NOTES

INTRODUCTION

1. Price and Gaddis, Acts of Chalcedon, 3:193–203, estimate the number of voting delegates at 370, including those represented by proxy.

2. Acta concilii Chalcedonensis session 1 (ACO II.1.1: 70).

3. For more on these famous episodes, see chapters 4-5.

4. On the seating arrangement, see Price and Gaddis, Acts of Chalcedon, 1:42–43. On the geographical terms “Syria” and “the East,” see later in this chapter.

5. See Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. ad Succensum episc. Diocaesareae, sec. 2–3 (CPG #5346, ACO I.1.6: 158–59). The term miaphysite is now preferred because “monophysite” served as an inconsistent label of heresy. In this study miaphysite refers not just to those tarred as heretics, but to anyone who preferred to discuss “one nature” in Christ.

6. See Theodore of Mopsuestia, Homiliae catecheticae 3 (Mingana: 141, tr. Mingana: 37). In this book, “Antiochene” always refers to this doctrinal party; for the sake of clarity it is never herein used as a geographical label.

7. For a full discussion of these Trinitarian debates, see Hanson, Search, esp. chaps. 10–12 For a summary, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 240–69.

8. Sullivan, Christology of Theodore, 162; Greer, Theodore, 48–49; Norris, Manhood and Christ, 207–9.

9. On the Antiochenes’ exegetical focus, see Greer, Theodore: Exegete and Theologian. Wilken, “Tradition, Exegesis.”

10. On Cyril of Alexandria's pursuit of a direct, if mysterious, statement that Christ was God and yet human, see McGuckin, St. Cyril, esp. 175–89. See also Gavrilyuk, Suffering of the Impassible God, chap. 6.

11. Nestorius, Liber Heraclidis (tr. Hodgson and Driver, 98–101); Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Contestatio (CPG #5940, ACO I.1.1: 101–2).

12. For Cyril's attack on Nestorius, see his Ep. ad Caelestinum papam (CPG #5310, ACO I.1.5: 10–12); Commonitorium ad Posidonium diaconum (CPG #5311, ACO I.1.7: 171–72); Ep. ad Nestorium (una cum synodo Alexandrina) (CPG #5317, ACO I.1.1: 33–42). For Syrian replies, see Theodoret, Impugnatio xii anathematismorum Cyrilli (CPG #6214, ACO I.1.6: 108–44); Andreas, Impugnatio xii anathematismorum Cyrilli Alexandrini (CPG #6373, ACO I.1.7: 33–65).

13. Theodosius II, Sacra ad Cyrillum Alex. et ad singulos metropolitas (CPG #8652, ACO I. 1.1: 114–16). On the council, see Hiba of Edessa, Ep. ad Marim Persam (CPG #6500, ACO II. 1.3: 33). On the colloquy in Chalcedon, see John of Antioch et al., Contestio secunda ad Theodosium et Valentinianum imp. aug. (CPG #6330: ACO I.1.7: 75).

14. On the protests, see Theodoret, Commonitorium ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6243, ACO I.4: 87); John of Antioch, Ep. ad clerum populumque Tarsensem (CPG #6348, ACO I.4: 90); Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6303, ACO I. 4: 113); Cyril, Commonitorium ad Maximum diac. Antioch. (CPG #5357, CVatGr 1431: 21).

15. Theodosius II, Sacra ad Iohannem Antiochenum (CPG #8810, ACO I.1.4: 3–5); Sacra ad Symeonem Stylitem (CPG #8811, ACO I.1.4: 5). For threats against holdouts, see Theodosius II, Sacra a Iohanne Antiocheno impetrata contra Alexandrum, Helladium, Maximianum et Theodoretum (CPG #6423, ACO I.4: 166–67).

16. On opponents of the Formula of Reunion, see chapter 4.

17. On suspicions of Theodoret, see Cyril, Ep. ad Acacium Melitenum (CPG #5369, CVatGr 1431:15–16), and see chapter 5. On divisions in Syria, see Rabbula of Edessa, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum (CPG #6494, ACO IV. 1: 89).

18. For Theodoret's new dyophysite apology, see his Eranistes (see below, chapter 8). The point at which Eutyches first faced criticism is not clear; see Bevan and Gray, “Trial of Eutyches.” For the accusations against Theodoret and his allies, see Theodoret, ep. S 110 (SC 111:38–42); Acta concilii Chalcedonensis session 11 (ACO II.1.3: 24–26); Dioscorus, Ep. ad Domnum Antiochenum (CPG #5456; Flemming: 132–39; tr. Perry: 327–38).

19. For the trial of Eutyches, see Acta concilii Chalcedonensis, session 1 (ACO II.1.1: 100–147). For Theodosius II's doctrinal shift, see session 1 (ACO II.1.1: 150–78).

20. For the rehabilitation of Eutyches, see Acta concilii Chalcedonensis session 1 (ACO II. 1.1: 141, 182–86). For the condemnation of Theodoret and his allies, see session 1 (ACO II.1.1: 191–96) and Syriac Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus (Flemming: 60–128; tr. Perry: 134–318). Flavian died in custody; see Chadwick, “Death of Flavian.”

21. Marcian, Ep. ad Leonem papam (ACO II.1.1: 18); Acta concilii Chalcedonensis session 1 (ACO II.1.1: 70).

22. For praise of Cyril, see Acta concilii Chalcedonensis session “3,” 5 (ACO II.1.2: 80–81, 126–29). For the new dyophysite formula, see session 5 (ACO II.1.2: 129). On Eutyches and Dioscorus, see session “2,” 5 (ACO II.1.2: 8–29, 124–27).

23. Zacharias Rhetor, HE 3.3 (CSCO SS 38:155–57); Evagrius Scholasticus, HE 2.5 (Fontes Christiani 57: 226–32).

24. For more on the (later) formation of three separate churches, see Frend, Monophysite Movement, chap. 6; Moeller, “Chalédonisme;” Gray, Defense of Chalcedon, esp. chap. 6; Brock, “Church of the East.” See Epilogue.

25. On the landscape, climate, and settlement of Syria, see Tchalenko, Villages antiques, esp. chaps. 1–3; Downey, History of Antioch, chap. 1; Tate, Campagnes de Syrie, esp. chap. 4; Millar, Roman Near East, esp. chaps. 7–12; Casana, “Archaeological Landscape.”

26. On the urban population of Syria, see Liebeschuetz, Decline, 54–74, 169. On the large, unplanned villages in Syria, see Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages, 442–59.

27. On the expansion of agricultural villages in Syria, see Tchalenko, Villages antiques, esp. 44–45, 75–91; Tate, Campagnes de Syrie, esp. 184–88, 257–58, 303–31; and Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages, 442–59. On settlement expansion in the vicinity of Antioch, see Casana, “Archaeological Landscape.”

28. On the status of senatorial elites, local notables, and middling freeholders, see Heather, “Senates and Senators;” Liebeschuetz, Decline, chap. 3; and Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages, 158–68, 239–51, 442–59.

29. On Roman political structures, see Jones, LRE, esp. chaps. 11–14, 16, 19. On the imperial administration, see also C. Kelly, Ruling the Roman Empire, chaps. 1–2. On municipal administration, see also Petit, La vie municipale; Laniado, Notables municipaux; Liebeschuetz, Antioch, chaps. 4–5; Decline, chaps. 3, 5. On the coherence of the Eastern Roman government, see Millar, Greek Roman Empire, chaps. 1–3.

30. On Sassanid Persia, see Howard-Johnson, “Great Powers in Late Antiquity.” On the Eastern army, see Treadgold, Byzantium and its Army, esp. 43–59, 87–93; Isaac, Limits of Empire, esp. chaps. 3–4, 6. On imperial attention in Syria, see Millar, Greek Roman Empire, 69–76. On limited warfare, see Greatrex, “Two Fifth-Century Wars.” Raiding Isaurians and distant Huns fostered worries; see Millar, Greek Roman Empire, chap. 2.

31. On the demographic history of Syria, see Millar, Roman Near East, chaps. 1–4. Major spoken languages were Greek, Aramaic/Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, and Hebrew. See Millar, “Ethnic identity” and Greek Roman Empire, chap. 3; Brock, “Greek and Syriac;” Garsoïan, L’église arménienne, esp. intro, chap. 1.

32. On Hellenistic influence in western Syria, see Millar, Roman Near East, chaps. 7–8.

33. On the impact of local rule in Syria, see Millar, Roman Near East, chaps. 1–5. On Syriac written culture, see Millar, “Ethnic Identity,” but also Brock, “Greek and Syriac.” On early Armenian writings, see Garsoïan, L’église arménienne, 67–70.

34. See Bowersock, Hellenism, esp. chap 2.

35. On Magians in Syria, see Basil ep. 258 (LCL 4:45–47). On Manichees, see Lieu, Manichaeism. On pagan theurgists' presence, see Bowersock, Hellenism, 31–33. On Jews' presence, see Meeks and Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch; Hezser, Rabbinic Movement, esp. 162–63; Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora.

36. See Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, esp. chaps. 8, 10.

37. On urban congregations, see Maxwell, Christianization and Communication, esp. chap. 3. On the rarity of village clerics in Syria, see Trombley, Hellenic Religion and Christianization, chaps. 8, 10; “Christian demography.” On wandering rural preachers, see Brown, “Town, Village and Holy Man;” Caner, Wandering Begging Monks, chap. 2.

38. On the development of the monastic movement in Syria, see chapter 3.

39. On Greek-Syriac cultural differences, see Stewart, Working the Earth of the Heart, chap. 5; Harvey, “Sense of a Stylite.” On Syrian theological diversity, see Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 6–7; Griffith, “Ephrem the Deacon.”

40. See Rapp, Holy Bishops, chap. 6.

41. See chapter 6.

42. All knowledge of Theodoret's early life comes from his HR 9.4–15, 12.4, 13.16–17 (SC 234:412–34, 464–66, 502–8) and his epp. S 79–81 (SC 98:182–98), S 113, 116 (SC 111:56–66, 68–72). A wide reading list is clear from his Graecarum affectionum curatio.

43. See chapters 5-7. On Theodoret's upbringing, see Leroy-Molinghen, “Naissance et enfance.” On his bilingualism, see Millar, “Theodoret.” On his death, see Azéma, “Date de la mort.”

44. On the record-keeping practices of church councils, see Lim, Public Disputation, 217–30; Sillett, “Culture of Controversy,” chap. 1; Millar, Greek Roman Empire, 235–42.

45. See ACO I.1–4. On the transmission of acta from the First Council of Ephesus, see Galtier, “Le centenaire d'Éphèse;” Devreesse, “Les actes du concile d'Éphèse;” and Sillett, “Culture of Controversy,” chap. 1.

46. For the two half-transcripts from Ephesus in 449, see ACO II.1.1 (tr. Price and Gaddis, Acts of Chalcedon, vol. 1) and Flemming (tr. Perry).

47. See ACO II.1–5 (tr. Price and Gaddis, Acts of Chalcedon).

48. On these topics in Theodoret's letters, with comparisons, see chapters 1, 6, and 7

49. This number does not include those letters of Pope Leo I and Emperor Theodosius II (and his officials) that dealt with unrelated topics.

50. Irenaeus of Tyre collected nearly 150 letters while in exile (435–443, or after 448) as part of a larger set of conciliar documents geared to show how the pure dyophysite teaching was betrayed by Christian leaders. His work, the Tragoedia, was then found in the mid-sixth century by Rusticus, a deacon of Rome, who translated large portions in order to write a point-by-point refutation. Only this edited translation survives, as the Collectio Casiniensis. For more on the textual history, see Schwartz, in ACO I.4 vii-xx.

51. Theodoret's letters present a peculiar textual transmission history. One of the two surviving textual traditions, Collectio Patmensis (first published by Sakkelion in 1885), features 52 letters from a single manuscript. The other, Collectio Sirmondiana (first published by Sirmond in 1642), features 146 letters from numerous manuscripts, but it repeats only five entries from Patmensis. These represent a small fraction of the more than 500 letters reportedly available in medieval Constantinople (see Nikephoros Kallistos, Historia 14.54, PG 146:1257). On the textual history of Theodoret's letters, see Azéma, Théodoret Correspondance (SC 40:66–72; SC 98:9–18).

52. The letters of Firmus survive in one tenth-century manuscript. For more on the textual history, see Calvet-Sebasti and Gatier, Firmus de Césarée, Lettres, 8–18.

53. For a summary of evidentiary issues, see Millar, Greek Roman Empire, Appendix A.

54. On the limits of letters as evidence, see Mullett, Theophylact, 42–44.

55. On the major studies of these works, see esp. chapters 3, 5, 8.

56. For lists of Theodoret's exegesis, see Guinot, Léxegèse de Théodoret, 41–64. On Theodore's corpus, see Greer, Theodore: Exegete and Theologian; Zaharopoulos, Theodore on the Bible.

57. Most important are the works of Socrates, Sozomen, Philostorgius, and Theodoret.

58. The era also produced the Historia lausiaca and Dialogus de vita Ioannis Chrysostomi by Palladius of Helenopolis, the anonymous Vita Barsaumae, and the anonymous Vita Alexandri acoemetae. On the major studies of these works, see chapters 3–5.

59. On archaeological finds in and near Antioch, see Dobbins, “Houses;” Kondoleon, “Mosaics;” J. Russell, “Household Furnishings;” and Vermeule, “Sculptures.” See also Liebeschuetz, Decline, 54–74; Casana, “Archaeological landscape,” 117–20. On the remains of Cyrrhus, see Frezouls, “L'exploration archéologique de Cyrrhus” and “Recherches historiques et archéologiques.” For surveys of rural Syria, see Tchalenko, Villages antiques; Tate, Campagnes de Syrie; and Casana, “Archeological Landscape.” On relevant Syrian inscriptions, see Trombley, “Christian Demography.”

60. Noted by Millar, Greek Roman Empire, 236.

61. Notable studies include Schwartz, Konzilstudien; Devreesse, Essai sur Théodore; Richard, “Lévolution doctrinale;” Sullivan, Christology of Theodore; D. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch; Grillmeier, Christ; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines; Norris, Manhood and Christ; Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon; McGuckin, St. Cyril; O'Keefe, “Kenosis or Impassibility;” Fairbairn, Grace and Christology; Clayton, Christology of Theodoret.

62. On church-state institutional politics, see Jones, LRE, 874–94, 933–37; Rapp, Holy Bishops, esp. chap. 8; Millar, Greek Roman Empire, chaps. 4–6; Norton, Episcopal Elections. On church resources, see Jones, LRE, 894–910; Wipszycka, Ressources; Rapp, Holy Bishops, esp. chap. 7. On clerics' social background, see Jones, LRE, 920–29; Rapp, Holy Bishops, esp. chap. 6. On relations with local communities, see Garnsey and Woolf, “Patronage of the Rural Poor;” Tompkins, “Relations;” Van Dam, Becoming Christian, 25–45; Mayer, “Patronage, Pastoral Care;” Rapp, Holy Bishops, esp. chap. 9.

63. E.g., Brown, Power and Persuasion, chaps. 2–3 and Poverty and Leadership; Sterk, Renouncing the World; Maxwell, Christianization and Communication; Gaddis, “No Crime;” Rapp, Holy Bishops; Harvey, “Sense of a Stylite” and “The Stylite's Liturgy.”

64. On Theodoret's doctrine and exegesis, see esp. Guinot, Léxegèse de Théodoret; Clayton, Christology of Theodoret; Leppin, “Zum kirchenpolitische Kontext.” On his social relations, see esp. Canivet, Monachisme syrien; Tompkins, “Relations.” On his cultural endeavors, see Urbainczyk, Theodoret; but also Krueger, Writing and Holiness; Sillett, “Culture of Controversy;” and Papadoyannakis, “Christian Therapeia.”

