Отдел 5. Письма Феодорита

- General characteristics of them. – Review of collections and editions of the previously preserved correspondence of the Bishop of Cyrrhus. a) usually not designated by the name of Theodoret, b) falsely assimilated to him - inauthentic (170 and 121 cap. Synodicon’a and Nos. 172 and 180 Ar. Migne) and c) unjustly taken from him (Nos. 110 and 86, part of the 83rd, 112 and 181 Ar. Migne). – A note regarding the use of Theodorite letters as historical material. A prominent church and public figure who took a significant part in all the most important events of his time, who had constant and close contacts with many persons of different ranks and statuses, Theodoret necessarily had to enter into frequent written communications on certain occasions and subjects. And, indeed, a significant part of his enormous correspondence has reached us, for which its author, in all fairness, can be placed in the ranks of the glorious epistolographers of the Greek Church, such as: Basil the Great, Synesius of Ptolemais, St. Isidore Pelusiot, Patr. Photius, Theophylact of Bulgaria and others. In his letters we find the same depth and universality of thoughts, precision and clarity of expressions, correct roundness and Attic pleasantness of style, which distinguish all the works of the brilliant pen of the Cyrrhus ruler. But (besides this) they are interesting to us in many other respects. Like all messages of Christian antiquity 2294, they were not only intimate outpourings of thoughts and feelings in the form of free conversation, but also had a broader purpose, having the character of purely literary works. Often they represent entire theological treatises on very significant issues and even more often, with frank ease, they depict the state of the era, the prevailing moods and trends in society, illuminate the dark sides of the then church-political phenomena, give original and typical portraits of outstanding people of their century, depict the position and attitude of the author to persons and incidents, and this is very important in view of his high rank, etc. All this passes before our eyes with that vividness and relief, which we will never meet in any modern historical work. Hence, we think, the church-historical meaning (in the most general sense of these terms) of Theodoret’s letters is quite clear, which naturally raises the need for a possibly serious critical-bibliographic review of them. The letters of the Bishop of Cyrrhus that have survived to this day do not cover all of his correspondence, as can be concluded from his epist. 79 2295, 81 and 96 2296, 83 2297, 85(?) 2298, 110 2299, 147 2300 are. Migne, Synodicon, cap. 110 2301, and No. 1, 4 2302 ar. Σακκελίων., which indicate the existence of at least seven or eight of his messages that are now lost. Nicephorus Callistus reports that at one time (in the 14th century) he read more than five hundred Theodorite letters, 2303 - and this, according to the strength of the evidence given, is far from incredible. Everything that has reached us from the correspondence of the Kirr Shepherd is available in three collections. I. The oldest of them comes from the first publishers of the works of Theodoret; it is reprinted in Volume 83 of the Greek Patrology Series of Min and contains No. 181 2304. II. Another part of Theodorite's letters was also known a very long time ago in Latin in a set of ancient church-historical documents called Synodicon adversus tragoediam Irenaei 2305; there are about 23 new copies of 2306 and seven duplicates of 2307, often very deviating from the editorship of the previous, Minevsky, text. III. In 1885, this number increased by 47 issues, thanks to the happy bibliographic discovery of the curator of manuscripts of the National Library of Athens, John Sakkelion, who had previously established himself in this area by publishing Justin's work Περὶ ψυχῦς and the letters of a certain Gnostic. In the Patmos Monastery of St. John the Theologian, he found an old manuscript with messages from 16 different authors of the Christian era and between them, after Isidore Pelusiot and Alexander of Nicea and before Gregory of Nyssa, in third place - 52 Theodorite letters, which were preceded by the following note: Ἐπιστολαὶ τοῦ μακαριωτάτου Θεοδωρήτου ἐπισκόπου Κύρου and concluded with the words: Τέλος τῶν ἐπιστολῶν Θεοδωρήτου ἐπισκόπου Κύρου. Having examined this curious monument, Sakkelion extracted from it 48, in his opinion, completely new numbers, provided them with notes and, together with the preface and discrepancies of the remaining four, as already known (= 19, 20, 22 and 23 numbers of Min), published them in Athens in 1885 (Τοῦ μακαριωτάτου Θεοδωρήτου, ἐπισκόπου Κύρου, Ἐπιστολαὶ δυοῖν δεούσαιν πεντήκοντα ἐκ Πατμιακοῦ χειρογράφου τεύχους νῦν πρῶτον τύποις ἐκδιδόμεναι ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου Σακκελίωνος ἐπιμελητοῦ τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς ἐϑνικῆς βιβλιοϑηκῆς. Ἀϑήνησιν, ἐκ τοῦ τυπογραφείου τῶν ἀδελφῶν Πεῤῥῆ αωπε´ Σελ. η´ + 45, in-8) 2308 . All these publications do not have the proper serviceability that would be necessary for scientific purposes. Thus, in Min’s collection, which has been criticized more than others by scholars from the textual side, up to half of the biblical quotations are not indicated and in half of those noted under the line, the references are made incorrectly. As for Synodicona, it actually has three reviews - Lupa 2309, Garnier 2310 and Baluza 2311 and often leaves much to be desired. And this very interesting and important vault has been almost completely unexplored and represents a considerable mystery 2312. However, its reliability is no lower than other similar ancient monuments. Tilmon notes in this regard: “one cannot think that Irenaeus of Tyre (when collecting various messages) was deceived by other falsifiers, for he knew all of them in the original” 2313. It goes without saying that this judgment should be accepted only in the most general sense - and its meaning should not be extended to each individual chapter, which we will see a little lower. Finally, the publication of Sakkelion, which was greeted with sympathy by the local Greek press 2314, is far from perfect. His critical weakness is sufficiently evidenced by the fact that he considers No. 16 – Νόμῳ ὑπάτῳ 2315 to have appeared nowhere, although it literally coincides with No. 58 Minya 2316, and thinks that the text: love covers a