User:R43wer4e

Fragments of Theodore Lector’s Church History Following the findings of German scholars during the late nineteenth to early twentieth century, Hans-Georg Opitz identifies 22 extant fragments of Theodore’s Church History.136 Six of them come from John of Damascus’ Apologetic Treatises Against Those Decrying the Holy Images, in which an appended florilegium of patristic writings includes Theodore’s accounts of an Arian named Olympios (F 1 [52a]), Palladios of Antioch (F 2 [51]), Dioskoros of Alexandria (F 3 [22a]), Timothy of Constantinople (F 4 [58]), Julian and Timothy of Constantinople (F 5 [62]), and Gennadios of Constantinople (F 6a [11]).137 Two fragments are found in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), one concerning Dioskoros of Alexandria (F 7 [2];), the other on Philoxenos (F 8 [35]). Another fragment, contained in the Gerontikon preserved in codex Athous Iviron 497, concerns a hermit named Severus of Paphlagonia (F 9 [37]).138 In addition, Opitz takes into consideration two brief scholia to the Church History of Evagrios,139 seven passages from the anonymous work On Schisms,140 three from the Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai (27–28: on the death of the chartularius Himerios [Preger I, 35,10–36,26]; 29–36: on the statues of the empresses [Preger I, 37,1–39,7]; 41: on the forum of Amastrianos [Preger I, 46,18– 48,10]), and passage 72–73 of the Patria relating to a procession after an earthquake during Theodosios II’s reign (Preger II, 150, 5–21).141 ←136 | 137→ In his edition of Theodore’s Church History, Günther Christian Hansen has generally agreed with the model proposed by Opitz, yet he questions the correlation between the Church History and the passages of the Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai, considering these (correctly, in our view) a falsification.142 In addition, Hansen provides several extra fragments, among which he includes primarily 58 passages from the Chronicle of Victor of Tunnuna, one narrative from the Pratum spirituale by John Moschos, and six entries from the Suda.143 Furthermore, Hansen argues that Theodore’s work was also used by Cyril of Scythopolis, but ←137 | 138→it is impossible to identify precisely the borrowings from the Church History in the extensive chapters 50, 52 and 56 of Cyril’s Vita Sabae.144 Accordingly, the number of relevant fragments in Hansen’s edition has radically increased from 22, as identified in Opitz’s commentary, to 77, even though the four connected with the Parastaseis and Patria have been disputed. Ultimately, in the 1990s, Hansen published one further extensive passage from four manuscripts (and from Niketas Choniates’ Thesaurus of Orthodoxy), which he considered a fragment from Theodore’s work.145 This specific text, entitled Ὑπόθεσις τῆς ἐν Χαλκηδόνι συνόδου, encompasses 15 pages of the Fontes Minores edition and is longer than any other surviving fragment of Theodore’s Church History.146 The attributions proposed by Hansen (as well as some of those by Opitz) are nonetheless a little doubtful. First, the passages identified, even if somehow related to Theodore’s composition, are not strictly speaking “fragments”, inasmuch as they are not citations drawn from his work or even paraphrases. For instance, both of the scholia to Evagrios’ Church History are single sentences, remarking on the correspondence or divergence between Theodore’s and Evagrios’ accounts. This is certainly too little to be called fragments. The passages in the treatise On Schisms are basically of the same character. Although they are helpful in reconstructing the content of Theodore’s original Church History, essentially they provide only information, often quite perfunctory, on what it may have contained, rather than the actual contents. Cyril of Scythopolis’ reliance on Theodore’s work was disputed by Bernard Flusin more than three decades ago.147 Even though he did not reject some degree of correlation between the two texts,148 he found that it could not indicate ←138 | 139→Cyril’s direct dependence on Theodore’s Church History, but only the possibility that the both authors might have used a common source of Palestinian origin. Flusin pointed to the existence of some “official or semi-official documents”,149 drawn up by Palestinian monks and addressed to the emperor or the bishops, which were intended to serve as arguments in the disputes in which those monks had been involved. In support of this assertion, Flusin adduced an epistle of the Palestinian monks addressed to Bishop Alkison of Nikopolis in Epirus from ca. 516, which Evagrios included in his Church History.150 In Flusin’s opinion, Cyril made extensive use of such documents.151 The letters of the Palestinian monks were probably not only addressed to pro-Chalcedonian bishops, but also to the monks of Constantinople whose archives Theodore Lector used as a documentary resource. Incidentally, one might also note that out of seven parallels cited by Hansen only one allows comparison between Cyril’s composition (Vita Sabae 50 [Schwartz, 140, 10–12]) and a surviving fragment from Theodore’s work (F 2 [51]), which is concerned with Patriarch Palladios of Antioch. Yet these two accounts are different in their contents: while Cyril refers only to Palladios’ condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon, Theodore records that the patriarch was reputedly averse to the followers of the Chalcedonian movement, having removed the images of the holy fathers, most likely the bishops in favour of the council’s resolutions. These passages are linked only by a statement that Palladios had so acted in order to ingratiate himself with the emperor.152 Another, rather general analogy concerns the similarity between a report in the Vita Sabae and Victor of Tunnuna’s Chronicle,153 whereas the others find their ←139 | 140→parallels in Theophanes’ Chronography154 and the Synodicon Vetus,155 but not in the manuscripts of Theodore’s Epitome.156 Although Hansen is probably correct in his opinion that these passages draw on the Epitome, we cannot be sure of the accuracy with which they transmit its text,157 let alone the distortion of the original version of Theodore’s Church History in the process of composing the Epitome. The story in the passage from John Moschos’ Pratum spirituale, which corresponds to Epitome 48 [383], was reportedly heard by the author from two Constantinopolitan monks at the monastery of Salama near Alexandria. However, pointing out that the interval between this occurrence and the composition of the Pratum spirituale was too great for it to have survived in living memory, Hansen infers that Moschos may have derived the relevant information from Theodore’s work.158 Philippe Blaudeau contests this view, arguing that Moschos did not need to rely on Theodore’s written version for the creation of his narrative.159 In our opinion, the current state of our knowledge does not allow definitive resolution of this particular question, as the account may have been derived from Theodore’s Church History by the aforementioned monks,160 and ←140 | 141→not by Moschos himself. Nevertheless, there are no firm grounds for assuming that this account was drawn directly from Theodore’s work; rather it should be placed within the broader Theodorean tradition. With respect to the entries of the Suda (which is a question similar to attributing some out-of-context sentences in the same lexicon to specific Late-Antique authors), we are confronted here with a high degree of uncertainty, often even arbitrariness, stemming only from the thematic and chronological coincidence between the entries in that lexicon and some Late-Antique works. For these reasons, we approach passages from the Suda with great caution, assigning them also to a more remote tradition dependent on Theodore Lector’s composition. The case for connecting the anonymous Ὑπόθεσις τῆς ἐν Χαλκηδόνι συνόδου to Theodore Lector is based on the fact that he is twice named by its final editor (whom Hansen denotes as Anonymous),161 as well as some parallels with the seventh-century Epitome of Theodore’s Church History. In Hansen’s edition, the five passages of the Hypothesis that are not directly drawn from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon are placed alongside the Epitome in order to demonstrate their literal correspondence: Hypothesis, verses 2–4 ~ Epitome 9 [344] (Eutyches becomes archimandrite of the monastery of Job), Hypothesis, verse 6 ~ Epitome 21 [356] (referring to Eutyches using the adjective δείλαιος), Hypothesis, verses 24–30 ~ Epitome 11 [346] (associates of emperor Theodosios, led by Chrysaphios, persuade him to summon a general council), Hypothesis, verses 62–64 ~ Epitome 12 [347] (bishops deposed at the Council of Ephesos in 449) and Hypothesis, verse 64 ~ Epitome 14 [349] (Maximus succeeds Domnus at Antioch). Hansen recognizes that, as the passage from the Hypothesis analogous to Epitome 11 [346] is longer, the author of the Hypothesis did not draw on the Epitome, but on a fuller version of Theodore’s Church History.162 Hansen concedes, nonetheless, that the text of Theodore’s Church History as found in the Hypothesis is significantly abridged, citing those events omitted by the Anonymous but recorded in the Epitome.163 ←141 | 142→ Some of the parallels may be misleading. For example, a general report of Maximus succeeding Domnus at Antioch may or may not derive from Theodore. The author of Epitome 12 [347] notes that Andrew of Samosata was among those deposed by the Council of Ephesos, while the Hypothesis does not refer to him at all, but does state, unlike the Epitome, the names of the episcopal cities of Theodoret and Ibas. With regard to the two passages of the Hypothesis that refer directly to Theodore’s work, the first one reads as follows: 1. During the reign of Theodosios the Younger there was a certain archimandrite in the imperial city, named Eutyches, who was head of a monastery situated at Hebdomon, which was called after Job, as Theodore Lector says in the first book of the Church History. [1. Ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις τῆς βασιλείας Θεοδοσίου τοῦ νέου ἦν τις κατὰ τὴν βασιλίδα πόλιν ἀρχιμανδρίτης, ὀνομαζόμενος μὲν Εὐτυχής, ἡγούμενος δὲ μοναστηρίου διακειμένου κατὰ τὸ Ἕβδομον καὶ λεγομένου τοῦ Ἰώβ, ὥς φησιν ὁ ἀναγνώστης Θεόδωρος ἐν τῷ πρῶτῳ βιβλίῳ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας.] Unfortunately, it is not possible to make a definitive judgement, on the basis of this statement, whether the reference to Theodore’s Church History relates to the whole sentence or only the final details. However, as all the information in the present passage is paralleled in Epitome 9 [344], there is no reason to doubt that all of it is drawn from Theodore. The situation is somewhat different in the case of the second passage: 12. After he had pronounced this, he forced the bishops to sign a blank sheet. Then later, having written an act of deposition of Flavian and Eusebios such as he desired, both he and Barsauma signed it. 13. Theodore, however, narrates that Flavian said this to Dioskoros: ‘I reject you’. He then kicked Flavian, hitting a critical spot, which caused his death. Others claim that Barsauma took him in order to escort him to the eastern border and arranged for him to be killed on the way. [12. Ταῦτα ἐκφωνήσας ἠνάγκασε τοὺς ἐπισκόπους εἰς ἄγραφον ὑπογράψαι χάρτην, καὶ ὕστερον οἵαν ἐβούλετο καθαίρεσιν Φλαβιανοῦ καὶ Εὐσεβίου γράψας ὑπεγραψεν αὐτός τε καὶ Βαρσουμᾶς. 13. Ἱστορεῖ δὲ ὁ Θεόδωρος, ὡς Φλαβιανοῦ εἰπόντος πρὸς Διόσκορον ὅτι <<Παραιτοῦμαί σε>> λὰξ ἐκεῖνος ἐνέτεινε κατ’ αὐτοῦ, καιρίαν τε παίσας ἀρχὴν τῷ θανάτῳ παρέσχηκεν. Ἕτεροι δὲ φασιν ὅτι Βαρσαυμᾶς αὐτὸν παρειληφὼς ἐπὶ τῷ ὑπερορίσαι πρὸς τὰ τῆς ἑῴας μέρη κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν σφαγῆναι παρεσκεύασε.] As can be seen, the Anonymous relates here at least two different traditions on the death of Bishop Flavian, including one derived from Theodore (Ἱστορεῖ δὲ ὁ Θεόδωρος), here marked in bold type, which is contrasted with some other, unnamed sources (Ἕτεροι δὲ φασιν). The single manuscript that preserves this section of the Epitome, codex Athous Vatopedi 286, does not give details of Flavian’s death, merely a brief ←142 | 143→statement that the bishop was killed at Ephesos,164 but Synodicon Vetus 89, demonstrably based on the Epitome,165 provides a version similar to the Hypothesis: “The praiseworthy Flavian of Constantinople, however, was deposed, and died on the spot as the result of being kicked…” [Φλαβιανὸς δὲ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ὁ ἀοίδιμος καθαιρεθείς, λακτίσματι ἐπιτοπίως κτείνεται…]. It should therefore be supposed that a similar detail could have been found in the complete version of the epitome of Theodore’s Church History. As Hansen observes, the Athos codex (the source of all the passages that he considers to be parallel with the Hypothesis) was “notoriously abridged.”166 This tendency of the editor of codex Athous Vatopedi 286 is also probably responsible for the fact that the Hypothesis covers the events of the Council of 449 a little more extensively than Epitome 11 [346]. It is not then plausible that the Anonymous might have resorted to the full version of Theodore’s Church History, considering that a more complete version of its Epitome is a more likely option. The Anonymous used this Epitome (along with some other sources) to outline the circumstances surrounding the emperor Marcian’s call for a new general council to take place at Chalcedon. In all probability, the summary of the council’s proceedings in the Hypothesis has no connection with Theodore’s Church History, and it certainly would not have been composed by him in its present form, to judge not only by the stylistic differences between it and the extant fragments of Theodore’s work, but also by the disparity between its contents and what we know of the Church History (from the Epitome, among other considerations).167 Leaving aside the summary of the counciliar ←143 | 144→Acts, the Hypothesis has an unquestionable connection with Theodore’s composition or rather, as noted above, with its Epitome. For this reason, it is included below in the section dedicated to writings originating from or associated with the Theodorean tradition. The largest part of Hansen’s fragments consists of passages drawn from the Chronicle of Victor of Tunnuna. As I have recently attempted to explain elsewhere, these cannot be properly called fragments, especially since they are written in Latin by an author who had difficulties with Theodore’s Greek and also because of their brevity.168 As the comparison with F 1 [52a] has shown, it is clear that Victor reduced 778 words of the original text to a mere 32 words, which constitutes 4.11 % of the original text. There are no other fragments that could be securely compared with Victor’s Chronicle, but it might be significant that the ascetic known as Severus of Paphlagonia, who features in an anecdote relating to the emperor Zeno (F 9 [37]), is also mentioned in Victor’s work in a short list of ascetics living during this ruler’s reign.169 Each of the seven ascetics named was probably a protagonist of some shorter or longer episode in Theodore’s Church History. The aforementioned passage from Victor’s Chronicle is only 31 words long, while one anecdotal story about Severus (F 9 [37]) consists of 171 words. Quite clearly, therefore, the passages in Victor’s Chronicle cannot be regarded as fragments of the Church History, but merely as a kind of epitome, as will be seen in the subsequent chapter on Victor of Tunnuna. We think it is reasonable to assume that the genuine fragments of Theodore’s composition are only the first nine of those cited by Opitz, considering them to be more or less faithful quotations from the Church History. An additional explanation is required for the fragment containing the story of the miraculous healing of a painter’s withered hand by Gennadios, which is included here in two versions (F 6a and 6b [11]). In his edition, Hansen arbitrarily combines a fragment from John of Damascus and an extract from Theodore’s Church History preserved in codex Parisinus graecus 1115. Both sources cite one and the same narrative, but John’s version is shorter and ends abruptly, while the version in the Paris codex transmits, apparently, the whole story. On the other hand, the ←144 | 145→quotation by John seems to be closer to Theodore stylistically.170 It seems that instead of artificially combining these two accounts into one, it makes more sense to cite them separately in full as F 6a and 6b [11].171 This example serves as a kind of warning that even the fragments presented below may have undergone various modifications. This means that we cannot be entirely certain of their authenticity relative to the original text. For the purpose of the present publication, we have considered the most recent critical editions as the basis for the Greek text of the fragments of Theodore Lector’s Church History. The fragments from the florilegium found in John of Damascus’ Contra imaginum calumniatores are based on the edition Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, herausgegeben vom Byzantinischen Institut der Abtei Scheyern, Bd. iii, Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes tres, besorgt von B. Kotter, Berlin-New York 1975. The fragments from the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787) are cited in accordance with the edition Concilium universale Nicaenum secundum, concilii actiones I-III, edidit E. Lamberz, Berlin-New York 2008 (ACO ii 2, iii 1) and Concilium universale Nicaenum secundum, concilii actiones IV-V, edidit E. Lamberz, Berlin-New York 2012 (ACO ii 2, iii 2). The fragment from codex Parisinus graecus 1115 is published on the basis of a photocopy. Finally, the narrative about the ascetic Severus is cited in accordance with Theodore Lector’s work as edited by Günther Hansen. In the present publication, the relevant fragments are annotated with a new numeration, with Hansen’s numeration indicated in square brackets. ←145 | 146→ Theodori Lectoris fragmenta ex Historia ecclesiastica 1 [52a] Johannes Damascenus, Contra imaginum calumniatores, oratio 3, Florilegium iii 90 (Kotter, 182–184) ←146 | 147→ Τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Θεοδώρου δʹ τόμου· Ὑπὸ δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὑπατείαν κατὰ τὸν μῆνα τὸν Δεκέμβριον, ἔχοντα αὐτὸν τριακάδα καὶ πέμπτην ἡμέραν, θαῦμα φοβερὸν καὶ ἐξαίσιον πᾶσάν τε ἀκοὴν ἀνθρώπων καταπλῆττον γεγένηται. Ὀλύμπιος γάρ τις τοὔνομα Εὐθυμίου τοῦ τῆς Ἀρείου θρησκείας ἐξάρχοντος τὸν βαδιστὴν παραχορεύων ἐν τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ παλατίου Ἑλενιανῶν γενόμενος κατὰ τὸν προμαλάττοντα καὶ θεασάμενός τινας τῶν λουομένων τὴν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου δόξαν σεμνύνοντας ἔφη αὐταῖς λέξεσιν οὕτως· «Τί γάρ ἐστιν ἡ τριάς; Ποίῳ δὲ τοίχῳ οὐκ ἐπιγέγραπται;» Καὶ κρατήσας τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἀναγκαίων ἔφη· «Ἴδε, κἀγὼ τριάδα ἔχω», ὥστε κινηθέντας τοὺς ἐκεῖ ←147 | 148→εὑρεθέντας μέλλειν αὐτὸν διαχειρίζεσθαι· ἀλλ’ εἴρχθησαν ὑπό τινος Μάγνου, πρεσβυτέρου τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων ἐν τῷ περιτειχίσματι, ἀνθρώπου θαυμαστοῦ καὶ τὸν θεὸν θεραπεύοντος, φήσαντος πρὸς αὐτούς, ὡς οὐκ ἂν διαλάθῃ τὸν τῆς παντεφόρου δίκης ὀφθαλμὸν ἀκριβεῖ λόγῳ γράφοντα. Αἰδοῖ δὲ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τῆς ταραχῆς παυσαμένων ἐξανέστη ὁ Ὀλύμπιος καὶ τῇ ἐμβάσει τῶν θερμῶν ὡς ἔθος χρησάμενος ἔξεισιν ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ψυχρῶν ὑδάτων δεξαμένην, ἥτις λαμβάνει τὰ ὕδατα ἐκ πηγῆς τικτομένης μέσον τοῦ σεπτοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ εὐαγοῦς οἴκου τοῦ πρωτομάρτυρος Στεφάνου, ὃν ἐν παλαιοῖς ἔκτισεν ἀξιώμασιν ἀρχοντικοῖς διαλάμψας Αὐρηλιανός· ἐνθένδε ἡγοῦμαι θείας ἐποψίας τὸ ὕδωρ ἀξιοῦσθαι. Ἐν ᾗ καταβὰς θᾶττον ἐπαναβαίνει κραυγάζων· «Ἐλεήσατέ με, ἐλεήσατε», καὶ κνήθων αὐτοῦ τὰς σάρκας τῶν ὀστῶν ἀπεμέριζε. Πάντες δὲ περὶ αὐτὸν γενόμενοι καὶ κρατήσαντες, σινδόνι περιτυλίξαντες ἀνέκλιναν ψυχορραγοῦντα. Ἐπηρώτων δέ, τί ἂν εἴη τὸ συμβάν· καὶ φησιν ὁ Ὀλύμπιος· «Ἄνδρα κατεῖδον λευχειμονοῦντα ἐπιβάντα μοι κατὰ τῆς νεροφόρου καὶ τρεῖς σίκλας θερμοῦ περιχέαντά μοι καὶ λέγοντά μοι· ‘Μὴ δυσφήμει.’» Λαβόντες δὲ αὐτὸν φορείῳ οἱ αὐτῷ διαφέροντες μετεκόμισαν ἐν ἑτέρῳ λουτρῷ προσκειμένῳ τῇ τῶν Ἀρειανῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ. Θελόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀποτυλίξαι τὴν σινδόνα ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ συνεξέπαιρον πάσας τὰς σάρκας αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὕτως νεκρωθεὶς ἀπέδωκε τὸ πνεῦμα. Γνωστὸν δὲ ἐγένετο τοῦτο σχεδὸν καθ’ ὅλης τῆς βασιλίδος. Ἐφήμιζον δέ τινες περὶ τοῦ πεπονθότος, ὡς χρόνοις τισὶν ἀπὸ τῆς τὸ ὁμοούσιον δοξαζούσης θρησκείας εἰς τὴν Ἀρείου μετεβαπτίσατο λατρείαν. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὸ συμβεβηκὸς καὶ ἀκοαῖς βασιλέως ἐπλησίασεν – Ἀναστάσιος δὲ ἦν –, ἐπέτρεψεν εἰκόνι χρωματισθὲν τὸ τεράστιον ὕπερθε τῆς νεροφόρου καταπαγῆναι. Ἰωάννης δέ τις διάκονος καὶ ἔκδικος τοῦ προλεχθέντος εὐαγοῦς οἴκου Στεφάνου τοῦ τῶν μαρτύρων πρώτου, ἀνὴρ εἰ καί τις ἄλλος ζῆλον ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου δόγματος ἑκάστοτε ἐνδεικνύμενος καὶ αὐτὸς εἰκόνι κατέγραψεν, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἁπλῶς· τῶν γὰρ ἐκεῖσε λουομένων καὶ θεασαμένων τὰ ὀνόματα κατέγραψε, καὶ ἔνθα εἴη ἕκαστος οἰκῶν, ἔτι τε καὶ τῶν τοῖς ὕδασιν ὑπηρετούντων. Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ ἡ εἰκὼν ἄχρι τοῦ παρόντος πεπηγυῖα ἐν τῷ ἐμβόλῳ τοῦ τετραστόου τοῦ πολλάκις εἰρημένου εὐκτήριου. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τῷ θαύματι θαῦμα ἐπηκολούθησεν, οὐχ ὅσιον παριδεῖν τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεως τυγχάνον, ὅπερ, εἰ καὶ τὸν παρόντα καιρὸν ὑπερῆλθε, λέγειν οὐκ ὀκνήσω. Θεασάμενοι γὰρ οἱ τῆς Ἀρείου συμμορίας ἐπικρατοῦντα θρίαμβον ἐλιπάρησαν τὸν τοῦ παλατίου Ἑλενιανῶν τὴν φροντίδα πεπιστευμένον ὡς ἐξάρχοντα καὶ τῆς τοῦ λουτροῦ διοικήσεως καθελόντα, κατακρύψαι τὴν εἰκόνα. Ὃς πρόφασιν εὐμήχανον εὑράμενος τὴν ἐκ τῶν ὑδάτων προσγινομένην νοτίδα ὡς σκυλθεῖσαν τὴν εἰκόνα ἀφελόμενος, φησίν, ἐπὶ διορθώσει κατέκρυψεν. Ἣν ὁ βασιλεύς, ἐγκυκλίους ἐπιδημίας τελῶν εἰς ἕκαστον τόπον βασιλικόν, παραγενόμενος κἀκεῖσε τὴν εἰκόνα ἐπεζήτει· καὶ οὕτως αὖθις τῷ τοίχῳ κατεπάγη. Παρὰ πόδας δὲ τὸν Εὐτυχιανόν (τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν ὄνομα τῷ διαιταρίῳ) ὀργή τις θεοδίκαστος παραλαβοῦσα τὸν μὲν δεξιὸν ὀφθαλμὸν διαρρεῦσαι πεποίηκε, κακίστως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ περισείουσα μέλη, προσπελάσαι παρεσκεύασε τῷ εὐαγεῖ εὐκτηρίῳ, ἔνθα πεπίστευται ἀναπαύεσθαι μέρος ἱερῶν λειψάνων τῶν θεσπίων Παντολέοντος καὶ Μαρίνου, ἐπικαλουμένου τοῦ τόπου Ὁμόνοια ἐκ τοῦ ἐκεῖ συνελθόντας τοὺς ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα ἐπισκόπους ἐπὶ Θεοδοσίου τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως κοινὴν τινα καὶ συμπεφωνημένην διδασκαλίαν τοῦ τε ὁμοουσίου τῆς θείας τριάδος ποιήσασθαι καὶ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως δὲ τοῦ κυρίου τρανῶσαι τὴν ἐκ παρθένου πρόσληψιν, ταύτην τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν τεκτήνασθαι. Ἡμέρας τε περίπου ἑπτὰ προσκαρτεροῦντος καὶ ὀνοῦντος οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διαβρωθέντων αὐτῷ καὶ τῶν διδύμων, μεσούσης μιᾶς τῶν νυκτῶν ὁ λαχὼν ὑποδιάκονος τὴν παννύχιον ἔχειν ὁρᾷ κατ’ ὄναρ βασιλέα τινὰ ἐπιστάντα καὶ τῇ χειρὶ ὑποδεικνύντα τὸν ἀσθενῆ λέγειν· «Πῶς ὑπεδέξω τοῦτον; Τίς δὲ ὁ ἐνταῦθα ἀγαγών; Οὗτος ὁ μετὰ τῶν εἰς ἐμὲ δυσφημούντων συμφραξάμενος. Οὗτος ὁ κατακρύψας τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ θαύματος.» Διαναστάς δὲ ὁ κληρικὸς τὸ ὀφθὲν διηγήσατο, φήσας τῶν ἀδυνάτων τυγχάνειν ἰαθῆναι τοῦτον τῆς μάστιγος. Τῇ δὲ αὐτῇ νυκτὶ ὁ Εὐτυχιανὸς ὥσπερ εἰς ὕπνον ἐκ τῶν ὀδυνῶν ὑπαχθεὶς ὁρᾷ τινα νεανίαν εὐνοῦχον παραγαυδίῳ λαμπρῷ ἠμφιεσμένον λέγοντα αὐτῷ· «Τί ἔχεις;» Ὡς δὲ «Ἀποθνήσκω», ἔφη, «κατατηκόμενος καὶ θεραπείας μὴ τυγχάνων», ἤκουε λέγοντος, ὡς «οὐδείς σοι δύναται βοηθῆσαι· ὁ γὰρ βασιλεὺς δεινῶς ὀργίζεται κατὰ σοῦ.» Ἠντιβόλει οὗτος καί φησι· «Τίνα κινήσω ἢ τί ποιήσω;» Ὁ δέ φησιν· «Εἰ θέλεις ἀνεθῆναι, ἄπιθι συντόμως ἐν τῷ λουτρῷ Ἑλενιανῶν καὶ ἐγγύθεν τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ καυθέντος Ἀρειανοῦ ἀναπαύθητι.» Παραυτὰ δὲ διυπνίσας ἕνα τῶν ὑπηρετούντων ἐφώνει. Ἐξεπλάγησαν δέ· τριῶν γὰρ ἡμερῶν ἤδη παρελθουσῶν ἀφωνίᾳ συνείχετο. Καὶ φησι πρὸς αὐτούς, ἀπάγειν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὸ προσταχθὲν διεκελεύσατο. Φθάσας δὲ τὸν τόπον καὶ πρὸς τὴν εἰκόνα τεθεὶς ἐξέπνει· τὴν γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος διάστασιν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐλευθερίαν ἀνέσεως ὁ ὀφθεὶς ἀγορεύων ἠλήθευσεν. Fragments of Theodore Lector’s Church History 1 [52a] From the fourth book of the Church History of Theodore: During this consulship, on Thursday, 30 December,172 a terrifying and extraordinary wonder occurred, which astounded all the people on hearing of it. For a certain man called Olympios,173 a follower of Euthymios,174 a leader of the Arian creed, happened to be in the baths of the Helenianai175 palace, in the massage room. On seeing some of the bathers exalting the homoousion creed, he said the following words, ‘So what is the Trinity? On which wall is it not inscribed?’ And then, having grabbed his private parts, he said, ‘See, I also have a trinity!’, which ←148 | 149→so incensed those who were there that they were about to kill him. But they were prevented by a certain Magnus,176 a presbyter of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Periteichisma,177 a remarkable man and a servant of God, who told them that it would not escape the notice of the eye of all-seeing justice, whose judgment is sound. When the commotion ceased out of respect for this man, Olympios stood up and, as is customary after using the pool of warm water, he went out to the frigidarium, which was supplied with water by a spring flowing from the middle of the sacred altar of the holy Church of the Protomartyr Stephen,178 which Aurelian179 built when he shone in the ancient consular dignity. And on this account, I believe, the water is filled with divine providence. ←149 | 150→ As soon as he descended into [the water], he jumped out shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, have mercy!’, and scratching himself, he was tearing the flesh from his bones. Everyone gathered around and supported him, and having wrapped him in a linen cloth, they laid the dying man down. Then they asked him what could have happened, and Olympios replied, ‘I saw a man clad in white, who came to me in the basin and poured three pails of hot water over me, and said to me, ‘Do not blaspheme!’ Then placing him on a litter, members of his household transported him to another bath, situated before the church of the Arians.180 Wishing to take the linen cloth off him, they also took off all of his flesh, and suffering such mortification, he gave up the ghost. This became known throughout almost the entire imperial city. For some were talking about the poor man, as some time earlier he had been baptized anew from the homoousion creed into the Arian faith. When the event was also brought to the emperor’s attention (and this was Anastasios),181 he ordered that an image representing the miracle be affixed above the basin. A certain John, a deacon and ekdikos182 ←150 | 151→of the aforementioned holy Church of the Protomartyr Stephen, a man who, more than anyone, at all times demonstrated zeal on behalf of the homoousion creed, wrote on the image, and did so in detail. For he wrote the names of those who were bathing there and those who observed, as well as everyone who happened to be there, including each of the bath attendants. The image continues to bear witness up to the present time, being fixed to the finial of the tetrapylon183 of the oft-mentioned oratory. ←151 | 152→ As [another] miracle followed upon this miracle, it would not be proper to omit it from this account, and even though it relates to the present time, I shall not avoid mentioning it. For when those from the party of Arius saw the prevailing victory [of orthodoxy], they insisted that the man who was entrusted with the care of the palace of Helenianai, as he was also in charge of administering the baths, take down the image and store it away. Finding a clever pretext in the increasing dampness caused by the baths, he took it down as it was damaged and, he said, he stored it away for renovation. When the emperor was carrying out a regular visit around each imperial property, upon arriving at that place, he inquired about the image, and in this way it was again affixed to the wall. The wrath of divine judgement immediately overtook Eutychianos184 (for this was the name of the diaitarios185), making his right eye flow out, while the rest of the body was shaking terribly, which caused him to visit the holy oratory, where a part of the sacred relics of the holy Pantaleon and Marinus186 was believed to lie. The place is called Homonoia, on account of the fact that the 150 bishops who assembled187 there under Emperor Theodosios the Great established a common and united teaching of the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of the Lord and explained the assumption of the human nature from the Virgin – this is how the name came about. ←152 | 153→ When [Eutychianos] had remained there for around seven days and accomplished nothing, and what is more his testes were also eaten away, in the middle of the night a subdeacon, who had been assigned the all-night vigil, saw in a vision an emperor, standing and pointing at the poor man, who said, ‘Why did you accept this man? Who brought him here? This is the man who conspired against me with the blasphemers, this is the one who hid the image of the miracle.’ When the cleric arose, he gave a detailed account of what he had seen, saying that there was no hope of curing this man of his suffering. But the same night, Eutychianos, just as he escaped his sufferings in sleep, saw a young eunuch wearing a shining paragauda188, who said to him, ‘What is the matter with you?’ And he replied, ‘I am dying, melting, and there is no treatment.’ He then heard him say, ‘Nobody can help you, for the emperor is terribly angry with you.’ [Eutychianos] pleaded and said, ‘To whom shall I go or what shall I do?’ He said, ‘If you wish to be relieved of the illness go promptly to the baths of Helanianai and lie down near the image of the burning Arian.’ He woke up immediately and called for one of the attendants. They were astonished, as already for three days he had been afflicted by a loss of speech. He spoke to them and implored them to take him to the prescribed place. On arriving at the spot, he was placed before the image and expired. For the man he saw was indeed truthful in saying that the separation of the soul from the body [would bring] remission.189 ←153 | 154→ 2 [51] Johannes Damascenus, Contra imaginum calumniatores, oratio 3, Florilegium iii 97 (ed. Kotter, 187) Ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως περί τινος αἱρετικοῦ Παλλαδίου· Ὁ δὲ τῆς Ἀντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπος Παλλάδιος πρὸς χάριν βασιλέως διαπραττόμενος τοὺς τοῖς ἐν Χαλκηδόνι ἁγίοις δόγμασιν ἑπομένους ἐμυσάττετο καὶ τὰς τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων εἰκόνας καθεῖλεν. 3 [22a] Johannes Damascenus, Contra imaginum calumniatores, oratio 3, Florilegium iii 99 (ed. Kotter, 187) Τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας, περὶ τῶν τὰ Διοσκόρου φρονούντων· Εἰς τοσοῦτον γὰρ ἐληλύθει τῆς τόλμης, ὥστε καὶ τὰ τῶν ἐκεῖ γεγονότων μακαρίων ποιμένων ὀνόματα τῶν ἱερῶν διπτύχων ἀνεῖλε καὶ τὰς αὐτῶν εἰκόνας καθεῖλε κατακαύσας τυραννικῶς. 4 [58] Johannes Damascenus, Contra imaginum calumniatores, oratio 3, Florilegium iii 100 (ed. Kotter, 187) Τῆς αὐτῆς ἱστορίας, περὶ τοῦ διαδεξαμένου τὸν θρόνον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως μετὰ Μακεδόνιον αἱρετικοῦ· Οὗτος ὁ ἀνόσιος ἐν ταῖς συνάξεσιν ἀπερχόμενος τοὺς σεπτοὺς οἴκους ἀναθεωρεῖσθαι κελεύων, εἴ που μὴ γεγραμμένον ἐν εἰκόνι εὕρισκε Μακεδόνιον, ταύτην εἰ μὴ καθεῖλεν, οὐκ ἂν ἐλειτούργει. ←154 | 155→ 2 [51] From the Church History of Theodore Lector of Constantinople, concerning a certain heretic Palladios.190 Palladios, bishop of Antioch, so as to gain the emperor’s favour, felt a loathing for the followers of the holy dogmas of Chalcedon and took down the images of the holy fathers.191 3 [22a] From the Church History, concerning the deliberations in the case of Dioskoros.192 For he had gone so far in his arrogance that he also removed from the sacred diptychs the names of the blessed shepherds who had been there previously, and he took down their images and, like a despot, had them burned. 4 [58] From the same history, concerning Makedonios’193 heretical successor to the see of Constantinople.194 When arriving for the services, this impious man ordered the holy churches to be inspected carefully, and if he found anywhere an image of Makedonios on an icon, he would not perform the liturgy unless he had removed it. ←155 | 156→ 5 [62] Johannes Damascenus, Contra imaginum calumniatores, oratio 3, Florilegium iii 101 (ed. Kotter, 187–188) Τῆς αὐτῆς ἱστορίας, περὶ Ἰουλιανοῦ καὶ Τιμοθέου {τοῦ καὶ Αἰλούρου}· Τοῦτον τὸν Ἰουλιανὸν γνωρίζουσί τινες τῶν ταῖς ταραχαῖς χαιρόντων Τιμοθέῳ τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ προλεχθέντος Μακεδονίου συγκροτηθέντα, καὶ δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν συνεκροτεῖτο. Διὰ τῶν ὑπηρετουμένων αὐτῷ θᾶττον παρενέγκας παρόντων καὶ πολιτικῶν ἀρχόντων ἐν τῷ ἐπισκοπείῳ ἠνάγκαζε τὰ τῆς ἐν Χαλκηδόνι συνόδου ἀναθέματι ὑποβαλεῖν. Δεόμενος δὲ ὁ γέρων ταῖς εἰκόσι τῶν κατοιχομένων ἱερέων Φλαβιανοῦ καὶ Ἀνατολίου τῶν ἀρχιεπισκόπων ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει κεχρωματισμένων, δι’ ὧν ἡ ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδος τὸ κῦρος ἐκτήσατο, ἐκραύγαζεν· «Εἰ μὴ θέλετε ἀφήσειν τὰ τῆς λελεγμένης ἁγίας συνόδου ἀναθεματίσαι, τὰς τῶν ἐπισκόπων εἰκόνας καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν διπτύχων ἀπαλεῖψαι. <…>» 6a [11] Johannes Damascenus, Contra imaginum calumniatores, oratio 3, Florilegium iii 130 (ed. Kotter, 196) Θεοδώρου ἱστοριογράφου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας περὶ Γενναδίου, ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως· Ἕτερα δὲ αὐτοῦ παραθήσομαι καταπλήξεως μεστά. Ζωγράφος τις τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ γράφων τὼ χεῖρε ἀπέψυκτο. Καὶ ἐλέγετο, ὡς ὑπὸ Ἕλληνός τινος τὸ ἔργον ἐπιταγὲν τῆς εἰκόνος ἐν τῷ προσχήματι τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Σωτῆρος γεγράφηκεν ἐξ ἑκατέρου τὰς τρίχας ἐπὶ κεφαλῆς διεστώσας, ὡς μὴ τὰς ὄψεις καλύπτεσθαι – τοιούτῳ γὰρ σχήματι Ἑλλήνων παῖδες τὸν Δία γράφουσι – πρὸς τὸ τοὺς ὁρῶντας νομίζειν τῷ Σωτῆρι τὴν προσκύνησιν ἀπονέμεσθαι. ←156 | 157→ 5 [62] From the same history, concerning Julian and Timothy {Ailouros}. Some of those who rejoice in tumults made known to Bishop Timothy that this Julian195 was receiving support from the aforementioned Makedonios and for what reason he received it. [Timothy] promptly had his servants bring [Julian], whom he pressed to subject the Synod of Chalcedon to anathema, in the presence of city officials in the bishop’s residence. Then the old man asked for the images representing the departed saints Flavian196 and Anatolios,197 the archbishops of Constantinople, through whom the Synod of Chalcedon gained its supreme authority, and he shouted, ‘If you do not wish to withdraw the acts anathematizing the said holy synod, [you should] remove the images of the bishops and [their names] from the sacred diptychs’. 6a [11] From the Church History of Theodore a historian of Constantinople, concerning Archbishop Gennadios198 of Constantinople. I shall mention other things about him full of wonder. A certain painter lost the feeling in both hands when he was working on an image of the Lord Jesus. And it was said that, as the making of the image was commissioned by a certain Hellene under the guise of the name of the Saviour, he had depicted his hair parting to either side of the head, in such a way that the eyes were not covered (for in this form the children of the Hellenes depict Zeus), so that those seeing it would think that they were venerating the Saviour [but in fact Zeus]. ←157 | 158→ 6b [11] Codex Parisinus gr. 1115, 265v, 7–19 Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως· περὶ τῆς ἐκκλεσιαστικῆς ἱστορίας. Ζωγράφος τις τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ δεσπότου γράφων τὴν χεῖρα ἐξηράνθη. Ἐλέγετο δὲ ὑπὸ Ἕλληνός τινος τὸ ἔργον ἐπιταγεὶς, τὸν Δία ἐν εἰκόνι ζωγράφειν ἐν τῷ σχήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐξ ἑκατέρου μέρους τῆς κεφαλῆς τρίχας διεστώσας, ὡς μὴ τὰς [ὄψεις] καλύπτεσθαι – τὸ τοιούτον γὰρ σχήμα Ἑλλήνων – πρὸς τὸ τοὺς ὁρῶντας νομίζειν τῷ Σωτῆρι τὴν προσκύνησιν νέμεσθαι. Τὸ δὲ ἀληθέστερον ὑπάρχειν οὖλον καὶ πολύτριχα. Τούτου γενομένου καὶ τῆς αἰτίας θριαμβευθείσης, ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνάγκης τοῦ γεγονότος πάθους συντόμως ἤγαγον αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν ἐπίσκοπον αἰτοῦντες εὐχῇ τὴν συμφορὰν λῦσαι. Ὅς τοῖς συνοῦσιν ἐπιτρέψας προσεύξασθαι μετὰ τὴν προσευχὴν ἐπέθηκεν αὐτῷ τὰ ἅγια εὐαγγέλια, καὶ παρ’ αὐτὰ τῆς ἰάσεως ἔτυχεν. 7 [2]; Concilium universale Nicaenum secundum (787), actio I (ACO ii 2, iii 1, 98–99) Ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Θεοδώρου Ἀναγνώστου βιβλίου πέμπτου· Διόσκορος γὰρ παρὰ τὸ τοῖς κανόσι δοκοῦν ἑαυτῷ τὴν χειροτονίαν ἐπιτρέψας τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἐπισκοπῆς προχειρίζεται εἰς τὴν αὐτῆς προεδρίαν Ἀνατόλιόν τινα τὸν τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων ἐκκλησίας τάς ἀποκρίσεις ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει ποιούμενον, ἔχων παρευθὺς καὶ Εὐτυχῆ συλλειτουργοῦντα. Πρὸς ὃν Ἀνατόλιος χαριέντως ἔφη – τὸ γὰρ μέλλον ἠγνόει – «ὅπου περιπεπάτηκας, ἡγίακας.» ἐπράττετο δὲ ταῦτα κατὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν Πρωτογένους καὶ Ἀστουρίου. ←158 | 159→ 6b [11] From Theodore Lector of Constantinople, concerning church history. While a certain painter was depicting the image of the Lord, his hand withered. It was said that, as the work was commissioned by a certain Hellene, in the image he depicted Zeus in the form of Christ with his hair parting to either side of the head, in such a way that the [eyes] were not covered – for this form is used by the Hellenes – so that those seeing it would think that they were venerating the Saviour [but in fact Zeus]. The truer [manner of depicting the Lord] is with thick and curly hair. When this happened and the case became widely known, owing to the distress of what he was suffering they promptly brought him to the bishop, asking him to release [the painter] from his misfortune with prayer. He ordered those who were with him to pray and after the prayers he placed the holy Gospels upon him and the healing came about immediately.199 7 [2]; From the Church History of Theodore Lector, book five. For Dioskoros, contrary to what the canons determined, entrusted to himself the ordination of the bishopric of Constantinople and appointed a certain Anatolios200 to the office, who was an apokrisiarios201 of the Alexandrian Church in Constantinople, and he at that time had also Eutyches202 as a fellow minister in the liturgy. Anatolios kindly said to him (for he did not know what was to happen): ‘Wherever you have set foot, you have made it holy.’ This occurred during the consulate of Protogenes and Asturius.203 ←159 | 160→ 8 [35] Concilium universale Nicaenum secundum (787), actio V (ACO ii 2, iii 2, 566–567) Θεοδώρου Ἀναγνώστου ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Πέρσης τις Ξεναΐας ἐπικληθείς, ὅν ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ ἱερατικοῖς χρόνοις ὁ Καλενδίων εὑρηκὼς τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ νοθεύοντα δόγματα καὶ τὰς κώμας ἀναστατοῦντα ἀπελαύνει τῆς χώρας. Περὶ τούτου ἃ πολλὰ παρὰ διαφόρων ἀκηκοὼς ἠκρίβωσα ἀπὸ μέρους λέξω. Ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς τῶν Περσῶν χώρας οἰκεῖον δεσπότην πεφευγὼς εἰς τὴν ̔Ρομαίων παραγενόμενος. Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα· Τοῦτον ὁ Πέτρος ἀντὶ Κύρου τῇ Ἱεραπολιτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐπίσκοπον ἐκπέμπει· ὅν μετ’ οὐ πολὺ ἐπίσκοποι ἐκ τῆς Περσικῆς παραγενόμενοι καὶ οἰκότριβα ἤλεγχον καὶ τοῦ θείου βαπτίσματος ἀμέτοχον. Ὅπερ μεμαθηκὼς ὁ Πέτρος, τί δέοι γενέσθαι μὴ φροντίσας, ἔφησεν ἀρκεῖν αὐτῷ τὴν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου χειροτονίαν πρὸς ἀναπλήρωσιν τῆς θείας μυήσεως. ←160 | 161→ 8 [35] From the Church History of Theodore Lector On learning that a certain Persian, called Xenaias,204 was corrupting the church dogmas and stirring up the villages, Kalandion,205 during the time of his own sacred bishopric, expelled him from the country. What I have researched about this man, having heard many things from various people, I shall tell point by point. For [Xenaias] had escaped from his own master in the land of the Persians and came to that of the Romans. And shortly after: Peter206 sent him as bishop of the Hierapolitan Church to replace Kyros.207 Soon after, bishops came from Persia and accused him of being a domestic slave and of not having partaken of holy baptism. When Peter learnt of this, without proper thought for what needed to be done, he said that for him ordination as bishop would suffice as fulfilment of the divine initiation. ←161 | 162→ 9 [37] Codex Athous Iviron 497 (ed. Hansen, 124, 20–125, 14) Τοῦ ἁγίου Σεβήρου· ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου· Σεβῆρος ὁ κατὰ Παφλαγονίαν ἀσκήσας πολλοῖς θαύμασιν ἔβλυσεν, εὐχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ χρώμενος. Ἄγροικος δὲ ἦν οὐ γράμμα ἐπιστάμενος. Τοσαύτης δὲ χάριτος ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐπέπληστο, ὡς καὶ προλέγειν τινὰ τῶν ἐσομένων. Τοῦτον ὁ βασιλεὺς Ζήνων ἀκοῇ παρειληφὼς ἠθέλησεν ὡς ἑαυτὸν ἑλκύσαι· καὶ δὴ ἀποστείλας κουβικουλάριόν τινα ἐξελιπάρει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, εὐλογηθῆναι (φησί) κατὰ πρόσωπον θέλων. Οὐδαμῶς δὲ ἠνέσχετο ὁ θεσπέσιος τῆς ἰδίας καλύβης ὑπεξελθεῖν, λέγων τοιαύτας συνθήκας πεποιῆσθαι, ἡνίκα τῆς ἀσκητικῆς ἀντελαμβάνετο ἀγωγῆς. Τοῦ δὲ δυνάστου ἀντιβολοῦντος καὶ λέγοντος ὡς Χριστιανοῦ βασιλέως εἰ ὑπακούσειε, καὶ θεὸν θεραπεύσοι, «καὶ τὰ ̔Ρωμαϊκὰ πράγματα εὖ ἕξουσι τῇ ἐπιβάσει σου τῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι», «ἄπιθι» ἔφη πρὸς αὐτόν, «καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ ἃ ἀκούεις ἀπάγγειλον· εἰ σύ, βασιλεῦ, θελήσειας, οὐ μόνον σεαυτοῦ πρὸς θεὸν ὑπερμαχήσεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑτέροις τὴν σωτηρίαν παρέξεις καὶ μοναχῶν χρείαν οὐχ ἕξεις· δικαιοσύνῃ γὰρ παρὰ σοῦ εὐνομουμένων τῶν πραγμάτων τὰ σκολιὰ εἰς εὐθέα σοι γενήσεται.» Ταῦτα ἀκούσας ὁ Ζήνων ἐπειράθη χρήματα τῷ ἀνδρὶ ἀποστεῖλαι. Ἃ θεασάμενος ἔφησεν· «ἐκείνοις ἐγχείριζε ταῦτα τοῖς θέλουσι λόγον ἀπαιτεῖσθαι τούτων παρὰ θεοῦ· πτωχεία γὰρ ἃ μὴ εἴληφεν, ἀπαιτηθήσεται οὐδαμῶς.» ←162 | 163→ 9 [37] Codex Athous Iviron 497 fol. 25 f (Gerontikon, paper manuscript of the seventeenth century): Concerning St Severus, from the Church History of Theodore Lector. Severus,208 who was practicing asceticism in Paphlagonia, by prayer and fasting, accomplished multiple miracles. He was an illiterate peasant. Such grace had been bestowed upon the man, that he foretold certain future events. When Emperor Zeno209 heard of this man, he desired that he be brought to him. And so, having sent a certain cubicularius,210 he beseeched the man, (saying) he wished to praise him in person. By no means did the holy man agree to come out of his own hut, saying that he had made such covenants when he committed himself to ascetic observance. The dignitary entreated him and said that if he would listen to the Christian emperor, he would also be serving God, ‘and it will also be beneficial for the affairs of the Roman state if you were to set foot in the imperial city.’ ‘Go away’, he said to him, ‘and announce to the emperor what you hear: If you, emperor, should wish it, not only will you defend yourself before God, but also you will bring salvation to others, and you will have no need of monks [for this]. For if with justice you observe the good laws «the rough ways will be made smooth».’211 Having heard this, Zeno attempted to send money to the man. On seeing this, he said, ‘Hand this to those people who wish to demand [money] for God’s word, for poverty has never received this, so will by no means be demanding it.’ ←163 | 164→ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Suda, Θεόδωρος (θ 153, Adler ii, 696). Codex Athous Vatopedi 286, fol. 210r, which is a scholion to Theodore Lector, Epitome 38 [373]. Codex Marcianus gr. 344, 000w4r. (I). Introduction to the Church History – codex Marcianus gr. 344, 000w4r.(I): Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Suda, Θεόδωρος (θ 153, Adler ii, 696): ἀπὸ ἀναγνωστῶν τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως; codex Athous Vatopedi 286, fol. 210r: ἀναγνώστης τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας; a scholion to Evagrios iii 18: ὁ ἀναγνώστης τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας Θεόδωρος. F 2 [51]: Ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως; F 6b [11]: Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως; F 7 [2];: ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου; F 8 [35]: Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας; F 9 [37]: Ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου. Likewise, in On Schisms § 3, the author refers to information drawn from Theodore’s Church History as: ὥς φησι Θεόδωρος ἀναγνώστης […]. Nautin 1994, 241. Treadgold 2007, 169. Blaudeau 2006, 549; endorsed by Greatrex 2015, 123. Justinian, Novella 123.13 (1 May 546), recognized that the minimum age for assuming the office of a lector was 18 years; see CIC iii, 604 (ed. Schoell/Kroll): οὐδὲ ἀναγνώστην ἐλάττονα τῶν ὀκτωκαίδεκα ἐνιαυτῶν; cf. also Darrouzès 1970, 87–91. Leclercq (1928, 2248) incorrectly stated 22 years as the age limit determined by this novella. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Euthymii 3 (ed. Schwartz, 10, 19–21). Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Cyriacii 1 (ed. Schwartz, 223, 6–8). The purpose of appointing young children as lectors, even though they were clearly incapable of performing their liturgical duty, was to admit them into the clergy, which justified the Church maintaining them and ensured their further progress in a clerical career. This also accounts for the fact that even illiterate children were made lectors; bishops, especially those in their senior years, wished to secure the interests of their families as early as possible. Second Council of Nicaea (787), canon 14 (ACO iii 3, 914). Those clerics were: presbyter Olympios, who was admitted into the priesthood at the age of 10 (ACO iv 1, 123, 11–12: annorum sum sexaginta quinque, in clero autem connumeror annos quinquaginta quinque); presbyter Thomas – at 5 (123, 29–30: sexaginta annorum sum, domine, habeo autem in clero, licet peccator sim, quinquaginta quinque annos); presbyter Theodore – at 7 (123, 38–39: sum annorum sexaginta duorum plus minus, quinquaginta quinque autem annos habeo in uenerabili clero); presbyter Thomas – at 10 (124, 6: sexaginta annorum sum plus minus, in clero autem quinquaginta annos habeo); deacon John – at 10 (125, 2–3: annorum sum quinquaginta octo, habeo autem connumeratus uenerabili clero annos quadraginta octo); deacon Thomas – at 6 (125, 9–10: quinquaginta quinque annorum sum, quadraginta nouem autem habeo annos in clero); deacon John – at 15 (125, 17–18: annorum sum sexaginta quinque plus minus, habeo autem in clero quinquaginta annos). 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Those clerics were: presbyter Paul, admitted into the priesthood at the age of 30 (ACO iv 1, 122, 31–32: annorum sum sexaginta quinque plus minus, habeo autem in clero quinquaginta annos); presbyter John – at 37 (123, 20–21: annorum sum sexaginta quinque plus minus, habeo autem in clero annos uigintiocto); presbyter Paul – at 30 (124, 20–21: quinquaginta octo annorum sum, domine, habeo autem in clero uiginti octo annos); archdeacon Paregorios – at 38 (124, 33–34: annorum sum sexaginta sex, habeo autem connumeratus uenerabili clero annos uiginti octo); deacon Paul – at 33 (125, 25–27: sum annorum quinquaginta sex plus minus, habeo autem in clero connumeratus annos uiginti tres). Epigraphic sources also indicate that many lectors performed their service at a more advanced age. Leclercq (1928, 2247) observes that, in the inscriptions he examined, the ages of the deceased lectors ranged from 5 to 73 years, while of the 25 cited cases there were eight in which the age of the deceased was over 30. Justinian, Novella 3.1.1, CIC iii, 21 (ed. Schoell/Kroll): […] ἀναγνώστας δὲ ἑκατὸν δέκα […]. This attempt to lower the number of lectors at the Great Church proved unsuccessful, as the emperor Herakleios raised the limit up to 160 in the year 612; see Konidaris 1982, 68. Justinian, Novella 3.1.1, CIC iii, 21 (ed. Schoell/Kroll): […] ὑποδιακόνους ἐνενήκοντα […]. According to the previously cited Novella 123.13, the prescribed age for becoming a subdeacon or deacon was 25; cf. CIC iii, 604 (ed. Schoell/Kroll): […] οὐδὲ διάκονον ἢ ὑποδιάκονον ἥττονα τῶν εἰκοσιπέντε […]. Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1901, 5–6: Τὸ στημείωμα τοῦτο εἶναι βεβαίως ἐντάκτου σπουδαιότητος, διότι πρῶτον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πληροφορούμεθα, ὅτι ὁ Θεόδωρος εἶχε πατέρα ὀνομαζόμενον Ἐντολέα· ἐξ οὗ ἑπόμενον εἶναι, ὅτι ἀντὶ τοῦ Θεόδωρος Ἀναγνώστης ἢ Theodorus Lector ἁρμόζει τοῦ λοιποῦ νὰ γράφωμεν Θεόδωρος ὁ Ἐντολέως, ἢ Theodorus Entolei. Opitz, RE 10, 1869 (Theodoros 48); Opitz’s interpretation is accepted by Hansen 1995, ix. On the legal position of procurators in this period, see Żołnierczuk 1975, 295–314; 1985–1986, 295–314. In the Later Roman Empire, jurists were often designated as procurators; cf. Codex Iustinianus ii 12.27 (CIC ii, 105 (ed. Krueger)). Opitz, RE 10, 1869 (Theodoros 48), who arguably based his argumentation on Wentzl 1895, 62. Nautin 1994, 213; Hansen 1995, xxvi. Hansen (1995, ix) dates the lost Epitome to between 829 and 857, while Treadgold (1980, 31– 32, 36) puts the date of its composition around 843–845, crediting the deacon Ignatius with its authorship. Adler, RE2, 4, 679 (Suidas); Kazhdan, ODB, 1930–1931 (Souda). Suda, Ἡσύχιος (H 611, ed. Adler ii, 594): Ἡσύχιος Μιλήσιος (…) ἔγραψεν Ὀνοματολόγον ἢ Πίνακα τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ ὀνομαστῶν, οὗ ἐπιτομή ἐστι τοῦτο τὸ βιβλίον. Wentzl (1895, 2–4) argued that this sentence clearly refers to the source used by the compiler of the Suda. For a similar view see Kaldellis 2005, 387. Flach 1882, 95. See, e.g., Daub 1882, 151–152. Suda, Ἡσύχιος (H 611, ed. Adler ii, 594): ὡς ἐκ τούτου ὑπόνοιαν παρέχειν μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸν Χριστιανὸν, ἀλλὰ τῆν Ἑλληνικῆς ματαιοπονίας ἀνάπλεων. Wentzel 1895; his hypothesis recurs in Adler (RE2, 4, 706–707 (Suidas)), Hansen (1995, ix) and Delacenserie (2016, 6, n. 116). 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 According to Wentzl (1895, 1–2) and Adler (RE2, 4, 707 (Suidas)), biographical entries of the Suda are structured in the following order: name, ethnikon, literary genre, parents, sometimes also children, teachers, time and place of activity, relations with contemporary figures, and, in some cases, additional information. Hansen 1995, 163 (Register). Blaudeau (2006, 550, n. 298) identifies several Biblical allusions that, in his opinion, can be found in Theodore’s work or in some sources dependent on it, but it should be stressed that there are very few such cases across the surviving Theodorean corpus; John of Damascus, Contra imaginum calumniatores, iii 130, p. 193 (F 6a and 6b [11]) = Epitome 47 [382] – healing of a painter’s paralyzed hand ~ Matthew 12:9–14, Mark 3:1–6, Luke 6:6–11; Epitome 87 [427] – Peter the Fuller as an outrage to the faithful ~ Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:1–2. Epitome 444 – which Hansen reconstructed from Theophanes AM 5982: a fugitive slave named Xenaias breaks the rule established by Paul’s authority that instructed slaves to be obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5), while Peter the Fuller consecrated Xenaias as bishop, instead of sending him back to his master. Blaudeau also cites a passage from George the Monk’s Chronicle (ed. de Boor, 623–624), which Hansen considers to be derived from the Epitome (at no. 441), though it probably comes from a different source; cf. Kosiński 2017, 65–70. It seems therefore that Theodore would have drawn on the Bible quite sparingly, as compared with Cyril of Scythopolis, in whose works van der Horst (2001, 127) has found as many as 275 Biblical references, comprising 133 from the Old Testament and 142 from the New Testament. Van der Horst’s listing covers Biblical citations as well as various references to the Scriptures. Blaudeau 2006, 549–550. Theodore, Church History, Introduction: Ἔκ τινος ψήφου […] Bidez (1908, 47) held the opinion that the instigator and nature of this decision are unknown. Nautin 1994, 236; Treadgold 2007, 169–170. Theodore Lector, Epitome 133 [487]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 501; Pseudo-Zacharias vii 8; Evagrios iii 32; Marcellinus Comes, s.a. 511. For Makedonios’ exile in general, see Kosiński 2015, 239. In the early sixth century, Gangra (present-day Çankırı in Turkey) functioned as the metropolitan see of Paphlagonia. On Gangra as a place of exile, see Métivier 2005, 401–403; Hillner 2015, 220–221; for more information on this municipality, see especially Janin/Stiernon, DHGE 19, 1091–1103 (Gangres); Belke 1996, 196–199. Following the Council of Chalcedon, Gangra was a place of banishment for two anti-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria: Dioskoros in 451–454 (Evagrios ii 5; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 453; Liberatus, Breviarium 14; Theophanes AM 5944; Pseudo-Zacharias iii 2; Priscus, fr. 28 (ed. Blockley, ii, 324); Theopistos, Vita Dioscuri 13; cf. Hillner 2015, 368), and Timothy Ailouros in 459–460 (Theodore Lector, Epitome 45 [380]; Theophanes AM 5952; Pseudo-Zacharias iv 7; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 460 and 475; Evagrios ii 11; cf. Hillner 2015, 368). It is also significant that the city had come under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople after 451. He held the right to ordain a local bishop there, which allowed, at least in theory, for a greater measure of control over convicts at their assigned place of exile. Hillner (2015, 220–221) argues that Gangra was a place where a punished individual was usually placed under the supervision of a local bishop whose views would be contrary to his own, but it appears that the bishop [of this diocese] received Theodore and Makedonios with hospitality, which would confirm the 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 information that Makedonios had taken asylum at Gangra, without having previously obtained the emperor’s consent. Theophanes (AM 6005) recounts that many supporters of Makedonios were exiled to the Oasis in Thebaid; cf. Hillner 2015, 371. Theophanes AM 6008 – Hansen regards this as a lost passage from the Epitome (at no. 514). Theodore Lector, Epitome 148 [515]. Hansen 1995, x. Emerance Delacenserie (2016, 64, n. 118) is correct in observing that Hansen offered this theory only by way of speculation, in his index of persons Hansen (1995, 189) distinguishes between Theodore, a companion of Makedonios, and Theodore Lector. Hansen 1995, x; 1998, 101. Theodore Lector, Epitome 83–84 [422 i 424]. Theodore Lector, Epitome 111 [457]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 496; John Malalas xvi 11; Theophanes AM 5989; cf. Kosiński 2012, 78, n. 139. Euchaïta was most probably Peter the Fuller’s place of exile in 476 (John Malalas xv 6), yet sources give conflicting accounts of this event; cf. Kosiński 2010a, 64–65, esp. note. 81. Euchaïta (present-day Avkat in Turkey) was an ancient city in the province of Pontos, situated to the west of Amaseia. In the fifth century, it became a place of exile for many members of the clergy; see Grégoire 1913, 59–61; Janin, DHGE 15, 1311–1313 (Euchaïtes); Foss, ODB, 737 (s.v. Euchaita). Insley, ODLA, 557 (Euchaïta). Theodore Lector, Introduction to the Historia Tripartita: σῆς ἱερᾶς ὁμοῦ καὶ τιμίας μοι κεφαλῆς; cf. Nautin 1994, 236. Nevertheless, Hansen (1995, x) stressed that the identification of the instigator of Theodore’s Church History with a local bishop remains uncertain. The synod of Constantinople in 536, Acclamationes populi et allocutiones episcoporum (A. 518), ACO iii, 74, 4–5: καὶ Θεοδότου τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου ἐπισκόπου τῆς Γαγγηνῶν. For further relevant literature, see also Bidez 1908, 47, n. 2; Nautin 1994, 242, n. 47; Treadgold 2007, 170. For a more cautious approach, see Blaudeau (2006, 521). According to this account, Theodotos was an adherent of the Chalcedonian movement. Alternatively, Opitz (RE 10, 1869 (Theodoros 48)) put forward an erroneous proposition that Theodore’s mentor at Gangra was Prokopios, who in 536 subscribed to the sentence issued by Menas’ synod against Anthimos of Constantinople and Severus of Antioch. The dating has been based on the testimony of two chronicles: Marcellinus Comes, s.a. 515, 5 and Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 515, 1, both of which date the Hunnic raid to that year. Apart from Theophanes (AM 6008), the Sabir incursion is also mentioned by John Malalas (xvi 17) and John of Antioch (fr. 311, 103–108 (ed. Roberto, 540)); cf. Dickens 2018, 1316; Greatrex 1998, 122; Greatrex/Lieu 2002, 78. The Epitome of Theodore’s Church History does not make it possible to date Makedonios’ death with accuracy. In the arrangement of this epitome proposed by Hansen, Makedonios died before the Palestinian monks’ violent opposition to establishing communion with Severus of Antioch and the deposition of Bishop Elias of Jerusalem (Epitome 150 [517]). Elias was deposed on the emperor’s orders and replaced with John on 1 September 516 (this precise date can be found in Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 56 (ed. Schwartz, 150, 10–11): […] τῆι πρώτηι τοῦ Σεπτεμβρίου μηνὸς ἀρχῆι τῆς δεκάτης ἰνδικτιόνος). Accordingly, it seems justified to put the date of Makedonios’ death somewhere in the preceding period, most likely in the first half of 516; cf. also Kosiński 2011, 66. Likewise, at AM 6008 – i.e. 515/516 – Theophanes draws a 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 close link between the Sabir invasion and Makedonios’ death, although this may have been due solely to reasons of composition, as an addition to the information about the flight of the deposed patriarch to Gangra. On the other hand, just after the mention of the death of Makedonios, Theophanes reports that the same year (ed. de Boor, 162, 9: Τῷ δ’αὐτῷ ἔτει) saw some cases of possession among Alexandrians and the death of Areadne. In turn, Pope Hormisdas’ Indiculus of 11 August 515 (CA 116, 19, 517, 22–28) testifies to the fact that the pope had known nothing of Makedonios’ death when writing that document. It is worth reiterating that the structure of the Epitome suggested by Hansen is hypothetical, as in codex Baroccianus gr. 142 a notice of Makedonios’ death is followed only by the last record (Epitome 155 [524]) concerning the death of the emperor Anastasios. Nonetheless, it seems possible to determine the exact date of Makedonios’ death thanks to the Constantinopolitan synaxarion, as noted by Blaudeau (2006, 622, n. 24). In this document the commemoration of Makedonios occurs on 25 April, and since commemoration days of saints would most often fall on the day of their death, it may be surmised that the patriarch died on 25 April 516 (cf. Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae (ed. Delehaye, 630, 22–24): Καὶ μνήμη τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Μακεδονίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως). Nautin (1994, 237) incorrectly assumes that Makedonios died in 511, which impacts on his reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding the composition of Theodore’s Church History. Theophanes AM 6011; John Malalas xvii 5. Nautin 1994, 237–238. Nautin’s view is endorsed by Delacenserie (2016, 65). A somewhat more tentative opinion is expressed by Blaudeau (2006, 551–552), who argues that Theodore’s return to the capital had not been possible before Patriarch John’s death in February 520. ACO iii, 71–111; cf. Vasiliev 1950, 136–148. Treadgold 2007, 170. Blaudeau 2006, 556. Nautin 1994, 230–233. Lemma in codex Marcianus gr. 344, 000w4r.(I): Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας βιβλίον αʹ. Lemma in codex Baroccianus gr. 142, fol. 236v: Ἐκλογαὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου. On this point, Nautin 1994, 230–232. Nautin 1994, 240; Hansen 1995, xi; Delacenserie 2016, 70. Sokrates wrote his History spanning the years 305–439, Sozomen – 324–422, and Theodoret – 324–428. On Theodore’s method of compiling the texts, see particularly Delacenserie 2016, 68–105; cf. also Hansen 1995, xiii-xvi. Nautin 1994, 229–233. Delacenserie 2016, 70–75. On the Venice manuscript, see Bidez 1908, 37–45; Nautin 1994, 234; Hansen 1995, xi-xiii; Delacenserie 2016, 47–48. Hansen 1995, 2–55. For an analysis of Theodore’s compilatory method, see Hansen 1995, xiii-xv and especially Delacenserie 2016, 75–105. Hansen 1995, xv-xvi. 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Hansen 1995, xii-xiii. For a recapitulation of the discussion on the authorship of the Latin HT, see Delacenserie 2016, 189–192. Delacenserie 2016, 173. Delacenserie 2016, 187–188,193–195; Hansen (1995, xii) argued that the Latin version could be dated to around 560. Cameron 1981, 184–185: while in Constantinople, Cassiodorus is said to have met with, among others, Facundus of Hermiane and Primasius of Hadrumetum, who were staunch advocates of the Three Chapters. Cameron 1981, 185; cf. Delacenserie 2016, 182–184. Blaudeau 2010, 545, esp. n. 16; 2014, 80. Van Hoof/Van Nuffelen 2017, 11–13. Van Hoof/Van Nuffelen 2017, 13. Hansen 1995, xvii-xviii. Blaudeau 2006, 619–653. Cf. also Hansen 1995, ix. Nautin 1994, 240. Hansen 1995, x-xi; disputing Nautin’s view, Hansen upholds his own hypothesis; see Hansen 1998, 102. Although the manuscripts of the Epitome, and the relevant fragments, do not preserve any record relating to Vitalian, it can be ascertained, on the basis of Victor of Tunnuna’s Chronicle (s.a. 510–511. 514) and Theophanes’ Chronography (AM 6005–6006), that Theodore depicted this commander in a very favourable light. Greatrex 2015, 130. On the date and circumstances of Vitalian’s fall, as well as of the subsequent transformation of his portrayal in the sources, see PLRE ii, 1176 (Fl. Vitalianus 2) and Greatrex 2007, 105–106. Hansen 1995, xviii. Blaudeau 2006, 542, n. 153. We have passed over those documents which Theodore allegedly cited, as Blaudeau argues, in passages of his Church History that have been recreated from Theophanes’ Chronography, the Synodicon Vetus (Epitome 442 and 443), Victor of Tunnuna’s Chronicle (s.a. 459 and 484) or the treatise On Schisms (nos. 3 and 5), because it cannot be determined on the basis of these sources whether the documents had in fact been quoted by Theodore. Blaudeau 2006, 568. Blaudeau 2006, 571. Cf. the section on John Diakrinomenos. Hansen 1995, xix. This hypothesis appears to be based on mere speculation. On this issue, see Blaudeau 2006, 572, n. 412. Blaudeau 2006, 572. Blaudeau 2006, 575–577. Hansen 1995, xix; cf. Greatrex 2015, 123. Nautin 1994, 232. Note, however, that the author of the treatise On Schisms places an episode connected with the pontificate of Pope Leo I and the episcopate of Anatolios, and therefore within the reign of the emperor Marcian, in Book II, not I, of Theodore’s Church History; cf. 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 On Schisms § 3: […] ὥς φησι Θεόδωρος ἀναγνώστης ἐν βιβλίῳ δευτέρῳ τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῦ συγγραφείσης ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας. Blaudeau 2006, 619. Blaudeau’s statistical data have been supplemented by Greatrex (2015, 126), who states that Constantinople, in the part concerned with the reign of Anastasios, features in 36 out of 79 passages (46 %). Hansen 1995, xviii. For more on this topic, see the analysis in Blaudeau 2006, 620–650. Blaudeau 2006, 628–629. Hansen 1995, xviii. Blaudeau 2006, 635–641. Blaudeau 2006, 644–645. Theodore Lector, Epitome 10 [345] (Pope Leo condemns Eutyches), 24 [359] (Marcian and Pulcheria confer full authority on Pope Leo), 26 [361] (Marcian, Anatolios and the council present the pope with doctrinal decisions), 90 [431] (the orthodox in the East request Pope Felix’s intervention; the pope addresses letters to Zeno and Akakios on this matter), 93 [434] (Felix deposes Akakios), 121 [474] (Makedonios states that the decrees of Chalcedon can be denounced only by a council presided over by the pope), 136 [490] (Makedonios’ followers flee to Rome); Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 484 (Pope Felix addresses letters to the East, denouncing Peter Mongos), s.a. 486 (Pope Felix warns Akakios against establishing communion with Peter Mongos), s.a. 487 (Pope Felix condemns Akakios, Peter Mongos and Peter the Fuller), 494 (John Talaia takes refuge in Rome); cf. Blaudeau 2006, 636–637, 646–648. It should be noted, however, that the author of On Schisms, known to have drawn on Theodore’s Church History, expressed a more detached view of the papacy in this period, compared to the compiler of the Epitome. Apart from the papal role in the Christological controversy, Theodore shows very little interest in the affairs of the West; cf. Hansen 1995, xviii. For how emperors are portrayed and appraised, see Theodore Lector, Epitome 19–21 [354– 356], 24–25 [359–360], 27–30 [362–365], 32 [367]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 450.2 (Marcian praised), Epitome 36–37 [371–372], 42 [377], 44 [379], 56 [391], 60 [395]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 460, 468 (Leo I praised), Epitome 155 [524]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 518.2 (apologetic view of Justin); Epitome 63 [399], 65–72 [401–408], 77–78 [413–414]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 475.2 and 4 (Basiliskos castigated), Epitome 55–56 [390–391], 89 [430], 92 [433], 94 [435]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 480, 482, 485, 491.2 (Zeno criticized), Epitome 101–102 [446–447], 108 [455], 132 [486], 136 [490], 148 [515], 150 [517]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 491.1–2, 492.2, 494, 496, 499, 501, 504, 506, 509–510, 513, 517.2, 518.1 (Anastasios castigated); cf. Leszka 2017, 75– 76. For some positive portrayals of pro-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Constantinople, see Theodore Lector, Epitome 43 [378], 45–48 [380–383], 56–57 [391–392], 60–61 [395–396]; F 6a and 6b [11] (Gennadios praised), Epitome 99 [440], 101 [446]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 489, 491.1, 492.2 (moderately praising Euphemios), Epitome 111 [457], 119 [471], 121 [474], 123 [477], 125 [479], 132–138 [486–492], 142 [496], 148 [515]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 501 (Makedonios praised). Theodore Lector, Epitome 39 [374] (Jacob), 40 [375] (Symeon the Stylite), 49 [384] (monasteries founded by Studius and Gratissimus), 50 [385] (Daniel the Stylite arrives in Anaplous), 51 [386] (Matrona and Basianos), 52 [387] (John Vincomalus), 71–72 [407–408] 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 (Daniel the Stylite’s intervention at Constantinople), 93 [434] (monastery of Dios); 124 [478] and 130 [484] (two hundred monks of Severus), 126 [480] (pro-Chalcedonian monks from Palestine); 127 [481] (monk Dorotheos, monastery of Eusebios); 134 [488] (monastery of Dalmatos), 145 [507] (monastery of Studius); see also Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 490 (ascetics Annianos, Auxentios, Daniel, Anastasios, Vindimiolus, Manasses, Severus and others) and s.a. 516 (pro-Chalcedonian monks from Palestine); also, F 9 [37] (Paphlagonian ascetic Severus); cf. Blaudeau 2006, 527 and n. 169, with a list of passages relevant to the period 451–491; cf. also Blaudeau 2006, 645, who underscores the role in defending orthodoxy that Theodore credits to the monks of Constantinople. Theodore Lector, Epitome 39 [374] (Jacob of Nisibis makes some laundresses turn grey); F 6a and 6b [11] and Epitome 47 [382] (a painter’s withered hand healed); Epitome 59 [394] (the Church of St Anastasia miraculously saved during a fire at Constantinople); Epitome 61 [396] (Gennadios’ vision); Epitome 62 [398] (a sign of a fiery cloud in the sky); F 1 [52a], Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 498 and Epitome 115 [465] (divine punishment of the Arian Olympios and Eutychianos); Epitome 122 [475] and Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 500 (a miraculous disappearance of water during an Arian baptism); Epitome 146 [512] and Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 508 (the fortress Zundadeer afflicted by demons); Epitome 148 [515] (a miracle performed by the late bishop Makedonios); Epitome 149 [516] and Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 507 (possessions in Alexandria), as well as Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 467 (a spear-shaped sign visible in the sky) and s.a. 518.1 (Anastasios dies, struck by a lightning); cf. Blaudeau 2006, 527–528, incl. n. 170 (with a list of passages relating to the period 451–491), 624. Theodore Lector, Epitome 55 [390] (Peter the Fuller’s addition to the Trisagion hymn), 60 [395] (Gennadios incorporates the name the Theotokos into the diptychs), 88 [428] (Peter the Fuller establishes the practice of saying the credo during each eucharist in Antioch), 144 [501] (a similar practice is introduced by Timothy in Constantinople); cf. Blaudeau 2006, 625–628. Theodore Lector F 1 [52a], Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 498 and Epitome 115 [465] (Olympios’ blasphemy), Epitome 31 [366] (Genseric shipping Roman spoils of war to Arians in Constantinople), 31 [366] (Arian Vandals’ attitude towards Catholic Christians), 102 [448] (Arians and Manichaeans rejoice over Anastasios’ elevation to the throne; cf. Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 491.1), 122 [475] (a miraculous disappearance of water from a baptismal font during an Arian ceremony of baptism), 107 [454] (Manichaeans enjoying freedom of religious speech in Constantinople), 131 [485] (emperor Anastasios called a Manichaean), 145 [507] (archdeacon John turned Manichaean); cf. Blaudeau 2006, 630–631; Greatrex 2015, 128–129 (forthcoming). On the question of how Manichaeans are depicted in Theodore’s Church History, see Kosiński 2019, 215–225. For instance, Theodore rejects the Henotikon (Epitome 83 [422], 133 [487]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 482, 485, 496) and takes a very critical view of Akakios’ policy (Epitome 86 [426], 89–93 [430–434]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 486–487, 488.3, 489); cf. Blaudeau 2006, 628–629, 634. For Justinian’s religious policy, see Gray 1979, 154–163; Grillmeier/Hainthaler 1995, 317–384, 411–475; le Boulluec 2015, 47–113. On the opposition to the condemnation of the Three Chapters, especially in the Western Church, see in particular Chazelle/Cubitt (eds.) 2007. On Victor of Tunnuna, see below. See below and Kosiński (forthcoming). Hansen 1995, xix; Blaudeau 2006, 516–517. 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 For more on the Epitome, see below. Hansen (1995, xxiii) concurs with Opitz’s opinion (RE 10, 1873–1874 (Theodoros 48)) that the anonymous author had drawn on the full version of Theodore’s Church History, not just on the Epitome, as Diekamp (1903, 553–558) argued. For more on this source, see below. Hansen 1995, xviii. Blaudeau (2006, 529, n. 176) essentially agrees. Greatrex 2015, 122–123. Furthermore, Greatrex takes into consideration some passages recreated from Theophanes’ Chronography: Vitalian’s revolt (Epitome 503, 509–510), riots in Constantinople (Epitome 508) and the Sabir invasion of Asia Minor (Epitome 514). For the period 451–491, Blaudeau (2006, 529, n. 176) takes into consideration the events reported in the Epitome 31 [366], 58 [393], 63 [399], 81–82 [419–420], 96–97 [437–438], as well as a passage from Victor of Tunnuna’s Chronicle, s.a. 488 concerning Illos’ revolt. Leszka 2017, 74–83. It should be noted, however, that the negative portrayal of Anastasios in the Epitome is very much reinforced in the transmission of Theophanes, who always seems to be willing to supplement the information derived from the Epitome with the addition of negative epithets aimed at the emperor. Greatrex 2015, 126–127. Blaudeau 2006, 528. The Great Church in Constantinople (Hagia Sophia) was erected by Constantius II and functioned as the main church of the capital city of the Empire; see Dagron 1974, 397–398; Talbot, ODB, 867–868 (Great Church). On this statement, see Introduction to Theodore’s Church History above. Theodosios – emperor in 408- 450; see p. 76, n. 76. Proklos served as Bishop of Constantinople in 434–446; see Constas 2003. Anastasios I – emperor in 491–518; see p. 100, n. 145. Timothy – Patriarch of Constantinople in 511–518; see further p. 155, n. 194. Paphlagonia – province in northern Asia Minor, part of the diocese of Pontos. This impoverished province was famous for its ascetics; see Belke 1996, 57–69 and Mitchell, ODLA, 1137 (Paphlagonia). Gangra – metropolitan see of Paphlagonia; see p. 113, n. 39. Eusebios (died ca. 339) – Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine from ca. 313. His Church History was supplemented and emended many times, but it was taken up to approximately 325 in its final form; see Grant 1980; Lyman/Nicholson, ODLA, 565–567 (Eusebius of Caesarea). Constantine I – emperor in 306–337, proclaimed on 25 July 306; see PLRE i, 223–224 (Fl. Val. Constantinus 4). The twentieth year of his reign fell on 325/326. Theodoret (died ca. 460) – Bishop of Kyrrhos from 423. His Church History, composed probably in the late 440s, was taken up to 428/429; see Leppin 2003, 225–226; see further p. 84, n. 102–103. Sozomen wrote his unfinished Church History (up to 425) in the late 440s. His work draws extensively on Sokrates’ Church History; see Leppin 2003, 223–225; Van Nuffelen 2004. Sokrates wrote his Church History, which encompassed a period from the reign of Constantine to 439, most probably in the mid-440s; see Wallraff 1997; Leppin 2003, 220–223. Opitz, RE 10, 1873–1875 (Theodoros 48). Besides the passages published in the Patrologia Graeca (86.1, 215–228), Opitz based his collection mainly on the findings of Joseph Sarrazin 137 138 139 140 141 142 (1881, 165–238), Franz Diekamp (1903, 553–558) and Carl de Boor (1884, 573–577; 1917, 314–316). The third speech of John of Damascus against the iconoclasts, to which this florilegium is appended, is not precisely dated. Bonifatius Kotter (1975, 7) holds the view that it may form part of a revision of John’s writings, which the author was working on towards the end of his life. It may also have been created shortly after the second speech, around 730. Codex Athous Iviron 497, fol. 25r. This manuscript dates from the seventeenth century; see Lambros 1900, 157. Bidez/Parmentier 1898, 244, where the editors included the scholia to Book iii 18 (p. 117, 11) and iii 21 (p. 119, 25). These are Fragments 27c and 27d in Hansen’s edition. For more on the scholia, see below. The publisher of this text, Franz Diekamp, believed that the author had used only an Epitome of Theodore’s Church History; see Diekamp 1903, 553–558. On this anonymous composition, probably dating from the eleventh century, see below. It is not known exactly when these two works were written, but it is most often assumed that the Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai were composed in the eighth century. Such an opinion was expressed by Gilbert Dagron (1984, 29–30), who followed Theodor Preger (1901, xix) in placing the date of composition after 741. Averil Cameron and Judith Herrin (1984) argued for a somewhat earlier dating, locating the composition of a major portion of the text before 726, prior to the first iconoclastic initiative of the emperor Leo III. Albrecht Berger (1988, 40–49) dates the Parastaseis to the final quarter of the eighth century, while Otto Kresten (1994, 21– 52) found, on the basis of Parastaseis 3, that this work must have been composed after 775, but before 843. In recent years, Benjamin Anderson (2011, 1–5) has argued that the work is not a homogenous composition written over a single time span, but rather a collection of narratives originating from various decades of the eighth century. For the possible dating of this work, see also Filipczak/Kokoszko/Kompa 2011, 270–271. On the other hand, the Patria most likely assumed its final shape in the late tenth century; see Berger 1988, 187–196. Hansen 1995, xxiii-xxiv. Hansen draws attention to certain chronological discrepancies between the events described and Theodore’s era. Parastaseis 27–28 refers to the emperor Philippikos, who reigned 711–713. In turn, the catalogue of the empresses’ statues (Parastaseis 29–36) must have been drawn up after the reign of Justinian II (died in 711). However, Hansen believes that the anonymous author must have been familiar with the Epitome of Theodore’s Church History and that throughout his work he freely referred to the names of various Church historians, including Eusebios, Sozomen, Theodoret of Kyrrhos and John Diakrinomenos, but also Theodore Lector, with the intention of creating fictive attributions for the information transmitted therein; Dagron 1984, 36; Cameron/Herrin 1984, 9–12, 39, 42, 205 (though they do not rule out Theodore’s authorship of certain passages, stating that the names of the earlier writers would probably have been attached to them). It is a different matter in the case of passage 72–73 of the Patria, which Theodor Preger (1907, 150, apparatus), followed by Opitz, credits to Theodore, based on the correspondence between Epitome 333 (Hansen) and the textual tradition underlying Theophanes’ Chronography (AM 5930) and George the Monk’s Chronicle (ed. de Boor, 604, 16–605, 4). In all likelihood, all these sources draw on the Epitome (see Mango/Scott 1997, 145, n. b), but this passage is an excerpt from the Historia 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 Tripartita, not from Theodore’s Church History, and as such it does not come within the scope of the present publication. Hansen 1995, xxi-xxiii. Hansen 1995, xix-xxi. Hansen 1998, 101–139. Wolfram Brandes attributes this anonymous text to Theodore Lector; see Hansen 1998, 103. For a description of the manuscripts of the Hypothesis, see Hansen 1998, 104–105. Hansen 1998, 102. Flusin 1983, 60–67. Hansen (1995, xix-xxi) found seven passages in three sections of Cyril’s Vita Sabae that exhibit parallels with various works representing the Theodorean tradition: Vita Sabae 50, concerning the situation in the Church after Elias’ accession to the see of Jerusalem, including the deposition of Euphemios and then of Makedonios of Constantinople; Vita Sabae 52, which treats Sabas’ second meeting with emperor Anastasios in Constantinople; and Vita Sabae 56, which describes the Palestinian monks’ rebellion against the anti-Chalcedonians in Jerusalem. For a list of these passages, see also Flusin 1983, 60–62. Flusin 1983, 66: “documents officiels ou semi-officiels”. Evagrios iii 31, 33. As Alkison died in 516, the letter must have been written in that year at the latest; cf. Marcellinus Comes, s.a. 516.3, see also Hainthaler 2015, 271. Flusin (1983, 66) specified that he did not consider the aforementioned letter to Alkison as a common source for Cyril and Theodore, but rather some other document of this type authored by the monks of Palestine. Flusin 1983, 66–67. This hypothesis finds confirmation in Blaudeau 2006, 542. F 2 [51]: πρὸς χάριν βασιλέως διαπραττόμενος; Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 50 (ed. Schwartz, 140, 11): πρὸς χάριν βασιλέως. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 50 (ed. Schwartz, 140, 13–14): τότε τοίνυν Εὐφήμιον τὸν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον τὰ ἐν Χαλκηδόνι δογματισθέντα συνοδικῶς κυρώσαντα […]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 492.2: Euphemius Constantinopolitanus episcopus, Anastasii imperatori scalliditate praevisa, synodum congregat, Chalcedonensis synodi decreta confirmat. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 50 (ed. Schwartz, 141, 1–3) and Theophanes AM 6005 (ed. de Boor, 157, 19–29); Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 50 (ed. Schwartz, 141, 16–23), 52 (ed. Schwartz, 143, 16–144, 18), 56 (ed. Schwartz, 148, 9–22); Theophanes AM 6003 (ed. de Boor, 153, 12–154, 2); Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 56 (ed. Schwartz, 150, 16–152, 12); Theophanes AM 6005 (ed. de Boor, 158, 22–159, 5). Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 50 (ed. Schwartz, 141, 16–23), 52 (ed. Schwartz, 143, 16–144, 18), 56 (ed. Schwartz, 148, 9–22) and Synodicon Vetus 108 (ed. Duffy/Parker, 92); Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 56 (ed. Schwartz, 152, 12–15) and Synodicon Vetus 111 (ed. Duffy/Parker, 94). Only a report at Vita Sabae 56 (ed. Schwartz, 149, 27–150, 16) overlaps in part with the Paris manuscript of the Epitome (codex Parisinus gr. 1555A), but only partially with Theophanes’ Chronography AM 6004 (ed. de Boor, 156, 19–24). See Kosiński 2017a, 118–121. Hansen 1995, xxi. 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 Blaudeau (2006, 450–451, esp. n. 311). On the other hand, Blaudeau also notes elsewhere (2006, 542, n. 250) that Moschos might have consulted the Church History. It remains unclear where he may have had access to Theodore’s work, as there is no evidence of his presence in Constantinople; cf. Sansterre 1983, i, 57–61 (notes 1983, ii, 111–113). For more on this passage, see below. Stefan Timm argues that the monastery of Salama must have supported the Chalcedonian position at the turn of sixth and seventh centuries; see Timm 1984, 840 (though his view is based only on the version in John Moschos’ text). In any case, if the monks relating the anecdotal story about Gennadios came from Constantinople and were followers of Chalcedon (as Timm speculates), it would seem that they could have had access to Theodore’s Church History (unlike John Moschos, who does not otherwise show any acquaintance with this work). Hypothesis, 1: ὥς φησιν ὁ ἀναγνώστης Θεόδωρος ἐν τῷ πρῶτῳ βιβλίῳ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας; Hypothesis, 13: Ἱστορεῖ δὲ ὁ Θεόδωρος. Hansen 1998, 106. Hansen 1998, 106–107. Theodore Lector, Epitome 16 [351]: Φλαβιανοῦ καθαιρεθέντος καὶ φονευθέντος ἐν τῇ Ἐφέσῳ […]. For the dependence of the Synodicon Vetus on the Epitome, see Hansen 1995, xxx-xxxi. Van Dieten (1980, 92) argues that the reference to the assassination of Flavian found at Synodicon Vetus 89 comes from a source more complete than the surviving Epitome. Hansen 1998, 107: “notorisch verkürzenden Handschrift”; see also Hansen 1995, xxvi-xxvii. E.g., the Anonymous passes over the emperor Marcian’s and Pulcheria’s letters to Pope Leo and a similar letter of the emperor and the council to the pope, which were mentioned by Theodore, according to Epitome 24 [359] and 26 [361]. In the former case, the contents of the letters were cited by Theodore, as the Epitome attests, while the Hypothesis (like the Epitomator) merely refers to these letters. However, the Hypothesis does not refer to the letter that the emperor is said to have addressed to the Council of Nicaea, which was included in the acts of the council and reportedly also cited in Theodore’s Church History (Epitome 24 [359]). Likewise, the Hypothesis makes no mention of transferring the council from Nicaea to Chalcedon. Kosiński 2017a, 114–118. Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 490.3: Hoc tempore heremitae Annianus super Euphratem fluvium oratiοne podagros curat, Auxentius daemones fugat, Daniel et Anastasius, Vindimiolus, Manasse, Severus et ceteri alii per diversa heremi loca virtutibus variis atque praescientia claruerunt. The fragment from John of Damascus’ work contains, e.g., the dual number (dualis) τὼ χεῖρε, which is rendered in the Paris codex version as the singular – τὴν χεῖρα. John’s version is more appropriate to Theodore Lector’s classicizing style. There is no certain way to date the iconophile florilegium in codex Parisinus gr. 1115 with precision or relative to the above-mentioned florilegium appended to the Third Speech by John of Damascus. Alexander Alexakis (1996, 254–255) argues in favour of 774/775. Although this is a highly conjectural dating, the iconophile florilegium was most probably created later than John’s florilegium. The question of the editorial tradition associated with the dating of the event described in this passage is problematic. The parchment codex Neapolitanus 54 (II B 16), dating from the 173 174 thirteenth century, is practically the only, and certainly the earliest witness to John of Damascus’ third speech against the iconoclasts (Kotter 1975, 56–57 and stemma: 48). In this manuscript the dating reference reads: κατὰ τὸν μῆνα τὸν Δεκέμβριον, ἔχοντα αὐτὸν τριακάδα καὶ πέμπτην ἡμέραν. On account of the expression καὶ πέμπτην, previous editors emended τριακάδα to εἰκάδα. This emendation can be found in, e.g., the Patrologia Graeca (94, 1388D), on which Hansen based his edition (1995, 131, 11 and apparatus). This correction resulted from the obvious fact that there could be no 35 December. In the most recent critical edition (Kotter 1975, 182, apparatus), Kotter does not follow this editorial tradition and restores the number 30, as found in the Naples manuscript, assuming that the phrase καὶ πέμπτην ἡμέραν refers to a day of the week, not of the month, and thereby obtaining the date 30 December, a Thursday. The problem is that in the year 498, to which this event is traditionally dated, 30 December fell on a Tuesday, not a Thursday. Only two years later, in 500, does 30 December fall on a Thursday; see Grumel 1958, 316. The dating 498 is based upon the Chronicle of Victor of Tunnuna, who had certainly made use of Theodore’s Church History. Moreover, both authors adopt the consular dating method, which should preclude the possibility of potential errors. However, Victor very often assigns events to incorrect years, at times with errors ranging up to a decade (e.g., s.a. 501, where Victor antedates the expulsion of Makedonios by 10 years). In the present case, it is of particular significance that Victor shifts (from 498 to 497) the papal election of Symmachos and the Laurentian Schism in Rome (s.a. 497.2). A similar shift may have also taken place in the case of Olympios. Although Theophanes also puts the story of Olympios at the end of AM 5991 (therefore, in the year 498/499), it appears that this dating is coincidental and does not result from the structure of the Epitome (in which annual dates are not used at all), on which Theophanes’ composition is based. The end of AM 5991 coincided with summer, not winter, while the account of this event in the Epitome 115 [465] comes after the undatable anecdote about Theuderich the Great (Epitome 114 [463]), before a reference to the Roman envoy Festus, who was dispatched to Constantinople in 497–498, and his mission came to an end certainly before November 498 (Epitome 461 [112]). In effect, Theophanes reverses the arrangement of the Epitome, which reflects the structure of Theodore’s composition more faithfully. It seems that the sequence of the passages according to Hansen’s arrangement is correct here, since Epitome 112 [461], 113 [462], 114 [463] and 116 [466] come from codex Baroccianus 142 (B), which in the case of Epitome 114 [463] is also present in Manuscript P, and it is exactly the latter manuscript that transmits the content of Epitome 115 [465]. Furthermore, the story of Olympios would fit the cycle of information on Arians as the following record, Epitome 116 [466] (Manuscript B) deals with the war with the Persians that broke out in 502. Accordingly, our current knowledge does not allow us to determine securely which one of the proposed dates is correct. Without satisfactory arguments for emending the text of the manuscript, we have chosen to follow its original form, according to which the events described in this fragment must have taken place on 30 December 500. A figure not known from other sources. He may have been a groom (stableman) of the Arian bishop Euthymios; see Greatrex (forthcoming), n. 26. Euthymios – bishop of the Arians in Constantinople; see Greatrex (forthcoming), n. 26. For the subject of Arian presence in Constantinople at the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries; see Greatrex (forthcoming). 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 Helenianai – a palace in the twelfth region of Constantinople; see Tiftixoglu 1973, 49–54; on the baths of the palace, see Crow/Bardill/Bayliss 2008, 10. Magnus is a figure unattested in other sources. The precise location of the Church of the Holy Apostles remains unknown, except for the fact that it was situated in the Periteichisma district, between the Forum of Constantine and the Cistern of Philoxenos; see Janin 1969, 50. This church was located in the Aurelianai district, in the vicinity of the Helenianai palace; see Janin 1969, 472–473. Aurelian – consul in 400, praefectus pretorio per Orientem in 414–416, patrician, a prominent figure during the reign of Theodosios II; see PLRE ii, 128–129 (Aurelianus 3). This Arian church was probably situated in the south-western part of the city, in the district inhabited mostly by Arians: behind the Exakionion (Exokionion) gate, just outside the walls of Constantine; see Greatrex 2001, 73, n. 7; Greatrex (forthcoming). The explanatory text in brackets is most likely an addition by John of Damascus; see Hansen 1995, 132 (apparatus). Ekdikos – Greek equivalent of the Latin term defensor ecclesiae; according to canon 23 of the Council of Chalcedon (see DSP, ed. Baron/Pietras, 244–246), this official was tasked with disciplinary matters regarding clergymen and monks arriving in Constantinople, who would often be responsible for inciting riots and disturbances in the city; see Martroye 1923, 620; Darrouzès 1970, 323–324. A tetrapylon is a monumental gate structure with four passageways. Eutychianos is a figure not known from other sources. Diaitarioi – low-ranking staff members whose duties comprised service in palace chambers as well as caretaking and janitorial duties; see Bury 1911, 127; Kazhdan/McCormick 1997, 181; Featherstone 2008, 506. Pantaleon (Pantaleimon) – Christian martyr who died during the persecutions around 305, whose relics were transferred to Constantinople; see Majeska 1984, 337, n. 147; Kazhdan/Patterson-Ševčenko, ODB, 1572–1573 (Panteleemon). Marinus – martyr who died at Anazarbos in Cilicia during the persecutions under Diocletian (BHG 1171). The Council of Constantinople (381) held its sessions in Hagia Eirene, not at the Church of Homonoia. This latter church is attested in Constantinople from ca. 430 and was situated in the ninth region; see Janin 1969, 382. A paragauda was a vestment hemmed with a gold-embroidered strip of fabric; see Cleland/Davies/Llewellyn-Jones 2007, 138. For discussion of these events, see Tiftixoglu 1973, 50–54; Greatrex (forthcoming); Twardowska (forthcoming). Palladios – Patriarch of Antioch in 488–498. He was a presbyter at the Isaurian shrine of St Thekla in Seleukeia before his elevation to the Patriarchate, which may hint at emperor Zeno’s role in his election. His religious views were probably moderate and he was not actively opposed to the Council of Chalcedon. It is not known whether he was coerced into putting his name to the Henotikon; see Downey 1963, 507–508; Kosiński 2010, 196–197. Most likely referring to images of the bishops who supported the decrees of Chalcedon. Dioskoros – Patriarch of Alexandria in 444–451; see further p. 88, n. 114. 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 Makedonios – Patriarch of Constantinople in 496–511; on Makedonios; see Grillmeyer 1987, 266–269. Timothy – Patriarch of Constantinople in 511–518. He had previously served as a treasurer of the Great Church of Constantinople. Initially, he was reluctant to renounce the decisions of Chalcedon, but from 515 his views assumed a definitely anti-Chalcedonian character; see Kaegi 2003, 85–86; Haarer 2006, 152. Nothing further is known of Julian, but it is certain that this figure cannot be identified with Bishop Julian of Halikarnassos, a staunch opponent of Chalcedon who was closely associated with Severus of Sozopolis at that time; see PChBE iii, 548–549 (Ioulianos 9). Flavian – Bishop of Constantinople in 447–449; see further p. 86-87, n. 111. Anatolios – Patriarch of Constantinople in 449–458; see further p. 86, n. 110. Gennadios – Patriarch of Constantinople in 458–471; see further p. 92, n. 120. For more on this passage, see Skrzyniarz 2007, 147–152; Twardowska (forthcoming). See p. 86, n. 110. The office of apokrisiarios had already existed in the fifth century, but its range of responsibilities was ultimately systematized by Justinian I. The principal duty of these officials, appointed by patriarchs and bishops from among their trusted aides or associates, was to represent their church at the imperial court; see Magdalino, ODB, 136 (Apokrisiarios). Eutyches – archimandrite of the Hebdomon monastery near Constantinople; for more details on this figure and the controversy over his teachings, see Introduction, p. 25–26. Protogenes and Asturius were consuls in 449; see CLRE, 432–433. Philoxenos – Bishop of Hierapolis from ca. 485 to 523; see further p. 79, n. 85. Kalandion – Patriarch of Antioch in 479–484; see further p. 96, n. 132. Peter the Fuller – Patriarch of Antioch in 471, and then in 475–476 and 485–488; see further p. 77, n. 79. Kyros, Bishop of Hierapolis, is known only from this fragment of Theodore’s work and the dependent passage of Theophanes’ Chronography in the Latin version of Anastasius Bibliothecarius; see le Quien 1740, ii, 928. Severus is not known from other sources. Zeno – emperor in 474–491; see further p. 76, n. 78. Cubicularius is a general term applied to palace eunuchs, in service in the sacrum cubiculum (imperial bedroom). Since castration was prohibited in the Roman Empire, they were usually emancipated slaves from Persia or the Caucasus. They were subordinate to the praepositus sacri cubiculi; see Scholten 1995. Luke 3:5.