(2) SCHOOL OF EDESSA
How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs 
Nisibis was taken by the Persians in 363, and Ephraem, who had been its head, fled to Edessa. As a refugee he had to earn his livelihood in a humble way and entered the service of a bath-keeper, but devoted his spare time to teaching and reasoning with those who cared for his company. One day when he was thus occupied he was overheard by an aged hermit who had come down from his hermitage to visit the city, and who rebuked him for being still interested in earthly knowledge. This caused Ephraem to retire to the mountains and spend some time in a hermitage meditating, reading, and literary composition, which bore fruit in some of his hymns and poems. At that time a revival of learning which greatly influenced the Church was in progress in Cappadocia, especially associated with Basil of Caesarea, ard this induced Ephraem to travel to Cappadocia and visit Basil, perhaps going to Egypt, the "holy land "of monasticism, on the way. Before long, however, the news that Edessa was disturbed by the teaching of various heresies arising out of the teaching of Bar Daisan who had lived in that city in the second century, caused him to return and resume his teaching. Later he again retired to the hermit life, but this time was recalled by the news that Edessa was suffering from a severe famine, and by his presence and exhortations he succeeded in inducing the wealthier citizens to give generously to the relief of their more indigent neighbours. His death took place not long afterwards in 373. Considering these interruptions of the ten years of his sojourn in Edessa we can hardly regard him as organizing and directing a school there, but it appears that his influence gave impetus and direction to the group of disciples who gathered round him, and after his visit to Cappadocia this meant that they were brought into touch with the Cappadocian renaissance.
Ephraem's most prominent pupil was Zenobius Gaziraeus, a deacon of Edessa, who wrote against the Marcionites and was the teacher of Isaac of Antioch. At first the school of Edessa seems to have been an informal group, so that it is hardly possible to describe Ephraem as its first head and Zenobius as his successor. But out of this group gradually developed what became a well-known academy, though it had no official and formal foundation like the schools of Nisibis and Antioch. It might, of course, be reckoned as a continuation of the school of Nisibis closed in 363, as it was commenced and guided by one who had been the official head of the Nisibis school, but there was no migration of teachers and students which could justify its being regarded as a colony of Nisibis.
There is plain evidence of work done at Edessa in the later fourth century in translation from Greek into Syriac. The manuscript, Brit. Mus. Add. 12150 of date 411, contains Syriac translations of the Theophania and Martyrs of Palestine of Eusebius, and of Titus of Bostra's discourses against the Manichaeans, whilst a St. Petersburg manuscript Of 462 contains a Syriac version of the Ecclesiastical Histoty of Eusebius. (The Syriac version of the Theophania, edited by S. Lee, London, 1842, trans. Camb., 1843; of the Martyrs of Pal., ed. trs. W. Cureton, London, 1861; of the Eccles. Hist., by W. Wright and N. McLean, Camb., 1898; of Titus of Bostra, P. de Lagarde, Berlin, 1859.) Internal evidence shows that these texts have passed through the hands of a succession of scribes, so must have been made some time before 411 and 462 respectively, Eusebius died in 340, Titus of Bostra in 371, so the translations into Syriac may have been made during the authors' lifetime, or very shortly afterwards, as was the case with the letter of Cyril, of Alexandria, "On the true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ to the Emperor Theodosius," which Rabbula, the Bishop of Edessa, translated into Syriac as soon as he received a copy from its author.
The school was well established and of good repute amongst the Syriac-speaking community of Mesopotamia and Persia and most of Persian bishops were its alumni when in 41 I - 1 2 Rabbula was appointed Bishop of Edessa, and about the same time or soon afterwards Hibha (Ibas) was made head of the school. The works of Theodore of Mopseustia, and Diodorus of Tarsus, were then the standard theological authorities of the Syrian Church, and Hibha made a Syriac version of Theodore's work for use at Edessa and then, as the terminology and logic of that work offered difficulties to oriental students, he also made a Syriac translation of the Isagoge of Porphyry, which was the usual introduction to logic, and of Aristotle's Hermeneutica. These translations cannot be identified, but translations of Aristotle's Hermeneutica and Anatytica Priora as well as of Porphyry's Isagoge, with commentary attached exist, made by Probus, who is described as presbyter, archdeacon, and chief physician of Antioch, which seems to be contemporary and it may well be that the version of the text is that of Hibha. 'Abdyeshu' bar Berikha (thirteenth to fourteenth century) speaks of Hibha, Kumi, and Probus as contemporaries and all translators of Aristotle. Of Kumi's version nothing is known. Early in the sixth century, therefore, these works on logic were known at Edessa in Syriac versions. (Syriac vers. of Porphyry, ed. A. van Hoonacker in J. A., xvi, 70-160; Aristotle's Hermeneutica, ed. G. Hoffmann, Leipzig, 1869, 2nd ed. 1878; Analytica, ed. J. Friedmann (Erlanger Dissert.), Berlin, 1898.)
(3) THE NESTORIAN SCHISM
In 428 Nestorius3, a monk of Antioch, was
made Patriarch of Constantinople, an outsider
chosen to avoid inflaming the strong faction
spirit prevailing in the capital, which would
have been the inevitable result of appointing
a local candidate. Nestorius brought with
him a brother monk of Antioch Anastasius.
Both of these were products of the school
of Antioch, trained in the theology of Theodore
and Diodorus. Before long a sermon preached
by Anastasius was made the subject of a complaint
to the Patriarch. The objection laid was
that Anastasius denied the applicability
of the term Theotokos to the Blessed Virgin
Mary, asserting that she was the mother only
of the human body of Christ. To some extent
the question was one of psychology: Does
the soul enter into man at birth, or is it.
present before birth? Orthodox fathers have
differed in their answer. If the reasonable
soul does not enter into the body until birth,
it might be assumed that the Logos, the Divine
Person of Christ, would not have entered
his body whilst it was as yet only an animal
body, not human until the reasonable soul
was added. Anastasius teaching was not that
of Diodorus and Theodore, for they do not
seem to have dwelt upon this point. To the
populace the refusal of the title Theotokos
to the Blessed Virgin seemed blasphemous
and passion was inflamed. Beneath this were
the rival tendencies to Antioch and Alexandria.
Antioch inclined towards what we may call
a semi-rationalist treatment of theology,
Alexandria towards an allegorical and mystical
treatment, and the Alexandrian school had
a strong outpost in Constantinople.
When complaint was made to Nestorius he defended Anastasius and the controversy became embittered. As it raged in the capital city, other churches intervened, opposition to Nestorius being stirred up by Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria. At length the Emperor intervened and a general council was held at Ephesus in 431 at which Nestorius was deprived and excommunicated. But many Syrians disapproved of this decision, repudiated the council, and separated from the orthodox Church. These separatists were known as Nestorians.
The Christian school at Edessa, trained in the theology of Diodorus and Theodore, generally supported Nestorius, although there was a strong minority opposed to his teaching. It became the focus of Nestorianism and in this had Hibha as leader. At first the bishop Rabbula took the Nestorian position, but he was won over by Cyril's arguments and stood out against the teaching prevalent in the school. At his death in 435 Hibha, the head of the school and a prominent Nestorian, was appointed bishop and the policy of Rabbula was reversed.
In the controversy raised about Nestorius his leading opponent was Cyril of Alexandria, whose opposition admittedly was conducted in a somewhat intemperate manner. Even at the Council of Ephesus his action was arbitrary, for he pressed the council to commence without waiting for the arrival of the Asiatic bishops, some of whom would probably have supported Nestorius. When those Asiatic bishops arrived they found that matters were already decided and Nestorius condemned. Greatly indignant at this having been done in their absence, they held a rival council under the presidency ofjohn, Patriarch of Antioch, and there decreed the deposition of Cyril of Alexandria, and his chief supporter Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus. The decrees of both councils required the endorsement of the Emperor Theodosius. He, offended at Cyril's arrogant behaviour, ratified the deposition of Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon, then changed his mind and permitted Cyril and Memnon to retain their sees, but compelled Nestorius to return to his monastery near Antioch, where he remained until 435, when he was banished to Petra in Arabia, though he seems actually to have been allowed to go to an oasis in Upper Egypt. Whilst there he was carried off by a nomadic tribe, but escaped and was driven from one place to another by imperial officials, until he died in circumstances unknown some time after 439.
Cyril of Alexandria died in 444 and was succeeded by Dioscoros who followed Cyril's teaching, but surpassed him in violence and autocratic self-assertion. He at once began to search out and persecute all who could be suspected of any tendency towards Nestorianism. Then a new dispute was raised by Eutyches, the aged archimandrite of a monastery at Constantinople, who propounded the doctrine that in the Incarnation the humanity of Christ was completely merged in his Deity, and the Nestorians
(wrongly) asserted that their opponents were Eutychians. Eutyches had been a supporter of Cyril, but his teaching was opposed by Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylacum, who had also been one of Cyril's supporters, and the matter was brought before Flavian, Patrich of Constantinople, and his local synod. Flavian was one of the Antiochcne school, but of the moderate wing, and was drawn into the controversy reluctantly, but at length Eutyches was deposed and excommunicated. To Dioscoros, who appears to have inclined towards Eutyches' view, or at any rate considered it nearer the truth than the doctrine of Nestorius, this seemed like a revival of Nestorianism and, by the favour of the Empress, he obtained a re-hearing of the case before another synod at Constantinople a year later, but this synod did not reverse the sentence against Eutyches. Dissatisfied with this Dioscoros induced the Emperor to summon a general council for the extirpation of Nestorianism in 449, and at this council he himself presided. But when the council met his conduct was violent and arrogant so that the assembly became a scene of confusion, well deserving the name of Latrocinium or "Synod of Brigands", which Pope Leo applied to it. Eutyches was restored, his accuser, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, was not even granted a hearing, and Flavian was deposed. When some of the bishops present ventured to remonstrate, Dioscoros called in a band of soldiers and threatened them into submission. At this council Hibha, Bishop of Edessa, was deposed and a pronounced Cyrillian Nonnus was appointed in his place.
