簡史 第 1 章

I. Liberatus, deacon of the Church of Carthage, one of the African defenders of the Three Chapters, wrote a little book on the Nestorian and Eutychian heresy, in which he teaches from what parents each of them was born, and whom afterwards they had, down to the Fifth Synod, whether as propagators or as chief defenders. II. With what aim he wrote, he openly discloses toward the end.

For after he had in the whole work set forth the battles of the Nestorians and Eutychians and the arts of fighting learned by long practice, and had at last unfolded the hidden machinations of the emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora, he attempted, with a certain crafty subtlety, to lead the mind of the unwary reader little by little, imperceptibly, into this opinion: that he should regard the Fifth Synod not as a legitimate judgment of the Church, but as a political conspiracy of bishops fawning upon the emperor. III. As he was rather inclined toward Nestorius, or at least toward Theodoret the friend of Nestorius, so he was less than fair in mind against Cyril and the emperor Theodosius.

This is the cause that impelled a man indulgent to his feelings to make Cyril guilty of envy and Theodosius guilty of perverse government, as though each had been the occasion of the tumults—or, as he himself says, the scandals—or even the author of them. IV. He does not hand down a very clearly worked-out reckoning of the times; for, content to have narrated the events themselves and the succession of bishops, he does not always carefully note the epochs of the years in which each thing happened. But if he be joined with his two other fellow Africans—Facundus of Hermiane, who wrote twelve books on the cause of the Three Chapters, and Victor of Tunnuna, who wrote a Chronicle—a more reliable history of matters pertaining to the Fifth Synod will be had than from Theophanes or Nicephorus, whether the Constantinopolitan or Callistus.

For those men committed to writing matters of which they were themselves a great part; these others were far removed, since Theophanes was about three centuries distant, and Nicephorus almost eight. V. He gave his little book the name Breviarium, partly because it was composed from monuments abridged from more prolix ones, partly because in twenty-four chapters, and those not very lengthy, it embraces the history of one hundred and twenty-five years; for so many intervened between the ordination of Nestorius, from which it takes its beginning, and the Fifth Synod, at which it seems to stop. Indeed the ordination of Nestorius occurred in the year 428, on the tenth day of April; the synod is reported to have begun in the year 553, on the fourth day of May. VI.

Whence he received what he hands down in the Breviarium, he partly discloses himself, partly it is detected by no obscure indications. 'From the ecclesiastical history,' he says, 'lately translated from Greek into Latin, and from the synodal acts, or the letters of the holy Fathers, I gathered this Breviarium, joining to the course of the times those things which I received in a Greek document at Alexandria, or learned by the faithful narration of most weighty men.' Of the several sources he mentions, and of many others, we shall speak presently. VII. Now indeed how much he profited from the little book of the history of the Eutychianists, the very eyes of readers attest; for he often appropriates the very words and the continuous discourse.

But since that little book does not extend beyond the condemnation of Acacius, he obtained the matters of the following years partly from John the Rhetor and others, partly saw them himself, or learned them by the report of contemporaries, whether when he was at Rome or when in the East: wherefore we have prefixed the name of no author to the last five chapters.

VIII. But that little book of which we spoke embraces the history of nearly fifty years, in which span of time many things were done which, since the author could not witness with his own eyes, he doubtless took from elsewhere—namely from the archives of the Roman Church, in which were preserved the acts of synods, the reports of apocrisiaries, the letters which the pontiffs either received or issued, and very many other things of that kind. IX. I know that the two centuries, the fifth and the sixth, were most fertile in writers who recorded the same matters as Liberatus; nor do I deny that writers of this sort could have been either read by Liberatus, if he knew Greek well enough, or consulted through another interpreter—which, though quite probable, I would scarcely affirm that they were consulted.

Besides the three most renowned—Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates—history was composed by Priscus Panites under Theodosius the Younger, John of Aegae under Zeno, Candidus the Isaurian under Zeno, Eustathius the Syrian under Anastasius, Theodorus Lector under Justin the Elder, John the Rhetor, Basil of Cilicia, and Zacharias the Rhetor under Justinian, and others whom Evagrius, Theophanes, and Nicephorus—the cullers of their predecessors—mention. X. Baronius accuses Liberatus of having sometimes too rashly believed historians favourable to Nestorius, and so less than fair toward the Catholics. Some inquire, more curiously perhaps than usefully, who were historians of this sort, and think they are not to be sought beyond the eight already reckoned:

for of what others could one form a suspicion? Nothing is more obvious than to surmise about Zacharias the Rhetor, on the ground that he is said by Evagrius to have been impelled by partiality to write—both many other things and especially this, that Nestorius too had himself been summoned to the very Council of Chalcedon. It might also be conjectured that this Zacharias does not differ from the Nestorian historian of whom mention is made in the Alexandrian Chronicle. But Evagrius, book III, chapter 7, shows that this Zacharias followed the side of the Eutychianists, and at the same time shows that the partiality by which he was impelled to write history did not look to Nestorius but to Eutyches, and that Nestorius was said by him to have been summoned to the council, certainly as a defendant about whom judgment was to be passed, not as a bishop who should sit. XI.

But what is brought forward about the Nestorian heretic is a very slight—indeed, unless I am mistaken, an empty—conjecture: for that historian is praised in the Alexandrian Chronicle (composed, surely, by Catholics) as most wise. Wherefore I judge him to be the very man who is called by Liberatus 'Nestorius of Phlagonea,' and who at the Council of Chalcedon condemned Dioscorus, and, returning, ordained Proterius together with three other Catholic bishops. The time, the name, and the man's good faith recommend this opinion: for that chronographer of whom we speak carried his history down to Leo the Younger, that is, to the year 474, who, as the twenty-third from the Council of Chalcedon, could easily have lived on—he who, even as a fifty-year-old, would have attended the council in the year 451.

Next, the kindred name, both of the chronographer and of the bishop, affords no slight conjecture, especially since I do not recall ever reading anywhere among the Fathers of the council a 'Nestorian of Phlagonea.' What of the fact that both were Catholic? Add that it is quite credible that by a man who had been a great part of affairs pertaining to the Alexandrian Church, the history of those same affairs was committed to writing; finally, since mention of a Nestorian chronographer is made by none save the Alexandrians, it ought not to seem foreign to truth to believe that this very man wrote in Egypt. XII. This little book seems to have been written after the year 564; for first, in chapter 22, mention is made of the death undergone by Pope Vigilius, who died at Syracuse at the beginning of the year 555.

Next, the journey of which there is mention in chapter 1 was certainly no other than that by which the deacon accompanied his bishop Reparatus, banished into Euchaida. Now Reparatus was banished in the year 553, and died there at the beginning of the year 563. This reckoning of time agrees with other circumstances: for Liberatus relates that he was writing when Apollinaris was governing the Alexandrian Church, and when Primosus—the condemner of the Three Chapters, who succeeded Reparatus in the see of Carthage—had met his last day; and Apollinaris was still governing the Alexandrian Church in the year 564, since he is reported to have been ordained in the year 551, and is said by Nicephorus of Constantinople to have held the see seventeen years.

But Primosus died about the year 562, at which time Theodosius of Alexandria was still alive, inasmuch as he ceased to live in the first year of Justin the Younger, which is the 566th of Christ. XIII. There are those who make much of this Breviarium, and those who make little of it: the former praise the brevity of the book and the amplitude of its subject, two allurements of minds to reading; the latter complain of a facility less than fitting in seeing through the instruments of so great a cause on both sides, and of an excessive readiness in placing trust in men not most sincere; nay, they even charge him with excessive zeal for his own party, for he was entangled in the schism on account of the Three Chapters too obstinately defended. XIV.

Although the almost incredible lowness of style and its unevenness—because of the inserted opinions of authors rendered from the Greek not in the best Latin—may be able to deter a fastidious reader, it ought not, nevertheless, to deter one zealous for history; for whatever fault there is, is compensated by the variety of matters, which are scarcely anywhere found either at all or so gathered together; for the monuments from which he drew most of his material have for a great part perished. XV. It came out lately with countless errors, of which it is now free by the aid of three manuscript codices of the best note—the Tellieranus, the Bellovacensis, and Our own. The published editions also helped not a little, at least toward giving weight to conjectures, and even the Greek authors themselves, whose works are abridged into a compendium.

We preferred to expunge the errors of the old editions altogether from the text, rather than, as is usually done, to retain them to the great loss or disgust of readers; yet it seemed good to write what has been emended in another character, so that it may more easily be distinguished and, if one pleases, be compared with the common books. XVI. Scholia have been added that should correspond to the work—that is, very brief ones, and ones for which there was much need, so that either light may be brought to the text, if it has ever been made obscurer by brevity, or the author's opinion may be corrected when it disagrees with better writers of a nearer age. XVII. Now the labour I have bestowed may be regarded as a certain continuation of the Nestorian history which I prefixed to the latter part of the works of Marius Mercator;

nay, also an appendix to the Life of Theodoret, which is shortly to be brought to light: for in order to perfect both, I applied my mind to examining Liberatus more carefully, both for many reasons and especially for this one alone, that, having once been led into error by this author, I thought others ought to be warned, lest perchance, on account of a preconceived opinion of him and a credulity greater than he deserves, they should either be imperilled or even deceived. XVIII. Moreover, what I said, in section 4, that the things lacking in Liberatus ought to be supplied from other authors, especially Facundus of Hermiane and Victor of Tunnuna, must be understood of matters that were done in the sixth century, and at which they were present;

for as to the rest, better sources are to be approached, such as the acts of councils, the letters of pontiffs, the imperial decrees—on which the marks of the times are inscribed; better-approved writers too are to be approached, who wove the series of bishops of each greater Church, and who have the marks of time more carefully affixed to events. XIX. But beware, among these writers, when exact chronography is in question, of reckoning Theophanes and Nicephorus of Constantinople; for the one composed registers of the times, the other a catalogue of the five patriarchates; but each in such a way that, although Theophanes is a probable historian, neither yet stands forth as a praiseworthy chronographer.

They ought therefore to be read with eyes not too learned, after a certain recent disquisitor who commends them under the name of a most excellent chronography. XX. But lest I should seem to speak slanderously of Nicephorus and Theophanes, two things must be demonstrated by the clearest examples. First, how far Nicephorus strays from the truth in describing the years during which each of the bishops sat whose catalogue he made, and especially those of whom there is mention in Liberatus. Second, how great in this part is the partnership of error between Theophanes and Nicephorus. XXI. Nicephorus, therefore, when he wove the catalogue of the Roman pontiffs, sets between the death of Anastasius and the death of Celestine forty-eight years.

For he assigns to Innocent I, who succeeded Anastasius, fifteen years, eight to Zosimus, four to Boniface, twenty-one to Celestine; and yet it is established by indubitable arguments that no more than thirty intervened, since Anastasius died in the year [402], on the 27th day of April, and Celestine in the year 432, on the 6th day of April: Nicephorus's reckoning therefore abounds by eighteen years. Then, if eight years be assigned to Zosimus, which Nicephorus assigns, it is necessary that Zosimus held the apostolic see down to the year 425; for he began to sit in it in the year 417, after the death of Innocent I. But how far this is from the truth, no one is ignorant, since in the year

425 Celestine had already begun to sit, after Boniface the successor of Zosimus, as is gathered from letter 262 of Augustine and other sure monuments. Afterwards, if Celestine sat twenty-one years, which Nicephorus hands down, since he began to sit in the year 425, on the 3rd of November, he must have held the see down to the year 444: but holy Leo had already begun from the year 440 to bear the pontificate, nor yet did he succeed Celestine, but Sixtus, who succeeded Celestine. There is also another evident sin of Nicephorus in the catalogue of the Roman pontiffs: John Mercurius ascended the apostolic see in the year 532, in the month of January; Pelagius I in the year 555, or, as it seems to others, 556:

wherefore between the entrance of each, twenty-three or twenty-four years elapsed. Yet in Nicephorus's catalogue, from the edition of Contius, only eleven years are set down, since three years are assigned to John, one to Agapetus, two to Silverius, five to Vigilius—than which nothing more monstrous can be said; for in this way the whole history of the Fifth Synod, in the part where it concerns Vigilius, would be undermined. But if we consult the same catalogue in the Royal edition, the sum will now not fall short by thirteen years, but will abound by three or four; for to Silverius—which is plainly astounding—eighteen years are assigned, and thus Silverius would have reached from the year 536, in which he succeeded Agapetus, down to the year 554, that is, beyond the times of the Fifth Synod; than which what is more incredible?

But if it be said—as indeed it ought—that a twofold fault crept into the Greek text, namely that years were assigned to Silverius which belong to Vigilius, and that one ought to write otherwise, then all things will somehow agree. But who would put faith in books which must first be emended before they can be usefully cited? I pass over very many other disgraces of the same catalogue. XXII. Nor indeed is he more accurate in the prelates of Jerusalem than in those of Rome. I bring forward a single example, but a most effective one, in which, in computing the years of three bishops—John, Praylius, and Juvenal—a most grave error is committed for the fourth time. It is established by a sure reckoning of times that between the ordination of John and the death of Juvenal seventy-one years flowed, since Cyril succeeded John in the year

386, and Juvenal succeeded Anastasius in the year 457. Nicephorus hands down that seventy-four flowed. This is the first error. He assigns to John fifteen years in all, although he sat for thirty, for he died in the year 417, as is clear from the letters of Augustine and Zosimus, and succeeded Cyril, whose death Jerome, chapter 19 of On Ecclesiastical Writers, hands down to have occurred in the 8th year of Theodosius the Great, that is, in the year 386. This is the second. The third, far more wonderful, if not more absurd: he assigns to Praylius, who succeeded John, twenty years, by which reckoning he must be said to have sat down to the year 456 or 457. But what is more at war with history? For Juvenal, who succeeded Praylius, was present at the Synod of Ephesus in the year

431, received letters from the holy Celestine and Cyril in the year 430, and was governing the Church of Jerusalem in the year in which Theodoret hands down that Theodotus died, that is, in the year 427; nay, as will soon be shown, he began to bear the episcopate in the year 424; and thus Praylius scarcely ruled the Church of Jerusalem eight years. The fourth is on a par with the former. Nicephorus assigns to Juvenal thirty-eight years, by which reckoning he ought to be said to have died in the year 462, since he began to sit in the year 424; and yet he died in the year 457, since the eighth year of Anastasius, who succeeded Juvenal, coincides with the ninth of Leo I the emperor, and so with the year of Christ 465, as is manifestly gathered from Cyril the monk in the Life of Saint Quiriacus. XXIII.

Of the Alexandrians, what shall I say? He invents things that no one moderately versed in ecclesiastical history would patiently read. By indubitable reasons it is established that, on the death of holy Cyril, Dioscorus succeeded in the year 444, and, on the deposition of Zoilus, Apollinaris in the year 551. Therefore nearly one hundred and seven years flowed between the ordination of Dioscorus and the ordination of Apollinaris; but Nicephorus puts only eighty: therefore twenty-seven years are lacking; nor would one heal so great a deficiency who should add the seventeen years which others assign to Timothy Asterius, whose see had no number of years assigned by Nicephorus: for there will still be nearly ten years lacking.

Then to Dioscorus Nicephorus assigns only five years, although he was ordained at the beginning of February in the year 444, and deposed at Chalcedon in the year 451, on the 13th day of October; and thus he sat nearly eight years. To Timothy Salophaciolus, or 'the White,' he assigns only fifteen years; Liberatus hands down that one of nearly the same age as Timothy died in the 23rd year of his pontificate. To Gaianus he assigns one year; Liberatus a hundred and three days, or, as another reading has it, sixty-three days. To Theodosius he assigns two years; Liberatus one year and four months: why should I more curiously pursue the rest, carelessly written? I pass to the Antiochenes. XXIV. It is certain, on the authority of Theodoret, book V of his History, near the end, that Theodotus of Antioch died in the year

427. It is equally certain, from Evagrius, that Euphrasius perished, buried in the ruin of the city, in the year 526, on the 29th day of May, which was a Friday. Therefore between the death of each, ninety-nine years in all flowed. Nicephorus counts one hundred and six, with seven months. This is the first disgrace, that the other. It is established, as has been said, by the authority of Theodoret, indubitable in this part, that Theodotus succeeded John in the year 427; it is equally established from the acts of the council, both the Robber Synod of Ephesus and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, that Domnus was deposed in the year 449, in the month of August: therefore from the entrance of John, who succeeded Theodotus, to the entrance

of Maximus, who was substituted for Domnus, twenty-two years; Nicephorus counts twenty-six, for he assigns to John eighteen years, to Domnus eight: on which reckoning—a disgrace more monstrous than the former—John would have to be said to have held the see of Antioch down to the year 445, Domnus to the year 453, than which nothing is more contrary to truth: for Maximus, substituted for Domnus, was present at the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451, as is established from the acts. Domnus was deposed at Ephesus in the Robber Synod in the year 449, in the month of August, as the acts teach. For Domnus was presiding over the Church of Antioch in the year 444, in which year Cyril died, as is clear from the fragments excerpted by Marius Mercator.

Moreover, he received letters from Cyril concerning the case of Athanasius bishop of Perrha, and received also from Theodoret, concerning Celestiacus, a noble African, in the year 442. What of the fact that Theodoret—than whom no one knows the years of John more surely, by reason of singular friendship and familiar intercourse—shows in his letter to Dioscorus, the successor of Cyril, that he sat only thirteen years? XXV. But it is wonderful how greatly he was deceived in computing the years even of their predecessors. It is established, from the acts of the Council of Ephesus, that Nestorius was deposed in the year 431, in the month of June; it is equally established, from the letters of Pope Vigilius and the confession of Eutychius, that Mennas died in the year 552.

It is therefore beyond doubt that between the deposition of Nestorius and the death of Mennas one hundred and twenty-one years elapsed. Yet Nicephorus counts only one hundred and ten, and so errs by a deficiency of eleven years. Then he writes that Proclus sat twelve years and three months; it is nonetheless certain that he sat thirteen years and six months: for he was ordained on the very day on which Maximian departed from among the living, on the Thursday of Holy Week, the day before the Ides of April, which mark belongs to the year 434; and he too passed to those above on the 24th day of October in the year 447. He sat therefore thirteen years and six months. XXVI.

But from these things which, unless I am mistaken, have been evidently demonstrated concerning Nicephorus, anyone may easily conjecture what he should think of Theophanes—namely, that he errs in the same things as Nicephorus. XXVII. For, to begin with the Roman prelates, he assigns to Zosimus eight years, to Boniface four, to Celestine ten, to Sixtus eight; on which reckoning Sixtus ought to have died in the year 447, Celestine in the year 433, Boniface in the year 449, Zosimus in the year 425—since Zosimus succeeded Innocent in the year 417—than which nothing is more alien to truth, since Leo, the successor of Sixtus, began to sit in the year 440. Certainly he wrote to the bishops throughout Campania in the year 443. Sixtus wrote to John of Antioch and Cyril in the year 433. Celestine, before the ordination of Nestorius, which occurred in the year

428, held the apostolic see for no small time. Boniface gave letters to the bishops of the Gauls, concerning Maximus of Valence, when Monaxius and Plinta were consuls, that is, in the year 419. XXVIII. Concerning the prelates of Jerusalem, he commits the same error as Nicephorus: for he assigns to John sixteen years, to Praylius twenty, to Juvenal thirty-eight—three most monstrous figures. He likewise errs concerning the Antiochene prelates, and also concerning the Alexandrians, nay even concerning the Constantinopolitans, so that Nicephorus's catalogue seems to have been copied from the registers of Theophanes. XXIX. But since the case stands thus concerning Theophanes, it is clearly evident how prudently he was called by the learned interpreter Goar 'a rather probable historian than a tolerable chronographer';

for nothing is either more careless or more corrupt than his chronological registers.