(PDF) THE TRIAL OF EUTYCHES: A NEW INTERPRETATION

John Chrysostom died ignominiously as an exiled and condemned heretic. Yet, early biographers worked to reverse his reputation and transformed John into a symbol of Christian orthodoxy. In this essay, I examine how one such biographer, Ps.-Martyrius, managed this task through the language of proper diagnosis. In his Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom, Ps.-Martyrius differentiates the symptoms of the disease of heresy from the symptoms of righteous suffering. To make his case, Ps.-Martyrius compares John’s symptoms, through reference to the lesioned bodies of the Constantinopolitan leper community, to the fecund and cursed body of the Empress Eudoxia. Ps.-Martyrius’s diagnosis concludes that John’s suffering through conspicuous exile conveyed honor and orthodoxy, while Eudoxia’s embedded and hidden maladies reflected her culpability as the bearer of lies.

Few figures from the Late Antique period have received as much scholarly scrutiny as Constantine the Great. Who might rival him? In the field of early Christian studies, St. Augustine certainly has received ample treatment, and the bibliography on him is enormous. Yet those who study the bishop of Hippo do so primarily from one angle: the power of his ideas, whether philosophical or theological. To be sure, he is “set against his background,” yet it is not mainly Roman historians but patristic scholars who find Augustine interesting. Constantine, on the other hand, did not just live within history; he made it. More than any of the Church fathers (as influential as they often were), the “first Christian emperor” was in a position to change the course of human affairs. As such, he has been the object of intense scholarly investigation, not only by theologians, but also classicists, numismatists, and historians of antiquity, art, and warfare—people who usually care very little about th...

This article seeks to reevaluate existing scholarship on the Late Roman “bishop's hearing” or “ bishop’s court”, via a re-examination of the nature of the extant legal evidence. Paying particular attention to the original contexts in which the relevant fourth-century and early fifth-century Imperial constitutions were issued, it argues that prior to the publication of the Theodosian Code in 438 C.E. these constitutions should be understood as specific responses to circumstances thrown up by courtroom practice. Having re-assessed the nature of the legal evidence both before and after the promulgation of the Theodosian Code, the article attempts to re-contextualise the episcopalis audientia within a broader Late Roman socio-legal landscape; hence challenging, in turn, the traditional framing of the debate on the episcopalis audientia as a question of ‘Church’ and ‘State’.

THE TRIAL OF EUTYCHES: A NEW INTERPRETATION 1 2 3 GEORGE A. BEVAN AND PATRICK T. R. GRAY / TORONTO 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 On 8 November 448 the “Resident Synod” (s¼modor 1mdgloOsa) of Constantinople, composed of bishops then present in the eastern capital, convened to decide on an otherwise unknown matter of ecclesiastical discipline at Sardis.1 Over these preceedings, Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, presided. When the scheduled business had been resolved at the end of the first, and what would have been the last session of the synod, Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum in Phrygia Salutaris, introduced a libellus of accusation against Eutyches, a prominent archimandrite in the capital. This seemingly unexpected turn of events came at the end of a turbulent year in which the emperor Theodosius had intervened twice in ecclesiastical politics: first on 16 February to have the illegally consecrated bishop of Tyre, Irenaeus, deposed, and the ban on the writings of Nestorius renewed, and a second time in the spring to confine the vocal Theodoret of Cyrrhus to his see.2 The actions of the emperor, and the subsequent trial and condemnation of Eutyches at the Resident Synod, inaugurated a new phase in the christological controversy that had been simmering since the so-called “Symbol of Reunion” of 433 had, on the conventional view of things, resolved the Nestorian controversy. The condemnation of the hapless archimandrite in 448 put in motion the sequence of events that would lead directly to the deeply divisive Council of Chalcedon.3 Despite its pivotal importance, the trial of Eutyches, and Eduard Schwartzs highly influential but idiosyncratic 1929 interpretation of it, have long gone without 27 28 1 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 2 41 3 42 We are well informed about the synod of Constantinople in 448 thanks to its acta, which are interspersed with the acta of several other synods within the proceedings of the long first session of the Council of Chalcedon (451), Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum [= ACO], E. Schwartz (ed.). II.1.1. Berlin 1932, 100 – 147. The most important of these documents were also included with comments as part of E. Schwartz, Der Prozess des Eutyches, Sitzungberichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophischhistorische Klasse Abt. 5 (1929) 1 – 52. The precise number of bishops present at the first session of the synod of Constantinople is not certain. Theophanes puts the number at 40, AM 5940 ( Theophanes, Chronographia, C. de Boor (ed.). Leipzig 1883, 99). The final decision of the synod of Constantinople was ultimately subscribed by 30 bishops and 23 archimandrites (Gesta Constantinopoli 552 ACO II.1.1, 145 – 147). Among the 23 archimandrites 18 were priests and one a deacon. H. Bacht, Die Rolle des orientalischen Mçnchtums in den kirchenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen um Chalkedon (431 – 519), in A. Grillmeier/ H. Bacht (eds.), Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 2. Wrzburg 1953, 302. Collectio Vaticana 138 ACO I.1.4, 66 (excerpted in CI I.1.3). For the divisive force of Chalcedon, see P. T. R. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451 – 553). Leiden 1979. DOI 10.1515/BYZS.2008.016 618 1 2 3 4 5 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung the careful reconsideration they deserve.4 Virtually every assumption of the traditional assessment of the Eutyches affair – Eutyches heretical christology, the role of Chrysaphius, Theodosius agenda – needs to be challenged. As will be seen, the new assessment that emerges bears almost no resemblance to the old. 6 7 The Principals 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Flavian had been bishop of Constantinople only a year since the death of his predecessor when he faced the challenge of Eutyches.5 To historians Flavian has become a cipher; scarcely anything is known of his background or his doctrinal stance.6 That he suffered in the cause of orthodoxy is widely assumed, but this begs the question of whose orthodoxy. It may well have been precisely because Flavian was a colourless supporter of the status quo that he was selected to succeed so dynamic a bishop as Proclus.7 He would not be expected to express any novel opinions on christological questions and would dutifully uphold the Peace of 433. Both Eusebius and Eutyches, by contrast, had established reputations that went back to the episcopate of Nestorius. In 428, when he was among the first 21 22 23 4 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5 31 32 33 6 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 7 See recently also D. May, Das Lehrverfahren gegen Eutyches im November des Jahres 448. Zur Vorgeschichte des Konzils von Chalcedon, AHC 21 (1989) 1 – 61. While emphasizing the strong influence of Roman juridical procedure on the Home Synod May leaves completely unquestioned the basic tenets of Schwartzs interpretation (see infra) and believes that the legal forms used in the synod justified its decision. Cf. W. de Vries, Das Konzil von Ephesus 449, eine “Rubersynode”?, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 41 (1975) 357 – 398 that almost alone among modern scholarship examines the events of 448 and 449 and concludes that the condemnation of Eutyches was not legitimate by the standards of the time (see infra). Although Proclus is commonly thought to have died in 446, the precise date of Flavians consecration as bishop is not known from any early sources. F. X. Bauer, Proklos von Konstantinopel. Ein Beitrag zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte des. 5. Jahrhunderts. Munich 1919, 142 – 143. Theophanes AM 5939 (de Boor, 97) states that Flavian had been a “priest and treasurer” in the church of Constantinople. The alternation of active and passive bishops is a well attested pattern for the 5th century. The humble Sisinnius (Socrates HE 7.26) was followed by Nestorius, who was in turn suceeded by the mild and elderly Maximian (Socrates HE 7.41 – 42). Only after several earlier failed attempts to become bishop did Proclus gain the see on the death of Maximian. If Flavian was exiled to his home city, and he was reported to have died enroute to Hypaepa in Cappodoccia, it may be inferred that this was his birthplace. For conjectures on the place and date of Flavians death, see H. Chadwick, The exile and death of Flavian of Constantinople: a prologue to the Council of Chalcedon, JThS (NS) 6 (1955) 17 – 34. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to attack Nestorius, Eusebius was a scholasticus. 8 Later that year, Eusebius is said to have composed a contestatio comprising a polemical pamphlet that compared selected passages of Nestorius with works of Paul of Samosata, and to have interrupted a sermon of Nestorius to defend Theotokos. 9 At an unknown time after the Council of Ephesus (431), he was consecrated bishop of Dorylaeum, no doubt as a reward for his efforts against Nestorius. For all intents and purposes Eusebius had a strong record of publicly defending orthodoxy. Moreover, his rhetorical and legal training equipped him to be the formidable accuser he proved to be at the trial of Eutyches. The monk and archimandrite Eutyches appears as an early supporter of Cyril in the eastern capital. By the time he was summoned before the synod of Constantinople in 448, Eutyches had reached quite an advanced age, and had lived, according to one source, for 70 years as a monk.10 Even if this number is doubted, it is clear that Eutyches had become a monk at a very early age.11 If Eutyches entered the monastic life so young, it is unlikely that he ever received much formal, theological training. The pious monk probably learned scripture, and a traditional understanding of doctrine. We cannot assert that Eutyches ever achieved any level of doctrinal sophistication, and must assume that he was guided by others. The harsh judgement of Leo that Eutyches was an imperitus senex and multum imprudens may not be too far from the mark: Eutyches was indeed an old man, which may have meant that his mental agility had declined, and he was certainly, as his performance at his trial demonstrated, unprepared to acquit himself well in theological debate with a skilled adversary.12 When Eutyches appears in the historical record, he is first attested 8 27 28 29 30 31 32 9 33 34 35 10 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 619 11 12 PLRE II s.v. “Eusebius 15”, 431 and RE VI 1444. See Theophanes AM 5923 (de Boor, 88) for Eusebius as a scholasticus in the Basilica of Constantinople, i. e. he represented the church of Constantinople in legal matters. For the title scholasticus see A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284 – 602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey. Oxford 1964, 512 – 513 and 999; and C. RouechØ, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity. London 1989, 76 – 77 and 107. Evagrius HE 1.9 (J. Bidez/L. Parmentier eds. London 1898, 17) calls him simply a rhetor. For the text of the anonymous Contestatio, see Collectio Vaticana 18, ACO I.1.1, 101 – 102 (CPG 5940). For Eusebius authorship of this text, see Leontius of Byzantium, Contra Nest. et Euty. 3, PG 86, 1389. For Eusebius interrupting Nestorius sermon, see Cyrils Contra Nestorium I.5 (CPG 5217), Collectio Vaticana 166 ACO I.1.6, 25.40 – 26.4. Collectio Casinensis 108 ACO II.4, 144.37. Eutyches says to Leo that he has lived in contintentia et omni castitate septuaginta annos. Another text of the same letter, however, in the Collectio Novariensis says only that he lived religiose et continenter in christianis officiis (ACO II.2.1 p. 34:40) with no reference to his age. See Bacht (as footnote 1 above) 207, note 48. See Eutyches libellus to Leo: ACO II.2.1, 90.21. Leo Ep. 47. See Bacht (as footnote 1 above) 207, note 47 for further references to such negative estimations of the aged archimandrites intellectual abilities. De Vries (as footnote 4 above) 372 finds such claims suspect. 620 1 2 3 4 5 in a letter of Cyrils synkellos, Epiphanius, to the bishop of Constantinople, Maximian, in 432/3. Epiphanius, as Cyrils representative in Constantinople, writes to Maximian to request that he intervene with certain members of the court to ensure that Cyrils position triumph in the aftermath of the failed Council of Ephesus:13 et dominum meum sanctissimum Dalmatium abbam roga ut et imperatorem emendet, terribili eum coniuratione constringens, et ut cubicularios omnes ita constringat ne illius memoria ulterius fiat, et sanctum Eutychem ut concertetur pro nobis <et> pro domino meo fratre vestro sanctissimo. (p. 223.23 – 26) Also ask my lord the most holy abbot Dalmatius to set the emperor right, binding him by a terrible oath, and to bind all the chamberlains likewise, so that no memory of that man [Nestorius] lingers. Also, ask holy Eutyches to fight for us and for my lord, your most holy brother [Cyril]. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung Cyril would also, it turned out, have a copy of the acts of Ephesus dispatched to Eutyches in order to win his support.14 Eutyches was apparently associated closely with the revered archimandrite Dalmatius, who left his cell for the first time in decades in the summer of 431 to urge the emperor to reject Nestorius. Eutyches, it seems, accompanied Dalmatius during the demonstrations against Nestorius.15 But Eutyches did not assume the monastic mantle of Dalmatius on his death in 440, and instead came to head, according to one source, the monastery of St. Mokios situated in a suburb of Constantinople, the Hebdomon, where some 300 monks reportedly dwelled.16 It seems also that Eutyches enjoyed considerable support among the 24 25 13 26 27 28 14 15 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 16 Collectio Casinensis 293 ACO I.4, 222 – 224. English translation by J.I. McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 51 – 110. Washington D.C. 1987, 191. Gesta Ephesi 157 ACO II.1.1, 91.11 – 13. Statement of Flavian: Gesta Constantinopoli 417 ACO II.1.1, 137. Eutyches says also that he had fought for orthodoxy at the time of the First Council of Ephesus: Gesta Ephesi 155 ACO II.1.1, 90. For Eutyches monastery, see Liberatus, Brevarium 11 ACO II.5, 113.33 – 114.3: His temporibus Eutyches quidam presbyter et archimandrita praesidens Constantinopolim celeberrimo monasterio urgente satana praedicabat dominum nostrum Iesum Christum consubstantialem nobis non esse secundum carnem, set de caelo corpus habuisse rursusque varians dicebat ante adunationem duas in Christo fuisse naturas, post adunationem vero unam factam esse. Also, Niketas Choniates, Thesaurus, PG 140, 37B: …monasterio autem praefectus, quod quidem prius in septimi finisbus erat et extra Constantinoplim iacebat et de Iobi nomine dicebatur: nunc autem intra urbem videtur et sancti Mocii templo confino est. Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 344 (Theodoros Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte, G. C. Hansen (ed.). Berlin 1971, 97.19 – 20): Eqtuwµr b aRqetij¹r !qwilamdq¸tgr Gm t/r lom/r Y½b t/r 1m t` :bdºl\, t± Apokimaq¸ou vqom_m … See also E. Honigman, Juvenal of Jerusalem. DOP 5 (1950) 230, note 43 and Bacht (as footnote 1 above) 207, note 48. For recent discussion of the location of Eutyches monastery, see now V. drecoll, Die Stadtklçster in Kleinasien und Konstantinopel bis 451 n. Chr. Cristianesimo nella storia 23 (2002) 645 – 647. The number of monks under G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 621 memoritai, the ascetics who inhabited the martyria and tombs in Constantinople outside of the supervision of the monasteries and their archimandrites.17 Nothing in the record so far warrants calling Eutyches a major figure in the ongoing christological controversy or in ecclesiastical politics. The most that can be said is that he enjoyed a modest reputation as a senior monastic in the capital, and that his support there, for what it was worth, could be counted on for the cyrillian side. The assumption that he was in fact a major figure depends on several late sources which assert that he had a close relationship with another supposed principal, the powerful chamberlain and eunuch Chrysaphius. The evidence is, however, tenuous at best for this high officials direct involvement in ecclesiastical politics.18 According to the sixth century western bishop Liberatus, Eutyches was Chrysaphius baptismal sponsor.19 If such was the case, this relationship need not have carried with it the anachronistic implication that Chrysaphius was committed to upholding all the views of his “godfather”.20 Liberatus further claims that, when Eutyches was confronted with the charges against him, he used Chrysaphius to have the emperor send a guard of the silentiarius Magnus and the patricius Florentius with him to the synod:21 quibus cum identidem Eutyches de infirmitate excusaret conpellentibus tamen eis qui missi fuerant, petiit unius septimanae dilationem, ut post septem numerum dierum audientiae occurreret. qui refugiens ad imperatorem Theodosium impetravit ab eo, ut 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 26 27 28 18 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 19 20 39 40 41 42 21 Eutyches comes from the libellus of Eutyches monks submitted at Second Ephesus: ACO II.1.1, 186.28. See T. E. Gregory, Vox Populi: Popular Opinion and Violence in the Religious Controversies of the Fifth Century A.D. Columbus 1979, 167 – 168; and Bacht (as footnote 1 above) 212 – 213. For Chrysaphius indisputable influence in the Theodosian court, see Alan Cameron, The empress and the poet: paganism and politics at the court of Theodosius II. Yale Classical Studies 27 (1982). For claims that Chrysaphius and Eutyches were in league, see B. Kidd, A History of the church to A.D. 461. Vol. 3. Oxford 1922, 285 – 256; and Schwartz (as footnote 1 above) 80 – 81. The eunuch was a cubicularius and spatharius, and like almost all other eunuchs he came from outside of the Roman Empire. See Jones (as footnote 8 above) 567 – 571; J. E. Dunlap, The Office of the Grand Chamberlain in the Later Roman and Byzantine Empire, New York 1929; K. Hopkins, Eunuchs in Politics in the Later Roman Empire, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 189 (1963) 62 – 80; and R. Guilland, Fonctions et dignit des eunuques. tudes Byzantines 2 (1944) 185 – 244. Liberatus Breviarum 2 ACO II.5, 114.34. Cf. Gregory (as footnote 17 above) 131: “Flavian had apparently taken and indepependent line in his dealings with Chrysaphius, and he had allied himself with Pulcheria against the eunuchs successful manipulation of court intrigue. This was important for the present issue since Chrysaphius was the godson of Eutyches and presumably a supporter of his theology from an early date.” Liberatus Brevarium 11 ACO II.5, 114.30 – 35. 622 fertur, per Chrysaphium eunuchum, quem Eutyches susceperat de sacro baptismate, ut cum patricio Florentio et Magno silentiario illud Flaviani concilium ingrederetur… When Eutyches excused himself again and again on account of his weakness to those who had been sent, he sought a delay of seven day, so that after seven days a hearing would take place. When he sought the emperor Theodosius he begged from him that it be brought about through the eunuch Chrysaphius, whom Eutyches had baptized, that he enter along with the patrician Florentius and the silentary Magnus Flavians council. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung 34 This assertion can, however, be no more than conjecture on Liberatus part, and hostile conjecture at that, to explain the arrival of imperial troops to escort Eutyches to the synod. As will be seen, there is a more plausible way to explain this turn of events. The analysis is further complicated by reports of the hostility of Chrysaphius towards the archbishop Flavian. Another 6th century source, Evagrius scholasticus, adds the story that Flavian, on his appointment in 447, had failed to give to Chrysaphius the expected donatives and instead sent him the sacred vessels of the church in order to shame the eunuch (HE 2.2).22 Theophanes, writing centuries after the events, claims that Theodosius was completely under the sway of the eunuch, who was “jealous” of Flavians appointment as bishop, and because of Flavians failure to pay the benefactions Chrysaphius demanded he harbored feelings of grievance towards the bishop.23 Sources closer in time to the events of 448, however, say nothing about a connection between Chrysaphius and Eutyches, a fact which suggests that Evagrius and Theophanes stories, too, are hostile conjectures at best. The account given by Nestorius in his Liber Heraclidis, written in late 450 or early 451 in Egypt, serves as a useful corrective to these late reports.24 Nestorius is silent about the role of Chrysaphius, and instead boldly claims that Theodosius allowed Eutyches to set himself up as a “bishop of bishops”.25 Using the emperors authority, Eutyches was free to disseminate his heretical teaching of the “one nature”, according to Nestorius. Nestorius does not mince words in assigning to Theodosius culpability for the outrages of 449 at the Second Council of Ephesus, and in so doing reflects his own bitterness towards the emperor for his abandonment of him almost two decades earlier. In comparison with the Chalcedonian Evagrius, Nestorius states that it was 35 22 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 36 37 38 23 24 39 40 41 42 25 Gregory (as footnote 17 above) 155, note 19 suggests that the hostility between Flavian and Chrysaphius even predated the formers appointment as bishop. Theophanes AM 5940 (de Boor, 98). For critical discussion of the Liber Heraclidis, see L. I. Scipioni, Nestorio e il concilio di Efeso: storia, dogma, critica. Milan 1974; and L. Abramowski, Untersuchungen zum Liber Heraclidis des Nestorius. Louvain 1963. Nestorius, Liber Heraclidis, P. Bedjan ed. Leipzig and Paris 1910, 459 – 460. English: The Bazaar of Heraclides, L. Hodgson/ G. R. Driver (transl.). Oxford 1925, 336; French: Le Livre dHraclide de Damas, F. Nau (transl.). Paris 1910, 294 – 295. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Theodosius himself, not Chrysaphius, who demanded a payment of gold from Flavian, and that the bishop had to melt down church vessels to satisfy him.26 Additional contemporary evidence of Chrysaphius neutrality in the controversy comes from Theodorets Ep. 110 to Domnus of Antioch, which must date to the spring of 448.27 In it Theodoret expresses his frustration at the mixed signals coming from Constantinople concerning the case of Irenaeus, a friend of Nestorius who had become bishop of Tyre despite an earlier order of exile against him and his remarriage. When Irenaeus had been ordained, no one complained, but now the actions of Theodoret and his colleagues were being cast as illegal by their opponents. Yet despite the recent imperial order removing Irenaeus and expressing surprise that he had ever been ordained at all, Theodoret writes that letters had been received from other officials in Constantinople that offered to reverse the decision in return for “prayers”:28 14 . d³ !m´cmym jat aqtµm tµm Bl´qam, jah Dm kejtij²qior !v¸jeto, cq²llata, 1mamt¸a to¼toir 1st¸m. .cior c²q tir lom²fym t_m 1pis¶lym 5cqaxe pqºr tima, ¢r 1d´nato cq²llata ja· toO lecakopqepest²tou spahaq¸ou, ja· toO 1mdonot²tou !p¹ lac¸stqym, sgla¸momta ¢r dioqh¾seyr te¼netai t± jat± t¹m heovik´statom 1p¸sjopom t¹m j¼qiom EQqgma ?om7 ja· ta¼tgr ce t/r spoud/r !mtidºseir !p-toum t±r rp³q aqt_m pqoseuw²r. Moreover the letters which I read on the very day of the letter-bearers arrival are opposite in tenor. For a holy man, one of the notable monks, has written to some one that he has received letters both from the very illustrious spatharius and the very glorious ex-magister stating that the case of the very godly lord bishop Irenaeus will stand more favourably, and in return for this good will they ask for prayers on their behalf. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 The spatharius can be no other than Chrysaphius and one suspects that the “prayers” might well be code for some sort of gratuity. While this reference confirms the view of Chrysaphius as a mercenary schemer, it actually proves that the eunuch was neutral in ecclesiastical matters. In offering to reverse the emperors decision about Irenaeus, he shows that he cannot be a doctrinaire supporter of Eutyches and the other conservative Cyrillians in Constantinople. Why do the late sources feel compelled to ascribe a central and malign role to Chrysaphius, when the contemporary evidence does not? Nestorius had little to lose by calling the emperor a heretic and connecting him directly with Eutyches and his exoneration in 449. Our later authors, on the other hand, were committed to upholding the decisions of First Ephesus (431), and to the view that, just as it had been necessary to correct the error of Nestorius, so the Council of Chalcedon (451) had been necessary to correct, in complementary fashion, the antithetical error of Eutyches. In their minds, Theodosius, as the 26 27 41 42 623 28 Liber Heraclidis 467 – 469 (Hodgson/Driver 341 – 342; Nau 299). Y. AzØma (ed. and transl.), Thodoret de Cyr. Correspondance. Vol. 3. Source Chrtiennes, 111. Paris 1967, 38 note 1. Ep. 110 (AzØma vol. 3) 40 – 41. 624 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung power behind Ephesus, was cast as a defender of orthodoxy, and this made it impossible for them at the same time to see him as the supporter (as it seemed) of the heretical Eutyches in both 448, and again in 449, Eutyches and the actions of both those gatherings being condemned by the supremely authoritative Council of Chalcedon. Their commitment put them in a difficult interpretive position vis--vis the seemingly contradictory actions of Theodosius. The way out of this awkward situation was to shift the responsibility to the baneful Chrysaphius, already execrated for his manipulation of the Augustae Pulcheria and Eudocia and for his bungled attempt to assassinate Attila, and to see him as having induced a weak Theodosius to support Eutyches and Dioscorus.29 This interpretation on their part clearly should not be confused with history. A close analysis of the emperors actions in 448 will show that the situation was actually a good deal more complicated than the later, pro-Chalcedonian sources such as Liberatus, Evagrius and Theophanes make out. A better explanation for Theodosius reversal of policy is needed than unsupported suppositions about the emperors weakness and the hated Chrysaphius inordinate interest in, and power over, ecclesiastical affairs. The claim that Eutyches enjoyed substantial influence before his trial, if based on his alleged connections with Chrysaphius, is thus without substance. The argument that Eutyches had entered into conflict with the eastern bishops before he was summoned before the synod in Constantinople is sometimes based on different evidence. None of it, however, is convincing. Some have found it tempting to see Eutyches as the itinerant “beggar” caricatured in Theodorets eponymous Eranistes. 30 Someone worthy of 26 27 29 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 30 For Chrysaphius campaign to undermine Pulcheria and Eudocia, see K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses. Berkeley and Los Angeles 1982, 191 – 196; and Cameron (as footnote 1 above 8) 267. See also P. Goubert, Le rle de Sainte Pulcrie et de leunuque Chrysaphios, in Grillmeier and Bacht (as footnote 1 above) vol.1, 302 – 321, followed by C. LuibhØid, Theodosius II and Heresy. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 16 (1965) 31 – 32. Goubert believed that Chrysaphius was using the renewed religious crisis as a smokescreen for his own abortive attempt to assassinate Attila. The argument, however, is demonstrably false as Chrysaphius could not have known of the failure of the failed assassination until the fall of 449, as was shown by Gregory (as footnote 17 above) 138 – 139. Tillemont (Mm. vol. xv, 271) was among the first to say of Eranistes that “Ce qui convient assez bien Eutyches”. See also Kidd (note 18) 287, Bacht (as footnote 1 above) 209, and Bardy in A. Fliche and V. Martin (eds.), Histoire de lEglise, vol. 4. Paris 1948, 214. For the date of Eranistes, see M. Richard, Lactivit littraire de Thodoret avant le concile dph se, Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Thologiques 24 (1935), 83 – 106 (= Opera Minora, vol. 2, # 45. Louvain 1977, 459 – 472), and, Theodoret of Cyrus. Eranistes: Critical Text and Prolegomena, G. H. Ettlinger (ed.). Oxford 1975, 3 – 4 with references. No internal evidence allows the date of 447 to be positively confirmed, but it remains the scholarly consensus. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 625 caricature by such an author must, the reasoning goes, have been an important adversary. Published in 447 or thereabouts, Eranistes lampoons the views of the conservative Cyrillians by constructing a dialogue between an Antiochene, styled “Orthodox”, and “Eranistes”, one who like an itinerant beggar has gone round gathering heresies, especially those of Apollinarius. This work, composed for a sophisticated audience in Antioch or Constantinople, was nothing short of a shot across the bows of the conservative followers of Cyril. The work sought to prove, in dialogue form, three fundamental articles of Antiochene christology. The first dialogue argues that, because God is immutable, the divine part of Christ could not in any literal sense be changed during the incarnation (60 – 111). The “Word became flesh” of John 1.14 could not be accepted literally; the word did not change into flesh, but assumed the human nature only. The second (112 – 88) shows that the human and divine natures could not be intermingled in the person of Christ. The third dialogue argues that, if God is impassible by nature, only the human nature of Christ could have suffered (189 – 253). The views Theodoret imputed to “Eranistes” may seem very close to those that would convict Eutyches in November of 448, but there is in fact no positive evidence to show that Theodoret was even aware of the archimandrite when he began to compose the Eranistes in 446 or 447. Facundus, bishop of Hermiane in Africa, who wrote over a century after the events, claimed that it was Domnus of Antioch who first accused Eutyches of Apollinarianism before the emperor.31 No letters of Domnus to the emperor survive, however, and it is quite possible that Facundus is presenting only a supposition based on the later hostility of the Antiochenes towards Eutyches. If Theodoret was unaware of Eutyches position, so that he cannot have satirized it in Eranistes, that is hardly surprising: Eutyches, so far as is known, never publicly disseminated any doctrinal works before 448. This has led the most recent translator of the Eranistes, to conclude that Eutyches could not have been the target of Theodorets polemical dialogue.32 Instead Theodoret had set his sights on the followers of Cyrils late writings, among whom Eutyches located himself. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 31 40 41 42 32 Facundus Pro defensione trium capit. 12.5 (PL 67, 852A) and 8.5 (PL 67, 723C), discussed by Bacht (as footnote 1 above) 209. See G. H. Ettlingers introduction to his recent translation of the Eranistes: The Fathers of the Church. Vol. 106. Washington, D.C. 2003, 9 – 10. 