Johns Hopkins University Press
  • Hagiographic History:Reading and Writing Holiness in the Ecclesiastical History of Anonymous Cyzicenus

The late fifth-century Ecclesiastical History of Anonymous Cyzicenus (formerly attributed to a fictitious "Gelasius of Cyzicus") treats the Council of Nicaea from a pro-Chalcedonian perspective, containing far more doctrinal discussion and spiritual admonition than is usual for the genre. This article demonstrates how the author incorporates numerous hagiographic elements into his ecclesiastical history and argues that the resultant text, a composite "hagiographic history," transformed historical inquiry into a means of effecting piety through ascetic modes of reading and writing. I suggest that the author pursued this ascetic approach to ecclesiastical history in part because he was likely a member of a Bithynian monastic community. In making his history of Nicaea hagiographic, the author makes it more scriptural, peppering the text with biblical allusions, insinuating his history's divine inspiration, and drawing a direct line between the events of the New Testament, the Council of Nicaea, and the composition of his own history. Ecclesiastical history, like hagiography, becomes quasi-scriptural: writing is done in imitation of the saints who wrote scripture and meditation upon the text bears spiritual fruit. Nicaea's treatment as both history and hagiography also illustrates the developing sacralization of the Council in the aftermath of mid fifth-century theological controversies.

One might expect the anonymous fifth-century Ecclesiastical History formerly attributed to "Gelasius of Cyzicus" to begin as many other ecclesiastical histories do: with a summary of the author's researches, an appeal to [End Page 106] the work's patron, or an explanation of the benefits of studying the past.1 Instead, the Proemium begins with a protracted scene of meditative reading. The anonymous author explains how

The things that happened in that holy and great and world-wide synod of bishops gathered in Nicaea … I read while still in my father's house, having discovered these things written down in an exceedingly old book, on parchments containing all matters in uninterrupted sequence.2

The author proceeds to describe the contents of this book at length, to identify the book's originator, Dalmatius, bishop of Cyzicus (bishop from before 431 to before 449 ce), and to relate his own interactions with it, which include reading it out loud, marking significant passages, and trying to memorize large portions of it.3 This long account of meditative reading ends with an exclamation of spiritual joy that echoes the words of the Psalmist: "as honey in my throat are your utterances, beyond honey in my mouth."4 Only after this long scene of meditative reading does the historian turn to the more essential details of his history, narrating how he debated Eutychian clerics who claimed to be the true heirs of Nicaea, which spurred the author's own researches into Nicaea in order to recreate, as far as he was able, the "holy" book he had previously read. The Ecclesiastical History is the result of these researches: a three-book ecclesiastical history on the Council of Nicaea and its immediate aftermath.

This unusual introduction to an ecclesiastical history might be little more than an interesting footnote if it did not also tell us something larger about the interconnectivity of reading, writing, and holiness in late ancient Christianity and the sacralization of the Council of Nicaea after the theological debates of the mid-fifth century. After all, there is no indication that the Ecclesiastical History was widely read or influential after its initial composition, though it later grew in popularity in Byzantium and afterwards.5 As a product of its own time, however, the Ecclesiastical History has a great deal to teach us about key intellectual changes of the mid- to late fifth century. The author's description of debates with "Eutychian heretics" as well as his explicit reference to [End Page 107] Basiliscus's revolt (475 to 476 ce) firmly locate the work within the contentious theological debates in the aftermath of Chalcedon (451 ce). As both parties appealed to the authority of the Council of Nicaea, the event itself became sacralized; that is to say, it underwent a process whereby it came to be seen not just as authoritative but as holy and an object of pious devotion. At the same time, over the course of the fifth century, a new way of understanding reading and writing developed in certain (largely monastic) Christian circles. Especially in the emerging Christian genre of hagiography, reading and writing were transformed into technologies of piety that could aid practitioners in their personal askēsis. In this environment, the anonymous author of the Ecclesiastical History shifts focus from the traditional purviews of ancient historical writing, including ecclesiastical histories, to the spiritual technologies of reading and writing and the pious meditation of the holy event of Nicaea. In so doing, he also alters what it means to write an ecclesiastical history.

The Ecclesiastical History is therefore best understood as a composite text, what I call a "hagiographic history," that incorporates emerging hagiographic discourses surrounding the ascetic potential of reading and writing with historiographic claims about an accurate depiction of the increasingly important event of the Council of Nicaea. The anonymous author therefore begins with a scene of meditative reading over an account of Nicaea, foregrounding not only the subject under historiographical investigation but also the centrality of pious interaction with texts that will emerge as a key concern throughout the Ecclesiastical History. The author expected his history to be able to effect piety in readers who approached the text meditatively, as the author approached the "holy" book that opens the Proemium. The author also figured the composition of this book as a personal act of piety, with authorship acting as a form of askēsis. The author's own religious lifestyle may have motivated the composition of a hagiographic history. While it has not been fully explored before, there is ample evidence that at the time of writing Anonymous Cyzicenus was a monk living in Bithynia.6 Inspired by his own reading of the proceedings of Nicaea, this monk from Cyzicus created a hagiographic history as part of his own monastic askēsis to effect piety in himself through writing and in later audiences through reading.

Confounding Generic Distinctions: Ecclesiastical History and Hagiography in Late Antiquity

The very act of creating an ecclesiastical history in a hagiographic mode invites comparison between the form and function of the two genres in Late [End Page 108] Antiquity. While ecclesiastical histories were concerned with creating a corporate and institutional identity for the Church, the genre is more focused on informing rather than edifying readers.7 As in non-Christian ancient histories, both human and divine causation are evoked, and miracles largely serve to demonstrate the charisma of the current emperor.8 Authorial presentation is focused on following past historians in their factual accuracy rather than holy figures in their piety.9 Furthermore, ecclesiastical histories generally eschew theological speculation and seldom quote scripture.10 By contrast, hagiography functions, in Claudia Rapp's formulation, as "scripture writ small"—that is, as narrative stories of holy figures able to impart holiness to their writers, readers, and listeners, especially through meditative reading and recopying (a common monastic practice).11 By authoring hagiographic works, the monastic author provided an exemplum or an object for imitatio as a means of spiritual development for future readers.12 Furthermore, authorship became a way to produce piety through humility. Derek Krueger has analyzed how, starting in the fifth century, hagiographic writers developed a pattern of authorship modeled on current understandings of scripture, thereby creating a Christian mode of authorship divorced from secular models of self-aggrandizement.13 A hagiographic author might, for example, leave his work anonymous in imitation of the evangelists or weave biblical citations into his text to create a scriptural self-presentation.14 Hagiography and ecclesiastical history, therefore, appear to be two genres separate in form and function. In fact, in a later piece, Kreuger argued that these techniques of "writing and holiness" were largely confined to saints' lives and were not to be found in ecclesiastical histories.15

Anonymous Cyzicenus's Ecclesiastical History confounds these generic distinctions. The text has always stood out as an oddity among ecclesiastical histories. Warren Treadgold, for example, criticized the work for being "concerned more with theology than with history."16 Pierre Nautin argued that the [End Page 109] text was not an ecclesiastical history but instead a "Life of Constantine" in disguise.17 This characterization of the text seems surprising, given that the author explicitly refers to hist text as an ecclesiastical history on eight separate occasions and clearly aligns himself with previous writers in the genre such as Eusebius and Theodoret.18 In a sense, though, both comments are quite perceptive: a bios is a genre more generally accommodating of hagiographic tropes and the text is overly concerned with theology. But it is so because the author understood the authorship and subsequent reading of his history to be a means of effecting piety. In this way, the Ecclesiastical History is a new type of text, one that demonstrates the influence of the author's monastic lifestyle on his work as well as the current religio-political struggles he participated in. And, more than the exception that proves the rule, the Ecclesiastical History appears to be merely the earliest in a series of ecclesiastical histories with differing degrees of hagiographic inflections.

