Anatolius

ON ST. ANATOLIUS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR,

AT CONSTANTINOPLE.

IN THE YEAR 458.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople (S.)

BY THE AUTHOR J. P.

§ I. Sacred cult, elogia, miracles, the time of his life and death, and the life here published by us.

Anatolius, an Alexandrian by homeland, first having discharged the office of presbyter and Apocrisiarius or Responsal, thence attained the illustrious dignity of Patriarch of Constantinople, and was always in the highest honor among the Greeks, and in no less veneration; The cult and elogia of St. Anatolius, as will be made plain from their own sacred monuments, into which they willed his yearly memory to be inserted, consecrated to the perpetual memory of posterity. Let the beginning be taken from the printed Greek Menaea. There, on this third day, he is announced in these words: Of our holy Father Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople. from the printed Menaea, This man, when he was a presbyter and apocrisiarius, is ordained bishop of Constantinople, under the reign of Theodosius the Younger. For when Dioscorus the heretic hoped that he would vote for him in his perverse dogma, he chose him Bishop of Constantinople. But the heretic profited nothing thereby. For this blessed Anatolius first condemned him in the Synod of Chalcedon, and inserted the name of St. Flavian in the diptychs, who had been cast down from his throne by Dioscorus and the Council of the brigands, gathered by him; and by encyclical or general letters sent to the bishops who presided over the churches in various provinces, he condemned Dioscorus and the heresiarchs adhering to his sect: and when he had holily fed and ruled his fold in the orthodox faith, he was impiously taken away by the heretics, Gennadius the most holy being left as his successor.

[2] Thus the printed Menaea; where you see, from the last words of the said elogium, that Anatolius is honored by the Greeks not only as a holy Bishop and Patriarch, and the Basilian Menologium. but also that his death is imputed to the heretics, of which

matter a little later. With the Menaea nearly agrees the Basilian Menologium, in which the following are found: The memory of our holy Father Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Then he is honored with an elogium of this kind: Our holy Father Anatolius, sprung from the city of Alexandria, was a presbyter of the most holy Church of God, while Theodosius the Younger held the helm of the kingdom. But on account of his virtue and his reputation, he was sent as apocrisiarius to Constantinople by Dioscorus the heretic, who was led into the hope that he would have him as a supporter of his perverse dogma. He was present at the Fourth Synod, that of Chalcedon, and together with five hundred and thirty holy Fathers struck Dioscorus with anathema. The name of St. Flavian, taken out of the way by Dioscorus in the Synod of Ephesus, infamous for its brigandage, and punished by the heretics with an unjust death, he inserted in the diptychs, and grazed all the heretics with the sentence of anathema. Finally, created Patriarch of Constantinople, after he had rightly governed his flock, he migrated to God.

[3] The same cult from various tables of the Greeks, The yearly memory of our holy Patriarch is also found inscribed in several other tables of the Greeks, namely in the Typicon of St. Sabas, the Greek Horologion, the Chifflet Menaeon, as also in Maximus, Bishop of Cythera, and in this last place indeed with an elogium. What? That even to the foreign and remote nations of the Ruthenians and Slavs the fame, sanctity, and public veneration of our Prelate spread far and wide? For in the Synaxarion of the Ruthenians, translated into the Latin tongue by Father George David, missionary of our Society, who in the year 1678 resided at Moscow, and afterward sent to us, on the third day of July it is thus read: Likewise the feast or commemoration of the bones of St. Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople. But in the Slavo-Russian Menologium, communicated to us by the noble and generous man the Lord Baron de Sparwenfeld (of whose merits toward us you will find more things pertaining to the present matter in the Papebrochian life, volume 6 of June, page 17), in the Menologium, I say, the Slavo-Russian, on the same third day indeed our Saint is commemorated, but in somewhat different terms: Of our holy Father Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the year 453 under Marcian. Facundus, an African by nation, bishop of Hermiane in Africa, already from the sixth century (for he flourished in the year 540) honored our Prelate more than once with the title of saint, as may be seen in book 5, which he wrote for the defense of the three chapters of the Council of Chalcedon, chapter 3; where he defends Anatolius against the scurrility of the Nestorians. Other things pertaining to the public veneration of our holy Confessor, as also to the cult of his sacred remains, read, reader, at the end of the life, to be subjoined a little later to this preliminary commentary; from which no small accession of confirmation will be made concerning the sacred and public honors exhibited to him.

[4] In Molanus, among the additions, he is recorded also on this day. and the additions of Molanus. To be corrected is Baillet, so often the corrector of others, who asserts, in the life of St. Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, that the Laodicean Anatolius is wrongly confounded by Molanus with Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople; whereas the said author, in express terms, judged that the one Anatolius should be abundantly distinguished from the other, leaving Anatolius bishop of Laodicea in the Usuardine text; and inserting the other, of the same name, but different in dignity and place, namely the Patriarch of Constantinople, into the additions annexed to the aforesaid text. Nor can the aforesaid Baillet have anything from the diversity of editions by which to excuse his error here. For I confess indeed that the aforesaid distinction of both Anatolius, the Laodicean and the Constantinopolitan, is reviewed in the later editions of Molanus; but since the same Author in the first edition has one single Anatolius the Laodicean, he could not there confound the two with each other. His words are clear: At Laodicea of Syria, of St. Anatolius the bishop, who left behind admirable things not only for religious men, but also for philosophers.

[5] That our holy Prelate, both living and dead, was illustrious with miracles, the apograph of the life, Miracles, the time of his life and death. presently to be produced by us, hands down, in chapter 2, from number 12. I spare myself the labor of commemorating these here at length, since they can be seen there. No trace of these could I anywhere else, as far as at least it was permitted me to see, detect. Now let us see what is to be established concerning the time of the life and death of our Prelate. That he began to draw the enjoyment of life toward the end of the fourth century, or the beginning of the fifth, is easily made out from this, that he was formed to humane learning by the great Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, with such profit that, both by the precepts of so distinguished a master, and by the perspicacity of his own genius, it happened that he easily surpassed all his equals; of which matter see chapter 1. The most eminent Author of Ecclesiastical History, Baronius, hands down that he departed from life in the year 458; whom Tillemont follows, as also our Elders, in volume 3 of June, page 20; whom also they there assert to have occupied the see of Constantinople from the year 449. That he spent eight years with as many months in the episcopate, Nicephorus is the author, in his compendious Chronography. So many years with as many months Baronius too attributes to him, under the year 458. With whom you may easily reconcile Zonaras, who, in the Annals, book 14, attributes to him only eight years; understanding them completed; as also Theophanes, who grants him nine years, that is, incomplete.

[6] Whether St. Anatolius was slain by the heretics. Meanwhile, while we speak of the year of his death, a question comes to be touched by us, by what kind of death our Saint died. We have, from the elogium of the Greek Menaea, cited above at number 1, that Anatolius was slain by the heretics. For what cause this was done is not there said. Further, either this did not happen; or at least it did not happen in hatred of the faith; since among the Greeks, neither anywhere else, nor even in the very announcement prefixed to the elogium presently mentioned, is he named by the name of Martyr. Add, that neither in the Basilian Menologium adduced above, nor in our apograph, nor anywhere else, whether among the Greeks or among the Latins, is such a kind of death found. When it is said, in volume 3 of June, page 20, that, although Anatolius strove in every way to prove his right faith to Pope Leo and the Emperor Marcian, yet he could not guard against being less believed to favor the heretics; when, I say, it is thus there said, and then it is added that he washed away this mark, being taken out of the way by the very heretics, the fountain is there sufficiently intimated, from which this opinion was drawn, by these words: As the Menaea report of him on the third of July.

[7] Things to be noted concerning our apograph, But now, of our apograph judge thus. It bears the name of no author. From the most well-furnished library of the king of France our Papebroch received and transcribed it, at that time, if I rightly conjecture, when, together with Father Henschenius, after gathering in Germany and Italy a most copious harvest for the Acts of the Saints, he was staying at Paris, about to return into Belgium. For the rest, our apograph is distinguished by this title: Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀνατολίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. The Life and Conversation of our holy Father Anatolius, Archbishop of Constantinople.

[8] and the Author's style. Whoever was the author of the Anatolian life, he exhibits those characters of style which are an indication that he did not altogether shrink from the Attic elegance of the ancient writers; the barbarism of words, which is wont to be frequent among the authors of the middle age, being eliminated; and he was accustomed not rarely to detain readers not otherwise unskilled in the Greek tongue.

§ II. A Critical Inquiry, in which the chief accusations against St. Anatolius are weighed.

The matter of the accusations against Anatolius, Baronius indeed seems to have spoken too harshly of the deeds of Anatolius in various places, than that, with no attempt at mitigation made, they should be silently passed over by me. He will therefore grant me this pardon, that I may inquire whether the manner of life in Anatolius was such that he deserved to be marked with so black a pebble as the most wise Annalist marked it. And first it pleases me to divide the matter into certain fixed heads, that the whole matter may come out more distinct and explicated; and then to weigh the several points of the accusations, party zeal set aside, in the mature balance of judgment.

[10] is reduced to certain heads. Every accusation which can be forged against our holy Prelate seems to be reducible to six chief heads. The first is, that by the effort and promotion of the infamous heretic Dioscorus, he was raised to the infulae of Constantinople. The second, that against the statutes of the Nicene Synod, he wished to arrogate to the see of Constantinople primacy over the churches of Antioch and Alexandria. The third, that, opposing himself to the decree concerning the framing of a new formula of faith, he conducted himself less sincerely. The fourth, that by an interpellation, to be set forth at length below, he asserted that Dioscorus had not been condemned by the Council of Ephesus on account of the Catholic faith. The fifth, that Aëtius or Aetius, most well-deserving of the orthodox faith, he removed from the archdeaconate, preferring to him Andrew, by far most unworthy. The sixth, finally, that he showed himself too conniving and indulgent to the heretics, if not favoring them. Of these accusations, if it please, let us weigh out distinctly the heads, how much each avails, with the sole aim of uncovering the truth, and, as far as it can be done, dissolve them.

[11] I begin from the first two. Whether Anatolius was apocrisiarius or responsal to Dioscorus, The first accusation is weighed as Zonaras relates, book 13, number 23, and Liberatus, chapter 12 of the Cause of the Eutychians, inserted in volume 5 of the Councils of Labbe, column 759, letter a; or rather, as Nicephorus has it in the aforesaid compendious Chronography, a presbyter and responsal of the Church of Alexandria, it is not of so great moment to investigate more deeply. Of greater moment Pagi rightly judges it, in his Historico-Chronological Critique, volume 2, page 360, that after the conventicle of Ephesus, the holy prelate Flavian having been driven out and killed, he was consecrated by bishops of the same faction as Dioscorus. From which familiarity with the heretics, it was easy to judge of his faith, namely that it was no other than that which was Dioscorus's and that of his ordainers. Soon the same author mitigates that suspicion, as not rash or ill-founded, saying: Yet if the matter be weighed in an even balance, from that intercourse with the heretics nothing else ought to be concluded, save that he was suspected of novelty.

[12] Let us look into the matter more deeply with Baronius. He reports, under the year 450, concerning the promotion of St. Anatolius by Dioscorus, that letters were given by St. Leo the Pope to the Emperor Theodosius, that he would not receive the communion of Anatolius, nor approve his election, unless first it were established concerning his Catholic faith; which, explored and well recognized, both from the volumes written by St. Cyril concerning the Incarnation of the Word, and from the letter written by himself to Flavian, examined, recognized, approved, and fortified by public subscription, and declared to clergy and people; then it would be that, for the good of peace, he should be received into the communion of the Apostolic See, and be allowed to sit. Behold, contracted into a compendium, the first head of the accusation. The favor of the infamous Dioscorus, the consecration made by bishops, followers of the Dioscorian obstinacy, could not but render suspect the faith of the newly consecrated prelate Anatolius, so

little supported and promoted upon solid foundations in the faith. Hence St. Leo rightly and justly wished the sincerity of his faith to be proved; Anatolius proved it, by a profession sent to Pope Leo; he removed the suspicion; and gave Leo satisfaction so fully that the latter rendered to the same Anatolius congratulatory and peaceful letters in this year on the Ides of April, as even Cardinal Baronius himself is the author, under the year of Christ 451, and as we have from Leo's letter 60, otherwise 40.

[13] A fragment of these, so far as may suffice for our purpose, and it is mitigated from the letter of St. Leo the Pope. I subjoin. We rejoice in the Lord, and glory in the gift of His grace, who, as we have learned both from the letters of your Charity and from the report of our brethren, whom we had sent to Constantinople, has shown you a follower of the Evangelical learning; so that through the approvable faith of the Priest we may rightly presume that the whole church entrusted to the same will have neither the wrinkle of anyone's error nor a stain, the Apostle saying: For I have espoused you to one man, to present you a chaste virgin to Christ … in which we embrace the fellowship of your Charity, and approve the series of the acts, which we have received, fortified, as was fitting, with the necessary subscriptions. Then, a few things interposed, the holy Pope subjoins that he rejoices at the peace of the Church of Constantinople. That satisfaction had thus been made to him, he signified not obscurely in this cause of Anatolius, he heartily made known his congratulation joined with joy; and the faith of our Prelate, before not undeservedly suspected, he by letters proved and approved, as is clear from the fragment of the cited letter; what is there that can make anyone's mind doubtful, whether it should be more mildly judged concerning his promotion to the Patriarchal Chair, though heretics gave aid and patronage?

[14] Pagi defending him, Indeed not without reason does Pagi seem to have declared, in the cited Critique, what he thought of the present controversy, when, in volume 2, page 360, he speaks in these words: To pronounce Anatolius, for that cause alone, already sufficiently set forth, assertively to have been a heretic and a Eutychianist, belongs to a too severe arbiter. Nor in the whole cause of the Eutychians is there found any interlocution of Anatolius, any writing, by which he voted for the heresy; in this alone guilty, that he was a friend of the heretics, and endowed by them with an ample benefit. Pagi proceeds, and to certain places, in appearance somewhat hard, drawn from the letters of St. Leo, he responds in these words: or from Leo's own words, This alone was the reason why Leo the Great sometimes, in his letters 39 and 44 according to the old order, or 69 and 73 according to the new, declares that he was a reviver of the once-condemned dogma. Leo himself in two places indicates whence he drew what he said elsewhere of Anatolius, that he taught heresy. The first is from the letter to the same Anatolius 80, and according to the old order 53, in which the said author thus introduces him speaking: Your predecessor of blessed memory Flavian being cast out on account of the defense of Catholic truth, it was not undeservedly believed that your ordainers, against the constitutions of the holy Canons, seemed to have consecrated one like themselves; but the mercy of God was present, directing and confirming you in this, that you should use ill beginnings well, and show yourself advanced not by the judgment of men, but by the benignity of God.

[15] thinking well afterward. Thus the praised author vindicates Anatolius from the taint of heresy, even from the very words of Leo the Great. Thus Leo himself afterward wished to mitigate the terms of harsher digestion, cast upon Anatolius, both for the instruction of posterity and for the defense of Anatolius. What? That in another place no less openly the same holy Pontiff wished to set forth what he thought of the orthodoxy of Anatolius, when, in the letter to Marcian Augustus 84, in the old order 57, he thus pronounces: The ordination of Bishop Anatolius, as the knowledge of God is witness, the authors of his consecration had, which must be confessed, made suspect to me, nor did I judge the elected unlike the electors; and it followed that, while he was estranged from the communion of the Apostolic see, I long abstained from giving him letters of peace; but since the testimony of your piety favors him, etc.

[16] concerning the orthodoxy of Anatolius. These things therefore being premised from Leo's own letters, in the vindication and purgation of Anatolius, the said Pagi at last thus concludes. Hence it is manifest that by Leo, for no other cause, was Anatolius called an assertor of the new dogma, save because he had obtained the imposition of hands from schismatics. Then he reports that this probable conjecture, begun at the outset, was afterward in the process of time altogether dissolved, and that no other Anatolius was thereafter found than a Catholic and orthodox one, as he shows at length in the same Chronological Critique, under the year 351, from number 37, and as we shall deduce at length from those things which will be said in the course. Add, that the following points, reduced for brevity's sake into an epitome, conduce not moderately to confirming the apology of our Prelate, which may be seen at length in Tillemont, volume 15, in the life of St. Leo the Pope.

[17] The reader will find there that he grazed Nestorius and Eutyches with anathema; that he exhorted all the Bishops by encyclical letters The same is brought forward from elsewhere, to do the same; that he inserted the name of St. Flavian in the diptychs; that Dioscorus himself, who almost, as is clear from the foregoing, may seem to be the single stone of offense and rock of scandal in this matter, thrice cited by the Council, but contumacious, but rebellious, and not appearing, he condemned; finally, that he convoked a Synod at Constantinople, frequented by all the bishops, abbots, presbyters, deacons staying there, in which he subscribed the famous letters of St. Leo the Pope formerly given to Flavian, and then there offered to the patriarch Anatolius by the hand of Abundius, the first legate of the same Leo, said anathema to Nestorius and Eutyches, and to their dogmas and followers; the whole series of the matter being reported by the legates, eyewitnesses indeed, by letters to the praised Roman pontiff. What more? Lest I be more prolix than is right, let the reader consult the cited volume of Tillemont, where he will find both these and other things pertaining to the same.

[18] It is well to weave to these a fragment of the letter of Anatolius written to Leo the Great, which, among the monuments of the Greek Church, John Baptist Cotelier published from the manuscript Reg. 940, and from the letter of Anatolius to Leo, and rendered into Latin, volume 1, page 66. For our most pious and Christ-loving emperor Theodosius, who places all things in the second rank after those which pertain to God, when the most holy Church of Constantinople had been bereft of a pastor, and ought to receive one who could rule it, took very great care of this matter; and first indeed he committed to the most religious clergy of that city that they should decree those more apt for the governance, reserving to himself the approbation of the election of the chief of all. Then, an immoderate dissension having arisen in these matters, and all being here rent into various dissensions with respect to many, the Emperor orders clerics to be sought out in the royal city, even from other cities, staying there, as it happens, on account of certain affairs; that the more excellent among them, without any partiality, might be promoted to the episcopal dignity. When this had been done, afterward it pleased those who hold power over all things to permit to the clergy the election of the Primate. And behold, the votes came upon me, the least of all, not on account of my justice, but that Christ Jesus might show in me all His patience, according to the Apostle. Whence this work fell upon the holy synod of Bishops staying at Constantinople, that they should proceed without delay to ordain me.

[19] Here the reader has Anatolius, a witness indeed in his own cause, yet bringing forth a sincere confession concerning the manner of his election. And these things concerning the first head of the accusations: from which enough, as I think, concerning the manner of his promotion. is made out that St. Anatolius was suspected of novelty or heresy, not guilty.

[20] The second head of the accusation, I come now to the second head of the accusations, by which is grazed his ambition, affecting the primacy of his Church of Constantinople over that of Alexandria and Antioch. And indeed that Anatolius arrogated that primacy to himself is more certainly established than that it can be called into doubt, much less denied. That its prerogative consisted in this, Pagi briefly narrates, volume 2, page 334, that the Church of Constantinople should enjoy the first honor after the Roman see, and have right and power over the dioceses of Thrace, Pontus, and Asia, and should ordain their Metropolitans, and moreover the bishops of the barbarians, contrary to what the first Nicene Synod had sanctioned. Therefore very often did Leo sharply inveigh against him, as against a swollen, elated, and proud man; nor did he omit to address, on this cause, by letters the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria Augusta. Receive some fragments.

[21] concerning the ambition for the primacy Letter 79, otherwise 55, to Pulcheria Augusta. My brother, he says, and fellow-bishop Anatolius … is inflamed to appetite immoderately beyond the measure of his honor; to whom, in the same place, he gives the name of intemperate cupidity, adds that he is too proud, and immoderate, tending beyond his proper bounds, and, antiquity being trampled, wishing to snatch another's right, … to impugn the primacies of so many Metropolitans … to bring the war of a new perturbation … He wishes, moreover, that Anatolius should recognize to what Man he succeeded, and, every spirit of elation being repelled, should imitate the modesty of Flavian, the humility of Flavian … He asks that his brother Anatolius … be salutarily … restrained. In letter 80, otherwise 53, to Anatolius himself, the holy Pontiff moves every stone, that he may deter him from the ambition for the primacy. I grieve … that your Charity has slipped in this, of the Church of Constantinople over Alexandria and Antioch, slipped, that you should attempt to infringe the most sacred constitutions of the Nicene canons … To the perturbation of the whole Church this proud elation tends … Far be it … from my conscience, that so depraved a cupidity should be aided by my endeavors … Do not, brother, be high-minded, but fear, and cease to disquiet the most pious ears of the Christian princes with impious petitions … Let nothing perish of the dignity of the Alexandrian see, which it merited through St. Mark the Evangelist … Let the Antiochene church also, in which first, at the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter, the Christian name arose, persevere in the order of its paternal constitution … Writing these things to you, Brother, I exhort and admonish you in the Lord, that, the desire of ambition being laid aside, you should rather be fervent in the spirit of charity, etc.

[22] it is mitigated Let these suffice for a specimen. Almost the whole letter 78, otherwise 54, of Leo to Marcian Augustus, is occupied in proposing the following points; namely, that many evils arise from the ambition of Anatolius; that the see of Constantinople, which is royal, not Apostolic, cannot be raised by the depression of others; that the cupidity of Anatolius is to be repressed by Marcian; that from his prior successes Anatolius took courage. But that elation, if not altogether excusable, at least less culpable, comes out from this, that he believed without doubt that some right belonged to him for this primacy, or that some prescription favored him? For Leo the Pope himself seems to hint something similar, in letter 80, otherwise 53, thus writing to Anatolius:

For to your persuasion nothing at all lends support—that writing of certain Bishops made sixty years ago, as you boast, and never transmitted by your predecessors to the notice of the Apostolic See.

[23] However it be, our Prelate, taught better things by Leo, and it is diminished, was wiser; he acquiesced in his counsels, complied with his will, submitted himself, laid aside his pride, entered into peace, and purged himself. To conclude the matter in few words, Leo gave him pardon by a letter sent to him, 106 otherwise 71, filled with paternal admonitions, from which I taste the following for our purpose: It is gratifying to me, most dear Brother, that your Charity professes that this displeases him, which then too ought not to have pleased. In the return to common grace the profession of your Charity suffices, and the attestation of the Christian prince, Marcian Augustus. Nor does the correction seem tardy, to which so venerable an assertor has come. Let there be utterly cast away the appetite for the unconceded right, which had made the dissension; let the limits suffice which the most provident decrees of the holy Fathers have set.

[24] Marcian, an Emperor truly pious and peaceful, was playing the part of a reconciler between Leo and Anatolius; the matter peacefully composed, to whom the same St. Leo thus wrote back, in letter 107: Since it delights me to obey your Clemency in all things, I receive the charity of my brother Anatolius with my whole heart. What is clearer? What more significant for testifying the concord on both sides? I therefore here delay not on the modern Gallic author, most notorious for his errors, who in his notes and observations on the works of St. Leo the Great, page 91, judges that Anatolius never laid aside his ambition, that he wrote to Leo with words specious in appearance, adorned toward submission, but in fact never desisted from the appetite for the primacy, and the pursuit of the right due, as he had contended, to the Prelate of Constantinople. The same author, about to prove his judgment, says: For scarcely, a few things at the end of the letter written to the said Roman Pontiff, does Anatolius commemorate the 28th Chalcedonian Canon, about which he wishes this alone to be held for certain by Leo, that there was no fault in him, and that he had always been most far from appetite for the goods of others.

[25] His conjectures there are not of such weight with me and his pride laid aside, that there is leisure to review them here one by one, since I am not ignorant that they are appended to a work condemned by the Roman censure, and so smell of a suspect workshop. What? Could the aforesaid Pontiff so speak, could he embrace Anatolius in the bowels of paternal charity—so firm, so unshaken, so immutable in his purpose—if he had not been most fully satisfied; if the Prelate of Constantinople had not desisted from the ambition to which he had urged him with such strained and so often repeated effort? More mildly judged Tillemont, volume 15, page 730, in favor of Anatolius, who may be seen there. whom others too mitigate More mildly judged Pagi in his Baronian Critique, and is copious in defending Anatolius against Baronius, who judges that the Canon concerning the said primacy was fabricated by the effort of our Prelate. More mildly, finally, judged, according to Pagi, most fully vindicating the fame of Anatolius, Andrew Chevillier, in his dissertation on the synod of Chalcedon concerning the formulas of faith to be subscribed, chapter 2, number 8 and following.

[26] Wherefore Baronius seems to me to have pronounced somewhat harshly concerning Anatolius, under the year of Christ 451, against Baronius, thus determining: Plainly it appeared, according to that of the Gospel: He who does ill hates the light; when Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, doing the whole matter with evil deceit, and attempting secretly to steal away the rights of the Alexandrian and Antiochene churches, and taking care to claim them furtively for himself, the Eastern bishops assenting, perpetrated a thing altogether most unworthy of so worthy an assembly. So great a mark of infamy did one Anatolius brand upon the sacrosanct convention, coming forth from the school of Dioscorus, but deserting him, that he might be able to be Bishop of Constantinople. This man, therefore, the inventor of the whole fraud, and the architect of the deceitful machine, when he had already experienced the legates of the Apostolic See opposing his petition, seized that occasion, that, they being absent, he might treat clandestinely and deceitfully, and elicit from the rest what he desired, no one contradicting. For a decree was written by him, and recited in the synod, by which the Church of Constantinople should obtain the first place after the Roman.

[27] and the editors of the Roman Council of Chalcedon. Then the aforesaid Author produces the famous canon 28, subjoined to the 15th Action of the Council of Chalcedon, not found by the Roman Editors in the Greek manuscript codices which they had of this council, nor even in the Latin ones, nor in the collections of Dionysius and Isidore, as is said in volume 4 of the Councils, in the observation subjoined to columns 766 and 767; where the said editors assert that the cause of the aforesaid canon 28 being omitted, with 29 and 30, seems to them to be, because by the circumvention and fraud of Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, when the legates of the Apostolic See had gone out of the Synod, they had been proposed to the Fathers of the council, and subscribed by them. But while by Baronius and by the Roman editors of the Councils Anatolius is established as author or promoter of the reviewed canon, rightly perhaps, one may be aggrieved that this is indeed asserted in both places, but proved in neither; nor perhaps ineptly would one ask whence at last it can be solidly proved. To me inquiring studiously, no trace of this assertion anywhere else occurs. Aëtius the archdeacon, as Tillemont relates, volume 15, page 757, from volume 4 of the Councils, columns 715 and 795, with fervor upheld in the Council of Chalcedon the rights and pretensions of the Church of Constantinople. He was the same who asked of the council the canon which there was forged in favor of that church; which afterward too he defended against the legates. Nothing similar do I read of Anatolius. I do not deny, however, that the said canon concerning the privileges was subscribed by him together with several bishops, as is clear from the volume just now cited, column 797. Yet let no one think what has thus far been said to have been said by me because I wish our Anatolius exempt from every blemish of ambition: even holy men have their little stains; for since they are men, let us think nothing human alien from them. Anatolius may have been more spirited than is right in ambitioning the primacy of the Church of Constantinople over Alexandria and Antioch, especially from this, that he thought he was acting for his own right, as I intimated above. But if this pleases less; since we have seen that he satisfied Leo, as is clear from his above letter, I do not see what scruple ought to remain.

§ III. The third and fourth accusations against St. Anatolius are dissolved.

The third accusation The state of the question, or of the third accusation, consists in this, that in Action 6 of the Council of Chalcedon, according to Baronius; but the fifth according to the modern order of the Councils, a controversy grew hot among the Fathers concerning the tenor of the dogmatic definition to be written. Then when the formula had already been drawn up, some bishops contended that it was maimed and mutilated, the legates of the Apostolic See supporting them, and contending that the composition of a new formula of faith should be substituted, and that into it the words of Leo's letter to St. Flavian should be inserted, as about to strangle the heresy more closely. The greater part of the synod opposed itself—nay, all the most reverend bishops except the Romans and some Easterners—refusing the said change for this reason, because they feared lest under the pretext of a new formula, the vigor of the ancient and already framed one might be weakened, through expressions or words perhaps doubtful, or at least less nervous, deceit here perhaps about to play its part. And this their acclamations indicate not obscurely: Let not the faith suffer fraud … Let no fraud be done against the faith … Take away fraud from the definition. And so, the synod being split in two, Marcian Augustus interposes himself and urges and presses a new and ampler definition, and one answering to the desire of the Apostolic legates; which, read in the Synod, was received with the concordant vote of all. These things may be seen at greater length in Baronius, under the year 451, from number 104, and in Pagi, from whom I have summarily contracted what has been said, volume 2, page 327.

[29] Baronius imputes the whole cause of this contention to our Patriarch; concerning the rejected new formula of faith. as though indeed he had been the author of the weaker form, and the adversary of the new one, more strongly and vividly strangling the errors of Eutyches and Dioscorus—the architect of a Trap, to use the said author's words, by which the simpler could be deceived … not forgetful of his Dioscorus. Pagi plays the vindicator of St. Anatolius, in volume 2 of his Historico-Chronological Critique, from page 327, not sluggishly defending his cause. It would be too long to transcribe everything one by one; let the following suffice: It does not seem, he says there, page 328, after he had weighed this accusation, at last wishing to conclude the matter, and to bring forth his judgment upon it; it does not seem, he says, that Anatolius, who had thought the Eutychian heresy could be patched up by an ambiguous formula, which had already been solemnly proscribed by the votes of each, when in the preceding action all had as it were sworn upon the letter of Leo, to which Anatolius himself and the whole synod had subscribed.

[30] It seems therefore to have no sufficient nor sufficiently founded show of truth, Whether this is to Anatolius that Anatolius, in repudiating the composition of the new formula, conducted himself not sincerely, but craftily, who not secretly, but openly; not privately, or in the darkness, but publicly and in the open light of the council, had professed himself the sworn enemy of the nefarious Eutyches. For who would believe that he wished, in Action 5, to impose upon the Council of Chalcedon, not forgetful of his Dioscorus, and by either a weak or a fallacious definition to favor the heresy of Dioscorus, against whom, in Action 3 of the same council, he had strongly and openly vibrated the thunderbolt of anathema, thus pronouncing: Anatolius, archbishop of Constantinople the new Rome, defining alike with the synod, in the condemnation of Dioscorus subscribed, and indeed in the first place after the legates of the Apostolic See, Paschasinus and Lucentius the Bishops and Boniface the presbyter. For the rest, while I unroll the matter of the action, nothing occurs which could found even the shadow of the pretended accusation, much less a solid probability. That Anatolius conducted himself most modestly, speaking little, never speaking against, is read, never struggling against the framing of a new formula of faith. His answer, there placed, in appearance damnable—Dioscorus was not condemned on account of the faith; but because he made excommunication against archbishop Leo; and being called a third time, did not come, and therefore was condemned—we shall mitigate below in a particular reply.

[31] as to be imputed to him as author. To this are added the things which in defense of Anatolius the praised Pagi collected at the cited place, page 327, number 33, from Andrew Chevillier, in the Dissertation on the synod of Chalcedon concerning the formulas of faith to be subscribed, chapter 2, number 14 and following. If anyone persuade himself that that formula, about which the contention arose, was entire and sufficient; by what reasoning at last will it be proved to have been a trap, as though furtively substituted by Anatolius? If it had pleased the notaries of the council to insert it into the acts, it would be better discerned whether some fraud lurked in it, some concealed heresy, or whether it ought to be judged softer toward the heretics. Certainly the greater part of the bishops proclaimed that it was sincere and orthodox, and had disposed of the Eutychian heresy, who said it was dictated by the Holy Spirit and open.

The matter will become clearer from their own words. The most reverend bishops cried out: Yesterday the definition pleased all. The Holy Spirit dictated the definition. The definition is orthodox. Let the definition now be subscribed: He who does not subscribe is a heretic. Nothing is lacking to the definition. The definition has all things.

[32] why not to the change of the new formula, Let us grant, therefore, that Anatolius stood against the composition of the new formula; did he admit so great a crime, because he wished to retain the definition which the day before had pleased all, which the most frequent multitude of the synod had judged should be retained as dictated by the Holy Spirit, truly orthodox, and complete in every number? And indeed, according to Baronius, volume 6, page 151, the prior definition was Catholic, nor did it contain error. That the prior definition should be retained—which ought to be judged decisive and greater than every exception—the keenest vindicator of Catholic truth, and the most sworn enemy of Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the shining radiance of the Synod, Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, a city of the province of Phrygia Salutaris, judged, when in Action 5 of the said synod of Chalcedon he said: No other definition is made. If Eusebius is guiltless, why is Anatolius guilty? Namely because he acted craftily, because he was found to be the architect of not changing the definition, if we believe Baronius. Who proves this? From the interlocution of Anatolius, of which presently. It is therefore of great moment, for dissolving the present head of the accusations, to overturn this foundation, inasmuch as it is, as far as I make out from what follows, ill-founded and ruinous. Pagi collected more things, which there is no leisure to produce. If to anyone what has been said does not suffice, let him go to him in the cited volume, page 328, number 37.

[33] could he have resisted without harm? Now let us proceed to the aforesaid interpellation of Anatolius, and at the same time to the fourth head of the accusations. I relate the fact. When the bishops were contending among themselves whether a new formula of faith should be framed or not, the judges suggested that they should act more strongly against Dioscorus, and press more efficaciously the composition of the oft-named formula: Dioscorus said that for this he had condemned Flavian, who said that there were two natures. But the definition, namely the prior one, and which not a few of the assembled Fathers contended should be changed for the new one as weaker, the definition, I say, the prior one, has "of two natures." When the judges proposed this, Anatolius answered: Dioscorus was not condemned on account of the faith, but because he made excommunication against Leo, and being called a third time, did not come, and therefore was condemned. Which answer of Anatolius, according to Pagi, volume 2 of the Critique, page 327, Baronius most gravely reprehends, as though he had rashly blurted out that opinion with evil deceit, and being more inclined toward the dogma of Dioscorus. And this is abundantly clear from the somewhat harsh words, produced above, with which he grazes Anatolius.

[34] But let us see whether there is here so great a crime as at first sight appears. and it is dissolved What did our Prelate do, what did he deserve, wherein did he sin? Baronius replies, at the place above assigned, that In this sixth session, before so numerous an assembly of the Fathers, not at all fearing their presence, he did not fear so rashly to blurt out that opinion, namely, that Dioscorus was condemned not on account of the faith, but on account of the excommunication rashly promulgated against the Roman Pontiff. Behold the cause, behold the crime! Did Anatolius deny that Dioscorus was a heretic? By no means. What then? He said he was condemned not for heresy; he did not deny that he was a heretic. For there is a very great difference between these two propositions: Anatolius denied that Dioscorus was condemned on account of heresy; and this: Anatolius denied that Dioscorus was a heretic. This last proposition is most worthy of censures, not so the first, understood in the sound sense in which it ought to be, namely that the proximate, formal, primary, and first-moving cause of the Dioscorian condemnation was not heresy, but something else; the proposition meanwhile prescinding, as the philosophers speak, whether Dioscorus was a heretic or not, although in fact he truly was such, and indeed most pertinacious.

[35] And indeed, that the praised Pagi may prove the harmless answer of Anatolius, of which above, against Baronius he sends the reader to the third action of the Council of Chalcedon, in which sentence was pronounced by the legates of the Apostolic See against Dioscorus; for what crime? Because, says Pagi at the cited volume, page 328, he had received Eutyches, regularly condemned by his own bishop, into communion before the judgment of a general Synod; had prohibited the letter of Leo from being read at Ephesus, against whom too he dared—which above the rest was by far the graver crime—to write a formula of anathema. Finally, what is almost the single reason in the votes of the several bishops, that, canonically and thrice called through deputed bishops, he had refused at all to obey. Wherefore the sin by which Dioscorus merited the indignation of the synod was no other than a sin against ecclesiastical discipline, not indeed a sin of heresy, of which, though he had already been detected as guilty from the re-read acts of the pseudo-synod of Ephesus; nevertheless on that account he ought not to be condemned, unless first convicted as pertinacious, especially according to the rule of clemency which the synod observed, which had imparted indulgence not only to bishops, more than three hundred, who, led by violence, had subscribed to the brigandage of Ephesus; but even to the very authors of the crime, and those who had obtained the leadership of the conventicle—Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus—after they subscribed the letters of Leo.

[36] Whence when Paschasinus, the Apostolic legate, asked, from the words of the synod, "of what therefore is he worthy who thus despises, let your holiness make manifest by its own mouth," the synod answered "Of the indignation which against the disobedient is constituted by the holy rules," as is read in Action 3 of the Council of Chalcedon. Thus he. Do you hear the Fathers of the synod saying that Dioscorus is worthy of the indignation which against the disobedient (he does not say against heretics) is constituted by the holy rules? Since therefore Dioscorus was condemned both for pertinacity in not presenting himself after the threefold canonical citation; and because he barked against the Apostolic See, and with nefarious daring excommunicated Leo; it follows that the answer of Anatolius related above ought to be held akin to no fault, which wished tacitly to assign the proper, proximate, and genuine causes of the Dioscorian deposition, when it denied that he was condemned on account of heresy.

[37] and by the authority of others. By way of appendix I add a few things from the praised Pagi, there, page 329, which Leontius, in his book On the Sects, Action 6, disputing against the Eutychians, whom he calls "the hesitating," pronounced concerning the interlocution of Anatolius: We answer, he says, if one considers the truth; that Dioscorus was abdicated not on account of the faith, nor was that the cause of his deposition; but because in fact, being called a third time, he refused to come. If, however, he had come, he would have been abdicated also on account of the faith. Nevertheless, looking to these things, Anatolius said that Dioscorus was deposed not on account of the faith. I pass over Facundus, an African, bishop of Hermiane, flourishing, as we said before, in the sixth century, the vindicator of the Anatolian interlocution against the Nestorians, who reproachfully and enviously pluck at it, as may be seen at length in the named Pagi. Since therefore ancient writers excuse the famous interlocution of Anatolius—Leontius among the Greeks, Facundus among the Latins; and Nicholas the First, in letter 8 to the Emperor Michael, not only excuses it, but even praises it, in Pagi, volume 2, page 329; since both the same Pagi and Chevillier excuse it; since it can nowhere be shown that either the synod or its legates plucked even a jot at it; what is it that we should so greatly inveigh against it?

§ IV. The two remaining accusations against St. Anatolius are weighed.

The fifth accusation is proposed, The accusation against Anatolius, to be discussed by us in the fifth place, consists in this, that he removed from the dignity of the archdeaconate Aetius or Aëtius (for it is written both ways in the letters of St. Leo), thoroughly orthodox, especially dear to Leo the Pontiff, and whom the same Leo, letter 84 otherwise 57, calls a man of the Catholic faith and constantly opposed to the Nestorian and Eutychian heretics; a certain Andrew being substituted in his place, whom the same Leo, letter 86 otherwise 56, calls a most wicked heretic; letter 84 otherwise 57, a Eutychianist; and in letter 85 otherwise 58, which is Anatolius's, he is said to be separated from the church (for which Tillemont, at the cited volume, page 928, judges that it should probably be read "separated by the ecclesiastics"), with the adversaries of St. Flavian, until the pontiff declares his pleasure concerning them. In letter 86 otherwise 56 it is written that he was cast out on account of the society of the heretics. And indeed, although Andrew, as Tillemont asserts, volume 15, page 759, citing the letters of Leo, sought pardon for his communication with the Eutychians, subscribed the letters of St. Leo, and proved himself a Catholic; nevertheless, not undeservedly does the same holy Pontiff complain of his promotion, letter 85 otherwise 58, as one who was such that, even if by great satisfaction he could have merited indulgence, he ought by no means to have been preferred to those who had remained in the faith. For indeed that both he and his followers subscribed the letter of Leo, and were seen to have satisfied for the past, is given to be understood not obscurely from the letter of Anatolius written to Leo, which in the new edition of the works of St. Leo is subjoined to his letter 105. And so the promotion of such a person, and the removal of another, of which above, could not but be most bitter to St. Leo, and very odious to the prelate Anatolius; and indeed most grave complaints, drawn from the inmost feelings of his soul, and witnesses of a just grief, the same holy Vicar of Christ left scattered through his letters, which nothing compels me to produce here.

[38] This promotion, mournful to Leo and reproachful to Anatolius, and it is dissolved, the following can soften. First, the cause by which Anatolius was led to remove Aëtius from office could have been the will of depressing him; since he had been accused of some points, as Tillemont narrates at the cited volume, page 756; but afterward, the matter maturely examined, he was found and declared immune from all fault. Second, the fault of this promotion is extenuated by the profession of faith of Andrew, by which both he himself and his followers were seen, as I was already saying, to have satisfied for the past, a declaration of a penitent mind being exhibited, with very many excuses and their own subscriptions, as Anatolius signified to Leo in his aforementioned letter, which they had subjoined to his letter. But whether the said Andrew did not purge himself sufficiently, or did not separate himself enough from the communion of the Eutychians, concerning which it is of no use to bring forth anything by conjecture; or whether—which seems probably to be gathered from the citation of the above letter—although he had already proved his orthodoxy by public tokens, yet lest further occasion be given to Leo of complaining about the favor conferred on one who had emerged from heresy, in preference to another who with constant tenor had always professed the orthodox faith, Anatolius wished to comply with the will of Leo, and to accommodate himself to his judgment. Wherefore in the following year he deposed Andrew from the archdeaconate, and deprived both him and others, imbued with Eutychian errors and contrary to St. Flavian, of the exercise of public administration, as we have from the above-cited letter, until such time as what should have been ordained by you (he addresses Leo) concerning these matters.

[39] Besides, Aëtius, staying abroad, Anatolius recalled to himself, the matter composed according to the pleasure of St. Leo, and employed again in expediting ecclesiastical affairs, from the administration of which he had been excluded through the deprivation of the archdeaconate,

made him his secretary for letters; and finally exhibited toward him a prolix testification of his well-disposed will. In confirmation of this matter, consult Leo's letter 106, otherwise 71. And in this way that whole affair was transacted, peace, concord, and the intercourse of letters being restored on both sides between Leo and Anatolius. Nay, St. Leo even granted that Andrew, of whom we speak, should be admitted to the priesthood. I add the words of St. Leo from the letter just cited, by which, addressing Anatolius and testifying his paternal mind, he confirms all the above things produced in favor of Anatolius:

[40] That, he says, in the Church of Constantinople, you signify that certain things in the offices of the clerics have been corrected, as is clear from Leo's letter. so that both you have recalled Aëtius the presbyter into your grace and affection, and have removed Andrew from the action of the archdeacon, I write back that it has pleased us: because it very much raises and commends your reputation, as I desired. And rightly after correction is that led into oblivion which seemed obnoxious to reproof, since you were burdened with the advancement of heretics and the injury of the disciples of Flavian of holy memory, which now have alike ceased from all offense, with your praise, as I wished; because those things which had been disturbed have returned into their order. Andrew indeed, who has reasonably been deprived of the office of archdeacon, and Eufratas, who, as I have learned, was a wicked accuser of Flavian of holy memory, if by most fully written professions they condemn the Eutychian no less than the Nestorian execrable dogma, since pardon is to be granted to the corrected, YOU SHALL CONSECRATE THEM PRESBYTERS. Thus is our Prelate praised by the most praiseworthy Pope, openly testifying that abundant satisfaction had been made to him by Anatolius in the difficulties that had arisen from the deposition of Aëtius and the promotion of Andrew; whose testification, that of a Pontiff, ought to be to us in the stead of all others, for the full purgation of Anatolius in the present argument, whereby the present accusation, if it cannot be altogether dissolved, at least can be not moderately mitigated.

[41] The sixth accusation, of too great connivance with the heretics At last we arrive at the last part of the accusations, in which, as I said at the beginning, our Prelate is charged with too great lenity and connivance toward the heretics. Indeed no one can deny that St. Leo, most zealous for preserving, propagating, and enlarging the sacrosanct faith, not rarely rebukes his negligence, chastises his delays, rouses his slowness, requiring more earnestly in him zeal, and greater effort to promote the cause of the Catholic faith. And indeed, if we believe Tillemont, volume 15, page 815, he seems to have given place rather to gentleness than to fortitude, and to have served the time and the scene more than pastoral vigor and constancy. But it behooves us to remember how turbulent was the condition of those times, how perilous the state of the Catholic religion.

[42] it is weighed. By the various frauds and machinations of the heretics all things were seething far and wide in every direction. Daily their multitude, authority, and power grew and strengthened. Add the recollection of past evils, the horror of present ones, the fear of future ones, the impotence, the good faith, the suspicion of stirring up a greater evil, the hope of eliciting a greater good, and other things of that kind, which in these and similar conjunctures of circumstances, persons, and times are wont to play their parts, and render not rarely the lenity and connivance of superiors less guilty and culpable. Yet Anatolius did not so keep his hands unarmed but that he cashiered Calepodius and another priest named Gerontius, infected with the poison of the Eutychian heresy and refractory to the decrees of the faith, as heretics; concerning whom Tillemont, volume 15, page 637. How do these cohere with so great a facility and connivance toward the heretics as is objected? But these things thus far, which I judged should be replied to the six heads of the accusations proposed by me. Yet let not these things be said to the end that I wish Anatolius exempt and defended from every stain whatsoever (concerning which matter I prefer to suspend judgment, and to leave its decision to God, rather than rashly define anything), but that it may appear to the reader what can be disputed for and against on either side.

[43] I know that Baronius, after he had recorded his death under the year 458, at last thus concludes: The judgment of Cardinal Baronius concerning Anatolius, What sort Anatolius was, is left to be judged by the judgment of God. This is established, that he entered not through the gate, but ascended into the sheepfold of the sheep from elsewhere, since he was ordained a most unworthy bishop and successor by Dioscorus, the murderer of the most holy Flavian. We know likewise that the same was very often, for divers causes, refuted by St. Leo, the Roman Pontiff, and stained chiefly by the toleration of heretics, whom, taken among the clerics, it was necessary by the command of the same St. Leo to expel; so that it is no wonder if, propped by so great a support, those same heretics grew strong in the East. For the rest, that he himself wished to seem Catholic, is sufficiently clear from his own writings. But, as one who had once entered into great familiarity with Dioscorus, to whom he owed that see, he did not rise up against the heretics, as was fitting, with the ardor of the Catholic faith.

[44] But why not, saving the peace of Baronius, could that be applied here and ours from the principles of Baronius, which he himself wisely pronounced on another occasion, under the year of Christ 400, speaking of those things which were written in the cause of the Catholics and the Origenists, on whose side stood John Chrysostom, most distinguished for sanctity of life and the praise of erudition? Since it often happens, he says, that the wisest men are deceived, yet the same do not fall away from wisdom and innate probity; when indeed they are borne toward the things they do with a right and sincere intuition of mind … Since therefore it is a matter of religion to doubt of the excellent mind of the most holy men Epiphanius, Jerome (to pass over speaking of Theophilus), and John Chrysostom; whatever was done by them, you must take in the better part.

[45] it is concluded in favor of Anatolius. I am indeed not ignorant that between the Saints already named, and the Saint whose patronage we here undertake, the reckoning of cause and merits is unequal: yet what forbids that, with some proportion, it be lawful for me to interpret with the greatest benignity we can those things of which we have seen our holy Prelate accused? Which more benign interpretation is supported by the History of his life, from which I taste a few things in commendation of our Saint; such as: that he was hostile to Eutyches; that he urged the Emperor Marcian and was the author of the convocation of the Council of Chalcedon; that there he repressed the heretical dogma of Eutyches and Dioscorus, and propagated the true one; that he wrought several miracles, of which the author of the aforesaid Life exhibits only a specimen; that he was endowed with a prophetic spirit, when he foretold that he would be healed by Daniel the Stylite; that finally his sacred relics were exposed to public veneration, as though continually gushing and flowing as a perennial fountain of benefits and cures. Which things, each narrated in their places, the reader will find in the Life, which now follows.

THE LIFE, BY AN ANONYMOUS AUTHOR

From the manuscript of the Library of the King of France, marked number 1387.

Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople (S.)

FROM A MANUSCRIPT.

CHAPTER I.

The birth of St. Anatolius, his acts in the Synod of Ephesus, his patriarchate of Constantinople, his acts against the Eutychians in the Council of Chalcedon.

Ἀνατολίου τὴν ἡλίου δίκην λάμψασαν πολιτείαν καὶ τοὺς ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας ἀγῶνας διεξιέναι βουλόμενος, αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον εὔχομαι τὸν θεόληπτον νοῦν συνεφάψασθαι τοῦ σκοποῦ, ὡς ὀλίγα μὲν τῶν προσόντων αὐτῷ καλῶν παραδοῦναι γραφῇ, ἐπεὶ μὴ πάντα διαλαβεῖν δυνατὸν μηδὲ τῷ λίαν δυνατῷ καὶ φωνὴν καὶ διάνοιαν. Θᾶττον γὰρ ἄν τι ψάμμον θαλασσῶν, καὶ ἀστέρων χῶρον, ἢ τῶν τούτου θαυμάτων καὶ ἀγώνων τὸ πλῆθος ἐξαριθμήσαιτο. Οὗτος τοίνυν ὁ λαμπρὸς ὄντως καὶ πατρὸς τοῦ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἡλίου, πατρίδα μὲν ἔσχε τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν, πόλιν οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἔξωθεν ἀγαθοῖς βρίθουσαν, ἀλλὰ πάσης ἀρετῆς καὶ παιδείας ὑπάρχουσαν ἐργαστήριον· Γεννήτορας δὲ τῶν γένει καὶ τρόποις ἐπισήμων τε καὶ λαμπρῶν, οἳ καὶ εὐσεβείᾳ κεκόσμηντο καὶ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα, ὡς οἷόν τε, διέσωζον ἀπαράτρωτον. Οὗτοι τὸν ἄνδρα προενεγκόντες εἰς φύσιν τῷ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου θρόνον ἰθύνοντι, ἐκ πρώτης ἡλικίας, φέροντες ἐγχειρίζουσι.

[2] Κύριλλος δὲ ἦν οὗτος, ὁ καὶ τῆς σοφίας πολλῆς, καὶ τῶν ἀρετῶν ἀπαράμιλλος· παρ᾽ οὗ καὶ βίον καὶ λόγον καλῶς ἐκπαιδεύεται, ἐν ἁπαλῇ καὶ νεαζούσῃ τῇ ἡλικίᾳ πρεσβυτικὴν ἐνδεικνύμενος σύνεσιν. Οὐ γὰρ παιδιαῖς ἢ τοῖς ἄλλοις προσέκειτο, ἃ νεότης φιλεῖ, ἀλλὰ μόνοις ἐκείνοις, οἷς καὶ βίος κοσμεῖται, καὶ λόγος ἐγγίνεται, καὶ ἦθος ῥυθμίζεται. Διὸ καὶ τῆς ἐγκυκλίου παιδεύσεως τὰ κάλλιστα ἐκλεξάμενος ἐκμανθάνειν ἐπείγετο, ἀφ᾽ ὧν καὶ διδασκάλοις καὶ ἥλιξιν ἐστέργετό τε καὶ ἐθαυμάζετο, τοῖς μὲν ἁμιλλώμενος, τοῖς δὲ καὶ ὑπερβαλλόμενος κατὰ πᾶν εἶδος παιδείας. Ἔφυγε δὲ καὶ τὴν ὁμιλίαν τῶν κακοήθων, ὡς φθείρουσαν ἤθη χρηστά, κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον· τῶν ἀγαθῶν δὲ καὶ τὴν συναυλίαν εὐθύμως ἠσπάζετο. Προσέκειτο δὲ καὶ τοῖς θείοις λογίοις, εἴ τις ἕτερος· ὅθεν καὶ τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους, τὰς παλαιάς, φημι, καὶ νέας συντόμως ἐμμελετήσας, ἐν οὐ πολλοῖς τοῖς χρόνοις πολλὴν σοφίαν, ὡς εἰκὸς, συνελέξατο.

[3] Ὑπὸ δὴ τοιούτοις ἤθεσι τραφεὶς, καὶ τὸν νοῦν τοῖς βελτίστοις εὐεθισθεὶς, τῷ θείῳ κλήρῳ παρὰ τοῦ θείου Κυρίλλου ἐγκαταλέγεται, ὡς ἂν τὰς θείας βίβλους τῷ λαῷ ὑπαναγινώσκοι, καὶ συνετίζοι τὰς ἀκοάς. Οὐ πολὺς ὁ χρόνος, καὶ τῆς τῶν διακόνων ἀξιοῦται πρὸς αὐτοῦ τάξεως. Ἔδει γὰρ μικρὸν ὕστερον τὸν ἀρχιερατικὸν θρόνον πιστεύεσθαι μέλλοντα, ἐντὸς εἶναι τοῦ βήματος. Ἐγχειρίζεται δὲ παρὰ τοῦ Ἀρχιερέως καὶ τὰς εἰς βασιλέας πρεσβείας κοινάς τε καὶ ἰδίας, ὅθεν καὶ βασιλεῦσι γίνεται γνώριμος, καὶ διαβόητος ἅπασιν, οὐ διὰ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μόνον τῆς ἀρετῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ τῆς διανοίας ὀξύτατον ἅμα καὶ ἀσφαλέστατον. Ἐπεὶ δὲ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον καιροῦ σύνοδος ἐν Ἐφέσῳ συνεκροτήθη, ἐν ᾗ Νεστόριος ὁ θεομισὴς, οὐ τῆς ἁρπαγῆς μόνον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν βασιλίδα θρόνου, ᾧ τυραννικῶς εἰσεπήδησεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἄλλης ἀσεβείας ἀπαιτεῖτο δίκας· ἅτε τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν εἰς ὑποστάσεις δύο καὶ πρόσωπα διαιρῶν, καὶ τὴν ἄχραντον αὐτοῦ Μητέρα, ἣ Θεοτόκος ἐστὶν ὄντως καὶ ὀνομάζεται, Θεοτόκον ὁ δείλαιος καλεῖν μὴ βουλόμενος.

[4] Ἐντεῦθεν καὶ Κυρίλλου τοῦ θείου πλεῖστα κατ᾽ αὐτὸν διαγωνισαμένου, καὶ τοῦτον καθελόντος ἅμα παντὶ τῷ τῆς συνόδου πληρώματι, καὶ τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἀπογυμνώσαντος, τότε δὲ, τότε οὐκ ἔλαττον καὶ ὁ ἀξιάγαστος οὗτος διήθλησεν Ἀνατόλιος, οὔπω μὲν τεταγμένος ἐν ἐπισκόποις, πλέον δὲ τῶν ἐπισκόπων σπουδάσας καὶ παῤῥησιασάμενος, ἀγχίνους τε γὰρ ὢν, καὶ τὰ θεῖα σοφὸς, καὶ θείῳ ἐφθέγγετο πνεύματι. Οὕτω γοῦν τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς Νεστορίου δίκας τῶν ἀσεβημάτων εἰσπραχθέντος, καὶ Φλαβιανοῦ, τοῦ λαμπροῦ τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυκος, δεξαμένου τὸν θρόνον τῆς βασιλίδος τῶν πόλεων, αὖθίς τε τὸν οἰκεῖον κόσμον τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐπιλαβούσης, καὶ νυμφικῶς ὥσπερ ἐστολισμένης, καὶ τὸν πλακέντα τῆς δόξης στέφανον ἀντὶ τοῦ στεφάνου τῆς ὕβρεως ἐστεφανωμένης. Οὐκ ἤνεγκε ταύτην ὁρᾷν εὖ ἔχουσαν ὁ τοῖς καλοῖς ἀεὶ βασκαίνων ὁ διάβολος· ἀλλ᾽ αὖθις τοῖς

οἰκείοις ἐκέχρητο μηχανήμασι, τὸν ἀτυχέστατον Εὐτυχῆ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν ἐπεγείρας, ἐναντιώτατον μὲν τῷ προλαβόντι, ὁμοτιμότατον δὲ τὴν ἀσέβειαν δογματίζοντα. Ἐκείνου γὰρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν τὴν μίαν διαιροῦντος ὑπόστασιν, οὗτος τὰς δύο φύσεις συνέχεε καὶ ἀνεκίνει τὴν σύνθεσιν.

[5] Ταύτην οὖν τὴν λύμην ὁ κλεινὸς ὁρῶν Φλαβιανὸς, σύνοδον κατὰ Εὐτυχοῦς βασιλικῷ προστάγματι συγκροτεῖ, καὶ τοῦτον σὺν ἅμα θεοφόροις πατράσι καθαιρέσει περιβαλὼν, τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀπήλασε, καὶ ὡς σεσηπός τι μέλος αὐτῆς ἐξέτεμεν. Ὃς τοιαύτῃ αἰσχύνῃ περιληφθεὶς, καὶ τῷ ἀναθέματι καθυποβληθεὶς, δέον ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐγκαλύπτεσθαι καὶ διαστῆναι αὐτῷ τὴν γῆν εὔχεσθαι. Ὁ δὲ μᾶλλον καὶ ἐσεμνύνετο, καὶ τινι τῶν μεγάλα παρὰ βασιλεῖ δυναμένων, Χρυσαφίῳ τοὔνομα (φίλος δὲ οὗτος αὐτῷ καὶ τῷ δόγματι κοινωνὸς) προσελθὼν, ἅτε ἠδικημένος· διασαφεῖ τὰ τῆς καθαιρέσεως, παρεξηγούμενός τε καὶ πλαγιάζων, οὐ μὲν τὸ πραχθὲν πρὸς ἀλήθειαν διηγούμενος· πρὸς βασιλέα τε εἰσιὼν καὶ διατεινόμενος (Θεοδόσιος ὁ Νέος οὗτος ἦν) ἀδίκως Φλαβιανὸν καταψηφίσασθαι αὐτοῦ τὴν καθαίρεσιν.

[6] Τὰ ἴσα δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐποίει, καὶ οὐ διέλιπε Διόσκορον ἐνοχλῶν, ὃς τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας τὸν θρόνον οὐ καλῶς ἐγκεχείριστο μετὰ τὴν τοῦ θεσπεσίου Κυρίλλου πρὸς Θεὸν ἐκδήμησιν, μετάπεμπτον γενέσθαι Φλαβιανὸν, αὐτόν τε Διόσκορον κριτὴν καθεδεῖσθαι τῶν ἤδη κριθέντων καλῶς. Ὃς καὶ βασιλικῇ κελεύσει ἐν Ἐφέσῳ γενόμενος, καὶ σύνοδον λῃστρικὴν μᾶλλον ἢ ἐπισκοπικὴν συγκροτήσας, τὸν ἱερὸν μὲν Φλαβιανὸν ἀνιέρως κατέκρινεν, ἐδικαίου δὲ Εὐτυχῆ, τὸν ὁμοίως αὐτῷ βλαβερὸν καὶ ἀνίερον.

[7] Φλαβιανοῦ δὲ τὴν κρίσιν παραιτουμένου, καὶ μὴ κατὰ νόμον περαίνεσθαι λέγοντος, τῷ μήτε τοὺς ἀπὸ Ῥώμης συνελθόντας ἄρτι συμφρονεῖν τε, καὶ συμψηφίζεσθαι, μηθ᾽ ἑτέρους τῶν κρινόντων ὀρθῶς, λὰξ κατὰ τὸν στέρνον ὅ γε ὀνώδης ἐκεῖνος Διόσκορος ἐναλλόμενος, οὕτω τὸν δίκαιον διέθηκεν, ὡς μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐκδημῆσαι πρὸς Κύριον. Τὸν Εὐτυχῆ δὲ γράμμασιν ὡσανεὶ συνοδικοῖς ὀχυρώσας, καὶ πρὸς βασιλέα ἐκπέμψας, εὐθὺς καὶ αὐτὸς καταλαμβάνει τὴν Μεγαλόπολιν· εἶτα τὸ εἰς Φλαβιανὸν αὐτῷ τολμηθὲν ὁ ἀνόσιος λογιζόμενος, καὶ δείσας μήπως ὁ τὸν ἐκείνου θρόνον διαδεξάμενος, ἐκζητήσῃ τὸν αὐτοῦ χαλεπόν τε καὶ βίαιον θάνατον, κἀντεῦθεν κινδυνεύσῃ, βουλὴν βουλεύεται σὺν ἅμα Χρυσαφίῳ καὶ Εὐτυχεῖ τοῖς ὁμόφροσι, συμφέρουσαν ἑκατέροις, ὡς ᾤετο.

[8] Ἤλπιζε γὰρ ὡς, εἰ Ἀνατόλιος, οὗ τὸν βίον ὁ νῦν ἀναγγέλλει λόγος, τῆς Κωνσταντίνου λάβῃ τοὺς οἴακας, καὶ τὸν Εὐτυχῆ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παραδέξεται, καὶ τὰ εἰς Φλαβιανὸν πραχθέντα παρόψεται, ἅτε τῇ αὐτῶν συνεργείᾳ τῆς προεδρίας ἀξιωθείς. Ἀλλ᾽ ὁ δρασσόμενος τοὺς σοφοὺς ἐν πανουργίᾳ αὐτῶν, τὸν μὲν οἰκεῖον θεράποντα μεγαλύνων εἰς τὸν ὑψηλὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς θρόνον ἔθετο, οὐ τῇ ἐκείνων συνεργείᾳ, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ προμηθείᾳ· τοὺς δὲ βεβήλους ἐκείνους καὶ ἐναγεῖς διὰ τοῦ θείου τούτου μᾶλλον ἀνδρὸς καὶ σφόδρα συντόμως καὶ καλῶς ἐσημήνατο, καὶ ὅπως ὁ λόγος δηλώσει, οὐκ ἔφθη τοῦ θρόνου ἐπιβῆναι ὁ Ἅγιος, καὶ πρὸ τοῦ βασιλέως, εὐθὺς εὐριπίστου ὄντος ἀνθρώπου, καὶ τῶν τῆς ἐναντίας μοίρας διωχλεῖτο, τὸν Εὐτυχῆ προσδέξασθαι. Ὁ δὲ σοφὸς τούτους ἀποκρουόμενος, ἀντεῖχεν ἐπὶ πολὺ καὶ τὸν βασιλέα σφοδρῶς ἐπικείμενον.

[9] Καὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐν ταράχῳ καὶ στάσει ἔσεσθαι ὑφορώμενος, εἰ τοῦτον ὅλως μὴ δέξοιτο, τί ποιεῖ; Ὡς λίαν σοφὸν, καὶ εὐσύνετον, ὑπισχνεῖται μὲν τοῦτον δέξασθαι, εὐχῇ δὲ κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ καθοπλίζεται. Ἅμα γοῦν τῷ τῆς εἰσόδου τυχεῖν ὁ ἀτυχέστατος Εὐτυχὴς ἐκεῖνος (ὦ τοῦ θαύματος) λαύρῳ πυρετῷ συσχεθεὶς, μᾶλλον δὲ τῷ πυρὶ τῆς εὐχῆς, τὴν ἀθλίαν αὐτοῦ ψυχὴν ἀπέῤῥηξε τῇ ἐκεῖθεν κολάσει παραπεμφθείς. Τοῦτο τῆς ἀποστολικῆς εὐχῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ πάνυ εἰς φιλοτιμίαν οὐ δεύτερον, ἣ τὸν τῆς μανίας ἐπώνυμον κατέλυσεν Ἄρειον ἐν τόποις ἀξίοις τῆς ὑβριστικῆς καὶ βλασφήμου γλώττης.

[10] Οὐ πολὺ τὸ μέσον, καὶ Μαρκιανὸς ὁ πολὺς τὴν εὐσέβειαν τὴν βασιλείαν θεόθεν πιστεύεται μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Θεοδοσίου τελευτὴν, καὶ πάλιν τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐταράττετο, ἅ τέ τινων τὰ Εὐτυχοῦς φρονούντων. Ἅπερ ὁ Μέγας οὗτος ὁρῶν, φροντίσιν ἐβάλλετο καὶ ἀθυμίαις ἐκόπτετο, καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ προσελθὼν, ἐδεῖτο τὴν κληδόνα καταστορέσαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, πρὶν ὅλως ὑπερσχεῖν. Ἔσται δὲ τοῦτο, φησιν, οὐ καλῶς, εἰ μὴ σύνοδος συγκροτηθείη, τὸ μὲν γνήσιον τῆς ἀληθείας δόγμα κρατύνουσα, τὸ δὲ νόθον ἄρτι δευτέρως φυόμενον ἐκριζοῦσα καὶ ἀφανίζουσα. Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τὸν εἰς Φλαβιανὸν ἐναγέστατον φόνον ἀφεῖναι λαθεῖν. Πείθεται τοῖς λόγοις ὁ βασιλεύς. Αἱ γὰρ τοῦ Ἀρχιερέως φωναὶ, θεοῦ φωναὶ ὄντως ἐδόκουν αὐτῷ, ἅτε καὶ θείῳ πνεύματι ἀπηχούμεναι· καὶ αὐτίκα κελεύει πάντας τῆς οἰκουμένης ἁπάσης ἁγίους καὶ θεοφόρους πατέρας εἰς Χαλκηδόνα τὴν ἐν Βιθυνίᾳ συνελθεῖν.

[11] Οἱ καὶ ὥσπερ ὑπὸ θείας σάλπιγγος πρὸς τὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ θεοῦ πόλεμον ἐγειρόμενοι προθυμότατοι συνηθροίσθησαν εἰς τριάκοντα καὶ ἑξακοσίους ἀριθμούμενοι. Συμπαρῆν δὲ τούτοις καὶ ὁ βασιλεὶς, λαμπροτέραν καὶ προθυμοτέραν τὴν σύνοδον τῇ παρουσίᾳ ποιῶν. Οὗτος ὁ ἱερώτατος σύλλογος τὸν ἀλαζόνα Διόσκορον, ὧν τε εἰς τὸν μέγαν Φλαβιανὸν ἐπλημμέλησε, καὶ ὧν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ θεῖον ἐξύβρισε, τὴν συγχυτικὴν αἵρεσιν τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς καταπεπωκὼς Εὐτυχοῦς, εὐθύνας ἐδικαίωσε δοῦναι, καὶ πάσης ἱερωσύνης ἀπογυμνώσας, τῷ ἀναθέματι καθυπέβαλε σὺν ἅμα τῷ διδασκάλῳ Εὐτυχεῖ, καὶ τοῖς φοιτηταῖς καὶ διαδόχοις τῶν καταπτύστων αὐτοῦ καὶ μιαρῶν δογμάτων. Ταύτης τῆς συνόδου οὐ μόνον αἴτιος καθίσταται Ἀνατόλιος, ἀλλὰ καὶ προαγωνιστής· τὸ μὲν νόθον δόγμα καὶ κίβδηλον πολλαῖς ἀποδείξεσι διελέγξας, τὸ δὲ ἀληθινὸν καὶ γνήσιον βεβαιώσας, καὶ εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐφαπλώσας.

Being about to give a discourse on the life instituted by Anatolius, which shone like the sun, and on the battles waged for the sake of piety, I pray that same [God], The homeland and education of St. Anatolius, that my mind, breathed upon by God, may attain its aim, and that I may consign to letters a few of the virtues in which he excelled; for to embrace them all there is no one who can, though he be strong in voice and genius. For one would sooner number the sands of the seas and the array of the stars than the multitude of his miracles and contests. He therefore, truly splendid, and a son of the father, the sun of justice, had for his homeland Alexandria, a city not only abounding in external goods, but a workshop of every virtue and learning; and for parents, men distinguished and illustrious in family and character, and excelling in piety, which they kept unharmed as an example, so far as they could, to others. These offered the Man begotten of them to the Prelate of the see of Alexandria from his tender years, and committed him to him.

[2] prudence, zeal for learning. This was Cyril, second to none in knowledge and abundance of virtues; by whom Anatolius is accurately instructed in the mode and manner of ordering his life, exhibiting in his tender and youthful age the prudence of an old man. For neither in games, nor in other things with which youth is wont to be delighted, did he take pleasure; but only in those things by which life is adorned, and reason perfected, and morals conformed. Therefore he hastened to learn thoroughly whatever choicest things there were among the liberal arts, by which he carried both masters and equals into love and admiration; contending with the former, but even surpassing the latter in every kind of learning. And indeed he fled the company of the ill-mannered, as corrupting good morals, according to that which is written ^c. But the society of the good he eagerly sought. Moreover he gave attention to the divine oracles, if anyone did; whence, being conversant in the sacred books, both old and new, compendiously and meditatively, in no long time, as is fitting, he gathered much wisdom.

[3] Educated in morals of this kind, and his mind imbued with the best things, he is co-opted by the divine Cyril into the divine clergy, He conducted himself excellently in the Synod of Ephesus to read out to the people the sacred books, and to accustom their ears to them. Not long after, he is initiated by the same into the sacred order of deacons. For it was fitting that he who a little later was to be advanced to the pontifical throne should dwell within the sanctuary. The province of legations, private as well as public, to the Emperors is committed to him by the Archprelate. Hence he became known to the Emperors, and was distinguished among all, not only on account of the excellence of his virtue, but also because of the highest acumen of a genius liable to no danger of error. For at that time a synod was convened at Ephesus, in which Nestorius, hateful to God, paid the penalty not only for the throne he had snatched in the royal city, which he had tyrannically invaded, but also for his other impiety; when he divided our Lord Jesus Christ into two hypostases and persons, and the wretch would not call His undefiled Mother, who truly is and is called the Mother of God, the Mother of God.

[4] There, when Cyril, a divine man, had strenuously impugned and vanquished him, against Nestorius. and, the whole assembly supporting him, had stripped him of the pontificate; then indeed, then that Anatolius, most worthy of admiration, contended not sluggishly; who, although not yet enrolled in the order of bishops, yet by intent diligence and freedom of speech conducted the matter more excellently than the bishops. For he was ingenious, and learned in the divine oracles, and spoke by a divine spirit. Thus, then, the penalty of impiety being paid by the impious Nestorius, and Flavian, a conspicuous herald of the truth, taking up the helm of the chair in the royal city, the church again resumed its pristine ornament, and, as though clothed in a bridal robe, for the crown of wickedness was wreathed with the crown of glory. But the devil, ever envious of good things, did not endure to see her in good state; but again applied his machinations, stirring up against her the most unfortunate Eutyches, who scattered a dogma most diverse from the former, but altogether consonant with it in impiety. For as the former divided the hypostasis of Christ our God, which is one, so this one confounded and compounded the two natures.

[5] Flavian, therefore, beholding this ruin, convoked by royal edict a synod ^k against Eutyches, The Council of Constantinople, against Eutyches. and, having encompassed him with deposition together with the God-bearing fathers, drove him from the church, and, as a putrid member, cut him off from her. He, marked with such infamy and struck with anathema, ought after this to have lain hidden, and to have loved a land far removed from himself; but he rather grew insolent; and he came to a certain man named Chrysaphius ^l, who was very powerful with the Emperor, and who was his friend, and a partaker of the same dogma; to whom he wrongly set forth the course of his deposition, and distorted it obliquely; just as if he had been affected by a manifest injury, not recounting the deed according to the truth. Besides this, he went to the Emperor ^m (that was Theodosius the younger), strenuously contending that Flavian had pronounced the sentence of his deposition against right and law.

[6] He did the like among those who were of the church. Nor did he omit to disturb Dioscorus, to whom, His crafty arts the divine Cyril having been translated to the heavens, the see of Alexandria had wrongly been committed, that Flavian should desist from the sentence; asserting that there was need of Dioscorus himself as judge of those things which had already been rightly decided.

This Dioscorus, when at the command of the Emperor he had come to Ephesus, and had convoked a brigandage ⁿ rather than a synod of bishops, sacrilegiously condemned the holy Flavian, but absolved Eutyches, the partner with him of the same corruption and profanation.

[7] in the pseudo-synod there. But while Flavian protested against the sentence, and said that it had not been lawfully passed, because those who had come from Rome ^o had not yet consented and voted together, nor others who judged uncorruptly; that ass-like Dioscorus, leaping with his heel upon his breast [p], so treated the just man that after three days he departed to the Lord. And having fortified Eutyches as it were with synodical letters, and sent him to the Emperor, soon he too himself came to Megalopolis [q]. Then the impious man, reckoning the crime which he had dared against Flavian, and fearing lest he who should take up the governance of the see might inquire into his cruel and violent death, and thence he himself be endangered, takes counsel together with Chrysaphius and Eutyches, of like mind with him, conducive to both, as he thought.

[8] The frauds of Dioscorus and his followers For he hoped that, if Anatolius, whose life the present discourse sets forth, should undertake the administration of Constantinople, he would again admit Eutyches into the church, and would dissemble the things that had been perpetrated against Flavian, in favor of those by whose favor he had been raised to the episcopal dignity. But He who comprehends the wise in their craftiness, magnifying His own Servant, placed him on the lofty throne of the episcopate, not by their cooperation, but by His own providence; nay, He also, through this divine Man, both quickly and well made those sacrilegious and nefarious men manifest. But indeed, as will be clear from what follows, the holy Man did not hasten to ascend the throne; and both from the Emperor, a man easily changeable, and from the adversaries, he suffered annoyance, that he should admit Eutyches. in the promotion of Anatolius, When the wise Man repelled these, he long had the Emperor himself gravely opposing him.

[9] punished by the sudden death of Eutyches. But now, foreseeing that the church would be disturbed by tumult and sedition if he should not at all receive him, what does he do? He promises indeed that he will admit him (which seemed a very useful and prudent course), but arms himself with prayers against him. And so, as soon as that most unfortunate Eutyches entered (O wonderful thing!), seized by a burning fever, or rather by the fire of the prayer, he breathed out his wretched soul, thrust down to eternal torments. Which deed ought not to yield to the Apostolic prayers of Alexander [r], which took Arius, called by the fitting name of madness [s], out of the way in places worthy of his injurious and blasphemous tongue.

[10] The Synod of Chalcedon gathered with Anatolius consenting Not long after, Marcian, conspicuous for piety, is divinely set over the empire after the death of Theodosius [t]; and again the affairs of the church were disturbed, some being wise in the things which were Eutyches's. Which that great man Anatolius, when he saw, worn out with cares and agitated by grief of soul, went to the Emperor, asking that the safety of the Church be set in security, before it should utterly perish. And this, he says, will not be well done, unless a synod be convoked, which may establish the genuine dogma of truth, and root out and abolish the spurious one, now a second time arisen. Nor indeed should it be permitted that the execrable slaying of Flavian be given over to oblivion. The Emperor obeys his words (for the voices of the Prelate seemed to be the voices of God, namely, which resounded with a divine spirit), and orders the holy Fathers and those full of the divine spirit, from the whole world, to assemble without delay at Chalcedon, which is in Bithynia.

[11] They, roused no otherwise than by a divine trumpet to the battles, the sentence against Dioscorus and Eutyches. came together with the utmost alacrity, six hundred and thirty in number. The Emperor was present at the same time, that by his presence he might give greater splendor and courage to the synod. And this most holy assembly compelled the insolent Dioscorus to pay the penalty justly, both for the things in which he had offended against Flavian, and for the things which he had vomited against the divinity itself, from the imbibed heresy of the impious Eutyches, which introduced a confusion of the natures in Christ, and, stripping him of all dignity of the sacred order, subjected him to anathema, together with Eutyches his master and disciples, and those who admitted his detestable and nefarious dogmas. Of this synod Anatolius was not only the author, but also the defender, convicting the spurious and adulterine dogma by many arguments, and confirming the true and genuine one, and extending it even to the ends of the world.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Zonaras, book 13, number 23, relates that Dioscorus, leaping up like an untamed ass, attacked the breast of holy Flavian with his heels. There are those who make Dioscorus the author of Flavian's slaying; there are those who make it the ministers of him and of Chrysaphius, others Barsumas the Archimandrite. See the 18th of February, on which his festal light recurs alike in the Latin and Greek calendars, where you will find various praises collected in honor of Flavian, and other things pertaining to the present history, arranged by Henschenius; as also by Baronius in the notes to the Roman Martyrology on the said day, and in the Ecclesiastical Annals under the year 449.

q. A chief city of Arcadia, in the middle of the Peloponnese, episcopal under the Archbishop of Corinth, afterward called Christianopolis, lost its splendor together with its name. But I think that by Megalopolis here Constantinople is designated by antonomasia.

r. He was Bishop of Constantinople, the Scourge of the Arians, whose words as he prayed Macarius received, the companion of his prayer, and they are of this kind: "If Arius is to be brought into the assembly tomorrow, now, I pray, dismiss thy servant, Lord, and destroy not the pious with the impious; but if thou wilt spare thy Church (and I know that thou wilt spare it), look upon the words of Eusebius, and give not thy portion to destruction and reproach, and take away Arius, lest, he being received into the church, heresy seem to be received together with him, nor thereafter impiety be held for piety." Thus Baronius under the year 336.

s. The Greek Ἄρειος is the genitive case of the name Ἄρης, Mars. As though you would say that Arius is etymologically raging like Mars, and to whom that Homeric verse may be as fittingly applied as to Mars himself: Ἄρες, Ἄρες βροτολοιγέ, μιαιφόνε! Mars, Mars, slayer of men, murderous!

t. In the year of Christ 450.

CHAPTER II.

St. Anatolius grazes Dioscorus. A miracle for the authority of the Synod of Chalcedon and the truth of the orthodox faith. Another miracle.

Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ αὖθις ὁ Διόσκορος ὁ δυσώνυμος μετὰ τῶν ὁμοφρόνων, τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ καθαιρέσει μὴ ἐνεγκόντες αἰσχύνην, ἀνὰ τὴν πόλιν ἐφοίτων, καὶ τὰ τῆς συνόδου διέβαλλον, τὸ Νεστορίου μιαρὸν δόγμα κρατύνειν αὐτὴν φάσκοντες, καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρὸν, κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν, καὶ τὸ φῶς, σκότος ἐποίουν· ὡς δῆλα ταῦτα τῷ τῆς ἐκκλησίας λαμπτῆρι Ἀνατολίῳ γεγόνασι, τὸν λαὸν πάντα συναγαγὼν, ὅσοι τε τοῦ ὀρθοῦ λόγου καὶ ὅσοι τοῦ ἐναντίου, φησὶ πρὸς αὐτούς· πατέρες καὶ ἀδελφοὶ (πρὸς γὰρ τοὺς ὁμοδόξους ὁ λόγος) ἴστε δὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς, ὅπως ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ, ἡμῖν μὲν νίκην τοῖς ὀρθοτομοῦσι τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ, λαμπρὰν ἐδωρήσατο, ὅπως δὲ καὶ τοὺς καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, μᾶλλον δὲ κατ᾽ ἐκείνου καὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ Λόγου λυττήσαντας, καὶ τὴν γλῶτταν ὡς μάχαιραν ἐφοπλίσαντας, οὐ μόνον κακῶς φρονεῖν, καὶ λέγειν ἀπέδειξεν· ἀλλὰ καὶ ὥσπερ τι νοσερὸν καὶ σεσηπὸς μέλος τοῦ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐξέκοψε σώματος.

[13] Ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τούτοις καὶ χαίρειν ὁμοῦ καὶ εὐχαριστεῖν ὀφείλομεν, ὅτι ἐπεσκέψατο ἡμᾶς ἐξ ἁγίου αὐτοῦ κατοικητηρίου, καὶ τὴν γλῶτταν ἡμῶν, καὶ τὴν δόξαν ἐπλάτυνεν. Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ἔτι τινὲς τῆς Χριστομάχου ταύτης αἱρέσεως τὴν ἡμετέραν νίκην ὑπ᾽ ὀδόντα διαχλευάζουσι, καὶ τὰ Νεστορίου μᾶλλον κρατύνειν ταύτην τὴν ἱερὰν σύνοδον διαβάλλουσιν. Ἐκκαλυπτέον καὶ τοῦτον αὐτῶν τὸν δόλον, καὶ τὴν ἐπίνοιαν, καὶ μὴ τοῖς ζῶσιν καὶ ἀπελθοῦσιν ὁσίοις μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἤδη τελειωθεῖσιν ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ μάρτυσιν ἐπιτρεπτέον τὴν κρίσιν. Οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἀναντίῤῥητος πᾶσι γένοιτο ἡ ἀλήθεια. Γραφήτω τοίνυν τότε ἡμέτερον δόγμα, καὶ τῶν ταῦτα λογοποιούντων, καὶ ἄμφω τῆς θήκης ἐντὸς τῆς πολλῆς ἐν μάρτυσιν Εὐφημίας ἀποτεθήτω, καὶ δῆλον ὡς ὃ τῷ θεῷ εὐάρεστον, ἐκεῖνο δὴ καὶ ἡ μάρτυς ἡμῖν γνωριεῖ. Γνωριεῖ δὲ ἅτε γινώσκουσα τοῦτον, ὅσος ἢ ὅσον ἐστὶν ἐφικτόν. Πρὸς δὲ γινωσκομένη, καὶ πάντα πάντως δυναμένη παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λαμβάνειν, καὶ ἐπιτελεῖν τὰ δόξαντα.

[14] Ταῦτα τοῦ Μεγάλου εἰπόντος, τὸ πλῆθος ἀνθυπέφερεν ἐπὶ πνοίᾳ θείᾳ ταῦτα εἰρῆσθαι. Δόξαν οὖν οὕτω καὶ τοῖς μέρεσιν ἀμφοτέροις. Γράφουσιν εὐθὺς τὸ οἰκεῖον δόγμα δυσὶ τόμοις ἑκάτεροι, καὶ τὴν λάρνακα διανοίξαντες, τιθέασιν αὐτοὺς ἐπάνω τοῦ ἱεροῦ λειψάνου τῆς Μάρτυρος. Εἶτα τὸν λίθον ἐπιθέντες, καὶ τοῦτον κλεισὶ

καὶ σφραγίσιν ἑκατέρων τῶν μερῶν κατασφαλισάμενοι, σύν τε τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ ἀρχιερεῖ ἐξῆλθον τοῦ ἱεροῦ. Μετὰ ταῦτα παννύχοις ψαλμῳδίαις τε καὶ γονυκλισίαις τὸν Θεὸν ἅμα καὶ τὴν Μάρτυρα παρεκάλουν, ὥστε ἀπό τινος ἀριδήλου θεοσημείας τὴν μὲν ἀλήθειαν ἐγκριθῆναι καὶ διαλάμψαι, τὸ δὲ ψεῦδος ἐλεγχθὲν ἐκ μέσου γενέσθαι. Μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας δὲ τρεῖς, οἵ τε τοῦ ὀρθοῦ λόγου, καὶ οἱ ἀντίδοξοι, σὺν ἅμα τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ ἀρχιερεῖ, πρὸς τὴν Μάρτυρα ἦλθον, καὶ ταύτην σὺν οἰμωγαῖς, καὶ δάκρυσι, καὶ δεήσεσι τὴν θήκην ἀνοίξαντες (τῆς πολλῆς σου περὶ ἡμῶν κηδεμονίας, ὦ Δέσποτα) εὗρον τὸν μὲν τόμον τῶν δυσσεβῶν πρὸ τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῆς κείμενον, ὡς ἀπωσμένον, καὶ παρεωραμένον, τῶν δὲ ὀρθοδόξων καὶ εὐσεβῶν τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρὶ ἀσφαλῶς κρατούμενον, ὡς ἀτεχνῶς φίλον αὐτῇ καὶ ἐγκεκριμένον.

[15] Τὸ μὲν οὖν θαῦμα τοιοῦτο καὶ οἷον οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς πώποτε εἶδεν, οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν, οὔτε ἂν νοῦς ἐπενόησεν. Ἐμὲ θαμβεῖ μὲν καὶ τοῦτο (πῶς γὰρ οὐ) σῶμα νεκρὸν, καὶ πολλοῖς ἔτεσι τῷ λίθῳ κρυπτόμενον, μὴ μόνον πρὸς ὅπερ ἐθέλοι ζὸν καὶ κινούμενον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὀρθοτομοῦν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Θαμβεῖ δὲ ἡ τοῦ πατρὸς πρόῤῥησις καὶ προόρασις· καὶ τὸ τούτων πλέον, ἡ πίστις τε καὶ ἡ χάρις, ἡ μὲν πιστεύοντος, ὡς ὅπερ ἂν αἰτήσοιτο καὶ γενήσεται· ἡ δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ ὅπερ ᾔτησε παρασχεθεῖσα. Τοῦτο γὰρ δίδωσιν ἐννοεῖν τὸ μὴ μόνον τὸν νόθον τόμον ἀπώσασθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἀληθῆ προσλαβέσθαι, καὶ ὡσεὶ ἀγλώττῳ τῇ χειρὶ κηρύττειν, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὴ ταῦτα δοξάζει, καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦτο τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἔθετο.

[16] Ὥστε καὶ διαπορῶ τίνα πλέον ἐπὶ τῷ γεγονότι θαυμάσαιμι, τὴν τοιαῦτα τερατουργήσασαν, ἢ τὸν τούτων οὐ μηνυτὴν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἴτιον. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ τὸ πάντων ὑπέρτερον τοῦτο τεράστιον δέδρακεν, ὁ δὲ αὐτοῦ αἴτιος καὶ προάγγελος γέγονεν. Ἐπεὶ οὖν ὁ μὲν προείρηκεν, ἡ δὲ τὴν πρόῤῥησιν ἐπεσφράγισε· χρέων ἑκατέρους ἐπίσης θαυμάζεσθαι ἐφ᾽ ὁμοίῳ τῷ θαύματι. Καὶ ἦν ἰδεῖν τοὺς μὲν πρῶτον ὑβριστὰς καὶ θρασεῖς κάτω κύπτοντας, καὶ ἐγκαλυπτομένους· τοὺς δὲ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τροφίμους σκιρτῶντας, καὶ χορεύοντας ἐπινίκια καὶ τῷ λαμπρῷ Κήρυκι τῆς ἀληθείας εὐχαριστοῦντας, ἐφ᾽ οἷς τῶν ἐχθρῶν κεκρατήκασι. Βούλεται δέ τι καὶ ἕτερον τοῦ ῥηθέντος οὐκ ἔλαττον διεξελθεῖν ὁ λόγος.

[17] Λοιμὸς ἐνέσκηψε τῇ βασιλίδι τῶν πόλεων χαλεπός· ἐποίει δὲ τοῦτον χαλεπώτερον καὶ ἡ τοῦ συνήθους ὑετοῦ παντελὴς ἀνοχὴ, τῶν σωμάτων συνδιατεθέντων τῇ δυσκρασίᾳ τοῦ περιέχοντος. Ὁ οὖν Ἀρχιερεὺς ὁρῶν τὸ δεινὸν πάντας διαφθεῖρον, ἀνὰ τὴν πόλιν διήει σὺν τῷ κλήρῳ παντὶ καὶ αὐτῷ βασιλεῖ, λιτανείαις καὶ δεήσεσι τὸν Θεὸν δυσωπῶν ὥστε ἀπαλλάξαι τοῦ συνέχοντος κινδύνου τὴν πόλιν. Καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ τείχους ἀνήει, ὡς πάλαι Μωϋσῆς ἐκεῖνος ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους, καὶ τὰς χεῖρας πρὸς οὐρανὸν διάρας, ἐδεῖτο τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκτενέστερον, ὡς ἂν φιλανθρώπως ὑετὸν παράσχῃ τῇ αὐχμώδει γῇ καὶ ξηρᾷ, καὶ τῆς λοιμώδους νόσου καὶ μάστιγος ἀπαλλάξῃ τοὺς κάμνοντας. Ὁ δὲ βραδὺς εἰς κόλασιν, καὶ ταχὺς εἰς ἀντίληψιν Κύριος, ἔτι τοῦ Ἁγίου τὰς χεῖρας ἐκτεταμένας ἔχοντος, καὶ ἑαυτὸν τοῖς δάκρυσι βρέχοντος, τοσοῦτον ὑετὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατήνεγκεν ὡς ἅπαν τὸ ὑποπίπτον σχεδὸν κατακλύζειν· τῷ σφοδρῷ τῆς καταφορᾶς, καὶ ῥαγδαίῳ ἅμα δὲ τῇ ῥύμῃ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἡ νόσος ἐφυγαδεύετο, καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ἐδόξαζον τὸν Θεὸν, τῷ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστοῦντες θεράποντι. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὥσπερ ἐνδείγματα τῶν μυρίων ἐκείνου θαυμάτων. Λεγέσθω δέ τι καὶ διὰ κρίσεως.

Dioscorus's insolence depressed by Anatolius, Then indeed again the infamous Dioscorus, together with his followers, not bearing the sentence of deposition branded upon them, ran about the city and calumniated the decrees of the synod, spreading abroad that it established the nefarious dogma of Nestorius; and, as in the proverb, they made the sweet bitter, and the light darkness. As soon as Anatolius, the lamp of the church, learned these things, having gathered together the whole people—both those who stood on the orthodox side and those on the contrary—he thus addresses them: Fathers and brothers (for the discourse is directed to those who are of the same mind with me), you too indeed know how illustrious a victory God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to His great mercy, gave to us who rightly dispense His word; how those who rage against us, and rather against Him and His only-begotten Son and Word, sharpening their tongue like a sword, He showed not only to think and speak evilly, but also cut off, as an infected and putrid member, from the body of the Church.

[13] wrought for the defense We ought therefore on this account both to rejoice and to give thanks, because He has looked upon us from His holy dwelling-place, and has enlarged our tongue and our glory. But since even now some, followers of that heresy which impugns Christ, jeer at our victory, murmuring between their teeth, and charge this holy synod with establishing the Nestorian dogmas: their deceit and cunning must be uncovered; and the judgment must be committed not only to the living, and to the Saints already departed from life, but also to those who have already undergone martyrdom for Christ. For thus the truth will become irrefragable to all. Let there be written, then, this our dogma of the faith, and that of those who falsely devise against it, and let both be placed in the coffer of the great martyr Euphemia ^a; and it will be clear that God is well pleased with that which the Martyr shall especially signify to us. And indeed she will signify it, being not ignorant of the matter, whose, or which dogma prevails. Then, this being signified, every controversy among us can soon be taken away and ended.

[14] of the Synod of Chalcedon, When the great Man had said these things, the assembly replied that these things were uttered by divine inspiration. So it seemed good to both parties. And without delay each side inscribes its own dogma in two little books, and opening the coffer, they lay them upon the sacred body of the Martyr. Then, the stone being placed and secured with the keys and seals of both parties, together with the Emperor and the Prelate they went out of the church. After this, with psalmody and genuflections through the whole night, they invoked at once God and the Martyr, that the truth might be discerned and made illustrious by some manifest divine sign, but the falsehood, being convicted, might be eliminated from the midst. After three days ^b, both those who thought rightly and those who thought wrongly, together with the Emperor and the Prelate, came to the Martyr ^c, and opening her coffer with lamentations, tears, and prayers (great indeed, O Lord, is thy care for us!), they found the little book of the impious lying before her feet as though rejected and despised; but the little book of the orthodox and pious her right hand held securely, as one that was truly dear to her and approved ^d.

[15] So great and such a miracle neither eye ever saw, and the miracle of the Catholic dogma. nor ear heard, nor mind conceived. Why indeed should it not strike me, that a dead body, and one now for many years entombed beneath a stone, should not only live and move itself whither it will, but also discern the true from the false? But indeed the prediction and foresight of Anatolius strikes me, and, what is more than these, the faith and the grace. The one indeed believed that he would obtain whatever he asked; the other bestowed even more than he had asked. Which is given to be understood not only from the rejection of the spurious little book, but also from the reception of the true one, and the proclamation of the tongueless hand; namely, that Euphemia too honored these dogmas, and therefore had given her body and soul.

[16] So that I doubt which in that event I should rather marvel at: The praise of St. Anatolius and St. Euphemia. whether her who wrought these miracles, or him rather who was not only the announcer of them, but the cause. For she indeed accomplished this prodigy, to be extolled above all; but he was the head and forerunner of the matter. Since therefore he foretold, and she confirmed the prediction, we must needs marvel at both equally in the like miracle. Moreover it was to be seen that those who at first had been revilers and rash bent their gaze to the ground, and hid themselves in lurking-places; but on the contrary the nurslings of the church leaped and led triumphal dances, and gave thanks to the illustrious Herald of the truth for the victory won over the enemies. But the discourse is eager to expound another thing, different from what has been said, yet of no less note.

[17] A dire pestilence invaded Constantinople ^e, and it became the more horrible from this, Another miracle of Anatolius. that all the accustomed rain was utterly wanting, the bodies wasting away from the intemperance of the air. The Prelate therefore, seeing the pestilence corrupting all, went about the city, all the clergy and the Emperor himself accompanying him, supplicating God with litanies and prayers, that He would free the city from the present peril. Nay, he even ascended the walls, and, like that Moses of old on the mountain, lifting up his hands to heaven, prayed God most earnestly, that He would propitiously send rain upon the parched and dry earth, and free the afflicted from the pestilential disease and scourge. But the Lord, who is slow to punish and swift to pardon, while the Holy one still held his hands stretched out, and bedewed himself with tears, sent down from heaven so great a rain that it almost inundated all that lay beneath; and by the vehement downpour, and the impetus of the waters, the disease was put to flight; and the multitude glorified God, giving thanks to His servant. And these things indeed are as it were specimens of his innumerable miracles. Let something also be told by way of discernment.

ANNOTATIONS.

CHAPTER III.

St. Anatolius defends the fame of St. Daniel the Stylite, by whom, as he had foretold, he is healed. His virtues, death, and the public veneration of his relics.

Κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον καιροῦ Δανιὴλ ὁ Μέγας, ὁ ἐν τῷ στύλῳ, ὁ καὶ τὸν βίον ὁμοῦ καὶ τὸν λόγον ὑψηλὸς καὶ οὐράνιος, ἄρτι μὲν τῷ τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου ναῷ, τῷ κατὰ τὸν Ἀνάπλουν ἐφοίτα· καὶ αὐτίκα μύριοι προσεφοίτων αὐτῷ, τήν τε ἰσάγγελον πολιτείαν θαυμάζοντες, καὶ τὰ ῥεύματα τῆς διδασκαλίας ἀντλοῦντες, καὶ δι᾽ ἀμφοτέρων ὠφελείας μετέχοντες, καὶ τὸν Θεὸν δοξάζοντες· ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐκ ἔμελλεν ταῦτα οἴσειν ὁ φθόνος· τινὰς γὰρ αὐτῷ τῶν τοῦ κλήρου ἐπήγειρεν, οἳ λάθρα τε καὶ φανερῶς τοῦτον διέσυρον, καὶ μυρίας ὕβρεις ἐπαντλοῦντες αὐτῷ. Ναὶ δὴ καὶ αὐτῷ τούτῳ τῷ σεβασμίῳ προσελθόντες Πατέρι κατεβόων τοῦ τηλικούτου πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις κωμῳδίαις, καὶ περὶ τὸ δόγμα ἐσφάλθαι διατεινόμενοι· εἰ μὴ γὰρ οὗτος, φησὶν, ὁ δράκων ἐκεῖθεν ἀπελαθείη, θᾶττον ἀποπτύσει τὸν ἐγκεκρυμμένον ἰὸν καὶ πολλοὺς ἐμπλήσει τῆς λύμης, καὶ ἀπολέσει.

[19] Πρὸς οὓς ὁ θεοφόρος οὗτος ἀνὴρ θείῳ κινούμενος πνεύματι, Ἀλλ᾽ ἐγώ φησιν, οὔτε ῥᾳδίως πιστεύω διαβολαῖς, οὔτε τὸν ἄνδρα τοιοῦτον νομίζω· εἰ δέ γε καὶ, ὡς ὑμεῖς φατε, τοιοῦτος φωραθῇ τῷ χρόνῳ, τότε καὶ τοῦ τόπου ἀπελαθήσεται. τὸ δὲ προδιαγνώστως τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἐρήμην καταψηφίζεσθαι, ἄδικον ὄντως καὶ ἀνόσιον ἅπασι νομισθήσεται. Ἤκουσαν ταῦτα, καὶ τοῦ μὲν Προέδρου διέστησαν· τῆς κακίας δὲ οὐκ ἀπέστησαν· ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς προσελθόντες τῶν ἐν βασιλείοις τισὶ διατριβόντων, διέβαλόν τε τὸν Ὅσιον καὶ ἐσυκοφάντουν, αὐτὰ ταῦτα, ἃ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως λέγοντες. Χρόνος οὐ συχνὸς, καὶ ὁ Μέγας οὑτοσὶ Ἀνατόλιος (ἐξετάζονται γὰρ τοῖς ἀβουλήτοις πολλάκις οἱ Ἅγιοι) νόσῳ συνεσχέθη δυσαπαλλάκτῳ δὲ χαλεπῇ. Πολλῶν οὖν, ὡς εἰκὸς, εἰς ἐπίσκεψιν αὐτοῦ φοιτώντων, ἦλθον κἀκεῖνοι οἱ συκοφάνται, τούς τε λοιποὺς, καὶ αὐτὴν αἰδούμενοι τὴν συνήθειαν.

[20] Οἷα καὶ συμβαίνει ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις, λόγων κινουμένων περὶ ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας, ἐπισκυλεῖται πάλιν καὶ Δανιὴλ, τῶν μὲν θαυμαστά τινα λεγόντων, καὶ ὑπερεκπληττομένων τὸν λόγον ὁμοῦ καὶ τὸν βίον· τῶν δὲ τοὐναντίον προειλημμένων τῷ πάθει, καὶ κωμῳδούντων αὐτόν. Ὁ δὲ θεόληπτος ἡμῶν πατὴρ, θείῳ κινούμενος πνεύματι, πρᾴως οὕτως αὐτοῖς ἀντιφθέγγεται· πιστεύσατέ μοι ἀδελφοὶ, καὶ δίκαιός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ οὐκ ἀθεεὶ τὰ ἐνταῦθα κατέλαβεν, ὥσπερ αὐτῷ μοι ἐγνώρισται, οὐχ ὡς ἀξίῳ τὰ τοιαῦτα ὁρᾷν, ἀλλ᾽ ὥστε ἐπιστομίζειν τοὺς αὐτὸν διαβάλλοντας. Γνωσθεὶς δ᾽ ἂν καὶ ὑμῖν, εἰ τοῦτον μετακαλέσαιμι (πέπεισμαι γὰρ) ὡς εἰ μόνον φανείη, τῆς νόσου ἀπαλλαγήσομαι, καὶ ὁ νῦν σχεδὸν ἄπνους καὶ νεκρὸς νομιζόμενος, εὐσθενὴς ἢ πρώην φανήσομαι.

[21] Οὕτως εἰπὼν, εὐθὺς μετακαλεῖται τὸν Ὅσιον, καὶ αὐτίκα ἡ μὲν νόσος ὥσπερ ἐξ ἐπιτάγματος ἐφυγαδεύετο, ὁ δὲ Πρόεδρος ἀνερρώννυτο, καὶ τοῦ σκίμποδος ἐξαναστὰς, εὐτονωτέρως ἐβάδιζεν ἢ τὸ πρότερον. Τούτου γεγονότος, ἐξεπλήττοντο μὲν οἱ παρόντες τῷ παραδόξῳ τοῦ θαύματος. Καὶ οἱ συκοφάνται δὲ μεταβαλλόντες συγγνώμην ᾐτοῦντο. Καὶ ὃν πρὶν διεκερτόμουν, ὑπερηυφήμουν ἀντίρροπα. Ἐξέπληττε δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἡ προαγόρευσις τοῦ Μεγάλου, ὃς σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ τῷ διορατικῷ χαρίσματι ἐλαμπρύνετο. Καὶ τὸ πάντων μεῖζον, ὅτι καὶ προφητείας ἠξιωμένος, καὶ σημείων παραδόξων αὐτουργὸς ὢν, ὡς ὁ λόγος ἀπέδειξεν.

[22] Ὅμως οὕτω τὸ ταπεινὸν ἠγάπα καὶ μέτριον, ὡς καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὑπὸ χεῖρά ἐστιν ὅτε ὑπηρετεῖν, μιμούμενος δηλαδὴ κἀν τούτῳ τὸν οἰκεῖον διδάσκαλον. Τῷ ταπεινῷ δὲ προσῆν καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἤθους ἁπλοϊκόν, καὶ τὸ τούτων παραδοξότερον, ὅτι τὸν τρόπον ἁπλοῦς ὢν, ποικίλος ἦν καὶ πολυειδὴς τὴν κυβέρνησιν. Τῷ ἁπλοϊκῷ δὲ τὸ πρᾷον συνέζευκτο· τῷ πρᾴῳ δὲ τὸ ἐπιεικὲς, τῷ ἐπιεικεῖ δὲ τὸ συμπαθὲς, ἐκείνῳ δὲ τὸ φιλάδελφον, τούτῳ δὲ τὸ φιλόπτωχον, καὶ ἅπαξ ἁπλῶς, ἐν τοῦ ἑνὸς ᾔρτητο ἡ χρυσῆ σειρὰ, καὶ ὄντως ἄλυτος ἅμα καὶ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἄπλοκος. Τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς πολιτεία· καὶ τὰ πλείω παρορᾶται, διὰ τὸ τὸν λόγον φεύγειν τὸν κόρον.

[23] Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἄνθρωπος ὢν, ἔμελλε καὶ αὐτὸς τῷ κοινῷ νόμῳ λειτουργῆσαι τῆς φύσεως, ἐπισκήψας καὶ κλήρῳ καὶ λαῷ τὰ συνοίσοντα, καὶ ὅσα εἰκὸς τὸν τοιοῦτον περὶ τῶν ἐκεῖθεν φιλοσοφήσας, πολλά τε τῆς ἀρετῆς καταλιπὼν ὑπομνήματα, ἐν βαθείᾳ τῇ πολιᾷ, καὶ πλήρης ἡμερῶν τῶν κατὰ Θεὸν, καταλύει τὸν βίον, καὶ πρὸς τὴν μακαρίαν ζωὴν ἐκδημεῖ, ἣν καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τέλους ἠσπάσατο. Καὶ νῦν ὁ μέν ἐστιν ἐν οὐρανῷ, κἀκεῖ τοῦ ποιμνίου, οἶμαι, ὑπερεύχεται. Τὸ δέ γε ἱερὸν ἐκείνου καὶ τίμιον λείψανον μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς ὑμνῳδίας καὶ λαμπροφορίας προκομίζεταί τε, καὶ προπομπεύεται, καὶ σεπτῶς τῇ σορῷ παραδίδοται· ὅπερ ἡ βασίλισσα τῶν πόλεων, ὥσπερ τι κειμήλιον κατέχει πολυτιμότατον, πᾶσιν ἰάσεις βλύζον, καὶ πᾶσαν νόσον ἰώμενον. Ἔδει γὰρ τὴν πασῶν κρατοῦσαν τῶν πόλεων καὶ τὸν ἐξόχως ταῖς ἀρεταῖς ἁπάντων κρατήσαντα, ὥσπερ τινὰ πολυτάλαντον θησαυρὸν φυλάττειν ἐν ἑαυτῇ, καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ μᾶλλον φαιδρύνεσθαί τε καὶ ἐλλαμπρύνεσθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, οἷς ὡραΐζεται σεμνύνεσθαι καὶ ἐγκαλλωπίζεσθαι.

[25] Ἀλλ᾽ ὦ καὶ ἀρχιερέων καὶ ἀσκητῶν κανών τε καὶ καύχημα, ὦ βασιλέων πλάστα, καὶ τοῦ καλοῦ νομοθέτα, καὶ ποιμὴν ποιμένων, καὶ τοῦ κλήρου καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ τῶν πάντων ὁμοῦ πάτερ, τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως πρόμαχε, καὶ δογμάτων εὐσεβῶν κρηπὶς καὶ ἑδραίωμα, βασιλεῖ τῷ μεγάλῳ νῦν παριστάμενος, καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ λαμπρότητος ἐμφορούμενος, ἐποπτεύῃς ἐκεῖθεν τὸ πιστότατόν σου ποίμνιον, ἱλασμὸν ἡμῖν νέμων ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ συγχώρησιν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.

About the same time, that great Daniel ^a the Stylite, sublime and heavenly alike in life and in speech, Daniel the Stylite goes to Constantinople, came to the temple of Michael, the Prince of the heavenly host, at Anaplus ^b. And without delay an innumerable multitude of men flocked to him, admiring his angelic manner of life and drawing the streams of his teaching; profiting by the one as well as the other, and praising God. Envy did not bear this; for it stirred up against him certain of the clergy, who publicly and privately tore at him with revilings, and poured out innumerable injuries upon him. Nay, coming even to this venerable father Anatolius himself, they assailed Daniel with clamors, leaving nothing undone that they might accuse so great a man, besides other reproaches, of erroneous doctrine too. For unless, they said, this dragon be driven hence, he will soon spit out the poison ill-suppressed, and infect many with the corruption and destroy them.

[19] To whom that divine man Anatolius, moved by a divine spirit, said: I indeed neither easily believe calumnies, where he is defended by Anatolius, nor do I think this man to be such. For if he be found such as you say, in time, then he shall at once be driven from this place. But to condemn him without prior knowledge of the crimes, the cause unheard, will surely seem to all unjust and impious. Having heard these things, they departed from the Prelate, but did not desist from their malice; but soon, approaching some of those who dwelt in the palace, they accused the holy man and marked him with calumny, alleging those very things which they had said before the Prelate. Not long after, that great Anatolius (for the Saints are often tried by unwished-for chances) was seized by an incurable and grievous disease. When therefore very many, as is natural, flocked to visit him, those sycophants too came, both for the example of others and out of respect for the very custom, being ashamed to neglect it.

[20] healed by him As happens in such gatherings, when words are stirred up about virtue or vice, again Daniel is torn at, some bringing forward certain wondrous things, and admiring his speech and life; others, on the contrary, prepossessed by prejudice, and mocking him. But our divine Father, moved by a divine spirit, gently thus answered them: Believe me, Brothers, the man is both just and not opposed to God. And these things happen to him, as I myself have learned, not because he merited to see such things, but that he may close the mouth of his calumniators. Be it known therefore to you, if I only summon and see him, that I shall be freed from the disease; and I, who am now thought almost lifeless and dead, shall be sound and vigorous, as I was before.

[21] Having thus spoken, he straightway summons the holy man, and soon the disease is put to flight as though by command. from a deadly disease. And the Prelate recovered again ^c, and rising from his bed walked more firmly than before. When this was done, those who were present were astonished at the unexpected miracle. But the sycophants, moved by penitence, asked pardon, and, with changed disposition, approved the things which they had before plucked at. For the prediction of the great Man struck them, who, besides his other gifts, shone with the grace of scrutinizing hidden things; and this above all, that he was adorned with prophecy and wrought miraculous signs, as is clear from what has been said.

[22] Moreover he loved humility and modesty, so that he ministered to his own subjects, The virtues of St. Anatolius, treading indeed in this matter the footsteps of his master. To his humility was joined simplicity of manners. And this is more admirable than these, that he who was simple in manners was yet sagacious and perspicacious in governing. To simplicity was joined meekness; to meekness discretion; to discretion mercy; to mercy fraternal love; to fraternal love the love of the poor. What more? In one mind hung a golden knot, indissoluble indeed, and yet very simple. And this is the Man's manner of life. Many things I pass over, lest the discourse exceed measure.

[23] But when, as a man, he too was about to pay the debt of the common law of nature, the epilogue, having earnestly commended to clergy and people the things that were profitable, and having discoursed philosophically, as became such a man, on the things beyond, and having left many memorials of his virtue, in deep old age, and full of days according to God, he ends his life, and migrates to the blessed life, which even before his end he had saluted. And now he is in heaven, death, burial, relics illustrious for benefits, and there, as I think, prays for the flock. His sacred and venerable body is carried out with much chanting and splendor, and, accompanied by solemn procession, is honorably laid in a tomb. Which the Queen of cities possesses as a most precious deposit, which gushes with all kinds of healings, and heals all diseases. For it was fitting that this city, which surpasses all others, should keep this Man, who far surpassed all in virtues, as a most precious treasure, and by him shine more illustriously, and be more renowned than by the other things by which she is wont to shine and be renowned.

surpassed all in virtues, should keep as a most precious treasure with herself, and through him shine more illustriously and be more renowned than by the other things by which she is wont to shine and be renowned.

[24] But O rule and glory alike of prelates and of ascetics! O former of emperors, an apostrophe to the Saint. legislator of honor, shepherd of shepherds, and Father alike of clergy and people and of all together, champion of the orthodox faith, base and foundation of the pious dogmas, who now standest before the great King, and art inebriated with His splendor; thence behold thy most faithful flock, praying that propitiation and pardon of sins be granted us, in Christ Jesus our Lord; to whom be glory unto the ages of ages. Amen. ^e

ANNOTATIONS.