626 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung The Reopening of the Christological Controversy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Theodorets Eranistes, despite not being directed against Eutyches as has been supposed, did have a connection with the trial of that unhappy archimandrite. Its immediate effect, it seems, was to reopen the christological controversy that had been simmering since the Peace of 433 reconciled the feuding parties at the Council of Ephesus.33 The conservative Cyrillians in Constantinople had in the Eranistes yet more ammunition with which to continue their campaign against the bishop of Cyrrhus, and it was in connection with that campaign that Eutyches appeared for the first time in the debate. He was probably co-opted by this cyrillian party to use his venerable position as an ascetic to win over the West, and this was why he wrote to pope Leo early in 448. Although Eutyches letter is now lost, Leos reply of 1 June 448 clearly indicates that the archimandrite had complained about those who were reviving the heresy of the “two Sons”, an unmistakable reference to the Antiochene dyophysitism of Theodoret and his followers, and perhaps to Theodoret himself, since he had written explicitly in defense of Diodore, the reputed originator of the “two Sons” doctrine.34 From the perspective of the emperor, Theodorets actions must have seemed a dangerous and deliberate provocation, since they could not fail to arouse increased hostility on the part of partisans of Cyril who had never been happy with how much he had conceded to the Antiochenes in 433. The situation could unravel the peace of the church and reopen the shooting war of 431 to 433. Theodosius inevitably took steps to make sure that did not happen. So grave was the threat of a new crisis that, on 16 February 448, without the authority of any synod of bishops behind him, the emperor dispatched a sanctio to Antioch that renewed the ban on the writings of Nestorius, and had Irenaeus, the recently appointed bishop of Tyre and a formerly exiled associate of Nestorius, deposed from his see.35 This edict, it was reported, met with public disapproval when it was read out on Easter Sunday (18 April) in Antioch.36 31 32 33 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 34 35 36 The references to the “Peace of 433” are to the statement of belief originally put forward by Theodoret of Cyrrhus and the Eastern bishop in 431 at the request of the emperor (ACO I.1.7 p. 69 – 70) and later quoted by Cyril in Laetentur Caeli with only minor modifications (ACO I.1.4 p.17.9 – 10). This statement has sometimes been misleadingly referred to as the “Symbol of Reunion”. It was not a credal formula as the title “Symbol” suggests, but rather a gloss on the Nicene creed subscribed to only by John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria. Leo Ep. 20, ACO II.4 p. 3. See also Schwartz (as footnote 1 above) 76. CI I.1.3 and Coll. Vat. 138 ACO I.1.4, 66. Akten der ephesischen Synode vom Jahre 449, J. Flemming (ed. and German transl.), Abhandlungen der kçniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gçttingen, philosophisch-historische Klasse 15. Berlin 1917, 130 – 131. English: The Second Synod of Ephesus, S. G. F. Perry (ed. and transl.). Dartford 1881, 322. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 627 Theodoret himself had spoken against it before the congregation, it was reported. The emperors fears as to the response of the cyrillian side were not without foundation. When the monk Theodosius brought to Alexandria news of the Antiochene reaction as well as incriminating writings of Theodoret, Dioscorus felt compelled to join the fray. The bishop of Alexandria exchanged several letters with Domnus of Antioch, preserved in the Syriac acta of Second Ephesus, which demanded that Theodoret be sanctioned for not upholding the 12 Anathematisms of Cyril.37 Domnus rejoinder claimed that he and Theodoret were operating fully within the terms of the Peace of 433, agreed to in Cyrils Laetentur Caeli. 38 The emperor took seriously the charges that Theodoret was disturbing the peace, and in the summer of 448 the comes Rufus was charged with serving the bishop of Cyrrus with an imperial sacra that ordered him confined to his see for “continually assembling synods and thus causing trouble to the orthodox.”39 While deposing Theodoret by fiat would have been a gross violation of ecclesiastical law, Theodosius clearly signalled that he was convinced that the bishop of Cyrrhus had gone too far in promoting the Antiochene agenda and in moving already unhappy cyrillians to prosecute a more uncompromising position on their side. The fragile Peace of 433 had held until now, but Theodoret had, dangerously and recklessly, made its status a central point of contention. As his letters to Dioscorus and Flavian show, the bishop of Cyrrhus argued that he was upholding that Peace and maintaining the substance of all the documents agreed to by Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch in 433, and in particular Athanasius Letter to Epictetus and the Antiochene statement of belief quoted in Laetentur Caeli. Although Dioscorus letter of reply to Theodoret does not exist, Theodorets report of it indicates that the bishop of Alexandria utterly rejected his claims to orthodoxy on that basis. Battle-lines were being drawn, and the Peace of 433 had become, not the restraining influence it had been, but a casus belli. Difficult choices were posed for the emperor as the year 448 unfolded. Breathing new life into the Peace of 433 was an attractive option, given that it had provided a period of at least relative calm heretofore, but it had a weakness: it had been no more than an agreement between two bishops, John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria, and its writ did not run beyond them. Indeed, it evidently did not run even to Cyrils successor, Dioscorus, let alone 37 38 39 37 38 40 41 42 39 Flemming, 132 – 139 and Perry, 339 – 43. Flemming, 138 – 141. Dioscorus would write again to reiterate his demand that the 12 Anathematisms be enforced (Flemming, 140 – 143), but Domnus once more appealed to the “Symbol” of 433 (Flemming, 144 – 147). The terms of the order are reported by Theodoret in his Epp. S 79, to Anatolius the Patrician (AzØma, vol. 2, 182 – 189), and S 80 (AzØma, vol. 2, 188 – 191). 628 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung to the whole church. If he wished to reimpose the peace, Theodosius would need to find a way to give it a weight and authority it did not inherently possess. Alternatively, the emperor could move beyond the Peace, recognize that its terms were insufficient either to rein in the strong dyophysitism of Theodoret or to satisfy critics on the cyrillian side, and establish a cyrillian standard for orthodoxy in some way. Voices were being raised in favour of that alternative: there can be little doubt that an influential faction in Constantinople, which included Eutyches, convinced Dioscorus of the need to discard the Peace and define orthodoxy in the uncompromising terms that Cyril had laid out subsequent to 433. What was the emperor to do? The events of November 448 would reveal the emperor and his advisors initial approach to this problem, with the hapless Eutyches standing surrogate for the rejected option. When Eusebius submitted his libellus to the synod in Constantinople, then, it was not essentially the orthodoxy of Eutyches that was at stake, but which understanding of christological orthodoxy – that represented by the Peace of 433, or that represented by the late Cyril of the “one incarnate nature of the divine Logos” favoured among his conservative followers by 448 – would be established as the faith of the imperial church. It is that drama that will be explored in what follows immediately; the fascinating but largely irrelevant issue of what Eutyches himself actually believed will be reserved for the end of the article. 22 23 The Trial: Proceedings in Eutyches Absence 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Eusebius of Dorylaeums startling introduction of a libellus at the session of the Resident Synod drawing to a close on 8 November served notice only that Eusebius was charging Eutyches with a kind of heresy, a vague charge couched in terms that construed Eusebius himself as loyal to the fathers (with Cyril of Alexandria at the top of the list) and to the councils of Nicaea and Ephesus, while construing Eutyches as one who blatantly rejected those authorities and their teaching. Flavian, who was presiding, directed that the libellus be inserted in the minutes so that all could read it, and that two officials should go to Eutyches, read the accusations in the libellus, and summon Eutyches to appear in his own defense. The investigation of Eutyches began on 12 November, but the archimandrite himself did not appear until 22 November.40 In his absence, during four sessions on 12, 15, 16 and 17 November, the synod selected the documents that would be used to define the state of christological orthodoxy, and established several procedural rulings that were clearly intended to ensure his condem- 41 42 40 Gesta Constantinopoli 238 ACO II.1.1, 103. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 629 nation. The centre-piece of the prosecutions case against the archimandrite would be the Peace of 433. Eusebius tips his hand immediately on 12 November when the Synod reconvenes: he has indicated in his libellus on 8 November that he is accusing Eutyches of “corrupting the orthodox doctrines of the Church.”41 Astonishingly, at least in terms of the traditional view of Eutyches condemnation, Eusebius does not charge him either with confusing the human and divine natures of Christ (i. e., with being a “Monophysite”), or with teaching that Christs human body came down from heaven, the doctrines the heresiological tradition always associates with Eutyches. Rather, it is what Eutyches does not accept that matters to Eusebius and the prosecution. What he does not accept, as is quickly made clear, is the authority of two, and only two, letters of Cyril of Alexandria: Cyrils Second Letter to Nestorius, and the Laetentur Caeli, which contained the all-important Antiochene statement of faith. Eusebius appeals first to the Second Letter to Nestorius.42 That letter would, at first sight, seem to be an unlikely authority to insist on alongside the Antiochene-tinged Laetentur Caeli, since it sets out a vigorous case against Nestorius Antiochene position. Eusebius purpose is not immediately apparent, and it might – wrongly – be thought that he was inconsistent. As will shortly become clear, there is an excellent reason for making his case as he does, and for representing this specific letter as a definitive statement of christological orthodoxy. He goes on, in fact, to amplify the letters authority: it was “an exposition of the faith of the holy fathers assembled at Nicaea”, he tells the synod, and he reminds them that Cyril asked that it be read at the Council of Ephesus (a council properly called by the emperor, he notes), and that Ephesus had, at Cyrils request, explicitly confirmed that this letter “was in agreement with … the exposition of the holy fathers.” (p. 103.30 – 33) He asks that the letter be read, and that the synod make it “clear to all that we think and that we believe in accordance with the faith contained in the letter.” (p. 104.1) Eusebius presentation has thus done its very best to bring out the authority of the letter: as Cyrils, it shares his suthority as the champion of orthodoxy against Nestorius; as an exposition of Nicaea, it shares in Nicaeas authority; as enshrined in the acts of Ephesus, it shares in Ephesus authority. The quasi-conciliar (“synodical”) authority of this letter – so important, as will be seen, to the agenda of the synod – was not its only unique feature among the letters of Cyril. By a (for Eusebius and his cause, happy) accident, Cyril was blissfully unaware when he wrote the letter in 430 that the word “natures” had a central and technical place in the Antiochene articulation of christology. For him at that point, the issues were the title theotokos for Mary, 41 41 42 42 ACO II.1.1, 103.11. Gesta Const. 238 ACO II.1.1, 103 – 104. 630 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 and whether one could speak of two sons. He could not, then, have foreseen how fatal would be, for succeeding generations, his casual qualification of a typical assertion that there is “one Christ and Son out of two” by the addition “not as though the diverseness of the natures were done away by this union.” This casual assertion by Cyril of Christs possession of two natures “after the incarnation” was, as will be argued, precious evidence for the case Eusebius was there to build.43 Eusebius next appeals to Laetentur Caeli: “There is also a second letter of Cyril, written to the holy synod of the Orient … indicating their opinion on the incarnation of our Saviour Christ, and how the holy churches of God in every place ought to think and preach.” (p. 104.2 – 5) He demands that it, too, be read, and inserted in the minutes, “so that the doctrines of the church may be understood properly by all.” (p. 104.6 – 7) The presentation, while brief, associates the letter with Cyrils authority, and construes it as connecting that, not just with John of Antioch, to whom the letter was written, but with a notional “holy synod of the Orient”.44 The letter is also said to represent, not Cyrils grudging agreement to the acceptable use of two-natures language by “theologians” in the specific context of his relationship with John of Antioch and of imperial pressure for a truce, but his and the “synods” magisterial teaching on “how the holy churches of God in every place ought to think …” It is clear here that Eusebius intends to amplify the authority of this letter, much as he intends to amplify that of the Second Letter to Nestorius. Once the two letters have been read, and they and the related documents – meaning, presumably, the acts of Ephesus confirming the Second Letter to Nestorius as its understanding of christological orthodoxy – have been read into the minutes, Eusebius closes his presentation with the words “I am standing up as the opponent of those who, starting with these texts, want to change orthodox doctrine”, making it absolutely clear that he is claiming these texts, and no others, as the standard of orthodoxy, and is charging Eutyches with departing from them.45 The crux of the matter quickly become clear. Flavians response lays it out unmistakeably: he agrees that these letters of Cyril – again, no other letters are mentioned – “interpreted exactly the thought of [Nicaea]”, and “have taught us … that our saviour Jesus Christ, only-begotten son of God, is perfect God 43 37 38 44 39 40 41 42 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung 45 ACO II.1.1, 109.3 – 5. For the text of Laetentur Caeli in the documents of First Ephesus, see ACO I.1.4 17.9 – 20. There is no evidence that such a meeting of the Diocesan Synod of Oriens was convened to vote on the statement in Laetentur Caeli. Eusebius may mean here that the original Antiochene statement was drafted by John of Antioch and his colleagues at the conciliabulum in 431. But this counter-synod was not considered to have any synodical authority in 448. Gesta Const. 270 ACO II.1.1, 113.27 – 28. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 631 and perfect man composed of a rational soul and of a body, begotten before all ages without beginning of the Father according to deity, and in late times the same begotten for us and for our salvation of the Virgin Mary according to humanity; consubstantial with the Father according to deity, and consubstantial with his mother according to humanity. We confess that the Christ is from two natures after the incarnation, confessing in a single hypostasis and in a single person a single Christ, a single son, a single lord.”46 Even Dioscorus would find nothing to disagree with in the first banal phrases of Flavians statement.47 Its sting is in its tail: the claim of authority for one critical doctrinal assertion: Christ is in or from two natures “after the incarnation”. The bishops, each being invited by Flavian to “hand in a deposition as to his opinion and as to his faith for the minutes of the acts”, confirm with monotonous uniformity that this is indeed the key point (p. 114.12 – 14). For example, Basil of Seleucia praises Cyrils infallible orthodoxy in “all his writings and all his letters” extravagantly, but draws from these two letters the key conclusion: “we adore our single Lord Jesus Christ as needing to be recognized in two natures.”48 Seleucus of Amasea says he believes “in our single Lord Jesus Christ … declared in two natures after the incarnation and after the assumption of flesh …”;49 Longinus, representing Rome, says that he is convinced that “after the incarnation out of two natures one adores the deity of the only-begotten Son of God …”50 It is precisely in the context of having affirmed the two natures after the incarnation that each of the bishops repeats some form of Flavians declaration, “Those who choose to think otherwise we banish from the holy fellowship of priests, and from the whole body of the church.” (p. 114.10 – 12) The case against Eutyches made by Eusebius, and agreed to by Flavian and all of the bishops present at the Synod, was thus unmistakably that he refused to speak of Christ as being in two natures, or out of two natures, after the incarnation. There is no mistaking the controversial context of this tactic: it takes dead aim at cyrillians like Dioscorus, who had begun to make their mantra Cyrils clarification, in post-433 letters like those to Succensus, of what he meant when he admitted the legitimacy of two-natures language in the Symbol of Union. That mantra said “Indeed, we do speak of two natures, but we say Christ was out of two natures before the union.” The agenda of Eusebius 36 37 38 39 46 47 48 40 41 49 42 50 Gesta Const. 271 ACO II.1.1, 114.1 – 10. Italics are our own. Gesta Actionis Primae [Chalcedon] 281 ACO II.1.1, 115. Gesta Const. 301 ACO II.1.1 p. 117.16 – 22. For an account of Basils beliefs, see M.M. van Parys, Lvolution de la doctrine chistologique de Basile de Sleucie. Irnikon 44 (1971) 493 – 514. Gesta Const. 302 ACO II.1.1, 117.35 – 118.2. Gesta Const. 331 ACO II.1.1, 120.9 – 11. 632 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung and the synod was clearly to suppress that line of argument by condemning Eutyches for refusing to accept what was essentially an Antiochene christological formula nuanced in the light of this latest stage in the controversy – “in/ out of two natures after the incarnation”. The condemnation was to be given force by representing the refusal to accept this formula, through the highlyconstructed understanding proposed by Eusebius and accepted by the bishops at the Synod, as a breach of the dogmatic authority of Cyril and of the Council of Ephesus embodied, so it was claimed, in Cyrils two “synodical” letters. The strategy of promoting a vigorously Antiochene christology while shielding it behind the authority of the Peace of 433, it will be remembered, was precisely that used earlier in the year by Theodoret and Domnus, complemented in their case by a thumbing of their noses at Dioscorus, when he insisted that orthodoxy meant subscribing to the uncompromisingly nonAntiochene position of the very different Cyril represented by other letters, such as the Third Letter to Nestorius with its anathemas, or the late letters to Succensus and others that spoke of “one incarnate nature”, and insisted that Christ was “out of two natures”, but only in thought, and only before the union. Two things are new with Eusebius and Flavians extension – for it can hardly be anything else – of this campaign. First, the clever association of the Second Letter to Nestorius with the Symbol of 433, attracted to the latter the authority of the Council of Ephesus. Second, Eutyches stage-managed and very public condemnation and deposition were evidently expected to make other cyrillians of his stripe think twice before attacking Antiochenes. From the point of view of partisans of an Antiochene way of thinking, both of these goals were highly desirable. Achieving them was the raison dÞtre of the synod, at least as far as the bishops were concerned. How it related to imperial policy is a matter to be taken up shortly. The next two sessions of the Synod, on 15 and 16 November, concerned themselves with reports from delegations sent to Eutyches one after another (three times, in total, to fulfil the canonical requirement.) The first delegation was made up of the priest John, and the deacon Andrew, accompanied, as it turns out, by one of Basil of Seleucias staff, a deacon named Athanasius. On 15 November they report finding Eutyches in his monastery, reading him the libellus, giving him copies, naming Eusebius as the accuser, and telling him about the Synod and his obligation to appear before it in his own defense.51 Eutyches response, they say, was to refuse to appear, as being confined to the monastery by a lifelong vow, to dismiss Eusebius as a longstanding enemy of his whose attack on him was the product of simple enmity, and to read out in a loud voice a document setting out his faith. It is important to note that here, as 41 42 51 Gesta Const. 359 ACO II.1.1, 124. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 633 39 later, this document was never accepted by the synod or its representatives, nor were its contents ever cited. Eutyches considered understanding of his own position was never given standing; he was to be judged on the basis of parti pris reports, and on what he was led to say under cross-examination. This delegation reported that Eutyches claimed to accept the “expositions of faith” of Nicaea and Ephesus, but that he sidestepped the issue of what was the faith of the fathers by going straight to the Scriptures – a tactic indicating that Eutyches was sufficiently aware of the minefield represented by that question, and of his own inability to negotiate it with confidence, to be aware that he should avoid it if he could. Nonetheless, the delegates were able to report what the synod wanted to hear: “After the incarnation of God the Word, i. e. after the birth of our saviour Jesus Christ, he adored only one nature, the nature of God incarnate and become man” (p. 124.24 – 26) – the burden, they alleged, of the document he read out. Moreover, Eutyches was challenged by what seems to have been an appeal to a different passage in the Second Letter to Nestorius, in which Cyril said “We do not say that the Logos became flesh by having his nature changed … [but on the contrary that] in an unspeakable and incomprehensible way, the Word united to himself, according to his hypostasis, flesh enlivened by a rational soul …”,52 tendentiously glossed in terms of natures by the synods representative as “the statement that our Lord Jesus Christ was composed of two natures united according to his hypostasis …”53 His reported response was to steer clear of it, again by appealing only to Scripture, affirming that he believed that “he who was born of the Virgin Mary was perfect God and perfect man, but that he did not have a body of the same nature as ours.” (p. 124.33 – 34) In, at least purportedly, speaking of only one nature after the incarnation, Eutyches had incriminated himself in the terms of the synod, i. e. he refused to submit to the authoritative doctrine of Christ in or out of two natures after the incarnation, and Eusebius drew the obvious conclusion: Eutyches clearly stood condemned out of his own mouth. His refusal to say that Christ had a body “of the same nature as ours”, in itself no more than a traditional cyrillian recognition that, as the body of the Word, it was unique, would quickly be pounced upon as a second point of vulnerability to the charge of heresy. A second delegation was then sent, this time made up of the priests Mamas and Theophilus. While they are waiting for it to return, later the same day, Eusebius rises to make a further charge against Eutyches, to the effect that he is trying to arouse the monasteries to rebellion against the synod by circulating a letter on the faith and asking them to subscribe to it.54 Presumably it was the 40 52 41 53 42 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ACO II.1.1, 26.25 – 27. ACO II.1.1, 124.29 – 30. Gesta Const. 381 ACO II.1.1, 126. 634 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung statement of faith Eutyches read out to the first delegation, prefaced by a letter, hastily circulated either after the depositing of Eusebius libellus on 8 November, or, more likely – since a later report on it would cite some recipients of it as describing it as perhaps containing the acts of Nicaea and Ephesus, or an exposition of one of them – after the nature of Eusebius charges became known on 12 November, since Nicaea, Ephesus, and the exposition of them, were the themes of his attack. That such a letter had been received is confirmed by a representative from one of the monasteries. Just as Eusebius was demanding that the synod send representatives to the monasteries to counter Eutyches, presumably by threatening the monks with condemnation for heresy under the same reading of orthodox doctrine being applied against Eutyches, the second delegations arrival diverted attention from this proposal, reporting that monks at Eutyches monastery had said he was sick, but that Eutyches himself did meet with them once he knew it was another summons to appear.55 He repeated his reason for not appearing (a vow to remain in the monastery), and asked that he not be summoned a third time. His request that they accept “something he had written” (again, his statement of faith) was explicitly refused, and when a monk read it to them “in a loud voice”, they refused to listen to it, saying he should subscribe to it and send it directly to the Synod (p. 128.27 – 32). In short, the only achievements of this second delegation were to keep Eutyches statement off the record again, and to contribute to meeting the legal requirement of three summonses to appear, before Eutyches could be condemned in absentia. A third delegation was sent late in the day with the third summons, this one calling Eutyches to appear on the morning of 17 November.56 In a session on 16 November, a delegation of monks arrived as Flavian was discussing matters with the Synod. Among them was the archimandrite Abraham who, pleading Eutyches sickness and anxiety, offered to pass on messages from Eutyches directly to Flavian.57 Rather than accept that proposition, Flavian suggested that the synods investigation of the case be suspended until Eutyches was better, thereby keeping the trial alive.58 When Abraham offered to make certain recommendations on Eutyches behalf, Flavian again refused, insisting that Eutyches should appear at the Synod and speak for himself, by which he means, as he goes on to say, that he should confess his error and anathematize his heretical views.59 The way was kept firmly closed against any opportunity for negotiation, for Eutyches views in written form to be put on the record, or for anyone else to speak on Eutyches 55 56 40 57 41 58 42 59 Gesta Gesta Gesta Gesta Gesta Const. 397 Const. 403 Const. 414 Const. 415 Const. 417 ACO ACO ACO ACO ACO II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, 127 – 128. 129. 130. 130. 130 – 131. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 behalf. There was a stark choice before Eutyches: to remain silent in his monastery and face certain condemnation, or to appear before the Synod and defend himself viva voce. On 17 November, the third delegation began the day with its report.60 They described a brief interchange with Eutyches in which he said that the reason he had sent Abraham to the Synod was to signal his readiness to assent to “all the formulas of the holy fathers of Nicaea and of Ephesus, and to all those of blessed Cyril.” (p. 131.30 – 31) In other words, Eutyches had understood that he was charged with not agreeing with the teaching of Nicaea and Ephesus as authoritatively interpreted by Cyril in the Second Letter to Nestorius and in Laetentur Caeli, and was hoping to escape condemnation by a blanket submission to those councils and to Cyrils authority. At this, Eusebius interrupted the report urgently to demand that Eutyches not be allowed to escape condemnation for what he had believed, just because he now would submit to saying he believed whatever the Synod demanded.61 It would be just possible to see this demand as motivated by Eusebius personal animosity and/ or his lust for victory, were it not that Flavian immediately reassured him that “No one is permitting you to give up your accusation, or permitting him to avoid defending himself for the faults of the past.”62 Were it an open question, one might have expected him to say “No one is asking you to give up your accusation.” That he uses the word “permitting” (sucwyqe ? ) makes it clear that Flavian himself was the moving force behind the prosecution of Eutyches, whatever rhetoric he might have used at the beginning about his hope that Eutyches would think better of his error. Flavian, and whatever forces he was allied with, had no intention of letting Eutyches get off simply by repenting: they wanted what he had stood for condemned publicly and decisively, evidently so that those who shared that view might be cowed, and so that its converse (the doctrine that Christ had two natures after the incarnation) might be established with the maximum of authority, and its partisans might speak freely. The balance of the delegations report was then taken up. According to the spokesperson, Memnon, Eutyches had pleaded sickness as a reason for sending Abraham in his stead, Memnon had insisted in return that only Eutyches himself could appear to defend himself, and Eutyches had asked for a delay for the balance of the week, promising that he would, God willing, appear and defend himself on the following Monday (22 November).63 37 38 39 40 635 60 61 41 62 42 63 Gesta Gesta Gesta Gesta Const. 422 Const. 423 Const. 424 Const. 427 ACO ACO ACO ACO II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, 131. 131 – 132. 132. 132. 636 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung As the last recorded business of the session, the commission appointed to investigate Eutyches letter to the monasteries reported questioning some monastic leaders, with vague results. Some indicated that the letter was said to include the acts of Ephesus, or the expositions of Nicaea and Ephesus, but no one actually read or signed them. Another said he had received, not a letter, but a verbal warning from Eutyches not to obey an order they were to receive shortly from Flavian.64 Flavian closed the session by granting Eutyches requested delay, and indicated that if he did not appear, as promised, on 22 November, he would be deprived of his priesthood and of his leadership of the monastery.65 The next session, on Saturday, 20 November, has a number of curious features. It was apparently not expected, and was called on short notice, since one of the two persons Eusebius wanted to appear at it, and again as witnesses against Eutyches on Monday, had not had time to return. These two persons were Mamas and Theophilus, the members of the second delegation – who had given their report early in the week, and who would normally have expected that to be their last appearance before the Synod. In this second appearance, it became clear that they had engaged in a theological argument with Eutyches, the existence of which they had suppressed in their report. Since they reported having said to Eutyches several times that they had not been sent to have discussions with him, the obvious conclusion is that they had orders (from Flavian?) not to engage with Eutyches in any kind of theological debate. Despite that prohibition, Mamas and Theophilus were now called upon, not to be chastised or disciplined for disobeying orders – they were neither chastised nor disciplined – but to report on the argument they were not supposed to have had! What was going on? In attempting to answer that question, it is important to remember how things stood at this moment. A position – the refusal to accept two natures after the incarnation – had been condemned, a position Eutyches was suspected of holding. Eutyches had been called to appear and clear his name, but it is evident that, in fact, his condemnation had already been decided on one or both of two counts: that he had refused to accept two natures after the incarnation, and that he continued to refuse to accept that doctrine. Now that Eutyches had promised to appear before the Synod, there was only one way in which this carefully-designed strategy could fail, and that was if Eutyches, unprepared and old though he was, could surprise everyone by offering an articulate and convincing defense. By denying him the right to enter his written statement of faith into the records, the prosecutors had forced him into the highly disadvantageous position of defending himself viva voce. The various 41 64 42 65 Gesta Const. 