User:R43wer4e

The Church History of Theodore Lector The Church History of John Diakrinomenos The Church History1 of John Diakrinomenos survives only in a very few fragments. These comprise one, relatively brief extract of its text that was incorporated into the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 (F 1),2 a general account of the first part of John’s work in Photios’ Bibliotheca, compiled ca. 843 (T 1),3 and a concise recapitulation, consisting of 37 passages, which can be found in an anonymous Epitome of several church histories, dating to the early seventh century.4 In addition, John’s Church History may also have been used, most probably towards the end of the second decade of the sixth century, by Theodore Lector during the composition of his own Church History, as may be inferred from the Epitome of Theodore’s work.5 There is no evidence to indicate that John’s Church History was directly used by any other Byzantine authors, as all the sources that reiterate information found in John’s text, such as Theophanes’ Chronography and George the Monk’s Chronicle, had drawn this material indirectly through the Epitome of church histories.6 All of the sources that are known to have made ←55 | 56→use of John’s Church History are therefore of Chalcedonian origin, while there is no evidence of John’s Church History having been read in a Miaphysite milieu, which would mean that his work was either unknown or, for some reason, not well received among anti-Chalcedonian circles, as shall be seen below. The transmission of John’s work may initially have been connected, in some way, with the manuscript tradition of Theodore Lector’s Church History. In favour of this view is the fact that the anonymous epitomator placed a summary of John’s work immediately after an Epitome of Theodore’s text, and that an excerpt from John’s Church History and a corresponding excerpt from Theodore’s Church History are placed together in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea.7 Of the three aforementioned textual witnesses, the latest information about the preservation of John’s Church History is provided by Photios’ Bibliotheca (cod. 41). The copy at Photios’ disposal was most probably incomplete, however, as he referred to only the first five books. It would appear that Photios had no access to the second part, as his statement that the entire work comprised ten books relates to John’s words (ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐπαγγέλλεται), rather than his own observation. It would then be reasonable to assume that John’s Church History had already been preserved only in part by this time, with no firm evidence of its preservation emerging at a later date.8 An earlier textual witness by several decades, containing the only surviving excerpt of John’s Church History, is the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The fragment cited in the Acts concerns Bishop Philoxenos of Hierapolis, and thus comes from the part of John’s work to which Photios did not have access. This does not necessarily mean that the Church History had been preserved in its entirety up to that time, as it may have been incorporated as part of some earlier iconophile florilegium used in the proceedings of the council.9 ←56 | 57→Nevertheless, Paul van den Ven10 contends that the council of 787 did not make use of a single ready- made florilegium, as passages from patristic works and other testimonies would rather have been read out from the books provided by various clergymen. Should such a hypothesis be accepted, it could effectively mean that the proceedings of the council of 787 constitute the last evidence for the use of John Diakrinomenos’ Church History in its complete form. Alexander Alexakis, arguing against this view,11 proposed that the council would have used the same florilegium upon which John of Damascus had already drawn, and from which derived the archetype of the florilegium later copied into codex Parisinus graecus 1115.12 In Alexakis’ opinion, the use of this document during the sessions of the council would have been carefully pre-planned so as to achieve the appropriate effect. The example of the fragment from John Diakrinomenos’ work, as cited at the council, seems to confirm Alexakis’ thesis. In particular, during the fifth session of the council, the deacon Demetrios first read out a passage from Theodore Lector’s Church History to the effect that Philoxenos had been an unbaptized pagan at the time when he received his bishopric from Peter the Fuller, which was followed by the deacon Stephen’s reading of an excerpt from John Diakrinomenos’ Church History concerning Philoxenos’ negation of icon veneration.13 This specific passage was selected with a view to demonstrating that the veneration of icons was attacked by pagans, heretics or Manichaeans, and the text was prepared in advance as both excerpts were delivered in succession, without interruption or interval.14 As the passage from Theodore’s composition made no mention that Philoxenos was opposed to the veneration of icons, it seems clear that the combination of these two fragments had been accomplished prior to the council proceedings, either by the team engaged in preparing for the proceedings or in some earlier florilegium employed for that purpose. Accordingly, there can be no certainty that John’s work would have been preserved intact until as ←57 | 58→late as 787, as the excerpt on Philoxenos might have been drawn from John’s text at some earlier date. Unfortunately, it is not possible to propose a precise dating for the florilegium postulated by Alexakis. Given the possibility that this collection could have been used by John of Damascus half a century earlier,15 one can only make a general assumption that it was compiled shortly after the emperor Leo III’s enactment of the edict against the veneration of icons (726) and the outbreak of the iconoclastic controversy, as there would have been no reason to compile such a florilegium before that time. In any event, Alexakis’ hypothesis that the florilegium employed at the council could be related to a common tradition of such florilegia, as variously witnessed in Parisinus graecus 1115, Venetus Marcianus graecus 573 and Mosquensis Hist. Mus. 265, has been disputed.16 Nevertheless, there remains the possibility, as mentioned above, that the excerpts from Theodore and John 1. had been collated for the purposes of the council by those