Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian controversy

INFORMAnON TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, coIored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the authOr did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.

Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs induded in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy.

Higher quality 6- x 9" black and white

photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contad UMI directfy to order.

Bell & Hewell Information and learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600

Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy Susan Wessel Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2000

UMI Number: 9970314

UMf UMI Microform9970314 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

Bell & Howelllnformation and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

02000 Susan Wessel All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy Susan Wessel Through an examination of the complex events leading to the Council ofEphesus and beyond (400-451 AD), my dissertation "Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy" attempts to understand the fonnation of Byzantine orthodoxy from an historical and cultural perspective. In particular, my dissertation examines a wide variety of Greek and Latin texts, including conciliar acts. christological and exegetical treatises, homilies, letters, and ecclesiastical narratives. I conclude that Cyril's method of rhetorical argumentation contributed not only to Cyril's victory at the Council of Ephesus, but to his elevation as one of the great church fathers of Byzantine Christianity, a rise to prominence that was mirrored by Nestorius' eventual downfall into exile and despair.

Table of Contents Acknowledgements

u

lntroduction

1

1.

Confrontation in the Early Episcopacy

24

2.

Political Alliance and the Onset of Controversy

106

.J.

The Reception ofNicea

158

4.

The Meeting of the Council

196

5.

Cyril's Logos and the Art of Invective

259

6.

Nestorius'

7.

Ephesus and its Aftennath: 431-451 AD

344

Epilogue

393

Select Bibliography of Secondary Sources Appendix

399 420

.,

Logo.~

and the Rhetorical Tradition of Antioch

315

Acknowledgments This dissertation would not have been possible without the expert guidance of Roger Bagnall~ who served as dissertation sponsor. and Alexander Alexakis, who served as second reader. Roger Bagnall provided helpful criticism and thoughtful advice throughout all stages of the dissertation, from prospectus to completion; Alexander Alexakis spent countless hours over the last six years teaching me to read Byzantine Greek and to decipher the complexities of conciliar texts. and for that [ am grateful. Both advisors patiently read through numerous drafts and offered many necessary corrections. Susan Harvey was particularly generous in allowing me to participate as a visiting student in her Graduate Seminar at Brown University, where I received insightful comments from all participants in the Seminar. and where I began my work on the Council ofEphesus. While serving as Chair of the department of Religion and Director of Graduate Studies. Robert Somerville graciously facilitated my research and writing of the dissertation. To these scholars I am grateful for their assistance. and for what they have taught me.

ii

1

Introduction

In the city ofEphesus in 431 AD, an ecumenical council of bishops gathered together, ready to address the vexing problems of christological interpretation raised by Cyril of Alexandria's protracted dispute with Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople. Christological concerns, in particular, flourished during this period of controversy, as monks, clerics and laity vigorously debated the relationship between the human and divine natures in Christ. While the Alexandrians, during the early years of the Nestorian controversy represented by Cyril bishop of Alexandri~ believed that Christ's human and divine natures were intimately bound together into one single nature of God enfleshed (tllav niv Toii 6EOii CPVOlV oeoaplCc..>I.lEVTlv), their opponents, the Antiochenes,

staunchly declared a dual nature Christ, whose separate human and divine natures were ultimately linked by a single prosopon (lTpooc..>lTov). The debate was not simply an intellectual one, for the outcome of this christological controversy produced grave soteriological consequences according to both sides of the dispute. Just as the Alexandrians believed that a single nature Christ, with an emphasis on Christ's divinity, was a necessary component of their soteriological scheme, the Antiochenes believed that the preservation of Christ's humanity, distinct and separable from His divinity, was essential to ensure complete salvation. Modem scholars have ascribed these christological differences to the varied response to Arianism formulated by the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools. Arius had evidently adduced much scriptural evidence of Jesus' lowly nature in order to confirm his subordinationist conception of the divine

Lo~s.

Young represents the majority scholarly

view when she explains that Alexandrian christology, starting with Athanasius, responded

2 to Arianism's claims for a mutable, derivative LOW by asserting that ""[t]he LoWS himself did not experience weakness, suffering and death in his essential Being; it was the flesh he took which was subject to these human limitations. "I The Logos, therefore, under the Alexandrian christological scheme, ""remained the subject of the incarnatio~" a christological assumption rejected by the Antiochenes. 2 Instead, the Antiochenes attributed weakness, fallibility and passion only to Christ's human nature, the ""man that he assumed "3 Scholars such as Wilken and Young suggest, therefore, that controversy arose between the schools of Alexandria and Antioch because of these divergent responses to Arianism.4 Though much indebted to this lucid, christological scheme, the present study, nonetheless, rejects this model for understanding the christological debates of the fifth century in favorofa literary and historical approach. By examining the theological arguments made by both sides of the Nestorian debate, including doctrinal treatises, letters. homilies, conciliar acts and ecclesiastical narratives, this study plans to show that Cyril adopted the language of anti-Arianism as part of a broader polemical strategy, by which Cyril and his followers effectively appropriated the discourse of Nicea F. M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background (London, 1983), p. 179. 1

2

Ibid. p. 179.

3

Ibid. p. 180.

4 See R Wilken, "Tradition, Exegesis, and the Christological Controversies," Church History 34 (1965), p. 123-145. F. M. Young, fmm Nicaea !QChalcedon, p. 178-289. For a discussion of the Word-Flesh, Word-Man understanding of the Alexandrian and Antiochene christological schools, see J. N. D. KelJy, ~ Christian Doctrines (San Francisco, 1960), p. 280-309. RA. Norris criticizes the Word-Flesh, Word-Man model in ""Christological Models in Cyril of Alexandria," Studia Patristica 13 (1975), p. 255-268.

3 and, in the process, laid claim to their "rightful" position in the history of the Byzantine orthodox tradition. Even while Cyril cast his christological concerns into the language of anti-Arianism, therefore, Cyril never sincerely believed that Nestorius promoted a subordinationist conception of Christ. for Cyril deftly borrowed the language of antiArianism in his debates with Nestorius partly in order to inflame public opinion against his adversary, and to secure his own position as the interpreter of and heir to the orthodox tradition of Nicea. 5 Starkly different cultural and soteriological assumptions, nonetheless, lay behind the differences between the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools. 6 Indeed, Cyril's particular understanding of the eucharist defined his christological and soteriological plan to a large extent, for Cyril believed that Christians achieved salvation mainly through participating in the body and blood of Christ. It was the inextricable bond between the human and divine natures of Christ which ensured that Christians received the share of divinity necessary to render them secure against the forces of death. 7 Cyril believed that when Nestorius dissolved that essential union, the sacrament of the eucharist was in jeopardy, along with the foundations of the Christian soteriological scheme, for Christians

5

See Chapters 3 and 5.

See J. Guillet, "Les exegeses d' Alexandre etd' Antioch conflitou malentendu?" Recherche ~ Science Reliweuse 34 (1947) p. 257-302. For a full discussion of Christian thought in Antioch, see D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch (Cambridge, 1982).

6

W. H. C. Frend, The Rise mthe Monophysite Movement (Cambridge, 1972), p. 124; see H. Chadwick, "Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy," Journal QC Theological Studies, N.S. 2,2 (1951), p. 145-164. 7

4

at communion no longer shared in the divine flesh and blood of Christ. 8 Antiochene christology proceeded from an entirely different set of assumptions, namely the belief that humans were ethical beings possessed of free will, whose salvation depended on their emulation of Christ and his restoration of humankind after the Fall of Adam. 9 This ethical dimension meant that Antiochene christology stressed the Christians' relationship to the humanity of Christ., with particular emphasis on the Jesus of the gospels as an ethical paradigm amenable to imitation and emulation. At stake in the christological controversies of the fifth century, therefore, were not simply arcane christological/trinitarian formulations, but an entire world view, a conception of Christ's humanity and its relationship to the divine that echoed broader concerns for the individual and his or her place in the cosmos. Was humanity closely linked to the divine through the Eucharistic consumption of Christ, as Cyril claimed, or was the gulf nearly insurmountable, bridged only by emulating Jesus' ethical example? These competing world views clashed for the first time in an ecumenical setting at the council of Ephesus in 431. On June 22, 431 AD, under the direction ofCyril of Alexandria and Memnon bishop of Ephesus, a council of bishops anathematized and deposed Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople, declaring him a heretic. 10 Installed as bishop of the Imperial City by the emperor Theodosius 11, Nestorius came from Antioch in Syria, where he apparently studied with Theodore of Mopsuestia, a Christian student of the Pagan 8 W. H. C. Frend, The Rise 2f~ Monophysite Movement. p. 125; Epistula iii

(synodica) Cyrilli Alex.

~

Nestorium

(~5317) ~

I, I, I, p. 33-42.

9 D.

S. WaJlace-HadrilJ, Christian Antioch (Cambridge, 1982), p. 125; W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of~ Monophysite Movement, p. 126. 10 Gesta

Ephesina. A£t.m!(d 22 lun. a 431}. (~8675) ~ I, I, 2, p. 3-64.

rhetorician Libanius. ll

5 A staunch proponent of the Antiochene dual nature christology,

Nestorius had been involved in protracted debate with Cyril for several years before the emperor Theodosius 11 finally called for an ecumenical gathering of bishops to resolve their christological differences. Travel delays conspired to produce additional problems for the council, however, for the Antiochene delegation of bishops led by John bishop of Antioch arrived several days after Cyril and Memnon began the official conciliar proceedings. When John of Antioch and his followers finally arrived they found that Cyril and Memnon had unilaterally deposed their fellow Antiochene Nestorius. 12 In response, John and the Antiochene delegation of bishops angrily convened a countersynod which promptly deposed Cyril of Alexandria and Memnon of Ephesus, just as they had deposed Nestorius only days before. 13 Far from the ecumenical gathering of bishops that the emperor Theodosius 11 had decr~ the bishops at Ephesus formed two councils and reached two entirely contradictory decisions. When Theodosius 11 confirmed the findings of both parties, the ensuing confusion surrounding the christological issues found no finn resolution until the Act of Union in 433. in which Cyril and John of Antioch both made concessions for the sake of ecclesiastical peace. 14

G. Downey, Ancient Antioch (Princeton, 1963), p. 193. See also 1. W. H. Walden, The Universities of Ancient Greece (New York, 1909); P. Petit, Les Etudiants de Libanius (Paris, (956). 11

12

Relatio ~ imperatores ~ depositione Nestorii. (CPG 8684) ACa I, I, 3, p. 3-5.

13

Gesta a synodo Orientalium (d. 26 m. lun. a. 431). (CPG 8691) Aea I, I, 5, p. 121.

14 Sacra directa 3 [ lobannem comitem concilio. (~8723) AQl I, 1,3, p. 31-32; ~ ad lohannen Antiochenum. (~ 8810) Am I, I, 4, p. 3-5; ~ id Acacium 8eroeensem. (~8812) Am I, I, 7, p. 146.

6 Christological controversy continued intennittently throughout the next twenty

years. until the council of Chalcedon in 451 finally embraced the Tome of Pope Leo the Great. and its confinnation of a dual nature christology. Though some scholars claim that Chalcedon' s dyophysitism represents a significant triumph for Nestorius and the Antiochene school. one modem scholar believes. rightly so. that Chalcedon was not in any sense a vindication ofNestorius' dual nature christology.15 Instead, he explains that the Chalcedonian majority deemed the dual nature language a necessary response to the extreme Monophysitism of Eutyches and his followers. In fact. that theory had already been proposed in ancient times by the Neochalcedonian. Nephalius. who complained that the struggle against Eutyches had produced the unwieldy (TTaXVJ.lEpes.lit: coarse) doctrine ofChalcedon. 16 During the intervening years between Ephesus and Chalcedon. controversy apparently erupted when Eutyches. the archimandrite of a large monastery in Constantinople. condemned as Nestorians anyone who subscribed to the dual nature language contained in the Formula of Reunion (Act of Union 433). In response. the P. T. R. Gray. The Defense ofChalcedon in the East (451-553) (Leiden. 1979). p. 2. For Cha1cedon as a triumph of Antiocbene christology. see. for example. C. Moeller. "Le chalcedonisme et le neo-chalcedonisme en Orient de 451 a la fin de la siecle." in A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht. eds.• ~ Konzil YQIl Chalkedon I (Wurzburg. 1951). p. 638720. 15

Severus of Antioch (Nephalius). Contr. Gramm .• t. Ill. p. 48. lines 27-32. Severus Antiochenus. ~ contra impium Grammaticum (syriace) (~7024). J. Lebon. ed., Severi Antiocheni Imcontra impium Gmmmaticum. CseD 111 (Louvain 1938. 1952) (2nd ed.) (textus orationis primae et orationis secundae quae supersunt); CSCO 112 (Louvain 1938. 1952)(2nd ed)(translatio); CSCO 93 (Louvain 1929. 1952)(2nd ed.) (textus orationis t~~i~e. partis prioris); CSCO 94 (Louvain, 1929. (952) (translatio); CSCO 101 (Lou"ain 1933. 1952) (textus orationis tertiae. partis posterioris); CSCO 102 (Louvain, 1933. 1952}(translatio). Cited by Ch. Moeller. "Nephalius d' Alexandrie." RHE 40 (1944-1945), p. 128. 16

7

Chalcedonian majority reluctantly abandoned Cyril's "out of two natures" formula (contained in the Act of Union) in favorofPope Leo's "in two natures," because they believed that Cyril's formula did not adequately guard against Eutyches' and Dioscorus' (Cyril's successor in Alexandria) rampant Monophysitism. 17 To defend Cyrillian orthodoxy against the incursions ofEutyches, therefore, the majority Chalcedonians were willing to sacrifice Cyril's dyophysite language of 433 in favor of Pope Leo's Tome. In no way a vindication ofNestorianism, therefore, the dyophysite formula ofChalcedon was, paradoxically, a defense ofCyrillianism and its understanding of the creed. When the bishops at Chalcedon shouted, "Cyril was orthodox! Cyril thinks like Leo!" there was no doubt for the Chalcedonian majority that this was, indeed, a pro-Cyrillian council. In fact, pro-Cyrillian sentiments ran so deep by the time ofChalcedon 451 that both the majority Chalcedonians and their Monophysite opponents (represented by the archimandrite Eutyches and the Egyptian delegation of bishops) simultaneously claimed to preserve Cyrillian orthodoxy from the incursions of their opponents. At the same time, Nestorius, the deposed bishop of Constantinople, was considered a heretic of such immense proportions that no one save the most ardent Nestorians in Antioch dared to invoke Nestorius' name in connection with the dyophysite language of Pope Leo's Tome. Indeed, for the one hundred years following the council of Chalcedon 451, Byzantine Christians of various christological persuasions all laid claim to Cyril's legacy, eager to declare their unwavering devotion to Cyrillian orthodoxy. The following chapters study this paradoxical state of affairs from a cultural and historical perspective, examining how Cyril of Alexandria emerged during his lifetime and beyond as one of the most influential church fathers of Byzantine history, his orthodox 17

P. T. R. Gray, The Defense QC ChalcedoD. p. 13-14.

8 credentials impeccably intact. while Nestorius himself. deposed and exiled, became one of the greatest archetypal heretics of the Byzantine church. 18 Previous scholarship detennined that Cyril enjoyed victory in the Nestorian controversy because of his superior doctrinal orientation, 19 a conclusion steeped in the assumptions of dogmatic history, which viewed the formation of Christian dogma as a logical process in which each theological doctrine was inextricably linked to a larger organic whole. 20 That See P. T. R. Gray, 'The Select Fathers: Canonizing the Patristic Past," Studia Patristica 23 (1989), p. 21-36. Gray examines the practice of referring to certain revered church fathers of the past in order to lend authority to one's own theological position. For recent works that address theological controversy from a cultural perspective, see E. A. Clark, The Oricenist Controversy (Princeton, 1992); V. Burrus, The Makini: QC ~ Heretic (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1995). Rather than a rehabilitation of heretical sects, both works constitute a reinterpretation of the very nature of theological discourse -- Clark along the lines of social network theory, and Burros according to power, gender and authority. 18

See, for example, C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. III (Edinburgh, 1883). 19

R. Seeberg, Textbook of the History of Doctrines (trans. C. E. Hay) (Grand Rapids, 1964). p. 19-20. '"Dogma is an exceedingly complicated historical structure. It has in its constituent parts, constructed as they have been in the face of multifarious forms of opposition, and under the inspiration of many practical ... impulses and external ... occasions, received the impress of different theological tendencies. Thus dogmas have been '''deepened,'' or '"disintegrated" and superficialized-Iogically developed, or, under the influence of advancing views, transformed, restored, and again newly interpreted. To delineate these historical processes is the office of the History of Doctrines--to show how the Dogma as a whole and the separate dogmas have arisen and through what course of development they have been brought to the form and interpretation prevailing in the churches of any given period." Seeberg does, however, reject "the formerly accepted division of the science into the General and Special History of Doctrines, as well as the subdivision of the latter (as in Baur and Hagenbach) according to the arrangement of topics in the systematic theology of the day; for it is evident that this method of treating the subject is not historical." Ibid. p. 22. German edition, R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch ~ Dogmen~eschichte (Leipzig, 1920-1933). 20

9 methodological approach, however. failed to explain why both the Monophysites and the Chalcedonian majority both wished to claim Cyril as their own. even while they openly espoused widely different christological interpretations. Nor did it explain why Nestorius failed to achieve any hint of vindication from the Chalcedonian bishops. even though the majority Chalcedonians in 451 adopted dyophysite language reminiscent of Nestorius, in order to protect their orthodox creed from the dangers of Eutychianism. 21 While dogmatic historians sought to arrange these apparent contradictions into distinctly logical structures. this study situates the dogmatic controversy within its broader historical and literary context, examining the full range ofliterary

~enres

often neglected

by dogmatic historians of the past. including homilies and Festalletters~ which do not generally contain the sophisticated doctrinal teachings once the exclusive domain of historians of dogma. 22 Indee~ this literary approach examines matters of doctrine. but

ID

relation to the broader literary context and. in the process, sacrifices the rational, logical consistency of the dogmatic approach in order to retrieve the sometimes contradictory nuances of the literary text. Implied in this literary method is, therefore, an abiding 21 Nestorius has, nonetheless, received favorable scholarly attention in recent years. For basic bibliography see M. V. Anastos. ··Nestorius was Orthodox;' DOP 16 (1962), p. 119-140; R. C. Chesnut, ··The Two Prosopa in Nestorius' Bazaar of Heracleides," JTS 29 (1978), p. 392-409; J. Jouassar~ ··Melanges: Le cas de Nestorius," RHE 74 (1979); H. E. W. Turner, 4. atchnrii lCal ~E~alav -niv EiS airrov cpvAaTTc.lIlEV OIJOAoylav. Brakke suggests that Theophilus' divisive anti-Origenist campaign may have widened the gap between Greeks and Copts which Athanasius had bridged through his ascetic policies. D. Brakke, Athanasius lWl Asceticism. (Baltimore, 1995), p. 272. 56 Epistula paschalis L SChr 372, p. 156. 8\10 yap ETval KEAEUel TaS oaATTlyyas. OTl SrTTAOvs TlS EOTl Tlis EKICAnOlaS 0 A6yoS' ... 57

Epistula paschalis L SQ!r 372, p. 156, 158.

46 considerable attention to the spiritual benefits of fasting - for both monks and laity alike. In fact, Athanasius had similarly emphasized ascetic practice in his first Festal letter, suggesting that Cyril consciously and visibly sought to emulate Athanasius' favorable initiative toward the monks, rather than the more contentious policies enacted by his predecessor and uncle Theophilus. 58 Monks, according to Cyril, were the unappreciated spiritual elites of the Christian community whose heavenly recompense would provide ample reward for their efforts: they were not the quarrelsome, heretical Origenists attacked by his uncle. Cyril's political response to Theophilus' legacy with respect to the Imperial City was a complex one, whose ramifications extended throughout the next several years. In fact, one modem scholar envisions a stark parallelism between Theophilus' and Cyril's Alexandrian methods of diplomacy applied to the Imperial City, suggesting that Cyril wholeheartedly embraced the lessons from his uncle. 59 There are countervailing concerns, nevertheless, for Theophilus reportedly began his anti-Origenist campaign well before his attempts to depose John Chrysostom, while Cyril's confrontation with Nestorius bears little evidence ofan organized anti-heretic campaign prior to the onset of controversy. In that case, there is no reason to assume that Cyrirs quarrels with Nestorius proceeded

58

Athanasi us Alex., Epistulae festales. (CPG 2102) Epistu1a L fQ. 26, 1360-1366.

N. H. Baynes, "Alexandria and Constantinople: A Study in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy," ArchaeololLY 12 (1926), p. 145-156, 151; reprinted in Byzantine Studies mKt~ Essays (London, 1955), p. 97-115. 59

Journal2fE~tian

from anything less than genuine pastoral

concern. 6O

47 All the same, though. Cyril plainly

benefited from his presence alongside his uncle at the Synod of the Oak. Just as John Chrysostom was deposed, in absentia, for failure to answer his summons. in a similar fashion did eyril eventually condemn Nestorius. who obstinately refused to appear at the first assembly of bishops in Ephesus. contrary to ecclesiastical law. Strikingly absent from the entirety of Cyril' s works, however. and most notably absent from the voluminous extant documents ofEphesus, is any mention of the anti-Origenist proceedings conducted during his uncle's tenure as bishop. That, together with Cyril's pro-monastic discourse, evinced an unambiguous and conscious desire to distance himself from the ecclesiastical policies enacted by his uncle.

11.

Three years after Cyril closed the Novatian churches of Alexandria, Socrates

reports a complex incident involving the Alexandrian Jews' so-called rowdy patronage of dance shows; the subsequent eruption of violence between Jews and

Christians~

and the

ominous intervention of the augustal prefect Orestes, which reportedly resulted in the expUlsion of the entire Jewish community from the city of Alexandria. 6 I It seems that [fSocrates. Sozomen and Palladius are correct, there is some evidence to suggest that Theophilus' anti-Origenism was politically motivated and that his campaign against Chrysostom evolved from this anti-Origenist fervor. Cyril, on the other hand, was genuinely interested in opposing a dual nature christology before his confrontation with Nestorius. though a full-fledged controversy began only after Nestorius' sermons against the Theotokos caused trouble and dissension for the Alexandrian monks. See M. Redies, "Kyrill und Nestorius: Eine Neuinterpretation des Theotokos-Streits," KLIO 80. 1 (1998), p. 195-208; H. Chadwick, "Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy," ill, 2 (1951), p. 145-164. See also S. Wessel, ""Nestorius, Mary and Controversy in Cyril of Alexandria's Homily IV \moaTaOEc.l~ airToii).I8I These fallacious beliefs ofa few heterodox (though unnamed) Christians were tacitly implicated in the subsequent stream of bad fortune plaguing the country, for Cyril declared that it was an angry and punishing God who pennined the turmoil of recent times. It seems that in the year prior to this. Cyril's eighth Festal letter. the Egyptian

countryside was beset with a host of natural disasters. including hailstonns that wiped out crops just before harvest time, leading to inevitable famine - especially amongst the peasantry. Banditry and ambush ensued. probably as the remaining crops were gathered and transported along the canals and river. I82 In this Festal letter, explicating the unity

179 Epistula paschalis VIII. SQlr 392, p. 100. EtS SE e~ eXll ea-dv. avvSeSpOlJllKOTc.lV SE (.)01TEP Eis EvoTTJTa q>vaucnv Kat OlOV aVaKlPVaVTc.lV aAAnAOlV OTTEP av t:.ls ffilOV EKOTEpCtllTPoaij·

18 Epistula Cyrilli Alexandrini id monachos. ACa I. I. I. p. 18. lines 4-16.

116

but conquered death as God, and this perfect commingling of God and man ultimately enabled humanity's complete salvation. 19 Cyril believed that to deny Christ's true divinity, a blasphemy implied by those who rejected the title Theotokcs for the Virgin. was to annihilate the very identification between God and man necessary for humans to achieve salvation. The monks of Egypt wished to receive the unequivocal certainty of guaranteed salvatio~ and that required the incarnation of a complete Godhead. one whose humanity and full divinity formed a proper commingling in the person of Christ. Cyril's theological teachings clearly reached the monastic communities of Egypt. who evidently accepted Cyril's arguments virtually wholesale. Convinced that Nestorius denigrated the divinity of Christ. the Coptic monk Shenute accused Nestorius of teaching that Jesus was simply an ordinary man like Moses -- which rendered Nestorius no better than a reprobate heretic. 20 Besa' s Vita of Shenute records one tradition in which Shenute. while allegedly attending the council ofEphesus, confronted an arrogant Nestorius. When Nestorius chastised Shenute. a OV)'KaeeAe IJOl TOUS aipETlKoUS. Kay~ cruyKa6eAc;:, OOl TOUS nepaas_ 34

See generally Codex Theodosianus (May 30, 428) 16.5.65.

122 Arians decided to bum down the chapel out

of sheer desperation. 35

Nestorius also confronted Novatians, Quartodecimans, and Macedonians, especially after the Macedonians assassinated their orthodox bishop, Anthony of Germ~ in a desperate plea to bring to an end his unyielding persecution of their sect. After committing this grievous crime, the Macedonians were then subject to punishment at Nestorius' command, for he convinced the emperor to close the Macedonian churches within Constantinople and beyond. 36 This likely raised the ire of the monastic community against their bishop, for the Macedonians had a long history of alliance with the monks of Constantinople. Not merely a marginalized Christian sect, the Macedonians were apparently well ensconced within the city proper. It was Macedonius himself. in fact, who instigated a monastic political alliance in the 350's AD when he incorporated several orders of monks residing in the Imperial City in order to assist in his persecution of Paul, the bishop of Constantinople. A dissenter from the homoousian creed, Macedonius allegedly instituted a violent persecution that involved the assistance of several monasteries of Constantinople. 37 It seems that a certain Marathonius, ordained bishop ofNicomedia by Macedonius, had helped the Macedonian sect to infiltrate the monastic establishments, for he was known as a zealous guardian (OlTovBalOS ETTlTpOTTOS) of the poor from monasteries inhabited by both men and women. 38 When

Socrates, HE, VT1.29, GCS, N. F. I, p. 378, lines 1-16. Eunomians had existed peacefully in the city for years. See Chapter L

3S

36

Socrates, HE, VIL31, ~ N. F. I, p. 379, lines 9-24.

On Macdonius' monastic alliance see Sozomen, HE, IV.2, GCS, N. F. 4, p. 141, lines 2-6.

37

38

Sozomen, HE, IV.20, GCS, N. F. 4, p. 170, lines 3-6.

123 Nestorius harassed the Macedonian sect. therefore, and succeeded in closing their churches, he may well have incurred the wrath of several monastic establishments ensconced in the Imperial City. Even Nestorius himself admitted that his virulent campaign against heresy invoked the wrath of many. 39 The staunch anti-monastic policies of John Chrysostom, a fellow Antiochene, were also evident in Nestorius' early dealings with the monastic community. Critical of urban monks who insinuated themselves into local houses and loitered about the streets, Nestorius apparently excommunicated several monks early in his episcopacy.4o John Chrysostom had earlier instituted similar legislation, for he had openly criticized monks who left the quiet and solitude of their monastic dwellings for participation in city life. and, in the process, John fell into disrepute with clergy and monks alike. In retaliation. many of John's detractors charged that he ate only in private, refusing all invitations to meals. 41 Known as a harsh and arrogant man, John's ensuing problems with the monastic establishment would cause him grave difficulties in the anti-Origenist proceedings to come. That Nestorius followed John's precedent in this regard meant trouble for Nestorius as well. for several monks of Constantinople. including the archimandrite Basil.

Epistula Nestorii ~ Iohannem antiochenum. F. Loofs. NeSloriana. p. 183, lines 26-30. Omnem rem facilius contra me ab hominibus putabam moveri posse potius quam calumniam vel uti de pietate fidei recta non saperem, qui usque hactenus propter pugnam, quam contra universos haereticos habeo, multa miIlia hostilitatum contra me de lector insurgere. 39

40 Le Livre d'Heraclide sk Damas, F. Nau, transL, p. 363. Lettre, ~ ~ Constantinople Cos me d' Antioche, sur Jil deposition ~ ~ miracles sk Nestorius. Appendix I, p. 361366; Introduction, p. vi.

~

41

Sozomen, HE, VIII.9, ~ N. F. 4, p. 362, lines 7-20.

124 soon complained ofNestorius' harsh treatment toward the monasteries. 42 Furthermore, Nestorius' reputation for abuse and tyranny with respect to the monastic establishment may have incited the renowned monk Hypatius against him. The Vita of Hypatius, attributed to Hypatius' disciple Callinicos from the monastery of Rouphinianes, depicts Hypatius as an orthodox monk who correctly presaged Nestorius' short and tumultuous reign. As Nestorius first approached the Imperial City, Hypatius allegedly saw in a vision that the secular authorities would install Nestorius on the imperial throne. Hypatius soon learned from his interpretation of a prophetic voice, however, that Nestorius would reprehensibly divide the orthodox faith, a prophecy whose truth emerged little-by-little, as Nestorius proceeded to deliver divisive sermons filled with abominations against the divine Lordship of Chri st. 43 From the perspective of the monastic community, Nestorius' decidedly unorthodox views merited an unambiguous response, a response which Hypatius eagerly provided when he allegedly removed Nestorius' name from the diptychs. 44 It was during this time, in fact, that the diptychs gradually emerged as the touchstone of orthodoxy, rendering Hypatius' bold Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, (Graz, 1960), vol. IV, p. 1104.

42 J. D.

Callinicus, Vita ~ Hypatii (BHG 760) (CPG 6042), G. J. M. Bartelink, Callinicos. Vie d'Hypatios, SQlr 177 (Paris, 1971) p. 208, 210, 212.

43

44 Callinicus, Vita sancti Hypatii. p. 212. rVOVS SE 6 'YneXTlos OTllTap' 0 SEl ETcITOV lEpECo.lS Tiis 'AAe;avSpEe.>v EKKAfJOlaS ... EK~aAAeTal 'ApelOV Slc.:,KOVTOS. aAACx aVaKAfJTEOS TOO KVPlOV TTpOlTE~lTOVTOS. Ibid. p. 88, lines 20-22, 24. 109

110

See Chapters 5 and 7.

Epistula Caelestini papae Id lobannem Antioch., luuenalem HieroSQI., Rufum Thessalon., Flavianurn Philippensem (d. 10 m. Aug. a. 430). (~ 8641 ) Versio graeca. ACa I, I, I, p. 90, lines 7-9. EVxo~e6a ~EV. i.lcrnep ~ta eaTl Tiis geOTfJTos Ti ouota. OUTe.> KaLnapa TTaOl ToTs onovSTiTToTE ovcnv av9pc.:,nOlS ~lav Tiis op&iis TTlOTee.>S aATigelav exelv' 111

152

doctrine with a unified church. In panicular, Pope Caelestine believed that the actual content of that doctrine, namely Nestorius' divided Christ:. served as a fitting metaphor for ecclesiastical division. That divisiveness was all the more reprehensible to Pope Caelestine because it originated from the bishop of Constantinople, an episcopate whose prestige emanated from the emperor himself and drew worshipers from around the world. Sensitive to the ecclesiastical hierarchy reconstituted at the council of Constantinople in 381 AD, Pope Caelestine noted that the patriarchate of Constantinople received its eminent status from its proximity to the imperial court, which implicitly confirmed Constantinople's second place in the hierarchy after the see of Rome. In contrast, the primacy of Rome was derived not exclusively from imperial, earthly rule, but from the divine mandate inherent in the tradition of apostolic succession. Such divisiveness within the ranks of the ecclesiastical establishment of the Imperial City implied to the Pope that Nestorius was no better than the wolf who takes the place of the shepherd, and enters the flock from within. Extending the same metaphor earlier coined in his letter to Cyril, Pope Caelestine constructed a vision ofNestorius, the evil wolf. whose deceptive infiltration into the powerful bishopric of the Imperial City produced civil war \\ithin the ranks of the ecclesiastical establishment. I 12 With the unequivocal disdain of Pope Caelestine, Nestorius was finally condemned on November 30,430, at a session held in Rome. Cyril clearly welcomed his new-found support from the West:. for he reported that all those in communion with the West must obey the judgment of the synod. a judgment reached

112 Epistula Caelestini paPae Id lohannem Antioch., Iuuenalem HierosoL, Rufum Thessalon., Flavianwn Philippensem (d. 10 m. Aug. a 430). ~ I, I, I, p. 90, lines 172 I. Pope Caelestine complained that Nestorius had insidiously attacked the church from within.

153 when Nestorius' writings were read into the record and determined to be heretical. 113 Fully cognizant of Rome's canonical primacy over the bishopric of Constantinople, Cyril deftly acquired the Pope's support at this early stage of controversy, an ecclesiastical political alliance that must have troubled the imperial court in Constantinople.

IV. Conclusions: During the several years prior to the meeting of the council in 431 AD, Cyril and Nestorius both fonned advantageous political alliances, Cyril with the monks and Pope, and Nestorius with the emperor Theodosius 11. In fact, eyril' s relationship with the monks of Egypt and the Imperial City was part of a conscious plan to win the support of this potentially powerful community, and that in spite of his uncle Theophilus' divisive monastic policies. I 14 When Nestorius' anti-Theotokos sennons began to wreak havoc with Cyril's monastic communities, therefore, Cyril responded with a carefully wrought encyclical letter designed to inform his monks that the epithet Theotokos for Mary was an entirely appropriate term, consistent with the spirit of the sacred scriptures and the Symbol of Faith promulgated at Nicea It seems that Cyril aimed to convince his fractious monks that Nestorius' refusal to designate Mary the Mother of God blasphemously implied that Jesus was not God. This approach proved successful, for the Coptic monk Shenute apparently believed that Nestorius denigrated the suffering of Christ and rendered Jesus no better than a man like Moses. As controversy deepene ~aOlAEl TTEp\ Tiis EICKATlOlaaTlKi;s EipTtVT1S •... yeveaSc.J AOllTOV EKtcATlOlaaTltcTt aUvoSos llalCpav TOU TTaAaTlov. Ev i.l ~aolAeVS ov napEaTlv. ov KOIlTlS TTapaylveTal. ov SllCaan;S CxnElAEl. aAAa 1l0VOV 6 TOU eEOU cp6l3os CxplCEi Kal it TClv CxTTOaTOAc.JV SlaTa~lS ...

208 with a throng of contentious bishops assembled at Nice~ the emperor Constantine apparently exhorted the bishops to quell all dissension and discord in order to reach the unanimous consent ofa 'single mind,' for Constantine believed that dissension in the church was worse than any other evil

(rnellTaVTo~

KaKoii xaAElTt:lTepov tiyoii}lal

TItv EKKATloiav Toii eeoii OTaolci~elv).29 Envisioning his role at Nicea as nothing less than the grand facilitator of harmony and peace within the church, Constantine insisted that an accord be reached, not by free debate and discussion. but through the orderly presentation of a singular body of doctrine to which all parties could readily agree. Candidianus. representative to Theodosius IT. was similarly charged with maintaining discipline within the council proper in order to ensure that synodal members engage in peaceful. orderly discussion. a mandate which undeniably required the comes' physical presence throughout the course of proceedings. Moreover, the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian In believed that the proper administration of this imperially sanctioned police function fully served the interests of church doctrine. and that an orderly discussion of all doctrinal matters would virtually ensure a fair and unanimous decision by the assembled bishops. Just as disorder and violence were thought to hinder the investigation of truth, the ordered and methodical presentation of statements by every bishop present was deemed sufficient. as it had been by Constantine a century earlier. for a just determination of the dogmatic issues in dispute. To that end, Candidianus was charged with maintaining certain procedural mechanisms designed to protect the integrity of the conciliar discussions: " ... and that each one listening patiently to the speakers, will apparently agree or disagree. and, that everything will be examined according to proposition and refutation. to be decided without any disturbance, 29 Sozomen. HE. 1.19. ~ N. F. 4. p. 40, lines 23-27.

209

and that by a common vote of your Holiness, a non-panisan decision will be reached in a manner pleasing to all. "30 In fact, Theodosius 11 was so committed to the process of synodal decision making that he declared Candidianus responsible for ensuring that no synodal member attempt to leave the city, or otherwise abscond from his conciliar duties, before the close of proceedings. A further provision. designed to prevent ancillary disputes from coming before the council, undoubtedly served a similar function. namely, that nothing should prevent the assembled council of bishops from reaching a unanimous and final determination of the dogmatic controversies plaguing the Eastern empire. To protect the various members of the council from civil litigation in a provincial court, Theodosius 11 had evidently declared that no civil accusation be brought against a synodal member in any of the courts in Ephesus: the only appropriate forum for such disputes remained the supreme court of Constantinople. This provision made clear that disputes falling under the rubric of civil litigation must not divert the attention ofsynodal members from the matter at hand, for any case that truly required judicial attention would ultimately be transferred to and adj udicated in the courts of the Imperial City. 31 A relief, no doubt, to the scores of bishops from around the empire, this decree offered synodal members ample protection against litigious persons seeking redress for petty grievances, especially those involving

zr Candjdianum. (~8668) ACa I, I, I, p. 120, lines 22-25.

30 Sacra ad synodum O:VE~lI(aKColS Se Tc;:,v

. .. AeyoIlEVc.lV EKaOTOV c:XKpoc::,IlEVOV npOOTl8eval TO SoKOUv ii O:VTtTl8eval Kal OUTColS naoav KaTCx npOTao(v TE Kat AVOlV Titv nEpt TOU O:An8oiis ooYllaTos epevvav S(xa TlvOs Tapaxiis SlaKpl8iival Kal KOlvij Tiis v~ETEpas aYlon1TOS 'V1iCPc,l aOTaalaOTOV TE Kal TOV naolv apeOlCoVTa TUnov Aal3Elv. For a different view of the process of conciliar debate, see 1. McGuckin. Si· ~ of Alexandria. p. 70, in which McGuckin downplays the significance of dialetical debate in resolving doctrinal disputes in the Byzantine church. 31

Sacra ad svnodum wCandidianum. ACa I, I, I, p. 121, lines 9-16.

210 the local population of Ephesus - clergy and laity alike. IndeecL any outside bishops drawn into controversy with persons from the city of Ephesus would have likely found

themselves at a grave disadvantage before the provincial courts. Likewise, Constantine had enacted a similar procedural decree when the council convened at Nicea 32 It seems that scores of bishops, eager to obtain redress for their grievances. presented the emperor with numerous complaints lodged against their fellow bishops. Exasperated by the mounting pile of documentation, Constantine ordered that all the memorials be destroyed by fire. Urging reconciliation and forgiveness. the emperor Constantine insisted that the parties turn their full attention to the doctrinal exigencies at hand. Theodosius II, like the emperor Constantine. evidently instituted similar procedural controls designed to ensure that the bishops remain free from all distractions. and turn their attention wholly to the resolution of dogmatic differences.

H.

While the imperial ~ issued through the emperor's representative, comes

Candidianus, paid ample attention to the myriad of procedural matters necessary for the smooth running of the council, the hardships of travel for the Syrian bishops, under the direction of John of Antioch, conspired to produce a host of problems, the repercussions of which would eventually strike the very foundations of the conciliar process. Expected to arrive by the appointed day of Pentecost, June 7,431 AD. John and his entourage of bishops experienced endless delays as they walked for thirty days without proper rest, an arduous and wearisome task that left several bishops ill and many horses dead. With John and his bishops somewhere in the environs of Ephesus. Cyril and the rest of the 32 Socrates, HE. 1.8, ~ N. F. I, p. 20, lines 9-12; Sozomen, HE. I. 17, ~ N. F. 4, p. 37, line 8 - p. 40, line 14.

211 Metropolitans allegedly awaited his arrival until they received the following message from two of his colleagues: "If I am late, do what you have to do." By this time it was well past the designated date of Pentecost, and Cyril was evidently more than eager to initiate proceedings. On June 22, 431, without the presence of the Syrian bishops, Cyril, along with 154 bishops, commenced the very first session of the council at Ephesus. Held in the Church ofSt. Mary, the council proceeded ostensibly under the auspices of the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian rn, consistent with the long tradition ascnbing to the emperor sole authority to convoke a conciliar gathering. From the very start, Cyril also made known his unique appointment as the local representative for Pope Caelestine, a fact clearly recorded in the transcript to the conciliar acts. 33 Claiming both papal and imperial approval, therefore, Cyril boldly initiated the opening ceremonies of the conciliar gathering of bishops - with John and the rest of the Syrian bishops nowhere in sight. Peter, a priest of Alexandria, served as the secretary for the council, and produced a written version of the acts entirely partisan in nature, one designed, no doubt, to present a concil iar record of events that would eventually withstand imperial scrutiny. 34 It was this version of the council, produced by a partisan of Cyril, that ultimately recorded the acts of Ephesus, later contained in various manuscripts preserved until the present day. Peter of Alexandria's written record, nonetheless, preserves the only detailed extant account of conciliar proceedings during the assembly at Ephesus, and remains the most significant historical source for reconstructing the events of the council. Gesta Ephesina. A£1i2! (d. 22 m. lun. a. 431). (~8675) AQl I, I, 2, p. 3. KVPlAAOU ·AAE~avSpeias. SuinoVTos Kal TOV Tonov TOO ClytCt.lTO:TOV Kal OOU:.uTO:TOV apXlEnlOKonou Tiis ·PCt.lllalCt.lV eKKATlOlas KEAEOTlVOV 33

A. de Halleux, "La premiere session dll coocile d'Ephese," p. 50. See also J. McGuckin, St. ~ p. 76. 34

212 The first person to testify before the assembled clergy and bishops, Peter (in a partisan account wholly designed to portray the Alexandrian position in the best possible light) explained to the synodal members that trouble began when some of bishop Nestorius' exegetical interpretations were brought from Constantinople to the city of Alexandria. interpretations that disturbed and troubled the readers to such an extent that a sea of confusion nearly enveloped the churches of Alexandria and beyond 35 When eyril learned of the theological problems infecting his congregation of churches, explained Peter, he wrote two letters to the bishop Nestorius, letters full of advice and exhortation. which Nestorius woefully ignored. wholly unwilling to comply with the terms set forth by eyril. Once Cyril discovered that Nestorius had sent to Rome several of his letters and books of exegesis, claimed Peter, Cyril promptly wrote to Pope Caelestine through his deacon Posidonius, requesting that Cyril's own letter be forwarded to the Pope - but only after he had received Nestorius' collection of writings. Pope Caelestine appropriately responded. explained Peter, with several letters, which contained a judicial decree. Soon after, the will (vEv",a) of the emperor convened a gathering of bishops to address the theological issues raised in this exchange of letters. A decidedly partial account of the events culminating in the assembly of bishops at Ephesus, Peter's opening testimony carefully presented the facts, admittedly undisputed, within the broader ecclesiastical context of Pope Caelestine's approval. With this unambiguous statement of Roman support, Cyril subtly contravened the Pope's clear intent to remain outside the actual conciliar discussion, for Cyril introduced straightaway the controversial notion that Nestorius had already been justly and appropriately condemned by papal decree. In fact. Theodosius 11 had virtually nullified the Pope's 35

Gesta Ephesina. ~1 ~ I, I, 2, p. 7, line 34 - p. 8, line 15.

213 earlier synodal judgmen~ issued Aug. 30. 430, when he declared that the future synodal gathering would decide all contested matters of doctrine. 36 Chastising Cyril for his aggressive manipulation of ecclesiastical affairs, Theodosius II explained that Cyril must take part in the proceedings, not as leader, but as one willing and eager to learn from an ecwnenical gathering of bishops, whose collective expertise should produce an exact detennination of the one. true faith}7 Contrary to the imperial guidelines set forth by Theodosius IT, Cynl readily ensconced himselfas president of the synodal assembly, eager to present his version of events at the commencement of proceedings. 38 Wielding his papal decree, Cyril. and his secretary Peter of Alexandria. apparently violated the process for conciliar decision-making envisioned by the emperor, one that demanded a fresh examination of the disputed theology - rather than a simple confirmation of Nestorius' deposition decreed by the partisan assembly in Rome. Cyril and the metropolitan bishops. nonetheless, unambiguously claimed imperial endorsement of the proceedings when they officially read into the record the emperor's Sacra convening the assembly ofbishops.39 A straightforward assertion of Theodos ius II's imperial theology, the ~ affirmed the close and intimate relationship between the Cyrillum Alex. ~ Id singulos metropo1itas (CPG 8651 ) ACa I, I. I. p. 115. lines 26 - 32.

36 Sacra ad

37 Sacra ad

Cyrillum ~. (CPG 8652) ACa I. I, I, p. 74, lines 12-17.

McGuckin argues that Cyril could claim canonical right to the presidency of the council. St. ~ p. 74. The present account suggests, however, that Cyril's presidency, even iftechically supported by canonical law, enabled Cyril to control the course of proceedings to such an extant as to render the council contrary to the spirit of the emperor Theodosius' imperial decrees. 38

39

Gesta Ephesina. Actio!. Aea I. I. 2, p. 8, lines 21-23.

214 proper expression of piety and the state's prosperity. Indee~ Theodosius II believed that an ecumenical gathering of bishops would produce the unanimity and concord necessary for peace, security, and an ecclesiastical establishment free from riots and seditions. Furthermore, punctuality was deemed essential by the emperor, who demanded the presence of all invited bishops by the appointed date of Pentecost, June 7, 431. 40 Such a clear imperial mandate offered Cyril the guise of imperial support when eynl insisted on commencing the council without the presence of the Antiochene delegation, whose extensive tardiness evidently violated the emperor's demands. 41 To convene the council without the Antiochene presence, however, was to commit a procedural violation of an even more pernicious nature. Theodosius 11 had clearly called for an ecumenical gathering of bishops drawn from throughout the empire in order to examine, in a proper ecclesiastical forum, the theological matters in dispute. Cyril' s abrupt commencement of proceedings, initiated by his improper reading of the imperial Sacra, constituted a clear violation of the emperor's intent, an intent which manifested an unambiguous desire to settle the escalating controversy before doctrinal differences threatened the very foundations of the state. Both an affirmation and usurpation of imperial authority, reading the ~ into the conciliar record without the presence of the Antiochene bishops amounted to a procedural anomaly that left the very status and legitimacy of the conciliar proceedings ultimately in question. The procedural problem did not escape the attention ofCyril, however, whose testimony before the council evinced a clear desire to account for his decidedly irregular actions. Sixteen days had already passed since the date appointed by letter, and Cyril 40 Sacra ad Cyrillum Alex. ~~singulos metropolitas. ACa I, I, I, p. 115, lines 22-23. 41

Gesta Ephesina. Actio !. ACa I, I, 2, p. 8, line 29 - p. 9, line 5.

215 testified before the assembled bishops that the council was tired of waiting. Many of the bishops had evidently fallen ill, some had even died., and the time had come, claimed Cyril, for the disputed matters of faith to receive their necessary consideration. With that justificatio~

Cyril asked that the second imperial ~ be read to the council by the

imperial representative, comes Candidianus. a ~ tha~ according to Cyril. demanded the prompt and timely resolution of all matters pertaining to faith.42 Mostly concerned with establishing procedural guidelines for the maintenance of proper order. the second imperial ~ said nothing about convening the invited bishops in a timely fashion. Obediently read into the record by the comes Candidianus, the imperial letter in its final paragraph indicated that Irenaeus should accompany bishop Nestorius to the holy council. In fa~ that final indication was an unambiguous expression of the emperor's wish to resolve the ecclesiastical dispute with all parties presen~ especially his bishop Nestorius43 -- a wish eventually affirmed by Theodotus of Ancyra, who declared, "Nestorius should take part in the proceedings so that the matters of piety be decided from a common resolve and agreement."44 A strange course of events ensued., nonetheless, that left Nestorius entirely at odds with the vast majority of synodal members, and notably absent from the assembled bishops. Nestorius, who delivered some controversial sennons soon after his arrival in Ephesus, had evidently angered several of the bishops. To make matters even worse, it Sacra ~ synodum Z! Candidianum. ~ 8668) ACa I. I, I, p. 120-121. Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. ~ I. I, 2, p. 9, lines 2-5.

42

43 Sacra ad

synodum ~Candidianum. ACa I, I, I, p. 121, lines 12-16.

44 Gesta Ephesina. Actio 1. ~ I, I, 2, p. 9, lines 6-8. . .. viiv '.U~VTOl CIICOAOu6ov EOTl ToTs lTpaTTO~EvolS ovvElvalKat TOV eeOv): and "inexorable (ay6vaTO!;),' slanderous titles that evidently gratified the

bishops congregated in the city. Once these enemies of Chrysostom had gathered at Chalcedon. they banded together and crossed over to the city of Constantinople. Greeted by several Alexandrian sailors busy with the transport of grain, Theophilus arrived at the shore and promptly took up residence at one of the imperial mansions. Soon after. Chrysostom was the unwitting recipient of a torrent of accusations. which evidently excluded the charge ofOrigenism. but raised a myriad of new. though often erroneous, accusations. To settle this mounting pile of grievances, the bishops eventually convened in one of the suburbs at Chalcedon, called 'The Oak (~PV!;)," and immediately summoned Chrysostom to answer the charges leveled against him. Unwilling to comply with the summons, however, Chrysostom claimed that only his enemies were congregated against him, and requested a general council to evaluate the matter in a non-partisan forum. The angry bishops repeated their citation four times, but always received the same response from Chrysostom. Citing only his procedural violation in failing to answer their summons. the synodal assembly finally condemned and deposed Chrysostom, the bishop of the Imperial City.49 Cyril, the young nephew to bishop Theophilus, was undoubtedly present at these proceedings, and learned a valuable political lesson in the 48 Socrates, HE, VI.lS, ~ N. F. 1, p. 336, line 19 - p. 337, line 2. 49 Socrates, HE, VI.lS. GCS N. F. I, p. 337. line 2 - p. 338, line 13; Sozomen, HE, VIII.I7, GCS, N. F. 4, p. 371, line IS - p. 373, line S.

218

process, namely that procedural violations, including the failure to answer a summons, could suffice to condemn and depose a political enemy. Similarities abound between the two Antiochene bishops, Nestorius and Chrysostom, both of whom were installed bishop of the Imperial City by their respective emperors. Like his predecessor on the episcopal throne of Constantinople, bishop John Chrysostom, Nestorius adamantly refused to appear at a partisan gathering of bishops. Indeed, the absence of the Antiochene delegation rendered Cyril's assembly of bishops nothing more than a partisan attempt at conciliar controL Summoned four times by the Cyrillian party, Nestorius, just like Chrysostom, consistently and obstinately refused to appear before the council - at least until the presence of a so-called ecumenical gathering of bishops. Nestorius' refusal to answer the conciliar summons evidently did not hinder Cyril's party from proceeding with a full-fledged, though admittedly one-sided, investigation into the doctrinal allegations raised against him. Theophilus and his followers had understandably failed to reach any synodal determination on the host of substantive charges leveled against John Chrysostom, instead taking refuge in the sole fact of John's procedural violation committed when he refused three times to answer the synodal summons. Rather than render the substantive issues null and void, as Theophilus had implicitly done years earlier, Cyril proceeded to examine the doctrinal issues raised against Nestorius, an investigation made all the simpler, no doubt, by the absence of the defendant and his Antiochene colleagues. Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, justified the council's ~ ~ examination of the substantive doctrinal matters raised against Nestorius, taking recourse in an apparent technicality of ecclesiastical law, namely that Nestorius' failure to answer a synodal summons constituted nothing less than bad faith, since a corps of soldiers evidently surrounded his house and prevented the synodal

219 bishops from settling the matter with him. 50 That saicL Juvenal proceeded to read into the conciliar record the Nicean Symbol of faith., "defined by the 318 holy fathers and bishops united at Nicea. ~ IndeecL Athanasius, after his troubles at the council ofSerdica, had already done much to establish the Nicean Symbol as the omy true ecumenical statement offaith, a fact confirmed by the council of Constantinople in 381 AD.sl According to the theory of councils proposed by Juvenal of Jerusalem, the Nicean Symbol offaith similarly served as the very touchstone of orthodoxy for the Cyrillian majority, the standard by which Nestorius' writings would be deemed within or beyond the bounds of doctrinal legitimacy established a century before. Once the entire Symbol of faith was read into the record, Peter, priest of Alexandria and notary for the proceedings, presented CyriI's second letter to Nestorius, which Acacius of Melitene promptly introduced into the synodal acts. 52 A lucid account ofCyrii's teaching, the letter carefully placed CyriI's Alexandrian christology within the context of the Nicean Symbol of faith. That the Word of God 'became incarnate (aapKc.Jefjval)' and 'was made man (evavepc.Jm;aal)' impliecL according to Cyril, nothing less than the Word united to flesh (oapKa

Ev~aas 6 AoyoS

eaVT4», endowed

with a rational soul (~c.J~Evnv 'V'l)('ij Aoyudj), mysteriously and inconceivably (aaplOalCt.lV OICalo"t1lTOS lCaL CrVOOlOTl1TOS ~l~T'JTal. Ol XplOTlavou ~ev npOaCt.llTov neplTl8EVTes eaVToIs. 'lovSa(~ovoav Se T1iv Slavolav ExOVTES. Ol yAc':looav Em-tOlCTlICOTES lTllCpaV lCal i0i36AOV. 'Cva lCallTpos airniv AEYTJ XplOTO) TO Sla cpCt.lviis 'lepe~(oV' For a less literal translation see Appendix. 65

283 Once he announced their identity, however, Cyril's anger acquired a momentum of its own, as he heaped upon his adversaries a second vituperative clause, exhibiting such passion that he summarily omitted the traditional connectives. In the process, Cynl produced another rhetorical figure, mndeton, expressive of passion. 66 [t was an effect also deftly achieved in the following passage: "But, as I just said, some are ungrateful toward the kindness of our Savior - they deny the Lord, they shake off the yoke of service ... "67 Free from the harmonious, calming effects of the Greek connectives, the vituperative sentence effectively displayed Cyril's outrage at his adversaries' ingratitude to the saving acts of Christ -- an effect that might have been lost had Cynl declared instead: " ... [S]ome are ungrateful toward the kindness of our Savior, for they deny the Lord, and they shake off the yoke ofservice."68 Expressed without connecting conjunctions (asyndeton), the sentence loses all sense of urgency and imminent danger, for the insertion oflogical connections creates the impression, in literary terms, that time is plentifuL Inappropriate to the passionate display of anger, the revised sentence would have surely failed to arouse the intended emotion of outrage in Cyril's listening audience. Art, after all, should imitate nature, declared Longinus, "For art is perfect when it

66 Longinus, Libellus!k Sub1imitate. p. 28-29. 67 Homilia V. ACa I, I, 2, p. 93, lines 1-3. ciAAa yap. ~5 e94 An affirmation of the unity of Christ, Cyril's defense, in the eyes of his detractors, resembled the heresy of Arius and Eunomius, both of whom ascribed a single nature to Christ. While Cyril suffered allegations and even condemnation for his so-called Arian-like commingling of Christ's two natures, Nestorius, around the same time, was accused by A. Ha~ Bibliothek ~ Symbole llrul Glaubensr;geln ~ Alten KiTChen. 3rd edition (Breslau, 1897) §191, p. 262; see Loofs, Nestorius. p. 67. 93

Cyril of Alexandria, Apologia xii Capitulorum contra Orientales. (CPG 5221), ACa I, t, 7, p. 42-43. For the Eastern positio~ see ibU;l., p. 41, especially when they compare Cyril to Eunomius and Arius because ofCyril's beliefin a single nature Christ. See also H. A. Wolfson, ""Philosophical implications of Arianism and Apollinarianism," QQf 12 (1958), p. 3-29. See also, J. McGucki~ &. Cnilm Alexandria. p. 49-50. 94

295 Cyril of adhering to the more popular brand of Arianism. namely of asserting that Christ was merely a man. It seems that Nestorius delivered a homily in the presence of many bishops at Ephesus in which he finnly proclaimed that God was not an infant two or three months old 95 Extrapolating from this pronouncement, Cyril alleged in his letter to several ecclesiastical officials that Nestorius declared Jesus was not God. 96 And earlier in the controversy (around 429). eyril had simply stated that Nestorius' rejection of the term Theotokos was confusing many of the monks and laity who now erroneously assumed that Christ was merely an instrument of the deity. but not a deity himself. 97 For Cyril. the disturbing soteriological implications were clear. If Christ were simply an instrument of the deity. but in all other respects an ordinary human. then Christ was no longer co-essential with God. and so humanity must finally succumb to death. 98 It was just such popular misconceptions that Cyril intended to stir when he

declared to his listening audience that Nestorius rendered Jesus no better than a Persian King. While the subtleties ofNestorius' christological position certainly defied such a facile statement, the effectiveness ofCyrirs polemic was undeniable. As Socrates noted in his discussion of invective, one of the most devastating tools of abusive rhetoric was to level the very same charge against an adversary that the adversary had raised against Gesta Ephesina. ~! (June 22, 431) (~86755) AQl I, I, 2. p. 38, testimony of Theodotus of Ancyra. In other words. Cyril and his supporters asserted that Nestorius' statement implied the following: all agree that Jesus was once an infant. If God was never an infant, then Jesus was not God. 9S

Epistula Cyrilli ~ Comarium ~ Potamonem Episc. ~ Dalmatium Archimandritam et Timotheum ~ EulQeium ~., (~ 5323) Ep. 23, ~ I, I, 2. p. 66, lines 24-30. 96

~ Nestorium. ~

97

Epistula! Cyrilli Alex.

I. I. I, p. 24. lines 7-9.

98

Epistula Cyrilli Alex. id Monachos. ~ I, I. I, p. 22-23.

296

him.99 Especially common to the rhetoric of abuse or invective, these sorts of recriminations enabled the speaker to deflect allegations made against him, and distract the audience from any potentially problematic claims. That Cyril' s adversaries had charged him with Arianism, no doubt, contnbuted to his ultimate decision to equate Nestorius with Arius, the greatest archetypal heretic in the church's recent institutional memory: 100 "You had the holy clergy of presbyters and deacons excommunicated for refuting your importunate madness, which is nothing else but thinking like Arius," declared Cyril to his listening audience.) 0 I Indeed, a generation earlier. Athanasius had called the Arians, "the harbingers of the anti-Christ," while Epiphanius accused them of consuming nearly the entire Roman Empire with the "great fire" ignited by Arius and his heretical followers. 102 Such a blatant comparison with this odious arch-heretic must have sounded the death knell for Cyrir s unsuspecting opponent. Appropriation of the adversary's argument, however. was not a strategy unique to CyriL Indeed, Nestorius had cleverly accused Cyril of following the heretic Paul of Samosata. only after Nestorius himseIfhad been publicly charged \\;th the heresy. In a 99 Socrates describes the practice in his Ecclesiastical History. HE. 111.23, ~ N. F. I, p. 219, line 34. ... Kal Ta airrcfl npoaoVTa cpaiiAa Tcfl npo5 ov it exepa TTEplTpenElv VOlS ElTlTV)(liS oTav Aaveavovoav lTEpU~)(1J -nl V TEx"'lV. ""For art is perfect when it seems to be nature, and nature succeeds when it

contains art hidden within."

318 literary structure. 7 Figures. diction, word arrangement. structure, and content of thought were all the literary elements necessary for understanding the unified ~ and each one of these elements stood in significant relationship to the larger literary whole. This organic theory of literary composition, nevertheless, implied an uneasy relationship between fonn and content. a dichotomy which persisted in spite of clear attempts to render the distinction void. That art must imitate life (Longinus), and literary form reflect its broader content, unwittingly assumed and, therefore. reproduced the same troublesome dichotomies that this literary theory sought to dispel. It was a problem sensed, to some extent, by the ancient writers themselves, as they sought time and again to delineate the precise boundaries between the lektikos togos (AeKTuc:0S Tonos) and the pragmatikos topos (npay~aTlIC:oS TonoS), a problem made abundantly clear in the very proliferation of stylistic devices treated in the handbooks ofHermogenes and Demetrius. 8 These necessarily imprecise and fluid boundaries between form and content, even in the stylistic treatises ostensibly committed to maintaining that formal distinction, demanded refined attention to matters of style, including figures. diction and word arrangement. in part, to enable the literary stylists to make their claim that style was a distinct literary feature that could be described, elucidated, reproduced. and essentially controlled, apart from, but in relationship to, literary content. If Libanius and Aphthonius focused mainly on the structure and content of Plato, Phaedrus. 264C, Plalonis Opera. I. Burnet, ed. (Oxford. 1984), p. 274: see also Hennogenes, TTEPI 18EWN AOrOY, p. 217, lines 12-17, who proposed a similar theory of organic unity in his quest to delineate the stylistic features characteristic of Demosthenes. 7

For a full discussion, see D. A. Russell. Criticism in Antiquity (London, 1981), p. 130131.

8

319 rhetorical discourses ()'6YOl), while Longinus, Hennogenes and Demetrius elucidated literary style, that is not to say that the distinction was unproblematic even in late antique times. Form reflected content, content needed formal literary devices to bring it to life, and each stood in a precarious differential relation to the other. The Progymnasmata of Libani us, and that of his successor Aphthonius, nevertheless, represent a real departure from the unrestrained proliferation ofliterary tropes, figures and the like found in the handbooks ofHermogenes and Demetrius. That reality found later confirmation in the starkly un-stylized approach to rhetorical composition found in the surviving works ofNestorius, discussed below. It was a reality that claimed its roots, partly, in the different approaches to art and literature proposed by the rhetoricians and philosophers of classical times. Plato's theory of art, representative of the philosophical view, deemed art essentially mimetic, aa'l imitation of an object's ideal, archetypal form.9 In Plato's hierarchically constituted vision of reality, that ideal form derived its being from the One and the Good, '''the cause for all things right and beautiful (ncl:Ol nclvTc.Jv aiiTr)

6pe~v

TE Kat KaAc':lv aiTla)," and the source of truth and reason in the intelligible realm

(vonTos).lO Truth, therefore, resided above all in the Good, and by extension, in the

One, the transcendent, ontological principle which was the undeniable source of Plato's archetypal forms, and infused those same ideal forms with its essence. Since poetry and painting, under Plato's ontology, were merely copies, mimetic productions of natural objects which were themselves shadows of a greater reality, these artistic expressions were deemed "three grades below reality," a fleeting shadow of the ontological essence 9 Plato, Republic. Platonis Opera. I. Bumet, ed. (Oxford, 1984), 597e, lines 6-8. 10

Plato, RepUblic. Platonis Opera. I. Burnet, ed., 517b, line 7- 517c, line 5.

320 which resided in the ideal fonns.II This devaluation of artistic production, expressed most adamantly in the Republic, was the necessary outcome of Plato's hierarchically constituted vision of reality, in which truth existed, in its absolute sense, at the very pinnacle of the hierarchy, in the undifferentiated One, or Good, and trickled down to a mere semblance of reality as it moved farther from the source. In fact, though, Plato's restrictive theory of art did not prevent him from appreciating and delineating the proper literary standards for prose and verse composition. In the Phaedrus, Plato insisted that the writer clearly define his subject matter, and express that subject within a well-crafted literary structure, something akin to a living organism, in which each and every part formed an essential link with the whole. 12 If art, a mere representation of the sense world, strayed too far from the transcendent truths that Plato meant to establish, then it was the artist's sensitivity to content and literary structure that would ex"tricate artistic production from the quagmire of shadowy deceptions expressed in virtuoso technical displays. 13 Real art (TE)(V11), claimed Plato, finds its ultimate expression in the object of its discourse, namely the soul (to which all artistic productions are addressed), and the true artist or rhetorician accurately describes that soul in all its sundry aspects, ably adapting the type of speech to the particular classification of souls (\fJ\IXal). Even more than the content and structure of a literary composition, it was the ability to accurately characterize the hearers of a discourse that 11 Plato, Republic, Platonis Opera, I. Burnet, ed., 598e, line 5 - 599a, line 4~ for a full discussion of Plato's theory of art, see F. Coppleston, S. J., A H iSIOO' of Phi losphy, vot. I (New York and London, 1993), p. 251-262. 12

Plato, Phaedrus, 264C, Platonis Opera. I. Burnet, ed. (Oxford, 1984), p. 274.

Plato, Phaedrus, Platonis Opera, I. Burnett, ed. (Oxford, 1984), 260c, line 6 - 263 e, line 2, p. 268-272. 13

compositio~

321 it was the ability to accurately characterize the hearers of a discourse that

Plato deemed most definitive of artistic quality .14 This seemingly utilitarian view of artistic production was, in fact. Plato's response to the lowly rhetoricians who eschewed truth and moral ity in favor of what was probable (TO ElKOS) and convincing (TTl8av6s). While Plato's method required deep inquiry into the true nature of souls and the accurate classification of speeches, a process approaching the "really real (TO CVTc.JS cv)"' in Plato's ontological hierarchy, the deceptive rhetoricians simply convinced their audience with discussions of the probable, wholly avoiding any inquiry into the real nature of things. The rhetoricians of the time, with their excessive emphasis on figures and meter to the exclusion of truth and moral content, gave Plato ample occasion to express such critical sentiments. In Plato's dialogue with Gorgias, a rhetorician well-known for his excessive rhetorical flourishes, Plato, through the voice of Socrates, painstakingly disputed the notion attributed to Gorgias and to other rhetoricians of his day, that rhetoric had its sole aim in the art of persuasion. 15 This meant for Plato that rhetoric had seemingly degenerated into nothing more than the identification and enumeration of sundry rhetorical devices, designed merely to persuade the listeners, without any regard for knowledge and truth. Unwilling to relinquish the rhetorical arts to such loathsome displays, Plato insisted that the proper rhetorician be fully instructed in what is just and unjust. 16 Rhetoric was not merely the repository of persuasive figural devices intended 14

Plato, Phaedrus. Platonis Opera. I. Burnett, ed., 273d, line 8 - 273 e, line 4.

IS

Plato, Gorgias. W. R. M. Lamb, transl., (Cambridge, 1975), 453A.

16

Plato, Gorgias, W. R. M. Lamb, transl., 460A.

.,.,

.:J ... __

to deceive an audience, but was fully involved in the production oftru~ finally able to stake its claim alongside philosophy. This more elevated notion of the rhetorical arts finds implicit confirmation and elaboration in the more practical treatment of rhetoric found in Aristotle's the Art of Rhetoric, a lengthy treatise wholly devoted to explicating the various means of persuasion, including logical proofs, ethical or psychological proofs, and style. 17 Part of a voluminous corpus of philosophical writings, the Art of Rhetoric should be viewed within the larger Aristotelian design, which ostensibly aimed to correct the stark Platonic dualism that seemingly deprived the sensible realm of reality and meaning. Aristotle's empiricism, central to his treatment of rhetoric, represented, to some extent, his greater concern with ascnbing a measure of tangible reality to universals, unlike the transcendent quality of the Platonic forms, which Aristotle accomplished methodologically, by delineating in precise terms the various elements of sameness within a given species. Artists were implicitly raised beyond the mere imitators of Plato's scheme, for the artist was now charged with representing these universals through literary types (EiSn), a task especially well-suited to the poet. (n the process, artistic production more closely approximated the nature of things than Plato's conception of forms could ever allow, and the art of rhetoric, namely the means of persuasion, acquired new-found legitimacy. Just as Aristotle's empiricism eventually produced a treatise delineating the proper elements of poetic expression, 18 so did the art of rhetoric find ample elucidation in a treatise devoted to explicating the sundry means of persuasion appropriate to any subject maner. If Plato's rarefied critique of rhetoric was mostly absent from Aristotle's treatise, 17 Aristotelis, Ars Rhetori ca, W. D. Ross, ed. (Oxford, 1959). 18

Aristotelis, De Arte PoeticaLk. R. Kassel, ed. (Oxford, 1965).

323

IfPlato's rarefied critique of rhetoric was mostly absent from Aristotle's treatise, nevertheless, the detailed account of rhetorical proofs, in which matters of style are relegated to the end. provided a practical corrective to the rhetorical treatises circulating at the time -- treatises filled with innumerable stylistic devices meant to inflame the emotions of an audience. 19 Unlike his predecessor, Aristotle did not ascribe precise moral content to the rhetorical arts, but infused them, nevertheless, with an undeniable element of respectability when he set forth the logical methods appropriate to rhetorical persuasion, for method and structure were certainly deemed more important than style and diction. In the age-old quarrel between the philosophers and rhetoricians, it seems that the Aristotelian branch of rhetoric implicitly accommodated the criticisms leveled by the philosophers, without depriving rhetoric of its distinctness as an art-fonn devoted more to persuasion than to representing truth. It was the philosophical roots of the Aristotelian methodology, i.e., that empirical methods uncovered certain universal truths definitive of a species, truths which could be expressed in art and rhetoric through types and proper literary structure, that enabled rhetoric to be extricated from the gross proliferation offigural devices enumerated in the handbooks of the time. That essential emphasis on method and structure can be seen, to a certain exten~ in the Orations and Prol:,Ymnasmata of L ibani us, the Prol:,Ymnasmata of Aphthonius, and, later, in the style of argumentation found in the surviving works ofNestorius. Libanius' Progymnasmata descnbes, elucidates and illustrates the various genres of literary composition~

proverbs

including myths (IlveOl), nanatives (5l'lYTlllaTa)~ chreia (xpEtal),

(yv~~al),

refutations (avaoKEVal), confinnations (lCaTaolCEVal),

For a full discussion, see generally G. M. A. Grube, A S.n::k (Toronto, 1961). p. 10, esp. n. 9. 19

Greek~:

Demetrius Qn

324 commonplaces (KOlVOt TonOl), encomia(EYK~I-.ua), vituperations (\VOYOl), comparisons (cruyKp(OElS), characterizations (iJ8onollal), descriptions (EKcppaoElS), and theses (6eoElS). Each one of these topical divisions, preserved in the very same order, are treated in summary fashion by Aphthonius as well, whose Proevmnasmata unabashedly borrowed from his predecessor's handboo~ representing the same in starkly abbreviated fonn. Predictably absent from both these PrQKYmnasmata is any mention of figures, diction~

word

arrangemen~

or prose rhythm, the mainstay of stylistic treatises for the

period. Instead, both rhetoricians aimed to elucidate the literary content and structure proper to the particular ~s under discussion. This approach to rhetorical argumentatio~ in which matters of style were second to literary content, had discernIble repercussions in the practical sphere, for example. in the Orations of Libanius designed to address the myriad social issues affecting the city of Antioch and its en"irons. Libanius, distressed by the growing social problems besetting his city. composed and delivered a series of Orations (26-28) against the comes Orientis. Icarius, whose alleged rampant abuses were also the subject of Libani us' discourse (Oration 50) before the emperor Theodosius 1. 20 Similar in content and structure to the refutation (CxvaoKEvti) -- the rhetorical ~ meant to overthrow, in argumentative fashion, any reasonable assertion21

-

Libanius' Oration 50 declared that the city should

pay for costs associated with disposing rubble and debris accumulated in the course of the city's building projects. It seems that Icarius. the comes Orientis. had burdened the local 20 Libanius. Libanii Opera.. R. Foerster. ed (Leipzig, 1963); Libanii 2!Ili2 ad lcarium (XXVI); Libanii oratio contra lcarium 1 (XXVII); Libanii oralio contra lcarium 11 (XXVIII), p. 4-58; Libanii oralio pro agicolis ~angariis (L). p. 471-487.

See Aphthonii Pro8Y11lnasmata. H. Rabe, ed.• in Rhelores Graeci. Vol. X (Leipzig. 1926), p. 10-13.

21

325 city's building projects. It seems that Icarius. the comes Orientis. had burdened the local peasantry with the task of removing this debris. a practice that produced unbearable hardship, including physical danger and economic loss to the peasants. True to this method of rhetorical discourse, Libanius. following his exposition (EKeeolS) of the matter. argued from the impossible (aSwaTos) proposition. namely that if the city's requisitioning of peasant labor were fair and just with respect to the disposal of rubble, then it should indeed apply equitably to every aspect of the city's building projects. 22 A discourse meant to highlight the absurdity of the administration's position, Libanius' argument from the impossible was appropriately followed by his discussion of the improper (anpem;s), in which he delineated the gross breach ofjustice that would occur if the practice continued. Arguing from the inconsistent (avaKohoVSoS). another method appropriate to the refutational discourse. Libanius declared, "I would like to ask them why they don't take male and female slaves. bedding, furniture and carriages from private houses for the service of the city. If they say that it is illegal. this is illegal too." 23 Elements of the thesis (eealS). the rhetorical

~ devoted,

in part. to the reasoned

examination of problems besetting a city. also apply to Libanius' Orations. including Oration 50. 24 The only rhetorical discourse in which the counter-thesis (cIvT16eolS) and rebuttal (hums) regularly appeared, the thesis (eeOlS) produced, in deliberative fashion, a 22 Libanius. Libanii Opera. R. Foerster. ed. (Leipzig. 1963); Libanii 2mli21l!Q agricolis ~ angariis (L) 3. p. 472. lines 7-18.

23 Libanius. Libanii Opera. R. Foerster, ed. (Leipzig. 1963); Libanii oralio pro agricolis de angariis (L), 7. p. 474. lines 1-14; TiSec.lS S' QV aVTovs EpOt~nv. SUI Tt ~n KalolKeTaS KaL eepanalvas Kal OTpt:J~aTa Kal OKeUn Kal a~a;as ayouolv EK Tt:lv olKlt:lv e:TTl TTiv Tils TTOhec.lS xpe(av. el yap (hl oUte e;eOTl q)1;OOvalv. ouSe TaOTa l;eOTl. Ibid .• lines 2-6. Selected Orations. voL Il. A. F. Norman, transL. Oration L. 7. 24

Aphthonii Progymnasmata. H. Rabe, ed., in Rhetores Graeci. Vot.

X. p. 41-46.

326 balanced consideration of any number of political concerns, including such questions as whether to marry, set sail, or fortify a city. It was, above all, the judicious and effective use of such rhetorical methods, clearly expounded in his ProGYmnasmata, that permeated the speeches of L ibanius, in which he often addressed troublesome aspects of current social policy, ostensibly speaking for the city's poor and oppressed. Intended to persuade local opinion, and even the emperor Theodosius I himself. that social reform was direly needed. Libanius' Orations were replete with rhetorical methods, including well-structured. logical argumentation, entirely absent from the stylistic treatises of Hermogenes, Demetrius, and Longinus. If the art of persuasion was paramount for the rhetoricians of style,25 then paraenesis played an equally important and definitive role for Libanius, and, by extension, for his successor Aphthonius. Not particular to rhetorical discourse, paraenesis, in fact, claims its antecedents all the wav back to classical times, where the concern for didacticism in literature was especially the province of philosophers, such as Plato, who deemed poetic fable a potentially appropriate vehicle of instruction for the young. 26 As an introduction to the more inaccessible discourse of philosophy, poetic writing was charged with expressing certain general principles for the benefit of a young audience which. indeed, implied that poetic content needed to be carefully monitored before its inclusion in the teaching curriculum. Plato, therefore, insisted that didactic myths for his ideal Republic be governed by typoi. designed to express and inculcate essential virtues

25

See Chapter 5.

26

See Plato, Republic. Plalonis Opera. L Bumet, ed., 37&1, line 7 - 37ge,Iine 2.

327 appropriate to the guardians of his utopian society. 27 Once rhetoric claimed for itself poetic

genres. such as the mythos. some of these same concerns for moral content were

extricated from the sphere of poetry and applied to rhetorical composition. Moral content predictably came to the fore in the Pr0KYIDnasmata of Libanius and Aphthonius, which elucidated, through illustrative examples, the fable or mythos (IlUSOS), a literary ~ poetic in origin, but which "ba[d] also become common in the

addresses of public speakers (yeyeVTlTal Se KaL

~)11TOPC,,:)V KOlVOS EK lTapalveoec..JS):'

Aphthonius described the structure and content proper to this poetic and rhetorical ~ namely that the promythium (lTpollV6tov) contained its moral at the beginning, and the epimythium (ElTll. nJEhov), at the end. 28 The chreia (xpeia) was another rhetorical genre that effectively bridged the gap between rhetorical persuasion and poetic instruction. Deemed "a brief bit of advice bearing appropriately on some person (Xpe(a EOTL aiTOIlVT\lloVeVlla aWTollov eUOTOXc..JS ElTt Tt iTpooc..JlTOV avacpepovoa)," the

chreia was ostensibly the rhetorical ~ appropriate to express something "useful (XpElWOT\S):'29 Unlike the stylistic treatises designed to enumerate figures. diction. and

word arrangement, Aphthonius" description of the chreia highlighted this genre's essential concern with moral content and instruction. The illustrative example selected by Aphthonius, namely a chreia based upon Isocrates' saying that "the root of learning is bitter, but its fruits are sweet," ably demonstrated the chreia's predilection for explication 27 See D. A. Russell, Criticism in Antiquity (London, 1981), p. 89. Aphthonii Progymnasmata. H. Rabe, ed., in Rhetores Graeci. Vot. X, p. 1-2~ see also Libanius, Libanii Opera. ProKYmnasmiltP R. Foerster, ed., vot. Ill, p. 24-28.

28

Aphthonii Progymnasmata. H. Rabe, ed., in Rhetores Gmeci. Vol. X, p. 3-6. D. L. Clark, transl., "Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in Translation," in Speech MonoGTaphs. XIX (November, 1952), p. 264-285, esp. p. 266. 29

328 and instruction Its defining structural characteristics included several distinct elements, including the verbal statement or saying. followed by the panegyric (EYKCol~laOTlIC6~), paraphrastic

(napaElav

ft

Titv eEOT11Ta TOU \Jovoyevous VEKp0VvTaS

ft

anoeEoiivTas niv

av6pColnoT11Ta). A word arrangement more appropriate to the vehement content of

Nestorius' discourse would have surely avoided such a balanced literary device in favor of something much more abrupt and startling: ··To those who either killed the deity of the only-begotten, or - for the sake of the connection - deified the humanity," for example (n po~ TOUS

ft

-rilv 6EoT11Ta TOU lJovoyevoVs vEKpoiivTas

ft. SlO: T"ilv cruvcI creatus, apud nos vero cum eo, qui genuit, increatus.'·51 Nestorius' public response to the controversy amounted to nothing less than a full-fledged doctrinal pronouncement intended to instruct his congregation of the pernicious nature of his adversaries' christological claims. Paraenesis also came in the form of biblical exegesis, especially Nestorius' frequent refrain that biblical sources unambiguously taught that the appellation "Christ' signified both the divine and human natures -- a fact allegedly made clear when Matthew designated his gospel account detailing Christ's divinity and humanity, "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ (libcr generationis Jesu Christi), not the book of the generation of the Word of God (liber generationis dei verbi),' nor even "the book of the generation of man (liber generationis hominis). '52 In fact, the Antiochene method of biblical exegesis was inextricably linked with the larger enterprise ofparaenesis and instruction. Diodore of Tarsus, in the Prologue to his CommentaQ' on the Psalms, wrote that scripture ·"teaches what is useful, refutes what is

51 Senno xix. De inhumanatione. F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 320, lines 10-21. 52 Senno lcix. De inhumanatione. F. Loofs, NeSloriana. p. 317, line 22 - p. 318, line 6.

339

sinful, corrects shortcomings, and thus completes the perfect human being."53 If scripture helped shape the perfect huma~ then proper textual interpretation was essential to the task. Diodore's ensuing ProlQCUe proceeded to explain the proper means of interpreting the plain text of the Psalms, and the methods for deciphering their logical coherence. Both hermeneutic principles were legacies from the Antiochene school of rhetoric, with its focus on rational argumentation and internal, logical consistency within a unified text. These were the underlying assumptions that grounded Diodore's polemic against the Origenist allegorizing of the Alexandrian school, by which he purported to declare a middle ground between the unrestrained allegorical methods of Alexandrian exegesis and the so-called literalism of the Jews - a middle ground which virtually ensured that the underlying sense (AE~l~) of the text was faithfully preserved against the assaults of allegory. 54 Endemic to this approach was its high regard for the plain sense of scripture, its commitment to preserving the text's underlying unity and logical coherence, but not at the expense of occasional insights (eEc.Jpia) which extended beyond the literal meaning of the text. This thorough grounding in the plain sense of the scriptural text, essential to the Antiochene school, finds ample confirmation and illustration in Nestorius' style of public discourse, which inevitably produced internally logical arguments based on evidence 53 Diodorus Tarsensis, Commentarii in psalmos. (~3818). J. -M. Olivier, ed., Diodori Tarsensis commentarii in Psalmos. 1. Comrnentarii in Psalmos I-L, CCSG 6 (Tumhout and Leuve~ 1980), p. 3, lines 3-5. ~lSaOlCEl J.lev Ta xpnOlJ.la. EAEYXEl Ta cqlapTi)J.laTa. ETTavopeoiiTal Ta eAAEl~aTa. Kat OUTc.JS CrTTapTil;El TOV TEAElOV O:Vepc..JTTOV. 54 See generally, K. Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation in the ~ Church (Philadelphia, 1984), p. 20-22; F. Young, Biblical Exe&eSis Iml ~ Formation mChristian Culture, p. 173-175,177-180

340

adduced from the entirety of the biblical text. When Nestorius wished to explain to his audience oflisteners the christological significance of the various titles for Christ, he grounded his argument upon the coherence of the scriptural text: "If you're investigating the entire New Testament, you won't find in any place death attributed to God; but it is either assigned to Christ or Son or Lord. For whenever the words, Christ, Son and Lord, occur in scripture referring to the only begotten. they signify the two natures, and sometimes it means the deity, sometimes the humanity, and sometimes both... ss For Nestorius, the christologicai implications were clear: the confluence of biblical evidence unambiguously declared the dual natures of Christ. His public discourse was, therefore, more a matter of expounding, through proper investigation and demonstration. the inevitable conclusions of his thorough-going research into the entirety of the biblical text. IfCyril's exegetical method interpreted the sacred scripture in relation to Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection, then Nestorius' Antiochene method sought to preserve intact the entire literal sense of the scriptural text. Such contrasting henneneutic assumptions helped produce strikingly different styles of discourse. In fact, Nestorius' high regard for textual coherence and unity was a distinct feature of his pedantic style, in which homiletic discourse was deemed the proper vehicle to report the findings of his rigorous investigations into the sacred scriptures. Unlike the more effervescent style ofCyriI's public discourse, Nestorius' sermons were clearly marked by the demands of his exegetical method. so that ample confirmation and illustration from the biblical text was meant to demonstrate to his listeners the right 55 Senno X. F. Loofs, Nestoriana. p. 269, lines 14-20. Kat OAc;.)~. ei TTcXoav 6~ou niv Kalll1;v ~eTaAAeVel~ (Sla6nICTlV). OUK av eVpOl~ ouSa~Q~ TTapa TaVTI:l TOV 86:vaTov Tc";l 6ec;J TTpoaaTTT6~evov. all' ..; XPlOTc";l ii vic";l ..; KVplCtl. TO yap XPlOTOs Kat TO vio~ Kal TO KUplOS. ml TOU ~ovoyevo~ TTapa Tii~ ypacpii~ Aa~(3av6~evov. TQV cpUOEc..lV EOTl TQV Suo OTll.laVTlKov Kal nOTE I.lEV Snhoiiv -niv 8eoT11Ta. TToTE SE niv 6:v6pc;.)TToT11Ta. TToTE SE cll.lcpOTEpa.

341 interpretation of doctrine. These demonstrations from the biblical text rested on larger

assumptions about the nature of homiletic discourse, namely that homilies provided good occasion for exhortation and instruction in matters of dogmatic uncertainty. Nestorius. like his Antiochene counterparts. evidently believed that public homiletic discourse infused with proper exegetical method. including thorough research and investigation into the entirety of the biblical text. could readily resolve all the difficult doctrinal questions facing the churches.

Ill. Nestorius' homiletic discourse contained several literary features proper to the Antiochene school of rhetoric, features which distinguished his style of public discourse from the more highly stylized. figural displays of his adversary. The uneasy relationship between form and content, a legacy from the Antiochene rhetorical treatises ofLibanius and Aphthonius with their emphasis on structure and content, rather than style and diction, meant that Nestorius oftentimes produced sonorous, balanced phrases to express apparently vitriolic sentiments. Cyril. in contrast. made ready use of any number of figural devices in order to produce a close relationship between the form of his literary discourse and the angry sentiments he wished to display. Also a feature of the rhetorical treatises proper to Antioch was the marked tendency toward strictly logical argumentation. of the type seen. for example. in the refutational discourse outlined briefly in the Progymnasmata of Aphthonius. In fact, Nestorius loosely reproduced this form of argument when he set out to refute the Cyrillian opposition in his Homily ~ which included several elements appropriate to the ~ such as a summary statement, an exposition of the topic. and arguments from the impossible. inconsistent. and irrational. This sort of logical argumentation. set forth in some detail in the ProKYmnasmata of

342 Libanius and Aphthonius, fonned a distinct contrast with the proliferation offigural devices and detailed discussions of word arrangement. diction. and prose rhythm found, for example, in the stylistic treatises ofHennogenes and Demetrius. Nestorius' homiletic discourse also evinced a marked tendency toward paraenesis and instruction. the roots of which extended through the Antiochene school of rhetoric all the way back to Plato's literary theory. In fact. the myths and fables of Plato's ideal Republic were meant to express and inculcate certain virtues essential to the guardians of his utopian society. When rhetoric claimed for itself the panoply of poetic

~,

including the mythos, some of these same concerns for moral content were readily applied to the sphere of rhetoric. In fact. moral content came to the fore in Libanius' and Aphthonius' treatment of the fable or mythos, introducing an unambiguous didactic element to the rhetorical arts. This emphasis on moral content and didacticism in public address was extended and repeated in Nestorius' homiletic discourse, with its tendency toward detailed and pedantic explanations meant to instruct his audience oflisteners on the christological controversies besetting the churches. Intimately bound with this didacticism and logical unity endemic to the Antiochene school of rhetoric was the style of biblical exegesis developed in Antioch, by those such as Diodore of Tarsus, with his insistence on preserving the text's underlying sense and greater logical coherence. An elaboration and practical application of the theories propounded by Diodore, Nestorius' Antiochene brand of biblical exegesis expressed throughout his homilies predictably demanded rigorous investigation into the entirety of the biblical text By this method, Nestorius intended to adduce evidence against his adversaries' dogmatic position and, in the process, demonstrate to his audience the correctness of his own christological claims. The failures of this style of public discourse were best encapsulated by the incredulous

343 Nestorius himself when he made the following plaintive statement in his Bazaar, "Perhaps [I am accused] because I [ ... ] have not confessed that God the Word suffered in both the natures and in ~ [ ... ] ... "56 Such refined theological distinctions had little to do with Nestorius' ultimate condemnation and gradual descent into the quagmire of archetypal heretics. In fact, just as Cyril compared Nestorius to the archetypal heretic Arius, Cyril himself was eventually hailed as a new Athanasius, a testament to the success ofCyril's effervescent and highly figural rhetorical style, with its exaggerated verbal assaults upon his adversary. Cyril's discourse finds its ultimate confirmation in the years following Ephesus, in which Cyril' s rhetorical vision of his opponent as the villainous heretic gradually acquired widespread acceptance.

Pamas. F. Nau, p. 230, transl. from Nestorius: ~ Bazaar 2f Heracleides. G. R. Driver and L. Hodgson, transl. (Oxford, 1925), p. 259. 56 1& ~ d'Heraclide ~

344 Chapter Seven - Ephesus and its Aftermath: 431-451 AD

1.

By the council ofChalcedon in 451 the majority of bishops at Chalcedon

expressed their overwhelming support for the Tome of Leo and its two nature formula. 1 While Dioscorus, Cyril's successor in Alexandria. was condemned and deposed for his outright rejection of the Tome, Cyril's legacy was unambiguously embrac~ his doctrine held synonymous with the faith of the Popes of Rome, including Caelestine, Sixtus, and finally Leo himself2 "Leo has spoken like Cyril," claimed the bishops at

Chalcedo~

in

Epistula Leonis id Flavianum CPolitanum (Tomus) (d. 13 m. lun. a. 449) c. 3, ~ 11. 2, I, p. 24-33); ACa IV, I, p. 167-172; Versio graeca ACa 11, I, I, p. 10-20. [n addition to the documents catalogued in CPG [8945] - [9307], see also the following ancient sources on Chalcedon: Evagrius Scholastic us. Historia ecclesiastica. (CPG 7500) lib. n, 2, 4, 18; J. Bidez and L. Parmentier, eds., Eva&rius. ~ Ecclesiastical History (Londo~ 1898) (Amsterdam, 1964); Translatio gallica. A. J. Festugiere, EVa&re. Histoire ecc1esiastigue. Translation, in Byzantion 45 (1975), p. 188-471; Facundus Episcopus Hennianensis, Pro defensione trium capitulorurn. I. xii (CPL 866) lib. V, 3, 4; lib. VIII, 4; PL 67,637-651, 718-723. Liberatus, Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutvchianorum, c. 13 (CPL 865) ACa 11,5, p. 119-123. The bibliography of modem sources is extensive, and only a few will be listed here: C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church. Vot. III (Edinburgh, 1883); A. GriIlmeierand H. Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon [-Ill (Wurzburg, 1951-1954); J. MeyendorfT, "The Council of Chalcedon and its Aftermath," in Imperial Unity m4 Christian Divisions. The Church 450-680 AD (New York, 1989); R. V. Sellers, ~ COuncil gfChalcedon (Londo~ 1953); E. Schwanz, "Das Nicaenum und das Constantinopolitanum auf der Synode von Chalkedon," ZNTW 25 (1926), p. 38-88; H. Chadwick, "The Chalcedonian Definitio~" Cahiers d'orientalisme 10 (1984), p. 7-16; G. Martzelos, OriiUns ins1 Sources of the Chalcedonian Definition ofEitith (Thessaloniki, 1986). I

2 ChaIced. (451) Gesta. Actio V (d. 22 m. Oct. a. 451 ) (de fide). (~9005) ACa 11. 1,

2, p. 121-130, 124, lines 28-30, (317-326) [320]. Versio latina. ACa 11, 3, 2, p. 128-138 (387-397). See P. Galtier. "Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie et saint Loon le Grand a Chalcedoine" in A. GriIlmeier and H. Bacht, I2M KoOZil Y2Il Chalkedon I (Wurzburg, 1951 ), p. 345-387.

345 affmnation of the Tome and its two nature doctrine. "There is one single, only-begotten Son, " declared Leo, "confessed in two natures without confusion (acnryxUTCoJ~), change (aTpE1TTc.l~),

division (aSlalpETCi.)~), or separation( aXCoJp(aTCoJ~). "3 Strangely enough,

though, the formula sounded surprisingly close to the Antiochene dyophysite conception of Christ rejected so adamantly by Cyril and his fellow supporters at the council of Ephesus twenty years earlier. "There is one nature of God the Word enfleshed immutably and without confusion (""la

suffered a shipwreck? Who has seen an athlete who. after falling in the sand pit, has not stood upright again? But when you had fallen and were shipwrecked in your faith, did we not lend a hand? Accept as witness the honorable and holy Caelestine. Archbishop of great Rome, for he continually wrote to you telling you to

Cyril deftly replays the emperor's own imperial ideology. as expressed in his ~ ~ Cvrillum Alex. et ad Singulos Metropolitas, ACa I. I. I. p. 114-116. for the benefit of his audience. III

112

Or: "people"

The meaning is unclear. It could possibly refer to Nestorius' telling a group of fathers that God was not a child two or three months old. 113

114

Ps 9:16.

Translation follows ACa I.,. 1,2, p. 104, n. 12, Schwartz' supplement to the lacuna in the text: ~S ovSev aAAo ouaav El ... 115

116 CfEph

4: 14.

444

distance yourself from impious, useless, and incoherent doctrine. I 17 Receive even our humble v.itness, as we exhorted you in like manner through brief letters to accept our speech about God. But you did not take us into accoun~ clothing yourself in a sort of cruelty and madness, being arrogant in your wickedness, an