440 ACO II.1.1, 133 – 134. Gesta Const. 444 ACO II.1.1, 134. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 speakers for the prosecution were, as will shortly become clear, prepared with arguments that they could use to trap him into condemning himself out of his own mouth in that situation, but there must still have lingered a certain apprehension that Eutyches might prove unexpectedly able on his feet. It is in this light that the order not to enter into debate with Eutyches must have been given to Mamas and Theophilus: if they argued with him, they might alert Eutyches to the rhetorical strategies prepared for use against him at his defense, and give him time to prepare his response. That the delegates were not chastised or punished shows that something unexpected had happened. An account of the impromptu debate must have reached Flavian and Eusebius, but their initial concern about their strategy being inadvertantly leaked to Eutyches must have been replaced by delight that, as it turned out, Eutyches had proven himself even more inept than they had believed, had no idea of attempting to show that he was orthodox in their terms, and was willing to condemn himself over and over again, offering new rhetorical possibilities to his prosecutors along the way. The impromptu session of Saturday, 20 November, was called so that Mamas and Theophilus could repeat – for the record, and sworn on the gospels, we note – the heretical assertions Eutyches had made in their hearing. Theophilus, in Mamas absence, reported first.66 Eutyches, he said, had begun the debate by asking where “two natures” was to be found in Scriptures, and shortly after that, which fathers had used the expression. They had replied that “two natures” was like “consubstantial”, i. e. it was not in Scripture, but was in the “explanation [evidently, of Scripture] of the holy fathers.” (p. 136.5) From the line of argument taken by Eusebius in his libellus, it is clear that the prosecution wanted to establish a patristic and conciliar pedigree for “two natures after the incarnation” in christology, along the lines of the pedigree for “consubstantial”in trinitarian doctrine, and we have seen which “explanation of the holy fathers” they offered as authoritative. Eutyches silence showed he did not have an answer to that argument of any sort. More useful, potentially, to Eutyches was the next line of argument: eWpom j!c½ pq¹r taOta7 tekeiºr 1stim b he¹r kºcor C ou; k´cei b aqt¹r pqesb¼teqor7 t´keior. k´cy 1c¾7 t´keior %mhqypor b saqjyhe·r C ou; k´cei b aqt¹r pqeb¼teqor7 t´keior. k´cy7 eQ to¸mum he¹r t´keior ja· %mhqypor t´keior, t¸ jyk¼ei k´ceim Bl÷r 1j d¼o v¼seym 6ma uRºm ; d¼o t´keia 6ma !poktekoOsim uRºm. (p. 136.8 – 12) I myself [said Theophilus] added to that: “Is God the Word perfect or not?” The same priest said “Perfect”. I said, “Once he is incarnate, is he perfect man or not?” The same priest said “Perfect”. I said: “If then he is perfect God and perfect man, what stands in the way of our saying that the Son is one out of two natures? Two perfect elements make up one single Son.” 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 637 66 Gesta Const. 451 ACO II.1.1, 135 – 136. 638 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung This line of argument had not been voiced before in the Synod, though Flavian had included in his summary of the teaching of the “synodical” Cyril on 12 November the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father in divinity, and with Mary in humanity, the double consubstantiality being included in the Antiochene statement of faith in the Laetentur Caeli. Eutyches refusal to fully accept the double consubstantiality was, as will be seen, to be the clinching argument used by the prosecutors on 22 November to convict him, and it is entirely likely that they would have preferred to keep their strategy from him. Eutyches response, however, must not only have allayed their fears, but also have made them feel doubly confident: lµ c´moito 1l³ eQpe ?m 1j d¼o v¼seym t¹m Wqist¹m C vusiokoce ?m t¹m heºm lou. eUte owm bo¼komtai jaheke?m le eUte h´kousi poie ?m ti jat 1loO, jata sucw¾qgsim heoO poie¸tysam7 1c½ c±q 1m t/i p¸stei Bi paq´kabom, 1m aqt/i 6stgja ja· tekeiyh/mai bo¼kolai. God forbid that I should say Christ is out of two natures or explain my God through notions about nature. Whether they want to depose me, or whether they want to do something against me, let them do it with Gods permission. I hold firm in the faith that I have received, and I want to die in it. (p. 136.13 – 16) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 When Mamas arrived, he confirmed Theophilus report, summing up Eutyches final statement as follows:67 1c½ heºtgta oq vusiokoc_ oute k´cy d¼o v¼seir, lµ c´moito. ja· 1mtaOha, j#m jahaiqeh_, t²vor loi 5sty t¹ lomast¶qiom, ja· 1±m sucwyq/i he¹r pahe ?m l´ ti, Fdista p²swy. 1c½ c±q d¼o v¼seir oqw blokoc_. I wont explain the deity – God forbid! – with the notion of nature, and I wont say two natures. That does not please God. I stand here, and if someone deposes me, let the monastery be my tomb, and if God allows me to suffer, it is with a full heart that Ill suffer. For I do not recognize two natures. (p. 137.8 – 10) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Eutyches, it seemed, was determined to fall headlong into the trap prepared for him. He was an inspired choice as victim. 30 31 Eutyches Defense and Condemnation 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 On 22 November the synod convened. At first, things unfolded in the expected way. Eusebius was called and entered, then Eutyches was called, but did not immediately appear. Things took a surprising turn when he did appear, for he was accompanied by imperial troops and a group of monks.68 As a condition of appearing he demanded that he have a free-conduct to leave afterwards.69 No 67 68 41 42 69 Gesta Const. 456 ACO II.1.1, 136 – 137. Gesta Const. 463 ACO II.1.1, 137 – 138. See infra for a discussion of the roles of these imperial officials. Gesta Const. 464 ACO II.1.1, 138. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 sooner had Flavian assented than the imperial silentiary Magnus, saying he had been sent by the emperor, asked permission to enter.70 Granted that permission, he read a letter from Theodosius asking that the patrician Florentius be allowed to participate in the Synod, an extraordinary request.71 Permission was granted, though not it would seem without some tension with Eusebius, the accuser of record. That hint of tension runs through the records of the session. It was tension, not over the goal of the synod, since both Eusebius and Florentius worked unmistakeably to have Eutyches condemned, but over the order in which they should proceed. From the beginning, Eusebius doggedly pursued his favoured approach: the minutes of the previous sessions, laying down what doctrine had to be accepted, were to be read in full, and Eutyches condemnation was to be assured by proving first that he had not accepted that doctrine, and then, if possible, that he still did not accept it. Eusebius, it will be remembered, had an excellent reason for insisting on this approach: if he failed to get a conviction, the punishments he demanded for Eutyches would be turned against himself. Only once Eutyches had been condemned, at least for what he once believed, would Eusebius feel totally secure. Florentius, on the other hand, quickly made it clear that he favoured instead asking Eutyches to explain what he currently believed, relying – as events would show, correctly – on his finely-tuned debating skills for the task of leading Eutyches to condemn himself. It fell to Flavian to reassure Eusebius that “no one is going to accept the priest Eutyches present consent unless he is refuted for what he thought earlier”, though that assurance did not necessarily mean that the prosecution would proceed in the order preferred by Eusebius.72 Once the complete minutes were read, as Eusebius had urged, but before he could begin, Florentius suggested they should begin by asking Eutyches “what his faith is, and what he says, and then let him be asked again why, since now he says one thing, formerly he professed other opinions.”73 Eusebius, probably with some reluctance that he did not dare show, agreed that Eutyches should be cross-examined first, but again “on condition that his current consent does not become a prejudicial judgment. For it is in virtue of the minutes already of the past that I have convicted him of being heterodox.”74 Flavian again reassured him, and Eusebius began the cross-examination of Eutyches he would have preferred to make later on. “Does Eutyches”, he asks, “adhere to the letters of blessed Cyril that were recently read, and does he confess that there was a union of two natures in a single person and a single hypostasis?”75 37 38 39 40 639 70 71 72 73 41 74 42 75 Gesta Gesta Gesta Gesta Gesta Gesta Const. 466 Const. 468 Const. 480 Const. 484 Const. 485 Const. 487 ACO ACO ACO ACO ACO ACO II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, 138. 138. 138. 140.10 – 11. 140.13 – 15. 140. 640 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Flavian backs up Eusebius with the unskilfully-framed demand that Eutyches say whether he confesses “a unity out of two natures”.76 The ideal response, from Eusebius and Flavians point of view, would obviously be “no”, in which case Eutyches would stand condemned under the Synods previous ruling on required orthodox doctrine. Instead, Eutyches gives the worst possible response: “Indeed I do, out of two natures”, an answer any cyrillian could make in good conscience.77 Eusebius refines the question, asking whether he confesses “two natures after the taking of a body”, and “that Christ is consubstantial with us by the flesh”, but he is too late.78 Eutyches temporarily claims the initiative: “I do not come to be crossexamined, but I do come to bring before your sanctity what I think.”79 What he thinks, he says, is written in his statement of faith, and he boldly demands that it be read. The moment is fraught with peril for the prosecution, especially since, as comes out in the cross-examination, Eutyches statement of faith is made up mostly of patristic texts supporting his views. This must have been precisely the kind of embarrassing evidence for a very different christological “orthodoxy” – Cyrils post-433 formulations of “out of two natures” and “one incarnate nature” – that the prosecutions case had been intent on avoiding all along by refusing to accept or listen to the statement.80 By this time Flavian seems to have taken over the cross-examination from Eusebius, presumably since things have been going badly. He hardly does better, however, for he tells Eutyches to read the statement himself.81 Eutyches says that he cannot do so, the obvious implication being that he suffers from presbyops, an interpretation made all the more likely by the fact that, when the statement was read out to the second delegation, it was read by a monk, not by Eutyches himself. When Eutyches claims it is both his statement and that of the fathers, Flavian at first says “Tell us of which fathers”,82 but quickly recovers and says brusquely: “Speak for yourself. What need do you have of written stuff ?”83 Fortunately for Flavian, Eutyches misses the opportunity presented to bring to the fore the issue of the patristic tradition as his side understands it, and instead accepts the challenge of saying what he believes. What he confesses, apart from a formulaic statement on the Trinity, is “[the Sons] incarnate mode of presence, made from the flesh of the holy virgin, and 35 76 36 77 37 38 39 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung 78 79 80 40 81 41 82 42 83 Gesta Const. 488 ACO II.1.1, 140. Gesta Const. 489 ACO II.1.1, 140. Gesta Const. 490 ACO II.1.1, 140. Gesta Const. 498 ACO II.1.1, 141. Eutyches, when claiming that it was indeed his statement, and not someone elses, added “but that statement is equally that of the holy fathers.” Gesta Const. 501 ACO II.1.1, 141. Gesta Const. 499 ACO II.1.1, 141. Gesta Const. 501 ACO II.1.1, 141. Gesta Const. 503 ACO II.1.1, 141. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 641 perfectly become a body for our salvation.”84 Unexceptionable in what it does assert, the statement seems to be using the modifier incarnate” in Cyrils “one incarnate nature of God the Word” to assert something about the humanitys reality after the incarnation, but without affirming positively that he is thereby affirming a second nature. It is a rather deft approach, seeming to yield more than it does; the wording, not echoed elsewhere in any recorded statements of Eutyches, may suggest the work of some more sophisticated theologian behind Eutyches himself. Eutyches may be remembering it from the written statement. Certainly he says nothing so deft in what follows. Deft or not, his prosecutors recognize in his statement the point on which he is holding back, the identification of this “mode of presence”, “body”, and “flesh” as a human nature fully consubstantial with ours. From now on, that is the focus of their attack. Flavian immediately asks whether Eutyches confesses the double consubstantiality of Christ, “with his Father by divinity, with his mother by humanity”.85 Eutyches at first attempts to stand with what he has said, but under continued questioning on the point admits that “[t]o this very day I have not called the body of the Lord our God consubstantial with us, though I confess the holy virgin to be consubstantial with us, and our God to be incarnate from her.”86 It is clearly the body of Christ that is the sticking-point for Eutyches; for some reason – we shall have to consider in due course what that reason is – he cannot bring himself to say that it is a human body like any other. Despite the relentless repetition, by Basil of Seleucia, and then by Florentius, of the point that, if Christ took his humanity from Mary, and she was consubstantial with us, then he must be consubstantial with us too, Eutyches simply will not call “the body of God a human body”.87 He will not yield his internal consent to it, though he is, finally, willing to give external and verbal assent to it, as being prescribed by those with authority over him: “What I never said before, I now say to you. I think what I have said in my statement; but now, since your sanctity [i.e. Flavian] says this, I say it.”88 It is of some importance to recognize the realities of this situation. Eutyches is sometimes thought to have been not only old and unprepared, but also so vacuous that he could shift positions without any consideration of consistency.89 Such assessments are made in ignorance of the nature of the campaign to condemn Eutyches no matter what, and on the assumption that his cross- 36 37 38 39 84 85 86 87 40 88 41 89 42 Gesta Const. 505 ACO II.1.1, 141. Gesta Const. 511 ACO II.1.1, 142. Gesta Const. 514 ACO II.1.1, 142. Gesta Const. 519 – 522 ACO II.1.1, 142. Gesta Const. 524 ACO II.1.1, 143. Cf. T. Camelot, De Nestorius Eutych s, in: Bacht/Grillmeier (as footnote 1 above) 229 – 242; and R. Draguet, La christologie dEutych s. Byzantion 6 (1931) 441 – 457. 