church officials responsible for its preparation. In addition to the aforementioned florilegium, as Alexakis rightly observed, they collected a number of quotations from Christian literature, which did not refer to icons but were used instead in other contexts, such as an argument for readmitting the penitent iconoclasts into communion, and thus would not have featured in any earlier florilegium, as they were not concerned with the essence of the iconoclastic controversy.17 It should also be borne in mind that in none of the above florilegia, nor in John of Damascus’ compilation, is the passage from John Diakrinomenos’ Church History ever used. It would therefore be safer to assume that this passage might have been employed by the team in charge of preparing for the proceedings of the council, and thus having recourse to a number of citations from patristic as well as historical sources, which were intended to buttress the veracity of solutions prescribed by the council. In any case, regardless of whether John’s Church History was used only during the sessions of the council or in the course of drawing up some earlier iconophile florilegium, there are no traces of a complete version of John’s work after 787. There can be no doubt, however, that the full version of John’s Church History was at the disposal of the anonymous epitomator of church histories, who was active in the early seventh century, as his composition contains epitomized excerpts ←58 | 59→from all ten books of John’s work. According to Emmanuel Miller’s hypothesis, the compiler of the excerpts from John’s Church History was Theodore Lector himself, rather than the epitomator, who thus merely added the pre-existing excerpts from John’s work to his Epitome of church histories.18 This proposition has been conclusively refuted by Bernard Pouderon.19 As we can see, there is no reason why the anonymous compiler of the Epitome should not also be credited with the creation of these excerpts. The Author All that is known about John can be found in the aforementioned witnesses, which in certain respects provide contradictory evidence. Photios, who is apparently not aware of John’s cognomen, associates him with the presbyter John of Aigai, on account of both authors’ negative attitude towards the Council of Chalcedon. Even though this identification is mistaken,20 there is no reason to cast doubt on the other information Photios provides regarding the doctrinal stance of the author of the Church History, which he deduced from the text itself. Specifically, Photios states that the author of this Church History shows respect for the Second Council of Ephesos (449), as well as for Dioskoros and his followers, while decrying the Council of Chalcedon. The picture outlined by Photios is not made much clearer, apart from the use of the cognomen diakrinomenos, by the relevant fragment in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, as it focuses on the iconoclastic teachings espoused by Philoxenos of Hierapolis. Moreover, it is difficult to infer, from the text in question, whether or not the author is sympathetic to Philoxenos. ←59 | 60→ Much more useful information can be gleaned from the Epitome. Although the anonymous epitomator provides a very concise abridgement of John’s work (e.g., books ii, iii and ix are summarized only in the form of two excerpts each), it is still possible to detect a few important details in this limited sample, even if it has been, in a sense, doctrinally “smoothed out” by the anonymous writer.21 Among the items of greater significance, the epitomator notes that Silvanus, bishop of the Himyarites (or, according to the original text, of the Homerenoi: Σιλουανὸς ἐπίσκοπος τῶν Ὁμηρηνῶν), was John’s uncle, and a person responsible for encouraging him to write his Church History (Epitome 1 [525]).22 Analysis of ←60 | 61→other information in the Epitome reveals that John appears to have been, in terms of dogmatic alignment, a faithful supporter of the teachings propagated by Cyril of Alexandria, as he enumerates those theologians whose writings criticize Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas (Theodoret of Kyrrhos [Epitome 5 [529]]; Andrew of Samosata [Epitome 6 [530]]; Gennadios of Constantinople [Epitome 13 [537]]), while he also refers to the participants of Cyril’s assembly at Ephesos in 431 as orthodox (Epitome 3 [527]).23 On the other hand, he exhibits clear anti-Nestorian (Epitome 4 [528]) and anti-Arian (Epitome 14 [538]) attitudes. John also places emphasis on the political pressure exerted in connection with the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 (Epitome 8 [532]: Pulcheria orders the synod to approve ←61 | 62→Pope Leo’s Tome; Epitome 9 [533]: imperial officials decide on Theodoret’s participation in the council). Furthermore, John reportedly praised Lampetios and his followers (Epitome 15 [539]). It is difficult to determine with certainty John’s attitude to Peter the Fuller, insofar as, according to Epitome 16 [540], Peter’s appointment as Bishop of Antioch was also said to have taken place under political pressure, namely from the magister militum per Orientem Zeno, the future emperor.24 In another passage (Epitome 23 [547]), John goes on to describe Peter’s liturgical innovations, but the Epitome does not permit any inference about John’s actual position on this matter. Conversely, John appears to condemn the murder (committed by some inhabitants of Hierapolis) of the envoys who delivered Basiliskos’ anti-Chalcedonian Encyclical to that city (Epitome 17 [541]). In contrast, he expresses his respect for the emperor Anastasios for taking a resolute stance towards the Persian monarch Kavad (Epitome 28 [552]), and for abolishing the chrysargyron, the use of wild animals fights as public entertainment, as well as the purchasing of public offices (Epitome 29 [553]). Furthermore, Anastasios rightly (δίκαια) elevated Sergioupolis to the rank of a metropolitan see and had the relics of St Sergius sent to that city (Epitome 30 [554]). The emperor also saw in a dream a vision of St Bartholomew the Apostle, who pledged to watch over the newly built city of Dara (Epitome 34 [558]).25 In agreement with Philippe Blaudeau, it is reasonable to infer that John takes a critical view of the perjury committed by Severus of Sozopolis, who vowed to Anastasios that he would not denounce the Council of Chalcedon upon his elevation as Bishop of Antioch, but not long afterwards broke his oath (Epitome 37 [561]),26 and that John also distances himself from Peter Mongos, when he had the mortal remains of Timothy Salophakiolos removed from the church in Alexandria (Epitome 18 [542]).27 From all these pieces of information, as abridged by the epitomator, one can discern a picture of a writer who was sympathetic to the moderate position taken by the emperor Anastasios – an opponent of Nestorianism and Arianism, but also of the Chalcedonian doctrine. It appears, however, that John was not a member of the more extreme adherents of Miaphysitism. It seems that the ←62 | 63→crucial passage here is one that deals with the Second Council of Ephesos in 449 (Epitome 7 [531]), which, as John puts it, “accepted (or approved) [the teachings] of Eutyches as wrong (κακῶς δεξαμένῃ τὰ Εὐτυχῆ).”28 Since the council of 449 carried through the rehabilitation of Eutyches and approved his teachings, this fairly ambiguous statement should most likely be understood as John distancing himself from Eutyches and his Christological views, and the text should rather be construed as: “[did] wrong [in that it] accepted [the teachings] of Eutyches.” Perhaps, therefore, the evident contradiction between the account of Photios (“He reveres this synod as well as Dioskoros, its leader, and his party” (ἣν οὗτος θειάζει, καὶ τὸν ταύτης ἡγεμόνα Διόσκορον καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ)) and that of the anonymous epitomator (“The historian John blames the Second Synod in Ephesos for having wickedly accepted the doctrines of Eutyches” (Ἰωάννης αὐτὸς ὁ σuγγράφων μέμφεται τῇ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ δευτέρᾳ συνόδῳ ὡς κακῶς δεξαμένῃ τὰ Εὐτυχῆ)), with respect to John’s stance on the “Robber Council”, is in fact only apparent. Even though Photios states that John revered the synod, Dioskoros and his followers, he does not mention the presence of Eutyches in that group. In the Miaphysite milieu of the late fifth/early sixth centuries, Dioskoros was not a controversial figure, as he would be regarded as a holy man, a victim of the Dyophysite manipulations, while as for Eutyches, the Miaphysite circles had mostly severed ties with him and condemned his teachings.29 ←63 | 64→ These observations seem to find confirmation in John’s cognomen, diakrinomenos, which can be found in the Epitome of Theodore’s and John’s works. To understand its sense a little better, it is first necessary to consider when the author of the Church History received it, whether it was present in its manuscript tradition, or if it was given to him at a later date by one of his Chalcedonian readers (Theodore or the epitomator).30 Paweł Janiszewski has concluded that this appellation most probably originated with the anonymous epitomator.31 If so, the cognomen should be interpreted as it was understood at the turn of the sixth and seventh centuries. According to Philippe Blaudeau, this term may have been used by the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon in reference to all its opponents, but he also notes that the anti-Chalcedonians had been inclined to accept it as a mode of self-reference. It would specifically concern those of them who refrained from expressing any public condemnation of the council, though they questioned its definition.32 The Liber de sectis, composed at the turn of the sixth and seventh centuries and attributed to Leontios Scholastikos, uses this term in reference to the emperor Anastasios, with whom, as previously observed, John seems to have sympathized.33 Janiszewski’s hypothesis that the appellation diakrinomenos was accorded to John only by the anonymous epitomator is, nonetheless, disproved by its use in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), in view of the fact that the excerpt of John’s Church History cited during the proceedings of that assembly was derived from the full version of his work and not from the Epitome. This must mean that both the epitomator and the council (and perhaps Theodore himself) would have encountered this particular cognomen in a manuscript of the original version of John’s Church History that was available to them at the time. Even so, it is not known if this would have been a form of self-designation by John or an epithet given to him by a Chalcedonian who might have used or copied his work. In any event, it seems that the term itself had been used in a manuscript ←64 | 65→appended to Theodore Lector’s Church History (and thus probably dating back to the second decade of the sixth century), and there should be no reason to interpret the appellation according to its usage a century later. At the time of Anastasios’ reign, the diakrinomenoi formed a group of anti-Chalcedonians who rejected Nestorios and Pope Leo’s Tome, but also Eutyches.34 If one compares, on the one hand, what is known of John’s views from analysis of the contents of the Epitome and Photios’ testimony with, on the other hand, the meaning of the appellation diakrinomenos, it may be assumed that John was more of a middle-of-the-road opponent of the Council of Chalcedon, since he denounced both Eutychianism and Nestorianism, and rejected Pope Leo’s Tome, but he remained a faithful follower of the Christological doctrine by Cyril of Alexandria and was close to the views held by the emperor Anastasios. Moreover, his praise of Lampetios and a critical view of Severus of Antioch, which is evident in the Epitome’s final passage, may explain the unpopularity of John’s Church History among Miaphysite circles, especially as Severus would later become the leading figure of the entire Miaphysite movement, while they would soon come to regard followers of Lampetios (denounced by Severus) as heretics.35 The question of John’s relations with the supporters of Lampetios has been examined by Blaudeau,36 who disputes attributing Messalian views to that group, highlighting the support that Lampetios, himself only a presbyter, received from some members of the episcopate. It should be noted, nevertheless, that Photios, in his summary of the anti-Messalian dossier, refers to Lampetios (incorrectly) as the first Messalian priest,37 while among those who had reputedly succumbed to that tendency there were some confirmed cases of members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, at least since the time of the synod of Constantinople in 426.38 In his letter addressed to Rufus of Thessalonica, Bishop