Introducing a Monk from Cyzicus

The Ecclesiastical History of Anonymous Cyzicenus treats the Council of Nicaea in three books of uneven length, each of which focuses on a different aspect of this history: the rise of Constantine, the Council of Nicaea proper (by far the longest book), and the immediate aftermath of the Council. The majority of the history is a bricolage of earlier texts on Nicaea, such as the works of previous ecclesiastical historians, the few conciliar documents to survive from Nicaea, and post-Nicene re-imaginings of the Council.19 Most of these texts survive in more well-known sources, but a few—such as the purported Nicene "church regulations" (2.31) and the "Dispute with Phaedo," a lengthy, scripture-filled debate between an Arian "philosopher" and the most [End Page 110] famous Nicene fathers (2.14–24)—survive only in the Ecclesiastical History. The final sections of Book Three are lost, but thanks to a summary in Photius's Bibliotheca (Cod. 88), we know that the text ended with the death of Arius and the death and baptism of Constantine by an orthodox, not Arian, cleric. The general Proemium that prefaces the history situates the author's historical enterprise and, as the longest continuous passage written in the author's own voice, affords us the best glimpse of the author's goals and methods, as well as the most explicit evidence of his life and times.

Everything we know about the author of the Ecclesiastical History derives from the details included in the general Proemium.20 While the author never names himself in the surviving text, in the Proemium he provides limited biographical details: the author's father was a priest at Cyzicus in Hellespontus under Dalmatius, a signatory of the Council of Ephesus (431 ce; Proem. 2); during the revolt of Basiliscus the author moved to an unknown location in the neighboring province of Bithynia (Proem. 9) where he debated with a group of Eutychians who asserted their status as legitimate heirs of Nicaea (Proem. 10–12). This last experience convinced the author of the necessity of writing the Ecclesiastical History in order to provide an "accurate" (that is, proto-Chalcedonian) account of the first ecumenical council. In doing so, the author aims to essentially recreate a book about Nicaea that was either composed or commissioned by Dalmatius, bishop of Cyzicus, the same book the author dwelt on at length at the beginning of the Proemium. Such details may initially seem unpromising in prosopographical terms. But upon closer inspection, four generally neglected details in the Proemium, when taken together, suggest that the author was a monk.

The first of these details is the peculiar circumlocution the author uses when speaking of his biological parent. The author explains that he had read Dalmatius's account of Nicaea because the book "came into the possession of the master of our former house, I mean my father according to the flesh."21 More than simply a stilted periphrasis, the author's language suggests the monastic discourse of the "spiritual father," or abbot, who acts as a second father in addition to the author's father "according to the flesh." In fact, several late antique monastic sources use exactly this phrasing when describing ascetics' biological parents. Barsanuphius and John, for instance, responded to a letter from a distraught ascetic whose "father according to the flesh always br[ought him] into conversation about worldly things that do not have spiritual [End Page 111] benefit."22 John Moschus tells of a monk from the Egyptian Thebaid whose "father according to the flesh" was also his "newer brother" in the monastery.23 The historian's use of this ascetically tinged phrase suggests a monastic profession. Instead of living in his "former house" with his "father according to the flesh," the author now lives in a new home, perhaps a cenobitic monastic house, with a new, spiritual, father who guides his ascetic practice.

The second indication of the author's probable monastic profession involves his description of his move from Hellespontus to Bithynia. After his description of reading Dalmatius's book on the Council of Nicaea in the house of his "father according to the flesh," the author tells us that "after some time," specifically during Basiliscus's revolt in 475 to 476, "I arrived here, I mean in the province of Bithynia, according to the goodwill of God."24 Again the author's terminology is significant. The Greek word used here, eudokia, shades in meaning from ideas of pleasure and well-wishing into that of desire and consent. It implies God had a plan for the author in his transfer to Bithynia, suggesting a religious vocation. Indeed, later monastic sources use this exact phrase to describe religious lifestyle changes. A letter of Barsanuphius and John features Abba John telling the recently made abbot Aelianus that the latter's investiture happened "according to the goodwill (eudokia) of God."25 In one discourse Dorotheus of Gaza explains the significance of the "good will of God" by asserting that there are two ways in which God's will is exercised on earth: "according to assent" (κατὰ συγχώρησιν) or "according to goodwill" (κατ' εὐδοκίαν). The first category includes things that God allows to happen to chastise and improve humans but which should not be desired by humans themselves, "such things as famine, pestilence, drought, diseases, and wars." The second category includes "all things arising from [God's] injunctions: loving one another, suffering together, giving alms, and as many like things," presumably, including taking ascetic vows.26 In monastic discourse of the time, "by the goodwill of God" implied religious actions [End Page 112] made by individuals for their own spiritual benefit. Taken with the monastically tinged mention of a "father according to the flesh," the author's use of "goodwill of god" language suggests that the author's spiritual decision was to join a monastery.

The third indication is the location from which the author was writing. By the late fifth century, Bithynia was already known as a center of monasticism, largely concentrated on the Bosphorus, particularly around Chalcedon. The mid fifth-century holy man Auxentius founded several monastic centers in the region, including the nunnery of Gyrita where he was interred in the early 470s and where his remains continued to work miracles and attract visitors.27 Earlier in the fifth century Hypatius had founded the monastery of the Rufinianae near Chalcedon where Auxentius spent part of his life.28 Before this, Alexander "the Sleepless," having been driven out of Constantinople, relocated the monastery for his "Sleepless Monks" to Gomon on the Asian side of the Bosphorus. The monastery later moved further south on the Bosphorus to Irenaeum, where the monks continued their peculiar ascetic practice and vigorous defense of the Council of Chalcedon.29 Individual ascetics dotted the Bithynian landscape as well, such as "Paul the Bithynian" who "lives on his own at a martyrium" according to the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.30 No doubt many other monasteries and individual ascetics were scattered across the Bithynian landscape, which would eventually encompass more of the province than simply the Bosphorus.31 That the author describes his bending to the will of God as a movement to a place already famous for its monks, strengthens the argument that he was a monk.

The final piece of evidence suggesting monastic profession is what the author did after leaving his "father according to the flesh" and arriving in Bithynia "according to the goodwill of God," namely, public debate with Eutychian clerics. "During the revolt of the unholy Basiliscus," the author says, "those agreeing with the faction of the heretic Eutyches were mightily enflaming and disrupting imperial affairs," leading the author to publicly dispute with them.32 While it is true that all manner of people were involved in [End Page 113] the religio-political debates that engulfed the Roman Empire in the aftermath of Chalcedon, monks played a special role in these debates, especially during Basiliscus's revolt. Peter Hatlie has documented an increasing politicization of monasticism in Constantinople and nearby Bithynia from the mid-fifth century onwards, leading to increased public demonstrations and attempts to sway public opinion by monks on one side or another of a contentious theological issue.33 This naturally led to fierce opposition between monastic communities holding opposite doctrinal views. The followers of the controversial monk Eutychus made their allegiance to the monophysite supporting usurper Basiliscus well known and this led to clashes between the monks of the Job (Eutychus's monastery) and anti-monophysite monastic groups, especially those in Bithynia like the "Sleepless Monks."34 In other words, publicly defying Eutychians in an attempt to sway public opinion is exactly the sort of thing one would expect a monk in this place and time to be doing. Putting this evidence together with the ascetic expressions describing his "father according to the flesh," and his move to the popular monastic retreat "by the goodwill of God," it seems probable that the author was a monk.

The likelihood of monastic authorship may offer insight into how the author understood the ascetic role that reading and writing played in his history. At least one other monk had previously written an ecclesiastical history, but Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History does not feature the same ascetic impulses as his hagiographic Religious History, suggesting that he saw the ecclesiastical history as a genre not geared towards the creation of ascetic piety.35 Anonymous Cyzicenus, by contrast, does see his Ecclesiastical History as capable of effecting piety, both through its composition and through its meditative reading by a later audience.

"With the Ever-living Word of God Preparing the Way and Guiding Me": Writing Holiness in the Ecclesiastical History

At the end of his prefatory remarks in the Proemium, the author of the Ecclesiastical History says that there is nothing left for him to do but begin his history, "with the ever-living Word of God preparing my way and guiding me."36 The Greek verbs employed suggest that the Word of God will literally "make a road before" (προοδοποιέω) and "direct the feet of" (ποδηγέω) the anonymous [End Page 114] author, implying a degree of active participation on the part of the divine that resembles scriptural inspiration. Elsewhere in the Ecclesiastical History, the author explicitly likens his own writing to scripture. In providing a typological reading of Isaiah 2.3 that interprets the "high mountain of God" in that passage with the Council of Nicaea in his own history, the author claims that "the prophet [Isaiah] takes over my hand and urges me forward."37 An inspired scriptural author making a guest-appearance as (coercive) co-author suggests an almost scriptural status for the Ecclesiastical History. Suggestions of quasi-scriptural inspiration are not characteristic of the genre of ecclesiastical history but instead resemble tropes common in hagiography, the genre that acts as "scripture writ small." Hagiographers utilized numerous compositional techniques in texts not only to create a quasi-scriptural textual product but also to create a quasi-scriptural textual act. That is to say, hagiographers wrote in emulation of scriptural writers in order to imitate a class of saints and practice their own askēsis. As we shall see, the God-guided and prophet-possessed monk from Cyzicus likewise turns his authorship of a history of the Council of Nicaea into an ascetic spiritual exercise by emulating scriptural authors.

To begin with, the author attempts to effect piety through the act of writing the Ecclesiastical History by refusing to claim worldly fame for his composition, particularly by refusing to name himself in the text. Ancient historians, including ecclesiastical historians, often included their names near the beginning or end of their prologue or in the conclusion of their work in order to take credit for their compositions and to use their personal authority to vouch for the accuracy of the history. In fact, every other surviving ecclesiastical historian identifies himself in some fashion in the text of their histories, either by alluding to previous compositions already associated with his name (Eusebius, Sozomen, Evagrius); mentioning his patron or famous men with whom he is connected (Eusebius, Gelasius, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodore Lector); referring to events he participated in (Eusebius, Theodoret, Evagrius); or explicitly naming himself (Philostorgius, Gelasius, Cassiodorus, and Epiphanius). Yet nowhere in the text does the author of this Ecclesiastical History name himself.38 While it is true that Anonymous Cyzicenus includes some seemingly genuine biographical details of his life in the Proemium, these details alone are not sufficient for a direct identification. In fact, once the work moved beyond its original audience, presumably the author's fellow monks, it [End Page 115] would be very difficult for individuals in the wider world to arrive at a name from these details, which are really only provided to situate the author's larger project. The author's apparent refusal to identify himself more fully therefore suggests a deliberate authorial strategy.

As Derek Krueger has demonstrated, monastic authors in Late Antiquity often left their works unsigned to practice authorial piety, in imitation of scriptural writers.39 The Evangelists were the most popular model, as none actually signed their work, but other scriptural authors—Moses, the Apostle Paul, or the author of the books of Acts—were similarly revered for their authorial modesty in avoiding speaking of themselves as authors. John Chrysostom, for example, lauds how the Apostle Paul refers to himself in the third person when describing his ascent into the third heaven (1 Cor 12.2) rather than boasting in the first person, and he compares this passage favorably to John's authorial anonymity in his gospel.40 This authorial modesty manifested the pious humility of the scriptural writers who in effect emptied themselves and submitted themselves to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.41 The monk from Cyzicus, I argue, sought to imitate their piety through his own anonymity, thereby making use of writing to effect piety in his personal ascetic practice.

His frequent employment of biblical citations, especially in the Proemium, also shows how the author implicates his Ecclesiastical History in scriptural piety. Again, the move is hagiographic: Kreuger has suggested that the use of frequent biblical citations is one indicator of the different approaches to the Christian past between the two genres, since other ecclesiastical historians do not pepper their texts with scriptural allusions.42 Once again, Anonymous Cyzicenus differs from this practice, as he creates complicated webs of scriptural signification throughout his Proemium and beyond. In the Proemium the author cites (in order): Psalm 118.103 (LXX); 1 Timothy 1.7; Galatians 1.1; Acts 24.3; 1 Timothy 3.16; 1 Samuel 2.10; Psalm 17.14 (LXX); Matthew 28.19; and Psalm 18.5.43 Outside the Proemium, scriptural allusions continue to be important, such as the previously mentioned scene of the prophet Isaiah taking over the author's pen or Cyzicenus's addition of a biblical quotation (1 Tim. 2.4) to his source text in his narrative of the conversion of the Laz.44 [End Page 116] Scriptural quotations are cited word-for-word or nearly so, with changes often made solely for the sake of the grammar, which suggests the author's familiarity with scripture, likely due to hours spent memorizing scripture as part of his own askēsis.

Part of that askēsis is a writerly imitation of the Apostle Paul, which is clearly figured by the pattern of scriptural citations utilized in the Proemium. Three of the five New Testament quotations in the Proemium are from works attributed to Paul in Late Antiquity, and one of the others, though not said by Paul, comes from a description of Paul's missionary endeavors in the book of Acts. In recounting his theological debate with "those agreeing with the party of the heretic Eutyches," the anonymous author quotes an admonition against false teachers from the pseudo-Pauline book of 1 Timothy, affirming that these disputants "did not know what they were saying or about what they were making affirmations."45 The Eutychians are thereby assimilated to the false teachers of this passage who affirmed what they did not understand because, according to the part of the passage not directly quoted, they were "losing their way" and "turning to a vanity of words, desirous to be teachers of the law."46 In this way the author figures himself as a type of Paul, an orthodox hero battling with heretics. Later, the Eutychians are said to "utter heresies worse than Arius's,'" establishing a lineage from Paul's opponents through Arius to the Eutychians themselves.47 All these heretics have in common the "vanity of words" and a desire "to be teachers of the law" without proper contemplation, causing deviation from the "orthodox" faith. It is exactly this proper contemplation of the Christian faith and Christian history that the author figures in writing his Ecclesiastical History.

Finally, near the end of the Proemium, the author explicitly ties his specifically historical endeavors to his spiritual askēsis. Immediately after describing his debates with Eutychians, Anonymous Cyzicenus launches into an extended Christological exegesis of several Old Testament passages which culminates in a prosopoeia reimagining Christ's words to his disciples at the Great Commission (Matt 28.19).48 Such an extended theological aside is unusual for an ecclesiastical history and so may represent another act of askēsis. As Ellen Muehlberger has shown, rhetorically imagined speeches of biblical characters had already been theorized as a means of scriptural meditation by the ascetic [End Page 117] teacher Evagrius of Pontus.49 Later in the Ecclesiastical History, Macarius of Jerusalem also performs a "speech in character" in the voice of Christ before the assembled Council, giving weight to the author's own use of the practice and perhaps suggesting imitation of the Nicene father.50

More importantly, the Proemium's theological digression leads seamlessly into a short salvation history, which connects Christ's earthly ministry to the acts of the Apostles, the decisions of Nicaea, and the author's own recording of the events at Nicaea, thus tying the composition of the Ecclesiastical History to the larger soteriological narrative of the Christian faith. Through a clearly laid out series of demonstrative adjectives and emphatic repetitions of the noun horos ("definition"), the author connects Christ's "fixing the definition" of the faith during the Great Commission to the horos preached by the Apostles and subsequently spread "to us through the Apostles" to the horos attacked by Arius, causing Constantine to call the Council of Nicaea "on account of this."51 Immediately after mentioning Constantine's convening of Nicaea, the author pivots mid-sentence to the account of Nicaea by Dalmatius with the relative clause, "of which, all of the things done there I had read, as I said above."52 The author thereby ties his research and writings to this salvation history through syntactical interconnection. In fact, the author's exegesis that preceded the salvation history also began mid-sentence. In this way, the entire salvation history is sandwiched between the author's two descriptions of his research (Proem. 12–13 and 20–24), intimately connecting "orthodox" teaching with his historical endeavor.

The author then recounts how he went "searching far and wide with difficulty" through several authors for material. By specifically naming Eusebius of Caesarea, a participant in the council, and Rufinus of Aquileia, erroneously identified by the author as a participant in Nicaea, the author further ties his research and composition to the Council itself, as well as to its place within the salvation history he has laid out.53 These links between the author's reading and writing about Nicaea's confirmation of the "orthodox" faith, to the tale of its establishment and spread, strongly suggest that the writing of the Ecclesiastical History is itself part of that larger salvation history. The writer [End Page 118] practices piety and effects holiness through the act of composition, which also allows the reader to meditate upon these truths as the author had once done with Dalmatius's book.

"As a Sort-of Icon": Reading Holiness in the Ecclesiastical History

In the short prologue to Book Three, which covers events after the Council itself, the author muses on how his first two books went through the events of Nicaea "as if it presented an image (eikona) of the things that happened there."54 Greco-Roman historians had long described their works as analogous to paintings in a trope meant to demonstrate the vivacity and accuracy of their depictions.55 It is possible, however, that Anonymous Cyzicenus uses the trope in a more ascetic manner, comparing the written record to a devotional icon. Fifth-century hagiographic works were already suggesting that written accounts of holy men were analogous to devotional images, capable of imbuing piety in private devotion because they contained some element of the holiness of the individual represented.56 Given the high number of hagiographic tropes in the Ecclesiastical History, it is possible that eikona should be so understood, especially given the devotional dimension that the author gives to his own history and to the work he based it on, Dalmatius's "holy book." Throughout the Ecclesiastical History, the author indicates that meditative reading of the deeds of Constantine and the Fathers of Nicaea can produce piety. This aspect is most apparent in the two contexts where the author puts forward the rhetorical goal of his history. In both cases the goal is neither literary nor historical but ascetic. Thus, even if this particular passage does not specifically refer to devotional images, the author considered his work capable of effecting piety through meditation, very much like a devotional icon.

Anonymous Cyzicenus's insistence on the ascetic power of reding begins at the very beginning of the history, in which he recounts his own pious reading of Dalmatius's account of Nicaea. The author describes the book as if it were a sacred object, imbued with sanctity like a relic or an icon, expressly calling it "holy" (Proem. 7) and describing his physical interaction with the object in reverential terms, noting its materiality (made of very old parchment, Proem. 2); this interaction occurs bodily through reading the work aloud (διὰ στόματος, Proem. 3) and by marking significant passages (ἐπεσημηνάμην, [End Page 119] Proem. 3). The book also effects piety in the author, causing him to rejoice in God's words (Proem. 7) and enabling him to later combat the heresy of the Eutychians, affirmed in "orthodox" teaching (Proem. 11), by "proffering what had been promulgated in that holy chorus of the orthodox priests of God in the Holy Spirit, from the Lord, through those men."57 In addition to apparently emanating a form of holiness, the contents are also described in more traditionally bookish terms. The author says that he "spent a great amount of my leisure time occupied" in Dalmatius's book, using the term σχολή to imply not only time unoccupied by necessary labor but also education. And, as if it were a school text, the author memorized as much of the text as he could, though it was impossible to comprehend the entire book (Proem. 3). The importance of Dalmatius's book to the rhetoric of the entire Proemium is reflected in these metaphors of holy materiality and orthodox education.

The author implies that his own book is worthy of similar reverence since it replicates Dalmatius's "holy" book. This is apparent in the way the contents of his book mirror those of Dalmatius: "the doctrines of our holy fathers and bishops," "their opposing arguments against the Ariomaniacs," "the counterarguments of Arius' hireling philosophers to the bishops," and the "clear explanations of our own bishops to those men, against their sophisms, through written teachings."58 Though he could not find everything that he had read in Dalmatius's book nor reconstruct the entire sequence, the author did find "as much as was known to me and was proper to the truth, following the book that I had read previously," and then "mad[e] selections" from the authors he did find to create the Ecclesiastical History.59 In these ways, the Ecclesiastical History is a somewhat imperfect recreation of Dalmatius's book. Nevertheless, as an orthodox history on the epochal moment of Nicaea, a moment intimately tied to the salvation history of Christianity, the work is clearly intended to function in a way analogous to Dalmatius's book. As such, it should be read in a similarly meditative spirit, with a similar promise of spiritual fruit.

Insofar as the Ecclesiastical History is a type of Dalmatius's "holy book," so too is the author's self-presentation a type of ideal reader of the Ecclesiastical History. As the author reverently read Dalmatius's book, so readers of the [End Page 120] Ecclesiastical History should spend much time on this book, marking significant passages and memorizing what they can—in short, they should read the text meditatively, as one would the scriptures or saints' lives.60 The importance of this spiritual ecstasy to the portrait of the meditative reader painted here is emphasized by the unusual grammar of the passage. Everything from the start of the book until the Psalmic quotation is one long sentence comprising a full page (about forty lines) in the modern critical edition. The extensive train of participial phrases and subordinate clauses finally ends at the first main verb in the entire text: "I took delight" (ἥσθην). The sequence of descriptions of Dalmatius's book, the author's childhood, and the Council of Nicaea itself lead to this point of ecstasy. Meditative reading of the Ecclesiastical History will also instill in the reader a proper understanding of the doctrines of Christian orthodoxy and enable the reader to withstand the attacks of heretics, as the author used his knowledge of Dalmatius's book to combat the Eutychians. The Eutychians, on the other hand, are the negative foil for the reader: having failed to internalize proper orthodox doctrine through meditative reading, they spurn the words of Dalmatius's book and instead turn to heresy. Thus, proper meditation upon the message of Nicaea, as presented in the Ecclesiastical History, produces piety that preserves the Christian from damnable heresy.

Finally, the Ecclesiastical History's aim to effect readerly piety is made plain by two instances in which the author treats the skopos, or rhetorical aim of the history. In both instances, the author makes clear that his purpose in writing is spiritual strengthening. The first of these comes at the end of the general Proemium, where the author states that he "thought it necessary to put [these things] on record in this book for the common benefit and support of those who will read this writing."61 By Late Antiquity, it had long been a generic expectation of histories that they would be "useful," especially morally, to their readers. Eusebius had already Christianized the trope in the preface to his own Ecclesiastical History, remarking that he "hop[ed] [the history] will reveal itself to be most beneficial to those who are zealous about the usefulness that history possesses."62 Both authors use the same Greek root (ὠφέλ-), but the later, anonymous author ties his history not to a notion of "the usefulness of the past" but to a personal and spiritual stabilization. [End Page 121] The Greek word translated as "support" is stērigma, a term which denotes a physical support, a stay, or a prop and by extension is used in later Greek to refer to the firmament, the vault that keeps up the sky, and the concept of a firmness or steadfastness in faith or belief.63 Those who read this account of the Council of Nicaea (or hear it read orally) can expect to discover materials to prop them up and keep them firm in their faith, as the sky stands in the heavens, unable to tumble so long as God wills it.

At the conclusion of Book Two, Anonymous Cyzicenus repeats this idea in slightly different words, noting how the work was composed "for the fullest assurance of those who will read this writing."64 Here the Greek term is asphaleia, which literally implies sure footing—the inability to stumble and fall—suggesting a strengthening or making nimble for those who read the text. Having been buoyed by the book, they will not be deceived by heretics, like the Eutychians of the Proemium, or stumble through their own lack of strength. Given the author's propensity for scriptural allusion, it may be significant that the term asphaleia is the same one used in the prefatory remarks of Luke-Acts, where the author writes to Theophilus "in order that you might know the certainty (asphaleia) of the words in which you have been instructed."65 Whether explicitly alluding to Acts or not, the word had long Christian usage stretching back to the New Testament, meaning that a reader could potentially read Acts into the Ecclesiastical History or at least associate asphaleia with the sort of confidence in the Christian message provided by earlier uses of the term. These metaphors of benefit, support, and sure footing suggest that the author expected that reading his work would produce piety.

Revisiting Nicaea, Revising Genre

It is important to note that this meditative mode of reading Christian history is not due to a proliferation of new texts but instead to a new way of reading already existing Christian texts. As mentioned above, nearly the entirety of the Ecclesiastical History is quotation. While some of the documents included in the history were probably not widely known among a general Christian readership, such as the "Dispute with Phaedo," many of them were quite well known, including selections from the histories of Eusebius and Theodoret and stories common to Socrates, Rufinus, and Gelasius.66 That these already existing records of Nicaea could be read in a radically new way—as a hagiographic [End Page 122] history, a collection shaped into a narrative that would effect piety—demonstrates that something fundamental about the way Nicaea was viewed had changed, and it also suggests that the way the genre of ecclesiastical history was understood, at least among a segment of the Christian population, was changing as well.

Indeed, contemporary understandings of Nicaea were changing throughout the fifth century. At the start of that century, Nicaea had already undergone a lengthy process of sacralization that set apart the creed, canons, and participants of the council as not only authoritative but also holy.67 One manifestation of this process is the canonical (and incorrect) number of bishops at Nicaea: three-hundred and eighteen, a number specifically chosen to equate the fathers of Nicaea with a Biblical prefiguration, the number of Abraham's servants in Genesis 14.14.68 Throughout the fifth century, Christian authors regularly called the Nicene fathers "holy" and would claim the Council itself was, like scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The sacralization of Nicaea in the fifth century is also intimately tied to the process of "canonizing the patristic past," as Patrick Gray has put it. During the course of the fifth century, theological debates became increasingly centered on the words of authoritative teachers, who came to be known as the "fathers" of the Church. This process seems to have originated with late fourth-century disputes about the legacy of Nicaea, and as a result "the first and most enduring fathers were the collective fathers of Nicaea."69 Part of the process of turning a past Christian thinker into a father meant "idealizing" them and "de-historicizing" them to thereby render them "infallible."70 We might add that "idealizing" and "de-historicizing" a father often also meant "hagiographizing" them, or transforming the fathers from normal men with theological opinions into transcendent holy men transmitting God's teaching through the Holy Spirit.

Probably the biggest impetus for sacralizing the Fathers of Nicaea in the fifth century was the series of Christological crises that spurred numerous contentious Church councils. Proponents of a variety of Christological positions all claimed to be the heirs of Nicaea. Well before Anonymous Cyzicenus's debates with the Eutychians, Nicaea was the standard of orthodoxy to which rival parties at Ephesus, Ephesus II, and Chalcedon similarly appealed. During these conflicts, therefore, Nicaea acquired another degree of sanctity because all parties had a vested interest in Nicaea's inviolability. Nicaea's sanctity in this period is also evinced by its new position as the major event in [End Page 123] God's unfolding plan of salvation. In the context of the newfound authority of the fathers, "the past had been drastically reduced by the process of sacralizing it," essentially eliminating all pre-Nicene figures.71 God's unfolding of the Christian religion now traces a path from Christ's earthly ministry, through the works of the Apostles, to the Council of Nicaea, exactly the trajectory outlined by Anonymous Cyzicenus (Pr. 13–20). The heightened holiness of Nicaea was confirmed by the so-called seventh canon of Ephesus, which was interpreted as forbidding any creed but that made at Nicaea.72 Thus, by the time of the Ecclesiastical History, Nicaea and its participants were widely believed to hold a special sanctity and a major place in Christian salvation history. In other words, Nicaea became an event uniquely suited to the creation of hagiographic history: an event that left traces in the writers of a past generation that could be recovered and reassembled into one narrative, and an event that stimulated meditative reflection and so could effect piety.

But while all parties agreed that Nicaea was sacred and authoritative, they disagreed on what exactly the Council meant, resulting in divergent interpretations of Nicaea. The Proemium of the Ecclesiastical History attests to this, as Anonymous Cyzicenus offers his proto-Chalcedonian version of the "holy" council to counter the interpretation proffered by the Eutychians. Mark S. Smith has recently noted the ways in which competing "re-imaginings" of Nicaea were accomplished by a complicated selection and layering of preexisting texts related to Nicaea.73 This collating of creeds, Conciliar Acta, and authoritative statements of the Church fathers allowed for re-imaginings of Nicaea to be set in opposition. Each set of texts created its own narrative of Nicaea's purpose and its theology, though the Council always remained unquestionably holy and authoritative. Similarly, Gray describes the proliferation of florilegia after Chalcedon, with various factions supporting their views by layering quotations of the recently de-historicized and idealized "fathers," including the Nicene fathers.74 It is in this context that the Ecclesiastical History takes shape. Anonymous Cyzicenus layers historical texts alongside the few documents emanating from Nicaea and works about or by "the Fathers" to create another re-imagining of Nicaea. Like other textual re-imaginings of Nicaea, the author had a clear theological goal. He emphasized a proto-Chalcedonian reading of the council and highlighted the sanctity of the event and its participants, which he believed would aid in the formation of an orthodox identity and in the creation of piety. [End Page 124]

From the late fifth through the late sixth centuries, ecclesiastical histories also began to change, incorporating elements of hagiographic discourse. Derek Krueger, in a preliminary investigation into hagiographic tropes in ecclesiastical histories, claims that it is only in the late sixth century with the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius that "for the first time" one can see "the influence of hagiographical models for authorial asceticism in the historian's self-presentation."75 According to Krueger, Evagrius imitates the evangelist Luke through his discussion of leaving an "orderly account" and ties himself to the humility of the Apostles in his prologue, though afterwards he "avoids further tropes typical of authorial self-denigration in hagiography."76 But Krueger did not take into account Anonymous Cyzicenus's Ecclesiastical History, which, as a history deeply implicated in hagiographic tropes, complicates this picture and suggests that there was some generic interplay from at least the late fifth century. In fact, between Anonymous Cyzicenus and Evagrius, another ecclesiastical history includes hagiographic features and hints at its goal of spiritual edification: the Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita of Cassiodorus and Epiphanius.

While the Latin Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita is based, at least in part, upon the earlier Greek Historia Tripartia of Theodore Lector, the preface to the later text strikes a remarkably different tone from the exemplar's proemium, notably by including ascetic tropes.77 Here Cassiodorus attributes God's aid to both the reading and writing of the history and also emphasizes the meditative frame of mind required by both author and reader. In terms of writing, God assisted with the translation itself ("transforming it into Latin eloquence … with God helping"), while the selection of passages was made "with prudent intention (mente)."78 Similarly, the reader of the Historia Tripartita who "will come upon this book" does so "when God gifts it."79 Such a reader "will gain much in utility and knowledge," but only if they "store up in their memory" the contents of the book "with a careful mind (mente)."80 Earlier in the preface, Cassiodorus defined the work as "an ecclesiastical history" which, he argued, "is extremely necessary for all Christians" and which was also "composed by three Greek authors in an extraordinary way."81 The [End Page 125] adverb used in this last phrase is mirabiliter, a word that often implies the preternatural intervention of God in human life; by the use of this term, Cassiodorus appears to again imply the intervention of God in the context of recording Christian history.82

Cassiodorus also reflected upon his ecclesiastical history in another work, the Institutiones, a guide to reading and writing specifically for monks at Vivarium. Beyond simply placing ecclesiastical historians in Book One on "divine learning," Cassiodorus features them prominently after the scriptures and the "four accepted councils" and before the works of every church father. Cassiodorus also notes that "it is unavoidable" that such works "instruct the understanding of readers in heavenly matters."83 Here Cassiodorus recounts again how he had translated his own Historia Tripartita "with God's aid."84 Elsewhere in his guidebook, Cassiodorus extolls the person who reads exemplary Christian works as someone "guided into divine contemplation."85 In light of the prominence given to Christian histories, this statement implies that Cassiodorus saw the genre as also aiding in divine contemplation. Taken together, these statements suggest that Cassiodorus imagined his own ecclesiastical history as a textual act capable of effecting piety, in a manner analogous to that of Anonymous Cyzicenus.

Conclusion

Certainly, neither Cassiodorus's monastic inflection of the uses of history or Evagrius's temporary biblical self-identification matches the level of ascetic awareness found in Anonymous Cyzicenus's Ecclesiastical History, but these brief examples do point to an emerging hagiographic understanding of history. Many ecclesiastical histories also exist only in fragments, and the incorporation of these texts into our larger understanding of the genre is an ongoing process. Many more ecclesiastical histories have been lost forever due to the success of opposing Christian factions or the accidents of preservation. And yet a different understanding of the purpose of reading ecclesiastical histories, for at least some authors, seems to be emerging in this trajectory from Anonymous Cyzicenus to the Historia Tripartita to Evagrius.

The ability to view ecclesiastical history in this newly ascetic way raises a question: namely, what changed to allow this new formulation of genre? This [End Page 126] question is too large to deal with in depth here, but a possible explanation for the increase in an ascetic understanding of the genre of ecclesiastical history may be found in what Peter Van Nuffelen has described as the genre's function as "a form of social self-affirmation." According to Van Nuffelen, different ecclesiastical historians—whether lay, clerical, or monastic—had written their histories less as a platform for apologetic historical writing, though that sometimes played a part, and more as a means of actuating the "social self-affirmation" of the church, or a faction or party within it, as "an autonomous sphere of society."86 As ecclesiastical histories were increasingly written by authors belonging to factional groups of monks seeking "social self-affirmation" in doctrinal and spiritual terms, the genre seems to have taken on a more pious tone. Authors familiar with monastic discourse, such as Anonymous Cyzicenus and Cassiodorus, could have sought social self-actualization not only through responding to the heated doctrinal debates taking place around them but also through a specific vision of history inflected by monastic ideas of reading and writing. And once the more recent Christian past, especially the history of the church councils, could be seen as intimately tied to current spiritual practice and individual salvation, it would have been possible to envision historical reading as a part of individual askēsis like the scriptures and the lives of saints.

Sean Tandy
University of Delaware Associate in Arts Program
smtandy@udel.edu

References

Allen, Pauline. 1981. Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian. Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense.
Aubineau, Michel. 1966. "Les 318 serviteurs d'Abraham (Gen., XIV, 14) et le nombre des pères au concile de Nicée (325)." Revue d'historie ecclésiastique 61: 5–43.
Brenk, Beat. 2011. "Apses, Icons and 'Image Propaganda' before Iconoclasm." Antiquité Tardive 19: 109–30.
Burton-Christie, Douglas E. 1993. The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in Early Christian Monasticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Caner, Daniel. 2002. Wandering, Begging Monks: Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity. Transformation of the Classical Heritage 33. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chesnut, Glenn F. 1986. The First Christian Historians: Eusebius, Socraes, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius, 2nd ed., revised and enlarged. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
Delacenserie, Emerance. 2017. "Beyond the Compilation: The Two Historiae Tripartitae of Theodore Lector and Cassiodorus." Sacris Erudiri 56: 415–44.
Gray, Patrick T. R. 1989. "'The Select Fathers': Canonizing the Patristic Past." Studia Patristica 23: 21–36.
Hansen, Günther Christian. 2002. Anonymus von Cyzicus, Historia Ecclesiastica Kirchensgeschichte (CPG 6034). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
———. 2008. Anonymus von Cyzicus, Historia Ecclesiastica Kirchensgeschichte. Turnhout: Brepols.
Hatlie, Peter. 2007. The Monks and Monasteries of Constantinople, ca. 350–850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krueger, Derek. 2004. Writing and Holiness: The Practice of Authorship in the Christian East. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.
———. 2010. "Early Byzantine Historiography and Hagiography as Different Modes of Christian Practice." In Writing 'True Stories': Historians and Hagiographers in the Late Antique and Medieval Near East, edited by Arietta Papaconstantinou, Muriel Debie, and Hugh Kennedy, 13–20. Turnhout: Brepols.
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. 1993. "Ecclesiastical Historians on their Own Times." Studia Patristica 24: 151–63.
Marasco, Gabriele. 2003. "The Church Historians (II): Philostorgius and Gelasius of Cyzicus." In Greek and Roman Historiography In Late Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., edited by Gabriele Marasco, 257–88. Leiden: Brill.
Markus, Robert A. 1975. "Church History and the Early Church Historian." In The Materials, Sources, and Methods of Ecclesiastical History, edited by D. Baker, 1–17. Oxford: Blackwell.
Miller, Patricia Cox. 2009. The Corporeal Imagination: Signifying the Holy in Late Ancient Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Muehlberger, Ellen. 2018. "Affecting Rhetoric: The Adoption of Ethopoeia in Evagrius of Pontus's Ascetic Program." In Monastic Education in Late Antiquity: The Transformation of Classical Paideia, ed. Lillian I. Larsen and Samuel Rubenson, 182–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nautin, Pierre. 1983. "Gélase de Cyzique." In Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques 20: 301. Paris: Letouzey et Ané.
———. 1992. "La continuation de l''Histoire ecclésiastique' d'Eusèbe par Gélase de Césarée." Revue des Études Byzantines 50: 163–83.
Price, Richard, and Michael Gaddis, trans. 2005. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Translated Texts for Historians 45. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Rapp, Claudia. 2007. "Holy Texts, Holy Men, and Holy Scribes: Aspects of Scriptural Holiness in Late Antiquity." In The Early Christian Book, edited by William E. Klingshirn and Linda Safran, 194–222. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press.
Rugini, L. C. 1977. "The Ecclesiastical Histories and the Pagan Historiography: Providence and Miracles." Athenaeum 55: 107–26.
Smith, Mark S. 2018. The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, ad 431–451. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Treadgold, Warren. 2007. The Early Byzantine Historians. Houndmills, UK: Pal-grave MacMilllan.
Van Nuffelen, Peter. 2004. Un héritage de paix et de piété: étude sur les histories ecclésiastiques de Socrates et de Sozomène. Leuven: Peeters.
———. 2018. "Ecclesiastical History." In A Companion to Late Antique Literature, edited by Scott McGill and Edward J. Watts, 161–75. Medford, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wallraff, M., J. Stutz, and N. Marinides. 2018. Ecclesiastical History: The Extant Fragments, with an Appendix Containing the Fragments from Dogmatic Writings. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2018.

Footnotes

I would like to thank Mary Bowden and Diane Fruchtman for reading through early drafts of this article and helping shape its final form; I am also grateful to the reviewers of the Journal of Late Antiquity for providing insightful and helpful feedback. My largest debt of gratitude goes to Martin Shedd and Jeremy Schott with whom I have spent a good deal of time over the past few years discussing Anonymous Cyzicenus and exchanging ideas about the Ecclesiastical History in preparing our forthcoming translation of the text.

1. On the long-standing misattribution of the Ecclesiastical History to the invented "Gelasius of Cyzicus," see Hansen 2002, ix–xii.

2. Anon. Cyz. (ed. Hansen, GCS N.F. 9) Proem. 1–2: "Τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ μεγάλην καὶ οἰκουμενικὴν τῶν ἐπισκόπων συναθροισθεῖσαν σύνοδον ἐν τῇ Νικαέων … ἀναγνοὺς ἔτι ἐν τῇ πατρῴᾳ οἰκίᾳ διάγων, εὑρηκὼς αὐτὰ ἐν βίβλῳ ἀρχαιοτάτῃ ἐγγεγραμμένα ἐν μεμβράναις ἅπαντα ἀπαραλείπτως ἐχούσαις."

3. Anon. Cyz. Proem. 1–3.

4. Anon. Cyz. Proem. 7: "ὡς γλυκέα τῷ λάρυγγί μου τὰ λόγιά σου, ὑπὲρ μέλι τῷ στόματί μου" (Ps 118.103 [LXX]).

5. On the reception history of Anonymous Cyzicenus, see Hansen, 2008, 48–49.

6. Treadgold 2007, 166 tentatively suggests the author was a priest like his father.

7. On ecclesiastical histories forming a corporate self-identity see Markus 1975, 1, 5–8; Liebeschuetz 1993, 151; Van Nuffelen 2018, 161, 170, and 173.

8. On human and divine causation, see Chesnut 1986 and Van Nuffelen 2018, 166–67. On miracles see Rugini 1977.

10. On theological speculation, Allen 1981, 46–47 and Van Nuffelen 2004, 178. On scripture citations, see Liebeschuetz 1993, 161, and Krueger 2010, 16.

14. For the evangelists, Krueger 2004, 35–48; for biblical self-presentation, Krueger 2004, throughout, but especially 10–11, 15–32.

16. Treadgold 2007, 166. See Marasco 2003, 287 for a similar assessment.

17. Nautin 1983 with Nautin 1992, 179. At Proem. 26, the author explicitly signals that he is not writing a bios by noting the many required details for a bios that he is glossing over but hopes to treat in a later work. While Constantine, a secular ruler, is a main character of the history, he is treated in a suitably hagiographic manner, implicitly equated to the Nicene fathers and the Apostles (for example, at Proem. 7 and 20).

18. Ecclesiastical History: Anon. Cyz. 1.5.7, 1.11.32, 2.1.12, 2.37.29, 3.1.1, 3.7.14, 3.10.26, and 3.15.23. Previous writers: Proem. 20–24, 1.1.8–11, and 3.16.10. While the manuscript tradition usually refers to the text as a "collection" (syntagma) rather than an ecclesiastical history and usually groups the work in manuscripts of conciliar or apologetic texts, this practice reflects 1) the acephalous nature of the manuscript transmission, leading to the loss of the original title, and 2) later Byzantine perceptions of the work's genre and purpose. These considerations should not override the text's clear generic claims. Further, there are surviving references to the work as an ecclesiastical history in the manuscript tradition, including the pinakes and the titles of Books Two and Three (see Hansen 2002, 22 and 113–14 for text). Photius's testimony (Phot. Bibl. 88) also ties the work to the genre of ecclesiastical history.

19. For the sources of the Ecclesiastical History and the author's manipulation of them, see Hansen 2002, xli–lv.

20. Photius's biographical sketch in Bibl. 88–89 depends on the Proemium and provides no further information.

21. Anon. Cyz. HE Proem. 2: "περιελθούσαις δὲ εἰς τὸν τοῦ ποτε ἡμετέρου οἴκου δεσπότην, λέγω δὴ τὸν κατὰ σάρκα πατέρα ἐμόν."

22. Barsanuphius and John, Ep. 767 (SCh 468: 210): Ἐρώτησις· Ἐπειδὴ ὁ κατὰ σάρκα μου πατὴρ ἀεὶ φέρει μοι ὁμιλίαν περὶ σαρκικῶν πραγμάτων οὐκ ἐχόντων ὠφέλειαν τῇ ψυχῇ."

23. Joh. Mosch. Pratum 184 (PG 87: 3057): "ἀδελφὸν νεώτερον ἔχοντα πατέρα κατὰ σάρκα."

24. Anon. Cyz. Proem. 9: "Μετὰ δὲ καιρούς τινας φθάσας ἐνταῦθα, ἐν τῇ τῶν Βιθυνῶν ἐπαρχίᾳ λέγω, κατ'εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θεοῦ."

25. Barsanuphius and John, Ep. 575b.15–6 (SCh 451: 764): "Καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ λόγος ἔφθασε κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐδοκίαν."

26. Didaskalia 14.155 (SCh 92: 434 and 436): "Πάντα τὰ γινόμενα ἢ κατὰ συγχώρησιν Θεοῦ γίνεται ἢ κατ'εὐδοκίαν … ἅτινά ἐστι λιμός, λοιμός, ἀβροχία, νόσοι, πόλεμοι. Ταῦτα οὐ γίνονται κατ'εὐδοκίαν Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ συγχώρησιν … τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀγαθόν, τὸ κατ'εὐδοκίαν, ὡς εἶπον, γινόμενον. Τοῦτο δέ ἐστι πάντα τὰ κατ'ἐντολὴν γινόμενα, τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾷν, τὸ συμπάσχειν, τὸ ποιεῖν ἐλεημοσύνην, καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα." The "Goodwill of God" language also appears in fifth-century monastic sources; see V. Auxentii 44 and 66 (BHG 199: 54, and 88).

27. V. Auxentii 66 (BHG 199: 88).

28. See entries in the Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity for "Rufinianae" (1310) and "Hypatius, S." (755).

29. Caner 2002, 126–57. See also 250–80 for a translation of Alexander's Vita.

30. Session 4.65, translated by Price and Gaddis, 2005, 2: 154.

31. Hatlie 2007, 274–83, 313–14, 401–2. On 117, Hatlie notes a proliferation of monks from abroad coming to Constantinople and its environs in the late fifth century; perhaps the author was part of this trend.

32. Anon. Cyz. Proem. 10: "ὑπεκκαιόντων μάλιστα καὶ κινούντων τὰ βασίλεια τῆς τῶν τοῦ αἱρετικοῦ Εὐτυχοῦς ὁμοφρόνων συμμορίας."

36. Anon. Cyz. HE Proem. 25: "Ἄρξεται δή μοι λοιπὸν ὁ λόγος προοδοποιοῦντός μοι καὶ ποδηγοῦντος τοῦ ἀεὶ ζῶντος θεοῦ λόγου."

37. Anon. Cyz. HE 1.20.2: "ὁρῶν μάλιστα τὸν προφήτην κρατοῦντά με τῆς χειρὸς καὶ προτρέποντα."

38. While the conclusion to Book Three does not survive, we know that the author did not name himself there because, if he had, Photius, who read the complete work, would have known the name of the author, and he specifies that he did not (Phot. Bibl. 88).

40. Joh. Chrys. Hom. in Johan. 72.2 with Krueger 2004, 42–44.

43. Except for the direct quotation from Acts 23.14 at Proem. 13 (πάντῃ τε καὶ πανταχοῦ), all of these scriptural quotations and allusions are noted in the apparatus of Hansen 2002 on this passage.

44. Anon. Cyz. HE 1.20.2–5 and 3.10.9. The first passage also quotes 1 John 1.1. Parallel passages for the conversion of the Laz (for example, Ruf. HE 10.11; Soc. 1.20; Soz. 2.7; and Theod. HE 1.24) do not include the scriptural reference; see Hansen 2002, 125.

45. Anon. Cyz. HE Proem. 11 (cf. I Tim 1.7): "οὐ γὰρ ᾔδεισαν τί λέγουσιν, ἢ περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται."

46. I Tim 1.6–7: "ὧν τινες ἀστοχήσαντες ἐξετράπησαν εἰς ματαιολογίαν, θέλοντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι …"

47. Anon. Cyz. HE Proem. 11: "χείρονα τῶν Ἀρείου βλασφημιῶν … προφέροντες."

48. Anon. Cyz. HE Proem 14–17.

50. Anon. Cyz. HE 2.24.28. Macarius's speech only survives in the HE. See also 2.31.7, where the Psalmist is said to speak "as if in his [Christ's] person" (ὡς ἐκ προσώπου αὐτοῦ).

51. Anon. Cyz. HE Proem. 18–20, quotations from 19 (εἰς ἡμᾶς διὰ τῶν θείων ἀποστόλων) and 20 (Οὗ χάριν).

52. Anon. Cyz. HE Proem. 20: "… σύνοδον, ἧς τὰ πεπραγμένα πάντα προεγνωκώς, ὡς ἀνωτέρω ἔφην."

53. By "Rufinus," the author means the Greek history of Gelasius of Caesarea. Wallraff et al. 2018, xlvi–xlvii, and l.

54. Anon. Cyz. HE 3.1.1: "ὡς εἰκόνα τῶν γεγενημένων παρέστησε."

55. See, for example, Plut. Alex. 1.3; Lucian Hist. conscr. 13–14; and, in an expressly Christianized form, Theod. HE 1.1.

57. Anon. Cyz. HE Proem. 11: "προφέροντος γάρ μου τὰ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἁγίᾳ χορείᾳ τῶν ὀρθοδόξων τοῦ θεοῦ ἱερέων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου δι'αὐτῶν ἐκφωνηθέντα."

58. Anon. Cyz. HE Proem. 4–5: "τά τε τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁγίων πατέρων καὶ ἐπισκόπων … δόγματα τάς τε πρὸς τοὺς Ἀρειομανίτας αὐτῶν ἀντιθέσεις … τάς τε τῶν μισθωτῶν Ἀρείου τῶν φιλοσόφων πρὸς τοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἀντιρρήσεις, τάς τε τῶν ἡμετέρων πρὸς ἐκείνους διὰ γραφικῶν διδαγμάτων κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν σοφισμάτων ἐναργεῖς ἐπιλύσεις …"

59. Anon. Cyz. HE Proem. 24: "Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τὰ ὅλα εὑρεῖν ἠδυνήθην, πλὴν ὅσα γνώριμά μοι καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἴδια κατὰ τὴν προαναγνωσθεῖσάν μοι βίβλον εὗρον. καὶ ἐξ ἑκατέρων ἀναλεξάμενος ἀναγκαῖον ᾠήθην ἐγγράψαι τῷδε τῷ βιβλίῳ."

60. For oral recitation and memorization of scripture in monastic meditative practice, see Burton-Christie 1993, 122–29. For copying scripture and meditation and similar practices with the lives of saints, see Rapp 2007, 202–12 and 219–22.

61. Anon. Cyz. HE Proem. 24: "ἀναγκαῖον ᾠήθην ἐγγράψαι τῷδε τῷ βιβλίῳ πρὸς ὠφέλειαν κοινὴν καὶ στήριγμα τῶν ἐντευξομένων τῷδε τῷ γράμματι."

62. Eus. HE 1.1.5: "ἐλπίζω δ'ὅτι καὶ ὠφελιμωτάτη τοῖς φιλοτίμως περὶ τὸ χρηστομαθὲς τῆς ἱστορίας ἔχουσιν ἀναφανήσεται."

63. στήριγμα is used interchangeably with the related words στῆριγξ ("prop," "stay") and στερέομα ("firmament." "steadfastness"). See the entries in the LSJ, Lampe, and Bauer.

64. Anon. Cyz. HE 2.37.29: "πρὸς πληρεστάτην ἀσφάλειαν τῶν ἐντευξομένων τῷδε τῷ συγγράμματι."

65. Luke 1.4: "ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν."

66. On the complexity of the Gelasian tradition, see Wallraff et al. 2018, ix–lxxx.

78. Hist. Trip. (CSEL 71: 4–5) praef. 2 (Latino condentes eloquio … domino iuvante) and praef. 3 (cauta mente).

79. Hist. Trip. praef. 4 (qui ad haec opuscula domino donante pervenerit).

80. Hist. Trip. praef. 4: … si, quae posita sunt per hos duodecim libros, memoriae suae sollicita mente condiderit.

81. Hist. Trip. praef. 2: haec igitur historia ecclesiastica, quae cunctis Christanis valde necessaria conprobatur a tribus Graecis auctoribus mirabiliter constat esse conscripta.

82. Mirabiliter is so used in an ecclesiastical history (Ruf. HE 2.9.4). See the entry in TLL at I.a.2.b.

83. Cass. Inst. Div. Litt. 1.17.1 (ed. Mynors, OCT): necesse est ut sensus legentium rebus caelestibus semper erudiant.

84. Cass. Inst. Div. Litt. 1.17.1 (Deo auxiliante).

85. Cass. Inst. Div. Litt. 1.16.4 (in contemplatiam divinam … perducitur).

Share