Evagrius Scholasticus

in these things we agree, it is necessary ^A that the matter of the three chapters, concerning which questioning has arisen, be examined and put to rest. And for this reason, we request that with Your Blessedness presiding over us, and with the holy Gospels set before us, the same chapters be set forth in the midst and examined and compared together with calm and priestly gentleness, and that an end be put to the questioning that is pleasing to God and in agreement with what has been defined by the four holy councils; since it tends to the increase of peace and to the concord of the Churches that, all dissension being taken from the midst, those things defined by the four holy councils be preserved unshaken, the reverence of the holy councils being kept in all things. To these things we have also set our hand. And the subscription. Strengthened in the Lord, pray for us, most holy and most blessed brother. ^B

I, Eutychius, by the mercy of God bishop of Constantinople of New Rome, have subscribed to all the things written above.

The same petition was also sent by the most holy Apollinaris, archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and by Domninus, the most holy archbishop of Theopolis, and by the most God-beloved bishops under them, who were also present in this royal city, to the most holy Vigilius.

ANNO DOMINI DXCIII.

EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS.

NOTITIA.

Evagrius, of Epiphaneia (a), a Syrian, a scholasticus (b), and he himself, like Socrates and Sozomen, an advocate of causes in the forum (c), lived at Antioch and was illustrious under Gregory, bishop of Antioch (d).

(a) Evagrius, III, 34: Epiphaneia, which he has as a fellow-citizen, or the Orontes. Evagrius the Epiphanian, son of Epiphanius. ^C ... scholasticus, from the Prefects, of the city of Epiphaneia on the Orontes in Coele-Syria, Ecclesiastical history in six volumes. As I was marrying a virgin bride on the day of the new moon of the month Hyperberetaios, and the city was celebrating a public festival concerning the procession and the bridal chamber. ^D ... the procession.

(b) Photius cod. 29: Read the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, from the Prefects, of the city of Epiphaneia in Coele-Syria, in six volumes.

(c) That he lived in Antioch, Valesius rightly observes from several places in Evagrius; but that learned men gather that this writer was of the primary citizens of Antioch from the fact that he reports, lib. vi, cap. 8, that the whole city kept his wedding day as a holiday and wished him well, this I indeed find in Valesius's version, but I think the Greek has a different meaning. For Evagrius says that he celebrated his nuptials with his virgin spouse on the day of the new moon, when the whole city was having a holiday, certainly not because of Evagrius's nuptials, but on account of the solemn time of the new moon. Therefore, it ought not to be understood of the bridal chamber nor of the nuptial procession, but of the banquets and the procession with which it was the custom to celebrate the new moon.

(d) Evagr. lib. vi, cap. 7 and last, where he testifies that on account of the reports written in the name of Gregory, bishop of Antioch, he was advanced to double dignity by the emperors.

EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS

^A Under Tiberius Constantine, he was even advanced to the quaestorship, and he obtained the honorary codicils of the prefecture from Maurice Tiberius. He wrote in the same city, as is credible, that of Antioch, and when closing in on his sixtieth year he completed his six books of Church History, covering the time from where Socrates and Theodoret had left off, or from the Synod of Ephesus—by which Nestorius was condemned—in the year of Christ 431, up to the twelfth year of the Emperor Maurice, which year began on August 13 in the year of Christ 593. He frequently cites the historians he used—the rhetoricians Priscus, Eustathius, Epiphaniensis, Zacharias, Procopius, and John, who closed his own History in the seventh year of Justin the Elder (see IV, 5); as well as Zosimus. Casaubon writes that Evagrius is not too far removed from fabulous narratives (Exerc. 13, 31, ad Baron., p. 258).

Regarding the editions and Latin translators—Musculus, Christophorson, and Valesius [and Reading], and the Frenchman Cousin—one may consult what I have already said concerning Theodoret, to whom Evagrius’s History is appended. I will only add that Valesius, for the purpose of emending the Greek text, in addition to the Royal codex that Robert Stephanus published, used the various readings of an excellent Florentine manuscript in the Laurentian Library, which also contains Socrates, and another codex, not indeed very old, but by no means to be despised, belonging to Dionysius Tellerus, Archbishop of Reims.

FABRICIUS: In Florence, in the Medicean Library, there are six books of Evagrius’s *H.E.* in codex 5, n. 2, plut. 69, with scholia placed in the margin; and in codex 23, n. 1, plut. 70. Three excerpts from the *H.E.* are included in cap. 24 of book V and cap. 36 of book IV; and the Description of the Church of Sophia is in book IV, cap. 51, in codex 5, n. 8 and 17, plut. 70. See Bandini, *Cat. codd. Gr.* II, pp. 625, 628, 661 and 662, who also, in vol. I, pp. 52, 291, 99 and 254, notes that Evagrius is cited in the Catena on Job, in the Proverbs of Solomon, in the Exposition of the Divine Commandments, and in the Florilegium of sentences, unless this is to be considered another Evagrius, namely the Pontic.

In Venice, in the Marcian Library, codex 337 contains six books of Evagrius’s *H.E.* (Cat. codd. Gr. p. 456). In the Leiden Library, there are the manuscript emendations of Bonaventura Vulcanius concerning Eusebius, Evagrius, Sozomen, Theodoret, etc. (Cat. bibl. Leid. p. 345, n. 20). In the Escorial Library, there are two codices, in one of which are the six books of the *H.E.*, and in the other various chapters (according to Plüer in *Itiner.*, etc., p. 167). Among the codices of Mendoza, according to Iriarte in *Cat. codd. Gr. Matrit.* p. 277. In Paris, in the public library, codices 1444 and 1446. According to the *Catalogus codd. Angliæ*, etc., in codex Barocc. 142, there is Evagrius’s *H.E.* In Christian Friedrich Rässler’s *Bibliotheca der Kirchenväter*, part VII, pp. 311 and 478. The six books of Evagrius have been, as it were, reduced to an epitome, translated into German, and illustrated with learned annotations.

Furthermore, Evagrius testifies in the final chapter of book VI that he wrote another volume, ἕτερον τεῦχος, in which there were *Anaphorae*, letters, decrees, speeches, and dialogues—Relations (written in the name of Gregory, Bishop of Antioch), Epistles, Decrees, Orations and Disputations, and other things. In this work, I think there also existed a *Congratulation* (perhaps written in the name of the same Gregory) to Maurice Tiberius on the birth of his son Theodosius.

^B HENRICI VALESII PRÆFATIO IN HISTORIAM ECCLESIASTICAM EVAGRII SCHOLASTICI.

Evagrius Scholasticus was a Syrian by race, just like Theodoret: he originated from the city of Epiphaneia, which was a city of the Second Syria, as he himself revealed in the title of his work. Therefore I am surprised at Gerard Vossius, who, in his book *De historicis Græcis*, p. 498, writes that Evagrius was an Antiochene. And Evagrius himself, both in the title of his History and in book I, cap. 34, explicitly testifies that he was from Epiphaneia. For there, speaking of Cosmas, the bishop of Epiphaneia, he writes as follows: "Cosmas, the bishop of our Epiphaneia, which the river Orontes washes," etc. But also Photius, in the *Bibliotheca*, cap. 29, says that Evagrius was born in Epiphaneia, a city of Coelesyria. It is strange, however, that our Evagrius is called by Nicephorus Callistus not "Epiphaniensis," but ἐπιφανής, that is, "illustrious," in two places. For in cap. 1, book I, of Nicephorus it is written thus: "Ο γε μὴν Εὐάγριος ὁ ἐπιφανής," etc. And in book XVI, cap. 31, citing a passage of Evagrius from book III, cap. 34, which I mentioned a little earlier, he writes as follows: "Οἷα δὲ καὶ Εὐάγριος ὁ ἐπιφανὴς περὶ Σευήρου ἱστόρησεν."

ἱστόρησεν."» ^A But in both places I believe there is an error by the antiquarians, who wrote *Epiphanes* instead of *Epiphaniensis*. Certainly Nicephorus, from the very words of Evagrius which he cites there—and which we have brought forward above—could have clearly learned that Evagrius was from Epiphaneia. Furthermore, Evagrius was born in the principate of Justinian, in the year of our Lord 536 or 537, as I have demonstrated from the testimony of Evagrius himself in the notes to book IV, chapter 29. In the year of Christ 540, he was handed over by his parents to a schoolmaster to learn his letters. At that very time, when Thomas, bishop of the Apameans, had announced to the neighboring cities that on a certain day he would display the life-giving wood of the cross which was kept at Apamea, Evagrius was led by his parents to that city, and he saw with his own eyes that miracle which then occurred in the church, as he testifies in book IV, chapter 26. This happened in the year of Christ 540, when the Persians had made an incursion into Syria and burned Antioch: this occurrence took place when Justin the Younger was consul, as Marcellinus Comes and Marius have recorded in their Chronicle. Two years later, when the bubonic plague began to spread in the East, Evagrius, still learning his letters under a schoolmaster, was seized by that pestilence, as he himself testifies in book IV, chapter 29. Afterwards, having left the schools of the grammarians, he devoted himself to rhetoric. And when he had made great progress in this art, he was enrolled in the ranks of the advocates. From this he also derived the surname *Scholasticus*; which word signifies an advocate, as Macarius teaches in homily 15, in these words: ^B "Ο θέλων μαθεῖν γράμματα, ἀπέρχεται καὶ μανθάνει τὰ σημεῖα· καὶ ὅταν γένηται ἐκεῖ πρῶτος, ἀπέρχεται εἰς τὴν σχολὴν τῶν Ῥωμαϊκῶν, καὶ ἔστιν ὅλων ἔσχατος. Πάλιν ἐκεῖ ὅταν γένηται πρῶτος, ἀπέρχεται πρὸς τὴν σχολὴν τῶν γραμμάτων, καὶ ἔστι πάλιν ἐκεῖ ὅλων ἔσχατος, ἀρχάριος. Εἶτα ὅταν γένηται σχολαστικός, ὅλων τῶν δικολόγων ἀρχάριος καὶ ἔσχατός ἐστι. Πάλιν ὅταν ἐκεῖ γένηται πρῶτος, τότε γίνεται ἡγεμών. Καὶ ὅταν γένηται ἄρχων, λαμβάνει ἑαυτῷ βοηθὸν τὸν συγκάθειρον," that is, as I interpret it: "Whoever wishes to learn legal business, goes first and learns the shorthand signs. And after he has come out first there, he goes to the school of the Romans, and he is the lowest of all. Then when he has become first there, he goes to the school of literature, and he is again there the lowest of all, a beginner. Then when he becomes a *scholasticus*, he is the beginner and the lowest of all the advocates. Again when he has become first there, then he becomes a governor. And when he becomes a ruler, he takes for himself as an assistant the one seated with him." In the Greek text of Macarius, I have emended the text to read *pragmata* (legal business), not *grammata* (letters) as it is commonly read. ^C Furthermore, in which city Evagrius practiced as an advocate is uncertain. I suspect, however, that he conducted cases at Antioch; in which city there were three forums or tribunals, and as many schools of advocates, as I observed from Libanius in my annotations on Evagrius, book I, chapter 18. Certainly, he could not have been an advocate of Epiphaneia, which we have shown above was his fatherland, since that city had no judicial forum, but would defer its cases to Apamea, because it administered justice within the city of the consular of the Second Syria. But that I believe Evagrius was an advocate at Antioch rather than Apamea, this reason above all convinces me: that he spent much time in that city, and took a wife there, and raised children from her. He also gave his daughter in marriage in that city, as he himself testifies in book four, chapter thirty-nine. When she had perished from the pestilential disease along with her son in the tenth year of the Emperor Maurice, Evagrius, bereaved of his spouse and children, passed on to a second marriage, and joined a young virgin to himself by right of matrimony in the same city, as he reports in book VI, chapter 8. Where he also testifies that the whole city held holidays for that reason, and celebrated a public festival, both in the procession and around the bridal chamber. From which it appears, incidentally, how great his authority was at Antioch. Furthermore, he wrote his History at Antioch, as is gathered from book I, chapter 20. Where, speaking of the Jerusalem pilgrimage of the Empress Eudocia, he says she came to Antioch: "χρόνοις ὕστερον ἐπὶ τὴν ἁγίαν ἐπειγομένη πόλιν, ἐνταῦθά τε γίνεται," that is, "who long after, hastening to the holy city, came here (namely, to Antioch)." Evagrius was therefore living in Antioch when he wrote those things. Hence it is that Evagrius recounts the public works and buildings of the city of Antioch so studiously, as can be seen in book I, chapter 18, and book III, chapter 28. In which places he indicates not obscurely that he lived in Antioch while he was writing them. Hence it is also that he commemorates with such care and diligence the earthquakes by which Antioch was frequently shaken: and that he perpetually uses the Antiochian era in his notation of time. ^D Finally, this is also gathered from book VI, chapter 7, where he writes that Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, when he had been accused of incest by a certain banker before John, count of the Orient, made an appeal to the emperor and to the synod. And when he was traveling to Constantinople, to plead his case before the emperor and the synod, he took Evagrius with him, as an assessor and counselor, to use his advice. By which words Evagrius signifies clearly enough that he was an advocate and a legal expert. For from the body of these men, assessors were accustomed to be taken by magistrates, both civil and military. Nor did Gregory have Evagrius as a counselor only in this criminal matter, but also in other cases. For when he was patriarch of the Oriental Church, and it was necessary for him to settle innumerable cases daily, he absolutely needed some assessor to suggest to him the formulas of law and jurisprudence. Certainly the words of Evagrius signify exactly what I have said. For he says: "Περὶ τούτων οὖν ἐμοῦ παρεδρεύοντος καὶ παρόντος γε αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν βασιλέως γέγονε, τὴν ἀπολογίαν ὑφέξον." But scholars will judge about this matter according to their own discretion. It suffices for me to have proposed my conjecture to the readers. Moreover, the same Gregory, not only in judicial proceedings, but also in writing letters and in reports which he sent from time to time to the emperor, and likewise in sermons and orations, made use of the talent of Evagrius, as Evagrius himself testifies at the end of his work. Which volume indeed, when Evagrius had published it not without the consent of the patriarch Gregory during the principate of Tiberius Constantine, he was gifted with the quaestorian dignity by the same emperor. And not long after, when he had composed an oration on the praises of Maurice

he received the commission of the prefecture from Maurice himself, as he testifies in the Epilogue of his History. Christophorson rendered the words of Evagrius thus: "For which we obtained two degrees of honor: the quaestorship from Tiberius Constantine, and the office of keeping the records, in which the names of the prefects were inscribed, from Maurice Tiberius." This erroneous interpretation misled Gerard Vossius and Philipp Labbe. For Vossius, in his book *On the Greek Historians*, following in the footsteps of Christophorson, says: "He says that he was honored with a double honor for these two books. For he was adorned with the quaestorship by Tiberius Constantine; but from Maurice he obtained the charge of presiding over the Public Records." Philipp Labbe, however, in his *Dissertation on Ecclesiastical Writers*, interpolated the translation of Christophorson thus: "And he says he obtained two degrees of honor: and was first promoted to the quaestorship by Tiberius Constantine; then he obtained from Maurice the office of keeping the records, in which not so much the names as the very acts of the prefects were inscribed." How much better is Musculus, who translates the passage of Evagrius thus: "On account of which we also obtained two dignities: Tiberius Constantine bestowing the quaestorship, but Maurice Tiberius sending the hyparchic letters." By this he meant the commission of the prefecture, which the Latins also call *literae* (letters), as I have long since observed in my *Annotations on Ammianus Marcellinus*. Hence it is that Evagrius, in the title of his Histories, calls himself *apo eparchon* (ex-prefect), because he had been gifted by the emperor with the commission of an honorary prefecture.

Evagrius later published six books of *Ecclesiastical History*, starting from those times where Theodoret and Socrates had left off, that is, from the Ephesian synod in which Nestorius was condemned and deposed, namely from the year of Christ 431, and carried it down to the twelfth year of the Emperor Maurice, which was the year of our Lord's nativity 594. Certainly in Book III, chapter 33, speaking of Severus, Bishop of Antioch, at the time he was writing this, he says it was the year 641 of the Antiochenes. Since, therefore, the era of the Antiochenes precedes the birth of Christ by forty-eight years, if you subtract 48 years from this number, the year of Christ 594 remains. The same man also confirms in chapter 29, book IV, where Evagrius writes, while committing these things to letters, that the plague which devastated the whole world had already been raging for fifty-two years. Now this pestilence had begun to ravage two years after Antioch was captured by the Persians, that is, in the year of Christ 542. If you add fifty-two years to that number of years, it becomes the year of Christ 594.

Moreover, Evagrius’s diligence is especially to be praised, who, when he had undertaken to write his *Ecclesiastical History*, collected everything that pertained to that subject from the best writers, such as Priscus, John, Zacharias, Eustathius, and Procopius the rhetoricians. His style, too, is not to be reproved. For it possesses elegance and grace, as Photius also testifies. But what is especially to be praised in Evagrius is that, of the Greek ecclesiastical historians, he alone preserved the doctrine of the right faith whole and unblemished, as Baronius observed after Photius in his *Annals*.

Yet he deserves reproach in that he did not apply as much diligence in searching out the monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity as he did in reading profane authors. Certainly, almost the entire sixth book is consumed in the narration of the Persian war. Furthermore, his style in many places is redundant and luxuriant, as Photius correctly judged in his *Bibliotheca*. You have an example of his *perittologia* (verbosity) in chapter 2, book I, where he says of Nestorius: "The God-opposing tongue, the second assembly of Caiaphas, etc."; and in chapter 3, book II, where he describes the temple of Saint Euphemia that was in Chalcedon, and in other places which the studious reader will easily observe for himself.

Furthermore, Robert Stephanus was the first of all to publish the History of Evagrius in Greek from a single manuscript codex of the Royal Library, one quite recent and not very good. For in many places it is imperfect and mutilated. We, however, have emended and supplemented the History of Evagrius in so many places from two manuscripts of the best quality that it may now seem to be published for the first time. The first was the Florentine codex from the library of Saint Laurence, which the most illustrious Michael Erminius compared with the Genevan edition and sent to me, having transcribed its various readings with his own hand. For which reason, I profess that I owe him much. This codex is the best and most ancient of all the copies of Evagrius. For it was written on parchment more or less five hundred years ago, as Emericus Bigot, a man most learned and most deserving in letters, reported to me, the eyewitness (*autoptes*): by whose benefit and intervention I received the aforementioned various readings sent by the honorable Michael Erminius. In the same Florentine codex, certain scholia, not unlearned, were inscribed in the margin, which we have included in our *Annotations* in their proper place. Moreover, the reader is to be warned that the History of Socrates Scholasticus is also contained in this Florentine codex, whose variant readings the same Erminius long ago transmitted to me, annotated in his own hand, as I testified four years ago in that *Preface* which I prefixed to the edition of Socrates and Sozomen. The second codex was obtained from the library of the most illustrious Prelate Charles Maurice Tellier, Archbishop of Reims: it is indeed not very ancient, but good, and transcribed by the hand of a learned man. This codex was a great help to us in many places, as we have shown from time to time in our *Annotations*.

TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS

From the fifth session of the seventh ecumenical synod, page 613. From the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, from the fourth book. For after he had brought Chosroes to the city, and the rest which is contained in chapter 27, book IV.

From the Bibliotheca of Photius, chapter 29. ^A There was read the Ecclesiastical History in six books, by Evagrius Scholasticus, ex-prefect, of the city of Epiphaniia in Coele-Syria; beginning from the end of the histories of Socrates and Theodoret, and descending down to the twelfth year of the reign of Maurice. Its style is not unpleasing, although it seems at times to be somewhat redundant; but in the correctness of its dogmas, it is more accurate than other historians. It also contains testimonies regarding icons.

Nicephorus Callistus in book I, chapter I. Next, indeed, Theodorus Lector of Byzantium, and Basilius Cilix, and Evagrius the ex-prefect, having bypassed the events of the times before them and having pursued their own times with their pens, joined their own accounts to the Histories of those whom we have just mentioned, fearing the difficulty. Some, indeed, even departing from this life while writing, did not complete the work they had undertaken. Evagrius of Epiphaneia himself, however, carries his History down to the age of Justin, for the most part handling profane matters; the arguments and material for which he culled from Eustathius the Syrian, Zosimus, Priscus, John, Procopius of Caesarea, and Agathias, who were notable orators in a continuous series during those times, and furthermore from other historians not to be despised.

The same, in book XVI, chapter 31. But I shall here set down in his own words the things which Evagrius of Epiphaneia has committed to memory concerning Severus. For he writes in this manner: And the rest which exists in book III of Evagrius, chapter 34.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS, OF EPIPHANEIA AND EX-PREFECT, IN SIX BOOKS

CAPITULA

^A Books of the first volume of the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus and ex-prefect, of Epiphaneia. The index is by Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos.

Proemium of the author, in which he explains how it came about that he set himself to write this work.

Cap. I. How after the death of the impious Julian, when the heresies had slowly faded away, the wicked devil again disturbed our faith.

II. How Nestorius was exposed due to the sermon of the priest Anastasius, since he would not call Mary Theotokos [Mother of God], but Christotokos [Mother of Christ], failing to call the holy one the Mother of God, for which reason he was proclaimed a heretic.

III. What the great Cyril wrote to Nestorius, and how the third synod was assembled in Ephesus, to which John of Antioch and Theodoret arrived late.

IV. How Nestorius was deposed by the synod, while the bishop of Antioch had not yet arrived.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(a) *The index of Nicephorus Callistus.* These words are missing in the excellent codex of the most illustrious prelate Dionysius Tellerius, Archbishop of Reims. And I was very close to expunging them from our edition. For I do not believe that the author of this index is Nicephorus Callistus. For since this index is found in a very ancient Florentine codex, which was written five hundred years ago—as that most expert judge of such matters, Emericus Bigotius, has affirmed to me—the author of this cannot be Nicephorus, seeing that he lived during the reign of Andronicus.

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY BOOK I

V. How John, bishop of Antioch, having arrived after the fifth day, deposed Cyril of Alexandria and Memnon of Ephesus; who were soon pronounced innocent by the synod; and how John, along with his followers, was deposed; and how Cyril and John, through the intervention of the Emperor Theodosius, were reconciled, and confirmed the deposition of Nestorius. ^A

VI. Concerning Paul, bishop of Emesa, who was sent to Alexandria; and how Cyril praised the letter of John.

VII. What and how great things Nestorius says he suffered in his own account, and how at last, after his tongue was consumed by worms, he ended his life at Oasit.

VIII. How after Nestorius, Maximianus, and after him Proclus, then Flavianus, became bishops. ^B

IX. Concerning the unfortunate Eutyches: and how he was deposed by Bishop Flavianus, and concerning the second, marauding council of Ephesus.

X. What was perpetrated by Dioscorus and Chrysaphius in the illegitimate council at Ephesus.

XI. A defense by the author regarding the differences among us, and a ridicule of the fables of the Greeks.

XII. How the Emperor Theodosius profligated the heresy of Nestorius.

XIII. Concerning Saint Symeon the Stylite.

XIV. Concerning the star which is frequently seen in the portico near the column of Symeon, which this writer and many others have seen; and concerning the head of this same Saint Symeon. ^C

XV. Concerning Saint Isidore of Pelusium and Synesius, bishop of Cyrene.

XVI. How the divine Ignatius was brought back from the city of Rome and deposited at Antioch by the Emperor Theodosius.

XVII. Concerning Attila, king of the Huns, and how he laid waste the provinces of the East and West; also concerning the occurrence of a strange sign, and other fearful portents that happened throughout the world.

XVIII. Concerning the public works at Antioch, and those who constructed them.

XIX. Concerning the various wars which took place both in Italy and in Persia during the reign of Theodosius. ^D

XX. Concerning Eudocia Augusta and her daughter Eudoxia; and how Eudocia came to Antioch and entered Jerusalem.

XXI. That Eudocia Augusta performed many noble deeds in Jerusalem; and concerning the varying life and conduct of the monks of Palestine.

XXII. Concerning the works built by Eudocia Augusta in Palestine, and concerning the church of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr, in which she was religiously buried. Also concerning the death of the Emperor Theodosius.

VOLUME ONE. BOOK ONE.

^A Proemium of the author, concerning the reason for which he was led to write the present treatise.

Eusebius Pamphili—a man who, besides other attainments, is most learned in writing, and capable of persuading those who encounter him to embrace our religion, even if he does not know how to make them perfectly orthodox—Eusebius, I say, together with Sozomen, Theodoritus, and Socrates, have most excellently and diligently recorded for us in their writings the advent of our most benign Savior to the earth, His ascension into heaven, and all that was accomplished by the divine apostles and the most courageous martyrs who contended for the faith, as well as whatever else, worthy of either praise or blame, has been performed by our people up to the principate of Theodosius.

But since no one as yet has undertaken to pursue the events which followed thereafter—which are by no means inferior to the former—I have decided, although little experienced in such matters, to assume this task and weave together the history of those events. For, relying on the help ^B of Him who endowed the fishermen with wisdom, and who drew articulate voice from the tongue of a brute animal, I trust that I shall stir up things that have died away through oblivion, return life to them through my narrative, and bestow immortality upon them through the everlasting commemoration of men, so that it may be possible for each individual to know what and when, where and how, against whom and by whom these things were done down to our own times; and that nothing among those things worthy of memory should, through soft and lax indolence, and through oblivion (which is the neighbor of indolence), remain hidden ^C and concealed. Therefore, relying on divine assistance, I shall begin my writing from the point where the men mentioned above brought their own histories to an end.

Chapter I. How, after the departure of the impious Julian, and when heresies had gradually ceased, the devil again disturbed our faith.

^A When the impiety of Julian had been swallowed up by the blood of the martyrs, and the madness of Arius had been bound by the shackles forged at Nicaea; when Eunomius and Macedonius had been cast forth, as if by a certain wind, by the all-holy Spirit around the Bosphorus, and had been broken and extinguished at the holy city of Constantine; when the holy Church had already laid aside the recent foulness of its defilement and was recovering its ancient splendor, and, having been clothed with a raiment of gold and many colors, was being betrothed to her heavenly Bridegroom and Lover—the daemon, the enemy of virtue, unable to endure this, stirred up against us a new and strange kind of war. ^B Despising the now trodden-down worship of idols and ignoring the servile madness of Arius—and fearing to attack our faith openly as an enemy, because it had been fortified by the forces of so many holy Fathers, and having wasted most of his power in the siege of it—he instead proceeds with the business in the manner of a brigand. He devises certain questions and answers, maneuvering the wandering [souls] toward Judaism in a novel manner, the wretched one not understanding that he was to be defeated even by this. For what he once attacked above all else, he now admires and embraces; ^C exulting and triumphing with joy if he could not drive us away from everything, but could at least manage to adulterate a single word. And, often wrapping himself in his own malice, he contrived the alteration of a single letter, one which would lead to the same meaning, yet would divorce the understanding from the tongue, so that both might not confess and glorify the Father and the Son in one and the same way.

The manner in which each of these things was perpetrated, and what end they had, I shall set forth in their own proper times, interweaving anything else that is secondary, yet worthy of history, if I should be able to discover it; and I shall bring the history to a close where it shall please the benevolent God.

^A

CHAPTER II. How Nestorius was detected, through the teaching of the presbyter Anastasius, calling Mary not Theotokos, but Christotokos; and for what reason he was confessed a heretic.

Since Nestorius, that tongue hostile to God, that second council of Caiaphas, that workshop of blasphemy in which Christ is again agreed upon and sold, his natures being divided and torn apart—he who, even on the cross, did not have a bone broken, according to what is written, nor was his woven tunic torn by the killers of God—he, I say, Nestorius, thrust aside and rejected the term *Theotokos*, which had already been forged by the all-holy Spirit through many approved Fathers; and he counterfeited, re-forged, and re-stamped the term *Christotokos*. He filled the Church with ten thousand wars, flooding it with civil blood. I do not think I shall fail, if it be prefaced, to arrive at a reasoned arrangement of the history and its conclusion, with the cooperation of Christ, who is God over all, starting from the blasphemy of the impious Nestorius.

The war of the Churches began from this point: a certain Anastasius, a presbyter, perverse in his thinking and burning with the Jewish doctrines of Nestorius and his followers... ^{B C D} [alt-version omitted] [index: entries preserved]

who had also accompanied Nestorius as he set out for the episcopate of the Royal City. At that very time, Nestorius had met with Theodore at Mopsuestia, and upon hearing his doctrine, he swerved from the path of right piety, as Theodulus writes in a certain epistle dealing with these matters. ^B Accordingly, when this Anastasius was delivering a sermon to the Christ-loving people in the Church of Constantinople, he dared to declare openly and explicitly: "Let no one call Mary the Theotokos; for Mary was a human being, and it is impossible for God to be born of a human being." When the Christ-loving people heard this, they were gravely disturbed and, as was right, judged the sermon to be blasphemy. Nestorius, the author of this blasphemy, not only did not restrain Anastasius or take up the defense of true and sound doctrine, but he openly added strength to what had been said by Anastasius, persisting stubbornly in disputations of this kind. From time to time, moreover, by inserting and weaving in his own doctrines and pouring out the hidden venom of his mind, he endeavored to teach things even worse and more impious—to such an extent that, to his own ruin, he would say: "I would never call Him who has become two months or three months old, God"—just as is clearly recorded by Socrates and in the Acts of the first synod of Ephesus.

CHAPTER III. Quid magnus Cyrillus ad Nestorium scripserit, et quomodo tertia synodus Ephesi congregata sit, ad quam Joannes Antiochenus episcopus et Theodoretus tardius accesserunt.

^C Since Cyrillus, the bishop of the Alexandrians—a man of most celebrated name—had rebuked him through his letters, and Nestorius had replied to these, yet Nestorius would acquiesce in neither the things written by Cyrillus nor those written by Celestine, the bishop of senior Rome, but, fearing nothing, spewed out his own venom against the universal Church; ^D meritously, therefore, did Cyrillus petition Theodosius, who then administered the empire of the East, that by his mandate a synod—the first at Ephesus—should be gathered through imperial letters sent both to Cyrillus himself and to all the bishops of the most holy Churches everywhere. Accordingly, Theodosius [ordained this as the authority for the gathering.]

^A On the day of holy Pentecost, the day on which the life-giving Spirit of God descended upon us. And Nestorius indeed, because Ephesus is not far from Constantinople, arrived there first. Cyrillus also, along with the provincial bishops, arrived before the appointed day. John, the bishop/metropolitan of Antioch, along with those with him, was absent on the day appointed—not, however, of his own volition, as it seems to many who offer excuses for him, but because he was unable to gather those with him as quickly as possible, since the cities under his jurisdiction—the city of Antioch—are, even for a swift traveler, a journey of twelve days, and for some even longer. The distance from the city of Ephesus from Antioch is a journey of about thirty days. Hence, John maintained that he could not reach the appointed day, because the bishops whom he had with him were celebrating that Lord’s day which is commonly called the "New" in their own sees.

CAP. IV.

How Nestorius was deposed by the synod, the bishop of Antioch not yet having arrived.

When, therefore, fifteen days had passed beyond the appointed day, the bishops who had gathered there for this purpose, as if the Orientals were not going to come at all, or at least would do so only after a long delay, came together ^B, with divine Cyrillus also holding the place of Caelestinus of the city of Rome, as mentioned above.

^A They also summoned Nestorius, urging him to answer the charges brought against him. And although on the previous day he had promised to arrive, should it be necessary, he disregarded what he had promised. And having been called three times, since he did not appear, those assembled took up the inquiry. And after Memnon, the president of the Ephesians, had recounted the passage of the days that had elapsed beyond the stipulated time (for they happened to be sixteen in number), and the letters of the divine Cyrillus to Nestorius and the things wrought by him had been read, and furthermore those of Nestorius to Cyrillus in return; and when that sacred and wondrous letter of Caelestinus to the same Nestorius had also been read; and when Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra, and Acacius, who occupied the see of Melitene, had exposed the impious words which Nestorius had openly poured out at Ephesus; ^B and when many opinions of the holy and approved Fathers, who had set forth the right and unblemished faith, had been collected; and when various things impiously blasphemed by the godless Nestorius had been inserted; the holy synod pronounced these words against Nestorius: «In addition to the fact that the most honorable Nestorius was unwilling to obey our summons, nor did he receive the most holy and religious bishops sent by us, we were compelled by necessity to undertake an examination of the things impiously spoken by him. And since we had discovered, partly from his letters and books which were also read, and partly from his own words which he recently spoke here in this metropolis and which have been confirmed by the testimony of many, that he thinks and preaches impiously, ^C constrained by the authority of the canons and the letter of our most holy Father and colleague Caelestinus, bishop of the Church of the Romans, after many tears we have at length proceeded to this sorrowful sentence. Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ, against whom Nestorius has spoken impiously, has decided through this holy synod ^D that the same Nestorius is estranged from the episcopal dignity and from every priestly assembly.»

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS. [... The Latin notes provided here discuss historical nuances regarding the title "pope" used for Alexandrian bishops, the specific nature of Cyrillus' delegation by Caelestinus, and historical opinions on the Roman bishop's role as judge of all churches. [index: entries preserved]]

CAP. V.

After this legitimate and most just sentence, Joannes, Bishop of Antioch, arrived together with his bishops five days after Nestorius had been deposed. Having gathered a council of his own bishops, he deposed Cyrillus and Memnon. But when Cyrillus and Memnon had presented petitions to the synod that had been gathered with them—although Socrates, through ignorance, has recorded this somewhat differently—Joannes was summoned to render an account of the deposition he had performed. When he failed to appear after three successive summonses, Cyrillus and Memnon were indeed absolved from the sentence of deposition; but Joannes and the bishops who were with him were excluded from ecclesiastical communion and from all priestly authority. ^B Furthermore, the Emperor Theodosius, although at first he did not at all approve of the deposition of Nestorius, later, having learned of his impiety and having written most pious letters to the bishops Cyrillus and Joannes, they were reconciled to one another and confirmed the deposition of Nestorius.

CAP. VI.

When Paulus, Bishop of the Emisenes, had come to the city of Alexandria and delivered a sermon there in the church—which is still extant—upon which occasion Cyrillus praised the letter of Joannes very highly, he wrote these words verbatim: "Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth exult." ^C For the partition wall has been torn down, and the trouble has ceased, and every cause of dissension has been removed, since the Savior of us all, Jesus Christ, has restored peace to His churches, and the most religious and God-beloved Emperors have urged us toward this same goal. For they, as the best emulators of their ancestral piety, preserve the right faith firm and unshaken in their own minds; and in the ^D [next page begins: ...and]

^A extraordinary care they take for the holy Churches, so that they may have an immortal glory and render their own reign most illustrious. To these, the Lord of hosts himself distributes with a lavish hand his benefits, and grants them both to prevail over those who have risen against them, and to carry off the victory over their enemies. For he who said, "As I live, saith the Lord, I glorify those who glorify me" (1 Kings 2:30), cannot lie. Since, therefore, my lord, the most religious brother and fellow-minister, Paul, had arrived in Alexandria, we were filled with joy—and very rightly so, as such an important messenger had arrived, and one who had of his own accord chosen to undertake labors that exceed human strength, ^B with the intention that he might overcome the envy of the devil, join together what was divided, and, having removed the offenses on both sides, crown both our Churches and yours with concord and peace. And after other things: "That the dissension of the Church was altogether vain and undertaken for a light cause, we have been fully convinced, since my lord, the most religious Bishop Paul, brought a letter containing an irreproachable confession of faith, affirming that it was written both by your holiness and by the most religious bishops who are there. Now the exposition of that faith stands thus, and it is inserted in this letter of Cyril in these very words: Regarding the Theotokos, and so forth. Having read those sacred words of yours, and having observed that we ourselves hold the same ^C ('For there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]), we glorified God, the Savior of all, congratulating one another that both your Churches and ours profess such a faith, which is in agreement with the divine Scriptures and the tradition of our holy Fathers. And these things, indeed, may be known by those who wish to read accurately what was done at that time."

CAPUT VII.

What afterward became of him, and how he departed from this life, and what reward he received for his blasphemy, has not been revealed by historians. These things surely would have perished, and by the lapse of time would have been utterly obliterated and buried, so that they would only be perceived by hearsay, had I not happened upon a certain book of Nestorius which contains the narrative of these matters. Therefore, that father and author of the blasphemy, Nestorius—who, not building upon the foundation that had been laid, but instead building upon the sand ^A, which, according to the Lord’s parable, quickly collapsed—writing to those who had accused him of having devised something new in a way that he ought not have, and of not having rightly requested that the synod at Ephesus be convened, defends his own blasphemy as he wished. Among other things, he writes that he was altogether compelled by necessity to come to the defense of that party, when the holy Church had been divided into two parts, and some affirmed that Mary should be called ^C *anthropotokon* (one who bore a man), while others affirmed she should be called *Theotokon* (one who bore God). "In order, therefore," he says, "that I might not err on either of the two, or by joining mortal things with immortal things, or by joining myself to one part and being deprived of the other, I devised the term *Christotokon* (one who bore Christ)."

He also notes that initially Theodosius, out of the benevolence with which he regarded him, did not at first confirm his deposition; but later, when certain bishops from both sides had been sent from the city of the Ephesians to Theodosius, and he himself having requested it, he was permitted to return to his own monastery, which is situated before the gates of the city of the people of Antioch. Nestorius did not indeed express its name there, but they say that the monastery is now called Euprepius; which we have learned is indeed situated in the suburbs of Antioch, being distant about two stadia from the city. Nestorius says that he spent four years there, enjoyed all manner of dignities, and partook of all kinds of honors, and how, afterwards, at the decree of Theodosius, he was banished to the place called Oasis. ^B [alt-version omitted] ^{C D} [index: entries preserved]

^A But he has omitted what is most important. For while Nestorius was living there, he in no way ceased from his blasphemy. So much so that John, the bishop of Antioch, reported these things to the emperor, and Nestorius was condemned to perpetual exile. He also wrote another book to a certain Egyptian, in the form of a dispute concerning his relegation to the Oasis, in which he discourses more fully on these matters. The punishments which he brought upon himself for the blasphemies he uttered, since he could not be hidden from the eye of God which looks upon all things, can be seen from other letters which he wrote to the governor of the Thebaid. For in them it is permitted to perceive how, since he had not yet paid sufficient penalties, divine vengeance overtook him and subjected him to captivity—which is the most grievous calamity of all. And since it was fitting that he should be afflicted with greater punishments, he was indeed released by the Blemmyes, among whom he had been a prisoner. But by the edict of Theodosius, who had decreed that he should return, moving from place to place near the borders of the Thebaid, and being cast upon the earth, he met with an end worthy of his previous life; he was like a second Arius, by his death preaching and proclaiming what kind of reward awaits those who speak impiously against Christ. For both of them blasphemed against Him in a similar way—the one by calling Him a creature, the other by thinking Him a mere man. To the one [Nestorius], whom I would most gladly address, who complains that the proceedings at Ephesus were not conducted as they should have been, but were contrived by the craftiness and some lawless innovation of Cyril—I ask why, when he was being favored by Theodosius, he was driven out, and without receiving any leniency, was condemned to such great banishments, and so ended this life; or why, if a divine judgment had not occurred, ^B both he and those priests around him, being numbered among those who have departed, when, as has been said by one of the scholars from outside, that which was not composed dialectically[...], ^C

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(25) "In the aforementioned monastery which was called Euprepius."

(24) "He writes also dialectically." I do not approve of the interpretation of Christophorson and Musculus. The latter indeed translates: "He wrote another book in a dialectical manner, as if composed for a certain Egyptian concerning his exile." Christophorson, however, interprets it thus: "Nestorius wrote besides another little book, acutely and subtly, etc." For what need was there for dialectical sharpness and subtlety in a little book in which Nestorius was dealing with his relegation to the Oasis? Therefore, it is more pleasing to interpret the book as having been composed in the manner of a dialogue. And thus Nicephorus has expounded these words of Evagrius. For instead of those words he put—which Langus translates—more eloquently: as if Nicephorus had said "more dialogically," [instead of] "dialectically."

(25) "Of the departure." Nicephorus in book XIV, chapter 36, reads more correctly "of the departure," and so I have found it written in the Tellerian codex.

(26) "Captivity, which is the most grievous calamity of all." I have corrected this from the excellent Florentine codex, in which it is so read; than which correction nothing is more certain. So also it is read in Nicephorus.

VARIORUM.

Petras, a city of Arabia, when the emperor ordered him to be relegated; but being soon moved by his own entreaties and those of his friends, his sentence was mitigated, and he permitted him to retire to the monastery of St. Euprepius, in the suburbs of Antioch. There, having remained for four years, he was finally relegated by the emperor's edict to Oasis, a city of Libya, also called Ibis. In which place, having been captured by the Blemmyes who were laying waste to the city, he was soon released; and he betook himself to Panopolis, a town of the Thebaid. From Panopolis he was led away by soldiers to Elephantine, a town of the same province. While he was still on the journey, however, he was recalled by the governor and ordered to return to Panopolis. From thence also, by the governor’s mandate, he was deported to another place near Panopolis; and finally, by a recent edict of the emperor, he was relegated to a fourth place of exile. Some wish him to have died in the year 436. But that he lived in the Oasis until the year 459, in which he ended his history, Socrates clearly testifies, lib. VII, cap. 36. See Guil. Cav. on Nestorius. For the writings of Nestorius, see Marius Mercator, Gr. Lat., from the edition of Joannes Garnerius, fol. Paris, year 1673.

(f) "Blemmyes." Strabo in the beginning of book V calls the Blemmyes neighbors of the Egyptians. Zosimus, lib. I, c. 71, says the Blemmyes were allies of the city of Ptolemais in the Thebaid against the Romans. Olympiodorus, in Photius, p. 112, places the Blemmyes near Talmis, a city of Egypt in the farthest borders. Procopius, lib. I, Belli Pers., cap. 19, stations them near Elephantine and Philae. Wonderful things have been made up about them and the shape of their bodies. Plin. lib. V, cap. 8; Vopiscus in Probo, cap. 17; Christ. Cellarius, Geogr., in Africa, p. 154.

^A and in this way finished his life: but for what reason, if that judgment passed by Cyril and the rest of the priests who were with him was not divine, now that both have been removed from the scene—at a time when, as a certain pagan author has said, that which is no longer in the way is honored with unresisted, secure goodwill—is he himself condemned as an impious enemy of God, while Cyril is praised and proclaimed by all as an excellent herald and a great champion of the true doctrines? But lest we perchance be accused of falsehood, let us bring forward Nestorius himself recounting these things. Come then, read for me those parts word for word from the letter which you wrote to the governor of the Thebaid. "On account of the questions which were recently discussed at Ephesus concerning the most holy religion, by the order of the Emperor we inhabit the Oasis, which is called Ibis by another name." And after some intervening remarks, he adds: "After the aforementioned Oasis was thoroughly ravaged by the barbarian captivity, and by fire and sword, we, however, were suddenly let go by the Barbarians—who were moved to compassion for us, I know not how—even though they had terrified us with threatening declarations to depart from our territory immediately, as the Mazices were about to take it over right after them. We came into the Thebaid along with the remnants of the captives whom the Barbarians had brought to us out of pity, for what reason I cannot say. They indeed were permitted to depart wherever each one wished. But we entered Panopolis publicly and presented ourselves. For we feared lest anyone, taking an opportunity from our captivity, might concoct a calumny against us of flight or of some other fault. For malice is productive of every kind of calumny. Wherefore we ask your magnificence to take charge of our captivity, as is provided by the laws, and not to deliver a captive into the snares of wicked men, lest all posterity hereafter proclaim that it is better for a man to live as a captive among Barbarians than to take refuge in the Roman Empire." Then, adding an oath, he beseeches the governor to report to the Emperor concerning his migration from the Oasis to Panopolis. ^B Having brought this forward, he requested thus: that our migration from being removed from the Oasis to this place—which came about through the release from the barbarian captivity—might be reported, so that a disposition regarding us might be set forth that seems right to God, and now, too, to be carried out. From the second letter of the same [Nestorius] to the same: "Whether this present letter is sent by us to your magnificence as a friendly one, or as a reminder from a Father to a Son..." ^C

valesii annotations. ^D ...not in the way. [alt-version omitted]

^A Since this has been considered, I beseech you, bear with the account of it, which I have written as briefly as possible, as far as the circumstances permitted. The Oasis, which is also called Ibis, had long since been laid waste by a multitude of Nomads [(29)] who had rushed upon it. And after other matters: "These things having happened in this way, I do not know by what impulse or what provocation your magnificence was moved, so that we were sent from Panopolis to Elephantina, which is a town on the borders of the province of Thebais, by Barbarian soldiers, dragged toward it by the aforementioned military aid. And having been broken by the greater part of the journey, we again receive an unwritten command from your courage to return to Panopolis. Being exhausted by the hardships of your journey [(30)], with a body that is suffering and weary, and with my hand ^B and side broken, we arrived again at Panopolis, in a certain manner at the point of death, and still being scourged by the miseries of our afflictions. But another written order from your courage was moving us again from Panopolis to the district under your jurisdiction. When we were considering that these things would be the end of our trials [(31)], and were awaiting what seemed good to our most victorious emperors concerning us, suddenly another exile was imposed upon us without sparing, a fourth one in succession. And after a few things: 'But be satisfied with what has been done, I beseech you, and with setting so many [(53)] exiles for one body; and grant it humanely regarding those things which were brought before your magnificence, and those which were begun.'"

^A Thus did Nestorius in his letters, as though striking and insulting with both fists and feet, attack the emperors and the magistrates alike with invectives, not having become any wiser by the evils he had endured. I, however, have read a certain author who narrates his death in such a way as to say that, his tongue having been eaten away by worms, he passed on to severer and eternal punishments.

CHAPTER VIII.

How after Nestorius, Maximianus, and after him Proclus, then Flavianus, became bishops.

After the death of the accursed Nestorius, Maximianus received the bishopric of Constantinople, under whose administration the Church of God attained most tranquil peace. When he had departed from this light, Proclus took hold of the helm of that see, who had long ago been ordained bishop of Cyzicus. And when he too had departed on the common journey of men, Flavianus succeeded to the throne.

CAP. IX.

Concerning the unfortunate Eutyches, and how he was deposed by Flavianus, Bishop of CP, and concerning the second robber-synod of Ephesus.

In his days, the question concerning the impious Eutyches was set in motion; a particular synod having been gathered at Constantinople, the holy and great synod of the "home-dwelling" (ἐνδημούσης) bishops was assembled in the aforementioned great city, while ^C the matters concerning the impious Eutyches were being stirred up, and while a particular [synod] was being held ^D according to the affairs of Constantinople.

[alt-version omitted]

^A And since Eusebius, who governed the bishopric of Dorylaeum—who, while still a rhetorician, had first refuted the blasphemy of Nestorius—had also presented libels: when Eutyches, having been called to the synod, did not come, and then later, even when he had appeared, he was convicted. For he had said: "I confess that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of two natures before the union; but after the union I confess one nature." And he did not even say that the body of the Lord was of the same substance as ours. He was deposed; but because he had presented a petition of grievances to Theodosius, arguing that the acts of the synod had been falsified by Flavian, first of all, a synod of neighboring bishops was gathered in Constantinople. In this, with some of the magistrates also present, ^B Flavian was judged, and when the acts were confirmed as true, the second synod in Ephesus was gathered.

CAP. X.

What was perpetrated by Dioscorus and Chrysaphius in the illegitimate council at Ephesus.

Its exarch was appointed to be Dioscorus, who was bishop of the Alexandrian Church after Cyril; this had been plotted against Flavian by Chrysaphius, who at that time had the greatest power in the palace. There also came together to Ephesus Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem, who had already been in Ephesus before, with many of the clergy who were with him. Along with these also was Domnus, who was bishop of the Antiochene Church after John, and indeed also Julius the bishop, holding the place [of the Roman see].

^A of Leo, the bishop of Elder Rome. Flavianus was also present with the bishops who were with him, for Theodosius the Emperor had commanded these things to Elpidius [(40)] verbatim: "To those who previously acted as judges for the most pious archimandrite Eutyches: while they are indeed present and silent, let them by no means hold the rank of judges, but let them await the common vote of all the most holy Fathers, since the things judged by them are now being examined." In this council, Eutyches is called back from deposition by Dioscorus and those with him, so that he might be restored to his former state, as is contained in the acts; and Flavianus, as well as Eusebius, the prelate of Dorylaeum, are condemned and deposed. In this same synod, Ibas also, the bishop of Edessa, is removed from communion, ^B along with Daniel, the bishop of Carrhae [(41)], and Irenaeus of Tyre [(42)].

And furthermore, Aquilinus of Byblus. Certain things were also done concerning Sophronius, who held the see ^A of the Constantinopolitans. Theodoritus, who occupied the see of Cyrrhus, is deposed by them, and likewise Domnus of Antioch; concerning what happened subsequently regarding him, it is impossible to discover. And thus the second synod at Ephesus was dissolved.

CAP. XI. Defense of the variety of opinions which exist among Christians, and derision of the myths of the Gentiles.

Let no one of the idol-maniacs mock us, for the reason that later bishops depose the former ones, and are always finding some newer thing in the faith. For we, in investigating the ineffable and unsearchable benevolence of God toward mankind, and wishing to honor and elevate it in every way, lean now to this side and now to that. And no one of those who have found heresies among Christians intended to blaspheme at the outset, nor did he slip because ^B he wished to dishonor the Divine; but rather, assuming it was better to speak than what had gone before, if one were to advocate this view. And those things which are the connective and primary ^C points are acknowledged in common by all. For we worship a Trinity and glorify a Unity; and the same God who is the Word, begotten before the ages, incarnated by a second birth out of pity for the creature. If any other things have been innovated, these too have come about because the Savior God has left us the power to decide even concerning these matters, so that the holy catholic and apostolic Church might ^D capture the statements from this side and that, to satisfy the requirement of piety, and might meet upon one smooth and straight path. Wherefore it was very clearly said by the Apostle: “For there must be heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest.” And one can admire in this, too, the ineffable wisdom of God, who said even to the inspired Paul: “For my power is made perfect in weakness.” For from those very parts of the Church that have been broken off, from those very ones the 1 Cor. xi, 19.

truth, even if one speaks of the ineffable wisdom of God, who said to the divine apostle Paul: "For my power is made perfect in weakness." [II Cor. xii, 9.] For from those very causes through which the members of the Church were torn asunder, the straight and irreprehensible doctrine has been more accurately refined and set forth; and the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God has received greater increase, and has been exalted even to heaven itself.

But those who are nurslings of the error of the Gentiles, not desiring to discover God or His providence in human affairs, overthrow both the opinions of their ancestors and their own in turn. For they ever devise new gods, and they designate and name them from their own perturbations of soul, so that, by adopting such gods, they might procure impunity for their own lusts. ^A Thus, certainly, among them, he who is considered the highest God, and is called father of men and gods alike, was transformed into the shape of a bird and impudently abducted the Phrygian youth; and as a reward for his lewdness, he bestowed upon him a cup, allowing him to pour out wine for his love, so that they might both drink shame and disgrace along with the nectar. The same [god] defiled himself with countless other crimes, which are not permitted even to the lowest of men. And he was transformed into every species of brute animal—himself the most brutish of all—and became an androgynous being, carrying a fetus not in a womb, but in his thigh, so that even these things might be committed by him against nature. Whence arose [the myth of] Bacchus, who was himself likewise androgynous, offering insult to both sexes; he is the author of drunkenness, gluttony, and debauchery, and of all the evils that spring therefrom.

To this Aegiochos and High-Thunderer, they attribute yet another thing as though it were something magnificent, calling him a parricide—which is considered the ultimate crime among all—because he had driven from his kingdom Saturn, who had unluckily begotten him. ^B And indeed, what shall I say regarding the fornication consecrated by them, to which they have set over the Cyprian Venus, born of a shell? She recoils from continence as if it were some sacred crime and quite monstrous thing; but she delights in fornications and all manner of indecencies, and wishes to be worshipped and placated by these very things. Mars, having joined with her, is, through the-craft of Vulcan, exposed before the other gods to be watched and ridiculed. One would also rightly laugh at their Phalloi, and Ityphalloi, and Phallagogia, and the enormous Priapus, and Pan, who is worshipped with a shameful member. The mysteries, likewise, which are celebrated at Eleusis, are to be praised for this reason alone: that they are not seen by the sun, but are condemned to perpetual darkness. ^C But, leaving behind these things—as much for those who basely worship such things as for those who are worshipped—let us spur our steed toward the goal, and let us place before the eyes of all the remaining matters concerning the deeds of Theodosius. ^D

CHAPTER XII. How the Emperor Theodosius defeated the heresy of Nestorius.

There was written by the same emperor a most pious constitution; which has been recorded in the first book of the Code of Justinian.

^A In this, which is called the Codex, being the third in number of the first title, wherein Theodosius, stirred by God—even as Nestorius himself writes that he had once been favored—condemned him with, so to speak, every vote, surrounding him with anathema, and wrote word for word as follows: “Furthermore, we decree that those who emulate the impious belief of Nestorius, or follow his unlawful doctrine, if they be bishops or clerics, are to be cast out of the holy Churches; but if they be laymen, they are to be struck with anathema.” Other laws were also set forth by him for the sake of our religion, to demonstrate his burning zeal.

CHAPTER XIII. On Saint Simeon Stylites.

^A we have found among those of the holy desert, and have received from them. When, therefore, this Symeon, this angel on earth, this citizen in the flesh of the Jerusalem above, put into practice this strange path of life, unknown to men, those of the holy desert sent someone to him, instructing him to ask what this strange manner of life was; and why—forsaking the trodden path which had been walked by the saints—he was treading another, strange one, which was altogether unknown to men; and as they had instructed him, to tell him to descend and to follow the path of the elect Fathers. They ^B ordered that if he showed himself prepared to descend, they should allow him to live according to his own custom; for it was evident from his obedience that he was pursuing his struggle here having been guided by God. But if he resisted, or became a slave to his own will, and did not hasten to obey the commission, they were to bring him down by force. When he who was sent came to him and explained the command of the Fathers, and Symeon immediately put down one of his feet, wishing to comply with the instructions of the Fathers, he who had been sent to him permitted him to keep the course which he had established, addressing him with these words: "Be strong and act manfully. Thy station is from God." This action of Symeon’s, being altogether memorable, I have recorded in this place, because it was omitted by those who wrote about him. Furthermore, such power of divine grace dwelt within him that when Emperor Theodosius had ordered that the synagogues of the Jews living in Antioch, which the Christians had previously taken from them, be restored, Symeon wrote to him with such confidence and liberty, and rebuked him so sharply—fearing only his own Emperor, God—that Emperor Theodosius, revoking his order, did everything in favor of the Christians; and he took away the authority of the praetorian prefect who had suggested these things to him, and asked specifically of the most holy and aerial martyr to pray to God for him and to impart his own blessing to him. Symeon went on struggling in this exercise of life for six and fifty years; in the first cloister where he was instructed in divine things, nine years; in what is called the Mandra ^C, seven and forty years—having finished his struggle in one narrow place for ten years, and on the pillars for the remaining seven, and upon the forty-cubit one, for the years ^D which have been omitted.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ...[those who] had transcribed these emendations in the codices. For others add the word [after] "omitted." But others read [it] so that it is understood of Theodoritus alone. I, however, consider that this passage should be restored thus: "In which we have found that they for the most part omitted [what] until now is being saved among those of the holy desert, [which] we have received from them." Nor do I doubt that Evagrius wrote it thus. (50) [The following] are written on the side in the Florentine codex: "A spiritual judgment of the Fathers, truly in Christ, concerning the great Symeon." (51) *To the most holy and aerial martyr.* Concerning the words "by word": These are evidently the words of Emperor Theodosius, from the epistle which he wrote to the blessed Symeon. He had prefixed this title to his epistle: "To the most holy and aerial martyr." Where he calls him a martyr indeed on account of the most grave hardships with which he afflicted his own body; and "aerial" because he stood, being sublime, upon a column. Certainly those words indicate entirely what I have said: that those words, namely, or those which follow immediately, are of Emperor Theodosius. Christophorsonus, however, punctuated this passage differently, as appears from his interpretation. For he thus translates: "And to pray the most holy and aerial martyr, that he should specifically beseech God for him." Which punctuation I, for my part, cannot approve.

VARIA. (o) Mandra. Concerning the meaning of this word, see Valesius' note in the following chapter, under the word "Mandra."

^A thirty. His most holy body, after his departure from here, was brought later into the city of Antioch, while Leo held the scepter, Martyrius was at that time occupying the see of Antioch, and Ardaburius was commanding the eastern legions. Along with the military units that were about them and the rest of the multitude, they came to his ^B mandra, and they rescued the most holy body of the blessed Symeon, so that the neighboring cities might not come together and carry it off. Great miracles therefore took place throughout the journey, and his most holy body was brought to Antioch. And the Emperor Leo asked to receive it from the Antiochenes. The prayers which they raised to him from Antioch were written in this manner: "Because the city has no wall (for it collapsed in anger 52), we brought the most holy body, so that it might become for us a wall and a stronghold." Persuaded by these things, and yielding to their requests, he left the holy body to them. The greater part of this has been preserved for us; I myself have seen its holy head along with many priests, while Gregory, a man of all-praised memory, was at that time overseeing the bishopric, when Philippicus had requested that precious relics of the saints be sent to him for the protection of the eastern armies. And—a wondrous thing—the hairs on the head had not at all decayed, but remained intact, just as if he were still living and dwelling among men. The skin on the forehead, indeed, was wrinkled and hardened; yet it remains unharmed nonetheless, as do most of the teeth, ^C except for those which, not just a few 53, were forcibly taken away by the hands of faithful men, proclaiming through their very form what kind, and how great, and how tall the man of God, Symeon, was. For this reason, the collar made of iron also lies there, with which the much-sung and battle-worn body 54 partook of the rewards from God. For not even when he had died did the lover, the iron, abandon Symeon. I would have described individual details 55 in this way, providing profit for both myself in the telling and for those who encounter it, had not these things been labored upon more extensively by Theodoret, as I have said before 56.

CHAPTER XIV. On the star often seen in the portico near the column of Symeon, which this writer and many others have beheld; and on the head of the same holy Symeon.

^A Now, I shall insert into this history another thing which I myself have seen. I burned with an incredible desire to see the shrine of that holy man. It is situated about three hundred stades from the city of Antioch, lying upon the very summit of the mountain. The locals call it the "Mandra," a name which seems to have been given to the place by the most holy Symeon, because he had disciplined himself there with a more rigorous way of life. The ascent of the mountain extends for twenty stades. The construction of the temple is in the form of a cross, adorned on its four sides by porticoes; opposite these porticoes there are columns, beautifully fashioned from polished stone, which very elegantly raise the roof to a great height. ^B The middle space is an open-air court, fashioned with the greatest skill, where ^{C D}

^A the column forty cubits high stands, upon which the earthly angel finished his heavenly life. On the roof, therefore, of the so-called porticoes, there are lattices (60)—some call them windows—which look both toward the aforesaid open-air court and toward the porticoes. On the left side of the column, therefore, in that very lattice, I saw, along with the whole crowd gathered there, as the rustics were dancing around the column (62), a star of immense size running and shining through the entire lattice, not once, or twice, or three times, but many times; for it would frequently stop, and then suddenly appear again—a thing which happens only in the shrines of the all-holy one. There are those who say—and one must not disbelieve this miracle, both because of the trustworthiness of those who tell of it and because of other things we have seen—that they have even seen his very face (63) flying here and there, with the beard flowing down and the head covered with a tiara, as was his custom. Men coming to this place enter without any restriction, and together with their pack animals often circle the column. There is a guard, however, of the utmost strictness—I cannot say why—that prevents any woman from entering inside the sanctuary. They stand outside by the doorposts and marvel at the miracle; for directly opposite the shining star is one of the doors (64). ^B

CHAPTER XV

Concerning Saint Isidore of Pelusium, and Synesius, Bishop of Cyrene.

In the reign of the same emperor, Isidore (q) was also flourishing, whose fame is widespread for his composition, in work and ^C

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ^D (60) *Kleithridia*. They translated this as "lattices," which I cannot approve of in any way. For *cancelli* are [not that]. Therefore, I should prefer to translate it as *clathri*. Old glosses: *Clathri*, rules, those little rods which are in windows. In other glosses, *clathrare* is explained as "to bolt." Therefore, there is the same origin for the Latin word and the Greek. (61) *Apokrinomena*. I agree with Christophorson and Savile, who corrected it. Nicephorus adds some things which are not read today in our Evagrius. For it reads thus: [Greek text omitted]. Which place of Nicephorus, Langus translates thus: *Cancelli* are: some are accustomed to call them windows, which look toward the porticoes themselves and the place which is called the open-air court, and provide space for those who wish to look from the temple itself to the outside, and again from the exterior part of the temple into the temple. Where Nicephorus derived this, I do not know. Whether from Symeon Metaphrastes, who had written the life of Symeon the Stylite? That this had been read by him, the same Nicephorus testifies. Nor indeed is it likely that Nicephorus added these things of his own accord. But for what reason they were added, I think I have discovered. Metaphrastes, or Nicephorus himself if you prefer, thought that women who were not permitted to enter into that holy temple saw the star we mentioned through those windows. But he is far from the truth, as we shall presently say. (62) *Agroikon peri ton kiona choreuonton*. Musculus translates: "With the whole crowd of rustics gathered there dancing around the column." Christophorson followed him, having removed the punctuation mark which was placed after the word *leo*. But this interpretation cannot be held. For it was not only rustics who were present in the temple of Saint Symeon when this star was seen by Evagrius; but many citizens also, of which number Evagrius was one. Furthermore, the people which Evagrius says were gathered there at that time were in the portico on the left of the column itself. The rustics, however, were in the court, dancing around the column. (63) *Auto de to prospeion*. In Nicephorus it is read *prosopon*. Which I think is more correct. In the Tellerian manuscript, I found it written with a changed accent. (64) *He mia ton thyron*. For the word *thyron* Nicephorus was wrong, as I warned above. For women could not look through the window, as they were in the vestibule, while the windows were situated on the very top of the porticoes, from the entry to which women were barred. Meritously, therefore, Joannes Langus, following our Evagrius, corrected Nicephorus. For he translates thus: "Women also, but standing outside the temple by the doorposts, watch this miracle." For one door is located opposite the shining star.

VARIORUM. (q) Isidore, an Egyptian by birth, perhaps from Alexandria, a disciple of Saint Chrysostom, whose memory he cherished deeply, flourished around the year 412. He lived a monastic life near Pelusium.

^A And he is celebrated everywhere, both for his achievements and for his eloquence. To such a degree had he worn down his body with labors, and nourished his soul with mysterious and more sublime doctrines, that he led the life of an angel on earth, and was a living pillar, always, of the monastic life and of the contemplation of God. He wrote many other things, filled with every kind of profit; he wrote also to the most renowned Cyril, from which it is clearly gathered that he flourished in the same times as the admirable Cyril. But since I strive to embellish these things as much as possible, let Synesius of Cyrene now come forward, who by the renown of his name may illustrate our history.

This Synesius, then, was cultivated in the other disciplines, and likewise excelled in philosophy to such a degree that he was an object of admiration even to Christians—to those, at least, who are accustomed to judge matters without being led by hatred or by favor. They persuaded him, therefore, to receive the laver of saving regeneration, and to take upon himself the yoke of the priesthood, even though he had not yet received the doctrine of the resurrection, nor was willing to believe it; conjecturing quite rightly that these things would be added to the man's other virtues, since divine grace cannot endure anything to be imperfect. Nor were they deceived in their hope. ^B For he indeed became such, and so great, as his elegant and learned writings composed after his priesthood bear witness.

VARIOUS READINGS. ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS.

(65) *And of divine contemplation.* Nicephorus, in book xiv, ch. 53, where he transcribes these words of Evagrius, has "How also" as I found written in the Tellerian codex. It could also be emended... An illustrious Elogium of this Isidore of Pelusium exists in the letter of Ephrem, bishop of Antioch, to Zenobius the Scholastic, which Photius reports in his *Bibliotheca*. Where he says that he was Alexandrian by birth, and venerable even among the bishops themselves.

(66) *To be deemed worthy of regeneration.* From these and the following words, it is gathered that Evagrius seems to have thought that Synesius was baptized and promoted to the episcopal office at one and the same time. Petavius, however, in his notes on Synesius (pp. 2 and 3), proves by many arguments that this is false. Yet Photius in his *Bibliotheca* and Nicephorus in book xiv followed Evagrius. Although Nicephorus says that the two sacraments were not received by Synesius at one and the same time; but that when Theophilus had already persuaded him to receive the baptism of Christians, he afterwards attempted to persuade him to take up the episcopal office. ^C I see that many have persuaded themselves that Synesius, when he was elected bishop by the Ptolemaidensians, did not believe at all in the resurrection of bodies. But that this is not true is testified by Synesius himself in epistle 105, which he wrote to his brother Evoplius, who was then in Alexandria. In it he brings forward the reasons why he could not accept the episcopate offered to him. The first is his wife, from whose companionship he could not be torn away. The second is the resurrection of bodies. Concerning which he declares what he thinks in these words: "[...] that is, I consider that sung-about resurrection to be a holy and mysterious thing, and I am far removed from the opinions approved by the masses." Therefore, Synesius did not entirely deny the resurrection of the dead: but he expounded it with the Platonists and Origen. However, Baronius, in the year of Christ 410, considers that all those things which are stated by Synesius in this letter, both about retaining his wife and about the resurrection of the dead, are not said in earnest, but feignedly and simulate, so that he might decline the burden of the episcopate. But Petavius has rightly disproved this opinion of Baronius. For he says it is much more probable that Synesius wrote these things to his brother just as he then felt. ^D Yet afterwards, having been instructed by Theophilus or other priests before he became bishop, he embraced the true doctrine concerning the resurrection. But Lucas Holstenius has examined this question at length in a special dissertation, which we have published for the sake of the studious at the end of our Annotations. Meanwhile, the reader must be warned that there is an error in the title of this chapter and in the *Bibliotheca* of Photius, where Synesius is called bishop of Cyrene. Synesius was indeed a Cyrenian by country, but he was bishop of Ptolemais, which is a city in Cyrenaica.

VARIOUS.

(r) *Synesius.* Synesius, an Egyptian by birth, of the Pentapolis, a Cyrenian by city, at first a Gentile by worship, a Platonic philosopher by school, was ordained bishop of Ptolemais by Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, around the year 410. (Guil. Cav. vol. 1, p. 299.) In what year he died is unknown. He used as his teacher of philosophy first Hypatia, of whom Socrates speaks in book vii, cap. 15.

^C And indeed, the letters that were written to him, the panegyric addressed to Theodosius ^A (68), and all the other useful labors of his that are currently circulating, testify clearly enough to what kind of man he was and how great he was, both from the elegant and learned epistles written by him after he had assumed the dignity of the priesthood, and from the oration which he delivered to the same emperor, Theodosius.

CAP. XVI. How the divine Ignatius was brought from Rome and laid to rest in Antioch.

At that same time, as the rhetorician John ^B (69) and others have recorded, the divine Ignatius—who, as he had desired, had the bellies of beasts in the amphitheater of the ^A city of Rome as his tomb—having had the more robust of his bones that remained carried off to Antioch and placed in the so-called cemetery [(70)], was, many years later, transferred. For God, who is all-good, suggested to Theodosius that he should honor the Theophorus [(71)] with greater honors, and should dedicate to the athlete and martyr a temple that had long since been surrendered to the demons (which the locals called the Tychaeum [(72)]). And thus, what had once been the shrine of the public genius became a holy temple and a sacred ^B house for Ignatius, with his sacred relics [...] VALESII ANNOTATIONS. ^C (68) *The panegyric to Theodosius.* He refers to the oration on kingship. Yet this was addressed not to Theodosius the Younger, but to Arcadius, in the year of Christ 400, that is, ten years before Synesius had assumed the episcopacy, as Dionysius Petavius correctly observed in his notes to that oration of Synesius. (69) *To the rhetorician John.* Evagrius frequently cites the History of this rhetorician in the following books, for example in cap. 12 of the second book, and in cap. 10 and 23 of..., and in cap. 6 of book v. But this man is far different from the John whom Evagrius mentions in the last chapter of the fifth book. For the latter had written a History of events from the final times of Justinian up to the reign of Maurice, as Evagrius himself testifies in that same place. But the former John had set forth events that occurred during the reigns of Theodosius the Younger, Leo, and Zeno, as may be gathered from the things Evagrius took from that John. And he had closed his History at the ruin of Antioch that occurred in the ninth year of Justin the Elder, as Evagrius writes. Furthermore, that John whom I named in the latter place was by birth an Epiphaniensian. For Evagrius in the cited chapter of book v calls him his fellow citizen and kinsman. Moreover, Evagrius was by birth an Epiphaniensian, as we showed in the prolegomena. But the rhetor John, whom Evagrius mentions in this place, if one may conjecture, seems to me to have been an Antiochene. For whatever Evagrius of ours cites from him pertains to the city of Antioch. I have noted these things more fully for this reason, to correct the error of John Vossius, who in his Commentary on Greek Historians confused these two Johns with each other. (70) *In the so-called cemetery.* Obscurity and a poor distinction of this passage led first Nicephorus, and then Christophorson, into error. But the obscurity arose from the fact that our Evagrius, in his custom, included too many things in one and the same sentence that ought to have been divided into several sentences. Then, after the word *cemetery*, a distinct pause should be placed, which Nicephorus and Christophorson did not see. Nicephorus therefore thought that the relics of Ignatius were carried from Rome to Constantinople in the times of Theodosius the Younger, and by the order of the same emperor were carried to Antioch and deposited there in a cemetery. Which is most false. For long before the principate of Theodosius the Younger, the relics of the martyr Ignatius had been deposited in a cemetery of the city of Antioch, as Jerome expressly testifies in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, where he has this to say concerning Ignatius: "The relics of his body lie at Antioch outside the Daphnitic Gate in the cemetery." Therefore, Theodosius the Younger did not transfer the relics of Ignatius from Rome to Constantinople, and then to Antioch, but rather from the cemetery that was outside the gates of the city of Antioch, he moved them into the city. Thus, certainly, Musculus understood this passage of Evagrius, as appears from his translation. For he translates thus: "Then also the divine Ignatius, after he had obtained, just as he had desired, the bellies of the beasts as his place of burial in the Roman amphitheater, and his bones, which as though being more robust had been left by the beasts, had been carried to Antioch and buried in a cemetery, is long after that time transferred by Theodosius," etc. But Musculus seems to have expunged the article, so that the whole passage is constructed in this way: *since he had obtained a tomb*, etc. Which I indeed highly approve. (71) *The Theophorus.* This title seems to have been of the blessed Ignatius. And that is gathered from this, that we read this title prefixed to all his epistles: *Ignatius who is also Theophorus*. In the *Martyrdom of the blessed Ignatius* which Jacob Ussher of Armagh edited, Ignatius himself calls himself *Theophorus* in the presence of the emperor Trajan. And when asked who he was, *Theophorus*, he answered: "He who carries Christ in his breast." (72) *Tychaeum.* The pagans attributed their own spirits to individuals, and built temples to them which in Greek were called *Tychaia* or *Tychaea*, as I noted in the ninth book of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Ammianus Marcellinus mentions the temple of the public genius of the city of Antioch in book XXI, p. 238, which Julian, in his *Misopogon*, calls the temple of fortune. VARIORUM. (s) *Then also Ignatius.* The translation of these relics of Saint Ignatius of Antioch was made in the year 458, as Ant. Pagi writes at that year, no. 3. (t) *Taphon.* One should read *taphon* (tombs). W. Lowth.

^A And those of the sacred [relics] were carried in a chariot through the city and deposited in the temple. For this reason, a public festival and a gathering of general rejoicing is celebrated among us to this day, since Gregory, the bishop of that place, rendered it even more magnificent. These things were done there because God now honors the memorials of his saints. ^B For Julian, that wicked man and god-hated tyrant, being unwilling and, as it were, forced by lashings, because the Daphnean Apollo, who used the Castalian spring for a voice and an oracle, could not answer the emperor who consulted him—inasmuch as the most holy Babylas was completely stopping his mouth from nearby—he honored the martyr by transferring him, at which time also a very large temple was erected for him before the city, which remains to this day; [he did this] with the intention that the demons might thereafter freely perform their own affairs, as they are said to have promised to Julian. This, however, was what was managed by the Savior God, so that the power ^C and efficacy of those who had performed their martyrdom might be made clear, and that the holy relics of the martyr might be transferred to a holy place and honored in a most beautiful shrine.

CAP. XVII. Concerning Attila, King of the Huns, and how he ravaged the provinces of the East and West; also concerning the horrific earthquake and other terrible signs that occurred throughout the world.

At the same time, that war celebrated in the discourse of many was stirred up by Attila, the king of the Huns—which Priscus the Rhetor describes accurately and eloquently, explaining to us with singular elegance how he undertook an expedition against the regions of the eastern and western empire, how many and how great the cities were that he took and brought under his own dominion, and finally, after these deeds, how he departed from this light. ^D While the same Theodosius was holding the reins of the Roman [empire], a most great and extraordinary [earthquake], and the ones that preceded...

preceding ones in magnitude—occurred throughout almost the entire inhabited world; so much so that many of the towers of the royal city were brought down, as well as the long wall, as it is called, of the Chersonese, which fell. The earth ^B gaped open in many places, and many villages were swallowed up within it; and innumerable calamities occurred both by land and by sea. Some springs were revealed to have dried up, while in other places a great abundance of water suddenly gushed forth where there had been no springs before. Elsewhere, trees were uprooted along with their very roots, and immense heaps of earth were suddenly raised into mountains. The sea cast up dead fish onto the shore, and many of the islands within it were inundated by the surging waters. Ships were also seen on dry land, the waters having receded. Many places, furthermore, in Bithynia, the Hellespont, and both Phrygias were afflicted with heavy damage. This calamity prevailed over the world for a sufficiently long time: it did not continue with the same intensity as it had begun, but gradually diminished until it finally ceased altogether.

CHAPTER XVIII. On the public works at Antioch, and their builders.

At that time, Memnonius, Zoilus, and Callistus, men most devoted to our religion, were sent by the emperor Theodosius to govern Antioch. Memnonius, in particular, ^C restored the edifice known to us as the *psephion* from its very foundations in a beautiful and magnificent manner, leaving an open floor in the middle. Zoilus

^A restored the royal portico on the south side of Rufinus—which has preserved its namesake down to our own times, even if the buildings themselves have been changed by various misfortunes. Furthermore, Callistus erected a magnificent and conspicuous building, which both the ancients and those of us today call the Portico of Callistus; it is situated before the basilica where judgment is rendered, opposite the forum in which stands the very beautiful house, the headquarters of the commanders of the soldiers. ^B After these men, Anatolius, having been sent as commander of the Eastern forces, built what is called the Portico of Anatolius, decorating it with all manner of materials. These matters, even if they are digressions, will not appear unrefined to those who are fond of learning.

CAP. XIX.

Concerning the various wars, both in Italy and in Persia, which took place during the reign of Theodosius.

In these same times of Theodosius, frequent rebellions of tyrants occurred throughout Europe while Valentinian was administering the empire of Rome; Theodosius suppressed these, having sent huge reinforcements, both of infantry and naval forces. He also overcame the Persians, who, puffed up by insolence, were ruled at that time by Isdigerdes, the father of Vararanes—or, as it seems to Socrates, ^C by Vararanes himself; he overcame them to such an extent that he granted them peace at the request of their envoys, which lasted until the twelfth year of the reign of the emperor Anastasius. These events have been recorded by other historians, but they have been elegantly and quite neatly abridged by Eustathius of Epiphania, the Syrian, who also wrote an account of the capture of Amida. ^D

^A And it was at this time that the poets Claudian and Cyrus were acknowledged. Cyrus, indeed, ascended to the throne of the highest of the prefects, an office which those before us have called the praetorian prefecture; and he also governed the military forces of the West, at the time when Carthage was taken by the Vandals, over whom Genseritus ruled.

CHAPTER XX.

Concerning Eudocia Augusta, and her daughter Eudoxia, and how she arrived at Antioch and Jerusalem.

Theodosius therefore takes Eudocia as his wife, after she had participated in the saving waters of baptism. She was an Athenian by birth, and was elegant in appearance and possessed of beauty, being introduced to him by the empress Pulcheria, his sister. From her he had a daughter, Eudoxia, whom he later, when she reached a marriageable age, gave in marriage to the emperor Valentinian; ^B he had set out from the elder Rome and arrived at the city of Constantine to claim his wife. Eudocia, long afterwards, while hastening towards the holy city of Christ our God, arrived there; and having spoken publicly to the people...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(82) *And the poets Claudian and Cyrus.* This is the Claudian whose illustrious poems exist today. But a twofold difficulty occurs here: how a Latin poet is mentioned in this place by Evagrius, and why he is attributed by the same Evagrius to the times of Theodosius the Younger, when the Claudian whose poems we possess flourished during the reigns of Arcadius and Honorius, as his own writings demonstrate? Regarding the first question, the answer is easy. For Claudian wrote poems not only in Latin, but also in Greek; whence it is said in an ancient epigram inscribed on the base of his statue that he had the soul of Virgil and Homer transfused into himself. He began to write his first Latin poem in the year of Christ 395, when Olybrius and Probinus were consuls. He composed an elegant poem on their consulship, which still exists. ^C When this attempt had turned out successfully for Claudian, it encouraged him to write Latin poems thereafter; whereas previously he had only published Greek verses, as he himself testifies in his elegy to Probinus, in these verses: *We drank the Roman fountains first, under your consulship,* *And the Greek Thalia yielded to the Latin toga.* *Beginning with your fasces, I received the omen,* *And to you I shall owe my future fates.* Certainly, Claudian was Greek by nationality, born in the city of Alexandria, as Suidas teaches under the entry *Claudianus*. Claudian himself also testifies to the same in his poem to Hadrian, the praetorian prefect, who was also an Alexandrian himself. For he writes thus regarding Alexander of Macedon: *He is the founder of this city. Thus did he spare his foes.* And at the end of the same poem he has these words: *Let kin-related power rage against wretched citizens.* *Let the common soil hear these things, and the Pharos, long known to ships, etc.*

(83) *Cyrus.* The poet Cyrus was Egyptian by nationality, born in the town of Panopolis. Because he was agreeable for his poetic ^D talent, he was particularly favored by Eudocia Augusta, the wife of Theodosius the Younger: for this woman was *philopoet*, that is, a lover of poems; he was promoted by the emperor Theodosius to be praetorian prefect and prefect of the city. He was also an ex-consul and patrician, as Suidas writes. But afterwards, when Queen Eudocia for certain hidden reasons had left the palace and set out for the city of Jerusalem, Cyrus, having been stripped of his power, was made bishop of the city of Cotyaeum in Phrygia, or rather of Smyrna, as the author of the *Chronicon Alexandrinum* and Theophanes report. He lived, however, until the times of Leo Augustus, as Suidas testifies. Theophylact makes mention of this same Cyrus, consul and poet, in book VI of the *History*, ch. 8, where he writes that the church of the Theotokos Virgin was built by him in Constantinople in the times of Theodosius Augustus.

(84) *And long afterwards.* This particle seems to be an addition in this way: "But as for the times," etc. For if you do not add this particle, these things would be understood about Eudoxia, the daughter of Eudocia, of whom Evagrius had spoken just before. But the addition of the particle *de* indicates that the discourse is no longer about Eudoxia, but about Eudocia the mother.

(85) *And there she arrives.* Christophorsonus and others have misunderstood this place. For they thought that the city of Jerusalem was meant by the word *entautha* (there), whereas the city of Antioch is understood. For Evagrius wrote his *History* in Antioch, in which city he had fixed the domicile of his fortunes, as we have shown in the Prolegomena. But Nicephorus also fell into the same error. For in book XIV, ch. 1, where he describes this place of Evagrius, he understands the word *entautha* to refer to the city of Jerusalem. But it was easy to perceive from the following words of Evagrius that these things could not be said of the city of Jerusalem. For Jerusalem was not a colony of the Greeks, but rather of the Jews, and later of the Romans. Nor did Ulpian, Libanius, and the rest of the writers praised by Evagrius write about the city of Jerusalem. Nor did Eudocia Augusta, who by home was Athe...

Athel ^A eople, brought her speech to a close with this verse:

I boast that I am of your race and blood,

alluding to the colonies sent thither from Greece. If anyone is desirous of knowing these things more accurately, the geographer Strabo, Phlegon, and Diodorus the Sicilian have written diligently concerning them, as have Arrian and ^B the poet Pisander, and furthermore Ulpian, Libanius, and Julian, the most excellent of all the sophists. For which reason the Antiochenes honored her with a statue artfully fashioned of bronze, which remains even to our own time. Urged on by her, therefore, Theodosius made a very great addition to the city, having expanded the wall as far as the gate that leads to the Daphnean suburb: a fact that those who are studious of such matters can observe. For even in our own time the traces of the ancient wall remain, guiding ^C the eyes of those who look upon them almost as if by a hand. There are some, however, who say that Theodosius the Elder expanded the walls of the city and donated two hundred pounds of gold for the bath of Valens, a portion of which had been consumed by fire.

CHAP. XXI.

That Eudocia Augusta managed many things excellently at Jerusalem; and concerning the diverse life and diet of the monks in Palestine.

From this city, therefore, ^D Eudocia went twice to Jerusalem.

And what the reason for her doing this was, and what in particular she had in view, I think I must leave to the historians; though they do not appear to me to speak the truth. Nevertheless, when she had arrived at the holy city of Christ, she did many things for the honor of God the Savior. ^A Indeed, she even built holy houses of prayer, and what are called "lauras." ^B In these, the way of life is indeed diverse, but their conduct is directed toward one and the same God-pleasing goal. For those who live in groups are not mastered by any of those things that weigh down upon the earth; for they have no gold. And why should I even speak of gold, when no one has any clothing or any food that is his own? For the cloak or tunic that one is wearing today, another puts on a little later; so that the clothing of all appears to be that of one, and that of one, to belong to all. A common table is also set, not filled with delicate viands or any other such foods, but provided only with herbs and legumes, which are supplied only to the extent that is sufficient for sustaining life. They spend the day and the night in common prayers to God; thus crushing themselves, thus pressing themselves with labors, so that without tombs, they seem to be living corpses beneath the earth. ^C

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(92) *And it arrives*. Nicephorus in lib. XIV, cap. 50, reads: *and it arrives*. For thus it stands, *and he arrives*. Which reading Christophorsonus followed, as is apparent from his version. For thus he translates this passage: *Eudocia journeyed twice from Constantinople to Jerusalem*. And so I found it clearly written in the Tellerian codex. Eudocia’s first journey to the city of Jerusalem happened when Theodosius was consul for the sixteenth time and Faustus for the first, in the year of Christ 438, as Socrates and Marcellinus’ Chronicle correctly observed, according to Baronius. In the following year, however, she returned from Jerusalem to Constantinople, bringing with her the relics of Saint Stephen, as the same Marcellinus reports in his Chronicle. ^D But in what year her second Jerusalem journey occurred, the writers do not agree. Baronius indeed assigns it to the principate of Marcian Augustus. I, however, contend that this second pilgrimage was undertaken by Eudocia Augusta long before the reign of Marcian, while Theodosius was still alive. For Marcellinus in his Chronicle, under the eighteenth consulship of Theodosius Augustus and the consulship of Albinus, which was the year of Christ 444, writes thus: *Saturninus, Count of the Domestics, sent by Emperor Theodosius, killed Severus the presbyter and John the deacon, who were serving Eudocia the Queen at the city of Elia. Eudocia, moved by I know not what grief, immediately slew Saturninus: and at once, by the will of her imperial husband, she was stripped of royal ministers and remained at the city of Elia, destined to die there.* The author of the Alexandrian Chronicle confirms the same. For he writes that during the same consulships, Paulinus, the Master of Offices, was killed by the order of Theodosius: and for that reason, Eudocia, affected by grief—as she knew that Paulinus had been killed on her account—asked Theodosius that the faculty of departing for Jerusalem be granted to her. Marcellinus, however, in his Chronicle reports the slaughter of Paulinus in the year of Christ 440, under the consulships of Valentinian V and Anatolius. Therefore, if on account of the slaughter of Paulinus Eudocia departed for Jerusalem a second time, according to Marcellinus’ opinion, it happened in the year of Christ 440. Furthermore, concerning Saturninus the Count, whom Eudocia Augusta ordered to be killed at Jerusalem, a passage exists in the History of Priscus the rhetor, page 54...

(93) *And what are called "lauras."* A laura differs from a coenobium in that a laura consists of many cells set far apart from each other, whereas a coenobium is enclosed by a single wall. And in the laura, anchorites used to dwell, while in the coenobium monks lived together. Cyril of Scythopolis teaches this in the *Life of Euthymius*, with these words: *But it behooves you to come to my Laura, and to tear down the brothers’ cells from their very foundations, and to build a coenobium there, where you have built my cemetery. For the place is not a laura, but rather a coenobium, which pleases God.* The same Cyril, in the *Life of Saint Sabas*, often points out this distinction between a laura and a coenobium. Our Evagrius also observes this difference between *phrontisteria* and *lauras* in this place. For he says that in *phrontisteria* monks lived in groups, used a common table, and celebrated their daily and nocturnal prayers together. In *lauras*, however, the anchorites lived separately, enclosed in small cells.

^A They perform their fasts for two or three days, and some even for five, or longer, and only with difficulty do they partake of the necessary food. Others, again, taking the opposite path, shut themselves up alone in small dwellings, which are of such width and height that they can neither stand upright nor recline comfortably in them; they persevere in caves and holes in the earth, "philosophizing" according to the saying of the Apostle. ^B Others live together with wild beasts in certain unknown hollows of the earth, offering their prayers to God. They have also devised another mode of life that surpasses every measure of fortitude and endurance. For, going into a desert scorched by the sun, both men and women, covering only those parts of the body that modesty forbids to be named, expose the rest of their body naked to intense cold and heat, regarding heat and cold with equal indifference. They reject the food customary among men. They eat the produce of the earth, for which reason they are called "herders" (96), gathering only as much as suffices to sustain life; so that in time they become like the wild beasts, their physical appearance being altered, and their frame of mind no longer corresponding to the sense of other men. When they see people, they take flight; and if anyone perchance pursues them, they escape either by the swiftness of their feet or by hiding in the retreats of some inaccessible place (97). I will mention yet another thing, which had almost escaped my memory, although it holds the first place above all the rest. There are among them some, though very few, who, ^C after they have become free from the perturbations of the soul through the constant exercise of virtue, return to the world, into the midst of turmoil. By showing themselves in public, they thus trample underfoot vain-glory, which, according to the wise Plato, is the last garment the soul is accustomed to cast off; and thus they practice philosophizing about eating without passion (99), even if it be among hucksters or retailers (1).

^A They also frequently converse in public baths, for the most part dwelling and bathing with women. Thus they have overcome the passions, so that they have mastered nature itself, and are not diverted—by sight, by touch, nor indeed by the very embrace of the female—toward their own nature. With men, they are as men; with women, in turn, they are as women, desiring to partake of both genders, and not to be of one alone. To sum up, then: in this most excellent and God-bearing life, virtue legislates against nature, establishing its own laws, so as to impart none of those necessary things to them for their satiety. Their own law commands them to hunger and to thirst, and to cover the body only as much as necessity compels. Thus their way of life is balanced by such precise scales that, as they move towards the opposites, any shift is imperceptible to them, even though the distance between these things is great. For to such a degree are contradictions tempered within them—the divine grace bringing together the unmixable and again separating it—that life and death dwell within them, these things being contrary both to nature and to facts. ^B For where there is passion, they must be as dead and within the tomb; but where there is supplication to God, they must be robust in body, blooming in their prime, even if they be advanced in years. And in this way, each life is intertwined for them, so that though they have utterly cast off the flesh, they live always and dwell with the living, bringing both cures to bodies and presenting the prayers of the supplicants to God, and performing the other things just as in their former life, insofar as they do not require things necessary, nor are restricted by place; but they hear all and associate with all. There are frequent and ceaseless bendings of the knees for them, and again laborious standings, the desire alone reviving their old age ^C and their voluntary infirmity. They are athletes devoid of flesh, wrestlers lacking blood, who treat fasting as a banquet and luxury, and a table that is sufficient as not tasting of anything as far as possible. When a guest arrives among them, even from early morning, they welcome him again with kindnesses and hospitality, devising another form of fasting—namely, not wishing to eat—so that the whole matter becomes a source of astonishment, how much they need for sufficient food; ^D thus they are satisfied with very little. They are enemies of their own inclinations and of nature, surrendered to the

they have fasting instead of a banquet and delicacies, and for a table set with food they consume nothing, as far as it is possible to do so. Whenever a stranger arrives among them, even if it be in the morning, they receive him with singular kindness and benevolence, having devised a new kind of fasting, such that their guests are compelled to eat. So much so that this matter strikes everyone with amazement, for while they have such abundance for a sufficient livelihood, they are nonetheless content with so little: enemies of their own will and nature, enslaved to the desire and command of their neighbors, so that in all things the pleasure of the flesh might be cast aside, and the soul might hold the helm, prudently choosing and preserving all those things that are best and pleasing to God. They are indeed blessed for the life they lead here; but more blessed for their migration to the other life, to which they are continually panting, hastening to see Him with whose love they are ablaze. ^A

CAP. XXII. Concerning the works built by Eudocia Augusta in Palestine, and concerning the church of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, in which she was religiously buried. Also concerning the death of Emperor Theodosius.

Having then conversed with many such men, Eudocia, the wife of Theodosius, built many monasteries, as I have already said. And when she had restored the walls of the city of Jerusalem, she constructed a temple of exceptional splendor and beauty in honor of Stephen, the first of the deacons and martyrs, which is about one ^B stade distant from the city. In which also she herself was later laid to rest, having departed to the life that knows no old age. But after this, or as some think, before the death of Eudocia, Theodosius had departed from the living, having served God for thirty-eight years in the empire, and had exchanged it for eternal life; and the most excellent Marcian undertook the administration of the Roman Empire. But the next book will very clearly set forth what things were done while he was governing the empire of the East, if the divine will shall have wished to assist us. ^C

VOLUME TWO. SECOND BOOK. In the second book of the ecclesiastical history of Evagrius, these things are contained. Cap. I. Concerning Emperor Marcian, and what signs preceded his reign. ^D

II. Concerning the synod at Chalcedon, and for what cause it was assembled.

III. Description of the temple of the great martyr Euphemia in the city of Chalcedon, and a narrative of the miracles which happened there.

IV. Concerning the things which were agitated and decreed in the synod: and how Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, was deposed: and Theodoritus and Ibas and some others were restored.

V. Concerning the sedition which took place at Alexandria on account of the ordination of Proterius; and of that which happened at Jerusalem.

VI. Concerning the drought, and famine, and pestilence; and how in some places the earth brought forth fruits of its own accord.

VII. Concerning the slaughter of the Emperor Valentinian, and the capture of Rome; and concerning the emperors who reigned after Valentinian.

VIII. Concerning the death of Marcian, and the reign of Leo; and how the heretics at Alexandria murdered Proterius, but chose Timotheus Aelurus as bishop.

IX. Concerning the circular letters of Leo Augustus.

X. Concerning those things which the bishops and Symeon Stylites wrote back to Leo.

XI. Concerning the exile of Timotheus Aelurus, and the ordination of Timotheus Salofaciolus. Also concerning Gennadius and Acacius, bishops of Constantinople.

XII. Concerning the earthquake that happened at Antioch, three hundred and forty-seven years after that which occurred in the times of Trajan.

XIII. Concerning the fire which happened at Constantinople.

XIV. Concerning universal calamities.

XV. Concerning the marriage of Zeno and Ariadne.

XVI. Concerning Anthemius, emperor of the city of Rome, and those who reigned after him.

XVII. Concerning the death of Leo, and the reign of Leo the Younger, and of Zeno, his father.

XVIII. A compendium of the Acts of the synod of Chalcedon, placed at the end of the second book.

CAP. I. Concerning Emperor Marcian, and what signs of his reign preceded it.

Those things which were accomplished in the times of Theodosius the Younger, we summarized in the previous book. But now, bringing forward the illustrious Roman emperor Marcian, let us first set forth who he was, and whence he came, and in what manner he attained to the empire. Afterwards, we shall recount the deeds done by him in their proper place and time. Marcian, therefore, as it has been recorded by many others and, indeed, by the rhetorician Priscus, was Thracian by birth, the son of a soldier. And since he desired to follow his father’s way of life, he directed his impulses toward Philippopolis,

^A where he might be able to be enrolled in the military ranks. While on his journey, however, he encountered the corpse of a man recently murdered, which lay cast upon the ground. Upon approaching him (for he was as excellent in other respects as he was endued with admirable humanity and mercy), he commiserated with his misfortune and lingered there for some time, desiring to pay the man his funeral rites. Certain persons, having witnessed this act, reported it to the magistrates of Philippopolis. They, having shortly apprehended Marcian, questioned him concerning the murder of the man. And since conjectures and circumstantial evidence had prevailed more than the truth itself—and more than the language of the man who was undergoing the trial—and Marcian was already about to pay the penalty for the homicide, divine providence suddenly revealed the author of the murder. He, by paying for his crime with his own head, saved the head of Marcian. ^B Being saved in this manner contrary to expectation, he came to a certain military detachment there, in order to enroll his name for service. Those who saw the man, admiring him and, by most certain conjectures, presaging that he would one day be great and most illustrious, most gladly received him and enrolled him in their unit, not indeed in the lowest place, as military law requires, but in a certain rank of a soldier recently deceased, whose name was Augustus, inscribing Marcian, who was also Augustus, upon the military roll. Thus Marcian by his own name anticipated the appellation of our emperors, who put on the title of Augusti simultaneously with the purple. As if the name did not wish to remain ^C in him without the dignity, nor did the dignity require another name by which itself might be adorned. So that the same name existed for him both as proper and as appellative, one and the same word designating his dignity and his name. Furthermore, another thing occurred from which it was possible to conjecture that Marcian would one day be emperor. For when he was serving under Aspar against the Vandals, and the Romans had been defeated in a great battle, he himself, together with many others, was captured and led into the plain with the rest of the multitude of captives, whom Geisericus desired to inspect. When they had been gathered into one place, Geisericus, sitting in a solarium, was delighting himself in the spectacle of such a great multitude of captives. Furthermore, as time dragged on, they were living freely according to their own discretion; for the guards, by the command of Geisericus, had released the captives from their chains. And while some others ^D were busy with one thing or another, Marcian, having let himself down into the plain,

^B lay down upon the ground, under a burning and scorching sun, at an hour of the day when the heat was most intense. An eagle coming from above, positioned itself perpendicularly against the sun and, like a cloud, cast a shadow over him, and by this means contrived relief for Marcian. Geisericus, wondering at this, correctly divined what was to follow, and having sent for Marcian, he released him from his captivity, having first bound him with solemn oaths that, when he should attain to the empire, he would keep faith with the Vandals and not move his arms against them; and that Marcian kept his word, Procopius relates.

But let us return to our proposed subject, leaving aside this digression. Marcian was pious toward God and just toward his subjects. He did not consider wealth to be that which is stored away, nor that which is gathered from taxes, but only that which is able to relieve the poverty of those in need and to provide secure and safe resources for those who possess much. He was formidable, not so much because he punished, but because he was feared lest he should punish. And so, he attained the empire, not by hereditary right, but as a reward for virtue; for the senate and men of all orders by common consent had conferred this honor upon him, at the persuasion of Pulcheria. She, as Augusta, he took to wife; yet he never had relations with her, for she remained in perpetual virginity until her death. And these things took place before Valentinian, who ruled at Rome, had ratified the election; nevertheless, because of Marcian’s virtue, he later confirmed it. Furthermore, it was Marcian’s greatest desire that one and the same worship should be offered to God by all, with tongues that had been confounded through impiety now piously united again, and that the divine nature should be praised with one and the same glorification.

CAPUT II

Concerning the Council of Chalcedon, and for what cause it was convened.

^C While he had these things in his prayers, there approached him the representatives of Leo, the bishop of the Elder Rome, who affirmed that Dioscorus, in the second Council of Ephesus, would not accept the epistle of Leo, which contained the doctrine of the true faith. Then also those whom the same Dioscorus had injured appeared, beseeching that their case might be judged in an episcopal council. But above all others, Eusebius, once bishop of Dorylaeum, was insistent, ^D asserting that he and Flavian had been deposed by the machinations of Chrysaphius, the chamberlain of Theodosius, because Flavian...

when Chrysaphius sought gold from him for his ordination, had sent him ^A sacred vessels to shame him, and because Chrysaphius held to the same heresy as Eutyches. He also claimed that Flavian had been driven off by Dioscorus, kicked, and killed in a miserable fashion. For these reasons, the synod was gathered at Chalcedon; messengers and couriers were sent out, and the bishops from every place were summoned by the pious emperor’s letters, first to Nicaea—so much so that Leo, the presiding bishop of Rome, when writing to those assembled at Nicaea regarding the legates he had sent to the council—namely Paschasinus, Lucentius, and the others—addressed his letters to the bishops who had convened at Nicaea—though afterwards they met at Chalcedon in the province of Bithynia. ^B Zacharias the rhetor, being partial, claims that Nestorius was even summoned from exile to the council. That this is not the case is proven by the fact that Nestorius was anathematized everywhere by the synod. This is also clearly testified to by Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, in letters which he wrote to the bishop John and to another John, a presbyter, concerning the events at the synod, in these exact words: "When those who were asking for the remains of Nestorius met again, they cried out against the synod: 'Why are the holy men anathematized?' The emperor, moved to indignation, ordered his guards to drive them away." How, therefore, Nestorius was summoned, having long before departed from the living, I truly do not see.

CAP. III. Description of the temple of the great martyr Euphemia in the city of Chalcedon; and a narrative of the miracles which occur there.

^A stretched out and verdant with grass, waving like the sea with fields of grain, and adorned by the sight of every kind of tree; beyond these, wooded mountains rise gracefully in height, bending and curving along; and further still, diverse seas—some gleaming with serenity and playing upon the shores with sweet and gentle ripples, where the regions are calm and free from winds and storms; others churning and raging with waves, casting up pebbles and seaweed and the lighter sorts of shellfish, then drawing them back again in the rhythmic flux of the tide. ^B Opposite this is the sanctuary of Constantine; so that by the very sight of such a city the temple itself is adorned. The sanctuary consists of three most spacious buildings: one is open to the sky, with a long atrium adorned with columns on all sides; the second, which follows, is almost similar in length, breadth, and columns 16, differing only in the roof that covers it. On its northern side, toward the rising sun, is a round building shaped like a dome, most artfully fashioned, surrounded within by columns equal in material and equal in size. ^C Above these, a high gallery rises under the same roof, so that even from there those who wish may supplicate the martyr and be present at the performance of the sacred mysteries. Inside the dome, toward the east, is a beautiful chapel 18, where the all-holy relics of the martyr are deposited in a long sarcophagus—which some call a "long one" 19—fashioned most skillfully out of silver. And that frequent miracles are performed by the all-holy martyr at certain times is clear to all Christians. For often she appears in dreams to the bishops of that city at the appropriate time, and commands them, or even others distinct for their holy life who happen to arrive at her sanctuary, to celebrate 20. Which, as soon as it is ^D known to the emperors, to the high priest, and to the city, they hasten to the temple, and the…

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. (16) *Small, resembling*... I have corrected this from the Florentine manuscript; Nicephorus, however, followed the vulgate reading. In the Tellerianus codex I found *small, resembling*. (17) *Under these, a high...* It is strange that the interpreter did not observe the error in this passage; for what is the meaning of these words? *Under these columns is a high gallery*, etc., as Christophorsonus translates. It must be written *as it is read* in Nicephorus in the place cited above. The words of Nicephorus are... which Langus translates thus: *Upon which a high gallery is constructed under the same dome.* (18) *Beautiful is the chapel.* Musculus and Christophorsonus translate this as "shrine." Musculus, however, prefers "adytum," which I do not approve. I preferred to translate it as "tumulus" (tomb). For this is what *tumbos* signifies, as Hesychius and Suidas attest. By *tumulus* I understand a place enclosed and fortified with railings, in the middle of which was a silver chest, in which the relics of the holy martyr Euphemia were deposited. That it was so, is evident from the following words of Evagrius. [Theophylactus uses the same word in Book V, chapter 14, speaking of the sepulcher of the martyr Euphemia just like Evagrius: *The same Theophylactus, in a chapter of the same book, speaking of the Church of the Theotokos which was in Blachernae, uses the same word: the interpreter, however, translates it as "chest" in both places.*] (19) *Some call it "long".* I do not see what meaning there is in the vulgate reading, since it is the same word, nor is it a proper noun, but an adjective. It is better, therefore, to read it as... "Some," says Evagrius, "called her (the martyr's) sarcophagus, a chest." For so the Latins say. The old glossaries say "funeral chest." (20) *...to celebrate.* The interpreters did not understand this. For Musculus and Christophorsonus indeed emended it. Musculus translates it thus: *He commands that they rejoice around the temple in her honor.* Christophorsonus, on the other hand, interpreted it thus: *He commands that they celebrate a feast in the temple itself with luxuries and sumptuous banquets.* But the words of Evagrius that follow refute this emendation entirely. For Evagrius does not add anything in this passage that pertains to luxury and delights. Nicephorus, indeed, retained the vulgate reading, but incorrectly explained it in this way:

VARIORUM. Harpocration says that *Tholos* is called by the Athenians the place where the Prytaneis dine; by some, however, it is named from the round shape of the building, which, being like a hat, is called *cuppalo* by the Italians.

^A the patriarch and the city, all immediately proceed to the basilica—the Augusti, of course, as well as the pontiffs, the magistrates, and the rest of the multitude of the people—that they might become partakers of the sacred mysteries. Then, while everyone is looking on, the bishop of the city of Constantinople, along with his priests, enters into the sanctuary where that sacred body, of which I have spoken, is deposited. In the same chest there is a small aperture ^B on the left side, secured by small doors, through which they let down an iron rod of some length, with a sponge attached, to the holy relics. And after they have moved the sponge this way and that, they draw back the iron rod to themselves, full of gore and many clots of blood. When the people see this, they immediately adore God, praising Him. So great is the abundance of the blood extracted from there, that not only do the most pious emperors and the priests gathered there, and indeed the entire multitude of the people assembled in that same place, receive thereof in abundance, but they also send it to believers everywhere in the whole world who desire it, and the clots of blood are preserved throughout, and the holy blood undergoes no change at all into any other appearance. These things are performed in a manner ^C worthy of God, not according to any fixed or determined period of time, but just as the life and the gravity of the conduct of the presiding bishop require. For they say that when a man of noble character and distinguished by his virtues rules the Church, this miracle happens most frequently, but when the prelate is not of such a kind, these signs of God rarely appear. But I will tell of something which neither time nor season separates, nor is it distinguished between believers and unbelievers, but is equally granted to all. For whenever anyone approaches the place where that precious chest is, which contains the holy relics, he perceives such a sweetness of odor as far surpasses all odors familiar to men. For it is not like that which is collected from meadows, nor that which is wafted from any of the most fragrant things, nor such as a perfumer might craft; but it is a certain strange and supernatural fragrance that stands forth ^D of its own accord from those who distribute the power.

VARIE LECTIONES.

VALESII ANNOTATIONES. (21) Concerning the meaning of *kleithridion* (small aperture), Langus translates it as "lattice," but I have preferred to translate it as "aperture" or "hole." For Sozomen also uses this term in his book IX, chapter 2, where I have noted more regarding such small windows as were made in the containers of martyrs.

Regarding the phrase *athōnōs tōn thaumatōn trygan* (to reap the miracles without labor), Langus translates it: "He exhorted them that they might receive the fruit of such miracles." Truly, Nicephorus added these words of his own; he did not grasp the mind of Evagrius, since Evagrius is not speaking here of many miracles, but of one miracle alone, namely the blood flowing from the martyr's tomb. I, however, following the common text, have explained this passage in a simple and obvious sense concerning the "vintage." And this indeed fits perfectly with the following words of Evagrius. For the blood which was being pressed out in great abundance from the relics of the blessed martyr was not unlike wine which is elicited from crushed grapes. Add to this that the feast day of Saint Euphemia fell in the time of the vintage, to wit, in the month of September, as we learn from the Menologion of the Greeks.

(22) "Standing forth from it... the power." The word "of the relics" is missing in the manuscripts, in the Florentine, Tellerian, and Royal copies, and in the edition of Robert Estienne. The Genevan printers did not act rightly, who supplied this word here from the books of Christophorson, when it is not at all necessary in this place, nor is it confirmed by the testimony of any written copy. For those variant readings which are produced from the books of Christophorson are generally nothing other than the conjectures of learned men. The whole passage here, therefore, ought to be written as it is read in the Florentine and Tellerian codices: "And thus Nicephorus reads," for he expressed this passage of Evagrius in this way: Demonstrating the power of the one who gives it.

Chapter IV

In this place, then, the aforementioned synod was assembled, with the bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, along with the presbyter Boniface, holding the places, as I have said, of Leo, the archbishop of older Rome; while Anatolius was governing the episcopate of the Constantinopolitan Church, and Dioscorus was presiding over that of the Alexandrians; for Maximus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem were also present. There were also present the bishops whom they had with them, and those who held the first rank in the senate of the royal city. ^B To these, the vicars of Leo stated that Dioscorus ought not to sit with them in the council, for this had been mandated to them by their bishop, Leo, and if this were not observed, they themselves would immediately depart from the assembly. And when the senators asked what the crimes were that were being brought against Dioscorus, they replied that he ought to render an account of his own judgment, having assumed the role of a judge contrary to what was fitting, ^C without the permission of the Roman pontiff. After these things were said, since Dioscorus had moved to the middle space by decree of the senate, and was sitting there, Eusebius requested that the petition he had presented to the Emperor be read, using these words: "I have been injured by Dioscorus; the faith has been injured; Flavian the bishop has been killed, and I have been unjustly deposed by him. Order my petitions to be read." And when this was announced, the petition was granted a reading, containing these words: "To the Christ-loving, most devout, and most pious emperors of ours, Flavius Valentinian and Flavius Marcian, always August: from Eusebius, most humble bishop of Dorylaeum, speaking for himself, and for the orthodox faith, and for Flavian, of holy memory, who was bishop of Constantinople. ^D It is the purpose of your majesty to provide for all subjects, and to extend a hand to all who have been injured, especially to those who exercise the priesthood. For thus you honor God, by whom the empire and global dominion have been granted to you. Since, therefore, we have suffered many grave things, contrary to all order, regarding the faith in Christ, from Dioscorus, the most reverend bishop of the great city of Alexandria, we approach your piety, requesting that justice be rendered to us." The cause of the matter is as follows: in the council that...

^A was celebrated in the metropolis of the Ephesians—which would that it had never been celebrated, so that the world might not have been filled with evils and tumults—that fine fellow Dioscorus, having no regard for the account of justice, nor considering the fear of God, being of the same opinion and sentiment as Eutyches, a man of debased mind and a heretic, though concealing it from the many, as he later made clear regarding himself; having found an occasion in the accusation which I had instituted against Eutyches, who was partner in his error, and in the sentence pronounced against the same Eutyches by Bishop Flavian of holy memory, he gathered a disorderly mob of seditious men and, having procured for himself tyrannical power through money, undermined the pious religion of the orthodox as far as lay in him, and confirmed the depraved opinion of the monk Eutyches, which had been condemned by the holy Fathers from of old and from the beginning. Since, therefore, the things he has dared against the faith in Christ and against us are not trivial, we prostrate ourselves at the feet of your Majesty and entreat you to command the same most ^B reverend Bishop Dioscorus to answer to the charges we bring against him; that is, let the memorial records of the acts that he produced against us be read before the most holy synod. From these we can demonstrate that he is alienated from the right faith, that he has confirmed a heresy full of impiety, and that he has unjustly deposed us and afflicted us with the gravest evils. For this purpose, may your divine and adorable mandates be sent to the holy and universal synod of the most God-beloved bishops, so that it may hear the cause that exists between us and the aforementioned Dioscorus, and report to the knowledge of your piety all that is done, according to what shall please your immortal height. If we attain this, we shall pour forth continuous prayers to God for your eternal empire, most divine emperors. After this, in accordance with the petition of both Dioscorus and Eusebius, the proceedings of the second synod of Ephesus were publicly read. The particular exposition of these, which is comprised in many words but is contained in the Acts of the council of Chalcedon—lest I should seem too wordy to those who are hastening to reach the outcome ^C of events—I have added to this second book of my history, giving the opportunity to those who wish to know everything in detail to read them and grasp the exactness of all matters. In the meantime, however, traversing the things of greater moment, I shall briefly recount: that Dioscorus was convicted of not having received the letter of Leo, bishop of senior Rome; and that he had deposed Flavian, bishop of new Rome, within the space of a single day; and that he had caused the bishops who were gathered together to subscribe on a blank sheet of paper, as if it contained the deposition of Flavian. Upon these matters, those of the senate made the following decree: Regarding the orthodox (26) and catholic faith, those ^D of you, on account of which the matters...

[alt-version omitted]

[index: entries preserved]

we perceive that a more diligent inquiry must be made the following day, when the larger council is assembled. ^A Since, however, Flavian of pious memory, and Eusebius the most devout bishop, are recognized as having been unjustly deposed—out of the examination of the acts and decrees, and from the very voice of those who presided at the synod which was then held, who themselves confessed that they had erred and had deposed them in vain, as they had in no way erred in faith—it seems to us, according to what is pleasing to God, just, provided it is also pleasing to our most divine and most pious master, that Dioscorus, the most devout bishop of Alexandria, and Juvenal, the most devout bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius, the most devout bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Eusebius, the most devout bishop of Armenia, ^B and Eustathius, the most devout bishop of Berytus, and Basil, the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria—who had held authority and presided at that synod—should be subject to the same penalty, being judged by the sentence of the most holy council, in accordance with the sacred canons, as aliens from the episcopal dignity; and that all things which have subsequently occurred should be brought to the notice of our most sacred emperor. ^C Thereafter, with petitions presented on the following day against Dioscorus regarding various crimes and regarding monies extorted by him, as he, being called a second and third time, did not appear on account of the empty excuses which he put forward, those who were filling the place of Leo, the bishop of the elder Rome, pronounced these things word for word. ^D What was dared by Dioscorus, formerly bishop of the great city, has been made clear.

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

I am surprised, however, that Christophorson did not see this, who in this place mingled and confounded everything, so that from his interpretation you can elicit nothing sound. He was troubled, to be sure, when he saw secular magistrates in a council of bishops acting as judges to pronounce sentence. Yet he ought to have noticed that they assumed for themselves no role in matters of faith, but left the free right of deciding in that matter to the bishops alone. Certainly, at that time when the rule of faith was written by the bishops gathered at Chalcedon, they themselves, who had previously often petitioned the council that this might be done, did not wish to take part in the assembly of bishops. In the matter, however, between Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, and Dioscorus of Alexandria, in which it was not a question of faith, but of violence and fraud and other crimes, they rightly pronounced sentence. Yet this was not a definitive judgment, but only an interlocutory one, as is clear from the acts of the council.

The Abyssinians, regarding Eutyches as a heretic, nevertheless reject the Council of Chalcedon because Dioscorus, whom they acknowledge as their patriarch and to whose successors they have always adhered, was condemned in it. They say, therefore, that Dioscorus and his successors and the followers of these men complained heavily of the injustice offered to them; for he had followed neither Eutyches, nor had he ever denied or confounded the divinity or humanity really existing in Christ: that he simply did not wish to acknowledge the term "nature" as common to the divinity and humanity of Christ; and that he uniquely guarded against two persons of Christ being asserted, contrary to the mind of the Catholic Church and the decrees of the ecumenical Council of Ephesus: ^D for that would follow, if we admitted two natures and two wills in Christ. Finally, that the term *physis* (nature), signifying something born or created, did not at all befit the divinity; nor could two wills, in two natures united in one person without division, separation, or distance, be conceived by the mind; nor could the human nature, once exalted to the state of glory, still wish, do, or suffer the same things which it had wished, done, or suffered in the state of humiliation; and that, therefore, in the present state of glory, the humanity wishes and feels nothing which the divinity does not also simultaneously wish and feel. Finally, our position having now been heard more clearly, they (the Abyssinians) feel that this question seems idle to them, and a mere logomachy, for which Christians ought not to hate one another. These things Job Ludolf wrote in his *Historia Aethiopica*, lib. I, c. 8, at the beginning, from the narrative of Gregory the Abyssinian: and since they serve to illustrate the faith of Dioscorus and his followers, I have thought fit to add them here.

^A of the former bishop of the great city of Alexandria, against the order of the canons and of ecclesiastical discipline, are manifest, as well from what has already been examined in the first session, as from what has been done today. For he, to pass over many other things, took into communion, of his own authority and against the sacred canons, Eutyches, who held the same opinions as himself, and who had been canonically deposed by his own bishop, our Father among the saints and bishop Flavian—and he did this before he had sat at Ephesus with the rest of the God-beloved bishops. But to them the apostolic see granted pardon for the things that were done there not of their own will; for they have continued until the present time following the most holy archbishop Leo and the entire holy and ecumenical synod, for which reason it welcomed them into its communion as sharers of the same faith. But this man, even to this day, has not ceased to boast of those things for which he ought to have groaned and bowed his head to the ground. ^B Furthermore, he did not permit the letter of the blessed Pope Leo, which he had written to the one of holy memory, Flavian, to be read, although he had been requested to do so many times by those who had brought the letter, and although he had promised with an oath that he would order it to be read. As it was not read, he filled the most holy Churches throughout the world with scandals and grievances.

But yet, although so many and such great things have been dared by him, it was our intention, because of his former impious deed, to treat him clemently and kindly, just as we did the rest of the God-beloved bishops, even though they did not have the same power of judgment as he did. But since he has far surpassed his former injustice with his subsequent deeds—for he dared to pronounce excommunication against the most holy and most religious archbishop of great Rome, Leo; and besides this, when pamphlets full of crimes and shameful acts were brought against him to the holy and great synod, and he was summoned once, twice, and thrice according to the prescriptions of the canons by God-beloved bishops, he did not obey, being evidently stung by his own conscience; and those who had been justly deposed by various synods, he illegitimately received into communion—he has pronounced judgment against himself, having repeatedly trampled upon the ecclesiastical laws.

^D Therefore the most holy and most blessed archbishop of great and elder Rome, Leo, through us and through the present synod, together with the most blessed and all-praised Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him of his episcopal dignity and has deemed him alien from all priestly office.

^A Therefore, this holy and great synod decrees what is pleasing to the canons regarding the aforementioned Dioscorus. These things having been confirmed by the synod, and certain other matters having been enacted, those who had been deposed along with Dioscorus were restored to their former positions at the request of the council and by the consent of the Emperor. When some other matters had been added to the previous proceedings, a definition of the faith was promulgated in these very words: "Our Lord and Savior ^B Jesus Christ, when confirming the knowledge of the faith to his disciples, said: 'My peace I give to you, my peace I leave with you' (Joan. XIV, 27), so that no one might dissent from his neighbor in the decrees of piety, but that the preaching of the truth might be shown to all equally." After this, the holy Creed of Nicaea having been read, and furthermore the Creed of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers, they added: "That wise and saving Symbol of divine grace was indeed sufficient for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of piety. For it teaches the perfect doctrine regarding the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and it presents the incarnation of the Lord to those who receive it with faith. But since the enemies of the truth ^C attempt to subvert its preaching through their own heresies, and have brought forth certain novelties of language—some daring to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation of the Lord which was done for our sake, and denying the word 'Theotokos' in regard to the Virgin Mary; others indeed introducing confusion and commixtion, and foolishly fashioning that there is one nature of the flesh and of the Godhead, and dreaming in their confusion that the divine nature of the Only-begotten is subject to passion—therefore this holy, great, and universal synod, wishing to preclude for them every path of fraud and machination against the truth, and vindicating the unshaken strength of the preaching from the very beginning, has defined: first of all, that the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers remain inviolate; and on behalf of those who war against the Holy Spirit, it confirms the doctrine regarding the substance of the Holy Spirit, which was afterward handed down by the hundred and fifty Fathers who were gathered in the royal city, which they proclaimed to all, not as adding anything that was lacking to those who came before, but as making their own sentiment regarding the Holy Spirit manifest against those who ^D...

^A sought to abolish His sovereignty with scriptural testimonies, and clarifying it.

But for the sake of those who dare to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation and shamelessly prattle that He who was born of the holy Virgin Mary is a mere man, he accepted the synodical letters of the blessed Cyril, who was pastor of the Church of the Alexandrians, written to Nestorius and to those of the East, since they are suitable both for refuting the madness of Nestorius and for explaining the salutary symbol to those ^B who, moved by pious zeal, desire to attain to its understanding. To these he also joined—justly and rightly, for the confirmation of right doctrines—the letter of the most blessed and holy Leo, Archbishop of greatest and elder Rome, written to the holy Archbishop Flavian for the quenching of the malevolence of Eutyches; for it agrees with the confession of the blessed Peter and is a kind of common pillar against those who hold wrong opinions. For it opposes those who attempt to tear apart the mystery of the dispensation into a duality of sons; and it expels from the assembly of the sacred ones those who do not fear to call the divinity of the Only-begotten ^C subject to suffering; and it resists those who invent a mixture or confusion in the two natures of Christ; and it casts out those who rave that the form of a servant, which He assumed from us, is of a heavenly or some other substance. Finally, it anathematizes those who fable that there are two natures of the Lord before the union, but pretend that there was one after the union.

Following, therefore, the holy Fathers, we all with one consent teach that we must confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and we all teach in agreement: the same perfect in divinity and the same perfect in humanity, truly God and ^D truly man, the same of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us according to his humanity, in all things like us except for sin; begotten of the Father before the ages according to his divinity, but born in the final days for us and for our salvation from Mary the Virgin and Theotokos according to his humanity; one and the same Jesus Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being in no way destroyed by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved and concurring into one person and one hypostasis; not as if divided or split into two persons, but one.

^A And the same only-begotten Son, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets from of old concerning him, and Christ himself taught us, and the symbol of the Fathers has handed down to us. These things, therefore, having been set forth by us with all accuracy and diligence, the holy and universal synod decreed that it is permitted to no one to produce, or to write down, or to compose, or to hold, or to teach others another faith. And those who dare either to compose another faith, or to bring it forward, or to teach it, or to deliver another symbol to those who desire to turn from paganism ^B or Judaism or from any other sect whatsoever to the knowledge of the truth: if they be bishops or clerics, they shall be aliens, the bishops from the episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen, they shall be anathematized. After the reading of this definition, the emperor Marcian also arrived at the synod of the Chalcedonians and, having delivered a speech, departed again. By certain agreements, Juvenal and Maximus settled the matters regarding the provinces subject to them, and Theodoret and Ibas were restored to their standing, and other things were transacted which, as I have said before, the reader will find written at the end of this book. Finally, it was decreed that the see of new Rome, because it is second after elder Rome, should hold the prerogative above the other sees.

CAP. V.

^C Upon these things, Dioscorus is condemned to reside in Gangra, a city of the Paphlagonians; but Proterius, by the common vote of the synod, obtains the bishopric of Alexandria. When he had taken possession of his see, a huge and unendurable tumult arose in the city, the people being distracted into different opinions. For some sought after Dioscorus, as is wont to happen on such occasions, while others defended Proterius most pertinaciously, so that many very grave and almost insane consequences resulted therefrom. Priscus the rhetor writes in his history that he arrived at Alexandria at that time from the province of the Thebaid, and saw the multitude of the people making an assault upon the magistrates; and that when the military forces attempted to restrain the sedition, they used volleys of stones against them.

^A And having retreated into the temple which had once been that of Serapis, they were besieged by the populace and burned alive within it. The emperor, having learned of these events, dispatched two thousand newly conscripted soldiers; and these, having met with a favorable wind, made their voyage so prosperously that on the sixth day they arrived at the great city of the Alexandrians. From then on, the soldiers behaved wantonly toward the wives and daughters of the Alexandrians, and perpetrated things much more grievous than those which had occurred previously. ^B Finally, the people, having gathered in the circus, besought Florus, who was at that time the commander of the military forces throughout Egypt and also prefect of Alexandria, that he might see to the restoration of the distribution of grain [(45)] which had been taken away from them, as well as the baths and the spectacles, and everything else that had been cut off on account of the disorder that had arisen among them. And in this way Florus, through the suggestion of Priscus the rhetorician, [(44)] appearing before the people, promised the same to them, and for a short time dissolved the sedition. But not even the wilderness [(ε)] near Jerusalem remained in a state of tranquility. For some of the monks who had been found at the synod, and who had desired to hold opinions contrary to its decrees, arrived in Palestine; and lamenting the betrayal of the faith, they were hastening towards the monastic life.

^A And since Juvenal had regained his own see, and was being compelled by those who were pulling him in every direction to retract his own decision and to condemn it with an anathema, he fled to the royal city. Those who held opinions contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, as we said above, assembling together, ordained in the church of Holy Resurrection ^B one Theodosius, the man who had most disturbed the Council of Chalcedon, and who was also the first to bring them news of it. Regarding him, the monastic body in Palestine later wrote to Alcison, stating that he had also been caught by his own bishop in acts of wickedness, for which he had been expelled from his monastery; and that when he had arrived in Alexandria and had set himself against Dioscorus, ^C he had been treated by him as a seditious person, repeatedly beaten with lashes, and paraded through the city on a camel, like a criminal.

To him, therefore, many from the cities of Palestine resorted, and arranged for bishops to be ordained for them. Among these was one Peter from Iberia, who was entrusted with the steering-oars of the episcopate at what is called Majuma, near the city of the Gazaeans. ^D When Marcian learned of these things, he first ordered that Theodosius be brought before him at the camp. He then sent Juvenal to correct what had happened, commanding that all those who had been ordained by Theodosius be expelled. After the arrival of Juvenal, therefore, many sad and bitter things occurred, as those things happened first from one side and then the other, according to whatever their rage prompted them to do. For the envious, God-hating demon had so craftily devised and falsely interpreted the change of a single letter, that although the pronunciation of one letter completely brings in the other, he caused it to be thought by most people that there was a great difference between them, and that the meanings were directly opposed to one another.

as destroying one another, as most people suppose. For he who confesses Christ in two natures, expressly says that He is from two natures, if indeed, while confessing Christ in deity and humanity, he also confesses ^A that He is composed of deity and humanity. And he who says "from two" necessarily brings in the confession of "in two," if indeed, while saying that Christ is from deity and humanity, he confesses Him to consist in deity and humanity; neither the flesh being converted into deity, nor the deity having passed into flesh—from which things the ineffable union exists. So that by the phrase "from two," one may effectively also understand "in two," and by the phrase "in two," one may also understand "from two," and neither should be separated from the other. Since, according to the abundant usage of language, not only is the whole known from its parts, but the whole is also recognized ^B in its parts. Nevertheless, men imagine these things to be so disjoined and separated from one another—either by a certain custom of thinking about God, or, to be sure, preoccupied by an induction of the mind—that they would rather undergo any kind of death than yield consent to the truth. And hence arose the evils which I mentioned above. But these matters were indeed thus.

CHAPTER VI.

In those same times, there was a great drought in both Phrygias, and in both Galatias, in Cappadocia and Cilicia. So that, as a result, there followed a scarcity of necessary things, and men used harmful foods. Whence a plague also arose. For, having fallen into disease due to a change of diet, their bodies swelling because of excessive inflammation, they would lose their sight; and at the same time being troubled with a cough, they would die on the third day. ^C And indeed, no remedy could be found for the plague at that time. But against the famine, for those who remained, the Providence of God, the preserver of all things, provided a remedy. For in that year which had been barren, food rained down from heaven—which they call manna, no differently than once for the Israelites. In the following year, however, the earth of its own accord brought forth ripe fruits. Moreover, this calamity ravaged Palestine also and other almost innumerable regions, as these two evils spread throughout the whole world.

CHAPTER VII.

While these things were being carried on in the regions of the East, at Rome ^D Aetius was cruelly put to death. Valentinian

^A also, the emperor of the Western regions, together with Heraclius, were killed by certain of Aetius’s guards—a plot having been directed against them by Maximus, who later seized the empire—because Valentinian had violated the wife of Maximus by forcibly defiling her. This Maximus compelled Eudoxia, the wife of Valentinian, to marry him against her will. She, regarding the act as a source of insult and extreme wickedness, and, as the saying goes, having decided to cast every die, determined to undergo any danger for the sake of the things she had suffered regarding her husband, and because she had been insulted in her freedom. For a woman is terrible and relentless in her grief when she clings to her chastity, if she should be robbed of it, and especially by him who had been the cause of her losing her husband. Sending to Africa to Gizericus, and having immediately given him most abundant gifts, and promising him good hope for the future, she persuades him to invade the Roman empire unexpectedly, pledging that she would betray everything to him. ^B This having been done, the city of Rome is captured. But Gizericus, being a barbarian and in his manner both unstable and fickle, did not keep his promise even in this. But, having set the city on fire, and having plundered everything, he took Eudoxia along with her two daughters and made his retreat; and as he went away to Africa, he departed. The elder of Eudoxia’s daughters, Eudocia, he joined to Huneric, his own son. But the younger one, Placidia, he sent after some time to Byzantium, along with her mother Eudoxia, with royal service and retinue, to appease the emperor Marcian. ^C For Marcian was stirred to anger, both because the city of Rome had been burned by fire, and because the empresses had been so greatly insulted. Placidia then, by the command of Marcian, enters into marriage with Olybrius, who happened to be a man of note in the senate and who, having come from Rome when it was captured, had arrived at Constantinople. After Maximus again, Avitus reigns over the Romans for eight months ^D (53).

VALESIUS’S ANNOTATIONS

VARIOUS NOTES

After he had ended his life by famine, ^A Majorianus held the empire for two years. When he had been killed through the treachery of Ricimer, the master of the soldiers, Severus occupied the rule for three years.

CAP. VIII. Concerning the death of Marcian, and the reign of Leo; and how the heretics at Alexandria kill Proterius, and elect Timothy Aelurus as archbishop.

While Severus was still administering the Roman empire, Marcian exchanged his earthly kingdom for a better lot, having governed the empire for only seven years, and left behind a truly royal monument for all mankind. Upon hearing of his death, the citizens of Alexandria renewed with sharper and more violent intensity the anger they had harbored against Proterius. For the whole populace is, by its very nature, prone to wrath, and from the slightest causes finds an opportunity ^B for tumult; and having learned of these things, they rekindled their resentment against Proterius with greater anger and burning zeal. For the populace is a thing easily ignited to rage, and...

[VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS]

(54) *After he had ended (his life) by famine.* Musculus and Christophorsonus read "by famine". I consider that reading to be the truer one. For it is not probable that Avitus, who after he was deposed from the empire was made bishop of Placentia, as Victor Tunonensis and Marius write in their Chronicle, died of famine. Nicephorus, however, has retained the vulgar reading.

(55) *Majorianus (reigned) a second year.* Majorianus administered the Roman empire for four years and as many months, as the old Chronograph edited by Cuspinianus teaches, to which Idatius and Marcellinus subscribe in their Chronicle. Severus, succeeding him, reigned for about the same space of years, as the same writers report. But these things happened after the death of the emperor Marcian, with Leo Augustus administering the empire of the East.

(56) *While Severus was reigning.* Evagrius errs. Marcian Augustus died in the consulship of Constantinus and Rufus, in the year of Christ 457, in the month of February. Majorianus, however, was raised to the purple as emperor at Ravenna in the same year, on the Kalends of April, that is, about two months after the death of Marcian. To him then succeeded Severus in the year of Christ 461, in the consulship of Severinus and Dagalaifus, about five years after the death of the emperor Marcian. Furthermore, this Severus was called by another name, Serpentius, as Theophanes teaches in his Chronicle, page 97, in these words: *And Severus, who is also Serpentius, was raised.* For it must be read thus, as that most learned man Franciscus Combefisius correctly conjectured. It is certainly so stated in the Alexandrian Chronicle. For in the fifteenth indiction, Leo Augustus is listed as consul for the second time with Serpentius. Yet it is established that in this year the consul was Severus Augustus with Leo. For so Cassiodorus writes in the Fasti, and the old author edited by Cuspinianus.

(57) *For only seven years.* Marcian reigned for six years and as many months, as Marcellinus and Victor Tunonensis write in their Chronicle. He began his reign in the year of Christ 450, on the eighth day of the Kalends of September, on a Friday, as is written in the Alexandrian Chronicle. However, he died in the year of Christ 457, towards the end of the month of January, as Theodorus Lector writes, with whom the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle agrees. For he writes that Leo, who succeeded Marcian, was raised in the month of Peritius, on the seventh day of the Ides of February. Thus Marcian reigned for six years, five months, and several days.

(58) *A truly royal monument.* Nicephorus interpolated this passage in this way: *and left behind for all men a royal monument.* Christophorsonus followed the same sense, as is apparent from his interpretation. For he translates this passage thus: *A truly royal specimen left for all to behold.* Musculus, however, interpreted it thus: *And left his truly imperial memory among all mortals.* But Evagrius does not say that; rather, that a monument clearly royal was left by Marcian among all mortals. And that monument can be nothing other than either the life he lived religiously, or certainly the Council of Chalcedon, which he ordered to be assembled to remove the dissensions of the Church, and at which he himself, by the example of Constantine the Great, wished to be present. Since, therefore, this synod was gathered and perfected by his work and study above all others, it can by just right be called the work and monument of the Emperor Marcian.

[VARIORUM]

(n) *Marcian exchanges his kingdom.* Concerning the time of Marcian's death, see more in the annotations to Theodorus Lector, book 1, at the beginning.

BOOK II

^A It arises. But above all others, the Alexandrian populace is of this sort, seeing that it abounds in a great multitude, and that of obscure and promiscuous people from various places, and is carried along by a certain precipitous audacity and impulse. Therefore they say that it is ^B lawful for anyone there, if he wishes, by seizing upon the slightest occasion, to incite the populace to public sedition, and to lead them wherever he wishes and against whomsoever he wishes. Moreover, they are for the most part given to jokes and amusements, as Herodotus writes concerning Amasis. And such is the Alexandrian populace; yet in other respects they are by no means to be despised. Therefore, the Alexandrians, having seized the time when Dionysius, the commander of the military forces, was staying in Upper Egypt, elected Timotheus, surnamed Aelurus, as bishop of the city of Alexandria, ^C who had previously followed the monastic life, but later had been enrolled in the number of the presbyters of the Alexandrian Church. Having led him, therefore, to the great Church, which is called Caesarea, they appoint him their bishop, while Proterius was still alive and performing the duties of the priesthood. There were present at the ordination Eusebius, the bishop of Pelusium, and Petrus, born in Hiberia, bishop of Majuma, as is recorded concerning these matters by the one who wrote the life of Petrus. This man indeed writes that Proterius was not [killed] by the common people, ^D but by some of the soldiers.

^A Furthermore, when Dionysius had arrived with the greatest speed at Alexandria, urged on by the cruelty of the events taking place there, certain of the Alexandrians, at the instigation of Timothy—as was written to Leo Augustus—fell upon Proterius and dispatched him—a sword having been driven into his bowels—as he had taken refuge at the most holy baptistery. Having bound him with a rope and dragged him along, they displayed him to all in the place called the Tetrapylon, mocking and shouting that this was the Proterius who had been slain. And after these things, having dragged his body through the whole city, they committed it to the flames, not fearing even to taste his vitals like wild beasts; just as the petition contains, which the bishops of Egypt and the entire clergy of the city of Alexandria sent to Leo, who, after the death of Marcian, as I have already said, was administering the Roman Empire. ^B The petition, however, runs thus: "To the pious and Christ-loving, and by God designated, Victor and Triumpher and Augustus Leo, a petition from all the bishops of your Egyptian diocese, and from the clergy of your greatest and most holy Church of the Alexandrians. Since by heavenly grace you have been granted to the world as a certain exceptional gift, you deservedly and deservedly never cease daily, after God, to provide for the republic, O most holy of all emperors, Augustus." ^C And after other things: "And while a tranquil peace for the orthodox peoples existed both among us and in the city of Alexandria, again disturbances were stirred up, when Timothy, immediately after the holy Council of Chalcedon—at which time he was merely a presbyter—had separated and cut himself off from the communion and peace of the Catholic Church, together with four or five former bishops and a few monks, who were held fast by the pestiferous error of Apollinaris and Eutyches just as he himself was. For which cause they were then canonically deposed by Proterius of blessed memory and the entire council of the bishops of Egypt, and deservedly experienced also the imperial vengeance of exile." ^D And a little later: "And when he had caught the time of the death of Marcian Augustus of divine memory, impiously assailing his name with impious voices and maledictions, as if subject to no laws; moreover,shamelessly anathematizing the holy and universal Council of Chalcedon, and dragging after him a multitude of venal and seditious men, whom he had armed against divine rules and ecclesiastical discipline, and against the laws and the republic, he broke into the holy Church of God, which at that time had as its shepherd and teacher our most holy Father and archbishop Proterius, who was then celebrating the solemn gatherings and offering prayers and vows to the Savior of us all, Christ, for your pious empire and for the Christ-loving palace." And after a few words: "Then, one day having passed, when Proterius, most beloved of God, was according to custom in the episcopal house

^A Timotheus took with him the two bishops who had been lawfully deposed, and the clergy who likewise, as we have said, were condemned to exile, and—as if he could be ordained by two bishops, while not a single orthodox bishop of the Egyptian diocese was present, as is the custom in such ordinations of the bishop of Alexandria—he seized, as he thought, the archiepiscopal throne. He dared openly to commit adultery against the Church, which possesses its own Bridegroom, who was performing the sacred rites within her, and who was canonically governing his own throne. And after other matters: The blessed man could do nothing else but, as it is written, give place unto wrath, and take refuge in the venerable baptistery, to avoid the onset of those who were rushing to commit murder; a place in which a certain terror is wont to seize even barbarians and all wild men who are ignorant of the sanctity of that place and the grace that flows therefrom. Nevertheless, those who were eager to bring to effect the design that Timotheus had from the beginning, and who could not endure that Proterius should be spared even in those immaculate precincts, neither revering the holiness of the place nor the time—for it was then the feast of the saving Pascha—nor fearing the dignity of the priesthood, which is a mediator ^B between God and men, slew the innocent man, and with him cruciatingly slaughtered six others. And dragging his corpse about, wounded on every side, they hauled it cruelly through almost every part of the city, insulting it in a miserable manner, and beating the body, which was bereft of all sense, without any mercy, and cutting it limb by limb. And they did not even fear, after the manner of wild beasts, to taste the viscera of him whom they had shortly before thought to have as an interpreter and mediator between God and men. Lastly, when they had cast what remained of his body onto a pyre, they scattered the ashes into the winds, surpassing every wild beast in cruelty. Of all these evils, the wise architect was Timotheus. Now, as for Zacharias, in narrating these things ^C ...

in his history, he acknowledges that most of them occurred as I have said; but he blames Proterius, who, he claims, excited the most serious riots in the city of Alexandria. He further contends that these things were not perpetrated by the populace, but by certain military personnel, relying on the authority of the letter which Timotheus wrote to Emperor Leo. Moreover, Emperor Leo sent Stilas to investigate these events. ^A

CAP. IX. Concerning the circular letters of Leo Augustus.

He also wrote circular letters to all the bishops of the Roman world, and to those who excelled in the monastic life, questioning them both about the Synod of Chalcedon and the ordination of Timotheus, surnamed Ælurus. At the same time, he also sent to them copies of the petitions which had been presented to him both on behalf of Proterius and on behalf of Timotheus Ælurus. ^B Now, the circular letters of Leo are to this effect: Copy of the sacred letter of the most pious Emperor Leo, sent to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, and to the metropolitans and the rest of the bishops throughout the whole world.

Emperor Caesar Leo, Pious, Victor, Triumphator, Maximus, ever Augustus, to Anatolius the bishop. It was indeed the wish of my piety that all the orthodox and most holy churches, and likewise all the cities of the Roman empire, should enjoy the greatest quiet, and that nothing should happen that might disturb their state and tranquility. But what has recently happened at Alexandria, I do not doubt is already known to your holiness. But that you may be able to know the whole matter more accurately, as to what cause existed for such a great tumult and such a perturbation, we have sent to your holiness copies of the petitions which the most religious bishops and clergy, coming from the aforementioned city of Alexandria and from the Egyptian diocese to the royal city of Constantinople, offered to my piety against Timotheus; also copies of the petitions which certain persons from the party of Timotheus, coming from the same city of Alexandria to our sacred comitatum, presented to our serenity. So that [you may know] what has been done by the aforementioned Timotheus, whom the people and the honorati and decurions and the navicularii of the city of Alexandria [desired as their bishop... ^D

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

VARIORUM.

^A shipowners, requesting a bishop for themselves, and concerning other matters provided by the form of the petitions, and, in addition to these, concerning the Council of Chalcedon, with which in no way do they agree, as their submitted petitions indicate, so that your Holiness might clearly be able to learn the truth. Therefore, may your Reverence cause all the holy orthodox bishops now residing in this royal city, as well as the most reverend clergy, to assemble before you immediately. And when all things have been carefully discussed and examined—since the city of Alexandria is now disturbed, for whose state and tranquility we are most anxious—tell us what is your opinion concerning the aforementioned Timothy and the Council of Chalcedon, without any human fear, and without favor or enmity, keeping only the fear of the Almighty God before your eyes, since you know that you will have to render an account of this matter to the immaculate Divinity. So that, having been perfectly instructed by your letters concerning all things, we may be able to provide the appropriate ruling. And this indeed was written to Anatolius. ^B Similar things the Emperor wrote both to the other bishops and to the most distinguished of those who at that time, as I have said, were living a life remote from the world and stripped of all equipment. Among their number was Symeones, who first discovered the way of standing upon a pillar, of whom we made mention in the previous book; among whom were also Baradatus and Jacob the Syrians. [alt-version omitted]

VARIAE LECTIONES

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

CAP. X. Concerning those things about which the bishops and Symeon the Stylite wrote back in reply.

^A First, therefore, Leo, bishop of senior Rome, wrote in defense of the Council of Chalcedon and disapproved of the ordination of Timothy, as having been done unlawfully. This letter of Leo, the Emperor Leo sent to Timothy, bishop of the Alexandrians, by the hand of Diomedes the silentiary, who served as a courier for royal mandates. To this, Timothy wrote back, criticizing the Council of Chalcedon and the letter of Leo. The copies of these letters survive in the collection of letters which are called the ^B *Encyclics*. I, however, have deliberately omitted them, so that this work might not be burdened by a multitude of letters. The bishops of other cities also firmly adhered to the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, and all with one consent condemned the ordination of Timothy. Amphilochius, bishop of Side, alone, in the letter which he wrote to the emperor, indeed severely criticized the ordination of Timothy, but did not accept the Council of Chalcedon. These things were also set forth by Zacharias the Rhetor, who even inserted the very letter of Amphilochius into his own work. Also, Symeones of holy memory wrote two letters regarding these matters: one to the Emperor Leo, and another to Basil, who was presiding over the Church of Antioch. ^C Of these, the one written to Basil, since it is shorter, I shall insert here in this work of mine, being as follows:

^A To my lord, the most holy and most blessed, beloved of God, Basil the Archbishop, the sinner and humble Symeon, greeting in the Lord. Now it is opportune to say, Lord, "Blessed be God, who has not removed our prayer, nor His mercy from us sinners." For having received the letters of your worthiness, I admired the zeal and piety of our emperor, most beloved of God, which he has shown and continues to show toward the holy Fathers and their firm faith. And this gift is not from us, as the holy Apostle says, but from God, who granted this zeal to him through your prayers. And a little later: Therefore, I too, the humble and lowly one, the abortion of monks, have made known to his Imperial Majesty my own determination concerning the faith of the six hundred and thirty holy Fathers who were gathered at Chalcedon, persisting and being firmly established in that faith which was revealed by the Holy Spirit. ^B For if our Savior is present in the midst of those who are gathered in His name, even if they are two or three, how could it be that, among so many and such great holy Fathers, the Holy Spirit was not with them from the beginning? And further on: Therefore, be strong and act manfully, just as Joshua, the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, did for the people of Israel. I ask you to greet on my behalf all the devout clergy who are under your holiness, and the blessed and most faithful people.

CHAPTER XI. Concerning the exile of Timothy Aelurus, and the ordination of Timothy Salofaciolus. And concerning Gennadius and Acacius, bishops of Constantinople.

After these things, Timothy is condemned to exile, ^C and is ordered to dwell in the city of the Gangrenes, just as Dioscorus was. Therefore, those of Alexandria chose another Timothy as bishop, the successor to Proterius; whom some called Basilicum, and others Salofaciolum. Meanwhile, with the death of Anatolius, Gennadius obtained the bishopric of the imperial city; and after him, Acacius, who had been in charge of the orphanage in the royal city.

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS.

[The note discusses the name Salophaciolus/Salofaciolus, noting that it is written far differently in Liberatus’ *Breviarium*, cap. 16. Whereas some manuscripts suggest "Basilicum," he notes that *Salofaciolus* may signify "royal," as *phaciolus* ^D can mean a band, which may be interpreted as a royal diadem. However, he concludes that nothing certain can be elicited from this nickname, as it is written in various ways by the ancient writers.]

VARIORUM.

[Timothy was relegated to the city of Gangra, and then to Chersonesus, where he spent eighteen years in exile, as Evagrius testifies in book III, chapter 4; his exile began in the year 457, according to Cave, or 459, according to Pagi. Gennadius, first a presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, succeeded Anatolius in the bishopric of the same Church in the year 458. He immediately began to restore with every effort the discipline of his Church, which had collapsed; he was a man eloquent in speech and sharp in intellect. More about him can be found in Theodore Lector, book 1. He departed from life in the year 471, according to Cave and Pagi.]

Chapter XII. Concerning the earthquake that happened at Antioch, three hundred and forty-seven years after that which took place in the times of Trajan

^A Furthermore, in the second year of the reign of Leo, a mighty earthquake and convulsion occurred at Antioch, following certain actions by the people of that city—actions full of madness and insanity, and surpassing even the ferocity of wild beasts, ^B which served as a kind of prelude to such disasters. This great calamity took place in the five hundred and sixth year from the founding of the city of Antioch, around the fourth hour of the night, on the fourteenth day of the month of Gorpiæus, which the Romans call September; it was imminent on the Lord’s Day, in the eleventh indiction. This is said to be the sixth earthquake to have occurred, with three hundred and forty-seven years having passed since that earthquake which happened in the times of Trajan. For that earthquake under Trajan occurred in the one hundred and fifty-ninth year from the time the city became free and possessed its own laws. ^{C D}

Valesius’s Annotations

(75) *Beyond the cycle:* Musculus has interpreted this passage badly. Christophorson, on the other hand, since he did not understand these words, omitted them in his version. For a long time, this passage puzzled me considerably. Eventually, however, I perceived its meaning. After Evagrius indicated the time when the earthquake occurred at Antioch during the reign of Emperor Leo by specific markers—namely the year, month, week, day, and indiction—he adds finally "beyond the cycle" (*toutou tou kyklou ektos*). That is to say, that the earthquake occurred without any rotation of cycles, three hundred and forty-seven full years after the earthquake that happened in the times of Trajan. Indeed, this time marker has no cycle. The earlier time markers assigned by Evagrius, however, are of cycles or periods. For the indiction is a cycle of fifteen years, and the week, month, and year are cycles and periods that recur perpetually. This, therefore, is my opinion regarding the explanation of this passage. If anyone should bring forward more definite information, I shall not refuse to change it. See chapter 33, book 3. This passage may also be understood in another way, by changing merely the accent in this manner: *Ektos tynchanein istoumenos*. As if the meaning is: "This is said to be the sixth earthquake which shook Antioch." Nor do I now doubt that this is the true interpretation of this passage. Certainly, in the Tellerian manuscript, *ektos* is written explicitly with an aspiration and an accent on the first syllable.

(76) *And forty and three hundred:* I restored this passage from the best Florentine manuscript, in which it is written explicitly thus: *z’ kai m’* (*seven and forty*). And so it is read exactly in Nicephorus in chapter twenty of book xv. But also the codex of Robertus Stephanus exhibits *kai m’*, which Matth. Shorting observed.

(77) *For that one [was] the fifty-ninth and…:* Baronius, in his *Ecclesiastical Annals* to the year of Christ 111, says that Evagrius is mistaken, as he writes that the earthquake which occurred at Antioch while Trajan was reigning happened in the year 159 according to the Antiochenes. For that earthquake occurred in the consulship of Messala and Pedo, as is evident from Dio, who asserts that the consul Pedo perished in that earthquake. Furthermore, the consulship of Messala and Pedo falls in the year of Christ 115, as all chronologists agree. The year according to the Antiochenes was then 163, not 159 as Evagrius says. For the years of the Antiochenes anticipate the birthday of Christ by forty-eight years. Furthermore, concerning these Antiochene years, the old author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle* has spoken best in the various records.

(v) *In the second year of Leo:* Pagius draws back this earthquake to the first year of the Emperor Leo and the year of Christ 457: in which year the day of September falls on a Saturday. See him at the year 458, n. 6. W. Lowth.

(x) *From the time the city...:* When the Romans had reduced a conquered nation into the form of a province, it was the custom that the emperor should immediately write and publish an edict, by which first he himself was announced as the lord and triumpher over the conquered nation; then it was decreed that the provincials should use certain new privileges. An example of this affair, which looks to this very city of Antioch, is cited by John Gregory of Oxford, from the manuscript *Geography* of John of Antioch, book 9, in these words: "The provincials, however, so that they might preserve this benevolence of the emperor in eternal memory, reckoned their public business from the time of this Edict, *chrematizei oun* (as the same John of Antioch continues) *he megale Antiocheia*." For this reason, this era of the Antiochians, which precedes the year of the Lord’s birth by an interval of forty-eight years, is called in a peculiar way... (See among the works of John Gregory, p. 161, ed. London, an. 1684, citing Matthæus Shorting).

(y) *It is said to be the sixth:* This earthquake according to Malalas was cited by Pagius. W. Lowth.

(z) *Seven and forty and three hundred:* In reality, only 343 years elapsed, namely from the year 115 of Christ to the year 458. But also Evagrius has erred, when he casts the earthquake which happened under Trajan into the Antiochene year 159, and thus couples it with the one hundred and eleventh year of Christ, which in reality ought to have been referred to the year of the Antiochene era 165, as this Valesius observed. W. Lowth.

^A This happened in the time of the Emperor Leo, in the five hundred and sixth year, as is set forth by the most diligent historians. This earthquake, therefore, overthrew nearly all the houses of the "New" city, which was teeming with inhabitants and had no part empty or altogether neglected, but was, on the contrary, greatly cultivated and adorned because of the munificence of previous emperors, who had vied with one another in this matter. The first and second of the palace buildings also fell, while the others remained along with the adjacent bath—which, having been useful to the city during the calamity, served as a necessity for bathing, due to the ruin of the other baths. ^B It also cast down the colonnades in front of the palace and the Tetrapylon that was upon them, as well as the towers of the hippodrome by the gates and some of the colonnades upon them. But in the "Old" city, the fall of the colonnades or dwellings did not touch it at all. Of the baths of Trajan, Severus, and Hadrian, it shook and threw down a small part; and of the neighborhood called Ostracine (79), it threw down certain parts together with the colonnades, and cast down what is called the Nymphaeum (80). The details of this are recorded with great care by John the rhetorician. He says, then, that one thousand talents of gold were remitted to the city by the emperor from the taxes, and to the citizens for the buildings that had perished ^C in the disaster. Furthermore, they say that on account of this earthquake, the emperor remitted to the city one thousand talents of gold from the annual taxes, on account of the buildings that had perished.

[VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.] ...in his account of the deeds of Julius Caesar; but among the more recent authors, Dionysius Petavius in his books *On the Doctrine of Times*, and in the second part of his *Rationarium*, ch. 14. To him, however, I assent in this, that he says the beginning of these years is deduced from the month of October, which was the beginning of the civil year among the Antiochenes. I, however, in my *Eusebian Annotations*, have demonstrated at length, as I believe, that the Antiochenes began their year from the month of Dios, or November. Nor is it true, as Petavius also writes in the same place, that the author of the *Alexandrine Chronicle* seems to deduce the beginning of these years from the month of May. For the author of the *Alexandrine Chronicle* does not say this; but he only says that the decree of the senate, by which the city of Antioch was declared free and self-governing, was received by the Antiochenes in the month of May and publicly proclaimed. ^B...For Musculus indeed translated it thus: "He says also that one thousand talents of gold were remitted to that city by the emperor from the tributes: and that it was also determined from the tributes that their houses and also the public buildings, which had been affected by that calamity, should be restored." Christophorsonus interprets it thus: "He says, furthermore, that both one thousand talents of gold were condoned to the city by the emperor from the tributes, and also the taxes to the citizens who had been afflicted by that disaster." You see how both interpreters have referred these words to the citizens: which cannot be sustained in any way. For Evagrius would not have said... but rather... I.e., as Langus translates: "On account of this earthquake, and because of the destroyed buildings, they say the emperor remitted to that city one thousand talents of gold of the annual tribute." But Evagrius, or rather John the rhetor, says more. For he says that the emperor remitted one thousand talents of gold to the Antiochenes from the tribute function; and that he granted to each of the citizens the taxes on the buildings that had been overthrown by the earthquake. These taxes, however, can be understood in two ways: either the annual rent which was paid to the owners of the houses by the tenants, or the money which was paid to the treasury because those houses had been constructed on public land. Just as among us, the annual census is usually paid to the owners of the soil by the possessors of houses, both in the city and in the country. And in this latter sense I prefer to take it here. For this word is more frequently taken for the taxes which are paid to the public. But if it were taken here for the price of the houses which is usually paid by the tenant, there would have been no liberality in it from the emperor. For he would have given the citizens nothing of his own, but of another's. ^C...In the Florentine codex the whole passage is so written... Better, without doubt. "The gates of the circus were fortified with two towers on either side. There were also certain colonnades which led to those towers, from the gates of the circus, I believe." In the Tell. codex I found written, and in the Florentine and Tellerian, and in Nicephorus, is written... This passage is mentioned again by our Evagrius in ch. 8, lib. vi. But what Ostracine was, it is difficult to say. Evagrius indeed in this place says it was so called, situated in the old city. It is, however, a continuation of houses which took up the public colonnades. Which Libanius also confirms in his *Antiochicus*, p. 372. Furthermore, it was called Ostracine because there were potteries there. The old glosses render it earthenware... ^D...the temple of the Nymphs, which Libanius describes in his *Antiochicus*, p. 572, etc. Both interpreters have stumbled in translating this passage.

CAP. XIII. Concerning the fire that occurred in Constantinople.

A calamity not unlike this, or rather far more grievous, befell Constantinople, the beginning of the evil having arisen in the maritime part of the city, which they call the Bosporus. They say, indeed, that some destructive demon, having taken the form of a woman, or certainly some poor woman herself being impelled by a demon—for both accounts are given—brought a lamp to the market of all kinds of wares about the time when lamps are accustomed to be lit, as if she were going to purchase some salted fish, and having placed the lamp there, she immediately departed. But the fire, having seized upon the tow, raised a very great flame and, swifter than word can tell, burned the building; from this, the adjacent places were easily destroyed, as the fire spread, consuming not only things that ignite easily, but even buildings constructed of stone; and, continuing until the fourth day, it was impossible by any means to extinguish it. The whole middle part of the city, therefore, from the northern side to the southern region, five stadia in length and fourteen in breadth, was consumed in such a manner that nothing at all remained, whether of public or private buildings, neither columns nor stone arches; but all the hardened material was burned up, just as if it were of the most combustible sort. ^B This disaster occurred in the northern climate, where also the shipyards of the city are situated, from what is called the Bosporus as far as the old temple of Apollo. In the southern part, however, from the Julian harbor to houses situated not far from the temple of the Nymphs. ^{C D}

^A In the central part of the city, from the Forum of Constantine to the place called the Forum of Taurus, it left behind a sight miserable and appalling to all. For whatever ornaments of the city were prominent, whether embellished with incomparable magnificence or adapted to public and private needs, were heaped together into mountains and mounds [that were] inaccessible and impenetrable, filled with every kind of material, and obscuring the former appearance of the city; so that not even the inhabitants of the places themselves could easily discern what each of those former buildings had been, or where it had stood.

CAP. XIV. Concerning universal calamities.

^B At that same time, when the Scythian war was being organized against the Eastern Romans, the land of Thrace and the Hellespont were shaken by an earthquake, as were Ionia and the islands called the Cyclades; so that in the islands of Cnidus and Cos most buildings collapsed. Furthermore, Priscus records that immense rains occurred at Constantinople and in the regions of Bithynia, when for three or four days water descended from the sky like rivers. Mountains were leveled into plains, and many villages were destroyed by the floods. Islands also arose in Lake Boane—not far from Nicomedia—from the vast quantity of debris that had been carried there by the inundation. But these things happened some time later.

CAP. XV. Concerning the marriage of Zeno and Ariadne.

Porro Leo, for his daughter Ariadne, took Zeno as his son-in-law, who had been called Aricmesius from his swaddling clothes, but with the marriage ^C he also [took] the appellation...

^A of him who had been named in that way, and who had come to great fame among the Isaurians. From where this Zeno was brought forward, and for what reason he was preferred by Leo over all others, has been related by Eustathius the Syrian.

Chapter XVI. Concerning Anthemius, Emperor of Rome, and those who reigned after him.

At the same time, when the Western Romans had sent an embassy to Leo, Anthemius was sent by Leo to rule over the Romans, to whom the Emperor Marcian had betrothed his own daughter. And not long ^B after, Basiliscus, brother of Verina, the wife of Leo Augustus, was sent as commander-in-chief against Gizericus with choice forces. All these things have been most diligently written by Priscus the Rhetor: and besides this, how the same Emperor Leo, by stratagem, circumvented Aspar, who had handed the empire over to him, and put him to death, granting him this reward for his promotion; and also took away the sons of Aspar.

^C

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

...had come to great fame among the Isaurians (89), and had been called by that name. Now, whence this Zeno was brought forward, and for what cause he was preferred by Leo above all others, has been related by Eustathius the Syrian.

CHAPTER XVI. Concerning the Emperor Anthemius of Rome, and those emperors who [reigned] after him.

(89) He understands Flavian Zeno, who was consul during the principate of Theodosius Augustus, in the year of Christ 418, and master of soldiers throughout the East. Concerning his singular power, see what I have written in the annotations to the Excerpts of the embassies of Priscus the Rhetor, page 207 of the royal edition.

(90) Regarding the army which Emperor Leo sent against the Vandals into Africa, one must consult Theophanes, Cedrenus, and Idatius in their Chronicles. Candidus the Isaurian also writes of the equipment of this same war in the first book of his history, the passage to which—because it has not yet been edited—I shall here append: that is, Candidus the historian says that Leo, who was surnamed Macelles, who reigned after Marcian, had spent an uncountable amount of money on the expedition against the Vandals. For, as those who had managed these things revealed, there were 47,000 pounds of gold [spent] through the praetorian prefects; and through the count of the treasuries, 17,000 pounds of gold, and 700,000 pounds of silver; as the expenses were supplied in abundance by officials [taking] from the confiscated properties and from the treasury of Emperor Anthemius. This illustrious passage stands in Suidas under the entry [for] *cheirizo*, but with the author’s name corrupted. In the same passage of Suidas, it must be written: "Moreover, this Vandal expedition took place in the year of Christ 468, as Baronius rightly observes, which Cedrenus, Idatius, and Marcellinus confirm. Two years later, a second expedition against the Vandals was undertaken by the leader Heraclius and Marso, as Theophanes writes in his Chronicle, who alone, as far as I know, makes mention of this expedition. For Procopius in his *Vandalics* confused this second expedition with the former. Moreover, this second expedition had a sufficiently happy outcome. For Gizericus, struck by fear, was compelled to make peace with the Eastern Romans."

(91) Priscus had described this Vandal war at length in the final book of his Histories, as Theophanes teaches in his Chronicle, p. 400, beyond what Evagrius [mentions]. But the passage is corrupt, which I shall append here: "Later, seduced by gifts and vast sums of money from Gizericus, he gave way and was defeated voluntarily, as the Thracian Priscus [or: as the Thracian historian] recorded." Priscus indeed, as Evagrius testifies, described this war. Now Priscus was a Thracian, from the town of Panium in Thrace, which Hierocles mentions: "In the province of Europa, under the consular [authority], are fourteen cities: Eudoria, Heraclia, Arcadiopolis, Bisue, Panion, Orni, etc." Certainly even Suidas says that Priscus the writer of histories was a Panite.

(92) I seem to myself to have not unsuccessfully restored this place in this way: "so that he might gain ^D the goodwill of Aspar." Our emendation is confirmed by Cedrenus with these words: "In the twelfth year of Leo Augustus." Theophanes, however, has it thus: [alt-version omitted]

^A after the slaughter of Anthemius, when he had reigned over Rome for five years, Olybrius was proclaimed emperor by Ricimer, and after him Glycerius was elevated to the empire. Nepos, having cast him out, held power after the fifth year of his reign, and ordained Glycerius as bishop of the Romans at the city of Salona in Dalmatia. He was then cast out by Orestes, and after him his son Romulus, nicknamed Augustulus, who became the last emperor of Rome, a thousand three hundred and three years after the reign of Romulus. After him, Odoacer managed the affairs of the Romans, taking to himself the title of king, having removed the name of emperor.

CAP. XVII. Concerning the death of Leo, and the reign of the little Leo, and again of Zeno, his father.

At this time, Emperor Leo laid down his empire in Byzantium, having directed it for seventeen years, and appointed Leo, the infant son of his daughter Ariadne and Zeno, to be emperor. After him, Zeno the father assumed the purple...

as though he were his son-in-law, assisting him. Not long after ^A the death of his son Leo, Zeno remained to hold the empire alone. Future books, God willing, shall explain what was done by him or against him, and whatever else fell out during his times.

*The end of the second book.*

The acts of the Council of Chalcedon, reduced to a compendium, are as follows.

CAP. XVIII. Compendium of the acts of the Synod of Chalcedon, placed at the end of the second book.

Paschasinus and Lucentius, bishops, and Boniface, a presbyter, acted in the place of Leo, the Roman Pontiff; while Anatolius, the overseer of the Constantinopolitan see, and Dioscorus of Alexandria, were present; Maximus likewise of Antioch, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, ^B archbishops, sat with the bishops whom they had brought with them. There were also present the most noble individuals from the senate of the royal city. Leo’s vicars-general said to them that Dioscorus ought not to sit in the council with them; for this was what had been commanded them by their own bishop. If this were not done, they would immediately secede from the church. And when the senators asked what crimes were charged against Dioscorus, they replied that he ought to render an account of his own judgment, which he had undertaken beyond what is right in the role of a judge, without the permission of the Roman Pontiff.

Having said this, when Dioscorus had stood in the center by decree of the senate, Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, ^C demanded that the petition he had presented to the emperor be read, using these words: "I have been injured by Dioscorus; the faith has been injured. Bishop Flavian was killed, and with me, he was unjustly deposed by him. Command that my petitions be read."

^A And when this had been spoken, the petition was read, containing these words: "The petition presented by Eusebius, the most humble bishop of Dorylaeum, pleading for himself, for the orthodox faith, and for Flavian of holy memory, who was bishop of Constantinople. It is the purpose of your Majesty to provide for all your subjects and to extend a hand to all who have been injured, especially to those who exercise the priesthood. For in this you serve God, from whom the empire and dominion of the world have been granted to you. Since, therefore, the faith of Christ and we ourselves have suffered many and grievous things, contrary to law and right, at the hands of Dioscorus, the most reverend bishop of the great city of Alexandria, we approach your piety, requesting that justice be rendered to us. The cause of the matter is as follows: In the council which was held a short while ago in the metropolis of Ephesus—which would that it had never been held, so that the world might not have been filled with evils and tumults—that fine fellow Dioscorus, having no regard for the argument of justice or the fear of God, being of the same opinion and sentiment as the insane and heretical Eutyches, yet remaining concealed, as he later most openly declared, took the opportunity of the accusation which I had brought against Eutyches, his fellow-believer, and the sentence passed against the same Eutyches by Bishop Flavian of holy memory. ^B Having gathered a disorderly crowd of seditious men, and having procured for himself a tyrannical dominance through money, he undermined, as far as lay in his power, the pious religion of the orthodox, and confirmed the perverse opinion of Eutyches the monk, which already long ago and from the beginning had been condemned by the holy Fathers. Since, therefore, the things he has dared to do against the faith of Christ and against us are not trivial, we prostrate ourselves at the feet of your Majesty and request that you command the same most reverend Bishop Dioscorus to respond to the charges brought against him by us, namely, by having the records of the acts which he perpetrated against us read before the most holy synod. By these we can show him to be an alien to the orthodox faith, one who has confirmed a heresy full of impiety, and who has unjustly deposed us and ^C afflicted us with the gravest evils; and we request that your sacred and adorable commands be sent to the holy and universal synod of those most dear to God, the bishops, that it may hear the cause which is between us and the aforementioned Dioscorus, and that it may report to the knowledge of your piety all that is done, according to what shall please your immortal height. If we should obtain this, we shall offer up continual prayers for your eternal ^D reign.

^A Therefore, following the general petition of Dioscorus and Eusebius, the events that took place at the second synod of Ephesus were publicly read out. From these it was shown that the letter of Leo was not read, even though a discussion had been held on this matter once and twice. When Dioscorus was asked to explain the reason for this, he replied that he had ordered it to be done once and twice; and he requested Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, to clarify the circumstances of these events; for he claimed that they, together with him, had received the authority from the emperor. Juvenal indeed said that he had spoken when the divine letter had preceded it, [that it was] ^B submitted to reading; but that afterwards no one had made mention of the letter. Thalassius, however, said that he had not prevented it from being read, nor did he have such boldness as to be the only one able to decide that it be read. As the reading of the acts proceeded, and some bishops took exception to certain phrases as being false, Stephen, the presiding bishop of the Ephesians, when asked which of his notaries had recorded them at that time, replied that his notaries were Julian, who later became Bishop of Lebidus, and Crispinus. He added that the notaries of Dioscorus did not allow his own to record [the proceedings], but rather seized the hands of those who were writing, to such an extent that they were in danger of suffering most shameful treatment. The same Stephen further testified that he and the remaining bishops had subscribed to the deposition of Flavian on one and the same day. ^C To this, Acacius, Bishop of Ariarathia, added that everyone had subscribed on a blank scroll, compelled by force and necessity, and overwhelmed by innumerable evils, as soldiers surrounded them carrying weapons and swords. Then, when other statements were read again, Theodore, Bishop of Claudiopolis, said that no one had acclaimed these things. As the reading of the acts continued, when it arrived at the passage where Eutyches had said that he condemned those who declared the flesh of God and of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ^D

to have descended from heaven. The acts indicated that Eusebius had spoken against this, saying that those who claimed the flesh of Christ descended from heaven were condemned by Eutyches, yet it was not added by him whence that flesh was. They further added that Diogenes, bishop of Cyzicus, had subjoined these words: "Tell us then, whence?" yet they had not been permitted further to inquire into these matters. ^A Afterwards, the same acts demonstrate that Basil, bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, said: "I adore one Lord of ours, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, who after the incarnation and the union is known in two natures." And against these things the Egyptians exclaimed: "Let no one divide him who is indivisible; one must not say there are two Sons." But the Orientals cried out: "Anathema to him who divides; anathema to him who separates." The book of acts further states that Eutyches was questioned whether he said there were two natures in Christ. He is said to have replied that before the union he believed Christ to consist of two natures, but after the union he recognized only one nature in him. ^B Basil, however, said this: "Unless you say that after the union there are two indivisible and unconfused natures, you are speaking of confusion and commixture. But if you add 'incarnate' and 'made man,' and understand the incarnation and humanization just as Cyril did, then you say the same things that we say; for the divinity which is from the Father is one thing, and the humanity which is from the Mother is another." The documents also show that when they were asked why they had subscribed to the deposition of Flavian, the Oriental bishops cried out: "We have all sinned; we all beg for pardon." Then, as the reading proceeded, it shows that the bishops were asked for what reason they had not allowed Eusebius, who wished to enter, to do so. Dioscorus replied to this, saying that a ^C commonitorium had been brought by Elpidius, and that he had affirmed that the Emperor Theodosius had ordered that access be closed to Eusebius. The same acts also testify that the same was said by Juvenal. Thalassius, however, said that he had no authority.

VARIOUS READINGS

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

VARIOUS ANNOTATIONS

^A These responses, however, were disapproved of by the judges. For this excuse holds no weight where the faith is concerned. The same acts indicate that Dioscorus made a complaint after this, saying: "What rules are now being observed, since Theodoret has entered?" The senators, however, replied that Theodoret had entered in the capacity of an accuser. And when Dioscorus retorted that he was sitting among the bishops, the senators again replied that Eusebius and Theodoret held the position of accusers, just as Dioscorus held the position of the accused. When, therefore, all the acts of the second synod of Ephesus had been read, and the sentence of condemnation against Flavian and Eusebius was likewise read at the bench, where Hilary the deacon said: "It is contradicted," the Oriental bishops and those who were with them cried out: "Anathema to Dioscorus! At this hour Christ deposed Dioscorus. Flavian was deposed by Dioscorus: holy Lord, do Thou vindicate him. Catholic Emperor, do Thou vindicate him. Many years to Leo. Many years to the Patriarch." After these things were read, through which it appeared that all the bishops who were gathered at that time had consented to the deposition of Flavian and Eusebius, the most glorious judges spoke to the following effect: "Concerning the orthodox and catholic faith, we see that a more careful investigation must be made by a more perfect council to be held on the morrow. But since Flavian of pious memory, and Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of Dorylaeum, from an examination of the Acts and decrees, and from the very voices of those who presided at the synod which was held at that time—who indeed confessed that they had erred and that they had deposed them in vain, since they had not erred at all—

^B VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(5) *That he did not have the authority.* Both interpreters have slipped regarding the meaning of this passage. For Musculus translates thus: "But Thalassius said that he did not have the authority for those things which are judged by princes in causes of this kind." Christophorsonus followed the same meaning. But Langus, the interpreter of Nicephorus, falls into the same error. Yet from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon it is easy to refute this interpretation. For Thalassius, being questioned by the judges, answered only this: "That is, all authority and power was not in my hands." For although Juvenal and Thalassius were ordered by the Emperor Theodosius to preside alongside Dioscorus at the second Ephesine synod, in truth, however, all power lay with Dioscorus. Furthermore, the judges condemned the response of Dioscorus, Juvenal, and Thalassius with these words: "In a cause of faith, this defense is not to be admitted."

(6) *That Dioscorus be sent.* I agree with Christophorsonus and Savilius, who emended it to "to be sent." That this error was often admitted in manuscripts, I have discovered.

(7) *Hilary the deacon said.* This passage must be corrected from the first action of the Council of Chalcedon, page 442, where after the sentence of condemnation was pronounced by Dioscorus against Flavian and Eusebius, when Flavian had said, "I protest thee," that is, "I refuse thee," Hilary the deacon of the Roman Church said, "It is contradicted." Those words were copied from the acts of the second Ephesine synod.

(8) *Dioscorus... Christ... deposed.* ^C It is written differently in Nicephorus. But in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon it is written far differently, namely in this way: "That is, at this hour Dioscorus deposed. At this hour [he is] deposed." Which reading I indeed prefer. But just as this passage of Evagrius must be corrected from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, so in turn the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon must be corrected from our Evagrius. For in place of the words that follow, it should be written as Evagrius and Nicephorus have it, and so the ancient interpreter of the Council of Chalcedon seems to have read it, for thus he translates: "Holy Lord, do Thou vindicate him. Lord, Lord, do Thou vindicate him. Catholic Emperor, do Thou vindicate him." From which version we necessarily gather that the words we have stated must precede; otherwise to what do these words refer, "do Thou vindicate him"?

(9) *Many years to the patriarch.* One might ask here who is understood as the patriarch in this place. I affirm that Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, is intended. Furthermore, two things must be noted here. First, that the Oriental bishops pray for many years, not for their own patriarch but for another. Then, that they call the bishop of Constantinople simply and absolutely the patriarch, out of deference for the prerogative of the see, yielding him this honor. For indeed, in the Council of Constantinople, the second place had been assigned to the see of Constantinople. ^D

^A in the faith, and are known to have been unjustly deposed, it seems to us, in accordance with what is pleasing to God, to be just—provided it should please our most sacred and most pious Lord—that Dioscorus, the most reverend bishop of Alexandria, and Juvenal, the most reverend bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of Ancyra, and Eustathius, the most reverend bishop of Berytus, and Basilius, the most reverend bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, who at that time were invested with authority and presided over the council, should be subject to the same penalty by the sentence of this most holy council, being judged alienated from the episcopal dignity according to the sacred canons; with all things that subsequently transpired being brought to the notice of the most sacred prince. Following this interlocution, it was acclaimed by the Eastern bishops: This judgment is just. The bishops of Illyricum, however, exclaimed: We have all sinned; we should all be granted pardon. And when the Easterners had again acclaimed: This sentence is just; Christ has deposed the murderer; Christ has vindicated the martyrs; the senators ^B interposing, decreed that each of the bishops who had gathered should set forth his own faith separately; being well assured that the most sacred emperor believes in accordance with the exposition of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who were gathered at Nicaea, and of the hundred and fifty who convened at Constantinople; likewise in accordance with the epistles of the holy Fathers, Gregory, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, and Ambrose, and the two epistles of Cyril which were published at the first council in Ephesus. For indeed, even the most reverend bishop of elder Rome, Leo, deposed Eutyches on these same grounds. ^C When this action had thus been concluded, and the most religious bishops had gathered alone for the second action, Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, presented petitions on behalf of himself and Flavian, by which he accused Dioscorus of holding the same opinions as Eutyches, and that he had deprived them of their priesthood. He added also that ^D [This page ends mid-sentence; the text continues.]

^A he had caused certain words, which had not been spoken in the synod assembled at that time, to be inserted into the acts by Dioscorus; and furthermore, that the same Dioscorus had managed to have the bishops set their signatures to a blank paper. He demanded also that all the acts of the second synod of Ephesus should be invalidated by the judgment of the bishops who were assembled, and that they themselves should recover their priestly dignity, and that that nefarious dogma should be condemned with anathema. He requested also, after the reading of his petition, that his adversary should be present. And when the bishops had given orders that this should be done, Aetius, the archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, said that he had gone to Dioscorus, and likewise to the others; and that Dioscorus had replied that he was prevented by his guards from coming to the council.

^B A further consultation was held, and it was ordered that Dioscorus should be sought for before the doors of the council. And when he was not found, Anatolius, the bishop of Constantinople, taking part in the discussion, said that he ought to be summoned and to be present at the council. And when this had been put into execution, those who had been sent to Dioscorus returned and reported that he had said: "I am under guard. Let the guards say whether they will permit me to go to the council." And when the legates of the council replied that they had been sent to him, not to the magistriani, they reported that Dioscorus had said: "I am ready to come to the holy and universal council: but I am prevented." To these things Himerius added that, as they were returning from Dioscorus, ^C the assistant to the master of the sacred offices met them, and that the bishops had returned with him to Dioscorus, and that he had certain matters concerning them which he had taken down in shorthand. These, when read, indicated that Dioscorus had said these words: "After I had gathered my thoughts, and considered what was beneficial for me, I make this response: Since in the preceding assembly the magnificent judges, sitting together, decreed many things after much discussion by each one, and now I am called to a second assembly for the purpose of invalidating what was previously spoken, I request that the magnificent judges and the most honorable senators who were present at the former ^D meeting should now also be present, so that the same matters may be examined again." To whom Acacius, as is related in the same acts, replied in these words: "The holy and great synod did not order your holiness to be present for the purpose of invalidating what was done in the presence of the magnificent judges and the sacred senate, but it has sent us to you, ordering that you come to the assembly, and that your holiness should not be absent from it." To whom Dioscorus replied, as is contained in the same acts: "You have just told me that Eusebius has presented petitions. I demand again that the case may be examined before the judges and the senate." And after other things of the same kind.

^A that are recorded in the acts, others were again sent ^B who should urge Dioscorus to be present at the proceedings. When this was done, those who had been sent returned and said that they had the response of Dioscorus recorded in notes, which is of this kind: "I have already signaled to your piety that I am suffering from disease, and I request that the magnificent judges and the holy senate be present even now at the judgment of the matters to be examined. But since my sickness has increased, for this reason I have made a delay." And the records show that Cecropius said to Dioscorus that shortly before no mention of sickness had been made by him; therefore he ought to satisfy the sacred canons. To whom Dioscorus replied in these words: "I said once that the judges ought to be present." To this, Rufinus, bishop of Samosata, said to Dioscorus that the judgment was established according to the canons, and that Dioscorus, if he were present, could speak freely of everything he wished. And when Dioscorus had asked whether Juvenalis and Thalassius and Eustathius had come to the council, Pergamius replied that this was irrelevant to the matter. With which words the same acts testify that Dioscorus had added this: that he had petitioned the Christ-loving emperor that he would order the magnificent judges to be present at the council, and those who had judged along with him. To which the legates sent from the council replied that he was accused only by Eusebius, and that the rest were not required to be present. Then truly Dioscorus replied that others also ought to be present who had judged along with him. For he did not have a private case against Eusebius alone, but a common one because of those things which all had judged together. And when the legates insisted on these things, Dioscorus replied: "What I have said, I have said once, and I have nothing more to say." ^C When these things were reported, Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, said that he had a case against Dioscorus alone, and against no one else besides. And he requested that Dioscorus be cited by a third summons. After this, Aetius reported that certain persons who claimed to be clerics, coming with other laymen from the city of Alexandria, had recently presented petitions against Dioscorus, and were now standing before the doors of the council shouting. When ^D

^A Theodorus, who had been a deacon of the holy Church of the Alexandrians, had first presented petitions, and then Ischyrio, likewise a deacon, then Athanasius, a presbyter and son of Cyril’s sister, and finally Sophronius; by whom ^B they accused Dioscorus partly because of blasphemies, and partly because of certain bodily injuries and violent extortions of money, a third summons was issued urging Dioscorus to appear. Therefore, those who had been sent for this purpose, having returned, reported that Dioscorus had said: "I have instructed your Godliness enough; I cannot add anything else to those things." And again, when the same Dioscorus had said the same things, and those sent for this purpose had persisted in the summons, Paschasinus the bishop said: "Since Dioscorus has already been summoned three times and has not appeared, being tormented by his conscience, he asked to what penalty he was liable." To this, the bishops who were present responded that he had offended against the canons, and Proterius, bishop of Smyrna, said: "When the holy Flavian was killed, nothing was done correctly or in order regarding him." The vicars of Leo, bishop of senior Rome, decreed the following verbatim:

"The things which Dioscorus, formerly bishop of the great city of Alexandria, attempted against the order of the canons and against ecclesiastical discipline, are manifest, as well from the things which have already been examined in the first session as from the things which have been done this day. For ^C this man, to pass over many other things, received into communion Eutyches, who held the same beliefs as he, and who had been canonically deposed by his own bishop, namely our most holy Father and archbishop Flavian, proceeding by his own authority and against the sacred canons, before he had sat at Ephesus together with the other God-beloved bishops. But as for those others, the Apostolic See granted pardon for the things done there not by their own will; for they have continued until the present time obeying the most holy archbishop Leo and the entire holy and universal synod. For which cause he also received them into his communion as fellow-believers. But this man, even until the present day, has not ceased to boast of those things for which he ought to have groaned and bowed himself to the ground. Furthermore, ^D he did not permit the letter of the most blessed Pope Leo, which he had written to Flavian of holy memory, to be read, and that although he was very often requested by those who had brought the epistle, and although

^A he had promised on oath that he would have it read. Since this was not read, he filled the most holy Churches throughout the whole world with scandals and losses. Nevertheless, although so many and so great things were presumed by him, it was our purpose, as far as pertained to his former impious crime, to treat him clemently and kindly, as we did the other God-beloved bishops, even though these did not possess the same power of judgment as he. But because he far surpassed his former injustice by his subsequent acts: for he dared to declare excommunication against the most holy and most religious archbishop of great Rome, Leo; moreover, when libels full of crimes and wickedness had been presented against him to the holy and great council, he was summoned once, twice, and a third time according to the prescriptions of the canons by God-beloved bishops, and he did not obey, his own conscience, clearly, stinging him. Finally, those who had been justly deposed by various synods, he illegitimately received into communion: he pronounced judgment against himself, having often trampled upon ecclesiastical laws. Therefore, the most holy and blessed archbishop of great and elder Rome, Leo, through us, and through the present synod, together with the most blessed and most praiseworthy apostle Peter, who is the rock and base of the Catholic Church, and the foundation ^B of the right faith, stripped him of episcopal dignity, and declared him alien from every priestly office.

Therefore, this holy and great synod decrees what is pleasing to the canons regarding the aforementioned Dioscorus. When these things had been confirmed by Anatolius and Maximus, and by the other bishops, except for those who had been deposed by the senate together with Dioscorus, a report concerning these matters was written by the synod to the prince Marcian, and a libel of deposition was sent by the same council to Dioscorus in these words: "Know that because of your contempt for the sacred canons, and because of the contumacy you showed toward this holy and universal synod; for the reason that, besides other crimes of which you have been convicted, you were summoned a third time by this holy and universal council according to the sacred canons to answer to the accusations, and you did not appear, on the thirteenth day of the present month of October ^C you have been deposed by the holy and universal synod, and removed from the episcopate and every ecclesiastical office." After these things, when regarding these matters also to the most religious ^D VARIE LECTIONES. [VARIOUS READINGS.] VALESII ANNOTATIONES. [ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS.] VARIORUM. [OF VARIOUS AUTHORS.] [alt-version omitted]

hings, when regarding these matters also to the most religious bishops of the most holy Church ^A of Alexandria, and the edict against Dioscorus had been proposed, this assembly reached its end.

Thus, then, the matters of the preceding assembly were concluded. After this, when they had gathered once more, they said in response to the inquiry of the judges—who desired to be taught regarding the matters of the true religion and why it was not necessary [(22)] that anything further should be decreed, since the matters concerning Eutyches had reached their end, and had been defined by the bishop of Rome, to whom all had also deferred—that all the bishops cried out that all said the same things; and when the judges had announced that each patriarch, along with one or two bishops whom he might choose from his own diocese, ^B should come forward, so that the opinion of each might be made manifest, Florentius, bishop of Sardis, requested a delay so that they might approach the truth with deliberation. And Cecropius, bishop of Sebastopolis, said these things: "The faith has been rightly set forth by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, and was confirmed by the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now again through the most holy Leo. We request, therefore, that both the words of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers and the writings of the most holy Leo be read." When these had been read, the whole synod cried out in these words: "This is the faith of the orthodox; so we all believe; Pope Leo believes thus. Cyril believed thus; the Pope explained it thus."

Furthermore, when another interlocution had been put forward, so that the exposition of the faith of the one hundred and fifty Fathers might also be ^C read, these were also read immediately. And when the reading was finished, the whole synod cried out: "This is the faith of all; this is the faith of the orthodox; thus we all believe."

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS.

...interpreted it thus: "and that he be alienated from all ecclesiastical right." But the ancient interpreter of the Council of Chalcedon, page 214, translates it "function," more correctly, in my judgment. However, in the document of the deposition of the same Dioscorus, which the synod of Chalcedon sent in almost the same words to the clerics of the Alexandrian Church who were then at Chalcedon, it is written for—in this manner: In the sentence of condemnation which the legates of the apostolic see pronounced against the same Dioscorus, for the same is put. For thus it is read therein. And these words were added by the synod for this reason, that they might signify that Dioscorus was reduced to lay communion. For he is said to be stripped not only of his episcopal dignity, but also to be removed from every ecclesiastical office: lest anyone perhaps might think that, being removed from his episcopal act, he had been demoted to the rank of presbyter. For to do that is sacrilege, as is said in the acts of the synod of Chalcedon, page 247. For the document of the deposition of Dioscorus was sent to the clerics of the Alexandrian Church who were then at Chalcedon, as can be seen in the acts of the synod of Chalcedon, page 214. The legitimate order indeed demanded that the deposition of Dioscorus should also be made known by the synod to the bishops of Egypt. But the bishops of the Chalcedonian council were later to perform this in their Synodical letter. At that time, however, they deemed it sufficient to signify the ^D deposition of Dioscorus to the Alexandrian clerics who were then at Chalcedon, namely to Eleemosynus the presbyter and deacon, and to Euthalius the archdeacon, and to the remaining clerics. Certainly, Evagrius's words sufficiently declare that there is no talk here of the bishops of Egypt. For he calls them the bishops of the Alexandrian Church: which appellation does not befit the bishops of Egypt. In the acts of the council of Chalcedon, however, it is written... In the Tellerian codex I found the particle *kai*, for it is entirely superfluous in this place. Furthermore, the passage which Evagrius designates exists in the second action of the council of Chalcedon, page 159 of the edition of Binius. Moreover, it must be noted, as I have already warned, that the copies of the synod of Chalcedon which Evagrius used were different from those which we now have. For what is the third action for us, is the second for Evagrius, as we have already seen. And what is inscribed as the second action in our copies is the third for Evagrius, as becomes clear from this passage and those that follow.

The faith of the orthodox: Thus we all believe. ^A After these things, Aetius the archdeacon said that he had at hand the letter of the divine Cyril to Nestorius, which all the bishops gathered at Ephesus confirmed with their own signatures; and that he also had the other letter of the same Cyril, written to John of Antioch, which had likewise been confirmed, and he asked that both be read. A discussion having taken place regarding this, both were read.

And some of the words of the first of these are as follows: "To the most devout fellow-minister Nestorius, Cyril. I hear that some are slandering our reputation to your Holiness, and this very frequently: for the most part choosing that time when they see honorable and leading men gathered together, and perhaps thinking that your ears are delighted by such talk." And a little later: "The holy and great synod therefore says that He who was begotten of God the Father by nature as the only-begotten Son, true God from true God, light from light, He through whom the Father made all things, descended, was incarnate, was made man, suffered, rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven. We must adhere to these words and ^B decrees, considering what it means for the Word of God to be incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, nor that it was transformed into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather this, that the Word, by uniting to Himself in hypostasis a flesh animated by a rational soul, has in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner become man and has been called the Son of man, not by will or good pleasure alone, nor by the assumption of a person only; and that although the natures which have been brought into true unity are different ^C, yet Christ and Son is one from both—not as if the difference of the natures were destroyed by the union, but rather that divinity and humanity perfected for us the one Lord and Christ and Son through that ineffable and mysterious concurrence into unity." And after a few lines: "But because for our sake and for our salvation, having united to Himself in hypostasis the human nature, He came forth from a woman, therefore He is said to be born according to the flesh. For He was not first born as a common man from the holy Virgin, and then the Word descended upon him; ^D but, united from the very womb, He is said to have undergone carnal birth, as one who makes the birth of his own flesh his own."

In the same way, we say that He suffered and rose again, not as if the Word of God in his own nature had suffered stripes, or the piercing of nails, or any other wounds: for the Divine is impassible, as it is also incorporeal. But since that body which was his own suffered, for that reason he is said to have suffered for our sake. For the impassible was in the suffering body. ^A

The other letter of Cyril has already been related for the most part in the first book of this history. There exists in it, however, a certain statement which John, the bishop of Antioch, had set forth in his letters; and Cyril had approved of it with unanimous votes. It is as follows: We confess the holy Virgin to be the Theotokos, because the Word of God was incarnate from her and became man, and from the very conception united to himself the temple taken from her. And as for the evangelical and apostolic expressions which are spoken concerning the Lord, we know that those god-bearing men treat some as pertaining to one person, while they distinguish others as pertaining to two natures; and they have handed down that some are divine, according to the godhead of Christ, while others are lowly and humble, according to his humanity. To which Cyril appended the following: Having encountered these holy words of yours, we find that you yourselves think in this way, "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism." We therefore glorified the Saviour of all, God, congratulating one another that both our churches and yours possess a faith consonant with the divinely inspired Scriptures and the tradition of our holy Fathers. After these were read, the bishops who were present exclaimed with these words: We all believe thus: Pope Leo believes thus. Anathema to him who divides, and to him who confuses. This is the faith of Archbishop Leo; Leo believes thus; Leo and Anatolius believe thus; we all believe thus; as Cyril, so we believe; eternal be the memory of Cyril; as the letters of Cyril are, so we think; so we have believed, so we believe. Archbishop Leo thinks thus, believes thus, has written thus. ^{B C}

After the interlocution was brought forth, that the letter of Leo also might be read, it was translated into the Greek language, publicly recited, and included in the records of the acts. Upon this letter being read, the bishops acclaimed: This is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the apostles; we all believe thus; the orthodox believe thus; anathema to him who does not believe thus; Peter has spoken these things through Leo; the apostles taught thus; Leo has taught piously and truly; Cyril taught thus; Leo and Cyril preached likewise; anathema to him who does not believe thus; this is the true faith; the orthodox think thus ^D and believe thus; this is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the apostles; we all believe thus; the orthodox believe thus; anathema to him who does not believe thus; Peter has spoken through Leo; the apostles taught thus; piously and truly has Leo taught; Cyril taught thus; Leo and Cyril taught likewise; anathema to him who does not believe thus; this is indeed the true faith, and the orthodox think thus. [alt-version omitted]

[index: entries preserved]

^A — this is the faith of the Fathers. Why were these things not read at Ephesus? Dioscorus concealed them. It is recorded in the acts of that same council that when the aforementioned part of the letter of Leo was read, containing: "And to pay the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature was united to the passible nature, so that, as our condition required, one and the same mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, might both be able to die by the one, and not be able to die by the other," the bishops of Illyricum and Palestine were in doubt at these words. Aetius, archdeacon of the most holy Church of Constantinople, brought forward a passage from Cyril which says: "But further, because his own body by the grace of God, as the apostle Paul says, 'tasted death for everyone' (Heb. II, 9), therefore he himself is said to have suffered death for us; not as if he had experienced death insofar as it pertains to his nature — for to say or think this is extreme dementia — but because his flesh, as I said just now, tasted death." Again, when the part of the same letter of Leo was read which says: "For each form performs with the communion of the other what is proper to it, the Word indeed performing what is of the Word, and the flesh carrying out what is of the flesh. One of these shines forth with miracles, the other succumbs to ^B injuries," the bishops of Illyricum and Palestine were in doubt at these things. The same Aetius read a chapter of Cyril which says: "Of the words which are spoken concerning Christ, some are most especially becoming to God. Others, however, are becoming to man. But some hold a middle place, indicating that the Son of God is God and man at the same time in him." After these things, when the aforementioned bishops were in doubt at another part of the same letter which has: "For although there is one person of God and man in the Lord Jesus Christ, yet it is one thing from which the insult is common in both, and another from which the glory is common. For the humanity which is less than the Father is ours from him; but the divinity which is equal to the Father is his from the Father," Theodoret, having weighed the matter, said that Cyril also spoke in this way, in these words: "He who became man, and did not abandon what was ^C his own, has remained what he was. And it is understood entirely that one thing inhabits another, that is, the divine nature in man." ^D

^A After this, when the most illustrious judges asked if anyone still doubted, all the bishops replied that no one doubted any longer. Then Atticus, Bishop of Nicopolis, requested that a respite of a few days be given to the bishops, so that with a tranquil mind and sedate spirit, that which is pleasing to God and the holy Fathers might be decreed. He also requested that the letter of Cyril written to Nestorius be received, in which Cyril urges him to consent to his twelve chapters, to which everyone had already agreed. And when the judges, having consulted, ordained that a delay of five days be granted to them, in which they might meet regarding Anatolius, the prelate of Constantinople, all the bishops acclaimed in these words: "We believe thus; we all believe thus; as Leo, so we believe. None of us doubts. We all have subscribed." These things having been said, the judges reached this decision: "It is not necessary that you all meet; but since it is just that those who doubt should be convinced, let the most reverend Bishop Anatolius select from those who have subscribed such men as he shall judge suitable to instruct those who doubt." To which the members of the synod added these acclamations: ^B "We ask on behalf of the Fathers. Let the Fathers be restored to the synod. Let those who share the mind of Leo be restored to the synod. Let the Fathers be restored to the synod."

^A To the Emperor! These prayers to the orthodox! These prayers to the Augusta! We have all sinned, may there be forgiveness for all. The clergy of the Church of Constantinople cried out in these words: "A few are shouting; this is not the synod speaking!" After this, it was acclaimed by the Easterners: "Exile to the Egyptian!" But the Illyrians shouted: "We beseech you, have mercy on all." Again it was acclaimed by the Easterners: "Exile to the Egyptian!" And when the Illyrians requested the same things as before, the clergy of the city of Constantinople cried out: "Exile to Dioscorus, exile to the Egyptian, exile to the heretic! Christ has deposed Dioscorus." After these again, the Illyrians and the bishops with them said: "We have all sinned; grant pardon to all. Dioscorus to the synod, Dioscorus to the Churches." And when other things of the same kind had ensued, this confession reached its end.

In the following session, when the senate had spoken to the effect that what had already been determined should be read out, Constantine the secretary read from a draft, word for word, as follows: "Regarding the orthodox and catholic faith, we perceive that a more diligent inquiry ought to be made in a more perfect synod to be held on the morrow. But since Flavian of pious memory, and Eusebius the most devout Bishop of Dorylaeum, are found ^B—from the examination of the records and decrees, and from the very voices of those who presided in the synod which was then held, who indeed confessed that they had erred and had deposed them in vain, since they had in no way erred in the faith—to have been unjustly deposed, it seems to us that it is just, according to what is pleasing to God, provided that it please our most sacred and most pious Lord, that Dioscorus the most devout Bishop of Alexandria, and Juvenal the most devout Bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius the most devout Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Eusebius the most devout Bishop of Ancyra, and Eustathius the most devout Bishop of Berytus, and Basil the most devout Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, who at that time were endowed with authority and presided over the synod, should be subject to the same penalty and ^C be removed from their episcopal dignity by the sentence of the sacrosanct council in accordance with the sacred canons, with all that followed thereafter being brought to the notice of the most sacred prince."

Then, after other things had been read, the bishops who were present were asked whether the epistle of Leo agreed with the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers who had gathered at Nicaea, and with the faith of the one hundred and fifty [Fathers] who had gathered in the imperial city. Anatolius, the president of [the Church of] Constantinople, and all the bishops who were present, replied that the epistle of Leo agreed with the aforementioned holy Fathers: and Anatolius himself subscribed to the aforesaid epistle of Leo ^D. When these things had proceeded in this way, it was acclaimed by the universal synod: "We all agree; we all assent; we all believe the same things; we all think the same."

we approve; we all believe in the same way; we all think the same; we all believe thus. Let the Fathers be restored to the synod; let those who have subscribed be restored to the synod; many years to the emperor; many years to the Augusta; let the Fathers be restored to the synod; let those who are of the same faith be restored to the synod; many years to the emperor. Let those who share the same opinion be restored to the synod; many years to the emperor; we have all subscribed to the faith; as Leo does, so do we think. ^A

After this, an interlocution was brought forward by the judges in these words: "We have sent a report concerning these matters to our most sacred and most pious lord, and we await the response of his clemency. As for your Reverence, you shall have to render an account to God, both concerning Dioscorus, who was deposed by you, as the most sacred prince and we ourselves were unaware, and concerning those five for whom you have petitioned, and concerning all things that have been done in the council." It was acclaimed by all: "God deposed Dioscorus; Dioscorus was justly deposed; Christ deposed Dioscorus." ^B After this, when the response of the Emperor Marcian had been brought, by which it was granted to the bishops that they might decide according to their own judgment concerning the five who had been deposed, just as the judges had signified when the interlocution was made, the bishops petitioned in these words: "We ask that they enter. Let those who think the same be restored to the synod. Let those who are of the same mind be restored to the synod. Let those who have subscribed to the letter of Leo be restored to the synod." These were accounted for in the synod by the interlocution. And after this, petitions presented by the bishops of the diocese of Egypt to the Emperor Marcian were read, which contained, among other things: "We believe just as the three hundred and eighteen Fathers at Nicaea set forth, and the blessed Athanasius, and Cyril of holy memory; anathematizing every heresy, namely that of Arius and Eunomius, and of Manes and Nestorius, and of those who say that the flesh of our Lord is from heaven, and not from the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, like our own, without sin." ^C Then all the bishops who were present at the synod exclaimed in these words: "Why then have they not anathematized the dogma of Eutyches? Let them subscribe to the letter of Leo, anathematizing Eutyches and his dogmas; let them consent to the letter of Leo; they wish to mock us and depart." To this the bishops of Egypt replied that there were many bishops in ^D

^A Egypt, and that they could not represent the person of all; they asked that the synod should await their archbishop, so that they might follow his opinion, as custom demands. For if they should do anything before the election of their own archbishop, all those of the Egyptian diocese would make an attack upon them. And when they had prayed for a long time regarding this, and the bishops who were in the council had most strongly opposed them, it was ordained by a decree that a delay should be granted to the bishops of Egypt until an archbishop had been ordained for them. After this, petitions were presented by certain monks, the substance of which was that they should by no means be forced to sign certain papers until the synod, which the emperor had ordered to be gathered, had been assembled, and should ^B know what had been ordained.

When these were read, Diogenes, bishop of Cyzicus, came forward and stated that Barsumas, one of those who had entered the council, had killed Flavian. For he had cried out, "Kill!" and although he was not named in the book of petitions, he had entered contrary to law and justice. After this, it was acclaimed by all the bishops: "Barsumas has devastated all Syria; he has sent a thousand monks against us." And when an interlocution was brought forth that the monks who had gathered should await the definition of the council, the monks requested that the petitions composed by them be read, in which this was contained among other things: that Dioscorus and the bishops who were with him should participate in the council. Upon hearing this, all the bishops cried out: "Anathema to Dioscorus! Christ has deposed Dioscorus! Cast these out! ^C Remove the insult from the council! Remove the violence from the council!" Let these shouts reach the emperor: "Remove the insult from the council! Remove the disgrace from the council!" But on the other hand, the monks shouted: "Remove the injury to the monasteries!" And when the same things were again shouted by the bishops who were in the synod, it was ordered that the remaining petitions be read. These, indeed, suggested that the deposition of Dioscorus had been done neither rightly nor in order, and that, provided the faith were set forth, he ought to be admitted to the council's session. If this were not done, they would shake off their garments and withdraw ^D from the communion of the bishops who were assembled.

When these had been read, Aetius, the archdeacon, read the canon concerning those who separate themselves from communion. And again, when they had come to the interrogation of the most holy bishops, and afterwards to the questioning of Aetius the archdeacon—as though done in the name of the synod—the monks were divided, and when some anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches, and others had evaded the matter, it was ordained by the authorities that the petitions of Faustus and the rest of the monks should be read, in which they besought the emperor that the monks formerly-mentioned should not be received.

Among these was a certain man named Dorotheus, who had called Eutyches orthodox. Against him, various questions concerning the doctrine of Eutyches were proposed by the judges. ^A After this, when the fifth session had begun, the judges, having held a consultation, announced that the definition of the faith should be promulgated. Then Asclepiades, a deacon of the Church of Constantinople, read a definition, which it was decided should not be inserted into the acts. Some opposed this definition, but the majority agreed with it. And when acclamations contrary to one another were made from both sides, the judges said that Dioscorus had claimed he deposed Flavian for this reason: because he said there were two natures; yet in the definition it was written "out of two natures." To this Anatolius replied that Dioscorus was not deposed for the sake of the faith, but because he had excommunicated Leo, and, being called three times, did not come to the council.

^B Then the judges demanded that the words of Leo's epistle be inserted into the definition of the faith. When the bishops disagreed with this and maintained that another definition could not be made, as that one was absolute in all respects, the matter was referred to the emperor. The emperor ordered six bishops from the Orient, three from the Pontic diocese, three from Asia, three from Thrace, and as many from Illyricum, along with Anatolius and the vicars of the Roman see, to assemble in the church of the martyr Euphemia, and there to correctly establish the rule of faith, or at least for each to set forth his own faith separately. Otherwise, they should know that the synod would be held in the parts of the West. And when it was asked of them whether they followed Dioscorus, who said that Christ consisted "out of two" natures, or Leo, who asserted two natures in Christ, they exclaimed that they assented to Leo, and that those who contradicted were Eutychians. And as the judges had said that there should be added, according to Leo, "two natures united, ^C unchangeable, and indivisible, and unconfused in Christ," and after the judges had departed to the martyrium of ^D [the Holy Euphemia along with Anatolius and the vicars of Leo, and Maximus]

of Antioch, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, and Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, along with others; and after they had withdrawn, the definition was read, which ran as follows: "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the rest which is contained in the history." And when all shouted, "This is the faith of the Fathers; let the metropolitans subscribe presently; this is the faith of the apostles; we all walk by this; we all so judge," the officials answered: "That which has been decreed by the Fathers and has pleased all shall be referred to the most divine sovereign."

At the sixth session, Marcian the emperor came to the council, and ^B spoke to the bishops concerning concord, and by the order of the emperor the definition of faith was read by Aetius, the archdeacon of Constantinople, and all subscribed to the definition. And the emperor asked whether the definition had been composed with the consent of all; and all confirmed it with acclamations. And again the emperor spoke twice, and all acclaimed him; and at the prompting of the emperor, canons were established, and metropolitan rights were given to the city of Chalcedon. And the emperor commanded the bishops to remain.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

(44) Tῇ Χαλκηδονέων μητροπολιτικὰ δίκαια. It is not metropolitan jurisdiction, but only the name of a metropolis that was granted to the city of Chalcedon; for the law of the emperor Marcian says this, that is: "The city of the Chalcedonians, in which the council of the most holy faith was celebrated, we have decreed to have the privileges of a metropolis, honoring it with the name alone; the metropolitan see of the Nicomedians, of course, retaining its own dignity." And although the emperor, by these words, seems to honor only the city of the Chalcedonians with the title of metropolis, yet that privilege pertains also to the Church of the Chalcedonians itself. From that time, therefore, the bishop of Chalcedon held the honor of a metropolitan. But he did not possess metropolitan jurisdiction, because the emperor, by this law, did not wish the dignity of the bishop of Nicomedia to be diminished. The same was judged by the bishops of the same council in the case of the bishops of Nicomedia and Nicaea. For when Nicaea had obtained the honor of a metropolis by a rescript of the emperors, the judges and the bishops who were in the council replied that this honor had been granted to the city by the emperors; nor could the bishop of Nicaea, by that law, arrogate to himself metropolitan right; but he was preferred only to the remaining bishops of the province of Bithynia, so that he was held in second place after the metropolitan, as can be seen in act 15. Furthermore, what metropolitan rights are, the canons of the Council of Nicaea teach: that is, for instance, the ordinations of bishops...

should not be held without the consent of the metropolitan, and that the metropolitan bishop should have the power to summon the provincial bishops to his council. ^A Furthermore, in the Florentine manuscript codex I found it written *Kalchedonensium*, although in the Council of Chalcedon it is written perpetually *Kalchedonensium*. It would regularly be written *Kalchedonensium*. But it seems the ancients also said *Kalchedonensium*, as is evident from countess places of the Council of Chalcedon.

And it was commanded that the bishops should remain there for three or four days, and that each one should move whatever he wished, with the magistrates present, and that the appropriate things should be done; and the assembly was concluded. Other things also occurred, and other canons were established. And again, in another session, Juvenalis and Maximus came to an agreement, and it was decided that the Bishop of Antioch should have the two Phoenicias ^B and Arabia, and the Bishop of Jerusalem should have the three Palestines; and by the interlocution of the magistrates and the bishops, these were confirmed. And in the ninth session, the case of Theodoret was brought forward. And he anathematized Nestorius, saying: "Anathema to Nestorius, and to him who does not say that the holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos, and to him who divides the one only-begotten Son into two sons." I also subscribed to the definition of the faith and the letter of Leo. And, by the common consent of all, he recovered his own see. In another session, the case of Ibas was brought forward, and the things that had been done and pronounced against him were read: those who had been his judges were Photius, Bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius, Bishop of Berytus. And the sentence was deferred to the next session. In the eleventh session, since several bishops had already decreed that Ibas should receive his priesthood, some of the bishops, objecting, said that his accusers were outside, and they requested that they be ordered to enter. ^C The things that had been done against Ibas were therefore read. And when the judges, having made an interlocution, had ordered that the things which had been done against Ibas at Ephesus should be recited, the bishops said that all the things which had been done in the second Ephesine synod were void, except for the ordination of Maximus of Antioch. And they petitioned both regarding this and the emperor, that he might decree that nothing of what was done at Ephesus after the first synod—which the man in holiness, Cyril, the president of the Alexandrians, led—should stand. And he was justified in holding the bishopric. In another proceeding, the case regarding Bassianus, ^D bishop of the Ephesians, was investigated, and he was justified.

It was ordained that it should be annulled, except for the ordination of Maximus, the bishop of Antioch. And about this matter they besought the emperor, that he might decree with a law that nothing of those things which were enacted at Ephesus after the first synod, over which holy Cyril of the Alexandrians presided, should have force and validity. And it was judged that Ibas should recover his bishopric. In the following action, the case of Bassianus, bishop of the Ephesians, was discussed. ^A And it was decreed that both he and Stephen should be deposed, and another be substituted in their place. In another session, this same thing was confirmed. In the thirteenth session, the case of Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius, bishop of Nicaea, was examined, as they were contending with one another over certain cities. The fourteenth session was also convened, and the case of Sabinianus the bishop was examined. Finally, it was decreed that the Constantinopolitan seat should hold the first place after the Roman.

THIRD VOLUME.

BOOK THREE.

330 In the third book of the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus the following are contained:

CAP. I. Regarding the empire of Zeno, and his life. II. Regarding the incursions of the Barbarians, as much in the Eastern as in the Western parts. III. Regarding the tyranny of Basiliscus, and the flight of Zeno. IV. How Basiliscus recalled Timotheus Aelurus, and, persuaded by him, sent circular letters everywhere for the subversion of the synod of Chalcedon. V. Concerning those who consented to the circular letters of Basiliscus, and rejected the synod. VI. How Timotheus Aelurus, having recovered the Alexandrian bishopric, restored the patriarchal right to the Church of the Ephesians, and anathematized the synod of Chalcedon. VII. How Basiliscus, at the impulse of the monks...

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(48)...the bishops ordained that both Bassianus and Stephen should be removed from the bishopric of the Ephesians, and that another should be made bishop in their place, as may be seen in action 11 and 12. Evagrius’ text must therefore be supplied in this way: "...should be taken out, and Stephen, and another be brought in." (49)...from the Acts of the council of Chalcedon. Of this Sabinianus, bishop of the Perrensians—which is a city in the Euphratensis province—Liberatus makes mention in chapter twelve of his Breviary. There also exists an epistle of Theodoret addressed to this Bishop Sabinianus, which is numbered 126 among his epistles.

VARIORUM.

Flavianus, having obtained the seat of Constantinople, abrogated the bishopric for Bassianus, and substituted for him Stephen, the presbyter of Bassianus. Regarding this matter, Bassianus presented a petition to Emperor Marcian, who sent him back to the synod of Chalcedon in the year 451. The Fathers of the council, therefore, having heard the case on both sides, adjudged the Ephesian seat away from both: from Bassianus, indeed, as one who had entered without the consent of the provincial synod; from Stephen, however, as one who had acquired the bishopric for himself through conspiracies and evil arts. Confer Guil. CAVE with the Acts of the synod of Chalcedon. ^D ...the calculations of Evagrius himself is the 14th. He makes mention of the eleventh session above. Soon follows that which is the 12th; a little later he says that which is the 13th. Therefore this last must necessarily be taken as the 14th action. The complete Acts, edited among the councils, enumerate 16 actions. W. Lowth.

have moved the sedition of Acacius, smitten with fear, promulgated letters contrary to his previous encyclical. ^A

VIII. Concerning the return of Zeno.

IX. How, after the death of Basiliscus, the bishops of Asia, in order to appease Acacius, presented to him a book of repentance, seeking pardon for having condemned the Council of Chalcedon.

X. Concerning those who held the episcopate at Antioch.

XI. How Zeno, when he had wished to persecute Aelurus, took pity on him because of his old age and let him go. And how, after the death of the same Aelurus, Peter Mongus was ordained by the Alexandrians; but Timotheus, the successor of Proterius, by the order of the emperor, obtained the see of Alexandria.

XII. Concerning John, who governed the episcopate of Alexandria after Timotheus. How Zeno drove him out as a perjurer and restored Peter Mongus to the same see. ^B

XIII. How Peter Mongus embraced the Henoticon of Zeno and joined himself to the Proterians.

XIV. The Henoticon or Unitivum edict of Zeno.

XV. How John, bishop of Alexandria, coming to Rome, persuaded Simplicius to write to Zeno concerning the things which had happened; and what Zeno wrote back.

XVI. Concerning Calendion, bishop of Antioch, and how he was condemned to exile on account of the friendship he was believed to have had with Illus and Leontius. Also, how Peter the Fuller was associated with Mongus and the bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem. ^C

XVII. Concerning those things which Peter wrote to Acacius, who had accepted the Council of Chalcedon.

XVIII. How John, Bishop of Alexandria, persuaded Pope Felix to send a document of deposition to Acacius of Constantinople.

XIX. Concerning Cyril, the superior of the Acoemetae monastery, how he sent certain persons to Rome to Felix, urging him to avenge those things which had been committed against the faith.

XX. Concerning the things which Felix wrote to Zeno, and Zeno again to Felix.

XXI. How Symeon, a monk of the Acoemetae, coming to Rome, convicted the legates of the Roman Church who had come ^D to Constantinople, because they had communicated with heretics; and how the legates and all who communicated with Peter were deposed by the Romans.

XXII. Concerning the disturbances which were stirred up at Alexandria and in various places on account of the Council of Chalcedon.

XXIII. Concerning Fravitas and Euphemius, bishops of Constantinople; and Athanasius and John, of Alexandria; and Palladius and Flavian, of Antioch; and also concerning certain others.

XXIV. Concerning the slaughter of Armatus, who was a kinsman of the Augusta Verina.

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY BOOK III

^A XXV. On the rebellion of Theodoric the Scythian, and his demise. XXVI. On the rebellion of Marcian, and what happened to him. XXVII. On the tyranny of Illus and Leontius. XXVIII. On Mammianus, and the works constructed by him. XXIX. On the death of Zeno, and the naming of Anastasius as emperor. XXX. Concerning the emperor Anastasius: and how, since he would not allow any innovation in the ecclesiastical state, the Churches of the whole world were filled with innumerable disturbances, and many bishops were expelled for this reason. XXXI. Epistola of the Palestinian monks to Alcison, regarding the monk Xenaias and certain others. XXXII. On the expulsion of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, and Flavian of Antioch. XXXIII. On Severus, bishop of Antioch. XXXIV. On the document of deposition sent to the same Severus by Cosmas and Severianus. XXXV. On the suppression of the tyranny of the Isaurians. XXXVI. How the Saracens made peace with the Romans. XXXVII. On the siege of Amida, and the foundation of the city of Dara. XXXVIII. On the Long Wall. XXXIX. On the tax called the Chrysargyron, and how it was abolished by Anastasius. XL. On that which Zosimus wrote concerning the Chrysargyron and the emperor Constantine. XLI. An invective against Zosimus on account of his slanders against Constantine and the Christians. XLII. On the tax on gold. XLIII. On the tyranny of Vitalian. XLIV. How an immense sedition was excited among the people when Anastasius wished to add these words to the Trisagion Hymn: "who was crucified for us." Fearing this, Anastasius, employing simulation, immediately swayed the minds of the people. XLV. Also on the death of the same Anastasius.

^D

CAPUT I. On the reign of Zeno and his life.

Now Zeno, as soon as he had obtained the sole rule upon the death of his son, as if persuaded that he was not truly possessed of supreme power unless he could give himself over with total license to every species of lust that presented itself, did from the very outset surrender himself so entirely to the allurements of his desires that there was nothing so shameful or illicit that it could curb his impulse. But he wallowed in such debauchery that he judged it base and plebeian to commit these things in secret or removed from witnesses; indeed, to perform them openly and under the eyes of all, he deemed to be a royal prerogative—improperly and servilely appropriating to himself that which is unworthy of an autocrat.

^A For an emperor is recognized not by the fact that he is naturally entitled to rule over others, but by the fact that he first rules and governs himself, allowing no wrong to enter into his own soul; being thus so impregnable to intemperance that he seems to be a living image of the virtues for imitation, instructing his subjects. But he who opens himself to pleasures, unaware, gradually becomes a most shameful slave—a prisoner of war, unransomed, changing masters frequently, like the most useless of slaves. For countless are the mistresses of his pleasures, which, being continuous and succeeding one another, never reach an end; for the pleasure that is present never stands still, but acts as a stimulant and a prelude to the next. Either, then, an emperor so becoming will drive away the mob-rule ^B of his pleasures and reign thereafter, not being tyrannized; or, serving them until his final breath, he shall descend to the underworld.

CAP. II. On the incursions of the barbarians, both in the East and in the West.

Such was Zeno at the beginning of his reign, intemperate and dissolute in his life. But those who were subject to his rule, both in the East and in the West, suffered most grievous evils. On one side, the Saracens laid everything waste; on the other, the Huns—who were formerly called Massagetae—invaded Thrace and crossed the Danube with no one to oppose them; and Zeno himself, in a barbarian manner, plundered the remainder. ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

(50) "For an emperor is recognized..." In the manuscripts and the edition of Robert Stephanus, the adverb *ὅτι* is missing, which learned men have supplied by conjecture, though not very happily. I, however, have no doubt that it should be written *ὅτι γὰρ*. Furthermore, one should not omit the scholium which was noted in the excellent Florentine codex regarding the words that were premised a little earlier. A certain learned scholiast had appended these things to that passage, and Nicephorus confirms this in chapter one of book sixteen.

(52) "So impregnable..." I agree with the men of learning who have long since emended it to *ἀνάλωτος*, etc., although the manuscripts change nothing. Nicephorus, however, seeing that this passage was corrupt, interpolated it in this way.

(55) "For an emperor so becoming..." It should undoubtedly be written as it is read in Nicephorus.

(54) "Having lived a dissolute life." Christophorsonus did not understand this word, as is evident from his version. For he translated it thus: "In this way Zeno at the beginning of his empire established his life." The Greeks take the word for a loose and intemperate life. This term occurs more often in this sense in Dio Cassius and others. Hence, it is taken for luxury and delights, according to Suidas. Furthermore, the Greeks call dissolute and luxurious men by this name because they are accustomed to observe no rule of living. Thus Dionysius of Halicarnassus, speaking of a just king in book V, says: "Nowhere departing from the customs of his ancestors." Rightly, therefore, did Nicephorus explain this passage of Evagrius in this way: "An uncomposed and disorderly man, and in life most dissolute."

(55) "Plundered the remainder." It is doubtful that the other interpreter grasped the meaning of this passage. For Musculus translated it thus: "Zeno having subsequently been violently snatched away to barbarian custom." But Christophorsonus interprets it as follows: "Zeno, truly, was spoiled of the remaining parts of his empire by force in a certain barbarian manner and fashion." Yet if they had consulted Nicephorus, they could have derived the correct understanding of this passage from him. For Nicephorus thus explained these words of Evagrius: "That is: If the barbarians had left anything behind, Zeno took it away by force, who, no less than the barbarians themselves, hostilely ravaged the provincials." ^D Furthermore, in the Florentine and Tellerian manuscripts, it is read... [index: entries preserved]

CHAPTER III. On the tyranny of Basiliscus, and on the flight of Zeno.

^A When Basiliscus, the brother of Verina, rose up in rebellion (for Zeno’s own affairs had been turned against him, since everyone alike detested his most shameful life), he conceived no manly counsel at all; for wickedness is a cowardly and hopeless thing, proving its own lack of manhood from its surrender to pleasures. He fled headlong, yielding such a rule to Basiliscus without a struggle. He even underwent a siege ^B in the region of the Isaurians themselves, which had brought him into this world, taking with him his wife Ariadne—who had later fled from her mother—and whatever other person had remained loyal to him. Thus, then, Basiliscus, having bound the diadem of the Romans upon himself and having proclaimed his son Marcus as Caesar, began to pursue a course contrary to Zeno and those who had reigned before him.

CHAPTER IV. How Basiliscus recalled Timothy Aelurus, and, induced by him, sent circular letters everywhere for the overthrow of the Council of Chalcedon.

By means of an embassy of certain people from Alexandria, Timotheus the Weasel was recalled from his exile, in which he had spent eighteen years, while Acacius was directing the bishopric of Constantinople. And, indeed, when ^C Timotheus had reached the royal city, he persuaded Basiliscus to employ encyclical letters to the priests everywhere, for the abrogation of the synod in Chalcedon.

VALESII ANNOTATIONES.

(56) *Et obsidionem sustinuit.* Zeno, having heard of the defection of Basiliscus, terrified by fear, fled with his wife Ariadne into Isauria, and received himself into a very strongly fortified castle, which is named Ubara: but afterwards, when Basiliscus had sent Illus and Trocondus against him with huge forces, he betook himself to Thessædes, or, as Nicephorus says, into the city of Seleucia, which was the capital of all Isauria. There he was besieged for a long time by Illus and Trocondus, as Theophanes writes in his *Chronicle*, page 104. Likewise Cedrenus and Nicephorus. Truly, however, in Theophanes the name of Trocondus is corrupted. For the vulgar editions have it so, when it ought to be written as it is correctly read in Nicephorus. Certainly the same Theophanes, page 106, calls him Procundus; which approaches nearer to the true writing. He was the brother of Illus, and held the consulship in the year of Christ 482, as is read in the *Chronicle* of Marcellinus. But finally, when Illus had seized the tyranny, Trocondus, who had been sent by his brother to procure forces, was captured by Joannes the master of soldiers, and beheaded, as Theophanes writes, page 112. In which place, however, the name of Trocondus is also corrupted.

(57) *Secundum regionem Isaurorum.* The words have been transposed; they must be restored to their original order in this manner: which words of Evagrius, Nicephorus expressed thus: that is, He collected a huge army and sent it to besiege Zeno in the Isaurian city of Seleucia, which had brought him into the light, and was then hiding the fugitive.

(58) *Ex legatione.* It is to be written without doubt *e* (or *ex*), which although it may seem small and a thing of light moment, is nevertheless entirely necessary. Certainly Nicephorus has *dē* (or *dēthen*).

VARIORUM.

(α) *Basiliscus.* The author of the Alexandrian Chronicle relates the matter thus: The Emperor Zeno, having been sought out, refused a certain matter to his mother-in-law Verina. Being then attacked by her with snares, and fearing he might be killed by one of the Palace guards (for his mother-in-law Verina was living in the palace with her son-in-law), he betook himself to Chalcedon, and from there, by post-horses, sped like an emperor to Isauria; the Empress Ariadne followed her fleeing husband into Isauria, and lived there with her husband. After the flight of the Emperor Zeno and the Augusta Ariadne, immediately the lady Verina created the emperor Basiliscus, her brother, who reigned for two years, counted among the first and later years of Zeno. Moreover, as soon as Basiliscus began to rule, he crowned his son Marcus and proclaimed him emperor: and at the same time both ruled. These acts occurred in the year of Christ 476.

(ψ) *Acacius.* Acacius succeeded Gennadius in the bishopric of Constantinople in the year of Christ 471. See Evagrius, book II, chapter 11. With invincible strength of soul he fought for the catholic faith against Basiliscus and five hundred bishops, says Guil. Cave, in *Acacius*.

^A send [the documents], and that he should submit to anathema the things which were done at Chalcedon and the book of Leo. The letters are as follows:

Encyclical Epistle of Basiliscus

Emperor Cæsar Basiliscus, Pious, Victor, Triumpher, Greatest, Ever-Venerable, Augustus: and Marcus, most noble Cæsar, to Timothy, most reverend and God-beloved archbishop of the great city of the Alexandrians. Whatever laws our most pious predecessors as emperors have decreed for the right and apostolic faith, as many as have steadfastly acted in piety toward the blessed, ageless, and life-giving Trinity—these, as having always been salutary to the whole world, we wish at no time to be invalid; but rather we promulgate them as our own laws. But we, ^B preferring piety and the zeal for God and our Savior Jesus Christ, by whom we were created and raised to this glory, far above all care and concern for human affairs; and furthermore believing that the harmony of the flock of Christ is their own salvation, and that of all our subjects, and is the firm foundation and impregnable wall of our empire: therefore, moved inwardly by divine zeal, and offering to God and our Savior Jesus Christ the union of the holy Church as a kind of first-fruits of our empire, we decree that the foundation and confirmation of human well-being—namely, the Symbol 336 of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers who were gathered ^C of old at Nicaea by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, in which both we and all those before us, believing, have been baptized—is alone to be used and to prevail in all the most holy Churches of God and in the assemblies of the orthodox people; inasmuch as it is the one rule of right and sincere faith, sufficient both for the destruction of every heresy and for the perfect union of the holy Churches of God: yet so that those things which were done in this royal city by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers for the confirmation of the same most holy Symbol, against those who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, shall also retain their own strength and vigor; and furthermore, those things which were enacted in the metropolis of the Ephesians against the impious Nestorius, and against those who later followed his error. But those things which have disrupted the ^D union and order of the holy Churches of God and the peace of the whole world—namely, the so-called Tome of Leo, and all things that were said and done at Chalcedon regarding the definition of faith, or the exposition of the Symbols, or interpretation, or teaching, or discussion, for the sake of an innovation against the aforementioned holy Symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers—we decree here and everywhere, in every Church, to be anathematized by all the most holy bishops acting everywhere, and, wherever they may be found, to be consigned to the flames; for thus did the emperors of pious and blessed memory who lived before us, Constantine—

^A and Theodosius the Younger. Such things as these, being mere chaff, shall be utterly cast out of the one and only Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, as they subvert the eternal and saving boundaries of the holy Fathers, and those of the blessed Fathers who spoke by the Holy Spirit at Ephesus ^B; and it shall never be lawful for anyone, either priest or layman, to make any transgression of that most holy legislation of the holy Symbol. We decree also that anathema be pronounced upon all the innovations made at Chalcedon against the divine Symbol, and upon the heresy of those who do not confess that the only-begotten Son of God was truly incarnate and made man of the Holy Spirit and of the holy and ever-virgin Theotokos Mary, but imagine that He took flesh either from heaven or in fantasy and supposition; and also upon every heresy without exception, and whatever else at any time, or in any manner, or in any place of the world, in thought or in word, has been innovated in transgression of the divine Symbol. Since it is the duty of imperial providence to bestow security upon its subjects by a foresight that extends not only to the present but also to the future time, we decree that the most holy bishops everywhere, upon this our divine encyclical letter being presented to them, shall subscribe, clearly declaring that they adhere solely to the divine Symbol of the 318 holy Fathers, which the 150 holy Fathers later confirmed; just as the most holy Fathers who later assembled at the metropolis of the Ephesians determined by their decree; ^C that is to say, that one ought to follow only the sacred Symbol of the 318 holy Fathers as the rule of faith; anathematizing and utterly rejecting from the holy Churches whatever was done at Chalcedon as an offense to the orthodox people, inasmuch as it has been a hindrance to the whole world and to our own private prosperity. And as to those who, after these our divine lines, which we trust have been promulgated by us according to the judgment of God, shall attempt to produce or even to name them, whether in discussion, or in teaching, or in writing,

^A at any time, or in any manner or place whatsoever, we decree—regarding the innovation which occurred at Chalcedon against the faith—that such persons, as authors of disturbances and instability for the holy Churches of God and for all our subjects, and as enemies to God and to our own salvation, shall be subject to the laws already promulgated before us by the emperor Theodosius of blessed and divine memory concerning such wickedness, which laws we have also annexed to this our sacred encyclical letter; and if they are bishops or clerics, we command that they be deposed: but if they are monks or laymen, that they be subject to exile and to the confiscation of all their property, and to the severest penalties. For thus the holy and consubstantial Trinity, the creator and life-giver of all, who is always worshipped by our piety, being propitiated and rendered gracious by our current extirpation of the aforementioned tares, and by our confirmation of the ^B correct and apostolic traditions of the holy Symbol, will be to our souls and to all our subjects, and will be for all time, governing human affairs together with us, and will render them peaceful and tranquil.

CAP. V. Of those who consented to the encyclical letters of Basiliscus, and rejected the synod.

As Zacharias the Rhetor writes, Timotheus, who had returned a little before from exile, consented to these encyclical letters, as did Petrus (a) bishop of Antioch, surnamed the Fuller, who was together with Timotheus at Constantinople. When these things had been managed in this manner, they decreed that Paul also should occupy the ^C archiepiscopal see of Ephesus. Furthermore, the same Zacharias reports that Anastasius also, the bishop of Jerusalem, who had succeeded Juvenalis, subscribed to these same encyclicals, along with many others: insomuch that they were about five hundred in number who condemned the epistle of Leo and the council of Chalcedon. A petition of prayer also is cited by the same writer, offered to Basiliscus by the bishops of Asia who had assembled at Ephesus ^D against the council of Chalcedon, Acacius, the bishop of Constantinople, alone of the patriarchs who were subject to the Eastern empire, refused to subscribe to these letters, nor did he ever endure to strike the council of Chalcedon from the ecclesiastical registers. But the monks of Constantinople also resisted Basiliscus strongly. Finally, the populace of Constantinople began to tumult most gravely, threatening an arson of the city and palace if the emperor persisted in offering violence to Acacius and the Catholics. Terrified by this, Basiliscus fled from the royal city; and he took away its rights and privileges from the Church of Constantinople, and forbade the senators from speaking to Acacius. Later, however, when he had learned that Zeno was returning from Isauria, struck with fear, he came into the Church together with his wife and children, and excusing himself to Acacius and the clergy of the royal city, restored its rights to the Church of Constantinople, and...

^A if they had come together in one. The part of which petition is thus: "To our most pious in all things, and most Christ-loving masters, Basiliscus and Marcus, the perpetual victorious Augusti (65)." And after a little: "You have been shown throughout, most pious and Christ-loving emperors, to be fighting on behalf of the faith which was hated and assailed, in various manners." And a little later: "A certain terrible expectation of judgment and the heat of divine fire, and the just indignation of your serenity, shall shortly overtake the adversaries, who, with a kind of proud dementia, attempt to shoot like arrows at Almighty God and your empire, which is strengthened by the true faith, and who do not in any way spare our weakness: but continually harass us with calumnies and lies, as if we had subscribed to your sacred and apostolic encyclical letters by some kind of force and necessity: to which, however, we subscribed with all joy and alacrity of soul." And after other things: "Do not therefore permit anything else to be proposed besides your sacred encyclical letters: being certain of that which I have already said, that the whole world will be turned upside down again, and the evils which were brought about by the Council of Chalcedon will appear minor, which nevertheless brought forth countless slaughters of men, and poured out the blood of the orthodox unjustly and illegally." And again after a few words: "We protest before our Savior Jesus Christ; we entreat that your piety be free ^B of the ecclesiastical condemnation and deposition, and especially because you did not act in accordance with the royal..."

...from the times of John Chrysostom, the Bishop of Constantinople ^C [The notes of Valesius contain historical commentary on the encyclical letters of Basiliscus, the Council of Ephesus, and the succession of emperors, noting that Marcus was designated Caesar at the same time as Basiliscus, and correcting interpretations of the terms used in the historical accounts of these councils.] ^D

^A we pray your piety [to free us] from the just, canonical, and ecclesiastical condemnation and deposition imposed upon them, and especially from that imposed upon him who, having been caught in many crimes, did not rightly administer the episcopate of the imperial city. Moreover, the same Zacharias also writes these words verbatim: "As soon as the encyclical and imperial letters were issued, those who were suffering from the phantasy of Eutyches ^B and were pursuing a monastic life in the imperial city, thinking that they had encountered a secure harbor in Timotheus and hoping to capture their own desire through the encyclicals, hurried to him; and, having been reproved by Timotheus, they returned, for he taught that the Word of God is consubstantial with us according to the flesh, and consubstantial with the Father according to the divinity."

CHAPTER VI

The same [writer] says that Timotheus, having departed from the Queen of Cities, reached Ephesus and enthroned Paul ^C as archbishop of the Ephesians; who had already been ordained according to the older custom by the bishops of the province, but had been expelled from the throne.

VARIOUS READINGS

(68) *Those suffering from the phantasy of Eutyches.* The interpreters did not understand these words of Zacharias the Rhetor. Nor does Nicephorus appear to have understood them, for in place of these words he substituted: *Those who follow Eutyches.* By "phantasy," however, Zacharias understands the opinion of Eutyches, who asserted that the flesh of Christ was not real nor consubstantial with us, but phantastic, as can be seen in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Hence the letters of Avitus, bishop of Vienne, in which he refutes the error of Eutyches, are inscribed "against the phantasm," as Sirmondus testifies. Moreover, it is gathered from this passage that Zacharias the Rhetor was not a Eutychian, as Baronius thought, writing in the year of Christ 476. For he would never have spoken in this way if he had followed the sect of Eutyches. Therefore, one must either say that these are not the words of Zacharias the Rhetor—though Evagrius affirms they are—or that he was not a Eutychianist. See below, chapter 14. Furthermore, this passage of Zacharias is to be noted above all others. For it is gathered from it that Timotheus Aelurus, although he publicly anathematized the synod of Chalcedon, nevertheless did not approve of the dogma of Eutyches. Leontius Scholasticus writes the same thing about Timotheus Aelurus, p. 401: *This Timotheus anathematized both the synod and Eutyches; Eutyches, because he did not say [the body of Christ] was consubstantial with us; but the synod, because it said there were two natures of Christ.* Id est: *Hic Timotheus synodum simul et Eutychem anathematizabat. Hunc quidem, propterea quod corpus Christi ejusdem negaret esse substantiæ cum nostris. Synodum vero, quod duas Christi naturas esse diceret.*

(69) *And enthroned Paul.* Before Timotheus Aelurus and Petrus Fullo gathered with other bishops in Constantinople, they had decreed that this Paul should recover the Ephesian see from which he had been ejected. For so Evagrius writes in the present chapter of this book, which passage Christophorsonus did not rightly translate in this way: *Everything being thus set in order, Paul is chosen to capture the throne of the Ephesian archbishopric.* For Paul was not chosen by Aelurus and Petrus Fullo at Constantinople to capture the Ephesian see; but when he had been expelled from the Ephesian see, he came to Constantinople where, after a council of these Eutychianists was gathered, it was decreed that he should recover the archbishopric of the Ephesian city. In this chapter of the book, the common editions had *epelthein*. But I, from the Florentine and Tellerian manuscript codices, have emended it to *hypelthein*. I would prefer, however, to write *epanelthein*, adding the preposition. [This Paul was later condemned by Acacius and Pope Simplicius, as the letter of Simplicius in the Roman collection teaches, p. 497.]

(70) *According to the older custom.* I would prefer to write *kata ten*, etc. Moreover, what Zacharias says in this place is most true, namely, that the older custom had been that the bishop at Ephesus should be ordained by the bishops of his province. For from the blessed Timotheus, who was the first bishop of the Ephesians, up to Castinus and Heraclides, whom John Chrysostom ordained, all bishops of Ephesus were ordained in that same city by the bishops of its province, as is evident from the eleventh action of the Council of Chalcedon.

^A He also restored to the Church of Ephesus the patriarchal right which had been taken from it by the Council of Chalcedon, as I have already mentioned. Departing thence, he arrived at Alexandria, and he continued even there to insist that all who approached him should anathematize the Council of Chalcedon. Many of those of his own party, however, withdrew from him, as has been related by the same Zacharias; among them was Theodotus, bishop of Joppa, one of that number who had been ordained by that Theodosius who had been made bishop of Jerusalem by certain men when Juvenal had fled to Byzantium.

CAP. VII.

How Basiliscus, when the monks moved a sedition at the instigation of Acacius, struck with fear, promulgated letters contrary to his former encyclicals.

The same Zacharias writes that Acacius, the bishop of Constantinople, was struck with grief on account of these things, and that he incited the monks and the people of the royal city against Basiliscus, as one who was a heretic; and that Basiliscus, in consequence, finally renounced his encyclical letters, and by a published law decreed that those things which had been done by subreption should be null; and eventually that he sent out letters contrary to his former encyclicals, by which the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed. Zacharias, however, omitted these "antencyclical" letters (as he calls them), for he wrote the whole history with unfair partiality. They are of the following kind.

The Antencyclical Letters of Basiliscus.

Empress Emperors Basiliscus and Marcus. We decree that the apostolic and orthodox faith, which prevailed in the catholic Churches from the beginning, and which remained in force until our reign, and which prevails under our reign, and which is destined to prevail forever, into which we were also both baptized and believe, shall alone prevail, unharmed and unshaken, and remain forever in all the catholic and apostolic Churches of the orthodox, and that nothing else be required. For this reason, all things done during our reign, whether the Encyclicals, or ^{B C} [[...]] ^D

any other matter concerning faith or ecclesiastical stability, we command to be void and null; with Nestorius, Eutyches, and all other heresies, and all those who think the same things as them, being condemned by anathema. And concerning this subject, we will that no synod be held and no further inquiry be made, but that these things remain ^A firm and unshaken. We also command that the provinces (75), the ordination of which the see of this royal and glorious city held, be restored to the most reverend and most holy patriarch and archbishop Acacius; while those who are currently the most God-beloved bishops remain in their own sees, with no prejudice arising from this after their death to the right of ordination of the holy see of this royal and glorious city. That this divine decree of ours holds the force of a divine constitution, is clear to no one. And thus indeed these things came to pass.

CHAPTER VIII. Concerning the return of Zeno.

Then also Peter, nicknamed the Fuller, was driven out from the Church of Antioch, and Paul from the see of Ephesus.

CAP. IX. How after the death of Basiliscus, the bishops of Asia, in order to appease Acacius, presented to him a book of repentance, seeking pardon because they had condemned the synod of Chalcedon.

The bishops of Asia, meanwhile, to appease Acacius, used excuse with him and sought pardon by sending him books of repentance, in which they claimed they had been forced by necessity, and not by their own will, to subscribe to the encyclical letters; and they swore that the matter was so, and that they had not believed and did not believe otherwise than according to the formula of the synod of Chalcedon. The sense of these letters is of this kind: "A letter or petition sent by the bishops of Asia to Acacius, the bishop of Constantinople. To Acacius, the most holy and most religious patriarch of the most holy Church of the royal city of Constantinople, the new Rome." And after other things: ^A "He has arrived among you (77), acting rightly and in order, who is to fill our place as well." And a little later: "By these libelli we signify that we have subscribed not by the judgment of our minds, but led by necessity: indeed with words and letters, but not accommodating our consent to them from the heart. For with your prayers, acceptable to God, aiding us, and by the divine will, we believe just as we have received from the three hundred and eighteen luminaries of the world and from the hundred and fifty holy Fathers. We believe, moreover, in those things which were piously and rightly defined at Chalcedon by the holy Fathers gathered there." Whether therefore Zacharias Rhetor slandered them, or whether they themselves lied when they said that they had subscribed unwillingly, ^B I, for my part, cannot affirm.

CAP. X. Concerning those who held the episcopate at Antioch.

Upon the ejection of Peter, Stephen (79) obtained the episcopate of the Church of Antioch; whom the children of Antioch ^C...

killed with reeds, sharpened like arrows, as John the Rhetor writes. XI. Concerning that Zeno, when he wished to persecute the Cat, spared him out of pity for his old age. And how, after the death of the same Cat, Peter Mongus was ordained by the Alexandrians; but Timotheus, the successor of Proterius, by the command of the Emperor, held the throne of the Alexandrians.

Now Zeno had it in his mind to expel Timotheus from Alexandria. But, being warned by certain persons that he was already an old man and at any moment about to depart to the common lodging-place of all men, he abandoned his plan; and not long after, Timotheus paid the debt of nature. Then the bishops of the Alexandrian see, on their own authority, chose as bishop a certain Peter, surnamed Mongus ^B. When this was announced to Zeno, it disturbed him violently. And Zeno indeed judged that Peter should be punished with death. But he recalled Timotheus, the successor of Proterius, who was at that time residing at Canopus on account of some sedition of the populace; and Timotheus, at the Emperor's command, recovered his own throne.

VALESIAN ANNOTATIONS

(80) *The bishops of the Alexandrians.* I would prefer to write "bishop," and I think that Evagrius wrote it so: certainly, it cannot be said of them as suffragans. Add that Peter Mongus was ordained by only one bishop, as is written in the accounts regarding the name of Acacius, and in the letter of Acacius to Pope Simplicius. ^C

(81) *He deemed punishment.* I have no doubt that it should be written *prosetimese*. For *prostimân* signifies a punishment, as Suidas bears witness. *Protimân*, however, signifies the exact opposite. When Nicephorus had discovered an error in his copy, he erased the preposition and expressed Evagrius’s place thus: that is, he punished with capital punishment those who had chosen Mongus as bishop. Evagrius, however, does not say this. For he does not write that the bishops who chose Mongus were condemned by Zeno, but Mongus himself. It appears, therefore, that Nicephorus had read in our Evagrius that Zeno condemned them to the penalty of death; and he understood it of the heretical bishops who chose Mongus. Certainly, the bishops who chose Mongus were deserving of a more severe punishment than Mongus who was elected by them. For they had done this on their own authority, without consulting the Emperor, whereas the custom was, because of the greatness of the city of Alexandria, that the bishop of Alexandria should not be elected without the Emperor being consulted first. Furthermore, since the see was not vacant, but Timotheus Salophaciolus was still alive, they had presumed to ordain another bishop. By this act, the seditions and dissensions which seemed to have been put to rest by the death of Timotheus Aelurus were breaking out afresh. For these reasons, those bishops were rather to be visited with capital punishment than Mongus. I do not think either is true, however. For Mongus was punished only with exile. The bishops, however, who had ordained him, were ordered to be punished by the Augustalis Anthemius, as Liberatus writes in his *Breviarium*, chapter 16.

VARIOUS NOTES

(f) *Paid the common debt.* Liberatus in his *Breviarium*, chapter 16, says that Timotheus Aelurus, from fear of Zeno, brought death upon himself by poison. W. Lowth.

(g) *Mongus.* He was a deacon of the Church of Alexandria, an Eutychian, and an assiduous follower of Timotheus Aelurus. A wicked man, and formerly deposed, he was consecrated by one heretical, deposed bishop in the year 477. (Cave, Pagius.) See Valesius’s last note on this chapter. ^D

CAP. XII. Concerning John, who governed the episcopate of Alexandria after Timotheus. How Zeno cast him out as a perjurer, and restored the same see to Petrus Mongus.

John, a presbyter and steward of the venerable Church of St. John the Forerunner and Baptist, by the counsel of certain Alexandrians, was sent as an envoy to Constantinople, to petition the prince that, if perchance their bishop should depart from among the living, it might be permitted to the citizens of Alexandria to elect whomsoever they wished as bishop. However, as Zacharias writes, he was detected by the emperor aiming at the episcopate for himself. And when he had bound himself by oath that he would never aspire to the Alexandrian see, he returned to his homeland. But the emperor, by a law he enacted, decreed that after the death of Timotheus, he should be bishop whom the clergy and the people had elected by their own suffrages. Not long after, when Timotheus had died, the same John, having given money—as has been reported by the same Zacharias—and having disregarded the oaths which he had made before the emperor, advanced to the episcopate of the Alexandrians.^ABCD

^A When the emperor learned of this, he ordered him to be expelled. By the suggestion of certain persons, he wrote an allocution to the Alexandrians, which he called the Henoticon, decreeing that the see of Alexander should be given back to Peter, provided he subscribed to his Henoticon and accepted the followers of Proterius into communion.

CHAPTER XIII.

This dispensation, arranged by the counsel of Acacius, the bishop of the royal city, was brought by Pergamius, who had been appointed prefect of Egypt. He, applying his attention to the business of the Alexandrians, having found John who had escaped by flight, came into conversation with Peter, and persuaded him to accept the allocution of Zeno, and furthermore to accept those who had dissented from him. ^B Peter therefore accepted the aforementioned allocution, and subscribed to it; he also promised to receive those who had dissented from him into communion. Not long after, when a public festival was being celebrated at Alexandria, and as all were accepting Zeno’s Henoticon by common consent, Peter also received the Proterians into communion. And when he himself had delivered an allocution to the people in the church, he also read the allocution of Zeno, which runs as follows:

CAP. XIV.

Emperor Caesar Flavius Zeno, pious, victor, triumphator, maximus, ever-Augustus, to the most reverend bishops and clergy, and to the monks and peoples throughout Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. Knowing that the only correct and true ^C faith, which was set forth by the holy fathers at Nicaea, is the foundation, stability, strength, and invincible shield of our empire...

^A which the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers who gathered at Nicaea set forth by divine inspiration, and which the one hundred and fifty holy fathers who likewise gathered at Constantinople confirmed, we ensure day and night, with all zeal and diligence and by our laws, that the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God, which is the incorruptible and unending mother of our scepters, may be multiplied everywhere through that faith which I have mentioned; and that the pious peoples, persevering in peace and in that concord which concerns God, may, together with the God-beloved bishops, God-fearing clergy, archimandrites, and monastics, offer prayers acceptable to God for our empire. For as long as the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who became incarnate from the holy Virgin and Theotokos Mary and was born, approves and graciously accepts our unanimous glorification and worship, all enemies will truly be struck down and destroyed; and all nations will bow their own necks to our authority under God: and peace, and the goods that come from peace—the temperate nature of the air, the abundance of crops, and all other things useful to men—will be bestowed. Since, therefore, the faultless faith thus preserves both us and the Roman state, petitions were brought to us by God-fearing archimandrites and hermits, and other reverend men, who with tears besought that unity might be brought about for the holiest Churches, and that the members might be joined to the members, which the enemy of all that is good has long striven to separate ^B knowing that if he should war against the whole body of the Church, he will be defeated. For it happens from this that an innumerable multitude of human beings, which the passage of time in so many years has removed from this light, has perished, partly deprived of the bath of regeneration, and others have departed this life without participation in divine communion; and that countless murders have been dared, and by the abundance of blood not only the earth has been defiled, but also the very air. These things, who would not pray to have transformed into good? Therefore, we have made it our concern to make you aware that neither we nor the Churches everywhere have had, nor do we have, nor will we have, nor do we know of any others holding, any other symbol, or lesson, or definition of faith, or faith, besides the aforementioned holy Symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, which the aforementioned ^C one hundred and fifty holy Fathers confirmed. And if anyone has another, we consider him a stranger. For this

symbol alone, as has already been said, we trust that our empire is preserved. And all peoples who receive the saving baptism are baptized having received this symbol alone. The holy Fathers who assembled at Ephesus followed this, who also deposed the impious Nestorius, and those who after him embraced his opinion. Nestorius, as well as Eutyches, since they think contrary to the aforementioned Fathers, we also anathematize, accepting also the twelve chapters which were dictated by Cyril of holy memory, who was archbishop of the holy catholic Church of the Alexandrians. ^B We confess, then, the only-begotten Son of God and God, who in truth became man, our Lord Jesus Christ, consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us according to his humanity, who descended and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin and Theotokos, to be one, and not two. For we say that both the miracles and the passions which he voluntarily endured in the flesh belong to one. For those who divide or confuse, or introduce a fantasy, we do not receive at all; since that sinless and in truth incarnation from the Theotokos did not cause an addition of a Son. For the Trinity remained the Trinity, even when one of the Trinity, namely God the Word, became incarnate. ^C Knowing, therefore, that neither the holy orthodox Churches of God everywhere, nor the most God-beloved priests who preside over them, nor our empire, have suffered or suffer any other Symbol or definition of faith beyond the aforementioned holy teaching, we have united ourselves, doubting nothing. These things we have written, not innovating in the faith, but to satisfy you. Whosoever, however, thinks or has thought otherwise, whether now or at any time, whether at Chalcedon or in any other synod whatsoever, him we anathematize; especially, however, Nestorius and Eutyches, and those who think the same things as them. Be joined, therefore, to your spiritual mother the Church, that in her you may enjoy the same divine communion with us ^D according to the aforementioned one and only definition of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers. For the all-holy mother of you, the Church, expects to embrace you as her genuine sons, and desires to hear your long-silent and sweet voice. Hasten, therefore, yourselves. For doing these things, you will draw down upon yourselves the favor of the Lord and Savior and God.

you will attract the favor of our Lord and Savior and God, Jesus Christ, toward yourselves, and you will be praised by our majesty. When these things had been read, all those of Alexandria joined themselves to the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. ^A

CAP. XV. How John, bishop of Alexandria, coming to Rome, persuaded Simplicius to write to Zeno regarding the things that had occurred: and what Zeno replied.

John, whom we mentioned before, having fled from the city of Alexandria, betook himself to Rome ^B and there stirred up the greatest disturbances, asserting that he had been cast out of his own see on account of his defense of the decrees of Leo and the synod of Chalcedon, and that another had been substituted in his place who was opposed to these decrees. Because Simplicius, the bishop of senior Rome, was troubled by this and had written concerning these matters to the emperor Zeno, Zeno replied, accusing John of perjury and claiming that it was for this reason, and no other, that he had been expelled from the bishopric.

CAP. XVI. Regarding Calendio, bishop of Antioch, and how he was condemned to exile on account of the friendship he was believed to have had with Illus and Leontius. Also how Peter the Fuller was joined to the Mongus and to the bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem.

But Calendio, the presiding bishop of Antioch, writing to the emperor Zeno and to Acacius, the presiding bishop of Constantinople, called Peter an adulterer, saying ^C that when he was at Alexandria he had publicly anathematized the synod of Chalcedon.

^A Indeed, some thought that, having been banished to the Oasis, he was adjudged to defend himself [regarding ] Illus [(f)] [(96)] and Leontius and Pamprepius concerning the tyranny against Zeno. But Peter the Fuller, who, as I have said, had been bishop of Antioch before Calendio and Stephanus [(97-98)], reclaimed his own throne; he also subscribed to Zeno’s Henoticon, and previously [(99)] had used the synodical letters of the bishop of the Alexandrians. Acacius, the presiding bishop of Constantinople, was united with him [(1)]. Also Martyrius, the bishop of Jerusalem, used synodical letters with Peter. After these things, some separated themselves from the communion of Peter [(2)]; from which the people of Peter [...]

wishing to assure Acacius, the bishop of Constantinople, that he had done nothing of the sort, caused him to be greatly troubled. Records were written, in which some have said that they knew of nothing of this sort having been done by Peter.

CHAPTER XVII.

Regarding what Peter wrote to Acacius, who had accepted the Council of Chalcedon.

^BThis Peter, like a certain buskin 4 and a turncoat, and one who would accommodate himself to the times, in no way persevered in the same opinion; sometimes he would anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, and at other times, singing a palinode, he would accept it with all votes. Therefore, the same Peter wrote a letter to Acacius, the primate of Constantinople, which word for word reads as follows: "May God the Most High reward your holiness for such great labors and toils, through which, in the cycles of years, you have preserved the faith of the holy Fathers, which you have unceasingly preached and confirmed. In which faith we have found the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers correctly and orderly placed, in which we were once baptized and believed, and now believe: which was also confirmed by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers who gathered at Constantinople. Therefore, showing the way to all without interruption, you have united the holy Church of God, since you have persuaded us through the greatest proofs that nothing other than these things was done in the most holy and ecumenical council which was held at Chalcedon; as it indeed agrees with the holy Fathers who were once gathered at Nicaea, and confirms their decrees. For we have found nothing new, and have fundamentally established and believed nothing new. We have learned, however, that some monks, envying our brotherhood, have brought some slanders to your holy ears, not easily turning into grief our holiness. And first, indeed, as if the relics of our [Father]...

and archbishop, the blessed Timothy, we had transferred to another place. Which deed is neither acceptable to God nor agreeable to the laws. ^B Thence they passed to another accusation, one that is not even plausible, and seems far worse than the former. For how could we have been able to anathematize the holy Council of Chalcedon, in which we have believed and which we have confirmed? Nor, I think, is it unknown or hidden from your God-belovedness, what the zeal and the lightness of our own people is, and of the monks who desire to introduce novelties, who, having conspired with certain malicious men who have departed from the Church, attempt to tear the people away with them. And through your prayers we have considered a way that might remedy this evil, without in any way harming the holy Council of Chalcedon, knowing that nothing new was done in it. And for the persuasion of the blameless and for their defense, we have caused those who have gathered with us to say this. And this, being much, I quickly prevented. I make known to your holiness that even until now those who sow tares do not cease—always monks, mixing in for themselves as instruments certain ones of the monasteries that have not at all settled there—and they go about, spreading various rumors.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

^B The same crime is said by Mongus himself, that he had transferred the relics of Timothy Salophaciolus to another place. But he neither excuses nor denies this act; he is content only to say that this deed is impious before God and men. For human laws severely punish violators of sepulchers. Certainly, Victor Tunnunensis writes thus in his Chronicle concerning Mongus: *After the third consulship of Zeno, he, immediately by the favor of Zeno the prince, condemns the Council of Chalcedon from the pulpit before the people. He removes the names of Proterius and Timothy Salophaciolus from the ecclesiastical diptychs; and he writes of Dioscorus and Aelurus, who killed Proterius, and casting out the body of Timothy Salophaciolus from the church, he cast it out into a desert place outside the city.* The same is also testified by Liberatus in his Breviarium, ch. 18, in these words: *But also Peter the Alexandrian, anathematizing the Council of Chalcedon and the tome of Pope Leo, who, having removed the name of Proterius and of Timothy the Catholic from the diptychs, wrote the names of Dioscorus and Timothy Aelurus: who lifted the body of the same Timothy the Catholic from the ground, and cast it out—he who had been buried among the Catholic bishops—Acacius pursued him with strange praises, of whom he had remembered to have related so many crimes before.* Finally, Pope Felix, in his sentence of condemnation against Acacius, confirms the same thing clearly: so that now there can be no doubt as to the truth of this deed.

^C I think... that by the term *those who gathered with us* are to be understood the clergy and laity of the party of Timothy Salophaciolus, who had been gathered to Peter Mongus by the order of Emperor Zeno. For Emperor Zeno, at the persuasion and advice of Acacius, had written to Apollonius the Augustalis and Pergamius the duke, that they should drive out John Talaia, but enthrone Peter, receiving the *Henoticon* and the clergy of Timothy the Catholic, as Liberatus writes in his Breviarium, ch. 18. Zeno had also written letters to Peter Mongus, in which he ordered him to receive the clergy of the party of Timothy who consented to him, just as the same Liberatus affirms in these words: *And indeed Peter is enthroned by all. It is written by the emperor that he should receive those who will be on the side of Timothy the Catholic who consent.* That is, as many clergy as laymen who had wished to consent to the edict of Zeno. These, therefore, when Peter Mongus was drawing up the ecclesiastical acts by which he might prove to Acacius that he had never condemned the Council of Chalcedon, he took as witnesses, and caused them by their testimony to confirm that the Council of Chalcedon had never been condemned by Peter. For their testimony seemed worthy of faith, in that they had been on the side of Timothy the Catholic, who had perpetually defended the Council of Chalcedon. See chapter 16, at the end, from which these things are to be understood. Pope Felix speaks of the same in his sentence of condemnation against Acacius, where he says: *For what else are they, who after the death of Timothy of holy memory, return to the Church under Peter, etc.*

^D ...was cast up at me by certain malicious persons: namely, that the Council of Chalcedon was rejected and condemned by me.

^A And that we might satisfy the simpler folk, we took care that the same thing should be said by those who attend the assembly with us. And indeed, when I had given myself entirely to this, I quickly suppressed it. But I inform your holiness that even now the monks do not cease, who sow tares, and attach to themselves certain persons who have never inhabited monasteries, regarding them as instruments of sedition; and wandering here and there, they disseminate various rumors against us and against the peace of the Church of Christ. Nor do they permit us to perform anything regularly, and as is fitting, in the holy Church of God: they act so that the people who have been entrusted to us might command rather than obey us. Finally, they contrive all things that are unworthy of God. But we trust that your holiness will suggest all these things to the most sacred emperor, and will bring it about that from his clemency a fitting procedure might be granted to them, for the sake of ecclesiastical peace, which is worthy of God and the emperor: so that all may acquiesce in those things which shall have been decreed.

CAP. XVIII. How John the Alexandrian Bishop persuaded Pope Felix to send a letter of deposition against Acacius of Constantinople.

Meanwhile, John, who had fled to Rome, did not cease to importune Felix, the bishop of the city of Rome who had succeeded Simplicius, regarding the things done by Peter. And finally he persuaded him, as has been reported by Zacharias, to send a sentence of deposition to Acacius, because he was in communion with Peter. To which sentence, ^B as one not issued according to the prescription of the canons (11), as is recorded by the same Zacharias...

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS.

(11) *As one not issued according to the canons.* The Greeks found particular fault with the condemnation and deposition of Acacius for two main reasons. First, because he had not been condemned and deposed in a synod, but Pope Felix alone had prefixed his own name to the sentence of deposition. Second, because he had received a sentence of condemnation without having been convicted or heard according to ecclesiastical rules. To the former objection, the Romans responded that there was no need for a new synod to condemn Acacius. For all followers and communicants of heretics, who had once been condemned by a special sentence, were understood to be condemned along with the same heretics. Thus Pope Gelasius, in the epistle to the Orientals which James Sirmond first published in the *Gestis de nomine Acaci*. I know how Baronius responds at the year of Christ 484, chapter 21, asserting that Gelasius is speaking of an ecumenical synod. But with his permission, I would say this response is not satisfactory. For the Greeks in this matter did not make any distinction between a general and a particular council. But they stated generally that Acacius had not been specifically condemned in any synod gathered for his sake. For thus writes Pope Gelasius in the aforementioned epistle, addressing the Orientals with these words: "Does it grieve you in the case of one Acacius, that he was not convicted by a special synod; since he himself revealed his own crime in his own letters, nor should he have been heard once he had already confessed of his own accord; yet you are not grieved that so many Catholic pontiffs were removed without any discussion?" Pope Gelasius frankly admits that Acacius was not convicted or heard in any special synod. Certainly, of the two Roman synods in which Acacius was condemned, ^D neither was gathered for his case. But the prior one was gathered in the same year for the cause of the Church of Antioch, on account of Vitalis and Misenus, as Pope Felix teaches in his synodical epistle to all the presbyters and archimandrites residing in Constantinople and throughout Bithynia. In which synod, Peter of Antioch was condemned chiefly, and as the principal culprit; he who, after driving out Calendion, had usurped the see of Antioch. But Peter of Alexandria, and Acacius of Constantinople, were condemned as associates and communicants of the same Peter, as the subscription attached to the same epistle declares: "Candidus, bishop of the city of Tibur... to Peter, the invader of the Alexandrian Church, and Acacius, the former of the Church of Constantinople, and also to Peter of Antioch, long since legally and deservedly segregated from the number of bishops and Christians, and to all their followers, following the authority of the apostolic see, and of all of us, brought forth by Catholic deliberation according to the state of the Church, having said anathema, I have subscribed, etc." But that the Greeks complained that Pope Felix alone had set his name to that sentence, Felix himself answers to this objection in the aforementioned epistle, in these words: "Whence now, upon the cause of the Church of Antioch being gathered before the B. Apostle Peter, we hasten to inform your charity again of the custom which has always obtained among us. As often as the Lord’s priests are gathered within Italy for ecclesiastical causes, chiefly of the faith, the custom is retained that the successor of the prelates of the apostolic see, in the person of all the priests of all Italy, according to his care for the Churches..."

VARIORUM.

(n) *Felix the one after Simplicius.* Anastasius says that after the death of Simplicius the see was vacant for 6 days, which is also read in our various catalogs: but the author of the *Chronicon Vitarum Pontificum* correctly wrote that the intervention was only of five days. For it will be established from the duration of his see that holy Felix, III of this name, of Roman nationality, was ordained on the sixth day of the month of March. (Ant. Pagi, ad ann. 483, n. 5.)

^A For some of the monks in the monastery of the Acoemetae (as they call the monastery) have declared that Acacius did not comply. And these things have been written by Zacharias in this manner. But it seems to me that he knew nothing of the things done in this matter, and that he related only a mutilated and imperfect account which he had received by hearsay. I, however, shall accurately expound the series of events. When petitions against Acacius had been presented to Felix by John—on the grounds that he was illicitly in communion with Peter and was performing other acts contrary to the prescription of the sacred canons—Felix sent the bishops Vitalis and Misenus to Zeno, demanding that the Synod of Chalcedon be upheld, that Peter be expelled as a heretic, and that Acacius be sent to Rome to render an account of those things whereof John, whom we have mentioned so often, accused him. ^B

CHAPTER XIX. Of Cyril, superior of the monastery of the Acoemetae, how he had sent certain persons to Rome to Felix, inciting him to avenge those things that had been committed against the faith.

But before these men had arrived at the royal city, Cyril, the superior of the Acoemetae monks, sent certain persons with letters to Felix, complaining of his delay, while such grave matters were being committed against the right faith. Felix therefore ^D sent to Misenus...

VARIOUS READINGS.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(12) *Petitions having been presented to Felix by John.* Indeed, previously John Tabennesiota, when he had been cast out from his see, coming to Rome, had appealed to Pope Simplicius. He did not, however, offer him a formal petition, but only persuaded him to write to Acacius on behalf of his cause. This Pope Simplicius did promptly and with a willing mind. Acacius, however, having received the letters of Simplicius, replied that he did not in the least recognize John as bishop of Alexandria, but had taken Peter Mongus into communion by the order of Zeno Augustus. Greatly moved by these letters, Simplicius wrote back that Acacius had acted neither rightly nor in order, as he had received into communion Peter, who had been condemned by the common judgment of both. And when John was preparing to offer a petition to Pope Simplicius containing various crimes against Acacius, Simplicius was meanwhile overtaken by death before Acacius had responded to his latest letters, as Liberatus writes in his *Breviary*. But when Felix had been substituted in the place of Simplicius, John offered to Pope Felix the petition which he had previously prepared to present to Simplicius. He [Felix] soon sent a petition of citation to Acacius by the bishops Vitalis and Misenus, commanding that he come to Rome with all speed, to answer before the Apostolic See to the petition of Bishop John, as is read in the *Acts* regarding the name of Acacius, and in the petition of citation transmitted to Acacius. The petition of citation truly begins thus: "By episcopal diligence warning, your beloved ought to have..." ^C ...following the ecclesiastical custom, what the response of the holy memory of my predecessor was, through the devoted man Uranius, a subdeacon at the court of the most clement prince; what his own letters also profited you in the cause of the Church of Alexandria, [you ought] to indicate. Where, I should note in passing, [the text] should be written "Uranium subadjuvam" [Uranius the sub-assistant]. For so it is said in the *Acts* regarding the name of Acacius: "John the Catholic economist is ordained bishop by the Catholics." Who, when according to the custom of the ancients he had sent synodical writings to the Apostolic See through Isidore the priest and Peter the deacon, with Uranius the sub-assistant supervening and bringing imperial commands against John, now bishop, he was suspended by the Pope from the confirmation of that bishopric, etc.

(13) *To Felix by Zeno.* The words are transposed; I restore them thus: "Are sent by Felix to Zeno."

(14) *Before these could reach the royal city.* Nicephorus has excellently explained this place of Evagrius with these words: "etc.;" that is, before Vitalis and Misenus, sent from Rome, had arrived at the royal city, etc. It must be written, therefore, in Evagrius, "before these could reach the royal city." For thus Evagrius is accustomed to call Constantinople: as below, ch. 25.

(15) *Of the Acoemetae.* There were two monasteries in Constantinople that were called Acoemetae, specifically the Bassiani and the Dii. And the name of the Bassiani and Dii had been taken from their founders. The name of Acoemetae [sleepless ones], however, was given to them because they celebrated divine praises night and day, succeeding one another in alternate turns; so that they seemed to be sleepless. Thus it is said that in times past in Gaul, perpetual praise was said to flourish in certain monasteries.

And they were to do nothing before they had conferred with Cyril, and learned from him what was to be done.

CHAPTER XX. Concerning what Felix wrote to Zeno, and Zeno back to Felix.

both of whom professed the same heresy as himself—and that after the flight of John, the orthodox had been vexed with every kind of torment. All these things Acacius had learned through certain persons who had come to Constantinople from the city of Alexandria. Finally, this same Acacius was discovered to be in all things the administrator and helper of Peter. ^A

CAP. XXI. How Symeones the Acoemete monk, coming to Rome, denounced the legates of the Roman Church who had come to Constantinople because they had communicated with heretics; and how the legates and all who communicated with Peter were deposed by the Romans.

Symeones, a monk of the Acoemetae monastery who had been sent to Rome by Cyril, increased these matters not a little. ^B For he denounced Misenus and Vitalis because they had communicated with heretics, by the public recitation of the name of Peter in the holy Diptychs; and that by this means many of the more simple folk had been led into deception by the heretics, who claimed that Peter had been received into communion even by the Roman see. Symeones further added that Misenus and Vitalis, when various questions were proposed to them, had never wished to converse with any of the orthodox, nor to deliver letters to them, nor to examine any of those things that were being attempted against the right faith. Sylvanus the presbyter, who had dwelt with Misenus and Vitalis at Constantinople, was also brought in, and he confirmed the statement of the monks with his own testimony. Furthermore, the letter of Acacius to Simplicius was read, in which Acacius said that Peter had long since been deposed, and ^C that he was a son of night. For these reasons, Misenus and Vitalis were stripped of their priesthood and removed from the mystical communion, since the whole synod had pronounced word for word as follows: "The Roman Church does not receive Peter the heretic, who was formerly condemned, excommunicated, and anathematized by the decree of the holy see. Even if nothing else were objected against him, this one thing would suffice: that, having been ordained by heretics, he could not preside over the orthodox." This also contained the statement that Acacius of Constantinople—^D

^A proved the matter to be worthy of the greatest responsibility, because in writing to Simplicius and calling Peter a heretic, he did not make this manifest to the emperor; he ought to have done so, if he loved Zeno. But rather, he loves the emperor with desire; he does not love the faith. ^A But let us return the discourse to what follows. A letter of Acacius is extant, addressed to the prelates in Egypt, the clergy and monks, and all the people, through which he attempted to heal the schism that had occurred. Concerning these things he also wrote to Peter, the bishop of Alexandria.

Chapter XXII.

Of the disturbances which were raised in Alexandria and in various other places on account of the Council of Chalcedon.

^B When the schism was growing in Alexandria, Peter persuaded some of the bishops and archimandrites to communicate with him, having again anathematized the Tome of Leo and the things at Chalcedon...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ^C ...and [the things] at Chalcedon to be deposed by Rome. Theodore and Basil the Cilician, however, state this clearly. Evagrius, in truth, in this place does not say openly that Acacius was deposed by the Roman bishop. But the reader Theodore, and Basil the Cilician, state it explicitly. Nicephorus testifies the same thing concerning Basil the Cilician, in ch. 17, book XVI. Furthermore, our Evagrius is undeservedly criticized by that scholiast because he omitted Acacius' deposition in this place. Evagrius here reports all things which were done in the Roman synod, which was convened in the year of Christ 484 against Vitalis and Misenus, the legates of the apostolic see. In that synod, Vitalis and Misenus were indeed deprived of their priestly honor. But Acacius was only noted and censured, as appears from the decree of the synod, which is reported here by Evagrius. After these things, Felix sent synodical letters to Acacius, in which it was thus written: "You have sinned; do not add to it, and entreat for your previous actions." These having been received, when Acacius still resisted and committed things worse than the previous ones, Pope Felix, having again gathered the bishops at Saint Peter's, promulgated a sentence of deposition against Acacius, and sent it to Acacius by Tuto, the defender of the Roman Church, which begins thus: "You are found liable for many transgressions." Pope Felix teaches that these things were done thus, in a synodical letter to the presbyters and archimandrites staying in Constantinople and throughout Bithynia. For after he wrote concerning Vitalis and Misenus, and Acacius, being condemned in the Roman synod, he adds these things: "After that sentence which was pronounced against Acacius, the disturber of the whole Eastern Church, we have now added these letters, we who are gathered," etc. And a little later: "Whence now, the cause of the Antiochene Church being gathered before the blessed Apostle Peter, we hasten to notify your love again of the custom that has always obtained among us." From which words it appears that this letter was written by Felix, in the name of the third Roman synod, which had been gathered on account of the Antiochene Church, which Peter the Fuller had seized after driving out Calendion. In this synod, therefore, Felix dictated the sentence against Acacius, which begins, "You are found liable for many transgressions," etc., and transmitted it to Acacius by Tuto the defender. ^D Nor is there any reason for one to say that that sentence had already been passed before in the second Roman synod, at the time when Vitalis and Misenus were condemned; but that it was sent some time later by Felix, by the decree of the third Roman synod. For Evagrius refutes that, who does not say that in the Roman synod where Vitalis and Misenus were condemned, the sentence of deposition was passed against Acacius. Furthermore, Liberatus in his *Breviarium*, ch. 18, clearly teaches that that sentence of deposition against Acacius was pronounced long after the condemnation of Vitalis and Misenus. For hear what Liberatus says: "The legates returned at last. But the monks had gone before, who were gravely accusing them of betrayal. Having been heard face-to-face and convicted by the very letters which they brought, they were removed from their own places." And a little later: "When, therefore, Acacius was fully exposed as a heretic, Pope Felix in his synodical letters stated thus: 'You have sinned; do not add to it, and entreat for your previous actions.' Having received these letters, Acacius persists, neither withdrawing from the communion of Peter, nor persuading [the people] to openly accept the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Pope Leo. Knowing these things, Pope Felix sent a letter of condemnation to Acacius by Tuto the defender, the beginning of which is: 'You are found liable for many transgressions.'"

' ^A And as he was unable to persuade the others, he drove the majority out of their own monasteries; ^B for which reasons Nephalius set out for the royal city and reported all these matters to Zeno. The latter, deeply disturbed, sent Cosmas, one of his bodyguards, who carried countless threats against Peter for the sake of unity, as one who had wrought a great division through his own harshness. And when nothing had succeeded according to his intent, Cosmas returned to the emperor, having restored their own habitations only to those who had been driven out. And again there is sent by the emperor Arsenius, whom he had at once promoted as prefect of Egypt and commander of the military forces. He, having entered Alexandria together with Nephalius, spoke words concerning concord. But since he could not persuade them, he sent some of them to the queen of cities. Many discussions indeed had been stirred up before Zeno concerning the council of Chalcedon; but nothing was brought to fruition, since Zeno did not in the slightest agree with the council of Chalcedon.

CHAPTER XXIII. Concerning Fravitas and Euphemius, bishops of Constantinople; and concerning Athanasius and John of Alexandria; and Palladius and Flavian of Antioch, and certain others.

In the meantime, ^C Acacius of Constantinople fell under the decree of fate; ^D and for him Fravitas was ordained bishop, who, having died in the third month of his advancement, Euphemius, the guardian of the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, succeeded him in the episcopate. But in the following year, when Longinus and Faustus were consuls, the same Victor writes that Peter of Alexandria died under condemnation. But Baronius, in his ecclesiastical annals, records the death of these three schismatics in the same order as Victor of Tunnuna, but not in the same year. For he writes that Peter the Fuller died in the year of our Lord 486, but Acacius two years later, that is, in the year of Christ 488. Yet he agrees entirely with Victor concerning the death of Mongus. For my part, I would prefer to follow the opinion of Victor, who relates the end of the Fuller in the year of Christ 488. For Calendio was created bishop of Antioch in the year of our Lord 482, as is evident from the letter of Pope Simplicius, and since he held that episcopate for four years, as Theophanes testifies, it must necessarily be said that Peter the Fuller, who, having driven out Calendio, was substituted in his place, occupied the Antiochene see in the year of Christ 486. But who would believe that Peter the Fuller, who perpetrated so many and such great crimes during the time of his episcopate, died a few months after his advancement? Therefore, Peter the Fuller did not die in the year of Christ 486, as Baronius thought. But this argument is easily refuted: for it relies solely on the authority of Theophanes, who attributes four years of episcopate to Calendio. And yet Calendio held the priesthood for the space of only one year. For he was deposed through the machinations of his ordainer, Acacius.

^A Fravita, having been removed, Fravita succeeds in his place. ^B He, having sent his synodical letters to Peter, Peter in return wrote back to him, saying the same things concerning the events at Chalcedon which I have mentioned above. Then, upon the death of Fravita, who held the episcopate for only four months, Euphemius was ordained bishop in his stead. He received the synodical letters which Peter had written to Fravita. And having discovered in them an anathema against the events at Chalcedon, he was greatly troubled, and separated himself from communion with Peter. Each of these letters is still extant—both that of Fravita to Peter, and that of Peter to Fravita—which I omit on account of the length of the discourse. When, therefore, Euphemius and Peter were about to oppose one another and to summon synods against each other, Peter was overtaken by a fatal death, and Athanasius succeeded to his throne. He endeavored to reunite those who were divided, but could not succeed, as the parties responded with differing opinions. This Athanasius afterwards, in sending synodical letters to Palladius, who had succeeded Peter in the bishopric of Antioch, acted in the same manner regarding the Council of Chalcedon. The same thing was also done by John, who succeeded to the throne in Alexandria after Athanasius. And upon the death of Palladius, the prelate in Antioch, and Flavianus having taken over his...

^A throne, Solomon, a presbyter of Antioch, was sent by him to Alexandria, bearing synodical letters and seeking reciprocal letters from John for Flavianus. And after John, another John succeeded to the throne of Alexandria. And these things had proceeded thus until certain times of Anastasius. For he himself had expelled Euphemius; all of which I have been constrained to connect in sequence for the sake of clarity and ease of learning.

CAP. XXIV. Concerning the slaying of Armatus, who was the kinsman of the Empress Verina.

Now Zeno, by the counsel of Illus, also did away with Armatus, the kinsman of the Empress Verina, whom Zeno had previously corrupted with gifts when he had been ^B sent against him by Basiliscus, and had rendered him a partner and friend instead of an enemy; he had also proclaimed his son, Basiliscus, Caesar in the city of Nicaea. But when he had come to Constantinople, he slew Armatus through treachery, but he showed Basiliscus, his son, to be a priest instead of a Caesar, who later was also deemed worthy of the priesthood.

CAP. XXV. Concerning the rebellion of Theoderic the Scythian, and his death.

But Theoderic, who was a Scythian by race, also rebelled against Zeno; and having gathered his own forces throughout Thrace, he undertook an expedition against Zeno. And having devastated all the regions that lay in his path as far as the mouth of the Euxine, he very nearly captured the royal city, and would have captured it entirely, had not certain of the men most intimate to him, being corrupted by bribes, plotted to slay him. And he, having ^C perceived his own men acting treacherously, retreated. But not long after, he was numbered among those who have departed. I shall also tell of the manner of his death, coming to pass in this way: a spear fitted with a thong ^D before his tent...

after the barbaric manner. Now, as he chanced to wish to exercise his body, he ordered his horse to be brought to him; and, as he was not accustomed to use the aid of a groom 34, he mounted the horse himself. But the horse, being of a wild and skittish variety—before Theoderic had yet sat down comfortably astride—reared up on its front legs, balancing only on its hind ones. As Theoderic was struggling, and neither daring to rein in the horse 55, lest it fall back upon him, nor yet being firmly fixed in his seat, he was shaken to this side and that, and caused the spear ^B to be thrust forward. It struck him obliquely, wounding his side. Being carried to his bed as a result, and surviving for but a few days, he ended his life from this wound.

CAP. XXVI. On the rebellion of Marcian, and what occurred to him.

After these things, Marcian, the son of Anthemius who had reigned in Rome, and who was kin to Leo (who had ruled previously before Zeno, having taken to wife Leontia, Leo's younger daughter), became at odds with Zeno and attempted to seize the tyranny. A fierce battle having been joined around the palace, and many on both sides having fallen, Marcian put his opponents to flight, and would have become master of the palace, had he not let the opportunity slip, deferring the action until the next day. For the opportunity is swift; and while it is coming towards one's feet, it is perhaps caught; but when it has escaped the grasp, it flies on high and laughs at those who pursue it, no longer suffering itself to be within their reach. Hence, indeed, painters and sculptors represent Opportunity with hair [only on the forehead, for it can be grasped when it is coming, but when it has flown past, it offers no place to hold].

VARIOUS READINGS AND VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

34 Concerning "not accustomed to use the aid of a groom." I found it distinctly written in the best Florentine codex *anabolei*, just as learned men had conjectured it should be read. It is the *anaboleus*, whom the Latins call a "strator" [groom], who is accustomed to lift a master onto his horse, as Suidas testifies; in whom there exists a passage of an ancient writer who describes King Masinissa thus... [where Suidas appears to have taken the word for a staircase, which we commonly call a mounting-block].

55 Concerning "to rein in." I believe it should be written *anosiraizein*, as it is read in the Tellerian codex. For analogy demands it, just as from *anaboleus* it becomes *anabolei*. Suidas explains *anosiraizein* as "to pull back," "to check." Nicephorus has put *anastellein* in place of this word. ... The death of Theoderic occurred in the year of Christ 481, as Marcellinus testifies in his Chronicle in these words: "In the consulship of Placidius alone, Theoderic son of Triarius, king of the Goths, having gathered his, arrived at Anaplus, the fourth milestone from the city; but doing no harm to any of the Romans, he returned at once. Yet, hastening into Illyricum, while he was proceeding among the moving wagons of his people, he was pierced and killed by the point of a spear lying upon a cart and the movement of his skittish horse."

36 Regarding "After these things Marcian," Theophanes records this movement, just as our Evagrius does, immediately after the death of Theoderic son of Triarius. Malchus, however, in his *Byzantine History*, dissents. For he writes that Theoderic Triarius, having heard of the sedition of Marcian, gathered huge forces there and marched towards Constantinople: in appearance, indeed, to bring aid to the Emperor; but in reality to occupy the royal city. Malchus' words, if one wishes to read them, are found on page 86 of the Royal edition. Add that Procopius, the brother of Marcian, after Marcian was captured and his tyranny crushed, fled to Theoderic in Greece. And when Zeno, having sent an embassy, demanded that he be surrendered to him, he never obtained it from Theoderic, as Candidus writes in his second book, and Malchus in the book already cited.

^A Thus painters and sculptors let hair fall over its brow, but shave the back of the head down to the skin, very wisely implying that Opportunity, while it lingers behind, may be easily grasped by the hair flowing down; but when it has passed by, it escapes completely, offering the pursuers no handle by which it might be caught. This, in fact, is what happened to Marcian, who, having let the opportunity offered to him slip away, could not recover it afterward. For the next day, betrayed by his own people and left alone, he fled to the Basilica of the Holy Apostles; from there he was dragged out by force and banished to the city of Caesarea in Cappadocia. There, having joined himself to certain monks, he was later caught wishing to escape. For this reason, he was deported by the emperor to Tarsus in Cilicia, where his hair was shorn and he was ordained a presbyter. These things have been written elegantly by Eustathius the Syrian.

CHAPTER XXVII.

On the tyranny of Illus and Leontius.

The same Eustathius writes that Zeno laid countless snares against his mother-in-law Verina, and eventually banished her to Cilicia. But afterward, when Illus had occupied the tyranny, Verina migrated to the castle of Papirius, and there departed this life. ^B Furthermore, the events concerning Illus are elegantly set forth by the same writer: how he escaped when he had been beset by snares from Zeno; and how Zeno handed over the man whom he had sent to slay Illus to be slain by Illus, paying him with the decapitation of his head as a reward for his failure, because he had failed in his attempt. He also proclaimed him Master of the Eastern soldiery, desiring that the snares he had prepared for him should remain hidden. But Illus, having taken into his society Leontius, and Marsus, a man of distinction, and Pamprepius, departed for the eastern regions. The same Eustathius then relates how Leontius was proclaimed emperor at Tarsus in Cilicia, and what fruit these men reaped from their tyranny when Theoderic, a man of Goth extraction and a person of distinction among the Romans, was sent against them with an army of both Romans and barbarians. The same Eustathius describes in a very elegant style the slaughter of these men, whom Zeno ordered to be cruelly put to death, ^C paying them this wage for the goodwill with which they had once embraced him. ^D [alt-version omitted]

Having conquered in battle, he brought Rome under his own power, and named himself king.

CAP. XXVIII. On Mammianus, and the works constructed by him.

Under the reign of the same Zeno, John the Rhetor writes that a certain Mammianus lived, who from a humble craftsman rose to be a man of distinction and attained the senatorial order. By this Mammianus, John says, an *antiforum* was built in the suburb of Daphne—a location that had previously contained vines and fields—directly opposite the public bath. In this place, an bronze statue was set up with this inscription: "Mammianus, lover of the city." In the city itself, he says, two royal porticoes were built by the same man, distinguished both for the elegance of their workmanship and adorned with the splendor and brightness of stone. Between the two porticoes, as a sort of boundary, he built a *tetrapylon*, finished most elegantly with columns and brass. We have seen these royal porticoes ourselves; they retain their pristine name and relics of their former splendor even now, though only their floor is paved with Proconnesian marble. Their remaining structure, however, has nothing exceptional; for after the earlier ruins, they were recently restored without any addition made to their ornamentation. But as for the *tetrapylon* which was built by Mammianus, we have not found even a trace of it remaining. ^{B C}

CAP. XXIX. On the death of Zeno, and the proclamation of the Emperor Anastasius.

Now when Zeno had died childless, from the falling sickness, in the seventeenth year of his reign, his brother Longinus, who had attained to great power, hoped that he would easily seize the imperial throne. Yet he did not at all achieve his desire. For Ariadne placed the crown upon Anastasius, who had not yet been enrolled into the senatorial order, but was registered in the school known as the Silentiaries. ^D

^A Eustathius writes that from the beginning of the reign of Diocletian to the death of Zeno and the proclamation of Anastasius, two hundred and seven years had elapsed; from the start of the monarchy of Augustus, five hundred and thirty-two years and seven months; from the beginning of the reign of Alexander the Macedonian, eight hundred and thirty-two years, likewise with seven months; from the reign of the Romans and Romulus, one thousand fifty-two years, and also seven months; and finally, from the capture of Troy, one thousand six hundred eighty-six years, with seven months. This Anastasius, having the city of Epidamnus (now called Dyrrachium) as his homeland, received both the empire and Zeno's wife, Ariadne. And first of all, he sent away to his homeland Longinus, the brother of Zeno, who held the dignity of magister—which the ancients called the prefect of the palace—and he also allowed many other Isaurians who had requested this of him to return to their own people.

CAP. XXX.

Concerning the Emperor Anastasius: and how, since he would not permit any innovation in the ecclesiastical state, the Churches throughout the world were filled with countless perturbations, and many bishops were driven out on that account.

The same Anastasius, being most studious of peace, desired that absolutely nothing be changed, especially in the state of the Church; he exerted himself in every way so that ^B both the most holy Churches might remain without any disturbance, and that all who were subject to his empire might enjoy the deepest peace, with all strife and contention removed from ecclesiastical and political affairs alike. In those times, the synod at Chalcedon was neither openly proclaimed in the most holy Churches nor yet was it altogether rejected. For each of the prelates acted according to what he judged right, and some ^C of the presiding bishops...

those things which had been set forth in that council, ^A they defended most stubbornly, and would not yield a single syllable of what had been decreed by it, nor indeed would they admit the change of a single letter. But they also departed with great vehemence from those who did not receive the things set forth by it, and could not bear to communicate at all with those who did not accept what had been laid down. Others, however, not only did not receive the council of Chalcedon and the things defined by it, but also condemned it and the tome of Leo under anathema. Others clung fast to the Henotikon of Zeno, and this although they were divided among themselves concerning one or two natures: some being deceived by the composition of the imperial letters, others inclining rather toward the more peaceful course; so that all the Churches were divided into their own factions, and the presiding bishops would not even communicate with one another. ^B Hence, the greatest confusion existed throughout the East, throughout the Western regions, and throughout Libya, as neither did the Eastern bishops join in communion with those of the West or those of Libya, nor did the latter, in turn, with the Easterners. And the matter proceeded to a greater absurdity. For the presiding bishops of the East did not communicate among themselves, nor did those who held the sees of Europe or Libya, to say nothing of those in foreign lands. Seeing this, the Emperor Anastasius used to expel those bishops who were innovating, wherever he found them, if they were either preaching the council of Chalcedon contrary to the customary usage of those places, or were condemning the same under anathema. Thus he had expelled from the queen of cities, first Euphemius, as has been written above, ^C then Macedonius, whom Timotheus had succeeded; and from Antioch he expelled Flavianus.

CHAPTER XXXI.

Letter of the monks of Palestine to Alcison, concerning Xenaias and certain others.

Regarding Macedonius and Flavianus, the monks of Palestine, in the letter sent to Alcison, write as follows: Now, Peter having fallen asleep, again ^D

^A they were sundered, and Alexandria and Egypt and Libya remained by themselves; and all the rest of the East likewise by itself, since the Westerns would not endure to communicate with them otherwise than by anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches and Dioscorus, and in addition to these, Peter the Mongus and Acacius. In this state of affairs, then, among the churches that were throughout the world, the genuine followers of Dioscorus and Eutyches were reduced to a very small number. And just as they were on the point of disappearing from the earth, so that they should cease to exist, Xenaias ^B (truly a stranger to God, for such is the meaning of his name), I know not with what design or for what cause—waging enmities against Flavianus, yet under the pretext of the faith, as the majority declare—began to move against him, and to slander him as a Nestorian. But when he had anathematized Nestorius along with his frame of mind, he passed on from there to Dioscorus and Theodore and Theodoret, and Ibas, and Cyrus, and Eleutherius, and John, and I know not whom else, or whence he gathered them. Of these, some had truly preached the doctrines of Nestorius; but others, having merely fallen under suspicion of that matter, had afterward anathematized the same dogma and had fallen asleep in the communion of the church. These all, said he, if you do not anathematize as men who held the doctrines of Nestorius, you hold the Nestorian view, even if you anathematize it ten thousand times along with its frame of mind. He even stirred up through letters the advocates of Dioscorus and Eutyches, persuading them to assist him against Flavianus, yet not to demand an anathema from the synod, but only against the aforementioned persons. And when Bishop Flavianus had resisted these things for a long time, and others also were ^C engaging against him—among whom was Eleusinus, a certain bishop of the Second Cappadocia—the Westerns not enduring it...

VARIOUS READINGS

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

VARIOUS AUTHORS

^A of Nicias of Laodicea in Syria, and others from elsewhere—the reasons for whose pettiness against Flavian are for others, not us, to narrate—thinking that by these means he would pacify them, he yielded to their contentiousness. Having anathematized those persons in writing, he sent it to the emperor; for they had also stirred him up against him, as one who advocated the doctrines of Nestorius.

Nor, indeed, was Xenaias satisfied with this; but he again demanded of Flavian an anathema against the synod itself, and against those who had spoken of two natures in the Lord—namely, of flesh and divinity. When he refused to do this, Xenaias again accused him as a Nestorian. Many were stirred up over this, and the patriarch ^B issued an exposition of faith, wherein he professed to accept the synod insofar as it pertained to the deposition of Nestorius and Eutyches, but not as to the definition and doctrine of faith. Once more, they laid hold of him as one who craftily held to the views of Nestorius, unless he should also add the anathema against that synod, and against those who spoke of two natures in the Lord, of flesh and divinity.

They also led astray the Isaurians ^C with many deceptions of words; and having drawn up a written document concerning the faith, in which they anathematized the synod together with those who spoke of two natures or properties, they separated themselves from the communion of Flavian and Macedonius, but entered into a society of fellowship with others who had subscribed to their document. Meanwhile, they also demanded of the bishop of Jerusalem that he write out a formula of his faith. When he had issued it, he sent it to the emperor through the followers of Dioscorus. That which they themselves produce ^D contains an anathema against those who preached two natures in Christ. But the bishop of Jerusalem himself, asserting that it had been forged by them, brought forward another that was without such an anathema. And there is no wonder in this; for they have often forged the discourses of the Fathers, and have ascribed many of the discourses of Apollinarius to Athanasius, to Gregory the Wonderworker, and to Julius, through the labels of their titles—by which they especially win over the many to their own impieties. They also demanded of Macedonius a written document concerning the faith; and he set one forth, asserting that he knew only the faith of the 318 and the 150, while anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches, and those who taught two sons or two Christs, or who divided the natures; and he did not...

mention either the Synod of Ephesus, which had deposed Nestorius, or that of Chalcedon, in which Eutyches was deposed. Because the monasteries around Constantinople were offended at this, they withdrew from the communion of Bishop Macedonius. ^A Meanwhile, Xenaias and Dioscorus, having gained the support of many bishops, were intolerable, exciting tumults against those who refused to anathematize the synod. They contrived, through many machinations, to send into exile those who did not yield to them to the end. In this way, therefore, they exile Macedonius, John the bishop of Paltus, and Flavian. These are the things which the aforementioned letter commemorates.

CAP. XXXII. On the expulsion of the bishop of Constantinople, Macedonius, and of Flavian of Antioch.

Truly, there were other things which secretly pricked the mind of Anastasius. For when Ariadne wished to invest Anastasius with the imperial purple, Euphemius, the bishop of the royal city, refused to give his consent before Anastasius had provided him with a statement written in his own hand and confirmed by oath, in which he promised that he would keep the faith uncorrupted and would introduce nothing new into the holy Church of God.

^A And he entrusted to Macedonius, who had been entrusted with the guardianship of the sacred vessels, the guardianship of the Church. Euphemius had done these things because Anastasius was believed by most people to be addicted to the Manichaean sect. When, therefore, Macedonius had attained the episcopal see, Anastasius desired that his document of caution be returned to him, asserting that it was an insult to the imperial power if the aforementioned statement written in his own hand were kept stored in the church. But when Macedonius resisted most strenuously, and declared that he would not betray the faith, Anastasius attacked him with every kind of intrigue, in order to deprive him of the episcopate. Certain boy calumniators were therefore brought into court, who would falsely accuse both themselves and Macedonius of a base crime. But when it was discovered that Macedonius had been castrated, ^B they turned to other schemes, until finally, on the advice of Celer, the Master of Offices, he was secretly removed from the episcopal see.

Concerning the ejection of Flavian, they add other things. For we have encountered certain decrepit old men who retained in their memory everything that had happened during the pontificate of Flavian. These men affirmed that the monks of the region which is called Cynegica, and as many as had their seats in the first province of the Syrians, having been led by Xenaias—for Xenaias was bishop of Hierapolis, which is near Antioch, and was called Philoxenus in the Greek tongue—collected together, suddenly burst into the city with the greatest tumult and defiance, compelling Flavian to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon and the epistle of Leo. When Flavian bore this with great difficulty, and the monks pressed on with the greatest violence, the populace of the city, rising up against the monks, killed very many of them, ^C so that a huge number of them obtained the Orontes river as a tomb, their bodies being buried in its depths.

Another event also happened, by no means less serious than the former. For the monks of Coele Syria—which is now called the second Syria—since they were exceedingly devoted to Flavian, because he had lived the monastic life in a certain monastery which was situated in a field called Tilmognus, suddenly flew to Antioch in order to defend Flavian; so that on that occasion also, no small evils occurred. Whether, therefore, on account of those former events, or on account of those which we have related in the latter place, or on account of both together, Flavian is driven from his see and banished to Petra, ^D which is a town situated on the borders of Palestine.

CHAPTER XXXIII.

Concerning Severus, Bishop of Antioch.

Flavian having been driven out, Severus ascended the priestly throne of Antioch in the five hundred and sixty-first year of the city of Antioch, in the month of Dios, in the sixth indiction of the then current cycle. At the time when we write these things, it is the six hundred and forty-first year of the Antiochenes. This Severus was a native of Sozopolis, one of the cities of the province of Pisidia. At first, he had practiced the profession of a lawyer in Berytus. But afterwards, having abandoned the study of jurisprudence, upon receiving holy baptism in the church of the admirable martyr Leontius—who is held in the highest honor in the city of Tripoli in maritime Phoenicia—he immediately embraced the monastic life in a certain monastery that is situated between the city of Gaza and the town of Majuma, in the middle of the route.

^A In this place also Peter the Iberian, who was bishop of the same Gaza, and who had fled into exile with Timotheus Aelurus, traversed the same paths, having left behind a great name for himself. Now Severus engaged in a dispute with Nephalius, who had previously been of the same mind as him concerning the one nature, but afterwards had joined himself to the defenders of the Council of Chalcedon and those who proclaimed two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ. By this Nephalius, therefore, and by the monks who were with him, Severus, together with others who adhered to his opinion, was expelled from the monastery. He soon went off to the royal city, to plead his cause and that of those who had been expelled with him, and he became known to the Emperor Anastasius, as is recounted by the one who wrote the life of Severus. Therefore, as Severus was writing his synodical letters, ^B he expressly anathematized the Council of Chalcedon. Concerning this, the letters to Alcison state these very points: "The synodical letters of Timotheus, now of Constantinople, were received here in Palestine; but the deposition of Macedonius and Flavian was not received, nor even the synodical letters of Severus. Furthermore, those who brought them, having been subjected to insults and abuse, as they deserved, fled, the people of the city and the monks having been stirred up against them." And Palestine was indeed in this state. As for those who were under Antioch, ^C some were led astray through fraud; among this number is Marinus, bishop of Berytus. Others, compelled by force and necessity, gave their consent to the synodical letters of Severus, which contained an anathema both against the Council of Chalcedon and against the rest of those who had spoken of two natures or properties in our Lord, one of the flesh and one of the divinity. Some, however, who had consented under necessity, afterwards repented and withdrew their consent; these are the bishops in the region of Apamea. Others, however, did not consent at all; these are Julian of Bostra and Epiphanius of Tyre, and, as they say, some others of the bishops. Now the Isaurians, having come to their senses...

at last condemn their former error, and anathematize Severus along with his followers. Certain others also ^A of those who are bishops and clerics under Severus, having abandoned their own churches, have fled. Among these are Julian, bishop of Bostra, and Peter of Damascus, who are dwelling among us. Mamas also: he, however, seemed to have been one of the two leaders of the Dioscorians, by whom Severus himself had been instructed; their arrogance having met with his disapproval. And a little later: The monasteries, however, which are here, and Jerusalem itself, as well as many other cities with their bishops, consent in the true faith. For all of whom, and for us, pray that we may not enter into temptation, most holy and most honorable Lord our Father.

CAP. XXXIV. Concerning the document of deposition sent to the same Severus by Cosmas and Severianus.

^B But since the aforementioned letters testify that the bishops who were subject to the Church of the Apameans had withdrawn from the communion of Severus, let us add here, if you please, those things which we have received from the Fathers, although they have not yet been produced in any historical records. Cosmas, bishop of our Epiphania, which the Orontes river washes, and Severianus, bishop of the neighboring city of Arethusa, being disturbed by the synodical letters of Severus, when they had broken themselves off from his communion, sent to him a document of deposition, while he was still presiding over the Church of Antioch. Furthermore, they delivered this document to a certain Aurelianus, archdeacon of the Church of Epiphania. ^C He, because he feared Severus himself and the weight of such a great bishopric, as soon as he came to Antioch, having put on women’s clothing, approached Severus, playing and behaving wantonly, and in all ways feigning himself to be a woman. Finally, having dropped down the veil with which he had covered his head as far as his breast, lamenting and sighing deeply, and imploring as a suppliant, he handed the document of deposition to Severus as he was passing by. And when he had escaped the notice of all, he withdrew from the crowd that was following Severus, and having taken to flight, he sought his own safety before Severus could learn what was written in the document. Severus, however, although he had received the document ^D and had learned what was contained in it, nevertheless remained in his see until the death of Anastasius. Furthermore, when Anastasius had found out what had happened to Severus—for the action of Anastasius, being carried out with kindness, must also be recorded—he commanded the military commander in Phoenice Libanensis

^A to expel Cosmas and Severianus from their sees, because they had dared to send a letter of deposition to Severus. When he had arrived in the regions of the East, and found that the doctrine of Cosmas and Severianus was defended by many, and that their cities were acting very strenuously on behalf of their bishops, he reported to Anastasius that these bishops could not be driven from their own sees without bloodshed. So great, therefore, was the kindness inherent in Anastasius that he wrote expressly to the Asiatic commander that he did not wish anything to be brought to completion—however great or excellent it might be—if even a drop of blood had to be shed. In this state, then, matters concerning the Churches were established throughout the whole world until the reign of Anastasius. As some had judged him to be an opponent of the Council of Chalcedon, they expunged his name from the sacred diptychs; and at Jerusalem, he was even anathematized while he was alive and breathing. ^B

Chapter XXXV. Concerning the Destruction of the Isaurian Tyranny.

It will not be out of place, in accordance with the promise we previously made, to attach to this history other matters worthy of note that occurred in the times of Anastasius. Longinus, the kinsman of Zeno, having returned to his homeland as has been previously narrated, openly undertook war against the Emperor. Many forces, therefore, having been gathered from here and there, among whom was also Conon—who had been bishop of Apamea in the province of Syria, but who fought as an Isaurian alongside the Isaurians—the war was finally brought to an end in this way. Those of the Isaurians ^C who had fought with Longinus were all slain to a man; but the heads of Longinus and Theodorus were sent by John the Scythian to the imperial city. The Emperor ordered these to be fixed upon poles and carried around, and to be hung in the suburb of Sycae, which is situated opposite Byzantium; this was a most welcome sight to the Byzantines, because of the evils they had suffered at the hands of Zeno and the Isaurians. The other Longinus, the one nicknamed Selinuntius, the chief strength of the tyrannical faction, and with him Indes, were captured alive by John, nicknamed Gibbus, and sent to Anastasius; ^D

^A these things both greatly refreshed the emperor and the people of Constantinople, when Longinus and Indes were led about, as in a triumphal procession, through the streets of the city and in the hippodrome, wearing iron chains fastened about their necks and hands. From that time the gifts formerly called "Isaurian" 79 began to be brought into the emperor's treasury. This was, in fact, gold that was paid annually to the Barbarians, amounting to five thousand pounds.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

How the Saracens made peace with the Romans.

But the barbarians also, whom they call Scenitae, did not attack the Roman Empire without personal loss to themselves; they ravaged the provinces of Mesopotamia, and both Phoenices, and Palestine. ^B However, having suffered a grievous defeat at the hands of the Roman generals who were in the individual provinces, they afterwards remained quiet, once the entire nation had made peace with the Romans.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

Concerning the taking of Amida, and the founding of the city of Daras.

The Persians also, with Cavades reigning over them, broke their treaty; and leaving their own territories, they first of all invaded the Armenias with an army. And when they had taken the small town of Theodosiopolis, they marched towards Amida, which is a sufficiently fortified city of Mesopotamia. ^C This, too, after a long siege, they at last captured. But the Roman Emperor later restored it, though not without massive effort. If anyone desires to understand the details of these matters accurately, and to read a diligent account of all that transpired, let him read Eustathius, who wrote a history of these things with the greatest brilliance, immense labor, and supreme elegance. He, having recounted the history up to this time, is numbered among those who have departed, having left it off in the twelfth year of the reign of Anastasius. After this war, then, Anastasius [founded] the place of Daras in Mesopotamia, at the frontiers of the Roman Empire.

and just as if it were a common boundary between either state, he made it a city out of a field; having fortified it with a strong wall, he added to it various distinguished buildings, churches, and indeed other holy houses, palaces, porticoes, and public baths, and other things with which notable cities are wont to be adorned. It is said by some that the region of Daras came by this name because Alexander of Macedon, the son of Philip, there defeated Darius completely. ^A

CAP. XXXVIII. Of the long wall.

The same emperor also achieved a work that was both greatest and worthy of memory, which they call the long wall ^B, positioned well in Thrace; it is distant from Constantinople by about two hundred and eighty stades. It embraces each sea for four hundred and twenty stades, like a certain strait, and by making the city almost an island instead of a peninsula, it transports those who wish to cross most safely from the so-called Pontus to the Propontis and the Thracian sea. It repels by its barrier the barbarians who make incursions from the so-called Euxine Pontus, from Colchis, and the Maeotic lake, and the regions above the Caucasus, as well as those who are wont to overflow throughout Europe. ^C

CAP. XXXIX. Of the so-called chrysargyrum, and how Anastasius abolished it.

A work of an exceedingly great and truly divine nature was also accomplished by him, namely the total abolition of the so-called chrysargyrum [(h)]; a matter which must be mentioned, though it would require the tongue of Thucydides, or one even greater and more elegant. I, however, will speak, not relying on eloquence, but trusting in the deed itself. There had been imposed upon the Roman state, a thing so great and wide, a tax that was altogether miserable and hateful to God, and unworthy even of the barbarians, let alone becoming to the most Christian Roman empire. This, which up to his time, for what reason I know not how, ^D [stood], he himself most imperially removed. It had been laid upon many others who provided their sustenance by collection, and on those who sold...

their bodies for gain, and who offered themselves for lewdness in the hidden and obscure places of the city in houses of shame; furthermore, upon men who suffered the treatment of women, and thereby insulted not only their own nature, but the state itself. Insomuch that this exaction proclaimed, as if by law, that it was permitted to any person to commit that incestuous lust. Moreover, those exactors who gathered that impious and detestable gain from this tax everywhere, brought it every four years ^A to the highest magistracy of the Roman Empire: so that this formed no small part of the magistracy, and had, as they call it, its own proper offices, and accountants who presided over these financial records—men of no obscure rank, who considered this duty to be a service just as much as the others. When Anastasius learned this, and had reported it to the Senate, rightly pronouncing this matter to be a crime and a strange and insolent offense, he decreed that it should be utterly abolished, and he committed the papers declaring the exaction to the fire. And wishing to consecrate the deed to God perfectly, so that it might not be permitted for any of those after him to invoke the ancient customs again, he feigns ^B [his displeasure]. [alt-version omitted]

ANNOTATIONS OF VALOIS

^B With these words, Evagrius appears to designate the Praetorian Prefecture. For this was the vertex of all dignities, as Ammianus Marcellinus says. To this, therefore, the chrysargyron tax was brought every four years. Certainly, taxes were accustomed to be paid into the treasury of the Praetorian Prefecture. Hence it is that in Book XII of the Theodosian Code, under the title *De lustrali collatione* (On the Lustral Contribution), the greatest part of the laws is given to the Praetorian Prefects. Indeed, the lustral contribution is nothing other than the chrysargyron: that is, gold and silver required from merchants, or the lustral gold contribution, and the gold-duty. For thus it is called in the same title. Whether, furthermore, it ought to be called a tax or rather a toll, is uncertain. Evagrius calls it a toll, which is what a *vectigal* is. It is also called a *vectigal* in the penultimate law concerning the lustral contribution. That it was commonly called "penal gold" is taught to us by the ancient author of the *Questions of the Old and New Testament*, in Question 75: "A didrachma, he says, is understood as the exaction of head-money or tax, not of land: which is now called penal gold, because even the poor are exacted." There is an elegant passage in Libanius on this tax in his *Oration against Florentius*, page 427, which I shall transcribe here; [the passage in Greek discusses the intolerable nature of the tax, the terror it brings, how it destroys the poor who have nothing, its effect on those sold by their parents, and the injustice of the collection]. ^C This is the intolerable tax, namely the chrysargyron, which causes the individual lustra, as often as they are near, to strike terror into souls. The name given to this contribution is indeed specious, coming from "merchants." But while they use the sea to sell their wares, those to whom their hands barely provide bread are utterly destroyed. Nor is the tax-collector himself immune to this evil. Those whom I have often seen, with their chisel raised to the sky, swearing that all their possessions were laid out in it. Nor does that free them from the vexation of those who press upon them, and who bark and would as good as bite them. This time, emperor, increases the number of slaves, for it despoils of their liberty those who are sold by their parents, not so that they themselves might bring the price of the sale into their own treasury; but so that they see it pass into the hand of the extortioner. In the Greek text of Libanius, for [Greek text] I have emended to [Greek text], and for the word [Greek text] I have substituted [Greek text].

