Evagrius the Scholastic - Church history. Evagrius the Scholastic - Church History I. Evagrius: Life

EVAGRY SCHOLASTIK - Byzantine historian, author of one of the classic works on the history of the ancient Church.

Information about his life is contained only in the "Church History" he wrote. Born into a Christian family. As a child, he and his parents went on a pilgrimage to the Life-giving Tree of the Lord's Cross in Apamea (540), was an eyewitness to the miracle, how during the procession around the Bishop Thomas of Apamea, who carried the ciborium with the particles of the Cross, the radiance spread (Evagr. Schol. Hist. Eccl. IV 26). Then he witnessed the occupation of Apameya by the Persian army of Shahanshah Khosrov I of Anushirvan and the games organized at the city hippodrome in honor of the latter (Ibid. IV 25). Evagrius Scholasticus graduated from the school of rhetoricians and was a lawyer in Antioch, gained fame as a speechwriter. From the 80s of the 6th century, he held the post of manager of the affairs of St. Gregory I, the patriarch of Antioch, often traveled from Antioch to Constantinople on various matters. Evagrius Scholasticus wrote a collection of speeches on behalf of the patriarch (not preserved), for which he received the rank of quaestor from the emperor Tiberius I around 581, at the end of 585 - the rank of eparch (prefect) for a speech delivered to the emperor by Saint Mauritius in honor of the birth of his son and heir to Theodosius. In 588, when a litigation arose between the patriarch and the Comits of the East Asterius and then John, Evagrius Scholasticus successfully defended Patriarch Gregory I. The Patriarch, including with the help of Evagrius Scholasticus, obtained from the Emperor of Mauritius a decision in his favor and resignation both commits. The essence of this dispute between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities of Antioch is unknown; the assumption that Patriarch Gregory I was accused of Monophysitism has no direct confirmation.

Evagrius Scholasticus may have witnessed the riot in the Byzantine army in the East in 588-589 and the trip of Patriarch Gregory I to pacify the rebellious soldiers. He also participated in the negotiations of the Byzantine authorities with the Persian Shahanshah Khosrov II, who in 590 fled to the Byzantine Empire and asked for help to fight the usurper of the Persian throne Bahram Chubin. It is known that Patriarch Gregory I was an active participant in these negotiations and repeatedly accompanied Khosrov on trips to Syria. On May 24, 592 Evagrios Scholasticus was present at the death of the Monk Simeon the Stylite (the Younger) Divnogorets and conveyed this sad news to Patriarch Gregory I. In March 593 Evagrios Scholasticus was with the dying Patriarch Gregory.

Evagrius Scholasticus had a large family (he mentioned a daughter and a grandson), but, according to him, many of his relatives died from plague epidemics in the 2nd half of the 6th century. His relative John, who was also born in Epiphany, wrote the history of the Romans' campaign in Persia in 591. On October 28, 588, on the eve of a terrible earthquake that destroyed the entire city, Evagrius Scholasticus married at least the second time in Antioch.

Church History.
It was completed in 594 at Antioch, probably shortly before his death. The work consists of 6 books, covers more than 160 years, from the elevation of Nestorius to the throne of Constantinople in 428 to 593/594, and is a continuation of the "Church history" of Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, written in the 50s of the 5th century. The Church History of Evagrius Scholastica is preserved in 4 manuscripts: Laurent. LXIX 51 (XI century); LXX 23 (end of XII century); Patm. 688 (XIII century); Baroc. 142 (XIV century). The most valuable are the 2 most ancient codes, which are used as the basis for editions. The "ecclesiastical history" was known to Saint Photius of Constantinople and was described by him in the "Miriobiblion" (Phot. Bibl. 29). In Byzantium, it was used by the author of the Life of the Monk Simeon the Stylite (the Younger) (VII-VIII centuries) and the historian of the early XIV century Nikifor Callistus Xanfopulus. The first printed edition of "Ecclesiastical History" was prepared by R. Stephen and appeared in Paris in 1544 (subsequent editions were carried out by J. Christoforson (Louvain, 1570), A. de Valois (P., 1673; reproduced in the edition by D. Reading (Cambridge, 1720), PG. 86/2 (1865). Col. 2405-2906), J. Bidet and L. Parmantier (L., 1898)). The Church History was first translated into Russian and published in 1853 (translator unknown), a new commented translation was published by I.V. Krivushin (St. Petersburg, 2006).

The sources used in the work of Evagrius Scholasticus are numerous. He relied on both oral tradition and written records, including historical works Procopius of Caesarea, Priscus Panian, Zosimus; on the history of the Church of Socrates Scholasticus, Zechariah Ritor; on the chronicles of John Malala, Eustathius of Epiphanius; on the Life of the Monk Simeon the Stylite (the Younger), Martyr Golinduha of Persia; to numerous official messages from church leaders (for example, Saint Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, Saint Leo I the Great, Pope of Rome, Nestorius, Peter III Mong, Patriarch of Alexandria, Sevir, Patriarch of Antioch); on the decisions of the emperors (Leo I, Basilisk Flavius, Zinon, Justin II); on the acts of Councils (including Ecumenical III, IV and V).

Evagrius Scholasticus considered himself a continuer of the centuries-old tradition of ancient and Middle Eastern historiography, the founder of which, in his opinion, was the prophet Moses (V 24). Within this tradition, he singled out the historians of the Church. Evagrius Scholasticus saw the main goal of his work in revealing the main directions of the life of the Church in the Byzantine Empire for 150 years, from the 30s of the 5th century to contemporary events. He strove to pay the greatest attention to the life of the Christian communities of the empire, the most important church pulpits, the most famous ascetics and theologians. However, unlike earlier church historians, Evagrius Scholasticus described in detail the general political history, the activities of the emperors, their personal qualities, wars, political struggle, etc. Evagrius Scholasticus's interest in secular history is so great that modern scholars regard his work as evidence of secularization church history, signifying a partial break with the tradition founded by Eusebius of Caesarea (Krivushin 1999, pp. 202-214).

Content.
Book 1 (events 428-450) is dedicated to the reign of the emperor Theodosius II the Younger and is an introduction to the "Church history". Evagrios Scholasticus began the story with the ascent of Nestorius to the See of Constantinople, described the conflict in the Church that arose because of the heresy of Nestorius, his condemnation at the III Ecumenical Council (I 3-5) and the reconciliation of the Alexandrian and Antiochian Churches in 433 (I 5-6) ... The details of theological disputes and intrigues around the case of Bishop Nestorius are of little interest to the author. The style of his story is semi-official, it contains rhetorical denunciations of heretics and praise to the Church Fathers. Evagrius Scholasticus pays most attention not to the conflict in the Church over the teachings of Nestorius, but to overcoming it in 433 and demonstrating common church unity. The case of Archimandrite Eutykhios and Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, II Council of Ephesus in 449 is briefly described (I 9-11). "The triumph of Monophysitism" in 449 is perceived by the author as a historical error. Its discussion became the subject of a historiosophical digression, in which Evagrius the Scholasticus shows that the evil of the mythology of paganism, rejected by Christians, with its many "stupidity" and wickedness, many times exceeds all Christian disputes and church disorders (I 11). Emperor Theodosius II and his wife August Eudokia are presented as examples of piety (I 12, 20-22), and their era - as a time of prosperity of various scientists and writers, asceticism of the Monk Simeon the Stylite the Elder (I 13).

Book 2 (events of 450-474) opens with a description of the Ecumenical IV (Chalcedonian) Council of 451 (II 2-4), which established the dogmas of Christology. His decisions were a stumbling block for further development one Church. The importance of this Council is emphasized by the fact that Evagrius the Scholasticus at the end of the book quotes the epitome of the acts of the Council (II 18). The author focuses on the history of the struggle for the preservation of the Chalcedonian religion in the Eastern Churches: the anti-Chalcedonian movement in Palestine and Syria (II 5), the opposition in Alexandria of supporters of the heresiarch Timothy II Elur, patriarch of Alexandria, and Orthodox patriarchs Proterium of Alexandria and Timothy II of Salofakiol of Alexandria (II 5, 8-11). Imp. Marcian is depicted by the author as a blessed ruler, whose rise to power was foreshadowed by signs and whose piety invariably protected the empire from disasters (II 1, 6). The personality of the emperor Leo I evokes the sympathy of the historian, Evagrius Scholasticus pays great attention to the efforts of the emperor to maintain church unity, the content of his "District Epistle" (468), which confirmed the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (II 9-10; the text of the document is given). A separate topic of the book is the fall of the Western Roman Empire: the assassination of Flavius ​​Aetius, emperor Valentinian III and the sack of Rome by vandals in 455, the history of the last Roman emperors of the 60s-70s of the 5th century (II 7, 16).

Book 3 (events of 474-518) tells about the time of the reign of the emperors Zeno and Anastasius I, about the struggle between supporters and opponents of the Council of Chalcedon for influence in the Churches of the East, mainly in Alexandria and Antioch. In connection with the activities of the heresiarchs Timothy Elur, Peter Mong, Sevir, the history of the adoption of the "Enotikon" by Emperor Zinon is presented, the text of this document is given. The history of the emergence of the Akakian schism (III 17-21) is covered. Evagrius Scholasticus described the events of the war between the emperors Zeno and Basilisk in 474-476 (III 3-8), the uprising of Theodoric Scythian, Marcian, Illus against Zeno (III 25-27). The reign of Emperor Anastasius is briefly covered by the author, but there is a mention of the abolition of the tax on the urban population (chrysargira) (III 39). Evagrius Scholasticus has a benevolent attitude towards this emperor, at the same time sympathizes with the patriarchs of Macedonia II of Constantinople and Flavian II of Antioch, who were deposed by the emperor Anastassy, ​​admitting that, in general, the emperor strove to preserve peace in the Church and was opposed to innovations (III 30, 32). Evagrius Scholasticus concerns the events of the Isaurian War (III 35), the Byzantine-Persian war of 502-506 (III 37), the revolt of Vitalian (III 43), the uprising in Constantinople in 512 (III 44). In this part of the story, Evagrius Scholasticus, for the first time, turns to the events of secular history in detail. In the following books, secular history will begin to prevail over ecclesiastical history. A separate digression is devoted to the polemic of Evagrius Scholasticus with the pagan historian of the early 6th century Zosimus (III 40-41).

Book 4 (events of 518-565) is devoted to the reigns of the emperors Justin I and St. Justinian I. The volume of church history continues to decline; a significant part of the book is an epitome of the "Histories of Wars" by Procopius of Caesarea, which describes the battles of the Byzantines with the Goths, Persians and Vandals. Evagrius Scholasticus did not try to understand the intricacies of the church policy of Emperor Justinian I, following Procopius of Caesarea he repeated false information that the Emperor Justinian supported the Orthodox, while his wife Empress Saint Theodora took the side of the Monophysites (IV 10; cf .: Procopius ... Secret history... X 13-15). Evagrius Scholasticus provided a fragmentary history of the reign of hierarchs in the main patriarchal sees, gave a description of the Council of Constantinople in 553, but did not connect its convocation with the struggle for the recognition of Chalcedon (IV 38). The historian assessed the personality of the emperor Justinian very critically: he accused the emperor of systematic appropriation of other people's property, of avarice, of unacceptable addiction to the Venetian party (IV 30, 32). To complete all his sins, at the end of his life, the emperor Justinian fell into the heresy of authodic-Doketism. Patriarch Anastasius I of Antioch (IV 39-40) courageously opposed him. Among other important plots of the book are the construction of the Hagia Sophia (IV 31), the plague epidemic in the empire (IV 29), the asceticism of Christian saints in the East - Simeon the Fool, Thomas of Apameia (IV 34-35).

Book 5 (events of 565-582) is devoted to the reign of the emperors Justin II and Tiberius, mainly to the Byzantine-Persian war (571-591), Evagrius Scholasticus only occasionally records the change of primates in the most significant church pulpits (V 5, 16). He published the full text of the unifying message published by Emperor Justin II around 570 (V 4), but did not give information about the circumstances of the appearance of this document. At the end of the book (V 24) are given short description the ancient and early Byzantine tradition of historiography, a short list of ancient historians, which ends with the names of contemporaries Procopius of Caesarea, Agathius Scholasticus of Mirine and John of Epiphanius. Evagrius Scholasticus named Eusebius of Caesarea, Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Sozomen and Socrates Scholasticus as his predecessors in the genre of church history.

The 6th book (events of 582-594) describes the reign of the emperor of Mauritius, who was awarded high praise from the author as an example of a reasonable and successful sovereign (VI 1), events church life practically absent. Evagrius Scholasticus mainly tells about the Byzantine-Persian war, which ended with the rebellion of Bahram Chubin and civil strife in Persia. In these stories, Patriarch Gregory I of Antioch repeatedly appears as a character. He pacifies the revolt of soldiers on the eastern border, meets the Shahanshah Khosrov II, expelled from Ctesiphon and asking for the support of the Romans in the struggle for the throne. Evagrius Scholasticus concludes the story with the story of the death of the Monk Simeon the Stylite (the Younger) and Patriarch Gregory I.

The historical concept of Evagrius Scholastica.
The main plot of the "Church History", around which the exposition of the history of the Church in a narrow sense is built, is the description of the IV Ecumenical (Chalcedonian) Council of 451. The course of the Council and the various circumstances connected with it is the most detailed event disclosed by the historian. Evagrius Scholasticus believed that it was the Council of Chalcedon that was an important element of his composition, so he introduced a special supplement to Book II, where he presented the epitome of all the acts of the Council (II 18). In this regard, the story of Evagrios Scholasticus about the church life of the 2nd half of the 5th - early 6th centuries (books 3 and 4) is mainly devoted to describing the consequences of the Council of Chalcedon for the life of the Eastern Churches. Just as the church historians of the 5th century Socrates, Sozomenos and Blessed Theodoret had the main theme of the story of the struggle for the recognition of the Ecumenical I Council of 325 (Nicaea), for Evagrius the Scholasticus, such a topic becomes the struggle for the recognition of the Council of Chalcedon. It continues for many decades in the church communities of Alexandria, Palestine, Antioch, captures Constantinople and the imperial court, in one way or another all the largest church thrones and hierarchs of the East and West were included in it. The author's constant references to the description of natural disasters and barbaric attacks on the empire create a kind of mystical halo around church-political events.

Another important feature of the concept of Evagrius Scholastica is the idea of ​​the final victory of the Orthodox faith, which the historian associates with several events. Firstly, Emperor Justin I at the beginning of his reign ordered to depose and punish the Patriarch Severus of Antioch, but in 519 he managed to escape to Egypt (IV 4). Secondly, Emperor Justinian I deposed the patriarchs Theodosius I of Alexandria and Anthimius of Constantinople for their Monophysite views, thereby destroying the anti-Chalcedonian hierarchy in the Church. He published a short story about the anathema of all monophysite bishops and the full recognition of the Council of Chalcedon (IV 10-11). These events date back to the years 535-536, however, in the text of Evagrius Scholastic, they are presented as the first and most important act of Emperor Justinian I for the Church. "Since that time, all Churches have got rid of schisms, because the patriarchs of all dioceses are in agreement with each other, and the bishops of cities follow their exarchs" (IV 11). Having thus summed up the narrative about the Council, Evagrius Scholasticus lost interest in church history. In recent books, church events arise only sporadically - this is the convocation of the Ecumenical V Council, presented in isolation from the general policy of Emperor Justinian I, the adoption of the Enoticon by Emperor Justin II, the acts of Patriarch Gregory I of Antioch, in which the historian himself participated.

A century and a half, the stories in the work of Evagrius Scholastica are interpreted according to a certain cyclical model. He described the beginning of history as the “golden age” of the Church and the Empire (piety of the Emperor Theodosius II, the condemnation of Nestorius, the development of the arts and the glory of the Monk Simeon the Stylite the Elder). Then this era of prosperity is interrupted by the emergence of the heresy of Eutyches and its short-term success. At the Council of Chalcedon and in the future, a struggle is being waged for the restoration of the original unity of the Church. After describing the victory of Orthodoxy under Emperor Justinian I, the attention of Evagrius Scholasticus switches to the fate of the empire. If the historian assessed the activities of Justinian negatively, then the reign of each subsequent emperor (Justin II, Tiberius, Mauritius) turned out to be better than the previous one. Finally, Evagrius Scholasticus sought to describe the reign of the emperor of Mauritius as the return of the "golden age": a pious and reasonable ruler, the unity and success of the Church under such bishops as Patriarch Gregory I of Antioch, and the veneration of the holy pillar of St. Simeon (the Younger). This model fits well with the traditions of earlier church historians. In the writings of Socrates, Sozomen and Blessed Theodoret, the initial success of the reforms of the Emperor Saint Constantine I the Great and the I Ecumenical Council was also interrupted by the intrigues of heretics and a long struggle for the establishment of Orthodoxy, which ended in prosperity under the Emperor Theodosius II the Younger.

Happy Pentecost, Trinity, Happy Birthday to the Christian Church!

On this joyous day, when Christians all over the earth are solemnly celebrating their spiritual birthday, we want to congratulate you heartily and pray for you, so that the Lord will continue to give you his new blessings in serving him on the path on which he put you, in accordance with the will his own from the church of God.

We have always been very moved by the unique beginning of the Church of Christ on that day of Pentecost and its subsequent history up to the present day.

And a gift - a new edition of the translation of the Church history of Eugarius Scholastica.

The new edition of the translation of one of the most interesting historical works of the early Byzantine era - "Ecclesiastical History" by Evagrius Scholasticus, covers events of the second half of the 5th - the end of the 6th centuries that are critical for the Byzantine Church and state.

The book vividly and vividly presents the era from the reign of Theodosius the Younger, Marcian and Leo the Elder (from 431 to 474) to the reign of the Byzantine emperors Justin II, Tiberius Constantine and Mauritius (from 565 to 594).

The revised and revised translation for this edition is provided with a comprehensive introductory article and extensive reference material - comments, indexes and a list of the latest literature

Evagrius Scholastic - Ecclesiastical History - Books I-VI

Per. from Greek., entry. Art., comm., applications and indexes I. V. Krivushin.

Ed. 2nd, revised - SPb .: "Publishing house of Oleg Abyshko", 2010. - 672s.

(Series "Library of Christian Thought. Sources").

ISBN 978-5-89740-134-5

Evagrius Scholasticus - Church History - Contents

I. V. Krivushin. Evagrius Scholasticus and his "Church History"

• BOOK I
• BOOK II
• BOOK III
• BOOK IV
• BOOK V
• BOOK VI

Applications

• Socrates Scholastic. Church history
• Nestorius. Book of Heraclides
• Dioscorus of Alexandria. History of Chalcedon Cathedral
• The life of Peter the Iberian
• Zachariah Rhetor. Church history
• John Malala. Chronography
• Liberate. Breviary
• John Nikiussky. Chronicle
• Zosima. New story
• Anonymous Valezia. Extraction
• Marcellinus Comit. Chronicle
• John of Biklarsky. Chronicle
• Michael the Syrian. Chronicle

List of major abbreviations

Bibliography

List of abbreviations in the Index of Names

Index of names

Index of geographical names

Evagrius Scholasticus and his "Church History"

Evagrius Scholasticus occupies a special place among the early Byzantine church historians. He not only continued the tradition created at the beginning of the 4th century. the famous Eusebius of Caesarea and developed in the 5th century. Socrates Scholasticus, Hermius Sozomenos and Theodoret of Kirra, but also became its final link, being at the epicenter of the "meeting" of two great directions in early Byzantine historiography - Christian historiography and secular historiography, which followed the best examples of Greco-Roman historical literature.

I. Evagrius: life

There are no other sources of information about Evagrius' life besides his own "Ecclesiastical History", and those Byzantine authors who mention him extract biographical information exclusively from this work. Based on the title "Church History", Photius records the birthplace of Evagrius and the honorary titles he received; the author of the Life of Simeon the Younger reproduces the story of his meeting with Simeon told by Evagrius (VI. 23); Nicephorus Callistus limits himself only to what Evagrius calls his predecessor and lists the sources he used to reconstruct political history.

So, from the title "Church History" we learn that Evagrius came from Epiphany. Epiphany (ancient Hamat) was a small town in the province of Syria on the Orontes River about halfway between Emesa and Apamea and the seat of the bishop.

Evagrius was probably born into a Christian family. True, he does not speak about it directly, but in IV. 26 we read that his parents in 540, during the Persian invasion of Syria, arrived in Apamea, where they bowed and venerated the Holy Cross during a procession organized by Thomas, Bishop of Apamea; moreover, it can be assumed proceeding from III. 34, that Father Evagrius supported the Chalcedonite Cosma, bishop of Epiphany, in his struggle with the monophysite North, the patriarch of Antioch.

As for the date of birth of Evagrius, it is not possible to establish it with accuracy. Separate comments of the author open three ways for its calculation, however, as a result, we get numbers that do not coincide with each other:

Evagrius says that he was a student of an elementary school when his family made the pilgrimage to Apamea (IV. 26) and when the plague broke out (IV. 29), that is, in 540-542. Considering that children were sent to elementary school at the age of six to eight years and that the course of study there lasted about three years, the birth of Evagrius can be dated 531-534.

However, in IV. 29 Evagrius reports that he was fifty-eight years old when he described the plague epidemic, that this occurred two years after its fourth outbreak during the fourth, if we count from its beginning, indiction (i.e. between 582 and 597) and that the plague itself had been raging for fifty-two years. Based on this, scientists attribute the time of Evagrius' work on the text of the "Church History" to 594, and the date of his birth, respectively, to 536 (594-58 = 536)

True, in the same chapter Evagrius notes that the most terrible outbreaks of plague occurred in every second year of the indiction, and perhaps speaking of the fourth case of its occurrence, he means the second year of the fourth since the beginning of the indiction epidemic, i.e. 583/584 d. Then the date of writing his story about the plague is postponed to 585/586, and the date of birth, respectively, to 528.

The discrepancy between these figures inevitably indicates the vulnerability of the initial data on the basis of which the calculations are made. Either Evagrius attended elementary school not at the usual age for this, but either from four, or at least from eleven years1, or he described the plague of 542 not in 594, but much earlier, that is, work on “ History ”continued for many years, or, finally, every second year of the indiction was not the most terrible moment in the history of this epidemic for Evagrius and for Antioch.

One way or another, we do not have information that would allow us to clarify the date of birth of the writer, and we can only expand the time space and place it between 528 and 536.

In general, the text of the "Church History" makes it possible to establish some chronological milestones in the life of Evagrius:

540-542 biennium - Evagrius attends a grammarian school (IV. 26; 29).

540 - Evagrius, together with his parents, visits Apameia and becomes a witness to the miracle of Bishop Thomas (IV. 26).

542 - Evagrius falls ill during the first outbreak of the plague epidemic: he has a tumor in his groin (IV. 29).

Between 578-582 - Tiberius II Constantine grants Evagrius the honorary title of quaestor (VI.24).

584/586 - Evagrius is present at the dispatch of the relics of St. Simeon the Elder to the eastern army (I. 13).

585 - Evagrius writes a panegyric in connection with the birth of the heir to the throne Theodosius, for which he is awarded the title of prefect from the emperor of Mauritius (VI.24).

587/588 - Evagrius successfully defends Gregory of Antioch before the royal and council courts (VI. 7).

October 30, 588 - the wedding of Evagrius with a young girl is celebrated in Antioch (this is at least his second marriage), but on the same night a terrible earthquake occurs in the city (VI. 8).

May 592 - Evagrius informs Gregory of Antioch about the illness and impending death of Simeon the Younger.

End of the 6th century - Evagrius completes work on "Church History".

In addition, we know that Evagrius was a wealthy man and landowner - he had secretaries (VI. 23), many servants and dependent peasants (IV. 29). Evagrius was married at least twice (IV.29; VI.8), had many children, including a daughter who bore him a grandson (IV.29). The fact that Evagrius bore the title of "scholastic" and what he defended in the court of the Patriarch of Antioch suggests that he received a legal education (according to P. Allen, in Constantinople in the 50s of the 6th century :) and that he was engaged in advocacy.

Apparently, Evagrius played the role of a legal adviser under Gregory of Antioch, but also a secretary, whose duties were to draw up reports, messages and speeches for the patriarch (VI.24).

A wealthy man, a respected resident of Antioch, a successful lawyer, favored by the emperors and close to the Antiochian patriarch, Evagrius at the same time experienced many hardships in life - because of the plague he lost his wife, many children, relatives and dependent people (IV. 29); during his wedding in Antioch there was a terrible earthquake (VI. 8).

The loss of loved ones (especially his daughter) caused a spiritual crisis in Evagrius and even doubts about the truth of the Christian faith: he could not understand why such misfortunes fell not on pagans with many children, but on him, an orthodox Christian (VI.23; Vita Simeoni. SSXXXIII). But Evagrius was able to overcome this crisis thanks to the participation of the famous pillar Simeon the Younger.

1. About the reign of Justnin the elder.

2. About Amante the eunuch and Theocritus, how Justin put them to death.

3. That Justin put Vitalian to death by cunning.

4. About how Justin, having expelled the North, put Paul in his place, and how Euphrasius received the throne of Antioch a little later.

5. About fires and earthquakes in Antioch, and, dejected by these calamities, Euphrasius also died.

6. About the successor of Euphrasius, Ephraim.

7. About the miracle workers Zosima and John.

8. About widespread disasters.

9. That Justin, during his lifetime, chose Justinian as co-ruler.

10. That Justinian was disposed towards those who received the Council of Chalcedon, and Theodora towards the opposite party.

11. The fact that the North brought to the overthrow of the Constantinople bishop Anfim and the Alexandrian Theodosius, after whose expulsion the emperor appointed others.

12. About the Persian king Kavad and his son Khosrov - from the history of Procopius of Caesarea.

13. About Alamundar and Azaref, also about the Byzantine indignation, nicknamed "Nika".

14. About the Vandal ruler Honoriche and how the tongues of Christians were cut off.

15. About Moor Kavaon.

16. About the campaign of Belisarius against the Vandals and about their extermination.

17. About the booty sent from Africa.

18. About the Phoenicians, put to flight by Jesus, the son of Nun.

19. About Gotha Theodoric and about what happened in his reign in Rome before the time of Justinian, also about the new fall of Rome under the rule of the Romans, after Vitigis was removed from it.

20. About the fact that during the time of Justinian the so-called Heruls adopted Christianity.

21. Belisarius took possession of Rome, which had again come under the power of the Goths, another time.

22. About the fact that at that time Christianity and the Avazgs were adopted.

23. That at the same time the inhabitants of Tanais also accepted Christianity. Also about earthquakes in Greece and Achaia.

24. About the commander Narses and his piety.

25. That Khosrow, envying the prosperity of Justinian, armed himself against the Romans and conquered many Roman cities, including Antioch.

26. About the miracle that happened in Apameia from the Honest and Life-giving Tree of the Cross.

27. About Khosrov's campaign against Edessa.

28. About the miracle that happened in Sergiopol.

29. About pestilence.

30. About the love of money and insatiability of Justinian.

31. About the great church of St. Sophia and the Holy Apostles.

32. Rather about a reckless addiction than about the emperor's disposition to the party of gay people.

33. About the ascetic Barsanuphia.

34. About the monk Simeon, for the sake of the holy fool.

35. About the monk Thomas, like Simeon, an imaginary holy fool.

36. About Patriarch Mina and about the miracle that happened in his time over the Jewish youth.

37. Who at that time was a bishop in the main cities.

38. About the holy fifth Ecumenical Council and why it took place.

39. That Justinian, deviating from the right teaching, defended that the body of the Lord was not subject to corruption.

40. About the Atiochian Archbishop Anastasia.

41. About the death of Justinian.

1. When Anastasius, as I said, moved to a better life, Justin, a Thracian by birth, received the imperial purple, which happened on the 9th of the month of Panemus, which the Romans call July, in 566 from the building of Antioch. He was proclaimed emperor by the imperial bodyguards, whom he ruled as the ruler of the palace guard. He received autocratic power beyond all expectations; because there were many people, both noble and rich, who were related to Anastasius and had every opportunity to arrogate to themselves such a great power.

2. A very strong man was then and the overseer of the imperial, Amantius. As an eunuch himself, according to the law, he could not rule over the Roman Empire, he wanted to place the crown of autocratic power on Theocritus, a man devoted to him. For this purpose, having summoned Justin, he gives him a large amount of money and orders to distribute it to people who were especially suitable for such a business and could clothe Fekrit in purple. But Justin, whether because he bribed the people with this money, or because he was getting away with the favor of the so-called bed-cottagers, - they tell about this in two ways, - he acquired imperial power for himself and after that took the life of both Amantius and Theocritus with some other people.

3. Meanwhile, Justin summoned Vitalian, who lived in Thrace, to Constantinople. Expecting prudently that Vitalian could not otherwise be attracted to submission, but assuming the appearance of his friend, Justin covered his cunning - with an impenetrable mask and declared him the commander of one part of the so-called permanent troops; and then, in order to inspire him with even greater power of attorney and lure him into deception, he promoted him to the consulship. In the rank of consul, Vitalian came to the palace and was cunningly killed at one of the palace doors. Thus he paid for the misfortunes that he caused to the Roman kingdom. But this happened after.

4. In the very first year of his reign, Justin ordered the seizure of that very Antiochian primate, the North, about whom it was spoken above, and, as rumor reports, cut off his tongue - for the fact that he did not cease to utter anathemas to the Council of Chalcedon, especially in so the epistles of the throne (enJroniVixai), and in his replies to those letters that he wrote to all the patriarchs, and which, however, were accepted only by the Alexandrian bishop John, the successor of John the first, also Dioscorus and Timothy, and have survived even to our time - in the same way, because of the fact that strife arose from here in the Church, and the Orthodox people were divided into parties. This business was entrusted to Irenaeus, who lived in Antioch as the ruler of the East. That Irenaeus really had an order to detain the North, the North itself assures us of this, which, in a letter to some of the Antiochians, tells of his escape, and extremely maligns Irenaeus for placing guards everywhere so that the North does not flee from Antioch. Some say that Vitalian, while he still, as it seemed to him, enjoyed the favor of Justin, begged the emperor for the language of the North - because the North usually insulted him in his speeches. However, in the month of Gorpie, which in Roman is called September, in 568 from the building of Antioch, Sever fled from his throne. After him, Paul ascended the throne, and was ordered to openly recognize the Council of Chalcedon. But Paul voluntarily left Antioch and, having cut the thread of his life, departed in the general way. After him, Euphrasius ascended the episcopal throne from Jerusalem.

5. At the same time of Justin's reign, frequent and terrible fires took place in Antioch, as if the forerunners of the terrible earthquakes that happened in the same city and the forerunners of the coming disasters. Indeed, after a short time, on the 29th day of the 10th month of Artemisium, called May by the Romans, in the seventh year of Justin's reign, on the 6th day of the week, in the greatest midday heat, such a hesitation and concussion followed in the city, which almost completely overthrew him. And after this, a fire flared up, as if so that in the product of this disaster there was also his share. In fact, what the earthquake did not touch is devoured and turned into coal and ash by fire. However, what happened to the city, how many inhabitants, of course, fell prey to the fire and the earthquake, also what happened worthy of amazement and how many phenomena surpassed any expression, the rhetorician John tells touchingly about this, who with this concluded his story. Dejected by such calamities, Euphrasius passed away, which was a new misfortune for the city, because there was no one left to take care of its needs.

6. But God's salvific providence for people, preparing healing even before the ulcer, the sword of his anger that lovingly and in hopeless circumstances opens the doors of his mercy, disposed the then ruler of the East Ephraim by all means to ensure that the city did not suffer a shortage of than necessary. For this, the Antiochians extolled him with praises and chose them as bishops - and Ephraim received the apostolic throne, as if as a reward and retribution for his guardianship of the city. Thirty months later, the city was again hit by an earthquake. Then Antioch was renamed Theopolis and became the subject of all the care of the emperor.

7. Above we mentioned disasters; and now we will add to this work something else, which is worth telling, what we have learned from eyewitnesses. A certain Zosima, a native of the so-called seaside Phenicia, by birthplace belonging to the village of Sindu, which lay almost twenty stadia from Tire, led a monastic life. By abstaining from food and eating it, as well as by other virtues, he so pleased God that he not only received his sight into the future, but also received the grace of complete dispassion. Once he was in the main city of one of the Palestinians of Caesarea, in the house of a famous man - it was Arkesilaus, Eupatrid, a scholarly husband, distinguished by honors and other adornments of life - and at the moment when Antioch was destroyed, he suddenly indulged in sorrow and sobs. and with deep sighs he shed so many tears that he moistened the earth with them; then he demanded a censer and, filling all the place on which they stood with incense, threw himself on the ground in order to propitiate God with prayers and petitions.Arkesilaus asked him why he was so embarrassed - and Zosima said separately: this minute he was deafened by the roar of the collapsed Antioch. Arkesilaus and those who were with him, in amazement, wrote down the hour, and later learned that the matter was really as revealed by Zosima. He showed many other signs as well. I leave a large number of them, and - yes, and how to count them! - and I will only mention a few. At the same time as Zosima, a certain John flourished in the Khuziva Lavra, equal in virtue to Zosima. And this laurel lies at the very top of the hill, on the north side of the great road that runs from Jerusalem to Jericho. He led a monastic, completely detached life, and was subsequently made bishop of the mentioned city of Caesarea. This Ioann Khuzivit, having heard that the wife of the aforementioned Arkesilaus had gouged out one eye with a weaving shuttle, he hurried to her to examine the wound. Seeing that the pupil had fallen out and the eye was completely torn, he ordered one of the doctors who came to bring a sponge and put the damaged eye in its place, then put a sponge over it and attached the sponge by means of bandages. Arkesilaya was not at home then. He lived with Zosima in his monastery, located in the village of Sindh, which lay almost five hundred stadia from Caesarea. Therefore, messengers were immediately sent to him with the news. At that moment Arkesilaus was sitting with Zosima and talking. But upon learning of the misfortune that had happened, he suddenly, with cries of sobs, began to tear his hair out and, pulling it out, threw it into the sky. When asked by Zosima about the reason, he told about the event, constantly interrupting his speech with sobs and tears. After this, Zosima, leaving Arkesilaus, hastily retired to a special room, where, according to the custom of this kind of people, he talked with God. After some time, he came out with a cheerful face and a modest smile, and cordially taking Arkesilaya by the hand, said to him: “Go, go without twisting. Grace has been given to the Khuzivit. Your wife is healed and remains with both eyes: the present case has not deprived her of anything; because this is what Khuzivit wanted. " By the miraculous power of these two righteous men, it really was so. The same Zosima, going one day to Caesarea and leading a colt with him, on which he put some necessary things, met a lion. The lion grabbed the donkey and left. But Zosima followed him into the forest, and while the beast was already fed up with the meat of the animal; with a smile he said to him: “friend, the path is cut off for me too; because I am sick and old, and I do not have the strength to carry the burden on my shoulders, a donkey. Therefore, although it is not characteristic of your nature to carry heavy things, it is now necessary if you want Zosima to leave here and so that you (as before) remain a wild beast. " At these words, the lion, as if completely forgetting his rage, began to wave his tail and, at the same minute, meekly running up to Zosima, with this sign expressed his obedience to him. Zosima, putting the burden of a donkey on him, brought him to the gate of Caesarea and thereby showed what the power of God is and how everything is obedient and obedient to us when we live in God and do not weaken the grace given to us. But, so that this narration does not spread more than the proper one, I will return to where I made a digression.

8. While Justin still enjoyed autocratic power, the present Dyrrachius, in ancient times Epidamnes, suffered from an earthquake; likewise, Corinth, which lies in Greece; then for the fourth time already experienced this calamity and the main city of the second Cilicia, Anazarbus. Justin cost a lot of money to recreate them. Around the same time, the greatest and wealthiest city of Osroen, Edessa, was flooded by a stream flowing near it, Skirt; so many buildings and innumerable people died in it from the pressure of water. Edessa and Anazarb were renamed Justin, and both were adorned with his name.

9. After eight years, nine months and three days of Justin's reign, his nephew Justinian began to reign with him. He was named Augustus on the 1st of the month of Xanthicus, that is, April, 575 from the building of Antioch. After these events, Justin moved from this kingdom and his last day was the 1st day of loya, that is, August, which happened after four months of his joint reign with Justinian, and after 9 years and 3 days of his entire autocracy. Despite the fact that Justinian alone had in his hands all the power over the Roman Empire, and in the most holy churches, as I said, the Council of Chalcedon was recognized, by order of Justin, - the peace of the Church in some dioceses was still outraged, and especially in the capital and in Alexandria. At that time, Anthim was bishopric in the capital, and Theodosius - in Alexandria, and both of them recognized the unity of nature in Christ.

10. Justinian stood firmly for the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon and for their decrees; and his wife, Theodora, for the confessors of one nature. Was it really so - because in the work of faith sometimes fathers disagree with children, children with parents, a wife with her husband, a husband with his wife, or did they for some purpose put one to defend the two natures who professed the unity in Christ, our God, and the other - who recognized one nature: be that as it may, but neither the one nor the other side did not yield. Justinian with all zeal himself defended what was decreed in Chalcedon; and Theodora, holding a contrary opinion, in every possible way took care of those who recognized one nature, and showed complete favor to ours, at the same time distributed great gifts to strangers, and finally even persuaded Justinian to summon the North to her.

11. There are letters from the North to Justinian and Theodora. From them it can be understood that the North, having left the throne of Antioch, at first did not want to go to the capital, but then made a profit here. And so he writes that, upon arrival in the capital, he had a conversation with Anthim and, finding that Anthim (holds) the same opinions and thoughts about God, persuaded him to leave his pulpit. About this there is his letter to the Alexandrian bishop Theodosius. In this letter, he boasts that he convinced Anthim, as it is said, - to earthly glory and the high priestly see, to prefer well-known dogmas. Anfim's letter to Theodosius concerning the same subject also goes round and round, and Theodosius’s letter to the North and Anthimus goes back: but I omit them and leave them to those who wish to read both of them, because I’m afraid of stretching my book beyond measure. In this way, both of them, as they walked contrary to the command of the emperor and did not accept the determinations of the Council of Chalcedon, were deprived of their thrones - and Zoilus received the throne of Alexandria, and Epiphanius of Constantinople; so that the Council of Chalcedon was finally recognized openly in all churches and no one dared to anathematize it. Those who even after this kept a different way of thinking, were by all means brought to agreement (with others). Meanwhile, Justinian wrote a definition in which he anathematized the North and Anthim with some others and imposed the greatest punishments on those who would dare to accept their dogmas. So, since now, nowhere in the churches has remained any division: the patriarchs of all districts have come to an agreement among themselves; and the bishops of the cities followed their metropolitans. Now the churches began to proclaim four Councils: the first of Nicaea, then of Constantinople, then of the first of Ephesus, and finally of Chalcedon. There was, however, and the fifth Council, at the behest of Justinian: but about it, what is needed, I will say in due time; and in the present case, I will add to my narration a story about private, history-worthy events of that time.

12. The rhetorician Procopius, describing the affairs of Belisarius, says that the Persian king Kavad, wanting to transfer the kingdom to the youngest of his sons, wanted Khosrov to be adopted by the Roman emperor, so that through this his power would be more secured. But when his desire, on the advice of Proclus, who was under Justinian as a quaestor, was not fulfilled, he armed himself with all hatred against the Romans. Further, the same Procopius extensively, eloquently and cleverly sets out the affairs of Belisarius, who led the eastern troops during the war between the Romans and the Persians. He believes the first victory of the Romans at the cities of Dar and Nisibis, under the command of Belisarius and Hermogenes, and to this he adds the affairs that took place in Armenia, and the troubles that the leader of the nomadic barbarians, Alamundar, caused the Roman land, who took prisoner Rufin's brother Timostratus alive. with the soldiers who were with him, and then returned him for a lot of money.

13. The same Procopius tells fascinatingly about the raid of the aforementioned Alamundar and Azaref on Roman land, and about how Belisarius, at the insistence of his army, on the eve of Easter, attacked them on their return journey, off the coast of the Euphrates, how the Roman an army that did not heed the advice of Belisarius, and how at last Rufinus and Hermogenes concluded the so-called eternal peace with the Persians. To this, Procopius adds a story about the indignation of the mob in Byzantium, to which the people gave the nickname, that is, they called him Nike, because when collecting the mob, this word served as a conventional sign for recognizing each other. During this event Hypatius and Pompey were forced by the mob to rush to tyranny; but, as soon as the rabble was pacified, he and the other, at the behest of Justinian, were beheaded by soldiers and thrown into the sea. On the occasion of the mutiny, says Procopius, about 30,000 people were killed.

14. He, describing the deeds of the vandals, reports things that are very important and worthwhile for people to always remember them. I will tell you about it. Honorich, by right of inheritance, having received the kingdom of Hanzerich, as an Arian, treated the Christians living in Libya in the most cruel way. He compelled those who held right-wing doctrines to convert to Arianism; and whoever did not obey, he gave him up to fire and all kinds of death; cut off the tongues of some. Procopius testifies that he saw these people with his own eyes, when, having fled from there, they came to Constantinople, and heard them speaking as if they would not tolerate anything. Their tongues were cut off to the root, but meanwhile the sounds turned out to be articulate and the speech - intelligible. A new and extraordinary miracle! They are also mentioned in the decrees of Justinian. Two of them, according to Procopius, fell and, as soon as they copulated with women, lost their voices; because the grace of martyrdom was no longer with them. ]

15. Procopius tells about another memorable event: how God the Savior manifested miraculous power in those people of other faiths, to the point that at that time they did pious deeds. The leader of the Moors who lived near Tripolis, he says, was Kavaon. This Kavaon, - it is worth citing here the words of the historian himself, who also tells about this so cleverly, - having learned that the Vandals had undertaken a campaign against him, did the following: first of all, he announced to his subjects that they refrain from all injustice and food that disposed to voluptuousness, and most of all from intercourse with wives. Then he set up two camps - and in one he fit himself, with all the men, and in the other he imprisoned women, threatening the death penalty to the one who enters the women's camp. Then he sent scouts to Carthage and gave them the following order: when the vandals on the march inflict insults on any temple revered by Christians, let them notice their actions, and, after cleansing the country from them, they do the opposite with the temple they left behind. To this, they say, Kavaon added that he does not know the God revered by Christians; but this God, if He is strong, as they say about Him, will surely mark his offenders and protect his worshipers. The scouts, having arrived in Carthage, stopped here and watched the preparations of the Vandals for the campaign; and when the army went to Tripolis, they changed into poor clothes and followed him. On the very first day, the vandals landed in Christian churches, along with horses and other animals, and subjected them to all kinds of desecration: they themselves indulged in their usual intemperance, and the priests who were captured, flogged and, beating their backs, were forced to serve themselves. When they left their place, the scouts of Kavaon did what they were ordered to do: the temples were immediately cleansed, carefully removing from them the droppings and other impurities introduced there; lit all the lamps, treated the priests with the deepest respect and showed them all obsequiousness; and money was given to the poor who were sitting near the temples. So they followed the army of the vandals. During the entire campaign, the vandals on their way permitted themselves the aforementioned iniquities, and the scouts healed the evil they inflicted. When the first were already close to the Moors, the latter, ahead of them, announced to Kavaon what had been done by the vandals about Christian churches, and that by them, and said that the enemies were not far away. Hearing this, Kavaon gave battle. It is said that in this battle many vandals were killed, and many of them were taken by the Moors, so that not many returned home. Such a defeat was suffered from the Moors by Trasamund, who died a little later and ruled over the Vandals for 27 years.

16. The same Procopius writes that Justinian, out of participation in the misery of the Christians there, announced a campaign (to Africa), but, on the advice of the prefect of the court, John, abandoned his intention. However, the dream he saw convinced him not to postpone the venture, predicting that if he would protect the Christians, he would destroy the Vandal kingdom. Encouraged by this, Justinian, in the seventh year of his reign, about the time of the summer solstice, sends Belisarius to war in Carthage. For this, the praetor ship was brought to the shore and placed in front of the palace; the bishop of the city Epiphanius offered up the usual prayers on it and, having baptized some of the soldiers, elevated them to that praetor ship. The aforementioned writer tells something worthy of history about the martyr Cyprian. Here are his own words. All the Carthaginians especially revere the holy husband Cyprian; outside the city, on the seashore, they built a splendid temple in his name, and between the other honors given to him, they annually celebrate a holiday that they call Cyprian. By the name of this holiday, sailors usually call the stormy weather, which I have mentioned before; because it usually rises at a time when the Libyans invariably celebrate that holiday. During the reign of Honorich, the Vandals forcibly took this temple from the Christians and, with great outrage, expelling the priests from it, made amendments in it in accordance with the concepts of the Arians. This saddened and worried the Libyans: but Cyprian, they say, often appeared to them in a dream and persuaded Christians not to worry about him at all; because the time will come and he will avenge himself. This prediction came true during the time of Belisarius, when this general, Carthage was subdued under the rule of the Romans, which happened 95 years after the occupation of him (by the Vandals), and when the Vandals were completely defeated, and Arianism was completely expelled from Libya, and Christians, according to the prediction of the martyr Cyprian, they received their temples back.

17. Procopius writes the following: when Belisarius, after defeating the Vandals, arrived in Byzantium with booty, captives and the Vandal king Helimer himself; then a triumph was appointed for him, and he carried through the circus everything that deserved surprise. At the same time, a multitude of jewels looted by Ginserich, as I said before, in the Roman palace opened to their eyes, when the wife of the Western Roman emperor Valentinian, Eudoxia, having lost her husband from the hand of Maximus and having suffered an outrage from him, summoned Ginserich and promised to betray the city to him, and when Ginserich, having set Rome on fire, Eudoxia and her daughters, according to custom, took them to the vandals. At that time, with other jewels, those that were brought to Rome, after the conquest of Jerusalem, by the son of Vespasian Titus, that is, the gifts of Solomon dedicated to God, were robbed. These treasures Justinian, for the glory of Christ our God, sent to Jerusalem, giving, as it should, to God that which was previously dedicated to Him. Then Gelimer, according to Procopius, plunged to the ground in the circus in front of the imperial seat, from which Justinian looked at what was happening, expressed in his own language the famous sacred saying: vanity of vanities and all kinds of vanity!

18. Procopius also says something else, that no one had noticed in history before him, and which, however, is marvelous and surpasses all probability. He says that the Libyan people, the Moors, having risen from the Palestinian land, settled in Libya, and that these are the very Hergesei, Eusei and other peoples defeated by Joshua, about whom St. Scripture. He proves the truth of such a legend with one inscription inscribed in Phoenician letters, which he, he says, read. This inscription, according to him, is located near one source, where there are two white marble pillars, on which the following words are carved: we are the ones who fled from the face of Jesus the robber son of Nun... Such was the fate of these peoples after Libya again fell under the rule of the Romans and began to pay tribute annually as before. They say that Justinian in Libya restored 150 cities, some of which were completely destroyed, and others - for the most part, and restored them magnificently: he decorated them with private and public buildings, fenced off with walls and other huge buildings, appointed either to decorate cities, then to serve God, and provided them with an abundance of water, both for benefit and for beauty, often re-arranging water pipes in those cities where they were not, partially renewing the old ones.

19. Now I turn to what happened in Italy and which was very clearly stated by the rhetorician Procopius, telling the events before his time, Theodoric, as I said above, having won a decisive victory over the ruler of Rome Odoacer, took Rome and ruled the Roman Empire to the end own life. Then his wife Amalasunta took her son Atalarikh under the guardianship and began to rule the kingdom with the strength and command of a man. She was the first to incite Justinian to the Gothic War, sending ambassadors to him on the occasion that she was threatened by a conspiracy. Atalaric died at an age still very young - and theodoric's relative, Theodatus, took over the Western empire. But when Justinian sent Belisarius to the west, Theodat resigned from power, as a man more inclined towards scholarship and very little experienced in war, and Vitigis, a very warlike man, took over the command over the Western troops. From the history of Procopius it is clear that when Belisarius appeared in Italy, Vitigis left Rome, that then Belisarius with his army approached Rome, and that the Romans very willingly accepted him and opened the gates for him, especially due to the participation of the high priest of this city, Silveria, in this matter. who even sent Atalarich's former henchman, Fidelia, after him. Thus, they ceded the city to Belisarius without a fight - and Rome exactly 60 years later, in the month of Appeal, which the Romans called December, in the eleventh year of the autocratic rule of Emperor Justinian again fell under the rule of the Romans. The same Procopius writes that Belisarius, during the siege of Rome by the Goths, suspecting the treason of the Roman high priest Silverius, sent him to Greece, and put Vigilius in his place.

20. Around the same time, writes Procopius, the Heruls, who had crossed the river Istra during the reign of Anastasius, were favorably received and generously gifted by Justinian with great treasures, became popularly Christians and became more meek in their lives.

21. Procopius further writes how Belisarius, returning to Byzantium, brought Vitigis with him along with the Roman booty, how Totila gained power over Rome, and Rome again fell into dependence on the Goths, as then Belisarius, arriving another time in Italy, again took Rome and how it was later recalled by the emperor to Byzantium when the Median war began.

22. The same writer narrates that the Avazgs at that time, having become more meek in their morals, adopted the Christian faith, and that the Emperor Justinian sent to them one court eunuch, an Avazg family, named Euphrates, with the command not to emasculate oneself, since this makes violence to nature. Of these, for the most part, servants to the imperial bedchambers were chosen, who are usually called eunuchs. At the same time, Justinian built a temple of the Mother of God among the Avazgs and gave them priests. Since then, they began to know the Christian teaching in the most accurate way.

23. The same writer tells that the inhabitants of Tanais - and the natives call the strait that goes from the Meotian swamp to the Euxine Pontus Tanais - asked Justinian to send a bishop to them. Justinian meticulously fulfilled their request and with great pleasure sent a priest to them. Procopius, however, very eloquently narrates that in the time of Justinian, the Goths raided the Roman land from the direction of Meotida, that terrible earthquakes occurred in Greece, that Boeotia, Achaia and the places lying near the Gulf of Crises, and countless villages and cities were shaken destroyed to the ground - that in many places of the earth crevasses appeared, the edges of which somewhere again converged, but somewhere they remained.

24. He also writes about the military command of the commander Narses, whom Justinian sent to Italy, about how he defeated Totila, and then Theia, after which Rome was taken for the fifth time. Those who were with Narses say that he performed prayers to God and other deeds of piety with such zeal, pouring out, as he should have, a feeling of reverence for the Virgin and the Mother of God, that She clearly indicated the time when it was necessary to start the battle, and that he had not entered into battle, as having received such a sign from above. Many other meritorious deeds were accomplished by Narses: he defeated Wuselin and Sinwald and made many conquests to the ocean. These cases are described by the rhetorician Agathius; but his writings have not yet reached us.

25. The same Procopius writes that Khosrov, having learned about the successful conquest of the regions of Africa and Italy under Roman rule, was inflamed with strong envy and, having accused the Romans of something, said that they had acted treacherously and violated the concluded peace. First of all, Justinian sent ambassadors to Khosrov - to convince him not to violate mutual endless peace and not to violate treaties, but to consider (arising) perplexities and resolve them in a friendly way. But Khosrov, internally indignant with envy, did not accept any conditions, and with a huge army entered Roman possession in the 13th year of Justinian's rule of the Roman Empire.

Further, Procopius describes how Khosrov took and destroyed the city of Sur lying on the banks of the Euphrates, showing in fact something completely different from what he had agreed with its inhabitants, that is, allowing himself all kinds of injustice and not keeping a single condition, and thus taking possession of the city more through cunning than by force of arms; - also tells how he put Beria on fire and then went to Antioch when Ephraim was bishopric in this city, who, however, left him, because he did not achieve his goal in anything. It is said that (Ephraim) saved the church and the buildings around it by decorating them with sacred offerings with the intention that they would serve as a ransom for them. Procopius also describes and depicts with feeling how Khosrow took Antioch completely destroyed it with fire and sword - how he was later under the adjacent city of Seleucia and near the outskirts of Daphne, and how he finally set out against Apameia, where at that time Thomas occupied the episcopal throne , the husband is very strong in word and deed. He prudently allowed himself, contrary to the church decree, to look with Khosrov at the race of horses in the horse lists, trying in every possible way to kindness and tame the Persian king. Khosrov asked Thomas if he wanted to see him in his city, and Thomas said, they say, it’s true that he was very reluctant to see him at home. Khosrov, they say, was surprised at such an answer and for the truth he praised this husband with dignity.

26. Having reached this time in the development of history, I will tell you about the miracle that happened in Apamey, which is worth placing in the present narrative. - The inhabitants of Apameia, having learned that Antioch was set on fire, turned to the aforementioned Thomas with an earnest request that, regardless of custom, he would bring out the saving and life-giving tree of the Cross and offer everyone to see and kiss this only salvation for the last time and take parting words into another life, and so that the honest Cross would lead them to a better lot. Thomas did just that: he brought out the life-giving tree, having previously appointed certain days for this, so that all the neighbors of the city could gather and become fellows of the salvation flowing from there. My parents arrived there with others and brought me with them; and at that time I was already at school. So, when we were honored to bow to the honest Cross and kiss it, Thomas, raising both hands, showed the Tree of the Cross, which had blotted out the ancient oath, and walked with it around the entire sacred building, as was usually the case on the holidays of worship. During the procession of Thomas, followed by him some great sheaf of fire, which only shone, but did not burn; so that all the place where the house was located and showed the honest Cross, as if it were enveloped in flames. And this happened not once, not twice, but many times, at a time when the bishop was passing through that space and when the assembled people earnestly asked him about it. Such a miracle for the Apameans was a harbinger of salvation. Therefore, His image was also inscribed on the ceiling of the sacred temple, so that it would inform people with paints who did not know about it. And this image remained until the invasion of Adaarman and the Persians, when, together with God's holy church and the whole city, it became a prey to the flame. That was the case. Meanwhile, Khosrov, returning back, violated the conditions - for even here it was not without conditions - and acted quite differently. This was characteristic of his fickle and frivolous character, but it was completely unusual for a prudent person, and especially for a tsar who respected treaties.

27. The same Procopius describes the traditions of the ancients about Edessa and Abgar, and that Christ wrote a letter to Abgar; - also tells that in his second invasion Khosrow besieged Edessa with the intention of destroying the rumor among believers that Edessa would never fall under the rule of enemies, which, however, is not in the message of Christ our God to Abgar, as the curious can see from the story of Eusebius Pamphilus, who cites that epistle from word to word. The Orthodox, however, really said and believed so; but by the power of faith in prediction, it really happened. Despite the fact that Khosrov, approaching the city, made thousands of attacks, built a large embankment that exceeded even the city walls, and resorted to countless other tricks, he was forced to retreat without success. However, I will tell you how it was. Khosrov ordered his troops to train as many trees as possible in order to pour all kinds of substance between them and the city. The trees were brought in sooner than ordered, and Khosrow, having built a wall from them near the city wall and poured earth into the middle, went straight to the city. Thus, little by little building on the wooden wall, raising the embankment and moving towards the city, the op rose to such a height that, finally, he stood above the city wall and from above could throw arrows at those on the wall who doomed themselves to defend the city. The besieged, seeing that the embankment is approaching the city, like a mountain, and that the enemies intend to simply go into the city, decided early in the morning to lead an underground passage to the embankment, which in Roman is called agesta (undermining), and there to make a fire so that it could flame wood to destroy, and to bring down the embankment into the ground. The deed was done. But, having made a fire, they did not reach the goal; because the fire had no outlet, where, getting out into the air, it could cover the tree. Completely lost in their thoughts, they carry the God-made icon not made by hands, which Christ God sent to Abgar when this one wanted to see Him. Bringing this all-holy icon into the ditch they dug, they sprinkled it with water and threw not a single drop into the fire and onto the wood. Divine power immediately came to the aid of their faith and did what they could not before; the fire suddenly engulfed the wood and, sooner than we can tell, turning it into coal, went over to the trees above and devoured everything. Noticing that the smoke is escaping (to the surface of the earth), the languishing siege contrived as follows: taking small vessels and filling them with sulfur, tow and other combustible substances, they threw them with slinges into the so-called tunnel. Therefore, when smoke began to come out of them and when, from the force of their throwing, fire was ignited, it did not even occur to the enemies that the smoke was coming out from under the embankment. Yes, and everyone who did not know about this matter believed that the smoke comes out of no other place than from the vessels. Finally, on the third day, clouds of fire began to clearly break out of the ground, and the Persians who fought on the embankment realized that they were in danger. However, Khosrov, as if wishing to resist the Divine power, tried to extinguish the flame by means of the water pipes located in front of the city; but the fire, taking water, as if oil, or sulfur, or some other readily combustible substance, ignited even more, until it completely collapsed the embankments and covered it with ash. After this, Khosrov, abandoning all hope (to seize the fortress) and being convinced in reality that the thought of overcoming the God we revered covered him with great shame, ignominiously returned home.

28. I will also tell you about what was done by Khosrov in another place - near Sergiopol; because it is memorable and worth it for people to always remember about it. Khosrov approached Sergiopolis with the intention of taking possession of it. But when he began to break down the walls, the inhabitants entered into negotiations with him to preserve the city, and it so happened that among the sacred things assigned for the redemption of the city was the Cross sent by Justinian and Theodora. How soon these things were brought to Khosrov, he asked the priest and the Persians sent with him if there was anything else. At the same time, someone who was not accustomed to telling the truth told Khosrov that there were also few other treasures hidden by citizens. Meanwhile, apart from the already brought gold or silver utensils, there was nothing left; there was only one treasure of the most excellent substance that belonged completely to God, that is, the all-holy relics of the victorious martyr Sergius, which rested in an oblong silver-lined shrine. Learning about this, Khosrov moved his entire army to the city; but on the wall suddenly appeared an uncountable number of soldiers armed with shields and ready to protect him. Seeing this, those sent by Khosrov turned back and told with surprise about the number and armament of the defenders. Then Khosrov began to question him again and, having learned that very few remained in the city - old and small, but strong people were gone, he realized that this miracle was being performed by a martyr; therefore, being shocked by fear and astonished at the faith of the Christians, he returned home. They say that at the end of his life he was honored with the divine sacrifice.

29. I will also tell you about an ulcer that suddenly appeared at that time, which - which, they say, had never happened before - lasted almost 52 years and raged throughout the earth. This plague, in some respects similar to that described by Thucydides, and in some very different from it, was discovered two years later, after the capture of Antioch (by the Persians). She left, as they said, from Ethiopia and successively bypassed the universe, leaving, I think, not a single person without the fact that he did not experience her. Some cities were so impressed by it that they were left completely without inhabitants; and elsewhere she acted more easily. The ulcer did not appear at a certain time of the year and, after its appearance, did not pass equally, but seized some places at the beginning of winter, others during spring, others in summer, and some at the onset of autumn, and touched some parts of a city, but others have passed. In addition, it was often possible to see that in a city where there was no disease, some families completely died out; and somewhere, with the extermination of one or two families, the rest of the population of the city remained unharmed - so, however, as far as we know from our precise observations, the families that remained unharmed the next year only one was subjected to this disaster. But the strangest thing is that if some inhabitants of cities affected by an ulcer happened to live where there was no illness; then the disease seized only those who, leaving the cities affected by the ulcer, lived in cities that were not exposed to it. And this happened both in cities and in other places - more often at certain turns of the sun. The greatest death for people was revealed especially in the 2nd year of every fifteenth birthday. And I myself, describing this event, does not interfere, I think, from bringing into history what concerns me personally when it comes in handy - and I myself, at the onset of this ulcer, while still going to school, received a so-called inguinal tumor ... In addition, from the same ulcer that was discovered at different times, I lost many of my children, wife and other relatives, as well as servants and a greater number of villagers, as if the periods of time divided my troubles among themselves at the time when I described this being 57 years old, two years before the ulcer opened up in Antioch for the fourth time (because the fourth fifteen-year circle then began), in addition to the aforementioned persons, I also lost my daughter and with her a grandson. This ulcer was revealed by various diseases: in some it started from the head, - at which the eyes were filled with blood, the face was swollen, - then it passed to the throat and, engulfing it, deprived the person of life; others had diarrhea; in others, a swelling in the groin was found, and after that - an extraordinary fever, and they died on the next or third day, not at all conscious of being sick and feeling strong in their bodies; some fell into insanity and in this state gave up the spirit; sometimes black ulcerous boils jumped up on the body and struck people with death; some, having undergone an ulcer once or twice and having recovered from it, then again were subjected to it and died. The methods of borrowing the disease were so varied that you cannot even count them: some perished from the fact that they turned and ate with the sick; others - from one touch to them; some - having been only in the house, and those - on the square; some, having escaped from the cities infected with the disease, remained unharmed themselves, for that they brought the disease with them to the healthy; and there were those who, despite all the fact that they lived with the sick and touched not only the infected, but also the dead, remained completely free from the disease; others, having lost all their children or households, although they wanted to die and deliberately treated the sick, were not exposed to the infection, as it would act contrary to their wishes. This plague, it is said, continues to rage to this time in 52 years, and surpassed all previously existing plagues. Meanwhile, Philostratus is surprised that in his time the ulcer lasted 15 years. And the future is still unknown; to what it is directed - about that only God knows, who sees both the reasons and the purpose of events. But let's talk about the rest of Justinian's reign.

30. Justinian, with regard to money, was an insatiable man and such a hunter of the stranger that he gave the entire imperialist power to himself partly to the rulers, partly to tax collectors, partly to those people who, for no reason, like to plot against others. An innumerable number of wealthy people, under insignificant pretexts, have all their property taken away from them. If only some dissolute woman, catching his eye, said that she had intercourse or a criminal relationship with such and such, all the provisions of the laws would immediately disappear; only by shameful self-interest could she win Justinian to her side - all the wealth of the slandered man passed into her house. However, Justinian was not a bank of money: he built many sacred buildings, erected splendid temples and other pious establishments everywhere to shelter men and women, old and young and all sorts of ailments, and for this subject he set aside quite a few income. He did many other pious and pleasing to God deeds, if only such figures performed them from their own property and consecrated their actions to God in purity.

51. Having built in Constantinople many beautiful temples in the name of God and the saints, Justinian then erected a great and incomparable building, which has no similar history, - he built the church of St. Sophia, the greatest, magnificent, graceful, to describe which you will not find words. I will try, as far as possible, to describe the parts of this temple. The round dome of the royal temple rises above the four vaults and is raised to such a height that from below it is impossible to reach the end of the hemisphere with the gaze; and the one standing on top, no matter how daring, will never dare to look down and lower his eyes to the ground. The empty vaults rise from the base to the top of the roof. On the right and left, opposite the vaults, there are columns built of Thessalian stone, and their tops support the upper galleries, fenced off by other similar columns, giving those who wish to look from above at the performance of the priesthood. The empress also stands here, being present on the days of the holidays when the sacraments are performed. The columns on the east and west sides are located so that nothing prevents you from being surprised at the miracle of such greatness. The porticos of the aforementioned galleries are crowned at the bottom with columns and small vaults. To understand this amazing building more clearly, I think to mean here the measure of its length, breadth and height, as well as the measure of the depth and height of its vaults. It is as follows: the length from the doors opposite to the shell roundness of that sacred vault, under which the bloodless sacrifice is offered, 190 feet; latitude north to east 115 feet; the height from the platform to the center of the hemisphere is 150 feet. Each vault is wide…. and is 260 feet long from east to west. The width of the openings in them extends up to 75 feet. In addition, on the west side there are two other magnificent porticoes, and outside (the temple is adjoined from everywhere) decorated porches. Justinian also built the temple of the Divine Apostles, which is not inferior to the primacy of any other. Emperors and sacred persons are usually buried in it. So we said something about these so important subjects.

32. Something else was noticed in Justinian that surpassed all brutality. Whether such a trait in him was the result of a natural disorder, or of his cowardice and fears, I cannot say, only it began with the popular outrage, nicknamed “Nika.” He had so far extended his favor to one of the parties, called the Party of Gays, that she in broad daylight and in the city itself, she killed those belonging to the opposite party, and the murderers not only were not afraid of punishment, but also received a reward, from which a multitude of them appeared. sell people their salvation. And whoever of the government officials tried to pacify them, he endangered his life. So, when one governor of the East ordered some of the rebels to be whipped with dry veins, the rebels in the very middle, the cities carved him with veins and everywhere made public about it In addition, the ruler of Cilicia, Kalinnikos, was crucified for the fact that, by the power of the laws, he put to death two Cilician assassins, Paul and Faustinus, who attacked him. and those who attempted to kill him. Therefore, people of the other party, leaving their homes and not meeting anyone, but enduring persecution everywhere, like the damned, began to lie in wait for the travelers and carry out robberies and murders. From this, all places were filled with untimely deaths, robberies and other atrocities. However, Justinian sometimes turned to disgusting thoughts and executed the gays, betraying the laws of those who, as if barbarians, allowed them to commit evil in the cities. But if you go into details on this subject, you will not have enough words or time. By what is said, one can judge about other things.

33. At that time, god-bearing men and great miracle workers lived in many places. Among such men, who shone with glory everywhere, is Barsanophius, an Egyptian by birth. In one monastery near the city of Gaza, he spent a bodiless life in the flesh and performed many miracles that you cannot even remember. Everyone is sure that he still lives, confined in a hut, although it has been more than 50 years since he hid from sight and does not eat anything of earthly fruits. The Primate of Jerusalem, Eustachius, did not believe this; but, as soon as he ordered to excavate the hut in which the man of God was confined, fire burst out from there and almost burned everyone who was present there.

34. He also lived in the city of Emesse Simeon. This man rejected vanity to such an extent that to people who did not know him, he seemed insane, although he was filled with all wisdom and God's grace. For the most part, he lived apart, giving no one a chance to find out when or how he prayed to God, when he ate his food and when he did not touch it. Sometimes he appeared on large roads and squares and seemed frenzied, completely devoid of meaning and reason. It also happened that, stealthily entering some hotel, he, tormented by hunger, took the first food that came into his eye. Whenever someone expressed his respect to him with a bow, he hurriedly and vexedly left, fearing that his virtue would not be revealed. This is how Simeon behaved in the square. But he had several people close to whom he treated without any pretense. One of these familiar faces had a maid who had a shameful relationship with someone and became pregnant. When the gentlemen forced her to name the perpetrator of the crime, she said that she was in secret communication with Simeon, she suffered from him, and the justice of this was confirmed by an oath, expressing her readiness, if necessary, to expose (the guilty one). Hearing about this, Simeon did not contradict and said that he wears a body - a meager vessel. When the rumor spread about this everywhere and Simeon, apparently, was covered with dishonor, he, as if out of shame, did not appear. But now the time has come for the woman to give birth, and she, according to the custom of those giving birth, remained on her bed; the pains of birth began to act with excessive and unbearable force and brought her life to extreme danger, and the child did not move. Then Simeon came there on purpose, and when they began to beg him to pray, he said in front of everyone that this woman would not be relieved of the burden before, as he had named the person with whom she was pregnant. As soon as she did this and really named her father, the baby was immediately born, as if the truth itself helped the birth. Once they noticed that Simeon entered the house of a dissolute woman and, having locked the door behind him, was left alone with her. Then he opened the door and hurried out, looking around on all sides to see if anyone was looking at him. After that, the suspicion increased even more, so that those who saw this called the woman to them and asked her why she had Simeon - and for so long. But the woman swore by oath that for the third day, due to poverty, she had nothing in her mouth except water; and Simeon brought her meat, bread and wine, and, locking the door, offered a meal with the order that she should eat her fill, because she was suffering enough from the lack of food, but he took the remnants of everything he brought with him. - Just before the earthquake, which greatly shook the seaside Phenicia and from which the cities of Berit, Byblos and Tripolis especially suffered, waving a whip, he began to beat them on many columns in the square and said: "Stop, you will have to dance." Since this person did nothing in vain; then those present noticed that he did not touch the columns. These columns, a little later, were hit by an earthquake and fell. There are many other of his affairs, but their description requires a special composition.

35. The same way of life was then carried out in Koilesiria by a certain Thomas. Once he arrived in Antioch to receive annual food for his monastery; and this food was usually supplied from the Church of Antioch. One day the steward of this church, Anastasius, gave Thomas a slap in the face for the fact that he often bothered him. When those present began to express indignation at such an act, Thomas said that henceforth neither he would receive, nor Anastasius would give out, and both came true. A day later, Anastasius died (in Antioch), and Thomas reposed to an ageless life on his way back to the hospital in the outskirts of Daphne. His body was buried in the wanderers' cemetery. But, despite the fact that they were buried there one after another, his body, according to the greatest miracles of God, who glorified him even after death, rose above other bodies so that the latter moved a great distance from him. The Antiochians, in awe of the holy man, announced this to Ephraim. Then his holy body was solemnly and with a large crowd of people transferred to Antioch and honorably laid in the tomb. This transfer ended the pestilence that was ongoing at that time. On this very day of each year, the Antiochians still celebrate the feast with great solemnity. But let us return to the subject we have proposed.

36. The episcopal place of Anthim, who was deposed from the throne of the capital, was taken, as mentioned above, by Epiphanius; and after Epiphanius - Mina, during which a very remarkable miracle took place. The ancient custom of the reigning city requires that in the event that a fairly large number of holy particles of the most pure body of Christ our God remain, for their consumption, call on innocent children from among those who attend the lower schools. Once, with such a call, the son of a glazier got mixed up among the children (Christians), according to the faith of a Jew. When asked by his parents about the reason for the slowdown, he told them what had happened and what he ate with the other children. The father, in anger and rage, seizes the boy and throws him into the furnace under a red-hot mass from which he formed glass. When then the mother, looking for her son, could not find him and walked all over the city with sobs and screams, and on the third day, standing at the door of her husband's workshop, she covered with footprints and called her son by name: then he, recognizing the mother's voice, answered her out of the oven. Breaking down the doors and going inside, the mother sees that the boy is standing among the flames, and yet the fire does not touch him. When asked how he remained unharmed, the youth replied that his wife, dressed in a purple robe, often visited him, that she brought water, extinguished the coals nearest to him with it, and delivered him food whenever he felt hungry. When this was brought to (the attention of) Justinian, he commanded the youth and his mother to enlighten him with the bathhouse, and he crucified his father, who did not agree to consider himself a Christian, on a fig tree, like a child killer. So it was.

37. After Mina, Eutykhios ascends to the throne. And in Jerusalem, after Martyrius, he takes the throne of Sallust, followed by Elijah, then Peter, then Macarius, who was expelled from his throne even before he was confirmed as emperor; for it was said that he preached the teachings of Origen. After Macarius, Eustochius received the bishopric by succession. And in Alexandria, after the demotion of Theodosius, as mentioned above, he is Bishop Zoilus. When he also joined the side of his predecessors, then Apollinarius received the see. In Antioch, after Ephraim, the throne was entrusted to Domnin.

38. So, when Vigilius presided over the oldest Rome, first Mina, then Eutychios, Apollinarius in Alexandria, Domninus in Antioch, and Eustochius in Jerusalem, Justinian convenes the Fifth (Ecumenical) Council for the following reason. Since the defenders of Origen's teachings, especially in the so-called New Lavra, have become very strong; then Eustochius applied all his efforts to drive them out and, having taken possession of the Lavra, threw them out of there and, like a common infection, drove them far away. But dispersed, they attracted even more adherents. They were patronized by Theodore, nicknamed Askis, Bishop of Caesarea, the main city of the Cappadocians, who was always under Justinian, who enjoyed his special confidence and was very useful to him. So, when he angered the court and called this case (Eustokhia) extremely wicked and lawless, Eustokhiy sent to the reigning city the abbots of Theodosius monastery Rufus and Savvin of the Konon monastery, who had primacy in the wilderness both in their own significance and in the importance of the monasteries over which they were in charge. Along with them came others who were not deservingly lagging behind them. They began to speak directly against Origen, Evagrius and Didim; and Theodore of Cappadocia, wishing to distract them in the other direction, began to raise accusations against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret and Iva: this is how the All-Holy God arranged everything so that the unclean would be blotted out here and here. So, when the first question arose as to whether the dead should be anathematized, Eutyches, who apparently studied the Divine Scripture perfectly, but who did not yet belong to the number of famous people during Mina's life, only held the post of apocrisiary under the Amasian bishop - Eutyches, having looked at the audience, not only with pride, but also with contempt, he said resolutely that this does not require reasoning; because in ancient times, King Josiah not only killed the living priests of idols, but also dug up the graves of those who had died long before. The remark of Eutychios seemed appropriate to everyone, and Justinian, having learned about this, elevated him, after the death of Mina, to the throne of the reigning city. Meanwhile, Vigili, agreeing in writing, did not want to be present at the Council. When Justinian asked the (fathers) of the Council what they would say about Theodore and about what Theodoret said against Cyril and his twelve heads, also about the well-known letter of Willow to Mary Perse; then, having read many sayings of Theodore and Theodoret and noting that Theodore had previously been condemned and excluded from the sacred diptychs, also that heretics should be condemned after death, everyone, as they say, unanimously anathematized Theodore and what Theodoret said against the twelve heads of Cyril and of the right faith, as well as the message of Willow to Mary Perse, and uttered the following words: “according to the gospel parable of the great God and Savior of our Jesus Christ”, and after other words: “apart from all other heretics condemned and anathematized by the above-mentioned four holy Councils and and the apostolic Church, we condemn and anathematize Theodore, the so-called Bishop of Mopsuestia, and his wicked writings, we condemn and anathematize everything that Theodoret wickedly wrote both against the right faith, and against the twelve chapters of St. he is in defense of Theodore and Nestorius; besides this, we anathematize that wicked epistle, which was written, they say, by Willow to Mary Perse. “And a little below (the Fathers of the Council) set forth 14 chapters about right and pure faith. This is how things went at first. Then, when the monks - Eulogius, Conon, Cyprian and Pankratius submitted (to the emperor) a written report against the teachings of Origen, called Adamant, and against the followers of his wickedness and error, Justinian asked the fathers of the Council about this, providing them with a copy of that report and his own a letter to the Vigil on the same subject. From all this one could understand that Origen tried to fill the purity of the apostolic dogmas with Hellenic and Manichean tares. Therefore, following exclamations of reproach to Origen and his inventions, at the Council a report was drawn up to Justinian, which in other passages is set out as follows: "having a soul, a part of the nobility of the highest, the most Christian emperor ..." and after several expressions: "so we avoided, we avoided this; for they did not recognize the voice of the strangers, but such a person (Origen) as a tatya and a robber, tied tightly with the bonds of anathema, erupted outside the sacred fence. ”Then a little lower:“ You will learn the power of our deeds from reading them. ”To this they added and all the chapters that were usually defended by the admirers of Origen's teaching, and from which it was clear in what they agreed (with the Orthodox), and in what they disagreed and were variously mistaken. Lavra; it contained the following: “Theodore Askis of Cappadocia said: if now the Apostles and Martyrs work miracles and enjoy such a great honor, then, assuming that with resurrection they will not be equal to Christ, what will their resurrection be like? " With great care they chose and exhibited many other blasphemies of Didymus, Evagrius and Theodore.However, a few time after this Council, Eutychius was deposed, and John, a native of Syrim, a village in the Kynigic district of the Antioch region, was elevated to the throne of the Church of Constantinople. ...

39. At that time, Justinian, deviating from the right royal path of dogmas and entering on a path trodden by neither the Apostles nor the Fathers, became entangled in thorns and thistles. But, desiring to fill the Church with them, he did not achieve his goal; because the Lord, having fulfilled the prediction of the prophecy, protected the royal path with inexpressibly solid strongholds, like a steep wall and a pointed fence, so that the murderers could not jump over it. So, when in the oldest Rome, after Vigilius, John, also called Catelinus, was bishopric, in New - John, a native of the Syrian, in Alexandria - Apollinaris, in Theopolis - Anastasius after Domnin, and in Jerusalem, Macarius, after the deposition of Eustachius, restored on his own throne after he anathematized Origen, Didyme and Evagrius - at this time Justinian issued the edict, so-called among the Romans, in which he called the body of the Lord not subject to corruption and not partaking of natural and innocent passions, and said that the Lord also ate before suffering, as he ate after the resurrection; as if, that is, His all-holy body, neither in arbitrary nor in natural passions, received no transformation or change from the time of its formation in the womb, and even after the resurrection. He forced all priests everywhere to agree with this teaching. But they, saying that they were waiting for the opinion of the Antiochian bishop Anastasius, rejected his first attempt on his life.

40. Anastasius, on the other hand, was well versed in the Divine scriptures and so strict in his morals and way of life that he paid attention to the most insignificant objects and never changed his constancy and firmness - neither in everyday affairs, nor in relation to divine things. And he so abstained from his temper that neither gentle and insinuating speech did not incline him to injustice, nor cruelty and severity kept him from the truth. In important conversations his hearing was open, his tongue, cleverly resolving questions, was abundant in words; on the contrary, during idle conversations, he completely blocked his ear and put the guardianship on his lips, so that his word was measured by reason, and silence was often superior to words. Justinian approaches it, like a certain impenetrable tower, undertaking all sorts of tricks and thinking that if he shakes it, then there will be no more work left to take the city, conquer the righteousness of dogmas and captivate the sheep of Christ. He (Anastasius) was so exalted by divine thought (for he stood on the indestructible rock of faith) that he clearly contradicted Justinian himself in his explanation, and very clearly and cleverly argued that the body of the Lord was subject to decay in natural and innocent passions, and that it was so. thought and transmitted by the Divine Apostles and God-bearing Fathers. He also answered the question of the monks of the first and second Syria, confirming in all thoughts, encouraging everyone to feat and every day reading in the church the saying of the chosen vessel: If anyone behold you better, give him a hedgehog, let it be anathema, even if it was an Angel from heaven(Gal. 1, 8.9). In view of this, everyone, except for a few, zealously strove for such a way of thinking. He also wrote a farewell speech to the Antiochians when he learned that Justinian wanted to send him into exile. One can justly be surprised at this word, both by the beauty of expression and fluidity of thoughts, and by the abundance of sacred sayings and historical indications.

41. But, God is the best that I will foresee about us(Heb. II, 40), this word was not made public; for Justinian, while dictating the definition of the exile of Anastasius and the priests who were like him, was struck by an invisible blow and passed away from this life, reigning for only 58 years and 8 months.

NOTES:

107. Philostorgius. Church history. XI, 7.

108. This entire chapter is a generalized retelling of the known parts of the "Secret History" by Procopius, although Procopius does not have such a specific place. Procopius's stories on this topic are simply a slanderous consecration of all of Justinian's actions. This story, apparently, is a reaction to the laws against fornication, issued by the Basileus. Evagrius, who is very respectful of Procopius, inserted this story into his work, apparently considering it necessary to cite information provided from such a reliable source. It is characteristic, however, that Evagrius does not find it necessary to retell the Secret History in detail, as he retells other works of Procopius. Moreover, he rightly points out to which huge funds were directed, about the "disappearance" of which Procopius speaks so eloquently.

109. Church of St. Sofia burned down during the Nika uprising. A description of the temple is also contained in Procopius of Caesarea (Procopius of Caesarea. About buildings. I, 20-78), but it seems that the description of Evagrius, who himself was in Constantinople and saw the temple, completely independently. This is also indicated by the fact that Evagrius usually names his source.

110. None of the Greek codes indicate the number of feet.

111. The Church of the Holy Apostles was built in Constantinople by Constantine the Great. According to Procopius, "As a result of a long time, having already come to destruction, he aroused the suspicion that he would no longer stand." (Procopius of Caesarea. About buildings. VI, 9)

112. Theophanes reports about a long war between the parties of the hippodrome, which lasted from 519 to 526: “In the same year, the Veneti introduced popular rule, and in all cities there was riot, stoning and other murders. The riots began primarily in Antioch and spread to all cities, in which they continued for five whole years. At the same time, they struck the prasins with swords, when they came across at a meeting, they even looked for them in houses, and the rulers did not dare to punish the murderers. This continued until the very sixth year of the reign of the pious Justin. " (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p. 129) Procopius, on whom Evagrius clearly relies in his story, also attributes these events to the reign of Justin (Procopius of Caesarea. Secret history. VIII, 2.) it is quite possible that all the horrors described by Procopius relate precisely to the riots mentioned by Theophanes. In addition, Procopius's story about these atrocities of the parties is found right after the message about the death of Vitalian, after words about the inability to rule Justin I, and Theophanus places the beginning of the riots in the year of his death. Taking into account the biased interpretation of events by Procopius in his "Secret History", it seems quite possible to consider this not a permitted rampage of prasins, but popular unrest, especially considering the direct meaning of the word "stasiota" used by Procopius - rebels. 134. St. Anastasius I Sinaite 561-572 and 596-601 (or 599).

135. See note. 119.

Εὐάγριος Σχολαστικός ; lat. Evagrius Scholasticus; or -) - Antiochian jurist, author " Church history»Covering the time from year 594.

Biography

Evagrius was a Syrian by nationality. He was born in Syria, in the city of Epiphany, which stands on the Orontes River. His parents, as Evagrius himself reports, were pious Christians. In 542, when Evagrius was in elementary school, together with his parents, he made a pilgrimage trip to Apamea, where he bowed to a particle of the Life-giving Cross of the Lord. In Apamea, Evagrius witnessed the capture of the city by the Persian troops of Khosrov and the games organized at the city hippodrome in honor of the latter. During the life of Evagrius in Syria, the same disease-epidemic often happened, from which people died. Evagrius, when he was still attending school, had had this disease, he had a tumor in the groin area. According to the symptoms described by Evagrius, it was the bubonic plague - Justinian's plague. In the future, immunity to this infection appears to have developed in his body.

After school, Evagrius studied legal law and became a lawyer in the Syrian capital of Antioch, where he lived most of his life. For his scholarly pursuits, Evagrius received the nickname: "Scholastic" (ancient Greek. Σχολαστικός - scholarly devotee). Evagrius got married. In Antioch, Evagrius was noticed by Patriarch Gregory, who made him administrator of the patriarchate. On behalf of the Patriarch, Evagrius repeatedly traveled on church affairs to the capital of the empire, to the city of Constantinople. Evagrius and the Patriarch were close friends all their lives, and Evagrius speaks of the latter in the best way in his work "Church History". In 588, the patriarch was accused of many grave crimes, including the sin of incest - in cohabitation with his own sister. The political and ecclesiastical enemies of the Patriarch acted as accusers, who aroused the common people against Gregory. The case was considered by the emperor and the senate in the capital, Evagrius acted as the patriarch's lawyer, who successfully won the case.

Evagrius raised several children, married off his daughter, and had grandchildren. Evagrius was a fairly wealthy man, as he himself writes, he had many slaves and dependent peasants-chorites. The enapographer peasants, dependent on Evagrius, apparently lived in the suburbs of Antioch, possibly on the lands belonging to him. Evagrius was in misfortune. The plague that happened in Antioch deprived Evagrius not only of many of his slaves and peasants, but also of his wife and many children. When Evagrius was already over 57 years old, a new epidemic deprived him of his eldest daughter and grandson. On October 28, 588, Evagrius again married a young girl from a good family; on their wedding night, a strong earthquake occurred, from which Evagrius and his wife were miraculously saved. Evagrius wrote a collection of letters, reports, court decisions, speeches and other works, which were partly compiled on behalf of Patriarch Gregory. He presented this book to Emperor Tiberius. The emperor adequately appreciated the literary and state merits of Evagrius and bestowed upon him the title of honorary quaestor. When the son of Theodosius was born to the emperor of Mauritius, Evagrius wrote a laudatory eulogy in his honor, for which he received the title from the emperor: honorary church history / Perev. SPb. Theological Academy, revised and corrected by VV Serpova; note .: Kalinin A. - M .: Economic education, 1997.

Evagrius Scholastic... Church history in 6 vols. / Per., Entry. Art., comm. and app. I. V. Krivushina. Resp. ed. E. S. Krivushina. 1st ed. in 3 volumes. SPb .: Aleteya, 1999-2003.

• Ed. 2nd, rev. (Series "Library of Christian Thought. Sources"). SPb .: Publishing house of Oleg Abyshko, 2006.672 pages.

BOOK 2

1. About the emperor Marcian and about various signs that foreshadowed his reign.

2.On the Council of Chalcedon and the reason for its congress.

3. Description of the house of prayer of the great martyr Euthemia, resting in Chalcedon; also a narration about the miracles that were in it.

4.On the judgments and decisions of the Council, on the deposition of Dioscorus of Alexandria and on the restoration of Theodoret, Willow and some others.

5. About the disturbance that took place in Alexandria, on the occasion of the ordination of Proterius, and about that which took place in Jerusalem.

6. About the happened drought, hunger and pestilence - and about how in some areas of the earth, to amazement, fruits grew by themselves.

7. About the assassination of Valentinian and the capture of Rome, and about the other persons who ruled in it.

1. What happened in the time of Theodosius, we concluded in the first book; and now let us put in front of the mirror the history of the glorious Roman autocrator Marcian, and first of all we will tell you who he was, where he came from and how he came to the Roman throne; and then review the events of his time. Marcian, as many say about him, and by the way the rhetorician Priscus, was the son of a warrior, a Thracian by birth. Intending to enter the rank of his father, he went to Philippopolis to be assigned to a military detachment there, and on the way he met the body of a recently murdered man lying on the ground. Stopping in front of him - because, by the way, he was very kind, and especially philanthropic - he grieved over this event, and remained for a long time in that place, wishing to pay his debt to the deceased. At this time, some saw him, and reported him to the Felippole authorities. The authorities took him in and questioned him about the murder. But while conjecture and probability were already gaining the upper hand over truth and denial, accusing this person of murder, and he was to be executed as a murderer, Divine Providence unwittingly pointed out the real killer, who, for his deed putting his head down, gave life to Marcian ... Having so miraculously escaped death, Marcian came to the office of the local military detachment, and announced the desire to add his name to his list. The military ranks, marveling at this man and rightly assuming that in time he would be great and glorious, gladly accepted him and numbered him, not as the last thing demanded by the military regulations, but the name of Marcian, who was also called Augustus, was added to the list for the degree one recently deceased soldier, also named Augustus. Thus, his name preceded the name of our kings, who, clothed in purple, are titled as Augustus: just as if his name did not want to remain without dignity, and as if dignity was looking for the very name with which it is fastened, so that the proper and common noun is the same and also, and so that in one word both the dignity and the name should be indicated. Another circumstance also happened that could portend the reign of Marcian. He, under the leadership of Aspar, fought against the vandals, and when Aspar was severely defeated by the latter, he was taken prisoner among many others, and together with other captives was taken out into the field for the inspection appointed by Hänzerich. The prisoners of war gathered, and Ginserich, sitting on an elevated place, rejoiced at the sight of their large crowd. And they spent their time as they wanted; because the guards, by order of Ginzerich, removed the shackles from them. In this case, some did one thing, others another; Marcian, sitting on the ground, under the searing heat of the sun's rays, in spite of the season, slept. At these minutes, an eagle descending from a height and flying straight along the vertical line from the sun cast a shadow from itself like a cloud, and through that delivered coolness to Marcian. Surprised by such a phenomenon, Ginserich aptly concluded that he had to be, and, having summoned Marcian to himself, freed him from captivity, only tied him with a terrible oath that, upon accession to the throne, he would remain faithful to the Vandals and would not raise weapons against them - that Marcian , according to the legend of Procopius, really did. But leaving aside, let us return to the proposed subject. Marcian was both pious before God, and was fair to his subjects, considering wealth not what was hidden, and not what was collected in the form of taxes, but only what could satisfy the needy and secure the condition of people who were enriched. What made him terrible was not the transfer of punishment, but the fear that he would punish. Therefore, he received power not as an inheritance, but as a reward for virtue: the kingdom was entrusted to him by the unanimous opinion of the Senate and all other government places, in accordance with the desire of Pulcheria, with whom, as a ruler, he entered into marriage, but which he did not know, because she remained a virgin until old age. This happened when the Roman autocrat Valentinian did not confirm the election with his opinion, which he gave after, being prompted to do so by the virtue of the chosen one. Marcian wanted everyone to bring a common honor to God, so that the confusion of tongues produced by wickedness would again piously return to unity and honor God through one and the same doxology.

2. While he wanted this, he was approached on the one hand by persons who received powers from the bishop of the oldest Rome, Leo, and said that at the second Council of Ephesus, Dioscorus did not accept the letter of Leo, which contained the doctrine of Orthodoxy, on the other, they were offended by Dioscorus himself, and asked that their case be considered conciliarly. The former primate of Dorilee, Eusebius, especially bothered, saying that he and Flavian had been deposed through the cunning of the shield-bearer Theodosius Chrysafios; for; when Chrysaphius demanded gold, Flavian, wanting to shame him, sent him sacred vessels for his ordination. Moreover, this official, and in his malice, was close to Eutychius. Moreover, Eusebius reported that Flavian had been mercilessly killed by Dioscorus, who pushed him and beat him with his heels. For these reasons, the Council of Chalcedon took place. However, messengers sent out with pious letters, each of the priests was invited first to Nicaea; so that the primate of Rome, Leo, inscribed his letter about those who were sent instead of himself - Paschasian, Lucentia and others: “to those gathered in Nicaea,” but then the fathers gathered in the regional city of Bithynia Chalcedon. ) was summoned from exile and Nestorius.But the injustice of this legend is already evident from the fact that Nestorius was anathematized by all the members of the Council. Bishop Eustathius of Beria also clearly testifies against this in his epistle to Bishop John and to another presbyter John, about the issues raised at the Council speaking word for word: "Those who demanded the remains of Nestorius again came to the Council and began to shout: why are the saints being anathematized. So the king, angry, ordered the guards to drive them far away." After this, I do not understand how Nestorius was summoned when he was no longer alive.

3. So, everyone converges in the holy temple of the martyr Euphemia, erected in the provincial city of Bithynia - Chalcedon. It is separated from the Bosphorus no further than two stages, and is on one of the most pleasant and easiest slopes: so that the martyrs going to the temple do not notice their ascent; and when they step inside the basilica, they suddenly see themselves at a height, from where, spreading their gaze around, contemplate the entire plain of fields spreading beneath them, green with herbs, agitated by the harvest and decorated with various trees, then - wooded and rocky mountains pleasantly rising with their peaks; and here are different seas, sometimes gilded by the radiance of the sun, and quietly, calmly clinging to the shores, where calm reigns, then noisy and violently heaving waves, which, with their ebb and flow, bring to the coast, or carry away - shells, sea grass and the lightest of skin-skinned animals ... The temple was erected from the side of Constantinople, and therefore is decorated with the view of such a great city. It consists of three huge buildings. One open, decorated on all sides with a long courtyard and columns; then another, in width, length and columns almost equal to the first, and differing from it only in that it is equipped with a dome. On the north side of this building, at sunrise, a rotunda is built, from the inside furnished with skillfully decorated columns, which, both in material and in size, are the same. On them, under the same dome, an upper room rises, so that those who wish could pray to the martyr from there and be present at the performance of the gifts. Inside the rotunda, on the east side, there is a beautiful chapel where the holy remains of the martyr lie, lying in an oblong tomb, which is wisely crafted from silver and is called shrine by some. It is known to all Christians that the saint sometimes performs miracles there; for from time to time it is not uncommon to appear in a dream either to the bishops of that city, or to others who have marked themselves with a pious life, and commands them to gather fruits in her temple. Therefore, when this is revealed either to the kings, or to the bishop, or to the people; then everyone goes to the temple - and the sceptrians, and the sacred ranks, and government officials, and the whole crowd of people, with the intention of taking communion of the holy mysteries. There, in the mind of everyone, the Primate of Constantinople with his priests enters the basilica, in which the all-holy body I have just mentioned rests. There is a small opening in that tomb on the left side, which is closed by a small door. A long iron rod with a sponge tied to the end is admitted into this hole until the most holy remains, and turning the sponge there, they remove it along with the rod full of blood and blood livers. As soon as the people see this, they immediately worship God and praise Him. What is worn out by means of a sponge is in such a multitude that it is distributed with abundance to pious kings, and to all the assembled priests, and to all the assembled people; even sent to those who wish to the faithful throughout the Celestial Empire: and those bloody livers are constantly preserved, and the all-holy blood never changes its appearance. This is done in a godly manner, not at any particular time, but when the life of the primate and the integrity of morals contribute to this. They say that if a man of noble appearance and known for his virtues runs the Church, this miracle happens very often: and how soon he is not like that, such divine signs are rare. I will also say about such a miracle, which is not interrupted by time or circumstances, does not distinguish the faithful from the unfaithful, but is given to everyone evenly. Anyone approaching the place where the precious tomb with the holy remains is located smells an incense, incomparable with any incense familiar to man; for it resembles neither the fragrances collected from the meadows, nor the vapors of the most fragrant substances, nor those that the beautician prepares. This is a wonderful and extraordinary incense, which by itself shows the power of the remains that emit it.

4. This is where the Council I mentioned came together, and instead of Bishop Leo, who ruled the oldest Rome, it was occupied, as has been said, by the bishops of Paschasian, Lucentius and the presbyter Bonifatius. Moreover, the Primate of Constantinople Anatoly, Bishop of Alexandria Dioscorus, Maximus of Antioch, and Juvenal of Jerusalem were present. They also had their subordinate priests and persons who had seniority in the Senate. Those who took the place of Leo told those present that Dioscorus should not sit with them - such was the instruction given by their bishop Leo - and that if this was not done, they would leave the church. When the senators asked them what kind of guilt was being raised against Dioscorus, they answered: “Dioscorus, having taken upon himself the face of a judge by no right, must first give an account of his own proceedings.” After these words, Dioscorus, by the Senate’s verdict, went to the middle , and Eusebius demanded that the petition he submitted to the tsar be read, speaking word for word like this: "Dioscorus insulted me, insulted the faith, killed Bishop Flavian, and unrighteously deposed him with me. Order me to read my petition." read the petition, which consisted in the following words:

"To our most reverent and pious Christ-loving kings, Flavius ​​Valentinian and Flavius ​​Marcian, the irreplaceable Augustus, from Eusebius, the lowest Bishop of the Dorilean, writing in defense of himself, and the Orthodox faith, and Saint Flavian, the former dominion of all the bishop. subjects and stretch out your hand to all the offended, and especially to the clergy; for by this you serve God, who has given you kingship and dominion under the sun. for nothing so much terrible; then they resorted to your piety, asking to show us justice. the good Dioscorus did not impute justice and the fear of God to anything. tik Eutykhiy, he, as it turned out later, hid it from the people; but then, finding a case in the denunciation I filed against his like-minded Eutychius and in the opinion spoken against him in blessed memory by Bishop Flavian, he gathered a disorderly crowd of mob and, having bought himself power with money, began with all his might to shake the pious faith of the Orthodox and affirm the pernicious teaching of the monk Eutyches , long ago, even in antiquity, rejected by the holy fathers. Since this insolence of him against faith in Christ and against us is not unimportant; then, throwing ourselves at the feet of your dominion, we ask you to command that most reverent Bishop Dioscorus to give an answer to the accusations we present, so that, that is, at the Holy Council, the acts he has drawn up against us are read. With them we can prove that Dioscorus is alien to the Orthodox faith, and affirms the heresy filled with wickedness, and unjustly deposed and subjected us to calamities. May your divine and honorable command be sent to the holy and ecumenical Council of God-loving bishops to hear the matter between us and the aforementioned Dioscorus, and to bring to the notice of your piety everything done according to the will of your immortal power. Having achieved this, we will offer unceasing prayers for your eternal dominion, most divine kings. "

After this, the acts of the second Council of Ephesus, in accordance with the common request of Dioscorus and Eusebius, were publicly read. Their details are set forth very extensively, and are contained in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Therefore, so that readers in a hurry to know the end of the matter would not find me verbose, I added them to this book of history (as an appendix), leaving it to the will of everyone who wants the details to read it and find out everything with accuracy. Meanwhile, I go ahead and, touching on the most necessary, I say that Dioscorus was condemned for rejecting the message of Leo, the bishop of the oldest Rome, and for the fact that he deposed Flavian, the bishop of the new Rome, no more than in one day, forcing the audience bishops to sign their names on a blank sheet, as if the deed of the deposition of Flavian had already been written on it. Then the senators defined it as follows: “We award the most accurate research concerning the Orthodox and catholic faith to be postponed for the next day and to make it in the assembly more complete. And since the blessed memory of Flavian and the most reverent Bishop Eusebius, as a result of the consideration of acts and determinations, and according to the testimony of those who were then present at the council and claiming that they mistakenly and in vain deposed them, turn out to be in no way wrong about the faith and imposed unjustly ; then, in our opinion, it will be fair - if only it pleases God and seems to our most divine and pious Vladyka - to subject the most reverent Bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria, the most reverent Bishop Juvenalius of Jerusalem, the most reverent Bishop of Caesarea-Episopaus Episopaus of the Cappadocian Phalaasseaus Phalausia the most reverent Bishop Eustathius of Berne, the most reverent Bishop Basil of Seleucia of Isauria, who were then with authority at the council - and, according to the rules of the Holy Council, to deprive them of their episcopal dignity, and then bring everything that followed to the attention of the highest authority. After that, on the next day, when Dioscorus, on the occasion of denunciations made against him, with which he was accused of various crimes and embezzlement of money, who was repeatedly called up, under some pretexts did not appear, the governors of the bishop of the oldest Rome, Leo, said word for word like this: the actions of the former Alexandrian bishop Dioscoros against the rite of rules and church decrees are already evident both from the results of the first meeting and from the cases now attributed to him; for he (let us keep silent about many other things) his like-minded Eutychios, canonically deposed by his own bishop, that is, our holy father Bishop Flavian, accepted into communion with his power - non-canonically, before the Council of God-loving bishops was drawn up in Ephesus. But these last the apostolic throne forgave for what they did then not of their own free will; and to this day they remain obedient to the Most Holy Archbishop Leo and the entire Holy Ecumenical Council, for which, as co-believers in him, they were accepted into communion. On the contrary, this one still does not cease to boast about what one ought to groan and bow to the ground. In addition, he did not even allow the message of the blessed Pope Leo to be read, which he wrote to the blessed memory of Flavian, despite the fact that the persons who delivered that message often asked him about it, and which he swore to do at their request. Without reading the aforementioned epistle, Dioscorus filled the most holy Churches throughout the universe with temptation and harm. However, whatever his impudent actions in his first wicked deed, we intended to show him some condescension, as well as other God-loving bishops, although their power in court was not equal to his power. But since he increased the first lawlessness by the subsequent ones, namely: he dared to declare excommunication to the holiest and most honest Archbishop of great Rome Leo; and besides this, denunciations full of iniquity were presented to the holy and great Council, according to which, having been canonically summoned by God-loving bishops several times, he, of course, gnawed at his own conscience, did not appear; and meanwhile he unlawfully received persons who had been lawfully deposed by various Councils and, thus, trampling on church decrees in many different ways, pronounced a sentence to himself: now the most holy and blessed Archbishop of the great and oldest Rome, Leo, through them and through the Council that has now assembled, together with the most blessed and all-glorious The Apostle Peter, who is the stone and foundation of the Catholic Church and the stronghold of the Orthodox faith, deprives him of his episcopal rank and alienates him from any sacred rite. So, may this holy and great Council declare to the aforementioned Dioscorus what the rules require. As soon as this and some other deeds were approved by the Council, deposed together with Dioscoros, at the request of the Council and by the will of the king, were withdrawn. Then others were added to the questions solved, and the symbol was read literally as follows: “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, affirming the knowledge of faith in his disciples, said: I give you my peace, I leave my peace to you (John 14:27), so that, that is, in the doctrines of piety, no one disagrees with his neighbor, but that the preaching of the truth is proclaimed in the same way. " - After that, the holy Nicene symbol was read, to which one hundred and fifty holy fathers made the following addition: “For perfect knowledge and a stronghold of piety, this wise and, by the grace of God, a saving symbol is enough; because it contains the perfect teaching about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and with faith those who receive it are taught about the incarnation of the Lord. But since the enemies of truth, through their heresies, try to reject His preaching, and have generated several new words; that is, some, daring to distort the mystery of the Lord's economy for our sake, reject the name of the Virgin in the Virgin; others, introducing fusion and confusion, madly imagine to themselves that the nature of flesh and deity is one and the same, and, mixing this, dream that the divine nature of the Only Begotten is subject to suffering: then, wanting to remove all contrivance against the truth, the great and universal saint who has now come together The Council, with the intention of making the ancient teaching unshakable, pre-orders that the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers remain inviolable; and against those who rise up against the Holy Spirit, he affirms the doctrine of the essence of the Spirit, later betrayed by the one hundred and fifty fathers who gathered in the reigning city, who publicized that doctrine everywhere - not as something that was lacking in the former, but as their concept of the Holy Spirit, expressed against people, trying to deny His sovereignty, and explained by the testimonies of Scripture. As for those who dare to distort the sacrament of economy and shamelessly talk that a common man was born from the Holy Virgin Mary; then the Holy Council receives the conciliar epistle of Blessed Cyril, the former pastor of the Alexandrian Church, written to Nestorius and the Eastern bishops; because it is sufficient both to denounce the madness of Nestorius himself, and to explain the saving symbol - in favor of those who, motivated by pious zeal, wish to understand it. To this, in order to assert the right dogmas, he justly adds the message of the most blessed and most holy Archbishop Leo, the primate of the great and oldest Rome, written to the holy archbishop Flavian, for the extermination of evil thinking Eutychios; for this epistle is in accordance with the confession of the great Peter, and is, as it were, a pillar against evil-minded people. It also opposes those who intend to dissolve the mystery of the economy into a duality of sons; it casts out from the sacred host also those who dare to say that the deity of the Only Begotten is subject to suffering; it also opposes those who, for the two natures of Christ, invent confusion or fusion; it also drives out those who lie, as if the image of a slave borrowed by Him from us is of a heavenly or some other nature; it also anathematizes those who fable that before the union of the Lord two natures belonged, and after union they represent one. So, following the holy fathers, we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and according to all we teach that He is perfect according to deity, and He is perfect according to humanity - truly God and truly man; that He is from a rational soul and a body, consubstantial with the Father - in deity, and He is consubstantial with us in humanity, similar to us in everything except sin; that He was born before ages from the Father according to deity, and He in the last days, for us and for our salvation, from Mary the Virgin and the Mother of God (was born) according to humanity; that He is the one and the same Jesus Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only Begotten, in two natures unmixed, invariable, inseparable and inseparably recognized, so that the difference of His natures is by no means destroyed through the union (of them), so that both natures, preserving - each of its own features, converge into one hypostasis; that He is not dismembered, or is not divided, as it were, into two persons, but there is one and the same Only Begotten Son, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets foreshadowed Him from ancient times, as Christ himself taught us, and how the fatherly symbol. Accepting this, with all our diligence and zealous decree made by us, the holy and ecumenical Council determined: not to pronounce a different faith to anyone, and not to write, and not to compose, and not to think, and not to teach others. And who dares to either lay down another faith, or pronounce, or teach, or convey another symbol to people who want to turn to the knowledge of the truth from paganism, Judaism, or from some other heresy; Moreover, if there is a bishop or a cleric, - to alienate the bishop from the episcopacy, the cleric from the clergy, and if a monk or layman, anathematize. After reading these definitions, King Marcian, who was in Chalcedon, was present at the Council and, having made a speech, left. After that, by coincidence of some circumstances, Yuvenaly and Maxim were arguing about their dioceses; Theodorite and Willow were restored, and other subjects were discussed, about which information, as I said before, is attached to the end of this story. It was also decreed that the throne of the new Rome, occupying the second place after Rome, the oldest, should have precedence over other thrones.

5. After this Dioscorus was sent to the Paphlagon city of Gangry; the lot of the bishopric in Alexandria, according to the general judgment of the Council, was received by Proterius. But when he took his throne, there was a great and incredible confusion among the people; because he was divided by two opinions: some demanded Dioscoros - this is an ordinary thing in such circumstances; while others very strongly defended Proterius, so that many incurable troubles arose from here. The rhetorician Priscus tells that at that time he came to Alexandria from the diocese of Thebes and saw how the people were walking in droves to the prefecture, and when a detachment of troops wanted to stop the indignation, how the rebels began to throw stones at the soldiers and put them to flight. The fleeing army was locked up in the temple, once dedicated to Serapis; but it was besieged and burned alive by the rebels. Learning of this, the king sent two thousand newly recruited soldiers, who, taking advantage of the favorable wind, sailed to the great city of Alexandria on the sixth day. However, from here, as the soldiers began to behave insolently with the prisoners and the daughters of the Alexandrians, the indignation flared up even stronger than before. Finally, the people, having gathered at the hippodrome, began to ask Flore, the military prefect, who also managed civil affairs, to carry out the delivery of bread that had been taken from him, and returned to him the baths, the theater and everything that he had been deprived of for the disturbances he had made. Flor, according to the legend of Priscus, went out to the people and, promising to satisfy their desire, soon stopped his indignation. The wilderness near Jerusalem was not left alone then; for some of the monks who were at the council and thought contrary to it, returned to Palestine and, lamenting the betrayal of the faith, hastened to fan and inflame indignation in all monasticism. Moreover, when Juvenal took his throne and, incited by restless people to restore their affairs and to declare anathemas, he went to the royal city; the opponents of the Chalcedonian Cathedral, mentioned above, having gathered in the Church of the Holy Resurrection, ordained Theodosius, the main culprit of the confusion at the Chalcedonian Cathedral and the first messenger of him to the Jerusalem monks, who later wrote about this Theodosius to Alkison and said: , he was expelled from the monastery; when he came to Alexandria, he was taken by Dioscorus, received many blows with rods, as a troublemaker, and, like villains, was carried on a donkey through the city. " Now, many Palestinian cities turned to this Theodosius and asked to ordain bishops to them, among whom was the Iberian native Peter, who was honored to govern the bishopric in the so-called Mayum, a city lying near Gaza. Upon learning of this, Marcian first of all ordered to bring Theodosius to his capital; then he sent Juvenaly to correct what he had done and ordered him to expel all those ordained by Theodosius. So, when Juvenal arrived, both sides, acting on the suggestion of irritated feelings, gave rise to many sorrowful events. The envious and God-hating demon so viciously invented and reinterpreted the change of one letter that each of these expressions, through that change, in the closest way leading to another, for many seems very different and points to opposite thoughts that mutually destroy themselves. Indeed, whoever confesses Christ in two natures directly says that He is of two natures; whoever confesses Christ in deity and humanity, he says that He is composed of deity and humanity. And vice versa, whoever claims that He is of two, he certainly introduces the confession that He is in two; whoever asserts that Christ is of deity and humanity, he confesses that He consists of deity and humanity. At the same time, neither the flesh passes into the deity, nor the deity does not pass into the flesh, but there is an ineffable unity of them: so that by the expression "of two" here it is proper to mean the expression "in two"; and under the expression "in two" - the expression " of two ”, and one of them cannot be left without the other. Sometimes, with an abundance of words, not only a whole from parts is recognized, but also a whole from parts. Meanwhile, people, due to some skill regarding the glory of God, or according to a preconceived opinion, consider these expressions so mutually disconnected that they rather despise any thought of death than agree to yield to the merits of the matter. This is where the incidents I have told happened. And it was all like that.

6. Around the same time, in Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia and Cilicia, rains were so rare that people, in need of basic necessities, ate junk food. And from here came the pestilence. A disease arose from foreign food, which consisted in the fact that excessive heat inflated the body and at the same time the eyes left their places; then a cough appeared, and on the third day death followed. It was impossible to find any remedy against this ulcer: but against the hunger those who survived, the Providence, salutary for all, gave healing; for in that hungry year the air rained for food for Christians, as the manna had once been for the Israelites; the next year, the land sprouted ripe fruits by itself. Disasters also befell Palestine and countless other regions; suffering has gone all over the earth.

7. Meanwhile, as it happened in the east, in ancient Rome, Aetius ended his life with a terrible death. And the king of the western regions, Valentinian, and Heraclius with him, were killed by some of Aetius's squires; and the conspiracy against them was organized by the thief of power Maxim - for the fact that Valentinian insulted his wife, desecrating her bed with violence. The same Maxim then forced Valentinian's wife Eudoxia to cohabit with herself: and she, rightly imputing such a deed as dishonor to herself and considering it the greatest lawlessness, decided, as they say, to do anything, just to avenge the death of her husband and the insult she had inflicted on herself; because she was a woman with a strong soul, and was not overcome by grief, being deprived of the chastity that she wanted to preserve, and especially being deprived of those who killed her husband. She sends an embassy to Libya to Ginserich, conveys many gifts to him, and at the same time, encouraging him for the future, convinces him to unexpectedly attack the Roman Empire, and volunteers to betray everything to him. This was done and Rome was taken. But Ginserich, like a barbarian, inconstant and changeable disposition, did not remain faithful here either. He burned down the city and plundered everything, he took Eudoxia with her with her two daughters and, having sailed back, hastily returned to Libya; then the eldest of her daughters, Evdokia, gave in marriage to his son Honorich, and the younger Placidia and her mother Eudoxia, subsequently, with royal honors, sent Byzantium to propitiate Marcian: because Marcian was very indignant at him, partly for the burning of Rome, and partly for such an insult to queens. Placidia, at the behest of Marcian, married Olivrius, who was considered the most distinguished person in the Senate and, upon the capture of Rome, moved to Constantinople. After Maxim, Avit reigned in Rome for eight months. And when he died of a pestilence, Majorian had power in his hands for about two years. Then Majorian was cunningly killed by the Roman general Rekimer, and the North ruled over Rome for three years.

8. In Rome, the North still reigned, when Marcian passed from his kingdom to a better lot. He ruled the kingdom for only seven years, but all the people left for himself the royal monument. Upon learning of his death, the Alexandrians against Proterius renewed their indignation all the more, and thus the strongest anger; for the rabble is always such that it is easily inflamed with anger and takes advantage of the occasional pretext to create anxiety. But primarily before any other, such is the Alexandrian rabble; because it is numerous, consists of people of rough and different tribes and is puffed up by its insane insolence and impulses. That is why, they say, anyone who wishes, seizing the slightest opportunity, can stir up this city to a popular uprising, lead it and move it anywhere. Moreover, he is mostly inclined to jokes, as Herodotus tells about Amasis. Such is the Alexandrian rabble. But in another respect, no one thinks to despise her. Taking advantage of the time during which the prefect of the military forces, Dionysius was in upper Egypt, the Alexandrians awarded the throne of the bishopric to erect Timothy, nicknamed Elur, who once led a monastic life, and then was numbered among the Alexandrian presbyters. As a result of this, having brought him to the great church, which bore the name of Caesar, they named him their bishop, although Proterius was still in his place and performed the works of the priesthood. At his ordination there were - the primate of Pelusia, Eusebius, and the bishop of the town of Mayuma, Peter, a native of Iberian. This is how the descriptor of the life of Petrova tells about it. He says that Proterius was killed not by the rabble, but by some kind of warrior. That is, when Dionysius with the greatest haste arrived in the city, to which he was prompted by the atrocity that had happened, and tried to extinguish the flame of the indignation that had occurred, - and some Alexandrians, being taught by Timothy, as it was written then to Leo, attacked the Rubbed One and killed him, piercing his womb with a sword at the moment of his flight to the holy baptist; then they tied him with a rope and, hanging him on the so-called four-pillars, showed everyone with mockery and screams: Proterius had been killed; and finally, dragging his body all over the city, they set him on fire, and even, like wild beasts, did not hesitate to devour his entrails, as it is said about all this in the petition of the Egyptian bishops and all the Alexandrian clergy, given to Leo, who, as said, took power over the Romans after Marcian. This petition was as follows. “To the pious, Christ-loving, God-appointed, Victorious, Triumphant and Augustus Leo - a petition from all the bishops, and from our Egyptian diocese, and from the clerics of our great and most holy Alexandrian Church. Having been granted to the living by the supreme Grace, you justly do not stop your daily, after God, providence for society, the holiest of all autocrats Augustus! " - Then after a few thoughts. “Here and in Alexandria, the Orthodox people enjoyed an imperturbable peace; (since) Timothy, who was then still a presbyter, and with him four or five bishops and a few monks, infected, like Timothy, with the heretical malice of Apollinarius, suddenly after the Holy Council of Chalcedon again separated and torn away from the universal Church and the faith, for which blessed , in memory of Proterius and the entire Egyptian Council at the same time canonically deposed them, and the royal wrath appointed them to exile. " Then, after a few more thoughts: "Taking advantage of the time of the departure of the former king, the sacred memory of Marcian, (Timothy), as if an unlawful man, shamelessly uttered bold expressions about him, without blushing anathematized the holy and ecumenical Council in Chalcedon and, having gathered a crowd of hired and rebellious rabble, armed it against divine canons, church decrees, state order and laws, and invaded the holy church of God with it, when there was a shepherd and teacher, our most holy father of that time and Archbishop Proterius, who performed the usual service and lifted up the Savior of all of us Christ prayers for your pious reign and for your Christ-loving house. ”Then a little lower:“ and after one day, when God’s beloved Proterius, according to custom, was in the bishop’s house, Timothy, taking with him two legally deposed bishops and condemned, like us were told to live in exile as clerics and, intending to receive ordination from them, although there were only two of them, because Hypetian diocese, contrary to custom, during such ordinations of the Alexandrian bishop, not a single Orthodox bishop was present - he took, as he thought, the episcopal see, and through that he dared to make obvious violence to the Church, which already had its own fiancé, who performed the sacraments in it and canonically administered his flock. In this case, the blessed Proterius had no choice but, according to the scriptures, to give way to anger and go to the holy baptismal, fleeing from those who were chasing him and wanting to kill him. This place is especially awe-inspiring to both barbarians and all wild people, although they do not know its holiness and the grace pouring out of it. Despite the fact that, from the very beginning, those who tried to fulfill Timothy's intention from the very beginning, did not allow Proterius to be saved even in this bloodless refuge: they were not ashamed of the sanctity of place and time - for then there was the feast of saving Easter - and did not shudder before the very priesthood that mediated between God and people, and killed an innocent, and with him bloodthirsty took the life of six more; then, having tied his completely wounded body, they cruelly dragged him to almost all parts of the city and, brutally mocking his corpse, mercilessly struck him with blows and cut him apart, did not even doubt, like animals; devour the innards of the one who was recently revered as a mediator between God and people, and what remained of his body was set on fire, and the ashes were scattered to the wind, surpassing in their cruelty all the cruelty of animals. Timothy was the reason and the wise manager of all these evils. However, telling about this, Zachariah believes that although everything happened for the most part like this, Proterius was to blame, since he caused such great confusion in Alexandria, and, based on Timothy's letter to Leo, claims that this audacious act was not allowed by the rabble. and some of the warriors. King Leo sent Stila to investigate this matter.

9. Leo wrote a circular letter to all the bishops of the Roman Empire, and especially to famous monks, asking them both about the Council of Chalcedon and about the ordination of Timothy, nicknamed Elur. To his message he also attached copies of the petitions submitted to him by both Proterius and Timothy Elur. The circular message consists of the following words: A copy of the divine message of the pious King Leo, sent to the Bishop of Constantinople Anatoly and to all the metropolitans and other bishops throughout the universe: “Autocrat, Caesar Leo, the Pious, the Winner, the Triumphant, the Most Great Augustus, always honored by the Bishop of St. My piety sought to ensure that all Orthodox holy churches and all the cities of the Roman Empire enjoyed perfect tranquility, and that nothing should come out that could disturb their condition and silence. But your holiness no doubt already knows what happened recently in Alexandria. And so that you receive the most detailed information about everything, what were the reasons for such a great indignation and confusion, we send your God-reverence a copy of the petition that the most reverent bishops and clerics of the aforementioned city (Alexandria) and the Egyptian, also of the Egyptian Dios, who arrived in the reigning city of Constantine on Timothy brought to my piety. a copy of the petition, which was conveyed to our peace from Timothy by some of the Alexandrian inhabitants who arrived in our divine capital. From this, your holiness can clearly learn what has been done by the aforementioned Timothy, whom the Alexandrian rabble, and officials, and citizens, and sailors demand for their bishop; you learn about other matters shown in the text of the petitions, and, moreover, about the Council of Chalcedon, with which the Alexandrians do not agree at all, as the petition presented by them expresses. Let your prudence first of all summon the Orthodox holy bishops and the most reverent clergy who now live in the royal city. Then, having carefully examined and examined everything, although the city of Alexander is now in excitement, the calmness and silence of which we care very much, you will tell us your opinion regarding the aforementioned Timothy and the Council of Chalcedon, - say, without being limited to either human fear, or love, or hatred. , but having before your eyes only the fear of the Almighty God, for you know that in this matter you will give an account to the impartial Deity. Having received through your message a perfect understanding of everything, we will be able to issue a decent definition. " That was the message to Anatoly. Leo wrote similar to this to other bishops, and to the most famous, as I said, the then lovers of an ascetic and non-acquisitive life. Among them was the first, who invented the standing on the pillar, Simeon, whom we mentioned in the previous history; between them were also the Syrians - Baradat and Jacob.

10. The bishop of the oldest Rome, Leo, was the first to answer the king's message. He wrote in defense of the Council of Chalcedon, and did not approve of the ordination of Timothy, as illegal. This message from Leo, the autocrat Leo, through the executor of the royal commissions, the seilentiary Diomedes, sent to the Alexandrian primate Timothy, who then wrote a response against him, condemning both the Council of Chalcedon and the message of (bishop) Leo. Copies from these letters are kept in the so-called collection of district letters. But I skipped them so as not to burden real work with them. The bishops of other cities also remained faithful to the ordinances made in Chalcedon and unanimously condemned the ordination of Timothy. Only Amphilochius of Sidsky, writing an epistle to the king, although he also strongly cried out against the ordination of Timothy, but did not accept the Council of Chalcedon. This work was likewise included in the work of the rhetorician Zechariah, who also included the letter of Amphilochius in his composition. About the same subject and blessed memory, Simeon wrote two letters - one to the autocrat Leo, and the other to the Antiochian bishop Basil. Of these, the last, as a shorter one, I will add to my history. It consists of the following: “To my Lord, the most honest and holy, God-loving Archbishop Basil, the sinful and humble Simeon wishes health in the Lord. It is timely now, Vladyka, to say: blessed is God who did not reject our prayer and did not take away his mercy from us sinners. Having received the letter of your eminent person, I marveled at the jealousy and piety of our beloved by God our king, his love for the holy fathers and for the faith they contain, which he showed and shows. And this gift is not from us, as the holy Apostle says, but from God, who, according to your prayers, instilled in him this solicitude. " Then a little lower: “As a result of this, I, humble and humble, a degenerate of monks, announced to his imperial majesty my opinion regarding the faith of the six hundred and thirty holy fathers gathered in Chalcedon,” declared, basing and confirming on the very faith that was instilled in them by the Saints By the spirit. For if the Savior is present also where two or three gather in His name; then how is it possible that with such a great gathering of such great holy fathers, the Holy Spirit was not with them at all? " Then, after a few thoughts: “And so be strong and courageous for true piety, as once Joshua, the servant of the Lord, courageous for the people of Israel. Greet from me all the reverent clergy subordinate to your holiness, also blessed and faithful people. "

11. After this Timothy was sentenced to exile, and he was ordered to live also in Gangrah. Then the Alexandrians chose another Timothy as their successor to Protheria, whom some called Basilicus, and others Salofakiol. After the death of Anatoly, Gennady took the throne of the royal city, and then Akaki, who was in charge of an orphanage in the royal city.

12. In the second year of the reign of Leo, in Antioch, there was a terrible tremor and tremor of the earth. This earthquake was preceded by some actions of the local rabble, expressing extreme fury, surpassing any cruelty of wild animals and being, as it were, a warning of such disasters. This death took place in the five hundred and sixth year from the founding of the city, at four o'clock in the morning, on the fourteenth day of the month Horpia, called September by the Romans, at the onset of Sunday, the eleventh indict, and is considered the sixth after the earthquake that happened under Trajan, for three hundred and forty seven years before that. The earthquake under Trajan was in the one hundred and fifty-ninth year of the independent existence of the city, and the one that happened under Leo - in the five hundred and sixth year, as hardworking researchers believe. This latter destroyed almost all the buildings in the new (city), which was very crowded, did not have a single empty or even abandoned place, and was carefully finished by the zeal of the sovereigns who competed in this with one another. In the royal palace, the first and second buildings collapsed, while the others, together with the adjacent bathhouse, survived. And this bath, previously useless, now, on the occasion of the disaster, served to wash all the inhabitants of the city, because the other baths were destroyed. The porticoes in front of the palace and the tetrapylon standing on them also collapsed. The towers at the gates of the hippodrome also fell, along with some porticoes on them. In the old (city), however, the earthquake did not affect either the porticoes or the houses; but only a small part of the baths of Trajan, North and Hadrian wavered and collapsed, and in the so-called Ostrakino suburb, some buildings with porticoes collapsed and the temple of the Nymphs collapsed, which is described in detail and in detail by the rhetorician John. He says that on this occasion the king forgave the city a thousand talents of gold from duties, and the citizens - taxes from the houses destroyed by this disaster, and made an order for the restoration of both these and public buildings.

13. Around the same time, a similar, or even the most serious disaster happened in Constantinople, which began primarily in the seaside part of the city called the Bosphorus. They say that in the twilight of that day, some evil demon - a destroyer in the form of a woman, or more justly, some poor woman, prompted by a demon (they say this and that), came to the market with a lamp to buy something from salty food ... Leaving the lamp here, the woman went away; and the fire, hitting the hemp, made the greatest fire and in one minute, incinerated that building. The nearest buildings easily ignited and disappeared from it, because the fire devoured not only burnable things, but also stone buildings, and the fire continued until the fourth day, overcoming all the obstacles built to it, so that the entire middle part of the city from the north side to the south, in space five stadia in length and fourteen in width, was destroyed, and in this interval nothing remained of either public or private buildings, or columns, or stone vaults; the flame also decayed the most indissoluble material, as if something readily combustible. The described disaster on the northern side, where the city court was located, stretched from the so-called Bosphorus to the ancient temple of Apollo, on the southern side, from the pier of Julian to the buildings that lay near the church, the so-called Omonia; and in the middle part of the city, from the square, nicknamed Konstantinova, to the so-called Tavrov market. It was an extremely pitiful and terrible sight. What city decorations towered here, decorated with incomparable splendor, or adapted now for public, now for private use! Now all this is one, all is scattered with mountains and disorderly, impassable heaps, which consist of all kinds of materials, not in the least similar to the previous form; so that the inhabitants of these places themselves could not recognize what was in what place before.

14. At the same time, at the beginning of the war between the Scythians and the East Romans, the Thracian land and the Hellespont, Ionia and the so-called Cycladic islands experienced an earthquake, so that many buildings on the islands of Knidos and Co were destroyed. According to Priscus's legend, terrible rains were pouring in Constantinople and in the land of Bithynia; so that, for three or four days, the water from the clouds rushed like a river, the mountains were carried down into the valleys, whole villages perished from the flood; and on the Boanskoe lake, which lies not far from Nicomedia, from all kinds of rubbish put there, islands were formed. However, all this happened a little later.

15. King Leo adopted his son-in-law Zeno to his daughter Ariadne, who from childhood was called Arikmisius, and after marriage began to be called Zeno - in honor of some very famous Isaurian person who bore this name. And where did Zeno come from and why Leo preferred him to all others, the Syrian Eustathius tells about it.

16. As a consequence of the embassy of the Western Romans, Anthimius was made Roman king, for whom the former king Marcian gave his daughter. Meanwhile, the general Basilisk, brother of Leo's wife, Verina, was sent, with the most elite troops, against Hänzerich. The rhetorician Priscus tells in detail about this, as well as that Leo, as if as a reward for his exaltation, cunningly killed Aspar, who gave him power, and his children, Ardavurius and Patricia, whom, in order to gain the favor of Aspar, shortly before thus made Caesar. After the assassination of Anthimius, who ruled the Roman Empire for five years, through Rekimer, Olivrius was proclaimed king; and after him ascended the throne, Glycerius, who was overthrown by Nepos, who ruled the Empire for five years, and Glyceria, who ordained the bishop of the Dalmatian city of Salona. Nepot himself was later overthrown by Orestes, after whom his son Romulus, nicknamed Augustulus, reigned, the last autocrator of Rome, who reigned one thousand three hundred and three years after the reign of the (first) Romulus. Under him, Odoacer seized the supreme power of the Empire and, rejecting the name - emperor, proclaimed himself king.

17. At the same time, the Byzantine emperor Leo, after seventeen years of ruling the empire, relinquishes the supreme power and elevates the infant Leo, the son of his daughter Ariadne and Zeno, to the royal rank. Then Leo's father Zenon is also clothed in purple, being helped by Leo's wife, Vera, who helped him as her son-in-law. Since the son soon died, Zeno alone remained the supreme ruler of the empire. However, with the help of God, we will tell in the next book about what was done by him, or against him, and about other things that happened in his time.

18. The viceroys of Leo, the archbishop of the oldest Rome, (at this Council) were the bishops Paschasian, Lucentius and the presbyter Bonifatius. The presidency was the Patriarch of Constantinople Anatoly, in the presence of the Alexandrian bishop Dioscoros, Maximus of Antioch, Juvenaly of Jerusalem and the bishops who arrived with them, some of the most important members of the Senate also sat with them. The governors of Leo conveyed to those present that Dioscorus should not sit at the Council, Leo gave them such instruction, and that if this was not done, they would leave the congregation. When the senators asked what kind of guilt was attributed to Dioscorus, they replied that Dioscorus, having taken upon himself the face of a judge not by right, without the consent of the ruler of the Roman bishopric, must first give an account of his own proceedings; After these words, Dioscorus, by the verdict of the Senate, went into the middle, and the Dorilean Bishop Eusebius demanded that the submitted petition be read, saying word for word: Dioscorus insulted me, insulted the faith, killed Bishop Flavian, and unrighteously deposed him along with me. Order me to read my petition. Having considered this, the judges read out a petition, which consisted of the following words: from Eusebius, the lowest Bishop of Dorilean, who stands for himself, for the Orthodox faith, and for Saint Flavian, the former Bishop of Constantinople. The purpose of your dominion provides for all subjects and stretches out a hand to all those who are offended, and especially to the clergy; for in this you serve God, who has given you kingship and dominion under the sun. Therefore, when both faith in Christ and we, from the most reverent bishop Dioscoros, who governed the great city of Alexandria, have suffered so much terrible for nothing; then they resorted to your piety, asking you to show us justice. And the matter is as follows: At the recently former Council in the Metropolitanate of Ephesus (it would be better if this Council was not; the universe would not have been filled with such evil and confusion) the good Dioscorus imputed the debt of justice and the fear of God to nothing. Keeping the same way of thinking with the super-wise and heretic Eutychios, he, as it turned out later, hid it from the people; but then, finding a case in the denunciation I submitted against his like-minded Eutychius and in the opinion spoken against him of blessed memory by Bishop Flavian, he gathered a restless crowd of mob and, having bought himself power with money, began to shake the pious faith of the Orthodox with all his might, and affirmed the pernicious teachings of the monk Eutyches, long ago, even in antiquity, rejected by the holy fathers. Since this insolence of him against faith in Christ and against us is important; then, falling at the feet of your dominion, we ask you to command that most reverent bishop Dioscorus to give an answer to the accusations presented by us, so that at the Holy Council the decrees drawn up by him against you can be read: with them we can prove that Dioscorus is alien Orthodox faith, and affirms the wicked heresy, and unjustly deposed and subjected us to calamities. May your sacred and honorable command be sent to the holy and ecumenical Council of God-loving bishops to investigate the matter between us and the aforementioned Dioscorus, and bring to the notice of your piety everything done according to the will of your immortal power. Having received this, we will incessantly send prayers for your eternal dominion, most sacred kings. " After this, the acts of the second Council of Ephesus, according to the common request of Dioscorus and Eusebius, were publicly read. From them it turned out that the message of Leo was not read, although they spoke about it more than once or twice. When Dioscorus was asked about the reason, he replied that he had repeatedly proposed to do this, and asked that the Jerusalem Bishop Juvenalius and the Bishop of the first Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, Thalassius, who together with him ordered at the council, should present an explanation to this question, Juvenalius replied that when a sacred letter was presented - he suggested that it be read, and then no one reminded of the message. Falassius said that he did not interfere with reading it, but did not have so much power that one could make a determination about reading. Meanwhile, as the reading of the acts continued and some bishops were observed; that other expressions were written incorrectly, - they asked the Primate of Ephesus Stephen, who were his scribes at that time, and he replied that Julian, who later became the bishop of Levid, and Crispin wrote to him, but that the Dioscorian scribes did not allow them to do this business , and held their hands; when they began to write, so that they themselves were nearly inflicted with shameful harm. For this, the same Stephen testified that on the same day they signed the deposition of Flavian. To this the Ariarathian Bishop Akakios added that they all signed on blank paper, being forced to do so by violence, necessity and the sight of a multitude of calamities; because they were surrounded by warriors with deadly weapons. Then a few more words were read, and the Bishop Theodore of Claudiopolis said that no one had said that. Continuing the reading, we came to the place in which the words of Eutyches are stated, that he curses those who claim that the flesh of God and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ descended from heaven. At the same time, as evidenced by the acts, Eusebius noticed that Eutyches speaks of bringing down (the flesh of Christ) from heaven, but does not explain where it comes from; and the bishop of Cyzician Diogenes asked: where is she from? “But they were not allowed to compete any longer on this subject. Then, in the same acts, it is stated that Basil, the Bishop of Seleucia of Isauria, said: I bow down to our one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only God-Word, recognized by incarnation and union (with human flesh) in two natures. Against this the Egyptian (bishops) exclaimed: let no one divide the indivisible; the one Son should not be called dual. And the eastern ones shouted: anathema to the one who divides, anathema to the one who dissolves. Following what is said in the same acts, Eutyches was asked: does he recognize natures in Christ, and Eutyches answered that before union he recognizes Christ from two natures, and after union he accepts one. But Basil objected that if he does not recognize the two natures as inseparable and non-merged after joining them, then he allows merging and mixing; and when he adds: (I admit one thing) incarnate and incarnation and will, understand incarnation and incarnation like Cyril (of Alexandria), then he will express the same thing with us; for another deity, originating from the Father, and another humanity, originating from the Mother. Then they asked the bishops why they signed the deposition of Flavian, and the eastern ones, as the acts testify, exclaimed: we all have sinned, we all ask for forgiveness. Then, from continued reading, it was revealed that the bishops were asked: why did they not let Eusebius in, who wanted to enter them? To this Dioscorus replied: because Elpidius brought an injunction to the Council, and claimed that Tsar Theodosius had forbidden Eusebius to enter. The same thing, as stated in the acts, answered Juvenal. Falassius said that it did not depend on him. Such responses from the judges were not considered valid; because they could not be used as an excuse when it came to faith. After that, they say the acts, Dioscorus indignantly remarked: what rules are now observed if Theodorite entered here? And the senators replied that Theodorite entered as an accuser. When Dioscorus objected that he was sitting between the bishops, the senators again answered him: Eusebius and Theodorite are taking the place of accusers, just as Dioscorus took the place of the accused. Thus, all the acts of the Second Council of Ephesus were read, and - the very definition against Flavian and Eusebius was repeated word for word, up to the point in which the objection of Bishop Hilarius is cited. After this the eastern and all the bishops who were with them exclaimed: anathema to Dioscorus; at that moment Christ himself deposed Dioscorus; Flavian was deposed by Dioscorus - punish him, O Lord, himself; punish, Orthodox Sovereign, himself; Leo has many years; many years to the Patriarch (Constantinople)! Then the reading of the acts was continued - and, since it was revealed from them that all the bishops who were then at the Council agreed to the deposition of Flavian and Eusebius; then the most glorious judges reasoned among themselves in the following way: it seems that it is better to enter into the most thorough research about the Orthodox and catholic faith tomorrow, at a new meeting of the Council. And since the blessed memory of Flavian and the most reverent Bishop of the Dorilean, Eusebius, as a result of the consideration of acts and definitions, and according to the testimony of those who were then present at the Council and claiming that they mistakenly and in vain deposed them, turn out to be in no way wrong with regard to the faith and unjustly deposed; then we believe it to be fair - if only it pleases God and seems to our most divine and pious Vladyka, to subject the same punishment to the most reverent Bishop of Alexandria, Dioscorus, the most reverent Bishop of Jerusalem, Juvenaly, the most reverent Bishop of Caesarea, Episcopal Bishop of Armenia, Episcopal Bishop of Armenia. , Eustathius, and the most reverent bishop of Seleucia of Isauria, Basil, who were then with authority at the Council, and, according to the rules of the Holy Council, to deprive them of their episcopal dignity, and then bring everything that followed to the attention of the supreme authority. To this the Orientals exclaimed: such a judgment is just; and the Illyrian bishops cried out: we all have sinned, we all ask forgiveness. When the eastern ones began to exclaim again: such a judgment is just, Christ himself deposed the murderer, Christ himself avenged the martyrs; Then the senators proposed that each of the bishops present separately set out his own confession of faith, knowing that the most divine king adheres to the exposition of the three hundred and eighteen Nicene fathers, and one hundred and fifty gathered in Constantinople, as well as the epistles of the holy fathers - Gregory, Basil, Ilarius, Athanasius, and Ambrose two Epistles of Cyril (of Alexandria), read at the first Council of Ephesus; for on the same grounds, the most reverent bishop of the oldest Rome, Leo, deposed Eutyches. Thus, this task of the Council ended. At another session, which was attended only by the most reverend bishops, Eusebius, Bishop of Doriley, presented to the Council, in defense of himself and Flavian, an explanation with which he accused Dioscorus, both of like-mindedness with Eutychios and of depriving them of their holy dignity. To this he added that Dioscorus had inserted into the acts those expressions that were not spoken at the Council of that time, and together he arranged for the bishops to sign on blank paper; then he asked that by the decision of the assembled everything that was done at the second Council of Ephesus be declared invalid, and that their priesthood be returned to them, and the impious doctrine (Eutychia) be anathematized; finally, after reading it, he demanded that his opponent also appear. Meanwhile, as they were discussing this, the archdeacon and the chief of the notaries, Aetius, said that he went to Dioscoros, as well as to others; but he replied that the guards would not allow him to come to the Cathedral. Then they ordered to see if Dioscorus was outside the doors of the meeting, and when they did not find him here, the Bishop of Constantinople Anatoly offered to summon him and bring him to the Council. And so they did. But the messengers, returning, announced that he answered in this way: I am in custody, let the guards say if they allow me to go. When the messengers told him that they were sent to him and not to the guards; then, they said, he answered: I am ready to go to the holy ecumenical council, but they detain me. To this Imerius added that when they were returning from Dioscoros, they met the assistant to the chief of the sacred guard, with whom the bishops again went to Dioscoros, and what happened then, everything is in his notebook. After reading this, it was revealed that Dioscorus spoke word for word as follows: Having reasoned with himself, and knowing what was useful to me, I give the following answer: since at the previous session of the Council, the highly-renowned judges who were present, after a long discussion, determined a lot; and now I am being called to the second meeting to revise those previous definitions; then I ask that the highly eminent judges who were at the Council and the sacred Senate, to review the previous cases, be present again. To this Akaki, as the record testifies, answered him word for word as follows: it was not for this that the holy and great Council ordered to appear to your priesthood, in order to alter the definitions made under the eminent judges and supreme senators; He sent us to invite: you to the meeting, so that your reverend would not be absent. But Dioscorus, as the record says, answered him: you told me now that Eusebius presented an explanation; That is why I demand that my case be examined again in the presence of the judges and the Senate. After listening to something else contained in the recording, the Council again sent to invite Dioscorus to be present at the reasoning. When this was done, the messengers, returning, announced that they had written down his answer, and it is as follows: I have already declared to your godliness about my ill health and the desire that high-ranking judges and supreme senators were again present when judging cases to be considered ; and since now my illness has intensified, I also cannot be present at the Council. But Cecropius, as stated in the record, answered Dioscoros that he had not previously said anything about the disease, and therefore must obey the church rules. And Dioscorus objected: I already said once that judges should be present. After this, the Samosate bishop, Rufinus, answered him that the canonical questions would be offered, and that, having appeared, he could say what he wanted. When Dioscorus asked: did Juvenalius, Falassius and Eustathius appear? - he replied that this was beside the point. Then Dioscorus, as noted in the entry, said that he was asking the Christ-loving king to order that both the judges and the persons who discussed with him at the Council of Ephesus be present. To which the messengers answered him that Eusebius accuses him alone, and therefore there is no need to appear to everyone. But Dioscorus said - that the others, who reasoned with him, should also appear; because Eusebius is not dealing with a particular one with him, but the one that everyone was talking about. When the messengers again repeated to him, too, Dioscorus answered them: I said once what I said, and I will not say anything more. After this, the Dorilean bishop Eusebius announced that he was dealing with one Dioscorus, and not with anyone else, and demanded that Dioscorus be invited a third time. Meanwhile, Aetius reported that some people calling themselves clergy, and together with them some lay people who had recently arrived from Alexandria, want to file a complaint against Dioscorus and shout, standing outside the doors of the meeting. Following this, first the former deacon of the Holy Alexandrian Church, Theodore, presented themselves to the Council, then the deacon Iskhirion, the presbyter Athanasius, nephew of Cyril (of Alexandria), and Sophronius. All of them accused Dioscorus partly of blasphemy, partly of everyday misdeeds and forcible collection of money. This prompted the call of Dioscorus for the third time. Those sent for this purpose, having returned, announced that Dioscorus answered thus: I have already given enough explanations for your godliness; I can't add anything else. And since he said the same thing to all the convictions of those sent to go; then Bishop Paschasian said: here and after the three-time invitation, Dioscorus, convicted by his conscience, did not arrive, and then asked (those present) what he was worthy. The bishops replied to this that he should be judged according to church rules. Following this, Bishop Proterius of Smyrna said: nothing has been done properly in the case of the murder of Saint Flavian. And the governors of Leo, the bishop of the oldest Rome, uttered the following definition word for word: The impudent actions of the former bishop of Alexandria Dioscoros against the order of rules and church decrees are already evident from the research done in the first session, and from the cases now attributed to him; for he (let us keep silent about many other things) his like-minded person, Eutykhios, who was canonically deposed by his own bishop, that is, our holy father, our archbishop, Flavian, accepted into communion autocraticly, not canonically, before he reasoned about this with the God-loving bishops gathered in Ephesus. But the apostolic throne forgave these latter for what they did then not of their own free will, since they remain obedient to the most holy Archbishop Leo and all the holy Ecumenical Council. On the contrary, this one does not cease to boast to this day about what one should groan and bow to the ground. In addition, he did not even allow to read the message of the most blessed Pope Leo, written by him to the blessed memory of Flavian, although the persons who brought that message repeatedly asked him about it, and he promised to do it on oath at their request. And as a result of this omission, the holy churches throughout the universe were filled with temptation and harm. However, whatever his audacious deeds, we wanted, according to his first impious deed, to treat him humanely, like with other God-loving bishops, although their power at the trial was not equal to his power. But since he increased the first lawlessness by the subsequent ones, he dared to declare excommunication to the holiest and most honest Archbishop of great Rome Leo; Yes, besides that, the saint and great Council were presented with his denunciations filled with iniquity, according to which, having been canonically summoned by God-loving bishops several times, he, of course, gnawed by his own conscience, did not appear; and meanwhile he illegally received persons who had been legally deposed by various councils, and thus, in many ways trampling on church decrees, pronounced a sentence to himself: then the most holy and blessed Archbishop of the great and oldest Rome, Leo through us and through the Council that is now assembled, together with the most blessed and all-glorious apostle Peter, who is the stone and foundation of the Catholic Church and the establishment of the Orthodox faith, deprives him of his episcopal rank and alienates him from any sacred rite. And so may this holy and great Council announce to the mentioned Dioscor what the church rules require. When this was confirmed by Anatoly, Maximus and other bishops, with the exception of those who were deposed by the Senate together with Dioscoros, the Council wrote a report to Marcian about it; then the same Council sent its decision to depose Dioscoros as well. It consisted in the following words: know that you, for contempt for divine rules and for disobeying this holy and ecumenical Council, for the fact that you, besides other crimes in which you were exposed, called by this saint and great Council, in accordance with the divine rules , to answer the accusations, did not appear, in the month of October of the present thirteenth day, by the holy and ecumenical Council he was deprived of his episcopacy and alienated from all ecclesiastical offices. Then, after a letter about this was written to the God-loving bishops of the most holy Alexandrian church and after the minutes concerning Dioscorus were drawn up, the proceedings of this meeting ceased. This was the end of the last meeting. And after that, having gathered again, they, to the question of the judges, who wanted to know their opinion regarding the Orthodox faith, replied that there was no need to issue new definitions when the case concerning Eutychios had already ended and was confirmed by the bishop of Rome, with which everyone agreed. But, meanwhile, as the bishops began to exclaim that they unanimously affirmed the same, the judges suggested that each of the patriarchs, having chosen one or two persons from his own region, should come to the middle, and so that the opinion of each would be revealed. Then the Sardican bishop of Florence demanded a delay, in order to study the truth more carefully. And the Sevastopol Bishop Cecropius said the following: the faith was well stated by three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, and then confirmed by the holy fathers - Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilarius, Basil, Gregory, and now even the most holy Leo. Therefore, we ask you to read the exposition of the holy fathers and the most holy Leo. After reading this, the entire Council exclaimed like this: this is the faith of the Orthodox; so we all believe; so does Pope Leo believe; so Cyril believed; such is the pope's account. Then, when they decided to read the exposition and the one hundred and fifty holy fathers, this was also read. After that those present at the Council again exclaimed: this is the faith of all; this is the faith of the Orthodox; so we all believe! Then Archdeacon Aetius said that he had in his hands the letter of Blessed Cyril to Nestorius, which all those who were at the Council of Ephesus approved with their own signatures, that he also had another letter of the same Cyril, written to John of Antioch and also approved, and asked to propose them for reading. Having considered this, we read them too. In the first of the epistles mentioned, some passages word for word are as follows: “To the most reverent colleague Nestorius - Cyril. Others, as I hear, slander my account in front of your godliness, and moreover often, especially taking advantage of the occasions of the meeting of noble men, and perhaps thinking to please those of your hearing. " And in another place: “And so the holy and great Council said that He is the only-begotten Son, born of God and the Father by nature, true God from true God, Light from Light, that He is the one through whom the Father created everything, who descended , incarnated, incarnate, suffered, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven. We must follow these words and patterns, remembering what the expressions mean: God - the Word became incarnate and became human. We do not say that the nature of the Word, having changed, became flesh, or turned into a whole person, consisting of soul and body; but we say rather that the Word, having united with itself personally the flesh, animated by an intelligent soul, inexpressibly and incomprehensibly became a man and was called the son of man - not by will alone or by good will, and not through taking on only one face (human): so that although the natures that entered into this true union are different, but of both of them there is one Christ and the Son; not that the difference between natures was destroyed through union, but rather that through their inexpressible and mysterious confluence to their union, one Lord, Christ and the Son, was made up for us, from deity and humanity. " And a little lower: “Since He, for us and for our salvation, having personally united human nature with Himself, came from a wife, then it is said that He was born in the flesh, for not an ordinary man was born in advance from the Holy Virgin, and then into him the Word possessed, but from the very conception having united (with humanity), He, as they say, underwent a fleshly birth, that is, He assimilated to Himself the birth of His own flesh. Likewise, we say that He suffered and was resurrected - not as if God the Word by his own (divine) nature suffered blows, being pierced by nails, or any other wounds; for the Divine, being incorporeal, cannot suffer. But since the body, which became His own, suffered, it is said again that He suffered for us; for the not suffering Being was in the suffering body. " Much of the second letter is given in the first book of our history. There are also sayings in it that were written by John of Antioch, and which Cyril accepted with full agreement; namely: “We confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, because from her God the Word became incarnate and made man, and from her from the very conception he united his temple with Himself. As for the gospel and apostolic sayings about the Lord, we know that god-bearing men - some of them used in a general sense, as if about one person, while others - separately, as about two natures, and the first - godly, were referred to as Christ according to deity, and the latter - the derogatory ones gave to Him according to His humanity. " To this (Cyril) added: “Having read these sacred your sayings, and finding that such are all our thoughts, - for one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Ephesus 4, 5), we glorified the Savior of all God, mutually rejoicing that both our and your Churches contain a faith consistent with the inspired writings and tradition of our holy fathers. " After reading this, those present at the same Council exclaimed in the following words: we all believe so; Pope Leo believes so; anathema to the one who separates and merges; it is the faith of Archbishop Leo; Leo believes so; Leo and Anatoly believe so, we all believe so; both Cyril and we believe; eternal memory to Cyril; as they say in the letters of Cyril, we think so; so we believed, so we believe; the archbishop thinks so, believes so, wrote so. Then a conference was held on the reading of the Epistle of Leo, and it was read in translation (into Greek) and placed in the acts of the Council. After reading it, the bishops exclaimed: this is the paternal faith; and this is the apostolic faith; we all believe so; we are Orthodox so we believe; anathema to someone who does not believe so; it was through Leo that Peter spoke; this was taught by the Apostles; Leo teaches piously and truly; so taught Cyril; Leo and Cyril teach according to; anathema to someone who does not believe so; this is true faith; the Orthodox think so; this is the paternal faith; why didn't you read it in Ephesus? This was hidden by Dioscorus, in the same acts it is said that when the passage of the message of Leo was read, which contains the following: "in order to erase the grievous guilt of our nature, the divine nature united with the nature capable of suffering, so that, as it was necessary for of our healing, - one and the same man Christ Jesus, being an intermediary between God and people, on the one hand could die, and on the other he could not remain dead ", and when at these words the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops expressed doubt, , Aetius, suggested from (the epistle) of Cyril the following passage: “since His own body, by the grace of God, says the Apostle Paul, tasted death for all (Heb. 2, 9); then it is said that He suffered death for us - not because He experienced death as something inherent in His (Divine) nature - for it would be extremely crazy to say or think so - but because, as I said a little above , His flesh tasted death. "And again, when reading the words from the message of Leo, which contains the following:" for He acts with each nature, during communication with the other, as it is peculiar to it, - the Word does what is characteristic of the Word, and the body does what is characteristic of the body , - one of them is expressed by miracles, and the other is subject to insults, - the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops expressed doubt, - the same Aetius read from (epistle) Cyril the following chapter: “some of the expressions (about Christ) are especially characteristic of the Divine, others, on the contrary, they relate especially to humanity, while others occupy, in a way, the middle between them, treating the Son of God as God and man at the same time. Then, when the aforementioned bishops doubted another place in Leo's epistle, which reads as follows: “although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is absolutely one face of God and man, yet another is in Him, from which comes common for both (natures) offense, and another is from what comes the general glorification; for from us He has humanity, which is less than the Father, and from the Father in Him there is a deity equal to the Father himself, Theodoret added for comparison that Blessed Cyril also said word for word like this: but remained what he was; so that one began to dwell in the other, that is, the divine nature in the human. " After that, the chief judges asked if anyone else doubted, and everyone replied that no one doubted anymore. Then, the Nikopolis Bishop Atticus began to ask that they be given a reprieve for several days, during which they, with a serene mind and a calm spirit, could determine what was pleasing to God and the holy fathers. He also asked to give them a message from Cyril, written to Nestorius, in which he convinces Nestorius to agree to twelve all approved chapters of him. When the judges agreed to give them an extension of five days, so that they would meet at the Primate of Constantinople Anatoly; then all the bishops began to cry out: we believe this way, all believe so; both Leo and we believe; none of us doubts; we all signed up. To this (the judges) told them the following: there is no need for all of you to gather; but since it is only necessary to convince the doubters, let the most reverent Bishop Anatoly choose from among the signatories those whom he considers more capable of enlightening the doubters. At the same time, those present at the Council began to exclaim: we ask for (other) fathers; those fathers to the Council; like-minded with Leo at the Cathedral; fathers to the Council; these exclamations to the king! this request to the Orthodox! this request is august; we have all sinned; let everyone go! And the bishops of the Church of Constantinople exclaimed: few proclaim; it is not the Council that is speaking. Then the eastern ones shouted: Egyptians into exile, and the Illyrian ones: - we ask you to have mercy on everyone. Then the eastern ones again: Egyptians into exile. And while the Illyrians repeated the same request, the clergy of Constantinople exclaimed: Dioscorus into exile, Egyptian into exile, heretic into exile, Dioscorus deposed by Christ. Then the Illyrian and the bishops who adhered to them again said: we all have sinned, forgiveness to all, Dioscorus to the council; Dioscorus to church, and with the continuation of such exclamations, the deeds of this meeting ended. At the next meeting, when the senators demanded that the definitions already made be read, Secretary Constantine read the following word for word from the minutes: We award the most accurate research concerning the Orthodox and catholic faith to be postponed to the next day and to make it more complete in the congregation. And as a blessed memory, Flavian and the most reverent Bishop Eusebius, as a result of the consideration of acts and determinations, and according to the testimony of those who were then present at the Council, and who claim that they mistakenly and in vain deposed them, turn out to be in no way sinning with respect to the faith and deposed unjustly ; then, in our opinion, it will be fair, if only it pleases God, and it seems to our most divine and pious Vladyka, to subject the same punishment to the most reverent Bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria, the most reverent Bishop Juvenalia of Jerusalem, the most reverent Bishop of Caesarea (Cappadocian), the most reverent Episcopal Episcopal Berit Eustathius and the most reverent Bishop of Seleucia of Isauria, Basil, who were then with authority at the Council, and according to the church rules to deprive them of their episcopal dignity, and then bring everything that followed to the attention of the supreme power. After reading the (protocol) and other subjects, the assembled bishops were asked if they find Leo's message in agreement with the statement of faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea, and one hundred and fifty gathered in the capital? And the primate of Constantinople, Anatoly, as well as all those present answered that the message of Leo was in agreement with the aforementioned holy fathers, and signed it. Meanwhile, as this matter went on, those present at the Council exclaimed: we all agree, we all approve, we still believe in the same way, we all also think, we all believe so; fathers to the Council; those who subscribed to the Council; many years to the king; many august summers; fathers to the Council; members of the same faith at the Council; many years to the king; like-minded people at the Cathedral; many years to the king; we have all signed up to the confession of faith; as Leo, so do we think. In response to this (the judges) said word for word this way: we presented them to our most divine and pious sovereign, and we expect a decision from his piety; and your reverence for Dioscorus, whom you deposed without the knowledge of the supreme power and ours, and for the five you ask for, and for everything done at the Council, will give an account to God. Then again everyone began to exclaim: Dioscorus was deposed by God; Dioscorus is justly deposed; Dioscorus deposed Christ. Then, when the decision of Marcian was brought, and it turned out that he submitted the case of the deposed bishops to the court, as the judges' answer expressed, (the bishops) began to offer their petition in the following words: please allow them to enter; members of the same faith at the Council; like-minded people at the Cathedral; who signed the message of Leo to the Council. As a consequence of this, after the meeting, they were joined to the meeting. Then they began to read the petitions presented to King Marcian by the bishops of the Egyptian region. Among other things, they contained the following: we think in the same way as the faith of the three hundred and eighteen fathers who gathered in Nicaea expounded, as both blessed Athanasius and the sacred memory of Cyril expounded, anathematizing every heresy, and Aria, and Eunomius, and Manesa, and Nestorius. , and the heresy of those who say that the flesh of our Lord was borrowed from heaven, and not from the Holy Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary, in the likeness of all of us, except for sin. At the same time, everyone present at the Council exclaimed: why did they not anathematize the teachings of Eutyches? Let them sign the message of Leo, anathematizing Eutyches and his teachings; let them agree with the message of Leo; they want to laugh at us and leave. But the Egyptian bishops answered that there were many bishops in Egypt and that they could not speak on behalf of everyone, and therefore they asked the Council to wait for their archbishop, whom, as is customary, they should follow; for if they do anything before a primate is chosen for them, the bishops of the whole Egyptian region will rise up against them. After their prolonged requests for this and after very strong objections from the Council, it was decided to give the Egyptian bishops a reprieve until an archbishop was ordained to them. Then a petition of several monks was proposed, the essence of which was that they should not be forced to sign on any papers until such a Council was drawn up as the king ordered to convene, and the decisions made were considered. After reading this, the bishop of Cyzician Diogenes said that one of those who entered the congregation, namely Barsum, killed Flavian; for he shouted: beat, and although he was not mentioned in the petitions, yet he still should not have entered the assembly. At the same time, all the bishops exclaimed: Barsuma devastated the whole of Syria, armed against us thousands of monks. Following this it is necessary that: those gathered await the decision of the Council; and the monks began to ask that a petition drawn up by them be read, in which, among other things, they demanded permission to be present at the Council of Dioscoros and the bishops devoted to him. But all the bishops exclaimed to this: anathema to Dioscoros; Dioscorus deposed Christ; kick these people out; away from the insult to the Council, away from the violence to the Council; report them to the king; away from the insult of the Cathedral, away from the disgrace of the Cathedral. And the monks shouted against this: Away the insult of monasteries. And while the Council repeated the same exclamations, they decided to read the rest of the petitions. They said that the deposition of Dioscoros was done unjustly and that, according to his confession of faith, he should have been present at the Council. If this does not happen, they will shake off their clothes from communion with the assembled bishops. When this was said, Archdeacon Aetius read the rule about those who remove themselves from communion. Then again, when, answering the questions of the most reverend bishops, and also to the question of Archdeacon Aetius, made on behalf of the Council, the monks were divided among themselves, that is, they anathematized Nestorius and Eutychius, while others refused to do so, the judges suggested reading the petitions of Faustus and other monks who asked the tsar not to accept henceforth monks who had previously opposed Orthodox dogmas. Answering this; the monk Dorotheos called Eutyches Orthodox: but against him the judges proposed various questions regarding the teachings of Eutyches.

