簡史 第 19 章

When the order had been received, the commander Stilas carried out what had been commanded, and Timothy Aelurus was banished into exile at Cherson under close custody; and in place of Proterius there was appointed Timothy surnamed Salophaciolus, that is, 'the white-cap.' This catholic bishop Timothy lived indeed quietly and without disturbance in the Church of Alexandria throughout all the reign of Leo and all the reign of Zeno, until Basiliscus seized the tyranny while Zeno fled into Isauria. And when Basiliscus had taken hold of the empire, he wrote to the whole world his decree, which he called the Encyclical, against the Council of Chalcedon.

For then, when Basiliscus restored the episcopate to Timothy Aelurus and reinstated the heretics in their sees, the catholic Timothy fled to the fortress of Canopus and remained in a monastery. The heretic Peter again joined himself to Timothy, with whom he had formerly been condemned. After, therefore, the emperor Zeno had returned to the empire, Timothy Aelurus, fearing the zeal that men had concerning the Council of Chalcedon, desired death for himself, and praying for this persistently—to depart from human life—he drank poison and was released. His followers indeed say that he foreknew the day of his death; and in truth, since he was preparing to kill himself with poison, he knew it.

After his death the heretics ordained for themselves as bishop Peter surnamed Mongus, who was called 'Blaesus' (the Stammerer), and who had been an archdeacon. Meanwhile the catholic Timothy was staying, as has been said, in the fortress of Canopus. And the emperor Zeno, recognizing the cunning of the heretics, wrote to Anthemius the Augustal, that he should deprive Peter of the priesthood, restore Timothy to the episcopate, and punish the authors of Peter's enthronement. Anthemius, having received the imperial command, expelled Peter from the priesthood as an adulterer and one ordained against the laws of the catholic Church, and recalled Timothy Salophaciolus to the episcopal see; and Timothy, having received back the episcopate, sent certain clerics to give thanks to the emperor.

Among them was John, made presbyter from the position of steward of Tabennesi, surnamed Talaia, and Gennadius, bishop of Lower Hermopolis, a near kinsman by blood of Salophaciolus, whom Aelurus had indeed expelled from the episcopate but whom Salophaciolus had restored. And when these who had been sent had given thanks to the emperor, Gennadius indeed remained there to make the responses on behalf of the archbishop together with the others. But John, who from steward had become a friend of Illus the master, went down to Alexandria with the rest, and was again made steward, having charge of the affairs of all the churches; he sent many costly gifts to Illus the master, despising Gennadius the kinsman of the archbishop, and Acacius the prelate of Constantinople.

Meanwhile Timothy writes to Pope Simplicius, asking and saying that the said Peter Mongus had been condemned while in the diaconate, and was now also removed from Christian fellowship. And writing likewise to the emperor, that he should send the same Peter farther off into exile, because he was lurking at Alexandria and laying snares for the Church. And Pope Simplicius wrote to Bishop Acacius, that he should suggest to the emperor what Timothy had justly requested. But since this same Timothy was so very mild in his episcopate that he was even accused to the emperor by his own communicants as being too lax and gentle toward heretics, so that the emperor wrote to him that he should not permit the heretics to hold either assemblies or baptisms, he nevertheless acted gently.

while, therefore, he governed his episcopate in such a manner, the Alexandrians loved him and cried out to him in the streets and in the churches: 'Even if we do not commune with you, yet we love you.' But after a short time Timothy Salophaciolus dies in the 23rd year of his episcopate, in the 6th month; and he died without trouble. On the words, 'Under close custody.' Baronius brings a charge against Liberatus, using the testimony of Saint Leo, epistles 100 and 101, who writes that he (Aelurus) was about to be permitted to come into the royal city, since he had sought it, in order to recover his see by a feigned profession of faith; yet he was indeed first able to come into the city, and then to be kept under close custody in exile at Cherson.

On the words, 'He wrote to the whole world.' Once indeed against the Council of Chalcedon, at the prompting of Timothy Aelurus, who was at that time residing in the royal city; and again in favor of the council, at the urging of Acacius together with many holy monks. Both decrees are found in Evagrius, book III. Observe, reader, that the former was issued by Basiliscus at the instigation of his wife Zenonis; and marvel also, as you turn over in memory this whole history, that by three most foul women—Zenonis the wife of Basiliscus, Antonina the wife of Belisarius, and Theodora the wife of Justinian—war was waged with all the resources of powerful wickedness against the council which the holy virgin Pulcheria had piously taken care to have held. On the words, 'That with the others he might make the responses.' That was a custom of the Alexandrian...

...Church (a custom not equally received in other churches) to have official respondents at the court, not only deacons or presbyters but even bishops; for Cyril had Theopemptus and Daniel. Although, I think, one should employ the distinction which Liberatus seems to hint at, namely that presbyters made the responses of the Church, while bishops made those of the patriarchs. On the words, 'Who from steward.' It is amazing how, in all past ages, the stewards of the churches abused their administration and bought friendships with the patrimony of the poor; this John certainly gave many costly gifts to his patron, and by Zacharias the rhetor, in Evagrius book III, chapter 12, he is said to have been chosen bishop by money given. On the words, 'Illus the master.' By all others he is called Illus;

but he was indeed consul in the year 478; then, being involved in many other affairs, he was made commander of the East by Zeno in the year 480; and at last, when he was said to have aimed at tyranny, he was beheaded. See Theophanes in his Chronography. On the words, 'Having charge of the affairs (causas) of all the churches.' To the most distinguished Valesius this word causas seems in need of correction, in place of which he thinks another, gazas (treasures), should be read. This emendation had at some time come into my own mind, but immediately the recollection of the jurist occurred, who interprets causa as standing for the money itself. On the words, 'In the 23rd year of his episcopate.' Victor may seem to contradict this, placing the entrance of Salophaciolus in the consulship of Magnus and Apollonius, which fell in the year 460, and his death after the third consulship of Zeno, which marks the year 480.

But the letters of Simplicius to Acacius, given in the year 482, lend credence to Liberatus, in which mention is made of Salophaciolus as recently deceased. Hence Victor is to be corrected, and indeed Baronius himself, who places the entrance of Salophaciolus in the year 460. For how could it be true that in the year 482 Salophaciolus had sat for 23 years and 6 months? That entrance, therefore, must be drawn back to the year 459. Nicephorus of Constantinople is also to be corrected in his Chronicle, where he assigns to Salophaciolus only fifteen years—unless it be said that he passed over the time during which he lay hidden while Aelurus held the tyranny over the Church of Alexandria. Yet even by this remedy the difficulty is not cured, but from the year of the Henoticon written by Zeno a greater difficulty arises:

for if it was written, as is commonly held, in the year 482, and John Talaia was expelled after the writing of the Henoticon, as Liberatus relates, and John sat for three years, as Nicephorus has it, how was Salophaciolus, whom John succeeded, deceased in the year 482?