^D [Regarding the phrase "the scribes of the special departments"]: among the officials of the Praetorian Prefect, four accountants are listed in the *Notitia Imperii Romani*, one of whom was the accountant of gold, that is, of lustral gold or chrysargyron. For he was among the officials of the Count of the Sacred Largesses, the chief of the gold-mass office, and the chief of the gold office: perhaps because a certain portion of this tax was brought to the treasury of the Sacred Largesses. Truly, in the title *De lustrali collatione*, there exists a law of Valentinian to Florentius, Count of the Sacred Largesses. From which it appears that some part of this gold-duty pertained to the titles of the largesses. [Regarding the phrase "those who vote on such things"]: he understands the accountants of lustral gold, who were in the office of the Praetorian Prefects, as I have said above. For they are indeed accountants, as I have noted long since regarding Ammianus Marcellinus, who by another name were also called *rationarii*. [Regarding the phrase "adding to the senate"]: write *meo periculo* "propounding." For "to propound" is the same as "to refer," "to propose." Our emendation is confirmed by the Codex Tellerianus, in which I found it written exactly as I had conjectured.

^A He was accusing himself of folly, and of exceeding ignorance, saying that in giving more weight to vainglory, he had neglected what was conducive to the state, and had rashly and inconsiderately destroyed that resource which had been discovered long ago and confirmed over so many years, not understanding the dangers that were threatening, nor the military expenses—the living wall of the state—nor those things necessary for the worship of God; and showing nothing of the internal records, he announced his desire to recover the aforementioned resource. And so, having gathered those who were in charge, he said that he repented, but that he did not know what he should do, or how he might correct his own sin, since the papers which were able to show the collection had been entirely burned. When they—not feignedly, but in very truth and from the heart, lamenting the tax because of the illicit gain they were accustomed to receive from it, and pleading a similar lack of resources—begged him, he exhorted and encouraged them to search through every inquiry, if they could by any means find the collection of the whole through the leaves gathered in every place. And sending expenses to each, he sent them forth for the gathering of these things, entrusting to each that whatever paper was able to clarify these matters, wherever it might be found, should be brought to him, so that after great consideration and exceeding precision, the matters concerning these might be organized again. ^B And when, after some time, those who served these things returned, Anastasius seemed quite graceful and rejoicing with radiance. And he rejoiced indeed, since he had attained what he desired. He inquired, therefore, in what manner and with whom the papers had been found, and if anything remained from such monuments. When they affirmed that they had labored much to seek out these papers, and swore before the emperor himself that no other paper from which the knowledge of this tax could be grasped was to be found in the entire Roman empire, he again lit a great fire from the brought-in papers, and quenched the ashes with water, wishing to destroy the practice completely, so that neither dust nor ash, nor even any remainder of the thing, might appear, since they were less than burned.

And that we might not appear to be ignorant of what and what kind of things have been passionately recorded by the more ancient writers concerning this assessment—so that by not removing the obstacle to the practice so much, we might not seem to be ignorant—come, let me also set these forth, and I will show them to be false, and especially from those things which he himself performed. ^{C D}

CAP. XL. Of those things which Zosimus wrote concerning the chrysargyron and the Emperor Constantine.

Zosimus, one of that number who followed the impious and detestable superstition of the Greeks, being hostile to Constantine because he was the first of the emperors to abandon the execrable superstition of the Greeks and embrace the Christian religion, relates that the tax which is called the Chrysargyron was first instituted by him, and that it was enacted by law that it should be paid every fourth year. The same Zosimus ^A assails the pious and most magnificent Constantine with countless other slanders. For he says that other things, altogether intolerable, were devised by him against men of every station: that he put his son Crispus to a miserable death, and that he finally shut up his wife Fausta in a bath heated beyond measure, and killed her. And when he sought an expiation among his own priests for such great crimes, and had not found it—for they openly replied that such great murders could not be expiated by any kind of lustration—he happened upon a certain Egyptian who had arrived from Iberia. From him, having learned that the Christian religion could utterly abolish all crimes, he embraced those things which the Egyptian had delivered to him. And from that time, having abandoned the religion of his ancestors, he made it, as he himself says, the beginning of impiety. ^B And indeed, I shall presently show that these things are false. But first I shall speak concerning the chrysargyron.

CAP. XLI. An invective against Zosimus for his slanders against Constantine and the Christians.

You say, therefore, O wicked and destructive demon, that Constantine, when he wished to build a city to rival Rome, first laid the foundations of such a great city between the Troad and Ilium and raised walls on high; but afterwards, when he had found the site of Byzantium to be far more convenient, he surrounded that place with walls, and so enlarged the former city, and adorned it so greatly with the splendor of its buildings, that it appeared not much inferior to the city of Rome, which had gradually grown to that magnitude over so many years. You write, moreover, that he granted a public ration to the citizens of Byzantium, and that he bestowed a great amount of gold upon ^C those who had migrated to Byzantium with him for the construction of private houses. You also relate, that I may use your own words, that after Constantine’s death, by your usual custom, the sum of the empire came solely to Constantius, his son, after the death of both of his brothers. And when Magnentius and Vetranio had seized the tyranny, Constantius ^D

^A, having delivered an address to the troops, reminded the soldiers of the generosity of his father, with whom they had endured many wars and by whom they had been honored with great gifts; and as the soldiers, upon hearing these things, stripped Vetranio of his vestments, they brought him down from the tribunal as a private citizen. And seeing that he suffered no harsh treatment at the hands of Constantius, who was so much slandered together with his father by you—how, then, do you judge that the same man, being so generous and so open-handed, could be so petty and miserly as to impose such a wicked tax, I am completely at a loss to know.

And that he did not kill Fausta or Crispus, nor did he receive the sacrament of our religion from any Egyptian on account of these things, listen, if you please, to the testimony of Eusebius Pamphili, who flourished in the same times in which Constantine and Crispus lived, and who was often in their company. ^B For you do not write even from hearsay, much less the truth; you, who have written many years later, in the times of Arcadius and Honorius—up to whom you have carried your history—or perhaps even having come after them. And he writes these words exactly, in the eighth book of his *Ecclesiastical History*: “When not much time had passed, the emperor Constantius, a man in all his life most gentle, and who was endowed perpetually with both clemency toward his subjects and a singular benevolence toward our faith, leaving his own genuine son Constantine as supreme emperor and Augustus in his stead, departed this life by the common law of nature.” And a little further on: ^C “His son Constantine, immediately beginning, as supreme emperor and Augustus by the soldiers—and long before this proclaimed by God, the King of all—showed himself an imitator of his father’s piety concerning our doctrine.” And at the end of the *History*, he says these words: “But he, preeminent in every virtue of godliness, the greatest, the victor Constantine, together with his son Crispus, a most God-beloved king and in all things like his father, recovered his own.” Now Eusebius would not have praised Crispus in such a way if he had been killed by his father, having survived Constantine. ^D And Theodoret, when narrating...

^A in his history, tells how Constantine, toward the end of his life, was initiated into the saving bath at Nicomedia; he had deferred his baptism until that time, because he desired to be baptized in the Jordan river. You assert further, O most wicked and filthy of all mortals, that the Roman empire, from the time the Christian religion began to raise its head, fell into decay and perished utterly: either because you have read nothing of the things that happened in ancient times, or because you are struggling against the truth of your own malicious will. For the contrary is manifestly shown, namely, that the Roman empire grew together with our faith. For consider how, around the coming of Christ our God to earth, very many cities of the Macedonians were overthrown by the Romans; how Albania and ^B Iberia, with the Colchians and Arabia, came into the power of the Roman people. Consider also how Gaius Caesar, in the one hundred and twenty-third Olympiad, in great battles subjugated the Gauls, the Germans, and the Britons—who inhabited five hundred cities—and added them to the Roman dominion, just as has been written by historians. This is the Caesar who, first after the consuls, obtained singular command, paving the way out of the worship of many gods and the domination of a turbulent populace, and introducing beforehand the cult of monarchy, for the sake of the monarchy of Christ that was soon to arrive. Presently, the whole of Judea and the neighboring regions were annexed to the empire: so much so that the first census was made at that time, in which Christ also was enrolled along with the rest, so that Bethlehem ^C might publish to all the outcome of the oracle that had been uttered concerning it. For thus the prophet Micah had foretold regarding it: “And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come forth for me a leader who will shepherd my people Israel.” And after the birth of Christ our God, Egypt was added to the Roman dominion when Augustus Caesar, in whose reign Christ was born, had utterly defeated Antony and Cleopatra, who killed themselves. After them, Cornelius Gallus was appointed prefect of Egypt by Augustus Caesar, ruling Egypt as the first after the Ptolemies, as has been described by the historians. How many times were the Persians decimated by Ventidius, and by ^D Cordo, the general of Nero, and by Severus, Trajan, and Carus, by Cassius, and by Odenathus from Palmyra, and by Apollonius, and by others; and how many times were Seleucia and Ctesiphon captured, and Nisibis taken on both occasions?

the Egyptian rule, as handed down by the historians. As for how many regions were taken from the Persians by Ventidius and by Corbulo, the general of Nero; by Severus likewise, and Trajan and Carus; by Cassius also, and Odenathus the Palmyrene, and Apollonius, and others; how many times, moreover, the cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon were captured; how many times Nisibis, passing now to the Romans, now to the Persians; and finally, how Armenia and the neighboring nations were annexed to the Roman empire: these things you recount along with the other writers. But I had almost omitted those deeds which you write were accomplished by Constantine, who, while professing our religion, administered the Roman empire vigorously ^B and bravely; and how much your Julian suffered—he who was a participant in the same mysteries with you—who brought so many and such great disasters upon the state. Whether any of those things which were predicted concerning the end of the world have already received some prelude, or are about to meet their end, is a matter of a higher dispensation than you are able to grasp. Let us examine, however, if you please, in what manner those emperors who professed the superstition of the Gentiles, and in what manner those who embraced the religion of Christ, reached the end of their reigning and of their lives. Was not Gaius Julius Caesar, who first obtained sole power, killed through fraud and treachery, and did he not depart from this light? Did not certain soldiers slaughter with their swords that second Gaius, the grandson of Tiberius? Was not Nero killed by one of his own household? Did not Galba ^C have a similar end to his life? Otho, likewise, and Vitellius: these three reigned for a space of only sixteen months. And as for Titus, who reigned, did not his brother Domitian kill him with poison? And did not Domitian himself, having been killed by Stephanus, perish with a miserable end? And what will you say about Commodus? Did not Narcissus lay violent hands upon him? Pertinax, also, and Julianus, did they not suffer similar things? Now indeed, as to Antoninus, the son of Severus, did he not kill his brother Geta, and was he not himself afterwards taken away by a similar kind of death at the hands of Martial? What of Macrinus; was he not led about the city of Byzantium like a captive, and wickedly slaughtered by his own soldiers? And likewise Aurelius Antoninus, sprung from the city of Emesa, did he not perish, run through with ^D a sword, together with his mother? And he who succeeded him, Alexander; shall I say of Maximinus, who was killed by his own soldiers? What of Gordianus, who, through the treachery of Philippus, was killed by his own soldiers and closed his final day? Now, tell me, I ask, were not Philippus and Decius killed by the enemy? And Gallus and Volusianus, were they not killed by their own troops? Did not Aemilianus also perish with a similar end? Now, as for Valerian, was he not captured in battle and led about by the Persians? Finally, as for Gallienus, through fraud...

and through Zeno, by whom he was destroyed and put off this life. I am convinced also by what you say regarding Valens, who inflicted so many evils upon the Christians. As for another, you yourself do not even name one. Let no one imagine these matters to be extraneous to ecclesiastical history; on the contrary, they are entirely useful and essential, because the Greek writers of history endeavor to obscure the accurate knowledge of affairs out of malice. But let us proceed to the remaining deeds of Anastasius.

CAP. XLII. Concerning the gold tax.

Those things which I related above were performed by Anastasius in a manner worthy of an emperor. Yet he also performed actions not worthy of these, having devised the so-called "chrysotelia" (gold tax) and having sold off the military expenditure to the heavy detriment of the taxpayers. He also removed the collection of taxes from the curiae

of the cities, having appointed in each city those they call "vindices" [avengers/collectors], at the instigation, they say, of Marinus the Syrian, who held the highest of all offices, ^A which the ancients called the Praetorian Prefecture. The result of this was that, for the most part, the taxes dried up and the dignity of the cities was diminished. For in ancient times, the most noble men were enrolled in the registers of each city; and each city, for its part, possessed and was defined by those who were entered into the curia, [acting] like a sort of senate.

VARIAE LECTIONES

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

...Anastasius therefore, the emperor, completely took away from them the collection of taxes which the decurions partially administered. This is the reason why in the thirteenth edict of Justinian, where he deals with the collection of taxes in Egypt, he makes absolutely no mention of the decurions: but he names only the scriniarii and the tractatores of the Praetorian Prefecture, who collected the fiscal taxes from the taxpayers and paid them into the double treasury, or the chest of the Praetorian Prefecture, the one private, the other general. This institution, I believe, was established by Anastasius, who had decreed that taxes be paid not in the items themselves [in kind], but in gold, as I observed above. But the reason why Anastasius instituted this can be offered: Emperor Anastasius, as Procopius testifies, was most provident in governing the republic, and preferred to buy peace from the barbarians with gold rather than to contend with them in an uncertain war. As this succeeded for him according to his wishes, he reduced the military numbers, since there was no need for them, as the barbarians, appeased by gold, kept the peace. Thus Suidas, under the word "Anastasius," says that the provinces of the Roman empire were almost devoid of soldiers in his time. Therefore, when the Roman legions were reduced to such a small number, there was no need to store up so many kinds of rations in the public granaries. Anastasius therefore judged it better to exact money from the provincials, with which he might buy peace from the barbarians.

(2) [Regarding] those called "vindices." Mention is made of them in the Novels of Justinian, and in the thirteenth edict. The author of the Chronicon Alexandrinum, page 785: "Among whom was slain Antipater, the vindex of Antioch." The translator renders these words as follows: "Among whom fell Antipater, vindex or judge of Antioch." But the vindices were not judges, but those set over the collection of taxes; as Justinian teaches in Novel 124 and 125, where he joins them with the curiales and the officials and the canonicarii and the collectors of taxes. And this current passage of Evagrius confirms it. For he says that Emperor Anastasius took away the collection of taxes from the curiales and transferred it to the vindices whom he himself had established. Therefore, the vindices collected taxes from the provincials. The same Justinian in the thirteenth edict says that a certain Potamon, in the times of Anastasius, was set over the collection of taxes at Alexandria under the title of vindex. For thus I interpret these words: "Potamon at that time standing at the head of the public affairs of the Alexandrians according to the manner of the vindex." From which we also learn that the vindex of Alexandria was set over the collection of the "exagium": that was the duty [tax] for the exportation of tiles and other merchandise which were exported from the city of Alexandria.

C In the thirteenth edict, the emperor calls Marianus "vindex" in these words: "...that your glory found in a certain chart in the times of Anastasius of pious memory, when Marianus, he of the glorious [office], transacted the business on his behalf," etc. That is: "Your glorious magnificence found in a certain chart during the times of Anastasius the emperor of pious memory, at the time when Marianus of glorious memory was administering public affairs under him." However, Marcellinus in his Chronicle calls him "Marinus," in the 5th indiction, under consuls Paulus and Muscianus. "On that Sunday, when by the order of Emperor Anastasius, while Marinus and Plato were standing on the pulpit of the church, the 'quaternitas' [addition] was added to the hymn of the Trinity of the Deipassiani," etc. And Plato indeed was the Prefect of the City of Constantinople, as Victor Tunonensis teaches in his Chronicle; but Marinus was the Praetorian Prefect: wherefore he is placed before Plato by Marcellinus. Furthermore, Cedrenus and Zonaras, while they tell the same story as Marcellinus and Victor, are silent about the names of Marinus and Plato: yet they express the dignity of both; calling one a *logothetes*, the other an *eparchos*. Where by the word *logothetes*, they designate the Praetorian Prefect, because the Praetorian Prefect handled the accounts of the taxes. Moreover, it should not be omitted what Zonaras reports, that this Marianus the prefect (for so he calls him) overcame the tyrant Vitalianus in a naval battle by the aid of certain incendiary mirrors, which had been fashioned by Proclus the philosopher. From which words some could suspect that this is Marinus the Syrian, the student of Proclus the philosopher. Certainly, Nicephorus also in the last chapter of book xv, calls him Marinus the Syrian. I, however, judge that that Marinus the Syrian who was Praetorian Prefect in the times of Anastasius should be distinguished from Marinus the Syrian the philosopher who wrote the life of Proclus. For the latter was a Gentile in religion, as we learn from an old epigram which is read in the Anthology. But the former was a Christian, as is evident from Marcellinus.

CAP. XLIII. On the tyranny of Vitalianus.

^A Vitalianus, who was of Gothic descent, rose up against Anastasius. After he had ravaged Thrace and Moesia as far as the cities of Odessus and Anchialus, he marched toward the royal city, leading an uncountable multitude of Hunnic nations. The emperor sent Hypatius to confront him. But as Hypatius was betrayed by his own men and taken prisoner by the enemy, only to be ransomed later for a great sum, the administration of the entire war was entrusted to Cyrillus. At first, the fighting was evenly matched; but when the battle had undergone various shifts, with both the pursuit and the withdrawal proving indecisive, and Cyrillus had gained the upper hand, the enemy suddenly launched an assault, as the Roman soldiers had of their own accord turned their backs to flee. In this manner, Vitalianus captured Cyrillus in the city of Odessus; and devastating everything with fire and sword, he arrived as far as Sycae, intending nothing else but to take the royal city itself and seize the empire.

^B When Vitalianus had pitched his tent at Sycae, Marinus the Syrian, whom I have mentioned above, was sent by the emperor with naval forces to fight against him. The two armies stood arrayed against each other, the one having Sycae at its back, and the other Constantinople. At first, they rested as if by a tacit truce. But later, after a few skirmishes and the exchange of missiles, a fierce naval battle began near the locations called Bytharia, in which Vitalianus turned his ships about and took to flight, having lost many of his forces. The same was done by those who followed his cause, with such speed that by the next day not one of the enemy was to be found near the Anaplus or the royal city itself. ^C After this, Vitalianus is said to have stayed for some time in the city of Anchialus, keeping himself quiet. Meanwhile, another tribe of Huns, having crossed through the Cappadocian Gates, made an incursion.

into the provinces of the Roman Empire. During the same period, 380 Rhodes was shaken for the third time by a great earthquake in the dead of the night.

CHAPTER XLIV.

In Constantinople, when the Emperor wished to make an addition to the Trisagion, namely, "Who wast crucified for us," a very great sedition arose, as if the Christian religion were being utterly overthrown. Severus, writing to Sotericus 8, says that the leader and patron of this was Macedonius and the clergy of the city of Constantinople, ^B at a time when he had not yet obtained the priestly throne, but was living at the imperial court 9, and had been expelled from his monastery—which was not his own, as I have stated 10—along with many others. I believe that it was from these calumnies, in addition to other causes which I previously commemorated, that Macedonius was expelled from his see. From that point, the people being borne along uncontrollably, those who occupied positions of dignity were in danger of their lives, and many of the notables were burned...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

8 Severus was bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, ordained by Macedonius, the bishop of Constantinople. Later, having crossed to the party of the Eutychians, he joined himself to the impious Xenaias, as Theophanes writes in his Chronicle. Therefore, it is no wonder that Severus, the ringleader of the Eutychians, wrote letters to Sotericus, who was like him, and in them accused Macedonius, the Catholic bishop, as the author of the sedition. Rather, Severus himself was the author of this sedition, who had persuaded the prince Anastasius to add this clause to the Trisagion hymn: "Who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us," as Cedrenus writes in the Chronicle. Furthermore, Proclus, the bishop of Constantinople, had been taught this Trisagion hymn by angels. As soon as the priest had approached the altar, the hieropsalt was beginning to sing from the pulpit in this way: *Agios ho Theos, agios ischyros, agios athanatos, hagia Trias, eleison hemas*, as Jovius the Monk writes in Book VI, in the Bibliotheca [of Photius]. On account of this hymn, grave tumults afterwards arose in the Church, when the Orientals indeed subjected this clause... to this hymn, referring it to Jesus Christ; but the Constantinopolitans and the Westerners rejected that addition, lest any passion be attributed to the consubstantial Trinity: and in its place they sang... as Ephremius the Antiochene patriarch teaches in the Bibliotheca [of Photius]. Therefore Macedonius acted rightly, in that he, retaining the custom handed down by Proclus, rejected that addition.

9 "At the imperial court." Christopher correctly translates this passage, "he was spending his life in the imperial court." Nicephorus admitted the same error, who explained these words of Evagrius thus... But in Evagrius it should be written, *epi de tes basileias*, that is, "in the Royal City." For thus Evagrius is accustomed to call Constantinople, as I noted above. But he also calls it so in the previous chapter.

10 "Not his own." Without doubt it should be written *oute tou kat' auton*, etc., just as Nicephorus also reads. For he expressed these words of Evagrius thus: *ek tou kat' auton monasteriou*. I marvel, however, that this was not noticed by the translators, namely Musculus and Christophorson.

OF VARIOUS AUTHORS.

(o) "Not yet having obtained the priestly throne." Therefore these things are to be referred to the earlier tumults excited in Constantinople in the year 511, when Severus had not yet obtained the see of Antioch, which he invaded in the following year. For in both years grave tumults arose on account of the clause, "Who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us," added to the Trisagion hymn. See Pagi on the year 51, n. a, etc.; 512, n. 8.

^A Therefore, the populace being moved by this cause, and finding a rustic man who was leading a monastic life in the house of Marinus the Syrian, they cut off his head, saying that those words were added to the hymn at his suggestion. And carrying his head about on a pole, they cried out in mockery that he was an enemy of the Trinity. Furthermore, the sedition, laying waste to everything and overcoming every force opposed to it, grew to such an extent that the emperor, compelled by necessity, went to the horse-races—which were to be held in the circus—in a pitiable manner, without his imperial crown, and sent heralds to the people to proclaim that he would most willingly abdicate the empire, but that it was impossible for all to hold the empire at once, as it in no wise admits of many partners, and there must be one who would govern the empire after him. When the people perceived this, as if moved by some divine impulse, they suddenly changed their plan and exhorted Anastasius to put the crown back upon his head, promising that they would henceforth remain quiet. Anastasius, having survived but a very short time after these events, departed to the other life, having administered the Roman empire for twenty-seven years, three months, and as many days.

^B The end of the third book of the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius.

BOOK FOUR.

In the fourth book of the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, the following are contained:

Cap. I. Concerning the reign of Justin the Elder. II. Concerning Amantius the eunuch, and Theocritus; and how they were killed by Justin. III. How Justin killed Vitalianus by trickery. IV. How Justin, having driven out Severus, brought in Paul in his place; and how Euphrasius shortly thereafter obtained the see of Antioch. V. Concerning the fires and earthquakes which occurred at Antioch, by which Euphrasius was overwhelmed and perished.

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, BOOK IV

^A VI. Concerning Ephraemius, the successor of Euphrasius. VII. Concerning Zosimus and John, who were renowned for miracles. VIII. Concerning the calamities of the whole world. IX. How Justin, while still alive, chose Justinian as his colleague in the empire. X. How Justinian loved those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon; but Theodora favored those who rejected that council. XI. How Severus perverted Anthimus of Constantinople and Theodosius of Alexandria; whom the emperor expelled, and appointed others in their stead. XII. From the history of Procopius of Caesarea, concerning Cavades, king of the Persians, and his son Chosroes. XIII. Concerning Alamundarus and Azaretus, and concerning the sedition which arose at Constantinople, to which the name Nika was given. XIV. Concerning Huneric, king of the Vandals, and the Christians whose tongues were cut out by him. XV. Concerning Cabaon the Moor. XVI. Concerning the expedition of Belisarius against the Vandals, and their destruction. XVII. ^B Concerning the spoils which were brought from Africa. XVIII. Concerning those Phoenicians who fled from the face of Jesus, son of Nave. XIX. Concerning Theodoric, king of the Goths, and the events that occurred at Rome during his reign up to the time of Justinian; and how Rome returned under the power of the Romans when Vitiges had fled from it. XX. How the so-called Heruli embraced the Christian faith during the time of Justinian. XXI. How Belisarius recovered the city of Rome, which the Goths had captured again. XXII. How at the same time the Abasgi also embraced the Christian faith. XXIII. How also the barbarians who dwell by the Tanais embraced the Christian religion; and concerning the earthquakes which occurred in Greece and Achaia. XXIV. Concerning Narses the general, and his piety. XXV. How Chosroes, pricked by envy at the successes of Justinian, waged war against the Romans and destroyed many Roman cities, among which was the great city of Antioch. XXVI. Concerning the miracle that occurred at Apamea regarding the precious and life-giving wood of the Cross. XXVII. Concerning the expedition of Chosroes against Edessa. XXVIII. Concerning the miracle which occurred at Sergiopolis. XXIX. Concerning the pestilential disease. XXX. ^C Concerning the insatiable avarice of Justinian. XXXI. Concerning the great church of Saint Sophia and the Holy Apostles. XXXII. Concerning Justinian’s madness—or rather, preference—for the Blue faction.

XXXIII. Of the monk Barsanuphius. XXXIV. Of the monk Symeon, who feigned madness for Christ's sake. XXXV. Of the monk Thomas, who likewise feigned madness. XXXVI. Of the patriarch Menas, and of the miracle which happened at that time to the child of a certain Hebrew. XXXVII. Who were the bishops of the great cities at that time. XXXVIII. Of the fifth holy and oecumenical synod, and for what cause it was convened. XXXIX. How Justinian, departing from the true faith, maintained that the body of the Lord is incorruptible. XL. Of Anastasius, archbishop of Antioch. XLI. Of the death of Justinian.

CAPUT I. Of the reign of Justin the Elder.

Anastasius, then, having been removed from this light to a better lot, Justin, by birth a Thracian, assumed the imperial purple on the ninth day of the month Panemus, which the Romans call July, in the five hundred and sixty-sixth year of the city of Antioch. He was proclaimed emperor by the soldiers who were appointed for the prince's guard, and over whom he himself presided, being at that time ^A count of the excubitors. Now, he attained the empire beyond the expectation of all, for there were many from the kinsmen of Anastasius, men noble and wealthy, who had achieved all that power which could procure for them the imperial dignity.

CAP. II. Of Amantius the eunuch and Theocritus; and how they were put to death by Justin.

There was then ^B a certain Amantius, the chamberlain of the sacred palace, endued with the greatest power. Since he, as a eunuch, could not himself rule over the Roman empire, he desired to place the imperial crown upon a certain Theocritus, whom he deemed most faithful to himself. Justin, therefore, having been summoned to him, he gave him a great sum of money, commanding him to distribute it to those who were best fitted for this work, such as were...

able to bestow the purple robe upon Theocritus. Whether he bought over the people with this money or the goodwill of the so-called excubitors—for they say it was for both—he assumed the office. Accordingly, he immediately removed Amantius and Theocritus, along with others, from the living.

CAP. III. How Justin ^B destroyed Vitalianus by treachery.

Vitalianus, residing in Thrace, who had desired to oust Anastasius from the empire, was summoned to the city of Constantine; for Justin feared his power and his experience in wars, as well as the fame he held among all men, and the desire he had for the sovereignty. Having shrewdly perceived that he could not get the better of him in any other way—nor could he even feign friendship—and having cloaked himself in a mask of undeceived treachery, he declared him general of one of the so-called *praesentales* armies. Granting him still greater scope through persuasion, to further deceive him, he even advanced Vitalianus to the consulship. Vitalianus, having attained the consulship ^C, when he had come to the palace, was murdered in a certain *mesaulion* gate. ^D

thus paying the penalty for the evils with which he had afflicted the Roman Empire with such utter insolence. But these things happened later. ^A

CAP. IV. How Justin, having driven out Severus, brought in Paul in his place, and how Euphrasius shortly after obtained the Antiochene see.

In the first year of his reign, Justin ordered that Severus, who had been ordained bishop of Antioch, as was said above, should be apprehended—for the reason that he did not cease to daily anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the letters which they call "Enthronistic," ^B and in the replies to those same letters which he sent to the individual patriarchs; which indeed letters of his were received only at Alexandria by John—who had succeeded the previous John—and by Dioscorus and Timotheus, and which have been preserved even to our own time. And because many contentions had arisen in the Church on this account, and the host of the faithful had been divided into various factions, he ordered ^C that Severus be apprehended. ^D

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

...Constantinople within the palace, in a place which men call by the Greek name *Delphicum*, he was murdered by the faction of the patrician Justinian. The *Delphicum* was a building in the palace at Constantinople, in which the emperor's sofas were; it was so called from the Delphic table, upon which cups were accustomed to be placed, as Procopius teaches in his book *On the Vandals*. The *Delphicum* was, therefore, a chamber of nineteen couches, next to which was a great atrium, or courtyard... In this courtyard, or court, Vitalianus was killed in his consulship, in the year of Christ 520, as Marcellinus teaches in his *Chronicle*...

If we prefer to take it for a gate, we must understand the gate of the *Delphicum*. Thus the Council of Constantinople held under Menas is said to have been in the western atrium of the venerable church of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Cedrenus says that in the year of Justinian the Great Church burned down, which is called the *Garsonastasium*. The old glosses interpret *mesaulion* as a rainwater basin. Theophanes in his *Chronicle*, page 158, writes that Justinian built a great cistern from the *mesaulion*, or the atrium of the basilica. The old glosses interpret it as an atrium. But when we read that a council was held in the *mesaulion*, it should be understood not of an open-air area, but of the porches of the atrium. For the councils of bishops were not accustomed to be held in the open air.

...Neither is the Greek word "to pay" *poinēn katalebein*, unless my opinion fails me. But it is more correct as the Latins say, "to pay penalties" (*poenas solvere*). Thus Evagrius speaks in this chapter of his book... "anathematize however the bishops of the synod."

...Christophoros did not understand this word, as is apparent from his interpretation. For he translates thus: "...especially in the letters which [are] enthronistic, that is, which were written concerning the bishops to be placed in the episcopal seat," etc. John Langus more correctly translates in chapter 2, book XVIII, of Nicephorus, thus: "But especially in those letters which are called enthronistic, or synodical, epistles," etc. So were called the epistles which the patriarchs were accustomed to send to one another at an enthronement, that is, at the beginning of their episcopate...

...Timotheus the Alexandrian is understood, who had succeeded the younger Dioscorus in the episcopate, as Liberatus writes in chapter 19 of his *Breviary*. For Timotheus, the bishop of Constantinople, cannot be understood here, since Evagrius said a little before that Severus's synodical epistles had been received only at Alexandria.

...in the second year of the reign of Justin, Severus was expelled, in the year of Christ 519, as Baronius has correctly noted. [index: entries preserved]

^A to be punished with the severance of his tongue, as has been reported by some. The execution of this matter was entrusted to Irenaeus, who at that time was ^B comes Orientis and resided at Antioch. Certain it is that Irenaeus had been given orders to apprehend Severus, a fact which Severus himself attests in the letters that he wrote to certain citizens of Antioch, explaining the manner of his flight. In these letters, he attacks Irenaeus with many reproaches, as one who had blocked all routes with a diligent guard so that he might not be able to escape from the city of Antioch. There are some who say that Vitalian requested the tongue of Severus from Justin, since he seemed at that time to hold the highest favor and authority with Justin, because Severus had been accustomed to attack him with insults in his own discourses. ^B Furthermore, Severus fled from the Antiochene see in the month Gorpiaeus, which the Romans call September, in the five hundred and sixty-seventh year of the era of the city of Antioch. Following him, Paul was promoted to the episcopal throne and ordered to preach the Council of Chalcedon openly. Paul, indeed, having departed Antioch of his own volition, eventually completed his life’s course and died a natural death. Euphrasius succeeded him, coming from the city of Jerusalem to obtain the episcopate.

CHAPTER V.

Concerning the conflagrations and earthquakes that occurred at Antioch, by which Euphrasius was buried and died.

In the same times of Justin, frequent and severe conflagrations occurred at Antioch, as though prefiguring the more ^C horrible earthquakes that followed later.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

VARIORUM

and as if it were the prelude to coming calamities. ^A For after a short time, in the seventh year of his reign, in the tenth month—the month of Artemisios, which the Romans call May—on the twenty-ninth day of that month, at the most distinct hour of midday, on the sixth day of the week, a violent shaking and earthquake coming upon the city brought down almost the entire place, casting it into ruin; and fire followed these, as if sharing with them the weight of the disaster. For whatever places were not overturned by the shaking and the earthquake, the fire, spreading, reduced to ash and embers. And as to how many parts of the city suffered, and how many thousands of men became the work of the fire and the earthquake, and what strange things, surpassing any description, occurred, John the rhetor ^B has recounted in a mournful style, concluding his history with these events. Finally, Euphrasius also, having been caught in the ruins, brought a further calamity to the city, since no one remained who could provide for necessary matters.

CAP. VI. Of Ephraemius, the successor of Euphrasius.

But the saving providence of God, which is accustomed to prepare remedies before the blow, and sharpens the sword of His anger by His clemency, and which opens the gates of hope even to desperate situations, roused Ephraemius, ^C then Count of the East, so that he might look after and care so that nothing necessary would be lacking to the city. The people of Antioch, admiring him, for this reason chose him bishop of the city by common suffrage. Therefore, Ephraemius obtained the apostolic see as a reward and honor for his providence toward that city. Then, after thirty months had passed, the same city again suffered from earthquakes. At that time also, Theopolis ^D

^A was called by a changed name, and the emperor looked after it with all care and diligence.

CHAPTER VII. On Zosima and John who were famous for miracles.

[alt-version omitted]

impossible to enumerate them, but I shall recount a few.

In the same times in which Zosimas flourished, there lived a certain man, John by name, adorned with virtues comparable [to those of Zosimas], in the Laura of Chuziba. It lies at the extremity of a ravine, on the northern side of the public road that leads from Jerusalem to the city of Jericho, having wrestled through a solitary and quiet life, and having later become bishop of the city of Caesarea I mentioned before. This John the Chuzibite, when he heard that the wife of the aforementioned Arcesilaus had had one of her eyes gouged out by a needle, ran speedily to her to examine the injury. When he saw that the pupil had fallen out and the eye had completely dissolved, he ordered a physician who happened to be there to bring a sponge and, as far as possible, to restore the fallen part to its place, and finally to bind the sponge around it with bandages; Arcesilaus was not present at the time. For he was spending that time with Zosimas in his monastery, which was situated in the village of the Sindenes, distant about five hundred stades from the city of Caesarea. Therefore, those who were to report these things to Arcesilaus hastened there with the utmost speed. Arcesilaus was sitting with Zosimas, holding a conversation with him. When he learned of what had happened to his wife, he began to wail grievously, and tearing and pulling at his hair, threw it into the air. When Zosimas asked the cause of his great grief, Arcesilaus explained what had happened, interrupting his speech repeatedly with lamentations and weeping. ^C Zosimas, therefore, soon left Arcesilaus there and ran to a certain chamber where, as is the custom for men of this kind, he was wont to converse with God alone. Departing after some time with a cheerful face and smiling modestly, and stroking the hand of Arcesilaus, he said: "Go, depart in joy. Grace has been given to the Chuzibite. Thy wife is healed. She has both eyes whole, having suffered no harm from that accident, since it has so pleased [God]." And this also came to pass, both righteous men having performed miracles in their own way. To this same Zosimas, at one time when he was going to Caesarea and was being followed by an ass upon which one of his friends had loaded some necessary items, a lion came out and, snatching the donkey, went away. Zosimas followed after it through the brush, until it reached...

^A Chuzibita; and it happened just so, as both those righteous men were performing the miracle together. The same Zosimas, when he was once traveling to Caesarea, leading the donkey on which he had loaded things he needed, encountered a lion, which rushed upon him, snatched the donkey, and immediately made off. Zosimas followed it through the woods until the lion had sated itself on the donkey’s flesh. Then Zosimas, smiling at the lion, said, “But, my friend, my journey is now completely blocked, seeing that I am weak of body and advanced in years, and I cannot carry the load that had been placed on the donkey on my own shoulders. Therefore, if you wish ^B Zosimas to leave this place, you must carry the burden, acting against your natural custom, before returning to your own ferocity.” With these words spoken, the lion, as if completely oblivious of its rage, began to fawn upon Zosimas, and immediately running gently to him, signified its obedience by its very gesture. Zosimas, therefore, having placed the donkey’s load upon the lion, led it as far as the gates of the city of Caesarea, demonstrating by this deed how great is the power of God, and how all things serve and obey those who live for God and have not corrupted the grace given to them. But lest, by recounting more, the history become too long, I shall return to where I turned aside. ^C

CAP. VIII. Concerning the calamities of the world.

While Justin was still administering the Roman empire, the city of Dyrrachium, which was once called Epidamnos, was overturned by an earthquake. Similarly also Corinth, which is situated in Achaia. Anazarbus also, the metropolis of the second Cilicia, experienced that same sort of calamity; Justin restored these cities by expending a great amount of money. In those same times, Edessa, the greatest and most opulent city of Osrhoene, was submerged by an inundation of the torrent of the Scirtus which flowed past it, so that very many buildings and an innumerable multitude of men, swept away by the force of the waters, perished utterly. Justin indeed changed the original name ^D of Edessa and Anazarbus, for he ordered that both should thereafter be called Justinopolis from his own name.

CAP. IX. How Justin, while still living, chose Justinian as a colleague in the empire.

Porro, when Justin had passed the eighth year of his empire, and in addition nine months and three days,

^A he departed from the empire of this world, having finished his final day on the first of the month of Loüs, which is August, having reigned as colleague with Justinian for four months, and having completed in total nine years and three days of imperial rule. ^B And when Justinian alone had taken upon himself the entire governance of the Roman Empire, and the Council of Chalcedon was already being proclaimed throughout the most holy churches by the decrees of Justin, as I have related, ecclesiastical order was still being disturbed in some provinces, most especially in the imperial city and in the city of Alexandria. For Anthimus was presiding over the Church of Constantinople, and Theodosius over the Church of the Alexandrians. For both of them proclaimed that there was one nature in Christ.

CAP. X.

How Justinian loved those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon, but Theodora favored their opponents.

Now, Justinian ^C indeed defended with great vigor those who had gathered at Chalcedon and whatever had been set forth by them. His wife, however, Theodora, stood on the side of those who asserted one nature in Christ—whether because they truly held such sentiments (for whenever the subject of faith is at issue, ^D fathers dissent from sons, and sons in turn from their parents, and a wife dissents from her own husband, and a husband in turn from his own wife), or perhaps they were acting according to some "economy," in order that—

one of those who maintained two natures in Christ our God after the union might agree with the other, or one of those who asserted only one nature. Neither, however, yielded to the other in this matter. But Justinian indeed pertinaciously defended those things which had been enacted at Chalcedon; Theodora, however, being addicted to the contrary party, took the greatest care and solicitude for those who asserted one nature. And she cherished our own people, and favored the strangers with great gifts. And she persuaded Justinian to send for Severus. ^A

CAP. XI. How Severus perverted Anthimus, bishop of Constantinople, and Theodosius, bishop of Alexandria; upon whose expulsion from their seats, Justinian substituted others.

Exstant indeed letters of Severus, written both to Justinian and to Theodora. From these it is possible to gather that Severus, when he had left the Antiochian see, had at first delayed his journey to the royal city, but that later he had come thither. He writes also in the same letters that, when he had come to Constantinople, he had conversed with Anthimus. And when he had discovered that he held the same opinion concerning God as himself, he persuaded him to resign his throne. He wrote also about these matters to Theodosius, who was officiating as bishop of the city of the Alexandrians; in which he boasts that he had persuaded the same Anthimus, as I have already said, to prefer such dogmas to worldly glory and the pontifical chair. ^B There are also current letters of Anthimus to Theodosius concerning these matters, and in turn of Theodosius to Anthimus and Severus, which I pass over, leaving them to those who wish to read them, lest I should seem to crowd an immense multitude of things into this present book. But both, inasmuch as they resisted the commands of the prince, and did not accept those things which were decreed at Chalcedon, were driven from their own thrones; and Zoilus succeeded to the one of [Alexandria], and Epiphanius to that of the ^C imperial city. ^D

^A Thus, in all the Churches, the Council of Chalcedon was henceforth openly proclaimed, and no one dared to subject it to anathema; those who held contrary views were in every possible way constrained to yield their assent. A constitution was therefore written by the Emperor Justinian, in which he anathematized Severus and Anthimus, along with others, and decreed the severest penalties against those who might preach their doctrines. ^B Consequently, from that time forth, no dissension remained among the Churches throughout the whole world; but the patriarchs of each diocese were in agreement with one another, and the bishops of the cities followed their own exarchs. ^C And the four holy and ecumenical councils were proclaimed with a loud voice by the heralds during the divine mysteries, whenever they were celebrated.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(42) *Epiphanius, in place of Mennas.* Our Evagrius errs here, placing Epiphanius in the place of Mennas. For Anthimus had succeeded Epiphanius. ^D When Anthimus was driven out, Mennas was ordained bishop of Constantinople in his place by Pope Agapetus, after the consulship of Belisarius, in the year of Christ 536, as Marcellinus writes in his Chronicle.

(43) *In all the Churches.* Regarding this peace and union of the Churches—which was made after the ordination of Paul, bishop of Alexandria—Liberatus speaks in his *Breviary*, ch. 23: "In this way, therefore, the unity of the Churches was made in the tenth year of the glorious Emperor Justinian." For all the patriarchs at that time accepted the Council of Chalcedon, that is, in the year of Christ 537. Namely, the Roman bishop, of whom Pelagius was the *apocrisiarius* at Constantinople, Paul of Alexandria, Ephraem of Antioch, and Peter of Jerusalem. Of these, Paul, though he had at first feigned the right faith, later defected to the Eutychian heresy, as I noted above from the chronicle of Victor and Theophanes.

(44) *To proclaim the Council of Chalcedon.* Perhaps some student of ecclesiastical antiquity here asks by what rite this proclamation of the Council of Chalcedon was accustomed to be made. I reply that this proclamation was accustomed to be made from the ambo or pulpit of the church, by the bishop or by another to whom the bishop had delegated his task, while the solemnities of the Mass were being celebrated. This is taught by the letter, or *Libellus*, of the orthodox bishops offered at Constantinople to Pope Agapetus, which *Libellus* is cited in the first session of the Council of Constantinople under Mennas, where they speak thus of the Emperor Justinian: "And for this reason he ordained the four holy and universal councils to be proclaimed by the sacred heralds in the divine and holy initiations." The ancient translator interpreted this as: *And for this reason he ordained the four holy synods to be proclaimed by the sacred preachers in the divine and holy initiations.* That interpreter clearly thought that "initiation" in this place was accepted for initiation, or baptism, as it is usually taken. But in this place it is taken for the sacrifice of the Mass, and is the same as the "divine liturgy." Certainly, the Council of Chalcedon was first proclaimed in the solemnities of the Mass at Constantinople, in the reign of Justin the Elder, as may be seen in the fifth session of the Council of Constantinople under Mennas, page 725 and following of the Cologne edition. But students of ecclesiastical antiquity must be warned not to allow themselves to be led into error by the Latin interpreter, who imagined that this proclamation was made after the Mass was completed, *i.e., on the Lord's Day and the second weekday, when the Mass is celebrated in the holy church of God.* The same error is admitted by the interpreter below, on page 733. *And after the reading of the holy Gospel, the sacred Mass having been finished according to custom, etc.* The Greek has: *And after the reading of the holy Gospel, the divine liturgy being celebrated according to custom, and the doors having been closed, and the holy Creed having been recited according to custom, at the time of the Diptychs, etc.* Which should be translated thus: *And after the reading of the holy Gospel, when the Mass was celebrated according to custom, and with the doors closed, and the sacred Symbol recited according to custom, when it came to the Diptychs, etc.* Which the studious reader will read there, if he wishes to learn the whole rite by which the four ecumenical councils were proclaimed and written down in the sacred Diptychs.

(45) *Constitution.* He understands the *Novella* of Justinian 42, which is also cited in the session of the Council of Constantinople under Mennas. In the edition of Henri Estienne, who edited Justinian's *Novellae* in Greek, this Constitution is said to have been given on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of August, in the consulship of Belisarius, V.C. In the edition of the Council of Constantinople under Mennas, it is given on the eighth day before the Ides of August, after the consulship of Belisarius, V.C., which is undoubtedly more correct. For since Justinian promulgated that constitution against Anthimus and Severus after the sentence of the Council of Constantinople had been delivered against them, as he himself testifies in the opening of the constitution—and the Council of Constantinople delivered the sentence of condemnation against the aforementioned Anthimus and Severus on the twelfth day before the Kalends of June, after the consulship of Belisarius—it is absolutely necessary that that Constitution of Justinian was promulgated in the year *after* the consulship of Belisarius.

(46) *To their own exarchs.* The exarchs were the primates, or patriarchs of the individual dioceses, as Evagrius said just before: as Jacob Sirmond explained in his *Propempticon*, lib. 2, ch. 5, where he argues excellently and most learnedly concerning the exarchs. To whose exact diligence there is nothing left for us to add. And Christophorson did not translate "exarchs" badly as "archbishops" in this place. For primates were formerly called archbishops, as Isidore teaches in book 7 of his *Etymologies*, in these words: "The order of bishops is fourfold: into patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, and bishops." "Patriarch" in the Greek language is interpreted as "highest father," because he retains the first, that is, the apostolic, place. Like the Roman, the Antiochene, and the Alexandrian. "Archbishop" in Greek is called the highest bishop.

VARIA: Theophanes in his Chronicle, at the year of Christ 520, says: John the Cappadocian having been bishop of Constantinople, Epiphanius, presbyter and syncellus of the same Church, was ordained on the twenty-fifth day of February.

^A [to be proclaimed] in the churches, the first being the one at Nicaea, then the one at Constantinople, thirdly the one at Ephesus formerly, and fourthly the one at Chalcedon; there has also been a fifth council by the command of Justinian. Concerning it, I shall state the appropriate things at the appropriate time; for now, we attach to this current history those things that were done at different times under the same periods, and which seem worthy of mention.

CAP. XII

On Cavades, King of the Persians, and on his son Chosroes, from the history books of Procopius of Caesarea.

CHAPTER XIII.

De Alamundaro et Azaretho : et de seditione quae orta est Constantinopoli, cui cognomen inditum fuit Nika.

they joined battle along the bank of the Euphrates, at the approach of the day of Passover; and how the Roman army was destroyed, for it would not submit to the counsels of Belisarius; and how Ruffinus and Hermogenes arranged the so-called "endless peace" with the Persians. To these things he adds the sedition that occurred in Byzantium among the common people, to which the common watchword gave its name. For they call this the "Nika" ^A sedition, because the populace, having gathered into one place, gave this watchword to one another for the sake of mutual recognition. In which sedition Hypatius and Pompeius, being compelled by the people, seized the tyranny. But presently, the people being vanquished, both of them were beheaded by the soldiers at the orders of Justinian and cast into the sea. Procopius writes that thirty thousand men perished in this tumult.

CAP. XIV. Concerning Huneric, king of the Vandals, and the Christians whose tongues were ordered to be cut out.

In the same book where he sets forth the Vandalic affairs, he reports very great things, truly worthy to be consigned to the sempiternal memory of men. These, therefore, I shall commemorate in this place. Huneric, who obtained ^B the kingdom by right of inheritance after Gaiseric, being an Arian, vexed most cruelly the Christians living in Africa, compelling by force those who followed the right doctrine of the faith to deflect to the error of Arius. And if any did not obey his mandates, he would kill them either by flames or by some other kind of death. Indeed, he ordered the tongues of some to be cut out. Procopius testifies that he saw these men when they had come as fugitives to Constantinople; and that he heard them speaking just as if they had suffered nothing at all. And although their tongues had been cut out by the roots, yet they had an articulate voice and spoke distinctly— ^C a new and unusual miracle, of which the decree of Justinian also makes mention. From whom, however, two slipped, as Procopius himself writes. For when they wished to have commerce with women, they lost their voice, the grace of martyrdom immediately receding from them.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(48) *For the viewing.* It should be read "for the viewing," as others before us have observed. Furthermore, regarding these African confessors, whose tongues Huneric the Vandal king had ordered to be cut out, and who did not cease to speak afterward, although their tongues were cut out, Marcellinus Comes speaks in his *Chronicle* in the consulship of Theodoric and Venantius, where he also testifies that he saw some of them himself. The same is written by Victor ^D Tunnunensis in his *Chronicle*, in the third consulship of Zeno Augustus. And Victor Vitensis in his book *On the Persecution of the Vandals*; and finally, the Emperor Justinian in the law concerning the office of the Praetorian Prefect of Africa. Which constitution of Justinian our Evagrius praises a little later in this chapter, although the name of Justin is written erroneously for Justinian. See more in Baronius, in the year of Christ 484.

VARIOUS NOTES.

(d) *The Nika.* Procopius relates this sedition at length in Bk. 1 of the *Persian War*, and affirms that thirty thousand men perished in it at Constantinople. Nic. Alemannus in his *Notes to Procopius’ Secret History*, p. 62, exhibited a fragment of Theophanes from the Vatican mss. in which, as upon a map, one may see the state of the empire at that time, the ways of Justinian, the license of the circus and theater, and how a small spark of strife ignited such a great conflagration. It begins with these words: "The rebellion which is called 'Vince' happened in this way."

(e) *Huneric.* Huneric succeeded his father Genserich in the kingdom of Africa in the year of Christ 477. We have already dealt with his two edicts against the Christians.

CHAPTER XV. Of Cabaon the Moor.

^A Another thing worthy of admiration is reported, which was performed by the Saviour God in men who were indeed strangers to our religion, yet at that time conducted themselves piously and religiously. It is said that Cabaon was the ruler of the Moors living around Tripoli. This Cabaon—for I shall use the words of Procopius himself, who has set forth these events as he did the rest, elegantly—when he learned that the Vandals had undertaken an expedition against him, acted as follows. First, he commanded those who were under his rule to abstain from injustice, from exquisite dainties, and especially from the company of women. He then pitched two camps: in one he himself resided with all the men, while in the other he enclosed the women, threatening capital punishment if anyone were to enter the women's camp. ^B After this, he sent spies to Carthage and commanded them thus: "When the Vandals, set out on their expedition, violate any oratory of those things which the Christians worship, you are to observe what is done. But after the Vandals have left that place, you yourselves shall perform all the contrary actions in that holy place from which they have departed." They say he also added this: that the God whom the Christians worship was unknown to him, but it seemed likely, if He were powerful as it is said, that He would avenge the violators of His divinity and defend His worshippers. The spies, therefore, having come to Carthage, remained there, observing the preparation of the Vandals. ^C But when their army began to march toward Tripoli, they followed them, dressed in vile garments. And the Vandals, the very first day that they stabled their horses and other animals in the sacred houses of the Christians, omitted no kind of insult; for they indulged in their accustomed intemperance, and any priests they apprehended they would strike, and, beating their backs, they forced them to serve them. But the spies of Cabaon, as soon as the Vandals had departed from those places, performed what they had been commanded. For they immediately cleansed the holy houses, and carefully carrying away the dung and whatever else had been improperly deposited ^D there, they lit all the lamps, and saluted the priests with great reverence, and treated them with every other kindness. Finally, they gave money to the poor sitting around those holy places. In this manner they followed the army of the Vandals. And the Vandals indeed, from that time, committed similar crimes throughout the whole of their subsequent journey; but the spies endeavored to apply a remedy. But when

the Vandals approached the Moors, the scouts who had gone ahead reported to Cabaon all that had been committed by the Vandals, and by themselves, in the holy churches of the Christians, and that the enemy was now drawing near. Having heard this, Cabaon drew up his battle line. Very many of the Vandals perished in that battle, being slain. Many also were captured by the Moors. And very few of all that army returned home. Trasamundus suffered this slaughter at the hands of the Moors: and not long after he departed from the living, having reigned among the Vandals for twenty-seven years. ^A

CHAPTER XVI.

Concerning the expedition of Belisarius against the Vandals, and their destruction.

The same Procopius relates that Justinian undertook an expedition into Africa for the sake of the Christians, who were being afflicted there with the most grievous evils; but that upon the suggestion of John, the praetorian prefect, he was recalled from his purpose. Afterwards, however, being warned in a dream ^B not to desist from his undertaking (for the kingdom of the Vandals was to be overthrown by him, if he brought aid to the Christians), he was confirmed by this dream and, in the seventh year of his reign, about the summer solstice, he sent Belisarius to the Carthaginian war. When the flagship had put in at the shore which is before the palace, and Epiphanius, the bishop of the royal city, had offered the customary prayers, ^C certain [soldiers] had just been baptized, and had embarked upon the flagship. ^D

[index: entries preserved]

^A The same writer further narrates certain things concerning the martyr Cyprian which are worthy of being inserted into this history. He speaks word for word as follows: “All the Carthaginians honor Cyprian, a most holy man, with special reverence, and having constructed a most magnificent church in his honor outside the city by the seashore, they not only worship him religiously in other respects, but also celebrate an annual feast which they call the ‘Cypriana.’ And from this, the sailors are accustomed to call the certain storm, of which I made mention earlier, by the same name as the feast day, because that storm is wont to break out precisely at the time when the Africans are accustomed to celebrate that feast day.” The Vandals, during the reign of Huneric, forced the Christians to give up this church, having driven out the priests from it with great ignominy; and from then on, they restored it as though it had come into the right and domain of the Arians. ^B But the Africans, being deeply grieved and distressed by these things, say that Cyprian often appeared to them in dreams, and told certain of them that Christians ought in no way to be anxious about him, for he himself, after some time, would be the avenger of his own injury. And indeed, this prediction was fulfilled in the times of Belisarius, when Carthage was brought under the power of the Romans under the command of Belisarius, ninety-five years after it had been captured; and when the Vandals were completely vanquished, and the Arian heresy was utterly driven from the land of the Libyans, the Christians finally recovered their churches according to the prediction of the martyr Cyprian.

CHAP. XVII.

Regarding the spoils that were brought from Africa.

The same Procopius writes these things: “When the Vandals had been vanquished, and Belisarius had come to Constantinople, ^C bringing with him the spoils and the prisoners, and even Gelimer himself, the king of the Vandals, a triumph having been granted to him, he ordered all things that were worthy of admiration to be led through the Hippodrome. Among these were innumerable treasures; for since Gisericus had once plundered the palace in Rome, as has been reported by us above, at that time, when Eudoxia, the wife of Valentinian, emperor of the Western Romans, deeply resenting that Maximus had murdered her husband and had done violence to her herself, summoned Gisericus, promising that she would betray the city of Rome to him. At which time Gisericus, having set fire to ^D

and having burned Rome, he led Eudoxia along with her daughters according to the custom of the Vandals. Then were plundered, along with other treasures, all those things which Titus, son of Vespasian, having subjected Jerusalem, had once brought to Rome—namely, the gifts of Solomon which he had consecrated to God. Justinian sent these again to Jerusalem in honor of Christ our God, showing due reverence to God, to whom they had previously been consecrated. The same Procopius also writes that Gelimer, then prostrate on the ground in the Circus, opposite the royal throne where Justinian sat viewing all that was being done, uttered in his native tongue that divine oracle: Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.

CHAPTER XVIII

Furthermore, the same Procopius reports another fact, one which had been mentioned by no one else before him, but which is worthy of admiration above all, and almost exceeds all belief. He says, therefore, that the Moors, a nation of Africa, set out from the land of the Palestinians and settled in Africa. Moreover, that these are the ones whom the holy scriptures mention—the Gergesites and the Jebusites, and the other nations which Jesus the son of Nave conquered. He conjectures that this account is entirely true from a certain inscription, which he claims to have read, written in Phoenician letters. This inscription, he says, exists near a spring, where two columns of white marble were erected, on which are engraved these words: "We are those who fled from the face of Jesus the robber, the son of Nave." And these matters had such an outcome, with Africa once again being brought under Roman rule and providing its annual tribute, just as it had been accustomed to do before. Moreover, it is said that in Africa, Justinian repaired one hundred and fifty cities, some of which had completely fallen, others for the most part; and these Justinian renovated much more magnificently, adorning them with a wonderful variety of ornaments and with structures both public and private; as well as with circuits of walls and other very great buildings, by which both the cities were beautified and God was accustomed to be worshipped; and finally, with an abundance of water, partly for use and partly for beauty, some of which he brought in then for the first time, when previously they had not been in the cities, and others he restored to their former condition.

CHAPTER XIX

I proceed now to the events carried out in Italy, which the same rhetor Procopius has explained most fully up to his own time. After Theodoric, as I have said above—

had captured Rome, having utterly vanquished Odoacer who was playing the tyrant there, he administered the Roman Empire until the end of his life. After his death, Amalasuntha, who had been his wife, took upon herself the guardianship of their common child, Athalaric, and governed the kingdom, inclining ever more towards a masculine vigor and thus looking after the affairs of the state. She was the first to incite Justinian to the desire for the Gothic War, by sending ambassadors to him when plots were being hatched against her. And when Athalaric, being still of very tender age, departed from this life, Theodatus, a kinsman of Theodoric, was invested with the governance of the Western affairs. But when Justinian had sent Belisarius into the Western parts, he ^A withdrew from his authority, being more devoted to liberal studies and having very little experience of wars, while Vitiges, a man of great martial capability, had been set over the Western forces. From the accounts compiled by the same Procopius, it is possible to gather that when Belisarius had landed on Italian soil, Vitiges had abandoned Rome, but Belisarius with the army about him approached Rome. The Romans most gladly threw open the gates and received him, especially since Silverius, the high priest of the city, had brought this about and had sent for this purpose Fidelis, who had once been an assessor to Athalaric, to whom they surrendered the city without a fight. Rome thus came under the Romans again, sixty years later, on the ninth of Apellaios, or as the Romans call it, the month of December, in the eleventh year of Emperor Justinian who was guiding the imperial authority. The same Procopius records that when the Goths were besieging Rome, Belisarius, having conceived a suspicion of treachery against Silverius, the high priest of the city, removed him to Achaea and established Vigilius as high priest.

CAPUT XX. How the so-called Heruli accepted the Christian faith in the times of Justinian.

Under the same times, as the same Procopius records, the Heruli... ^{B C D}

^A who had long before crossed the Danube in the times of the Emperor Anastasius, having been kindly received by Justinian and enriched by him with great wealth, all together embraced the Christian faith and, laying aside their former manner of living, took up a more gentle culture.

CAPUT XXI. How Belisarius recovered the city of Rome, which the Goths had taken a second time.

The same Procopius narrates then the return of Belisarius to Constantinople, and how he brought with him Vitiges together with the spoils ^B which he had taken while in the city of Rome; and how Totila laid claim to the Roman empire for himself, and the city of Rome fell again under the dominion of the Goths. How also Belisarius, when he had come into Italy a second time, recovered Rome; and when war had been stirred up against the Persians, he was recalled by the Emperor to Constantinople.

CAPUT XXII. How in the same times the Abasgi also embraced the Christian faith.

Furthermore, the same writer relates that the Abasgi, having been brought over to a more gentle culture during the same time, accepted the Christian religion; and that a certain eunuch of the palace, Euphratas by name—who was an Abasgian by race—was sent by the Emperor Justinian to them, to forbid that in that nation anymore castration should be performed on anyone with iron, or that violence should be offered to nature. For from them, for the most part, were chosen the ministers of the imperial bedchamber, whom custom calls eunuchs. ^C At that time also, Justinian, having built a church in honor of the Theotokos among the Abasgi, appointed priests for them. And thenceforth the Abasgi learned the doctrine of the Christian law most accurately.

CAPUT XXIII. How also the barbarians who dwell by the Tanais accepted the Christian religion. Item, concerning the earthquakes that occurred in Greece and Achaia.

It is also reported by the same writer that those who dwell by the Tanais (for the natives call the outflow of the Maeotic swamp into the Euxine Sea the Tanais) entreated Justinian to send a bishop to them; and that Justinian, bringing their petition to pass [the rest is cut off at this column's margin]

sent a priest to them most willingly. The same author ^A recounts most learnedly how, in the times of the same Justinian, the Goths from the Maeotic marsh made incursions into Roman territory, and how Greece was shaken by most violent earthquakes, and how Boeotia and Achaia and the regions around the Crissaean Gulf ^B were convulsed, and how numberless hamlets and cities were leveled to the ground, and how chasms in the earth occurred in many places, and in some spots the ground came together again; but in others the chasms remained.

CAP. XXIV. Of Narses the general, and of his piety.

He writes also of the generalship of Narses, who was sent by Justinian to the land of the Italians, how he vanquished Totila, and after him Teias; and how Rome was captured for the fifth time ^C. They say, then, those who associated with Narses, that he so propitiated the divinity with prayers and other acts of piety, duly honoring the Virgin and Theotokos, that she openly made known to him the time when it was necessary to do battle; and that Narses did not begin hostilities before he had received the signal from her. Other deeds also were performed by Narses worthy of much account, for he overcame Buselinus and Sindualdus, and added many regions as far as the Ocean to the Roman sway. Which things have been written by Agathias the rhetor, but have not yet come to us.

CAP. XXV. How Chosroes, consumed by envy at the successes of Justinian, marched against the Romans, and destroyed most of the Roman cities, among which was the great city of Antioch.

^D By the same Procopius it is also recorded that Chosroes, when he learned of the affairs in Libya and in Italy,

^A he was stirred by an extraordinary envy; and he brought charges against the Roman state, saying that the faith had been broken and that the treaty established between them had been dissolved. And first, Justinian sent legates to Chosroes, to persuade him not to break the endless peace that had been established between them, nor to harm the terms agreed upon, but that the controversial matters should be investigated and settled in some friendly way. But he says that Chosroes, agitated by the goads of envy pricking him from within, accepted none of the reasonable terms; but with a great army he invaded the Roman lands, in the thirteenth year of the reign of Justinian, who was then guiding the Roman empire. And he records how Chosroes, having besieged and destroyed the city of Sura, situated on the banks of the Euphrates, thinking to agree to one set of terms while having done another to them—all things most unholy, having paid no regard to the terms agreed upon, and having become master of the city more by treachery than by war. And how he burned Beroea; then also the attack on Antioch, at the time when Ephraemius was administering the bishopric of that place but had abandoned the city, because nothing was succeeding for him according to his wishes. ^B It is said that he had preserved the church and the buildings around it, having adorned the church with sacred votive offerings, so that this might be a ransom for it. He also describes and eloquently expounds the taking of the city of Antioch by Chosroes, and how Chosroes destroyed everything, killing and burning; and how he went to the neighboring Seleucia, and to the suburb of Daphne; then also to Apamea, when Thomas was presiding over the episcopal throne there, a man most powerful in word and deed; who even consented to view the horse races in the Hippodrome with Chosroes, against the ecclesiastical custom, not refusing, wishing to gratify Chosroes in all ways and to soothe his mind. Chosroes asked him if he would gladly see him in his own city, and he is said to have answered, being truthful, that he would by no means gladly see him in his own city. ^C And they say that Chosroes admired this, justly honoring the man for his love of truth.

CHAPTER XXVI. Concerning the miracle that occurred at Apamea of the precious and life-giving wood of the Cross.

^A When the Apameans learned that Antioch was being burned by Chosroes, they entreated Thomas, whom I have mentioned above, to bring out and set forth the saving and life-giving wood of the Cross, contrary to its usual time, so that they might see and kiss it for the last time—the sole salvation of men—and might take it as a provision for the other life, as the venerable Cross would convey them to a better lot. Thomas acceded to their prayers and brought out the life-giving wood, having announced specific days for its display, so that all those living nearby might assemble there and become partakers of the salvation flowing from it. My parents, therefore, went there with the others, taking me along with them, for I was then attending the schools of the grammarians. ^B And at the time when we were deemed worthy to worship and kiss the venerable Cross, Thomas, lifting up both his hands, displayed the wood of the Cross which abolished the ancient curse, circling the entire holy place, as was his custom on the main days of worship. A great mass of fire followed Thomas as he moved—a fire that was coruscating, yet not consuming, so that the entire place where he stood while displaying the venerable Cross seemed to be in flames. This occurred not once or twice, but many times, as the bishop circled the whole area, and the crowd that had gathered there implored Thomas that this might be done. This also prophesied the salvation that came to the Apameans. Therefore, an image was also set up on the ceiling of the sacred place, denoting this by an inscription for those who were ignorant of it, which was preserved until the incursion of Adaarman and the Persians. ^C But it was burned along with the holy church of God there, together with the whole city. And thus these things came to pass. But Chosroes, during his return, having violated the agreements (for he had promised certain things at that time), committed far different acts, which were indeed in accordance with his inconstancy and levity, but were entirely unbecoming to a man gifted with reason, and much less to a king holding account of his own compacts.

CHAPTER XXVII. Regarding the expedition of Chosroes against Edessa.

The same Procopius narrates also those things concerning Edessa and Agbarus as they have been handed down by the ancients, and how ^D

Christ wrote the letter to Agbarus. ^A Afterward, when Chosroes in an alternate incursion set out to besiege Edessa, he intended to disprove the rumors common among the faithful, that Edessa would never fall into the power of the enemy. Yet this is not to be found in the letter which our Lord Christ sent to Agbarus, as the diligent can gather from the History of Eusebius Pamphili, who inserted that letter word for word into his work. By all the faithful, however, it is proclaimed and believed, and the result confirmed it, as faith ^B truly leads the prediction to its fulfillment. For when Chosroes had set out to storm that city, and had attempted many times to break into it, and had constructed a massive mound of earth which exceeded the city's walls in height, and had applied countless other machines, he nevertheless departed without success. I shall narrate how the whole event transpired. Chosroes had commanded his soldiers to collect a great quantity of wood from whatever trees they could find for the siege. When this was gathered more quickly than ordered, he arranged it in a circle and, having heaped earth in the middle, pushed it straight toward the city. Thus, by gradually constructing the materials and the mound, and approaching closer to the city, he raised the work to such a height, and it so far surpassed the walls of the city, that he could cast missiles from his high position ^C onto the defenders of the city who stood upon the walls. When those held under siege saw the mound approaching the city like a walking mountain, and that it appeared the enemy would enter the city on foot, at the same time they prepared a counter-work opposite the mound, which the Romans call *aggesta*, to dig mines underground and cast fire therein, so that the wood might be consumed by the flames and the mound collapsed to the earth; and the work itself was finished. But when they had kindled the fire, they were disappointed in their aim, because the fire had no passage by which, having admitted air, it could take hold of the pile of wood. When, therefore, they came to a complete impasse, they bring forth the divinely-wrought image (62), which human hands ^D

had not fashioned, but which Christ God had sent to Agbar, who greatly desired to see Him. Having brought this into the trench which they had dug, they sprinkled it with water, and from that same water they cast a few drops onto the pyre and the wood. And immediately, through the divine power that came to the aid of the faith of those who did this, that which was previously impossible for them was brought to a finish; for the wood immediately caught the flame, and faster than a word was turned to charcoal, it communicated this to the wood above, the fire spreading on all sides. ^B But the besieged, when they saw the smoke rising up, devised this trick: they brought small flasks, filled them with sulfur and tow and other materials most suitable for igniting a fire, and threw them at what was called the mound; and these, by sending up smoke, having been ignited by the force of the throw, caused the smoke rising from the mound of earth to go unnoticed, so that all who were ignorant of the matter suspected that the smoke was coming from the flasks rather than from elsewhere. On the third day thereafter, however, tongues of fire were seen rising from the ground, and then the Persians who were fighting from the mound understood the danger in which they stood. But Chosroes, as if setting himself against divine power, diverted all the water conduits that happened to be outside the city toward the pyre, attempting to quench it. But it, receiving the water as if it were oil or sulfur or some other material that is wont to feed flame, was kindled all the more ^C until it brought down the entire mound and reduced it completely to embers and ashes. Then, therefore, Chosroes, despairing of all his hopes and knowing from the experience itself that he had incurred great disgrace—he who had hoped that he would prove superior to the God whom we worship—returned to his own territory in dishonor.

CHAPTER XXVIII. Concerning the miracle that occurred in the city of Sergiopolis.

I shall relate also what was done by the same Chosroes at another time regarding the city of the people of Sergiopolis, for it is also notable, and indeed worthy to be preserved in the memory of men forever. Chosroes arrived there also, desiring to take it by storm. ^D When, therefore, he approached the walls and began to shake them with a battering ram, the townspeople entered into a parley with him for the sake of saving the city. And finally it was agreed between them that the sacred vessels of the Church should be given as ransom for the city, among which was included a cross sent by Justinian and Theodora. When, therefore,

these were brought to Chosroes, he inquired of the priest and the Persians who had been sent with him on that matter, whether anything more remained. Then one of those who were accustomed to lying replied that there were other treasures besides, which had been hidden by the townspeople, who were very few in number. But there remained no gold or silver vessel of those ^A that were being carried off; there was, however, something of a more precious material, and one that was entirely consecrated to God: namely, the most holy relics of the victorious martyr Sergius, lying in an oblong casket covered with silver. Being persuaded by these words, Chosroes let his entire army loose upon the city, when suddenly, all around the circuit of the walls, ten thousand shields appeared, defending the city; which the men sent by Chosroes saw and upon returning, they marveled at the multitude and described the armament. But when Chosroes again inquired and learned that only a very few remained in the city—both those beyond the appropriate age and those not yet of age, the vigorous having all been removed from the midst—he understood that the miracle was of the martyr. And being seized by fear, and admiring the faith of the Christians, he departed for his own regions. They even say that at the end of his life, he was deemed worthy of the divine regeneration.

CHAPTER XXIX. Concerning the pestilential disease.

Annotations of Valesius

^A It took its start from Ethiopia, as it was then reported, and ran its course in turn through the whole inhabited world, leaving, I believe, no man untouched by the disease. And some cities were so taken by it that they were left completely devoid of inhabitants. Yet in some places where the pestilence had taken hold, it passed over more lightly. It did not attack at any fixed period of the year, nor, once it had attacked, did it depart in a similar manner. But it held some places at the beginning of winter, others while spring continued, others at harvest time, and in some places as autumn advanced. And there were instances where it touched a part of a city and left the other parts alone; and often it was possible to see, in a city that was not suffering, certain houses destroyed to excess. But there were places where, one or two houses having been destroyed, the rest of the city remained unaffected. As we have found, after examining the matter accurately, the houses that remained unaffected were the only ones to be afflicted in the following year. ^B And what was most paradoxical of all was this: that if it happened that the inhabitants of one of the affected cities were living elsewhere, in a place where the illness had not struck, those people alone were singled out by the afflictions—those who, having come from the cities that had been conquered by the pestilence, were living in the unaffected cities. And these things often occurred during the cycles of the periods that are called indictions, both in the cities and in other places. But a near-total destruction fell upon men most especially in the second year of the fifteen-year cycle. As even I, the writer of these things—for I also saw fit to weave into the history the things concerning myself, fitting the appropriate things to the appropriate places—was taken at the beginning of this illness by what are called buboes, while I was still attending the school of a primary teacher. But in the various attacks of such diseases, I lost many of those who were born of me, my wife, and the rest of my kindred, and ^C servants and very many country folk, just as if the afflictions that came upon me were partitioned according to the cycles of the indictions. Now, when I was writing these things, I was in my fifty-eighth year, and not far...

from the time that this disease had assaulted Antioch four times ^A — since four cycles of indictions had passed from the beginning of this evil — besides those previously commemorated by me, I had also lost a daughter and the grandchild born to her.

Furthermore, this plague was composed of various diseases. For in some it began in the head, and caused bloodshot eyes and a swollen face; then, descending into the throat, it would snatch away whoever was seized by it from the world of men. In others, there was an affliction of the stomach. In some, buboes would arise, attended by extraordinary fevers, and they would die in two or three days, feeling and moving their bodies just as if they had suffered no harm at all. Others became delirious and so departed this life; and carbuncles breaking out on the body caused the destruction of many. There were cases, too, where some were seized once or twice, escaped, and then, being struck again, perished. ^B The ways of transmission were likewise various and beyond all reason. For some perished merely by being together and dwelling in the same house. Some died only by touching another, or by entering a house. Certain people contracted the infection in the middle of the marketplace. Some, having fled from cities infected by the plague, remained themselves untouched, but brought the disease to others who were healthy. Some, although they had remained with many who were suffering from the disease, and had touched not only the sick but also the dead, nevertheless contracted no illness at all. Others, because of the slaughter of their children and kin, were zealous in every way to be destroyed themselves, and for this reason associated assiduously with the sick; yet, with the disease in a way resisting their will, they were not infected at all. ^C This plague, therefore, as I have said, spread for fifty-two years, having overcome all those that had come before. For Philostratus wonders that the plague in his time lasted for fifteen years. As for what follows, these things are uncertain, going where God, who knows the causes and where they are tending, shall see fit. But I will return to where I turned aside, and will relate the remainder of the affairs of Justinian. ^D

CHAPTER XXX. On the insatiable avarice of Justinian.

^A Justinian was indeed insatiable in his greed and so extraordinarily covetous of the property of others that he would sell even his subjects’ entire gold to those who administered provinces, those who collected taxes, and to those who were willing to fabricate conspiracies against people for no reason at all. Moreover, he impoverished many countless individuals who possessed much wealth, having colored his actions with baseless pretexts. And if any woman who lived by prostitution falsely accused someone of a familiarity or union while casting longing eyes on him, Justinian, coveting the man's goods, would immediately set aside all the laws, and the woman, having enlisted Justinian as a partner in her shameful gain, would transfer all the wealth of the slandered man into her own house. ^B Yet he was also prodigal with money, so that he built many sacred buildings and magnificent churches everywhere, and founded many religious houses for the care of men and women, both old and young, and those afflicted with various diseases, and he assigned large endowments for the purposes of these institutions. He also performed many other very pious deeds, pleasing to God, provided that those who do these things perform the works from their own resources and offer their acts pure, like a sacrifice, to God.

CHAPTER XXXI. On the great church of Saint Sophia, and of the Holy Apostles.

^C He also raised up in Constantinople, as Constantine had, many temples, groomed in beauty for the Divine and for the saints. He built a great and incomparable work, such as is reported never to have existed before, the greatest temple of the Church, comely and excellent, and exceeding the power of language. And I shall attempt, as best I can, to describe the shrine. The temple of the palace is a dome, elevated on four arches, rising to such a height that it is difficult for those looking up from below to comprehend the completion of the hemisphere; and above, those who are...

positioned there, however bold they may be, never dare to look down or cast their eyes toward the bottom. The vaults ^A are empty from the floor up to the crown of the roof. To the right and to the left are arranged columns made of Thessalian stone, and they support upper galleries which, propped up by other similar columns, provide those who wish to view the mysteries the opportunity to see them from on high. From this spot, the Augusta also is accustomed to attend the solemnity of the sacred mysteries on feast days. Those [arches] situated toward the rising and setting of the sun were left in such a way that nothing might obstruct the wonder of such great magnitude. Porticoes of the aforementioned upper galleries complete the work below with columns and small arches. ^B Now, in order that the miracle of this structure may be more manifest, I have determined to set down here the measure of the length, the breadth, and the height; as also the empty spaces of the arches and their loftiness. The measure, therefore, is as follows: The length from the door which is opposite the sacred conch—in which place the unbloody sacrifice is offered—to the conch itself, is one hundred and ninety feet: the breadth, from north to south, is one hundred and fifteen feet. The depth from the center of the hemisphere to the floor is one hundred and eighty feet. And as to the arches, the breadth of each is... The length from east to west is two hundred and sixty feet. ^C

VALESII ANNOTATIONS

(75) *The vaults are empty.* Perhaps someone may ask here what the word "empty" means. For Evagrius says that the arches or vaults rise empty from the floor to the crown. Therefore, we must understand by this place that they are open, supported by no columns. Procopius, in *De Aedificiis*, testifies this of only two arches.

(76) *Arranged for them.* The interpreters translated this poorly. Musculus indeed translates it thus: "On the right side toward the left are columns arranged in those," etc. Christophorsonus, however, interprets it in this way: "On the right side, there are for a man entering, on the left, columns located in order," etc. The omission of a single conjunction was clearly their undoing, which we have supplemented from the Florentine manuscript in this way: etc., etc. It remains now to explain what those words mean which follow next. Therefore, Evagrius himself will be his own interpreter, who in bk. 1, chap. 14, describing the church of Saint Symeon the Stylite, says that it consists of four porticoes, and adds: etc. That is, "Next to the porticoes, columns are placed in order." Therefore, in this place, I would more willingly read *autais* instead of *autois*, subauditing of course [the women’s galleries]... ^D that they were destined for women, so that standing apart in them, they might be able to watch the solemnities of the Mass, as Paulus Silentiarius writes in his *Description of Hagia Sophia*, who also says that those guest-chambers, or upper galleries, were supported by six columns of Thessalian marble; although there were nevertheless only two underneath that supported the galleries... vocat Paulus, just as our Evagrius does here, and Procopius in bk. 1, where he describes this temple of Hagia Sophia: although Procopius calls them porticoes rather. Evagrius... the difference which was between the columns of the church of Hagia Sophia. For he says indeed that the columns which were at the right and left side of the church, that is, at the north and at the south, had upper galleries, or floors placed upon them, from which the faithful could watch the sacred mysteries which were celebrated at the altar. But the columns which were situated at the rising and setting of the sun sustained no gallery; but were left bare. I have thought these things should be explained more fully, because I noticed the interpreters saw nothing here, and especially Christophorsonus.

VARIORUM

(b) *The length is.* There is a fear that the manuscripts of Evagrius are faulty in estimating the length and breadth of the temple, since it is evident that both were far different from the testimony of Gyllius, a most diligent writer, to whom much greater credence should be given. The length, he says, from east to west I did not dare to measure myself, but I had it measured by a Turk, who reported to me that the length of the temple was two hundred and forty feet. He writes that the breadth from south to north, from the Turk’s report, was two hundred and thirteen feet. Belmontius, however, says the height from the pavement of the temple to the vault was [so many] brachia, that is, [so many] feet. Evagrius reports the height only from the center of the hemisphere, which differs little from the calculations of others. (Ducangius in *Constantinopolis Christiana*, bk. 2, where there is an accurate description of this temple.)

(c) *Breadth of... feet.* None of the Greek manuscripts show any number here. Curterius, Grynæus, Christophorsonus, and Mericus Hammerus in their versions expressed the number sixty-six, from where they drew it, is unknown to me. (Matth. Shorting.)

^A and one hundred and eighty feet from the center of the hemisphere to the floor. The width of each of the individual arches is... and the length from the rising to the setting sun contains two hundred and sixty feet. The width of their illumination has seventy-five feet. Furthermore, towards the setting sun there are two very beautiful porticos and courtyards of wondrous beauty on all sides. The temple of the Holy Apostles was also constructed by the same Justinian, which might easily yield to no other temple, in which it is the custom for emperors and priests to be buried. And concerning these matters, let these things be said in total.

Cap. XXXII. Of Justinian’s fury rather than benevolence towards the Venetian faction.

There was another quality in Justinian, ^B exceeding all bestial savagery, which whether it sprang from a vice of nature, or from cowardice and fear, I am unable to say; it drew its beginning from the popular sedition of *Nika*. For he seemed, I say, to be so utterly inclined towards one of the parties, namely the Venetians, that it was permitted for the Venetians to kill men of the opposing faction in broad daylight, in the middle of the city, and to fear not only no punishment, but even to obtain rewards. And hence it came about that many murderers arose. Furthermore, it was permitted for them even to break into houses, and to plunder the riches stored therein, and to sell their own safety to miserable men for a price. And if any of the magistrates ^C attempted to restrain them, he would himself be in danger of his own life. Indeed, a certain man who was Count of the East, when he had ordered some of the seditious to be beaten with whips, was himself beaten with whips and led about in the middle of the city. Moreover, Callinicus, the governor of Cilicia, because he had inflicted capital punishment according to the prescription of the laws upon two Cilician murderers, Paul and Faustinus, who had rushed upon him and attempted to kill him, was crucified, ^D paying this penalty for his upright sense and the laws. From there, the party of the other

^A side, who had fled their own homes and were received by no one at all, but were driven away from every side like some sort of sin-offering, began to lay ambushes for travelers, committing robbery and murder, and filling all places with untimely deaths, plunderings, and other such wickedness. There were times, however, when he changed his mind in the opposite direction and put them to death, handing them over to the laws, those to whom he had previously given the power to roam the cities like barbarians. But as for the things concerning them, to relate them in detail is better left to speech and time. These examples are sufficient to let one conjecture the rest, nor would any discourse suffice. These things, however, which I have recounted, ^B

CAP. XXXIII. OF BARSANUPHIUS THE MONK.

CAP. XXXIV. OF SYMEON THE MONK, WHO FEIGNED FOLLY FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.

If anyone bowed his head ^A to him and saluted him, he would depart from those places in anger and haste, fearing that his own virtue might be detected by the many. And such were the habits of Symeones in the forum.

There were, however, some acquaintances of his, with whom he was accustomed to associate without any pretense. One of these is said to have had a servant girl who, having been seduced by someone she did not know, became pregnant. When she was compelled by her masters to name the author of this disgrace, she said that Symeones had secretly engaged with her, and that she was pregnant by him; and she swore that this was the case, and, if need be, would even prove it. When Symeones heard this, he assented, saying that he carried human flesh, a thing very fragile and weak. When the rumor of this matter was spread everywhere and Symeones was, it seemed, bespattered with grave ignominy, he began to withdraw himself, pretending to be overcome with shame.

When the days for her delivery had arrived and the woman was sitting on her bed in the manner of those in labor, the birth brought on immense and intolerable pains, and had brought the woman to the final danger of her life. But the birth did not progress at all. When, therefore, Symeones deliberately came there, being requested by those who were present to offer prayer, he affirmed before everyone that the woman would not give birth before she confessed who was the father of the infant she carried in her womb. When she had done this, and had named the true father of the child, immediately the infant was delivered, the truth itself serving as a midwife.

He was also once seen to enter into the chamber of a harlot; and having closed the door, he remained alone with her. But when, having opened the door, he departed, looking about everywhere to see if anyone might behold him, the suspicion about him was increased all the more, so that those who had seen him brought the woman and inquired of her what the purpose of Symeones’ ingress to her was, and the reason for such a long delay. But she swore that for three days before he came, because of a lack of necessities, she had tasted nothing but water; but that he had brought delicacies, food, and a vessel of wine to her, and having closed the doors had set the table, commanded her to dine, and to be sated with the feast, since she had been sufficiently afflicted by fasting, and he presented the leftovers of the food.

Furthermore, with the earthquake ^B that shook the Phoenician coast being at hand—when the people of Berytus, Byblus, and Tripolis ^C had especially suffered—the restrainer of... ^D

which he had brought with him. Moreover, when that earthquake approached by which maritime Phoenicia was shaken, and by which Berytus, Byblos, and Tripoli were distressed beyond the other cities, he lifted a scourge on high and began to strike most of the columns that were in the forum, crying out with these words: "Stand, you must dance." And because nothing was done by him rashly or without purpose, those who were present carefully marked the columns which he had passed by and not struck ^A at all. Indeed, these fell not long after, overturned by the earthquake. Many other things were also done by him, which require a work of their own.

CAP. XXXV. Concerning Thomas the monk, who likewise feigned madness.

There was also at that time a certain Thomas, who in Coelesyria practiced the same mode of life. He once came to Antioch to receive his annual stipend for the sustenance of his monastery. This stipend was accustomed to be provided from the revenues of the Church of Antioch. One day, therefore, Anastasius, who was the oeconomus of that same Church, since Thomas had frequently been troublesome to him, struck him with a blow of his fist ^B on the cheek. And when those who were present took this occurrence indignantly, Thomas said that he would receive nothing more, nor would that man give anything; and both things came to pass: Anastasius departed from the living on the following day, and Thomas, while returning, was translated to the immortal life in the infirmary which is in the suburb of Daphne. His corpse was buried in the cemetery for strangers. But since, after one and then another had been buried there after him, the body of Thomas always appeared above them—God evidently manifesting a very great miracle even after his death, for the remaining corpses were moved further away and repelled—the inhabitants, admiring the holy man, reported the matter to Ephraim. ^C Then indeed his sacred body was transported to Antioch with a public festival and solemn procession, and was honorably deposited in the cemetery, having dispelled by its translation the pestilential disease which was spreading at that time. The Antiochenes celebrate his feast day magnificently every year even to our own times. But let us return the course of our history to the matter proposed.

VALESII ANNOTATIONS.

[...] ^D [...]

[...]

BOOK IV. CHAPTER XXXVI.

Concerning Patriarch Menas, and the miracle that happened at that time to the child of a certain Hebrew.

^A Anthimus, as I have stated, having been ejected from the throne of the imperial city, Epiphanius succeeded to his episcopate. After Epiphanius, Menas obtained that bishopric, in whose time a certain miracle happened that is most worthy of record. It is a long-standing custom in Constantinople that, as often as a large quantity of the holy portions of the immaculate body of Christ our God remains, innocent boys from those who attend the grammar schools are summoned to consume them. When this took place, the son of a certain glassblower, who was by religion a Jew, was called along with the other boys. This boy, when his parents asked him the reason for his delay, revealed what had happened and what he had tasted along with the other children. The father, burning with anger and indignation, immediately seized his son and threw him into the burning furnace in which he was accustomed to fashion glass. The mother, seeking the boy and being unable to find him, went about the whole city weeping and wailing. At long last, on the third day, she stood at the door of her husband’s workshop, calling the boy by name, weeping and tearing at herself. Then the boy, recognizing his mother's voice, answered her from the furnace. Immediately the mother broke down the doors and entered; she saw the boy standing among the coals, whom the fire had not harmed at all. ^B Being later questioned as to how he had remained unharmed, he said that a certain woman clothed in a purple garment had come to him frequently, had offered him water, and had extinguished the coals that were near him, and had also provided food when he was hungry. When these things were reported to Justinian, the Emperor had the boy and his mother initiated into the fountain of regeneration (baptism), and enrolled the boy among the clergy. But as for the father, since he refused in any way to accept the sacraments of the Christian religion, the Emperor ordered him to be crucified in the suburb of Sycae, as the murderer of his own son. And these things happened in this way.

VARIOUS READINGS.

(90) Long-standing custom: Nicephorus Callistus testifies in chapter xxv of book sixteen that this custom, namely that the remaining particles of the sacred Eucharist should be distributed to be consumed by boys at Constantinople, persisted even in his own age; and he writes that he himself, when he was a boy and frequently frequented the churches, received those portions.

(91) Initiated into the fountain of regeneration [...]: So one should understand it, that the Emperor ordered that boy to be counted among the lectors of the Church, but ordered the mother to be ordained a deaconess.

(92) In Sycae: In this suburb of the city of Constantinople, punishments of criminals were formerly accustomed to be carried out, as I have already warned in the annotations.

CHAPTER XXXVII. Who were the bishops of the greatest cities at that time.

^A After Menas, Eutychius obtained the pontifical see of Constantinople. At Jerusalem, in truth, after Martyrius, Salustius succeeded to the throne. After him Helias, then after Helias, Petrus, and after Petrus, Macarius undertook the bishopric of the same city, although the emperor had not yet approved his election. This man was later expelled from his see, because it was said that he asserted the dogmas of Origen. After him, therefore, Eustochius obtained the episcopal seat. At Alexandria, however, Zoilus having been expelled—as was reported above—Theodosius was promoted to the bishopric. Upon his being joined to his predecessors, Apollinaris undertook to govern that see. And now at Antioch, after Ephraemius, Domninus governed the Church of that place.

Chapter XXXVIII. On the holy and universal fifth synod, and for what reason it was convened.

^B Furthermore, while Vigilius was holding the bishopric of the Roman city, and Menas, and then later Eutychius, held the bishopric of Constantinople, and Apollinaris held the Church of Alexandria, but Domninus held that of Antioch, and Eustochius held that of Jerusalem, Justinian summoned the fifth synod ^C for the following reason: Eustochius, because the monks—who were then occupying what is called the New Laura—rejected him from their communion, for the reason that he was believed to hold those same dogmas of Origen. Among these men was the abbot Elias, who was also called [...], as John Moschus writes in the 19th chapter of the *Limonarion*. Theophanes, however, in his *Chronicle*, page 205, says that Macarius was expelled from his see *kata suskeuen*, that is, through fraud and calumny. But Theophanes refers this to an entirely different time, namely to the reign of Justin the Younger. Yet Macarius was ordained bishop of Jerusalem in the year of Christ 546, and two years later, having been driven from his see, Eustochius was substituted in his place in the year of Christ 548, as Baronius relates. Victor Thunonensis, however, disagrees in his *Chronicle*. For he attributes eight years of the episcopate to Macarius, and says that while he was still living, Eustochius was ordained one year before the fifth synod, that is, in the year of Christ 552; and I think that more true.

^A Eustochius, since the supporters of Origen’s dogmas were prevailing, especially in what is called the New Laura, set his whole aim on driving them out. And having seized the same New Laura, he had cast them all out, having driven them far away as a common plague; and these, having become dispersed, won many over to their sides. These were championed by Theodorus, nicknamed Ascidas, bishop of Caesarea, which is the capital of the Cappadocian nation; but as he was one who sat in attendance upon Justinian, and was a faithful and most fitting man to him, he caused turmoil in the palace and called the whole matter an impiety and an unlawful act. Therefore, Rufus, the abbot of the monastery of Theodosius, and Conon of [the monastery of] Sabas, were sent to the king’s city by Eustochius, representing the very first of the desert, both from their own rank and from the monasteries over which they presided. Others also came with them, not much inferior to them in status; and these, for their part, began to bring up the, matters concerning Origen primarily, and Evagrius, and Didymus. But Theodorus the Cappadocian, wishing to draw them away elsewhere, introduced the matters concerning Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret, and Ibas; for the all-good God arranged everything well, so that from this place and that, the profane might be cast out. Now, the first movement having taken place, if it were necessary for those who had died to be covered with an anathema ^B Eustochius, having departed to Jerusalem, because of his hatred toward Apollinaris, and Agathon, and Macarius, cast out the monks of the New Laura as Origenists; and because of this he was cast out, and Macarius was restored again to his own throne.

^A

CHAPTER XXXIX

God disposing things well, that profane teaching might be completely cast out on all sides. When the first question was proposed, whether it was permitted to subject the dead to anathema, Eutychius, who was present, being most excellently trained in the Holy Scriptures—while Mena was still alive, he not being yet very illustrious; for he was even at that time the apocrisiarius of the bishop of Amasea—looked upon those who were assembled with contempt, as one more clever, and openly said that such a question did not require deliberation, since King Josias not only slaughtered the living priests of the demons, but also dug up the tombs of those who had died long before. And all who were present judged that this had been most aptly said by Eutychius. When Justinian understood this, he promoted Eutychius soon after, when Mena was taken from the living, to the pontifical seat of the royal city. ^B Vigilius, indeed, consented by letter, but refused to take part in the council. The synod having therefore been gathered, when Justinian had asked the bishops what they thought about Theodore, and about those things which Theodoret had written against Cyril and his twelve chapters, and also about the letter which is said to be from Ibas to Maris the Persian: after many passages from the books of Theodore and Theodoret had been read, and it had been further shown that Theodore had been condemned long ago, and his name erased from the sacred diptychs, and that it was necessary for heretics to be condemned even after death: they all with one consent anathematized Theodore himself; but they condemned the writings of Theodoret against the twelve chapters of Cyril and against the true faith, as well as the letter of Ibas to Maris the Persian, under anathema, using these words: "As our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, according to the parable in the Gospels," and the rest. ^C And a little later: "We condemn and anathematize, besides all the other heretics who have been condemned and anathematized by the aforementioned four holy synods, and by the holy catholic and apostolic Church, Theodore himself, the so-called bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, and the things impiously written by Theodoret against the true faith and the twelve chapters of the one among the saints, Cyril, and the first holy synod at Ephesus." ^D

^A And in addition to these, we also anathematize the impious letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian. And after some time, they set forth fourteen chapters regarding the right and blameless faith. And these things had proceeded in this manner.

But from the petitions that were presented ^B by Eulogius, Conon, Cyriacus, and Pancratius, monks, against the dogmas of Origen, also called Adamantius, and against those who followed his impiety and error, Justinian consulted the synod that had been gathered concerning these matters, having also attached a copy of the petition, as well as the things that had been sent to Vigilius regarding these issues. From all of which it is possible to discern how Origen had been anxious to fill the simplicity of the apostolic dogmas with Hellenic and Manichaean weeds. A report was therefore made to Justinian by the synod after the acclamations which it had raised against Origen and those who had been led astray along with him—some parts of which are contained in these words: "Possessing a soul that is a participant in celestial ^C nobility, most Christian Emperor." And after other remarks: "We have fled, therefore, we have fled this doctrine. For we do not know the voice of strangers; and having fastened such a one, like a thief and a robber, firmly with the snares of the anathema, we have cast him out of the sacred enclosures." And after a little: "From the reading of the things done by us concerning these matters, you will understand their force." To these they also joined the chapters which those who hold the views of Origen had been taught to maintain, explaining their agreements, and also their disagreements, and their manifold ^D error. Among these is the fifth chapter of the things blasphemed by individual persons of the so-called New Laura, which reads as follows: "Theodore Ascidas… Since, therefore, it has been made known to us that there are certain monks in Jerusalem who are followers of Pythagoras and Plato and Origen Adamantius, we deemed it necessary to take care and make an inquiry respecting these matters, so that they may not completely destroy many through the Hellenic and Manichaean deceit."

^A their dissension, and a manifold and varied error is detected. Among these was the fifth chapter, containing the blasphemies which certain individuals from the New Laura had brought forward, which is as follows: Theodorus Ascidas the Cappadocian said: "Seeing now that the apostles and martyrs work miracles, and are in such great honor, in the restoration, if they are not to be equal to Christ, what kind of restoration is it for them?" Furthermore, the same Fathers reported many other blasphemies of Didymus, Evagrius, and Theodore, having gathered those things concerning them with great diligence. ^B After this synod therefore, some time having intervened, Eutychius [(n)] is deposed [(8)], and John [(9)] is elevated to the throne of Constantinople.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

^A Theodorus Ascidas the Cappadocian. As one may gather from these words of Evagrius, this Theodorus the Cappadocian was from the number of the monks of the New Laura, which was near the city of Jerusalem. He is therefore that follower of the Origenist Nonnus, who, having later become bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, openly undertook the patronage of the Origenists, as Cyril of Scythopolis writes in the *Life of Saint Sabas*. Furthermore, since this Theodorus, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, played the primary role, so to speak, in the fifth Constantinopolitan synod, as can be seen from its acts, how is it that he is now accused in the same synod as an Origenist? We cannot, therefore, suspect without cause that these events, which Evagrius, Theophanes, and Cedrenus say took place in the fifth synod against Origen, were added to it long after that synod on account of the similarity of the subject matter, but were not in fact done in that synod. So also the acts of the fifth Constantinopolitan synod under Menas against Anthimus and Zoaras used to be subjected to this fifth ecumenical synod, as Photius attests in his *Bibliotheca*. The same can also be proved from those things which Evagrius subjoins. For he says that many impious sayings, collected from the books of Evagrius, Didymus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, were referred to that synod. But if these things had been done in the fifth Constantinopolitan synod, as Evagrius reports, it would have been entirely superfluous and useless to repeat the sayings of Theodore, which had been so often recited and condemned in the aforementioned synod. Therefore I think that these acts against Origen were performed in another Constantinopolitan synod in the year of Christ 538, at the time when certain monks of Jerusalem, whom Pelagius, deacon of the Roman Church, and Menas, bishop of Constantinople, favored, presented to Justinian a petition containing certain chapters extracted from the books of Origen, demanding of the prince that those chapters be condemned, ^C as Liberatus reports in chapter 23 of his *Breviary*. See Baronius at the year of Christ 538. Moreover, our conjecture is strictly confirmed by what Evagrius writes a little before; namely, that in these acts against Origen there was inserted a letter of the Emperor Justinian to Pope Vigilius concerning the errors of Origen. These events, therefore, did not take place in the fifth Constantinopolitan synod in the year of Christ 553. For in that year Vigilius was in Constantinople, and it is not necessary that Justinian should have dealt with him by letter. These acts against Origen were done, therefore, long before, namely when Justinian, having received the letter of those Palestinian monks, wrote to Menas, bishop of Constantinople, concerning the errors of Origen, ordering that, having gathered the bishops who were present in the royal city and the abbots of the monasteries, he should condemn those errors. This letter of Justinian exists, published in Greek and Latin at the end of the fifth Constantinopolitan synod, but in a completely wrong place. For it does not pertain to the fifth Constantinopolitan synod, which was celebrated in the year 553, but to the other Constantinopolitan synod which was gathered by order of the Emperor Justinian in the year of Christ 538. Baronius therefore rightly attributed this letter of Justinian to the year I mentioned. At the end of his letter, however, Justinian clearly testifies that he had also written a letter to Vigilius, bishop of the Roman city, on the same subject. ^D For he thus speaks: "Furthermore, we have written these same things not only to your Holiness, but also to the most holy and blessed Pope of senior Rome and patriarch, Vigilius, and to all the other most holy bishops and patriarchs of Alexandria, Theopolis, and Jerusalem, so that they too may provide for this matter, and that these things may reach an end." Finally, those anathemas which Nicephorus says were hurled against the dogmas of Origen in the fifth Constantinopolitan synod are read in the very same words in the letter of Justinian to Menas, which was written long before the fifth synod, in the year of Christ 538, as Baronius teaches from Liberatus. The same can also be proved from the letter which Gregory the Great wrote to the four patriarchs at the beginning of his pontificate. For since in that letter he clearly professes that he receives with veneration the fifth Constantinopolitan synod, in which synod certain writings of Ibas, Theodore, and Theodoret were condemned, he says nothing about the condemnation of Origen. Which certainly he would not have omitted if Origen had been condemned in that synod.

[(8)] Eutychius is deposed. These things were written rather carelessly by Evagrius, who concealed the cause of the deposition of Eutychius, lest he should offend in any way the memory of the prince Justinian. But if anyone desires to read a full account of this matter, it exists in Surius, in the *Life of the blessed Patriarch Eutychius*, elegantly written by his disciple Eustathius, and in Nicephorus, in chapter 29 of book XV. Baronius says that this was done in the year of Christ 564, which was the final year of the reign of Justinian.

[A] the Church is introduced—the man from Sirimis [(10)]; this is a village located in the Cynegic region of the territory of Antioch.

CAP. XXXIX. How Justinian, departing from the right faith, asserted that the body of the Lord was incorruptible.

At that same time Justinian, straying from the straight high-road of the dogmas and walking along a path untrodden by the apostles and the Fathers, fell among thorns and thistles. Wishing to fill the Church also with these, he failed in his purpose, since the Lord had secured the royal road with ineffable ramparts [(11)], lest killers and robbers might leap into it as if against a leaning wall and a broken-down fence, thus fulfilling the prediction of the prophecy.

Therefore, while John [(12)], also called Catelinus, was presiding over the elder Rome after Vigilius; and John, the man from Sirimis, was presiding over the New Rome; and Apollinaris over Alexandria; and Anastasius over Theopolis [(after Domninus)]; and Macarius over Jerusalem—having been restored to his own throne [(15)] after he had anathematized Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius subsequently to the deposition of Eustochius—Justinian wrote what the Romans call an edict, in which he called the body of the Lord incorruptible and incapable of natural and blameless [(16)] passions, saying that the Lord ate before the passion just as He ate after the resurrection, and that no change or alteration occurred from the very formation in the womb, nor in the voluntary and natural [(17)]

passions, nor did His sacred body receive any after the resurrection; and he forced the priests of each province to agree to these things. All of them, however, saying that they were waiting for ^A Anastasius, the bishop of Antioch, warded off the first assault.

CAP. XL. Of Anastasius, Archbishop of Antioch.

Now this Anastasius was a man most learned in the divine Scriptures, and most precise in his manner of life and conduct: so much so that he observed even the most trivial things, and never departed from constancy and firmness, much less in matters of great moment, and those which pertain to God. Yet he had so tempered his character, that neither did his ease of approach and access render him exposed to those to whom it was not fitting, nor did his severity and harshness make him inaccessible to justice and reason. In serious conversations, his ears were open and his tongue fluent; and he would resolve questions put to him prudently and clearly. But in foolish and superfluous conversations, he kept his ears completely shut, and controlled his tongue as with a bridle: so that reason governed his speech, and silence was esteemed better than any speech. Justinian, therefore, set to work to attack him as one would a ^B sturdy wall, having set up all kinds of engines; thinking to himself that if he undermined this rampart, he would thereafter capture the city without any difficulty, reduce to servitude the doctrine of the true faith, and finally carry off as captives the sheep of Christ.

But Anastasius, with a certain divine loftiness of spirit—rising so far above the Emperor, for he was founded upon a firm rock—did not hesitate to send to Justinian a report openly contradicting him, and in that same report most clearly and most eloquently demonstrating to him that the body of the Lord, in natural and blameless passions, was subject to corruption, and that this was what the divine apostles and the holy Fathers had thought and handed down to posterity. He also wrote the same thing to the monks of First and Second Syria, who had consulted him; confirming the minds of all, and preparing them to undergo the struggle, and reading daily in the Church those words of the vessel of election: “If anyone preaches a gospel to you other than that which you received, ^C even if an angel from heaven should do so, let him be anathema.” Seeing this, all were strengthened, and to the same degree as a few, they emulated him. And there was also written by him a farewell discourse to the people of Antioch, ^D upon his learning that Justinian wished to exile him.

This discourse one might justly admire, both for the elegance of its language and for the abundance of its sentiments, and finally for the frequency of its testimonies from Holy Scripture and for ^A the history aptly accommodated to its proper places.

CAP. XLI. Concerning the Death of Justinian.

But that discourse was by no means published, because God, providing for our affairs, changed them for the better. For Justinian, while he was ^B dictating the sentence of deportation against Anastasius and the priests who were with him, was struck by an invisible plague and departed from this light, having reigned in total for thirty-eight years and eight months.

The end of the fourth book of the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius.

VOLUME FIVE.

BOOK FIVE.

^C These things are contained in the fifth book of the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus.

I. Concerning the election of the Emperor Justin, and his character. II. Concerning the destruction of Justin, his kinsman. III. Concerning the wicked men, Addaeus and Etherius. IV. The edict concerning the faith, written by Justin to the Christians everywhere. V. Concerning the expulsion of Anastasius, Bishop of Theoupolis. ^D

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

VARIOUS NOTES.

VI. How after Anastasius, Gregory became bishop, and concerning his character. VII. How the so-called Armenian Persians surrendered themselves to the Romans, from which cause war arose between the Romans and the Persians. ^A VIII. Concerning Marcian, master of the soldiers, and the siege of Nisibis. IX. How Chosroes, having sent his general Addarmanes against the Romans, who inflicted great disasters upon them, went himself to Nisibis. X. Concerning the storming of Apamea and Dara. XI. How the emperor Justin fell into madness, and Tiberius took upon himself the care of the commonwealth. XII. How Trajan, having been sent as envoy to Chosroes, restored the affairs of the Romans. XIII. Concerning the proclamation of the Emperor Tiberius, and his character. ^B XIV. How the Emperor Tiberius, having gathered a large army against Chosroes and sent Justinian as general, drove him out of the Roman territories. XV. How Chosroes, bearing his defeat with difficulty, departed from this life, and his son Hormisdas succeeded him in the kingdom. XVI. Who were the bishops of the great Churches at that time. XVII. Concerning the earthquake which occurred in Antioch in the time of Tiberius. XVIII. Concerning the uprising against the wicked Anatolius. XIX. Concerning the generalship of Maurice, and his virtues. ^C XX. How Maurice overcame the Persian generals Chosroes and Addarmanes. XXI. Concerning the signs that portended the empire to Maurice. XXII. Concerning the proclamation of Maurice and Augusta. XXIII. Chronological computation from Justin the Younger to Maurice. XXIV. Concerning the continuous series of history preserved down to our own times.

CHAPTER I

Concerning the election of the Emperor Justin, and his character.

Thus, then, did Justinian, having filled all things with tumult and disturbance, and having received at the end of his life the reward appropriate to these deeds, depart to the punishments prepared in the underworld. But Justin, who was his sister’s son, and who held the guardianship of the imperial palace—whom the Romans call ^D curopalates—

^A they call it the palace, and immediately after his death he assumed the purple, although neither the death of Justinian nor the selection of Justin was yet known to anyone, except to his own household, until he appeared at the circus games, about to perform and accept the rites of the empire. When these things were done, and no disturbance at all had occurred, he returned to the palace. His first order was that the bishops ^B who had been gathered from everywhere should be sent away to their own sees, to serve the divine worship in the customary manner, with no innovation concerning the faith. And this indeed was a praiseworthy deed performed by him. But as for his life and morals, he was soft and dissolute, and addicted to luxuries and foul pleasures. Furthermore, he burned with such a vehement greed for other people’s money that he would sell everything for the sake of unrighteous gain; and he did not even revere the divine power in the matter of the priesthoods, which he sold to anyone who happened along, offering them for sale openly. Being ruled by both contrary vices, audacity and cowardice, he first summoned to his side ^C his kinsman, Justin, who possessed great glory among all men, both for his experience in warfare and for the other honors he had held. He was at that time staying near the Ister, restraining the crossings of the Avar people. Now the Avars are a Scythian race living on wagons, who inhabited the plains lying beyond the Caucasus. These, having been severely harmed by the Turks, their neighbors, fled, and having left their homes, came all together with their wives and children to the Bosporus. Then, leaving the shores of the so-called Euxine Pontus, where many barbarian ^D peoples dwell, and where cities, camps, and certain stations—constructed either by Romans, or by soldiers who had become ineffective, or by colonies sent out by the emperors—had been established, they made their journey, trampling all those in their path. For, as is right, he did not wait for a fellow-traveler, a shield-bearer, who would carry some golden rod, always the herald of rulers.

^A fighting against the barbarians, until they reached the banks of the Ister, and sent an embassy to Justinian. From this point, Justin was summoned, as though he were bound to enjoy the benefits agreed upon between himself and the Emperor Justin. For since both were established in similar worldly prospects, and the empire hung on both of them, it was agreed after much disputation that he who attained the empire should grant the second place to the other, so that, being established in the second rank of the empire, he might carry off the primacy over all others.

CAP. II.

Regarding the slaughter of Justin, the kinsman of the Emperor.

[alt-version omitted]

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(23) *Sent an embassy to Justinian.* The Avars, having crossed into Europe in the times of the Emperor Justinian, first became known to the Romans, as Theophylact Simocatta relates in his seventh book, chapter eight; for when they had reached the regions of Scythia and Moesia, they sent legates to Justinian in the thirty-first year of the reign of Justinian, as Theophanes writes in his *Chronicle* and Anastasius the Librarian. Victor of Tunnuna, however, commemorates this embassy somewhat later. After the consulship of the most illustrious Bassus, in the 23rd year, the prince Justinian received legates of the Avar tribe, whence they came. This was the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Justinian. Regarding this same Avar embassy to Justinian, one should consult Menander Protector in Book I of his *History*, page 99 of the Royal Edition, where he describes this embassy clearly and confirms the opinion of Victor of Tunnuna. For he says that Justinian died not long after. Valesius says in his translation that the Avar legates came to Justin. And in his notes to the excerpts of Menander Protector he observes that this Avar legation was introduced seven days after the inauguration of Justin. There were therefore two Avar embassies, of the former of which Theophanes speaks.

(24) *And restrained his processions.* He removed the preposition in this place. For thus he expressed this passage of Evagrius: *...and restrained his processions.* I would prefer, however, to write in Evagrius: *and restrained the processions from him.* I have followed this reading in my version.

(25) *...was sitting at home;* ^C And he blocked his processions. Christophorsonus understood these words of Evagrius concerning Justin, the cousin of the Emperor Justin; but I would prefer to take them as referring to the Emperor Justin himself. For he, being sick, remained at home for the most part, and had forbidden his cousin Justin to approach him. Certainly Cedrenus and Zonaras testify to what I have said regarding Justin. For Cedrenus writes thus: *This Justin, being constantly ill and suffering from dizziness, and not being able to go out, etc.* I would prefer to read... Nicephorus reads... and understands the passage in Evagrius concerning the barbarians who had been brought there by the Romans. *But* this Justin was made Augustalis and Duke of Alexandria by the Emperor Justin in the sixth year of the reign of this same Justin, as Theophanes and Cedrenus write. The words of Cedrenus are these: *Write as is read in Theophanes.* For these two dignities, Augustalis and Duke, although they were distinct, were sometimes bestowed by the emperors upon one and the same person at the same time, as can be proven by many examples. Furthermore, this dignity was conferred upon Justin by the Emperor, not to honor him, but rather to banish him far from the palace. Thus the city of Alexandria served as a place of custody. Wherefore Theophanes writes in his *Chronicle* that the Emperor Justin detained his cousin Justin as though he were a captive in Alexandria, etc. Moreover, John of Biclaro in his *Chronicle* reports the slaughter of this Justin in the second year of the reign of Justin the Younger: ^D the same year, that is to say, in which Etherius and Addaeus were subjected to capital punishment. And this accords more with the narrative of Evagrius.

CHAPTER III. Concerning the scoundrels Addaeus and Etherius.

Not long after, he delivered up to the judges to be examined ^A Etherius and Addaeus, men of senatorial rank who had possessed great power and held high office under Justinian, on a charge of high treason. Of these, Etherius confessed that he had wished to kill the Emperor with poison, and that Addaeus had been conscious of and a participant in that undertaking and a collaborator in all his plans. Addaeus, however, swore with terrible oaths that he was entirely ignorant of all these things. Both of them were nonetheless beheaded. Right at the moment of the decapitation, Addaeus said that while he was being falsely accused in this matter, he was nevertheless justly suffering at the hand of the overseer of justice for all that had been done; for he declared that he had destroyed Theodotus, the prefect of the palace, through sorcery. ^B Whether these things are so, I cannot say for certain. Both, however, were scoundrels. The one, Addaeus, was given over beyond measure to the love of boys; Etherius, moreover, omitted no kind of calumny, but plundered the properties of both the living and the dead in the name of the imperial house, over which he had presided under Justinian. And these matters ended thus.

CHAPTER IV. Concerning the edict of our faith, which Justin wrote to the Christians everywhere.

Justin also wrote an edict to the Christians everywhere, in these words: "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ our God, ^C Emperor Caesar Flavius Justinus, faithful in Christ, Meek, Greatest, Benefactor, Alamannicus, Gothicus, Germanicus, Anticus, Francicus, Erulicus, Gepidicus, Pious, Fortunate, Glorious, Victor, Triumphant, ever Augustus. 'My peace I give unto you,' saith the Lord Christ, our true God. 'My peace'"

' the same Christ proclaims unto all men. And this means nothing else than that they who believe in him should come together into one and the same Church; being of one mind concerning the right faith of Christians, and turning away from those who speak or think contrary things. For the first salvation established for all men is the confession of the right faith. Wherefore we too, following the evangelical precepts and the holy Symbol, that is, the teaching of the holy Fathers, exhort all to come together to one and the same Church and opinion: believing in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead or nature and substance both in word and in deed, and believing in one power and authority and operation in three subsistences ^B or persons; into which we have been baptized, in which we believe, and to which we are joined. For we adore unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity, which has both a wonderful division and unification. Unity indeed as regards the Godhead or substance; but Trinity as regards the properties or subsistences, that is, persons. For it is divided indivisibly, so to speak, and joined divisibly. For that which is in the three is one, namely the Godhead; and the three are one, in which is the Godhead, or, to speak more accurately, which are the Godhead itself: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, when each person is considered by itself, the gaze of the mind separating things that are inseparable; God as three persons, understood together, on account of the same motion and the same nature. ^C Indeed, it is necessary to confess one God, and to preach three subsistences or properties. We confess, however, the only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, who before the ages and without time was begotten of the Father, and not made; who in the last days for us and for our salvation descended from the heavens, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and of our Lady, the holy and glorious Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and was born of her; who is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit. ^D For the holy Trinity did not receive the addition of a fourth person after the one of the holy Trinity, God the Word, was made flesh; but one and the same is our Lord Jesus Christ, consubstantial with God the Father as to his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as to his manhood; suffering in the flesh, and the same impassible in his Godhead. For we do not understand one God the Word who worked wonders...

and another who suffered; but we acknowledge one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, who was incarnate and perfectly made man; and we acknowledge that both the miracles and the sufferings which he voluntarily endured in the flesh for our salvation belong to one and the same. For it was not some man who gave himself for us, but the Word of God himself, having become man without change, who accepted for us the voluntary passion and death in the flesh. Therefore, while acknowledging him to be God, we do not deny that he is also man; and while acknowledging him to be man, we do not deny that he is also God. Hence, we acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ to be one and the same from both natures, Godhead and manhood, composite, and we do not introduce ^A confusion into the union. For the fact that he has become man like us does not cause him to lose his being God; nor, on the other hand, because he is God by nature and does not possess our likeness, will he refuse to be man. For just as he has remained God in his manhood, so also while being in the transcendence of the Godhead, he remains none the less man; existing as both at once, he is at once one God and man—Emmanuel. While acknowledging him to be perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, from which he was composed, we do not introduce a particular division or separation into his one hypostasis; but we signify the difference of the natures, which is not destroyed by the union. For neither was the divine nature changed into the human, nor was the human nature turned into the divine. But because each is understood ^B and continues to exist within the definition and reason of its own nature, we say that the union has been brought about according to hypostasis. And the union according to hypostasis signifies that the Word of God—that is, the one hypostasis of the three hypostases of the Godhead—was not united to a man who had a prior existence, but, in the womb of our Lady, the holy and glorious Theotokos, he created for himself, out of her, flesh subsisting in his own hypostasis. And thus, being the same, he is understood to be the one and the same who is God and man.

^A Likewise, he made for himself out of her, in his own hypostasis, flesh consubstantial with us and passible in all respects, apart from sin, animated by a rational and intellectual soul. For in it he had his hypostasis, and he became man; and he is one and the same Lord of ours, Jesus Christ, glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Reflecting upon his ineffable union, we rightly confess one nature of God the Word incarnate, with a flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul. And again, perceiving in contemplation the difference of the natures, we say that these are two, introducing no division. For each nature exists in him. Whence we confess one and the same Christ, one Son, one person, one hypostasis, ^B being God at once and man. We anathematize all who have thought or think otherwise than this, judging them to be aliens to the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God.

Since, therefore, the right dogmas delivered to us by the holy Fathers are being proclaimed, we exhort—nay, rather, we beseech—all of you to run together into one and the same catholic and apostolic Church. For we would not shrink, even though we are set in the loftiness of the imperial throne, from using such a plea, for the sake of the concord and union of all Christians, so that one doxology might be sent up by all to the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; and that henceforth no one, using as a pretext ^C questions about persons or syllables, might strive—for the sake of one, and that one, in the flesh.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(53) *In it he had his hypostasis.* It is read in Nicephorus, "in it," meaning "in the flesh." This can in no way be maintained; for Christ did not have his own proper hypostasis in the flesh before he had assumed flesh; he had his own proper hypostasis as being the second person of the most holy Trinity. Yet if anyone wishes to defend the writing of Nicephorus, I, for my part, will not greatly object. For it coheres more aptly with what precedes. The sense, therefore, is: The Son of God, who from eternity possessed his own proper hypostasis, having assumed flesh, subsisted personally in it.

(54) *For the sake of the concord of all Christians, etc.* I agree with the learned men who have already edited this. Although Nicephorus retained the common reading.

(55) *For the sake of persons... or syllables.* "First," namely by person, is set down because of the heresy of Nestorius, who asserted that there were two persons in Christ, one of the man, and another of the Word. Moreover, the word "syllables" is added on account of the Eutychians and the Acephali, who said that Christ consisted of two natures indeed before the union, but after the union, they said that there was a single nature in him. On the contrary, however, Catholics worshipped Christ in two natures. These syllables, therefore, are *ev* and *ex*. Although these may be different, yet if they are rightly understood, both aim at one and the same faith and opinion, as Justinus adds. See Evagrius above, in book 1, chapter 1. ^D I observe that this edict was promulgated by Justin the Younger in the first year of his reign, namely 566 of Christ, as Baronius notes: for by this edict, Justin conferred absolutely no benefit on the catholic Church; but, content merely to have set forth the orthodox faith, he prohibited disputes concerning the Nestorian and Eutychian dogma for the future, permitting each one to think about these things according to his own judgment. Therefore, Evagrius rightly writes that no utility resulted from this edict. John of Biclaro, therefore, is wrong when he writes in his Chronicle about Justin the Younger: "Which Justin, in the first year of his reign, destroyed those things which had been plotted against the Council of Chalcedon. And he introduced the creed of the holy Fathers of the Church gathered at Constantinople, and laudably received at the synod of Chalcedon, to be sung by the people in every catholic Church, before the Lord's Prayer is said." Biclariensis attributes to Justin the Younger those things which were more appropriate for Justin the Elder. Valesius thinks that Biclariensis attributes to Justin the Younger those things which were more appropriate for the Elder; for he was the most bitter defender of the Council of Chalcedon. But the most eminent Cardinal Norisius in his Dissertation on the Fifth Council, cap. 9, § 2, citing the words of Biclariensis, rightly observes that Justin, seeing Africa and the Western provinces torn by dissensions on account of the Three Chapters, published that edict of faith, in which, making mention of no synod, he proposed what things were to be believed by each; but he not only did not name the Three Chapters, but seemed to suggest at the end of the edict that the question concerning the Three Chapters was not to be numbered among the dogmata adiaphora, while he says that he has proposed them to be believed, so that henceforth no one by any pretext might quarrel on account of persons or syllables. By which he perhaps meant the person of Theodore, and likewise the writings of Theodoret, and of Ibas, as well as the question recently arisen concerning the corruptible or incorruptible body of Christ; for one syllable had deported the most noble prelates of the Roman empire into exile, far from their sees. (Ant. Pagi, ad ann. 568, n. 2.)

^A Let glorification be rendered to God the all-bountiful and to our Savior Jesus Christ, and let no one henceforth, seizing upon a vain pretext, wrangle about persons or syllables. If indeed syllables lead to one and the same faith and understanding, then, with that custom and state which has hitherto prevailed in the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God, remaining firm and unshaken throughout all time to come—to this edict all indeed gave their consent, saying that the correct faith and doctrine had been promulgated in it; yet none of the members of the Church that had been rent asunder returned to their pristine unity, because the emperor had declared in express terms that the state of the Churches should be preserved firm and unmoved for the future, just as it had been preserved before.

CAP. V.

Concerning the ejection of Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch.

^B Justin also cast Anastasius out from the throne of Theopolis, accusing him both of the expenditure of sacred monies that had occurred, which he said had been carried out in a boundless and improper manner, and also of blasphemy against himself. For when Anastasius was asked why he was squandering the sacred monies so profusely, he had responded openly that it was so they might not be seized by Justin, the common plague and ruin of the human race. And it was said that Justin had grown angry with Anastasius because, when he had demanded money from him upon his promotion to the episcopate, Anastasius had refused to give it. Other matters also ^C were brought against him, some of which... [The text here contains glosses and annotations; the narrative continues:]

... Anastasius, the great bishop of Antioch, having censured in the transcripts of the synodical letters of John of Constantinople, who had ordained John of Alexandria; and after this latter had been ordained, he was cast out from his episcopal dignity in consequence of the indignation of Justin.

Other things, I believe, were also contrived against the same Anastasius by some who were anxious to gratify the purpose and will of the emperor.

Cap. VI. How after Anastasius, Gregory became bishop, and of his character.

^B After Anastasius, indeed, Gregory was raised to the episcopal throne, whose glory, to speak with the poets, is spread far and wide. He, having from his earliest youth exercised himself in the monastic arena, had combated so bravely and with such constant spirit, that in a short time, while still in the first down of manhood, he arrived at the highest grades, and presided over the monastery of the Byzantines, in which he had first embraced the monastic life. Afterwards, indeed, by the command of Justin, he was also made prefect of the monks of Mount Sinai. In which place, having been besieged by the Arabs whom they call Scenitae, he fell into most grave dangers. Nevertheless, having procured a most profound peace for that place, he was from thence called to the pontificate. He was, moreover, in counsel, in virtue, and in other matters, the most excellent of all mortals, of admirable industry for the accomplishment of those things which he had proposed in his mind, and invincible against fear: nor could he ever be induced to yield, or to dread secular power. In the dispensing of money, however, he was so magnificent, pouring it out liberally and prolixly upon all, that as often as he went out into public, a huge multitude of people, besides those who were accustomed to accompany him, would follow him; and as many as saw or heard him going by would themselves also flock together. And the honor which is deferred to the highest powers of this world was inferior to the honor which was exhibited to this man, since men generally of their own accord desired to see him, or to hear him speaking nearby. For he was most apt at exciting a desire for himself in the minds of those who had approached him for any cause whatsoever. ^C For he was both admirable to behold, and most delightful in conversation on account of his charm; acute in immediately understanding a matter, if any other man was; and most sharp in acting.

^A Much was his intensity, and in some places also his spirited nature; yet not a little again, but rather exceeding, was his gentleness and mildness. Indeed, the things wisely philosophized by Gregory the Theologian concerning him were most aptly fulfilled: his severity was tempered by modesty, so that neither was harmed by the other, but both adorned one another.

CHAPTER VII.

How the Persarmenians surrendered themselves to the Romans: whence war arose between the Romans and the Persians.

^B In the first year of this man’s pontificate, the inhabitants of Greater Armenia—which is now called Persarmenia (for this region had previously been subject to the Romans, but when Philip, the successor of Gordian, surrendered it to Sapor, Lesser Armenia remained in the hands of the Romans, while all the rest was under the Persians)—being professors of the Christian faith and suffering grievous afflictions at the hands of the Persians, especially regarding their own customs, sent envoys secretly to Justin, begging to become subjects of the Romans, so that they might perform the honors due to God in security, with no one hindering them. When Justin had accepted this, and certain conditions had been agreed to in writing by the emperor and secured by terrible oaths, the Armenians slew their own rulers. They sided with the Roman empire, together with the neighboring peoples they had brought with them—both of their own race and of foreign origin—under the leadership of Vardan, who was eminent among them by birth, rank, and skill in warfare. ^C When Chosroes complained about these matters, Justin sent him away, saying...

VARIOUS READINGS.

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS.

(45) *By terrible oaths.* That the Emperor Justin had bound his faith, promising that he would never betray the Armenians and Iberians who had surrendered to the Romans to the Persians, is stated by Menander Protector in the *Excerpt of Embassies*, page 121 of the royal edition: which words the interpreter did not understand. First, therefore, it must be emended... Then the whole passage should be translated thus: “For Tiberius Caesar quite rightly held in high esteem those oaths which had been performed by the Emperor Justin for the Persarmenians and Iberians who had defected to the Romans. For the Emperor had sworn that he would endeavor with all his might to make the land which had nurtured them a part of his own domain. But if he could not accomplish that affair and bring an end to the war, he swore that he would never surrender to the Persians the authors of the defection, their kinsmen, and in general those who wished to be partakers of the Roman commonwealth.”

(46) *Slew their own rulers.* Namely, Surenas. For he was the *klimatarches*, or rector of Armenia, appointed by the King of the Persians: upon whose murder, the Persarmenians surrendered themselves to the Romans, as Theophylactus writes in Book II, chapter 9, and Theophanes Byzantinus in the *Excerpts* in Photius. Finally, Menander in the *Excerpt of Embassies*, page 115.

^A that the peace was at an end, and that it was impossible for Christians to reject Christians who fled to them in time of war. This, indeed, was what Justin replied; yet he did not prepare himself for war, but remained bound by his customary luxuries, considering all things secondary to his own pleasures.

CHAPTER VIII.

Of Marcianus, Master of Soldiers, and of the Siege of Nisibis.

Furthermore, he sent as Master of the Eastern military a certain Marcianus ^B, a relative of his, giving him neither an army worth the name nor other sufficient preparations for war. He, coming into Mesopotamia to the most manifest danger and the subversion of all things, brought with him very few soldiers, and those unarmed. He also had certain ditch-diggers and herdsmen, whom he had snatched from the provincials. A light engagement having therefore been joined about Nisibis, at a time when even the Persians themselves were not yet sufficiently prepared for war, he gained the upper hand; and he immediately surrounded the city with a siege, while the Persians did not even deign to close the gates, but instead mocked the Roman army with the greatest disgrace and contumely. Many other portents were also seen at that time, which indicated the evils that were to come. We, however, at the beginning of the war, saw a calf recently born, from whose neck two heads protruded.

CAP. IX.

How Chosroes, having sent his general Adaarmanes against the Romans, by whom he afflicted them with great disasters, himself marched toward Nisibis.

^C Chosroes, since all things necessary for war had been abundantly prepared by him, having advanced as far as a certain place, ^D and having sent Adaarmanes through the Euphrates region towards the Roman territory...

by way of the place called Circesium. ^A Now Circesium is a town most advantageous to the Romans, situated on the extreme borders of the empire; it is rendered most secure not only by walls raised to an immense height, but also by the Euphrates and Aboras rivers, which encircle it and make the city as if it were an island. He himself, having crossed the Tigris river with his forces, directed his march against Nisibis. While these things were happening, they remained for a long time unknown to the Romans, so much so that Justin, trusting in the rumor which reported that Chosroes was either already dead or at his very last breath, was vexed at the supposed slowness of the siege of Nisibis, and sent those who would urge on Marcianus and bring the keys of the gates to him with all speed. ^B But since the matter was not progressing at all, and he was, on the contrary, bringing upon himself the greatest disgrace and reproach, as he was attempting to do what could not be done against so great a city with so vile and abject an army, the news was first brought to Gregory, the bishop of Theopolis. For the bishop of Nisibis, having become a very great friend to Gregory, and having been honored by him with great gifts—and, moreover, being troubled by the insolence of the Persians toward the Christians, which the Christians had always suffered at their hands, and desiring for his own city to come under the Roman rule—he made it his business to bring all things happening in the foreign territory to the knowledge of Gregory, indicating everything in its proper time. ^C These things Gregory immediately reported to Justin, announcing the very rapid incursion of Chosroes. But Justin, being continuously wallowed in his customary pleasures, looked down upon the letters of Gregory, and would not give them credence, convincing himself only of what he himself desired. For it is common for men who are dissolute in their habits to be both lazy and overconfident in the face of the outcomes of events; and if anything happens contrary to their will, they do not believe it at all. He wrote therefore to Gregory, utterly rejecting and repudiating these things which had been announced by him as being altogether untrue; or if they were true, he claimed that the Persians would not anticipate the capture of the city, or if they did anticipate it, they would depart thereafter having suffered a grave defeat. ^D At the same time, he sent Acacius, a certain wicked and insolent man, to Marcianus, giving him orders that, even if Marcianus had already placed one foot inside the city, he should nonetheless strip him of his command. This he indeed carried out with zeal, not out of any concern for the utility of the state, but in obedience to the emperor's command. For when he had arrived at the Roman camp, he deprived Marcianus of his command while in the foreign territory, without announcing anything to the army. The captains and tribunes, having spent the night in wakefulness, learned that their commander had been removed; yet they did not pass the news on to the multitude, but having withdrawn, they fled in a scattered manner,

leaving behind that ridiculous siege. Meanwhile, Adaarmanes, who possessed a mighty army of Persians and Scenite Arabs, after he had passed by Circesium, devastated the Roman territory with fire and sword and every kind of destruction, planning and carrying out nothing mediocre. He captured fortresses and very many villages, with no one resisting—first, because there was no Roman commander at that time, and second, because the Roman soldiers were shut up by Chosroes within the city of Daras, so that foraging and incursions were carried out without any hindrance. ^B He also attacked the city of Antioch [a] by means of his soldiers; for he himself did not travel there. Yet they were repelled, contrary to all hope and expectation, since no one—except for an extremely small number—had remained in the city, and the bishop himself had fled and carried off the sacred treasures with him, because the greater part of the wall had fallen down, and the populace, aflame with a desire for new things, had stirred up a sedition, as is accustomed to happen especially in times of this sort. But those seditious ones themselves, having taken to flight, left the city empty, with nothing at all having been devised either to strike the enemy or to repel him.

CAP. X.

Concerning the capture of Apamea and Daras.

Thus frustrated in this attempt, Adaarmanes, after burning the city which was formerly called Heraclea, but afterwards Gagalice, occupied Apamea, ^C founded of old by Seleucus Nicator, which had formerly abounded in wealth and a multitude of inhabitants, but in the progress of time had been greatly diminished. Having therefore taken this city under certain conditions (for the citizens could in no way resist, as the wall had collapsed from old age), he burned the whole of it, and having plundered all their goods contrary to the faith pledged, he departed, leading away all the citizens and neighbors as captives. Among these he also carried off the bishop of the city himself, and the man to whom the administration of the province had been entrusted. And even in his return, he committed many atrocities, since there was no one who could restrain or altogether withstand him, except for a very few soldiers sent by Justin, ^D who were commanded by Magnus.

Specifically, there was a certain Magnus, who at first had been in charge of the silver-table in the imperial city, but was later appointed by Justin as curator of one of the ^A imperial houses. Even these men gave themselves to flight, and it was but a small matter that they were not all captured by the enemy. Once he had accomplished these things, Adaarmanes came to Chosroes, who had not yet taken the city of Daras. Having joined his forces to him, he brought a great momentum to the affair, since he both confirmed the spirits of his own men and struck terror into the enemy. Furthermore, he found the city itself invested with a rampart, and a great mound piled up against the walls of the city; likewise, he found war machines, which they call *helepoles*, prepared, and especially catapults, which from a higher position hurled stones, and which are commonly called *petrariae*. In this way, ^B Chosroes took that city by force during the winter season, since John, the son of Timostratus, who was in charge of the city, was either little concerned for it or even betrayed it. For both things are reported. Chosroes held the city for five months and more, with no one defending it. Therefore, having led out all the people—an uncountable multitude—and having cruelly slaughtered some of them there while keeping the rest alive, he fortified the city, as it was conveniently situated, by placing a garrison there; he himself, however, returned to his own territory.

CAP. XI. How, when Justin had fallen into madness, Tiberius took upon himself the care of the state.

When Justin had heard these things, not reflecting on anything soundly in his mind, nor bearing that fall in a human manner, from such great pride ^C and swelling he fell into phrensy and madness, to such a degree that he no longer understood any of the things that were being done. From then on, therefore, Tiberius governed the Republic, a man by origin a Thracian, who held the first rank with Justin; it was he whom Justin had previously sent against the Abars, having gathered a great multitude of troops. But since the soldiers could not even endure the sight of the Barbarians, Tiberius was almost captured by the enemy, had not divine providence, beyond all expectation, snatched him away from the danger and preserved him for the Roman empire; which, by the rash schemes of Justin, had been brought into such peril that it was to be feared lest, along with the entire ^D Republic, it should utterly perish and fall under the dominion and power of the Barbarians.

CAP. XII. How Trajan, sent as an ambassador to Chosroes, restored the affairs of the Romans.

^A Tiberius, therefore, formed a plan both timely and well-suited to the present situation, which repaired the universal disaster. For Trajan was sent to Chosroes, a man of prudent character and of the senatorial rank; who, both for his grey hair and for his singular wisdom, was held in the highest honor by all. He was to perform this embassy not in the name of the Emperor or the Republic, but solely to speak on behalf of the Augusta Sophia. For she herself had written to Chosroes, lamenting both her husband's calamity and the rudderless state of the Republic; adding that it was not right to insult a widowed woman, a fallen emperor, and a deserted state. Indeed, when he himself had once fallen into sickness, he had not only experienced the same humanity, but the most excellent physicians had been sent to him by the Roman Republic, by whom he had even been delivered from his disease. Chosroes acceded to these requests. And when he was just on the point of invading the Roman dominions, he agreed to a three-year truce in the eastern regions. However, it was cautioned that Armenia should not enjoy the same condition, so that war might be waged there without anyone molesting the eastern parts. ^B While these things were being transacted in the East, the city of Sirmium was captured by the Barbarians, which previously indeed the Gepidae had occupied, but afterward had handed over to the Emperor Justin.

CAP. XIII. Regarding the proclamation of the Emperor Tiberius, and his character.

At the same time, Justin, by the persuasion of Sophia, proclaimed Tiberius as Caesar. In which proclamation...

^A he delivered a kind of oration which transcends all history, both ancient and recent; for the most clement God had granted him this space of time, both to confess his own sins and to suggest wholesome counsels for the benefit of the Republic. For, assembled in the open courtyard 60 — where, as he says 61, an ancient custom ordains that such things should take place — with John the patriarch 62, whom we have mentioned before, along with his clergy, the magistrates, and the dignitaries; indeed, with all those who served in the palace, Justin, clothing Tiberius in the imperial tunic and purple chlamys, spoke openly with an audible voice: "Let not the magnificence of thy robe lead thee into error, nor the outward pomp of things which fall under the gaze. Led into delusion by these things, I have imprudently rendered myself liable to the extreme penalties. But do thou correct my errors, ruling the commonwealth with all gentleness and mildness." Then, pointing with his finger to the magistrates, he said: "Beware," he said, "lest ^B any of those who are present—" ^{C D}

to believe them. For they have brought me to this state you see. He also added other things of the same kind, which struck everyone with the greatest admiration and drew forth a great store of tears. ^A Tiberius was of a most tall stature, and with the height of his person, he was most handsome, not only among emperors, but among all men—as far as any man can conjecture—to such a degree that his appearance was worthy of the empire. ^B In mind, he was gentle and humane, welcoming everyone with kindness at the very first glance. He considered his greatest wealth to be the bestowal of gifts upon all, and to distribute not only for the relief of necessity, but even to the point of affluence. For he did not consider what those who were asking ought to receive, but what it befitted a Roman emperor to give. Furthermore, he considered that gold to be adulterated which had been collected with the tears of the provincials. For this reason, he remitted one year’s tribute to the contributors, and he relieved the possessions which had been devastated by Adaarmanes from the burden of taxation, not merely in proportion to the damage they had suffered, but much more fruitfully and abundantly. The illegal offerings of gifts to magistrates, by which the emperors had previously been accustomed to sell their subjects to them, were also remitted. He also wrote constitutions concerning these matters, providing for the security of posterity.

CAP. XIV.

How the Emperor Tiberius, having collected huge forces and sent Justinian as general against Chosroes, expelled him from the borders of the Romans.

Therefore, having made good use of money [otherwise] acquired through evil arts, he prepared things necessary for war: he gathered such a large number of the bravest soldiers, both from the Transalpine nations that dwell about the Rhine, ^C and from the Cisalpine; from the Massagetae, moreover, and other Scythian nations; from Pannonia also and Moesia, and from the Illyrians and Isaurians, choosing the best men individually, so that he enrolled nearly one hundred and fifty thousand men into troops of most excellent cavalry, and put Chosroes to flight. Who, after the cap-

capacity to endure the summer in Armenia, decided from there to launch an offensive upon Caesarea of Cappadocia and the other cities that are there. ^A For he despised the Roman empire so greatly that, when the Caesar had sent ambassadors to him, he did not deign to allow them into his presence, but ordered them to follow him as far as the city of Caesarea. For he said that he would deliberate upon their embassy there. When, however, he saw the Roman army positioned against him under Justinian ^B (69), the brother of the Justin who had been cruelly put to death by the Emperor Justin (70), accurately equipped and armed, with the trumpets sounding for war, and the standards raised up for the commencement of the battle, and the soldiers thirsting for slaughter, and breathing with the fury of battle combined with the greatest discipline, and such and so great a cavalry, as no one among the emperors had ever imagined—he was vehemently struck with horror; he groaned deeply at a thing so unhoped-for and unexpected, and he did not desire to begin the battle.

While he was putting it off, delaying, and wasting time, and engaging in tactics to avoid the fight, Curs the Scythian (71) comes upon him, the man who was leading the right wing. And since those who were with him were not able to withstand the charge of the Persians who were against them, but had quite brilliantly abandoned their formation, he wrought a great slaughter of those who were opposite. He then comes upon the rearguard, where Chosroes and his entire army had the baggage and packs. ^C He seizes all the royal treasures, and indeed the entire baggage as well, while Chosroes watched and endured it, estimating that his own advance could be more easily sustained than the attack of Curs. In this way, Curs, having become master of great wealth and spoils together with his soldiers, carrying the pack animals along with their loads—among which was also the sacred fire of Chosroes, which he kept as God—drove [it] around the Persian camp while singing a paean. He arrived at his own lines around the lighting of the lamps, when they were already broken up.

^A from their ranks, neither Chosroes having begun the battle, nor they themselves; only some skirmishes occurred, or where perhaps one man from both armies engaged with another, as was their custom. Chosroes, having lit many fires during the night, prepared for a night battle; and as the Roman army was divided into two camps, in the dead of the night he fell upon those who were stationed toward the northern part. Since they were put to flight by the sudden and unexpected attack, he invaded the city of Melitene, situated nearby, which at that time was devoid of a garrison and inhabitants. Having burned this entire city, he prepared to cross the river Euphrates. But as the combined Roman army pursued him, fearing for his own safety, he mounted an elephant and crossed the river. A great multitude of those who were with him was overwhelmed by the currents of the river; having learned that they had been drowned, he departed and traveled on. Chosroes, therefore, having paid this ultimate penalty for the great insolence he had inflicted upon the Roman empire, together with those who had survived, set out for the eastern regions, where he had a truce so that no one might attack him. But Justinian, entering Persian territory with the entire Roman army, spent the whole winter season there, with no one causing him any trouble at all. He returned around the summer solstice, having lost no part of his troops, and with the greatest success and glory he spent the summer in the borderlands of both empires ^B.

CAP. XV. How Chosroes, taking his defeat badly, departed this life, and his son Hormisda succeeded him to the throne.

As for Chosroes, being anxious and reduced to a lack of counsel, and submerged by the reciprocating waves of grief, an immense sadness was poured upon his soul, which removed him from this life, leaving behind to posterity a perpetual monument of his flight: that law which he wrote, that henceforth no king of the Persians should lead an army against the Romans ^C. After him, his son Hormisda assumed the Persian kingdom. But these matters must now be omitted, since the subsequent events call me to them and await the course of my narrative. ^D

CHAPTER XVI. Which bishops were at that time of the major Sees.

^A Around the same time, when John, also called Catelinus, had departed from this life, Bonosus received the helm of the Roman episcopate. After him succeeded another John, who was then followed by Pelagius. At Constantinople, after the death of John, Eutychius took up the priesthood, having already held it before John. At Alexandria, John succeeded to the throne after Apollinaris, and after John came Eulogius. As for the episcopate of Jerusalem, it was raised up after Macarius to John, who had learned the practices of the religious life in the monastery called of the Acoemetae; and nothing of new things was attempted in the Church.

CHAPTER XVII. Concerning the earthquake that happened at Antioch in the time of Tiberius.

In the city of Antioch, and in the neighboring Daphne, when Tiberius Caesar was in the third year of his reign ^B, a violent shaking of the earth occurred at the very height of noon, when all of Daphne became the work of the earthquake; the public and private buildings in Antioch were indeed rent to the ground itself, though they did not fall down to the foundation. Other matters also worthy of note occurred in both that city and in the reigning city, which stirred up both cities not a little and threw them into the greatest tumults, having their origin from a zeal for God and receiving an outcome altogether ^C worthy of God. Of these I shall now begin to speak.

CHAPTER XVIII. Concerning the uprising against the wicked Anatolius.

^A There was at that time in Antioch a certain Anatolius, a man who initially was one of the common people and from the sedentary trades, but who later had, I know not how, insinuated himself into magistracies and other offices. Living in that city, which at that time held sway over affairs, he managed these things, from which he had become quite intimate with Gregory, the bishop of the same city; and he frequented him often, partly to converse with him, and partly to gain greater authority for himself through frequent association with him. This man was caught sacrificing to gods, and being called to account for this charge, he was found to be a wretch, a sorcerer, and covered with countless iniquities. He bribed the Count of the Orient with money, and it was only by a little that he was not released along with his accomplices—for he had others of the same stamp who had been seized with him—had not the people risen up and, rousing a serious sedition, thwarted that design. But they also cried out against the bishop himself, claiming that he too was a participant in that plot. A certain turbulent and pestilential demon had even persuaded some that he had participated in the detestable sacrifices along with Anatolius. ^B For this reason, Gregory was brought into the utmost danger, the people having made very grave charges against him. And this suspicion grew to such an extent that even Emperor Tiberius wished to learn the truth from the mouth of Anatolius himself. He commanded, therefore, that Anatolius and his accomplices be brought immediately to the royal city. Upon learning this, Anatolius ran towards an image of the Theotokos that was hung by a cord in the prison, and with his hands bound behind his back, he openly displayed the appearance of a suppliant and one praying. But she, abhorring the man and denouncing the wicked and God-hated wretch, turned her face completely backwards—a spectacle truly horrific and worthy of eternal memory, which was seen by all, as well as by those who were detained in the prison and those ^C who had been entrusted with the guarding of him and his accomplices, and was reported to everyone. It was also seen by some of the faithful, urging them against that pest, and saying that Anatolius had insulted her Son. And when he was led before the king, after undergoing every extremity of torture, he had nothing at all to say against the bishop; and there, too, amidst greater tumults,

he became the cause of a public insurrection in the city along with those who were with him. For when some of them received a sentence of banishment—though not of death—the people, inflamed with a divine zeal, threw everything into confusion, becoming savage and cruel. They seized those who were banished, and putting them into a boat, delivered them to the fire while alive, for the people had passed the sentence. ^A They shouted also against the emperor and their own priest Eutychius, as betrayers of the faith. They were even ready to make away with Eutychius and those who had been entrusted with the inquiry; they went about everywhere searching for them, and they would have found them, had not the Providence that saves all rescued those men from their pursuers and gradually calmed the fury of such a great multitude, so that no atrocious crime was committed by the violence of the populace. Anatolius himself, having been first delivered to wild beasts in the theatre and his body torn by them, was afterward impaled; nor did he even then find an end to the punishments he suffered in this life. For wolves dragged down his impure body when it had been taken from the stake—a thing never before seen—and divided it among themselves to be devoured. ^B Some of our own people, even before these things happened, affirmed that they had seen in their sleep how the sentence against Anatolius and his companions had been given by the people. And a certain great official of the imperial houses, who was defending Anatolius very strongly, said that he had seen the Theotokos saying, "How long will you defend Anatolius, who has offered such insult to me and to my Son?" And thus these matters ended.

CHAPTER XIX. On the generalship of Maurice, and on his virtues.

Cæterum Tiberius post mortem Justini... ^C

ANNOTATIONS OF VALESIUS

^A When he employed favorable fortune against the barbarians, he removed him from his command, having already put on the crown himself—and after Justin had died. He appointed Maurice 85 as general of the East, a man who derived both his lineage and his name from the elder Rome; but according to his more recent ancestors, he was registered as being from Arabissus, a city of the Cappadocian nation 86—a man of sound mind and sharp wit, and in all things scrutinized and unshakeable. As for his mode of life and his manners, he was steady and refined; he controlled his appetite, using only those things that were necessary and easily obtainable, and avoiding all other things in which a life of excess delights to adorn itself. He was not easy of access to the masses for meetings, nor did he lend his ears indiscriminately to everyone; for he knew that the former breeds contempt, while the latter verges on sycophancy. ^B He therefore provided rare opportunities for people to come to him, and even then, only for matters of importance 87. As for his ears, he would block them against superfluous matters, not with wax as in the poem, but rather with reason; for which reason, one might say, reason was the best key for his ears, opening and closing them appropriately during conversations. And ignorance, the mother of rashness, and cowardice, the dislodged 88 and neighbor 89 to it, he thus re...

removed from himself, that whenever he came into danger, it might be ascribed to prudence; whenever he hesitated, to consideration for safety. For fortitude and prudence sat upon the opportunities of the times as if upon a horse, and controlled the reins according to what the utility of the Republic prescribed. Thus, as often as he remitted or relaxed his impetus, it was done not without a certain measure and reason. But we shall speak more accurately of this after these things. For of what sort and how great he was, it must be reserved for the time of his reign; which indeed his character declared far more manifest, while with full liberty to do whatever he pleased granted to him, he revealed his inner self to all. This Maurice, therefore, having entered the region of the Persians with the Roman army, occupied cities and castles most opportunely situated; and he took such great spoils, that the captives ^C whom he had led away from Persia inhabited entire islands and cities, and fields long since deserted, and rendered the land, which was before uncultivated, fertile; and from them huge armies were conscripted, which afterwards fought strenuously and bravely against other nations of the Barbarians; finally, so that individual houses might have those to perform servile tasks, since slaves and servants were purchased at a very low price.

CHAPTER XX, How Maurice defeated Tanchosdroes and Adaarmanes, generals of the Persians

He fought also with the most excellent leaders of the Persians, namely Tamchosdroes and Adaarmanes, who with a huge army had broken into the borders of the Romans. ^D But as to what was done, and in what manner, and in what places, let others write: or perhaps it will be set forth by us in another work. For the present work promises a narrative of far different matters. Tamchosdroes fell, nevertheless, in that battle, not by the bravery of the Roman army, but by the religion and faith in God of their commander. But Adaarmanes, having accepted a huge slaughter and lost many of his own, fled most contentedly: and this even though Alamundarus, the leader of the Saracens, had betrayed him, nor had he been willing to cross the river Euphrates, and bring aid to Maurice against the Saracens who were in the hostile line. For the Saracens cannot be overcome by others on account of the swiftness of their horses. Since they can neither be intercepted

^A nor do they allow the enemy to get ahead, even if Theodoric, leader of the Scythian nations, had not even sustained the first shower of missiles, but had fled with all his people.

CHAPTER XXI.

Of the signs which portended the empire to Maurice.

Signs were also shown from God, which announced the empire to the same Maurice. For in the dead of night, while he was praying inside the sanctuary of the holy and immaculate Virgin and Mother of God, Mary—which the people of Antioch call the church of Justinian—the veil of the altar appeared to be on fire, so much so that Maurice himself was struck with wonder and dreaded the sight. Gregory, the bishop of that place, who was standing by, said that it was a divine thing, and that something great and exceptional was being signified to him. ^B Christ God also appeared to him in the East while he was keeping vigil, asking him to avenge Him. By this sign indeed was the empire clearly designated. For from whom else but an emperor, and one so religious in His worship, would He have asked such a thing? Other things, moreover, memorable and highly worthy of history, his parents related to me when I questioned them about these matters. For his father affirmed to me that at the time he was conceived, he had seen in his sleep a very large vine springing up from his bed, from which many and beautiful grapes were hanging. But his mother ^C recounted that at the time of his birth, the land had exhaled a strange and unusual fragrance. Often, too, she said that the one commonly called the Empusa had carried the infant away, as if intending to devour him, but had been unable to inflict any harm upon him. Furthermore, Simeon, who spent his life standing upon a pillar near the city of Antioch—a man most fit for conducting affairs and distinguished by every divine virtue—said and did many things which announced the empire to Maurice. Concerning this man, we shall speak more opportunely in the following book.

CHAPTER XXII.

Of the naming of Maurice and Augusta.

But Maurice ascended to the empire, ^D

as Tiberius was breathing his last and had handed over his daughter Augusta and the empire to him in place of a dowry; for he had lived a short time in the empire, yet had left behind an immortal memory of the good deeds he had performed. For indeed, this cannot be comprehended in a brief word; and Tiberius left a most noble legacy to the state, the appointment of Maurice, ^A to whom he also distributed his own titles, naming him Maurice Tiberius, and calling his wife, the Augusta, Constantina. What has been done by them as well, with the divine inclination assisting, the following history will demonstrate.

CHAPTER XXIII. Computation of the Eras from Justin the Younger to Maurice.

For the times to be recorded with all accuracy, it must be known that Justin the Younger reigned ^B alone for twelve years and ten and a half months; and with Tiberius for three years and eleven months. The total years are sixteen and nine and a half months. Tiberius also reigned alone for four years; so that from Romulus to the proclamation of Maurice Tiberius, the past and present years are made manifest.

[index: entries preserved]

Chapter XXIV.

Concerning the series of histories which have been preserved down to our own times.

Ecclesiastical history, indeed, by the gift of God, has come down to us digested into a single body, through the study and industry of excellent writers. Down to the times of Constantine, [it is preserved] through the study and work of Eusebius, surnamed Pamphili. From the reign of Constantine, however, down to the principate of Theodosius the Younger, [it has been preserved] through the study and industry of Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates: and finally through those things which we have collected in the present work. But more ancient history, both sacred and profane, is itself also held to be arranged in order of time by studious and industrious men. For Moses, who was the first to attempt to write history, as has been most certainly demonstrated by those who have collected matters of this kind, wrote most truthfully of the things done from the very beginning of the world, just as he had learned from God, with whom he had spoken on Mount Sinai. Others following him, paving the way for our religion, set forth in sacred volumes the things that followed. But Josephus also left us a copious history, and one that is altogether useful and fruitful. Now whatever things are either fabulous, or actually occurred among the Greeks and the ancient Barbarians, while the Greeks were contending among themselves or against the Barbarians; or if anything else was performed from the time when they first perceived that men existed: this Charax ^B and Theopompus and Ephorus, and countless others, have written down. But the deeds of the Romans, which embrace the history of almost the entire world, and whatever they did, whether divided among themselves or acting against others, Dionysius of Halicarnassus committed to writing, having begun from the peoples who were called Aborigines, and having prosecuted his history down to Pyrrhus, king of the Epirotes. From that time, Polybius of Megalopolis carried his work down to the conquest of Carthage. All these things Appian distinguished with great clarity, and collected individually into one body, although they were performed at different times. But the things which were done after the history of those whom I have mentioned, Diodorus Siculus and Dio Cassius committed to letters. The former brought his history down to the times of Julius Caesar, but the latter down to the principate of Antoninus, he who was from the city of Emesa. Herodian, also a writer of the same times, commemorated for us all things down to the death of the emperor Maximus. But from the emperor Philip, who succeeded Gordian, ^C Nikostratos ^D the Sophist of Trapezus wrote of the things from Philip down to Odenathus of Palmyra and the shameful arrival of Valerian before the Persians. And Dexippus also labored greatly on these matters, beginning from mythical times and ending at the reign of Claudius who followed Gallienus; with which is included the account of what the Carpi and other barbarian nations did while warring throughout Greece, Thrace, and Ionia. And Eusebius also, having taken [up the thread] from Octavian and Trajan and Marcus, and those of whom the present [work speaks], through the things recorded, from the Scythian [wars].

And as far as the end of Cyrus, he has arrived. It is written concerning these times by Arrian ^A and Asinius Quadratus. Concerning the times that follow, Zosimus has written history as far as Honorius and Arcadius, the emperors; and the things after them have been collected by Priscus the rhetor, and others. All of which Eustathius of Epiphaneia has abridged most excellently in two volumes: one [reaching] as far as the capture of Ilium; the other, as far as the twelfth year of the reign of Anastasius. Procopius the rhetor has also treated the things from that time until the times of Justinian. And the things following that have been described in sequence by Agathias the rhetor, and by John, my fellow-citizen and relative, as far as the flight of the younger Chosroes to the Romans, and his restoration to his own kingdom—Maurice in no way delaying the deed, but having received him royally, and most rapidly ^B bringing him back to his kingdom with great wealth and armies; although they have not yet seen fit to publish them. Concerning which, if the Providence above grants favor, we shall also speak in what follows as is fitting.

The end of the fifth volume of the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius.

BOOK SIXTH

^C In the sixth book of the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, these things are contained:

I. Concerning the marriage of Maurice and Augusta. II. Concerning Alamundarus the Saracen, and his son Naaman. III. Concerning the generalship of John and Philippicus, and the things done by them. IV. Concerning the generalship of Priscus, and what he suffered from the army that rose up against him. V. Concerning how Germanus was forced by violence to seize the insignia of the empire.

VALESIUS ANNOTATIONS.

(3) Arrianus. Arrian wrote the *Parthica* and *Alanica*, in which books he had described the deeds done by the Romans against the Parthians and the Alans. These books, therefore, Evagrius intends here.

(4) Eustathius of Epiphaneia. He was a Syrian, whose testimony our Evagrius often used in the previous books. Suidas writes thus concerning him: [original-script column: see facsimile]. ^D whose [work] John of Epiphaneia was. For since Evagrius calls him his fellow-citizen, it must be that he was from Epiphaneia, if indeed Epiphaneia, a city of Syria, was the homeland of Evagrius. Therefore Vossius is mistaken in his book *On the Greek Historians*, who thinks this John was from Antioch.

(5) John, fellow-citizen and relative. [He was] John of Epiphaneia.

(6) And most rapidly. [He writes] to avoid cacophony.

VI. How the emperor sent Philippicus again, and how the army refused to receive him. VII. Concerning Gregory, bishop of Antioch, and the calumny fabricated against him, and how he proved it false. VIII. How Antioch was again troubled by earthquakes. IX. How the Barbarians, taking confidence because the soldiers had deserted from the emperor, attacked them but were defeated by Germanus. X. Concerning the emperor’s clemency toward the rebels. XI. How Gregory, bishop of Antioch, was sent to pacify the soldiers. XII. Gregory’s oration to the army. XIII. How after Gregory’s oration, the soldiers, abandoning their former purpose, again accepted Philippicus as general. XIV. How Martyropolis was captured. XV. Concerning Comentiolus, master of the soldiers, and the storming of the fortress of Hocbas. XVI. Concerning the slaughter of Hormisdas. XVII. Concerning the flight of the younger Chosroes to the Romans. XVIII. How the emperor ordered Gregory and Domitianus to go to meet Chosroes. XIX. How Chosroes recovered his kingdom with the aid of the Romans. XX. That at that time the holy mother Golanduch was living. XXI. Concerning the gifts which Chosroes sent to the holy martyr Sergius. XXII. Concerning Naaman the Saracen. XXIII. Concerning the death of Saint Simeon the Younger Stylites. XXIV. Concerning the death of Gregory, bishop of Antioch, and the restoration of Anastasius.

CHAPTER I. On the marriage of Maurice and Augusta.

^DMauricius, as soon as he had obtained the empire, before all else organized the arrangements for his marriage. He therefore took as his wife Augusta, who was also named Constantina, according to the solemn custom of emperors, with nuptial pomp and public banquets and festivals celebrated most magnificently throughout the entire city. Piety and imperial dignity attended these nuptials, escorting Maurice and Augusta with a most fitting retinue and offering them most precious gifts. For she presented, as we read has happened to no other emperor, both the father and mother of Maurice, who, with their beautiful grey hair and venerable wrinkles, hallowed the marriage; likewise, brothers outstanding in form and beauty, who adorned the nuptial procession. She, for her part, wore a robe interwoven with gold, embroidered with purple and the gems of the Indians, with crowns of much gold

and a lustrous variety of gems shining forth; thus providing for all those who held dignities in the palace, and those who were enrolled in the military service, to carry nuptial torches, dressed in magnificent garments so that they might be easily distinguished; and finally celebrating the festival of that procession with hymns and songs. Indeed, that display was such that nothing more illustriously or happily could ever have existed among men. ^A Damophilus indeed, writing regarding the city of Rome, reports that Plutarch of Chaeronea elegantly said that, for the sake of the city of Rome alone, Virtue and Fortune had agreed to a mutual pact. I, however, would say that Piety and Felicity had, in the person of Maurice alone, joined together in such a way, with Piety having constrained Felicity and not allowing her to slip away in any manner.

Furthermore, Maurice applied himself to adorning not only his body but also his soul with the imperial purple and crown. For he was the only one among those who had reigned as emperors before him to have governed himself; having become truly an autocrat, he drove the mob-rule of the passions out of his own soul, and having established an aristocracy of reason within his own mind, he presented himself as a living statue of virtue, educating his subjects toward his own imitation. These things were not said by me for the sake of flattery. For what could even be said, seeing that he is unaware of what is being written? But the matters themselves will show clearly that it is as I have said—both what was granted to him by God and what occurred at various times thereafter: which, as is agreed by all, ought to be attributed to God. ^B

CAPUT II. Concerning Alamundarus the Saracen, and his son Naamanes.

Besides all his other virtues, this was his primary endeavor: that he should not shed the blood of any of those who had been accused of lèse-majesté. Accordingly, he did not put to death Alamundarus, prince of the Scenite Arabs, who, as I have related before, had betrayed both the state and Maurice himself; but he merely relegated him to an island, and commanded that he should inhabit Sicily with his wife and some of his children. But Naamanes his son, who had filled the state with countless evils, and had plundered both Phoenicias and the Palestines, and had enslaved through

^A the barbarians around him, at the time when Alamundarus was captured, although all the judges had voted that he should be punished with death, he kept in free custody, inflicting no further evil upon him. The same clemency he used also toward other countless persons, as we shall speak of individually in its proper place.

Chapter III. On John and Philippicus, masters of the soldiers, and the deeds performed by them.

Mauricius sent a master of the soldiers for the East, first indeed John, who was a Thracian by birth. He, having had both reverses and, at times, better fortune in several battles, performed nothing worthy of record. After him he sent Philippicus as his successor, who was joined to him by affinity; for he had married one of the sisters of Mauricius. ^B He, having crossed into the enemy's country and plundered all that was in his path, became master of great spoils. He also killed many of the noble and well-born men of Nisibis and other cities within the Tigris river. He also engaged with the Persians; and a severe battle having taken place, and many of the Persians who were considered distinguished having been slain, he took many alive. A company of Persians, too, that had escaped to a certain hill that was conveniently situated, although he could have captured it, he let go unharmed, after they had promised that they would persuade their king to send ambassadors regarding peace as quickly as possible. And he performed other deeds while commanding the Roman forces, inasmuch as he removed everything from the army that was superfluous and accommodated to luxury and indulgence, and recalled the soldiers to modesty and obedience. ^C But these things must be left to those who have written of these matters, or who are now writing, according as they have learned by hearsay or are led by opinion. For whose account, stumbling and limping by reason of ignorance of affairs, or being broken by partiality, or blinded by antipathy, is wont to stray far from the truth.

Chapter IV. On Priscus, master of the soldiers, and what he suffered from the soldiers rising up against him.

After him, Priscus assumed the magistracy of the soldiers; a man not at all easy of approach, and not accustomed to come out into public except for necessary affairs. For he supposed that he would accomplish all things more easily if he remained alone for the most part, as if the soldiers, moved by fear in this manner, would more quickly do what was commanded. ^D Certainly, at the time when he first came to the camp of the Romans, with raised eyebrows, looking down from on high, and dressed and adorned for pride and pomp, he proposed certain edicts regarding the endurance of the soldiers in wars.

and their precise arming, and finally concerning the rations which they were to receive from the public treasury. Those who had already been troubled about these matters allowed their anger to break forth openly, and joining forces where he had pitched his tent, they plundered—in barbaric fashion—all that had been prepared for him with such magnificence, along with his most precious treasures. They would have killed him as well, had he not mounted one of the pack-horses ^A and escaped to Edessa; the soldiers then sent forces there and besieged the city, demanding that Priscus be surrendered to them.

CAP. V. How Germanus was compelled by force to assume the insignia of the empire.

^B But since the people of Edessa would not consent to this, they left Priscus there, and laying hands on Germanus, who was the commander of the military battalions in Phoenice Libanensis, they seized him and appointed him their leader—as far as lay in their power—and emperor. And though Germanus resisted, and they pressed upon him more severely, a grave conflict took place on both sides, he struggling not to be coerced, and they contending to carry out their designs; and while the soldiers threatened him with death if he did not willingly accept the offered office, Germanus embraced death with a willing spirit. When they saw that he could be won over neither by fear nor by terror, they began to inflict upon him certain lashes and mutilations of his limbs, thinking of course that he would by no means be able to endure these, for they did not believe that he would be harder than his nature and his age could bear. ^C They set about the task, therefore, more sparingly and with some reverence for his danger; and at last, they forced him, against his will, to consent and to swear with formal words that he would keep faith with them. Thus, therefore, he began to command those to whom he was subject, and to rule over those by whom he was ruled; and he who was a captive was compelled to be a master. They then expelled all the other commanders of orders, the prefects, tribunes, centurions, and decurions, and substituted others in their place at their own pleasure, uttering curses against the empire. And while they treated the subjects of the empire ^D with more moderation than the barbarians, they were extremely hostile toward the allies and the servants of the state.

For they did not accept their rations based on established weights and measures, nor were they content with the assigned lodgings. Instead, their own opinion served as law for each one, and their will served as the measure.

CAP. VI. How the emperor sent Philippicus again, and how the army refused to accept him.

Philippicus was sent by the emperor to settle these matters. However, the soldiers not only did not accept him, but if they had even suspected anyone of favoring him, that person would have been in danger of his life.

CAP. VII. Concerning Gregory, Bishop of Antioch, and the calumny fabricated against him, and how he proved it to be false.

While affairs were in this state, Gregory, Bishop of Antioch, was returning home from the imperial city, having already achieved victory in a certain contest, which I shall commemorate here. At the time when Asterius was administering the civil office of the Orient, a contention arose between him and Gregory, and the entire leadership of the city joined the side of Asterius. The common people and the tradesmen of the same city followed the side of Asterius as well. For each of them claimed that they had been harmed in some way by Gregory. Eventually, however, it was permitted even to the populace to cast reproaches and curses upon the bishop. Both groups, therefore—the leaders, that is, as well as the tradesmen—conspired in the same opinion as the plebeians: and both through the squares and in the theater, they began to cry out insultingly against Gregory; nor did those from the stage refrain from such insolence. In the meantime, Asterius was removed from his office, and John was substituted in his place. It was commanded to him by the emperor to inquire diligently into that disturbance: a man who was not even capable of managing the most trivial of affairs, let alone such an important matter as this. Having filled the city with tumult and confusion, and having employed edicts, if anyone...

desired to accuse the priest ^A, he accepted papers against him, presented by a certain man in charge of a money-changer's table, claiming that [the priest] had been involved with his own sister, who had happened to live with another man. He also received from others of the same sort accusations regarding the prosperity of the city (18), to the effect that he had often ruined it. And regarding the prosperity he offered his defense, but concerning the other charges, he appealed to the emperor and the synod. Now, while I was acting as his legal advisor (19) and was indeed present with him, he came to undergo the defense before the emperor. And when the patriarchs from everywhere (20), some in person and others through their delegates, had arrived for the inquiry, and in addition the holy senate and many most holy metropolitans, the case was examined; after many struggles he prevailed, so that the accuser, having been scourged with whips and led around ^B the city, was sentenced to banishment. From there, therefore, he returned to his own throne, while the armies were in mutiny and Philippicus was lingering around the cities of Beroea and Chalcis.

Chapter VIII. How Antioch was again afflicted by earthquakes.

And four months having passed after his arrival, in the six hundred and thirty-seventh year (21) of the era of Theoupolis, after

the last earthquake, on the final day of the month of Hyperberetaios, while I was taking a virgin bride and the whole city was celebrating and observing a public festival concerning the procession and the bridal chamber, about the third hour of the night, an earthquake came with a crash and a roar, shaking the whole city: it also overturned many buildings, throwing them up from their very foundations. So that all the structures that were around the most holy church were razed to the ground, with only the hemispherical dome remaining intact, which Ephraemius had constructed from the wood of the grove of Daphne, after it had been weakened in the time of Justin. When earthquakes subsequently followed, the same hemisphere had been inclined toward the northern side, so that it had props ^A by which it was supported. When these props collapsed in the violent earthquake, the hemisphere turned in the other direction, and, as if by some guiding rule, was restored to its original place. Furthermore, a large part of the region called Ostracine collapsed: also Psephium, which I mentioned before, and all the places commonly called Brysia (23), and the parts around the most sacred shrine of the Theotokos, with only the middle portico miraculously preserved. All the towers of the Plain (24) also suffered, while the rest of the building remained unharmed, except for the battlements. For some of the stones of these were turned in the opposite direction, though they did not fall. Other temples also suffered, and each of the public baths, the one divided according to the hours (25). And an immeasurable multitude [of people perished].

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS.

(22) *αὐτῶν ἀντερείδοντα ξύλα βαλεῖν*. It should be written *λαβείν*. Our emendation is confirmed by the Tellerian codex, and by Nicephorus, who expressed this passage of Evagrius thus: *διὸ καὶ ἀντερείδοντα ἔσχε τὰ ξύλα*, that is, as Langus translates, and for that reason it had timbers to support it. The Greeks call these timbers by one word, as Hesychius testifies. I recently discovered that Philo the Mechanic used this word when I was translating his books *On Machines* into the Latin language. They are called in French *des étais*: the Latins call them *fulturas*. Livius uses this word in his description of the siege of Ambracia, and in Nicephorus it is read [differently], which I prefer more. But places said to be such seem to be pleasant and flourishing, because it means "to flourish," as Suidas and the author of the Etymologicum testify under the word *βρύειν*.

(23) *Τὰ καλούμενα Βρισία*. In the Tellerian codex, and in Nicephorus, it is read *βρύσια*, which I approve of more.

(24) *οἱ πύργοι τοῦ Πεδίου*. Interpreters, Langus, Musculus, and Christophorsonus, have not understood this location, as appears from their version. For they have translated it thus: *All the towers also built on the plain were scattered*. I think the *Pedion* (Plain) is that which was outside the gates of the city of Antioch, in which soldiers were accustomed to practice. Athanasius makes mention of this place in his book of *Petitions* which the Arians presented against him to the prince Jovian while he was staying at Antioch. *Πρώτη ἐντυχία*, that is, the first meeting which they had with the emperor, at the Roman gate, while the emperor was proceeding into the plain.

(25) *ἑκάτερον, τὸ πρὸς τὰς ὥρας διῃρημένον*. Nicephorus adds some words here in this manner: *et utrumque publicum balneum, ex pulcherrimo statu ad eam quæ ex diametro est deformitatem collapsum*. This interpretation can by no means be borne. Nor is the interpretation of Musculus much better, who translates thus: *And from the public baths one was destroyed at the same hours*.

^A and as some conjectured from the bread, this distress destroyed about sixty thousand. The priest, however, was saved beyond all hope, for the entire lodging where he was sitting had collapsed, and not a single soul was saved except those standing about him; who, after another earthquake had shaken the place, taking him up by a litter [fora], lowered him down by a rope, and thus rescued him from danger. Another thing, moreover, saved the city: for the merciful God tempered His threats with mildness, and chastised the people's sin with a rod of pity and mercy. For no conflagration broke out, although a vast quantity of fire was everywhere in the city, from hearths and from public and private lamps, as well as from kitchens, furnaces, and baths, and countless other places. A great number of notable men were also overtaken by that earthquake, among whom was Asterius. The emperor comforted this calamity of the city by providing money from the treasury.

CAP. IX. How the Barbarians, having gained confidence from the fact that the soldiers had revolted against the emperor, attacked them and were defeated by Germanus.

The army, meanwhile, continued in the same state of revolt, so that the barbarians also invaded, believing that no one would stop them from behaving in their usual barbaric fashion. But Germanus, with the Roman army, went to meet them and defeated them so thoroughly that he slaughtered them to a man, so that not even a messenger remained to report the disaster to the Persians.

CAP. X. Of the emperor's clemency toward the rebels.

The emperor indeed recompensed the army with money. ^{B C D}

Germanus, however, with some others, having been recalled from there, he brought to trial. And although all had been sentenced to capital punishment by the verdict of the judges, the emperor nevertheless permitted them to suffer no harm; nay, he even deemed them worthy of honors and rewards. While these things were going on, the Avars, having made an incursion once and again up to the Long Wall, took by storm Singidunum, Anchialus, and all of Achaia, and other cities and fortresses besides, and reduced them to slavery, devastating everything with fire and sword; and since no one resisted, because the greater part of the Roman army was in the East, the emperor therefore sent ^A Andrew, who had been the first among the imperial guards, to persuade the soldiers to accept their former officers and the rest of the leaders whom they had had before.

CAP. XI. How Gregory, bishop of Theopolis, was sent to reconcile the soldiers.

Caput XII. Gregory’s oration to the army.

^A I certainly thought, O men, Romans in name and in deed, that you would have come to me long ago to confer with me about what has happened, and to decide upon the course of action which my goodwill toward you promises. This goodwill was most certainly confirmed by my earlier services, when I relieved your naval tumult and the storm that had been aroused by it by sending provisions. But since this has been neglected until now—perhaps by divine providence which did not grant the opportunity for that matter, both so that the Persians might be thoroughly defeated by men deprived of their leaders and fully perceive the fortitude of the Romans, and so that your sincere goodwill toward the republic might be tested at the opportune time and proven by deeds—it is confirmed in every way. For it has been clearly demonstrated that, although you have causes for pain and strife against your leaders, nothing is more important to you than the republic. Now, therefore, let us consider what must be done. The Emperor invites you, promising an amnesty for all that has passed, accepting your goodwill toward the republic and your bravery in battle as if they were the boughs and suppliant wreaths of petitioners. Giving you these most certain pledges of pardon for all, he says: "If God has granted victory to your goodwill toward the republic, and your bravery has shone forth after your sins have been cast off, which is the most certain argument of granted pardon, how should I not follow the divine judgment?" ^B The heart of the king is in the hand of God, and He inclines it whithersoever He wills. Therefore, submit to me most quickly, O Romans, and do not let the present opportunity be lost, nor let it slip away as if by mistake. For once it has passed, it will not allow itself to be caught, and as if indignant that it was neglected, it never allows itself to be captured twice. Be heirs of the obedience of your ancestors, just as you were the heirs of their bravery, so that you may show yourselves to be Romans in every respect, and no mark of blame may be branded upon your name, nor may it prove you to be degenerate sons. Your ancestors, established under the rule of consuls and emperors, conquered the whole world through obedience ^C and bravery. Manlius Torquatus put his son to death after crowning him, because he had acted bravely but had disobeyed. For the prudence of those who lead and the obedience of those who are led are naturally productive of great goods. But when one is bereft of the other, it limps and perishes. ^D [alt-version omitted]

collapses, overturned, because the most excellent yoke of those two virtues has been sundered. Do not delay any longer, therefore, but obey me, who, as a priest, am the mediator for restoring concord between the emperor and the army. Show that there is no rebellion in what you are doing, but a just indignation, taken up for a brief time against your commanders, by whom you have been insulted. For unless you make haste to the emperor as quickly as possible, I shall have satisfied neither the benevolence I owe to the commonwealth nor my friendship toward you. But as for you, consider, I pray, what the outcomes of tyrants are. For in what manner will you bring the present state of affairs to an end? That you should remain collected in one place is in no way possible. For from where will agricultural produce be brought to you, or those conveniences which the sea is wont to provide to the mainland, unless by waging war against Christians—and being warred upon in turn—you perform and endure the most terrible of all things? And what will be the end of this? Scattered here and there, you will pass your lives. At once vengeance and justice will be present, not allowing you to obtain pardon any further. Giving your right hands, therefore, let us weigh what is profitable for both us and the state: since we have the festive days of the salvation-bringing passion and most holy resurrection of our God Jesus Christ, which support us in this.

CAP. XIII. How, after the prayer of Gregory, the soldiers, having put aside their former opinion, again accepted Philippicus as commander.

^B When he had said these things, and had shed many tears, in a moment of time he changed the minds of all as if by some divine power. And they immediately requested that it be granted to them to depart from the assembly, in order that they might deliberate among themselves concerning what had to be done. ^C And not long after they returned, and submitted themselves to the judgment and will of the bishop. When he had named Philippicus to them, so that they might request him as their leader, they declared that they and the whole army were bound by a solemn oath concerning this matter. Then Gregory, not hesitating or delaying at all, said that by the grace of God he was a priest, and that the power had been given to him to bind and to loose on earth and in heaven, and he reminded them of the divine utterance. ^D And when they also acquiesced in this, Gregory appeased God with prayers and supplications; and having distributed to them the immaculate body of Christ—for the day was the venerable second day of the week, which is near to the Lord’s passion—he gave them all dinner, about two thousand of them, seated upon grass that had been readied, and he returned on the following day.

But it had been agreed that the soldiers should gather together in one place, wherever they wished. ^A Gregory therefore sent for Philippicus, who was then staying at the city of Tarsus in Cilicia and preparing to set out for Constantinople as soon as possible. He reported these matters to the Emperor, and also sent the petitions of the soldiers, in which they requested Philippicus as their leader. When, therefore, Philippicus had come to Antioch, the soldiers met him there; and taking with them those who had been deemed worthy of the divine regeneration to intercede for them, they fell at his knees. Having given them his right hand and assured them of an amnesty for past events, he set out with them upon the expedition. Thus, then, had these things proceeded.

CAP. XIV. How Martyropolis was captured.

Meanwhile, a certain Sittas, who was a decanus ^B at Martyropolis, took ill the injury done to him by one of the military commanders and betrayed the city, having observed the time when the garrison soldiers had departed from the city. Having introduced a Persian cohort as if it were a Roman cohort, he seized the city, which was most advantageous to the Romans. He kept within the city most of the younger women, but drove out all the others, except for a few servants. Philippicus immediately set out for that place, and having invested the city, he besieged it, although he lacked ^C everything necessary for a siege. Nevertheless, using whatever was at hand, he attacked the city, and having dug certain mines, he threw down one of the towers. But he was unable to encompass the city, as the Persians kept watch through the night and repaired what had collapsed. So, as the Romans frequently attacked the wall and were continuously beaten back (for missiles were hurled down upon them from an elevated position, and they were injured more than they harmed those within), they broke off the siege; and having withdrawn a little way, they encamped, observing ^D this one thing with care—that more Persians should not be added to them. By the commands of Maurice, Gregory also arrived at

^A the army and persuaded them to return to the siege of the city. However, the soldiers were unable to achieve anything more than before, as they were totally destitute of the siege engines by which cities are accustomed to be stormed. And so, the army was dismissed to winter quarters. In the neighboring fortresses, frequent guards of soldiers were left behind, lest the Persians, slipping in, should enter the city unnoticed. ^B In the following summer, when the army had been gathered and the Persians had marched out against the Romans, a fierce battle was fought around Martyropolis. And although Philippicus had gained the upper hand and many Persians—and among these a certain very brave leader—had fallen in the battle, a considerable multitude of Persians nonetheless entered Martyropolis, which had been their main object. Thereupon, the Romans abandoned the intention of besieging the city. For it was not possible to take it by force; instead, they built another city seven ^C stades away in more mountainous and defensible locations, so that they might carry out artifices and counter-attacks. And they did these things while reaping the harvest, but in the winter they disbanded, [p] being unable to take it by storm. They constructed another city in mountainous and fortified places, seven stades from Martyropolis, so that they might harass it with ambushes and sorties. And these things were indeed done by the Romans during the summer time. In the winter, however, the army was sent away.

CAP. XV. Of Comentiolus, master of the soldiers, and the taking of the fortress of Ocbas.

^D Thereafter, Comentiolus, a Thracian by race, was sent by the Emperor to succeed Philippicus in the power of the mastership of the soldiers. He engaged the Persians most bravely, and having been thrown headlong together with his horse, he had almost perished, had not one of his attendants placed him upon a supply horse and withdrawn him from the battle. The Persians were nevertheless overcome and, having lost all their leaders, they took to flight and retreated to Nisibis. And since they dared not return to their own king—for he had threatened them with death unless they brought their leaders back safe and sound—they entered into a conspiracy there against Hormisdas, at the instigation of Varames, master of the soldiers among the Persians, who a little earlier had returned with his men from the battle against the Turks. Meanwhile, Comentiolus, besieging Martyropolis, left the greatest part of his forces there; he himself, with some chosen men,

^A he ran out to Ocbas, a most strongly fortified castle, situated on the opposite bank from Martyropolis, built upon an abrupt crag, from whence the whole city could be easily seen. Having laid siege to it, and omitting no attempt, he broke through a part of the wall with his catapults, burst in, and took the fortress by force. Henceforth, the Persians despaired entirely of holding Martyropolis.

CHAPTER XVI. On the slaying of Hormisdas.

While these things were happening, the Persians put an end to Hormisdas, the most unjust of all kings, since he had not only burdened his subjects with financial exactions ^B but had also oppressed them with various types of punishments.

CHAPTER XVII. On the flight of the young Chosroes to us.

Then they established as king in his place Chosroes, his son, against whom Varamus launched an expedition, along with those who were around him. Chosroes went out to meet him with a force not particularly large, and, noticing that his own men were planning treachery, he fled. He arrived at Circesium, having—as he himself said—invoked the God of the Christians that He might lead his horse whithersoever He would. He arrived with his wives and his two newly born children, as well as some of the Persian nobles who had followed him of their own will. From there he sent an embassy to the Emperor Maurice. ^C Maurice, having deliberated most excellently upon this matter, and having weighed the unstable and shifting life and the rapid reversals of human affairs, accepted his plea.

VALESIUS’ ANNOTATIONS

(44) *To Ocbas*. This seems to be the same place that Theophylact calls Ocbas, a most strongly fortified castle. Theophylact describes its site in Book 1, Chapter 12, in exactly the same way that Evagrius describes the site of the castle of Ocbas. Therefore, it is apparent from both the similarity of the name and the site that Ocbas and Acbas are one and the same castle, situated near the river Nymphius and the city of Martyropolis. Our conjecture is fully confirmed by Theophylact in Chapter [2] of Book 4, where he calls that same castle Ocbas, ^D which our Evagrius says was captured by Comentiolus, by the name Acbas.

(45) *They established as king in his place Chosroes*. We have supplemented this passage from the Florentine manuscripts in this way: *They established as king in his place Chosroes*, etc. Furthermore, Chosroes was made king of the Persians in the year of Christ 592, as Baronius writes in his *Annals*. This was the tenth year of the reign of Maurice, not the seventh as Baronius writes. For the years of the Emperor Maurice advance at almost the same pace as the years of the indiction, just like the years of the reign of Justin the Younger. Therefore, since the year of Christ 592 was the tenth indiction, as Baronius himself testifies, it must follow that it was also the tenth year of the reign of this same Maurice. However, the author of the *Alexandrine Chronicle* dates the inauguration of Chosroes and his flight to the Romans one year earlier. For he writes thus: "In the ninth indiction, in the ninth year of the reign of Maurice, after the consulship of this same Maurice Tiberius, in the seventh year: that is, in this year Chosroes, king of the Persians, when Varamus his kinsman had rebelled against him, fled to the Romans; and with their alliance was restored to his kingdom." But John of Biclaro in his *Chronicle* reports that this happened a year earlier. For he writes thus: "In the eighth year of the Emperor Maurice, in which he finished his *Chronicle*. From the twentieth year of the Emperor Constantine, at which time the Arian heresy had its beginning, until the eighth year of Maurice, prince of the Romans, there are two hundred and sixty-six years." Therefore, in these times, in which Almighty God, having laid low the poison of the heretical venom, restored peace to His Church, the king of the Persians received the faith of Christ and confirmed peace with the Emperor Maurice. Where it is to be noted that, as the Biclarine chronicler says, the king of the Persians, having cast off the worship of idols, passed over to the faith of Christ. Theophylact certainly testifies to the same in Chapter [5] of Book 5, and in Chapter [4] of Book 4.

VARIORUM

(*) Pagius conjectures the raising of Chosroes and the death of Hormisdas to the year 590, and the restoration of Chosroes to the kingdom to the year 591. See his *Critica* on the year 591, no. 3, and 592, no. 10. W. Lowth.

^A and treated him as a guest instead of a fugitive, and as a son instead of a self-appointed one, welcoming him with royal gifts and every kindness. Nor did he alone send gifts to Chosroes, but the Augusta did the same toward the wives of Chosroes, and the emperor’s children toward the children of Chosroes.

CAP. XVIII. How the emperor ordered Gregory and Domitian to go to meet Chosroes.

The entire royal bodyguard as well, and the whole Roman army with its commander, Maurice sent to Chosroes, that they might follow him wherever he wished. Furthermore, for the sake of greater honor, he sent to him Domitian, the bishop of Melitene, his own kinsman, a man of unique prudence and skill, excellent in both deed and word, and most capable of bringing the greatest matters to fruition. Gregory was also sent; he struck Chosroes with admiration in all things, whether in conversation, or in the gifts he bestowed, or in the advice he prudently offered according to the timeliness of the situation.

CAP. XIX. How Chosroes recovered his kingdom with the aid of the Romans.

When Chosroes had reached Hierapolis, which is the metropolis of the province of Euphratensis, he returned from there, as this also pleased Maurice, who valued the utility of the suppliant more than his own glory. He also sent him an immense sum of money, a thing which is never recorded to have happened before. And when he had recruited an army of Persians and had distributed among them a donative from his own treasury, he sent Chosroes forth with a double ^B army—that is to say, of Romans and Persians—beyond the borders of the Roman empire, after Martyropolis had first been surrendered to him along with Sitta. The Martyropolitans, having overwhelmed him with stones, fastened him to a cross. The town of Daras was also surrendered to the Romans, the Persians having departed from it. Thereafter, when Varamus had been defeated in a single battle by the Romans alone, and had fled in solitary shame, Chosroes was led back to his royal palace.

CAP. XX. Concerning the holy mother Golanduch, who lived in those times.

At the same time, Golanduch, a living martyr ^D [was present].

^A, after having endured much suffering ^B, remained with us. She, having been severely tormented by the Persian magi, endured a long and arduous martyrdom, and performed many miracles. Furthermore, her life was written by Stephen the Elder, bishop of Hierapolis.

CAP. XXI. Concerning the offerings which Chosroes sent to the holy martyr Sergius

Now Chosroes, having regained his own kingdom, sent to Gregory a cross, adorned with much gold and precious stones, in honor of the victorious martyr Sergius; which [cross] Theodora, the wife of Justinian, had indeed dedicated to the same martyr, but Chosroes had carried off along with other treasures, as I have already related. Moreover, he sent another golden cross, and Chosroes inscribed upon the cross in Greek letters the following: “I, Chosroes, king of kings, son of Hormisdas, when through the diabolical operation and malice of the most wretched Varames and the horsemen who were with him, we betook ourselves to the Roman territory; and because the most wretched Zadespram had arrived with an army at Nisibis, intending to incite the horsemen of the Nisibene region to defect from us and attack us; we also sent horsemen with a commander to the town of Charchas. And because we had heard that the adorable and most famous saint Sergius bestows all that is asked of him, in the first year of our reign, on the seventh day of the month of January, we petitioned through the spirit of the same saint, promising that if our horsemen should slay Zadespram, or certainly take him alive, we would send a golden cross set with stones to his house for his adorable name. And on the ninth day of the month of February, our horsemen brought the head of the same Zadespram to us. Therefore, having attained the fulfillment of our vow, so that the matter might be manifest to all and no room for doubt might be left, we have sent into the house of the most adorable saint Sergius this cross, fashioned by our order, in his most holy name, together with that [cross] which was once sent by Justinian, emperor of the Romans, to the house of the same Sergius, but which, after war had broken out between the two republics, was brought here by Chosroes, son of Cabades, our father, and was found among our treasures.” Gregory, having received these crosses not without the consent of Emperor Maurice, dedicated them ^C with great pomp in the church of the holy martyr ^D. Not long after, Chosroes also sent other gifts to the same holy temple, having ordered to be inscribed in the Greek language upon a disc fashioned of gold these words: “I, Chosroes, king of kings, son of Hormisdas…”

...other kings, or another of Hormisdas, I have arranged to have these things inscribed on this platter, not so that they might be looked upon by men, nor that the greatness of your most holy name might become known through my words, but for the truth of what is written, and for the many and great benefits which I have received from you. For it is a happiness for me that my name should be borne upon your sacred vessels. When I was in the place called Beramais, I asked you, O holy one, to come to my assistance, and that Sira might conceive in her womb. And since Sira ^A is a Christian and I am an Hellene, our law does not allow us to have a Christian spouse. Therefore, out of my gratitude toward you, I overlooked this law for her sake, and I have held and do hold her in sincerity above my other wives day after day. And so, I considered that I should now entreat your goodness, O holy one, that she might conceive in her womb. And I asked and pledged that if Sira should conceive in her womb, I would send the cross which she wears to your most holy house. And for this reason, I and Sira have this purpose, that we might keep this cross in memory of your name, O holy one. And we decided, instead of it, to send five thousand staters, its value not reaching beyond four thousand four hundred milliarenses staters. And from the time that I conceived this request for myself, and pondered these things, until we arrived at Rosumchosdrun, not more than ten days had passed; and you, O holy one, not because I was worthy, but because of your goodness, appeared to me in a dream of the night, and ^B three times told me that Sira would conceive. And I, in that same vision, answered you a third time, saying: It is well. And because you are a giver of requests, from that day Sira did not experience the [customary] flux of women. I, however, having doubted ^C this, if I had not believed your words, and that you are a holy man and a giver of requests, would not have waited for the womanly matters that followed. From this I recognized the power of the vision, and the truth of those things foretold by you. Therefore, I immediately sent the cross itself and its price to your most holy house, commanding that from its price one disk and one cup be made for the use of the divine mysteries. Moreover, that a cross also be made, and be fixed upon the sacred table, and an incense-burner—all these being in myself—I pondered. ^D

^A And a Hunnic curtain (54) decorated with gold, and the remaining silver coins of the value, are for your holy house, that through your protection, holy one, in all things, but especially in this petition, you may come to my aid and Sira’s; and may that which has come to us through your intercession, by the mercy of your goodness, and by the desire of myself and Sira, be brought to perfection; that I myself, and Sira, and all who are in the world, may hope in your power, and still believe in you. These are the things which the votive offerings sent by Chosroes contain, in no way differing from the prophecy of Balaam, as the philanthropic God clearly ordained, that the tongues of the Gentiles should utter words of salvation.

CHAP. XXII.

Concerning Naaman the Saracen.

At that same time, Naaman, too, the phylarch of the hostile Saracens, a wicked and most abominable Gentile—so much so that he would slaughter humans with his own hand to his own demons—came to holy baptism, having melted down with fire his truly golden Venus (which was nothing save a mass of gold) and distributed it to the poor, and led all those who were with him to the worship of God. Gregory, however, by the impulses of the empire, after dedicating the gifts sent by Chosroes, wandering through the wilderness of the Frontiers, where especially the doctrines of Severus ^B and many fortresses [u] were...

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS

(54) *And a Hunnic curtain.* It is quite clear that the interpreters did not understand this passage, for both have rendered it as a single opening on both sides. Thus also Raderus, who interpreted Theophylact into Latin, unless he has "Hunnic," as is read in the Greek codex of Theophylact. But Langus, the interpreter of Nicephorus, retained the Greek word in this manner: "And a Hunnic amphithyrum." And in the appended scholion he explains this word thus: "In my judgment, they are enclosures or lattices, either surrounding the more sacred table of the altar or keeping the people away from it, in both parts of which there is a door and an entrance leading to it, of Hunnic workmanship." But with the indulgence of the learned man, he has not attained the meaning of this for you. The Greeks used to call the curtains hanging before doors *amphithyra*. Thus Chrysostom in his homily on Matthew, speaking of Zacchaeus who received the Lord at a feast: "That is, enter into the house of Zacchaeus in your thought, and consider, when he had heard that Christ was about to enter it, how he adorned it. For he did not run to his neighbors to borrow curtains, chairs, and benches made of ivory." Thus, indeed, in the Christian churches there were curtains for the doors, as Epiphanius testifies in a certain epistle which Jerome translated into Latin. And that we may come closer to the matter, on the altar itself there were curtains by which the doors of the altar or chancel were covered. And when the priest was about to celebrate the Eucharist, those curtains were accustomed to be drawn back, so that the people might view the sacred mysteries from a distance. Chrysostom testifies to this in his homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians, with these words: "When you hear: 'Let us all pray together,' when you see the curtains drawn back which are at the doors, then imagine the heaven opening from above, etc." Where you see the word used for the curtains that were placed at the doors of the altar. Mention is also made of these curtains in the old charter of donation of the Church of Cornutiana, which Joannes Suaresius first brought to light: "And for the face of the altar, two white Tramoserica curtains with gold studs, two purple curtains with gold studs and embroidered," etc., and below: "two linen curtains, Persian style, embroidered, with green-colored studs; two linen curtains, Persian style, embroidered, with rose-colored studs." And again below: "Item, before the royal part of the Basilica, three large white linen curtains with feather-work, split. Item, three pure linen curtains; before the consistorium, one pure linen curtain. In the pronaos, one pure linen curtain; and inside the Basilica, before the porticos, six linen curtains with rosette designs. And before the secretarium, hung curtains of linen with rosette designs, having two arches." I have written out this passage entire, that the studious reader may understand how manifold was once the use of curtains in the Church, and that we may know what was intended by this "Hunnic curtain" in Evagrius. For just as this charter of donation teaches that Persian curtains were once prized, so also Hunnic curtains were especially commended. Furthermore, the Scholiast of Aristophanes on the *Frogs* speaks of Persian curtains: "For such curtains were called *amphithyra*, because they were hung before doors," as I said above. Guillielmus Bibliothecarius in the *Life of Stephen VI*: "He contributed to the same Basilica of the Apostles one linen curtain, and three silk *velothyra* around the altar." From which it appears they signify the same thing.

VARIORUM

(u) *Where especially the doctrines of Severus ** and many fortresses.* A full line is missing, as it seems.

the altar." From which it appears they signify the same thing. ^A families, and brought entire tribes and monasteries to the Church of God.

CHAPTER XXIII. Concerning the death of the saintly Symeon the Stylite the Younger.

At this same time, when Gregory learned from me that holy Symeon was sick with a fatal illness, he hastened to him with all speed, so that he might offer him the duty of a final greeting. But he was unable to obtain what he desired. Now this Symeon far surpassed all the mortals of his time in virtue. For from his earliest youth he had practiced an austere mode of life upon a column, to such an extent that even his teeth changed while he was standing on the column. And he ascended the column for the following reason. While he was yet at a very tender age, he was wandering about the ridges of the mountain playing and skipping. Upon encountering a leopard—a wild beast—he cast his belt about its neck, and as if leading it with a leash, the creature, forgetful of its innate ferocity, was led to his monastery. ^B His master, who lived his life on a column, witnessing this, asked the boy what it was. He replied that it was a cat, which in common parlance is called a "catta." Taking this act as a conjecture of what kind and how great Symeon would one day be in the pursuit of virtue, he admitted him to the column. On this column, and on another which is on the highest peak of the mountain, he spent sixty-eight years, gifted with every kind of grace. For he would drive away demons, heal all manner of sickness and infirmities, and foresee things to come just as if they were present. He had, in fact, predicted to Gregory that he would not see his death, but that he would be ignorant of the things that were to come after his death. ^C And when I was being led into various musings upon the loss of my children, and was questioning within myself what the reason might be why the same [thing] had not happened to the gentiles, who have many children—although I had revealed this thought to absolutely no one—he nonetheless, perceiving the thoughts of my soul, wrote to me that I should abstain from these thoughts, for they were by no means pleasing to God. The same man, when the milk had been obstructed in the wife of one of my scribes after childbirth, and the infant was in danger of its final breath, laid his hand upon the right hand of the husband and instructed him to place this upon the breasts of the woman. ^D As soon as he had done this, the milk immediately gushed forth as if from a spring, so that it even soaked the woman's garment. And as for the boy, [o...]

^A whom his traveling companions had in the dead of the night forgotten on the road, the lion carried him on his shoulders and brought him to the monastery of Symeon. The ministers of Symeon then went out and brought in the boy who was being guarded by the lion. That same man performed many other things exceeding all memory, which require a refined tongue, leisure, and a dedicated treatise, as they are celebrated in the languages of men. For people from almost every land, not only Romans but also barbarians, made their way to him and obtained whatever they requested. For food and drink, he had the branches of a certain shrub that grows on that mountain. ^B

CAP. XXIV. Concerning the death of Gregory, bishop of Theopolis, and the restoration of Anastasius.

Not long after, Gregory, having been seized by a fit of gout—the ailment by which he was most especially troubled—departed from this life, after he had swallowed a medicine prepared from the so-called Hermodactyl, which had been given to him by one of the Asclepiadae. He died at a time when Gregory, the successor of Pelagius, held the episcopate of the elder Rome, and John held that of the younger Rome; and in the tenth indiction. In this year, Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, returned to Antioch after the death of the patriarch Gregory, who had previously succeeded that same Anastasius.

^A John was administering the pontificate of the Church of Jerusalem, and after his death, which occurred not long after, no one had yet been appointed to govern that Church. And here let our history end, in the twelfth year of the reign of Maurice Tiberius. As for the rest that follows, we leave it to those among the studious who may wish to relate and record it. But if anything has been omitted by us, or stated less accurately, let no one hold it against us as a fault, reflecting that we have compiled a history that was scattered into one body, that we might provide for the benefit of men, for whose sake we have endured so many and such great labors. Furthermore, another volume has been composed by us, in which are contained epistles, reports, decrees, orations, and disputations, and certain other things. And these aforementioned reports, which are contained in that volume, were for the most part composed in the name of Gregory, the bishop of Theopolis. By means of which we have also obtained two ^B dignities: one from Tiberius Constantine, who invested us with the [dignity] of quaestorius, and [the other] from Maurice Tiberius, who sent us the [dignity] of eparch; for which we composed [the aforementioned works].

...when having dispelled the disgraces of the empire, he brought Theodosius forth into the light (64), providing a prelude of every happiness for both him and the state; having by then extinguished the shame of the empire, he brought forth Theodosius into the light, who provided an origin of the greatest happiness both for himself and for the republic.

The Six Books of the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus of Epiphaneia, Ex-Prefect.

VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS. ...to the Roman emperors who had reigned in the eastern parts, none had begotten male children since Theodosius the Younger. Therefore, for this reason, Evagrius says that he himself was gifted by Maurice with the codicils of the most ample prefecture. (64) Theodosius the most noble was born in the purple in the 5th year of Emperor Maurice, on the 26th day of September, and therefore in the 4th indiction, which had begun from the Kalends of September of this year. The same was later crowned Augustus by his father Maurice in the 8th indiction, on the 20th day of March, when he was four and a half years old, as Theophanes writes in his Chronicle, page 225.

HENRICUS VALESIUS' OBSERVATIONS ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF EVAGRIUS, BOOK ONE

CONCERNING PETER THE ANTIOCHENE BISHOP WHO IS SURNAMED THE FULLER, AND CONCERNING THE SYNODS CONVENED AGAINST HIM.

CHAPTER ONE.

Petrus was originally an Acoemete monk, ^A and in that monastery he practiced the trade of a fuller; whence also the nickname of "the Fuller" was given to him, as Alexander the monk writes in his panegyric on Saint Barnabas. In this monastery, therefore, when Petrus would constantly declaim against the Council of Chalcedon and openly defend the Eutychian dogma as a corrupter of the apostolic faith, he was ejected from the monastery by his brethren. Departing thence, he betook himself to Chalcedon, and in that city he was a presbyter of the Church of Saint Bassa, as Theodorus Lector and Theophanes in his Chronicle attest. But when in that city, too, he publicly preached the Eutychian dogma and assailed the Council of Chalcedon with insults and curses, he was driven from there also and came to Constantinople. There was at that time in the royal city Zeno, a very powerful man, a patrician and commander of the excubitors, to whom Emperor Leo had betrothed his daughter Ariadne. Into his amity Petrus cunningly insinuated himself. And when the same Zeno was made master of the soldiers for the East by Leo in place of Ardaburius and was setting out for the East, Petrus attached himself to his retinue and with him came to Antioch. That happened in the consulship of Leo the Fourth and Probianus, in the year of Christ 471, as Baronius rightly observed in his ecclesiastical annals. Nor should one listen to Theophanes, who reported this arrival of Zeno and Petrus into the city of Antioch long before. But since it is evident from the History of Candidus that Zeno was not made master of the eastern militia until after the slaughter of Aspar and Ardaburius (for Ardaburius was master of the military affairs for the East, as Damascius attests in Suidas under the word [Greek: Σηβριανός]); and furthermore, since it is evident from the Chronicle of Marcellinus and of Victor of Tunnuna ^C that Aspar and Ardaburius were slain in the year I have mentioned, it is absolutely necessary that Zeno and Petrus, who accompanied him, arrived at Antioch in that consulship. There was then in the city of Antioch the bishop Martyrius, a catholic man and a champion of the Council of Chalcedon. This man Petrus, aided by the favor and wealth of Zeno, attempted to oppose in every way, calling him a Nestorian and inciting the clergy of the Antiochene Church against him. There were in the city of Antioch many followers of Apollinaris, having been spread from the time of Vitalis of Antioch, who had founded a schism in that Church and a sect of his own name. Attached, therefore, to the parties of these men, Petrus the Fuller began to preach the Theopaschite dogma openly, pronouncing anathema upon those who denied that God was crucified. Moreover, he even added to the Trisagion hymn, which had been accustomed to be sung in the Church, that clause: "Who was crucified for us." From this matter the Antiochene populace was divided into two parts. And some indeed followed Petrus the Fuller, while the others adhered to Martyrius. He had at that time set out for Constantinople on account of certain ecclesiastical matters, and perhaps also on account of those tumults which Petrus the Fuller had stirred up in the Church of Antioch. When, therefore, Martyrius arrived at Constantinople, he was kindly received by Emperor Leo through the work and support of Gennadius, the bishop of Constantinople, and obtained from the emperor that which for the sake of which he had primarily come: namely, a law by which it was forbidden that any monk, having abandoned his monastery, should dwell in the city of Antioch or in any other city, and while disputing about religion should stir up disturbances and tumults in the Church. That constitution of Emperor Leo, sent to Zeno the master of the soldiers, is recorded in the first book of the Code of Justinian, by which Petrus the Fuller is denoted without his name being mentioned, ^D as rightly observed by Baronius.

^A est. After this, Martyrius returned to Antioch, and when he saw that the seditions and dissensions were increasing daily, and that Zeno, the master of the soldiers, setting aside the decree of Leo, was favoring the Fuller, he publicly abdicated the episcopate in a gathering of the Church, yet nonetheless retained the dignity of the priesthood. Upon this being done, Petrus the Fuller leapt into the Antiochene see as if it were vacant. When Gennadius, the Bishop of Constantinople, learned of this, he reported everything to Leo Augustus. The Emperor, moved by these events, ordered a synod of bishops to be held at Antioch, in which Petrus the Fuller was deposed and condemned, and Julian was ordained in his place, as Theodorus Lector and Theophanes write. Furthermore, the Emperor Leo ordered Petrus the Fuller, having been condemned by synodal sentence, to be deported into exile to the Oasis, as Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, testifies in a letter to Pope Simplicius, which is reported by Gelasius in the *Gesta* concerning the name of Acacius. It will be worth the trouble to set down the words of this letter here. For it is gathered from them that which I said above, that Petrus the Fuller was condemned in a synod. They read thus: "While we were reading the writings of Acacius which he had sent concerning Petrus and Joannes of Antioch, he detected the very grave excesses of Acacius in this matter as well. For at the time he had reported about Petrus of Alexandria being condemned, not long after he also wrote about Petrus and Joannes: that Petrus had governed a monastery near Constantinople; but, having abandoned it due to crimes, he had fled to Antioch. There, having cast out the Catholic bishop Martyrius, he had occupied his see through heretics; and, being straightway condemned, he was sent by the prince of that time, Leo, into exile in the Oasis. From whence, having slipped away, he returned to Constantinople and gave his word that he would not dare to cause any further disturbances." This is the first condemnation of Petrus the Fuller. If anyone should contend that this was not done by the bishops in a synod, but by Leo Augustus himself, he ought to remember that it has never been the custom for bishops to be sent into exile by Christian emperors, unless after a sentence of condemnation has been lawfully pronounced against them. Thus we read that Photinus, Nestorius, and Dioscorus were relegated after a synodal judgment, to say nothing of the presbyter Arius. Certainly, Liberatus in chapter 18 of his *Breviarium*, describing this place from the letter of Acacius, explicitly states that Petrus was condemned by the bishops and deported to the Oasis by the command of Leo. Moreover, Petrus the Fuller, in this first invasion of the Antiochene bishopric, seems to have sat for a very short time. For in the letter of Acacius to Pope Simplicius, the words of which were related above, he is said to have been condemned immediately after seizing the bishopric.

CHAPTER II

^A extant. [This is found in the Roman Collection, which Holstenius published, p. 194.] Yet Pope Simplicius himself remembers it in a letter to Zeno Augustus, in which he congratulates him on the vengeance taken for the see of Stephen, bishop of Antioch. There Simplicius says among other things: "But to speak confidently to a Christian prince, if the order of the former letters, which I remember to have written to my brother and fellow bishop Acacius in the name of Peter and others, had been kept, it could not have arrived at this point which now deservedly has secured retribution. For I had commanded that, upon the suggestion being made to your Piety, the aforementioned person, just as the others who by the occasion of tyrannical domination had invaded the Churches of God, should be driven outside the boundaries of your empire, etc." Pope Simplicius repeats the same in a letter which he wrote to Acacius on the same subject. And there is no doubt that Pope Simplicius is speaking here of Peter of Antioch. For although Simplicius had commanded the same thing to Acacius concerning Peter of Alexandria, as we learn from his letters, yet since this discourse is concerning the Church of Antioch, Simplicius is not to be thought to speak of any other Peter than the one of Antioch. And this is the opinion of Baronius. We have already seen Peter the Fuller condemned by four synods: ^B the first and second of which were of Oriental bishops, gathered at Antioch; the third was the Constantinopolitan; the fourth, the Roman.

CHAPTER III.

Stephen, when he had governed the Church of Antioch for about the space of a year, was cruelly killed by heretics in the church. His body was dragged through the city and thrown into the river Orontes, in the year of Christ 479, after the consulship of that most illustrious man, as Baronius rightly observed from the letters of Pope Simplicius. Zeno, being gravely moved by this slaughter, sent to Antioch those who would avenge this crime and punish the authors of the sedition. But the people of Antioch sent legates to the emperor, who might beg for pardon and petition the emperor that, to avoid tumults, a bishop might be ordained for them at Constantinople. Therefore Zeno, yielding to their petitions, commanded Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, to ordain an Antiochene prelate in the royal city. And that was done for the sake of ecclesiastical peace, as the emperor himself, as well as Acacius, excused to Pope Simplicius, promising that the ordination of the Antiochene prelate was to be made hereafter by the comprovincial bishops according to the precepts of the canons. And indeed the letters of Zeno and Acacius do not exist today. But the letters of Pope Simplicius, which he wrote to both, are still held; in which these words are read among others: "If the order of the former letters which I remember to have written to my brother and fellow bishop Acacius in the name of Peter and others, had been kept, it could not have arrived at this point which now deservedly has secured retribution. For I had commanded that, upon the suggestion being made to your ^C Piety, the aforementioned person, just as the others who by the occasion of tyrannical domination had invaded the Churches of God, should be driven outside the boundaries of your empire: lest they should pour their pestiferous poison with sacrilegious mouth into the minds of any simpler folk, and with impious words wound innocent souls against the orthodox faith." Moved by these pious and salutary warnings of the Roman pontiff Simplicius, Zeno sent Peter the Fuller into exile at Pityus, which place is situated in Pontus near the borders of the Roman empire, and is assigned to the exile of noxious men, as Justinian testifies in his Novels. But Peter the Fuller, having departed from Pityus, betook himself to Theodorus, who was in the town of Euchaita, as Theophanes and Cedrenus relate. Who this Theodorus might be, I have not yet discovered, unless perhaps it be Theodorus Trichinas, whose mention is made in the Greek Menologies on the twentieth day of April. Therefore, Stephen Junior (66), a man remarkable for his piety, was ordained bishop of Antioch by Acacius. Having sat for three years, and been agitated by various seditions of heretics, after his death Zeno ordered Acacius again to ordain a bishop for the Antiochenes in the royal city. Acacius therefore ordained Calendio as bishop of Antioch at Constantinople, as Theodorus Lector and Theophanes write, and before them Gelasius in the records concerning the name of Acacius. But the Oriental bishops, as if ignorant of that which had been done at Constantinople, consecrated ^D a man named John Codonatus as bishop to the same Church of Antioch, as Victor Tunnunensis writes in his Chronicle after the second consulship of Longinus, and Theophanes, page 110. This was done in the year of Christ 482, in the consulship of Trocundus and Severinus, as we learn from the letter of Pope Simplicius to Acacius. Calendio, having been ordained at Constantinople, soon set out for Antioch. There, having gathered a synod of provincial bishops, he first wished his ordination to be approved by the suffrage of all; then he sent a synodical letter to Pope Simplicius and Bishop Anastasius. Who, passing through Constantinople, having received letters of intercession from Acacius, set out for Rome. When he had presented the letters of Calendio and Acacius at the same time to Simplicius, Simplicius with a willing mind received Calendio into his communion. He also handed over to Anastasius the letters witnessing to that matter, to be carried both to Calendio and to Acacius. The letters of Simplicius to Acacius are extant today, which are as follows: "That the beginning of the Antiochene priest was indicated later, in what manner it occurred, although it could not have been hidden from us, yet he himself, or his synod, indicated it. Which, just as we did not wish to happen, so we have been easy toward the excuse which necessity made; because that which is not voluntary cannot be called a crime, etc." Given on the Ides of July in the consulship of the most illustrious Severinus. How many years Calendio held the episcopate, the ancients do not agree. Theophanes indeed assigns four years to him in his chronicle. But Victor Tunnunensis attributes only three to him. But in Victor Tunnunensis there is a wonderful confusion of years. Baronius in his ecclesiastical annals attributes only one year to him. But I find that he exercised the priesthood for a space of two years. Certainly Pope Gelasius in his records concerning the name of Acacius testifies that he was deposed after the condemnation of Acacius made in a Roman synod (67). But the Roman synod celebrated against Acacius was in the year of Christ 484, in the consulship of Theodoric and Venantius. Calendio, however, was deposed, under the pretext indeed that he had favored the one who had seized the tyranny at Antioch: but in reality because he would not break off from the communion of John of Alexandria, as Liberatus testifies. Forced out in this manner, Peter the Fuller was sent back into the Antiochene see by the emperor Zeno. This was done at the suggestion of Acacius, in hatred of Pope Felix, by whom Acacius had been condemned a little while before, as Gelasius affirms in the records concerning the name of Acacius toward the end, writing thus: "Whose audacity, committing worse things, even sent Peter the Antiochene, after the Catholic Calendio whom he himself had ordained was ejected, to the Church of Antioch." Pope Felix testifies the same in his second letter.

^A And to all the presbyters and archimandrites established in Constantinople and throughout Bithynia, in these words: "Thus Acacius extended the impiety of the pestilential condemnation, so that he even insults the ejected, nor does he cease to rage in schism, and although he is entirely outside the body, he nevertheless tears its members, and it is testified that it is written of him: 'The impious man, when he comes into the depth of evils, becomes contemptuous,' adding worse things to previous ones, by now persecuting the dead; his soul, by sinning gravely, incurs the condemnation of the second death; he who, as we have learned, recently ejected the holy bishop Calendio, and introduced into his Church Peter, who had been condemned by him so many times before, so that very many, if it is true, Catholics have withdrawn, abandoning their own sees, and our pearls have been cast to pigs and dogs." Gelasius, however, in his letter to the Orientals, says that Peter the Fuller was introduced into the Antiochene see by the Emperor Zeno. The words of Gelasius are these: "To say nothing of the fact that through the Emperor Zeno—who, at any rate, communicated with the Antiochene Peter whom he had introduced, and whose priesthood he had approved, without doubt mixed in communion—Acacius also communicated." The same Gelasius, in epistle 13, to the bishops of Dardania, writes that Zeno indeed did this by his own authority, but that Acacius allowed it to be done: and although he openly abstained from the communion of Peter the Antiochene, he nevertheless did not resist the emperor who was promoting Peter. Therefore, he says that Zeno wrote in his letters that this was done by him according to the counsel and arrangement of Acacius. But Calendio, when he saw that he was deposed through fraud and calumny, wrote letters to Pope Felix, by which he announced to him both his own deposition and the violent restitution of Peter the Fuller after so many sentences of condemnation. These things being known, Pope Felix, having held a synod at the Church of Saint Peter, at which forty-three bishops were present, condemned Peter the Fuller, the invader of the Antiochene Church, and together with him, Peter Mongus, the bishop of Alexandria, and Acacius of Constantinople. The first among the bishops who were present at the council to subscribe to the sentence of condemnation was Candidus of Tibur, with these words: "I, Candidus, bishop of the city of Tibur, to Peter, the invader of the Church of Alexandria, and to Acacius, formerly of the Church of Constantinople, and also to Peter the Antiochene, long ago rightfully and deservedly separated from the episcopate and the number of Christians, and to all their followers, following the authority of the apostolic see, pronounced after just deliberation according to our status and that of the Catholic Church, I have subscribed by saying anathema." And forty-two bishops subscribed in the same manner. This is the fifth condemnation of Peter the Fuller, made by Pope Felix in the second Roman synod, which was held for the cause of the Antiochene Church in the year of Christ 484, as has been shown above. For the first Roman synod, under the same Pope Felix, had been gathered for the cause of the Alexandrian Church, and for the prevarication of the bishops Vitalis and Misenus in the same year, in the consulship of Theodoric and Venantius.

CAP. IV.

These are the things which we have gathered concerning the condemnations of Peter the Fuller from the best writers and from the most certain documents. But Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals, and Binius following him in his Collection of general councils, thrust upon us two additional synods in which Peter the Fuller was condemned: namely, one at Constantinople gathered by Acacius in the year of Christ 483, and one at Rome held by Pope Felix in the same year. They also produce the letters of many bishops, partly from the East ^A and partly from the Oriental Church. These I shall endeavor to show to be false and supposititious. For the cause of this matter is the main reason why this entire disputation has been undertaken by me; and in the first place I shall speak of the letters, whose falsity it will not be difficult to prove. All those letters written by various bishops to Peter the Fuller, which are read in the tomes of the councils and in the Annals of Baronius, have been translated from the Greek tongue into Latin. This indeed appears evidently, both from the diction, which is barbarous and inelegant, and from the fact that there are two-fold interpretations of them, far different from one another. Furthermore, those Greek letters betray their own falsity by many signs. For in the first place, the names themselves of the bishops who are writing to Peter the Fuller are without doubt fabricated and fictitious. For who knows of the bishops Faustus of Apollonias, Pamphilus of the Abydeni, Asclepiades of Tralles, or Anthæon of Arsinoë? To whom is Quintianus, bishop of Asculum, or Justinus, bishop of Sicily, known? For no name of a city is added; instead, he is called bishop of the whole island. Certainly, none of these bishops is found to be named in the history of those times. And indeed we are not at all surprised that Felix, bishop of the Roman city, and Acacius, bishop of the city of Constantinople, should correct and admonish Peter the Fuller by letters, so that he might return to a better way of life: for they had that right over a colleague and partner in patriarchal dignity. But these bishops of small cities, endowed with no authority, and situated in different provinces far from the Antiochene diocese, by what reason were they impelled to admonish the Antiochene patriarch by letters written to him? For whom it should have sufficed that they report the heretical novelty of Peter the Fuller to their own patriarchs. But they themselves, on their own account and in their own name, by no means ought to have written to Peter the Fuller; rather, they should have reserved that duty for their metropolitans and primates. Finally, all those letters, although they were written by different bishops and from provinces far separated from one another, have nevertheless been elaborated in one and the same style—that is, in a crude and barbarous language. By which, as the greatest argument, their falsity is detected. For it is not possible that bishops of such different nations should use exactly the same kind of language. Furthermore, why does the bishop of Asculum, why does the Roman pontiff write in Greek to Peter the Fuller? For the Roman bishops were not accustomed in those times to write letters in any other language than Latin to Greek bishops, as the letters of the Roman pontiffs testify. But what are we to say about the letter of Flaccianus, bishop of Rhodopolis, written to the same Peter the Fuller, which Baronius was the first to publish from the Vatican codex for the year of Christ 483, in which, after an utterly foolish and inept introduction, these words are read: "Who then is he who has excited the storms of heresies, unless it be you, who have stirred up the ears of the innocent prince, and have aroused the heart of the pontiff with false letters, so that he might receive you into communion, by saying: 'Let it not be for me to apply a cross further to the Trinity, by preaching only Christ crucified.'" To whom would this language of impudence not seem to be abhorrent? "Where, therefore, by declining from this, should I remain not accepted by you; and where are the bowels of Christ toward Peter?" Baronius says that these are words from the letter of Peter to Acacius, written at the time when he feigned himself to be a Catholic, with the intention that, being accepted into the communion of Acacius, he might recover his see. But from the letter of Pope Gelasius to the Orientals, it is clear that Acacius never communicated with Peter the Fuller. For Gelasius writes in the letter mentioned above, that [the error] which he frequently inculcates, that Acacius was accustomed to boast, ...

that he had never been in communion with Peter of Antioch, that is to say, the Fuller. The same is also testified in epistle 13, to the bishops of Dardania: By which synod did the same Acacius cause Calendio to be expelled? Nevertheless, he allowed such a manifest heretic as Peter to be substituted in his place by his own disposition, so that he would not pretend even to communicate with him openly. For thus that passage ought to be written. How then did Acacius receive letters from him, or send them to him, calling him that brother? For so we read in that letter of Acacius to Peter the Fuller. Finally, what is more foolish than these words which are read in epistle 5 of Pope Felix (69) to the same Fuller, in which he hurls the sentence of condemnation against him: For let this condemnation be fixed upon thee from me, and from those who are known to govern episcopal sees ^B constituted under me, and from Acacius, pastor of the Church of Constantinople, and the venerable bishops subject to his jurisdiction, as if they themselves in no wise consented to it, etc. There are many things in these words which cannot be tolerated. For first, this was not the custom of the Roman pontiffs, that they should make any mention in their decrees and sentences of the bishops who sat with them in a synod. Certainly that this was the custom of the Roman pontiffs, Felix himself testifies in his second epistle to all the presbyters and archimandrites situated in Constantinople and throughout Bithynia, in these words: As often as the lords, the priests, are gathered within Italy for ecclesiastical causes, especially those of faith, the custom is retained that the successor of the prelates of the apostolic see shall determine all things according to the solicitude of the Churches incumbent upon him, in the person of all the priests of all Italy. What of the fact that he joins Acacius to himself, as if he seemed to have followed his judgment in condemning Peter of Antioch: omitting mention of Pope Simplicius, by whom the same Peter had been condemned long before, as we have shown above? But it is to be noted that in the Greek text of this epistle a far different reading is held: for thus it is read therein: Καί γε πεπαγιωμένη ἔστω σου ἡ καθαίρεσις αὕτη ὑπ' ἐμοῦ, καὶ τῶν διεπόντων μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ τὴν ἀποστολικὴν θρόνον, etc. That is, This, therefore, thy deposition be fixed from me, and from those who are known to govern the apostolic see with me. Which words are to be understood rather of the cardinal presbyters and bishops, who were, as it were, certain coadjutors of the Roman pontiff, as Peter the Venerable speaks in a certain epistle. Someone will perhaps say here that those epistles were not translated from Greek into Latin, but rather appear to have been made from Latin into Greek: and thus Anastasius the Librarian sensed this in the preface to his Collectanea, writing thus to John the deacon: Some things that were published in Latin, the Latin language, utterly overwhelmed by a mass of oblivion, would have lamented, had it not, after being drunk from the source of Greek books, resumed these with a thirsty breast: as the epistle of blessed Pope Felix, pronouncing the sentence of condemnation against Peter of Antioch. But I, for the present, do not inquire into that. This I say only, even if we grant that those epistles were converted from the Latin language into Greek, not even so are they freed from the stain and suspicion of falsehood. For the arguments I brought forward above to convict them of falsity ^D are valid in either direction. And these things, spoken against the epistles mentioned above, may suffice. Now let us come to the synods themselves, namely, the Constantinopolitan and the Roman. Baronius, and Binius following him, say that these were collected against Peter the Fuller, bishop of Antioch, in the year of Christ 485, in the consulship of the most illustrious Faustus. And yet Peter the Fuller had not yet invaded the see of Antioch in that year. For Calendio was deposed by force and calumny in the following year, which was the year of Christ 484, and immediately Peter was subrogated into his place, as we have shown above from the most certain testimonies of the Roman pontiffs Felix and Gelasius. Then, why did it behoove Acacius to condemn Peter the Fuller again, whom he had already previously condemned in the time of Pope Simplicius at the Constantinopolitan synod, as was demonstrated above from the letter of Acacius himself to Pope Simplicius, and from the letters of Pope Felix to all the presbyters and archimandrites residing in Constantinople and throughout Bithynia? Why also did it behoove Felix to condemn Peter the Fuller by his sentence, who had already been condemned before by Simplicius? But if one should respond that a new crime of Peter had arisen, and therefore there was need for a new condemnation; I deny that any new crime was committed at that time by Peter the Fuller. For that clause, who wast crucified for us, had been added to the Trisagion by Peter the Fuller long before the year of Christ 485 and 484. Nor was it added by Peter at his third restoration, but after his first enthronement, while Leo Augustus was governing the empire, as Theodorus Lector in the first book, and Theophanes in his Chronicle, and Cedrenus teach.

CAP. V.

he says he embraces with his arms, and considers those to be heretics who would reject it. This, assuredly, would never have been done by Avitus, if Peter the Fuller had been condemned at the Roman synod by Pope Felix on account of that clause. For Avitus lived a little after the times of Pope Felix, and was most attached to the Roman See. ^A

BOOK TWO. OF THE TWO ROMAN SYNODS, IN WHICH ACACIUS WAS CONDEMNED.

CHAPTER I. Baronius, in his *Ecclesiastical Annals*, has indeed set forth accurately and most diligently, as is his custom, the history of the condemnation of Acacius. There is one thing, however, which escaped his diligence. For he did not notice that Acacius had been condemned twice by Pope Felix. But neither does Blondel, who revised the history of Acacius after Baronius, in his book *On the Primacy of the Church*, appear to have observed it. And indeed, one must grant pardon to Baronius, since he had no ancient writer from whom he could draw this repeated condemnation of Acacius. But Blondel cannot be excused in any way, as he had studiously read the *Acts* published by Jacques Sirmond under the name of Acacius, in which what I have stated is expressly written. For Pope Felix speaks thus in an epistle to Bishop Vetranio: "Wherefore the aforementioned Acacius, who did not fail the Apostolic See—which now, as executor of the Council of Chalcedon mentioned so often, was at that time striving for the Catholic faith—was by a second excommunication driven out, lest we ourselves, which God forbid, be rendered accomplices of the lost through him." It is our duty, therefore, to inquire diligently when Acacius was first excommunicated by the Apostolic See, and when he was so a second time. ^B

CHAPTER II. The first condemnation of Acacius occurred in the Roman synod, which was gathered in the year of Christ 484, under the consuls Venantius and Theodoric, to hear the account of the legation of Vitalis and Misenus. The reason for this legation had been given by John, bishop of Alexandria, whom the Greeks call a Tabennesiote, because he was one of the Tabennesian monks who had held a monastery near Canopus ever since the times of Bishop Cyril; but Liberatus perpetually calls him Talaia, or Talaida. For Baronius writes thus: "For my part, I would prefer to write Thladias, that is, eunuch. For thus the Greeks are accustomed to call castrates." This John, after the death of Timothy Salophaciolus, was ordained bishop of Alexandria by the Catholics in the year of our Lord 481. And immediately after his ordination, he sent synodical letters, after the custom, to Pope Simplicius and to Calendio, bishop of Antioch, as we have learned from Gelasius in the *Acts under the name of Acacius*, and from the *Breviary* of Liberatus. But he neglected to send synodical letters to Acacius, the bishop of Constantinople, either because he trusted too much in the friendship of Illus, the Master of Offices, or because, as Liberatus hints, he had long been offended by Acacius. That matter gravely stirred the mind of Acacius, who, seeing himself despised by John, exasperated the mind of the Emperor against him, saying that he was not fit for the Alexandrian episcopate, since he had once wished to depart from the Church and had persuaded Timothy Salophaciolus to insert the name of Dioscorus into the sacred diptychs; furthermore, asserting him to be guilty of perjury, since he had once sworn to the Emperor that he would never seek the Alexandrian see. He asserted, rather, that Peter Mongus was more suitable for the episcopate, as he was agreeable and acceptable to the people of Alexandria, and through his efforts the churches of the city of Alexandria and of all Egypt could be restored to unity. Induced by these things, the Emperor Zeno first wrote letters to Pope Simplicius through the subdeacon Uranium, in which he judged the aforementioned John to be unworthy of the priesthood, as one guilty of perjury—a fact which he claimed was known even to Acacius the bishop. He said, however, that it would be better if Peter were restored to that see, in order to procure the unity and concord of the churches of Egypt. Having received these letters of the Emperor, Pope Simplicius, who was already prepared to receive the apocrisiaries of John into his communion and to confirm his ordination by his own sentence, held back his feet, lest he might seem to have acted rashly against the testimony of the Emperor. Soon, through the same subdeacon Uranium, he wrote back to the Emperor that, as far as the ordination of John was concerned, having read the Emperor's testimony, he had suspended his confirmation; but as for the restoration of Peter, he could not and ought not to be restored, being a heretic and one demanded by heretics, since he had been condemned by apostolic judgment and still remained in his former error. Simplicius also wrote letters to Acacius, the bishop of Constantinople, which still remain extant. Mention of these letters is made in the libel of citation directed to Acacius by the legates Vitalis and Misenus. But Zeno, when he saw that what he most desired—namely, the restoration of Peter—was denied to him by Simplicius, was gravely offended, as Gelasius testifies in the *Acts under the name of Acacius*. Therefore, spurning the reply of Pope Simplicius, he wrote to Pergamius, the duke of Egypt, and to Apollonius, the Augustalis, that they should expel John from the city of Alexandria and install Peter in the episcopal see. These letters of the Emperor were carried to Alexandria by the abbot Amon and those who were the apocrisiaries of Peter with him. John, having been cast out in this manner, betook himself to Rome to Simplicius, so that by his aid and suffrage he might recover his former see. And Pope Simplicius indeed received him kindly, as was right, and showed himself prompt and ready to assist and restore him in every way. But, snatched away by a fatal death, he left the whole of that business to be completed by his successor. Pope Simplicius having died in the year of our Lord 483, Coelius Felix was substituted in his place. Shortly after the solemnities of his ordination were completed, in a most celebrated council of the bishops of all Italy, John, bishop of Alexandria, offered a libel containing various capital charges against Acacius. Felix, therefore, by the counsel of the bishops, decreed that a legation should be sent to the Emperor Zeno. Bishops Vitalis and Misenus were chosen to fulfill this duty, and with them Felix, defender of the Roman Church, tasked with seeking from the Emperor, first, that the Council of Chalcedon be upheld; and then, that Peter, as a heretic, be cast out from the Alexandrian Church, and that Acacius be sent to Rome to make answer to the libel of John of Alexandria, just as Evagrius writes in the third book of his *Ecclesiastical History*. There exist to this day two epistles of Pope Felix to the Augustus Zeno, which the bishops Vitalis and Misenus carried with them, in which is contained that which I have said above. But this must be observed in the first place, that when in the aforementioned letters Felix^CD

^A with all his might contends with the emperor that Peter should be driven from the Alexandrian see, he says not a single word about restoring John to his place. This, I suspect, was done by Felix with prudent counsel, so that the emperor might not be offended by the name of John. For John was odious to Zeno, both because of the perjury he had committed, as I have already said, and because of the friendship that existed between him and Illus. For even before his episcopate, when John was steward of the Alexandrian Church and administered the revenues and monies of all the churches, he had sent many gifts to Illus, the master of offices, by which he might acquire his favor and support. And after he had been cast out of his bishopric, he had approached this same Illus at Antioch to discuss his affairs with him, as Liberatus writes in his *Breviary*. Furthermore, those same legates of the Apostolic See brought letters from Pope Felix to Acacius, by which Felix admonished him that, mindful of ancient custom, he should free himself from all suspicion and should labor in every way with the prince to strengthen the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. While this embassy was on its way, Cyril, the prefect of the Acoemetae, sent letters to Pope Felix in which he complained of his excessive slowness, while in the meantime such grave and wicked things were being admitted against the right faith. Therefore, Felix wrote to the bishops Vitalis and Misenus that they should do nothing before they had conferred with Cyril and learned from him what was to be done. He also sent other instructions or monitory letters to them. He likewise sent another letter to the Emperor Zeno, in which he admonished him both about the Council of Chalcedon and about the persecution of the Catholics excited by Huneric in Africa, as Evagrius testifies. But these later letters of Felix to Zeno do not exist today. When the legates had arrived at Abydos, they were captured there by the emperor's satellites, their papers were taken away, and they were thrown into custody. Anastasius the Librarian writes that they were captured at Heraclea, a city of Thrace. But I think Theophanes is to be followed rather, inasmuch as he spoke more certain things in the narration of this matter than Anastasius. The legates having been cast into custody, first the emperor threatened that he would put them to death unless they communicated with Peter and Acacius. But when his threats profited nothing, having turned to blandishments, he undertook to corrupt them with gifts and rewards. Having added an oath, both he and Acacius promised them that the cause of the Apostolic See would be kept whole, and that no prejudice to the cause would follow from it if the legates entered into the society of communion with Acacius and Peter. Pope Gelasius testifies to this in his letter to the bishops of Dardania, writing not far from the beginning: "But Acacius not only disdained to satisfy the demands, but even caused the embassy of the Apostolic See itself, deceived by blandishments, rewards, and perjuries, by which he promised them with the emperor that the entire cause of the Apostolic See was to be kept whole in all things, to return polluted by the communion of Peter." Deceived by these arts, when the legates had been brought out of custody, they went with Acacius and the apocrisiaries of Peter to the church and celebrated the solemnities of the Mass, although the orthodox protested and testified once, twice, and a third time that this was a betrayal and the ruin of the right faith. They first tied a document of protest with a string to a hook and suspended it from one of the legates; the second they cast into a book; the third, inserting it into a basket of vegetables, they sent to the legates, as Theophanes writes in his *Chronicle*. Whose words from the version of Anastasius the Librarian are to be corrected thus: *Δεύ τερον δὲ τῇ βίβλῳ ἐνέβαλλον.* These things having been so done, the legates of the Apostolic See returned covered with ignominy and disgrace; since they had not only not done the things for which they had been sent, but were polluted by having entered into communion with Peter, for the expulsion of whom they had been sent. ^B Moreover, they brought back with them to Rome the letters of Zeno and Acacius which they had sent to Pope Felix, filled with insults against John, but stuffed with the praises and encomiums of Peter. Evagrius reports a part of the letters of the Emperor Zeno in book III. But concerning the letter of Acacius, Pope Felix, and the Roman synod, and Gelasius in the *Gests Concerning the Name of Acacius*, speak at length. After the departure of the legates from the city of Constantinople, Felix, the defender of the Roman Church, whom Felix had sent as a legate from his side, after Vitalis and Misenus had been chosen from the sacerdotal college, as Felix testifies in his *Libellus to the Emperor Zeno*, having followed later because of the necessity of illness, was so contumeliously received by Acacius that he could not even bear to admit him to his sight, as Felix testifies in the sentence of the excommunication of Acacius. Liberatus adds that Felix was furthermore cast into custody and his papers taken away: for the reason, namely, that he had refused to communicate with Acacius and Peter, just as Vitalis and Misenus had done. Before the legates had returned to Rome, rumor preceding their arrival had divulged their prevarication everywhere. But the Acoemetae monks, whose leader was Symeones, having preceded them at a fast pace, had informed Pope Felix of all that had been done at Constantinople. Therefore, the legates having finally entered the City, Pope Felix collected a synod of sixty-seven bishops in the basilica of Blessed Peter. There, when Vitalis and Misenus were ordered to render an account of the embassy committed to them, turned to vain excuses, they complained that force had been used against them, and that they had been captured in a hostile manner and thrust into prison, with all their papers taken from them. Finally, they said they were circumvented by frauds and deceits, and that they had communicated with Peter of Alexandria unknowingly. When they said these things, the monk Symeones, having been brought into the judgment, convicted them of a lie. For he taught that at the time when they proceeded with Acacius to celebrate the solemnities of the Masses, the apocrisiaries of Peter were present at the same time, and that the name of Peter, which before was read in the ecclesiastical registers only silently and secretly, was then, in their very presence, recited openly before the altars. Furthermore, that the legates had never wished to confer in speech with the orthodox who approached them at Constantinople, nor had they cared to deliver the letters of Pope Felix to those for whom they had been written. Indeed, even Silvanus the priest, who had stayed with the legates in Constantinople, confirmed by his testimony that all things which had been said by Symeones were most true. Having discovered these things, Pope Felix first deprived the bishops Vitalis and Misenus of both priesthood and communion. Then he pronounced Peter of Alexandria and Acacius of Constantinople aliens from the sacerdotal college and from ecclesiastical communion. This is the first condemnation of Acacius in the Roman synod, which was collected in the year of Christ 484, on the 5th of the Kalends of August, in the consulship of Theodoric and Venantius, as is gathered from the sentence of deposition which Pope Felix sent to Acacius. Of this Roman synod, only one fragment survives today, which Evagrius reports in chapter 21 of book III, namely the part of the sentence pronounced by the whole synod against Peter and Acacius. Although in the aforementioned place of Evagrius, Acacius is not expressly said to have been deposed. For Evagrius was content to report only the prior part of the synodal sentence; but he deliberately omitted the later part, in which Acacius was deposed and excommunicated: whether because he had already reported that same thing earlier, namely in chapter 18 of the same book, or because he thought he would be consulting for the honor of the Constantinopolitan see if he kept silent about that which he knew the Constantinopolitan prelates would not endure with a calm mind. ^C

CHAPTER III.

^A who were present then, uttered against Acacius, Pope Felix hesitated for a while, and did not think it ought to be sent to Acacius; expecting, namely, whether Acacius might repent and, having changed his purpose, recall himself from the communion of the heretics. But Acacius, so far from correcting his former misdeeds, rather, taking confidence from the prince's favor and patronage, added even graver ones. For, having ejected the orthodox bishop Calendio from his see—whom he himself had ordained bishop—he intruded Peter the Fuller, who had been previously condemned both by the apostolic see and by himself, into the Church of the Antiochians. From which it came about that an entrance was opened to the Eutychian heretics. For when the catholic priests were driven out, heretics were substituted in their place, as Gelasius testifies, both in the epistle he wrote to the bishops of Dardania, and in that which he wrote to the bishops of the East. And if any of the bishops of the East who were deposed at that time by the order of Zeno desire to know their names, they are these: Nestor of Tarsus, Cyrus of Hierapolis, John of Cyrestis, Romanus of Chalcis, Eusebius of Samosata, Julian of Mopsuestia, Paul of Constantine, Manus of Hemeria, Andreas, bishops of Theodosiopolis; whom Emperor Zeno ejected from their sees for the same reason as Calendio, namely, because they were said to have favored the tyrants Illus and Leontius. And this indeed was the pretext of the emperor. But the true cause of their expulsion was that they refused to subscribe to the Henoticon edict of Zeno, as Theophanes writes in his Chronicle, page 145, and Nicephorus in Book XVI, chapter... ^B Pope Felix, whether having learned it from the letters of Calendio or from those of others, gathered a synod of bishops in the basilica of blessed Peter the Apostle, at which there were present forty-three bishops, whose leader was Candidus, bishop of Tibur. In this synod, Peter the Fuller, since he had occupied the Church of Antioch in a tyrannical manner, was struck with anathema. But Acacius, along with Peter of Alexandria, was condemned with a repeated excommunication. There exists a synodical epistle of this council written to all the presbyters and archimandrites residing at Constantinople and throughout Bithynia. In it, the double excommunication of Acacius and also the two Roman synods in which Acacius was condemned are clearly and distinctly commemorated. For the first Roman synod is designated by these words, which are read at the beginning of this epistle: "Since Vitalis and Misenus, being established by our judgment, explained the causes of the legation entrusted to them for the faith, because the sons of darkness are more prudent than the sons of light, they were found to be prevaricators of the legation entrusted to them, with Acacius circumventing and further oppressing them," etc. Then the first condemnation of Acacius is related in these words: "Acacius, also, more perniciously gaping at the members of Christ, and dissipating the one Church of the catholic faith throughout cities and provinces, we have judged not to be held among the holy bishops and among Christians," etc. But the other Roman synod and the second condemnation of the same Acacius is mentioned a little later in these words: "Whence now, for the cause of the Church of Antioch, having gathered at the feet of Blessed Peter the Apostle, we have hastened again to comply with your affection, which has always obtained among us" ^C to indicate. And a little later: "But thus Acacius extended his impiety of pestiferous condemnation, that even after being deposed he might insult, that though cut off he might not cease to rage; and although he is held as entirely outside the body, he nevertheless tears its members." And it is testified that it is written concerning him: "The impious man, when he has come into the depth of evils, holds them in contempt, adding worse things to previous ones, persecuting those who are now dead, and by sinning gravely his soul incurs the condemnation of the second death." Who, as we have learned, upon Calendio the holy bishop being recently ejected, thrust Peter, who had been so often and before condemned by him, into his Church. Here someone will say that the Roman synod is not designated as double by the words we have brought forward, but only a double action or sitting of one synod: and that this is sufficiently declared from the fact that those things which were done in both sittings are contained in a single epistle: whereas if the synod had truly been double, two epistles should also have been written. But I, for my part, first answer thus: That as far as this dispute is concerned, it matters little whether the Roman synod was double or only one. For it suffices for me, while I shall show that Acacius was condemned by a repeated excommunication, which is what I undertook to prove at the beginning of this dispute. But I am progressing further now, and I shall demonstrate more than I promised: that those were indeed two synods in which Acacius was condemned; not two actions of one synod. And I will prove this by these reasons. Both synods were indeed gathered in the same year and in the same place (72), namely, in the basilica of the Blessed Peter the Apostle, in the consulship of Venantius, most illustrious man, that is, in the year of Christ 484. But the former was gathered on the fifth day before the Kalends of August, as is gathered from the subscription of the sentence of deposition sent from Pope Felix to Acacius. But the second was gathered on the Kalends of August, as I gather from the subscription of the epistle of Pope Felix to Zeno Augustus, which was first brought to light by Jacques Sirmond, a man most deserving for his contribution to letters. Thus only a space of four days intervened between each synod. From which I think it happened that the bishops included those things which were transacted in both synods in a single epistle. Moreover, sixty-seven bishops were present at the former synod; who all also subscribed to the sentence of deposition of Acacius, as the subscription attached to the end of that sentence teaches. But at the second synod, forty-three bishops were present, whose leader was Candidus of Tibur, as is read in the synodical epistle of that same council to all the presbyters and archimandrites residing at Constantinople and throughout Bithynia. Finally, the first Roman synod was gathered by Pope Felix to hear the account of the legation of Vitalis and Misenus, who had been sent to Constantinople for the cause of the Church of Alexandria. But the other synod was gathered on account of the Church of Antioch in the city of Rome, as the epistle of the Roman synod testifies to all the presbyters and archimandrites residing at Constantinople and throughout Bithynia, whose words we have brought forward above. ^D

CHAPTER IV. Concerning the Acts of the later Roman synod.

›

caused the cause of the Church to be celebrated at Rome, the acts all perished, except the synodical epistle which was written to all the presbyters and archimandrites residing in Constantinople and throughout Bithynia. To this epistle was joined the sentence of Pope Felix against Acacius. Since this had been written during the previous Roman synod, it was suppressed for some time, as I have observed before. And finally, after a few days, when news of the deposition of Calendion and of the violent irruption of Peter of Antioch had been reported, a synod was gathered again, and it was decided that the same sentence should be carried to Acacius by Tutus, a defender of the Roman Church. Letters were handed to this same Tutus to be carried to the Emperor Zeno, in which the bishops supplicated that he might be willing to obey the decrees of the synod. There were also other letters to the clergy, the senate, and the people of Constantinople. Subjoined to these two epistles were the aforementioned synodical letters, written ^B to all the presbyters and archimandrites residing in Constantinople and throughout Bithynia, to which all the bishops, forty-three in number, had subscribed, both individually and collectively. This, indeed, was done by the bishops with the intention that these letters of theirs might not be changed by evil men, or corrupted by perverse interpretations, as the bishops attest in that synodical epistle in these words: "Lest, however, anything should be maliciously changed in our letters among those of perverse mind, or be otherwise interpreted, we have first directed these same letters of ours to your love, the clergy, the plebs, and the most ample senate, supplicating, as was fitting, the most clement prince, to which we have subscribed, both individually and collectively." These letters still exist today, written both to the Emperor Zeno and to the clergy and plebs of Constantinople, which Jacobus Sirmondus first published under the name of Pope Felix, and there is no doubt that they pertain to this synod. They were written by Pope Felix in the name of the whole synod, as was the custom of ^C the Roman Church from ancient times, just as the bishops expressly testify in the epistle mentioned above. However, the subscriptions of the bishops survive only in part. For the subscription of Candidus, Bishop of Tibur, alone is read. But the names of the remaining forty-two bishops, who had similarly subscribed, are missing. Felix wrote, moreover, to the Eastern bishops, commanding them that they should abstain from the communion of Peter of Antioch, as a heretic and one condemned by synodal sentence. This epistle of Felix does not exist today, but Victor of Tunnuna mentions it in his *Chronicle*, writing as follows: "Under the consulship of Theodoric, v.c., Felix, the prelate of the Roman Church, writes to the monks and clerics tarrying throughout the East, Egypt, and Bithynia, that they should view Peter, Bishop of Alexandria — a detractor of the Council of Chalcedon — and his communicants, that is, Acacius and Peter of Antioch, as heretics."

CHAPTER V.

CHAPTER VI.

which Liberatus reports that he wrote to Acacius after the condemnation of Vitalis and Misenus, when it is certain that Pope Felix sent the sentence of deposition to Acacius on the fourth or fifth day after their condemnation, as I demonstrated above? Therefore, another admonition must be sought, by which Acacius would have been admonished a second time by Felix. To me, indeed, this second admonition seems to be none other than the letter of citation transmitted by Pope Felix to Acacius through the legates Vitalis and Misenus: which begins thus: "As episcopal diligence warns, your charity ought to have, etc." Nor will anyone, I hope, who has read that letter, doubt that this is the second admonition sent by Pope Felix to Acacius. For in this letter Pope Felix kindly warns Acacius that, having accepted the letter of accusation which John Tabennesiota had presented to the Roman See against him, he should hasten to Rome as soon as possible, to answer the crimes objected against him in the council of the bishops of Italy.

CHAPTER VII ^A In the sentence of deposition also, which Pope Felix sent to Acacius, there is a certain passage which could deservedly trouble the reader. For it is read thus at the end of his sentence: "Acknowledge that the name and office of your priestly ministry have been removed from you, by the judgment of the Holy Spirit and the apostolic authority condemned, and never to be freed from the chains of anathema." For that severity truly seems excessive, and alien to a Christian bishop, to bind a man to the chain of anathema in such a way that he can never be entirely freed from it. But this was not the intention of Pope Felix, who always wished with all his vows that Acacius, having cast off his former error and repudiated the communion of heretics, would return to the unity of the Catholic Church. When, therefore, he says that Acacius is never to be freed from the chains of anathema, these are the words of one threatening, by which he declares to Acacius that he shall never be freed from the chain of anathema, unless he repents and separates himself entirely from the communication of heretics. Thus, certainly, does Pope Gelasius explain this passage in his tome on the chain of anathema, in which he answers the Orientals who were criticizing these words of Pope Felix in the sentence of the condemnation of Acacius. The words of Gelasius are these: "Which also in the sentence against Acacius is reasonably to be understood, in which, even if it is said to him: 'And never to be forgiven,' yet it is not added: 'Even if you should repent; even if you should depart from error; even if you should cease to be a prevaricator.' Wherefore it is open that it is spoken thus: 'Never to be forgiven,' but such a one, of course, as he is while bound; but not of such an effect as if one who could not be bound should be said to be unable to be absolved." And somewhat later: "Therefore he himself made the sentence insoluble in his own case, who chose to remain such as one who truly could not be absolved, etc."

CHAPTER VIII ^B [Refutation of Baronius’s opinion.] These are the things which we have collected from the best writers for the illustration of Acacian history, and have contributed to the best of our ability; which were either omitted by Baronius, or mentioned otherwise than they should have been. For Baronius, at the year of Christ 484, after he recorded the condemnation of Vitalis and Misenus, writes thus concerning Acacius: "These things having been accomplished, in another session the case of Acacius was considered; and all the crimes manifestly perpetrated by him having been brought into the open, it was the judgment of all that he was condemned, polluted by participation with heretics. But not even then did it seem to the Fathers that the sentence of excommunication should be hurled against him: but he was again admonished by synodical letters written to him that he should repent: otherwise he should know that he was to be struck by the sentence of excommunication." And Liberatus testifies to this admonition which preceded the sentence. And a little later: "Furthermore, such synodical letters sent to Acacius are desired." But it is established that it was so far from the case that Acacius repented ^C that, just as recently, through the agency of Acacius himself, he had been excommunicated by the Roman pontiff along with Peter, the same Acacius created him bishop of Tyre: but Peter Fullo he confirmed in the Antiochene See, as the letters of Pope Felix given to the Constantinopolitan clergy declare, which are to be recited below. There are many things in this narrative which we cannot concede to Baronius. For first, what he writes from the deacon Liberatus concerning the synodical letters sent by Pope Felix to Acacius, we have refuted abundantly, I think, a little above. Then, that Baronius asserts that the sentence of condemnation against Acacius was delayed, that is manifestly refuted by the letter of the Roman synod itself to all the presbyters and archimandrites residing in Constantinople and throughout Bithynia. For in this letter, which contains an accurate account of the proceedings in that Roman synod, first indeed Vitalis and Misenus are said to be condemned; ^D but afterwards, with no delay interposed, Acacius is removed from priestly honor and ecclesiastical communion. The words of the letter are these: "Having therefore discovered these worse [crimes], we have suspended Vitalis and Misenus from the priestly college and most holy communion; and Acacius also, breathing more perniciously into the members of Christ, and dissipating the one Church of the Catholic Faith through cities and provinces, we have judged not to be held among holy bishops and among Christians. For how could it be that he who was rending the tunic of Christ, which not even those who crucified him dared to divide, could be counted in the number of the faithful? Therefore, thinking and providing all things that befit us in the fear of God, lest the Eutychian pestilence of heresy, which has been so often extinguished, and of which Acacius is the defender and patron, should creep like a cancer and disperse the members of Christ; we already now anathematize him as a putrid limb, severed by the aforementioned sentence." You see that no mention is made here of a delay interposed; but after the condemnation of Vitalis and Misenus, the sentence of excommunication was immediately launched against Acacius. But if a delay had been interposed, without a doubt the bishops would have reported it in the synodical letter to the archimandrites. For that would have had no small weight in exaggerating the crime of Acacius; but neither does Pope Gelasius in his *Gesta* concerning the name of Acacius make any mention of an interposed delay. For he writes thus: "Considering which things in the synod, the most blessed Pope was moved, and suspended Vitalis and Misenus from office and communion, and condemned Acacius." But what Baronius adds, that Acacius, after the condemnation of Vitalis and Misenus, handed over the bishopric of the Tyrians to John of Antioch, in that he errs gravely. For long before the Roman synod, in which Vitalis and Misenus were condemned, Acacius had promoted that John to the bishopric of Tyre, as Gelasius teaches in the *Gesta* concerning the name of Acacius. For there he writes that John Tabennesiota, when he had come to Rome, and the letter of Acacius to Pope Simplicius was read to him, in which he requested that Peter and John of Antioch be condemned by the judgment of the Apostolic See, he observed in this part also the most grave lapses and excesses of Acacius. The words of Gelasius are these: "Which, when the aforementioned Alexandrian bishop John had read through, he could not be silent about the fact that that same John, whom Acacius had condemned with Peter, and had caused to be condemned by the apostolic see without hope of penance; after so many condemnations, he sent to preside over the Church of the Tyrians." After, therefore, holy Pope Felix learned that not only had the letters of his predecessor profited nothing, and that some mockeries were being made by Acacius for the overturning of the entire ecclesiastical discipline, with Vitalis the bishop having been chosen, etc. Since, therefore, John the Alexandrian came to Rome, in the consulship of Trocundus and Severus, that is, in the year of Christ 482, the promotion of John of Antioch to the bishopric of Tyre, which is said to have been done by Acacius, must have happened before his arrival. For John the Alexandrian would not have narrated to the Romans anything except those things which

had happened before his own arrival, and which the Romans had not yet learned. But Pope Felix also, in the sentence of condemnation pronounced against Acacius, where he commemorates all his excesses, or, to use the word of Felix himself, his transgressions, while keeping the order of time, relates this first: "You have rashly claimed for yourself the rights of other provinces; you have received into your communion heretical usurpers, and those ordained by heretics, and those whom you yourself had condemned, and whom you had urged to be condemned by the Apostolic See; and furthermore, you have caused them to preside over other Churches—which could not even be done of Catholics—or you have even advanced them to honors which they did not deserve." John, whom the Catholics at Apamea refused to receive, and whom they drove out of Antioch, and whom you set over the Tyrians, bears witness to this. Liberatus also, in his *Breviarium*, chapter 18, refers to this promotion of John of Antioch to the bishopric of Tyre, which was done by Acacius, as taking place before the legation of Vitalis and Misenus, just as Gelasius relates in the *Gesta de nomine Acacii*, the words of which he also describes. ^A Baronius was deceived by the letter of the Roman synod to all the presbyters and archimandrites residing in Constantinople and throughout Bithynia, in which these words are read: "It was also added then, while these things were being treated in the examination, that Acacius made that John preside over the Church of the Tyrians, who had been ordained bishop for the Apameans by Peter, the tyrant of the Church of Antioch," etc. But these words do not say what Baronius supposed, namely that John had been appointed over the Church of the Tyrians by Acacius at the time when Acacius’s case was being examined in the Roman synod; rather, they say only this: that while the crimes of Acacius were being discussed in the aforementioned synod, that fact was added among other things, that he had placed over the Church of the Tyrians John of Antioch, whom he had formerly condemned himself, and whom he had taken care to have condemned by the Apostolic See along with Peter of Antioch. In this, the transgression was twofold: first, that he had rashly invaded provinces in no way pertaining to him, namely by ordaining an Antiochene as bishop of the Tyrians; and second, that he had not only received into his communion a man condemned by both himself and the judgment of the Apostolic See, without the consent of that same See, but had even promoted him to the honor of the priesthood. And if anyone desires to know when this was done by Acacius, I think I have discovered the time itself. For when Calendio, on the orders of the Emperor Zeno, had been ordained bishop of Antioch by Acacius at Constantinople—which was done in the year of Christ 482, under the consulship of Trocondus and Severinus—the Antiochenes, ignorant of this, created John, surnamed Codonatus, bishop at the same time. When this was announced to the emperor, Zeno, by the persuasion of Acacius, who had very great influence with him, ordered that John be transferred to the bishopric of Tyre. Theophanes relates this in his *Chronicle*, p. 110, with these words: "Zeno, because of what had been dared against Stephen, ordered Acacius of Constantinople to ordain a bishop of Antioch. And he ordained Calendio. But the Antiochenes, having unknowingly ordained John, surnamed Codonatus, whom Calendio then transferred to Tyre as the first throne of Antioch." Victor Tonnensis mentions this same John Codonatus in his *Chronicle*; but preposterously, as is his habit. For he writes: "After the second consulship of Longinus, V. C., Peter of Antioch dies under condemnation, and Acacius ordains Calendio in his place. But the Eastern bishops, as if unknowing, consecrate John, surnamed Codonatus, as bishop of that same Church of Antioch." Theophanes, indeed, does not say that John Codonatus was transferred to the bishopric of Tyre by Acacius. But it is likely that Calendio, who had been consecrated by Acacius, transferred John thither at the persuasion of Acacius. Therefore, the Italian bishops in their synodal epistle, and Pope Felix in the sentence of condemnation of Acacius, rightly say that what was done was done at the persuasion and authority of Acacius. ^B (It should be noted, furthermore, that this John is called a Constantinopolitan in the letter to Acacius which Holstenius first published in the *Collectio Romana*; either because he had been born in that city, or because he had first been a presbyter there. I have called him an Antiochene throughout this chapter, because he held the bishopric of Antioch for some time. It is better, however, to call him a Constantinopolitan, as Pope Simplicius calls him.) ^C One thing still remains in the words of Baronius cited above, which one might rightly criticize. For Baronius calls that letter of the Roman synod to all the presbyters and archimandrites residing in Constantinople and throughout Bithynia "the letter of Pope Felix to the clergy of Constantinople." And as far as the name of Felix is concerned, I would readily concede it to Baronius, provided those letters are understood to have been written by Felix in the name of the whole synod. But in what Baronius says, that they were given to the clergy of Constantinople, I do not agree with him. For they were given to the archimandrites of the city of Constantinople and of the province of Bithynia, who were decorated with the honor of the presbyterate. Certainly, the bishops in that letter to all the presbyters and archimandrites residing in Constantinople and through Bithynia testify that they sent the same letters to the clergy of the city of Constantinople. Therefore, the presbyters and archimandrites of Constantinople are to be distinguished from the clergy of the same city. That they were the same presbyters and archimandrites is taught by the third epistle of Pope Felix edited by Jacques Sirmond, which has this inscription: "Felix to Rufinus, Thalassius, presbyters and archimandrites, and to the rest of the monks residing around Constantinople and Bithynia." (Likewise the epistle of Pope Simplicius to Acacius, which is read in the *Collectio Romana*, p. 194.)

ANNO DOMINI DLXX-DCVIII. SAINT EULOGIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA. NOTICE.

(Galland, *Biblioth. Patrum*, Vol. XII, p. xiv.)

[...of the] Mother of God of the Justinianists, and finally that he attained the See of Antioch, we learn from Photius (a). He succeeded John I in the episcopate in the year 579, as Lequien argues from the tables of Theophanes and the list of Nicephorus (b). Pagi differs slightly, writing that he was raised to the Alexandrian throne in the year 580 (c). For this reason, neither the opinion of the Bollandists nor that of Sollerius is to be admitted; the former drags back the beginning of the prelacy of Eulogius to the year 576 (d); the latter, however, hands it down as the year 577, and that he died in the year 604 (e). Therefore, the year of the death of Eulogius must be set as 607. For we learn both from the tables of Theophanes and from Nicephorus Callisti (f) that he served in the episcopate for 27 years, in whom we read ἑπτὰ πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσιν, where the translator wrongly renders it twenty-five. Hence, it follows that in the list of Nicephorus, the text must be corrected, i.e., in place of 17, 27 should be rewritten—an error of scribes not entirely infrequent. In the ecclesiastical tables, his memory is celebrated on the 13th of September; in the Menologium of the Greeks, however, on the 13th of February (g).

II. He was a man excelling in piety and learning. John Moschus recounts some things concerning him worthy of note (h): among which, first of all, [is the fact that] when the same Alexandrian prelate had traveled to Constantinople, he had been in the company of the Roman archdeacon, Lord Gregory, a man of the highest and singular character and adorned with every virtue, who affirmed that he had narrated to him that a wondrous history is held written in the Roman Church concerning the epistle of Saint Pope Leo to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, which was amended by the hand of Blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles. Concerning this same epistle of that holy pontiff, which Eulogius received and praised, another wondrous thing is narrated in the Menologium of the Greeks (i). Furthermore, our Alexandrian prelate was indeed most dear to Gregory, as can be understood from the Register of his own epistles. The supreme pontiff praises his zeal most of all, whether in opposing or in converting heretics; and he attributes the conversion of the English to his prayers (j). He also calls him an instrument of God, a minister of truth, and a follower of Peter (k).

III. Eulogius committed many things to writing, which, however, have almost all perished, except for a few fragments which Photius preserves in his review (l). Among these, there exist among others seven chapters *On the two natures of our Lord and God and Savior*, among the theological and polemical Opuscula of Saint Maximus the Confessor (m); which we have brought forth from there from the translation of François Combefis. To these chapters, indeed, we have prefixed his *Oration on the Feast Day of Palms*, translated by the same Combefis (n), who described it from a Royal Parisian codex and illustrated it with notes. It had indeed been published long ago from an Oxford codex and attributed to Cyril of Alexandria, to whom it is also ascribed in codex 285 of the Bibliothèque Coisliniane (o): "But with the style itself resisting," says the praised Combefis (p), "as its translator among the works of Cyril had perceived." Thus, in passing, anyone who is more famous because of published writings also draws the writings of others to himself, where there is some great similarity with him.

ST. EULOGIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA — NOTITIA

it is appropriate, as it is here in the case of Eulogius and Cyril, bishops of the same see. The entire content persuades us that it belongs to Eulogius, as does that great affinity it bears to other works of this same Eulogius that were excerpted by Photius. Everywhere he fights sharply against the Eutychians, a man clearly worthy of being numbered by Pope Agatho, in his suggestion to the Sixth Synod, among the first and foremost defenders of the Synod of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. The discourse is partly festive, partly polemical. He plays beautifully upon the words and senses of Scripture. Our antiquary had broken off almost in the middle: which for them is a not altogether unusual piece of plagiarism; it has also been detected elsewhere in Amphilochius and Chrysostom.

SECOND NOTITIA

The third volume (τεῦχος τρίτον) of the Patriarch of Alexandria, Eulogius (a)—a work now lost—was distinguished into eleven books, of which the first contained an Apology for the synodical letters sent to the Bishop of Rome (to Gregory the Great) (b), in which he was reproved because he had not acknowledged—even by name—the four ecumenical councils, nor the letter of Leo of Rome, nor had he pronounced anathema against Eutyches, Dioscorus, and Severus; the second, an exposition of the faith; the third, fourth, and fifth, an Apology for the Synod of Chalcedon and for Cyril of Alexandria against the calumnies of the heretics; the sixth, against those who think that true Christian theology can be subjected to human or philosophical conceptions (πρὸς τοὺς οἰομένους ἀνθρωπίναις ἐπινοίαις δύνασθαι τὴν ἀληθῆ τῶν Χριστιανῶν οὐσιώδη θεολογίαν); the seventh, addressed to Domitian, Bishop of Melitene (Armenia), concerning the correctness of the statement that "the Word has become flesh" (μία φύσις τοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη) (c). The eighth, to a certain Christophorus, giving solutions to certain passages of Holy Scripture; and in the ninth chapter, an *Encomium of the Monastic Life*. The ninth, an exhortation to those who have departed from the Church, they themselves having been divided again into various parties. The tenth, against the Agnoetae monks, which work is praised by Gregory the Great in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria, written in the year 600, book VIII, 42. The eleventh, finally, the Acts of the synod held in the seventh year of Maurice (this is to be read instead of Marcian), in the year of Christ 588, against the Samaritan Dositheans (d), and a certain Dosthenus or Dositheus, an equal to Simon Magus (not, as other Samaritans hold, Joshua, nor our Jesus being the great prophet foretold by Moses in Deut. xviii, 15), and who denied the resurrection of the dead, which doctrine Eulogius confirmed from Mosaic writings.

*Index of writers and heretics mentioned by Eulogius in these books.* *According to the pages of the Hoeschelian Greek edition of Photius.*

Agnoetae, against whom Eulogius writes, 464 seq. Ambrosius: "The wondrous one," in the fourth book *On the Incarnation*, 441, 452; to Albinus, 445. Amphilochius, Bishop of Side, 463. Apollinarius: "The mindless one" (ἄνους), 437, 438, 439, 440, 445, 447, 448. Those who think according to Apollinarius, 451; those who are sick in mind, 552. In the book *On the Incarnation*, 441. Arius, 448. "The madness of the Arians," 466. Athanasius, 438, 449. In the book *On the Incarnation*, 445. Baradatus, 463. Basilius M., 449, 457; he is stung by the Severians: "The innovation of the Cappadocians and the opinion of Athanasius," 448. Basilius, "In the struggle against the Anomoean" (*Libris Contra Eunomium*), 457. Christophorus, to whom Eulogius writes, calling him "most holy" (ὁσιώτατον), 461. Cyrillus Alex., 438, 444, 445, 446, 459, 465, 466. "The teacher," 446, 447, 457, 458. "The warm lover of precision," 441. "Who else is more great-sounding or more trustworthy?" 442. "Abundant in mind, never entrusting his mind to the words and the names, but bringing around and adjusting both the words and the names to the thoughts," 446. "The standard of precision," 452. "The teacher of precision," 454. Epistles to Succensus, 439, 446, 447, 449, 450. To Valerianus, Bishop of Iconium, 431, 449, 452, 453, 462. To Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, 442 seq., 452. To Eulogius, 443, 447. *In the Thesaurus*, 453. *In the first of the Treasuries*, 446. *In the dialogue which is titled That Christ is One*, 447. *In the second anathema*, 450. *In the address to the queens* (πρὸς βασιλίδας), 450. *In the so-called first tome*, 451. *In the epistle toward you*, 460, a corrupt passage. Dioscorus, 437, 447, 450, 451.

Domitianus, bishop of Melitene, to whom Eulogius writes, 459, 461. ^A Dosthen or Dositheus, from whom the Dositheans, against whom Eulogius writes, 466, 467, 468. Eutyches, 437, 438, 439, 440, 448, 451. Flavian (of Constantinople), the petition offered to the Emperor Theodosius, 444, 460. Read in the Council of Chalcedon, 451, 460. Gregory Neocaesariensis, *In the work on the partial faith* (ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς κατὰ μέρος πίστεως), 445. Gregory the Theologian, 447, 457, 466. *In the Apologeticus* (ἐν τῷ ἀπολογητικῷ), 452. *The theologians* (οἱ θεολόγοι), 455. The Gregories (Nazianzen and Nyssen), 448, 449. John, bishop of Antioch, 441. The epistle attributed to Julius of Rome to Dionysius, of questionable faith, 445, 448. His epistle to Docimus, praised by Cyril at the Synod of Ephesus, 445, 446. Pope Leo, 463. His epistle, 437, 461. He is censured by the Severians as "the Italian fashion" (τῶν Ἰταλίᾳ ὁ τύπος), 448. The cyclical letters (ἐγκύκλια γράμματα) of the Emperor Leo, by which the decrees of the Synod of Chalcedon are confirmed, 462. Manes, 440, 448. The epistle of the Manichaeans to Scythianus, 447. Mosaic Octateuch (Μωσαϊκὴ Ὀκτάτευχος), 466, the eight books of the Old Testament in which the books of Moses take the lead. Nestorius, 440, 442, 443, 446, 452, 453. Faith of the Orientals, 442, 444, 452, 453, 454. The God-bearing fathers (οἱ θεοφόροι Πατέρες), 457. *To many of the Fathers* (πολλοῖς τῶν Πατέρων), 457, etc. Paul, bishop of Emesa, 441, 442. Paul of Samosata, 448. The Pneumatomachian (Macedonius), ^B condemned at the Synod of Constantinople, 450. Polemius, disciple of Apollinarius, 447. Samaritans, against whom Eulogius writes, 466 et seq. Severus, 437, 444, 460, 463. Those of Severus's party (οἱ ἀπὸ Σευήρου), 447 et seq. *Writing to the grammarian Sergius* (πρὸς τὸν γραμματικὸν Σέργιον γράφων), 461. The new lawgiver (ὁ καινὸς νομοθέτης), 457. Of the dispersion of Severus (τῆς Σευήρου διασπορᾶς), 462. Simeon Stylites, 463. *Great Simeon who on his pillar passed that angelic life* (ὁ μέγας Συμεὼν ὁ ἐν τῷ στύλῳ τὸν ἀγγελικὸν ἐκεῖνον βίον διανυσάμενος). Simon Magus, 466. Synod of Alexandria, document of the faith (πίστις ἔγγραφος), sent by Cyril to Nestorius before the Synod of Ephesus, 450. Synod of Chalcedon, 444, 447, 448, 451, 460, 461. Under the emperors Marcian and Leo (Thrace), 463. Synod of Constantinople, 447, 450. Synod of Nicaea, 448, 450, 457. Theodoret is numbered among the holy men, 462. *The Theologian* (John the Evangelist), 459. Timothy the heretic, 463. Theodore of Mopsuestia, 451, 452. Valentinus the heretic, 448. His words: "We pour out broad laughter at the Galileans who say there are two natures in Christ; for we say that the nature of the visible and the invisible is one" (τῶν Γαλιλαίων ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ δύο φύσεις λεγόντων, πλατὺν καταχέομεν γέλωτα· ἡμεῖς γὰρ τοῦ ὁρατοῦ καὶ ἀοράτου μίαν εἶναι τὴν φύσιν φαμέν), 446. Two books, long lost, to Domitianus, bishop of Melitene, in defense of the tome of Leo of Rome—which opposed Nestorius and Eutyches alike—containing an Apology against the Acephali, Timothy, who had attacked it acutely, and Severus, who had opposed it at length. In this writing of Eulogius it is excellently demonstrated: ^C *One must not judge writings from a part, nor by taking certain fragments use them to slander the whole intention of the author* (μὴ δεῖν ἐκ μέρους τὰ συγγράμματα κρίνειν, μηδ' ἀποσπαράγματά τινα λαμβάνοντας διὰ τούτων τὴν ὅλην τοῦ γράφοντος ἐνδιαβάλλειν διάνοιαν). That from the writings or the mind of the writers judgment should not be rendered from parts and shreds, nor should they be burdened with slander on this account. He praises, among other things, the sixth book of Eustathius of Antioch against the Arians; for it must be read thus, *in the sixth book against the Arians* (ἐν ἔκτῳ λόγῳ κατὰ Ἀρειανῶν), instead of *in six books* (ἐν ἓξ λόγοις), since Eustathius had written eight books against the Arians, concerning which I have spoken in vol. IX, p. 135 et seq. Furthermore, Basil's epistle to the Sozopolitans and to the monks. He notes the epistle of Severus to Julian of Halicarnassus. Certain slips and hallucinations of the interpreter Schott in this chapter and the next were noted by Mr. Elias Veiel in his *Diatribe de sacris oikonomiae generibus*, p. 19 et seq., Ulm, 1688, 4. IV. *Thesaur. epistol., Lacrozian.*, tom. III, p. 202.

A book by the same Eulogius, priest first of Antioch and abbot of St. Mary of the Justinianeans, and finally Pope or bishop of Alexandria, for the same tome of Leo of Rome, against the Theodosians and the Acephali (Severus), who criticized Leo for points which not only the Synod of Chalcedon and Cyril, but the holy doctors Athanasius, Gregory, Basil, Ambrose, and Amphilochius had confirmed by their own votes. This lucubration of Eulogius has also perished. See Reinesius, *Var. lect.*, p. 152.

By the same holy man, an *Invective* (στηλιτευτικὸς) against the Theodosians and the Gainites, followers of Gaius (of whom see above, p. 216, old ed.), regarding their sudden reconciliation and concord, which was soon after broken again; cf. Reinesius, *Var. lect.*, p. 466. By *oikonomia* (dispensation / economy) in this chapter, one must not understand, as Schott does, the incarnation; ^D thence it was necessary that the entire speech should be rendered obscure; rather, it refers to ecclesiastical dispensation in preserving peace with the dissidents and avoiding troubles and tumults, provided that sound doctrine suffers no detriment thereby. Just as Gregory Nazianzen says that Athanasius yielded in words and was easygoing where he had observed a consensus in the matter: and in his *Oration on Pentecost* he rebukes those who find fault with the syllables.

A SERMON ON PALM SUNDAY, AND ON THE COLT OF AN ASS. BY OUR HOLY FATHER EULOGIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA

^A 1. We who are believers, celebrating today the royal advent, let us meet the King as is worthy of God. The time is at hand; let us not sleep; let us lift up our minds to God; let us not quench the Spirit; let us brightly kindle our lamps; let us change the tunic of the soul; let us carry palms as victors; with the crowd, let us shout what the crowd shouts; with the children, let us sing as children sing: "Hosanna: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." For behold, he has come; behold, he has appeared; behold, the King is present. Again he enters Jerusalem; again the cross is prepared; again the handwriting against Adam is torn asunder; again paradise is opened; again the robber is brought into the dwelling. Again the Church leads the dance. Again the wicked synagogue is widowed; again the demons are put to shame; again the Jews rage; again ^B the faithful are saved. Again all things participate in the feast; all things hymn the Master. The heavens rejoice; the mountains exult. O rivers, clap your hands; draw near, cry out, seeing the words of the prophets now become reality. O hills, be jubilant; O crowds, shout; in—

O infants, sing hymns; disciples, preach; priests, speak; theologians, glorify; O inhabitants of Sion, run to meet Him; O nations, gather together; O beings heavenly, earthly, and under the earth, every rank and age, for He comes to benefit all; He has appeared to have mercy on all; He acts as the bestower of joy to all. Being God, He has become man, ^A and has been seen on earth, and has lived among men. The Lord is with the servants; the Payer [of debts] is with the debtors; the Salvation is with the lost; the Redeemer is with the condemned; the Hope is with the despairing; the Resurrection is with those who lie below; the Merciful One is with the ungrateful; the Liberator is with the fugitives; the Innocent is with the guilty. With those who are liable to punishment is He who is liable to none. With sinners is the Sinless One; toward the ungrateful, He who gives generously to all.

II. A Sermon on the feast of the palms.

^B II. Do you see, beloved, the mystery of the feast? Do you see the miracles of the present day? Yesterday Bethany was keeping the feast; today the whole Church enjoys the divine presence. Yesterday He bestowed life upon another; today He Himself comes to death. Yesterday the four-day-old man was raised; today the Three-Day One is present. He raised the four-day-old Lazarus, that He might provide a pledge beforehand of the common resurrection of our nature, which is composed of the four elements. But there, indeed, Martha is distracted, bearing the figure of the legal worship; here, however, Mary sits at the feet of the Lord, depicting the Church’s affection and sitting-in-waiting for Him. And He who, six days before the Passover, through the five senses of the body, restored the four-day-old Lazarus, giving back one brother in two, commands that man’s bonds be loosed; but He Himself now arrives destined to experience bonds. But He arrives, not with a mob or with uproar; nor does He carry with Him the Virtues, and Principalities, and Powers invisibly surrounding Him like a retinue; ^C nor is He seated on a throne exalted and lifted up; nor is He covered by any wings, and fire-formed wheels, and many-eyed creatures; nor does He terrify and shake all things with trumpets, and powers, and portents; but He is hidden in human nature. For this is an advent of kindness, not of power; of indulgence, not of severity; of condescension, not of retribution. He does not appear in the glory of the Father, but He is manifested in the humility of the Mother. This advent Zechariah the marvelous proclaimed to us from afar, and, summoning all creation to joy as if in the person of the Church, shouted to Jerusalem, saying: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion. This same voice Gabriel also used to the Virgin, saying: Rejoice, ^D full of grace, the Lord is with thee. This also the Savior Himself, when He had risen from the dead, shouted to the women.

^A That you might learn that because of the ancient voice which Eve heard—"In sorrow you shall bring forth children"—for this reason He shouted "Rejoice" to the women, just as Zechariah also preached, saying: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; proclaim, O daughter of Jerusalem." What is this proclamation? Explain it openly, O prophet: "Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, you who bring good tidings; lift up your voice." What is He to say to Sion? "Behold, your King comes to you, humble." How so? You have spoken of the advent; explain the mode. Is it in chariots and vehicles? Is it with forces and armies, and cavalry, and the rest of the pageantry of kings? By no means, he says. How then? Mounted upon an ass and a new colt. What are you saying? Does a King ever arrive seated upon a colt, ^B lowly and without glory? Yes, he says. For He does not come possessing the same haughtiness as others. But what? In the form of a servant, as a bridegroom, this gentle one, and as a lamb, meek, and as a quiet drop upon a fleece; and as a sheep to the slaughter, and as an innocent lamb led to the sacrifice, so He arrives, bearing the irrational nature of men, and sitting upon an irrational creature, teaching men not to be puffed up: "Putting down the mighty from their thrones, and exalting the humble; filling the hungry with good things, and sending the rich away empty," having twelve, and those miserable men, in His company, through whom He calls together the nations. This is the branch that sprouted from the root of Jesse, to whom the children of the Hebrews, meeting Him today, hold out olive branches as to a merciful One, and exult with palms as to the victor over death, and say: "Hosanna: Blessed is He who ^C comes in the name of the Lord." For what does the evangelist say?

III. "And it came to pass, when Jesus had drawn near to Bethphage and to Bethany, at the mountain that is called Olivet, He sent two of His disciples, saying: 'Go into the village that is opposite you, and entering into it, you shall find an ass and a new colt, upon which no man has ever sat; untie them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say: The Lord has need of it.'" Then they carry the word of the Word into action, and they led the ass and the colt, and laid their garments upon them, and Jesus sat. The village opposite, therefore, is a type of the present life; for it was ^D opposite and not near to God. When, therefore, He drew near to this village—when, having been made flesh, God became "With us"—then at last He sends two disciples

that is, the two Testaments, to bring to Him the two peoples: the old ass, the worn-out synagogue; and the young foal, the ^A unexercised people of the Gentiles. In saying also "opposite," He signifies that He has sent to release from punishment and to call into heaven him who was placed in the opposite part of the paradise of delights: seeing him now having attained salvation, the ancient prophets and apostles and sacred heralds, with a certain holy procession, go to meet Him who descended from the supernal mountain into Sion for the sake of the voluntary passion, and with auspicious unanimity they offer their divine voices as though they were living olive branches, singing: *10 Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.*

^B IV. What sayest thou? Thou seest Him sitting upon a miserable foal, and thou criest out: *Hosanna in the highest?* Thou lookest upon the form of a servant, and in the name of the Lord, thou callest Him God the Lord? Yea, he says; He sits upon a foal, and is not separated from the Father’s bosom; He is praised by children, and in the heavens is declared God by the Seraphim; He enters into Jerusalem, yet He has not abandoned the Jerusalem above. John sees Him, and immediately meets Him and cries out: *Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.* And another: *Behold our God: behold the Lord, He shall come and save ^C us:* by whom this day the eyes of the blind were opened. One cries out to the Lord toward the East: *Behold the man, the East is His name.* Another commands toward the West: *Make a way for Him who ascendeth upon the setting, the Lord is His name;* and this one says: *Arise, O North,* and that one cries: *Come, O South.* But David, in a most comprehensive and cross-revealing manner, gathers together the proclamation from the East and the West and the North and the Sea. Jeremias, ^D as it were by the indication of a finger, showing the coming One to the Gentiles, sings, saying: *This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge; and after these things He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.* One says to Jerusalem: *Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Sion.* Another urges the children: *Praise the Lord, ye children.* The children answer: *Hosanna: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.* The Psalmist, having heard these things, cries to the Lord: *Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou perfected praise.* The Lord commands the people: *Suffer the little children to come unto me.* Rightly were the children affected by the voice of Elisabeth. For, as that Virgin and Mother of God said—

Blessed is the fruit of thy womb* ^A; they themselves say to Him who was born of her: *Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord.* What is: *Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord*? He who cometh—from where? From heaven, or from the Virgin? He who cometh and goeth forward—whither? To the passion. *In the name of the Lord*—of the Father, clearly—just as Christ Himself said: *I proceeded from the Father, and I go unto my Father.* ^B

V. Did you see the teaching of the theologians among youths ignorant of speech? Children recognized the Lord of creation by nature itself; but their fathers were ungrateful. These praised Him as God, while those crucified Him as an enemy. These chant *Hosanna*; those cry out, *Let him be crucified.* The young and ignorant age is made wise, and they who profess themselves to be wise have been made foolish and are shrouded in darkness. The children spread their garments, and their fathers divided His garments. These take off their own tunics, presaging the nakedness of the synagogue, ^C and at the same time showing us that it is worthwhile to strip off the old man and submit to Christ; those cast lots for His tunic to see whose it would be. The children receive Christ with palm branches; the fathers proceed against Him armed with swords and clubs. These give blessing; those blaspheme. These, as young lambs, accepted the Shepherd; those, like wolves, slaughtered the Lamb. How truly strange and contrary to nature was that spectacle to behold: infants ^D suckling at the breast in the arms of mothers, with one hand holding their mother's breast, and with the other extending palm branches to the God born of the Virgin Mother, pouring forth both maternal milk and the Dominical doctrine from their mouths; and, before the use of words, calling out to the God-Word the fruit of their lips, and saying *Hosanna*—which means, *Save, I beseech thee, who art in the highest.*

VI. Who taught you, O children? Who infused wisdom into you? Who, long before the age for the free use of speech, formed you by a more secret doctrine to speak? Let the ungrateful Jew approach; let the adulterous synagogue be present. Tell me, O Jew, did not all the prophets proclaim to us that Christ was to come? Truly, he says. But this is the point of contention. He has come, VI. he says. Very well. Let us look, then, at the claim of Him who comes, and then recognize…

whether He has come or not. Do you say that He who comes is God, or a mere man? A mere man, he says. Like David, or David himself? Like David. O malicious caviller! O foolish in heart! How then does David himself say that the Lord comes from the Lord? Just as you heard your children just now singing and praising: *Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, God is the Lord, and he has appeared to us*; and again: *The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool*; and again: *The Lord has reigned over the nations*; and: *Say among the nations that the Lord has reigned.* Who then is this King? Hear Isaiah crying out about you: *And they shall desire to be burned by fire.* Why so, O prophet? *Because a child is born to us, a Son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Messenger of great counsel, Wonderful, Counselor, God the mighty, the Potentate, Prince of peace, Father of the coming age.* What do you say, O Jew? Behold, the prophets clearly foretold Him who comes as God.

[VII.] The heretic seizes upon the word. The Manichaean springs forward quickly and says: "Look, since you have clearly confessed Him to be God, who took on flesh from the Virgin, how do you not confess Him to be God who suffered and was crucified, if indeed you say that He who was born and He who was crucified and died are one and the same?" O foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Listen, and believe, and be ashamed. That subsistent Word of the Father, united to the earthly substance of the mother, desiring to renew the image that had long been buried by sin, became man, while preserving in the abject condition of man the height of divinity; not changing the impassibility of the Godhead into passion; nor assuming sin from the nature that had sinned, lest what was for our salvation should become for Him a source of dishonor; and our exaltation be found to be His fall. In no way did He die in His divinity, whatever the Manichaean and Arius and Marcion may rave. For what need would there have been for the Incarnation? He was not crucified in His naked body—although Paul of Samosata may burst with rage—so that we might believe [it was] as the blood of a mere man. For cursed, says the Scripture, is everyone who hangs on a tree, and whoever has hope in a mere man. A man could not save us. For

Moses, or one of the prophets, was not about to die for us; but all were subject to sin. Therefore, we stood in need of the sinless God having been incarnate, and accepting the death for us in the flesh. For this reason, the bodiless One is made flesh, so that what He possesses as impossible through His divinity, He might possess as possible through humanity.

^B VIII. He suffers, and does not suffer: the first, do not attribute to the Word; the second, do not think of the flesh of the Word [yet do not separate the flesh from the Word]. For I do not separate, but I distinguish, that which is proper to either essence. I say the Word remains united, but not suffering along with it—hanging up, but not having accepted the nails into His own nature—being buried, but not dying together—being enclosed, but not circumscribed—the soul being separated from the body, but the Word departing from neither of these. Whence Hades was despoiled, the divine soul having descended thither. For having gone, He preached also to the spirits in Hades; but in the sepulcher, His holy body did not see corruption. For the Word was inseparable from His own flesh, at every time, nowhere leaving this bare or deserted, or godless, or as if it were one of the bodies such as we have. However, even if our rational nature was united according to hypostasis to the Word, yet it was not saved thereby. For how will that which is newly created be saved by that which is before the ages? Or how will that which has a beginning be made like to that which is without beginning? Wherefore you also see Him today sitting upon a colt; but as a man. For He was twofold. Since He also grew, and suckled, and wept, and was in agony according to the law of our nature. For the God Word, having been incarnate, did not refuse the blameless passions of our nature; since otherwise He would have refused it itself before these. The God Word does not sleep in the boat; For He who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep; but our flesh sleeps, which the Word of God put on. The divine nature does not hunger, nor does it grow weary from the journey, as Isaiah says: The great and strong God will not hunger, nor will He labor. How then does He hunger? By the flesh which is from us. How does He suffer? By the flesh which is from us. How does He weep? By the flesh which is from us. How was He put to death? In the flesh; but He is made alive in the spirit. How does He shake the earth? By the divinity which is from the Father. How does He tread upon Hades? By divinity, not out of us. How does He say: I and the Father are one? By the birth above, before the ages. How, The Father is greater than I? By the birth below, from the Virgin. How, He who has seen Me, has seen the Father? By the uncreated nature of the Word. How, I cannot do anything ^C of Myself...

What then? Is the Word of lesser power than the Father? Far be that Arian madness. What is it that He says: "Glorify Me, O Father"? The body of the Word. Who is it that says: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me"? The Word who is in the body. How, "My Father and your Father"? The Father is indeed Father, not of the flesh, but of the God-Word who is from Him. "My God and your God"? God, not of the Word; ^A for how could the God of His equal God exist? But He is God of the form of a servant which is in the Word. "Before Abraham was, I am"? The God-Word who is in the flesh. "The Lord said to Me: You are My Son, this day I have begotten You"? By the recent incarnation of the Word. For it was not one person who was begotten of the Father before the day-star, and another who became incarnate from the Mother in Bethlehem. For even if Paul of Samosata raves these things, yet Paul of Tarsus does not teach them. But when he signifies the form of God in the form of a servant, he cries out: "Who being the brightness of His glory"; but when again he signifies the distinction of the flesh united to the Word, he says: "And God raised up the Lord"; that by showing the distinction of both forms in the body, the Apostle Paul might strike down both Manes, the phantasm-fighter, and Paul, the man-worshipper.

IX. But you, what do you say? What do you establish, O new Manichaean, and pure and unadulterated defender of his madness? Do you not grant that the flesh is called a nature? But there ^B you tremble with fear, where there was no fear. And you do not truly reverence the Lord saying in the time of the passion: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak"? If it is willing, how is it weak? What is the form of Christ? What is the weak flesh? It is entirely that of Adam, who was made weak. But who also prays on bended knees? Does the Word pray? And how, being God, does He need God? If, therefore, He is equal to the Father, just as He is equal, He does not pray in deity, but as man. "I have power to lay down My soul, and I have power to take it up again"; he who has the power, how does he need the help of another? He who says: "Destroy this temple"—that is, His own flesh—"and in three days I will raise it up"; how, O fighter against the deity, is He who raises up His own temple destroyed with the temple? For if He Himself is destroyed, does He not entirely need one to raise Him? You indeed are afraid, as it seems, lest hearing that the body of God suffered ^C, you might worship and communicate with a mere creature. ^D

but I recoil from this, lest I should call the Deity to have suffered and died, and bring the entire mystery of the Trinity into disgrace. For if the Word suffered, but the Father is of an impassible nature, then the essence of the Word would be entirely different from that of God the Father. And what reason ^A would there then be to contend with the Arians on this account? But if the essence of the Father, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit is one, yet the Word of God suffered in the flesh, then the Father and the Holy Spirit must also necessarily be of a passible and mortal essence. For if the Word suffered along with the flesh, He must also have died along with it. And if He died along with it, how did He despoil Hades? How did He raise the dead? And it will be found that, being dead, He was entirely separated from the living Father. And if this is the case, there would no longer be a Trinity in heaven at the time of the passion, but a duality, waiting for the Word to be raised by the Father and to ascend into heaven. O forbidden audacity! What serpent, hissing with his venom, deceived the enemies of God into declaring that the impassible God is passible, making the Creator weaker than created things? Does it not shame you, O heretic, when you see the sun shining on a tree—where the tree is cut down, but the sun is neither separated from it nor cut down along with it—to say that the Sun of Righteousness became passible while in His own body? Nor, O corrupt one, have you ever seen a murderer or some criminal whose head or hands were cut off, yet whose immortal soul did not die along with the body? ^B Then, having received a mortal wound from the Word, the enemy of God has fallen; the opponent of Christ has breathed again; the Jew again behaves shamelessly. What does he say?

X. "See," he says, "that it is not God, but a man that we killed." To him, it is immediately worth our while to say: "Be silent; be hushed; put a bridle upon your mouth." Be it so: you have set naught the Law; be it so: you have killed the prophets; do you not even revere David, who says concerning Christ: "From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten thee" (Ps. CIX, 3)? This is the Father on high. And again: "The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day I have begotten thee" (Ps. II, 7). The one and unique Christ has two births: one from the Father before time, and another from a mother without seed. When, therefore, He says: "I gave my back to the scourges, and my cheeks to the smiting" (Isa. L, 6), these things He took from Mary of the tribe of Judah; and what He took from Judah, these He gave to the Jews ^C to smite and to scourge. But those things which as God He has by nature, these "man shall not see and live" (Exod. XXXIII, 20). But the Jew insists again: "How then does the prophet say concerning the Crucified: 'And we saw'..."

' him and he had no form nor beauty" (Isa. LIII, 2)? But you see again, O foolish one, that it is written concerning Him: "Fair in beauty above the sons of men" (Ps. XLIV, 3). If you say, "What God can be recent?" I in turn will ask you: "What man’s name remains before the sun, and before the moon, for generation of generations?" (Ps. LXXI, 5). And, "He shall descend as rain upon the fleece, and as a drop that falls upon the earth" (Ps. LXXI, 6). ^A Again, perhaps you will say: "What God is sold for thirty pieces of silver?" But I will ask you in turn: "What man’s blood redeemed and sanctified the whole world?" Now if you are offended by that, because you see Him today sitting upon a colt, why do you not also say what the children learned without a teacher, O unlearned one, and shouted together: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord"?

But that the Lord and God who sits as man upon the colt—let your David, though not yours, but the true one, come forth to me, discoursing concerning your children and the One hymned by them—let him say who this is who is being declared God; ^B and standing, as it were, directly before the colt, crying out in this manner: "You who sit on the throne above, and sit on the colt below, 'O Lord our Lord, how admirable is your name in all the earth! For your magnificence is elevated above the heavens. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise because of your enemies, to destroy the enemy and avenger' (Ps. VIII, 2, 3), that is, the devil. You who sit on a colt as a man, you are true God. And we shall see the heavens, the works of your fingers. You who sit on a colt, 'founded the moon and the stars' (Ps. VIII, 4). You 'minimized man a little lower than the angels'—and carrying and wearing man, you exalted him above every principality and power, and 'crowned him with glory and honor.' ^C You who are seen on a colt, 'Your throne, O God, is for the age of the age' (Ps. XLIV, 7). And, 'A rod of uprightness is the rod of your kingdom. You loved righteousness and alone hated iniquity. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you' (Ps. XLIV, 8), because you took upon yourself the form of a servant. He anointed you, not with the anointing of oil, but with the Holy Spirit. For He Himself is the oil of exultation. Therefore also the Virgin, your Mother, was saying: 'My spirit has exulted in God my Savior.'" ^D

' ^A when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. But consider for me, faithful listener, how the all-holy Virgin called her Son God. For she says: 'My God,' according to His divine substance; 'my Son,' according to the substance which He took to Himself from me. For I did not bring forth for the world a mere man, but an incarnate God. And a trustworthy witness is the seal of my virginity. Do not disgrace, O man, the garment which God took from me, lest you insult Him who wears it; do not insult the tabernacle, for truly, by no work of hands was it stitched together for Him who dwelt within it. Do not separate the light from my carnal lamp, lest you wrongly extinguish the sun that has shone upon the world, and that has become man without human seed. For I have not known a man, although I have known God who became man in me.

^B XI. You have, O most faithful and most holy flock of Christ, the praises of the feast: exult. You have the divine and blameless doctrines of the Church: delight in them. You have the spiritual weapons; fight against the wolves of the flock: teach them not to blaspheme: teach them to contend for the truth: demonstrate that the field of our Church and of Christ is pure from all tares. If you are like some Lazarus, bound by the chains of sins or of contrary dogmas, hear today the Word calling to you: 'Come forth,' and be loosed, and arise. But if you are a disciple, and fit for instruction, go at the sending of the Lord, and, having loosed it, lead to Christ the colt and the colts, and many who are bound in error, and who are opposed to the true faith ^C and to the opposite village. And if some speak against you, and attempt to hinder the loosening of those who are miserably bound, saying: 'Why are you loosing the colt?' just as they rebuked the blind for crying out, say you also: 'Because the Lord has need of them.' For the Lord looses the bound; the Lord makes the blind wise, just as you heard today in the Gospel. For since they understood that the Sun of justice had arrived, they rightly were crying out to Him: 'Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David.' O strange and paradoxical miracles! The blind receive their sight, and the seeing Jews are becoming blind. These confess Him as Lord, and those ask: 'Who is this?' For the evangelist says: 'But the crowds that went before and that followed were shouting, saying: Hosanna: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.' ^D And when He had entered into Jerusalem, all the city was shaken, saying: 'Who is this?' Do you see the strange mystery of the King? Sitting upon a colt, He shakes the city, and being nailed to the cross, He shakes the inhabited world; that you may learn that He has come to shake and to overthrow the deceit of the polytheism of the idols.

[XII.] Behold also for me the unknown aspect of the mystery of His economy. When He was in Hades, shaking the prison there, as the Powers above cried out to the powers below, "Lift up your gates, you princes, that He who says, 'I am the door,' may enter," the opposing powers, astonished, answered, "Who is this King of glory?" When He entered the earthly Jerusalem, those amazed by the novelty of the situation asked, "Who is this?" When He returned to the heavenly Jerusalem, the intellectual Powers, who had never seen Him because of His incorporeal nature, seeing Him with a body, marveled at the strange manner of His ascent and were perplexed with one another, saying, "Who is this that has come into the incorporeal realms clothed in a body?" But it is also worth wondering how those royal powers could ask, "Who is this that comes?" when at His birth on earth they had together cried out and sung, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men," having clearly instructed the Hebrew children in this, who were saying on this day, "Hosanna: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." For thus Luke has spoken. And it was to be seen in Zion, as though the heavenly and earthly were answering each other with reciprocal voices and greeting one another. The beings above say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace"; those below answer, "Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." The angels said, "On earth peace"; men cried out, "Peace in heaven." For what reason? Because He is present who cries to all, "Peace be to you." For this, the prophet prayed, saying, "O Lord our God, give us peace"; that is, "Send Your only-begotten Son, that through Him You might be reconciled to us, seeing our nature united to You through Him." Seeing this peace, the heavenly choirs cried out, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace"; that is, a perfect reconciliation of God with His enemies, which the children, having learned, also cried out: "Hosanna: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." For those things which were once hostile ^C have now become brothers; both heavenly and earthly things offer one confession and adoration of the Divinity to Christ, who is both heavenly and earthly. Wherefore the beings above order those below to offer confession of the Divinity: "Let all the families of the nations adore Him." The beings below respond to those above: "Let all the angels of God adore Him." David cries to both: "Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth exult." The children responded: "Hosanna: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

[XIII.] With whom let us also praise and celebrate the feast today, not pompously, but divinely; holding palm branches not only in our hand, but also in our soul, and having made it whiter than snow, let us strip off from it all mortality of the old and skin-clad tunic, having cast aside all pride and haughtiness. For this reason, the King of the spirits does not come on chariots and with armies, but sitting on a wretched and lowly foal.

is seated upon a pitiful and small foal ^A and comes, teaching you not to be puffed up on horses and mules, which have no understanding (Ps. 31:9). Therefore let us also, in moderation, accompany Christ, so that we may ascend together; with the angels let us sound hymns; with the children let us glorify; with the crowd let us shout the things of the crowd; with Bethany let us leap for joy; with Lazarus let us rise from dead works; with the inhabitants of Sion let us dance; with those blind who regained sight let us cry out; with infants and elders let us praise; with the disciples let us preach; let us duly strew branches of olives in the way of life through mercy; let us, like the children, prune the bulk of our redundant existence, and by mercy let us strew ourselves in the way ^B which says: I am the way (John 14:6); so that we too may find mercy through it and from it, and with it enter into the heavenly Jerusalem. Let us enter together into the great temple, both those who go before and those who follow; those who go before, being those at the third hour, and those who follow, those at about the eleventh; and those who go before through acts, and those who follow through the intention of the mind, all being with Christ, the same people following together, and having followed, reigning together with Him, and enjoying eternal good things, let us send up glory and greatness, together with the Father, and with the all-holy and life-giving Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

OF THE MOST BLESSED EULOGIUS, POPE OF ALEXANDRIA, SEVEN CHAPTERS CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES OF OUR LORD AND GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.

Translated by FRANCIS COMBEFIS.

I. If our Lord Jesus Christ is of one nature after the union, tell me, of which nature? Of that which took,

or what has been assumed? And what has become of the other? But if both exist, how are they one, unless a composite one has been formed from both? And if this is the case, how is Christ not of a different substance from the Father, who is devoid of all composition?

II. ^B If our Lord Jesus Christ has never been acknowledged to be of a dual nature, how can it be said that Christ after the union is of one nature, or even that an "union" can be spoken of at all? But if Christ is acknowledged to have been of two natures, tell me, I ask, when was Christ of a dual nature, and when did he become of one?

III. Is God the Word of the same substance as the flesh assumed by him, or of a different one? But if he is of the same, why has the Trinity not become a quaternity? And if the flesh of God the Word is of a different substance, how is Christ not of a dual nature?

IV. There are some who speak of one incarnate nature of God the Word; and I imagine that you also speak in this way. But if this is to be understood as one substance of God and the flesh, how can it be that the created is the same as the uncreated, and that the eternal is the same as that which is subject to time? If, however, it is because one nature holds another or is held by another, who would endure to speak of one and one not as two, but as one?

V. If the nature of God the Word and the Father is one, why is the nature of God the Word and the Father and the flesh not one?

VI. ^C If in no respect are God the Word and the flesh two, how are they not in every respect God the Word and the flesh one? And if God the Word and the flesh are in every respect the same, how will the Word not be flesh, and the flesh the Word, and co-eternal with the Father, and consubstantial, just as God the Word is? But if God the Word and flesh are not in every way one, how are they not in some respect God the Word and the flesh two?

VII. If it is impossible for God the Word and the flesh to be more united than God the Word and the Father are, how is it that God the Word and the flesh are in no respect two?

FRAGMENTS

^D Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, a discourse concerning the Trinity and the divine dispensation of the one God the Word of the Trinity.

(From the Vatican codex, edited by Angelo Mai, *Scriptorum Veterum nova collectio*, VII, 177.)

In the beginning before the ages was God, and God was before the ages, and before all things was God [the Word], before the world, before the angels, before heaven, before the sun,

^A before light, before the stars, before winds, before waters, before breath, before the earth, before every visible and invisible creature. This God, then, being without beginning, eternal, and uncreated, by His own will and good pleasure, as He alone knows—and when He knows, and whence He knows—created all the heavenly host and incorporeal armies and ranks—the invisible ones, those with many eyes and those without eyes, the six-winged ones, the thrones, the powers of the heavens. Then, after these, He created the visible world, consisting of heaven and earth, to which man belongs, an image of visible and invisible creation, since he possesses visible flesh and an invisible soul. Having created this man, God instructed him, and gave him the law written by Moses to lead him back from the error of idolatry. ^B But the law was not able to recall man; then He sent prophets, exhorting, threatening, and working miracles. Yet not even so did the misled man return from his error. At the last, having taken pity on His own creation, God Himself appeared on earth, and the God-Word lived among men as man, and the form of the Master descended to earth, that the form of the servant might ascend into the heavens.

Then, having fallen from his former error and expectation, the wicked enemy of mankind, when he saw himself defeated and crushed by Christ, trampled by the cross, and plunged into the depths by baptism; and the idols destroyed, and idolatry subsequently abolished from among men, and ^C the knowledge of God preached in the world—what does this wicked and crafty inventor of evils do? He sowed a second, different idolatry and error in the world: the tares of heresies. For immediately, in the time of the apostles, he raised up, as the first abominable leader of the heresies of the world, Simon Magus, who claimed himself to be God. Then, in the second place, Nicolaus, from whom the Nicolaitans were named. Then Theudas. Then, one after another, other agents and inventors of his error, on account of whom many and diverse holy synods were gathered by the Catholic Church.

So, in the course of time, there arose an abominable leader, ^D Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, saying that the Son and Word of God was a creature, and of a different essence from the Father. Against him the holy synod of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers was gathered at Nicaea, which defined the Son to be consubstantial with the Father according to His divinity, and the same [to be] consubstantial with us men according to His humanity, declaring Him not to be a creature, but the Creator; not a thing made, but the Maker of all things. Then, after fifty-five years, there appeared Macedonius, that deceitful bishop of Constantinople, calling the Holy Spirit a creature. On account of whom the holy synod of the [one hundred and] fifty holy Fathers was held, which proclaimed the Holy Spirit uncreated—that is, possessing one essence of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, one divinity, one authority, one power, in three substances.

Fifty-one years having elapsed again, ^A there emerged Nestorius, that nefarious and impure prelate of Constantinople, who asserted that the holy Virgin was a bearer of a man, not a bearer of God. On his account, the prior Ephesian synod of two hundred holy Fathers was held, which proclaimed the holy Virgin to be properly and truly the Theotokos, and struck Nestorius with an eternal anathema. Then, about twenty-five years later, emerged Eutyches, the nefarious archimandrite of the monasteries of Constantinople, saying that the body of Christ is not consubstantial with us; and at nearly the same time, Dioscorus, pope of Alexandria, arose, who spoke of one nature in Christ. On account of these two detestable heresiarchs, the holy synod of Chalcedon of the orthodox holy Fathers was gathered, which, beyond the aforementioned heresiarchs, also anathematized Nestorius, and declared Christ to be consubstantial with us according to his humanity, and established that two indivisible natures are to be believed in with one person; for Christ is one, and not two, and his substance is composite.

When those two heresiarchs had therefore been extinguished—that is, anathematized—about a hundred years later there was held the auspicious fifth synod, under the Emperor Justinian, against Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, who, carried away by a vain mindset, babbled that our souls existed in the heavens before our bodies and that eternal punishments would have an end: all of which the divinely inspired synod rejected and struck with anathema. ^B It would be a long task to construct an oration concerning the rest of the holy synods held not infrequently in diverse places, and to narrate the time and place of the various heresies that emerged. For some denied that there was one [God], as the Gentiles; others said there were two, or indeed four, as the Arians and Manichæans; others wickedly blasphemed three essences in the holy Trinity, like the Sabellians, and asserted one substance in it; others again [erred] concerning the dispensation of Christ...

FRAGMENTA DOGMATICA

From Eulogius of Alexandria, *Against those who say*, "If you say Christ has two substances, necessarily the whole holy Trinity has been incarnate." (Ang. Mai Script. vet., vol. VII, 18, 19.)

These are the things that are objected by the adversaries. ^D For perhaps they think that the essence of the divinity is divisible, whose one part is perceived in the Father, another in the Son, and another in the Holy Spirit, as if each person represented the properties of the deity only in part, and not in whole. We, however, in no way come to such a degree of impiety as to imagine a division or section in the divine essence. But we say, although each person...