After that, in the fifth session of the Council, the judges were invited to announce that it was decided on the faith, and the Deacon of Constantinople Asklepiad, read the definition, which, however, was considered unnecessary to be included in the (Council) acts. Some did not agree with him, but the majority agreed, and while there were contradictory exclamations about this, the judges said: Dioscorus, in his words, deposed Flavian because he recognized two natures (in Christ); but the definition also says that there are two natures. To this (remark) Anatoly replied: Dioscorus was deposed not because of his faith, but because he excommunicated Leo and, being three times invited to the Council, did not appear. Then the judges began to demand that the words from the message of Leo be included in the definition. But since the bishops do not agree to this, saying that there is no need to make another determination, for what has been done is already completely perfect; then this is presented to the king. And the king ordered that six of the eastern bishops, three of the Pontic, three of the Asian, three of the Thracian and three of the Illyrian, in the presence of Anatoly and the Roman governors, gather in the temple of the martyr (Euphemia) and make the correct definition of the faith, or let each one separately state his own confession; otherwise, let it be known that the Council will be drawn up in the West. And when they later asked them whether they were following Dioscorus, who says that (Christ consists) of two natures, or Leo, in whose opinion there are two (natures) in Christ; then they cried out that they believed according to Leo, and that those who contradict this were Eutychians. And the judges said: this is in accordance with the opinion of Leo, and it must be written that in Christ there are two natures, united invariably, inseparably and non-merged. Thus, when the judges who were in the temple of the holy martyr Euphemia, together with Anatoly and the governors of Leo, also with Maximus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Bishop Falassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia and with others, left there; then the following definition of faith was read: "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and so on that is stated above in our history. After that, everyone exclaimed: this is the paternal faith; let the metropolitans sign it now; this is the apostolic faith; everyone agrees with it we, we all think so. And the judges said: the determinations made by the fathers and recognized by all will be presented to the supreme authority.

At the sixth session of the Council, Marcian himself arrived and spoke to the bishops about mutual consent. Then, by his order, the Constantinople archdeacon Aetius read the definition, and everyone signed it. In addition, when the king asked if everyone agreed to the definition drawn up, everyone solemnly confirmed this. The king proclaimed the same another time, and on another time they all agreed. Then, at the suggestion of the king, the rules (of this Council) were drawn up and the city of Chalcedon was granted the rights of a metropolitanate. The king also ordered that the bishops remain (in that city) for another three or four days, and that each of them, in the presence of the judges, propose what he found necessary, so that everything would be arranged in due course. With this the meeting ended.

There was also a meeting at which other rules were adopted. And at the following meeting Juvenal and Maxim met and agreed that the Bishop of Antioch should be in charge of both Phenicia and Arabia, and the Bishop of Jerusalem - the three Palestines, which, after some consultation of the judges with the bishops, was approved. In the ninth session, the business of Theodoret was dealt with. He anathematized Nestorius with the following words: anathema to Nestorius, who does not call the holy Virgin Mary the Mother of God and divides one and only Son into two sons, but I signed both the definition of faith and the message of Leo. Therefore, with the general consent of all, he received back his pulpit. In another session, the Willows' case was dealt with - and the opinions pronounced against him, which belonged to the Tyrian bishop Photius and the Berite bishop Eustathius, were read; but the decision was postponed until the next meeting. At the eleventh session, when most of the bishops agreed that he should be ordained again, some opposed this and said that his accusers were outside the door and asked permission to enter. Then again the definitions made against him were read. The judges suggested that they read what was decreed in Ephesus concerning Willow; but the bishops said that everything done at the second Council of Ephesus was not valid, except for the ordination of Maximus of Antioch, and asked to submit to the king, by decree, to declare invalid all Ephesian decisions drawn up after the first Council, presided over by the blessed memory of Cyril, the Primate of Alexandria. Therefore, it was decided to return the bishopric to Iva. In the next session, the case of the Ephesian bishop Vassian was examined and they decided to depose both him and Stephen, and put another in their place. In the thirteenth session, the case of Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius of the Bishop of Nicene, who were in dispute over certain cities, were examined. There was also the fourteenth session, at which the investigation of the case concerning Vassian was carried out. Finally, it was decided that the throne of Constantinople should occupy the first place immediately after the Roman one.

NOTES:

1. According to Procopius: “According to the law, a soldier's salary is not paid to everyone in a row, but for young people who had just started military service, the pay was less, those who were already tried and were in the middle of the soldier's lists were higher. For those who were old and about to leave the soldier's service, the salary was even higher so that later, living already a private life, they would have enough means to exist, and when they happen to finish their days, they, as a consolation, could leave to their families that from their own funds. " (Procopius of Caesarea. Secret history. XXIV, 2-3. Last edition - M., 1993, p. 395)

2. Theophanes tells that later Marcian took part in the Persian war of 420-421. as a simple warrior. “Arriving in Lycia, he fell into illness and was left in the city of Sidim, where while living he met two brothers, Julius and Tatian, who took him into their home and gave him shelter. One day, when they went hunting, they took him with them; tired, they went to sleep at noon, Tatian, awakening, saw that Marcian was lying against the sun, and a huge eagle, descending over him, spread its wings and covered him with its shadow from the sun's rays. Seeing this, he woke up his brother and showed him a miracle. For a long time they marveled at the feathered friendliness of the bird, finally woke up Marcian and said to him: "If you ever become a basileus, what kind of mercy will you show us?" He answered them: "What kind of person am I so that this could happen to me?" They once again repeated their question, and Marcian answered: "If God sends this to me, then I will call you my fathers." Then they gave him two hundred coins and said: "Go to Constantinople, and remember us when God exalts you." (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p.82)

3. This refers to the expedition of the Byzantine-Roman troops (commanded by the famous Boniface) against Henzerich in 432. Marcian entered the service in the federates to Aspar and Ardavurius (the elder) and served them for 15 years, apparently, upon his return from Lycia, having two hundred coins donated to him, he could already enter the federates, tk. the federates were equipped at their own expense. Judging by the story of Theophanes, who casually mentions "one of the battles" and Procopius (who inserted the story of this skirmish into the account of affairs in the Western Roman Empire), it seems that the Byzantines were only a small detachment sent to the aid of Bonifatius, with the main the army of Aspara and Ardavuria was still in Sicily. Marcian, after his release, went exactly there, and, most likely, as part of the same army, he participated in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the Huns under the leadership of Attila in Thrace. Although, as Procopius puts it, somewhat below the story about the sign regarding Marcian: "Having then won the battle of Aspar and Bonifatius ..." (War with the Vandals. Book. 1, ch. IV, 12) the whole army of Ardavuriy and Aspar, because the army itself was commanded by Ardavuriy, Aspar's father, and not mentioning him here also speaks in favor of the fact that it was really a small skirmish.

4. Genzerich is the famous king (rex) of the Vandals. He ruled from 428 to 477. It was he who conquered Libya. He also established legal succession, tore down all city walls in Africa, and organized a Vandal militia. see Procopius The War with the Vandals Book 1 Ch. III, 27-36; ch. V, 8; Chapter V, 18-19. (Latest edition - M., 1993)

5. See note. 2

6. See Procopius of Caesarea "War with the Vandals" book. 1; ch. IV, 11 (Latest edition - p. 186)

7. The entire episode with the eagle and Hanzerich is almost literally borrowed from Procopius of Caesarea - The War with the Vandals. book 1 ch. IV, 2-8

8. Pulcheria summoned Marcian from Thrace secretly, before the news of Theodosius's death was announced.

9. St. Leo I the Great 440-461

10. Initially, Saint Leo wrote to Theodosius the Younger, accusing the second council of Ephesus of non-Orthodoxy. Then he asked the emperor's permission to assemble a council in Italy, apparently fearing a repeated victory of the heretics who enjoyed the patronage of Chrysathius (and Theodosius himself, as can be seen from his letters to Valentinian, Galle Placidia and Licinia Eudoxia, at that time still stood in the position of supporting the heretics. )

11. See note. 67 to the book. 1

12. This temple is also mentioned by Socrates VI, 6; as a place of agreement between imp. Arkady and Gayda.

13. St. Anatoly 449-458

14. This refers to the agreement on the boundaries of the dioceses. By the decision of the Council, Juvenal of Jerusalem received three Palestines, and to Maximus of Antioch two Phenicia and Arabia. This refers to the division into provinces established by Diocletian. This division does not list all the provinces belonging to the jurisdiction of the bishop of Antioch, but only those that lay in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, in view of which disagreements could arise over their subordination. Palestine - that is how they were called by numbers, by Phenicia they mean Phenicia and Phenicia of Lebanon.

15. Even before the council's decision, Blessed Theodoret was received into communion by Saint Leo, as follows from the words of the dignitaries at the eighth session. (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 3 SPb., 1996, p. 75) But this seemed insufficient to the Fathers of the Council and he was accepted into communion only after the consideration of his case. The fathers did not demand from the Cypriot bishop a confession of faith, he only anathematized Nestorius and those who shared natures.

16. St. Proterius 451-457

17. This revolt in Alexandria occurred in 452, and was tamed in 453, after the emperor ordered to stop the supply of bread to Alexandria. (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p.84)

18. More precisely, not in the temple of Serapis, destroyed by Theophilos back in 390, but on the site that remained on the site of the temple.

19. Theophanes (ibid.) Says that the Alexandrians asked Proterius to intercede with the emperor, which he did. The distribution of bread to the needy inhabitants of Alexandria was established by Diocletian. (Procopius of Caesarea. Secret history. XXVI, 41. Last edition - M., 1993, p. 406)

20. Theophanes (ibid., Pp. 84-85) tells about it this way: “In the same year the monk Theodosius, a perishing husband, immediately after the Council of Chalcedon went to Jerusalem, and having learned that Basilissa Eudokia is located to Dioscorus, who was deposed by the council , began to shout loudly against the cathedral, accusing it of overthrowing the Orthodox faith, which attracted the basilissa and the monks to his side, and with his nasty hands, barbarously appropriated the sacred power, and the people of Evdokia helped him, and ordained new bishops in the city when the real the bishops had not yet returned from the cathedral.He expelled from the city of Averian, the bishop of Scythopolis, who did not share his false teaching, raised a persecution against everyone who did not communicate with him, tortured some, deprived others of their estates, set others on fire, so it seemed that the city had just was taken by the barbarians. Moreover, he killed Athanasius, the deacon of the church of St. Anastasia, who reproached and denounced his atheism. do, and then give the dogs to eat. For twenty months the perilous Theodosius occupied the throne of Jerusalem, until the emperor Marcian found out about this and ordered to seize him. But this fugitive disappeared to Mount Sinai. After the removal of him and those ordained by him, Juvenal again took his throne. " This mutiny took place in 451.

21. Evagrius understands prepositions ((and ((, differing by one letter. The faithful confessed Christ in two natures; and the heretics said that He consists of two natures that merged into one; that is, they claimed that, after the unification of the Word, in Christ - one nature.

22. Aetius - the famous commander of Valentinian III, "came from a family of the strongest Mysians from the city of Dorostor, his father was Gaudentius." (Jordan. About origin and deeds ready. 177). Thanks to his intrigue, according to Procopius (War with the Vandals. Book 1 Ch. III, 14-26), the empire lost Libya. In 451 he defeated Attila in a battle on the Catalaunian fields (Jordan. About the origin and deeds of the ready. 192-214). He was killed by order of Valentinian III. According to the story of Procopius, this murder was part of the intrigue of Maximus, conceived by him in order to seize the imperial power. (War with the vandals. Book 1 Ch. IV, 25-28). Theophanes, however, informs that "the emperor Valentinian, envying the excessive strength of the patrician and his commander, Aetius insidiously killed him with the help of Heraclius, one of the eunuchs." (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p.85) Yu.A. Kulakovsky writes that "Emperor Valentinian killed him with his own hand at the intrigues of the eunuch Heraclius, not without the participation of Senator Maxim ..." (Yu.A. Kulakovsky. History of Byzantium. 395-518. St. Petersburg, 1996, p. 275).

23. Valentinian was killed (March 16, 455) according to Theophanes by Maxim himself (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p.86), according to Jordan (Rom. P.334) by squires Aetius Optila and Travstila.

24. Procopius tells about it this way: “Maxim the youngest had a wife, very modest and distinguished by exceptional beauty. Therefore, Valentinian was seized with a desire to enter into a relationship with her. Since it turned out to be impossible for him to do this with her consent, he conceived an unholy deed and carried it out. Having invited Maxim to the palace, he began to play chess with him. The loser had to pay the appointed amount of gold in the form of a fine. Vasilevs won, and, having received Maxim's ring as a pledge, he sent him to Maxim's house, commanding him to tell his wife that her husband ordered her to come to the palace as soon as possible to greet Vasilisa Eudoxia. She, seeing confirmation in Maxim's ring, sat down on a stretcher and arrived at the royal palace. Those whom Vasilevs entrusted with the execution of his business, brought her into a room that was very far from the female half. Here Valentinian abused her against her will. " (The war with the vandals. Book. 1 ch. IV, 17-22. The last edition - M., 1993 p. 187)

25. Maxim's wife had already died at this time. (Procopius of Caesarea. The war with the vandals. Book. 1 ch. IV, 36. The last edition - M., 1993 p.188)

26. Procopius directly informs that "Gizerich, not for any other reason, but only because he hoped to get great riches, sailed to Italy with a strong fleet." (Procopius of Caesarea. War with the Vandals. Book 1 Chapter V, 1. The latest edition - M., 1993, p. 188)

27. The murder of Petronius Maximus (emperor in 455) is described by Procopius as follows: “Maximus, who was about to flee, was killed by the Romans by stoning. They chopped off his head, chopped him into pieces and divided them among themselves. " (Procopius of Caesarea. War with the Vandals. Book 1, Chapter V, 2. The last edition - M., 1993, p. 188). Theophanes simply reports that "Maxim, hearing about the approach of Gizerich with a huge fleet, fled from Rome, but his companions killed him at the end of the first year of his reign." (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p.86) A.A. Chekalov in the 46th commentary on the War with the Vandals, Vol. 1 writes: “The murder of Maximus is described in a similar way by John of Antioch. See: Ioan. Ant. Fr. 201. Both historians probably relied in this case on the story of Priscus Pannias. " Jordan, however, says that “Maxim fled and was killed by a certain Ursus, a Roman soldier. (Jordan. On the origin and deeds of the ready. 235. Last edition - St. Petersburg, 1997, p. 105).

28. “On July 9 of the same year 455 in Tolosa, by agreement with the Visigoths, a noble and wealthy senator, a Gaul by blood, Mark Marcilius Avit, was proclaimed emperor. Avit left with an army to the north, but in Placencia he was caught and deposed by the master of the army, Suev Rekimer, who had an order from him to go with troops to Sicily in order to act against Henzerich (456) "(Yu.A. Kulakovsky. History of Byzantium . 395-518 St. Petersburg, 1996, p. 275). Yu.A. Kulakovsky refers to Iohan. Antioh. p.86. Theophanes places the reign of Avit (455 - 456) after Majorin, he also reports that in 456 "Avit was defeated by Remicus and became a bishop in the Gaulish city of Placencia." (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p.86). S. B. Dashkov believes that "the uncrowned ruler of Italy, Ricimer, raised a mutiny, Avit was deposed and executed." (SB Dashkov. Emperors of Byzantium. M.1996, p. 41) Jordan generally skips Avita in the list of emperors of the Western Roman Empire (Jordan. 105).

29. Majorian (imp. 457-461). According to Jordan's message: "After Maximus, by order of Marcian, Emperor of the East, the Western Empire was ruled by Majorian (Maiurianus), however, and he did not rule for long, because when he moved an army against the Alans attacking Gaul, he was killed in Derton, near the river named Gir. " (Jordan. On the origin and deeds ready. 236. Last edition - St. Petersburg, 1997, p. 105). Procopius reports that Majorin died of dysentery. (Procopius of Caesarea. War with the Vandals. Book 1, Chapter VII, 14. Last edition - M., 1993 p.195) According to AA Chekalova - retelling Priscus Poniyskiy; comment 62 to the first book of "Wars with the Vandals", p. 504. Regarding the place of his death, he also indirectly names Gaul: “... he returned to Liguria and, at the head of a foot army, moved by land to the Pillars of Hercules, intending to cross the strait at this point and go straight to Carthage.” (Procopius of Caesarea. War with the Vandals. Book 1, Chapter VII, 11. Last edition - M., 1993. p.195) .Theophanes also reports that "Majorin was killed by the patrician Rekimer in Tartion" (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887. P. 88). , apparently to reconcile the messages of different sources, introduces the second Majorin, who ruled after the emperor Olybrius, repeating the mistake of Procopius - and informs that this Majorin has measures for diarrhea. (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887 p.94) According to Iohan. Antioch. c. 87 Majorin fled to Dalmatia, where he had large possessions and was killed on August 7, 461.

30. Livy North (III), emperor in 461-465.

32. Evagrius has in mind the merit of Marcian, which he rendered to the Church by convening a Council in Chalcedon.

33. As Theophanes tells about this, Timothy Elur, even a year before his predatory episcopal ordination, “went around the monks' cells at night, called everyone by name and said to everyone:“ I am an angel sent to tell all of you to leave communion with Proterius. and the decrees in Chalcedon, and they would have elected Timothy Elur as bishop of Alexandria. " (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p.87). Yu.A. Kulakovsky reports the following about him: “That was a man whom Cyril once forcibly pulled out of hermitage in the wilderness and ordained a presbyter. (which directly contradicts Theophanes - A.K.) The nickname Elur - weasel - was given to Timothy by the followers of Proterius for his small stature and extreme thinness, a consequence of his ascetic life. Monks, extremely numerous in Egypt, and the crowd seized Timothy, forcibly (which also contradicts Theophanes - A.K.) brought him to the city's cathedral ... to be ordained patriarch. (Yu.A. Kulakovsky. History of Byzantium. 395-518. St. Petersburg, 1996, p. 275). He held a department in 457-477.

34. Theophanes tells about it this way: “At this Timothy, nicknamed Elur, caused confusion in Alexandria: having bribed a multitude of disorderly people, he by force took possession of the Alexandrian throne and, stripped of all spiritual dignity, was consecrated by two bishops like himself. From this came all kinds of temptations in Alexandria. This wicked man, with unbearable fury, insulted everywhere and all the priests who adhered to the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, who was not ordained ordained bishops, and, not being a priest, performed baptism. " (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p.87). Yu.A. Kulakovsky gives the date March 16, 457 (Yu.A. Kulakovsky. History of Byzantium. 395-518. St. Petersburg, 1996, p. 271).

35. Peter Iver was the son of the king of Iberia Bakur-Varaz. His name, according to the evidence of the Georgian life, was Murvan. In his younger years, he fell into Constantinople as a hostage during the war of Theodosius with the Persians and gained a great favor from the emperor, his wife and Pulcheria. (Yu.A. Kulakovsky. History of Byzantium. 395-518. St. Petersburg, 1996, p. 268, footnote 1). The monophysite Theodosius made him a bishop during his pseudo-episcopacy in Palestine. Yu.A. Kulakovsky reports with reference to Raabe, Petrus der Iberer, p. 64 that "He fled from Syria, was persecuted by Proterius and lived for some time in Elephantine." (footnote 1 to p.271 Yu.A. Kulakovsky. History of Byzantium. 395-518. St. Petersburg, 1996).

36. Yu. A. Kulakovsky retells the story of Zechariah (Zacharias, 3, 11; 4. 1-3, pp. 18-19, 24-25): “When Dionysius returned to the city, he arrested Timothy. The arrest was accompanied by great bloodshed. Timothy was imprisoned in one fortification 30 miles from the capital. The uprising of the people turned into an open revolt, so formidable that Dionysius a few days later admitted it best to place his prisoner on the pulpit. He arranged this through the mediation of a monk named Longinus, known to all for his holy life. Timothy occupied the cathedral church, and the rightful patriarch Proterius had his see in the church of St. Quirina. It's time for Easter. On the eve of this day, it was then customary to perform the baptism of infants. A multitude of those who were baptized were brought to Timothy, and only five were brought to Proterius. With general excitement, the idea came to expel Proterius from the temple. Against the violence, Proterius resorted to the help of military guards, and a bloody battle ensued, in which many were killed. Proterius, who spent a lot of money from church funds on soldiers, was dissatisfied with the failure of the action military force... And so one soldier, angry at the reproaches, thrust his sword into his chest, others finished it off and left him lying in the street. Then the Alexandrian rabble took possession of the corpse, dragged it through the streets, burned it at the hippodrome and scattered the ashes in the wind. True, citing this message from the monophysite Zakhariya, Yu.A. Kulakovsky himself makes a reservation in a note that "It is very likely that the participation of soldiers in the murder of Proterius was invented to mitigate the guilt of the population of Alexandria, which has long been distinguished by a tendency to excesses." (Yu.A. Kulakovsky. History of Byzantium. 395-518. St. Petersburg, 1996, p. 271). It is all the more strange that Yu.A. Kulakovsky believes that Evagrius drew his story about this murder from Zacharias - after all, Evagrius directly points out at the end of chapter 8 that he did not trust the information of Zechariah, and informs about his sources - Priscus Poniysky (frg 22) and Raabe, Petrus der Iberer, p. 59; as indicated by Kulakovsky himself! (p. 269). In the very message of Zechariah, many incongruities are visible: after the decree of Marcian on July 31, 455 on the belittling of the civil rights of heretics and the burning of their writings, it seems extremely unlikely that an official of such a high rank as Dionysius possessed could put Timothy Elur on the pulpit. If this is possible, it is only because the emperor died at that time (Theophanes directly connects these events), or, as Evagrius and Theophanes point out, if Timothy resorted to bribery.

37. Emperor Leo I Makella was enthroned on February 7, 457. For the first time, when he was ordained to the kingdom, the imperial crown was placed on the emperor by the Patriarch of Constantinople Anatoly. (Chron. Pasch. 592)

38. Strictly speaking, Peter Iver was not deposed, since he was under the auspices of Empress Pulcheria, but obviously, he was illegally placed - see note. 31

39. Theophanes informs about this as follows: “In the same year the emperor Leo, having learned about the vain death of Proterius and the lawless consecration of Elur, sent Caesarea, ordering his two accomplices to cut off their tongues and expel, but he did not touch the wicked Timothy, saying that he would be judged follows only the bishops. " (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p.88).

40. Patriarch Anatoly presided over the Constantinople see from 449 to 458.

41. That was the name of one of the guards palace scholas - the Silentsiaries.

42. According to Theophanes, since Elur continued to "make illegal gatherings and troubles" here, he was sent to Kherson (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p. 88).

43. Timothy II Salofakiol occupied the Alexandrian see from 460 to 475.

44. Gennady I occupied the Constantinople chair from 458 to 471.

45. Akaki held the Constantinople chair from 472 to 489.

46. ​​Omonia (consent). This was the name of the church of St. Irene, in which during the reign of the emperor, Theodosius the Great, 150 fathers of the 2nd Council of Constantinople gathered, and unanimously determined the dogma of St. Trinity.

47. It is not entirely clear what kind of war Evagrius has in mind. It can be like a war with the Pannonian Goths of Valamir (see Jordan. About the origin and deeds of the ready. 270-272. Last edition - St. Petersburg, 1997, p. 113), or his brother Theodemir (Iohan. Antioh. C. 90) during which the Goths laid waste to Illyricum and captured Dyrrachium. But, most likely, given the naming "Scythians" - we mean the invasion of one of Attila's sons into Thrace in 469.

48. Sometimes the Isaurian name of Zeno is also referred to as Tarasikodissa. Isaurian by birth, he was appointed master of the army of the east in the year of the unsuccessful Basilisk expedition against the Vandals. The next year he was awarded a consulate and received command over part of the troops in Thrace. Traditionally, this approach of the Isaurian princeling is seen as an attempt to oppose something to the influence of the Goths, even to rely on the national army of the empire itself, without entrusting the waging of wars for it to the federates. (F. I. Uspensky. History of the Byzantine Empire. M., 1996, pp. 187-191) But, firstly, the Aspar clan served the empire for almost half a century - his father Ardavuriy was mentioned already in 425, in a campaign against usurper John. To call the Isaurs more subjects of the empire than the Goths is at least strange, at the same time when Zeno commanded troops in Thrace, his fellow tribesmen made a pirate raid on the island of Rhodes. Perhaps Zeno's only real advantage over Aspar was that he was Orthodox.

49. Anthimius was directly appointed by the emperor Leo and ruled from 467 to 472. After Majorian's death, Rezimer replaced the throne with Libyus Sever, who ruled from 461 to 465. Then the throne remained unoccupied for two years - Recimer apparently did not have his own candidacy for the throne and left the Roman Senate to send a delegation to Constantinople. Anthimius was crowned on April 12, 467.

50. Here, of course, is a campaign against the African Vandals who attacked the Roman Empire under the leadership of Henzerich in AD 468. - approx. to the first edition. This campaign, one of the most widely conceived military endeavors before Justinian. It was planned to simultaneously make an attack from Egypt by land, Marcellinus from Dalmatia landed in Sardinia, and the Basilisk itself with the main forces of a huge fleet was to deliver the main blow. But thanks to bribery, he put the fleet under attack from Hänzerich's fire-ships and ruined the entire enterprise. (Procopius of Caesarea. War with the Vandals. Book. 1 ch. VI, 1-25 Last edition - M., 1993, p. 191-193)

51 see frg. 42

52. Procopius writes about it this way "... the basileus Leo had killed Aspara and Ardavuria in the palace shortly before, because he had a suspicion that they were plotting against him, intending to kill him." V, 27 Last edition - M., 1993, p. 194.) Theophanes explains these suspicions in the same way: “This year the emperor Leo sent, for military needs, Zeno, the leader of the Eastern troops (master of the militum of the East - A K.) and his son-in-law, commanding to give him a part of his own guards to help him, which, at the instigation of Aspar, almost exterminated Zeno, if he, forewarned of the malicious intent, had not fled to Serdica, the Thracian city, and thus did not escape Since then, Aspar incurred the suspicion of the Basileus Leo (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p. 92).

53. After the failure of the expedition against the Vandals, Rezimer killed (or organized a murder) in Sardinia Marcellinus, who did not recognize the power of Rezimer's henchmen and remained loyal to the Eastern Empire. Then he raised an open rebellion against Anthimius, after a five-month siege, he took Rome (July 11, 472) and ordered his relative Gundobad to execute the former emperor. (see Jordan. On the origin and deeds of the Goths. St. Petersburg, 1997, approx. 570 p.316). “Then Leo, on the occasion of the anxiety that arose in Rome, sent Olivrius, Placidia’s wife, there, proclaiming him an autocrat. Rekimer, having lived only three months after the murder of Anthimius, died of an illness, and Olibrius followed him, also from a bodily ailment. " (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p. 93). Olibrius died on October 23, 472. His enthronement, among other things, had as its goal the pacification of Hanzerich, who had long insisted on the candidacy of a relative (Olibrius was married to Placidia, the daughter of Eudoxia and the granddaughter of Theodosius the Younger, her sister was married to Honorich, the son of Hanzerich .)

54. Glycerius - Emperor in the Western Empire (from March 5, 473 to June 24, 474). He was enthroned by Gundobad, Rekimer's nephew and successor to his uncle in command of the federates. Not recognized by the emperor of the Eastern Empire by Leo, Glycerius was deposed by Nepos. Jordan says that he became either bishop at the port of Rome (239), or at Salon (241). (see Jordan. About the origin and deeds ready. The last edition - St. Petersburg, 1997, p.106),

55. Julius Nepot, nephew of the patrician Marcellinus (see Jordan. On the origin and deeds of the ready. 239. Last edition - St. Petersburg, 1997, p.106), the emperor from 474 to 475. He was overthrown in August 475 by Orest, chief of the federates. “This same Orestes, (in response to an attempt to send him to Gaul - AK), having taken command of the army and set out from Rome against the enemies, came to Ravenna, where he stayed and made his son Augustulus emperor. When Nepos found out about this, he fled to Dalmatia (where he was from - A.K.) and there, having resigned from himself, became a private person. (see Jordan. On the origin and deeds ready. 241. The last edition - St. Petersburg, 1997, p. 106). He was killed in 480, already on the orders of Odoacer. Evagrius' words that he ruled for five years are not a mistake. The Eastern Empire did not recognize Augustulus until the death of Nepot.

56. Orestes - he first appears on the pages of Priscus's records as "servant" and scribe or notary of Attila. After the overthrow of Nepos, on August 28, 476, Odoacer was killed, and a few days later (September 5) his son was deposed. (see Jordan. On the origin and deeds of the Goths. St. Petersburg, 1997, Note 588. p.319).

57. Romulus Augustulus ruled from October 31, 475 to September 5, 476. He was not recognized by the emperor Zeno. After his deposition, he was left to live as a private person in the "Lucullan fortification in the Company" (see Jordan. On the origin and deeds ready. 243. Last edition - St. Petersburg, 1997, p.107). Anonymous Valezia (Anon. Vales., 38) reports that "The youth and beauty of the last emperor touched Odoacer, and he gave him life, granted six thousand solidi and sent him to Campania with permission to" live freely "with his relatives." Malchus reports that in return for this Romulus had to influence the Senate so that the embassy sent to Constantinople spoke about the abolition of imperial power in the West and the recognition of Odoacer as dependent on the Empire rex "a.

58. Odoacer - Skyr or Rug or Goth. Joined the federates under Rekimer. Under Orestes, he became one of the most popular and powerful military leaders among the federates. Taking advantage of the fact that Orestes did not fulfill his promise to the army about the distribution of land, he seized power. “They (the federates - AK) demanded that Orestes give them a third of these lands, and, seeing that he did not show the slightest inclination to yield to them in this, they immediately killed him. Among them was a certain Odoacer, one of the imperial bodyguards; he agreed to do what they claimed to do for them if they put him in charge of the board. Having thus seized real power (tyranny), he did not cause any harm to the emperor, but allowed him to continue to live in the position of a private person. Having transferred a third of the lands to the barbarians, he thereby firmly tied them to himself and strengthened the seized power for ten years. " (Procopius of Caesarea. War with the Goths. Book. 1, ch. 1. The latest edition - M., 1996, p. 19)

59. Leo II (c. 467-474). On November 18, 473, he was declared co-ruler of Leo. Candide the Isaurian writes that “Leo the Basileus used all means to declare his son-in-law Zeno king, but he could not achieve this, because his subjects did not agree to this; however, before his death, he proclaimed his grandson, born of Zeno's marriage to Ariadne, king. " (Byzantine historians Devxippus, Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Malchus, Peter the patrician, Menander, Candide, Nonnos and Theophanes the Byzantine, translated from Greek by S. Destunis. St. Petersburg, 1860, p. 476) According to Theophanes: “... in February Leo, according to to the inspiration of Verina and Ariadne, being present at the horse-list, he conceded the royal crown to his father, Zeno; but Leo the Younger shared the throne with his father, Zeno, only ten months and died of illness. " (Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes., M., 1884-1887, p.95).

60. About this Eusebius Evagrius speaks in the book. 1.ch. nine.

61. Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, was condemned and deposed by a private Council of Ephesus (the second chaired by Dioscorus, in 449 AD), and died of the insults and insults inflicted on him in 450, as Zonara Annal tells. T. 3.pag. 36 and Nicephorus 1ib. 14, sar. 47.

62. Eusebius in the original is named the Bishop of Armenia

but here, of course, Eusebius of Ancyra, as he is called in the true acts of the Council of Chalcedon.

64. Here Juvenalus of Jerusalem, Falassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berit and Basil of Seleucus, who in the first session of the Council were proposed for condemnation together with Dioscorus, are taken for granted.

65. That is, Dioscorus, the former bishop of Alexandria.

66. That is. these monks, who belonged to the followers of Dioscorus, did not recognize as ecumenical that Council, which was not attended by Dioscoros and other Egyptian bishops. Therefore, they demanded the restoration of Dioscorus and his return to the membership of the Council.

67. The city of Chalcedon, in honor of the Ecumenical Council that was in it, was given one name of the metropolis, without the rights that actually belonged to the regional metropolises,

68. Bishop of Edessa, who was deposed by Dioscoros.

69. Instead of Vassian, here one should read Sabinian, bishop of Perren, in the province of Euphrates, as this bishop is named in the authentic acts of the Council of Chalcedon.