Gravitas in the Desert:
An Analysis of Selected Letters of Isidore of Pelusium and his Influence on the Secular and
Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Fifth Century CE.
Major Paper
By: Laurent Boivin
Supervisor: George A. Bevan
September 13, 2014
Queen’s University
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS .........................................................................................................................2
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................3
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................3
1.1 Context and Overview .................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Aim and Methodology .................................................................................................................... 5
II. BIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................................6
2.1 Early Years .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Education ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Pelusium and Retreat into the Desert........................................................................................... 15
III. MANUSCRIPT TRADITION .................................................................................................16
3.1 Reasons for Preservation ............................................................................................................. 16
3.2 First Uses of Isidore and Historical Testimonies ......................................................................... 17
3.3 Manuscript Tradition ................................................................................................................... 22
IV. SECULAR CONNECTIONS ..................................................................................................24
4.1 The Usefulness of a Network ........................................................................................................ 24
4.2 Constantinople ............................................................................................................................. 27
4.3 Alexandria .................................................................................................................................... 30
4.4 The Influence of Isidore at Court ................................................................................................ 33
4.5 Cyrenius and Gigantius................................................................................................................ 36
4.6 Appeals to Praetorian Prefects of the East .................................................................................. 38
V. ECCLESIASTICAL CONNECTIONS ....................................................................................44
5.1 Social Role of Clerics .................................................................................................................. 44
5.2 Cyril of Alexandria ....................................................................................................................... 46
5.3 John Chrysostom .......................................................................................................................... 50
5.4 The First Council of Ephesus ....................................................................................................... 57
5.5 Isidore’s Theological Stance ........................................................................................................ 59
VI. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................63
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................65
1
Abbreviations
ACO
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwarz.
CLRE
Consuls of the Later Roman Empire
CSCO
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
FC
Fathers of the Church
NPNF
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
PG
Patrologiae Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne.
PLRE 2
Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II, ed. J. R. Martindale
SC
Sources chrétiennes
TTH
Translated Texts for Historians
2
Abstract:
With the 2,000 letters that have come down to us under his name, Isidore of Pelusium has long
been considered an important Church father not only for the quality of his doctrinal exegesis,
but also for the meticulous craftsmanship of his writing. Isidore is also known for the myriad
of subjects on which he could write, including teaching, rhetoric, philosophy, and even science.
However, one aspect of Isidore’s output that needs further study is his correspondence with
powerful secular and ecclesiastical officials of the first half of the fifth century CE. This paper
begins with an examination of Isidore’s upbringing and education and a review of the
manuscript tradition of his letters. An analysis of selections of his correspondence with crucial
officials of the empire then follows, as well references to John Chrysostom in relation to Cyril
of Alexandria and aspects of Isidore’s theological thinking. The paper will conclude with the
suggestion that, besides being a Church father of note, Isidore was also a very well-connected
holy man during the time of the First Council of Ephesus of 431 CE.
I. Introduction:
1.1 Context and Overview:
One of the most prolific surviving writers of the fifth century CE was the Egyptian monk
Isidore of Pelusium,1 whose output of some two thousand letters has come down to us in the
form of short extracts. The fact that so many letters are associated with this one monk is not
surprising in and of itself, given that letter-writing at the time was considered the best way of
guaranteeing one’s standing in the community and constituted “the most important vehicle of
influence at a distance….” 2 For example, the collected correspondences of two major fifth
century figures, Synesius of Cyrene and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, have revealed crucial facets of
the daily life of a bishop and the far-reaching nature of their personal contacts. Although
Isidore’s letters have been preserved largely due to the quality of his style and the depth of his
knowledge of Scripture, they also reveal much about his relationship to officials in
Constantinople and to the patriarch Cyril in Alexandria during the tumultuous period of the First
Isidore’s letters are referred to in in this essay in accordance with Pierre Évieux’s more recent numbering system,
which he uses both in his monograph Isidore de Péluse (Paris: Beauchesne, 1995) and in Isidore de Péluse: Lettres
I/II (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1997), his two-volume edition of some of the letters. For the sake of consistency, I
have also included in parenthesis the original numbering used by J. P. Migne in vol. 78 of the Patrologiae cursus
completus, series Graeca (Paris: Imprimerie catholique, 1857-1862) with the corresponding column numbering of
the Greek text.
2
Fergus Millar, A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408-450) (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2006), 33 and 43.
1
3
Council of Ephesus. Yet this fact has gone largely unnoticed by modern historians studying the
fifth century CE, with most studies focussing instead on his knowledge of Christian and Hellenic
learning. 3 Thus, judging from the contents of Isidore's letters to local secular and religious
officials, as well as letters to influential individuals at court in Constantinople and to Cyril during
and after the Council of Ephesus of 431 CE, all the evidence points to the fact that Isidore was a
very well-connected holy man and that his letters allow us to paint a portrait of some important
officials in both the local and the wider conflicts around the years 431-433 CE.
But what was the nature of this conflict that framed Isidore’s epistolary output? In the
summer of 431 CE, bishops of different parts of the Eastern empire assembled at Ephesus to
begin deliberating the fate of Nestorius, the contentious bishop of Constantinople.4 Over the
short span of his episcopate (428-431 CE), Nestorius incurred the antipathy of a number of
bishops from Egypt for preaching that Mary could not be considered theotokos, or “Mother of
God,” since it was impossible, in his view, that a human being could give birth to the divine Son
of God. 5 Cyril, bishop of Alexandria (412-444 CE), himself leading a campaign against
Nestorius and his allies, 6 held the counter view that “in Christ the Divine Word voluntarily
Pierre Évieux, “Isidore de Péluse: état des recherches,” Recherches de Science Religieuses 64 (1976), 321; as yet,
the only extensive modern study of Isidore is Évieux, Isidore de Péluse (1995). Évieux has also translated in 1997 a
limited selection of the letters in a two volume collection published in the collection Sources chrétiennes as volumes
422 and 454 respectively.
4
For a published edition of proceedings of the council’s sessions, see Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. by E.
Schwartz (Berlin and Leipzig: Walter De Gruyter, 1914-1922) and A. J. Festugière Éphèse et Chalcédoine: actes de
conciles (Paris: Beauchesne, 1982).
5
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London, Adam and Charles Black, 1958), 311. Kenneth Holum,
Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1982), 154-155.
6
Donald Fairbairn has recently proposed that the classic view of Nestorius and John of Antioch being close allies
against Cyril must be revised. See Donald Fairbairn, “Allies or Merely Friends? John of Antioch and Nestorius in
the Christological Controversy,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 58:3 (2007), 383-399. Based on a letter from
John to Nestorius dating to 430 CE, in which John asks Nestorius to carefully consider the propositions of Cyril and
Pope Celistine, Fairbairn believes that John and Cyril were not enemies, but rather theological allies. This would
thus rule out the idea that either Cyril of John backed down in order to accept the Formula of Reunion in 433 CE.
Rather, “John and Cyril stood together in insisting on the birth of God and the Logos from Mary, and as they
recognised this fundamental agreement between themselves, they were able to be reconciled in 433.” Fairbairn,
“John of Antioch”, 397.
3
4
debased Himself and made human flesh His Own so that He could suffer and overcome death,”
which precluded any suggestion that Christ had two distinct divine and human natures, as some
in Constantinople seemed to believe.7 The debate raged on until partisans of the two sides met
and confronted each other at Ephesus in 431 CE, where Cyril was able to arrange by
underhanded means the quick condemnation and deposition of Nestorius in the latter’s absence.
1.2 Aim and Methodology:
This essay proposes to examine a selection of important letters of Isidore of Pelusium that
relate to secular and ecclesiastical matters in the thirty years before and up to the time of the First
Council of Ephesus (i.e. from 400 CE to 431 CE). Attention will be paid to Isidore’s relationship
to important players both in the Church and in the imperial administration, with particular
attention paid to three geographical locations: Alexandria, the seat of the patriarch Cyril; the
imperial court in Constantinople; and Isidore’s local community of Pelusium. A presentation of
Isidore’s early career will begin this survey, showing the possible route Isidore followed in
gaining his experience and in establishing some of his early acquaintances. Another section will
provide a short examination of the manuscript tradition of the Isidore’s letters. The bulk of the
essay will then be devoted to analyzing a handful of the most important letters and to
establishing connections between Isidore and different secular and ecclesiastical officials; 8
Isidore’s opinion of John Chrysostom in relation to Cyril of Alexandria and his uncle Theophilus
will also be examined and a presentation provided of Isidore’s theological thought.
7
Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 161.
The letters in question are Epp. 310, 323, 324, 370 to Cyril, bishop of Alexandria; Ep. 419 to Hermogenes, bishop
of Rhinocorura; Epp. 35 and 311 to Emperor Theodosius II; Ep. 486 to Florentius, Praetorian Prefect of the East
(428-429 CE); Epp. 178 and 489 to Rufinus, Praetorian Prefect of the East (432-433 CE).
8
5
II. Biography:
2.1 Early Years:
It is impossible to pinpoint with any certainty when or where Isidore was born. 9 In one
letter, Isidore states that he rejoices in the fact that he was born after John Chrysostom,10 while in
another11 he describes in detail the events that led to John’s deposition in 403 CE at the hands of
Theophilus, the then bishop of Alexandria. This latter information might mean Isidore was
mature enough to know of these events when John was rehabilitated and Cyril of Alexandria
consented in 418 CE to inscribing John’s name on the diptychs, the official list of individuals
commemorated in the liturgy.12 Since John Chrysostom’s birth is said to have occurred roughly
between the years 349/350 CE,13 one can posit that Isidore was born around the middle of the
fourth century, let us say 360 CE at the earliest. As we will see, there is also a possibility that
Isidore had corresponded with Synesius of Cyrene, who was bishop of Pentapolis from 411 to
413 CE. Likewise, since Isidore does not mention the death of Cyril in 444 CE in any of his
extant letters, it can be supposed that he must have died sometime before 444 CE. Given the
nature of their relationship in regards to the highly charged events around the first council of
Ephesus, it would have been remarkable had Isidore not mentioned Cyril’s death were he to have
outlived the bishop. If one assumes then that Isidore was a direct contemporary of Synesius, and
that he was born some time after John Chrysostom, one is left to conclude that Isidore lived to
quite an advanced age, possibly into his 70s.
9
Pierre Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 308.
Ep. 1777 (= 4.224, PG 78, 1317 C).
11
Ep. 152 (= 1.152, PG 78, 284 D-285 A).
12
Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 204; J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom – Ascetic, Preacher,
Bishop (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 286-288.
13
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 4.
10
6
2.2 Education:
However central religious training was for the education of an ecclesiastic or a secular
official in the fifth century, a good understanding of the classics and their linguistic style
remained valuable skills.
In a society where the smallest word could spark empire-wide
theological controversy, the ability to defend oneself with knowledgeable arguments delivered in
an erudite manner was an asset. Theodoret of Cyrrhus wrote a lot on the usefulness of Classical
Greek in formulating arguments. 14
It has also been shown in recent studies that good
communication skills in either Greek or Latin was crucial for distant communication with
officials and for establishing vast social networks.15 One’s level of Greek could also either be a
liability to one’s reputation among colleagues or serve as a sort of defence by confusing enemies.
It therefore comes as no surprise that, to get ahead in the fifth century CE, education and
culture remained just as valuable an asset as in the early empire. Learning and culture were for
example important personal pursuits of Theodosius II, 16 while the empress Eudocia, the
daughter of a Sophist, was an enthusiastic poet and influenced the emperor’s interest in
scholarship and writing.17 In 425 CE Theodosius also established, in a special section of the
capital, professorial chairs of grammatici, orators of Latin, sophists of Greek, and professors of
14
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Cure for Hellenic Maladies 5.71 (SC 57.1, trans. Pierre Canivet). See also Theresa
Urbainszyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Bishop and the Holy Man (Anne Arbor: The University of Michigan Press,
2002), 16
15
Millar, Greek Roman Empire, 20-38; Adam Schor, Theodoret’s People, Social Networks and Religious Conflict in
Late Roman Syria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 116-117.
16
“He rendered his palace little different from a monastery: for he, together with his sisters, rose early in the
morning, and recited responsive hymns in praise of the Deity. By this training he learnt the holy Scriptures by heart;
and he would often discourse with the bishops on scriptural subjects, as if he had been ordained a priest of long
standing. He was a more indefatigable collector of the sacred books and of the expositions which had been written
on them, than even Ptolemy Philadelphus had formerly been.” Socrates, HE 7.22 (164, NPNF, trans. A.C. Zenos).
Thus, at the emperor’s court “piety, culture and scholarship were all encouraged, piety was linked with victory – and
both were associated with law.” Jill Harries, “Pius Princeps: Theodosius II and Fifth-Century Constantinople,” in
New Constantines: the Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th centuries, ed. Paul Magadalino
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 1994), 43.
17
Harries, “Pius Princeps,” 37.
7
Law and philosophy.18 With all this in mind, it was important that the Church of this period
should foster this type of education in order to fill the bishoprics with men who could adequately
compete with representatives of the imperial administration who were highly educated. 19
Similarly, as the upper classes of the empire turned Christian over the course of the fourth
century, they resisted attempts to completely do away with their shared Classical inheritance.20
As Alan Cameron states, “the traditional [pagan educational] system had the irreplaceable
practical advantage of having established standards that were accepted in every corner of the
Roman world. What we misleadingly call ‘pagan’ culture fulfilled an overwhelmingly social
function.”21 Thus, although Theodoret’s Therapeutic of Hellenic Maladies is critical of aspects
of the Classics, it nonetheless shows the wide range of Hellenic knowledge that its author had
acquired, such as for example, familiarity with the writings of Homer, Plato, Herodotus,
Euripides, Menander, Demosthenes, Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Empedocles.22 Indeed, some
authors of influence, such as Themistius and Synesius, preferred to see words like pagan and
Christian in a cultural, rather than religious, sense, and thereby considered that both words were
Alan Cameron, “The Empress and the Poet: Paganism and Politics at the Court of Theodosius II,” in Later Greek
Literature, ed. J. Winkler and G. Williams, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 285.
19
Cameron, “The Empress and the Poet”, 287. Prelates and bishops thus also became especially adept in the fourth
century CE at explaining and spreading the meaning of the Scriptures, since “as former rhetors and men of law,
many of [them] were able to find the language to foster spirituality and to encourage values thanks to the higher
education they had received in their youth.” Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, vol. 2 of The
Bible in Ancient Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 673.
20
Roger S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 104.
21
Alan Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 357.
22
Millar, Greek Roman Empire, 26. For various citations by Theodoret of Classical authors, see Theodoret of
Cyrrhus, Cure for Hellenic Maladies 1.21, 1.72-75, 2.4-6, 5.10-13, 6.16-18 (ed. and Fr. trans, Pierre Canivet, SC
57.1).
18
8
not mutually exclusive.23 The historian Socrates addresses the question of Christian education in
his Ecclesiastical History as intrinsically linked to pagan learning.24
Did Isidore’s education follow the same path as that of those in the elite?
An
examination of the correspondence of Isidore reveals in fact that the monk did indeed possess a
good understanding of classical greats, such as Homer, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle,
and even Xenophon.25 In Ep. 881, Isidore calls Demosthenes “the chief head of Greek rhetors,”
and later on in the same letter quotes Josephus.26 As Leo Bayer has shown, Isidore also regularly
quotes from specific Platonic Dialogues, such as Phaedo (Epp. 703, 779), Timaeus (Epp. 1311,
1580), Gorgias (Ep. 757), Apology (Ep. 1592), and Phaedrus (Epp. 648, 1275).27 In one letter to
the bishop Alphius (Ep. 1486), 28 Isidore remarks that present-day speeches of religious officials
tend to copy the rhetorical style of Sophists in order solely to captivate their audience. It is better
to follow the style of Demosthenes and not be heard, thinks Isidore, than not to speak at all and
be blamed for it. To the lector Timothy (Ep. 503),29 Isidore recommends that he read the best
pagan works available, while to the monk Primus (Ep. 1601),30 he speaks of the importance of
good communication style: the best Christian ought to combine the philosophy of Christ with the
expression of pagan wisdom, since elegance of language of the latter can also help the faithful in
23
Alan Cameron and Jacqueline Long, Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1993), 67-69.
24
Christian nobles would study the classics “with a view to improve themselves in eloquence and to strengthen and
polish their mind…to enable them to refute the errors of the heathen.” Socrates, HE 3.16 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF,
p. 88). In other words, fusion of the two could only but help improve one’s competitive edge over adversaries.
25
Bayer, Isidors von Pelusium, 97-100. See also for individual examples of Demosthenes Epp. 1618 (= 4.85, PG
78, 1145 C), 1697 (= 4.91, PG 78, 1152 A-D), 1233 (= 5.17, PG 78, 1336 A); Isocrates Epp. 628 (= 2.128, PG 78,
573 A), 646 (= 2.146, PG 78, 592 B), 1275 (= 4.162, PG 78, 1248 C); Plato Epp. 1697 (= 4.91, PG 78, 1153 A),
1322 (= 5.73, PG 78, 1369 B), 1422 (= 5.149, PG 78, ),1832 (= 5.477, PG 78, 1603 C); Xenophon, Epp. 866 (=
3.66, PG 78, 775 C), 1362 (= 5.98, PG 78, 1381 D), 1487 (= 5.202, PG 78, 1453 C).
26
Ep. 881 (= 3.81, PG 78, 788 B-789 D).
27
Bayer, Isidors von Pelusium, 49-61. For individual letters referenced, see Epp. 703 (= 2.203, PG 78, 645 D), 779
(= 2.279, PG 78, 709 D), 1311 (= 5.64, PG 78, 1364 C), 1580 (= 5.266, PG 78, 1492 B), 757 (= 2.257, PG 78, 692
B), 1592 (= 4.30, PG 78, 1031 C), 648 (=2.148, PG 78, 604 A), 1275 (= 4.162, PG 78, 1248 B).
28
Ep. 1486 (= 5.201, PG 78, 1453 A)
29
Ep. 503 (= 2.3, PG 78, 457 B-460 A)
30
Ep. 1601 (= 5.281, PG 78, 1500 D-1501 A).
9
their quest for supernatural wisdom. Thus, the best style is that which uses Attic clarity and
simplicity to explain difficult Christian principles.31 Isidore also does not shy away from lauding
the style and Atticisms of a previous master like John Chrysostom, even to the point of quoting a
letter of Libanius praising Chrysostom’s style.32 In Ep. 1255, Isidore states that he is in such awe
at the splendour of the Attic Greek found in Chrysostom’s Homilies on Romans that if only St.
Paul had written like Chrysostom, there would have been no need for a Homily.33
A good classical education also provided the Christian elite with a better understanding
of the Scriptures.34 For example, in Ep. 831, Isidore gives a long explanation to the grammaticus
Ophelius of the change in meaning of the words πρωτοτόκος and πρωτότοκος as they appear
both in the Scriptures and in Homer.35 Isidore contends that those knowledgeable in Homer will
know that the meaning of the word changes entirely depending on the accented syllable. In
another letter,36 Isidore again uses Homer in response to the comes Domitius, who in a previous
letter had stated that the concept of the Kerygma, which is the proclamation of the Divine
message through a human intermediary, is not possible. To refute this claim, Isidore cites
Odyssey 22, 347, in which the poet Phemius grasps the knees of Odysseus and proclaims that the
god inspired him to sing to humans. So, Isidore argues, if even Homer, who happens to be
Domitius’ favourite poet, believed this was possible, so must Domitius himself.
One should also note that many individuals who rose to prominence in the administration
of the empire were well versed in both Christian doctrine and Hellenic culture. A good example
G.J.M. Bartelink, “Observation stylistiques et linguistiques chez Isidore de Péluse,” Vigiliae Christianae 18:3
(1964),” 166.
32
Ep. 542 (= 2.42, PG 78, 484 C-485 C).
33
Ep. 1255 (= 5.32, PG 78, 1348 A): Οἶμαι γάρ, καὶ μή τίς με πρὸς χάριν λέγειν νομιζέτω, ὅτι εἰ Παῦλος ὁ
θεσπέσιος Ἀττικὴν εἴληφει γλῶτταν – ὥστε ἑαυτὸν ἑρμηνεῦσαι, οὐκ ἂν ἄλλως ἡρμήνευσεν, ἢ ὡς ὁ προειρημένος
ἀοίδιμος ἀνήρ; Kelly, Golden Mouth, 90 n. 68.
34
Bayer, Isidors von Pelusium, 6.
35
Ep. 831(= 3.31, PG 78, 749 D-753 A).
36
Ep. 1592 (= 4.30, PG 78, 1031 C).
31
10
of the importance of a grounded Christian/Hellenic training is provided by Isidore’s
contemporary Fl. Taurus Cyrus, who pursued a glorious career in the imperial administration,
becoming City Prefect of Constantinople in 426 CE, Pretorian Prefect of the East in 439 CE and
consul in 441 CE.37 Born in Panopolis, in the Thebaid region of Egypt, Cyrus was immersed in
the Classics and Christian doctrine, since his hometown was a local centre of both Hellenic
culture and Christian monasticism. 38 Cyrus’ popular measures include introducing streetlighting in the capital and the carrying out of various building programs.39 As an admirer of
Cyrus’ poetry, Eudocia made sure that he held the position of Prefect of the East for almost four
years.40 In 441 CE the emperor expressed his displeasure with Cyrus and after accusing him of
Paganism forced him to become bishop of Cotyaeum in Phrygia, where he continued his
benevolent ministrations and wrote hagiographies to while away the time, and where his
Christian training would have been indispensable. 41 It should also be added that the reason for
the emperor’s displeasure in him was not because Cyrus had expressed pagan leanings in a
Christian court, but rather because of Theodosius’ jealousy of him.42
The reality was therefore that monks, priests, and even bishops, did not all come from
religious backgrounds or from poor milieus with no better option to offer them, but often arose
37
PLRE 2, 336-339: Fl. Taurus Seleucus Cyrus 7.
Maria Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, Trans. by F. Lyra (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 31.
39
Ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς προεβάλετο ἔπαρχον πραιτωρίων καὶ ἔπαρχον πόλεως τὸν πατρίκιον Κῦρον τὸν φιλόσοφον,
ἄνδρα σοφώτατον ἐν πᾶσι. καὶ ἦρξεν ἔχων τὰς δύο ἀρχὰς ἔτη τέσσαρα, προϊὼν εἰς τὴν καρούχαν τοῦ ἐπάρχου τῆς
πόλεως καὶ φροντίζων τῶν κτισμάτων καὶ ἀνανεώσας πᾶσαν Κωνσταντινούπολιν· ἦν γὰρ καθαριώτατος. John
Malalas, Chronographia, 14.16, eds. H.G. Beck, A. Kambylis, and R. Keydell (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2000), p.
281. See also PLRE 2, 338.
40
Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 190.
41
Καὶ ἐχόλεσεν ὁ βασιλεύς, ὅτι ἔκραξαν περὶ Κύρου καὶ μετὰ Κωνσταντίνου αὐτὸν ἔκραξαν, ὡς ἀνανεώσαντα τὴν
πόλιν· καὶ κατεσκευάσθη λοιπὸν καὶ ἐπλάκη ὡς Ἕλλην ὁ αὐτὸς Κῦρος, καὶ ἐδημεύθη παυθεὶς τῆς ἀρχῆς. καὶ
προσφυγὼν ἐγένετο καὶ αὐτὸς παπᾶς, ἐπέμφθη εἰς τὴν Φρυγίαν, ἐπίσκοπος γενάμενος εἰς τὸ λεγόμενον Κοτυάειον.
John Malalas, Chron. 14.16 (eds. Beck, Kambylis, and Keydell, p. 282).
42
Cameron, “The Empress and the Poet,” 269. As Malalas makes clear in the above citation, the accusation of
Paganism was used as a scapegoat in order to condemn Cyrus.
38
11
from the cultured social elite.43 Perhaps, as was suggested above, Isidore received this training
in Alexandria itself,44 although it is impossible to know for sure. Many of Isidore’s letters do
testify to his being acquainted with grammaticoi and sophists, and of possessing knowledge of
medicine and physics, all elements one can associate with Alexandria and its celebrated
schools.45 The grammaticii Hermeias, Nilus, Agathodaemon, and Ophelius receive thirty-two
letters altogether, 46 and the sophists Asclepius and Harpocras thirty-eight. 47 Ophelius asks
Isidore about different subjects, including philosophy (Ep. 1979), correct epistolary style (Ep.
1401), grammar (Ep. 1543), biology (Ep. 619), and even cosmology (Ep. 773).48 In one letter to
the doctor Dorotheus (Ep. 1475),49 Isidore delves into notions that echo early Greek science.
The Sophist Harpocras himself receives a total of twenty-eight letters, which suggests a close
affinity between the two men. Indeed, in one letter Isidore comments on the fact that Harpocras
uses Homer in defense of divination. According to Isidore, this subject had already been treated
in a previous work of his entitled Against Pagans (now lost), which shows that Isidore could
very well argue against pagan criticisms of Christian doctrine using educated argumentation. 50 In
Epp. 1469 and 1652, Isidore describes to Harpocras and Ophelius respectively the correct way
Sabine R. Huebner, “Currencies of Power: the Venality of Offices in the Later Roman Empire,” in The Power of
Religion in Late Antiquity, ed. by Andrew Cain and Noel Lenski (Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2009): 173.
44
Teachers of the likes of Hypatia in Alexandria and Libanius in Antioch in the fourth century CE, of course, were
fortunate to find themselves a stable clientele in large centres. On this subject, see Paul Petit, Les Étudiants de
Libanius (Paris: Nouvelles éditions latines, 1957), 96-98. Libanius himself was forced to spend the years from 340
to 353 CE teaching abroad in Nicaea, Nicomedia, and Constantinople before returning to the city of his birth in 354
CE, where he cemented his reputation as a sophist and rhetor and where remained for the rest of his life. Scott
Bradbury, introduction to Selected Letters of Libanius: from the Age of Constantius and Julian (Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 2004), 6-8.
45
Évieux, Lettres I, 65.
46
For a list of the individual letters to gramaticii, see the following entries: PLRE 2, 547: Hermeias 2; PLRE 2, 784:
Nilus 1; PLRE 2, 33: Agathodaemon; PLRE 2, 806: Ophelius 1.
47
For a list of the individual letters to sophists, see the following entries: PLRE 2, 163: Asclepius 4; PLRE 2, 528:
Harpocras 2.
48
Epp. 1979 (= 5.558, 1637 A), 1401 (= 5.133, 1404 B), 1543 (= 5.245, 1480 C-D), 619 (= 2.119, 560 B-C), 773 (=
2.273, 704 A-B) respectively.
49
Ep. 1475 (= 5.191, 1445 C-1448 A).
50
Ep. 728 (= 2.228, PG 78, 664 D-665 A); Millar, A Greek Roman Empire, 119.
43
12
of educating young budding rhetors. 51 One is tempted to speculate, therefore, that if these
learned individuals were not once schoolmates of Isidore’s, then at the very least they were close
associates that respected and valued his education.
There is perhaps a further possibility, given the nature and extent of Isidore’s early
education: if he did spend some time in Alexandria, it is conceivable that he may have studied
with Hypatia, the celebrated scientist and teacher. In fact, Isidore’s style has been favourably
compared to that of Synesius, whose classical training is well-attested and who spent time
studying with Hypatia.52 In Ep. 232, Isidore writes to a certain bishop Synesius, stating that
service to God helps one counter enemy phalanxes, even when one is surrounded by those very
enemies. 53 It would be tempting to imagine this Synesius as being the Synesius already
mentioned, who as bishop organized the defence of Pentapolis against nomadic tribes. 54
Although Synesius never actually mentions Isidore in his letters, the subject of Isidore’s letter
and the fact that the only known bishop by the name of Synesius that existed during Isidore’s
lifetime is the bishop of Ptolemaïs, suggests that perhaps the two did know each other and that
the Pelusian was aware of the problems his colleague was facing in his city.55 Another possible
hint of this link is in Synesius’ letter to Herculian (Ep. 144), in which the bishop asks him to
salute their mutual companion the deacon. 56 Since Synesius spent the years 392-393 CE in
Alexandria under the tutelage of Hypatia, and admits to being one of her hetairoi in his letters,
51
Ep. 1469 (= 5.185, PG 78, 1436 A-1437 B); Ep. 1652 (= 5.317, PG 78, 1529 C-D)
W. S. Crawford, Synesius the Hellene (London: Rivingtons, 1901), 185; Jay Bregman, Synesius of Cyrene
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 19; Cameron and Long, Barbarians, 14.
53
Ep. 232 (= 1.232, PG 78, 325 C-D).
54
Brown, Power and Persuasion: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992),
138-139.
55
Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 78.
56
Πρόσειπέ μοι τὸν ἱερὸν ἑταῖρον τὸν διάκονον.... Synesius of Cyrene, Ep. 144 in Synésios de Cyrène:
Correspondance, tome 3, ed. and trans. by Denis Roques (Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2000), 288; See also Christian
Lacombrade, Synésios de Cyrène, hellène et chrétien, (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1951), 54.
52
13
one might be tempted again to see Isidore in this deacon. 57 Perhaps Isidore, who was a
contemporary of Synesius, was once a member of Hypatia’s entourage and became a priest at
some point while in Alexandria. To be sure, Hypatia did not seem to discriminate between
pagans and Christians in her associations, and it is thus entirely possible that the deacon Isidore
spent some time at her side, despite being an outspoken Christian.58 Indeed, lay Christians did
not have access to a Christian education that was separate from the pagan school system, since,
as already stated above, members of the Christian elite thought a good grounding in Classical
culture was a professional asset.59
Other particulars allow for even more speculation on this front. There is the possibility
that Isidore also knew Evoptius, the brother of Synesius and also bishop of Ptolemaïs after the
latter’s death around 413. Although Ep. 715 is addressed to a bishop Evoptius, the content of the
letter, which concerns violence against women and the evils of bodily harm, indicate that it could
have been addressed to any such Evoptius.60 We know, however, that Evoptius of Ptolemaïs was
present at Ephesus in 431, listed as number 110 at the meeting of 22 June.61 It is thus possible
that Isidore did know the Evoptius who was present at Ephesus, since (as we will see) he tells
Cyril of Alexandria in Ep. 310 that he is aware of the private talk going on behind Cyril’s back at
the Council. 62 If Isidore did indeed spend some time in his youth studying the Classics at
Alexandria, he may have gone to see some of his old classmates before or after the council in
57
Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, 42 ; Lacombrade, Synésios de Cyrène, 55 n. 54
Bregman, Synesius of Cyrene, 24. Socrates reports that Hypatia had frequent meetings with Orestes, who was
himself a Christian. See Socrates, HE 7.14-15 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, p. 160). As Dzielska notes, “the dearth of
ancient sources makes it impossible to identify all Hypatia’s students, determine their number or the duration of
their studies with her, or assert with certainty the spiritual values and relations that bound them.” Dzielska, Hypatia
of Alexandria, 27-28.
59
Cameron, Last of the Pagans, 7.
60
Ep. 715 (= 2.215, PG 78, 656 D-657 C).
61
Festugière, Éphèse et Chalcédoine, 194
62
Ep. 310 (= 1.310, PG 78, 361 C): Πολλοὶ γάρ σε κωμῳδοῦσι τῶν συνειλεγμένων εἰς Ἔφεσον, ὡς οἰκείαν
ἀμυνόμενον ἔχθραν, ἀλλ᾽οὐ τὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὀρθοδόξως ζητοῦντα. Ἀδελφιδοῦς ἐστι, φασὶ, Θεοφίλου,
μιμούμενος ἐκείνου τὴν γνώμην.
58
14
431 CE in order to sound out Cyril’s allies. Indeed, Hypatia’s circle of acquaintances did in fact
include Evoptius, since his brother Synesius mentions their relationship with her in a letter.63
Isidore therefore is possibly writing to the same Evoptius who replaced Synesius as bishop of
Ptolemaïs and who was present at the Council of Ephesus of 431 CE. Although, without further
firm evidence, this must remain at the level of speculation, it can be plausibly suggested that, if
Isidore did indeed study in Alexandria in his early days, he may well have known both Synesius
and his brother as a member of Hypatia’s circle. Furthermore, if one assumes that Isidore was
around twenty years old at the time, this would narrow down our date for his birth to around 370
CE.
2.3 Pelusium and Retreat into the Desert:
There is very little in terms of information available to us that concerns Isidore’s early
life before he possibly arrived in Pelusium (assuming, of course, that he was not born there). We
do, however, possess facts about the city that became associated with Isidore’s name and its
early role in the empire. Like many regional centres of its time, Pelusium was a relatively small
city that served as capital of Augustamnica I, located in the area around the eastern edge of the
Nile Delta. 64 As such, the city long represented the eastern gateway to central Egypt. 65 It
witnessed over time imperial delegations passing through its gates, such as those of Vespasian in
Ἄσπασαι τὴν σεβασμωτάτην καὶ θεογιλεστάτην φιλόσοφον, καὶ τὸν εὐδαίμονα χορὸν τὸν ἀπολαύοντα τῆς
θεσπεσίας αὐδῆς.... Synesius of Cyrene to Evoptius, Ep. 5 in Synésios de Cyrène: Correspondance, tome 2 (Paris,
Les Belles Lettres, 2000), 18. See also Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, 36-39.
64
The old province of Egypt was first divided into smaller provinces in 297 CE by Diocletian. In 315 CE the area
around the Delta was subdivided into two more provinces, Aegyptus Herculia in the East and Aegyptus Jovia in the
West. After being re-merged in 324 CE, they were once again separated and called Augustamnica and Aegyptus in
341 CE. All of these provinces, including Augustamnica, were later on again subdivided into further sets of two.
A.H.M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 336.
65
Josephus mentions Pelusium as a stronghold falling to Mithridates of Pontus after the death of Pompey in 48 BCE
and later on as a resting place for Titus’ army during the Jewish War of 70 CE. Josephus, Bel. jud. 1.187 and 4.654
respectively (Eng. trans. G.A. Williamson, Penguin, pp. 52 and 286).
63
15
70, Hadrian in 130, and Diocletian in 298, as well as pilgrims and intellectuals alike who made
their way West to Alexandria.66
From his letters, one gleans that he became sickened by the actions of the prominent
secular officials of there. Isidore accuses them of cupidity, basking in luxury, using violence,
selling Church property, and using their elevated social positions for their own personal gain.67
Perhaps that was why he eventually decided to move into the desert, even urging others to follow
in his footsteps and “flee.”68 As Peter Brown puts it, “Isidore lived with one foot in the desert
and the other firmly planted in his city,”
69
so that while away from all the corruption and
intrigues, he could at the same time use his authority as priest and holy monk to criticize and
reprimand, but also to praise, reassure, and inspire. 70 Isidore may also have been acting in
opposition to a popular monastic movement at the time, in which monks moved back into the
cities to make a living, subsisting on the charity of others and offering their services as daylabourers and in the law courts.71 Isidore talks of these monks in some letters, describing their
journeys in order to “fill their bellies.”72
III. Manuscript Tradition:
3.1 Reasons for Preservation:
Although the existence of the first collections of Isidore’s letters can only be ascertained
from the testimony of those that consulted them at the time, it is significant that evidence of these
J.Y. Carrez-Maratray, “Péluse, la grande cité oubliée du delta,” Le Monde de la Bible 82 (1993): 26-27; Pierre
Évieux, introduction to Isidore de Péluse: Lettres I, 24.
67
See Epp. 1480 (= 5.196, PG 78, 1449 A), 1409 (= 5.140, PG 78, 1408 B), 1228 (= 5.12, PG 78, 1332 B-C), 1915
(= 4.4, PG 78,1052 C-1053 A), 627 (= 2.127, PG 78, 565 A- 572 C).
68
Ep. 246 (= 1.246, PG 78, 341 B): Ἄρνησαι σαυτὸν, καὶ ἆρον τὸν σταυρὸν, καὶ φεῦγε ὡς ἐγώ.
69
Brown, Power and Persuasion, 140.
70
Évieux, Lettres I, 106.
71
Daniel Caner, Wondering, Begging Monks: Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late
Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 204.
72
See Epp. 41 (= 1.41, PG 78, 208 C), 173 (= 1.173, PG 78, 296 B-C), 314 (= 1.314, PG 78, 364 C-D).
66
16
now lost collections goes back to only about 100 years after his death.
That the letters
themselves did not disappear but were preserved by monks over the centuries testifies to the fact
that Isidore was viewed as an important Christian authority. As already stated, the style of his
Greek and his handling of Scripture alone would justify this preservation. Évieux speculates that
probably not long after Isidore’s death, copies of his letters were distributed among the monastic
circles of Egypt and Palestine.73 He suggests that small collections of his letters would have
been assembled with the purpose of teaching the meaning of Scriptural passages and how to act
in a proper Christian way. 74 This has led some scholars to suspect the genuineness of the letters,
which they suppose were really just rhetorical exercises meant for schools.75 Some have even
gone so far as to doubt the existence of Isidore himself, arguing that since many of the fragments
consist of short sayings from other authors and long doctrinal and rhetorical discourses, they
must have been the work of a monk who collected fragments together under the pseudonym of
Isidore of Pelusium.76 But this argument neglects the reality that many of Isidore’s addressees
were officials who really existed, such as the Prefect Rufinus and Hermogenes of Rhinocorura,
not to mention that the contents of the letters are also consistent with the context of particular
fifth century events surrounding the First Council of Ephesus.77
3.2 First Uses of Isidore and Historical References to his Existence:
Regardless of the reasons for the letters’ very first stages of preservation, the picture
becomes clearer at the beginning of the century after Isidore’s death, when some of the letters
73
Évieux, Lettres I, 105.
Ibid, 106.
75
Morton Smith, “The Manuscript Tradition of Isidore of Pelusium,” The Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954),
207.
76
Évieux, “État des recherches,” 325.
77
See Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 46-48 for a good summary of the historical background.
74
17
became of use to the anti-Chalcedonians. Indeed, it had long been the practice at the time to
select and gather letters of different ecclesiastics consisting of exegetical commentaries, spiritual
advice, and explanations of doctrine in order either to portray an author in a certain light or to
back up one side of the Christological debates.78 Isidore does at times delve into Christological
matters, especially in Ep. 324 to Cyril and Ep. 419 to Hermogenes of Rhinocorura (as we will
see below).79 And although Isidore seems to have agreed with Cyril’s ‘single nature’ view of
433 CE, in Ep. 310 he is generally critical of the bishop’s actions at Ephesus. The complex
nature of Isidore’s stance as regards the bishop of Alexandria therefore became useful during the
later dispute between the monophysites and the Chalcedonians over the interpretation of Cyril’s
stance.
As it turns out, the earliest reference to the writings of Isidore of Pelusium was by the
monophysite Severus of Antioch, who wrote in the early sixth century CE. As “the leading
theologian of those Christians who refuted the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE,”80 Severus’
monophysism was similar to Cyril of Alexandria’s ‘single nature’ view of 433 CE in that it
emphasized the single nature of Christ as the product of the union of the Word and the human
being after the incarnation.81 This theological stance was also shared by the emperor Anastasius
until, in 518 CE, Justin I came to the throne and the two distinct natures view of Chalcedon again
became official doctrine in Constantinople. As a result, Severus found himself in exile in
Alexandria for two years, during which time he continued to administer his see from abroad and
published a work called Liber Contra Impium Grammaticum, a critique of the apologist John the
Adam M. Schor, Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2011), 35.
79
Epp. 324 (= 1.324, PG 78, 369 C), 419 (= 1.419, PG 78, 416 C).
80
Volker L. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2008), 14.
81
Pauline Allen and C.T.R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch (London: Routledge, 2004), 34.
78
18
Grammarian and his defense of Chalcedon (which we know about only through Severus). 82
Severus tells us that John made use of Isidore.83 In his critique, however, Severus has also made
use of Isidore and tells us that he even consulted a numbered collection of his letters in
Alexandria, in which some letters explicitly disagree with the Chalcedonian view.
84
Furthermore, he refutes John the Grammarian’s claim that Isidore was originally a bishop of
Pelusium. According to the results of his investigations, Severus learned from his sources that
Isidore was in fact living at the time of the bishop Hermogenes of [Rhinocorura] and that the
actual bishop of Pelusium was a certain Eusebius, both of whom were present at the council.85
By the beginning of the sixth century CE, therefore, there was already a collection of Isidore’s
letters ready for consultation in Alexandria.86 What is more, Severus clearly knew about Isidore
before he arrived in Egypt, since in a letter to a Zacharias of Pelusium, Severus cites “a passage
from a certain presbyter (Isidore, I mean, a native of your city of Pelusium, who was wise in
learning and in piety).”87 This would suggest that a collection of Isidore’s letters had made it to
Antioch and was consulted there by Severus, probably because of the Pelusian’s connection to
Cyril and the concepts of monophysism.
The next mention of Isidore comes at around 549 CE, when Facundus, bishop of
Hermiane, reports in his Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum about the existence in
Constantinople of a collection of 2,000 letters by an Egyptian presbyter called Isidore of
82
Menze, Syrian Orthodox Church, 25-31; Allen and Hayward, Severus, 27.
Schmid believes that John the Grammarian used only those instances where Isidore is critical of Cyril. P. Andreas
Schmid, Die Christologie Isidors von Pelusium (Freibourg: Paulusverlag, 1948), 6-10.
84
Severus of Antioch, Liber Contra Impium Grammaticum (ed. J. Lebon, CSCO 102, pp. 182-183); René Aigrain,
Quarante-neuf lettres de Saint Isidore de Péluse (Paris: Picard & Fils, 1911), 21, n. 2.
85
Severus of Antioch, Cont. Imp. Gramm. (CSCO 102, ed. J. Lebon, p. 182); Évieux, “État des recherches,” 329
86
Pierre Évieux, “Isidore de Péluse, la numérotation des lettres dans la tradition manuscrite,” Revue d’histoire des
textes 5 (1975): 62-63.
87
Severus of Antioch, The Sixth Book of the select Letters of Severus of Antioch, trans. and ed. by E. W. Brooks,
vol. 2 (Oxford: Williams and Norgate, 1969), 251.
83
19
Pelusium.88 With Facundus the story of the collection is brought into the episode of the ThreeChapters of 543/544 CE. Subsequent to the Council of Chalcedon of 451 CE, which officially
confirmed the two-nature of Christ as both human and divine, failed attempts were made by the
emperors Anastasius I and Justin at achieving a reconciliation between Chalcedonian and nonChalcedonian adherents.89 The non-Chalcedonians, also known as monophysites, supported the
one-nature model, which was the result of the union of both the divine and human natures of
Christ after the incarnation. In 536 CE, emperor Justinian attempted another reconciliation of the
two sides.90 Known as the Three-Chapters reconciliation, it specified the condemnation of three
‘chapters’, or works, of the Oriental bishops Theodore of Mopsuesta, Ibas of Edessa, and
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, especially of the latter, whose rehabilitation at the council of Chalcedon in
451 CE had been one of the major complaints of the non-Chalcedonians.91 Facundus, in his
defense of the Three-Chapters, mentions Isidore’s criticisms of Cyril of Alexandria and cites
Epp. 310 and 370 as proof of the monk’s support of the Antiochenes,92 since in these two letters,
as will be seen below, Isidore chastises Cyril for quarrelling with the Oriental bishops. One can
see how the critical tone towards Cyril found in these letters attracted the attention of Facundus,
who was attempting to defend the reputation of Orientals, whom Cyril had either criticised or
88
Nam uir etiam sanctissimus et magnae in Ecclesia Christi gloriae, Isidorus presbyter Aegyptius Pelusiota, quem
duo millia epistularum ad aedificationem Ecclesiae multi scripsisse nouerunt, qui etiam pro uitae ac sapientiae suae
meritis, ut pater ab ipso beato Cyrillo et horatus est et uocatus… Facundus of Hermiane, Defence of the Three
Chapters 2.4.12, (ed. by Anne Fraïsse-Bétoulières, SC 471, p. 320). Also see C. H. Turner, “The letters of Saint
Isidore of Pelusium,” The Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1905): 71; Smith, “Manuscript Tradition,” 207; Schmid,
Die Christologie,17; Menze, Syrian Orthodox Church, 253.
89
Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition:From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590604), trans. by Pauline Allen and John Cawte, vol. 2, part 1 (Oxford: Mowbray and Co., 1987), 314-325.
90
Menze, Syrian Orthodox Church, 253-254.
91
Ibid, 265-266.
92
Ecce et in hac epistula [Ep. 310] arguit illum, uelut animi passione et aemulatione caecatum, uiolenter magis
quam iusto examine, causas agere atque irrideri a multis, quod iniuriae priuatae uindictam, non quae Christi sunt
orthodoxe requisierit apud Ephesum in causa Nestorii,…. Facundus of Hermiane, Defense 2.4.16 (ed. FraïsseBétoulières, SC 471, p. 324). Schmid, Die Christologie, 28; Turner, “Letters,” 74.
20
quarrelled with during the Nestorian controversy. 93 Lastly, at the end of the sixth century CE,
Evagrius Scholasticus lists Isidore in his Church History alongside Synesius of Cyrene,
mentioning that Isidore was famous for his ascetic lifestyle and for his doctrinal knowledge, and
that since he wrote to Cyril of Alexandria, he must have been a contemporary.94
It is in 564 CE, with the deacon Rusticus, that a set of translations of Isidore’s letters
appears for the first time. Rusticus is known to history for having compiled and revised the Latin
version of the Acta of the Council of Chalcedon of 451 CE,95 as well as for having composed a
work called the Synodicon, a bare-bones Latin version of Irenaeus’ Tragoedia, which itself
narrated the events following the First Council of Ephesus to 435 CE. 96 In the Synodicon,
Rusticus includes 49 letters by Isidore translated into Latin, which he says he extracted from an
original collection of the letters he found in Constantinople.97 Rusticus further adds that this
original collection consisted of four books of five hundred letters each and that it was collected
by the Sleepless Monks, the order of monks in Constantinople founded by the heretic Alexander
in c. 440 CE and whose members adhered to a strict system of continual prayer and
Schor, Theodoret’s People, 111-112; Timothy E. Gregory, Vox Populi: Popular Opinion and Violence in the
Religious Controversies of the Fifth Century A.D. (Columbus OH: Ohio State University Press, 1979), 130. As
Schor and Gregory note, by 435 CE some clerics were again shouting their support for Nestorius, despite the ruling
of the First Council of Ephesus. Cyril worked to counter them by informing the emperor and writing a treatise
against Theodore, whom Cyril thought “was the real animating force behind Nestorius.” George A. Bevan,
“Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Syrian Episcopal Elections” in Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity, ed. by Johann
Leemans, Peter Van Nuffelen, Shawn W. J. Keough, and Carla Nicolaye (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2011), 65.
94
Ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς διέπρεπε βασιλείας καὶ Ἰσίδωρος, οὗ κλέος εὐρὺ κατὰ τὴν ποίησιν, ἔργω τε καὶ λόγῳ παρὰ πᾶσι
διαβόητος· ὃς οὕτω μὲν τὴν σάρκα τοῖς πόνοις ἐξέτηξεν, οὕτω δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν τοῖς ἀναγωγικοῖς ἐπίανε λόγοις, ὡς
ἀγγελικὸν ἐπὶ γῆς μετελθεῖν βίον, στήλην τε ζῶσαν διὰ παντὸς εῖναι βίου τε μοναδικοῦ καὶ τῆς εἰς Θεὸν θεωρίας.
Γέγραπται δ’ οὖν αὐτῷ πολλὰ μὲν καὶ ἕτερα πάσης ὠφελείας ἔμπλεα· γέγραπται δὲ καὶ πρὸς Κύριλλον τὸν ἀοίδιμον,
ἐξ ὧν μάλιστα δείκνυται τοῦ θεσπεσίου συνακμάσαι τοῖς χρόνοις. Evagrius Scholasticus, HE 1.15.1 (ed. by Laurent
Angliviel and Guy Sabbah and French trans. by A. J. Festugière, Bernard Grillet, and Guy Sabbah, SC 542, p. 172).
See also Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 301-302. For a good English translation of this passage, see The Ecclesiastical
History of Evagrius Scholasticus (Eng. trans. by Michael Whitby, TTH 33, p. 41).
95
Cameron, Last of the Pagans, 482; Aigrain, Quarante-neuf lettres, 9
96
Millar, Greek Roman Empire, 170, 239.
97
Aigrain, Quarante-neuf lettres, 9; Smith, “Manuscript Tradition,” 206.
93
21
genuflexion.98 It was the criticism of Cyril, the great opponent of the Oriental bishops, found in
the letters that caused the Sleepless Monks to preserve them,
99
since the monastery was
vigorously against Monophysitism.100 Thus, these ancient testimonies reveal that there were at
least three main areas where collections or individual letters of Isidore existed and could be
consulted: Antioch and Alexandria as indicated by Severus, and Constantinople by Facundus and
Rusticus. Even more important, Constantinople was where a lost collection of 2000 letters was
maintained by the Sleepless Monks sometime during the fifth and sixth centuries CE.
3.3 Manuscript Tradition:
The oldest extant manuscript of the letters of Isidore is from the Greek monastery Grotta
Ferrata (identified with the press-mark B α 1). This dates to the year 985 and consists of two
sections, one with 600 letters and the other 1000 letters. 101 C. M. Turner suspects that this MS
was probably based on the original collection of the Sleepless Monks, although there is no sure
Jules Pargoire, “Un mot sur les Acémètes,” Échos d’Orient 2 (1899), 308; Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks,
130-132. For a good account of the founding of the order in the environs of Constantinople, see also Gilbert
Dagron, “Les moines et la ville: le monachisme à Constantinople jusqu’au concile de Chalcédoine (451),” in
Travaux et Mémoires 4, ed. by Paul Lemerle and Jean Gouillard (Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1970), 235-236.
99
Schmid, Die Christologie, 20; Turner, “Letters,” 74.
100
Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 318. Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks, 250. Marcellus, the order’s
third leader (448-484 CE), communicated with Theodoret, who had been condemned at the Second Council of
Ephesus in 449 CE for his Nestorian sympathies. Dagron, “Les moines et la ville,” 237. For Theodoret’s letters to
Marcellus, see Epp. 142 and 143, in Théodoret de Cyr: Correspondance III (ed. by Yvan Azéma, SC 111, pp. 152158). See in particular the beginning of Ep. 143, in which Theodoret praises Marcellus for his support: Καὶ ἤδη δι᾽
ἑτέρων γραμμάτων τὴν σὴν ποσείπομεν θεοσέβειαν, τοῖς τιμιωτάτοις ἀδελφοῖς τοῖς ὑμετέροις τὴν ἐπιστολὴν
δεδωκότες· καὶ νῦν δὲ πάλιν προσφθεγγόμεθά σου τὴν ἁγιότητα. Προτρέπει γὰρ ἡμᾶς τοῦτο ποιεῖν καὶ ὁ
ἀξιάγαστος ὑμῶν βίος, καὶ ὁ ἀξιέπαινος ζῆλος, ὃν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀποστολικῆς ἐπεδείξασθε πίστεως, οὐ βασιλικὴν
δείσαντες δυναστείαν, οὐκ ἐπισκοπικὴν συμφωνίαν. Εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῶν συνεληλυθότων οἱ πλεῖστοι βιασθέντες
συνέθεντο, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ταῖς ὑπογραφαῖς τὴν καινὴν ἐκράτυναν αἵρεσιν. Theodoret to Marcellus, Ep. 143 (ed. Azéma,
SC 111, p. 156). As Azéma notes, “Marcel fut le deuxième successeur d’Alexandre, fondateur de la communauté.
On ne sera point surpris que Théodoret apprécie sa vie sainte et son zèle pour la vérité si l’on se souvient qu’après
avoir défendu l’orthodoxie mise en péril par l’hérésie nestorienne, il lutta aussi contre Eutychès, participa au concile
de Constantinople en 448 et à celui de Chalcédoine en 451.” Yvan Azéma, introduction to Théodoret de Cyr:
Correspondance III (SC 111, ed. Azéma), 38.
101
Turner, “Letters,” 74.
98
22
way of determining this. 102 Whatever its origin, it is by far the largest surviving MS of a
continuous series of Isidore’s letters. All other MSS consist primarily of a few hundred to at
most a thousand letters: Paris MS, gr. 832 (thirteenth century); Vat. gr. 649-650 and Vat. Ottob.
gr. 341-383 (both sixteenth century); Vienna cod. gr. ccxci (fourteenth century); Paris gr. 949
(sixteenth century); Venetus Marcianus 126, saec. xiv (seventeenth century); Munich gr. 49,
saec. xvi and Munich gr. 50 (seventeenth century). 103 The history of the major published
editions of the letters begins with the Greek version of Jacob Billi of 1585 (containing 1213
letters), which was then revised in 1605 by Conrad Rittershusius (adding 230 letters) and
translated into Latin by Andreas Schott in 1623, who then published a separate volume in 1629
with an additional 569 letters. 104 The culmination of these separate versions was Aegidius
Morel’s 1638 volume that combined Rittershusius’ edition with Schott’s separate volume of new
letters.105 This version became the now standard edition of 2012 letters, divided into five books
with notes by the Jesuit Petrus Possinus, which J. P. Migne finally incorporated in his multivolume Patrologia graeca in 1860.106
In 1911, R. Aigrain published a volume of the 49 letters that were part of Rusticus’
Synodicon, with an introduction that lightly touched upon the importance of Isidore in relation to
Christological matters. 107 At the turn of the last century, C. H. Turner published his article
detailing the different manuscripts of the letters and the earliest editions, while L. Bayer analyzed
the Hellenic elements found in Isidore’s oeuvre. Isidorian scholarship continued to address
Christological and Scriptural elements in the monk’s correspondence, thus the work of A.
Turner, “Letters,” 74-75.
Ibid, 76-78.
104
Ibid, 78-79.
105
Ibid, 80.
106
Ibid, 81-82.
107
Aigrain, Quarante-neuf lettres (1911); Smith, “Manuscript Tradition,” 206.
102
103
23
Schmid and C. M. Fouskas, although Schmid interestingly enough revealed the thread that
connected Isidore to Severus of Antioch, Facundus of Hermiane, and the lost original collection
mentioned by Rusticus. It was not until the second half of the twentieth century, when Morton
Smith, Pierre Évieux, and Roland Delmaire published their articles and later Évieux his major
all-encompassing study on Isidore, that light was finally shed on the letters that related to secular
officials in Constantinople.108 The last stage was set, then, for an attempt at a modern edition of
the letters in translation. Évieux’s 1997 two volume set in French, although thorough in its
presentation of the large range of addressees included in the corpus, failed to include translations
of the important letters of Isidore to Cyril of Alexandria, Theodosius II, and some of the other
important officials, perhaps due to his death in 2007. An English translation of the letters has yet
to be published.
IV. Secular Connections:
4.1 The Usefulness of a Network:
A brief glance at the recipients of Isidore’s correspondence will reveal the range of
secular and religious acquaintances maintained by the monk. As we shall see, Isidore knew
praetorian prefects, governors (called the praefectus Augustalis in Egypt and corrector in
Augustamnica), 109 and even palace eunuchs, all positions of great power and influence within
108
In 1973 the late Morton Smith, then professor of ancient history at Columbia University, published The Secret
Gospel, an account of his discovery in 1958 of a supposed new gospel of Mark, which caused some controversy and
has led to accusations of forgery. See Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel: the Discovery and Interpretation of the
Secret Gospel According to Mark (New York: Harper and Row, 1973). The controversy is still ongoing, with recent
books on the subject having been published in the last few years. See Stephen C. Carlson, The Gospel Hoax:
Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005) and Scott G. Brown, Mark’s
Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith’s Controversial Discovery (Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University
Press, 2005).
109
Bagnall, Later Roman Egypt, 64; on the establishment of correctores beginning in the reign of Diocletian, see
Jones, Later Roman Empire A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey 284-602, vol. 1 (1964; repr., Oxford:
Basil Blackwell,1973), 45. As Jones notes further on, “Moesia was divided into the two dioceses of Dacia and
24
the imperial administration. Indeed, one is quickly struck by the fact that both Theodosius II and
Cyril of Alexandria also appear as his addressees. Although surprising at first, this is the result
of a combination of factors: the importance of maintaining a social network to promote oneself
and one’s community, the degree of involvement of the emperor and the bishop of Alexandria in
the affairs of the empire, and the unique position of the holy man in the late Roman state. Added
to this, the letters of Isidore reveal the portraits of some important secular and religious officials,
both locally and at Alexandria and Constantinople, which all confirm that Isidore was a very well
connected individual.
In order for a request to be at its most effective in the early fifth century CE, it was
important that the person making the request be of sufficient gravitas and in possession of a good
network of connections.110 Persons of distinction in distant communities of the empire had to
know the identity of the powerful intermediaries in Constantinople and at home who could exert
enough influence to help them.111 In such a milieu, letters represented the links of friendship that
bound individuals despite the great distances that separated them, in which the writer could
advance the cause of family members, friends, or even an entire town. 112 Sometimes the letter
Macedonia by Constantine, and Egypt was detached from that of Oriens by Valens; the governors of the last two
dioceses bore the exceptional titles of praefectus Augustalis and comes Orientis respectively.” Jones, Later Roman
Empire, vol. 1, 373.
110
In the case of Libanius under Julian in the early 360s CE, the prestige of his position in Antioch as one of the
foremost teachers of rhetoric helped him to emerge “as the chief intermediary between emperor and city, a position
that gave him enormous influence.” Bradbury, in introduction to Selected Letters, 10. See also Christopher Kelly,
Ruling the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 130.
111
For example, much like Isidore, when requesting favors, Theodoret of Cyrrhus would regularly adopt different
tones in his letters to achieve common ground with his correspondent and thus win his appeal. Panegyric elements
such as praising the official’s gentleness, appealing to his interest in Classical philosophy and literature, and drawing
on Christian moral teachings, such as ‘divine mercy and providence’, all helped Theodoret to garner the official’s
attention and secure his aid. Adam M. Schor, “Performance and Social Strategy in the Letters of Theodoret, Bishop
of Cyrrhus,” Journal of Late Antiquity 2:2 (2009), 278-280. See also Millar, Greek Roman Empire, 215.
112
Kelly, Ruling, 160. Traditionally, the art of letter correspondence in Greek culture was seen as “a literary gift
from one man of culture to another.” Bradbury, introduction to Selected Letters (TTH 41), 19. Thus, as we have
seen above in the case of Isidore, letters would frequently contain beautifully rendered Classical allusions and would
be written in a sophisticated and classicizing Greek. Since such letters represented literary confirmation of the bond
of friendship between correspondents, it became important to preserve the letters and make duplicates. Another use
of collecting letter duplicates was that they strengthened a correspondent’s sense of protection, since the social
25
writer wrote to protect his reputation or position in society. A good example of this is the
episode concerning bishop Athanasius of Perrha in 444 CE, who because of certain accusations
of criminality was ousted from his episcopate by a number of clerics of the city. 113 For support
against the accusations, Athanasius wrote to Cyril of Alexandria, who in turn wrote to Domnus
of Antioch in defence of his friend.114 Although Athanasius’ appeal to Cyril did not seem to
have the desired result,115 it is plain that despite his unpopularity Athanasius made sure that he
did not stand alone and took care to foster a network that included the powerful bishop of
Alexandria and his network of allies as well. This was true of both secular and religious
personages, as the correspondences of Libanius, Symmachus, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Synesius of
Cyrene, and Isidore of Pelusium testify.116 It was important that these circles of acquaintances
be maintained over the years, since the number of correspondents guaranteed the author’s
standing both at home and at court. The copying and re-copying of letters either by the author or
importance, or gravitas, in court circles of individuals of the likes of Libanius or Theodoret revealed a lot about the
power of the correspondent’s backers. Schor, “Performance,” 291. One can find an example of this in a letter of
Theodoret, in which the bishop recounts that he provided a young woman with one of his letters so that she could
pass through a local religious festival (πανήγυρις) in safety and rejoin her father. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ep. 70 (ed.
Azéma, SC 98, p. 154).
113
The episode is briefly mentioned in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. See The Acts of the Council
of Chalcedon (Eng. trans. by Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, TTH 45.3, p. 59). On Athanasius’ troubles at this
time and his rivalry with Theodoret, see Bevan, “Syrian Episcopal Elections,” 67-70.
114
“Let your holiness deign, if the city of Antioch is far from that which the most God-fearing bishop, Athanasius,
mentioned previously, was assigned to administer, to grant a hearing to certain people through a letter of your own.”
Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. 77, in St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 51-110 (Eng. trans. John I. McEnerney, FC 77, p.
93).
115
The bishop ultimately resigned from his see and was deposed in 445 CE, although Domnus did investigate the
affair as Cyril asked of him. See, Bevan, “Episcopal Elections,” 67-68.
116
In a letter to the prefect Constantinus, Theodoret asks for help to relieve Cyrrhus of its crushing taxes and for
defence against the false accusations of Athanasius of Perrha. Ep. 42 (ed. Azéma, SC 98, p. 106-113). Synesius
wrote to a certain Constans (possibly Constans 3, magister utriusque militiae in 412 CE according to PLRE 2, 311)
on behalf of an acquaintance of his who was the victim of a friend of Constans, all the while reminding Constans of
his love of philosophy and honour. Ep. 27, in Synésios de Cyrène, Correspondance, vol. 2, 32. Libanius also wrote
to many officials on behalf of his friends. In one letter to Florentius, Libanius provides a character description of
one of his good friends, who hopes for advancement. Ep. B41, in Selected Letters (Eng. trans. Bradbury, TTH 41, p.
70). On the social network of Libanius, whose two thousand letters testify to a diverse network of connections in
fourth-century Antioch, see also Isabella Sandwell, Religious Identity in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007), 231-239. As Sandwell notes, “when cousins, ex-pupils and old friends went on to hold
positions in the imperial bureaucracy, in the court or senate of Constantinople or in civic government, these personal
relationships tied Libanius into the centres of power of the late Roman empire.” Sandwell, Religious Identity, 232.
26
by someone else in his circle also gave evidence of a far-reaching social network, since the
copies circulated among the author’s acquaintances and collections of them could be gathered
together by his followers in distant regions. 117 Isidore’s two letters to Theodosius II and the
handful of others to Cyril of Alexandria are but a few testimonies of this rich epistolary
system.118
4.2 Constantinople:
But did these appeals to the highest officials in the state actually ever reach them? And if
so, could these heads of state be effective? This is difficult to ascertain in regards to Isidore,
since we do not possess any responses to his letters. By looking into some of the actions
undertaken by the emperor and Cyril of Alexandria, however, we may be able to say that Isidore
knew very well how effective these heads of state could be whenever the fancy suited them. It
has been the fashion in the past to view Theodosius II as a sort of puppet ruler, susceptible
throughout his reign to the wills of his eunuchs and empresses. This was certainly a factor early
on when Theodosius inherited the throne as a child of seven in 408 CE. 119 There has, however,
been of late a recent and important reassessment of the role exerted by Theodosius both in court
and in ecclesiastical politics, at least once he came of age. 120 Indeed, as Synesius’ letter of
Schor, Theodoret’s People, 33-35 and 145.
The preservation of collections of letters thus also served to show off erudition, moral authority, and membership
in an elite intellectual circle.
119
On this subject, see Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 91-93, 97, 101-102 and 130: at the very beginning of his
reign, Theodosius’ sister Pulcheria accompanied the emperor whenever he met his advisors, shielded him from other
women, and appointed officials and promoted barbarian generals in his stead. Although many of the reports on
Theodosius’ dependency on others are apocryphal, Holum nonetheless concludes that “the gossipers managed a
good characterization of Theodosius, who emerges from the history of his mature years as a man of intelligence and
sincerity but little backbone.” Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 130. Cf. the assessment of the level of Pulcheria’s
power at court in Richard W. Burgess, “The Accession of Marcian in the Light of Chalcedonian Apologetic and
Monophysite Polemic,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 86:7 (1993/4), 47-68. See also note 120 below.
120
See the collection of recent essays in Christopher Kelly, ed., Theodosius II: Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late
Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). See especially Christopher Kelly, “Rethinking
Theodosius,” chap. 1 in Kelly, Theodosius II, 19-21: a convincing case can be made, for example, that because the
117
118
27
410/411 to the dux Anysius would indicate, in which the bishop asks the latter to send a
submission to the emperor to increase local troops, it is conceivable that the emperor viewed
submissions himself even early on in his reign, when he would have been about 10 years old.121
Of course, the submissions were first vetted by intermediaries, such as Anysius, the praespositus
(imperial chamberlain), or members of the consistory, who would all have their say in the final
decision process on whether to send the troops or not, but the contents of Synesius’ letter
suggests that it was not unfeasible for a bishop, and one of Synesius’ stature no less, who was no
fool, to expect that a request be directed towards the emperor.122 It even could happen at times
“fine-grained detail of the formation of imperial policy (the shifts, the negotiations, the compromises, the coalitionbuilding) is more fully discoverable” in the case of Theodosius, his indecision and irresolution is more evident and
can be more easily criticized than that of past emperors. But, ultimately, as Millar points out, “…no matter how
many, or how forceful, the competing streams of rhetorical persuasion…in the end the Imperial system was a
monarchy, and the Emperor, at least when once arrived at adulthood, could decide.” Millar, Greek Roman Empire,
231. See also Burgess, “The Accession of Marcian,” 47-68, in which he convincingly downplays Pulcheria’s role in
the succession of Marcian upon the death of Theodosius II in 450 CE. After a thorough examination of the
historical evidence, Burgess concludes that “far from being a proto-Irene, one of the first ‘Byzantine empresses’, as
[Kenneth G.] Holum would have us believe, Pulcheria was manipulated and sacrificed to the whims of a man
[emperor Marcian] who held much greater power and influence than she, even though she was an Augusta, a title
replete with ceremonial awe but invested with little actual power when put to the test.” Burgess, “The Accession of
Marcian,” 68.
121
Ὃ γένοιτ᾽ ἂν εἰ διὰ τῆς σῆς ἀναφορᾶς ὁ φιλανθρωπότατος ἡμῶν βασιλεὺς μάθοι πόσον ὄφελος ἐγένοντο
Πενταπόλει. Καὶ δεήθητι βασιλέως ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐν τοῖς σαυτοῦ γράμμασι δέησιν ἑτέραν, ἄνδρας ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα
τοῖς τετταράκοντα τούτοις προστεθῆναι. Ep. 78 in Synésios de Cyrène: Correspondance, vol. 3, ed. by Roques,
200. As Millar emphasizes, “We should not fail to take note of how extraordinary (in one sense) this procedure is.
These barbarian soldiers can approach the bishop, and he can ask the Dux to send a submission to the distant
Emperor. No heed is paid to the fact that the latter was currently aged about ten.” Millar, Greek Roman Empire, 61.
122
Members of the consistory included, among others, legal officers, military officers, various comites, and the
powerful praefectus praetorio orientis. Jones, Later Roman Empire, vol. 1, 333. For the extent and limits of the
powers of the emperor’s consistory in the late Empire, see Jones, Later Roman Empire, vol. 1, 334-341: “in the
fourth century the consistory was an active and effective council of state, which debated matters of moment and
advised the emperor upon them... [and] the consistory continued to meet and to transact business in the fifth and
sixth centuries… [but] the emperor remained absolute and he not only could, but often did, act on his own initiative
without consulting his council. …The consistory thus tended to be a subservient body, whose members, instead of
presenting a common front, vied with one another to win the emperor’s approval, and intrigued to discredit their
rivals.” But, as Elton concedes, “…both ancient and modern historians have exaggerated such personal influences
and suggested that the emperor was dominated by eunuchs, women, or barbarian generals…the emphasis on
reaching the emperor in his apartments also ignores the fact that he was not cocooned there. Although the
praepositus could grant or restrict access to the imperial household, he could not isolate the emperor.” Hugh Elton,
“Imperial Politics at the Court of Theodosius II” in Cain and Lenski, Power of Religion in Late Antiquity, 135.
28
that the emperor would later countermand a decision or law that was originally made in
consultation with members of his consistory to satisfy another group negatively affected by it. 123
Of course, one of the more famous instances of Theodosius’ involvement in affairs of
state happened later on when the twenty-nine year old emperor decided to call the council of
Ephesus in 431 to resolve the Christological quarrel that erupted between the Oriental bishops
and Cyril. On that occasion, what mattered most for the emperor was not orthodoxy of belief in
itself, which was the concern of the bishops assembled, but that these bishops come to a united
decision as a “public demonstration of consensus.”124 Foremost on his mind was the worry that a
divided church would harm the state.125 At the time of the council Theodosius had come of age,
relying less and less on the imperial consistory as the time went on.126 Even though access to the
imperial household continued to be protected by the praepositus, or imperial chamberlain, this
palace official often fell from favour and it was then up to the emperor to decide whom to meet
and when.127 Theodosius also showed his disapproval of Cyril when the bishop attempted to
undermine the emperor’s authority and plant discord within the imperial family by sending
Christological treatises against Nestorius to the empresses.128 When the First Council of Ephesus
finally came to a close and Theodosius learned from his official representative Candidianus that
its decision to depose Nestorius had been rushed by Cyril, who had strong-armed some of those
123
In September 440 CE Theodosius enacted a law under the recommendation of the Praetorian Prefect Cyrus, thus
abolishing the praescriptio fori enjoyed by soldiers and officials, which allowed them to claim recourse to special
courts reserved especially for them. Two months later the emperor would retract the law, declaring “that he had
never intended to touch the praescriptio fori” and drafting a new law more advantageous to the soldiers involved.
Jones, Later Roman Empire, vol. 1, 339-340.
124
Kelly, “Rethinking Theodosius,” 13
125
Susan Wessel, “The Ecclesiastical Policy of Theodosius II.” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 33:2 (2001) 29798.
126
Thomas Graumann, “Theodosius II and the Politics of the First Council of Ephesus,” chap. 4 in Kelly,
Theodosius II, 110; Jill Harries, “Men without Women: Theodosius’ Consistory and the Business of Government,”
chap. 2 in Kelly, Theodosius II, 87.
127
Elton, “Imperial Politics,” 135.
128
Wessel, “Ecclesiastical policy,” 287 and 293.
29
present, the emperor commanded an investigation into the affair. 129 Indeed, the fact that
Theodosius sent Candidianus to ensure the smooth progression of the council with special
instructions not to take part in any of the deliberations meant that the emperor suspected mischief
by the two sides of the controversy.130 It is thus perhaps not too far-fetched that Isidore could
hope for action from Theodosius when he wrote to him.
4.3 Alexandria:
Anyone wishing to advance a personal or communal cause could of course turn to
members of the clergy for support, but real ecclesiastical power in Egypt that could influence
local officials and even sway the imperial administration in Constantinople lay with the bishop of
Alexandria. An effective network of influential acquaintances in early fifth century Egypt would
thus benefit in having Cyril of Alexandria among its members, and as we shall see, Isidore knew
the bishop well enough that he could write to him from time to time. Under the episcopate of
bishop Athanasius, a century before Cyril’s tenure, the status and power of the bishop of
Alexandria grew as the Egyptian see became one of the wealthiest in East.131 Not only did the
Alexandrian Church collect the profits of the regional land properties and expand its assets
throughout the Nile delta over the course of the fourth century CE,132 but the Council of Nicaea
of 325 CE also confirmed the patriarch of Alexandria’s jurisdiction over the bishops of Egypt,
Libya, and the Pentapolis, 133 with the result that, during the ecclesiastical Councils of fifth
Wessel, “Ecclesiastical Policy,” 170-171; Elton, “Imperial Politics,” 139.
Graumann, “Politics of the First Council of Ephesus,” 119
131
McGuckin, St. Cyril, 7; Timothy D. Barnes Athenasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the
Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 32-3 and 179.
132
Russell, Cyril of Alexandria (London: Routledge, 2000), 10.
133
Barnes, Athenasius and Constantius, 178; Jones, Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, 883.
129
130
30
century, the Egyptian bishops voted according to the wishes of the Alexandrian patriarch. 134
Indeed, on the eve of the Council of Ephesus Cyril could hope to secure at least 155 signatures
agreeing to the deposition of Nestorius.135 The bishop of Alexandria could also count on the
protection of a guard of attendants called the parabalani whenever he faced local adversaries,
such as he did in 415 CE against the city prefect Orestes and the Jewish authorities.136 Socrates
even states that Orestes was extremely jealous of Cyril’s powers, which he believed encroached
on the civil and imperial jurisdiction and was the cause of a power conflict between the bishop
and the governor of Alexandria.137
Cyril’s influence over secular officials in Constantinople is also well attested. When the
council of Ephesus decided to anathematize Nestorius in his absence in 431, Cyril sent the
imperial tribune Aristolaus to Antioch to deliver the news of the council ahead of time to the
Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 9-10. Also, the powers of the bishop “were autocratic. He might consult his clergy
or even his whole flock…but his judgement was final.” Jones, Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, 874.
135
McGuckin, St. Cyril, 74
136
McGuckin, St. Cyril, 11 and 15. For examples of the use of the parabalani as a means of intimidation during the
episcopate of Cyril’s successor, Dioscorus, during the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 CE, see Gregory, Vox
Populi, 145 and 149; see also A. Philipsborn, “La compagnie d’ambulanciers ‘parabalani’ d’Alexandrie,” Byzantion
20 (1950), 186.
137
Susan Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: the Making of a Saint and of a Heretic
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 34. For details on this power conflict, see Socrates, Church History 7.7
and 7.13. Timothy Barnes in his review of a critical edition of Socrates’ History prepared by Günther Hansen,
which is based on an ancient Armenian version first published in 1897, has made an important observation about the
nature of Cyril’s relationship with the secular administration at Alexandria. See Timothy D. Barnes, “Armenica
Veritas,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 48, no. 4 (1997):723-731. Chapter seven of Book seven of the standard
English translation of Socrates, edited by A. C. Zenos, describes the elevation of Cyril as bishop of Alexandria on
the death of his uncle and predecessor, Theophilus. According to Socrates, “a great contest immediately arose about
the appointment of a successor, some seeking to place Timothy the archdeacon in the episcopal chair; and others
desiring Cyril…a tumult having arisen on this account among the people, Abundantius, the commander of the troops
of Egypt, took sides with Timothy.” Socrates, HE 7.7 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, p. 156,). This passage has usually
been seen to show that the secular administration of Alexandria was completely opposed to the election of Cyril and
that Cyril’s subsequent encroaching on secular matters resulted in Orestes’ growing antipathy towards the bishop.
Socrates, HE 7.13 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, p. 159). On the opposition of the secular administration of Alexandria
to Cyril see also, Lionel R. Wickham, introduction to Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters, ed. and trans. by L. R.
Wickham (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), xiii. According to the Armenian translation newly edited by Hanson,
however, which Barnes calls “the best and most important witness to the text, which has a stemmatic value equal to
that of all the other witnesses put together” (Barnes, “Armenica”, 724), Abundantius actually takes sides with Cyril.
This would suggest, Barnes intimates, that Cyril may in fact have had the support of the administration of
Alexandria early on and that therefore “most of what has been written about Cyril’s quarrel with the prefect Orestes
and about the murder of Hypatia needs to be rethought” (Barnes, “Armenica”, 729).
134
31
emperor so as to convince him to remain firmly in the Alexandrian camp. It was also with this
purpose in mind that in 432 CE Cyril drew up a list of eulogiae, or “benedictions” (a euphemism
for bribes) in the form of money and goods, to be given to influential individuals of the court,
including, among others, the master of the offices, the quaestor, and the chamberlains Chryseros
and Chrysaphius. 138 These eulogiae indicate that Cyril was well aware of the different back
ways of reaching the ear of the emperor.139 He also warned a number of members of the clergy
in Constantinople against Nestorius and pressed the holy man Dalmatius, a favourite of the
emperor, to make an appearance at the palace to make sure that Theodosius did not waver.140
Socrates also describes Cyril’s power as being greater than that of his predecessor and uncle,
Theophilus, who was also known as the ‘Egyptian Pharaoh’ because of the influence he
exerted.141 As will become obvious below, Isidore was all too familiar with Cyril’s tactics. By
138
For a complete list of the eulogiae, see Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. 96, in Letters 51-110 (Eng. trans. McEnerney,
FC 77, pp. 151-153). Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 180-181. Also see Kelly, Ruling, 171-172 and Pierre
Batiffol, “Les présents de saint Cyrille à la cour de Constantinople,” chap. 4 in Études de liturgie et d’archéologie
chrétienne (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1919), 154-179. As Batiffol states, Alexandria suffered financially to satisfy
Cyril’s machinations: “l’église d’Alexandrie, pour distribuer ainsi plus d’un million aux gens de la cour de Théodose
II, avait été bel et bien mise à sec par Cyrille.” Batiffol, “Les présents,” 168. But, “for [Cyril] and his supporters,
depleting the church treasury at Alexandria to provide presents for influential courtiers ensured a just conclusion to a
long and bitter doctrinal dispute.” Kelly, Ruling, 172.
139
Cameron, “The poet and the Empress”, 256. On the eunuchs Chryseros and Chrysaphius, see PLRE 2, Chryseros
1, 297 and Chrysaphius qui et Ztummas, 295-297. On Chrysaphius’ influence on Theodosius II: Ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς
βασιλεὺς Θεοδόσιος ἐφίλει ἔρωτι Χρυσάφιον τὸν κουβκουλάριον, τὸν λεγόμενον Ζτομμᾶν, ὡς πάνυ εὐπρεπῆ ὄντα·
καὶ παρεῖχεν αὐτῷ πολλὰ ὅσα ἂν ᾐτήσατο αὐτόν, καὶ ἐδύνατο παρ᾽ αὐτῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων καὶ κατῆρχε πάντων τῶν
πραγμάτων καὶ ἦγε καὶ ἥρπαζε πάντα.... John Malalas, Chron. 14.19 (eds. Beck, Kambylis, and Keydell, p. 283). It
is telling of the degree of influence of Chrysaphius at court that, as Malalas reports, one of the first acts of
Theodosius’ successor Marcian upon acceding to the throne in 450 CE was to execute the influential eunuch
immediately. On the power of eunuchs at court in general, see Jones, Later Roman Empire, vol.1, 568: “Owing to
the secluded state in which the emperor by tradition lived, his eunuchs, who alone had regular and familiar
intercourse with him and controlled private and informal access to him by outsiders, at all times enjoyed
considerable influence, and in some reigns were all powerful.” As for Chryseros, Cyril admitted that special care
had to be made to persuade him to fall in line with the Alexandrians: “...to the prefect Chryseros, that he would
cease to oppose us, we were forced to dispatch double amounts….” Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. 96 (Eng. trans.
McEnerney, FC 77, p. 151). See also Wickham, Select Letters, 66. n.8: “[Chryseros’] support had to be obtained by
suitably grand largesses which drained the coffers of the Church of Alexandria, as maliciously exposed by
Irenaeus.” Also see ACO 1. 4, p. 222.
140
Festugière, Éphèse et Chalcédoine, 258-261; Brown, Power and Persuasion, 16; Gregory, Vox Populi, 110-111;
Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks, 219-221; Dagron, “Les moines et la ville,” 267.
141
Socrates, HE 7.7 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, p. 156).
32
cultivating friendly but respectful communication with Cyril of Alexandria, Isidore would have a
powerful ally when, as we shall see, he was confronted with local problems in Pelusium.
4.4 The Influence of Isidore at Court:
To understand the degree of influence Isidore wielded over the emperor and members of
the court, we should first establish the position of authority holy men possessed in Late
Antiquity. The holy man, whose asceticism and miracle working were all indications of divine
grace, made him into a reliable and impartial mediator and one who “possessed authority, even
over the emperor, as a man enjoying a unique relationship with God.”142 While the emperor and
the powerful bishops exercised power either for the good of the state or for their own purposes,
monks were in a unique position to influence them, since their word was believed to represent
the word of God and the powerful thus often listened to them. In the fourth century CE, for
instance, emperor Constantine and his sons were said to have sought the opinion of St. Anthony,
the traditional founder of desert monasticism, who advised them to despise material possessions
and to think of their own salvation and for the welfare of the poor.143 Anthony also wrote to
Constantine in support of his friend and bishop Athanasius when the latter fell out of imperial
favour.144 Another Egyptian monk of note was John of Lycopolis, whom Theodosius I relied on
for information on the state of Egypt and, most famously, on the appropriate action to take
against the usurper Maximus when the latter was threatening the Rome in 383 CE.145 The fact
that emperors on occasion consulted monks in far-flung deserts should not be so entirely
surprising given the fact that Roman rulers had long been accustomed to consulting pagan priests
Richard M. Price, “Holy Men’s Letters of Rebuke,” Studia Patristica 16, no. 2 (1985): 52.
Ivan Gobry, Les moines en Occident: De saint Antoine à saint Basile – les origines orientales (Paris: Fayard,
1985), 160.
144
Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 121.
145
Gobry, Les moines en Occident, 192-193.
142
143
33
whenever they faced urgent matters of state, a practice which clearly did not stop with the
coming of Christianity. It was crucial that their actions and decisions be thought/seen to have
divine sanction, since the only superior force above the emperor was the Christian God, and the
officially designated link between the two were the bishops and the holy men.146 One can thus
imagine that for Isidore, as a member of this religious elite of the desert, there was probably
nothing exceptional in the fact that he might write to the emperor, especially to one as involved
in the ecclesiastical affairs of his realm as Theodosius II.147
In consideration of Isidore’s own influence we may begin by examining his connection
with Constantinople. As already stated, Isidore wrote two letters to Theodosius II. 148 Ep. 311 is
crucial since it deals directly with the First Council of Ephesus and the emperor’s involvement in
the deliberations, which will be outlined below in its proper place.
What is even more
noteworthy, however, is that both letters reveal the emperor, as someone who has come of age
and seems increasingly in charge of the affairs of the empire. In Ep. 35, Isidore thus pleads with
the emperor to relieve the economic burden on cities and reminds him that God rewards good
management. Isidore here surely has in mind the heavy taxes imposed on the cities of the East to
rebuild the Roman army after the disaster of Adrianople in 378 CE.149 Although Bagnall has
revealed that the taxation rates of Egypt were relatively low by the time of Diocletian, “its
inflexibility made it burdensome in villages with low productivity” as compared to the larger
centres.150 As the capital of Augustamnica I and located at the crossroads between Egypt and the
East, Pelusium must have benefitted somewhat from its position, but it certainly did not escape
Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 179; Peter Brown, “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late
Antiquity,” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971): 93.
147
Millar, Greek Roman Empire, 230
148
Ep. 35 (= 1.35, PG 78, 204 C) and Ep. 311 (= 1.311, PG 78, 361 D-364 A).
149
Van Minnen, “The Other Cities in Later Roman Egypt” in Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300-700, ed. Roger S.
Bagnall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 221.
150
Roger S. Bagnall, “Agricultural Productivity and Taxation in Later Roman Egypt.” Transaction of the American
Philological Association 115 (1985), 307.
146
34
the effects of economic fluctuations and social disruptions of the fourth and fifth centuries CE.
The letters of Isidore at least testify to this to a certain degree: local officials steal from the
people and the Church, individuals devote themselves to vice and carnal excesses, and Isidore
himself urges his colleagues to flee the cities. In Ep. 35, therefore, Isidore alludes to an unfair
distribution of taxes and urges the emperor to ease the fiscal burden that weighs over the citizens
of the empire.151 During such times of upheavals, local holy men like Isidore held spiritual sway
over their communities by directing collective penance and leading the charge against
misfortune.152 Thus, his contemporary Synesius wrote that in a just system the supplying and
equipping of the army ought not to overburden the citizens that it is there to defend,153 while
Theodoret, during the latter half of the century, regularly contacted influential figures at court to
complain of heavy taxation and the difficulties of repayment due to poor harvests. 154 Again, the
emperor often responded to such individual pleas by bringing forward legislation.
In one
instance in 415 CE Theodosius wrote to the Praetorian Prefect Aurelianus to tell him that
soldiers are not allowed to appropriate for themselves any land not granted by imperial ordinance
and to limit taxes on landowners.155 In composing his Ep. 35, therefore, Isidore had at least
Ep. 35: καὶ δέοντι σκορπισμῷ τὸ βάρος κούφιζε τοῦ πλούτου...
Brown, “Rise and Function,” 90.
153
Synesius of Cyrene to Evoptius, Ep. 95, in Synésos de Cyrène: Correspondance, vol. 3, ed. by Roques, 218. See
also Alan Cameron and Jacqueline Long, Barbarians, 141.
154
On this subject, see series of letters by Theodoret to persons of high ranking at court: Epp. 42-47 (106-124, SC 98
ed. Azéma). See also I. G. Tompkins, “Problems of Dating and Pertinence in Some Letters of Theodoret of
Cyrrhus,” Byzantion 65, no. 1 (1995): 176-182. A number of the letters also make references to “an anonymous
party in the capital, whom Theodoret describes as ‘our bishop’ and as a ‘slanderer’ (συκοφάντης). Theodoret
complains bitterly that this excommunicated bishop was obstructing his efforts at having the reduction of the iugatio
for Cyrrhus confirmed.” Bevan, “Episcopal Elections,” 69. The identity of the individual Theodoret complains
about has subsequently been identified as Athnasius of Perrha, who as already mentioned above (note 116) was
deposed from he episcopate in 445 CE. As Tompkins notes, “there were no other bishops in the patriarchate of
Antioch known to have been deposed at a local council in this period. Therefore, it is almost certain that Athanasius
is the figure to whose conduct Theodoret is repeatedly alluding in these letters.” Tompkins, “Problems,” 191. For
an example of such a letter in which Theodoret references Athanasius, see note 117.
155
Millar, Greek Roman Empire, 47.
151
152
35
some reason to hope that he stood a chance that the emperor would listen and, perhaps, act
accordingly.
4.5 Cyrenius and Gigantius:
Besides showing the relative degree of influence which Isidore exercised on the emperor
as a holy man, one can also discern throughout some of Isadora’s correspondence a social
malaise that pervaded Pelusium. This general social malaise is due to many factors, says Isidore,
but it is those at the top who are to blame. Chief among these in Pelusium are Cyrenius, the
corrupt governor (corrector) of Augustamnica, and the overly ambitious Gigantius. Both cases
occur around the year 431/432 CE, which is indicated by the fact that Isidore complains about
them to Rufinus, the Praetorian Prefect of the East at the time.156 Just as revealing, however, is
what Isidore’s letters say about these two officials in terms of the extent of his connections in
those years. But before establishing this circle of acquaintances it is important first to understand
what drove Isidore to write to them. One of Cyrenius’ first acts upon being made governor,
according to Isidore, was to put up a declaration on the front of the church of Pelusium that
effectively removed the right of the citizens to defend themselves or from seeking asylum in
their church.157 In Ep. 176, Isidore tells the citizens of Pelusium that their governor is putting up
the courts for sale by peddling judgements to the highest bidder and urges them to avoid
embroiling themselves in litigations. 158 In fact, he suggests that it was better for smalllandholders to walk away from litigation than to pay the high fees to settle a dispute in the
156
PLRE 2, 953: Rufinus 8.
Ep. 174 (= 1.174, PG 78, 296 C-297 A).
158
Ep. 176 (= 1.176, PG 78, 297 B)
157
36
courts. 159 In the letter to Rufinus alone (Ep. 178), Isidore complains of the fact that Cyrenius
has reduced the citizens of Pelusium to such a state of misery that the rule of law is ignored and
no one dares to resist.160
In the case of Gigantius, Isidore claims to have faced a man whose ruthless ambition
could only be surpassed by his crimes.161 In a series of pointed letters, Isidore sent word to
officials in Constantinople of the threat that Gigantius represented. He accuses him of slander,
of stealing from the citizens, of appropriating money originally sent out for the poor, of lying to
the courts, and of attacking the Church. Gigantius’ excesses have even driven some citizens out
of the city to find work in other parts.162 Isidore warns a certain Seleucus, who was presumably
a person of influence in Constantinople and perhaps even the famous Fl. Taurus Seleucus Cyrus
mentioned above, that Gigantius is at court (ἐπὶ στρατοπέδου) and claims once again the
governorship for himself (πάλιν ἑαυτῷ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκδικεῖ), which suggests that he either once
held this position in Pelusium or that he claimed it before. 163 Thus, with Pelusium facing a
situation in which the citizens suffered under the weight of over-taxation, the city was at war
with one governor, and there was a possibility of an even worse one on the way, the future
looked bleak.
Isidore could hopefully look towards his highly-placed connections in
Constantinople for help.
The administration of the later Empire issued an ordo salutationis “which listed, in often complex and knowingly
opaque legalistic detail, fixed prices for specified bureaucratic actions.” Kelly, Ruling, 138. As Kelly also
underlines, such administrative barriers discouraged many small-landholders from seeking justice, notwithstanding
all their other financial obligations, such as taxes and poor harvests. Kelly, Ruling, 140.
160
Ep. 178 (= 1.178, PG 78, 297 D-300 A).
161
All that is known about Gigantius comes from the letters of Isidore. Apart from being an a corrupted and
ambitious governor of Augustamnica, we also learn from Isidore that Gigantius was a native of Cappadocia. See
also PLRE 2, 512: Gigantius.
162
Ep. 487 (= 1.487, PG 78, 448 B-C).
163
Ep. 484 (= 1.484, PG 78, 445 C).
159
37
4.6 Appeals to Praetorian Prefects of the East:
But who are these court officials to whom Isidore writes to campaign against Gigantius?
Rufinus, the Praetorian Prefect already mentioned, allows us to date the governorship of
Cyrenius and the machinations of Gigantius. The two letters addressed specifically to him,164
one of which is addressed specifically to him under the title of Praetorian Prefect, portray a
highly placed individual who managed the affairs of the East and had the ear of the emperor.165
The chronicler John Malalas states that Theodosius II made a relative of his named Rufinus PPO
to replace Antiochus Chuzon the Younger, “the grandson of the elder Antiochus Chuzo,” and
adds that this Rufinus was put to death for plotting a rebellion.166 Martindale observes that John
Malalas has confused the Rufinus of Theodosius II, who actually succeeded Antiochus the Elder,
with the Rufinus who served under Theodosius I, thus confirming that there was indeed a PPO
named Rufinus in 431/432 CE.167 As to Isidore’s relationship with him, the monk seems quite
respectful as he urges the Prefect to save the Pelusians from the clutches of Cyrenius (Ep. 178).
In Ep. 489, Isidore tells Rufinus that, since he is a close advisor to the emperor, he can have the
law changed so as to prevent Cappadocians from governing the Province and let Egyptians take
their place. 168
Although Isidore does not name Gigantius specifically, the reference to
164
Ep. 178 and Ep. 489 (= 1.489, PG 78, 448 D).
Ep. 489:...ὑμεῖς δὲ τὴν βασιλέως γνώμην πρὸς ὃ βούλεσθε ἔχετε,... As Dagron notes, “surtout, à l’intérieur de la
pars orientalis, on note bien des inégalités dans les divisions administratives. Il n’y a aucune commune mesure
entre la petite préfecture d’Illyricum, résultat d’un partage politique, et la préfecture d’Orient qui est le corps même
de l’Empire. …[Constantinople] appartient administrativement à la préfecture du prétoire d’Orient, mais le préfet,
jusqu’à Théodose I, réside souvent à Antioche; lorsqu’il s’installe à Constantinople, il perd son caractère de préfet
régional et devient, malgré son titre inchangé, un véritable premier ministre ayant compétence sur l’Empire entier.”
Gilbert Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris: Presses
universitaires de France, 1974), 75.
166
Καὶ προηγάγετο ἔπαρχον Ἀτίοχον τὸν Χούζωντα, τὸν ἔγγονον Ἀντόχου τοῦ Χούζωνος τοῦ μεγάλου, ὃς παρέσχεν
ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τῇ μεγάλῃ προσθήκην χρημάτων εἰς τὸ ἱππικὸν καὶ τὰ Ὀλύμπια καὶ τὸν Μαϊουμᾶν. Καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν
προήχθη ἔπαρχος Ῥουφῖνος ὁ συγγενὴς τοῦ αὐτοῦ βασιλέως· καὶ ἐφονεύθη ὡς μελετήσας τυραννίδα. John Malalas,
Chron.14.17-18 (eds. Beck, Kambylis, and Keydell, pp. 282-283).
167
PLRE 2: Rufinus 8, 953.
168
Évieux remarks that due to the excesses of Gigantius, Isidore grouped all Cappadocians together as being part of
an offensive and corrupt race. Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 49.
165
38
Augustamnica having had to suffer once before under a corrupt Cappadocian governor seems to
confirm Gigantius’ first term in that office.
Isidore continues his crusade against Gigantius in letters to two other very important
officials who both served as the highest official during the crucial decade of 428-438 CE, at the
height of Isidore’s influence. The first is Fl. Florentius, and although again there is no official
title that accompanies this letter, its content and Isidore’s somewhat respectful tone leave no
doubt as to the addressee’s identity. 169 According to the laws emitted under his name, Fl.
Florentius was City Prefect in 422 CE, twice Praetorian Prefect of the East in 428-429 CE and
438-439 CE, and consul in 429 CE.170 Isidore warns him that Gigantius is again at court seeking
power for himself. Although so far he has escaped retribution, the monk urges Florentius that it
is now time for Gigantius to be chastised, especially while he is over there at court, which Isidore
claims is overflowing with many such filthy individuals. Indeed, Isidore goes so far as to state
that there have been too many Cappadocians like Gigantius allowed remain in the administration
of the state.
The other official in Constantinople Isidore knows at this time is possibly his namesake
Fl. Anthemius Isidorus, who became Praetorian Prefect of Illyricum in 424 CE, and later became
Praetorian Prefect in the East in 435-436 CE and finally consul in 436 CE.171 In Ep. 485, Isidore
writes to an Isidorus about the corruption of Cappadocians, again in reference to Gigantius.172
Although, as with Florentius, no official title for this Isidorus has been preserved with the letter,
the language yet again suggests someone who wielded considerable authority. On the other
hand, Ep. 299, in which Isidore asks for help on behalf of the trader Bonus who lost his grain at
169
Ep. 486 (= 1.486, PG 78, 448 A).
Martindale, ed. PLRE 2, 478-479: Fl. Florentius 7. See also CLRE, 392-393.
171
For details on his career, see PLRE 2: 631-632: Fl. Anthemius Isidorus 9.
172
Ep. 485 (= 1.485, PG 78, 445, D).
170
39
sea, is addressed to a certain Isidorus ἔπαρχῳ, which would confirm this Isidorus as being a
prefect.173 We may tentatively conclude therefore that Isidorus was probably not Prefect of East
when Isidore wrote to him about the Cappadocians, which fits the timeline of 431-432 CE, but
that he was either a prefect or consul, probably in 436 CE, when the monk wrote to him about
the trader Bonus. Interestingly enough, according to an inscription from Ephesus, Fl. Anthemius
Isidorus was a native of Alexandria.174
One might thus speculate here concerning a possible connection between Isidore of
Pelusium and Fl. Anthemius Isidorus, one which could have been fermented while the future
Prefect was in Egypt. If one analyzes the language, however, Isidore keeps a respectful tone,
which at first would not seem to signify a close relationship nurtured over many years.175 But
neither does this necessarily preclude the possibility that the two knew each other in some
previous capacity, since Isidore’s tone could just as easily be a reflection of the formal way of
addressing an official in another part of the empire.176 For instance, although there is evidence
that Theodoret had a relationship with the bishop Proclus over a period of twelve years, his tone
always remained distantly affectionate and functional, but when writing to local colleagues, it
173
Ep. 299 (= 1.299, PG 78, 356, D). Isidorus was PPO in 435-436 CE. PLRE 2, 631. He was also consul in 436
CE together with FL. Senator (PLRE 2, 631-633). CLRE, 406-407.
174
PLRE 2, 632. The inscription is as follows: ὂρχαμον Ἰσιόδωρον ὁρᾷς Φαρίης ἀπὸ γαίης καὶ Νείλου γονόεντος,
ὃς ἀνθυπάτων καὶ ὑπάρχωνθῶκον ἑλὼν κόσμησεν ἀγακλέα, καὶ πολιήταις ἤνυσε καρποτόκου Δημήτερος ὄμπνιον
ὄλβον.
175
For example, consider the end of Ep. 299 (= 1.299, PG 78, 357 A): Ἢ τοίνυν τῷ σάλῳ τῆς θαλάσσης
ἐπιτιμήσατε, δικαιοσύνῃ κυβερνῶντες τὰ πράγματα· ἢ ἄχρις ἂν ἁμαρτάνωμεν, τοῖς περιπτώμασι συγγινώσκετε.
176
Bishops and clerics addressed officials in different ways according to their rank in the administration. Schor,
Theodoret’s People, 144-145. So, in a letter to Florentius, who was prefect in 428-429 CE (PLRE 2: Florentius 7,
478) and consul in 429 CE (CLRE, 393), Theodoret makes use of all the linguistic trappings of someone addressing
an official of important standing: ...καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν εὐτέλειαν μετρεῖν ἐπιστάμενος καὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἐξουσίας τὸν
ὄγκον εἰδώς...πίστει κοσμούμενοι καὶ τὰ θεῖα πεπαιδευμένοι...τὸ ὑμέτερον μέγεθος.... Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ep. 5,
(ed. Azéma, SC 40, pp. 77-78). With officials who ranked lower than praetorian prefects, such as governors,
however, Theodoret used a tone of mild superiority. For example, in a letter to the governor of Euphratensis, Neon
(PLRE 2: Neon 1, 776), Theodoret admonishes him against the dangers that come with power and reminds him of
his responsibilites, while approving of his governorship in general. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ep. 37, (ed. Azéma, SC
40, pp. 101-102).
40
became more friendly.177 The problem is that we do not possess any other letter from Isidore to
Isidorus to make a valid comparison, so that the only certain conclusion is that at the time of
Gigantius’ actions in Pelusium, Isidorus was not in office as Praetorian Prefect of the East, but in
some other powerful office.
Florentius and Isidorus were thus key figures of the court who not only pursued
distinguished careers before serving as Praetorian Prefect, but were probably also well versed in
the intricacies of imperial court politics.
Isidore manifestly knew whom to contact when
attempting to convince the emperor to act. Indeed, it seems that he even had access to at least
two imperial chamberlains. While it is true, as we have seen, that the emperor did involve
himself as best he could in the affairs of the empire as he came of age, he was not always
successful at this, surrounded as he was by palace courtiers and ambitious officials. And if
Isidore felt certain enough, as a holy man of standing, that his plea on the part his community
might have a chance to reach the emperor, he was also under no illusions that the court was a
paradise devoid of any corruption. After all, Gigantius must have felt justified in his hopes of
obtaining success in Constantinople, or he would not have been there in the first place.
Indeed, two letters from Isidore to palace eunuchs have survived, both addressed
εὐνούχῳ (τοῦ) παλατίου. The first to be listed in Migne is Ep. 27, which is addressed to the
eunuch Pharismanius and consists of a general criticism of this courtier’s greediness and love of
pleasure.178 The letter does not reveal much else about Pharismanius and happens to be the only
proof of his existence. 179 We are however more fortunate in the case of Ep. 36, which is
addressed to a certain Antiochus.180 Originally from Persia, he arrived in Constantinople in 404
Schor, Theodoret’s People, 28-29.
Ep. 27 (= 1.27, PG 78, 200 B).
179
PLRE 2, 872: Pharismanius 1.
180
Ep. 36 (= 1.36, PG 78, 204-205 D-A).
177
178
41
CE and took care of the early education of the emperor and his sisters.181 He was said to have
controlled Theodosius from the beginning and continued to do so until the emperor dismissed
him, confiscated his property, and demoted all holders of the post of praepositus.182 In a letter
written to his brother in 404/405 CE, Synesius of Cyrene lists the names of the different
individuals who had “the ear of the emperor” and admitted to him that the power of Antiochus
was such that the eunuch could do whatever he wished.183 Similarly, Isidore tells Antiochus that
although he is a servant of the imperial power and has the ability to orient that power however he
likes, he should seek to give force to justice if he is so interested in the holy Scriptures, however
blinded by visions of grandeur he may be.184 Clearly Isidore was just as aware of the instances
of intrigue and corruption going on in Constantinople as he was of those in Pelusium. He reveals
as much to the tribune Serenus in Ep. 462, in which he councils the tribune who is about to leave
on a journey to Constantinople. 185 If Serenus prays to God, Isidore tells him, he should be able
to reach the emperor he longs after, whom the hermaphrodite seeks liberally for himself. 186
Thus, Isidore’s influence and experience seemed to have gone beyond the sphere of public
officials and reached the inner sanctum of the emperor’s court.
181
PLRE 2, 101-102: Antiochus 5. Curiously enough, despite being an individual of high rank in charge of the
imperial children, there is no mention of Antiochus in any of the surviving histories, outside of the chronicles and
contemporary letters. Yet, as Greatrex and Bardill suggest, “an influential Persian eunuch at the court of
Constantinopolitan court…[was] scarcely suitable material [for the Church historians].” Geoffrey Greatrex and
Jonathan Bardill, “Antiochus the ‘Praepositus’: A Pesian Eunuch at the Theodosisus II” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 50
(1996), 178.
182
Ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς Θεοδόσιος βασιλεὺς ἐποίησεν κακῶς Ἀντιόχῳ τῷ πραιποςίτῳ καὶ πατρικίῳ δυναμένῳ ἐν τῷ παλατίῳ
καὶ κρατήσαντι τῶν πραγμάτων...καὶ ἔμεινεν μετὰ τὸ πληρῶσαι αὐτὸν ὡς πατρίκιος καταυθεντῶν τοῦ αὐτοῦ
Θεοδοςίου. John Malalas, Chron., 14.14. (eds. Beck, Kambylis, and Keydell, p. 281); Millar, Greek Roman Empire,
194.
183
Αὐτῷ τε γὰρ ἀνεῖται τὰ βασιλέως ὦτα καὶ πρὸ τούτων ἡ γνώμη χρῆσθαι πρὸς ὅ τι δέοιτο. Καὶ ὅσα Ἀντίοχος
δύναται, τούτῳ δύναται· δύναται δὲ Ἀντίοχος ὅσα βούλεται. Synesius of Cyrene, Ep. 110, in Synésios de Cyrène:
Correspondance, vol. 3, ed. by Roques, 245. For the dating of this letter, see Greatrex and Bardill, “Antiochus the
‘Praepositus’”, 174-176. See also Roques, Étude, 166-167 and Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 81.
184
Ep. 36.
185
PLRE 2, 993: Serenus 3. Ep. 462 (= 1.462, PG 78, 436 D).
186
Ep. 462 (= 1.462, PG 78, 436 D): …χρῄζεις τῆς ὀρέξεως Καίσαρος, ἣν αὐτῷ μαστεύει δαψιλῶς ὁ Ἀνδρόγυνος.
42
Isidore also writes to an official in Egypt whose position of influence would also have
represented an asset for the monk. Isidore addresses three letters to a Theodorus.187 Two of
them include the title αὐγούσταλιος, which as we have seen is the designation for provincial
governor for the territory west of Augustamnica.188 Even without the titles to help us identify
him, however, Theodorus’ position as governor would still have been discernable from the
contents of the letters alone, which pertain to the theme of good governorship. Although Isidore
does not mention any specific names to help us pinpoint a date for the letters, he does allude to
the problems faced by the Pelusians and the empire as a whole, such as the tyranny of certain
officials, the buying and selling of offices, and foreign wars. Martindale lists a Theodorus who
was praefectus Augustalis during the time when the Neo-Platonist philosopher Proclus studied
with Leonas the sophist in Alexandria.189 The reference is taken from Marinus of Samaria, who
writes that Proclus travelled with Leonas to Constantinople “as a favour to Theodorus, the
Alexandrian governor, a man of great distinction, liberality and friendliness to philosophy.”190
Marinus also includes Proclus’ horoscope at the end of his Vita Procli, which was dated by
Delmaire to 412 CE. Assuming Proclus was eighteen at the time of his journey to
Constantinople, his governor friend Theodorus would thus have had to have been in office in 430
CE.191
In this sense, Ep. 1728 is perhaps even more suggestive. Isidore argues that a good
leader is not someone who would exploit different factions or buy off votes with bribes, nor one
who would be celebrated for the effectiveness of his speech alone. Although at face value the
187
Ep. 850 (= 3.50, PG 78, 764 D-A); Ep. 1728 (= 5.372, PG 78, 1549 C); Ep. 1859 (= 5.462, PG 78, 1596 B).
Jones, Later Roman Empire, 381.
189
PLRE 2, 1088: Theodorus 15.
190
Marinus, Vita Procli 9, ed. by David R. Fideler and trans. by Kenneth S. Guthrie (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes
Press, 1986), 22.
191
Roland Delmaire, “Notes prosopographiques sur quelques lettres d’Isidore de Péluse,” Revue des Études
Augustiniennes, 34 (1988): 233; Marinus, Vita Procli 35, ed. by J. Boissonade (1814. Reprint, Amsterdam: Adolf M.
Hakkert, 1966), 28.
188
43
letter appears to concern corrupt secular officials of the likes of Cyrenius and Gigantius, it would
be tempting to view it as a reflection of Isidore’s criticism of Cyril of Alexandria and his
machinations for securing the deposition of Nestorius at Ephesus in 431 CE. As will be shown,
Isidore did not shy away from making known to Cyril himself how he viewed the bishop’s style
of politics. If the letter does indeed hold elements of Isidore’s disappointment with the actions of
Cyril, one could tentatively date it to immediately after the Council of Ephesus, once the full
extent of Cyril’s desire to depose Nestorius became known among his allies back in Egypt. The
letters to Theodorus also possibly indicate an aspect of the relationship between Isidore and
Alexandria itself. The tone of the letters is similar to that found in those to Harpocras and others,
in which Isidore seems to be explaining a matter to friends who value his experience and
knowledge. If Isidore’s Theodorus is the same as the one described by Marinus, it would
indicate that the monk remained in close contact with an official in Alexandria, who had the
potential to rise in the ranks and eventually reach Constantinople. Finally, the later career of the
prefect Isidorus tells us something of the degree of influence that Isidore may have been able to
exert on such officials in Egypt who were rising in the ranks.
V. Ecclesiastical Connections:
5.1 Social Role of Clerics:
Among Isidore’s ecclesiastical correspondents, we have already established that there are
good grounds to believe that the Synesius to whom Isidore wrote is indeed Synesius of Cyrene,
the famous philosopher and bishop of Pentapolis.192 It seems fitting therefore that Isidore’s sole
letter to Synesius should also be one of his most expansive, since it presents two very important
The letter must therefore date to the period before 413/414 CE, the approximate date of Synesius’ death. Denis
Roques, introduction to Synésios de Cyrène: Correspondance, vol. 2, ix. See also pp. 13-15 above.
192
44
aspects of the ecclesiastical world of the fifth century. 193 The first concerns what Isidore
believes is the duty of an ecclesiastic in that world, stressing that a true servant of God should
have confidence that he will be able to ward off his enemies and that he ought to avoid
indifference when faced with adversity. 194 Thus, a priest or a bishop ought to protect his
community as best he can from both internal and external hostile forces and he will be guided in
this by his confidence in God. As we have seen, Isidore’s actions in Pelusium seemed to reflect
this philosophy. It was the duty of the ecclesiastic not just to teach the Word of God, but also to
put it into action on behalf of his community and the destitute. Similarly, rather than underlining
the bishop’s role as the official representative of a particular see, Synesius believed that he had a
primarily social responsibility: the citizens chose Synesius to plead with the emperor for tax
relief and protection from the corrupt governor Andronicus, much as they would have done with
a local politician in earlier times.195 Also reminiscent of a secular role, bishops would travel to
the capital on behalf of the poor, much like the traditional embassies sent from cities to the
emperors. 196 Isidore therefore would probably have agreed with Synesius’ concept of the
“philosophical ecclesiastic,” who looks beyond mere temporal affairs and focuses instead on
ideal forms of good in order to bridge the gap between the human and the divine.197
The other aspect of the ecclesiastical world reflected in Ep. 232 is Isidore’s observation
that this important social role of the ecclesiastic was being threatened.198 From what he says it
appears that he had noticed a lack of discipline among religious officials: priests had become
Ep. 232 (= 1.232, PG 78, 325 C): Καλὸν μὲν τὸ πρὸ κινδύνων ἐζῶσθαι τὴν ὀσφὺν, καὶ Θεῷ διακονεῖσθαι, καὶ
βάλλειν τὰς ἐναντίας φάλαγγας πίστει, ἀλλὰ μὴ ῥᾳθυμοῦντας καὶ πολεμίοις ἐκκεῖσθαι...
194
Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 78. Évieux also thinks that the opening sentence of Ep. 232 hints at the violent
struggle Synesius led in Cyrene against the neighbouring barbarian tribes.
195
Bregman, Synesius, 42 and 77.
196
Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 71.
197
Bregman, Synesius, 136-137.
198
Ep. 232: …ἐπειδὴ εἰς τοῦτο προήλθομεν ἀβουλίας, ὥστε μηδὲ καιρὸν ἒχειν Θεῷ ἱερατεύειν, τῶν κυκλούντων
κακῶν οὐ διδόν τῶν ἅψασθαι τῶν ἀμυντηρίων ὀργάνων· ἐπεὶ καὶ Φινεὲς σειρομάστῃ ἐχρήσατο, ὅτε Θεὸς
παρωργίζετο.
193
45
‘careless’, so that as agents of God they could not properly defend the people from ‘hostile
forces.’ Isidore of course was not the first to observe this, since Origen already in the third
century complained about bishops in large cities who regarded asceticism with wariness and who
were constantly surrounding themselves with wealthy and refined ladies.199 Indeed, just as in the
imperial bureaucracy, payments of money and the sale of offices had become a common
occurrence within the ecclesiastic community in the fifth and sixth centuries.200
5.2 Cyril of Alexandria:
If one reads Isidore’s letters to Cyril of Alexandria, one gets the impression that he
thought the bishop’s actions reflected the troubling state of the Church and merited the same
criticism as he outlines in Ep. 232 to Synesius cited above. Isidore wrote eleven letters in all to
Cyril, eight addressed to him with the title of bishop of Alexandria and three without the title.201
Nothing in the contents of Epp. 25, 393, and 497 helps us to distinguish whether Isidore is
writing to Cyril the bishop or any other Cyril. Of the letters addressed to Cyril as bishop, Epp.
1106 and 1582 concern the relationship of power between the empire and the Church. Isidore
tells Cyril that in the past the Church was strong enough to criticize the wrongs committed by the
empire, but that now the Church has lost much of its former strength and does the empire’s
bidding. None of these letters really indicate the date of their composition, since this change in
199
Origen, Contra Celsum 3.9, ed. and trans. by Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980),
129. See also Henry Chadwick, “Bishops and Monks,” Studia Patristica 24 (1993): 47. Upon being made bishop
of Constantinople in 397 CE John Chrysostom himself began a sweeping series of measures against corrupt clergy,
and “he also ejected some of the clergy from the Church. He was naturally disposed to reprehend the misconduct of
others, and to antagonize righteously those who acted unjustly.” Sozomen, HE 8.3 (Eng. trans. by Chester D.
Hartranft, NPNF, p. 400). Chrysostom, like Isidore, also disapproved of monks who moved to urban centres and
mingled with the crowd, since the bad air was said to pose a danger to their life of simplicity and labour. John
Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio, (PG 48, cols. 682-85). See also Gregory, Vox Populi, 45-46
200
Huebner, “Currencies of Power,” 170.
201
With the title: Epp. 310 (= 1.310, PG 78, 361 C); 323 (= 1.323, PG 78, 369 B); 324 (= 1.324, PG 78, 369 C); 370
(= 1.370, PG 78, 392 C); 627 (= 1.127, PG 78, 565 A-572 C); 1106 (= 3.306, PG 78, 976 B); 1328(= 5.79, PG 78,
1373 B); 1582 (= 5.268, PG 78, 1493 A) without the title: Epp. 25 (= 1.25, PG 78, 197 B-C); 393 (= 1.393, PG 78,
404 B); 497 (= 1.497, PG 78, 452 D-453 A).
46
the balance of power between empire and Church could refer to any number of events in the fifth
century CE. Ep. 1328 concerns corrupt priests and their oikonomoi [stewards] in Pelusium, who,
Isidore suggests, have a tendency to fall victim to cupidity.202 The oikonomoi took care of the
finances of the local ecclesiastic community, sometimes assisting the community as a whole or
just one individual cleric.203 Although again this letter could refer to any event that might have
occurred in and around Pelusium, it may be possible to suggest a plausible identification for one
particular oikonomos. In Ep. 127, Isidore complains to Cyril about a troublesome oikonomos,
whom he names Martinianus.204 In other letters, Isidore writes to this Martinianus to criticize
him directly for his insolent behaviour and his general arrogance, which, he says, has no place in
the life of a man of God.205 It is possible that Ep. 1328 belongs to this same group of letters in
which Isidore complains of Martinianus’ actions in Pelusium. Significantly, Isidore feels that he
can broach this subject with Cyril and expect results, like Athanasius of Perrha did when he
faced the rebellion of priests in his see (pp. 24-25 above). Ep. 1328 and Ep. 127 would thus
suggest the possibility that Cyril was an essential member of Isidore’s social network in Egypt.
Whether, on the other hand, Cyril considered himself part of a network with Isidore
remains unclear, since we do not possess any replies from Cyril to Isidore. We do, however,
get some sense of the intensity of their relationship from the viewpoint of Isidore, and it is
possible to construct a time frame from those letters which are addressed to Cyril as bishop of
Alexandria.206 The tone of the language of the letters seems to suggest some deep familiarity
Ep. 1328 (= 5.79, PG 78, 1373 B): …οὔτε ἡ ἀπληστία τῶν οἰκονομούτων τὴν Πηλουσιωτῶν Ἐκκλησίαν κόρον
οἶδεν.
203
Antoine Guillaumont, “Histoire des moines aux Kellia” in Aux origines du monachisme chrétien: Pour une
phénoménologie du monachisme (Bégrolles en Mauges: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1979), 161. According to
Guillaumont, some of the responsibilities and duties of the oikonomoi included intervening when money was left by
a stranger, the selling of baskets woven by the community. 161.
204
Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 217-218
205
Epp. 460 (= 1.460, PG 78, 436 B) and 1122 (= 3.322, PG 78, 984 C).
206
Epp. 310, 323, 324, 370.
202
47
between Isidore and Cyril: as with the letters to Harpocras and Synesius, Isidore is quite blunt
and presents a no-nonsense attitude with Cyril. Let us first consider Ep. 370. Isidore mentions
that Cyril sometimes refers to him as “father.” Ought we to conclude then that Cyril had been a
student of Isidore’s at some point early in his career? The tone of the letter certainly sounds
like that of a mentor or teacher reprimanding a former student. 207 For example, Isidore
commands Cyril to stop his quarrels with others, since he risks endangering the Church, and to
create in it instead an atmosphere of “perpetual discord.” Interestingly enough, in another letter
addressed to Cyril, this time without a title, Isidore chastises him for taking an interest in
worldly affairs rather than meditating in solitude.208 Although this letter could have been meant
for any other Cyril, the contents seem to match Cyril of Alexandria’s actions in his see and his
quest to depose Nestorius. The letter also seems to suggest that Cyril lost his ascetic ways
when he became bishop. One could postulate from this a scenario in which a young Cyril is
trained as a monk in the eastern deserts while staying with Isidore, although Cyril never
mentions such a time in his correspondence to other monks. 209 More realistically, the
designation of Isidore as ‘father’ by Cyril could just as well represent a mark of respect from
one spiritual father to another, who would have deserved the appellation because of his
reputation of virtuous asceticism.210 Regardless of the exact nature of their relationship, it is
207
McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 3.
Ep. 25: given the general vagueness of the contents of this letter and its focus on Cyril’s interest in world affairs,
its date could range at any time between the beginning of Cyril’s episcopate in 412 CE, when Socrates tells us that
Cyril began to assume “the administration of secular matters,” and the establishment of the Formula of Reunion in
433 CE, which as will be shown is the latest we can confidently date Isidore’s letters to Cyril. Socrates, HE 7.7
(Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, p. 156).
209
McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 3.
210
Theodoret considered Acacius, bishop of Beroea, for whom he had great affection, a “spiritual father” whom he
shared with others who had been touched by him. See Schor, Theodoret’s People, 19. Thus, in a letter to the priests
of Beroea, Theodoret writes: Πολλὰς δὲ ἔχω τῆς περὶ ὑμῶν ἀγάπης τὰς ἀφορμάς. Πρῶτον μὲν, τὸ τὸν ὑμέτερον
πατέρα, τὸν μέγαν ἐκεῖνον καὶ ἀποστολικὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ ἐμὸν γεγενῆσθαι πατέρα. Theodoret of Chyrrus, Ep. 75 (ed.
Azéma, SC 98, p. 161). On Isidore’s piety and knowledge of Scripture note also Severus of Antioch: …adversus
Isidorum sapientem in Domino presbyterum Pelusii…presbyter orthodoxus illius civitatis, plenusque erat divina
sapientia et scientia inspiratae Scripturae, cuius explanationes recte faciebat. Severus of Antioch, Lib. Cont. Imp.
208
48
revealing that here, in these two letters, Isidore tries to make Cyril understand that the power of
his see is corrupting him and that his selfishness will create ‘perpetual’ problems for himself
and the Church.
Given the particularly confrontational nature of Cyril’s episcopate, the contents of Ep.
370 do not provide us with a reliable idea of the date of its composition. As already mentioned,
Isidore does allude to Cyril’s quarrels and talks of avenging a personal insolence, but these
allusions could serve as references to any period of Cyril’s time as bishop, such as his clashes
with Orestes, the Jews, the Novatians, or even the Antiochenes during the Nestorian
controversy. 211 However Epp. 310, 323, and 324 can all be reasonably dated to the crucial
period of 431-433 CE at the early stages of Cyril’s quarrel with Nestorius and the Antiochenes.
The easiest to date is Ep. 310, since, like Ep. 311 to Theodosius, it explicitly mentions the
council of Ephesus of 431 CE. In both Epp. 310 and 324, Isidore reproves Cyril, while Ep. 323,
much like Ep. 419 to bishop Hermogenes, is a declaration of Isidore’s theological view within
the context of the Christological debate. We ought first to analyze Isidore’s criticisms of Cyril
and understand how the bishop’s actions represent for Isidore a symptom of the malaise that
affected the Church at this time. In Ep. 310, Isidore advises Cyril not to seek vengeance on his
enemies, but rather to judge them in a fair manner.212 He also tells the bishop that those who
Gramm. 247, 3-8 (ed. Lebon, CSCO 102, p. 182,). Also Evagrius Scholasticus on Isidore’s ascetism: “…this man so
wasted the flesh by toils and so enriched the soul with elevating words that on earth he pursued and angelic life and
throughout was a living monument of solitary life and contemplation of God.” Evagrius Scholasticus, HE 1.25.15
(Eng. trans. Whitby, TTH 33, p. 41).
211
For the struggle between Cyril and the Novatians and Jews, see Socrates, HE 7.7 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, p.
156) and 7.13-16 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, pp. 159-161).
212
The contents of Ep. 310 would thus date to the period of the First Council of Ephesus of June 431 CE, either just
prior to or during the deliberations, since the perfect tense of the verb in the sentence τῶν συνειλεγμένων εἰς
Ἔφεσον suggests the translation “of those who have been gathered together in Ephesus,” i.e. those who have been
assembled and are presently still in a state of having been assembled. Évieux narrows it down even further: “la
lettre 310 correspond au début du concil d’Éphèse, en 431….[Isidore] engage Cyrille d’une part à soumettre les
causes et les personnes à jugement impartial, sans violence, d’autre part, à éviter de vider se querelles
personnelles.… Nous sommes donc là peu avant l’ouverture du concile, c’est-à-dire au mois d’avril ou de mai 431.”
Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 82-83. It must be stated however that it is next to impossible to know exactly when in
49
have been assembled at the council ridiculed Cyril behind his back because he chose to quarrel
with Nestorius about theological details for reasons of glory, while neglecting the message of
Christ. The fact that Isidore allowed himself to be somewhat critical of Cyril tells us something
about the nature of their relationship and emphasises Isidore’s role outlined above as the virtuous
monk standing on behalf not just of his community but of the Church in general as well. Cyril’s
standing as the powerful bishop of Alexandria thus in no way intimidated Isidore, since he let the
bishop know of what he saw as the former’s petty and vengeful ways.
5.3 John Chrysostom:
Isidore reserves one of his severest criticisms of Cyril for the end of Ep. 310, where he
compares the bishop to his uncle and episcopal predecessor Theophilus, whose quarrel with John
Chrysostom upon the latter’s ordination in 397 CE needlessly brought the deposition and exile of
the much beloved bishop six years later.213 Isidore underlines in his letter the fact that, in his
actions, Cyril was starting to resemble his uncle Theophilus, whose ruthless ways perfectly
encompassed for Isidore what was problematic in the Church of his day. It would thus be timely
here to outline the events surrounding the affair of the Tall Brothers and the Synod of the Oak.
When Nectarious, bishop of Constantinople, died in 397 CE, a hotly contested election for his
replacement ensued, in which different sides and cities put forward a host of candidates. 214
Among them was John of Antioch, later known under the nickname Chrysostom (‘golden
mouth’). Theophilus, who opposed John’s candidacy, proceeded to enter his own candidate into
the race, an Alexandrian priest under his control called Isidorus, but the powerful eunuch in the
conjunction with the council this letter was sent, and how Évieux arrives at his almost precise date is difficult to
determine from the context of the letter.
213
Timothy D. Barnes and George Bevan, introduction to The Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom (TTH 60), 3.
See appendix for a translation of Isidore’s comparison of Cyril to Theophilus.
214
Gregory, Vox Populi, 44; Barnes and Bevan, introduction to the Funerary Speech, 2-3.
50
imperial court, Eutropius, convinced the emperor Arcadius to choose the popular bishop of
Antioch instead. 215 Partly as a result of his elevation to the episcopacy and the immediate
reforms he undertook within the Church, therefore, John soon attracted to himself the enmity of
Theophilus and other members of the clergy, who wasted no time to begin to plot against him.216
In 400 CE, the brothers Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius, collectively
called the Tall Brothers, had been priests working in the service of Theophilus.217 According to
Socrates, the Tall Brothers fell out of favour with Theophilus because they had decided to leave
his service and move to the desert since they were disgusted with his supposed devotion to greed
and the acquisition of wealth.218 Another factor that influenced Theophilus was that the Tall
Brothers had given shelter to the presbyter Isidore, who had previously been expelled from the
Church by the bishop on a question of money that Theophilus thought should have gone to him
for the building of churches.219 The bishop subsequently accused the Tall Brothers of being
disciples of Origen, the third-century theologian who espoused the belief in an incorporeal God.
This was an unpopular teaching among the less-educated monks who supported an
anthropomorphic deity.220 The Brothers and their supporters were forced to leave Egypt and
travel to different places in the East, each time being refused shelter from monks who had been
215
Barnes and Bevan, introduction to the Funerary Speech (TTH 60), 3; Sozomen, HE 8.2 (Eng. trans. Hartranft,
NPNF, p. 400). Gregory speculates that the reason John was ultimately chosen was because he had previously
refrained from actively taking part in factional politics and because, as a stranger to the court, he could be more
easily controlled by Eutropius (unlike Theophilus’ candidates, who would look towards Alexandria rather than the
court if elected). Gregory, Vox Populi, 44-45.
216
“Wherefore Theophilus bishop of Alexandria, immediately after [John’s] ordination, was plotting his overthrow;
and concerted measures for his purpose in secret, both with the friends who were around him, and by letter with
such as were at a distance. For it was not so much the boldness with which John lashed whatever was obnoxious to
him, that affected Theophilus, as his own failure to place his favourite presbyter Isidore in the episcopal chair of
Constantinople.” Socrates, HE 6.5 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, p. 140).
217
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 190-191.
218
Socrates, HE 6.7 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, p. 143).
219
Sozomen, HE 8.12 (Eng. trans. Hartranft, NPNF, p. 406).
220
Elizabeth Clarke, The Origenist Controversy: the Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 44-47. See also Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria, 25
51
forewarned by the agents of Theophilus about the Brothers’ supposed heretical beliefs. 221 They
finally arrived in Constantinople and brought their case against Theophilus to the attention of
John Chrysostom, who was reluctant to help them in order to avoid the possibility of creating
conflict with the powerful Egyptian bishop.222 Despite the danger, John did come to the priests’
aid, and with that Theophilus’ trap was set. The bishop of Alexandria then convinced John’s
enemies in Constantinople to unearth dirty secrets against their bishop, and sent his agents to sow
discord between John and the empress Eudoxia.223 Once Theophilus arrived in the capital in 403
CE, the deed had been done. John Chrysostom was deposed at a synod that took place in a
suburb of Chalcedon called The Oak and exiled.224
Regardless of this defeat, John’s support among his followers was such that, returning
from his first exile, he could remain in his episcopal palace while “sixty bishops assembled
together in that city, and annulled all the decrees of the council of the ‘Oak’.” 225 After a time,
however, John’s enemies worked to convince the emperor of John’s lack of support, and the
bishop was exiled again in 404 CE, this time to the Caucusus, where the harsh winters and the
dangers posed by the local Isaurians took a toll on him.226 Finally, in 407 CE, John was ordered
by emperor to travel to a remote military outpost along the north-eastern Black Sea, but the
former bishop died at the beginning of his journey. 227 Although John had lost his see and
suffered two exiles as result of Theophilus’ machinations, his popularity among his adherents
221
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 194-195.
Sozomen, HE 8.13 (Eng. trans. Hartranft, NPNF, p. 407).
223
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 203-212.
224
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 217.
225
Sozomen, HE 8.19 (Eng. trans. Hartranft, NPNF, p. 412); Gregory, Vox Populi, 58.
226
“I am distressed by the oppression of being in fear of the Isaurians, by the desolateness of the place and the
severity of the winter…” John Chrysostom to Marcianus, Ep. 122M (Eng. trans. Barnes and Bevan, TTH 60, pp.
143-144).
227
As Socrates specifies: “John was taken into exile died in Comana on the Euxine, on the 14 th of September, in the
following consulate, which was the seventh of Honorius, and the second of Theodosius [i.e. 407 CE].” Socrates, HE
6.21 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, pp. 151-152). See also Sozomen, HE 8.28 (Eng. trans. Hartranft, NPNF, p. 418) and
Barnes and Bevan, introduction to The Funerary Speech, 4.
222
52
never waned, even when many of them were hunted down and tortured by John’s enemies.228
Due to his rhetorical skill and the power of his pen,229 John’s writings were dispersed all over
the East, and his reputation as a virtuous and kind-hearted bishop who stood in the face of
wrongdoers and their injustices had an effect on many clerics, including Isidore of Pelusium.230
As already mentioned above (p. 5), John’s rehabilitation took place a few years after his
death, when in about 416 CE the bishop of Antioch, Alexander, became the first to inscribe
John’s name on the local diptychs, or list of revered saints. 231 Atticus, the new bishop of
Constantinople, soon followed suit and also restored John’s name to the diptychs.
232
Interestingly enough, however, Atticus was forced to write to Cyril, who had recently taken over
as bishop of Alexandria from his uncle in 412 CE, to persuade him to assent to also inscribe
John’s name in the dyptichs of Egypt.233 At first Cyril refused, listing to Atticus several reasons
why it would be inappropriate to celebrate the memory of a bishop who was officially deposed
by the Church.234 This is not so surprising since in a letter to Acacius, bishop of Beroea, written
228
Sozomen, HE 8.23 (Eng. trans. Hartranft, NPNF, p. 414); Gregory, Vox Populi, 58-64.
On John’s possible studies with Libanius, the famous Antiochene teacher and sophist, see A.H.M. Jones, “St.
John Chrysostom’s Parentage and Education,” The Harvard Theological Review 46:3 (1953), 171-173. Both
Socrates (6.3) and Sozomen (8.2) agree that John studied under Libanius. According to Socrates, John came from a
well-to-do family in Antioch and was on the point of entering a career in law when he was persuaded by a certain
Evagrius to enter the priesthood. Socrates, HE 6.3 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, p. 138).
230
“Hence he was exceedingly beloved not only in Armenia, where he dwelt, but by all the people of the
neighbouring countries, and the inhabitants of Antioch and the other parts of Syria, and of Cilicia, who frequently
sought his society.” Sozomen, HE 8.27 (Eng. trans. Hartranft, NPNF, p. 417). On the diffusion of John’s written
output, see Edmond Bouvy, “S. Jean Chrysostome et saint Isidore de Péluse,” Échos d’Orient 1:17 (1898), 196. On
John’s popularity during and after his death, see also Gregory: “Support for John was thus a very simple matter: to
many people he was a kind and saintly bishop who was persecuted for having dared to speak the truth about the
powerful of the world.” Gregory, Vox Populi, 68. On Isidore’s knowledge and reverence of John’s writings, see Ep.
1255 (= 5.32, PG 78, 1348 A) and below.
231
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, HE 5.35 (ed. by J. Bouffartigue, Annick Martin, Luce Pietri, and Françoise Thelamon and
trans. by Pierre Canivet, SC 530). Barnes and Bevan, introduction to The Funerary Speech, (TTH 60), 4.
232
Socrates, HE 7.25 (Eng. trans. Zenos, NPNF, p. 166).
233
“Hence, do you yourself, most God-loving lord, command that the title of him who has died be inscribed in the
churches throughout Egypt for the sake of universal peace.” Atticus of Constantinople to Cyril of Alexandria, Ep.
75 (Eng. trans. McEnerney, FC 77, p. 85).
234
“…let the ordinances of the church prevail. Let him who is not a bishop be removed from the clerical lists.”
Cyril to Atticus, Ep. 76 (Eng. trans. McEnerney, FC 77, p. 91). Barnes and Bevan give a rough estimate of c. 416418 CE for the dates of Epp. 75 and 76. Barnes and Bevan, introduction to The Funerary Speech, 4, n. 27.
229
53
in c. 433 CE, Cyril mentions that he had been in attendance during the Council of the Oak in 403
CE and had agreed with Acacius’ position to depose John.235 Although Cyril did eventually
relent and came to venerate John like everyone else when, starting in 428 CE, the emperor
celebrated John as a saint, Theophilus’ actions to depose the man seem likely to have had a great
influence on Cyril’s behaviour thirty years later prior to and during the First Council of Ephesus.
As already mentioned (p. 47), Isidore makes clear in Ep. 310 to Cyril that he was well
aware of the events surrounding the deposition of John Chrysostom. In another letter, Ep. 152,
this time to a certain Symmachus, Isidore mentions these events again in detail.236 Isidore admits
to Symmachus with some embarrassment that Church officials in the province of Egypt (the area
west of Egyptian Augustamnica) are accustomed to act like the Pharaohs of ancient times, even
to this day, persecuting the Jews, launching extensive building programs, and amassing great
wealth. When Theophilus became bishop of Alexandria, continues Isidore, he fought with a
friend of God (John Chrysostom) and found in Isidore’s namesake (Theophilus’ presbyter
Isidore) a thorn that had to be removed. Although there is nothing that can really certify the date
of this letter, Pierre Évieux dates it no later than to 412 CE, when Chrysostom had regained
favour in Constantinople and Egypt was grappling with the ‘embarrassment’, in Isidore’s words,
of having been involved in his deposition.237 It is possible however to posit a later date from the
context. Perhaps the embarrassment Isidore feels concerning John Chrysostom’s deposition is a
reflection of his feelings towards Cyril’s reluctance to inscribe John’s name on the diptychs of
Egypt, especially once John’s memory began to be rehabilitated in Constantinople in 416 CE.
Isidore must have felt that his hero was not being properly honoured in his home province. Ep.
235
Cyril to Acacius of Beroea, Ep. 33 (Eng. trans. McEnerney, FC 76, pp. 130-131). Acacius had been one of the
bishops presiding at the Council of the Oak and Cyril reminds him of that fact. Barnes and Bevan, introduction to
The Funerary Speech, (TTH 60), 5 n. 30.
236
Ep. 152 (= 1.152, PG 78, 284 D-285 A ).
237
Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, 204.
54
152 can also possibly be dated to prior to and during the First Council of Ephesus in 431 CE. In
telling Symmachus that Alexandria finds itself again in the embarrassing situation of
confrontation with Constantinople, Isidore might be alluding to Cyril’s struggle with another
bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius. In fact, there is nothing in Ep. 152 that establishes with
certainty its date of composition, including Évieux’s date of 412 CE. If one were to suggest
therefore the later date, let us say, of 428-431 CE, the letter would represent another instance of
Isidore’s displeasure with Cyril’s actions, which appeared to him unbefitting of a man of God
and another symptom of the Church’s increasingly questionable morals.
One can therefore also reasonably suggest another possible date for Isidore’s Ep. 370,
which, as mentioned above (p. 46), can be viewed in a number of different contexts. Isidore tells
Cyril that he should not avenge himself of a private insolence, but instead turn perpetual discord
into piety. Could Isidore be telling Cyril to forget private family wrongs, such as when in 497
CE the eunuch Eutropius chose to support John for the episcopacy of Constantinople over the
candidates favoured by Theophilus, Cyril’s uncle? Could Ep. 370 be in fact Isidore’s plea to
Cyril to relinquish and inscribe John’s name on the dyptichs? But then again, as with Ep. 152,
Ep. 370 could just be referring again to Cyril’s struggles with Nestorius. Although no further
details in these two letters can shed light on this, when Ep. 370 is paired with Ep. 152, two
possible date ranges for the two letters remain in the realm of possibility: either they date to the
beginning period of John Chrysostom’s rehabilitation in c. 416-417 CE; or they date to the
events around the First Council of Ephesus in 428-431 CE.
There are many similarities between the thought and actions of John Chrysostom and
those of Isidore, and as already stated above (p. 10 above), Isidore was a great admirer of John’s
55
character and writings.238 We have also seen how Isidore felt towards the plight of the poor and
the corruption of men like Gigantius. Similarly, John’s sermons were full of exhortations about
helping the poor and condemnations against wrongdoers.239 It is clear from Isidore’s references
to John that the monk saw him not only as a master to be emulated but also as a kind of kindred
spirit, whose actions in defence of the poor and downtrodden in the face of the wrongdoers must
have confirmed for Isidore the righteousness of his own struggles with adversity and of his
appeals to the powerful. Since John’s works were widely distributed throughout the East, it is
not inconceivable that Isidore might have discovered them while studying rhetoric in Alexandria.
Did the two know each other? While the possibility that they knew each other at some point is
impossible to determine, it is clear from the references in Isidore’s letters that he was aware of
Chrysostom’s past struggles and writings.240 For Isidore, therefore, Theophilus’ worst crime was
that he brought down by false accusation a man of the greatest virtue, simply because that man
came to the aid of some desperate monks. What is more, this man was not only innocent of these
accusations but also, as we have seen, a spiritual father of Isidore’s.
This made Cyril’s
reluctance to rehabilitate John Chrysostom in 416 CE and his struggle to depose Nestorius in 431
CE even more difficult for Isidore to digest and thus explains to a certain degree the criticisms
Isidore reserves for Cyril in Epp. 310 and 370 and the panegyric tone for Chrysostom found in
Ep. 152. It was clear to Isidore that in 431 CE Cyril was repeating his predecessor’s mistakes
Ἐν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ τῆς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους Ἐπιστολῆς μάλιστα, ὦ ὁμώνυμε, ἡ Ἰωάννου τοῦ πανσόφου σοφία
τεθησαύρισται... Ep. 1255 (= 5.32, PG 78, 1348 A). Isidore begins another letter by making known his
disappointment that his correspondent is ignorant of John’s writings, which can be readily accessed even at the
uttermost confinds of the earth and sea: Λίαν θαυμάζω, πῶς τὸ μὲν κλέος τῶν συγγραμμάτων, ὧν ἀπολέλοιπεν ὁ
πάνσοφος Ἰωάννης, πανταχόσε φοιτησάντων, ἄχρι τῆς γῆς καὶ θαλάτης τερμάτων ἔφθασεν, τῆς δὲ σῆς οὐ καθήψατο
ἀμθίας. Ep. 1777 (= 4.224, PG 78, 1317 C). Indeed, Edmond Bouvy sums up John’s popularity as a writer thus: “La
rapide diffusion des écrits de saint Jean Chrysostome en Orient et en Occident est un des événements les plus
merveilleux de l’histoire littéraire.” Bouvy, “S. Jean Chrysostome,” 199. Significantly, Isidore never admits to
hearing John, but only to reading his works, which would seem to indicate that the two never met.
239
Gregory, Vox Populi, 48. See also Sozomen: “[John], having attained power, led his tongue to reproof, and
nerved his wrath more readily against the enemy…but as a good and large-minded man, he sought to rectify abuses
throughout the world” Sozomen, HE 8.3 (Eng. trans. Hartranft, NPNF, p. 400).
240
For example, Epp. 310 and 152.
238
56
and, by deposing Nestorius, the bishop of Alexandria was also insulting the memory of John
Chrysostom.
5.4 The First Council of Ephesus:
The subsequent actions of Cyril in Ephesus in 431 CE to push for the deposition of
Nestorius and to prevent his allies from mounting a proper defence for him were, to Isidore,
deeply reminiscent of the measures adopted by Theophilus against John Chrysostom recounted
above. Indeed, perhaps events were repeating themselves. Just like Theophilus who pushed to
get Chrysostom deposed and exiled back in 403/404 CE, Cyril was now actively working to get
the quick deposition of Nestorius.
What Isidore admitted to Symmachus as being deeply
embarrassing was happening again, this time with new faces performing old roles. Cyril’s
actions also seemed to be undermining the effectiveness of the emperor’s representatives present
at the council. As we have seen, it was essential for Isidore that any good Christian community,
whether local or taken as a whole, could rely on the protection of imperial officials who, in his
view, served not only the will of the emperor, but of God as well. The emperor could not afford
to feel that he was being outmanoeuvred by either side of the debate, as Arcadius and Eudoxia
had been during the vilifying of John Chrysostom,241 nor could he let the conciliar deliberations
fall into disorder. But, as already hinted at above, Cyril was doing his best to stir up opposition
to the meddlesome bishop of Constantinople and to secure his deposition at all costs, regardless
of the position of the emperor. Indeed, during the deliberations Cyril deployed his agents and
sympathizers throughout Ephesus, threatening uncommitted bishops to adhere to the Cyrillians
and intimidating Nestorius’ followers from meeting in Churches. 242 It was to prevent such
241
242
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 212-215.
Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 166.
57
actions that Theodosius sent his representative, Count Candidianus, with a body of soldiers to
Ephesus to oversee the council and curb the influence of the different monastic factions
accompanying the delegations.243 Judging from Epp. 310 and 370 to Cyril, it was clear to Isidore
that Cyril was falling into the same vicious cycle of intimidation and prejudice that had plagued
his uncle, none of which could end well for Cyril.
Meanwhile, Isidore could not remain impassive to what was happening in Ephesus, even
if he seemed to have sided with Cyril theologically, as will be shown below. Clearly Isidore saw
that the imperial representatives, headed by Candidianus, had failed in their mission to curb the
violence. Nothing less than the emperor’s own presence was required now. Isidore thus made
use again of his position as an influential holy man and sent another plea to the emperor in
person, imploring him to grasp the right moment to be present at the council,244 to free it from
unruly conduct, and also to keep his ministers in check.245 The emperor never did grace the
council by his presence, but he did later send a rebuke to Ephesus condemning Cyril’s actions
and ordering all delegates to respect Candidianus’ authority.246 It is also entirely possible that he
did take Isidore’s advice to heart (assuming that he read his letter), since Theodosius did attend
colloquium six weeks later at Chalcedon and assumed an active role in it.247 Isidore must have
sent his missive to the emperor sometime during July of 431 CE, just at the point when Nestorius
was deposed and events at Ephesus had reached the boiling point. Isidore probably felt the sting
of bitterness once he learned that Candidianus was desperately failing at his charge, being
gradually overwhelmed by the Cyrillians.
243
McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 52.
Ep. 311 (= 1.311, PG 78, 361 D-A): Εἰ μὲν αὐτὸς λαμβάνῃ καιροῦ παρεῖναι τοῖς κρινομένοις ἐν Ἐφέσῳ….
245
Ep. 311 (= 1.311, PG 78, 361 D-A). Millar, Greek Roman Empire, 232.
246
Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 169.
247
Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria, 255-256.
244
58
5.5 Isidore’s Theological Stance:
At first glance Isidore’s theology seems quite straightforward. One must first understand
that it is impossible to know the nature of God, since that nature is much too complicated to be
comprehended – it is enough to know that God simply is.248 In another letter, Isidore warns a
colleague against those who would confuse the simple-minded by means of various complicated
and heretical views, hiding their malice under smooth speeches, just as a sailor confuses a fish by
hiding a hook with bait.249 Thus, when in John 1:14 it says that the Word became flesh, that is
literally what happened and nothing else. To Isidore, the language of Scripture is simple and
clear, so that difficult concepts can be rendered even more understandable to anyone who reads
them. 250 But in a handful of letters, Isidore does provide some evidence of theological
interpretation, even going so far as taking a Christological stance.251 In fact, it could be said that
his views agree with those of Cyril.
The idea that the Scriptures should be read literally is something Cyril probably would
have agreed with. In his Commentary on John of 425-428 CE, Cyril argues that in order to
understand Christ and his relationship to God, one has only to look up John 1:14, “for the
statement that the Word became flesh means that and nothing else: it is like saying that the Word
became a human being, but even more starkly.”252 What the Scriptures say about Christ should
248
Epp. 593 (= 2.93, PG 78, 537 C-B ) and 799 (= 2.299, PG 78, 725-728 D-A); Constantine M. Fouskas, Saint
Isidore of Pelusium and the New Testament (Athens, 1967), 105.
249
Ep.102 (= 1.102, PG 78, 252 C-D).
250
Bartelink, “Observations stylistiques,” 168.
251
Epp. 323 and 419 (= 1.419, PG 78, 416 C).
252
As will be shown, Cyril’s exegesis of the gospel of John focuses on Christ’s suffering on the cross, an event
which posed problems for theologians who viewed this as unbecoming of a God. To Cyril, the Passion is associated
with the human side of Christ, which occurred after the incarnation, when the Word fused itself with the human
Christ. This seemed to differ from the focus of traditional Alexandrian exegesis on the “divine Logos in the person
of Christ…” Robert L. Wilken, “Cyril of Alexandria, Biblical Exegete,” chap. 12 in Handbook of Patristic
Exegesis, 861. As R. L. Wickham highlights, it was Cyril who championed most strongly the idea of Christ as the
Divine made flesh, and his “classic picture of Christ the God-man, as it is delineated in the formulae of the Church
from the Council of Chalcedon onwards,” would be scrutinized by theologians for centuries. Wickham, introduction
to Select Letters, xi. See also Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 104.
59
thus be taken literally: that the Word descended into flesh and suffered as a human would. Cyril
would continue to profess this theory of the single nature both before and during the Council of
Ephesus, using the formula “there is one incarnate nature of God the Word.”253 In 430 CE he
even specifies to the Court in his Address to the Most Pious Empresses on the Correct Faith that
the Word degraded into human flesh so as to suffer for our sins. 254 The Word had to become
human so that it could sacrifice itself for us. Both Cyril and Isidore seem to agree that the Word,
having become flesh of man, can suffer, for, as Cyril says in the twelfth explanation of his
Explanations of the Twelve Chapters, “the Word of God the Father is these things in his essential
being, he made his own the flesh that is receptive of death, that by means of that which is
accustomed to suffering he might take these sufferings to himself on our behalf….”255 In Ep.
124, Isidore says much the same thing when he states that God assumed human flesh and that, as
such, once united into human nature, He could suffer the passion.256 Thus, both the Word and
Christ are one, and divine and human once the incarnation took place.
By 433 CE Cyril seemed to concur with the Orientals that in fact there are two natures,
divine and human, but that Christ was the result when both fused together after the
incarnation.257 The first reference in the writings of Cyril’s to the two natures, ἐκ δύο φύσεων, is
Μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη; Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria, 288.
Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 160-161.
255
Russsell, Cyril of Alexandria, 189.
256
Ep. 124 (= 1.124, PG 78, 265 A): ...εἰ μὴ τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἡνώθη φιλανθρώπως.
257
In Ep. 39 to John of Antioch, written in ca. 433 CE, Cyril responds to criticisms of his view about the humanity
of Christ and includes the text of the Formula of Reunion of 433 CE for clarification: “…therefore we confess that
our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and body,
begotten before ages from the Father according to his divinity, and that, in recent days, he himself for us and for our
salvation was born from the Virgin Mary according to his humanity, consubstantial to the Father himself according
to divinity and consubstantial to us according to his humanity, for a union was made of his two natures. We confess
one Christ, one Son, one Lord….” Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch, Ep. 39 (Eng. trans. McEnerney, FC 76,
p. 140). See also ACO I.1.4, pp 15-20 and Festugière, Éphèse et Chalcédoine, 486-491 for the letter. As Graham
Gould has observed, “Cyril’s account of the two-nature formula relies on an explicit contrast of before and after the
union. That the union was a union of two real different natures must be acknowledged, but after the union only the
result, two united natures, is evident….” Graham Gould, “Cyril of Alexandria and the Formula of Reunion,”
Downside Review 106 (1988): 240.
253
254
60
found in his first letters to the Bishop Succensus and Eulogius.258 In the letter to Eulogius, Cyril
makes the argument in support of the dual nature only to the extent that once the natures unite
they make one.259 To further explain this, in the letter to Succensus Cyril compares this union to
that of the human body, which represents the result of the unification of soul and body to form
one being.260 In Ep. 323 Isidore offers Cyril his view of the divine nature of Christ the man,
saying that “the one Son exists of two natures, without a beginning and endless,”261 which seems
to differ from the bishop’s view of one Christ after the incarnation. Whatever the circumstances,
the letter was probably written in the period after the council of Ephesus of 431 CE, since it was
only then, when Cyril was reconciling himself with the Antiochenes in preparation for the
Formula of Reunion of 433 CE, that we find statements in his writings about the two natures.262
In Ep. 42 Isidore talks of an “inexpressible union” (ἄρρητος ἕνωσις)263 and in Ep. 236 Isidore
indicates that saying “you are the son of God” means the union of two natures, again following
Cyril’s arguments supporting the Formula of Reunion.264
Cyril’s version of the two natures thus very much mirrors Isidore’s. Based on his letters,
Isidore would surely have replied to Nestorius along the lines of Cyril and urged him to look at
John 1:14. Perhaps this is why in Ep. 324 Isidore exhorts Cyril to remain firm in his convictions
and not to be seen to appear fickle nor to succumb to any ‘empty glory.’265 Isidore, knowing
Évieux, “Théologie,” 454. The date of the letter to Eulogius is unknown. Wickham, introduction to Select
Letters, xxvi. As for the letter to Succensus, the date is also “uncertain but probably falls somewhere between the
reunion in April 433 and Cyril’s overt attacks on Diodore and Theodore in 438. The references…to the negotiations
over the reunion suggest that this was still news, and hence an earlier, rather than later, date.” Wickham, Select
Letters, 70-71 n. 1.
259
Cyril of Alexandria to Eulogius, Ep. 44 (Eng. trans. McEnerney, FC 76, pp. 186-187)
260
Cyril of Alexandria to Succensus, Ep. 45 (Eng. trans. McEnerney, FC 76, p. 193); Schmid, Die Christologie, 56.
261
Ep. 323 (= 1.323, PG 78, 369 B): ...ἐκ φύσεων δυοῖν ὁ εἷς ὑπάρχων Υἱος.
262
Delmaire, “Notes prosopographiques”, 230.
263
Ep. 42 (= 1.42, PG 78, 209 A).
264
Ep. 236 (= 1.236, PG 78, 327 D): Τὸ, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, τῶν δύο φύσεων σημαίνει τὴν ἕνωσιν,
ἣν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Υἱὸς εἰς σωτηρίαν ἡμῶν θεοπρεπῶς ἐξειργάσατο..
265
Ep. 324 (= 1.324, PG 78, 369 C): κενῆς μὲν δόξης ἡττώμενος....
258
61
Cyril’s penchant for under-the-table deals, is expressing his fear of how far, and how low, Cyril
would be willing to go to broker a peace with the emperor on his back. 266 This would indeed
have caused an even bigger rift in the delicate fabric that was the Egyptian religious community,
something which would have represented an appalling situation for Isidore. But the monk did
not have to worry, since, as we already noted, Cyril was able to argue his way out and satisfy
both himself and the Antiochenes by agreeing to the two natures in so far as a union of the two
made one.
In another singular letter, this time to Hermogenes, bishop of Rhinocorura (a city located
a little to the east of Pelusium), Isidore once again urges firm resistance in the face of
adversity.267 This time, however, Isidore says that God never changed after the incarnation and
that he was the same before and after putting on the flesh.268 This statement seems to counter
Cyril’s view of 433 and would indicate that Isidore was perhaps not in total agreement with the
Formula of Reunion. Hermogenes was an important acquaintance for Isidore to nurture, since
not only did he represent for the monk the model of the perfect bishop, similar to Synesius of
Cyrene, but he also took part in the deliberations at the First Council of Ephesus as member of
Cyril’s party. Indeed, on the evening of June 21st Cyril had chosen Hermogenes himself, along
with Athanasius of Paralus, Peter of Parembolus, and Paul of Lampa, to go and inform Nestorius
about the opening of the council, to which Nestorius had replied: “for the moment I am
assessing, and if I need to come, I will come.269 It is likely therefore that Isidore was writing to
Hermogenes about the nature of Christ so that the latter could impart to Cyril again, but from
For Isidore, a complete about face by Cyril would “signify a betrayal of his insistence that Christ must only be
confessed as one – the dominant theme of all they [the Cyrillians] had stood together to defend.” McGuckin, St.
Cyril of Alexandria, 116.
267
Ep. 419 (= 1.419, PG 78, 416 C).
268
Ep. 419: Ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ ἐνανθρωπήσας οὐ τέτραπται, οὔτε συγκέχυται, οὔτε διῄρηται. Ἀλλ᾽ εἷς ἐστιν ἄναρχος καὶ
ἀΐδιος Υἱὸς, καὶ πρὸ σαρκώσεως, καὶ μετὰ σάρκωσιν, οὕτω παρ᾽ ἡμῶν προσκυνούμενος.
269
ACO I.1.2, p. 9. The document is also found in Festugière, Éphèse et Chalcédoine, 197. See also McGuckin, St.
Cyril of Alexandria, 75
266
62
another person, the urgent need not to give in to the Antiochenes’ demands. Given these
observations, it is highly likely that Ep. 419 was composed during the negotiations that produced
the Formula. Since Isidore clearly had not been able to convince Cyril with Ep. 324, he must
have thought it worth his while to attempt a Cyrillian solution and pass his message in a less
obvious way, at least just this once.
VI. Conclusion:
The letters of Isidore of Pelusium are richly written documents that reveal to us the
degree of involvement of low-level clerics in secular and religious affairs of the early fifth
century CE. Like many of his contemporaries, such as Synesius of Cyrene and Theodoret of
Cyrrhus, Isidore used the rhetorical skills he acquired as a young man, possibly in Alexandria, to
build for himself an epistolary network of acquaintances throughout the eastern empire. His
correspondents included an impressive range of individuals, with the emperor Theodosius II and
bishop Cyril of Alexandria being among the most remarkable. As for the letters themselves,
their contents betray a man of extraordinary intellectual gifts and singular wit, be it in Classical
literature, philosophy, or even science. The writings of Isidore of Pelusium thus represent
further proof against the idea that all early Christian clerics were fanatic extremists trying to
eradicate once and for all any remaining trace of Paganism.
Yet Isidore remained for a long time a figure of little more than passing reference for
historians. It was only at the beginning of the past century that interest in his theological views
and his Hellenic education suggested that there was more to discover. Indeed, the range of his
connections and the rich contents of his letters suggest, in fact, that Isidore was a well-connected
holy man who could look to Alexandria and Constantinople whenever he was in need.
63
Moreover, the familiar tone he adopts with Cyril of Alexandria and Theodosius II during the
period of the First Council of Ephesus of 431 CE probably indicates more than just passing
acquaintance between the men.
The general nature of this paper did not allow for an in-depth overview of daily life in
Pelusium, its role as the regional capital of Augustamnica I, nor the relations between its citizens
and the monks that settled in the bordering deserts. Yet the body of evidence shows that Isidore
was in constant communication with his fellow Pelusians, and his letters reveal much about the
activities and sufferings of that city. A focused study on Eastern Egypt, therefore, with special
emphasis on Pelusium itself in relation to Isidore would be of great value. Also of prime
importance is the present accessibility of the Isidorian corpus. As already mentioned, there is no
modern English translation available of the letters, and they can only be accessed through
Migne’s Patrologiae Graeca in the original language or in Évieux’s 1997 incomplete French
translations. Although Évieux’s work does begin to rectify the situation, it is somewhat limited,
since his collection does not include the important missives of Isidore to Cyril and the emperor
during the First Council of Ephesus. Nor, sadly, is it organized in any thematic or chronological
way to help orient readers in the massive corpus. A thematic layout would be most suited in this
case, since Isidore wrote many letters to recurring individuals with different official titles. Thus,
a complete set of English translations of Isidore’s correspondence, or a continuation of Évieux’s
French set, would, consequently, be a great asset to any historian of the early fifth century CE
and would be a welcome addition to the most documented period of the ancient world.
64
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Edited and translated by Richard Price and Michael
Gaddis. 3 vols. Vol. 45 of Translated Texts for Historians. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 2005.
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Edited by Eduard Schwartz. 4 vols. Berolini: Walter de
Gruyter, 1914-1984.
Cyril of Alexandria. Letters 1-50, 51-110. Edited and translated by John I. McEnerney. Vols. 7677 of The Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America
Press, 1987.
——. Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters. Text and translation (English): edited and translated by
Lionel R. Wickham. In Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
Éphèse et Chalcédoine: actes de conciles. Edited and translated by A. J. Festugière. Paris:
Beauchesne, 1982.
Evagrius Scholasticus. Évagre le Scholastique : Histoire ecclésiastique, livres I-III. Text and
translation (French): edited by Laurent Angliviel and Guy Sabbah and translated by A. J.
Festugière, Bernard Grillet, and Guy Sabbah. Vol. 1 of Sources chrétiennes 542. Paris: Les
Éditions du Cerf, 2011.
——. The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus. Translated and edited by Michael
Whitby. Vol. 33 of Translated Texts for Historians. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University
Press, 2000.
Facundus of Hermiane. Facundus d’Hermiane: Défense des trois chapitres (à Justinien), livres III. Text and Translation (French): edited and translated by Anne Fraïsse-Bétoulières. Vol. 1
of Sources chrétiennes 471. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2002.
The Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom. Translated and edited by Timothy D. Barnes and
George Bevan. Vol. 60 of Translated Texts for Historians. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool
University Press, 2013.
Isidore of Pelusium. Isidore de Péluse: Lettres. Text and translation (French): edited and
translated by Pierre Évieux. 2 vols. In Sources chrétiennes 422 and 454. Paris: Les Éditions
du Cerf, 1997.
——. Letters in Five Books. Text (Greek and Latin). Edited by J. P. Migne. Vol. 78 of
Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857- 1862.
65
John Chrysostom. De Sacerdotio. Edited by J. P. Migne. Vol. 48 of Patrologiae cursus
completus, series Graeca. Paris: Imprimerie catholique, 1857- 1862.
John Malalas. Ioannis Malalae: Chronographia. Text (Greek). Edited by H. G. Beck, A.
Kambylis, and R. Keydell. Vol. 35 of Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae: Consilio
Societatis Internationalis Studiis Byzantinis Provehendis Destinatae Editum, Series
Berolinensis. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2000.
Josephus. Bellum Judaicum. Edited by E. Mary Smallwood and translated by G. A. Williamson
and. London: Penguin Books, 1981. First published in 1959.
Libanius. Selected Letters of Libanius: from the Age of Constantius and Julian. Edited and
translated by Scott Bradbury. Vol. 41 of Translated Texts for Historians. Liverpool, UK:
Liverpool University Press, 2004.
Marinus of Samaria. The Life of Proclus or Concerning Happiness: Being the Biographical
Account of an Ancient Greek Philosopher Who Was Innately Loved by the Gods. Edited by
David R. Fideler and translated by Kenneth S. Guthrie. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press,
1986.
——. Vita Procli. Text (Greek). Edited by J. Boissonade. 1814. Reprint, Amsterdam: Adolf M.
Hakkert, 1966.
Origen. Contra Celsum. Edited and translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1980. First published in 1953.
Socrates, Sozomenus. Church Histories. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Translated by
A.C. Zenos and Chester D. Hartranft. Vol. 2 of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Parker and Company, 1890.
Severus of Antioch. Liber Contra Impium Grammaticum. Text (Latin). Edited by J. Lebon. Vol.
102 of Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Syri 51. Louvain, BE: L. Durbecq,
1952.
——. The Sixth Book of the select Letters of Severus of Antioch. Edited and translated by E.W.
Brooks. Vol. 2. Oxford: Williams and Norgate, 1969. First published in 1903.
Synesius of Cyrene. Synésios de Cyrène: Correspondance, lettres 1-156. Text and translation
(French): edited and translated by Denis Roques. 2 Vols. In Collection des universités de
France. Paris: Les belles lettres, 2000.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Histoire ecclésiastique, Text and translation (French): edited by J.
Bouffartigue, Annick Martin, Luce Pietri, and Françoise Thelamon and translated by Pierre
Canivet. Vol. 2 of Sources chrétiennes 530. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 2009.
66
——. Théodoret de Cyr: Correspondance I. Text and translation (French): edited and translated
by Yvan Azéma. Vol. 1 of Sources chrétiennes 40. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1982. First
published in 1955.
——. Théodoret de Cyr: Correspondance II. Text and translation (French): edited and translated
by Yvan Azéma. Vol. 2 of Sources chrétiennes 98. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 1964.
——. Théodoret de Cyr: Correspondance III. Text and translation (French): edited and
translated by Yvan Azéma. Vol. 2 of Sources chrétiennes 111. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf,
1965.
——. Thérapeutique des maladies helléniques. Text and Translation (French): edited and
translated by Pierre Canivet. Vol. 1 of Sources chrétiennes 57.1. Paris: Les éditions du
Cerf, 2000. First published in 1958.
Secondary Sources:
Aigrain, René. Quarante-neuf lettres de Saint Isidore de Péluse. Paris: Picard & Fils, 1911.
Allen, Pauline, and C.T.R. Hayward. Severus of Antioch. London: Routledge, 2004.
Bagnall, Roger S. “Agricultural Productivity and Taxation in Later Roman Egypt.” Transaction
of the American Philological Association 115 (1985), 289-308.
——. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Bagnall, Rogers S., Alan Cameron, Seth R. Schwartz, and Klaas A. Worp, Consuls of the Later
Roman Empire. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987.
Barnes, Timothy D. “Armenica Veritas.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 48: 4 (1997): 723731.
——. Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Bartelink, G. J. M. “Observations stylistiques et linguistiques chez Isidore de Péluse.” Vigiliae
Christianae 18:3 (1964), 163-180.
Batiffol, Pierre. “Les présents de saint Cyrille à la cour de Constantinople.” Chap. 4 in Études de
liturgie et d’archéologie chrétienne. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1919.
Bayer, Leo. Isidors von Pelusium klassische Bildung. Paderborn, DE: Ferdinand Schöningh,
1915.
67
Bevan, George A. “Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Syrian Episcopal Elections.” In Episcopal
Elections in Late Antiquity, edited by Johann Leemans, Peter Van Nuffelen, Shawn W. J.
Keough, and Carla Nicolaye, 61-87. Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte. Berlin: De Gruyter,
2011.
Bouvy, Edemond. “S. Jean Chrysostome et saint Isidore de Péluse.” Échos d’Orient 1:17 (1898),
196-201.
Bregman, Jay. Synesius of Cyrene. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.
Brown, Peter. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992.
——. “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity.” Journal of Roman Studies
61 (1971): 80-101.
Burgess, Richard W. “The Accession of Marcian in the Light of Chalcedonian Apologetic and
Monophysite Polemic.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 86:7 (1993/4), 47-68.
Cameron, Alan, and Jacqueline Long. Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
Cameron, Alan. “The Empress and the Poet: Paganism and Politics at the Court of Theodosius
II.” In Later Greek Literature, edited by J. Winkler and G. Williams, 217-289. Yale
Classical Studies 27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
——. The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Caner, Daniel. Wandering, Begging, Monks: Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of
Monasticism in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Carrez-Maratray, J. Y. “Péluse, la grande cité oubliée du delta.” Le Monde de la Bible 82 (1993):
24-27.
Chadwick, Henry. “Bishops and Monks.” Studia Patristica 24 (1993): 45-61.
Clark, Elizabeth A. The Origenist Controversy: the Cultural Construction of an Early Christian
Debate. Princeton, NJ: Pinceton University Press, 1992.
Crawford, W. S. Synesius the Hellene. London: Rivingtons, 1901.
Dagron, Gilbert. “Les moines et la ville: le monachisme à Constantinople jusqu’au concile de
Chalcédoine (451).” In Travaux et Mémoires 4, edited by Paul Lemerle and Jean Gouillard,
229-276. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1970.
68
——. Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451. Paris: Presses
universitaires de France, 1974.
Delmaire, Roland. “Notes prosopographiques sur quelques lettres d’Isidore de Péluse.” Revue
des études Augustiniennes 34 (1988): 230-236.
De Salvo, Lietta. “Aspetti sociali nell’ epistolario di Isidoro di Pelusio.” Koinonia 28 (2004):
169-180.
Dzielska, Maria. Hypatia of Alexandria. Translated by F. Lyra. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1996.
Elton, Hugh. “Imperial Politics at the Court of Theodosius II.” In The Power of Religion in Late
Antiquity, edited by Andrew Cain and Noel Lenski, 133-142. Burlington, VT: Ashgate,
2009.
Évieux, Pierre. Isidore de Péluse. Vol. 99 of Théologie historique. Paris: Beauchesne, 1995.
——. “Isidore de Péluse: état des recherches.” Recherches de science religieuses 64 (1976): 321340.
——. “Isidore de Péluse et la théologie.” In Penser la foi: Mélanges offerts à Joseph Moignt:
Recherches en théologie aujourd'hui, edited by Joseph Doré and Christoph Theobald, 449458. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1993.
——. “Isidore de Péluse, la numérotation des lettres dans la tradition manuscrite.” Revue
d’Histoire des Textes 5 (1975): 45-72.
Fairbairn, Donald. “Allies or Merely Friends: John of Antioch and Nestorius in the
Christological Controversy.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 58:3 (2007): 383-99.
Fouskas, Constantine M. Saint Isidore of Pelusium and the New Testament. Athens, 1967.
Gobry, Ivan. Les moines en Occident: De saint Antoine à saint Basile – les origines orientales.
Paris: Fayard, 1985
Gould, Graham. “Cyril of Alexandria and the Formula of Reunion.” Downside Review 106
(1988): 235-252.
Graumann, Thomas. “Theodosius II and the Politics of the First Council of Ephesus.” In
Theodosius II: Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity, edited by Christopher
Kelly, 109-129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Greatrex, Geoffrey and Jonathan Bardill. “Antiochus the Praepositus: A Persian Eunuch at the
Court of Theodosius II.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 50 (1996): 171-197.
69
Gregory, Timothy E. Vox Populi: Popular Opinion and Violence in the Religious Controversies
of the Fifth Century A. D. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1979.
Grillmeier, Aloys. Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to
Gregory the Great (590-604). Translated by Pauline Allen and John Cawte. Vol. 2, part 1.
Oxford: Mowbray and Co., 1987.
Guillaumont, Antoine. “Histoire des moines aux Kellia.” In Aux origines du monachisme
chrétien: Pour une phénoménologie du monachisme, 151-167. Bégrolles en Mauges, FR:
Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1979.
Harries, J. “Men without Women: Theodosius’ Consistory and the Business of Government.” In
Theodosius II: Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity, edited by Christopher
Kelly, 67-89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
——. “Pius Princeps: Theodosius II and Fifth-Century Constantinople.” In New Constantines:
the Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th centuries, edited by Paul
Magadalino, 35-44. London: Ashgate, 1994.
Heubner, Sabine R. “Currencies of Power: The Venality of Offices in the Later Roman Empire.”
In The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity, edited by Andrew Cain and Noel Lenski, 133142. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009.
Holum, Kenneth. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.
Jones, A.H.M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
——. The Later Roman Empire: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey 284-602. 2 vols.
1964. Reprint, Oxford: Blackwell, 1973.
——. “St. John Chrysostom’s Parentage and Education.” The Harvard Theological Review 46:3
(1953): 171-173.
Kannengiesser, Charles. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. Vol. 2 of The Bible in Ancient
Christianity. Leiden, NL: Brill, 2004.
Kelly, Christopher. Ruling the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2004.
——. “Rethinking Theodosius.” In Theodosius II: Rethinking the Roman Empire in Late
Antiquity, edited by Christopher Kelly, 3-89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2013.
Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1958.
70
——. Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom – Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 2000. First Published in 1995.
Lacombrade. Synésios de Cyrène, hellène et chrétien. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1951.
Martindale, J. R. ed. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, 395-527. Vol. 2.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
McGuckin, John. A. St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy: its History,
Theology and Texts. New York: E. J. Brill, 1994.
Menze, Volker L. Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2008.
Millar, Fergus. A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408-450).
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
Pargoire, Jules. “Un mot sur les Acémètes.” Échos d’Orient 2 (1899): 304-308.
Philipsborn, Alexandre. “La compagnie d’ambulanciers ‘parabalani’ d’Alexandrie.” Byzantion
20 (1950), 185190.
Petit, Paul. Les étudiants de Libanius. Paris: Nouvelles éditions latines, 1957.
Price, Richard M. “Holy Men’s Letters of Rebuke.” Studia Patristica 16:2 (1985): 50-53.
Roques, Denis. Études sur la correspondance de Synésios de Cyrène. Collection Latomus, Vol.
205. Bruxelles: Revues d’études latines, 1989.
Russell, Norman. Cyril of Alexandria. London: Routledge, 2000.
Sandwell, Isabella. Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Schmid, P. Andreas. Die Christologie Isidors von Pelusium. Freibourg, DE: Paulusverlag, 1948.
Schor, Adam M. “Patronage Performance and Social Strategy in the Letters of Theodoret,
Bishop of Cyrrhus.” Journal of Late Antiquity 2:2 (2009): 274-299.
——. Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011.
Smith, Morton. “The Manuscript Tradition of Isidore of Pelusium.” The Harvard Theological
Review 47 (1954): 205-210.
71
Tompkins, I. G. “Problems of Dating and Pertinence in Some Letters of Theodoret of Cyrrhus.”
Byzantion 65:1 (1995): 176-195.
Treu, Ursula. “Isidor II (von Pelusion).” In Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 18, 9821001. Stuttgart, DE: A. Hiersemann, 1998.
Turner, C. H. “The Letters of Saint Isidore of Pelusium.” The Journal of Theological Studies 6
(1905): 70-86.
Urbainczyk, Theresa. “‘The Devil Spoke Syriac to me’: Theodoret in Syria.” In Ethnicity and
Culture in Late Antiquity, edited by Stephen Mitchell and Geoffrey Greatrex, 253-265.
London: Duckworth, 2000.
——. Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Bishop and the Holy Man. Anne Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press, 2002.
Van Minnen, Peter. “The Other Cities in Later Roman Egypt.” In Egypt in the Byzantine World,
300-700. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, 245-287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007.
Wessel, Susan. Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy : the Making of a Saint and of
a Heretic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
——. “The Ecclesiastical Policy of Theodosius II.” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 33:2
(2001): 287-308.
72