Scythian monks

Theosophist Disputes of the V Century

The question of whether suffering is possible for God was the subject of discussion not only in the 5th century, but also earlier. Although most Church Fathers , like Gregory the Miracle Worker (3rd century), answered him negatively ^[2] , researchers find “ theosophistic ” statements from such famous theologians as Clement of Jerusalem , Tertullian and Origen ^[3] . After the First Council of Nicaea confirmed the divine nature of Jesus Christ , its “ coexistence ” with God the Father , the problem became more complex. It was necessary to determine the extent to which the Son’s human suffering affects his divine nature. If Jesus Christ is God, as the Nicene Creed says, and he suffered, as stated in the Holy Scriptures , does it mean that God suffered in some way?

Traditionally, the fifth century Christological disputes regarding the human nature of Jesus Christ are described as a confrontation between the Alexandrian theological school , led by Cyril of Alexandria , which justifies a lesser degree of humanity, and Antioch , which holds opposite views. By developing allegorical exegesis , the Alexandrians denied the full human nature of the Word incarnate, while the Antiochians insisted on the meaning of the historical Jesus. Modern scholars have noted the inaccuracy of such a division and believe that for Antioch theology, the idea of God’s non-susceptibility to suffering was more important ^[3] .

In the period between the Ephesus (431 year) and the Council of Chalcedon (451 year) Christological disputes arose repeatedly between supporters of Cyril of Alexandria and the Antiochs. The reasons for the controversy were the views of the monk Nestorius of Antioch, who became the bishop of Constantinople in 428. Although the main question concerned the orthodoxy of the use of the word "Mother of God", the dispute about the correctness of the mention of suffering in connection with the incarnation was resumed. The position of the Alexandrians who insisted on the unity of natures in Christ, from which it followed, in particular, that God the Word died, was denied by the Antiochians who accused their opponents of theopaschism (from Greek θεός - God, Deity and Greek πάσχω - to endure, suffer; literally pilgrimage ", or" god-suffering "). In further controversy, the Antiochians accused Cyril of “Apollinarian rottenness” ^[4] , referring to the convicted by a number of cathedrals ^{[app. 1]} Christological doctrine of Apollinaria of Laodicea , who asserted the unity, but not the fusion of divine and human natures in Christ ^[6] . As a result, opponents attributed to Apollinaria a commitment to the view of the suffering of the Divine, which he, in the opinion of V. V. Bolotov , did not share ^[7] .

The early works of Cyril of Alexandria, in particular the last of his "Twelve Anathematisms", gave his opponents, for example, the Nestorian Ive of Edessa , suspect him of teaspohism and apollinism. Subsequently, during the entire Nestorian controversy , the Antioch accused Cyril and his supporters of apollinarism. The main theological works of the Antiochian Party, Theranorite Kirishsky's Eranista and Nestorius 's Book of Heraclitus, argued that the key position of Cyril's Christology, “the one nature of God Word embodied,” meant the recognition that God suffered by his own nature ^[8] . Nestorius in his book especially pointed out the danger of theopaschism and pointed out the deceitfulness of those who, while confessing the impassivity of God, nevertheless "put him on the cross." Nestorius also wrote a special book against Theasophism, which is now considered lost. In his turn, Theodorit sarcastically brings the thesis of Cyril to the point of absurdity that “Logos suffered impassively” ^[9] .

Other, more neutral participants in the Nestorian conflict, such as the Syrian bishop Akaki Verrii , who mediated between the Antiochs and the Alexandrians, also recognized the importance of the Theaschkhist issue. Cyril, explaining his position during the polemics, develops his doctrine of two natures in Christ, which is not very different from the theses of his opponents ^[10] . So, in the Second Epistle to Sukkens, he writes that “The Only Begotten Son of God, known by us as God, could not Himself accept the sufferings of the flesh in His Own nature [divine], but he perceived them in his earthly nature. About Him Who is the Only True Son, we should equally affirm the impassivity of the divine nature, and the passion of human nature, for it was the flesh that suffered ” ^[11] .

Despite this, the more radical Antiochs rejected Cyril's religion of divine dispassion. In a letter to Eutherius of Tyana refuses to accept Cyril’s explanations on this issue, while condemning those Antiochs who accepted the Conciliation Confession of 433, “who raised their hand to the divine with it”. Accusations of teaspohism did not stop with the death of Cyril in 444. The correspondence between the patriarch Domnus of Antioch (442–449) and the successor of Cyril, Dioscoros (444–451), in front of the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 contains accusations of the Alexandrians in propagating theosophistic views. Contradictions with the views of Cyril led to the condemnation of Domn at the Council of Ephesus as a Nestorian ^[12] .

Theosophist formulations were rejected by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. At the fourth meeting of this council, the case of the Constantinople archimandrites was considered - a group of monks led by Dorotheus, Karos and Varsuma. They, supporters of the Patriarch of Constantinople Eutychius , whose monophysite views were condemned by the council, were invited to sign the message of Pope Leo I. They refused, instead stating that they believed in “the one who suffered from the Holy Trinity ” ^[13] . This wording was not accepted, the monks themselves were accused of heresy . Although the theopachs wording was not immediately anathematized, its condemnation was included in the final resolutions of the council ^[14] .

Since the Council of Chalcedon did not stop the unrest caused by the Monophysite movement, and in the second half of the 5th century it covered the entire east of the empire, Emperor Zeno (477–491), on the advice of the Patriarch of Constantinople, issued the Enotikon in 483, in which the expression “Trinity remained a trinity” and the incarnation of one of the Trinity - God the Word. " Since this Enotikon was adopted by so many, this expression has spread widely in the East. Anastasius I (491-518), who ascended the throne after the death of Zeno, went even further and not only received Enotkon, but also gathered in 499 a council against those who recognized two natures in Christ and did not profess lat. unum de Trinitate crucifixum (“one of the Trinity is crucified”). Since Anastasius planned to introduce in the church of Constantinople an addition to the Trisagion " dissociate for us", this council probably approved the above position in the Monophysite sense ^[15] .

Despite the fact that the expression unum de Trinitate was adopted by the Monophysites, it was also used by the Orthodox. In the West, after Pope Felix III (483-492) rejected the Enotikon, the expression of the Latin stuck . una persona e Trinitate (“one person from the Trinity”) which, however, was also used by the Nestorians, interpreting it in the sense that Christ had only the face of the God of the Word, but he himself was not ^[16] .

Thus, by the beginning of the 6th century, in the East, Orthodox and Monophysites invested different meanings in the same formulation, and in the West, Orthodox in the form of expression coincided with the Nestorians ^[17] .

Relations between Constantinople and Rome

The Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I (491-518) died July 9, 518, and his successor Justin I (518-527), an Illyrian of noble descent, who held the post of committee of the Excuvites , became emperor the next day. His first significant actions as an emperor belonged to the field of religious politics and concerned the assertions of the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in the eastern provinces of the empire , which the late emperor opposed. An iconic figure of the anti-Chalcedonian party ( Monophysites and Miafizites ), Sevira of Antioch was forced, fearing persecution, to flee to Egypt in September 518 ^{[approx. 2]} . The question of whether Justin I adhered to such strict Chalcedonite views, as attributed to him by church historians of the sixth century, and how A. A. Vasiliev and A. Grilmayer consider them to be controversial. Given that another leader of the anti-Chalcedonites, Filoxen Mabbugsky was expelled only the following year, an alternative version suggests that the persecution was not so cruel and was not state policy, but was the result of pressure, possibly of the monks of Constantinople ^[19] .

The basis for the desired imperial court reconciliation with the church West, led by Pope Gormizd , was to be not only the decision of the Council of Chalcedon, but also the signing by the Eastern bishops of a special document compiled by the pope, Libellus Hormisdae . Consent to this document presupposed the condemnation of the Patriarch of Akaki of Constantinople (472–489), during whose reign there was a church schism between East and West, and all those who were in communion with him.

To make sure that the eastern bishops sign libellus , the pope sent his legates to Constantinople, who, on their way to the capital, sought signatures from provincial hierarchs. Not everywhere their activity took place without conflict. On March 24, 519, the papal embassy arrived in Constantinople, and on March 28, under pressure from the emperor, Patriarch John II signed libellus , which formally restored church unity.

One of the active participants in those events was Deacon Dioscoros , whose correspondence with Pope Gormizd, included in the collection of documents Collectio Avellana , is one of the main sources of information about events connected with Scythian monks.

Christianity in Lesser Scythia in the V - early VI century

Very little information has been preserved about the church history of Lesser Scythia during the period under review. It is not known exactly which Christological views gravitated to this province in the 5th century, but they were probably closer to strictly Cyrillian. A representative from this province, Bishop Timothy of Tomsk , attended the Council of Ephesus for 431 years and, unlike other bishops of the Danube provinces, signed a condemnation of Nestorius ^[20] . A surviving letter from Alexander of Hierapolis to Theodorite of Cyrus states that "the entire Pontic region professes that God is subject to suffering." Although it is possible that this statement applies only to the Pontic diocese located on the southern coast of the Black Sea ^[21] .

The monks Karos and Dorofei mentioned above, who proposed lat. Unusual de Trinitate passus est came , they claimed that they would not accept anything else after the Nicene formula , since this is exactly what Timothy of Tomi, who baptized them, taught them ^[21] . The response to the “Codex Encyclicus” of Pope Leo I (457/458 year) of the Bishop of Tomsk Theotim was also preserved. According to the interpretation of this text by the German historian E. Schwartz , Theotheim makes decisions of the Chalcedon Council , although this interpretation is not accepted by everyone and, perhaps, Theoim limited himself to recognizing only the decisions of the Council of Ephesus ^[22] . It follows that the bishop of Thomis could accept the Theasophist formula ^[23] .

An indirect indication of the Christological orientation of Lesser Scythia may be the extensive construction activities of Emperor Anastasius I in this province. Archaeological finds ^[24] suggest that Bishop Patern, accused by Scythian monks of heresy in 519, held his post even under Anastasia ^[23] .

The German Catholic historian W. Schurr also tried to justify the connection of Theosophism in Scythia with the influence of the monks of Syria and Palestine ^[25] .

In Constantinople

The monks arrived in Constantinople in the second half of 518 or at the beginning of 519, before the arrival of the papal legates on March 25, 519 ^[26] . A number of researchers suggested that they arrived in the capital earlier, along with Vitalian , although there is no justification for this ^[27] . Their original stated goal was to resolve their dispute with Tomis Patern.

It soon became clear that their main task was to see the end of the dispute between supporters and opponents of the Council of Chalcedon , for which they demanded the adoption of the Theasphkhist formula. They immediately attracted attention, accusing a certain deacon Victor, a strict chalcedonite, of Nestorianism , because he, referring to the messages of Pope Leo I and Cyril of Alexandria, refused to fulfill their demands. The influential Vitalian , who positioned himself as a strong supporter of Orthodoxy, was a relative of one of the monks and was in conflict with Patern. Perhaps because of this, Vitalian encouraged the monks to aggravate the conflict, although the details of his relationship with them are completely hypothetical ^{[28] [29]} .

The arrival of the monks was in the midst of yet another intra-church conflict. After the bishop of Antioch Sevir was expelled from his chair, this important church post remained vacant for several months. From the correspondence between Gormizd and Deacon Dioscoros, it is known that the latter was considered as one of the possible candidates. Perhaps the protracted solution to this issue was connected with the situation that became difficult after the arrival of the monks and the opposition of Vitalian and the Scythian monks to the election of Dioscor, which can be found in letters from Collectio Avellana . At the end of June 519, the legates informed the pope about the election of Paul Judea ^[30] .

The monks who arrived in March 519 were invited to sign a document drawn up by Maxentius, the full name of which is lat. Libellus fidei oblatus legatis apostolicae sedis Constantinopolim quem accipere noluerunt ("A request for faith to the ambassadors of the apostolic throne in Constantinople, which they refused to accept"), indicates that the papal envoys rejected it. The purpose of this document, as stated in its prologue, was to supplement the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon with a teaspohist formula for a more effective fight against heresies. In the main part of the document quotations from the works of the Church Fathers were cited in support of this view ^[31] .

In the spring of 519, a series of meetings took place to reconcile the monks, the Patern of Tomia, Vitalian, Victor, the legates and Patriarch John II . The only source of information about these meetings is the legate reports to Gormizdou. Their firm position was that nothing could be added to the decisions of the four ecumenical councils ^[32] . Additional details of the events are known from the joint letter sent after their departure on June 29 to Rome by the legates and Deacon Dioscoros . It turns out that on the orders of Emperor Justin I and Vitalian, several fruitless discussions were organized, in which, in addition to their will and instructions from the pope, legates were involved. The letter urges the pope to exercise caution in this, "terrifying Orthodox Church of Constantinople," case. The same day, a letter is dated to Pope Justinian , which also contains warnings against the treachery of the monks. However, a few days later, in early July, Justinian’s position changed to the opposite, and he sent a new letter expressing the opinion that the Scythian monks' formula could become a panacea in the dispute between the two parties and give the empire a religious peace. Perhaps the position of the future emperor changed under the influence of Vitalian, however, after the murder of the latter, Justinian continued to adhere to it ^[33] .

In Rome

Having not reached their goal in Constantinople, the monks went to Rome in the summer of 519 to appeal directly to the pope. Letters went with them to Rome - not preserved positive recommendation from Vitalian, two letters from legates, extremely hostile to monks, and a letter from Justinian . The legates warned the pope against dangerous innovations and a return to the time of Eutyches ^[34] . Justinian's letter described the monks as people who “... are more concerned with creating conflict than with godliness and God's peace [...]; because the idle chatter of those in a hurry to innovate in the church leads to widespread excitement of the crowd. ” However, a few days later, Justinian writes two new letters, already in a more favorable tone for the monks, expressing the hope of achieving peace between the churches. According to E. Schwartz , the first letter was written under the influence of Dioscorus, and the subsequent ones under the influence of Vitalian ^[35] .

At the beginning of the mission of the Scythian monks there was success - Pope Gormizd adopted the "Libellus fidei" Maxentius ^[36] . Further events are worse known. It is known that during their 14-month stay in Rome, the monks developed violent activity, promoting their formula among the population of the city and even in the Senate ^[37] . They met and attracted to their mission their compatriot, Dionysius the Small , entered into a correspondence with the African bishops expelled to Sardinia by the Vandal king Trasamund ^[38] . The message they wrote is known as lat. Epistula scytharum monachorum ad episcopos ^[39] .

Pretty soon they tired Gormizd, and already in September 519 he wrote Justinian a letter stating that although he would be glad to send the monks back, they refused to leave, fearing some ambushes on the way that would threaten their lives. Therefore, the pope, not wanting to expel them by force, will wait for the return of his legates in order to carefully consider this problem with their help. Neither in this letter, nor in subsequent pope did he express his attitude to the theological side of the issue. This evasion somewhat annoyed Justinian, who in his letter of October 19, 519 asked the pope to give a definite answer according to the formula “unus de trinitate”. He also asked to send the monks back, adding that they were not threatened by anything along the way. Dioscore’s letter sent on the same day shows that he retained a negative attitude towards the monks: “if someone asks Maxentius, who claims to be a rector in some community, among which monks he lived, or who ordained him a monk, he will not be able to answer. The same darkness with Achilles ” ^[37] .

When the monks left Rome, it is not known for sure. Based on the surviving letters, it can be concluded that in December 519 they were going to Constantinople, and in August of the following year they were still on their way ^[40] . In August 520, Gormizd's letter dates to the African bishop Pessessor, in which he sharply condemns the views and behavior of the monks. According to the pope, it was the people of Rome who made them leave the city. The surviving response to this letter, Maxentius presents a different version of events - in his opinion, a change in the attitude of the pope to the monks occurred under the influence of Dioscor ^[41] .

In January 520, Emperor Justin I reported to Rome that a large number of petitions from eastern provinces were coming to Constantinople about the “unus de trinitate”. In order to make this formula more attractive to Rome, in July 520, Justinian sent a letter, where with reference to Augustine, he proposed to interpret the word "unus" as "una de Trinitate persona" ("one person from the Trinity"). After a long delay, in a letter of March 521, the pope again refused to supplement the provisions contained in the message of Pope Leo I and the Council of Chalcedon ^[42] .

For the first time, monks are mentioned in a letter from Dioscoros to Pope Gormizdu. It mentions only Leontius, a relative of the then influential military commander Vitalian ^[43] . More detailed information is contained in a letter to the nephew of Emperor Justin, future Emperor Justinian , also to Gormizd: "... The names of these monks: Achilles, John, Leontius and Mauritius." In a scholia , “Maxentius” was added to the name “Mauritius” to this place ^[44] .

John Maxentius

It is traditionally believed that the leader of the Scythian monks was . Reliable information about his life outside the events in question has not been preserved. In addition to the above document "Libellus fidei", he is the author of four more works on various dogmatic issues ^[45] .

The historian A. A. Vasiliev suggested that subsequently Emperor Justinian I (528-565) made Maxentius bishop of Lesser Scythia ^[46] . Cardinal R. Bellarmin , Archbishop J. Asher and some others mistakenly believed that Maxentius was a presbyter in Antioch . This mistake was probably related to the mention in the Libellus fidei of the Antiochian Patriarch Flavian ^[45] .

Leonty

At the end of the 19th century, interest in the 6th-century theologian Leontius of Byzantium increased. The author of the first monograph dedicated to this church writer, , suggested the version that it was the same Leontius, who belonged to the Scythian monks ^[47] . As a basis for this hypothesis, Loofs pointed to the closeness of the views expressed in Leonty’s writings to the views of John Maxentius, as well as to Leonty’s defense of the theosophistic formula ^[48] . Analyzing these arguments, the author of the first study of Leontius of Byzantine in Russian, V. A. Sokolov, agrees that the views of Leonty and Maxentius are really close, but this may be a simple consequence of the fact that Leonty had his works in his hands ^[49] , and about of teaspohism, he remarks that “Leontius never thought, like Maxentius, to see the slogan of his doctrine in the teaspohism formula, and if he once dwelt on it, it only shows that“ the Eutychian poison is hidden under her honey ”" ^[50] . Other arguments against this identification are Justinian's words from another letter: “These are monks only in appearance, and they have no skill in disputes,” as well as chronological inconsistencies ^[51] .

Nevertheless, this theory of the identity of the church writer Leonty of Byzantine and Scythian monk Leonty was shared by many historians of the 19th and early 20th centuries. So believed (1908) ^[52] , V. Ermoni , J. Junglas (1908) and (1938). In 1975, a prominent Catholic theologian A. Grilmayer rejected this version without providing additional arguments ^[53] . Currently, among the theories of the personality of Leontius of Byzantium, this identification is not considered. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (1980) handbook does not provide any information about the Leontius-Scythian monk, except that he was a relative of Vitalian ^[54] .

Dionysius the Small

Dionysius the Small, also a native of Lesser Scythia , known as the founder of the chronological system from the Nativity of Christ , arrived in Rome before his compatriots. Sharing the views of Scythian monks, he wrote about them: “Scythia, terrible with its coldness and barbarians , gave birth to four people, always burning with the heat of their hearts and wonderful in the calmness of their manners” ^[55] . In this regard, researchers note that neither Dionysius defines himself or the monks as “barbarians”. Describing his stay in Rome, John Maxentius thus expresses his vision of the world: he and Dionysius the Scythians , because they are from Scythia ^[56] . A friend of Dionysius, Grekofil Boethius , supported the theological views of the monks ^[56] .

Dionysius assisted the monks in translating into Latin a number of important Christological documents previously unknown in the West, including the Epistles to the Armenians on Faith by Proclus of Constantinople and the Twelve Anathematisms by Cyril of Alexandria ^[39] .

The teachings of the Scythian monks are being reconstructed on the basis of two documents that they have compiled to date: Libellus fidei and Epistula . It can be seen from them that the monks were convinced Chalcedonites , expressing agreement with the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council on the two natures of Jesus Christ and the teachings of Pope Leo (440-461). At the same time, they accepted the “Twelve Anathematisms” of Cyril of Alexandria, and, like Cyril, they proclaimed the union of an impassive God with a suffering human nature. Accordingly, they attributed the Logos embodied in this way to both miracles and suffering. At the same time, the monks recognized that the Virgin Mary was called the “true” ( lat. Vere et proprie ) Mother of God, who gave birth to God not only “by grace”, as the Nestorians believed, but also “by nature” ^[57] .

The monks completely excluded the distinction between the concepts of “hypostasis” and “face”, which implied that Christ is one of the hypostases of the Trinity . According to Maxentius, the Orthodox denies that the Divine “took root” in Christ, as the heretics Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuesti believed, and Jesus was God from the moment of birth ^[57] .

Actually theosophistic formula is found in Libellus fidei : lat. Unus est Christus de trinitate, qui pro nobis passus est carne . In support of this formulation, Maxentius cites the “Epistle to the Armenians on Faith” Proclus of Constantinople three times. Although the quotations given by Maxentius are not contained in this particular work of Proclus, in another place he admitted that “one of the Trinity was embodied” ^[57] .

In 523 or a little earlier, Justinian issued an edict explicitly stating that one of the Trinity suffered flesh ^[46] . It was, in the words of A. Harnack, " enoticon " ^[58] . After Justinian became the sole ruler of the empire in 527, the Theasphochist formula was included in all documents relating to Christology ^[59] . According to Victor Tunnunsky , the recognition of this formula was required by Empress Theodora . The Justinian Codex (I.15) contains a creed dating from around 527, explicitly containing unium ex trinidate . On March 15, 533, the emperor issued an edict addressed to the citizens of Constantinople and other major cities of the empire, which also included "one of the Trinity, the God of Logos, became flesh." In 532, at a cathedral in Rome, the position of Scythian monks was approved by the Western Church. In June 533, Justinian sent bishops Demetrius and Hypatius to Rome with a letter in which he asked Pope John II to recognize the Scythian monks and condemn the Unflagging . Arriving in Rome for the opposite purpose, one of the Sleepless, Cyrus, was accused of heresy, and since the Sleepless refused to repent, they were excommunicated until they admitted their mistake. In 534, John II claimed that the Orthodox have always held these views. The Ecumenical Second Council of Constantinople in 553 anathematized all who questioned it ^[45] .

Among the Christian historians of the following centuries, the activities of Scythian monks deserved conflicting assessments. Cardinal Baronius (XVI century) spoke sharply negatively about them, while another Catholic cardinal historian who lived a century later, justified the Orthodox Christianity of Maxentius and his brothers ^[45] .

Comments

Sources and used literature