Review of the essay by N.N. Glubokovsky "Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Kirsky"

Contents “Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. His life and literary activity." Church historical research by N.N. Glubokovsky. Volume I. Moscow 1890, 349 pp. Volume II. Moscow 1890, 510 pp. Addenda. Corrigenda I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII “Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. His life and literary activity." Church historical research by N.N. Glubokovsky. Volume I. Moscow 1890, 349 pp. Volume II. Moscow 1890, 510 pp. Whoever writes about the work of N. N. Glubokovsky in 1892 is dealing with an established literary value. Both detailed reviews by competent persons in Russia and the impression expressed by foreign scientists recognize the remarkable merits of this two-volume study, while finding it difficult to indicate an equal value in the European literature on this issue. I also add my voice to this flattering judgment about the books of the young scientist, albeit in a somewhat lower register. This difference, however, does not prevent me from seeing in this study a work worthy of the full award of His Eminence Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow. Theodoret, his creations, his time, were studied and described by two scientists of enormous erudition and the vigilance that comes from long years of scientific study. These were Garnier and Lenain de Tillmont. In their creations, such a treasury was given for subsequent generations that it is hardly possible to find a question related to Theodoret, which in one way or another would not have already been decided. But Garnier wrote his Dissertationes in 1684, and the first volume of Tillmont's Mémoires was published in 1693. Two centuries, not poor in literary works, or high talents, or, finally, happy discoveries in the field of ancient writing, separate us from these capital creations. And whoever turned to them for information, no matter how great his respect for the self-evident erudition and apt argumentation of these worthy scientists of the 17th century, could not free himself from the feeling of uncertainty that was caused by the thought: has not some new data been discovered in these 200 years that is of decisive importance in the question? The inventory accumulated over the years would meet the actual needs. In the city of Glubokovsky, the conditions for a successful solution to this problem were happily combined. He had the good fortune to work at the library of the Moscow Theological Academy, so rich in books on church history that the German scientist was amazed to learn about the existence of some German studies based on quotations published in Russia. For his part, Mr. Glubokovsky responded to this book wealth with a manifestation of phenomenal diligence, equal in intensity and extensiveness, and perfectly disciplined. Labor ïmprobus is not afraid of him. Often his work looked dry, did not promise any rewarding results, did not reward even just the breadth of perspective, did not even present the difficulties for implementation that intrigue the artist, it was βάναυσος, undoubtedly, and he carried it with amazing patience. It is worth looking only at those pages of the first volume where (for example, on 227) “Hoffmann - Martin - Perry” are constantly repeated, i.e. the same news is given in three editions; or turn the page. 21–25 of the second volume, looking more like tables of logarithms than a theological study, and received this form - for a good half - due to the fact that the Russian translators relieved themselves of the labor - to mark the pages of their main edition in the margins - and it becomes clear that the author did not spare his labor. Along with major works, unimportant and sometimes outdated ones are cited; but this is a guarantee that all equipment will be verified. At the same time, the author discovered a respectable desire to track down any hints of new sources to the last available end, and therefore discovered something even in such a major publication, but also remote from the question of Theodorite, as the “Catalog of Syrian Manuscripts of the British Museum”: meeting with the name of W. Wright on the pages of Mr. Glubokovsky was a pleasant surprise for me. And if a person who gave such evidence of his tireless diligence, after working on such a mass of books, declared only before a competent authority that - suppose - Tillmon still remains completely reliable and a better guide than all others on questions about Theodoret: in essence, such a short answer, but constituting the quintessence of many “works and days,” would already deserve a prize. The importance of Mr. Glubokovsky's research, in my opinion, lies - mainly - not in what he comes to, but in how he goes. The partial results of his research are often unacceptable to me. But the wide cognitio cogniti is undeniable; but the absence of provisions accepted without proof; but the consistency with which he addresses all issues complicated by disputes or misunderstandings, no matter what area they relate to; but the completeness of his own argumentation and - for the most part - the undoubted vigilance with which he notices the weak side of the enemy’s position even in those cases when it - in the end - turns out to be stronger than his own: all these qualities give the books of Mr. Glubokovsky the dignity that the Germans mean by the word “anregend”. Proposed by legentibus atque intellegentibus, they call for reflection, for independent investigation of the matter. Those notes (3821 of them) that cover the bottom margin of his two volumes make it possible to check from sources every fact he establishes - with the least amount of time (given the form of presentation). So generous with his work and his time, the author is economical at the expense of his readers: his instructions are so detailed that there is no need - as often happens when reading works that are skimpy on quotations - to re-read several chapters of the original source in order to make sure that an interesting or important detail is correct, and in case of an error, to still think about what exactly such an incorrect assurance rests on. As a result of this, the composition of Mr. Glubokovsky’s books is, one might say, transparent. And if it is impossible to agree with his decision on issues, then even then we have to admit sometimes the fact, and sometimes the direct merit, that in this place the very authorities that decide the matter are given. The author has given such an arsenal that the weapons proposed there can be used against him. If he did not solve the question in a sense acceptable to everyone, then he facilitated the possibility of such an answer, cleared and organized the material from which the premises for this or that conclusion are composed. The author’s argument, if in the end does not convince, is still a crucible in which both facts and opinions are subjected to serious testing. The provisions rejected by him must be reborn from the ashes and strengthened on a renewed foundation. The usual measures are not entirely applicable to the study of Mr. Glubokovsky. A study on Theodoret cannot be a monograph in the literal sense of the word. This writer is too versatile. Himself involved in the relations of an era full of struggle and hesitation, he was both valued and judged for a whole century after death, and this extended - so to speak - his biography. But, as the author of “church history,” he imposes on the researcher the work of studying the history of the previous century; and his “haereticarum fabularum compendium” plunges the learned reader into the history of the church of the first three centuries and, moreover, into a very difficult section of it with extensive scientific literature. Theodorite the polemicist keeps the researcher in a far different sphere of interest than Theodorite the exegete. There should be completely different books on a scientist’s desk when he is interested in Theodoret as the author of the “healer of Hellenic ailments” and when he is investigating the question of “Theodorite’s Word.” And it is not those peculiarities of thinking that are required in order to evaluate Theodoret as a preacher, and in order to understand the question of the origin of certain quotes from Theodoret; to distribute facts and documents correctly chronologically, using barely noticeable strokes; in order to guess from the passages and titles the composition of the works of the Bishop of Cyrus that have not reached us. He was πολύτροπος ἀνήρ, and in the study of him not everything depends on the correct basic view. Likewise, shortcomings in the main point of view, in the very center, do not fatally affect the multifaceted periphery. The personality of the Bishop of Cyrus had such a charming effect on Mr. Glubokovsky that he used a few too many pink tones and a little little ink to depict his hero. This also influenced the resolution of many issues - for the glory of Theodorit. But here, too, the author’s point of view is expressed so frankly that the reader, even without “Caute legas,” remains on his guard and can choose other colors from among those suggested both in the text and below the line. And besides, there are enough completely neutral questions posed in the author’s books. And all this research was written not in a decade, but in two years. The author had to work not only hard, but also hastily. By reducing the plan of his work, limiting himself to a few sides in Theodoret (and almost every chapter in Volume II could become the dominant subject of a strictly monographic study), the author, of course, would have avoided many shortcomings. Having processed one section, he would probably have given a monograph, so exhaustive of the subject, free from errors both in general and in parts, that the result would be a monumentum aere perennius, as durable as logarithmic tables. But, no matter how great my sympathy for works of this particular type, I cannot help but see that, given the current state of our theological science and the demand for it, Mr. Glubokovsky is right in doing exactly what he did. Despite the involuntary shortcomings, he can say: Quod potui feci, without fear that someone will rise up and - with a good conscience - say: I would do this, under the given conditions, better than you. “No,” the errors would have been, perhaps, of a different kind, but not in fewer quantities. Faciant meliora potentes, but addendo, when they have the best results of their own research, but corrigendo, when they discover errors in Mr. Glubokovsky. His Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, will not soon be replaced in our country - and in Europe in general - by such a work, the appearance of which could be recognized as a valid scientific right. For my part, in the future I present my experience of such Addenda - Corrigenda to the work of H. N. Glubokovsky as real proof that I appreciate his work. I hope no one will accuse me of cheesy compliments. The matter is the matter, and therefore I write with businesslike rigor 1 . In the first chapter, the author outlines the life of Theodoret before the episcopate. The most difficult questions here are two: in what year was Theodoret born? and where was he taken to the see of Cyrus? The significance of the first question (for criticism of the news about Theodoret’s teachers) is correctly assessed by the author; but he in vain (4) apologizes for the “arithmetical scrupulousness” of his “long note”: that book would not be serious that would glide over this issue with pleasant ease, having on its title: “Blessed Theodoret. His life" and "1890". On the contrary, the author was not scrupulous enough for 1890. All the material for a scientific solution to this question (with a specific year in the end or a solid dilemma) has already been collected by Garnier and Tillmont; a scientific step forward can only consist in processing this data. There are only four of them. 1. The first year of Theodoret's episcopal ministry coincides with ind. VI = 1 Sep. 422 – Aug 31 423. This formula is methodologically more correct than the current one adopted by the author: “Theodoret was ordained bishop in 423.” Theodoret's point of view is Greek-Eastern, and his year is not January, but September [and hardly October (2,251,46)]. This date was proposed by Baronio, substantiated by Tillmon, and put beyond doubt by the “Acts of the Council of Ephesus 449” published in 1873. The author thoroughly accepts it. 2. When [probably in the summer of 426 (:2,416)] Bishop Theodoret visited James the Kafr-Rehim (hardly “known by the name of the Younger”), he (Theodoret) was still “young”, νέος. 3. When the young reader of Antioch, Theodoret, with barely visible fluff on his beard (ἅρτι γὰρ ἰούλου ἐδεδέλμεθα), visited Elder Zinon, who had already spent 40 years in exploits διηνοκὼς ὲτύγχανεν), out of deep humility, the ascetic began earnestly to ask Theodoret, by the rank of cleric, to offer a prayer. Since Zinon retired (τήν στρατιωτικὴν ἀπέθετο ζώνην) immediately after Aug. 9. 378, then - if we understand διηνοκώς literally - Theodoret was with St. Zenon no earlier than the autumn of 418. 4. When she was 23 years old, Theodorit’s mother fell ill with her eyes. Her relative informed her that St. Peter healed with prayer the wife of “who then held the helm of the East” (τοῦ τηνικάδε τῆς Ἔω κατέχοντος τὰ πηδάλια) Pergamia from an eye disease. Mother Theodorit “immediately ran” (παραυτίκα ἔδραμε) to the man of God and received healing. And seven years later, Theodorit was born to her. – This last date shows that Theodoret himself knew in what year he was born. This cannot be said about all ancient figures. The stronger the urge for us to do everything to clarify this date. G. Glubokovsky with Tillmon against Garnier accepts that Theodoret was born in 393, and not in 386; thinks that Theodoret, 23–24 years old, was in 418 with St. Zinona; in an incomprehensible way for me, he admits that “this argument [date 3] can be turned with equal convenience in favor of Garnier’s opinion, although this scientist is completely unfair attributing the visit to 408, for, in this case, one will have to arbitrarily read τριάκοντα vm. τεσσαράκοντα"; and recognizes date 2 as “decisive in this matter,” finding “it is self-evident that the epithet νέος is more appropriate in relation to a person at 30 years old than at 37 years old, which should be the case at the time of consecration” in 423, if he was born in 386. To this, I allow myself to note that date 2 does not at all resolve the issue against Garnier. Theodoret in 426 was – according to Garnier – 40 years old. And the Greeks considered every person - not just a bishop - up to 44 years of age to be νεανίσκος 2, the Latins as “iuvenis”. To clarify date 3, you can provide the following information: The old man Livanius (after 387, next around the time of the birth of Theodoret and in the same Antioch) grumbles about the disgraceful custom that had established itself at that time to invite children who were still going to school to public dinners on the occasion of the Olympic Games, and those who had just appeared to have fluff on their beard, and even completely beardless people (φοιτῶν δέ τις παῖς ἐπί μαθήσει λόγων, καὶ ἢ ἄρτι δεικνὺς ἴουλον ἢ οὐδὲ τοῦτο). In the past it was not like that: only old people and adults were invited to dinners, and minors were not allowed there unconditionally. Livanius himself knows this from his own experience. In 328, when he was 14 years old, his uncle Panolvius was the liturgist; in 332, Livanius was 18 years old, and the liturgist was Agyrrius, a friend of his father: and neither one nor the other liturgist even thought of inviting Livanius to dinner. In 336, he was 22 years old, his uncle Phasganius was the liturgist: he called Libanius, and he came to dinner (οὗτός με ἐπί δεῖπνον καλεῖ, καὶ ᾠχόμην). Consequently, a 22-year-old Antiochian - δύο καί εἴκοσιν - was considered to have already left the stratum of those who had just begun to show fluff on their beard. And Theodoret with this sign turns out to be by the end of 418. at an inconvenient age for chronotonia at 18–20 years. A young man of 18 years old could be made a reader even under Justinian I; and earlier there were “lectores infantuli”. Due to all this, date 4 acquires exceptional importance: the year of the reign of Pergamius + 7 years = the year of birth of Theodoret. As far as I know 3, N.N. Glubokovsky is quite right when he believes that this Pergamy is found only in the given place in Theodoret, and, therefore, the year of Pergamy’s reign is x. But the author still gave up his pen early: this x, since it cannot be solved directly, has to be solved indirectly, using the method of remainders. The question arises: in what years of this decade was it undoubtedly not Pergamum that held the helm of the East? In the little that the author said about date 4, he made two errors against the method: aa) agreeing with Tillmont in the conclusion (“393, not 386”), he follows in the footsteps of Garnier in justifying this conclusion, and, mixing quadrata rotundis, punishes himself with illogicality: for Garnier, whose opinion is conveyed inaccurately, it is not at all dangerous - he learned from him - the fact that in 377 the praefectus praetorio per Orientem was Domitius Modestus; but for the year 393 adopted by the author, the following reference in the codex Theodosianus is dangerous: The post of praefectus praetorio per Orientem under Theodosius I was occupied by the following. faces: Neoterius January – June [Jan, Feb 2, March 17, 17? June] 380; Eutropius, June 380 – July 381 [cutting dates: 17 June 380 – 21 July 381]; Florus, Aug. 381 to 382 [July 381 – March 5, 383]; Postumianus in 383 [Apr. – November 7, 383]; (Maternus) Cynegius from 384 until his death (buried 19 March 388), [extreme dates; 18 Jan 384 – spring 388]; Tatianus, appointed emperor, as soon as news reached him in Italy of the death of Maternus Cynigius, his colleague in the consulate of 388 [first date: June 16, 388, last: June 30, 392]; and Tatian's immediate successor was Rufinus [first date: 26 August 392] until his death (killed 27 November 395). From this list, from the point of view of Mr. Glubokovsky, two conclusions should follow: ααα) Theodoret was born, in any case, no later than 391. Cynigius could not be called Pergamius because he was Maternus Cynegius; Moreover, it is indisputable that the last three PP. R.O. in the east were known precisely as Κονήγιος, Τατιανὸς, 'Ροοφῖνος. And, since it is generally risky to assume that government officials were known in Antioch under different names than in Constantinople, then we must assume that βββ) Theodoret was born no later than 386. 4 This is Garnier’s conclusion. His logic acts like a lasso. Anyone who takes a parcel from Garnier will not escape investigation. This happened to the author because he violated another methodological rule: bb) When Garnier disagrees with Tillmont, the scientist, if he does not want to investigate the issue ab ovo, must follow Tillmont - already because he knew Garnier's decision and - did not agree with him, while Garnier, who wrote before Tillmont, perhaps would not have wasted ink on some of his dissertationes if he had read Mémoires, tt. XIV. XV. Moreover, Tillmon is not only a theologian (like Garnier), but also a highly learned author of the Histoire des empereurs, a significant authority in matters of Byzantine political history. Therefore, when he says that “he who held the helm of the East” [not “the reins of government”: for Theodoret (ep. 44): Pf. R.O. is ὁ τὰς ἡνίaς κατέχων] 5 Pergamy was Comes Orientis [Comte d’Orient in Mém. XIV, 254, op. from the author (3)], then there was no need to worry about Garnier with his “Pergamii praefecti praetorio Orientis”, especially since it is very difficult to allow the family of Pf.P.O. under Theodosius I she lived not in Constantinople, but in Antioch. Praefectus praetorio per Orientem often held his high office for several years; on the contrary, comes Orientis rarely ruled for more than a year. Without much error, we can assume that with each indict a new comite was sent to Antioch. For the time we are interested in, the codex Theodosianus gives the following list of the comites of the East: Felix – [date: July 8, 380], Philagrius – [“pp. Beryto" Sep 20 382], Proculus – [March 382 ??; June 11, July 6 and 27 383], Martinianus [November 392]. The unpleasant gap (384–391), which, according to Tillmon, includes the year of the healing of Theodoret’s mother, can, with greater or lesser probability, be filled on the basis of the “speeches” and “letters” of Livanius, with the assistance of the solid work of Sievers. From Livaniya it is obvious that Tatian's son Proclus (Πρόκλος, Proculus) before ὀλύμπια, next, before July - August 384, left his post and was replaced by Icarius, the son of Theodore. The column with Greek names is my experience 6, with Latin names – Sievers. It seems to me that the reign of Pergamius falls precisely in Indict XV, the year of the ill-fated uprising in Antioch. Comita Livanius certifies unflatteringly - διψῶν τε άεὶ καὶ πίνων; but, undoubtedly, he, like his successor, αὐτὸς θεούς], “did not know the gods”: in Pergamum, married to a woman healed by faith by St. Peter, it is natural to see a Christian. In this case, Theodoret was born indicta vij, in 393–394, and in the thirtieth year he was made a bishop. That this is possible 7 will hardly be disputed by those who know the relaxations then allowed in the east. Then, date 3 must be considered inaccurate: exalting the humility of St. Zinona, Theodoret, who probably himself did not remember the exact year of his visit, gave the old ascetic an older age (the number 40 is suspiciously round) and presented himself as too young. In any case, if Pergamius was not a comite in 386–387, then it could have been either in 385–386, or before 380, i.e. Theodorit was born in 393–394, respectively in 392–393, or no later than 386. The choice is possible only between the opinions of Tillmon and Garnier. In the latter case, the correction of τεσσαράκοντα ex conjectura to τριάκοντα - this “fascheuse extremité” as Tillmont rightly noted - becomes inevitable (in date 3). And Meller’s decision: Theodoret was born “approximately around 390”, “etwa um 390”, is an unscientific step back on this issue. G. Glubokovsky, in my opinion, is too cautious (5.12; 8.22; 12.42; 13) regarding the authority of Nicephorus Callistus. With his “φοιτήσας” Nikephoros reveals himself completely: he does not have accurate information about the life of Theodoret. And therefore “σύρος” cannot serve as an obstacle to the possible conclusion that Theodorit’s rich father was an aristocrat and could have had an estate near Apamia. I see no reason to believe that the monastery of Theodoret 3 Roman miles from Apamia (23.22) was precisely in Νικέρται, κώμη τις μεγίστη καὶ πολυάνθρωπος. As far as I know, this last monastery is mentioned only in W. Wright, Catalog of the Syr. M.S.S. Brit. Mus. 756b [Sergius abbat of נקירתא in the district of Apamea, A. D. 585] and Mansi, VIII, 1135A [Συμεὼν πρεσβύτερος καί αρχιμανδρίτης μονῆς τοῦ μακαρίου Ἀγαπητοῦ (τῆς Ἀπαμέων ἐνορίας)]. 1130Α. 1131D [ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν Νικερτῶν ἐφόδῳ]. If it is possible to draw (from the last place) a conclusion about the location of Nikert, then it is not in favor of the author’s guess (resp. Newman): this village apparently lay quite far from Apamia in the direction of Larissa (which lies 16 thousand rubles to the south-southeast of Apamia, Itin. Anton. 187. 195Wess.). But is Tillmon’s guess, accepted by the author, true that in this monastery at 3 m. r. from Apamia, Theodoret asceticised to the episcopacy and from here was taken to the see? This assumption is supported by Theodorit’s assurance that he lived in the monastery before becoming a bishop and the fact that for Theodorit it is precisely the Apamian monastery. But “another interpretation of the above words” is “conceivable”: couldn’t Theodoret call this monastery “his own” by the right of a ktitor? The grounds for Meller’s “unfounded suspicions” are not difficult to understand: is it easy to explain that the clergy and laity of Cyrus choose a young man who has nothing to do with their city, who labors 177 kilometers (120 m. r.) from them in another diocese? But the most important thing: it is the message 41.Σακκελ., unknown to Meller and quoted by the author (29), that presents difficulties unforeseen by him for the hypothesis of the Apamian hermitage. He quotes from ep. 41.Σακκ. There are enough authentic words to understand that his translation: Theodoret “was placed in the rank of servants by his holiness” (Theodotus) is incorrect, but not enough for even the most attentive reader to unravel the meaning of this tirade. The point is this. No one, not the most God-loving presbyter [apparently of Antioch] Aetius, notified Theodoret of Cyrus that Theodotus of Antioch would arrive in τοῦ Ἀρχαίου, an area near Gindar on the border of the parikia of Cyrus, and would spend two days there. If Theodoret had known this, it would have been as if he had flown over Gindar on wings and would have persistently asked his holiness to honor Cyrus with his visit. Knowing nothing, Theodoret went to Miningi on the 14th (Μήνιγγα in the 24th year from Cyrus and in the 24th year from Veria, Itin. Ant. 194Wess.) for the feast of St. martyrs and there I only heard that Theodotus was in τοῦ Αρχαίου and had already left. “It pained my soul that I said goodbye to the ranks of those serving your shrine: if I had been among them, I would not have remained ignorant of your arrival, father” ἁγιωσύνην συντέταγμαι μοίρᾳ οὐ γὰρ ἐκείνοις ἐγκεκριμένος, ἄπυστος ἔμεινα τῆς σῆς, ὦ πάτερ, ἐπιδημίας). The opposition of συντέταγμαι to the word ἔγκεκριμένος shows unambiguously that the first must be understood in a figurative, but very ordinary way (“συντακτικός λόγος” = farewell word”); ἀσυντάκτως epist. 80 = not saying goodbye Timoth. 1, 4, cf. Bauer, Glossarium Theodoreteuml meaning “to give up, to say goodbye.” From the perfectuni συντέταγμαι it is clear that Theodoret came out not temporarily, but forever from the ranks of “servants” of Theodotus; therefore, their “μοῖρα” is not a random, ad hoc group. deacons or elders. It is not clear why Theodoret would have known about Theodotus’s arrival if he had not been a bishop: was it because he would not have been absent in Miningi or because presbyter Aetius would have been more talkative with his co-presbyter? But Theodoret starts from the fact: being a presbyter or deacon, he knew in time about the “arrival” of Theodotus, not about the “departure” (ἀποδημία); Therefore, Theodorit does not mean staying in the Antiochian clergy and, of course, not in the Apamian monastery, where the news of Theodotus’s arrival in του ’Αρχαίου would not have reached in a timely manner. We have to conclude that Theodoret was not literally taken from the monastery to the see of Cyrus; that for some time he was a member of the clergy of the city of Cyrus or the Cyrus parikia; that his election to the see of Cyrus took place according to the usual norm. The first pages of Chapter Two explain the time and circumstances of Theodoret's accession to the Cyrus See and offer information about the city of Cyrus and its parikia. Further, Theodoret is depicted as a public figure and as a spiritual shepherd. By the first pages I might suggest some Corrigenda and quite a lot of Addenda. The date of the dedication of Theodoret "423" the author substantiates in a polemical note (27) against Garnier. The opinions of the learned Jesuit are not presented entirely accurately (Garnier does not allow the transformation of πέντε into δύο and β into ς and considers Theodoret’s titles to be quite accurate); but the result of the controversy is, of course, correct. Only the author should not agree with Baronio that ὑπάτῳ is a typo. ὑπατικῷ. Only in the solemn archaic style [eg Cod. Theodos. 6, 6, 1] “consularis” was applied to a person who was a consul, and only writers imitating the ancient syllable [for example, Prisei de leg., Corp. Scr. H. Byz. I, 2O8, 20 Bonn] then used ὑπατικὸς in this sense. In ordinary life, “consulares”, “ὑπατικοὶ” were called simple clarissimi - rulers of more significant provinces, who were not consuls and had very little chance of this distinction even in the near future. Indeed, those who were consuls (like Nome) bore the title “ex consule ordinario”. Theodoret could have rendered it either with the heavy “ἀπό ὑπάτων” or with the conditional “ὑπάτῳ”: “ὑπατικῶ” would have been, at the very least, ambiguous. The author has not made fully clear his own final opinion about Theodotus's attitude to Theodoret's consecration. a) In note (22.5), Mr. Glubokovsky gives reasons for the conclusion that Theodoret of Cyrus was ordained by his own, Euphratisian, Metropolitan, Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis. This is absolutely fair, and I - instead of the irrelevant reference to the consecration of Flavian - would refer to DVS., IV, 266. 267. 281. 282. 284-286. 324. 315. 319. 321. Mansi VII, 292A. 293A. 308. 309A. 312. 313. 356. 345. 349. 352. 353. But, β) he admits that Theodoret was ordained “Metropolitan of Hierapolis (perhaps with the participation of Theodotus).” I think this is for the 5th century. – wrong and incredible. Incorrect: because it would be necessary to say the opposite: “Theodotus [who, as archbishop-exarch, in 423 would undoubtedly have taken precedence at the divine service] with the complicity of the Metropolitan of Hierapolis.” An incredible quoad factum: the Council of Euphrates in 434 (Synod, pp. 128. 133. 135. 149) was so indignant against John of Antioch when he was against their desire to perform two ordinations in their diocese, and cried out so loudly about his canonical right to ordinations in his diocese that it is difficult to expect that for the sake of honor then invited the Archbishop of Antioch to “participate” in ordinations: this would create not entirely convenient customs and precedents. Finally γ), according to the author, “one must assume that Theodotus, who nominated and supported Theodoret’s candidacy, was at least present at the consecration - if only he did not personally ordain him in Antioch.” That Theodotus, directly or indirectly, warmly recommended Theodoret to the voters, that is, to the clergy and people of Cyrus and the bishops of Euphrates, this seems highly probable to me. But nothing more. Theodoret was ordained (according to the norm) not in Antioch, hardly in Hierapolis, probably in Cyrus. "The exact spelling of the city's name" Cyrus in Augusta Euphra tensis (:31, line 3) "is unknown to us" (31.5). – Only one point is really up for debate: should I write Κύρρος [Κύρρος – absurd] 8 or Κῦρος? The author [and Gyldenpenning] for Κύρρος. In addition to the data he provides, you can refer to some others, for example, in cod. Veronensis lix. 57.saec. viij, f.77, b: “epistula scissimi theodoriti epi cyrri ad dioscorum” 9. – But, having weighed the possible pros and cons, I, like Sakkelion and Geltser, decide for Κῦρος according to the following analogy: for me, a student at the Tverek Theological Seminary, † Most Rev. Let's imagine Philotheus only as the Archbishop of Tver. It is true that on March 2 the memory of our father Arseny, Bishop of Tfer, is celebrated among the saints; that in Greek documents Τυφέριον, Τυφέρνη is found; that the word production from “Tikhver” = “Tkhver” gives exactly “Tfer”: but the 19th century does not care about this prescription. And I am writing these lines in St. Petersburg, not in St. Petersburg, although this is how foreign grammar commands to write, and not in St. Petersburg, although this is how its great founder himself wrote the name of the capital. – It is certain that the first Macedonian [not “Greek” (:31, line 13)] settlers called this city Κύρρος; but the natural Syrian population long ago forgot how to double their ר [g] 10, and therefore Κύρρος turned into Κῦρος. For the 5th century Κύρρος is only a dead archaistic superfinness, what the “charter” would have been instead of “italics” in 1892. But this city was never called Κορέσται: “Muscovites” are not “Moscow”. This is clear in itself, and directly stated by Steph. Byz.: Κύρρος πόλις Συρίας ὁ πολίτης κυρρέστης. “Kirrestia” is invented by the author; better than Κορεατική, ἡ χώρα, if they do not forget that the borders of the reign of Tfer are not the same as those of the Tver province. Κιρρα in Phocis (38°25׳N, 22°2275׳E Green.) has no relation to Cyrus in Euphratisia, which is named after the name (not mentioned by Strabo) of the Macedonian city Κύρρος (40°49׳N, 22°18׳E Green.). Cyrus was not called either Kars or Karin. “Quars hodie” by Ferrarius – may be hard to hear קורס (Qûrus) in Idrîsî, which the Latinists between the Crusaders even reworked into Cressum 11, and Pocock heard as “Corus” back in 1738. “Karin” is the current Arzrum. In this case, Tillmon has done a disservice to the author. “Now” (:31, line 5) the place near which the ruins of Cyrus lie (36°45.5 N, 36°58.1 E Green) is called “Huru-Peigamber”. It lies on the western bank of the Sabun-su River, the northern tributary of the Afrin River ('Afrîn = Οἰνοπάρας Strab.?), which flows through the “White Lake” (“Ak Deniz”) near Antioch, then flows into the ancient Orontes and in its bosom flows into the Mediterranean Sea. Track. (:34,26) neither Sabun-su nor Afrin are identical with the Marsyas river, which, according to Pliny, flows into the Euphrates. This “great river” at parallel 36°40' flows at 38°4'E. the village of Green., i.e. at a distance from Cyrus (in a straight line) by 99.4 kilometers = 67.2 Roman miles; and Theodorit’s episcopal parikia extended “40 miles in length and 40 in breadth” (ep. 42). From this it is clear that Tillmon was mistaken in supposing that this country (:30) “may have reached the very banks of the Euphrates.” And “to the south” it did not “extend” to any “desert”: the Ismailis were πρόσχωροι neighbors of the Roman Empire [not Kirestiki]. Cardinal Newman, who had not so much studied as felt Theodoret, accompanied him to Cyrus with undisguised regret. “I feel that Theodoret was out of place here and I suspect that he himself felt it: he had talents for which there was no application in Cyrestica.” There is no serious rebuff to such an idea in the book of Mr. Glubokovsky: and he, using data from the (one-sided) letters of Theodorit, describes Cyrestica in far from azure colors, so the question naturally arises: what prompted Theodotus, who was fatherly favorable to Theodorit, to “nominate and support the candidacy” of this still young ascetic or presbyter for a department so unfavorable for the development of his high talents? On the contrary, it seems to me that Theodotus nominated Theodoret to this difficult and important post precisely because only a man of high talents was “in his place” in Cyrus. Two sides need clarification here. In Notitia dignitatum, a monument to the time of Emperor. Arcadia, the city of Cyrus is not mentioned at all: not a single regiment was stationed there at that time. By the time of Theodoret a great change had taken place: Cyrus was—one might say—overflowing with a military element. Fidelissimi milites redeem the African Mary from slavery (ep. 70). The inhabitants of Kirestika borrow 5, 10, 20 nomism from the “warriors” to pay taxes (Er. 33 Σακκ.). When Jacob the Kafra-Rehimite fell dangerously ill and people came running from everywhere to steal the body of the ascetic, then, “all the inhabitants of the city, both soldiers and common people, learned about this,” ἅπαντες, καὶ στραπῶται καὶ ἱδιῶται, came fully armed to this village and “drove away” their rivals (Migne, G. 82, p. 1239). “Warriors” come first, as if there were more of them in Cyrus than “ordinary townspeople.” For “warriors”, τοῖς ατρατιώταις, Theodoret writes an instruction in the Orthodox faith (ep. 144). The letter of recommendation given to the “tribune Naucratian” by Proclus of Constantinople gives Theodoret the first reason for correspondence with this archbishop (ep. 15 Σακκ.). Diaconus fortissimorum tertio stablisianorum [cavalry regiment, Not. dign. Or. 7.30, which is also in 520 g. stood in Cyrus, Mansi, IX, 365A] relates Theodoret’s letter to Andrew of Samosata (Synod, p. 72). – Theodorite (Migne, G. 81 p. 2) is responsible for not only church and political matters, but also military ones. Μυρίαις ἀστίκαῖς τε καί χωριτικαῖς, στρατιωτικαῖς τε καὶ πολιτικαῖς, ἐκκλησιαστικαῖς τε καὶ κοιναῖς περιεχόμενοσι φροντίσι (2.12). In a word, Theodoret is depicted in such a position among the “stratiots” that he can be called a military bishop, a bishop of the eastern army, the administration of which was concentrated almost in Cyrus. The magister militum per Orientem himself lived there and, apparently, was not passing through. Akaki Berean knows that, no matter how important Theodorit’s participation at the meeting in Berea would be for church affairs, he probably will not appear, because the magnificent issimus magister militum has arrived in Cyrus (Synod, c, 55). And indeed, (Synod, c. 60) Theodoret did not appear at this meeting (September–October 432): he was very ill; but besides this, the magnificentissimus atque gloriosissimus magister militum is still in Cyrus. And since in this era there were already noticeable steps towards uniting military and civil rule in the East in the same hands (magister militum per Orientem, patrician Ardaburius, it seems, was in 459, at the same time comes Orientis, Evagr. 1,13. Chron. pasch, a. 464), the influence of the magister militum extended beyond the military department. The complaint against John of Antioch in 434 was sent ad Augustas [Eudokia and Pulcheria (:126)] and ad magnificentissimum magistrum militum. The sacra on the expulsion of Meletius of Mopsuestia and Alexander of Hierapolis reaches its destination through the magister militum Dionysius and through his vicar Comita Titus (Synod, pp. 135. 133. 140. 143. 146. 154. 173. 179. 180. 181. 183–185). The case of Theodoret himself is just as characteristic: a complaint was filed against him to Zeno, magister militum per Orientem; the order (resolution) of the emperor was given to the same Zinon and brought to the attention of Theodoret by the committee Rufus; and the undertaking not to leave Cyrus was taken through Euphronius τοῦ στρατηλατιανοῦ (ep. 82.79). This matter from beginning to end does not leave the department of the military master. Consequently, the concern of the Archbishop of Antioch is doubly understandable, so that the authority of the church, in such a place as Cyrus, finds a worthy representative. The post was undoubtedly difficult. Constant ebb and flow in the ranks of the army; a mixture of persons, states, cultures, and characters; from a pagan indifferent to Christianity to a Christian who looked death in the face and was therefore deeply religious; from an ordinary centurion, excellent only with weapons, to a brilliant aristocrat with a high career ahead, a well-educated tribune or comite. Mere movements from end to end, from east to west, common in the military world, imposed on the bishop of Cyrus the obligation to write letters of recommendation to persons of the highest positions in church and state - a task far from easy, because the spirit of the time demanded rhetorical grace from such letters. – In order to be “in his place” among such a flock, the multi-talented Theodoret had great resources at his disposal. If one was impressed by the reputation of the Bishop of Cyrus as a leading theologian, then another could value him for his wide acquaintance with classical literature. For some, his bright administrative mind, alien to the one-sided view of the world only as a vale of tears, was important - his activities aimed at giving a healthy life for the healthy. Others revered him as an ascetic of impeccable purity of morals and the highest selflessness. But did the charm of personal courage with which the missionary bishop walked towards the naked swords of fanatics and shed his blood under a hail of stones mean little to the military? (52). The military environment gave Theodorit the opportunity to meet high-ranking officials. Magister militum praesentalis Anatoly, who was previously magister militum per Orientem, knows how Theodoret philosophizes, because he often listened to his sermons in church - hardly in Antioch or only in Antioch (ep. 121). And Theodoret, in his dedication ’Επιτομή, calls the cousin of this influential patrician, commander of the guards division (comes domesticorum) Sporakius, his “Christ-loving son” (τῷ δεσπότῃ - καὶ φιλοχρίστῳ υἱῷ). Theodoret had every reason to value the favor of such persons. These were reliable patrons. Of the high-ranking persons during the reign of Theodosius II, the military, perhaps most of all, were protected from the dark intrigues of the court eunuchs in the clan of Chrysaphius. Zinon represented such a force that he had the courage to demand the death of even this temporary worker (though, with his Isaurians, Zinon instilled fear in the emperor himself). And in the end, Chrysaphius paid (under Martan) with his head precisely because, through his machinations, mag was killed in 441. mil. John Vandal. It was necessary to have Monophysite shamelessness in the choice of means in order to break the authority of Theodoret in the East in 448. A memorandum was submitted to Military Master Zinon (ὑπομνηστικὸν) that the Bishop of Cyrus “saddens some” by “frequently holding councils in Antioch.” In 449, the Edessa zealots also cried out: “Great Zenon, take him away, the Nestorian bishop (Iva)!” and they urgently asked jndex to bring these wishes to the attention of (also) “stratelates and ἀπὸ- ὑπάτων Zinon.” Meanwhile, this “stratilate” was a pagan and dreamed of nothing more or less than the abolition of Christianity and the restoration of paganism. 449 was a time of great trial for Theodoret. A teacher tried and condemned against his conscience by his disciples, a friend cowardly betrayed by his brothers in Ephesus, he is sentenced to deprivation of the priesthood and (:229) communion of St. secrets even along with the laity (communio laica). The same sentence struck Iva - but the consequences were not the same. The Metropolitan of Edessa “changed [before the Council of Chalcedon] twenty or more places of arrest and would have considered it a blessing for himself if he had been kept under arrest all this time at the Praetorium of the Committee of the East in Antioch. (DVS., IV, 193. Mansi VII, 205A). The simple bishop of Kir was released to “his own monastery” that he had planned. Could this difference be influenced by the still influential hand of Theodoret’s admirers in the military department? And the change for the better (ep. 139) took place like this: mag. mil. [praesentalis], patrician Aspar, put in a word for the defrocked bishop of Cyrus before his - in days gone by - subordinate (domesticus), and now sovereign, Marcian Augustus. Only the personality of Theodoret or the requests of his brothers-in-arms for him, and not concern for the good of the church, prompted Aspar to make this intercession. The fate of Theodoret was so strange that mag contributed to his overthrow. mil. pagan (Zinon), and to the new exaltation - mag. mil. Arian (Aspar). And maybe this will clarify something and a trace. stemma 12: The son of the same stratilate Areovinda patricius, to whom (39) Theodoret wrote two letters (Er. 23. Er. 19 Σακκ.), is married to the grandson of Askar, since Areovinda’s estate lay in Kirestik, τὸ Σεργιθέον χωρίον. This side of the matter is not touched upon by Mr. Glubokovsky. But even on purely ecclesiastical grounds, Theodotus could consider it important to provide the see of Cyrus to such a person as Theodoret, because with a highly gifted bishop it could become more important than another metropolis. According to the practice of the 4th century, if the diocesan council disagreed, then the metropolitan of the diocese invited several more bishops from the neighboring diocese to the council, and such a council decided the matter (Antioch. p. 14). In the 5th century such controversial matters went back to the “exarch” of Antioch and were resolved by him at σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα, to which bishops from various dioceses were convened. Cyrus lay just two days' journey from Antioch. Straight-line distance from Cyrus to Hierapolis = 60.1 Roman miles, from Cyrus to Antioch = 64.9 roman miles. miles. If you draw a circle on the map near Antioch with a radius of 64.9 m. pass., then in this periphery there will be a) the cities of Syria I, except for Palta; b) the city of Mallus in Cilicia I; but it lies on the other side of the Gulf of Issa; c) the cities of Cilicia II: Aeghi (on the other side of the bay), Epiphania, Alexandria and Rhos (all beyond the pass [440 mètres above sea level] across the Aman), d) the city of Cyrus in Euphratisia, e) the cities of Apamia (metropolis) and Seleucovilus in Syria II. In total, 8 (and on this side of the bay 6) cities from the “neighboring dioceses” were especially close to Antioch. Thus, the bishop of Cyrus could more often than many others be invited to σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα to resolve matters of the highest importance (for example, δοκιμασία and the approval of elections to the metropolis) and complexity, and for the archbishop of Antioch it was important to have the closest in Euphrates is the neighbor of a man with a clear mind and a strong will. And Theodoret became an almost constant presence at the Councils of Antioch. He is invited even burdensomely often. “Neither under the most blessed and holy Theodotus, nor under John of blessed memory, nor under the most holy bishop, Mr. Domna, did I come to Antioch on my own initiative (ἕκων), but they called me five, six times, and I barely obeyed, and that’s because the church canon exposes the bishop to responsibility for disobedience in such cases” (ep. 81). If we exclude the Time of Troubles of 431–435, then the following will remain, the famous historical councils in Antioch: α) in November–December 430 (7 bishops); A fraternal invitation was sent to Nestorius to leave the polemic against the word Θεοτόκος. Theodorite's name is worth 4 (including John of Antioch) [Mansi IV, 10680]; β) council on the case of Athanasius of Perra; 28 bishops; Theodoret is not present, but because, together with Metropolitan John of Hierapolis, he was most expressively removed by the defendant bishop (Mansi VU, 356A); γ) council on the case of presbyter Pelagius [or April 16] 448; Theodorit’s name comes 5th [followed by Julian of Alexandria, and not “Larissa (?)” already because the 10th and last was “Meletius (Larissa)” (:181)]; δ) council in [May?] 448 (Mansi VII, 217) on the case of Willow (10 bishops); Theodoret is not present, but because he is already obliged to take a written undertaking not to leave Cyrus. “This participation of Theodoret at the councils naturally raised his authority in the East: as a living bearer and keeper of the traditions of canonical practice, the Bishop of Cyrus in the last half of his life can give the highest fraternal advice” and on issues that do not rise to the decision in σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα. His influence is also known outside the East. Florentius himself, praefectns praetorio, makes a request to assist in the election of presbyter Eustathius to the see (apparently, Virian, not Aegean) specifically to Theodoret (: 36.44). “Although we occupy a see in another diocese,” was the response of the Bishop of Cyrus: “we can, however, offer fraternal advice. This we will do according to your order, and we will try in letters to persuade those on whom it depends to make this choice. For I also know that the most pious presbyter Eustathius is adorned with piety (ep. 5 Σακκ.). (:34) It has not been proven that “educational means, especially in the “East,” were extremely scarce,” nor that Theodoret was truly an initiator and not a continuer. – To describe the meaning of Isokasia cf. Hoffmann, 64.43: the “most pious Domnus” himself allegedly “was made a bishop through the influence of the pagan Isokasius.” (: 35). It is worth noting that from the letters of Theodorit we do not know about a single bad president of Euphrates or the committee of the East, and we know about several good ones [Neon, ὁ πραότατος Theodotos, Salustius, the committee Dionysius himself (theoretical discussion about bad leaders is only a prelude to the praise of Dionysius), the committee Titus]. (:36.42). “For this exact purpose” is not accurate. The filling of positions did not depend on Theodoret, and he did not have the opportunity to prepare young people for this. The danger that faced Theodotus and Philip was of a different kind: invisible, Isokasiy wanted to place these young people in positions in Antioch, and their relatives demanded that they themselves take up agriculture on their estates. Theodoret asks Isokasiy to take back his inconvenient favor. (:46). "Forty miles." Read: 1600 Roman miles = 3499.9 kilometers with an edge of 40 Roman miles. Measurement on the map (Kiepert) of this area within its natural boundaries gives an area close to a square (with sides of 41.3, 35.1, 39.3, 45.4 roman miles) = 3561.8 square meters. kilometer. – It goes without saying that in the petition for tax relief, Theodoret did not consider it convenient to talk much about the fruitfulness of Kirestika and noted only its unfavorable side. Meanwhile, this is what Newman [b. 318. cf. (32.11)] about Kirestik: “This is a country (it was and is) with rich clay soil, soft like black soil in a vegetable garden; it is difficult to even find a stone in it; and she is fertile to the highest degree (of the first fertility). Three rivers enhance its fruitfulness, and if it were not for the oppression of the barbarian government, this country - according to the stories of travelers - could alone produce grain in quantities sufficient for all of Syria.” (:43). Technical expressions in ep. 42 present great difficulties in translation. For what follows, it is important for me to note here that the options cod. Neapolitan. – of very high dignity, and the reading έπίβληθήναι should be adopted into the text by Vm. ἀπολυθῆψαι. Ή κομητιανή τάξίς = officium comitis, and not “Comitian painting”. Tax collectors serving under the committee (πράκτορες) are not able to collect taxes from those taxes from which they collect them directly. They petition the prefect for a discount from them, the praktors, of 2,500 fruitless taxes. And the prefect ordered to transfer (ἐπιβληθῆναι) these unprofitable taxes to the decurions, and in exchange for them to take from the latter 2,500 taxes of better quality and transfer them to the praktors. (:46). "James the Great". This name is inconvenient because Theodorit “ὁ μέγας Ἰάκωβος” (Migne, G. 82 pp. 1108. 1110. 1113. 1114. 1118) also names Bishop James of Nisibin, and not just the ascetic contemporary to Theodorit, who lived on the mountain 30 stadia [= ok 4 rom. Miles = approx. 5.9 kilometers] from the city of Kira. From the Syrian monuments (Wright, Cat. MSS. Syr. Brit. Mus. pp. 9516. 9866: מרי יעקוב דכפרא רחימא) it is clear that he is called: “Mar-Yakov d-Kafra-Rekhima”. “Kafrâ-Rehîmâ” is obviously the name of the nearest village in this mountain. And “Jacob the Younger,” a recluse near the village of Νιμουζᾶν, was apparently older than his Kaffir-Rekhim counterpart in years, since already in 439-440 he was at the end of his life, for he was more than 90 years old” (cf. 302) - Simeon the Stylite labored not in Kirestik, but within (apparently) Veria. Straightforward [in Rom. miles] distance "Jabal-Saman" ["Simeon's Mountain"] from Antioch 38.7, from Cyrus 37.5, from Berea 21.8. – Phalele labored in 20 stages [approx. 3 vol. pass.] from Gaval, next. on the southern outskirts of Syria I. (47–48). "Οὔτω καί ἡμεῖς πολλάκις τούς τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων καί ?? τυχόν, τόν δέ Ἰουλιανοῦ, ἣ Κοσμᾶ.” These words (ep. 144 ρ. 1242) are from instructions to “warriors.” Since the churches of St. Dionysius and St. Cosmas and Damian were in Cyrus, undoubtedly, so it is natural to assume that the church of St. Juliana. This is probably St. Martyr of Tarsus, on whose memorial day - June 21 - the words of St. Chrysostom and the Monophysite Sevier of Antioch. The most difficult ones - in the second half of the second chapter - are presented by the messages of Theodoret (err. 77. 78) to Persian Armenia. For the author - given his point of view on Theodorit - there are no such difficulties, and he (53) exclaims with enthusiasm: “The glory of Theodorit was so significant, and his pastoral wisdom was so valued by everyone that even Persian Christians sought his spiritual help.” Let us remember, however, how indignant Christians were in Persian Armenia when they became aware of the views of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Akakios of Melitina and Rabulus of Edessa are the authorities for Armenia (151), and one can least expect one to sympathize with Theodoret’s theology here. And the very fact of an embassy from abroad to the Bishop of Cyrus is as unusual as such an embassy to the Archbishop of Antioch would be natural. When persecution began in Persia in the 8th year of Yazdgerd II (Aug. 2, 445 – Aug. 1, 446), John, Bishop of Karka-d-bet-Slok [now Kerkoûk 35°28' N. latitude, 44°24' E. d. Green.], “wrote to the Patriarch of Antioch so that they would pray for him and his flock, that God would help them emerge victorious from the feat (ἀγών) to which they are called.” – Christians in Persian Armenia could have done the same. - In the most favorable case for the glory of Theodoret, the matter - in my opinion - should be presented as follows: the Persian Armenians sent an embassy to the Archbishop of Antioch, and he recommended that the ambassadors consult with the Bishop of Cyrus, highly respected in Antioch. But another explanation of the matter is also possible. However, to do this, it is necessary to first resolve the issue of err. 100. 86 (166–177. 2, 486–488). Since on er. 110 [«Αναγνούς>] recently two researchers, Marten and Mr. Glubokovsky, slipped; then obviously I have no right to consider simple what seems so to Tillmon and me, and I must go into some detail. There is ancient (VI century) news that Irenaeus of Tyre was ordained bishop of Domnoy of Antioch. Since the Bishop of Tire was Metropolitan of Phenicia I, it was necessary to confirm the election and ordain Irenaeus according to the canonical practice of the 5th century. it was precisely the “exarch”, Domnus of Antioch, who should have done it. But based on er. 110 claim that Theodritus, a contemporary, says of himself that he ordained Irenaeus. I present the contents of the ep. 110 periphrastically, where it is indifferent to the issue at issue, in the literal translation and original tirades that decide the dispute. The historical circumstances under which this message “Δόμνῳ ἐπισκόπῳ Ἀντιοχείας” appeared are as follows: not having been under church trial, Irenaeus, by imperial command of February 16, 448, was expelled from St. Tyrian church and was declared deprived of the priesthood. Theodoret is already in Cyrus and does not dare to leave there. The Tire department is still vacant. Domnus received the message [from Constantinople] and sent it to Theodoret for reading [in July–August 448]. Author er. 110 answers: After reading the message, I could not help but remember Susanna’s saying: “I am crowded from everywhere.” Before us [καί νῦν], lord, is an alternative: either to sin against God by acting against one’s conscience, or to be subjected to an unjust human judgment. But it seems to me that the sovereign does not know about any of this. If he wanted the consecration to take place, then what prevented him from directly ordering this? Meanwhile, they threaten us, they intimidate us, but they don’t send a decree about this. One of two things: either the sovereign does not agree to prescribe this, or we are being incited to commit an illegal act, so that we can then be punished for it. And there were such examples.... Moreover, on the very day on which the message was delivered to me, I had to read a letter of a completely different type: to one holy monk, both the spafarius and the ex-master wrote that the matter of the most God-loving Bishop Irenaeus would still be settled, and in gratitude for their efforts, they asked for prayers for themselves. Therefore, I think that the clergy who wrote from the reigning city should write down the following: The question is: who is meant by “I” when using the verb “ordination?” “Since the Patriarch of Anthy canonically ordained the metropolitans of Tyre,” argues Martin, “then you need to understand “I, Domnus, ordained,” and the entire letter - from the first word to the last - belongs not to Theodoret, but to Domnus and was sent by him to Flavian of Constantinople. - Er. 110 was written by Theodoret,” argues Mr. Glubokovsky: “Consequently, with ἐχειροτόνησα the subject is “I, Theodoret.” Tillmon, and after him Chizhman, think that the message was written by Theodoret, but in the tirade Ψήφῳ - λαμπρονόμενον Theodorit writes from the point of view of Domnus, and therefore one must understand “I, Domnus, ordained.” “It goes without saying that this attempt [by Tillmon-Chizhman] was very unsuccessful,” judges Mr. Glubokovsky. In my opinion, Tillmon gave the correct and final solution to the issue. - The expression: “Alexander, who adorned this apostolic throne”, next to certain: “Berean”, “Caesarean”, “Constantinople” is quite appropriate in the mouth of Domnus, who occupied this throne, and inconsistent, from the point of view of Theodoret: next to “Κωνσταντινουπολιτῶν” it would be уместнее «Ἀντίοχέων». The author’s analogies (2,487.65) are not close and do not convince me that instead of “τὸν ἀποστολικόν τοῦτον θρόνον” Domnus “would rather say τ. ἀ. ἡμέτερον θ": it would be difficult grammatically [ἡμέτερον - the second possessive next to the first ἀποστολικόν] and hardly delicate [the throne belongs to the Apostle Peter 13, and the bishops of Antioch are only modest and temporary заместители]. Итак, воззрение Тилльмона a) in accordance with the generally accepted canonical practice of the 5th century, b) in accordance with the direct (and may be taken from the document) statement of the compiler of the Synodik (VI century) and c) does not contradict anything. Therefore it is correct. In the tirade “Ψήφῳ μὲν – κατορθώμασι λαμπρυνόμενον,” Theodoret prepared a draft response in such a form that Domnus, without changing a word in it, could rewrite it, inscribe it with his own name and send it to Constantinople. The Syrian acts of the Council of Ephesus in 449 contain, among other things, a message that begins like this: “To the most holy and most God-loving lord brother and co-servant Flavian Domnus, rejoice in the Lord.” The further text (except for the end) is literally the same as in the ep. 86 “Φλαβιανῷ ἐπισκόπῳ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Πολλὰς μέν.” The author defends “the previous opinion, which has behind it” [dubious in such scientific matters] “the authority of prescription,” and loses sight of the fact that the new does not contradict the old here: Er. 86 is the literary property of Theodoret, but was written by him on behalf of Domnus. The objection to this (2.487) is keenly noted by the author. “Dioscorus not only allowed Domnos to be anathematized in his presence, but he himself confirmed this sentence with his own word ἀναστάς δέ καἰ προσφωνήσας εχείνων φωνὰς ἐπεβεβαίωσε]. If so, then how could the Antiochian primate be at the council of 448 as an equal member? “Of course, Dioscorus cursed Domnos not in jest.” However, it is possible to “resolve” this “difficulty”. The message gives an interpretation of a fact that happened in Alexandria. The people shouted anathemas against Domna - by name or descriptively; Dioscorus could confirm these cries, which, of course, did not consist of only anathemas, in general terms, praising, for example, the pious zeal of those crying out. There was undoubtedly no formal break between the Alexandrian and Antiochian churches (and according to ep. 86). Dioscorus was too perceptive not to understand that his anathema alone was not enough to depose Domnos, and too smart to exchange the influential position of the chairman of the council for [inevitable after a formal break] the position of plaintiff or defendant. – The difficulty indicated by the author in any case does not outweigh, therefore, the inconvenient passage for the “old” point of view: Dioscorus “everywhere and everywhere exposes the authority of the throne of blessed Mark, although he knows very well that the great city of Antioch has the throne of the great Peter, who was the teacher of blessed Mark himself and the supreme one among the apostles. But we are aware of the height of the throne, but we also know the limits for ourselves, for from time immemorial we have learned apostolic humility.” "Ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς τοῦ μὲν θρόνου τὸ ὕψος ἐπιστάμεθα, ἑαυτούς δέ καί γίνώσκομεν καὶ μετροῦμεν τὴν γὰρ ἀποστολικήν ταπεί ἄνωθεν μεμαθήκαμεν.” How meaningfully beautiful these words are from the lips of the Bishop of Antioch, this opposition [μὲν – δὲ] of his personality to the height of his throne! The successor to the chair of the apostle, he wants to be the bearer not of apostolic authority, but only of apostolic humility. But, expressed by the bishop of some Cyrus, this passage is deprived of all logical force: on the face there is one humble personality, but there is no convincing contrast of the height of the throne. – Whether it is appropriate for the bishop of Cyrus to take under his protection the benefits of the Antiochian see, which does not widow, is a new question 14. From these two examples it is clear that the most important messages on behalf of the Bishop of Antioch at this time were compiled by Theodoret. It is quite possible that the two messages to Persian Armenia are only his literary property. But when did Prester Stephen arrive in the East from Persian Armenia? The author does not try to solve this issue, and this is natural. Even Uhlemann’s article was outdated, and Mr. Glubokovsky did not have Nöldeke’s excellent book, indispensable in questions on the history of Persia of this time: otherwise his scientific curiosity would not have resisted the enticing prospect of making inquiries in the Armenian historians of this time using Nöldeke’s quotes 15 . But first of all, it is necessary to correctly interpret the position of Eusebius, to whom the answer was given in ep. 78. Who is this Eusebius by rank? The author accepts Schulze's text without criticism: But excellent cod. Neapolitans vm. ἐπισκόπῳ suggests πρεσβυτέρῳ, and the more authoritative tone is er. 78 compared with the “brotherly” in Epistle 77 to Bishop Eulalius [and all the bishops of Persian Armenia] shows that πρεσβυτέρῳ must be accepted into the text. Presbyter Eusebius is embarrassed that he has to take over the management of the diocese (in the Russian sense of the word) without the bishop's permission. Wouldn't this be imposture on the part of the elder? It should be further noted that α) Theodoret does not in a single word remind Eusebius to ask or beg his bishop for a blessing for his administration; that β) Christians of Armenia [and in particular Eusebius?] have already “suffered troubles” for the faith of Christ, “have greater boldness” towards God, and therefore the author of the letter asks for their prayers for himself, and himself prays for them: “May the God of peace crush Satan under your feet soon and may he rejoice us with the news of your peace (τῇ ὑμέτερᾳ γαλήνῃ)"; that γ) apparently there are apostates from Christ in Armenia, but it seems there are no martyrs yet; that δ) Eusebius sent his message or his question to the East, apparently with the same Stephen, presbyter of Bishop Eulalis. The question arises: what happened to the bishop to whom Eusebius was subordinate? “This “first bishop,” answers Tillmont, “was unable [hors d’état] to serve the believers, either because he died, or because he renounced the faith, or for some other reason unknown to us.” Of these three alternatives, only the last is worthy of Tillmont; according to the first two, this see is widowed, and instead of addressing this casus conscientiae to the distant see of Antioch, Eulalia with the closest bishops would simply ordain Eusebius to this see and make him canonically “helmsman, military leader and shepherd.” “The bishop was somehow unable to maintain the glory of the name of Christ with honor and dignity,” suggests Mr. Glubokovsky. But Theodoret’s text does not give the right to say this harsh “unable”: the situation is described only by the unconditionally neutral “τι πάθῃ” - the navigator can simply get sick - and the highly honorable πεσόντος - the general was killed in battle. Consequently, the bishop is perhaps even a valiant hero of the faith. Until the 11th year of Yazdegerd II [inclusive] the Christian faith in Persian Armenia [except perhaps for sporadic outbreaks] was not persecuted by the magicians. But at the very beginning of the 12th year [Aug. 449–5 Aug. 450] himself “the buzurg-framadar of all Aryans and non-Aryans” [the first minister of Persia] Mir-Nerseh turned to the Armenians with a demand - to renounce Christ and accept the “law of Mazdayasna”. Presided over by the Catholicos [resp. The administrator of the Catholicate] Joseph met at a council “all [18–19] bishops” with many chorebishops and presbyters and the main “naharars” [princes] of Armenia and responded to Mir-Nerseh with a message in which they expressed their unshakable determination to stand for faith in Christ until their last breath. Among the fathers of this council were the bishops: Tatik of Basyan, Evg’ag of Mardagi [ευλαλ επίσκοπος ματδαλυοj = Εὐλάλιος] and Ryshtuni Sakhak. The first consequence of this response was the summoning of several nakharars to the Shah, who received them so angrily that they, fearing the death that threatened them, pretended to renounce Christ and by February 450, accompanied by magicians, returned to Armenia. The magicians triumphantly proclaimed: in 6 months by Navasard in Navasard, that is, by New Year's Day [August 450], the end of Christianity! But when they began to close some churches, the elders resisted, the “Nakharars” turned back to Christianity, and by the summer of 450 the Armenians declared war on the Persians. An Armenian embassy arrived in Constantinople to ask the emperor for help. Theodosius was sympathetic to them, but soon died [July 450]. And to the new emperor Martan mag. mil. Anatoly did not advise declaring war on the Persians, having the Huns in the north. And the ambassadors stayed in Constantinople uselessly until May - June 451. Meanwhile, the Armenians won several victories over the Persians, and when military operations in the winter stopped until spring, “all the bishops and presbyters prescribed the entire month of Kag'ots [Dec. 450 – Jan 2 451] spend in fasting and prayers to God, and on the day of the Epiphany of Christ [January] perform a celebration in memory of the victories won, so that, timed to coincide with the eternal feast of the Lord, the memory of this celebration will be preserved forever. And about all this visitation of God, miraculously revealed over the Armenian land, the saints wrote. bishops and sent them to the Greek land to the great city to St. to the church clergy, so that they too unite their prayer to God, may He help them to finish as they began.” But these bright hopes were not destined to come true: on June 2, 451, the Armenians were completely defeated by the Persians. Subsequently, some nakharars and the most important clergy were summoned to the Shah to clarify the affairs of Armenia, by this time [end of July 451] already imprisoned by the traitor Vasak of Syuni in the fortresses. Among them were Catholicos [resp, governor] Joseph and Bishop Isaac of Ryshtuni. And even earlier, according to the false denunciation of Vasak, the Persian military leaders took away the bishop of Basyan ter-Tatik and imprisoned him in “Assyria,” where he died the death of a great martyr, apparently in July 454. And on July 25 of the same 454, Joseph and Isaac of Ryshtuni with their retinue suffered for Christ and were “crowned.” At the end of the information - geographical data. The main city of great Armenia, subject to Constantinople, 3) The time of relations with Antioch is before 454, maybe at the end of 450 - beginning of 451 (when the Armenian bishops invited the believers of the great city [Constantinople] to pray for triumph over the enemies), and maybe in 452-453 (when, after the defeat of the Armenians on June 2, 451, the Persian government had already decided to retreat from the plan - to convert the Armenians to the “Mazdayasn law”). 4) Theodoret probably wrote on behalf of Maximus of Antioch. The third chapter deals with dogmatics - the polemical activity of Theodoret in 431. The meaning of his polemic against the “chapters” of St. Cyril is presented by the author on the basis of a thorough study of the monuments related here - numerous extracts from them eloquently speak about this. I cannot have any objections to this part of the chapter; the limitations are very minor and, of course, are implied by the author, but there are some desiderata related to the current state of scientific information on this subject. to fight”, Dutch “krijgen” – the same thing; however, the Dutchman apparently prefers to call "war" not "krijg" but "oorlog", and peacefully writes "akademisch proefschrift ter verkrijging van den graad van doctor in de semitische letterkunde", "dissertation for obtaining [= winning] the degree of doctor of Semitic philology"; whereas the Norwegian understands the verb “krige”, apparently, only in the sense of “waging war.” There is no doubt that, for example, the words συνάφεια and σύνοδος sounded differently to the Alexandrian ear than to the Antiochian. Τίνι γάρ οὐκ εὔδηλον, asks Theodoret [anath. 3]: – ὡς “συνάφεια” καί “σύνοδος” ἐν οὐδενί διαφέρουσιν. For St. Kirill they were different. Even more remarkable is the difference in the regional use of the word “φύσις”. Anastasius of Sinaite preserved [Όδηγός, b. 63] next, valuable note: φυσικά τὰ ἀληθῆ τῶν πραγμάτων ὀνομάζει. Ὅθεν καὶ ἀληθεύων ἕτερος πρός τὸν ἕτερον ἐν ταῖς διαλέξεσί φησιν, ὅτι “φυσικά σοι λέγω”, τοῦτ’ ἕστιν, ἀληθινά. And indeed - as the Apophthegmata patrum shows, this treasury of spoken language of the 4th-5th centuries. - the Egyptian Greek usually assures with the word “φύσει” [in the sense of “yes”, “really”, “right”, “I assure you”] and this word was heard so often in living speech that it was adopted by the Copt who did not speak Greek. Here are examples. St. Isidore ['Ισίδωρος, η΄] went to Alexandria to visit Archbishop Theophilos, and when he returned to Skete, his brothers asked him: “πῶς ἡ πόλις.” He answered: “φύσει, ἀδελφοί [Coptic translation - Zoega 292: same φυσι να-σνηυ], I did not see a human face there, except for one archbishop.” When they heard, they were frightened and said: “Have they all failed, Abba?” But the ascetic simply didn’t look at anyone there. – St. Sisoes the Great [Σισόης, ζ΄] met a Faranite hunter in the desert and asked: “Where are you from? and how long have you been here?” He said: “φύσει, ἀββᾶ [Zoega 353: same φυσι πα-ειωτ], I have been on this mountain for 11 months, and I have not seen anyone except you.” In Hyvernat, Les Actes des Martyrs de l’Égypte (Paris 1886) I, 191, a Coptic legend tells how the martyr John was transported from Egypt one night on a cloud to heal the king’s daughter to Antioch and back. “Where have you been, my holy father?” his companion Simeon asks him. John replied: “But φισι πα-σον, I did not lower the stairs and did not open the exit door.” In A Peyron Lexicon linguae copticae, 266: φισι = coctio [Gen:25,30: ἕψημα boiling], and Hyvernat translates: “par la cuisson, mon frère!” But the oath “by brewing”, “per coctionem”, is so strange that, of course, you need to read: “Here, φύσει, my brother!” 16. And St. Kirill" explicitissime explains that when he says ἕνωσις φυσική, he means only ἕνωσις ἀληθής [εἰ δέ δή λέγοιμεν φοσιχήν τὴν ἕνωσιν, ἀληθῆ φαμεν] and uses the word φύσις here in the same assuring sense in which it is read in Eph. 2, 3: “by nature [φύσει] children of wrath,” and not as a philosophical term.” And the eastern ones object: “αὶ γὰρ φύσεις ----- ἀνάγκης ἀκολουθίᾳ δουλεύουσιν.” "ἡ γάρ φύσις ἀναγκαστιχόν τι ἔστι καὶ ἀβούλητον χρῆμα φυσικῶς πεινῶμεν, οὐ γνώμῃ τοῦτο πάσχοντες, ἁλλὰ ἀνάγκη.” Migne, G. 76, ρρ. 164. 167. 210. 213. So, in Alexandria “φυσικῶς” means: “naturally”, “naturally”, “really”, “in truth”, “undoubtedly”, and to demand from the Egyptian that he abandon such word usage and not call “true unity” the usual “φυσική” was the same violence against his dialect as the proposal would seem to us - to throw out the word “real” from philosophical lexicon. But the Antiochian “φυσικῶς” did not have this colloquial flexibility at all and meant: “physically” in a strict technical sense. At the end of the chapter, Mr. Glubokovsky assigns Theodoret the honor of compiling the Antiochian confession of faith in Ephesus. Of the newest scientists, Harnack holds the same view, but Meller doubts its correctness. Even earlier (90), Neander “expressed unfounded doubt on this score, without presenting any arguments in his favor other than the authority of his learning.” But that's not true. Neander writes: “Theodoret is called the author of the creed without sufficient evidence.” That these words are not an empty phrase is evident from the fact that the author had to spend five pages on this proof, and his arguments did not convince me. I'll start from the end. (95). “Only he [Theodoret] had access to the true spirit of the Nicene symbol.” The honor given to Theodoret is so great that it becomes terrible. What to think about the Eastern bishops in general, if only Theodoret alone has access to the true spirit of the Nicene symbol?! No, the easterners in Ephesus valued Theodoret: this is evident from the fact that he was elected as a delegate to Chalcedon. But he was not overestimated, he was not placed above everyone else: his name invariably appears seventh and last on the list of delegates. Let us assume, however, that already in Ephesus Theodoret was considered the leading theologian. But statements of faith are not always compiled by leading theologians alone. “Ορος of the Council of Chalcedon was written by a special commission. The Nicene symbol was apparently drawn up by the council itself. The “Dated Faith” of May 22, 359 was compiled at the general request of Mark of Arethus, not Basil of Ancyra, more famous than Mark. The psychological reasons for such a preference for a lesser-known theologian are, of course, the same as those for which in court the final résumé is left to the chairman. The leading theologians take too active a part in the discussion of the issue and - in the event of disputes - by the end of the debate they turn out to be people of the party, not impartial. – And there are no positive indications that the creed was compiled by Theodoret. (93). In er. 151 Theodoret cites part of the creed as a monument [and for him] symbolically authoritative, but not under his own name. In er. 112 Theodoret speaks as one of the few surviving participants in the events of 431. “We” has a collective meaning [e.g. τοῦ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων ------- καί εἰς τήν Κωνσταντινούπολιν κληθέντες -------- ὲπέμψαμεν]; at the same time, τα παρ’ ἡμῶν ἐκτεθέντα = statement of faith in Πρώην - Εὐφραινέσθωσαν, and this, in any case, is an additional edition of the statement of faith compiled in Ephesus. – Meletius of Mopsuestia (92) was brought here due to a misunderstanding. In 434–435 Theodoret was not a beatus because he was still alive. The fanatic Meletius at this time could only despise Theodoret as an apostate, and not appease him. Cf. Synod, p. 174: “ipsam [fidem] servantes ut apostolicam et a beatis patribus traditam, quam a Magno Theodoro, qui ea quae illi tradidere, tradens claruit, accepimus. ------- me, cui totius ecclesiae, et ecclesiae, cujns exstitit doctor, commissus est praesulatus." From these words of the same Meletius it is clear that by the interpretation of the Nicene [(:92) not “Ephesian”] symbol he means the exposition of Theodore of Mopsuestia 17, condemned by the Council of Ephesus read: “sicut ea beatus ille dominus noster [not Theodor et us] explanavit.” – (90). Nine letters to Theodoret have been preserved from Alexander of Hierapolis, and he always addresses the bishop of Cyrus with the fatherly, benevolent “you” (te, tua sanctitas). Only in the last letter did Alexander speak using “you” [Synod, p. 169: “Ab initio ego nec vos nec Cilicas sum secutus, et maxime vos” etc.], but immediately explained himself [“vos” autem dixi, ut facerem commune quod tuum est”] and then switched to “you” and ended with a heartily simple: “Non igitur tua religiositas fatigetur, sed oret pro nobis tantummodo.” In Synod, c. 96 Alexander says to Theodoret three times “tua sanctitas”; but: “epistola [“Consequenter quis”] – quae tunc a vestra religiositate conscripta est” and at the same time: “detestati sunt qui tunc Ephesi [this message] conscribebant.” If anyone can refer to this message of Alexander to Theodoret on this issue, then only one who believes that the message “Consequenter quis” is the work of the faction to which Theodoret belonged, but was by no means composed by Theodoret himself. The historical and dogmatic difficulties presented by the opinion defended by Pudgy-Baur-Kurtz-Schaff-Harnack-Glubokovsky are also quite great. Theodoret himself indicates the primary source of the Antiochian creed in the Text attributed to Ambrose of Mediola, and the Antiochian (respective Alexandrian) creed of 432–433 is a further edition of the previous creed. A comparison of these three monuments (attached here sub versu. – Cf. er. 171, Migne G. S3, p. 1355 col. 1484B. Cf. Synod, c. 86 (epistle of John of Antioch, written ad captandum consensum with Εὐφραινέσθωσαν - John hastens to share with Theodoret unexpected “suavia et bona nuntia”): “Et dividimus voces ut naturas, non solum nos, quibus a principio et a patribus vocum est super Salvatore amica divisio, sed hi qui sunt in Aegypto, sicut et nos qui sumus in Oriente.” Cf. Synod c. 139 [Theodoret himself writes to Constantinople with glee “esse enim qui Salvatoris nostri Christi naturas impio sermone confondebant -------- evangelicas dividunt voces et excelsas quidem Deoque dignas divinitati adscribunt, humiles vero humanitati coaptant” shows on four points [abcd] the difference between the creeds 431 and the writings of Theodoret. If he had been the author of this dogmatic monument, then, in all likelihood, he would have retained Ambrose’s expressions: (a) "perceived the perfect man" and (b) “for the union of two perfect natures took place”; (c) would introduce “και ἀνθρωποτόκον” into the presentation and (d) would add a clause about the “separation of the Gospel and Apostolic sayings,” which is read only in the exposition of 432–433. Apparently, it was not the hand of Theodoret, the man of war, but rather one that sought peace more than he, who inscribed the creed in Ephesus, carefully providing for and eliminating everything that - without immediate necessity - would arouse suspicion among the opponents. And such points - not to mention c or d - were even both b and a. And, if you need to make a guess about the author of the exposition, then you can see him in Bishop Paul of Emes, who enjoyed primarily the confidence of the peacemaker Acacius of Berean. In any case, Neander's remark remains in full force in 1892: the creed is attributed to Theodoret without sufficient evidence, ohne hinreichenden Beweis. α) (150). The author criticizes Mr. Dobroklonsky and finds in him “boldness of conclusions” without “firmness of considerations.” In my opinion, G. Dobroklonsky conducts his business with proper scientific caution, although not with such scientific means as Mr. Glubovovsky. But from the fact that Mr. Dobroklonsky made a mistake in dating the decree “Debita”, nothing follows from the value of the result of his criticism of another edition of this decree, beginning with the word “Debitam”. The author threw overboard the conclusion of his predecessor without presenting a single valid argument against it and without studying the controversial documents in detail. That in the edition of “Debita=Damnato” only the name of Nestorius appeared is a fact; because in cod. Theodosianus and cod. Iustinianus, this edition (in the part “Damnato”) was adopted precisely in this form [as far as the content is concerned], in which it is attested 1) by the ancient (official) Greek translation [“Τό τῇ εὐσεβεατάτη”], 2) by the reverse Latin translation [“Debita”], 3) by the corresponding the edict of the prefects ["Οὐδέν οὕτω" "Nihil ita"] in the Greek text and 4) the reverse Latin translation, 5) the sacrum against Irenaeus ("Πρέπειν" = "Θεσπίζομεν"], 6) the corresponding edict prfects “Καί νόμων”], 7) the law of Theodosius II, confirming the Council of Robbers, in the ancient Latin [“Olim quidem”] and 8) the Syriac translation. And the edition of “Debitam” is not confirmed by anything other than the edition of “Jam prius”; but both of them came from the same hands, processed according to the same program 18, and the editors of “Debitam” are convicted of their apocryphal nature by the very fact that such a work as “Jam prius” agrees with it. That the edition of the Debitam was not in the state archive at the time of publication of the codex lustinianus repetitae praelectionis [November 534], this is clear from the fact that in cod. lust. 1, 5, 6 "Damnato" corresponds to the original edition of "Debita", and not to the interpolated "Debitam". – That Aristolaus had a document in his hands that “gave him the courage to demand anathema” against Theodore is not “certain” for the sole reason that it is not known whether Aristolaus demanded such an anathema. Probably, Theodosius would not have agreed to prohibit “all disputes” about Theodore if a law along the lines of the wording of Debitam had already been issued. That such a decree could not have a “private purpose” is guaranteed by its entire content, and therefore it was either published as formally as “Debita”, or was not published at all. And “in the state archives” the edition of “Debitam” apparently appeared after 534. β) (151). The question of the date of the tomos of Proclus is very complex, and at present it is completely impossible to solve it. The author is right when he treats with distrust the Latin postscript under Proclus’ epistle “Οὐ μετρίως, ἀδελφοί”; but its authenticity must be disputed only on formal grounds [Garnier]: there is no example that the archbishops of Constantinople dated their messages according to the consuls. But this message could have been published in 435. 1) Liberatus assumes that the movement in Armenia (caused by the translations of Theodore’s works into Syriac) began during the life of Rabula, and it cannot be argued that Iva translated Theodore while already a bishop. 2) Neither Alexander, nor, especially, the highly fanatical Meletius, recognized any authority for Proclus. 3) There was undoubtedly a movement regarding the tomos in the East after 436–437; but the author, apparently, does not even suspect that St. Proclus wrote not one τόμος προς ἀρμενίους [message Οὐ μετρίως], but two. The second tomos has not reached us [only fragments collected from Migne G. 65, 887.888 have survived], but Innocent of Maroni [in an unpublished message in cod. Novar, xxx, 66, discussed in Amelli, S. Leone Magno e l’Oriente (Roma 1882), 27–28] quotes the saying “s. Procli ex epistola secund a, ad Armenios destinata" and says: "puto namque quia [beatissimus Proclus] secundam post haec [after Οὐ μετρίως and the agitation of Basil] edidit paginam." And, since John of Antioch praises the tomos he signed because his expressions are justified there by extracts from St. fathers, and in Οὐ μετρίως there are no patristic quotations at all: then one must think that the movement in the East was caused precisely by the second tomos [and, of course, Averius and Leontius were not involved in this episode]. I will make only two comments about Chapter Five. (175.59) The amendment proposed by the author is no better than Martin’s explanation, because in the end it leads to the same starting point from which Martin started. It is inconceivable that Domnus, informing the emperor about the “Apollinarian vanity” of Prester Eutyches, did not notify St. about this even earlier [or at least simultaneously]. Flavian; therefore, on November 8, 448, he would have known [and known] about it, in any case. But the name and manner of action of St. Flavian does not need such strained apologetics. This is what he said after reading Eusebius’ petition: “We are amazed by what we read: such a grave guilt is laid upon the most reverent presbyter and archimandrite Eutyches” [ἐκπλήττει μεν ἡμᾶς τὰ ἀναγνωσθέντα, τοιαύτην ἐπάγοντα μέμψιν τῷ εὐλαβεστάτῳ πρεσβυτέρῳ καὶ ἀρχιμανδρίτῃ Εὐτυχεῖ]. And this amazement is understandable, since Eusebius did not want strong expressions in his λίβελλος: Eutyches, according to him, dares to call the saints heretics and constantly reviles the saints. fathers ????? τοὺς ἁγίους πατέρας]. This side of the accusation was indeed not confirmed [Eusebius inflated the not at all criminal expressions of Eutyches]. “However, your reverence favors,” continued Flavian, “to visit him and talk with him about the right faith; and if it turns out that he really is wise in the wrong [καί εἰ εὑρεθείη κατὰ ἀλήθειαν οὑκ ὀρθῶς φρονῶν], then St. the cathedral and will call him.” Eusebius did not agree to this proposal: he had already talked enough with Eutyches. “The Most Holy Archbishop said: “Let your reverence [ἀνάσχηται ἡμῶν ή σή εὐλάβεια] listen to us and again take the trouble to go to the monastery and talk with him properly and with a peaceful goal, so that again no excitement and turmoil in the holy churches of Christ" ὅστε μή τινα πάλιν ταραχήν καί θόρυβον έγγενέσθαι ταῖς ἁγίαις Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίαις]. But Eusebius persisted. And "St. the council said: “It would behoove your reverence to listen to the exhortations παραινέσεσι] our most holy and most reverend archbishop.” Thus, the point is not what St. thought about Eutyches. Flavian November 8, 448; but, as a judge, he did not have the right to consider the accused guilty, and as a wise shepherd, he had (in the current historical conditions) reason to fear that new turmoil would come out of the case raised by Eusebius for the church, and tried to reject it. And the cathedral fully approved of St.’s course of action. Flavian. (181) The time of Pelagius’s “renunciation” (ἐξωμοσία) can be established with a certain degree of probability. Hoffmann, 60,24–31 [cf. 67.32.36. 61.1.6.7.] three days after they seized the most reverent presbyter Pelagius, beat him and took him [under arrest = ἔσυρον] and forced an impious recantation from him, - [all this, of course, did not happen in one day, and the count must begin from the last fact, the submission of ἐξωμοσίας], Theodoret preached during the service in Paul's church and said: “Thomas touched the resurrected one and worshiped the resurrected one.” These words were covered with sympathetic exclamations. By the way, they shouted: “No one accepts the faith because of the Sacre!” And Theodoret further praised the zealots: they, like Nabusei, will not betray their fatherly heritage. They heard the same praise (with a mention of Navusea) from Domnus “on the day when the sacra was brought up against Nestorius and Irenaeus.” Consequently, the sacra was published on the day when Theodoret spoke his word about Thomas, which could not be more appropriate on Thomas’s week, i.e. April 18, 448. It was on this day that the sacra, given on February 16, was published in the Egyptian monasteries in the desert. In all likelihood, an order was made for this sacra to be published everywhere on one day. In this case, Pelagius submitted his abdication on April 15 or 16. This is understandable: he was put under arrest for campaigning, which was naturally carried out during Holy Week before the baptism of the catechumens. The clash between Theodoret and Pelagius occurred because the latter, already upset by the fact that on Great Wednesday, in the last catechumen speech to the catechumens, Domnus clearly and persistently spoke about the two natures in Christ, insisted that those who were enlightened be baptized “according to the holy tradition of our Savior,” according to the “teaching of 318 St. fathers,” apparently meaning by this that nothing more was required from those who were enlightened than knowledge of the Nicene symbol, and the question of the natures in Christ was not proposed. Theodoret 19 did not agree with this. Moreover, Pelagius valued his “educational” activities and theological studies. But Theodoret did not rate Pelagius’s works highly. “In the presence of the bishops” [maybe April 15–16], he said to Pelagius: “Yes, interpret [“passeq” - the most undoubted imperativ] the works of Plato, Aristotle and doctors, and do not come close to the [holy] writings!” (:219.:9). This is the meaning of this expression [not understood by the author]. And I make two comments about the sixth chapter. (289.201. 2.342–348). The author touches on a question that he examined in detail in Volume II - the question of the authenticity of Ch. 12. Haereticarum falmlarum compendii, and solves it in a positive sense. All authoritative scientists, starting from Tillmon and ending with prominent representatives of theology in the West and here in Russia, answer this question in the same way as Mr. Glubokovsky. And yet, mutatis mutandis, only the opposite and lonely view of Garnier is correct. To judge the hereseological work of Theodoret, it is important to know the time of its appearance. Undoubtedly, the Compendium appeared after the History of the God-Lovers and the History of the Church. Ή φιλόθεος ἱστορία, according to the author, (2.416) was written in 444–445, in my opinion in 439 or 440. The difference depends on what I consider an error in the chronological techniques of Uhlemann in his study of Simeon the Stylite: only his Syrian biography Presbyter Kuzma, whose data is confirmed by the Antiochian Evagrius, should be considered the basis of chronology, and not the monuments in the Acta sanctorum. – Terminus post quem of the edition of ’Εκκλησιαστική ἱστορία – 441 years, terminus ante quem – August 3, 449 (2.246–247). Timing h. E. 5, 3 there is no reason specifically for the council in November 448: Theodoret always looked at Monophysitism as a fiend of Apollinarianism; Eutyches and the people of his way of thinking made themselves known long before November 448, and Theodoret had already written his “Eranist” - even according to the author - perhaps at the end of 447. - Therefore, I disagree with the author 20 in my opinion about the time of the appearance of Compendii and I think that the copy of the work written for Sporakius’s comes domesticorum was sent to Constantinople at the very beginning of 449. a) If Theodoret had written after the Council of Chalcedon, he - in all likelihood - would have closely adhered to his presentation of faith in the 5th book and would have introduced into it the exact terms μίαν ὑπόστασιν. b) The Compendium was written, in any case, before January 1, 452, when Sporakius became consul Ordinarius. This distinction is too important in the cursus bonorum of the Byzantine dignitary for Theodoret to ignore it in his dedicatory preface. c) Theodoret wrote after the Lord ἀθρόον ἀνέσπασε πρόρρίζον the Eutychian heresy. “ἀθρόον” contains a moment of surprise 21. The Council of Flavian in November 448 really broke out over the heads of the Monophysites quite unexpectedly, like a thunderstorm in the middle of a cloudless sky: the Council of Chalcedon was preceded by 25 tedious months after the robbery. d) Compendium was processed with great haste; Theodorit used previously prepared material, without thoroughly processing it. Here are examples. aa) IV, 7. At first the Melitians were only schismatics, but then, “seeing that Arianism was patronized by the emperors, they were seduced into this heresy. Now, they say, they have fallen behind Arianism, but have not reunited with the church, but live separately and defend their self-government. And, as autonomous people, they introduced some funny customs [τά καταγέλαστα]: every other day they cleanse their bodies with water; hymns are sung with clapping and dancing; they ring bells, many of them hanging on one rope, etc. Therefore (οὕ δή χάριν) the great Athanasius constantly fought against them.” – The last words represent both a chronological incongruity [the abandonment of Arianism took place - and funny customs appeared only “now”, νῦν δέ] and a general historical one [the great Athanasius would not have fought over bells and bathing every other day]. But if we omit the tirade “Now - etc.” “Νῦν δέ γέ – παραπλήσια”, then it turns out to be a completely correct idea that Athanasius v. He also fought with the Melitians as allies of the Arians. Consequently, the anecdote about “ridiculous customs” is a late insertion (for some amusement of a reader like Sporakiy); Theodoret did not have it in the original record. bb) IV, 6. Fanatical Donatists “like madmen rush from the heights into the abyss. I’ll tell you one funny incident [χαρίεν τι συμβάν].” A crowd of fanatics met one strong young man and offered him to kill them with a sword, threatening to kill him if he refused. The young man agreed to kill them, but with the condition: first he would tie them all up. The fanatics allowed themselves to be tied up; then the young man beat them all with sticks and left, leaving them tied up. “The wicked demon plunged them into such truly madness.” – The fact that the Donatists are beaten with a stick does not yet show their madness; but when they rush from heights as if in a frenzy, they can really be mistaken for madmen. Consequently, here too the “amusing incident” “Ἐγώ δέ μεταξύ – καταλιπών” was inserted by Theodoret only in 448–449. ss) This - so to speak - stitched nature of the work also explains the fact that in V, 11 the list of heretics ends not with Eutyches, but only with Apollinaris: this chapter was written when Theodorit did not yet have the right to call the Monophysitists “Eutychians” (IV, 13). – Given the nature of the work, writing the “five books” did not require much time: the calligraphers had to work more than the author himself. There is no doubt that Chapter IV, 13 (περί Εὐτύχεος) was written by Theodoret himself. This is not the case with the previous chapter “περί Νεστορίου”, which Garnier considers to be fraudulent. Against this, Mr. Glubokovsky points out that Leontius of Byzantium (in the 6th century) and Photius already read this chapter, and Garnier contrasts this evidence of the oldest manuscripts known to us with “some words, phrases and hypotheses.” But, since Leonty read ch. 12 years later, 80 years after the Compendia was written, then, of course, one can only refer to this evidence of the authenticity of the controversial chapter only by resorting to a “hypothesis” - assuming that during these 80 years ’Επιτομή was preserved in its original form. Consequently, here both Garnier and Mr. Glubokovsky stand on the same ground. Manuscripts do not extend back to the very “mist of centuries,” i.e., until 448 (2.345). – The author thinks that chapter 13 “stands in very close connection with chapter. 12", and who counts Ch. 12 for interpolation, he “must cross out” and Ch. The 13th is undoubtedly genuine. But this is not true. There is no connection between these chapters. Theodoret wrote, after the chapter on the Messalians (IV, 11) the following: “Ἐπειδή δε τοῦ κόσμου κατά μικρὸν ὑπορρέοντος καί πρὸς τήν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς ἐπειγομένους λύσιν, πᾶς τις ἑαυτὸν ἀξιόχρεων εἷναι τῆς εὐσεβείας διδάσκαλον ὤετο, διά τὸν ἐξ ἀμαθίας τῦφον οὐδενός μανθάνειν ἀνεχομένου έσχάτην δὴ πάντων τήν δυσώνυμον τῶν εὐτυχιανῶν δ βάσκανος δαίμων εἰσήγαγεν αἵρεσιν, δι’ ἧς τάς κατά τήν οἰκουμένην ἐκύκησεν ἐκκλησίας καὶ ὄργανον εὑρών τῆς οἰκείας δεκτικόν πονηρίας τόν δείλαιον Εὐτύχη, τήν πρόπαλαι μαρανθεῖσαν ἄρεσιν Βαλεντίνου πάλιν ἀνθῆσαι πεποίηκεν.” This whole tirade is so coherent that hardly anyone would suspect the omission of even one line, not just an entire chapter, in the manuscripts in this place. And if we compare with these lines the following passage from the message [paragraph 6] of Leo c. to Theodoret: "ad. fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum Antiochenae sedis praesulem scripsimus, adjicientes et illud, quod nobis propter improbitatem monachorum quorumdam regionis vestrae verbo mandasti per vicarios nostros [at the Council of Chalcedon] et hoe specialiter statuentes, ut praeter Domini sacerdotes nullus audeat praedicare, seu monachus, siue ille sit laicus, qui cujuslibet scientiae nomine glorietur,” – then it will become clear that this is exactly what Theodoret wrote. He did not in any way encourage uncalled theologians to teach (let us only remember his advice to Pelagius “not to come close to the Holy Scriptures”) and, of course, thought that Archimandrite Eutyches could “stay in the monastery as if in a tomb,” listen to the instructions of the archbishops of Constantinople and not teach at all: the dogma of the “pathetic Eutyches,” who seemed to have a flower and a novelty rushing around with the “long-faded heresy of Valentine” seemed to him wretched to the point of ridiculous [τοῖς καταγελάατοις αὑτοῦ κέχρημαι λόγοις]. Meanwhile, in the present text, these lamentations that everyone wants to teach and, due to ignorant arrogance, no one deigns to learn, stand as a prelude to the chapter περί Νεατορίου, where it is completely out of place: Nestorius was, undoubtedly, “sacerdos”, and taught according to the duty of his rank 22. And Mr. Glubokovsky’s remark that it is impossible to omit περί Νεστορίου because the “last heresy” inevitably presupposes Nestorianism, but not Messalians, who are in no way connected with the Eutychians (2, 346), refutes itself: the Nestorians are even less connected with the Eutychians than the Messalians. And in general, the order of the chapters of Book IV is not at all genetic. Did the Donatists (IV, 6) degenerate from the Macedonians (IV, 5)? Is Apollinarianism (IV, 8) “in touch” with the Egyptian Melitians (IV, 7)? Meanwhile, the following internal grounds speak against the authorship of Theodoret: α) In er. 143, to the monk Andrew of Constantinople (274), Theodoret writes in 448–449 that he considers wicked “those who divide Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, the God of the Word made man, into two sons, if only there are such people, εἵπερ ἅ τίνές εἰσιν.” “For,” he adds, “I don’t think so; but this slander has always been woven against the church by the Arians, Eunomians and Apollinarians. And now this accusation is brought against us by the valiant champions of the new heresy.” Consequently, Theodorit doubts the very existence of Nestorians in the world; and in this case, the chapter against Nestorius would have been too “academic” in nature next to the presentation of the “tares” that actually exist. β) If Ch. 12 was written by Theodoret, he did not show himself to be αα) neither a serious theologian, ββ) nor a conscientious polemicist, γγ) nor a reliable contemporary historian. αα) Like St. Cyril, Theodoret understood that dogmatic Nestorianism is the doctrine of “two sons,” that is, of two persons in Christ. In ch. 12 – not a single word in this sense, but on the contrary ββ) everything is reduced to the polemic of Nestorius against the word θεοτόκος, “τό μή δεῖν – Θεοτόκον ὁμολογεῖν, Χριστοτόκον "δέ μόνον." Fatal for the question of the authenticity of Chapter 12. the fact that in book V Theodoret forgot not only to write a chapter stating that St. The Virgin is the Mother of God, but in V, 11 she only says “διά τῆς Παρθένου, ἐκ τῆς Παρθένου, πρός τήν Παρθένον”, therefore, in IV, 12 conducts polemics for the sake of polemics only and, contrary to the whole plan of his ’Επιτομή, in the book. Chapter IV, 12 does not contrast anything. γγ) For Theodoret, a contemporary, everything comes down to a polemic against Θεοτόκος, which is also inconvenient because even before the Council of Ephesus, Hestorius sent to John of Antioch [Synod, p. 3] a copy of his word, in which he says that “the holy church calls the holy and blessed Virgin Mary,” but not in the sense in which heretics use this name. And that it is unworthy of a serious person to suspect even the most theological training in Nestorius, to whom Theodoret undoubtedly treated 20 years ago not without respect, this observation cannot be weakened by the artificial interpretation of Mr. Glubokovsky (2.343), as if Theodoret “talks about Nestorius’s stay in the house of his parents, about the initial stages of his mental development”: who in the 5th century. analyzed the educational stages so subtly? γ) Text of Ch. 12 represents borrowings unparalleled by Theodoret - in their aimlessness -, firstly, from Gregory the Theologian. They were indicated by Garnier. The author (2,348,23) finds that “the similarity is very small; Yes, even if it extended to literalness, it would not prove that Ch. 12" was not written by Theodoret. It would not prove if it were proven that in other works Theodoret was the same “eranicist”-inlayist and transferred what was said in the source about Arius, for example, to Apollinaris or Avdeus. It undoubtedly extends to the literal. It is not small, because - according to Garnier - the following parallel should be given: Bo-secondly, in chapter 12 pseudo-Theodorit also borrows from Vasily V.; they were just not indicated by Garnier and - as far as I know - no one else. For all these reasons, the author of Chapter IV, 12 must be called only pseudo-Theodoret. In all likelihood, the forgery was committed at the end of the 5th or at the very beginning of the 6th century. a man who understood that the Monophysites were seeking anathema on the person of Theodoret only in order to put the Orthodox in conflict with the Council of Chalcedon, which proclaimed to Theodoret: “τὸν ὀρθόδοξον διδάσκαλον ή εκκλησία ἀπολάβῃ.” The danger was posed by those δοσανάγαγοι who were embarrassed by the fact that “Theodoret is everywhere accused of error in faith” (312), did not want to go into theological research, demanded tangible evidence of his Orthodoxy and were ready, otherwise, to betray him to the Monophysites. The forger created such evidence. He understood the difference in his own style and Theodorite’s, which was noticeable to his contemporaries, and therefore, in order not to be caught in a forgery, he worked according to the models of the most ancient fathers and often resorted to instruments. The imitation turned out to be so successful that 20 years later Leontius of Byzantium fell into deception. – In libellus πρός Σποράκιον (2.349), apparently, the original draft of the forger also survived. He, however, came to his senses in time and realized that Ch. 12, complicated by a long confession of faith, will turn out so unlike all the others that it will only arouse suspicion in the readers. What works were the last years of the Bishop of Cyrus devoted to? The data in volume II is more complete than volume I. (2.501) The author has already managed to discover that Theodoret wrote an apology against John, presbyter of the Aegean. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity, and its main meaning is clear from the fact that John, if Photius is not mistaken, in codd. 55, cf. 41. φύσεις." This prompted a response from Theodoret. – Another trace, apparently of the same apology, is in the Syrian edition of the history of Zechariah of Mytilene, 7.7 [Land, Anecdota Syriaca, III, 217], which says that those who enjoyed the favor of St. Macedonia II of Constantinople (496 – 7 Aug. 511) Akimite monks “constantly read the works of Diodorus and Theodore. And Macedonius himself quotes (χρήσεις) from them and from the work compiled by Theodoret in defense of the acts of the council) Home page πεπονημένου Θεοδωρήτῳ ὑπέρ τῶν πεπραγμένων τῆς συνόδου), which is not translated [?] into Syriac language, wrote it in one book, decorated it with gold and said: “These are the retinue fathers and teachers of the church.” But when he showed [?] it to the emperor, he did not like it, and he even told him: “You don’t need them; but go and burn it." - Macedonius did not obey this order. When did Theodoret, after this glorious activity, die? In the author's answer to this question (301), the “text” is in disagreement with the “note.” In the text, Mr. Glubokovsky confidently concludes that since “in the epistles of Bishops of Syria I and II there is no name of Theodoret,” he has already died. And in the “note” the author rightly sees that Theodoret was the bishop of Euphrates and, therefore, his name should not be among the bishops of Syria I and II. The epistle of the bishops of Euphratesia was undoubtedly sent, but the copyists did not bother to preserve it until us. There is “direct evidence” for this. Mansi VII, 551CD, c: “similiter. Euphratesiae". To clarify the question of the time of Theodoret’s death, references in manuscripts stored - alas! - in London. aa) In 514 [in the fall?] Sevier of Antioch was in Cyrus and preached three sermons: one of them about the incarnation against Theodoret. Is it not on the day of his death? Wright, 538. bb) A forgery or a fact, but misinterpreted, lies in the news that St. Simeon the Stylite, outraged by the “blasphemous” speeches that Theodoret “sowed in his ears,” armed himself zealously and wrote [against Theodoret] “to the Emperor Leo, who reigned after Marcian”? Wright, 951. Was not the apologist for the actions of the Council of Chalcedon denigrated by someone in the eyes of the emperor? Since the Monophysites do not stop even at obvious untruths, just to betray St. Simeon for their saint, Wright, 986, then it is possible to answer the question posed in the negative. If Theodoret was respected in Constantinople in 457, then here is reason to think that in the summer of 457 he was no longer alive: Circular message from the Emperor. Leo was sent not only to the metropolitans, but also to some prominent bishops, namely to Eustathius of Virite, Julian of Tavia, Adelphius of Aravis, Lucian of Visia, even to Epheric of Smyrna; but the name of Theodoret of Cyrus is not on this list. Mansi VII, 788. 523. And perhaps if the venerable fighter for τά πεπραγμένα τῆς συνόδου had been alive at the end of 457, he would have sung such a swan song in defense of the universal authority of the council in the response message of the Euphratesians 630 fathers, which would make a wonderful literary monument. But the message of the bishops of Euphratesia, apparently, turned out to be ordinary, and they did not consider it necessary to rewrite it, but registered it as the laconic Euphratesiac” after “similiter” 24. To volume II, so as not to go completely out of scope for the review, I devote only a few cursory notes, almost exclusively in the form of dry antitheses. Exegetical works of Theodoret. This section, a remarkable monument to the author’s diligence, gives the reader incomparably more than can be expected from a book about Theodoret in general, and incomparably less than a special monograph on the exegetical works of Theodoret. G. Glubokovsky apparently remained unknown to the names of de Lagarde and Field (2,20,71). His “regret” was late: the works of Theodoret, like the thesaurus of Lucian’s review, were inherited by the two scientists named in the most thorough manner; those manuscripts in which Lucian’s text is preserved have also been identified. And, if the author had used in his work not what he [falsely] calls “edito princeps 1xx,” but de Lagarde’s edition, he would have seen that probably 9/10 of Theodoret’s discrepancies had already been accepted in that deeply learned restoration of Lucian. The article “Alexandrinische Übersetzung des A.T.’s (Fritzsche) in HerzogPlitt RE2 I, 280–290 also escaped his attention, and this was reflected in the formulation of questions in his research. Theodoret, he believes, used α) Lucian’s text in various copies, β) Origen’s exaplos, γ) translations of Aquila, δ) Symmachus, ε) Theodotion, σ) some “other translators” different from the “three” (2.25), ζ) the Syrian Peshito and η) even the original Hebrew text; – But one glance at Field, Prolegomena, xv 25, would convince the author that if Theodorit really used what is correctly called “exaples” of Origen, then there is no need to specifically list Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion. In total, instead of 8 sources of the text, only 5 are obtained. - Then (2,25,83) the author is misled by the Russian translation: instead of “Symmachus” you need to read: “namely: Symmachus”, “ἀλλ’ ὁ μέν Σύμμαχος”; next, Theodorit does not “distinguish”, but identifies these “οί δὲ ἅλλοι ἑρμηνεταὶ” “with three” - ΑΣΘ, contrasting them only with seventy = of Ó. This is how the places indicated in (2,25,81) should be understood. – But did Theodorit really use “exaples”, i.e. columns 1–6? Based on the available scientific data, no. Field made a still unrefuted assumption that Origen’s “octaplas” = “exaples” existed in one and only copy, stored in the Caesarea library. And all the exegetes who referred to “exaples” had at their disposal only τό ἑξαπλοῦν, that is, a copy of column 5 [of Ó] and more or less abundant excerpta from other “σελίδια”. Apparently, the same thing happened with Theodoret. – Theodoret, of course, understood [and spoke and read?] in Syriac; but the ό Σύρος of the ancient interpreters is not “peshito” everywhere (2:27,80), but a special type of text and, moreover, in Greek. Whether things stand differently with Theodoret is still a question. – I don’t think that Theodoret could use his modest knowledge of the Hebrew language to read the original text (1 column). As a person who understands the Syriac language, he could guess the meaning of individual Hebrew words and - perhaps - phrases transcribed in column 2, just as every Russian understands something in Polish, and anyone who can read some German can understand something in a book in Dutch or one of the Scandinavian languages. – I don’t see evidence of “the philological insight” of Theodoret (2.28,93) in the example given by the author, since - apparently - one should read not “Αϊα”, Prolegomena in Hexapla Origenis, Oxonii 1874, I, p. xv. – Ps. 109.3. a “Ιa”, and therefore it has not been proven that Theodoret even only suspected that Exodus 6:3 reads not יהוח [or – as he seems to assume everywhere – יה], but אהיה. But, on the other hand, (2.18) Theodoret does not need protection for his ὁ Ἑβραῖος βελοαῦ: that passage is impeccably good - P. de Lagarde himself is a guarantee for that [Mittheilungen, II, 354] - and there is no need to correct it: Theodoret did not give a lesson to children from elementary Jewish grammar, but interpreted by St. the text and therefore was not obliged to analyze “βΗ+ελοει[μ]+υ”. – (2.17) “Somewhat disdainfully” Theodore of Mopsuestia spoke only about the Syriac translation, never “about the Hebrew original,” because he always assumed that 70 knew the Hebrew language better, translated St. the text is more accurate than some unknown Syrian translators. – (2.30) The long list of Theodoret’s manuals prepares the reader for some disappointment: one might think that the Bishop of Cyrus knew all these sciences more seriously. But he is not yet a mineralogist who knows that topaz is a precious stone. The “refutation of astrology” (2.30.4) was quite problematic, since Theodoret himself believed that comets bode ill. And if the author decided to check the value of those τα χρονικά that Theodoret used, then he would have to rank them not particularly highly. And Theodoret’s impossible assumption that the Jewish year always consisted of only 354 days shows that in chronological matters the learned bishop of Cyrus was only a guest, and not a host. The exact significance of Theodoret's exegetical works will only be established when several detailed monographs appear on them. Dogmatic and polemical works of Theodoret. (2.141). Theodoret's "Pentalogue" existed and consisted of 1–5 λόγοι, described in Phot. cod. 46. ​​From these Marius Mercator extracted his 1–5 excerpta. “Ex eodem libro” – in Excerptum sextum – is an erroneous inscription. (2.189–191). I agree so much here with Mr. Glubokovsky that I even assume that Theodorit takes his opponent’s objections - they are so precise in places and even to the point - almost textually from some Monophysite polemical treatise. (2.158). The expressions of "Eranist" do not "mutually exclude" themselves." “More than once” I have said “that I also do not think that God the Word appeared incorporeal” - such a statement is too definite and clear, and therefore the previous passage must be read: Orthodox: “And if these words 26 are true, then, therefore, the Lord had a body.” Eranist: “Ἐγὼ γ’ ἇρ’ αὐτὸν ἀσώματον λέγω;” “Do I really call Him incorporeal!?” Orthodox: “Άλλ’ ὁμολογεῖς αὐτόν ἐσχηκέναι σῶμα” “So you confess [= agree] that He had a body.” Eranist: “I say that the Word became flesh, for so the Scripture teaches.” The dispute is over the categories εἷvαι [resp. γενέσθαι] and ἔχειν. (2.167). Not “by analogy with man,” but in contrast to man. Theodoret distinguishes between ἔνωσις φοσιχή in man and unity according to good will and love for mankind and grace in Christ. Vertas folium, and the matter becomes clear. And the words: “how” we do not distinguish - qualities” (2.168.463) is not the thesis of Theodoret, but the objection of the “Eranist”. (2,186,533). Now I see clearly what I did not notice in 1884. All those places that Theodorit has in common with the acts of the Council of Chalcedon should simply be crossed out: they were brought here by the hand of some reader who decided to strengthen Theodorit by connecting τὰ ὅμοια τοῖς ὁμοίοις, Of course Theodoret could not - pp. 142–144, coll. 185АВС, - having been discharged from St. Ambrose “Φυλάξωμεν διαίρεσιν – ὑποστάσει λαλεῖ”, after 15 lines write again the same text in a different translation “Φυλάξωμεν τήν διαφοράν – ἐλάλει τῇ φύσει" 27 . The latter is taken from the 2nd act of the Council of Chalcedon Mansi VI, 965D. There are other clues to interpolation. Therefore, I only have to apologize for Chr. Thurs. 1885, I, 64, line 6 28. Consequently, there is a dispute pro nihilo between the author and Ballerini; in basic assumptions, however, Ballerini is right. (2,204,30) Only Neumann is right: there is no basis for timing “Healing” to a specific year. Church history of Theodoret. (2.244) Neither the author nor Gyldenpenning treated Gaisford’s edition with the attention it deserved, and overlooked that only in it was it published for the first time, V, 18, pp. 431–432 letter of Acholy of Thessaloniki to Ambrose of Mediolan "Ὁ πάλαι τὸν ἠρεμοῦντα." (2.290) In my opinion, Theodoret did not use Philostorgius. (2,296.298) It is impossible to prove in any way that “historia arianorum ad monachos” was known to Theodoret. (2,316.328) The high dignity of Theodoret’s history - as the author rightly believes - lies in his “eastern” point of view. He is a “Meletian” historian. In V, 3 he gave the only true account of what happened between St. Meletius and Paulinus, as proven in Rade, Damasus, Bischof von Rom (Freiburg im B. 1882), 118–123. His “τῷ θαομασίω Σιλβανῶ” 11,26,7 27,26 is a precious tradition of the Eastern Church of the 5th century, crossing out the novelistic one-sidedness of Socrates-Sozomen’s narrative about church life in the half of the 4th century. (2.317) No. 2 should be crossed out. Wed. (2,298,348). (2,265,122). The author is too one-sided when he places Theodoret – not as a church historian, but as a historian in general – above Socrates. In this last respect, the Bishop of Cyrus is far from the scholastic of Constantinople 29 . “Praefatio” - on the contrary - highly recommends Socrates, who aa) names his sources and ßß) - as soon as he was convinced that Rufinus had led him into error, - rewrote two books of his “history” again. And Theodoret decorates his pages with the names of Athanasius the Great and other high officials and is silent about the modest Rufinus. According to the author himself (2.437), Theodoret made “one sharp incongruity” in hïstoria religiosa. In hist. ecel. I, 14 he already writes correctly, in hist. eccl. I, 7,4 he refers the reader to that chapter of hist, relig., in which this “sharp incongruity” was admitted, and does not specify his mistake in either place. And the fact that in all five books Theodoret did not set [with the exception of the well-known exception (2,335,584)] not a single exact date is so eloquent that Seillier’s “gratitude” (2,336) comes out as pure curiosum. In the words I, 3.3: “τῆς δέ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως – Ἀλέξανδρος” (2.312) lies a more serious error in the interpretation of the message than (apparently) the author suggests: a careful comparison of this messages with the “district” would show that ό ομώνυμος Alexander of Alexandria is not Alexander of Byzantium [whose modest see could in no way arouse envy in Eusebius of Nicomedia, who ταῖς δοκούσαις ἀεί μείζοσι παροικίαις πέφυκεν ἐπιβουλεύειν], and Alexander of Thessaloniki, ὁ ὁμόψυχος both Alexander and Athanasius c. Cf. Athan, apol. With. Ar. nn. 66. 80 30 . (2.320). The author is also unfairly harsh in his judgment about Sozomen. It is premature to talk about “unfair” borrowings from Socrates until the question has been answered affirmatively: could Sozomen not write his history? After all, it is dedicated - on the occasion of the “40th” anniversary - to the emperor himself, and Sozomen perhaps obeyed only the wishes of the sovereign himself when he undertook to write his essay, and the point was not about giving his own, but about giving good. Is it impossible that Theodosius II simply did not like the style of Socrates, and therefore Sozomen was entrusted with reworking the books of Socrates? And that Sozomen had the right to write history is difficult for the 19th century to argue against: having at his disposal almost all the sources of his predecessor, Sozomen also knew some new ones. Haereticarum fabularum compendium. (2.376). It would be strange 31 if Theodorit, having before his eyes a number of names in the Philosophumena: Victor-Zephyrinus-Callistus, did not realize that we were talking about Roman bishops. Hippolytus could maintain the illusion that the Catholic Church was following him, not Callistus. By the 5th century the name of Callistus was already firmly in the catalogs of the Orthodox bishops of Rome, and it was impossible to remove him from there with just the handwriting of a pen. (2.275) A Philos. X, 27 does not seem “ambiguous” to a “literate person” [the insertion “(then)” treacherously compromises the bold “completely imperceptibly”] - I suspect - because he read Philos in advance. IX, 7. And that Theodoret was – sometimes – Davus non Oedipus, his “Alexander of Constantinople” shows, read from “τῷ – ὁμοψύχω Ἀλεξάνδρῳ”. - Therefore, it seems to me that the two instances of “Volkmar e tutti quanti” are so ponderous that it must be admitted that Theodorit did not know Elenchus and used only the Summarium, but from a copy in the margins of which some additions from the first part of the “Philosophumena” were written. – (2,374,163). That between X, 29 and X, 30 in the Philosophumena there is a gap, this is certain: μετοικεῖ έκ Μεσοποταμίας πόλεως Χαρράν” there is such an impossible context that even without †† after λέγοοσιν it is clear that what is missing here, maybe maybe a whole sheet. Therefore, too significant additions from Elenchus are not required in order for Theodoret to explain everything from Summarium 32. (2,387,244). The difference between “Άσκληπιάδου” and “Άσκληπιοδότου” is explainable purely paleographically, as an oversight of the copyist. And “καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν” is a reading that is undoubtedly later than Eusebius’ “μηνιαῖα δηνάρια” and proves not that Theodoret independently used the “Small Labyrinth”, but that the text of Eusebius is a hereseologist V c. remade ex conjectura. The confessor Natalius under Zephyrinus (c. 199–217) agreed to be a bishop for the Theodotians for a salary (επί σαλαρίω) of 150 denarii per month, i.e. 6 gold pieces. Aureus Septimius Severa = ca. 7.3 g. Gold = approx. 6 rub. 28.6 kg. gold. Consequently, Nataliy received up to 37 rubles per month. 71.6 k.z. But already under Diocletian, a day laborer could count on 25 denarii for work in the field, and a shepherd on 20 denarii a day. And in the days of Theodoret - if Hultsch is not too mistaken - 150 denarii cost only 8.6 kopecks. gold 33. Under such everyday conditions, Theodoret naturally did not dare to give such a salary to Natalia per month, and put it: “every day.” Theodoret as a preacher. (2.451). The attribution of the “first fragment” to Theodoret is quite firmly attested. This is not the word Philoxenus gives. The "special grounds" of discontent (2.453) probably lay in the controversy over Diodorus and Theodore (2.142–145). The wrong touches in the rendering of the fragment, of course, contributed to its tone. (2.256). Praises from St. John Chrysostom probably belong to Proclus himself. (2.479). Epistola 172. 180. Synod, p. 170 belongs to Theodoret, but, of course, not to Synod, p. 121. (2,478,135). The author is quite right. The Syrian inscription, in my opinion, means: “from the letter that he wrote to Dioscorus, let there be no deposition [καθαίρεσις קתריסיס] to him.” This corresponds to ep. 83. There is some desiderata regarding the very form of the author's presentation. But some of them would have the character of a pure dream, even if Mr. Glubokovsky wrote his books as a scientist sui juris; others are impracticable because, for example, a third volume would be required if the author wanted to cite in the notes everywhere the very text to which he refers. One wish could be fulfilled with great benefit for the cause: the author should make it a rule to always cite texts in the Greek or Latin original and never in translation. In some places the author was misled by existing translations 34 , and sometimes he translated erroneously [eg. (9) from German–French–English; (98.91.106.130) from Latin; (164.212) from Greek] himself. Such oversights are natural when working quickly. However, readers who could easily correct such errors if they had the original text in front of them are now powerless against them, since it is impossible to unravel the real meaning through the shell of translation. The author, of course, made no illusions about the circle of readers for whom his two-volume study is of interest. In any case, it was written not for the literate masses, but for people with an education slightly above average. We should not have made an erroneous assumption about our book wealth. The number of copies of Min's Patrology in Russia hardly exceeds several dozen. It is probably inaccessible to 99 percent of readers. We, of course, have more Latinists and Hellenists than Latin and Greek books on theological specialty. By constantly presenting his evidence in the original language, the author and readers would be honored and would save himself from unproductive work. Extraordinary Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy (25) = Op. Glubokovsky, volume one, page 25. (2.25) = volume II, page 25. (25.17) = volume I, page 25, note 17. (:25.17) = I am not just referring, but also correcting or supplementing volume I, page 25, approx. 17. I do not use this colon in the notes on volume II, because almost all of them are either Addenda or Corrigenda. [cf. = Theodorei epistola in edd. Schulze-Migne; and the epistles of Theodoret, published by Sakkelion, are marked Σακκ. after the number. m. r. = milia passum, Roman mile = 693 Russian. soot Pf.P.O. = praefectus (PP.= praefci) praetorio per Orientem. All the footnotes that I added to the original text of the review already during its printing are placed in [_]. Addenda - Corrigenda is divided into chapters I-XVII - for the convenience of their table of contents - also when printing. V. Bolotov. [Cm. Superaddendum A, which follows the review]. [According to Garnier and Mr. Glubokovsky, Pergamy was precisely Pf. R.O. And the year 391 would rest on the assumption that "Pergamius" was a cognomen of either Florus or Postumian; and so Postumian was still Pf. R.O. at the beginning of ind. xij. (383–384), then Theodoret was born xij+7=ind. iv 39–31). And 386 - 7 = 379 suggests that Περγάμιος was Pf. R. O. in 378–379, was the successor of Modest and predecessor of Neotherius and Eutropius]. [Motivating in Superadd. WITH]. [Cf. Acta Sanct. Maii t. 3, p. * 16F: τοῦ μέντοι εἰκοστοῦ καὶ ὀγδόου τῆς αὐτοῦ (Ίωάννου) ἡλικίας χρόνου εἰσεληλυθότος ------- ό τῆς Σεβαστίας μητροπολίτης --------- τοῦτον -------- χειροτονεῖ ἐπίσκοπον τῆς εἰρηρένης πόλεως (Κολωνίας). St. John born (n. 1) January 8, 454 ind. vij; next, he was ordained bishop after January 8, 481 until January 8. 482, ind. iv.). [Cm. R. de Lagarde, Titi Bostreni quae ex opere contra manichaeos edito in cod. Hamburg, servata sunt graece, Berolini 1859, pp. v-vj]. [In AReifferscheid, Bibliotheca patrum latinorum italica in Sitzungsberichte der (Wiener) Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist.-CI., Bd. XLIX, 1865, s. 29. – I would consider the following to be the most effective argument in favor of Κύρρος. expression of Irenaeus (Synod., p. 89, the true place of which, however, is after p. 86 before p. 87): “iste amator Dei et ecclesiae quondam (?!) doctor, qui regebat currum.” That we are talking about Theodoret is clear from the context; that Theodoret was not an auriga in the circus is known to everyone. Next, these words are an inaccurate rendering, apparently, of the following original: διδάσκαλος, ὁ τὴν Κύρρον ἰθύνων. CVBRVM is corrupted from CYRRVM. Ho Synod, ce. 87. 171 et passim the same Irenaeus: “Cyri”]. T h. Noldeke, Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik, Leipzig 1880, SS. 13. 14, § 21. AC]. [Zeitsehr. d. Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins, XIV (1891), 82]. [From II. F. Clinton, An Epitome of the – chronology of Rome and Constantinopie, Oxford. 1853, p. 278; and the original source is Theophan. a. m. 5997]. [The phrase: τὸν ἀροστολικὸν ἡμέτερον θρόνον assumes that the subject – possessor has the right to say about himself: “We, the apostle named.” Only the apostle could express himself this way. Peter]. [However, the inconveniences of the “old” point of view do not end there. Let's assume that er. 86 Theodoret wrote and sent to Flavian in his own name; but the “new” remains an indisputable fact: in the Syrian acts a document has been preserved, the authenticity of which there is not the slightest reason to doubt, namely the letter of Domnus to Flavian, for the most part literally similar to Ep. 86. Thus, instead of one message, the "old" view must reckon with two and - explain the strange literal coincidence between them. Who copied from whom? The author will agree, of course, that it is not Theodoret at Domnus. But then why did the Bishop of Cyrus put his “most holy lord-exarch” in a false position, sending Flavian Er. 86?]. [Sources and tutorials - in Superadd. E]. [Or the special work of Theodore of Mopsuestia de interpretatione symbols trecentorum decern et octo sanctorum patrum"]. [The clash, in my opinion, took place on Holy Saturday, April 10, 448, before the time of baptism of the enlightened. This also explains the fact that fire and the copper cauldron χαλκεῖον, βαλανεῖον were involved in this scene (Hoffmann, 60.2–8); They probably heated the water for the baptismal service. On the same day, of course, Palladium was put under arrest]. (2.341) “Naeg. fab. compendium received its final treatment around 453" "after 452" . [Since Theodoreli opera is accessible only to a few, I consider it worth noting that in the tirade Ἐπειδή δὲ τοῦ κοσμοῦ – πεποίηκεν I put only δή instead of δέ (in ἐσχάτην δέ πάντων, as read in the present Greek text). that (without changing to δή) this δέ can simply be omitted (as an addition to the interpolator); that interpolation οὐκέτι λοιπόν ὸ ἀνδρωποκτόνος – ἴμεν τῆς ἱστορίας (961.2 rows of the Minya Patrology column = up to 3770 letters) inserted by pseudo-Theodoret between the words ἀνεχομένου and ἐσχάτην]. [“Οὐκ ἐρῶ” is far from the same as the unreasonable “οὐκ οἷδα”]. [Since “similiter” is the last word in the signature of Bishop Magnus of Marhamma, it is possible, of course, that “Euphratesiae” is not a register mark, but a custos, that is, the first word of the next page, lost along with the whole - perhaps - notebook. But in other places, for example, before the lost message from Cilicia II, there is no trace of the existence of such custodes]. So you need to read instead of the present (Migne G83, 66D, p. 27): “Έγώ γάρ αὑτὸν ἀσώματον λέγω.”, i.e. instead of γάρ leg. γ’ ἅρ’ = γε ἅρα, and of course with a question mark, instead of a dot, at the end, It says: “In the expression of St. Ambrose of Milan: “let us observe the distinction (distinctionem) of deity and flesh” the word distinctionem Theodoret conveys both the womb δισίρεσιν and the womb τήν διαφοράν” [“Other evidence” is indicated in the Superadd. I]· [More details in Superadd. L]. [Readers; who do not have Mr. Glubokovsky’s works at hand, explieitissime please look at Superadd. Μ] [Eg. (90,130) – Mansi IV,1372D is not at all the same as in the internal combustion engine., I,778 – and (2,25,33), see above].