User talk:R43wer4e

The Church History of Theodore Lector Like the work of John Diakrinomenos, Theodore Lector’s Church History survives only in a fragmentary form, although the limited portion represented by its several extant fragments and its incomplete Epitome should not be taken to mean that Theodore’s work exercised no influence on later authors. On the contrary, our knowledge of what was happening in Constantinople at the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries is based largely upon the information transmitted in Theodore’s Church History. The Author Very little is known about Theodore. The few basic facts come from three sources: two notices concern this author, one in the Suda,1 the other a scholion in codex Athous Vatopedi 2862 (V), while Theodore included some personal details in an introduction to his Church History.3 These sources can be supplemented by some indirect information contained in the Epitome of his work. On the basis of this evidence, it is known that he served as a lector, as indicated in a lemma to the introduction to his Church History,4 while the Suda, a scholion to Evagrios’ Church History and the scholion in the Athos manuscript add that he served at the Great Church in Constantinople.5 As the lemmata to the fragments of the Church History also describe Theodore as a lector,6 it can be ←107 | 108→assumed that at the time of completing his composition he continued to serve in this office and never held any higher rank in the Church. Theodore’s date of birth is unknown. Based on his official function, Pierre Nautin conjectures that he must have been very young at the time of Makedonios’ exile.7 Following this suggestion, Warren Treadgold places Theodore’s probable date of birth around 490.8 On the other hand, Philippe Blaudeau more tentatively puts the date around 480.9 A cautious approach is well advised in view of the fact that, although regulations specified the minimum age of 18 for those appointed to a lectorate,10 there is considerable evidence that they were not strictly observed. A particular instance is the practice of appointing young boys as lectors, where they would often be unable to fulfil their office or, possibly, could not even read. Cyril of Scythopolis notes that Euthymios became a lector at Melitene at the age of two,11 while Kyriakos assumed his lectorate when he was a child.12 Although appointing young children as lectors was in violation of church canons, it does not seem that such reports were motivated only by hagiographical considerations (in order to suggest that the protagonists of the Lives of Palestinian Monks were able to perform this responsible function from a very young age). Rather, they should be taken to reflect the existence of a fairly widespread practice.13 Justinian’s legislation does not seem to have eliminated the problem, as the Second Council of Nicaea (787) indicated that some bishops would have adolescent boys tonsured only to make them act as lectors reading out the Scriptures from the pulpit during the liturgy, which, as the assembled ←108 | 109→bishops acknowledged, was in contravention of the canons.14 The scale of this phenomenon is attested in the acts of a synod held at Mopsuestia in 550, as read out during a session of the Council of Constantinople in 553, in which 16 priests and deacons stated their age and the number of years of their clerical service. According to these records, as many as seven of them became lectors between 5 and 15 years of age.15 Conversely, as many as five took up their lectorates at the age of 30 or later,16 which would indicate that the prescribed age for a lectorate should not be understood to mean the actual age at which every candidate for this office became a lector. In reality, this may have happened earlier or even much later. According to the synodal records from Mopsuestia, only four out of the 16 clerics had become lectors between 16 and 29 years of age. Furthermore, attaining the minimum age for performing a specific church function did not mean that lectors would automatically assume those duties. For example, the number of lectors at the Great Church was so high that Justinian’s Novella 3, in an attempt to reduce the number of clerics at the main church of the capital, set ←109 | 110→a limit for the lectors there at 110,17 while that for subdeacons – the next rank in the hierarchy – was 90.18 Accordingly, in light of the available evidence, it is not possible to speculate on Theodore’s age, even approximately, solely on the basis of his lectorate. All that we know is that he must have become a lector before 511, when the deposition of Patriarch Makedonios of Constantinople took place. At the time, he may have been around 20 or, possibly, a much older man. Similarly, Theodore’s personal background remains, for the most part, a mystery. There is in fact only one somewhat obscure, piece of information, from the scholion in the Athos manuscript, which states: Θεόδωρος ὁ τοῦ ἐντολέως ἐπανομαζόμενος (Theodore, who is surnamed [the son] of the procurator). Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus understood the term ἐντολεύς to be the name of Theodore’s father,19 but Hans-Georg Opitz rightly questioned this thesis and considered it to be rather a designation of his father’s official function.20 At that time, a procurator was primarily an administrator of an estate appointed by the proprietor, but the term might also refer to someone acting as a deputy attorney in a court of law.21 The authenticity of the information in the scholion is difficult to verify. Opitz surmised that this record, like the relevant entry in the Suda, was derived from an Epitome of Hesychios’ Onomatologos, but he offered no arguments in support of his view,22 which remains an unsubstantiated, and ←110 | 111→not very likely, supposition. The Athos manuscript dates from the thirteenth century23 and has nothing in common with the now lost Epitome of Hesychios’ work, which is believed to have been written during the first half of the ninth century.24 Furthermore, the two accounts are significantly different, since, according to the Suda, Theodore wrote a Church History from the reign of Constantine to Justinian, while the scholion specifies a different time span from the reign of Theodosios II to that of Anastasios. Accordingly, they could not have been derived from one and the same source. It is not certain either if the passage from the Suda could be connected with the lost Epitome of Hesychios. This particular lexicon was compiled most probably in the late tenth century,25 which is relatively close to the date of composition proposed for the Epitome. The Suda’s entry on Hesychios states that “this book constitutes an epitome” of his Onomatologos,26 though it is not clear whether the “book” in question refers to the Suda itself or to the source used for this entry.27 On the basis of this particular reference, Johann Flach argued that all the Suda’s biographical entries on Greek authors, including the entry on Theodore,28 came directly from the Onomatologos. Nonetheless, Flach’s proposition has met with criticism,29 as Hesychios, according to the same entry in the Suda,30 chose to avoid citing Christian authors in his work. Consequently, Georg Wentzel came to the conclusion that the biographical entries on Christian authors in the Suda had been drawn not from Hesychios’ original work, but from its Epitome, written sometime between 829 and 858, which did include Christian authors.31 For the present purposes, this hypothesis cannot be substantiated, especially as the Suda’s notice on Theodore is very sketchy. It does not even correspond to ←111 | 112→the standard biographical format found in this lexicon.32 In any case, the information in the Suda and the scholion is not drawn directly from Hesychios, an author contemporary with Theodore, but from some other, hitherto unknown sources, whose credibility is now unverifiable. As a procurator’s son, Theodore may have had easier access to education, while the fact that his Church History is written in the Attic dialect would attest to his having obtained, at least to some extent, a classical education. In his composition, however, Theodore shows no knowledge of pagan authors. Blaudeau argues for his alleged references to the Bible, a thesis that is in fact unfounded, as the extant dossier of his work does not contain any Biblical quotes or direct references to the Scriptures.33 Yet Blaudeau is correct in suggesting that Theodore is likely to have received an education suitable for young clerics, perhaps at one of the Constantinopolitan monasteries.34 In the introduction to his Church History, Theodore refers to the time when he began to write his work at Gangra, where he was required to reside as a result of a “certain verdict”.35 The noun ψῆφος probably refers to some sentence of ←112 | 113→exile,36 which Nautin interprets as pertaining to Makedonios,37 rather than to Theodore, as the Patriarch of Constantinople was banished to Euchaïta in 511 and subsequently took refuge at Gangra from a raid by the Huns (Sabirs) in late 515.38 Gangra was frequently chosen as a place of enforced seclusion for clerics, as the examples of Dioskoros and Timothy Ailouros well attest.39 There is no reason, however, to rule out the possibility that the emperor could have banished Theodore himself, especially in view of Theophanes’ report that the deposition of Makedonios was accompanied by many other orders of expulsion directed against his followers, among whom were laymen, monks and priests.40 Hansen makes a connection between the details in the prologue to Theodore’s Historia Tripartita and two other excerpts, namely a passage from Theophanes’ Chronography, relating that the Hun/Sabir incursion caused Makedonios to flee from Euchaïta, his original place of exile, to Gangra, where he was later executed ←113 | 114→on the emperor Anastasios’ order,41 and a passage in the Epitome of Theodore’s Church History, which links the moribund patriarch Makedonios with an obscure figure named Theodore,42 whom Hansen has identified with the author of the Church History.43 Although we do not encounter any information that might confirm that Theodore and Makedonios had been staying together at Euchaïta prior to the Sabir invasion, this conjecture seems to be justified insofar as the aforementioned passage from the Epitome implies that the said Theodore was a close associate of the exiled patriarch.44 In the period following the Council of Chalcedon, Euchaïta was, like Gangra, a place of exile for dissident clerics, such as Peter Mongos45 and Patriarch Euphemios of Constantinople.46 Theodore dedicated his work to a clergyman from Gangra, most likely a local bishop, as several terms used in reference to the patron suggest.47 This particular figure was, in all probability, Bishop Theodotos, who was present in Constantinople on 15 July 518, as attested in the acts of a Constantinopolitan synod convened by Patriarch Menas (536), during which the attending monks delivered a report on the events that had transpired at the Great Church on ←114 | 115→that day.48 The incursion of the Huns/Sabirs that induced Makedonios to flee to Gangra (probably along with Theodore) is usually dated to late 515.49 The death of Makedonios, which followed not long thereafter, is most commonly dated to 517, although none of the sources mentions the date and it is reasonable to presume that it may have happened in 516.50 In any case, as two years, at most, ←115 | 116→would have elapsed between the death of Makedonios at Gangra and Theodotos’ visit to Constantinople,51 it is plausible that the latter bishop is the one at whose prompting Theodore set out to write a complete history of the Church. Another possibility, albeit only conjecture, is that Theodore accompanied Theodotos during the events described in the acts of Menas’ synod, which foreshadowed a pro-Chalcedonian shift in the Church of Constantinople. Likewise, it is not known if Theodore returned to the capital after the death of Anastasios. The pro-Chalcedonian turnaround that coincided with Justin’s accession to the throne signified a rapid reorientation in the religious policy of the Empire, perhaps due to the rising influence of Vitalian, who was appointed magister militum praesentalis, as well as elevated to patrician and consul.52 The radical opponents of Chalcedon were deposed and exiled, and those clergy suppressed under Anastasios could look forward to returning to their churches. It is very likely that Theodore, as a member of the Constantinopolitan clergy, may also have returned to the capital city. Nautin is of the opinion that Theodore continued to stay at Gangra, assuming that Patriarch John of Constantinople, who had previously anathematized the Council of Chalcedon, would never have restored such a firmly pro-Chalcedonian figure as Theodore to his lectorate.53 Yet Nautin’s view can be seen as a case of over-interpretation. Already on 15 July 518, Patriarch John and the attending bishops, including Theodotos of Gangra, yielding to the pressure of the crowd, reaffirmed the legitimacy of the decrees of Chalcedon and condemned Severus. On the next day, the patriarch ordered the incorporation of the names of patriarchs Euphemios and Makedonios, as well as Pope Leo, into the diptychs of the four general councils. A synod endemousa, which convened on 20 July, affirmed those decisions and also urged the restoration of those Constantinopolitan clergy removed and banished under Anastasios.54 ←116 | 117→Consequently, Theodore’s return may simply reflect the implementation of this synodal decision. In any event, Latin authors such as Cassiodorus and Victor of Tunnuna made use of Theodore’s work on their visit to Constantinople in the late 540s, as we shall see in more detail below. The date of Theodore’s death remains unknown. His Church History comes to an end upon Justin’s accession to the throne. On this basis, Treadgold infers that the author’s death must have occurred before Justinian’s elevation to Augustus in 527, as otherwise he would have reached that date in his work.55 This inference is not conclusive, as Theodore may have finished his Church History in 518 owing to compositional considerations. It is important that Justin’s appointment as emperor spelled the end of the period of oppression for the pro- Chalcedonian Church and one should bear in mind that this particular work is clearly apologetic in nature.56 Theodore was the author of an ecclesiastical history that consisted of two parts: first, the so-called Historia Tripartita, which was conceived as a compilation of three church histories (continuing Eusebios’ Church History) authored by Sokrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, and, second, Theodore’s own supplement to this compilation, the Church History, which encompassed the period from 439 to 518. These two parts formed one work and were meant to constitute a complete history of the Church from where Eusebios’ composition ended down to Theodore’s time.57 The title of Theodore’s work, Church History, is transmitted in the Venice Codex,58 as 2. well as in the Oxford manuscript of the Epitome,59 so there should be no doubt regarding its authenticity.60 Historia Tripartita (HT) According to the information provided in the preface to the Historia Tripartita, Theodore began compiling his work at Gangra at the behest of a local senior clergyman named Theodotos. The HT was intended as a single- narrative compilation of the three church histories, by Sokrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, which ←117 | 118→encompassed similar spans of time and were each composed as a continuation of the Church History of Eusebios of Caesarea.61 From the parallel narratives of these three authors, it was Theodore’s intention to select the most straightforward and pertinent accounts, while also taking into consideration all the unique items of information each of them might contain.62 In Pierre Nautin’s opinion, the HT was preceded by Eusebios’ Church History and followed by Theodore’s own continuation up to 518.63 Yet this hypothesis is not based on any solid foundation, as Emerance Delacenserie has persuasively demonstrated, and there is nothing to support a claim that Theodore commenced his composition with Eusebios’ work.64 The HT only partly survives. Its first two books, which encompass the reigns of Constantine the Great and his sons, can be found in the unpublished codex Marcianus gr. 344 from the thirteenth or fourteenth century.65 The other two books are preserved only in the Epitome, as published by Günther Christian Hansen.66 Hansen observes that Theodore retained in his work about 55 % of the text of Sozomen’s History and about 75 % of the histories by Sokrates and Theodoret.67 It should also be noted that Theodore was very creative as a compilator, often modifying the original texts of the respective histories and frequently providing explanations or additional information.68 The textual history of Theodore’s work can be better understood with the aid of a Latin translation of the HT, which was prepared at Cassiodorus’ 3. behest. When juxtaposed with the Epitome of the HT, this translation provides a general idea of the original Greek text, inasmuch as the Latin version reproduces the structure of the Greek original, though altering its text in many places.69 The identity of the author of the Latin version of the HT is uncertain, but modern scholars ←118 | 119→tend to favour the view that Cassiodorus was the originator of this endeavour, while the translator was a monk named Epiphanios, whose work also included some supplementary material.70 It is necessary to emphasize that Cassiodorus’ compilation is not a literal rendition of Theodore’s work in Latin, but a new and original composition.71 The Latin HT was initiated, and most likely completed, during Cassiodorus’ stay in Constantinople at the turn of the 540s and 550s,72 when he became involved with the adversaries of the policy of denouncing the so-called Three Chapters.73 It is known that Cassiodorus’ HT was employed by Liberatus of Carthage,74 who probably composed his Breviarium shortly before June 566,75 which would put the creation of the Latin HT before that date. In addition, Jordanes drew on Cassiodorus’ HT for his Romana.76 On this basis, Lieve Van Hoof and Peter Van Nuffelen have recently inferred that the Latin HT must have been written in Constantinople prior to summer 552.77 Taking account of all these considerations, and in view of the fact that Theodore’s work was used at this time also by Victor of Tunnuna for the composition of his Chronicle (see below), it may be assumed that the Church History enjoyed some popularity in Constantinople, especially among those circles opposed to the policy of condemning the Three Chapters. Church History (HE) In the preface to his edition of Theodore Lector’s writings, Günther Christian Hansen expresses the view that the extant material does not permit a reconstruction of the structure, style, perspective and sources of Theodore’s original work, nor an assessment of its credibility, yet, at the same time, he observes that the Greek epitome, together with several fragments and the Chronicle of Victor ←119 | 120→of Tunnuna, allow us to draw some informative conclusions.78 This last remark is endorsed by Philippe Blaudeau, who in his insightful study takes it as the basis for reconstructing the essential structure and purpose of Theodore’s Church History.79 Place and time of composition As previously observed with regard to the Historia Tripartita, the work of Theodore Lector consisted of two (not three) parts: a compilation of three Church histories (HT) and their continuation written by Theodore himself (HE).80 Pierre Nautin held that the second component had been intended from the beginning.81 Conversely, Hansen inferred from the introduction to the HT, that it was only while working on this compilation that Theodore would have conceived the idea of writing a continuation.82 In Hansen’s opinion, the HT was first published as an independent composition and then, sometime later, Theodore appended the HE. As indicated in the introduction to the Historia Tripartita, Theodore began his work at Gangra at the local bishop’s request, but it is not known where he finished it. Nautin asserts that Theodore never returned to Constantinople, but, as previously noted, this claim is not compelling. Indeed, there are reasons to think that Theodore gave his composition its final shape after his return to Constantinople in 518. An argument in favour of dating Theodore’s work to shortly after Justin’s accession is the apparently positive portrayal of Vitalian in his Church History,83 which would have been quite risky after the fall of that magister militum in July 520.84 In a similar manner, a very positive representation of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Kyrrhos could point to an early date of composition, before the outbreak of the Three Chapters controversy. ←120 | 121→ Theodore’s sources Theodore cites a great number of documents in his Church History.85 Some of them, for the period 451–491, are enumerated by Blaudeau:86 Pope Leo’s Tome (Epitome 10 [345]), emperor Marcian’s letter summoning a council to Nicaea (Epitome 24 [359]), Pope Leo’s letter to the bishops assembled at Nicaea (Epitome 25 [360]), the sacra of emperor Marcian transferring the council to Chalcedon (Epitome 25 [360]), a definition of faith and 27 canons (Epitome 25 [360]), the letter of emperor Marcian, Anatolios and the council to Pope Leo (Epitome 26 [361]), the constitution of 7 February 452 (Epitome 28 [363]), emperor Leo’s circular letter (Epitome 36–37 [371– 372]), some replies to the circular letter (Epitome 38–40 [373–375]), the declaration of Bishop Martyrios of Antioch regarding his resignation (Epitome 56 [391]), the Encyclical (Epitome 69 [405] and 71 [407]) and the Anti-Encyclical (Epitome 76 [412]), the Henotikon (Epitome 83 [422]), a letter of Akakios to Pope Simplicius from 477/8 (Epitome 79 [416]), a letter of John Kodonatus to Akakios from 483 (Epitome 86 [426]), a letter of the bishops of the East to Pope Felix (Epitome 90 [431]), letters of Pope Felix to emperor Zeno and Akakios (Epitome 90 [431]), a letter of Pope Felix to emperor Zeno concerning the Church in Africa (Epitome 90 [431]), the sentence to depose Akakios (Epitome 93 [434]).87 In this way, we encounter at least 19 documents cited by Theodore (the number of cited responses to the emperor Leo’s circular letter is uncertain). However, from the preceding list should be omitted those documents indicated in relation to the Epitome 25 [360], 26 [361], 36–37 [371–372], 56 [391], 69–71 [405–407], 76 [412], 79 [416] and 93 [434], where it is not at all certain whether Theodore has cited that document, as the passages in question do not refer directly to a citation or mention the document at all (for example, the Epitome 79 [416]). As a result, there remain 11 documents that are certainly cited by Theodore. He may have relied on the assistance of the Akoimetoi monks to create this dossier, as his sympathy for them is evident in his Church History.88 ←121 | 122→ To this list drawn up by Blaudeau should be added a few documents from the period before 451: a letter of Bishop Domnus of Antioch to emperor Theodosios II concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia (Epitome 6 [341]), a letter of Theodosios II to a synod of the East on the same matter (Epitome 6 [341]), the sacra of Theodosios II to Dioskoros and the Council of Ephesos (Epitome 11 [346]), a letter of Theodosios II to Valentinian and the empresses concerning the deposition of Flavian (Epitome 15 [350]). Within the period covered in Blaudeau’s analysis, one can also add the letters of emperor Marcian and Pulcheria to Pope Leo (Epitome 24 [359]). In total, these amount to at least 16 documents. It should also be stressed that the epitomator, in the part dedicated to the reign of Anastasios, gives no indication that Theodore cited any document. This may reflect the contents of the original Church History, where the author quotes from various documents primarily relating to the period beyond the reach of his own memory and for which there would have been no oral accounts or perhaps earlier written sources at his disposal. In any case, it is not possible to say much about the sources for the Church History beyond those previously mentioned. Apparently, Theodore had known the work of Zacharias of Mitylene, with whom he engages in a rather discreet argument,89 and it seems certain that he would have drawn on the Church History of John Diakrinomenos.90 Hansen has also considered whether Theodore could have used the historical work of Eustathios of Epiphaneia, but he makes no definitive judgement on this point.91 It is likewise far from certain if Theodore ever drew on a work by the presbyter Peter of Alexandria,92 but it seems more probable that he may have used the Life of Daniel the Stylite.93 As already noted, Theodore predominantly relied on his memory or resorted to those oral informants available to him for the period of the emperor Anastasios’ reign.94 Internal division As previously remarked, Theodore’s Historia Tripartita and Church History formed a complete work. This dual structure seems to be confirmed by the internal division of the two parts, inasmuch as each one consists of four books. ←122 | 123→Theodore adopted the reigns of individual rulers as an axis for his composition.95 In Theodore’s own contribution, Book I spanned the reign of Theodosios II, beginning where Sokrates’ account ended, as well as that of Marcian; Book II – the reign of Leo, Book III – of Zeno (including Basiliskos’ usurpation), while Book IV – the reign of Anastasios.96 Nautin argued that Book I encompassed only the reign of Marcian and passed over the final decade of Theodosios II’s reign, a view connected with Nautin’s hypothesis that both of Theodore’s works – Historia Tripartita and Church History – from the beginning comprised one integrated composition. According to this arrangement, as both the histories are divided in such a way that each book reflects the reign of one or several emperors, Book I of the Church History becomes Book V of the entire work. Since Book IV of the Historia Tripartita spanned a period from the reign of Valentinian to Theodosios II, the following book should begin with Marcian’s accession to the throne. However, it seems that one should rather follow the unambiguous structure of the Epitome, which places the beginning of Book I of Theodore’s Church History in the course of Theodosios’ reign, coinciding with the end of Sokrates’ Church History. The Epitome must here reflect the structure of Theodore’s original work, as there are no grounds for thinking that the anonymous epitomator introduced this sort of correction, considering that he possessed and summarized both the Historia Tripartita and the Church History. This is a clear indicator of certain intentional characteristics of both Theodore’s works, even if the continuation to the Historia Tripartita had been designed from the beginning and constituted an inseparable part. For this reason, one should retain the division of Theodore’s Church History into four books, as the Epitome represents it, numbered I to IV. Geographical extent The events depicted in the Church History mostly take place in Constantinople, the city where Theodore served as a lector. In statistical terms, out of 154 passages in the Epitome (taking into consideration only those that survive in the manuscripts of this summary, but excluding those that Hansen reconstructed ←123 | 124→from later sources), as many as 94, that is 61 %, are focused on events taking place in Constantinople, 13 in Antioch (8 %), 12 in Alexandria (8 %), nine in the diocese of Oriens in general (6 %) and six in Rome (4 %). The remaining territories of the empire, including Palestine, feature in the Epitome in only a very few instances. These statistics may be compared with similar calculations presented by Blaudeau, who states that out of the 87 passages from Theodore’s work he has investigated, 34 represent events in Constantinople, 20 in Antioch and 19 in Alexandria. Moreover, five excerpts refer to Rome, but there is no passage relating to Jerusalem or, broadly speaking, to Palestine.97 In the part analyzed by Blaudeau, events in the capital city therefore constituted only 39 % of passages under consideration.98 Although one should be aware of the fact that Blaudeau examined the Epitome in the form reconstructed by Hansen (not just the passages of the Epitome transmitted in the manuscripts), it seems obvious that Theodore’s preoccupation with the capital is most prevalent in those sections in which he relates events known from personal knowledge or from oral transmission. In his depiction of earlier events, dependent on written sources, he tends to refer more often to locations other than the capital city. On the other hand, it appears that Antioch is over-represented in Blaudeau’s listing, probably owing to the fact that several passages are, in effect, dedicated to one event: Peter the Fuller’s usurpation of the see of Antioch. The Epitome’s concentration on Constantinople is a reflection of Theodore’s concern with this subject rather than the epitomator’s conscious choice. Even if a similar ratio in the extant fragments of the original text of the Church History cannot offer conclusive proof on this question (5 out of 9 excerpts, or 56 %, deal with events at the capital), as their preservation was due to random factors, the prominent position accorded to Constantinople also in the Chronicle of Victor of Tunnuna must have somehow reflected the tendency of Theodore’s original text. In the passages of Victor’s Chronicle considered for the purpose of the present study, Constantinople is the scene of various events in 37 (44 %) out of a total of 85 entries. However, if one omits all the factual information referring to consecutive accessions to particular sees, which Victor often lists en bloc, the ratio ←124 | 125→is somewhat different, with the number of events taking place at Constantinople being 33 (out of 72 entries), which amounts to 46 %. The purpose and later reception of the Church History The primary subject of Theodore’s work is his contestation of the views of the anti-Chalcedonian movement – the author was an ardent advocate of Chalcedonian orthodoxy.99 His Church History forms an apologetic defence of the decrees of Chalcedon as well as of the council’s later followers, and is perhaps a kind of polemical dispute with the anti-Chalcedonian work of Zacharias (and that of John Diakrinomenos).100 Theodore takes a critical view of all the opponents of the council, both the extreme Eutychian faction and the moderate anti-Chalcedonian movement (those renouncing Eutyches’ teachings), but also the Apollinarians, collectively labelling all of them as heretics.101 Theodore’s Church History is written from the perspective of Constantinople,102 and this means that the capital is not just the central scene where the crucial events take place, but also the seat of the Church distinguished by the author, the Church which, having adopted and developed the Antiochene theology since the mid-fifth century, plays the role of the leading champion of orthodoxy in the East.103 The chief proponents of this orthodoxy are not so much the bishops, who may succumb to pressures from the Miaphysite side, as, first and foremost, the populace of Constantinople and the monastic centres of the city.104 The papacy acts in defence of the Chalcedonian party of Constantinople, as Rome is not only the advocate of orthodoxy, but also a haven for the persecuted faithful.105 ←125 | 126→Theodore exalts the pro-Chalcedonian rulers (Marcian, Leo I, Justin I) as well as the senior clergy who defended the decisions of the council, in particular the bishops of Constantinople Gennadios, Euphemios and Makedonios, while the opponents of Chalcedon are firmly castigated throughout his Church History.106 Theodore shows an interest in monasticism, particularly with regard to the Constantinopolitan monastic milieu.107 He is also interested, to a certain extent, in supernatural phenomena, even though they are not especially represented in the ←126 | 127→surviving material, apparently serving as arguments in support of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, thus strengthened by the authority of genuine miracles, and against the Miaphysite heresy whose proponents perform false signs.108 He also reports on liturgical novelties introduced by both the opponents and the supporters of the council.109 Besides the key issue of the Chalcedonian controversy, Theodore demonstrates his considerable interest in affairs relating to Arians in the Eastern Roman Empire, criticizing them equally with Miaphysites and Manichaeans.110 Theodore’s Church History did not meet with a particularly positive reception in the sixth century, probably owing to the fact that the author rejected any form of compromise with the Miaphysite movement111 and expressed a very ←127 | 128→favourable view of Theodore of Mopsuestia, defending him against accusations of supporting the Nestorian heresy (Epitome 3–4 [338–339], 6 [341]), and also of Theodoret of Kyrrhos (Introduction to the Historia Tripartita, where Theodore refers to Theodoret as: “Theodoret of blessed memory, who became bishop of Kyrrhos” [ὁ τῆς ὁσίας μνήμης γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος Κύρου]). At the same time, Theodore expresses a critical opinion of the Theopaschite addition to the Trisagion (Epitome 55 [390], 74 [410], 87 [427], 129 [483]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 513). He also denounces very clearly the condemnation of leading Dyophysite theologians, including Domnus of Antioch, Theodoret of Kyrrhos and Ibas of Edessa, by the Council of Ephesos in 449, as well as their subsequent anathematization by Flavian of Antioch (Epitome 12 [347]; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 448. 449). In the period of Justinian’s neo- Chalcedonian policy, of which the principal elements were an attempt to find a compromise with the moderate anti-Chalcedonian faction on the basis of the Theopaschite formula, as well as the condemnation of the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the anti-Cyrillian writings of Theodoret and Ibas, a work marked by such an evident bias could only become popular among various dissident groups.112 It comes as no surprise then that the main readership of Theodore’s Church History comprised those who opposed the policy of condemning the Three Chapters, mostly associated with the monastic centres of Constantinople, where Victor of Tunnuna and Cassiodorus could have found access to and drawn on this source.113 Furthermore, it seems that the Church History may have also been utilized by Alexander the Monk during his composition of the Laudatio Barnabae,114 but it is not very likely that Evagrios would have used it at all.115 Theodore’s Church History would attain a broader reception among later authors thanks to the anonymous epitomator from the early seventh century, whereas the complete version was more frequently used for citations only during the period of the iconoclastic controversies of the eighth century.116 The last ←128 | 129→attested instance of the use of the full version of the Church History appears to be the anonymous treatise On Schisms, which is most plausibly dated to the first half of the eleventh century.117 Elements of political history Günther Christian Hansen believed that political history is represented in Theodore’s work to a lesser degree than is the case in the works of Evagrios and historians of the Church active around the mid-fifth century, in which political history is usually the cause or the consequence of some specific events related to Church affairs.118 Recently, however, Geoffrey Greatrex has demonstrated that this particular opinion should at least be modified. He provides a list of various events connected with political history, as featured in Theodore’s composition, but with an appropriate reservation that it is often very difficult to draw a clear distinction between secular and ecclesiastical affairs. Among the events listed are: the Jewish rebellion in Palestine (Epitome 1 [336]), relations between Pulcheria and Theodosios II (Epitome 17 [352]), the death of Theodosios (Epitome 18 [353]), Marcian’s elevation to the throne (Epitome 19 [354]), the restoration of order in Egypt (Epitome 27 [362]), the death of emperor Valentinian III and Genseric’s conquest of Rome (Epitome 31 [366]), the death of emperor Marcian (Epitome 32 [367]), emperor Leo’s punishment of officials in Alexandria responsible for the death of Proterios (Epitome 27 [372]), the arrival of Eudoxia and Placidia in Constantinople from Africa (Epitome 58 [393]), the Great Fire of Constantinople (Epitome 59 [394]), the elevation of Leo II as Caesar; volcanic ash falls on Constantinople (Epitome 62 [398]), an unsuccessful expedition against Genseric (Epitome 63 [399]), the elevation of Leo II and Zeno to Augustus (Epitome 64 [400]), the usurpation of Basiliskos (Epitome 65 [401]), the restoration of Zeno’s authority (Epitome 77 [413]), the banishment and death of Basiliskos and Zenonis (Epitome 78 [414]), Marcian’s revolt (Epitome 81–82 [419–420]), Zeno’s suspicion of Illos’ disloyalty (Epitome 94 [435]), the revolt of Illos (Epitome 96–97 [437–438]), Anastasios’ accession to the throne (Epitome 101 [446]), the Isaurian war (Epitome 104–105 [449–450]), the deposition of Euphemios in connection with the Isaurian war (Epitome 108 [455]), the Persian ←129 | 130→war (Epitome 116 [466]), the exile of Apion (Epitome 128 [482]), the fortress of Zundadeer (Epitome 146 [512]), the conversion of the phylarchos Alamoundaros (Epitome 147 [513]), the death of emperor Anastasios and elevation of Justin I to the throne (Epitome 155 [524]).119 Altogether, there are reports of as many as 27 events, though the anecdotal story of the phylarchos is apparently not secular in character and should be omitted this list. On the other hand, one should add the Epitome 66 [402], which treats the beginning of Basiliskos’ usurpation. Of course, some of the other reports are also inseparably linked with the history of the Church (e.g., Epitome 27 [362], 37 [372], 94 [435], 108 [455]), which is, as previously noted, inevitable. However, taken as a whole, it can be assumed that in the Greek epitome of Theodore’s composition, nearly one-fifth of events are somehow connected to political history. It should be assumed, on the basis of the Latin epitome of Theodore’s Church History in Victor’s Chronicle, that Theodore had also recounted events such as the fall of Chrysaphios (s.a. 450.2), the elevation of Patricius, Aspar’s son, to the rank of Caesar (s.a. 470), the murder of Aspar and his sons (s.a. 471), the flight of Zeno and his wife Areadne to Isauria (s.a. 475.3) and also the revolt of Vitalian (s.a. 510.-511. 514). It is therefore quite evident that Theodore must have included a substantial amount of often fairly detailed information (e.g., Epitome 37 [372]) referring to at least some of the most significant political events of the period. Generally speaking, Theodore’s appraisal of individual rulers was closely linked to their activity in the field of religious policy. Those who acted in support of the Miaphysite movement (Theodosios II, Basiliskos, Zeno, Anastasios) are represented as morally corrupt and weak, whereas those who stood by the decrees of Chalcedon (Marcian, Leo I, Justin) as outstanding and powerful figures.120 In his depictions of rulers’ actions, Theodore appears nevertheless to applaud their military efforts and undertakings, even when it comes to the emperor ←130 | 131→Anastasios.121 It is possible that the author sought to propose, at least to a certain extent, that matters of religious policy be handed over to the metropolitan patriarchs, but, as Blaudeau rightly observes, the emperor could take on a more prominent role in the life of the Church, in Theodore Lector’s view, on condition that he is an orthodox ruler.122 ←131 | 132→ Testimonia 1. Suda, Θεόδωρος (θ 153, ed. Adler ii, 696) Θεόδωρος, ἀπὸ ἀναγνωστῶν τῆς μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Ἔγραψεν Ἱστορίαν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ἀπὸ τῶν χρόνων Κωνσταντίνου ἕως τῆς βασιλείας Ἰουστινιανοῦ. 2. Scholion in Codex Athous Vatopedi 286, fol. 210r Θεόδωρος ὁ τοῦ ἐντολέως ἐπονομαζόμενος, ἀναγνώστης τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας, συνεγράψατο ἱστορίαν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ἀπὸ τῶν χρόνων βασιλέως Θεοδοσίου τοῦ νέου καὶ πατριάρχου τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Πρόκλου μέχρι τῆς βασιλείας Ἀναστασίου αἱρετικοῦ τοῦ δικόρου καὶ τῆς ἱεραρχίας Τιμοθέου τοῦ συναιρεσιώτου αὐτῷ· ἀφ’ ἧς ἱστορίας καὶ τῶν ἐνταῦθα ἐκλογῶν αἱ πλείους εἰσί. ←132 | 133→ Testimonia 1. Suda, Θεόδωρος (θ 153) Theodore, one of the lectors of the Great Church123 of Constantinople. He wrote a Church History from the times of Constantine to the reign of Justinian. 2. Scholion in Codex Athous Vatopedi 286, fol. 210r Theodore, who is surnamed [the son] of the procurator,124 a lector of the Great Church of Constantinople, composed a Church History from the times of emperor Theodosios the Younger125 and patriarch Proklos,126 who is among the saints, until the reign of Anastasios Dikoros,127 the heretic, and the episcopate of Timothy,128 his fellow-heretic. Most of the excerpts hereafter are also from this History. ←133 | 134→ Historia tripartita Proemium (ed. Hansen, 1) Θεοδώρου ἀναγνώστου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας βιβλίον αʹ. Ἔκ τινος ψήφου ἐπιξενοῦσθαί μοι λαχόντι κατὰ τὸ ὑμέτερον Παφλαγόνων ἔθνος ἐν μητροπόλει τοὔνομα Γάγγρᾳ, ἐν αὐτῇ τε ἀπολαύσαντι τῆς σῆς ἱερᾶς ὁμοῦ καὶ τιμίας μοι κεφαλῆς, ἠναγκαζόμην παρ’ αὐτῆς, ἐξαυτῆς τὰς ὑποθέσεις ληψόμενος, συναγαγεῖν τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἱστοριῶν τοὺς ἐκθέντας καὶ μίαν τινὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἁρμόσασθαι σύνταξιν. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ πατρικῇ κελεύσει ἀντιλέγειν οὐχ ὅσιον, εἰ καὶ φράσεως τῆς πρεπούσης ἐλειπόμην, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἔργον ἀμελλητὶ ἦλθον ὑμετέραις εὐχαῖς τεθαρρηκώς. Εὐσεβίου τοῦ θαυμασιωτάτου τοῦ ἐπίκλην Παμφίλου κεκμηκότος περὶ τὴν συλλογὴν τῶν ἀνέκαθεν τὰς τοιαύτας ἐκκλησιαστικὰς ὑποθέσεις λογίων ἀνδρῶν συγγεγραφότων, οὐ μόνον λέγω τῶν παρὰ Χριστιανοῖς φιλοσοφησάντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρ’ Ἑβραίοις, καὶ τήνδε τήν ἱστορικὴν σύνταξιν ποιησαμένου ἄχρι τοῦ εἰκοστοῦ ἔτους τῆς φιλοχρίστου καὶ ὡς ἀληθῶς ὑπὸ θεοῦ χειροτονηθείσης βασιλείας Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ πανευφήμου καὶ μακαριωτάτου, ὧδε καταλύσαντος, ἐπὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον τῆς ὑποθέσεως σχῆμα μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς ἀκριβείας, ὥς γε τῶν ἐκτεθέντων ἡ γραφὴ μαρτυρήσει, τὴν σπουδὴν πεποιήκεσαν θεοφιλεῖς ὁμοῦ καὶ λογιώτατοι ἄνδρες· λέγω δὲ Θεοδώρητος ὁ τῆς ὁσιας μνήμης γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος Κύρρου, Σωζομενὸς καὶ Σωκράτης, τῶν ἐπιλοίπων χρόνων ποιούμενοι τὴν πραγματείαν, οὐκ ἄμφω τὸν τοιοῦτον ὅμιλον θέμενοι, ἀλλ’ ἰδίᾳ ἕκαστος φιλοσοφήσας καὶ τοὺς λόγους ἀναγράψας. Ἐπεὶ οὖν τινα μὲν τῶν κατὰ καιροὺς πραχθέντων ὑπὸ τῆς ἀκολουθίας ὠθούμενοι ἑκάτεροι ἀπεδείχθησαν φράσαντες, τινὰ δὲ ἰδιαζόντως, εὔλογον ᾠήθην τὰ κοινῶς αὐτοῖς συμφωνούμενα διὰ τοῦ σαφέστερον καὶ εὐφραδέστερον διηγουμένου τῇ παρούση βίβλῳ κατατάξαι, ἐν τῇ παρόψει παρασημαινόμενος ὡς ἄμφω συμπεφωνήκασι· τὰ δὲ ἑκάστῳ πάλιν ἰδίως ἐκτεθέντα παραδηλώσω. Ἄρξομαι δὲ τῆς ὑποθέσεως ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας τοῦ μακαριωτάτου Σωζομενοῦ. ←134 | 135→ Historia tripartita Preface The Church History of Theodore Lector of Constantinople. Book One. By a certain decree it came upon me to dwell among your people of Paphlagonia129 in the metropolis of Gangra,130 where I enjoyed your holy and noble presence, by whom I was motivated and from whom I received the subject of this work, to assemble the accounts of the Church’s history and to combine them into one composition. Since one should not question a father’s command, and even if I lack the appropriate eloquence, I did not hesitate to undertake such a work, having trust in your prayers. Once the most admirable Eusebios,131 surnamed Pamphilou, had laboriously prepared a compendium [of the works of] the erudite men who had composed such accounts of the Church from its origin; and I am referring not only to the Christian scholars, but also to those of the Hebrews. And he brought this historical composition as far as the twentieth year of the Christ-loving and in truth divinely-appointed rule of Constantine,132 the all-praiseworthy and most blessed. As he ended at this point, the God-loving and most erudite men had together undertaken the effort, with great precision for this manner of work, so that the record will testify to the events. I speak of Theodoret133 of blessed memory, who became bishop of Kyrrhos, Sozomen134 and Sokrates,135 who undertook the treatment of the subsequent times. They did not set out the same narration together, but each of them undertook his own studies and recorded them in his own words. Therefore, since each of them, in his narration, set forth some of the events in chronological order, closely following their sequence, but other events in a different fashion, I believed it would be reasonable to arrange in the present book those events upon which they commonly agreed by way of a clearer and more accurate narration. You will notice that I have therein marked where all of them were in agreement, and I will in turn distinguish those events where they were not. I will begin the subject from the history of the most blessed Sozomen.