Introduction

INTRODUCTION A. SEVERUS, ANTONINUS AND SERGIUS The correspondence between Sergius and Severus comprises three letters from Sergius, three replies by Severus and an apology from Sergius. The first letter from Sergius was addressed originally not to Severus, but to Antoninus, the Bishop of Aleppo, who seems to have asked Severus to reply. The outline of Severus’ life is relatively well known.1 Apart from his own very numerous letters, and hints which he gives in his theological writings, there are three ancient ‘Lives of Severus’.2 Though we may doubt their historical value, these lives even attempt to give something of a de- scription of Severus. Thus, Athanasius says that Severus was a man ‘delicate in body and fine in person’.3 When he did the work of his brethren in the monastery, the blood used to run from his hands. Athanasius again stresses 1 A number of modern histories of doctrine give the basic facts: cf. e.g. J. Lebon, (1951) ‘La christologie du monophysisme syrien’, in A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht (eds), Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 2, Würzburg: Echter Verlag, [subsequently abbreviated as Chalkedon], p. 426, n. 4; W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (Cambridge 1972), esp. pp. 201-8; W. A. Wigram, The Separation of the Monophysites (London 1923), esp. pp. 57-60; R. C. Chesnut, Three Monophysite Christologies (Oxford 1976), pp. 4-5. 2 By Athanasius of Antioch, John of Beth Aphthonia and Zacharias Rhetor. A fourth ancient life was discovered by A. Vööbus: cf. ‘Découverte d'un memra de Giwargi évêque des arabes, sur Sévère d'Antioche’, Le Muséon 84 (1971), pp. 433- 436, and ‘Discovery of New Important memre of Giwargi, the Bishop of the Arabs’, JSS 18 (1973), pp. 235-237. Vööbus noted that Giwargi made use of the biographies of Severus by John of Beth Aphthonia and Zacharias Rhetor, as well as some other sources of unknown provenance. See Kathleen E. McVey (ed. and tr.) George, Bishop of the Arabs : a homily on Blessed Mar Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, Louvain: E. Peeters, 1993. 3 Athanasius of Antioch, The Conflict of Severus, PO 4, p. 602. ix x THE CORRESPONDENCE OF SEVERUS AND SERGIUS that Severus was a compassionate man4 and this is an important quality in understanding him. All the early biographers emphasise Severus’ asceticism, and Severus himself, writing to Justinian, says that his life was habitually frugal.5 Severus was born in Sozopolis in Pisidia about 465. His family was well-to-do, and as a young man, not yet baptised, he was sent to Alexandria to study ȖȡĮȝȝĮĲȚțȒ and ૧ȘĲȠȡȚțȒ. From Alexandria he went to Beirut to study Roman law. At Beirut Severus came under the influence of a group of Christian students and began to study Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. At this stage he was baptised at the shrine of Leontius at Tripoli.6 We are told that after his baptism Severus became increasingly ascetic, spending much of his time in church. He qualified as an advocate, and visited Jerusalem where he decided to follow the monastic life. From Jerusalem, looking for a still more ascetic life, he went into the desert of Eleutheropolis. Here he eventually became ill and was persuaded to enter the convent of Romanus. At this time he shared out with his brothers the property he inherited from his parents and, after giving most of his share to the poor, bought a convent near Maiuma. Severus was already actively involved in opposing the Council of Chalcedon. Maiuma had been the episcopal seat of Peter the Iberian, one of the (probably) two bishops who consecrated Timothy Aelurus,7 and Severus was to follow in this tradition. He already belonged to the more 4 Ibid., p. 613. 5 The Syriac Chronicle, Bk. 9, ch. 16, p. 257. 6 Athanasius, John of Beth Aphthonia and Zacharias Rhetor concur in telling us that Severus received baptism at the shrine of Leontius. What is more interesting is that there is evidence in Coptic, though not in Syriac, that until the time of his studies in Beirut, Severus was a pagan and came from a pagan family. This evidence is presented by G. Garitte, from a Coptic homily which has parallels to the Syriac Homily 27. The Coptic homily (ch. 4, sections 2-6), contains a passage in which Severus, at the shrine of Leontius, prayed that he might be saved from pagan worship and the customs of his family. Garitte argues that the Coptic represents the original Greek of Severus’ sermon, and that this detail has been suppressed in the Syriac version. See G. Garitte, ‘Textes hagiographiques orientaux relatifs à saint Léonce de Tripoli. II: L'Homélie copte de Sévère d'Antioche’, Le Muséon 79 (1966), pp. 335-386. 7 On Peter the Iberian, cf. John of Beth Aphthonia, Vie de Sévère, PO 2, pp. 219-223; D. M. Lang, ‘Peter the Iberian and his biographers’, JEH 2 (1951), pp. 158-168. In his letters, Severus acknowledges the influence of Peter on him (cf. Select Letters, Section 5, Letter 11). INTRODUCTION xi extreme Miaphysite party, which rejected the Henoticon of Zeno. Liberatus, the archdeacon of Carthage, wrote of Severus that ‘dum sederet prius in monasterio Iberi, non suscipiebat Zenonis edictum, nec Petrum Mongon . exinde missus est permanere Constantinopolim . .’8 As Liberatus noted, Severus was indeed sent to Constantinople. A Chalcedonian monk, Nephalius, stirred up the bishops in Palestine against the anti-Chalcedonian monks, who began to be harassed. John of Beth Aphthonia tells us that Nephalius even wrote an Apologia for Chalcedon, which Severus destroyed as if it had been a cobweb, with his two Orationes.9 This was the first important anti-Chalcedonian work of Severus that we have, and it was written around 508.10 Cobweb or not, Evagrius tells us that Severus was expelled from his own monastery by Nephalius and his party, and thence proceeded to Constantinople, to plead the case of himself and those expelled with him.11 Severus spent the years 508-11 in Constantinople. He seems quite quickly to have gained the sympathy of Anastasius, who was already not over fond of the Patriarch Macedonius, who had definite leanings towards Chalcedon. The Chalcedonians in the capital made a collection of edited excerpts from Cyril, in an attempt to show that Cyril himself supported the Chalcedonian account of the two natures. This work was apparently given to Macedonius, who gave it to the emperor. Severus, in turn, wrote his Philalethes, giving the true context of the quotations from Cyril.12 Relations between Severus and Macedonius steadily deteriorated. Macedonius’ position was not strong. He had already undermined his support from the extreme Chalcedonians by promising to uphold the Henoticon.13 In addi- tion, Anastasius had a personal grudge against him. Euphemius, the previous Patriarch, had withheld his approval from the elevation of Anastasius, unless he wrote an agreement to maintain the faith of Chalcedon inviolate. This document had passed into the hands of 8 Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, XVIIII, in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz [subsequently ACO] 2.5. p. 133.13-16. For Severus' own condemnation of Peter Mongus, cf. Select Letters, Section 4, Letter 2. 9 cf. John of Beth Aphthonia, op. cit., p. 232. 10 For the dating, cf. Lebon, Le Monophysisme, pp. 120-121. 11 cf. Evagrius, The Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier (London 1898), Bk. 3, ch. 33. 12 Between 509-511. cf. J. Lebon, Le Monophysisme sévérien, Louvain: J. Van Linthout (1909), pp. 124-125 [subsequently abbreviated as Lebon, Le Monophysisme]. 13 cf. Zacharias Rhetor. Vie de Sévère, PO 2, p. 113. xii THE CORRESPONDENCE OF SEVERUS AND SERGIUS Macedonius and, according to Evagrius, Anastasius’ objection to this document was largely the cause of Macedonius’ expulsion.14 In 511 he was replaced by Timothy. The removal of Macedonius was only part of a concerted effort by the Miaphysites. While Severus had been in the capital, Philoxenus had been busy in Palestine, undermining the position of Flavian of Antioch. At Anastasius’ order, a Synod was assembled at Sidon in 512. Flavian was presented with a list of seventy-seven anathemas as well as the request openly to anathematise Chalcedon. Flavian refused, being unwilling to ‘arouse the sleeping dragon, and corrupt many with his poison’.15 This was not to satisfy Philoxenus: his monks informed Anastasius that Flavian was a heretic, and they received an order for his ejection. In November 512, Severus was consecrated Patriarch of Antioch in his place. In his enthronement address,16 Severus affirmed Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus. He affirmed the Henoticon of Zeno as ‘an orthodox confes- sion of the faith’, but explicitly anathematised Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, as well as Nestorius and Eutyches, and Diodore and Theodore, ‘the masters of Nestorius’. Added to the list are Ibas of Edessa, Barsumas of Nisibis and Cyrus and John of Aigai.17 In a Synod held at Tyre around 514,18 the assembled bishops openly anathematised Chalcedon and the Tome, and Severus joined with Philoxenus in expounding the Henoticon as annulling Chalcedon.19 Evagrius also tells us that Severus ceased not daily to anathematise Chalcedon.20 14 Evagrius, op. cit., Bk. 3, ch. 32. 15 The Syriac Chronicle, Bk. 7, ch. 10, p. 179 (Hamilton and Brooks' translation). 16 PO 2, pp. 322-325. 17 It is interesting to note that in his Letter of Apology, Sergius also condemns ‘Persia’ (presumably Barsumas of Nisibis) and Cyrus and John (Severi Antiocheni orationes ad Nephalium, eiusdem ac Sergii Grammatici epistulae mutuae, ed. and tr.

Load more