But the proceedings of the "Synod of Brigands" aroused general disapproval, and those who disapproved most turned to Rome for support. After a great deal of heated controversy another general council was assembled at Chalcedon in 451, and this council, strongly prejudiced against Dioscoros, reversed the decisions Of 449, deposed Dioscoros, and drew up a statement of faith which seemed a reasonable compromise. Dioscoros and his partisans refused that statement and separated from the State Church. Thus the Eastern Church was divided into three bodies, the Orthodox or State Church, the Nestorians, and the extreme anti-Nestorians who rejected the Confession of Faith proposed at Chalcedon and are commonly known as Monophysites.
There has been a good deal of antagonism to Hibha's appointment to the see of Edessa and the objectors made their complaint to Domnus who became Patriarch of Antioch in 442. Domnus seems to have been unwilling to listen to this complaint, but in 448 a formal charge was laid in such a form that it could not be ignored and Hibha was summoned to Antioch to answer the accusations brought against him. The synod was held at Antioch after Easter and only a few bishops attended, the extant decrees are signed by nine bishops only. Eighteen charges were laid against Hibha: one of these was that he had anathematized Cyril of Alexandria as a lieretic, and this he admitted. Other chax-gcs, that he was a Nestorian, that he had uttered blasphemous words in a sermon on Easter Day, 445, and other matters he denied, Of four Witnesses who appeared against him two went away to Constantinople because they considered that Domnus was biassed in Hibha's favour, and in their absence the trial was postponed indefinitely. The two who had gone to the capital appealed to the Emperor and the case was remitted to a special commission which was called to meet at Tyre, but this was afterwards changed to Berytus (Beirut). The commissioners declined to come to any definite conclusion and a compromise was effected on 25th February by which Hibha agreed to pronounce an anathema publicly upon Nestorius and to accept the decrees of Ephesus. Such a truce could not be permanent: Hibha's enemies were active and had friends at court, so another council was arranged at Ephesus later in the same year, which was the notorious Latrocinium, and at this he was deposed and excommunicated. But the scandal caused by that council brought a change of feeling generally and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 restored him as unlawfully deprived, but required him to anathematize both Nestorius and Eutyches, which he did, and resumed his see. Apparently Hibha's personal character told greatly in his favour and he retained undisturbed possession of his see until his death on 28th October, 437, when Nonnus, who had been put aside at Hibha's restoration, resumed the episcopal office.
When Hibha was appointed bishop he placed his pupil Barsauma, a native of Northern Mesopotamia, in charge of the school. Barsauma shared Hibha's deprivation in 449, and presumably was restored when the Council of Chalcedon revoked the proceedings of the Latrocinium. When Hibha died he was still head of the school, and as the leading supporter of Nestorianism was the chief target of Nonnus' persecuting zeal. This became so intolerable that Barsauma decided to leave Edessa and seek a new life in the kingdom of Persia. Whether he was actually expelled is not clear: the opponents of Nestorianism in the school of Edessa were in the rhinority, but they were a strong minority and now they had the bishop's support. The view has been proposed that the school at Edessa was Nestorian, the city anti-Nestorian.
The history of this period contains several difficulties in its chronology, which arc not easily solved. Certain fixed points can be determined from outside sources, and these are: In 435 Hibha became Bishop of Edessa, and apparently entrusted the school there to Barsauma then, or soon afterwards. 449, the Latrocinium or "Brigands' Synod" deposed both from office. In that year there was a popular outbreak against Barsauma demanding his expulsion from the city. He was a leading and very contentious Nestorian. There was a strong anti-Nestorian minority at Edessa: it has been suggested that the school was Nestorian, the people generally were not,
but this is dubious.
451, Hibha was restored to office by the Council of Chalcedon, probablv Barsauma was restored at the same time.
457, Hibha died and his successor Nonnus enforced the Chalcedonian decrees, dealing harshly with the Nestorians. As a result some of the Nestorian lecturers (including Barsauma?) migrated to Persia.
471, Cyrus became Bishop of Edessa and continued a strongly anti-Nestorian policy.
482, the Emperor Zeno endeavoured to win back the Monophysites who had separated from the Church and published the Henoticon as a compromise. This Henoticon was primarily addressed to the Church of Egypt and in it the Emperor condemned Nestorius, approved Cyril of Alexandria, and neither approved nor rejected the canons of Chalcedon. The imperial government was anxious to conciliate the Monophysites, but do not seem to have troubled much about the comparatively unimportant Nestorians. The Nestorians regarded this as a direct attack upon their religion and were greatly disturbed at the way in which, as they viewed it, the government had gone over to their enemies, the Monophysites.
489, the Emperor Zeno was persuaded by Cyrus, the Bishop of Edessa, to close the school there finally and the lecturers who were Nestorians forthwith migrated to Persia. They were met by Barsauma and induced to settle at Nisibis, where they opened a school entirely Nestorian in its teaching, and this school was directly descended from the school of Nisibis and afterwards became the great central university of the Nestorian community.
There were two definite purges of the school of Edessa, one in 457, the other in 487, all the remaining Nestorians going away after this latter.
The contemporary Persian kings were-
438-457 Yazdgerd.
457-484 Peroz.
484-488 Balash.
488-53I Qawad I.
The contemporary Catholici or metropolitans were-
415-420 Yahbalaha.
420 Ma'na, Farbokht.
421-456 Dadisho'.
457-484 Babowai.
485-495-6 Aqaq (Acacius).
497-502 -3 Babai.
The historian Shem'on, of Beth Arsham, says that Barsauma, Aqaq, Ma'na, John, Paul, son of Qaqai, Pusai, Abraham, and Narsai, all lecturers of Edessa, migrated to Persia after Hibha's death (457), were received by Babowai, and settled in Persian sees. Barsauma then set himself to rally the Nestorians and force Nestorianism on the Persian Church. Shem'on is a strongly prejudiced Monophysite.
It seems clear that Barsauma was befriended by Babowai, who presented him to King Perez, and as the Catholicos vouched for his capacity to negotiate with the Romans, Peroz gave him the oversight of the frontier defences, and subsequently employed him on a commission to check the boundary with the Persian Marzban, the Roman dux, and the king of the Arabs. All this must have taken place before the summer of 484 when King Perez died, and probably before the April of that year when Babowai was executed.
During the period 457-484 Barsauma took drastic measures to promote Nestorianism in Persia. He persuaded the king that it was necessary that the Persian Church should be differentiated from the orthodox Church in the Roman Empire, and one measure he took to do this was to induce the bishops to marry, which fitted in very well with the Persian idea that it was every man's duty to be married and rear children. To enforce this he held a council at Bait Lapat (Jundi-Shapur) la April, 4,84, a synod attended by only a few bishops, and there decreed the legality of episcopal marriage. The synod was afterwards adjudged to be null and void as Barsauma was not the metropolitan, who alone was entitled to convoke synods, and consequently its decrees are not included in the Synod. Orient. No doubt Barsauma counted on being made Catholicos at Babowai's death, but as his protector Peroz died soon afterwards, before the bishops met to elect a new metropolitan, they were able to hold a free election and, already aware that Barsauma was a man of turbulent and tyrannical tempers preferred to choose Aqaq (Acacius), who was also an alumnus of the school of Edessa. The new Catholicos held a synod at Beth 'Adrai in August, 485, at which the canons of Beit Lapat were confirmed, and a more formal council at Seleucia in February, 486, whose acts have come down to us (Synod. Orient., 299-309), and from these we can gather the general tendency of Barsauma's changes designed to adapt the Nestorian Church to Persian standards. All this seems to have been a reaction against the anti-Nestorian development in the Roman Empire under Zeno. Six letters which passed between Barsauma and the Catholicos Acacius are preserved in Synod. Orient., 532-9, and reveal him as a strong opponent of everything hostile to Nestorianism and a devoted servant of the Persian crown.
Narsai, who may have remained at Edessa until the school was finally closed in 489 and have succeeded Barsauma as head of that school, or may have accompanied Barsauma in his migration to Persia before that, as Shem'on of Beth Arsham says, was equally vigorous in his advocacy of Nestorianism, but for a period was opposed to Barsauma and harshly treated by him: undoubtedly Barsauina was a man of overbearing and arbitrary temper. After he was made Bishop of Nisibis (485), probably after the closing of the school of Edessa (489), Barsauma established the school of Nisibis and placed it under the direction of Narsai (cf. below).
Shem'on associates a third person with Barsauma and Narsai as spreading Nestorianism in Persia after 457, a rather obscure character called Ma'na who is described as having ultimately become cathohcus. But the only catholicos of this name which appears in the list of the Persian metropolitans was made catholicos in 420, in the last year of King Yazdgerd I, thirtyseven years before the death of Ribha. Shem'on further describes him as having translated Syriac books into Old Persian and as making a Syriac translation of the commentary of Theodore of Mopscustia for Hibha. According to the Nestorian chronicles Yazdgerd I became a persecutor in the last year of his reign, urged on by the native priesthood who were alarined at the spread of Christianity, which probably means that many Mazdeans had been converted to Christianity, contrary to Persian law. So Yazdgerd deposed Ma'na, forbade him to control the affairs of the church, and relegated him to his native province. Mare and Elias of Nisibis refer to Mm as being banished and imprisoned, but liberated on the undertaking that neither he nor any other should claim the title of catholicos. His name does not occur at all in the diptychs of the Nestorian Church, and the chronicles give Ma'na, Farbokht, and Dadisho' as becoming catholicos in 420 or 421, but agree that Dadisho' held that office from
421 to 456 and was then followed by Barsauma's friend Babowai. The most probable solution seems to be that at the death of the catholicos Yabalaha in 420 there was a disputed election with three candidates, that Ma'na and Farbokht held their own for a while, then in 421 Dadisho obtained general recognition, the comparatively obscure Majna being afterwards confused with a namesake who left Edessa with Barsauma.
There is another obscure name which sometimes seems to replace that of Ma'na, Mari the Persian. He, like Ma'na, is described as of Beit Ardashir, which is the official name for Seleucia, so it is implied that he was Bishop of Seleucia and consequently Catholicos. But no catholicos of that name occurs in the lists of metropolitans. He is said to have corresponded with Hibha, but the catholicos in Hibha's days was Dadisho'. It has been suggested that Mari stands for Dadisho': the term means "lord", a complimentary title usually prefixed to the name of the catholicos, which has been accidentally taken for his name. Admittedly the name Dadisho' was difficult to transliterate in Greek (cf. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans I'Empire Perse, P. 133, note 6).
The other alumni who migrated from Edessa to Persia are easier to enumerate. They are, Aqaq (Acacius), who became catholicos in 485; Aba Yazadid; Yuhanna (John of Beth Garmai, cast of the Tigris), who was made Bishop of Beth Sari) Abraham the Mede; Paul, the son of Qaqi, who became Bishop of Beth Huzaye (Ahwaz), and died about 535; Micah, who became Bishop of Lashom of Beth Garmai; Pusi, who became Bishop of Huzaye; Ezalaya, of the monastery of Kefar Mari; and Abshota of Nineveh. All these are enumerated with derisive nick-names by Shem'on of Beth Arsham as those who adhered to Nestorian teaching at Edessa after 457, and most of them are described as pupils of Narsai, which may imply that they continued under his instruction after he had removed to Nisibis. All these were Persians, evidently the cream of the theological students of the Persian Church who had been sent to complete their studies at Edessa, the leading Syriac university, and they now returned home such men probably were marked out for high office in any case.
All this shows the steady transfer of Greek scholarship, in a modified Syriac form, from Edessa across the Persian frontier to Nisibis, whence it ultimately spread through the Nestorian community, and so reached the Arabs. It is a distinct link in the chain of transmission, but a link which at one time almost broke through, and then was renewed. That has now to be considered.
The Greek scholarship transmitted from the school of Edessa to the Persian school of Nisibis consisted mainly of the logical works of Aristotle with the Isagoge of Porphyry. The study of the Aristotelian logic was introduced amongst the Syriac-speaking Christians by Hibha, who translated, or procured the translation, of Aristotle's Hermeneutica and Analytica Priora, with Porphyry's Isagoge, and these were soon circulated with the commentaries of Probus (c. 450), independent of the Greek commentators but with some use of Ammonius. At a later date the Nestorians employed Ammonius' commentary, whilst the Monophysites preferred that of John Philoponus. In the first place Hibha had introduced the Aristotelian logic to illustrate and explain the theological teaching of Theodore, of Mopseustia, and that logic remained permanently the necessary introduction to theological study in all Nestorian education. Ultimately it was that Aristotelian logic which, with the Greek medical, astronomical, and mathematical writers, was passed on to the Arabs.
Barsauma is stated to have composed metrical homilies, hymns, and a liturgy. His most interesting literary production is the series of six letters which he wrote to the Catholicos Acacius, fortunately preserved in the Synodicon Orientale, which has been edited by J. Chabot, with transl. and notes, (Paris, 1902.)
Narsai, whom Barsauma placed in charge of the restored school of Nisibis, was a voluminous writer, though only fragments of his works survive. 'Abdisho' ascribes to him scriptural commentaries, 36o metrical homilies, a liturgy, expositions of the Eucharistic liturgy and Baptism, and various hymns of which two are often included in the Nestorian Psaiter (Daily Office).
Narsai died probably, between 500 and 520, and was succeeded by his nephew Abraham, Of his pupils the best known were John of Nisibis and Joseph Huzaya, who died about 575. John of Nisibis was the author of a number of commentaries on scripture and other theological works: "If the discourse on the plague at Nisibis and the death of Khosraw I. Anoshirwan be really by him, he was alive in 579 in the spring of which year that monarch died" (Wright, Hist. Syr. Lit., 115)- Joseph Huzaya was the first Syriac grammarian (cf. Merx, Hist. artis grammat. apud Syros, Leipzig, 1889, pp. 26 sqq.).
(4) DARK PERIOD OF THE NESTORIAN CHURCH
In passing through the medium of a foreign language any form of intellectual culture is liable to suffer modification, though this may be merely superficial, and such undoubtedly was true of Greek scholarship as it passed through Syriac translations. But this change was most pronounced in the Nestorian atmosphere, for that became more definitely oriental after Barsauma's deliberate policy of Persianizing the Nestorian Church. His efforts resulted in making a great cleavage between Greek Christianity as it existed within the Roman Empire, and Nestorian Christianity at home in Persia. The Nestorian schism had already made a division in doctrine: the synods Of 484 and the following years made a great difference in discipline until they were repealed in 544: in worship a divergence arose from the fact that the Nestorians after 457 were out of touch with the liturgical life of the Eastern Church at large, and this was accentuated by the compilation of special liturgies by Barsauma and others: politically there was a cleavage because the Greek Church remained under the imperial government at Byzantium, whilst the Nestorians were subjects of the Persian King: and culturally a separation arose from the fact that students, theological or other, ceased to visit for study those lands where Greek was still a living language. This cleavage, begun by Barsauma, became wider under his immediate successors.
Acacius and his successor Babai had received an education which, though Syriac in form, was Greek in substance. After that the episcopate rapidly became more Persian, and as it orientalized it degenerated.
The discipline of the Eastern Church encourages a married secular (parochial) clergy, married before ordination, marriage after ordination and second marriages not being permitted: monks and nuns are of course celibate, and bishops and certain other dignitaries are chosen only from the (unmarried) regular clergy. Hormizd III, son of Yazdgerd II, who for a brief period occupied the Persian throne after his father's death and was then replaced by Peroz, had persuaded the Catholicos Babowai to marry a girl of great beauty whom he selected, holding the Persian opinion that it was every man's duty to marry. Babowai could not refuse, but at once sent back the damsel to her family. Peroz, in his friendship for Barsauma, acted similarly: Barsauma could not refuse, but kept his bride though abstaining from marital relations with her, according to the Nestorian historians. But Barsauma, desiring to differentiate the Nestorians from the Greeks and wishing to please the king, advised that the bishops be permitted to marry, even after ordination: he desired that Christian clergy should enjoy a good repute in the eyes of the pagans and their magi.
Barsauma's policy resulted in the canons passed by the council held at Seleucia in 486. After affirming Nestorian doctrine (canon 1), it. was decreed that monks may not intrude in towns where there already are parochial clergy or minister the sacraments, they must remain in their monasteries or desert hermitages (canon 2), the vow of celibacy binds only cloistered religious and no other clergy, those already deacons may marry, and no more persons may be ordained deacons unless they are married and have children, and priests like all other Christians are allowed to contract second marriages. From 486 until those canons were repealed, the Persian (Nestorian) Church was undoubtedly orientalized and was regarded by the rest of Christendom as a degenerate byproduct of Christianity.
The death of Barsauma did not check the Persianization of the Nestorian Church, and a council held at Seleucia in 499 formally approved the marriage of the Catholicos, the bishops, and priests.
At the death of the Catholicos Babai in 502 or 503 there followed a period of anarchy when the Persian bishops were unable to agree on the appointment of a metropolitan. At last Babai's archdeacon Shila was appointed, chiefly because he was a favourite of King Qawad. But he did not turn out well, he disposed of church property to his son and designated his son-in-law Elisha as his successor, a kind of nepotism likely enough to arise among married clergy. At Shila's death in 523 a number of bishops elected Narsai, the Bishop of Hira, as Catholicos and consecrated him at Seleucia. But Elisha had his partisans and they held a rival consecration at Ctesiphon close by Seleucia. Thus the Nestorian Church was split, each section appointing its own bishops and clergy and excommunicating the opposing party. About 535 Narsai died, but his partisans elected and consecrated Paul, the archdeacon of Seleucia, and so the schism was continued. Paul, however, was an old man and died two months after his consecration, and then the Narsai party elected Maraba, who was destined to be the reformer of the Nestorian Church and the leader of a revival of learning which would restore the scholarship of Edessa. It is worth while sketching this history, petty as some of its details may appear, as it shows how far the Nestorian community had degenerated and disintegrated under Persian rule, entirely cut off from intercourse with the main stream of Christian life and Greek scholarship.
(5) THE NESTORIAN REFORMATION
Ma, faba was a native of the country west of the Tigris. As to religion, he had been brought up in the Mazdean faith and after holding the office of arzbed of his town under the Persian government, had been promoted to the post of assistant secretary to the hamaragerd of Beth Aramaye. There he met Christian catechist named Joseph, who had been a pupil in the school of Nisibis and, as they travelled together he treated him with disdain because he was a Christian, but was ov ercome by his humility and readiness to help when they were in a difficult position at a flooded river. After that they began conversing and discussed matters relating to their respective religions with the result that Maraba was baptized a Christian. Then he went to the school at Nisibis and attached himself to a teacher named Ma'na. When Ma'na was made Bishop of Arzun, Maraba went with him to his see and was active in preaching to pagans and heretics. After this he returned to Nisibis and completed his studies there. Then he set out to travel in the Roman Empire so as to obtain a better knowledge of the Greek language in which so much material relating to the Christian religion was written, At Edessa he met a Syrian named Thomas who gave him instruction in Greek, and together the two visited the holy sites in Palestine and the hardly less holy sanctuaries of Shiet (Scetis) in Egypt, the cradle of the monastic life. Finally he returned to Persia, but was so shocked at the state of the Nestorian Church and the schism which divided it, that he prepared to devote himself to a hermit's life like that of the ascetes whom he had seen in Egypt. But the bishops intervened and forbade him, insisting that he should undertake teaching, then after a while they elected him Catholicos, exhorting him to counteract the threatened encroachment of Monophysite propaganda. His first task was to restore discipline in the church, then he turned to the promotion of scholarship and especially to the study of Aristotelian logic. To further this he founded a school at Seleucia, for there seems no basis for a legend which claims an earlier foundation for that school, and this school of Seleucia had a reputable history, but it never became a serious rival to the older school at Nisibis which remained the central university of Nestorian Christianity.
Maraba's episcopate lasted from 536 to 552. Unfortunately his great activity aroused jealousy and he had a quarrel with King Khusraw I with the result that the king had the Nestorian church at Seleucia pulled down and sent Maraba into exile to Adharbaigan (Azerbaijan). As Maraba was a convert from the Mazdean religion he was of course liable to death, but he was by no means the only such convert who escaped that penalty. He returned from exile without permission, was cast into prison, and died there on
29th February, 552. His body was removed to Hira4 and buried there, and a monastery was erected over his grave. This Arab city of Hira was by now a great stronghold of Nestorianism. He is said -to have attempted a revision of the Peshitta or Syriac vulgate of the Old Testament, perhaps of the New Testament as well, but the Nestorians generally clung to the older version to which they were accustomed. He was the author of commentaries on Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, and the epistles of St. Paul, of homilies, hymns, synodal epistles and canons, these last strongly against the marriage of bishops and priests. His influence generally was the revival of life in the Nestorian Church and a return from oriental isolation to a closer contact with the Greek Church.
In his days there lived two writers, both known as Abraham of Kashkar. One of these was a student of philosophy and also a reformer of monasteries. He is said to have written a treatise on the monastic life which was translated into Persian by his disciple job the Monk. His namesake was a student of Nisibis, and he also was a monastic reformer. He preached in Hira and converted many pagan Arabs, then went to Egypt and Sinai, finishing his life as a herrnit on Mount Izla. He left a code of monastic rules considerably stricter than those previously accepted in the Nestorian monasteries.
Theodore of Marw was appointed Bishop of Marw by Maraba in 540. He was a disciple of Sergius of Rashayn who is reckoned as a Monophysite (cf. infra), and like his teacher was a student of Aristotelian logic. In him and the first Abraham of Kashkar we have evidence of the humanist renaissance which was taking place in Maraba's days, amongst Monophysites and others as well as in Nestorian circles, but to which he was the chief agent in directing the Nestorians. Theodore's brother Gabriel was Bishop of Mormuzd-Ardasher (Ahwaz), and has also left literary works, but those were entirely theological, commentaries on scripture, and a treatise against the Manichaeans and the astrologers.
With the revival of the school of Nisibis the Nestorians started a system of general education in schools attached to their churches, and in these children were taught hymns and church music. The school of Nisibis itself was in the form of a coenobium where the students were bound by vows of celibacy, continuous residence, regularity, and diligence. Not all were monks or intending to be monks, and these vows and monastic discipline bound them only so long as they attended the school. The head of the school for some time after Narsai's death was Henana of Adiabene and under him, it is said, there were 800 students in attendance. But early in the seventh century the school was vexed bv dissentions caused by those who wanted reform, restoration of stricter discipline, and the more definite Nestorianism which had prevailed under Barsauma, for Henana had taught a modified form of Nestorian doctrine which compromised with the teaching of the Orthodox Church. His teaching had a considerable following, but was opposed by many, so the Persian Church generally was divided and this division was reflected in the school. Some of the dissatisfied left Nisibis and founded other schools more in conformity with their ideas in the monasteries of Abraham and Bath 'Abe, but these never became serious rivals of Nisibis. Under the Catholicos Isho'yahb (628-643) the desired reforms were introduced into Nisibis and the schism was healed. The school was flourishing at the time of the Muslim conquest, but does not seem to have had any direct influence on the Arabs, probably because it was so definitely theological, though it no doubt was indirectly responsible for introducing the logic of Aristotle to the other Nestorian academies at Jundi-Shapur and Seleucia. The influence which reached the Arabs came mainly through Jundi-Shapur.
The rivalry of Monophysite propaganda not only prompted a revival of learning amongst the Nestorians, but also suggested an expansion into the surrounding country where their Monophysite rivals were winning many converts from the pagan Arabs. Thus began the missionary enterprise of the Nestorians which before long spread amongst the Arabs on the south-west, then eastwards across Central Asia until it reached the Far East.
On the Persian border the chief city of the Arabs was Hira. Towards the end of the sixth century Nu'man, King of Hira, was baptized, and this was followed by the conversion of many of the Arabs. In Hira these Arabs, of the Lakhmid clan, formed the ruling aristocracy, the bulk of the population was Aramaic Syriac and already Christian. It appears that those Arabs who accepted Christianity embraced Nestorian doctrine, accepted the ministrations of Syriac-speaking Nestorian clergy, and used Syriac as a liturgical language. As yet there were no books in Arabic, no Arabic version of the scriptures, and no Arabic liturgy. It appears that Hunayn ibn Ishaq, who was a native of Hira, had to learn Arabic later in life, the humbler classes of Hira being Syriac-speaking.
Nestorian missions pushed on towards the south and reached the Wadi I-Qura', a little to the north-cast of Medina, an outpost of the Romans garrisoned, not by Roman troops, but by auxiliaries of the Qoda' tribes. In the time of Muhammad most of those tribes were Christian, and over the whole wadi were scattered monasteries, cells, and hermitages. From this as their headquarters Nestorian monks wandered through Arabia, visiting the great fairs and preaching to such as were willing to listen to them. Tradition relates that the Prophet as a young man went to Syria and near Bostra was recognized as one predestined to be a prophet by a monk named Nestor (Ibn Sa'd, Itqan, ii, p. 367). Perhaps this may refer to some contact with a Nestorian monk. The chief Christian stronghold in Arabia was the city of Najran, but that was mainly Monophysite. What was called its Ka'ba seems to have been a Christian cathedral.
But Greek culture did not pass through these early contacts. The cultural contribution of the Nestorians was definitely through Jundi-Shapur, and the transmission of Greek science to the Arabs took place when the Arab court was established at the newly built city of Baghdad close by.
The pontificate of Maraba fell within the reign of Khusraw I (531-578). Although that king conducted a war against the Romans, he was a great admirer of Graeco-Roman culture and especially desired to introduce Greek science into his dominions. It was he who offered hospitality to the philosophers who were turned adrift when Justinian closed the schools of Athens and provided for their safety and welfare when they decided to return to Greece. He desired to have in Persia a great Greek academy like that at Alexandria, and such an academy he established in the city of Jundi-Shapur. There the Alexandrian curriculum was introduced and the same books Of Galen read and lectured upon as at Alexandria. This was no new departure, for the same curriculum was followed at Emesa where there also was a school. Obviously the courses followed at Alexandria were in great repute and were generally regarded as the model for a secular education.
Greek physicians greatly esteemed certain herbs and drugs which could only be obtained from India, and so Khusraw sent an agent, Budh, a Christian periodeutes or rural bishop, to India to procure drugs. To this Budh is ascribed a work which was called Alef Migin, which. has been explained as meaning a commentary on the first book of Aristotle's Physica (Αλφα “ό μέγα), which is not extant, and the Syriac version of a collection of Indian (Buddhist) tales known as Qalilag wa-Dimnag, but "that Bodh made his Syriac translation from an Indian (Sanskrit) original, as 'Abdh-isho' asserts, is wholly unlikely; he no doubt had before him a Pahlavi or Persian version" (Wright, Hist. Syr. Lit., 124). It is also stated that Khusraw brought a physician from India to teach medicine in the Indian fashion and established him at Susa, meaning of course Jundi-Shapur. Nothing is known of that physician, neither his name nor any details of his activities. To judge by the appendix on Indian medicine attached to the "Paradise of Wisdom" (Firdaws al-Hikhma) of 'Ali b. Sahl b. Rabban at-Tabari (circ. 850), Indian medicine at that time did not amount to much, it was largely concerned with the exorcism of evil spirits supposed to be the cause of disease with some theories of a confused and vague psychology (d Firdaws al-Hikhma, ed. W. Z. Siddiqi, Berlin, I928). It is possible that for Khusraw I Persian translations were made of portions of Aristotle and the Timaeus Phaedo, and Gorgias of Plato. Agathias heard of such translations, but did not believe in their existence.
Under Khusraw I lived Paul the Persian (d. 571) who "is said by Bar Hebraeus to have been distinguished alike in ecclesiastical and philosophical lore and to have - aspired to the post of metropolitan bishop of Persia, but being disappointed to have gone over to the Zoroastrian religion. This may or may not be true...". Bar Hebraeus speaks of Paul's "admirable introduction to the dialectics (of Aristotle)", by which he no doubt means the treatise on logic extant in a single MS. in the Brit. Mus. (Add. 14660, f. 55b)
(Wright, Hist. Syr. Lit., 122-3). This is edited in Land, Anecd. Syriaca, iv, text 1, 32, trans. 1-30).
There was a Persian academy at Raishahar in the Arrajana province where work was carried on in medicine, astronomy, and logic, which suggests another reproduction of the Alexandrian curriculum (Yaqut, Muajjan ul-buldan, ed. Witstenfeld, ii, 887, trans. Barbier de Maynard, Geographical, Historical and Literary Dictionary of Persia, 270-1)- Mention is also made of an academy with an extensive library at Shiz, also in Arrajana (Ibn Hawqal, ii, 189, 1-2). But very little is known of these Persian academies or of Persian physicians of pre-Islamic times save the names given in a scanty catalogue by Mansur Mowafih who lived in the earlier part of the tenth century.
Syriac study of Aristotle was limited to the logic and with it were taken the Isagoge of Porphyry and a compendium of Aristotelian philosophy by Nicolaus of Damascus, who was also the author of a Botany which was for some time accepted by the Arabic students as genuinely Aristotelian. The logic was read with the help of a commentary, at first the Syriac Probus (cf. above), later the Greek commentary of Ammonius or that of John Philoponus, the Nestorians preferring the former, the Monophysites using the latter. In these commentaries a neo-Platonic influence i,., already apparent, and that influence passed through the Syriac versions and cornmentaries to the Arabs.
From the time of Maraba onwards there is fairly continuous evidence of translation from the Greek and of work in Aristotelian logic. Restricting ourselves for the moment to Nestorian writers we may note:-
Maraba II (more usually Aba simply, as he preferred to distinguish himself from his greater namesake), Catholicos from 741 to 751, often called Aba of Kashkar, as he was bishop of that city before he was appointed Catholicos. He is said to have been skilled in philosophy, medicine, and astronomy, which sounds like the full Alexandrian curriculum, and to have been learned in the wisdom of the Persians, Greeks, and Hebrews (A. Scher, Chron. de Seert, P. O. VII). He is credited with having written a commentary on the Dialectics Of Aristotle. As Catholicos he had a dispute with his clergy about the management of the school of Seleucia and in this seems to have fared ill, as he left the city and resided elsewhere for some years, but finally returned. 'Iraq was conquered by the Arabs in 638, and Persia in 642. During the whole of the episcopate of Maraba II, Mesopotamia and Persia were under the rule of the 'Umayyad khalifs of Damascus, so it is obvious that the Arab conquest did not check or interfere with the progress of Aristotelian studies which continued in the Nestorian Church under Muslim rule.
Shem'on of Beth Gamai, in the early seventh century is said to have translated Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History into Syriac, but his work is lost.
Henan-isho' II, Catholicos from 686 to 701, is said to have composed a commentary on Aristotle's Analytica.
Reference has already been made to Khusraw I's efforts to procure Indian drugs. Amongst those brought to Jundi-Shapur from India was sukkar (Pers. shakar or shakkar, Sanskrit sarkara), our sugar, unknown to Herodotus and Ktesias, but known to Nearchus and Onesicritus as "reed honey", supposed to be made from reeds by bees, the μέλι καλαμινον of Theophrastus. Legend relates that Khusraw discovered a store of sugar amongst the treasures taken in 627 at the capture of Dastigird. The juice of the sugar cane was purified and made into sugar in India about A. D. 300, and now the cane began to be cultivated aboutJundi-Shapur, where there were sugar mills at an early date. At that time and for long afterwards sugar was used only as medicine, it was not until much later that it began to replace honey as an ordinary means of sweetening. In addition to the medical faculty which had a hospital attached, Jundi-Shapur had also a faculty of astronomy with an observatory, which again follows the Alexandrian model. The study of mathematics was subsidiary to astronomy.
At the time of its foundation as a prisoners' camp Jundi-Shapur had citizens who spoke Greek, others who spoke Syriac, and there must have been some using Persian, as it was so close to the royal city of Susa. But in course of time Greek seems to have been abandoned and academic instruction was given in Syriac, as at Nisibis and other Nestorian academies, which does not necessarily imply that the study of Greek was abandoned. The needs of the teaching staff led to the preparation of Syriac translations of the set books of Galen, portions of Hippocrates, some of the logical treatises of Aristotle, the Isagoge, and probably some astronomical and mathematical works, translations made during the period between the days of Hibha at Edessa and Hunayn ibn Ishaq at Baghdad. Hunayn speaks of these translations as bad, but that need mean no more than that they fell very below the standard of his own work.
Ibn Hawqal (Bib. Geogr. Arab., ii, 109-110) says that the people of Jundi-Shapur used the speech of Khuzistan which was neither Hebrew, Syriac, or Persian, and the Maahiju 'I-fikar refers to the people there having a jargon (ratana) of their own. This must refer to the colloquial of the street, not to the language used in the classroom where Syriac was in use, as is obvious from the fact that Syriac translations were made for the use of lecturers.
When Baghdad was founded in 762 the khalif and his court became near neighbours of Jundi-Shapur, and before long court appointments with generous emoluments began to draw Nestorian physicians and teachers from the academy, and in this Harun ar-Rashid's minister Ja'far ibn Barmak was a leading agent, doing all in his power to introduce Greek science amongst the subjects of the khalif, Arabs, and Persians. His strongly pro-Greek attitude seems to have been derived from Marw, where his family had settled after removing from Balkh, and in his efforts he was ably assisted by Jibra'il of the Bukhtyishu' family and his successors from Jundi-Shapur. Thus the Nestorian heritage of Greek scholarship passed from Edessa and Nisibis, through Jundi-Shapur, to Baghdad.
CHAPTER VI THE MONOPHYSITES
(1) BEGINNINGS OF MONOPHYSITISM
THE decisions of Ephesus and the excommunication of Nestorius and his adherents did not bring peace to the Church. Before long new troubles arose. It is necessary to follow these at least in outline as they led to further schism in the Eastern Church, and it was the schismatic bodies which separated from the Church which were the means of transmitting Greek learning to the Arabs. When at length the Muslim Arabs invaded the Roman Empire, these sectarian bodies welcomed them as deliverers and were on friendly terms with them. The position is not fairly viewed if we class Christians on one side, Muslims on the other, without further qualification. For some centuries before the Arab invasions the Christians were split into hostile sects, active in spreading their propaganda against one another, in close contact with the Arabs, and so far as the two dissenting sects were concerned, both actively persecuted by the Byzantine goverrunent and both in consequence disloyal to it. It is necessary to appreciate this position to understand the relation between the Arabs and the Christians.
In 444 Cyril of Alexandria, the great opponent of Nestorianism, died and was succeeded by Dioscoros, a man of precisely similar views, but much more violent in temperament and hasty in expression, an extremer opponent of Nestorianism lacking the tact which had been Cyril's saving quality. Not long after his accession to the see of Alexandria trouble began in Constantinople. An aged and greatly respected archimandrite or abbot of a monastery there, full of zeal against Nestorianism, committed himself to a new statement of what he believed to be the orthodox faith, asserting that in Christ there were two natures, but that both were fused in one, the human nature absorbed in the Deity. Complaint was made that this was inaccurate and overstated what Cyril had maintained. It is uncertain who made the complaint in the first place, whether Theodoret, or Eusebius of Dorylaeum, or Domnus of Antioch, but it was one of these, all supporters of Cyril and maintainers of the decrees of Ephesus. Whoever did make the complaint it was one who like Eutyches himself had been Cyril's supporter, so the dispute broke out amongst the anti-Nestorians themselves.
The complaint was made to Flavian, who was then Patriarch of Constantinople, a man of the Antiochene school but of moderate views and very reluctant to be drawn into the controversy. Unwillingly he assembled his local synod in 448 and that synod decided that Eutyches5, must be deposed and excommunicated. To Dioscoros, who seems to have inclined to Eutyches' opinion, or at any rate considered it nearer the truth than the teaching of Nestorius, this seemed like a revival of Nestorianism, a betrayal of the decisions of Ephesus and, by favour of the Empress, he obtained a re-hearing of the complaint before another synod of Constantinople. Both sides had appealed to popular opinion, and Eutyches had placarded the streets with statements of his case in which he alleged that his accusers had falsified the acts of the late synod of Constantinople so this new council was mainly concerned with that charge and decided that Eutyches had not made it good. Again the decision was against him.
But Dioscoros had influence at court and induced the Emperor Theodosius II to summon a general council for the extirpation of Nestorianism. The summons of this new council was dated 3oth May, 449, and the council met at Ephesus in the following August. Dioscoros presided at this council but behaved in a tyrannical and arrogant manner, relying on court support, and introducing military guards to enforce his authority. The assembly became a scene of disorder, well deserving the name of Latrocinium or "synod of brigands" which Pope Leo applied to it. Eutyches was restored, his leading accuser Eusebius of Dorylaeum was not even granted a hearing, and Flavian was deposed. Some of the bishops present ventured to remonstrate, but Dioscoros called in a band of soldiers and threatened them into submission. It was at this council that Hibha of Edcssa was deposed and a pronounced anti-Nestoxian Nonnus appointed in his place.
The proceedings of the "Synod of Brigands" aroused general disapproval, and those who disapproved most turned to Rome for support. A great deal of heated controversy followed until July, 450, when Theodosius died and Pulcheria, the late emperor's sister, raised her husband Marcian to the throne. This entirely changed the attitude of the court on which Dioscorus had relied. Marcian desired peace and was prepared to welcome a working compron-dse which would put an end to the discord which not only distracted the church but was the source of much disorder in the capital.
To effect a settlement he summoned another general council which met at Chalcedon in September, 45i, and passed very carefully worded decrees which steered between the teachings of Nestorius and Eutyches (cf. Labbe, iv, 562, etc.), indeed a most cautious and judicious, but perfectly definite, statement of the traditional faith of the Church. Such a statement might have been expected to reconcile all but the extremists. But it was a failure, for the opposition was incoherent, the opponents were the "e. phaloi, the headless, without leader, for Eutyches was disowned, and without programme. A disunited and disordered group of malcontents, in themselves weak, but very difficult to attack. This was the end of the first phase of what was afterwards called Monophysitism, a scattered rather incoherent opposition to anything which tended towards Nestorianism, but all the opponents divided amongst themselves. The one point on which they did to some extent agree was that the council of Chalcedon had rather inclined towards Nestorianism, and this feeling was strongest in Egypt. The dissidents did agree in disliking the recent council.
(2) THE MONOPHYSITE SCHISM
At the close of the council of Chalcedon, Monophysitism entered on its second phase, still incoherent and divided but agreed in opposing the decrees of Chalcedon, a merely negative and Protestant porition, therefore weak.
Theodosius, a monk who had attended the council and was very dissatisfied at its decisions, went home to Palestine and published his unfavourable comments, with the
-result that there were riotous outbreaks and bloodshed in Palestine. Dioscoros refused to recognize the decrees of the council and was accordingly deposed, a "Chalcedonian" named Protezius being placed in Ws stead. But Protezius could only appear in public with a guard of soldiers, riots broke out in Alexandria and he was compelled to leave the city. Clearly it was going to be no easy task to enforce the Chalcedonian decrees. Egypt and a great proportion of the monks in all parts were definitely determined to resist. And yet they had no leader, nor any clear statement of principles on which they were agreed. The imperial government tried to bring pressure to bear, but was disinclined to go too far. Prospects seemed altogether insecure.
At Marcian's death in 457, a military tribune Leo of Thrace was elected emperor and proved himself both temperate and firm. He relaxed Marcian's policy and ceased to apply pressure on those who resisted the decrees of Chalcedon, so that there was comparative toleration for the dissidents. Dioscoros had died in banishment at Gangra in Paphlagonia in 454, and Protezius had fled from Alexandria, so a new patriarch was appointed, Timothy Aelurus, a monk who had been banished for resisting Proterius. He was himself banished in 46o, but for the most part the anti-chalcedonians were unmolested and used the opportunity to establish themselves firmly.
At Leo's death in 474, the throne passed to his grandson Zeno, who was even better disposed towards the antiChalcedonians than his predecessor, and entertained hopes of winning them back to the Church, a policy which might have been possible if the dissenters had a responsible head with whom he could negotiate, or a coherent syllabus of what they wanted. To do this he issued, in 482, a declaration known as the Henoticon, primarily addressed to the Egyptian Church but applicable to all who protested against Chalcedon. This document condemned Nestorius, approved Cyril of Alexandria, and neither approved nor rejected the decrees of Chalcedon. It was a distinct move in the anti-Chalcedonian direction and held out terms of agreement for the objectors. No particular attention was paid to the Nestorians, who by now were regarded as of no great importance. At once the weakness of the opposition appeared. Some of the opponents were ready to accept the Henoticon, others objected to it as pro-Nestorian. In
476, there had been a revolt of Basiliscus, Leo's brother-in-law, but this had been suppressed and Zeno restored. During his brief usurpation Basiliscus had received anti-Chalcedonian support, so that by this time sectarian strife had begun to weigh in the politics of the empire which, no doubt, disposed Zeno to make terms with the schismatics. Opposition to Chalcedon was gathering force. It was about this time that the Armenian Church cast in its lot with the disseritients. Zeno went as far as possible in the anti-Chalcedonian direction short of declaring himself one of the dissenters. Timothy Aelurus died in 477 and was succeeded by Peter Mogus who accepted the Henoticon, so Alexandria though still anti-Chalcedonian was prepared to accept the via media.
Zeno died in 491 and his widow married an elderly courtier named Anastasius who, on this account, was elevated to the imperial throne. He reigned twenty-seven years and steadily followed a cautious policy which aimed at preserving the status quo. Egypt, by accepting the Henoticon, was partially pacified, though many there disapproved the terms proposed by Zeno, whilst in Syria there was a strong dissenting element, and from Syria now came the first indication of leadership for the schismatics.
In 5 I 2 the see of Antioch was vacant, and a monk named Severus was chosen as patriarch. He had been educated a pagan and in his earlier years, had become a lawyer, then was converted to Christianity and immediately joined the antiChalcedonian faction. It is often the inclination of converts to go to the extreme, and he was no-exception. Before long he became a monk and entered a monastery near Gaza and came in contact with Peter the Iberian, Bishop of Gaza, who had been one of -the consecrators of Timothy Aelurus. As a thorough-going anti-Chalcedoriian Severus repudiated the Henoticon and refused to recognize Peter Mongus as lawful Patriarch of Alexandria. Then he left Gaza and went into an Egyptian monastery, where exactly is not known, under an abbot named Nephalius, but after some time was expelled from, that convent. Why is not clear: was he too extreme in his views?-or was he a disturber of the peace, as he was afterwards said to be elsewhere? After his expulsion he went to Alexandria and there was the cause of several riotous incidents. At the head of a band of monks he became prominent in destroying several pagan temples, an illegal proceeding as disused temples were supposed to be under imperial protection. In these proceedings, apparently, most of the monks who accompanied him were able to speak Coptic only, not Greek. Was he also Coptic-speaking?-if so he must have been very familiar with Egypt and the Egyptians. These proceedings in Alexandria made it expedient for him to flee to Constantinople where again he was associated with outbreaks of disorder. It must be borne in mind that our knowledge of this period of his life is derived almost exclusively from the accounts left by those who were his uncompromising enemies, and the age was one when controversy was very bitter and invective unscrupulous: there was no law of libel and those who have Written their accounts of Severus were unsparing in their abuse, much of which must therefore be discounted.
But Constantinople did not prove quite so happy a place as Severus hoped when, in 511, Macedonius, a loyal Chalcedonian, was appointed patriarch. The next year, however, Severus was himself appointed patriarch of Antioch and at once left the metropolis to assume his see. His first act as bishop was to pronounce a public anathema on the decrees of Chalcedon, thus declaring himself one of the extremer schismatics. He then claimed to be in communion with Timothy of Constantinople and John Niciota
(of Nikiu) who had become patriarch of Alexandria in 507- In this connection he interchanged synodical letters with Alexandria, and this interchange has been continued to the present day. As metropolitan of Syria his hand was heavy on the "Chalcedonians" and he distinguished himself as a persecutor, but here again our information is derived exclusively from those who were his enemies. During the seven years he occupied the patriarchal throne of Antioch, until the death of the Emperor Anastasius, the anti-Chalcedonian party was in the ascendant, and Severus was generally recognized as its leader and spokesman. But for all that not all of that party were at one with him. For the moment we pause before fortune changed and the dissidents began to suffer persecution.
One of the methods employed to promote views adverse to the decisions of Chalcedon was the circulation of spurious works professing to be the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, the friend of St. Paul. These works were really produced about 482-500, probably in Egypt, and are strongly tinctured with neo-Platonic theories. Whether the writer was one of the party opposed to Chalcedon, or a writer with sympathies with that party, their bias is obvious. These pseudo-Dionysian writings consist of four treatises entitled "On the heavenly hierarchy ", "On the ecclesiastical hierarchy,""On the names of God,"and "On mystic theology ". In addition to these treatises there are ten letters, or fragments of letters, with an eleventh existing only in a Latin version and certainly a forgery of much later date. No reference to such works occurs before the sixth century when they were mentioned by Severus of Antioch and Ephraem, who became patriarch of Antioch in 526. The anti-Chalcedonians appealed to them in a conference with the Catholics in 531, but Hypatius the metropolitan of Ephesus asserted "ostendi non posse ista vera ess quae nullus antiquus memoravit" (Mansi, Concilia, vii, 817). Subsequently there were many in the eastern church who expressed doubts as to their authenticity, but Severus and his party generally accepted them. They were translated into Syriac by Sergius of Rashayn (d. 536) and seem to have had a good deal of influence in propagating Severus' teaching in Syria.
Akin to these pseudo-Dionysian documents were certain works ascribed to Hierotheus, the reputed teacher of Dionysius the Areopagite. These were not of Greek origin but original compositions in Syriac by one Stephen bar Sudhaili of Edessa, a contemporary of Philoxenus. Like the pseiido-Dionysian writings they were tinged with neo-Platonic ideas and exercised an influence over the sectaries, an influence which they passed on to the Arabs at a later date. Stephen was a monk greatly esteemed for his piety. He made a pilgrimage to Egypt, the home of monasticism, and there came under the influence of some heretical monks, including some who had revived the teachings of Origen. On his return to Syria he began teaching the doctrines he had learned in Egypt and was expelled from his monastery for doing so. He then went to Jerusalem where he continued teaching his peculiar ideas, apparently in association with some Ozigenist monks already settled there. Following Origen he maintained that the fire of hell is not eternal but merely purgatorial so that ultimately the population of hell will be redeemed and God will be all in all (1 Cor., xv, 28). Theodosius of Antioch
(887-96) wrote a commentary on "the Book of Hierotheus" (Brit. Mus. Add., 7189).
We have now reached what we may regard as the close of the second period of the anti-Chalcedonian movement, the period during which it enjoyed court favour, because it was hoped that the dissenters might still be reconciled with the Church, and during which it showed that it was predominant in Egypt and very strong in Syria. This period ended with the death of the Emperor Anastasius on 11th July, 518
(3) PERSECUTION OF THE MONOPHYSITES
At the death of Anastasius Justin, a Thracian peasant, installed himself as emperor. The anti-Chalcedonian party in Constantinople was led by the eunuch Amantius, who was determined to set Theocritus on the throne, but entrusted the distribution of largesse to Justin, and Justin made good use of the influence this gave him, so that he was able to secure the throne for himself. This new emperor was a Catholic and orthodox, that is to say he accepted the decrees of Chalcedon and determined to enforce them. A council was held in Constantinople on 2oth July, 518, at which it was determined to reverse the policy of Anastasius and Zeno and to enforce conformity with Chalcedon. This new policy was endorsed by a synod at Jerusalem on 6th August, and by another at Tyre on I4tb September.
Severus of Antioch was regarded as the leading opponent of Chalcedon and orders were sent for his arrest, but he escaped and took refuge in Egypt. At the same time orders were issued for the deposition of all anti-Chalcedonian bishops, and a number of these, including Julian of Halicamassus, also took refuge in Egypt. Egypt was too great a stronghold of the opponents to be dealt with, and for the while it was left alone. When Severus arrived there Dioscorus 11, who had succeeded John Niciota in 517, was patriarch, but he died on 24th October, 518. Pope Hormisdas advised Justin to take the opportunity of restoring orthodoxy in Alexandria and proposed an Alexandrian deacon named Dioscorus as patriarch, and on this there was long discussion, but at last Justin made no appointment and the Alexandrians elected Timothy III.
After Severus had left Antioch an orthodox candidate Paul was appointed patriarch and he proceeded to enforce conformity with the decrees of Chalcedon. But there were many there who refused to conform or to recognize the authority of Paul, and these seceded from the church so that the anti) using communion Chalcedonians now became a distinct sect, refusing communion with the Chalcedonians and declining to accept the ministrations of conforming clergy. This was a definite step away from the church.
There is some obscurity about Severus' experiences in Egypt. At first apparently he was a fugitive and assumed a disguise, living in danger of being arrested and sent back for punishment. Perhaps his life as recorded in his "Conflicts" by Athanasius of Antioch, extant in an Ethiopic version edited by Goodspeed in Patr. Orient. IV, with fragments of a Coptic version which has passed through an intermediate Arabic one (ed. W. E. Crum, in Patr. Or., IV, 578-90), rather exaggerates his sufferings and difficulties: it is the usual tendency of lives of the saints to dwell much on the sufferings they had to endure. Before long, apparently, he was welcomed and honoured by Timothy III, and was generally regarded in Egypt as a great church leader, the patriarch himself falling into the background. It was Severus who consecrated the great church of St. Claudius at Siut (Assiout) and delivered there a sermon still extant in Coptic, Constantine Bishop of Siut at the same time delivering an oration of welcome from which it is apparent that Severus was then recognized as the great leader of the faithful. (These texts in the Pierpont Morgan MSS., xlii (47).)
But the presence of the refugees in Egypt had its disadvantages. They were not. all in accord and very soon it became obvious that the anti-Chalcedonians, who now began to be called Monophysites by the orthodox, were divided amongst themselves. Peter Mongus and his party had belonged to the more moderate section which was willing to accept the Henoticon, and that section was predominant in Alexandria, so Alexandria was left in peace. But Severus was of an extremer section and moreover was violent in the expression of his views. Both he and Julian of Halicamassus were writers, and this brought their teaching before the community generally. Then it appeared that they differed materially. Severus held that the human body of Christ was subject to human defects, which was the orthodox view. But Julian pressed Monophysite doctrine to its logical conclusion and held that the union of the two natures in Christ made his body free from every human infirmity, so that he was immortal and impassible from the union which took place at the incarnation. From this it followed that the passion caused no pain, it was merely an appearance of phantasia, a view which led to Julian and his followers being known as Phantasiasts. To explain his views Julian compiled a "tome", a book of which he sent a copy to Severus and other copies to various Egyptian monasteries which embraced his teaching cordially. Then Severus wrote a refutation of the tome and it became clear that the Monophysites were divided into at least three discordant sects. In this dispute the patriarch Timothy took no part. He preferred to remain in the background and hoped that time would heal the differences and even reconcile the sectaries with the Catholic Church. With this end in view he attended a conference at Constantinople in 533, but terms were not arranged. A second conference was planned for 535, but he died on 7th February of that year as he was preparing to go to the meeting.
Meanwhile Justin had died and the imperial throne had passed to Justinian (1st August, 527) whose policy followed the same lines as that ofjustin, but was more moderate in application. Justinian was sincerely anxious to restore unity in the Church, but does not seem to have appreciated the problems which separated the several sects and parties. His policy was to conciliate, but Severus refused to be conciliated. The beginning of the new reign was a welcome relief to the Monophysites. Justinian, it is true, made severe laws for the punishment of heresy, but tho-.e laws were kept in reserve: he was too prudent to put them into operation. His wife, the ex-dancer Theodora, was openly pro-Monophvsite. Perhaps she had her own views, or perhaps, as many supposed, her attitude was a piece of astute policy on the part of the emperor who did not want to drive the Monophysites into open revolt.
At Timothy's death, the Alexandrian synod met at once to elect a new patriarch, and the court eunuch Calotychius, acting on instructions from Constantinople, induced them to choose the deacon Theodosius, a moderate Monophysite and a friend of Severus. On the same day Theodosius was consecrated and at once proceeded to carry out the funeral of his predecessor, as was the established practice in Alexandria. But the people of Alexandria, stirred up by the extreme julianists, would not have Theodosius and a new meeting of the synod elected the archdeacon Gaianus, who was induced to accept office with some difficulty, and he was then consecrated in the private house of one of the clergy. This was the more remarkable because he had actually assisted at the installation of Theodosius. Gaianus was soon expelled by the secular authorities, with much rioting and several murders. But Theodosius could not venture to appear openly in the city, he had to remain outside in the monastery of Canopus.
In the course of this same year (535) there was a new patriarch at Constantinople, Anthimus who, though not a Monophysite, was very much inclined towards them. By now a number of deprived Monophysite bishops, including several of the extremer section, were in Constantinople as guests in Theodora's palace, a thing which caused great scandal to the orthodox.
About this time another figure came forward. That was Sergius of Rashayn (c. 536) a celebrated physician and philosopher, skilled in Greek and the translator into Syriac of various works on medicine, philosophy, astronomy, and theology. In the life of the Nestorian Catholicos Maraba there is a reference to a certain Sergius who is described as an "Arian "with a tendency to paganism whom Maraba said that he would like to meet for a discussion and perhaps bring him to the true faith. No doubt this was the Sergius mentioned. In 535 he went to Antioch to lodge a complaint against a bishop named Asylus. But Ephraem, the Patriarch of Antioch, was himself in an uneasy position. He was the orthodox patriarch and had been prominent as a persecutor of the Monophysites. Now the Monophysites seemed to be in the ascendant under the protection of Theodora and he feared the possible restoration of Severus to the see of Antioch. Observing that Sergius was a man of learning and culture and familiar with Greek he sent him to Pope Agapetus to enlist his support in an appeal to the emperor to use stricter measures against the Monophysites. Sergius found Agapetus on the point of starting for Constantinople on a different errand, to obtain terms of peace for Theodahad who wished to be reconciled with Justinian. The Pope and Sergius travelled to Constantinople together. Agapetus did not succeed in checking the punitive expedition preparing to deal with Theodahad, but did remonstrate with the emperor about the way in which the Monophysites were tolerated. It was not long after this that Sergius died, though our information about his life and chronology is scanty. He is generally claimed as a Monophysite, though the translations which he made from the Greek were used by Nestorians and others as well. The Syrian historian 'Abdisho' (B. O., iii, 87) claims him as a Nestorian because several of his works are dedicated to Theodore who became Nestorian Bishop of Marw in 540. But Theodore of Marw was his pupil and no doubt it was on this account that he had these works dedicated to him. Certainly the Nestorian Catholicus Maraba did not count him as one of his flock. He made his appeal to the orthodox patriarch of Antioch and acted as his envoy. But there was no one else to whom he could appeal, the Monophysite patriarch Severus being in exile. There is, no doubt, a possible solution, that he changed from one religious cornmunity to another. He was not well esteemed for his moral character and this, in view of the methods on which religious controversy was then conducted, rather suggests that he was a convert from one sect to another. Or, it may be, that he was a man indifferent to these sectarian differences and having regard only for his own career. In his earlier days he had attended the school of Alexandria and used his familiarity with Greek to prepare Syriac translations of the leading authorities studied there. As cited by Hunayn ibn Ishaq in his Risala, these translations covered the chief part of the Alexandrian curriculum, though that had not at that time taken its final form. Two treatises of Galen were added to that syllabus later, De sectis and De pulsibus ad Tironem. These he did not translate, their Syriac versions were made by Ibn Sahda in Muslim times. Hunayn ibn Ishaq describes them as very poor translations, but Hunayn's standards were exceptionally high. A good deal of what survives of Sergius' work is preserved in Brit. Nius. Add., 14658.
The result of Pope Agapetus' intervention was that measures were taken acainst the Monophysites. A synod was held at Constantino le and both Anthimus of Constantinople and Timothy of Alexandria were deposed, whilst Severus was formally anathematized. A new, patriarch Mennas was appointed to Constantinople. After this experience Severus retired again to Egypt where he died. The exact date of his death is not known but is given variously as 538, 539, 542, or 543. He left many works, but of these only Syriac translations, mostly fragmentary, survive. His great achievement was that he definitely formulated the Monophysite creed. Decidedly opposed to the decisions of Chalcedon and equally unwilling to accept the Henoticon, he was careful not to accept the extremer doctrine of Eutyches or that ofjulian of Halicamassus, indeed in many respects seems to come nearer the doctrine of the Catholic Church than would be expected of a Monophysite. It would seem that, as the controversy first, began with Eutyches, and as Julian was the noisier controversialist, their extreme views have often been assumed to represent the Monophysite faith. But Severus taught a more moderate doctrine. Still he and his followers must be classed as schismatics, if for no other reason than that they refused to accept the considered decisions of the Council of Chalcedon.
(4) ORGANIZATION OF THE MONOPHYSITE CHURCH
The death of Severus of Antioch marks the close of another period of the history of the Monophysites. Now as the result of Severus' labours they had a definite corpus of doctrine stated in clear terms, though not as yet accepted by all sections of the Monophysite community. But they were a community without organization. Their bishops deprived of their sees were unable to ordain new priests, and in many parts their adherents had to go without the sacraments because clergy were lacking and they refused to accept the ministrations of the "Chalcedonian clergy. The decrees of Chalcedon were strictly enforced bv Justin, less strictly by Justinian. But the Empress Theodora was the mainstay of the Monophysites and several of the deprived bishops were maintained as pensioners in her palace.
The orthodox patriarchs of Antioch, especially Euphrasius (52i-6) and Ephraem (526-46) were vigorous persecutors of tl)e Monophysites of Syria. A certain monk of the convent on Mount Izla, Ya'qub of Tella, commonly known as Ya'qub Burde'ana or "Ya'qub of the horsecloth" in allusion to the coarse garment he usually wore, greatly distressed at the troubles of his fellow-Monophysites, went with a monk of Tella named Sergiiis to the city of Constantinople to plead their case before Theodora. He stayed in Constantinople fifteen years protected by Theodora who showed him much sympathy, but could at the moment do nothing more. Then in 543 Harith ibn abala, king of the Arab tribe of the B. Ghassan which was subsidized by the Byzantine government to protect the Syrian frontier and whose chieftain was formally granted the title of "king "by the imperial government, arrived at court and asked Theodora to arrange for some bishops to be sent to the Arabs of Syria. At Theodora's request Theodosius, the exiled Patriarch of Alexandria who was living as a pensioner in her palace, consecrated a certain Theodore as Bishop of Bostra, the great mart on the Syrian frontier where merchandise from India and Arabia brought overland by the trade route from Yemen, through Mecca and the Hijaz, had to pass the imperial customs, and at the same time consecrated Ya'qub Burde'ana Bishop of Edessa. This was merely a titular dignity, as it was understood that he was to serve as a travelling bishop organizing the Monophysite community in Syria and Asia Minor, whilst Theodore did a similar office to the Arabs of the frontier and in Arabia. Of the two, Ya'qub was the more efficient: he travelled through Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, and other parts, always in disguise and xvith a price on his head, everywhere organizing the Monophysite community as an independent church, consecrating bishops, ordaining priests, and supervising the administration, so that he is justly regarded as the real founder of the Monophysite Church, which is commonly called "Jacobite" after him. In 542, or perhaps in 539, his friend Sergius had been appointed (Monophysite) Patriarch of Antioch. There was an orthodox patriarch whose name appears in the official lists, but Sergius was the one recognized by the Monophysites or Jacobites. The dignity was merely titular, as no Monophysite bishop was allowed to live in Antioch. Unfortunately the Monophysite community was disturbed by many internal dissentions, which Ya'qub was not able to allay, though they caused him much vexation. In 578 he set out for Egypt to confer with Damian the Patriarch of Alexandria about these difficulties, but was taken ill on the way and died in the monastery of Mar Romanus.
Although the Monophysite Church was not organized and fully equipped as an independent body before the time of Ya'qub Burde'ana there had been several brilliant leaders already in Syria, amongst whom Ya'qub of Sarug and Philoxenos were the most prominent.
Y'a'qub of Sarug who was periodeutes or rural bishop of Haura in the diocese of Sarug about 502-3, translated to the see of Batnan in the same district in 519, and died in
521, has left many letters, most of them in the manuscripts Brit. Mus. Addit. 14587 and 17I62, but his fame rests chiefly on his poetical cornpositions, especially his metrical homilies, which had many imitators.
Philoxenos, in Syriac Aksenaya, was an alumnus of the school of Edessa where he had been trained under Hibha, but belonged to the anti-Nestorian minority which held out against Nestorian teaching. It is said. that it was he who prompted Bishop Cyrus to persuade Zeno to close the school of Edessa in 489. In 485 he was consecrated Bishop of Mabbotig (Hieropolis) by Peter the Fuller of Antioch. He visited Constantinople in 499 and again in 506, each time suffering a good deal from hostile officials, and in
512 presided over the synod which elected Severus to the patriarchal see of Antioch. But at Justin's accession he, with 53 other leading Nionophysite bishops, was sent into exile. He went to Philippopolis in Thrace, then to Gangra in Paphlygonia and there he was murdered in 523. He was the author of a number of homilies in prose, theological treatises, letters, and several forms of liturgy, but his fame rests chiefly on a new and revised version of the Syriac New Testament prepared under his direction by his chorepiscopos Polycarp and finished in 508. Part of this version was published in England by Pococke in 1630, but an inaccurate manuscript (now in the Bodleian) was used. A phototype edition of another manuscript of this version from a codex in private possession in America was published by Isaac H. Hall in 1888, but the whole text is not accessible, though several times it has been reported as discovered. For some time this revised translation was in great repute, but the Monophysites afterwards produced improved versions which superseded it.
Mara (d. 527) Bishop of Amid was one of those expelled from his see by Justin in 5 I 9. He was sent into exile with Isidore Bishop of Kennesrin to Petra in Arabia. At Justin's death in 527 he was allowed to go to Alexandria where he spent the remaining years of his life. In Alexandria he procured a copy of the gospels and to this text he composed a prologue in Greek. All these instances illustrate the intellectual activity of the Monophysite community.
A prominent Monophysite leader was John bar Cursus (d. 9th February, 538), Bishop of Tella (Constantina), who was consecrated in 5I9, one of his consecrators being Ya'qub of Sarug. In 521 he was deposed by Justin, but went to Constantinople to plead his cause. On Ms way home he was arrested by Ephraem the patriarch of Antioch, a great persecutor of the Monophysites, and cast into prison in the monastery of the Comes Manasse. There he died in 538. Much of his life was spent in Monophysite propaganda along the Syrian border and amongst the neighbouring Arab tribes. He has left a collection of canons, "Quaestiones," and some other prose books.
Contemporary with him was She'mon Bishop of Beth Arsham, near Seleucia, who was consecrated under the Catholicus Babai (498-503), and died in 548. He was a student of the Aristotelian logic and an indefatigable controversialist who, likejohn bar Cursils, laboured to extend Monophysite doctrine. He travelled about Persia and Mesopotamia rallying the Monophysites and holding disputations with Nestorians, Eutychians, and Manichaeans, earning thereby the title "the Persian Disputant", one of the few vigorous advocates of Monopbysitism in Persia. Some time towards 503 he was made bishop of the small see of Beth Arsham, near Seleucia. He visited the great Nestorian stronghold of Hira several times and went three times to Constantinople to consult with the Empress Theodora. During his third visit he died. Of his letters only two are extant, one a strongly prejudiced account of the rise and spread of Nestorianism with derisive remarks about many of the Nestorian leaders; the other on the perseciition of Christians in Najran in Arabia by thejewish Yemenite king Dhu Nuwas in 523, a persecution which is supposed to be the subject of Qur'an 84.
Another Monophysite advocate was Isho' (Joshua) the Solite, originally a monk in the monastery of Zuqnin, near Amida. He wrote a chronicle of the Persian War which is our best authority for that period, but shows a Monophysite bias in the way characters are selected for admiration. This chronicle was written about 515 (ed. Martin, Chronique de Josue le Stylite, 1876, in Abhand. far d. Kunde d. Morgenlandes, VI, and W. Wright The Chronicle of 7oshua the S! ylite, cornposed in Syriac, with trs. and notes. Camb.,
1882.)
The hymn writer Shem'on Quqaya (the Potter), of Gershir, near the monastery of Mar Bessus, composed hymns as he worked at his potter's wheel. Ya'qub of Sarug heard about him from the monks, visited him, took away some of his hymns, and encouraged him in the exercise of his poetic gifts. "A specimen of these kukayatha has been preserved in the shape of nine hymns on the nativity of our Lord, Brit. Mus. Add. 14520, a MS. of the eighth or ninth. Century" (Wright, Hist. Syriac Literature, 79).
One of the prelates who suffered under Justin was John of Aphtonia, abbot of the monastery of St. Thomas at Seleucia. He was expelled from his monastery, but founded another at Kenncsrin (Qen-neshre), in the neighbourhood of Edessa. This new foundation flourished at the beginning of the seventh century for teaching Greek and was frequented by many Monophysite scholars. The Monophysites never developed an academy like the Nestorian foundations at Nisibis and Jundi-Shapur, but this monastery became quite as much a centre of scholarship.
John of Ephesus, or of Asia, was a Monophysite monk who had to flee from his monastery to escape persecution and took refuge in Constantinople in 535. There he met Ya'qub Burde'ana. He was in favour with the Emperor Justinian, who employed him in the imperial service and sent him to Asia Minor to preach amongst the pagans still to be found round Ephesus. But when Justinian died he had a troubled life. The date of his death is not known, but he was alive in 585. His official title was "Bishop of Ephesus over the heathen". He is of interest chiefly as the author of an Ecclesiastical History in three parts: the first two parts, each in six books, cover church history down to the year 572, the third part, also in six books, carries the history down to 585, covering the period of which he had personal knowledge and as he had contact with Ya'qub Burde'ana and other leading Monophysites, this contains material of great value. Much of the work exists in a fragmentary form, but many of the fragments are of considerable length. Most of it is contained in Brit. Mus, Add. 14640, which was edited by Cureton in 1853. Of this an English translation was published by Payne Smith in
1860, and a German translation by Schoenfelder in 1862.
John of Ephesus' history is supplemented by the Greek history of Zacharias Rhetor (or Scholasticus), of the later sixth century. Unfortunately this work is not extant, but there is a sixth century compilation in twelve books by an anonymous Monophysite containing material gathered from various sources, books 3 to 6 giving the greater part of Zacharias' history, covering the years 450-49I. The original work seems to have gone down to 518, and the Syriac translator was writing as late as 569, or even later. This history, surviving only in part in its Syriac version, is preserved in Brit. Mus. Add. 17202.
|
Evans Experientialism 