65. See, e.g., McGuckin, St. Cyril (which dismisses criticism of Cyril's ambition for power) and Rapp, Holy Bishops (which does not explore bishops' doctrinal authority).

66. Examples of interdisciplinary work include Young, Biblical Exegesis; Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria; Lim, Public Disputation; Brown, Poverty and Leadership; Gaddis, “No Crime;” Millar, Greek Roman Empire; and Sillett, “Culture of Controversy.”

67. E.g., Geertz, “Religion as a Cultural System;” Douglas, Natural Symbols. For a cognitivist's critique of Geertz's definition, see Pyysiäi nen, How Religion Works, chap. 3.

68. E.g., Foucault, Archaeology, chap. 3, or, regarding late Roman religion, Boyarin, Border Lines. For critiques of post-structuralism, see Douglas, How Institutions Think, 45–53, 69–90; Ramachandran, Tour of Human Consciousness, chap. 4, esp. 80–82.

69. See Boyer, Naturalness of Religious Ideas, esp. chaps. 1, 4, 6; Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds; Pyysiäinen, How Religion Works. For a critique of cognitivist perspectives, see Laidlaw, “Problems with the Cognitive Science of Religion.”

70. Polletta, “Contending Stories.” See also Somers, “Narrative Constitution of Identity,” esp. 616–35; H. White, “Value of Narrativity.”

71. Lakoff, Moral Politics, esp. chaps. 1–6.

72. Bourdieu, Outline, esp. chaps. 2, 4; Alexander “Cultural Pragmatics.” See also Goffman, Forms of Talk, introduction. Regarding late Roman religion, see Burrus, “In the Theatre of this Life.”

73. Sociologists Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge applied network concepts to several religious movements (e.g., “Networks of Faith: Interpersonal Bonds”).

74. E.g., Boissevain, Friends of Friends, chaps. 2–3, 5. Similar selection methods were used by historians E. Clark (Origenist Controversy, chap. 1) and Mullett (Theophylact, part 1).

75. For early work on communication as a trading of symbolic cues, see Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism. For an updated perspective, see J. Alexander, “Cultural Pragmatics.”

76. There are, in fact, several sorts of centrality measured by network analysts. The type of centrality discussed herein is “closeness centrality,” which involves measuring the sum of distances (number of links) between a given node and all othe nodes in the network. See Wasserman and Faust, Social Network Analysis, 184–87.

77. On the methods of network analysis, see Scott, Social Network Analysis; Wasserman and Faust, Social Network Analysis. For the popularizing of some of these terms, see Shils, Center and Periphery.

78. On friendship, see Boissevain, Friends of Friends, chap. 5. For a broader survey, see Eisenstadt and Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends, chaps. 1–2. On patronage, see Boissevain, chap. 6. For a cross-cultural survey, see Eisenstadt and Roniger, chap. 4.

79. See Boissevain, Friends of Friends, chaps. 5–7.

80. McLean, Art of the Network, chap. 1, frames these issues differently. In his view, people perform roles “aspirationally,” based on the positions that they wish to assume.

81. Barabási, Linked, esp. 86–92, 226–38. Modular refers to the tendency of people to form cliques by bonding with friends of friends. “Scale-free” is a descriptive term tied to the tendency of people to prefer to attach to the well-connected. If these assumptions are modeled, they produce relational systems in which the number of people (N) who possess a certain number of links (k) has a power-law relationship to that number of links (or N(k) = ak^-γ, with a and γ as constants). See also Watts, Six Degrees, chaps. 3–4, 8.

82. Barabási, Linked, 109–22. Watts, Six Degrees, 188–94.

83. E. Clark, Origenist Controversy did network analysis to give context for the “cultural construction” of doctrine. Hezser, Rabbinic Movement, linked network structures to the patterns of discourse in rabbinic literature. Mullett, Theophylact, used network maps to explore the way letters convey a sense of the authorial self.

84. Ruffini, Social Networks in Byzantine Egypt. See esp. his introduction.

85. Paul McLean has also combined network theory and “performative” sociology to study patronage in renaissance Florence (Art of the Network, esp. chap. 1).

CHAPTER 1. TRACES OF A NETWORK: FRIENDSHIP, DOCTRINE, AND CLERICAL COMMUNICATION, 423–451

1. Acacius was ordained in 379, and Theodoret (HR 2.9, SC 234:214–16) claimed that he served for fifty-eight years. Some scholars (e.g., McGuckin, St. Cyril, 110–13) date his death to 433, since none of his letters survive thereafter.

2. E.g., Balai, who wrote five Syriac madrashe in Acacius's honor (Overbeck: 259–69).

3. Theodoret, HR 2.9 (SC 234:214–16).

4. On Acacius as Theodoret's mentor, see Theodoret, ep. S 75 (SC 98:106–62), On Acacius as Rabbula of Edessa's mentor, see Chronicon Edessenum year 723 = A.D. 412, CSCO SS 1.4:6).

5. See chapters 3–4.

6. Philia actually carries a broader range of meanings than just “friendship.” For a discussion of philos and its derivatives, see Konstan, Friendship, esp. 53–92.

7. Some observers have scrutinized concepts like philia and agap and found incompatible terminologies (e.g., Kierkegaard, Works of Love, 280–82, 288–91). Others point to the ready combination of such terms (e.g., C. White, Christian Friendship, chaps. 3–5).

8. Some claim letters were too formulaic for honest emotions (e.g., Jones, LRE, 1009). Others find them reliably genuine (e.g., Van Dam, Families and Friends, esp. 129–38).

9. Direct commands of agap to fellow humans: Constitutiones apostolorum, 1.2, 2.3, 2.20, 2.25, 2.28, 2.49 (SC 320:109, 148, 196–98, 228, 244, 294); 3.19, 4.12, 6.23, 6.29 (SC 329:162, 190–92, 368–70, 386–88); 7.2, 7.5 (SC 336:26, 34). On the dating of this text, see Metzger, Les constitutions apostoliques, 14–24, 54–62.

10. agap: E.g., Theodoret, epp. P 1, P 15, P 30, P 43 (SC 40:74, 86–87, 96, 106–8), S 2, S 24, S 56, S 62, S 75 (SC 98:20–22, 80–82, 132, 140–42. 160–62). Fatherly affection: epp. P 28, P 32, P 45 (SC 40:95, 98, 109–11). For more on agap as a preferred term in Christian correspondence, see Konstan, Friendship, 149–61, 173.

11. E.g., Theodoret, epp. P 1–2, P 4, P 15, P 22, P 41, P 43, P 49 (SC 40:74–75, 77, 86, 92–94, 105, 106–8, 119), S 4, S 11, S 25, S 38–39, S 49–50, S 54–55, S 60, S 74, S 77–78 (SC 98:30, 38–40, 82–84, 102–4, 124–26, 132, 136–38, 160, 166–82).

12. See Teeter, “Christian Letters of Recommendation.”

13. John Chrysostom, De sacerdotio 2.1–2, 6.5–7 (SC 272:100–106, 320–30).

14. Bishops: Constitutiones apostolorum 2.25 (SC 320:230–32); priests and deacons: 2.26–32 (SC 320:236–52); bishop like God, deacon like prophet: 2.30 (SC 320:248).

15. Plato, Lysis, esp. 221b-d.

16. Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, esp. 8.iii.6, 8.vi.7, 8.xiv.1 (ed. Burnet, 1156b, 1158b, 1163a-b). See Konstan, Friendship, chap. 2.

17. (Pseudo-) Demetrius, De elocutione 223–240 (LCL: Aristotle, The Poetics, 438–448). See also Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists.

18. Synesius of Cyrene, ep. 51 (ed. Garzya, 90–91) to Theotimus (poet in Constantinople).

19. See Børtnes, “Eros Transformed,” and Lim, Public Disputation, 37–44.

20. On the overlap of friendship and patronage, see Saller, “Patronage and Friendship,” 57–60; Johnson and Dandekker, “Patronage: Relation and System,” 231–32.

21. E.g., Theodoret, HR 31.17, 21 (SC 257:300, 314).

22. With priests and archimandrites, Theodoret often employed the vocative theophilestate, indicating their friendship with both him and God (epp. S 19, S 50, S 62 [SC 98:66, 126, 142]). For the unequal friendships (or more often father-son bonds) that Theodoret claimed with those above him in rank, see chapter 7.

23. E.g., Synesius, ep. 138 (Garzya, 240–41). See C. White, Christian Friendship, 56, 100–108.

24. Firmus used philia or philos in epp. 3–5, 8–10, 14, 20–21, 25–26, 29, 32, 34, 37–39 (SC 350:72–78, 86–92, 102, 118–20, 128–30, 136, 144, 148, 154–58). He used agap only in ep. 11 (SC 350:94).

25. Theodoret, ep. S 75 (SC 98:160–62).

26. Theodoret, ep. S 75 (SC 98:162).

27. On this theme, see Burrus, “'In the Theatre of this Life.'”

28. Diodore, Commentarii in Psalmos, preface (CCG 6:1–2); Quaestiones in Octateuchem (frag) (Schaublin, “Diodor von Tarsus,” in Theologische Realenzyklopä die 8:764–65). Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentarii in Psalmos, 35 prologue (ST 93:194).

29. Diodore, Commentarii in Psalmos, preface (CCG 6:1–2). See also his fragment of Quaestiones in Octateuchem, noted by Schäublin, “Diodor von Tarsus,” 764–65.

30. Diodore, Fragmenta in Epistulam ad Romanos, Rom 5.13–14, 9.1 (in Staab, Pauluskommentare, 83, 97). Theodore, Commentarii in Psalmos 77.8b (ST 93:520); Commentarii in XII prophetas minores, Jonah, prologue (repeatedly), Micah 4.1 (repeatedly) (170–72, 207). On typology in Theodoret, see Guinot, L'éxegèse de Théodoret, esp. 304–19. On typology in Theodore, see Greer, Theodore, Exegete and Theologian, esp. 93–111; and esp. McLeod, “Christological Ramifications.”

31. The terminology shifted. Diodore used “Son of David,” and “Son of God” (see R. Abramowski, “Der Theologische Nachlass des Diodor,” esp. 26–33). Theodore spoke of “knowing the natures of both” (Homiliae catecheticae 8, ed. Mingana: 200; tr. Mingana: 84), though he used other formulations and (in Syriac translations) preferred “God the Word who assumed,” (alaha melltha haw de-nsav) and “man who was assumed,” (barnash haw deethnsev) (Homiliae catecheticae 8, ed. Mingana: 198; tr. Mingana: 82). Nestorius professed “two natural prospa” united as a “common prospon of the divinity and the humanity” or a “prospon of union” (Liber Heraclidis, tr. Driver and Hodgson, 149, 160–61); see also R. Chestnut, “Two prosopa.” Theodoret kept to “two natures in one prosopon,” at least after 433 (Richard, “La lettre de Théodoret”). See Clayton, Christology of Theodoret, chaps. 4–5; Gray, “Theodoret on the ‘one hypostasis.' “

32. Key efforts to interpret “Antiochene” doctrine include Sullivan, Christology of Theodore; Norris, Manhood and Christ; Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition; Greer, Theodore, Exegete and Theologian; Lampe and Woolcombe, Essays on Typology; Young, Biblical Exegesis; Fairbairn, Grace and Christology, chaps. 1, 2, 7. Efforts to seek cultural roots include VÖÖbus, School of Nisibis, 21–22; D. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch, chap. 5; H. J. W. Drijvers, “Early Forms of Antiochene Christology;” Greer, Theodore: Exegete and Theologian; Young, Biblical Exegesis; Schäublin, Untersuchungen, esp. 34–42, 55–65. For more on this scholarship, see Schor, “Theodoret on the School of Antioch.”

33. Grillmeier, Christ, 2:334,calls Antiochene teachings barely coherent. Guinot, L'éxegèse de Théodoret, 627–28, notes the fluidity of “Antiochene” and “Alexandrian” tropes. Young, Biblical Exegesis, chaps. 7–9, stresses the similarity of Antiochene and Alexandrian exegesis. O'Keefe, “ ‘A Letter that Killeth,' “ argues that Antiochene doctrine appealed only to a sophistic elite. Kalantzis, Theodore: Commentary on John, intro., finds a divergence between Antiochene Greek works and Syriac versions. E. Clark, Reading Renunciation, chaps. 1–2, questions the notion of a doctrinal school.

34. On inexpressible theology, see Cyril of Alexandria (in Acta concilii Ephesini; ACO I.1.1: 56); John Chrysostom, De incomprehensibili dei natura homiliae 1.705–7 (SC 28:90–100); Creed of 325 Council of Antioch (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 209–10). See also P. S. Russell, “Ephraim on the Utility of Language;” McGuckin, St. Cyril, 175; MacMullen, Voting about God, 36–38. For an effort to look behind ambiguities in language, see Fairbairn, “Puzzle of Theodoret's Christology.”

35. For an example of theological gesticulation (Meletius of Antioch's hand signals), see Theodoret, HE 2.31 (GCS 5:172–73). See chapter 3.

36. At the start of their doctrinal negotiations, John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria agreed on Athanasius as a paragon of orthodoxy (see John of Antioch, Propositiones Cyrillo Alexandrino missae [CPG #6308, ACO I.1.4: 146]).

37. Theodoret, Epp. S 81–82 (SC 98:192, 198, 202–4), S 113 (SC 111:58–62); Eranistes prologue (ed. Ettlinger, 61–62). See similar condemnations (usually of Arius) by Basil, epp. 69–70, 90–92 (LCL 2:44, 48, 126, 130, 136), 188 (a fuller list), 242 (LCL 3:10, 432).

38. On these key terms, which are all credited to Diodore of Tarsus, see Hill, Diodore, Commentary on the Psalms, xvii-xxiv.

39. On Theodoret's “types” and “realities,” see Guinot, L'éxegèse de Théodoret, 304–19.

40. Theodoret spoke of two natures in one person repeatedly in his Eranistes, De incarnatione Domini and his Impugnatio xii anathematismorum Cyrilli (ACO I.1.6: 108–44). Theodoret's defense of some of Theodore's other formulas can be seen in the fragmentary Pro Diodoro et Theodoro. For others' use of the same basic formulas in treatises, albeit with widely varied interpretations, see Andreas of Samosata, Impugnatio xii anathematismorum Cyrilli (ACO I.1.7: 33–65); Hiba of Edessa, Ep. ad Marim Persam (CPG #6500, ACO II.1.3: 32–33); Nestorius, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum ii (CPG #5669, ACO I.1.1: 29–32).

41. Theodoret, Ep. ad Iohannem Antiochenum (CPG #6266, ACO I.1.7: 164).

42. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Nestorium (CPG #6316, ACO I.1.1: 93–96).

43. E.g., Theodoret, Ep. ad Iohannem Antiochenum (CPG #6266, ACO I.1.7: 164). Two more letters, Epp. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6250, 6251, ACO I.4: 172, 174), while preserved only in Latin translation, furnish acribia, a transliteration from Greek. See also Hill, Thodoret, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, 14.

44. John of Antioch et al., Acta et sententia synodi Orientalium (CPG #6352, ACO I.1.5: 121).

45. Condescension: Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6253, ACO 1.4: 188); Andreas of Samosata, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6376, ACO I.4: 102). Both are Latin translations, but the terms match consistently. See also John of Antioch, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6303, ACO I.4: 112–13); Andreas, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6380, ACO I.4: 136).

46. Theodoret ep. S 16 to Irenaeus of Tyre (SC 98:56–62). Similar sentiments appear in John of Antioch, Ep. ad Cyrillum episc. Alexandriae (CPG #6312, ACO I.5: 310).

47. Irenaeus of Tyre scolded Theodoret for such reticence (Theodoret, ep. S 16, SC 98:58–60).

48. Chrysostom was praised in Theodoret's sermons (Sermones quinque in Iohannem Chrysostomum, CPG #6225, fragments from Photius, Bibliotheca, PG 104:229–36). For Acacius, see Theodoret ep. S 75 (SC 98:160–62). On the feud between Acacius and John, see chapter 3. For a sample of conflicting opinions on how to label Chrysostom's theology and exegesis, see Grillmeier, Christ, 418–21; Lawrenz, Christology of John Chrysostom; Fairbairn, Grace and Christology, 204–11.

49. E.g., Codex Theodosianus 16.5.12–13.

50. E.g., Theodore, Contra Apollinarium (fragments, in Swete, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Minor Epistles of St. Paul, 312–22). Theodoret, Ep. ad Iohannem Antiochenum (CPG #6264, ACO I.1.6: 107–8) and HE 5.40 (GCS 5:348); Andreas of Samosata, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6375, ACO I.4: 100–101); Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6416, ACO I.4: 187). John of Antioch led his allies at Ephesus in 431 to declare Cyril's teachings in accord with Arius, Eunomius, and Apollinarius (Acta et sententia synodi Orientalium, CPG #6352, ACO I.1.5: 122).

51. See chapter 8.

52. See the convincing argument of Millar, Greek Roman Empire, chap. 3.

53. Theodoret spoke some form of Aramaic (HR 21.15, [SC 257:94]). His reading skills in Syriac are unclear. For a detailed investigation of Theodoret's languages, see Millar, “Theodoret.”

54. On the distribution of Syrian languages, see Millar, Greek Roman Empire, chap. 3; and “Theodoret.” For a more expansive view of the place of Syriac, see Brock, “Greek and Syriac.” For Armenian, see Garsoïan, L’église arménienne, esp. chap1o, chap. 1.

55. Brock, “Greek into Syriac;” Garsoïan, L’église arménienne, 67–70; Winkler, “Obscure Chapter,” 87–90.

56. For Ephrem, see Brock, “From Antagonism to Assimilation.” For Theodoret, see Urbainczyk, “The Devil Spoke Syriac,” and Theodoret, 72–79.

57. J. Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 538.

58. Brock, “History of Syriac Translation” and “Aspects of Translation Technique.”

59. See Brock, “Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac.”

60. Ousia was usually rendered into Syriac as ithaya, hypostasis as qnoma. See J. Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 15, 509–10. See Brock, “Christology of the Church of the East in the Synods,” esp. 130–31.

61. Brock, “Greek into Syriac,” 3–4 (420–419, reverse pagination) and “History of Syriac Translation.”

62. See J. Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 213, 464, 510. For person as qnoma, see Theodoret of Mopsuestia, Contra Apollinarium (fragment in a miaphysite florilegium, PO 13:188). For person as partsopa see Homiliae catecheticae 7 (Mingana: 195). See esp. Brock, “Christology of the Church of the East.” Terminological shifts had taken place by the 480s in Edessa and Nisibis (see Pronouncement of the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 486, tr. Brock “Christology of the Church of the East in the Synods,” 133–34).

63. See J. Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 623. For an example, see Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentarius in evangelem Iohannis Apostoli (Syriac version): 1.35, 4.1–3, 4.54 (CSCO SS 62–63:48, 85, 97).

64. Conflict erupted when lines from Diodore and Theodore were “discovered” in Syriac (ca. 432) and Armenian (436–438), then re-collected in Greek. See chapters 4-5.

65. J. Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 163. For examples, see Theodore of Mopsuestia, Homiliae catacheticae 1, 5, 6, 7 (Mingana 117, 160, 179, 195); Commentarius in evangelem Iohannis Apostoli (Syriac version) preface, 1.19, 1.35, 3.32, 4.17 (CSCO SS 62–63:11, 19, 48, 82, 90).

66. J. Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 252. For examples, see Theodore of Mopsuestia, Homiliae Catecheticae 1, 5, 6, 7 (Mingana: 118, 161–64, 179, 186–93). For Philoxenus's use of this term, see Michelson, “Practice Leads to Theory,” chap. 1.

67. The “Antiochenes” were not unique in celebrating Syriac-speaking heroes. Sozomen said more about Ephrem than Theodoret did (see Millar, “Theodoret,” 121).

68. Theodore as “Herald of truth”: Hiba of Edessa, Ep. ad Marim Persam (CPG #6500, ACO II.1.3: 33, now in Greek, originally Syriac). Acacius as “noble brother in Christ” and monastic: Vita Rabbulae (Overbeck: 158–59, tr. Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 68).

69. Mani: Theodore of Mopsuestia, Homiliae Catecheticae 5 (Mingana: 164). Marcion: Homiliae catecheticae 5 (Mingana: 164). Arius and Eunomius: Homiliae catecheticae 1, 3, 5 (Mingana: 124, 146, 165); Commentarius in evangelem Iohannis Apostoli (Syriac version), preface (CSCO SS 62–63:3). Apollinarius: Contra Apollinarium (PO 13:188); Hiba, Ep. ad Marim Persam (CPG #6500, ACO II.1.3: 32–33), now in Greek, but originally in Syriac. All of these “heretics,” except Apollinarius, had been denounced by Ephrem Syrus in the 360s (e.g., Second Discourse to Hypatius, tr. Mitchell, St. Ephrem's Prose Refutations, xxix-l). All were also denounced by Rabbula's miaphysite allies in the Vita Rabbulae (Overbeck: 192–94; tr. Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 92–93). On Rabbula's early anti-heretical work, see Blum, Rabbula: 94–106.

70. Again, see Pronouncement of the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 486, tr. Brock, “Christology of the Church of the East in the Synods,” 133–34.

71. Both Rabbula and Hiba of Edessa gained prominence via Syriac translation efforts; Mashdotz did so via Armenian translations. On Rabbula and Hiba, see Brock “Greek into Syriac;” J. W. Drijvers, “Protonike Legend and Bishop Rabbula;” and Garsoïan, “Acace de Melitene.” On Mashdotz, see Garsoïan, “Acace de Melitene,” 74–75.

72. See previous note.

73. Some passages from Theodore of Mopsuestia were first translated in the 430s and 440s by his critics, such as Rabbula of Edessa; others, around the same time, by his backers, such as Hiba. New translation drives by supporters took place in the 460s-470s in Edessa, and in the 490s in Nisibis, as well as by both critics and supporters in the 530s-550s in Constantinople, during the so-called Three-Chapters controversy (see epilogue).

74. On the textual history of Latin acta, see Sillett, “Culture of Controversy,” chap. 1.

75. E.g., Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6250, ACO I.4: 172); John of Antioch, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6321, ACO I.4: 124); Helladius of Tarsus, Ep. ad Nestorium (CPG #6441, ACO I.4: 205). Transliteration remained a choice—sometimes Rusticus chose otherwise (e.g., Acta et sententia synodi Orientalium, CPG #6352, where Greek akriben, ACO I.1.5: 121, became Latin integram, ACO I.4: 35).

76. Theodoret, ep. P 15 (SC 40:86–87).

77. Theodoret has reversed the message of II Corinthians 6, where Paul was actually rebuking his addressees for their limited sense of love.

78. Theodoret, epp. P 20 (SC 40:92), S 47 (SC 98:122–24), both dated to 446. Other letters imply contacts in 434, 435, 438, 443, and 445–446, at a minimum.

79. Theodoret, ep. P 49 (SC 40:119).

80. Self-deprecation in Christian writing was a commonplace, but still meaningful, gesture. See Krueger, Writing and Holiness, chap. 5.

81. See Mullett, Theophylact, 176–78, noting “wordplay” as one of three “tests of intimacy” in Theophylact's letters.

82. Basil of Seleucia sided with Dioscorus of Alexandria at the Second Council of Ephesus (449), agreeing to Theodoret's deposition. See chapter 5.

83. E.g., Theodoret, ep. P 14 (SC 40:86).

84. New intimacy with praise of Irenaeus's virtues: Theodoret, ep. S 35 (SC 98:96), probably dated to 443. Brotherhood in passing: ep. S 3 (SC 98:22–30), dated to 447–448.

85. E.g., Theodoret, ep. S 48 (SC 98:124), taking a familiar tone with Eustathius of Berytus, who by 449 was leaning miaphysite (though in prior years he may have been viewed as an ally). See also Theodoret's letters to the pagan sophist Isocasius (see chapter 6).

86. Theodoret expressed pain when former allies like Basil of Seleucia responded with obvious formulas to his letters of self-defense (see Theodoret, ep. S 102 [SC 111:20–22]).

87. Council of Nicaea, canon 5 (Joannou, Discipline, 1:27–28), Constitutiones apostolorum 8.47 canon 37 (SC 336:286).

88. Records showcase eight councils in Syria I, two councils in Cilicia I, two councils in Cilicia II, and four in Euphratensis. See chapter 4.

89. On rituals as semi-improvised performances, see Tambiah, “Performative Approach to Ritual;” Turner, “Images and Reflections;” Schechner, Performance Theory, chap. 4.

90. John of Antioch, in Acta et sententia synodi Orientalium (CPG #6352, ACO I.1.5: 121–22).

91. The trial of Athanasius of Perrha held in Antioch in 445 (Acta concilii Chalcedonensis session 15, ACO II.1.3: 69–81) reveals the order of primacy at work in a regional council.

92. On ritualized councils, see Lim, Public Disputation, 217–30; Mendels, Media Revolution. For a defense of the democratic element of councils see MacMullen, Voting about God, chaps. 2, 7. For a defense of the dialogic element, see Cooper and Dal Santo, “Boethius.”

93. See, for instance, the trial of Athanasius of Perrha (Acta concilii Chalcedonensis session 15, ACO II.1.3: 69–81) in which all bishops follow one set of talking points.

94. Constitutiones apostolorum 2.56 (SC 320:308).

95. Theodoret was debarred by imperial edict from speaking at the trial of Athanasius of Perrha, but he sat among the judges and influenced proceedings (see Acta concilii Chalcedonensis session 14:158, ACO II.1.3: 83). See chapter 4. On nonattendance at councils, see MacMullen, Voting about God, 98–99.

96. In order to avoid a display of disagreement at a provincial council in 433, bishops of Euphratensis negotiated beforehand who would attend. Ultimately the metropolitan, Alexander, who disagreed with the majority, chose not to attend (Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum, CPG #6248, ACO I.4: 135); Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri, CPG #6412, ACO I.4: 135–36). See chapter 4.

97. Consider, again, the statement of John of Antioch at the Counter-Council of Ephesus in 431, concerning exactness of doctrine, or hostility to the “heretic” Apollinarius (Acta et sententia Synodi Orientalium, CPG #6352, ACO I.1.5: 11.

98. For visits to Antioch, see Theodoret, ep. S 81 (SC 98:194–96), which recalled “only” five or six meetings, and Ep. ad Himerium Nicomedensem (CPG #6263, ACO I.4: 107–8) which mentioned regular visits to Antioch just to collect mail. For visits to other sees, see Theodoret, epp. P 45 (SC 40:109–11, to a village in Antioch's territory), S 75 (SC 98:162, to Beroea), S 102 (SC 111:20, location unclear), Ep. ad Acacium Beroeensem (CPG #6241, ACO I.4: 101, to Beroea), Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6245, ACO I.4: 108–9, to Hierapolis and Beroea), Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6248, ACO I.4: 135, to Zeugma), Ep. Ad Mocimum oeconomum ecclesiae Hierapolitanae (CPG #6269, ACO I.4: 182, to Hierapolis), Ep. ad Nestorium (CPG #6271, ACO I.4: 189, to Germanicea).

99. Theodoret ep. S 81 (SC 98:194–96) to Nomus the Consul.

100. Kouri-Sarkis, “Réception d'un évêque syrien,” 159–62. Kouri-Sarkis (138–42) locates the text in Euphratensis and dates it between the mid-fifth and early sixth centuries.

101. Preaching by visiting bishops is recommended by the Constitutiones apostolorum 2.58 (SC 320:320–22). Theodoret and Domnus of Antioch reportedly shared preaching (Syriac Acts of the Second Synod of Ephesus, Flemming: 134; tr. Perry: 330–31).

102. On clerical meal hosting, see Constitutiones apostolorum 2.28 (SC 350:244–46).

103. Theodoret, ep. P 45 (SC 40:110).

104. In 435 Alexander of Hierapolis denied Theodoret's request to allow him to visit (Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri, CPG #6416, ACO I.4: 186–87). Theodoret's visit with John of Antioch in 434 marked a clear step toward reconciliation (Theodoret, Epp. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum, CPG #6249–51, ACO I.4: 170–74).

105. On Roman letter-writing practices, see Stowers, Letter-writing; Stirewalt, Ancient Epistolography; Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters; Dineen, Titles of Address.

106. Theodoret, Ep. ad Theosebium episc. Cii (CPG #6272, ACO I.4: 126).

107. Theodoret, ep. S 87 (SC 98:232) to Domnus of Apamea.

108. Consider Theodoret's letters to Hiba of Edessa (his close ally), which expressed his desire to write, limited by lack of a courier (see Theodoret, ep. S 133, SC 111:126).

109. Theodoret, epp. S 4–6, S 25, S 38, S 54–56, S 63–64, S 72 (SC 98:30–32, 80, 102, 132, 142–44, 156–58). The only study I have found is Brok, “À propos des lettres festales.”

110. Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. festalis 1 (A.D. 413, SC 372:142–87), ranged from anti-Jewish polemic to appropriate fasting to a defense of his succession. Ep. festalis 17 (A.D. 429, SC 434:254–94) was devoted to arguing against Nestorius. On the genre of festal letters in Egypt, see Evieux, Cyrille d'Alexandrie, Lettres festales, 1:73–118.

111. Salvation: Theodoret, ep. S 5 (SC 98:30). Spiritual blessing: ep. S 6 (SC 98:32).

112. Theodoret, ep. S 72 (SC 98:158). On the genre, see Brok, “Lettres festales.”

113. Christian clergy were hardly the only ones to expect holiday greetings. See, for instance, Libanius, ep. F128, written for the Saturnalia and the Kalends of January.

114. Theodoret (ep. P 32, SC 40:98) once wrote to thank Theodotus of Antioch for cooperative efforts in a legal case, even though he had already offered thanks in person.

115. Theodoret, ep. P 1 (SC 40:74).

116. On the difficulty of obtaining envoys, see Van Dam, Families and Friends, 133–34.

117. On Byzantine letter collection and editing practices, see Mullett, Theophylact, 42–44.

118. Synesius, ep. 123 (Garzya, 211): “Reading your letters of the last two years, I poured upon them a great volume of tears.” On letter collecting, see Bradbury, Selected Letters of Libanius, 20–21.

119. Alexander of Hierapolis (Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri, CPG #6416, ACO I.4: 186–87) noted five letters in his collection from a certain priest, “two…in which the letter [of Cyril] is called orthodox and three…in which [the author] calls it heretical.”

120. Synesius, ep. 105 (Garzya, 235–41) to his brother Euoptius.

121. Cyril and Rabbula did public readings of letters (Cyril, Ep. ad Rabbulam Edesse-num, CPG #5374, in Overbeck: 227–28). Alexander of Hierapolis forwarded other clerics' letters (Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri, CPG #6415, ACO I.4: 174–75).

122. On the public reading of letters, see Constable, Letters and Letter Collections, 11–12; Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 17; and Bradbury, Selected Letters of Libanius, 19–20.

123. Wagner (“Chapter in Byzantine Epistolography,” 160–61) noted the “tyranny of the rhetorical tradition.” Constable, Letters and Letter Collections, 16–20, allowed for more flexibility. Van Dam, Families and Friends, chap. 8, suggests that rhetorical formulas could serve as pathways for emotional expression rather than as barriers.

124. Maximianus of Anazarbus, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6450, ACO I.4: 140).

125. For a direct accusation, see, Meletius of Mopsuestia, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6455, ACO I.4: 129). For hiding of names, see Theodoret, epp. S 42, S 84 (SC 98:106–8, 220) and S 109 (SC 111:34–36).

126. Consider Eutherius of Tyana, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6150, ACO I.4: 213–21), a long doctrinal letter. The document remained to be collected by Irenaeus alongside short notes of information and friendship.

127. Alexander of Hierapolis (Ep. ad Andream Samosatenum, CPG #6398, ACO I.4: 138) broke with Andreas by asking for no more letters. Theodoret worried about his standing with Helladius, who had “written one sole letter of recommendation [to Theodoret] all summer” (Ep. ad Helladium episc. Tarsi, CPG #6261, ACO I.4: 141).

128. Theodoret, ep. P 15 (SC 40:87) to Proclus (on Naucratian the tribune).

129. Theodoret, ep. P 41 (SC 40:105) to Andreas of Samosata (on Damian the priest).

130. Theodoret, ep. P 15 (SC 40:86–87). For a detailed study of recommendations, see Kim, Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation.

131. Constitutiones apostolorum 2.58 (SC 320:320–22).

132. Andreas's priest Damian preached in Cyrrhus while Theodoret was ill (Theodoret, ep. P 41, SC 40:105).

133. Theodoret used two of his priests to recruit the orator Athanasius (Theodoret, epp. S 19–20, SC 98:66–68).

134. On envoys' oral communication, see Mullett, Theophylact, 36–37. Basil, ep. 94 (LCL 2:152) called unaugmented written notes “soulless letters.” Liebeschuetz, Antioch, 18–22, notes how Libanius evaded the accusations of treason that bedeviled other notables of Antioch in the 350s by writing letters with no damaging details.

135. Theodoret, ep. S 24 (SC 98:82) to Andreas of Samosata.

136. Negotiations after the council of Ephesus relied on Aristolaus, the emperor's tribune (John of Antioch, Propositiones Cyrillo Alexandrino missae, CPG #6308, ACO I.1.7: 146). Sensitive exchanges also involved Bishop Paul of Emesa (John of Antioch, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum, CPG #6309, ACO I.1.7: 151).

137. Synesius ep. 55 (Garzya, 95).

138. Theodoret, ep. S 62 (SC 98:140–42). Libanius made a similar request when former student Hyperechius sent important news via envoys (Libanius, ep. F777).

139. Theodoret, ep. 41 (SC 40:105).

140. For a different view of envoys (as conveyors of “presence”) see Stirewalt, Ancient Greek Epistolography, 4–5.

141. Meletius of Mopsuestia, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6455, ACO I.4: 129), blamed Paul of Emesa for the results of doctrinal negotiations in the winter of 433.

142. Theodoret, ep. P 45 (SC 40:110–11) to Theodotus of Antioch.

143. On proxenoi in classical Greece, see Davies, Democracy, 69.

144. Agents of Rabbula and Gemellinus of Perrha chased Andreas of Samosata from his see (Andreas, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum, CPG #6380, ACO I.4: 136). At least six clerics in Antioch reported to Cyril of Alexandria (Cyril, Ep. ad Anastasium, Alexandrum, Martinianum, Iohannem, Paregorium presb. et Maximum diac. ceterosque monachos Orientales, CPG #5355, ACO I.1.4: 49–61).

145. Theodoret, ep. S 75 (SC 98:160–62), shows his knowledge about Beroea's clerics. His Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6243, ACO I.4: 87) notes intelligence on feuding in Cappadocia. Meletius of Mopsuestia (Ep. ad Maximianum episc. Anazarbi, CPG #6462, ACO I.4: 155) revealed his spying on the Quaestor Dometianus.

146. There is no evidence that similarities between Western Christological expressions and those of Syrians had any basis in partisan cooperation until 449. See chapters 5, 7.

147. Theodoret, ep. S 112 (SC 111:54) to Domnus of Antioch. Just one other letter makes similar statements: Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6243, ACO I.1.7: 79–80).

CHAPTER 2. SHAPE OF A NETWORK: ANTIOCHENE RELATIONAL PATTERNS

1. On ties to John of Antioch, Alexander of Hierapolis and Theodoret, see Andreas, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolis (CPG #6375, ACO I.4: 100); Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6383, ACO I.4: 102).

2. Andreas's split with John of Antioch: Theodoret, Ep. ad Iohannem Antiochenum (CPG #6266, ACO I.4: 131–32). His split with Theodoret and Alexander of Hierapolis: Maximianus of Anazarbus, Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis (CPG #6450, ACO I.4: 140–41). Rabbula's effort to oust him: Andreas, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6380, ACO I.4: 136–37).

3. Andreas, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6380, ACO I.4: 137). New links to Theodoret came a bit later (see Theodoret, epp. P 41 (SC 40:105), S 24 (SC 98:80–82).

4. Refusal of contact: Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Andream Samosatenum (CPG #6398, ACO I.4: 138). Andreas's begging: Andreas, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6381, ACO I.4: 137–38). On Alexander's exile, see Irenaeus, Quanti a sanctis ecclesiis exierunt nolentes suam conscientiam vulnerare (CPG #6431, ACO I.4: 203–4).

5. See Acta concilii Ephesini, esp. session 1 (ACO I.1.2: 3–7, 55–64). Acta et Sententia synodi Orientalium (CPG #6352, ACO I.1.5: 119–24, I.4: 37–38).

6. Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus, Acta concilii Chalcedonensis session 1 (ACO II.1.1: 78–82).

7. The fullest list of bishops is the official subscriptions to the Chalcedonian confession: Acta concilii Chalcedonensis session 6 (ACO II.1.2: 141–55). Only about eighty-three Syrian bishops personally attended the council (listed by province by Dionysius Exiguus, ACO II.2.2: 65–77). See Price and Gaddis, Acts of Chalcedon, vol. 3 appendix 2.

8. The other sees either sent no one to councils before Chalcedon or were not yet separate church dioceses.

9. The other bishop-author of an extant personal collection, Firmus of Caesarea, did not use the Antiochene set of social cues.

10. Before 443: Theodoret, epp. P 2, P 22 to Eusebius of Ancyra (SC 40:74, 92–94), P 15 to Proclus of Constantinople (SC 40:86–87), S 83 to Dioscorus of Alexandria (SC 98:21416). After 443: epp. S 77–78 (SC 98:166–180) and S 113, S 118 (SC 111:46, 74).

11. E.g., John of Antioch, Ep. ad Xystum, Cyrillum et Maximianum (una cum synodo Antiochena) (CPG #6335, ACO I.1.4: 33).

12. Additional data come from commemoration in histories, hagiographies and sermons.

13. On the modular scale-free topology, see Barabási, Linked, 79–92, 227–38; Watts, Six Degrees, chaps. 3–4, 8. See above, Introduction, esp. figure 1.

14. The scale of the clergy can be seen in conciliar records. In early 449, 66 clerics (1 country bishop, 15 priests, 39 deacons, and 11 subdeacons) signed a statement supporting bishop Hiba (Acta concilii Chalcedonensis session 11, ACO II.1.3: 35–37). In mid 449, 38 clerics (20 priests, 11 deacons, 8 subdeacons) petitioned for his removal, including about 20 who signed the other petition (Syriac Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus, Flemming: 22; tr. Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 151–55). On the extent of the clergy, see Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 48–49.

15. On roles assigned to each clerical rank, see Constitutiones Apostolorum 2.1–63, 3.911, 3.16–20 (SC 320:144–338, SC 329:142–46, 154–64). On roles for monks and bnay/bnath qyama (“covenanters”), see Rabbula, Praecepta ad sacerdotes et regulares and Monita ad coenobitas (CPG #6490–92; Voobus, Syriac and Arabic Documents, 34–50, 27–33).

16. Theodoret, ep. S 51 (SC 98:126–28), thanking the priest for recruiting bishop Thomas.

17. Theodoret, Ep. ad Mocimum oeconomum eccl. Hierapolitanae (CPG #6269, ACO I.4: 182).

18. For examples, see chapter 1.

19. Theodoret, ep. P 43 (SC 40:106–7) involved the monk Agianus in matchmaking; ep. P 20 (SC 40:92) touted the support of the hermit Jacob for a tax appeal.

20. See Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6249, ACO I.4: 170–71).

21. Theodoret, ep. S 75 (SC 98:160–62). Other communal letters include Ep. ad eos qui in Euphratesia et Osrhoena regione, Syria, Phoenicia et Cilicia vitam monasticam degunt, CPG #6276, PG 83:1416–33) and (much later) ep. S 146 (SC 111:172–200), as well as conciliar letters probably drafted by Theodoret (Ep. synodi Orientalium ad clerum populumque Antiochenum [CPG #6339, ACO I.4: 57–58]; Ep. synodi Orientalium ad clerum CPolitanum [CPG #6341, ACO I.1.5: 127]).

22. Theodoret, ep. P 41 (SC 40:105) to Andreas of Samosata, about the priest Damian.

23. The aforementioned Agianus (Theodoret, ep. P 43 [SC 40:106–8]).

24. See Maxwell, Christianization and Communication, esp. chaps. 4, 6.

25. Note of consolation to a Cyrrhus resident: Theodoret, ep. S 14 (SC 98:46–52). Moral rebuke to notables of other towns: epp. P 8–9 (SC 40:79–82).

26. Consider Maranas the scholasticus, whom Theodoret rebuked for avoiding Cyrrhus (ep. P 34, SC 40:99–100), then thanked for donating a shrine (ep. S 67, SC 98:148).

27. One possible local notable involvement I have not included. The (pagan) sophist Isocasius was accused of helping to get Domnus chosen as bishop of Antioch. The accusation is believable but never verified. See chapter 6.

28. E.g., Theodoret, ep. P 36 (SC 40:100–101).

29. E.g., Theodoret, ep. P 47 (SC 40:111–17).

30. The emperor sent Aristolaus, a tribune, to deal with disputes in 432 (Theodosius II, Sacra ad Iohannem Antiochenum, CPG #8810, ACO I.1.4: 3–5).

31. Theodoret, Ep. ad Himerium Nicomedensem (CPG #6263, ACO I.4: 107–8).

32. Constitutiones apostolorum 2.1–63 (SC 320:144–338), 3.9–11, 3.16–20 (SC 329: 142–46, 154–64).

33. For commands mixed with declarations of friendship, see Theodoret epp. S 19 (SC 98:66) and S 61 (SC 98:138–40), to priests, or ep. P 50 (SC 40:119–20) to a layman.

34. Council of Nicaea, canon 6 (Joannou, Discpline, 1:28–29).

35. On models of primacy region by region, see Norton, Episcopal Elections, chap. 5.

36. For the bishop of Antioch's chairing of councils, see chapter 1. For examples of his role in consecration, from Theodoret's HE, see chapter 3.

37. See chapter 4.

38. Domnus of Antioch, Ep. ad Flavianum CPolitanum (Syriac, Flemming: 118–22; tr. Perry: 298–306). Elsewhere the letter is credited to Theodoret (ep. S 86, SC 98:226–32, esp. 230). Azéma suggests that Theodoret drafted the letter for Domnus.

39. Council of Nicaea, canons 4–5 (Joannou, Discpline, 1:26–28). Theodoret, Ep. ad magistrum militum [Anatolium] (CPG #6254, ACO I.4: 161). Generally on metropolitan status in the Roman East, see Norton, Episcopal Elections, chaps. 5, 7.

40. Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6248, ACO I.4: 135).

41. Consitutiones apostolorum 8.47 canon 34 (SC 336:284).

42. Theodosius II, Sacra ad concilium Ephesinum (ACO I.1.3: 31–32).

43. For a full list, see chapter 4.

44. Jerome, De viris illustribus, measured accomplishment by the size of a writer's corpus.

45. For more on the ascetic and pragmatic components of episcopal authority, see Rapp, Holy Bishops, chaps. 1–4.

46. E.g., John of Antioch, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum (CPG #6312, ACO I.5: 313–14), where John refused to abandon his support of Theodoret.

47. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6322, ACO I.4: 153–54), stated that he was eager to cooperate “even if I seem to be influenced by Your Charity.”

48. E.g., Acta et sententia synodi Orientalium (CPG #6352, ACO I.1.5: 119).

49. The count of seventy-five is from Pelagius, In defensione Trium capitulorum (Devreesse: 15). Barhadbeshabba of Arbaya, HE 29 (Nau, 572) counted eighty.

50. Andreas and Acacius missed the First Council of Ephesus for health reasons. See chapter 4.

51. On Rabbula and his suffragans, see John of Antioch, Ep. ad episcopos Osrhoenae contra Rabbulam episc. Edessae (una cum synodo Antiochena) (CPG #6347, ACO I.4: 87). On the later defection of Uranius of Himerium, see Syriac Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus (Flemming: 38–40, 52, 58–60; tr. Perry: 95–96, 121–22, 132–33).

52. On the monks and clerics who reported to Alexandria, see Cyril, Ep. ad Anastasium, Alexandrum, Martinianum, Iohannem, Paregorium presb. et Maximum diac. ceterosque monachos Orientales (CPG #5355, ACO I.1.4: 49–61).

53. See Irenaeus's summary of what became of exiles (Quanti a sanctis ecclesiis exierunt nolentes suam conscientiam vulnerare, CPG #6431, ACO I.4: 203).

54. Theodoret and Helladius of Tarsus continued to write Nestorius, but constantly apologized for their neglectfulness (Theodoret, Epp. ad Nestorium, CPG #6270–71, ACO I.4: 149–50, 189; Helladius, Ep. ad Nestorium, CPG #6441, ACO I.4: 205). Alexander simply refused to correspond (see the start of this chapter).

55. For more on these alternative religious networks, see chapter 6.

56. For more on the possibility of Theodoret's social misperceptions, see chapter 5.

57. Network theorists are divided as to whether modular scale-free networks tend to grow more successfully or whether growing networks tend to become modular and scalefree (Barabási, Linked, 88–107; Watts, Six Degrees, esp. 108–29).

58. Barabási, Linked, 96–107.

59. All these simulations assume that members still seek new relationships with other existing members. On situations in which the scale-free topology no longer approximates real networks, see Watts, Six Degrees, chap. 4.

CHAPTER 3. ROOTS OF A NETWORK: THEODORET ON THE ANTIOCHENE CLERICAL HERITAGE

1. See Theodoret, ep. S 79 (SC 98:184).

2. Theodoret, ep. S 112 (SC 111:48).

3. Chesnut, “Date of Composition,” dated the HE between 442 and August 449. While accurate, this underplays the likelihood that Theodoret responded to Socrates or Sozomen. See Leppin, “Church Historians I,” and see later in this chapter, note 6.

4. For Socrates' dates, see Chesnut, First Christian Histories, 174–77; Urbainczyk, Socrates, 20–23. For Sozomen's dates, see Roueche, “Theodosius II,” 130–32.

5. On the authorship of the Greek version of Rufinus's HE, see Amidon, Church History of Rufinus, xiii-xviii. On non-Nicene sources used by Philostorgius, see Parmentier, Theodoret Kirchengeschichte, lxxxviii.

6. Theodoret, HE 1.1 (GCS 5:4; tr. Jackson, NPNF II 3:33). Many scholars assumed that Theodoret responded to Socrates or Sozomen. Chesnut, “Date of composition,” argued that he wrote independently. Parmentier, Theodoret Kirchengeschichte, lxxxiii-xcviii, suggested that Theodoret drew passages from Socrates or Sozomen (see also Leppin, “Church Historians I”). Theodoret could have responded to Rufinus or to Philostorgius's sources. But he seems to shadow Socrates' or Sozomen's narrative and to respond to criticism of Syrians (see Socrates, HE 5.5, 5.8 [GCS 1:276–77, 279–81]; Theodoret, HE 5.3, 5.23 [GCS 5: 279–82, 321–24]. It seems unlikely that the well-connected Theodoret was ignorant of Socrates' semi-official history.

7. For Theodoret, Eustathius of Antioch's endurance rivaled Athanasius's; Marcellus of Apamea's temple destructions matched Theophilus's (HE 1.8, 5.21–22 [GCS 5:33–38, 317–21]).

8. Theodoret, HE 2.18 (GCS 5:137–38); Socrates, HE 2.40–41 (GCS 1:171–78).

9. Theodoret, HE 2.31–32, 4.14–18 (GCS 5:170–74, 233–42).

10. The split arose between supporters of Pelagius and those of Apollinarius (Theodoret, HE 5.3–4 [GCS 5: 279–84]). On Apollinarius, see later in this chapter.

11. Theodoret, HE 2.32, 4.14–15 (GCS 5:173–74, 233–35). Eusebius's second replacement, we are told, chose a more violent approach.

12. Theodoret, HE 2.31 (GCS 5:170–71), named Eusebius of Samosata as Meletius's sponsor. On the compromise, see Spoerl, “The Schism at Antioch,” 101–20.

13. Socrates, HE 2.44 (GCS 1:181–82), and Sozomen, HE 4.28 (GCS 4:184–86). Both claimed that Meletius preferred moral preaching to doctrinal argument.

14. Theodoret, HE 2.31 (GCS 5:170–71) related a tale in which Meletius met George of Laodicea (Homoian) and Acacius of Caesarea (Anomoian) in a speaking contest before Constantius II. After the others spoke, Meletius began to declare his support for Nicaea. When asked for clarification, he raised three fingers, then one—the homoousion trinity!; Sozomen, HE 4.28 (GCS 4:184–86), claimed that the hand signals came during a sermon, because a Homoian archdeacon had put a hand over Meletius's mouth.

15. According to Epiphanius, Panarion, 73.28.1 (Holl, 3:302), Meletius's main booster was Acacius of Caesarea, who also backed Eunomius. Socrates, HE 2.44 (GCS 1:181–82), and Philostorgius, HE 5.1 (Bidez, 66–67), claimed that Meletius had earlier signed the Creed of Seleucia (359), which foreswore the term ousia.

16. For Paulinus's Eustathian past, see Theodoret, HE 3.4 (GCS 5:179–80), and Hanson, “The Fate of Eustathius of Antioch.” For his consecration (by Lucifer of Cagliari), see Theodoret, HE 3.4 (GCS 5:179–80), and Devreesse, Le Patriarcat d'Antioche, 21–24.

17. Theodoret, HE 5.4 (GCS 5:282–83).

18. See Downey, History of Antioch, 410–13.

19. Socrates, HE 5.5 (GCS 1:276), said that Paulinus stayed because of his “eminent piety.”

20. Basil of Caesarea, epp. 67–69, 92, 156 (LCL 2:32–46, 132–44, 384–90) and 258 (LCL 4:34–46).

21. Sozomen, HE 4.13, 28 (GCS 4:155–56, 184–86); Theodoret, HE 2.31 (GCS 5:170–73).

22. Rufinus of Aquileia, HE 10.28 (Schwartz and Mommsen, 990–91).

23. Theodoret's first mention of the see of Alexandria noted its supremacy stretching over “not only Egypt, but the adjacent regions of Libya and Thebaid as well” (HE 1.2 [GCS 5:6]). No parallel description of Antioch was included.

24. Canons from Nicaea required three bishops from the province to serve as consecrators (Council of Nicaea, canon 4 [Joannou, Discipline 1:26]). Other quasi-normative sources allow for two (e.g., Constitutiones apostolorum 3.20 [SC 329:164]; 8.47 canon 1 [SC 336:274]). On consecration practices, see Norton, Episcopal Elections, esp. 19–33.

25. Theodoret, HE 4.25 (GCS 5:263–64).

26. Philostorgius, HE 9.14, 9.19 (Bidez, 120, 125).

27. Athanasius and the Western bishops favored Paulinus, despite Basil's attempts to convince them otherwise (Basil of Caesarea, ep. 66–70, 92 [LCL 2:26–52, 132–44]).

28. Theodoret, HE 2.24 (GCS 5:154–55).

29. Theodoret, HE 2.24 (GCS 5:154–55). Such chanting was doubtless older.

30. Theodoret, HE 2.24 (GCS 5:154–55).

31. Basil of Caesarea encountered Diodore in Armenia while visiting the exiled Meletius (ep. 99 [LCL 2:178]). It is unclear whether he was there permanently. Theodoret only noted that he was “dialoguing…abroad” (Theodoret, HE 4.25 [GCS 5:263–64]).

32. Theodoret, HE 5.3 (GCS 5:279–82), offered a later example of Flavian's skills, when he out-argued other Nicenes in 380 to claim the support of Theodosius I's court.

33. Diodore's school apparently survived his leaving (Socrates, HE 6.3 [GCS 1:313–15]).

34. Theodoret, HR 8.8 (SC 234:388–92).

35. Theodoret, HR 2.17–20 (SC 234:234–40).

36. Theodoret, HE 4.27–28 (GCS 5:267–69).

37. Sozomen, HE 7.28 (GCS 4:344–45).

38. Theodoret, HE 4.28 (GCS 5:268–69). Acacius trained with Asterius, a pupil of Julian Saba. (See HR 2.16 [SC 234:230–32]).

39. Theodoret, HR 2.16 (SC 234:230–32).

40. Theodoret, HE 4.29 (GCS 5:269–70), merely suggested the association. Ephrem's hymns in the 360s did shift toward Nicene positions (see Griffith, “Ephrem the Deacon”). On Ephrem's reputation in Greek as a monk, see Griffith, “Images of Ephrem,” 9–13.

41. Socrates, HE 5.2 (GCS 1:275–76).

42. Theodoret, HE 5.6 (GCS 5:285–86).

43. Theodoret, HE 5.3 (GCS 5:279–81).

44. Socrates, HE 5.5 (GCS 1:276–77); Sozomen, HE 7.11 (GCS 4:314); Theodoret, HE 5.3 (GCS 5:281–82).

45. Socrates, HE 3.7, 3.9 (GCS 1:197–99, 203–4); Sozomen, HE 7.11 (GCS 4:314).

46. Theodoret, HE 5.3 (GCS 5:281–82).

47. Socrates, HE 5.5 (GCS 1:276–77).

48. Most noteworthy, besides the Council of Constantinople (381), was the multi-regional council of Antioch, in 379, mentioned in the synodical of the follow-up council in Constantinople, preserved by Theodoret, HE 5.9 (GCS 5:293).

49. Theodoret, HE 5.4 (GCS 5:282–84).

50. Meletius's death was marked at the council by Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio funebris in Meletium episcopum (CPG #3180; ed. Spira, 441–57).

51. On the departure of Gregory, see Sozomen, HE 7.7 (GCS 4:308–10). For speculation about Gregory's plans, see Devreesse, Patriarcat d'Antioche, 35–36.

52. Sozomen, HE 7.8–9 (GCS 4:310–13), noted Nectarius's links to Diodore and other Cilicians. Nectarius hailed from Tarsus, and Diodore had reportedly been instrumental in getting him listed as a candidate in Constantinople. As bishop, we are told, he took advice from Cyriacus of Adana and employed several Cilician clerics.

53. Sozomen, HE 7.8–11 (GCS 4:310–14); he barely mentions Nectarius's role. See Ambrose, ep. M 13 (= Extra collectionem 9, CSEL 82.3:201–4).

54. See Devreesse, Patriarcat d'Antioche, 35–38.

55. Theodoret, HE 5.9 (GCS 5:289–95), preserved the synodical from this new meeting without explaining the context of Paulinus's complaint.

56. Theodoret, HE 5.23 (GCS 5:322).

57. Sozomen, HE 8.3 (GCS 4:352–53).

58. Theodoret, HE 5.23 (GCS 5:321–24).

59. Theodoret, HE 5.35 (GCS 5:337–38).

60. Socrates, HE 6.3 (GCS 1:313–14); Sozomen, HE 8.2 (GCS 4:350–52); Theodoret, HE 5.27 (GCS 5:328–29).

61. Theodoret, HE 5.27 (GCS 5:328–29).

62. Consider Marcian, who hosted bishops (Theodoret, HR 3.11 [SC 234:266–68]) and Macedonius, who helped Flavian to win forgiveness for Antioch after the Statues Riot in 387 (Theodoret, HE 5.20 [GCS 5:315–16]; HR 13.7 [SC 234:486–90]; on this episode, see Brown, Power and Persuasion, 105–9).

63. Theodoret identified as members Maximus of Seleucia (Isauria), Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Elpidius of Laodicea, Marcellus and Agapetus of Apamea (all HE 5.27 [GCS 5:328–29]), Helladius of Tarsus (HR 10.9 [SC 234:450–52]), Polychronius of Apamea (HE 5.40 [GCS 5:347–48]), Porphyrius and Alexander of Antioch (both HE 5.35 [GCS 5:337–38]), and Theodotus of Antioch (HE 5.38 [GCS 5:342]).

64. Theodoret, HE 4.25 (GCS 5:263–64).

65. Theodoret, HE 5.40 (GCS 5:347–48).

66. See chapter 1.

67. For attempts to identify an Antiochene doctrinal system, see Sullivan, Christology of Theodore, 162; Norris, Manhood and Christ, 207–9; Grillmeier, Christ, part 1 sec. 1; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 301–9; Greer, Theodore: Exegete and Theologian, 48–49. For efforts to find an exegetical method, see Lampe and Woolcombe, Essays on Typology, but also Nassif, “Spiritual Exegesis.”

68. Most scholars (e.g., Grillmeier, Christ, part 2, chaps. 3–5; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, chaps. 11–12) recognized an inconsistency in Antiochene terminology. Devreese, Essai sur Théodore, part 2, questioned the authenticity of many Antiochene works. On Antiochene “tendencies” see Sellers, Council of Chalcedon, sec. II chap. 3.

69. E.g., Barjeau, L'école exegetique d'Antioche, chaps. 1–3. For plausible predecessors (e.g., Eustathius, Lucian of Antioch) see Schaublin, “Diodor von Tarsus,” 763–66.

70. Aristotelian philosophy: VÖÖbus, School of Nisibis, 21–22. Platonic philosophy: D. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch, esp. chap. 5. Jewish-style reading: Greer, Theodore: Exegete and Theologian, 86–90, 110–11. Syriac reading: H. J. W. Drijvers, “Early Forms of Antiochene Christology.”

71. Guinot, L'éxegèse de Théodoret, 627–28. Young, Biblical Exegesis, chaps. 7–9.

72. Young, Biblical Exegesis, chaps. 7–9 and O'Keefe, “Kenosis or Impassibility,” both note that the Antiochenes were all worried about keeping the “narrative integrity” of Scripture. Fairbairn, Grace and Christology, 200–216, instead emphasizes internal theological disagreements among the so-called Antiochenes.

73. Young, Biblical Exegesis, chaps. 7–9; O'Keefe, “ ‘A Letter that Killeth.'”

74. E.g., Kalantzis, Theodore: Commentary on John, Introduction, esp. 28.

75. Esp. O'Keefe, “ ‘A Letter that Killeth;' “ Clark, Reading Renunciation, chaps. 1–2; Fairbairn, Grace and Christology, esp. 211–16.

76. See chapter 5.

77. Theodoret, HE 2.31 (GCS 5:170–73) explained Meletius's doctrinal reticence as clever timing. As to Diodore and Flavian, even Theodoret noted that they originally split from Leontius out of hostility to Anomoians, not Homoians (HE 2.24, GCS 5:154–55).

78. On this “Neo-Nicene” tradition, see Bergjan, Theodoret und der Neunizänismus. Theodoret, HE 5.3 (GCS 5:280–81), described the issues at stake as factions met in Antioch in 380: “At the time…Paulinus affirmed that he was of the party of Damasus…The divine Meletius kept silent and put up with their discord. But Flavian…said to Paulinus ‘If, dear sir, you accept the communion of Damasus [and Gregory], show us clearly your agreement with his dogmas; for while he confesses one ousia of the trinity, he preaches three hypostases outright. You deny the trinity of the hypostases.' ”

79. Scholars have recognized the anti-Arian context of Diodore's teaching. Sullivan, Christology of Theodore, 162, described it as a response to the major premise of Arian logic: the sufferings of a homoousion Christ would mean that God suffered as well. Greer, Theodore: Exegete and Theologian, chaps. 3–4, agreed but focused on soteriology, specifically the quest for human perfection. Norris, Manhood and Christ, 207–9, acknowledged the anti-Arian mission of Diodore, but for Theodore, he stressed the anti-Apollinarian polemic.

80. Diodore of Tarsus, Fragmenta dogmatica 19, 42 (in R. Abramowski, “Der theologische Nachlass des Diodor,” 36–39, 56).

81. For a thorough discussion of “word-flesh” Christology, see Grillmeier, Christ, part II, sec. 1. For Diodore's use of logos-sarx, see Diodore, Fragmenta dogmatica IX (in R. Abramowski, “Der theologische Nachlass des Diodor,” 62).

82. Judging by Syriac translations, Theodore seems to have used “natures” as genera, and their specific forms as “assuming Word” and “assumed man” (Homiliae catacheticae 8, Mingana, 197–200; tr. Mingana, 82–84). Kalantzis, Theodore Commentary on John, esp. 28–29, has questioned this. But Nestorius's “two prospa in one prospon of union” seems an outgrowth of these formulas (see McGuckin, St. Cyril, 140–45).

83. On the search for the hypothesis of biblical texts, see Schäublin, Untersuchungen, 83–84 (regarding Theodore).

84. Theodoret, HE 2.24 (GCS 5:153–55).

85. This situation is discussed fully by Lim, Public Disputation, esp. 112–38, 173–80.

86. See Lim, Public Disputation, 112–38.

87. Theodoret, HE 5.3 (GCS 5:280–81).

88. Sozomen, HE 6.25 (GCS 4:270–72).

89. Sozomen, HE 6.25 (GCS 4:270–72).

90. Apollinarius, Ep. ad Dionysium (Fragmenta dogmatica, ed. Lietzmann, 256–57). See Grillmeier, Christ, 221–30, who saw physis as signifying for Apollinarius one “self-determining being,” and J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 289–95, who stressed Apollinarius's concern that Christ not have opposed wills. See also Spoerl, “Apollinarian Christology.”

91. Theodoret, HE 5.3, 5.38 (GCS 5:280–82, 342). For more on Theodoret's views on Apollinarius, see Guinot, “Presence d'Apollinaire.”

92. Theodore, Homiliae catecheticae 5 (Mingana, 164–73; tr. Mingana, 54–62). Theodoret was troubled primarily by the “one nature” formulation (HE 5.3 [GCS 5:279–80]).

93. Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6416, ACO I.4: 187).

94. On this distinction (“eternal generation” favored by Cyril of Jerusalem, “begotten before all time” favored by Hilary of Poitiers) see Hanson, Search, esp. 398–99, 482.

95. Socrates, HE 6.3 (GCS 1:313–14). Theodoret only hinted at this element (HE 5.40, GCS 5: 347–48). On the asketerion's pedagogy, see Leconte, “L'asceterium de Diodore.”

96. Theodoret, HE 4.27 (GCS 5:267).

97. Theodoret, HE 4.27 (GCS 5:267).

98. John Chrysostom, Epp. ad Theodorum lapsum, 1.1 (SC 117:86); Chrysostom also recalled Diodore's scriptural assignments in Laus Diodori 3–4 (PG 52:763–66).

99. Theodoret, HE 5.27 (GCS 5:328–29).

100. Vööbus, History of Asceticism, Part II, chaps. 1–5, surveyed fourth-century ascetics using works of “Ephrem Syrus” now considered spurious (Brock, “Brief Guide to Ephrem”). Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 12–17, distinguished ihidaye (apostolic figures) from bnay qyama (special clerical disciples). Griffith, “Monks, Singles,” described bnay qyama and ihidaye as overlapping categories. On former ihidaya/bar qyama Jacob of Nisibis, see Theodoret HR 1 (SC 234:160–92, esp. 164, 176, 188–92); Ephrem Syrus, Carmina Nisibena 13 (CSCO SS 92:34–36); Bundy, “Jacob of Nisibis.” On wandering Syrian ascetics of the third century, see Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks, chap. 3.

101. See Theodoret HR 2 (SC 234:194–244); Ephrem Syrus, Hymns on Julian Saba (CSCO SS 140: 37–85; 141: 42–87). See also Griffith, “Julian Saba.”

102. Theodoret HR 10.2 (SC 234:450–52), 27.2 (SC 257:218–20).

103. See Gaddis, “No Crime,” 155–68.

104. Sozomen HE 6.33 (GCS 4:289) suggested Egyptian influence. Vööbus, History of Asceticism, chap. 5, posited a separate Syrian coenobitic tradition based on works once attributed to Ephrem. Tchalenko (Villages antiques, 19) and Price (History of the Monks of Syria, xix-xx) distinguished a Syrian coenobitic tradition based on architectural forms.

105. See Canivet, Monachisme syrien, 209–11.

106. Most studies of this topic focus on other regions: Brakke, Athanasius, esp. 17–49, 80–97, 111–34; Elm, Virgins of God, chaps. 5–6; Sterk, Renouncing the World, chaps. 3, 7, 8.

107. E.g., Ephrem Syrus, Hymns on Julian Saba (CSCO SS 140:37–85; 141:42–87).

108. John Chrysostom, Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae 3.11–12 (PG 47:366–71).

109. See Rousseau, “Identity of the Ascetic Master;” and “Ascetics as Mediators.” See also Festugière, Antioche, chap. 5; Canivet, Monachisme syrien, 273–77.

110. Theodoret, HE 4.11 (GCS 5:229–31). On the Messalian controversy, see Stewart, Working the Earth of the Heart, chap. 3; Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks, chap. 3.

111. Marcian: Theodoret, HR 3.11 (SC 234:266–68). Macedonius: HR 13.4 (SC 234:48082). In each case, visiting bishops sought to ordain the ascetic.

112. On “monastic” families, see Canivet, Le monachisme syrien, chap. 7.

113. Theodoret's HR listed Acacius of Beroea (HR 2.9 [SC 234:214–16]), Agapetus of Apamea (HR 3.5 [SC 234:254–56]), Helladius of Tarsus (HR 10.9 [SC 234:450–52]), Abraham of Carrhae (HR 17.5 [SC 257:40–42]), and Aphthonius of Zeugma (HR 5.8 [SC 234:340–42]). He also mentioned himself (HR 4.10 [SC 234:312–16]). Understandably, he ignored three others, Nestorius (from a monastery in Antioch), Rabbula of Edessa, and Eusebius of Constantina (both disciples of the ascetic Abraham; see Vita Rabbulae, Overbeck: 167; tr. Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 72–73).

114. Theodore of Mopsuestia, De Incarnatione 15 (in Theodore of Mopsuestia, Minor Epistles of St. Paul, ed. Swete, 2:310).

115. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Homiliae Catecheticae 2 (Mingana, 128–29; tr. Mingana, 27–28) highlights the progressive instruction provided by God, culminating in the theology of his age. On this theme, see Wickert, Studien zu den Pauluskommentaren Theodors von Mopsuestia, 89–101; and Becker, Fear of God, 117–19.

116. The pursuit of a wider public audience may explain the less overt dyophysite presentation in the Greek version of Theodore's Commentary on John (see Kalantzis, Theodore: Commentary on John, 27–29).

117. Based on his geographical origins, Meletius may have spoken Armenian as well.

118. On the translation efforts of Rabbula, see Vööbus, School of Nisibis, 14–21; Baarda, “The Gospel Text in the Biography of Rabbula;” J. W. Drijvers, “The Protonike Legend,” and Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 54–57.

119. See Garsoïan, “Acace de Melitène.”

120. The extant text reads “Mastoubius.” See Photius, Bibliotheca 81 (ed. Henry, 1:187). See also Garsoïan, L’église arménienne, 69–70.

121. E.g., Basil of Caesarea, Ep. 22 (LCL 1:128–40), which treats the monastic life as the pinnacle of Christian brotherhood.

122. Eusebius: Theodoret HE 4.14 (GCS 5:233–34). Meletius: HE 2.31 (GCS 5:170–72). Flavian: HE 4.25, 5.3, 5.23 (GCS 5:263–64, 281–82, 321–24). Acacius: HE 4.27 (GCS 5:267). Diodore: HE 4.25 (GCS 5:263–64), 5.40 (GCS 5:347–48). Theodore: HE 5.40 (GCS 5:347–48).

123. See, e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Ep. ad Ephesinos 4 (Lightfoot, 2.2:4–42).

124. Council of Nicaea, canon 6 (Joannou, Discipline, 1:28). Council of Constantinople, canon 3 (Joannou, Discipline, 1:47–48). For more on the de iure authority of metropolitans and primates, see Norton, Episcopal Elections, chaps. 5–7.

125. Council of Nicaea, canon 4 (Joannou, Discipline, 1:26).

126. On authority in the Egyptian church, see Wipszycka, “La chiesa nell' Egitto.”

127. This description belongs to Price and Gaddis, Acts of Chalcedon, 1:13.

128. Socrates, HE 5.8 (GCS 1:281).

129. Theodoret, HE 5.40 (GCS 5:347–48).

130. Sozomen, HE 7.11 (GCS 4:314).

131. Socrates, HE 6.18 (GCS 1:341–42); Sozomen, HE 8.20 (GCS 4:376–77).

132. Socrates, HE 6.3 (GCS 1:313–15).

133. Sozomen, HE. 7.11 (GCS 4:314).

134. On Chrysostom's doctrinal thinking, see Grillmeier, Christ, 418–21; Fairbairn, Grace and Christology, 204–11, both of whom stress his affinity with Athanasius and Cyril. See also Lawrenz, Christology of John Chrysostom, who sees an Antiochene thread.

135. Theodoret, HE 5.34 (GCS 5:336).

136. Palladius, De vita Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi 4, 6 (SC 341:92–96, 126–36).

137. Palladius, De vita Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi 8–9 (SC 341:162–64, 186–98).

138. Palladius, De vita Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi 16 (SC 341:304–18).

139. Palladius, De vita Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi 20 (SC 341:394–406), listed thirty-one allies of Chrysostom who suffered or struggled on his behalf.

140. E.g., John Chrysostom, Ep. 85–90 to bishops of Palestine (PG 52:653–55), 108–112 to bishops of Cilicia, including Theodore (PG 52:667–69), and 25, 114, 131, 138, 142, 230 to Elpidius of Laodicea, probably John's closest ally (PG 52:626, 669–71, 690, 695, 696–97, 737). On the letters of appeal, see Delmaire, “ ‘Lettres d'exil' de Jean Chrysostome,” 76–86. John's known allies are noted in his prosopography (103–75).

141. Theodoret, HE 5.34 (GCS 5:336).

142. Atticus of Constantinople, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum, sec. 3–4 (CPG #5652, CVatGr 1431: 23–24). Alexander (bishop 413–421) reinstated John's name. Acacius was clearly involved (Cyril, Ep. ad Atticum CPolitanum, sec. 10, CPG #5376, in CVatGr 1431: 25–28).

143. On Alexander the Sleepless's struggle with Theodotus of Antioch, see Vita Alexan-dri acoemetae 38–42 (PO 6:687–91); and Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks, chap. 4.

144. Theodoret, ep. S 110 (SC 111:40), mentioned Diogenes of Seleucobelus who was ordained by Acacius while married to a second wife in the 410s.

145. Rabbula of Edessa, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum (CPG #6494, Overbeck: 225).

146. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Nestorium (CPG #6316, ACO I.1.1: 93–94).

CHAPTER 4. EPHESUS AND AFTER: LEADERSHIP, DOCTRINAL CRISIS, AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ANTIOCHENE NETWORK

1. The Liber Heraclidis has interpolations, e.g., part 1 (tr. Hodgson and Driver, 7–86). See L. Abramowski, Untersuchungen zum Liber Heraclidis; Bebis,”Apology of Nestorius.”

2. Cyril's enmity: Nestorius, Liber Heraclidis 1.3 (tr. Hodgson and Driver, 101). “Wounded and naked”: Liber Heraclidis 1.3, 2.1 (tr. Hodgson and Driver, 121, 186, 265). Twisted monks: Liber Heraclidis 2.1 (tr. Hodgson and Driver, 273–81). “Peace in appearance”: Liber Heraclidis 2.1 (tr. Hodgson and Driver, 289–93). “I endure all things…”: Liber Heraclidis 2.1 (tr. Hodgson and Driver, 331).

3. Socrates, HE 7.29 (GCS 1:377–78).

4. See Sillett, “Culture of Controversy,” 8.

5. Nestorius, Liber Heraclidis (tr. Hodgson and Driver, 98–101).

6. Cyril got involved in early 430 (Cyril, Ep. ad Nestorium [CPG #5304, ACO I.1.1: 25–28]). Even Eusebius, the loudest protester, was then a local layman (Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Contestatio [CPG #5940, ACO I.1.1: 101–2]).

7. Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. ad Caelestine papam (CPG #5310, ACO I.1.5: 10–12); Commonitorium ad Posidonium diaconum (CPG #5311, ACO I.1.7: 171–72); Libri v contra Nestorium (CPG #5217, ACO I.1.6: 13–106). Pope Celestine, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum (CPG #5312, ACO I.1.1: 75–77).

8. Cyril of Alexandria, Explanatio xii capitulorum (CPG #5223, ACO I.1.5: 15–25) includes both the Anathemas and the author's later explanations. Initially the Anathemas were sent with Ep. ad Nestorium (una cum Synodo Alexandrina) (CPG #5317, ACO I.1.1: 33–42). On their distribution, see Evieux, “André de Samosate,” 257.

9. Notable studies of the chaotic council include Hefele, History of Councils, book 9; Schwartz, ACO I; Galtier, “Le centenaire d'Éphèse;” Devreesse, “Les actes du concile d'Éphèse;” Person, Mode of Theological Decision Making, chap. 5; Gregory, Vox Populi, chap. 4; McGuckin, St. Cyril, chap. 4; Lim, Public Disputation, chap. 7; Sillett, “Culture of Controversy,” chaps. 1–2; MacMullen, Voting About God; Wessel, Cyril, chaps. 3–6.

10. On the textual history of the Casiniensis collection, part 2 (Rusticus's sixth-century translation of Irenaeus's Tragoedia), see Galtier, “Le centenaire d'Éphèse.” On the Vaticana, Atheniensis, and Palatina collections see Galtier; Devreesse, “Les actes du concile d'Éphèse.” For a synopsis, see Sillett, “Culture of Controversy.”

11. Attempts to date and sequence the letters include Schwartz, Konzilstudien, 30–46; ACO I.4; Devreesse, “Après le concile d'Éphèse,” 271–92; and Essai sur Théodore, 125–51; Diepen, “La christologie des amis de Nestorius,” 30–45; L. Abramowski, “Der Streit um Diodor und Theodor;” Sellers, Council of Chalcedon, 12–25; and Evieux, “André de Samo-sate.” This chapter offers a new reconstruction, noting disagreements with prior dating. See Constas, Proclus, 79–127, for another viable interpretation.

12. For the core support of Theodore, see John of Antioch, Ep. ad Nestorium (CPG #6316, ACO I.1.1: 93–96; pace Fairbairn, “Allies or Merely Friends”). For more ambiguous cues of attachment from the 420s, see Theodoret, epp. P 32, P 45 (SC 40:98, 109–11) to Theodotus of Antioch (the only two of his letters securely dated to the 420s). Note also Hiba of Edessa's later recollections in his Ep. ad Marim Persam (ACO I II.1.3: 33–34).

13. For reconciliation with “Paulinians,” see Atticus of Constantinople, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum, sec. 5 (CPG #5652, CVatGr 1431: 23–24). For reconciliation with suspected Apollinarians, see Theodoret, HE 5.38 (GCS 5:342).

14. Theodotus of Antioch targeted Alexander the Sleepless, a Syrian monastic leader who had fled to Constantinople (Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks, 130–39).

15. Theodoret expressed his admiration and showed deference to all four.

16. In Cappadocia, the Antiochenes linked up with Eutherius of Tyana and tried to recruit Firmus of Caesarea (see John of Antioch, Ep. ad Firmum Caesariensem, CPG #6313, ACO I.4: 7). In Palestine, Juvenal of Jerusalem had to counter Antiochene canvassing (see John of Antioch et al., Contestatio prima ad Theodosium et Valentinianum imp. aug. [CPG #6350, ACO I.1.7: 72]).

17. On St. Sergius and Rasapha, see E. Fowden, The Barbarian Plain, esp. chap. 4.

18. On “Syrian” clerics in Armenia, see Winkler, “An Obscure Chapter,” 94–109; and Garsoïan, L’église arménienne, 66–76. Antiochene contacts with Persian Mesopotamia are difficult to locate precisely until the 480s. See Epilogue.

19. Quoted by Socrates, HE 7.29 (GCS 1:377).

20. See Hiba of Edessa, Ep. ad Marim Persam (CPG #6500, ACO II.1.3: 33).

21. Such discoveries occurred wherever the network expanded. See later in this chapter.

22. Nestorius's first extant letter exchange with Syrian colleagues reveals just such an episode of doubt and misinformation. See later in this section.

23. All three deaths were noted by Theodoret, HE 5.40 (GCS 5:347–48).

24. Acacius of Beroea, Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis (CPG #6478, ACO I.1.7: 147).

25. Theodoret, HR 10.9 (SC 234:450–52).

26. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Nestorium (CPG #6316, ACO I.1.1: 93–96). This letter concerned public relations strategy; it does not show a serious theological difference between him and Nestorius, who did ultimately accept some notion of the “double birth.” (An observation I owe to Patrick Gray from an unpublished paper; pace Fairbairn, Grace and Christology, 211–16, and “Allies or Merely Friends”).

27. Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. ad Acacium Beroeensem (CPG #5314, ACO I.1.1: 98–99).

28. Pope Celestine et al., Ep. ad Nestorium (sententia synodi Romanae) (CPG #8639, ACO I.1.1: 77–83) stated the timeline. Cyril et al., Ep. ad Nestorium (una cum synodo Alexandrina) (CPG #5317, ACO I.1.1: 33–34, 42) linked it to the Twelve Anathemas. For the Anathemas, see Cyril, Explanatio xii capitulorum, esp. 2, 5, 12 (CPG #5223, ACO I.1.5: 15–25).

29. Theodoret, Impugnatio xii anathematismorum Cyrilli (CPG #6214, ACO I.1.6: 10844); Andreas, Impugnatio xii anathematismorum Cyrilli Alexandrini (CPG #6373, ACO I.1.7: 33–65). See also Acacius of Beroea, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandriae (CPG #6479, ACO I.1.1: 99–100).

30. Andreas argued against Cyril's supposed denial of the reality of Christ's humanity. Theodoret tried to refute Cyril's theopaschite notions and declarations of “one nature.” See Grillmeier, Christ, 419–30; McGuckin, St. Cyril, 47–48.

31. Acacius of Beroea, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandriae (CPG #6479, ACO I.1.1: 99–100).

32. Acacius was too feeble, Andreas too ill. See later in this chapter.

33. Theodosius II, Sacra ad Cyrillum Alex. et ad singulos metropolitas (CPG #8652, ACO I.1.1: 114–16), suggests that the emperor wanted Cyril rebuked.

34. Nestorius, Liber Heraclidis (tr. Hodgson and Driver, 265–67, 281–83).

35. The two Alexanders carried a message from John of Antioch (Ep. ad Cyrillum episc. Alexandriae, CPG #6307, ACO I.1.1: 119, with a verbal addendum). Cyril took it to mean that he should start immediately (Ep. ad Comarium Potamonem et Dalmatium archimandritam et Timothium et Eulogium presb. [CPG #5323, ACO I.1.2: 66–68]).

36. Contestatio directa Cyrillo et his qui cum eo convenerunt (CPG #8669, ACO I.4: 27–30); sixty-eight signatories were present, one (Bosphorius of Gangra) signed by proxy. Only thirty-seven (at most) held firm a week later (Acta synodi Orientalium, Latin, ACO I.4: 37–38). See Vogt, “Unterschiedliches Konzilverständnis der Cyrillianer,” 430–31.

37. Acta concilii Epheseni, session 1 (ACO I.1.2: 7–39).

38. Count Candidianus, Contestio directa Cyrillo et his qui cum eo fuerant congregati (CPG #8687, ACO I.4: 31–32). See also Cyril of Alexandria, Relatio ad imperatores de Nestorii depositione, sec. 4 (CPG #8684, ACO I.1.3: 4).

39. Nestorium depositio ad eum missa a concilio (CPG #8676, ACO I.1.2: 64).

40. The Latin acta (preserved by Irenaeus, ACO I.4: 37–38) record fifty-three signatures. A related letter (ACO I.4: 45–46) adds five more names. The Greek version (preserved by Cyril's allies, ACO I.1.5: 122–24) names only forty-three. The missing names include Cyrus of Tyre, Rabbula of Edessa, and Theophanius of Philadelphia, which may have been expunged to save the reputations of defectors.

41. Acta et sententia synodi Orientalium (CPG #6352, ACO I.1.5: 119–24). Acta concilii Ephesini, session 1 (ACO I.1.2: 54–64) lists 155 delegates supporting Cyril. Later letters and sessions list as many as 197 signatories, but some of these were defectors and others were added by proxy or after the fact. See Vogt, “Unterschiedliches Konzilverständnis der Cyril-lianer,” 431–35; Crabbe, “Invitation List to the Council of Ephesus.”

42. See John of Antioch et al., Ep. synodi Orientali ad Theodosium et Valentinianum imp. aug. (CPG #6324, ACO I.1.5: 125–26); Nestorius, Liber Heraclidis (tr. Hodgson and Driver, 266–67); Cyril of Alexandria et al., Relatio Cyrillianorum ad Theodosium et Valentinianum imperatores, sec. 5 (CPG #8697, ACO I.1.3: 10–13). On the Antiochenes' goal of naming a new bishop, see McGuckin, St. Cyril, 94–95.

43. Hiba of Edessa, Ep. ad Marim Persam (CPG #6500, ACO II.1.3: 33).

44. See Vogt, “Unterschiedliches Konzilverständnis der Cyrillianer,” 448–51.

45. For the sermons of Cyril, Memnon, and their allies, see ACO I.1.2: 70–104. Nestorius acknowledged their effectiveness (Liber Heraclidis, tr. Hodgson and Driver, 270–71).

46. The Antiochene street sermons were described by Cyril's party as “threatening words against the orthodox faith” (Acta concilii Epheseni, ACO I.1.3: 16–17).

47. Acta concilii Epheseni, session 5–6 (ACO I.1.3: 15–25; I.1.7: 84–117). Again, several names may have been removed later.

48. Episcoporum Constantinopoli consistentium commonitorium (CPG #6891, ACO I.1.2: 65–66); Nestorius, Liber Heraclidis (tr. Hodgson and Driver, 271–73). See also T. Gregory, Vox Populi, 108–113.

49. For Nestorius's first appeal, see his Ep. ad Imperatorem Theodosium (CPG #5672, ACO I.1.5: 13–15). For Candidianus's initial brief report, see his Contestatio alia post syno-dum (CPG #8688, ACO I.4: 33).

50. Theodosius II, Sacra ad synodum per Palladium (CPG #8696, ACO I.1.3: 9–10).

51. John of Antioch et al., Ep. ad Theodosium et Valentinianum imp. aug. (CPG #6323, ACO I.1.5: 124).

52. Irenaeus's role as spokesman is mentioned by John of Antioch et al., Ep. ad Theodosium et Valentinianum imp. aug. (CPG #6326, ACO I.1.5: 131).

53. John of Antioch et al., Ep. ad senatum CPolitanum (CPG #6342, ACO I.1.5: 127–28).

54. John of Antioch et al., Ep ad. Praefectum praetorio et magistrum militiae; Ep. ad Praepositum et Scholasticium eunuchum (CPG #6337–38, ACO I.1.5: 132–33).

55. John of Antioch et al., Ep. ad Theodosium et Valentinianum imp. aug. (CPG #6324, ACO I.1.5: 125–26).

56. Theodosius II, Sacra directa per Iohannem comitem concilio (CPG #8723, ACO I.1.3: 31–32). On the reading of this sacra, see John, Count of Sacred Largesses, Relatio ad Imperatorem Theodosium (CPG #8724, ACO I.1.7: 67).

57. See Cyril, Ep. ad Comarium Potomon episc. et Dalmatium archimandritam et Timo-theum et Eulogium presb. (CPG #5323, ACO I.1.2: 66–68); Ep. ad Theopemptum Potamonem et Danielem episc. (CPG #5328, ACO I.1.3: 50–51). See also Cyril's synodical letters (CPG #8730–32, ACO I.1.3: 49–53, I.3: 178). For Cyril's gifts, see Breve directorum ad mandatorios C Polim missos (CPG #5396, ACO I.4: 224–25).

58. John of Antioch et al., Ep. ad Senatum CPolitanum (CPG #6342, ACO I.1.5: 127–28).

59. Antiochus (Chuzon) the Prefect, Ep. ad Nestorium (CPG #8748, ACO I.1.7: 71).

60. Cyril of Alexandria et al., Mandatum episcopis CPolim directis (CPG #8740, ACO I.1.3: 33–36).

61. Mandatum synodi Orientalium episcopis CPolim directis (CPG #8742, ACO I.1.3: 36–39).

62. John of Antioch and the delegates, Ep. ad episcopos Orientales Ephesi degentes (CPG #6349, ACO I.1.7: 76–77).

63. John of Antioch and the delegates, Contestioprima ad Theodosium et Valentinianum imp. aug., sec. 2–3 (CPG #6329: ACO I.1.7: 72).

64. Theodoret reported his limited success (Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis [CPG #6242, ACO I.1.7: 79–80]). Acacius of Melitene asserted that the Divinity could change, which reportedly caused the emperor to drop his cloak (John of Antioch and the delegates, Ep. ad episcopos Orientales Ephesi degentes [CPG #6350, ACO I.1.7: 77]).

65. By the time Theodoret reported to Alexander, he saw “no hope” that courtiers would back “two natures” (Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis [CPG #6242, ACO I.1.7: 80]).

66. John of Antioch and the delegates, Contestio secunda ad Theodosium et Valentini-anum imp. aug. (CPG #6330, ACO I.1.7: 75).

67. John of Antioch and the delegates, Contestatio tertia ad Theodosium et Valentini-anum imp. aug. (CPG #6331, ACO I.1.7: 75–76).

68. E.g., Theodoret, Ep ad Andream Samosatenum (CPG #6255, ACO I.4: 59–60); Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6242, ACO I.1.7: 80).

69. Theodoret, Sermo in Chalcedone habitus (CPG #6228, ACO I.1.7: 82–83).

70. Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6242, ACO I.1.7: 80).

71. This observation I owe to Ray Van Dam.

72. For John's sermon, see ACO I.4: 79.

73. Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6242, ACO I.1.7: 79).

74. On these efforts, see Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 179–81.

75. This count includes the signatories to Nestorius's condemnation (ACO I.1.7: 111–17) and absent supporters.

76. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Rufum episc. Thessalonicae (CPG #6319, ACO I.1.3: 42).

77. John reportedly wrote to Appinianus, a dux of Mesopotamia (see Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Iohannem Antiochenum [CPG #6403, ACO I.4: 163–64]).

78. John of Antioch et al., Ep. ad Theodosium et Valentinianum imp aug. (una cum synodo Antiochena) (CPG #6332, ACO I.4: 80–81). The Latin calls Cyril's Anathemas “nefas.”

79. Theodoret, Ep. ad eos qui in Euphratesia et Osrhroena regione, Syria, Phoenicia et Cilicia vitam monasticam degunt (CPG #6276, PG 83:1416–33); Ep. ad populum CPolitanum (CPG #6273, ACO I.4: 81–85).

80. Acacius of Beroea, Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis (CPG #6477, ACO I.4: 85). He did cite some evidence, a list of gifts to Scholasticius the eunuch.

81. On the symbols of communion that united Syrian Christians, see Taft, “One Bread, One Body.” See also Tsirpanlis, “Structure of the Church.” On the late origins of the diptychs, see Paverd, “Anaphoral intercessions.”

82. See Blum, Rabbula, 111–31; Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 50–51, 62–64; Chadwick, “Eucharist and Christology.”

83. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Antiochum praefectum praetorium (CPG #6306, ACO I.4: 79–80), reported ill treatment while traveling through Ancyra and Cappadocian Caesarea.

84. See Alexander of Hierapolis, Epp. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6410, 6416; ACO I.4: 130, 187).

85. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6303, ACO I.4: 112–13).

86. Juvenal's activities from late 431 until the late 430s are not recorded in surviving sources, but neither are any defections. Juvenal must have capitalized on his prior efforts at episcopal recruitment (Honigmann, “Juvenal,” esp. 215–25). On the efforts of Firmus of Caesarea, see Theodoret, Commonitorium ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6243, ACO I.4: 87). Van Dam, Kingdom of Snow, 36, links this episode to urban rivalry.

87. For Acacius's general collaboration see Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. ad Acacium episc. Melitenae (CPG #5340, ACO I.1.4: 20–31). For Acacius's connections to Pers-Armenia, see Acacius of Melitene, Ep. ad sanctum Sahak Armenorum patriarcham and Ep. ad Armenos (CPG #5794–5795; Latin tr. Richard, “Acace de Mélitène”).

88. John of Antioch et al., Ep. ad episcopos Osrhoenae contra Rabbulam episc. Edessae (una cum synoda Antiochena) (CPG #6347, ACO I.4: 87). No further friendly contacts are attested between bishops of Osrhoene and the Antiochene “schismatics.” Blum, Rabbula, 152–65, argues that Rabbula defected before 431, based on Rabbula's sermon against Nestorius (which he dates to 429) and the letter to Andreas (which he dates to early 431). But Irenaeus's acta list Rabbula as signing at the counter-council. We must either doubt the accuracy of Irenaeus or redate Rabbula's writings to 431/432. See Vogt, “Unterschiedliches Konzilverständnis der Cyrillianer,” 444–45; see later in this chapter.

89. Theodosius II, Sacra ad Iohannem Antiochenum (CPG #8810, ACO I.1.4: 3–5); Sacra ad Symeonem Stylitem (CPG #8811, ACO I.1.4: 5–6).

90. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6302, ACO I.4: 91).

91. These letters were mentioned by Acacius of Beroea, Ep. ad Maximianum episc. CPo-lis (CPG #6480, ACO I.1.7: 161–62).

92. The move of the Antioch meeting to Beroea could be inferred from the title: “A proposal made by Acacius from (para) John of Antioch and those with [John]…” (John of Antioch et al., Propositiones Cyrillo Alexandrino missae [CPG #6308, ACO I.1.7: 146]). Evieux, however, “André de Samosate,” 279–80, posited just one meeting in Antioch.

93. On the six proposals, see Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Andream Samosatenum (CPG #6394, ACO I.4: 99–100). For the one approved proposal, see John of Antioch et al., Propositiones Cyrillo Alexandrino missae (CPG #6308, ACO I.1.7: 146).

94. Cyril, Ep. ad Acacium Beroeensem (CPG #5333, ACO I.1.7: 147–50).

95. On John's and Acacius's hope, see John of Antioch, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapoli-tanum (CPG #6303, ACO I.4: 112–13); see also Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6245, ACO I.4: 108–9). Alexander's skepticism: Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Helladium episc. Tarsi (CPG #6401, ACO I.4: 105–6). Waiting: Helladius of Tarsus, Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis (CPG #6345, ACO I.4: 105).

96. On the new meeting, see John of Antioch, Epp. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6303–4, ACO I.4: 112–14). Theodoret may have missed the meeting because of illness (Theodoret, Ep. ad Acacium Beroeensem [CPG #6241, ACO I.4: 101]).

97. Eutherius of Tyana, Ep. ad Helladium Tarsensem (CPG #6151, ACO I.4: 111–12). On Alexander's reaction, see John of Antioch, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (ACO I.4: 113–14).

98. Alexander of Hierapolis et al., Ep. ad Helladium episc. Tarsi (CPG #6400, ACO I.4: 93).

99. Theodoret, Ep. ad Iohannem Antiochenum (CPG #6266, ACO I.1.7: 164).

100. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6303, ACO I.4: 112).

101. Theodoret, Ep. ad Andream Samosatenum (CPG #6256, ACO I.4: 102). Theodoret's subtlety in splitting the judgments of doctrine and of persons is noted by Pásztori-Kupán, Theodoret, 15–17.

102. For the rumors that Theodoret had betrayed Nestorius, see Theodoret, Ep. ad Helladium episc. Tarsi (CPG #6260, ACO I.4: 106–7). For John's assumptions, see his later letter: John of Antioch, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6321, ACO I.4: 124).

103. Paul of Emesa featured aspects of the agreement in his sermons in Alexandria: Homilia i-ii de nativitate Alexandria habita (CPG #6365–6366, ACO I.1.4: 9–14). Here, amid mostly ambiguous Scriptural formulas, he made quick mention of “two natures.”

104. The focus on the humanity as “temple” is mentioned by Hiba of Edessa, Ep. ad Marim Persam (CPG #6500, ACO II.1.3: 32–34).

105. Paul of Emesa, Libellus Cyrillo Alexandrino oblatus (CPG #6368, ACO I.1.4: 6–7).

106. The plan was reported by Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. ad Theognostum et Charmosynum presbyteros et Leontium diaconum (CPG #5337, ACO I.1.7: 154).

107. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum de pace (CPG #6310, ACO I.1.4: 7–9); Cyril, Ep. ad Iohannem Antiochenum de pace (CPG #5339, ACO I.1.4: 15–20). This letter (sometimes called Laetentur coeli) served as the official Formula text.

108. No opponent of Cyril is attested from these provinces, except Musaeus of Aradus (see Cyril Ep. adMosaeum episc. Aradi et Antaradi [CPG #5365, ACO I.4: 231]).

109. Alexander of Apamea, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hier. (CPG #6390, ACO I.4: 159).

110. Maximianus of Anazarbus et al., Sententia synodi an. 433 Anazarbi habitae (CPG #6453, ACO I.4: 142–43); Helladius of Tarsus, Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis (CPG #6437, ACO I.4: 143). Isauria later returned to communion along with Cilicia II (Meletius of Mopsuestia, Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis, CPG #6458, ACO I.4: 191).

111. Theodoret, Ep. ad Iohannem Antiochenum (CPG #6266, ACO I.4: 131–32; the Greek version, ACO I.1.7: 163–64, is incomplete and misleading).

112. For more on the background of Acacius, see chapter 3.

113. See Acacius of Beroea, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandriae (CPG #6479, ACO I.1.1: 99–100).

114. Acacius of Beroea, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandriae (CPG #6479, ACO I.1.1: 100).

115. Vita Rabbulae (Overbeck: 160–62, 167–70; tr. Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 69–70, 74–75). Peeters, “La vie de Rabboula;” and Blum, Rabbula, 14–106, largely endorse this vita.

116. Chronicon Edessenum year 723 (= A.D. 412, CSCO SS 1.4:6). See Peeters, “La vie de Rabboula,” 163–66.

117. Blum, Rabbula, 142–49, analyzed Rabbula's early doctrinal work, though he posited an evolution rather than an about-face. Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 58–62, plays down Rabbula's Antiochene affiliation. Hiba and Irenaeus do not (accurately or not).

118. Vita Rabbulae (Overbeck: 172; tr. Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 76–77). Burkitt, “Christian Church in the East,” 501–2 argued that Rabbula penned the Peshitta. Vööbus, Researches on the Circulation of the Peshitta, challenged this notion. Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 55–57, clarifies that the Syriac hlaf, “alter” could indicate textual corrections.

119. See Honigmann, Le couvent de Barsauma, 29–33.

120. Andreas, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6374, ACO I.4: 86–87); Hiba of Edessa, Ep. ad Marim Persam (CPG #6500, ACO II.1.3: 33–34).

121. Rabbula, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum (CPG #6494, ACO IV.1: 89).

122. Rabbula, Ep. ad Andream Samosatenum (CPG #6495, Overbeck: 222–23). This exchange might date to 431, especially if Rabbula missed Ephesus (Blum, Rabbula, 152). If he attended, it must date to 432 (Evieux, “André de Samosate,” 276–78). See also Vogt, “Unterschiedliches Konzilverständnis der Cyrillianer,” 444–45.

123. John of Antioch et al., Ep. ad episcopos Osrhoenae contra Rabbulam episc. Edessae (una cum synoda Antiochena) (CPG #6347, ACO I.4: 87). Rabbula retained the support of Gemellinus of Perrha, who later helped him harass Andreas (see Andreas of Samosata, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum, CPG #6380, ACO I.4: 136–37).

124. Andreas of Samosata, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6380, ACO I.4: 136–37). A temporary replacement for Andreas, Zacharias, is mentioned only by the tendentious Vita Barsaumae. See Honigmann, Le couvent de Barsauma, 27–31.

125. Vita Rabbulae (Overbeck: 198; tr. Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 97–98). The same manuscript preserves the sermon Rabbula supposedly delivered in Constantinople (Over-beck: 239–44). The work might have been written a few years later in Edessa.

126. Blum, Rabbula, 152, 160–65, concluded that Rabbula could not have attended the First Council of Ephesus, since he was supposedly blind (see Theodore Lector, a.k.a. Theodore Anagnostes, HE 2.40, GCS 3:153). But this late, fragmentary source only notes “blindness” in passing, as a gloss upon the “illness” mentioned in Rabbula, Ep. ad Andream Samosatenum (CPG #6495, Overbeck: 222, datable either to 431 or to 432).

127. Hiba of Edessa, Ep. ad Marim Persam (CPG #6500, ACO II.1.3: 33). Barhadbe-shabba, Cause of the Foundation of the Schools (PO 6:380–81) claimed that Theodore had publicly contradicted Rabbula when the latter tried to justify beating his clergy.

128. Rabbula, Homilia Constantinopoli habita (CPG #6496, Overbeck: 240; tr. Doran, Stewards of the Poor, 59). See especially the analysis of Blum, Rabbula, 133–37.

129. Acacius of Beroea, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum (CPG #6479, ACO I.1.1: 99–100).

130. John needed the help of his colleagues to discern the “Apollinarian” implications of some of Cyril's formulations (e.g., his claim that the natures did not mix because “one is the Divinity and the other the body;” see John of Antioch, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum [CPG #6303, ACO I.4: 113]). Even the Formula of Reunion relied heavily on Theodoret's writings. (See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 328–29.)

131. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6321, ACO I.4: 124).

132. Cyril, Ep. ad Acacium Beroeensem (CPG #5392, ACO I.1.7: 140–42).

133. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum, sec. 5 (CPG #6309, ACO I.1.7: 152).

134. Meletius of Mopsuestia, Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis (CPG #6455, ACO I.4: 129). For this quotation, see the later Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis (CPG #6456, ACO I.4: 176). Irenaeus asserted that Paul never gave Cyril John of Antioch's proposals, citing Cyril, Ep. ad Rabbulam Edessenum (CPG #5334, ACO I.4: 140–41).

135. Eutherius, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum, sec. 2 (CPG #6150, ACO I.4: 214).

136. Helladius of Tarsus, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6437, ACO I.4: 143–44). Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Iohannem Antiochenum (CPG #6403, ACO I.4: 163–64). Maximianus of Anazarbus et al., Sententia synodi an. 433 Anazarbi habitae (CPG #6453, ACO I.4: 142–43).

137. John of Antioch et al., Ep. ad Xystum, Cyrillum et Maximianum (una cum synodo Antiochena) (CPG #6335, ACO I.1.4: 33), affirmed communion with the other primates. His Ep. ad Xystum episc. Romae (CPG #6336, ACO I.1.7: 158–60) appealed for support.

138. Theodosius II, Sacra a Iohanne Antiocheno impetrata contra Alexandrum, Hella-dium, Maximianum et Theodoretum (CPG #6423, ACO I.4: 166–67). Dionysius the Master of Soldiers, Rescriptum ad Titum comitem (CPG #6424, ACO I.4: 168–69).

139. Theodoret, Ep. ad magistrum militum (Anatolium) (CPG #6254, ACO I.4: 160). Abbibus of Doliche, Libellus ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis, Theodoretum episc. Cyri, Maram et Davidem episcopi, Acylinum episc. Barbalissi (CPG #6388, ACO I.4: 162). Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Acylinum episc. Barbalissi (CPG #6393, ACO I.4: 176). Alexander et al., Ep. ad Pulcheriam aliasque Augustas (CPG #6408, ACO I.4: 162–63).

140. Andreas, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6380, ACO I.4: 136–37).

141. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6303, ACO I.4: 112–13).

142. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Maximianum episc. CPolis (CPG #6315, ACO I.1.7: 160).

143. On Alexander of Hierapolis's “40 years of mourning sins,” see his Ep. ad Acacium Beroeensem (CPG #6392, ACO I.4: 98). On his ordination and diligence, see his Epp. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6416–17, ACO I.4: 186–89). On his sponsorship of Sergiopolis/Rasapha, see Fowden, The Barbarian Plain, esp. chap. 4.

144. Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6416, ACO I.4: 187).

145. Alexander departed from Ephesus in 431 as soon as he could. See the third section of this chapter.

146. Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6410, ACO I.4: 130).

147. Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6412, ACO I.4: 136).

148. Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Andream Samosatenum (CPG #6396, ACO I.4: 129).

149. Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Iohannem Germaniciae (CPG #6405, ACO I.4: 138).

150. Meletius of Mopsuestia, Epp. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6455–56, ACO I.4: 129–30, 176–77). Meletius performed a similar service for Helladius of Tarsus and Maximianus of Anazarbus (Meletius, Ep. ad Helladium episc Tarsi [CPG #6461, ACO I.4: 169–70; Ep. ad Maximianum episc. Anazarbi [CPG #6462, ACO I.4: 155]).

151. Eutherius and Helladius, Ep. ad Xystum episc. Romae (CPG #6148, ACO I.4: 14548). This letter was sent as a draft to Alexander (see Eutherius, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hiera-politanum et Theodoretum [CPG #6149, ACO I.4: 144–45]).

152. Maximianus of Anazarbus et al., Sententia synodi an. 433 Anazarbi habitae (CPG #6453, ACO I.4: 142–43). Similar statements came from Cilicia I, where Helladius of Tarsus acknowledged the influence of Meletius and his priest envoy Olippius (Helladius, Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis [CPG #6437, ACO I.4: 143]).

153. Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6247, ACO I.4: 134).

154. Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Helladium episc. Tarsi (CPG #6402, ACO I.4: 185).

155. Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Acacium Beroeensem (CPG #6392, ACO I.4: 98).

156. Alexander of Apamea, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hier. (CPG #6390, ACO I.4: 159).

157. Andreas probably took refuge in Mesopotamia province from rioting clerics (see his Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum [CPG #6380, ACO I.4: 136–37]).

158. See Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Iohannem Germaniciae (CPG #6405, ACO I.4: 138–39); Maximianus of Anazarbus, Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis (CPG #6450, ACO I.4: 140–41).

159. E.g., Andreas, Ep. ad Rabbulam (CPG #6384, in Pericoli-Ridolfini, “Lettera di Andrea”: 153–69), if Evieux's dating is correct (see the fourth section of this chapter).

160. Andreas of Samosata, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolis (CPG #6375, ACO I.4: 100).

161. Andreas of Samosata, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolis (CPG #6376, ACO I.4: 102–3).

162. Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Andream Samosatenum (CPG #6398, ACO I.4: 138).

163. Theodoret, HR 10.9 (SC 234:450–52).

164. John of Antioch, Ep. ad clerum populumque Tarsensem (CPG #6348, ACO I.4: 90). On Eutherius's expulsion by Firmus of Caesarea, see Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hiera-politanum (CPG #6243, ACO I.4 :87).

165. Helladius of Tarsus, Ep. ad Alexandrum episc. Hierapolis (CPG #6437, ACO I.4: 143–44).

166. The portion of the synodical preserved by Irenaeus hardly seems conciliatory, calling local supporters of Nestorius “seditious” (Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri [CPG #6414, ACO I.4: 173]). Constas, Proclus, 86–88, took this as a sign of Proclus's hostility toward the Antiochenes. But the rest of the letter must have been friendlier or Helladius would not have accepted it (see next note).

167. Helladius of Tarsus, Ep. ad Meletium Mopsuestiae (CPG #6440, ACO I.4: 169), asked for advice about accepting Proclus. The response from Meletius (Ep. ad Helladium episcopum Tarsi [CPG #6461, ACO I.4: 169–70]) was to reject Proclus. Helladius's decision to conditionally accept Proclus is recounted in Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hieropolita-num (CPG #6250, ACO I.4: 172–73).

168. Helladius of Tarsus, Ep. ad Meletium Mopsuestiae (CPG #6440, ACO I.4: 169).

169. Helladius of Tarsus, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6439, ACO I.4: 183).

170. E.g., J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 325–29; Grillmeier, Christ, part 2, chap. 4.

171. Theodoret, Ep. ad Andream Samosatenum (CPG #6256, ACO I.4: 102).

172. There is no evidence that Theodoret drafted the Formula of Reunion, but his work surely guided John of Antioch (see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 328; McGuckin, St. Cyril, 113–16).

173. Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6248, ACO I.4: 135).

174. Theodoret, Ep. ad Iohannem Antiochenum (CPG #6266, ACO I.4: 132).

175. Theodoret, Ep. ad Meletium episc. Neocaesareae (CPG #6268, ACO I.4: 157).

176. Theodoret, epp. P 6, P 11 (SC 40:78–79, 83). He also courted Eurycianus the tribune (ep. P 47, SC 40:111–17), and Dometianus the quaestor (Ep. P 40, SC 40:104).

177. Theodoret, Ep. ad Magistrum Militum [Anatolium] (CPG #6254, ACO I.4: 160). Azéma's argument that the recipient was probably Dionysius, because the letter assumes past contacts (see Theodoret Correspondance, SC 429:37–39), is not persuasive; it ignores Anatolius's roots in Antioch and his later relationship with Theodoret.

178. The success of Theodoret's appeal can be deduced from Titus's long delay in even threatening to enforce imperial orders, from the fall of 433 to the summer of 434.

179. Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6249, ACO I.4: 170–71).

180. Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6413, ACO I.4: 171).

181. Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6250, ACO I.4: 172).

182. Theodoret, Ep. ad Cyrillum episc. Adanae (CPG #6258, ACO I.4: 181).

183. Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6251, ACO I.4: 174).

184. Theodoret, Ep. ad Cyrillum episc. Adanae (CPG #6258, ACO I.4: 181).

185. Helladius of Tarsus, Ep. ad Nestorium (CPG #6441, ACO I.4: 205).

186. Devreese, “Apres le concile d'Éphèse,” and Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 182–83, rightly stress the importance to this settlement of pressure from the imperial court.

187. By mid-435, some Syrian bishops had condemned Nestorius; others (Theodoret, Helladius, and Maximianus) had joined communion without condemning him. A year later, the court would compel (almost) every Syrian bishop to condemn Nestorius explicitly (see Theodosius II, Codex Theodosianus 16.5.66).

188. Abbibus of Doliche had died of an illness. Theodoret, Ep. ad magistrum militum [Anatolium] (CPG #6254, ACO I.4: 160).

189. Theodoret, Ep. ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum (CPG #6252, ACO I.4: 186); Ep. ad Nestorium (CPG #6271: ACO I.4: 189). Alexander of Hierapolis, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6416, ACO I.4: 186–87).

190. Denunciations: Meletius of Mopsuestia, Ep. ad Maximianum episc. Anazarbi (CPG #6463, ACO I.4: 178); Ep. ad Titum comitem domesticorum (CPG #6465, ACO I.4: 192–95). For Meletius's continued agitations, see John of Antioch, Ep. ad Theodosium et Valentini-anum imperatores augustos (CPG #6334, ACO I.4: 196).

191. Theodosius II's first decree, which exiled Nestorius and whoever refused communion (ACO I.1.3: 67), should not be confused with a second decree (ACO I.1.3: 68, I.4: 204, Codex Theodosianus 16.5.66), which exiled those who refused to condemn Nestorius. Irenaeus noted the fates of exiles (Quanti a sanctis ecclesiis exierunt nolentes suam consci-entiam vulnerare [CPG #6431, ACO I.4: 203–4]), listing four bishops of Syria removed for refusing communion and one (Aquilinus of Barbalissus) for refusing to condemn Nestorius, as well as eleven from other regions (including Nestorius and Eutherius). Irenaeus was also exiled (see Theodosius II, Sacra de exsilio Irenaei [CPG #6474, ACO I.4: 203]). For Alexander's ousting see Libianus, governor of Euphratensis, Relationes ad vicarium Titum (aut comiti Orientis) (CPG #6429–30, ACO I.4:200–202). Dating these decrees has proven troublesome. Texts note that the first decree was enforced in Hierapolis on April 15, and that the second was written on August 3. No years are recorded. Schwartz (CVatGr 1431:92) persuasively argued that the second edict dates to August 436, to fit with Aristolaus's travels. The first edict, however, makes more sense in April 435 (see Devreesse, Essai sur Théodore, 133–34)—the court had threatened exile since the spring of 434, and probably would not wait more than a year.

192. John of Antioch, Ep. ad Theodoretum episc. Cyri (CPG #6322, ACO I.4: 153–54). Dating of this letter is uncertain—perhaps 434 (as implied here) or perhaps 433, before John and Theodoret parted ways. Neither option deeply alters our narrative.