multitude of sins is not in the Bible 2317, meanwhile it is 1 Pet. IV, 8. Some corrections were required, which were made by Ζῆκος Ῥώσης 2318 and Mr. Georgiadis 2319, but even after them the edition of Sakkelion causes a lot of confusion 2320. In addition, some letters of Theodoret have been preserved, either intact or in fragments: a) in the translation of Marius Mercator, seven numbers 2321, which are equal to 172, 173, 177, 178, 174, 175 and 176 in Min; this version does not tell us anything new, but sometimes deviates greatly from other editions; Mercator, for his part, provided his work with some explanations, which in most cases are biased and not trustworthy; b) in the acts of the third ecumenical council there are four numbers (= 149, 169, 151, 150 Minya) 2322; c) in the Syrian “acts” of the robber council No. 151 2323 and No. 86 2324, the first with some omissions against the Greek original, and the second with a small addition; d) in acts of the fifth ecumenical council No. 16, 151, 162, 171, 172 and 180 2325 Minya; f) in the letter of Pope Pelagius II (written by Gregory the Great) to Elijah of Aquileia 2326 - brief extracts from numbers 172, 174, 175 and 178; f) in the Syriac manuscripts of the British Museum (in London) - a letter to Nestorius (No. 12.156, fol. 67 a, and No. 14.532, fol. 30 a. 31 a) 2327 and extracts from a letter to Dioscorus (No. 12.156, fol. 67 b. 68 b) 2328; Besides this, we don’t know anything about them yet and therefore, before publication in full, we cannot say anything decisively certain either on the question of their authenticity, or regarding their relationship to the already existing excerpts from the correspondence of the Bishop of Cyrrhus with the indicated persons. Only regarding the first, it is not incredible to assume that it coincides with the 172nd letter of Min. According to Wright's catalogue, message No. 12, 156, fol. 67 a begins approximately with these words: “I am not carried away by the place in the region, I am not captivated by tranquility, glory, the exalted seat, I hope for your holiness, with the help of which (being confident in which).” This comes very close to the introduction of Theodoret's letter to Nestorius, preserved in the acts of the fifth council and in Marius Mercator: Quod non urbana conversatione delector, nec saeculari curatione, nec gloria, nec altis sedibus sum alligatus (Quod urbana me convensatio et obsequium gloriaque non superet, nec excelsis indigeam sedibus), arbitror scire tuam (tuam cognoscere) sanctitatem 2329. After all this, we get 258–259 (181 ar. Migne + 23 Synodicon’a + 47 ar. Σακκελίων. + 7–8 supposed) numbers 2330, i.e. approximately 250 less than the collection of more than five hundred Theodorite letters that Nicephorus Callistus had. But even from this quantity, some are appropriated by others, others are falsely attributed to the Kirrhus shepherd, and others are no less unjustly taken away from him. The first category includes numbers 152–161 (epistles of the Ephesian figures of 431). 163–168, 170 (them from Chalcedon), 17 in total, which were sent by several members of the apostate council, although perhaps their edition belongs to Theodoret 2331, as is most likely assumed regarding No. 149 2332. We include 170 and 121 caps in the second class. Synodicon'a and Nos. 172 and 180 are. Migne. In the first letter, Theodoret asks Nestorius to persuade the stubborn Bishop of Hierapolis Alexander to make concessions towards reconciliation with St. Kirill - and this alone shows that the present letter, if not outright forged, is extremely doubtful in its attribution to the Kirrhus shepherd. It is difficult and almost impossible to imagine that the heresiarch of Constantinople had a more moderate view of the ruler of Alexandria than the Metropolitan of Euphrates. In view of this, Theodoret could in no way count on the fact that Nestorius would convince Alexander to accept “Εὐφραινέσϑωσαν,” where his teaching about the Mother of God is so clearly refuted, or John’s answer “Πρώην ἐκ ϑεσπίσματος”, in which he is directly anathematized. In general, Nestorius never expressed the slightest desire to assimilate and approve the Christology of St. Cyril, - and this was well known to the Bishop of Kirre. The second letter, addressed to the same person, has survived to us in three editions - in the Synodicon, cap. 120 2333, in the acts of the fifth ecumenical council 2334 and in Marius Mercator 2335; part of it is also given by Pope Pelagius II 2336. This message refers to the moment after the union of the “Eastern” with St. Cyril, when Theodoret himself recognized his teaching, formulated in sociable letters, as Orthodox, and Nestorius was in exile (in exilio). Garnier thinks that the last indication implies the presence of this heretic in the monastery of St. Euprepius, near Antioch, until 434–435; Baluz believes that this is a link to Oasis, which happened much later than 2337, which must necessarily lead to the rejection of the document in question, because at that time Theodoret could not have been in correspondence with Nestorius, who had lost all respect in the eyes of even those people who had previously somewhat sympathized with him. But even with Garnier’s unlikely hypothesis, the message being analyzed does not acquire any greater rights to authenticity. Firstly, it seems very doubtful that Theodoret would decide to apologize to Nestorius for his approval of Christological views, which were intolerant for that; even if we admit this, one would at least expect that the author would try to win over the stubborn heretic to his side, which in fact is not the case. Secondly, rude and offensive remarks about St. Cyril are hardly possible in the Bishop of Cyrrhus after the Orthodoxy of the Alexandrian hierarch became an indisputable truth for Theodoret, and meanwhile in epist. 172 we read the following phrases: “I quite often re-read the Egyptian letters, analyzed them with precision and found that they were free from heretical bitterness, and was afraid to put any stain on them, hating, of course, like anyone else, the father of these letters, as the culprit of disturbances in the universe.” Theodoret should rather regret, but not hate, because hatred was completely incompatible with his firm conviction in the purity of the Christological opinions of St. Cyril, who in his eyes, at least since 433, was a champion of the apostolic faith. Thirdly, it is strange that along with Nestorius, the brotherhood that is with him is also welcomed, which, of course, he did not have even after his imprisonment in the Antioch monastery. In general, any correspondence between Theodoret and Nestorius is extremely dubious, as ancient authors have already stated. Also St. Cyril persistently warned his friends regarding documents compromising the “Eastern”, and he directly wrote to Valerian of Iconium: “If you find those who falsely claim that they think contrary to what is indicated in the conditions of the world, absolutely do not believe their words, but, as deceivers and liars, send them to their father the devil, so as not to confuse those who want to follow the right path. And if they decided to compose letters themselves and pass them off as published by famous men (and wasn’t Theodoret one?), then such insolence must be stopped by all means. For, if they once set out in a letter the confession of their faith, then how is it possible that they began to write the opposite, expressing, as it were, regret that they no longer want the right to think? 2338. Thus, even in the very era of the “union,” daring forgeries were committed on behalf of prominent members of the “eastern” party, where Theodoret occupied one of the first places. That it was he who suffered more than others from low falsifiers, this is stated with complete certainty by Leontius of Byzantium, who says: “You also need to know that there are some letters from Theodoret and Nestorius circulating, in which they accept each other; but they are fictitious: they are invented by heretics in order to fight the council with them” 2339. This evidence, despite its late origin, is extremely important in this matter, for Leontius carefully studied and knew well everything related to Nestorianism and Eutychianism. It is true that Tilmon tries to deprive this testimony of its full significance, 2340 but his arguments are not very strong. He refers, among other things, to the fact that Synodicon, from a scientific point of view, is a collection of authentic documents. “Irenaeus,” he notes, “was a man of such character that it is impossible to suspect him of forgeries without irrefutably strong evidence, and it is impossible to assume that he was deceived by others, since he knew all these monuments in the originals.” All this, of course, is true, but it has only relative significance - and Synodicon, reliable in general, may turn out to be a bad guarantor in some particular cases. Then, Tilmon draws attention to the fact that, according to Leontius, the Theodorite letters were composed to undermine the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and from the existence of their version in Marius Mercator, it must be concluded that they were in circulation somewhat earlier. We agree that Mercator was engaged in his translations until 451, although this is not known with complete certainty; Let us also agree that Leontius means the Council of Chalcedon, and not Ephesus, as the Reverend thought. Filaret 2341: – and then we do not completely lose ground in defending our opinion. Why not admit that the Monophysitist falsifiers wanted to smear with their fabrication first one whom they hated, Theodoret, and then used it to fight the council that acquitted him? Such a maneuver is as natural as it is understandable in opponents of the universal definitions of 451. Sar. 121 of the Synodicon is not directly learned by the Bishop of Cyrrhus, but its connection with the previous chapter shows that he was also the author of this document, according to the thoughts of the collector 2342. This letter is an unusually harsh and unfair criticism of the sociable message of St. Cyril, which is hailed as the greatest act of shameless hypocrisy and heretical impiety. For this purpose, here are ten excerpts from “Εὐφραινέσϑωσαν” 2343 and between them - quotes from the Antiochian Symbol 2344, all of which are accompanied by sarcastic, caustic and mockingly disparaging remarks. Such an attitude towards the conciliatory letters of the Alexandrian archpastor is absolutely impossible in Theodoret; From the very first moment of their publication, he considered them an Apostolic Orthodox confession and, even to the detriment of his influence in the “East,” he energetically defended their dogmatic correctness both before friends and enemies. And in the most seductive and suspicious passages of correspondence from the Bishop of Cyrrhus, we will not find the slightest hint that he dared to think anything unkind about “Εὐφραινέσϑωσαν.” It is even less possible that he would dare to disgrace the Antiochian symbol, which in all likelihood is recognized as his creation. In any case, even if this is not certain, it remains an indisputable scientific axiom that he looked at this document as a completely accurate statement of the universal faith on Christological issues and placed it entirely in epist. 151 under your own name. For the strength of all these considerations, we expressly reject the authorship of cap by Theodoret. 121 Synodicon and are inclined to assimilate it from the pen of Alexander of Hierapolis. This obstinate metropolitan never believed in the sincerity of the “conversion” (according to the view and terminology of the extreme Antiochians) of St. Kirill and, in particular, always spoke very harshly about his εἰρηνικὰ γράμματα in the same spirit that permeates Chapter 121. Thus, he declared to Theodoret: Andrei Samosatsky “sent me a letter of your piety to him, where it is stated that the Egyptian anathematizes those who call the divinity of Christ passive, as well as those who allow the confusion and dissolution of two natures. I don’t see anything like that in Cyril’s letter, but, on the contrary, I find that both at the beginning, and in the middle, and at the end, he fights for his chapters and other works, in which he imprinted his wickedness” 2345. Another time, along with these thoughts, he quite clearly expressed his suspicion regarding the Antiochian creed of 2346. All this makes our opinion more than probable. If we consider cap. 121, then we will see in it a revelation and confirmation of the view expressed in the excerpt just given. With number four we move on to a later time, to the year 444, for this is Theodoreti ad Ioannem Archiepiscopum Antiochiae epistola scripta, cum mortuus esset Cyrillus archiepiscopus Alexandriae. This letter is known to us only from the Latin edition of the acts of the fifth ecumenical council of 2347 and is the most mysterious monument from the entire mass of Theodorit’s literary works that have survived to us. Its authenticity is just as strenuously defended by some 2348 as it is stubbornly denied by others 2349 - and this question remains so divided to this day. We personally side with the latter, since, apart from the fact of the existence of the Latin version, the former did not actually present any arguments in their favor, if we do not take into account their biased prejudice against the Bishop of Cyrrhus. But even this only foundation of the scientists we understand contains something unintelligible that weakens its evidentiary power. The fact is that the letter about the death of St. Cyril is addressed to John of Antioch, meanwhile, the latter died before him, in 441 or 442, which is why the Roman publishers of the conciliar acts noted this fragment as forged 2350. True, Peter de Marca, Archbishop. Parizhsky argued that the fault for this inconsistency lies in the malfunction of the existing manuscripts and that in the original there was, of course, the name Domna 2351, but still this is just a guess, not yet justified by any factual data, which are all against it. Then, as we have said more than once, the testimony of the Fifth Council regarding the works of Theodoret means only that in 553 they were in circulation, but does not in the least indicate their undoubted authenticity, which was not even discussed then. And it’s strange that until this time letter 180 was not mentioned anywhere by anyone, although there were countless reasons for this. Immediately after the death of St. Cyril, a terrible Monophysite storm arises, the heretics furiously attack the Bishop of Cyrrhus and are looking for all means to completely soil him: - and, however, they do not disturb this message. This is very important in the present case, since the Monophysites saw the grave crime of the Bishop of Cyrrhus precisely in his disrespect for St. Kirill, although they could not justify their accusation, meanwhile, it would have been enough for them only to refer to this document. Marius Mercator was an authoritative expert on the apocryphal Theodorite literature, but in our case he remains stubbornly silent. The Chalcedonian fathers, in the face of the Monophysites, solemnly justified the Cyrrhus shepherd, proclaimed by that arch-heretic: - and neither they themselves nor the enemies of Theodoret thought to remember such a shameful letter. The conclusion that arises from this is supported by the very content of the message being analyzed. St. Cyril is depicted here as a plague and reproach of the sons of Israel, as an inveterately incorrigible wicked man who never showed signs of repentance, for he descended into the underworld with the same new dogmas that he preached throughout his life. Theodoret often allowed himself to be harsh regarding the Christological views of St. Cyril, but only regarding the “chapters” and only until 433. After his reconciliation with him, he was irrevocably convinced of his “dogmatic accuracy,” which he declares with such sincerity in epist. 83 - to his harsh accuser Dioscorus 2352, and from that moment he never changed his opinion: not a single negative authority can be brought against this, meanwhile, all scientifically reliable facts are in his favor. If so, then he was even less able to think differently in 444, when there were absolutely no motives for this, a ex nihilo nihil fit. Equally, Theodoret could not reproach St. Cyril and in the fact that he “surrounds the immortal nature with death,” when in the sociable message of the Bishop of Alexandria, which he approved, it was directly proclaimed that God the Word suffered for humanity, with the decisive elimination of theopaschytism. From the factual side, the document being analyzed raises a lot of bewilderment. Its author reports that St. Even before his death, Kirill “did not calm down from his evils, but died, attempting greater and worse ones. For he was delirious to disturb the reigning city, and again to oppose pious dogmas, and to accuse your holiness, which honors them.” History has not preserved for us even the most vague news that would reveal at least some of this tricky riddle: it appears before us as something completely unexpected and incredible. But all these considerations, very weighty, in our judgment, are significantly inferior to those that necessarily follow from letter 180, if you look at it from a moral point of view. This is not only “caustic satire,” as Prof. called it. Al. P. Lebedev 2353, but also the dirtiest and most vile pamphlet that has ever appeared in the world. The entire message is filled with the most rude antics towards the deceased saint and is capable of deeply disturbing even the most undemanding moral feeling. The author's indecent mockery strikes the reader all the more sharply because it is directed against a person shackled in deathly silence. Such cynical abuse of the deceased, unforgivable for an ordinary person, is morally impossible for Theodoret. According to the most tendentious writers, he was at least not devoid of nobility, and letter 180 is an example of human baseness. The Kirrian shepherd did not hide his convictions, did not trade on his likes and dislikes, and always spoke the truth loudly and bluntly, shunning dark slander. Having himself suffered a lot from the intrigues of intrigue, he did not like underground paths and went out to fight enemies with an open face, but was unable to beat someone who was lying speechless and lifeless. If he did not allow himself such shameful actions during the life of St. Cyril, then after his death he absolutely could not allow this: otherwise he would cease to be himself, and we would not be able to somehow reconcile this new image of the daring “satirist” with the moral personality of Theodoret, known to us. Therefore, when Neander finds that Epistle 180 bears the indelible stamp of the character of the Cyrrhus shepherd, this only shows that, as a Protestant historian, he either cannot, or (what is more correct) does not want to understand this great hierarch of the ancient Church: he wants to see in Theodoret not a definite historical figure, but some kind of restless oppositionist, always restless and with no one and nothing irreconcilable. Therefore, the laurels placed by Neander on the brow of the Bishop of Cyrrhus, essentially the worst of thorns, are not at all deserved by them. Finally, the letter to John-Domnus is composed very awkwardly and exposes the fabrication of people who sought to imitate someone else's tone. So, already the beginning and the end of it represent something incompatible: in the first one hears some kind of wild rage and perfectly swear words are poured out; the second is imbued with the spirit of forgiveness and loving prayer to the Most High for the salvation of the sinner. Such different, even mutually exclusive, feelings on one known occasion are hardly conceivable in a person like Theodoret, who, admittedly, was not like the changeable “chameleons.” Likewise, the author’s advice to the addressee is “to order the society of bearers of the dead to lay some greatest and heaviest stone, so that he (St. Cyril) does not come here again and again begin to prove unsteady opinions” - this advice, devoid of decent wit, is absurd, because it is unfulfillable: no one, of course, would allow the enemies of the ruler of Alexandria to erect shameful monuments on his sacred tomb in the capital of Egypt. No less than this, a malicious falsification is revealed in the case when, having made it a rule that “good people move there ahead of time, and evil ones live for a long time,” the writer continues that the Ruler of our souls, knowing the malice of St. Cyril, which was daily increasing and harming the body of the Church, made an exception for him and did not leave him to enjoy what seemed to be entertainment any longer. Theodoret could not assert such a historical inaccuracy, since he knew well that St. Cyril occupied the See of Alexandria for about thirty-two years and died at a venerable old age. All these arguments convince us that letter 180 is a forgery by Theodorite’s opponents, who aroused controversy about the “three chapters.” Due to the fact that neither Marius Mercator nor the Chalcedonian fathers mention him, the time of his appearance must be placed between the fourth and fifth ecumenical councils and, most likely, during the era of unrest due to the triad of Antiochian teachers, i.e. in the first half of the 6th century. But, in distinguishing the genuine from the counterfeit, we must not go too far and take away from Theodoret what belongs to him. We notice such excessive enthusiasm in Martin, who assimilates Domna’s pen Nos. 110 and 86. Regarding the first letter, the basis for the named French scientist is the author’s phrase that he consecrated Irenaeus as bishop, Metropolitan of Tire 2354. Of course, such an act on the part of an insignificant pastor in terms of his pulpit and position in the church hierarchy, as Theodoret was de jure, is somewhat unusual and does not agree with the practice that prevailed in Christian antiquity, but given the circumstances of the time it is quite natural 2355. In addition, in the very content of the message 110, Martin finds an indication that its author, mentioning his predecessors on the apostolic throne he occupied, names among them Alexander, who was the ruler of Antioch, which means that the compiler of the message 2356 was the same. We are talking here about the next place epist. 110: Εἰς δὲ τὸ τῆς διγαμίας (τοῦ Εἰρηναίου) τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν ἠκολουϑήσαμεν. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ τῆς μακαρίας καὶ ὁσίας μνήμης Ἀλέξανδρος, ὁ τὸν ἀποστολικὸν τοῦτον διακοσμήσας ϑρόνον ,.. τὸν τῆς μακαρίας μνήμης Διογένην ἐχειροτόνησε δίγαμον ὄντα 2357. If you look closely at this text, it is easy to notice that in the first case it is said about ancestors in general who lived somewhere earlier, and in the latter - about the chair of the addressee, and not the correspondent himself, who would rather say ἡμέτερον, but not τοῦτον, which is actually found in Theodoret in relation to Isidore of Cyrrhus 2358. Therefore, Martin’s courage does not incline us in his favor, and we continue to believe in the truth of the testimony of the manuscripts about Theodoret as the author of letter 110 to Domnus of Antioch. Much more serious are the objections to the authenticity of No. 86. Martin puts forward 2359 the observation that in the Syrian acts of the Council of Robbers an almost literally similar copy of the letter of Domnus of Antioch to Flavian of Constantinople 2360 is reported. Now the question is: what is more fair - the testimony of the manuscripts of Theodorite's works, or the testimony of the Syrian monument? We are not able to answer completely positively, but in support of the previous opinion, which has the authority of prescription behind it, we will point out only one difficulty to which Martin’s assumption inevitably leads. According to the Syrian version, Dioscorus not only allowed Domnos to be anathematized in his presence, but also with his own word confirmed this godless sentence 2361. If so, then how could the Antiochian primate be at the council of 448 as an equal member and why did Dioscorus, when he refused to appear there allegedly due to illness, consider it necessary to send him rulings on the case of Willow, Daniel, Irenaeus and Theodoret and demanded his signature 2362? Of course, it was not in jest that Dioscorus cursed Domnos and, not for the sake of curiosity or mockery, he called him to participate in the meetings and wanted to see his name among those who recognized the “murder” of the “eastern” bishops. We do not see the possibility of scientifically resolving these perplexities with the hypothesis of Martin, who did not pay due attention to this; therefore, until a way out of these difficulties is discovered, we will consider letter 86 to be Theodorite’s work. True, the shepherd of Cyrrhus, whom Dioscorus undoubtedly anathematized in 2363, sought a place at the robber council in 2364, but we must not forget that this was decisively refused to him in 2365. The strangeness of the defense of the prerogatives of the See of Antioch in the mouth of Theodoret, noted by the French scientist, is easily explained by the fact that, after the death of John, he, in essence, was the actual ruler of the “East” under the nominal Domna. And we see that, even being exiled to his diocesan city, the Bishop of Cyrrhus intercedes for the Bishop of Antioch when the patrician Anatoly informed him of the slander being spread in the capital against him and himself 2366. Finally, it is undeniable that until the end of 449 Theodoret was in written relations with Flavian of Constantinople. Together with the deputation from the “Easterns” that was sent to the capital of the empire to intercede for the innocently injured Cyrrhus primate, the latter sent several messages and, by the way, Flavian notified that even earlier, “in other letters” (δι’ ἑτέρων γραμμάτων), he made known about the intrigues directed against him 2367. We have no other “letter” than epist. 86, which in its content would be in harmony with the given instructions. In conclusion, it should be mentioned that, according to Martin 2368, the differences in the editions arose from the fact that letter 86 is a conciliar letter, which is why it was allegedly subjected, depending on the addressee, to appropriate changes, in the form of abbreviations or additions. This explanation is not entirely applicable to this case, since according to both lists this message is intended for one person - Flavian of Constantinople. Due to such uncertainty, it is currently impossible to reconstruct the complete original of this document. However, it must be admitted that the note of the Syrian editors about the elevation of presbyter Photius to the Tire metropolitanate on the 9th of Elul (September) 448 2369 is fully justified by other historical news, for this bishop participated in the Tyro-Virite-Tyrian commission on the case of Iva 2370 and, therefore, was installed in the place of Irenaeus earlier than February 449. As for the difference in the instructions of the authors of the letter in question, then, not being able to explain this circumstance in a scientific way, we are inclined to think that it did not occur maliciously. The epistle was written with the authority and dignity of the spiritual ruler of the “East”, as Theodoret was under Domna, and therefore it could easily have happened that the translator considered the Greek copy he had to be faulty and inserted the name of the Archpastor of Antioch instead of what was in his original. If Martin’s guess is correct, then we can also add that the Syrian acts preserved for us the name of the chairman of the council, and in the Greek text we have the actual author of letter 86. In Sirmond's edition there are no five lines of epist 83 to Dioccorus 2371, which says that under John of Antioch Theodoret twice confirmed the condemnation of Nestorius (Ὅτι δὲ... πειρώμενοι) 2372, why some suspicion of their authenticity is conceivable 2373. But the content of this fragment is so well consistent with historical circumstances 2374 that one should rather assume an arbitrary omission in the Sirmond manuscript - an omission made by a person to whom this fact was unpleasant. Except No. 186 are. Migne and cap. 176 Synodicon, Rev. Filaret (Gumilevsky) also denies 2375 the authenticity of Nos. 112 and 181, of which the first, which has come down to us in the Greek text, is addressed to Domnus 2376, and the second, first published in Latin by Baronius 2377, is intended for Bishop Abundius, legate of Pope Leo the Great 2378. No reasons are given to support this opinion, since the reference to Leontius of Byzantium and St. Cyril is completely inappropriate and inapplicable to these messages, since there we are talking about correspondence with Nestorius, but here there is not a word about him. One can only insist that the preposition is epist. 151 - Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is not a letter, but a separate treatise, as we tried to argue above 2379. Theodoret's letters represent rich and important church-historical material, but for their correct use in scientific interests, a special study of them from different angles would be required, similar to that given by Garnier in cap. V Dissert. II, § V 2380. Due to the complexity and difficulty of this task, we do not undertake this work, which would take a lot of time and would divert us too far from our immediate goal - a general overview of the works of the Cyrrhus Shepherd. To do this, one would need to write a rather voluminous volume with the risk of saying more conjectural and fortune-telling than accurate and reliable. We consider it possible only to warn that Garnier’s reasoning on this subject is extremely tendentious, and all the ancient reviews in general (Du-Pin, Tilmont, Seillier) are largely outdated. Here's one example. Previously, almost everyone attributed the moment of Theodoret’s administrative installation in Kirre to the year 445 2381 - and, according to this, the time of birth, consecration as a bishop and other facts of his life and activity, known to us from his messages, were determined. Only after the opening and publication of the Syrian acts of the Robber Council, Martin for the first time established the exact date of this event - June - July 448 2382, and then many episodes of the biography of the Cyrrhus ruler received new terms and a different meaning, and in the corresponding letters there were significant movements along chronological points. Therefore, Theodorit’s correspondence must be used with critical caution and legibility and not accept bona fide the conclusions of ancient researchers of the letters of the Bishop of Cyrrhus. For more details, see the article by Prof. Al. P. Lebedeva: “The profession of a church writer and bookmaking in ancient Christian times” (Addendum to the Creation of the Holy Fathers, 1888, vol. XLVIII, pp. 234–238, and in separate prints pp. 82–86). M. 83, 1256. A-B: “Recently we let know (ἐγνωρίσαμεν) your nobility (patrician Anatoly) that those who were with the most magnificent committee Rufus showed us a letter written by the royal hand, which told the most courageous military leader to escort us to Cyrrhus to live there.” There is now no letter with such content addressed to Anatoly. Epist. 81 (M. 88, 1260. B): “I wrote twice already, but did not receive an answer (δὶς μὲν γὰρ ἤδη γεγραφςώς, ἀντιγράφων οὐχ ἔτυχον), meanwhile, by royal decision, I am forbidden to cross the borders of the Kirrhus region.” Epist. 96 (M. 83, 1289. B): “Twice, I think even three times, I have already written to you (δὶς μὲν ἤδη γράψας, οἶμαι δ’ ὅτι καὶ τρίς), but received no answer.” Probably in both of these cases the same, now lost, letter of Theodoret to the patrician Nomus is meant. M. 83, 1273. A-B: “Having read (St. Cyril’s treatise on the scapegoat and the essay against Julian) not without surprise, I wrote to Cyril (of Alexandria) of blessed memory - and he answered me, testifying to his accuracy (dogmatic) and disposition towards me; I still have these letters.” From correspondence between Theodoret and St. Kirill didn’t reach us with anything. M. 83, 1277. A: “We wrote to both Cilicia (εἰς μέντοι Κιλικίαν ἑκάτεραν γεγράφαμεν), although we did not know for sure whether there were really those who thought contrary to the truth there.” At present, we have only one letter of Theodoret τοῖς ἐν Κιλικίᾳ ἑπισκόποις (No. 84: Μ. 83, 1276): if we recognize it as district, which is not prevented by the content, then the evidence is epist. 85 may be applied to him in full force. However, this is just a guess. M. 83, 1305. Q: “I find it necessary to write to the clergy who wrote to me from the reigning city (on the matter of the Metropolitan of Tyre) that, obeying the decision of the most God-loving bishops of Phenicia, I consecrated the most God-loving Bishop Irenaeus.” Regarding the latter, Theodoret’s letters to Constantinople have not survived. M. 83, 1409. A: “I responded to previous letters from your holiness immediately upon receipt.” This evidence cannot exactly relate to epist. 133 (M. 83, 1349, 1352) and therefore forces us to assume that there were also letters from the Bishop of Cyrrhus to John of Germanicia. M. 84, 722. Q: “I wrote once and a second time about what was happening, demanding a general meeting, announcing my intention and asking to notify me of the intention of your holiness, and, however, was not rewarded with an answer.” Among the existing letters of Theodoret to Helladius of Tarsus (Synodicon, cap. 54, 160) we do not find any that correspond to this instruction. Σελ. 1: “Though I send many letters to your piety, I receive few.” Only four letters were addressed to Basil of Seleucia (Ar. Migne - 85 and 102, Ar. Σακκελίων. - 1 and 45) of Theodoret; in reality there were probably more of them, since τέτταρες ἐπιστολαί, of course, do not equal πολλαὶ ἐπιστολαί. In epist. 4 are. Σακκελίων. (σελ. 4) one can find hints of correspondence between the Kirrhus shepherd and Archimandrite Agathon. Hist. eccles. XIV, 54 (Migne gr. ser. t. 146, col. 1257): πεντακόσιας ἐνέτυχον, ἀρίστως καὶ κατὰ λόγον Ἕλληνα συγκειμέναις. For bibliographical information about these letters, see Fabricius-Harles. Bibl. graeca, VIII, p. 288–290. This monument is located at Mansi: Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, t. V, p. 743 sqq., and in Μίgne: Patrologiae curs. compl., gr. ser. t. 84, col. 565 sqq. These are: cap. 40, 42, 45, 47, 60, 70, 72, 81, 87, 88, 97, 110, 128, 133, 138, 146, 151, 160, 161, 162, 166, 168, 172. We say “about” because cap. 139 (Epistola ejusdem – Theodoreti – ad amicum Christi Constantinopolitanum populum, per quam eos (?) hortatur ad patientiam, et circa dogmata contrariorum poenitentiam declarat), although it closely coincides with part of its own (Fidelis enim Deus est... Tales enim nunc ab Aegypto allatae sunt litterae: M. 84, 754. C – 755. A) with epist. 173 ap. Migne (t. 83, 1487), but the rather significant beginning and end of this chapter are completely new compared to the last letter. And its inscription (Epistola ad Andream monachum Constantinopolitanum) is excellent, but it was placed arbitrarily, according to one guess, by the Jesuit Garnier when publishing the works of Marius Mercator (Migne, lat. ser. t. 48, col. 1079 et not. a), and in the review of Baluz (Bibliotheca veterum Patrum. Ed. Gallandii. T. VIII, Venetiis. 1762. Pag. 701) he is not there. Isn’t a duplicate of this message preserved in the Syriac translation of the British Museum manuscript No. 14.532, fol. 30 a (Catalogue of syriac manuscripts in the British Museum, acquired since the year 1838. By W. Wright. Part. II, London. 1871. P. 958, p. 1), the beginning of which reads like this: “From what was written (by Theodoret) to the flock of Constantinople after Cyril joined the Eastern”? Sar. 95, 139, 71, 99, 148, 61, 66 = 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178 No. ar. Migne. See Sakkelion's own account of this in Ἀϑηναίου τόμ. ϑ´ (1880), σελ. 285, and in the prologue of the edition of Theodorite's letters, σελ. α´, β´, ζ´, η´. Ad Ephesinum concilium variorum Patrum epistolae, ex manu-scripto Cassinensis bibliothecae codice desumptae. Nunc primum in publicam lucem data per F. Chr. Lupum. Lovanii, typis Hieronymi Nempaei. 1682.Pag. 1–470. Dissertatio V – de Theodoreti et Orientalium causa: Auctarium, p. 549 sqq. Nova collectio conciliorum, seu supplementum ad collectionem Ph. Labbei. Ed. Steph. Baluzius. Parisiis. 1707. P. 679 sqq. The following information may be provided regarding Synodicon. As is known, Nestorius wrote, in a sense, his autobiography under the title Tragoedia, which is now lost. In imitation of him, Irenaeus of Tire composed an essay under the same title, where he outlined the circumstances and course of church life of his time. This work, also lost, was preserved only in a later Latin revision under the name Synodicona adversus tragoediam Irenaei. The only valuable study of this collection belongs to Chr. Lupu: Scholia et notae ad variorum Patrum epistolas, concernentes acta Ephesini et Chalcedonensis concilii, nuperrime repertas in Bibliotheca celeberrima Monasterii Cassinensis, et nunc primum in lucem editas, auctore Fr. Christiano Lupo. Lovanii, typis Hieronymi Nempaei. 1682. Tillemont. Memoires, XV, p. 255. See Mr. Ζῆκος Ῥώσης’a’s note in Ἀϑηναίων Ἑβδομάδι, ἔτ. β´ ἀριϑ. 63 (12 Μαΐου, 1385), σελ. 224 a. 225 α, and an article by Mr. V. Georgiadis. Κριτικαί τινες ἐπιστάσεις εἰς τὰς νῦν πρῶτον ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου Σακκελίωνος ἐκδοϑείσας μή ἐπιστολὰς τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοδωρήτου ἐπισκόπου Κύρου ὑπὸ Β. Γεωργιάδου in Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήϑεια. Περίοδος δεύτερα, τόμος Α. Ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει. 1885. Σελ. 111–115. Patrologiae curs. complete., gr. ser. t. 83, col. 1229. Op. cit., σελ. 115–123, 161–176. You just have to look through at least the epist. 8 – to the decurions of Zeugma (σελ. 6–8) to verify this. Migne, lat. ser. t. 48, col. 1077–1078 (cnf. Migne, gr. ser. t. 83, col. 1486, 1487) 1079–1080, 1080–1081, 1081–1082, 1082–1083, 1083. Gallandii Bibliotheca veterum Patrum, VIII, p. 701–702. Mansi, IV, 1061–1068. (cnf. Migne, gr. ser. t. 77, col. 1449–1457). 1407–1408. Acts 1, pp. 429–437, 827–830. Mansi, V, 1024–1037, 1040–1045, 84–85 (cnf. Migne, gr. ser. t. 76, col. 389, 392). Acts II, pp. 125–128. Hoffmann. S. 46–53. Martin. Actes. P. 103–119. Perry. P. 218–240. Cnf. Assemani. Bibl. orientalis, t. I, p. 599. Hoffmann. S. 61–62. Martin. Actes. P. 139–143. Perry. P. 298–306. Mansi, IX, 254, 291–292, 293–294, 294–295, 295–296. Acts V, pp. 149–150, 221–223, 224–225, 225–226, 226–227, 227–230. Mansi, IX, 450–451. Migne, lat. ser. t. 72, col. 734–735: epist. papae Pelagii II – 5(7), n. 20. Acts V, pp. 448, 448–449, 449. Catalog of syriac manuscripts in the British Museum, acquired since the year 1838. By W. Wright. Part. II, London. 1871. P. 644, p. 1, 958, p. 1. Wright. Catalog, II, p. 644, p. 1, 2: “Extract from Theodoret’s letter to Dioscorus: Extract regarding (from?) Theodoret the unworthy. From a letter written to Dioscorus, which did not serve to justify him” (Theodoret). Isn’t this No. 83 of Minya, which is purely apologetic in nature and which really brought the author into even greater trouble on the part of Dioscorus? Mansi, IX, 294. Migne, lat. ser. t. 48, cel. 1077. Gallandii. Bibliotheca, VIII, p. 701. (Migne, gr. ser. t. 83, col. 1485, 148G). Acts V, p. 225. In addition to the above publications, epist. 113 cm, see H. Hurter’s Sanctorum Patrum opuscula selecta. Τ. XXV. Oeniponte. 1874. Col. 210–218. Migne, lat. ser. t. 54, col. 845–854 (inter epist. s. Leonis no. 52), letter 151 – in Gallandii Bibliotheca veterum Patrum. Τ. IX. Venetiis. 1773. P. 405–412, 412–415 and letters 151 and 80 in Perry. The second synod. P. 263–271, 381–382. See I t., ch. III, p. 96 {paragraph beginning: “In conclusion of the review of the Ephesian period...”. Corr.}. See I t., ch. III, p. 67 {paragraph beginning: “It is not noticeable that those who wrote did not allow...”. Corr.} and approx. 21 {footnote paragraph beginning: “Garnier (loc. cit.) affirms positively...”. Corr.} M. 84, 733–734. Mansi, V, 898. Mansi, IX, 294 (cnf. Μ. 83, 1485, 1488). Acts V, pp. 225–226. Migne, lat. ser. t. 48, col. 1077–1078 (cnf. M. 83, 1486, 1487). Gallandii. Bibliotheca, VIII, p. 701. Mansi, IX, 254. Migne, lat. ser. t. 72, col. 734. Acts V, p. 448. Cf. even higher, at approx. 33–36 on pp. 478–479. Migne, lat. ser. t. 48, col. 1076, no. A. Lupus, Scholia et notae, p. 462. Epist. s. Cyrilli ad Valer. Icon. – 50 (44): Migne, gr. ser. 1, 77, cal. 277. Mansi, V, 372. S. Acts. II, p. 438. De sectis, act. IV, cap. 5 (Migne, gr. ser. t. 86, pars 1, col. 1224. B–C): ἐπιστολαὶ Θεοδωρήτου καὶ Νεστορίου, ἐν αἷς ἀλλήλους ἀποδέχονται· πλαστοὶ δέ εἰσι· πλάττουσι δὲ αὐτὰς οἱ αἱρετικοί, τοῦ μάχεσϑαι δι’ αὐτῶν πρὸς τὴν σύνοδον. Tillemont. Mémoires, XV, p. 255. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church. Τ. III St. Petersburg. 1859. § 218, p. 119, note. 15. Baluz thinks so too: M. 84, 734, not. 47. Synodicon, cap. 121: M. 84, 734. V. 734. S. 735. A. 735. A. 735. B ( = 735. D – 736. A). 736. P. 736. D. 737. A. 737. B. 737. B–C (see also Mansi, V, 899–903) cnf. epist. S. Cyrilli 39 (34): Migne, gr. ser. t. 77, col. 176. B. 176. A. 176. C. 176. C. 177. C. 180. A. 180. A–B. 180. B. 177. A. B. 176–177. Mansi, V, 304. D. 304. V. C. 304. D. 305. D. 308. A–B. 308. B. 308. B. 305. B. 305. A. Acts. II, pp. 373–374, 373, 374, 376, 377, 377–378, 375, 375. Synodicon, cap. 121: M. 84, 737. B. 737. B–C cnf. epist. S. Cyrilli. 39 (34): Migne, gr. ser. t. 77, col. 177. A. B. 176–177. Mansi, V, 305. B. 305. A. Acts. II, pp. 375, 375. Epist. 38 (33): Migne, gr. ser. 1, 77, col. 172–173, 172. C–D. Mansi, V, 292. C. 292. B. Acts. II, pp. 358, 358. Synodicon, cap. 17: M. 84, 609. B. Synodicon, cap. 65: M. 84, 674. Mansi, V, 843. Synodicon. cap. 96: M. 84, 712–713. Mansi, V, 878–879. Mansi, IX, 295–296. Migne. gr. ser. t. 83, col. 1489–1492. Acts V, pp. 227–230. Garnerius. Dissert. II, cap. V, § V, not. ad epist. 180: M. 84, 325–330. Pagius. Ad an. 441 n. VII–VIII (Baronii Annales, t. VII Lucae. 1741. P. 567–569). Neander. Allgem. Kirchengeschichte. Bnd. II, Abth. 2. Gotha. 1856. S. 695–696 and others. Baronius. Ad an. 444 n. 12–17 (Annales, VII, p. 567–569). Cnf. ad an. 553 n. 43–44, 46 (Annales, t. X, Lucae. 1741. P. 553–554, 555). Tillemont. Mémoires, XIV, p. 784–785: not. 80 sur a. Cyrille. Ceillier. Hist. generale, XIV, p. 197–199. Reverend Filaret. Historical Doctrine, III, p. 119, approx. 15. Sever. Binii Concilia generalia et provincialia. Τ. II, pars 2. Coloniae Agrippinae. 1618. P. 86. Steph. Baluzii Nova collectio conciliorum. P. 1526. Mansi, IX, 295, not. d. Acts V, p. 227, note. Ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. Moscow. 1879, p. 192. Martin. Pseudo-synode. R. 84 (not. 4). 85. See volume one, chap. V, pp. 165–168 {paragraph beginning: “From the content and nature of the letters in question...” and further. Corr.}. Martin. Actes. R. 145, not. b. Migne, gr. ser. t. 83, col. 1305.B–C. Hist. eccles. V, 4 (M. 82, 1204. V. Ts. I., p. 309): Κύρου τῆς ἡμετέρας Ἰσίδωρον. V, 8 (Μ. 82, 1209. S. Ts. I., p. 315): καὶ Ἰσίδωρος ὁ ἡμέτερος. Martin. Pseudo-synode. R. 115 et not. 4. Actes. R. 139, not. a. Hoffmann. S. 62, 11–13. Martin. Actes. P. 141. Perry. P. 301. Hoffmann. S. 58: Abth. VIII; cnf. S. 56, 17–20. Martin. Actes. P. 131–132: § VIII; cnf. p. 126 Perry. P. 273–274: § VIII; cnf. p. 252–253. Epist. Theodoreti 113: Μ. 83, 1316. B–S. Mansi, VI, 600. S. Hoffmann. S. 2, 25–26. Martin. Actes. P. 3. Perry. P. 9. Acts. III, p. 158. Mansi, VI, 588. Hoffmann. S. 2. Martin. Actes. P. 3. Perry. P. 8–9. Mansi, VI, 600. Hoffmann. 8, 2. Martin. Actes. P. 3. Perry. P. 9. For more details about these circumstances, see the first volume, chap. V, p. 214 {paragraph beginning: “Theodoret agreed in this desire...”. Corr.}. Epist. III: M. 83, 1308, r. 1182. Epist. 104: M. 83, 1297.A. Martin. Pseudo-synode. P. 115, not 2. Hoffmann. S. 62, 36–38. Martin. Actes. P. 143. Perry. P. 305. Mansi, VII, 212 sqq. Acts IV, p. 180 ate. Hoffmann. S. 20,12, 30, 34. Martin. Actes. R. 44, 67. Perru. R. 96, 132. Opp. Theodoreti, edit. Sirmondianae, t. III, pag. 960. See in the first volume, chap. V, pp. 186–189 {beginning paragraph: “In the full consciousness of perfect rightness...”. Corr.}. Historical Doctrine, III, p. 119, approx. 15. Annales, t. VIII (Lucae. 1741), b. 59–60: ad an. 450 n. 22–24. See dep. II, ch. 1, pp. 192–195 {paragraph beginning: “From the quoted passages it is clear...” and further. Corr.}. Migne, gr. ser. t. 84, col. 253–331. See the first volume, chap. V, approx. 128 on pp. 200–201 {footnote paragraph beginning: “Before the publication of the Syrian acts...”. Corr.}. Pseudo-synode, p. 104–105; cnf. Perry. The second synod of Ephesus. P. 203. You might be interested in: