P. 1
Christopher Walter. The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches). Revue des études byzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206.

Christopher Walter. The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches). Revue des études byzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206.

|Views: 83|Likes:
Christopher Walter

The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches)
In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206.

Citer ce document / Cite this document : Walter Christopher. The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches). In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206. doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1970.1435 http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1970_num_28_1_1435
Christopher Walter

The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches)
In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206.

Citer ce document / Cite this document : Walter Christopher. The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches). In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206. doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1970.1435 http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1970_num_28_1_1435

More info:

Published by: Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis on Oct 08, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/28/2013

pdf

text

original

Christopher Walter

The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches)
In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206.

Citer ce document / Cite this document : Walter Christopher. The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches). In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206. doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1970.1435 http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1970_num_28_1_1435

THE NAMES OF THE COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS, CYPRUS Christopher WALTER Among the churches of Cyprus decorated in Byzantine or post-Byzantine times only one, so far as I know, has a series of representations of the seven ecumenical councils. This church, one of the three in the village of Galata which were decorated in the early sixteenth century, is dedicated to Saint Sozomenus. An inscription over the door gives the year of its decoration as 15131. The councils are set out in two zones on the outer wall. The first four councils in the upper zone are well preserved ; the succeeding three in the lower zone have undergone varying degrees of damage. The eighth space is occupied by a representation of the Restoration of Images. The schema used by the artist, Symeon Axenti, was in common use in Byzantine and post-Byzantine art. The emperor presides, seated upon a throne with a suppedaneum ; to his left and right bishops are seated, wearing the polystaurion ; they and the emperor have a nimbus. Behind them may be seen other council fathers, without, however, a nimbus ; in the foreground crouch the condemned heretics (fig. 12). It is evident that the composition is conventional. It belongs to the genre of official imagery taken over by Byzantine artists from their Antique predecessors. They were not concerned to represent what actually happened. For example the Pope of Rome figures in each representation, although he was not present at any of the seven first councils. Similarly the emperor appears in the picture of the Council of Ephesus, although Theodosius II did not attend. In fact the artist has represented what might have happened. He has used realistic elements in order to communicate an idea : the emper or and bishops by their authority guarantee the orthodox doctrine of the Church and condemn those who are opposed to it. 1. A. and J.A. Stylianou, The Painted Churches of Cyprus, London 1964, p. 42-51. The conclusions of this article were presented as a communication at the First Interna tional Congress of Cypriot Studies, 1969. I take the opportunity again of thanking Mr and Mrs Stylianou first for calling my attention to this church and then providing me with unpublished material concerning it. I also thank the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus for supplying me with photographs of these frescoes. The Church of Saint Sozomenus is number 40 in the repertoire of my Iconographie des conciles dans la tradi tion byzantine, Paris 1970, p. 87-89.

190

REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

The particular interest of the Saint Sozomenus series of councils is afforded by the epigraphs. Unfortunately some of those accompanying the lower series of pictures are destroyed ; however for five councils they are still intact. Above each council its name is inscribed (incorrectly in the case of the 1st Council of Nicaea which is called the Council of Constanti nople) ; each heretic is also named ; finally the bishops who have a nimbus have their name inscribed on it. I do not know of another case where a council father's name is inscribed upon his nimbus. However it was common practice to add a text to a picture of a council ; the names of one or more of the bishops present at the council might figure in the inscription ; alternatively they might be inscribed beside the bishops as in the frescoes at Decani (Fig. 2). I give a table of the names accompanying the bishops in the paintings of counc ilsat Saint Sozomenus and four other churches : the Pantocrator, De cani ; Saints Peter and Paul, Tirnovo ; Saint George, Harläu ; the Nativ ity, Arbanasi2. In my lists the occupants of the five patriarchal sees are given first in the following order : Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (Table I). It is at once evident that there were several principles of selection. At Arbanasi only the patriarch of Constantinople (or in the case of the Council of Ephesus the patriarch of Alexandria), at Hârlau only the pope and the patriarch of Constantinople are given. For Tirnovo and Decani the princi ple selection is not immediately obvious ; at Saint Sozomenus a clear of preponderance is given to the patriarchal sees. Now it seems less likely that the artist selected the names himself than that he took them from an already established list. Since however the picture and the names go together, there would probably be a concordance between them. We have seen that pictures of councils are not mere portrait groups ; they also proclaim a theory of authority in the Church. Is the same true for the lists of names ? Can a closer study of the names of the bishops at Saint Sozomenus yield a more precise notion of the ecclesiology which these pictures of the seven councils proclaim ? I begin by asking whether, so far as we can know, the bishops whose names are given at Saint Sozomenus were actually present at the council in question. 2. These churches all figure in my repertoire (cf. preceding note) and a translation of the inscriptions is given in an appendix to the same study : Pantocrator, Decani (number 77) ; Saints Peter and Paul, Tirnovo (number 37) ; Saint George, Harläu (number 61) ; Nativity, Arbanasi (number 39).

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS TABLE I SOZOMENUS Sylvester Metrophanes Alexander Eustathius Macarius Nicolas Spyridon Damasus Nectarius Timothy Meletius Cyril Gregory Amphilocius Celestine Ephesus Cyril John Juvenal Memnon Leo Anatolius Chalcedon Maximus Juvenal Decani Sylvester Metrophanes Alexander Eustathius — TlRNOVO Harlau

191 Arbanasi Alexander — — — . — Cyril —. _ —

I Nicaea

Damasus Nectarius Meletius Cyril — Cyril Juvenal Leo Anatolius Maximus Juvenal Anastasius Stephen !

|

I Cple

Nectarius — —. —

Celestine Cyril Juvenal Memnon Methodius Anatolius Maximus — Eusebius

Anatolius

II Cple

Eutyches Apollinarius Timothy Eutyches Honorius George Cyrus ? — Peter — Epiphanius Macarius Hadrian Tarasius Politianus Theodoritus Elias Agathon George — —

Eutyches — — — George — —

III Cple

II Nicaea

_ Tarasius —

.

.

192

REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

TABLE Π

Germanus

Synodicon Vetus

Photius and Blastares

I Nicaea

Julius Vitus and Vincent vice Julius and Sylvester Alexander vice Metrophanes Alexander Alexander Alexander Alexander Eustathius Eustathius Eustathius Macarius Macarius Macarius Celestine Gregory Timothy Meletius Cyril Celestine Gregory Timothy Meletius Cyril — Cyril (John) Juvenal .— — — — Damasus ( confirmavit ) Gregory and Nectarius Timothy Meletius Cyril (Cyril presided for Celestine) Cyril — Juvenal Paschasinus, etc. vice Leo Anatolius _ Maximus Juvenal

I Cple

Ephesus

Cyril (John) Juvenal Legates vice Leo Anatolius — Maximus Juvenal Legates vice Vigilius Eutyches Apollinarius — — Legates vice Agathon George — — —

Chalcedon

II Cple

Vigilius was preser it in the city but did not attend the council Eutyches Menas and Eutyches Apollinarius Apollinarius Domnus Domnus — Didymus and Evagrius (!) vice Eustochius Theodore etc George Theophanes — vice Agathon

.

III Cple

George Petei r locum tenens — George locum tenens :

II Nicaea

Peter anc Paul vice Hadrian Tarasius Tarasius John and \ I Apollinarius John and Thomas locum, Theodoritus Thomas locum tenentes tenentes ) (Elias

PLANCHE I

t*

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion ''''' * ^ :*

^' **

Fig. 1. — Icon. Saint Catherine's, Mount Sinai (Photograph by courtesy of Professor Kurt Weitzmann and the Ann Arbor Institute).

:

PLANCHE II

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Fig. 2. — Eleousa ikon. Hermitage of Saint Neophytos, Cyprus (Photograph by courtesy of the Dumbarton Oaks Field Committee).

PLANCHE III

Fig. 3. — Eleousa ikon. Kykkos, Cyprus (XVIIIth century engraving).

PLANCHE IV

Fig. 4. — Templon. Hermitage of Saint Neophytos, Cyprus (Photograph by courtesy of the Dumbarton Oaks Field Committee).

PLANCHE V

Fig. 5. — Frontispiece to Book of Proverbs. Arsenal Bible, Paris.

Fig. 6.

Prayer, miniature in Sinaiticus graecus 418.

PLANCHE VI

Fig. 7. — Tempion Saint Peter's Rome (?). Casket, Pola.

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Fig. 8. — Tempion (?). Riha paten, Dumbarton Oaks Collection.

PLANCHE VII

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Fig. 9. — Diptych of Anastasius. Cabinet de Médailles, Paris.

Fig. 10. — Ikon. Saint Catherine's, Mount Sinai.

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Fig. 11. — Chancel. Fresco from the House of the Vetti, Pompeii. Museo Nazionale, Naples,

PLANCHE VIII

Fig. 12. — Council of Ephesus. Church of Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus.

Fig. 13. — First council of Nicaea. Deöani.

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS TABLE m

193

NlLUS Sylvester Alexander Alexander Eustathius Macarius — Damasus Gregory Timothy Meletius Cyril Nectarius Amphilocius Gregory of Nyssa Celestine

Paris 2403 Sylvester Alexander Alexander Eustathius Macarius (Athanasius) Damasus Gregory Timothy Meletius Cyril — — — Celestine Cyril John Juvenal Memnon Leo Anatolius — Maximus Juvenal Vigilius Eutyches Apollinarius Domnus Eutyches Agathon George Peter Theophanes Hadrian Tarasius Politianus Theodoritus Elias

Coislin 120 Sylvester Metrophanes Alexander Eustathius Macarius — (Damasus) Gregory Timothy Meletius Cyril — — — (Celestine) Cyril (John) Juvenal (Memnon) Leo Anatolius — — Juvenal (Vigilius) Eutyches Apollinarius Domnus Eutyches (Agathon) George — Theophanes

I Nicaea

I Cple

Ephesus

Cyril — Juvenal Memnon Leo Anatolius — Maximus Juvenal Vigilius Eutyches Apollinarius Domnus Damian Agathon George (Peter) Theophanes Hadrian Tarasius Politianus Theodoritus Elias

Chalcedon

II Cple

III Cple

II Nicaea

194

REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES First Council of Nicaea3

1. Sylvester of Rome. He does not figure in the original list, where the presbyters Vitus and Vincentius are listed directly after Hosius of Cordoba. However he appears in the list of 318 Fathers (number 160). 2. Metrophanes of Constantinople. In the list of 318 Fathers Alexander is given. Metrophanes, in fact, probably died in June 3144. However, according to Gelasius of Cyzicus, Metrophanes was represented by Alexander at the Council5. 3. Alexander of Alexandria. He figures in the original list (number 2). 4. Eustathius of Antioch. He figures in the original list (number 46). 5. Macarius of Jerusalem. He figures in the original list (number 19). Nicolas of Myra. He does not figure in the original list but was added to the list of 318 Fathers (number 316). Legend attributed to him a particularly ferocious attitude to the Arians6. Spyridon of Trimithonte. He does not figure in the original list but was added to the list of 318 Fathers (number 163). Legend also attributed to him a special role in the council7.

3. There are, of course, no Acts and no genuine list of signatories for the 1st Council of Nicaea. I have used E. Honigmann 's reconstituted original list and the list of 318 names established before 713 ; La liste originale des Pères de Nicée, in Byz 14, 1939, p. 44 and p. 61 respectively) : cf. M. Aubineau, Les 318 serviteurs d'Abraham et le nombre de Pères au concile de Nicée, in RHC 61, 1966, p. 5-43, and H. Chadwick, ibid., p. 808-811. 4. S. Vailhé, Constantinople (Eglise de) in DTC 3, 1318. 5. Gelasius Cyzicenus, Historia Concilii Niceni II. 36 : PG 85, 1229. 6. G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos, II, Leipzig 1917, p. 301. 7. Theodore of Paphos, Vie de saint Spyridon, edited by P. Van den Ven, La légende de saint Spyridon, évêque de Trimithonte, Louvain 1953, p. 28.

ch. walter : council fathers at saint sozomenus First Council of Constantinople8

195

1. Damasus of Rome. Theodoret knew that he was not present at the council, since he gives an account of the synodical letter which was addressed to him. 2. Nectarius of Constantinople. He figures in the accounts of both Theodoret and Socrates. 3. Timothy of Alexandria. Socrates gives his name. 4. Meletius of Antioch. Socrates gives his name ; Theodoret gives that of his successor Flavian. 5. Cyril of Jerusalem. Both Theodoret and Socrates give his name. Gregory of Nazianzen. He has told himself in his parting Homily how he came to resign from the see of Constantinople during the council. His name is also given by Socrates. Amphilocius of Iconium. Socrates gives his name. Council of Ephesus9 1. Celestine of Rome. In the Acts there is no question of his presence ; the council, in fact, addressed a relatio to him10. 2. No bishop for Constantinople. Nestorius was, of course, on trial. 3. Cyril of Alexandria. He figures at the head of two lists of the bishops present11. 8. There are, again, no Acts for the 1st Council of Constantinople. I have used the accounts of Theodoret {Historia Ecclesiastica V 9 : PG 82, 1212-17) and of Socrates (Historia Ecclesiastica V. 8 ; PG 67, 576-81) : cf. N.Q. King, The 150 Holy Fathers of the Council of Constantinople, 381 A.D. : some notes on the Bishopslists, in Studia Patristica I (= Texte und Untersuchungen 63), Berlin 1957, p. 635-641. 9. Acta conciliorum œcumenicorum, edited by E. Schwartz, Berlin 1927, I i 2 and I.i.3. 10. Ibid., I i 3, p. 5. 11. Ibid., I i 2, p. 3 and p. 55.

196

REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

4. John of Antioch. As head of the dissident party which supported Nestorius he does not figure in the lists of signatories. However the Acts include a letter to the emperor signed by him12. 5. Juvenal of Jerusalem. He figures second after Cyril in both lists of bishops present13. Memnon of Ephesus. He figures third in one list and fifth in the other14. Council of Chalcedon15 1. Leo of Rome. Three delegates sign the definition in the name of Leo of Rome. 2. Anatolius of Constantinople. His name figures next after those of the Roman delegates. 3. No bishop for Alexandria. Dioscurus was, of course, on trial. 4. Maximus of Antioch. His name figures next after that of Anatolius. 5. Juvenal of Jerusalem. He had been among the dissident bishops at the Robber Synod of Ephesus. For this reason his name is only 221st in the list of signatories. Second Council of Constantinople The names are entirely obliterated.

12. Ibid., I i 3, p. 26. 13 Ibid., I i 2, p. 3 and p. 55. 14. Ibid. 15. Acta conciliorum cecumenicorum, edited by E. Schwartz, Berlin 1933, II i 2, p. 34 et seq. V. Laurent, Le nombre des Pères au concile de Chalcédoine, 451, dans Bulletin de la section historique de Γ Académie roumaine 26, 1945, p. 33-46.

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS Third Council of Constantinople1 6 1. Honor ius of Rome.

197

Honorius was in fact condemned at this council, at which Agathon of Rome was represented by John bishop of Porto. 2. George (Ge..r..) of Constantinople. He figures in the list of those who signed the definition. 3. Cyrus (Kiros) of Alexandria. Peter figures in the list of those who signed the definition. Cyrus (pat riarch 630/1-643/4) was, like Honorius, condemned at this council. The artist has evidently in each case confused the names in the list of heretics with those in the list of bishops. This serves to emphasize that what inte rested him was the name of the patriarchal see and not that of the occupant. 4. ? Theophanes figures in the list of signatories as patriarch of Antioch. 5. ? George signed the definition as delegate for the see of Jerusalem, vacant at the time. Second Council of Nicaea1 7 1. Hadrian of Rome. In the Acts of the Council two delegates are noted as representing pope Hadrian. 2. Tarasius of Constantinople. Tarasius is included in the list of those who signed the definition. 3. Politianus of Alexandria. According to the Acts John and Thomas represented the sees of Alexand ria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Ignatius the Deacon, however, gives the name of the patriarch of Alexandria as Politianus in his Life of Tarasius18.

16. Mansi 11, 683 (heretics condemned) and 731 (signatories of the definition). 17. Mansi 13, 731, et seq. 18. Ignatius the Deacon, Life of Tarasius, in Acta societatis scientiarum Fennicae 17, 1891, p. 404-5 (edited by I.A. Heikel) ; PG 98, 1398-9.

198

REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

4. Theodoritus of Antioch. Ignatius the Deacon appears again to be the source for this name. 5. Elias of Jerusalem. Ignatius the Deacon appears again to be the source for this name. Although one would naturally turn first to the Acts of a council to establish nowadays what were the names of the bishops present, this does not seem to have been the case with the person responsible for compiling the list of names used at Saint Sozomenus. For the first two councils in any case the Acts were not available. We find therefore that there has been used for the first Council of Nicaea a model ultimately dependent on the late list in which had been included names taken from hagiographical sources, while Metrophanes seems to come from an independent chronicle source. For the councils for which the Acts were available no distinction has been made between the presence or absence of a representative of the see of Rome, the pope is named each time. At the council of Ephesus John of Antioch is on an equal footing with the other patriarchs, while the Acts have been supplemented for the second Council of Nicaea from the Life of Tarasius. Only in the case of patriarchs actually condemned at a council — Nestorius at Ephesus and Dioscurus at Chalcedon — is a name actually omitted. Ironically the patriarchs who first figured in an inscription concerning a general council were those who had been condemned as heretics. The inscriptions in the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem give the name of the emperor and of the principal heretics condemned, but only the number of orthodox bishops present19. We have here the first « state » of an inscrip tion concerning a general council. Dr Stern has reconstituted the text and shown it to be the same as that used in a résumé of the general councils placed at the head of a collection of conciliar canons. There are, in fact, numerous short résumés of the first general councils, some of which must date back at least to the early sixth century. One of the most ancient must be that which figures in the account of the institution of the commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon20. Others occur in

19. H. Stern, Les représentations des conciles dans l'église de la Nativité à Bethléem, deuxième partie : les inscriptions, in Byz 13, 1938, p. 415, et seq. Cf. my repertoire, number 36 : op. cit., p. 75-77. The manuscript in question is a XVth century codex (Bibliothèque Nationale, fonds arabe 236) ; some of the textes are also to be found in a XHIth century manuscript, Vaticanus arab. 154 ; cf. Stern, p. 417-9. 20. Mansi 8, 1059.

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS

199

menologia, chronicles and professions of faith. On account of the fact that it gives only the first four councils the résumé to be found in Parisinus graecus 1788, written in 1440, may be a copy of an early text21. Another point in favour of its early date is the fact that it does not give any names of bishops. For it would seem to be a characteristic of the first « state » that the number of bishops was given but no names. I do not propose to discuss the question of the different résumés and their transmission. Not only is it too vast a question but also it seems irrelevant to my present purpose. There is some evidence for the view that the author or copyist of a résumé took his text from one source and his list of names from another22. It seems likely, in fact, that the accounts of the councils which include names simply adapted and added to those which did not. This would perhaps explain why the order of names sometimes varies. Among the résumés of councils which include a list of names of bishops there are some which seem more erudite than others. I am thinking parti cularly of Germanus of Constantinople's treatise on heresies and synods, the Synodicon Vetus, Photius's letter to Michael of Bulgaria and Blastares' Syntagma22'. The list of names given by Blastares is, in fact, the same as

21. For these different accounts, cf. the chapter «Inscriptions conciliaires» in my Iconographie des conciles, p. 151-153. For the many unpublished résumés, cf. the useful list drawn up by F. Dvornik, Unpublished Anonymous Greek Treatises on the Councils (The Photian Schism, History and Legend, Cambridge 1948, Appendix III, p. 452-4). This list should be supplemented by reference to that of V. BeneSevic (Monumenta vaticana ad ius canonicum pertinentia, in Studi Bizantini, II, 1927, p. 169, et seq.), who has inter esting observations to make about the different calculations of the number of years between each council. Dvornik was perhaps a little pessimistic in supposing that only one of these treatises had been published (op. cit., p. 452). Cf. the treatise of PseudoCodinus (edited by Th. Preger, Scriptores originum constantinopolitanarum, II, Leipzig 1907, p. 210-3) ; Vaticanus graecus 723, f. 99v-100 (edited by BeneSevic, art. cit., p. 169-70), Bruxellensis 11376, f. 170-3 (edited by F. Cumont, Anecdota Bruxellensia, Chroniques byzantines du MS 11376, in Recueil de travaux de la Faculté de Philosophie de V Université de Gand, fascicule 10, 1894). Dvornik has since then himself published Parisinus graecus 1712, f. 4-5v (Greek Uniats and the number of Oecumenical Councils, in Studi e Testi, 232 [= Mélanges Eugène Tisseront, II, Orient Chrétien, i], p. 96-101). Parisinus graecus 2403, f. 172M73, will be found in an appendix to this article. 22. For example the résumé to be found in Parisinus graecus 1084, f. 199-205 (Xlth century), is, as Dvornik says (op. cit., p. 454), closely related to that published by Justel (C. Justel and G. Voell, Bibliotheca juris canonici veteris, Paris 1661, II, p. 1161 ; G.A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Syntagma, Athens 1852, I, p. 370), but a different list of names is given for the four first councils. 23. Germanus of Constantinople, De haeresibus et synodis, edited by Rhalles and Potles (cf. note 22), p. 339 ; PG 98, 39. Germanus was patriarch 715-730. Synodicon Vetus (= Synodicon of Pappus), edited by Justel and Voell (cf. note 22), II, p. 1166 ;

200

REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

that given by Photius. In the plan I list only the occupants or delegates of the five patriarchal sees (Table II). Saint Germanus incorporates the six first general councils in his account of other heresies and the synods convoked to deal with them. He was aware that legates represented the pope at Chalcedon and at the second and third Councils of Constantinople. But at the third Council of Constant inople gives only the representatives of that city and of Rome. This was, he in fact, one possible formula24. He was also aware that John of Antioch was a dissident bishop at Ephesus. Curiously he gives Celestine as pope at the first Council of Constantinople and Julius (337-352) at the first Council of Nicaea. He also holds to the tradition of Gelasius Cyzicenus with regard to Metrophanes. The Synodicon Vetus gives no pope at any council, indicating his repre sentatives at the first and second Councils of Nicaea and at the second and third of Constantinople. The author also indicates that John of Antioch was a dissident bishop at Ephesus. He had not access to a list of the bishops at the Council of Chalcedon, nor has he gone beyond the information given by the Acts of the second Council of Nicaea with regard to the sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Photius's list is, as one would have expected, the most erudite. Nevert heless he gives Menas (died 552) as well as Eutyches as patriarch of Cons tantinople at the time of the fifth council, while at the sixth council he omits the name of Theophanes of Antioch, who figures in the Acts. However his most curious error occurs at the fifth council. According to the Acts, Eustochius of Jerusalem was represented by Stephen, George and Damian. But according to Photius he was represented by Didymus and Evagrius. Since Photius well knew that these two Origenists were condemned at that very council, this is an evident slip. Blastares, however, sedulously

edited J.A. Fabricius and G.C. Harles, Bibliotheca graeca, XII, Hamburg 1809, p. 360-412. It is attributed to partisans of Ignatius and was therefore presumably compiled in the late IXth century (cf. Dvornik, op. cit., p. 57 ; H.G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, Munich 1959, p. 598). There exists, apparently, a better unpublished version in Sinaïticus graecus 482 (1 117), f. 357V-365V (XIVth century). Cf. F. Dvornik, The Patriarch Photius in the Light of Recent Research, in Berichte zum XL internationalen-byzantinisten Kongress, Munich 1958, p. 34, note 119. Photius, Letter to Prince Michael of Bulgaria, edited by Rhalles and Potles, I, p. 375 ; PG 102, 632. Matthew Blastares, Syntagma : PG 144, 953, dating from about 1335. 24. For example the Synodicon of Justel (cf. note 22) ; Paris, gr. 1712, f. 4-5 v(second and fifth councils) ; Paris, gr. 1336, f. 5-8v (first and second councils) ; Paris, suppl. gr. 78, f. 235v-236 (all the councils) ; Paris, gr. 1084, f. 199-205 (fifth and sixth councils).

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS

201

copies it in his text25. I take as criteria of an « erudite » list of names the mention of delegates if the occupant of a see was not present in person and an indication that John of Ephesus, although present at the Council of Ephesus, was a dissident bishop. The first of these characteristics may be noted in a seventeenth century manuscript, Paris, suppl. gr. 78, f. 235v-236. Only the representatives of Rome and Constantinople are given. In the case of Rome the pope's delegates are specified at the first, fourth, sixth and seventh councils. Both characteristics are present in the tenth century codex Coislin 120, f. 28-31. Here it is specified that the popes were represented by delegates at all the first six councils except the first and fourth, where they are mentioned as if they had been present in person. A « popular » list, on the other hand, will ignore these distinctions. Nilus of Rhodes gives such a list in his synodicon26 ; another example can be found in Paris, gr. 2403, a thirteenth century manuscript27. I give a list of the names in these two texts beside the more « erudite » one in Coislin 120 (Table III). So far as the patriarchs are concerned the synodicon of Nilus and Parisinus graecus 2403 reach a near consensus. In fact they only differ in two parti culars : Nilus gives Damian, who was actually a delegate, as patriarch of Jerusalem at the second Council of Constantinople, whereas Parisinus graecus 2403 correctly specifies Eutyches28. Nilus also exceptionally has

25. Didymus and Evagrius are mentioned as heretics in the same text. For the correct names of Theophanes of Antioch's representatives, cf. the Acts (Mansi 9, 387) : cf. Ε. Chrysos, Die Bischofslisten des V. ökumenischen Konzils, Bonn 1966. 26. Nilus of Rhodes, De sanctis et œcumenicis synodis enarratio synoptica, edited by Justel and Voell, II, p. 1 1 53 ; edited by Rhalles and Potles, I, p. 389. Nilus was Metrop olitan of Rhodes, 1354-69 (cf. K. Krumbacher Geschichte des byzantinischen Literatur, Munich 1897, p. 560). Dvornik continues to maintain, without advancing any new argument in favour of his contention, that the prototype for this treatise is that in a XVth century manuscript in the British Museum, Arundel 528, attributed to the patriarch Euthymius (907-912) ; cf. art. cit. (note 21), p. 94, note 5. It is regrettable that he makes no allusion there to the cogent arguments advanced by the late Père Venance Grumel for attributing the treatise in Arundel 528 rather to Euthymius II, patriarch from 1410-1416 : contemporaneity of the manuscript and the patriarch, inference from the phrase του της μακαρίας λήξεως άγιωτάτου πατριάρχου that the patriarch was recently dead, anti-Latin tone of the Arundel treatise more consonant with circumstances in the XVth than the Xth century (Cf. Diskussionsbeiträge zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinistenkongress, Munich 1958, p. 54). If Père Grumel was right, the treatise of Euthymius would depend from that of Nilus and not vice versa. 27. Cf. Appendix. It will be noted that once, at the first council, a substitute is specified in this manuscript. 28. Mansi 9, 387.

202

REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

reserves about Peter and mentions that he was the representative of Alexand ria, the patriarch, at the third Council of Constantinople. One parti not cular detail relates the two lists : they give the name of the patriarch of Alexandria at the time of the second Council of Nicaea as Politianus as does Ignatius the Deacon, whereas Photius calls him Apollinarius. We may easily discern the ecclesiology underlying these lists. The names generally have a symbolical rather than an empirical value. They stand for the patriarcal sees rather than attest to the actual presence at the council of the occupant. It is not the place here to dwell upon the possible nuances of which the doctrine of the Pentarchy is capable29. For the compilers of these lists the nuances had little importance, with one exception : they evidently held that, if one or more of the patriarchs is dissident, the others may condemn him and, without his concurrence, define or confirm the doctrine of the Church. The presentation of the doctrine of the Pentarchy which conforms most closely to that which inspired these lists is perhaps that of Baanes at the fourth Council of Constantinople : Posuit Deus ecclesiam suam in quinque patriarchiis et definivit in evangeliis suis ut nunquam aliquando penitus décidant, eo quod capita ecclesiae sint etenim illud quod dicitur : et postea inferi non praevalebunt adversus earn. Hoc denuntiat, quando duo ceciderint, currunt ad tria ; cum tria ceciderint currunt ad duo...30 If we turn back to the pictures, we can now determine more clearly the relationship between their inscriptions and the lists of names in treatises on the councils. At Arbanasi only one name is given, generally that of the patriarch of Constantinople. This choice corresponds to the list in Parisinus graecus 1375, f. 9-10v, copied in 1540. At Harläu the pope and the patriarch of Constantinople are specified. This as we have seen is a fairly common choice. In one case {Parisinus suppl. gr. 78), we find the « erudite » form. But inscriptions served a popular rather than an erudite purpose. Conseq uently, if the list of names had not already been simplified, the artist would have to undertake this himself. He could suppress the name of an absent patriarch, substitute the name of his delegate, or give his name as if he had actually been present. Various other considerations might affect his choice of names, which

29. Cf. R. Vancourt, Patriarcats, DTC 11, 2269, et seq. 30. Mansi 16, 140-1. Cf. F. Dvornik, Byzance et la primauté romaine, Paris 1964, p. 91 ; D. Stiernon, Constantinople IV, Paris 1967, p. 127-8.

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS

203

are not always easy to determine. At the council of Ephesus the Tirnovo artist gives only the names of Cyril and Juvenal. They were, in fact, the only two orthodox patriarchs present at the council. In Pseudo-Codinus's list similarly only two patriarchs are given at this council. But at the council of Chalcedon the Tirnovo artist includes Leo, who was absent, among the patriarchs as well as Anastasius of Thessalonika, who, according to the Acts, was represented by a delegate. Here, then, no coherent pattern is evident. At Decani only four patriarchs are given at the first two councils. But here, no doubt, an aesthetic consideration came into play. The artist used for the six councils represented in this church a schema to be found in many pictures of councils which recommended itself for its symmetry. Two patriarchs are placed each side of the emperor. The artist therefore omits, no doubt arbitrarily, the names of the patriarch of Jerusalem at the first and of that of Alexandria at the second council. At Ephesus he omits the heretic Nestorius and the dissident John, filling the gap with the name of Memnon of Ephesus. His names here are therefore the same as those given by Photius and Nilus. But for the next three councils there are diffi culties. Not only are names introduced which do not occur in the Acts but also there is no evident criterion for their choice. It therefore becomes all the more interesting that alone in the case of Saint Sozomenus there should be a concordance between the names and the iconographical schema, giving a coherent doctrinal sense to the frescoes. Whereas it was a fairly common practice to attribute a halo to the bishop seated in the first row of council fathers but not to those behind, nowhere else does the inscription of the name upon the halo give a precise meaning to this practice. The occasional addition of other bishops traditionally renowned for their part in the council proceedings does not detract from the general formula. Using a popular list, where the patriarch's name is a symbol of his see rather than an attestation to his presence at the council, the Cypriot artist presents the general councils as a modality of the Pentarchy. The ecclesiological situation of Cyprus had always been delicate. Having early asserted its independence of Antioch, the Cypriot church nevertheless made from time to time tentative overtures to Constantinople. At the time when these frescoes were executed the island was a Venetian possession and subject to Latin domination31. Both tradition, therefore, and the

31 .

A. Palmieri, Chypre (Eglise de), DTC 11, 2424, et seq.

204

REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

contemporary situation would have made the notion of the Pentarchy particularly acceptable in Cyprus. Unfortunately, however, no Cypriot synodicon has, so far as I know, been identified. But such a document — together with the synodicon of Orthodoxy, as these frescoes are followed by a picture of the Restoration of Images — would seem to be one proxi mate source of the artist's inspiration. APPENDIX Parisinus graecus 2403, f. 172M73. This brief treatise concerning the seven ecumenical councils is incongruously placed in a XHIth century manuscript consisting otherwise of medical and literary works. The text was copied by Père Jean Darrouzès. That the names of the patriarchs are simply added after that of the emperor without any serious attempt to integrate them into the sentence is perhaps further evidence in favour of my hypothesis that the tradition of the text and that of the names are to be studied separately. Text "j" Ή πρώτη σύνοδος γέγονεν εν Νικαία κατά του 'Αρείου, εν ή εξετέθη και τό άγιον σύμβολον μέχρι του και τό Πνεύμα τό άγιον, επί της βασιλείας του μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου, πάπα 'Ρώμης Σιλβέστρου, Κωνσταντινου πόλεως 'Αλεξάνδρου, 'Αντιοχείας Ευσταθίου, 'Αλεξάνδρου 'Αλεξανδρείας, αντί του τοιούτου ό μέγας 'Αθανάσιος, 'Ιεροσολύμων Μακάριος j" f Ή δευτέρα σύνοδος εν Κωνσταντινουπόλει κατά Μακεδονίου, τελειώσασα τό άγιον σύμβολον της ομοουσίου και άσυγχύτου Τριάδος έπί βασιλείας του μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου, πάπα 'Ρώμης Δαμάσου, Κωνσταντι νουπόλεως Γρηγορίου του θεολόγου, 'Αντιοχείας Μελετίου, 'Ιεροσολύμων Κυρίλλου, 'Αλεξανδρείας Τιμοθέου f f Ή τρίτη εν Έφέσω κατά Νεστορίου, έπί βασιλείας Θεοδοσίου του μικρού (f. 173), πάπα 'Ρώμης Κελεστίνου, 'Αλεξανδρείας Κυρίλλου, 'Αντιοχείας 'Ιωάννου, 'Ιεροσολύμων Ίουβενάλιος, 'Εφέσου Μέμνων f f Ή τετάρτη κατά Διοσκόρου, έπί βασιλείας Μαρκιανου, πάπα 'Ρώμης Λέοντος, Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Άνατολίου, 'Αντιοχείας Μαξίμου, 'Ιεροσ ολύμων Ίουβενάλιος f f eH πέμπτη κατά Ώριγένους, Εύαγρίου και Διδύμου, έπί βασιλείας 'Ιουστινιανού του μεγάλου, πάπα 'Ρώμης Βιγιλίου, 'Αντιοχείας Δόμνου, 'Ιεροσολύμων Ευτυχίου, Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Ευτυχίου, Άπολιναρίου 'Αλεξανδρείας f

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS

205

■J" Ή έκτη εν Κωνσταντινουπόλει κατά των Μονοθελητών, επί βασιλείας Κωνσταντίνου του Πωγωνάτου, πάπα 'Ρώμης 'Αγάθωνος, Κωνσταντινου πόλεως Γεωργίου, 'Αλεξανδρείας Πέτρου, 'Αντιοχείας Θεοφάνους f f Ή έβδομη εν Νικαία κατά των Είκονομάχων, επί βασιλείας Κωνσταντίν ου και Ειρήνης της μητρός αύτοΰ, πάπα 'Ρώμης 'Αδριανού, 'Αλεξανδρείας Πολιτιανοΰ, Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Ταρασίου, 'Αντιοχείας Θεοδωρίτου, 'Ιεροσολύμων 'Ηλία "J" Τοις μή έμμένουσι γοϋν ταΐς τοιαύταις και άγίαις και οίκου μεν ικαϊς επτά συνόδοις, εν αις εξετέθη και έκυρώθη και έστέρχθη το άγιον σύμβολον της ζωοποιού, ομοουσίου, της και αδιαιρέτου και άσυγχύτου Τριάδος, άλλ'έθέλουσι προσθεΐναί τι ή έκλεϊψαι, έστω ανάθεμα. Translation The first council took place in Nicaea against Arius. There the Holy Symbol was determined up to « And in the Holy Spirit » in the reign of the great Constantine, under Silvester pope of Rome, Alexander of Constant inople, Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria — in the place of this last the great Athanasius — (and) Macarius of Jerusalem. The second council (took place) in Constantinople against Macedonius. It terminated the Holy Symbol of the consubstantial and unconfused Trinity in the reign of the great Theodosius, under Damasus pope of Rome, Gregory the Theologian of Constantinople, Meletius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Timothy of Alexandria. The third (council took place) in Ephesus against Nestorius in the reign of Theodosius the Less, under Celestine pope of Rome, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem32, Memnon of Ephesus. The fourth (council took place) against Dioscurus in the reign of Marcian, under Leo pope of Rome, Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem. The fifth (council took place) in Constantinople against Origen, Evagrius and Didymus in the reign of Justinian the Great, under Vigilius pope of Rome, Domnus of Antioch, Eutyches of Jerusalem, Eutyches of Constanti nople, Apollinarius of Alexandria. The sixth (council took place) in Constantinople against the Monothelites in the reign of Constantine Pogonatus, under Agathon pope of Rome, 32. At this council and the next the name of Juvenal appears in the Nominative instead of the Genitive case.

206

REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

George of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Theophanes of Antioch. The seventh (council took place) in Nicaea against the Iconoclasts in the reign of Constantine and Irene his mother, under Hadrian pope of Rome, Politian of Alexandria, Tarasius of Constantinople, Theodoritus of Antioch, Elias of Jerusalem. To those, therefore, who do not abide by these same holy and ecumenical councils, at which was promulgated, confirmed and approved the Holy Symbol of the lifegiving and consubstantial, the indivisible and unconfused Trinity, but wish to add or subtract anything, let there be anathema.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->