Letters

An important part of the literary heritage of Bl. Theodoret of Cyrus consists of his letters. Among its recipients are a variety of people: - outstanding church figures of his time (Pope St. Leo the Great, St. Proclus of Constantinople, etc.); - lesser-known archpastors of the Church (John of Germanicia, Eustathius of Verita, etc.); - monks, presbyters and deaconesses; - laymen of the most varied social status. To some blzh. Theodoret makes requests for his flock, to others with spiritual exhortations, and with others he discusses everyday matters. The letters contain material not only of pastoral content, but serve to characterize political relations, local structure, economic life, etc. 12 letters were sent to influential persons in Constantinople (Letters 92-96, 99-101, 103, 104, 106, 109). In them blzh. Theodoret asks to be protected from suspicions that he is dividing the one Son of God into two sons. Among the letters there are congratulatory ones (Letters 4-6, 25, 26, 38-41, 54-56, 63, 64,74). Blzh. Theodoret sent them to his friends after the holidays on which he congratulated had long passed. There are judgments that the Holy Scripture is the best source of knowledge, education, upbringing and guidance to a godly life (Letters 14, 146). Blzh. Theodoret of Cyrus showed a misunderstanding of the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. In some letters he accuses St. Kirill in wickedness. Such passages in his works are condemned by the 13th anathematism of the V Ecumenical Council against the “three chapters.” This publication contains 268 letters with introductions, explanatory notes and appendices. Letters of Blessed Theodoret in Russian translation with introduction, explanatory notes and appendices Contents Information about the letters Dear readers! We remind you that Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus showed a misunderstanding of the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, as a result of which in some letters he accused St. Kirill in wickedness. Similar passages in his works are condemned by the 13th anathematism of the V Ecumenical Council against the “three chapters”: If anyone defends the wicked writings of Theodoret, which he wrote against the true faith and against the first Holy Council of Ephesus and St. Cyril and his twelve chapters, and everything that he wrote in defense of the wicked Theodore and Nestorius and in defense of others who philosophized in the same way as the above-mentioned Theodore and Nestorius, defending them and their wickedness, and for this reason calling the teachers of the Church wicked who profess union by hypostasis God the Word with the flesh, and does not anathematize the mentioned wicked writings and those who philosophized or philosophize like them, and all who wrote against the right faith and Saint Cyril and the twelve chapters, and died in such wickedness: let him be anathema. Therefore, although blessed. Theodoret is revered in the Orthodox Church, his words condemning St. Cyril and his theology cannot be considered fair. Letters No. 1–181 from an ancient collection (according to the edition of Ming) Letters Nos. 182–228 according to the Sakkelion edition Letters 229–268 from Synodion adversus tragoediam Irenaei (chapters 40, 42, 45, 47, 53, 54, 60, 70, 71, 72, 81, 87, 88, 95, 97, 99, 110, 121, 128, 129, 133, 135, 138, 139, 146, 148, 151, 160, 161, 162, 166, 168, 170, 172, 7, 8, 13, 17, 18, 19) Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, was one of the most prominent figures of such a significant and important era in the history of the Christian Church, which was the first half of the 5th century. He took an energetic part in all the most important acts, he himself put forward major questions of Christological dogma and church policy, gave them a certain direction and - to some extent - predetermined their actual direction and final outcome, often being an active head and always remaining an inspiring intellectual force of the entire church “East”, which ensured the triumph of Orthodoxy in the creed of the Council of Chalcedon. During life - the name of the blessed. Theodoret was the brilliant banner of the Antiochians and cut so deeply into the very structure of dogmatic interpretation and church creation that it served as the subject of ecumenical consideration long after the death of the Bishop of Cyrus. Naturally, everything that illuminates this exceptional personality receives special church-historical significance, for this explains to us one of the most important active figures in the entire process. But it goes without saying that the latter then acquires the corresponding distinctness and is outlined in all relief in its true outlines. And there cannot be the slightest dispute that in all these interests private correspondence turns out to be the best means. Naturally, it follows that the letters from Blessed. Theodorite represents a valuable material of high overall value. It must be added that he was a hierarch of rare energy and versatile sensitivity. He did not isolate himself in a narrow sphere, and his inquisitive gaze penetrated into all the needs of believers, his responsive heart warmly perceived their every need, his will rushed to the rescue with all available means of intervention and influence. Truly blessed. Theodoret was a shepherd of souls and bodies, working with equal fervor in both respects. The land-tax hardships of the paying population and responsible decurions, landowners and tenants, the upbringing and education of youth, family marriages and the betrothal of a poor orphan, an abandoned African woman and a bishop and a noble citizen of the Carthage region who fled from the barbarians, the death of close and distant people, a doctor, lawyer, sophist, carpenter, baker - all this attracted the attention of the blessed. Theodoret was called to extensive correspondence, since sometimes it was firmly connected with church concerns, since he, for example, delicately asks Archon Theodotus not to come to Cyrus for the feast of the consecration of the church of the prophets and apostles, so as not to embarrass with his shy presence the general rejoicing of believers, who were burdened by even an indirect reminder of paying unaffordable taxes 1 . Wanting to ensure peace and prosperity for the inhabitants of his “parikia”, the Bishop of Cyrus was encouraged to direct all government officials and officials towards this goal upon taking office, and during their administration he invariably revealed the true state of affairs. In all these matters, he was not limited to the subjects of his immediate archpastoral jurisdiction, and for his petitions there were no forbidden doors, no high ranks, but everywhere, everywhere and to everyone, he knocked with equal decisiveness and frank directness. For this reason, his relations were extensive and varied, which is why the correspondence affects all classes, states and conditions from the most diverse sides. This means that in the letters of Blessed. Theodoret, we have rich material not only of pastoral content, but also to characterize political relations, administrative combinations, local structure, economic life, etc. It should also be said that - according to the customs of that time - Theodorite's epistles sometimes bore all the properties of literary works and were entire treatises. Dogmatic-Christological letters are especially dear here, but there are also quite extensive discussions on canonical issues and church practice. All of them stand alongside the actual works of this hierarch in their merits and church-historical importance. According to typical features, Feodorit’s letters clearly reflect the personality of the author. He was a true Antiochian with all the best qualities of this school. A highly educated mind, he shunned excessive pomp and preferred direct accuracy of observation and concrete realism of reproduction. Deep religiosity and warm-hearted warmth protected the Bishop of Cyrus from the extremes of cold doctrinaire of the straightforward Antiochians (Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius), from practical tenacity (Alexander of Hierapolis) and from diplomatic adaptability (John of Antioch). His healthy empiricism was a saving regulator against all sorts of hobbies in all directions and restrained the development of dogmatic dreaminess of the Alexandrians. True, it was precisely on this basis that a great conflict arose with St. Cyril of Alexandria, but we should never forget that here too the blessed one. Theodoret - in essence - fought not against imaginary, but against undoubted dangers, which - fundamentally - were in no way the fruit of his partisanship or partiality. This was irresistibly proven by Cyril’s immediate successor Dioscorus, who developed the system of his glorious predecessor to the extent of the Monophysite heresy, which is still tearing apart the single body of the Church of God. Blessed Theodoret's polemics rested entirely on concern for the “truth of the apostolic dogmas” and, while serving as a warning to opponents, at the same time it was for him a means to clarification and self-knowledge. Therefore, after long and fiery arguments with Cyril of Alexandria, he himself moderated the tension of his moods, smoothed out the severity of his views and entered into sincere communication with his opponent. There was no lack of character here, but only the practical wisdom of a sound dogmatist, for whom the interests of truth and the peace of the Church of Christ are above all, and everything personal was forgotten, obscured and imputed to nothing. It is inevitable that - with such properties of mind and character - blessed. Theodoret, having many like-minded people, in fact often found himself alone and, striving for doctrinal and life construction, had to “compete” all the time, like a sworn wrestler on a lists. This is the tragedy of his entire long-suffering and deeply instructive life: - The Bishop of Cyrus was in fact and preserved for future generations as a “man of battles,” and his dogmatic memory remained not fully rehabilitated in posterity to this day... But here also lies the special advantage of the Feodoritovs’ letters as historical documents: - they are distinguished by the direct accuracy of observations, the vivid vividness of impressions, the distinct convexity of messages, the transparent integrity of illumination, which is also facilitated by the expressive simplicity of presentation, which is felt by everyone even with the existing imperfections in the critical processing of a long text and ancient Latin translations. Theodoritov's correspondence was enormous, and even in the 14th century the historian Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulos knew over five hundred letters 2 . At least half of the numbers have now been lost, perhaps as important as those that have survived, where there are indications of now lost messages 3 . The letters that have survived to this day are available in the following collections. I. The oldest of them comes from the first publishers of the Theodoritovs’ works and is reprinted in the 83rd volume of the Greek “Patrology” of Min (col. 1173–1494) - except for numbers 148, 149 and 179, placed there in the 77th volume col. 85–89. 1449–1457. 328). There are 181 letters here. 1) Some of them, according to the ancient Latin translation, were included in the Synodicon, where for 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 and 178 Nos. of Min there are duplicates in “chapters” 95, 139, 71, 99, 148, 61 and 66 4. The latter were taken into account during the Russian edition, and “chapters” 71, 95, 99, 139 and 148 were translated in full (under numbers 237, 242, 244, 252 and 254). 2) In a special Latin version, which deviates a lot from other editions, the church historian of the first half of the 5th century Marius Mercator reports 5 also seven doublets for 172, 173, 177, 178, 174, 175 and 176 Nos. of Min - with his own explanations, for the most part tendentiously biased and not trustworthy; the options from here are indicated in their places. 3) In the acts of the third ecumenical council, 6 four numbers of Min are reproduced - 149, 169, 151 and 150; in the acts of the fifth ecumenical council 7 - six numbers 16, 151, 162, 171, 172 and 180 and in the same place in the letter of Pope Pelagius II (authored by Gregory V.) - brief extracts 8 from numbers 172, 174, 175 and 178. Most of these letters have already been published in Russian in the “Acts of the Ecumenical Councils,” but we are reprinting them again not only for the sake of completeness of the collection, but also because the Kazan translation is unsatisfactory and often deviates from the original even in the transmission of factual data and in repeated editions does not correct at least the undoubted typos 9, which is why we revised these numbers and brought them into agreement with the originals in all existing editions, noting the most important options for the latter. 4) In the Syrian acts of the Robber Cathedral, 10 86 and 151 Nos. of Min are placed, the second with omissions, and the first with additions - published by us in its entirety under No. LXXXVI. In this collection, some letters do not belong to the blessed one at all. Theodoret, others bear the names of other persons, others were published by several, but they all relate to the same moments of the era and are directly related to the matters discussed in the epistles of the Bishop of Cyrus, and many are not without right adopted by his pen. On this basis, we have added (from Minya, Greek ser.t. LXXXIII, columns 1319–1324) under No. CXIII and the letter to him from Pope Leo I. The text of this collection is not distinguished by critical correctness - and, for example, Min does not indicate up to half of the biblical quotations and about half of the references noted under the line are made incorrectly. II. We owe the new collection of Greek Theodorite letters to the late curator of manuscripts of the National Library of Athens, the famous paleographer John Sakkelion 11, who in the Patmos monastery of St. John the Theologian found manuscript 12 with 52 numbers; Of these, he recognized four as doublets (for Nos. 19, 20, 22 and 23 Minya) and therefore gave only variations (insignificant), and 48 No. Nos. published in their entirety 13, although No. 16 of this series exactly coincides with No. 58 Minya, not differing from it at all. This publication was met with sympathy by the Greek press, 14 but in general it was very unsatisfactory. The publisher made so little effort to critically process the text that he claims (σελ. 31, ὑποσ. 2) that the saying 15 love covers a multitude of sins is not at all in the Bible, meanwhile it is taken from 1 Peter. IV,8; his notes and explanations are insignificant and insignificant. Some proofs are presented by Mr. Rosis 16, Georgiadis 17 and Papageorgiou 18, however, even after this there is a lot of doubtful, controversial and incomprehensible. The authenticity of the letters from Sakkelion's collection is unconditional, but they do not have the same importance as in the first series, because they do not affect dogmatic movements and relate to private issues. These 47 letters were included in our numbers 182–228. III. The third collection of Theodorite letters exclusively in the ancient Latin translation has long been known in the form of church-historical documents of the Nestorian era under the name Synodicon adversus tragoediam Irenaei 19, not entirely correctly adopted by Baluz. We do not have completely accurate and clear information on the history of this monument. We know that Nestorius wrote a kind of autobiography called Tragoedia, which has not come down to us. The fate of this expelled heresiarch was shared by the committee of the “East” Irenaeus, who diligently helped the members of the “apostate council” in Ephesus 20; after the decree of 435 against Nestorius, he (along with Photius) was exiled to Petra of Arabia, and upon his return, he was elected to the Tyrian metropolis, but already in 448 he was removed and replaced by Photius 21. In imitation of Nestorius and Irenaeus, at the beginning of his exile, he composed the same work under the same title Tragoedia, where he outlined the circumstances and course of church events of his time. This work originally contained three books; its original has long been lost, and now we must be content with only the old Latin version. There is no reason to deny the essential reliability of this collection. Of course, according to the primordial tendency, the latter was directed as much against the anti-Nestorians as against the blessed one. Theodoret and Iva, however, the compiler could not allow distortions and forgeries, since they could easily be exposed and thereby ruin the entire intended effect of this literary apologetic enterprise 22 . On the other hand, Irenaeus, being a direct participant in many of the events described and having access to the originals in the archives, undoubtedly possessed the best materials and had exact copies of the works (letters) of Blessed. Theodorit, with whom he was later again connected by bonds of mutual sympathy 23. Therefore, in general, Synodicon does not arouse much suspicion even in the current Latin edition, despite all the external and partial malfunctions. And this regarding her was indirectly confirmed by the searches of the late († April 5, 1900) professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Vasily Vasilyevich Bolotov; he found the culprit of the Latin translation in question in the deacon of the Roman Church (6th century) Rusticus, the author of the “Dialogue against the Acephalians” and the proofreader of the Latin version of the acts of the Council of Chalcedon 24. Until the arguments in favor of this hypothesis are published, all that can now be said is that it again reinforces the documentary-historical value of the Synodicon. Of course, inaccuracies and errors are possible in particulars, but what is most deplorable is the deplorable state of the existing Latin text. It has undergone three reviews - by Lupe (Wolf) 25 , Garnier 26 and Baluza 27 , but has been processed so poorly that much still remains unclear, sometimes incomprehensible 28 , and can only be guessed by assumptions about the possible Greek original in this or that case. From this collection we borrowed "chapters" 40, 42, 45, 47, 60, 70, 71, 72, 81, 87, 88, 95, 97, 99, 110, 121, 128, 133, 138, 139, 146, 148, 151, 160, 161, 162, 166, 168, 170 and 172 29 with Theodorite's name, although not all of them are his 30 , then "chapters" 53, 54, 129, 135, 7, 8, 13, 17, 18 and 19 31 , which are all those discussed in the Theodorite Correspondence events, some have the Bishop of Cyrus among the senders, and others, in all likelihood, were compiled by him. All these forty “chapters” are placed under numbers 229–268. There are indications of the existence of Theodorite letters in originals and translations, but they are not always accurate 32 and sometimes lead one to assume only a new edition of previously known messages 33 . We limit ourselves to the published material and in this Russian translation 34 we offer 268 numbers (181 numbers according to Min, 47 numbers according to Sakkelion and 40 numbers from Synodicon). In addition to the reference signs at the end, we have included the necessary explanatory notes in the text itself. A systematic commentary, largely outdated and sometimes biased, is given to issues 1–50. 52–156. 162. 169–171. 179–181 of the first collection by the Jesuit Garnier (Migne, gr. ser. t. LXXXIY, col. 253–331), and the interpretations of Lupe (Wolf), Garnier and Baluz to the Synodicon are placed in the latter at the very “chapters” or under the line. More detailed explanations are presented in the master's thesis of N. N. Glubokovsky, Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus: his life and literary activity (Moscow 1890), vols. I and II (where on pp. 473–490 there is a general overview of Theodorit's letters) and in † prof. V.V. Bolotova, Theodoretiana in “Christian Reading” 1892, II (No. 7–8), pp. 58–164, and in reprints from here (cf. this in his “Christian Reading” 1907, No. 2, pp. 260–262); We have exhausted the essential instructions of the second work - if possible - in full in a condensed retelling or at least with simple references. See letter 212 (XXXII)-e on page 343. Historia ecclesiastica XIV, 54: Migne, gr. ser t. CXLVI, col. 1257. See Appendix IV-e below on page 486. Migne, gr sert LXXXIV, col. 709–711. 754–756. 678–680. 714–715. 763–764 671. 674–675. See y Migne, lat. ser. t. XLVIII, col. 1077–1078 (and gr. ser. t. LXXXIII, col. 1486–1487) 1079–1080 1080–1081. 1081 – 1082. 1082–1083. Gallandii Bibliotheca veterum Patrum VIII (Venetns 1762), p. 701–702. Mansi. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio IV, p. 1061 – 1068 (and y Migne, gr. scr. t. LXXVI, col. 1449–1457) 1407–1408. V p. 1024–1037. 1040–1045. 84–85 (and y Migne, gr. ser. t. LXXVI, col. 389. 392). Mansi IX, p. 254.291–292. 293. 294. 294–295. 295–296. Mansi IX, p. 450–451 and y Migne, lat. ser. t. LXXII, col. 734–735: epist. 5(7), n. 20. See below, letter 164 on page 278.1. G. Hoffmann, Verhandlungen Kirchcnversanimlung zu Ephesus am XXII. August CDXLIX (Kiel 1873), S. 61–62. 46–53 (cnf. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis I, p. 599). Martin, Actes du brigandage d'Ephese (Amiens 1874), p. 139–143. 103–119. Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus Acts (Dartford 1877), p. 298–306. 218–240. He was born on the island of Paxos. and died July 30th, 1891; see Δελτίον τῆς ἱστορικῆς καὶ ἰθνολογικῆς ἑταιρίας for 1891, vol. III, where on p. 579–586 his obituary by Lampros is placed, and the latter's funeral oration is republished in Αόγοι καὶ ἄρθρα (1878–1902) ὑπὸ Σπυρ: Π. Λάμπρου, ἐν ᾿ Α θ ῄ ναις 1902, σελ. 315–317. This manuscript is from the 11th century; see the description of it by Sakkelion in the edition of the Theodorite letters, in “᾿ Αθήναιον” IX (1881), pp. 285 seq., and in Πατμιακὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, ᾿ Α θ ῄ νησιν 1890, pp. 274–275. Τοῦ μακαριωτάτου Θεωδορήτου, ἐ πισκόπου Κύρου, ἐπιστολαὶ, δυοῖν δεούσαιν πεντήκοντα ἐκ Πατμιακοῦ χειρογράφου τεύχους νῦν πρῶτον τύποις ἐκδιδόμεναι ὑπὸ᾽ Ιωάννου Σακκελίωνος ἐπιμελιτοῦ τῶν χειρογράφων τῆς ἰθνικῆς βιβλιοθήκης, ᾽ Αθήν ῃ σιν, ἐκ τοῦ τυπογραφείου τῶν ἀδελφῶν Πε ῤῥῆ, ΑΩΠΕ ´ (1885). Here on pp. ά–ή is the publisher’s introduction; on pp. 1–42 there is the actual text of 48 letters from the blessed. Theodoret, on page 43 there are versions of the Patmos manuscript for numbers 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Min collection, on pages 44–45 there is an alphabetical list of addressees of new letters and on page 46 typos are indicated. See note Ζῆκος ῾ Ρώσ ῃ ς ᾽а in "᾽ Αθηναίων ῾ Εβδόμας", ἔτ. β ′, ἀριθ. 63 (12 Μαίου, 1885), σελ. 224 α. 225 α, and article B ? μακαρίου Θεωδορίτου ἐ πισκόπου Κύρου in "᾽ Εκκλησιαστικὴ ᾽ Αλήθεια ", περίοδος δευτέρα, τόμος Α ′ (ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει 1885), σελ. 111–115 In letter 219 (XXXIX) on page 350. See "᾽ Εκκλησιαστικὴ ᾽ Αλήθεια" II (1895), 1, σελ. 115 – 123, 181–176. Petros N. Papageorgiou, Zu Theodoretos und Georgios Burizes in "Buzantinische Zcitichrift" herausg von Prof. Karl Krumbacher II (Leipzig 1893), 2–3, S 585–589 (cp “Theologischer Jahresbericht” herausg von Prof. H. J. Koltzmann XIII [Braunschweig 1894], S. 195). This monument is placed y Mansi V, p. 743 sqq., and y Migne, gr. ser. t. LXXXIV, col. 555 sqq. See also in the letters of Blessed. Theodoret 149 (p. 225) and 158 (pp. 267–268), and cf. No. 195 (pp. 328–319). See in the letters of Blessed. Theodoret Nos. LXXXVI (p. 102) and 124 (pp. 124–126). See Synodicon, sar. LXXIX, CLXXXVIII-CLXXXIX and notes to the book of Baluz in Migne, gr. ser. t.LXXXIVI col.688. 802–803; Rev. Edmund Venables, Art. "Irenaeus" in A Dictionary of Christian Biography cd. byWillam Smith and Henry Wace, vol. III (London 1882), p. 280–281. 282–283; Herzog-Hauck, Realeneyklopädie V 3 (Leipzig 1898). S 634; X V 3 (Leipzig 1903), S. 736. 738. 748–749; N. N. Glubokovsky, Blazh. Theodoret I, pp. 165 ff. etc.; II, pp. 475–476. 476–477. For this, see the letters of Blessed. Theodoret Nos. 3 (pp. 2–5), 12 (pp. 9–11), 16 (pp. 16–19) and 35 (p. 36). See "Christian Reading" 1907, No. 3, p. 381 note. 383. 385–391; Wed 1900, no. 8, pp. 316–317 and “Revue internationale de theologie” VIII, 31 (Juillet-Septembre 1900), p. 430. Ad Ephesinum concilium variorum Patrum epistolae, ex manu-seripto Cassinensis bibliothecae codice desumptae, nune primum in publicam lucem data per F. Chr. Lupum [Wolf], Lovanii 1682, pag. 1–470. Christian Lupus (Wolf), O. S. Aug., born July 23, 1612, died at Louvain July 10, 1681: see F. Lichtenberger, Encyclopedie des sciences religieuses VIII (Paris 1880), p. 434; Wetzer und Welle, Kirchenlexikon, zw. Aufl., VIII (Freiburg im Breisgau 1893), Sp. 304–306. Dissertatio V. de Theodoreti et Orientalium causa in Auctarium'e y Migne, gr. ser. t. LXXXIV, col. 549 sqq. Jean Garnier (Garnerius), S. J., born in Paris in 1612, died October 26, 1681: see F. Lichtenberger, Encyclopedie V (Paris 1878), p. 411–413; Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexikon V 2 (Freiburg im Breisgau 1888), Sp. 104–105. Novacollectio conciliorum, seu supplementum ad collectionem Ph. Labbei ed. Steph. Baluzius, Parisiis 1707, p. 679 sqq. Étienne Baluze (Stephan Baluzius) was born on November 23 (others say December 24), 1630, died in Paris on July 28, 1718: see F. Lichtenberger, Encyclopédie I (Paris 1877), p. 48; Wetzer, und Welte, Kirchenlexikon I 2 (Freiburg im Breisgau 1882), Sp. 1912–1915; A. Vacant et E. Mangenot, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique II (Paris 1905), col. 138–139. See, for example, letter 235 (chapter 60) on pp. 378–380. Migne, gr. ser. t. LXXXIV, col. 642–647. 648–649. 651. 654. 670–671. 671. 672. 691. 701–702. 702–703. 709–711. 713. 714–715. 722–723. 734–738. 742. 746–749. 753–754. 754–755. 760–761 763–764. 766. 774. 774– 775. 776–777. 781. 783. 784–785. 787–788. See, for example, about “chapter” 172 under our number 261 on page 437.1. Migne, gr. ser. t. LXXXIV, col. 658–659. 659–660. 743–744. 750–751. 590–593. 593–595. 600–602. 607–609. 610–611. 611–613. See below for letter 150 on page 231.2. Thus, in the Syriac manuscripts of the British Museum (in London) there are: 1) No. 12.156, fol. 67b. 68b “Extract regarding (from?) Theodoret the unworthy. From a letter written to Dioscorus, which did not serve to justify him,” that is, Theodoret (see † William Wright, Cataloguc ot Syriac Manuscripts in the British Muscum, acquired since the year 1838, part II, London 1871, p. 644); 2) No. 12.156, fol. 67 a and No. 14.532, fol. 30 a. 31 a (W. Wright ibid. II, p. 644 a. 958 a) a letter to Nestorius with the following beginning: “I am not carried away by a place in the region (?), I am not captivated by tranquility, glory, an exalted seat, hoping for your holiness, with the help of which (being confident in which)”; 3) No. 14.532, fol. 30 a. “From what was written (by Theodoret) to the flock of Constantinople after Cyril joined the Eastern “(W. Wright ibid. II, p. 958 a). An accurate examination and comparison of these very Syrian manuscripts (for which we gratefully owe the courtesy of Mr. E. W. Brooks, Esq., through K. N. Faminsky) fully confirmed our primordial conviction in the unoriginality of these letters, for 1) in the first case, a translation of the letter of the 83rd to Dioscorus is given (pp. 87–93), 2) in the second - No. 172 (p. 303–304), but more in agreement with the edition of the fifth ecumenical council than Mary Mercator, and 3) in the third – the 139th chapter of the Synodicon or (according to us) No. 252 (pp. 423–426). We consider it not superfluous to note that this translation was originally performed by us while still a student in 1887 and then (in 1889) submitted in manuscript to the council of the Moscow Theological Academy for a candidate's essay on the blessed one. Theodorite (see “Journals of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy for 1889”, Moscow 1890, p. 118. 120; for this edition it has been revised as completely as possible again, and I owe a lot to the kind assistance of my academic colleague Professor Alexander Alexandrovich Bronzov and - especially - my nephew philologist Alexander Vasilyevich Popov (then a student St. Petersburg Historical and Philological Institute, and now a teacher at the Novomoskovsk Progymnasium). This means that so far the only reader and connoisseur of this work was our unforgettable teacher, Professor Alexey Petrovich Lebedev, who reviewed our candidate’s dissertation (see “Journals of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy for 1889,” p. 118–126) – and we hoped by presenting the printed edition to pleasantly remind him how, after 20 years, our feelings of student gratitude only intensified to the degree of convinced respect for the great learned ascetic, in whom we invariably continued to see our mentor. To the true grief of all workers and lovers of church theological science, Professor Alexei Petrovich Lebedev died in Moscow on July 14, 1903, and now with these lines we can only reverently dedicate to the unforgettable memory of our teacher our modest work, which arose under his inspiration and guidance. You might be interested in: