sign in sign up
<<
Home , Eutyches, John Rufus, Nestorius, Philoxenus of Mabbug

______

THE LAST DAYS OF IN THE SYRIAC SOURCES

GEORGE A. BEVAN QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY

f the theological debates of the first ture”, precisely to exclude the Antiochene half of the fifth century haunt the “two natures”.4 sixth, then the Council of While the doctrine produced at Chal- hangs as a sort of specter over the cedon may differ subtly from Nestorius’ JustinianicI Church. Although Chalcedon own teaching—I refer here to the affirma- was ostensibly a legitimately constituted tion of the one and one hypostasis general council, the legitimacy of its doc- of Christ—, the core of the council’s doc- trinal decisions were questioned and even trinal pronouncements fundamentally agreed excoriated by many in the East.1 The inter- with the Antiochene tradition. It was within pretation (hermenaia) of the faith imposed this tradition that the bulk of Nestorius’ be- on the assembled by the imperial liefs lay. Nestorius was in full agreement representatives spoke in no uncertain terms with Theodore of on the need of Christ’s two natures after the incarnation, for a human and divine nature in Christ in and the Tome of Leo I (Ep. 28) clearly ar- order to avoid the danger of an Apollinarian ticulated the independent functioning of “mingling” or “mixture” inherent in the each nature in the single person of Christ.2 “one nature”, although some of Nestorius’ The principle charge made against Chal- speculative flights might well not have met cedon by its opponents was that it revived with Theodore’s approval.5 the of Nestorius, which had been de- Yet was never defined in cisively condemned, so it was believed, at 431 at First in terms of natures; the in 431. Considerable Nestorius was condemned as the “New Ju- scholarship has been dedicated to disproving das” with no reference at all to the number the Nestorian underpinnings of Chalcedon, of natures of Christ.6 Nestorius’ position and to proving that the formula “in two na- was only caricatured for advancing the “two tures” was cyrillian.3 Suffice it to say that sons” and for rejecting as a these attempts have had to work around the proper appellation for Mary. The reality, as fact that the of Alexandria never has been shown in various studies, was quite himself used the formula. In fact, after 433 different: Nestorius accepted Theotokos with Cyril tended strongly to the formulations only a few quibbles, and he adamantly de- “out of two natures” and “one incarnate na- nied that his talk of the two natures and two

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 39 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______prosopa of Christ entailed the “two sons”, discovered near Lake Van in the early the heresy of Paul of Samosata.7 1880s.10 The work is not, however, without When Cyril, in ignorance of Nestorius’ its problems. First, the language of the trans- theological pedigree, assented to an Antio- lation is often unclear and garbled due to an chene statement of belief in a letter of 433, overly literal rendering that frequently omits Laetentur Caeli, the two natures were given names in favour of pronouns. Second, there the imprimatur of the bishop’s prestige and are sections of the text missing and other authority, recently won by his defeat of Nes- surviving sections that are clearly dislocated torius.8 With the “two natures” now cast as within the manuscript that , its superficially cyrillian in the so-called editor, worked from. Third and perhaps “Symbol of Reunion,” it could be used by most worrying is that the unity of the sur- Flavian of in 448 to convict viving work, and the authenticity of several the archimandrite for teaching the of its sections, has been called into question, “one nature” and that Christ took his body particularly by Luise Abramowski.11 from heaven. When Second Ephesus, the so- Let us begin with what can be gleaned called Latrocinium, convened in the next of Nestorius’ life after the Council of Ephe- year to rehabilitate Eutyches, they put aside sus in 431. The emperor Theodosius permit- Cyril’s Laetentur Caeli and the Antiochene ted the deposed bishop to return to his mon- statement in favour of Cyril’s post-433 writ- astery just outside of as a free man ings. In 450, when the new emperor in the fall of 431. But an edict of the em- and his consort con- peror Theodosius II formally condemned ceived of an eastern council to undo the ap- Nestorius and proscribed his writings sev- parent injustices of Second Ephesus, it was eral years later.12 With this imperial order, a to the affirmation of the “two natures” in formal legal category was created for Nes- 448 that they turned. Fortuitously, pope Leo torians, or rather Simonians (after Simon had written a treatise, his Tomus ad Flavi- Magus), to be added to the list of banned anum, that independently and in complete that had accumulated since the time ignorance of eastern developments and of Constantine the Great. By 435 Nestorius Cyril’s work, insisted unequivocally on the and his friend Irenaeus were officially sent independent function of two natures in the into exile and first went to Petra in Arabia.13 person of Christ that most would have re- How long the two remained in Petra is un- garded as very uncyrillian.9 known, but Irenaeus seems to have escaped It was through this circuitous route that from exile and in 446 or thereabouts he re- the essence of Nestorius’ beliefs, without his appears in Tyre as its ordained bishop. name attached to them, came to be affirmed There was no imperial order to recall at the under a cyril- Irenaeus and Theodosius deposed him in lian guise. What is often not discussed with February of 448, when he learned to his sur- respect to Chalcedon is what Nestorius’ own prise that this determined follower of Nesto- views would have been on the decisions of rius had not only returned but become a the council. We are most fortunate in pos- bishop.14 Irenaeus’ illegal return was doubt- sessing a Syriac translation of Nestorius’ less due to the influence of of apologia pro vita sua, the Liber Heraclidis, Cyrrhus and Domnus of Antioch. It is tell-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 40 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______ing that Irenaeus, a man so closely associ- rial authority. But of these events in Egypt, ated with Nestorius, could still find friends Nestorius gives virtually no hint at all in his in Syria as late as 447. apologia. But Nestorius did not so easily escape Nestorius picked up his pen to resume his exile and was moved from Petra to the Liber Heraclidis as early as the year Egypt. Because there is a hiatus of a decade 449. This last section, the second part of between the years 438/9 and 449 in the nar- Book II in Paul Bedjan’s edition, is ap- ration of the Liber Heraclidis, one suspects pended to the other text of the Liber with no that he was moved to isolation in Egypt at evidence that Nestorius went back to revise the former date. , writ- his earlier writings in light of new develop- ing at the end of the sixth century, is one of ments contained therein. Nestorius says that very few ancient authors who can claim to he was encouraged to begin writing again as have detailed information about Nestorius in he received news of recent events in the East exile. He appears to have consulted at least from his friends.16 Nestorius discusses the two book-length works of Nestorius as well trial of Eutyches in the fall of 448 and the as a collection of letters.15 The excerpts of subsequent persecution and condemnation Nestorius’ letter to the controller of the The- of Flavian of Constantinople for his efforts baid in Egypt show that Nestorius had been against the “one nature”. By his quotations moved to the Oasis in Western Egypt. Now and references, Nestorius demonstrates that known as the , Nestorius’ he had access to a copy of the acta of at place of exile lay 100 miles west of the Nile least the first session of Second Ephesus in and encompassed an area about 15 miles 449 and good information about the Home wide and 100 miles long with a concentra- Synod of Constantinople in 448. tion of watered areas. The letters quoted by In the fall of Flavian Nestorius saw a Evagrius also tell us that Nestorius had been distinct parallel for his own plight and yet moved around considerably in the Oasis and further evidence of the wickedness of his had been captured by marauding barbarians, erstwhile supporter, the emperor Theodo- who are identified as “Nobades”. Nestorius sius, towards the orthodox. The section con- was released by his captors in Panopolis on cludes with a prophecy, clearly a vaticinum the Nile, 100 miles to the east. He sought to ex eventu, of the misfortunes that he predicts justify this move to the civil authorities in will befall the empire because of its em- Egypt so as not to be thought a fugitive from peror’s impiety. Among these he includes exile. Later, soldiers moved him to Elephan- the Vandal sack of Rome in 455, the last tine, 200 miles to the south, but the control- datable event in all of the Liber Heraclidis.17 ler of the changed his mind yet Yet there is a mystery here. If Nestorius again and moved Nestorius back to the out- lived as late as 455 or 456 and had good skirts of Panopolis. At a loss to explain just information of events in the East, why does why Nestorius was exiled in 436 and not he include no references whatsoever to the earlier, Evagrius presents this pitiful petition Council of Chalcedon in 451, a massive of Nestorius, complaining of his treatment change in ecclesiastical politics that could in Egypt, as conclusive proof of the deposed not have escaped his notice? The next latest bishop’s arrogance and contempt for impe- event reported by Nestorius is the death of

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 41 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______

Theodosius at the end of July 450.18 I would prejudice against my person. But I was strongly suggest that the final prophecy of content to endure the things whereof the Liber must be set aside as a later addi- they accused me, in order that, while I tion by one of Nestorius’ supporters. There- was accused thereof, they might accept fore the terminus post quem and terminus without hindrance the teaching of the Fathers; for I have no word [to say] ante quem for the Liber can be set quite pre- concerning what was committed cisely by the death of Theodosius and the against me. And further I wrote not for accession of Marcian respectively in late the purpose that I, to whom for many August. If it took at least two months for years there was not one [moment of] news of Theodosius’ death, and of repose nor human solace, might not be Marcian’s accession to reach Egypt, Nesto- suspected of surely fleeing from the rius must have finished what has come contest, fearing the labors [thereof]; for down to us in September or October of 450. sufficient are the wrongs that have But just how long after this time did Nesto- come upon the world [and] which are rius live, and what might he have thought of more able than I to make the oppres- sion of the true faith shine forth in the Chalcedon? eyes of every man.19 Nestorius had seen a copy of Leo’s Tome, a letter written to Flavian by the pope From the Liber Heraclidis we also learn in the summer of 449, which laid out a that Nestorius fully approved of the strongly dyophysite christological state- “Symbol of Reunion” of 433, although he ment. Nestorius heartily approved of the did question the legitimacy of the diplomacy document and saw it as fully in line with his that led to it, especially the assent of many own belief, but despite the requests of his Eastern bishops to his deposition.20 Thus it unnamed supporters, he declined to involve must have been clear to Nestorius’ support- himself in the struggle: ers in 450 that Marcian and Pulcheria’s plan to approve Leo’s Tome along with a But, because many were blaming me strongly dyophysite statement of faith at a many times for not having written unto general council the next year was an oppor- Leo, bishop of Rome, to teach him all the things which were committed, such tunity for the deposed bishop to prove his as came to pass, and the change of orthodoxy before his death. Nestorius im- faith, as if unto a man who is correct in plies as much when he talks of his support- his faith, especially when there had ers pushing him to re-enter ecclesiastical been given unto me, [even] unto me, a politics. With the death of Theodosius and part of the letter relating to the judg- the accession of an emperor committed to ment concerning Flavian and both Leo’s Tome and overturning the results Eutyches, wherein it was revealed that of Second Ephesus, his vindication must [he feared] not the friendship of [his] have seemed close at hand. majesty (i.e. Leo did not fear to con- If Nestorius agreed with the substance front Theodosius), for this reason I wrote not, not because I am a proud of Chalcedon, can we go further and claim man and senseless, but so that I might that Nestorius was himself recalled to the not hinder from his running him who council? Nestorius says nothing about such was running fairly because of the a possibility, and the voluminous acta of

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 42 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______

Chalcedon also make no reference at all to successor did not imitate his ardent any summons. Almost without exception all zeal for the faith; and all the affairs of modern scholars have rejected this possibil- the Church were troubled and were ity out of hand. Their argument is a sort of contrary to the law against heretics simple syllogism: Chalcedon was orthodox; (i.e. CTh. 16.5.66), which was brought by the venerable and notable Nestorius was a heretic; therefore Chal- Theodosius. From then up to the pre- cedon could not have vindicated Nestorius. sent those who fear have been To countenance the reality of Nestorius’ persecuted, and every blasphemous recall is to imagine Chalcedon as something and rash tongue can in complete free- other than it turned to be; to do this we must dom speak against Christ. For, after abandon any sense that the decisions of Marcian was on the throne, he sent to Chalcedon were part of a natural evolution Egypt a tribune of the guardsmen to in orthodoxy and the perfect via media be- recall Nestorius and a certain Doro- tween the heretical extremes of Nestorian- theus, who had been a bishop and had ism and . Chalcedon was gone into exile with Nestorius out of his own volition. And as some people rooted in the demands of the moment, and say, Dorotheus was very well known seen in light of these contemporary contin- and much beloved by he who was gencies, not idealized historical hindsight, then reigning. When the tribune had the recall of Nestorius indeed makes consid- been sent, he arrived in the Thebaid— erable sense. The evidence for his recall this is as far as most people know, comes mostly from sources hostile to Chal- because this fact was not made known cedon; as such they have been largely dis- publicly—he found Nestorius in the missed as fanciful and even deviant. Yet place named after Pan (i.e. Panopo- taken together they present a consistent and lis), a city of the Thebaid, under guard compelling picture of the elderly Nestorius’ in a fort (castrum) and afflicted by a terrible illness. It happened that Nes- return from exile. torius had been captured by barbari- The accounts of John Rufus’ Plero- ans from the Oasis, where he had phories and Zachariah of Mitylene’s Eccle- been exiled by the venerable emperor siastical History, written a little over 50 Theodosius, and that, in the city of years after Chalcedon, both survive in Pan, he was sold by them [the barbari- Syriac and are the earliest sources that speak ans] to the inhabitants. When the of Nestorius’ recall by Marcian. First Rufus comes Andrew, who was then in the claims that his version of events derived Thebaid, learned of this, while the directly from the now lost Ecclesiastical emperor Theodosius was still living, History of Timothy Aelurus, a miaphysite he instructed him [Nestorius], after he had bought him back, to remain and bishop who had been a contemporary of to live in the fort and to do nothing Nestorius during his exile in Egypt: and to say nothing rash. As soon as At this time, by the permission and the envoy of the emperor [Marcian] will of God, it happened, because of found Nestorius sick in the city of our numerous sins, that our venerable Pan, as has already been said, with emperor Theodosius died, a year after Dorotheus, he made known the orders the Second Council of Ephesus. His that he had received and, on account

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 43 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______

of the Egyptians, he announced to of God speedily overtook him (as he them by a sign that there was no trap had been the case formerly with in their recall. But Dorotheus asked Arius, who blasphemed against the the tribune to take into account the Son of God). Accordingly he fell weakness of Nestorius, as his condi- from his mule, and the tongue of this tion was deteriorating day by day; for Nestorius was cut off, and his mouth his tongue was rotting and had gone was eaten by worms, and he died on out of his mouth, while the tribune the roadway. And his companion was present there; his speech had be- Dorotheus died also. And the em- come unclear and each day his tongue peror, hearing of it, was greatly rotted and thus became more de- grieved; and he was thinking upon tached, so that he became an object of what had occurred, and he was in fright and horror, as the tribune at- doubt as to what he should do. tested afterwards to many. God was However, written directions from the author of that which we have told, Marcian the emperor were delivered for the [tribune] reported that he by John the Tribune to Dioscorus and urged that tried drugs be brought from Juvenalis, calling upon them to meet all the cities that were in the neigh- in Council, and John also informed bourhood of Panopolis, but they were them of what had happened to Nesto- not able to remedy the illness. For it rius and to Dorotheus. was God who had struck him down And when the bishops of every and who made known his terrible place, who were summoned, were death to many through the report [of preparing to meet at Nicea, Provi- the tribune] and by means of [the call dence did not allow them; for the for] the medicines. After the death of king issued a new order that the as- Nestorius, Dorotheus buried him in a sembly should be convened to Chal- certain spot, while the tribune sent by cedon, so that Nicea might not be the the emperor was with him and, after meeting-place of rebels. this man’s death, the tribune went Then the Nestorian party earnestly back to go to the court.21 urged and besought the king that Theodoret should be appointed the Zachariah’s account survives in epitome president of the Synod, and that, ac- and shows signs of compression by omitting cording to his word, every matter some of the details found in Rufus: should be decided there.22

This Marcian favoured the doctrine of According to both authors, Nestorius Nestorius, and was well disposed to- was accompanied in Egypt by a fellow exile, wards him; and so he sent John the Dorotheus of Marcianopolis, who had been Tribune, to recall Nestorius from his among his earliest supporters in Constantin- place of banishment in Oasis; and to ople and exiled among the “14 Irreconcil- recall also Dorotheus, the bishop who ables” in 434, those bishops who refused to was with him. And it happened while re-enter into communion with John of An- he was returning, that he set at tioch once he accepted the deposition of naught the holy Virgin, the Theoto- 23 kos, and said, “What is Mary? Why Nestorius. Following the death of Theodo- should she indeed be called the The- sius, according to Rufus and Zachariah, otokos?” And the righteous judgment Marcian moved to recall Nestorius. Consis-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 44 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______tent with the letter of Nestorius quoted in ciliar acta and the Tomus ad Flavianum. Evagrius, Zachariah states that the envoy of This last claim is quite remarkable as it Marcian found Nestorius in a military fort (a shows that either Philoxenus or his infor- castrum) in Panopolis. Unfortunately Nesto- mant had access to a copy of the Liber rius, probably in his seventies by then, was Heraclidis. Philoxenus, like the other gravely ill. The description of his illness in sources, reiterates that Nestorius died before both authors may be a deliberate fiction to he could reach the council. prove that he was suffering a God-sent pun- Over a century after Zachariah and ishment for heretics: his blasphemous Rufus, the Nestorian bishop Barhadbeshebba tongue was being eaten away by worms. In wrote an ecclesiastical history in which he both Zachariah and Rufus, despite the impe- gave a long biographical treatment of Nesto- rial recall, Nestorius was either too sick to rius. As best as can be determined, Barhad- make the trip back or, in the case of Rufus, beshebba did not know of Zacharias’ or fell from the back of his mule and died on Rufus’ work, and had before him as a guide the side of the road en route. Similar stories only Socrates scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical are found in two other miaphysite sources History and a collection of Nestorius’ own from Egypt in Coptic: the famed monk writings, which included his lost Tragoedia. Shenute and a text purporting to be the ex- Like the non-Chalcedonian Miaphysites, iled bishop Dioscorus’ eulogy for his fellow Barhadbeshebba also claims that Nestorius Egyptian bishop Macarius.24 Neither source was summoned to return by the emperor adds significant or reliable detail. Marcian, but he differs in saying that he re- A letter of the famous miaphysite fused to leave his place of exile: bishop of the early After the death of Theodosius the 6th century adds yet further confirmation of Younger, by whose weakness the il- these stories: lustrious one [Nestorius] had been And this25 came to pass at the end of deposed and so many ills have be- Nestorius’ life, as is said. And every- fallen the church, the victorious and thing was written and sent to him faithful Marcian succeeded him and while he was in exile: the act [drawn] ordered that Nestorius be recalled before Flavian, and also the Letter of immediately. His friends and high Leo. And had the judgment of the officials wrote him to let himself re- Lord not come quickly and taken him turn; they sent to him a beast of bur- away before the council convened, he den and all that was necessary, and was summoned to come together with they informed him that the emperor the other bishops. And I say these had ordered an oecumenical council things not simply from hearsay, but to take place. But Nestorius wrote because I learned them in truth from back in response that he refused to the one who was sent after him.26 return and said: “The solitude, in its desolation, delights me; the desert, Philoxenus is clear that he had informa- with its flowers, pleases me, and in- tion about the recall of Nestorius from the teraction with the animals is agreeable unnamed official sent to summon him and to me. But I refused to enter into com- that Nestorius had in his possession con- munion with those wicked men of the

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 45 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______

present time.” The emperor ordered the Liber has deliberately suppressed the that he be conducted by force, but, story of the recall, and indeed any mention when they had put him on a litter, he of Chalcedon, but has retained Nestorius’ departed to Christ, his beloved, while poetic words as a sort of seal of authorship fatigued and in haste. Cyril and John on the obviously falsified final prophecy. of Antioch had died before him, be- cause they were involved in the de- Why, if the editor of the Liber Heraclidis ceits of the Sons of Syria and had worked after the Council of Chalcedon, was boldly committed murder behind the not a mention of the recall inserted into the door (2 Kings 3:37). When the patri- text of the Liber as evidence for his ultimate cian returned and recounted to the vindication? One suspects that the eventual emperor the predictions and the dem- condemnation of Nestorius at Chalcedon onstrations Nestorius had made, the would have made his recall a sort of pitiful emperor recalled immediately all the anticlimax to this strident work of self- bishops who had been driven into defense. The redactor’s silence about Chal- exile with Nestorius. Nestorius re- cedon, when he knew full well about it, is mained for three years in Constantin- ople and four years in Antioch, when made to fit with all the other reports that he had returned from Ephesus, and placed Nestorius’ death before Chalcedon, was in exile in Oasis for 18 years. All All of these anti-Chalcedonian sources, the years of his episcopate are 25 both Miaphysite and Nestorian, however years.27 consistent they may be, may seem to be only the fabrications of over-active imaginations. Barhadbeshebba’s version of the recall For the Miaphysites the story of Nestorius’ is followed by the anonymous Syriac legend recall only served to prove what they al- of Nestorius, which consequently has little ready believed of the council’s dyophysite independent value.28 statements, that it was a “Nestorian coun- Barhadbeshebba’s depiction of Nesto- cil”, while for the supporters of Nestorius rius’ refusal to leave Egypt and his prefer- the stories of his death before the council at ence for the solitude of the desert may ex- once proved that he was fundamentally or- plain the puzzling final sentence of the con- thodox, and served to explain why, if that cluding prophecy in the Liber Heraclidis: were the case, he was not personally vindi- “Rejoice for me, O desert, my beloved and cated at Chalcedon. Yet there remains a fi- my foster-parent and the home of my habita- nal source to consider, the pro-Chalcedonian tion, and my mother, the land of my exile, Evagrius who inadvertently provides deci- who even after my death will guard my sive evidence in support of these stories that body unto the resurrection by the will of would otherwise be dismissed as anti- God.” The final sentence of the prophecy in Chalcedonian propaganda. the Liber is eerily similar to the words of When Evagrius wrote in the late sixth Nestorius reported by Barhadbeshebba. If century, his main source for the years 450 Barhadbeshebba actually had before him a and 451, apart from the acta of Chalcedon, text of Nestorius that spoke of Marcian’s of which he had a full text, was the Ecclesi- offer to return and phrased Nestorius’ re- astical History of Zachariah. Evagrius went fusal in just this way, then the redactor of out of his way to contest many of Zacha-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 46 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______riah’s statements, and in particular he sought cording of Eutyches’ statements, the notary to disprove the story of Nestorius’ recall. sent to speak with Eutyches, when con- His argument is less than convincing: fronted with the notes from individual bish- ops that differed from his own transcription, Zacharias the rhetor indeed, through bias (ἐµπαθῶς), says that even Nesto- protested that even the best tachygraphists rius was summoned from his exile. or “speed writers” could not record all the statements made: But the fact that Nestorius was consis- tently anathematized by the Synod John the notary said: “Your magnifi- demonstrates that this was not the cence and the most God-beloved and case. This is also quite clearly re- holy synod know that, when someone vealed by Eustathius, the bishop of is sent to go and convey a message to Beirut, writing in these words to a others, it is impossible to report back bishop John and to another John, an the exact words; not even any of the elder, concerning what had been most reputed orators could do this, to transacted at the Synod: ‘Those who convey and transmit to people the sought the remains of Nestorius ob- exact words of another person… I ask jected once again and shouted against not to be required to repeat the exact the Synod, “Why are the words he used, since no one can do anathematized?”’ The result was that this, to transmit someone’s words the emperor in anger instructed the verbatim (αὐτολεξεὶ); but order the guardsmen to drive them away.29 reading of what is written in my aide- memoire (ἐν τῶι ὑποµνηστικῶι).”31 The condemnation of Nestorius at Chal- cedon, Evagrius thought, contradicted any The best that a scribe could do is take order to recall him. But there was yet further short-hand notes in his notebook and then evidence that Evagrius knew about aside later reconstruct the full statements accord- from Zachariah that obviously troubled him. ing to his memory. The notary Aetius, at the Evagrius adduced a letter of Eustathius of same investigation, also stated that it was Beirut, who had been among the leaders of not uncommon at councils that when many Second Ephesus and who complained that he bishops were shouting out, the statements of had been forced to subscribe at Chalcedon, only one or two would be taken as the state- that purported to prove that Nestorius could ment of the whole: 30 not have been recalled. Eustathius says that Aetius deacon and notary said: “It some bishops at Chalcedon asked for the often happens at these most holy gath- return of Nestorius’ remains, a request the erings that one of the most God- emperor flatly refused. Since the emperor beloved bishops present says some- seems to have been present at the council, thing, and what one man says is re- the incident must have occurred at the sixth corded and counted as if everyone session or later. alike had said it. This is what has hap- Although the acta of Chalcedon contain pened from time immemorial: for no such demands, we are still not justified in instance, one person speaks and we write, ‘The holy council said…’”32 thinking that the apparent candor of the acta precludes their historicity. In the investiga- It is easy to infer from what Aetius says tion held in 449 into the accuracy of the re- that the statements of a few bishops could

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 47 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______easily be overlooked. This must apply a for- unencumbered by Evagrius’ need to justify tiori to Chalcedon, for unlike previous coun- Chalcedon. cils secretaries from the imperial consistory, When Marcian came to power in August not the secretaries of individual bishops, 450 he had no ties to the family of Theodo- recorded the meetings.33 It is quite conceiv- sius and little to justify his selection beyond able that the notaries were instructed to ex- the favour shown him by the barbarian gen- clude from their record the protestations erals Aspar and ; indeed he was consid- about Nestorius that could prove embarrass- ered by the western Augustus, Valentinian ing to the emperor, as Eustathius indicates III, nothing less than a usurper who should that they were to Marcian. be removed at the first opportunity.34 A careful reader will realize that the Marcian took as his consort the 52-year old upshot of Evagrius’ quotation of Eustathius sister of Theodosius to establish some sort is not the definitive rebuttal of Zachariah of continuity with the Theodosian line. By that he had hoped for. Evagrius has not so doing he committed himself to acquiesc- shown that Nestorius was not recalled, but ing to the demands of Pulcheria and pope only that Nestorius died before Chalcedon, Leo that he reverse the decisions of Second precisely what all the sources, both Ephesus. This entailed the rejection of Miaphysite and Nestorian, agree upon. If Cyril’s post-433 writings that asserted the this is the best response that Evagrius can sufficiency formulae “one incarnate nature” come up with, then one should seriously and “out of two natures”, the rehabilitation reconsider the stories of Nestorius’ recall. of Antiochene dyophysites like Theodoret of To understand Nestorius’ recall, though, we Cyrrhus, and the approval of Leo’s Tome in have to reconsider the aims of Chalcedon the East. If all these conditions were met itself. Like modern historians, Evagrius sees Leo and Pulcheria would intercede on Chalcedon only for what it was, a reality Marcian’s behalf with Valentinian to ensure that attained even in antiquity the level of his recognition in the West. historical necessity. Evagrius sought to dis- To produce the desired outcome parage Nestorius so as to entirely disassoci- Marcian conceived of a council to meet at ate the work of the Council of Chalcedon Nicaea in September of 451 under the strict from the deposed bishop; it was unthinkable supervision not of bishops, but of imperial that Nestorius should have been involved in officials bound by his orders. But the coun- the slightest with a council that produced cil had to steer a very difficult, if not impos- such a definitive statement of christological sible course between the Scylla and Charyb- orthodoxy. The argument for the recall of dis of the balkanized Eastern debate. On the Nestorius assumes, by contrast, that Chal- one side were the large number of bishops cedon was a contingent, not a necessary satisfied with Cyril’s “out of two natures” event and could consequently have turned and “one incarnate nature”. On the other out otherwise than it did. Once Chalcedon is were those who still tried to uphold the looked at in this light, the stories in Rufus, Peace of 433, the substance of which was an Zacharias and Barhadbeshebba assume a Antiochene statement of belief that posited new historical reality, for these earlier writ- the two natures of Christ after the incarna- ers can speak of Nestorius’ exile and recall tion. To the former, the latter were Nestori-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 48 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______ans, and to latter, the former were Eutychi- of possibility that Nestorius’ friends, who ans. There was no obvious common ground had been in communication with him, were on which the two sides could meet without effectively blackmailing Marcian with Nes- accusations of heresy from one or other of torius’ endorsement of the Tome as early as the sides. the fall of 450. If Marcian did not rehabili- From the evidence of the Liber Hera- tate Nestorius at the council they would dis- clidis, Nestorius fully endorsed the Tome of close that exiled bishop’s approbation of the Leo and the “two natures” of the Peace of Tome, a very embarrassing revelation for 433. Nestorius’ return would crown the ac- Marcian and Pulcheria when the political complishment of the Council and finally put situation demanded they force it upon the to rest the christological controversy that had unwilling bishops. Who these friends were begun in 428. It is to be imagined that Nesto- is not hard to guess at. Ibas of and rius would enter the church and walking in Irenaeus of Tyre were surely two. Theodoret the aisle between the assembled bishops and of Cyrrhus may also have been involved.37 kneel before Marcian and Pulcheria at the Though the extant collections of his letters head of the church, where he would ask their contain no letters to Nestorius after about forgiveness for disrupting the peace of the 434, there are letter fragments of Theodoret church and give his unqualified assent to the to Nestorius in Syriac that seem to suggest Tome of Leo, the definition of faith where continued contact between the two men.38 Christ was “in two natures”, Cyril’s Second To many it may seem impossible that a Letter to Nestorius and to the title Theotokos. condemned heretic could ever be recalled to Once Nestorius recanted, Theodosius’ legis- a council, but there is in fact a very clear lation against the “Simonians” would be ab- precedent in the fourth century that is often rogated and talk of “two natures” could not overlooked. Constantine summoned a coun- be legally condemned as in any way hereti- cil to meet in Constantinople during the cal. In this way, the dyophysite position of summer of 336, with the emperor present.39 Chalcedon could not subsequently be dis- When Arius was questioned by Constantine, credited by accusations of Nestorianism. In- he found him orthodox and the emperor stead, the decrees of Chalcedon would op- planned to force Alexander of Constantin- pose a single heresy, that of Eutyches, which, ople into communication with him. But be- unlike Nestorianism, had a clearly defined fore Arius could officially be readmitted form, thanks to the efforts of Basil of Seleu- into communion with the Catholic church, cia and the patrician Florentius at the Home he collapsed and died in the most unpleasant Synod of Constantinople in 448, that is, the of circumstances—on the toilet from an ex- rejection of Christ being “in two natures” plosive bout of diarrhea—according to ec- after the incarnation.35 By showing that even clesiastical historian Socrates (HE 1.38): a confirmed heretic could be drawn back to It was then Saturday, and ... going out the true faith, Marcian would illustrate to all of the imperial palace, attended by a that the Council of Chalcedon had a compel- crowd of Eusebian partisans like 36 ling claim to the truth. guards, he [Arius] paraded proudly There was another likely pressure ex- through the midst of the city, attracting erted on Marcian. It is not beyond the realm the notice of all the people. As he ap-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 49 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______

proached the place called Constan- ken heretic was not destined by God to re- tine’s Forum, where the column of turn. With Nestorius’ not physically present porphyry is erected, a terror arising to recant, there was no other option than to from the remorse of conscience seized anathematize Nestorius at Chalcedon. A Arius, and with the terror a violent posthumous rehabilitation would have been relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a conven- a very hard sell, and Nestorius’ friends did ient place near, and being directed to not push the issue, beyond the shouts re- the back of Constantine’s Forum, he corded by Eustathius, much as Arius’ sup- hastened thither. Soon after a faintness porters melted away after his death. came over him, and together with the When news of his death reached the evacuations his bowels protruded, fol- capital, Marcian must have had to think lowed by a copious hemorrhage, and fast to plan a new course for his council. It the descent of the smaller intestines: may well be that the delayed opening of the moreover portions of his spleen and council and Marcian’s own late arrival liver were brought off in the effusion have much to do with his uncertainty over of blood, so that he almost immedi- ately died. The scene of this catastro- how to proceed. That Marcian was com- phe still is shown at Constantinople, as manding an army in the field against the I have said, behind the shambles in the Huns in Thrace seems unlikely, when At- colonnade: and by persons going by tila was focused on the West. The eventual pointing the finger at the place, there is transfer of the council to Chalcedon, much a perpetual remembrance preserved of closer to the capital, meant that Marcian this extraordinary kind of death. could have even closer oversight of its con- To his enemies, the Nicene Christians, troversial progress. this was a sign from God and an answer to With Nestorius dead the architects of their prayers, or at the very least proof that the council recast their strategy. The Tome an enterprising opponent had managed to of Leo and the dyophysite definition of faith poison him before he could taint the church would instead become the artificial via me- with his communion. Arius’ inglorious dia between the heresies of Nestorianism death meant that not even his close support- and Eutychianism. This presentation of the ers chose to push the issue of his rehabilita- issues, however, grossly misrepresented the tion after 336.40 Yet Constantine is not com- status quaestionis in 451. For many in the monly remembered as sympathetic to Arius; East, if not the majority, the later work of indeed, the devout in succeeding centuries Cyril enunciated the orthodoxy of the for- would have recoiled at the thought. mulas “out of two natures” and “one incar- The case of Arius bears a strong similar- nate nature”; any talk of “two natures” was ity to that of Nestorius, a parallel certainly by definition Nestorian. Thus to distinguish not lost on opponents to Chalcedon like Chalcedon’s “two natures” from Nestorian- Zachariah in the passage quoted above. The ism rang false to such staunchly conserva- death of the exiled bishop on the road from tive cyrillians. It was imperative to disasso- Egypt, and the stories circulating of his ciate the “two natures” of Chalcedon from tongue rotting out of his mouth, must have what Nestorius had earlier taught and, for struck many as a sure sign that this outspo- this reason, all formal references to his re-

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 50 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______call were suppressed. The evidence for this lent and intractable opposition to it subse- imperial order survived only in gossip circu- quently proved. Whether Chalcedon would lating among Nestorius’ friends and those have been more palatable with Nestorius near Panopolis, where Nestorius died. Only present is doubtful, but the evidence, much the pressure of the imperial commissioners, of it preserved only in Syriac, is clear and and doubtless a combination of threats, consistent on the attempt to recall Nestorius. bribes and peer pressure not recorded in any Rather than marginalize such sources as formal records, permitted the Chalcedonian propaganda, it would behoove scholars of statement of belief to meet with approval by the fourth to regard the assembled bishops. This was not the them as preserving events otherwise unre- council Marcian had hoped for, as the vio- corded in the official acta.

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 51 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______

NOTES

1 For the troubled reception of Chalcedon, 9 Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius was not see P.T.R. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in even known in the West until the sixth century. the East (451—553), (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), See N.M. Haring, “The Character and Range of pp. 17-43. Influence of St. on Latin 2 For the so-called definitio fidei, in reality Theology (430-1260),” Medieval Studies 12 only an interpretation of the faith, see Actio V 34 (1950) 1-19, and E. Schwartz’s remarks at ACO ACO II.1.2, pp. 128-130. For a clear summary of I.5(2), p. 236, and praefatio ACO I.5 IIII-V. the controversy, see now P.T.R. Gray, “The Leg- 10 Liber Heraclidis (text): Le Livre d’Hera- acy of Chalcedon. Christological Problems and clide de Damas, P. Bedjan ed., (Paris and Leip- their Significance,” in M. Maas (ed.), The Cam- zig: O. Harrassowitz, 1910). English translation: bridge Companion to the Age of Justinian G.R. Driver and L. Hodgson, The bazaar of (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), Heracleides, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925). pp. 215-22. French translation: F. Nau, Le livre d’Héraclide 3 See especially A. de Halleux, “Le Concile de Damas, (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1910). For de Chalcédoine,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses the story of this text’s discovery, see H. 67 (1993) 3-18. Chadwick, Review of Abramowski 1963, JTS ns 4 See Cyril’s Second Letter to Succensus 16 (1965) 214-216. ACO I.1.6, pp. 151-157. While the ἕνωσις 11 L. Abramowski, Untersuchungen zum φυσίκη of Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius Liber Heraclidis des Nestorius, CSCO 242, (ACO I.1.1, pp. 33-42, CPG 5317) implies one Subsidia 22 (Louvain: Secréteriat du Corpus nature in retrospect, there is no evidence that SCO, 1963). Cyril himself understood it this way until after 12 CTh 16.5.66. 433 when Acacius of Melitene and others alerted 13 Coll. Vat. 110 ACO I.1.3, p. 67 and Coll. him to the dangers implicit in the “two natures” Cas. 277+278, ACO I.4, p. 203. of the Antiochenes. 14 Coll. Vat. 138, ACO I.1.4, p. 66. 5 For Nestorius’ innovation within the tradi- 15 Evagrius HE 1.7. Text: The ecclesiastical tion of Theodore, see R.C. Chestnut, “The Two history of Evagrius, J. Bidez and L. Parmentier Prosopa in Nestorius’ Bazaar of Heraclidis,” eds., (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1964), pp. 13-16. JTS ns 29 (1978) 392-409. English translation: M. Whitby, The Ecclesiasti- 6 Coll. Vat. 63 ACO I.1.2, p. 64. cal History of Evagrius Scholasticus (Liverpool: 7 The classic defense of Nestorius is still M. Liverpool University Press, 2000), pp. 20-25. Anastos, “Nestorius was orthodox,” Dumbarton 16 Liber Heraclidis, Bedjan, 518-19, Driver Oaks Papers 16 (1962) 119-40. For a sensitive and Hodgson, 378, and Nau, 330. treatment of Nestorius’ condemnation and his 17 Liber Heraclidis, Bedjan, 519, Driver and doctrine, see A. de Halleux, “Nestorius. Histoire Hodgson, 379, and Nau, 331. et doctrine,” Irenikon 66 (1993) 38-51, 163-177; 18 Liber Heraclidis, Bedjan, 506, Driver and and idem, “Nestorius. History and Doctrine,” in Hodgson, 369, and Nau, 322. First Non-official Consultation on Dialogue 19 Liber Heraclidis, Bedjan, 520, Driver and Within the Syriac Tradition (Vienna: Pro Ori- Hodgson, 378-79, Nau, 330-31. There is no in- ente, 1994), pp. 200-215. ternal reason whatsoever to believe this passage 8 Cyril to John of Antioch, Ep. 39, Coll. Vat. an interpolation. 127, ACO I.1.4, pp. 15-20, CPG 5339. 20 Liber Heraclidis, Bedjan 452-3, Driver

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 52 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______and Hodgson, 330-31, Nau, 290-91. 29 Evagrius HE 2.2, J. Bidez and L. Parmen- 21 John Rufus, Plerophories 36 (PO pp. 83- tier eds., The ecclesiastical history of Evagrius, 85). The translation is my own. For discussion of p. 39. English translation: Whitby, The Ecclesi- John Rufus and Zachariah (see infra) viz. Chal- astical History, p. 62. For brief discussion of cedon, see now M. Whitby, “The Church Histo- this passage, see P. Allen, Evagrius Scholasticus, rians and Chalcedon,” in G. Marasco ed., Greek the Church Historian (Leuven: Spicilegium sa- and Latin Historiography in Late Antiquity crum lovaniense, 1981), pp. 99-100. Allen, while (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2003), pp. 447-93. P. making the point that Evagrius does not disprove Mouterde, “Le Concile de Chalcédoine d’après the recall per se, errs in identifying Eustathius as les historiens monophysites de langue syriaque,” a diophysite. in A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, Das Konzil von 30 According to Zachariah HE 3.1, (trans. Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol II Hamilton and Brooks, 47). (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1962, c1954.), pp. 31 Cognitio de Gestis contra Eutychen 644 581-602, despite its title, does not deal at all with ACO II.1.2 p. 160. Translation: R. Price and M. the stories of Nestorius’ recall. Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 22 Zachariah of Mitylene, HE 3.1, F.J. Ham- Vol. 1 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, ilton and E.W. Brooks trans., The Syriac Chroni- 2005), pp. 242-43. For Evagrius and Zachariah, cle Known as That of Zachariah of Mitylene see Pauline Allen, “Zachariah Scholasticus and (London: Metheuen and co., 1899), p. 43. the Historia Ecclesiastica of Evagrius Scholasti- 23 Coll. Cas. 279, ACO I.4, pp. 203-204. cus,” Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1980) Dorotheus had pronounced an infamous anath- 471-88. ema on all those who used the title theotokos. 32 Cognitio de Gestis contra Eutychen 767 ACO Coll. Vat. 144, ACO I.1.5, p.11: εἵ τις λέγει II.1.2 p. 170 (trans. Price and Gaddis, vol. I, 257). θεοτόκον εῖναι τὴν Μαρίαν, οὗτος ἀνάθεµα 33 For an important study of the identities of ἔστω. He was removed by Nestorius’ successor, the imperial commissioners, see. R. Delmaire, Maximian, shortly after his accession. “Les dignitaires laïcs au concile de Chalcédoine: 24 Dioscorus, A panegyric on Macarius, notes sur la hiérarchie et les préséances au milieu bishop of Tkôw, D.W. Johnson ed. and trans., du Ve siècle,” Byzantion 54 (1984) 141-75. CSCO 415, Script. Coptici 41 (Louvain, Sécre- 34 R.W. Burgess, “The Accession of Marcian tariat du Corpus SCO, 1980), pp. 79-8. For the in the Light of Chalcedonian Apologetic and story in Shenute, see J.F. Bethune-Baker, “The Monophysite polemic,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift Date of the Death of Nestorius: Schenute, Zacha- 86/87 (1993/1994) 47–68, and C. Zuckerman, rias, Evagrius,” Journal of Theological Studies “L’Empire d’Orient et les Huns; notes sur Pris- ns. 9 (1908) 601-5. cus,” Travaux et Mémoires Byzantines 12 (1994) 25 i.e. the dissemination of Leo’s Tome in the 159–182. East in 450. 35 See G. Bevan and P.T.R. Gray, “The Trial 26 Philoxenus of Mabbug, Letter to the of Eutyches: A New Interpretation,” (forth- Monks of Senun, André de Halleux ed., CSCO coming). 231, (Louvain: Sécretariat du Corpus SCO, 36 The only modern historian to take seri- 1963), p. 18. I thank Iuliana Viezure for bringing ously this scenario of recall was G.E.M. de Ste. this passage, along with a translation of it, to my Croix in “The Council of Chalcedon,” in Chris- attention. tian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy, 27 Barhadbeshebba, HE 30 (PO 9, 585-586). Michael Whitby and Joseph Streeter eds., The translation is my own. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 28 M. Brière, “La Légende Syriaque de Nesto- 280-81. Ste. Croix, however, underplayed the rius,” Revue de l’orient chrétien 15 (1910) 24-25. role of secular pressures behind the council, and

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 53 The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources ______by extension the recall (272) and instead saw it Heracleides, pp. 382-83. only as an expression of imperial fiat. 39 For the Council of Constantinople and the 37 For Theodore’s support of Chalcedon af- recall of Arius, see T.D. Barnes, Athanasius and ter 451, see P.T.R. Gray, “Theodoret on the ‘One Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Con- Hypostasis.’ An Antiochene Reading of Chal- stantinian Empire, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard cedon,” Studia Patristica 15 (1984) 301-304. University Press, 1993), p. 137. 38 F. Loofs ed., Nestoriana (Halle: M. Nie- 40 T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius meyer, 1905), nos. 310, 226, 243 and 253. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Translated in Driver and Hodgson, The bazaar of 1981), pp. 241-42.

______Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007) - Page 54