John of Antioch blamed Cyril ←65 | 66→of Alexandria for entering into an alliance with those figures condemned by the other Churches, including the Euchitians, during the Council of Ephesos in 431, while, in his letter to the emperor Theodosios II, he mentioned a group of 12 Messalian bishops from Pamphylia who had attended a Cyrillian convocation at Ephesos, even allowing for the polemical nature of these texts.39 As a result, the sympathy for Lampetios reflected in the position assumed by Bishop Alphios of Rhinocorura or the mentioning of his name in the liturgy of that Church cannot serve as an argument that would clearly invalidate the accusations of Messalian 2. tendencies aimed at Lampetios and, consequently, at John Diakrinomenos as well. It should be noted that Messalianism was not, at this time, a well- organized movement with a clearly defined doctrine, but more of an ascetic trend, apparently a fairly attractive one insofar as it succeeded in arousing some sympathy among monastic and clerical circles as well as fierce polemical opposition from its detractors. Severus’ rejection of Lampetios’ Testamentum is communicated in accounts left by Photios40 and Zacharias Scholastikos.41 As Severus is reported to have written this sometime prior to his episcopate, that is before 512, John Diakrinomenos must have been well aware of the fact that Severus was strongly against the views professed by Lampetios. For that reason, if, according to the epitomator’s testimony, John was himself a supporter of the Lampetian doctrine, this should have made him adopt a negative attitude towards Severus. The Church History Place and time of composition John Diakrinomenos wrote his Church History most probably in the period between the elevation of Severus to the patriarchal throne of Antioch, on 16 November 512,42 and the death of the emperor Anastasios, on 9 July 518,43 though ←66 | 67→it seems that the author did not manage to reach the end of Anastasios’ reign.44 If we accept as plausible the hypothesis that Theodore Lector drew on this work, he would have had access to John’s text either at Gangra or Constantinople in the period between 518 and 520, which would suggest that it is likely to have been written in the mid-510s.45 The question of where John may have written this work is somewhat more problematic. In all probability, Constantinople should not be taken into consideration, but rather some eastern location, perhaps Antioch.46 An argument in favour of this theory may be the fact that the epitomized excerpts from John’s text represent a definitely non-Constantinopolitan perspective, apparently focusing more on events that transpired in the diocese of Oriens or simply outside the frontiers of the Empire. Likewise, the only surviving extract treats the iconoclastic teachings of Philoxenos, Bishop of Hierapolis, while the first five books of the work, according to Photios, ended with the deposition of Peter the Fuller from the see of Antioch. Internal arrangement John’s Church History was divided into ten books, probably encompassing a period from the Council of Ephesos (431) up to the beginning of Severus’ episcopate at Antioch, whose elevation to this office in 512 is the subject of the final entry in the Epitome. It is quite likely that the last book would have also included information on this bishop’s earliest activity, as may be inferred from the internal division of the work (see below) as well as from the fact that in the preserved text of the Epitome the last excerpts, which concerns Severus’ consecration, is incomplete, at which point the manuscript (M) that gives the fullest summary of John’s work comes to an end.47 It is possible to identify a likely ←67 | 68→point when John’s Church History may have actually concluded. Theophanes’ Chronography and the Synodicon Vetus, texts that draw on the Epitome of Theodore Lector’s Church History, refer to the synod at Sidon,48 but both are silent about the later synod at Tyre, which is mentioned by Pseudo-Zacharias in his Church History.49 If, according to Peter Charanis’ proposition, this particular synod had indeed convened at Tyre sometime between 1 October 514 and 30 September 515,50 the absence of any mention of it may (but does not have to) indicate that John’s Church History, on which the Theodorean tradition was based for its account of events in the East, terminated before 515. Given its apparent starting date in 431, John may have composed his work as a continuation to one of the earlier church histories. If so, Theodore may have come across John’s Church History appended to a manuscript of one of the histories (by Sozomen, Sokrates or Theodoret) on which Theodore had worked while preparing his Historia Tripartita, although there is no firm evidence to support this inference.51 A slightly more challenging task is to determine how John divided his Church History into books. As Blaudeau rightly observed, the scope of particular books does not correspond with the reigns of individual rulers (for instance, the reigns of Zeno and Anastasios are covered in five books).52 The arrangement of books may have been somehow connected with the succession of consecutive Antiochene bishops, in view of the fact that the fifth book reportedly concluded with an account of Peter the Fuller’s deposition, while the final entry in the Epitome concerns the consecration of Severus of Sozopolis. Unfortunately, in the current state of preservation, the extant remains of John’s Church History do not make it possible to verify this hypothesis with certainty. ←68 | 69→ In the following table, the datable events described in successive books are listed alongside the episcopates of particular bishops of Antioch: Book and dates of the events described Bishops of Antioch I 431 (Epitome 2 [526]-3 [527]), 433 (Epitome 5 [529]), 451 (Epitome 4 [528]), 430 (Epitome 5 [529]) John (428–441)53 II 432 (Epitome 6 [530]), 449 (Epitome 7 [531]) Domnus (442–449)54 III 450–451 (Epitome 8 [532]-9 [533]) Maximus (450–455)55 IV 460 (Epitome 10 [534]), before 457 (Epitome 12 [536]), before 459 (Epitome 11 [535]), 431–432 (Epitome 13 [537]) Basil (456–458), Akakios (458–459)56 V ca. 458 (Epitome 15 [539]), 470 (Epitome 16 [540]), 476 (Epitome 17 [541]) Martyrios (459–471), Peter (471), Julian (471–475), Peter (475–476)57 Book and dates of the events described Bishops of Antioch VI 481 (Epitome 18 [542]), 482 (Epitome 19 [543]), 479 (Epitome 20 [544]), before 