BOOKVII
CHAPTER 1
The fact that, after the death of Tsar Arcadius, who left his eight-year-old son Theodosius, everything was controlled by the prefect Anthemius
After the death of Tsar Arkady, which happened on the first day of the month of May, during the consulate of Vassa and Philip, his brother Honorius ruled the western countries, and the eastern countries were under the rule of his son, Theodosius the Younger, who was then eight years old. Here the business of administration lay with the prefect Anthemius, the grandson of Philip, who, under Constantius, expelled Bishop Paul from the Church and brought in Macedonius in his place. Anthemius surrounded Constantinople on all sides with great walls and, both in opinion and in reality, was the smartest man among his contemporaries, did not undertake anything rashly, but consulted with many friends about what should be done, especially the sophist Troilus, who, with his wisdom, was not inferior to Anthemius in knowledge of public affairs. That is why Anthemius acted in almost everything on the advice of Troilus.
CHAPTER 2
About the Bishop of Constantinople Atticus, what kind of character he was
While the king was in the eighth year of his life, Atticus had already been shining for the third year on the episcopal see of Constantinople. He, as we previously said, with great education, was a pious and wise man. That is why the churches under him multiplied significantly. With his prudence, he not only kept the faithful in alliance, but also amazed the heretics, and did not dare to torture them; if sometimes he intimidated, then later he again showed his condescension towards them. He also did not neglect science, for he studied a lot with the works of the ancients and spent nights over them, which is why philosophers or sophists did not surprise him. And in conversations he was pleasant and attractive, and showed compassion for those who mourned; in a word, according to the Apostle, he was everything to everyone. Previously, while still in the presbytery, he memorized the words he had previously composed and spoke them in church, and later, having acquired diligence and courage, he spoke the most solemn sermons without preparation. However, his words were not such that they could (269) force listeners to write them down on paper. But enough about his character, qualities and education. Now I’ll tell you about what memorable happened in his time.
CHAPTER 3
About Theodosius and Attica, bishops in Sinnad
In the city of Pacatian Phrygia 2, Sinnad, there was a bishop named Theodosius. He relentlessly persecuted the heretics who were there (of whom there were many from the Macedonian sect) and expelled them not only from the city, but also from the villages. He did this not because in the Orthodox Church heretics were usually persecuted, and not out of zeal for the right faith, but out of passion for the love of money, in order to collect money from heretics. Therefore, he set everything in motion against people who thought in accordance with Macedonius, armed the hands of subordinate clergy to their detriment and used countless tricks, even did not fail to call them to the courts; He especially subjected their bishop, named Agapit, to various insults. However, for the execution of punishments, it seemed to him that the power of the regional commanders was not enough; he went back to Constantinople and asked for district decrees. But while Theodosius hesitated in Constantinople for this purpose, Agapit, who, as I said, was the head of the Macedonian religion, came to a good idea. Having consulted with all his clergy and convened the people subordinate to himself, he began to persuade them to accept faith in the consubstantial and, when he achieved this, immediately with a great crowd, or better, with all the people, he went to church and, having prayed, took the throne on which Theodosius usually sat. Thus, having united the people and then preaching faith in the consubstantial, he became the ruler of those Churches that depended on Sinnada. A little time after this event, Theodosius appears and brings with him authority to the regional commanders. Still not knowing anything that had happened, he immediately comes to the church, but, expelled from it by all the Christians together, he again goes to Constantinople and, having arrived there, laments his misfortune before Bishop Atticus, how he was unexpectedly expelled from the bishopric. Atticus judged that this matter happened for the benefit of the Church, and therefore, having consoled Theodosius with words, he convinced him to accept life in peace with patience and taught him to prefer public benefits to his own, and wrote to Agapitus that he should govern the bishopric without fear of anything unpleasant from Theodosius’s chagrin . (270)
CHAPTER 4
About the healing of a paralytic Jew in holy baptism, which was performed by Bishop Atticus
This was one of the benefits received by the Church during the time of Atticus. But the times mentioned are also not without miracles or healings. Thus, one Jew, having fallen into relaxation, lay on his bed for many years. All the art of medical science was uselessly exhausted over him, and all the Jewish prayers did not help him at all; finally, he turned to Christian baptism and believed that it alone would be his true healing. This soon became known to Bishop Atticus, and he, having announced him and proclaiming his hope in Christ, ordered him to be brought with his bed to the baptismal sanctuary. The relaxed Jew, having begun baptism with sincere faith, as soon as he was taken from the baptismal font, he was immediately freed from his illness and was then healthy. The power of Christ is pleased to show such healing to people in our times; and it was the reason that many pagans believed and were baptized. But the Jews, despite the fact that they are looking for signs, even the signs themselves did not lead to faith. This is how Christ did good to people.
CHAPTER 5
About how the Novatian presbyter Savvatius, a Jew by origin, separated from his co-religionists
However, many, not considering this at all, continued to engage in deeds of wickedness, for it was not only the Jews who did not believe the former miracles; Their way of thinking was followed by those who love to imitate them. Savvatius, whom we mentioned a little higher, not wanting to remain in the rank of presbyterate, began from the very beginning to seek the episcopacy and at the same time, under the pretext of keeping the Jewish Passover, he separated from the Novatian society. Appointing meetings independently of his bishop Sisinnius in one city place called Xirolofos, where is now Arcadia Square, he ventured into a very dangerous undertaking. On the day of the church meeting, reading the section of the Gospel, where it is said: there was a holiday called the Jewish Passover, he added, which is not written anywhere and has never been heard, namely: “Cursed is he who keeps the Passover without unleavened bread.” These words spread among many, and inexperienced laymen from the Novatian society, being carried away by them, joined Savvatius. However, he did not benefit from his (271) invention, and the forgery ended badly for him. After a little time, Savvaty celebrated the holiday in accordance with his opinion, and, according to custom, many people flocked to him. But when the usual all-night vigil was taking place, they were overcome by some kind of demonic fear, as if Bishop Sisinnius was coming towards them with a huge crowd. From this, as usual, confusion arose and they, at night, confined in a cramped place, pressed themselves so hard that more than seventy of them died. This event separated many from Savvaty. However, some, ossified in a rude opinion, remained with him. And how Savvaty achieved the perjured bishopric, we will say a little lower.
CHAPTER 6
About the primates of the Arians who were at that time
Dorotheos, head of the Arian confession, transferred by the Arians, as we mentioned above, from Antioch to Constantinople, lived one hundred and nineteen years and died in the seventh consulate of Honorius and the second of Theodosius of August, on the sixth day of the month of November. After him, Varva was the head of the Arian confession, and at the same time Varva, the Arian sect was lucky to have two eloquent men invested with the dignity of the presbytery. One of them was named Timofey, and the other was George. George studied the Greek sciences more, and Timothy practiced more in the Holy Scriptures. The former always had in his hands the works of Aristotle and Plato, and the latter breathed Origen and, publicly explaining the Holy Scriptures, even turned to the Hebrew language. Timothy had already belonged to the Psathirian sect, and George was ordained by Varva. I myself spoke with Timothy and learned how he is able to answer questions and resolve everything that is unclear in divine sayings. In any case, he referred to Origen as a true witness to his words. Therefore, it is surprising to me how these men remained with the Arian confession, when one of them always had Plato in his hands, and the other breathed Origen, for Plato does not say that, according to his usual expression, the second and third causes received the beginning of being, and Origen everywhere preaches the co-eternity of the Son with the Father. However, although they remained in their society, they imperceptibly improved Arianism, because with their teaching they drove out many of the blasphemers of Arius. But enough about them. When, a short time later, during the same consulate, the Novatian bishop Sisinnius died, Chrysanthus was ordained in his place, about whom we will say a little later.
CHAPTER 7
About the fact that Cyril followed the Alexandrian bishop Theophilus
Soon after this, the Alexandrian bishop Theophilus fell into lethargy and died, which happened in the ninth consulate of Honorius and the fifth of Theodosius, on the fifteenth day of the month of October. Here the episcopate also became a controversial subject, because some wanted to enthrone Archdeacon Timothy, while others wanted Cyril, the son of sister Theophilus. During the popular turmoil that occurred on this occasion, Timothy's side was supported by the military leader Abundantius. Therefore, Cyril was enthroned already on the third day after the death of Theophilus 3 and entered the bishopric with greater power than Theophilus, for from his time the Alexandrian bishopric stepped beyond the priestly rank and began to autocratically manage affairs. Namely, Cyril immediately locked the Novatian churches that were in Alexandria and took all their sacred utensils, and deprived their bishop Theopemites of everything he had.
CHAPTER 8
About the Mesopotamian Bishop Maruf and how through him Christianity spread in Persia
Around the same time, Christianity spread to Persia - on the following occasion. There is constant intercourse between the Romans and the Persians, and there are many reasons why they are so frequently communicated. Of course, even then some need arose that the Mesopotamian bishop Marufa, whom we mentioned a little earlier, was sent by the king of Rome to the king of Persia. The Persian king 4 noticed a special piety in this man and, treating him respectfully, listened to him as a truly God-loving man. This aroused envy in the Magi 5, who have great power with the king of Persia. They were afraid that Marufa would convince the king to accept Christianity, because the bishop healed his old headache, from which they themselves could not heal him, with his prayers. So, the Magi planned deception. It is known that the Persians revere fire, and the king used to worship an incessantly burning fire in one house, so the wise men, having hidden a man there underground, taught him to shout at the usual time of the royal prayer: “Depose the king, because he acted wickedly by calling a Christian priest God-loving." Hearing this, Isdigerd - as the Persian king was called - although he was ashamed, he nevertheless wanted to send Marufa away. But Marufa, a truly God-loving man, began to pray and thanks to this he discovered the deception perpetrated by the Magi. He said to the king: “Do not be the subject of a joke, king, but go in and, having heard the voice, dig up the ground - then you will reveal the deception; for it is not fire that speaks, but human cunning that does it.” The Persian king believed Marufa and again entered the house where there was an unquenchable fire. Hearing the same voice again, he ordered the place to be dug up and immediately exposed who had uttered the words taken for God. The king became extremely angry and imposed tithes on the entire family of Magi, and then allowed Marufa to build churches wherever he pleased. From that time on, Christianity began to spread in Persia, and Marufa then, although he left the Persians and returned to Constantinople, was soon sent to them again as an envoy. Upon his return, the wise men again came up with a trick. So that the king would not accept this husband at all, they spread some kind of artificial stench in the place where he usually went, and spread slander that this was done by confessors of Christianity. But since the king had already suspected the magicians before, he, more carefully searching for the culprits, again discovered that they were the distributors of the bad smell, and therefore he punished many of them again, and began to show Marufa even greater honor. He loved the Romans and valued their friendship, and almost became a Christian when Marufa, together with the Persian bishop Avda, did another thing - when both of them, after fasting and praying, delivered the king’s son from the demon that was tormenting him. But Isdigerd died before he could become a perfect Christian 6. After his death, his kingdom passed to his son Vararan, under whom the alliance between the Romans and Persians, as we will say a little later, collapsed 7.
CHAPTER 9
The then bishops in Antioch and Rome
Around the same time, in Antioch, after the death of Flavian, Porphyry accepted the bishopric, and after Porphyry, Alexander 8 presided over the Church there. Among the Romans, Damasius, who occupied the episcopal throne for eighteen years, was followed by Siricius, after Siricius, who was bishop for fifteen years, Anastasius ruled the Church for three years, and after Anastasius, Innocent, who first began to persecute the Novatians in Rome and took from them many Churches 9.
CHAPTER 10
That at the same time Rome fell under the rule of the barbarians and was devastated by Alaric
At the same time, Rome had to fall under the rule of the barbarians. A certain Alaric, a barbarian, an ally of the Romans, who helped Tsar Theodosius in the war with the tyrant Eugene and was awarded Roman honors for this, could not bear his happiness. However, he did not intend to become king. Having moved away from Constantinople, he wanted to move to the western regions and, having reached Illyria, he immediately began to destroy everything. Then, when crossing the mouth of the Pinea River, where the road to Nicopolis of Epirus lies through Mount Pindus, the Thessalians confronted him and killed about three thousand people in the battle. After this, the barbarians accompanying him destroyed everything they encountered and finally took Rome itself and, having devastated it, burned many of its marvelous buildings, plundered treasures, subjected several senators to various executions and killed 10. In mockery of the royal dignity, Alaric appointed a king named Attila, and on one day he ordered him to go out as a king, surrounded by royal guards, and on another he forced him to appear in the form of a slave 11. After this, frightened by the rumor that King Theodosius had sent an army against him, he fled. And the rumor was not made up: the army was really marching, so Alaric, not being able to bear, as I said, even one rumor about it, hastily left. They say that during his campaign to Rome, one pious man, a monk by way of life, persuaded him not to rejoice at the sight of such great disasters, not to enjoy murder and blood. To which he replied: “I am not going there of my own free will, someone bothers and torments me every day, saying: go, devastate the city 12 Rome.” But enough about that. (275)
CHAPTER 11
About the bishops who were then in Rome
After Innocent, Zosima ruled the Roman Church for two years, and after Zosima, Boniface was the primate of the Church for three years, who was replaced by Celestine 13. This Celestine took away the churches from the Roman Novatians, and forced their bishop Rusticulus to hold meetings secretly in private houses. Before his time, the Roman Novatians were very prosperous and, having many churches, gathered large people in them. But envy touched them too, because the Roman bishopric, like the Alexandrian bishopric, having gone beyond the priesthood, had long since passed into autocratic rule. This is why the Roman bishops did not allow even like-minded Christians to gather freely with them, but, having taken everything from them, they only praised them for their like-mindedness. The bishops of Constantinople were not infected with such a disease; on the contrary, they especially loved the Novatians and allowed them to gather inside the city, as I have already said enough about this.
CHAPTER 12
About Chrysanthus, Novatian bishop in Constantinople
After the death of Sisinnius, Chrysanthus, the son of Marcian, the Novatian bishop who preceded Sisinnius, was elevated to the episcopal throne against his will. In his young years he served in the court army, then under Tsar Theodosius the Great he was prefect of Italy, and finally he was appointed governor of the British Isles, where he aroused surprise with his orders. Having reached old age and returned to Constantinople, Chrysanthus wanted to become prefect of the city, but against his will he was elevated to the episcopal throne, because Sisinnius, at the time of his death, mentioned him as a man capable of episcopacy, and the Novatian people, taking his words as law, decided to forcibly entice him to the bishopric. Chrysanthus, however, disappeared, and Savvatius, believing that now a convenient time had come at which he could take possession of the churches, disregarded the oath he had taken and persuaded some minor bishops to lay hands on him. Among those who ordained him was Hermogenes, whom he cursed and excommunicated for blasphemous writings. However, Savvatius’s intention was not fulfilled, for the people hated him for the (276) willfulness with which he used all means to sneak into the episcopacy, and therefore tried in every possible way to find Chrysanthus and, having learned that he was hiding near Bithynia, took him by force and elevated him to the episcopate. This was the wisest and at the same time the most modest husband that could be found. He carefully preserved and multiplied the Novatian churches in Constantinople; he was also the first to distribute his own money to the poor, and from church property he took nothing except two blessed loaves on Sundays. He had such concern for his Church that from the sophist Troilus he took the most excellent rhetorician of that time, Ablavius, and elevated him to the rank of presbyter. The conversations written by Ablavius are distinguished by their elegant decoration and sonority of language. Subsequently, Ablavius was bishop of the Nicene-Novatian Church and at the same time taught the Sophists there.
CHAPTER 13
About the battle that took place in Alexandria between Christians and Jews and the discord between Bishop Cyril and the prefect Orestes
At the same time, Bishop Cyril had to expel the tribe of Jews from Alexandria, for the following reason. The Alexandrian mob loves indignation more than any other mob and, when it finds a reason, rushes to unbearable atrocities, for without blood it does not calm down from excitement. It happened that this very mob became agitated even then - not for any important reason, but because of the evil that had spread throughout all the cities, that is, the passion for dancers. Since the dancer on the Sabbath day attracted much more people to him, because the Jews, who did nothing on this day, were not engaged in listening to the law, but in theatrical performances, the Sabbath usually was the day of clashes between popular parties. Although the prefect of Alexandria limited such disorder to some extent, the Jews still did not cease to quarrel against people of the opposing party. Having always and everywhere been enemies of Christians, they armed themselves even more against them because of these dancers. Under such circumstances, the Alexandrian prefect Orestes made a politeian at the theater - this is how public orders were usually called. There were also adherents of Bishop Cyril who wanted to know about the orders of the prefect, and among them was one man named Hierax, who was a teacher of children's sciences and, as an ardent listener of Bishop Cyril, (277) tried in every possible way to excite applause at his teachings. When a crowd of Jews saw this Hierax in the theater, they suddenly shouted that he had come to the spectacle for nothing other than to stir up confusion among the people. Meanwhile, Orestes had previously hated the rule of bishops - partly because they took away a lot of power from the leaders appointed by the king, and especially because Cyril wanted to have supervision over his orders. So, having seized Hierax, he publicly tortured him in the theater. Having learned about this, Cyril called the noblest of the Jews to him and probably threatened them if they did not stop being indignant against Christians. But the Jews, hearing the threats, became even more stubborn and came up with intrigues to harm the Christians. I will tell you about the main thing, which was the reason for their expulsion from Alexandria. Having agreed that everyone should carry with them, as a distinctive sign, a ring made from the bark of a palm tree, they decided to attack the Christians at night, and one night they sent some people to shout throughout the city that the church named after Alexander was burning. Hearing this, Christians, to save the church, ran from all sides, and the Jews immediately attacked and killed them. They did not touch each other, because each showed the other a ring, and the Christians they met were killed. As day came, this crime was revealed. Annoyed by him, Cyril with a great crowd of people goes to the Jewish synagogues - this is what the Jews call the places of their prayer meetings - and takes away the synagogues from them, and expels them from the city, and gives their property to the people for plunder. Thus, the Jews, who had lived in the city since the time of Alexander the Great, then all left the city without anything and scattered to different countries 14. But the teacher of medical sciences Adamantius, having gone to Constantinople, resorted to Bishop Atticus and, having converted to Christianity, subsequently lived again in Alexandria. Meanwhile, the Alexandrian prefect Orestes was extremely upset by this incident and was very sad that such a great city had so unexpectedly lost so many inhabitants, and therefore reported this to the king. Cyril himself informed the king about the villainy of the Jews, although, nevertheless, he sent people to Orestes to offer him their friendship, because the Alexandrian people encouraged him to do so. But Orestes rejected the bishop's friendship. Then Cyril took and held the book of the Gospel in front of him, thinking at least by this to shame him, however, even such a measure did not soften the prefect - and irreconcilable enmity remained between them, the consequence of which was the following. (278)
CHAPTER 14
That the Nitrian monks, who came to Alexandria to protect Cyril, rebelled against the prefect Orestes
Some of the monks in the Nitrian mountains, who had shown their ardor even under Theophilus, when he unjustly armed them against Dioscorus and his brothers, were now inspired by jealousy and decided to fight zealously also for Cyril. Therefore, leaving the monasteries, numbering almost five hundred people, they came to the city and waited for the prefect to pass by in his chariot. Then, approaching him, they called him a sacrificer, a pagan, and many other shameful names. The prefect, suspecting intrigues on the part of Cyril, shouted that he was a Christian and had been baptized by the Bishop of Constantinople, Atticus. But the monks did not listen to his words, and one of them, named Ammonius, hit Orestes in the head with a stone, so that he was covered in blood flowing from the wound, and his bodyguards, except for a few, all ran away in different directions and disappeared into the crowd. , fearing that they too would be stoned. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of Alexandria began to come running to protect the prefect from the monks - and all the others were put to flight, and Ammonius was captured and presented to the prefect, who, on the basis of the laws, publicly punished him and tortured him until he died. He soon reported these events to the autocrats. And Cyril presented them to the king from the opposite side, took the body of Ammonius and laid it in one of the churches and, changing his name, called him Faumasius, so that they would consider him a martyr and glorify his generosity in the Church as a feat for piety. However, modest people, although Christians, did not approve of this Cyril’s jealousy, for they knew that Ammonius was punished for his recklessness and died in agony not because he was forced to renounce Christ. So, Kirill himself, with his silence, little by little brought this matter into oblivion. But the evil enmity between Cyril and Orestes did not stop even here. It was extinguished by another incident similar to those mentioned.
CHAPTER 15
About Hypatia the philosopher
There was a woman in Alexandria named Hypatia, the daughter of the philosopher Theon 15. She acquired such learning that she surpassed contemporary philosophers, was the successor (279) of the Platonic school, descended from Plato, and taught all philosophical sciences to those who wished. Therefore, those who wanted to study philosophy flocked to her from all sides. By her education, having a self-confidence worthy of respect, she appeared with modesty even in the face of rulers, and she did not show any shame in appearing among men, for for her extraordinary modesty everyone respected her and marveled at her. Envy then took up arms against this woman. Since she very often talked with Orestes, her treatment of him gave rise to slander, as if she did not allow Orestes to enter into friendship with Cyril. Therefore, people with hot voices, under the command of a certain Peter, once conspired and waylaid this woman. When she was returning home from somewhere, they pulled her off the stretcher and dragged her to a church called Caesarion, then, having exposed her, they killed her with shards, and carried her body to a place called Kinaron, and burned her there. This caused a lot of grief for both Cyril and the Alexandrian Church, for murders, strife and everything like that are completely alien to those who think in the spirit of Christ. The mentioned event occurred in the fourth year of the bishopric of Cyril, in the tenth of the consulate of Honorius and the sixth of Theodosius, in the month of March, during Lent.
CHAPTER 16
That the Jews again started a fight with the Christians and were punished
After a little time, the Jews again committed insolence to the Christians and were punished for this. In one place called Inmestar, which is located between Chalcis and Syrian Antioch, they had the custom of performing some kind of games. During these games, doing a lot of senseless things, they, intoxicated with wine, mocked the Christians and Christ himself and, ridiculing both the cross and those who trusted in the Crucified One, among other things they came up with the following: having grabbed a Christian boy, they tied him to the cross and hanged him, then they began to laugh and mock him, and soon, going mad, they began to beat him and kill him to death. On this occasion, a strong fight occurred between them and the Christians. When this became known to the kings, the regional commanders received orders to find the perpetrators and execute them. Thus, the Jews there were punished for the atrocity they committed during the games. (280).
About the Novatian bishop Paul, and about the miracle that happened when he began to baptize the deceiver of the Jews
At the same time, after seven years of ruling the churches under his control, the Novatian bishop Chrysanthos also died, which happened during the consulate of Monaxius and Plinth, on the twenty-sixth day of the month of August, and Paul became his successor on the episcopal throne. At first he taught Roman literature, and then, leaving the language of the Romans, he turned to the ascetic life and, having gathered zealous men into the monastery, lived like desert monks. I found him exactly as Evagrius described monks, desert dwellers, to be, for he imitated them in everything: he fasted incessantly, spoke little, abstained from (eating) animals, and often even from wine and oil. Moreover, he cared more than anyone else for the poor, tirelessly visited those in prison and interceded for many before the rulers, who, out of respect for the piety of the petitioner, willingly listened to him. But why should I go on at length in describing it? I will now tell you about a matter that was in his hands and, in all fairness, should be handed down to posterity in writing. One Jewish deceiver, pretending to be a Christian, often received baptism and, through this trick, collected money. Having already deceived many heresies with such cunning - for he was baptized by both the Arians and the Macedonians - and not knowing who else to deceive, he finally came to the Novatian bishop Paul and, saying that he ardently desired baptism, asked for it from his hand. Paul accepted his desire, but announced that he would not give him baptism until after he had been taught the teachings of the faith and after he had spent many days in fasting. However, the Jew, forced to fast against his will, began to beg the bishop even more zealously for baptism, and Paul, not wanting to upset the zealous petitioner with further delay, prepared everything necessary for baptism - he bought him light clothes and, having ordered the baptismal font to be filled with water, brought the Jew to her with in order to baptize him. But by some invisible power of God the water disappeared. The bishop and those present, without examining how this happened, thought that the water flowed out through the hole located below, through which it was usually released, and therefore, having carefully closed all the holes in the font, they filled it again. But as soon as the Jew was brought again, the water suddenly disappeared. Then Paul said to him: “Listen, either you are deceiving, or, without (281) knowing it, you have already received baptism.” Then people came running to see this miracle, and someone, recognizing the Jew, testified that he was an impostor and was baptized by Bishop Atticus. Such a miracle happened in the hands of the Novatian bishop Paul.
CHAPTER 18
The fact that, after the death of the Persian king Isdigerd, the peace between the Romans and Persians ceased and a strong war began, in which the Persians were defeated
After the death of the Persian king Isdigerd, who did not do any oppression to the local Christians, the kingdom was inherited by his son, named Vararan, and, prompted by the Magi, began to cruelly persecute Christians, subjecting them, according to Persian custom, to various executions and tortures 16 . Pressed by need, the Persian Christians resorted to the Romans asking them not to let them perish. Bishop Atticus graciously received the petitioners, tried in every possible way to help them as much as possible, and brought their situation to the attention of King Theodosius. Meanwhile, at the same time, the Romans had other reasons to be displeased with the Persians, because the Persians did not want to return the gold diggers, whom they had taken from the Romans for a certain fee, and, moreover, they had taken goods from the Roman merchants. These displeasures were supplemented by a complaint to the Romans from Persian Christians. The Persian king immediately sent envoys demanding the extradition of the fugitives, but the Romans did not extradite them, not only because they wanted to patronize them as petitioners, but also because they were ready to do everything in defense of Christianity. They decided to fight the Persians rather than let the Christians die. So, the peace was interrupted and a cruel war broke out, 17 which I consider it not untimely to talk about briefly. The Roman king was the first to send part of the army under the leadership of the leader Ardaburius, who, having invaded Persia through Armenia, devastated one of its regions, named Azazina. The leader of the Persian king Narses came out against him with the Persian army, but, defeated in the battle with the Romans, he fled. Then he realized that it would be more useful for him to unexpectedly invade Roman possessions through Mesopotamia, where the borders are not guarded by troops, and thus take revenge on the Romans. However, this intention of Narses was not hidden from the Roman leader; the latter, having quickly devastated Azazina 18, himself went to Mesopotamia. Then Narses, although he had gathered a large army, was nevertheless unable to invade the Roman provinces and, having come to the Persian border city of Nizibu, sent from there to tell Ardaburius to come to an agreement with him about the war and determine the place and time for battle. But Ardaburius answered those who came: “Announce to Narses that the Roman kings will not fight when you want...” Meanwhile, thinking that the Persian had armed himself with all his might, the king sent a very large army as reinforcement and placed the hope of battle entirely on God. And that for his faith he immediately received a blessing from God, it was clear from this. While the inhabitants of Constantinople were worried and doubtful about the outcome of the war, the Angels of God appeared near Bithynia to some persons who were going to Constantinople for their own needs and ordered them to tell the inhabitants of Constantinople not to lose heart, to pray and believe in God that the Romans would be victorious , for they themselves, they say, were sent from God to manage this war. The rumor about this not only revived the city, but also made the warriors bolder. Meanwhile, when the war from Armenia, as I said, was transferred to Mesopotamia, the Romans, having besieged the Persians who were entrenched in the city of Nisib, and having built wooden towers that moved by means of some kind of machine, brought them to the walls and killed many of those who , fighting on the walls, tried to defend themselves. The Persian king Vararan, having learned that the country of Azazin, subject to him, was devastated, and his troops, imprisoned in the city of Nizib, were besieged, he himself was preparing to go against the Romans with all his might, but, fearing many obstacles, he asked for help to the Saracens, over whom then Alamundar, a brave and warlike man, was in charge. The latter, bringing with him many thousands of Saracens, told the Persian king to boldly hope, and promised to present him with the Romans as captives in a short time and hand over Syrian Antioch. But this promise was not fulfilled, because God brought unaccountable fear to the Saracens. Imagining that the Roman army was advancing on them, they became confused and, not knowing where to run, rushed armed into the Euphrates River, where about ten thousand of them died. It was like that. And the Romans, who were besieging Niziba, hearing that the Persian king was leading many elephants with him, became frightened and, having burned all the siege engines, returned to their borders. How many battles were there after that, how another Roman leader, Areovindus, killed him in single combat with the most courageous of the Persians, how Ardaburius lured seven brave Persian leaders into an ambush and killed them, or how the Roman leader Vician defeated the rest of the Saracens - all this is me I’m thinking of passing in silence so as not to move too far away from my subject. (283)
CHAPTER 19
About the Palladium walker
These events were soon brought to the attention of Tsar Theodosius. And how the king could soon find out about what was happening far away, I will tell you. Luckily, he had a man who was strong in soul and body, namely Palladium. He rode horses so quickly that in three days he reached the borders that separated the Roman and Persian kingdoms, and in the same number of days he returned to Constantinople. This man very quickly traveled to other countries of the universe, where the autocrat sent him. One day one of the witty people said the following about him: “This man, with his speed, makes even the greatest kingdom of Rome seem small.” And the Persian king was amazed when he learned about his speed. But enough about Palladium.
CHAPTER 20
How the Persians were again completely defeated by the Romans
The Roman king, living in Constantinople and learning of the victory clearly granted by God, was so kind that, despite the successful actions of his subjects, he desired peace. Therefore, he sent Ilion, a man very respected by them, to the army and ordered him to conclude a peace treaty with the Persians. Ilion arrived in Mesopotamia, where the Romans had set up a fortified camp for their safety, and sent Maximin, an eloquent man who was an adviser to the leader Ardaburius, with the task of negotiating peace. Arriving at the Persian king, Maximin said that he had been sent to make peace, but not from the Roman king, but from his leaders; the king said that he did not even know about this war, and when he found out, he would consider it insignificant. The Persian king was gladly ready to accept this embassy, because his army was suffering from hunger, but warriors, called immortals by the Persians, who are considered ten thousand brave men, approached him and told him not to accept the proposal for peace before allowing they unexpectedly attack the Romans. The king bowed to their words and, imprisoning the envoy, ordered him to be guarded, and sent the immortals to ambush the Romans. They arrived at the appointed place and, dividing into two detachments, decided to surround one part of the Romans. The Romans saw one detachment of Persians and therefore prepared to repel his (284) attack, but did not notice the other - and he attacked them suddenly. But at the same time, as the battle was ready to begin, suddenly on one hill, by the clear order of God, a Roman army appeared, led by the military leader Procopius. Seeing that his fellow tribesmen were in danger, Procopius attacked the Persians from the rear - and thus the Persians, who wanted to encircle the Romans, now found themselves surrounded. Having destroyed these in a short time, the Romans then turned to the ambushers and also killed them all. This is how the troops, to whom the Persians gave the name of immortals, all turned out to be mortal, and the Persian people received punishment from Christ for the death of many of His admirers, pious men! Having learned about this failure, the Persian king pretended that the event was unknown to him, and, having received the embassy, said to the ambassador: “I agree to peace not because I yield to the Romans, but out of favor towards you, whom I find the most prudent of all the Romans.” Thus ended the war started for the Persian Christians. This was in the consulate of two Augusts, in the thirteenth of Honorius and the tenth of Theodosius, in the fourth year of the three hundredth Olympiad. At the same time, the persecution of Christians stopped in Persia 19.
CHAPTER 21
About how the bishop of the city of Amida, Akakios, dealt with the captive Persians
At the same time, the bishop of the city of Amida 20 Akaki became very famous among everyone for his good deed. When the Roman soldiers did not want to give up to the Persian king the captive Persians whom they had taken while devastating Azazina, and meanwhile these prisoners, among seven thousand people, were dying of hunger, which greatly upset the Persian sovereign - then Akaki did not leave this unattended, but, having called the clergy under his command, he said: “Our God has no need of either dishes or cups. He does not eat or drink, because he does not need anything. And since the church, from the zeal of its parishioners, acquired many vessels - both gold and silver, then at the price of them it would be decent to ransom captive Persians from the soldiers and provide them with food.” Having explained this and much like this to the clergy, he melted the vessels and, having given the soldiers payment for the captives, provided them with food, and then, having provided them with what they needed for the journey, he released them to the Persian king. Such an act of the wondrous Akaki extremely amazed the Persian sovereign; he realized that the Romans had tried to defeat him both by war and by charity. They even say that this king wished to enjoy the sight of Akaki and asked for his visit, and that Akaki, by order of King Theodosius, actually visited him. After the Romans received this victory from God, many men distinguished by their eloquence wrote laudatory speeches in honor of the king and delivered them publicly. And the king’s wife herself wrote poems in heroic meter, because she was considered an intelligent woman. Being the daughter of the sophist Leontius, she was educated and instructed by her father in sciences of all kinds. When the king wanted to marry her, Bishop Atticus joined her to Christianity and at the time of baptism, instead of Athenbis, he named her Eudokia 21. So, many, I said, spoke praiseworthy speeches; one because he wanted to become known to the king, the other because he tried to show his ability of eloquence and did not agree in any way that the education acquired through many labors should remain unknown.
CHAPTER 22
About the wonderful qualities of Tsar Theodosius the Younger
And I - and I’m not trying to become known to the king, and I don’t want to show my eloquence, but I just want, according to the demands of the truth, to talk about the wonderful qualities of Theodosius, because in my opinion I would be silent about them when they are so useful and not know them , will be harmful to descendants. So, firstly, although he was born and raised in the royal palace, this upbringing did not make him at all pampered; on the contrary, he was so reasonable that those who talked to him assumed that he had personally acquired experience in many things. Moreover, he was distinguished by such patience that he bravely endured both cold and heat, often also fasted, and especially on Wednesdays and Fridays, and he did this because he tried to live completely as a Christian. In the royal palace, he established an order similar to the monastery: he got up early in the morning and, together with his sisters, sang antiphons to the glory of God, therefore he knew the Holy Scriptures by heart and, meeting with bishops, reasoned, on the basis of the Scriptures, like a long-established priest 22, and the sacred He collected more books and interpretations of sacred books than Ptolemy Philadelphus once did 23. He surpassed all people in his kindness and love of humanity. King Julian, although he presented himself as a philosopher, could not restrain himself from anger at those who ridiculed him in Antioch, but betrayed Theodore to the most severe tortures, and Theodosius, abandoning the syllogisms of Aristotle, showed philosophy in practice, abstained and from anger, and from sadness, and from pleasure. He did not take revenge on anyone who insulted him, and no one even saw him angry. Once one of his neighbors asked him: “Why do you never punish with death the person who insulted you?” “Oh, if only,” he answered, “it was possible for me to bring the dead back to life!” And to the question of another about the same thing, he said: “It is not a great or difficult thing to deprive a person of life, but, having repented, no one can resurrect someone who has already died, except God alone.” And he kept this rule so firmly that when someone committed a crime worthy of death and was led to execution, the criminal had not yet reached the city gates when the king’s love for mankind had already brought him back. Once, at the Constantinople amphitheater, he gave a spectacle of animal persecution, and the people began to shout for one of the brave daredevils to fight the wild beast. “Don’t you know,” he answered the people, “that we are used to looking at spectacles with humaneness?” - and having said this, he subsequently taught the people to be content with such spectacles in which there is nothing inhumane. He was so pious that he honored all those dedicated to the service of God, especially those whom he knew were more distinguished by piety than others. They say that, after the death of one Hebron bishop 24, who died in Constantinople, he found his outer clothing, and despite its extreme dilapidation, covered himself with it - in the conviction that through this he would borrow something from the holiness of the deceased. One cold and stormy year, at the request of the people, he had to give the usual and established spectacles at the hippodrome. It happened that while the hippodrome was filled with people, the cold increased and there was a strong blizzard. Then the king clearly revealed his reverence for God, announcing to the people through heralds that it was much better to leave the spectacle and all together earnestly pray to God in order to remain unharmed in the coming bad weather. These words had not yet been fully spoken when everyone, with the greatest joy, formed a prayer meeting in the hippodrome and began unanimously to sing hymns to God. Then the whole city became one Church, and the king, walking in the middle, in simple clothes, ruled over the singers. Yes, he was not deceived in his hope, for the air became well-dissolved and, instead of a lack of food, God’s love for mankind gave everyone an abundance of fruits. Whenever a war flared up, he, following the example of David, resorted to God, (287) knowing that God disposes of wars, and ended it happily with his prayer. As an example, I will tell you how, shortly after the war with the Persians, after the death of King Honorius, in the consulate of Asclepiodotus and Marian, on the fifteenth day of the month of August, placing his hope in God, he defeated the tyrant John. I consider the events of that time memorable, for what happened under Moses to the Jews 25 when they crossed the Red Sea 26 , the same happened to his leaders when he sent them against the tyrant. I will try to talk about this briefly, and leave the description of the great event, which requires a special essay, to others.
CHAPTER 23
About John, who, after the death of King Honorius, tyrannized in Rome, and how God, bowed by the prayers of Theodosius, handed him over to the power of the Roman army
When King Honorius died 27, the autocrat Theodosius, having received information about this, hid it and kept the people in the dark in one way or another, and meanwhile secretly sent an army to Salona, a city in Dalmatia, so that in case of any disturbance in the western regions, pacifiers were nearby. Having ordered this, he later announced the death of his uncle. But at this time, the first of the royal secretaries, 28 John, unable to bear the happiness of holding such a high post, seized royal power for himself 29 and sent an embassy to the autocrat Theodosius to ask him to accept himself as king. Theodosius put the ambassadors into custody 30, and against John he sent 31 military commander Ardaburius 32, who performed special feats in the Persian War. Ardaburius arrived at Salons and, from there, sailed to Aquileia, and fell, as they thought, into misfortune (although this misfortune had very happy consequences), because an unfavorable wind arose and delivered him into the hands of the tyrant. Having taken possession of it, the tyrant hoped to force the autocrat to agree to his request and declare himself king if he wanted to keep the military leader. In fact, both the king, having learned about this, and the commander sent against the tyrant were in extreme anxiety, lest Ardaburius suffer any harm from the tyrant, and Ardaburius’ son, Aspar 33, having received information that the tyrant was holding his father captive and that many thousands of barbarians came to his aid, he did not know what to do. It was then that the power of the prayer of the God-loving king was again revealed, for the Angel of God, in the form of a shepherd, appeared as the leader of Aspar and (288) his companions, and led them through the swamp lying in front of Ravenna, since the tyrant himself lived in this city 34 and kept him under the warlord's guards. They said that no one had ever walked here, but God then made this impassable path passable. So, having passed through the waters of the swamp as if on dry land and finding the city gates open 35, they took possession of the tyrant. Here the most pious king again expressed his usual reverence for God, for when they told him about the death of the tyrant, which happened while the spectacle was being given in the hippodrome, he said to the people: “Listen, let’s better leave the pleasure of the circus and go to church to offer thanksgiving prayers.” God because His right hand consumed the tyrant.” As soon as this was said, the spectacle immediately closed and was abandoned, and everyone went through the hippodrome to the Church of God, unanimously singing songs of thanksgiving with the king, so that the whole city then became one Church. Having arrived at the church, the people spent the whole day there.
CHAPTER 24
That, after the death of the tyrant John, King Theodosius declared Valentinian, the son of Constantius and his aunt Placida, as Roman king
After the death of the tyrant 36, the autocrat Theodosius was concerned about who would be appointed king of the western regions. He had a cousin, still a child, named Valentinian, descended from his aunt Placida, daughter of King Theodosius the Great and sister of the two Augusti, Arcadius and Honorius. And Valentinian’s father was Constantius, whom Honorius declared king and who, having reigned with him for a short time, soon died 37. He made this cousin Caesar and sent him to the western regions, entrusting the care of the affairs of his mother Placida 38 . Meanwhile, he himself was in a hurry to visit Italy - with the intention of both declaring his cousin king, and personally admonishing the inhabitants of those regions with his prudence, so that they would not lean towards the side of the tyrants. But, having arrived in Thessalonica, he was delayed by illness, and therefore, having sent his cousin the royal crown with the patrician Ilion, he himself returned to Constantinople. But that seems to be enough about this. (289)
CHAPTER 25
About how Atticus ruled the Churches, how he brought the name of John into church diptychs and foresaw his death
Under Bishop Atticus, it is amazing how the Churches flourished - partly because he ruled them wisely, and partly because with his teachings he aroused the people to virtue. Knowing about the division of the Church, since the Johannites gathered outside it, he ordered that John be remembered in prayers, just as other deceased bishops are commemorated, in the hope that through this many will return to the Church 39 . Atticus was so generous that he cared for the poor not only in his diocese, but also sent money to neighboring cities to console the needy. So, he sent three hundred gold coins to the presbyter of the Nicene church, Calliopius, with the following letter:
“Atticus wishes Calliopia health in the Lord.
I learned that in your city thousands of people suffering from hunger are in need of the mercy of pious people. When I say “thousands,” I do not mean a specific number, but a multitude. But since I received a little money from a man who gives with a generous hand as a good steward, and since people happen to suffer need to test those who have wealth, but will not give to those in need, then, beloved brother, accept these three hundred gold coins and spend them as you wish. You will want to distribute them, of course, to those who are ashamed to ask, and not to those who throughout their lives have exposed their belly for profit. And when you give, do not pay attention to religion, but keep in mind only one thing - to feed the hungry, without discerning whether they think like us.”
This is how he cared about those poor people who were far from him. In addition, Atticus also tried to eradicate superstitions. Having learned that the Christians, who had separated from the Novatians for the sake of celebrating the Jewish Passover, had carried the body of Savvatius from the island of Rhodes, where he died in exile, and, having buried him, were praying at his grave, he sent people at night with the order to bury the body of Savvatius in another grave. After this, those who, according to custom, came here and found the grave dug up, stopped honoring it. Moreover, Atticus was also elegant in establishing names. Thus, he called the harbor located at the mouth of the Pontus Euxine and for a long time called Pharmakaeus (compiler of medicines, poisons) Dgarapeia (service), so that when he held prayer meetings there, he would not designate this place with an inglorious name. And he named another suburb of Con-(290) Stantinople Argyropolis - for the following reason. There is an ancient harbor, Chrysopolis, lying at the entrance to the Bosporus. Many ancient writers mention it - Strabo, Nicholas of Damascus and Xenophon, famous for his eloquence 40. The latter, in the sixth book of the Cyrus campaigns 41 and in the first about the affairs of the Greeks 42, says that Alcibiades 43 surrounded it with a wall and decided to collect tithes in it, that is, that those sailing from Pontus had to leave a tenth of the cargo here. Seeing that the place opposite Chrysopolis was pleasant and cheerful, Atticus said: “It is fitting for this place to be called Argyropolis,” 44 - and according to his word, it was called that way from then on. And when others told him that the Novatians should not gather inside cities, he answered:
“You do not know how much they suffered with us during the persecutions under Constantius and Valens. Moreover, the Novatians serve as witnesses of our faith,” he said, “for, having long ago separated from the Church, they did not introduce anything new in relation to the faith.” Once in Nicaea for the ordination of a bishop, and seeing the Novatian bishop there, Asclepiades, an already old man, Atticus asked him how many years he had been a bishop, and when he answered: fifty, you are a happy man, he said that you have been serving a good cause for so long. He remarked to the same Asclepiades: “I praise Novatus, but I do not approve of Novatian.” Astonished at this remark, Asklepiades asked: “How do you say this, bishop?” “I praise Novatus,” answered Atticus, “because he did not want to have communication with the people who made the sacrifice; I myself would have done the same. But I don’t praise the Novatians, because they excommunicate the laity even for minor sins.” To this Asclepiades replied: “In addition to offering sacrifices, according to Scripture, there are many other mortal sins, for which you excommunicate only the clergy, and we excommunicate the laity, granting their forgiveness to God alone.” Atticus also foresaw his own death. Departing from Nicaea, he said to the local presbyter, Calliopius: “If you still want to see me alive, hurry to Constantinople before late autumn, but if you delay, you won’t find me.” Having said this, he was not mistaken, for he died in the twenty-first year of his bishopric, on the tenth day of the month of October, in the eleventh consulate of Theodosius and in the first of Valentinian 45. King Theodosius, returning from Thessalonica, did not find his burial, for Atticus was buried the day before the arrival of the autocrat. Soon after this, namely, on the twenty-third day of the same month of October, the proclamation of Valentian followed 46.(291)
CHAPTER 26
About Sisinius, who was Bishop of Constantinople after Atticus
After the death of Atticus, there was a great controversy regarding the ordination of a bishop, because some wanted one thing, others another, namely: some represented the presbyter Philip, others Proclus, who was also a presbyter 47 . But all the people in general strongly wanted to see Sisinius as bishop. This Sisinius, although he stood at the level of presbyter, was not assigned to any church within the city, but received the lot of the priesthood on the outskirts of Constantinople, named Elea. The suburb of Eleia lies opposite the city, and the national holiday of the Ascension of the Lord is usually celebrated there. All the laity especially loved this husband, because he was famous for his piety, and even more because he helped the poor more than his means allowed. So, the desire of the people prevailed, and Sisinius was ordained on the twenty-eighth day of the month of February, in the next consulate, namely, the twelfth of Theodosius and the second of Augustus Valentinian the Younger 48. As a result, Presbyter Philip, dissatisfied with the fact that someone else was preferred to him, in the Christian history he wrote, said a lot in condemnation of this ordination, condemning both the ordained and those who ordained, and especially the Marians. He expressed in it what I would not like to put into writing, because I don’t approve of him either precisely because of his recklessness in daring to speak about it in writing. However, a brief summary of this matter, I think, would not be untimely.
CHAPTER 27
About the Sidian presbyter Philip
Philip was from Sida, and Sida was a city in Pamphylia, where the sophist Troilus came from, whom Philip was proud of as his relative. When he was a deacon, he mostly dealt with Bishop John, he also loved to study the sciences and collected a lot of all kinds of books. Philip wrote a lot, trying to imitate the Asian character of speech. So, for example, he wrote an essay in refutation of the book of King Julian and compiled Christian history, dividing it into thirty-six books, each of which contained many volumes, so that all volumes reached almost a thousand. Moreover, the content of each volume in its vastness (292) was equal to the volume itself. He called this work not church history, but Christian history, and introduced a lot of material into it, wanting to show that philosophical sciences were not alien to him. Thus, he often cites provisions from the field of geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, and music, describes islands, mountains, trees and other unimportant objects. Because of this, his history became a lengthy work and therefore, I think, useless for people, both simple and educated, because simple people are not able to understand his pompous speech, and educated people condemn him for repeating the same thing. However, let everyone judge these books in their own way; but I say one thing - that he confuses the times of history: having mentioned, for example, the times of the autocrat Theodosius, he then turns to the times of Bishop Athanasius, and he does this very often. But enough about Philip. Now we must talk about what happened at Sisinia.
CHAPTER 28
About the fact that Sisinius ordained Proclus as bishop of Cyzicus, but the Cyzicus people did not accept him
After the death of the bishop of Cyzicus, Sisinius ordained Proclus to the bishopric of Cyzicus. But while Proclus was getting ready to go there, the Cyzykians, having warned him, ordained one ascetic named Dalmatius. And they did this without paying attention to the law that prohibited the ordination of a bishop against the will of the bishop of Constantinople, and they did not pay attention to this law because it gave rights to Atticus alone. Thus, Proclus lived without ruling his Church, but only glorifying his teachings in the churches of Constantinople. But we will talk about it in its own place. Meanwhile, Sisinius, not having lived in the bishopric even for two full years, died in the consulate of Ieria and Ardaburium, on the twenty-fourth day of the month of December 49. He was famous for his abstinence, uprightness of life and love for the poor, and his character was accessible and simple, which is why he did not like litigation. For this reason, restless people did not like him and were known among them as an inactive person.
CHAPTER 29
That, after the death of Sisinius, Nestorius was summoned from Antioch and made bishop of Constantinople, who was immediately recognized for what he was
After the death of Sisinius, the autocrats, for the sake of vain people, did not deign to ordain anyone from the Church of Constantinople to the bishopric, although many wanted (293) to have Philip and many Proclus as bishop, but decided to call a foreigner from Antioch. There was someone there named Nestorius, originally from Germanicia, a man with a good voice and an excellent gift of speech. That is why it was decided to call him as capable of preaching 50. Three months later, Nestorius appeared, and many began to talk about his abstinence, and what he was like in other respects was not hidden from smart people from his very first sermon. Having been ordained on the tenth day of the month of April, in the consulate of Philok and Taurus 51, he then, in the presence of all the people, addressed a speech to the king and uttered the following wonderful words: “King! (he said) Give me a land cleared of heresies, and for that I will give you heaven; help me destroy the heretics, and I will help you destroy the Persians" 52. Although some simple people, who hated heretics, accepted the words he uttered with pleasure, but from people who knew how to infer from words the qualities of the soul, as I said, neither his frivolity, nor his irascibility, nor his vanity escaped, for, unable to resist and for a minute, he had already reached such words; Having not yet tasted, as they say, the city water, he had already declared himself a cruel persecutor. Indeed, on the fifth day after his ordination, Nestorius set out to destroy the Arians' house of prayer, where they secretly prayed, and through this drove them to despair. Seeing that their place of prayer meetings was being destroyed, they placed a fire under it and lit it. The fire spread and destroyed neighboring houses. This caused confusion in the city, and the Arians prepared for revenge; but God, who protected the city, did not allow this evil to be fulfilled. From then on, not only the heretics, but also those of their own faith began to call Nestorius a fire, for he did not calm down, but, plotting intrigues against the heretics, destroyed the city, as much as depended on him. He also tried to torment the Novatians, jealous of the fact that the Novatian bishop Paul was famous for his piety, but the autocrats stopped his impulse with their admonition. And how much harm he did to the fourteen-dayers in Asia, Lydia and Caria 53, and how many died through him during the former indignation in Miletus and Sardis, I think it’s better to keep silent about that. I will say a little lower about the punishment that befell him both for this and for his unbridled tongue.
CHAPTER 30
About how the Burgundians adopted Christianity under Theodosius the Younger
First, I will tell you about a memorable event that happened then. There is a barbarian people living on the other side of the Rhine River called the Burgundians 5 4 . The Burgundians lead a quiet life (294), almost all of them are carpenters and earn money from this craft and feed themselves. They were constantly attacked by the Huns, devastated their country and often killed many. Finding themselves in such a difficult situation, the Burgundians did not resort to any person, but decided to turn to some God. And since they noticed that the God of the Romans greatly helps those who fear Him, they all unanimously turned to faith in Christ. Therefore, while in a Gaulish city, they asked the bishop for Christian baptism. The bishop ordered them to fast for seven days and, having declared them in faith, on the eighth day he baptized them and sent them back. Then they boldly went against their tyrants, and hope did not deceive them, for when the king of the Huns, named Optar, died at night from gluttony, the Burgundians attacked the Huns, who had lost their leader, and, fighting in small numbers with numerous enemies, defeated them. There were only three thousand Burgundians, but the number of defeated Huns reached ten thousand. Since then, this people has been ardently committed to Christianity. Around the same time, the Arian bishop Varva also died, which happened in the thirteenth consulate of Theodosius and the third of Valentinian, on the twenty-fourth day of the month of June, and Savvatius was installed in his place. But enough about that.
CHAPTER 31
What the Macedonians suffered from Nestorius
Meanwhile, acting against the custom of the Church, Nestorius, as the events that took place under him show, forced others to imitate himself in this regard. Thus, the bishop of the city of Herma in the Hellespont, Anthony, imitating the desire of Nestorius against heretics, began to strongly persecute the Macedonians and, in his justification, referred to the behavior of the patriarch. The Macedonians endured torment for some time, but when Anthony began to torment them with even greater cruelty, they, unable to bear the severity of the torment, fell into terrible despair and, sending people for whom the pleasant is higher than the good, killed him. As soon as the Macedonians committed such a crime, Nestorius took advantage of this opportunity to support his aspirations and convinced the autocrats to take away the churches from the Macedonians. As a result, the church in Constantinople in front of the old city wall, the church in Cyzicus and many others that belonged to them in the villages of the Hellespont were taken from them. And some of the Macedonians turned to the Orthodox Church and accepted the belief in the consubstantial. But for a drunkard, the proverb says, there will always be wine, and for a quarrelsome person there will always be (295) the subject of a quarrel. It happened that Nestorius, who loved to expel others, was himself expelled from the Church - for the following reason.
CHAPTER 32
About the presbyter Anastasia, by whom Nestorius was involved in wickedness
With Nestorius was the priest Anastasius, who came with him from Antioch. Nestorius respected him greatly and used his advice in business. Once, while teaching in church, this Anastasius said: “Let no one call Mary the Mother of God, for Mary was a man, and it is impossible for God to be born from a man.” These words frightened many - both clergy and laity 55, for everyone was taught from ancient times to recognize Christ as God and not to separate Him in any way, according to the economy, as a man, from the deity, following the word of the Apostle, who says: We also understand according to the flesh of Christ, but now we do not understand(2 Cor. 5:16), and: In the same way, leaving the beginning of Christ’s word, let us be led to perfection(Heb. 6:1). So, when there was confusion in the Church, I said, Nestorius, trying to confirm the words of Anastasius - for he did not want a person respected by him to be convicted of wicked teaching - began to preach often in church on the same subject, deliberately suggesting questions about him and always rejected the name of the Mother of God. And since the question of this was understood differently by different people, divisions occurred in the Church - and Christians, as if fighting at night, affirmed one thing or another, then agreed with the new teaching, then rejected it 56. Meanwhile, Nestorius was known by many as a person who taught that the Lord is a simple man, and allegedly introduced into the Church the heresy of Paul of Samosata and Photinus 57 . There was so much controversy and such confusion regarding this subject that even an ecumenical council was needed. But, having read the works published by Nestorius, I find him an ignorant person and I will speak about him fairly, for just as it was not dislike for him that forced me to mention his shortcomings, so it was not to please anyone - to express everything that I found in him . It seems to me that Nestorius did not imitate either Paul of Samosata or Photinus, and he did not call the Lord a completely simple man. He was afraid, like a ghost, of the very name of the Mother of God, and this happened to him due to extreme lack of education 5 8 . Being naturally eloquent, Nestorius considered himself educated, but in fact he had no learning, and did not want to study the books of ancient interpreters. (296) Blinded by his gift of speech, he showed no attention to the ancients, but preferred himself to everyone. Firstly, he did not know that in the ancient copies of the conciliar letter of John it was written: “every spirit that separates Jesus from God, from God", and that those who wanted to separate deity from man according to the economy, erased this saying from the ancient lists. That is why the ancient interpreters noticed this very thing, that is, that some, intending to separate God from man, distorted the message of John. Meanwhile, humanity and divinity are united in Christ, so that he is no longer two, but one. Based on this, the ancients did not hesitate to call Mary the Mother of God. For example, Eusebius Pamphilus in the third book “On the Life of Constantine” says word for word: “Emmanuel (God with us) deigned to be born for us, and the place of his carnal birth, according to the testimony of the Jews, was Bethlehem. Therefore, the most pious Queen Helena decorated this sacred cave in every possible way and honored the burden of the Mother of God with wondrous monuments.” And Origen, in the first volume of his commentaries on the Apostle's letter to the Romans, declared why she was called the Mother of God, and examined this subject in detail. So, it is obvious that Nestorius did not know the writings of the ancients and rebelled, as was said, against one name. But that he did not call Christ a simple man, like Photinus or Paul of Samosata, is shown by the conversations he published, in which he nowhere destroys the hypostasis of God the Word, but everywhere confesses Him as hypostatic and essential, and does not take away His existence, as they did Photinus and Paul of Samosata, or as the Manichaeans and followers of Montanus dared to assert. This is what I find in the thoughts of Nestorius, having read his writings and considered the position of his adherents. Meanwhile, the idle talk of Nestorius aroused considerable unrest in the universe.
CHAPTER 33
About the abomination that fugitive slaves committed in the altar of the great church
During these events, a disgusting thing accidentally happened in the Church. The servants of a certain nobleman, barbarians by origin, having experienced the cruelty of their master, ran to the church and, drawing their swords, entered the altar. When they were asked to leave, they did not want to obey at all and prevented the sacred service from being performed. For many days, standing with drawn swords, these barbarians were ready to kill anyone who approached them, and when in fact they killed one of the clerics and wounded another, they (297) finally killed themselves 59. Here one of those present said that the desecration of the temple did not bode well, and recited two verses from an ancient poet:
Thin people are always a sign
When the temple is desecrated by crime.
He who said this was not mistaken in his opinion, for this, as it seems, foreshadowed the division of the people and the overthrow of the culprit of this division.
CHAPTER 34
About the first Council of Ephesus, convened against Nestorius
In fact, a little time passed - and the royal decree commanded bishops from everywhere to come to Ephesus 60. Therefore, immediately after the Easter holiday, Nestorius, who arrived there with many people, already found a meeting of many bishops there. Only Cyril of Alexandria, who arrived around Pentecost 61, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, who appeared on the fifth day after Pentecost, slowed down somewhat. But John of Antioch delayed even more, so that the bishops who were present, without waiting for him, finally touched on this subject 62. First, Cyril of Alexandria threw out a few words and started the affair - with the intention of frightening Nestorius, whom he did not like. Then, when many had already confessed Christ as God, Nestorius said: “But I cannot call him God who was two months old and three months old; therefore I am clean from your blood and from now on I will not come to you” 63. Having said this, he and some bishops who adhered to his thoughts began to gather separately. Thus, those present were divided into two parts. However, Cyril’s side, when holding meetings, invited Nestorius 64, but he did not listen and postponed his arrival at the Council until the arrival of John of Antioch. Then those who were on the side of Cyril 65, having read the conversations Nestorius had spoken many times about the subject of research and from them concluding that he constantly blasphemed regarding the Son of God, deposed him. And those who sided with Nestorius, holding another, separate meeting, deposed Cyril and with him the Bishop of Ephesus Memnon. Soon after this, Bishop of Antioch John 66 also came to the Council. Having learned about what had happened, John was annoyed with Cyril that he was the culprit of such turmoil and hastened to depose Nestorius. Therefore, in order to take revenge on John, Cyril, together with Juvenal, deposed him. When things were in such confusion, Nestorius, seeing that the dispute was reaching a breakdown (298) of communication, repented and began to call Mary the Mother of God: “let Mary be called the Mother of God,” he said, “if only these troubles would stop.” However, no one believed Nestorius’ repentance, and therefore, deposed and exiled into exile 67, he still lives in the Oasis 68. This is how the Council that was at that time ended. This happened in the consulate of Vassa and Antiochus, on the twenty-eighth day of the month of June. Meanwhile, John returned to Antioch and, having gathered many bishops, deposed Cyril when he arrived in Alexandria. However, soon after this they stopped their enmity and, having again entered into friendship, returned each other's thrones 69 . But in the Churches of Constantinople, as a result of the deposition of Nestorius, there was a terrible confusion, because through his idle talk, as I said, the people were divided, and the clergy all unanimously proclaimed anathema to him - this is how we Christians usually call the verdict against a blasphemer when we announce our opinion to everyone, displaying it as if on a pole.
CHAPTER 35
About the fact that, after the deposition of Nestorius, some bishops, contrary to the people who wanted to enthrone Proclus, elected Maximian as Bishop of Constantinople
This was followed by a discussion about the election of a bishop, and many chose Philip, whom I have already mentioned, and even more votes were in favor of Proclus. The opinion of the side that elected Proclus, of course, would have prevailed if some strong people had not interfered, saying that the church rule prohibits mixing a bishop appointed in one city with another. These words were accepted as true and silenced the people. So, four months after the deposition of Nestorius 70, someone named Maximian, an ascetic by way of life, was also elected to the bishopric, and was also invested with the dignity of a presbyter. He had long been known as a pious man, because at his own expense he arranged tombs for the burial of the dead in them, who were famous for their piety in life. However, he was unskilled in words and preferred to live away from worldly troubles.
CHAPTER 36
Examples by which the writer seems to prove that there is no obstacle to moving bishops from one see to another
Since some, citing church rule, did not allow Proclus to be elevated to the episcopal throne in Constantinople, as he had already been appointed bishop of Cyzicus, I want to talk a little about this. It seems to me that those who decided then to assert this were asserting a lie: they were either motivated by hatred of Proclus, or they did not know either the rules or what often happened with benefit in the Churches. For example, Eusebius Pamphilus in the sixth book of “Ecclesiastical History” said that Alexander, being the bishop of a city in Cappadocia, came to Jerusalem to pray, but, restrained by the Jerusalemites, he was put in the place of Bishop Narcissus and from then on he presided over the local church throughout his entire life. Churches. Consequently, transferring a bishop from city to city, as soon as need required, was a matter of indifference among our ancestors. But if in this work it is necessary to place a rule regarding this subject, then it will be clear how the people who did not allow Proclus to be elevated to the throne personally understood it. This rule is as follows: if any bishop, ordained in a certain diocese, does not go where he is ordained - not through his own fault, but either because the people do not agree to accept him, or for another reason that does not depend on him, then let him retain his participation in honor and service, as long as he does not cause confusion in the affairs of the Church where he will appoint meetings. However, he must submit to what the regional Council will judge and determine regarding the case presented. This is the rule. And that many bishops, due to the sometimes encountered needs of the Churches, were actually transferred from some cities to others, for proof I will present the names of those transferred. Perigenes was ordained bishop in Patras, but since the inhabitants of this city did not accept him, the Roman bishop, on the occasion of the death of the Corinthian bishop, ordered Perigenes to be elevated to the metropolitan throne in Corinth, and he presided over the Church there all his life. Gregory Nazianzen was formerly a bishop in one city of Cappadocia, Sasimach, and then in Nazianzen. Meletius first presided over the Sebastian Church, and then over the Antiochian Church. Alexander of Antioch transferred the Seleucia bishop Dositheus to Tarsus of Cilicia. Reverenius from the city of Archi in Phenicia was subsequently moved to Tire, John from Lydia was moved to Priconis and was the primate of the Church there. Palladium from Elenopolis was moved to Aspuna, Alexander from Elenopolis was moved to Adriana. Theophilus from Asiatic Apamea was moved to Eudoxiopolis, which in ancient times was called Salamvria. Polycarp from Sexantaprist in Mysia was moved to Nicopolis of Thracia, Hierophilus from Trapezopolis of Phrygia was moved to Plotinopolis of Thracia. Optimus from Phrygian Agdamia was moved to Pisidian Antioch, Silvanus from Thracian Philippopolis was moved to Troas 71. But for the present case, the many (300) bishops we mentioned who were moved from their cities to others are sufficient. On Silvanus, who was moved from Thracian Philippopolis to Troas, I consider it useful to stop and say a few words about him.
CHAPTER 37
About Silvanus, transferred from Philippopolis to Troas
Silvanus was at first a rhetorician in the school of the sophist Troilus, but then, trying to lead a strictly Christian life and falling in love with asceticism, he refused to wear the mantle of a rhetorician. Then Bishop Atticus took him and made him bishop of Philippopolis. But, having lived three years in Thrace and not having the strength to endure the cold, since he was very thin and weak in body, Silvanus began to ask Atticus to ordain another in his place and said that for no other reason, but only because of the cold, he refused to live in Thrace. When, out of respect for this reason, another was put in his place, Silvanus moved to live in Constantinople and fully followed the rules of asceticism. He was so alien to effeminacy that he mostly walked the streets of such a crowded city in reed sandals. Meanwhile, after some time, the primate of the Church in Troas died, and the Troadians came to ask for a bishop. When Atticus was thinking about whom to ordain, and suddenly, beyond his aspirations, he saw Silvanus in front of him and, seeing him, he immediately left his concern and said to him: “Now you no longer have any reason to turn away from caring for the Church; It's not cold in Troas. And now God has prepared for you a place appropriate to the weakness of your body. Don’t hesitate, brother, and go to Troas.” Silvan actually went there, and I will tell you about the miracle he performed. On the seashore of Troas, a huge cargo ship, called a flat-bottomed one, had just been built, designed to transport large columns. This ship should have been pulled out to sea. But despite the many ropes and people who pulled it, the ship did not move at all. Several days have passed since then. Finally, everyone came to the conclusion that the demon was holding the ship, and therefore they turned to Bishop Silvanus and asked him to pray at that place, believing that only by this means could the ship be moved. But Silvanus, in his modesty, called himself a sinner and said that it was not for him to do this, but for some righteous person. When they began to persistently ask him, he went to the seashore, said a prayer, then took hold of one of the ropes and ordered them to get down to business. They began and as soon as they made a slight effort, the ship quickly went to sea. This miracle performed by Sil-(301)van aroused all the inhabitants of the region to awe. However, Silvanus was a valiant man in other respects as well. Having noticed, for example, that the clergy benefited from the disputes of litigants, he no longer appointed anyone from the clergy as a judge, but, having received petitions from the litigants, called on one of the faithful laymen, whom he knew to be a truth-loving person, and, having instructed him to hear the case, he stopped the dispute between the litigants. It was through this that he gained the greatest strength from everyone. Having reported such information about Sylvan, I, despite the digression made, not without benefit, I think, mentioned them. Now let's return to where we left off. So, Maximian was elevated to the episcopate in the consulate of Vassa and Antiochus, on the twenty-fifth day of the month of October, and the unrest in the churches ceased.
CHAPTER 38
About the Cretan Jews, how many of them turned to Christianity at that time
Around the same time, many of the Jews on the island of Crete turned to Christianity on the following occasion. One Jewish deceiver began to impersonate Moses and said that he was sent from heaven to take the Jews living on the island and bring them across the sea. I am the same one, he proclaimed, who saved Israel in ancient times by leading them through the Red Sea. For a whole year, he visited all the cities of the island and convinced the Jews living there to believe in himself. Moreover, he exhorted to leave all treasures and acquisitions, for he promised to lead them to the land of promise across the dry sea. Fed by such hopes, the Jews abandoned their studies, did not value their property and left it to anyone to take it 72. When the day appointed by the deceiver arrived, he himself went forward, and everyone followed him along with their wives and children. The deceiver led them to a rock jutting out into the sea and ordered them to throw themselves down. Those who ran up the rock first did so and immediately died, some of them were broken on the rocks, while others drowned in the water. Many more would have perished if, according to God’s providence, several Christians, fishermen and merchants had not happened there. They pulled drowned people out of the water and saved them, but the rescued ones, realizing their madness in moments of disaster, did not allow others to throw themselves into the sea, for they pointed to the death of those who had thrown themselves before. It was then that the Jews saw the deception and cursed their undiscussed faith. As for the fake Moses, they wanted to kill him, but could not catch him, he disappeared, and this led many to the idea that the deceiver was a destroyer demon who took on the appearance of a man for the destruction of their family there (302). On the occasion of such a misfortune, at this time on the island of Crete, many of the Jews, leaving Judaism, accepted the Christian Faith.
CHAPTER 39
About the fire that took place in the Novatian Church
After a little time, the Novatian bishop Paul gained the glory of a truly God-loving man, and a glory much greater than what he had before. A terrible fire occurred, the likes of which had never happened before. The fire destroyed most of the city, so that the huge storerooms with bread and the baths called Achilles were destroyed. Spreading further and further, the fire finally approached the Novatian church, which is near Pelargos. Then Bishop Paul, seeing the church in danger, went to the altar and, entrusting God with the salvation of the church and everything that was in it, did not cease to pray for the city and for the house of prayer itself. And God, as the case showed, heeded the prayers of this husband, for the fire that entered the church through all the doors and windows did not damage anything. Around the neighborhood, much was completely destroyed, and she, in the midst of the fire itself, seemed to triumph over its excessive power. The fire, which lasted two days, finally went out. Most of the city was no longer there, but the church remained unharmed and, what is especially surprising, even traces of soot were not visible on its logs or walls. This happened on the seventeenth day of the month of August, on the fourteenth consulate of Theodosius and the first of Maximus. Since then, the Novatians annually remember the salvation of their church, sending up prayers of thanksgiving to God on the seventeenth day of August. And almost everyone, remembering the miracle that happened over her, now honors this place and worships it as truly holy, and not only Christians, but also many pagans. Anyway, enough about that.
CHAPTER 40
That Proclus is made successor to Bishop Maximian
After peacefully ruling the Church for two years and five months, Maximian died. This happened in the consulate of Areovinda and Aspara, on the twelfth day of the month of April 73, and precisely in the week of fasting immediately preceding the Easter holiday, on the so-called heels. In this case, King Theodosius wisely managed the matter. So that there would not again be a dispute about the election of a bishop and excitement would not be aroused in the Church, he did not hesitate at all, (303) even before the burial of Maximian’s body, he ordered the bishops who happened in Constantinople to enthrone Proclus. The received messages from the Roman Bishop Celestine, which he wrote to Cyril of Alexandria, John of Antioch and Rufus of Thessaloniki, also agreed with this, and in which he argued that there was no obstacle to moving a bishop appointed to a city or already located in a well-known city to another place. So, Proclus was enthroned and buried Maximian’s body. Now it's time to briefly talk about him.
CHAPTER 41
About Bishop Proclus, what he was like
Proclus was a reader from an early age, attended schools and zealously studied rhetoric. Having reached manhood, for the most part he was with the Bishop of Attica in the position of his secretary. Since he made significant progress in this place, Atticus elevated him to the rank of deacon, and then, awarded the presbytery, he, as I already said, was elevated by Sisinius to the bishopric of Cyzicus. But all this happened before, and now he inherited the throne of the Church of Constantinople. Proclus was a man of excellent justice and was distinguished by this more than others. Raised by Atticus, he imitated all his virtues, and surpassed himself in kindness, for Atticus was sometimes terrible for heretics, and Proclus acted meekly on everyone and tried to lead them to the truth rather by this means than by force. Deciding not to pursue any heresy, he completely returned to the Church the dignity of meekness and in this respect imitated Tsar Theodosius. Theodosius made it a rule not to use strict measures of power against the guilty, and for him it was not to pay much attention to those who did not think about God the way he thought.
CHAPTER 42
About why the writer spreads the story about the wonderful qualities of Tsar Theodosius the Younger
For this, the king praised him, for he himself was like people who were truly sanctified, and never approved of those who wanted to initiate persecution. It can be said that in meekness he even surpassed all the truly sanctified. As the book of Numbers says about Moses: and the man Moses was more meek than all men that were on earth(Num. 12:3), one can say the same about (304) King Theodosius, that he is more meek than all the people on earth. For such and such his meekness, God subdued his enemies without military labor, which was proved by the victory over the tyrant John and the subsequent death of the barbarians, for what the ancient righteous received from God, the same God has now granted to the most God-loving sovereign. And that I am writing this not to inspire flattery, but according to the real truth - as proof, I will present events known to everyone.
CHAPTER 43
About what the barbarians suffered when they helped the tyrant John
After the death of the tyrant, the barbarians, called upon to help him against the Romans, were ready to raid the Roman regions. Having learned about this, the king, according to custom, entrusted all care to God and, having fervently prayed to God, soon received what he wanted. And what exactly happened to the barbarians then is useful to hear about. Their leader, named Rugas, is struck by lightning and dies, then an ulcer comes and destroys most of the people under his control. But this alone was not enough: besides this, fire fell from the sky and devoured many of those who remained. This already brought the barbarians into the greatest fear - not so much because they dared to take up arms against the brave Roman people, but much more because this people found themselves under the protection of the omnipotent God. At the same time, Bishop Proclus also aroused surprise by adapting in his teaching the prophecy of Ezekiel about the Church to the salvation given by God. This prophecy is as follows: Son of man, prophets against Prince Gog, Ros, Mosoch and Fovel. For I will judge him with death, and blood, and flooding rain, and hailstones, fire and burning stones, and upon all things with him, and upon many tongues with him. And I will be magnified, and I will be glorified, and I will be known before many tongues, and they will make known that I am the Lord (Ezek. 38: 1, 2, 22, 23). With this, as has been said, Proclus aroused extreme surprise. Meanwhile, the king, for his meekness, was granted many mercies by God’s providence, of which one is the following.
CHAPTER 44
About the fact that Tsar Valentinian the Younger took Theodosius’s daughter, Eudoxia, into marriage
He had a daughter from his wife Eudoxia, named Eudoxia, and his cousin, Valentinian, whom he appointed (305) king over the western regions, began to ask her for his marriage. Tsar Theodosius expressed his consent, and they thought of marrying somewhere on the borders of the two empires. Dividing the path in half, they wanted to do this in Thessalonica, but Valentinian let Theodosius know so that he would not worry, and informed him that he himself would come to Constantinople. Indeed, having secured the western regions, Valentinian arrived in Constantinople to marry; After the marriage was completed, which happened during the consulate of Isidore and the Senator, he took his wife and again returned to the west 74. Such a happy occasion made the king happy then.
CHAPTER 45
That Bishop Proclus convinced the king to transfer the body of John from exile to Constantinople and lay it in the Church of the Apostles
A short time after this, Bishop Proclus, with his prudence, consoled and returned to the Church those who had separated from it on the occasion of the overthrow of Bishop John. I'll tell you how he did it. John's body was buried in Cymani, but Proclus convinced the king, in the thirty-fifth year after the deposition of John, to transfer it to Constantinople, and with great honor, with a nationwide celebration, he laid it in the church named after the Apostles. The separated adherents of John were moved by this and joined the Church. The mentioned event occurred during the sixteenth consulate of King Theodosius on the twenty-seventh day of the month of January 75. At the same time, I cannot help but be surprised how the envy that pursued Origen after death spared John. Origen, almost two hundred years after his death, was excommunicated by Theophilus, and John, in the thirty-fifth year after his death, was accepted into communion by Proclus. This is how Proclus was superior in character to Theophilus. However, as has always happened and happens, smart people understand.
CHAPTER 46
About the death of the Novatian bishop Paul and about Marcian, who was ordained after him
Shortly after the transfer of Ioannov’s body, it was to the same consulate that Bishop Paul of the Novatian Church died on the twenty-first day of July. On the day of his burial, he somehow united all the diverse sects into one church, for they all accompanied his body with psalmody until the grave, just as during his life he was loved by everyone for his righteousness. Since before his death Paul (306) did something worthy of memory, I find it necessary to add a story about this, for the benefit of readers, to my history. That he never deviated from the customs of ascetic life, he kept them even in illness and did not cease to zealously pray, I will keep silent about this, fearing that consideration of this circumstance would darken his memorable, as I said, and very useful act. What kind of action this is, I’ll tell you now. Approaching death, he summoned all the priests of the Churches under his control and told them: “Take care to appoint someone as a bishop while I am breathing, so that later there will be no confusion in your Churches.” But they began to ask him not to give them the right to decide this matter, for each of us, they said, has his own way of thinking, and we will never name the same thing, and therefore we turn to you - appoint yourself who Want. So give me, said Paul, a written promise that you will choose exactly the one whom I myself appoint. As soon as the presbyters did this and signed, he stood up on his bed and, secretly from those present, wrote the name of Marcian, who was in the rank of presbyter and learned the ascetic life from him, but was now absent. Then he himself put a seal on the paper and, in addition, ordering it to be sealed by the eldest of the presbyters, gave this paper to Mark, who was the Novatian bishop in Scythia, and was then in the city, and said to him the following: “If God is willing that I remain still in this life, you will return this deposit to me safely, and when He pleases to transfer me to another life, you will find here who I appoint after me as bishop.” Having said this, he died. On the third day after the death of Paul, the elders, in the presence of a large crowd, opened this paper and, finding the name of Marcian in it, everyone declared him worthy and, without hesitation at all, sent to take him. The messengers, using an innocent trick, took Marcian in Tiberiopolis in Phrygia and, having ordained him, on the twenty-first day of the same month they elevated him to the throne. But enough about that.
CHAPTER 47
About the fact that King Theodosius sent his wife, Evdokia, to Jerusalem
Meanwhile, Tsar Theodosius, for the benefits received, fulfilled his vows of gratitude to God and did this by honoring Christ with excellent gifts. And he sent his wife Evdokia to Jerusalem 76, since she also made such a vow if she saw her daughter in marriage. Evdokia, on the way there and from there, (307) honored the churches with various gifts - both near Jerusalem, and all those located in the eastern cities 77.
CHAPTER 48
About the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia, Thalassia
And Bishop Proclus at the same time, that is, in the seventeenth consulate of the king, decided on an amazing thing, which none of the previous bishops had done. It was when the bishop of Caesarea of the Cappadocian Firmus died that the Caesareans came to ask for a bishop. And while Proclus was thinking about whom to ordain to the bishopric, it happened that one Saturday all the members of the Senate came to the church to see him. Among them was Thalassius, who had the power of prefect over the peoples and cities in the empire. And it was on him, despite the then rumor that the king wanted to entrust him with the administration of the eastern regions, Proclus laid his hand on him and, instead of a prefect, made him bishop of Caesarea. This is how successful church affairs were then. Here I end my story and pray to God that all churches, cities and peoples will live in peace, for when peace reigns, those who want to write history will have no subject. After all, having fulfilled your instructions in these seven books, the holy man of God Theodore, I would not have found subjects for narration if people who love turmoil preferred a peaceful life to them. This seventh book covers the time of thirty-two years, and the entire history, consisting of seven books, surveys events over a period of one hundred and forty years, starting from the first year of the two hundred and seventy-first Olympiad, when Constantine was declared king, and ending with the second year of the three hundred and fifth Olympiad , when the seventeenth consulate of Theodosius 78 came. (308)
Socrates Scholastic (~380 – after 439)
Socrates Scholasticus (Greek) Σωκράτης ο Ιστορικός or Σχολαστικός - “scientist”, Scholia- "school")
Already in ancient times, there was no information about his biography other than the facts mentioned by him in the “Church History”, a work modeled on the work of the same name by Eusebius of Caesarea, where the role of the emperor in church affairs is actively outlined, and the same attention is paid to secular problems, as well as religious.
Socrates' teachers, judging by his references, were grammarians named Helladius and Ammonius, who arrived in Constantinople from Alexandria, where they were pagan priests. The uprising, accompanied by the destruction of the temples, forced them into exile. This defeat, during which, in particular, the Serapeum temple was destroyed, dates back to approximately 391. Apparently, he belonged to a wealthy class, since he had the opportunity to receive an excellent education. He studied grammar, rhetoric, biblical exegesis, and knew Latin authors very well.
Whether Socrates later studied with the sophist Troilus has not been fully proven. In subsequent years he traveled, visiting, among other places, Paphlagonia and Cyprus.
There is also no information about the profession of Socrates. It is assumed that he was not a priest, which is motivated by his liberal theology; He could not have been an official either, since his work does not contain the panegyric descriptions of imperial deeds characteristic of such authors - although at the same time he has obvious sympathy for the existing order of things. Judging by the text, it is assumed that he was a lawyer, in addition, the title “Scholastic” gives many reasons to see him as a “lawyer” (but Patriarch Photius pointedly omits this nickname).
The education received from the pagan grammarians was the reason for Socrates' respect for Greek pagan science; he willingly studied - although he criticized, defending - the works of Julian and Livanius; of the more ancient writers, he, as shown by Baur and Harnack, especially respected Thucydides, whom he tried to imitate in speech and composition. He began to study Christian authors only at the time when he had already begun writing his church history.
He read and knew Eusebius Pamphilus, Philostorgius, Rufinus of Aquileia, Savinus, Athanasius the Great, “Acts” of Archelaus, “Anchor” of St. Epiphany, the works of George of Laodicea, stories about the monasticism of Evagrius and Palladius, the works of the heretic Nestorius. He did not know Origen enough, not so much from his writings as from the apology written by his friend Pamphilus. He read little of the works of the church fathers - the Cappadocians (Basily the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa), which responds very unfavorably to his stories. From ancient, pre-Origene Christian literature, Socrates knows only the names of Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyons, Apollinaris of Hierapolis.
Socrates was self-taught in theology and did not have firm and stable concepts about the true teaching of the Church. He liked the witty and thoughtful reasoning of learned heretics, for example Philostorgius and especially Savin, Bishop of Irakli. For all his caution, he makes a lot of use of their information and judgments (both of their works have reached us in their entirety).
As for the social status of Socrates, here, due to the extreme paucity of information, we enter the realm of speculation. It is believed that he was not a priest, citing the fact that his liberalism in dogmatic matters was not compatible with clergy 2. However, this motivation ignores the religious situation in the East in the first half of the 5th century, when official doctrine was not yet strictly regulated and The Christian Church was in a state of ideological ferment. They argue that Socrates could not have been an official, a person dependent on the imperial court, citing his lack of a panegyric tone (so irritating in Sozomen) when describing Theodosius the Younger 3. However, they forget about the obvious sympathy that the historian shows for the existing order of things. The title “Scholastic” attributed to Socrates gives many publishers and scholars a reason to see him as a “lawyer” 4. However, the very informed Photius pointedly omits this nickname, while at the same time giving it to two other church authors - Sozomen and Evagrius (Library, XXVIII). Socrates’ excellent knowledge of Latin, which is obligatory in legal practice, also appears as one of the proofs of his connection with jurisprudence 5. But this “philological argument” is rather shaky: a highly educated writer, moreover, interested in using Latin (312) sources, could not being a lawyer, speak the language of the ancient Romans.
Of course, the lack of biographical information about Socrates Scholasticus deprives us of the opportunity to explain the choice of certain topics and the peculiarities of the interpretation of certain facts by the circumstances of his life. But, on the other hand, this makes us less biased, for we are left alone with the work of Socrates, and such a meeting, which is not hindered by any a priori judgments, gives us immeasurably more than the most detailed biographical information, namely, an essential idea of the Christian thinker and person.
* * *
"Ecclesiastical History" is the only work of Socrates Scholasticus. It was written on the initiative of a certain “man of God” Theodore (II. Introduction; VI. Introduction). The date of its creation dates back to the 40s. V century, that is, by the end of the era of Theodosius the Younger (408-450). It is widely accepted that the “Ecclesiastical History” was published a little earlier than the works of contemporary historians Ermius Sozomen and Theodoret of Cyrrhus 6. It is possible that this work was created over a long period of time, for there were at least two editions of it, judging by the words of the author himself ( II. Intro.). The work of Socrates was first published in Latin and Greek in the 16th century.
"Ecclesiastical History" covers events in the Roman Empire for almost a century and a half. Socrates begins his narrative from the moment where his predecessor Eusebius left off - in 306, the year of the proclamation of Constantine the Great as emperor in Gaul (I. Introduction). He ends it with 439, the year of the ordination of the Caesarea bishop Fallasius (VII. 48). The author distributes historical material into seven books, following the “imperial principle”: each individual book is devoted to the events of one or, less commonly, several reigns. The First describes the era of Constantine the Great, the Second - Constantius, the Third - Julian and Jovian, the Fourth - Valentinian and Valens, the Fifth - Theodosius the Great, the Sixth - Arcadius, the Seventh - Theodosius the Younger. The books are divided into chapters (from 23 to (313) 48) of varying sizes. Some of the books (four out of seven) are provided with prefaces.
To write his work, Socrates turns to a wide variety of sources. He uses primarily the messages of church councils, emperors and church leaders, polemical and apologetic writings of Athanasius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Evagrius of Pontus and other writers, the historical work of Rufinus of Aquileia, as well as oral tradition, in particular, the memoirs of the Novatian Auxanon of Nicaea Council 7. All the information that Socrates has is critically analyzed by him. The main criteria for choosing material are its consistency with other evidence, the authority and objectivity of the source. Thus, Socrates reworks the First and Second Books, originally based on Rufinus’s “Ecclesiastical History,” when, after familiarizing himself with the writings of Athanasius and the conciliar epistles, he finds obvious inconsistencies in it (II. Intro.). The writer criticizes the heretic Sabinus for deliberately not including in his collection documents that affirm the principle of consubstantiality (II.17; cf. IV.22). The historian refuses to trust even those authors whose evidence he usually accepts as indisputable if he suddenly discovers their personal interest in the events described. Thus, the involvement of Eusebius of Caesarea in the religious struggle of the post-Nicene period devalues for Socrates the data he provides about the prehistory of the Council of Antioch (I. 23). “Obeying the laws of history, which require a sincere and impartial analysis of events,” the writer formulates his “research credo,” “I proceed to the narration itself and, describing what I myself saw or what I managed to learn from eyewitnesses, I will consider the story reliable if the speakers about the same incident do not contradict each other. My work in learning the truth is based on the reports of many different witnesses, some of whom claim that they themselves were present at the events described, and others that they know them better than anyone else" (VI. Introduction) .
* * *
Socrates Scholasticus considers himself the successor of Eusebius of Caesarea, and it is the end of his “Ecclesiastical History” that he (314) takes as the beginning of his own (I. 1). Using new material, Socrates develops the tradition of orthodox historiography: the apologetic intentions of the author and his unconditionally Orthodox point of view cannot be hidden by either openly demonstrated sympathy for the Novatians or calls for religious tolerance. However, the historical worldview of Socrates is very different from the historical worldview of Eusebius, since he lived and described a completely different era. It was a time of continuous internal strife in the church and constant government interference in its affairs. It was also a time when Christianity, despite certain periods of retreat (under Julian the Apostate), became more and more strengthened, turning into the state religion. Now there was no longer any talk of the church as a persecuted minority opposed to the rest of society. Moreover, the audience to which Socrates addressed was much broader and more socially diverse than that of Eusebius. It increased primarily due to the secularly educated strata, previously indifferent to the new faith.
At the very beginning of the Ecclesiastical History, Socrates states that he intends to describe events in the church after the victory of Constantine the Great (I.1). At the same time, he limits the object of historical depiction to church unrest, since only in them he sees the beginning of events. “I would have had to remain silent,” the author writes, “if schisms and unrest had not arisen in the church. When the subject does not contain events, then there is nothing to talk about. But since verbal disputes and vain deception undermined and weakened the apostolic Christian faith, then, so that the events in the church would not be forgotten, I considered it my duty to describe them in my essay" (I.18). Socrates returns to this idea at the very end, saying that “when peace reigns, those who want to write history will not have a subject” (VII. 48).
At the same time, the author includes secular subjects in the narrative: facts of the internal and foreign policies of the Roman state. This thematic expansion is motivated by several reasons. In addition to the traditional ones - the fear of “boring readers with a story only about the disputes of bishops and their mutual exploits” and the desire to give them more information - Socrates also gives reasons for the conceptual plan. According to the historian, church unrest is inevitably reflected in political life, and civil unrest is inevitably reflected in the life of the church. In addition, he states that since the emperors turned to the veneration of the true God, church affairs began to depend on them to a significant degree (315) (V. Introduction).
The importance of the “imperial” theme explains the division of “Ecclesiastical History” according to the “imperial principle,” as well as the dominance in it of traditional secular chronology, unusual for a Christian author. Although Socrates sometimes records the periods of the reigns of bishops in the main metropolises (for example, in Rome; VII.9, 11), he prefers classical Roman dating for consulates and for churches (VI.2, 20, 21; VII.7, 17, 26) , and for secular events (11.26, 32, 39; III.1, 26; IV.1, .31; V.25; VI.1, 6; VII.1), and almost everywhere specifying it with indications of days and months : “Emperor Jovian died... in the consulate of his and his son Baronian on the seventeenth day of the month of February” (IV.1); “The Alexandrian bishop Theophilus died in the ninth consulate of Honorius and the fifth of Theodosius on the fifteenth day of the month of October” (VII.7), etc. In especially important cases (the beginning and end of the “Ecclesiastical History”, the death of emperors, decisive victories over enemies) Socrates expands the time marks already at the expense of classical Greek and Hellenistic dating for the Olympiads: Constantius “died in the consulate of Taurus and Florence on the third day of the month of November. This was the first year of the two hundred and eighty-fifth Olympiad” (II.47); The war of Theodosius the Younger with the Persians ended “in the consulate of two Augusts - on the thirteenth of Honorius and the tenth of Theodosius, in the fourth year of the three hundredth Olympiad” (VII.20). The significance for the author of the chronological principles borrowed from antiquity is once again confirmed by the concluding phrase of “Ecclesiastical History,” which turns out to be a compressed chronological model that incorporates its main temporal characteristics: “the entire history, consisting of seven books, surveys events over a period of one hundred and forty years , starting from the first year of the two hundred and seventy-first Olympiad, when Constantine declared himself emperor, and ending his work in the second year of the three hundred and fifth Olympiad, when the seventeenth consulate of Theodosius began" (VII.48).
Two storylines - imperial and church - are the field of application of two different historical concepts. Through the theme of emperors and related religious and secular events, an optimistic concept of history is realized. Socrates takes this concept from Eusebius. Like the first church historian, he shows the constant growth of the authority of Christianity and Orthodoxy in the Empire and among other peoples: non-believers become believers, paganism disappears, heretics are punished. The optimistic (316) view interprets the general history of Christianity in terms of the relationship of the church with the state and society. The main emphasis falls on the connection between God and the emperor, the Christian religion and the Christian empire. The idea of divine intervention in earthly affairs is put forward as the most general principle of historical explanation.
Following Eusebius, Socrates believes that the movement of history is based on the mechanism of divine retribution for the deeds of emperors. In his work, the orthodox rulers Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great, Arcadius and Theodosius the Younger are rewarded by Providence both in family life and in royal activities, while the kings who persecute the Orthodox - Constantius, Julian the Apostate, Valens - are punished with personal and political failures.
The burning of a ship with seventy orthodox priests on board under Valens leads to famine in Phrygia and the flight of many local inhabitants to Constantinople (IV.16). Valens' refusal to convert to the true faith deprives him of his only son and heir (IV.26). The prayer of the pious Theodosius the Great causes a turning point in his battle with the usurper Eugene: a sudden wind directs the arrows of the rebels against themselves, and gives strength and swiftness to the arrows of the emperor’s soldiers (V.25). To Theodosius the Younger, who came to the defense of Persian Christians, cruelly persecuted by Shah Vararan, God sends angels to “administer this war.” The Persian army suffers defeat after defeat, and during the battles miraculous things happen. Thus, the sky sends an unaccountable fear to the Saracens, the allies of the Shah, forcing them to rush into the waters of the Euphrates and find their death there (VII.18), and reinforcements unexpectedly approach the Romans, who are threatened by encirclement, “by clear order of God.” “This is how the troops,” writes Socrates, to whom the Persians gave the name of immortals, all turned out to be mortal, and the Persian people received punishment from Christ for the death of many of his admirers, pious men” (VII.20). “The power of the prayer of the God-loving king” Theodosius the Younger is also revealed in his struggle against the usurper John, when an angel leads the imperial army through an impassable swamp, so that “having passed through its waters as if on dry land and finding the city gates open, the soldiers took possession of the tyrant” (VII. 23), and when the hordes of barbarians who helped John die from lightning and incurable diseases (VII.43). (317)
Another storyline - the line of church events - turns out to be the arena of action of a different historical concept, the concept of history as turmoil. This pessimistic view concerns only the internal development of the Christian community. Socrates shows that the church is constantly torn apart by disputes between bishops and that these discords inevitably lead to splits among the flock. No efforts of worthy shepherds can prevent them. In many cases, the author reduces the causes of church conflicts to simple misunderstandings, false understanding, lack of education, “love of dialectical debate,” or to personal grievances and envy. Arius, “believing that his bishop was introducing the teaching of Sabellius of Libya, out of passion for controversy,” himself invented the most dangerous type of heresy (I.5). After the Council of Nicea, the bishops, interpreting the word “consubstantial” differently, “stirred up an internecine war; and this war was no different from a night battle, since both parties did not understand what they accused each other of” (I.23). Under Constantius, the supporters of Acacius and the supporters of Macedonius mutually deposed each other “not for the sake of faith, but for other reasons. Discussing about faith, they did not pay any attention to the faith of those being deposed” (II.42). Lucifer of Caral, offended by Eusebius of Brekel, who did not approve of the ordination of Paulinus of Antioch, caused a split among the orthodox, founding the Luciferian sect (III.9). The power-hungry and self-interested Theophilus of Alexandria, being an Origenist, out of revenge on Dioscorus and his brothers accused them and Origen, whom they idolized, of heresy, provoking unrest not only in the Egyptian, but throughout the entire imperial church (VI.7). Nestorianism was caused by the extreme lack of education of its creator. Although Nestorius “considered himself knowledgeable, however, in reality, he did not possess any learning, and did not want to understand the works of ancient interpreters” (VII.32).
Explaining church unrest by the vices of people, Socrates, as it were, brings them down to earth and gives them to the human world. He does not view these conflicts in terms of God versus Satan. Unlike his contemporary Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the author almost completely excludes Satan from the motivation of the religious struggle. As for God, the historian openly refuses to discuss the question of how divine control over history is reconciled with the endless dissensions of bishops: “What is the reason,” he asks, “that the good God allows this? Is it to show the purity of church dogmas and to humble the acceding to It is difficult to decide whether it is a proud faith, or some other, and it takes a long time to answer... We should neither interpret dogmas, nor begin complex discussions about the providence and judgment of God" (I.22). And although Socrates sometimes shows that the divine hand overtakes heretics (for example, Arius; I.37-38) or contributes to the success of the orthodox (in particular, at the Councils of Nicea and Tire; I.9, 29), this does not change the overall picture.
One may get the impression that in the last chapters of “Ecclesiastical History” the problem of unrest finds its solution. Indeed, the new Bishop of Constantinople, Proclus, manages to end the feud with the supporters of the deposed John Chrysostom and unite the capital's Orthodox (VII.45), and the elections of primates cease to cause splits among the priests and flock (VII.40, 46, 48). Thus, at a certain point in the reign of the pious Theodosius the Younger, not only political affairs (which is natural for an optimistic concept), but also religious affairs are regulated. History (the turmoil) stops, and the historian stops his narrative, because it loses its subject. However, this does not mean that in Socrates’ description of the reign of Theodosius the Younger, the optimistic interpretation turns out to be prevalent, displacing the other, pessimistic one. For Socrates, this reign is as full of church unrest as all the others. We learn about the split of the Novatian community, provoked by the ambitious Savvatius (VII.5, 12); about the division of Alexandrian Christians caused by the struggle for the episcopal throne (VII.7); about the unrest in Alexandria due to the enmity of the prefect Orestes and Bishop Cyril (VII.13-15); about the bloody battle between Jews and Christians in Inmestar (VII. 16) and, finally, about the famous Nestorian unrest (VII.29, 31-34).
Consequently, the theme of constantly arising church conflicts and the theme of the prosperity of God's chosen Christian empire develop in parallel, almost without touching each other. The piety of emperors does not in any way affect the internal state of the church. The history of religious turmoil is divorced from the history of mankind, controlled by God. Socrates is so consistent in his pessimism in relation to intra-church history that even the optimistic ending of his work cannot deceive, and the cessation of religious strife in the last years of the reign of Theodosius the Younger is perceived only as temporary and even accidental. Church conflicts are inevitable, and there is no prospect of their disappearance, for behind them lies (319) the eternal sinful nature of man. Of course, Christianity will definitely win on earth, and the Roman Empire will definitely triumph over its enemies, but the discord of vicious, ambitious and envious church shepherds will forever disturb the peace of believers. Such a paradoxical view was probably a reflection of the church historian’s anxiety about the contemporary situation in the church.
* * *
The main characters of "Ecclesiastical History", according to the two leading themes, are emperors and clergy. In the images of Roman rulers, the optimistic idea of the constant growth and strengthening of the Christian empire under the control of God is realized, and in the images of spiritual shepherds - the idea of endless internal strife in the church. All these heroes - pious and impious monarchs, worthy and unworthy bishops - are assessed based on two models: the model of the ideal emperor and the model of the ideal church leader.
Unlike Eusebius, Socrates' ideal monarch is necessarily an orthodox monarch. This characteristic determines all the qualities and actions necessary for him. The orthodox emperor leads a Christian, even monastic, lifestyle, zealously performing all religious rituals. He shows meekness and philanthropy in everything, being a “true philosopher.” The orthodox ruler turns out to be a true Christian scholar, spending many hours reading sacred books or talking about complex theological problems. He has the ability to perform miracles. In all his affairs, the orthodox monarch seeks the advice of God. He plays the role of the main defender of Orthodoxy: he protects believers from persecution by heretics and pagans, eradicates idolatry and “false teachings,” restores and builds churches, takes care of unanimity in the church, and spreads Christianity throughout the earth.
It is precisely these qualities that Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great, Arkady and Theodosius the Younger demonstrate and exactly these actions do. Constantine the Great stops the persecution of Christians, delivers them from exile, releases them from prison, returns the property taken away from them, destroys their persecutor Licinius (I.2-4); he makes every effort to end the Arian feud and seeks the general consent of the bishops at the Nicene Council convened on his initiative (I.7-10); he appeals to all metropolitans to build churches and himself organizes the construction of churches in Constantinople, Palestine and Phenicia (320) (I.9, 16, 18); he constantly prays to God and even during military campaigns carries a camp chapel with him (I.19). For the sake of establishing unanimity, Theodosius the Great persuades the Arian primate Demophilus to accept Orthodoxy (V.7) and convenes two church councils in Constantinople (V.8 and 10); out of respect for the Roman Novatian bishop Leontius, he shows mercy to the consul Symmachus, who supported the usurper Maximus (V.14). Arcadius prohibits the propaganda processions of the Arians of Constantinople (VI.8) and by the power of his prayer prevents the death of a large crowd when the walls of the temple fall (VI.23). But more than other emperors, Theodosius the Younger corresponds to the Socratic ideal, presented as the focus of all Christian virtues. He leads an ascetic lifestyle: he bravely endures heat and cold, fasts often, gets up early to pray, wears the old clothes of a dead righteous man; working in the name of the Word of God, he collects a huge library of Christian authors and participates in theological debates; shows true philanthropy, refusing to use the death penalty and prohibiting circus fights between gladiators and wild animals; Possessing miraculous power, he stops the blowing blizzard with prayer (VII.22).
The model of the ideal shepherd is in many ways similar to the imperial one. Orthodoxy is the first in the hierarchy of virtues of a clergyman. Its main function is to establish Orthodoxy and Christian morality among the flock, setting an example of asceticism, preaching the truth and fighting against its distortion. At the same time, the ideal bishop should be tolerant of dissent and only through persuasion should he enlighten the lost. For his virtues, he is endowed with the ability to perform miracles. This is exactly how Athanasius of Alexandria, Anthony of Egypt, blind Didymus, John Chrysostom, Atticus of Constantinople and many others appear in “Church History.”
But there is one more important quality required for an ideal clergyman. According to Socrates, which runs counter to widespread prejudices in Christian thought, a church leader must have an excellent education, not only religious, but also secular. Most of the positive heroes of the "Church History" are highly educated Orthodox or Novatian 8 primates. The author often expresses open approval of clergymen who have completed a full course of classical sciences. He speaks of the “wonderful, eloquent and renowned blind man Didymus, who “easily learned the rules of grammar, and learned rhetoric even faster,” and then, “moving on to the philosophical sciences, miraculously mastered dialectics, arithmetic, music - in general, all the sciences of philosophers, he composed in his soul in such a way that he could easily resist those who studied them with the help of his eyes" (IV.25); about Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus, who, “spending their youth in Athens, listened to the then flourishing sophists Imerius and Proeresius, and then in Syrian Antioch they visited Lebanon and deeply studied rhetoric” (IV.26); about the Novatian bishop Sisinnius, who “was an eloquent man and deeply knew philosophy, especially engaged in dialectics and was good at interpreting the Holy Scriptures, so that the heretic Eunomius often ran away from the force of his dialectical competitions” (VI.22). The list goes on.
Many heroes of the "Ecclesiastical History" turn to the service of God directly after intensive studies of the classical sciences: Gregory the Wonderworker, having studied the laws in Beritus, was instructed by Origen in "true philosophy" (IV.27); John Chrysostom, Evagrius, Theodore and Maximus, who attended the school of the sophist Livanius, became ascetics (VI.3); Proclus, who zealously studied rhetoric, accepted the rank of Bishop of Constantinople (VII.41), etc. Such a transition does not look like the heroes’ denial of their past and their break with secular culture, but as a natural ascent to a higher level of knowledge: the mastery of “Hellenic wisdom" brings them closer to understanding the Word of God.
As a result of the “convergence” of secular and religious knowledge, the line between a secular teacher and a teacher of faith is blurred. In Socrates, rhetoricians become bishops (VII. 12, 37), and clergy teach grammar and sophistry (IV.9; VII. 12). Here the historian would hardly have found understanding among his Western colleagues, who spoke with indignation about spiritual shepherds who dared to teach, in the words of Gregory the Great, “nonsense secular sciences.”
Thus, in the Socratic universe, classical education is the highest, along with orthodoxy, the dignity of a priest and the subject of special respect among the clergy. Through the images of orthodox hierarchs-intellectuals who belong not only to the ecclesiastical but also to the secular world, the idea of a “cultural church” is conveyed - an Orthodox Church open to classical culture and classical knowledge. (322)
Socrates Scholasticus has a special place among church historians of the early Byzantine period. Remaining within the framework of the historical and church tradition, he proved himself to be an original writer and thinker. Compared to his predecessor Eusebius, Socrates greatly expanded his historical perspective. If the first church historian studied only the history of the church, considering the Roman rulers as a force external to it, then his successor made the emperors the central figures of Christian history. He attached key importance not only to their relationship with God and the church; The influence of these relationships on the fate of the state was important to him. Therefore, it is natural that the author often gave the floor to social events. The theme of church history was thus complemented by the theme of the history of the Christian empire.
Introduction to this book
Eusebius, son of Pamphilus 1, having outlined the history of the Church in as many as ten books, dwelled on the times of King Constantine, by which Diocletian’s persecution of Christians ended, 2, and when describing the life of Constantine, he also mentioned Arius, but only in part, for, as in the laudable word 3, he cared more about praising the king and the solemnity of his speech than about the accurate disclosure of events. Having set out to describe the events in the Church from that time to the present, we will take the end of his “History” 4 as the beginning of our narrative and, without worrying about the grandiloquence of the language, we will convey to the readers partly what we found in the manuscripts, partly what we learned from the stories. And since for our purpose it is necessary to mention in advance how Tsar Constantine came to Christianity, then, starting our work, we will talk about this as briefly as possible.
How did King Constantine come to Christianity?
When Diocletian and Maximian, nicknamed Hercules, agreed among themselves to lay down royal power and chose a private life, then their co-ruler Maximian, nicknamed Galerius, arrived in Italy and installed two Caesars: Maximin - over the east, and Severus - over Italy 5. Between then, instead of Constantius, who died on July 25, in the first year of the two hundred and seventy-first Olympiad 6, his son Constantine 7 was proclaimed king of Britain; and in Rome, by the force of the Praetorian army, Maximian Herculus' son Maxentius 8 became more of a tyrant than a king. For this reason, Herculus, again having a desire to reign, set out to destroy his son Maxentius, but the army did not allow him to do this, and he subsequently ended his life in Tarsus of Cilicia 9. With the command to take Maxentius, Galerius Maximinus and Caesar Severus were sent to Rome; but he died from the betrayal of his troops 10. Having installed Licinius as king, the last of the rulers of the entire empire to die was Galerius Maximian 11. And Licinius, who came from Dacia 12, had long been his comrade in military service and friend. Meanwhile, Maxentius treated the Romans cruelly and followed a more tyrannical than royal method of government: he shamelessly raped noble women, deprived many citizens of their lives, and committed other similar acts. Having learned about this, King Constantine tried to free the Romans from their slavery and immediately began to think about how to destroy the tyrant 13. In such reflections, he asked himself what kind of God would he call as an assistant in battle? And he came to the conclusion that Diocletian’s troops, having surrendered to the Hellenic gods, did not receive any benefit, and his father Constantius, having left Hellenic worship, spent his life much happier 14. Being in such thought and at the same time leading the army behind him, he accidentally saw a wondrous and indescribable phenomenon: in the midday hours of the day, when the sun was already beginning to decline, he saw in the sky a cross-shaped pillar of light with the inscription: “with this conquer.” The king was amazed by this sign and, not believing his own eyes, asked those present if they also saw the phenomenon. When they confirmed, he was completely convinced of the divine and wondrous vision. Moreover, during the ensuing night, Christ appeared to him in a dream and ordered him to build a banner according to the model of the sign he had seen, so that in it he would have, as it were, a ready-made trophy over his enemies. Convinced by this proclamation, the king arranged a trophy of the cross, which is still kept in the royal palace, and with all the more confidence he set about his affairs. Having fought with the enemy near Rome, near the so-called Milvian Bridge, he defeated him; and Maxentius drowned in the river. This victory over Maxentius was won by him in the seventh year of his reign. 15. At that time, Licinius, who was married to his sister Constantia, was Constantine’s co-kingdom, the ruler of the east. 16. Having received such great benefits from God, Constantine brought him thanks. This thanksgiving consisted in the fact that he stopped the persecution of Christians, called them out of exile, brought them out of prison, returned to them the property taken into the treasury 17. Moreover, he restored the churches and did all this with great zeal. At the same time, Diocletian 18, who renounced his reign, died in Salona Dalmatia.
How did it happen that when Constantine strengthened Christianity, Constantine’s co-ruler Licinius launched a persecution against Christians
Thinking about Christ, Tsar Constantine did everything as a Christian: he built churches and enriched them with precious deposits, and he locked up pagan temples or destroyed them, and put the statues in them on display. On the contrary, his fellow king Licinius, having been imbued with pagan opinions, hated Christians, and if, fearing Tsar Constantine, he did not dare to institute open persecution against them, he plotted intrigues for many in secret. Sometimes he decided to harm them openly; but it was local persecution. This was limited to Licinius; it was only in his power. And when in one case or another he acted tyrannically, he did not hide from Constantine at all, and knowing that Constantine was annoyed with him, he resorted to self-justification. Serving him, he seduced him with feigned friendship and repeatedly swore that he would not plot anything tyrant, but while swearing, at the same time he was treacherous, because he did not abandon the thought of tyranny and the intention to persecute Christians. He established a law so that bishops would not get close to the Hellenes and thereby not provide a reason for the spread of Christianity. It was both open and secret persecution: it was hidden in words, but in reality it became open. The persecuted were subjected to unbearable misfortunes both in terms of body and property.
That the war between Constantine and Licinius broke out for the sake of Christians
For this reason, Tsar Constantine was very angry with him; that is why, having broken the bonds of feigned friendship, they became enemies; and soon afterwards it came to war 19. There were many battles both on land and at sea 20; but finally, at Chrysopolis of Bithynia, the seaside fortress of Chalcedon, Licinius was defeated and surrendered 21. Having taken him alive, Constantine discovered a sense of philanthropy towards him: he did not at all want to kill him, but ordered him to live peacefully in Thessalonica 22. However, he did not stay long. calm, but having gathered some barbarians, he tried to avenge his defeat. Having learned about this, the king ordered his life to be taken, and this order was carried out. 23 Thus, Constantine became the ruler of the entire empire, was declared an autocrat by the king, and immediately began to strengthen Christianity. He did this in various ways, and through him Christianity enjoyed deep peace. But such peace was prevented by the internecine enmity of Christians. What kind of enmity it was and how it began, we will tell you, if possible. (9)
Christian historian of Greek origin, author of “Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία” - “Church History” in 7 books.
| Socrates Scholastic | |
|---|---|
| Date of Birth | OK. |
| Place of Birth |
|
| Date of death | OK. or OK. |
| Citizenship (nationality) | |
| Occupation | theologian, church historian, writer, historian |
| Language of works | ancient greek language |
| Files on Wikimedia Commons | |
Biography
Already in ancient times, there was no information about his biography other than the facts mentioned by him in the “Ecclesiastical History”, a work modeled on the work of the same name by Eusebius of Caesarea, where the role of the emperor in church affairs is actively outlined, and the same attention is paid to secular problems, as well as religious.
Socrates' teachers, judging by his references, were grammarians named Helladius and Ammonius, who arrived in Constantinople from Alexandria, where they were pagan priests. The uprising, accompanied by the destruction of the temples, forced them into exile. This defeat, during which, in particular, the Serapeum temple was destroyed, dates back to approximately 391. Apparently, he belonged to a wealthy class, since he had the opportunity to receive an excellent education. He studied grammar, rhetoric, biblical exegesis, and knew Latin authors very well.
Whether Socrates later studied with the sophist Troilus has not been fully proven. In subsequent years he traveled, visiting, among other places, Paphlagonia and Cyprus.
There is also no information about the profession of Socrates. It is assumed that he was not a priest, which is motivated by his liberal theology; He could not have been an official either, since his work does not contain the panegyric descriptions of imperial deeds characteristic of such authors - although at the same time he feels obvious sympathy for the existing order of things. Judging by the text, it is assumed that he was a lawyer, in addition, the title “Scholastic” gives many reasons to see him as a “lawyer” (but Patriarch Photius pointedly omits this nickname).
The education received from the pagan grammarians was the reason for Socrates' respect for Greek pagan science; he willingly studied - although he criticized, defending Christianity - the works of Julian and Livanius; of the more ancient writers, he, as shown by Baur and Harnack, especially respected Thucydides, whom he tried to imitate in speech and composition. He began to study Christian authors only at the time when he had already begun writing his church history.
Socrates was self-taught in theology and did not have firm and stable concepts about the true teaching of the church. He liked the witty and thoughtful reasoning of learned heretics, for example Philostorgius and especially Savin, Bishop of Irakli. For all his caution, he makes a lot of use of their information and judgments (both of their works have reached us in their entirety).
"Church History"
The work of Socrates Scholasticus covers the years 305-439, and scholars suggest that it was completed precisely in 439 or shortly thereafter and, of course, during the life of Theodosius II, that is, before 450. The author's task was to write a continuation of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, and he begins with the year where his predecessor left off his narrative.
The book is written in simple Greek, the language used in the church from the time of Constantine to the period of the life of Socrates. Church disagreements come to the fore in the work, because “ when the Church is in the world, the church historian has nothing to describe" In the introduction to Book 5, the author also defends interaction with Arians and politicians. He quotes verbatim some of the resolutions of the synods and provides lists of church officials and bishops. He reproduces contemporary history from his own memories.
The point of view of Socrates Scholasticus is consistent and balanced on many points. His membership in the small Novatian society most likely helped him maintain a relatively detached point of view when looking at the processes in the Great Church. He is critical of John Chrysostom. He tries not to use hyperbolic epithets in relation to prominent figures of church and state.
The scholastic claims that he owes the impulse to write this book to a certain Theodorus, who in the 2nd Book is referred to as “ holy man of God" and it is therefore assumed that he was a monk or a member of the high clergy.
The fate of the book
In the 6th century, the book of Socrates Scholasticus was combined into a compilation with the writings of his contemporaries Sozomen and Theodoret of Cyrus, making it difficult to distinguish them from each other. The situation changed more recently when their individualistic characteristics of Christian emperors were studied and compared, allowing Harmut Lepine to infer the personalities of the writers.
Already in 696, the work was translated into Armenian. Preserved in two editions - lengthy and short. Early lists date back to the 12th century.
The first edition of the “Ecclesiastical History” in Greek was carried out in the 16th century by Robert Estienne in Paris, 1544, based on the “Codex Regius” of 1443. It was translated into Latin by John Christophorson in 1612. The fundamental early publication, however, was the work of Henricus Valesius (Henri Valois), published in Paris in 1668. When composing the text, he compared several extant manuscripts: “Codex Regius”, “Codex Vaticanus”, “Codex Florentinus”, as well as Theodorus Lecter’s retelling of Scholasticus (“Codex Leonis Alladi”).
The Russian translation of “Ecclesiastical History” was completed in the mid-19th century at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, apparently from the Greek edition in the Patrology of Jacques Migne (Socratis Scholastici Historia ecclesiastica//PG, t. 67, Paris, 1859, col. 30-842). At the end of the 20th century, a reissue was carried out, where dubious passages were verified with the Greek original. , 1996. - 368 p. - (Classics of antiquity and the Middle Ages). - 2000 copies.
Research:
- Shirinyan M. S. Historical work of Socrates Scholasticus and its ancient Armenian versions: (From the history of Byzantine-Armenian cultural relations). Author's abstract. diss. ... k.i. n. Er., 1987.
- Theresa Urbainczyk, Socrates of Constantinople, University of Michigan Press, 1997
