The Historians of Late Antiquity (23 page)

Theodoret was friendly with the bishop of Antioch, Domnus, and frequently traveled to Antioch and preached there. In an attempt to weaken the power of Antioch, Dioscorus, the new bishop of Alexandria and a devoted partisan of Cyril’s theology, complained to the emperor about Theodoret and his preaching, and an imperial decree of 448 ordered him confined to his own see to prevent him from “disturbing the orthodox” (
ep
. 79). Theodoret’s troubles mounted when Theodosius II, under Dioscorus’ influence, summoned the Second Council of Ephesus in 449. At this synod, called the
latrocinium
or “Robber Synod” by Pope Leo, Theodoret was removed from his see along with others accused of being “Nestorians” such as Flavian of Constantinople, and Cyril’s “Twelve Anathemas” were resurrected and approved as doctrine. Dioscorus had soldiers brought in to enforce the Alexandrian line; riots broke out and Flavian was badly beaten and died soon afterwards (Frend 1984: 766–70).

After the death of Theodosius in July 450, however, the balance of power shifted as the emperor’s sister Pulcheria, sympathetic to Leo and the Antiochenes, was able to intervene more forcefully. The Council of Chalcedon was called to review the actions of the “Robber Synod,” and a doctrinal compromise was reached. The ban on Theodoret’s movement was reversed and he was able to attend the synod. There he was reinstated, but only after a grudging condemnation of his old friend Nestorius had been wrung from him.

We are poorly informed of the activities of Theodoret during the period from Chalcedon to his death because none of the letters which he wrote after 451 survive except for a few fragments (Azema 1984). He continued to write exegetical works, either from Cyrrhus or perhaps back in Nicerte at the monastery where he began his career. The date of his death is the subject of much controversy. The absence of Theodoret from a list of addressees of the emperor Leo I concerning Chalcedon in 457 has led some to suggest that he must have been dead by that time, but his successor in the bishopric of Cyrrhus is equally absent from the list. On the other hand, a remark by the chronicler Marcellinus seems to imply that the second edition of Theodoret’s work
Eranistes
was published in 466. The biographer Gennadius says that Theodoret died during the reign of the emperor Leo, that is, between 457 and 474 (
vir. ill
. 89). It may also be the case that Theodoret himself revised his life of Simeon Stylites after the monk’s death in 459 (
hist. relig
. 26). Finally, the Syrian historian John Diacrinomenus mentions a letter of Theodoret to “Sura,” who may have been the bishop of Germanicia in northern Syria starting in 460. Azema, having weighed this evidence, admits to a lack of certainty, but suggests 460 as the most likely date (Azema 1984: 151).

Theodoret’s collection of works is too extensive to receive more than superficial attention here (a full list may be found in Bardy 1946). Most numerous are his exegetical works, which include commentaries on most of the books of the Old Testament, and on the letters of Paul (Guinot 1995, 1984). Early in his career Theodoret wrote one of the last great works of Christian apologetics, the
Cure for Hellenic Maladies
, a demonstration of the bishop’s wide reading in pagan authors and evidence of the continuing vitality of paganism in Syria (Canivet 1958). Among Theodoret’s most popular theological works is his treatise
On Divine Providence
, a collection of ten discourses which may have been delivered at Antioch around 437 (Halton 1988). Theodoret argues that the
natural order of the world is not random and uncertain but rather is in fulfillment of a divine plan, in spite of the existence of poverty and injustice. The treatment is not rigorously philosophical, but is clear and well argued. More original is Theodoret’s
Eranistes
, a series of three dialogues on Trinitarian issues between the characters Eranistes, that is, “Beggar” or “Collector,” and Orthodoxus (Ettlinger 1975). Theodoret saw the heretic as a “collector” of ideas which did not form a coherent whole. The dialogues are nevertheless fair to Eranistes, who holds Alexandrian views on the nature of Christ, but who is allowed to make reasonable and realistic points. Each dialogue ends with a series of quotations from patristic authors which support the claims of Orthodoxus. The work, written in 447 or 448, has been called “perhaps the most original work to stem from Syria in the fifth century” (Ettlinger 1975: 3). Also of interest is the
Collection of Heretical Myths
, a work Theodoret wrote late in his life (Young 1983: 287–8). He arranges this encyclopedic work by the nature of the heresy, rather than in chronological order, as earlier compilers such as Epiphanius had done, and he concludes with a fifth book which offers an explanation of correct Christian doctrine. Surprisingly, Theodoret includes a chapter on Nestorius, which perhaps he felt he had to do for political reasons after Chalcedon.

Closer in form and content to his historical work is Theodoret’s hagiographical
Religious History
, written in 440, which the author had called
History of the Monks
or the
Ascetic Life
(Price 1985; Canivet and Leroy-Molinghen 1977). This collection of about thirty lives of monks of the eastern desert reveals Theodoret’s deep attraction to and knowledge of the ascetic, individualized monasticism of Syria. He knew many of his subjects as a child or as an adult, and was familiar as well with the oral tradition of the monks of the recent past. The monastic history makes use of vivid narrative and classical style, which Theodoret would bring to his
Ecclesiastical History
as well. Theodoret’s monks are “athletes” or “gladiators” for God, who perform miracles and amazing acts of self-denial. The most famous, perhaps, was Simeon Stylites, who lived on top of a high pillar for decades. The
Religious History
is frequently referred to in Theodoret’s
Ecclesiastical History
.

Work

Like the works of Socrates and Sozomen, Theodoret’s
Ecclesiastical History
is written as a continuation of the work of Eusebius. From
its beginning in 324, the history spans 105 years to 429. The work must have been published before 28 July 450, since it refers at one point to the emperor Theodosius II as “now” ruling (5.36.1). The
Ecclesiastical History
contains references to the
Religious History
, and therefore must have been written after 440 when that work was published. References to his
Religious History
, published in 440, provide a
terminus post quem
for the work. The fifth book seems to contain a reference to his struggles over Christology, which would most likely have been written after 447 (5.3.8). It seems likely that Theodoret drew upon Socrates, but he probably wrote before Sozomen’s work was available, although this is still debated (Güldenpenning 1889; Barnes 1993b: 209–11).

Theodoret’s very brief prologue opens with an analogy between painters of historical scenes and writers of history (1.1). While both provide delight and preserve the past, writers provide a more permanent as well as a more vivid record. In a comment familiar to classical historiography, he says that his purpose is to ensure that important events ignored by earlier ecclesiastical historians are not forgotten. He claims to have been often urged by friends to write a church history, and concludes with the similarly classical concern that his talent might not be sufficient for the task. Trust in God, however, will allow him to proceed. Unlike other church historians, Theodoret does not provide other prefaces or notices which address methodological concerns.

Theodoret’s information is often derived from the earlier church histories as well as from Athanasius (Güldenpenning 1889). He relies, however, on some independent sources, and offers some letters and other primary documents which are found only in his work, most notably a letter written by Arius (1.5.1–4), and other letters or creeds which may derive from the collection of Sabinus but which are not reproduced by Socrates or Sozomen, such as the lengthy letter of Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Constantinople (1.4.1–61) and the letter of the synod at Constantinople to George, the bishop of Alexandria, concerning the heresy of Aetius (2.28). He also makes use of lost works which provide local Antiochene material, such as the
Against Eunomius
of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Bihain 1962a).

The
Ecclesiastical History
is divided into five books, with the divisions arranged around the lives of the emperors. The first book ends with the death of Constantine, the second with the death of Constantius II, the third with the death of Julian, and the fourth with the death of Valens at Adrianople. The fifth concludes with
praise of the reign of Theodosius II, a notice of Theodotus’ rise to bishop of Antioch, an account of martyrdoms in Persia, and finally a notice of the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Theodoret’s
Ecclesiastical History
is a stripped-down version of the genre, lacking many of the digressions and secular details which Socrates and Sozomen had experimented with in different ways. It may be that his history was a purposeful reaction against those earlier works (Harries 1991: 276). The work also shows little interest in chronological detail or order, and it has been said that it might be “better described as dogmatic and polemical, rather than apologetic or historical” (Allen 1987: 377). Even when Theodoret uses information from Socrates or Sozomen, he often freely alters it in order to highlight the moral or doctrinal point he wishes to make.

While all late antique church histories after Eusebius devoted considerable amounts of attention to Arianism, the progress of the heresy in the fourth century is more central to Theodoret’s work than to any other. Rufinus, Socrates, and Sozomen had begun their histories with the conversion of Constantine to Christianity, for example, but Theodoret plunges almost immediately into the actions of Arius in Alexandria (1.2). In his conclusion, he describes his work as beginning “from the commencement of the Arian madness” (5.40). One might also compare the treatment of Ulfila and the Goths in Socrates and in Theodoret. While Socrates admits that the Goths had become “infected” with Arianism, he points out the political circumstances surrounding their conversion and ends by pointing out that many had been admirably martyred owing to their faith in Christ (4.33). Theodoret emphasizes only theological issues, focusing on how the Goths were tricked into Arianism by the wicked bishop Eudoxius (4.37).

Theodoret has, purposely it seems, avoided bringing his history up to the times of his own doctrinal struggles, and few specific references to those disputes can be found in the work. One of them appears in a discussion of the rise of the Apollinarist heresy. Apollinaris the Younger was a staunch supporter of the Nicene Creed who was held to have too severely downplayed the human nature of Christ, teaching that the Logos substituted for his human soul. The conclusions which followed from this interpretation, according to Theodoret, show that Apollinarianism was “the root from which has sprung up the evil doctrine now prevalent in the church” and such people have excited “great controversy” in the present day (5.3.8). In a broader sense, however, Theodoret’s anti-Arian
work served the purpose of championing his own orthodoxy and of allowing him to demonstrate that, despite the dualistic nature of his Christology, he had not fallen into Arianism himself. When Theodoret wrote to Pope Leo to vindicate his orthodoxy after the Robber Synod, he cited his previous writings to demonstrate his good faith, and while he did not refer to the
Ecclesiastical History
by name, it could easily fit under the category of works written “against the Arians” (
ep
. 113).

Theodoret’s history does show evidence of an Antiochene bias, and in a study of Theodoret’s treatment of several bishops of Antioch in the fourth century, Allen has demonstrated that the historian has presented the bishops’ rule in a considerably more favorable light than had Socrates (Allen 1990). Theodoret undoubtedly had access to local traditions concerning these bishops, and would have had both patriotic and doctrinal reasons to overlook the flaws and exaggerate the talents of the anti-Arian holders of the bishopric. Theodoret presents a scene where Theodosius I dreams of being crowned by an unfamiliar bishop, Meletius, whom the emperor later recognizes and greets in a crowd (5.6). This Meletius is praised in Theodoret’s letters and was close to important Antiochenes such as John Chrysostom. Socrates, by contrast, writing from Constantinople, preserves many unflattering details about Meletius, whom he blames for the schism in the anti-Arian forces at Antioch. Theodoret is similarly favorable toward the bishop Flavian, who was an associate of Diodorus and of the monks with whom Theodoret would later be associated. Socrates and Sozomen, on the other hand, portray Flavian as a perjurer and schismatic (Allen 1990: 275–80).

Although Theodoret’s classical learning is clear from some of his other works, in keeping with the genre, his ecclesiastical history contains few allusions or citations. Exceptions are of the most banal sort, such as the comment that “it would require the magniloquence of Aeschylus and Sophocles” to describe the sufferings of a bishop during the reign of Julian (3.7.6). Theodoret, like Sozomen, includes some discussion of monks and monastic communities in his work, although the two writers have almost no overlap in the monks they discuss. In a list of twenty-three outstanding hermits of the fourth century presented by Theodoret, for example, only two can be found in a similar list in Sozomen (Theod. 4.28; Soz. 6.32–4; Price 1985: xvii–xviii).

Theodoret’s
Ecclesiastical History
is largely a success if judged on its own terms. The bishop has excised much of the extensive
material on political and military events which earlier church historians had included. Emperors and warfare are presented not for their own sake, but to further the historian’s moralizing purposes, and his accuracy concerning secular events is correspondingly low. Theodoret includes the letters and church documents which Eusebius had made an essential part of the genre, but he focuses more narrowly on the Arian heresy and related doctrinal matters, rather than attempting to encompass all of the controversies of the church during the period. Stylistically, he may have been trying to cleanse the genre of what he saw as material extraneous to his definition of church history. Theodoret also wrote for personal reasons, both to demonstrate his own orthodoxy and to correct the record offered by two writers from Constantinople with an Antiochene perspective.