457 (Epitome 22 [546]) John (477), Stephen (477–479), Kalandion (479– 485)58←69 | 70→ VII 485–488 (Epitome 23 [547]), 482 (Epitome 25 [549]), after 485 (Epitome 26 [550]), 489 (Epitome 24 [548]) Peter (485–488)59 VIII 488 (Epitome 27 [551]), 502 (Epitome 28 [552]), 498 (Epitome 29 [553]), Palladios (488–498)60 IX 496–498 (Epitome 33 [557]), 505 (Epitome 34 [558]) Flavian II (498–512)61 X 512 (Epitome 37 [561]) Severus (512–518)62 As shown in this tabulation, Book I was centred on the controversy over the teachings of Nestorios and would have spanned a period up to at least 433 and the so-called Formula of Reunion, while a report of Nestorios’ death (Epitome 4 [528]) found in this part would have naturally followed to the information about his exile in 435.63 Book II would have probably treated events between the First and the Second Councils of Ephesos, along with an account of the latter. A reference to a dispute between Rabbula and Andrew of Samosata, which can be found here, would have probably been linked also to information on Andrew’s death sometime between 444 and 449.64 In turn, Book III was concerned with the circumstances of the summoning of the Council of Chalcedon and recounted its proceedings, while Book IV, the most problematic in terms of establishing connections with the episcopates of individual bishops, encompassed the period following that council at least until the beginning of the emperor Leo’s reign and the episcopate of Gennadios in Constantinople (probably as part of an account of his elevation to the Patriarchate, John might have added the information that Gennadios had penned a polemical treatise against Cyril’s Twelve ←70 | 71→Anathemas [Epitome 13 [537]]).65 It would also seem probable that the mention of the Egyptian monks’ charges against Symeon the Stylite was linked to information concerning his death on 2 September 459 (Epitome 11 [535]).66 Book V was dedicated to matters relating to Antioch from the final years of Leo’s reign to the fall of Basiliskos. A note on Lampetios, which can be found in the same book, may be an indication that the accusations against him should be assigned to that period, and specifically the turn of the 450s and 460s (Epitome 15 [539]).67 Book VI deals with Zeno’s eastern policy during the period of the Chalcedonian episcopates in Antioch. The only event from beyond this period, which is mentioned towards the end of the book, was Ibas of Edessa’s (d. 457) translation of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia into Syriac (Epitome 22 [546]), but it is impossible to explain, on the basis of the epitomator’s brief record alone, why exactly this information was placed here. Book VII was apparently concerned with the final period of Peter the Fuller’s Antiochene episcopate(s), whilst Book VIII recounted events connected with the episcopacy of Palladios. Book IX treated Bishop Flavian’s term in office and the final Book X concentrated on the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the patriarchal throne of Antioch in 512 as well as, most probably, the beginning of Severus’ episcopate. Even though we must be mindful that the details listed in the table above do not allow us to establish, with certainty, any firm links between the division into individual books and the successive bishops on the patriarchal throne of Antioch, especially in the case of Books IV-VI, covering a period marked by frequent changes of patriarch and episcopates of short duration, one can be confident that the arrangement of the books was connected with events of great significance from the perspective of the Church of Antioch. Geographical range The preceding observations are confirmed by the fact that John Diakrinomenos shows interest primarily in the affairs of the Church in the eastern part of the ←71 | 72→Empire and events in Persia under the shah Kavad (Epitome 27 [551]-28 [552], 33 [557], 36 [560]). John relates events that are connected with or take place in Antioch (Epitome 2 [526], 16 [540], 20 [544]-21 [545], 23 [547], 37 [561]), Edessa (Epitome 6 [530], 8 [532], 22 [546], 24 [548]), Constantinople (Epitome 3 [527], 8 [532], 13 [537], 20 [544]), Hierapolis (Epitome 17 [541], 26 [550]), Rome (Epitome 25 [549], 32 [556]), Ephesos (Epitome 2 [526], 3 [527], 7 [531]), Alexandria (Epitome 18 [542]-19 [543]), Chalcedon (Epitome 9 [533]-10 [534]), Oasis (Epitome 4 [528]), Samosata (Epitome 6 [530]), Germanikeia (Epitome 10 [534]), Seleukeia (Epitome 16 [540]), Sergioupolis (Epitome 30 [554]), Neocaesarea (Epitome 31 [555]) and Dara (Epitome 34 [558]), or relate, generally, to Egypt (Epitome 11 [535]) and Arabia (Epitome 1 [525], 35 [559]), while the reference to Lampetios is set against a background of the broader region of the East (Epitome 15 [539]). As many as six excerpts, out of a total of 37, pertain to matters outside the boundaries of the Empire. Furthermore, more than half of the excerpts (19) concern the diocese of Oriens. In addition, John refers to the situation in Alexandria twice and mentions Constantinople four times. Three references to Ephesos and two to Chalcedon are associated with the councils that took place in those cities. It could therefore be said that the main theme of John’s composition was the history of the Church of the Patriarchate of Antioch, with the inclusion of some territories beyond the Empire. If John extends outside the eastern part of the Empire, it is usually when he aims to recount significant events affecting the whole Church (such as councils or the Henotikon).68 Relationship to Theodore Lector’s Church History A relationship between John’s work and Theodore’s Church History is probable, but not indisputable. Such a connection cannot be traced in the extant fragments of Theodore and all the evidence comes from the Epitome of Theodore’s work. It is then possible that the epitomator, with his access to both histories and awareness of the similarity between the two accounts, may have concluded that Theodore had resorted to John’s work, though a more plausible conjecture is that there actually existed some connection between these two authors. The question that should be asked here is to what extent Theodore would have drawn on the work of his predecessor. Evidence of a relationship between the two works is found in only three episodes in the Epitome: ←72 | 73→ Epitome 18 [542] of John’s work ~ Epitome 85 [425] of Theodore’s: the exhumation of Timothy Salophakiolos’ remains, on the orders of Peter Mongos; the epitomator observes “which Theodore also records (ὅπερ ἱστορεῖκαὶ Θεόδωρος).” Epitome 20 [544] of John’s work ~ Theophanes AM 5973 (ed. de Boor, 128, 17–26), regarded by Hansen as an excerpt of the Epitome of Theodore’s Church History: the election of Kalandion as Patriarch of Antioch at Constantinople; the epitomator remarks on the concurring accounts of both authors: “He says … in accord with Theodore (συμφωνῶν τῷ Θεοδώρῳ).” Epitome 37 [561] of John’s work ~ Epitome 143 [499] of Theodore’s: Severus’ perjury. In a passage from the Epitome of Theodore’s work, the epitomator refers directly to John: “John Diakrinomenos recounts … (Ἰωάννης ὁ διακρινόμενος […] ἱστορεῖ).” As can be seen, the anonymous epitomator points to Theodore’s first- hand use of John’s work only in the latter instance, whereas in the first two cases he merely observes agreement between the two histories.69 Another argument in favour of a relationship between the works of Theodore and John is their probably conjoined textual transmission.70 If it is assumed that Theodore made use of John’s work, then one can observe, even from the modest amount of material at our disposal, that Theodore would have employed John’s Church History solely for the purpose of stories concerning the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, but there is no evidence for Theodore’s use of his predecessor’s composition to depict matters relating to Constantinople, which is why the claim of his extensive use of John’s Church History is certainly exaggerated, especially as Theodore largely focuses on events in the capital city of the Empire.71 Based on John’s range of interests, as previously outlined, it could be hypothesized that Theodore drew on John’s Church History as a source to augment his knowledge of events that had taken place primarily in the diocese of Oriens. In addition, taking into consideration that John devotes so much space to ←73 | 74→the episcopate of Peter the Fuller, it seems possible that the information relating to that bishop, which comes mainly from the Theodorean tradition, may in fact have originated in John’s work.72 Accordingly, the positive relationship between Peter and Zeno was first described by a moderate anti-Chalcedonian (like Peter himself), and not by an advocate of the Council of Chalcedon. It is likewise possible, as already pointed out, that those events closest to the composition of John’s work, such as the conflict between Philoxenos and Patriarch Flavian, as well as the proceedings of the synod held at Sidon, which some contemporary sources depict in contradictory accounts, are described by Theodore on the basis of information contained in John’s Church History. The texts used for the present edition For the purpose of this publication, we have used the latest critical editions:73 the testimonium from Photios’ Bibliotheca as found in Photius, Bibliothéque, texte établi et traduit par R. Henry, vol. I, Paris 1959, pp. 25– 26 (with certain emendations); the extract quoted in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea as in Concilium universale Nicaenum secundum. Concilii actiones IV-V, edidit E. Lamberz, Berlin-Boston 2012, p. 566, 12–24; the Epitome of John’s Church History as in Theodoros Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte, herausgegeben von G. C. Hansen, zweite, durchgesehene Auflage, Berlin 1995, pp. 152–157. For the latter source, we have also used Manuscript P, which was deliberately omitted by Hansen, and we have introduced our own numbering of excerpts, with Hansen’s numeration given in square brackets. ←74 | 75→ ←75 | 76→ Joannes Diacrinomenos, Historia ecclesiastica Testimonium (Photios, Bibliotheca, cod. 41, ed. Henry i, 25–26) ‘Ανεγνώσθη ‘Ιωάννου ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία. Ἄρχεται ἀπὸ τῆς Θεοδοσίου τοῦ νέου βασιλείας, ἀπ’ αὐτῆς που τῆς Νεστορίου βλασφημίας καὶ καθαιρέσεως, καὶ κάτεισι μέχρι Ζήνωνος καὶ τῆς καθαιρέσεως Πέτρου τοῦ αἱρετικοῦ, ὃς τὸν Ἀντιοχικὸν ὑφήρπασε θρόνον. Ἔστι74 δὲ οὗτος τὴν φράσιν σαφὴς καὶ ἀνθηρός. Διέρχεται δὲ τὴν τρίτην σύνοδον τὴν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ λεπτομερῶς. Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν μετὰ ταύτην ἐν αὐτῇ συναγελασθεῖσαν, τὴν λῃστρικὴν λέγω· ἣν οὗτος θειάζει, καὶ τὸν ταύτης ἡγεμόνα Διόσκορον καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ. Διέξεισι δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐν Καλχηδόνι σύνοδον, διασύρων ταύτην. Ἐξ ὧν ἔστι συμβαλεῖν Ἰωάννην εἶναι τὸν πατέρα τοῦ βιβλίου τὸν πρεσβύτερον τὸν Αἰγεάτην, ὃς καὶ ἰδίως ὡς αἱρετικὸς κατὰ τῆς ἐν Καλχηδόνι συνόδου βιβλίον συνέταξε. Τῆς μέντοι γε75 ἱστορίας αὐτοῦ δέκα τυγχάνουσι τόμοι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐπαγγέλλεται· ὧν ἡμῖν τοὺς πέντε γέγονεν ἀναγνῶναι, περιέχοντας, ὡς ἔφημεν, ἀπὸ τῆς Νεστορίου βλασφημίας μέχρι τῆς τοῦ αἱρετικοῦ Πέτρου καθαιρέσεως. ←76 | 77→ John Diakrinomenos’ Church History Testimonium Photios, Bibliotheca, cod. 41 I read the Church History of John. It starts from the reign of Theodosios the Younger,76 about the blasphemy and deposition of Nestorios,77 and goes down to Zeno78 and the deposition of Peter the heretic,79 who took over the see of Antioch. His style of writing is clear and florid. He goes into detail about the Third Synod at Ephesos,80 but also about that [synod] which gathered afterwards in the same city – I am referring to the Robber Synod.81 He reveres this synod as well as Dioskoros,82 its leader, and his party. He also expounds on the Synod of Chalcedon,83 disparaging it. On this basis, one can assume that the father of this book is John, the presbyter from Aigai,84 who, as a heretic, on his own account composed a book against the Synod of Chalcedon. His history in fact comes to ten books, as he himself states. Of those, we could read five, covering, as we said, from the blasphemy of Nestorios until the deposition of the heretic Peter. ←77 | 78→ Fragmentum Acta concilii Nicaeni secundi, actio V (ACO ii 3.2, 566, 12–24) Ἰωάννου τοῦ Διακρινομένου ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας. Μὴ γὰρ εῖναι θεμιτὸν ἔλεγεν ὁ Ξεναΐας ἀσωμάτους ὄντας ἀγγέλους σωματοποιεῖν καὶ ὡς ἐν μορφαῖς ἀνθρωπίναις ὑπάρχοντας ἐνσωμάτους τυποῦν, ἀλλὰ μὴν μηδὲ κἀκεῖνο νομίζειν, τιμὴν ἢ δόξαν ἐκνέμειν τῷ Χριστῷ τὴν διὰ γραφῆς αὐτῷ τεχνιτευομένην εἰκόνα· εῖναι δὲ μόνην αὐτῷ προσδεκτὴν εἰδέναι τὴν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ προσκύνησιν. καὶ μεθ’ ἕτερα· Εἰδέναι δὲ λέγει κἀκεῖνο, νηπιώδους εἶναι φρενὸς τὸ πλαστουργεῖν ἐν περιστερᾶς εἰδώλῳ τὸ πανάγιον καὶ προσκυνητὸν πνεῦμα, καίτοι τῶ͂ν εὐαγγελικῶν οὐδαμῶς παραδεδωκότων γραμμάτων ὅτι γέγονε περιστερὰ τὸ πνεῦμα, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς ὤφθη ποτέ· τὸ δὲ οἰκονομικῶς, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οὐσιωδῶς οὕτω πως ἐφάπαξ φανὲν οὐδαμῶς ἁρμόδιον τοῖς εὐσεβοῦσι ὡς σῶμα εἰδωλοποιεῖν. Ταῦτα Φιλόξενος διδάσκων ὁμοῦτῇ διδασκαλίᾳ καὶ τοῦργον ἐπέφερε. Πολλαχόθεν γοῦν ἀγγέλων μὲν εἰκόνας καταφέρων ἐξήλειφε, τὰς δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν τυπούσας εἰς ἀδύτους ἐταμίευε τόπους. ←78 | 79→ Fragment Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), Fifth Session From the Church History of John Diakrinomenos: For Xenaias85 was claiming that it was not righteous to make angels corporeal, on the grounds that they are incorporeal, or to represent them as corporeal, as if they are in human form, nor even to believe that honour or glory may be accorded to Christ by fabricating images of Him. For one should know that only adoration in spirit and truth86 is acceptable to Him. What is more: He also says that he considers to be childish the intention of representing the All-Holy and Worshipful Spirit in the shape of a dove, as the words of the Gospels by no means relate that the Spirit became a dove, but that it was once seen in the shape of a dove.87 And it appeared in such a way just the once symbolically, not in essence, so it is not in any way appropriate for the worshippers to make idols of it as if it were corporeal. Philoxenos was preaching this and brought the teaching into practice. He thus took down and destroyed images of angels everywhere, and those representing Christ he deposited in secret locations. ←79 | 80→ Epitome (ed. Hansen 1995, 152–157) ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΑΚΡΙΝΟΜΕΝΟΥ ΟΣΑ ΕΚ ΤΩΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΣΠΟΡΑΔΗΝ ΩΣ ΑΝΑΓΚΑΙΟΤΕΡΑ ΠΑΡΕΞΕΒΑΛΟΝ M ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΠΡΩΤΟΥ ΛΟΓΟΥ 1 [525] Σιλουανὸς ἐπίσκοπος τῶν Ὁμηρηνῶν μητράδελφος ὢν Ἰωάννου εἰς τὸ ἱστορίαν γράψαι αὐτὸν προετρέψατο. M 2 [526] Ἰωάννην τὸν Ἀντιοχέα ἐν τοῖς τοῦ θεάτρου Ἐφέσου τοίχοις λέγει τὴν Μέμνονος καὶ Κυρίλλου καθαίρεσιν προσπῆξαι. M 3 [527] Οἱ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ὀρθόδοξοι τῶν ὁδῶν φυλαττομένων, ἵνα μὴ δυνηθῶσιν ἀποκρίσεις ἐν Βυζαντίῳ πέμψαι, τὰς ἐπιστολὰς αὐτῶν ἐν καλάμῳ βαλόντες διὰ πτωχοῦ ἐπαιτοῦντος τοῖς τοῦ Βυζαντίου ἀπέστειλαν κληρικοῖς. M ←80 | 81→ Epitome I gathered from here and there such parts of John Diakrinomenos’ work as were essential. From the first book 1 [525] Silvanus,88 the bishop of the Homerenoi,89 John’s maternal uncle, urged him to write the History. 2 [526] He says that John of Antioch90 affixed the deposition91 of Memnon92 and Cyril93 to the walls of the theatre94 in Ephesos. 3 [527] As the roads were guarded, so that the orthodox95 in Ephesos could not send their responses to Byzantium,96 they had hidden their letters in a reed97 and sent them via a poor beggar to the clergy in Byzantium. ←81 | 82→ 4 [528] Σηπεδόνι τὸ σῶμα διεφθάρη Νεστόριος, καὶ ἀνακληθεὶς ἀπὸ Ὀάσεως ἐφ’ ᾧ μεταστῆναι εἰς ἕτερον τόπον τῷ θανάτῳ προέλαβε τὴν ἀνάκλησιν. MB ←82 | 83→ 4 [258] Nestorios died because his body was afflicted with decay.98 Although he was recalled from Oasis,99 on condition that he would move to another place, death took him before his recall.100 ←83 | 84→ 5 [529] Μετὰ τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἀνατολικοὺς συμβίβασιν συγγράψαι λέγει τὸν Θεοδώρητον τὰ κατὰ τῶν ιβʹ κεφαλαίων τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου. MB ΕΚ ΤΟΥ Βʹ ΛΟΓΟΥ M 6 [530] ՙΡαβουλᾶς Ἐδέσης ἐπίσκοπος τυφλὸςἦν. Ἀνδρέᾳ δὲ τῷ Σαμοσάτων ἐνεκάλει ὡς γράψαντι κατὰ τῶν ιβʹ κεφαλαίων Κυρίλλου. MB ←84 | 85→ 5 [529] He says that after the agreement with the eastern bishops,101 Theodoret102 wrote against the twelve chapters of St Cyril.103 From the second book 6 [530] Rabbula,104 bishop of Edessa,105 was blind. He accused Andrew of Samosata106 of having written against the twelve chapters of Cyril. ←85 | 86→ 7 [531] Ἰωάννης αὐτὸς ὁ σuγγράφων μέμφεται τῇ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ δευτέρᾳ συνόδῳ ὡς κακῶς δεξαμένῃ τὰ Εὐτυχῆ. M ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΤΡΙΤΟΥ <ΛΟΓΟΥ> M 8 [532] Πουλχερίαν λέγει ἐπιτρέψαι Ἀνατολίῳ τὸ Φλαβιανοῦ λείψανον <μετ>αγαγεῖν καὶ ἀποθέσθαι ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις καὶ τὸν Λέοντος τόμον συνοδικῶς βεβαιῶσαι πεπραγμένων συστάντων ἐπὶ Ἀνατολίου. M ←86 | 87→ 7 [531] The historian John blames the Second Synod in Ephesos107 for having wickedly accepted the doctrines of Eutyches.108 From the third book 8 [532] He says that Pulcheria109 entrusted to Anatolios110 the transfer of the remains of Flavian111 and their deposition in [the Church] of the Holy Apostles,112 and the synodical confirmation of the Tome of Leo113 by the actions of [those bishops] gathered around Anatolios. ←87 | 88→ 9 [533] Τῶν ἀρχόντων διαλαλησάντων ἐν Χαλκηδόνι ἐν τῷ σuνεδρίῳ καθίσαι τὸν Θεοδώρητον ὀργισθείς, ὡς λέγει, Διόσκορος ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐδάφους ἐκάθισεν. M ΕΚ ΤΟΥ Δʹ ΛΟΓΟΥ M 10 [534] Ἐπιστολὴν παρατίθεται ὡς ἀπὸ Θεοδωρήτου πρὸς Σούραν Γερμανικείας ἐπίσκοπον· ἐν ᾗ λέγει πεντακοσίους κʹ εἶναι τοὺς συνελθόντας ἐν Χαλκηδόνι. M ←88 | 89→ 9 [534] When the officials at Chalcedon proposed that Theodoret sit in the council, Dioskoros114 became irritated – he says – and sat on the ground. From the fourth book 10 [534] He mentions a letter from Theodoret to Soura,115 bishop of Germanikeia,116 in which he claims that there were 520 assembled at Chalcedon.117 ←89 | 90→ 11 [535] Οἱ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ μοναχοὶ περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Συμεῶνος μαθόντες ὅτι ἐπὶ κίονος ἵσταται, μεμψάμενοι τῷ ξένῳ τοῦ πράγματος (πρῶτος γὰρ αὐτὸς τοῦτο ἐπενόησεν) ἀκοινωνησίαν αὐτῷ ἔπεμψαν. Εἶτα ἐγνωκότες τὸν βίον τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ τὸ ἄτυφον πάλιν αὐτῷ ἐκοινώνησαν. MB 12 [536] Μαρκιανὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν σχήματι ἰδιώτου πρὸς τὸν ὅσιον Συμεῶνα ἀφανῶς παρεγένετο. MB ←90 | 91→ 11 [535] [When] the monks in Egypt learnt that St Symeon118 was standing on the pillar, they criticized this strange act (for he was the first to think of this) and sent him an act of excommunication. Once they understood the life of this man and its simplicity, they again entered into communion with him. 12 [536] Emperor Marcian119 secretly met with the blessed Symeon in the guise of a private person. ←91 | 92→ 13 [537] Γεννάδιον τὸν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον λέγει γράψαι κατὰ τῶν ιβʹ κεφαλαίων τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξανδρείας. M ΕΚ ΤΟΥ Εʹ ΛΟΓΟΥ M 14 [538] Δύο ἐπισκόπων ἀμφισβητούντων, ὀρθοδόξου καὶ Ἀρειανοῦ, καὶ τοῦ μὲν Ἀρειανοῦ διαλεκτικοῦ ὄντος, τοῦ δὲ ὀρθοδόξου θεοσεβοῦς καὶ πιστοῦ, ὁ ὀρθόδοξος προὔτεινεν ὥστε ἀφεμένους τῶν λόγων εἰς πυρὰν εἰσελθεῖν καὶ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ δειχθῆναι τὸν εὐσεβέστερον. Τοῦ δὲ Ἀρειανοῦ παραιτησαμένου αὐτὸς εἰσελθὼν ἀπὸ τῆς πυρᾶς διελέγετο καὶ ἀπαθὴς ἐφυλάττετο. MB 15 [539] Ἰωάννης οὗτος ὁ ἱστορῶν μακροὺς ἀποτείνει τοῦ Λαμπετίου καὶ τῶν Λαμπετιανῶν ἐπαίνους, ὡς δείκνυσθαι μηδὲ ταύτης αὐτὸν ἠλευθερῶσθαι τῆς λύμης. M 16 [540] Πέτρος ὁ Κναφεὺς ἐν Σελευκείᾳ τῇ ἐν Συρίᾳ ἐχειροτονήθη Ἀντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπος ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκεῖ εὑρεθέντων ἐπισκόπων, τούτους βιασαμένου τοῦ Πέτρῳ ἐπαμύναντος Ζήνωνος. M ←92 | 93→ 13 [537] He says that Gennadios,120 the bishop of Constantinople, wrote against the twelve chapters of St Cyril of Alexandria. From the fifth book 14 [538] Two bishops were having a dispute, one orthodox, the other Arian. The Arian was skilled in dialectics, while the orthodox was pious and faithful. The orthodox suggested stopping the dispute and walking into a fire to prove in this way who was more pious. When the Arian declined, the orthodox stepped into the fire, continued the discussion and remained unharmed. 15 [539] John the historian extends great praises to Lampetios121 and the Lampetians, thus showing that he is not free from that plague.122 16 [540] Peter the Fuller was ordained bishop of Antioch in Seleukeia123 in Syria by the bishops who were there. They were forced by Zeno, who was helping Peter. ←93 | 94→ 17 [541] Τοῖς ἐν Ἱεραπόλει μαρτυρεὶ καὶ μὴ θέλων ὅτι τοὺς μαγιστριανοὺς τοὺς ἐνέγκαντας τὸ ἔδικτον τοῦ Βασιλίσκου ἐφόνευσαν· τοιοῦτοι ἦσαν περὶ τὴν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι ὀρθοδοξίαν διάπυροι. M ΕΚ ΤΟΥ Ϲʹ ΛΟΓΟΥ M 18 [542] Πέτρον φησὶ τὸν Μογγὸν τὸ λείψανον Τιμοθέου τοῦ Σαλοφακιάλου ἀνορύξαι, ὅπερ ἱστορεῖ καὶ Θεόδωρος. MB 19 [543] Πέτρου τοῦ Μογγοῦ ἐκβληθέντος διὰ τὸ λαίψανον Τιμοθέου καὶ τὴν σύνοδον Ἰωάννης χειροτονεῖται. Καὶ τούτου δὲ ἐκβληθέντος πάλιν Πέτρος εἰσῆλθεν ὑποσχόμενος τὴν σύνοδον μὴ ἀναθεματίζειν. MB ←94 | 95→ 17 [541] With regard to the citizens of Hierapolis124, he testifies, in spite of himself, that they killed the magistranoi125 who brought the edict of Basiliskos.126 They were such ardent supporters of the orthodoxy of Chalcedon. From the sixth book 18 [542] He says that Peter Mongos127 dug up the remains of Timothy Salophakiolos;128 Theodore records the same.129 19 [543] John130 was ordained after Peter Mongos had been expelled, on account of [digging up] the remains of Timothy and the synod. And when John was again expelled, Peter entered office, promising he would not anathematize the synod. ←95 | 96→ 20 [544] Καλανδίωνα λέγει ἐν Βυζαντίῳ χειροτονηθῆναι συμφωνῶν τῷ Θεοδώρῳ. MB 21 [545] Καλανδίωνα λέγει προσθεῖναι τῷ τρισαγίῳ «Χριστὲ βασιλεῦ» διὰ τοὺς προστεθεικότας «ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς». MB 22 [546] Ἴβαν λέγει μεταβαλεῖν ἐν Σύροις τὰ Θεοδώρου τοῦ Μοψουεστίας συγγράμματα. M ←96 | 97→ 20 [544] He agrees with Theodore131 in saying that Kalandion132 was ordained in Byzantium. 21 [545] He says that Kalandion added ‘Christ the King’ to the words ‘who was crucified for us’ that had already been added to the Trisagion.133 22 [546] He says that Ibas134 translated the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia135 into Syriac. ←97 | 98→ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ Ζʹ ΛΟΓΟΥ M 23 [547] Πέτρον φησὶ τὸν Κναφέα ἐπινοῆσαι τὸ μύρον ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐπὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ ἁγιάζεσθαι καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδάτων ἐν τοῖς θεοφανίοις ἐπίκλησιν ἐν τῇ ἑσπέρᾳ γίνεσθαι καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῃ εὐχῇ τὴν θεοτόκον ὀνομάζεσθαι καὶ ἐν πάσῃ συνάξει τὸ σύμβολον λέγεσθαι. MB 24 [548] Ζήνωνα λέγει κελεύσαντα καταστρέψαι τὴν ἐν Ἐδέσῃ τῶν Περσῶν καλουμένην διατριβὴν ὡς τὰς Νεστορίου καὶ Διοδώρου καὶ Θεοδώρου παραδιδοῦσαν διδασκαλίας. MB 25 [549] Πάντων, ὡς λέγει, τῶν ἄλλων πατριαρχῶν συναινεσάντων τῷ ἑνωτικῷ τοῦ Ζήνωνος μόνος Φίλιξ ὁ ̔Ρώμης οὐκ ἐκοινώνησεν. MB 26 [550] Ξεναΐας ὁ Φιλόξενος οὔτε Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὔτε ἀγγέλου εἰκόνας ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ συνεχώρει ἀνατίθεσθαι. MP ΕΚ ΤΟΥ Ηʹ ΛΟΓΟΥ MP 27 [551] Κωάδης τὸν ἴδιον θεῖον Βλάσσον βασιλεύοντα τυφλώσας Περσῶν ἐβασίλευσεν. MP ←98 | 99→ From the seventh book 23 [547] He says that Peter the Fuller intended that the myron be consecrated among the entire laity in the church, and that the epiclesis be uttered over the water on the evening of Epiphany,136 the Mother of God be named in each prayer and the Apostles’ Creed be declared in every liturgy.137 24 [548] He says that Zeno ordered that the so-called school of the Persians in Edessa138 be closed down for delivering the teachings of Nestorios, Diodoros139 and Theodore. 25 [549] While all the other patriarchs, he says, agreed with Zeno’s Henotikon,140 only Felix141 of Rome did not enter into communion. 26 [550] Xenaias Philoxenos agreed that neither the images of Christ as God nor those of angels should be put up in church. From the eighth book 27 [551] Kabades142 became king of [the] Persians, after having blinded king Balash,143 his own uncle. ←99 | 100→ 28 [552] Ἀναστάσιος ὁ βασιλεὺς Κωάδου χρήματα παρ’ αὐτοῦ ζητήσαντος ἀπεκρίνατο, εἰ μὲν δανείσασθαι βούλοιτο, γραμματεῖον ποῖησαι, εἰ δὲ ἄλλως, οὐ δίδωσιν· καὶ ὅτι διὰ τοῦτο Κωάδης κατὰ ̔Ρωμαίων ἐστράτευσεν. MBP 29 [553] Ἀναστάσιος ἀνέστειλε τὸ χρυσάργυρον καὶ τὰ κυνήγια ἔπαυσεν καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ὠνίους οὔσας προῖκα παρεῖχεν. MBP 30 [554] Μέρος τοῦ λειψάνου Σεργίου τοῦ μάρτυρος τὸν μέγαν δάκτυλον πέμψας <…>144 ἔλαβεν Ἀναστάσιος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Σεργιούπολιν τὴν πόλιν ὠνόμασε καὶ μητροπόλεως αὐτῇ πα