (San Francisco, 1960), p. 280-309. RA. Norris criticizes the Word-Flesh, Word-Man model in ""Christological Models in Cyril of Alexandria," Studia Patristica 13 (1975), p. 255-268.
3 and, in the process, laid claim to their "rightful" position in the history of the Byzantine orthodox tradition. Even while Cyril cast his christological concerns into the language of anti-Arianism, therefore, Cyril never sincerely believed that Nestorius promoted a subordinationist conception of Christ. for Cyril deftly borrowed the language of antiArianism in his debates with Nestorius partly in order to inflame public opinion against his adversary, and to secure his own position as the interpreter of and heir to the orthodox tradition of Nicea. 5 Starkly different cultural and soteriological assumptions, nonetheless, lay behind the differences between the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools. 6 Indeed, Cyril's particular understanding of the eucharist defined his christological and soteriological plan to a large extent, for Cyril believed that Christians achieved salvation mainly through participating in the body and blood of Christ. It was the inextricable bond between the human and divine natures of Christ which ensured that Christians received the share of divinity necessary to render them secure against the forces of death. 7 Cyril believed that when Nestorius dissolved that essential union, the sacrament of the eucharist was in jeopardy, along with the foundations of the Christian soteriological scheme, for Christians
5
See Chapters 3 and 5.
See J. Guillet, "Les exegeses d' Alexandre etd' Antioch conflitou malentendu?" Recherche ~ Science Reliweuse 34 (1947) p. 257-302. For a full discussion of Christian thought in Antioch, see D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch (Cambridge, 1982).
6
W. H. C. Frend, The Rise mthe Monophysite Movement (Cambridge, 1972), p. 124; see H. Chadwick, "Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy," Journal QC Theological Studies, N.S. 2,2 (1951), p. 145-164. 7
4
at communion no longer shared in the divine flesh and blood of Christ. 8 Antiochene christology proceeded from an entirely different set of assumptions, namely the belief that humans were ethical beings possessed of free will, whose salvation depended on their emulation of Christ and his restoration of humankind after the Fall of Adam. 9 This ethical dimension meant that Antiochene christology stressed the Christians' relationship to the humanity of Christ., with particular emphasis on the Jesus of the gospels as an ethical paradigm amenable to imitation and emulation. At stake in the christological controversies of the fifth century, therefore, were not simply arcane christological/trinitarian formulations, but an entire world view, a conception of Christ's humanity and its relationship to the divine that echoed broader concerns for the individual and his or her place in the cosmos. Was humanity closely linked to the divine through the Eucharistic consumption of Christ, as Cyril claimed, or was the gulf nearly insurmountable, bridged only by emulating Jesus' ethical example? These competing world views clashed for the first time in an ecumenical setting at the council of Ephesus in 431. On June 22, 431 AD, under the direction ofCyril of Alexandria and Memnon bishop of Ephesus, a council of bishops anathematized and deposed Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople, declaring him a heretic. 10 Installed as bishop of the Imperial City by the emperor Theodosius 11, Nestorius came from Antioch in Syria, where he apparently studied with Theodore of Mopsuestia, a Christian student of the Pagan 8 W. H. C. Frend, The Rise 2f~ Monophysite Movement. p. 125; Epistula iii
(synodica) Cyrilli Alex.
~
Nestorium
(~5317) ~
I, I, I, p. 33-42.
9 D.
S. WaJlace-HadrilJ, Christian Antioch (Cambridge, 1982), p. 125; W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of~ Monophysite Movement, p. 126. 10 Gesta
Ephesina. A£t.m!(d 22 lun. a 431}. (~8675) ~ I, I, 2, p. 3-64.
rhetorician Libanius. ll
5 A staunch proponent of the Antiochene dual nature christology,
Nestorius had been involved in protracted debate with Cyril for several years before the emperor Theodosius 11 finally called for an ecumenical gathering of bishops to resolve their christological differences. Travel delays conspired to produce additional problems for the council, however, for the Antiochene delegation of bishops led by John bishop of Antioch arrived several days after Cyril and Memnon began the official conciliar proceedings. When John of Antioch and his followers finally arrived they found that Cyril and Memnon had unilaterally deposed their fellow Antiochene Nestorius. 12 In response, John and the Antiochene delegation of bishops angrily convened a countersynod which promptly deposed Cyril of Alexandria and Memnon of Ephesus, just as they had deposed Nestorius only days before. 13 Far from the ecumenical gathering of bishops that the emperor Theodosius 11 had decr~ the bishops at Ephesus formed two councils and reached two entirely contradictory decisions. When Theodosius 11 confirmed the findings of both parties, the ensuing confusion surrounding the christological issues found no finn resolution until the Act of Union in 433. in which Cyril and John of Antioch both made concessions for the sake of ecclesiastical peace. 14
G. Downey, Ancient Antioch (Princeton, 1963), p. 193. See also 1. W. H. Walden, The Universities of Ancient Greece (New York, 1909); P. Petit, Les Etudiants de Libanius (Paris, (956). 11
12
Relatio ~ imperatores ~ depositione Nestorii. (CPG 8684) ACa I, I, 3, p. 3-5.
13
Gesta a synodo Orientalium (d. 26 m. lun. a. 431). (CPG 8691) Aea I, I, 5, p. 121.
14 Sacra directa 3 [ lobannem comitem concilio. (~8723) AQl I, 1,3, p. 31-32; ~ ad lohannen Antiochenum. (~ 8810) Am I, I, 4, p. 3-5; ~ id Acacium 8eroeensem. (~8812) Am I, I, 7, p. 146.
6 Christological controversy continued intennittently throughout the next twenty
years. until the council of Chalcedon in 451 finally embraced the Tome of Pope Leo the Great. and its confinnation of a dual nature christology. Though some scholars claim that Chalcedon' s dyophysitism represents a significant triumph for Nestorius and the Antiochene school. one modem scholar believes. rightly so. that Chalcedon was not in any sense a vindication ofNestorius' dual nature christology.15 Instead, he explains that the Chalcedonian majority deemed the dual nature language a necessary response to the extreme Monophysitism of Eutyches and his followers. In fact. that theory had already been proposed in ancient times by the Neochalcedonian. Nephalius. who complained that the struggle against Eutyches had produced the unwieldy (TTaXVJ.lEpes.lit: coarse) doctrine ofChalcedon. 16 During the intervening years between Ephesus and Chalcedon. controversy apparently erupted when Eutyches. the archimandrite of a large monastery in Constantinople. condemned as Nestorians anyone who subscribed to the dual nature language contained in the Formula of Reunion (Act of Union 433). In response. the P. T. R. Gray. The Defense ofChalcedon in the East (451-553) (Leiden. 1979). p. 2. For Cha1cedon as a triumph of Antiocbene christology. see. for example. C. Moeller. "Le chalcedonisme et le neo-chalcedonisme en Orient de 451 a la fin de la siecle." in A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht. eds.• ~ Konzil YQIl Chalkedon I (Wurzburg. 1951). p. 638720. 15
Severus of Antioch (Nephalius). Contr. Gramm .• t. Ill. p. 48. lines 27-32. Severus Antiochenus. ~ contra impium Grammaticum (syriace) (~7024). J. Lebon. ed., Severi Antiocheni Imcontra impium Gmmmaticum. CseD 111 (Louvain 1938. 1952) (2nd ed.) (textus orationis primae et orationis secundae quae supersunt); CSCO 112 (Louvain 1938. 1952)(2nd ed)(translatio); CSCO 93 (Louvain 1929. 1952)(2nd ed.) (textus orationis t~~i~e. partis prioris); CSCO 94 (Louvain, 1929. (952) (translatio); CSCO 101 (Lou"ain 1933. 1952) (textus orationis tertiae. partis posterioris); CSCO 102 (Louvain, 1933. 1952}(translatio). Cited by Ch. Moeller. "Nephalius d' Alexandrie." RHE 40 (1944-1945), p. 128. 16
7
Chalcedonian majority reluctantly abandoned Cyril's "out of two natures" formula (contained in the Act of Union) in favorofPope Leo's "in two natures," because they believed that Cyril's formula did not adequately guard against Eutyches' and Dioscorus' (Cyril's successor in Alexandria) rampant Monophysitism. 17 To defend Cyrillian orthodoxy against the incursions ofEutyches, therefore, the majority Chalcedonians were willing to sacrifice Cyril's dyophysite language of 433 in favor of Pope Leo's Tome. In no way a vindication ofNestorianism, therefore, the dyophysite formula ofChalcedon was, paradoxically, a defense ofCyrillianism and its understanding of the creed. When the bishops at Chalcedon shouted, "Cyril was orthodox! Cyril thinks like Leo!" there was no doubt for the Chalcedonian majority that this was, indeed, a pro-Cyrillian council. In fact, pro-Cyrillian sentiments ran so deep by the time ofChalcedon 451 that both the majority Chalcedonians and their Monophysite opponents (represented by the archimandrite Eutyches and the Egyptian delegation of bishops) simultaneously claimed to preserve Cyrillian orthodoxy from the incursions of their opponents. At the same time, Nestorius, the deposed bishop of Constantinople, was considered a heretic of such immense proportions that no one save the most ardent Nestorians in Antioch dared to invoke Nestorius' name in connection with the dyophysite language of Pope Leo's Tome. Indeed, for the one hundred years following the council of Chalcedon 451, Byzantine Christians of various christological persuasions all laid claim to Cyril's legacy, eager to declare their unwavering devotion to Cyrillian orthodoxy. The following chapters study this paradoxical state of affairs from a cultural and historical perspective, examining how Cyril of Alexandria emerged during his lifetime and beyond as one of the most influential church fathers of Byzantine history, his orthodox 17
P. T. R. Gray, The Defense QC ChalcedoD. p. 13-14.
8 credentials impeccably intact. while Nestorius himself. deposed and exiled, became one of the greatest archetypal heretics of the Byzantine church. 18 Previous scholarship detennined that Cyril enjoyed victory in the Nestorian controversy because of his superior doctrinal orientation, 19 a conclusion steeped in the assumptions of dogmatic history, which viewed the formation of Christian dogma as a logical process in which each theological doctrine was inextricably linked to a larger organic whole. 20 That See P. T. R. Gray, 'The Select Fathers: Canonizing the Patristic Past," Studia Patristica 23 (1989), p. 21-36. Gray examines the practice of referring to certain revered church fathers of the past in order to lend authority to one's own theological position. For recent works that address theological controversy from a cultural perspective, see E. A. Clark, The Oricenist Controversy (Princeton, 1992); V. Burrus, The Makini: QC ~ Heretic (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1995). Rather than a rehabilitation of heretical sects, both works constitute a reinterpretation of the very nature of theological discourse -- Clark along the lines of social network theory, and Burros according to power, gender and authority. 18
See, for example, C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. III (Edinburgh, 1883). 19
R. Seeberg, Textbook of the History of Doctrines (trans. C. E. Hay) (Grand Rapids, 1964). p. 19-20. '"Dogma is an exceedingly complicated historical structure. It has in its constituent parts, constructed as they have been in the face of multifarious forms of opposition, and under the inspiration of many practical ... impulses and external ... occasions, received the impress of different theological tendencies. Thus dogmas have been '''deepened,'' or '"disintegrated" and superficialized-Iogically developed, or, under the influence of advancing views, transformed, restored, and again newly interpreted. To delineate these historical processes is the office of the History of Doctrines--to show how the Dogma as a whole and the separate dogmas have arisen and through what course of development they have been brought to the form and interpretation prevailing in the churches of any given period." Seeberg does, however, reject "the formerly accepted division of the science into the General and Special History of Doctrines, as well as the subdivision of the latter (as in Baur and Hagenbach) according to the arrangement of topics in the systematic theology of the day; for it is evident that this method of treating the subject is not historical." Ibid. p. 22. German edition, R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch ~ Dogmen~eschichte (Leipzig, 1920-1933). 20
9 methodological approach, however. failed to explain why both the Monophysites and the Chalcedonian majority both wished to claim Cyril as their own. even while they openly espoused widely different christological interpretations. Nor did it explain why Nestorius failed to achieve any hint of vindication from the Chalcedonian bishops. even though the majority Chalcedonians in 451 adopted dyophysite language reminiscent of Nestorius, in order to protect their orthodox creed from the dangers of Eutychianism. 21 While dogmatic historians sought to arrange these apparent contradictions into distinctly logical structures. this study situates the dogmatic controversy within its broader historical and literary context, examining the full range ofliterary
~enres
often neglected
by dogmatic historians of the past. including homilies and Festalletters~ which do not generally contain the sophisticated doctrinal teachings once the exclusive domain of historians of dogma. 22 Indee~ this literary approach examines matters of doctrine. but
ID
relation to the broader literary context and. in the process, sacrifices the rational, logical consistency of the dogmatic approach in order to retrieve the sometimes contradictory nuances of the literary text. Implied in this literary method is, therefore, an abiding 21 Nestorius has, nonetheless, received favorable scholarly attention in recent years. For basic bibliography see M. V. Anastos. ··Nestorius was Orthodox;' DOP 16 (1962), p. 119-140; R. C. Chesnut, ··The Two Prosopa in Nestorius' Bazaar of Heracleides," JTS 29 (1978), p. 392-409; J. Jouassar~ ··Melanges: Le cas de Nestorius," RHE 74 (1979); H. E. W. Turner, 4
For a discussion of the methods of dogmatic history and its relationship to the Enlightenment, see R. Wilken, Judaism ~ ~ £m Christian Mind (New Haven and London, 1971), p. 222-223, discussing J. S. Semler, ··Historische Einleitung in die dogmatische Gottesgelehrsamkeit von ihrem Ursprung und ihrer Beschaffenheit bis auf unsere Zeiten," in S. J. Baumgarten. ed., EVfll1&li sche Glaubenslehre (Halle, 1764). Wilken suggests that dogmatic historians aimed to reproduce the same theological categories of nineteenth century systematic theologians, who believed that theology should apply rational intellectual thought to Christian belief
22
10 interest in language, including the tropes and figures which generally comprise rhetorical analysis. 23 The tenn "rhetoric" itself, however, has become mired in the ambiguous complexities of competing definitions, from its ancient usage as a means of persuasion consisting of sundry stylistic figures,24 to the present day commonplace idiom suggesting oratorical mastery designed to persuade one's listener by verbal deception. In fact, the present day popular u.coage owes something to Nietz!iOChe's critique of the Enlightenmen~ which addressed the problem ofJanguage and its complicity in liberal individualism's pretensions toward rationalism. In particular, Nietzsche claimed that belief in objective moral precepts depended on illusory rationalizations, rationalizations that were supported by the false literalism which constituted the degradation of language. Indeed, Nietzsche believed that language was virtually synonymous with rhetoric, "
See C. W. Bynum, The Resurrection of the ~ (New York, 1995), p. xvi. "my study moves beyond old-style intellectual history, for it argues that the linguistic trappings of texts are often more telling than the explicit arguments. particularly for a period such as the Middle Ages, which placed a high value on conforming to positions fonnulated, even canonized as 'authority,' in a distant past." The present study is also especially concerned with the language and rhetoric of theological arguments, and the way in which those arguments strive to construct a seamless historical trajectory to the orthodox past.
13
24 The present study adopts this ancient definition of rhetoric throughout.
m
25 P. de Man. AlleGOries Reading (New Haven, London. 1979). p. 105; F. Nietzsche. Gesammelte Werke (Munich, 1922),5:300.
11
any way productive of the supposed truths it signified. 26 Nietzsche's critique of rhetoric and the Enlightenment's claims toward rationalism, however, presupposed a cultural milieu profoundly different from the henneneutic presuppositions of Byzantine culture. For Cyril of Alexandria, there were no such literal claims for figurallanguage. Language, especially biblical language, necessarily signified something else - the entirety of the Christian sacred drama, which consisted of the Fall,
incamatio~
and redemption. In fact, it was the heretics ofCyril's
time who degraded the figurality oflanguage into a false litera1is~ failing to comprehend that biblical language was referential and symbolic, a signifier whose signified constituted Christ's sacred drama. This overtly referential, symbolic understanding of language meant that there was little danger of falling into the '1r'icks" of figurallanguage, which Cyril believed were simply a mere shadow and type of the greater Christian truth that stood beyond the biblical text. By distinguishing the thought world and henneneutic strategies of Byzantine times from both the ruthlessly logical presuppositions of dogmatic history and Nietzsche's post-Enlightenment critique of rhetoric. this study attempts to demonstrate that the formation of Byzantine onhodoxy is not an unrelenting logical process. Instead, Byzantine Christianity, represented here by Cyril of Alexandria, is the product of a "totalizing Christian discourse," in which lines of power and influence are forged through a distinctly Christian hermeneutic, a discourse (AOYOS) which makes no claims to rationalism -- coven or otherwise -- but which seeks to preserve the narrative See P. de Man, Allegories of RrndiJ1&. p. II L Indeed, Nietzsche's critique oflanguage has partly informed this study, which aims to uncover the multifarious layers of meaning embedded in the ecclesiastical discourse of the early fifth century. Nevenheless, this approach studies the ancient rhetorical patterns of language used by Cyril and Nestorius, and examines that rhetoric within the thought world of late antiquity. (See Chapters 5 and 6). 26
12 integrity of Christ's sacred drama. 27 [n particular, Cyril's hermeneutic method and style of discourse contrasted starkly with that of his opponent Nestorius, for Nestorius believed that thorough-going (inductive) research into the entirety of the biblical text inevitably produced the twonature doctrine prevalent in the Antiochene school. Though the precise words of scripture were important to Cyril as well, their meaning and significance resided ultimately in the scope (OK01TOS) of the Christian faith. i.e .• the narrative of Christ's incarnation, resurrection and redemption. 28 Such contrasting hermeneutic assumptions helped produce strikingly different styles of discourse: Nestorius' thorough investigation into the biblical text produced a homiletic discourse at once pedantic and recondite in style. In contrast, Cyril's regard for preserving, at all times, the "scope" of Christian faith contained in his simple creedal formulations produced a lively style of public discourse. in which the truth claims of Christian homiletics combined with the figures and tropes of classical and late antique rhetoric to create a discourse formidable to his adversary. The history of classical rhetoric, therefore, provides an appropriate backdrop from which to understand the amalgamation of Christian and classical Greek that
27 Av. Cameron used the phrase "totalizing discourse" in Christianity ~ the Rhetoric of
Empire (Berkeley, 1991), p. 58, to characterize the distinctly Christian discourse that emerged as it brought secular discourse within its interpretive field, especially through the use of figures. 28
See especially, Chapter 3.
13 conspired to produce the complex cultural milieu of the early Byzantine East. 29 One illustration of this cultural richness resides in the age-old debate between philosophy and rhetoric, expressed in Plato's GorKias by the philosopher's critical attitude toward the highly stylized, morally ambivalent. rhetorical displays practiced in Plato's day. Indeed, when Gorgias ofLeontini arrived in Athens in 427 BC, he was, it seems, well-equipped with a myriad of stylistic figures, ready to impress the Athenians with his stylish oratorical elegance. 30 The apparent inspiration for Plato's later dialogue, Gorgias, according to Plato. believed that rhetoric was nothing more than the technical ability to persuade an audience with speeches - its provenance confined mainly to public meetings on affairs of state. such as the law courts. council chamber. and public assembly. 31 Plato's true rhetoric (Ti CxATlenn; PTlTOPUO;). however, strove for more than the mere art of persuasion, more than the manipulation of an audience through the arousing of unfettered emotions. 32 Implied by the practice of rhetoric in its highest form was knowledge of the just and unjust. a moral commitment that aimed to extricate rhetoric from the unscrupulous practice of rhetoricians like Gorgias, whose craft consisted mainly of the unrestrained use of sundry rhetorical figures meant to arouse an audience. If Plato See G. Kennedy, A New History 2fClassica l Rhetoric (Princeton, 1994); G. A. Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Thessaloniki, 1973); F. M. Young, "The Rhetorical School and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis," in R. Williams. ed, The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honor Q.[Henrv Chadwick (Cambridge, 1989), p. 182199; J. L. Kinneavy, Greek Rhetorical OriKiDS 2f Christian fii.th (New York and Oxford. 1987); D.A. Russell, Criticism in AntiQyity (London, 1981); W. Jaeger, ~ Christianitv and Greek Paideia (Cambridge and London, 1961). 29
30
G. M. A. Grube, A Greek Critic: Demetrius On ~ (Toronto, 1961), p. 4.
31
Plato, Gorgias, E. R. Dodd, ed, (Oxford, 1959), 452E. p. 77.
32
Plato, Gorgias, 517A, p. 172.
14
of the unrestrained use of sundry rhetorical figures meant to arouse an audience. [fPlato aimed to infuse rhetoric with an element of moral accountability, at least at the level of theory, then his student Aristotle lent that theory the reality of practice. Organized in three parts. Aristotle's Rhetoric detailed the means of rhetorical persuasion along the lines of argumentation or dialectic, psychology and the emotions, and finally. literary style. No longer simply the province of elegant tricksters, rhetoric was now practically constituted as a distinct sphere of philosophy. ha counterpart of dialectic.·.. as Aristotle boldly declared in the first line of his Rhetoric, which meant that rhetoric was subsumed, at least partly, under the rubric of logic, and through logic, to philosophy as a whole. 33 By the Christian period, though, rhetoricians such as Hermogenes and Demetrius had reduced rhetoric to Aristotle's third category. style and arrangement, composing rhetorical handbooks that simply described and categorized the proliferation of figures and stylistic devices prevalent in the period. Divorced from philosophy, rhetoric was no longer imbued with the unambiguous moral commitment necessary to extricate the discipline from the quagmire of trickery and deception. It was finally Christian preachers and writers who promptly filled the philosophical void, not by turning to classical dialectic, as Aristotle had done. but by infusing rhetoric with an entirely new set of truth claims. No longer dedicated to mastering Aristotle's various means of persuasion, the Christian preacher insisted that his audience yield to the truth claims of the Christian message. the dissemination of which became, at once, the sole aim of the preacher's P. Ricoeur, "Between Rhetoric and Poetics," in A. o. Rorty, ed., Aristotle's Rhetoric (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1996), p. 340·341. Ti pnTopuC11 EOTlV cXVTiOTPOCPOS Tfj BlaAEKTudj. AristoteJjs An Rhetorica, W. D. Ross, ed .• Oxford Classical hm (Oxford. 1959), 1354a, line 1. Elsewhere Aristotle explains that rhetoric in relation to dialectic is lTapa
15 discourse. With the subject of Christian discourse thus circumscribed, namely a discourse limited to the preservation and dissemination ofChrisfs sacred drama. preaching acquired a more limited, yet rarefied, function. The art of persuasion subtly transformed itself into the art of exhortation, in which the preacher insisted that his listeners conform to the singular truth of Christ's saving acts. The taxonomy ofrhetoricaI figures and tropes contained in the handbooks, nevertheless, continued to exert influence over these Christian preachers, whose sermons contained myriad rhetorical devices meant to impress the audience of the urgency and immediacy of his Christian message. Byzantine rhetoric of late antiquity, therefore, represents a subtle amalgamation of classical Greek and Christian forms, in which sundry classical tropes and figures are carefully and selectively appropriated to express the unwavering Christian message of Christ's redemptive act. Subsumed under this broader outline of late antique Byzantine rhetoric stand particular literary figures, such as metaphors and types. Mimetic in nature, "types" (TVrrOl) were an essential element of the prophetic understanding of scripture because
they functioned as models and patterns, pivotal points in the narrative structure which foreshadowed present or future fulfillment. 34 Though often dependent on narrative and history for their complete expression in the biblical text, types simultaneously undermined the linear nature ofbiblicaI narrative, creating an intersection ofhistoricaI and sacred time as the past narrative moment found meaning and significance mainly by its repetition and fulfillment in the present. 3S Indeed, Cyril made ample use of types in his biblical exegesis, for he believed that Christ himselfhad removed the shadows of F. Young, Biblical Exegesis Imt the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge, 1997), p. 153; see also J. Danielou, From Shadows to Reality (London, 1960).
34
35
F. Young, Biblical Exem;sis, p. 156-157.
16
misapprehension from the figures and types of the biblical text, enabling Christians to finally comprehend the spiritual sense of scripture. By this method of biblical exegesis, Cyril eventually constructed a vision of sacred time in which a continuous historical trajectory that began with Moses, Abraham and Isue, finally culminated in Christ's incarnation and redemption. 36 Biblical stories such as the binding ofIsaac were not merely historical events completed in past. linear time, but models and patterns, types signifying the christological truths of the present. Even though Christ had removed such types from the shadows of misunderstanding, Cyril believed that these stories of the biblical patriarchs. for example. required proper interpretation and explication before Christians could fully perceive the presence of Christ's redemptive act. While the type (TImOS) was an interpretive method most likely introduced by the first century Jewish exegete Philo in order to make philosophical sense of the biblical narrative,37 metaphor was a literary figure (axiilla) most carefully delineated in the rhetorical handbooks of ancient Greece. In fact. Aristotle gave this figure its fullest expression when he defined metaphor as a sort of transference which took place at the level of the noun. for ··metaphor consists in assigning to a thing the name of something else~
the transference being either from genus to species, or from species to genus. or from
36 Epistula Paschal is Cyrilli Alex. V (CPG 5240) PG 77, 471-500~ P. Evieux. W. H. Bums, L. Arragon, M-O Boulnois, eds., Cyrille d' Alexandrie, Lettres Festales. Sources Chretiennes 372 (Paris, 1991), p. 314. 492A1B. 37 See generally, D. T. Runia. Philo in ~ Christian Literature (Assen and Minneapolis, 1993).
17
species to species, or on the grounds of analogy. ""38 In other words, the metaphor essentially transposed an alien (aAA6TplO~) name in place of an accepted, ordinary usage. 39 Though contemporary discussion, along the lines ofNietzsche, has focused on metaphor's epistemological shortcomings, in Aristotle's time the issue never arose. Metaphor was not a lie for Aristotle simply because he viewed the problem in starkly different terms. 40 Indeed, Aristotle believed that metaphor reached the height of rhetorical and poetic expression precisely when it subtly deceived the listeners (eK TOO TTpoaE~a1TaTav),
thwarting their expectations. 41 Chiefly concerned with the
metaphor's persuasive function. its paraenetic effect on an audience, Aristotle compared the proper use of metaphor to the sagacious philosopher, always able to draw a ready connection between apparently dissimilar things.42 Metaphorical language, therefore, was not meant to literally tell an audience that one noun was like another, but to demonstrate in figural terms one noun in light of another. 43 That subtle act of Aristotelis De Arte Poetica Liber. R. Kassel. ed.• (Oxford, 1965), XXI. I 457b, lines 69: P. Ricoeur. "''Between Rhetoric and Poetics," in A. O. Rorty, ed., Aristotle's Rhetoric, p.328. 38
39
P. Ricoeur, "'Between Rhetoric and Poetics," in Aristotle's Rhetoric. p. 330.
R. Moran, ""Artifice and Persuasion: The Work of Metaphor in the Rhetoric" in A. O. Rorty, ed., Aristotle's Rhetoric (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1996), p. 386.
40
Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica. W. D. Ross, ed., Oxford Classical Texts (Oxford, 1959), 1412a, lines 19-20.
41
42
Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica. W. D. Ross, ed, (Oxford, 1959), 1412a,lines 11-13.
R. Moran, '''Artifice and Persuasion: The Work of Metaphor in the Rhetoric" in Aristotle's Rhetoric, p. 392.
43
18 demonstration produced important benefits in the realm of audience persuasion and paraenesis, for .'... shifting the imaginative labor onto the audience makes the ideas thereby produced infinitely more valuable rhetorically than they would be as products of the explicit assertions of the speaker. "44 The skillful use of metaphor, therefore, ·'set before the eyes" (npo OIl~,lC:XTc.JV
TTOlElV)45
of an audience for their contemplation two
seemingly dissimilar things. just as the use of types in the interpretation of biblical texts combined two apparently disparate narrative points into one simultaneous juncture in sacred time. Cyril combined both these literary figures. namely metaphors and types, scattered throughout his public discourses, especially in his homilies and Festal letters designed to exhort and persuade his audience oflisteners.46 In fact, from Cyril's encounters with c1assicizing Christian writers and with the biblical text itself, where types and figures dominate the interpretive field, Cyril produced a discourse that ultimately lent authority and legitimacy to his actions in history. In particular, when Cyril vividly compared Nestorius to the archetypal heretic Arius. the popular imagination promptly completed the image, comparing Cyril to the great anti-Arian church father of the fourth century, Cyril's predecessor on the episcopal throne, Athanasius. Such bold images shared certain 44
R. Moran, "Artifice and Persuasion," p. 396.
45
Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica. W. D. Ross. ed., (Oxford, 1959), 1411b, line 25.
46 On the importance of metaphor in religious language. see 1. M. Soskice, Metaphor ~ Religious Umm'i'ce (Oxford, 1985); Av. Cameron, Christianity AWl ~ Rhetoric 2f Empire, esp. p. 58-60, 155-188; P. Ricoeur. The ~2fMetaphor (Toronto. 1911); F. M. Young, "The God of the Greeks and the Nature of Religious Language," in W. R. Schoedel and R. Wilken, eds., ~ Christian Literature iDd ~ Classical Intellectual Tradition: In Honorem R. Q:mD1 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1919).
19
features with the classical metaphor. subtly transferring the qualities of one noun to another. while surreptitiously guiding the listener toward the desired connection. At the same time.
thoug~
these vivid comparisons. which brought together the qualities of two
temporally disparate persons into a single point in time. also belonged to the category of biblical types. Mimetic in nature. types necessarily contained strong moral implications. for they represented actions to be imitate
F. Young. Biblical Exe=is and the Formation of Christian Culture, p. 226.
When Cyril appropriates Athanasius' anti-Arian polemic. he firmly constructs his own position in the chain of orthodoxy and. in the process, creates a lineage which unambiguously excludes the Arian other. Of course. Cyril was not the first to render proper succession and right lineage the foundation for any claim to orthodoxy. At least as far back as Irenaeus and his confrontation with Gnostic Christians. orthodox Christian doctrine has been formulated in a decidedly negative fashion. Part of this formulation for Irenaeus consisted in delineating. in very precise form. an unbroken genealogy all the way back to the first apostles, a line of continuous transmission which necessarily excluded the heretical other. See R. Lyman. «A Topography of Heresy: Mapping the Rhetorical Creation of Arianism;' in M. R. Bames and D. H. Williams. eds .• Manism After Arius (Edinburg~ 1993), p. 45-62. 48
20 which significant moments of biblical history were reinterpreted and appropriated in relation to Christ's sacred drama_ 49 Through the transference of metaphor and the simultaneity of types, in which time is imagined in a circular fashion and the past appropriated by mimesis and repetitio~ a particular sort of figural language and argumentative strategy emerges, one which by-passes discursive argumentation~ and one in which the very statement that Nestorius is an Arian heretic renders it
50_
The
repetition of bold images, in other words, enabled the speaker oflate antique Byzantine times to "set before the eyes" of an audience the vision of orthodoxy (Athanasius) or heresy (Arius) from the past that the speaker wished to convey, and to accomplish this by such subtle means that the audience believed they themselves had reached the ineluctable conclusion_ The following chapters apply this method of literary analysis to the myriad of ancient sources, such as letters, sermons, exegetical and christological treatises, conciliar acts, and narratives, all of which delineate, to varying degrees, Cyril' s complex role in the Nestorian controversy, a controversy whose implications extended well beyond the council of Ephesus 431_ A council convened under Theodosius 11 in order to resolve the mounting christological problems dividing the churches, Ephesus I simply failed to produce a lasting resolution_ Cyril, nevertheless, emerged as the unflinchingly orthodox architect of Ephesus I, whose christologicallegacy was claimed by both the Monophysite dissenters and Chalcedonian majority at the council of ChaIcedon 451_ A puzzling paradox of Byzantine church history, Cyril's subsequent rise to orthodox fame was so striking that he was simultaneously claimed by opponents on both sides of the Chalcedonian debate, a debate which lingered for at least another hundred years_ This 49
F . Young, Biblical
Ex~is.
p. 152_
21 study attempts to understand and explain Cyril's victory, by examining the period (400-
451) from a cultural and historical perspective, including Cyrirs early years as bishop of Alexandria in which he established his power base throughout Egypt; the onset of the Nestorian controversy; its conciliar resolution at Ephesus I; Theodosius Ir s intervention and mediation, which culminated in the Act of Union, universally accepted around the year 433; and. finally, the eruption of the Monophysite controversy and the Chalcedonian response of 451. More than a mere power struggle between two great sees, as some scholars claim, the christological controversy between Cyril and Nestorius yields new insights about the formation of orthodox discourse, and the nature of ""theological decision making" in the late antique, Byzantine East 50 This study asserts that the formation of orthodoxy proceeds not along inevitable doctrinal lines, but develops from a sophisticated polemical strategy in which Cyril, as the professed heir to Athanasian orthodoxy, can effectively appropriate the language and persuasive power of nearly a century of Alexandria's anti-heretic discourse in the eventual confrontation with Nestorius. bishop of Constantinople. In fact. it was Cyril's supreme mastery of rhetorical argumentation, a complex amalgamation of classical Greek literary figures alongside distinctly Christian claims to truth and modes of biblical interpretation, that may have largely contributed not only to Cyril's victory at the council of Ephesus, but to his elevation as one of the great church fathers -- a rise to prominence that was
50 A phrase borrowed from R. E. Person, The Mode of Theological Decision MakinK at the Early Ecumenical Councils (diss.) (Sasel, 1978). in which Person examines the authority of scripture and tradition, for orthodox and heretic alike. at the Councils of Nicea and Ephesus.
22 mirrored only by Nestorius' eventual downfall into exile and despair. S1 Chapter One examines Cyril's early episcopacy, including his polemical confrontation with Jews, Pagans and Arians, a confrontation oftentimes more literary than historical or factual in nature. Nevertheless, Cyril's polemic helped forge his unified and distinctly Alexandrian vision of Christianity, with its propensity toward simple, iterable kerygmatic formulations, and its sophisticated appropriation of Athanasian orthodoxy, made relevant and vital once again in CyriI's controversy with Nestorius. Chapter Two outlines Cyril's and Nestorius' political relationships with the Pope in Rome, the emperor Theodosius 11, and the monks of Constantinople, relationships lost and won by the ability of each party to express their ecclesiastical interests in a manner appropriate to the person whose influence was sought. This web of political alliance and intrigue formed a complex, hierarchical network of power relations, the implications of which would ultimately play itself out at the meeting of the council during the summer of 431. Chapter Three examines Cyril's wholesale appropriation of Athanasius' anti-Arian discourse in Cyril's confrontation with Nestorius prior to the council. Well-rehearsed in the discourse of anti-Arian assault since the early years of his episcopacy, Cyril recapitulated his Thesaurus - a summary of Athanasius' treatise against the Arians -- in the unfolding Nestorian dispute. [n fact, it was Cyril's legacy from his predecessor Athanasius that lent an undeniable air of authority to this polemical process, for Cyril effectively appropriated nothing less than Athanasius' reputation as the anti-Arian victor par excellence. Chapter Four examines the proceedings at Ephesus [, including the problems of ecclesiastical procedure raised by the council; its relationship to Nicea; the Not surprisingly, eyril himself claimed that the purpose of his logos was to provide benefit to the souls of his listeners, and not to entertain them with rhetorical display. Homilia Paschal is XXIX, PG 77, 957A. 51
23 role of the emperor in convening an ecumenical proceeding; and the problems of authority implicit in the two opposing councils convened at Ephesus L Chapter Five studies the six homilies that Cyril delivered during the summer of the council. Jews, Arians and pagans, the subject of rhetorical and even physical abuse in Cyril's early episcopacy, appear prominently in these six homilies as rhetorical weapons with which to annihilate his opponent Nestorius and the rest of the Eastern bishops. Addressed to an audience of bishops. these six homilies are particularly striking for their skillful use of invective in a ~
better known for paraenesis and exhortation. Chapter Six examines several homilies
that Nestorius delivered during his controversy with Cyril, and analyzes these homilies within the broader historical context ofNestorius' early rhetorical training in the city of Antioch. Chapter Seven studies the intervening years between Ephesus I and Chalcedon, examining. in particular, Cyril's unmitigated success at constructing a vision of Christ that evoked nothing less than the entire history of orthodoxy espoused by the council of Nicea and its ultimate defender, Athanasius. That orthodox vision would resound throughout the Monophysite and majority Chalcedonian debates ofChalcedon 451, and throughout the next one hundred years, until Cyrirs Twelve Chapters were finally reaffirmed at the fifth ecumenical council in opposition to the Monophysites. In the process, Cyril became one of the greatest church fathers of Byzantine Christianity, while Nestorius emerged as an archetypal heretic, second only, perhaps, to the quintessential heretic of the Byzantine church, the much maligned, Arius.
24 Chapter One: Confrontation in the Early Episcopacy
I.
On October 17th. 412 AD, Cyril was elected bishop of Alexandria. two days after
the death of his predecessor and uncle Tbeophilus, who had served as bishop of Alexandria since 385 AD. Problems arose from the very start ofCyril's episcopacy. however, for the ecclesiastical historian Socrates reports that Cyril's election was fraught with difficulty. as a rival to the Alexandrian episcopate emerged, namely the archdeacon Timothy.! Several days of violence and fighting ensued when Timothy apparently gathered a crowd of local supporters eager to install him on the episcopal throne. In fact. contention between the parties vying for episcopal office became so heated that Abundantius, the commander of troops in Egypt (0 TOU aTpaTICtlTIICOU Tay~aTo~ nYEIl~V 'A~ouvSavTlos),
reportedly intervened with the aid of military troops on
behal f of Cyril' s party. 2 A position loosely analogous to the comes rei militaris Aegvpti. the 'commander of troops in Egypt: probably did not report directly to the Emperor, but was most likely under the authority of the regional magistrates (magistri)
1 Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica. VI!.7. (CPG 6028). G. C. Hansen and M. Sirinjan, eds., Sokrates Kirchengeschichte. ocs. N. F. 1 (Berlin. 1995), p. 352-353. All the extant Greek manuscripts along with a Syriac translation, record that the archdeacon Timothy, rather than Cyril. received military support from Abundantius. In fact, the Greek and Syriac manuscripts. when they substituted Timothy for Cyril, produced an unlikely causal connection between the alleged military support received by Timothy [sic] and Cyril's subsequent election as bishop. ""Abundanti us ... supported [Cyril's] party; wherefore (510), Cyril was elected to the episcopate.'" Hansen correctly relies on the Armenian manuscript. a sixth or seventh century translation of the Greek text. G. C. Hansen. ibHl.• p. xxv. For a discussion of the textual problem and its implications for understanding Socrates' narrative, see S. Wessel. "Socrates' Narrative of Cyril of Alexandria's Episcopal Election." Journal2CTheoIQ&ical Studies, April, 2001. 2
25 who, by this time, retained jurisdiction over both the comites and duces of their regions. 3 In that case, the might of direct imperial authority did not necessarily stand behind the actions of Abundantius' military troops and their support ofCyril, for the commander of troops in Egypt likely responded to regional commands, and was simply not the extension of imperial command that the rank seemingly implied. In fact, an examination of Socrates' broader narrative strategy further reveals that his depiction ofCyril is not entirely trustworthy and that Cyril, therefore, may not have enjoyed the unambiguous support from imperial troops that Socrates' account suggests. Especially troubling to Socrates was Cyril's alleged extension of ecclesiastical power into the secular domain, an abuse of episcopal power that, from Socrates' perspective, readily accounted for Cyril's most recalcitrant acts. Cyril blatantly exceeded his episcopal function, explained Socrates, wielding even greater power than his predecessor and uncle Theophilus, when he extended his authority beyond the traditional ecclesiastical functions associated with the episcopal office into the sphere of secular administration. 4 Indeed. Socrates understood Cyril's later conflict with the prefect Orestes in strikingly similar terms, attributing their strained relations to Orestes' contempt for bishops who infringed upon the sphere of power previously reserved for imperial appointees. 5
Such critical
3 A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire: 284-602. (Baltimore, 1964), p. 609. See Codex Theodosianus. 7.17.1 (January 28, 412 AD). Theodosiani Libri XVI gm Constitutionibus Sermondianus. Th. Mommsen, ed. (Berlin, 1969), regarding control of magistri over ~ and limitanei.
Socrates, HE. VII.7, ~ N.F. I, p. 353. Ti ETn01Co'TTiJ 'AAe~avSpelas TTepa Tiis lepaTlKiis TcX~eCoJS KaTaSuvacrrruelv Tc':lV TTpaYIlcXTColv EAa(3e -niv apxTIv.
4
5 Socrates, HE. VII.I3, ~ N.F. I, p. 358. 'OpeCTtT\S SE lCaLlTpOTepOv IlEV EIlloel TTiv Suvacrrdav T~V ETTlOICOlTColV <'AAE~avSpeias>. OTllTap1]pOVvTO TTOAV Tiis E~ouolas T~V EIC ~aolAEColS apxe1v TETaYlleVColv•...
26
assessments ofCyril's wide-reaching political powers, though seemingly plausible accounts, were, in fact, intimately bound with Socrates' general disdain for Cyril, an impression shaped, in pan, by Socrates' wary view of contentious bishops who threatened to disturb the peaceful functioning of the church. 6 This view found its most complete expression in Socrates' decidedly negative depiction of the council ofEphesus, in which Socrates reduced the lengthy, ecumenical proceedings into nothing more than a petty. factional dispute between two recalcitrant parties. 7 Socrates' narrative portrayal of Cyril was influenced not only by his disdain for factious bishops, but by Socrates' particular sympathies for the Novatian party. (Whether that implicates Socrates himself as a Novatianist is difficult to say, though several passages from his Ecclesiastical History indicate his predilections toward the
For an elaboration of the last point, see T. Urbainczyk, Socrates mConstantinople, Historian of Church 1Ild~ (Ann Arbor, 1997), p. 120-137. and M. WallratT. Die Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates Untersuchungen ~ Geschichts • (Gottingen, 1997). p. 112. See also, M. WallratT, illliI., p. 79, in which WallratT attributes Socrates' generally critical view ofCyril to Cyril's closing of the Novatian churches at the start of his bishopric.
6
7 Socrates, HE, VI134, ili:.S., N.F. l, p. 383. SlIJPoiivTo oVv Ol TTapovTES EiS Suo TIlTUlaTa. ol oVv TTEpl KUPlAAOV cruveSPlOV TrOlTlOa",Evol EKaAEoav TOV NEOTOPlOV' ... TOVTOV yevo",evov Ol lTEpt NEOTOPlOV rnpov Kae' eaVTOU5 cuveSplOV TTOl1l0a",EVOlKaealpoiiOt KuplAAov Kal aUv aVTc;, Me",vova TOV Tils 'Ecpeoov rnlOlCOTrOV.
21 party.)8 It seems that shortly after the episCopal election Cynl began to consolidate and enact his ecclesiastical policies, accomplishing his first decisive act as the new bishop of Alexandria: Cynl immediately closed the Novatian churches in Alexandria. seized their consecrated vessels, and stole all property belonging to their bishop Theopemptus. That the acclaimed bishop Cynl closed the Novatian churches soon after his episcopal election. therefore, demanded an appropriate explanation and justification by the pro-Novatianist Socrates, for his was a seemingly stark condemnation apparently enacted without the
H. de Valois, ed and transl.. Socratis Scholastici ~ Hermiae Sozomeni Historia Ecclesiastica (Paris. 1146), p. 2448. convincingly asserts that Socrates was not himselfa Novatianist since he did not approve of the church's abandoning the office of the penitentiary bishop -- reasoning that a staunch Novatianist would have surely disagreed \\'ith abolishing this office. Socrates, HE, V.19, ~ N.F. I, p. 294. Socrates, however, does frequently portray the Novatianists in flattering, orthodox terms. See, for example, Socrates, HE, L 13, ~ N.F. I, p. 45, in which the Novatian presbyter Auxanon accompanied Acesius to the Council ofNicea~ 11.38, ~ N.F. I. p. 164, in which the Novatians are persecuted by the Arian bishop Macedonius, for their adherence to the homoousion doctrine~ IV.9, ~ N.F. I. p. 236, the Emperor Valens persecuted the Novatians because they agreed with the Homoousians; V.IO, ~ N.F. I, p. 284, the Emperor Arcadius found Novatian beliefs consistent with the homoousion doctrine and permitted them to assemble in Constantinople; V.14, ~ N.F. I, p. 288, the Emperor Theodosius honored the wishes of Leontius, bishop of the Novatian church at Rome~ VII.25, GCS, N.F. I, p. 314, though they separated from the church, the Novatians never introduced innovations to the faith. See also T. Urbainczyk, Socrates Constantinople, p.26-28. 8
m
28 benefit of specific imperial legislation. 9 Socrates readily attributed this bold series of anti-
Novatianist maneuvers to Cyril's forthright exercise of secular power, and wrongful assumption of authority in civil affairs. I 0 In other words, Socrates artfully declared that the closing of Novatian churches and the deposition of their bishop had little to do with the proper exercise of ecclesiastical authority, and, therefore, Cyril's actions did not implicate the Novatians in any kind of ecclesiastical or theological offense. ll In fact. Socrates later offered the same explanation for the closing ofNovatian churches in Rome. 12 AttrIbuting to Pope Caelestine a similar disregard for the well-settled boundaries Theodosius 11 passed legislation in 410 against heretics. naming the Montanists. Priscill ianists, and Eunomians (c. Th. 16.5.48-51) and in 412, against the Donatists (c. Th. 16.5.52). Though Haas observes that the climate was ripe forCyril's actions against the Novatian schismatics, it should also be noted that the Novatian churches are never explicitly named in the anti-heretic legislation until 423 and 428 (c. Th. 16.5.59,65). C. Haas, Alexandria in ~ AntiQUity, p. 299. In 413 (after Cyril's election), Theodosius 11 passed legislation authorizing proscription and deportation of any Novatianist who celebrated Easter on a day different from that of the orthodox church (c. Th. 16.6.6). Th. Mommsen and P. M. Meyer, eds., Codex Theodosianus, (Hildesheim, 1990); C. Pharr, ed., The Theodosian ~ ~ Novels iDd. the Sirmondian Constitutions, (New York, 1969). Indeed, Socrates indicates that the Novatianists, around that time (412), enjoyed high social status in the Imperial City, suggesting that Theodosius' omission of the Novatianist churches from his anti-heretic, anti-schismatic program (410-412) was entirely intentional. See, for example, Socrates, HE, Vt22, ~ N.F. 1, p. 346, in which Socrates alleges that the Novatianist bishop Sisinnius (died sometime after 407 and presumably before 412) was loved by the most important men of the Senate (ol Tiis auyKArlTov TTepupavels). 9
10
Socrates, HE, VIt7, ~ N. F. 1, p. 353, lines 2-6.
Socrates believed that it was simply the wrongful appropriation of secular powers that enabled Cyril to close the Novatian churches and confiscate their treasures. 11
Socrates, HE, VII.tt, ~ N. F. I, p. 356, aAA' 6 cp8ovos teaL TOlrrCr.lV n\JIaTo. Tiis ·PCr.l~alCr.lV ElTlOteoTTils 6~OlCr.lS Tfj 'AAE;avSpeCr.lv TTepa Tiis lepCr.laVvns ETTL ovvaOTelav fiSn TTaAal TTpoeA8ovOTlS. 12
29
of ecclesiastical jurisdictio~ Socrates accused the Pope of descending into a state of secular domination. It seems that only the bishops of Constantinople received a favorable assessment from Socrates. for they implicitly observed the limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and so permitted the Novatianists of the Imperial City to hold their assemblies in peace. 13 In fact. the Novatianists had enjoyed imperial tolerance and support for a number of years, at least since the synod held by the emperor Theodosius in Constantinople during June 383 AD. in which he examined various heretical sects. allegedly to promote unity and concord amongst the churches of Constantinople. 14 Each bishop representing a so-called "heretical" sect was asked to present a creedal statement. The pro-Novatianist Socrates reports that only the Novatianists held christological beliefs consistent with the homoousian creed. and. therefore. became the single heretical group permitted to assemble within the Imperial City. Years later Theopemptus and his Novatianist folJowers in Alexandria had likely enjoyed a modicum of this tolerance during the episcopacy of Theophilus. IS Why Cyril changed his uncle"s policy of toleration with respect to the Novatian community remains unclear. though it was likely an important part ofCyril's larger ecclesiastical plan to gain control and authority over the Alexandrian churches. In fact, one ancient commentator reports that Cyril, immediately after his election. appointed priests throughout the various churches in his diocese, suggesting that Cyril 13 Socrates was, of course, critical ofNestorius for his actions against the Novatians of the Imperial City, and attributed Nestorius' eventual downfall to his anti-heretic campaign. Socrates, HE, VII.29, GCS. N. F. I, p. 378. lines 9-10,17-18. 14
Socrates, HE, V. 10. GCS. N. F. I, p. 282-285.
Cyrille 0' Alexandrie, Lettres Festales, Sources Chretiennes, 372, Introduction Generale. P. Evieux. p. 49. 15
30 evinced a clear ecclesiastical policy by which he intended to unify the churches of Alexandria under his leadership. 16 Perhaps the superior moral stance assumed by the Novatianist Christians, who refused to admit lapsed Christians into their fold, posed an insidious threat to Cyril' s exercise of spiritual authority in Alexandria, leaving him no choice but to close the churches and integrate these upstan Christians into "mainstream" Cyrillian churches. 17 Nevertheless, Socrates found Cyril's anti-Novatianist actions deeply problematic. Eager to account for Cyril's hasty closing of the Novatian churches early in his episcopacy, and ready to cast a small shadow on the Alexandrian bishop, the proNovatianist Socrates, writing in Constantinople, declared that Cyril's actions exceeded the bounds of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and extended into the secular sphere. IS In particular, Socrates' narrative account of the electoral process carefully attributed broad secular Sawirus ibn al-Muqaffa, Bishop of el-Ashmunein" tl 955-987. B. Evetts, ed., History of the Patriarchs of the Comic Church 2f Alexandria (Paris, 1907), PO I, XII, p. 430-431. Lettres Festales. Sources Chretiennes, 372, Introduction Generale, P. Evieux, p. 49, note 16
..,
17 The Novatianists were known as the pure (Kaeapol) which may have been troubling to CyriL See Epiphanius, Panarion (Adversus haereses) haer. 59, 60 (~3745) K. Holl - J. Dummer, eds., Epiphanius 11. Panarion (haer. 34-64) ~ 31 (Berlin, 1980), p. 363, lines 13-14; p. 379, lines 1-2; f.Q41, 1017A; 1037B/C. See also, Lettres Festales. Sources Chretiennes, 372, Introduction Gem!rale, P. Evieux, p. 49.
For a different view from that presented here, see C. Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiguity (Baltimore and London, 1997), p. 299, in which he suggests that Novatianists had incurred Cyril's wrath when they came to the aid of Cyril' s opponent Timothy during the episcopal election. The following discussion suggests, rather, that Cyril's closing the Novatian churches had nothing to do with the circumstances of his election. It seems that Cyril' s enmity toward the Novatian churches was generally consistent with his broader ecclesiastical agenda to unifY the churches of Egypt, free from those whom he regarded as threatening to his ecclesiastical authority. 18
31 powers to Cyril in order to discredit Cyril's decision to close the Novatian churches of Alexandria 19 That Cyril allegedly received military support from troops stationed in Egypt was simply the natural extension of Socrates' narrative portrayal ofCyril, namely that Cyril was a contentious, though powerful bishop, who exceeded the limits of his ecclesiastical administration and inappropriately gained access to wide-reaching secular powers at the very start of his episcopacy. Socrates' account of the electoral process, with its dubious emphasis on Cyril's access to imperial troops, remains rather laconic on the more plausible, practical methods reasonably employed by Cyril to secure victory against his competitor, the archdeacon Timothy. While Socrates reports that Abundantius marshaled his troops forCyril's advantage, it is more likely that when (or iO military troops intervened to end the violent election, they supported neither party vying for the episcopal throne. In that case, Socrates' narrative depiction apparently fails to identify Cyril's supporters, or any additional means by which Cyril may have responded to the violent circumstances of his election. That Cyril armed the monks of Nitria. as his uncle Theophilus had done twelve years earlier in his alleged assault upon the Tall Brothers, remains a distinct possibility.20 After all, Socrates reports that Cyril did not hesitate to use monastic force a few years later in his dispute with the prefect Orestes. 21 With little time to pursue new avenues of 19 Socrates was not the first church historian to rebuke a bishop for allegedly extending his powers into secular affairs. In fact, Eusebius reported that the bishops despised Paul of Samosata for establishing a tribunal within the church. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica. VII.30.9, E. Schwartz, ed., Eusebius Werke IL 1-3. Die Kirchen&eschichte (~9, 2) (Leipzig, 1908), p. 708, 710. 20 Socrates, HE. VI.7, GCS N. F. I, p. 324, lines 21-24. 21 Socrates, HE. VII. 14, ~ N. F. 1, p. 359, lines 23-29.
32 anned support, Cyril, at least during the first days following his uncle's death, may have simply benefited from the same monastic power base secured by his uncle and predecessor on the episcopal throne, a power base that included the menacing support of the monks from Nitria. Unlike Socrates' wholly violent depiction of the electoral process, a version of events meant, in part, to discredit Cyril's actions against the Novatian churches, the formal election procedure also surely required persons to cast their ballots rather than wield the sword, and likely included peaceful support from laity. monks and ecclesiastics alike. While Cyril's anti-Novatianist policies marked a distinct break from Theophilus' tolerance toward the schismatic sect, this former bishop of Alexandria had left his nephew Cyril with a potentially volatile inheritance on two fronts, namely the divisive fragmentation of the monastic community resulting from Theophilus' allegedly vindictive actions against the Tall Brothers; and the thorny relationship with the Imperial City follo\\,;ng Theophilus' slanderous campaign against the noted bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom. Indeed, Theophilus' ecclesiastical intrigues and political machinations with respect to the Imperial City extended at least as far back as his encounter with the Tall Brothers. leaving Cyril with a complicated political legacy more than ten years in the making. It is worth setting forth the circumstances of Theophilus' contentious dispute with John Chrysostom in some detail, for the early years ofCyril's episcopate can be partly understood when placed in juxtaposition to this complex ecclesiastical legacy left by his uncle. 22 In fact, Cyrirs later confrontation with Nestorius earned him the epithet, Basic bibliography: E. Clark, The Ori&eniSl Controversy: ~ Cultural Construction 2f an Early Christian Debate (Princeton, 1992). 22
33 "the new Theophilus: a disparaging title meant to evoke his uncle's allegedly vindictive assault upon the former bishop ofConstantinople. 23 Indeed, a number of historical sources bear witness to Theophilus' enmity toward John, including Socrates, Sozomen and PalIadius, whose various narrative accounts offer a repository of collected memories through which to evaluate Cyril's ecclesiastical inheritance from his uncle. Though each historian presents an undoubtedly biased depiction ofTheophilus consistent with their particular narrative agenda, Tbeophilus' legacy, nevertheless, consists of this complex amalgamation of remembered events. extant in the works of these ecclesiastical historians. When Cyril earned the title, "the new Tbeophilus,' therefore, it was the collective memories of his uncle's vindictive confrontation with Chrysostom, set forth below, that lent this phrase meaning and significance. Socrates believed that Tbeophilus' problems with Chrysostom and the Tall Brothers could be traced all the way back to a violent confrontation with several monks, who became distraught - and even threatened violence -- when Theophilus denied God an
23 Isidorus Pelusiota, EpiSlula CCCX (CPG 5557), PG 78, 361 C. TIOAAol yap oe Kc.l~~SOVOl T&V ouvelAEy\lEVCAlV EiS wEepeoov. t:lS olKelav cX\lvvo\levov ex6pav. aAA' OV Ta 'ITloov XPlaTOV 6peoS6~c.lS ~TlTOVvTa. 'ASeAcplSoOs EaTl. epaol. geocplAov. ~l~ou~evos EKelvov -nlv yvcb\lTlv. Cyril was also praised, however, for
imitating his uncle Theophilus. See for example, Epistula Alypii ~ eyrillum Alex. (CPG 8751) Aea I, I, 3, p. 75, lines 2-6.
34 anthropomorphic fonn.24 Eager to appease these potentially dangerous monks, Theophilus apparently agreed to denounce the non-anthropomorphic teachings of Origen, and to confinn the monks' belief that God displayed a human countenance similar to their own. 25 In fact, Socrates reports that by this deception, Theophilus gained the unwavering trust and support of the monastic community, a potent weapon in his later confrontation with the Tall Brothers. When Theophilus first invested one of the Tall Brothers, Dioscorus, as bishop of Hermopolis, and two of the others with the clerical office under Theophilus' supervision (committing to their charge the duties of ecclesiastical management), he apparently meant to honor the brethren for their erudition and sanctity.26 Problems ensued, nevertheless, claims Socrates, when the responsibilities of these new ecclesiastical offices interfered with their exercise of spiritual and ascetic practice. At the same time, the two brethren under Theophilus' charge allegedly grew critical of his greedy acquisition of wealth while
24 Socrates, HE, VI.7, GCS, N. F. I, p. 322, lines 7-20. See also Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica. VIlLI I, GCS. N. F. 4, G. C. Hansen, ed., (Berlin, 1995). p. 364 .. Sozomen reports that Theophilus had preached an incorporeal God to his churches, and in one of his Festal letters. llllit., p. 364, lines 5-8. See also Cassianus, Conlationes X.2 (CPL 512) CSEL 13 (Vienna, 1886), p. 287; SQu: 54 (Paris, 1958), p. 75-76, which claims that Theophilus denounced the Anthropomorphites in one of his Festal letters, that this was received badly by nearly all the monks of Egypt, and that the monks of Scetis openly denounced the letter. The Tall Brothers, counted amongst the philosophers at Scetis, included Ammonius, Dioscorus, Eusebius, and Euthymius. Sozomen, H&, VIII. 12, ~ N. F. 4, p. 364, lines 18-22.
25
Socrates, HE. VI.7,GCS, N. F. 1, p. 322, lines 21-30.
26
Socrates, HE. VI.7, ~ N. F. 1, p. 323, lines 7-12.
35 serving as bishop.27 Generally disgusted with their newly imposed clerical duties, the
two Tall Brothers demanded release from clerical office, in order to return to the ascetic and spiritual life of the desen. Eager to exact revenge, Theophilus, claims Socrates, deviously enlisted monastic suppon to enact his vindictive plan. Consistent with this decidedly negative depiction, Socrates reports that Theophilus intentionally incited the anger and hostility of the 'anthropomorphic' monks when he claimed that the Tall Brothers espoused an Origenist, non-anthropomorphic understanding of God. To the scripturally oriented monastic community, this was nothing less than heresy, for the Origenist belief in an incorporeal God totally contravened their anthropomorphic conception of deity, a view readily confinned by any number of scriptural references pointing to God's human fonn. Indeed, the Tall Brothers' reputation for erudition must have made these charges ofOrigenism all the more plausible. Socrates believed, nevenheless, that not all the monks were convinced by Theophilus' alleged sophistry, and a sharp division took place within the monastic ranks, a division forged along the lines of education and erudition. 28 \Vhile the simpler monks were apparently swayed by Theophilus' so-called slanderous campaign, the more educated monks favored the Tall Brother bishop Dioscorus and his panisans. A barrage of namecalling ensued, claims Socrates, and Theophilus' contingent received the epithet , Anthropomorphites,' while Dioscorus and his followers were named 'Origenists' - for, 27
Socrates, HE. VI.7, GCS N. F. I, p. 323, lines 14-19.
28 Socrates, HE. VI.7, GCS N. F. I, p. 324, lines 13-17. 000l IlEV oVv yeyvllvaOlJEVOv e1xov TOV vow. ov C\.IVTIpTTclYTlOav Urro TOU aocplollaToS. 6AAa Kal ToiS TTepl LllOOlCOPOV Kal 'WplYEVEl ETTeieoVTO. Ol Se aTTAoVOTEpOl. nAeiovs TE c5VTES Kal silAOV ExOVTES eEPIlOV. KaTa T~V aSEAcpc:;Jv eU6Ec.lS txc:,povv. Socrates reports that most of the monks were i11iterate (aYPclllllaTa). lbid.line 6. See also Sozomen, HE, VIII.l1, ~ N. F. 4, p. 364.
36 as Sozomen repons, both sides eschewed a more orderly and rational presentation of their theological views in favorofsuch insults. 29 To make matters even worse, Socrates reports that Theophilus, along with a host of armed monks from Nitria. threatened violence against Dioscorus and his supporters, causing them to flee eventually to Constantinople, thus rendering the lines of monastic division all the more decisive. While Socrates attributes the origins ofTheophilus' vexatious dispute with the Tall Brothers to their overt criticism of his conduct in office. Sozomen believed that Theophilus' enmity toward the Alexandrian presbyter Isidore was the root cause of contention - with ramifications reaching as far as the Imperial City. 30 In fact, both historians report that an incident involving Tbeophilus and the arch-presbyter Peter stood at the very center of Theophilus' later dispute with Isidore. It seems that Theophilus had allegedly rebuked the arch-presbyter for admitting a Manichean woman to worship, even though she had failed to renounce her former heresy.31 Peter, the archpresbyter, claimed that he had acted in accordance with ecclesiastical law, and under the consent of bishop Theophilus himself. To prove his version of events, Peter called upon the testimony of Isidore. When Isidore eventually supported Peter's rendition of the truth, Theophilus was allegedly outraged, charging Isidore and Peter with slander, and expelling them both from the church.. Sozomen, however, offers two additional explanations for Theophilus' apparent enmity against Isidore, namely that Isidore had refused to recognize the legitimacy ofan inheritance allegedly bestowed upon Tbeophilus' sister. and that Isidore 29 Sozomen, HE, VIII. 12. GCS, N. F. 4, p. 366, lines 9-11. Kal TCxS SlaAe;ElS oUte ev K6cr~~ lTPOS eaVTovs lTOlOUIlEVOllTei6ElV aAAf)AovS oUte i);(ovv. aAA' Eis Vl3PElS Ka6(oTavTo. 30 Sozomen, HE, VIII. 12, ~ N. F. 4, p. 364, lines 24-26. 31 Sozomen. HE, VIII.12, ~ N. F. 4, p. 364, line 26 - p. 365, line 7.
37
had failed to hand over money entrusted to him and reserved for relief of the poor. 32 Whatever instigated Tbeophilus' hatred ofIsidore. Socrates and Sozomen agree that a course of events unfolded which eventually brought Isidore and the Tall Brothers together as cohorts to Constantinople. Indeed, Socrates' narrative depicts Isidore and the monks presenting their case against Tbeophilus before John Cbrysostom and the emperor Arcadius: while the monks probably cited Theophilus' unjust accusation of Origenism. and their subsequent forced exile, Isidore likely complained of his wrongful expulsion from the church. In fact. Sozomen includes an additional detail to account for Theophilus' apparently vengeful wrath. It seems that one of the Tall Brothers had asked Theophilus to restore Isidore to communion. After a period of time passed, however. and Theophilus had failed to act. the four brothers again approached their bishop, entreating his compliance with their request. Theophilus grew angry. claims Sozomen. and threw one of the brothers into prison. When all four assumed voluntary imprisonment as a display of solidarity with their incarcerated brother, Tbeophilus became all the more detennined to exact vengeance against these recalcitrant monks. 33 Indeed, Sozomen believed that Tbeophilus' actions in this case led inexorably to his slanderous antiOrigenist campaign against the Tall Brothers. a campaign which Socrates attributed not to the problems with Isidore. but to the brothers' own dissatisfaction with Theophilus' bishopric. 34
was responsible for taking care of strangers and the poor of Alexandria. Ibid., VIII.2, p. 352, lines 8-13.
32 Sozomen, HE. VIII. 12, GCS. N. F. 4, p. 364, lines 8-16. The presbyter Isidore
33
Sozomen, HE. VIII. 12. ~ N. F. 4, p. 366, lines 3-4.
34
Seeabove.
38 In any even~ Socrates and Sozomen agree that the Tall Brothers together with Isidore arrived in Constantinople in order to plead their case before John Chrysostom, a fact which allegedly sealed John's fate with Theophilus. It seems that Chrysostom received the five men and allowed their communion at prayers, but consistent wi6 ecclesiastical procedure, delayed their inclusion in the sacred mysteries until he had conducted a proper examination of the matter. 35 Rumors quickly reached Alexandria, however, that Chrysostom had already received Isidore and the Tall Brothers into the sacred mysteries, and had readily offered his assistance to them. 36 Outraged at this perceived slight, Theophilus wrote to all the bishops of the various cities, ostensibly to condemn the books ofOrigen. Indee
35
Socrates, HE. VI.9, GCS. N. F. 1, p. 327, lines 13-15. Sozomen, HE, VIII. 13, GCS, N. F. 4, p. 367, lines 7-10. 36
37
See T. Urbainczyk, Socrates 2fConstantinople, p. 20-37.
39 linked with both his politically charged campaign of anti-Origenism and his final condemnation of Chrysostom. If Socrates depicts Theophilus' anti-Origenist campaign as a cover for his more sinister political designs, Theophilus' letters, of course, betray no hint of any disingenuous motives. Charging the monasteries ofNitria with rampant Origenism, his synodal letter depicts Origenist practice in its most repugnant form, namely as an extreme form of asceticism and bodily denigration in which a kind of strange fanaticism incited some monks to cut out their tongue and to overtly despise their body.3 8 Theophilus' adversary Isidore also received a slanderous mention, for Theophilus implied that Isidore wrongfully placed a woman onto the widows' list for funds, but only after she had charged him with immorality. Consistent with his anti-Origenist fervor, Theophilus evidently accused Isidore of subscribing to that heresy as well, claiming that his wealth supported the violent attacks instigated by the Origenists. 39 Palladius' Vita of John Chrysostom provides another lens through which to view these same events. In fact, the YitB attributes Theophilus' fateful problems with Isidore to Theophilus' penchant for costly building projects. 40 It seems that Isidore had allegedly received a large sum of money from a widow, who insisted that he spend the Hieronymus, Epistula XCII, (Tbeophili Synodica Epistula ad Palaestinos et ad Cyprios Episcopos Missa.) CSEL. vot. LV, (Vindobon, 1996), p. 148. 38
39
Hieronymus, Epistula XCII, CSEL, vot. LV, (Vindobon, 1996), p. 150-151
Palladius. DialQgus ~ vita lohannis Chrysostomi (CPG 6037) (BHG 870, 870e, 8700. PG 47, 22. P. R. Coleman-Norton, Palladij DialQM ~ Vita i. Joannis Chrysostomi (Cambridge, 1928, 1958), iuxta cod. unicum Laurent. IX 14, s. xi. See F. Halkin, AB 47 ( 1929), p. 140-148, F. van Orruneslaeghe, "Que vaut le temoignage de Palade sur le proces de saint Jean Chrysostome?" All 95 (1977), p. 389-413. 40
40 funds on clothes for the poor women of Alexandria. Palladius reports that when Theophilus learned of the matter, he became quite angry because he wished to spend the widows' funds to support his extensive building projects. In retaliation for Isidore's deed, Theophilus allegedly reinstated a charge of sodomy leveled against Isidore eighteen years earlier. The actual witness long gone, Theophilus' sister allegedly bribed the mother of a young man to raise new accusations against Isidore. When the young man's mother confessed the plot to Isidore,
thoug~
Theophilus expelled Isidore from the church
without a proper hearing. 41 Fearing for his safety, Isidore supposedly fled to the monks of Ni tri a, where he received refuge from Theophilus' wrath. Eager for vengeance, Theophilus reportedly expelled several monks from the monasteries and inner desert (including the Tall Brother Ammonius), and wrongfully accused them ofOrigenism. Fleeing from their monasteries, these persecuted monks allegedly sought refuge and aid from Chrysostom in the Imperial City.42 When Theophilus was called to the city to answer for his vengeful acts, Palladius reports that Theophilus promptly began his vengeful plots and intrigues meant to destroy Chrysostom. Socrates and Sozomen report that Theophilus' next move was to enlist the help of Epiphanius, a confirmed Anthropomorphite and long-time foe ofOrigen's works. a man whom Theophilus had previously counted amongst his opponents. 43 At Theophilus' urging, Epiphanius convened a council of bishops in Cyprus, at which the writings of Origen were condemned and the reading of his books prohibited. Zealous for his newly 41 Palladius, Dialogus ~ vita lohannis ChQ'sostomi. eY. 47,23. 42 Palladius, Dialogus ~ vita Iohannis ChQ'sostomi, PG 47. 24. 43 Socrates, HE, VI.IO,~N. F. I, p. 327, lines 21-24; Sozomen, HE. VIII.14,~ N. F. 4, p. 367, lines 11-16.
41 minted, anti-Origenist campaign, Epiphanius wrote letters to the other bishops. including John Chrysostom in Constantinople. urging them to follow his example and convene local synods in order to condemn Origen's works. Theophilus, of course. eagerly complied, assembling a large number of bishops under his jurisdiction. While this anti-Origenist fervor allegedly blossomed under Epiphanius' campaign. John Chrysostom paid little attention to the intrigues (OKEVG.lP ia~) set against him.44 Chrysostom' s opponents. nevertheless, perceived this growing threat to John's bishopric. and combined forces with Tbeophilus. plotting to organize a synod at Constantinople. ostensibly in order to condemn the nearly two-hundred year old Mitings ofOrigen. Socrates. ever concerned with the politics of1beophilus' anti-Origenism. emphasized Theophilus' forthright manipulation of Epiphanius. who was apparently as famous for his pious simplicity as he was for his uncompromisingly anti-Origenist views. 45 It seems that upon his arrival in the Imperial City, stirred by Tbeophilus' antiOrigenist campaign, Epiphanius defiantly performed ordinations without Chrysostom's pennission, contrary to ecclesiastical procedure. In spite of this procedural irregularity, John, claims Socrates. nevertheless. invited Epiphanius to the episcopal palace, an invitation that Epiphanius significantly declined unless John promised to expel the Tall Brothers from the city and condemn the books of Origen.46 Further incited by John's adversaries and eager to promote Tbeophilus' cause, Epiphanius reportedly officiated in the Church of the Apostles, during which meeting he publicly condemned Origen's Socrates, HE. VLIO, ~ N. F. I, p. 328. lines 18-19. Sozomen. HE. VIII.14, GCS. N. F. 4, p. 367, line 26 - p. 368. line 3.
44
45 Socrates. HE. VLIO. ~ N. F. I, p. 328. lines 4-6. 46
Socrates, HE. VI.14. GCS N. F. 1, p. 335. lines 10- C.
42 works, and excommunicated the Tall Brother Dioscorus, along with his followers. In fac~ John perceived violations of canonical law on several fronts: Epiphanius wrongfully performed ordinations in churches under John's jurisdiction; he presided over a church meeting without John's approval; and he refused John's invitations to the episcopal palace - all of which. claimed John, would likely produce a strong reaction from the populace. Fearful for his safety, Epiphanius immediately left the Imperial City, but died on board the ship to Cyprus. John Chrysostom's troubles in the Imperial City were far from settled, however, for he soon found himself embroiled in a heated controversy with the empress Eudoxia. Socrates attributes the dispute to John's (incorrect) perception that Eudoxia, and not Theophilus, had incited Epiphanius against him,47 while Sozomen, more circumspect on the matter, implies that Epiphanius' favorable prophecy with respect to the empress' son rendered the two fast friends -- which may have been sufficient to provoke John's wrath.48 Palladius, an important witness to the contemporaneous impressions made in the Imperial City, attributes the empress' wrath to the manipulative interventions of the devil, whose hirelings pretended that John's homilies mocked the empress and royal family.49 In any event. it seems that Chrysostom preached a slanderous sermon against the womanly vices. Enraged at the personal insult, Eudoxia reportedly complained to her husband, who promptly authorized Tbeophilus to convene a synod. The environs of Chalcedon were finally selected as an appropriate location for the 47 Socrates, HE. VI.15, ~ N.F. I, p. 336, lines 10-11. 48
Sozomen. HE, VIILI5-16, GCS, N. F. 4, p. 369, lines 10-13; p. 370, lines 18-21.
49 Palladius, Dialogus ~ vita lohannis Chrysostomi, e!i 47,21 .... TTAEICOUOl 8IaJ3oACxS !COTCx TOV 'lc.lclVVOU. ~ETonoltioavTES aVTov Tlvas 6~IAlas EiS USAOVS !CaTCx J3aolAloOTlS. !Cal ETEpc.lV Tc;,V EV Tij aVAij TOV J3aolAEc.lS.
43 synod, and so the bishops formally convened, inviting John Chrysostom to answer the
charges against him. When John refused to attend. claiming that only his enemies assembled against him, he called for a general council, to which the synod responded with four more invitations in accordance with ecclesiastical procedure. 50 Persistent in his refusal, John repeated the earlier explanation and refused to present himself before the tribunal. Finally. the synod pronounced their sentence of condemnation and deposition, for the simple reason that he had wrongfully disobeyed their summons. Palladius' Vita further explains that John was finally held guilty of treason, allegedly for his dispute with the empress Eudoxia. 51 Forced into exile, John willingly surrendered on the third day after his condemnation before the synod. When the people of Constantinople learned of John's deposition, they rose in sedition, claiming that this political intrigue originated from Theophilus' unjust manipulations against their bishop, and so demanded John's prompt return. Meanwhile Theophilus allegedly planned to adduce more evidence to support John's deposition, citing his improper ordination of Heraclides as bishop of Ephesus. 52 It seems that Theophilus claimed that Heraclides had committed certain crimes, namely
that he had unjustly beaten several persons and dragged them in chains through the streets of Ephesus. The Constantinopolitans complained, however, that Theophilus wrongfully accused Heraclides in absentia. while the Alexandrians predictably countered that it was 50 Socrates, HE, VI. 15, GCS N. F. I, p. 338, lines 1-3; Sozomen, HE, VIII. 17, GCS, N. F. 1, p. 373, lines 3-5.
51 Palladius, Dialogus ~ vita Iohannis Chrysostomi, PG 47, 30. THv SE ri
Kaeoa{ColOl~
nEiS -niv l3aoiAlooav AOlSopia. ~S EKElVOl avi}veyKav. (>Tl e11TEV aVTliv 'IEl;oI3EA. 52 Socrates, HE, VI.ll; VI.17,~N. F. 1, p. 329-330, 339-340; Sozomen, HE. VIIl.6, GCS, N. F. 4, p. 358-359.
44
sufficient to hear only the testimony of his accusers. A riot ensued in which many were injured and several persons killed. [n fear for his life, Theophilus finally fled to Alexandria, where, as Socrates reports, he continued shamelessly to read the works of Origen, and that in spite of his zealous and very public condemnation of these writings. 53 Indeed, that final image ofTheophilus ably expressed, for Socrates, the hypocrisy of Theophilus' politically expedient, anti-Origenist campaign. This rich tapestry of historical memories, therefore, left Cyril with a complex ecclesiastical political legacy, in which some believed that Theophilus' charges of Origenism were made and dropped simply to serve Theophilus' manipulative and vindictive political ends. All three historiographers, Socrates, Sozomen and Palladius, believed that Theophilus was a cruel bishop, who exened his power to exact vengeance on unwitting political opponents, opponents who included the Tall Brothers, many so-called Origenist Egyptian monks, Isidore, and bishop John Chrysostom. Socrates reports that division within the monasteries ensued along the lines of the Anthropomorphites and Origenists. which may have posed one of the first challenges to eyril's episcopacy. A potentially significant power base both spiritually and economically, a unified monastic community would afford Cyril the opportunity to extend his influence throughout Egypt. 54 In fact, Cyril's Festal letter for the year 414 AD, the very first public statement
53 Socrates, HE. VL17,ill:SN. F. 1, p. 340, lines 8-10. TJU~TJaEv Se TO KaT' aUTOV ~laos TO avEhs aUTov ""n5Ev \mOOTElAC""EVOV Ta 'WplYEVOUS I3ll3Ala OOKEiaeal. See E. Wipszycka, ~ resources ~!§ activites economigue d!: eglises m Ecpte 4Y IVe au VlIIe ~ (Brussels, 1972); "Les terres de la congregation pachomienne dans uns Iiste de payements pour les apora," in !& mOnde m1!k. HOI'!lII18&es i Q. Preaux (Brussels, 1975), p. 625-36.
54
45 of his bishopric, demanded an end to division, calling for unity amongst Christians. S5 A possible justification for his closing the Novatian churches almost two years earlier, Cyril's call for unity probably also alluded to the years of divisive confrontation under his uncle and predecessor Theophilus. [fTheophilus' theological discourse was remembered as contentious, divisive, and politically charge
SlSacnc::El C\/\1cXYEa6al YV~lJnv. ou IJEIJEPlOIJEValS SlavolalS. ouSe vt;l SlTJPnlJEvCtJ Tilv Eis XPlCTOV olloAoyoVvTas TTlOTlV' (aAA"Cva cnliJ~VOl. Kal TO aUTo. lCaTa n avAov. CpPOVOVTES>. atchnrii lCal ~E~alav -niv EiS airrov cpvAaTTc.lIlEV OIJOAoylav. Brakke suggests that Theophilus' divisive anti-Origenist campaign may have widened the gap between Greeks and Copts which Athanasius had bridged through his ascetic policies. D. Brakke, Athanasius lWl Asceticism. (Baltimore, 1995), p. 272. 56 Epistula paschalis L SChr 372, p. 156. 8\10 yap ETval KEAEUel TaS oaATTlyyas. OTl SrTTAOvs TlS EOTl Tlis EKICAnOlaS 0 A6yoS' ... 57
Epistula paschalis L SQ!r 372, p. 156, 158.
46 considerable attention to the spiritual benefits of fasting - for both monks and laity alike. In fact, Athanasius had similarly emphasized ascetic practice in his first Festal letter, suggesting that Cyril consciously and visibly sought to emulate Athanasius' favorable initiative toward the monks, rather than the more contentious policies enacted by his predecessor and uncle Theophilus. 58 Monks, according to Cyril, were the unappreciated spiritual elites of the Christian community whose heavenly recompense would provide ample reward for their efforts: they were not the quarrelsome, heretical Origenists attacked by his uncle. Cyril's political response to Theophilus' legacy with respect to the Imperial City was a complex one, whose ramifications extended throughout the next several years. In fact, one modem scholar envisions a stark parallelism between Theophilus' and Cyril's Alexandrian methods of diplomacy applied to the Imperial City, suggesting that Cyril wholeheartedly embraced the lessons from his uncle. 59 There are countervailing concerns, nevertheless, for Theophilus reportedly began his anti-Origenist campaign well before his attempts to depose John Chrysostom, while Cyril's confrontation with Nestorius bears little evidence ofan organized anti-heretic campaign prior to the onset of controversy. In that case, there is no reason to assume that Cyrirs quarrels with Nestorius proceeded
58
Athanasi us Alex., Epistulae festales. (CPG 2102) Epistu1a L fQ. 26, 1360-1366.
N. H. Baynes, "Alexandria and Constantinople: A Study in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy," ArchaeololLY 12 (1926), p. 145-156, 151; reprinted in Byzantine Studies mKt~ Essays (London, 1955), p. 97-115. 59
Journal2fE~tian
from anything less than genuine pastoral
concern. 6O
47 All the same, though. Cyril plainly
benefited from his presence alongside his uncle at the Synod of the Oak. Just as John Chrysostom was deposed, in absentia, for failure to answer his summons. in a similar fashion did eyril eventually condemn Nestorius. who obstinately refused to appear at the first assembly of bishops in Ephesus. contrary to ecclesiastical law. Strikingly absent from the entirety of Cyril' s works, however. and most notably absent from the voluminous extant documents ofEphesus, is any mention of the anti-Origenist proceedings conducted during his uncle's tenure as bishop. That, together with Cyril's pro-monastic discourse, evinced an unambiguous and conscious desire to distance himself from the ecclesiastical policies enacted by his uncle.
11.
Three years after Cyril closed the Novatian churches of Alexandria, Socrates
reports a complex incident involving the Alexandrian Jews' so-called rowdy patronage of dance shows; the subsequent eruption of violence between Jews and
Christians~
and the
ominous intervention of the augustal prefect Orestes, which reportedly resulted in the expUlsion of the entire Jewish community from the city of Alexandria. 6 I It seems that [fSocrates. Sozomen and Palladius are correct, there is some evidence to suggest that Theophilus' anti-Origenism was politically motivated and that his campaign against Chrysostom evolved from this anti-Origenist fervor. Cyril, on the other hand, was genuinely interested in opposing a dual nature christology before his confrontation with Nestorius. though a full-fledged controversy began only after Nestorius' sermons against the Theotokos caused trouble and dissension for the Alexandrian monks. See M. Redies, "Kyrill und Nestorius: Eine Neuinterpretation des Theotokos-Streits," KLIO 80. 1 (1998), p. 195-208; H. Chadwick, "Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy," ill, 2 (1951), p. 145-164. See also S. Wessel, ""Nestorius, Mary and Controversy in Cyril of Alexandria's Homily IV
61
Socrates, HE, VII. 13, 14,!&S. N. F. I, p. 357-360.
48 when the Jewish population of Alexandria closed their businesses to celebrate the Sabba~
Socrates reports that many of the Jews attended the various dancing exhIbitions
in the city, a vice that eventually conspired to produce the fateful confrontation with Orestes. In fact, Socrates negatively depicts these Jews as a zealous and rowdy audience, ready to abandon the study of Torah to pursue their excessive fondness for dance shows. This contemptuous representation of the Alexandrian Jews, central to Socrates' narrative, embraces the standard topos of the 'hypocrite Jew' who plainly violates the very Law he purports to uphold, - a stereotype with antecedents in the gospels' negative portrayal of Pharisees. 62 Indeed, Socrates conjures a similarly critical image of the Syrian Jews, who allegedly suffered just retribution for their impious practices and acts of malevolence committed against Christians. 63 In particular, just as the Alexandrian Jews reportedly displayed an excessive enjoyment of dance exhibitions, Socrates claims that a penchant for sports and drunken revelry eventually led the Syrian Jews to mock Christians and the Cross. It seems that as their drunken derision escalated, the Syrian Jews purportedly seized a Christian boy, bound him to a cross and scourged the boy to death. Socrates reports that when the emperor was informed of this odious deed, the Jewish perpetrators suffered the appropriate (but unspecified) punishment for their hateful sport. 64 Socrates' decidedly negative depiction of the Alexandrian and Syrian Jews, however, likely portrays his broader narrative agenda with respect to the Jewish community, namely that See, for example, the . Woes against the Pharisees: ~ 11:37-54; Mark 12:37b-40; Mark 7: 1-2, 5-6a; ~ 7:36. See also, Gospel2CThomas 39, 89, 102; Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840.2; 655 ii t 1-23. 62
63
Socrates, HE. VII. 16, GCS N. F. 1, p. 361, lines 12-25.
64
Socrates, I:Jg, VII. t 6, ill:S. N. F. 1, p. 36 t, lines 21-25
49
rowdy, sporting Jews were ultimately responsible for the harsh punish..'11ents exacted against them. Socrates believed that the inevitable downward spiral of events began for the Ale.xandrian Jews when Cyril sent his spy, the amunmaticus Hierax, to learn the contents
of an edict regulating the dance shows, one recently published by the augustal prefect Orestes. 65 Why Cyril wished to learn the nature of this edict is not entirely clear, though Socrates claims that Hierax' presence mainly served to incite the Jewish presence to riot. Well-known for his enthusiastic response to Cyril's sermons, the aammaticus Hierax, reports Socrates, was not a welcome emissary amongst the Jewish community. Intending to quell a potential riot, Orestes seized Cyril's spy Hierax., and subjected him to public torture in the theater. In fact, Socrates claims that Orest~' actions were politically motivated and evinced a clear desire to display, in graphic terms, his unambiguous authority over the bishop CyriL Purportedly jealous over the growing power of the Alexandrian episcopacy and its subsequent encroachment into the secular sphere, Orestes apparently wished to rebuke Cyril for his encroachments into the sphere of power once the exclusive domain of civil authorities appointed by the emperor. This was not the first time that Socrates expressed criticism for Cyril's alleged encroachments into the secular sphere. When Cyril closed the Novatian churches early in his episcopacy, Socrates similarly complained that Cyril improperly extended his power beyond ecclesiastical matters and into the administration of civil affairs. Indeed, Socrates' pro-Novatianist stance, as suggested above, probably lies behind this overt criticism of eyn)' s alleged claims to power, for Socrates presumably \\ished to imply that the Novatian churches were well within the appropriate ecclesiastical theological boundaries. 65
Socrates, HE. VII. 13, ~ N. F. 1, p. 358, lines 3-12.
50 In other words, Socrates suggests that it was not the Novatians' beliefs and practices that proved troublesome to Cyril. for the exercise of his ecclesiastical powers alone did not suffice to close the Novatian churches. To accomplish that deed, Socrates believed that eyril claimed omnipotence in administrative matters as well. exercising powers that were properly under the control of imperial officials. In fact. several imperial laws issued in 410 imposed on schismatics the burden of compulsory public service. and sanctioned the Donatists (January 412) with fines and other penalties. rendering Cyrirs actions against the similarly orthodox Novatian sect all the more acceptable. 66 Compliant with these imperial decrees. Cyril. the newly elected bishop. may have intended to enact a broader imperial mandate to control the proliferation of schismatic sects. In any event. Socrates believed that Cyril's actions were more consistent with civil authority than with the proper exercise of the ecclesiastical function. and, therefore. did not. in any sense. impugn the orthodoxy of the Novatian sect. John ofNikiu's narrative account. though dependent on Socrates. wholly excludes Cyrirs encroachment into administrative affairs. More favorable to Cyril than Socrates' narrative. John ofNikiu believed that tumultuous Jews were wholly responsible for the expulsion of the Jewish community from Alexandria. In particular, John ofNikiu reports that Cyril threatened the Jews with retribution unless they ceased their actions against the 66 Codex Theodosianus. 16.5.48 (February 21, 410), imposed compulsory service on schismatics, in spite of the law promulgated in the West (16.5.40; 16.6.4) which prohibited such persons from entering into contracts, and nearly removed them from association with the Roman world (ab omni contractu eos et propemodum Romana conversatione submoverit). Heretics were liable for the penalty of proscription and death if they attempted to gather in public. !1:ilil.• 16.5.51. A law dated January 30,412 (16.5.52) fined Donatists who did not return to the Orthodox faith; punished their landlords with confiscation of property; and threatened exile to any Donatist clerics and priests. See C. Haas, Alexandria in ~ AntiQuity. (Baltimore and London. 1997), p. 299.
Christians. 67
51 John's narrative, however, fails to mention the precise wrong that the Jews
had supposedly committed. Indeed. John ofNikiu reports only that the Jews complained before the prefect Orestes that Hierax was present at the theater solely to incite their community to riot. - and that Orestes rC'.;ponded by subjecting the Christian Hierax to torture. 68 In particular, John ofNikiu may have ascribed culpability to the Jews simply because they enjoyed the support of the augustal prefect Orestes, a fact that implicitly called into question Cyrirs authority in the secular and ecclesiastical spheres. Unlike Socrates, John ofNikiu apparently believed that Orestes flagrantly and wrongfully disregarded (rather than envied) the bishop's fledgling powers when he responded to the complaints of the Jewish community. Socrates and John ofNikiu agree, nevertheless, that the Jews, confident in their support from the prefect Orestes, willfully plotted their next scheme against the unsuspecting Christians. 69 Apparently some of the Jews were sent to keep post during the night, while others were charged with deceiving the Christians by shouting in the streets that the church of St. Athanasius was burning in flames. It seems that when the IohaMes Niciensis, Chronicon (aethiopice). H. Zotenberg. Chronigue ~Jean. evegue de N ikiou, Texte ethiopien publie ~ traduit (Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque nationale, XXIV. I) (Paris, 1883, 1935), p. 101 (translates '"governor" instead of hCyril"; Chronicle 2f JQhn, Bishop 2fNikiu. transl. from Zotenberg's Ethiopic Text, by R. H. Charles, (London and Oxford, 1916). LXXXIV.94, (translates "Cyri)" instead of "chief magistrate. ").
67
Iohannes Niciensis, Chronicon (aethiopice). H. Zotenberg, Chronigue ~~ evegue de Nikiou. p. 101; ~Chronicle2flQhn, Bishop2fNikiu. LXXXIV.92. 68
Socrates. HE. VII. 13, ~ N. F. I, p. 358, line 23, - p. 359. lines 22; lohannes Niciensis, Chronicon (aethiopice). H. Zotenberg, Cbronigue d£~ evegue ~ Nikiou. p. 101-102. The Chronicle 2f~ Bishop ofNikiu. LXXXIV.95-98.
69
52 Christians heard the cries, they naively rushed to save their church, only to find themselves surrounded by a crowd of allegedly tumultuous Jews. In the violence that ensued, several Christians were slain. Enraged at the conduct of the Jews, Cyril, along with a crowd of supporters, reportedly entered the synagogues to find the alleged perpetrators of this atrocity. Socrates alone reports that the incident resulted in the expulsion by Cyril of the entire Alexandrian Jewish community, and in the unmitigated plundering of all the property that the Jews possessed. Only one Jew, claims Socrates, eventually returned to Alexandria, a physician named Adamantius, who had allegedly fled to Atticus bishop of Constantinople in order to convert to Christianity. [n fact, Socrates' narrative unwittingly reveals that prominent Jews remained in the city, well after their purponed expulsion. Furthermore, John ofNikiu apparently found Socrates' account problematic, for he reports that only the Jewish assassins were expelled from the city, rather than the entire Jewish community. 70 Significantly, John ofNikiu and Socrates both report the relative ineptitude of the augustal prefect Orestes, for Socrates claims that Orestes wrote to the emperor, grieved over the loss of the Jewish population, and John reports that Orestes could offer no help to the exiled Jews. 71 In fact, their similar narrative strategy emerges, for both historiographers depict Cyril as a powerful bishop, strong enough to defy the imperial authority in Egypt. Socrates' portrayal acquires additional significance in light of his proNovatianist stance: only a bishop whose power exceeded the proper bounds between H. Zotenberg, Chronigue!kkln. evegue!k Nikiou, p. 102; The Chronicle of John, Bishop ofNikiu. LXXXIV.99. 70
Socrates, HE, VII. 13. ~ N. F. 1, p. 359, lines 12-15; H. Zotenberg, Chronigue~ Jean, evegue ~ Nikiou.. p. 102; The Chronicle 2fhmn. Bishop mNikiu.. LXXXIV.99. 71
53 secular and ecclesiastical authority could have succeeded in closing the Novatian churches in Alexandria. Indeed, Socrates believed that Cyril's confrontation with the prefect Orestes similarly portended his wrongful encroachment into the secular sphere. Furthermore, to display Cyril' s extensive power in ecclesiastical affairs, Socrates reports that Cyril offered the sacred bible to Orestes, hoping that respect for religion would induce a reconciliation with the bishop. When this gesture failed to achieve a peaceful union, Socrates claims that five hundred of the monks from Nitria emerged from the desert fringe and raised a seditious tumult against the prefect. Tbeophilus had apparently armed these same monks approximately fifteen years earlier in his attack upon the Tall Brothers. 72 In fact. one tradition claims that Cyril spent five years in ascetic training in the Nitrian desert. whic~ if accurate, would readily account for the Nitrian monks' zealous support of their patriarch. 73 This monastic zeal found immediate expression, claims Socrates, in the numerous abusive epithets hurled at the prefect Orestes, including the disparaging sobriquets, 'Pagan' and "idolator' (CIlTEKcIAOUV EhJTnv Kal "EAAl1va Kat clAAa TrOAACx
TrEpnJf3pu;ov).74 As proof of his impeccable Christian credentials, Orestes apparently adduced evidence of his baptism by bishop Atticus of Constantinople. For the Nitrian monks, however, this merely confirmed Orestes' status as a recent convert from Paganism. Unconvinced by his protestations, one of the monks, Ammonius, allegedly 72
Socrates, HE, VI.7, GCS N. F. 1, P 324, lines 21-24.
Sawirus ibn al-Muqaffa, Bishop of el-Ashmunein" ft. 955-987. B. Evens, ed, History of the Patriarchs Qfthe Coptic Church Qf Alexandria (Paris, 1907), f.Q I, XII, p. 427-428. Lettres Festales, SQ)[ 372, Introduction Generale, P. Evieux, p. 14. 73
74 Socrates, HE, VII. 14, GCS N. F. I, p. 359, lines 28-29.
54 threw a stone at Orestes' head. In fear for their safety, the rest of the monks fled the scene as the people of Alexandria came to the rescue of the injured prefect and seized the perpetrator. Ammonius. In retribution for the deed. Orestes subjected the monk to public torture so severe that he apparently died from his injuries. Socrates reports that Cyril then attempted to elevate Ammonius to the level of a martyr, and so he deposited the body in an appropriate church. bestowed the slain monk with the appellation Thaumasius (eav~aalos.
the wonderful), and eulogized the greatness of his pious acts amidst this
violent confrontation with the prefect Orestes. 75 Even those amongst the Christian populace. however. were apparently unpersuaded by Cyril's strategy, for Socrates reports that the people complained that Ammonius had suffered torture because of his violent and seditious act against the augustal prefect. and not because he had refused to deny Christ - a necessary prerequisite for true martyrdom status. In the process. Socrates' narrative unwittingly reveals Cyril's power struggle not only with the local imperial authority represented by the prefect Orestes. but within the Christian community proper. Though the Nitrian monks appeared ready to support their bishop, some of the Alexandrian Christians openly disagreed with Cyril's attempt to enroll Ammonius amongst the martyrs. In fact. these dissenting Christian voices supported Orestes' position. and Quietly forced Cyril to retreat from his political maneuver. Socrates' depiction of this encounter with the Alexandrian Jews finally reveals more about Cyrirs struggle to secure his power base in Alexandria than about the quality of Jewish Christian relations in the city. In fact. Socrates' narrative ponrays a fledgling bishop whose exercise of power over the augustal prefect Orestes was, at times. thwarted by an unnamed group of Alexandrian Christians. perhaps the elite and educated of the 75 Socrates, HE. VII. 14, ~ N. F. 1, p. 360, lines 9-10.
55
city, who were not easily persuaded by the abusive slogans hurled at their prefect Though the Alexandrian Jews may, indeed, have opposed Cyril in his confrontation with Orestes. similar narratives depicting Jewish opposition to a newly elected, orthodox, Alexandrian bishop occur in at least two other instances, suggesting that depictions of Jewish Christian strife functioned as a topos. a way to express and further refine notions of Alexandrian Christian self-definition. In particular, Athanasius in his Encyclical letter reports a tumultuous incident involving the Jews and the augustal prefect Philagrius. 76 It seems that when the Arian bishop Gregory was appointed to replace Athanasius, the orthodox Christians sought to prevent his consecration. The prefect Philagrius, however, was an Arian supporter, who attempted to thwart the orthodox contingent by gathering together an armed mob of Pagans and Jews. who allegedly broke into the churches, desecrated sacred vessels, and seized several monks and virgins. Athanasius' narrative depiction evidently served a twofold function: that the Arian bishop Gregory received support from Pagans and Jews rendered his episcopacy wholly illegitimate. for any bishop whose support depended upon a Pagan and Je\\ish alliance was by definition unworthy of holding this high ecclesiastical office. Moreover. any imperial support for the Arian cause implied by the actions of the augustal prefect. Philagrius, became virtually inconsequential once Athanasius placed the prefect in close alliance with the Pagan and Jewish contingent Theodoret reports a similar confrontation with the Jews upon the election of Athanasius. Epistula encyclica. 3 (~2124) H. G. Opitz. Athanasius Werke 11. I (Berlin, 1935-1941). p. 171. line 21 - p. 172. line 21; f..Q. 25, 228-229, cited by R. L. Wilken. J udaism and the Early Christian Mind (New Haven and London, J971), p. 47. See also ApolQma contra Arianos. 30 ~ 2123) H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke. p. 109. 76
56
Peter, Athanasius' successor to the episcopacy. Apparently the Governor of the province assembled a mob of Pagans and Jews, surrounded the church where Peter was enthroned, and threatened him with exile unless he emerged from the church. Theodoret explains that the Governor, an unrelenting Pagan, pretended to comply with an imperial command, but merely acted on his own impiety (Tfj 5i ye ClAneeiCjl Tiis 5vae13oiis
6pyiis E~CPOPOU~EVOS).17 In fact, the Jewish presence in Theodoret's account served a narrative function similar to that in Athanasius' narrative above, for the presence of armed Jews in support of the prefect invariably impugned the spiritual and secular authority of the imperial representatives, who, in both instances, attempted to exercise their political power against an orthodox bishop. Indeed, Socrates' and John ofNikiu's negative depiction of tumultuous Jews in collaboration with the prefect similarly functioned. within the broader narrative, to undermine the authority of the augustal prefect Orestes and his initiatives against the bishop CyriL When placed in this telling juxtaposition. Cyril's confrontation with the augustal prefect finally stands at the center of these narrative accounts, accounts that unwittingly reveal a new bishop striving. and at times struggling, to consolidate his power base in Alexandria. In fact, an important and powerful segment of the urban Christian community remained critical ofCyril's policies, for they exerted enough influence over the bishop to successfully quell his efforts to enrolI Ammonius on the list of martyrs, and, in the process, temporarily thwarted Cyrirs attempt to gain approval from the populace. Though narrative depictions of Cyril in bold confrontation with unrelenting Jews Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica. IV.21, ~ N. F. 5, Theodoret Kirchenceschichte, G. C. Hansen - L. Parmentier. eds. (Berlin. 1998), p. 246-247. The threat of exile implied that the force of imperial command stood behind the Governor' 5 order that Peter leave the church. 77
57 finally disclose little about the nature of Jewish Christian relations in Alexandria., Cyril's
public discourses betray much of his virulen~ if somewhat diffuse, anti-Jewish sentiment. In the early years of his episcopacy, Cyril paid scant attention to the problem of Christian heretics, and, instead, directed much of his invective toward Jews, whose vilification occupies a fair number of the Festal letters. A significant repository of antiJewish polemic, these letters were widely circulated to all the churches and monasteries in every city of Egypt in order to announce the beginning of Lent and set the date for Easter Sunday.78 Well-known for its didactic and stylistic qualities, this ~ of Christian discourse was especially effective at reaching large numbers of urban Christians thanks to its wide transmission within Egypt and beyond. 79 Indeed, Synesius of Cyrene wrote to bishop Theophilus of Alexandria., extolling the pastoral virtues of the Festal letter. Describing this revered tradition, Synesius also urged Peter the presbyter to offer every consideration for the messenger disseminating these Festal letters, a messenger "forced to traverse a hostile terrain' in order to preserve the integrity of this ancient ecclesiastical custom. Though the Festal letter's main purpose was to set the date for Easter. the letter was also widely recognized as a ~ well-suited for impaning Christian instruction, and that together with its wide circulation conspired to produce a potent discourse by which Cyril could transmit his anti-Jewish sentiment. Whether this polemic had a particular referent remains a difficult question. As early as the epistle of 8arnabas, written in the second century, Christians addressed such Cassianus. Conlationes (CPL 5(2) X.2, CSEL 13, p. 286-287; SQ!r 54, (Paris, 1958), p.75.
78
Synesius of Cyrene, ed. A. Garzya, Opere di Sinesio di Cirene, (Torinese, (989), Epistula 9, p. 94, lines 5-7. 'WS 0 ye TfjTES KaTaTTE~cpeels AOYOS Kal nOE TCxS TTOAElS 79
Kal ~VT)OE, TO IJEV Tc';l ~eyEeel T~V VOlllJeXTCoJV TO SE Tc':JV OVOlJeXTG.lV Tij XaplTl.
58 questions as the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, and the proper means
by which Christians should read and interpret the Hebrew Bible. Addressed to Christians rather than Jews, such literature was not apologetic in orientation. but rather helped refine Christian self-definition amidst competing Pagan and Jewish forces. 8o Indeed. Cyril's anti-Jewish polemic finds numerous antecedents in a literary ~ which made extensive use of the Christian-Jewish literary dialogue in order to forge a distinctly Christian selfunderstanding, one that was shaped in relation to Christian notions of Jewish belief and practice. Jewish midrash. for example, pondered a set of questions entirely different from those raised by the Christian exegetes of the period. suggesting that the exegetical issues addressed by these Christian writers reveal more about theological problems arising within the Christian tradition, than about actual theological confrontation between Jews and Christians. The anti-Jewish invective ofCyril's Festal letters, nevertheless, raises important questions about the nature of Christian polemic in the period, and
ho\'~"
this
polemic was eventually transmitted to the populace of Egypt. How did the numerous church congregations who received and heard Cyrirs letters likely understand the Jews, and how did this ultimately shape and refine notions of Christian self-understanding? Jewish practice came under immediate attack in Cyril's first Festal letter for the year 414 AD. A pastoral meditation on the benefits of fasting, this letter embraced the fast as the source of all spiritual joy, and simultaneously condemned the Jews for practicing the ritual poorly. 81 [n fact. Cyril offered several New 80
See R. L. Wilken. Jlldaism Brut the ~ Christian Mind, p. 12ft'.
se
81 Epistula paschal is LSQy: 372, p. 170; ... 'IOUSa'lOl TTaVTa~ aVepC:J1TOUS VTrEp,",aAAoIlEVOl Tij TQV aOE,",n",ciTc.lV KallX)TTlTl, eiSival ",ev OUK apvoUvTal, TTpaTTovol SE OVTc.lS aiOXp&S, QS e1val Taxa TTOU KPElTTOUS, OTE ",it TOVTO TTOlOUvTES ruplOKoVTal.
59 Testament passages to support this assertion: Pharisaic pride over ritual achievements.
such as fasting and tithing. stood in stark and surprising contrast with the humble piety of the morally reprehensible tax collector. 82 A literary topos from the gospel sources. the supposed hypocrisy of the Scnbes and Pharisees served Cyril's larger polemical ends. Indeed. Cyril believed that the Jews were rebellious and obstinate. and received just retribution for their sins. namely the utter and complete abandonment by their God. 83 In particular, Cyril compared the impiety of the Jews with the Pagan Greeks~ who refused God in favor of corruptible images. for the Jews allegedly exchanged a more excellent way oflife for something approximating the apostasy of the Greeks. In no way representative of Jewish-Christian dialogue. Cyril's anti-Jewish polemic functioned more as a literary topos. a negative exemplar intended to exhort the Christian populace to correct ritual practice. Christians who failed to heed Cyril's advice. therefore. were in imminent danger of succumbing to a fate similar to that of the unbelieving and disobedient Jews. In 418 AD, Cyril launched another vehement attack against Jewish practice. but this time it was not Jewish hypocrisy that troubled Cyril. but so-called Jewish . ignorance.' It was an ignorance that allegedly centered around certain interpretive presuppositions. for Cyril claimed that the Jews failed to appreciate that ancestral practices, such as circumcision and the sabbath. were no more than shadows and types. 84 Indeed, Cyril complained that to render such figures in a literal sense defied every sound 82
Luke 18: 11, 12; Matthew 23:24,27.
83
Epistula paschal is I. SChr 372. p. 172.
Epistula paschal is VI. ~ 372. p. 364, Festal Letter VI; Cyril posed several rhetorical questions to the Jews. including the following: nOTE Tiis aiis ollae(as TO TTepas o
60
henneneutic principle, along with the entire Alexandrian tradition of scriptural interpretation beginning with the Jewish exegete Philo. The problem centered around Cyril's anthropology, which decreed that man. who is made in the image of God. cannot contain anything superfluous, rendering literal, physical circumcision contrary to the dictates of divine creation. 85 In that case, Cyril recommended that circumcision be understood in a typological sense, as a figural representation of a more spiritual meaning, namely a "circumcision or purification of the heart." in which Abraham ~ s circumcision (as understood by Paul) served as a sign of his justification by faith. Cyril applied the same henneneutic method to his reinterpretation of the Jewish Sabbath: it was a type that prefigured the saints' repose at the eschaton as they soared upward to the Celestial City.86 This was Christian paraenesis. musings on the proper interpretation of Hebraic practice that did not, in any sense, reveal an actual Jewish-Christian confrontation. Meant to instruct the various churches, Cyril's reinterpretation of Jewish ritual and practice carefully reconciled present day Christian practice with the traditions inherited from their appropriation of the Judaic past. Religious practice was not the only area in which questions of interpretation came to the fore. Hermeneutic differences stood at the center ofCyril's anti-Jewish polemic in matters of belief as well. In fact. Cyril believed that the entirety of scripture was incomprehensible to the Jews because their failure to believe in both Moses and Jesus 85 Epistula paschalis VI. ~ 372, p. 366,. '" ~aAAOV Se: Tliv TOU Sll~loupYTlOavTos ypacpETal TExvnV. c.:,S eitcalolS TlolneplTT~~aol TO TOU o~~aTOS KaTa(3pi8ovTOs axii~a. See also, ibid., p. 367, note l. 86 Epistula paschalis YJ. SOIr 372, p. 386, ~'1~a[VEl TOlVUV ri KaTCx TO ~cJ(3(3aTOV apy[a Kal aVTc:lv Tc:lv epyCoJv an66eOlS TTiv EOO~EVflV Enl TEAEl Tc:lV aYlCoJV KaTcJTTaUOlV'
rendered the secrets of sacred scripture wholly inaccessible. 81
61 Indeed, it was only the
believers in Christ who enjoyed special interpretive abilities, for Cyril claimed that the literal sense of the law, in that case, automatically transfonned into a spiritual theoria
(6Ec..lp(a
TTVe~aTlICn),
rendering the true, Christian meaning of scripture readily
intelligtble. 88 The outcome of this interpretive process meant that truth, finally, replaced the shadow of the law, for the spiritual truth that was once hidden under the veil of Mosaic law began to shine forth at the incarnation of the LOWS and reveal its types, transforming the law into a spiritual song. 89 Cyril, therefore, implicitly relegated uncomprehending Jews to the interpretive obscurity of shadows and types, for they repeatedly failed to recognize that Christ the
Loaos had removed the shadows of the law
and revealed truth in its spiritual sense. 90 Unable to comprehend the spiritual meaning of scripture, the literal-minded Jews, claimed Cyril, were consigned to life in the shadows, in which the full significance of scripture must ultimately elude them. Cyril's Festal letter for the year 417 AD devotes much attention to such interpretive presuppositions. Since the Jews tragically failed to understand what was Commentarius in lsaiarn prophetam, (CPG 5203) PG 70, 653D -656A. See also A. Kerrigan. St. Cvnl of Alexandria. Interpreter 2f the Old Testament. (Rome. 1952). p. 176179.
87
88
Glaphvra in Pentateuchum. (CPG 5201) e.Q. 69, 448B.
89 Glaphvra in Pentateuchum. fQ. 69, 241B. neplaVpEl yap i.lOlTep 6 XPlOTOS T11v TOU v6~ou atelclv. teal TTpocpnTllCCJV auyypa~llclTc..lV TO oiovelteaTateclAUlJlla. AEAEVlCa~evov SE OUTc..l teal eVtcclTOTTTOV teO~lSf.i TOV EV aiITolS nlllV aTTocpa(VQV AOyOV. ETTCtlSnV ava
62
represented to them in figures and types, Cyril believed that Christians were the rightful heirs to the entire Judaic ~ a fact he demonstrated through his typological reinterpretation of the continuous historical trajectory that began with Moses, Abraham, and Isaac, and finally culminated with Christ. 91 A typological exegesis of the Genesis account of Abraham and lsaac, this letter asserts that the sacrifice of Isaac prefigured Christ's sacred mystery, for Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his only son, lsaac, functioned as a type and foreshadow of God's ultimate sacrifice of Jesus. 92 Cyril carefully instructed his listeners. however. that what was revealed through types must then be explained and interpreted before the significance of this profound mystery could be fully understood93 That lsaac was placed on the wood, while the ram sutTered immolation, revealed an important christological truth, claimed Cyril. for lsaac on the wood prefigured Christ mounted on the cross, while the immolated ram signified that Christ did not himself suffer death because he was, by nature. impassive. 94 To avoid the christological difficulties inherent in a sutTering Christ. Cyril attributed the passion not to the impassible deity. but to the temple born of the Virgin. a christological truth signified and prefigured by the ram which God provided. eyril believed that the Word.
91 Epistula paschaiis Y. SQy: 372, p. 292. . .. atrnlv OOl TTapa8i]aCol Tliv SlCx MColOEc.lS e~nY'lcnv. Kat niv lOTop{av avaTT-ru~c.J oacp~s· Epistula paschalis y. SQ![372, p. 304, 312tT. 'AvayKaTov yap oT""al cpaivEa6al TOV XPlOTOV EV Tij KQTCl TOV 'laaaK YEveaEl. KaeclTTEp SlCx TIrrrOU ""OPCPOV~EVOV.
92
93 Epistula paschaJis y. SQ)[ 372. p. 318. 'H""Qs SE cIVclyKll ToTs Ell -nlTTCtJ ecpap""oaal TO KclAAoS. Kal T~V Eipll~evc.lv EKacrra
yeyEVl1~EvOlS Tiis aAn8e£as Sla1TT\l~al aacpc;.ls.
94 Epistula paschalis y. SQy: 372. p. 324. ~v cpvaEl.
. .. eTTaCXE Se KVPlOS OUK aUTOS cITTaens
63 nevertheless, claimed that suffering as its o~ because it happened to the Word's own body, and not to that of another, thus rendering a single and undifferentiated Christ. 95 Cyril's appropriation and reinterpretation of Jewish beliefand practice served a broader paraenetic function: while the Jews believed that types and figures stood for literal truths, Cyril's spiritual reading of scripture revealed not only Christ's passion on the cross, but the proper christological interpretation as well. The essence of His incorporeal deity did not suffer on the cross, only the temple born of the Virgin, a fact whic~
nevertheless, cleverly avoided attrIbuting to Christ a dual nature. Significant in his
later confrontation with Nestorius, this passage illustrates Cyrirs instruction of the Christian community in matters of doctrinal importance. Indeed, through the wholesale appropriation of a continuous Judaic past, Cyril established an interpretive framework that simultaneously distinguished Christians from their Jewish forbears and created an opportunity for Christian paraenesis on a wide scale. Anti-Jewish polemic acquires an entirely new significance when placed within this context, forCyril's virulent discourse becomes the occasion for Christian reflection on matters significant for Christian sel fdefinition and understanding, rather than the basis for any genuine dialogue with the Alexandrian Jewish community. The several pastoral letters highlighted here all reveal something of Cyril' s anti-Jewish polemic during the years 414-418, around the same time that he allegedly confronted the Jewish community during the Orestes incident. An ostensibly hateful disputation with the local Jewish population, the Festal letters of the period instead reveal Cyril's plan to construct a distinctly Alexandrian Christian selfunderstanding, in which his vision of an impassible non-suffering Christ found apparent legitimation in antecedents that reached all the way back to the binding ofIsaac. 95 Epistula pashalis Y.. SO!r 372, p. 324. OiKEloUTal Se 6 l\oyOS •.... TO TTa80s' Ctrrov yap ijv TO ac':l~a. Kcl oUx ETEPOV TlvOS. See also, Ullil-, p. 325, note I.
64
Hermeneutic presuppositions about the nature of scripture, with roots in Philonic and Origenist interpretation. finally enabled Cyril to forge this significant connection. 96
Cyril's polemical confrontation with the Jewish community, evident throughout his early Festal letters. indeed. finds ample expression in the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates and John ofNikiu, who both provide narrative accounts which finally reveal Cyrirs struggle for power over the imperial authority, and amidst the dissenting voices of the local Alexandrian Christian populace. That Jewish confrontation figures prominently in the received historical tradition surrounding Cyril' s early episcopacy should come as no surprise, for at least two historical narratives similarly depict Jews conspiring with local imperial officials against an orthodox bishop. Indeed, Jews reportedly fought for the augustal prefect in his support of the Arian replacement. Gregory, during one of Athanasius' several exiles. and Jews allegedly came to the aid of the governor who opposed bishop Peter's election. In both instances. therefore, the literary lopos of "the Jew' served to undennine the spiritual authority of the heretic villain. Socrates' and John ofNikiu's negative depiction of tumultuous Jews in collaboration with the prefect Orestes similarly functioned. within the broader narrative. to undermine the authority of the prefect and his initiatives against the bishop Cyril, rendering Cyril the morally superior authority figure. In that case, Cyril's allegedly violent dispute with the Jews mainly served Socrates' broader narrative strategy. and does not necessarily reveal a physical confrontation with the Alexandrian Jewish community. When placed in this narrative context, therefore. Cyril's confrontation with the augustal prefect Orestes See generally. D. T. Runia. Philo in ~ Christian Literature (Assen and Minneapolis, 1993).
96
finally stands at the center of these historiographic accounts~
65 accounts that unwittingly
reveal a new bishop striving~ and at times struggling~ to consolidate his power base in Alexandria 97
Ill.
An alleged physical confrontation with the Alexandrian Jews was not the only
contentious dispute that defined the historical representation ofCyril's early years as bishop. The murder of the renowned Pagan and Neo-Platonist philosopher Hypatia was to cast a grim shadow on Cyrit's
episcopacy~
one that has persisted in the popular
imagination till this day. Gibbon speaks for many when he writes that "the murder of Hypatia has imprinted an indelible stain on the character and religion ofCyril of Alexandria "'98 Daughter of the philosopher Theon~ famous for his achievements in the field of mathematics. Hypatia was herself an accomplished teacher of philosophy and mathematics, whose published works may have included editions of Greek texts, including the Almagest and the Handy tables, in addition to exegetical commentaries on Apollonius and Diophantus, both of which were apparently intended primarily as school Cyril"s etTons to consolidate and unify the churches were helped to a large extent by Athanasius' earlier success in that regard. For a discussion of Athanasius and the consolidation of the Egyptian churches during his episcopacy, see D. Brakke, Athanasius and Asceticism, p. 10f. On the relationship between Alexandria and the cities and towns of Upper Egypt, see R. Bagnall. EGypt in ~AntiQuity (princeton~ 1993). p. 99-109. On the links between villages, see illlil., 138-142. 97
E. Gibbon. The Decline ~ EAU of ~ Roman Empire, (New York. 1960). p. 601, cited by S. A. Takacs "Hypatia's Murder - The Sacrifice of a Virgin and Its Implications," in The Formulation ~Christianity 1u: Conflict Throuah the Am, K. B. Free, ed., (New York, 1995), p. 47. Basic bibliography: A. Cameron andJ. Long, Barbarians and Politics i1 ~ ~ 2f Arcadius, (BerkeJey, Los Angeles 1993), p. 39-62; M. Dzielska, Hypatia 2f Alexandria (Cambridge, 1995); J. Rouge, "La politique de Cyrille d' Alexandrie et le meurtre d'Hypatie," ~ Slll (1990), p. 485-504. 98
texts. 99
66 Three ancient historians, Socrates, John ofNikiu, and Damascius, all attest to the
incidents surrounding the murder of this famous woman philosopher. Socrates locates the impetus for her murder in Cyril' s dispute with the augustal prefect Orestes, a dispute that had allegedly arisen from Cyril's confrontation with the Jewish community. 100 Frequently seen in the presence ofOrestes, Hypatia was consequently blamed by the Christian populace for preventing Cyril's reconciliation with the prefect. It seems that a group of zealous Christians under the direction of Peter, a reader for the churc~ was so determined to remove Cyril's political obstacle. that they banded together, viciously dragged Hypatia from her carriage, and forcibly brought her to a church, where they proceeded to strip her naked and murder her with tiles. Socrates believed that political strife and jealousy provided ample motive for these heinous acts, namely jealousy over Hypatia's influence with the prefect Orestes. A powerful woman amongst the Alexandrian notables, she often appeared publicly in the company of magistrates and attended assemblies of men, 101 rendering it quite plausible that some Christians could find her overt display of influence and power threatening, especially if she readily communicated with the prefect 99 A. Cameron and J. Long, Barbarians mKt Politics. p. 44; ACarneron, unpublished paper. p. 7-8tT. The following works are attributed to Hypatia: commentaries on the Arithmetica of Diophantos of Alexandria, on the Conic Sections of Apollonius ofPerge, and on the Astronomical Canon. For a full discussion, see A. Cameron and J. Long, Barbarians, p. 44fT. See also, A. Cameron, "Isidore of Melitus and Hypatia: On the Editing of Mathematical Texts," Greek. ROman IDdByzantine Studies 31 (1990), p. 103127. 100
Socrates, HE. VII.IS, ~ N. F. 1, p. 360, line 28 - p. 361, line L
101 Socrates, HE. VII. IS, ~ N. F. 1, p. 360, lines 24-26. 5lCx <Se> Titv npoooiioav alrrij Etc:: TiiS" TTalSeVCJEc.lS" OEI.nri)v nappnoiav Kat TOts" apxoucnv oCoJcpp6vc.lS" EiS" iTpOOColnOv npxETO, Kat OVtc:: nv TlS" aioxVvn EV I.U!OCt) QV8pc:lv napEtVal a\miv'
•
67 In fact, Socrates' narrative attnbuted Cyril's earlier problems with Orestes to the
prefoct 's envy and jealousy over the encroaching power of the bishops, an interpretation that probably reflected Socrates' general intent to portray Cyril as a powerful. if contentious, bishop. That Socrates attnbutes the subsequent murder of Hypatia to jealous Christians. eager to facilitate a reconciliation between the prefect and their bishop, to some extent, defies this broader narrative strategy, for it plainly suggests that Cyril and his supporters were not as powerful and influential as Socrates' general narrative implies. Indeed, Socrates' depiction of this incident may reveal a significant detail concerning the underlying political motives behind Hypatia's murder. IfCyril were the all-powerful bishop, as Socrates
impli~
whose extension of power into the secular sphere allegedly
accounted for his precipitous closing ofNovatian churches at the very start of his episcopacy, then jealous, politically minded Christians (allegedly eager to preserve Cyrirs extensive power) would have scant political reason to commit this heinous crime. In fact, Cyril was not the all powerful bishop that Socrates' narrative strategy implied. for Socrates' depiction ofCyril's encounter with Orestes and the Jews unwiningly reveals a bishop struggling to secure his power base at the start of his episcopacy. In that case, Socrates' depiction of the murder of Hypatia reflects CyriI's genuine political concerns: eager to build Cyril's power and influence amongst the local notables, this band of ruffian Christians believed that Hypatia's high profile encounters with the Alexandrian elite were, indeed. threatening to their bishop's exercise of power. How such an odious and reprehensible act could have ever reconciled Orestes with their bishop, nevertheless, remains a mystery, and. in fact, Socrates reports that the incident brought ignominious reproach upon Cyri1 and the entire church of Alexandria. John ofNiki~ however, presents Cyril and this band of wayward Christians in an
68 altogether favorable ligh~ for he ascnbes the murder not to political machinations, but to the pious intents of Peter and his followers. 102 A ·perfect believer in Chris~' Peter (in John ofNikiu' s narrative elevated to the status of a magistrate) allegedly gathered a group of like-minded Christians and proceeded to murder the Pagan Hypatia, who had supposedly enchanted the people of Alexandria and their prefect with the evil arts of magic. A witch and beguiler,
Hypati~
according to this accoun~ was justly murdered for
her Pagan beliefs and practices. When her body was finally destroyed with fire, John reports that the people of Alexandria surrounded their bishop and named him' the new Theophilus,' "for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city. ' 103 Decidedly more generous to Cyril than Socrates' narrative, John rendered Hypatia's murder a just and pious act committed by a zealous group of Christians, with the implicit consent of their bishop - whose involvement in the murder earned him the flattering epithet, "the new Theophilus. '104 This unlikely version of the incident portrays Cyril in a most positive light, as the Patriarch who triumphantly stamped out the very last vestiges of Paganism in the city. In fact, Cyril's uncle and predecessor, Theophilus, was famous for having exposed the H. Zotenberg, Chronigue ik~ evegue ~ Nikiou. p. 102-103; The Chronicle Q[ John, Bishop 2fNikiu. LXXXIV. 100. 102
H. Zotenberg, Chronigue ~h;im. evegue ~ Nikiou. p. 103; The Chronicle of John. Bishop ofNikiu. LXXXIV.to3. 103
In the context of John of Nikiu's narrative, the title ·"the new Theophilus" is meant to celebrate CyriI's elimination of Paganism from the city, as his uncle had done before him. When Cyril receives the same epithet during the Nestorian controversy, however, the comparison is a negative one, suggesting that Cyril's confrontation with Nestorius was personally and politically motivated, similar to his uncle's attack on John Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak. 104
69 Pagan mysteries of the Mithreum to public ridicule, and for having destroyed the great Serapeum, both under the direction of the emperor Theodosius L With the assistance of the prefect and commander-in-chief of the imperial troops stationed in Egypt, Theophilus proceeded to demolish Pagan temples and shrines throughout Alexandria 105 Unlike John's narrative account of Peter's (and Cyril's?) anti-Pagan acts, however, Theophilus apparently had the support of imperial officials. That Cyril was named ·the new Theophilus' by Christians eager to remove every trace of Pagan influence seems rather unlikely, for, as discussed above, Cyril had earnestly tried to distance himself from his uncle's episcopacy in every way, going so far as to reinstall John Chrysostom in the diptychs following John's deposition by Tbeophilus at the synod of the Oak fifteen years earlier. 106 In fact, Cyril inherited from his uncle a problematic legacy with respect to the Imperial City, problems that originated, no doubt, with Tbeophilus' aggressive policies toward his adversary John Chrysostom. Therefore, Cyril's designation 'the new Theophilus' was, in all likelihood, an interpretative gloss later imposed on an embarrassing set of events, events that required explanation and justification in order to present Cyril's early episcopacy in the best possible light. John ofNikiu's narrative depiction raises an interesting question, namely, to what 105
Socrates, HE. V.16, ~ N. F. I, p. 289, lines 21-24.
Though Cyril at first refused to restore John Chrysostom' s name to the diptychs because he had been condemned by an official synod, Cyril eventually (419) agreed, upon pressure from the West. P. Evieux. Lenres Festales. Introduction. SQlr 372, p. 66-71. citing Ad Atticum CPolitanum. Epistula 76 (~5376) E. Schwartz, Codex Vaticanus 2[. 1431. p. 25-28; fQ 77,352-360. John ofNikiu, however, depicts Cyril eager and willing to restore Chrysostom. H. Zotenberg, Chronigue ~ ~ evegue de Nikiou. p. 96; The Chronicle of John. Bishop 2CNikiu. LXXXIV.38, 41-43. John ofNikiou blames the Empress Eudoxia for John's banishment. 106
70 extent did Hypatia's Paganism pose a palpable threat to Cyrirs ecclesiastical political strategy? In fact, Cyrirs early Festal letters betray not the slightest hint of an anti-Pagan ecclesiastical agenda. Replete with anti-Jewish polemic, the letters for the years 414-416 contain only a few passing condemnations of Pagan Greek religion. mostly commonplace criticisms that mainly served to demonstrate the wholesale impiety of the Jews, rather than launch a direct assault on Pagans. Cyril believed that the Greeks were the implacable polytheists who woefully exchanged an incorruptible God for their corruptible images of man, animals, birds and reptiles, while the Jews foolishly emulated the Greeks and pursued this same way of life. 107 Far from evincing an anti-Pagan strategy, these Festal letters, contemporaneous with Hypatia's murder, indicate that Pagan thought and practice posed little threat to cyrirs episcopacy. In fact, on June 28th, 414, almost a year before the incident, Cyril had transferred the relics of Saints John and Cyrus to the church of the evangelists, built by Theophilus near Canopus, on the former site of the cult of Is is Medica. 108 Displacing the former Pagan shrine, this new pilgrimage site drew many persons interested in the healing properties of these saints. 109 In no way a vexing issue for Cyril, every indication suggests that Paganism was well under control during the early years of Cyril' s episcopacy. Not until several years after Hypatia's murder, in his Festal letter for the year 107 Epistula paschalis 1. SChr 372, p. 180. Lettres Festales. SQ!r 372, P. Evieux, Introduction. p. 61, citing A. Martin, "Les premiers siecles du christianisme aAlexandrie. Essai de topographie religieuse (iic-iv" siec1es)," p. 224, note 82. See also S. A. Tacaks, "The Magic ofIsis Replaced or Cyril of Alexandria's Attempt at Redirecting Religious Devotion." Poikila Byzantina 13 (1994), p. 491-507; J. A. McGuckin, "The Influence of the Isis Cult on the Christology ofCyril of Alexandria," PBR 8, I (1989), p. 5-23. 108
109
Lettres Festales. ~ 372, P. Evieux, Introduction. p. 62.
71
418, did Cyril openly attack the intellectual presuppositions defining Pagan belief In fact, this intellectual confrontation with Paganism focused and defined Cyril's anthropology, rendering it fully accessible to the congregations of churches throughout Egypt. Man, explained Cyril, was endowed with reason and created in the image of God, but those who practiced idolatry had defiantly violated this very precept, worshiping every sort of element in place of true divinity. In the process, Cyril believed that these Pagan idolaters foolishly denigrated the reason and intelligence endowed on them by virtue of their humanity, and, what was created for man, they preferred to man himself, rendering pieces of wood and stone superior to the ineffable glory of the Divine Creator. I 10 Indeed, by admiring the products of creation in place of the artisan and creator, the Pagan idolaters had dangerously obscured the natural order. I I I Cyril believed that this open defiance of the natural order produced dire consequences in the sphere of anthropology, for the Pagans' wrongful beliefs rendered mankind wholly bereft of his most sacred characteristic necessary for self-definition - freewill. 112 Even more than reason, eyril believed that freeWlll constituted the very essence of man, the single defining quality that rendered mankind fully human. Consonant with the Pagans' unfortunate anthropological presuppositions, Pagan astrology wrongfully deemed that the day of one's birth wholly determined the quality of life. Thus shackled in chains, the Pagan believer, therefore, assumed no responsibility for his actions. Whether Cyril's confrontation with the intellectual precepts of Pagan belief bore any relation to the murder ofHypatia several years earlier remains a difficult question. Indeed, a blatant 110 Epistula paschalis VI, ~ 372, p. 350. 111
Epistula paschalis VI, SChr 372, p. 348-350.
I 12
Epistula paschalis VI, SQy: 372, p. 352.
72 attack on Pagan beliefs and practices immediately following the heinous deed would have sUrely cast a damning light on CyriI. In fact, this particular assault on Paganism, almost muted in its condemnation of Pagan practitioners several years after the murderous event, may well have served to ameliorate the collective guilt of the Alexandrian churches. If Pagans were somehow less than fully human because of their aberrant beliefs and misinterpretations in the sphere of anthropology, then the Christians of Alexandria need not feel entirely guilty for the consequences of the acts committed by a militant few. Though Cyril, in his Festal letter for the year 418, may have attempted to alleviate the collective guilt assumed by his community, the Pagan hagiographer Damascius did not hesitate to condemn Cyril and the Christians of Alexandria. Damascius' Vita of Isidore situates Hypatia's life and death within a narrative context entirely different from the essentially pro-CyrilIian context assumed by the ecclesiastical historians Socrates and John ofNikiu. One of two extant ancient accounts written from the Pagan perspective, Damascius in his Vita of Isidore assigns culpability for the murder solely upon Cyril himself. Damascius repons that as Cyril traveled through the city, he noticed a crowd of men gathered around the house of Hypatia. 113 Threatened by Hypatia' s influence amongst the notables of the city, Cyril allegedly instigated a crowd of ruffians to commit the act of murder. Like Socrates before him, Damascius implicitly agreed that Cyril's thirst for power and influence created the necessary political climate within which the murderous Christians were compelled to carry out their odious deed. Unlike Socrates' more forgiving depiction of the bishop, however, Damascius' narrative placed unequivocal blame on CyriI. Damascii ~ [sidori Religuiae. ed. C. Zintzen, (Hildesheim, 1967), p. 79, lines 1825. 104 Suda Ill, Ill, 19. Damascius: IMPhiloSOj)hical History. text with translation and notes, P. Athanassiadi, ed. (Athens, 1999),43, p. 130, lines 10-12. 113
73 Oddly enough, the Pagan historian Damascius was not entirely kind to Hypatia either, for he negatively portrays Hypatia as a wandering philosopher, who was in every way inferior to Damascius' teacher Isidore, as she traveled through the streets and openly and indiscriminately delivered lectures on Plato and Aristotle to whoever would listen. I 14 Indeed, this was a less flattering depiction than Socrates' narrative account, for Damascius' Vita interprets the very public nature of her work in an entirely distinctive light. Damascius seemingly implied that Hypatia's readiness to philosophize before the urban crowds rendered her philosophical demeanor not unlike the Cynics, who openly philosophized in the market place. I IS Damascius' narrative depiction of Hypatia's response to an amorous student also conjures images of Cynic behavior. When one of her students declared his love for her, Hypatia reportedly displayed her sanitary napkin
(yvvalKEla PcIKTI) and replied. "Indeed, this is what you love, young man, nothing beauti fut." 116 While the Suda also records an alternate version of the same story, it too depicts Hypatia essentially as a Cynic philosopher. Instead of presenting her sanitary napkin to the enamored young man, however, she allegedly proceeded to deliver a lecture
Damascii ~ Isidori Religuiae• ed. C. Zintzen, p. 77, lines 15-7. 102 Suda IV, 644, 12. TTEpli3aAAo~EVll Se Tpi(:k.lva it yvvi1 Kal SLCX j.lEOOU TOU eXOTEc.JS TTOlOVj.lEVll TCxS TTpo6So~ E~T1yElTO SrllJ.ooiQ: TOlS CrKpoaa6al i30UAO~EvOlS Tt TOV nAcITc.Jva Tt TOV 'APlOTOTEA'lV . " Damascius: The Philomical Hist0O'. P. Athanassiadi, 00., p. 128. 114
115
A. Cameron, unpublished paper, p. 4.
Damascii ~ Isidori Religuiae. ed. C. Zintzen, p. 77, lines 15-17. Suda IV 644. TOVTOU j.lEVTOl. cpcIval. epQS. c!J vEavlOKE. KaAou Se OVSEvOS. Darnascius: The Philosophical History, P. Athanassiadi, ed., p. 128B. See also, D. Shanzer, '"Merely a Cynic Gesture?" Rivista di. fiJoIQKia classica Vot. 1l3, p. 61-66. 116
on the nature of culture. I 11
74 A common strategy of the Cynic philosopher, the nature
culture dichotomy was frequently illustrated through graphic behaviors, or demonstrated by clever and subversive argumentation. Though Hypatia was surely not a wandering Cynic philosopher of the platonist type,118 two of the extant sources, Damascius and the Sum. record traditions that imply a kind of Cynic demeanor. That she traveled throughout the streets teaching philosophy, as Damascius reports, and even Socrates implies, may have been sufficient to suggest the behavior of the wandering Cynic philosopher to both Damascius and the tradition recorded in the Suda Indeed. it was likely sufficient to provoke the anger and hatred of zealous Christians, eager to make a graphic display of their unwavering devotion to their bishop. While other Pagan intellectuals no doubt resided in the city, Hypatia attracted attentio~
as the sources suggest, for several reasons: she was a woman. she traveled
openly in her carriage, she visited with the augustal prefect, and she allegedly lectured before the urban crowds. The public nature of her Paganism, her influence with the local Alexandrian notables, and her alleged connection with the augustal prefect, all conspired to provoke the hostility and jealousy of a few militant Christians ready to support their See J. M. Ris!. ""Hypatia," Phoenix 19 (1965), p. 22 L K. Wider, "Woman Philosophers of the Ancient World," Hypatia I (1986), p. 53. 117
118 Several of the sources, including the letters of her pupil Synesius. make it equally clear that she wholly embraced the more rarefied branches of philosophy. See for example, Damascii Vitae (sidori Religuiae. ed. C. Zintze~ p. 77, line 4; Damascius: The Philosophical History, P. Athanassiadi, ed., p. 128A. lines 3-4. . .. aAAa Kal q>lAOao
lAoaocpla~ opyic..Jv. Socrates identifies Hypatia as a Neo-Platonist. Socrates, HE. VII. 15, ~ N. F. 1, p. 360, lines 21-23. . .. -niv 5e TTAaTCt.lVlKliv alTO TTACt.lTlVOU KaTaYO~EV11V 5laTplf3f1v 5la5E~aaeal KallTaVTa Ta cptA600cpa ~aen~aTa Toi~ f30UAO,",Evol~ EKTi6Eo8al.
15 bishop at any cost. Hypatia' s pupil, the Christian Neo-Platonist Synesius, bishop of Cyrene, confinns the impression left in virtually all the extant sources, that Hypatia enjoyed influence amongst the Alexandrian elite. In a letter exhorting Hypatia to help his friends Nicaeus and Phiiolaus. Synesius appealed to her excellent friendship, her ample resources, and her extensive power and influence - a power that Synesius implored her to put to good use, consistent with late antique utilitarian conceptions offriendship.119 That Synesius was himselfboth a Christian and a pupil of the Pagan philosopher Hypatia. raises important questions about the relationship between Pagan and Christian intellectuals at this time. Criticized by several monks and philosophers for his knowledge of rhetoric and Homer. Synesius apparently sought the advice of his teacher Hypatia When his book Cynew;tics. with its ample use of attic constructions, disappeared from his house and fell into the possession of those "who are concerned with Greek culture and graceful periods (" EhAllVlOlloii TE Kal xaplTo~ Ellehe•... ),' Synesius was accused of indulging himself merely in trivial matters of style. In response to his critics, Synesius composed a treatise to promote philosophy as an excellent choice in life, and to defend the very books that comprised his library. From Hypatia he wished to know whether this apologetic treatise was worthy of publication before a Greek audience. 120 That Synesius, a convert to Christianity, maintained such close ties with the Greek intellectual traditions and with his teacher Hypatia. suggests that a hybrid. 119 Synesius of Cyrene, A. Garzya. ed., Opere. Epistula 81, p. 230, lines 15-18. 1:u IlEV oVv aEi Kal 5Vvu Kal 5walo KaUlOTa XPCi.)IlEvn TC+l 5waaeal. . .. Synesius urged Hypatia to approach all her friends, both private persons (i5lQTal) and magistrates (apxal). 120 Synesius ofCyrene, A. Garzya. ed., Opere. Epistula 154, p. 310-316
76 amalgamation existed between the more rarefied Pagan and Christian intellectual traditions, a relationship probably influenced by Neo-Platonic synchretist tendencies which regarded the One as a singular manifestation of all types of deity. 121 Amongst such Christian intellectual elites, Paganism of this Neo-Platonic sort posed no real threat to Christian theological beliefs. This easy co-existence between cenain upper echelon Pagan and Christian intellectuals suggests that Hypatia' s Paganism ~ R may not have been quite as problematic to Cyril as John ofNikiu claimed. While Cyril did not receive advanced or specialist training in rhetoric or sophism, he certainly passed through basic rhetorical training before he was directed toward a clerical career. 122 In fact, Cyril's uncle Theophilus was friends with Synesius, which probably meant that Theophilus enjoyed a cordial relationship with Synesius' teacher Hypatia, in spite of her overtly Pagan intellectual beliefs. 123 That Cyril, in the early years of his episcopacy, found Hypatia's Paganism threatening and problematic, therefore, seems most unlikely. Indeed, her rarefied brand of Paganism had clearly weathered the storm ofTheophilus' anti-Pagan assault, a campaign that exclusively involved the demolition of Pagan ritual sites, including the Serapeum, and Mithraeum. It seems that her intellectual Paganism posed even less of a threat to Cyril, whose early Festal letters evince scant evidence of a concerted antiPagan effort. Instead, it was Hypatia's influence amongst the local Alexandrian elite, including the prefect himself, that stirred the wrath of some militant Alexandrian Christians against 121
A. Fitzgerald, The Letters ofSynesi us QfCyrene, (Oxford, 1926). Introduction. p. 32.
122
See Lettres Festales, P. Evieux', Introduction, p. 12. See also, Chapter Five.
See, for example, Synesius ofCyrene. A. Garzya, Opere, Epistula 105, p. 274. regarding Synesius' high regard for Theophilus. 123
77 her. Indee
municipal council. 124 It seems that the Alexandrian curial class was sending a constant barrage of municipal petitions and repons directly to the imperial court, bypassing the
Codex Theodosianus, 16.2.42; September 29 and October 5, 416 AD, cited by C. Haas, Alexandria in ~ AntiQuity, p. 315. 124
78 proper imperial hierarchy. 125 An imperial
edic~
dated October 5, 416 AD. addressed
that problem, for it required that all the curiales residing in the city gather together for a full meeting of the ~ before the matter under consideration would be dispatched through the appropriate official channels. Only after these municipal petitions and decrees were endorsed by the entire ~ could such matters be forwarded to the augustal prefect, who was then charged with sending his report to the proper imperial officials. 126 It was finally the imperial court that decided whether Alexandrian ambassadors should
depart for Constantinople to pursue the matter addressed in their petition. Meant to stem the tide of complaints from Alexandria, this series of imperial laws established a formal procedural hierarchy in which the decision to receive ambassadors from Alexandria ultimately resided with the imperial officials in Constantinople, thus rendering any complaints filed by the bishop and his supporters wholly within the discretion of the imperial court. Enacted in the midst of Cyril' s dispute with Orestes, this law must have produced some amount of animosity amongst Cyril and his party, for the power afforded the augustal prefect, now charged with forwarding petitions to Constantinople, produced a discernible shift in the power relations between the Alexandrian elite and the imperial court. At a time when access to the emperor helped define the contours of one's power and influence, Cyril's access was significantly cunailecL at least according to the letter of Codex Theodosianus. 12.12.15, prohibits delegations from being dispatched to the Imperial City unless the curiales first hold a meeting of the municipal council and then notify the Augustal prefect. The prefect is charged with informing the Emperor, who determines whether he shall receive the delegation; llllil., 16.2.42. cited by C. Haas, Alexandria in Late AntiQuity. p. 315. See also, J. Rouge, "Debuts de I'Episcopat de eyritle et Code Theodosien," p. 343f 125
126 C.
Haas, Alexandria in Late AntiQuity. p. 315.
79 the law. 127 At the urging of an Alexandrian embassy, the imperial edicts of September 29th and October 5th, 416 AD also addressed the alleged reign of terror induced by the parabalani (attendants of the sick) through their apparent disruption of public affairs. 128 Prohibited from attending public spectacles of any kincL including meetings of the municipal council or court (subject to certain exceptions), the parabalani were now legally limited to five hundred members, subject to approval by the augustal prefect. In fact, the law also prescribed that the parabalani be recruited only from the poor of the city, and not from wealthy Alexandrians able to buy the office. 129 Violation of these provisions resulted in unspecified punishment and permanent removal from office. IndeecL the imperial regulations controlling the paraba1ani indicate that the embassy from Alexandria not only complained about the acts of terror committed by the group, but requested from the imperial court that the Alexandrian bishop, namely eyril, prohibit certain persons from leaving Alexandria By prohibiting the parabalani's access to imperial authority, the Alexandrian embassy probably wished to curtail the group's power in public affairs and prevent them from receiving due process before an imperial court. This gave the parabalani little chance to defend their alleged 'acts of terror' before an impartial tribunal. 127
See P. Brown, Power mKt Persuasion in Late AntiQuity. (Madison, 1992).
Seegenerally,parabalani. aDB 3:1678; A. Philipsbom, "Lacompagnie d'ambulanciers 'parabalani' d'Alexandrie,"Byzantion 20 (1950), p. 185-190; W. Schubart, "Parabalani," ~ 40 (1954), p. 97-101. 128
129 Codex Theodosianus. 16.2.42. Praeterea eos, qui parabalani vocantur non plus quam quingentos esse praecipimus, ita ut non divites et qui hunc locum redimant, sed pauperes a corporatis pro rata Alexandrini populi praebeantur, eorum nominibus viro spectabili praefecto Augustali videlicet intimatis et per eum ad vestram magnitudinem referendis.
80 Indeed, the paraba1ani were never officially implicated in the greatest "act of terror' at the time, namely Hypatia's murder, for none of the laws even alludes to the incident, and the extant narrative accounts all indicate that an ~ ~ group of Christians committed the atrocity. With the promulgation of both these laws in 416 AD, at around the same time as Cyril's dispute with Orestes and the subsequent murder of Hypatia, the imperial court unambiguously sought to place power in the hands of the augustal prefect, and to limit the power of the Christian parabalani. Moreover, by this new set of procedural mechanisms, the gg:iIl class could no longer bring complaints directly to the imperial court at Constantinople, for, in theory, at least, that discretionary power was now assigned to the augustal prefect. Just as the legal enactments redirected the balance of power toward imperial appointees, therefore, the new laws simultaneously shifted that power away from the tumultuous Christian parabalani, limiting their membership to five hundred. In fact, the group's newly imposed membership restrictions, limited to the poor guilds of Alexandria, further indicate that the imperial court wished to carefully circumscribe their exercise of power within the city. By patently eliminating from the parabalani wealthy Christians able to buy the office, the imperial restrictions ensured that the group would exclude from its ranks ambitious, powerful members seeking office simply to implement their particular political agenda. To include such wealthy, politically ambitious, persons would have rendered the parabalani a threatening and destabilizing force within the city, a powerful group with the potential to disrupt the administration of public affairs by the imperial representatives of Alexandria. Whether the imperial court believed that Cyril and his supporters were responsible for the recent tumultuous acts committed by the parabalani is far from
81 certain. If the imperial court did suspect that Cyril's influence lay behind the deeds, then the problem troubling imperial officials must have ultimately disappeared, for Theodosius 11 promulgated a new set oflaws in February 418 AD restoring the management of the parabalani to bishop Cyril - and increasing their numbers from five to six hundred 130 The legally prescribed financial limitations for group membership remained, nevertheless: still restricted to Alexandria's poor, the parabalani posed little threat to imperial control in Alexandria, making the Emperor more than willing to place Cyril in charge. Had eyril and the parahalani been unambiguously implicated in the murder of Hypatia, then it is most unlikely that Theodosius 11 would have ever reinstituted the group under Cyril's control. In fact, Hypatia's murder can likely be attnbuted to a band of ruffian Christians (outside the parabalani) who believed that Hypatia's high profile encounters with the Alexandrian elite threatened Cyril's exercise of power within the city.
IV.
In the year 424 AD, Cyril turned his attention toward anti-Arian invective. 131
Deftly vilified in several Festal letters and treatises, including the Thesaurus.
Codex Theodosianus. 16.2.43. The restrictions with respect to membership from the Alexandrian poor and attendance at municipal councils remained in effect (Cited by C. Haas, Alexandria. p. 316.) 130
131 See generally G. Jouassard, "L' Activite Lineraire de Saint Cyrille d' A1exandrie jusqu'a 428," Melanm f. Podechard (Lyons, 1945), p. 159-174.
82 Commentary !ID the Gospel
2f John. and DiaIQ~ !ID the Trinity.l32
Arians were
supposedly long gone, only a dim memory of prior ecclesiastical conflict that had been decisively dealt with by Theodosius the Great. who had banished the leader of an Arian sect. Eunomius, in 383/4 AD following a series of anti-Arian legal enactments. 133 In fact. Theodosius' campaign to decimate the sect finally culminated with his anti-Eunomian legislation promulgated in 389, which made it a crime for adherents of the sect to act as beneficiaries or testators under a will, while possession of any property received as an heir was punishable by its confiscation and vindication to the fiscal treasury. 134 In 394 AD, only months before his death, Theodosius finally agreed to rescind the law, probably well after the sect had faded from view, rendered powerless by this onslaught of antiheretic legislation. 135 Little evidence remains of Arian activity following this period of 132 Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate. (CPG 5215) eY 75,9-656; Cyril of Alexandria., Commentarii in Iohannem. (~5208), P.E. Pusey, S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Ioannis evangelimn (3 vol.) (Brussels, 1965); PG 73,91056~ PG 74, 9-756; Iksancta trinitate diaIogi vii. (~5216) G. M. de Durand, Cvrille d' Alexandrie. Dialogues sur lil Trinite T. I. Qiil. ! ~!L SQlr 231 (Paris, 1976); T. n. Dial. IIL IV. ~ SChr 235 (Paris, 1977); T. Ill. Dial. YL VII. SChr 246 (Paris, 1978); PG 75,657-1124. See generally N. Charlier, "Le Thesaurus de Trinitate de S. Cyrille d'Alexandrie,"RHE 45 (1950), p. 25-81; ··La doctrine sur le Saint-Esprit dans le 'Thesaurus' de sain Cyrille d' A1exandrie," Studia Patristica 11 (1957), p. 187-193. 133 Codex Theodosianus. 16.5.11-13, July 25,383. The law prohibited Arians, Eunomians and other alleged heretics from assembling in groups. The law of May 4 (5), 389, 16.5.17, proscnbed Eunomian eunuchs from making a will or from being named as beneficiary in a will. On June 20, 394, the law was revoked, however, and Eunomians were permitted to write wills and be named as heirs. 16.5.23. (Cited by T. A. Kopecek, A History ofNeo-Arianism. (Philadephia, 1979), p. 518-519, 542.) On Eunomius, see R. P. Vaggione, Eunomius: The Extant Works (Oxford, 1987).
134
Codex Theodosianus. 16.5.17.
135
Codex Theodosianus. 16.5.23, (cited by T. A. Kopecek, p. 542).
83 rampant anti-Arian legislation by the succession of uncompromisingly pro-Nicean emperors, namely Theodosius I, and his sons Honorius and Arcadius. Even Theodosius
n, in the year 410 AD, however, felt that Eunomians posed enough of a threat in the Imperial City to warrant new legislation, including laws designed to prevent their receipt and bequest of testamentary property, and in 413, Theodosius II prohIbited assemblies of Eunomians, on penalty of confiscation of property for anyone who presided over such gatherings. 136 As late as 415 AD, houses belonging to Eunomian clerics. where assemblies or rebaptisms occurred, were summarily confiscated to the fiscal treasury of the Imperial City. Indeed, the harsh punishment of exile was exacted against anyone who received rebaptism into the Eunomian sect. and against Etmomian clerics who held assemblies or consecrated clergy into the sect. 137 In fact, the Arian ecclesiastical historian, Philostorgius, provides some evidence that Eunomians continued in Constantinople well after the barrage of anti-Eunomian legislation promulgated under the reign of Theodosius the Great. Upon the death of Eudoxius, the leader of the Eunomian sect in Constantinople. it seems that a schism occurred when Eunomius' nephew, Lucian, was chosen in his stead. Philostorgius repons that L ucian was beset with the vice of greed, and so to avoid his punishment by the leaders of the sect, Lucian allegedly separated from the group - instituting his own band
136 Codex Theodosianus, 16.5.49; 16.6.7. Cited by C. Luibheid, '"Theodosius 11 and Heresy:' JEH (19 ), p. 13-38, p. 37
Codex Theodosianus, 16.5.58. The law also confirmed the previous law prohibiting Eunomians from acting as testators or beneficiaries under a will. See 16.5.49. (Cited by C. Luibheid, illlil.) 137
84
of rogue and wayward followers. 138 Though Philostorgius ascnbes the schism to the greedy, avaricious deeds of the sect's new leader, earlier schisms had occurred amongst the Eunomian party that were more aptly attributed to intra-sectarian disputes arising from theological and exegetical differences. Shortly after Eunomius' banishment under Theodosius the Great in 383/4, one of his disciples, Theophronius ofCappadocia. continued to promulgate the sect's tradition. 139 When he attempted to demonstrate through scriptural exegesis that God~ s knowledge of the past changes over time, the Eunomians promptly proceeded to excommunicate him from their church, while Theophronius soon emerged as leader of a splinter grouP. constituted under his own name. Tbeophronius was not the only Eunomian, however, to find himself in disputation with the group's majority. Eutychus apparently originated another sect in Constantinople when exegetical differences led him to conclude. in opposition to his fellow Eunomians, that the Son, along with the Father, knows the time of the final hour. Indeed, exegetical disputes may also lay behind the schism that occurred upon L ucian' s rise to power within the Eunomian sect sometime during the early 420's, in the reign of Theodosius 11. As late as 412 AD, Synesius ofCyrene complained that Eunomians could once again threaten the church, for a cenain Quintianus had apparently emerged as the sect's most recent leader. Synesius reports that several false teachers had come to Cyrene ostensibly to engage in commercial litigation, but, in reality, hoped to win additional 138 Philostorgius, HiSloria Ecclesiastica, 12.11 (~6032) J. Bidez - F. Winkelman, eds. Philostorgius KirchenGSChichte. ~ (Berlin, 1981), p. 148.
Sozomen, HE. VII.I7, ~ N. F. 4, p. 325, lines 1-3; Socrates, HE. V.24, ~ N. F. 1, p. 306, line 21, - p. 307, line 3.
139
converts to their sect. 140
85 Indeed, Synesius urged the elders to pursue and eliminate the
Eunomians from the city, for they had been recently received in certain well-known estates and houses. While Synesius urged banishment for the "evil bankers' who threatened to sully his church, he made equally clear that these newest adherents to the Eunomian sect should leave the shores of Pentapolis with their property in tact - quite contrary to the spirit of anti-Eunomian legislation recently passed by Theodosius H. A friend of eyril' s uncle and mentor the bishop Theophilus, Synesius most likely transmitted his experience with the Eunomian sect to Theophilus and eventually to Cyril, whose episcopacy began that very same year, in 412 AD. 1ust as Eunomians continued to pose something of a problem in Constantinople
and Pentapolis, so did Arianism proper appear to flourish. to a certain extent. within the Imperial City. The Arianism of this period. however, (around the banishment of Eunomius in the late fourth century) was marked with schism, for their most recent leader, a certain Dorotheus from Antioch. believeG that God was not deemed the Father before the Son existed. while their ousted leader, Marinus and his followers, held that the Father was always the Father, even before the Son existed. 141 Division ensued, and Dorotheus and his followers maintained possession of their houses of prayer, while Marinus' adherents promptly constructed new buildings in which to assemble their party. With the zealous support of Selinus, bishop of the Goths and fonner secretary of Ulphilas, and Theoctistus, a certain cake vender(Tl~ '4IaeUpolTQAns), Marinus' group acquired the epithets, 'Goths' and 'Psathyrians ('f'a6uplavol).' After thirty-five years of separation, however, the Arians of Constantinople were finally reconciled during the 140 Synesius ofCyrene, A. Garzya, ed., Opere. Epistula 5, p. 74. 141
Socrates, HE, V.23, ~ N. F. 1, p. 305, lines 22-26.
86 reign ofTheodosius II in 419 AD, during the consulate of Plintha, a general of the cavalry
and infantry who was himself a member of the Psathyrians. 142 In fact, Arianism certainly continued to affect the fortunes of at least one bishop in Egypt, whose expulsion from his bishopric for failure to embrace Arian dogma was sympathetically addressed by Synesius of Cyrene. 143 To console the exiled bishop, Synesius urged him to embrace his fate, for Arianizing Egypt had long been "rebellious to God and an enemy of the Holy Fathers.' Written in approximately 412 AD, this letter indicates that Arianism continued to threaten the stability of churches in Egypt well into the fifth century. In the meantime, Theodoret reported Arians present in Antioch during the episcopacy of Alexander, for when the bishop reinstituted an enonnous festival in celebration of the great Eustathius, the Arians, Jews and few remaining Pagans allegedly looked on in utter dismay. 144 A smattering of evidence, therefore, remains, which suggests that Arians and Eunomians continued to exist throughout the Eastern empire well into the fifth century. In fact, eyril directed virulent polemic against Arians and Eunomians in his Festal letter for the year 424
AD.145
Mostly an argument against the Eunomian heresy, this
letter attacks the hermeneutic and philosophical assumptions on which their exegetical misinterpretation stands. Cyril believed that like the Jews before them, who failed to 142
Socrates, HE, V.23, ~ N. F. I, p. 306, lines 14-18.
143
Synesius ofCyrene, A. Garzya, ed., Opere, Epistula 128, p. 308-309.
Theodoret, HE, V.35, GCS, N. F. 5, p. 337-338. Theodoret reports that this event took place during Cyril's episcopacy. 144
145
Epistula paschalis XII. SQlr434, M-O Boulnois, B. Meuruer, ed., (paris, 1998).
81 understand that words represent mere shadows and types of a greater spiritual truth, the Eunomian sect disingenuously conflated words with what they signified 146 The result of their interpretive failure was an improper understanding of the signification of names: though the heretics claimed that the negative epithet 'unbegotten' signified the very essence (ouota) of God, Cyril instructed the Churches that negative definitions never signify the essence of things. 147 To simplify a potentially recondite theological discussion for the benefit of his churches, Cyril offered a basic analogy: iffire is defined by that which is not col
OUK a
In the same way. deity defined as 'unbegotten', signifies that God is
not begotten, and does not signify that substance from which God is, but only that which God is not, for the name merely demonstrates that God is not begotten. How. then, asked Cyril, can the vile heretics claim that such a negative name has the power of definition. or that it truly signifies a substance, when the name, 'unengendered,' merely adds an attribute to what the heretics wrongly believed to be a substance?
(n~S
OUv
KaT' aVTOUS opOV SwalllV it AE;lS exel onc..lS ouotas EOTal OTlllaVTlKn. Kal oVxl IlOAAOV TlVOS
T~V
Tij OUOlQ npooeivalnElTlOTEUIlEVc..lV:)
146 Epistula paschal is XII, SQ:y: 434, p. 74. "OTl yap Cxllae~S ouotas elval OTlllavTlKov <paOl TO <6yevvnTOv>. KCxVTeV6ev EaTalKaTa<paves. Kal IlOt Tl OOTe ~paxU Tc':)V napa nOAAois q)OVllEVc..lV elneiv. ('I'TV6011nv OTl opOVS elvat <paol TE KaL 6volla~ovol Ta St' c!)v at OVTc..lV ouolal OTlllatvOVTal" Kal50Kei TOUS opOVS CxvanAEKelv au-rois EK yEVOVS KalSlacpopeXS ii Slacpop~v") See also Thesaurus de sancta ~ consubstantiali trinilate. 2 (CPG 5215) PG 75, 28C, in which Cyril declares that unbegotten is not a substance, but is only significative of a substance.
The Eunomians believed that the term 'unengendered' defined the ouota of God and. therefore, since the son was begotten (yeVTlTOS) he was not OllooVcnOS with the Father. 147
88 More than a dogmatic refutation of heretical claims, Cyril's excursus on the signification of names addressed the very presuppositions that comprised the theory of religious language. Indeed. Cyril believed that the Eunomian heretics violated these fundamental precepts when they wrongly assumed that negative definitions signified the substance of things, and Cyril's m~thod of argument virtually attacked this heresy from its very foundations. Following Aristotle, eyril explained to his churches that definitions are composed of ~ (YEVO~) and difference (Slacpopa), such that humans and horses, though both defined as animals, are differentiated by mankind's ability to reason. 148 Cyril believed. therefore, that if the term 'unengendered' defined the substance of God. as 'animal' and •reason ' defined that of man. then God. 'who is beyond all things (6 \m'Ep navTa eE6~),' would be improperly circumscnbed by the Aristotelian philosophical
categories, namely ~ and difference. Though classical Aristotelian philosophy grounded such anti-heretic claims, Cyril's arguments about the nature of religious language also presupposed interpretive, linguistic assumptions with roots in post-classical theology and philosophy. Before Cyril, Origen had similarly espoused a hermeneutic theory in which words themselves were positively secondary to what they signified, for a 'treasure of divine meaning lies hidden within the frail vessel of the poor letter.' 149 Likewise, the Neopythagorean Numenius believed that both language and universe were structured from principles or elements that fonned an unstable and inadequate expression Epistula paschalis XII. SQlr 434, p. 74. Aristotle, Topica. VI.6.143a1b, Aristotelis Topica et Sophistici Elenchi. W. D. Ross. ed. (Oxford. 1958). p. 126-127. 148
Origen, De principiis. IV.3.14, ~ Vol. V, P. Koetschau. ed. (Leipzig, 1913), p. 345, lines 8-10. cited by F. Young. Biblical EXCi§is ~ the Formation QfChristian Culture. (Cambridge, 1997), p. 24. ••... et divinorwn sensuum thesaurus intra fragile vasculum vilis litterae continetur inclusus." 149
89 ofa pennanent underJy·ing reality.I 50 This implied that words were mere shadows of the greater reality they
signifi~
that words could only hint at the permanent truths
tantalizingly beyond their reach. Cyril's particular hermeneutic approach stands well within this trajectory forged by his precursors, Origen and the middle and Neo-Platonists. Strikingly post-modem in its sensibilities, Cyril's reproach to the heretics foreshadows the linguistic theories of Ferdinand de Saussure by nearly fifteen hundred years, for de Saussure demonstrates that the signifier (word) bears no intrinsic relationship to its signified (object). I 51 By detaching the signifier from its signified, de Saussure produced endless possibilities for linguistic play that have resonated throughout structuralist and post-structuralist henneneutics till this day.
[nd~
Cyril's
confrontation with Eunomian schismatics engages in a kind of linguistic play when Cyril refutes, on Aristotelian grounds, the apophatic language of the ·heretics.' Though the heretics claimed that the term ·unengendered' denotes the substance of God, Cyril explained that such negative definitions never positively signify the substance of a thing.152 Indeed, the title 'unbegotten' applied to the substance of God would improperly subsume God's uncircumscribed being under the Aristotelian categories of genus and difference. Though terms such as 'unengendered' may, indeed, distinguish one divine being (the Father) from another (the Son), they do not denote substance as the
150 F . Young, Biblical Ex~is. p. 27, citing R. Lamberton, Homer the Theologian. (Berkely and Los Angeles: 1986), p. 77. 151 F. de Saussure, Cours ~ linguistigue genemle (Paris, 1968). 152 Aristotle, Topica. VI.6.143b, Aristotelis Topica ~ Sophistici Elenchi, W. D. Ross, ed., p. 127.
90
heretics claim. 153 In other words. Cyril. like the post-modernists, believed that names do not necessarily contain the power of definition, that negative names signify, but do not constitute. the substance they seek to define. Differences between Cyril and the post-modernists remain, nevertheless. for de Saussure's separation ofsignifier and signified ultimately renders linguistic meaning destabilized, as meaning or signification is delayed until the signifier reaches its appropriate. and often unknown, destination. 154 Cyril's linguistic presuppositions, however. necessarily include a destination and context that is readily known and identified -- namely the soteriological narrative (lOTopla) ofChrist's incarnation, redemption. and eschaton. 155 In particular, Cyril believed that proper theological interpretation demanded careful attention to the overarching narrative drama (Ta lOTOpUC:c:Js
TTETTpay~eva).
Thesaurus de sancta ~ consubstantiali trinitate. 2 (CPG 5215) PG 75, 28CID. Cyril also denied the heretics' claim. however, that 4unengendered' denoted a difference (olacpopci ). 153
J. Lacan, .4La Lettre Volee" (April 26, 1955) in Le seminaire de Jacgues Lacan. I.-A. Miller, ed. (Paris, 1978). p. 235-240. 154
Irenaeus expressed those truth claims most succinctly in his Adversus Haereses, in which he explained that the proper interpretation of scripture retains the rule of truth which every Christian received at baptism. and interprets the scriptural text in a manner consistent with that truth. Once every scriptural expression is fitted to the body of truth (oc;)~a Tiis aAnedaS), then the proper meaning will be revealed, and the interpretations of the heretics will be exposed as falsehood. See Adversus Haereses. (Iatine), Lix. A. Rousseau - L. Doutreleau, Irenee ~ Ll:2n. Contre ~ heresies. ~ L t. L Introduction. notes justificatives. tables. ~ 263 (Paris, 1979); t. 2 ~ ~ traduction. SQlr 264 (Paris, 1979); ~IL t. L ~293 (Paris, 1982); t. 2 ~£1traduction. SQlr294 (Paris. 1982);~!IL t. L ~21O (Paris, 1974); t. 2 ~~traduction. SQlr211 (Paris, 1974); A. Rousseau - B. Hemmerdinger - L. Doutreleau - Ch. Mercier. ~ IV. SChr 100 (Paris, 1965); A. Rousseau - L. Doutreleau - Ch. Mercier, L.im y. 1. L SQlr 152 (Paris, 1969); t. 2 ~ £1 traduction. SQlr 153 (paris. 1969). 155
91 transfonning events previously hidden in shadows and types into a clear explication of Christ's mystery.156 Like Athanasius before him, Cyril's henneneutic strives to preserve intact the basic historical narrative (iCTop£a) that constitutes the body of orthodox doctrine 157 which comprises the basic teachings of the church. 158 Criticizing the problematic hermeneutic claims of the Arians, Athanasius believed that the heretical Arians disingenuously resorted to the words of divine scripture, but failed to see the mind (intent) in those words (oVx 0P(;.)Ol TOV
EV
TOVTOlS voiiv).I S9 Bereft of the overall
sense of scripture, the Arians improperly rejected the Nicene definition for including terms that were not found within the sacred texts. Indeed, Athanasius believed that this Arian critique ofNicea was the product of their own disordered mind (TOV vow oVx VylalvovTES), for they repeatedly failed to recognize that the greater scriptural sense (8lclvola) surely embraced the conciliar tenns rejected by the Arians. 100 156
Glaphyra, f.Q. 69, 16A.
157
Literally: the body of truth, o(;.)lJa Tiis CxAnedas.
This bears resemblance to the Christian Rule of Faith, which sought to preserve the over-arching narrative framework of Christ's incarnation, death and ressurection. See for example, Irenaeus, Demonsttatio praedicationis apostolicae (Epideixis) (armeniace) (CPG \307), K. Ter-Mekerttschian - E. Ter-Minassiantz, Q§ hi. lrenaus Schrift zum Erweise der apostolischen Vertdindion& in annenischer Version, entdeckt, hemusgegahen yrul ins Deutsche Obersetzt. Mit einern Nachwort gng AnmerirunK'n von A. Hamack (TU 31, I) (Leipzig, 1907). (Translatio plica) A. Rousseau, oemonstration ~ 11 prediction apostoligue. Introduction, traduction ~ notes. SQlr 406, (Paris, 1995). For a discussion of the Christian Rule of Faith and Athanasius, see F. Young, Biblical Exeaesis ilIKt~ Formation QfChristian Culture. (Cambridge, 1997), p. 43-45. 158
159
Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos
m. L52 (CPG 2093) PG 26. 121A1B.
Athanasius, l&decretis Nicaenae synodi. 21, H. G. Opitz, p. 17, line 29 - p. 18, line 20, esp. p. 18, lines 2-3; f.Q 25, 453A1B. 160
92 What remains virtually implicit in Athanasius' exegetical discourse, namely the overarching narrative principle identified and discussed by the modem scholar F. YOlUlg. 161
finds explicit expression throughout the works of Cyril. Cyril believed that all
of divine scripture signified Christ's mystery (IlUcrrr;PlOV) by means of countless objects, objects that acquire special and sacred significance especially when they take the form offigurallanguage, figures which include aivlYlJaTa (enigmas). -runOl (types). and OKtOt (shadows). 162 Similar to a magnificent city which possesses several public images
of its king, the figures that comprise sacred scripture constitute, for Cyril, a -nmOS (type) of a greater spiritual reality, a reality that wholly encompasses Christ's mystery. 163 In fact, Cyril believed that this mystery consisted of truths discretely hidden behind a veil of figurallanguage, whose secrets were finally revealed only to those endowed with the gift
161
F. Young, Biblical Exegesis. p. 44.
See, for example, Cyrirs use of the term oivlYlla. De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate. (CPG 5200)f.Q.68. 133. 1125, fQ68. 5978. 6138. 616C. 6328, 64OC, 64IC. Cyril often uses the term in the sense of 'figure' or 'type.'; re: TVtrOl, see PG 68, 164A, 164B, I 89B, 5920. Cyril often uses the term 'type' in the sense ofa figural representation of a greater spiritual truth~ types, therefore, must be interpreted spiritually. On Cyril's use of the term c:ncux (generally meaning 'foreshadowing') see, for example, PG 68, 5968, 596C, 600C, 616C, 6160, 624A. Cited by A. Kerrigan, Si. ~ of Alexandria. p. 126. 162
163 See, for example, G laphyra in Pentateuchum. (CPG 5201) PG 69. 308e. "The point of divinely inspired scripture is to signify to us. through countless means, the mystery of Christ." l:KOlTOS Tij 6EOmmJOT(tl r pacpij. TO XPlOToii IlUcrrr;PlOV 5ux IlUplc.lV
OOc.lV TtlllV KOTaOTlllnval lTpaYlleXTc.lV.
of comprehension. 164
93 Indee~ this sacred mystery, made manifest throughout Cyril' s
sermons, includes virtually every aspect of the divine economy (OlKOVOIJla).165 In the process, sacred scripture becomes the repository of numerous narrative and linguistic devices, all of which ultimately signify a greater spiritual reality, one that wholly embraces the manifold aspects of Christ's divine mystery and preserves inviolate the overarching narrative (iOTopla) ofChrisfs sacred drama. How did Cyril impart this hermeneutic teaching to the congregations of churches who received his Festal letter? Simple creedal formulations l66 served an important didactic function, for they expressed the most fundamental beliefs necessary for salvation and redemption - rendering kerygmatic decrees a virtual compendium of beliefs inextricably bound to scripture. If the impious and heretical Arians attributed too much significance to the power of negative definitions, and failed to grasp the spiritual meaning Cyril equates mystery with figurallanguage in several places, including the following: Commentarius in lsaiam prophetam. (CPG 5203) PG 70, 9A "Though the discourse of the holy prophets is obscure, and has been filled with hidden meanings, it contains for us the prediction of the divine mysteries" Cyril believed that the proper interpretation of these divine mysteries, presented in figures and enigmas, required careful attention to the accuracy of the narrative (Tii~ iOTopla~ TO cucPl(3ES) and to the interpretation of the spirituaI8Ec.lp(a. That would ensure readers that the explication of meaning was not in any way deficient; 1& adoratione. fii 68, 260A, 280A, 288C (The law begets knowledge of the mystery of Christ through enigmas and shadows. Moreover, one should contemplate, as in a mirror, the mystery of Christ in subtle images and the plan of the oikonomia). Only those with correct understanding are able to comprehend the mystery. Glaphyra. PG 69, 645D. 164
165 J. McGuckin, "Moses and the MUc:rrrlPlOV XPlOTOii in St. Cyril of Alexandria's Exegesis," Theologische Quartalschrifl4 (1998). See, for example, 1& adoratione. PG 68, 140A, 145A, 2858 (The power of Christ's mysteries overcomes death and Satan); Glaphvra, fQ 69, 16A. 166 Epistula paschal is XII. SQ!r 434, p. 76.
94 of scripture. then Cyril's astute listeners need only embrace his creedal formulations to avoid the fatal interpretive error of the heretics. The kerygma instructed Cyrirs churches and promoted orthodox doctrine in an essentially twofold manner: by condemning the aberrant beliefs of heretics; and. finally. by instructing Christians in proper behavior and morals. 167 Indeed. the kerygmatic formulation read to the churches in Cyrirs Festal letter for the year 424 AD. placed in immediate ju.xtaposition to Cyril's linguistic interpretive theory. acquired an additional. if implicit. significance: the proper hermeneutic method for scriptural and conciliar language is entirely subsumed under the simple. kerygmatic decrees ofCyril's church. (,AAAa TaVTt
~Ev Ti~lV
npoS EICElVOVS'
eipn OETal SE npos lil!as c.:,S EaTlV anAoiiv Tiis 'ElCiCAnaias TO Kitpuy~a.) Though names do not necessarily reveal the substance of things. as the Eunomian heretics claimed. they do, indeed. signify a greater spiritual reality. a reality which Cyril's kerygma readily defined for his congregation of churches. 168 As a guideline for a wide cross-section of Christian believers, the stark simplicity of the typical kerygmatic formulation, therefore, offered ample protection against Arian and Eunomian misinterpretation. If all of scripture ultimately signified Christ's sacred mystery. then the formulaic statements of the kerygma provided a ready and accessible shorthand for the content of that mystery -- a mystery that Cyril rendered wholly accessible to his congregations through the simple creedal formulations espoused in his Festal letters. 167 Epistula paschalis L SQx 372. p. 156. ~Vo yap elvallCeAeVel TaS OclATTlyyas. OTl SlTTAOiis TlS EaTl Tfls ElCiCAnaias 6 AOyOS· e1S ~Ev Ent niv 6p8liv T~V 6ElColV 8oy~aTc.lV lCaTclAn"VlV TOUS ayvooiivTas lCaA~v· ETepos SE TO OTonOlS TC:;V epyc.lV E~cpvpea6al av~(30vAEVc.lV.
~it
SelV TOlS
168 Cyrirs kerygma consisted of the basic affirmation that Christians must believe in the homoousion trinity; that Christ. who was born of a woman, died for their sins in order to vanquish death; that Christ was raised from the dead in order to open the doors to heaven for those confined to earth. Epistula paschalis XII, SChr 434. p. 78.
95 Cyril confronted the same Eunomian argument in his treatise, the Thesaurus. written sometime between 423 and 425 AD. Most of his Thesaurus is, in fact, a recapitulation of Athanasius' Contra Arianos. and both works organize their material in a similar fashion, namely each work presents a statement of Arian objections followed by a detailed refutation. Though Cyril borrowed from Athanasius in his arguments specifically directed against Eunomius, it seems that Athanasius never actually mentioned Eunomius by name in his Contra Arianos. 169 In fact, Cyril probably supplemented his antiEunomian arguments developed from Athanasius' anti-Arian writings, with a particular Contra Eunomium. for Cyril's argumentation bears marked resemblance to existing antiEunomian texts, such as those composed by Basil, Gregory ofNyssa, and Didymus the Blind. It is from such a Contra Eunomium. no longer extant, that Cyril begins his polemical treatise, which immediately asserts that the substance of divinity is not detennined by its being unengendered. As in his Festal letter for the year 424, the Eunomian theory of names occupied Cyril at the start of his Thesaurus. for the heretics had \\Tongfully claimed that the negative definition 'unengendered (TO ayth'IlTOV)' denotes the very substance (ouoia) of deity, even though the lenn does nothing more than indicate that what is begotten (TO yEVTlTOV) is dissimilar (aVOIJOloV) to it. '170 For a textual comparison between Cyril's Thesaurus and Athanasius' Orationes contra Arianos ill. see J. Liebaert, Li Doctrine ChristoloWgue ~ ~ Cyrille D' Alexandrie A vant Ail QueRlle Nestorienne. (Lille, 1951), p. 19-64. 169
Thesaurus ~ sancta ~consubstantiali trinitate. 2 (~5215) PG 75, 2SC. Cyril also refuted the Eunomian heretics who claimed that the tenn unbegotten denoted a difference (5lacpopa), for Cyril believed, following Aristotle, that every difference is defined in relationship to a substance. If the heretics claim that 'unbegotten' is a difference, then they must identify the substance which subsumes it. See also Aristotle, Topica. VI.6.143a1b, Aristotelis TQpica ~ SQphislici Elenchi, W. D. Ross, ed., p. 126127. 170
96 Indeed. Cyril believed that the designation
'unbegotte~'
by delineating what is not a
substance (ovcrla), merely signified, but did not constitute, that substance. Such interpretive philosophical differences bad also largely defined Athanasius' confrontation with the Arians, most notably in his Contra Arianos - discourses that eyril largely reproduced throughout his Thesaurus. In his third discourse, for example, Athanasius addressed Arian misinterpretation of an important New Testament passage an exegetical confrontation that resonates well into the Nestorian controversy. Ascribing ignorance to the So~ Arians (or rather Eunomians) apparently relied on a literal rendering of Mark 13:32 to support their heretical assertions: ""But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the So~ but only the Father." The heretics claimed that an ignorant Son necessarily implied a Son whose essence was nothing like the Father's. In fact, Eunomians of the late fourth century had also found this text problematic, for Sozomen reports that Eutychus formed a separate sect in Constantinople, and that only after he was expelled from the majority sect for ascribing to the Son a perfect knowledge of the final day. Never mentioning Eunomians by name, Athanasius explicitly addressed this exegetical confrontation to the so-called Arian heretics. Utterly ignorant and confused (aYVOnaaVTES Kal O1COToSlVlc:lVTES) about the nature of words, these heretical Arians had failed to grasp the appropriate and necessary interpretive context (6 Eip",oS TOU
avayv~~aTos) -
a context that could have readily
imbued these words with their correct religious meaning.)7) In his defense of the Nicene creed, Athanasius had evidently developed a hermeneutic principle for understanding difficult phrases, one that revealed his basic skepticism regarding the expressive power of words. Indeed. Athanasius feared that a clever or artful phrase, when uttered by a heretic, 171
Athanasius, Orationes contra ArianQs ili,1I1.42
(~2093)
fQ. 26,412.
97 could dangerously disguise heretical and irreligious meaning. On the other hand, strange phrases (f;EV(~ovaal
Ae;el~),
when uttered with proper religious intent (EG.)~ IlOVOV 6
AEyc.uv ruoel3es ExOl TO cppOVTllla), were deemed entirely acceptable. In In fac~ Athanasius believed that words severed from their context were susceptible to error and misinterpretation, and to prevent such a dangerous misreading, all the words of the council, especially the difficult ones, were to be understood squarely within the occasion and setting that produced them. 173 This same concern for interpretive context finds application in Athanasius' reading of scripture, for he believed that plain sense defied the Arian misinterpretation of Mark 13:32. How, asked Athanasius, could the omnipotent Word and Son of the Father be ignorant about a day? In fac~ narrative context itself revealed the absurdity of this Arian misinterpretation, for Athanasius explained that the Word who knows what proceeds that day, must likewise know when the final day unfolds. Cyril simply reproduced this passage in his Thesaurus when he asserted that the Word, who is author of time. cannot in any sense be ignorant of the final hour and day. 174 Though the Arians allegedly removed the scriptural text from the larger religious context, a context that was wholly necessary for a proper understanding, Athanasius and his imitator eyril, claimed to reinstate the text within its appropriate interpretive setting. A complete exegetical explanation, however, demanded that the biblical words themselves be amply accounted for -- in full response to the charges of their opposition. If the text did not mean what the 172 Athanasius&~decretis Nicaenae synodi. 18.4 (CPG 2120) H. G. Opitz, ed., Athanasius Werke II, I (Berlin, 1935-1941), p. 1-45; e&25, 456C. 173
De decretis Nicaenae synodi. 18.5, H. G. Opitz, ed.; PG 25, 456C.
174
Thesaurus ~ sancta ~ consubstantiali trinitate. 22,
eu 75, 368-380.
98 Arians claimed, then what was its significance? In no way an indication of the Word's deficiency, this "ignorance' that scripture asserted was merely a property of the Son's human nature: - spoken only after the incarnation, the epithet properly ascnbed ignorance to the Son by vinue of his humanity. Indeed, though the So~ as man, remained ignorant, the Word enjoyed the full and perfect knowledge appropriate to its divinity. In this way, Athanasius anc:L by extension, Cyril, responded to the exegetical demands imposed by the Arian heretics, and rendered these exegetical differences simply a manifestation of broader henneneutic concerns that included basic presuppositions about the nature of reading. The text's proper interpretation, therefore, provided the occasion for Athanasius' hermeneutically well-informed, christological reflection. Wrongfully appropriated by the Arian heretics, this Markan passage received its proper reintegration into the larger hermeneutic contex"t; forged by Athanasius, and, implicitly, by Cyril. Cyril confronted Arians and Eunomians once again in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, written sometime between 425 and 428 AD, before the start of the Nestorian controversy. The absence of certain definitive theological tenns, such as geOTOKOS
and
EVc.lOlS
cpuouoi, render its composition prior to 428 AD virtually certain.
A line-by-line commentary of John's gospel, Cyril's treatise presents an exegetical task wrought with apparent danger, namely the danger of misinterpretation inherent in any explication of the sacred text. Though the threat of danger lurked behind this arduous undertaking, Cyril believed, nevertheless, that silence was not a viable option, that the church demanded this perilous explication of divine mysteries. 175 It was finally Cyril's Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarii in lohannem. (CPG 5208), P.E. Pusey, S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in Q. loannis evan&eliwn (3 vol.) (Brussels, 1965); ~ 73,9-12A. 175
99
unraveling of an extensive metaphor that fully explicated the problems inherent in his hermeneutic task. Just as the preacher of Ecclesiastes explained that one who cleaves wood finds himself endangered by a slip of the iron head, so does the interpreter of wood, a metaphoric figure for the thoughts of sacred scripture. threaten his very safety - for whoever attempts to unfathom the spiritual wood of scripture experiences grave danger whenever the iron head. namely the mind. slips from its appropriate path and misses right perception. An image and figure for the thoughts of sacred scripture throughout the Hebrew Bible. wood becomes a metonymic figure delineating trees. trees which must then be properly maintained and cultivated. Though Cyril laments that the heretics have lighted upon even the best cultivated trees. namely the sacred scriptures. and culled from these testimonies fodder for their views, Cyril exhorts the righteous Christians not to abandon scripture and cut down these trees of scripture which bear fruit only for those who interpret well. 176 Correct reading. therefore, protects the words of sacred scripture from the misinterpretations of the heretics, whose wrongful appropriation of these sacred texts demanded an immediate response. In this way. Cyril justified his exegetical interpretation of John's gospel, and that in spite of the peril inherent in such a bold hermeneutic endeavor. Intended to rebut the arguments of Arian heretics, Cyril's commentary ascribed the origin of John's gospel to a controversy resembling the Arian heresy. Indeed, Cyril explained that the simpler people amongst John's community had been drawn to believe that the Word of God was first called into being when born ofMary. In response to this crisis, John the Evangelist allegedly composed his gospel. It is difficult to say whether Cyril' s own community faced an heretical confrontation similar to that described 176
Commentarii in Iohannem. fQ. 73. 12A-C.
100 in this fictitious account of the gospel's origins. In any event, Arian appropriation of John's gospel posed enough of a threat that Cyril decided to write an extensive response and commentary, virtually rehabilitating a gospel whose metaphorical trees had been culled for heretical intent. Though in large part a line-by-line commentary on the gospel of John intended to rebut Arian interpretive claims, the commentary also includes continuous streams of antiJewish polemic. Similar to the Festal letters ofCyril's early episcopacy, however, the anti-Jewish polemic must be placed within Cyril' s larger anti-Arian agenda: the depiction of Jews who misunderstood the nature of Christ and his relation to the Father provides a comparative heretical framework for the reprobate Arians. What is most striking about this commentary, however, is not the banage of anti-Arian polemic, often cast in the guise of unbelieving Jews. but Cyril's confrontation with an unnamed dualist christology. When the Word became flesh, explained Cyril. it became actual flesh, namely man - a rational creature endowed with a soul and earthly flesh. Indeed. Cyril believed that the Word was also God by nature, although in no way severed from the flesh, for "He is one Christ, from both (ElS yap el; a~q>olv 6 XplOTOS).'177 A tantalizing hint at the Nestorian debate to come, Cyril's phrase '''one from both.. would find ample opportunity for expression throughout his confrontation with Nestorius. 178 In fact, as early as his Festal letter for the year 420, Cyril called for a unified Christ, that by means of the ineffable union, the Word made flesh may be understood to 177 Commentarii in Iohannem. Lix.e.Q. 73, 161A. Cyril in this passage explicates John 1: 14, ."And the Word became flesh."
L Koen. The Savina Passion: Incamational and Soteriologica1 Thouaht in Qrit of Alexandria's CommentaJy m!~Gospel QfJ2lm(Stockholm, 1991), p. 74. 178
101 come into its own temple. 179 A matter of simple faith. claimed Cyril. the mysterious commingling of Word and Flesh was wholly incomprehensible to human sensibilities. Indeed, Cyril believed that a few unnamed heterodox Christians had been unable to comprehend the depth of this mystery. and had wilIfully separated what God united. creating two Christs and two Sons, designated by the two distinct titles 'first born' and 'only begotten' (... Kal Xc.lPU;OVTc.lV IlEV. - - . ex cruvEt;EV~ev 6 eEO~. SUo Se eTval XPlOTOV~
Kal SUo Yiov~ OlOlleVc.lv. __ . ).180 Cyril explained to his congregation of
churches. however, that a virtual myriad of titles referred to the very same Son. the Son who was the image and impress of his Father's hypostasis (cnraVyaolla yap eaTl Kal
xapaKTTip Tii!> \moaTaOEc.l~ airToii).I8I These fallacious beliefs ofa few heterodox (though unnamed) Christians were tacitly implicated in the subsequent stream of bad fortune plaguing the country, for Cyril declared that it was an angry and punishing God who pennined the turmoil of recent times. It seems that in the year prior to this. Cyril's eighth Festal letter. the Egyptian
countryside was beset with a host of natural disasters. including hailstonns that wiped out crops just before harvest time, leading to inevitable famine - especially amongst the peasantry. Banditry and ambush ensued. probably as the remaining crops were gathered and transported along the canals and river. I82 In this Festal letter, explicating the unity
179 Epistula paschalis VIII. SQlr 392, p. 100. EtS SE e~ eXll
Epistula paschalis VIII. Ehr 392. p. 100.
181
Epistula paschalis Vln, Sehr 392, p. 104.
182
Lettres Festales. SQlr 392,. Introduction, p. 58; Epistula paschalis VIII. ibid.• p. 86.
102
and divinity of Christ at a time when banditry and famine ravaged the country, Cyril meant to forge a striking connection between the heretical, dualist christology, and the subsequent chastisement of an angry God 183 That Cyril's opposition to this unnamed, dualist christology should find its earliest public expression in such a tumultuous context likely served his later confrontation with the Antiochene dualism ofNestorius, for the congregation of Egyptian churches may, indeed, have remembered the plague of bad fortune that ensued when the so-called heretics espoused their dual conception of Christ. This provocative juxtaposition continued almost eight years later when Cyril, in his CommentaIy 2IllQ!m, conflated his professed anti-Arian agenda along with his attack on an apparently unnamed but decidedly dualist exegetical practice - a juxtaposition that neatly foreshadowed the dispute that lay ahead.
v.
CyriI's confrontation with Nestorius would take place on many fronts, including
the interpretive presuppositions inherent in their exegetical differences. In
fac~
it was
Cyril's understanding of proper hermeneutic method, developed, to some extent, alongside his professed confrontation with the Arian heresy. that conspired, along with his political agenda, to secure his ultimate victory in the Nestorian affair. This confrontation with Arianism was one that ostensibly began with Cyril's Thesaurus, a treatise that borrowed extensively from the Contra Arianos of Athanasius. Early in his episcopacy, Cyril had established his relationship to Athanasius, most notably in Cyril's first Festal letter, with its distinct allusions to the ecclesiastical policies of his predecessor. A discourse forged by Cyril's wholesale appropriation of Athanasius' anti-
183 Epistula paschalis VIn. Sdx 392, p. 88. 'AKOAov6EI yap ToTs nATn.l~EAoiialv EKTonc.JS. TO Xpnval 5uca£c.JS KoAcil;ea6al. KaL TaTS nap' i)",lv cXnovolalS iaocrraTETv cXVtlytC11 -niv 5£lCT\v.
103 Arian polemic, Cyril's use of his predecessor's work amounted to something like an elaborate paraphrase. If originality was the literary quality cultivated and admired throughout the period of romanticism, when individual expression reigned supreme, then mimesis was the mainstay of literary theory and rhetorical instruction for antiquity. 184 In fact, Longinus declared that zealous imitation of the great writers and poets of the past ultimately led the author down one possible road toward sublimity of style «ti> Tc:lv
That Cyril's liberal paraphrase of Athanasius constituted literary mimesis in the rarefied sense envisioned by Longinus remains doubtful, for Longinus had in mind something more akin to literary inspiration than to pervasive repetition (oiiTCa)~ CITTO Tils Tc:lV apxalGlV lleyaAocpv(as EiS TclS TClv ~TlAOUvTCa)V EICElVOV5 \VVXCxS ~5 CITTO iEPc:lv CITO~.tlGlV
CIlToPPola( TlVES cpepoVTal •... ).1 86 What Cyril's anti-Arian discourse
may have lacked in sublimity ofliterary style, however, it certainly gained in practical effectiveness. More than mere literary borrowing, CyriI's appropriation of Athanasius' anti-Arian discourse constituted nothing less than historical recapitulation, in which eyril incorporated Athanasius' reputation as the anti-Arian bishop par excellence, a reputation
184 See, for example, Quintilian, Inst. QW. X.2, J. Cousin, ed., Institution Oratoire, (Paris, 1979), p. 106-114. On imitation as a form offlattery, Quintilian writes: Atque omnis vitae ratio sic constat, ut, quae probamus in aliis, facere ipsi velimus. lllliI., p. 107. Nevertheless, Quintilian urged the orator to improve upon his model and to avoid mere copymg.
Longinus, Libellus ~ Sublimitate, 13.2, D. A. Russell, ed., (Oxford, 1968), p. 19, lines 12-13, cited by F. Young, Biblical Exe&eSis, p. 101. 185
186
Longinus, Libellus d!: Sublimitate. 13.2, D. A. Russell, ed., p. 19, lines 17-19.
104
that would serve him well in his ensuing confrontation with Nestorius. 187 It was not only this recapitulation of a great anti-Arian rhetor that helped Cyril in his dispute with the bishop of Constantinople. 188 Cyril's patient consolidation of power throughout Egypt. painstakingly acquired through the early years of his episcopacy also furthered his cause in this ultimate confrontation with the imperial court and religion. Imperial authority had early on posed a problem for Cyril, whose confrontation with the augustal prefect Orestes, the imperial representative in Egypt, seemed to threaten Cyril's power base in Alexandria. In fact, a group of elite Christians apparently supported the prefect in his dispute with their bishop, and without the support of this elite segment of the Christian populace, eyril undoubtedly felt his authority ominously threatened. The ensuing imperial legislation evidently confirmed Cyril's suspicions, for the new legislation placed greater authority with the augustal prefect, who was now charged with filtering complaints through the proper official channels. Cyril's larger plan for ecclesiastical unity prevailed, nevertheless, a plan made explicit in his first Festal letter, in which he called for an end to division amongst the sundry churches. Even more than his ecclesiastical political plans, it was Cyril's anti187 In a certain sense, Cyril's appropriation of Athanasius' reputation evinced a kind of sublimity of style, for Cyril borrowed Athanasius' good character when he reproduced his literary text See, for example, Longinus, Libellus ~ Sublimitate. 13.4, D. A. Russell, ed., p. 19, lines 26-27. eOTtv 5' OV KAOm; TO TTpa~a. aU' Q!; cITro KaAc;,v Tiec;,v TTAaOllcITc.Jv 51111l0VPYTlllcITc.JV c:nronmc.Jal~.
n
n
Athanasius established for later generations the historical understanding of Arius,just as Cyril established the historical contours for understanding Nestorius. On Athanasius and his quest to reevaIuate Alexandrian Christian self-definitio~ see Ch. Kannengiesser, S. J., '"Athanasius of Alexandria vs. Arius: The Alexandrian Crisis," in ~ Roots of Egyptian Christianity. (Philadelphia, 1992), B. A. Pearson and J. E. Goehring. eds., p. 204-215. 188
105
Pagan, anti-heretic, and anti-Jewish polemic, that helped Cyril forge this unified and distinctly Alexandrian vision of Christianity, one that placed great emphasis on the simple kerygmatic formulations of the churc~ and elevated Christian practice, such as fasting, to a lofty level in the soteriological scheme. In other words, through this polemic Cyril demonstrated to his congregation of churches the disastrous consequences that awaited any Christians who strayed from his simple kerygmatic decrees: they would surely meet the same abysmal fate as the Pagans, Jews and Arians, whose impious beliefs precluded their participation in Cyril's soteriological scheme. Moreover, Cyril's observations at the side of his uncle Theophilus undoubtedly helped shape his understanding of the hierarchical paradigm of imperial politics. an understanding that would prove most effective in his later dispute with Nestorius. Indeed, Cyril's political alliances will be explored in more detail in the following chapter. It was mainly the polemic of these early years, however, that helped Cyril forge his particular vision of Alexandrian Christianity, one greatly influenced by his predecessor Athanasius - and one that he would ultimately impose, with much success, on the church of the Imperial City.
106
Chapter Two: Political Alliance and the Onset of Controversy
When the council of Ephesus met on June 21, 431 AD, Cyril and Nestorius stood in markedly different positions with respect to the imperial
co~
the monks of
Constantinople, and the papal authority in Rome. Though the emperor Theodosius II favored Nestorius, the Western bishops in Rome preferred Cyril, and bands of rogue monks presented Cyril with ample support in the form of physical violence. These political alliances raise a number of questions concerning the nature of power relations within the ecclesiastical politics of the Byzantine East. How did this web of political alliance come to fruition? And what paradigm appropriately explains the shifting relations of power evident in the ecclesiastical and political intrigues of the early Byzantine state? The following chapter addresses such questions, attentive to both the immediate ecclesiastical political context, and to the political and theorcticallegacy inherited from the past. Cyril's early years as bishop of Alexandria had been fraught with ecclesiastical and political confrontation. including the tumultuous battle for his election as bishop, the ensuing controversy with the augustal prefect Orestes, and alleged disputes with Jews, Arians and the Pagan Neo-Platonist Hypatia. For more than fifteen years, Cyril gradually honed his political skills, acquiring a stable power base throughout Egypt that likely included the various monastic communities. Throughout the onset of controversy beginning in 428 AD, Cyril acquired powerful allies, including the monks of the Imperial City and the papal authority in Rome, alliances which helped ensure that Cyril's theological vision would eventually emerge victorious. This chapter discusses the myriad political alliances formed by Cyril and Nestorius with the power groups central to the
107 ecclesiastical dispute, including the monks of Constantinople and beyoncL the emperor Theodosius 11, and the Westem bishops under the direction of Pope Caelestine in Rome. An analysis of the complex political alliances formed throughout this crucial period reveals how the political strategies of Cyril and Nestorius, alongside basic presuppositions of Byzantine culture, persuaded the monks, emperor and Pope toward either side of the Nestorian dispute.
I. In the early years of his episcopacy, Cyril forged a relationship with the monks of
Egypt that drew more inspiration from Athanasius' productive episcopal-monastic alliance than from the divisive confrontations with the monastic community stirred by his uncle Theophilus' allegedly vindictive campaigns.. In fact, monks were a powerful force in the economic life of Egypt, for even the solitary monks, though credited with eschewing any interaction with the oikoumene, actively participated in the vicissitudes of the marketplace, openly peddling their wares. At the same time, the more discretely organized Pachomian communities engaged in a sophisticated and highly developed network of economic exchange. 2 Especially renowned for their ascetic rigor and spiritual prowess, the monks of Egypt were often called upon to perform intercessory prayers for laity and clergy alike. Indeed, Cyril believed that the monks, as the spiritual elites of the Christian community, would surely enjoy ample heavenly recompense for their efforts. D. Brakke, Athanasius imd Asceticism, p. 272, and E. Clark, The Origenist Controversy, p. 43-49. On the alliance between the monks of Egypt and their Patriarch see G. J. M. Bartelink, "Les Rapports entre le Monachisme Egyptien et I' 'Episcopate d' Alexandrie (jusqu' en 450)," in Melanges Mondesert (Paris, 1987), p. 365-379. 1 See
Wipszycka, "The Economic Organization of the Pachomian Community: Critique of the Evidence of Jerome," unpublished paper.
2 E.
108 Or so he claimed in his first Festal letter, delivered in 414 AD, in which Cyril extolled the virtues of fasting - just as his predecessor Athanasius had done before in his first address to the Egyptian congregations. 3 Their lofty spiritual virtues were somewhat impugned, however, in the tumultuous incident surrounding the augustal prefect Orestes, for it was a Nitrian monk, Ammonius, whose unbridled support for his patriarch Cyril culminated in an act of violence aimed at the augustal prefect- 4 Filled with hatred toward the prefect Orestes for his apparent conflict with Cyril, Ammonius allegedly threw a stone at Orestes, drawing blood - along with the ardent protests from local Alexandrian Christians. Seized by the angered crowd, Ammonius was ultimately executed for his deed. Cyrirs response to this act of violence provides ample evidence of his decidedly favorable intentions toward the monastic community, for Cyril attempted to elevate this slain monk to full martyrdom status - a proposition that failed only when the Alexandrian Christians refused to acknowledge the gesture. Just as Cyril gradually formed this powerful alliance with the Egyptian monastic community. an alliance whose implications likely extended well into both the economic and spiritual spheres, a number of Nestorius' sermons were apparently brought into Egypt (428 AD), possibly by Cyrirs detractors. 5 This, of course, stirred much contention within the monasteries proper. Cyril immediately responded to the crisis by 3 Athanasius Alex., Epistula 1. (CPG 2102), PG 26, 1360-1366. 4
For a full discussion, see Chapter 1, §II.
Epistula Cyrilli A1ex. ad Caelestinum W Posidonium (a. 430 mediante). (CPG 5310) ACO I, I, 5, p. 11, lines 15-23. Cyril complained to the Pope that some of Nestorius' homilies had been brought into Egypt, causing confusion amongst the simpler monks, who were now unsure what the correct faith was. In response to the confusion, Cyril composed his letter to the monks of Egypt, which, according to Cyril, had eventually made its way into Constantinople. 5
109
composing an encyclical letter to the monks ofEgy~ a letter that apparently circulated not only to the leaders of the monastic communities, but to many deacons and priests as well. Written to quell the onslaught oftheologica1 dispute within the monasteries, Cyril's letter attempted to restore the 'correct' tmderstanding of the fundamental doctrinal beliefs necessary to affirm the mystery of the divine oikonomia. Indeed, the letter to the monks reveals much about Cyril's broader strategy with respect to the monastic communities of Egypt. a strategy worth rehearsing in some detail, for monastic support was destined to play an important role in the events at Ephesus. Cyril directly confronted the contentious quarrels besetting his monasteries in order to prevent heretical discord and division within monastic ranks, divisions that had produced much difficulty for his uncle Theophilus throughout the Origenist affair. Stating the theological dispute in its starkest terms, Cyril boldly informed his monks that if Mary is not Theotokos, as Nestorius' heretical sermons erroneously claimed, then Christ is not God - an assertion with undeniably disastrous soteriologicaJ consequences. It seems that the monks were suddenly quarreling over the appropriate designation for the
Virgin Mary. for many found the epithet Theotokos deeply problematic. Even more threatening to Cyril's soteriological scheme, some monks apparently believed that Christ was merely an instrument of the deity but not a deity himself, which plainly implied that Jesus was not God. 6 [t is something of a commonplace that Alexandrian Christianity after Athanasius developed along distinctly soteriologicallines. 7 Cyril believed that his Epistula Cyrilli Aleyndrini .t monachos. (~ 5301) ACa I, I, I, p. 11, lines 27-29. See generally, J. S. Liebaert., "L 'Evolution de la Christologie de Saint Cyrille d' Alexandrie a partir de la controverse Nestorienne," MSR 27 (1970), p. 27-48.
6
7
N. H. Baynes, "Alexandria and Constantinople," p. 148
llO quarreling monks. when they allegedly impugned the divinity of Christ, wreaked havoc with this simple soteriological scheme. With the divinity of Christ at stake. therefore. Cyril employed every conceivable means of persuasion in order to restore proper worship and unity amongst his fractious monasteries. Alongside his uncle Theophilus. Cyril undoubtedly learned that intellectual monks caused potentially grievous difficulties for the Alexandrian episcopacy. Socrates himself characterized Theophilus' dispute with the Tall Brothers in terms of a dichotomous distinction between learned and simple monks. Socrates plainly associated simplicity with ecclesiastical unity and correct understanding. and overt intellectualism with doctrinal confusion and theological dispute. Sozomen, in contrast, readily disparaged the anti-intellectual. contentious monks in his account of the Origenist affair. Jettisoning rational and orderly argumentation in favor of disparaging insults. the monks. claimed Sozomen, preferred to cast the theological complexities of the Origenist debate into starkly simplified slogans. 8 Though Sozomen implicitly criticized the monks' abandonment of reasoned debate, Cyril raised this devaluation of formal theological dispute into something ofa virtue. 9 In the process, Cyril aimed to convince his fractious monks that simple faith and understanding would suffice to extricate them from the quagmire of theological erudition presented in Nestorius' heretical sermons, and to restore
8 Sozomen. HE, VIII. 12, ~ N. F. 4, p. 366, lines 8-12. Kal TCxS SlaAE;ElS oUK EV K6oll~ npos eaVTovs nOloVIlEVOllTEleElV aAAnAOVS oUK n;lOVV. aAA' Eis ~PElS Ka6(OTOVTO. Ibid., lines 9-11. R. Lim, Public Disputation. Power. ~ Social Order in ~ AntiQuity. (Berkeley. 1995), p. 33. Lim connects ..the attested growth of philosophical traditionalism in late antiquity to the devaluation of dialectical disputation as a technique of social competition.., 9
III unity and correct understanding to the monasteries. I 0 A theological dispute well beyond the simplistic understanding of his monks. the intricacies of the Theotokos debate. claimed Cyril. must ultimately elude monastic comprehension. By this method of argumentatio~
therefore. Cyril virtually ensured that the erudite distinctions of the
Nestorian controversy would finally remain beyond their grasp. It was a strategy with respect to the monks that relied, in part, on concepts
already elucidated in his Festal letters. where simplicity of doctrine was celebrated as a virtue. In refutation of Arian misinterpretatio~ Cyril explained in his letter for the year 424 AD that basic creedal formulations of the church provided a stable theological foundation for correct belief and dogma. and offered a sufficient bulwark against heretical wanderings. Drawing on this prior experience with Arian disputatio~ Cyril asserted to the monks of Egypt that simple and vinuous faith, along with a proper understanding of the divine mystery. all conspired to produce the perfect and orthodox belief system necessary to refute the complex theological propositions infiltrating the monastic communities. In fact. eyril believed that any monks who engaged in such rarefied theological discussion openly violated the very soteriological precepts upon which Cyril strove to build his unified Christian community. That soteriological foundation demanded belief in basic creedal formulations. which unambiguously affirmed several tenets necessary for ordinary Christians to achieve salvatio~ including the most basic affirmation of mainstream Alexandrian Christian piety. the belief that Christ is God Cyril feared that the quarrelsome monks threatened this most basic tenet of Christian 10 Epistula Cyrilli Alexandrini ~ monachos. (CPG 5301) ACa I. I. I. p. 11. lines 15-18. Kat Tjv IlEv clllElVOV TQV TOlOUTc.lV liIlCis i;11TTJllclTc.lV Eis ClTTaV anocpolTCiv Kal Cl ~6AlS EaTlv c:"S EV Eo61TTPctl Kal aiVlYllaTl 6Ec.lpOVIlEVa TOtS apTlOlS ";V cppeva Kat ~e~l1K60l TOV VOW. 11115£ avopVTTElv OAc.l~ (Ta yap TOl TClv 6Ec.lPTlllclTc.lV iaxvoTEpa TOV TClv cJKEpalOTepc.lV VTrEpvT)XETal VOW)-
112 piety when they participated in the erudite theological discussions raised by the onslaught ofNestorius' insidious sennons. Not new to Cyril, devaluation of conventional disputation finds its roots, according to one modem scholar, in the evolution of the philosopher-teacher into an eminent authority figure. By post-classical times "truth resided not in the dialectic of inquiry but in the very person of the philosopher ... [and) dialectic was robbed of its ultimate legitimacy as a method for arriving at truth.. ultimately paving the way for Christianity's claim as the one "true philosophy." I 1 Cyril's bold criticism of his fractious, quarrelsome monks suggests that the process of dialectical debate and disputation no longer constituted the production of truth for late antique Christians, that Christian truth necessarily resided elsewhere, namely in the received traditions of the fathers. When the monastic communities of Egypt complained that the appellation Theotokos appeared in neither the sacred scriptures nor the council of Nicea. Cyril explained to the monks that the anti-Arian church father par excellence. Athanasius. had readily used the term. In the process, Cyril assured the monks that the epithet was well within the traditions of the orthodox fathers. It seems that many of the monks. confused by several Nestorian sennons circulating throughout the monastic communities, claimed that the Virgin Mary should not receive the title Mother of God. Theotokos.1 2 Monastic piety, after all. was traditionally based on sacred scripture and the Symbol of Faith promulgated at Nicea. yet the designation Theotokos belonged to neither repository of monastic faith. Avoiding much of the rarefied christological discussion that would receive ample attention in the ensuing 11
R. Lim. Public Disputation. Power. m4 Social ~ in ~ AntiQuity. p. 33.
12 Epistula Cyrilli 110-112.
~.
Id apocrisiarios ~ constitutos. ~ 5309) ACa. I. I, I. p.
113
controversy with Nestorius, Cyril explained to his 'simple' monks that if Christ is God, then Mary must receive the appropriate correlative designation, Mother of God. 13 When Cyril removed the monastic controversy from the process of dialectical debate and disputation, he necessarily replaced that process with a different set of truth claims. Inextricably linked with the traditions of the fathers, Cyril's brand of monastic piety depended upon a close allegiance with his predecessor Athanasius. Cyril reassured his monks, therefore, that Athanasius, in his treatise against the Arians, used the very term Theotokos as an appropriate and meaningful designation for the Virgin Mary .14 Eager to appropriate the anti-Arian reputation of his predecessor on the episcopal throne, Cyril explained that Athanasius, who was present at Nicea, would never have used a term contrary to the sacred texts. When Cyril aligned himself with Athanasius, therefore, he not only resolved a potentially divisive theological issue, but boldly appropriated Athanasius' strong alliance with the monastic community, along with his reputation for unparalleled orthodoxy acquired in his celebrated fight against the Arian heretics. In the process, Athanasius was transformed from a combatant against Arianism into an eminent authority figure firmly ensconced within the orthodox tradition of the fathers. Simple monastic piety, divorced from the process of theological dispute, nonetheless, clearly demanded an additional response, one that could adequately explain the absence of the designation Theotokos from the sacred texts and from the proceedings at Nicea. Cyril believed that the title Theotokos for Mary, though absent from scripture and from Nicea, remained theologically justified because the title conformed to the overall 13
Epistula Cyrilli Alexandrini ~ monachos. ~5301) ACO I. I. I, p. 11, lines 28-29. in..l~v "naofls XplCTOs. lTc:,S ov 6eoToKos it TEKoiiaa
el yap eCTl 6eos 6 tcUPlOS nap6evos: 14
Epistula Cyrilli Alexandrini
~
monachos. ~ I, I, I, p. 11, line 31 - p. 12. line 20.
114
sense of the divine economy. In other words, to designate Mary Theotokos preserved intact the narrative framework that comprised Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection. In particular, Cyril explained that sacred scripture and the Symbol of Faith both unequivocally decreed that Jesus born ofMary is God by nature, for Nicean orthodoxy held that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and the scriptures revealed a Son equal in glory and power to God. IS From these scriptural and Nicean truths, Cyril reasoned that the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, must have borne one who is truly God by nature. To deny Mary her rightful appellation wrongfully impugned the divinity of Christ~
violated the sacred narrative that constituted Christ's incarnation, death, and
redemption; and threatened the soteriological foundations on which humanity's redemption depends. Cyri} claimed that it was only the unbelieving heretics (i.e., the Arians) who imagined a Son similar in nature to the creatures. A proposition well rehearsed in the days of Athanasius and his battles against Arianism, this assertion would find little opposition from the pro-Nicean monastic communities ofCyril's time. In fact, much ofCyrirs argumentative strategy relied on this carefully wrought correlation between the present Theotokos disputes threatening the monasteries, and the past battles waged against Arians. Just as Athanasius called upon the monastic communities of his day, including the solitary monk Antony, to safeguard the tenets ofNicean orthodoxy, Cyril commanded the present monks of Egypt to preserve these basic truths contained in the Nicean Symbol of Faith. 16 While Cyril urged the Egyptian monastic communities to reaffirm the divinity of Christ, he addressed a related theological conundrum, one that would soon occupy Cyril 15 Epistula Cyrilli Alexandrini id monachos. A..CQ I, I, I, p. 13, lines 23 - 27. 16
See Chapter 3. See also J. McGuckin, Sl-
~2fAlexandria,
p. 248, n. 2.
115 and Nestorius in their exchange ofletters. namely the problematic assertion that the Virgin
Mary herself bore one who was fully God. Cyril explained this paradoxical notion with a simple analogy: though earthly mothers produce the physical bodies of their children. and God provides the spirit. these mothers are said. nevertheless. to bear the whole living being. consisting of body and soul. In a similar fashion. when Christ became flesh. he too was born of a woman in a fleshly manner, though no one would claim that Mary was only
mother of the flesh. for she produced a composite being "formed of two dissimilar things. but, nevertheless. creating one man. so that each part remains what it is. combining together into a natural union and mingling the constituent parts which are proper to each."17 Designed to explain the theological necessity of the appellation Theotokos for the Virgin. this analogy also calmly introduced the more recondite theological conceptions embodied in Cyril's confrontation with Antiochene dual nature christology. In other words. Cyril carefully informed the monks that the Word, born of God, and the flesh born wholly of the Virgin Mary, came together in perfect and complete unity, not unlike the body and soul made composite in ordinary humans. 18 Indeed. Cyril believed that the Virgin Mar), received the epithet Theotokos in order to designate this ineffable unity: for if Christ is truly God by nature, and not merely a man like Moses or an instrument of the Godhead, then the Virgin is surely Theotokos, the bearer of God. Those- who followed the contrary and heretical views espoused by Nestorius' sermons put themselves in grave danger. for the soteriological implications were clear: Christ suffered and died as a man. 17 Epistula Cyrilli Alexandrini ~ monachos. ACa I. I, I, p. 15, lines 30-33. TETOKE yap. t:.ls Eq>TlV. OVVTEeEllJEVOV eUTE)(Vc:,S e~ aVOIJOlc.lV TO ~c";lov Kat eK SVOlV IJEV. lTAnv aVep~TTOV Eva. IJEVOVTOS IJEV EKaTEpov TOOO' OTTE€> ea-dv. avvSeSpOlJllKOTc.lV SE (.)01TEP Eis EvoTTJTa q>vaucnv Kat OlOV aVaKlPVaVTc.lV aAAnAOlV OTTEP av t:.ls ffilOV EKOTEpCtllTPoaij·
18 Epistula Cyrilli Alexandrini id monachos. ACa I. I. I. p. 18. lines 4-16.
116
but conquered death as God, and this perfect commingling of God and man ultimately enabled humanity's complete salvation. 19 Cyril believed that to deny Christ's true divinity, a blasphemy implied by those who rejected the title Theotokcs for the Virgin. was to annihilate the very identification between God and man necessary for humans to achieve salvation. The monks of Egypt wished to receive the unequivocal certainty of guaranteed salvatio~ and that required the incarnation of a complete Godhead. one whose humanity and full divinity formed a proper commingling in the person of Christ. Cyril's theological teachings clearly reached the monastic communities of Egypt. who evidently accepted Cyril's arguments virtually wholesale. Convinced that Nestorius denigrated the divinity of Christ. the Coptic monk Shenute accused Nestorius of teaching that Jesus was simply an ordinary man like Moses -- which rendered Nestorius no better than a reprobate heretic. 20 Besa' s Vita of Shenute records one tradition in which Shenute. while allegedly attending the council ofEphesus, confronted an arrogant Nestorius. When Nestorius chastised Shenute. a
19
Epistula Cyrilli Alexandrini Id monachos. ACO I, J, I, p. 22. lines 19-22.
20
J. Leipoldt. Schenute von Atripe, i l l N. F. 10 (Leipzig, 1903), p. 88.
Generally speaking, Coptic Christianity embraced worship of the Virgin Mary. One would expect. therefore, that the Coptic monk Shenute might condemn Nestorius for denigrating the dignity of the Virgin Mary by refusing her the rightful designation <Mother of God. '
21
117 himself endure suffering in the flesh, could not secure salvation for humanity. 22 Cyril apparently maintained cordial relations with the monks of Constantinople as well. In September/October 430 AD, Cyril composed a briefletter to inform the monks that their archbishop Nestorius had been recently condemned by a synod held in Rome. IfNestorius wished to remain bishop, explained Cyril, then he must repent and readily confess the faith of the catholic church. In no way a threat against the monks of the Imperial City, this letter subtly elicited the help of the monastic community to return their wayward bishop to correct belief and practice. Though Cyril carefully avoided any overt call to action. he generally praised the monks for their good conduct towards Christ. admiring their ·zeal for piety that [they] made manifest for Christ. who was blasphemed in the church of the orthodox.' In fact. the canons promulgated by the council of Constantinople in 381 AD specifically prohibited the bishop of Alexandria from participating in the ecclesiastical politics of the Imperial City, and Theophilus' flagrant disregard for this conciliar pronouncement twenty-five years earlier must have rendered Cyrirs overtures toward the monks immediately suspect. Designed no doubt to secure assistance from the monks of Constantinople, Cyril's letter marked the beginning of an ecclesiastical political alliance that would later gain momentum as the events at Ephesus unfolded. This was not the first time that an Alexandrian patriarch challenged the authority of the archbishop of Constantinople. Fifty years earlier, Maximus the Cynic, aided by Peter bishop of Alexandria. had apparently attempted to remove Gregory of Nazianzus from the episcopal throne. With the help of several sailors dispatched from Alexandria. 22 Besa. Yim Sinuthii, 129, J. Leipoldt, W. Crum, eds., Sinuthii Archimandritae Yim ~ Opera Omnia. CSCQ 41 (Copt. 1) (Leipzig, 1906), p. 58.
118
who roused the local populace to action, Maximus stonned the church one night in order to receive ordination. As Gregory explained to bishop Theodore ofTyana, several monks and mendicants entered the chapel and cast stones at their new bishop, disrupting the altar and denigrating the mysteries, - an incident that did not receive final resolution until the council of Constantinople in 381 AD.23 It was in direct response to these events that the council promulgated canon two, which decreed that all bishops must remain within the boundaries of their diocese, and avoid the ecclesiastical politics beyond their jurisdiction. Bishop Peter's role in the political intrigues of Constantinople was deemed so reprehensible by the council that his bishopric was singled out for special legislation: canon two declared that the bishop of Alexandria may administer only the affairs of Egypt, while canon four rendered Maximus the Cynic's ordination - orchestrated by bishop Peter - utterly void. That canonical pronouncement, however, clearly did not prevent Theophilus from participating in the ecclesiastical politics of the Imperial City more than twenty years later, a complex web of political intrigue which eventually culminated in bishop John Chrysostom's condemnation by two ecclesiastical synods. 24 In fact, Theophilus' expedient political alliance with the local monastic establishment proved instrumen~1 in John's demise. Isaac the monk, a long time foe of bishop John.
Gregory ofNazianzus, Oratioxxxiv(CPG 3010) In Aegyptorum adventum. PG 36, 241-256. Concilium Oecurnenicum Constantinopolitanum I (a 381). (CPG 8600) Canones iv, P. P. Joannou, Fonti L I, p. 45-48. See canon iv in which Maximus the Cynic was declared never to have been a bishop. In addition, all his ordinations were deemed invalid. See also G. Dagron, ··Les Moines et la ViIle: Le monachisme a Constantinople j usqu' au concile de Chalcedoine (451)" in Travaux ~ Memoires (paris, 1970), p. 262. 23
24 Chrysostom was condemned at the Synod of the Oak in 403, and the Synod of Constantinople in 404. See Chapter 1.
119
apparently deplored John's forthright criticism of the urban monks.25 An enmity shared by bishop lbeophilus, Isaac's disdain for his archbishop rendered a political alliance between the two virtually a foregone conclusion. 26 Charged with summoning John the third and last time to appear before the Synod of the Oak in 403 AD, Isaac the monk became one of John's most virulent accusers. 27 A history of ecclesiastical political alliance between the Alexandrian patriarch and the monks of Constantinople, therefore, proceeded the conciliar events at Ephesus. Indeed, it was an alliance invariably forged by a mutual enmity toward the patriarch of the Imperial City. When Nestorius unwittingly entered this complex political scenario in 428 AD, newly installed as bishop of Constantinople, he immediately set in motion a series of events that would find no firm resolution until the council ofChalcedon settled the matter in 451 AD. An outsider from Antioch, Nestorius had little knowledge of the multifarious web of political alliances formed throughout the city. It was for that very reason that the emperor Theodosius 11 rejected all potential candidates within the city of Constantinople in favor of this Antiochene 'import' (ElTTlAVS).28 Nestorius reports in his Liber Heraclidis (an apology written during Nestorius' long period in exile) that Theodosius H, beset with dissenting parties and factions amongst the clergy, bishops and monks, finally received authority from all relevant parties to select an appropriate candidate. Eager to maintain their solitary ascetic practice, Dalmatius and other prominent monks from the 25 Sozomen,llli. VTTl.9,OCS N. F. 4, p. 362, lines 7-12. 26
Sozomen, HE, VIII. 19, GCS N. F. 4, p. 375, lines 3-4.
27 G. Dagron, "Les Moines et la Ville" in Travaux ~ Memoires, p. 264 28
Socrates, HE, VII.29, ~ N. F. 1, p. 377, lines 10-16.
120 environs of Constantinople had vehemently refused the office. yielding all authority in the matter to the emperor Theodosius himsel(29 It was presumably with these monks' implicit consent. therefore. that Nestorius assumed the office of bishop in April. 428 AD. Soon after Nestorius took office~
however~
he found himself in the very midst of a
controversy whose implications Nestorius could have never foreseen. It seems that quarreling factions had developed within the Imperial City, for some persons ciaimed that the Virgin Mary should receive the title Mother of G~ and others. the Mother of Man. As each party hurled abusive epithets at the other~ epithets such as
Manich~
and
Photinian respectively, Nestorius received the dissenting factions at the bishop's palace, where he proceeded to evaluate the heretical implications of their claims. Once he detennined that the contending parties did not employ these various titles for Mary in a heretical sense, Nestorius claimed that he urged the parties toward a hasty reconciliation. 30 As he explained in his letter to John of Antioch. Nestorius proposed the term Mother of Christ (christi eam vocavimus genitricem) as a reasonable compromise, one whose designation would include reference to both God and man, yet clearly avoid the heresies implicit in the parties' quarrelsome terms. 31 Who were these men whom Nestorius deemed ·in need of being taught?' 32 Nestorius' Bazaar leaves their identity a 29 Nestorius, ~ Heraclidis (syriace) (CPG 5751); Le ~d'Heraclide ~ Damas. ed. P. Bedjan (Paris, Leipzig 1910); Le Livre d'Hglide ~ Damas, F. Na~ transl., (Paris, 1910), p. 243-244. See generally G. Bebis, "The Apology ofNestorius: A New Evaluation." Studia Patristica 11 (1972). p. 107-112. 30 Nestorius, !Jl2g Heraclidis. Le Livre d~Heraclide. p. 91-92. 31 Epistula Nestorii ad Iohannem antiochenum. (CPG 5671) F. Loofs, Nestoriana (Halle, 1905), p. 1~5, lines 1-16. 32 Nestorius, Liber Heraclidis. Le ~ d'Heraclide. p. 91.
121
mystery, though his letter to John of Antioch affords a glimmer of recognition: the quarreling parties were "certain persons in opposition to each other" (aliquos hic adversum semet ipsos eorum) perhaps those whom Nestorius had earlier identified amongst the dissenting factions at the time of his appointment by Theodosius 11. That the dissenting factions included persons from the monastic establishment r~mains a distinct, if ultimately unverifiable, possibility. Though Nestorius in his Bazaar and letter to John of Antioch presents himself as the conciliatory bishop striving to resolve factional disputes within the Imperial City, Nestorius' very first public address betrayed a more contentious ecclesiastical plan, namely his unequivocal intent to rid the Imperial City from any taint of heresy. Addressing the emperor Theodosius 11, Nestorius proclaimed, "Give me., emperor, the earth cleansed of heretics, and I will give you heaven in return. Assist me in destroying heretics, and I will assist you in conquering the Persians. "33 The necessary foundation for a strong empire, a unified and orthodox church implied an empire favored by God, one capable of defending its borders against enemy forces. [n fact. Nestorius envisioned nothing less than a spiritual alliance with the emperor, designed to free the Imperial City from heretics, and ultimately secure the borders throughout the empire from Persian attack. 34 Nestorius' plan, however, paid little attention to the existing ecclesiastical political conditions within Constantinople. Eager to set in motion his program for ecclesiastical unity, Nestorius proceeded to demolish an Arian chapel within the city, but soon acquired the disparaging epithet "incendiary' (1TVpKaia) when the tumultuous 33 Socrates, HE. VII.29, ~ N. F. 1. p. 377. lines 22-24. 50s ~Ol. cpnaiv. c':l(3aolAEii. Kaeapav "l'itv yiiv Tc;:,V aipeTlKc;:,v. Kay~ oOl TOV ovpavov aVTlSc:loc..>OV)'KaeeAe IJOl TOUS aipETlKoUS. Kay~ cruyKa6eAc;:, OOl TOUS nepaas_ 34
See generally Codex Theodosianus (May 30, 428) 16.5.65.
122 Arians decided to bum down the chapel out
of sheer desperation. 35
Nestorius also confronted Novatians, Quartodecimans, and Macedonians, especially after the Macedonians assassinated their orthodox bishop, Anthony of Germ~ in a desperate plea to bring to an end his unyielding persecution of their sect. After committing this grievous crime, the Macedonians were then subject to punishment at Nestorius' command, for he convinced the emperor to close the Macedonian churches within Constantinople and beyond. 36 This likely raised the ire of the monastic community against their bishop, for the Macedonians had a long history of alliance with the monks of Constantinople. Not merely a marginalized Christian sect, the Macedonians were apparently well ensconced within the city proper. It was Macedonius himself. in fact, who instigated a monastic political alliance in the 350's AD when he incorporated several orders of monks residing in the Imperial City in order to assist in his persecution of Paul, the bishop of Constantinople. A dissenter from the homoousian creed, Macedonius allegedly instituted a violent persecution that involved the assistance of several monasteries of Constantinople. 37 It seems that a certain Marathonius, ordained bishop ofNicomedia by Macedonius, had helped the Macedonian sect to infiltrate the monastic establishments, for he was known as a zealous guardian (OlTovBalOS ETTlTpOTTOS) of the poor from monasteries inhabited by both men and women. 38 When
Socrates, HE, VT1.29, GCS, N. F. I, p. 378, lines 1-16. Eunomians had existed peacefully in the city for years. See Chapter L
3S
36
Socrates, HE, VIL31, ~ N. F. I, p. 379, lines 9-24.
On Macdonius' monastic alliance see Sozomen, HE, IV.2, GCS, N. F. 4, p. 141, lines 2-6.
37
38
Sozomen, HE, IV.20, GCS, N. F. 4, p. 170, lines 3-6.
123 Nestorius harassed the Macedonian sect. therefore, and succeeded in closing their churches, he may well have incurred the wrath of several monastic establishments ensconced in the Imperial City. Even Nestorius himself admitted that his virulent campaign against heresy invoked the wrath of many. 39 The staunch anti-monastic policies of John Chrysostom, a fellow Antiochene, were also evident in Nestorius' early dealings with the monastic community. Critical of urban monks who insinuated themselves into local houses and loitered about the streets, Nestorius apparently excommunicated several monks early in his episcopacy.4o John Chrysostom had earlier instituted similar legislation, for he had openly criticized monks who left the quiet and solitude of their monastic dwellings for participation in city life. and, in the process, John fell into disrepute with clergy and monks alike. In retaliation. many of John's detractors charged that he ate only in private, refusing all invitations to meals. 41 Known as a harsh and arrogant man, John's ensuing problems with the monastic establishment would cause him grave difficulties in the anti-Origenist proceedings to come. That Nestorius followed John's precedent in this regard meant trouble for Nestorius as well. for several monks of Constantinople. including the archimandrite Basil.
Epistula Nestorii ~ Iohannem antiochenum. F. Loofs. NeSloriana. p. 183, lines 26-30. Omnem rem facilius contra me ab hominibus putabam moveri posse potius quam calumniam vel uti de pietate fidei recta non saperem, qui usque hactenus propter pugnam, quam contra universos haereticos habeo, multa miIlia hostilitatum contra me de lector insurgere. 39
40 Le Livre d'Heraclide sk Damas, F. Nau, transL, p. 363. Lettre, ~ ~ Constantinople Cos me d' Antioche, sur Jil deposition ~ ~ miracles sk Nestorius. Appendix I, p. 361366; Introduction, p. vi.
~
41
Sozomen, HE, VIII.9, ~ N. F. 4, p. 362, lines 7-20.
124 soon complained ofNestorius' harsh treatment toward the monasteries. 42 Furthermore, Nestorius' reputation for abuse and tyranny with respect to the monastic establishment may have incited the renowned monk Hypatius against him. The Vita of Hypatius, attributed to Hypatius' disciple Callinicos from the monastery of Rouphinianes, depicts Hypatius as an orthodox monk who correctly presaged Nestorius' short and tumultuous reign. As Nestorius first approached the Imperial City, Hypatius allegedly saw in a vision that the secular authorities would install Nestorius on the imperial throne. Hypatius soon learned from his interpretation of a prophetic voice, however, that Nestorius would reprehensibly divide the orthodox faith, a prophecy whose truth emerged little-by-little, as Nestorius proceeded to deliver divisive sermons filled with abominations against the divine Lordship of Chri st. 43 From the perspective of the monastic community, Nestorius' decidedly unorthodox views merited an unambiguous response, a response which Hypatius eagerly provided when he allegedly removed Nestorius' name from the diptychs. 44 It was during this time, in fact, that the diptychs gradually emerged as the touchstone of orthodoxy, rendering Hypatius' bold Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, (Graz, 1960), vol. IV, p. 1104.
42 J. D.
Callinicus, Vita ~ Hypatii (BHG 760) (CPG 6042), G. J. M. Bartelink, Callinicos. Vie d'Hypatios, SQlr 177 (Paris, 1971) p. 208, 210, 212.
43
44 Callinicus, Vita sancti Hypatii. p. 212. rVOVS SE 6 'YneXTlos OTllTap' 0 SEl E
125 display ripe with significance. especially before a Christian community ready to interpret such acts. 45 Cyril's correspondence with Atticus of Constantinople confirms that inclusion in the diptychs was a matter of some importance. for Cyril promised to reinstate John Chrysostom' s name amongst the diptychs of the dead in order to atone for the vindictive anti-Origenist campaign ofms uncle Theophilus. 46 When Hypatius removed Nestorius' name from the diptychs in the Church of the Apostles, therefore, the ecclesiastical political implications were clear: Hypatius, the orthodox monk par excellence, exhibited the requisite power and authority to pronounce judgment upon the patriarch of the Imperial City. Appointed by the emperor himself. Nestorius, nevertheless, received punishment and condemnation from the monk Hypatius when Nestorius impugned the divinity of the Lord. Hypatius' retributive actions were not without controversy, however. for the Yilil reports that Hypatius received threats of punishment from his bishop Eulalius. It seems that Nestorius, making ample use of his considerable power base within the city proper. urged the bishop to take disciplinary action against Hypatius. In fact, the Vita reports that bishop Eulalius dutifully intervened. demanding from his recalcitrant monk Nestorius' prompt reinstatement on the diptychs. As the supreme guardian of orthodoxy. however, Hypatius had other plans: when Hypatius utterly refused to comply with the demands of bishop Eulalios, his actions were finally vindicated upon Nestorius' deposition at the council-- and upon the public reading of that conciliar decree G. J. M. Bartelink, Callinicos. Vie d'Hypatios. SQlr 177 (paris, 1971) p. 213, n. 2, discussing E. Bishop. The Diptychs, Appendix Ill. in ~ ~ Studies, t. 8. 1 (Cambridge, 1909), p. 104.
45
Nicephoros Callistos Xanthopoulos, Hisloria Ecclesiastica., XIV. 26-27. ffi 146, 11371149.
46
126
before all the people and clergy. In the process, Hypatius' actions convincingly demonstrated that Nestorius' slanderous statements against the Lord rendered him unworthy of the office of bishop, and patently unfit for inclusion on the diptychs. Designed to illustrate the relative power and prestige of the monastic community centered in the monk Hypatius, this well-wrought tale reveals a plot filled with prophecies, visions and voices. Beneath the prophetic voices, however, stands the unadorned political agenda of the monastic establishment, ready to depict Hypatius as the orthodox monk Q.i[ exceUence. Indeed, the Vita reports that Hypatius successfully condemned a powerful heretical bishop, installed by imperial authorities and supported by ecclesiastical officials. A tale of prophetic visions, political alliance and intrigue, this Vita attributes the most effective exercise of ecclesiastical power to the monks themselves -- though the urban lay and secular officials wielded much of the authority. In the end, this hagiographic depiction reports that only the monk Hypatius ably predicted the demise of bishop Nestorius. Long after Nestorius' banishment from the Imperial City, Hypatius continued to safeguard the conciliar decrees ofEphesus. When several dignitaries, clergy and ascetics asked Hypatius whether Nestorius could resume his episcopal duties, Hypatius carefully explained that Nestorius' doctrine was nothing less than the harbinger of the anti-Christ, for there was only one power (~la divinity
(~la
6eoTTJS), and one kingdom (~la
~aOlAela)
SUva~llS),
one
of the Father. Son and Holy
Spirit. 47 While the Vita depicts the local notables in favor of Nestorius' return. the lowly monk Hypatius is portrayed as the undisputed guardian ofCyrillian orthodoxy who prevented any potential forays into Nestorius' dual nature doctrine. This was, indeed, a heresy of the bishops and urban elite, one that the monk Hypatius was allegedly charged 47
Callinicus, Vita sancti Hypatii. p. 232, 234.
127 with combating until its utter and complete demise.
H. As controversy stirred, Cyril attempted to form political alliances not only with the monastic communities, but with the imperial court in Constantinople as well. In fact, Cyril and Nestorius both eagerly sought to win the emperor's favor, though each party found himself in a distinctive position with respect to the imperial authority. More than twenty years earlier, Cyril's uncle Theophilus had wreaked havoc with the ecclesiastical politics of Constantinople when he orchestrated John Chrysostom's deposition and subsequent exile under the emperor Arcadius. Appointed by the emperor with the general consent of the clergy and laity, John had been recruited from Antioch to serve as bishop of the Imperial City. Several prelates were present, including bishop Theophilus, whose decided preference for Isidore, a presbyter from his own church in Alexandria, reflected the close political alliance formed between the two when the emperor Theodosius II prepared to attack the usurper Maxim us. 48 It seems that Theophilus had entrusted Isidore with gifts and letters sent to the emperor and the tyrant respectively, gifts and letters that Isidore brought to Rome in order to distribute to whichever side emerged from the war victorious. When the duplicitous plot was discovered, Isidore al1egedly fled to Alexandria, fearing his arrest by the victor, the emperor Theodosius. Sozomen and Socrates report that Theophilus, in gratitude for this display of loyalty, sought to appoint Isidore to the see of Constantinople, but eventually succumbed to the ordination of John, possibly under pressure from the eunuch Eutropius, who supposedly threatened to formally charge Theophilus with the many crimes alleged Socrates, HE. Vl.2, ~ N. F. 1, p. 312, line 14 - p. 313, line 11. Sozomen, HE. VII1.2, GCS. N. F. 4, p. 352, lines 8-27.
48
128
against him unless he consented to John's ordination. With the approval of the imperial court and the forced consent ofTheophilus, John was then appointed bishop of Constantinople. In the process, Theophilus had wrongfully meddled in the ecclesiastical politics of the Imperial City, actions that eventually produced a complex political situation for CyriL As the nephew and proteae of Theophilus, Cyril was likely present at John's subsequent deposition before the synod of the Oak, and so inherited Theophilus' negative legacy with respect to the imperial court and see. It was a comparison not lost on the Antiochene party at Ephesus, who
complained that Cyril indulged a personal grudge against Nestorius, just as his uncle Theophilus had vindictively attacked John Chrysostom. 49 And just as John was appointed by the emperor Arcadius, so was his fellow Antiochene Nestorius a personal choice of Arcadius' son, the emperor Theodosius U. Upon his ordination to the see of Constantinople, therefore, Nestorius received full support from Theodosius 11, who likely sought to avoid the horrific situation that occurred with respect to bishop John under his father"s reign. That together with Cyril's personal encounters with imperial officials early in his episcopacy, namely Cyril's controversy with the augustal prefect Orestes, meant that eyril, at the very start of controversy, likely found himself in a delicate situation with respect to the imperial authority. In attempting to forge a political alliance with the emperor Theodosius n, Cyril and Nestorius both encountered not only the shifting ecclesiastical political climate of Constantinople, but the complex legacy of Byzantine political thought as welL In particular, the Byzantines inherited two disparate notions of kingship, drawing elements from Roman imperialism and Greek Christian notions of monarchy. Exemplified by the 49
J. D. Mansi, Synodicon Adversus Truoediam Irenaei, vot. V, p. 758.
129 basileus of the Augustan age, whose imitation of the gods ushered in the W. rOmaJ1ib Roman imperial tradition envisioned an emperor with powers that extended throughout the inhabited world. 50 Christians interpreted Christ's birth during this golden age of Augustus in the most favorable of terms, for the rule of the empire by one single emperor allegedly paved the way for the heavenly rule by the single Christ. For example, Origen believed that a unified empire under the reign of Augustus produced the necessary geopolitical conditions to usher in Christ's reign, for it made possible the apostolic mission to gather converts throughout the sundry nations. 5 I Christian monarchical theory also found its roots in Pagan Neo-Platonism, and insisted on an emperor whose rule mirrored the divine reason of the universe. 52 This combination of Roman imperialism and Christian Neo-Platonism eventually found its ultimate expression by the fourth century in the Christian imperial theology of the emperor Constantine. 53 Even before his conversion to Christianity, Constantine harbored a distinct notion of his mission on earth, a mission that depended on the hand of providence. forged by his unflinching devotion to the sun god Apollo. The worldly reflection of a single deity, his monarchy was allegedly the supreme expression of religiosity and statehood combined in one: "By this sign, you will conquer" meant for Constantine that conversion to the Christian faith and veneration of its deity would so W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (Cambridge, 1972)., p. 5455.
Orim.
Origen., Contra Celsum 2.30 (CPG 1476) H. Borrel, Contre ~ t. I Livre I et 11. Introduction. ~critiQue. traduction ~~ SQlr 132 (Paris, 1967), p. 361. SI
52
W. H. C. Frend, The Rise 2fthe Monophysite Movement. p. 55.
53
W. H. C. Frend, IM Rise Qithe Monophysite Movement, p. 55.
130 virtually ensure his victory in the earthly realm. 54 Indee
emperor was endowed with a royal authority emanating from above, which rendered the emperor nothing less than the earthly reflection of the preexistent, only Begotten Wor
realms~
so did the emperor Constantine
vanquish the earthly and visible foes of the empire and Christian faith.56 A monarchical theory much indebted to Neo-Platonism, Eusebius' Oration constructed a notion of empire that rendered Constantine's earthly reign an ideal image of the heavenly kingdom. In particular, Eusebius envisioned an emperor guided by the ideal, Neo-Platonic forms, one who obediently governed his earthly rule according to the divine model, and in the process, "provide[d] an example of divine monarchic sovereignty:57 The mediator and preexistent Word which separated the created order from an elevatelhOS aVCr.)8ev Trap' aUToii Tois KaT' Ex8p~v KOO""OV\lEVOS TpOTralOlS TOUS E""cpavEiS Tiis ahneelas exepous vo""~ TrOhe""OV XElPOV\lEVOS OColcppovll;el. 57 Eusebius, De laudibus Constantini. f.Q. 20, 1329B. I. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke !.. p. 201, lines 19-21. KaTrElTa Tiis ovpavlov f3aolhelas eiKovl ICEICOO""n""EVOs. avCol ~AETTColV KaTcX TTiv apXE-nmov iSeav TOUs KaTCol SlaK\Jf3epvc;)v i8Vvel. ""ovapxov SVVaCTelas ""l""n""aTl ICpaTalov""evoS' See also ~ 20, 1324C. I. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke!.. p. 199, lines 1-3 . . ,. Tiis cXVColTeXTc.l f3aolhe(as niv eiKova q>epColv 6 T~ 8Ec";l
131 produced a kind ofNeo-Platonic hierarchy, one that emanated down from a deity, wholly other in substance. It was to this subordinate position of the Word in the hierarchical plan, a Word that stood apart from God as it guided the universe, that Constantine ultimately compared. Indee
Eusebius, Vita Constantini. 4.24, PG 20, 1172 AIB. F. Winkelmann, Eusebius Werke., p. 128, lines 19-24. Constantineallegedly said, 'AU' tillErS lleV Tc":lV eTOc..l Tils 'EKKAnolas. EyGol Se T~V EKTOS Uno BEOU KaeEOTclIlEVOS. ElT10KOlTOS CtV eTTJv. See C. Rapp, '·Imperial Ideology in the Making: Eusebius of Caesarea on Constantine as "Bishop,' JTS 49 (1998), p. 685-695. 59
emperor God's mediator on ~
132 the earthly counterpart to his preexistent Word, then it
was bishop Ambrose of Milan and his encounter with imperial authority that ably
confronted these bold imperial incursions into ecclesiastical affairs. When the young Arian emperor Valentinian II and his mother Justirla sent armed men to overtake a basilica near the city walls, Ambrose adamantly refused to obey the imperial command, clearly demonstrating the power of Westem bishops to curb the heretical inclinations of the imperial co urt. 60 Ambrose soon exercised his ecclesiastical power in the East as well when he chastised the emperor Theodosius I for his vicious massacre of thousands of innocent people following a riot in the city ofThessaloniki in which several local magistrates were injured. 61 Theodoret presents the image ofa penitent emperor deferential to episcopal authori ty, an emperor who clearly respected the proper boundaries between priestly and imperial rule. Likewise, Athanasius, in his Apology to Constantius, similarly urged the emperor Constantius to defer to espicopal authority and relinquish his Arian beliefs, for the emperor's return to onhodox religion would vinually ensure his long and successful reign 62 As the modem scholar Frend observes, however, Athanasius' willing defiance of Ambrose attempted to carve out a separate sphere for ecclesiastical authority, and so declared, "the palaces belong to the emperor, the churches to the bishop." Ambrose, Epistula LXXVI (20) (CPL 160) Sancti Ambrosi Opera. M. Zelzer, ed., CSEL 82 (Vindobon, 1982), p. 108-125, esp. p. 118-119. On Ambrose's criticism of the imperial religion, see also Socrates, HE. 5.11, ~ N. F. 1, p. 285-286; Theodoret, HE. 5.13, GCS. N. F. 5, p. 303-304. 60
61
Theodoret, HE. V.17-18, GCS. N. F. 5, p. 306, lines 22 - p. 310, line 15.
W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the MonQphysite Movement. p. 57. See Athanasius, Apologia ~ Constantium. (~ 2129) J. M. Szymusiak, Athanasie d' AJexandrie. SQlr 56 (Paris, 1958), p. 174.
62
the emperor was not a precedent openly cited, even at Chalcedo~
133 when Cyril's successor
Dioscorus aimed to counter the incursions of the emperor Marcian into the quagmire of ecclesiastical affairs. 63 A tension existed, therefore. between the elevated monarchical theology. most often favored by the decidedly Arian emperors of the fourth century, and the selfconsciously orthodox ecclesiastical establishment that sought to preserve the correct confession of faith from the oftentimes heretical inclinations of the imperial court. It was a delicate balance between the orthodox mission of the ecclesiastical establishment to preserve right doctrine. and the imperial prerogatives of the emperor to assert his almost God-like status - if only in human form. Something of a compromise presented itself in the guise of imperial theology.64 If there is one God. one Savior. One Word. so is there one sovereign law (VOIlOS i3aolAU(OS) that administers the entire heavenly kingdom.65 and that royaJJaw must be suitably preserved for the empire to remain secure. That basic theoretical assumption was never questioned, even while bishops challenged the right of emperors to exercise unmitigated control over doctrinal affairs. 66 In fact. more often than not. a bishop's challenge to imperial authority depended on that very theological assumption, for when Athanasius rebuked Constantius' pro-Arian court. he explained 63
W. H. C. Frend. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. p. 51.
64 Emperors and bishops agreed that only correct doctrine would keep the empire secure from enemy incursions. Though both had starkly different visions of the boundaries of their authority and power, they apparently agreed that a unified orthodox church implied a unified empire. safe from attacks. 65 Eusebius. De laudibus Constantini. ~ 20, 1332A. 66
See Athanasius. above.
134 that only doctrinal truth would defend the emperor's reign.67 The power to interpret this imperial theological assumption became a contentious matter, as bishop and emperor alike vied to secure their position as guardian of the orthodox faith and, by
extensio~
of the
empire itself. creating a complex ecclesiastical political scenario whose ramifications would extend well into Cyril's and Nestorius' dealings with the court of Theodosius 11. Cyril's imperial theology finds its most complete expression in his address to the emperor Theodosius. Like Eusebius' Oration to Constantine, Cyril's address constructed a vision of the emperor reminiscent ofNeo-Platonic notions of kingship, for Cyril declared that the emperor Theodosius reflected nothing less than the glory of God. The dictates of imperial theology forged a vital link between the sovereign rule of an emperor and his correct eXl'I'ession of piety, which meant that the emperor, though an image of God, nevertheless. remained subject to God. 68 In fact, Cyril believed that rulers who neglected the proper faith were likely to perish, much as a certain Persian successfully vanquished the Assyrians only after he plainly denounced his blasphemy against God. 69 Right doctrine, therefore, was essential to preserving an emperor's sovereign rule, and Cyril's ensuing treatise aimed to extricate orthodox doctrine from the vagaries of theological speculation into the service of the empire. Nonetheless, Cyril carefully explicated for the emperor the core of his single nature christology: naturally united to human flesh with a rational soul, the Word comprises one Son, composed of two 67 Athanasius. ApolQgia ~ Constantium. (CPG 2129) J. M. Szymusiak, Athanase d' Alexandrie. Apologie i I' empereur Constance. ApoloiUe RmI! a~. SQx 56 (Paris, 1958), p. 88-132. 68 Cyrilli oratio ~ Theodosium imp. (CPG 5218) ACa I. I. I, p. 42. line 13 - p. 43. line 9, especially p. 43, line 7. 69 Cyrilli oratio ~ Theodosium imp. ACa I, I. I. p.43, line 25 - p. 44, line 11.
135
human flesh with a rational soul. the Word comprises one Son. composed of two elements, subsisting in a single reality.70 Designed, no doubt. to counter charges of Apollinarianism, CyriI's address unambiguously exclaimed that the Only Begotten Word became a complete human being. endowed with a rational soul. 71 It was not only charges of Apollinarianism. however, that occupied Cyri}' s attention. Though never mentioned by name, Nestorius loomed large as the author of the troublesome heresy that wrongfully divided in two the humanity and divinity of Christ. 72 To instill a sense of foreboding in the emperor Theodosius, Cyril explained that Jude had predicted false teachers who, at the end of time, would create divisions within the church. 73 The ecclesiastical political implications seemed clear, for just as the unnamed Nestorius produced an inappropriate division within the person of Christ, that division would eventually insinuate itself into the very social fabric of the church. And a church so divided would perilously threaten the stability of the emperor's imperial reign. Athanasius had similarly invoked the metaphorofa unified Christ in his De Incamalione. when he compared Christ's body,
Cyrilli oratio ~ Theodosium imp. ACO I, I, I, p. 52, lines 14-18~ ibid., p. 57, line 29 p. 58, line 3: iOTEOV S' oVv OTl 8ECNPE1llEV Tlva
71
Cyrilli oralio ~ Theodosium imp. ACO I, I, I, p. 54, lines 25-30.
Cyrilli oratio ~ Theodosium imp. ACO I, I, I, p. 45, line 26 - p. 46, line 10. Cyril produced quotations from Nestorius, including the following: Ov oap~ 6 TOO 8Eoii AOyOS. clAAa av8pc..lTTOV clVElATlcpc;,S. SeeF. Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 217-218.
72
73 Cyrilli Q!1ltjQ ~ Theodosium imp. ACO I, I, I, p. 57, lines 21-29. Of course, Cyril meant to suggest that Jude presaged Nestorius' doctrine, which wrongfully divided the natures of Christ.
136 undivided at death, to a unified, orthodox church free from schism. 74 Cyril also sent theological treatises to the royal augustas, including one set for the emperor's sister Pulcheria and his wife Eudocia, and another for Arcadia and Marina Likely perceiving a rift in the royal family, Cyril composed separate treatises for the imperial women and offspring. Written in a style of argumentation entirely different from the more philosophically oriented address to the emperor, Cyril's treatises to the women of the royal family consisted of large portions of biblical quotations collected to demonstrate the singular nature ofChri~ the Word. Moreover, Cyril asserted a vital connection between correct belief in a singular Christ and the fortunes of the imperial women: to divide the unity into two Sons and two Christs portended great danger, for Christ would reward the women of the imperial coun with good fortune only if they professed proper (i.e., Cyril' s) orthodox belief and devotion.. 7S Cyril's treatise to Marina and Arcadia took much the same fonn. exhibiting a marked preference for extensive biblical quotation rather than reasoned philosophical argumentation. It seems that Cyril attempted simply to convince the imperial women of the singular nature of Christ, a view that he supported with quotations from a long list of bishops throughout the various dioceses. 76 Athanasius, Gratio ~ incamatione~. 24.4 (CPG 2091) Ch. Kannengiesser, ed., Silt I'incarnation du~. SQlr 199 (Paris, 1973), p. 354.
74
Cyrilli oratio ad Pulcheriam ~ Eudociarn augustas. (~ 5220) ACa I, I, 5, p. 26-61, p. 61, lines 22-24, lines 28-29. a0q3ES 5E Arav TO 5l0p(~ElV Eis 500 uioUs Kal
75
XPlaTOVS 5uo IlETa Tilv 65u:xanaaTov EVc.JOlV. Tt Kal voii Kal AOYOV TTavTos E1TEKElVcl TE eaTl KaL O:VColTclTCol .... rupColv yap OVTc.J XplaTOS Kal ev VIllV niv 1TlcrrlV 6KAlvt; Kalo:~e~'lAov. aTE<paVc.JOEl TTAOVOlc.JS TOlS aVc.JeEV o:yaeolS Kal 1TallllaKaplas O:TTO<pavEl. Cyrilli oralio ~ Arcadiam et Marinam augustas. p.66-70. 76
(~ 5219)
ACa I. I, 5, p. 62-118,
137 Theodosius' response to Cyril's christological treatises came in the form of an imperial letter, addressed to Cyril and the metropolitan bishops, dated November 19,430. Repeating much ofCyril's imperial theology expressed in the treatise, Theodosius' letter revealed a sense of urgency stemming from his perceived threat to ecclesiastical unity. Since the condition of the state depends on piety toward God, declared Theodosius, that condition must be free from strife, factions, and trouble - in every way acceptable to God. 77 Appointed by God to run the empire, Theodosius envisioned himself as the mediator between providence and humankind, the one who ensured the correct piety of his subjects and served providence for the betterment of the state. A straightforward assertion of his divinely ordained sovereign rule, Theodosius' letter convened a synod of bishops to curtail the fractious controversy stirring within the empire. More than a matter of ecclesiastical division, the present troubles threatened to disrupt the very foundations ofTheodosius' imperial reign, for it was a sovereign rule entirely dependent on divine sanction. Theodosius, in his letter to Cyril alone, employed a decidedly different tone, chastising Cyril for his plan to sow discord within the imperial family by sending separate treatises to the empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria 78 In particular, Theodosius believed that CyriI's contentious acts unwittingly revealed his larger intent to create strife and division within the church itself, a plan that implicitly signified Cyril's odious designs against ecclesiastical and imperial peace. [t was not only CyriI's penchant for strife and discord that troubled the emperor Theodosius, but Cyril's apparent deviation from ~~sinsuJos
77
Sacra ad CyriJlum Alex.
metropo1itas (d. 19 m. Nov. a. 430). (CPG 8651) ACO I, I, [, p. 114, line 29 - p. 115, line 14. 78
Sacra &l CyrilIum ~. (CPG 8652) AC.Q [, [, [. p. 73, line 22 - p. 74, line 3.
138 proper ecclesiastical procedure as well. Indeed. Theodosius believed that the true orthodox doctrine remained inextricably linked with the decrees of the holy fathers and councils, a doctrinal legacy that must never become the exclusive domain of a single and arrogant man. That legacy finally revealed itself, claimed Theodosius, only through proper ecclesiastical investigation, and not through the 4arrogant disputes of words. ' Placing great weight on the authority of doctrinal decisions reached by a council of bishops, Theodosius believed that religion required general consent, rather than forced command. It seems that Cyril's several treatises, with their bold doctrinal assertions, overstepped the perceived boundaries appropriate to a single bishop and defied the emperor's notion of general consent in matters of doctrinal importance. In fact, the emperor believed that doctrinal disputes must eventually be investigated before a council of bishops. Cyril's incursions into this broader ecclesiastical domain had evidently threatened basic conciliar procedure, causing potentially grievous divisions within the church proper. In particular, Theodosius believed that a united church and state presupposed an emperor charged with upholding the ecclesiastical procedures necessary for an examination of any matters pertaining to the promulgation of orthodox doctrine. Cyril" s prior experience with the emperor Theodosius may well have prejudiced the emperor against him during this onset of controversy. As Nestorius reports in his Bazaar, Cyril's enemies had brought serious charges against him before the emperor Theodosius, charges for which Nestorius had served as judge. 79 The scum of Alexandria (at KOlTp(al
Tiis
TTOAEc.JS), Cyril's accusers were apparently convicted criminals, whom
Cyril identified in his letter to his agents in Constantinople, as Chairemon, Sophronas, Nestorius, 1.m Heraclidis (syriace); l&~ d'Heraclide ~ Oamas, F. Nau, p. 92-93. Cyril and Nestorius both allude to the charges brought against Cyril before the emperor, but do not elaborate on the content of those charges. 79
139 Victor, and Flavian's slave. It seems that one was convicted of ill treating the blind and poor, another of brandishing a sword against his mother, and another of stealing gold. 80 That these charges remained troublesome finds ample confirmation in Cyril's apology to the emperor, in which eyril felt compelled. more than one year later, to assure the emperor that Cyril' s accuser, the monk Victor, had sworn at Ephesus that he had fabricated the charges against his bishop.81 Nestorius also apparently found himself in trouble with the imperial family when he refused to permit the empress Pulcheria to dine in the episcopal palace following the Sunday service, as she had generally done during Sinisius' episcopacy; and when Nestorius allegedly effaced her portrait hanging above the altar in church. 82 Once again, during an Easter celebration, Nestorius incurred·the empress' wrath when he refused her access to the Holy of Holies and, in the process, prevented her from receiving communion alongside her brother Theodosius -- a privilege freely extended to her while Sinisius held the office. When Nestorius learned of her intention to enter the sanctuary from the archdeacon Peter, he evidently raced to the door of the sanctuary, and flatly denied her
Epistula!i. Cyrilli Alex. 1'1 Nestorium (d 26 m. lan. - d 24 m. Febr. a. 430). (CPG 5304) ACa. I, I, I, p. 25, line 24 - p. 26, line 8. Epistula Cyrilli AIg. idapocrisiarios CPoli constitutos. (CPG 5309) ACO I, I, I, p. 111, lines 21-30. 80
Cynl of Alexandria Select Letters, L. Wickham, ed. and trans. (Oxford, 1983), p. xxv. Cyrilli apologeticus id Theodosium imperatorem. (~ 8790) Am I, I, 3, p. 75-90, p. 90, lines 7-19. 81
Nestorius,1m Heraclidis (syriace); Le Ym d'Heraclide ~ Damas, F. Nau, Appendix t, p. 363. 82
140 entry into the chamber. 83 Undeterre
141
concerned. Moreover, Nestorius' bold statements against the empress Pulcheria, whom he later deemed a woman corrupted of men, unworthy of comparison to the bride of Christ,84 rendered him something like a second John Chrysostom, whose forthright rebukes of the empress Eudoxia undoubtedly contributed to his eventual demise. 85 It was not only this complex political scenario, however, that prejudiced the imperial court for and against the two disputing parties. The long history of Byzantine political theory, which found its most complete expression in Eusebius' depiction ofConstantine, placed Theodosius 11 in charge of preserving orthodox doctrine during this outbreak of ecclesiastical strife. It was a notion made quite explicit throughout Tbeodosius' letters to Cyril, and a notion that challenged Cyril' s bold maneuver for doctrinal control, exemplified in his copiously researched and thoroughly documented treatises sent to the imperial court. Doctrine was a matter of state security, and its proper examination required nothing less than a full council of bishops to detennine its relationship to the prior decrees and councils set forth in the traditions of the fathers.
Ill. Pope Caelestine expressed a similar imperial theology when he wrote to the emperor Theodosius 11 that matters of religion detennine the well-being of the empire, that peace in the churches counts more than the security of the provinces. 86 It was a view shaped by very different notions of the relationship between imperial and ecclesiastical authority,
84 Nestorius,
~Heraclidis(syriace);!&~d'Heraclide~Damas.
F. Nau, p. 89.
Nestorius as a second John Chrysostom fonned a perfect parallel with Cyril as the second Tbeophilus. 85
Epistula papae Caelestini!Kt Tbeodosium imp. (Epistle 19.2) 86
(~8714)
ACa I, 2, p. 25-26.
142 one that reflected the West's strong sense of continuity to their apostolic past. Ensconced on the throne of Saint Peter, the bishop of Rome considered himself the appointed successor in a distinguished line of church leadership that extended all the way back to Peter, the founder of the episcopal and apostolic tradition. 87 Indeed, Christ had said to Peter, "upon this rock I will build my Church,' which meant for Augustine, that Peter displayed, in figural form, the entirety of the church. 88 This biblically grounded, theological argument virtually promised the Pope's supreme authority -- at least according to Western tradition. To establish an unbroken line of succession to Christ's 'first apostle' ensured that the see of Rome stood free from the heretical incursions of the Donatists, and other potential usurpers to the throne of Saint Peter, while it continuously reproduced the doctrinal purity of its founder with each successive appointment. 89 Augustine's conception of church and state arose from this unambiguous assertion of apostolic succession reaching all the way back to Christ's mandate for Peter: ""not even the gates of hell shall prevail upon this church" implied that imperial intervention in ecclesiastical affairs was appropriate, but only when fractious heretics sought to disturb the divinely sanctioned peace of the church. 90 A decidedly different conception prevailed in the Eas~ one that found its most 87 Innocentius I, Epistula 1.2.2 (Epistulae S. Innocentio I Attributae) (CPL 1641) PL 20, 631B/C. 88 Augustine, Epistula LII1.2 (CPL 262), A. Goldbacher, ed., £. Aureli Augustini Operum Sectio ll. CSEL 34 (Vienna, 1895), p. 153-154. 89
Augustine, Epistula LII1.2, CSEL 34, p. 153-154.
Augustine, Contra ~pistulam Parmeniani. 1.9.15 (CPL 331) CSEL 51, M. Petschenig, ed., Sancti Aureli AU&J1Slini Scripta contra Donatistas. (Vindobonnae, 1908), p. 35-36; PL 43.44. 90
143 controversial expression in the deposition, exile and subsequent death of John Chrysostom. Pope Innocent surely commented upon the injustices committed by Arcadius and Eudoxia against bishop John when he \'-Tote, "Who can bear these outrages committed by one who should above all be zealous for the quiet of peace and harmony? Instead, innocent bishops have been deposed from their own sees:")} The unbridled intervention of the imperial court into ecclesiastical affairs left a bad impression in the West, for it was the emperor's role simply to ensure unity in the churches, and, at the same time, protect against the infiltration of heretics. The deposition of John seemed to violate every well-settled notion of episcopal prerogative developed over the past century, as the emperor and his wife helped orchestrate, along with bishop Theophilus, John's eventual demise. Pope Innocent expressed his outrage at this course of events, for John's deposition without a proper hearing violated the most basic tenets of ecclesiastical due process, a grievous infraction that was only compounded when the Eastern powers installed another bishop to fill the newly vacated episcopal seat. 92 The Western Church had never committed such an atrocity, explained Innocent, for their fathers prohibited the substitution of one bishop for another, especially while the first remained living. 93 With the long established tradition of apostolic succession, the Roman see could simply not 91 Sozomen, HE, VIIL26, ~ N. F. 4, p. 386, lines 2-6. TlS yap EviyKal SuvnaTITal Ta E~allapTavollEVa \rn' EKElVc,.)V. oiicrrlvas Expnv IlclAlcrra TOU yaATlvoii TTis eiPtlVllS Kat aVTiis crnovSacrras elval TTis ollovoias; viiv Se EvnAAaYIlEVCtl Tpon't) CI:TTO TTis npoeSpias T(;)V is(c,.)v EKKA'lOl(;)V E~c,.)6oiivTal a6c';lol lEpEtS. See also, Innocentius I, Epistu1a 7.2; PL 20, 503b; cited by H. Rahner, Church and State in Early
Christianitv (San Francisco, 1992), p. 142. Sozomen, HE. VIII.26, GCS. N. F. 4, p. 386, lines 6-11. Palladius, Dialogus ~ vita Iohannis Chrysostomi. 4; e.Q. 47, 15.
92
93
Sozomen, HE, VIn.26, GCS, N. F. 4, p. 386, lines 11-16.
144 conceive of installing a bishop whose ordination arose from such discord, for it seemingly
contradicted well-entrenched notions of episcopal continuity. To ensure proper legitimacy, therefore, each ordination depended on something approaching divine sanctio~ as one bishop of Rome followed another in an unbroken line reaching all the way
back to the apostle Peter himself According to Western conceptions of ecclesiastical protocol, the overtly political manipulations of the Eastern imperial court and churches seemed to violate this basic assumption. Consoling John in exile, Pope Innocent urged John to endure his aftlictions as one of the Saints, and trust in his good conscience. Clearly moved by John's unjust condemnation before the Eastern imperial and ecclesiastical powers, Innocent freely expressed his criticism of these grievous political machinations aimed at bishop John. The Western emperor Honorius shared Innocent's disgus~
exhorting his brother Arcadius to leave ecclesiastical disputes to bishops, for
Honorius believed that the bishops alone must interpret the faith, while the emperors must simply obey.94 This meant that Western bishops ideally enjoyed a well-defined sphere of power that seemed to defy the Eastern emperors' frequent incursions into ecclesiastical politics. These long-standing ideals of Western ecclesiology, which account for the unique prestige of the bishop of Rome, as well as the Western conception of church state relations, conspired to produce the complex ecclesiastical-political backdrop for Cyril' s first letter to Pope Caelestine in Rome -- a carefully wrought letter in which he judiciously informed him of the Nestorian affair. Seeking to win Pope Caelestine's support, Cyril explained that Nestorius delivered several sermons before the diverse Honorius, Epistula XXXVIII, 4, ~ 35, Collectio Avellana. O. Guenther, ed, (Vindobonnae, 1895), p. 86, lines 3-12. 94
145 community of Constantinople, sennons that were entirely different from the wellestablished tradition of faith passed on through the holy fathers. 9S Nestorius had earlier preached a well-attended sennon, his homily in commemoration of St. Mary, in which he expounded his doctrine of the incarnation. In this controversial sennon, Nestorius exclaimed that he did not wish to adore a God who was born, died, and buried. An occasion to explain his dual nature christology, Nestorius' sermon declared that He who was born, passed through increments of time, and was carried in the womb, wholly consisted of human nature, a nature united to God. In particular, Nestorius explained that it was one thing to say that God was united to the one born of Mary, and quite another to say that the deity was in need of months for birth, "for God the Word is the creator of time, and is not made in time. "96 A bold statement of the Antiochene position with respect to the dual nature of Christ, Nestorius' words were undoubtedly problematic for many, including Cyril himself To ensure that the Pope fully comprehended the range of Nestorius' 'blasphemy,' Cyril attached a short treatise containing excerpts from the \vritings and sermons of Nestorius, a treatise that was apparently translated into Latin by several persons in Alexandria. 97 Removed from their contex-t. these "sayings of Nestorius' must have seemed strange, indeed, to Pope Caelestine, sayings that included Epistula Cyrilli AIg. id. Caelestinum W Posidonium (a. 430 mediante). (CPG 5310) ACa I, I, 5, p. 10, lines 28-34.
95
96 Nestorii homilia in commemoratione~. Mariae. (CPG 5716) ACa I, 5, p. 38, lines 6-9. aliud est autem dicere quia nato de Maria coniunctus erat deus ille qui est verbum patris, quod est liquidissimum ac fmnum atque inreprehensibile gentilibus, et aliud quia ipsa deitas indiguit nativitate mensibus decurrente. verbum enim deus temporum est opifex, non in tempore fabricatus.
97
Capitula ~ Nestorio Excewta I Cyrillo, Collectio Vaticana 145. ACa I. I. 6, p. 3-13.
146 allegedly blasphemous statements against the Virgin Mary, i.e., that God the Word was not begotten from Mary,98 and not from the Holy Spirit. but only from the Father Himself 99 At the same time, Cyril stopped short of openly condemning his adversary before Pope Caelestine, for Cyril claimed that he had eagerly sought Nestorius' prompt reinstatement into the folds of orthodoxy, until an event transpired that allegedly made all hopes of reconciliation vanish. It seems that a certain Dorotheus, during a liturgy performed at the church of Constantinople, exclaimed in the presence of bishop Nestorius, «If any man says that Mary was the Mother of God, let him be accursed." Outraged at this blasphemous declaration, many from the congregation walked out of the church, while the local monasteries and senators refused any further communion with their bishop. 100 If that wasn't enoug~ explained Cyril, several of his sennons infiltrated the monasteries of Egypt, causing no small confusion over these heretical assertions. Cyril believed that the ensuing discord was sufficiently problematic to render Nestorius' blasphemous claims a genuine ecclesiastical crisis, one in dire need of the Pope's advice. Cyril's bold request for the Pope's intervention into the affairs at Constantinople was likely well-received. The council of Constantinople in 381 had declared that the church of the Imperial City was second in rank only to the Pope in Rome. Against the protestation of Pope Damasus, Theodosius the Great had successfully imbued the 98 Capitula ~ Nestorio Excerpta § Cyrillo. ACa I, I, 6, p. 4, lines 37-38. ~el Se ru.leXs .. . Kal Titv KaTCx Nhcalav aVvoSov ~aeelv ovSa~oii To).~Qaav eiTTelv OTl ee6s AOYOS EyevviJen EIC Maplas' Capitula ~ Nestorio Excerpta § Cyrillo, ACa I, I, 6, p. 5, lines 6-9. OVK e1TTov OTl Kat yevvneEVTa EIC TTvev~aTOS aylou.
99
Epistula Cyrilli~. ad Caelestinum ~ Posidonium (a. 430 mediante). (CPG 5310) ACO I, I, 5, p. 11, lines 6-15. 100
147 Imperial City with all the prestige and rank appropriate to the new Rome. In fac~ Cyril's ready submission to the prestige of the Roman see undoubtedly assured Pope Caelestine that Rome retained its primacy -- even over the bishop of Constantinople, whose proximity to the imperial court rendered him a potentially powerful force in ecclesiastical politics. A voiding the more recondite theological distinctions raised by Nestorius' words, Cyril appropriately emphasized that Nestorius' teachings produced discord within the churches, for ecclesiastical unity had long been determined the necessary precondition for security in the empire. 101 With ecclesiastical unity threatened, Pope Caelestine promptly intervened, proclaiming Cyril the good shepherd (TTOll.lnV ayae6s), and Nestorius an evil mercenary (KaKos I.llaeCtJTOS) who maliciously sundered his own flock. 102 The metaphor was already well in place by the time Pope Caelestine finally received Nestorius' letters translated from Greek into Latin. Infonning the Pope of certain unnamed persons who recalled the "putrid i11ness' of Apollinarius and Arius, Nestorius explained that the reprobate heretics improperly commingled the two natures of Christ, and even asserted that Christ assumed His beginnings of origin with the Christotokos Virgin. daring to make her a Goddess with the heretical appellation
101 See H. J. Vogt, .... Papst Colestin und Nestorius," in Konzil J.Illil Papst. G. Schwaiger, ed. (Munich, Paderbom and Vienna, 1975), p. 86,97, 101, in which Vogt identifies Cyril's simpler theological discussion (compared to Nestorius) and his distinctly soteriological emphasis - two factors that evidently played well to the Pope. 102 Epistula Caelestini gapae ~Cyrillum Alex. (d. 10 m. Aug. a. 430) (~8638) ACa I, I, I, p. 75, lines 23-26.
148 Theotokos - a designation never mentioned by the fathers at
Nicea. 103
Though
Nestorius' letter carefully highlighted the christological implications of the incipient controversy, it was probably difficult for Pope Caelestine to fully comprehend. Readily comprehensible to the Pope, however, was Nestorius' welcome reception ofPelagian heretics from the West, who had apparently entered Constantinople seeking aid and solace from the imperial court and bishop. No doubt angered by Nestorius' alleged disregard for canonical law, Pope Caelestine likely believed that Nestorius' willingness to accommodate Pelagian exiles from the West rendered Nestorius' orthodoxy entirely suspect. When the Pope failed to respond, Nestorius composed a second letter, exhorting the Pope to explain the Pelagian situation, for their frequent lamentations were apparently disturbing the emperor Theodosius himself 104 After Nestorius addressed the Pelagian problem, he also complained to the Pope once again that certain unnamed heretics had reinstated the beliefs of Apollinarius and Arius when they wrongly commingled the deity of the only-begotten with the passions of the human body, and transmitted the Epistula i Nestorii ~ Caelestinum papam. (CPG 5665) F. Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 166167. ACO 1,2, p. 12-14. est enim aegritudo non parva, sed affinis putredini Apollinaris et Arii. dominicam enim in homine unionem ad cujusdam contemperationis confusionem passim commiscent, adeo ut et quidam apud nos clerici ... tamquam haeretici aegrotent et aperte blasphement deum verbum patri homousion, tamquam originis initium de christotoco virgine sumpsisset et cum templo suo aedificatus esset et cami consepultus. Ibid., p. 166, lines 18-27. 103
Epistula ii. Nestorii ~ Caelestinum papam. (CPG 5667) F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 170. Though eynl did, in fact, rely on several Apollinarian treatises circulating under the name of Athanasius, Nestorius goes too far when he accuses Cyril of Apollinarianism. For basic bibliography see P. Galtier, "Saint Cyrille et Apollinaire," GreBorianum 37 (1956), p. 584-609; H. de Riedmatten, "La Christologie d' Apollinaire de Laodicee," Studia Patristica 2 (1957), p. 208-234; H. A. Wolfson, "Arianism and Apollinarianism," DOP 12 (1958), p. 3-29. 104
149 immutability of deity to the nature of the flesh. 105 This unfortunate juxtaposition, amplified and reiterated in Nestorius' second letter to the Pope, ultimately sealed Nestorius' fate, for Nestorius' overt expression of sympathy for Pelagian heretics exiled from the West rendered his condemnation of any so-called Arian and Apollinarian heretics gravely in doubt. Nestorius soon received an ominous letter from the Pope, who threatened Nestorius with exclusion from communion with the catholic church if he did not correct his perverse doctrine, return to the path of Christ, and preach what Cyril preached. 106 In particular, Pope Caelestine recalled the recent times when East and West together had successfully waged war against the heretics, including bishops Atticus and Sisinius of Constantinople, whose steadfast piety prevented heretics from ever establishing themselves within the Imperial City. With the ordination ofNestorius, however, Pope Caelestine believed that his greatest fears had finally come to fruition. Indeed, the Pope complained that Nestorius' book of sermons revealed a doctrine of God the Word entirely different from the universal faith. That difference was, of course, intolerable to the Pope, who firmly believed in the well-settled principle of doctrinal interpretation that no ecclesiastical interpreter may ever make additions or subtractions to the apostolic teaching. 107 When Nestorius' sermons challenged the reverence of the Virgin bi~ Epistula ii. Nestorii Id Caelestinum papam. (CPG 5667) F. Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 170, line 28 - p. 171, line 17. 105
Epistula Caelestini papae Id Nestorium (sententia synodi Romanae) (d. IQ m. Aug. a. 430. Nestorio tradita est d. 30 m. Nov. a 430) (~8639). Versio waeca ACO I, I, I, p. 82, lines 19-21. 106
107 Epistula Caelestini papae Id NeSlorium (sententia synodi Romanae). ACO I, I, I, p. 79, lines 23-24. Ta yap ~EOTc:l~ lCal cpavEp~~ TTapaSoeeVTa n~lV TTapa Tc:lv CTTOOTOAColV OUTE TTpoa61ilCTJv OUTE ~elColalV ETTlSExETal.
150 therefore, he boldly defied a hermeneutic assumption central to the Pope's understanding: a bishop charged with interpreting the apostolic faith must wholly adhere to the traditions of the fathers. From the Pope's Western perspective, Nestorius betrayed this basic imperative when he pronounced his seemingly innovative dual nature, Antiochene christology . To Western ears, Nestorius' teachings sounded strange and heretical, and even impugned the integrity of the apostolic faith. Indeed, Nestorius' ready willingness to charge Cyril and others with heresy betrayed to the Pope an apparent disregard for ecclesiastical unity, rendering Pope Caelestine's metaphor a fitting one: when Nestorius abandoned the responsibilities ofpastorly care, he sundered his flock before wolves. 108 Through this graphic metaphor, Caelestine made clear that Nestorius' seemingly strange doctrinal assertions threatened ecclesiastical unity within Constantinople and beyond, a threat that Pope Caelestine deemed serious enough to officially condemn Nestorius before a synod in Rome on November 30, 430 AD. In the meantime, Pope Caelestine eagerly assumed the responsibility ofpastorly care for Nestorius' 'flock' in Constantinople. In a letter addressed to the clergy and people of Constantinople, the Pope consoled those whom Nestorius had wrongfully exiled from the church, and significantly recalled the example (tmoSElYlla) of bishop Athanasius, whose long suffering at the hands of Arian
Epistula Caelestini papae Id. Nestorium (sententia synodi Rornanae). ACa I, I, I, p. 80, lines 19-30. 108
151
persecutors finally resulted in his reinstatement as bishop. 109 The Pope's historical comparison was ripe with meaning, for the construct •Athanasius and the Arians' found a ready counterpart in the present, namely in Cyril's battle against the Nestorian •heresy. • Oddly enough, it was Nestorius who had actually accused Cyril of Arianism in his correspondence with the Pope, accusations which apparently received little credence from the Pope, for Cyril gradually emerged as the new Athanasius - the fighter of Arianism par excellence. That designation reached its complete expression later in the controversy. 110 Pope Caelestine, in his letter to John of Antioc~ continued to develop his metaphor of ecclesiastical unity in a manner particularly damaging to Nestorius. 111 Proposing a stark correlation between a single nature Christ and a unified churc~ the Pope explained that just as there is one single essence of divinity, so is there one true faith of the orthodox. With its anti-Nestorian implications, Caelestine's call for a singular Christ served as a bold metaphor for a church undivided. In fact. the Pope's metaphor extended notions of ecclesiastical unity well beyond traditional views linking correct Epistula Caelestini papae ~ c1eruro populumgue CPolitanum (d. 10 m. Aug. a. 430). (CPG 8640) Versio graeca. ACa I, I, I, p. 88, lines 19-31. ExETE v~Els. CoOl Tiis EKKAfJOlaS EK{3E{3AfJa8E. axe50v Tc;:,V rn.lETEpe.>V Kalpc;:,v \rrroSely~a TO TOO Tiis llaKaplas ~Vtl~fJS 'A6avaolov TOO OOcpe.>TcITOV lEpECo.lS Tiis 'AAe;avSpEe.>v EKKAfJOlaS ... EK~aAAeTal 'ApelOV Slc.:,KOVTOS. aAACx aVaKAfJTEOS TOO KVPlOV TTpOlTE~lTOVTOS. Ibid. p. 88, lines 20-22, 24. 109
110
See Chapters 5 and 7.
Epistula Caelestini papae Id lobannem Antioch., luuenalem HieroSQI., Rufum Thessalon., Flavianurn Philippensem (d. 10 m. Aug. a. 430). (~ 8641 ) Versio graeca. ACa I, I, I, p. 90, lines 7-9. EVxo~e6a ~EV. i.lcrnep ~ta eaTl Tiis geOTfJTos Ti ouota. OUTe.> KaLnapa TTaOl ToTs onovSTiTToTE ovcnv av9pc.:,nOlS ~lav Tiis op&iis TTlOTee.>S aATigelav exelv' 111
152
doctrine with a unified church. In panicular, Pope Caelestine believed that the actual content of that doctrine, namely Nestorius' divided Christ:. served as a fitting metaphor for ecclesiastical division. That divisiveness was all the more reprehensible to Pope Caelestine because it originated from the bishop of Constantinople, an episcopate whose prestige emanated from the emperor himself and drew worshipers from around the world. Sensitive to the ecclesiastical hierarchy reconstituted at the council of Constantinople in 381 AD, Pope Caelestine noted that the patriarchate of Constantinople received its eminent status from its proximity to the imperial court, which implicitly confirmed Constantinople's second place in the hierarchy after the see of Rome. In contrast, the primacy of Rome was derived not exclusively from imperial, earthly rule, but from the divine mandate inherent in the tradition of apostolic succession. Such divisiveness within the ranks of the ecclesiastical establishment of the Imperial City implied to the Pope that Nestorius was no better than the wolf who takes the place of the shepherd, and enters the flock from within. Extending the same metaphor earlier coined in his letter to Cyril, Pope Caelestine constructed a vision ofNestorius, the evil wolf. whose deceptive infiltration into the powerful bishopric of the Imperial City produced civil war \\ithin the ranks of the ecclesiastical establishment. I 12 With the unequivocal disdain of Pope Caelestine, Nestorius was finally condemned on November 30,430, at a session held in Rome. Cyril clearly welcomed his new-found support from the West:. for he reported that all those in communion with the West must obey the judgment of the synod. a judgment reached
112 Epistula Caelestini paPae Id lohannem Antioch., Iuuenalem HierosoL, Rufum Thessalon., Flavianwn Philippensem (d. 10 m. Aug. a 430). ~ I, I, I, p. 90, lines 172 I. Pope Caelestine complained that Nestorius had insidiously attacked the church from within.
153 when Nestorius' writings were read into the record and determined to be heretical. 113 Fully cognizant of Rome's canonical primacy over the bishopric of Constantinople, Cyril deftly acquired the Pope's support at this early stage of controversy, an ecclesiastical political alliance that must have troubled the imperial court in Constantinople.
IV. Conclusions: During the several years prior to the meeting of the council in 431 AD, Cyril and Nestorius both fonned advantageous political alliances, Cyril with the monks and Pope, and Nestorius with the emperor Theodosius 11. In fact, eyril' s relationship with the monks of Egypt and the Imperial City was part of a conscious plan to win the support of this potentially powerful community, and that in spite of his uncle Theophilus' divisive monastic policies. I 14 When Nestorius' anti-Theotokos sennons began to wreak havoc with Cyril's monastic communities, therefore, Cyril responded with a carefully wrought encyclical letter designed to inform his monks that the epithet Theotokos for Mary was an entirely appropriate term, consistent with the spirit of the sacred scriptures and the Symbol of Faith promulgated at Nicea It seems that Cyril aimed to convince his fractious monks that Nestorius' refusal to designate Mary the Mother of God blasphemously implied that Jesus was not God. This approach proved successful, for the Coptic monk Shenute apparently believed that Nestorius denigrated the suffering of Christ and rendered Jesus no better than a man like Moses. As controversy deepene
1 14
See Chapter 1
~
Iobannem Antiochenum. (CPG 5313) ACa I, I, I, p. 92, line
154 that the bishop of Alexandria formed an alliance with the monks of the Imperial City, for
Theophilus had plotted with the monk Isaac in his vindictive campaign against John Chrysostom, while Peter of Alexandria had years earlier elicited monastic support in his unsuccessful plot to remove Gregory of Nazianzus from office. Nestorius' relationship to the monks of the Imperial City, however, was more problematic, for Nestorius instituted harsh policies against the monastic communities early in his episcopacy; and his zealous fight against heretics, including the monastically entrenched Macedonians, must have produced repercussions within the monasteries proper. In fact. it was the monk Hypatius who became one ofNestorius' most vocal critics, allegedly removing Nestorius' name from the diptychs without the consent of his bishop. IfNestorius failed to obtain monastic support. he, nevertheless, won approval from the emperor Theodosius n, and that in spite of his well-publicized problems with the emperor's sister, Pulcheria. Theodosius II had installed Nestorius on the episcopal throne and, no doubt. hoped for a successful and trouble free reign. Moreover, Theodosius believed that an orthodox bishop, presiding over a church free from division and strife, inevitably translated into an empire secure from enemy incursions. The emperor's imperial theology found a zealous advocate in Nestorius, whose very first sermon delivered before the emperor and people of Constantinople declared: "Give me, emperor, the earth cleansed of heretics, and I will give you heaven in return. Assist me in destroying heretics, and I will assist you in conquering the Persians." 115 In contrast, Cyril's relationship with the imperial court was prejudiced from the very start for two reasons: his uncle Theophilus had vindictively attacked the fonner bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom; and Cyril himselfhad been accused by his enemies 115
Socrates, HE, VII.29. ~ N. F. 1. p. 377. lines 22-24.
155 before the emperor Theodosius H. Furthennore, when Cyril attempted to influence the emperor and his family with several theological treatises emphasizing the singular nature of Christ, Cyril promptly received a disparaging letter, chastising him for attempting to sow discord within the ranks of the imperial court. Cyril, instead, received ample support from Pope Caelestine in Rome, whose disdain for Nestorius expressed itself in a vivid metaphor: Nestorius was nothing more than an evil mercenary who sundered his own flock. The Pope's impression owed much to Cyril's version of events, for Cyril had ably described the divisive effect of Nestori us , "heretical' sermons upon the Egyptian monastic communities. Avoiding the more recondite theological distinctions of his opponent Nestorius, Cyril demonstrated to the Pope that controversy had ensued only when Nestorius threatened ecclesiastical unity. In fact, Nestorius had already irrevocably incurred the Pope's wrath when he willingly received Pelagian exiles from the West without the Pope's consent. Indifferent to papal authority and to the alleged primacy of the Roman see, Nestorius wrote Pope Caelestine a series of inquiring letters only after he received Pelagian exiles in Constantinople and had already damaged relations with Rome. Cyri'·s correspondence with the Pope, however, expressed unmitigated deference for the papal office, and submissively sought the Pope's recommendation in the Nestorian affair. This web of political alliance formed a complex network of power relations, the implications of which would eventually culminate in the meeting of the council of Ephesus, during the Summer of 431 AD. Following the political intrigues of the imperial
156
court I 16 hierarchically constituted according to its heavenly model, I 17 each party to the Nestorian dispute vied to fonn advantageous political alliances with those in the appropriate position of power. In the world of the late antique East, power was not only diffuse and relational, but hierarchical in its constitution, "as the classical Mediterranean model of competitive parity yielded to a more overtly pyramidal and authoritarian pattern of social relationship."
liS
To form these important ecclesiastical political
al1iances, therefore. each disputing party aimed to express the deference and political stance appropriate to the office whose influence was sought. That struggle for support from the various institutions within this hierarchy of social relationships can be seen most vividly in the polemics engaged in by both parties to the Nestorian dispute, as they attempted to persuade the imperial co~ the papal authority in Rome, and the monastic establishments of Alexandria and Constantinople during the onset of controversy. It was not only Cyril's and Nestorius' adventitious alliances that contributed to the course of events at Ephesus. however, but their particular interpretation of and relationship to the past. Innovation in matters of church doctrine was tantamount to heresy, rendering the tradition of the fathers of vital significance - and the past a living force with clear consequences for the present. The interpretation of the council of Nicea and its anti-Arian decrees, therefore, became of great importance in several theological treatises composed during this onset of controversy, an interpretation whose See, for example, the downfall of the eunuch Eutropius. Socrates, HE. VI.5, ~ N. F. 1, p. 316-317; Sozomen, HE. VIn.7,~ N. F. 4, p. 359-360. 116
See C. Mango, Byzantium: The Empire of New ~(New York., 1980), p. 218[ See also the discussion ofEusebius' Neo-Platonism, above. 117
R. L im, Public Disputation. Power. II!d Social Order in ~ AntiQuity. p. 24, referring to P. Brown, ~ Makina: 2f~AntiQuity (Cambridge, 1978), p. 27-53. 118
157 presuppositions and implications will be addressed in the following chapter.
158 Chapter Three -- The Reception ofNicea
I. Introduction:
An examination of eyril' s letter to the monks of Egypt reveals a sophisticated method of argumentation, one that places the Theotokos debate squarely within the theological boundaries defined by the fathers at Nicea. 1 In response to the '~hereticar' Arians, the fathers at Nicea had declared that Jesus was God by nature, and Cyril believed that the epithet Theotokos for Mary confinned in one simple but significant word the entirety of the Trinitarian concerns debated at Nicea: if Jesus is God, then Mary must be the Mother of God, Theotokos. Indeed, Cyril believed that the term Theotokos embodied Nicea's Trinitarian theology for two reasons: it implicitly affinned the divinity of Christ, and appropriately encapsulated the entirety of the divine economy (olt
including the fall, incarnation and resurrection . Replete with all the logical
simplicity appropriate to an incipient creedal fonnulation, Cyril's theological argument ably instructed the monks on proper belief and worship . Though Cyril's opponents complained that the epithet Theotokos for Mary was not designated by the fathers at Nicea, Cyril believed that the title's orthodox theological implications outweighed its literal absence from prior conciliar proceedings. In particular, Cyril's henneneutic strategy carefully considered the broader theological context in order to determine the theological appropriateness of the title, a context shaped not merely by the immediate textual settings in which the title appeared, but by the entire history of orthodox theological speculation. including the Symbol of Faith promulgated at Nicea. The Nicean Symbol of Faith, the quintessential statement of Nicean orthodoxy, served as 1 See Chapter 2.
159 a kind of tactical maneuver throughout the Nestorian controversy, something that could be argued and asserted to counter the "hereticar' proposals of one's adversaries. 2 The broader theological context into which Cyril cast the Theotokos debate for his quarreling monks, namely the reception ofNic~ largely shaped Cyril' s ongoing christological debate with Nestorius as welL Eager to cast his opponent in the guise of the so-called •Arian heretic,' Cyril (as the following discussion plans to show) carefully framed Nestorius~ christological concerns within the boundaries of the anti-Arian discourse inherited from his predecessor Athanasius. A debate argued through the dissemination of numerous theological treatises, the anti-Arian discourse from a century before provided Cyril with a ready supply of slanderous arguments for his unsuspecting opponent. More than a simple trajectory of anti-Arian concerns, however, Cyril's appropriation of Athanasius' discourse implied a larger hermeneutic strategy, one with antecedents at least as far back as the Roman rhetorician Quintilian, and the church father, Irenaeus. Biblical texts had formed the basis for much of the Arians' claims, and a proper reading strategy was necessary to reappropriate these sacred scriptures from the grasp of Arian misinterpretation. [n fact, proper interpretive method, to a large extent, formed the basis for Cyril's morally superior claims: the divine mystery. argued Cyril, demanded belief in basic Christian precepts, precepts which every scriptural text consistently expressed, and which Nestorius' improper, dyophysite interpretation heretically contravened.
H.
Cyril' s method of argumentation, as suggested in his letter to the monks of
See generally H. J. Sieben, Die Konzilsidee ~ AIten Kirche (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna and Zurich, 1979), p. 231-250.
2
160 Egypt,3 reveals a deliberate henneneutic strategy that finds antecedents in the church
father Irenaeus, and in Greek and Latin theories of rhetoric. Concerned with maintaining the henneneutic context necessary for proper doctrinal interpretations, Cyril informed his fractious monks that the term Theotokos was entirely consistent with the larger Christian narrative implied by the divine economy (ohcovolJia). It was Irenaeus of Lyons, however, who produced the first coherent statement defining the Rule of Faith (fidei regula), a standard that would serve as the touchstone of orthodoxy against the onslaught of heretical incursions threatened by the Gnostics. 4 To avoid the perverse doctrine of the heretics, Irenaeus recommended that every Christian adhere to the Rule of Faith, for "faith is produced by truth, [and] faith truly rests upon reality:5 In particular. Irenaeus believed that orthodox Christians, unlike the heretical Gnostics, enjoyed the ontological certainty of their Christian beliefs. Those beliefs found continuous affirmation in the creedal formulations ofIrenaeus' community at Lyons: namely that Christians received baptism in the name ofChris!, who became incarnate, died and was raised, and that this baptism formed the seal of immortality (ocppayis/sigillum aeternae vitae). 6 An early creedal formulation, lrenaeus' statement of orthodox belief was the summary of basic 3
Epistula Cvrilli Alexandrini ~ monachos. ACO I, I, I, p. 10-23.
Irenaeus, Demonstratio praedicationis apostolicae (Epideixis) (armenice). (CPG 1307) A. Rousseau, ed., Demonstration ~ 11 predication apostoligye. Introdyction. traduction et notes, SChr 406 (Paris, 1995), p. 86-88. 4
Irenaeus, Demonstratio praedicationis apostolicae, Demonstration ~ la predication apostoligue., p. 86 (fidem autem veritas adquirere facit, nam fides super vere exsistentes stat res, ... ) 5
6 Irenaeus, Demonstratio praedicationis apostolicae. Demonstration ~ ]a predication apostoligue., p. 88.
161
knowledge necessary for the orthodox Christian to achieve salvation, and to ensure sufficient defense against the completing claims of potential Gnostic adversaries. Irenaeus also proposed a three-fold article of faith that served as a kind of supplement and extension to this basic Rule. A faith that rested unequivocally and firmly upon reality, a faith whose ontological status was beyond reproach, required unambiguous assent to three basic theological affirmations: that God the father was the uncreated, singular, invisible, maker of all; that the Word of God, through whom all things were made, became man to abolish death (ad destruendam mortem); and that the Holy Spirit was poured (effusus est) upon humanity, renewing man to God. 7 Unequivocal belief in these three articles of faith ensured baptism for Irenaeus' Christian community at Lyons, a baptism that promised believing Christians nothing less than rebirth and eternal life. 8 Indeed, Irenaeus believed that those who denied these basic Christian precepts deceived themselves in a most fundamental sense, for they failed to perceive the correct nature of reality. Matters of doctrine, therefore, were not merely relegated to recondite theological
retlectio~
but constituted the whole reality in which each person dwelt,
rendering Gnostic believers entirely mistaken at every conceivable level of knowledge. Irenaeus' context for theological understanding. therefore. encompassed the history of Christian redemption, so that the preservation of the narrative framework, namely the story of the fall. incarnation and redemption. served as the touchstone for orthodoxy. When Gnostic heretics entered Lyons, with their exaggerated claims of gnosis, Irenaeus' Irenaeus. Demonstratio praedicationis apoSloIicae. Demonstration ~ Ji predication apostoligue .• p. 92. 7
Irenaeus. Demonstratio praedicationis apostolicae. Demonstration ~ la predication apostoligue .• p. 92. 8
162 community was forced to redefine certain basic ontological conceptions, including the nature of reality and truth. The community at Lyons decided that the interpretation of doctrinal assertions, in no way dependent on mere textual context, must ultimately stand finnlyand inexorably in relation to the narrative history of Christian redemption. Christians were not the first, however, to consider textual problems in relation to the larger boundaries or context appropriate to the interpretative process. The Latin rhetorician Quintilian. whose Institutio Oratoria was composed during the first century AD, produced detailed guidelines for orators in their presentation oflegal cases, guidelines that included advice on the advantageous interpretation oflaws. While Irenaeus' interpretive methods purport to arrive at the indisputable reality and truth of Christ's redemptive act, Quintilian's methods, at first glance, provide orators with the skills necessary to argue convincingly for either side in a legal dispute. Sometimes laws are obscure, explained Quintilian, and difficult for the orator to interpret, while other times the letter of the law proves entirely detrimental to the orator's legal case. In either event, Quintilian provides the rhetorician with three different methods to circumvent effectively the letter of the law: first, the rhetorician may redefine a pivotal term within the legislative enactment to render the clause inapplicable to his client~ second, the orator may inquire into the law's general intent to detennine whether a client's actions were in accordance with the law's greater purpose; third, the orator may debate the meaning of a particular word or phrase to render the disputed legal term in accordance with the legislator's intent. 9 In fact, Quintilian's notion oflegislative intent bears some resemblance to Irenaeus' Rule of Faith: just as lrenaeus urged the Christians to interpret the biblical text Quintilian, VII.6.5-8, Ouintiliani Institutio Oratori,- M. Winterbottom, ed., (Oxford, 1970), p. 407-408.
9
163 in relation to Christ's redemptive act, Quintilian encouraged the orator to place a difficult or troublesome law squarely within its larger legislative context in order to ensure its proper interpretation. Likewise, when Gnostic heretics threatened Irenaeus' community at Lyons with their novel interpretations, [renaeus similarly extended the interpretive boundaries beyond the confines of the literary text. The immediate textual setting, therefore, did not suffice in either case to produce the interpretive context, for Quintilian and Irenaeus both envisaged a larger contextual background within which to place the law or doctrine in question. Though [renaeus' Rule of Faith (fidei regula) clearly presupposed that reality and truth enjoy a firm ontological status, Quintilian's notion oflegislative intent did not necessarily relegate legal justice to the quagmire of relativity. Quintilian believed that true rhetoric befits only the good man, for rhetoric and oratory, in their highest form, do not belong to the category of indifferent arts (CxTexv(a), or to those deemed evil (KaKOTExvla). but to the realm of real virtues. IO Unwilling to impugn the integrity of
the orator, Quintilian claimed that the orator who pleads in the law courts cannot be ignorant of justice. 1 1 While Quintilian's predecessors had argued that rhetoric was merely the power of persuasion (ad persuadendi vim), equally accessible to either side of the debate, Quintilian demonstrated that rhetoric was rather the science of speaking well (bene dicendi scientia), and proper only to the good man (vir bonus). 12 In his attempt to defend rhetoric from the various charges leveled against it, namely that '
Quintilian, 11.20.2-4, Ouintiliani InSlitutio Oratoria. p. 122-123.
11 Quintilian, 11.20.8, Quintiliani Institutio Oratoria. p. 124. Nam quid orator in laudando faciet nisi honestorum et torpium peritus? ... aut in iudiciis si iustitiae sit ignarus?
12
Quintilian, 11.16.11, Quintiliani InSlitutio Oratoria. p. 113.
164 that snatches criminals from the penalties of the law, ... secures the condemnation of the innocent and leads deliberation astray, ..." Quintilian presented a notion of rhetoric that ambitiously sought to rehabilitate this art into one of the undisputed virtues. 13 Far from a relative virtue, rhetoric and the practice of oratory, as the particular province of the good man., necessarily produced legal results consonant with justice. To create this quintessential good man, one who could justly plead a case before a court of law, it was necessary to instruct the orator in the art of reading, for it was here that the pupil acquired the plethora of excellent examples needed to produce good moral character. In particular, Quintilian believed that the act of reading shaped moral character, which rendered the literary content of a student's reading material of vital significance. Concerned not merely with examples of eloquence, the student's curriculum must, therefore, include literature imbued with moral excellence, literature such as tragedy, heroic verse, and even carefully selected lyric poets. 14 From this repository of appropriate literature, the fledgling rhetor formed his excellent character, and drew his stock of vocabulary, figures, and literary methods. IS Moreover, Quintilian believed that this list of excellent literature, though a model for imitation, must never be slavishly copied, for the 'greatest qualities of the orator' (quae in oratore maxima sunt), talent (ingenium), invention (inventio), force (vim), and facility (facilitas), defied imitation
Quintilian, 11.16.2, Ouintiliani Institutio Oratoria. p. 111. eloquentiam esse quae poenis eripiat scelestos, cuius fraude damnentur interim boni, consilia ducantur in peius, . 13
14
Quintilian, 1.8.5-6, Ouintiliani Institutio Oratoria. p. 55.
15
Quintilian, X.2.1, Ouintiliani Institutio Oratoria. p. 593-594.
165 (imitabilia non sunt) and remained independent of an (arte non traditur). 16 Quintilian's approach to reading contained clear implications for the hermeneutic process as well. for each rhetorical composition ideally drew upon a well-settled canon of literature, a canon that implicitly provided the context for any questions of interpretation that might arise. A leisurely activity, reading, unlike oral delivery, allowed the interpreter the luxury to reconsider passages a number of times, returning to peruse what may have proved difficult at first glance. 17 It was this possibility for reconsideration, along with the presuppositions attributed to the act of composition, that rendered the interpreter's task intimately bound to the act of composition. Just as the careful rhetor engages, to a certain extent, in an act of restrained imitatio.I8 the interpreter, or reader, with the possibility for rereading. ultimately comprehends that work in relationship to the prescribed literary canon, and the presumed moral excellence of the rhetor/author. When questions of ambiguity arose, Quintilian exhoned the interpreter to resolve these problems, often grammatical in nature, with reference to the author's intent, and the equity of the particular case. '"In cases of ambiguity the only questions which confront us will be, sometimes which of the two interpretations is most natural. and always which interpretation is most equitable, and what was the intention of the person who wrote or uttered the words."19 Authorial intent (implicitly determined by the canon ofliterature
16 Quintilian. X.2.12. Ouintiliani Institutio Oratoria.. p. 595. 17
Quintilian. X1.19-20. Ouintiliani Institutio Oratoria. p. 571.
18 Quintilian, X.2.14-16, Ouinti1iani Institutio Oratoria.. p. 596. Quintilian, VlL9.15, Quintiliani Institutio Oratoria. p. 414. The Institutio Oratoria of Ouintilian. trans. H. E. Butler, vot. ITI (Cambridge. 1976), p. 161. 19
166
that formed the mimetic basis for proper rhetorical composition), and received notions of justice or equity, conspired to produce the context necessary for a correct and proper interpretation. Proper interpretation resulted not only from the broader equitable context, however, but from adequate attention to elements of style and organization. Indeed, Quintilian believed that the teacher oflanguage and literature (grammaticus), charged with instructing students in two departments, namely the art of speaking well (methodice), and the interpretation of authors (historice), must impress upon his students several stylistic features found in the exemplary literary composition. These include the proper arrangement (oeconomia) of subject matter, and the appropriate treatment (decorum) of the various characters and elements that comprise a literary work. 20 A term borrowed from the Greek word oitcovo~(a, which refers to the management of domestic affairs, the Latin equivalent oeconomia covered the full range of elements that comprise literary style, and embodied every aspect relevant to a judicious arrangement of rhetorical material. 21 Under the rubric of oeconomia fell the distinct task ofliterary organization, as the able rhetor arranged his argument into a seamless unity, so that apparently disparate facts joined together into ··an intimate bond of union" (societas).22 Furthermore, Quintilian 20
Quintilian, 1.8.17, Ouintiliani Institutio Oratoria, p. 57.
21 Quintilian, 111.3.9, Ouintiliani Institutio Oratoria. p. 135. Quintilian explains the derivation of the word oeconomia: Hermagoras iudicium partitionem ordinem quaeque sunt elocutionis subicit oeconomiae, quae Graece appellata ex cura rerum domesticarum et hic per abusionem posita nomine Latino caret. Cited by K. Eden, Hermeneutics irul ~ Rhetorical Tradition: Chapters in ~ Ancient Lep:y iru1 in Humanist Reception (New Haven, 1997), p. 27. 22 Quintilian, VII. 10.17, Ouintiliani Institutio Oratoria, p. 418.
167 believed that these bonds ofliterary composition must defy mere arrangement (dispositio), for endemic to each part is a kind of ineluctable coherence that the rhetor must identify, so that the work may 'form a body, and not simply limbs (corpus sit, non membra). '23 Continuity was, above all, the aim in literary organization, a continuity that rendered each and every part an indissoluble link: in the whole. The second department of learning (methodice) ascribed to the grammaticus' charge included the stylistic principle, decorum. and required the rhetor to compose material appropriate to the literary subject. 24 In the Greek rhetorical tradition this principle of literary composition meant that literary style must stand in direct proponion to the matter at hand, so that weighty events shall not be treated lightly, nor trifling events with dignity.25 In fact, Cicero defined decorum as the rhetor's distinct ability to adapt himself to particular persons and occasions. 26 Implied in this directive was a firm relationship between form and content, a unity that reproduced the continuous and seamless organization of literary subject matter demanded by the principle of oeconomia. These well-established principles ofliterary composition, in which style implied content and the parts formed a continuous whole, had undeniable repercussions in the interpretive sphere. Though left unstated by Quintilian, the interpretive implications inherent in these precepts, oeconomia and decorum, suggested that the astute reader should approach the 23
Quintilian, VII. 10.16, Quintiliani InstitutioOratoria. p. 417.
24
Quintilian, 1.8.17, Ouintiliani Institutio Oratoria, p. 57.
25
Aristotelis, Ars Rhetorica. 111.7, W. D. Ross, ed. (Oxford, 1959), p. 155.
Cicero, Orator, XX.70-71 (npenov appellant hoc Graeci, nos dicamus sane "decorum."); xxxv. 123. M. Tulli Ciceronis Orator. O. Jahn, ed. (Berlin, 1964), p. 7374, 112-113. 26
168 text as a unified literary composition, but one wholly shaped by the cultural presuppositions of its author. Consistent with this directive, Plutarch's interpretive paradigm exhorted the reader to extract from myths "what is fitting (TO npoocpopov) in each legend according to its verisimilitude (lCaTCx Ti)v 6IJOl6T11Ta):~7 suggesting that the interpreter retain from myth only those moral and ethical principles consonant with received conceptions of morality and truth. 28 Just as the organizational principle of oeconomia rendered the text a wholly contained, complex web of parts to whole, the stylistic notion of decorum (TO npenov) re-imbued that text with cultural notions of what is appropriate to a
particular case or circumstance, so that the task of interpretation depended upon the text's relationship to larger cultural assumptions. Even in matters of style, it seems that ancient literary theory avoided an interpretive framework wholly determined by the confines of the printed text. Early Christian writers, such as Irenaeus, carried this notion to its logical extension, proposing an interpretive strategy that placed the written words of sacred scripture within the broader theological context of Christ's redemptive narrative. though its henneneutic roots clearly reached back to the famed rhetoricians of antiquity. Like Irenaeus before him, Cyril's interpretative method placed the disputed elements of Christian doctrine within the larger narrative history of the fall, incarnation, and redemption. Especially in the early stages of the Theotokos controversy, Cyril aimed to resolve the burgeoning theological dispute by testing his opponent's arguments against Plutarch, De ~ et Osiride. 374E, PlutarQue OeuVTes Morales, Tome V, 2e partie Isis et Osiris, Ch. Froidefond, ed. (Paris, 1988), p. 229. 27
D. Dawson, Alleaorical (Berkeley, 1992), p. 59. 28
Reoors m Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria.
169 the broader interpretive framework established by the fathers at Nicea Cyril was not the first, however, to interpret Nicea in this decidedly strategic fashion, for Athanasius and
his supporters bad already reconstituted the proceedings at Nicea to suit their larger ecclesiastical political ends. In opposition to the Eusebian party, an encyclical letter written on Athanasius' behalf asserted that the Eusebian adversaries had wrongly attempted to set aside the true council (Ti Tc';l OVTl oVvoSo~) ofNicea in favor of their own unlawful gathering, namely the council of Tyre, held in 335 AD, in which Athanasius was condemned. 29 In light of Athanasius' deposition at Tyre, it was the task of his
supporters to reinstate Nicea as the one true council, the council whose unequivocal condemnation of the Arian party by an ecumenical gathering of bishops deserved unmitigated primacy over the later proceedings at Tyre. In particular, the bishops in support of Athanasius claimed that the Eusebians wrongfully usurped the name 'council' to lend legitimacy to their unlawful decisions instituted against Athanasius, for " ... they use the name of a council, though they are not persuaded by a council as great as this. Thus. they do not care for councils, but only pretend to do so in order that they may root out the orthodo~ and annul the decrees of the true and great council against the Arians .. ."30
In the process, Athanasius and his supporters developed a theory of councils,
juxtaposing the true and legitimate council ofNicea, in which an ecumenical gathering of bishops rendered a series oflawful decrees, with the vindictive proceedings at Tyre. Far Athanasius, ApolOGia Contra Arianos. 7 (CPG 2123) H. G. Opitz., Athanasius Werke 11,3 (Berlin, 1935-1941), p. 93, lines 21-23.
29
Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos. 7, (CPG 2123) H. G. Opitz., Athanasius Werke 11.3, p. 93, lines 23-25. . .. !Cal aVvoSov ovo~a~ovol ot avv6~ T11Al!CaVTr:l ~it 30
lTEle6~EVOl. oiITCol~ ov avv6Sov lTE,p~,!!(!Caolv. aUa axn~aT(~oVTal
170
from ajust determination oftrut~ Tyre. according to Athanasius and his followers. consisted wholly of Athanasius' enemies, imbued with a heretical zeal for the "Arian madness. '31 The impartiality and legitimacy of the proceedings were impugned at another level as well, for Athanasius complained that the assembly at Tyre was presided over by state. rather than ecclesiastical, authority: UHow can they dare to call that a council, at which a comes presided. which a speculator attended. and where a cornmentarius instead of the deacons of the church introduced us; only the comes uttered a sound. and all present were silent, or rather obeyed him ... ?"32 If the arbitrary decisions of the imperial representative determined the unjust outcome at Tyre, as this account suggests, then it was the reasoned doctrinal reflection by an impartial gathering of bishops under the ecclesiastical authority of the church that produced the decrees of the one and true council ofNicea. In fact, Athanasius' construction of Nicea as the ecumenical council par excellence becomes nothing less than a confrontation between ecclesiastical and secular authority. for Athanasius claimed that Eusebius and his followers imbued the proceedings at Tyre with a false air of legitimacy by grounding this "so-called' council in the secular authority of the emperor. With the comes presiding, royal soldiers standing guard. and imperial letters compelling attendance of whomever the Eusebians pleased, Athanasius believed that the secular imperial powers exerted too much authority over the events at 31 Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, 8, (CPG 2123) H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke 11, 3, p. 94, lines 5-6.
Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, 8, (CPG 2123) H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke 11,3, p. 94, lines 11-13. TTQS SE oVvoSov ovo~cll;ElV TOA~Qalv. its K6~llS TTpOUKclenTO Kal TTapiiv aTTEKOUAclTc.JP KaLKo~EVTap"'OlOS Ti~as ElaiiyeV cIVTt SlaKovc.Jv Tiis eKKAllaias: eKEivos ecp8EyyeTo KaL 01 napoVTES eou::l1Tc.JV. ~allov SE Vrn;KOVOV T~ K6~nTl •... 32
Tyre. 33
171 According to Athanasius and his followers this marked secular presence defied
the very nature of conciliar decision making, which ostensibly rested upon the judgment of bishops. To make matters worse, Athanasius claimed that the Eusebian party produced a grave paradox in the conciliar process when they freely succumbed to imperial authority in the proceedings at Tyre, but refused the emperor's judgment when he determined the Meletians to be unscrupulous slanderers against a just and innocent Athanasius. 34 Athanasius alleged that this deviation from proper conciliar procedure rendered the decision at Tyre illegitimate and subject to reconsideration. It seems that the Eusebian party disagreed, for when Julius in his letter to the Eusebians demanded a synod at Rome, the Eusebians charged that any reexamination of a conciliar decree was entirely contrary to standard conciliar procedure.3 5 Unwilling to submit to a reconsideration of their findings at Tyre, the Eusebian party believed that every conciliar decree was exempt from reexamination, an assertion that Julius claimed was contrary to the canons ofNicea. Furthermore, Julius believed that the bishops at Nicea held that the decisions of one council could be examined by another, a claim that admittedly finds no corroboration in the extant canoDS. J6 According to Julius, the Eusebian party deviated from proper Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos. 10, (CPG 2123) H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke II, 3, p. 95, lines 26-29.
33
34 Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos. 10, (CPG 2123) H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke 11, 3, p. 95, line 33 - p. 96, line 2.
Athanasius, ApolQgia Contra Arianos. 22 (CPG 2123) H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke II, 3, p. 103, lines 19-23.
35
Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos. 22 ~2123) H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke II, 3, p. 103, lines 23-27. 36
172 procedure not only when they refused to submit their decrees to open reexaminatio~ but even more significantly when the Eusebians received Arian heretics into communio~ in complete defiance of the Nicean decrees. Even the Eusebians themselves claimed that the decisions of every council enjoyed equal authority. a basic conciliar precept that they openly defied when they refused to obey the dictates of Nicea} 7 In this dispute between Athanasius and the post-Nicean Arians, matters of doctrinal intricacy received little attention, while problems of conciliar theory came to the fore, problems that included the authority of the state in council proceedings; the relationship between the various councils; and the standards for determining the legitimacy and authority of conciliar decisions. Indeed, these problems of conciliar theory were addressed within the context of ongoing disputation between Athanasius and the Eusebians, a context which conspired to produce a theory of councils that suited each party's ecclesiastical political ends. When Athanasius eventually emerged victorious, the council of Nicea became a strategic and political construct, namely the one true ecumenical council, whose decisions were reached by an impartial gathering of bishops free from the exercise of arbitrary imperial power. Once Athanasius established Nicea as the one "great and ecumenical council," a designation that arose, in
~
from the ecclesiastical political situation forged by his
Eusebian adversaries. it was not difficult to assert that the Nicean Symbol of Faith represented the true confession legitimately put forth by the entire ecumenical counciL 38 Even so, the Symbol came under attack by the Eusebians for its predilection toward Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos, 23 (CPG 2123) H. G. Opitz, ed., Athanasius Werke 11, 3, p. 104, line 30 - p. 105, line 4.
37
38 };pistula ad
episcopus Aegypti ~ Libyae. 5 (~2092) eY 25, 552C-553A.
173
unscriptural phrases. In fac~ a similar charge was leveled against Cyril by the antiTheotokos party, and Cyril's response bears a distinct relationship to the arguments that his predecessor Athanasius made nearly seventy years earlier against the post-Nicean Arians, arguments that are worth repeating here. It seems that a number of phrases definitive of the Nicean Symbol of Faith, including "from the essence of God (EIC Tiis oVcrlOS TOU 8EOU)" and "one in essence (611ooucnoV)," had come under harsh scrutiny
by the Eusebians, who believed that their absence from the scriptural text rendered the phrases inappropriate designations for the Trinitarian relationship between Christ and GOd. 39 It was not the literal absence from scripture that was significant for Athanasius, however, but the broader anti-Arian context in which the Nicean terms were used. Appealing to concepts familiar from classical antiquity, concepts such as authorial intent, and context, Athanasius explained that seemingly strange phrases become entirely acceptable expressions of Christian piety when they reflect a broader religious intent (EVcrE~ES TO CPPOVTlllO)
and a desire to express religious piety {eVO'E~c::,S (3ouAETol
CJ11\lOiVElV).40 Moreover, Athanasius believed that irreligiousness (acrE~Elo) remained
utterly forbidden. even when presented under the guise of subtle phrases (lTOllClAa PTl\lOTO) and plausible sophisms (lTl8ava 0ocp(O\laTo).41 If the Nicean definition of
faith constituted a complete and accurate representation of the truth, then Athanasius claimed that the Eusebian party suffered from the deceits of irreligion. 39 De decretis Nicaenae synodi. 19 ~ 2120) H. G. Opitz, ed., Athanasius Werke, p. 16, lines 4-8. 40 De decretis Nicaenae synodi. 18. H. G. Opitz, ed, Athanasius Werke, p. 15, lines 25-
30. 41 De decretis Nicaeuae synodi. 18. H. G. Opitz, ed., Athanasius Werke, p. 15, lines 27-
28.
174
claimed that the Eusebian party suffered from the deceits of irreligion. To fully embrace the irrefutable truth ofNicea. Athanasius urged the reader and interpreter to pay close attention to the larger ecclesiastical context in which these designations appeared. In particular, Athanasius claimed that the heretical Eusebians had fallen prey to a kind of textual literalism when they criticized the decrees of the council for failing to conform to scriptur.e. Furthermore, Athanasius believed that a proper examination of the broader conciliar context and intent amply accounted for the council's addition of non-scriptural phrases - and for the apparent discrepancy between scripture and the Nicean Symbol of Faith. Intending to countermand the impiety of the Eusebians, Athanasius explained that the council decided to use the term "from the essence of God (El< Tiis ouotas TOU eeou)" as a proper expression of Christ's sonship.42 It seems that
the council originally preferred the phrase, "from God (fK TOU eeou)," but fearing the textual manipulations of the Eusebian heretics, the council added the term "essence (ovola)" in order to designate unambiguously that Christ alone comes from GO
not, in any sense, common or equal to the creatures. To prevent any further dissimulation from the Eusebian party, the council apparently added the phrase, ··one in essence ( 6~OOVOlOV)," to signify that the Son was from the Father and of His essence, not merely like the Father, in the way that humans, imbued with virtue, are similar to
God. 43 Athanasius evoked the broader conciliar intent as the interpretive context 42 De decretis Nicaenae synodi. 19. H. G. Opitz, ed., Athanasius Werke, p. 16, lines 4-8. decretis Nicaenae synodi. 20. H. G. Opitz, ed., Athanasius Werke, p. 17, lines 511. Athanasius explained that Nicean terms such as El< Tiis OUOtaS TOU eeou and 6~OOVOlOV safeguarded against heretical Arian terms, such as KTlOlJa. TTOllllJa. yevllTov. and TpETTTOV. IllliI. p. 17, lines 23-25.
43 De
115 appropriate for understanding the phrases in dispute, for an argument based on the biblical text would have been insufficient to counter the Arians' charges. In fact, biblical literalism was responsible for many of the problems raised by the pro-Arian, Eusebian party, and Athanasius needed to carefully define his hermeneutic method in order to contravene the clever interpretive methods of his adversaries. Language itselfhad become suspect, as enterprising Arians laid claim to the biblical text, extricating words from scripture, and even "speaking the phrases of orthodoxy (Ta
pn~aTa
Tiis 6p605o;ias)''
in order to win unsuspecting converts to their so-called "heresy." 44 Urging caution before such potentially seductive linguistic feats, Athanasius claimed that these Arian dissimulators, though skilled in the art of interpretation, did not speak with the right spirit (or intent) (ov yap 6p6fj Slavoic;t AaAoiiolv).45 Indeed, Athanasius believed that truth resided not in language itself, which was susceptible to sophistic deceits, but in the virtuous disposition of the interpreter, who must exhibit the appropriate religious "spirie or '''intent (Slavola)" before his interpretation of scripture acquired the requisite legitimacy.46 Likewise, Quintilian explained in his Institutio Oratoria that the excellent orator invariably argued for the side of justice because he himself displayed all the virtues of a just man, while the bad man, lacking in virtue, argued for whichever side he chose. Athanasius claimed that the unstable, ever-changing opinions of heretics found more in common with the quarrelsome Greeks, with their predilection for constant disputation, than with pious Christians, who invariably confessed the exact same faith as Athanasius, Epistula ~ episcopus aecypti et Libvae. 8. PG 25, 5368. Slavoia means ""intent," "understanding," and refers to the sense or meaning Qf a word or passage. 45 Epistula ad episcopus aegypti ~ Libyae. 8. PG 25, 5368. 44
46 Epistula ad episcopus aegypti ~ Libyae. 8. PG 25, 551A. Athanasius claimed that the character (Tp01TOS) of apostolic men rendered them incapable of deceit (ciSoAOS).
176 their fathers before them. 47 Far from representing the actual experiences oflate antique Christians, however. Athanasius' claims of doctrinal uniformity carefully served his larger political ends, namely his desire to preserve the anti-Arian decrees of Nicea against the competing claims of the Eusebian party at Tyre. At the same time, these larger political goals rested upon certain hermeneutic assumptions, with consequences for the interpretation of texts. Athanasius believed that both the Pagan Greeks and Christian heretics lacked a central, stable core of truth capable of producing a consistent body of doctrine free from the petty disputations common to the "heretics." For Athanasius, this meant that the proper religious mind. well-tuned to the Christians' central core of truth, was central to the formation of orthodox doctrine, and served both as the safeguard against heretical wanderings and as the broader corrective for improper textual interpretation. In particular, Athanasius' interpretive categories were based on the clear distinction between religious and irreligious readings: the irreligious Arians produced dangerously wrong-headed interpretations of scripture, while the religious bishops at the council composed admittedly non-scriptural phrases replete with the requisite pious intent. Words deceive, cautioned Athanasius, and the faithful Christian must be sober and vigilant to avoid the snares of crafty preachers, "for it is not words, but the intention and a life of piety that guarantees the faithful [Christian)."48 It was finally the intent of the speaker, therefore, that determined whether the words spoken constituted an orthodox expression of the faith. 47 De decretis Nicaenae synodi. 4. H. G. Opitz, ed., Athanasius Werke, p. 3, line 25 - p. 4, line 10. 48 Epistula ad episcopus aesypti ~ Libyae. 9. PG 25. 557C. OV yap Blc:IVOla KaL
n""ET' EvoE(3ela~ ayCtJY11 cruviOTTlol TOV TTlaTOV.
nAE~I~. aUt n
177 Proper interpretation of scripture also largely defined Cyril's confrontation with Nestorius. In his five tomes against Nestorius, Cyril exhorted the interpreter to sift through the various doctrinal accounts of Christ. and to distinguish the orthodox truth from the false claims of heretics, just as the money dealerdiligentIy sorts through his money, rejecting whatever is counterfeit. 49 The metaphor was an appropriate one, consonant with late antique experiences with the heretical appropriation of scripture, for the biblical text had proven itself dangerously subject to deceptive and irreligious misinterpretatio~
as clever "heretics" often laid claim to scriptural texts to support their
doctrinal assertions. To distinguish heretical from orthodox writings, therefore, Cyril proposed a
tes~
namely that every doctrinal account be placed in juxtaposition to the
sacred scriptures; writings that were consistent with the meaning or intent (OKOTTOS) of the biblical text were deemed orthodo~ while those that used a strange language different from scripture were cast away as dangerous examples of heretical deceit. 50 In no way an impartial
detenninatio~
Cyril's interpretive strategy followed the henneneutic method of
his predecessor Athanasius, and examined the entire scope or sense (OKOTTOS) of the scri ptural text in order to rehabil itate it from the heretical incursions of the Arians, whose 49
Cvrilli libri V contra Nestorium. (CPG 5217) ACa I, 1, 6, p. 13, lines 21-27.
Cvrilli libri V contra Nestorium. ACa I, 1,6, p. 13, lines 37-42. Though Cyril argued against the biblical literalism of the so-called heretics, he was in no way prepared to sacrifice the sacred scriptures to his enemies. Cyril, therefore, followed the henneneutic of his predecessor Athanasius, and declared that the meaning of the text in its entirety must be considered (Athanasius' scope of sacred scripture), rather than the meaning of individual phrases removed from their broader narrative context For the sake of convenience, I will frequently use the word "scope" to translate the Greek word OKOTTOS, by which I mean to convey the "meaning" "significance" "purpose" and ""intent" of scripture, all of which are meant by Athanasius' and Cyril's use of the term. 50
178 errant biblical interpretations had produced a stream of problematic writings. Indee~ it was the false understanding of the Arian heretics that produced one of the most pernicious doctrinal interpretations of the day. explained Cyril in the introduction to his five tomes against Nestorius. for the Arians bad claimed that the Word of God was somehow less than the Father who begot Him.Sl Cyril's treatise aimed to separate. once again. such destructive doctrines from the ~ for Cyril complained that a book of sermons, filled with a multitude of blasphemies, had come to his attention. a book that he planned to address in order to preserve the doctrines of truth. 52 This new 'multitude of blasphemies.' was none other than Nestorius' book of sermons, which Cyril placed in telling juxtaposition with the heretical Arians of the past. More than mere coincidence, this juxtaposition between Nestorius and the Arians was already ripe with significance by the time Cyril composed his treatise. In Cyril's third letter to Nestorius, composed sometime after the synod met at Rome in August 430. and before Cyril's five tomes against Nestorius. Cyril demanded Nestorius' assent to the fonnula of belief included in his letter -- a fonnula wholly defined by the decrees of the Nicean Symbol of Faith. Fully sanctioned by a synod convened at
Cyril's request and assembled at Alexandria. Cyril's letter demanded Nestorius' complete and
utt~r
dissociation from his former perverse doctrines. and harshly criticized Nestorius
for his scandalous disruption of ecclesiastical peace. In his letter to Pope Caelestine. Nestorius had already expressed his full assent to the proceedings at Nicea. but Cyril deemed Nestorius' verbal assent a wholly insufficient and inadequate expression of faith. In fact, eyril believed that Nestorius was entirely mistaken in his interpretation of the 51 Cyrilli libri V contra Nestorium. (CPG 5217) ACa I, 1,6, p. 14, lines 8-11. 52
CyrilIi libri V contra Nestorium. (CPG 5217) ACa I, I, 6, p. 14. lines 28-30.
179
Symbol, and that his verbal assent to Nicea failed to overcome the inherently false understanding that lay behind his claims. 53 A straightforward perusal of the Nicean Symbol of Faith, explained Cyril, fully supported his own orthodox vision ofa singular Christ, the Word, united hypostatically with flesh, a vision that rendered Nestorius' dual nature christology a heretical misinterpretation of the creed, for the creed unequivocally asserted that "we believe in One God, [ ... ], and in One Lord Jesus Christ."S4 Cyril's strategic appropriation of the Nicean creed at this relatively early stage in the controversy, no doubt left Nestorius' christological assertions in a precarious position. It was Athanasius, after all, who first interpreted Nicea to suit his particular ecclesiastical political agenda, a legacy that Cyril artfully appropriated by this letter. Cyri!' s broader anti-Arian arguments, set forth most clearly in his Thesaurus. also defined, to a large extent, the boundaries ofbis dispute with Nestorius. In this third letter to Nestorius, Cyril explained that the various sayings of Christ, including those appropriate to the manhood and to the GodhOO
~ Nestorium.
(CPG 5317) ACa I, I, I, p. 34, lines
54 See J. McGuckin, Si. ~ of Alexandria. p. 267, n. 3.
180 appropriately uttered phrases entirely consonant with his human limitations, phrases such as John 8:40, "Now you seek to destroy me; a man who has told you the truth. "55 This was not the first time, however. that Cyril took recourse in this particular method of argumentation. In his anti-Arian treatise. the Thesaurus. Cyril had earlier defended the consubstantiality of the Father and Son, by refuting Arian assertions that the two formed only a voluntary union and not a unity of nature. 56 Following closely Athanasius' line of argument set forth in his Contra Arianos !IL Cyril explicated the same scriptural quotation, "I and the Father are One (John 10:30)." borrowed from Athanasius' discourse against the Arians, that would later appear in Cyril' s third letter to Nestorius. By delineating the boundaries of his discourse with respect to his earlier anti-Arian treatise, the Thesaurus, Cyril strategically placed his opponent Nestorius within the heretical, anti-Arian framework already constructed by Athanasius more than seventy years earlier. It was a subtle maneuver that in these early stages of controversy would eventually
prove more insidious for Nestorius than any blatant, forthright comparison with the Arian heresy. That Nestorius' christology bore no real resemblance to this heresy mattered little for the success ofCyril's anti-Nestorian discourse. Seemingly different theological problems (i.e., the Trinitarian concerns of the fourth century and the christological concerns of the fifth), set within the same interpretive sphere, left Nestorius virtually assured of a fatal association with this quintessential subordinationist heresy from the century before. In fact, the separation between Father and Son, urged by the Arian 55
Epistula iii (synodica) Cyrilli Alex.
~ Nestorium.
ACa I, I. I, p. 38.
Thesaurus sk sancta ~ consuhstantiali trinitale. XII (CPG 5215) fQ. 75. 188A, and Cyril's refutation, 1888 - 189A. 56
181
heretics. and thoroughly addressed by Athanasius and Cyril. became, under Cyril's hand, a fitting metaphor for Nestorius' separation between the divine and human natures of Christ. It was a separation of natures that played itself out most vividly in the christological problems posed by the sufferings of Christ. Arian heretics, with their strict biblical literalism, had claimed that the biblical sayings appropriate to Christ's human nature, including the sufferings of Christ, offered irrefutable proof that Christ was not like God. In response, Athanasius explained that the infirmities of Christ were surely proper to only his human body. Largely paraphrasing his predecessor Athanasius, Cyril agreed, for in his Thesaurus he explained that the Arian heretics wrongly ascribed human suffering to the Word, though it was the flesh that suffered and died, and not the Word proper -- which is by nature impassible and immortal. 57 For Nestorius and the Antiochenes, the problem of the sufferings of Christ, infamously raised by the Arian heretics, found a firm resolution not in the cautious phraseology of Athanasius, but in their distinctive, dual nature christology. Any biblical texts describing emotions proper to Christ's human nature were attributed to the manhood alone, which was linked to the divinity through a single prosopon. 58 Nevertheless, ifNestorius' dual nature christology, with its distinct distribution of Christ's sayings, allegedly attentive to the texts of scripture, could, in any event, be made to appear anything like the Arian heresy and its insistence on a strict biblical literalism, then Cyril would surely emerge victorious in this dispute. After all, the Arians had addressed the christological implications inherent in Christ's sufferings and concluded that 57 Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate. PG 15. 396C1D. OUTc..lS yap cpalJ,EV OTt KaL ECTavpt:lEh, KaL CITTESaVE. TOUTO lTa80UOllS Tiis oapKos. Olnc i8lQ teaS' eaVTov TOU Aoyou- alTaSns yap EOTl KaL a8avaTOS. 58
Nestorius,1:.m Heraclidis, l& ~ d'Heraclide, p. 223-224.
Christ was not like God. Though far from this heretical assertion~
182 Nestorius, troubled by
the prospects of a suffering Word, attributed these biblical sayings only to Christ's human nature, leaving ample room for Cyril's strategic juxtaposition. In fact. Athanasius had earlier addressed the Arian biblical literalism that lay behind their problematic christological assertions, by taking recourse in the henneneutic presuppositions inherent in the Christian Rule of Faith. Though technically supported by
scripture~
Arian interpretations were, according to Athanasius, utterly unsound. And
the explanation for this interpretive anomaly lay in A~ius' broader henneneutic construct: the scope (cncOTTOS) of the Christian faith, explained Athanasius, constitutes the fundamental rule for interpreting sacred texts, and the heretics, wholly ignorant of this larger interpretive construct (OKonos), have wandered from the truth. What is the scope or intent of sacred scripture, according to Athanasius' rendition? Christ. the Father's Word, radiance, and wisdom~ is both God and So~ He took flesh from the Virgin Mary. Theotokos, and was made man. 59 Athanasius betieved that these simple truths formed the foundation of orthodox Christian piety, and provided a sure safeguard against the Arian misappropriation of important biblical passages. A key to correct scriptural interpretation. the OK01TOS of Christian faith enabled the careful interpreter a ready bulv.ark against heretical incursions into the sacred texts. In a similar manner, Cyril addressed the Nestorian problem, for Cyril claimed to have received orthodox teachings on the singular nature of Christ from the holy apostles, and from 'all the God-inspired scriptures.' In particular, Cyril's letter implied that Nestorius improperly distributed Christ's sayings to separate human and divine natures, in complete defiance of the entirety of the scriptural texts. Derived from an interpretation 59
Orationes contra Arianos iii. n1.28-29 ~ 2093) PG 26. 385 AIB.
183
of "all the God-inspired scriptures; Cyril's christology rested on a hermeneutic strategy similar to his predecessor and model~ Athanasius. To counter Arian biblical misinterpretatio~
Athanasius had developed a hermeneutic construct derived from
Irenaeus' rule of fai~ and claimed that the entire scope of sacred scripture, including Christ's Sonship and incarnatio~ provided the necessary touchstone for correct interpretation. Furthermore, Cyril complained that Nestorius, like the Arians before him, had evidently fallen prey to a strict biblical literalism, adducing various scriptural citations to support his dual nature christology. Derived from the entirety of the scriptural texts, Cyril's singular vision of Christ allegedly countermanded Nestorius' grave interpretive error. Cyril's anti-Arian legacy, inherited from his predecessor Athanasius, figured even more prominently in his treatise, the five tomes against Nestorius. One christological problem in particular, that of Christ's apparent increase in stature and wisdom~ well exemplifies the close relationship that Cyril forged with Athanasius' anti-Arian discourse, and Cyril's subsequent appropriation of this same anti-Arian discourse into the Nestorian affair. It seems that Nestorius was concerned with preserving Christ's human nature wholly intact, and, therefore, insisted that Christ trusted in God and was made High Priest. 60 A view dependent upon the distinctive Antiochene anthropology in which the rational ity of the human soul rendered it mutable and susceptIble to freedom of choice and will, Nestorius' dual nature christology supponed a vision of mankind in utter and complete communion with God. 61 This was not divinization in the Alexandrian sense, however, for Antiochene redemption came about by following Christ's example as perfect 60 Nestorius, Liber Heraclidis. Le Livre d~Heraclide. p. 219. 61
W. H. C. Frend, The Rise 2f~ Monophysite Movement. p. 126.
184
man, rendering the faithful Christian saved in his complete human
perfection. 62
Such a
distinctive soteriological scheme meant that safeguarding Christ's human integrity was Nestorius' most essential concern. Insisting that Christ's manhood was replete with the requisite 'prosopon.' Nestorius believed that Christ, fully man by nature, was also God in the manifestation, 'that one not suppose that he is called God for the destruction of the natures and of their properties owing to the union, or that the union of God took place only with a view to the manhood. '63 With its insistence on the full humanity of Christ, Nestorius' christology eventually produced his assertion that Christ gradually increased in wisdom. Like Gregory ofNazianzus before him, Nestorius claimed that '"the one who begins and gradually advances to perfection is not God, although he is so called because of the manifestation which took place little by little."64 In other words, this gradual advance of Christ took place not with respect to the divinity, but rather the humanity or flesh, which remained wholly separate from the properties of divinity. A soteriological scheme decidedly human and practical in its orientation, the divinity and humanity of Christ were constituted as fully separate entities (ovolal), connected only by a single •prosopon. , This virtually insurmountable chasm wrought between God and man must have seemed strange to Cyril, whose Alexandrian legacy, and larger interpretive context, envisioned a soteriological plan wholly dependent on mankind's close link to divinity, made possible through the incarnation - its implicatio~ finally realized in humanity's ultimate divinization and redemption. Examining Nestorius' claims for the progress in 62
W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, p. 127.
63
Nestorius, ~ Hemclidis. 1& Livre d'Heraclide. p. 224.
64
Nestorius, !Jl£ Heraclidis, 1& Lim d'Heraclide, p. 224.
185
stature of Chri~ Cyril constructed a careful response, one that rendered Nestorius suspiciously similar to the Arian heretics, "But you say this, I suppose, that being God almighty, he himselfbecame highpriest. He, therefore, was emptied and humbled himself, descending into the inferior. How, then, did he yet advance into dignity when he became highpriest?"65 Evidently the Arians had claimed that Christ was an exalted man, promoted from his inherently lower status. Attacking these Arian notions of promotion and advancement, Athanasius, decades earlier, had declared that Christ, existing fully as God (SECS tnrapxCtlv), took the form ofa servant (niv SovAov ~opcpilV eAa(3e), and humbled himself, without any reward for virtue (~lae6S Tiis aPETiiS).66 Well familiar with this anti-Arian discourse, Cyril had earlier recapitulated Athanasius' argument in his Thesaurus, "What accession of honor has there been to him who is in the form of God, though he put on the form of a slave. . .. How does promotion come to one who descended? What improvement accrues to one who comes into something inferior from something betterT'67 A ready-made anti-Arian discourse. Cyrii's argument applied to Nestorius only in a most tangential sense. Though the Arians wished to assen the lowly status of Christ, consistent with their hierarchically constituted, Neo-Platonic scheme. Nestorius sought to 65 Cyrilli libri V contra Nestorium. (CPG 5217) ACO I, 1.6. p. 69, lines 19-21. aAA' EKElVO. ol~al, cpi]s OTl BEOS TTavTOKpaTCtlp VTTapxCtlV 6 aUTOS ytyOVEV apXlEpEUS. KEKEVCtlTal Si] oUv teal TETaTTElVCtlKEV eaVTcv KaSElS ev ~eloal. nc:,s oUv eTl TTpOEKO\¥EV Eis a;ICtll.la YEYOV~S iEPruS: 66 Orationes contra Arianos iii. 1.40 (CPG 2093) ffi 26,93 CID. 67 Thesaurus ~ sancta ~ consubstantiali trinitate. XX. PG 75. 328D. 329A. Kal TTola yEyove TTpoaEhiKTJ Tll.lfiS Tc';l Ev I.lOpcpij ~ev VTTapxovTl Seou. evSvoa~EVCtJ Se Tilv TOU SovAov I.lopcpnv: nc:lS 0 lCaTEAec;"v yiyovev QVCtl: nOlav ExEll3EATlCtlOlV 6 Ev EAaTTool yeyovc;"S e; aI.lElVOVCtlV:
186
preserve the uniquely Antiochene notion of redemption which was wholly dependent upon preserving Christ's human integrity fully intact, while simultaneously safeguarding Christ's divinity. That Nestorius presented arguments superficially similar to those of the Arians, namely his call for Christ's actual increase in stature, merely produced an unfortunate coincidence oflanguage. In fact, Nestorius' christology could not have been farther from Arian concerns. Detennined to maintain Christ's divinity, wholly immutable and untouched by the sufferings of flesh, Nestorius insisted on the Antiochene dual nature christology, which attnbuted Christ's passions, sufferings, and increase in stature only to his human nature, a nature linked to his divinity by a single prosopon. Nevertheless, Cyril's anti-Arian legacy left him with a plethora of available arguments to counter Nestorius' claims, "For we do not say that the Word of God advanced and hastened toward dignity, if He has been deemed our highpriest," repeated eyril from his anti-Arian treatise, the Thesaurus, "but that He descended here too into emptiness."68 Cyril's anti-Arian arguments gained further momentum throughout the course of the Nestorian affair. Implicitly accusing Nestorius of succumbing to Arian deceit, Cyril presented Nestorius' vision of Christ in terms markedly similar to the Arians, namely that Christ advanced in wisdom. Though Cyril plainly attributed this christological assertion to his opponent Nestorius, there is, however, no extant evidence that Nestorius ever subscribed to such a decidedly Arian vision of Christ. In fact, Cyril had little trouble responding to this straw man argument, an argument that enabled Cyril to introduce the full arsenal of anti-Arian discourse accumulated throughout the past one hundred years. "We believe," wrote Cyril, ""that out of the very belly and womb of the Virgin, Emmanuel lTpOK~al cpa~ev Kat Eis a~((,.)~a Spa~Elv TOV Toii eEoii XoyOV. Et KEXpn~aTlKEV Ti~c':lv
68 Cyrilli libri V contra Nestorium. Aca I, I, 6, p. 69, lines 40-42. ov Si] apXlEpEVS. Ka6lKEa8al SE JjClAAOV Kat SUX TOVTOV lTPOS tcEV(,.)OlV.
187 being G<>
M~
completely full of the wisdom and grace that are
naturally inherent in him. "69 Evidently, the biblical text presented Cyril with something of a challenge, for Luke 2:52 clearly stated that Jesus advanced in stature, wisdom and grace, a text to which the Arians had, the century before, attached their decidedly low christology. Following the anti-Arian discourse (discussed below), Cyril explained that Christ's apparent advance and increase occurred little by little, so that he made his wisdom and grace manifest only in direct proportion to his bodily stature. 70 Likewise, in his Festal letter for the year 430 AD, Cyril had similarly explained that Jesus' progress in stature, wisdom and grace did not render the Word of God wise by accession, for the Word was merely said to increase in Wisdom, in order that the Word may exhIbit the properties appropriate to its human nature. 7 1 This line of argument had already been amply explored in Cyril's alleged confrontation with Arian heretics in the years proceeding the Nestorian controversy. In his Thesaurus, Cyril explained that Christ admitted progress and increase so that Christians, too, may advance in wisdom. Everything that Christ did, according to Cyril, was for the sake of faithful Christians, whose inherent sinfulness after the transgression of Adam required nothing less than Christ's complete identity with human nature. This identity meant something entirely different for Cyril than for the Antiochene conception. 69 Cyrilli libri V contra Nestorium. ACa I, I, 6, p. 70, lines 9-11. lTElTlOTeUKallEv yap EK \1Tl5uos atrn;5 Kallli)Tpa5 Tii5 lTap8eVlIcT15 8eov QVTa TOV 'EJ..lllavO\n;A clv8pc.JlTOV lTPOEA8ETv. lTAi)PTllTOU lTaVTt.lS oocpla5 Kal XaPlTOS TT15 EvouOllS aVTc;:,
Cvrilli libri V contra Nestorium. ACa I, I, 6, p. 70, lines 24-25. Indeed, Christ is merely said to have advanced (lTPOKOlTTElV QV AEYOlTO) in stature and wisdom, in proportion to his human body. 70
71
Epistula paschalis XVII (CPG 5240) PG 77, 781A.
188
IndeecL Cyril's Christ only seemed to increase in wisdom and stature, and that only by virtue of his human flesh. In other words, the identity between Christ and humans that was perfectly executed, under the Antiochene notion, by means of Christ's complete human integrity, was for Cyril and his A1exandrian predecessors, merely adopted for the sake of redemption: "And just as for our sake He humbled himself, so too for our sake He admits advancement. in order that we again in Him might advance in wisdom, we who long ago were made beasts because of sin; we might advance in grace too, we who long ago have been hated because of the transgression in Adam."n Following Irenaeus' notion of recapitulation, Cyril constructed a perfect mirror image between Christ and Adam, for Christ as the second Adam freely and generously corrected every transgression committed by Adam at the FaH, enabling pious Christians finally to attain a sure redemption. Athanasius had already considered the very same problem in his Contra Arianos. If the Son is Wisdom, asked Athanasius, how can Wisdom admit further advance
(TIPOKOTTTElV)'? Wrongfully appropriated by the Arian heretics, the Lukan text (2:52) demanded reintegration into a larger interpretive framework in order to countermand the biblical literalism of the Arians' interpretive method It was not only the Lukan narrative that supplied the appropriate context. but also the overarching historical drama that constituted the incarnation, redemption, and eschaton, a drama that demanded the preservation of Christ's redemptive act in order to extricate this difficult passage from the grasp of Arian opposition. In particular, Athanasius believed that once the Son of God became incarnate, he humbled himself in order to bring about increasing perfection in
72 Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate. XXVIII, PG 75, 425D. Kal (.)OlTEP Ot' TU10S ETanElVColCEV ea\JTov. OUTe;,.) Kal St' Tn"lCls EnlOExETal TO npOK01TTE1V. '(va TIaAlV TtilElS EV a\rr~ npOK01TTColilEV EV CocplQ. Ol neXAal SlCx Tliv OilapTiav OTIOKT11VColeEVTES· npOK~ilEV Se Kal EV XaPlTl Ol neXAal ilEillCTlilEVOl SlC nlv EV 'AS c il na pcij3aclv.
189
others. Furthermore, since growth and progress are attributes of mankind. Athanasius declared that it was only in his human fonn that the Son was able to advance, for as the Godhead revealed itself to humans, so did the Son's grace increase more and more, from his experience in the Temple as a chil
Orationes contra Arianos iii. 111.52. PG 26, 4328 - 4338.
190 than the very deification of grace imparted to man - a kind of metaphor for mankind's own obliteration of sin. What was formerly the subject of Arian (and even Jewish) misinterpretatio~
becomes a text replete with meaning wholly opposite to that assumed
by the Arian heretics, for as the body increased in stature, the Godhead became gradually manifest in it. Furthermore, Cyril believed that progress did not take place in the Word, external to the flesh, as the heretics deceptively claimed, for this advance was a property of the flesh - a flesh which eventually became the body of Wisdom. It was, therefore, not Wisdom that advanced with respect to itself, but the manhood which advanced in it, transcending human nature by degrees on its road to deification. Indeed, just as the Son suffered in the flesh, hungered in the flesh, and tired in the flesh, the Son readily advanced in the flesh, but not in the Word - and, in the process, became the very body of Wisdom. Intended to preserve the common sense progression from incarnation,
redemptio~
and
mankind's ultimate deification, this reading of the scriptural text imparted soteriological meaning on a passage wrongly appropriated by Arian ·heretics: who believed that the Son's gradual progress in Wisdom rendered him no better than a common man. Appropriating these anti-Arian, anti-Jewish assertions, Cyril made Nestorius' doctrines appear to denigrate the divinity of Christ, for Cyril claimed that Nestorius denied that Christ is God by nature, and that He is the singular Son of God 74 In fact, Cyril believed that this deviation from orthodox belief rendered Nestorius an advocate for the Jews' unleaming. for such pernicious doctrines notoriously otTended the doctrines of the Church and utterly disregarded the depth of the divine mystery.75 The plan of Cyril's ·divine mystery' (0 TOU IlUOTTlPlOU AOyOS). therefore, shared much in common 74 Cvrilli libri V contra Nestorium. Aea I, 1.6, p. 91, lines 29-31. 75
Cyrilli libri V contra Nestorium. (~ 5217) Aea I. I. 6, p. 92. lines 29-30.
191
with Athanasius' overarching narrative story, which included the entire scope (significance) of the Christian faith. "We believe that the Word from God the father united himself to the body, born through the Holy Virgin. with a rational soul, ... " wrote Cyril, "and rendered it life-giving, being as God life by Nature, that making us partakers of Himself, alike spiritually and bodily, He may make us better than what is corruptible, and He may abolish through Himself the law of sin which is in the members of the flesh .. ."76
Nestorius' problematic doctrines, made to resonate with Arian and even Jewish
errant beliefs, threatened the simple truths preserved in this sacred 'divine mystery: truths that ensured humanity's redemption in a manner consonant with the Alexandrian soteriologica1 scheme. Cyril repeated and incorporated the christological implications of this anti-Arian. anti-Nestorian discourse in his treatise written for the empresses Eudoxia and Pulcheria. Eager to safeguard the divinity of the Word, Cyril explained to the empresses that the Word remained God even when seen in the flesh. That the Word advanced in favor with God and men presented no doctrinal difficulties, explained Cyril, for this apparent incongruity readily preserved the Christian truths essential to Christ's divine mystery. Willing to make his own the frailties of the flesh, the Word appropriately hungered, thirst, and found himself 'wearied with the journey. '77 How should the faithful Christian understand such wholly human failings? Cyril believed that the mystery of the economy Cyrilli libri V contra Nestorium. (CPG 5217) Aea I, 1,6, p. 87, lines 17-22. TTlCTruO\lEV yap c.:,~ Tc;, Tex8EVTl Sla Tils ayias nap8evou O~\laTl 'i'UX'iv i)(OVTl AOYltaiV evt:loas eaUTov 6 EIC 8EOV lTaTpO~ AOyo~ ... ~c.JOTTOlOV clTTEcpnVEV aUTO. l;c.uti KaTa CPVOlV VTTapxc.Jv c.:,,~ 8ECS. 'iva n\la~ e:aUTov IlETOXOVS clnOTEAQv TTVEV\laTlI<:QS TE a\la ICal oc.JllaTlKc:,~ Kal cp8opa~ clTTO
Cyrilli oratio ad Pulcheriam ~ Eudociam augustas. (CPG 5220) Aea I, I, 5, p. 33, line 23 - p. 34, line 2. 77
192
with flesh sufficed to account for the paradox of a suffering, seemingly human, yet fully divine, Word. It was the Arians who refused this paradox ofa sutTering Christ, accumulating a host of scriptural texts to adduce evidence of Christ's lowly status. When Cyril appropriated Athanasius' anti-Arian discourse, therefore, he rendered Nestorius' reluctance to admit a suffering deity ominously similar to the Arians' strictly literal claims. After all, the sacred scriptures undeniably contained a plethora of texts to support the Arian positio~ rendering a proper hermeneutic strategy essential to refute the Arians' interpretive methods. [n particular, Cyril's notion of divine mystery, borrowed from Athanasius' scope (OKonos) of Christian faith, enabled this devastating response to Nestorius' allegedly heretical dyophysite claims.
Ill. Conclusions:
Cyril's legacy inherited from his predecessor Athanasius was a complex reintegration and recapitulation of Athanasius' anti-Arian, pro-Nicean discourse. From the earl iest stages of controversy, Cyril placed the anti-Theotokos arguments of his unnamed opponent Nestorius squarely within the boundaries of the Symbol of Faith produced at Nicea. Though literally absent from the Nicean creed, the term Theotokos for Mary was deemed by Cyril an appropriate designation consonant with Christ's status as the Son of God. •If Mary is not Theotokos, then Christ is not God,' explained Cyril to his fractious monks. The inflammatory statement would have surely reminded these pro-Nicean monks of the battles waged the century before against the heretical Arians. Cyrirs discourse, however, was dependent not only on the anti-Arian boundaries set by the anti-Arian rhetor J2i[ excellence, Athanasius, but also on the hermeneutic strategy forged during the long history of Christian textual interpretation that extended all the way
193 back to the church father Irenaeus. His Rule of Faith had provided ample defense against
the so-called outrages of Gnostic beliefs, reclaiming the scriptural text from the grasp of heretical misinterpretation. Athanasius had developed a similar interpretive method to counter the biblical appropriations of the Arians, whose claims on the scriptural texts produced a host of interpretive problems. Indeed, Athanasius believed that the entire scope of the Christian faith supplied the larger interpretive boundaries and context necessary fora correct reading of the biblical text. Christians were not the first to construct a hermeneutic strategy that extended beyond the confines of the printed text. Of all the Graeco-Roman rhetoricians. Quintilian. in panicular, presented a notion of reading and interpretation that embraced the broader context in which a text. or legislative enactment, was produced. Authorial intent also came to the fore, as Quintilian insisted that difficult or ambiguous words, phrases. and laws be read in conjunction \\ith the larger equitable concerns that lay behind the law in question. Concerned to rehabilitate rhetoric from the slanderous accusations leveled against it. namely that orators, without regard for justice, simply argued for the expedient side in a legal dispute, Quintilian explained that only a "good man' could produce just results. This meant that the vinue of the orator was instrumental in determining the outcome of a legal case, that words were not subject to distortion when uttered by the quintessential good man. These presumptions produced undeniable implications in the sphere of reading and interpretation as well, for the attentive reader surely looked to the virtue inherent in the excellent rhetor to supply the broader equitable context within which to interpret difficult words and phrases. Heretical appropriation of biblical texts eventually produced a similar interpretive notion amongst Christian writers. Athanasius and Cyril claimed that heretics, though able
194
to adduce biblical evidence in support of their errant beliefs, were, nevertheless, \\Tongheaded, evil, and demonic, wholly bereft of proper understanding. Good Christians produced correct biblical interpretations, and that goodness was determined to a large extent, by assent to the simple creedal formulations of the church. In particular, the belief that Christ, the singular son of God, became incarnate, died, and was raised, provided sufficient safeguard against heretical deceits, and a ready context for the interpretation of contested scriptural texts. Once this larger hermeneutic method was firmly in place, it was not difficult for an able interpreter such as Cyril, to apply this reading strategy in a
polemical fashion against his opponents. In fact, Nestorius' Antiochene christology provided a ready supply of scriptural assertions that could be deftly manipulated to sound something like the Arian claims of a century before. Fully armed with the antiArian discourse of his predecessor Athanasius, Cyril carefully framed his discourse against Nestorius. The Arians had claimed that Christ the Word fully suffered, an assertion wholly condemned by the fathers at Nicea, and diligently rebutted in the voluminous anti-Arian treatises of Athanasius, and later in Cyril's Thesaurus. Though Nestorius' assertion that Christ suffered only in his human nature was entirely different from such Arian claims, Cyrillaunched his full-scale anti Arian attack, recapitulating the same anti-Arian arguments rehearsed in his Thesaurus. When confronted with the uncertainty of two opposing scriptural interpretations, questions of interpretive authority necessarily came to the fore. Cyril resolved these difficult questions in a twofold manner: first, Cynl laid claim to the 'entirety of scriptural texts,' imposing a broader hermeneutic context for his christological assertions not unlike Athanasius' 'scope of Christian faith.' Second, he artfully manipulated at least some of Nestorius' decidedly Antiochene christology, in order to render it consonant with the
195
Arian claims of a century before. Well-rehearsed in the discourse of anti-Arian assaul~ Cyril recapitulated his Thesaurus in the unfolding dispute with Nestorius. And Cyril's legacy from his predecessor Athanasius lent an undeniable air of authority to this process, for Cyril aimed to appropriate nothing less than Athanasius' reputation as the anti-Arian victor par excellence. As heir to this anti-Arian legacy. Cyril constructed the requisite authority to interpret biblical texts consistent with the broader interpretive framework fonned by Athanasius' "scope of Christian Faith: and his own "divine mystery: and 'entirety of scripture: It was finally Cyril's relationship to his Alexandrian past. a relationship forged wholly from Cyril's self-conscious appropriation of Athanasi us , interpretive methods and anti-heretical argumentation. that enabled this full-fledge
196 Chapter 4 -- The Meeting of the Council
L The imperial ~ ofTheodosius II and the Western emperor Valentinian [lI, addressed to Cyril and all the metropolitans on November 19,430, called for an ecumenical council of bishops to reconcile the theological controversy between the sees of Alexandria and the Imperial City. 1 Demanding the punctual arrival of all invited bishops, Theodosius [J asked each metropolitan to bring along several provincial bishops to the council, scheduled to begin at Pentecost, June 7, 431 AD.2 Nestorius and his sixteen bishops were amongst the first group to arrive at the destination, reaching Ephesus soon after the celebration of the Easter festival. 3 Shortly before the appointed day of Pentecost, Cyril and his band of fifty bishops reached the city apparently in good spirits. for they had crossed the vast sea (",eya 1TEAayo~) with light breezes (n",epCtJTeXTolS TTVci",aolv) without fear or danger (S(Xa
Sacra ad Cyrill um A1ex. ~ ad singuJos .m.etropolitas (d. 19 m. Nov. a. 430) (CPG 8651 ) ACO I. I. I. p. 114-116. For basic bibliography, see A. Ales. Le dQgme de I'Ephese (Paris. 1931)~ T. Camelot., Ephese et Chalceooine (Paris, 1962)~ R. Devreesse. "Les Actes du Concile d'Ephese," Revue ~ Sciences Philosophigues ~ TheoloWgues 18 ( 1929), p. 223-431; A. de Halleux, "La premiere session du concil d·Ephese (22 juin 431 ):. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 69 (1993), p. 48-87; C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church; K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses, '"The Controversy Over the Mother of God." p. 147-174; C. Luibheid, "Theodosius n and Heresy," lE!:! 16 (1965), p. 13-38; J. McGuckin, S!. ~2fAlexandria. p. 53-107; L.I. Scipioni, Nestorio~!l concilio de ~ (Milan, 1974); E. Schwartz, ~ 1UHl skI MOnch Viktor (Vienna and Leipzig, 1928); B. Weischer, Homilien yrul Briefen zum Konzil von Ephesos (Weisbaden, 1979); F. M. Young, From~12Cha1cedon,(Philadelphia, 1983). I
2 Sacra ad Cyrillum A1ex. ACO I, I, I, p. 115, lines 19-26. 3 Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, VII.34, G. C. Hansen and M. Sirinjan, eds., Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, ~ N. F. 1 (Berlin, 1995), p. 382, lines 21-23.
197 Rhodes, and then continued on to their final destination, evidently without incident. 4 J uvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, arrived five days after Pentecost, accompanied by his supporting bishops, while Memnon, bishop of Epbesus, apparently gathered forty bishops from his own diocese, along with twelve from Pamphylia 5 Nestorius and his supporters, apparently eager to settle the score with Cyril, were amongst the few invited bishops to arrive promptly, in strict accordance with the emperor's decree. Appointed by the emperor, Nestorius seemed to enjoy imperial favor early in the controversy, an advantage that he, no doubt, hoped would translate into victory at this imperially sanctioned, ecumenical gathering of bishops. His rival Cyril, after all, endured strained relations with the imperial family, a legacy inherited from his uncle Theophilus' overtly political campaign against bishop John Chrysostom, and from Cyril's own history of problematic ecclesiastical political relations with the imperial court. In a failed attempt to win imperial support, Cyril had written separate treatises to the empresses Pulcheria and Eudoxia, producing no small degree of enmity from the emperor Theodosius II, imperial wrath that found expression in a scathing letter addressed to Cyril, in which Theodosius 11 accused the patriarch of intentionally sowing discord within the ranks of the imperial family. Unlike his rival eyril, Nestorius seemingly enjoyed imperial support, but, nevertheless, found himself in a decidedly precarious position early in tbe controversy. Deposed by the synods of Rome and Alexandria, Nestorius faced an ambiguous and Epistula Cyrilli id c1eruro populumgue Alexandrinum. (CPG 5320) ACa I, I, I, p. 116, lines 13-16. See also Epistula secunda Cvrilli ~eosdern. ~ 5321) A£Q I, I, I, p. 117.
4
5
Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica• VIL34, G. C. Hansen and M. Sirinjan, eds., Sokrates p. 382, lines 25-26; J. D. Mansi, t.iv. p. 1381.
Kirchen~hichte,
198
difficult situation before the ecumenical proceedings even began. In particular. Cyril and the Pope believed that Nestorius' deposition by Rome and Alexandria meant that Nestorius had already received an official condemnation from two great sees. It seems that Theodosius II held a different view, however, for the imperial ~ addressed to Cyril and the metropolitans, explained that the ecumenical synod he envisioned would redress any violations of canonical law. nullify all private gatherings held prior to the council. and decide all matters of doctrine by a common vote ofbishops.6 Without mentioning the Alexandrian and Roman synods by name. Theodosius n apparently discredited both synodal gatherings along with their decrees, favoring a proper ecumenical council as the more appropriate forum in which to resolve theological disputes. With nothing less than the security of the state in jeopardy, Theodosius IT urged the formation of a universal gathering of bishops, in order to resolve the doctrinal dispute by a common vote of bishops. When Nestorius arrived in the city ofEphesus shortly after Easter, therefore. he presumably hoped that the emperor's ecclesiastical plan would serve his interests well. interests that depended upon an ecumenical gathering of bishops poised to consider the christological problems plaguing the dioceses of Constantinople. Alexandria., and beyond. Several factors conspired, however, to render the council of Ephesus scarcely 6 Sacra ad Cyrillum Alex. ~ ad singulos metropolitas. (CPG 8651) Aea I, J, J, p. 115, lines 26 -116. line 5. McGuckin correctly notes that two systems of law were in effect in the minds of many present at the council, i.e., the imperial decree and canonical precedence. J. McGuckin, St. ~2fAlexandriL p. 68. McGuckin's negative assessment of comes Candidianus too readily dismisses the comes' intent to comply with the emperor's wish to provide a full discussion of all disputed issues. .Il!id. p. 69. Theodosius had after all attempted to nullify the earlier synods at Rome and Alexandria, by superseding the earlier synods with an ecumenical gathering of bishops. Candidianus' claims to ensure all presents engage in a proper conciliar discussion, therefore, seems reasonable.
199
amenable to Nestorius ~ concerns. The place itself posed something of a problem. according to one scholar, for Nestorius' homilies against the designation Theotokos for Mary surely infuriated the people of Ephesus, a city whose zealous devotion to the cult of Mary Theotokos was ostensibly fueled by its former status as the ancient cullic center for the virgin goddess Artemis. 7 It was not only the city's cultic legacy that caused problems for Nestorius, however, but the recent history of the Ephesian bishopric, as well, which virtually ensured that Cyril and Memnon would become fast friends amidst the factious party alliances formed throughout the incipient stages of the proceedings. During Theophilus' vitriolic campaign of slander aimed against bishop John Chrysostom. Theophilus had apparently sought to impugn John's ordination of Heraclides, one of his fonner deacons, as the bishop of Ephesus. 8 Claiming that Heraclides had viciously beaten some persons and dragged them through the streets of Ephesus, Tbeophilus hoped to adduce additional, if fabricated, evidence for his eventual deposition of John Chrysostom. 9 In fact, only three years after Heraclides' ordination as bishop of Ephesus. he was finally deposed and sent into exile. It seems that Theophilus' political plans met with further success, for the successor to Heraclides and precursor to Memnon was evidently a bishop installed by Theophilus himself at the synod of the Oak. 10 A diocese apparently well inured to the ecclesiastical political designs of bishop Theophilus, the see 7
K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses. p. 153.
Sozomen, HE. VIII.6, ~ N. F. 4, p. 358, lines 8-15; Socrates, HE. VI.ll, GCS N. F. 1, p. 329, line 17 - p. 330, line 11.
8
9
Socrates, HE. VI.17, GCS N. F. I, p. 339, line 19 - p. 340, line 8.
10
A. de Halleux,Yl Premiere Session Qy ConciJe d'Ephese (22 Join 431), p. 57.
200 of Ephesus may have been particularly disposed to align itself with the Alexandrian patriarch. At the same time, John Chrysostom's ordination of his deacon Heraclides to the Ephesian episcopate had years earlier produced strife and dissension within the city proper. It seems that when Chrysostom arrived in Ephesus, the ecclesiastical parties were divided in their choice for bishop. Upon John Chrysostom' s recommendation, Heraclides was appointed bishop of Ephesus, a choice that evidently did little to end the divisiveness that plagued the city, for some parties contended that Heraclides was unworthy of the office. Continuing tumult and contentiousness ensued, rendering it necessary for John Chrysostom to remain within the city of Ephesus for some time. 11 Recent historical memory, therefore, may have prejudiced the church ofEphesus against the see of the Imperial City, as Chrysostom's forced installation of his own deacon into the Ephesian bishopric combined with Theophilus' comparatively successful ordination of the bishop Ephesus, conspired to produce ambivalent, and even hostile, sentiments against the patriarch of Constantinople. In that case, Theophilus' slanderous attacks against Heraclides likely met with little resistance from the ecclesiastical hierarchy of Ephesus, a proposition that finds some confirmation in Heraclides' apparent deposition and exile only three years after his ordination by John Chrysostom. The prior ecclesiastical political relationships amongst the sees of Alexandria, Constantinople and Ephesus suggest, therefore, that a natural alliance likely formed between bishops Memnon and Cyril upon Cyrirs arrival at the counciL In particular, that alliance was strengthened by the fairly recent ecclesiastical relationship forged between the episcopacies of Alexandria and Ephesus during the tumultuous years of Theophil us , anti11
Socrates, HE,VI.II, GCS N. F. I, p. 329, line 24 - p. 330, line 4.
201 Origenist campaigns aimed at John Chrysostom. It was not only such idiosyncrasies of ecclesiastical politics. however. that
rendered the ecclesiastical powers ofEphesus somewhat prejudiced against the bishop of the Imperial City. for Nestorius' own petulant personality contributed to the already hostile situation in which he found himself embroiled well before the start of formal proceedings at Ephesus. It seems that Nestorius claimed before a gathering of bishops that God was not an infant two or three months old. 12 An inflammatory statement meant to respond to claims that implied a suffering. passible deity. Nestorius' assertion must have infuriated some of the more literal-minded bishops assembled for discussion. In fact, Cyril did not hesitate to take full advantage of this ill-conceived remark., attributing to Nestorius the utterly blasphemous statement that "Jesus was not God," an exaggerated claim that became the full-fledged rallying cry for the anti-Nestorian. pro-Cyrillian party. While the geographic location ofEphesus. with its predilection for Marian worship. and uneasy relationship to the see of Constantinople. conspired against Nestorius, along with his own careless remarks, to produce a biased and prejudicial setting for the council. Pope Caelestine and Theodosius
n. nonetheless. attempted to provide a
suitable forum in which to resolve the doctrinal disputes plaguing the churches. In fact, Pope Caelestine was reluctant to condemn Nestorius in spite of his deposition before the Roman synod. and, therefore. charged Cyril with returning Nestorius to the true faith. for "God does not will the death of the sinner. but his conversion."13 A marked retreat from 12 Socrates. HE, VII.34. GCS N. F. 1. p. 382. line 29 - p. 383. line 3; Epistula Cvrilli ~ Comarium et Potamonem ~. ~ Dalmatium archimandritaJp ~ Timotheum et Eulogiwn presb. (ePG [8680] 5323) Am I. 1,2. p. 66. lines 28-30.
13
C. J. Hefele. A History Qfthe Councils. p. 42; J. D. Mansi. t. iv .p. 1292.
202 his earlier writings, the Pope's letter, written just prior to the council, evinced a far more conciliatory tone, in which he evidently hoped that Nestorius would return to the flock as a result of the conciliar process. Furthennore, Pope Caelestine believed that the selected forum was far from prejudicial, and that an ecumenical gathering of bishops should provide Nestorius ample opportunity to reconcile his differences and return to the orthodox faith. In fact, one modem scholar asserts that Theodosius 11 displayed apparent neutrality when he invited Augustine of Hippo (unaware of his death one year earlier) to attend the council. 14 Likely favored by the anti-Nestorians of Constantinople, Theodosi us' invitation of Augustine undoubtedly lent an air of legitimacy to Cassian' s claims assimilating the christology ofNestorius to that of the Latin priest Lepori us. 15 Theodosius 11 even believed that the location itself brought neutrality and physical comfort to the proceedings, for the emperor deliberately selected the city of Ephesus, claiming that the Asian city offered an appropriate forum for discussion, namely, one that was readily accessible by land and by
~
and plentifully stocked with the necessary
food supplies. 16 Situated between Constantinople and Alexandria, the city of Ephesus, from Theodosius' perspective, seemingly afforded a neutral setting in which to hold the ecumenical proceedings. In fact, the Syrian tradition claims that Nestorius himself selected Ephesus as the place for the council - an unlikely assertion, nonetheless, with no
14
Sacra directa ~ JOhannem comitem concilio. (CPG 8723) Aea I, I, 3, p. 31, line 3.
15 Arguing in favor of Theodosius Irs neutrality at the proceedings, de Halleux makes this observation in 1& Premiere Session gy Concile d'Epbese (22 Juin 431), p. 56. 16
Sacra directa ~ IOhannem comitem concilio. ACa I, I, 3, p. 31, lines 19-22.
203 corroborating support from outside sources. 17 Even more important to Pope Caelestine and Theodosius II than the council's particular geographic setting were matters of conciliar process. Pope Caelestine. though unable to attend the council. explained in his letter to the emperor Theodosius
n that he
wished to take part in the ecumenical proceedings through his legates. bishops Arcadius and Projectus. and the priest Philippus. 18 Charged with passing judgment only on the final conciliar decision. the Papal legates were not authorized to participate in the decision-making process between the disputing parties. This circumscription of Westem authority was a clear demonstration of Pope Caelestine's apparent deference to the Eastern churches. but evinced. nonetheless. the Pope's intent to ultimately preserve the dignity and preeminence of the Roman see at a time when Constantinople. with its proximity to imperial power. enjoyed special prerogatives. Pope Caelestine countered the undeniable power of the Constantinopolitan see. however. when he infonned the emperor that the papal legates firmly supported Cyril - without. claimed Caelestine. compromising the Roman policy which exempted his legates from partaking in the process of conciliar discussion. Well supported by the papal representatives, Cyril was the beneficiary of conciliar procedures that. when broadly interpreted by Pope Caelestine, unquestionably weighed against the constitution of a fair and impartial synodal forum. Such pro-Cyril loyalties expressed by Pope Caelestine may. indeed, have ultimately persuaded the emperor Theodosius II against his bishop Nestorius. The historical Barhadbesabba "Arbaya. HiSloire ecclesiastigue, 22. fQ 9, F. Nau, ed. (Paris. 1913), p. 541, cited by A. de Halleux. 1& Premiere Session gy Concile d'Ephese. p. 57. 17
J. D. Mansi, t. iv. p. 1291; see also F. Dvomik, ~Christian Philosophy (Washington. D.e., 1966), p. 771. 18
m Byzantine Political
204 significance of this Roman support must finally remain ambiguous, however, since the Roman delegation did not arrive until mid-July, well after the majority synod's sentence of deposition against Nestorius, a fact which did not prevent Cyril from claiming papal allegiance throughout the conciliar proceedings. The emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian In addressed procedural matters pertinent to the council in their imperial ~ promulgated sometime before the official start of proceedings, originally scheduled for June 7,431 AD.19 While Pope Caelestine appointed several legates to act as papal representatives, the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian appointed comes Candidianus, captain of the imperial bodyguard (1C6~ns Tc':lV
lCa8c..Jolc..J~Evc..JV So~EaT{ICc..JV),
to maintain peace and order throughout the
synodal proceedings. Charged with exercising this imperially sanctioned police function, comes Candidianus was excluded from all matters pertaining to doctrine, matters that Theodosius II wholly relegated to the bishops alone, "for it is not lawful that one who is not on the list of holy bishops should meddle in ecclesiastical questions."20 Similar to the doctrinal prohibitions assigned the papal legates, Candidianus' responsibilities were decidedly outside the sphere of dogmatic discussion. Instead, Candidianus was the sole person responsible for preserving orderly conduct amongst the invited participants during the course of proceedings. It was not only invited bishops who came under the comes' scrutiny, however, for he was also charged with removing from the city any monks or laymen who might loiter about as curious spectators, hoping to observe the proceedings. These onlookers were deemed so potentially disruptive to the smooth running of the 19
Sacra ad synodum ~ Candidianum. (~ 8668) ~ I, I, I, p. 120-121.
20 Sacra ~ synodum ~ Candidianum. ACO I, I, I, p. 120, lines 14-15. a8eIJlTOV yap TOV ~n Toii lCaTaAoyov Tc':lV OcnCt.lTcITc..JV enlOlCOnCt.lV TVYXcIVOvTa TOlS ElCtcAnOlaaTllCOlS OICEIJIJamV enllJiyvuc6al.
205 council that Theodosius 11 ordered their prompt removal from the city - at any time during the gathering of bishops. Candidianus' complete exclusion from participation in matters of doctrine was clearly not an innovation of Theodosius 11. Athanasius. in his history of the Arians. had gone so far as to suggest that the emperor Constantius summon a council entirely free from the menacing presence of both the emperor and his imperial representatives. such as a comes or magistrate. whose relationship to the imperial co~ claimed Athanasius. would only hinder a just examination of the doctrinal issues. 21 To ensure an impartial forum, wholly untainted by the emperor Constantius' Arianizing tendencies. Athanasius demanded that this proposed council be held at some distance from the imperial court. In fact, imperial involvement in doctrinal matters properly within the jurisdiction of the church had produced such enormous and continuing problems for Athanasius. by the time he wrote his history of the Arians. that he vilified Constantius with the slanderous epithet. ""Antichrist (O:VTlXPlOTOS)," for "he claims to himself the right to give judgment, which he refers to the court instead of the church; and he himself presides over these matters. '"22 Though adamant in his prohibition against imperial involvement in ecclesiastical affairs (a sentiment that evidently increased in light of his troubles with the Arianizing Constantius), Athanasius. nonetheless, never questioned the right of emperors
Athanasius, Historia Arianorum. 36 (CPG 2127) H. G. Opitz. Athanasius Werke!1 p. 203, lines 15-22. 21
22 Athanasius. Historia Arianorum. 76, H. G. Opitz. p. 225. lines 15-16. KaL yap TTclAlV O:VTL T~V EKKATlal~v Eis Ta naAc:1Tla lTPOS eaVTOV TaS KplOElS. TTpOKaAElTal. KaL TOVTc.lV ~EV aUTos e~clpXEl'
206
to convoke a council ofbishops.23 Imperial authority to convene an ecumenical gathering of bishops was, indeed, universally recognized during the reign ofConstantine, whose letter summoning a synod of bishops met with widespread compliance. 24 In fact, the second ecumenical council, gathered in Constantinople 381 AD, was similarly convoked by the emperor Theodosius the Great.
Imperial prerogative to convoke such councils
did not necessarily imply, however, that the emperor presided over the bishops. Not until Justinian in the sixth century. with his condemnation of the Three Chapters and other forays into theological speculation, did an emperor freely engage in overt matters of doctrine. 25 Constantine, though a lay participant in discussions during the assembly at Nicea, nevertheless, was not considered a voting member of the synod. 26 Even Constantine's biographer Eusebius depicted the emperor Constantine in a posture decidedly deferential to episcopal authority, as he obediently stood and awaited the bishops' approval before taking his seat at the final gathering of the council, and that in spite of Eusebius' lofty, Neo-Platonic vision of Constantine as the earthly reflection and
Athanasius, Apologia ~ Constantium, 4 (CPG 2129) J. M. Szymusiak, Athanase d'Alexandrie. Apologie ~ i'empereur Constance. Apolo~e PQY!g fuite. SChr 56 (Paris, 1958), p. 94, lines 11-19. 23
Socrates, HE, 1.8, GCS N. F. I, p. 17, lines 14-17; Eusebius, Vita Constantini. U1.6, 1.44, F. Winkelman. Eusebius Werke (Berlin, 1975), p. 83, lines 18-22; p. 38, line 25 - p. 39, line 8.
24
25
F. Dvomik, Early Christian ~ Byzantine Political Philosophy, p. 825.
T. D. Bames, Athanasius irul Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, 1993), p. 169.
26
207 representation of the divine togoS. 27 When Theodosius II appointed comes Candidianus as his imperial representative in Ephesus, therefore, the emperor was well within the broad outlines of imperial authority in ecclesiastical matters, set forth by historical precedent that extended at least as far back as the emperor Constantine. Though Athanasius, by the mid-founh century, called for imperial exemption from nearly every aspect of conciliar decision making. his own seemingly endless array of problems with the Arianizing emperor Constantius left him little choice but to construct a theory of councils that rendered the emperor virtually powerless in the realm of doctrine, and that elevated the faith of Nicea to the force of unimpeachable apostolic decree. "[I]fthe emperor is really concerned about ecclesiastical peace," declared Athanasius, ". " then let an ecclesiastical council be called at a distance from the court, at which the emperor is not present, a count is not admitted, and a magistrate does not hinder [us], ... but where only the fear of God and the apostolic rule suffices. "28 The fulfillment of such exaggerated notions of episcopal authority promised, for Athanasius, nothing less than the security of the Nicean faith, and the concomitant demise of the Arian heresy. Constantine had already well established the propriety of imperial incursions into ecclesiastical matters, however, especially in the sphere of procedural initiatives designed to ensure the smooth running of the council. When faced 27 Eusebius, De laudibus Constantini (BHGa 361z) (~3498) PG 20. 1324A1B; L A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke 1- ~ ~ Leben Constantins. Constantins ~ In ~ heili&e Versammlung. Tricennatsrede In Constant in.. ~ 7 (Leipzig. 1902), p. 198; see also
Chapter 2.
28 Athanasius, Historia Arianorum. 36. H. G. Opitz, p. 203, lines 15-20. aAA' EhTep expa IlEAEl Tt;> ~aOlAEl TTEp\ Tiis EICKATlOlaaTlKi;s EipTtVT1S •... yeveaSc.J AOllTOV EKtcATlOlaaTltcTt aUvoSos llalCpav TOU TTaAaTlov. Ev i.l ~aolAeVS ov napEaTlv. ov KOIlTlS TTapaylveTal. ov SllCaan;S CxnElAEl. aAAa 1l0VOV 6 TOU eEOU cp6l3os CxplCEi Kal it TClv CxTTOaTOAc.JV SlaTa~lS ...
208 with a throng of contentious bishops assembled at Nice~ the emperor Constantine apparently exhorted the bishops to quell all dissension and discord in order to reach the unanimous consent ofa 'single mind,' for Constantine believed that dissension in the church was worse than any other evil
(rnellTaVTo~
KaKoii xaAElTt:lTepov tiyoii}lal
TItv EKKATloiav Toii eeoii OTaolci~elv).29 Envisioning his role at Nicea as nothing less than the grand facilitator of harmony and peace within the church, Constantine insisted that an accord be reached, not by free debate and discussion. but through the orderly presentation of a singular body of doctrine to which all parties could readily agree. Candidianus. representative to Theodosius IT. was similarly charged with maintaining discipline within the council proper in order to ensure that synodal members engage in peaceful. orderly discussion. a mandate which undeniably required the comes' physical presence throughout the course of proceedings. Moreover, the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian In believed that the proper administration of this imperially sanctioned police function fully served the interests of church doctrine. and that an orderly discussion of all doctrinal matters would virtually ensure a fair and unanimous decision by the assembled bishops. Just as disorder and violence were thought to hinder the investigation of truth, the ordered and methodical presentation of statements by every bishop present was deemed sufficient. as it had been by Constantine a century earlier. for a just determination of the dogmatic issues in dispute. To that end, Candidianus was charged with maintaining certain procedural mechanisms designed to protect the integrity of the conciliar discussions: " ... and that each one listening patiently to the speakers, will apparently agree or disagree. and, that everything will be examined according to proposition and refutation. to be decided without any disturbance, 29 Sozomen. HE. 1.19. ~ N. F. 4. p. 40, lines 23-27.
209
and that by a common vote of your Holiness, a non-panisan decision will be reached in a manner pleasing to all. "30 In fact, Theodosius 11 was so committed to the process of synodal decision making that he declared Candidianus responsible for ensuring that no synodal member attempt to leave the city, or otherwise abscond from his conciliar duties, before the close of proceedings. A further provision. designed to prevent ancillary disputes from coming before the council, undoubtedly served a similar function. namely, that nothing should prevent the assembled council of bishops from reaching a unanimous and final determination of the dogmatic controversies plaguing the Eastern empire. To protect the various members of the council from civil litigation in a provincial court, Theodosius 11 had evidently declared that no civil accusation be brought against a synodal member in any of the courts in Ephesus: the only appropriate forum for such disputes remained the supreme court of Constantinople. This provision made clear that disputes falling under the rubric of civil litigation must not divert the attention ofsynodal members from the matter at hand, for any case that truly required judicial attention would ultimately be transferred to and adj udicated in the courts of the Imperial City. 31 A relief, no doubt, to the scores of bishops from around the empire, this decree offered synodal members ample protection against litigious persons seeking redress for petty grievances, especially those involving
zr Candjdianum. (~8668) ACa I, I, I, p. 120, lines 22-25.
30 Sacra ad synodum O:VE~lI(aKColS Se Tc;:,v
. .. AeyoIlEVc.lV EKaOTOV c:XKpoc::,IlEVOV npOOTl8eval TO SoKOUv ii O:VTtTl8eval Kal OUTColS naoav KaTCx npOTao(v TE Kat AVOlV Titv nEpt TOU O:An8oiis ooYllaTos epevvav S(xa TlvOs Tapaxiis SlaKpl8iival Kal KOlvij Tiis v~ETEpas aYlon1TOS 'V1iCPc,l aOTaalaOTOV TE Kal TOV naolv apeOlCoVTa TUnov Aal3Elv. For a different view of the process of conciliar debate, see 1. McGuckin. Si· ~ of Alexandria. p. 70, in which McGuckin downplays the significance of dialetical debate in resolving doctrinal disputes in the Byzantine church. 31
Sacra ad svnodum wCandidianum. ACa I, I, I, p. 121, lines 9-16.
210 the local population of Ephesus - clergy and laity alike. IndeecL any outside bishops drawn into controversy with persons from the city of Ephesus would have likely found
themselves at a grave disadvantage before the provincial courts. Likewise, Constantine had enacted a similar procedural decree when the council convened at Nicea 32 It seems that scores of bishops, eager to obtain redress for their grievances. presented the emperor with numerous complaints lodged against their fellow bishops. Exasperated by the mounting pile of documentation, Constantine ordered that all the memorials be destroyed by fire. Urging reconciliation and forgiveness. the emperor Constantine insisted that the parties turn their full attention to the doctrinal exigencies at hand. Theodosius II, like the emperor Constantine. evidently instituted similar procedural controls designed to ensure that the bishops remain free from all distractions. and turn their attention wholly to the resolution of dogmatic differences.
H.
While the imperial ~ issued through the emperor's representative, comes
Candidianus, paid ample attention to the myriad of procedural matters necessary for the smooth running of the council, the hardships of travel for the Syrian bishops, under the direction of John of Antioch, conspired to produce a host of problems, the repercussions of which would eventually strike the very foundations of the conciliar process. Expected to arrive by the appointed day of Pentecost, June 7,431 AD. John and his entourage of bishops experienced endless delays as they walked for thirty days without proper rest, an arduous and wearisome task that left several bishops ill and many horses dead. With John and his bishops somewhere in the environs of Ephesus. Cyril and the rest of the 32 Socrates, HE. 1.8, ~ N. F. I, p. 20, lines 9-12; Sozomen, HE. I. 17, ~ N. F. 4, p. 37, line 8 - p. 40, line 14.
211 Metropolitans allegedly awaited his arrival until they received the following message from two of his colleagues: "If I am late, do what you have to do." By this time it was well past the designated date of Pentecost, and Cyril was evidently more than eager to initiate proceedings. On June 22, 431, without the presence of the Syrian bishops, Cyril, along with 154 bishops, commenced the very first session of the council at Ephesus. Held in the Church ofSt. Mary, the council proceeded ostensibly under the auspices of the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian rn, consistent with the long tradition ascnbing to the emperor sole authority to convoke a conciliar gathering. From the very start, Cyril also made known his unique appointment as the local representative for Pope Caelestine, a fact clearly recorded in the transcript to the conciliar acts. 33 Claiming both papal and imperial approval, therefore, Cyril boldly initiated the opening ceremonies of the conciliar gathering of bishops - with John and the rest of the Syrian bishops nowhere in sight. Peter, a priest of Alexandria, served as the secretary for the council, and produced a written version of the acts entirely partisan in nature, one designed, no doubt, to present a concil iar record of events that would eventually withstand imperial scrutiny. 34 It was this version of the council, produced by a partisan of Cyril, that ultimately recorded the acts of Ephesus, later contained in various manuscripts preserved until the present day. Peter of Alexandria's written record, nonetheless, preserves the only detailed extant account of conciliar proceedings during the assembly at Ephesus, and remains the most significant historical source for reconstructing the events of the council. Gesta Ephesina. A£1i2! (d. 22 m. lun. a. 431). (~8675) AQl I, I, 2, p. 3. KVPlAAOU ·AAE~avSpeias. SuinoVTos Kal TOV Tonov TOO ClytCt.lTO:TOV Kal OOU:.uTO:TOV apXlEnlOKonou Tiis ·PCt.lllalCt.lV eKKATlOlas KEAEOTlVOV 33
A. de Halleux, "La premiere session dll coocile d'Ephese," p. 50. See also J. McGuckin, St. ~ p. 76. 34
212 The first person to testify before the assembled clergy and bishops, Peter (in a partisan account wholly designed to portray the Alexandrian position in the best possible light) explained to the synodal members that trouble began when some of bishop Nestorius' exegetical interpretations were brought from Constantinople to the city of Alexandria. interpretations that disturbed and troubled the readers to such an extent that a sea of confusion nearly enveloped the churches of Alexandria and beyond 35 When eyril learned of the theological problems infecting his congregation of churches, explained Peter, he wrote two letters to the bishop Nestorius, letters full of advice and exhortation. which Nestorius woefully ignored. wholly unwilling to comply with the terms set forth by eyril. Once Cyril discovered that Nestorius had sent to Rome several of his letters and books of exegesis, claimed Peter, Cyril promptly wrote to Pope Caelestine through his deacon Posidonius, requesting that Cyril's own letter be forwarded to the Pope - but only after he had received Nestorius' collection of writings. Pope Caelestine appropriately responded. explained Peter, with several letters, which contained a judicial decree. Soon after, the will (vEv",a) of the emperor convened a gathering of bishops to address the theological issues raised in this exchange of letters. A decidedly partial account of the events culminating in the assembly of bishops at Ephesus, Peter's opening testimony carefully presented the facts, admittedly undisputed, within the broader ecclesiastical context of Pope Caelestine's approval. With this unambiguous statement of Roman support, Cyril subtly contravened the Pope's clear intent to remain outside the actual conciliar discussion, for Cyril introduced straightaway the controversial notion that Nestorius had already been justly and appropriately condemned by papal decree. In fact. Theodosius 11 had virtually nullified the Pope's 35
Gesta Ephesina. ~1 ~ I, I, 2, p. 7, line 34 - p. 8, line 15.
213 earlier synodal judgmen~ issued Aug. 30. 430, when he declared that the future synodal gathering would decide all contested matters of doctrine. 36 Chastising Cyril for his aggressive manipulation of ecclesiastical affairs, Theodosius II explained that Cyril must take part in the proceedings, not as leader, but as one willing and eager to learn from an ecwnenical gathering of bishops, whose collective expertise should produce an exact detennination of the one. true faith}7 Contrary to the imperial guidelines set forth by Theodosius IT, Cynl readily ensconced himselfas president of the synodal assembly, eager to present his version of events at the commencement of proceedings. 38 Wielding his papal decree, Cyril. and his secretary Peter of Alexandria. apparently violated the process for conciliar decision-making envisioned by the emperor, one that demanded a fresh examination of the disputed theology - rather than a simple confirmation of Nestorius' deposition decreed by the partisan assembly in Rome. Cyril and the metropolitan bishops. nonetheless, unambiguously claimed imperial endorsement of the proceedings when they officially read into the record the emperor's Sacra convening the assembly ofbishops.39 A straightforward assertion of Theodos ius II's imperial theology, the ~ affirmed the close and intimate relationship between the Cyrillum Alex. ~ Id singulos metropo1itas (CPG 8651 ) ACa I, I. I. p. 115. lines 26 - 32.
36 Sacra ad
37 Sacra ad
Cyrillum ~. (CPG 8652) ACa I. I, I, p. 74, lines 12-17.
McGuckin argues that Cyril could claim canonical right to the presidency of the council. St. ~ p. 74. The present account suggests, however, that Cyril's presidency, even iftechically supported by canonical law, enabled Cyril to control the course of proceedings to such an extant as to render the council contrary to the spirit of the emperor Theodosius' imperial decrees. 38
39
Gesta Ephesina. Actio!. Aea I. I. 2, p. 8, lines 21-23.
214 proper expression of piety and the state's prosperity. Indee~ Theodosius II believed that an ecumenical gathering of bishops would produce the unanimity and concord necessary for peace, security, and an ecclesiastical establishment free from riots and seditions. Furthermore, punctuality was deemed essential by the emperor, who demanded the presence of all invited bishops by the appointed date of Pentecost, June 7, 431. 40 Such a clear imperial mandate offered Cyril the guise of imperial support when eynl insisted on commencing the council without the presence of the Antiochene delegation, whose extensive tardiness evidently violated the emperor's demands. 41 To convene the council without the Antiochene presence, however, was to commit a procedural violation of an even more pernicious nature. Theodosius 11 had clearly called for an ecumenical gathering of bishops drawn from throughout the empire in order to examine, in a proper ecclesiastical forum, the theological matters in dispute. Cyril' s abrupt commencement of proceedings, initiated by his improper reading of the imperial Sacra, constituted a clear violation of the emperor's intent, an intent which manifested an unambiguous desire to settle the escalating controversy before doctrinal differences threatened the very foundations of the state. Both an affirmation and usurpation of imperial authority, reading the ~ into the conciliar record without the presence of the Antiochene bishops amounted to a procedural anomaly that left the very status and legitimacy of the conciliar proceedings ultimately in question. The procedural problem did not escape the attention ofCyril, however, whose testimony before the council evinced a clear desire to account for his decidedly irregular actions. Sixteen days had already passed since the date appointed by letter, and Cyril 40 Sacra ad Cyrillum Alex. ~~singulos metropolitas. ACa I, I, I, p. 115, lines 22-23. 41
Gesta Ephesina. Actio !. ACa I, I, 2, p. 8, line 29 - p. 9, line 5.
215 testified before the assembled bishops that the council was tired of waiting. Many of the bishops had evidently fallen ill, some had even died., and the time had come, claimed Cyril, for the disputed matters of faith to receive their necessary consideration. With that justificatio~
Cyril asked that the second imperial ~ be read to the council by the
imperial representative, comes Candidianus. a ~ tha~ according to Cyril. demanded the prompt and timely resolution of all matters pertaining to faith.42 Mostly concerned with establishing procedural guidelines for the maintenance of proper order. the second imperial ~ said nothing about convening the invited bishops in a timely fashion. Obediently read into the record by the comes Candidianus, the imperial letter in its final paragraph indicated that Irenaeus should accompany bishop Nestorius to the holy council. In fa~ that final indication was an unambiguous expression of the emperor's wish to resolve the ecclesiastical dispute with all parties presen~ especially his bishop Nestorius43 -- a wish eventually affirmed by Theodotus of Ancyra, who declared, "Nestorius should take part in the proceedings so that the matters of piety be decided from a common resolve and agreement."44 A strange course of events ensued., nonetheless, that left Nestorius entirely at odds with the vast majority of synodal members, and notably absent from the assembled bishops. Nestorius, who delivered some controversial sennons soon after his arrival in Ephesus, had evidently angered several of the bishops. To make matters even worse, it Sacra ~ synodum Z! Candidianum. ~ 8668) ACa I. I, I, p. 120-121. Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. ~ I. I, 2, p. 9, lines 2-5.
42
43 Sacra ad
synodum ~Candidianum. ACa I, I, I, p. 121, lines 12-16.
44 Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. ~ I, I, 2, p. 9, lines 6-8. . .. viiv '.U~VTOl CIICOAOu6ov EOTl ToTs lTpaTTO~EvolS ovvElvalKat TOV eeO
216 seems that Nestorius repeatedly refused invitations to appear before the so-called council. In fact, several bishops testified that they had summoned Nestorius to attend the council three times, in strict accordance with ecclesiastical law. With a written message in hancL some of the conciliar bishops approached the bishop Nestorius, and exhorted him to join the proceedings. Theopemptus, bishop of Cabasa reported that when they arrived at Nestorius' house, a crowd of soldiers prevented them from entering. Eventually they received Nestorius' terse reply, that he would join the proceedings only after the arrival of all invited bishops.45 That was the only reply the majority synod ever received from the bishop of Constantinople, a brief response that did little to satisfy the Cyrillian party at Ephesus, who was apparently troubled by the crowd of armed soldiers surrounding Nestorius' house. Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, willing to give Nestorius a fourth chance to comply with their conciliar summons, allegedly met with no success, as the corps of soldiers once again prevented any communication with the sequestered bishop.46 For the Cyrillian party assembled at Ephesus, Nestorius' final failure to comply provided such compelling evidence of his truculent nature that any further invitations were deemed entirely unnecessary. This was not the first time that Cyril participated in synodal proceedings without the accused party present. Theophilus, accompanied by his nephew eyril, had similarly instituted synodal proceedings against bishop John Chrysostom with the apparent acquiescence of the emperor Arcadius. 47 When Theophilus arrived at the appointed destination ofChalcedon in Bithynia, he received the cooperation and support of several 45 Gesta Ephesina.~!. ACa I, I, 2, p. 10, lines 17-30. 46 Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. Aca I, I, 2, p. 12, lines 17-27. 47
See Chapter 1, section 1.
217 bishops, including many of those deposed by Chrysostom in Ephesus during the ordination and installation of his deacon, Heraclides. 48 Cyrinus. the bishop ofChalcedon at that time. was also an ardent critic of Chrysostom. and readily cast several disparaging epithets against him. including sobriquets such as. "the impious (aael3it!;).· "the braggart (aAal;t:.>v): and "inexorable (ay6vaTO!;),' slanderous titles that evidently gratified the
bishops congregated in the city. Once these enemies of Chrysostom had gathered at Chalcedon. they banded together and crossed over to the city of Constantinople. Greeted by several Alexandrian sailors busy with the transport of grain, Theophilus arrived at the shore and promptly took up residence at one of the imperial mansions. Soon after. Chrysostom was the unwitting recipient of a torrent of accusations. which evidently excluded the charge ofOrigenism. but raised a myriad of new. though often erroneous, accusations. To settle this mounting pile of grievances, the bishops eventually convened in one of the suburbs at Chalcedon, called 'The Oak (~PV!;)," and immediately summoned Chrysostom to answer the charges leveled against him. Unwilling to comply with the summons, however, Chrysostom claimed that only his enemies were congregated against him, and requested a general council to evaluate the matter in a non-partisan forum. The angry bishops repeated their citation four times, but always received the same response from Chrysostom. Citing only his procedural violation in failing to answer their summons. the synodal assembly finally condemned and deposed Chrysostom, the bishop of the Imperial City.49 Cyril, the young nephew to bishop Theophilus, was undoubtedly present at these proceedings, and learned a valuable political lesson in the 48 Socrates, HE, VI.lS, ~ N. F. 1, p. 336, line 19 - p. 337, line 2. 49 Socrates, HE, VI.lS. GCS N. F. I, p. 337. line 2 - p. 338, line 13; Sozomen, HE, VIII.I7, GCS, N. F. 4, p. 371, line IS - p. 373, line S.
218
process, namely that procedural violations, including the failure to answer a summons, could suffice to condemn and depose a political enemy. Similarities abound between the two Antiochene bishops, Nestorius and Chrysostom, both of whom were installed bishop of the Imperial City by their respective emperors. Like his predecessor on the episcopal throne of Constantinople, bishop John Chrysostom, Nestorius adamantly refused to appear at a partisan gathering of bishops. Indeed, the absence of the Antiochene delegation rendered Cyril's assembly of bishops nothing more than a partisan attempt at conciliar controL Summoned four times by the Cyrillian party, Nestorius, just like Chrysostom, consistently and obstinately refused to appear before the council - at least until the presence of a so-called ecumenical gathering of bishops. Nestorius' refusal to answer the conciliar summons evidently did not hinder Cyril's party from proceeding with a full-fledged, though admittedly one-sided, investigation into the doctrinal allegations raised against him. Theophilus and his followers had understandably failed to reach any synodal determination on the host of substantive charges leveled against John Chrysostom, instead taking refuge in the sole fact of John's procedural violation committed when he refused three times to answer the synodal summons. Rather than render the substantive issues null and void, as Theophilus had implicitly done years earlier, Cyril proceeded to examine the doctrinal issues raised against Nestorius, an investigation made all the simpler, no doubt, by the absence of the defendant and his Antiochene colleagues. Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, justified the council's ~ ~ examination of the substantive doctrinal matters raised against Nestorius, taking recourse in an apparent technicality of ecclesiastical law, namely that Nestorius' failure to answer a synodal summons constituted nothing less than bad faith, since a corps of soldiers evidently surrounded his house and prevented the synodal
219 bishops from settling the matter with him. 50 That saicL Juvenal proceeded to read into the conciliar record the Nicean Symbol of faith., "defined by the 318 holy fathers and bishops united at Nicea. ~ IndeecL Athanasius, after his troubles at the council ofSerdica, had already done much to establish the Nicean Symbol as the omy true ecumenical statement offaith, a fact confirmed by the council of Constantinople in 381 AD.sl According to the theory of councils proposed by Juvenal of Jerusalem, the Nicean Symbol offaith similarly served as the very touchstone of orthodoxy for the Cyrillian majority, the standard by which Nestorius' writings would be deemed within or beyond the bounds of doctrinal legitimacy established a century before. Once the entire Symbol of faith was read into the record, Peter, priest of Alexandria and notary for the proceedings, presented CyriI's second letter to Nestorius, which Acacius of Melitene promptly introduced into the synodal acts. 52 A lucid account ofCyrii's teaching, the letter carefully placed CyriI's Alexandrian christology within the context of the Nicean Symbol of faith. That the Word of God 'became incarnate (aapKc.Jefjval)' and 'was made man (evavepc.Jm;aal)' impliecL according to Cyril, nothing less than the Word united to flesh (oapKa
Ev~aas 6 AoyoS
eaVT4», endowed
with a rational soul (~c.J~Evnv 'V'l)('ij Aoyudj), mysteriously and inconceivably (a
Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. ACa I, I, 2, p. 12, lines 17-27.
5I
See Chapter 2.
52
Gesta Ephesina Actio 1. Aca I, I, 2, p. 13, lines 8-25.
53 Epistula ii Cyrilli Alex. line 5.
~ Nestorium.
(CPG 5304) ACO I, I, I, p. 26, line 23 - p. 27,
220 unambiguously affirmed by each of the synodal members, who inevitably agreed that Cyril's christology remained wholly consistent with the precepts determined at Nicea Following this unanimous affirmation of Cyri}' s letter by all the bishops present, Palladius of Amaseia requested that Nestorius' reply to Cyril be read into the record. 54 Concerned mostly with preserving the immutability and impassibility of God the Word, Nestorius' letter attempted to explicate and elucidate St. Paul's vision ofa Christ who somehow remained impassible in GodheacL but passible in his bodily nature. It was Christ's dual nature, explained Nestorius, that accounted for these diverse qualities, a duality amply demonstrated in the words of sacred text, especially in the sundry titles for Christ employed by St. Paul. While the designation ··Christ embraced the conjunction of M
the natures, Nestorius claimed that each of Paul's additional titles for Christ, including Lord, Jesus, Son, and Only begotten, corresponded to one of two distinct natures in the conjoined Christ. 55 A fair explication of his Antiochene christology, Nestorius' reply to Cyril attempted to demonstrate that the words of sacred scripture offered unambiguous support for this dual-nature vision of Christ. While Cynl boldly adhered to the Symbol of Nicea, placing his christology squarely within its synodal decrees, Nestorius preferred the context of scripture. and, in the process. may have secured his own demise. After Palladius introduced Nestorius' letter. Cynl posed the inevitable question for this assembly of bishops: did Nestorius' doctrinal assertions conform to the Symbol
54
Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. Aca I. 1.2, p. 31. lines 6-13.
Epistula ii Nestorii ~ Cyrillum ~. (m. Iunio a. 430) (~5669) ACa, I. I. I. p. 29. line 27 - p. 30, line 14. 55
221 of faith produced by the fathers at Nicea?56 Furthermore. Cyril's question implied a broader conciliar theory. namely that the majority bishops gathered at Ephesus sought merely to confirm the decrees previously established at Nicea That conciliar theory. in fact, had nothing to do with the style of argumentation presented by Nestorius. whose scriptural1y based interpretive method contained little of the pro-Nicean discourse c1early favored by Cyril and his fol1owers. It was Cyril. after all. president of the synodal assembly. who control1ed the shape of proceedings. and Cyril who carefully recapitulated Athanasius' anti-Arian, pro-Nicean discourse early in his episcopacy and throughout the exchange of treatises prior to the council. This meant that Cyril ostensibly controlled not only the procedural form that the council would take. but the content of the conciliar discourse itself. including the very theory of councils implicitly approved by the bishops. It was a theory that admittedly found precedent in the second ecumenical council. held in Constantinople in 381 AD. but one that left Nestorius' method of argumentation (embraced in this second letter to Cyril) wholly at odds with the test for onhodoxy proposed by this council. Did Nestorius' letter conform to the Symbol of faith determined at Nicea? Every one of the synodal members assembled at Ephesus. most of whom were admittedly partisans of Cyril. answered the question with a resounding "no:" Nestorius' letter evinced a strange and innovative doctrine. entirely different
(aAAOTplOS) from the onhodox faith. 57 This was an assertion that excited the wholeheaned approval of the entire assembly. as all the bishops exclaimed at once that Nestorius and his writings were anathematized. along with anyone in communion with 56 Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. ACa I. I. 2. p. 31. lines 14-17. apa cpalvETal KaL av-n; eTval Tij OPla6elOl] nlOTEl Ell Tij cruv6~ Tc:,V aYlCrlv naTepCrlv Tc:,V KaTo Kalpovs auvelAEyllEvc.JV Ell Tij NucaECrlv noAel ii ov:
aU~
57 Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. A.CQ 1.1.2. p. 31. lines 18-20.
222 him.58 Following this display ofanti-Nestorian zeal and solidarity, Peter, the notary for the proceedings, at the request of Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, read into the record Pope Caelestine's letter to Nestorius. 59 In that letter the Pope declared the sentence of the
• Roman synod, urging Nestorius to desist from his wrongful doctrines, to follow the teachings of Cyril, or suffer the dire consequences of deposition and excommunication Having read the Pope's letter, Peter introduced Cyrirs third letter to Nestorius, which incorporated the findings of an Egyptian synod held in Alexandria with the alleged support of the Pope in Rome - a partisan synod that evidently condemned Nestorius a second time for his scandalous introduction of strange and bizarre doctrines into the congregation ofchurches. 60 Replete with pro-Nicean discourse, Cyril's third letter also contained the controversial twelve anathemas against Nestorius, anathemas whose Apollinarian tendencies would present continuing problems for Cyril in the years to come. The synodal members gathered at Ephesus, however, evinced no interest in such close scrutiny ofCyril's doctrine, apparently satisfied merely to demonstrate that Cyrirs letter followed closely, in its pertinent, anti-Nestorian details, the sentence of deposition decreed by the Pope. Once the synodal members determined that Nestorius had, in fact. 58 Cyril was able to immediately secure the signatures of 197 bishops. The present study seeks to understand precisely how Cyril was able to persuade so many throughout the course of conciliar proceedings and beyond. See also, J. McGuckin, S1. ~ p. 88, who notes that the support for Cyril was extraordinary. 59 Epistula Caelestini pa,pae!ld. Nestorium (sententia synodi Romanae) (d. 10 m. Aug. a. 430. Nestorio tradita est d. 30 m. Nou. a. 430) (~ [8639]) ~ I, 2, p. 7-12; Versio graeca. ACa I, I, I, p. 77-83. ~Epbesina ~I- ~I, I, 2, p. 36, lines 8-10. Epistula iii (synodica) Cyrilli AIg.1d Neslorium. (CPG 5317) Am I, I, I, p. 33-42. ~ Ephesina. ~ 1. ~ I, I, 2, p. 36, lines 22-25. 60
223 received the letter from Cyril's representatives, only one definitive question remained. namely, did Nestorius comply with the demands stated in the letter? Theopemptus, bishop of Cabasa. testified that when Nestorius received the document. he agreed to meet with Cyril's representatives the very next day, but when the bishops returned to Nestorius' abode, he patently refused their entry, and displayed so little regard for the contents of Cyril' s letter that he obstinately repeated in church the same pernicious doctrines already condemned by the synod ofbishops assembled in Rome and Alexandria 61 That Nestorius continued to preach his aberrant doctrines found further confirmation, claimed Fidus, bishop of Jopes, during a revealing conversation between Nestorius and several bishops, held on June 20, 431, in the presence ofTheodotus of Ancyra and Acacius ofMelitene. 62 What Nestorius said in his letters, claimed bishop Theodotus, he repeated in his sermons preached to the bishops awaiting the council in Ephesus, namely that one should not speak oflactation or generation from a Virgin \\ith respect to God. A more blatant condemnation of Christ's divinity occurred, explained bishop Theodotus, when Nestorius in the presence of several bishops, including Acacius and Theodotus, boldly and irreverently declared that God was not an infant two or three months 01d. 63 Additional anti-Nestorian grist for the mill came from the testimony of
61
Gesta Ephesina. A£li2 1. ACa I, 1,2, p. 37, lines 8-22.
Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. ACa I, I, 2, p. 37, lines 23-27. Fidus of Jopes believed that N estori us' doctrine was similar to that of the heretic Paul of Samosata Illlil. p. 34, lines 10-13. 62
63
Gesta Ephesina.
~ 1. ~
I, I, 2, p. 38, lines 4-12.
224 Acacius. bishop of Melitene, a self-professed friend and supporter ofNestorius. 64 It seems that when Acacius arrived in Ephesus, he freely conversed with Nestorius, who was evidently in a fractious mOO<:L and promptly sought to extricate his colleague from the pernicious doctrines evident in his speech, and return him to the proper path. Though Nestorius eventually agreed to change his mind. Acacius testified that ten or twelve days later, a conversation took place in which Nestorius obstinately opposed the "doctrine of truth.' In particular, Acacius identified a twofold doctrinal problem, for Nestorius either denied that the deity of the only-begotten had been incarnate, or professed that the deity of the Father and Holy Spirit became flesh along with the Word. In a second discussion, explained Acacius, one ofNestorius' colleagues declared that the Son who suffered the passion was entirely different from God the Word. while another claimed that the Jews committed impiety not against the deity, but only against the humanity of Christ. Wholly disgusted by this onslaught of blasphemy, Acacius testified that he departed from the gathering. Following the testimony of bishop Acacius, Peter of Alexandria. notary for the proceedings. introduced a flonlqpwn ofpatristic sources compiled by the Cyrillian party.65 Well-represented in this compendium of writings were the works of Athanasius, whose letter to Epictetus inveighed against the heretics who wrongfully claimed that the Word came into a holy man as into one of the prophets, that he did not become a man when he took the body from Mary, and that the Christ was one thing, the 64
Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1- Am I, 1,2, p. 38, lines 13-30.
65 The patristic florilegium included sources from the following: Peter, bishop and martyr~ Athanasius of Alexandria~ Julius, bishop of Rome (=Timotheus Apollinarista)~ Felix, bishop of Rome (=Fragmentum Apollinaristicum); Theophilus of Alexandria; Cyprian; Ambrose; Gregory Nazianzus; Basil of Caesarea; Gregory ofNyssa.
225 Word of God another. 66 Designed no doubt to rebuke Nestorius for his rash assertions prior to the council. the introduction of Athanasius' anti-heretical writings lent an air of legitimacy to the prior testimony introduced against Nestorius. That Nestorius probably did not mean what Acacius claimed seemed scarcely relevant to the gathering of bishops. who had evidently decided that his dual nature Antiochene christology seriously impugned the integrity of the incarnation. Athanasius himselfhad declared that the Word became man and appropriated the qualities of flesh. in order to ensure the immortality of humans -- a distinctive soteriological vision that had successfully inspired unyielding devotion throughout the monastic communities of Egypt. Gregory. bishop ofNazianzus. also appeared well represented in this collection of patristic excerpts. "Whoever supposes Mary is not Theotokos," wrote Gregory. "is separate from the Divinity."67 In fact. Gregory' s teachings on the dual nature of Christ were more appropriate to a potential resolution of the doctrinal problems facing the churches. for he had declared that if someone introduced two sons. one from God. the other from Mary. then he departs from the adoption promised to orthodox believers (Tiis vi06eoias EKlTEOOl Tiis ETTT}yyeAIlEVllS TOlS 6p6~s lTUrrruovolv).68 Rejecting the notion of two sons. considered problematic by Antiochene and Alexandrian christology alike. Gregory significantly affirmed the two natures in Christ. namely God and man. a distinction
Athanasius. M Epictetum, 2. 7, cited in Gesta Ephesina. ~1. lines 15-31.
66
Am I. 1.2. p. 40.
67 Gregory Nazianzen. cited in Gesta Ephesina. Actio I. ~ I. I. 2. p. 43. line 18. El TlS ov eeoToKov TJiv Mapiav \moAa~(3avEl. Xc.JpiS eOTl Tiis eEOTT)TOS· 68 Gregory Nazianzen, cited in Gesta Ephesina Actio 1. ~ I. I. 2. p. 43. lines 24-33.
226 somewhat analogous to that of body and soul. 69 Moreover, Gregory believed that though the atemporal is diametrically opposed to the temporal, the invisible to the visible. both natures of Christ are one in mixture (ev Tij cruyKpaoEl), for God was incarnate and man deified. A potential middle ground upon which to conduct a reasoned debate, Gregory's dual-natured vision of Christ. admittedly different from that ofNestorius, nevertheless, provided a glimmer of hope for a future reconciliation between the opposing parties. 70 The synodal members gathered at Ephesus, however, were more interested in producing an outright condemnation of eyril' s absent opponent Nestorius, a condemnation that would exude even greater authority once excerpts from Nestorius' own writings were introduced into the record Peter of Alexandria, therefore, read the Nestorian florilegium into the proceedings, a compendium of excerpts which Peter prejudicially deemed. '~e blasphemies ofNestorius.'~71 An exegetical, scripturally based elaboration of his dual nature christology, Nestorius' fourth book on dogma declared that whenever scripture describes generation from the Virgi~ it states that "God sent his Son," not that ""God sent the Word," for scripture prefers to employ the term that designates the duality of natures. Nestorius believed that since the Son is both man and God. scripture states that "He sent His Son, born of a woman," adding the additional phrase, "born of a
wom~"
to designate unambiguously the two natures implied by the title
69 Gregory Nazianzen, cited in Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. ~ I, I, 2, p. 43, line 26.
ovSe eEOt.
Of course, Nestorius preferred to keep the conjunction of natures unmixed See Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. A£Q I, I, 2, p. 48, line 12. 'AoVyxuTov TOlVUV -niv T~V cpUOEc..lV 70
TTJP~IlEV ouvacpElav·
71
Gesta Ephesina. ~1. ACO I, 1,2, p. 45, lines 4-6.
227 "Son.'" With this caveat, Nestorius explained that the Christ bearing Virgin bore the Son
of God, namely the Son whose dual nature allowed her to bear the humanity alone, a generation from the Virgin which ultimately became Son of God by conjunction with the deity.72 An exegetical justification for the two natures of Christ, Nestorius' elaborate reading of scripture enabled him to draw fine distinctions between the sundry titles for Christ. Each epithet, whether Christ, Lord, Only-begotten, or Son, demanded the careful exegesis exemplified here, for Nestorius likely believed that every scriptural word contained a plethora of meaning and signification. IfNestorius' interpretation of the scriptural names for Christ failed to convince his opponents of the propriety of his dual nature christology, it was not because this exegetical sty le of argumentation produced a ·'two Sons'~ doctrine, a doctrine equally problematic to Nestorius himself. Like Gregory ofNazianzus, Nestorius abhorred such a doctrine. a fact made clear when he declared in his fourth book on dogma (included in the Nestorian florilegium introduced into the Acts), that after the incarnation, the Son who had been separated was not able to be called "Son," '''Iest we teach two Sons."73 It seems that before the incarnation, explained Nestorius, God the Word was both Son and God, united with the Father, while after the assumption into flesh, the humanity was not deemed "'Son," a designation reserved solely for the dual natures of Christ. Detennined to preserve the immutability of the Godhead, along with the fun humanity of Christ, Nestorius defended his two nature doctrine with nothing less than the authority of the scriptural text, and without, in any sense, producing the aberrant doctrine of''two Sons." F. Loofs, Nestoriana.. p. 273, line 18 - p. 274, line 17. Cited in ~ Ephesina. Actio 1. Aca I, I, 2, p. 45, lines 9-21 72
73 F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 275, lines 1-11. Cited in Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1- ACa I, I, 2, p. 48, lines 4-10.
228 At least Nestorius believed as much when he wrote that the One joined to him. who was Son in principle. could not admit division according to the honor of Sonship. ""I say according to the honor of Sonship.'" reiterated Nestorius. ""not according to the natures
recognize two Sons. Nestorius, nevertheless, maintained his dual nature distinction, and. therefore, declared that the appellation "Christ", a semantic designation for the two natures, readily applied to God the Word. since the deity has a continuous conjunction with the'Christ. Indeed, Nestorius believed that the words "Christ," ""Son," and "Lord." each signified the two natures, at one time the deity, at another the humanity, and sometimes both combined. 75 These semantic distinctions, however, held little persuasive power for the bishops assembled at Ephesus. After Peter, the notary, read the Nestorian florilegium, Flavian, bishop ofPhilippia, exclaimed that the words ofNestorius were terrible and blasphemous, and each of his troublesome words should be inserted into the Acts in order to secure his condemnation. Before reading the official deposition ofNestorius, however, Peter inserted into the proceedings a letter of excuse from Capreolus, bishop ofCarthage, delivered by his son the deacon Bessoulas. a letter that would ordinarily have been placed at the beginning of the Acts. 76 Theodosius 11 had evidently sent an invitation to the bishop Augustine, whose death nearly a year before left bishop Capreolus with no option 74
Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. ~ I. I. 2. p. 48, line 8.
75 Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. ~ I, I. 2. p. 51, lines 18-22. TO yap XPlOTOS KaL TO vios KaL TO ruPlOS. hrl TOU IlOVOyEVOUS TTapa Tiis ypacpils Aall(3avollEVOV. Tc:lV cpVOE(,.)V EOTL Tc:lV Suo OT'\IlaVTlteOV teal TTOTE IlEV SnAoiiv TTiv 8eOTnTa. TTOTe Se Triv CxV6pc..JTToTnTa. nOTE Se a~cpOTEpa •... 76
Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. ~ I. I. 2. p. 52, lines 12-15.
229 but to stand in his stead. It seems that recent events had conspired against him~ however, as the bishop described a pervasive enemy presence throughout the province. which produced such widespread destruction and desolation that the African bishops had no viable means of gathering for a synod. Besieged by the onslaught of Vandals. bishop Capreolus woefully explained that the ensuing war in Africa prevented any contingent of African bishops from attending the council. In fact, Theodosius Irs letter convening the council apparently did not arrive unnl Easter. Apnl 19.431. simply too late, even under the best of circumstances. for the African bishops to reunite for a synodal assembly. With that excuse, Capreolus imparted his advice for the council, namely that any and all innovations of doctrine be carefully exami~ and that the established faith of the holy fathers be dutifully maintained. 77 Following the reading of the letter. Cyril reiterated Capreolus' advice. a statement that found ample support from the synodal members. who exclaimed in unison~ "we all agree." Nestorius' official deposition ensued. as the council declared that Nestorius wrongfully disobeyed their summons, and refused to receive the synodal bishops at the episcopal palace. With evidence adduced from Nestorius' writings, letters, and sermons recently delivered in the city ofEphesus. the council explained that they had conducted an examination ofNestorius~ impiety. Forced by the ecclesiastical canons. and by the synodal decree of Pope Caelestine in Rome, the council claimed that they reached their lamentable sentence of deposition against Nestorius. a sentence that received the immediate assent of 197 bishops gathered at this first session of the conciliar
71
Gesta Ephesina. ~ 1. Am I. I. 2. p. 52-54.
230
proceedings. 78 That the authority of the Pope in Rome played such a definitive role in the final sentence of deposition should come as no surprise. Cyril had astutely courted the Pope throughout the incipient stages of controversy in the firm belief that Roman support promised Cyril the legitimacy needed to win the Nestorian dispute. Though Theodosius II discredited the authority of the Roman synod held the summer before, eyril was, nonetheless, determined to evoke that authority in this official condemnation of his rival. Rome, after all, never recognized the canons promulgated at the council of Constantinople in 381 AD. which had declared the see of Constantinople, with its proximity to imperial power, second only to that of Rome. This meant that Alexandria, in the eyes of Pope Caelestine, retained a dignity equal to the imperial see, a dignity that Cyril implicitly evoked in his correspondence to the Pope. With the unequivocal suppon of Rome, Cyril believed he had all the credentials necessary to win this ecclesiastical battle against his adversary and to convince the emperor Theodosius II that Nestorius was, indeed, the insidious heretic that Cyril claimed. It was not only support from Rome, however, that Cyril believed would
ultimately secure his victory over the patriarch of the Imperial City. Procedural matters evidently demanded Cyril's close attention as well, for he inadvertently adhered to the procedural guidelines infonnally set at the council of Nicea by the emperor Constantine a century before. Following the senatorial model in all pertinent respects, Constantine, according to the modem scholar Dvomi~ had convoked the bishops just as he had the senators, for he presided at the sessions of the council as he presided over the Senate, 4·
and after making his relatio.. called upon the members to state their points of view See Sententia contra NeSlorium gm subscriptionibus. in ~ Ephesina. A&1i2 1ACa I, 1,2, p. 54, lines 16-25. See also Nestorii depositio id am missa a concilio. (CPG 8676) Aca I, I, 2, p. 64. Versio!ilinib ~ I, 3, p. 83. 78
231
(sententiam rogare). "79 Emperors such as Constantine, already inured to their limitation of power in the secular sphere due to their circumscnbed function in the Senate, apparently accepted their more limited role in ecclesiastical affairs as well. 80 Prepared to exclude himselffrom the actual process of theological decision making, Constantine. though eager to exercise his right to convoke the conciliar sessions. never declared himself a voting member of the synod. In fact, Theodosius II assumed a role even more limited than his predecessor Constantine. Absent from the council and removed from the substantive discussions, Theodosius II primarily served as an impartial facilitator for the conciliar discussions. It was careful attention to imperial procedure. therefore, that promised for Theodosius a just and impartial determination of the doctrinal problems besetting the churches. Cyril. as president of the council. evidently attempted to enact the emperor's wishes, and. in the process. produced a conciliar record that would ultimately persuade the emperor Theodosius of the legitimacy of his council. To that end. several basic procedures were closely foIlowed by Cyril and his partisans: having read the imperial decree convening the council. they introduced the Symbol ofNicea. and, in the process, established the doctrinal standard for evaluating Nestorius' doctrinal claims. The bishops gathered for the council believed that the remaining documents read into the record clearly demonstrated that Cyril foIlowed the teachings ofNicea. and that Nestorius plainly opposed them. In particular. the council adduced evidence ofNestorius' aIleged blasphemy against the dictates of Nicea by introducing into the record a prepared 79
F. Dvomik. Early Christian I!Kl Byzantine Political PhiloSQphy, p. 641.
F. Dvomik. "The Authority of the State in the Oecumenical Councils," in The Christian East 14 (1934). p. 104. 80
flonlwwn
ofNestorius~
232 most troublesome claims, which they placed in juxtaposition
with a tlorileWl.UD composed of several orthodox fathers. Even the decrees of the Roman Senate, however, had been necessarily confirmed by the emperors before becoming imperial law, notes one scholar, and the decrees proposed by the council ofEphesus were no di fferent. 8 I Cyril and his followers believed that apparent attention to procedural detail would persuade the emperor Theodosius II that a fair conciliar trial had taken place, an~ therefore, Cyril produced a conciliar record that on its face complied with the requirements of procedural exactitude necessary for Theodosius 11 to confirm the sentence of this council.
Ill.
Nestorius finally received notice of his deposition in absentia the following day,
June 23, 431 AD, by conciliar message~ which declared him deposed and entirely "alien (aAAOTplOS) from every ecclesiastical dignity," because ofms impious teachings and
disobedience to the ecclesiastical canons. 82 How Nestorius reacted can only be surmised. As for the people of Ephesus, however, Cyril reported to his congregation in Alexandria that when the people heard ofNestorius' deposition, after their day long vigil, they all eagerly blessed the council and praised God for the condemnation of this enemy of the orthodox faith. After the synodal members left the church, Cyril claimed that the people accompanied them with torches until they reached their lodging, and that women preceded them with incense, while everyone generally rejoiced and illuminated the city. 83 Such a 81
F. Dvomik, "The Authority of the State in the Oecumenical Councils," p. 106.
82
Nestorii depositio ~ eum missa ~ concilio. ~ I, I, 2, p. 64.
Epistula Cyrilli 118.
83
~clerum
populumgue Alexandrinum. (CPG 5324) ACa I, I, I, p. 117-
233 jubilant response from the populace must have convinced Cyril and his "more than 200 bishops," that their sentence of deposition would meet with little disapproval. The conciliar letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople was decidedly more circumspect, however, as he sought to justify the deposition of their bishop, whose guilty conscience, claimed the synocL exacted its own vengeance against him. Unwilling to face his accusers, Nestorius, explained the synod to the people of the Imperial City, failed to respond to the conciliar smnmons, presented three times in accordance with ecclesiastical law. Indeed, the synod claimed that Nestorius' absence from the proceedings posed no problem of conciliar procedure, but merely confirmed the appropriateness of his condemnation. 84 It was the synod's practical concerns, however, that occupied the letter to the presbyters and administrators of the church of Constantinople, Lamprotatus and Eucharius, whom the synod urged to pay careful attention to the affairs of the church in order to render an account to the next elected bishop.SS Written the same day as Nestorius' notice of depositio~ June 23,431, the letter simply explained that Nestorius was deposed because of his heretical doctrines and disobedience to ecclesiastical law, a condemnation allegedly effected by a council of bishops assembled under the auspices of imperial control. With the professed support of imperial authority, the synodal members evoked every conceivable means to render the findings of the council undeniably legitimate, and entirely consistent with conciliar process. Cyril also evinced great interest in persuading the archimandrite Dalmatius, along with several bishops and presbyters, that he had conducted the council in a manner S4
Epistula synodi
~ clerum
populumgue (CPolitanum ?) ~ 8678) Am I, I, 2, p. 70.
85 Epistula synodi id Lamprotatum ~ Euchariwn ~. ~ oeconomos ~. CPolitanae ceterosgue clericos ibjdem. (~ 8677) AQl I. I, 2, p. 64-65.
234 wholly consonant with fair
and just conciliar procedures. 86
Leader of a monastery
numbering several hundred, Dalmatius was a powerful figure, whose influence reached as far as the imperial family, and whose support Cynl plainly courted. At stake for Cyril, of course, was the procedural anomaly implied by his convening a so-called ecumenical council without the presence of the opposing bishops, a fairly unusual circumstance that demanded reasoned justification. Consistent with imperial decree, explained Cyril, he himself had arrived well before the appointed date of June 7, 431, only to find that John of Antioch was still m~. Having waited sixteen days, Cyril received a message from several of John's colleagues, "IfI am late, do what you have to do," to which Cyril responded by promptly convening the council of bishops in the Church of St. Mary on June 22, 431. Nestorius, summoned three times in accordance with ecclesiastical law, obstinately refused to attend the council, declared Cyril, which convened, nevertheless, and produced a legal and valid sentence of deposition against the recalcitrant bishop only after his writings were read into the record and found to contain a host of blasphemies. Cyril adduced an additional reason to account for his sentence of deposition against Nestorius: in the presence of a group of bishops, whose testimony was included in the Acts, Nestorius had boldly declared that Jesus was not God. An inflammatory extrapolation from Nestorius' ill-considered words, Cyrirs statement was certainly calculated to produce a decisive reaction in the recipients of his letter. Cyril's explanation and justification did not end with these remarks, however, for he also claimed that Nestorius' own colleague, John of Antioch, had rightly blamed Nestorius for introducing new dogmas into the church. Eager to defend his actions, Cyril insisted that John had Epistula Cyrilli ~ Comarium ~ POtamonem ~. ~ Dalmatium archimandritam ~ Timotheum et EulolPlDD presb. (CPG 5323) ACO I, 1,2, p. 66-68. 86
235 urged him to begin the conciliar proceedings before his arrival, only to later condemn Cyril for following this command Loathe to see his colleague deposed by a council of bishops, John of Antioc~ claimed Cyril, was understandably reluctant to attend the council. Indeed, this partisan version of conciliar events provided Cyril with the veil oflegitimacy needed to win the support of the archimandrite Dalmatius and his followers. It seems that Cyril's version of the conciliar proceedings successfully made the
voyage from Epbesus to the Imperial City, and that in spite of the fact that Nestorius and his party had allegedly conspired to prevent any news from traveling between the two cities. 87 When news ofNestorius' deposition reached Constantinople in the form of Cyril's letter, therefore, all the monks with their archimandrites left the monasteries, including the great Dalmatius himself, who had not left his monastery in forty-eight years. A highly significant event, the archimandrite's emergence from his monastery provided a clearly visible and noteworthy affirmation ofNestorius' deposition, and that from a decidedly powerful monastic leader. The monk [saac had made a similar statement against Arianism when he emerged from his solitary discipline and accosted the emperor Valens, whose support for the Arian doctrine was plainly well-attested. As Valens prepared to engage the enemy Goths, Sozomen reports that the monk [saac addressed the emperor and boldly declared, "Give bac~ emperor, to the orthodox, and to those who observe the tradition ofNicea [], the churches of which you have deprived them, and you will win the war. "88 Arrested for his frankness, Isaac was to remain in chains until the 87 Episcoporum ~ consistentium commonitorium. ~ 8681) Am [, [7 2, p. 65-66. 88 Sozomen, HE, VI.40, GCS N. F. 4, p. 301, esp. lines 2-5, 7-10 (anoSos •... c!) ~aolAeU. ToTs opec;;,S ~a~oucn Kal "';v napaSoolV cpuAaTToVOl Tc;;,V EV NlKa£c;x OVVEATJAv6oTc.,)V TaS acpalpEeEfoas EKKATlO£as. Kal VlKTiOElS TOV nOAEIJOv.);
Theodoret, HE. IV.34, ~ N. F. 5, p. 272. lines 6-18.
236 emperor's return, to which lsaac simply replied, «You will not return unless you restore the churches (aAA' OUx trnocrrP~l~ •... ~n CxlToS1SoU5 Ta~ EKKAnaia~)," an admonition that, claimed Sozomen, eventually came to pass, for the emperor Valens died during the battle of Adrianople with the Goths. 89 The spiritual disciple to lsaac, Dalmatius appears in the bagiographic literature as the true founder of the monastery sometime in 382-383 AD, who emerged from his life of monastic seclusion only to demonstrate his support for the sentence of deposition against Nestorius. 90 This was a momentous event, as Dalmatius joined the other archimandrites with their monks, and paraded through the streets, singing psalms antiphonally. When they arrived at the palace, one account reports that several archimandrites, including, presumably Dalmatius, entered the palace at the emperor's command, while the monks and laity remained singing psalms. 91 When they departed from the palace, all exclaimed in praise of the emperor, and shouted against the enemy Nestorius, while they proceeded to the martyrion of St. Mokios to read aloud the letter from CyriL92 In fact. Cyril's letter contained a highly partisan account of the conciliar proceedings, designed to safeguard the procedural integrity of the council and preserve its legitimacy before the emperor. With this partisan letter in hand, the archimandrite Dalmatius mounted the platform and spoke See G. Dagron discussing the same in «Les Moines et la Vi lie," Travaux ~ Memoires 4 (1970), p. 232 89
Vita S. Isaacii. A£1il Sanctorum. May VII, p. 247-258; Vita S. Dalmati. Acta Sanctorum. August I, p. 218-224.
90
91
Episcoporum CPoli consistentium commonitorium. (CPG 8681) Aea I, I, 2, p. 65-66.
Epistula CyriUi J4 Comarium ~ Potamonem ~. ~ Dalmatium archimandritam ~ Timotheum ~ Eu1o&iwu ~. (c.eQ 5323) ~ I, I, 2. p. 66-68.
92
237 before the crowds gathered at the martyrion. In particular, Dalmatius declared that the
emperor Theodosius, having read Cyril's letter, entirely agreed with the procedure of the council and recognized its sovereign authority. It seems that Dalmatius reported to the emperor several problems at the council, namely that the synodal bishops were prevented from reporting conciliar events to the emperor, while the Nestorian party was free to come and go. "Who do you want to hear, n asked Dalmatius of the emperor, "six thousand bishops or one impious man?~ With that question set forth, Dalmatius infonned the emperor of the synodal report recently received from Cyril.93 Welldisposed to hear Cyril's rendering of conciliar events, the emperor, explained Dalmatius, now followed God and the council, and not a blasphemous man. The council was certainly grateful that Dalmatius intervened with the emperor Theodosius, and expressed that gratitude by letter. 94 The synod explained that after departing from his cell, Dalmatius promptly went to the emperor and recounted all the conciliar events that produced Nestorius' rightful condemnation. It was not only the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian who received the appropriate "orthodox" instructions from Dalmatius, claimed the synod. but the archimandrites as well - who presumably imparted this newly acquired wisdom to their monastic communities. Aware of one tradition that was later recounted in the Yilib the council recalled that Dalmatius presaged the appearance of a dangerous heretic in Constantinople, long before Nestorius came to live in the Imperial City. '
EaVTol~.
aSEAcpol.),"
said Dalmatius according to the council, '"because an evil beast dwells in this city and 93
Apologia Dalmatii. (CPG 5778) M:Q I, I, 2, p. 68-69.
Epistula Dalmatii id synodum. (CPG 5776) ~ I, I, 7, p. Dalmatiurn. (~ 8686) AQl I, I, 7, p. x-xi.
94
x~
Epistula synodi
~
deceives many with his teaching (OTl KateOV 6nplOV
rnESri~naEv
238 Tij ".OAEl TaVTrJ teal
TrOUOUs exEl ~Aa\flal Tij SlSaOtcaAial airroii)."9S It seems that news of Dalmati us , apparent revelation had reached well beyond Constantinople. An unabashed proponent of Cyril and the council, Dalmatius, with this well-circulated, anti-Nestorian revelation, and his dramatic departure from monastic solitude, persuaded monks and emperors alike ofthe council's legitimacy. Even Nestorius himself had to acknowledge the drama of the archimandrite's reentry into the streets of Constantinople, if only to illustrate its larger, disruptive intent to hinder the movements of the emperor. Surrounded by monks in the midst of the city, wrote Nestorius in his BaWL Dalmatius and his fo11owers chanted the offices, gathering all from the city to proceed to the emperor's palace and to "hinder his purpose:>96 The only extant source reporting the emperor's words. Nestorius' Bazaarcarefu11y reproduced a speech purportedly delivered by the emperor himself before the archimandrite Dalmatius. 97 It seems that the emperor was deeply astonished that Dalmatius had departed from his monastery, for the emperor recalled that tumults in the city, and even his own sickness had failed to extract the devoted monk from his solitary discipline. Indeed, Nestorius reports that Dalmatius then dutifully explained to the emperor the timeliness of his departure, namely, that God commanded him to advise the emperor that he transgressed against himself when he perverted the council's judgment, for the emperor "has assembled the council for judgment, and it has judged" A clear 95
Epistula synodi ~ Dalmatium.
96
Nestorius, km Heraclidis (syriace); !&!&!kd'Heraclide ~ Damas. F. Nau, p. 241.
97 Le
~ I,
I, 7, p. xi, lines 6-7.
Livre d'Heraclide~Damas. F. Nau, p. 241-245.
239 statement in support of the imperially sanctioned council. Dalmatius meant to persuade the emperor of the council's legitimacy - a council that the emperor himself convened. Though inclined to support his bishop. the emperor, claimed Nestorius, eventually agreed with Dalmatius. but only after the archimandrite promised to absolve the emperor of any responsibility for the misdeeds committed against Nestorius. A decidedly partial account of events, Nestorius' depiction of Dalmatius at the imperial palace, nonetheless, provides ample insight into Nestorius' own understanding of proper conciliar procedure, namely that a council convened under imperial authority retains the legitimacy necessary for a just detennination of a party's guilt. Though Dalmatius had done much to persuade the emperor in favor of the majority council. both sides of the controversy proceeded to file the customary reports (relatio) with the emperor, intending to convince him of the propriety of their party's position. Indeed, the majority party predictably defended their convening of the council before the arrival of the Antiochene bishops. Well-rehearsed throughout the barrage of conciliar documents, the story of John of Antioch's delay needs no repetition here. Suffice it to say that Cyril and his party reported simply that John had asked the council to begin without him present. an account of events that certainly reflected the partisan nature ofCyril's report. With conditions in Ephesus growing exceedingly difficult, explained Cyril. several bishops had already died awaiting their arrival. 98 Nestorius and his followers understandably presented an entirely different account in their relatio to the emperor. Convoked by imperial authority, explained Nestorius, he and the remaining bishops preferred to await the arrival of all invited bishops, especially John of Antioch, before commencing the council. Once Nestorius and his bishops realized that the 98
Relatio ~ imperatores ~depositione Nestorii.
(~8684)
AQl I. I, 3, p. 3-5.
240 Egyptian contingent grew distraught at the extended delays, explained Nestorius. they promised to cede all authority in the matter to the comes Candidianus, the emperor's representative, and convene whenever the comes decreed. Nestorius reported that when the comes learned that John and his bishops were in the vicinity, however. he recommended that everyone patiently await their anticipated arrival, but the Egyptians and Asians (i.e., Cyril and Memnon's party) were entirely disobedient to Candidianus' suggestion. Rather than adhere to the imperial letters, claimed Nestorius, they defiantly and obstinately proceeded to assemble the bishops, and, in the process, perilously '''trampl[ed] on ecclesiastical and imperial laws (TOUS EKKAnalaOTlIcoUS KaL TOUS f3aolAlKoUS 6eo",oVs naTTiaaVTEs)."99 With scant attention to both the suggestions of
Candidianus and to the letters of the emperor, declared Nestorius. the Cyrillian party proceeded to convene the council entirely on their own authority. "They spread their factions into the marketplace and filled the city with trouble, publicly entering our houses attacking and upsetting our assembly ... Bishop Memnon was the leader of the faction, and he shut the doors of the church and the holy Martyrion and the holy Apostolion· against us, so that, being pursued as we were, we would not be able to take refuge there. Yet, Memnon opened the Great Church for them, exhorting them to gather there. and
Epistula Nestorii Id Theodosium imperatorem. (~5672) AC.Q I, I, 5, p. 14, lines 713, esp. lines 9-10.
99
241 threatening us all with death." I 00 Central to Nestorius' version of the majority council.
therefore, was his general depiction of the Cyrillian party as a violent and factious group, whose sole intent was to forcibly and unconscionably impose their partisan views.
IV.
Each party presented the emperor Theodosius 11 with his particular version of
conciliar events, in order to convince the emperor that grievous wrongs had been committed by the opposing side. This process did little to appease the Eastern bishops, however, who were determined to settle their grievances with nothing less than a full-scale counter-synod, composed of all the bishops excluded from the majority council. Following the procedural guidelines appropriate to the commencement of a synodal assembly, Candidianus, representative to the emperor, remitted the second imperial ~ into the counter-synodal proceedings instituted by the Eastern bishops. 101 With this crucial procedural act well in place, Candidianus testified before the counter-synod that five days earlier, he had discouraged Cyril, Memnon and the assembled bishops from 100 Epistula Nestorii id Theodosium imperatorem. ACa I. I, 5, p. 14, lines 17-23. TOUs bE aVv a\rrolS OTaol~Tas Eis Tliv ayopav SlaarrEipavTEs ouy)(\ioEc.lS Tliv 1ToAlV
EVE1TAnoav. TCxs ohdas n~&v 1TEPlovnS Sn~oalal .... Me~vovos TOU E-TTlmc:01TOV E~ap~ou Tiis crraOEc.lS yevo~Evou teal TaS ~ev ciYlas EKtcAnOlas Kal Ta CiYla ~apTIJPla Kal TO aytov 'AnOOToAlov n~iv anoteAdoaVTOS. '{va ~nSe npoacpvyeiv EAaUVOIJEVol svvne~~ev. EteElVOlS se Tilv lleyaAT)V EtetcATlo{av civoC;aVTos teaL cruvESPEvElV EKElnapamc:ruaoaVToS KaL 1TaOlV n~iv eavaTov a1TEtA";oavTos. For a discussion of the violence committed by both sides of the controversy, see T. E. Gregory, ~ Populi: Popular Opinion ml Violence in ~ ReJimous Controversies 2f 1M Fifth Century ~., (Columbus. 1979), Chapter IV: ""Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus: Constantinople and Ephesus," esp. p. 100-108. 101 Gestaisynodo Orientalium (d. 26 m. ion. a 431)(~8691) ~ I, 1,5, p. 119, remitting into the record the imperial id synodum W Candidianum. ~ I, I, I, p. 120-121.
s.a
242 starting the council without the presence of the Eastern bishops. Loathe to follow this directive, the Cyrillian bishops insisted that Candidianus read the imperial letters, under the pretext that they simply wished to know what the letters contained. Concerned that disorder would ensue, Candidianus reluctantly read the imperial letters, but "counseled them not to do something rash." When the assembled bishops jubilantly applauded, Candidianus urged them to obey the imperial letters, but, instead, found himself unceremoniously expelled from the proceedings, along with the Nestorian bishops. The next day, explained Candidianus, he learned ofNestorius' deposition, and promptly dispatched a notice of deposition to the emperors, in strict accordance with imperial decree. 102 Eager to uphold the emperor's commands. Candidianus readily criticized the Cyrillian bishops for their apparent disregard for the imperial letters. It was John of Antioch, however, who posed the question definitive of proper
conciliar procedure when he asked Candidianus the following: did the assembled bishops conduct a thorough investigation attentive to canonical. ecclesiastical and imperial laws, or did they simply condemn Nestorius by default
(n eprlllllv KaTESiKaoav TOV
avSpa;)? 103 Candidianus replied with a resounding ··yes·~ to the latter, namely that the bishops reached an unjust decision without proper judgment, examination, or inquiry. 104 In a brief recapitulation of the imperial letters from the counter-synod's point of view, John explained that the emperors convened the synod with genuine concern for 102 Gesta ~ synodo Orientalium (d. 26 m. iun. a 431). A.CQ I, I, 5, p. 119, line 29 - p. 120, line 3~ p. 120, lines 16-25. 103
Gesta ~ svnodo Orientaiium. ACa I, I, 5, p. 120, lines 26-29.
Gesta ~ synodo Orientalium. ACa I, I, 5, p. 120, lines 30-32. Candidianus testified to the following: w'oaol nciVTes oi cru&lnapOvTES &lOl eeoaE~EOTaTol EnloKonol ~S XWPlS TlVOS Kp(oews Kal E~eTcioEc.lS Kall;llnloec.lS Ta nap' aVT~V TETVnc.lTal. 104
243 ecclesiastical peace and for the sound immutability of the apostolic faith. The emperors~ claimed John, therefore, commanded that all investigation take place at the same time, in a brotherly manner befitting priests, and that a proper examination be conducted according to the principles of investigation, applying the methods of proposition (npoTaol5), refutation (AVOlS), question (TTEVcns), and response (anOtcplCJlS). Free from disturbance and tangential litigation, the emperor's proposed syn~ declared John, must not scrutinize anything other than the doctrinal matters troubling the churches. John believed that Cyril and Memnon exhibited nothing but contempt for the emperor's letters, for they shut the churches, manyria, and ap9stolion, and prohibited the Eastern bishops from celebrating Pentecost. It seems that they even gathered a crowd of peasants, and caused trouble in the city, sending clerics into the houses of the Eastern bishops in order to threaten them with bodily harm if they refused to join the majority synod. In fac~ John believed that their disobedience to imperial letters and their disregard for ecclesiastical laws was simply a diversionary tactic. designed to protect their heretical beliefs and dogmas from a thorough investigation. John finally concluded his testimony with a stark indictment of his adversary's christological doctrines, as he declared Cyrii's Twelve Chapters, which were sent to the Imperial City, irretrievably filled with the impiety of Arius, Apollinarius, and Eunomius. With that accusation in place, John instated a sentence of deposition against Cyril and Memnon, because of the heretical nature of the Chapters, and because they "trampled on the ecclesiastical laws and the pious laws of the most pious emperors ( ... [TTaT1l6iival1 TOUS EKKATlOlaOTUCous eeo",0Vs Kal Ta EVOE~fi 6EOTTlo",aTa T~V eVoe~eOTaTc.JV ti",~v ~aolAEc.Jv)."105 Forty-three
bishops assented to the deposition, and the session of the counter-synod concluded. 105
Gesta i\ synodo OrientaJium.
Am I, I, 5, p. 120, lines 33 - p. 122. line 13.
244 It remained, however, for the Eastern bishops to explain their counter-synod to
the emperor, a task readily undertaken by John of Antioch, who recapitulated in summary fashion the findings of his bishops. Indeed, John reponed to the emperor that eyril, infected by the Arian, Apollinari~ and Eunomian heresies, had woefully disobeyed the imperial letters when he convened the council prior to John's arrival. Beset with troubles, including a bout of famine in Antioch, excessive rainfall, and the long distance of the journey, John attempted to justify his delay before the emperor. 106 John's letter to the excommunicated bishops was decidedly less deferential, however, for he declared their entire lot properly excommunicated, unless they obeyed the imperial letters and joined the Eastern synod in a peaceable and trouble-free fashion. 107 Intending to render his sentence of deposition entirely legitimate, John appeared the proper synodal president in every respect, as he dutifully presented his case to the emperor, and notified the opposing bishops of the conciliar findings against them. When the emperor Theodosius 11 learned of the situation at Ephesus through his representative Candidianus, he was, in fact, thoroughly irate. His imperial decree had commanded nothing less than an ecumenical gathering of bishops, yet a synod had evidently convened without the presence of John of Antioch and his colleagues. 108 Particularly distressed at the lack of agreement amongst the assembled bishops, the Epistula eiusdem synodi.t Theodosium ~ Vatentinianum imp. iY&. ~ 6323) ACa I, I, 5, p. 124. 106
107 Epistula eiusdem synodi ~ episcopos excommunicatos. (CPG 6354) ACO I, 124.
r,
5, p.
Sacra ad synodum ~ Palladium rna&istrianum (d. 29 m. lun. a. 431). (CPG 8696) ~ I, I, 3, p. 9-10. 108
245 emperor complained that no discussion had taken place according to the guidelines set
forth in his imperial letters. In particular, the emperor believed that without the proper investigation and reflection, there was little point in continuing the conciliar process, and, therefore, he commanded that the proceedings promptly cease. A proper synodal inquiry, according to the presuppositions of Byzantine political theory, demanded that the bishops examine the matters pertaining to orthodoxy in an ecumenical forum approved by the emperor - not in the partisan, prejudicial assemblies fonned by the two opposing synods. What takes place is offensive, declared the emperor, unless the orthodox dogmas have been examined by the entire council - a statement fully supported by nearly a century of conciliar theory. 109 In response to the perceived disorder and mayhem infiltrating his synod, the emperor commanded that none of the assembled bishops leave Ephesus, for any reason, until an imperial official determined what, in fact, occurred amongst the quarreling bishops. Cyril, fully aware of the emperor's wrath, boldly attempted to reinstate his assembled bishops into imperial favor. The majority synod. explained Cyril, gathered to examine the disputed dogma, a task they readily completed when they determined that Nestorius' doctrine was entirely different from the orthodox faith. I 10 Defending the methods of his synodal assembly, Cyril explained to the emperor that the majority synod set forth the standards of orthodox piety, namely the Nicean symbol of faith and the patristic florilq:imn, to which they compared Nestorius' letters, writings, and several public discourses. The ensuing vote, wrote Cyril, was unanimously in favor of 109
See Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, above.
Relatio Cyrillianorum ~ Theodosium ~ Valentinianmn imp. (CPG 8697) ACa I, I, 3, p. 10-13. 110
246 deposition and condemnation. 111 In large part a defense of his conciliar procedure, Cyril's version of the synod eventually found much to criticize with respect to the emperor's representative, Candidianus. A friend and partisan supporter ofNestorius, claimed Cyril, Candidianus and his account of the process was entirely prejudicial, designed solely to win the emperor's favor, and distract him from the truth. Indeed, Cyril believed that the truth would emerge untainted only when the emperor finally read the minutes to the proceedings, attached to the Relatio. Produced by Cyril's secretary and notary to the proceedings, Peter, priest of Alexandria, the transcript to the synodal proceedings figured prominently in Cyrirs defense before the emperor, for Cyril clearly believed that a perusal of these minutes would reveal the synod's adherence to proper conciliar procedure, and the synod's impartial determination ofNestorius' ultimate guilt. In the meantime, the Eastern synod produced a barrage of letters, which recapitulated in painstaking detail the accumulation of wrongs committed against them, wrongs that even included acts of physical violence. John alleged that Cyril sent Egyptian clergy and Asian peasants into the houses of the Eastern bishops, and proceeded to threaten and terrorize them. 112 In another instance, John reported that his fellow bishops, while giving thanks at the Church of St. John, were perilously surrounded by bishop Memnon's cohorts, who abruptly seized several of his people, stole horses from some, and shamelessly wounded others, as they relentlessly pursued the Eastern
III
Ibid. p. 11, lines 10-15.
112
Epistula synodi Orientaiium Id populum CPolitanum. (~6343) ACa I, I, 5, p.
128.
247 bishops anned with clubs and stones. 113 So reprehensible were the actions of Memnon's lackeys, in fact, that John and his bishops allegedly ran with a haste indicative of nothing less than a full-scale barbarian pursuit. It was not only such outright acts of violence, however, that posed problems for John of Antioch. In his Relatio to the emperors, John complained that eyril arrived with a host of bishops. numbering approximately fifty, while John himself. in strict obedience to the imperial letters, arrived with a comparatively small contingent. In fact~ the wide disparity in numbers certainly left John and the Eastern bishops at a decided disadvantage. for the numerical superiority of the majority synod produced the intended impression of an ecumenical gathering of bishops. To erase that disparity, John asked the emperor to limit each Metropolitan bishop to only two bishops. a limitation that John claims to have obediently followed. much to his detriment. I 14 Indeed, John believed that these impressive numbers, fifty bishops under Cyril and fony under Memnon. merely served to mask their gross impiety, which was allegedly manifest throughout Cyril's Twelve Chapters. infected as it was with the reprehensible heresies of Arius, Apollinarius, and Eunomius. Cyril, along with his partisans. declared Jo~ would remain deposed and excommunicated until they unequivocally renounced their heretical views. 1 15 A clearly partisan attempt to secure Relatio synodi Orientalium lQeosdem. 127, line 11. 113
114
(~6324)
ACa I, 1,5, p. 126, line 36 - p.
Relatio synodi Orientalium Ideosdem. ACa I. I, 5, p. 126, lines 23-36.
115 Relatio synodi Orientalium M eosdem. ACa I, I, 5, p. 125-127; Epistyla synodi Orientalium ~ populum CPolitanum. AQ;l I, I, 5, p. 128; Epjstula synodi Orientalium id Theodosium ~ Valentinianum W Irenaeum. (~ 6325) ~ I, I, 5, p. 129-131; Epistula eiusdem synodi ad Pulcheriam ~ Eudociam aupstas. (~6318) AC..Q I, I, 5, p. 131-132.
248
the emperor's approval, John of Antioch's depiction of the Cyrillian council, nevertheless, failed to appeal to the clergy and people of the Imperial City. It seems that when the clergy of Constantinople received Cyril's reports from the emperor Theodosius, they read aloud the notice ofNestorius' deposition before their congregations. who received the news with undilutedjubilation. 116 Scarcely disturbed by the deposition of their bishop, the people and clergy alike unequivocally supported Cyril' s majority council.
V.
The second and third sessions of the majority council, in which Cyril continued to
act as papal representative, took place on July 10th and 11 th., 431, upon the arrival of the bishops and priest from Rome. Held at the episcopal quarters of Memnon, the proceedings openly acknowledged and celebrated the arrival and unmitigated support of the Roman contingent. Philip, the Roman presbyter. began the proceedings with an open declaration of papal authority, when he explained that Pope Caelestine had already passed a sentence of judgment. made plain in his prior exchange of letters with CyriL 117 This was not the only expression of papal authority introduced into the conciliar record, however, for the papal legates had brought along an additional letter, already translated into Greek, that readily affirmed the dignity and authority of the apostolic succession, and, by logical extension, the power and authority of the Pope -- whose claims to papal dignity rested. in large measure, upon the continuous apostolic succession all the way 116
Epistula £lm. CPolitani .t synodum Cyrillianorum. (CPG 5777) ACa 11, I, 3, p. 66-
67. 117 Gesta Ephesina. Actiones n ~ III (d to et 11 m. Iul. a. 431). (CPG 8710) ACa I. I. 3, p. 53, lines 25-33, citing EpiSlula Cae1estini papae Id Cynllum A1g. (d. 10 m. Aug. a. 430). ACa I, I. I. p. 75-77.
249 back to the first apostle Peter. 118 It was after all the very first apostles, explained Pope
Caelestine, who sowed the seeds of faith - a faith that continued unblemished until the present day. Moreover, Pope Caelestine believed that this doctrine of apostolic succession virtually ensured the purity and immutability of the faith, which meant for the Pope that the present ecclesiastical troubles demanded nothing less than a unity of heart and mind. In other words, while their quest for ecclesiastical unanimity and sameness provided a sufficient bulwark against the present ravages of ecclesiastical discord, at the same time, it also boldly reaffinned the continuous trajectory of orthodox faith implied in the doctrine of apostolic succession. Though the Pope had earlier claimed scant interest in participating through his representatives in the actual substantive doctrinal debates, that self-imposed limitation apparently offered little safeguard against papal encroachment into the larger conciliar process. In fact, the Pope's representatives, Arcadius, Projectus, and Philip, were ostensibly charged with carrying out before the synod at Ephesus the sentence previously decreed by the Pope, which certainly implied that Pope Caelestine believed that the Roman see wielded the definitive and final authority in the conciliar process. Since Rome's interests apparently coincided with those of the CyrilIian council, all the bishops cried out in complete affirmation of Pope Caelestine's decree, "This is ajustjudgment. To Caelestine a new PauL To Cyril a new PauL ... To Caelestine the whole Synod offers its thanks."119 It was to remain, nevertheless, for the majority council to establish the proper relationship between the sentence of deposition enacted by Pope Caelestine, and 118 Epistula Caelesrini~. Romae ~ synodum. Versio graeca. ACa I, 1,3, p. 55-57. 119 Gesta Ephesina. Actiones 11 et III (d 10 et 11 m. luL a. 431). 24-27.
Am I, I, 3, p. 57, lines
250 that rendered by the majority proceedings in Ephesus. This was, indeed, accomplished by F innus, bishop of Caesar~ when he declared that the earlier writings of Pope Caelestine constituted a decision and type (TUnas) in this matter, which the Ephesian synod also followed when it pronounced a canonical and apostolic judgment against the adversary, Nestorius. 120 On the following day, session III of the council, the presbyter Philip explained that the Roman delegation read the acts of the council, and detennined that the majority synod reached their sentence of deposition in strict accordance with the canons and ecclesiastical laws. In lUlequivocal affinnation ofNestorius' deposition, Arcadius, bishop and legate from Rome, declared that the synodal bishops meticulously followed the types (-nmOl) of Pope Caelestine; the sanctions transmitted in unbroken succession from the
very first apostles; and the synodal decree rendered by the first session of the counciL 121 Entirely confident that proper conciliar procedures had been followed, Cyril and the Roman legates declared Nestorius deprived of his episcopal dignity, and excommunicated from the entirety of the church. Cyril best explained the perceived significance of this Western support when he claimed that Roman confinnation of the majority synod's decree meant nothing less than universal agreement with the sentence of condemnation and deposition enacted against the heretic Nestorius. 122 This was a significant declaration for Cyril, one that implied the end of proceedings and the completion of his task, as he Gesta Ephesina. Actiones IT !a III (d 10 et 11 m.lut a. 431). ACO I, 1,3, p. 58, lines 1-11.
120
Gesta Ephesina. Actiones IT et III (d 10 et II m. [uL a. 431). ACO [, I, 3, p. 62, lines 6-10. 121
122 Gesta Ephesina. Actiones 11 et lIT (d 10 et II m. [ut. a. 431). ACO I, I, 3, p. 62, lines 25-35.
251 promptly wrote to the emperors seeking an official discharge from the assembly at Ephesus, and permission for his ailing bishops to begin the journey home. The Roman legates, explained Cyril to the emperors, formally proclaimed their whole-hearted agreement with the majority council, for its fmdings were entirely consistent with the decision of the earlier synod held in Rome. 123 In his letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople, Cyril announced this ready agreement of the Roman legates only by including their signatures affixed to the letter. Nestorius, wrote Cyril, publicly stated, in all his blasphemy, that he did not choose to worship an infant; and one who fled to Egypt, Nestorius blasphemously refused to name God. 124 A simple restatement of Cyril's prior claims, the letter, encumbered by the authority of its Roman signatories, urged the clergy and people to select another bishop, one more worthy of the office. It was not only Nestorius who incited the wrath of the Cyrillian party. In
Sessions IV and V of the majority council, held on July 16,17, 431, Cyril and his followers excommunicated John of Antioch, along with the thirty-four bishops who panicipated in the counter-synod. 125 Though asked to defend themselves before Cyril and the rest of the synodal members, John and his followers, claimed Acacius, simply lacked the requisite authority (aV6EVTla) to commit any wrong against the council, thus
123 Relatio ~ imperatores. (~8711) ACa I, 1,3, p. 63-64. 124 Epistula ad clerwn P2pulumgue CPolitanum. ~ 8712) ACa I, 1,3, p. 13, lines 19-
23. 125 Gesta Ephesina. Actiones IV ~ V (d 16 et 17 m. lut. a. 431). (~8716) ACO I, I,
3, p. 15-26.
252 rendering Cyrii's additional charges entirely redundant (lTEPl-rn;).126 Acacius undoubtedly believed that the majority council derived its sole and legitimate authority from the emperor Theodosius himself, in particular, from the imperial ~ which convoked the ecumenical gathering of bishops. An imperially sanctioned majority council, implied Acacius, need not defend its legitimate authority from the wrongful incursions of the counter-synod Cyril was, nevertheless, outraged at John of Antioch' s alleged disregard for ecclesiastical laws, for John had deposed Cyril and the rest of the synodal members without their proper convocation before the counter-synod. In fact, Cyril believed that the counter-synod was simply unable to render judgment either by the ecclesiastical canons or by imperial decree. Though deemed utterly superfluous by bishop Acacius, John's convocation before the majority synod (to answer the charges against him) commanded the full attention ofCyril and the rest of the synodal bishops. Called to defend himselfin strict accordance with ecclesiastical law, John apparently surrounded his house with a crowd of soldiers and, like Nestorius, refused to obey the summons. Bishop Timothy testified that when they arrived at John's house, they found his dwelling surrounded by many soldiers, so they beseeched the clerics saying, "we were sent by the council;" to which John replied, "we don't respond to people whom we deposed." I 27
With that testimony entered into the record, eyril and Memnon declared
John's acts of deposition wholly invalid, and entered a conditional sentence against him, subject to a third convocation of John in accordance with the ecclesiastical laws. On July 17,431, in the church of St. Mary, Cyril and his bishops held the fifth Gesta Ephesina. Actiones IV ~ V (d 16 et 17 m. luI. a. 431). A.Ql I, I, 3, p. 17, lines 10-19. 126
127 Gesta Ephesina. Actiones IV ~ V (d 16 et 17 m. lut. a. 431). A.Ql I, 1,3, p. 19, lines 8-19.
•
253 session of the council. Convoked a third time, John adamantly refused to answer the summons. Instead, he published a paper iD the village, convicting Cyril of rampant Apollinarianism. It was a charge that undoubtedly touched a nerve, for Cyril had inadvertently followed several Apollinarian treatises, preserved under the name Athanasius, though Cyril's christology was, nonetheless, a far cry from the single-subject, non-human Christ envisioned by the strict Apollinarians. To answer these charges, Cyril, in the fifth session of the council, declared his impeccable, orthodox credentials, acquired since childhood at the hands of orthodox parents and saints, and anathematized the beliefs of Apollinarius, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Sabellius, Photinus, Paul, Mani, Celestius, Pelagius, and Nestorius and his followers. "I have never agreed with them:' explained Cyril, "and it is not from repentance that I arrive at the desire to believe in the orthodox [faith], but, as I said, I was nourished in the orthodox and apostolic doctrines of the church:" 128 Evidently eager to defend his orthodoxy, Cyri} demanded the presence of John of Antioch, a demand to which the council promptly responded. It seems that Daniel, Commodus and Timothy called upon John with a written message in hand, summoning him a third time to explain his "errant" behavior before the majority council. Unwilling to receive their message, John sent forth his own written message for the council, and, in the process, predictably incited the wrath ofCyrirs emissaries. 129 Ecclesiastical law required three calls, each of which John resolutely refused, leaving Cyril Gesta Ephesina. Actiones IV ~y (d. 16 et 17 m. Iut a. 431). ACa I, I, 3, p. 21, line 11 - p. 22. line 26. . .. ov Tt'ECPP0V11te6TE~ Ta ElCelV(,.)v Tt'~1TOTE ovSe viiv Ete 128
~ETavoia~ Ei~
TO 8EAElav Ta op8a CPPOVElV aCPlYlJtVOl. aAA'. ~~ ecpnv. teal a1TOOTOAlteOl5 Tii5 EteteAIloia5 ooYlJaOlv. Ibid. p.
EVTEepa~~Evol TOl~ 6peol~
22, lines 13-15. Gesta Ephesina. Actiones IV $ll V (d 16 et 17 m. Iut a. 431). ACa I, I, 3, p. 22, line 33 - p. 23, line 34. 129
254 with all the procedural ammunition necessary to render a seemingly legitimate sentence of deposition against his opponent John. With the legitimacy of the majority council implicitly called into question by the fonnation of the counter-synod, the papal legates Juvenal, Arcadius, and Projectus wrote a detailed letter to the emperor, impugning the integrity and authority of John's assembly of bishops. 130 The papal legates explained that Nestorius had been justly deposed for his beliefs contrary to Nicea. yet approximately thirty of his followers steadfastly remained with him, including John of Antioch, and convened another council wrongfully suggesting that the emperor ··had ordered two councils instead of one.~ Fearing reproach for this irregular action, explained the papal legates. John and his followers shamelessly took the initiative. and aggressively informed the emperor of the findings of their counter-synod, as if the emperor were entirely unaware that he ordered just one synod Furthermore. the papal legates supported their position with precedent from Nicea. and exhorted the emperor not to recognize the counter-synod fonned by John of Antioch, for long ago at Nicea, claimed the legates. one grouP. fearing vengeance. separated itself from the council. Constantine. allegedly cognizant of this blatant violation of ecclesiastical procedure. refused to name this aberrant group a synod, and even declaredjudgrnents against them for unconscionably interfering with the concord of bishops. 131 It was not only synodal precedent that lent authority to the legates' concerns. however. for the sheer number ofbisbops involved in the majority council also rendered their arguments against the counter-synod al1 the more convincing. A synod of two hundred and ten bishops, claimed the papal legates, together with the Western bishops. 130
Epistula ~ imgeratores ~ Orientalibus.
(~8718)
131
Epistula ad imperatores sk Orientalibus. Aea I, 1.3. p. 30. lines 16-22.
AeO I. I. 3, p. 28-30.
255 and through them, the rest of the world, must take precedence over the thirty bishops gathered with John - some of whom were deposed long ago, others of whom were known heretics of Celestius and Nestorius. 132 Eager to assert the papal prerogatives. the papal legates attempted to persuade the emperor that conciliar authority resided only in the majority council, a council with which the Pope, his representatives, and, by extension, the entire West, had fully agreed.l33 The Eastern bishops offered a plausible explanation, nonetheless. for their fewer numbers. In obedience to the imperial decree. claimed the Easterns, they arrived with only three bishops from each province, while Cyril brought along many more in order to ensure numerous signatures for his party. Indeed, the Eastern bishops believed that two bishops accompanying each Metropolitan should suffice to reach the truth, and to avoid the ancillary confusion created by the numbers present at the proceedings in Ephesus. 134 Seeking advice and counsel from the emperor. the Easterns also complained that Cyril and Memnon, though deposed, rendered the priestly functions - a difficult problem that required nothing less than imperial intervention to reach a firm resolution. The final session of the majority council. held on July 22.431. confirmed the Symbol of Nicea. reintroduced the patristic florile&ium from session I, and addressed the problem of the libel ofCharisius. 135 It seems that some heretics from Lydia. known 132
Epistula i4 imperatores ~ Orientalibus. ~ I, I, 3, p. 30, lines 22-29.
133 The council members made a similar declaration before Pope Caelestine, in the Epistula ~ Caelestinum papam. (~8719) ~ I, I. 3, p. 5-9.
Epistula synodi Orientalium ~ Tbeodosium imp. (CPG 6327) ACa I, I, 5, p. 134, lines 28-38. 134
135
Gesta Ephesina. Actio VI (d. 22 m. Iul. a. 431)(CPG 8721) ACa I, I, 7. p. 84-117.
256
associates ofNestorius, composed a Nestorian confession of faith, which Charisius of Philadelphia inadvertently inserted into the creed. Having signed the errant symbol, Charisius was promptly excluded from communion as a heretic, a sentence that the majority council sought to rescind upon his reaffirmation of several anti-Nestorian statements of belief "We say that there are neither two sons nor two lords," confessed Charisius, "since God the Word is one Son in essence, the only begotten Son of the Father to which this One is joined and partakes in Sonship, and participates in the name and honor of the Son."136 A defensive statement designed to confirm both Charisios' beliefin Nicea and his disapproval ofNestorianism, the several affirmations of orthodox belief recorded in session VI provide a neat repository of anti-Nestorian dogma produced by the majority council When the emperor Theodosius 11 finally read through the onslaught of partisan reports, it seems that he was more than a little annoyed. Reluctant to condemn the legitimacy of either council, the emperor somewhat ludicrously affirmed the depositions of Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius, failing to reach the crucial question posed by both parties to the controversy, namely, which council held the requisite authority derived from imperial decree? Critical of both parties' actions, the emperor envisioned his role as guardian of the orthodox faith, a faith which he had allegedly received from an ancestral tradition unanimously sanctioned by the holy council gathered under Constantine. 137 An indication that Theodosius understood himself to be the rightful successor to Constantine, 136 Gesta Ephesina. Actio VI (d. 22 m. lul. a. 431) ~ I, I, 7, p. 98, lines 27-30. Kat OUTE Suo <pallEv uio~ oUTe Suo ICUpiouS. ElTElSi] ei~ uia~ KaT' ovoiav 6 Seas AOyOS. 6 Ilovoyevns uias TOO naTpOs. ~nep OUTOS OUVTlIlIlEvos Te Kat IlETExc:.JV UiOT1lTOS KOlVCoJvei Tiis oioO npoonyopias Te Kat Tllliis •... 137 Sacra direcia mrr Iohannem comitem concilio. (CPG 8723) ACa I, I, 3, p. 31-32.
257
this forthright affinnation of Nicea and its emperor suggests that Theodosius was concerned with more than the immediate squabbles besetting the bishops at Ephesus. Remembered as the greatest of all councils. Nicea set the standard for conciliar decision making. a standard that Theodosius evidently sought to maintain throughout the rampant quarreling of bishops. After all. Constantine had declared that decisions reached by a council of bishops were divinely inspirecL a decree that Theodosius apparently did not wish to impugn by rendering null and void the conciliar decision of either synodal assembly. Furthennore. Theodosius was certainly not the first emperor to confront the vexing problem posed by two opposing councils. The emperor Constantius had apparently faced the problem in three separate instances: Antioch and Alexandria in 338; Antioch and Rome in 341 ~ and the divided council ofSerdica in 343 AD. 138 It was eventually Athanasius who helped secure the notion that conciliar decisions reached by a large number of bishops enjoyed esteem and priority over their smaller counterparts. a point eagerly adopted by the Cyrillian majority. but apparently to no avail. Theodosius was committed to upholding the sentences of deposition imposed by both assemblies of bishops. and. at least for the moment. wished to leave the resolution of these opposing councils for another day. Eventually the emperor was forced to reach a decision. however. and declare the findings of one or the other synod legitimate. Modem scholars have made various suggestions to explain the emperor's shift in support from his own episcopal appointee. Nestorius. to his prior adversary. CyriL One account. for example. suggests that the empress Pulcheria. outraged at Nestorius' slanderous sermons. persuaded her brother T D. 8ames. Athanasius m4 Constantius: TheoloGY m Politics in ~ Constantinian Empire, p. 171. 138
258 Theodosius to find in favor ofCyril and his followers. 139 The following chapter, however, examines Cyrirs public discourses delivered before the council and suggests that Cyril's mastery ofrhetorica1 argumentation conspired to shape public opinion. and to ultimately persuade the emperor Theodosius that Nestorius was, indeed, the archetypal heretic that Cyril and the majority synod decreed. Cyril delivered at least six homilies during the council ofEphesus, vituperative displays of rhetoric that undoubtedly incited impassioned responses from his audience -- an audience that consisted of clergy and laity alike. With the people stirred by Cyril's inflammatory words, the tide of popular opinion, as the foIIowing chapter suggests, perceptibly moved that much mere in Cyril's favor.
139
K. Holum. Theodosian Empresses. esp. p. 163-174.
259 Chapter Five -- CyriI's Loeos and the Art ofInvective I. Introduction:
During the council ofEphesus in 431 AD, Cyril delivered a number of homilies, only six of which remain extant today. 1 Polemical in nature, these homilies were designed to persuade the audience of conciliar bishops toward Cyril' s party, and, at the same time, devastate his opponent Nestorius and the rest of the Eastern bishops (Ol El( Tii~
.A vaToAii~). While the conventional Christian homily (6~.llA[a), exemplified in the
works of John Chrysostom, Origen, and others, generally consisted of Christian paraenesis (napa[vEOl~) and exhortation (napaKEAEV1Ja) based on a particular biblical text,2 the sermon (senno) or logos (A6yo~), claims one scholar, could generally be considered more akin to the type of public discourse prominent in classical Greece, a secular discourse which ultimately found its way to Alexandria, where it was practiced, I Homilia V Ephesi ~ deposito Nestorio. ~ 5233) Am I, I, 2, p. 92-94. Homilia 1.. Ephesi habita, vaIde pulchra (CPG 5245) ACO l, I, 2, p.96-98. Homilia VI. Ephesi
dicta in lohannem Antiochenum. (CPG 5250) ACO I, 1,2, p. 98-100. Homilia!!. Ephesi habita in basilica~. Iohannis Evaneelistae. (C£Q 5246) ACO I, I, 2, p. 94-96. Homilia VII. Ephesi dicta. priusguam a comite comprehenderetur. (CPG 5251 ) ACO 1, 1. 2, p. 100-102. Homilia IV. 1& Maria Deipara in Nestorium. (CPG 5248) AeO. I, I, 2, p. 102104. Authenticity denied by E. Schwarz (~I, l, 4, p. xxv), but affirmed by others. Cr. R. Caro, La Homiletica Mariana Griep m ~ Si&I2 Y., 4, 11 (Dayton, 1972), p. 269283; M. Santer, ·'The Authorship and Occasion of Cyril of Alexandria's Sermon on the Virgin (Horn. Div. IV)," S1e XII (1975), p. 144-150. (For a translation of these homilies, see the Appendix.) Another Marian homily was apparently delivered at Ephesus, now extant in only a fragment Homilia YIIl. Ephesi ~ in Maiore ecclesia. ~ vocatur Marie (fragmenturo). (~5252) ~ I, 3, p. 143. See Justin Martyr, Dialogus ggn Trvphone Iudaeo. 85.5 (~ 1076) PG 6, 677A1B. Justin implies that the proper 6~.llA[a should be thoroughly grounded in the prophetic scriptures, even if that very same scriptural passage has been used numerous times before. 2
260
for example, in the boule (~OVAti), law courts, and embassies to the imperial court) Such discourse loosely corresponded to the deliberative (O\II.l~OVAEVTlKOS AOYOS) and forensic (SlKavlKos AOYOS) rhetoric outlined in the rhetorical handbooks, starting with Aristotle. 4 The historical reality, however, proved much more elusive than the neat distinction suggested above. Indeed, not all ancient writers equated the sermon (senno) with the sort of public discourse (AOYOS) practiced, even by Christian times, in the senate, courts, and embassies of Alexandria In the Latin tradition of the first century AD, it was Cicero who lamented that the sermo. by which he simply meant ordinary speech and social conversation, lacked the extensive rules of rhetoric that applied to other forms of discourse, such as the oratory (oratio ), where detailed rhetorical rules abound. 5 Even the Greek homily (6"uAla) retained aspects of this sense of the Latin word sermo, according to some ancient writers, for the homily implied a conversation, colloquy, or general social intercourse between several persons. 6 In fact, Xenophon used the same term (6"uAla) to describe the Socratic circle, while the Greek verb SlaAiyeoeal ('"to discuss with") accounted for their method of discourse or communication, a pair of terms
w. Smith, The Art Qf Rhetoric in Alexandria (The Hague, 1974), p. 37-72, 88.
3
R.
4
Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica. W. D. Ross, ed., Oxford Classical Texts (Oxford, 1959).
Cicero, De Officiis. 1.132, W. Miller, ttans., ~ vot. 48, (Cambridge and London, 1975), p. 35.
5
6
See. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon. p. 951, s. v..
261 also used by Porphyry when describing the students of Plotinus. 7 Though the distinction between homily (o".uAla) and sermon (senno.
AOYO~)
becomes blurred upon closer examination of the competing ancient definitions, the two find sufficient differentiation, at least by the ninth century, when Photius wrote that
AOYOl are distinguished from o\J.lAlal by its spontaneous method of discourse. 8 In particular, Photius believed that the AOYOS was a more formal discourse than the o\J.lAla, which generally addressed the audience directly, thus evincing a style and purpose demonstrably different from the formal
Aoyo~.9
Whether Cyrirs homiletic discourse
supports that firm distinction must, finally, remain ambiguous, for Cyril retains the dialogic, conversational style appropriate to both Photius' conception of the informal homily (o\J.lAla) and Cicero's notion of the conversational sermon (sermo). At the same, Cyrii's style of vituperative homiletic discourse, apparent in his homilies delivered during the meeting of the council (Summer, 431 AD), contains features reminiscent of the classical AOYOS, with its penchant for deliberative, argumentative speech. In fact, the long tradition of Alexandrian anti-heretical discourse, which developed alongside the Arian and Manichean debates, helped Cyril forge a distinctive style of preaching, especially Xenophon, Memorabilia Socratis. 1.11. 6, 12, IS, 18, E. C. Marchant, trans.,.w:L vol. 463, (Cambridge and London, 1968). Porphyry, Vita Plotini. 8.11, P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, ed., Plotini Opera 1 (Paris and Brussels, 1951), cited by G. Kustas, Studies in Bvzantine Rhetoric. (Thessaloniki, 1973), p. 44. 7
Photius Constantinopolitanus, Bibliothecae Codices. 172-4, Phtoius. Bibliothegue, Tome II, R. Henry, ed., (paris, 1960), p. 168; fQ.103,502CID .
8
9 Photius explained that both methods of discourse can, at times, address the audience directly, but that the homily does so in a different manner. [n particular, the homily applies this method of direct address continuously, persistently, and without rules. Bibliothegue. R. Henry, ed., p. 168, lines 23-32; fQ.I03, S02CID.
262 apparent in these six homilies delivered before the conciliar bishops at Ephesus, that was
decidedly more argumentative than the typical sermon or homily of his Alexandrian predecessors. Cyril' s Festal letters, which were read to the congregations of churches throughout Egypt, nevertheless, represent an entirely different style of homiletic discourse, a style more consistent with the exhortative, paraenetic function traditionally associated with preaching. Indeed, Eusebius in his Vita Constantini had declared the 6~lAla
wholly synonymous with exhortation, the quality most indicative of the genre. 10
When Cyril, at the council of Ephesus, recast the homiletic ~ to suit his ecclesiastical political ends, therefore, he ostensibly appropriated features of the classical AOyOS. especially the argumentative nature of public discourse endemic to the law courts. boule
(i3ovAn). and embassies, and combined that with the rhetorical and conversational style of the 6~lAla, to produce a discourse at once formidable for and accessible to his audience. The argumentative nature ofCyril's conciliar sermons, however, should not in any sense imply the wholesale appropriation of classical rhetorical fonns, such as those found in the secular modes of discourse outlined above. Christian preaching of every kind proceeded from an entirely different set of presuppositions, which were determined by
to Eusebius, Vita Constantini, 3.21 (~3496) (BHGa 361X), e.Q. 20, 1080B-I084A. 1.
A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke 1. Ober ~ ~ Constantins. Constantins ~ m ~ heilige VersammlWlB. Tricennatsrede iYl Constantin. ~ 7 (Leipzig, 1902), p. 87-88. Eusebius reports that the emperor delivered a o"llAla, offering words of exhortation to the bishops.
263 the distinctive nature of Christian claims to truth. I I If the narrative framework (icrropla) of Christ's incarnation, death., and resurrection constituted the true Christian
message, reduced to its essential elements, necessary for every believing Christian to achieve a sure salvation. 12 then Christian homiletic discourse sought to cajole and exhort its listeners to embrace that truth without the slightest hesitation.13 Rhetoric, in the Irenaeus expressed those truth claims most succinctly in his Adversus Haereses. in which he explained that the proper interpretation of scripture retains the rule of truth which every Christian received at baptism, and interprets the scriptural text in a manner consistent with that truth. Once every scriptural expression is fitted to the body of truth (ac:l~a TIlS aA1l8 e£as). then the proper meaning will be revealed, and the interpretations of the heretics will be exposed as falsehood. See Adversus Haereses. (latine), I.Ix. A. ~ Ll:sm. Contre l§ heresies. ~ L t. I. Introduction. Rousseau - L. Doutreleau, notes justificatives. tables. SQl[ 263 (Paris, 1979); t. 2 ~ ~ traduction. SQl[ 264 (Paris, 1979); ~ IL t. I. ~ 293 (Paris, 1982); 1. 2 ~ ~ traduction. SQlr 294 (paris, 1982); ~ IlL t. I. SQ)[ 210 (paris, 1974); t. 2 ~ ~ traduction. SQlr 211 (Paris, 1974); A. Rousseau - B. Hemmerdinger - L. Doutreleau - Ch. Mercier, ~ IV. ~ 100 (Paris, 1965); A. Rousseau - L. Doutreleau - Ch. Mercier, Livre y. t. 1. SChr 152 (Paris, 1969); t. 2 Texte et traduction. SChr 153 (paris, 1969). II
lrenee
See chapter I, §4. Cyril believed that the figures which comprise sacred scripture constitute a type (TliTrOS) ofa greater spiritual reality, a reality that wholly encompasses Christ's mystery (~UcrrriPlOV). Christ's mystery consisted of the totality of the dispensation (oilc:ovo~la). This bears resemblance to the Christian Rule of Faith, which sought to preserve the over-arching narrative framework of Christ's incarnation, death and ressurection. See for example, Irenaeus, Demonstratio praedicationis apostolicae (Epideixis) (armeniace) (CPG 1307), K. Ter-Mekerttschian - E. Ter-Minassiantz, Des hi. Irenaus Schrift ~ Erweise ~ apostolischen VerkUndiwru: in armenischer Version, entdeckt, herausaephen .\lWl im Deutsche Qbersetzt. Mil ~ Nachwort Yrul Anmerkun.:en von A.. Hamack (Ill 31 , I) (Leipzig, 1907). (Translatio aaIlica) A. Rousseau, Demonstration ~ lil prediction apostoligue. Introduction, traduction ~ ~ SChr 406, (paris, 1995). For a discussion of the Christian Rule of Faith and Athanasius, see F. Young, Biblical Ex~s ml ~ Fonnation 2f Christian Culture. (Cambridge, 1997), p. 43-45. 12
Irenaeus', Adversus Haeresus. Lix, (see note 11) asserts that the truth of the church is immoveable. I3
264 classical sense, was the art ofpersuasio~ and the unwavering truth of the Christian message, at least for late antique Christians, meant that classical rhetoric, with its apparent disregard for moral content, was generally outmoded. 14 Even in classical times, thoug~
philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle had addressed the problem. Indeed,
Plato's true rhetoric
(n aATl8nri) PTlTOPltal) aimed for more than the mere art of
persuasion, more than the manipulation of an audience by inciting their unfettered emotions. 15 Plato believed that the practice of rhetoric in its highest form implied a moral commitment, a knowledge of the just and unjust that aimed to extricate rhetoric from the unscrupulous practice of rhetoricians who sought to persuade an audience with speeches, without regard for truth. 16 If Plato aimed to infuse rhetoric with an element of moral accountability, at least at the level of theory, then his student Aristotle imbued that theory with the reality of practice when he constituted rhetoric as a distinct sphere of philosophy, "a counterpart ofdialectic,~ as he boldly declared in the first line of his Rhetoric. 17 By the first two centuries of the Christian period. however, the very foundations of this rhetorical system were called into question when rhetoricians such as Hermogenes and Demetrius reduced rhetoric to Aristotle's third category, style and arrangement. No 14 Aristotle defined rhetoric as the power to discern the possible means of persuasion with respect to any subject matter whatsoever. Aristotelis Ars Rhetori ca, W. D. Ross, ed., Oxford Classical ~ (Oxford, 1959), 1355b, line 25-26. "EOTCol 5n Tt PTlTopuoi 5wa\.llS lTepl EKaCJTOV TOO 8ec..;)pijaal TO Ev5ex6",evov lTl8avOv. 15
Plato, Gorgias, E. R. Dodd, ed., (Oxford, 1959), 517A, p. 172.
16
Plato, Gorgias, 452E, 4608, 46OC.
17
Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica. W. D. Ross, ed., 1354a, line 1.
265 longer subsumed under dialectic, rhetoric in the post-classical period was mainly concerned with the taxonomy of stylistic figures. This marked fascination with the sundry elements ofliterary style meant that the rhetorical handbooks oflate antiquity generally abandoned the classical commitment to moral content, as the taxonomy of stylistic figures replaced broader philosophical concerns for truth and justice. IS It was finally Christian preachers and writers who promptly filled the philosophical void, not by turning to classical dialectic, as Aristotle had done, but by infusing rhetoric with an entirely new set of truth claims. Rhetoric was no longer a counterpart to dialectic (aVTlaTpo<pos Tij SlaAEKTlKij), applicable to any sphere of knowledge (hnc:rrTilln), for
the Christian preacher insisted that his audience yield to the truth claims of the Christian message, the dissemination of which became, at once, the sole aim of the preacher's discourse. With the subject of Christian discourse thus circumscnDed, namely a discourse limited to the preservation and dissemination of Christ's sacred narrative, preaching acquired a more limited, yet rarefied, function. The art of persuasion subtly transfonned itself into the art of exhortation, in which the preacher insisted that his listeners confonn to the singular truth of Christ's saving acts. Isidore ofPelusium, writing in the fifth century AD, epitomized this philosophical transformation when he proclaimed truth (aAi]8Ela) one of the four virtues of discourse (Aoyos), along with conciseness (ouvTollla), clarity (aa
preaching raised late antique rhetoric from the quagmire of proliferating stylistic devices, detached from moral content, into the more rarefied sphere of Christian truth. Infused 18
See Aristotelis Ars Rhetori ca. 1355a, lines 21-22.
Isidorus Pelusiota, Epistula 145,5, fQ. 78, 1412A. Cited by G. Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric. p. 28. 19
266 with such lofty claims, Christian preachers implicitly elevated stylistic figures and devices, once the stock and trade of audience manipulatio~ into the service of truth. 20
H.
Style, thoug~ lost none of its effervescence in the process, a fact well-attested by
the proliferatio~ in late antiquity, of rhetorical handbooks which codified in painstaking detail every aspect ofliterary style. In fact. three such writers influential on Byzantine rhetoric, Hennogenes, Demetrius, and Aphthonius, composed rhetorical handbooks which carefully delineated a taxonomy ofliterary figures, diction, word arrangement and genre. 21 Hennogenes identified seven basic types of literary style, including clarity (aacpnvela), grandeur(~Eye8os), beauty
(lCeXAAOS), rapidity (yoPYOTl1S), character (n8os), sincerity
(aAn8ela), and force (5elVOTTlS), which he carefully classified into a number of subtypes, producing a total of twenty basic categories ofstyle. 22 Like Hennogenes, Demetrius produced a taxonomy of literary figures, diction and word arrangement, and cast aside any concern for moral content, as seen, for example, in the "true rhetoric" Of course, this applies mainly to the level of theory. In other words, Christian preaching ideally aimed to impart the truth of the Christian message. That ideal, however, created an expectation in the audience, which was often manipulated to serve the political and ecclesiastical goals of the preacher. 20
Hennogenes, TTEPI I~EWN AOrOY (Qn Types2f~, Hennosenis Opera. H. Rabe, ed. (Stuttgart, 1969)~ Demetrius, TTEPI EPMHNEIA~ (On sn:k), D. C. Innes, ed. and trans., (Cambridge and Londo~ 1995)~ Aphthonius, TH~ PHTOPIKH~ npOrYMNA~MA TA (frocmnasmata), Ch. Walz, ed., Rhetores Graeci vol. 11, (Stuttgart and Tubinge~ 1935). Aphthonius' rhetorical treatise is not a stylistic handbook, but rather a mocmnasmata. 21
Hennogenes identified these types of style in the literary cor.pus of Demosthenes (luw0a8evllCos AOyoS). Hennogenes, TTEPI I~EWN I\OrOY (Qn Types Qf~), Henno~nis Opera. H. Rabe, ed., p. 217-218. 22
267 (aA116l\'rl PllTopuCTl) of Plato, and in the Institutio Oratoria ofQuintilian. 23 Divided into five basic sections, Demetrius' treatise begins with his taxonomy of sentence structure, followed by a detailed discussion of the four basic styles of writing (Eial Se TETTapes 01 enrAoT xapaKTi;peS), including the plain (iaxv6s), grand (IlEyaAOlTpemlS), elegant (yAacpupos), and forceful (SElvOS).24 Unlike the stylistic treatises of Herrnogenes and Demetrius, however, the Procmnasmata of Aphthonius was a basic school text, a simple typology of prose composition, which included extensive illustrative examples from a variety ofliterary forms, such as the fable, tale, proverb, and chreia. 25 The dissemination of rhetorical treatises during the first centuries AD, devoted mainly to the particulars of literary style, had distinct repercussions for the art of preaching. In fact, many rhetorical flourishes of the Christian homily find antecedents in the sty!istic treatises ofHermogenes and Demetrius, as will be shown below, for it was their subsequent wide dissemination as school texts in the fourth and fifth centuries AD that, in pan, enabled Christian preachers to fully absorb the stylistic complexities of figures, diction. word arrangement, and sentence structure, which were eventually codified in these stylistic handbooks. The homilies Cyril delivered to his audience of bishops at Ephesus, however, represent a distinctive type of ecclesiastical discourse, one that finds its rhetorical antecedents partly in the stylistic treatises mentioned above, and partly in the polemical, 23
See Chapter 2, above.
24
Demetrius, nEPI
EPMHNEIA~
(On ~, D. C. [nnes, ed. and trans., §36.
The treatise of Aphthonius is mentioned here because of its widespread dissemination in late antiquity, and because it delineates the elements of a classical 'l/oyoS or "invective." Chapter 6 will discuss the implications of Aphthonius' work in more detail. 25
268 anti-heretical discourse of his Alexandrian predecessors, such as Athanasius, who devoted voluminous works to polemic against Arians, Eunomians, Manicheans, and other "heretical" Christians. 26 Argumentative and polemical by design, the public discourses (AOYOl) of the law courts, ~ and embassies also exerted a limited influence, as
suggested above, on Cyril's polemical style. It was the theological and philosophical presuppositions of Christian discourse, however, that imbued Cyril' s polemical sermons with an air of moral authority mostly absent from classical public discourse. 27 In particular, the Christian claims to truth meant that rhetoric and style served to descnbe and preserve, in approximate literary terms, the narrative of Christ's sacred mystery. Just as scriptural words signified, for Cyril, the whole truth of Christ's saving drama, rendering the linguistic sign essentially stable and fixed in meaning, so too, the various elements of style and literary composition conspired to reproduce, in literary terms, the grandeur and truth of the Christian dispensation
(oil(ovo~(a).
Of course, the underlying
principles of classical rhetoric were not entirely absent from Cyril's homiletic discourse. Just as Aristotle classified the three types of speech, forensic, deliberative, and epideictic, according to the context and its listeners, Cyril's choice of rhetorical figures and devices was likely influenced by the ecclesiastical circumstance (i.e., the meeting ofa council) and the erudition of his audience (i.e., bishops). While Cyril's public sermons represent a loose amalgamation of post-classical rhetorical forms combined with the literary presuppositions born of Christianity's distinctive claims to truth, there are, nevertheless, discernible rhetorical patterns present in Cyril's homiletic discourse - dependent, to no For a discussion ofCyril's appropriation of the anti-Arian discourse of Athanasius, see Chapter 3, above.
26
See for example, Socrates' criticism ofGorgias. Plato, Gorgias. E. R. Dodd, ed., (Oxford, 1959). 27
269 small extent, on the rhetorical handbooks mentioned above. Filled with vituperative outbursts and language illustrative of polemical confrontation, Cyril's six homilies delivered while the council ofEphesus was in session, bear more than passing resemblance to the rhetoric of abuse and the art of invective delineated in the handbooks disseminated throughout the late antique and Byzantine East. In particular, Cyril's polemical homilies contain stylistic features reminiscent of the vehement style (acpoSpOTTl5), one of fourteen stylistic subdivisions included in Hermogenes' treatise Qn Types 2fsn:k. Especially appropriate for criticism and refutation (ElTlTlIlTlTlK05 Kal EAEylCTlK05), vehemence differed from harshness (TpaxUTTlS) in the object of its castigation, which consisted mainly of persons inferior to
the speaker (KaTeX EAaTTovc.Jv npooc::,lTc.Jv), while harshness remained the style appropriate to the critical address of one's superiors (KaTCx
",el~ovc.Jv TTPOOc::,TTc.JV).
So polemical and confrontational was the vehement style of discourse that Hermogenes compared it to open reproaches, similar to slander, that were often exemplified in school exercises (proG)'mnasmata) attacking vice. 28 Referring to a passage wrongly attributed to Demosthenes, Hennogenes explained that Demosthenes used the vehement style against Philip when he exclaimed, "He is a barbarian, a wretched Macedonian."29 Other illustrative examples abound in Hennogenes' treatment of the style and content appropriate to vehement discourse, especially in the deliberative and judicial speeches of 28 Hermogenes, nEPI 16EWN AOrOY, p. 261, lines 15-18. The school exercise attacking vice was known as the "commonplace" (KOlv05 TOTT05). See C. W. Wooten, Hermogenes' On Types 2f~ (Chapel Hill and London, 1987), p. 30, n. 18.
29 Hermogenes, nEPI 16EWN AOrOY, p. 260, line 24. ~ap~apos. oAeepOS MaKE&:lv. Vehemence was ofted directed at one's inferior, and at those whom the
audience would like to hear criticized.
270 Demosthenes, which provide Hermogenes with numerous examples of unmitigated slander and polemical refutation: "Why, then, you wretch, do you spread slanders? Why do you compose speeches? Wby do you not take a dose ofhellebore?"30 Indeed, Cyril committed similar slander when he delivered his Homily V against Nestorius "when the assembly was in session, and Nestorius was deposed. "3 I "0 witless and loathsome one," declared Cyril, ''you haven't grasped the mystery!"32 Against the Eastern bishops, eyril charged that "The[se] base and wicked men, ... , readily commit blasphemy, speaking with an untempered and unrestrained mouth. "33 Consistent with Hermogenes' description of the vehement style, Cyril addressed Nestorius and the rest of the Eastern bishops as his decided inferiors, the appropriate targets of his slanderous, vehement speech. On the matter of diction and vehemence. Hermogenes recommended an approach
similar to that of asperity (TpaxUn'lS), a rhetorical style which made ample use of vituperative metaphors
(AE~lS
Se TpaXEla it TeTpaIlIlEvn). such as Demosthenes' "You
carry your brains trodden down in your heels. "34 Cyril constructed a similar slanderous metaphor when he rebuked Nestorius for refusing to confess that God was begotten in a 30 Hermogenes, "EPI 16EWN AOrOY, p. 261, lines 14-15. Tl oVv. cvKo<pavTElS: Tl AOYOVS lTAeXTTElS: Tl oaVTov OUK eAAEl3opl~ElS: 31
~
TaAalTTc..lpE.
Homilia V. Ephesi ~ deposito Nestorio. (CPG 5253) ACO I, I, 2, p. 92-94.
32 Homilia V. ACO I, I, 2, p. 93, line 17. 33 Homilia V. ACO I, I, 2, p. 92, lines 23-26. 01 Se lTOVT)POL KaL aArn;plol 01 TO IlEya Kat OElTTOV Kall3aev Tiis EVaVepCUrnl0Ec..lS TOU llovoyevouS OUK EiooTES IlVc:rniPlov SV0
271 woman: "Do you deny the dispensation? ... Do you reprove the win of the Lord? This was how he wanted to save the entire world. . .. a incredible deed! A lamp contends
with the sun.'~35 The metaphor of the '''lamp:' whose paltry illumination offered no competition to the vast effulgence of the sun, readily evoked an image ofNestorius, the arrogant opponent who foolhardily attempted to defy the sacred mystery of Christ's human birth. Figures that produced vehemence, explained Hermogenes, were especially apostrophe (ctTrocrrpocpn) or direct address, as well as questions directed to the adversary, which apparently tended to include an element of refutation, especially when the question set forth an assertion virtually incapable of contradiction, such as Demosthenes' "Was it necessary that the city give up its reputation and its honor and place itself in the rank ofThessalonians and DolopiansT'36 Cyril produced this rhetorical effect when he directly posed a simple, irrefutable question to Nestorius, "Are you wiser than wisdomT'37 A resounding "no," the only possible answer to Cyril's rhetorical question, meant that Nestorius had greatly exceeded the limited boundaries of his knowledge and authority when he impugned the integrity of Christ's birth from Mary and, in the process, denied the very christological foundations necessary for the divine dispensation. Indeed, this stylistic device abounds throughout Cyril's polemical sermons delivered at Ephesus, for example, when Cyril asked his absent opponent Nestorius, 35 Homilia V. ACa I, I, 2, p. 94, lines 15-17. a8ETEIS Ti)v oiKovolllav: ETTllTAnTTEls TalS TOU 5ecrnoTou ~ouAaIS: OVTc.lS iJ8EAT)OE 5lao~aal TTiv OiKOUllEvnV: aoqx::,TEpoS el Tiis aocplas: t:l1Tapa~ou TTpaY'-'aTos. AUxvoS iJAlCtl p6VTl~' a
Iln
37 Homili:l V. ~ I, I, 2, p. 94, line 16.
272 "Who advised you to proclaim this worthless argument? Who labored with you in this
inopportune aftliction?"38 Also productive of vehemence, according to Hennogenes, were expressions that pointed directly to the adversary (TO SElKTlKOV), such as
Homilia IV. ~ Maria Deipara in Nestorium. (~5248) ACQ, I, 1,2, p. 103, lines 29-31. Tl~ Se aOl TOiiTOV TOV eVTEAi; AOYlO~OV avvE~OVAeuOE KTlPV;al; TlS 6
38
ovlllTovi1oa~ T~ aKalPCtl veafUlaTl;
39 Hermogenes, nEPI 16EWN I\OrOY, p. 263, line 4. 6 ~aOKavos OVTO~ ia ~~Elo<payos.
40 Homilia ,
K(j.)~Ol~
T
rv. ACa. I, 1,2, p. _
,..
103, lines 17-18. lTciv eeves TTOPEV6~EVOV aeE~[TOl~ -
OUTOS TTJ KaKlQ VTTEpnpEV.
41 Hermogenes, nEPI 16EWN I\OrOY, p. 259, lines 14-15. OUK E~no6~Eea; Olnc E;l~EV; OUK Ent niv EKelVOU TTAEUaov~Eea;
beyond discourse. Believe with us. "42
273 These exhortatory phrases, presented in quick
succession, effectively represented, in literary tenns, the immanent threat ofNestorius' doctrines. With no time for the luxury oflong, elegant sentences, or even connecting conjunctions, Cyril demonstrated, through the frantic pace of his words, that the church was confronting nothing less than a dire emergency. Consistent with these short, choppy phrases, the cadence and rhythms that Hermogenes recommended for the styles of vehemence and asperity were decidedly cacophonous, an effect readily achieved by Cyril in the passage mentioned above. Each clause should end in a different foot, advised Hennogenes, in order to form inconsistent metrical patterns, and, presumably, to avoid the inappropriate harmonious effects of a smooth and flowing rhythm. Though Demetrius' stylistic treatise does not include a section devoted wholly to vehemence or abuse, his discussion of the forceful style (SelVOTllS) contains many elements reminiscent of Hennogenes' description of vehemence (acpoSpoTTlS). Just as Hennogenes believed that clipped phrases (lCollllaTa) were the appropriate literary representation for vehement emotions, Demetrius recommended brevity (TO ~paxU), the stylistic feature most productive of forcefulness and vehemence. In contrast, length and verbosity were recommended for the style of supplication and requests. 43 Appropriate figures (axnllaTa) also produced the forceful style, figures such as epanaphora (eTravacpopa), which repeated the same word at the beginning of each clause; asyndeton 42 Homilia V. Am I, I, 2, p. 94, lines 18-19. TTapaSexou TOlVVV TIiv OilCovolllav· TlllTlOOV Tfj nlOTel TO IlUCTT"TiPlOV· Ilit TTep1epya~ou TO vow· Ilit TTOAV1TpaYIlOVEl TO \mEP AOyov· l!lOTEVe Ilee' nllc;;,v. (emphasis supplied). The sentence produces a dishannonious affect, due to its unappealing repetition of the letters
vnm
43
Demetrius, nEPI EPMHNEIAl:, §240-242.
274 (aaVvSETov), which omitted connectives; and homoioteleuton (6",OlOTEAEVTOV), in
which every clause ended with the same syllable. 44 In fac~ Demetrius believed that figures of speech in general gave the speaker an opportunity for dramatic delivery in debate, the style of speech most appropriate to forcefulness. Indeed, Cyril made ample use of figures throughout his polemical sermons, including epanaphora (e1Tavacpopa), when, in his sermon against John of Antioc~ he began several phrases in immediate succession with the same word '"because" (OTl): "You saw the fallen enemy, ... ~ and then you grieved Tell me, why? Because Christ has conquered? Because he has prevailed against his adversaries? Because he has silenced a boastful mouth? Because the disease which [had] struck the children of the church has ceased?"45 Beginning each sentence with the same word OTl, Cyril effectively dramatized, through the literary figure epanaphora, his reproachful, ironic assertions against his adversary John of Antioch. Anyone listening to Cyril's homiletic discourse would agree that John of Antioch's sorrow over Nestorius' deposition was patently inappropriate, for John should never lament that Christ had conquered and prevailed against His adversaries. Indeed, Cyril ably represented that point w~en he hammered the start of each phrase with the same Greek word OTl, leveling his opponent with the successive blows of his rhetorical questions. Cyril deftly manipulated other figures as well, including asyndeton, illustrated
44
Demetrius. nEPI EPMHNEIAl:, §267-27L
45 Homilia VI. Ephesi ~ in Iohannem Antiochenum. (CPG 5250) ACa I, I, 2, p. 99,
lines 10-14. 'The fallen enemy" is a reference to Nestorius' deposition at the first session of the Council ofEphesus. John of Antioch and his colleagues were still en route when the conciliar bishops voted to depose Nestorius. See chapter 4, above. See also. ibid., lines 12-14. OTl VEVlKTlICEV 6 XPlOTOS: OTl ICElCpaTTlICE Tc:lv clv6EOTTlICOTCoJV: OTl OEOl)'TIICEV OTo",a AaAoUv ",eyaAa: OTl 1TrnaVTal v6aoS ToTS EyKaTaOICTrrTTovoa TEKVOlS:
Tils EKKA1l0la S
275 above,46 and paronomasia (lTapovo~aa(a), in which the rhetor engaged in etymological
word play, as when Cyril declared in the following typological interpretation: "How did David conquer? There were five stones in a bag, and the stones were smooth, and this was a type of Christ. What, indeed, is the bag of Christ? The church on earth, which contains many ... stones. . .. For that which is smooth can never be grasped (CihrrrTTOV yap TTc.J~ aEl TO hEIOV)~ the conduct of the holy is blameless (avelTlhllTTTOS Se Tc:JV aylc.JV
Ti
TTohlTda)."47 By joining together in close juxtaposition two similar sounding
roots (CihllTTTOS and aVElTlAllTTTOS), Cyril produced an unlikely confluence of meaning, so that the smooth stones ofDavid were inextricably linked, by the accident of their linguistic similarity, to the blameless conduct of the holy, a point made earlier by his typological reading of the narrative. 48 The vehement and forceful style also demanded the skillful use of metaphor, simile, and hyperbole, lending the speech an almost poetic flavor. 49 Indeed, Cyril made ample and devastating use of the metaphor, for example, when he deftly compared Nestorius to a sharp razor turned against himself 50 Metaphor could also be used to 46
HomiIia V. M:Q I, I, 2, p. 94, lines 18-19.
47 Homilia VI. ACa I. 1,2, p. 99, lines 29-35. 48 In other words, Cyril explains that the stones, which cannot be grasped, are a type of Christ, whose divine mystery remains, likewise, beyond comprehension. The bag by which David conquered contains the smooth stones and represents the Christian church. Indeed, the word CihllTTTOS means both incomprehensible and irreproachable, which produces an additional confluence of meaning with the word QVElTlAllTTTOS (blameless). 49 Demetrius, nEPI EPMHNEIA~, §§272-6, 282-6. Note, however, that Demetrius claimed it was lTOlllTlKOV Se ~lKTOV Kc.J~~S(a~. Ibid, §286. 50 Homilia IV, ACa, I, 1,2, p. 104, lines 21-22. oEaVToii E~llKOVTnlevov ...
.,. Kal
~vpov yiyovaS KaTCx
276 soften the blow, however, as when Cyril employed the metaphor of the shipwreck to descnbe, in almost euphemistic terms, Nestorius' alienation from the episcopal throne: '''But when you had fallen and were shipwrecked in your faith. did we not lend a handT'51 [n this case, the euphemistic metaphor ably produced an image of Cyril as the concerned pastor, while it simultaneously conveyed to the audience that Nestorius' faith was in imminent danger of complete and utter demise. Word arrangement also contnbuted to forcefulness, especially the literary figure known as hiatus (aVylCpoucnS), in which a word that ended with a vowel immediately preceded a word beginning with a vowel. Demetrius believed that the resulting clash of sound ably represented the impression of force. Indeed, the cacophonous sound produced by hiatus imbued the discourse with an air of spontaneity, as if the speaker's sudden anger precluded the thoughtful and harmonious arrangement of vowel sounds recommended, for example, in the rhetorical treatise ofIsokrates. 52 Cyril dramatized his outrage in literary terms when he declared, "But we, the genuine ministers of the Savior, stewards of his mysteries, we consider most hostile those who rail against his glory."
(aAA' nlJElS IJEV Ol yvf)alol TOO ac.niipos lepouPyol. Ol TWV aUTOV IJUCTTJplc.lV
OiKOVOIJOl .... ).53 The immediate juxtaposition of two diphthongs (Ol) produced the impression that Cyril's anger was roused, leaving him no time to place the words in a more sonorous arrangement. It was the appropriate and sktllful combination of all the
51 Homilia!Y. ACa. I. 1,2. p. 104, lines 15-16. aAAa apa. aoO lTEOOVTOS ii vauaYTlOavTos lTepi. Tliv lTlOTlV. f)J.lElS xelpa o\nc Qpe;alJev; Demetrius believed that EU
277 foregoing figures,
dictio~
and rhythms that, according to Demetrius, produced the
forceful speech of censure. Aphthonius. in his pro&)'mnasmata, defined the literary elements proper to the rhetoric of abuse or invective (\VoyOS), though his rhetorical
handboo~
meant for
elementary school exercises, focused exclusively on the content and organization of invective speech, and appropriately avoided discussion of literary style ~~. 54 Indeed, Aphthonius' psow>s formed a virtual mirror image with the flattering type of speech known as the encomium. Just as the encomium praised a person's familial lineage, education, and achievements, the vituperative speech of the psoKoS substituted accusation and criticism for every biographical element praised in the encomium. Gregory of Nazianzus' speech against the Arian bishop George illustrates the classic elements of invective (\VoyOS). as he artfully descnbed George's low birth "from mongrel blood (ETT(~lKTOS),"
a lowly man whose aimless wanderings from city to city eventually
brought him to Alexandria. "like an Egyptian plague (TlS AiyurrnaKit TTAnYil)." Deemed a "monster (TEpas) from Cappadocia.·· "a good for nothing (ovSevos a;los) ... without culture," George the Arian bishop exhibited skill, declared Gregory, only in the evils of villainy and confusion. 55 Cyril's sermons delivered at Ephesus. though replete with calumnious phrases, do not contain the content and arrangement of material necessary for the classic invective exemplified by this Oration ofGregory. With no vituperative statements leveled against Nestorius' education and familial background. Cyril's sermons contain only scant elements of the traditional invective defined by the
THl: PHTOPIKHl: TTPOrVMNAl:MATA (Pro&YJllnasmata). Ch. Walz, ed .• Rhetores Graeci vol. II. p. 46-48. 54 Aphthonius.
55 Gregory Nazianzus. Oratio 21.16. f.Q.35. 1097C. 11008.
278 rhetorician
Aphthonius. 56
Socrates, however, offers a more encompassing view of the rhetorical methods proper to invective when he refutes, on wholly rhetorical grounds, Libanius' praise for the pagan emperor Julian. It seems that Libanius, in one of his Orations. had praised the emperor Juiian for his skillful attacks on scripture, praise which Socrates plainly attributed to Libanius' rhetorical skill and to his overtly pagan sympathies. 57 [n fact.. Socrates believed that sophistic methods of attack were far removed from reasoned, rational discourse, and that Julian's attempts to disprove the Christians' sacred texts amounted to nothing more than sneers and contemptuous jests. Equating sophistic invective with fallacious slander, Socrates declared that every time someone engages in controversy with another, he "falsifies (KaTa~SETal) ... the pOsition of his adversary. "58 With little concern for truth, Juiian's attacks on Christians (according to the Christian ecclesiastical historian Socrates) offered scorn and derision under the guise of reason in order to discredit his adversary. Though mostly a bold, partisan condemnation of Julian's anti-Christian rhetoric. Socrates' discussion of invective amounted to a full-fledged attack upon sophistic methods of adversarial debate. In the process, Socrates reproduced, to some extent, the classical critique of rhetoric outlined above, along with its yearning for truth and moral content. This sophistic method of Not surprisingly, the homilies of the Antiochene Nestorius were more influenced by Aphthonius, whose proGYmnasmata summarizes in abbreviated form the rhetorical treatise of the great Antiochene rhetorician, Libanius. Libanii Opera. PrQ&Ymnasmata. R. Foerster, ed., vot. III (Leipzig, 1915). For a full discussio~ see chapter 6. 56
57 Socrates, HE. [IL23, GCS. N. F. I, p. 219, lines 25-34. See also Libanius, Oratio. XVIll, Libanii Opera. R. Foerster, ed., vot. IT (Hildesheim, 1963).
58
Socrates, HE. [IL23, ~ N. F. 1. p. 219, lines 30-32.
279 debate finds some parallel in Cyril's vituperative sermons, for j ust as the skilled sophist vilified his adversary without regard to truth. so did Cyril produce ample calumnious statements against Nestorius and John of Antioch. statements whose falsity can be readily discerned. 59 Falsehood and exaggeration of an adversary's shortcomings, therefore, were appropriate to the rhetoric of invective, and did not necessarily imply that the speaker violated any unspoken rules of fair play. To the contrary, Socrates' discussion of vitriolic, refutational discourse reveals that a fifth century ecclesiastical audience listening to Cyril's homilies would likely anticipate the hyperbolic, slanderous speech exemplified throughout his polemical homilies delivered before the synodal bishops and laity gathered for the council. Such an audience must have evaluated Cyrirs claims against his adversaries partly in relation to the established conventions of polemical discourse, and, therefore, would have found little to criticize in the vituperative, calumnious statements scattered throughout his homilies. Instead, the audience likely anticipated that a discourse aimed against one's adversaries would contain the figures, diction, and rhythm appropriate to the forceful, vehement style, in addition to the sort of hyperbolic, exaggerated speech proper to the psoeos of Aphthonius, and delineated in Socrates' depiction of the typical adversarial 'attack.' The art of preaching, nevertheless, produced an additional set of expectations, entirely distinct from those proper to the polemical speech outlined above. Designed See below. For example, Cyril slanderously asserts that Nestorius was like the heretic Arius. The context of the Christian homily, however, lends this assertion an air of greater truth and authority, for the slander takes place within the context of Cyril' s broader claims for Christian truth. In other words, Cyril suggests that the greater truth of Christ's dispensation will be irrevocably harmed ifNestorius' Arian-like doctrine is not entirely extirpated. 59
280 primarily to exhort and instruct a congregation of Christians, the homily implicitly contained unambiguous claims to truth concerning the reality of Christ's incarnation, death., and resurrection. Indeed, Cyri}' s polemical homilies effectively combined these two seemingly disparate elements, namely, the exhortatory, paraenetic homily and the polemical discourse of the sophist, to produce the starkly vituperative homilies delivered by eyril at the counciL Though an audience could reasonably anticipate a degree of exaggeration and outright falsehood appropriate to polemical, sophistic discourse, when that apparent falsehood was expressed in the language of Christian paraenesjs and exhortation, the effect was nothing less than explosive. If Nestorius ' homilies mostly sought to explicate his christology in relation to the biblical text, then CyriP s polemical homilies, by contrast, aimed to devastate his adversary through the ski1lful use of the sophistic techniques outlined above. Such sophistic devices, when combined with the paraenetic presClppositions inextricably linked with the Christian homily, conspired to lend Cyril's polemical discourse an air of authority that must have been devastating for his adversaries. Conventions of literary theory also produced unspoken expectations in Cyrirs listening audience. In fact, Cyri" s audience of conciliar bishops likely perceived his vituperative homilies as a single, organic product, whose sundry elements combined to form a unified literary discourse, in which every word, phrase, and sentence formed an essential part of the whole. As far back as classical antiquity, Plato's Phaedrus ascnbed to the lOGOS a definitive literary structure, so that each part stood in distinct relation to the whole, producing the literary equivalent ofa living organism (l;c;Jov) -- a metaphor which aptly described ~e mutual dependence of its constituent parts.6O By the first 60
Plato, Phaedrus. 264C, Platonis Opera. L Burnet, ed. (Oxford, 1984), p. 274.
281 century AD, Longinus refined the organic metaphor, descnbing literary composition as a system (aUCITTUla), whose complex, interrelated members produced a composite structure not unlike the human body.61 The impression of sublimity came about, therefore, when the constituents of grandeur combined into a single, unified body, producing a sonorous, hannonious effect. So intertwined were these constituent members of a literary speech (Ta AeyollEva) that Longinus declared sublimity, '''a contribution made by a multitude (Kal C)(eSov EV TaTs lTeplOOolS Epavos EOTl lTA";8ovs Ta IlEye811)." Unlike the rhetoricians of classical antiquity. however, Longinus believed that
transport (EKOTaolS), rather than persuasion, was the primary effect of elevated discourse upon a listening audience: '''Our persuasions we can usually control, but the effects [of the sublime] exercise irresistible power and might., and reign supreme over every listener."62 It was the unmistakable power of the rhetor. demonstrated through literary skill, that produced the effect of sublimity. More devastating than the rational discourse of persuasive speech, elevated language spoke directly to an audience's sense perceptions, evoking a visceral response akin to the "flash ofa thunderbolt, [which] ... at once reveal[ed] the power of the orator in all its plenitude."63 Longinus identified a total of five principal sources of elevated language, including 61 Longinus, LibelJus ~ Sublimitate, D. A. Russell, ed., (Oxford, 1968), p. 14, lines 1014: p. 49, lines 5-12. 62 Longinus, Libellus de Sublimitate, p. 2, lines 5-7. OV yap Eis lTe16~ TOUS cn::poc.Jllevovs aAA' Eis EKOTaolv ayel Ta VTrEP
63 Longinus, Libellus ~ Sublimitate, p. 2, lines 10-12. . .. ~os Si lTOV KalpCc..JS et;EvEx8EV Ta TE npaYllaTa Shcnv OKTJlTTOU lTaVTa 51E
282 the power of forming grand conceptions (TO nepL TaS VOnOElS
aSpEnn~OAOV)~
vehement and inspired passion (TO ocpo5pov lCaL EveOVOlaOTlICOV
ncI8os)~
figures of
thought and speech (nOla Tc':lv 0XTUJ.cITCt.lV nAcIolS - SlOOa SE nov TaiiTa. Ta
VOnOECt.lS. ScITEpa Se:
AE~eCt.lS)~
~e:v
noble diction (ft yevvala cppcIms); and dignified and
elevated wordarrangement(ft EV a~lcb~aTllCaL SlcIpoel oVv8EOlS).64 Indeed. Longinus believed, like Demetrius and Hermogenes, that vehement emotion (xapalC"'l'lip
EvaYCt.lVlOV naSovs) was expressed by the appropriate use offigures. especially the figural device known as hyperbaton (Ta tmepi3aTa), namely the skillful interruption of ordinary speech by ebullient displays of emotion. Intended to imitate the passions of anger. fear,
indignatio~
and jealousy, vehement speech moved with such rapidity, that the
listener felt the natural sequence of discourse starkly interrupted by the speaker's heartfelt display. Cyril achieved a similar effect in his homily delivered upon Nestorius' deposition when he declared, ·'They belie the glory and preeminence of our Savior. the imitators of the moral perversity and impiety of the Pharisees, - those who envelope themselves with a Christian demeanor, but adopt the spirit of Judaism - they exercise such a bitter and venomous tongue, that Christ also says this about it through the voice of Jeremiah. "65 An audience listening to this outburst of vehemence could only conclude that Cyril was so outraged at the slander committed against the Savior, that he had no time to identify the perpetrators until after he had described their abominable offense. 64
Longinus, Libellus ~ Sublimilate. p. 8-9.
Literal translation from the Gree~ preserving Greek word order. Homilia V. ACa I. I, 2, p. 93, lines 5-9. lCaTa\fleVSoVTal yap Tiis TOU OCt.lTiipos ti~c':lv etncAElas Kal tmEpoxiis ol Tiis Tc':lV Cl>aplOalCt.lV OICalo"t1lTOS lCaL CrVOOlOTl1TOS ~l~T'JTal. Ol XplOTlavou ~ev npOaCt.llTov neplTl8EVTes eaVToIs. 'lovSa(~ovoav Se T1iv Slavolav ExOVTES. Ol yAc':looav Em-tOlCTlICOTES lTllCpaV lCal i0i36AOV. 'Cva lCallTpos airniv AEYTJ XplOTO) TO Sla cpCt.lviis 'lepe~(oV' For a less literal translation see Appendix. 65
283 Once he announced their identity, however, Cyril's anger acquired a momentum of its own, as he heaped upon his adversaries a second vituperative clause, exhibiting such passion that he summarily omitted the traditional connectives. In the process, Cynl produced another rhetorical figure, mndeton, expressive of passion. 66 [t was an effect also deftly achieved in the following passage: "But, as I just said, some are ungrateful toward the kindness of our Savior - they deny the Lord, they shake off the yoke of service ... "67 Free from the harmonious, calming effects of the Greek connectives, the vituperative sentence effectively displayed Cyril's outrage at his adversaries' ingratitude to the saving acts of Christ -- an effect that might have been lost had Cynl declared instead: " ... [S]ome are ungrateful toward the kindness of our Savior, for they deny the Lord, and they shake off the yoke ofservice."68 Expressed without connecting conjunctions (asyndeton), the sentence loses all sense of urgency and imminent danger, for the insertion oflogical connections creates the impression, in literary terms, that time is plentifuL Inappropriate to the passionate display of anger, the revised sentence would have surely failed to arouse the intended emotion of outrage in Cyril's listening audience. Art, after all, should imitate nature, declared Longinus, "For art is perfect when it
66 Longinus, Libellus!k Sub1imitate. p. 28-29. 67 Homilia V. ACa I, I, 2, p. 93, lines 1-3. ciAAa yap. ~5 e
68 The following rewritten text inserts connecting conjuctives to offer an example of how the phrase would sound without the figure of asyndeton. ... ciXaPlOTOUOl TlVE5 Tfj TOU OCtJTi;po5 nlJ.c":lv nIJ.EpOTT)Tl. cipvoiivTal yap TOV SE01TOTT)V. cinOOElOVTal TE TOV Tiis SoVAEla 5 l;uyov. . . . ..
284 seems to be nature, and nature succeeds when it contains art hidden within. "69 Furthermore, Longinus believed that literary imitation (~l~llcnS), in its highest form, dramatized the reality and complexity of human emotions through the appropriate use of rhetorical figures, especially figures like asyndeton and byperbaton.. which effectively reproduced the agitated pace of vehement emotion. This theory of literary mimesis (~.dllnOl)
necessarily implied a close relationship between fonn and content, a
relationship that the skillful author could readily manipulate, as he translated emotional passion, outrage, and indignation, into the appropriate literary figure. The inextricable 1ink between form and content ultimately reasserted, in practical terms, the larger theory ofIiterary composition already expressed in Plato's Pbaedrus. namely that all types of discourse (AOYOS) constitute an organic system, in which each constituent member forms an essential part of a unified whole. Hermogenes proposed a similar theory when he set out to demonstrate that individual elements (aTOlXEla) and basic principles of composition (apxal) combined to produce the stylistic features characteristic of DemosthenesJo Implied by Hermogenes' systematic analysis of Demosthenes' style was this underlying notion of organic unity, the idea that literary texts comprised an integrated whole that could be readily discerned by a thorough analysis of their constituent parts. Indeed, Hermogenes was so enamored of what he termed 'the Demosthenic!Q.g' (0
~TJ~oaeEvucOS
A6yoS) that he believed that a systematic
classification ofDemosthenes' literary style would ultimately reveal the stylistic features
69 Longinus, Libellus ~ Sublimilate. p. 30. lines 6-8. TOTE yap
it TExvn
TEAElOS
ClV CPVolS e1val SoKij. it S' av CPUOlS EnrruXTtS oTav Aav6avovoav nEplExu Ti}v TEx V ll V .
70
Hermogenes, nEPI I~EWN AOrOY, p. 217, lines 12-17.
itVlK'
285 proper to the entire corpus of Greek literature. 71 This desire to classify and ultimately conquer the ~ quantifying its every stylistic feature in minute detail, corresponds to both the Stoic concern to delineate, by the second century AD, an orthos ~ (opeOS
!.oyos) which pervades the universe, and the Christians' later quest, in the christological controversies of the fifth century AD, to define and circumscribe the logos of Christ. 72 It is no accident that Hennogenes' rhetorical handbook - a treatise eminently concerned with the systematic classification of the literary ~ - became one of the most influential treatises on style during the late antique and Byzantine period, 73 at around the same time that Christians were determined to ascertain the precise christological relationship between the human and divine natures that comprised the constituent parts of the divine logos. namely Christ. The pervasive influence of such rhetorical handbooks, which appeared as textbooks in the rhetorical schools by the period of late antiquity, meant that any educated person listening to a well-crafted literary discourse (AOYOS) brought to that work a set of expectations grounded in their early rhetorical training. These expectations included certain presuppositions about the organic nature ofliterary discourse; the meaning and significance of stylistic featw"es such as rhetorical figures, rhythm, and diction (see above); and the relationship ofliterary form and content to broader, Christian 71
Hermogenes, nEPI IAEWN AOrOY, ibHt., same page.
G. Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric. p. 19. "[Hermogenes] is developing for the world of the literary ~ a scheme of interplay between universals and particulars which will have its counterpart in Neoplatonic and Christian speculations about the divine logos." 72
73 On the widespread influence ofHennogenes' corpus in the Byzantine period, see C.
W. Wooten, trans., Hermogenes' QnTypes2f~ introduction, p. xvii.
286 claims to truth (see below). Cyril's audience of bishops listening to his homilies delivered at the council of Ephesus, no doubt, brought to bear this full panoply of early rhetorical training upon their ultimate understanding ofCynTs polemical discourse.
Ill.
When Cyril compared Nestorius to the Jews, therefore, the audience likely
perceived a complex interplay ofliterary forms, including the paraenetic exhortation appropriate to the Christian homily, along with its concomitant claims to truth, and the standard rhetorical speech of censure, in which truth often yielded to the rhetorical demands of annihilating one's adversary. Indeed, the designation 'Nestorius, the Jew' readily evoked the entire Christian corpus of anti-Jewish teachings, exemplified in Cyril's early Festal letters, in which the calumnious epithet 'unbelieving Jew' ultimately served a broader paraenetic function, illustrating for Christians the grave soteriological consequences of denying Christ's divinity. The epithet also invoked rhetorical conventions proper to the vehement speech of invective, so that an audience of listeners allowed ample possibility for rhetorical flourish, including hyperbole, slander, and other maledictions, all of which were patently appropriate to this abusive genre. Speaking of Nestorius and his followers, Cyril, thus, declared, "For the imitators of the moral perversity and impiety of the Pharisees belie the glory and preeminence of our Savior.... [ ] and [these] emulators of [Jewish] impiety and desperate folly bring an accusation again, saying, 'Why do you, being a man, make yourselfGodT 0 witless and loathsome one, you haven't grasped the mystery!"74 Pharisees were so frequently vilified throughout Christian literature, starting with the New Testament, that Cyril's audience would have easily recognized the comparison as a vituperative one, drawing the ready 74 Homilia V. AC.Q I, I, 2, p. 93, lines 5-7, 15-17.
287 conclusion that Nestorius and his followers, the imitators of Pharisaic impiety, slandered the glory of Christ. 75 Well inured to the rhetoric of invective, the audience likely accepted the calumnious allegations with scant regard for the literal truth. That 'Nestorius was a Jew' did not mean to Cyril's listening audience that Nestorius had converted to the practice of Judaism, or that he openly renounced the teachings of Christ. Rather, it implied that Nestorius, like the Jews, had slandered Christ's divinity. Indeed, when Cyril used this vituperative epithet, he readily applied the rhetorical conventions proper to the rhetoric of abuse and invective, a decidedly appropriate literary form given the circumstance of CyriI's delivery, namely the deposition and excommunication of his arch-rival Nestorius. The possibilities for slander endemic to this form left ample opportunity for rhetorical exaggeration. which evoked in Cyril' s listening audience a certain readiness to hear the full panoply of Christian slanderous epithets, epithets that Cyril had readily explored in the Festal letters of his early episcopacy.76 When combined with the presuppositions of Christian preaching outlined above, the vituperative phrases and epithets proper to the rhetoric of abuse acquired a new air of legitimacy, one that was lacking in the more conventional representations of the ~. The calumnious designation "Nestorius the Jew,' placed in juxtaposition with traditional Christian paraenesis. meant that the exaggerated, slanderous epithets formed a dialectical relationship with the paraenetic exhortation appropriate to the sermon, producing newly-forged Christian claims to truth. The results were nothing short of devastating, a fact well-illustrated by the See the 'Woes against the Pharisees,' ~ 11 :37-54; Mark 12:37b-40; Mark 7: 1-2,56a; Luke 7:36. See also, Gospel of Thomas 39,89, 102; POxy 840.2, 655 ii 11-23. 75
76 For a full discussion, see Chapter L
288 response to Nestorius' deposition amongst the crowds of the Imperial City. When news of his deposition reached Constantinople. the Coptic Acts of Ephesus report that crowds expressed their joy with the slanderous cheer. ·"Nestorius the Jew!'" Four days later. another anti-Nestorian crowd gathered in the Great Church. shouting that ··Nestorius and the thirty men are Jews. on A likely reference to the Eastern counter-synod of June 26th formed under the guidance of John of Antioch. the vituperative chant ·the thirty men are Jews' indicated that CynTs homily against Nestorius. replete with anti-Jewish polemic. ably expressed and incorporated anti-Nestorian sentiments as far as the Imperial City.77 That Cyril received word of these demonstrations prior to delivering his anti-Jewish homily against Nestorius on Sunday. June 28th. 431 AD. remains unlikely.18 These anti-Nestorian chants reveal. nevertheless. that Cyril's deft comparisons to the so-called impiety of the Jews found an audience ready and able to draw the inevitable conclusions. The imitators of Pharisaic impiety. claimed Cyril. enveloped themselves with a Christian demeanor. but adopted the theological presuppositions of Judaism. a theology which wholly denied the divinity of Christ. and •. .assai1[ed] their benefactor and Savior with stones."79 Nestorius and his followers. therefore. as imitators of these reprehensible acts.
Koptische Akten ~ephesinischen Konzil BlIJl~ 431. trans. W. Kraatz. TU (Leipzig. 1904). p. 47.49-50. On the ~populi. see K. Holum. Theodosian Empresses (Berkeley. 1982). esp. p. 10-11, 170. 77
78 Homilia V. ACO I. I. 2. p. 92-94. For a full discussion of the dating of the homilies delivered by Cyril during the Summer of the council. see S. Wessel. ·'Nestorius. Mary and Controversy in Cyril of Alexandria's Homily IV (}& Mafia dei para in Nestorium. ~ 5248)" AHC, 3111 (November 1999). forthcoming. 79 Homilia V. ACO I. I, 2, p. 93, line 11,
289
by their refusal to acknowledge that God was begotten of a woman 80 unwittingly repeated the blatant errors of the Jews. [fthe Jews blasphemed that Christ. though a man, made himself God, then Nestorius and the rest of the Antiochene bishops committed a similar outrage when they supposedly declared that Mary did not bear God, which dangerously implied to a listening audience that Jesus was not God. Whether the audience of bishops literally believed Cyril's vituperative allegations remains an unresolved question. Cyril. in any event, took ready advantage of the ambiguity raised by this deft comparison between Nestorius and the Jews. to correctly expound the mystery of Christ's incarnation. A man did not become God. as Nestorius and the Jews mistakenly asserted, 44for He didn't make Himself God from man. but being God by nature, He became man. immutably and without confusion. The one generated ineffably by God the Father endured generation in the flesh from a woman. and became Son of Man, that he may save us. "81 The occasion for Christian paraenesis, Cyril's response to Nestorius and the Jews readily explained the soteriological implications of Christ's incarnation, and. in the process, demonstrated the grave consequences for those who followed Nestorius' 44Judaizing" doctrine, lending an undeniable air of authority to the slanderous comparison. Vituperative allegations of Judaizing, however, were not the only charges leveled against Nestorius. Cyril also compared his adversary to the great archetypal heretic, Arius, a comparison that acquired special significance in light ofCyril's early episcopacy, 80 Homilia V. M:Q I. I, 2, p. 94, lines 13-14. aAA-a aiaxVvo~al. CPT\Ol. 8EOV olloAoyiioal TOV flC yvvallCo~ YEyEVVTl~EVOV. 81 Homilia V. ACa I. I, 2. p. 93, lines 17-20. ov yap avepCtJTTOS c:,v eavrov ETTOlT\OE 8EOV. aAACx 8EOS c::,v CPVOEl yEy0VEV clv8pCtJTrOS aTpETTTCtJ~ lCat aovyxUTCtJS· 0 Tilv flC 8EOU naTpos aTTOPPT\TOV EXCAlV yEVVTlOlV tmEjJElVE yEvynOlV KaTCx oaplCa niv flC yvvalKO~ lCatlCEXPT\jJaTllCEV uio~ avepc;,nou. 'Cva njJa~ Slaoc;,OTJ·
290
in which anti-Arian polemic figured prominently, and ultimately helped shape the contours ofCyril's confrontation with Nestorius. 82 The anti-Arian discourse ofCyril's homily, however, was decidedly less subtle and rarefied than that found in his christological treatises, a shift in tone and content which ably reflected the distinct difference in~. Not a serious discussion of the christological problems facing the churches, the homilies delivered at Ephesus demonstrate, in graphic terms, the sort of highly polemical, well tuned rhetoric that eventually contrIbuted to Cyril's victory before the council of bishops. More reprehensible than the Jews, Pagans, and even the Arians whose place of worship Nestorius had eagerly demolished at the very start of his bishopric, Nestorius. in the process. became the quintessential heretic. the very embodiment of evil in the eyes of the orthodox ecclesiastical establishment. Cyril's most devastating charge of Arianism, however. came in the form of a simple rhetoricai question, aimed at demolishing his nameless opponent, "were you not ashamed at making God similar to a Persian King?"83 The simile was an apt one for it ably constructed a vivid image of Christ, the exalted man, an image readily attnbuted to Arius and his followers by the populace. In one swift blow. therefore. Cyril intended to condemn his adversary of subordinating Christ to the Godhead. in accordance with the strictly hierarchical, subordinationist scheme of Arianism, a deft maneuver which must have bitterly inflamed public opinion against Nestorius. Socrates. in fact. reports that Nestorius' wariness over the epithet Tbeotokos (8eOTOKOS) for Mary had undeniably disastrous christological consequences according to 82
See Chapters 1 and 3.
83 Homilia IV, Ik Maria Deipara in Nestorium. (~ 5248) ACa, I, I. 2. p. 104. line 31. oUt< TjSea6T'JS 8ea" E~O~Olc:,,, nepolldj ~aolAelQ::
291 the people of Constantinople. It seems that Nestorius' associate Anastasius, a man whom he apparently held in high esteem, preached a sermon against the title Theotokos: "Let no one call Mary Theotokos. for Mary was a human; and it is impossible that God be born of a human."84 Great confusion and controversy ensued, resulting in division and discord in the churches.
Indee~
many of those involved in the dispute believed that
nothing less than the divinity of Christ was at stake, for comparing Nestorius to the likes of Paul ofSamosata and Photinus, the masses implausibly accused Nestorius of teaching that Christ was merely a man. Unfortunately for Nestorius, some of the prominent laity and ecclesiastical officials of Constantinople apparently agreed. Not long after this incident, Eusebius, later bishop ofDorylaeum, was responsible for posting a public decree charging Nestorius with following the doctrines of Paul ofSamosata. 85 A series of comparative quotes from Paul ofSamosata and Nestorius, the decree gathered several statements denying that Mary bore the Word, or that she could have possibly produced one older than she. Eusebius' charges also adduced evidence that both parties heretically divided Christ, ascribing to Christ a double birth - once according to the prescripts of Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica. VII.32, ~ N.F. I, p. 380. See also J. McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria. p. 29-30. On the title Theotokos for Mary, see M. Starowieyski, "''Le titre geoToKos avant le conciied'Ephese," Studia Patristica 19 (1989), p. 236-242. P. Imhof, Maria Theotokos Cyrill von Alexandrien (Munich, 1981). 84
m
Although the Clavis Patrum Graecqrum dates this document sometime in 428 AD (CPG 5940) [8620], Loofs' date, around Spring 429 AD, is more plausible, and accords better with the incidents surrounding Nestorius' associate Anastasius, as recorded by Socrates. See F. Loofs, Nestorius lmIH.iiesin~HistoO' 2fCbrislian Doctrine (Cambridge, 1914), p. 32. See also J. McGuckin, Si. ~2f Alexandria. p. 32-33. For basic bibliography on Paul ofSamosata, see F. Loofs, Paulus Y.QIl Samosala. III 44, 5 (Leipzig, 1924); F. MilIar, "Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria," JRS. 61 (1971), p. 1-17. See finally Marius Mercator, Opellb p. 50f, ed Baluz, (1684). 85
292 divinity, and once from Mary.86 Socrates vigorously denied the accusation, however, claiming that Nestorius followed neither Paul nor Photinus, and in no way denigrated Christ's divinity. 87 Was Socrates correct to absolve Nestorius of any affront to Christ's divinity, or did Cyril' s polemical charges of Arianism bear some relation to fact? Nestorius himself had written passionately against the Arians and their alleged subordination of the Godhead to the Virgin Mary when he claimed that Arian doctrine implicitly condoned the erroneous notion that Mary gave birth to the Godhead, impossibly producing one not consubstantial with her essence. That Cynl included this very passage in his five books against Nestorius confirmed his close familiarity with Nestorius' own anti-Arian
Contestatio Publice Proposita. Eusebii Dorvlaei, (CPG 5940, [8620)), ACa I, I, I, p. 10 I - 102. "Paul: "Mary did not bear the word: Nestorius: 'Mary did not bear the divinity.' Paul: "Mary is not older than the word.' Nestorius: "How can Mary bear one older than herself!' Paul: "Jesus is one thing, the Word another: Nestorius: "Is it not possible for the one born before the ages to be born once by another and also according to divinity?'" Though Nestorius asserted the two natures of Christ, he held that they were fully conjoined in one single person. See Epistula ii Nestorii ad CyriIJum Alex. (June 430), ACa I, I, I, p. 29-32. 86
87 Socrates, HE, VIL32, ocs., N. F. I, p. 380-382. Socrates believed that Nestorius did not follow the heresies of Paul ofSamosata or Photinus, but was simply frightened of the term Theotokos, and all that it implied. Though Socrates absolved Nestorius of following Paul's doctrine of two sons, modem interpreters have shown disagreement as to Nestorius' orthodoxy. For arguments in favor of Nestorius' orthodoxy, see M. V. Anastos, '"Nestorius was Orthodox,"ll.Qf 16 (1962), p. 119-140; R C. Chesnut, "The Two Prosopa in Nestorius' 'Bazaar of Heracledies, '" 1IS29 (1978), p. 392-409. For a contrary view see H. E. W. Turner, '"Nestorius Reconsidered,'" S!e 13 (1975), p. 306-321. Turner concludes that Nestorius' theory of prosopic union was inadequate to establish an ontological basis of union.
polemic. 88 It was
293 Nestorius, in fact, who first raised explicit charges of Arianism against
Cyril, when he wrote to Pope Caelestine charging Cyril with Arianism and Apollinarianism for his allegedly heretical commingling ofChrist's two natures. 89 Ascribing fleshly passions to the divinity, and divine immutability to the humanity, Cyril, claimed Nestorius, unwittingly blended the human nature with the deity, creating disastrous christological consequences. 90 Though best known, perhaps, for subordinating the logos to God. certain brands of Arianism di
and freely substituted God for the human soul of Christ in his unmitigated
Cyril of Alexandria. Libri V Contra Nestorium. ~ 5217), ACa I, I, 6, p. 13-106, 31; Loofs, Nestoriana. (Haile, 1905), p. 245, lines 15-27; see also Marius Mercator, Sermo XI (Nestorii) Adversus Arianos. PL 48, 830-831, who gives a fuller rendition of this passage cited by Cyril. 88
89
Nestorius, Ad Caelestinum Papam L ACa I, 2, p. 13; Loofs, Nesloriana. p. 166.
90
Nestorius, Ad Caelestinum Papam L ~ I, 2, p. 14; Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 170-171.
See Loofs, Nestorius. p. 67, n. 1. for the following list of places in which Nestorius mentioned Arians and Apollinarians in juxtaposition: Loofs, Nestoriana.. p. 166, line 19; p. 170, line 30; p. 179, line 4; p. 181, line 18; p. 182, line 8; p. 184, line IS; p. 185, line 12; p. 194, line 16; p. 208, line 16, p. 267, line 16, p. 273, line 6f; p. 300, line 20; p. 301, lines 4,5,16; p. 305, line 15f; p. 312, line 7.
91
92
Loofs, Nestorius, p. 67.
affinnation of Christ's single, combined, and undifferentiated nature. 93
294 Whether or not
Cyril was guilty of such Arian and Apollinarian charges leveled against him, the allegations persisted with many leaders of the Antiochene school. When Cyril, in his fourth anathema, condemned all those who divided in two the sayings of the gospels, Theodoret of Cyrus reaffinned the necessity of divisio~ readily ascnbing to God those sayings appropriate to divinity, and to man the humble words and deeds of the servant. Anything less, claimed Theodoret, would render one's confession synonymous with the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius. Fully cognizant of Theodoret's and Nestorius' charges against him, Cyril, in his Apolo&ja contra Orientales. responded to these Apollinarian, Arian and Eunomian accusations with a simple affirmation of Christ's undifferentiated nature: ""It is not necessary to distnbute the sayings to two prosopa (persons) or two hypostases. or two Sons, for that divides the union or indeed the one Son. For the union is undivided and inseparable and the Son is one in every word/sense, manner and thought.'>94 An affirmation of the unity of Christ, Cyril's defense, in the eyes of his detractors, resembled the heresy of Arius and Eunomius, both of whom ascribed a single nature to Christ. While Cyril suffered allegations and even condemnation for his so-called Arian-like commingling of Christ's two natures, Nestorius, around the same time, was accused by A. Ha~ Bibliothek ~ Symbole llrul Glaubensr;geln ~ Alten KiTChen. 3rd edition (Breslau, 1897) §191, p. 262; see Loofs, Nestorius. p. 67. 93
Cyril of Alexandria, Apologia xii Capitulorum contra Orientales. (CPG 5221), ACa I, t, 7, p. 42-43. For the Eastern positio~ see ibU;l., p. 41, especially when they compare Cyril to Eunomius and Arius because ofCyril's beliefin a single nature Christ. See also H. A. Wolfson, ""Philosophical implications of Arianism and Apollinarianism," QQf 12 (1958), p. 3-29. See also, J. McGucki~ &. Cnilm Alexandria. p. 49-50. 94
295 Cyril of adhering to the more popular brand of Arianism. namely of asserting that Christ was merely a man. It seems that Nestorius delivered a homily in the presence of many bishops at Ephesus in which he finnly proclaimed that God was not an infant two or three months old 95 Extrapolating from this pronouncement, Cyril alleged in his letter to several ecclesiastical officials that Nestorius declared Jesus was not God. 96 And earlier in the controversy (around 429). eyril had simply stated that Nestorius' rejection of the term Theotokos was confusing many of the monks and laity who now erroneously assumed that Christ was merely an instrument of the deity. but not a deity himself. 97 For Cyril. the disturbing soteriological implications were clear. If Christ were simply an instrument of the deity. but in all other respects an ordinary human. then Christ was no longer co-essential with God. and so humanity must finally succumb to death. 98 It was just such popular misconceptions that Cyril intended to stir when he
declared to his listening audience that Nestorius rendered Jesus no better than a Persian King. While the subtleties ofNestorius' christological position certainly defied such a facile statement, the effectiveness ofCyrirs polemic was undeniable. As Socrates noted in his discussion of invective, one of the most devastating tools of abusive rhetoric was to level the very same charge against an adversary that the adversary had raised against Gesta Ephesina. ~! (June 22, 431) (~86755) AQl I, I, 2. p. 38, testimony of Theodotus of Ancyra. In other words. Cyril and his supporters asserted that Nestorius' statement implied the following: all agree that Jesus was once an infant. If God was never an infant, then Jesus was not God. 9S
Epistula Cyrilli ~ Comarium ~ Potamonem Episc. ~ Dalmatium Archimandritam et Timotheum ~ EulQeium ~., (~ 5323) Ep. 23, ~ I, I, 2. p. 66, lines 24-30. 96
~ Nestorium. ~
97
Epistula! Cyrilli Alex.
I. I. I, p. 24. lines 7-9.
98
Epistula Cyrilli Alex. id Monachos. ~ I, I. I, p. 22-23.
296
him.99 Especially common to the rhetoric of abuse or invective, these sorts of recriminations enabled the speaker to deflect allegations made against him, and distract the audience from any potentially problematic claims. That Cyril' s adversaries had charged him with Arianism, no doubt, contnbuted to his ultimate decision to equate Nestorius with Arius, the greatest archetypal heretic in the church's recent institutional memory: 100 "You had the holy clergy of presbyters and deacons excommunicated for refuting your importunate madness, which is nothing else but thinking like Arius," declared Cyril to his listening audience.) 0 I Indeed, a generation earlier. Athanasius had called the Arians, "the harbingers of the anti-Christ," while Epiphanius accused them of consuming nearly the entire Roman Empire with the "great fire" ignited by Arius and his heretical followers. 102 Such a blatant comparison with this odious arch-heretic must have sounded the death knell for Cyrir s unsuspecting opponent. Appropriation of the adversary's argument, however. was not a strategy unique to CyriL Indeed, Nestorius had cleverly accused Cyril of following the heretic Paul of Samosata. only after Nestorius himseIfhad been publicly charged \\;th the heresy. In a 99 Socrates describes the practice in his Ecclesiastical History. HE. 111.23, ~ N. F. I, p. 219, line 34. ... Kal Ta airrcfl npoaoVTa cpaiiAa Tcfl npo5 ov it exepa TTEplTpenElv
101
Homily IV, ACa I. 1,2, p. 104, lines 11-12.
m.
102 Athanasius, Orationes Contra ArianoS L1. fQ 26. 13; Epiphanius, Panarion (Adversus Haeresus) ~ 3745).69. 1.1-2.1; K. Hon. Epjphanius ill. Panarion (haer. 65-68) llid 37 (1933). p. 153.
297
homily delivered December 6,430, Nestorius explained to his listening audience that Paul of Samosata and Photinus both heretically ignored the deity of the Son, as well as his two natures, while Photinus taught that the Son's deity stood beyond that which had become incarnate, and could never be fully encompassed in the temple. 103 Nestorius believed that Paul of Samosata followed an additional, but equally heretical path: asserting that Christ received his beginnings from the Virgin, Paul improperly rendered the eternal deity contemporaneous with the flesh, an unfonunate doctrine followed by Cynl, whose insistence on the term Tbeotokos. transformed the immutable deity into passible flesh born of a woman. By this carefully wrought defense, Nestorius attempted to turn the charges of heresy against his opponent, alleging that Cyril advanced the very doctrines implied by the heretic Paul. 104 It was a strategy, however, that lent itself more to the inflammatory statements made in Cyril's homilies, than to the complex philosophical arguments preferred by his adversary Nestorius. When Cyril publicly declared before his audience of bishops that Nestorius purposefully rent the ecclesiastic community by imitating the likes of Arius, this newest successor to the church's archetypal heretic ostensibly became the quintessential heretic for the fifth century, for Nestorius divided the brethren with erroneous excommunications, he rendered Jesus no better than a Persian King, and he even made ··a mockery of the temple of God (E
Whether Nestorius presented a fair picture of Paul ofSamosata is another matter altogether. 104
298 the conventions of invective speech must have readily accepted. While abusive rhetoric showed scant concern for the literal truth or falsity ofa speaker's claims, the homily, a ~
eminently predisposed toward exhortation and paraenesis, lent this onslaught of
abusive epithets a distinct air oflegitimacy. It was this undeniable authority of the Christian homily, therefore, that elevated Cynl's anti-Nestorian invective from the quagmire of mere slander to the more rarefied claims of Christian discourse.
IV. Presuppositions about the nature ofliterary discourse also likely produced certain expectations in Cyril' s listening audience. Theorists at least as far back as Plato surmised that the literary text formed an organic unity, in which every part was essentially linked to a larger, unified whole, much like a living organism. Longinus and Hermogenes continued the organic metaphor introduced in Plato's Phaedrus, concluding that the ~ consisted of a number of constituent parts, all of which combined to form a harmonious and sonorous whole. This meant, for both Longinus and Hermogenes, that the sundry parts which conspired to produce the literary loeos were ultimately quantifiable, and subject to analysis and interpretation, a fact made abundantly clear in Longinus' treatise on the sublime. Not only did Longinus identify and quantify the various elements productive of sublimity, but he illustrated those very qualities in his own literary discourse, whose elevated style conformed in all its grandeur to the standards delineated in his treatise. While Hermogenes' handbooks were a different matter, his abstruse writing style a far cry from the elegant discourse of Longinus, the same presuppositions about the nature of the literary l2.u infused every aspect of his writings. [f only he could quantify each element productive of the Demosthenic style, a task Hermogenes undertakes in his On ~ then Hermogenes believed that he could adequately
comprehend the complex array ofliterary elements which produced the~.
299 Such an
undertaking necessarily rested on larger assumptions about the nature of literary speech and writing, namely that the ~ constituted a distin~ organic unity, capable of analysis and subsequent interpretation. This theory of the ~ had undeniable implications for an audience listening to a literary tex~ for each element of the text presumably formed an essential part of the larger literary ~. It was a theory whose practical applications can be seen in CyriI's homily against Nestorius, delivered in the Church ofSt. Mary. When Cyril, in his homily, compared Nestorius to the archetypal heretic Arius, he also intoned a striking hymn to the Virgin Mary. Intended to express unmitigated devotion to the Tbeotokos Virgin in the face of Nestorius' anti-Theotokos assenions, Cyril's hymn to the Virgin stood in distinct, complementary relationship to the anti-Nestorian invective which permeated the rest of his homily. If the literary lo"os constituted an organic unity, so that each element fonned a constituent pan of the whole. then Cyril's hymn to the Virgin becomes not simply a separate expression of Marian devotion, but an essential and significant pan of the larger literary discourse, which, in this case, consisted mainly ofCyril's invective speech aimed n
against his adversary. Indeed, Nestorius as the ··new Arius was a typological construct that acquired significance especially in light of Cyril' s opening hymn to Mary, for Mary, as will be shown, embodied the very paradox that Arian materialists could not fathom in their understanding of the relationship between God and Jesus. She was the paradoxical container for the uncontained
(n TOV cIXt:lPllTOV XColpnaaaa), the place for the infinite
(TO XCUPlOV TOU cIXColPTtTOU), the answer and antithesis to the incredulous materialists
who asked, "how can one be contained in the other?" The literary relationship between Cyril's anti-Arian discourse, aimed at his adversary Nestorius, and CyriI's paradoxical
300 spatial metaphors for Mary and her womb are illuminated when set in the broader context
of late antique conceptions of space. In the period of classical antiquity Plato loosely articulated a notion of place or space in his account of the creation of the universe. Speaking metaphorically, Plato posited the figure of the Mother and Receptacle who was invisible, unfonnec:t. and all receptive, and in some sense that defied categorizatio~ partook ofthe intelligtble world. She was the substance that received all bodies, yet paradoxically, this metaphorical Mother figure never partook of the stuff that entered into her all-receiving nature. She was the receptacle or nurse of becoming, who served as the molding material of creation, and she was the place in which "becoming" came into being. 105 Steeped in such classical Greek learning, Origen constructed a thoroughly Christian God that was both incomprehensible and immeasurable. If Plato's metaphorical Mother figure served as the all-receiving container, receptacle and nurse of everything that came into being, then Origen's God was the parent of all things, filling and containing the entire universe with the fullness of His power. Encompassing to some degree both the receptacle Mother and the Source Father embodied in Plato's account. Origen's construct of God was both the Source that filled the universe, and its receptacle, containing all with its fullness. As the Source or Mind from which all intellectual existence originated. Origen' s God/Mind needed no physical space in which to move. A simple intellectual being. God. according Plato. Timaeus. 51A, Plalonis Opera. L Burnet, ed. (Oxford, 1984); ibid.• 50C1D; ibid.,498. Plato posits three kinds (yivTJ), the Becoming (TO Ylyv6~EVOV). the place in which Becoming comes into being (TO S' EV ~ yiYVETal). and the place from where Becoming is copied and made (TO S' OeEV acpo~OlOV~EVOV
301 to Origen, was the ultimate Oneness, requiring no body or magnitude or place of any kind. Never affected by differences of place, this GodIMind was thoroughly divorced and separated from the particularities of space. 106 Nor did it need physical magnitude to perfonn its proper acts or movements. If Christ is God's wisdom hypostatically existing, explained Origen, then He is likewise without shape, color, or size, begotten without beginning or temporal limitation of any kind. 107 Not limited by the physical constraints ofa mortal body, Christ's divinity was in no way separated from the Father so as to prevent it from operating elsewhere. 108 Origen, concerned to preserve the omnipresence of divine power, constructed a paradoxical notion of place that fully embraced the divine Godhead without, in any sense, limiting its divinity to spatial categories. It was his opponent Celsus who objected that when God Himself comes down to men He will be absent from His throne, incredulously dismissing these Christian notions of place. Origen' s response reaffinned that Christ and God were in no way spatially bound, for "The power and divinity of God come to dwell among men through the man whom God wills to choose and in whom He finds room without any changing from one place to another or leaving His former place empty and filling another." 109 Athanasius confronted this paradox of space in his theology of the Incarnation, for 106 Origen,!k Principiis. 1.1.5; 1.1.6. (~ 1482). P. Koetschau, Orieenes Werke Principiis, GCS 22 (Leipzig. 1913).
v. 1&
Ibid., 1.2.2.; 1.1.6; see also Contra Celsum, (~ 1476), H. Chadwick, trans. and ed., (Cambridge, 1965). p. 379. n. 5. regarding parallels in Plato and Justin. 107
108
Origen, De Principiis, IV.4.1; IV.4.3.
Origen, Contra Celsurn. IV.5. H. Chadwick, p. 187; P. Koetschau, Oriw;nes Werke!. Die Schrift vom Manyrium. BYm I:IY GeFl Celsus, ~ 2 (Leipzig, 1899). 109
302 Athanasius' Jesus was in the body without being circumscnbed by it and without being absent elsewhere. Never contained by spatially bound flesh. Jesus, asserted Athanasius, readily contained all things, and while He was fully present with His Father, creation somehow remained filled with His being. Just as Plato's receptacle Mother received "becoming" without altering her essence, so did Athanasius' Jesus remain fully present in all without suffering the slightest alteration. By this paradoxical language, Athanasius crafted an incamational theology that pointedly avoided any notion of containment: Jesus was in the flesh of the body, but was not contained by it; He was present in creation, yet fully present with his Father; He took his human body from Mary, but suffered no alteration to His essence; He was at once outside the world, and actively working within. I IO These paradoxical notions of place and containment also partially defined the contours of the Arian controversy) II "How," asked the Arians, ··can the one be contained in the other and the other in the one? How at all can the Father who is the greater be contained in the Son who is the less?" 112 Their failure to understand. explained Athanasius, rested on their interpreting immaterial things in a material manner, for refusing to accept the language of paradOx, the Arians boldly rejected the language appropriate to the immaterial realm. In response, Athanasius simply reaffirmed the innate fullness of Father and Son: .1.hey are not discharged into each other, filling the One Athanasius, OratjoskIncaroationeYmU., (~2091)fQ25, 96-197, §§ 8, 17; Ch. Kannengiesser,S1g l'Incamation rut Verbe, SQlr 199 (Paris, 1973). 110
III For a full discussion, see T. F. Torrance, ··The Relation of the Incarnation to Space in Nicene Theology," in A. Blame and T. E. Best, ~ Ecumenical World of Orthodox Civilization (The Hague, 1973), voL 3, p. 43-7, p. 6Sff.
Athanasius, Orationes Contra Arianos ill. III.23.1; f.Y 26, 321; trans. in Nicene I!Kl Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, VoL IV (Michigan, (978), p. 393. 112
303 the Other, as in the case of empty vessels, so that the Son fills the emptiness of the Father and the Father that of the Son. "113 Rejecting the metaphor of the empty vessel, Athanasius constructed this notion of perichoresis (lTeplxt:lpnOls), or mutual inherence, which became a test of orthodoxy over against Arianism.114 The Arians, however, denying this mutual indwelling of Father and Son, asserted the contravening notion of anepimiktoi
(aValTe~hCTol):
"there is a triad not in equal glories. Not intenningling with
each other are their subsistences." I 15 In fact, it was the Arians' blatant refusal to accept the prevailing Christian notions of place. and its concomitant paradoxical expressions, that contributed, in part. to the Arians' subordination of Sonship to the Father. 116 Athanasius' anti-Arian arguments, and their presumptions about the nature of space, were particularly familiar to Cynl, whose Thesaurus was in large measure a summary of Athanasius' Orationes Contra Arianos. Readily borrowing from its predecessor, Cynl' s Thesaurus addressed the incredulous Arians who asked, "How can the Father who is greater than the Son be contained in Him? Or how can the Son who is much lesser than the Father, be contained in Him and fill the One greater?"' Cyrit's response condemned their importunate materialistic conception of Deity, which erroneously substituted Father and Son, denying the fullness of their mutual indwelling. A doctrine appropriate to physical bodies, the Arian understanding of corporeal 1 13
lllli!., p. 394.
Ibid., III.23.2, same page. Father and Son each contain the fullness and essence of the other. 114
115 Athanasius, De Synod is Arimini in I1I!il et Seleucia in Isauria. (CPG 2128) PG 26, 708; H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke n, I (Berlin, 1935-1941), p. 242.
116
Athanasius, Orationes Contra Arianos ill.. 111,25.10.
304 substitution. explained eyril. did not apply to the divine. incorporeal essence. whose
nature was plainly devoid of all matter. I 17 Well-acquainted with Athanasius' argumentation in his fight against Ariaoism. Cyril knew first hand the paradoxical language of containment designed. in ~ to refute such Arian claims of a more material. spatially circumscnbed deity. eyril significantly borrowed this paradoxical language prevalent in Athanasius' anti-Arian discourse not only in his own treatise against the Arians. but in his refutation of his adversary Nestorius as well. It seems that Nestorius had claimed in one of his sennons that the Lord "passed through" the Virgin. I 18 In response. eyril asserted the omnipresent nature of divinity, for if the Word passed through Mary. then that erroneously implied a deity spatially circumscnbed and limited. moving from one place to another. Never bound to the dimensions of space, ""the divinity." explained Cyril. ·'exists in no place. and does not know physical changes. for it fills all things. "119 Nor is the deity circumscribed by the limitations of quantity and movement. for it exists everywhere. unembodied. and not in any place. rendering it inconceivable that the Godhead should pass through a single body. 120 The implications for Jesus' body in relation to Mary would be explored to some extent by Pseudo-Athanasius. who claimed Cyril of Alexandria. Thesaurus ~ Sancta ~ Consubstaotiali Trinitate. eQ. 75. 9-656. 177 A1B. 117
118 Cyril of Alexandria. Libri V Contra Nestorium. ACa I. I, 6. p. 18; Senno xi (fragmenta). Loofs. NeSloriana. p. 277.
Cyril of Alexandria. Libri V Contra Nestorium. ACa I. I. 6. p. 20. lines 18-19; ibid., p. 38, lines 26-28. I 19
120
Ibid., p. 21. lines 3-6.
305 that Jesus took his human body from Mary and rendered it "capable of giving room for the fullness of the Godhead bodily." 12 I A Jesus who enjoyed omnipresence along with his Father was certainly not limited by the confines of a human body. It was finally Cyril, however, who extended these paradoxical spatial notions and developed their implications with respect to the person ofMary. If Jesus is the uncontainable, then Mary must be His paradoxical container; if Jesus exists in no place, then Mary is the place for the place less. Through this language ofparado~ Cynl built an image ofMary as the spatially uncircumscnbed temple of God. She became the revered place in which Jesus dwelt, in contrast to Cyril's construct ofNestorius, which ascnbed spatial limitation to the deity, and, in the process, made "a mockery of the temple of God,,. rendering her physically powerless to overcome Arian materialist beliefs. If the Arians, with their materialist conception of God, could not fathom Athanasius' paradox of mutual inherence, then Nestorius, portrayed as the new-Arius, was equally incapable of understanding the paradox of Mary's sacred space. While Cyril' s spatial metaphors constructed Mary as a sacred place, the remainder of the homily rendered Nestorius virtually
·~displaced."
throughout the entire homily, Nestorius became simply
'~his
Not once named
man." Figuratively absent
from the homiletic discourse. Nestorius had rendered himself quite literally absent from the conciliar proceedings, as he consistently refused all invitations extended to him in accordance with ecclesiastical law. 122 [n fact, Nestorius. by his defiant behavior, became so fully absent that his name was finally deleted from the list of brethren - as Cyril declared in Homily IV, '"wishing to alienate yourself from the episcopal throne. you have 121 Pseudo-Athanasius. Senno Major ~ lisk. (~ 2803) eQ. 26, 1269C. 122
Gesta Ephesina. Actio! (June 22, 431). Aea I, I, 2, p. 11-12.
306 even deleted your name from the list of brethren, not recognizing the One who bestowed the office of high-priest on you."123 Just as Cyril's Marian metaphors constructed her as the sacred place ml[ excellence. Nestorius, by mocking her sacred space, became the unnamed. placeless heretic, absent from the ecclesiastical proceedings, and removed from communion with the faithful by his deposition a few weeks before Cyril's address. Metaphors depicting royalty and exaltation were also applied to Mary: she was the treasure of the world. the crown of virginity, and the scepter of orthodoxy. A '''treasure'' (KElI.1T1Alov) could be any object stored as valuable, but often applied to the sacred objects of a church, especially its sacred vessels. 124 Both senses of the term are possible in Cyril' s hymn. for Mary became not only valuable as a vessel storing something sacred, but was herself precious and venerated: "Is it even possible for people to speak of the celebrated Mary? The virginal womb: 0 thing of wonder! The marvel strikes me with awe!" The "crown" (aTEcpavoS) was another metaphor of exaltation with royal ovenones. It often evoked images of glory and honor, so that Christ was the crown of the church~ 125 the Holy Ghost was the crown of the just; 126 and faith was the crown of the Christian profession. 127 More distinctly royal than either the treasure or crown, was the scepter (OKT;TTTpOV), a symbol of divine and kingly power. A metaphor for 123 Homily IV. ~ I, 1,2, P 103, lines 21-23. . .. Suocpnllic;x aEaUTov (30VAOIlEVOS aAAoTplc:':laal. TOU 8povov Kal TOU KaTaAoyou Tc:':lV aSEAcpQv oEaUTov e;nAEl\fJas. Iln ETTlYVOVS TOV aOl xaploallEVOv apXlEpEc.lS KAijpov. 124
G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon. (Oxford. 1961), p. 740, s.v ..
125
Clement of Alexandria, Par4i'gogus. 2.8 (CPG 1376). eQ 8,4808.
126
Didymus the Blind, ~ Trinitale. 2.1 (spurius) (CPG 2570) eQ 39, 453A;
127 Basil
of Caesarea, Epistula 221. (~2900) ~ 32, 816C.
307 Christ and the Cross,128 the royal scepter likely first applied to Mary in CyriI's Homily IV. Once again, Cyril's Marian metaphors fonned a striking contrast to his depiction of Nestorius. While Mary was the crown and scepter, accoutennents of royalty and exaltation, Nestorius clothed himselfnot in the images of imperial reign. but of wickedness. 129 Indeed, Nestorius was not the standard (or scepter) of orthodoxy, but the very reason for its demise, for ·'[he was] not content to ruin [himself] in blaspheming God, but ... announced [his] blasphemy to the entire world."130 Nestorius even threatened the very functioning of the oikouroene when he attempted to persuade the emperor Theodosius IT to follow his heretical doctrines: ·'You thought you could persuade ... an emperor fond of orthodox doctrine and a worshiper of the ... Trinity, through which he reigns continuously, through which he crushes the Pagan enemies, ... through which he restores the world in peace - you thought you could make this man an apostate with your deceptive words:'13I Well-acquainted \\-ith Theodosius' imperial theology, expressed in his ~ to the council, Cyril's audience must have found
128 Clemens Romanus, EpistuJa iH1 Corinthios. 16.2 ApocaJypsis Joannis 13.
(~
1001) ell I, 240A; 1
129 Cyril's Homily IV: "But you do not take us into account, clothing yourself in a sort of cruelty and madness, being arrogant in your evil, and, like an all powerful one, disputing over lawless points." A.Ql I, I, 2, p. 103, lines 20-21. 130 Homily IV. ACa I, 1,2, p. 104, lines 8-9. 131 Homilia IV. ACO. I. 1,2, p. 104, lines 4-7.
308 Nestorius' heresy quite threatening to the continued stability of the empire.132 In fact, if Theodosius IT had been present for Cyril~s address, he too might have been angered along with Cyrirs primary target of rhetorical abuse, Nestorius. 133 After all, Cyril implied that the emperor had almost been persuaded by Nestorius'
decei~
while the traditionally
royal images of crown and scepter, usually reserved for the imperial family, were unabashedly applied to the person of Mary. These royal metaphors, like Cyril's paradoxical language of space, acquired new significance when placed in appropriate juxtaposition to Cyril's larger homiletic discourse. The Virgin Mar}' was now the triumphant standard for orthodoxy over against the defeated Nestorius, whose heretical anti-Marian sermons threatened the stability of the empire. Nearly every Marian metaphor constructed not only an exalted status for Mary, but also an equally negative image ofNestorius. Just as she was the exalted treasure, the paradoxical place, and the royal scepter, Nestorius had no name, no place, and his pernicious doctrines threatened the peaceful functioning of the oikoumene. Cyrirs public depiction ofNestorius, therefore, cast him in the mold of the archetypal heretic, Arius. A victim of the abusive, vehement rhetoric appropriated by this homiletic ~ a ~ better known for paraenesis and exhortation, Nestorius virtually became the new-Arius, a man eager to demote Jesus to the status of a Persian 132 ~ ~ Cyrillum~. sa id sinwJQS MetrQPoljtas (Nov. 19, 430) (~8651), ACO I, I, I, p. 115: ·'The condition of our state depends on piety toward God and there is a relationship between the two... " Read into the record at the first session of the council on June 22, 431. ~ Ephesina. ~l~ I, I, 2, p. 8.
Cyril was not on good terms with the emperor at this time, having been recently chastised for sowing discord amongst the imperial family because he had sent separate treatises to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria. ~ id Cynllum ~. (~8652) AC.Q I, I, I, p. 73-74. 133
309
King. It was a typology that carefully echoed Nestorius' popular reputation. Cyri1's depiction ofNestorius in anti-Arian imagery. however. brought along a host of christological implications that cast his opening hymn to Mary in an entirely new light. More than a simple expression of Marian devotion. Cyril' s hymn fonned a complement.ary relationship to the rest of his anti-Nestorian discourse. Indeed. spatial metaphors were among the most striking images that Cyril selected for Mary: she was the container for the uncontained. the indissoluble temple, and the place for the infinite. These images stood in bold relief to the image ofNestorius as a new-Arius, for Mary embodied every paradox of containment appropriate to the Mother of God. while Nestorius, like his precursor Arius. denied Christ His transcendent nature, and. in the process, made "a mockery of the temple of God." Cyril's highly polemical discourse was not the first literature to juxtapose a transcendent, uncontainable Christ with Arius' more materialist concerns. Athanasius, in particular, placed the unlimited, unbound and uncontained Christ over against the Arians' incredulous materialism: "how can one be contained in the other'?" they asked. Arian problems with ··containment" implied their unwillingness to succumb to the language of paradox. Embracing this very paradox, Cyril constructed an image ofMary that deftly served his political and christological ends: Mary as Mother of God paradoxically embodied the transcendent God-Christ that Nestorius with his "deceptive sennons" relegated to the status ofa worldly king. In Cynl's homiletic discourse words mattered, and Nestorius' verbal carelessness had "turned the world upside-down with [his] deceptive arguments." Cynl's homily turned that world right side uP. with the triumphant. exalted Mary holding the scepter of orthodoxy at the top. Not simply a refutation ofNestorius' anti-Marian assertions. Cyril's homily gradually constructed an
310
image ofNestorius so reprehensible to early fifth century sensibilities that Nestorius' vision of Mary could not prevaiL 134 Nestorius as the archetypal heretic Arius denied Christ's transcendent status, refused Mary her rightfu1 appellation Mother of God, and, in the process, rendered himself entirely displaced from the conciliar proceedings, from the list of brethren, and even from the homi1etic discourse itself CynTs Mary, however, embodied every attribute that Nestorius denied. She was the exalted Theotokos. who paradoxically contained the uncontainable Christ in her virgina1 womb, a designation that rendered her the quintessential embodiment of anti-Arian discourse - a discourse that Cynl implicitly appropriated in this battle against his adversary.
V. Conclusions: Cyril's vituperative homilies, delivered against his adversary while the council was in session, represent a complex amalgamation of Christian paraenesis and post-classical rhetorical conventions. Christianity'S distinct claims to truth, however, transformed the classical and post-classical 'art of persuasion' -- the conventional object of the stylized rhetorical forms delineated throughout the handbooks - into a more rarefied discourse, in which the deft use of rhetorical figures, diction, and rhythm achieved nothing less than the expression, in literary form, of the eternal truths associated with Christ's sacred drama. 134 Though Marian metaphors served Cyril's larger political strategy, the public nature of this discourse ensured that his construct of Mary would eventually stand on its own. This is exactly what happened in the later Homilia XI, Encomium in L Mariam deiparam. a seventh to ninth century embellishment and elaboration ofCynl's Homily IY. rendered independent from the early fifth century ecclesiastical, political controversy that originally shaped Cyril's vision ofMary. See A. Ehrhard, "Eine Unechte Marienhomilie des Cyrill von Alexandrien,.. Romische Quanalschrift 3 (1889), p. 97-113. Ehrhard argues convincingly that Cyril himself did not re-work the homily because there are a number of anachronisms. He finds it quite plausible, however, that another author should choose to re-work this famous Marian homily. llllit.. p. 112.
311 expressio~
in literary fo~ of the eternal truths associated with Christ's sacred drama.
"Persuasio~'
therefore, yielded to the more rarefied goals of exhortation and paraenesis.
while the rhetorical arts, at least in theory, were no longer the equal province of either party to an adversarial debate. When Cyril readily borrowed from the rhetorical conventions appropriate to invective or abusive speech, therefore, he at once laid claim to a myriad of rhetorical devices, now made to serve the singular, eternal truths endemic to the Christian narrative, namely the overarching narrative (laTOpla) of Christ's incamatio~
death, and resurrection. An audience listening to Cyril's vituperative
homilies must have readily discerned the abusive, anti-Nestorian epithets in distinct juxtaposition to the soteriological necessity of preserving, intact, the integrity of this sacred drama In other words, calumnious epithets, such as "Nestorius, the Arian,' and "Nestorius, the Jew,' were not simply rhetorical labels meant to persuade an audience of his adversary's malevolence. They also served as warning posts, designed to instruct his listeners that this dangerous adversary maligned Christ's divinity, and, in the process, impugned the very soteriological foundations of the Christian faith. That is not to say that audiences wholly cast aside the presuppositions attendant to the conventions of rhetorical speech. Styles of rhetoric, such as vehemence, abuse, and censure, all implied a strong element of exaggeration and hyperbole, which implicitly jettisoned questions of literal truth and falsity, in service of the antinomian spirit of invective discourse. This juxtaposition of contradictory elements, namely the truth claims of Christ's narrative alongside the persuasive arts of rhetoric, implied a selfconscious commingling QfChristian and classical discourse, which combined to extricate invective and abusive speech from the quagmire of slander into the lofty, elevated sphere of Christian paraenesjs_ and exhortation. [t was an amalgamation ofliterary
312
presuppositions, nevertheless, that left the audience primed to hear abusive and vehement speech without complete regard for the literal truth.. Just as the conventions of slanderous discourse prepared the audience for exaggerated. hyperbolic terms of abuse, that very same slander acquired the more rarefied elements of paraenesis and exhortation simply by its larger literary context, namely the ~ of Christian homiletics. The conventions of literary theory also produced certain expectations in a Iistening and reading audience. Longinus held that the literary ~ constituted a system (crucITrU..la) in which each constituent element formed an essential part of the whole,
rendering the ~ not unlike the human body. This organic metaphor for the ~ had undeniable repercussions for the interpretation ofliterary texts. Cyril's hymn to the Virgin Mary, more than a simple expression ofMarian piety, stood in complementary juxtaposition to the rest of his vituperative homily, so that each exultant Marian metaphor signified an equally damning vision ofNestorius as the new Arius, and each constituent part of the homily, thereby, formed an essential link with a unified whole. If Nestorius was the new-Arius. imbued with the Arian materialist conception of Deity. one that clearly circumscribed God within the confines of space and sense perceptions, then Cyril's Mary defied all spatial boundaries, for she was the paradoxical container for the uncontained. and the place for he who exists in no place. In the process. Mary became the ~ for Cyril's anti-heretical discourse. as she possessed the paradoxical spatial attributes found wanting in Cyril's polemical vision ofNestorius, the new Arius. At the same time, though. Cyril's designation for Nestorius bore little relation to fact. Indeed. it was Nestorius who had accused his opponent Cyril of subscribing to Arianism for his unmitigated insistence on the epithet Tbeotokos for Mary. Nestorius, entirely wary of the title. feared the Virgin's elevation to divine status. and Jesus' Arian-like subordination
313
to a transcendent Father. If Mary bore G<>uOl~ TaU Beau AOYOU oeOapKc.lIlEvn/IlEVOU)."
At a much greater level of
subtlety, therefore, Cyril's homily against Nestorius (Homily IV) represents the close relationship between literary form and content eagerly maintained by Longinus, in his treatise on the sublime. 135 Form and content, each should represent the other, for just as ..... . . art
is perfect when it seems to be nature, [ ] nature succeeds when it contains art
hidden within."136 A relationship ably explored in Cyril's polemical homilies, form and content find ample reciprocal expression in Cynl's anti-Nestorian rhetoric. 135 In other words, the content of Cyril' s christology, i.e. his single nature Christ (~, is reflected in the literary form of his homily, which represents a closely interwoven discourse (loGos) expressing Nestorius as the new Arius and Mary as the ultimate symbol of anti-Arianism. 136 Longinus, Libellus ~ Sublimitate. p. 30, lines 6-8.
314 Cyril's vituperative speech also makes sktllful use of the sundry rhetorical devices delineated-throughout the handbooks of the period, devices which reflect this larger relationship between form and content. Figures abound in Cyril's homily. including asyndeton. hyperbole, apostrophe. m deiktikon. paronomasia. hiatus. epanaphora. and hyperbaton. all of which aspire to reproduce in literary tenns, the passionate emotions aroused in the speaker against his adversary. The literary effect of figures, such as asyndeton and hyperbaton tended to produce the impression of an anger and indignation so impassioned and spontaneous that the speaker had little time or reason to insert the traditional connectives. An audience listening to such tumultuous speech must have sensed the imminent danger implied by his adversary's christologica1 claims. It was an effect readily achieved through the deft combination of rhetorical figures, rhythms. and diction, along with the more rarefied truth claims expressed in the traditional, exhortative and paraenetic Christian homily. The practical results of this skillful juxtaposition of invective and Christian paraenesis will be explored in chapter seven, which examines the aftennath ofEphesus, including the Act of Union. and subsequent events culminating in the tentative resolution of the controversy at the council ofChalcedon, in 451 AD.
315 Chapter Six - Nestorius' Logos and the Rhetorical Tradition of Antioch
I.
Cyril's mastery of rhetorical argumentation, as seen. for example, in the homilies
discussed above, contnbuted to his overwhelming success at the council of Ephesus and throughout the ongoing christological controversies of the early fifth century, controversies that found no resolution until the council ofChalcedon in 451 AD. Nestorius' few surviving homilies pale in comparison to his adversary's rhetorical flourishes, seemingly desperate attempts to stem the inevitable tide of his own demise. It is not enough, however, to simply declare Nestorius a bad rhetorici~ or to attribute his . downfall to his so-called incomplete mastery of rhetorical fonns. Though different in style from his adversary's discourse (AOyOS). Nestorius' homilies also evinced their own brand of rhetorical skill, one that laid claim to the rhetorical tradition of his native Antioch and beyond, namely the insistence on structured, logical argumentation. the uneasy relationship between fonn and content, the penchant for paraenesis and exhortation, and the preference for well- developed moral content in the sphere of public address. It was a rhetorical legacy which was intimately tied to the style of biblical exegesis and to the hermeneutic presuppositions prevalent in that city. Antioch had a particularly rich and distinguished rhetorical tradition, one that centered on the famed rhetorician Libanius, a student of the pagan Zenobius. After opening schools in Constantinople and then Nicomedia, Libanius eventually settled in Antioch in 354 AD, where he spent the remainder of his long career as a rhetorician and teacher. I Several prominent Christians were counted amongst his students. including 1 G.
Downey, Ancient Antioch (Princeton, 1963), p. 193. See also D. S. Wallace-Hadrill. Christian Antioch: A study of~ Christian thought in the ~(Cambridge. 1982).
316
John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, and Nestorius' own teacher, Theodore ofMopsuestia. an important pedagogical connection which makes it quite probable that Nestorius fully absorbed the rhetorical traditions native to this city.2 Such rhetorical traditions, best exemplified in the prodigious output of Libanius, were, of course, not entirely distinct from the broader rhetorical achievements of the late antique literary world. including such figures as Demetrius, Hermogenes, and Longinus, all of whom found a common bond in their shared relationship to classical rhetoric. 3 What distinguished Demetrius and Hermogenes, however, from the Antiochenes Libanius and Aphthonius, was not a different literary influence -- all laid claim to the same classical writings on rhetoric -- but a different rhetorical emphasis. Demetrius, Hermogenes and Longinus were primarily interested in style, a fact made abundantly clear in their rhetorical handbooks, which painstakingly identified and described all the sundry elements needed to persuade an audience. It was, above all, this mastery of style and fonn, therefore, that produced the desired effect, and secured a sure victory for the welltrained rhetor. The Progymnasmata of Libanius and Aphthonius, in contrast, both emphasized content and structure, demonstrating through illustrative examples, the proper way to construct the various rhetorical genres. 4 With little mention of style, W ~
2
these Antiochene rhetoricians eschewed detailed discussions of figures, diction, and G. Downey, Ancient Antioch. p. 193.
See Chapter 5. Hermogenes, nEPI 16EWN AOrOY (On Types of~), Hennogenis Opera, H. Rabe, ed. (Stuttgart, 1969); Demetrius, nEPI EPMHNEIA~ (On Stvle), D. C. Innes, ed. and trans., (Cambridge and London, 1995); Longinus, Libellus de Sublimitate. D. A. Russell, ed., (Oxford. 1968). 3
Aphthonius, Aphthonii Progymnasmata, H. Rabe, ed., in Rhetores Graeci. Vol. X (Leipzig, 1926); Libanius, Libanii Opera ProlD'mnasmata, R. Foerster, ed., voL ru (Leipzig, 1915). 4
317
se, these Antiochene rhetoricians eschewed detailed discussions of figures, diction, and word arrangement, and focused instead on the literary content and structure endemic to the encomium. pso~os, chreia, and so forth. Even the famed expounders of style, however, such as Longinus, Demetrius and Hermogenes, understood that the relationship between form and content was a theoretically significant one, not readily separated by star~ unyielding distinctions. Loath to impose any strict dichotomy between literary content and form, these rhetoricians and arbiters of literary style insisted that the well-composed literary composition necessarily evince a close relation between form and content. To produce the impression of vehement, passionate emotion, for example, Longinus insisted that the well-wrought literary composition contain clipped sentences in quick succession, as if the speaker's sense of outrage and imminent danger left little time for long sentences, sonorously arranged. 5 Such stylistic imperatives implied broader hermeneutic presuppositions about the nature of literary discourse, namely that literary composition was essentially imitative in nature, that literary content should strive to reproduce in its stylistic details the real emotions aroused by the speaker. 6 Content was intimately tied with form in another sense as well, for the organic theory ofliterature, in which each and every part formed an inextricable link with the whole, ostensibly demanded that literary content take its rightful place alongside literary form, as each element of the well-wrought literary composition conspired to produce meaning and signification endemic to the entire 5
See Chapter 5.
6 Longinus, Libellus ~ Sublimitate. p. 30, lines 6-8. TOTE yap it TExvn TEAElOS Ttvhc' av q>VOlS ETval SoKij. ti S' av q>VOlS ElTlTV)(liS oTav Aaveavovoav lTEpU~)(1J -nl V TEx"'lV. ""For art is perfect when it seems to be nature, and nature succeeds when it
contains art hidden within."
318 literary structure. 7 Figures. diction, word arrangement. structure, and content of thought were all the literary elements necessary for understanding the unified ~ and each one of these elements stood in significant relationship to the larger literary whole. This organic theory of literary composition, nevertheless, implied an uneasy relationship between fonn and content. a dichotomy which persisted in spite of clear attempts to render the distinction void. That art must imitate life (Longinus), and literary form reflect its broader content, unwittingly assumed and, therefore. reproduced the same troublesome dichotomies that this literary theory sought to dispel. It was a problem sensed, to some extent, by the ancient writers themselves, as they sought time and again to delineate the precise boundaries between the lektikos togos (AeKTuc:0S Tonos) and the pragmatikos topos (npay~aTlIC:oS TonoS), a problem made abundantly clear in the very proliferation of stylistic devices treated in the handbooks ofHermogenes and Demetrius. 8 These necessarily imprecise and fluid boundaries between form and content, even in the stylistic treatises ostensibly committed to maintaining that formal distinction, demanded refined attention to matters of style, including figures. diction and word arrangement. in part, to enable the literary stylists to make their claim that style was a distinct literary feature that could be described, elucidated, reproduced. and essentially controlled, apart from, but in relationship to, literary content. If Libanius and Aphthonius focused mainly on the structure and content of Plato, Phaedrus. 264C, Plalonis Opera. I. Burnet, ed. (Oxford. 1984), p. 274: see also Hennogenes, TTEPI 18EWN AOrOY, p. 217, lines 12-17, who proposed a similar theory of organic unity in his quest to delineate the stylistic features characteristic of Demosthenes. 7
For a full discussion, see D. A. Russell. Criticism in Antiquity (London, 1981), p. 130131.
8
319 rhetorical discourses ()'6YOl), while Longinus, Hennogenes and Demetrius elucidated literary style, that is not to say that the distinction was unproblematic even in late antique times. Form reflected content, content needed formal literary devices to bring it to life, and each stood in a precarious differential relation to the other. The Progymnasmata of Libani us, and that of his successor Aphthonius, nevertheless, represent a real departure from the unrestrained proliferation ofliterary tropes, figures and the like found in the handbooks ofHermogenes and Demetrius. That reality found later confirmation in the starkly un-stylized approach to rhetorical composition found in the surviving works ofNestorius, discussed below. It was a reality that claimed its roots, partly, in the different approaches to art and literature proposed by the rhetoricians and philosophers of classical times. Plato's theory of art, representative of the philosophical view, deemed art essentially mimetic, aa'l imitation of an object's ideal, archetypal form.9 In Plato's hierarchically constituted vision of reality, that ideal form derived its being from the One and the Good, '''the cause for all things right and beautiful (ncl:Ol nclvTc.Jv aiiTr)
6pe~v
TE Kat KaAc':lv aiTla)," and the source of truth and reason in the intelligible realm
(vonTos).lO Truth, therefore, resided above all in the Good, and by extension, in the
One, the transcendent, ontological principle which was the undeniable source of Plato's archetypal forms, and infused those same ideal forms with its essence. Since poetry and painting, under Plato's ontology, were merely copies, mimetic productions of natural objects which were themselves shadows of a greater reality, these artistic expressions were deemed "three grades below reality," a fleeting shadow of the ontological essence 9 Plato, Republic. Platonis Opera. I. Bumet, ed. (Oxford, 1984), 597e, lines 6-8. 10
Plato, RepUblic. Platonis Opera. I. Burnet, ed., 517b, line 7- 517c, line 5.
320 which resided in the ideal fonns.II This devaluation of artistic production, expressed most adamantly in the Republic, was the necessary outcome of Plato's hierarchically constituted vision of reality, in which truth existed, in its absolute sense, at the very pinnacle of the hierarchy, in the undifferentiated One, or Good, and trickled down to a mere semblance of reality as it moved farther from the source. In fact, though, Plato's restrictive theory of art did not prevent him from appreciating and delineating the proper literary standards for prose and verse composition. In the Phaedrus, Plato insisted that the writer clearly define his subject matter, and express that subject within a well-crafted literary structure, something akin to a living organism, in which each and every part formed an essential link with the whole. 12 If art, a mere representation of the sense world, strayed too far from the transcendent truths that Plato meant to establish, then it was the artist's sensitivity to content and literary structure that would ex"tricate artistic production from the quagmire of shadowy deceptions expressed in virtuoso technical displays. 13 Real art (TE)(V11), claimed Plato, finds its ultimate expression in the object of its discourse, namely the soul (to which all artistic productions are addressed), and the true artist or rhetorician accurately describes that soul in all its sundry aspects, ably adapting the type of speech to the particular classification of souls (\fJ\IXal). Even more than the content and structure of a literary composition, it was the ability to accurately characterize the hearers of a discourse that 11 Plato, Republic, Platonis Opera, I. Burnet, ed., 598e, line 5 - 599a, line 4~ for a full discussion of Plato's theory of art, see F. Coppleston, S. J., A H iSIOO' of Phi losphy, vot. I (New York and London, 1993), p. 251-262. 12
Plato, Phaedrus, 264C, Platonis Opera. I. Burnet, ed. (Oxford, 1984), p. 274.
Plato, Phaedrus, Platonis Opera, I. Burnett, ed. (Oxford, 1984), 260c, line 6 - 263 e, line 2, p. 268-272. 13
compositio~
321 it was the ability to accurately characterize the hearers of a discourse that
Plato deemed most definitive of artistic quality .14 This seemingly utilitarian view of artistic production was, in fact. Plato's response to the lowly rhetoricians who eschewed truth and moral ity in favor of what was probable (TO ElKOS) and convincing (TTl8av6s). While Plato's method required deep inquiry into the true nature of souls and the accurate classification of speeches, a process approaching the "really real (TO CVTc.JS cv)"' in Plato's ontological hierarchy, the deceptive rhetoricians simply convinced their audience with discussions of the probable, wholly avoiding any inquiry into the real nature of things. The rhetoricians of the time, with their excessive emphasis on figures and meter to the exclusion of truth and moral content, gave Plato ample occasion to express such critical sentiments. In Plato's dialogue with Gorgias, a rhetorician well-known for his excessive rhetorical flourishes, Plato, through the voice of Socrates, painstakingly disputed the notion attributed to Gorgias and to other rhetoricians of his day, that rhetoric had its sole aim in the art of persuasion. 15 This meant for Plato that rhetoric had seemingly degenerated into nothing more than the identification and enumeration of sundry rhetorical devices, designed merely to persuade the listeners, without any regard for knowledge and truth. Unwilling to relinquish the rhetorical arts to such loathsome displays, Plato insisted that the proper rhetorician be fully instructed in what is just and unjust. 16 Rhetoric was not merely the repository of persuasive figural devices intended 14
Plato, Phaedrus. Platonis Opera. I. Burnett, ed., 273d, line 8 - 273 e, line 4.
IS
Plato, Gorgias. W. R. M. Lamb, transl., (Cambridge, 1975), 453A.
16
Plato, Gorgias, W. R. M. Lamb, transl., 460A.
.,.,
.:J ... __
to deceive an audience, but was fully involved in the production oftru~ finally able to stake its claim alongside philosophy. This more elevated notion of the rhetorical arts finds implicit confirmation and elaboration in the more practical treatment of rhetoric found in Aristotle's the Art of Rhetoric, a lengthy treatise wholly devoted to explicating the various means of persuasion, including logical proofs, ethical or psychological proofs, and style. 17 Part of a voluminous corpus of philosophical writings, the Art of Rhetoric should be viewed within the larger Aristotelian design, which ostensibly aimed to correct the stark Platonic dualism that seemingly deprived the sensible realm of reality and meaning. Aristotle's empiricism, central to his treatment of rhetoric, represented, to some extent, his greater concern with ascnbing a measure of tangible reality to universals, unlike the transcendent quality of the Platonic forms, which Aristotle accomplished methodologically, by delineating in precise terms the various elements of sameness within a given species. Artists were implicitly raised beyond the mere imitators of Plato's scheme, for the artist was now charged with representing these universals through literary types (EiSn), a task especially well-suited to the poet. (n the process, artistic production more closely approximated the nature of things than Plato's conception of forms could ever allow, and the art of rhetoric, namely the means of persuasion, acquired new-found legitimacy. Just as Aristotle's empiricism eventually produced a treatise delineating the proper elements of poetic expression, 18 so did the art of rhetoric find ample elucidation in a treatise devoted to explicating the sundry means of persuasion appropriate to any subject maner. If Plato's rarefied critique of rhetoric was mostly absent from Aristotle's treatise, 17 Aristotelis, Ars Rhetori ca, W. D. Ross, ed. (Oxford, 1959). 18
Aristotelis, De Arte PoeticaLk. R. Kassel, ed. (Oxford, 1965).
323
IfPlato's rarefied critique of rhetoric was mostly absent from Aristotle's treatise, nevertheless, the detailed account of rhetorical proofs, in which matters of style are relegated to the end. provided a practical corrective to the rhetorical treatises circulating at the time -- treatises filled with innumerable stylistic devices meant to inflame the emotions of an audience. 19 Unlike his predecessor, Aristotle did not ascribe precise moral content to the rhetorical arts, but infused them, nevertheless, with an undeniable element of respectability when he set forth the logical methods appropriate to rhetorical persuasion, for method and structure were certainly deemed more important than style and diction. In the age-old quarrel between the philosophers and rhetoricians, it seems that the Aristotelian branch of rhetoric implicitly accommodated the criticisms leveled by the philosophers, without depriving rhetoric of its distinctness as an art-fonn devoted more to persuasion than to representing truth. It was the philosophical roots of the Aristotelian methodology, i.e., that empirical methods uncovered certain universal truths definitive of a species, truths which could be expressed in art and rhetoric through types and proper literary structure, that enabled rhetoric to be extricated from the gross proliferation offigural devices enumerated in the handbooks of the time. That essential emphasis on method and structure can be seen, to a certain exten~ in the Orations and Prol:,Ymnasmata of L ibani us, the Prol:,Ymnasmata of Aphthonius, and, later, in the style of argumentation found in the surviving works ofNestorius. Libanius' Progymnasmata descnbes, elucidates and illustrates the various genres of literary composition~
proverbs
including myths (IlveOl), nanatives (5l'lYTlllaTa)~ chreia (xpEtal),
(yv~~al),
refutations (avaoKEVal), confinnations (lCaTaolCEVal),
For a full discussion, see generally G. M. A. Grube, A S.n::k (Toronto, 1961). p. 10, esp. n. 9. 19
Greek~:
Demetrius Qn
324 commonplaces (KOlVOt TonOl), encomia(EYK~I-.ua), vituperations (\VOYOl), comparisons (cruyKp(OElS), characterizations (iJ8onollal), descriptions (EKcppaoElS), and theses (6eoElS). Each one of these topical divisions, preserved in the very same order, are treated in summary fashion by Aphthonius as well, whose Proevmnasmata unabashedly borrowed from his predecessor's handboo~ representing the same in starkly abbreviated fonn. Predictably absent from both these PrQKYmnasmata is any mention of figures, diction~
word
arrangemen~
or prose rhythm, the mainstay of stylistic treatises for the
period. Instead, both rhetoricians aimed to elucidate the literary content and structure proper to the particular ~s under discussion. This approach to rhetorical argumentatio~ in which matters of style were second to literary content, had discernIble repercussions in the practical sphere, for example. in the Orations of Libanius designed to address the myriad social issues affecting the city of Antioch and its en"irons. Libanius, distressed by the growing social problems besetting his city. composed and delivered a series of Orations (26-28) against the comes Orientis. Icarius, whose alleged rampant abuses were also the subject of Libani us' discourse (Oration 50) before the emperor Theodosius 1. 20 Similar in content and structure to the refutation (CxvaoKEvti) -- the rhetorical ~ meant to overthrow, in argumentative fashion, any reasonable assertion21
-
Libanius' Oration 50 declared that the city should
pay for costs associated with disposing rubble and debris accumulated in the course of the city's building projects. It seems that Icarius. the comes Orientis. had burdened the local 20 Libanius. Libanii Opera.. R. Foerster. ed (Leipzig, 1963); Libanii 2!Ili2 ad lcarium (XXVI); Libanii oratio contra lcarium 1 (XXVII); Libanii oralio contra lcarium 11 (XXVIII), p. 4-58; Libanii oralio pro agicolis ~angariis (L). p. 471-487.
See Aphthonii Pro8Y11lnasmata. H. Rabe, ed.• in Rhelores Graeci. Vol. X (Leipzig. 1926), p. 10-13.
21
325 city's building projects. It seems that Icarius. the comes Orientis. had burdened the local peasantry with the task of removing this debris. a practice that produced unbearable hardship, including physical danger and economic loss to the peasants. True to this method of rhetorical discourse, Libanius. following his exposition (EKeeolS) of the matter. argued from the impossible (aSwaTos) proposition. namely that if the city's requisitioning of peasant labor were fair and just with respect to the disposal of rubble, then it should indeed apply equitably to every aspect of the city's building projects. 22 A discourse meant to highlight the absurdity of the administration's position, Libanius' argument from the impossible was appropriately followed by his discussion of the improper (anpem;s), in which he delineated the gross breach ofjustice that would occur if the practice continued. Arguing from the inconsistent (avaKohoVSoS). another method appropriate to the refutational discourse. Libanius declared, "I would like to ask them why they don't take male and female slaves. bedding, furniture and carriages from private houses for the service of the city. If they say that it is illegal. this is illegal too." 23 Elements of the thesis (eealS). the rhetorical
~ devoted,
in part. to the reasoned
examination of problems besetting a city. also apply to Libanius' Orations. including Oration 50. 24 The only rhetorical discourse in which the counter-thesis (cIvT16eolS) and rebuttal (hums) regularly appeared, the thesis (eeOlS) produced, in deliberative fashion, a 22 Libanius. Libanii Opera. R. Foerster. ed. (Leipzig. 1963); Libanii 2mli21l!Q agricolis ~ angariis (L) 3. p. 472. lines 7-18.
23 Libanius. Libanii Opera. R. Foerster, ed. (Leipzig. 1963); Libanii oralio pro agricolis de angariis (L), 7. p. 474. lines 1-14; TiSec.lS S' QV aVTovs EpOt~nv. SUI Tt ~n KalolKeTaS KaL eepanalvas Kal OTpt:J~aTa Kal OKeUn Kal a~a;as ayouolv EK Tt:lv olKlt:lv e:TTl TTiv Tils TTOhec.lS xpe(av. el yap (hl oUte e;eOTl q)1;OOvalv. ouSe TaOTa l;eOTl. Ibid .• lines 2-6. Selected Orations. voL Il. A. F. Norman, transL. Oration L. 7. 24
Aphthonii Progymnasmata. H. Rabe, ed., in Rhetores Graeci. Vot.
X. p. 41-46.
326 balanced consideration of any number of political concerns, including such questions as whether to marry, set sail, or fortify a city. It was, above all, the judicious and effective use of such rhetorical methods, clearly expounded in his ProGYmnasmata, that permeated the speeches of L ibanius, in which he often addressed troublesome aspects of current social policy, ostensibly speaking for the city's poor and oppressed. Intended to persuade local opinion, and even the emperor Theodosius I himself. that social reform was direly needed. Libanius' Orations were replete with rhetorical methods, including well-structured. logical argumentation, entirely absent from the stylistic treatises of Hermogenes, Demetrius, and Longinus. If the art of persuasion was paramount for the rhetoricians of style,25 then paraenesis played an equally important and definitive role for Libanius, and, by extension, for his successor Aphthonius. Not particular to rhetorical discourse, paraenesis, in fact, claims its antecedents all the wav back to classical times, where the concern for didacticism in literature was especially the province of philosophers, such as Plato, who deemed poetic fable a potentially appropriate vehicle of instruction for the young. 26 As an introduction to the more inaccessible discourse of philosophy, poetic writing was charged with expressing certain general principles for the benefit of a young audience which. indeed, implied that poetic content needed to be carefully monitored before its inclusion in the teaching curriculum. Plato, therefore, insisted that didactic myths for his ideal Republic be governed by typoi. designed to express and inculcate essential virtues
25
See Chapter 5.
26
See Plato, Republic. Plalonis Opera. L Bumet, ed., 37&1, line 7 - 37ge,Iine 2.
327 appropriate to the guardians of his utopian society. 27 Once rhetoric claimed for itself poetic
genres. such as the mythos. some of these same concerns for moral content were
extricated from the sphere of poetry and applied to rhetorical composition. Moral content predictably came to the fore in the Pr0KYIDnasmata of Libanius and Aphthonius, which elucidated, through illustrative examples, the fable or mythos (IlUSOS), a literary ~ poetic in origin, but which "ba[d] also become common in the
addresses of public speakers (yeyeVTlTal Se KaL
~)11TOPC,,:)V KOlVOS EK lTapalveoec..JS):'
Aphthonius described the structure and content proper to this poetic and rhetorical ~ namely that the promythium (lTpollV6tov) contained its moral at the beginning, and the epimythium (ElTll. nJEhov), at the end. 28 The chreia (xpeia) was another rhetorical genre that effectively bridged the gap between rhetorical persuasion and poetic instruction. Deemed "a brief bit of advice bearing appropriately on some person (Xpe(a EOTL aiTOIlVT\lloVeVlla aWTollov eUOTOXc..JS ElTt Tt iTpooc..JlTOV avacpepovoa)," the
chreia was ostensibly the rhetorical ~ appropriate to express something "useful (XpElWOT\S):'29 Unlike the stylistic treatises designed to enumerate figures. diction. and
word arrangement, Aphthonius" description of the chreia highlighted this genre's essential concern with moral content and instruction. The illustrative example selected by Aphthonius, namely a chreia based upon Isocrates' saying that "the root of learning is bitter, but its fruits are sweet," ably demonstrated the chreia's predilection for explication 27 See D. A. Russell, Criticism in Antiquity (London, 1981), p. 89. Aphthonii Progymnasmata. H. Rabe, ed., in Rhetores Graeci. Vot. X, p. 1-2~ see also Libanius, Libanii Opera. ProKYmnasmiltP R. Foerster, ed., vot. Ill, p. 24-28.
28
Aphthonii Progymnasmata. H. Rabe, ed., in Rhetores Gmeci. Vol. X, p. 3-6. D. L. Clark, transl., "Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in Translation," in Speech MonoGTaphs. XIX (November, 1952), p. 264-285, esp. p. 266. 29
328 and instruction Its defining structural characteristics included several distinct elements, including the verbal statement or saying. followed by the panegyric (EYKCol~laOTlIC6~), paraphrastic
(napa
argument from cause (ahia), argument from the
contrary (EIC TOU EvavTlov), analogy (TTapa~oAn),example(TTapaSe(y~a), testimony of ancients (~apTVpla
TTaAal~v),
and finally, a brief epilogue (ETTlA6yoS). Each one of
these structural elements served to elucidate, test, and eventually confirm the simple truth contained in Isocrates' brief saying. In the process, the ~ became, at once, a ~ important for rhetorical instruction, and a means by which moral content was imparted in the schools. Such rhetorical treatises, like those ofLibanius and Aphthonius, virtually insured that rhetoric would not become merely the province of the literary stylists, but would, at least amongst certain branches, lay claim to the moral content found in Plato's admonitions on poetic expression. Of course, competing theories of art persisted, in which, for example, the release of emotion
(n T~V TTaeTHlOTColV KOeapolS) was deemed
the object ofliterary production. 3o [t was, however, the didactic element of the mvthos that seems to have permeated the stylistic veil of rhetorical persuasion, imparting to rhetorical discourse the literary and moral content found lacking in certain branches of the discipline.
II.
Nestorius' homilies evince this entire complex interplay of rhetorical elements,
particularly evident in the Antiochene branch of rhetoric outlined above, including the penchant for well-structured argumentation rather than stylistic flourishes, the uneasy relationship between literary form and content, the insistence on paraenesis and instruction, and the unflinching devotion to serious philosophical discourse (even at the 30
Aristotelis, De AnkPoeticaLim. R. Kassel, ed., p. 10, 1449b, lines 21-28.
329 expense of clarity) as the style of argumentation deemed appropriate for public orations. [n fact, Nestorius' homiletic discourse loosely approximates the rhetorical genre, outlined in Libanius' and Aphthonius' Progyrnnasmata known as the "refutation' (avaoKEvi). Just as Libanius made ample use of the ~ in his public orations attacking the social policies of the comes Orientis. so did Nestorius adhere to its basic structural elements when he set out to refute the christological assertions of his adversaries. Aphthonius, following his predecessor Libanius, delineated the distinctive features of the refutationaI discourse, which generally included the following structural elements, namely, a statement describing the false assertion of the opposition (r; TCJV cpnoaVTCtJV
Sla~OAn);
an
exposition of the topic under examination (I; TOU rrpaYllaTOS EK6EOlS); followed by the full panoply of argumentative approaches, including the obscure (aoacpns), unconvincing ( clTn6avos), impossible (aSvvaTOS), inconsistent (avaKoAoV6os), improper (ClTTpeTTTis), and irrational (acrullcpOpoS).
Nestori us' Homily X. a refutational discourse delivered against the Cyrillian opposition, declared in its very first sentence the adversarial persons whom he intended to refute, namely those who, because of the conjunction. either killed the deity of the only begotten, or deified its humanity (npas TOUS Su:x TiJv avvacpelav it TiJv 6EOTnTa TOU 1l0VOYEVOUS VEKpoiivTas
it
arro6EoiivTaS TiJv av6pc.lrr0TnTa). 31 Consistent with
this genre of discourse, Nestorius' exposition briefly descnbed their problematic claims, for the opponents wrongly ascribed mortal characteristics to the Word of God and to God himself, in their generally misguided attempt to preserve the close relationship between
Nestori us, Sermo ~ M ~ gyi propter coniunctionem AY1. deitatem vel SQCietatem filii monificant aut humanitatem in deum transferunt (fragrnenta). (CPG 5699) F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 265-277.
3I
330 ordinary humanity and the deified Word. 32 This refutation of the Cyrillian opposition.
delivered in homiletic fo~ also included several additional elements proper to the standard refutational ~ amply demonstrated by Aphthonius' school exercise meant to refute his opponents' fallacious tales about the goddess Daphne. To illustrate the typical argument from the impossible, Aphthonius declared, "But let it be so~ let it be conceded to the poets that Daphne was born of earth and of Ladon. .. Even if you concede her birth, her childhood turns out to be impossible. "33 Meant to demonstrate t.he absurdity of the adversarial position, the argument from the impossible invariably conceded the point of controversy, only to conclude that the adversary's argument, nevertheless, could not stand. Nestorius employed a similar device when he asked, ""For if Christ himself is dead, who gives life? Who existed? Who resurrected the dead? (nam si ipse mortuus est, qui vivificat, quis subsisteret, qui mortuum suscitaret?)"34 An inflammatory assertion intended to portray the opposition in the most damaging terms, "that Christ was subject to death' was a graphic statement illustrating the impossibility of his adversary' s christological position. Even if the alleged statement of his opponents were true, even if the deity were capable of mortal suffering and death. Nestorius implied that the soteriological implications boldly defied any such christological claims. Aphthonius, in 32 Nestorius, Senno.x. F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 266, lines 4-6. mortal em enim vivificatricem deitatem appellant et in theatricas fabulas deum verbum audent deduce re, tanquam idem sit pannis involutus et mortuus. 33 Aphthonii Progymnasmata. H. Rabe, ed., in Rhetores Grneci. Vol. X, p.Aphthonius, p. 12, lines 5-8. 'AAA' liTc..l. cruy1CEXc..lpna6c..l ToTS TTOlTJTaTs yEvia6al -niv ~acpVTJv ri;s TE Kat A6:&..JvoS .... Kav yap cruyxc..lpnOc..l -niv yiVVTJOlV. it Tpocpn TTpoi;).eEvaSVvaTos- D. L. Clark, transL, ""Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in Translation:' in Speech MonO&rilphs. ~ p. 269. 34 Nestorius, Senno ~ F. Loofs, NestoriilDa" p. 267, lines 1-2.
331 his school exercises, also illustrated the argument from the inconsistent (aVaKOAOu6os), with the following question: "How did the Pythian in his pursuit of the maiden come off second best to a mortal soul?"35 The implications were clear, for if Daphne the immortal goddess were, in fact, simply a mortal, then Pythian could never have appeared second to her. Nestorius made an argument similar in structure when he asserted that the deity or spirit was composed of neither flesh nor bones, for if Thomas could recognize God the Word, or perceive him through touching, explained Nestorius, then the Lord would have said, 'touch and see, for [ am spirit and God,' when instead He said, "touch and see, for the spirit does not have flesh and bones as I have. '36 Similar to Aphthonius' illustrative example, Nestorius' argument ably demonstrated that the available facts, in this case the words of Thomas from scripture, were wholly inconsistent with the adversaries' claims. Aphthonius' argument from the irrational (acru&lcpopoS) continued to explore the immortal nature of pagan deity, for "how ... did the Pythian reconcile things which were not disposed by nature to be brought togetherT' he asked, and "How was the cause on a mortal plane but the effect on an immortal one?"37 In a similar fashion. Nestorius expounded the dual natures of Christ, whose sundry titles Lord, Christ and Son, reflected at varying times Christ's divinity, His humanity, and sometimes both combined. ·'Why. 35 Aphthonii Pro&ymnasmata H. Rabe, ed., in Rhetores Graeci. VoL X, p. 13, lines 1-2; n~s Se Sl~KCo)V Ti}v KOPllV 6 nvEhos 8vnTiis EyEVETO SaiTEpoS; D. L. Clark, transl., "Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in Translation," in Speech Mono&raphs. XIX, p. 269. 36 Nestorius, Senno ~ F. Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 268, lines 3-11. 37 Aphthonii Progymnasmata. H. Rabe, ed., in Rhetores Graeci, VoL X, p. 13, lines 1416; lTc;JS oVv cruvii'VEV 6 nVEhos. ex &In lTE
332 therefore, do you confuse those that cannot be confused (quid ergo confundis, quae sunt inconfusa)?" asked Nestorius, and ··Why do you attribute the name of God to the dead (quid dei nomen deputas morti)T'38 The distinct titles for Christ represented for Nestorius nothing less than Christ's dual nature, a scriptural mandate whic~ claimed Nestorius, virtually ensured the correctness of his christological position. Anything else, implied Nestorius, bordered on the irrational, for his adversaries' claims rendered the immortal deity subject to birth and death, a ridiculous doctrine that simply evinced the confused nature of their ·silly imagination. '39 While the structure of Nestorius ' refutational discourse bore some resemblance to the Progymnasmata of Aphthonius, Nestorius' homilies were, of course, more varied and complex than the simple school exercises illustrated in Aphthonius' treatise. Unlike his adversary Cyril, however, Nestorius' homilies contained little of the finer points of rhetorical style, such as figures, diction, and word arrangement, elements which in Cyril's homiletic discourse conspired to produce a rhetorical display that was nothing shon of devastating for his unwitting opponent. Though only fragments of the Greek manuscripts survive from the writings ofNestorius, preserved mostly in Latin translation, the few remaining paragraphs of Greek text unfailingly indicate that Nestorius was no literary stylist. In the first lines of his Homily Ko Nestorius identified the target of his refutational discourse, namely those who inappropriately either killed the deity or deified the humanity. The surviving Greek text, however, ifcorrect, indicates that Nestorius selected a strangely sonorous arrangement of words to express the vitriolic sentiment contained in this title. In marked defiance ofHermogenes' guidelines for 38
Nestorius, Senno ~ F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 271, lines 23-24.
39
Nestorius, Senno ~ F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 272, lines 1-2.
333 vehemence, Nestorius gave balance and sonority to this opening phrase when he fonned a distinct chiasmus with its two significant clauses (KOlJlJaTa) (TIpOs TOUS SlO: T"ilv ovvclq>Elav
ft
Titv eEOT11Ta TOU \Jovoyevous VEKp0VvTaS
ft
anoeEoiivTas niv
av6pColnoT11Ta). A word arrangement more appropriate to the vehement content of
Nestorius' discourse would have surely avoided such a balanced literary device in favor of something much more abrupt and startling: ··To those who either killed the deity of the only-begotten, or - for the sake of the connection - deified the humanity," for example (n po~ TOUS
ft
-rilv 6EoT11Ta TOU lJovoyevoVs vEKpoiivTas
ft. SlO: T"ilv cruvcI
TTiv av6pColTToT1lTa ano6EoVvTas). In fact, when Nestorius, in the same homily,
implicitly compared his opponent Cyril to Arius. ApoUinarius, and Eunomius. he did not even attempt to construct a vivid image of Cyril as the next great archetypal heretic. Instead, Nestorius blandly introduced these three villainous heretics simply to raise his christological concerns over the designation Theotokos for Mary. Without any recourse to histrionic or hyperbolic display. Nestorius explained to his audience that a greater danger lurked behind that seemingly innocent expression ofMarian devotion. ·'In order to explain [that] more clearly, and to make it more understandable for all." declared Nestorius, "Arius, Eunomius. ApolIinarius. and those in agreement with them. took particular care to introduce the word Theotokos [for the Virgin Mary). .. ((va Se aUTO oaq>ECITEpoV KaL ncl:OlV EVAT\TTTOTEPOV ErnCol· TOlS 'ApeloV KaL EWOlJlOV KaL 'ATToAlvaplov KaL navTColv TOlS xopoIS TQV Tils TOlaVTnS
its recondite christological discussion. without pause. for another thirteen lines of printed
40
Nestorius, Senno ~ F. Loofs. Nesloriana., p. 273. lines 5-8. and lines 8-17.
text. 41
334 Cyril' s public discourse. by con~ preferred simple declarations. devastating
his opponent by the stark brevity and inevitable implications of his utterances: ·If Mary is not Theotokos,' explained Cyril to his quarreling monks, ·then Jesus is not God. ' Nothing could strike more directly the soteriological foundations of Christian piety than this simple phrase, which deftly encapsulated the entirety of the Trinitarian concerns debated at Nicea. In contrast. Nestorius' public literary style with its preference for long philosophical explanations, contained almost none ofthe figural devices found in Cyrir s homiletic discourse. In fact. Nestorius' homilies unwittingly evinced such an uneasy relationship between form and content. that he expressed vitriolic phrases in the most sonorous terms, while his claims of simplicity and clarity invariably introduced long, verbose discussions that must have been difficult for an audience to comprehend. 42 Nestorius was so enamored of recondite philosophical argumentation that his public sermons did little to simplify this rarefied discourse. When Nestorius received the letters of denunciation from eyril and Pope Caelestine, he preached a lengthy sermon replete with serious philosophical arguments meant to demonstrate the heretical implications of the designation Theotokos for Mary. In no sense a personal assault on his opponents, the sermon explained, in painstaking detail. that the heretics Apollinarius, Arius, and Eunomius used the term in strict affirmation of the single nature ofChrist. 43 In Loofs edition, the sentence continues on for at least 13 lines of printed text, followed by a lacuna.
41
Nestorius introduced his lengthly explication of the heretical use of the term Theotokos, with the declaration, 'iva SE aUTO oacpeCTepov Kal TTaolv eVATrrrToTEpoV Elm:,,). 42
43 Nestorius, Sermo xviii. ~ divina inhurnanatione. (CPG 5707) F. Loofs, Nestoriana.. p.
301.
335 A confusion of natures ensue
a designation which aptly described the distinction of natures in
Christ. Ever concerned with the finer points of theological discourse, Nestorius responded to his adversaries' claims with a well-reasone
8eOTOKOS·
Senno x. F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 269-271; Nestorius, Livre d'Heraclide ~ Damas. F. Nau, p. 228-229.
45
L.m Heraclidis (syriace); Le
336 confusion remained, however, as Nestorius exclaimed, "Perhaps [I am accused] because I [ ... ] have not confessed that God the Word suffered in both the natures and in ousia, [ .. . ], etc."46 Such theological distinctions were, in fact, hardly responsible for Nestorius' ultimate condemnation, which rested, it seems, upon the highly rhetorical claims of his adversaries. 47 Ever willing to engage in sincere, theological reflection, Nestorius, in his Bazaar, even attempted to respond to earlier, exaggerated claims that his writings denied the divinity of Christ. Instead of turning the charge against Cyril- i.e. that Cyril's christology rendered Christ no better than an ordinary man - a well recognized rhetorical maneuver deftly used by his adversaries, Nestorius sincerely explained that Christ. who is God by nature, contains the dual natures of humanity and divinity.48 The sincerity ofNestorius' public discourse, a stark and telling contrast to the hyperbole of his opponents', nevertheless, aptly reflected his penchant for instruction and paraenesis. '"If someone (si quis):' exclaimed Nestorius, "wished to briefly teach knowledge of piety and introduce correct reasoning of the deity of the homoousious trinity (velit compendio discere scientiam pietatis et de consubstantivae trinitatis divinitate rectam inire rationem), ... then he should urge and vehemently insist upon exactness (urgetis et circa exactionem vehementer insistitis). "49 Teaching the "knowledge (scientia) of piety" was serious business, and demanded nothing less than complete 46 Le ~ d'Heraclide ~ Qamas, F. Nau, p. 230, transL from Nestorius: The Bazaar 2f Heracleides, G. R. Driver and L. Hodgson, transl. (Oxford, 1925), p. 259. 47 See Chapter 5. 48 Le Livre d'Heraclide ~ Damas. F. Nau, p. 230-231. 49 Sermo Jcix. 1& inhumanatione.
(~ 5708)
F. Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 315, lines 5-22.
337 exactitude, which presumably excluded from its discourse the sort of hyperbolic, highly rhetorical language preferred by his adversaries. [n fact, the task of instruction or paraenesis was so compelling to Nestorius that he proceeded to explain to his audience, in Homily xix (On the Incarnation), his entire theology of the homoousious trinity, including the incarnation of the only-begotten~ and the ineffable union of the divine and human natures in the virginal womb -- a task undenaken by Nestorius even as his listeners were apparently troubled by the ongoing controversy with Cyril. Instead of vitriolic attack couched in highly rhetorical, virtuosic language, Nestorius preferred the discourse of paraenesis, as if conscientious and rigorous instruction would suffice to extricate his listening audience from the confusion besetting the churches. 50 An integral part of this paraenetic discourse was,
indee~
the marked tendency
toward intellectual rigor, exactness, and theological complexity as the style of discourse deemed appropriate even for public address. Nestorius' numerous sermons, replete with difficult theological
discussio~
therefore, do not merely testifY that Nestorius was a bad
rhetorician, whose prolix style of speech rendered him ill-equipped for public discourse. He was, to some extent, a typical pastor as well, concerned primarily with instruction, in which his studied insistence upon correct reason (ratio) and exactitude in matters of doctrine partially justified the unyielding complexity of his sermons. Time and agai~ Nestorius carefully explained to his congregation in Constantinople the theological foundations of his dual nature christology. "Among them (apud illos quidem)," declared Nestorius spoke of ""yielding to the pressure" of his audience, who imposed a "pious tyranny" on Nestorius, one that demanded him to explain the "knowledge of piety." quoniam igitur necesse est violentiae vestrae succumbere, quae piam in nobis possidet tyrannidem, iterum apud vos eadem verba repetemus. servate igitur compendio banc scientiam pietatis. Seuno m. 1& inhumanatione. F. Loofs~ Nestoriana. p. 315, line 22 - p. 316, line 4. 50
338 Nestorius of his adversaries, '"the name of Son is a naked word, that lacks something consubstantial with the Father (filii <nomen> nudum vocabulum est, non habens patri consubstantivum aliquid). But among us, in fact, the name of Son is combined with the cause of a thing or a work (apud nos vero filii appellatio cum causa vel re vel opere est) . Among them, Christ is called God and is so called among us as well. But among them Christ is called God created, but among us is called, along with Him who generated Him, uncreated (sic apud ilIos iterum omnium dominus Christus "deus' nominatur, nominatur apud nos quoque; sed apud illos <deus> creatus, apud nos vero cum eo, qui genuit, increatus.'·51 Nestorius' public response to the controversy amounted to nothing less than a full-fledged doctrinal pronouncement intended to instruct his congregation of the pernicious nature of his adversaries' christological claims. Paraenesis also came in the form of biblical exegesis, especially Nestorius' frequent refrain that biblical sources unambiguously taught that the appellation "Christ' signified both the divine and human natures -- a fact allegedly made clear when Matthew designated his gospel account detailing Christ's divinity and humanity, "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ (libcr generationis Jesu Christi), not the book of the generation of the Word of God (liber generationis dei verbi),' nor even "the book of the generation of man (liber generationis hominis). '52 In fact, the Antiochene method of biblical exegesis was inextricably linked with the larger enterprise ofparaenesis and instruction. Diodore of Tarsus, in the Prologue to his CommentaQ' on the Psalms, wrote that scripture ·"teaches what is useful, refutes what is
51 Senno xix. De inhumanatione. F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 320, lines 10-21. 52 Senno lcix. De inhumanatione. F. Loofs, NeSloriana. p. 317, line 22 - p. 318, line 6.
339
sinful, corrects shortcomings, and thus completes the perfect human being."53 If scripture helped shape the perfect huma~ then proper textual interpretation was essential to the task. Diodore's ensuing ProlQCUe proceeded to explain the proper means of interpreting the plain text of the Psalms, and the methods for deciphering their logical coherence. Both hermeneutic principles were legacies from the Antiochene school of rhetoric, with its focus on rational argumentation and internal, logical consistency within a unified text. These were the underlying assumptions that grounded Diodore's polemic against the Origenist allegorizing of the Alexandrian school, by which he purported to declare a middle ground between the unrestrained allegorical methods of Alexandrian exegesis and the so-called literalism of the Jews - a middle ground which virtually ensured that the underlying sense (AE~l~) of the text was faithfully preserved against the assaults of allegory. 54 Endemic to this approach was its high regard for the plain sense of scripture, its commitment to preserving the text's underlying unity and logical coherence, but not at the expense of occasional insights (eEc.Jpia) which extended beyond the literal meaning of the text. This thorough grounding in the plain sense of the scriptural text, essential to the Antiochene school, finds ample confirmation and illustration in Nestorius' style of public discourse, which inevitably produced internally logical arguments based on evidence 53 Diodorus Tarsensis, Commentarii in psalmos. (~3818). J. -M. Olivier, ed., Diodori Tarsensis commentarii in Psalmos. 1. Comrnentarii in Psalmos I-L, CCSG 6 (Tumhout and Leuve~ 1980), p. 3, lines 3-5. ~lSaOlCEl J.lev Ta xpnOlJ.la. EAEYXEl Ta cqlapTi)J.laTa. ETTavopeoiiTal Ta eAAEl~aTa. Kat OUTc.JS CrTTapTil;El TOV TEAElOV O:Vepc..JTTOV. 54 See generally, K. Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation in the ~ Church (Philadelphia, 1984), p. 20-22; F. Young, Biblical Exe&eSis Iml ~ Formation mChristian Culture, p. 173-175,177-180
340
adduced from the entirety of the biblical text. When Nestorius wished to explain to his audience oflisteners the christological significance of the various titles for Christ, he grounded his argument upon the coherence of the scriptural text: "If you're investigating the entire New Testament, you won't find in any place death attributed to God; but it is either assigned to Christ or Son or Lord. For whenever the words, Christ, Son and Lord, occur in scripture referring to the only begotten. they signify the two natures, and sometimes it means the deity, sometimes the humanity, and sometimes both... ss For Nestorius, the christologicai implications were clear: the confluence of biblical evidence unambiguously declared the dual natures of Christ. His public discourse was, therefore, more a matter of expounding, through proper investigation and demonstration. the inevitable conclusions of his thorough-going research into the entirety of the biblical text. IfCyril's exegetical method interpreted the sacred scripture in relation to Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection, then Nestorius' Antiochene method sought to preserve intact the entire literal sense of the scriptural text. Such contrasting henneneutic assumptions helped produce strikingly different styles of discourse. In fact, Nestorius' high regard for textual coherence and unity was a distinct feature of his pedantic style, in which homiletic discourse was deemed the proper vehicle to report the findings of his rigorous investigations into the sacred scriptures. Unlike the more effervescent style ofCyriI's public discourse, Nestorius' sermons were clearly marked by the demands of his exegetical method. so that ample confirmation and illustration from the biblical text was meant to demonstrate to his listeners the right 55 Senno X. F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 269, lines 14-20. Kat OAc;.)~. ei TTcXoav 6~ou niv Kalll1;v ~eTaAAeVel~ (Sla6nICTlV). OUK av eVpOl~ ouSa~Q~ TTapa TaVTI:l TOV 86:vaTov Tc";l 6ec;J TTpoaaTTT6~evov. all' ..; XPlOTc";l ii vic";l ..; KVplCtl. TO yap XPlOTOs Kat TO vio~ Kal TO KUplOS. ml TOU ~ovoyevo~ TTapa Tii~ ypacpii~ Aa~(3av6~evov. TQV cpUOEc..lV EOTl TQV Suo OTll.laVTlKov Kal nOTE I.lEV Snhoiiv -niv 8eoT11Ta. TToTE SE niv 6:v6pc;.)TToT11Ta. TToTE SE cll.lcpOTEpa.
341 interpretation of doctrine. These demonstrations from the biblical text rested on larger
assumptions about the nature of homiletic discourse, namely that homilies provided good occasion for exhortation and instruction in matters of dogmatic uncertainty. Nestorius. like his Antiochene counterparts. evidently believed that public homiletic discourse infused with proper exegetical method. including thorough research and investigation into the entirety of the biblical text. could readily resolve all the difficult doctrinal questions facing the churches.
Ill. Nestorius' homiletic discourse contained several literary features proper to the Antiochene school of rhetoric, features which distinguished his style of public discourse from the more highly stylized. figural displays of his adversary. The uneasy relationship between form and content, a legacy from the Antiochene rhetorical treatises ofLibanius and Aphthonius with their emphasis on structure and content, rather than style and diction, meant that Nestorius oftentimes produced sonorous, balanced phrases to express apparently vitriolic sentiments. Cyril. in contrast. made ready use of any number of figural devices in order to produce a close relationship between the form of his literary discourse and the angry sentiments he wished to display. Also a feature of the rhetorical treatises proper to Antioch was the marked tendency toward strictly logical argumentation. of the type seen. for example. in the refutational discourse outlined briefly in the Progymnasmata of Aphthonius. In fact, Nestorius loosely reproduced this form of argument when he set out to refute the Cyrillian opposition in his Homily ~ which included several elements appropriate to the ~ such as a summary statement, an exposition of the topic. and arguments from the impossible. inconsistent. and irrational. This sort of logical argumentation. set forth in some detail in the ProKYmnasmata of
342 Libanius and Aphthonius, fonned a distinct contrast with the proliferation offigural devices and detailed discussions of word arrangement. diction. and prose rhythm found, for example, in the stylistic treatises ofHennogenes and Demetrius. Nestorius' homiletic discourse also evinced a marked tendency toward paraenesis and instruction. the roots of which extended through the Antiochene school of rhetoric all the way back to Plato's literary theory. In fact. the myths and fables of Plato's ideal Republic were meant to express and inculcate certain virtues essential to the guardians of his utopian society. When rhetoric claimed for itself the panoply of poetic
~,
including the mythos, some of these same concerns for moral content were readily applied to the sphere of rhetoric. In fact. moral content came to the fore in Libanius' and Aphthonius' treatment of the fable or mythos, introducing an unambiguous didactic element to the rhetorical arts. This emphasis on moral content and didacticism in public address was extended and repeated in Nestorius' homiletic discourse, with its tendency toward detailed and pedantic explanations meant to instruct his audience oflisteners on the christological controversies besetting the churches. Intimately bound with this didacticism and logical unity endemic to the Antiochene school of rhetoric was the style of biblical exegesis developed in Antioch, by those such as Diodore of Tarsus, with his insistence on preserving the text's underlying sense and greater logical coherence. An elaboration and practical application of the theories propounded by Diodore, Nestorius' Antiochene brand of biblical exegesis expressed throughout his homilies predictably demanded rigorous investigation into the entirety of the biblical text By this method, Nestorius intended to adduce evidence against his adversaries' dogmatic position and, in the process, demonstrate to his audience the correctness of his own christological claims. The failures of this style of public discourse were best encapsulated by the incredulous
343 Nestorius himself when he made the following plaintive statement in his Bazaar, "Perhaps [I am accused] because I [ ... ] have not confessed that God the Word suffered in both the natures and in ~ [ ... ] ... "56 Such refined theological distinctions had little to do with Nestorius' ultimate condemnation and gradual descent into the quagmire of archetypal heretics. In fact, just as Cyril compared Nestorius to the archetypal heretic Arius, Cyril himself was eventually hailed as a new Athanasius, a testament to the success ofCyril's effervescent and highly figural rhetorical style, with its exaggerated verbal assaults upon his adversary. Cyril's discourse finds its ultimate confirmation in the years following Ephesus, in which Cyril' s rhetorical vision of his opponent as the villainous heretic gradually acquired widespread acceptance.
Pamas. F. Nau, p. 230, transl. from Nestorius: ~ Bazaar 2f Heracleides. G. R. Driver and L. Hodgson, transl. (Oxford, 1925), p. 259. 56 1& ~ d'Heraclide ~
344 Chapter Seven - Ephesus and its Aftermath: 431-451 AD
1.
By the council ofChalcedon in 451 the majority of bishops at Chalcedon
expressed their overwhelming support for the Tome of Leo and its two nature formula. 1 While Dioscorus, Cyril's successor in Alexandria. was condemned and deposed for his outright rejection of the Tome, Cyril's legacy was unambiguously embrac~ his doctrine held synonymous with the faith of the Popes of Rome, including Caelestine, Sixtus, and finally Leo himself2 "Leo has spoken like Cyril," claimed the bishops at
Chalcedo~
in
Epistula Leonis id Flavianum CPolitanum (Tomus) (d. 13 m. lun. a. 449) c. 3, ~ 11. 2, I, p. 24-33); ACa IV, I, p. 167-172; Versio graeca ACa 11, I, I, p. 10-20. [n addition to the documents catalogued in CPG [8945] - [9307], see also the following ancient sources on Chalcedon: Evagrius Scholastic us. Historia ecclesiastica. (CPG 7500) lib. n, 2, 4, 18; J. Bidez and L. Parmentier, eds., Eva&rius. ~ Ecclesiastical History (Londo~ 1898) (Amsterdam, 1964); Translatio gallica. A. J. Festugiere, EVa&re. Histoire ecc1esiastigue. Translation, in Byzantion 45 (1975), p. 188-471; Facundus Episcopus Hennianensis, Pro defensione trium capitulorurn. I. xii (CPL 866) lib. V, 3, 4; lib. VIII, 4; PL 67,637-651, 718-723. Liberatus, Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutvchianorum, c. 13 (CPL 865) ACa 11,5, p. 119-123. The bibliography of modem sources is extensive, and only a few will be listed here: C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church. Vot. III (Edinburgh, 1883); A. GriIlmeierand H. Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon [-Ill (Wurzburg, 1951-1954); J. MeyendorfT, "The Council of Chalcedon and its Aftermath," in Imperial Unity m4 Christian Divisions. The Church 450-680 AD (New York, 1989); R. V. Sellers, ~ COuncil gfChalcedon (Londo~ 1953); E. Schwanz, "Das Nicaenum und das Constantinopolitanum auf der Synode von Chalkedon," ZNTW 25 (1926), p. 38-88; H. Chadwick, "The Chalcedonian Definitio~" Cahiers d'orientalisme 10 (1984), p. 7-16; G. Martzelos, OriiUns ins1 Sources of the Chalcedonian Definition ofEitith (Thessaloniki, 1986). I
2 ChaIced. (451) Gesta. Actio V (d. 22 m. Oct. a. 451 ) (de fide). (~9005) ACa 11. 1,
2, p. 121-130, 124, lines 28-30, (317-326) [320]. Versio latina. ACa 11, 3, 2, p. 128-138 (387-397). See P. Galtier. "Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie et saint Loon le Grand a Chalcedoine" in A. GriIlmeier and H. Bacht, I2M KoOZil Y2Il Chalkedon I (Wurzburg, 1951 ), p. 345-387.
345 affmnation of the Tome and its two nature doctrine. "There is one single, only-begotten Son, " declared Leo, "confessed in two natures without confusion (acnryxUTCoJ~), change (aTpE1TTc.l~),
division (aSlalpETCi.)~), or separation( aXCoJp(aTCoJ~). "3 Strangely enough,
though, the formula sounded surprisingly close to the Antiochene dyophysite conception of Christ rejected so adamantly by Cyril and his fellow supporters at the council of Ephesus twenty years earlier. "There is one nature of God the Word enfleshed immutably and without confusion (""la
6eou AOYOV
OEoapKCoJ""EVTl/IlEVOV)," declared Cyril from the incipient stages of controversy until its
tentative resolution at Ephesus in 431. A profound change in the christological and contextual landscape had undoubtedly taken place from the time Cyril uttered his unwavering notion of a single nature Christ to Chalcedon's bold affirmation of Leo's Tome, along with its dual nature doctrine. The change can be only partly explained by the strictures of intellectual history, for example, that Chalcedon's dual nature formula was a measured response to Eutyches' extreme Monophysitism rather than a positive affirmation of the Antiochene, dyophysite conception of Christ. 4 An even more compelling explanation rests upon the person of Cyril, and his unmitigated success at constructing an image of himself that evoked nothing less than the entire history of orthodoxy espoused at the council of Nicea, and by its ultimate defender, Athanasius. [fLeo's ~ sounded like Cyril, as the bishops declared at Chalcedon, then that was because Cyril, during the intervening years between Ephesus 3 Read into the record, Cbalced. (451) ~. Actio V (d. 22 m. Oct. a. 451 ) (de fide) Aea 11, I, 2, p. 125, lines 17-19, lines 23-25. See Introduction. See also P. T. R. Grey, The Defense ofChalcedon in the East (451553) (Leiden, 1979), p. 12-16.
4
346 and Chalcedon, had so successfully defended t\vo simple notions - of Ephesus as an uncompromising affirmation of Nicea, and ofNestorius as the new Arius - that anything less than the claim that Leo's Tome complied with Cyril's powerful vision would have been grounds for the Tome's ultimate rejection. s In
fac~
the Tome sounded so little like the Alexandrian understanding of Christ
that Cyril's successor Dioscorus would not under any circumstances subscribe to its orthodoxy. The pro-Eutychian monks
ofEgyp~
ever faithful to Cyril's teachings,
likewise refused to embrace the~. When asked to subscribe to the definition offaith proposed at Chalcedon, the Egyptian monks represented at the council simply reiterated their unflinching devotion to the definitions of the three hundred eighteen fathers gathered at Nicea and of the fathers at Ephesus. It seems that without Cyril to interpret Chalcedon for the monastic community, they were unwilling and simply unable to assimilate this new sounding doctrine, from the monks' point of view a doctrine strikingly reminiscent of the Antiochene dualism rejected at the council ofEphesus. Failing to grasp the doctrinal significance of Leo's Tome, the monks retreated into the comfort of their familiar, monastic faith, centered wholly on a simple understanding of Nicea and its creed. Cyril had understood this fact of monasticism well, and had he lived to see Chalcedon would have probably explained and reinterpreted the dual nature formula espoused by this council for the benefit of these "simple" monks. It was Dioscorus, however, who was left to the task, and he himself failed to see any common ground between Leo's Tome and the single nature christology of his predecessor. Without Cyril to interpret On Ephesus as an interpretation of Nicea, see Chalced. (451 ) ~. Actio! (d 8 m. Oct. a. 451) (de Dioscoro) ~ 11, I, 1, p. 121, line 27 - p. 122, line 15; p. 122, line 20p. 123, line 8. For Cyril's construction ofNestorius as the new Arius, see Chapter Five. For Cyril's interpretation ofEphesus I as a confirmation of Nicea, see Chapter Four. 5
347 Chalcedon in light of Nicea and Ephesus. therefore. the monks were simply unpersuaded that the faith of Chalcedon was anything more than an unnecessary innovation to their already well-settled faith. The bishops at Chalcedon. excluding the Egyptian bishops. had apparently absorbed more of the spirit ofCyril's teachings. In a series ofanti-Nestoriai1~ proChalcedonian affirmations. the bishops
shoute~
"Mary is Mother of God (6eoTolCos)•..
. Let one add Mary Mother of God to the definition. Cast out the Nestorians! Christ is God! "6 They saw no contradiction between these simple affirmations based on Cyril's public sennons twenty years earlier and the dual nature fonnula proposed at Chalcedon. a formula vaguely reminiscent ofNestorius and the Antiochene dyophysite conception of Christ. Immediately after shouting "Christ is God," the rallying cry ofCyril's antiNestorian attack from the most incipient stages of the controversy~ the Chalcedonian bishops confirmed the deposition of Cyril's successor Dioscorus. who had stubbornly adhered to a Monophysite, single nature vision of Christ (consistent with Cyril's earliest teachings) when he so demanded the condemnation and deposition of Flavian. the bishop of Constantinople. 7 Indeed. both the anti-Chalcedonian and majority Chalcedonian bishops ardently claimed to preserve Cyril's doctrinal legacy , a paradoxical state of affairs that raises a number of questions which will be addressed throughout the present chapter. What was the emperor's role in facilitating a resolution between the disputing parties? In what sense did each party's vision of their common. orthodox past shape the contours of Chalced. (45) ) Q.wa. ~ V (d. 22 m. Oct. a. 45) ) (de fide). 2, p. 121-130, 124, lines 11-13.
6
(~
9005) ~ 11. ),
Dioscorus had stubbornly continued the cycle of competition between the sees of Alexandria and Constantinople. Only a few Coptic and Syriac fragments remain of Dioscorus' writings. See for example. ~ 5452-5461. 7
348 the present controversy and its eventual resolution? How did Cyril's doctrinal claims, asserted in the intervening years between Ephesus 431 and his death in 444, help ensure that his own legacy would ultimately prevail as the majority position at Chalcedon 451 ? Did Cyril's apparent success at creating a distinctly Egyptian form of Christianity with a strong central authority eventually conspire to produce irreconcilable problems between the Egyptians and the majority bishops at Chalcedon? Similarly, why were the Chalcedonian bishops finally more WIlling than the monks and Egyptian bishops to place Cyril and his teaching squarely in terms of Leo's Tome? Finally, the Epilogue will examine how CyriI's legacy ultimately succeeded in creating a CyrilIian party, i.e. a proCyril party that found it compelling and necessary to explain later doctrinal innovations in distinct relation to CyriL
II.
Long before the ecumenical council held at Chalcedon in 451, the proceedings at
Ephesus I left certain unresolved procedural problems that demanded immediate attention. In particular, after the final session at Ephesus in the summer of 431, the emperor Theodosius 11. in an apparent attempt to uphold the sanctity of the conciliar process. confirmed all the depositions ordered by the two opposing councils, namely the depositions of Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius. 8 The emperor's decision produced such confusion amongst the parties that it was necessary for both sides to gather at Chalcedon in 431, shortly after the so-called resolution at the council of Ephesus, in order to discuss the lingering problems of christological and conciliar interpretation left unresolved by the
8 Sacra directa mll IOhannem comitem cOncilio. (~ 8723) ~ 1, I, 3, p. 31-32.
ecumenical proceedings. 9
349 With the emperor Theodosius II presiding over discussions at
the assembly in Chalcedon, the rules of the game had changed considerably. Persuasion of the emperor now came to the fore, as both parties to the controversy equally vied for the emperor's attention, hoping to convince him toward their party's christological position. This informal gathering was, in fact, quite different from the official council a few months earlier, in which the emperor, in an attempt to abide by the accepted guidelines of church/state relations, never even attended the council proceedings. 10 Ever present at Chalcedon 431, the emperor Theodosius n appeared to control the outcome of discussions to such an extant that both panies watched his every move, eager to observe which way the imperial favor turned. In fact, when the Eastern bishops had their first audience with Theodosius 11 at Chalcedon, they were quite cenain that they had triumphed over their Cyrillian opponents, that the emperor wholeheartedly embraced their doctrinal views, that their adversaries' position exacted no persuasive power. I I The opinion of the emperor was so imponant to the contending panies. in the context of
The emperor arrived at Chalcedon on September (Gorpiaeus) 11, 431, according to the Antiochenes. There are no minutes of the proceedings at Chalcedon in 431, only accounts written later, though some fragments ofTheodoret may preserve original speeches that he presented during the course of proceedings. J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova ~ Amplissima Collectio. 31 vols. (Florence. Venice, 1759-98), t. ix, p. 292-293. See also C. 1. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church. vol. III (Edinburgh, 1883), p. 103, fn. l. 9
10
See Chapter Four.
Epistula mandatariorum Orientaliwn ad episcopos Ephesi skgentes. (CPG 6350) ACO I, I, 7, p. 77, lines 17-20. Note that the term "Eastern" (01 EIC Tiis 'AvaTOAnS) will be used throughout to describe John of Antioch and his followers. They are also sometimes called "the Antiochenes" (01 lCaTCx TIiv 'A VTloXElav aSeAcpol), and occasionally "Phoenicians" (01 KaTCx Titv OlVlICT)V). II
350 Chalcedon 431, that the Eastern bishops measured their defeat of their opponent Acacius.
for example. not by the perspicuity of their arguments. but by the startled reaction of the emperor. whose apparent disgust with Acacius' claim for a passible deity forced Theodosius to momentarily leave the proceedings and retire to the back room. purple robe in hand. 12 Theodoret bishop of Cyrrhus. however. was left with a much more negative impression of the emperor's position at this post-conciliar assembly. He too was aware. though. of the dire importance of persuasion. not as a lofty intellectual construct, but as a practical matter of rhetoric. a way of speaking to one's superior that adduced every verbal means available to effect the desired end. 13 He tried every literary form (El5oS ). including modesty (ETflEUCela). asperity (TpaxtrrnS). beseechment (TTapaKAnOlS). and invective (KaTa(3onOls). every conceivable means of verbal persuasion designed to convince the emperor and his Consistory that he attend to the corruption of the faith committed by Cyril and his followers. denounce the Twelve Chapters, and reaffirm the faith established at Nicea. 1~ Theodoret was certain. however. that none of these literary forms had persuaded his listeners. whose favor readily moved from one side of the debate 12 Epistula mandatarioruro Orientalium id episcopos Ephesi deeentes. I, I, 7, p. 77, lines 23-26.
(~6350)
&:Q
See P. Brown. Power ~ Persuasion in ~ AntiQuity: Toward i Christian Empire (Wisconsin, 1992). 13
Epistula Theodoreti IdAlexandrum Hierawlitanum. (CPG 6242) ACO I, I. 7. p. 79, lines 31-33. For a discussion ofTpa)(VT1is and eTflElKela in an ancient rhetorical handbook. see H. Rabe. ed., Henno&enis Opera. (Leipzig. 19(3); c. W. Wooten. traosl.. Hermogenes' On Types 2f S1vk (Chapel Hill. London, (987). See Cynlli explicatio m capitulorum. (~5223) Am I, I. 5. p. 15-25. Cyrilli apolQwamanathematismorum contra Theodoretum. (~5222) Am I. I. 6. p. 110-146. 14
351 to the other, like the shifting wind. Persuasion of the emperor, nevertheless, remained at the very center ofTheodoret's plan, which aimed at nothing less than to convince the emperor that Cyril and Memnon could never be restored to communion with the Antiochene bishops, unless they first denounced the allegedly heretical Twelve Chapters. IS Theodoret was faced with an even more difficult task when it came to the person of Nestorius. It seems that the emperor felt such unmitigated disgust for his former archbishop that he recoiled in horror at every mention of his name. "Let no one speak to me of him," ordered the emperor, n his affairs, once and for all, have received judgment." 16 Theodoret, wary of fighting this apparently losing battle, wrote in his letter to Alexander ofHierapolis that he had nearly lost all hope, for the judges, bribed by gold, approved only a single nature of deity and humanity. I 7 Though the emperor, by this time (late fall 431 ), seemed to favor the single nature
The Antiochene bishops received limited support from the West, notably from bishop Manin of Milan who had sent them a copy of St. Ambrose's De incarnationis dominicae sacramento (CPL 152) PL 16,817-846. Martin claimed that Ambrose's work was wholly in opposition to Cyril's heretical chapters. C. J. Hefele, A Hist0O' of the Councils (Edinburgh, 1883), p. 104. 15
16 Epistula Theodoreti ~ Alexandrum Hierapolitanum. (~6242) A.C..Q I, I, 7, p. 80, lines 9-10. The emperor Theodosius' sister Pulcheria especially hated Nestorius. since he had accused her of having an affair with her brother. For that reason, Holum asserts that Pulcheria was instrumental in influencing her brother Theodosius against Nestorius and in favor of CyriL K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses. (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. 1982 ). Indeed, before the council of Chalcedon. Pope Leo wrote to Pulcheria, thanking her for helping to eradicate the Nestorian, and then the Eutychian heresy. Epistula Leonis ~ Pulcheriam auwstum (d. 13 m. Apr. a. 451) ~ 8977) (~ 1656) (~. 79) ACa 11.4, p.37-38. On Nestorius' strained relationship with Pulcheria, see Chapter Two.
17 Epistula Theodoreti ~ Alexandrum Hierapolitanum. lines 12-14.
(~6242)
ACa I, I. 7. p. 80.
352 doctrine proposed by Cyril and his followers at the majority council, he was gradually made to respond to the demands of the opposing side. Theodoret, whose eloquent sennons apparently attracted a large crowd of followers, was building a loyal following of clerics and monks alike. In fact, he preached one sermon so compelling to his audience that, he claims, they remained listening until the seventh hour. Standing on the second floor in the court, which contained four porticoes, Theodoret addressed the huge crowd assembled below before he left for his audience with the emperor. I g Aware of Theodoret's growing influence with the crowds. Theodosius n. during the course of his conversations with Theodoret, reproached the bishop. "I know that you hold assemblies." Theodoret's response sought to evoke the emperor's respect for the boundaries between church and state, and to challenge his notion of which ecclesiastical party should be granted the right to free assembly: "Is it just that the excommunicated and heretics hold assemblies, and that we, who struggle for the faith. .. cannot enter the church?" 19 Unsure of how to respond. the emperor Theodosius asked for Theodoret's suggestion. to which he replied that the emperor should follow the actions of his comes at Ephesus. ,,,-ho had adamantly refused either party the right of assembly until both sides were reconciled 10
peace. Theodosius, ever concerned to maintain the appropriate boundaries between
imperial and ecclesiastical authority. refused to give such an order to a bishop. Theodoret's effective response simply demanded that the emperor apply this same 18 Epistula Theodoreti Id Alexandrum Hierapoljtanurn. (~6242) Am I. I. 7. p. 80. lines 14-19.
Epistula Theodoreti ~ Alexandrum Hierapolitanurn. (~6242) ACa I, I, 7, p. 80, lines 25-27. Apparently the emperor had given Theodoret the privilege of speaking frankly (TTaPPllola) throughout their conservation. lllliI., lines 24-25. 19
353 reasoning to the present affair: "Don't give an order to us either, and we win take a church and hold an assembly there, so your piety will realize that our followers are much more numerous than theirs. "20 Once the emperor approved these measures, claimed Theodoret, the crowds attended his assemblies in great numbers, eager for his teachings. While Theodoret's earlier attempts at every rhetorical form of verbal persuasion had failed to win the emperor's favor, his final appeal to the strictures of church/state relations eventually produced the desired result. The limits of imperial jurisdiction demanded that the emperor respect the autonomy of bishops, and, therefore, Theodosius 11 would not deny Theodoret and his followers the right to hold public assemblies in churches. When the numerous crowds appeared at Theodoret's assemblies, the imperial mood began to change, claimed Theodoret, even while he himself remained in physical danger - subject to the attacks of opposing monks and clerics. 21 With his christological position well represented before the crowds of supporters, however, Theodoret believed that the emperor's favor shifted perceptibly toward the Antiochene party. By this time, Theodosius 11 seemingly paid close attention to the Eastern's requests, for several times during the course of conversations at Chalcedon, he ordered the Cyrillian party either to reject the chapters ofCyril as contrary to the faith, or to affinnatively defend them as orthodox and consistent with the creed. 22 While the Cyrillian party refused to comply with the emperor's request, the Easterns were, indeed, Epistula Theodoreti id Alexandrum Hjerapolitanum. (~ 6242) A.C.Q I, I, 7. p. 80. lines 33-35. 20
Epistula Theodoreti ad Alexandrum HierapoIitanum. (CPG 6242) ACO I, I, 7, p. 80, lines 40-42.
21
Epistula mandatariorum OrientaIiwn ~ Rufum. (~6319) ~ I, 1,3, p. 40, line 38 -p.41,line3. 22
354
eager to launch their attack on Cyril's Twelve Chapters, mostly on the grounds that Cyril's unwillingness to distribute the dominical sayings between the deity and humanity of Christ constituted a dangerous revival of the Arian and Eunomian heresies. The resulting confusion of natures wrought by such a doctrine, claimed the Eastems, enabled the Arians and Eunomians to declare that the sutTering Word of God was nothing more than a creature -- composed of a substance entirely different from the Father. 23 Cyril had earlier raised such Arian accusations against Nestorius, in what must have been a defensive move to deflect the charges of Arianism stirring against him.24 Though the Eastern bishops apparently held the emperor's attention, at least during these early discussions at Chalcedon, it is most unlikely that these charges of Arianism held any real persuasive power against Cyril, whose reputation as the anti-Arian, new-Athanasius, was already well under way.25 That Theodosius
n even grasped the subtle christological distinctions involved in
the Easterns' allegations remains uncertain. Indeed, in their petition to the emperor Theodosius, the Eastern bishops made no mention of such christological niceties, and turned instead to the stark dictates of imperial theology, in which harm to the state was the ineluctable consequence of a troubled and divided church. "[The emperor] will not find a double doctrine of Christianity in Persia," claimed the Easterns, "and our [religion] will not be considered great by them if we are divided ... , nor will the prosperity of the 23
EpistuIa mandatariorum Orientaliwn 14 Rufurn. (CPG 6319) ACO I, I, 3, p. 40, lines
11-16. 24
See Chapter Five.
Epistula Caelestini Papae ~ C1erurn Populumgye Constantinopolitanum (Aug. 10, 430) (CPG [8641]) ~ I, I, I, p. 88; Epjstyla Alypii ~ Cyrillum ~., (~5779) ACO I, 1,3, p. 75. 25
355 empire be attnbuted to the prayers of two opposing parties."26 Shonlyafterreceiving
this exhortatory letter, the emperor Theodosius decreed that the ecumenical council finally be dissolved, the Eastern bishops returned to their churches, and Cyril and Memnon to their respective sees. The dissolution of the council, however, was not in any sense a condemnation (or, for that matter, an affirmation) of the Eastern bishops: "As much as we live," stated the imperial ~ "we cannot condemn the East, because we have not convicted them of refusing to enter discussions [with the opposition]."27 That unwillingness to condemn the Eastern bishops applied to the Cyrillian party as well. for the emperor Theodosius II and his entourage at Chalcedon also found nothing to blame in the Cyrillian opposition, and failed to carry
ou~
at Chalcedon 431, their impending threat
to force Cyril and his party into discussions with the Eastern bishops.28 In fact. Theodosius left for Constantinople to proceed with the ordination of Maximian under the false impression that the two opposing parties had willingly entered into an examination of their differences. 29 A consequence of his abiding respect for the boundaries of imperial authority, 26
Contestatio prima eorundem id imperatores.
(~6329)
AS:..Q I, I, 7, p. 73, lines 28-
34.
synodus dissoluitur, Cyrillo ~ Memnone restitutis. (~8760) ACO I, I, 7, p. 142, lines 28-30. Before the arrival of this decree, Cyril had been released from prison and had already begun his journey back to Alexandria. J. D. Mansi, (Florence, Venice 1759-1798), t V, p. 805. Cyril arrived in Alexandria on October 30,431. to much rejoicing. C. J. Hefele, A HistoQ' Qf~ Councils (Edinburgh. 1883), p. 110. 27 Sacra gua
Epistula mandatariorum OrientalilDD ~ episcQpos Ephesi degentes. (CPG 6351) ACO I, I, 7, p. 81, lines 10-12.
28
29 Contestatio seClPlda rnandatariorum OrientalilDD ~ imperatores. (~ 6330) ACO I,
I, 7, p. 75, lines 3-6.
356 Theodosius' failure to make a finn commitment to either side of the ecclesiastical debate produced its share of confusion during this early stage (431) of the settlement negotiations. When the Eastern bishops finally departed from
Chalcedo~
they were in no
way satisfied that the emperor had understood the import of their christological
positio~
which evoked nothing less than the stability of the empire: the Orient is not a small part of your empire, claimed the Eastern bishops, and you need the faith undivided in your present war in Africa. 30 With all parties to the dispute sent home from the discussions at Chalcedo~
the emperor, at one time favoring the Eastems, another time the Cyrillians,
failed to make any staunch commitment to resolve the lingering theological differences troubling the churches. The Eastern bishops had tried every available means of persuasio~
including the various rhetorical devices invoked by Theodoret. the public
support of the numerous crowds, and several imperial petitions informing the emperor of the potential threat to state security ifhe failed to address the divisions within the church. At this time, though, the emperor adopted a more neutral position with respect to the two contending parties, accepting only the deposition of Nestorius and the subsequent ordination of Maximian as undisputed fact. While the attempts of the Eastern bishops to persuade the emperor did not especially succeed, Acacius claimed that Cyril's extravagant gifts, found in the possessions of the Eunuch Scholasticus after his death, began to have
Contestatio tmia mandatarioruro Orienlaljum iU imperatores. 7, p. 76. lines 3-7.
30
(~6331) ~
I, I,
their desired
effect. 31
357 Whether Acacius was correct in this regard remains difficult to say.
though it seems more certain that fractious monks rioting in Constantinople exerted direct pressure on the emperor. who eventually yielded to their demands when he refused to admit the Eastern bishops into the city. and proceeded with the ordination of the new bishop of Constantinople.
Maximi~
against the express wishes of the Eastern party.32
The discussions at Chalcedo~ therefore. did little to resolve the divisiveness within the church. and neither party could expect. with assurance. Theodosius' unmitigated support. Still vying for the emperor's favor. Cyril composed a letter to the emperor. apologizing. it seems. for his precipitous actions prior to the counciJ.33 In the early stages of the controversy, Cyril had written separate treatises addressed to each member of the imperial family. in which he meticulously set forth his christological EpistuJa mandatarioruro Orientaliwn iM1 episcQpos Ephesi deeentes. (~6351) Am I, I, 7. p. 81, lines 24-26; Epistula Acacii Beroeensis ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum. (CPG 6477) ACO 1.4. p. 85. lines 28-33. It seems that the emperor had discovered after the death of the Eunuch Scholasticus a note in his possession. which stated that Scholasticus had received many pounds of silver from Cyril. Acacius claimed that the silver had been handed over to Scholasticus by Cyril's brother's son Paul, who was at that time the Comes of the Consistory (Comes Consistorianorum). In fact. Paul was the son ofCyril's sister Isidora. cr the paper which Cyril's brother Athanasius presented to the 31
councilofChalcedon. Gesta concilii Chalcedonensis Actio rH (Textus gr. et <J)a [[) (d. 13 m. Oct. a. 451) (de Dioscoro) (~9002) ACO II. 1. 2, p. 20-22. Libellus Athanasii presbyteri Alexandriae contra DiQSCorum. See P. Batiffol. 'Les presents de Saint Cyrille a la cour de Constantinople; Etudes ~ LituJ:~e ~ d'Archeolwie Chretienne (Paris. 19(9); P. Goubert. "Le role de Sainte PuJcherie et de I'eunuque Chrysaphios" in ~ Konzil von Chalkedon I (WOrzburg. 1951). p. 303-321. A. H. M. Jones. Later Roman Empire (Oxford. 1964) I. p. 346. Epistula Acacii Beroeensis id Alexandrum Hierapolitanwn. 85. line 37 - p. 86, line 5.
32
33
Cyrilli apolQgeticus id Theodosium imperatorem.
(~6477)
(~5224)
ACO I, 4, p.
Am I. I. 3, p. 75-90.
position. 34
358 Theodosius had not been impressed. however, and accused Cyril of intending
to sow discord within the royal family.35 Cyril's apologetic letter, much more deferential in tone than his earlier correspondence with the imperial court. represented the marked change in circumstance from the earliest days of controversy. After the stalemate at Ephesus, in which two opposing councils reached conflicting decisions, the emperor Theodosius had, indeed. assumed a much more active role in the affairs of the church, exemplified by his physical presence at Chalcedon 431. As a consequence, Cynl no longer subjected the emperor to exhaustive teachings on the single nature of deity, as in his earlier communications with the emperor, but approached him much more deferentially, as someone who required subtle persuasion, rather than bold. forthright exhortation.36 To that end. Cyril briefly recounted the history of the present controversy, in careful juxtaposition to the distant past, in particular, the definitive ecclesiastical controversy of the century before -- the Arian. The blessed fathers of the church, explained Cyril, successfully opposed the Arian heresy when the emperors partook of the Arian sentiments. 37 It was no accident that Cyril subtly introduced the successful battle against the Arians in his discourse with the emperor at the same time that he himself was subject to charges of Arianism by the Eastern bishops. Rather than Cyrilli 2IiU.i.2idTheodosium iDm. (~5218) AC.Q I, I, I, p. 42-72; see also Cyrilli oralio ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam agustas. (CPG 5220) ACa I, I, 5, p. 26-61; Cyrilli oratio ad Arcadiam ~ Marinam auwstas. (~ 5219) ACO I, I, 5, p. 62-118. 34
35 Sacra ad Cyrillum Alex. (~8652) ACa I, I,
1, p. 73, lines 22 - p. 74, line 5.
Cf Cyrilli oratio ~ Theodosium imp. (~ 5218) ACO I, I, I, p. 42-72, and Cyrilli apologeticus ~ Theodosium imperatorem. (~ 5224) ACa I, I, 3, p. 75-90. 36
37 Cyrilli apologeticus Id Theodosium imperatorem. 27-31.
~ 5224)
ACa I, I, 3, p. 79, lines
359 answer such accusations directly, Cyril attempted to appropriate the anti-Arian battles of the past as his own, in order to ensure that the emperor would eventually come to dismiss the charges of Arianism raised against him. Furthermore. Cyril wished to instal1 himself as the legitimate heir to Athanasius' anti-Arian legacy. In case the emperor failed to make the desired connectio~ Cyril implicitly compared his own struggles against Nestorius with Athanasius' fight against Arius. When Athanasius was battling the Arians, explained Cyril, he unjustly endured the calumnious statements of his enemies, who had maliciously claimed that Athanasius had cut otT the hand of a certain Arsenos. Though his enemies, in fact, displayed the hand of some unfortunate individual, it was not, apparently, the hand of Arsenos, who had willingly remained in hiding in order to facilitate the deception. Athanasius' innocence was later revealed when Arsenos was eventually discovered with both hands fully intact. 38 That Cyril chose to recount the incident in some detail suggests that the tel1ing of the story was no mere casual insertion, for Cyril likely intended to convince Theodosius that Cyril's present situation was not unlike that of his predecessor Athanasius. Just as Athanasius was unjustly slandered by the cohorts of Arius, so was Cyril wrongly condemned by the followers of Nestorius, whose blasphemies against Christ rivaled those of Arius.3 9 At least that was the implication ofCyril's narrative, in which he never explicitly drew the intended connection, but left the final interpretive act to the emperor himself How Theodosius received these various attempts at persuasion finds partial CyriIli 16-25.
38
apolo~ticus
i'l Theodosium jmperatorem. ~ 5224) Am I, I, 3, p. 89, lines
39 CyriIli apologeticus ~ Theodosium imperatorem. (~ 5224) Am I, I, 3, p. 81, lines 3-16. Cyril asserts that Nestorius committed grievous blasphemies against Christ in the presence of pious bishops at Ephesus.
expression in the ensuing imperial ~
360 meant to facilitate a firm resolution between the
contending parties. Eager to resolve the ongoing discord between Cyril and John of Antioc~
Theodosius declared that if John subscnbed to Nestorius' deposition and
anathematized his doctrines, then peace in the churches could be fully restored - any lingering problems to be resolved once John entered into communion with Caelestine and the other orthodox bishops.40 Theodosius' plan for peace between the dissenting parties clearly implied that Cyril's apologetic letter had produced its desired effect, for the emperor was no longer favorably inclined toward the Antiochene party - or incensed at Cyril. It was now John of Antioch who must be convinced in public and in private, claimed Theodosius. and ultimately returned to the majority orthodox position. This meant that the emperor had failed to address the pressing concerns of the Antiochene party, namely the so-called problem of Cyril's Twelve Chapters, which allegedly contained doctrine reminiscent of the Arian. Eunomian, and Apollinarian heresies. For Theodosius the solution to the ongoing discord within the church was relatively simple: command eyril and John to meet in Nicomedia and resolve their differences in private discussions. To underscore this command. Theodosius adamantly refused to meet with Cyril and John of Antioch until the quarrels ceased and an agreement was reached between the opposing parties. Concerned that he might appear to side with Cyril, the emperor Theodosius, in addition, promised John of Antioch that he would not. under any circumstances. meet with Cyril before John arrived, ever determined to appear impartial
Sacra ad Iohannem Antiochenum. (~ 8810) ACa t, I, 4, p. 4, lines 2-10. It seems that by Fall 431, Nestorius was already abandonned. especially by the emperor Theodosius II and the imperial court. 40
361 and one step removed from the negotiating process. 41 In fact. Theodosius' impaniality was wavering. for he placed much of the blame for the present ecclesiastical discord upon John of Antioch himself. informing Symeon the Stylite that peace would be restored to the churches only if John finally assented to Nestorius' deposition and assured the world that he did not subscnbe to an innovative doctrine. 42 No longer attributing the present ecclesiastical troubles to Cyril. Theodosius explained to Symeon the Stylite that it was John of Antioch who fell from accord with Cyril and the West. presumably when he subscribed to Nestorius' pernicious doctrines. It was incumbent upon Symeon. claimed Theodosius. to pray that the superfluous doctrine be removed, and that tranquility and peace be restored within the churches. 43 The prayers of the Stylite. though. were not the only means by which Theodosius planned to ensure John of Antioch's reentry into communion with Cyril and the West. He also sought the help of Acacius of Beroea, whom he urged to persuade John to turn away from contention and strife. and the "error of his human will." by rejecting the doctrine of Nestorius. 44 Of course. the issues troubling John and the rest of the Antiochene party were much more complex than merely the assent to Nestorius' deposition. By this time. though. the emperor had cast aside the contentious claims of Cyril's opposition. namely the problem ofCyril's Twelve Chapters. in order to force a resolution between Cyril and John in Nicomedia. 41 ~ &t
42
(~
8810) Am I. 1.4. p. 4, lines 16-17.
Sacra ad Symeonem Stylitam. (~ 8811 ) ACO I. I. 4, p. 5, lines 18-22.
43 Sacra ad 44
IQhannem Antiochenum.
Symeonem Stvlitam. (CPG 8811 ) ACO I. 1.4. p. 5. lines 25-28.
Sacra ad Aqcium Beroeensem. (CPG 8812) ACO 1.1. 7. p. 146. lines 10-13.
362 The Eastern bishops. however. were not so eager to acquiesce to such unilateral
demands, for they genuinely believed that Cyril's Twelve Chapters were replete with heretical assertions -- doctrinal problems that required prompt attention before ecclesiastical peace could ever be achieved within the churches. In fact, Alexander of Hierapolis complained to Acacius of Beroea that Cyri1 was, indeed, a heretic, who skillfully renewed that heresy when he anathematized Apollinarius simply for the benefit of the Antiochene party. Comparing Cyril to the Arians who insincerely anathematized Arius, Alexander of Hierapolis explained that Cyril, in spite of his protestations, was a staunch Apollinarian who wrongfully preached one nature in Christ, to which he heretically joined Christ's suffering and death. 45 To Alexander of Hierapolis, Cyril's teachings sounded all too similar to the Apollinarian discussions with Pope Damasus in Rome. When Alexander and his party had confessed two natures in Christ in order to refute the heresy of a suffering deity, the Apollinarians had immediately charged them with propounding a two sons doctrine, an accusation that Cyril and his followers had apparently leveled against the Antiochene party as well. 46 [n the meantime, though, Theodoret reported that Cyril's most recent letters from Egypt were markedly different in content from his earlier teachings. indeed, much more consistent with Theodoret's understanding of orthodox doctrine. 47 Though generally pleased with the doctrinal content ofCyril's recent letters (addressed to Acacius), Epistula Alexandri Hierapolitani ad Acacium Beroeensem. (ceQ. 6392) Am I, 4, p. 98, lines 14-20.
45
Epistula Alexandri Hierapolitani ~ Acacium Beroeensem. (CPG 6392) ~ I, 4, p. 98, lines 6-11. 46
47 Epistula Theodoreti 14 Acacium Beroeensem. (~ 6241) ~ I, 4, p. 101, lines 2429.
363 Theodoret was, it seems, plainly disturbed by their style, which he considered replete with convoluted phrases and loquacious falsities, a stylistic deviation that Theodoret was
apparently willing to overlook for the sake of ecclesiastical peace. 48 In fact, Cyril's sty Iistic niceties managed to persuade Theodoret to cast aside the more pressing concerns
that were the cause of division between the parties and exact Theodoret's assent and subscription to Nestorius' deposition. Nevertheless, this concession left Theodoret feeling somewhat guilty and uncertain, that he had perhaps wrongfully condemned Nestorius and too readily abandoned the divisive christological issues facing the churches. Adamantly faithful to Nicea and the letters of Athanasius, Theodoret remained especially unsure that Cyril's recent change in confession thoroughly conformed to the well-settled boundaries of orthodoxy previously established at Nicea. Though Cyril himself had already professed his firm adherence to the doctrines of his predecessor Athanasius, Theodoret and his followers laid equal claim to this anti-Arian legacy, as both sides of the controversy fought to secure their particular interpretation of the past. Alexander of Hierapolis was even less optimistic than Theodoret that Cyril's recent confessional changes constituted genuine adherence to established onhodox doctrine, for Alexander believed that Cyril's unwavering devotion to his Twelve Chapters, with its allegedly Apollinarian tendencies, amounted to a plain rejection ofNicea. 49 It seems that Andrew ofSamosata was particularly disturbed by Alexander's observations, for he evidently believed that the Antiochene party had made far too many concessions EpisJu1a Theodoreti id Acacium Beroeensem. (~ 6241 ) A!:Q I, 4, p. 101, lines 2932. Theodoret wrote ofCyril's loquacious style, " ... nescio cuius rei causa multis verbis usus effugit brevem pacis viam." Ibid., lines 31-32.
48
Epistula Alexandri Hierapolitani ~ Andream Samosatenurn. (~ 6349) ~ I, 4, p. 99, lines 5- I 1. 49
364 for the sake of ecclesiastical peace. 50 That fear manifested itself in a vivid dream, in which Andrew imagined that Apollinarius the heretic was still alive. When the scene suddenly shifted to the bedside of the aged Apollinarius, Andrew learned that ApoUinarius would never acquiesce to his orthodox words. Another change in scene occurred, and suddenly John of Antioch was lying in bed receiving benedictions from ApoUinarius, facilitated by Alexander ofHierapolis, who complained "l was forced because of the concessions." Distraught by the scene, Andrew repeated several times, "this concession is impious to Christ's
incarnatio~ 11
before waking up.51 For Andrew of
Samosata, it seems that Apol1inarius was very much alive, in the form ofCyril, and any concessions made for the sake of ecclesiastical peace would amount to nothing less than a wholesale revival of ApolIinarius' heretical doctrine. Theodoret, aware of Andrew's concerns, assured him that Cyril, in his letters from Egypt sent by Aristolaus, fully anathematized Arius, Eunomius, and Apollinarius, as well as those who proclaimed a confusion of natures in Christ, and even agreed to remove the requirement that the Antiochenes "indiscriminately anathematize" both Nestorius and his dogma. 52 With this alleged concession from Cyril, the stage was finally set for a reconciliation between the
Epistula Andreae Samosateni id A1exandrum Hierapolitanum. (Q!Q. 6375) M:Q I, 4, p. lOO, lines 37-40.
50
51 Epistula Andreae Samosateni id Alexandrum Hiempolitanum. (CPG 6375) ACa 1,4, p. 100,line41-p. 101, line 18.
Epistula Theodoreti ~ Andream Samosatenum. (~ 6256) Am I, 4, p. 102, lines 512. It seems that, by this point, Cyril yielded some ground to Theodoret's objection-that not all ofNestorius' doctrine should be indiscriminately rejected ("indeterminate anathematizare"). 52
365
opposing parties. 53
Ill.
Both sides of the controversy agreed that Athanasius' letter to Epictetus contained
the doctrinal assertions necessary for a proper reconciliation. 54 Indeed, John of Antioch was especially optimistic that Cyril had "graciously received" the letter to Epictetus, a letter which allegedly contained an interpretation of Nicean faith that John believed would settle the differences between the opposing parties. Though John did not enumerate the content of those differences, he made it abundantly clear that Athanasius' reputation as the orthodox father, ar exceUence. was a legacy worth fighting for, even for those beyond the borders of Egypt.55 The quintessential interpreter of Nicean orthodoxy, Athanasius was vociferously claimed, at this stage of the controversy, by both sides of the ecclesiastical debate. While modem scholars generally assert that the fifth century christological debates arose from the markedly different responses to the Arian controversy represented by the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools, the fact that both these parties claimed the very same historical legacy, at this turning point in the Nestorian
Whether Cyril, in fact, conceded anything at this point in the negotiations remains a separate issue altogether. More important for the settlement process was the simple fact, attested in Theodoret's letter to Andrew of Samosata (CPG 6256), that the Eastern party perceived that Cyril had made the necessary concessions. 53
Athanasius Alex., Epistula ~ Epictetum. (CPG 2095) eQ.26, 1049-1069; G. Ludwig, ed., Epistula ~ Epictetum (Vie~ 1911); Versio latina, In collectione Quesneliana. E. Schwartz, ed., AQlI, 5, p. 321-334. 54
Epistula Iohannis Antiocheni idCyrillum. 37. 55
(~6309)Am
I, I, 7, p. 151, lines 34-
366
controversy, suggests an entirely different process at work.56 It was not John's aim, in this first letter of reconciliation, to promote an exclusively Antiochene response to the Arian crises, but to assert the right to interpret a shared historical past, exemplified by Athanasius and his winning fight against the Arians. In this way, the formation of orthodox doctrine proceeded in a fashion similar to legal precedent, as each party laid claim to a particular interpretive strategy, intending to demonstrate through rhetorical argumentation that their christological position remained ever true to a shared, inherited past. At the same time that each side claimed the right to interpret this common orthodox legacy, they equally fought to differentiate themselves from the disparaging epithets hurled by their opponents. slanderous titles such as Jew and Pagan meant to readily dismiss the opposition simply by their utterance. In fact, John of Antioch, in his letter to Cyril, complained that some designated his party the Christians of the Jews, an injury which he compared to the calumnious charges of Apollinarius against the universal church.57 By this comparison, though, the implications were clear, that just as Apollinarius had slanderously placed the epithet "Jews" upon those who opposed his errors, so did some amongst Cyril's followers, the so-called present-day Apollinarians, wrongfully designate their Antiochene opposition. The comparison would have been disturbing to Cyril, which is one reason, perhaps, that Cyril refused to accept this first letter of John when it was delivered by Paul ofEmesa. Paul ofEmesa's arrival in Alexandria, though, marked a clear turning point in the See, for example, R. Wilken, "Tradition, Exegesis, and the Christological Controversies," Church History 34 (1965), p. 123-145. 56
57
Epistula Iohannis Antiocheni iQCyrillum.
(~6309) ~ I,
I, 7, p. 152, lines 7-11.
367 settlement discussions as he worked to facilitate a reconciliation between the disputing parties. Setting the limits of the negotiating process, Paul explained that the emperor Theodosius deemed certain matters beyond the bounds of negotiation. including the parties' assent to the deposition ofNestorius, and their firm obligation to cease the quarreling in the churches. 58 Indeed, with Nestorius' deposition and anathematization a foregone conclusion. at least as far as the emperor was concerned, Paul informed Cyril (and John of Antioch) that Maximian would be installed as bishop of Constantinople. 59 Such matters exempt from discussion, Cyril and John were left with little more to accomplish than to reconcile their doctrinal disagreements centered mainly around Cyril's controversial Twelve Chapters. In fact. Paul ofEmesa had already done much to facilitate peace between the parties when he brought with him to Alexandria the profession of faith written by John of Antioch and his followers. Written in conciliatory language meant to alleviate their quarrels, the statement contained the definitive christological phrases finally deemed essential for a proper reconciliation: "There was in effect a union of two natures (Suo yap CPUOEColV EVc.lOlS yEyOVEV)," wrote John of Antioch. "which is why we confess
58
LibelIus ~ fmili2 Emeseno Cyrillo oblatus. (~ 6368) AQl I, I, 4, p. 6, lines 16-26.
Libellus a Paulo Emeseno Cyrillo oblatus. (~ 6368) ACO I, 1,4, p. 7, lines 6-10. From the year 432, Nestorius lived in his former monastery in Antioch. In 435, Theodosius commanded that he be banished to Petra in Arabia, though he ultimately was ~NestoriQ exilium indicitur, J. exiled to Oasis in Egypt instead. Relatio Decreti D. Mansi, c. 15 (Florence, Venice, 1759-1798),1. V. p. 256; Socrates. Historia EccIesiastica, VII.34. G. C. Hansen and M. Sirinjan, eds., Sokrates Kirchen&WSChichte. GCS, N.F. 1 (Berlin. 1995), p. 383, lines 19-20. Eventually he fled from barbarian tribes to the Thebaid, where the imperial governor commanded him against his wiIl to Elephantis and then to Panopolis. C. J. Hefele, A. History 2f~ Councils 2f~ Church. Vol. III (Edinburgh. 1883), p. 153. 59
m.
one single Chri~ one single So~ one single Lord. "60
368 This affirmation of a singular Christ
was language that Cyril could live wi~ and to demonstrate his unfettered acceptance of the proposed doctrine, Cyril plainly denied any mixture or confusion of God the Word with the flesh. Cyril made undeniable concessions as well, however, especially when he embraced the dual nature language distinctive of the Antiochene school, which plainly divided the biblical sayings between the deity and humanity ofChrist. 61 A bone of contention throughout the last several years, the distnbution of dominical sayings had been at the very center ofCyril's disagreement with the Antiochene party. That Cyril conceded such a contentious point provides ample evidence ofCyril's firm commitment to render peace within the churches, though not all the doctrinal affinnations in this common statement of faith constituted such a bold concession. In particular, when Cyril professed his strict adherence to the opinions of Athanasius and to the faith ofNicea, he reintroduced longstanding convictions that had shaped the early years of his episcopacy. and the proceedings of the majority council at Ephesus 1.62 Athanasius and Nicea were the touchstones of orthodoxy according to both sides of the debate, a common perception that certainly facilitated the ensuing reconciliation. It was not only this shared legacy that facilitated settlement, or even Cyril's
doctrinal concessions, for alongside both these elements stood John of Antioch's confirmation of an ostensibly singular Christ: ..... [W]e confess one single Christ, one Epistula Cyrilli ~. &l lohannem Antiochenum. lines 14-15.
60
(~5339) ~
I. 1,4, p. 17,
Epistula Cyrilli A1ex. Ad Iobannem Antiochenum. (CPG 5339) ACa I, 1,4, p. 17, lines 17-20.
61
62
See Chapters One and Feur.
single Son, and one single Lord," wrote John to
Cyri1. 63
369 By these assurances, John meant
to demonstrate that the two nature language included in the Formula of Reunion did not in any sense constitute a revival of the heretical two Sons doctrine so abhorred by CyriI and the Alexandrian schooL With this doctrinal language firmly in place, only a few small changes to the profession of faith were needed before both sides fully embraced the peace between the churches. 64 After so many years of ecclesiastical infighting, however, this new-found reconciliation demanded assurances from both parties that an acceptable settlement had been reached before peace could be openly declared To confirm their reconciliation, therefore, the parties promptly denied that any christological differences remained between them. John of Antioch expressed the prevailing sentiment when he wrote to the emperors, "[God] has given a union in which there is no disagreement (OUK aAAos aAAo (
Tl
cppovel) on the ecclesiastical dogmas, but in which the same belief
is held on the incarnation of Christ. "65 Likewise, John similarly assured
Pope Xystus in Rome that all parties to the controversy shared a common and traditional understanding of Christ, namely that the one Christ, Son and Lord consisted of a union of two natures. 66 This ideology of sameness was a crucial component of any declaration of peace within the churches, for even the slightest divergence of opinion was tantamount to heresy, a sure sign that the very stability of the empire was injeopardy. John's 63
Epistula Iohannis Antiocheni ad CyrjlJum.
64
Epistula lohannis Antiocheni .tCyrjllum. ~ 6311) A.CQ I, I, 7, p. 155, lines 6-9.
65
Relatio Iohannis Antiocheni
~
(~ 631 0) ~
I, I, 4, p. 9, line 2.
imperatores. (ePG 6333) ACa I, I, 7, p. 157, lines 29-
31.
Epistula Iohannis Antiocheni ~ Xystum papam. (ceQ 6336) AQJ I, I, 7, p. 159, lines 6-12.
66
370 declaration to the emperors went one step funher than his assurance of present doctrinal harmony: not only did both sides of the debate adhere to one single vision ofChri~ but the present christological understanding wholly conformed to the entire body of orthodox beliefs transmitted by the fathers. Such grand claims were simply pan of the necessary arsenal of ecclesiastical language meant to assure the emperor that peace between the parties had been successfully attained. IndeecL the underlying metaphor was a compelling one, for just as a singular, orthodox doctrine implied a strong empire undividecL so did divergent beliefs presage instability and weakness, rendering the empire vulnerable to attack at its borders. With such dire threats averted, John's account to the emperor Theodosi us could finally claim peace and security for the cities, peoples and countries of the empire. 6 7
IV.
Once agreement was reached between the parties, their ideology of sameness
finnly declared, it remained for both sides to convince their followers that no undue concessions had been made for the sake of ecclesiastical peace. 68 Therefore, when John of Antioch informed the Eastern bishops that Cyril wholeheartedly embraced the terms of reconciliation, he was careful to note that the agreement was an equitable one, a genuine attempt to resolve the contentious doctrinal disputes troubling the churches. "[It was] not in shame or servility," wrote John of Antioch to the Eastern bishops, "or compelled
67
ReJatio Iohannis Antiocheni iHl imperatores. (Q!Q. 6333) ~ I, I, 7, p. 158, lines 22-
24.
eyril announced the reunion to his own congregation in a sermon dated the 28th day of Pharmut, i.e., April 23, probably in 433. Only a fragment of the sermon remains. Homilia xvi. De concordia ecclesiarum (fi"agmentum) (~526O) AC.Q I, I, 7, p. 173.
68
371
by pious thought, that we came to this blessed agreement."69 Cyril's account of the reconciliation was much more circumspect, as he complained to bishop Dynatus that some of the Eastern bishops had demanded that Cyri1 renounce all he had written against Nestorius and subscribe only to the symbol of faith defined by the fathers at Nicea. 70 Of course, Cyri1 refused to disavow his writings, and adamantly insisted that John and his bishops anathematize the doctrines ofNestorius, consider him deposed, and assent to the ordination of Maximian as the new bishop of Constantinople. 71 Though the Antiochene party accepted these terms, concessions had been made by Cyril as well, especially in the matter of the two natures of Christ, a perceptible shift in Alexandrian doctrine that required ample explanation and justification for the benefit ofCyril's clergy and monks in Egypt. Accused of Arianism and ApoIlinarianism for allegedly mingling the divine and human natures of Christ, Cyril eventually agreed to the Eastern solution, namely that
EpiSlUla Iohannis Amiocheni IQ episcQpos Orienta1es. 157, lines 16-17.
69
(~ 6346) ~
I, I, 7, p.
70 Epistula Cyrilli ad Dynatum. (CPG 5348) ACO I, I, 4, p. 31, lines 16-19; Epistula Cvril1i ad Acacium Melitenum. (~5340) AQl I, I~ 4, p. 21, lines 22-25.
71
Epistula Cyrilli
mAcacium Melitenum.
~ I~
I, 7, p. 147-150.
372 some biblical expressions be ascribed to Christ's human nature, and others to his divine.72 Adopting this Eastern position, Cyril explained to Acacius that the doctrinal difficulty first arose when the Arians mischievously ascnbed the human expressions of Jesus to Christ himself. in order to prove that Christ's nature was inferior in essence to the transcendent Father. 73 To guard against this Arian-like decei~ claimed Cyril, the Eastems insisted that the two natures be differentiated with respect to the biblical expressions of Christ. With this understanding of Eastern christology, allegedly grounded in the history of the Arian dispute, Cyril ultimately defended the dual nature language as a
poten~
anti-
Arian device. 74 At least, that was how Cyril defended its inclusion in the Fonnula of Reunion - much to the dismay of Cyril's most ardent supporters, who viewed the
72 Nestorius had explained that the New Testament never attributed death to God, but either to the Christ, or Son, or Lord. The words "Christ," "Son" and "Lord," therefore, signified the two natures, sometimes referring to the deity, sometimes to the humanity, and sometimes to both. For Nestorius, the proper exegesis of the tenn depended on a thorough examination of its scriptural context. Nestorius, Sermo & Ad eos, gyi propter coniunctionem aut deitatem vel societatem filii mortificant lY! humanitatem in deum transferunt (fragmenta). F. Loofs, Nes1oriana. p. 269, lines 14-28. In the early stages of the controversy, Cyril had quite explicitly denied the necessity of distnbuting the dominical sayings to two prosopa. hypostases, or Sons, for he believed that would improperly divide the unity of the one Son, Christ, and Lord. Cynlli apolwja contra Orientales. (CPG 5221)~I,I, 7, p. 43, lines 1-6. 73
Epistula ad Acacium Melitenum. (CPG 5340) ACa 1,1, 4, p. 29, lines 6-15.
Indee
373
language as nothing more than a restatement ofNestorius' heretical doctrine. 75 How, asked the skeptics in Egypt, could Cyril tolerate this two nature language?76 It was a question that would ultimately cause much consternation and dissent over the next twenty years, eventually culminating in the separation of the Monophysite church from the majority Chalcedonians. In the meantime, though, Cyril was charged with responding to his critics, who demanded that Cyril differentiate his own understanding of the two nature christology from Nestorius' allegedly "heretical" doctrine.71 First, Cyril explained that Nestorius' sermons constituted an elaborate pretense, for he merely feigned one Son and one Lord, but, in fact, attributed the Sonship and Lordship to the Word of God alone, and ascribed to another Lord the events of the dispensation. It was Cyrit's next task to distinguish Nestorius' faulty doctrine from the allegedly orthodox Eastern position, a difficult task which Cyril accomplished mainly by subtly distorting both Epistula CvriIIi ad Acacium Melitenum. (CPG 5340) ACO I, 1,4, p. 23, lines 15-18. Nestorius himself complained that Cyril distorted the meaning of the Easterns' distribution of dominical sayings. Nestorius, 1& ~ d'Heraclide ~ Damas, F. Nau, trans\., (Paris, 1910), p. 281[438]; The Bawr of Heracleides, transl. G. R. Driver, L. Hodgson, (Oxford, 1925), p. 3 I 8. See L. R. Wickham. Cyril of Alexandria (Oxford, 1983), p. 42-43, fn. 16. 75
mm.
Epistula Cyrilli ~ Eulogimn (~5344) M;.Q I, 1,4, p. 35, lines 4-7. See also, Isidorus Pelusiota, Epistulae (~ 5557) Epist. lib. I, 323, Cyrillo Archiepiscopo Alexandrino, PG 78.3698. Similar charges were allegedly made by Acacius of Melite ne and Valerian ofIconium, and by several persons at the imperial court. Liberatus Diaconus Carthaginensis, Breviarium guMe Nestorianorum a Eutychianorum. c. 8 (~ 865) ACO IJ, 5, p. 106-108. 76
mm.
Epistula Cyrilli Id Eulogimn (~5344) ACO I, 1,4, p. 35-37. Cyril also responded to his critics in his letters to bishop Acacius of Melitene (ep. 40, ~ 5340; ep. 68, CPG 5368; ep. 69, ~ 5369), in a letter to Valerian ofIconium (ep. 50, ~ 5350), and in two letters to bishop Successus or Succensus ofDiocaesarea in Isauna (ep. 45, CPG 5345; ep. 46, ~ 5346). 77
374 parties' positions. While Nestorius supposedly allotted some sayings to God the Word and others to a distinct, woman-born So~ Cyril claimed that the Easterns recognized only a single, identical person as the author of all the dominical expressions recorded in the bible. 78 The reality was certainly much more comple~ for Nestorius later defended his doctrinal position in the Bazaar QfHeracleides and declared that while the divinity and humanity of Christ each contained its own ~ (Ol/Ola) and nature, both elements were intimately and definitively joined together through the single prosopon (TTpOOc.JlTOV). 79 At the same time, the Eastern position was ultimately not unlike Nestorius', for they generally subscnbed to an actual and permanent distinction of natures in Christ. 80 Cyril, nevertheless, adamantly declared a stark differentiation between the two doctrinal positions. To appease his critics further, Cyril contended that the Easterns' dual nature christology was not only distinct from Nestorius' heretical doctrine, but was, in fact, entirely consistent with the teachings ofCyril's predecessor Athanasius - especially the teachings contained in his letter to Epictetus, in which Athanasius declared the body not consubstantial with the Word. Deftly extrapolating from Athanasius' doctrinal 78
Epistula Cyrilli ~ EulQ&iurn~. (~5344) Am I, 1,4, p. 36, line 16 - p. 37, line
2.
Nestorius, Liber Herac1idis (syriace). Regarding authenticity, see R. Abramowski, "Untersuchungen zur 'Tragodie' des Nestorius," Zeitschrift 1Yr KircheniCSChichte, 47 (1928), p. 118-134. See M. V. Anastos, "Nestorius was Orthodo~" DOP 16 (1962), p. 119-40~ cf R. C. Chesnut, "The Two Prosopa in Nestorius' Bazaar of Heraclides," JTS (N.S.) 29 (1978) p. 392-408,404. Though Theodoret believed that Cyril was onhodo~ he also finnly believed that Nestorius was onhodo~ and completely innocent of the charges against him. Theodoretus Episc. Cyri, &t Nestorium. (~ 6270) ACa I, 4, p. 149-150. 79
Cyril of Alexandria ~ Letters. L. R. Wickham, ed. and transl. (Oxford, 1983) p. 66, fn.6. 80
375 pronouncement, Cyril believed that this necessarily implied two mutually different natures joined together into one single, unique Son. 8 I Indeed, concessions had been made by both panies for the sake of ecclesiastical peace, and Cyril's carefully wrought defense of the dual nature language contained in the Formula was cr..:cial to secure its acceptance by the churches of Egypt. 82 Though some scholars find that Cyril's theology post 432
was entirely consistent with his earlier writings. 83 Cyil's christological position after 432 required, in any event, some explanation and interpretation in order to render it consistent with his earlier works and comprehensible to the monks and bishops of Egypt. For example, Cynl had informed the monks of Egypt in his encyclical letter of 428 AD that the Word, born of God, and the flesh born of Mary. came together in perfect and complete unity.84 Likewise, Cyril had declared to the monks that the perfect commingling of God and man ultimately enabled humanity'S complete salvation. 85 Nonetheless, Cyril's second letter to Nestorius had admittedly employed language much more amenable to the eventual resolution at Chalcedon when Cyril explained that the difference between the natures of Christ was not abolished by their union (oUx c.::,S
81
Epistula Cyrilli iI4 Eulogimn presb. (CPG 5344) ACa I, 1.4, p. 36, lines 3-12.
82 On Cyril's concessions for the sake of ecclesiastical peace see H. J. Schultz. "Gkumenische Relecture der Konziliaren Christologie," Zeitschrift fYr katholische Theologie, 120 (1998). p. 184-197. 83
See, for example. J. McGuckin, St. Q:ri! 2f Alexandria (Leiden. 1994), p. 112.
84
Epistula Cyritli Alexandrini ~ monachos. Aea I. I, I. p. 18, lines 4-16.
85 Epistula Cyritli Alexandrini
i!! monachos. ~ I.
I, I, p. 22, lines 19-22.
Tiis
376
Surprisingly, though. Cyril's festal letters composed for each of his remaining eleven years as bishop of Alexandria, contained little direct teaching on the two-nature christologicallanguage eventually included in the document of reconciliation (432 AD).87 Never mentioning Nestorius nor any of the Antiochene bishops by name, Cyril subtly alluded to the christological settlement contained in the Formula when he explained to his churches that Christ was paradoxically both God and man -- the true light, yet fully human, from the seed of Abraham. 88 Part ofCyril's Easter sermon, this teaching was meant to refute the Jews who had crucified Jesus, claiming that Jesus had blasphemously made himself God, though only a simple man. 89 Within the broader context of Christ's crucifixion, Cyril artfully demonstrated that to fully accept the paradox of Christ's humanity and divinity was to keep the Christian faith secure against the heresy of the Jews. Without mentioning the controversy or its settlement by name, Cyril implied that those who refused to embrace a Christ who was perfect God and man combined were, like the Jews who crucified Christ, blind to the paradox of Christ's true nature. Dissenters Epistula ii. Cyrilli Alex. ~ Nestorium. ACa I, I. I, p. 27, lines 2-3. See the fonnula of the council ofChalcedon: ovSa~oii Tii5 Tc":lv CPUOECtlV Slacpopas CxVTJP'lIlEvn5 SlCx Tilv EVCt.)OlV. ACa 11. I, p. 325, line 31; cited by L. R. Wickham. ~ of Alexandria Select Letters, p. 7, n. 3. Wickham states that "elsewhere [Chalcedon is] indebted mostly to the Fonnula of Reunion. Ibid., same page.
86
In the period after 433, Cyril composed several treatises that did not so much explain the Formula of Reunion as they did oppose Nestorius' teacher, Theodore ofMopsuestia, in the harshest of terms. See Qyrul JmlI1 at Christus. (~ 5228) f.Q. 75, 1253-1361; Ad Anastasium. Alexandrum. Martinianum. lobaooem, PareKOrium ~. ~ Maximum ~. ceterosgue monachos Orientales. (ep. 55) (~5355) ~ I, 1,4, p. 49-61; Three Books to the Monks, extant only in fragments. 87
88
Homilia Paschal is XXIV Cyrilli Alexandrini. ~ 77, 893A1B.
377 remained, nevertheless, who were quite unwilling to embrace the dual nature language
included in the formula. and were ready to raise the charge ofNestorianism against anyone who threatened their single-nature vision of Christ.
V.
After Cyril's death in 444, and Dioscorus' rise to the Alexandrian bishopric.
trouble erupted when vociferous pro-Cyril, anti-Nestorian parties charged several prominent bishops with Nestorianism in a formal ecclesiastical synod under the direction of bishop Dioscorus, a synod later known as the Brigandage ofEphesus, or Robber
378 Synod, aptly named for its sometimes violent suppression of so-called Nestorians. 90 Most striking throughout these proceedings was Cyril's posthumous rise to fame as the architect of the one true, orthodox faith. 91 Indeed, when inhabitants from the city of It was Pope Leo who first coined the phrase latmcinjum to describe the brutal proceedings ofEphesus 11. Epistula Leonis ~ Pulcheriam aumastam (d. 20 m. Iul. a 451). (ep. 95) (CPG [8995]) (CPL 1656) ACa IT, 4, p. 50-SI. In his letter to the emperor Theodosius 11, Leo complained that Dioscorus had prevented his letters to Flavian and to the synod from being read at Ephesus, and that his deacon Hilarus had fled from the proceedings to prevent his forced subscription. Epistula Loonis papae ~ Theodosium augustum (d. 13 m. Oct. a. 449). (~[8947]) (ep. 44) A.CQ n, 4, p. 26-27. Bishop Eusebius ofDorylaeum, in a letter addressed to the emperors and read into the record at Chalcedon, declared that Dioscorus at Ephesus 11, by money and by the brute force of his troops, enforced the heresy ofEutyches. Eusebius Dorylaeus, Epistula &I imperatores (CPG 5942) Actio 1(d. 8 m. Oct. a. 451) (de Dioscoro) Am n, I, 1, p. 66-67. The church historian Evagrius claimed. citing Eusebius Dorylaeus, that Flavian had died because of a brutal assault by Dioscorus. Evagrius Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica. (CPG 7500) (lib. 11,2) f.U86(2), 2489-2492. In fact, though, the Breviculus Historiae Eutvchianistarum contains testimony that Flavian died much later in exile. C. J. Hefele, A Historv of the Councils Vol. III (Edinburgh, 1883) p. 260, fn. 2. Important evidence for this synod's brutal character can also be found in the letters of the emperor Valentinian £II, his wife Eudoxia, and his mother Galla Placidia, addressed to Theodosius II and his sister Pulcheria. Epistula Valentiniani iii imperatoris ~ Theodosium auwstum (m. Febr. exeunte a. 450) (CPG [8957]) (ep.55) ACa I, 3, I, p. 13-14~ Epistula Eudoxiae (Liciniae) ad Theodosium auiWstum (m. Febr. exeunte a. 450) (CPG [8959]) (ep. 57) ACa 11, 3, I, p. 15~ Epistula Gall ae Placidiae ~Theodosium augustum (m. Febr. exeunte a. 450) (CPG [8958]) (ep. 56) ACa 11, 3, 1, p. 14-15; Epistula Gall ae Placidiae ~ Pulcheriam auwstam (m. Febr. exeunte a. 450)(~ [8960]) (ep. 58) ACa 11, 3, I, p. 13. Of course, the Acts ofChalcedon contain ample testimony ofDioscorus' brutality. See, for example, Actio 1 (d. 8 m. Oct. a. 451) (de Dioscoro), ~ lIT (d. 13 m. Oct. a. 451) (Textus gr. et a I1) (de Dioscoro). 90
By this time, Cyril had, in fact, acquired the status of "one of the fathers," and his letters had the authority of an interpretation ofNicea. Indeed, Flavian drew specific doctrinal inferences from Cyril's letters. See, for example, &1i2 1 (d. 8 m. Oct. a. 451) (de Dioscoro) Aca 11, I, I, p. 113, line 33 - p. 114, line 10; Versio latina, Am 11,3, I, p. 93, line 19 - p. 94, line 2. See H. J. Sieben, ~ Konzilsidee ~ Al1m Kirche. (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Zurich 1979), p. 245. 91
379 Edessa testified before the synodal assembly against their bishop Ibas of Edessa, they shouted a series of anti-Nestorian., Pro-Cyrillian acclamations: "Ibas has corrupted the faith ofEphesus; Ibas has corrupted the true faith ofCyril;" "Ibas has prevailed -- Simon has prevailed - Musarias the Magician has prevailed. Ibas has depraved the writings of Cyril the orthodox."92 Deemed the new Simonians, the Nestorian "party" was given this disparaging epithet by the emperor Theodosius II - just as the sobriquet Porphyrian was previously reserved for Arian heretics by the emperor Constantine.93 Such inflammatory language was, of course, far removed from the reality of Ibas' doctrinal confessions. In a letter addressed to Maris the Persian. Ibas carefully recounted the history of Cyril's conflict with Nestorius, explaining that Nestorius' refusal to name Mary the Mother of God invited the accusation that Nestorius followed the heretic Paul of Samosata (that Christ was merely a man), while Cyril's failure to distinguish the Temple from him who dwells in it produced the charge of Apollinarianism. Ibas believed that the controversy was finnly resolved. however, when Cyril and 10hn of Antioch reached an agreement of peace, "for no man ventures to affinn that there is one nature
92 Ephes. (449) ~ (~ 8938) Mli2 secunda (syriace), 1. Flemming, ed. and transL, Akten der ephesinischen Svnode. (Berlin, 1917), p. 18,27; S. G. F. Perry, ed. and transL, The Second Synod Q[Ephesus, tOBdher with certain Extracts relating to it from Syriac Manuscripts preserved in~Bri1. MY1.IDdD!m: first edited. (Dartford, 1875/81), p. 50, 51,69, 70; J. P. Martin, transl., Actes4YBriPv1aae d'Ephese. Traduits sur k~ syriague contenu dans k!M. 14530 dll~. Brit. (Amiens, 1874).
D. Mansi, t. v, p. 413. The prefects then introduced a decree to ensure obedience to this imperial command. J. D. Mansi, t. v, p. 415. See also Codex Theodosianus, Theodosiani Libri XYlggnconstitutionibus sinnondianis (Berlin, 1954), XVI.5.66 (435 Aug. 3). 93 1.
only of the divinity and humanity. "94
380 His understanding was a reasonable one, based on
a fair interpretation of the Formula ofReunio~ in which Cyril had, indeed. acquiesced to the dual nature language reminiscent of the Antiochene school, thus leaving ample opportunity for the divergent interpretations of his critics and followers alike. 95 Moreover, Cyril's successor Dioscorus was not prepared to embrace such widely divergent interpretations for the sake of ecclesiastical peace, and so condemned and deposed Ibas and several of his followers for their alleged Nestorianism. An ardent proponent ofa strict Monophysite interpretation of the Formula of Reunion, Dioscorus believed that a large number of persons in the Eastern church, i.e., under the jurisdiction of Domnus bishop of Antioch, had "drunk the poison of the impious Nestorius, which they did not hesitate to vomit by their teachings in the church. "96 Such heartfelt convictions certainly stood behind his aggressive campaign to remove from their seat any bishops whose teachings did not adhere to his staunch Alexandrian, single-nature vision. Dioscorus went too far, however, in his virulent campaign to rid the churches of any last vestiges ofNestorianism, a fact made clear at Chalcedon when the findings of Ephesus
n were largely ovenurned.
More influential than his anti-Nestorian witch hunt, though, was Dioscorus' interpretative theory of the councils. Continuing the ideology of his predecessor Cyril, J. Flemming, Alaen skr ephesinischen Synode. p. 52; S. G. F. Perry, The Second SYnod of Ephesus (Dartford, 1875181). p. 119.
94
In fact, Cyril, in his letter to bishop Valerian of Iconi~ had earlier responded to those who claimed that the Formula of Reunion was consistent with Nestorianism. M Valerian episc. Iconii. (ep. 50) (~5350) ACa I, I. 3, p. 90-101. 95
Flemming. Alaen ~ ephesinischen Synode. p. 135; S. G. F. Perry, The Second Synod pf Ephesus (Dartford, (875181). p. 329.
96 J.
Dioscorus claimed that Ephesus I was the sister and consentient council
ofNicea. 97
381 In
particular, Dioscorus believed that it was simply impossible to condemn Ephesus yet simultaneously adhere to Nicea, for he deemed the two synods one and the same, equal contenders for the glory ofChrist. 98 Just as Cyril had earlier equated Nestorius with the arch heretic Arius, Dioscorus' conciliar ideology likewise drew a ready connection: "one excommunicated Arius and the other Nestorius," wrote Dioscorus to the bishop Domnus. 99 Dioscorus' conciliar ideology was also quite familiar to the emperor Theodosius, whose edict on the council declared Nestorius the ignominious heretic who attacked the principles of faith transmitted by the fathers at Nicea. 1oo Once Cyril and his successor Dioscorus had established that Ephesus I was a simple reaffirmation of wen-settled doctrinal principles determined at Nicea, Nestorius' condemnation required little more
m
J. Flemming, Ak1en ephesinischen Synode. p. 135; S. G. F. Perry, The Second Svnod of Ephesus (Dartford, 1875/81), p. 329.
97
J. Flemming, Aben der ephesinischen Synode. p. 143; S. G. F. Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus (Dartford, 1875/81), p. 347.
98
J. Flemming, Aben der ephesinischen Synode, p. 143: S. G. F. Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus (Dartford, 1815/81), p. 348.
99
100 J. Flemming, Akten der ephesinischen Synode. p. 151; S. G. F. Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus (Dartford, 1815/81), p. 364. By this edict, Theodosius H, along with Egypt, Thrace and Palestine, firmly aligned himself with Dioscorus and Ephesus 11, while Syria, Pontus, Asia and the West generally sided with Flavian. Liberatus, Breviariwn causae Nestorianorum ~ Eutychianorum (~ 865) c. 12, ACQ 11, 5, p. 117-119. Epistula Leonis ~ Flavianwn CPolitanum (Tomus) (d. 13 m. Iun. a. 449) ACa H, 2, 1, p. 24-33~ ACa IV, I, p. 167-172~ Versio graeca~ 11, I, 1, p. 10-20. See also Theodoret's letters to Pope Leo, in which he expresses his firm support for Leo's dogmatic epistle. Y. Azema, ed., Theodoret ~~. COrrespondance ill.. Sources Cbretienne 111 (epp. 113, 116, 118) (paris, 1965).
382 than the unsubstantiated allegation that he plainly contradicted the tenets of Nicean orthodoxy. 101 The conciliar theory was not lost on the emperor Theodosius who declared that Nestorius had committed such a grievous violation of the most fundamental Christian precepts that he should be deprived not only of the company of Christians, but of the very name itself No longer deemed a Christian by the emperor, Nestorius was given the disparaging appellation, Simonian, after the heretic Simon Magus, similar to the slanderous designation Porphyrian bestowed upon the Arians by the emperor Constantine. 102 The parallel was no accident, for it constituted an integral part of the conciliar ideology asserted by Cyril from the earliest years of the Nestorian controversy, and later confirmed by Dioscorus. If Ephesus I constituted a straightforward confirmation of the doctrines established at Nicea, then Cyril was the next great champion of Nicean orthodoxy - the new Athanasius; Nestorius was the archetypal heretic Arius; and Theodosius IT, reminiscent of C onstanti ne. 103 In a culture that defined itself by its Cyril explained to Acacius of Beroea that Ephesus I confirmed the faith of Nicea. and did not, in any sense, detract from its creed Indee
J. Fiemming, Akten der ephesinischen Synode, p. 153; S. G. F. Perry, The Second Svnod of Ephesus (Dartfor
Indeed, Theodosius 11 asked Cyril to accompany his wife Eudoxia on her pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where she made ecclesiastical donations and gathered relics like a new Helene. J. McGuckin, Si. ~ Q[ Alexandria (Leiden, 1994), p. 119; See also Cyrillus Alex., Ad Lamponem presb. Alexandrinum. (ep. 70) (~5370) f.Q 77,341; E. Schwartz, Codex Vaticanus~. 1431, p. 16-17; Versiones latinae, ACa I, 4, p. 228 (e coil. C); ACa IV, I, p. 86 (e Gest. Const.). St. ~2f Alexandria Letters ll-liQ, J. L McEnemey, transL (Washington, D.C., 1987) p. 69, fn. 3. 103
relationship to the
pas~
383 such bold repetition of types helped secure the authority of any
new conciliar decisions, lending weight and legitimacy to the conciliar process. 104 In this way, Ephesus
n sought to establish itself in strict relationship to Ephesus
I and Nice~ though its overzealous approach finally resulted in strong words of condemnation by the fathers gathered at Chalcedon, and in the reinstatement of several bishops deposed at Ephesus 11. When Theodosius II declared at Ephesus
n that no one
shaH add or subtract a single word from the creed of Nicea he simply reiterated a wellestablished creedal principle according to both sides of the ecclesiastical debate. I 05 When he forbade its interpretation, however, Theodosius condemned a hermeneutic method openly practiced by Dioscorus' predecessors Athanasius and CyriL 106 Indeed, Cyril's earlier writings made clear that the entirety of holy scripture, by its manifold figures and types, signified Christ's sacred mystery, a hermeneutic assumption with marked interpretive consequences. At stake for Cyril, therefore, was not the literal rendering of scripture, but the preservation of Christ's overarching narrative - his incarnation, death and resurrection. 107 Every interpretive act, therefore, demanded strict adherence to this broader narrative, not literal compliance with the printed text, a point seemingly lost on the emperor as he denied any possibility of creedal interpretation. Theodosius' See generally, G. Florovsky, "The Authority of the Ancient Councils and the Tradition of the Fathers," in ibid., Bible, Church. Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Belmont, 1972), p. 93-103. See also Introduction. and the discussion of mimetic types. 104
Flemming, Akten skr ephesinischen Synode, p. 153; S. G. F. Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus (Dartford. 1875181), p. 369. 105 J.
106 J. Flemming, AJ... ten skr ephesinischen Synode, p. 153; S. G. F. Perry, The Second Synod ofEphesus (Dartford, 1875181), p. 369.
\07
See Chapter One.
384
implications were clear, nonetheless, that the interpretive methods ofDioscorus and Cyril faithfully upheld the tenets of Nicean orthodoxy, while Nestorius and his latter-day adherents openly trampled upon the creed. 108 IfDioscorus, and his literal understanding of the creed. won this round in the ecclesiastical debate, then the defeated so-called Nestorians returned in full force at Chalcedon, as both sides fought to assert their particular interpretation ofNicea and the past. A window into the process of doctrinal development, this interpretive struggle was a significant one in the formation of orthodox doctrine, which depended upon the distinct rhetorical ability to establish a particular doctrine within a continuous and well-established trajectory from the past. 109 Zealots from the monastic establishment found bold instigation in the priest and archimandrite Eutyches whose strict, Monophysite interpretation of CyriI's early writings viewed with grave suspicion the dual nature language promulgated in the Formula of Reunion. I 10 It seems that Eutyches had sent a letter to all the monasteries in
In other words, Theodosius wrongly equated Dioscorus' hermeneutic method with Cyril's. 108
Consider, for example, that both parties laid claim to the orthodox tradition of Athanasius and his anti-Arian legacy. 109
Thirty-five of the three hundred monks from Eutyches' monastery lent their unwavering support to his anti-Nestorian cause, accusing bishop Flavian of unjustly condemning their archimandrite for refusing to violate the tenets ofNicea - as Flavian had. J. D. Mansi, t. vi, p. 861-867. For a complete discussion of the monks' part in the controversy, see H. Bacht, "Die Rolle des Orientalischen Monchtums in den kirchenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen urn Chalkedon (431-519)," in A. GrilImeier and H. Bacht, Das Konzil Y2Il Chalkedon (Wurzburg, 1953), p. 193-314; G. Dagron, "Les Moines et la ViIle: Le Monachisme aConstantinople jusqu'au concile de Chalcedoine (451 )," in Travaux ~ Memoires. 4 (paris, 1970), p. 229-276. 110
385 Constantinople, urging the monks toward rebellion and sedition. I 1 I The purported ground for this unrest was the claim that Eutyches could find nothing in scripture to support the two nature vision of Christ. Indeed, the slightest indication that a doctrine was not thoroughly grounded in scripture was enough to incite the monks to rebellion, for monastic faith was relatively simple, a faith closely tied to the bible and to basic creedal fonnulations, particularly that ofNicea. Of course, this was not the first time that monks had encountered a troublesome doctrine decidedly un-biblical in origin. In the earliest stages of the Theotokos (eeoToKos) controversy, Cyril had responded to charges that the title Theotokos for Mary could not be found in scripture, explaining that the epithet was readily used by several orthodox fathers, including Athanasius himself. I 12 The monks of Constantinople (449) required a similar explanation to ensure a peaceful acceptance of the Chalced. (451) Gesta. Actio! (d 8 m. Oct. a. 451) (de Dioscoro). Aca n, I, 1, p. 126, lines 32-33. Eutyches was the archimandrite ofa large (300) monastery outside the walls of Constantinople. Eusebius ofDorylaeum, Libellus ~ Flavianum ~. Constantinopol is et synodum. (CPG 5941) ACa II, I, I, p. 100-10 1; Epistu1a monachorum Qui sub Eutyche, id. concilium Ephesinum secundum. (CPG 5952) ACa II, I, 1, p. 186-188. On Cyril's generally positive relationship with the monks of Constantinople, see Chapter One, and on the procession of monks during the council of Ephesus see Chapter Four. It is likely that Eutyches joined Dalmatius in this great procession in Constantinople against Nestorius. Pope Leo wrote to all the archimandrites of Constantinople, explaining that he did not believe that the archimandrites followed the heresy ofEutyches. Epistu1a Leonis ~ Faustum et Martinum presbyteros ~ reliQuos archimandritas (d. 13 m. Iun. a. 449) (ep. 32) (CPG [8926]) AeO II, 4, p. 11-l2. III
Epistula Cyrilli Alexandrini ~ Monachos. (~ 5301 ) ACO I, I, 1, p. 11, line 27 - p. 12, line 11. Cyril explained to the monks that Athanasius had used the term Theotokos in his contra Arianos when he wrote, "having taken flesh from the Virgin Mary Theotokos, He became man." Athanasius Alex., ApoloKia contra Arianos (CPG 2123) 3.29, H. G. Opitz, ed., Athanasius Werke n, I (Berlin, 1935-1941), p. 87-168. See also Homilia Paschal is Cyrilli A1g. XYIL f.Q 77, 767-790. 112
386 Formula of Reunion, but instead received the seditious urgings of their archimandrite Eutyches, who, like Dioscorus and the emperor Theodosius himself. refused to accept anything but the most literal interpretation of the creed. When the priest Mamas explained that the orthodox fathers' interpretation and explication of scripture was entirely consistent with the dual nature doctrine. Eutyches, nevertheless, stubbornly adhered to his own literal rendering. 1 13 It was a reading based exclusively on Cynl's earlier writings, a reading which failed
to conform to the more recent letters of Cyril that plainly subscribed to the dual natures of Christ after the incarnation, a reading which denied Cyril's broader interpretive principles. 114 In fact, Eutyches' literalism supported the claim that Cyril and Athanasius Chalced. (451) ~. Actio! (d. 8 m. Oct. a. 451 ) (de Dioscoro). ACO n, I, 1, p. 135, line 29 - p. 136, line 16. Pope Leo declared in a letter dated June 13,449, that Eutyches' heresy had been unambiguously revealed in the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople. Epistula Learns papae ~ Theodosium au&Ustum (d. 13 m. Iun. a. 449). (ep. 29) (CPG [8923]) ACO II, 4, p. 9-10; Versio graeca, ACO n. I. 1. p. 45. Leo also wrote to the empress Pulcheria, explaining that Eutyches had, in his anti-Nestorian zeal, fallen prey to the opposite extreme -- the Monophysite heresy. The Pope. therefore, asked Pulcheria to help abolish this heresy, and urge Eutyches to correct his doctrinal errors. Epistula Leonis ~ Pulcheriam au&Ustam (d. 13 m. Iun. a. 449). (ep. 30) (CPG [8924]) ACO 11, 4, p. 10-11. Versio graeca, ACO n, I. 1, p. 45-47. Basic bibliography, E. Schwartz, Oer ProzeB ~ Eutyches, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munchen, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Abt. 5 (Munich, 1929); G. May, "Das Lehrverfahren gegen Eutyches in November des Jahres 448." Annuarium Historiae Conciliorurn 21 (1989), p. 1-61; T. Camelot, "De Nestorius a Eutyches: l'opposition de deux christologies" in Qn KoOZil von Chalkedon I. (Wurzburg, 195 I), p. 2 I 3-242; H. Chadwick, "The Exile and Death ofFlavian of Constantinople," ITS 6 (1955), p. 17-34; J. P. Martin, 1& pseudo-synod ~ ~ (paris, 1875); E. Honigmann, "The Original Lists of the Members of the Council of Nicaea, the Robber-Synod, and the Council ofChalcedon," Byzantion 16 (1944). p. 22-80; T. E. Gregory. "The Latrocinium: Constantinople and Ephesus." in Vox Populi. p. 129-161. 113
Chalced. (45 I) Gesta. ~ ! (d. 8 m. Oct. a. 451) (de Dioscoro). 139. lines 13-25. p. 143. lines 10-11.
114
~
n, I, 1, p.
387 had both readily declared "of two natures" before the union~ but only one nature after the union and incarnation. I IS The ensuing confusion wrought by such conflicting statements demanded the attentions of an able interpreter well-equipped to explain and consolidate the twists and turns of developing doctrine in a manner consistent with the past. 116 Though the task was left to Dioscorus, he was quite unwilling to continue Cyril's interpretive methods, preferring rather to adhere to a strictly single nature vision of Christ, consistent with Cyril's early works. I 17 This marked interpretive conservatism left a wide chasm between the sorts of henneneutic methods needed to accept and integrate the doctrines promulgated in Leo's ~ and the starkly literal interpretive style preferred by Eutyches and Dioscorus, and eventually transmitted to the monasteries of
Chalced. (451) ~. ~! (d. 8 m. Oct. a. 451 ) (de Dioscoro). A£Q 11, I, I, p. 144, lines 14-15. Eutyches was so adamant in his anti-Nestorian zeal that he wrote to Pope Leo that Nestorians were still in abundant existence. Eutyches Arch. const., Libellus appellation is ~ Leonem pa,pam. (CPG 5948) ACa 11, 2, I, p. 33-34. Pope Leo was cautious in his response, however, and said that more infonnation was needed. Epistula Leonis papae ad Eutychem. (ep. 20) (CPG [5953]) Aea II, 4, p. 3~ Versio graeca,ACa 11, I, 2, p. 45. Leo eventually responded that Eutyches' allegations of rampant Nestorianism were unfounded. Epistula Leonis ad Iulianum~. Coi (d. 13 m. lun. a. 449) (ep. 35) (~[8929]) A.CQ n, 4, p. 6-8; Versio graeca, ACa 11, I, I, p. 4042. 115
Aetius archdeacon of Constantinople testified that Cyril and Leo, when the present controversy erupted, interpreted (ep'-'llvruElV) the creeds ofNicea and Ephesus, but did not extend (Etc:Tlell,-,l) the creeds. Chalced (451) ~. ~ IV (d 17 m. Oct. a. 451) (de fide) (CPG 9001) ~ n, I, 2" p. 119, lines 1-7. It was partly Cyril's rhetorical skill that allowed him to make interpretive pronouncements that did not sound like improper innovations to the creed. 116
117
For a discussion of Cyril's hermeneutic, see Chapter One.
388 Egypt and to the environs of Constantinople. I 18 This meant that strong sentiments abounded throughout the monasteries, the monks eager to preserve their basic understanding of Cyril. Though Dioscorus and Eutyches, along with their strictly literal interpretation ofCyril's earlier writings, were finally condemned by the council ofChalcedon, the Chalcedonian majority was not, in any sense, opposed to the teachings of Cyril. The bishops of the council were, in fact, wholeheartedly pro-Cyril, a sentiment expressed many times throughout the sessions as the bishops erupted into joyous affirmations of Cyril's orthodoxy. After a reading of the Nicean creed, the bishops exclaimed, "Leo believes thus.... As Cyril believed, so we believe. Eternal memory to Cyril. As the letters ofCyril contain, so we think.... The archbishop Leo thinks so, believes so, has written so. "I 19 There was no doubt by the bishops present at Chalcedon that Cyril's teachings were the highest expression ofNicean orthodoxy, entirely consistent with the teachings of the greatest orthodox fathers, including Athanasius, Caelestine, Hillary, Basil, Gregory, and finally Pope Leo the Great. 120 Indeed, the affirmation that Cyril unambiguously confirmed the teachings of Leo was simply another indication that the Chalcedonian bishops were wholeheartedly Sieben asserts, "[I]nsofem si ch Eutyches nicht auf diese 'erweiterte' fides Nicaena, sondern bloB auf die ursprungliche Formulierung beruft, stiitzt er sich auf ein haretisches Glaubensbekenntnis!" H. J. Sieben, Konzilsidee ~Allim Kirche (paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Zurich., 1979), p. 252. 118
Chalced. (451) ~ Actio II (Textus gr. et <J)a [I1) (d. 10 m. Oct.a. 451 ) (de fide). (CPG 9001) ACa 11, I, 2, p. 81, lines 9-13. I 19
120 Gesta concilii Chalcedonensis. Actio n (Textus gr. et <J)a Ill) (d 10 m. Oct. a. 451 ) (de fide). (CPG 9001) ACQ n, 1,2, p. 79, lines 3-7. For the Chalcedonian bishops' understanding of the relationship between the doctrinal formula established at Chalcedon and the Nicean creed, see the Codex Encyclius (458), ~ n, 5, p. 9-98.
389 eager to express their pro-Cynllian sentiments - even at the expense of doctrinal clarity and consistency. Though reminiscent of the Formula ofReunio~ Pope Leo's two in one fonnula was not, in any sense, an unambiguous affirmation of Cyri 11 ian christology, and, therefore, demanded the interpretive skill of the now deceased Cyril to render it consistent. This was a point not lost on the Egyptian bishops present at the council, who refused to subscribe to Leo's Tome without the assent of their archbishop Dioscorus.1 21 In fact, it was Cyril's great success in creating a unified Egyptian church with a strong central authority, i.e., the archbishop, that partly contnbuted to the confusion and discord between the Egyptian contingent and the rest of the Chalcedonian bishops. 122 Fearing for their safety, the Egyptian bishops pleaded before the council that the bishops of the entire diocese of Egypt would attack them if they were to violate the wellestablished ecclesiastical law which demanded complete obedience to their archbishop. 123 The Chalcedonian response reluctantly addressed the concerns of the Egyptian bishops and permitted them to await the appointment of a new archbishop before subscribing to the Tome. But they also hastened to repeat a settled principle of conciliar theory that would, indeed, presage trouble for the Egyptians, namely that the decision of an ecumenical council was greater than the diocese of Egypt. 124 In fact, the diocese of Egypt 121
Actio IV (d. 17 m. Oct. a. 451 ) (de fide).
(~ 9003)
AQJ n, I, 2, p. 112. lines 25-
26. 122
See Chapter One.
Actio IV (d. 17 m. Oct. a. 451) (de fide). p. 113, line 5.
(~9003) ~ n,
1,2, p. 112, lines 39 -
Actio IV (d. 17 m. Oct. a. 451) (de fide).
(~9003) ~ 11,
I, 2, p. 113, lines 8-10.
123
124
390 and all that it implied exacted a strong hold on the Egyptian bishops. In a letter to the emperors read into the proceedings at Chalcedo~ several Egyptian bishops declared their unwavering devotion to the orthodox faith of Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril, their finn adherence to the Nicean creed, and their anathematization of Arius, Eunomius, Mani and Nestorius, along with those who declared that the flesh of Christ came from the sky and not from the Virgin Mary .125 Theirs was a statement of faith appropriate to the time of Cyril rather than Dioscorus. for it notably failed to anathematize Eutyches -- a fact that troubled the majority Chalcedonian bishops. Indeed, the Eutychian monks of Syria who testified at the council were just as reluctant as the bishops of Egypt to affix their signature to anything more than a simple confinnation of Nicean orthodoxy. 126 Though far from reaching a doctrinal agreement with their majority brethren. these dissenting monks and bishops of Egypt subscribed to basically the same underlying
Actio IV (d. 17 m. Oct. a. 451) (de fide). (~9003) Am H, 1,2, p. 110. line 27 - p. 111. line 12.
125
126 The
emperor Theodosius wrote to Dioscorus that he had learned there were many Eastern archimandrites who were opposing Nestorian bishops. Theodosius, therefore, ordered the priest and archimandrite Sarsumas of Syria to appear as representative of his anti-Nestorian followers at the council ofEphesus II. ~ Theodosii ad Dioscorum (d. 15 m. Maii a. 449) (CPG 8917) Am n, I, I, p. 71. Well-known for his Monophysite leanings, Sarsumas was one of many supporters ofEutyches from the monastic community who offered testimony at the council ~ IY (d. 17 m. Oct. a. 451) (de fide), a group which included several archimandrites. Indeed, upon Barsumas' introduction at the council, bishop Diogenes ofCyzicus exclaimed, "Barsumas killed Flavian ... He brought all Syria into confusion!" ~ IY (d. 17 m. Oct. a. 451) (de fide). Aca 11, I, 2, p. 116, lines 26-28. Of course, the Egyptian monks were just as adamantly Monophysite in their interpretation ofNicea. See, for example, the Egyptian monk Helpidius, who agreed to subscribe only to the creed of the three hundred and eighteen fathers of Nicea, and its subsequent confinnation at Ephesus. ~ IY (d. 17 m. Oct. a. 451) (de fide). ~ n, 1,2, p. 118, lines 34-35.
391 ideological convictions as the majority bishops at Chalcedon. 127 Both parties agreed that Nicea was the ideological center of their fait~ and each side fought to secure that interpretive victory. Furthermore, the majority Chalcedonians firmly asserted that the two in one formula of Leo's Tome was ever faithful to the tenets ofNicea, a declaration made most compeIlingly by the emperor Marcian himself when he named Cha1cedon a reaffirmation of Nicea In fact, it was no more than a gross display of arrogance, claimed Marcian, to present doctrinal arguments on the generation of Christ that differed in any way from the orthodox faith of the three hundred and eighteen fathers at Nicea 128 The conciliar theory espoused by the emperor simply ensure~ therefore, that Chalcedon upheld the tenets of orthodoxy already determined at Nicea. To make that parallel even more secure Marcian quite explicitly aligned himself with the emperor Constantine: just as Constantine had assisted at the council of Nicea, so did Marcian sanction the measures taken at Chalcedon, explained Marcian to the council. 129 The comparison was not lost on the majority bishops at Cha1cedon, who shouted in joyous affirmation, "To Marcian, the
127 Aetius
archdeacon of Constantinople attempted to regain control over the Eutychian monks when he explained, according to canonical law, that all clergymen and monks were obligated to accept guidance from the bishops. (Aetius read the fifth Antiochene ordinance from a collection of canons before him). Actio rv (d. 17 m. Oct. a. 451) (de fide). ACO 11, I, 2, p. 118, lines 3-15. 128
Actio VI (d. 25 m. Oct. a. 451) (disceptatio de fide). (CPG 9007) ACO
n, I, 2, p. 139,
line 34 - p. 140, line 8. See also ~ II (Textus gr. et a Ill) (d. 10 m. Det. a. 451) (de fide). ACO n, 1,2, p. 78, lines 17-34, in which the bishops exclaimed that the canon forbids any innovation to established doctrine. Actio VI (d. 25 m. Oct. a. 451) (disceptatio de fide). (CPG 9007) A£Q n, I, 2, p. 140, lines 10-13. 129
392
new Constantine. PuIcheria.. the new Helene. "130 While Theodosius IT had made overtures in that direction, it was finally Marcian who boldly completed the metaphor and, in the process, ensured that the majority Chalcedonian bishops, not the dissenting Egyptians, acquired interpretive authority over the Nicean creed. In this way, the Chalcedonians claimed Cyril as well, for the conciliar ideology expressed at Chalcedon
•
implicitly confirmed that Cyril was, indeed, the new Athanasius, who successfully protected Nicean orthodoxy from the assaults ofNestorius. the new Arius.131 Though reminiscent of Antiochene dualism, the resulting doctrine was, in fact, an unrefined mixture meant to simultaneously refute the single nature doctrine ofEutyches, express unmitigated pro-Cyrillian sentiments. and affirm the ~ of Leo. Cyril's posthumous rhetorical victory was, finally, complete and from the time of Chalcedon a Cyrillian party emerged that felt ever compelled to explain any doctrinal innovations in a manner wholly consistent with their vision of Cyril. 132
Actio VI (d. 25 m. Oct. a. 451) (disceptatio de fide). lines 25-26. 130
(~9007) A.CQ
11, 1,2, p. 155,
131 This typology was compelling in the post-Chalcedonian period as well. For example, the Latin Chalcedonian Vigilius made the connection between Athanasius' fight against Arians and the anti-Nestorian controversy when he composed a work entitled Dialom contra Arianos. in imitation of Athanasius' contra Arianos (~ 2123). Aimed against the Monophysites, Vigilius explained, through the imagined dialogues of Athanasius against the heretics, that it was possible for the Church to make innovations in the formal creed (such as the addition of the non-scriptural term homoousios to the Nicean creed) without producing actual innovations in belief. Vigilius Episcopus Thapsensis, Contra Arianos, Sabellianos, Photinianos diatQWS. (~ 807) f.L. 62, t 92B/C, 194ND; M. Schanz, C. Hosius, and G. Kriiger, Gescbicbte skr rOmischen Literatur (Munich, 1920) iv, 2,569. See H. J. Sieben, Konzilsidee dg:Allm Kirche. p. 266-267. 132 For an elaboration of this point, see the Epilogue.
393 Epilogue
When Cyril appropriated Athanasius' anti-Arian discourse in the early years of his episcopacy, he could not have foreseen the protracted dispute with Nestorius that would ensue. Cyril's fluency in the language of anti-Arianism, nonetheless, virtually ensured his orthodox legacy inherited from the great anti-Arian church father Athanasius, and ultimately helped to secure his victory in the Nestorian affair. Though modem scholars ascribe the Nestorian controversy to the fundamentally different responses to Arianism represented by Antiochene christology, on the one hand, and Alexandrian, on the other, 1 the present study concludes that Cyril strategically appropriated the language of anti-Arianism in order to cast his opponent Nestorius into the guise of the odious archetypal heretic Arius from the century before. The most striking example of this strategic method of argumentation can be seen in Cyril's Homily IV delivered before the council of bishops during the Summer of 431 AD. When Cyril claimed, in his Homily !Y, that Nestorius' alleged villainy was similar in scope and magnitude to that of the heretic Arius, he deftly encapsulated into one swift rhetorical blow much of the anti-Arian discourse intermittently raised throughout the onset of controversy. In fact, Cyril had asserted early on that Nestorius' failure to accept the title Mother of God (Theotokos) for the Virgin Mary ominously implied that Jesus was not God -- a plain restatement of the Trinitarian concerns leveled against the Arians nearly a century before. That Cyril genuinely believed his opponent was guilty of Arianism seems unlikely, nevertheless, for Cyril freely admitted during the onset of controversy that Nestorius could never have R. Wilken, "Tradition, Exegesis, and the Christological Controversies." Church History 34 (1965), p. 123-145. 1
394 meant to subscribe to the tenets of Arianism. 2 Cyril's strategic appropriation of Athanasius' anti-Arian discourse not only managed to reduce his opponent Nestorius to the archetypal heretic Arius, but helped to ensure that Cyril and his partisans controlled the proceedings at Ephesus as well. When the majority bishops at Ephesus declared that Nestorius' doctrine violated the precepts ofNicea, it was, in part. Cyril's pr~Nicean legacy inherited from his predecessor Athanasius that secured his authority as the quintessential protector and interpreter of Nicean orthodoxy. This fact was not lost on Cyril's supporters, who eagerly embraced the image ofCyril as the new Athanasius, even while Nestorius openly accused his adversary Cyril of Arianism. 3 Cyril's appropriation of Nicean orthodoxy was so complete, in fact, that well after his victory at the council ofEphesus in 431 AD, Cyril's orthodox vision remained the touchstone of orthodoxy for both the Monophysite opponents to Chalcedonian orthodoxy and for the majority bishops at Chalcedon, along with their ne~Chalcedonian supporters throughout the next one hundred years. Cyril's theology, however, provides an inadequate and impartial explanation for his victory, for later commentators, though eager to preserve Cyril's orthodox legacy, were deeply troubled by certain doctrinal inconsistencies. In particular, the Doctrina Palrum was plainly concerned about several See for example, Cyril of Alexandria, Libri V Contra NeSlorium (CfQ. 5217) A£Q I, I, 6, p. 31; F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 245. lines 15-17; see also Marius Mercator, Senno XI CNestorii) Adversus Arianos, PL 48. 830-831. who gives a fuller rendition of the passage cited by Cyril. 2
3 Epistula Caelestini Papae idCleruro PQPulumgue Constantinopolitanum (Aug. 10,430) (CPG [8641]) ACa I. I, I, p. 88; Epistula Alypii ~ Cynllum ~. (~ 5779) ACa I, 1,3, p. 75. Nestorius had accused Cyril of Arianism before Pope Caelestine. See Nestorius, rut Caelestinum Papam L ACa I, 2. p. 13.
395 ofCyrirs more controversial doctrinal statements, especially his interchangeable use of
the terms "'nature (cpUOl~)" and "hypostasis
(lrrr6oTaol~)." and
Apollinarian phrase, "one nature of God enfleshed (Illa
his repeated use of the
oEoapKc.JIlEVTlV)" - doctrinal difficulties which had apparently caused much confusion
for later interpreters. 4 As the heir to Athanasian orthodoxy, however, Cyril had not only effectively appropriated the language ofanti-Arianism. but Athanasius' henneneutic strategy as well. Just as Athanasius urged the orthodox interpreter to consider the intent (VOUS) of the sacred texts in order to contravene the heretical interpretations of the
Arians, so did Cyril exhort the faithful interpreter to consider the entire scope of the divine mystery as the hermeneutic context proper to understanding the sacred texts. That hermeneutic legacy finds complete expression by the anonymous author(s) of the Doctrina Patrum, who urged the reader to consider the intent ofCyril's sayings (epruvov TOV vow Tc;)V AEYOIlEVc.JV) when deciphering his ambiguous use of the words '''nature''
and "hypostasis."5 More than Cyril's christological doctrine, therefore, it was Cyril's appropriation of Athanasius' interpretive principles that ensured his elevation amongst the great church fathers of Byzantine Christianity, for Athanasius' notion of the intent and scope of Christian faith provided ample room for interpretive freedom. This interpretive freedom enabled Cyril' s later commentators to consider his problematic doctrines within a wider contextual setting, a setting comprised of the very same Nicean orthodox principles that Cyril inherited from his predecessor Athanasius. Just as Cyril's appropriation of Doctrina Patruro 1& Incarnatjone Verbi. F. Diekarnp, ed (Munster, 1981), p. 141-144, 151-153.
4
5 Doctrina ~m., F. Diekamp. ed.• p. 138. lines 17-23.
396 Athanasian orthodoxy Ca feat accomplished. in part. through his ski1lful use of rhetoric) helped ensure victory over his opponent Nestorius. Athanasius' interpretive strategy rendered that victory secure. providing the neo-Chalcedonians with the possibility for reinterpreting Cyril's ambiguous and problematic doctrines. It was along similar. hermeneutic lines that the emperor Justinian defended Cyril's
difficult phrase "one nature of God enfleshed" against the interpretations of the Monophysites. Ever since Chalcedon, so-called orthodox Christians. in accordance with Pope Leo's Tome. confessed two natures of Christ after the union in order to safeguard against the dangers ofEutyches' Monophysitism. Nevertheless, Cyril's "one nature" doctrine, repeated many times before the Act of Union in 433. remained a difficult bone of contention for more than one hundred years, as Monophysite dissenters from Chalcedon wished to claim Cyril's orthodox legacy as their own. Justinian responded to these claims by explaining that the Monophysites misinterpreted Cyril's phrase "one nature of God enfleshed" when they improperly lifted the phrase from its context, "running over the expressions that came before, and cutting out those that followed (TO yap E~.LTTpoaeEv T~V TOlOVTc.JV cpc..l~v TTapaTpEx0vTES KaL Ta e
to reach their own conclusions. 6 Instead, Justinian proposed a
reinterpretation. one that purportedly examined the expression within its broader textual setting. In particular, Justinian declared that Cyril did not say "one nature of flesh and divinity" but rather "one nature of the incorporeal Word (aU' c:,S aOaPKOU TOU A6yov ~(av EiTT~V Tliv
Justinian. Contra MonQphysjtas, (Q!Q. 6878) E. Schwartz., ed., ~ do&matische Schriften Justinians (Munich, 1939) (Milan, 1973), p. 10, lines 19-20; PG 86, 1112D.
6
397 human natures. 7 Though~ perhaps, not convincing to modem sensibilities, Justinian's
argument demonstrates, nonetheless, that the neo-Chalcedonians refused to sacrifice any aspect ofCyril's writings to the Monophysites. As much as Pope Leo's Tome, Cyril had come to represent Chalcedonian orthodoxy, in spite of the many doctrinal ambiguities eagerly embraced by the Monophysite dissenters. Indeed, that paradox defines the central issue of this study, namely how did Cyril come to represent Chalcedonian orthodoxy even while his doctrine was appropriated by the Monophysite opposition? Cyril's close study of Athanasi us , anti-Arian treatises early in his episcopacy provided Cyril with the full arsenal of anti-Arian discourse successfully used by Athanasius in the years following Nicea. That same discourse Cyril artfully appropriated in his controversy with Nestorius, which helped Cyril to depict his opponent Nestorius as an odious villain similar to the archetypal heretic Arius, something Cyril was able to achieve, in part, because of his mastery of rhetorical argumentation. This does not imply, however, that Cyril wholly embraced the forms of classical rhetoric. Rather, Cyril skillful1y combined certain stylistic features proper to the handbooks oflate antiquity with the truth claims appropriate to the Christian homily, and at once produced a discourse that proved formidable to his adversary. In contrast, Nestorius' discourse eschewed the effervescent stylistic features delineated in the handbooks, and attempted to instruct his audience through logical demonstration, more akin to the Progymnasmala composed by the Antiochene rhetorician Libanius. The failure ofNestorius' rhetorical approach finds its most complete expression at the council ofChalcedon, 451 AD, when Nestorius failed to achieve the slightest hint of vindication, even though Pope Leo's Tome Contra MonQphysitas, E. Schwartz. ed. ~ dQwatische Schriften JUSlinians, p. 10, lines 24-27; PG 86, 1 I 13A.
7
398
contained language reminiscent of Nestori us , dual nature doctrine. The majority Chalcedonians were loath to admit that Nestorius' dyophysitism had any place in combating the dangers ofEutyches' extreme Monophysitism. At the same time, Cyril's doctrine was held synonymous with that of Pope Leo, in spite of only a superficial resemblance, and Cyril was ultimately declared the guardian of Nicean and Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Such complete rhetorical mastery implies that Cyril's success was not simply a political victory resulting from opportune political alliances. Nor was it a dogmatic victory, based on the clarity and propriety ofCyriI's doctrine. Instead, it was CyriI's advantageous appropriation of Athanasius'
orthodo~
anti-Arian legacy early in his
episcopacy that ultimately enabled Cyril to control the ensuing discourse against his opponent Nestorius, and to place that discourse squarely within the boundaries ofNicea. When both the Monophysites and Chalcedonians laid equal claim to Cyril, therefore, it meant that both sides of the controversy sought to place themselves within the trajectory of orthodox Christianity that reached all the way back to the first council ofNicea. Both sides of the Chalcedonian debate sought to appropriate Cyril"s anti-Arian. pro-Nicean legacy inherited from his predecessor Athanasius, a legacy that enabled Cyril to secure his own position amongst the orthodox fathers. And it was a legacy that provided Cyril with the requisite authority to construct his adversary Nestorius as the heretical villain. In that case. the formation of orthodox Christianity proceeds not according to the ineluctable. logical structures of dogmatic history, but according to a complex cultural and historical process, fueled by the competing claims of various adversaries struggling to appropriate the Christian past.
399 Select Bibliography of Secondary Sources Abd'al-Massi~ Y., ··S. Cyrille dans la Liturgie de I'Eglise Copte:' Kyrilliana (Cairo,
1947), p. 303-3 18. Abel, F.M., "Parallelisme exegetique entre S. Jerome et S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie," Vivre et Penser 1 (Paris, 1941), p. 94-119~ 212-230. -----. "'Cyrille d' Alexandrie dans ses rapports avec la Palestine," Kyrilliana (Cairo, 1947), p. 203-230. Abramowski, L., "Untersuchungen zur'Tragodie' des Nestorius," Zeitschrift fUr KirchenGSChichte 47 (1928), p. 118-134. -------. "''Oer Streit um Diodore und Theodor zwischen den beiden ephesinischen Konzilien," ZKG 67 (1955-56), p. 252-282. -------. "Zur Theologie Theodors von Mopsuestia.," ZKG 72 (1961), p. 263-293. ------ "Untersuchungen zum Liber Heraclidis des Nestorius," CSCO 242, Subsidia 22 (Louvain, 1963). Abramowski, L. and Goodman, A. E., eds., A Nestorian Collection of Christolo\Ucal Texts, (Cambridge, 1972). Abramowski, R., ""Untersuchungen zu Diodor von Tarsus," ZNW 30 (1931), p. 234-261. -------. "Der theologische NachlaB des Diodor von Tarsus," ZNW 42 (1949). p. 19-69. D"Ales, A., Le Dogme d'Ephese (Paris, 1931). -------. "Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie et les Sept a Sainte-Marie a Ephese," RSR 22 (1932), p.62-70. Alexakis, A., Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype (Washington, D.e., 1996). Amann, E., "Theodore de Mopsueste," DTC 15, p. 235-279. -------. "La doctrine christologique de Theodore de Mopsueste," Rev SR 14 (1934), p. 160-190. ------. "L 'afTaire Nestorius vue de Rome," Rev SR 23 (1949), p. 5-37,207-244; ibid. 24 ( 1950), p. 28-52, 235-265. Anastos, M.V., "Nestorius was Orthodox,''' DOP 16 (192), p. 119-140. Aubineau, M., ""Deux Homelies de S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie," AB 90 (1972), p. 100. Bacht, H., '"Die RoUe des orientalischen Monchtums in den kirchen politischen Auseinandersetzungen um Chalkedon (431-519)," in Grillmeier-Bacht
400 Bacht. H., "Die RoUe des orientalischen Monchtums in den kirchen politischen Auseinandersetzungen urn Chalkedon (431-519)," in Grillmeier-Bacht (eds), Das Konzil YQDl Chalkedon, voL 2 (Wurzburg, 1953), p. 193-314. Bagnall, R., Egypt in Late AntiQuity (Princeton, 1993). Bardy, G., "'Les debuts du Nestorianisme. 428-433," Histoire de rEglise depuis ~ ori~nes iusgu'cl ~jQm, A. Fliche and V. Martin, eds., vot. 4, (Paris, 1937), p. 163-196. -------. "'Acace de Beree et son role dans la controverse nestorienne:~ Rev SR 18( 1938), p.20-44. ------. "'Anicus de Constantinople et Cyrille d"Alexandrie," Histoire ~ I'Eglise. A. Fliche and V. Manin, eds., voL 4 (Paris, 1937), p. 149-162. Barnes, M.R. and WilIiams, D.H., Arianism After Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth CentuO' Trinitarian Conflicts (Edinbur~ 1993). Barnes, T., Athanasius ilW! Constantius (Cambridge, 1993). Bartelink, G. J. M., "Les Rapports entre le Monachisme Egyptien et l'Episcopate d'Alexandrie (jusqu' en 450)," in Melanges Mondesert (Paris, 1987), p. 365-379. Banifol, P., --Les presents de Saint CyriUe cl la Cour de Constantinople," Etudes de Litun~ie ~ d' Archaeolowe Chretienne (Paris, 1919). --------. ""Un episode du concile d'Ephese (juillet 431) d'apres les actes coptes de Bouriant." Melanges offerts cl G. SchJOmberger, vot. 1 (Paris, 1924), p. 28-39. Baynes, N. H., "Alexandria and Constantinople: A study in ecclesiastical diplomacy," Journal of Egyptian Archaeoloe;y 12 (1926), p. 145-156; reprinted in Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955), p. 97-115. Bebis, G.S., Conver~ng Trends in Nestorian Research from the Perspective of Orthodoxy (Greek Text) (Athens, 1964). --------. -The Apology ofNestorius: A New Evaluation," S1Y!I Pat 11 (1972), p. 107I 12. Bell, H. I., "Anti-semitism in Alexandria," JRS 31 (1941), p. 1-18. Berthold, G. c., ''"Cyril of Alexandria and the Filioque," Stud Pat 19,2 (Louvain, 1989), p. 143-147. Bethune-Baker, J.F., Nestorius IIlSl~TeachinK(Carnbridge, 1908).
401 Bethune-Baker, J.F., Nestonus mKl His TeachinG (Cambridge, 1908). Bishop, E., "The Diptychs," in ~ and Studies, t. 8, 1 (Cambridge, 1909). Boulnois, M.-O., Le paradoxe trinitaire ~ Cyrille d'A1exandrie (Paris, 1994). Brakke, D., Athanasius ~ Asceticism (Baltimore and London, 1995). Braaten, c.E., '"Modem Interpretations ofNestorius," Church History 32 (1963), p. 251267. Briere, M, "La legende Syriaque de Nestorius," ROC 15 (1910). Bright, W., "Saint Cynl of Alexandria," DCB voU, p. 763-773. Brown, P., Power mld PersUMion in ~ AntiQuity. Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, 1992). --------. The MakinG of Late AntiQuity (Cambridge, (978). Burghardt, W.J., The Ima&e of God in Man accordinG to Cyril of Alexandria (Washington, 1957). BUITUS, V., The MakinG ofi Heretic (Berkeley, 1995). Bynum. C. W., The Resurrection of the ~ in Western Christianitv. 200-1336 (New York, 1995). Camelot, T., hOe Nestorius a Eutyches. L' opposition de deux christologies,'~ GrillmeierBacht, Chalkedon, vol. I (Wurzburg, 1951), p. 213-242. -------. Ephese ~ Chalcedoine (Paris, 1962). Cameron, A., '"Isidore of Meletius and Hypatia, On the Editing of Mathematical Texts," GRBS 31 (1990), p. 103-127. Cameron, A. and Long, J., Barbarians mKl Politics at ~ Qwn 2f Arcadius (Berkeley, 1993). Cameron, Av., Christianity and the Rhetoric 2fEmpire. The Development of Christian Discourse (Berkeley, 1991). --------. ed, History M Text. The Writina: 2f Ancient History (Chapel Hill and London, 1989).
402 -------- ed., History ~ilx!. The Writing of Ancient History (Chapel Hill and London, 1989). Chabot, J.M., Synodicon Orientale ou receuil ~ Synodes Nestoriens (Paris, 1902). Chadwick, H., '"Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy," ITS 2 (1951), p. 145-164. ------ "The Exile and Death ofFlavian of Constantinople, " ITS 6 (1955), p. 17-34. -----. "The Chalcedonian Defmition," Cahiers d'orientalisme 10 (1984), p. 7-16. Charlier, N., "Le Thesaurus de Trinitate de S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie," ~ 45 (1950), p. 25-81. ------. "La doctrine sur le Saint Esprit dans le 'Thesaurus' de S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie," Stud Pat II (TU 64) (Berlin, 1957), p. 187-193. Chesnut, RC., "The Two Prosopa in Nestorius' Bazaar of Heraclides:' JTS 29 (1978), p. 392-408. Clark, E. A., The Origenist Controversy. The Cultural Construction of m Early Christian Debate (Princeton, 1992). Constas, N., "Weaving the Body of God: Proclus of Constantinople, the Theotokos, and the Loom of the Flesh," Journal of Early Christian Studies 3/2 (1995), p. 169-195. Cunningham, M. B., and Alien, P., eds., Preacher and Audience. Studies in Earlv Christian and Byzantine Homiletics (Leiden, 1998). Dagron, G., "Les moines et la ville. Le Monachisme aConstantinople jusqu'au concile de Chalcedoine 451," Travaux ~ MCmoires 4 ( 1970), p. 230-275. --------. Naissance d'une Capitale. Constantinople et ses Institutions ~ 330 ~ 451 (Paris, 1974). DaniClou, l., From Shadows to Reality (London, 1960). Davis, L.D., The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) (Delaware, 1987). Dawson, D., Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley, 1992). Devresse, R., "Les actes du concile d'Ephese," RSPT 18 (1929), p.223-242, 408-43 L Diepen, H. M., "Les Douze AnathCmatismes au Concile d'Ephese etjusqu'en 519:' Rev
403 Diepen, H. M., ""Les Douze Anathematismes au Concile d'E:phese etjusqu'en 519:' Rev Thorn 55 ( 1955), p. 300-338. ------. "La christologie de S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie et I' antbropologie neo-platonicienne," Euntes Docete 9 (1956), p. 20-63. -------. "Strategemes contre la theologie de rEmmanueL Apropos d'une nouvelle comparaison entre s. Cyrille et Apollinaire," Divinitas I (1957), p. 444-478. Downey. G., Ancient Antioch (princeton, 1963). Dragas, G. D., St. Athanasius Contra Apollinarem. in Church ~ Theolol:)'. vol. 6 (Athens, 1985). Dratsellas, c., Questions of the SoterioloWcal teachin& Qfthe Greek Fathers with special reference to St. Cyril of Alexandria (Athens, 1968). --------. Man in his Original ~mlSt in the State of Sin Accordin& to S. Cyril of Alexandria (Athens, 1971). --------. "Questions on Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria," Abba SaJama 6 ( 1975), p. 203-232. Dries van den, J., The Formula of S1. Cyril of Alexandria: Mia Physis tou Theou Logou Sesarkornene (Rome, 1939). Drioton, E., '''Cyrille d' Alexandrie et r ancienne religion Egyptienne," KyriIliana (Cairo, 1947). p. 231-246. Dubarle, A.M., "L 'ignorance du Christ dans S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie," Eph Th Louv (JanMar, 1939), p. 111-120. -------. ""Les conditions du salut avant la venue du Sauveur chez S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie:' RSPT 32 (1948), p. 359-362. Dupre la Tour, A., "La 'Doxa' du Christ dans les oeuvres exegetiques de S. Cyrille d'Alexandrie,"RSR 48 (1960), p. 521-543; 49 (1961), p. 68-94. Dvomik, F., "The Authority of the State in Oecumenical Councils," The Christian ~ 14 (1934), p. 95-108. --------. "Emperors, Popes, and General Councils," DOP 6 (1951), p. 1-23. --------. The Ecumenical Councils (New Yor~ 1961). -------. The General Councils 2f the Church (London, 1961). --------. &i!!ly Christian ~ Byzantine Political Philosophy (Washington, D.e., 1966). Dzielska, M., Hypatia of Alexandria (Cambridge, 1995).
404 Dzielska, M., Hypatia of Alexandria (Cambridge, 1995). Eberle, A., Die MarioloGie des hi. Cyrillus von Alexandrie (Freiburg, 1921). Ebied, R. Y. and Wickham, L R., 'The Letter ofCyril of Alexandria to Tiberius the Deacon: Syriac Versio~" Mus 83, p. 433-482. ------. "An Unknown Letter ofCyril of Alexandria in Syriac," ITS 22 (1971), p. 420443. -------. ""A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters ofCyril of Alexandria," CSCO 360 (Louvai~ 1975). Ede~
K., Henneneutics and the Rhetorical Tradition. Chapters in the Ancient I ts Humanist Reception (New Haven and London, 1997).
Le~
and
Ehrhard, A., "Eine Unechte Marienhomilie des Cyrill von Alexandrien," Romische Ouartalschrift 3 (1889). p. 97-113. Eugene, L., "Chalcedon and its Aftennath: Three Unresolved Crises," Laurentinanum 27 (1986), p. 98-120. Evelyn-White, H.G., "The Monasteries of the Waden Na~" vol. 2 in The History of the Monasteries of Nitria and ofScetis (New York, 1932). Evrard, E., '''A quel titre Hypatie enseigne-t-elle la philosophieT' REG 90 ( 1977), p. 6974.
Festugiere, A. J., Ephese et Chalcedoine: Actes des Conciles (Paris, 1982). Fliche, A. and Martin. V .• Histoire de (Paris, 1936).
r~lise
depuis les ori~nes
iusgu'a nos jours !
Florovsk-y, G., "The Authority of the Ancient Councils and the Tradition of the Fathers," in Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Belmont. 1972), p. 93-103. Foss,
c.,
Ephesus after AntiQuity. A ~ AntiQue, Byzantine, and Turkish Ytt (Cambridge, 1979).
Fraigneau-Julien. B .• "L 'efficacite de l'humanite du Christ selon S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie." Rev Thorn 55 (1955). p. 615-628. ------. ""L 'inhabitation de la sainte Trinite dans l'ame selon S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie,"
405 ------. ""L 'inhabitation de la sainte Trinite clans rime se Ion S. Cvrille d' Alexandrie," RSR 30 (1956), p. 135-156. -------. "Un traite anonyme de la S. Trinite attribue cl S. Cyrille d'Alexandrie," RSR 49 (1961), p. 188-211,386-405. Franses, D., "Cyrille au Concile d'Ephese," St C 7 (1931), p. 369-398. Free, K.B., The Fonnulation of Christianity !u: Conflict Thr0YKh the ~ (New York., 1995). Frend, W. H. c., "Popular religion and christological controversy in the Fifth Century,.... SCH 8 (Cambridge, 1972), p. 19-29. --------. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (Cambridge, 1972). Galtier, P., "Le Centenaire d'Ephese;' St ~ 7 (1931), p. 169-199. ------. "Les anathematismes de S. Cyrille et le Concile de Chalcedoine," RSR 23 (1933), p.45-57. --------. L 'Unite du Christ (Paris, 1939). -------. "Unite ontologique et unite psychologique dans le Christ," BLE 41-42 (1940-41), p. 161-175,216-232. ------. "S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie et S. Leon le Grand cl Chalcedoine," in Grillmeier, Bacht eds., Das Konzil YQ!l Chalkedon I (Wurzburg, 1951), p. 345-387. --------. "L 'Union secundum hypostasim chez S. Cyrille;' Gregorianurn 33 (1952), p. 351-398. -------. "S. Cyrille et Apollinaire," Gregorianwn 37 (1956), p. 584-609. Gaudel, A., "Kenose;' DTC 8 (1925), p. 2339-2349. Gebremedhin, E., Life-Giving Blessing. An Inquiry into the Eucharistic Doctrine ofCyril of Alexandria (Uppsala, 1977). • Giorgiades, P., Une martyr paienne: La mort d'Hypatie (L' Atelierd' Alexandrie, 1982). Goubert, P., "Le role de Sainte Pulcherie et de l'eunuque Chrysaphios," in Das Konzil von Chalkedon I (Wurzburg, 1951), p. 303-321. Gould, G. "Cyril of Alexandria and the Formula of Reunion," Downside Review 365 (1988), p. 235-252. Graef, H., Mary. A History of Doctrine and Devotion (London, 1985). Grant, R.M., "Greek Literature in the Treatise Ik Trinitate and Cyril's Contra Julianwn."
406 Grant, R.M., '"Greek Literature in the Treatise De Trinitate and Cyril's Contra Julianum," ITS 15 (1964), p. 265-299. Gray, P. T. R., The Defense ofChalcedon in the East (451-553) (Leiden, 1979). -------. "The Select Fathers: Canonizing the Patristic Past," Stud Pat 23 (1989), p. 21-36. Greer, R.A., 'The Image of God and the Prosopic Union in Nestorius' Bazaar of Heraclides," in~ in Lumine, RA. Norris, ed., Essays to Honour W.N. Pitteneer (New York, 1966), p. 46-61. Gn!goire, H., "Sur le personnel hospitalier des eglises: Parabalani et Privatarii," Byzantion 13 (1938). Gregory, T. E., Vox Populi. Popular opinion ~ violence in the reliGious controversies of the fifth centuQ' All (Columbus, 1979). Griggs, C. W., ~ Ecptian Christianity: From Its OriiPns to 451 C.E. (Leiden, New York, Copenhagen, Cologne, 1990). Grillmeier, A., and Bach, H.,eds., Das Konzil von Chalkedon. III vols. (Wurzburg, 1953). ------. "Das Scandalum Oecumenicum des Nestorius in Kirchlichdogmatischer und theologiegeschichtlicherSicht," Schol 36 (196 I), p. 32 I -356. --------. with Hainthaler, T., From the Council ofChalcedon (451) to Gre~or:y the Great (590-604): The Church of Alexandria with Nubia and Ethiopia after 451. Vol. 2 Pt. 4 of Christ in Christian Tradition (London, 1996), trans. O.C. Dean. -------. "Konzil und Rezeption. Methodische Bemerkungen zu einem Thema der okumenischen Diskussion der Gegenwan," Theolo~e und Philosophie 45 (1970) 321 =52~ revised in Mit ihm und in ihm (Freiburg, Basel, Vienna, 1975, 1977), p. 303-334. GuiIlet, J., "Les exegeses d'Alexandrie et d'Antioch conflit ou malentendu?" RSR 34 (1947), p. 257-302. Guinot, 1.N., "Presence d' Apollinaire dans I'oeuvre exegetique de ThCodoret," Stud Pat 19, 2 (Louvain, 1989), p. 166-172. Hahn, A., Bibliothek ~ Symbole und Glaubensreeeln ~ Al1m Kirchen, 3rd ed. (Breslau, 1897). Haas, c., Alexandria in ~ AntiQuity (Baltimore and London, 1997).
407 Haas, C, Alexandria in ~ AntiQuity (Baltimore and London, 1997). Haase, F. A. J., Patriarch Dioskur YQIl Alexandrjen ~ monophysitischen Ouellen (Breslau, 1909). HaIleux, A., "La premiere session du concile d'Ephese," Ephemerides Iheologicae Lovanienses 69. 1 (1993), p. 48-87. Hardy, E.R., Christian Egypt: Church and People (New York, 1952). -------. "'The further education ofCyril of Alexandria. 412-444: Questions and Problems," ~Pat 17, 1 (1982), p. 116-122. Haring, N.M, "The character and range of influence ofSt Cyril of Alexandria on Latin theology, 430-1260," Medieval Studies 12 (1950), p. 1-19. Hebensperger, J.N., ~ Denkwelt ~ hI. Cyrill von Alexandrjen. Em analyse ihres philosophischen Ertrags (Augsburg, 1927). Hefele, C. J., A HistoQ' of the Councils of the Church from the OriWW Documents, H. N. Oxenham, trans. vols 2-5 (New York, 1972 = reprint of 1883-1896 German ed.).
Hodgson, L, "The Metaphysic of Nestorius," JTS 19 (1918), p. 46-55. Holum. K. G .. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiguity (Berkeley, 1982). Honigmann, E.. "The Original Lists of the Members of the Council of Ni caea, the Robber-Synod, and the Council ofChalcedon," Byzantion 16, I (1944), p. 22-80. Imhof, P. and Lorenz, B., Maria Theotokos bei Q:rill. von Alexandrien (Munich, 1981). Jaeger, W., Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge and London, 1961). Janssens, L.. "Notre filiation divine d'apres S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie," Eph Th Louv 15 (1938), p. 233-278. Jedin, H., Kleine KonzilienslWSChichte (Freiburg, 1959). --------. StruJ..:turprobleme der Okumenische Konzilien (Cologne, 1963). Jones, A. H. M.,
~~
Roman Empire: 284-602 (Baltimore, 1964).
408 Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire: 284-602 (Baltimore, 1964). JouassarcL G., "L 'activite litteraire de S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie jusqu'a 428," in MelanGes E. Podechard (L YODS, 1945), p. 159-174. -----. '"Cyrill vonAlexandrien." RAC vol.'3, p499-516. -------. "Marie a travers la Patristique: matemite divine, virginite. saintete," in Maria: Etudes ~.S. Vieme. H. Du Manoir, ed, vol. I (Paris, 1949), p. 69-157. ----. "Une intuition fondamentale de S. Cyrille d' A1exandrie en christologie dans les premieres annees de son episcopal," REB 1 I (1953), p. 175-186. -----. "Un probleme d'anthropologie et de christologie chez S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie," RSR 43 (1955), p. 361-378. -------. "lmpassibilite du Logos et impassibilite d I' ame humaine chez Cyrille d'Alexandrie,"RSR 45 (1957), p. 209-244. ------. "s. Cyrille d' Alexandrie aux prises avec la 'communication des idiomes' avant 428 dans ses ouvrages anti-ariens," Stud Pat 6 (1962), p. 112-121. -------. "Melanges: Le cas de Nestorius," RHE 74 (1979), p. 346-348. Jugie, M., "'La tenninologie christologiquede S. Cyrille d'A1exandrie;' EO 15 (1912), p. 12 -27. --------. Nestori us et la controverse nestorienne (Paris, 1912). Kelly. J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (New York., 1978). Kannengiesser, C. "Athanasius of Alexandria and the foundation of traditional Christology," Theolo~cal Studies 34 ( 1973), p. 103-113. Kennedy, G. A., A New HistoQ' of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton. 1994). Kerrigan, A. S., Cyril of Alexandria: Interpreter of the Old Testament. Analecta Biblica 2 (Rome, 1952). -------. "The Objects of the Literal and Spiritual Senses of the New Testament according to St. eyril of Alexandria," Stud Pat I (TU 63) (Berlin, 1957), p. 354-374. Koen, L., The Savin& Passion. Incamational and Soterioloeical ThOUGht in Qn! of Alexandria's Commentan' on the Gospel According to S1. John (Uppsala, 1991). Kopallik, J., Cyrillus von Alexandrje: (Mayence, 1881).
~
Bio&raphie DiI&h den Ouellen Gearbeitet
Kopecek., T. A., A HistoQ' of Neo-Arianism (philadelphia, 1979). Kustas, G. L., Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Thessaloniki, 1973).
409 Kustas. G. L.. Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Thessaloniki. 1973). Labelle, 1.M., '"s. Cyrille d' Alexandrie," Rev SR 52 (1978). p. 135-158; ibid. 53, (1979), p.23-42. Lacornbrade, C., "Hypatie: la rnythe et I'histoire," Bulletin de la Societe Toulousaine d'etudes c1assigue 166 (1972), p. 5-20. Lambropoulou, V., "Hypatia, the Alexandrian Philosopher," Platon 29 (1977), p. 65-78; (summary in english) Hypatia 1 (1984), p. 3-1 L Langganner, G., "Der descensus ad inferos in den Osterbriefen de Cyrill von Alexandrie~"in We~eichen: Fest&:abe. H. Buennann (Wurzburg, 1971). p. 95100. Lavaud, B. (with H.M Diepen), "s. Cyrille d' Alexandrie: court traite contre ceux qui ne veulent pas reconnaitre Marie Mere de Dieu," Rev Thorn 56 (1956), p. 688-712. Lebon, l., '"Alteration doctrinale de la Lettre a Epictete de S. Athanase:' RHE 31 (1935), p. 713-761. Le Boulluec. A., La notion d'heresie dans la litterature
~ue
II-III siecles (Paris. 1985).
Lebourlier, l .. "'Union selon hypostase: ebauche de la formule dans le premier livre pseuodathanasien Contre ApoIIinaire," RSPT 44 (1960), p. 470-476. Liebaert, J.S., Cvrille d'Alexandrie ~ I'Arianisrne: Les sources et la doctrine Christologique du Thesaurus et des Dialogues ill La Trinite (LiIIe, 1948). --------. La Doctrine Christolol:igue sk S. CyriIIe d' Alexandrie avanl la guerelle Nestorienne. LiIle, 1951). -------. '·S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie et la culture antique," MSR 12. (1955), p. 5-26. -----. "'L 'Evolution de la christologie de S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie cl partir de la controverse Nestorienne. La lettre PaschaIe xvii et la lettre aux moines (428-429)," MSR 27 (1970), p. 27-48. -------. "'Concile d'Ephese," DHGE vot 1, cols. 561-574. Lietzmann, H. ed., Apollinaris Yml Laodicea und seine Schule (Tubingen, 1904). Lim. R. Public Disputation, Power, and
Social Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley. 1995).
Limberis, V .• Divine Heiress: ~ Vgin Mary Iml~Creation of Christian
410
Limberis, V., Divine Heiress: The Virgin Mary and the Creation of Christian Constantinople (London and New York, (994). Long, J., Claudian's [n Eutropium. Or. How, When. and Why to Slander i Eunuch (Chapel Hill and London, (996). Loofs, F., Nestoriana (Hall, (905) -------. Nestorius and Im~ in the History of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, 1914) Louth., A. ""Reason and Revelation in S. Athanasius,~ ill 23 (1970). p. 385-396. -------. "The concept of the Soul in Athanasius CG-De [nc," Stud Pit 13 ([975), p. 227231. -------. "The use of the tenn •idios' in Alexandrian theology from Alexander to Cyril," Stud Pat 19,2 (Louvain, 1989), p. 198-202. L uibheid,
c., "Theodosius 11 and Heresy," ~ 16 (1965), p. 13-38.
Lyonnet, S., ''''So CyriUe d' Alexandrie et 2 Cor. 3: 17," Biblica 32 (Rome, 1951), p. 25-33. McCoy, J.D., "Philosophical Influences on the Doctrine of the Incarnation in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria," Encounter 38 (lndianapolis, 1977). McEnemey, J.L. St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters, Fathers of the Church, vols. 76-77 (Washington, 1987). McGuckin. J.A., "Christian Asceticism and the Early School of Alexandria," Studies in Church History. vol. 22 (Cambridge, (985), p. 25-39. ------. The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (New York. 1987). --------. ··The Christology ofNestorius of Constantinople," PBR 7,2-3 (1988), p. 93129. --------. ··The Concept of Orthodoxy in Ancient Christianity," PBR 8, 1 (1989), p. 5-23. --------. "The Influence of the Isis Cult on St. Cyril of Alexandria's Christology," Stud Pat 24 (Louvain, 1992), p. 191-199. --------. St. Cyril of Alexandria: Thit ~ Christ [s ~ (New York, 1994). --------. St. Cyril of Alexandria: 1bk ChristoloKical Controversy. Its History. TheoloGY and Texts (Leiden, 1994). --------. ""Moses and the MVCTnlPlOV XPlOTOii in St. Cyril of Alexandria's Exegesis," Theologische Ouartalschrift. 4 (1998). McNamara, J., "Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Nestorian Heresy,"!IQ 9 (1952), p. 254-278~ ibid. 20 (1953), p. 172-191.
411 McNamara, J., 'Theodore ofMopsuestia and the Nestorian Heresy:' !IQ 9 (1952), p. 254-278; ibid. 20 (1953), p. 172-191. Mahe, J., "Les Anathematismes de S. CyriUe d' Alexandrie et les eveques orientaux du patriarchat d' Antioche," RHE 7 (1906), p. 505-543. -----. "La date du Commentaire de S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie sur l'Evangile selon S. Jean," BLE 8 (1907), p. 41-45. ----. "L , Eucharistie d'apres S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie:' RHE 8 (1907), p. 677-696. -------. "La sanctification d' apres S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie," RHE 10 (1909), p. 30-40, 469-492. - - . "Cyrille d'Alexandrie," DTC vol.3 (1911), p. 2476-2527. MaIley, W.J., Hellenism and Christianity: The conflict between Hellenic ~Christian Wisdom in the Contra GaliJaeos g.f Julian the Apostate ~ the Contra J ulianum of St. Cyril of Alexandria (Rome, 1978). Mandac, M., "L 'Union christologique dans les oeuvres de Theodoret anterieures au Concile d'Ephese," Eph Th!&YY 47 (1971), p. 64-96. Mango, c., Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome (New York., 1980). Du Manoir, H., "L 'argumentation patristique dans la controverse nestorienne," RSR 25 (1935). p. 441-461, 531-560. -------. '''Le probleme de Dieu chez CyriIle d' Alexandrie," RSR 27 (1937), p. 385-407. -------. "L 'Eglise Corps du Christ chez S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie:" Gre~orianum 19 (1939), p. 537-603,83-100,161-188. --------. [)ogme et Spiritualite chez~. Cyrille d' Alexandrie (Paris, 1944). De Margerie, B., "L'exegese christologique de S. Cyrille d' Alexandrie," N R T 102 ( 1980). p.400-425. Martin, J. P., Le pseudo-synod ~ 449 (Paris, 1875). Martzelos, G., Ori~ns ~ Sources 2f~ ChaIcedonian Definition ()fFaith (Thessaloniki, 1986). May, D., "Das Lehrverfahren gegen Eutyches im November des Jahres 448. Zur Vorgeschichte des Konzilsvon Chalcedon," AHC 21 (1989), p. 1-61. Meijering, E.P., "Some reflections on Cyril of Alexandria's rejection of Anthropomorphism" in God lkin& HistoQ' (Amsterdam, Oxford. 1975), p. 128-132. -------. "Cyril of Alexandria on the Platonists and the Trinity," in ibid. p. 114-127.
412 Anthropomorphism" in God ~ History (Amsterdam, Oxfor~ 1975), p. 128-132. ------. "Cyril of Alexandria on the Platonists and the Trinity," in ibid. p. 114-127. Metz, R., Histoire des conciles (paris, 1964). Meunier, B., Le Christ ~ Cyrille d'Alexandrie. L'humanite. le salut ~ la Question Monophysite, in Theolo~e HistoriQue 104 (Paris, 1997). Meyendorff, J., "'Eph ho' (Rom 5: 12) chez Cyrille d' Alexandrie et Theodoret," Stud Pat 4 (1961), p. 157-161. ------. Christ in Eastern Christian ThoUl:ht (New Yor~ 1975). ----. "What is an Ecumenical Council?" SVSO 17,4 (1973), p. 259-273. -------. "The Council of381 and the Primacy of Constantinople," in Catholicity and the Church (New York, 1983), p. 121-142. --------. Imperial Unity irnl Christian Divisions. The Church 450-680 A.D. (New Yor~ 1989). Michau~
E., "S. Cyrille d'Alexandrie et I'Eucharistie," RIT 10 (1902), p. 599-614,67569.
MilIar, F., "Paul ofSamosata. Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria," JR.S. 61 (1971). Monks, G. R., "The Church of Alexandria and the City's Economic Life in the Six"tll Century," Speculum 38 (1953), p. 349-362. MUnch-Labacher. G., Naturhaftes und eeschichtliches Denken bei Cyrill von Alexandrien (Bonn, 1996). Muhlenberg, E., Apollinaris von Laodicea (Gottingen, 1969). Munier, H., ··Le lieu de la naissance de S1. Cyrille d' Alexandrie," Kyrilliana (Cairo, 1947), p. 197-202. Nacke, E., Das Zeupis ~ Vater in ~ theoloKiscben Beweisfiihrum: Cyrills YQIl Alexandrien ~ seiner Briefen und anti-netorianischen Schriften (Munster, 1964). Nau, F., ··St. Cyril and Nestorius," ROC 15 (1910), p. 365-391; 16 (1911), p. 1-54. Nedoncelle, M. ··Prosopon et persona dans l'antiquite classique," Rev SR 22 (1948), p. 277-299.
413 Nedoncelle, M. "Prosopon et persona dans l'antiquite classique," Rev SR 22 (1948), p. 277-299.
J.H. "On St. Cyril's formula: MiA Physis Sesarkomene," in Tracts Tbeoloeical and Ecclesiastical (Londo~ 1874), p. 283-336.
Newma~
Neyron, G., "'S. Cyrille et le Concile d'Ephese:' Kyrilliana (Cairo, 1947), p203-230. Nilus, A.S.B., De foAatemitate divina Beatae Mariae Vir&inis. Nestorii ~ Cyrilli sententiae (Rome, 1944). Noms, RA. "'Christological models in Cyril of Alexandria." Stud Pat 13 (1975). p. 255268. Papadopoulos, C, The Third Oecwuenical Council ~~ Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. A Reply to ~ Encyclical ~ veritatis mPius XI (London, 1933). Parvis, P.M. ""The Commentary on Hebrews and the Contra Theodorum ofCyril of Alexandria." JTS 26 (1975), p. 415-419. Payne-Smith, R., Commentary QIl the Gospel of St. Luke ~ St ~ Patriarch of Alexandria (Oxford, 1859). Pearson, B. A .• and Goehring, J. E., eds.• The Roots ofEeyptian Christianity (Philadelphia. 1986). Penella, RJ .• "When was Hypatia Born?"' Historia 33 (1984). p. 126-128. Person, R. E.. The Mode of Theolo~ca1 Decision MakinG il the ~ Ecumenical Councils (Basel, 1978). Petit, P.. Les Etudiants ~ Libanius (Paris, 1956). Philipsbo~
A., hLa compagnie d' ambulanciers, 'parabalani' d' A1exandrie," Byzantion 20 (1950).185-190.
Pollard. T. E.. "Logos and Son in Orige~ Arius, and Athanasius, " Stud Pat 2 (1957), p. 282-287. Pouderon, B. - Bourlet, M. et. aL, Foi Chretienne ~ Culture Classigue (Paris, 1998). Psalty, F., Notre-Dame d'Ephese. L§ ruines ~ 11 maison ~ 11 ~ Marie i Panaya-
414 Psalty, F., Notre-Dame d'Ephese . ~ ruines ~ 1il maison ~ la ~ Marie ~ PanayaCapouli (Istanbul, 1955). Raven, c.E., Apollinarism (Cambridge, 1923). Redies, M., "Kyrill und Nestorius: Eine Neuinterpretation des Theotokos-Streits," Klio 80 (1998), p. 195-208. Richard~
M., "Un ecrit de Theodoret sur "unite du Christ apres I'incamatio~" Rev SR 14
(1934), p. 34-61. - - . '"L 'activite litteraire de Theodoret avant le Concile d'Ephese," RSPT 24 (1935). p.83-106. -----. "Notes sur I'evolution doctrinale de Theodoret," RSPT 25 (1936), p. 459-481. - - - . "'L 'introduction du mot 'hypostase' dans la theologie de I'incarnation," MSR 2 (1945), p. 243-270. ------. "Les traites de CyriUe d' Alexandrie Contre Diodore et Theodore et les fragments dogmatiques de Diodore de Tarse," in Melani:es F. Grat (Paris, 1946), vot. I, p. 99-116. --------. '·Theodoret, Jean d' Antioche et les moines d'Orient," MSR 3 (1946), p. 147156. --------. ··S. Athanase et la psychologie du Christ selon les Ariens," MSR 4 (1947), p. 554. -------. "Le pape Leon le Grande et les Scholia de incamatione Unigeniti de S. Cyrille d"Alexandrie."RSR 40 (1952), p. 116-128. -------. --Deux lettres perdues de S. Cyrille d'Alexandrie: Stud Pat 7 (1966), p. 274-277. 4
De Riedmatten. H., '·Some neglected aspects of Apollinarist Christology,U Dom Stud 1 (1948), p. 239-260. --------. Apollinarism ~ Fourth Century Christoloi:Y (Diss. Oxford 1951). -----. '·La christologie d' Apollinaire de Laodicee: ~ Pat 2 (TU 64) (Berlin, 1957), p.208-234. 4
Rist, 1.M., ··Hypatia," Phoenix 19 (1965). Van Roey, A., 'Two new documents of the Nestorian controversy," Slyg Pat 7 (1966), p. 308-313. Romanides, 1.S., "S1. Cyril's 'One physis or hypostasis of God the Logos incarnate' and Chalcedo~"GOTR 10 (1964-65), p. 82-107. Rorty, A. 0., Essays 2J1 Aristotle's 'Rhetoric' (Berkeley, 1996).
415
Rorty, A. 0., Essays on Aristotle's 'Rhetoric' (Berkeley, 1996). Rouge, J., ··Les debuts de ('episcopat de Cyrille d' Alexandrie et le code ThOOdosien,'" in Alexandria: Melan6:es offens K Mondesen (Paris, 1987), p. 341-349. -------. "La politique de Cyrille d' Alexandrie et le meurtre d'Hypatie," CriSlianesiono nella storia 11 (1990), p. 485-504. Rousseau, P., Ascetics. Authority ml4 ~ Church in the ~ of Jerome and Cassian (Oxford, 1978). Rucker, I., Das [)qmm YQIl der PersOnlichkeit Christ yruI ~ Problem der Haresie (Studien zum Concilium Ephesinum IV) (Oxenbronn, 1934). -----. Cyrill und Nestorius im Lichte ~ Ephesus-Enzyklika (Oxenbronn, 1934). Runia., D. T., Philo in ~ Christian Literature (Netherlands, 1993). Russell, D. A., Criticism in Antiquity (London, 1981). Santer, M., "Ek Pneumatos Agious kai Marias tes Parthenou," ITS 22 (1971), p. 162171. -------. 'The authorship and occasion ofCyril of Alexandria's Sermon on the Virgin (Horn. Div. iv)," Stud Pat 12 (1975), p. 144-150. -------. "Scripture and Councils," Sobornost 7 (1975), p. 99-111. Sauer. J., Die Exegese des C,yri!! von Alexandrien nach seinem Kommentar zum Johannesevangelium (Freiburg, 1965). Schuban, W., ··Parabalani," Journal of E I:)'pti an Archaeology 40 (1954). p. 97-101. Schultz, H. J., "Okumenische Relecture der Konziliaren Christologie," Zeitschrift rur katholische TheolQl:ie 120 (1998), p. 184-197. Schwartz, E., "Das Nicaenum und das Constantinopolitanum auf der Synode von Chalkedon," ZNTW 25 (1926), p. 38-88. --------. "Cyrill und der Monch Victor," SituzUD6:sberichte der Wiener Akademie ~ Wissenschaften (phil. Hist. Klasse) 208, 4 (Vienna and Leipzig, 1928). --------. Der ProzeB ~ Eutyches. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munchen, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Abt. 5 (Munich, 1929). Schweiger, G., Pjpstlicher Primat Yml Autoritat ~ ailmneinen Konzilien im Spic;&el dg
416 Schweiger, G., Papstlicher Primat und Autoritat der allgemeinen Konzilien im Spi~l Geschichte (Munic~ 1977).
~
Scipioni, L. 1., Nestorio ~!l concilio ~ Efeso (Milan, 1974). Scott-Moncrieff, P.D., Papnism mKtChrislianity in El:Ypt(Cambridge, 1913). Scouteris, C., "Holy Scripture and Councils," Sobomost 7 (1975), p. 111-116. Seeberg. R., Textbook of the History of Doctrines (trans. C. E. Hay) (Grand Rapids, 1964). German edition, Lehrbuch der Domten~eschichte (Leipzig, 1920-1933). Sellers, R. V., Two Ancient Christolo&:ies: A ~ in the ChristolQ&ical thoueht oflhk Schools Qf Alexandria m;l Antioch in the ~ history of Christian Doctrine (London, 1940). --------. The Council QfChalcedon (London, 1953). Seston, W., "Constantine as Bishop,"
~
37 (1947), p. 127-131.
Shanzer, D. --Merely a Cynic Gesture," Rivista Qi filolo~a ~ diisttuzione classica 113 (1985), p. 61-65. Siddals, RM., "Oneness and difference in the Christology ofCyril of Alexandria," Stud Pat 18, 1 (Oxford, 1983), p. 207f -------. "Logic and Christology in Cyril of Alexandria," JTS 38 ( 1987), p. 34 I -367. Sieben, H. J., Die Konzilsidee ~ Alten Kirche (Paderbom and Munich, 1979). --------. KonzilsdarstellunGen. KonzilsvorstellunGen: 1000 Jahre Konzilsikonographie (Wurzburg, 1990). Smith, R W., The A rt of Rhetoric in Alexandria (Hague, 1974). Soskice, J. M., Metaphor Dru! Reli&:ious Lanw'iUF (Oxford, 1985). Souvay, c.L., '"'The Twelve Anathematizations of St. Cyril," CRR 5 (1926), p. 627-635. Starowieyski, M., ""Le titre Theotokos avant le concile d'Ephese," S!wl Pat 19,2 (1989), p.236-242. Stead, G.C., "The Significance of the Homoousios," snm~ 3 (1961), p. 397-412. --------. "The Platonism of Arius," JTS 15 (1964), p. 16-31.
417 Stead., G.C., "The Significance of the Homoousios," smg Pat 3 (1961), p. 397-412. ----. "The Platonism of Arius," JIS 15 (1964), p. 16-31. -------. "Eusebius and the Council ofNicea," ITS 24 (1973), p. 85-100. ------. "Rhetorical Method in Athanasius," VC 30 (1976), p. 121-137. --------. _. The Thalia of Arius and the Testimony of Athanasius," JTS 29 (1978),20-52. Struckm~
A., Die Eucharistielebre ~ hI. Cyrill von AJexandrjen (Paderbom, 19(0).
Tacaks, S. A., "The Magic ofIsis Replaced or Cyril of Alexandria's Attempt at Redirecting Religious Devotion, n Poikila Byzantina 13 (1994), p. 491-507. Tawil, 1., "S. CyriIle dans la Liturgie Grecque Byzantine," Kyrilliana (Cairo, 1947), p. 295-302. Thompson, E.A., ~ Visi&Qthsin~~Qf!Jltim(Oxford, 1966). -------. "The Foreign Policies ofTheodosius II and Marcian," Hermathena 76 (1950), p. 58-75. Torrance, T. F., "The Relation of the Incarnation to Space in Nicene Theology." in A. Blame and T. E. Best. The Ecumenical World of Orthodox Civilization (The Hague, 1973), p. 45-70; repr. as "The Greek Conception of Space in the Background of Early Christian Theology," Ekklesia 19Y. Theologia 11 (1992), p. 245-294. TsirpanJis, C., "Christological aspects of the thought of St. Cyril of Alexandria." in Greek Patristic TheoloGY (New York. 1979). Turner, H.E.W., "Nestorius Reconsidered." S!Y4Pat 13 (1975), p. 306-321. Urbainczyk. T., Socrates of Constantinople. Historian of Church iru! State (Ann Arbor, 1997). Vaggione, R. P., Eunomius. The Extant Works (Oxford, (987). Vickers, B., In Defence mRhetoric (Oxford, 1988). Voght, H.1., "Papst Coelestin und Nestorius," in Koozil yrulfiml (Munich, (975), p. 85-102. Voobus, A., Discoveries of ~ import Q!llbk Commentary QIl ~ tu: ~ m Alexandria (Stockholm, 1973).
418
Alexandria (Stockholm, 1973). Walden, J. W. H., The Universities of Ancient Greece (New York, 1909). Wallace-Hadrill, D. S., Christian Antioch: A (Cambridge, 1982).
~
of ~ Christian ThouGht in the East
Wallraff, M., Der Kircbenhistoriker Sokrates. Untersuchuna:en ~ Geschichtsdarstellun", Methode YD4 Person (Gottingen, 1997). Waiter, c., L'icono,mphie ~ conciles dim Jil tradition byzantine (Paris, 1970). Weigl, E., ChristoloWe mm ~ ~ Athanasius bis ~ Ausbruch d.§ Nestorianischen Streites, Munchener Studien nr historischen IheoloWe, Heft 4 (Munich, 1925). Weischer, B.M., ""Der Dialog dass "Christus einer ist' des CyrilI von Alexandrie~" Or Chr 51 (1967), p. 130-185. --------. Homilien und Briefen zum Konzil Y.Q!l Ephesos (Weisbaden, 1979). Wickham. L .R., Cynl of Alexandria: ~ Letters (Oxford. 1983). -------. "'Symbols of the Incarnation in Cyril of Alexandria," in Typos, Symbol, A1lei:orie bei den ostlichen Vatem und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter, M. Schmidt and C.F. Geyer, eds. (Regensburg, 1982), p. 41-53. Wider. K., "Woman Philosophers of the Ancient World." Hypatia I (1986). Wiles, M.F., ""In Defense of Arius," ITS 13 (1962),339-347. --------. "The nature of the early debate about Christ's human soul," JEH 16 ( 1965), p. 139-151. --------. Archetypal Heresy. Ariaoism throu"h ~ Centuries (Oxford. 1996). Wilken, RJ., 'Traditio~ Exegesis, and the Christological Controvrsies," Church History 34 (1965), p. 123-145. -------. ""Exegesis and the History of Theology: Some reflections on the Adam-Christ typology in Cyril of AJexandria," Church History 35 (1966), p. 139-156. --------. Judaism Irul ~ ~ Christian Mi.mI: A. Study 2f c.m! 2f Alexandria's Exq:esis and Theolo~ (New Haven, 1971). Williams, R., The MakinG ofOrthod0'O': Essays in Honour gfHenQ' Chadwick (Cambridge, 1989). --------. Arius: Heresy mldTradition (London, 1987).
419 --------. Arius: Heresy iD4 Tradition (London, 1987). Wipszycka, E., ~ re'"..ources ~ activites economigue ~ eglises m Etn'Pte gy IVe U VIne ~ (Brussels, 1972). ----. "The Economic Organization of the Pachomian Community: Critique of the Evidence of Jerome," unpublished paper. Wolfson, H.A., "Philosophical implications of Arianism and Apollinarism," DOP 12 (1958), p.3-28.• Young, F., "Christological ideas in the Greek Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews," ITS 20 (1969), p. 150-163. -----. 4
420
Appendix Cyril's Homilies Delivered at the Council ofEphesus during the Summer, 431 AD
Homily of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, delivered in Ephesus, while the assembly was in
sessio~
and Nestorius was deposed. I
We should. on the one hand, be satisfied with the spiritual teachings2 of the teachers of the past and quench3 our thirst. replenishing ourselves from the holy streams.4 Since I notice. however. that [you] have an insatiable desire to listen. let me say a few [words] [ ] consistent with [the teachers] of the past. 5 It is. therefore. in no way doubtful that the splendid chorus of saints glories in the acclamations of Christ. and boasts [their] genuine love for him. Indeed. the blessed prophet Isaiah says to Him. somewhere, ·'Lord. Jvfy God. I will glorify you, I will sing hymns to your name, because
Homilia v. Ephesi ~ deposito Nestorio. (CPG 5253) ACO I, 1.2. p. 92-94. This homily was likely delivered on June 28. 431. after Nestorius was deposed at Session I (June 22). On dating the homilies see S. Wessel, ·'Nestorius. Mary and Controversy," AHC 31/1 (November, 1999). For a translation of Homilia ll. Ephesi habita in basilica~. lohannis Evangelistae. (~5246) ACO I. I. 2. p. 94-96. see J. McGucki~ p. 280-281. Homily II was delivered sometime in July. I
2 I..lvcrraYc..Jyla: veiled or mystical teachings. See G. W. F. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford. 196 1). p. 891. s. v. 3 Tll..lclc..J: in this context. it is an idiom. meaning to "quench" or "satisfy." 4
Refers to the holy streams of the sacred scriptures.
5
The passage can also read. "consistent with what has been said before."
421 you have done wonderfulthings."6 And the blessed prophet David says, "My tongue
shall tell ofyour righteousness, and ofyour praise, all day long....7 This, in fact, is the
intent8 of the saints. The base and wicked men, however. who do not know the great, sacred, and profound mystery of the incarnation of the Only-begotten, readily commit blasphemy, speaking with an untempered and unrestrained mouth. Therefore, let them hear the prophet Isaiah when he speaks to them, '"But you, draw near hither, illegitimate sons, seed of the adulterer and prostitute. Of whom are you making sport, and against whom do you open your mouth? Are you not children oftransgression, an illegitimate seedT
'9
For those who deny the Lord who redeemed them are truly children of
transgression, and an illegitimate seed, for we were redeemed for a price, not with perishable things, such as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. I 0 But how can the blood of a common man, of one who is similar to us, be [sufficient] ransom for the world? And how, also, did one [man] die on behalf of all, that he may enrich all? How did we become His, we who declare Him the true God. by nature? How do we venerate Him, we who refuse to worship the Is. 25: I. All Hebrew Bible references are to the SeptuaKint. My translations of scripture are based on Cyril's text, and when the text is close to the Septuagint I will place Cyril's text in italics. When Cyril simply echoes the Septuagint. I will give only the biblical reference. 6
7
Ps. 34:28.
see discussion in Chapters 1 and 3 regarding Athanasius' and Cyril's herrneneutic of scripture. oKonos refers to the intent, meaning and significance of scripture. 8 OKOTTOS:
9
Is. 57:3-4.
10
1 Pet 1: 18; I Cor 6:20.
422 creature rather than the creator? 11 But, as I just said, some are ungrateful toward the kindness of our Savior; they deny the Lord, they shake off the yoke of service, so that Christ says about them through the voice of the prophet, "Woe to them, for they have strayedfrom me. They are wicked because they have rebelled against me. / redeemed them, but they spoke lies against me. "12 For the imitators of the moral perversity and
impiety of the Pharisees bely the glory and preeminence of our Savior, enveloping themselves with a Christian demeanor, but adopting the spirit 13 of Judaism, and exercising such a bitter and venomous tongue~ that Christ also says this about it through the voice of Jeremiah, "Behold, / am against you, 0 proud one, says the Lord. "14 The Jews long ago attacked Chris~ Savior of us all; they assaulted [him] like beasts. They assailed their benefactor and Savior with stones. Then, the Savior declared to them, ••/ have shown you many good works from my Father. For which good work ofthese do you stone meT" And they said to him, "We do not stonefor a good work, but for a blasphemy. beClIw;e you, being a man, make yourse/fGod."15 These are the accusations of the
ancient Jews against our Savior; and emulators of their impiety and desperate folly bring an accusation again, saying, "Why do you, being a man, make yourself God?" 0 witless and loathsome one, you haven't grasped the II
Rom 1:25.
12
Hos 7: 13.
mystery~
For He didn"t make himself God
purpose, intention, meaning (ofa word or passage). See Chapter 3 for a discussion of SU:XVOla in Athanasius' hermeneutic. 13 SlcIVOla:
14
Jer 27:31.
15
Joh 10:32-33.
423 from man, but being God by nature, He became man, immutably and without confusion.
The One generated ineffably by God the Father endured generation in the flesh from a woman, and became Son of Man, that He may save us. He became like you for your sake; and He remained what He was for Himself. Know, therefore, the Only-begotten who came into being in the flesh. Confess that the One who became incarnate for our sake is God. He presents himself to you saying, "1 myse/fwhospeakampresent."16 For He declared the law to the men of old through Moses, and He became present in the flesh. Accept the holy prophets who bear witness. What does Baruch say, who demonstrates Emmanuel so vividly that he seems present? 17 "This is our God No other can be compared 10 him. He found the whole way ofknowledge. and gave it to Jacob his servant. and 10 Israel whom he loved Afterward. he appeared upon earth and lived among men. '-18 The blessed David sings psalms about him. "Our God will come manifestly. "19
Do you wish to call as witnesses the heralds of the New Testament as well? Listen to John the Baptist who says, "Prepare the way ofthe Lord: make straight the paths ofour God. -"20 Would you like to receive also another assurance, in addition to these? God
promised to the blessed David, "that he would set one ofhis descendants upon his rhrone.'"21 And David, though he rejoiced much because of this, he also inquired into the 16
Is 52:6.
17 The phrase is an idiom: 18
Bar 3:36-38.
19
Ps 49:2.
20 Luk 3:4. 21
Act 2:30.
""ovov o\ixl Kal XElPi.
Literally: '"not only by hand."
424 manner itself of generation. 22 Therefore. one can hear him when he says, ../ will not climb inro my bed [ j,
j
will not give sleep to my eyes, and slumber to my eyelids, and rest to my
temples," until you find what? <"until j find a place for the Lord, a dwelling place for (he God 0/Jacob. "23 Do you delve into the manner [of generation], 0 blessed David? [
approve of [your] zeal. I praise [your] perseverance. But if you have learned something else. then announce it to us. as welL Listen to the one who says clearly where the generation will be, and into what place it will come into being. "''Look. we heard ofit in £ph'rathah, we found it in the fieleLf!; ofJa 'ar. ''24 When he says•. Eph' rathah,' it signifies
Bethlehem. God bears witness to this through one of the holy prophets. saying, «And you, Bethlehem, house of£ph'rathah, are least among the clans ofJudah. For from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origins are from the beginning o/time. ''25 Do you hear that he affirmed that the Bethlemite, although he
became man, had his origins from the beginning of time? For '"In the beginning was the Word. "26 But. [ am ashamed. he says. to confess that God was begotten of a woman. 27
Tell me, do you rebuke, therefore, the divine plans? Do you deny the dispensation? Do you reprove the will of the Lord? This was how he wanted to save the entire world. Are 22
i.e. generation from the Virgin.
23 Ps 131:3-5. 24 Ps 131:6.
25
Mic 5: 1.
26
Joh 1: 1.
Instead ofEv. [emend the text to read EIC (yuvallCos yeyevvTU.lEvoV.) The reference, of course, is to Nestorius and his refusal to call Mary eeoTc)J(OS. 27
425
you wiser than wisdom? 0 incredible deed! A lamp contends with the suo. The Lord of all knows the way of his own works. Accept, therefore, the dispensation. Honor the mystery with faith. Don't meddle in affairs that are beyond comprehension. 28 Don't inquire into matters beyond discourse. 29 Believe with us. Even if you remain unbelieving,30 He remains faithful and cannot deny Himself The Him be the glory, and the power with the Holy
Spirit~
forever and ever. Amen.
vovs
28
comprehension:
29
discourse: AOYOS
30 cIlTEl6i)S: also means "disobedient," and refers to the three invitations made (in accordance with canonical law) to Nestorius, to which he refused to respond.
426 Homily by the same, in Ephesus, very
beautiful. 31
Those who devote themselves to the sacred scriptures have a wise heart, knowledgeable in good works, and resplendent in the right faith. The love of true knowledge, moreover, constitutes the purpose of life. And the Savior himself fully assures us of this when he says the following to the Father and God in Heaven. "And this is eternal life. that they may know you. the on(v true God and Jesus Christ whom you have senl."32 Therefore, knowledge of the Son is joined with knowledge of the Father, and so
this whole matter is life-giving. Whenever one is separated from the other, knowledge is, in all circumstances. imperfect. So also our Lord Jesus Christ addressed the Jewish people when he said, "You know neither me nor my Father; ifyou knew me. you would knm1/ mv Father also. "33 And still, the Jews believed that their fathers had seen God on
the mountain, both in nature and in truth. when he descended onto Mount Sinai in the form of fire, for they truly thought that they had heard his voice. For that reason they marveled at the teacher of sacred truth, Moses, but belittled our Lord Jesus Christ because of [his] human nature, saying impiously, "We know that God has spoken to Afoses. but as for this man we do nol know where he comes from. "34 What then does
Christ [say] to these [statements]? "Truly, I say to you; hisformyou have never seen. his voice you have never heard; and you do not have his word abiding in you. for you do
Homilia L Ephesi habita. ~ pulchra. (~ 5245) am I, I, 2. p. 96-98. This homily was delivered sometime in July, 431.
31
32
Joh 17:3.
33
Joh 8:19.
34
Joh 9:29
427
not believe him whom he has sent. "35 But the truth. in all circumstances. proves true.
For it was not the nature of God that was perceived on Mt. Sinai, but rather fire (and there were trumpet blasts and smoke was wafting). and the types 36 of truth that foreshadow the truth. For the God of all descended onto Mt. Sinai in the form of fire. And why [did he descend] in the form offrre? Since He intended to define the law for them, it was especially appropriate that he appear. at that time. to have descended in the form offire, so transgressors would know that fire [awaits them.] So also the blessed Moses. to render the sinners more chastened with fear. often declared. "Our God is a fire that con.,·umes. "37 Smoke and darkness came to pass; darkness aptly suggests to us the
incomprehensibility of knowledge of God. while smoke teaches. through enigmas. 38 that tears will always, and in every case. come to those who wish to despise the divine laws. For the eye of the body must weep in smoke. Therefore. the Jews did not see the form 39 of the father. but we saw it in Christ. For He is that purest beauty of the One who begot
35
Joh 5:37-38.
refer to biblical symbols generally from the Hebrew Bible. interpreted as foreshadowing some aspect of Christ' s dispensation. 36 TIrrrOl
37
Deut 4:24.
38 aivly,-,aTc..JSc":Js: aivly,-,a refers to the hidden meaning contained in scriptural words and phrases. ··Smoke" and "darkness," therefore. represent a more spiritual meaning. 39
e'ISos: material shape. form. See G. W. F. Lampe. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 408.
s.v.
428 Him, the impresg40 and radiance. 41 Even though the Word, being G<XL assumed flesh and blood (and did not assume an inanimate and mindless body as the mad and heretical Apollinarius c1aims)42 and became Son of Man, he still remained, thus God. In this way, He revealed His own mystery to the holy fathers from time to time; and there were very many proofs of such things in the holy prophets. But since it is necessary to analyze in detail, come and let's demonstrate, with [an excerpt] from the book of Genesis, the Son who appeared as man and who was named God. And, the blessed Jacob fled Mesopotamia, hastening once again to the household of his father; and he even took the two daughters of Laban along with the children they bore him, and transported them over Jabok, which is the name of a "torrent. "43 But as the God inspired scripture says, when the women and children were transported across, "Jacob was left alone and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When {the man] saw that he did not prevat! against him. he touched the hollow afhis thigh. and he paraly=ed the hollow of Jacob 's thigh as he wrestled with him. Then he said." he says, the man who was
\\Testling \\ith Jacob, 'Let me go. for dawn is breaking. . But [Jacob J said. '/ will not let you go. unless you bless me. "'44 "And he blessed him there and Jacob called the name of that place, 'theform ofGod. 'for / have seen. ... he says. ."God. face toface. and yet my
40 xapal
eyril responds to the charges of Apollinarianism made against him.
43
Gen 32:23.
44
Gen 32:25-27.
429
soul was saved. "'45 0 hallowed Wisdom! The patriarch sees a man wrestling with him
and exclaims, ~'I have seen God face to face, and my soul was saved" For he immediately understood the mystery of the incarnation which was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit. Pay attention to that. He wrestled with him the entire night; but as daybreak came, "'Let me go," he says, "for the dawn breaks." What then does the enigma signify? Christ fights and wrestles those who have the mist of ignorance in their mind and in their heart, and live just as in darkness and night, for he considers them enemies. But whenever the intelligtble46 morning-star sheds light upon their mind, whenever some such day radiates the light of the true knowledge of God on them, then he ends the battle. For he wrestles and fights with those who have an unenlightened, unilluminated heart just as in night and darkness. But he does not do battle with those who are in the light, those who have the intelligible dawn in their mind. Receive, therefore, people, the intelligible morning-star. i~t the light of truth radiate upon
you~
stop doing battle with Christ. He does not know
defeat, but eternal and everlasting victory. Although the Only-begotten Word of God has now become Man, he, nevertheless, did not cease being God by nature, who is immutable and unchanging. The same one, therefore, is both from the Father as Word, and from a woman, a man according to flesh. For there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,47 and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things. To Him be glory forever and ever. Amen. 45 Gen 32:30-31. 46 VOllTOS: '''intelligible,'' (as opposed to the perceptible, ai0611Tos) refers to that which
is apprehended by the mind, i.e., the spiritual realm. The "morning-star," therefore. is a type of a greater spiritual reality. 47 1 Cor 8:6.
430 The same, against John of Antioch48 We were taught the power of love toward God from the divine Scripture; the Savior Himself taught us no less when he said, Let the one who loves me ""follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also."49 For we must always be with, love and follow the Savior of us all, Christ, and in no way separate from Him; and we will observe this by wanting the same things as He does. This splendid, great assembly of priests fulfilled this. concerning which the prophetic voice might very rightly say, ... There the deer gathered together and saw the faces ofeach other. They a"ived in a herd and not one ofthem perished They didn 'I seek one another out, because Ihe Lord commanded Ihem and his spirit gathered them. "50 For the meeting of intelligibleS I stags did not occur there because of some ordinary act or, indeed, [because of] some earthly matter. Since, in fact, a terrible and recalcitrant serpent was seen as in a beautiful and flowering garden, I mean the church of our Savior, with not one, but many heads on one body, the gathering and presence of the intelligible stags becomes most useful and necessary, in order that the Lord's garden be freed from the moral decrepitude of the venomous ones. 52 Therefore, the Spirit of God gathered them together and the Lord commanded them. What did he Homilia VI. Ephesi ~ in IOhannem Antiochenum. (~ 5250) A.C.Q I, I, 2, p. 98100. Perhaps Cyril delivered this homily on July 5, a week after Cyril was deposed by John of Antioch's counter-synod on Friday, June 26, 431.
48
49 Joh 12:26. The New Testament text reads ECxV EIJOl TlS SlaKovij in place of 0 EIJE ayaTT(;lv. 50
Is 34:15-16.
51 VOTJTOS:
52
used here to signal Cyril's "'spiritual" exegesis of the text.
"one serpent with many heads," refers to Nestorius and the Antiochene party.
431 command? .. Where I am, there let my servant be also. "53 Surely then, my discourse now turns to you who come from the region of the East, you who raise a lofty brow against
all. Ifwe are all servants of the Savior of us all, Christ, if we have been entrusted with the service of his kerygma, why are we not all with Him in wishing to agree with Him? The many-headed serpent, as you see,lifted its profane and unhallowed head, spitting poison of its own impiety upon the children of the church. I come laying bare the sword of the Spirit against it;54 I fight with the beast for the sake of Christ. Why don't you collaborate with me who wishes to work well? Why don't you yourself help too? Let him be struck by the hand of ail. Let' s consider the struggle a joint one, so that having conquered together, we may offer thanks to the Savior, saying, You have humbled the <4
arrogant like a wounded man. 55 You crushed the heads ofthe serpent."S6 But we, the
genuine ministers of the Savior, stewards of his mysteries, we consider those who rail against his glory our worst enemies. But you don't do thus; how can it be?S7 The facts themselves prove that you don't come here sincerely. You see us preparing to struggle as in war. still dripping with sweat from the battle, requiring spiritual courage and solace -but rather, already victorious. Meanwhile, you who were one of our brothers, who registered Christ as your Master, who were obliged to serve as a fellow soldier, you raise
53
Joh 12:26.
54
Eph 6: 17.
55 Ps 88: 11. 56 Ps 73: 13.
57 Cyril here speaks of John of Antioch and his suppon for Nestorius.
432 anns against the dogmas of truth. 0 incredible deed! You did not partake in the battle. 58 You didn't participate in the contest. You fled the time of battle by your late arrival. You stood, observing from afar those who fought bravely . You saw the enemy
falle~
his
blasphemous tongue exhausted and chastened, and then you grieved. Tell me, why? Because Christ has conquered? Because he has prevailed against his adversaries? Because he has silenced a boastful mouth? Because the disease which strikes the cltildren of the church has ceased? But it would be better to fight bravely with us, and to speak what was said through the voice ofDavid. "Do I not hate them that hate you. Lord? And do I not loathe your enemies? I hate them with perfect hatred. I count them my enemies. "59
But there is not a single word from you on such matters. Indeed, you shoot hostile arrows at those who have conquered~ and attempt to wound with arrows of jealousy, those whom you should marvel at instead. Although you yourself attack us severely, we speak, fearing nothing. "Their blows were the Q"O'WS ofchildren. their tongues brought ruin upon them. "60 Although you attempt to war against the gathering of the Lord by
surrounding yourself with military61 weapons, nevertheless, our weapons are not "world(I.'. but mighty in God.·~ as it is written, "the might to destroy stronghold~. "62 You
will find the soldiers of Christ more excellent than those on your side. They have the 58 A reference to John's late arrival and absence from the proceedings of the majority council. 59
Ps 138:21-22.
60
Ps 63:8-9.
61 E~(J.)eEV: i.e., outside the church. 62
2 Cor 10:4.
433
shield of faith, the annor of good repute, i.e., Christ. They have righteousness as a breastplate, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit. 63 So that even if you may attack boldly and terribly, with much contempt, and, like boastful Goliath puffed up with barbarian madness and ignorance against us, yet Christ will conquer, he will, indeed, conquer through his own champions. How did David conquer? With five stones in a bag, and the stones were smooth, and this was a type of Christ. 64 What, indeed, is the bag of Christ? The church on earth, which contains many precious and select stones, concerning which the prophet says that ••...acred stones roll upon the earth. "65 Christ will prevail through the holy stones. But, the stones were
smoot~
as I said, and the smoothness of
the stones alludes to that which cannot be grasped. For that which is smooth can never be grasped; the conduct of the holy is blameless. Surely then, Christ will conquer, even if you manage to wound, and so I have conquered. 66 Although you committed wrong with your craftiness, still you crowned Christ unwillingly. "For it has been granted 10 us that jiJr the sake o/Christ we should not on(v believe in him but also suffer for his sake. ''67 "He who believes in Him is not condemned: he who does not believe In Him is condemned already. "68 63 Eph 6: 14, 16, 17. The lack of parallel structures suggests that the text here is incomplete. 64
1 King 17:40.
65
Zach 9: 16.
66 The text here is problematic. Schwartz gives an alternate reading, "even if you manage to crucify [Christ], so He conquered." 67
Phil 1:29.
68
Joh 3: 18.
434
The same, before he was arrested by the comes, and imprisoned by the soldiers69 The blessed prophet David declares that those who place trust in God are the bravest. '"Be brave. and let your heart be strong. all are hoping in the Lord "70 For. indeed. the plants in gardens grow and flourish. and are raised to great heights with the most bountiful irrigation of water. And the soul of man grows toward piety by the exhortations of the Holy Spirit, is strengthened in the faith. and acquires steadfast endurance. which the blessed Paul clearly admired more than all the other virtues, and says as follows, "More than thal. we rejoice in our sufferings. knowing that suffering produces endurance. and endurance produces character. and character produces hope. and hope does not disappoint us. "71 Therefore. endurance is the cause and agent of all that is good in us. a path toward good repute. a nurse of hope for the future age. And how shall we achieve endurance? The divine scripture teaches [us]. saying, '"My son.
if
you come forw·ard to serve (he Lord. prepare your soul for temptation. Set right your heart and he steadfast. "72 But perhaps someone will say: Was it not possible for mankind to succeed another way? Was it not possible for good to prevail without labor? Not at all. it says. And why? For very many [people] plot against the saints. and the war that envelopes them is terrible. On account of this the Savior Himselfsaid. '''In the
Homilia VII. Ephesi ~ priuSQuam il comite comprehenderetur. (Q!Q. 5251) ACa I. I. 2. p. 100-102. This homily was delivered just before Cyril's arrest in early August, perhaps August 2 or 9, 431.
69
70
Ps 30:25.
71
Rom 5:3-5.
72
Sir 2: 1-2.
435 world you have tribulation. but be ofgood cheer. I have overcome the world "73 Therefore, since everywhere there is much war against the saints, it is necessary for them to vigorously resist the attacks of temptation, and to remember the disciple who sai
Joh 16:33.
74
lac 1: 12.
75
TEAoS
76
Dan 3:1-5.
77
Rom 1:25.
78
Rom 1:23.
436
nothing, and, defeated by the piety of these people. they brought upon themselves punishment by fire. The charge. moreover. was an inevitable one for those who excel in the faith. a charge that was grounded in their piety. namely. their refusal to worship a man. and their unwillingness to accept views which insult the divine nature. After they were thrown into the furnace of fire. then came a great demonstration of the ineffable power. For the power of the elements was transformed into something contrary to nature. and the fire yielded to the will of the Creator. and the flame was changed into the rustling spirit of water. 79 The young men. perceiving aid from above. sang hymns in the furnace of fire and tamed the fire with hymns to God. The furnace of fire was a type of the church, with a holy choir. consisting not only of people. but also, of angels. Did you marvel at the vinue of men. did you praise their endurance. knowing the greatness of their piety? Let's see in what [state] are our own matters. Those people were under barbarian tyrants. while we, under pious [imperial] scepters. have the most pious rulers over all affairs. How shall we give in to the enemies? For if they light the furnace of insidiousness. and ignite the flames of moral perversity. introducing man-worship to us. still we have God in Heaven.lefs worship Him. For being God by nature. He became like us. not that He rejected being God. but that He honored the nature of mankind. Therefore, He was able to deliver us. For we, following the faith of the most pious emperors. and knowing the magnitude of kindness existing in them. shall not tolerate the moral depravity of our enemies, but we shall confess that Emmanuel is God by nature. Saying this. and being so disposed, we will enjoy the greatest recompense of alL What is this? He himself will teach us, saying. "So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father. who is in Heaven; but whoever denies me before 79
Dan 3:50-51.
437 men, I will also deny, before my Father who is in Heaven."So He confesses Christ who says that God is true and rebukes those who do not believe, but he denies Christ who does not say that God is true, but even fights with those who confess Him. Therefore, the Savior of all will acknowledge us and deny them; through whom and with whom be the glory and the power to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, forever and ever. Amen.
80
Mat 10:32-33.
438 The same, to Nestorius, When the Seven Came Down to St. Mary' s81 I see a beaming assembly of saints.82 who have all eagerly gathered together. called by the holy Mother of God, Mary. the eternal Virgin. For although I live in much grief.83 the arrival of the holy fathers has brought me joy. 84 Now the sweet word of the hymnographer David has been fulfilled in us: "Look how good and how pleasant it is for the brelhren 10 dwell together in unity?'''8S Hail from us, the holy. mystical Trinity. which
convened us all in this holy church of Mary. Mother of God. 86 Hail from us, Mary, Mother of G<>
Cyril said in another instance that they had convened '''in much grief' for the first session in the Church of St. Mary. This homily makes reference to that first meeting, which suggests that this was delivered sometime after the first meeting of the council. Furthermore. this homily alludes to the arrival of the papal delegates from Rome. I suggest, therefore. that this homily was delivered after the papal representatives arrived from Rome, on approximately July 10th (and the council confirmed Nestorius' deposition), i.e., on Sunday, July 12,431. For further discussion on dating this homily, see S. Wessel. 44Nestorius, Mary and Controversy," AH£31 (November. 1999). 83
84 This refers to the arrival of the papal representatives from Rome on approximately July 10th. 85
Ps 132: 1.
86 The venue was a hostile one for Nestorius. See generally K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses, p. 164. 87 Also: candle
439 is called blessed in the holy Gospels;88 Hail, the one who contains the uncontainable in the holy virginal womb, through whom the holy Trinity is glorified and venerated throughout the world, through whom heaven is exalted, through whom angels and archangels are delighted, through whom demons are banished, through whom the tempting devil fell from heaven, through whom fallen human nature is assumed into heaven, through whom all of creation, possessed by the madness of idolatry, came to the full knowledge of truth, through whom holy baptism came into being for all the faithful, through whom is the oil of exultation, through whom the churches have been founded for all the world, through whom the nations are brought into repentance. And what more is there to say? Through whom the Only-begotten Son of God shined light for those that sit in the darkness and shadow ofdealh;89 through whom the prophets prophesied; through whom the apostles proclaim salvation to the nations; through whom the dead were revived: through whom kings reign, through the Holy Trinity.90 Is it even possible for people to speak of the celebrated Mary? The virginal womb;91 0 thing of wonder! The marvel strikes me with awe! Who ever heard of a builder who, after he constructed his own temple, was prevented from dwelling in it? Who is insulted for having summoned his own servant into motherhood? 88
Mt 21:9. This emphasizes Mary' s descent from the line of David.
89 Lk 1:79. 90 Translation of the final clause follows PG 77, 992C. A possible alternative translation based on Schwartz' edition reads as follows: ..... through whom kings reign. The virginal womb [came into being] through the Holy Trinity. (Who can even speak ofthe celebrated Mary?)" ~ I, 1,2, p. 103, lines 3-4. In any case, the meaning is ambiguous. 91 PG 77, 992C: Sl' n~ ~aalAel~ ~aOlAeVcn SlCx TplaSo~ 6:yia~. KalSuvaTos aVep~1Tc.JV
AEyElV niv
lTOAW~T1TOV
Mapiav:
~TiTpa
ti lTap6EvllCT1·
440
Behold, therefore, all rejoice. 92 The sea, recognizing its fellow servants, was subdued;93 and while its stonny waves thrashed about, the passage of the saints transfonned the sea into stillness. For the insurgent slave recalled the voice of the Savior saying, ··Peace.' BeStill."-94 And the journey of the fathers restored the earth, previously beset by robbers, into peace once again. "For how beautiful are the feet ofthose who preach peace.,'-95 What kind of peace? Our Lord Jesus Christ whom Mary bore as he
himself willed it. For what value is it to me ifI inquire into scripture but do not honor it? But will you mention to me the denial of the Jews? The prophets denounced them from the beginning, for having contrived to slay Christ on their own initiative, they were summoned into denial. 96 But will you mention the bitter plague of Arius? He harbored a pestilential longing for episcopal office. What about the unspeakable and godless tenet of Pagan licentiousness? That was the practice of ignorance. What else must one say? This man (Nestorius) exceeded with his wickedness every gentile who goes to the unlawful festivals. For the gentiles oftentimes in ignorance of scripture, unwillingly blaspheme God. But this man, with knowledge of the entire scriptures,97 1 dare to say, perhaps 92 Translation follows e.Q. 77, 992C: xaiPEl Ta m1J,..tlTaVTa- 6aAaTTa 5e lm'ETcIyTl. 93 The translation follows Schwartz' alternate reading, Aca I, 1,2, p. 103, alternate reading, line 7: TOV~ i5iou~ auv50vAo~_ 94
Mk 4:39.
95 Rom 10: 15. Cyril uses the word "peace" in place of "good things." This passage may refer to the journeys undertaken by the council participants, as they made their way to Ephesus. The allusion to the calm sea may suggest the arrival of the Roman delegates. 96
The translation could also read, "they were enticed into denial."
97 The meaning is ambiguous here. The phrase could also mean "all secular knowledge."
441
having even practiced the deceits of magic, did not delve sincerely into divinely-inspired scriptures, but plunged into silver and gold,98 blinded and deceived by a madness for <material> things. 99 Wishing to alienate yourself from the episcopal throne by blasphemy, 100 you have even deleted your name from the list of brethren, not recognizing the One who bestowed the office of high priest on you. 101 Weren't you persuaded by Paul when he said, ·'Even ifan angel from heaven preaches contrary to that which we preached. let him be accursec/!'I02 Paul did not stop your vain arrogance. But Isaiah,
when he said, ·'Behold. a Virgin will conceive. and she will bear a son. and they will call hiS name Emmanuel. which is interpreted, God is with us?"I03 He didn't either! For you
possessed a mind of terrible perversity. Listen at least to the demons who say, ··What do you have to do with us. 0 Son ofGod? Have you come before time to torture u\"?"I04
Who advised you to proclaim this worthless argument? Who (abored with you in this 98
Cr. Acts 20:33.
See G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 1126, s.v. The translation is based on my editing ofSchwartz' text: ... aAA' eVEK\J\.jJEv Ei~ apyVplOv Kat XpVOlOV. 99
TV
100 The translation is based on my editing ofSchwartz' text: ... 5VOCPll~lC;X oEaVTov ~ovA6~EVO~ aAAOTPlQCal TOU ep6vov...
101 Cyri] changes person during the course of this passage, moving from a third person
assault on Nestorius. to one that takes place in the second person. This passage also functions as a direct allusion to Nestorius' deposition, and even alludes to bribes received by Nestorius -- no doubt an attempt to deflect charges of bribery (eveled against eyril. 102 Gal
1:8.
103 Is 7: 14; Mt 1:23. 104
Mt 8:29.
442 inopportune affliction? Were you not ashamed at making God similar to a Persian king? Weren't you embarrassed that you wished to deny the traditions of the fathers, evangelists, and prophets? And although you thought you ruled over all the churches, you didn't remember the one who guided you from the dung heap to the heavenly heights; and intent on the creatures you didn't recognize the creator. 105 Wishing to turn the world upside-down lO6 with deceptive arguments, you made a mockery of the temple ofG
106
e[ Acts 17:6.
107 Perhaps a reference to convening the council at the proper time. 108 2 Cor 6: 13. 109 e[ Prov 5:22.2 and Gregory ofNyssa, Antirrheticus adversus ApolIinarium. (ePG 3144) PG 45, 1232A, F. Muller, ed., Greaorii Nysseni Opera IlL 1. Opera dQwtatica minora (Leiden, 1958), p. 206, in which the word oElpa has a negative connotation, as in Cyrirs text. The Septuagint uses the word to describe sin, and Gregory ofNyssa uses it to conde~n the unyielding logic of the Apollinarians' claims. A likely reference to the empress Pulcheria. See K. Holum, p. 143, discussing the fact that Pulcheria and her two sisters were called "the every-virginal chorus of princesses." 110
443 you could make this man an apostate with your deceptive words. I 11 You even wished to corrupt the pious laity ,112 and you annoyed a throng of fathers who happened to be taking a respite. I 13 You were not content to ruin yourself in blaspheming God, but you announced your blasphemy to the entire world But behold, it has been fulfilled in you: .... The sinner was ensnared in the works o/his own hands." I 14 You had the holy clergy of
presbyters and deacons excommunicated for refuting your importunate madness, which is nothing else but thinking like Arius. 115 And now I am neither striking down the fallen man, nor drowning one who is tossed about by waves; 116 rather I scoff at the empty sophistry of his lawless advisers. Who has seen a ship coming into a calm harbor in tranquil weather, having <just> suffered a shipwreck? Who has seen an athlete who. after falling in the sand pit, has not stood upright again? But when you had fallen and were shipwrecked in your faith, did we not lend a hand? Accept as witness the honorable and holy Caelestine. Archbishop of great Rome, for he continually wrote to you telling you to
Cyril deftly replays the emperor's own imperial ideology. as expressed in his ~ ~ Cvrillum Alex. et ad Singulos Metropolitas, ACa I. I. I. p. 114-116. for the benefit of his audience. III
112
Or: "people"
The meaning is unclear. It could possibly refer to Nestorius' telling a group of fathers that God was not a child two or three months old. 113
114
Ps 9:16.
Translation follows ACa I.,. 1,2, p. 104, n. 12, Schwartz' supplement to the lacuna in the text: ~S ovSev aAAo ouaav El ... 115
116 CfEph
4: 14.
444
distance yourself from impious, useless, and incoherent doctrine. I 17 Receive even our humble v.itness, as we exhorted you in like manner through brief letters to accept our speech about God. But you did not take us into accoun~ clothing yourself in a sort of cruelty and madness, being arrogant in your wickedness, an
unity,I21 and to be obedient to our most pious emperor, and to be subject to the rulers and authorities, 122 and to revere and worship the undivided Trinity, while singing hymns to the perpetual Virgin Mary, namely the holy church , and to her Son and A reference to Caelestine's letter to Nestorius, Epislu1a Caelestini papae ad Nestorium (Sententia synodi Romanae) (d. Aug. to, 430. Nestorio tradita est Nov. 30, 430). ACO I, I, I, p. 77-83. 117
Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion (Adversus haereses) (ePG 3745) 27.5.9, PG 41, 372A; K. HolI, ed., Epiphanius, 1. Ancoratus und Panarion (haer. 1-33, 27). GCS 25 (Leipzig, 1915), p. 308. 118
119
Cr.
Ps 52:5.
120 Rom 2:6. Cyril spins a masterful pun. The use of the word implies at least three things: I) the one Trinity, 2) the unity of the two natures of Christ (contrary to the division of natures taught by Nestorius), and 3) the unity of the church, which had been threatened by Nestorius'teachings. 121
122
Tit 3:1.
445
undefiled bridegroom, for to Him be glory forever and ever. Amen.
