Flawed Forensics: Miaphysites on Trial in the Courts of Justin
II
William
Bunce
Wadham College, University of Oxford
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2023
Volume 26.1
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv26n1bunce
William Bunce
Flawed Forensics: Miaphysites on Trial in the Courts of
Justin II
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol26/HV26N1Bunce.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2023
vol 26
issue 1
pp 47-95
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
File created by James E. Walters
Abstract
John of Ephesus did not merely catalog events but employed
stylistic and organizational techniques to contextualize and direct his
narrative. This is made apparent by the presentation of a series of clerical
trials in the first book of his Ecclesiastical History.
The Ecclesiastical History should be understood as
playing a complementary role to his Lives of the Eastern
Saints. Where the latter work presented the charismatic credentials of
miracle-working saint-ascetics, the former showed the institutional soundness of
the miaphysite hierarchy. He demonstrated this negatively through a chaotic
account of the legal practices of the Chalcedonians.
In the legal-ecclesiastical environment of the 6th century, a demonstration of flawed legal
proceedings was an attack on the institutional legitimacy of the Chalcedonian
church. It was the most viable challenge to Chalcedonian patriarchs John
Scholasticus and Eutychius and their imperially sanctioned enforcement of union.
By contrast, it strengthened the legitimacy of the embattled miaphysites. John
of Ephesus sought to expose fraud, lawlessness, and wilfulness in the
Chalcedonians' legal process, thereby systematically undermining the intention,
process, and outcome of legal proceedings against the miaphysites.
Introduction
“How do you sit there like a Christian but judge the servants of
God like a pagan?” (ܡܢܐ ܝܬ̇ܒ ܐܢܬ ܐܝܟ ܟܪܣܛܝܢܐ̇ ܘܠܥܒ̈ܕܘܗܝ
ܕܐܠܗܐ ܕܐ̇ܢ ܐܢܬ ܚܢܦܐܝܬ).
William Cureton, ed.
The Third Part of the
Ecclesiastical History of John, Bishop of Ephesus
(Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1853), 6. Book 1, Chapter 9; 8. John of
Ephesus,
Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia
- Textus
, CSCO (Paris: Typographeus Reipublicae, 1935), 8.
(Henceforth, references to the text will take the form:
HEPT
, book, chapter; page number in Brooks’
edition.) All translations my own unless otherwise
stated. Thus John, the Severan bishop of Ephesus, recorded
Stephen the presbyter’s protestation before an unnamed Roman prefect. The
focus of the following argument is the relationship of the
Chalcedonian faction represented in Constantinople by patriarchs
John Scholasticus and Eutychius, and the Severan faction represented
by John of Ephesus, Paul of Antioch, and various other bishops and
presbyters who will be mentioned throughout the article. Despite an
arguable lack of precision, I shall very commonly refer to the two
groups as Chalcedonians and miaphysites. For accounts of the
diversity and its significance, especially in the latter position
see: Philip Booth, "Towards the Coptic Church: The Making of the
Severan Episcopate" (
Millennium
14
[2018]), and Volker L. Menze,
Justinian and
the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church
, Oxford Early
Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2008). John’s account of recent events, the third book of
his Ecclesiastical History, almost begins with this
passion narrative; a crowd dragged the cleric before an official. After a brief
exchange, Stephen’s case was transferred to the “Synodite” (Chalcedonian)
bishop, who confined Stephen in such poor conditions that he died in squalor.
The Severans who buried him treated his body as that of a martyr, and by this
treatment, made clear that they at least did not believe he had died of natural
causes. With this opener, John of Ephesus directly confronted the perceived
paradox of Christian persecution in a Christian empire.
The increasing symbiosis of the church and the law between the 4th and 6th centuries has
been well documented in dedicated works such as Caroline Humfress’ Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity and, more
recently, Mary Farag’s What Makes a Church Sacred?. Caroline Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007). Mary K. Farag, What Makes a
Church Sacred?: Legal and Ritual Perspectives from Late
Antiquity (University of California Press, 2021).
Humfress states, for example, that the legal framing of heresy and orthodoxy
“necessitated the legal categorization and systematization of religious belief
itself.” Humfress, Orthodoxy and
the Courts in Late Antiquity, 268. Laws and legal
thinking were not only impositions of state power as a means of church
governance. Instead, they came also to be recognized internally as valid methods
of a doctrinal definition. Beyond doctrine, the church adopted the systems and
definitions of Roman law for its everyday functions. For example, Farag
discusses the complicated history of the church’s use of the classical juristic
conception of res sacra. Despite some to-and-fro on the
subject, the simultaneous processes of adoption by the church and imposition by
imperial legislation of significant elements of an idea first formulated to
govern the property of pre-Christian temples show the draw and influence of
Roman law on the church. Farag, What Makes a Church Sacred? : Legal and Ritual
Perspectives from Late Antiquity, 46, 51. Such
indeed was the closeness of the two institutions that it is rare for a work on
one not to refer to the other. See, for example, the second section
(of three) in Jill Harries and I. N. Wood,
The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imperial Law of Late
Antiquity
, 2
nd
ed.,
Bristol Classical Paperbacks (London: Bristol Classical Press,
2010). The impact of imperial legislation upon the
church should be and has been recognized as definitive in ecclesial-imperial
relations. For an example of the importance of
imperial intervention in general to orthodoxy, see: Philip Wood,
'We Have No King but Christ' : Christian
Political Thought in Greater Syria on the Eve of the Arab Conquest
(C.400-585)
, Oxford Studies in Byzantium (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010), 21. However, the church was
not only subject to legislation but also became a significant author of its own
law. The creation of canons provided forensic blueprints against which orthodoxy
and heterodoxy could be tested. It was increasingly a model of orthodoxy
generated by legal means that individuals conformed to or fell short of. One
example of this can be seen in the excommunication of Nestorius at the Council
of Ephesus in 431. While the issues at stake were theological, the method, at
least according to Nestorius, was forensic but flawed: “I was summoned by Cyril,
who had assembled the Council […]. Who was judge? Cyril. Who was the accuser?
Cyril.”
Nestorius, “The Bazaar of Heracleides,” ed. G. R. Driver and Leonard
Hodgson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925), 132.
Thomas Graumann rightly points out that Nestorius “expects his
audience to recognize [that proper procedure had been violated] and share his
expectations of due process.”
Thomas Graumann, "Council Proceedings and Juridical Process: The
Cases of Aquileia (Ad 381) and Ephesus (Ad 431)" (
Studies in church history
43 [2007]),
100.
At the risk of generalization, the focus on formally necessary
elements, determined by a legal intellectual context and shored up by knowledge
of Roman law, was a regular feature of contested theology in Late Antiquity.
However, as we shall encounter in John of Ephesus’ account, most concerns with
this method were found not in the forensic form but in its misuse.
As they were contestable, trials were considered final only in a
limited manner. The Council of Chalcedon of 451 ended neither the Christological
debate, nor the existence of miaphysite clergy and their congregations. Indeed,
John of Ephesus’ Ecclesiastical History was composed
between 571 and 585, over one hundred years after the council. Of course, this
is by no means the most enduring result of Chalcedon, but it does affirm the
continuation of the dispute to some degree among bishops in the Roman Empire.
Given the circumstance of this theological dispute, the Ecclesiastical History is partially an apologetic, which wrestles with
the implications of being ruled outside the Chalcedonian church. Like Nestorius,
John questioned the formal validity of the processes that confirmed the ruling
against him and his fellow miaphysites, thereby questioning the legitimacy of
the ruling itself. John’s interest in the formal aspects of legal definitions of
orthodoxy and communion, from the exact procedures of and
the necessary individuals for rulings of orthodoxy to the
precise words to be used in ecclesiastical government,
will be a central theme of this article.
However, John’s focus on the above elements is not told to us
explicitly but is rather a point made apparent by literary means. John has
particularly shaped the first book of his history as an ever more outrageous
catalog of abuses by Chalcedonian enforcers against miaphysite clerics. The
effect is that the legal process and its misuse are brought to the reader’s
attention both by a statement of fact and by the manner of presentation. Thus,
not merely by the cataloguing of the events themselves but also by the form of
expression, we are encouraged to agree with John’s assessment of the
institutional validity of his church and fellow bishops and the corresponding
invalidity of the Chalcedonians. Muriel Debié has encouraged the reading of
Syriac historians as literary agents, but the focus of this agency has perhaps
been too narrowly on their purposes in developing a cultural identity. Muriel Debié, L'écriture
De L'histoire En Syriaque : Transmissions Interculturelles Et
Constructions Identitaires Entre Hellénisme Et Islam : Avec Des
Répertoires Des Textes Historiographiques En Annexe, Late
Antique History and Religion ; Volume 12 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015).
"Syriac Historiography and Identity Formation" (CHRC 89:1 [2009]), 94. Besides questions of
identity, if we are to properly appreciate the full range of purposes that
motivated these authors, it remains undoubtedly important to consider the
immediate practical purposes of Syriac historians. For this task, it is
essential that we bear in mind their literary methods. An assessment of Tacitus’
Annals that ignored his authorial decision to focus
on legionary rebellions in the first book would not be able to explain the
purpose of his text fully. See e.g. F. R. D.
Goodyear, The Annals of Tacitus, Cambridge
Classical Texts and Commentaries 15, 23 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1972), 30. A. J. Woodman, "Mutiny and Madness: Tacitus "Annals"
1.16-49" (Arethusa 39:2 [2006]). It
would preclude any assessment of a potential disparity between his extensive
treatment of the issue and the significance of the events. Thus, by failing to
analyse his method, we would be in a weaker position to determine his purpose.
Matters of literary form are undoubtedly crucial in an account of the literary
agency of Tacitus as a historian. Attention to the structure of John’s work in
this essay seeks to continue the process of affording the same fulness of agency
to Syriac historians.
The increasing entanglement of Roman legal and intra-ecclesial
conflict resolution is typified in Justinian’s novels, which frequently deal
with matters of church government. While relying on canons as a source of
evidence for right practice in ecclesiastical matters, they nevertheless produce
their own normative statements in support of the canons’ contents and the
authority of canons as legally binding in ecclesiastical matters. The
following three examples show three different relationships: 1) the
regulation of clerics in a civic context, 2) the regulation of
monastic rules themselves by the imperial government and 3) imperial
support of internal canonical regulation. N. 3 (535) limits the
number of clergy in the principal church of the city to 420. N. 5
(535) provides monastic regulation. N. 6 (535) states that the
canonical regulation of ordination has the force of secular
law. Altogether, the approach is not so much merely
belt and braces, but indeed belt as braces and vice
versa; canon law and secular law regulate the same things, and often refer to
the authority of the other source in defence of their stipulations. Therefore,
it is unsurprising that John of Ephesus was keen to document the ongoing legal
and semi-legal processes that established orthodoxy in the
Chalcedonian-miaphysite dispute. In such a context, the validity of either
side’s position was highly dependent on correct process.
John of Ephesus was not a disinterested third party in these
proceedings but was personally involved in the trials, mediations, and reported
injustices of the persecutions under Justin II and his successor Tiberius II.
Raised in Amida’s “eastern miaphysite monasticism,” John claims that he led
imperial missionary appointments in 542 under Justinian, which earned him the
title “who is over the heathen” (ܕܥܠ ܚܢ̈ܦܐ)
and “idol breaker” (ܡܬܒܪ ܦܬܟܪ̈ܐ ), and was
consecrated bishop of Ephesus in 558 by Jacob Baradaeus.
Alexander Petrovich Dyakonov,
John of Ephesus
and His Ecclesiastical-Historical Works
(Saint Petersburg:
V. F. Kirschbaum, 1908), 5. For further background on John of
Ephesus see Jeanne-Nicole Mellon Saint-Laurent,
Missionary Stories and the Formation of the Syriac
Churches
, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 55
(Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2015),
72-79.
HEPT,
book 2, chapter 4; 58.
His two surviving works are his Lives of the Eastern
Saints and the third part of his Ecclesiastical
History. The former deals almost exclusively with the activities of
miaphysite saints in the East, while the latter handles the later
marginalization and persecution of the miaphysite hierarchies by Justinian’s
successors. John of Ephesus’ fortune was varied. Under Justinian, he had been an
important agent in the evangelistic mission in Anatolia. Under Justin II, he was
an imprisoned and marginalized prelate whose position as bishop of Ephesus was
now titular in the barest sense of the word.
HEPT
, Book 1, Chapter 17, 18–19
(
ܘܚܒܫܗ ܒܒܝܬ ܐܦܝܣܩܦܝܘܢ ܕܝܠܗ.
ܘܠܗܠܝܢ
ܕܫܪܟܐ. ܚܕ ܒܬܪ ܚܕ ܐܝܬܝ
ܘܚܒܫ ܐܢܘܢ ܠܘܬܗ. ܗ̇ܢܘ ܕܝܢ. ܠܦܘܠܘܣ ܘܠܝܘܚܢܢ ܘܠܐܣܛܦܢܐ ܘܠܐܠܝܫܥ
). This change of fortune and his imprisonment
provide context for the composition of his apologetic history.
Despite the repetition of material within the work, and the
author’s admission of haste owing to the adverse conditions of persecution and
imprisonment, John’s handling of legal events and processes, things which had
become the building blocks of orthodoxy, must be acknowledged to be extremely
careful. Brooks’ uncharitable characterization of John as “not a literary
writer” should be reconsidered. John of Ephesus,
Lives
, PO 17.1, xii. John
structured his history to present increasingly chaotic and informal proceedings
in the reign of Justin II against the miaphysites. Thus, he undermined the
forensic process of orthodoxy and the strong contemporary position of the
Chalcedonians by calling into question the validity of their formally irregular
activities. He thereby sought to justify in his work the refusal of miaphysite
clergy to accept the council of Chalcedon and its enforcement by rendering the
legal practices of its proponents suspect.
However, this aim must be refined a little further. John of
Ephesus’ administrative roles in the 540s and his high degree of education make
it seem certain that he could have written his history in Greek. Debié has
written that, through his appointments and education, John had “un hellénisme
parfaitement assimilé.”
Debié, L'écriture De
L'histoire En Syriaque, 441. Given then that he
wrote in Syriac, his purpose could not have been to persuade the Chalcedonian
population of Constantinople of his position. Rather, the work should be seen in
a complementary role to his Lives of the Eastern Saints.
In that work, he established the credentials of his miaphysite subjects as
conduits of the Holy Spirit, as holy men capable of works of power and with
extraordinary ascetic credentials, all inherited from a long line of Syriac
saint-ascetics.
Wood,
'We Have No King but Christ'
,
195. The Ecclesiastical History
focuses not on the charismatic power of his church but rather on its
institutional soundness. Hartmut Leppin, "The
Roman Empire in John of Ephesus' Church History: A Romano-Syriac's
Perspective" in Historiography and Space in Late
Antiquity, ed. Peter van Nuffelen (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2019). Leppin’s attention to John’s various audiences
for the Lives and the Ecclesiastical History is certainly a further explanation of
the differences. In the challenging conditions of the 570s
and 580s, this companion volume was meant to assure a beleaguered group
further.
The Text
The text used throughout is that of Cureton based on the incomplete
but early, 7th-century manuscript numbered 14640 Additional MSS in the British Museum. This is dated to
688 by a further manuscript (Additional MSS No. 14647)
which Cureton identifies as written in the same hand with explicit dating: “This
book was finished in the month of Adar of the year 999 in the Greek era” (i.e.,
Seleucid dating) (ܐܫܬܠܡ ܕܝܢ ܟܬܒܐ
ܗܢܐ ܒܐܝܪܚ ܐܕܪ ܕܫܢܬ ܬܫܥܡܐܐ ܘܬܫܥܝܢ ܘܬܫܥ ܒܡܢܝܢܐ ܕܝܘܢܝܐ) Cureton,
HEPT
, iv. Brooks’ edition is more recent
and critical, including both the Vatican manuscript Bibliothecae Vaticanae Syr. CXLV for those sections of the sixth book
it preserves, and makes use of Michael Rabo for lost material, although, as
Brooks admits, “since he abbreviated his source in this part, it offers almost
nothing for the correction of the text.” Brooks, HEPT - Textus, iii. This very compact
manuscript tradition justifies the continued use of Cureton’s careful
transcription of the principal manuscript. His greater attention to the dots
assists reading, mainly due to the large number of Greek loanwords in the
text.
The work as a whole was divided into three sections, which were in
turn subdivided into books. Although the first two sections of the text, which
covered all history from Adam to Justinian I, are largely missing, except as
quotation in later chroniclers, the third part in six books, which handles
contemporary events, remains largely intact. Although the text of this third
section is incomplete, John’s structural efforts can still be seen in books one
and two of the extant text. These are marked as a unified production by a
self-conscious restart at the outset of book three. The dating undertaken by
Cureton and presented in the preface to his edition offers termini post quos based on the events of the narrative, which,
although given as dates of composition, by no means preclude the alternative
suggested above, namely that books one and two were composed together before
book 3. Ibid., vi. The internal dating puts book one
after 581 and book two after 577. Given that the two books seem to have been
composed together but that the first deals with later events, these dates alone,
which demonstrate a non-chronological approach to his subject matter, argue for
John’s deliberate presentation of material. Books 3-6 will be largely excluded,
firstly because they are not the product of the same effort as the first two
books, and secondly because their concern moves away from trial scenes. It would
be unfair to allow the disruptive circumstances of John’s life, which caused his
history to be written piecemeal, to give a falsely disrupted sense of his work.
This would be false in that when circumstances allowed and John wrote
continuously, such as in books 1 and 2, his writing was not marked by “some
confusion in his narrative, some repetitions, and apparent contradictions” but
instead demonstrates structural and thematic coherency.
Ibid., vi.
The Miaphysite Church under Justinian
It is worth briefly surveying the legal treatment of miaphysites
under Justinian and Theodora so that the changed circumstances under Justin II
can be better appreciated. Muriel Debié calls John “simultaneously the victim,
the witness, and the whistleblower” of the Justinianic persecution.
Muriel Debié, "Du Grec En Syriaque : La Transmission Du Récit De La
Prise D'amid (502) Dans L'historiographie Byzantine" (
Byzantinische Zeitschrift
96:2 [2004]),
606. Van Ginkel writes that the primary
consideration for inclusion in the Lives of the Eastern
Saints was the demonstration of steadfastness in the face of
Chalcedonian persecution.
J. van Ginkel, "John of Ephesus: A Monophysite Historian in
Sixth-Century Byzantium" (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1995), 41,
44. Indeed, the reality of the Justinianic
persecution is borne out in Menze’s study of the attack on the heart of the
miaphysite movement in the monasteries and Justinianic legislation against the
ownership and production of miaphysite texts.
Menze,
Justinian and the Making of the Syrian
Orthodox Church
, 135. The “obvious
patronage,” as Alexander Dyakonov put it, of Justinian’s rule seems to have been
received principally by John himself. Dyakonov,
John
of Ephesus
, 5. “явное покровительство”. For an account of
John’s use of these imperial funds see Debié, L'écriture De
L'histoire En Syriaque, 137.
In his dealings with the miaphysite hierarchy concerning their
Christology, Justinian is unequivocal. As early as 536, Justinian’s Novel 42
declared anathema on Severus of Antioch and other members of his party under the
charge of contravention of the canons of Chalcedon. The punishment demanded was
deposition from their episcopal seats, internal exile, and the repossession of
property: “expellere vero sancimus eos de civitatibus ab eis
turbatis … [constitutiones] et domos ipsas in quibus tale aliquid agitur et
praedia ex quibus alimenta ministrantur sanctissimis ecclesiis
assignant.” N. 42.3 (536) (We declare that they
certainly be expelled from the cities they have troubled … and (our)
constitutions designate to the most holy churches the very houses
themselves in which [the heresies of Severus or Nestorius were
preached] and the farms from which they supplied
food). Justinian’s Tractatus contra
Monophysitas of 542/3 is equally damning. The unity of the church is
described as a requirement of both reason and charity (τοῦ λογισμοῦ καὶ τῆς χάριτος ), and, if any doubt remained
concerning who threatened this unity, a series of eleven anathemas were
appended, including “Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ δύο φύσεις τῆς
θεότητος καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος εἰς μίαν ὑπόστασιν συνδραμεῖν ... ἀνάθεμα
ἔστω .” PG 86.1, 1103 B;
1143-4 (If anyone does not accept that two natures, of divinity and of
humanity, came together into one person (hypostasis) … let him be
anathema). Justinian actively sought both practically and
theologically to undermine the miaphysites for the better part of his reign.
Despite this, John is somewhat ambivalent about Justinian’s emperorship. John
likewise defends Tiberius II as Caesar, documenting his rebuke of the patriarch
John Scholasticus for persecuting the miaphysites upon his admission that “they
are not pagans… neither, my lord, are they heretics” (ܚܢ̈ܦܐ ܠܐ ܐ̣ܝܬܝܗܘܢ ... ܘܐܦܠܐ ܡܪܝ
ܗܪ̈ܬܝܩܐ ܐ̣ܝܬܝܗܘܢ), a
sentiment later echoed by the emperor Maurice.
HEPT,
book 1, chapter 37,
47.
An explanation for John’s even-handedness might be found in the
fact that Justinian’s position is perhaps a little less clear cut than the harsh
measures of Novel 42 suggest. Hamilcar Alivisatos suggested that the strictness
of the measures of Novel 42 might have been necessitated as an indication of
good-will to Rome: “Justinian war aber nicht nur Theologe, sondern auch Kaiser …
Wäre die Synode und das Edikt von 536 nicht gekommen, so wäre gleich nach dem
ersten (acacianischen) Schisma ein zweites mit Rom dagewesen”.
Hamilcar Spyridonos Alivisatos, Die Kirchliche
Gesetzgebung Des Kaisers Justinian I, Neue Studien Zur Gesch.
D. Theol. U. D. Kirche 17 (Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1913),
26. Michail Grazianskij has more recently divided Justinian’s
religious policy into four distinct phases, and argues that in each instance,
Justinian balanced contemporary political considerations with his theological
intentions. Thus, for example, he has likewise characterized the early period of
Justinian’s reign (532-536) by both a sensitivity to the position of the Roman
church following the Acacian schism and the continued need to reconcile the
miaphysites. Michael V. Grazianskij, "Kaiser Justinian
Und Das Erbe Des Konzils Von Chalkedon" (Franz Steiner Verlag, 2021),
170. A similar account of how the 6th
century emperors were attentive to both eastern and western problems can
be found in Averil Cameron, "The Early Religious Policies of Justin II"
(Studies in Church History 13
[1976]). As an example of the complex relationship, Grazianskij
considers the appointment of Anthimus as the patriarch of Constantinople.
Formerly, this appointment has generally been thought of as either an example of
Justinian’s shrewd ecclesiastical politics or the result of Theodora’s
interference. Grazianskij argues that a reassessment of the sources rules out
the latter option. Grazianskij, "Kaiser
Justinian Und Das Erbe Des Konzils Von Chalkedon," 182. If we
suppose that Justinian exclusively favoured the Chalcedonians, then Anthimus’
appointment had little to commend it. Anthimus’ translation from Trebizond
rendered his position in Constantinople canonically suspect, and he favoured
compromise over total Chalcedonian victory. He was, therefore, neither legally
nor doctrinally bulletproof from a Chalcedonian perspective. Grazianskij
proposes that this was deliberate. It provided Justinian with the possibility of
the reconciliation of the parties around a mutually agreed position and with an
easy, non-doctrinal reason for his deposition should the negotiations fail. Ibid., 184.
For our current purposes, two conclusions should be drawn from
this. Firstly, it demonstrates the practically-oriented ambivalence of
Justinian’s policy. John may have harboured hope of future favour if the
miaphysites could provide a reasonable path to unity. Secondly, it again
demonstrates the (ab)use of legal mechanisms in the church disputes of the 6th century.
Nevertheless, however justified his position might have seemed
through a practical consideration of recent history, it is still equally correct
to read John’s denial of imperial responsibility as an endorsement of the
imperial system. Indeed, this is a key aspect of John of Ephesus’
historiography. Debié gives John’s account of Zʿura, a Syriac saint-ascetic in
Constantinople, as characteristic of the opinion of both John and the whole
Severan church. Zʿura’s refutation of Justinian’s authority is taken as
indicative of a wholesale move in the Syriac church: “the Syrian Orthodox
transferred their regard to a religious, spiritual, and eschatological
level”.
Debié, "Syriac Historiography and Identity Formation"
98. However, there are good reasons for interpreting this
otherwise. Firstly, Zʿura’s disavowal is his own and not John’s. As argued by
Philip Wood, “parrhesia” (παρρησία) is a highly significant trait, but it is also quite
peculiar to Zʿura. Philip Wood, "The
Idea of Freedom in the Writings of Non-Chalcedonian Christians in the
Fifth and Sixth Centuries" (History of European
ideas 44:6 [2018]), 782. His frankness before the
emperor is explicitly stated to be of divine origin and extraordinary. John of Ephesus, Lives, PO 17.1, 23. (ܡܛܠ ܦܪܗܣܝܐ ܐܠܗܝܬܐ ܕܩܢ̇ܐ ܗܘܐ)
He should not, therefore, be read as a mouthpiece for John. This leads to the
point that, secondly, Zʿura wields a charismatic authority appropriate to the
Lives of the Eastern Saints but out of place in the
court politics and institutional wrangling of the Ecclesiastical History. Indeed, Wood points out that his parrhesia’s
purpose was not to win the political dispute but to inspire the population. Wood, "The Idea of Freedom in the Writings
of Non-Chalcedonian Christians in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries"
782. Consequently, this parrhesia was
not manifested in nuanced argument; characteristically, Zʿura challenged the
‘synod’ not using argument, but by cursing Justinian: (ܐܬ̇ܐ ܓܝܪ ܠܒܪ ܡܢܟ ܠܐ ܢ̇ܚܘܐ ܠܟ ܡܪܝܐ).
Lives, PO 17.1, 24. John of Ephesus
tells us that Zʿura’s subsequent curing of Justinian rendered the emperor
amenable to Zʿura on all points but church organization. This account of the
rehabilitation of Justinian from demoniac to the holy man’s awe-filled confidant
suggests that, at this earlier stage in his life, John appears not to have
accepted in every instance the Chalcedonian claim that his church was
acephalous. Still hoping for an imperial change of heart, John's later
articulation of the kingship of Christ within his church was not the only avenue
he pursued.
Debié, "Syriac Historiography and Identity Formation"
97.
An ideological consideration is necessary, given John’s personal
experience of persecution, imprisonment, and destitution. In other words, given
that John frequently suffered at the hands of the emperors, we must ask why he
was so positive about them. Indeed, when detailing the supposed demonic
possession of Justin II at the beginning of book three, John explicitly stated
that his earlier circumlocution of the issue throughout the second book was out
of loyalty to the imperial office: “So that it not be considered as if for the
shame or disgrace of the high institution of kingship” (ܡܢ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܠܐ ܢܣ̣ܬܒܪ ܕܐܝܟ ܕܠܚ̣ܣܕܐ ܐ̇ܘ ܠܨ̇ܥܪܐ ܕܛܟ̣ܣܐ ܪܡ̇ܐ
ܕܡ̇ܠܟܘܬܐ.
HEPT
, book 3, chapter 1, 120.
This is further evidence of John’s hope to preserve the reputation and position
of the earthly king, and suggests that his assessment of the imperial
institution is positive by default. Van Ginkel has argued that the Ecclesiastical History’s complex process of composition
can explain John’s sometimes inconsistent approach to his imperial subjects:
“When writing during the life of Justin II, John blamed most of the evil deeds
of his reign on his advisors. But in chapters written after his death, the
emperor is held fully responsible and justly punished (mental derangement) to
save him from a worse fate.” J. van Ginkel, "John
of Ephesus on Emperors: The Perception of the Byzantine Empire by a
Monophysite," (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 247
[1994]), 330.
Even so, his generally positive account of the institution merits
further attention. Following Hartmut Leppin, we might consider the nature of
John’s literary activity. Leppin has described the Ecclesiastical History as “a variant of Greek Christian historiography
as it developed in the late antique Roman Empire.”
Leppin, "The Roman Empire in John of Ephesus' Church History: A
Romano-Syriac's Perspective" 131. A similar view is found in van Ginkel,
"John of Ephesus on Emperors: The Perception of the Byzantine Empire by
a Monophysite", 331. This is, in a sense, unsurprising. Greek
was the language of ecclesiastical history writing. It seems likely that John’s
adaption of this genre for a Syriac-language work was nevertheless a significant
choice. While considerations of the audience might explain his choice of
language, his choice of genre is remains best described as a product of his
cultural Romanitas. Leppin’s description of John’s
pro-Roman account as the product of a writer “attached” to the empire is
undoubtedly correct, but it needs further substantiation.
Leppin, "The Roman Empire in John of Ephesus' Church History: A
Romano-Syriac's Perspective", 125. John’s reliance on the
methods of ‘legal orthodoxy’ is the backdrop to his account of the trial scenes,
which will form the subject of the main argument of this article. Leppin’s
account of John’s Roman viewpoint will be strengthened by showing his investment
in law and the Roman legal system as determiners of orthodoxy.
However, a pro-Roman account does not rule out all criticism of the
regime. Contextualizing the character of John’s Kaiserkritik of Justin and Tiberius, Averil Cameron has noted
especially John’s credentials as a Constantinopolitan and his generally holistic
approach to the emperors and their wives as people rather than characters.
Averil Cameron, "Early
Byzantine Kaiserkritik: Two Case Histories," (
Byz. mod. Greek stud
3:1 [1977]),
11–13. Throughout his works, John usually portrayed emperors
and Caesars favourably when uninfluenced by supernatural evil.
For John Scholasticus’ influence on Justin II, see Debié, L'écriture De L'histoire En Syriaque,
61. An explanation for John’s optimistic view of his persecutors
is hinted at in his treatment of the imprisonment of Paul the Black, the
miaphysite patriarch of Antioch in the mid-6th
century. Incarcerated, Paul too wrote an account of the doctrinal dispute but
was discovered to have done so by his jailors. Upon his confession of
authorship, the emperor and patriarch threatened him with death, apparently with
added vehemence for his slander of the Roman state: “There were threats of death
against him for this reason: that he had included in [the writing] indictments
of Rome” (ܠܘ̇ܚ̈ܡܐ ܕܡ̇ܘܬܐ ܗ̣ܘܘ ܥܠܘܗܝ. ܟܕ ܠܗܕܐ ܘܐܦ ܗ̇ܝ
ܕܩ̣ܘܛܪ̈ܓܐ ܕܪܗܘܡܐ ܐ̇ܠܘ̣ܬ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ̇ .).
HEPT,
book 2, chapter 2; 56.
Paul of Antioch was no less a Roman than John, yet this did not preclude this
same criticism of Rome from being absent in John’s work. Although it is not
clear what is meant by “criticism of Rome”, we should certainly differentiate
this from criticism of its inhabitants, imperial or otherwise, for John’s work
certainly did contain the latter. John’s continued hope for the rehabilitation
of the emperor is the explanation for this difference in approach.
Alternatively, we might understand Paul’s antagonism towards Rome as a
particularly unwelcome criticism of the imperial family. In that case, this
could be explained by his complex relations with Athanasius, his opponent in
Alexandria, and a descendant of Empress Theodora.
Marianna Mazzola, "Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Ecclesiastical History: Writing
Church History in the 13
th
Century Middle East" (Université Paris sciences et lettres;
Universiteit Gent, 2018), 241.
However, John saw emperors as essentially good and interested in
the truth (ܫܪܪܐ). In a passage referenced
above, Tiberius began his interrogation of Patriarch John Scholasticus with “I
want the truth” (ܨܒ̇ܐ ܐܢܐ ܕܫܪܪܐ). Even
concerning events as shocking, and possibly open to hysterical treatment, as an
apparent sacrifice to Zeus uncovered at Edessa in 579 following an investigation
into Paganism at the behest of Tiberius, the emperor established a court to
uncover “the truth of the matter” (ܫܪܪܗ
ܕܣܘܥܪܢܐ), rather than show trials.
HEPT
, book 3, chapter 30;
159. In this instance, the emperor is introduced as the
“merciful emperor” (ܡ̇ܠܟܐ ܡ̇ܪܚܡܢܐ ), but in a
turn of events parallel to John’s own case, the emperor’s negligence of the
affairs of justice led to injustice, corruption, bribery, and finally, a massive
riot.
HEPT
, book 3, chapter 31; 159–163.
Despite the emperor’s ultimate responsibility, the blame is
laid squarely with lower officials, many of whom John believed guilty of
paganism themselves. Although they are not equated explicitly with the
Chalcedonian party, John noted the location of the trial to create a link
between this miscarriage of justice and Chalcedonian theology: “and [the
appointed judges] were sitting and examining the matter in the great palace of
the kingdom that was called Placidia for many days” (ܘܗܘܘ
ܝܬ̇ܒܝܢ ܘܡܥ̇ܩܒܝܢ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܕܣ̣ܘܥܪܢܐ ܒܒܝܬܐ ܪܒܐ ܕܡ̇ܠܟܘܬܐ̇. ܕܡܬ̣ܩܪܐ ܕܦ̇ܠܩܕܝܘܣ ܝܘܡ̈ܬܐ̣ ܣܓ̈ܝܐܐ ).
HEPT
, book 3, chapter 30;
159. The Palace of Placidia was the home of the papal
apocrisiarius (at the time, the future pope Gregory the Great). This is a subtle
but definite indication by John of where he saw the problem.
In John’s case, rather than the emperor, it is the Chalcedonian
clergy who are charged explicitly with deceit, perjury, and breaking oaths:
“promises of deceit and oaths of falsehood of those against us; we know that
there is no truth with them” (ܫܘ̈ܘܕܝܐ ܕܢܟܠ̣ܐ ܘܡ̈ܘܡܬܐ ܕܕܓܠܘܬܐ ܕܗܠܝܢ ܕܠܩܘܒܠܐ. ܝ̇ܕܥܝܢ ܚܢܢ
ܕܫܪܪܐ ܠܘܬܗܘܢ ܠܝܬ).
HEPT,
book 1, chapter 22; 29.
Therefore, it is unsurprising that earlier ecclesiastical struggles are framed
as created by hostile clerics, not the emperor himself. In the life of Zʿura,
Pope Agapetus (another inhabitant of the Palace of Placidia) bears the brunt of
John’s ill will for his attempted use of force in bringing Zʿura to court.
John’s holy man makes clear that the outrage is twofold, seamlessly joining
canon and private law. Agapetus’ demand cannot be met during their current
observance of a fast, and his forcible removal would involve trespass on private
property donated by Theodora. John of Ephesus,
Lives
,
PO
17.1, 27–28. This case shows that John saw both the
perpetrators of the persecution and their illicit methods as similar under
Justinian and Justin. He stressed in Zʿura’s life, as he would throughout the
Ecclesiastical History, the formal irregularities in
the behaviour of the Chalcedonians and their lack of respect for due process.
However, by keeping the focus on truth in his presentation of legal proceedings,
John equally realizes a tension between courts as an accepted instrument for the
discovery of the truth and their frequent failure to do so. In contrast to the
unfavorable view of Chalcedonian clerics, John’s presentation of the imperial
hierarchy is, if not balanced, at least complex.
The Biblical Framework of the Ecclesiastical
History
John presented court cases with dynamism and created a rapidly
developing narrative. This narrative licence is one of the primary indications
that John’s history is best understood less as a chronicle of events and more as
a political apologia. Below, this will provide the bulk
of the material for analysing John’s use of literary structure to defend his
church. However, it is thematically situated in an overarching biblical and
eschatological structure that frames the court cases.
Although, as mentioned above, the very beginning of the Third Part
of John’s work is no longer extant, the first few lines of the remaining text
set up this biblical framework. The following analysis is an impressionistic
rather than exhaustive demonstration of John’s skill as a literary historian in
that it makes no claims to exhaust his use of scriptural framing. The beginning
of the text, as it remains, is dense with quotations from Matthew’s Gospel,
which are deployed non-sequentially and drawn from across the book. Matthew 4
moves into Mathew 24 before an extended quotation from Matthew 10, which places
the court proceedings documented above explicitly in the Biblical context of
persecution: “Beware of people delivering you to the courts and in their
synagogues you will be beaten and you will be brought before governors and kings
for my sake as a witness for them and the Gentiles.”
HEPT
, book 1, chapter 3; 3 cf. Matt
10:17–18. John is clear that this is precisely what is
taking place in his own time by capping the quotation with “We are already
seeing these things clearly.” Equally striking is John’s omission of the end of
verse 22, “but he that endures to the end shall be saved”, choosing to remove
any silver lining from his bleak narrative of earthly persecution.
However, John does not settle for this concluding exegesis and
omission but is prepared to add to the biblical text. His quotation of Matthew
24, which follows Christ’s declaration of the end times and the second coming,
matches the Peshitta except for a final added participle (ܗ̈ܘܝܢ) which enlivens the quotations to the present
time of writing: “when you see all these things which are
[now]” (ܕܡܐ ܠܡ ܕܚܙܝܬܘܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܟܠܗܝܢ
ܕܗ̈ܘܝܢ).
HEPT,
book 1, chapter 3; 3 cf. Matt
24:33. Although so much of John’s evidence is
uncorroborated and frequently demands a suspension of disbelief, an awareness of
John’s historiographical framework allows the text to be approached with
specific caution. John not only presented his miaphysite history within the
context of biblical persecution but also employed literary manipulation for
added immediacy. The cases John presented frequently contribute explicitly to
the realization of his biblical eschatology, either by participating
typologically in the biblical narrative or serving simply as evidence of the
present end times. To appreciate the cumulative impact of John’s structural
development, the cases will be handled sequentially, following his order. The
examples are laid out below in tabular form for quick reference.
Miaphysites on Trial
Defendant
Prosecutor
Judge Note the lone ecclesiastical
figure. The lack of named Chalcedonian prelates, the roles of
lay officials, and the considerable involvement of John
Scholasticus may be intended to compare unfavorably with the
trial by gathered peers documented at the ecumenical councils.
Artur Steinwenter noted the aspirational correspondence of
ecclesiastical process to the Gospel and Pauline injunctions on
Christian conflict resolution: Artur Steinwenter, "Der Antike
Kirchliche Rechtsgang Und Seine Quellen," (Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte.
Kanonistische Abteilung 23:1 [1934]), 3. Nevertheless,
the councils (including Ephesus II) displayed a variety of lay
and ecclesiastic leadership. The emphasis, as will be developed
later, is rather on John Scholasticus’ particular overreach than
an error of form in this respect. The erroneous impression is
certainly given by this list that the miaphysite majority was
under persecution from a tiny number of influential
Chalcedonians. For details of presidency and trials at the
councils see Richard Price, "Presidency and Procedure at the
Early Ecumenical Councils" (Annuarium
Historiae Conciliorum 41:2 [2009]).
Place in work
Stephen the presbyter
mob
prefect
Book 1, chapter 9
Paul of Asia
John Scholasticus
-
Book 1, chapter 14
Elisha of Sardes
John Scholasticus
-
Book 1, chapter 15
Stephan of Cyprus
John Scholasticus
Justin II
Book 1, chapter 16
John of Ephesus, Paul of Antioch,
Stephan of Cyprus, Elisha of Sardes
John Scholasticus
John Scholasticus, afterwards the senate
and the quaestor
Book 1, chapters 24, 27-29
Trial scenes form much of the first book of John
of Ephesus’ Ecclesiastical History and invite many
questions about the practicalities of the miaphysite persecution, the nature of
miaphysite interaction with the Roman legal system, and John’s
(mis)representation of these elements. John began his own ‘Acts of the Apostles’
with his own protomartyr, Stephen the presbyter, whose case provided the initial
quotation for this article. He was brought before a prefect (ܗܘܦܪܟܐ) (ὕπαρχος)
by a crowd who, “when they imprisoned him, [Stephen] anathematized them to their
faces and in their wrath they delivered him to the prefect” (ܟܕ ܚܒܫܘܗܝ ܣܓܝ ܐܚܪܡ ܐܢܘܢ
ܒܐܦܝ̈ܗܘܢ ܘܒܚܡܬܗܘܢ ܐܫܠܡܘܗܝ ܠܗܘܦܐܪܟܐ ).
HEPT,
book 1, chapter 9; 8 (placed here by Brooks – the
episode is taken from Michael Rabo). The trial, as
Stephen declared it by his characterization of the prefect’s actions, “you are
judging” (ܕܐ̇ܢ ܐܢܬ ), was derailed and
transferred by the prefect to the Chalcedonian bishop. Importantly, when
confronted with the proposition that he was, in fact, adjudicating, the prefect
washed his hands of the matter (ܐܝܟܢܐ
ܕܟܕ ܗܠܝܢ ܫܡ̣ܥ ܗܘܦܪܟܐ ܘܙ̣ܥ ܡܢ ܝܘܩܪܐ). At this first junction, John shows the secular power
unwilling to condemn the Severans. It is instead the bishop who quarantines
Stephen in Heracleia, denying him access to social interaction with his
coreligionists: “it was not allowed that he should see anyone” (ܠܐ ܡܫܬܒܩ ܕܢܚܙܗ ܐܢܫ ), and clean clothes. John has
modelled this double trial before the prefect and priest, including the secular
prefect’s unwillingness to condemn Stephen, on the Gospel passion narrative.
In the cases of Paul of Asia, the miaphysite bishop of Aphrodisias,
and Elisha of Sardes, John Scholasticus is the instigator of both prosecutions,
actively seeking the bishops from their monasteries where each “was sat in his
monastery in peace” (ܒܕܝܪܗ ܒܫܠܝܐ ܝܬ̇ܒ ܗܘܐ),
bringing them to Constantinople as the patriarch’s captives, “and he imprisoned
them in the bishop’s own house” (ܘܚܒܫܗ ܒܒܝܬ ܐܦܝܣܩܦܝܘܢ
ܕܝܠܗ), to impose new holy orders on them.
HEPT, book 1, chapter 14; 14. Paul’s
acquiescence under compulsion to the patriarch’s desire to have him ordained a
second time elicits ridicule from his clerics who “were calling him ‘double
dunked’!” (ܘܩܪܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܠܗ ܩܠܝܪ̈ܝܩܘܗܝ ܨܒܝܥ
ܬܪ̈ܬܝܢ ܙܒ̈ܢܝܢ), whereas
Elisha’s resistance is met with exile and monastic relocation.
Ibid. Neither of these makes any pretense to being a
legally proper action. No judge or charge is specified. Instead, these cases
build momentum concerning the illegal actions and depraved character of John
Scholasticus.
The contrast can be drawn out by a comparison of the events here,
and of Paul (and John’s own) ordination by miaphysite clergy in John’s Lives of James and Theodore. Here, the ordinations
described of miaphysite clergy were performed “according to the sense of the
canons” (ܐܝܟ ܚܝܠܐ ܕܩܢ̈ܘܢܐ), and John informs
us that James (Jacob Baradaeus) performed these ordinations “with the rest the
bishops” (ܥܡ ܫܪܟܐ ܕܐܦܝ̈ܣܩܘܦܐ). John of Ephesus, Lives, PO 19.2, 156, 158. However, we
might be able to detect here some of John’s sleight of hand. We are told in the
Lives that James and Theodore “made bishops for the
countries of Egypt according to the command of the blessed patriarch Theodosius”
(ܘܠܐܬܪ̈ܘܬܐ ܕܐܓܦܛܘܣ ܒܦܩܘܕܢܗ ܕܛܘܒܢܐ ܬܐܘܕܣܝܘܣ
ܦܛܪܝܪܟܐ ܥܒܕܘܢ ܐܦܝ̈ܣܩܘܦܐ). Ibid.,
157. This certainly legitimized their actions in Egypt, but John
is notably silent on their ecclesiastical authorization to ordain in Asia. One
explanation for John’s insistent focus on the canonical legitimacy of his fellow
bishops in the Ecclesiastical History might therefore be
an awareness that they were particularly vulnerable to accusations in this area.
This might further explain John’s (mis)representation of John Scholasticus’
somewhat unbelievably forceful and capricious approach in these trials.
The significance of Elisha’s relocation is made amply clear by
Justinian’s 5th novel, in which it is written that
monks who leave their monasteries either for the outside world or another
monastery must leave all their property with the monastery: “substantia maneat et vindicetur a priori monasterio.”
N. 5.7 (535) (Let their property remain and let it be vindicated by
their former monastery). This punishment, therefore,
not only disrupted miaphysite networks, but also stripped the miaphysite leaders
of their means. Conversely, the clerical ridicule Paul received for accepting
reordination serves as the vox ecclesiae protesting
uncanonical measures and alerting the reader to unlawful actions. John
Scholasticus’ two supposed motives are made explicit in the cases of Elisha and
Paul: pecuniary advantage and a sheer desire for outrage.
However, Elisha’s punishment is perhaps not as harsh as John makes
it seem. Elisha was relocated from Beth Dios (ܒܝܬ ܕܝܘܣ) to Beth Abraham
(ܒܝܬ ܐܒܪܗܡ). Beth Dios was a monastery of
the pro-Roman and Chalcedonian Acoemetae. By contrast, it seems that Beth
Abraham was possibly founded on premises gifted to John of Ephesus by the
chamberlain Callinicus. Susan Ashbrook Harvey,
Asceticism and Society in Crisis: John of Ephesus and
the Lives of the Eastern Saints
, Transformation of the
Classical Heritage (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990),
29. The relocation is, therefore, a case of
miaphysite containment rather than isolation. This calls into question John’s
earlier claim that the bishops were dwelling peacefully in their monasteries and
instead suggests, as in the case of Stephen, that militant miaphysism was being
addressed and contained by the Chalcedonians. Indeed, although an illness
accompanies the relocation, this is not described as the intended consequence,
something John is quite happy to heavily imply in Stephen’s case. The distinct
methods and implications of the persecutions are already apparent. While the
first case of Stephen the presbyter provides a grassroots denunciation working
its way toward the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the second cases show the
far-reaching influence of the Constantinopolitan patriarch in enforcing his
orthodoxy. John thus provides a Caiaphas and a mob to condemn the Christlike
miaphysite clergy. As noted above, the similarity is certainly intentional. Even
in the similar punishments inflicted, the differentiation of the harsh treatment
rendered to presbyters and bishops is striking; the conflict over Stephen the
presbyter’s corpse contrasts somewhat sharply with Elisha’s enforced retirement.
Nevertheless, John’s structure has highlighted two propositions to which these
initial examples should lead us. Firstly, he stresses the possibility of the
misuse of judicial mechanisms, and secondly, he proposes John Scholasticus’
predisposition to engage in such conduct.
The extraordinary presence of the emperor encourages an
extraordinary narrative and outcome in John’s third case. The treatment of
Stephan, bishop of Cyprus, dismisses any idea of episcopal deference. John again
invokes Acts when he describes Stephan’s Pauline recovery
after the violence of the excubitores (ܣܩܘܒܝܛܘܪ̈ܣ): “he revived as if from amongst the
dead” (ܘܐܝܟ ܕܡܢ ܡܝ̈ܬܐ ܚܝܐ).
HEPT,
book 1, chapter 16; 16 cf. Acts
14:19.
John Scholasticus is recorded as having sent an armed force to
Plataea, where Stephan had been banished, to compel him through violence to
enter communion with the patriarch. Stephan’s speeches to the patriarch and the
emperor in Constantinople concerning proposed reordinations reveal specific
concerns. While his speech to the patriarch focuses on the theological
inconsistency of reperforming sacramental baptism and ordination, his speech to
the emperor relies on persuasion by canonical inaccuracy:
Woe! Christianity has died, all the statutes of the church
of the Christians are corrupted (ܐܬܚܒܠܘ ܠܗܘܢ ܛܟ̈ܣܝܗ̇ ܕܥܕܬܐ
ܕܟܪ̈ܝܣܛܝܢܐ ) all statutes and all canons of the church of God are
confused, muddled and corrupted. What is this unlawful impiety that the
priesthood of Orthodox Christians is abrogated by those who are now in power,
and ordained afresh elsewhere? It has been twenty years since I, though
unworthy, was ordained a bishop by the orthodox in accordance with the canons
under Theodosius of Alexandria.
Ibid.
Canonicity, or as it might be termed, legal orthodoxy, is in fact
consistently a prime concern of the emperor throughout John’s writing. In this
instance, John presented the emperor as utterly convinced by the arguments from
the canons. Similarly, upon Theodosius of Alexandria’s death in 566, and the
subsequent election of both a Chalcedonian and miaphysite successor, John did
not give the emperor a partisan view on his successor, but rather affirmed the
emperor’s desire for unity and canonicity in the selection of one bishop: “It
was written to the king that they ordained orthodox bishops in place of the
blessed Theodosius, not only one bishop, but two, and he was bitterly enraged”
(ܐܬܟܬ̣ܒ ܠܡ̇ܠܟܐ ܕܐܦܝ̈ܣܩܦܐ ܐܪ̈ܬܕܟܣܘ̣ ܥܒ̣ܕܘ
ܚܠܦ ܛ̇ܘܒܢܐ ܬܐܕܘܣܝܘܣ ܠܘ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܚܕ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܐܠܐ ܬܪ̈ܝܢ ܘܐܬ̇ܚܡܬ ܩܫ̣ܝܐܝܬ ).
HEPT,
book 1, chapter 34;
44–45. John wanted his reader to know that the emperor held
canonically correct actions in high regard.
The implications of preliminary cases
John must be allowed some licence in creating a scenario for
Stephan which instantly developed a speech before the patriarch to an audience
with the king. Novel 6 presents a pathway clearly ignored here, by which bishops
could obtain access to the emperor only after traversing various secular and
ecclesiastical bureaucracies.
N. 6.3 (535). The possibility of elevating an issue
to a higher ‘court of appeal’ is well-established, although John’s presentation
of this as an extremely dynamic process suggests an urgency not permitted by
Justinianic law. Yet, the continued importance of petition to Roman government
is clear. It acted not only as a means of redress for citizens, but also, as
Feissel argues, “On sait que Justinien a ... considéré la
pétition comme une des deux sources de sa législation en general,” and
he provides Novels 2, 39, and 83 as exempla of reactive legislation.
Denis Feissel, "Pétitions Aux Empereurs Et Formes Du Rescrit" in
La Pétition En Byzance
, ed. Jean
Gascou Denis Feissel (Paris: Peeters, 2004), 41.
Justin probably continued the model of reactive government, and Stephan’s speech
above, decrying the outrage of uncanonical reordination, was therefore probably
meant to act as a public catalyst for legislation.
Justin sides wholly with the miaphysites in defence of single
ordinations saying of John Scholasticus’ initiatives: “In truth, this is evil
and without law and outside all the canon of the church” (ܒܫܪܪܐ ܕܒܝ̣ܫܐܝܬ ܘܕܠܐ ܢܡ̇ܘܣ̣ ܘܠܒܪ ܡܢ ܟܠܗ
ܛܟܣ̣ܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܐ̣ܝܬܝܗ̇ ܗܕܐ
̇).
HEPT,
book 1, chapter 16; 18.
We are therefore told that Stephan received a favourable ruling within a context
of persecutio renovata by appealing to the canonicity of
his holy orders. In his account, John has, for the time being, obscured the
Christological controversy in favour of more technical questions. By temporarily
dividing theological and legal orthodoxy, John enabled a miaphysite victory in
an imperial context. This encourages a more nuanced approach to miaphysism as a
legally defined heresy in Justin’s empire. If, as this example demonstrates,
matters of ecclesiastical organization within canon law could be settled in
favour of a miaphysite and against the patriarch of Constantinople, ‘the
orthodox’ were defined as much in legal rulings on the canonicity of practical
questions of authority and competencies as they were by doctrinal statements.
Stephan had submitted to communion with the “Synodites” before this success.
Nevertheless, his ordination, the matter at stake in the debate, was certainly
performed by miaphysite clergy.
HEPT,
book 1, chapter 16; 17 (
ܗܐ ܓܝܪ ܥܣܪ̈ܝܢ ܠܝ ܫ̈ܢܝܢ. ܕܟܕ ܠܐ ܫ̇ܘܐ
ܐܢܐ ܥܒ̣ܝܕ ܐܢܐ ܡܢ ܐܪ̈ܬܕܟܘܣ
ܩܢܘܢܐܝܬ ܐܦܝܣܩܦܐ̇. ܒܦܘܩܕܢܗ ܕܬܐܕܘܣܝܘܣ ܦܛܪܝܪܟܐ ܕܐ̣ܠܟ̣ܣܢܕܪܝܐ
) Given that his ordination was carried out ‘on the command of
Theodosius of Alexandria’. Including these
proceedings in the Ecclesiastical History was expected to
heighten the perceived injustice of a persecution against those whose orthodox
credentials had been attested forensically before the highest court in the land.
This case contrasts with the previous three; with the emperor as judge, and
Stephen able to make his arguments which rely on his knowledge of law (his
concern for statutes (ܛ̇ܟ̈ܣܝܗ) and that his
ordination was carried out canonically (ܩܢܘܢܐܝܬ), John is able to claim a reasonable success for the
miaphysite cause.
John’s own trial and the breakdown of due process
With his own trial, John’s treatment of the persecution moves away
from the formal and orderly treatment of miaphysites in the courts. In his case,
we instead see a variety of legal and quasi-legal proceedings, which, whilst
needing increasingly rigorous process as they changed from extra-curial
mediation to formal court proceedings, in fact degenerated in form, taking on
gradually more illicit and irregular processes. It is important to stress that
mediation and arbitration were usual first steps in legal disputes, due to
reticence to engage in expensive court proceedings. More persuasively perhaps
for the present case, extra-curial resolutions also enabled the parties both to
compromise and save face. However, when litis contestatio
began, correct procedure was of great importance.
Whilst this is a concern throughout the whole Digest, book 2, for
example, deals extensively with questions of jurisdiction and process
e.g. D. 2.1.20 “Extra territorium ius dicenti impune non paretur.” (He
may be disobeyed freely who gives judgements outside his
jurisdiction). It is the cumulative effect of poor definition
of the case, what John considered to be an incorrect assessment of which issues
were the most serious, and fluid movement between different paradigms of legal
conflict resolution that marks the chaos of his trial.
The framework is however given in advance by John Scholasticus’
behaviour in the above cases, and by his introduction as someone with no respect
for the institutional processes or traditions of the church. In particular, John
of Ephesus first highlights his overreach beyond his authority almost at his
first mention: “and he wrote not only in his city and jurisdiction but also to
foreign places” (ܘܠܘ ܒܠܚܘܕ
ܕܒܡܕܝܢܬܗ ܘܒܫܘܠܛܢܗ̣ ܐܠܐ ܘܐܦ ܠܐܬܪ̈ܘܬܐ
ܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܟܬ̇ܒ ܗܘܐ̇).
HEPT, book 1, chapter 11; 11. Then, he
stresses the outrageous reordination of priests and deacons whose holy orders
John Scholasticus had implicitly accepted beforehand when he celebrated with
them on 36 occasions, we are told: “ and not one time only or twice, but even 36
times in every festival service (σύναξις)”
(ܠܘ ܚܕܐ ܙܒ̣ܢ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܘܬܪ̈ܬܝܢ ܐܠܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܬܠܬܝܢ ܘܫܬ ܙܒ̈ܢܝܢ ܒܟܠܗܝܢ ܣܘ̈ܢܟܣܝܣ ܕܥܐܕܐ
).
HEPT, book 1, chapter 12; 12. In
short, John Scholasticus does illicit things beyond his sphere of influence,
either of which alone would be cause for concern. Moreover, these errors are
portrayed as both very serious and obvious. This contrasts greatly with what
John of Ephesus presented as nebulous charges brought against the
miaphysites.
Given what I will argue is a deliberately chaotic set of legal
proceedings, it is worth briefly outlining for the sake of clarity the events in
question, and the series of disagreements and the concomitant legal proceedings
to which they led. It also seems prudent to lay out in more detail the normal
legal options open to a plaintiff in the 6th
century. After this, we will have the best viewpoint from which to see how John
of Ephesus created his crescendo of flawed forensics. It is worth mentioning
from the outset that the legal methods which will be discussed are those proper
to ‘secular’ law rather than ecclesiastical law. It may therefore seem that
their use here is not appropriate to the nature of the dispute, namely a matter
of church order between the emperor, the patriarch of Constantinople, and a
group of bishops rather than a single defendant. Nevertheless, the conclusion of
the episode in a trial before the senate and a magistrate encourages us to blur
the lines. Furthermore, these will be used as types not of the precise methods
of restitution, but rather of the various processes which were certainly
recognisable to citizens. As Steinwenter noted, there is no reason to doubt
extremely close interactions between “state” and ecclesiastic legal
procedure. Steinwenter, "Der Antike Kirchliche
Rechtsgang Und Seine Quellen" 6. John of Ephesus presented
accounts of subverted mediation, arbitration, and adjudication as touchstones of
legal process for his readers.
The narrative of John’s trial
The first part of the dispute between John Scholasticus and the
miaphysite bishops whom he had imprisoned in Constantinople, including John of
Ephesus, took the form of a letter in which the patriarch demanded that the
miaphysite bishops unite themselves to the Chalcedonian church. The patriarch
specified that this union should be like “the unity between Cyril of Alexandria
and John of Antioch”.
HEPT, book 1, chapter 17; 19. The
(probably abbreviated) contents of this letter, as John presented them,
correspond in no way to the requirements of a formal summons. This prepares the
reader for two possibilities. If legal proceedings follow, then we are already
aware of the patriarch’s irregular process. Alternatively, if legal proceedings
do not follow, then the patriarch’s letter signalled that dialogue and mediation
were still the appropriate response. The actions of the miaphysite bishops makes
more sense in this latter context. They responded with an argument that was
logical rather than theological, except as a general refutation of the council
of Chalcedon in an (at this point) unspecified way. Their strategy was to point
out the inconsistency of them behaving like Cyril in only the manner of his
communion with John of Antioch. They argued that real emulation would require
them to view the council of Chalcedon as Cyril had viewed Nestorius: “and we
will anathematize and repudiate and throw out the synod of Chalcedon from the
Church of God, just as Cyril did to that lawless Nestorius” (ܘܐ̇ܚܪܡܢ ܘܐ̇ܦ̣ܩܢ ܘܫ̣ܕܝܢܗ̇ ܠܒܪ ܡܢ ܥܕܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܠܣܘܢܗܕܣ ܕܟܠܩܕܘܢܐ ܐܝܟ ܡܐ ܕܐܦ ܩܘܪܝܠܘܣ ܠܪܫܝ̣ܥܐ
ܢܣܛܘܪܝܘܣ̣ ).
HEPT, book 1, chapter 17; 19. The
initial posture John has the bishops adopt is combative. His presentation
undermines Chalcedon by framing their first engagement not as an act of
enforcement by John Scholasticus, but as a continuation of an unsettled
dispute.
John’s control of the narrative develops in the following chapter.
The bishops’ argument moved from the logically formal to the legalistically
formal. The miaphysites challenged John Scholasticus to provide canonical
support for his alleged practice of re-ordination. Knowing that this was not
canonical, it is fair to say that this record represents John picking battles he
knew he could win. It seems designed to move the debate from church unity or the
authority of the council or patriarch, towards specific violations of church
order. The initiative taken by the miaphysites in this rejoinder is surely an
authorial decision. It seems very unlikely in the first place that the bishops
would have been brought to dispute with John Scholasticus. For the patriarch,
these miaphysite bishops were an issue of church government, not doctrine. It is
impossible to imagine that John was repeating the patriarch’s own words when he
said they were summoned to debate “concerning the faith and about the corruption
of the synod of Chalcedon” (ܕܥܠ
ܐ̈ܦܝ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܘܡܛܘܠ ܚܒ̇ܠܐ ܕܣܘܢܗܕܣ
ܕܟܠܩܕܘܢܐ).
HEPT, book 1, chapter 18; 19-20. It
seems equally unlikely that they would then be allowed to steer the conversation
in whatever direction they should wish. In this sense, the events described have
either been presented very carefully, or, at worst, might have no basis in
historical fact. Nevertheless, the account given by John of Ephesus serves again
to remind the reader that, for the purposes of all that will follow, the
miaphysites sought to demonstrate that they held the stronger legal position,
quite aside from their arguments about the patriarch’s Christological position
and supposed support of a “quaternity” (ܪܒܝܥ̣ܘܬܐ).
HEPT, book 1, chapter 18; 20. The criticism of a
Chalcedonian doctrine of ‘quaternity’ is also found in John of Tella’s
Profession of Faith. See Volker L. Menze and
Kutlu Akalin, John of Tella’s "Profession of Faith":
The Legacy of a Sixth-Century Syrian Orthodox Bishop, Texts
from Christian Late Antiquity (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009), 49.
That this was a popular criticism is testified to by Justinian’s Tractatus Contra Monophysitas: “Οὔτε γὰρ τετάρτου προσώπου προσθήκην ἐπιδέχεται ἡ
ἁγία Τριὰς ... καὶ οὐκ ἄλλον τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον καὶ ἄλλον τὸν Χριστὸν
ἐπιστάμεθα, ἀλλ΄ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Θεὸν Λόγον Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
ὁμολογοῦμεν.” (Nor does the Holy Trinity take on the
addition of a fourth person … and we do not know one “God the Word” and
another Christ, but we accept one and the same God the Word the Lord
Jesus Christ.) PG. 86.1, 1107, C This first attempt by the
two parties to settle their differences without a third party was
unsuccessful.
After further descriptions of the lawlessness of the patriarch,
John introduced the emperor’s role in their case for the first time. This takes
the form of Justin submitting to the miaphysite bishops an edict of union,
complete with doctrinal statements, which he apparently encouraged them to edit
as they saw fit to ensure its orthodoxy. The whole episode has the character of
Roman arbitration. We see a third party acting as an interlocutor between two
groups, proposing and counter-proposing solutions which he hopes will satisfy
both parties. Importantly, the Roman arbitrator did not act as a judge, nor were
his suggestions binding, unless oaths were sworn by the two parties agreeing to
the terms.
Caroline Humfress, "Law and Legal Practice in the Age of Justinian"
in
The Cambridge Companion to the Age of
Justinian
, ed. Michael Maas (Cambridge University Press,
2005), 180. Leanne Bablitz, "Roman Courts and Private Arbitration"
in
The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society
,
ed. Paul J. du Plessis, Clifford Ando, and Kaius Tuori, Oxford
Handbooks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016),
236. Had his intervention been intended as the final word,
it is unlikely that John and the other bishops would have been able to continue
the contest in official channels. Zeno’s Henotikon, an
earlier example of a joint production of emperor and patriarch, might provide an
example of how the emperor could have acted if this first intervention had been
meant to bind. Henry Chadwick, "Zeno’s Henotikon, Rome’s
Fury, and the Acacian Schism: Dionysius Exiguus," in East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic
Times until the Council of Florence, (Oxford University Press,
2003), 50. Of course, we are again dealing with John’s
presentation of events. It is possible that Justin and John Scholasticus fully
intended for this proposal of unity to bind the miaphysites. John nevertheless
presented this as part of an ongoing discussion and negotiation.
This point is highly significant. Following the counterproposals of
the Chalcedonian faction, John and his fellow miaphysite bishops were unwilling
to agree to the edict.
HEPT, book 1, chapter 20; 27. John
made what he considered the likely duplicity of the Chalcedonians the chief
reason for the miaphysite refusal to agree to the new terms, and in doing so, he
was keen to show that he and the other bishops had not walked away from the
negotiating table.
HEPT, book 1, chapter 22; 29 (The
untrustworthiness of the Chalcedonian party’s oaths was implicitly
contrasted with the oaths of the miaphysite party, which, once given in
good faith, were abused by the patriarch). Again, this makes
sense if the episode is understood as an exercise in imperial arbitration. A
willingness to remain in negotiations with ‘Synodites’ is not obviously
desirable for John’s relationship with his audience unless there was something
to be gained from the discussions.
Nevertheless, the bishops’ failure to agree to the edict left them
open to charges by John Scholasticus that they were the obstacle to unity. This
claim was pursued in the patriarchal court on unequal terms: “They faced off against one another ardently; and
those of the synod held power, whilst those against the synod were imprisoned
apart from them and oppressed bitterly.” (ܒܗ ܒܕܪܫܐ ܠܘܩܒܠ
ܚ̈ܕܕܐ ܣ̣ܕܝܪ̈ܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܚ̇ܪܝܦܐܝܬ܇ ܗܠܝܢ
ܕܣܘܢܗܕܘܣ ܕܐ̇ܚܝ̣ܕܝܢ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ܆ ܘܗܠܝܢ ܕܠܘܩܒܠ
ܣܘܢܗܕܘܣ ܕܚܒܝܫܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܘܐܠܝ̣ܨܝܢ ܡ̇ܪܝܪܐܝܬ).
HEPT, book 1, chapter 23; 29–30. This
process was in turn the main reason for the eventual acquiescence of the
miaphysite bishops to communicating with the patriarch. Overall, we can
characterize the first part of John’s own trial, up to the point of his
communicating with John Scholasticus, in two legal frameworks. The first is a
process of negotiation, or arbitration initiated by Justin. Insofar as both
sides agreed to the emperor’s arbitration of the dispute, they were bound to
accept what he decided. The second intrudes irregularly onto the narrative, in
that, rather than following through with the working out the arbitration, the
process was transferred into the court (σέκρετον) of John Scholasticus (ܠܣܝ̣ܩܪܝܛܘܢ ܕܦܛܪܝܪܟܐ) all
whilst the miaphysite bishops were imprisoned. Ibid;
30. This is surely deliberately reminiscent of the trial in absentia of Dioscorus at the third session of
Chalcedon. For further discussion of this model “show
trial” for the miaphysites, see Price, "Presidency and Procedure at the
Early Ecumenical Councils," 252–254.
The second part of John’s trial saw an unexpected return from the
patriarch’s court to the former, extra-curial process highlighted above. A
personal letter from the emperor to the miaphysite bishops in captivity aimed at
reconciling the mutual excommunications created another situation like the Roman
process of mediation. John reported that the emperor wrote that “We think in God
we are doing that which should content you, and putting you in perfect unity”
(ܡܣ̇ܒܪܝܢܢ ܓܝܪ ܒܐܠܗܐ̣ ܕܢܝ̇ܚܟܘܢ ܥ̇ܒܕܝܢ ܚܢ̣ܢ ܘܒܚܕܝܘܬܐ ܡ̇ܫܡ̣ܠܝܬܐ ܡܚ̇ܝܕܝܢܢ ܠܟܘܢ
).
HEPT
, book 1, chapter 26; 36.
Nevertheless, more than in the first instance, the tone of the letter suggests
that Justin imagined his input would have been, or at least should have been,
decisive in mending the schism. However, the planned mediation was prevented by
the imperial couple’s month-long retirement to the baths, after which the
Patriarch John “led the counsellors and went out to meet him” (ܕܒܪ ܒܢ̈ܝ ܡܠܟ̣ܗ̣ ܘܢܦܩ ܠܘܬܗ).
HEPT
, book 1, chapter 27; 37.
The mediation was therefore flawed due to the unequal access of the two parties
to the mediator. John also suggested that a lack of political will could be
blamed for giving the Chalcedonian party free rein over the situation, and an
unequal footing in the proceedings. However, the unexpected return to this more
casual, or at least open-ended discussion between the emperor and the parties
might be a literary creation, intended to make the issue seem rather less
closed. John himself wrote that some may think his account far-fetched.
HEPT, book 1, chapter 30; 40. Had John
written in Greek, the similarity between Justin’s desire for unity (ܚܕܝܘܬܐ), and the at least comparably favourable Henotikon would be more obvious.
Beyond John’s clear intention in providing the emperor Justin with
a less than pressing prior arrangement at the baths, contrasting sharply with
the plight of the imprisoned bishops, the significance of John’s presentation of
events is twofold. The emperor undermined the process of mediation by proceeding
to act immediately on the advice of only one of the parties which had the
freedom to approach him, and more strikingly, his role in the proceedings
shifted quickly to the distinct position of adjudicator. Justin’s next step in
summoning the two parties before the senate and a magistrate (the quaestor) as
iudices, (ܣ̣ܘܢܩܠܝܛܘܣ ܥܡ
ܩ̣ܐܣܛܘܪ) marks the beginning of formal litigation after
ineffectual and half-hearted attempts at an extra-curial solution.
HEPT,
book 1, chapter 29; 39.
It is also importantly distinct from John Scholasticus’ ecclesiastical court.
Whereas this second mediation or possible imperial arbitration was a bargaining
process, seeking a compromise between the two parties, adjudication and the
subsequent iudicium decided unreservedly for either
party. John’s inclusion of the earlier deceit of the Chalcedonians in enticing
the miaphysite bishops to communion aims to demonstrate why prima facie the move
to the public proceedings of the adjudication was preferable. Under the formal
litis contestatio, the process would be public and
open to scrutiny. The underhanded machinations attributed to the Chalcedonians
by John would not be possible in such circumstances. We have been led to expect
by John’s focus on canonicity that, if properly conducted, formal and thorough
legal proceedings would favour the miaphysites.
Given however that in the present case the senate decided
wholeheartedly against the miaphysites, John sought to undermine this public and
binding iudicium by recording irregularities in the
process. Not only does John present the legal status of the case in rapid flux
from the earlier arbitration and mediation to adjudication, but the order of the
trial itself is challenged. Firstly, there is no anticipation of an opportunity
for dispute “since they were besought [to comply] as if by command” (ܟܕ ܡܬ̇ܬܒܥܝܢ ܐܝܟ ܕܡܢ ܦܘܩܕܢܐ). The result of the
trial is the first business announced. This contrasts starkly with Eusebius of
Dorylaeum’s formal indictment of Eutyches before Flavian in 448 which begins
with a clear charge: “Not long ago, I came to your Holiness and brought charges
accusing Eutyches, that he, as presbyter and archimandrite of this city, was
ruining the doctrines of the orthodox church, as much by way of informal
conversations as in his formal catechesis of those who came to him.” ACO 2.
1. 1, Chalcedon, 238, “Προσελθὼν τῆι ὑμετέραι
ἁγιωσύνηι λιβέλλους έπιδέδωκα πρώην αἰτιώμενος Εὐτυχῆ τὸν
πρεσβύτερον καὶ άρχιμανδρίτην ταυτησὶ τῆς πόλεως ὡς τὰ ὀρθόδοξα
δόγματα τῆς ἐκκλησίας διαφθείροντα, τοῦτο μὲν ἐν διαλέξεσιν, τοῦτο
δὲ καὶ ἐν κατηχήσεσιν τῶν ἐκεῖ παρατυγχανόντων”.
John presented his own trial as summarily conducted.
Secondly, John shows that his party came prepared for a real trial,
and thus presented the miaphysite half of a case following due process, making
sure meanwhile to point out the deceitfulness of the opposition: “But [the
miaphysites] arose and contended in disputation (ἀγών) forcefully … and without fear they openly accused all of
them of false promises” (ܗ̇ܝ ܕܝܢ ܗ̣ܢܘܢ ܩܡ̣ܘ ܘܐܬ̇ܟܬܫܘ ܒܐܓܘܢܐ ܚܝܠܬܢܐܝܬ ... ܘܕܠܐ ܕܚ̣ܠܬܐ ܐ̇ܟܣܘ
ܓܠܝܐܝܬ ܥܠ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܫܘ̈ܘ݁ܕܝܐ ܕܢܟܠܐ).
HEPT, book 1, chapter 29; 39. Not only
are their accusations performed openly (ܓܠܝܐܝܬ), contrasting with the earlier clandestine activity of the
Chalcedonians, but the forceful manner (ܚܝܠܬܢܐܝܬ) of their arguments contrasts
with the violent removal of the bishops from court: “they ordered that they
should be violently dragged from before them” (ܘܦܩܕܘܢ ܕܒܓܪܪܐ ܢܦ̇ܩܘܢ ܐܢܘܢ ܡܢ
ܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ̇). This court room violence provides a third point of
judicial irregularity. The confused legal process and the following show trial
create overwhelming sympathy for the miaphysite position. However, this incident
equally forms part of John’s presentation of eschatology, for the author himself
has been brought before “governors and kings for my sake”.
Matt 10:18. The clear schematic of imperial judge, miaphysite
defendant, and Chalcedonian prosecutor which was evident in the first three
cases has given way to a foiled mediation, patriarchal machinations, and an
unjust trial. The movement from order to chaos is striking.
The rest of John’s extant history moves away from the specifically
forensic scenes treated above. It is reasonable to suppose that this change of
focus is a deliberate choice as John moves from a Roman and ecclesiastical
context, to first the treatment of lay miaphysites, and then persecution outside
the empire under the Sassanians. With the guise of legality cast off, future
clerical persecutions would make no claims to any kind of legal process. The
cupidity and overreach of John Scholasticus still loom large in the narrative,
but the persecution of the priests Andrew and two Sergii was mob action
undertaken through treachery and violence “in the likeness of Judas” (ܒܕܡܘܬܗ ܕܝܗܘܕܐ).
HEPT, book 2, chapter 13; 75. The
account of the Sassanian persecution which follows is notable because it lays
the blame for the occurrences in Persia directly on the irregular Roman example:
When the Magians and princes of the Persians learnt that
by the commandment and will of the king of the Romans, all persons, in every
land and city of his dominions, were required to conform themselves and come
over to his faith; and that such as refused and were disobedient to his will and
commandment, were by his orders persecuted and imprisoned, and their goods
spoiled, and finally delivered up even to death; ‘lo!’ said they, ‘in all the
dominions of the Romans these things are now being done, and it is but just for
us also to do the same in all our dominions, and convert to our own religion all
other religions within our realm’.
HEPT, book 2, chapter 18; 80, trans. Robert Payne
Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1860).
It is surely an attack on the institutional propriety of the Roman
actions to appose so closely the persecutorial actions of the Persian king.
Roman judges sat like Christians, but in practice had judged the servants of God
in an exemplary manner for Persian pagans.
Conclusion
John’s carefully structured
presentation of trials, law, and lawlessness in the Ecclesiastical History serves principally to undermine the practice of
these once sure determiners of orthodoxy and justify the miaphysite position
outside the legal orthodoxy of the Chalcedonian Church. He employs a Biblical
eschatological decline narrative as special pleading for a group which found
itself on the wrong side of the institutions which had come to hold central
importance in defining orthodoxy. By his
presentation of events in order of their legal irregularity rather than strict
chronology, John causes his reader to focus on the institutional errors of the
Chalcedonian church. He thereby systematically undermined the intention, the
process, and the outcome of the legal proceedings against the miaphysites to
exculpate himself and his co-confessionalists. The glimmer of hope and imperial
indulgence of the earliest trials demonstrate John’s belief that forensic
orthodoxy, if undertaken correctly and pervaded with truth, could deliver for
the miaphysites. In all the above cases, there is a marked absence of
supernatural assistance for the miaphysites. The stress on the institutional
validity of his miaphysite position (if only by contrast
with the lawlessness of the Chalcedonians) serves to make the Ecclesiastical History a companion volume to the charismatic authority
of holy men in his Lives of the Eastern Saints. In order
to demonstrate this institutional authority, John of Ephesus was compelled to
demonstrate fraud, lawlessness, and wilfulness in the process of the
Chalcedonians. In the legal-ecclesiastical environment of the 6th century, a demonstration of flawed forensics was
the most viable challenge to John Scholasticus and Eutychius in their imperially
sanctioned enforcement of union.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Brooks, E. W., ed. Lives of the Eastern Saints: John of Ephesus
Vol. 17, Patrologia Orientalis. Paris: Firmin-Didot,
1923.
――, ed. Lives of the Eastern Saints: John of Ephesus
Vol. 19, Patrologia Orientalis. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1926.
Cureton, William, ed. The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John,
Bishop of Ephesus
. Oxford: University Press,
1853.
John of Ephesus. Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia -
Textus.
CSCO. Paris: Typographeus
Reipublicae, 1935.
Justinian. "Corpus Iuris Civilis, Vol.3: Novellae."
edited by R. Schoell and G. Kroll. Dublin: Weidmann, 1972.
Nestorius. "The Bazaar of Heracleides." edited by G.
R. Driver and Leonard Hodgson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925.
Schwartz, Edward, ed. Acta Concilorum Oecumenicorum
Vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & co.,
1933.
Payne-Smith, Robert, trans. "The Third Part of the
Ecclesiastical History of John, Bishop of Ephesus." Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1860.
Secondary Sources
Alivisatos, Hamilcar Spyridonos. Die Kirchliche Gesetzgebung Des Kaisers
Justinian I.
Neue Studien Zur Gesch. D.
Theol. U. D. Kirche 17. Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1913.
Ashbrook Harvey, Susan. Asceticism and Society in Crisis : John of Ephesus
and the Lives of the Eastern Saints.
Transformation of the Classical Heritage. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1990.
Bablitz, Leanne. "Roman Courts and Private
Arbitration." In The Oxford
Handbook of Roman Law and Society
, edited by
Paul J. du Plessis, Clifford Ando and Kaius Tuori. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2016.
Booth, Philip. "Towards the Coptic Church: The Making
of the Severan Episcopate." Millennium
14 (2018).
Cameron, Averil. "Early Byzantine Kaiserkritik: Two
Case Histories." Byz. mod.
Greek stud
3, no. 1 (1977): 1-17.
――. "The Early Religious Policies of Justin II"
Studies in church history
13 (1976): 51-67.
Chadwick, Henry. "Zeno’s Henotikon, Rome’s Fury, and
the Acacian Schism: Dionysius Exiguus." In East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church:
From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence
, 50-54: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Debié, Muriel. L'écriture De L'histoire En Syriaque : Transmissions
Interculturelles Et Constructions Identitaires Entre Hellénisme Et Islam :
Avec Des Répertoires Des Textes Historiographiques En Annexe.
Late Antique History and Religion ; Volume 12.
Leuven: Peeters, 2015.
――. "Du Grec En Syriaque : La Transmission Du Récit
De La Prise D'amid (502) Dans L'historiographie Byzantine."
Byzantinische Zeitschrift
96:2 (2004): 601-22.
――. "Syriac Historiography and Identity Formation."
CHRC
89:1 (2009): 93-114.
Dyakonov, Alexander Petrovich. John of Ephesus and His Ecclesiastical-Historical
Works.
Saint Petersburg: V. F. Kirschbaum,
1908.
Farag, Mary K. What Makes a Church Sacred? : Legal and Ritual
Perspectives from Late Antiquity.
University of California Press, 2021.
Feissel, Denis. "Pétitions Aux Empereurs Et Formes Du
Rescrit." In La Pétition En
Byzance
, edited by Jean Gascou Denis
Feissel, 33-52. Paris: Peeters, 2004.
Goodyear, F. R. D. The Annals of Tacitus
, Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 15, 23 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1972).
Graumann, Thomas. "Council Proceedings and Juridical
Process: The Cases of Aquileia (Ad 381) and Ephesus (Ad 431)." Studies in church history
43 (2007): 100-13.
Grazianskij, Michael V. "Kaiser Justinian Und Das
Erbe Des Konzils Von Chalkedon." Franz Steiner Verlag, 2021.
Harries, Jill, and I. N. Wood. The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imperial Law of
Late Antiquity.
Bristol Classical
Paperbacks. 2nd ed. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2010.
Humfress, Caroline. "Law and Legal Practice in the
Age of Justinian." Chap. 7 In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian
, edited by Michael Maas, 161-84. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005.
――. Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Leppin, Hartmut. "The Roman Empire in John of
Ephesus' Church History: A Romano-Syriac's Perspective." In Historiography and Space in Late
Antiquity
, edited by Peter van Nuffelen.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Mazzola, Marianna. "Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Ecclesiastical
History: Writing Church History in the 13th Century Middle East." Université
Paris sciences et lettres; Universiteit Gent, 2018.
Menze, Volker L. Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox
Church.
Oxford Early Christian Studies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Menze, Volker L., and Kutlu Akalin. John of Tella’s "Profession of Faith":
The Legacy of a Sixth-Century Syrian Orthodox Bishop.
Texts from Christian Late Antiquity. Piscataway, NJ:
Gorgias Press, 2009.
Price, Richard. "Presidency and Procedure at the
Early Ecumenical Councils." Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum
41:2
(2009): 241-74.
Saint-Laurent, Jeanne-Nicole Mellon. Missionary Stories and the Formation of
the Syriac Churches.
Transformation of the
Classical Heritage ; 55. Oakland, California: University of California
Press, 2015.
Steinwenter, Artur. "Der Antike Kirchliche Rechtsgang
Und Seine Quellen." Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische
Abteilung
23:1 (1934): 1-116.
van Ginkel, J. "John of Ephesus : A Monophysite
Historian in Sixth-Century Byzantium." Rijksuniversiteit Groningen,
1995.
――. "John of Ephesus on Emperors: The Perception of
the Byzantine Empire by a Monophysite." Orientalia Christiana Analecta
247 (1994): 323-33.
Wood, Philip. "The Idea of Freedom in the Writings of
Non-Chalcedonian Christians in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries." History of European ideas
44:6 (2018): 774-94.
――. 'We
Have No King but Christ' : Christian Political Thought in Greater Syria on
the Eve of the Arab Conquest (C.400-585).
Oxford Studies in Byzantium. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Woodman, A. J. "Mutiny and Madness: Tacitus "Annals"
1.16-49."
Arethusa
39:2 (2006): 303-29.