642 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 examiners really intended to bring him to a “more correct” understanding. A more attentive reading notes that he does not change his essential position: “I think what I have said …”90 What he does is agree to give external consent, bowing to the authority of his bishop and patriarch Flavian, by repeating certain propositions with his voice that Flavian insists on. When it is a matter of actually anathematizing what he himself thinks, however, he does not agree. Eutyches may not be as courageous as some might wish in adopting the first tactic, but in attempting to save himself he is not, in fact, inconsistent. External consent under authority is not, of course, enough to placate his accusers. Flavian asks if Eutyches has really “confessed the true faith” only under compulsion, and Eutyches agrees that this is the case.91 Flavian insists that what they wish Eutyches to confirm is not some “novelty” dreamed up by himself and the Synod, but “the faith … just as it was expounded by [the fathers].”92 The coup de gr ce is administered by Florentius, as he elegantly connects the point about consubstantiality with the Synods explicit decision to make the doctrine of two natures after the incarnation the touchstone of orthodoxy: “Do you, or do you not,” he asks, “say that our Lord who is from the virgin is consubstantial by reason of both natures after the incarnation?”93 Eutyches, faced with this stark demand, admits that he confesses “two natures before the union”, but “one nature afterwards.”94 In the harshest demand yet made on him, the Synod then insists that Eutyches “confess openly, and anthematize every dogma which is contrary to those which were just read [two natures after the union, and the double consubstantiality]”.95 Eutyches says again that he will confirm the doctrine they ask him to confirm, since it is insisted upon by Flavian, but repeats his view that it has neither scriptural nor patristic support. He will not, however, anathematize other dogmas: “If I am to make a condemnation, woe is me if I condemn our fathers.”96 The whole Synod then declares its judgment: “Anathema to that man.”97 When it comes time to sentence Eutyches, Flavian asks what punishment is to be given to Eutyches. Flavian says he had hoped Eutyches would agree with the Synods enunciation of orthodox doctrine, and “anathematize his own dogma … but since he persists in the same malignity, he falls under the canons 35 90 36 91 37 38 39 40 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung 92 93 94 95 41 96 42 97 Gesta Const. 522 ACO Gesta Const. 523 – 524 interventions. Gesta Const. 525 ACO Gesta Const. 526 ACO Gesta Const. 527 ACO Gesta Const. 534 ACO Gesta Const. 535 ACO Gesta Const. 536 ACO II.1.1, 142.32. ACO II.1.1, 142 – 143. See infra for an analysis of Florentius II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, II.1.1, 143. 143. 143. 143. 143 – 144. 144. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 for punishment.”98 Eutyches has a last chance to have his say: “I in fact do say those things, since you have now commanded me to, but I do not anathematize.”99 Florentius repeats his ultimate challenge: “Do you say he is two natures, and consubstantial with us?”, and “Do you confess two natures after the union?”100 Eutyches, with nothing to lose, finally gets some of the case for a different reading of patristic orthodoxy on record: “I have read the works of Cyril, and of the holy fathers, and of holy Athanasius; although they say he is out of two natures indeed before the union, yet after the union and incarnation they do not say he is two natures, but one”, and “I have read also the writings of holy Athanasius, yet he says no such thing [as two natures after the union].”101 Basil of Seleucia interjects that, “If you do not say there are two natures after the union, you speak of a commixture and a confusion.”102 It is Florentius who returns to the essential point: “He who does not say out of two natures and two natures does not believe correctly.”103 Flavian then, “regretfully”, deposes Eutyches from his headship of the monastery and from the priesthood, and excommunicates him.104 The goal of the prosecution led by Flavian and Eusebius, assisted and kept on track by Florentius, had throughout been to arrive at precisely this point: to have Eutyches condemned and made a public example of for not confessing “two natures after the union” as the single authoritative statement of orthodox christological doctrine, to the exclusion of all others. This doctrine it had construed as authoritative by ascribing to the Antiochene statement of faith which contained it, and to which Cyril subscribed in Laetentur caeli, the reputation for orthodoxy of its “author”.105 It was given added heft by John of Antiochs co-subscription to it, and by its alleged approval by the “synod of the Orient”. Moreover, it was paired with the Second Letter to Nestorius, containing the same doctrine, or so it seemed, and having the virtue of having been officially adopted by the Council of Ephesus. Throughout the series of engagements with Eutyches in the process of serving him with the necessary three summons to appear and defend himself, Eutyches repeated attempts to get his considered and written statement of faith – a statement that, as what he 98 99 35 100 36 101 37 102 38 39 40 41 42 643 103 104 105 Gesta Const. 539 ACO II.1.1, 144. Gesta Const. 540 ACO II.1.1, 144. Gesta Const. 541 and 543 ACO II.1.1, 144. Gesta Const. 542 and 544 ACO II.1.1, 144. Gesta Const. 545 ACO II.1.1, 144. Gesta Const. 549 ACO II.1.1, 145. Gesta Const. 551 ACO II.1.1, 145. De Vries (as footnote 4 above) 373 – 374 agrees that Eutyches was condemned “auf einer falschen Interpretation seiner Lehre” and that the statement of 433 provided inadequate grounds for Eutyches condemnation: “ihre Ablehnung durch Eutyches kein zwingender Grund fr dessen Verurteilung.” Cf. May (as footnote 4 above) 51 – 52. 644 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung said as he was about to be sentenced finally revealed, would have appealed to a very different vision of cyrillian orthodoxy, one that spoke of a Christ out of two natures before the incarnation, but one nature after the union and incarnation – were systematically suppressed, while anything he said of a potentially incriminating nature was systematically put on the record so that it could be used against him. Though things did not always go smoothly for the prosecution when it finally had Eutyches before it in the session of 22 November, and though Eutyches occasionally showed an apparently unexpected talent for stealing the initiative, the conclusion was never in real doubt. It must therefore have been with particular satisfaction that Flavian reported, in a letter to Pope Leo, that the wolf in sheeps clothing, Eutyches, had failed in his satanically-inspired attempt to lead the church astray from the truth. “It is”, he said, “proper to avoid vain investigations, and rather to follow our fathers, and not to alter their enduring definition which we have passed on just after Holy Scripture.”106 He was even able to commit the final indignity of vilifying Eutyches on the grounds that, by insisting that “two incarnate natures after the incarnation” was not the teaching of Nicaea, Eutyches had attempted to subvert Cyrils Second Letter to Nestorius and so was favouring the heresy of Apollinaris.107 20 21 The Historical Eutyches 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 What Eutyches actually believed was of no interest to the Synod. Indeed as we have seen, everything was done to suppress his written statement of what he wanted to go on record as believing, and when he did speak, to construe what he said in the most disadvantageous way. The quest for the historical Eutyches requires reading the evidence against its intentions. It also requires a critique of the heresiological traditions “information” about Eutyches and his supposed heresy. According to the tradition, Eutyches had one clear and central belief, the belief that the human and the divine natures were mixed or confused in Christ. He may also, it says, have believed that Christs body came down from heaven. Both claims are entirely without foundation. To understand where they came from is to understand why that is the case. Basil of Seleucia, speaking at the Synod, is the source of the first claim. He attacks Eutyches on the last day:“If you do not say there are two natures after the union, you speak of a commixture and a confusion” (Gesta Const. 545 p. 144). What Basil is doing, though, is not repeating what Eutyches actually said, 41 106 42 107 Leo Ep. 22 to Flavian. Leo Ep. 22 section 3. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 but laying out rhetorically the disastrous implication of what Eutyches really did say, that there were not two natures after the union. This is the rhetoric of aporetic argument; it purports to demonstrate the untenability of an opponents position precisely by spelling out the unacceptable but logical implication (the aporia, or “impasse”) of maintaining that position, though it fully realizes that the opponent will deny the implication, and perhaps offer counter-aporiae. Its real point is not to disprove the opponents position, but to discredit it by arousing uncertainty.108 The heresiological tradition, by contrast, came to accept Basils aporia against Eutyches as historical fact, when it was nothing but rhetoric. The claim that Eutyches believed that the body of Christ came down from heaven is based on even less convincing evidence: Eutyches told the first delegation that “a calumny had been launched against him … to the effect that he had said that God the Word had taken his flesh from heaven, but he wasnt reponsible for such an insane belief.” (p. 124.27 – 29) The tradition has accepted as fact a charge by unknown persons which the person charged, Eutyches, roundly denied! If, as seems likely, Eutyches was referring to another case of aporetic rhetoric being used against him, it is not difficult to reconstruct the kind of argument that would have been involved: If you believe there is one nature after the incarnation, but it is out of two natures before the incarnation, the divine and the human, this one nature produced out of two must be either a new nature that is neither human nor divine, which is blasphemous, or one of the natures out of which it came to be. If it is the human nature, then Christ is not divine, which is blasphemous. If it is the divine nature, then Christs body is not human but divine, and must therefore be from heaven. Such arguments would certainly figure in rhetoric against anti-Chalcedonians in the succeeding phases of the christological controversy.109 This charge, like the other, has nothing directly to tell us about the historical Eutyches. If there remains any hesitation on this point, it should be dispelled by the realization that Cyril himself – a father of the church no one has ever seriously thought believed in a commixture of natures or a heavenly body – had similar rhetorical charges made against him. He wrote to Succensus about “certain unsound claims” being made about him, one of which took the form, “If there is one incarnate nature of the Word, there must have been a sort of merger and mixture, with the human nature in him being diminished by its removal.”110 In Laetentur caeli itself he indicates that “[S]ome of those accustomed to find fault and to buzz around justice like wild wasps, were disgorging villainous 108 109 41 42 645 110 There is no small irony that even Timothy Aelurus and Severus of Antioch, paragons of monophysite belief, would reject Eutyches. Draguet (as footnote 89 above) 457. See, for instance, the sixty-three counter-aporiae published against anti-Chalcedonians by Leontius of Jerusalem in ca. 536: PG 86, 1769A–1804C. ACO I.1.6, 158.6 – 10. 646 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 words against me, as if I was saying that the holy body of Christ had been brought down from heaven and not from the holy virgin …”111 The fact that Eutyches faced the same charges as Cyril did tells us that he held standard cyrillian positions against which rhetorical tropes like these were habitually used. The few authentic references to him before the trial suggest no more than that he was considered a reliable supporter of Cyril to be rallied to the cause in 432, and that early in 448, writing to Pope Leo, he was critical of a real or supposed revival of the “two sons” christology associated originally with the father of the Antiochene School, Diodore of Tarsus, and then with his followers in that school.112 If, as seems reasonable, Eutyches were to be judged by the company he kept and the causes he supported, he would come off here too as one among many cyrillian loyalists who urged making the Twelve Anathematisms and/or the formula “one incarnate nature of the divine Word” the standard of orthodoxy, and who agitated against Antiochene views. Anything more specific about Eutyches will have to be divined from the acts of the Synod of 448. The crucial missing piece of evidence is Eutyches statement of faith, so often suppressed, and never recorded. The assumption has been that it contained heretical statements. However, the fact that Eusebius very carefully avoided having it made public at every point is strong prima facie evidence that it was not demonstrably heretical, since had it been so, that would have been useful evidence for the prosecution.113 Can we say more? It does seem reasonable to suspect that it was either identical with, or very similar to, the “blasphemous statement against our universal saviour Christ” Eusebius said, in his indictment read out in the first session on 8 November, that Eutyches had issued (p. 100.24 – 25). Little can be told, though, from Eusebius claim that it called “fathers numbered among the saints heretics, as also us who are imitators of their faith” (p. 100.25 – 26). Eusebius was, after all, about to argue that the fathers taught exclusively “two natures after the incarnation”, and his description might mean only that Eutyches opposed that doctrine and said, or implied, that it was heretical. Nestorius purports to reproduce it in his Liber Heraclidis, but his account too is useless as solid historical evidence.114 The 34 111 35 112 36 37 113 38 39 40 41 42 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung 114 ACO I.1.4, 17.25 – 18.2. A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition. From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), Second Edition, Engl. transl. J. Bowden. Atlanta 1974, 352 – 360. Eusebius insisted vigorously that any new statement adduced by Eutyches could not be used to turn the tables against him: e. g. Gesta Const. 425 ACO II.1.1, 132. Eusebius was protecting himself against just the possibility that the statement of belief was in fact orthodox. Liber Heraclidis 462 – 466 (Hodgson/Driver, 337 – 340; Nau, 296 – 298). Nestorius must have looked upon Eusebius defense of the two natures with some irony. Was not his former accuser in 428 now defending his position in 448? G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 647 same statement, now styled a tºlor, was probably contained in the letter disseminated among the monasteries of Constantinople during the course of the synod to gain support,115 an action Eusebius would characterize at the synod, in Eutyches absence, as an attempt to create stasis among the monks of the capital.116 The monks who responded to questions about the contents of this letter at the session of 17 November were so vague as, again, to yield no useful information. Useful information is at last to be found in the report given by the first delegation to Eutyches at the third session of the Synod, that of November 15. In the course of that report, they describe Eutyches response to the information that Eusebius of Dorylaeum had submitted a libellus against him, and that he was called to defend himself against the charges made in it. As part of his response, Eutyches – significantly – identifies only one specific doctrinal position as his own: “After the incarnation of God the Word, i. e. after the birth of our saviour Jesus Christ”, he said, “he adored only one nature, the nature of God incarnate and become man. He had fetched a document in this vein, and he read it in a loud voice” (p. 124.24 – 29). This is evidence, that is to say, that Eutyches central assertion in the document was that there was only one nature after the incarnation, and nothing more outlandish than that. If we may suppose that, when Eutyches knew he stood condemned, and was about to be sentenced, he felt free to say exactly what he believed, the heart of whatever he had written in his statement, then it is no surprise that what he says coheres precisely with what we have already seen: he has “read the works of Cyril and of the holy fathers and of holy Athanasius; although they say he is out of two natures indeed before the union, yet after the union and incarnation they do not say he is two natures but one … I have read also the writings of holy Athanasius, yet he says no such thing [as two natures after the union]” (Gesta Const. 542 p. 144). When Eutyches had affirmed, earlier in the day, that his statement was not only his, but also “equally that of the holy fathers”, he meant, presumably, that it was essentially an amalgam of citations from the christological tradition Eutyches was steeped in, the tradition of “Athanasius” and Cyril.117 If so, there was very real reason for the statement to be suppressed, since to address it directly in the case the prosecution was seeking to make would have meant attacking the orthodoxy of statements by the very 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 115 116 117 Gesta Const. 392 – 394 ACO II.1.1, 127 and Gesta Const. 432 – 440 ACO II.1.1, 132 – 134. Gesta Const. 381 ACO II.1.1, 126. Gesta Const. 502 ACO II.1.1, 141. He could not have been aware that the formula, “one incarnate nature of God the Word” was not in fact Athanasian, but an Apollinarian forgery fathered on Athanasius. J. LiØbaert, Lvolution de la christologie de saint Cyrille dAlexandrie partir de la controverse nestorienne. Mlanges de Science Religieuse 27 (1970) 27 – 48. 648 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 fathers whose authority that case meant, so daringly, to line up behind “two natures after the incarnation”. There remains one other bit of evidence from that report to be dealt with. Eutyches was to get into trouble, when he later appeared at the Synod and was interrogated, over his assertions as to the uniqueness of the body of Christ, a belief of which his interrogators made good use, as we have seen, in arguing that he could not, therefore, believe in the real consubstantiality of Christ with us, which in turn meant he could not really believe in Christs humanity. In the report to the Synod, the delegates gave an account of Eutyches voluntary confirmation that he said “that [Christ] did not have a body of the same nature as ours”. That does make it sound as though Eutyches, in a bizarre departure from anything taught by the orthodox fathers, did not believe Christ was genuinely human. The truth is that what he said was neither novel nor bizarre; it was, simply, a repetition of something the post-433 Cyril himself said in the First Letter to Succensus: “It is, indeed, Lifes (that is, the Only-begottens) body; it has been made resplendent with divinest glory and is conceived of as Gods body. That is why anyone calling it divine in the same sense as, for example, he calls a mans body human, will be perfectly correct to do so … Being, as I have said, Gods own body, it transcended all things human, yet earthly body cannot undergo change into the Godheads nature … [T]hat it was changed into Godheads nature none of the holy fathers has said or thought and we have no intention of doing so either.“118 It was part of the cyrillian tradition to celebrate the truly human body of Christ as unique and divine inasmuch as it was the divine Words own body, a tradition strongly connected with a strain of eucharistic piety in Alexandria emphasizing the lifegiving “bread that came down from heaven” of John 6.119 That was a way of talking that, if he used johannine language, might explain in a different way the charge Eutyches admits in passing was made against him that he believed the Word “had taken flesh from heaven”. Like Cyril, though, Eutyches must have been clear in his own mind that neither of these ways of talking – about the uniquely divine body of Christ, or about the bread/body from heaven – compromised belief in the genuineness of Christs humanity. To summarize, then, the evidence from the acts that can be trusted to represent, not the rhetoric of Eutyches accusers, but what he himself said, 118 37 38 39 40 41 42 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung 119 ACO I.1.6 156.3 – 18 (transl. L. Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters. Oxford 1983, 81). E. g. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarii in Joannis Evangelium IV, 2 (CPG 5208) in P. E. Pusey (ed.), Opera III. Oxford 1872, 520. On the eucharist/christology connection in Cyril, see H. Chadwick, Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy. JThS (NS) 2 (1951), 145 – 164; and P. T. R. Gray, From Eucharist to Christology: the life-giving body of Christ in Cyril of Alexandria, Eutyches, and Julian of Halicarnassus, in I. Perczel et al. (eds.), The Eucharist in Philosophy and Theology. Louvain 2005, 23 – 36. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 649 gives us no reason to see him as having been anything other than a vigorous champion of a late cyrillian position, making essentially the same stand, though with less theological sophistication, as were Dioscorus and others in the atmosphere of heightened tensions and jockeying for position and imperial support that marked the period. They admitted that Christ was out of two natures before the incarnation, but insisted that there was only one incarnate nature of the Word of God; they insisted on the uniqueness of the incarnate Words body, and were willing to call it divine as being his. Such were Eutyches beliefs, so far as the evidence goes. Nothing has been found to justify the heresiological traditions ascription of novel and outlandish beliefs to this entirely unoriginal partisan of the cyrillian cause.120 12 13 Imperial Policy and the Synod 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Eutyches must have known that the case being built against him could only lead to his excommunication. For this reason he refused each of the three summonses to attend the synod.121 Something or someone, however, changed his mind. When Eutyches at last came before the synod on 22 November he was not alone.122 The archimandrite arrived outside the synod chamber escorted by a contingent of monks, soldiers and officials of the Praetorian Prefect. The hand of the emperor was unmistakable in the composition of the party. Leading the delegation as the representative of the emperor was the silentarius Magnus.123 The presbyter John, an official of the synod (an 5jdijor) announced that the party of Eutyches had indeed arrived, but also that they refused to allow the archimandrite to enter the synod without guarantees that he would be free to go at the end of the proceedings. When Flavian asked them to enter, Magnus went in first and read the responsum that the emperor had given to him:124 30 We take thought for peace and for the holy churches and for the orthodox faith and we desire that the faith which was pronouced rightly by Gods inspiration by our fathers, 31 32 33 120 121 34 35 122 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 123 124 See also Camelot (as footnote 89 above) 232 for a not dissimilar conclusion. See Schwartz (as footnote 1 above) 72 for this tradition of three summonses. It appears not have been among the canons of the church at all, but developed out of tradition. See ACO II.1.1, 138 for a description of the archimandrites entry. Bacht (as footnote 1 above) 213 lamely suggested that Eutyches delayed appearance was due to problems getting in touch with his patron Chrysaphius. For the silentarii see Jones (as footnote 8 above) 571 – 572 and 1234. and O. Seeck s. v. silentarius, RE 2.5, 1927, 57 – 58. Gesta Const. 468 ACO II.1, 138 (transl. P. R. Coleman-Norton. Roman State and Christian Church, A Collection of Legal Documents to A.D. 535. Vol. 2. London 1966, 746). In this context, Florentius aqhºtgr should be regarded as a statement of his aqhodon¸a (Coleman-Norton, vol. 2, 747 note 10). 650 those 318 gathered in Nicaea and those in Ephesus for the deposition of Nestorius, should be guarded. Therefore we desire this: do not let a scandal be cast upon the aforesaid orthodoxy. And since we know that the most magnificent patrician Florentius is faithful and has borne an attested character for rectitude (aqhºtgr), we desire him to be engaged with the synods hearing (h´kolem sume ?mai aqt¹m t/i !jqo²sei t/r sumºdou), since the discussion is concerning faith. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung Florentius, the imperial representative at the Synod of Constantinople, had had a long and distinguished career as a high official under Theodosius II. As one of the most trusted of the emperor Theodosius men, he was consequently entrusted with the very sensitive task of steering the synod and re-establishing the Peace of 433.125 Although Florentius was not granted a vote, it appears he had license to guide and take part in the discussions of the bishops. Comparison with the sacra outlining the role of Candidianus at Ephesus in 431 immediately shows how exceptional was Florentius role at Constantinople.126 Candidianus had been expressly forbidden by Theodosius to participate in the debate on doctrine. His function was confined to to maintaining order and to making sure that the bishops did not deviate from the agenda. Despite Theodosius announced concern for proper procedure, nothing forbade Florentius from engaging in discussions of faith. Although the imperial order read by Magnus was vague as to the emperors intentions, it must have been clear that the emperor was determined to make sure the bishops arrived at a specific result. Although the presence of the soldiers in Eutyches retinue suggests prima facie that the emperor supported Eutyches views, Magnus and his subordinates were there principally for the personal protection of Eutyches. There is good reason to suspect that the promise of this imperial guard was precisely what convinced an unwilling Eutyches to leave his monastery. If Eutyches had not been called before the synod and condemned in person, any judgement against him in absentia could easily be called into question later. Thus it was imperative that the archimandrite be made to face his accuser and be so condemned. 30 31 32 33 125 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 126 Florentius was praefectus urbis in 422, praetorian prefect in 428 and 438/9 and made became a patrician between 444 and 448. PLRE II s.v. “Fl. Florentius 7”, O. Seeck s.v. “Florentius (13)” RE 6, col. 2758 and Hefele-Leclerq vol. 2.1, 533 note 1. For laws addressed to Florentius attesting his offices see: CTh VI.8.1, NTh 1.1, 3.1, 5.2 and 7.1. Theodoret of Cyrus had also written to Florentius, among other high officials, to complain about his confinement in 448 (Ep. S 89, AzØma, vol. 2, 236 – 239) and his deposition in 449 (Ep. S 117, AzØma, vol. 3, 72 – 75). In the absence of any surviving response to Theodorets letters it is unknown where Florentius sympathies lay. The patrician would resurface to advise Marcian and act as an imperial representative at Chalcedon (listed as the 8th imperial representative, ACO II.1.1, 55 – 69). See Gregory (as footnote 17 above) 156 note 32. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 Rather than decrying the involvement of this imperial official in their discussions, the synod greeted Florentius with acclamations. One suspects they had little choice in the matter:127 Pokk± t± 5tg toO basik´yr. lec²kg B p¸stir t_m basik´ym. t_m vuk²jym t/r p_steyr pokk± t± 5tg. t_m aqhodºnym basik´ym pokk± t± 5tg. t_m eqsebe ? t_i aqhodºnyi. t_i eqsebe ? basike ?. t_i !qwieqe? basike ?. !jo¼ete ûcioi pat´qer. eqwaqistoOlem to ?r aqhodºnoir basikeOsim. Many years to the emperor! Great is the emperors faith! Many years to the faiths guardians! Many years to the orthodox emperors! To the pious, the orthodox, the pious emperor! To the high priest-emperor! Listen holy fathers. We are thankful to the orthodox emperors! 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 651 Flavian, predictably, voiced no opposition whatsoever to the involvement of Florentius, and Eutyches also, when asked by Flavian about him, accepted his presence.128 Once Eutyches is seen as essentially orthodox, his position is not the odd sui generis heresy that is commonly ascribed to him but an expression of orthodoxy as Cyril and his followers understood it following the Peace of 433. But the actions of Florentius at the synod of 448 present us with a crux interpretationis and demand a cogent explanation if we are to understand the ecclesiastical politics of the years 448 – 451.129 Schwartz claimed that when Florentius insisted that Eutyches accept both “out of two natures” and “two natures” he was speaking, not in his official capacity, but as a friend of Eutyches.130 According to Schwartzs account, he was trying to draw into the open precisely what Eutyches believed so that it might be used to show that Flavian and Eusebius were themselves in the wrong. Schwartzs boldest assertion, however, was that behind Florentius actions were Chrysaphius and the emperor himself, who were conspiring to have Eutyches condemned so that there would be grounds to prosecute “Nestorians” like Flavian in the following 29 30 31 127 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 128 129 40 41 42 130 Gesta Const. 469 ACO II.1.1, 138.24 – 29. See also Kidd (as footnote 18 above) 296 – 297, who remarks that Florentius could not “at first sight, seem acceptable to the Synod”. Schwartz ascribed the acclamations to the bishops at Second Ephesus, at which the acts of the Synod of 448 were being read out. This would be the only interjection in the otherwise continuous reading of the acts of the Synod of 448 from nos. 348 to 490. Moreover section 469 is introduced with the words: =ti to¼tym !macimysjol´mym B "c¸a s¼modor eWpem. This statement matches the phrase that introduced no. 468: Ja· !m´cmy b haulasi¾tator sikemti²qior L²cmor ovtyr. There is no compelling reason why no. 468 was not part of the acts of the Synod of 448. Gesta Const. 470 – 2ACO II.1.1, 138. Gregory (as footnote 17 above) 134 is almost alone among recent authors in expressing doubt about the will of the emperor in light of Florentius involvement. Draguet (as footnote 89 above) 412 was also cautious about Schwartzs thesis. Schwartz (as footnote 1 above) 85. 652 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 year. Florentius, so Schwartz claimed, was actually in league with the archimandrite and his backers, despite his insistence on the “two natures”.131 Florentius was a trusted and senior imperial official, one not likely to strike out on his own direction in so important a task, and it is unthinkable that he was operating outside the emperors mandate. In fact, the imperial order permitting him to take part in the synod did not bar him from intervening in the discussions of the bishops on the faith. Schwartz is, in fact, caught in a contradiction by claiming at once that Florentius interlocutio was not officially permitted under the terms of his involvement, and that the patricians intervention was part of a plan engineered by Chrysaphius. It was the intention of Chrysaphius, Schwartz claims in an argument propelled by little more than bluster and supposition, to have Eutyches convicted at the synod in order to reopen his case a year later in the larger forum of a general council.132 This council Theodosius would officially call in the summer of 449, the presidency of which he would grant not to Flavian, according to his rank, but to Dioscorus of Alexandria. The Second Council of Ephesus would reject the decisions of the synod of 448, and would lead to the removals of Flavian, Domnus of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, among others, for their “Nestorian” leanings and improper conduct in securing the ordinations of their supporters in Oriens, and the removal of their opponents.133 Schwartz, and all the scholars who have followed him, have viewed the actions of Florentius in 448 through the lense of 449, and have concluded that Theodosius was planning the Second Council of Ephesus as the triumph of the 131 26 27 28 29 30 31 132 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung 133 Schwartz (as footnote 1 above) 86: „Der Beamte steckte also mit im Komplott, so paradox eine Collusion mit dem Beklagen sein mag, die sich dessen Freisprechung, sondern die Verurteilung zum Ziel setzt.“ Cf. May (as footnote 4 above) 52 who states that the synod received instructions from the court to clear Eutyches, but that they deliberately rejected them: „Flavianus und die Synode waren zweifellos darber unterrichtet, wo die Sympathien des Hofes lagen, aber sie wahrten ihre Unabhngigkeit und sprachen die Verurteilung ber Eutyches aus.“ Schwartz (as footnote 1 above) 75 – 76 boldly asserts the key role Eutyches played in ecclesiastical politics, although he concedes there is little concrete evidence for it: „Das gute Verhltnis, in dem er zu den konstantinopler Agenten und Delegierten Cyrills hatte, wurde ohne Zweifel von den dortigen Apokrisariern des Dioskoros bernommen, um so mehr als er Chrysaphius aus der Taufe gehoben hat und den allmchtigen Kmmerer durch seinen geistlichen Rat im Sinne der alexandrinischen Politik bearbeiten konnte. Als die schon çfter erwhnte Konstitution gegen die Nestorianer erlassen wurde, beteiligte er sich eifrig an der nach der Reichshauptstad hinbergespielten Agitation gegen Domnus und Theodoret; wichtiger als diese Beteiligung, deren Art und Umfang sonst nich berliefert ist, drfte sein, dass er sich ihrer in Briefen an den rçmischen Papst Leo rhmte und, wie es scheint, ihn aufforderte eben falls gegen die ,wieder aufkeimende Ketzerei einzuschreiten.“ For a brief account of this period, see R. V. Sellars, The Council of Chalcedon: a Historical and Doctrinal Study. London 1953, 70 – 87. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 “one incarnate nature” even in the fall of 448.134 Schwartzs interpretation of events, however, is vitiated by the fallacy of unintended consequences; in the summer and fall of 448 the emperor and his advisors could not have accurately predicted the result of Eutyches condemnation, much less the actions of Dioscorus et al. in the year following. While several modern scholars have expressed reservations about Schwartzs hypothesis, they have never advanced a real alternative.135 Another reconstruction, however, is much more economical with the evidence and presents a far more plausible picture of events in 448 and 449. The emperor and his advisors had three principle choices before them by mid-448 to ensure peace within the church. First they could summon a new general council to hammer out a new credal formula that would at once exclude Nestorianism, and be acceptable to both the bishops of Oriens and the partisans of Cyril. In light of the failure of the Council of Ephesus in 431 to achieve anything remotely approximating consensus on central matters of faith, the emperor must have been very wary of putting before any general council so controversial a task; he risked an even worse mess than the one facing him in 448. Second, the emperor could competely abrogate the informal statement of faith in Cyrils Laetentur caeli and impose a purely Cyrillian definition of orthodoxy. A combination of the Third Letter to Nestorius, the appended 12 Anathematisms, and the explicit “one incarnate nature” added in Cyrils Second Letter to Succensus would neatly have encapsulated the faith of the many conservative followers of Cyril. But many eastern bishops who recognized the two natures, as professed by their great teacher, Theodore of Mopsuestia, had already shown themselves completely unwilling to accept the “one nature” and it was not clear that Theodosius was willing or able to suppress all dissent in Oriens. Last, the emperor could move to shore up the peace established in 433 by the acceptance of the Antiochene statement of faith in Laetentur caeli. The agreement of 433 had much to recommend it to imperial policy makers, for it guaranteed peace in the eastern church for well over a decade. But the original agreement had been between two bishops, John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria, and had never been formally approved by any synod. With the deaths of both John and Cyril, the statement of faith of 433 faced a very uncertain future under centrifugal forces that were pulling it apart by 448. Theodoret and Domnus construed Laetentur caeli as a carte blanche approval for the Antiochene christology of two natures, while Dioscorus of Alexandria and conservative followers of Cyril in the East, such as Eutyches, seemed to ignore Laetentur caeli entirely in favour of Cyrils more explicit 40 134 41 135 42 653 Schwartzs thesis was heartily accepted by Sellars (ibid.) 64 note 1. See Bacht (as footnote 1 above) 216 who describes it as a “wohl zu geistvolle Hypothese”, and Gregory (as footnote 17 above) 156 note 38. 654 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 statements made in support of the “one incarnate nature”. If the Antiochene statement of belief in Laetentur Caeli could be approved by a lawfully convened and representative synod of bishops, and the radicals in both the Antiochene and Cyrillian factions could be checked, the peace of 433 seemed set to continue in the future. It was precisely this third course that Theodosius set about to effect in 448. By the summer of 448 the emperor had effectively marginalized the vocal bishop of Cyrrhus, Theodoret, and put an end to his interventions outside of his own see. It remained to bring Laetentur caeli before a synod and to chasten the conservative Cyrillians. The home synod of Constantinople provided the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. The Antiochene confession of faith, and its support of the two natures, would be used to convict the prominent Cyrillian archimandrite Eutyches, whose christological beliefs had already been felt out by the lawyer and bishop Eusebius. Eutyches did not have the unqualified support of Chrysaphius, much less of the court. Instead the archimandrite presented an easy target for the prosecution. He was unsophisticated in his support for the “one incarnate nature”. He may well have been unpopular among the elite monastic leaders of Constantinople, such as Faustus, and Martin, for his close relations with the the unconventional memoritai. 136 No fewer that 23 archimandrites proved willing to subscribe to his condemnation, and even in his own monastery support for him seems to have been lukewarm.137 The attack on Eutyches was a gambit in a larger imperial plan to ensconce the Antiochene statement of belief as an article of the faith. The condemnation of Eutyches, engineered by Florentius and his superiors, while meeting with the approval of Domnus and Theodoret, excited widespread disapproval, not only for its unfair tactics but for its evident rejection of conservative Cyrillian orthodoxy.138 A firestorm of controversy ensued that forced Dioscorus of Alexandria, who it seems in the summer of 448 was still aloof from the situation in Constantinople, to act in Eutyches defense. Far from renewing the peace settled at 433, as the emperor had hoped, the synod of Constantinople excited a wider conflict that gravely threatened ecclesiastical 136 34 35 36 37 38 39 137 40 41 42 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung 138 For the opposition of Faustus and Martin, see Leo Ep. 32 to these and other sympathetic archimandrites in Constantinople. See also Gregory (as footnote 17 above) 167 – 169 for Eutyches and the memoritai. Gregory also points out (134 – 135) that in 449 a letter to the Council of Ephesus complaining of Eutyches deposition was subscribed by only 35 monks, and that the other 265 or so monks had acquiesced to the decision of the synod (ACO II.1.1, 186 – 187). Perhaps Eutyches was not even popular in his own monastery, much less among the other archimandrites. Gesta Const. 552.31 – 53 ACO II.1.1, 146 – 147. See also Gregory (as footnote 17 above) 135. See Theodoret Ep. 11 and Gesta Ephesi 884.2 ACO II.1.1, 182.17 – 25 (Domnus approval of the condemnation). G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 unity precisely when the eastern empire was facing the threat of Attilas Huns. With the bishop of Alexandria now in direct conflict with his Constantinopolitan counterpart, the aftermath of the synod of 448 must have seemed to Theodosius like a replaying of the Nestorian controversy almost two decades earlier. To avoid engulfing the eastern church in yet another divisive battle over christological doctrine, Theodosius quickly changed the direction of imperial policy. This embarassing reversal in imperial policy was quickly covered up and it has left few traces in the sources. A chagrinned Theodosius dramatically showed his support for the Cyrillians in the summer of 449 with the call for a new general council under the presidency of Dioscorus.139 Ominous too was the order to grant the the Syrian archimandrite Barsuma, a zealous and intemperate cyrillian, the right to sit at the council with a vote.140 As for the principal players in the synod of 448, they either denied any direct involvement, or were designated as scapegoats. The imperial representative, Florentius, at an investigation into the synod of Constantinople held in the following year, denied that he had questioned Eutyches in any official capacity; he intended his interventions only as an aid to the archimandrite so that he might better understand the demands of the other bishops.141 Basil of Seleucia, one of the most vocal bishops in support of the two natures in 448, cravenly distanced himself from his earlier statements and submitted to the “one incarnate nature” to save himself at the Second Council of Ephesus.142 Eusebius, the ostensible architect of the synod, and Flavian, the synods president, were both left to the mercy of their opponents. Eusebius was 139 27 28 140 29 30 31 32 33 34 141 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 655 142 An imperial sacra of 6 August 449 gave the presidency of the upcoming Council of Ephesus to Dioscorus (Gesta Ephesi 52 ACO II.1.1, 74.16 – 14). Sacra to Barsuma, 14 May: Gesta Ephesi 48 ACO II.1.1, 71 (Coleman-Norton, vol. 2, 749 – 750). On the next day, 15 May, Theodosius ordered Dioscorus to give the archimandrite a place and a vote at the upcoming council. Sacra to Dioscorus: Gesta Ephesi 47 ACO II.1.1, 71 (Coleman-Norton, vol. 2, 750 – 751). Theophanes AM 5940 (de Boor, 100) adds that Eudocia sent a “large army” to support Dioscorus at Ephesus. This action would certainly fit with the image of Eudocia as a supporter of the conservative Cyrillian cause in the East, but it is doubtful that Eudocia had such resources at her disposal following her murder of Saturninus in 444. See Cognitio de Gestis contra Eutychen 772, 776 and 778 ACO II.1.1, 171 – 172. See Schwartz (as footnote 1 above) 30 and 85 who claims that Florentius remarks in 448 were parenthetical and carried no weight. Basil of Seleucia had close ties with Theodoret. See Epp. P 49 (AzØma, vol. 1, 119), P 1 (vol. 1, 74) and S 85 (vol. 2, 222 – 224) and S 102 (vol. 3, 21 – 23). It is worth considering whether or not he had been sent as a member of the delegation dispatched by Domnus to advocate for the Antiochene position in Constantinople; we hear nothing of the fate of this delegation and it has left no traces in the surviving correspondence. Theodorets bitter disappointment over the defection of Basil of Seleucia is clear by comparing Ep. S 81, written before the synod, to Ep. S 102, dating to after the Second Council of Ephesus. 656 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 101/2, 2008: I. Abteilung condemned and fled to the West, where he pleaded his case before pope Leo. The bishop of Constantinople was condemned, and exiled briefly before he succumbed to rough treatment.143 Nestorius reported that Flavians offer to resign was met with anger by Theodosius. His anger is fully consistent with our reconstruction, for Flavian would stand as the scapegoat for the abortive imperial policy of 448 and not escape the punishment of deposition and exile that his enemies so longed for. Nestorius says too that Theodosius publicly distanced himself from Flavian in Hagia Sophia in the week before Easter (27 March 449).144 Finally, the emperor permitted several investigations into the legitimacy of the procedures and recording of minutes at the Synod of Ephesus in April of 449.145 Theodosius pragmatic reversal must have semed cruel and calculating to Flavian, who was left to face the consequences of the emperors abortive policy of 448. But Nestorius account is profoundly coloured by his negative experience with Theodosius in the 430 s. For Nestorius, writing in exile in Egypt with imperfect reports, likely originating with Antiochene sympathizers like the deposed Irenaeus of Tyre, the case of Flavian seemed to present an elegant parallel with his own.146 Here was another bishop of Constantinople abandoned by Theodosius and beset by a malevolent bishop of Alexandria, deposed and sent into exile. The Liber Heraclidis of Nestorius must stand as the locus classicus for Schwartzs reconstruction. Nestorius, among the earliest sources to discuss the ecclesiastical politics of 448 to 449, knows nothing of Theodosius first strategy to uphold the peace of 433 and instead, like modern scholars, saw the imperial policy of 449 as a direct continuation of that of 448. Because the emperor supported Eutyches in 449, Nestorius and Schwartz agree, he must always have supported Eutyches in the past. The short-lived strategy of the emperor enacted through Florentius perhaps seems ill-conceived to us in hindsight, but we need look no further than the celebrated Council of Chalcedon to see how this strategy of 448 could have been realized had Theodosius proved willing to stay the course. The emperor Marcian, swept to power by barbarian generals disenfranchised at the end of 33 34 143 35 36 144 37 145 38 39 40 41 42 146 For the death of Flavian, see H. Chadwick, The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: a Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon. JThS (NS) 6 (1955) 17 – 34. Liber Heraclidis 467 – 469 (Hodgson/Driver 341 – 342; Nau, 299). Three separate sessions were held in Constantinople to investigate the actions of the Home Synod of 448: 8 April: 556 – 558 ACO II.1.1; 13 April: 555 and 560 – 828 ACO II.1.1; and 27 April: 829 – 849 ACO II.1.1. None ruled the synod invalid, but the very fact that they were held shows the very tenuous grip Flavian had over his own See. The comes Irenaeus had been a personal friend of Nestorius and had accompanied him to the Council of Ephesus in 431. Although he was exiled in 435 along with Nestorius, Irenaeus reappeared in 446/7 as the bishop of Tyre. G. A. Bevan/P. T. R. Gray, The trial of Eutyches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 657 Theodosius reign, quickly showed himself a risk-taker of the first order.147 Marcian would reverse the policy of appeasement towards Attila and summon a new church council. Likely under the influence of Theodosius sister Pulcheria, Marcian directed imperial representatives to impose on the bishops at Chalcedon a formula that contained the statement that Christ was “in two natures”; only Cyrils letter Laetentur caeli, which accepted the Antiochene statement of belief, and his Second Letter to Nestorius, were considered to be true to his teaching. Moreover, Marcian took measures to ensure that Dioscorus, who had been such an intractable opponent to Theodosius policy of 448, was deposed before any discussion of the “two natures” even took place. The hardened soldier Marcian proved willing to face head-on the unrest his council would engender, whereas Theodosius had bowed to pressure three years earlier. Neither Marcian nor Pulcheria, though, would live long enough to see precisely the sort of long-lasting, destructive divisions in the East that Theodosius had tried to avoid by his little known volte face in early 449. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 147 Two very important studies have independently reached the same conclusions about the pivotal role played by Fl. Zeno and Aspar in Marcians accession: R. W. Burgess, The accession of Marcian in the light of Chalcedonian apologetic and monophysite polemic. BZ 86/87 (1993/4) 47 – 68; and C. Zuckerman, LEmpire dorient et les Huns; notes sur Priscus. Travaux et Memoires Byzantines 12 (1994) 159 – 182.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

THE TRIAL OF EUTYCHES: A NEW INTERPRETATION

THE TRIAL OF EUTYCHES: A NEW INTERPRETATION

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS