^{page 13 note 1} Socrates, , Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Bright, William, Oxford 1878, vii, 29.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 2} Nestorius, , Bazaar of Hcracleides, ed. Driver, Godfrey and Hodgson, Leonard, Oxford 1925. 274.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 3} Socrates, op. cit., vii, 29.

^{page 13 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 13 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 14 note 1} Codex Theodosianus, ed. Mommsen, Theodor and Meyer, Paul Martin, Berlin 1905, 16, 5, 65Google Scholar. Henceforth this work will be cited as C. Th.

^{page 14 note 2} Socrates, op. cit., vii, 29.

^{page 14 note 3} Another example of this may be found in the letter of Nestorius to pope Celestine on the subject of four refugee bishops who had sought the protection of Theodosius. Nestorius suspected that they were men who had been convicted of doctrinal error, but he was not in a position to interfere with their repeated interviews with the emperor until he had positive evidence of the fact. This he twice sought from the pope. Cf. P.L., i, 438–42.

^{page 14 note 4} A variety of sources describes the early moves in the dispute. Cf. Socrates, op. cit., vii, 32; Evagrius, , Ecclesiastical History, ed. Bidez, Jacques and Parmentier, Leon, London 1899, i, 11Google Scholar; Schwartz, Eduard, Ada Conciliorvm Oecumenicorum, Berlin 1927 ff., iGoogle Scholar, i, 1, 10–32 (which work will henceforth be cited as A.C.O.); Nestorius, op cit., passim. The theological aspects of the controversy have been widely discussed. Cf. Diepen, Herman, Le concile de Chalcédoine, Oosterhout 1953, passimGoogle Scholar; also du Manoir de Juaye, Hubert, Dogme et spirilualité chez Cyrille d'Alexandrie, Paris 1954, especially 115 and 118.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 5} A.C.O., i, 1, 1, 73–4.

^{page 15 note 1} Duchesne, Louis, Early History of the Church, English trans., London 1924, iii, 236.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 2} A.C.O., i, 1, 1, 114–16.

^{page 15 note 3} A.C.O., i, 1, 1, 75–7.

^{page 16 note 1} A.C.O., i, 1, 1, 33–42.

^{page 16 note 2} Socrates, op. cit., vii, 34.

^{page 16 note 3} For a discussion of the role of Juvenal in this and other events in the reign of Theodosius, cf. Honigmann, Ernest, ‘Juvenal of Jerusalem’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, v (1950), 209–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 16 note 4} A.C.O., i, 1, 1, 120–1.

^{page 16 note 5} Nestorius, op. cit., 106–8.

^{page 16 note 6} Nestorius, op. cit., 108. Cf. P.G., Ixxxiv, 595–7.

^{page 17 note 1} Cf. above, 12 n.4.

^{page 17 note 2} Candidianus was later to write to Cyril: ‘Sed quia vestra religiositas inquit ignorarc se quae praccepta sint a domino nostro et optimo principe, necessarium mini visum est apparere, ut etiam non praesentibus aliis reverendissimis episcopis omnibus relegerentur divinae atque adorabiles litterac’; P.G., lxxxiv, 595. This written protest was also ignored, and Candidianus apparently did not feel strong enough to take any counter-measures. ‘And, as I suppose, Candidianus knew them and was frightened by them; by words alone would he have hindered them, but he dared not proceed to deeds and afflict those who did such things’: Nestorius, op. cit., 116. Cf. also A.C.O., i, 1, 5, 119–20.

^{page 17 note 3} A.C.O., i, 1, 2, 54–64; Evagrius, op. cit., i, 4.

^{page 17 note 4} A.C.O., i, 1, 2, 64.

^{page 18 note 1} Nestorius, op. cit., 266.

^{page 18 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 18 note 3} Evagrius, op. cit., i, 5. Cf. also A.C.O., i, 1, 5, 122.

^{page 18 note 4} A.C.O., i, 1, 3, 9–10.

^{page 18 note 5} A.C.O., i, 1, 3, 10–13. Cf. also A.C.O., i, i, 5, 13–14.

^{page 19 note 1} A.C.O., i, 1, 5, 124–5.

^{page 19 note 2} Cf. above, 14 n.4.

^{page 19 note 3} Nestorius, op. cit., 271.

^{page 20 note 1} For obvious reasons this account by Nestorius must be treated with reserve. Yet this section of the Bazaar of Heracleides cannot arbitrarily be set aside. That Dalmatius persuaded the emperor as described by Nestorius is not at all unlikely, if, for example, the deference later shown by Theodosius to Simeon the Stylite be borne in mind. Cf. Evagrius, op. cit., i, 13.

^{page 20 note 2} Nestorius, op. cit., 273.

^{page 20 note 3} Nestorius, op. cit., 273–7.

^{page 20 note 4} This accords with the sentiments later propounded by the emperor in his penultimate communication to the bishops at Ephesus.

^{page 20 note 5} Nestorius, op. cit., 277.

^{page 20 note 6} A.C.O., i, 1, 3, 31–2.

^{page 21 note 1} A.C.O., i, 1, 3, 32–3. Cf. also A.C.O., i, 1, 7, 67–8.

^{page 21 note 2} Thus cf. the letter of the orientals to Theodosius. A.C.O., i, 1, 7, 69–70.

^{page 21 note 3} A.C.O., i, 1, 7.71.

^{page 21 note 4} It consists mainly of accounts given by members of the oriental delegation or their sympathisers.

^{page 21 note 5} Cf. the account by Theodoret in a letter to Alexander of Hierapolis. A.C.O., i, 1, 7. 79–80

^{page 22 note 1} Cf. the letter of the orientals to their followers at Ephesus. A.C.O., i, 1, 7, 81.

^{page 22 note 2} … δι τ Kριλλον πανπασι Φεγειν τν πρς μς διλεξιν A.C.O., i, I, 7, 81, line 29.

^{page 22 note 3} Nestorius, op. cit., 288.

^{page 22 note 4} P.G., Ixxxiv, 625.

^{page 25 note 1} Nestorius, op. cit., 281.

^{page 23 note 2} A.C.O., i, 1, 7, 142.

^{page 23 note 3} A.C.O., i, 1, 7, 71.

^{page 23 note 4} A.C.O., i, 1, 7, 72–3.

^{page 23 note 5} A.C.O., i, 1, 7, 74–5.

^{page 24 note 1} A.C.O., i, 1, 7, 146.

^{page 24 note 2} A.C.O., i, 1, 4, 5–6.

^{page 24 note 3} P.G., lxxxiv, 826–9.

^{page 24 note 4} This formed part of the letter of Epiphanius. Cf. the study by Batiffol, Pierre, ‘Les presents de St. Cyrille à la cour de Constantinople’, Études de liturgie et d'archéologie chrétienne, Paris 1919, 154 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 5} ‘On ne peut pas nier la largesse de Cyrille dans cette distribution. C'est plutôt la moralité qui en est discutable’: Batiffol, op. cit., 173. However, Batiffol adds with some justice, ‘Pourtant, on peut noter à sa décharge que son syncelle Épiphanc se plaint de l'avarice, comme il dit, des gens de cour; il se plaint en particulier de la contrainte exercée par Chrysorète; ces ministres et ces chambellans dc Thébdose II ont fait chanter l'évéque d'Alexandrie, qu'ils savaient riche et pressé de se dégager d'une situation difficile’: ibid.

^{page 25 note 1} A.C.O., i, 1, 4, 3–5.

^{page 25 note 2} The letter of Epiphanius was addressed to Maximian and is indicative of the esteem in which he was held by the Cyrilians. This could hardly have escaped the notice of John of Antioch.

^{page 25 note 3} Mansi, Giovanni Domenico, Sacromm Conciliorum Nona et Amplissima Collectio, Paris and Leipzig 1901–13, v, 827Google Scholar. (Henceforth this work will be cited as Mansi).

^{page 25 note 4} P.G., lxxxiv, 658–9.

^{page 25 note 5} A.C.O., i, 1, 7, 147–50.

^{page 26 note 1} This did not mean that Cyril had changed his fundamental position. Cf. Lebon, Jacques, ‘Autour de la définition déÉphèse’, Ephemerides Theotogicae Lovanienses, viii (1931), 383–412.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 2} Cf. the letter of Theodoret of Cyr in P.G., lxxxiv, 670–1.

^{page 26 note 3} A.C.O., i, 1, 7, 151–2.

^{page 26 note 4} A.C.O., i, 1, 4, 7–9.

^{page 26 note 5} A.C.O., i, 1, 7, 163–4.

^{page 26 note 6} P.G., lxxxiv, 758–9.

^{page 26 note 7} Ibid., 788.

^{page 26 note 8} Ibid., 740–1.

^{page 26 note 9} Ibid., 796.

^{page 26 note 10} Ibid., 797–8.

^{page 27 note 1} The fifteen bishops who were exiled because of their refusal to enter into communion with John of Antioch are listed in P.G., lxxxiv, 803–4.

^{page 27 note 2} Evagrius, op. cit., i, 7.

^{page 27 note 3} C. Th., 16, 6, 2. Cf. the provisions in the edict issued by the prefects Flavius Anthemius Isidorus, Flavius Bassus and Flavius Simplicius Reginus, A.C.O., i, 1, 3, 69.

^{page 27 note 4} A.C.O., i, 1, 3, 67.

^{page 27 note 5} Evagrius, op. cit., i, 7.

^{page 27 note 6} One indication of this is provided by the decision of Theodosius to allow the remains of John Chrysostom to be returned for burial at Constantinople in 438. Cf. Theodoret, , Hiitoria Ecclesiastica, ed. Parmentier, Leon and Scheidwciler, Franz, Berlin 1954, v, 36Google Scholar; also Socrates, op. cit., vii, 45.

^{page 27 note 7} P.G., lxxxiv, 1268.

^{page 28 note 1} ‘On a ici en germe tout l'eutychianisme: la fidelité intransigeante aux formules de Cyrille, et particulièrement à la miaphysis … la crainte de revenir à l'erreur de Nestorius et de diviser le Christ en marquant bien la différence des propriétiés de chaque nature, le refus d'admettre que chaque nature agisse d'une opération qui lui soit propre. On voit comment une fidelité trop étroite aux formules de Cyrille va provoquer une nouvelle erreur’: Camelot, Thomas, ‘De Nestorius à Eutyches’, Das Konsil von Chalkedon, ed. Grillmeier, A. and Bacht, H., Würzburg 1952, i, 232.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 2} Cf. H. Diepen, Le concile de Chalcédoine, 19.

^{page 28 note 3} A.C.O., ii, 1, 3, 20–3.

^{page 28 note 4} A.C.O., ii, 1, 3, 19.

^{page 28 note 5} On the chronological problems arising from these two inquiries, cf. Hefele, Charles, Histoire des conciles, French trans, of the 2nd. ed., Paris 1908, ii, 1, 494–8.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 6} A.C.O., ii, 1, 3, 14–16.

^{page 29 note 1} An account of this new investigation is contained in the acts of the Robber Council. For the translation of the Syriac text of these acts, cf. Martin, Pierre, Actes du Brigandage d'Éphèse, Amiens 1874.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 2} Martin, op. cit., 18–24, 37–8-

^{page 29 note 3} For an example of the position adopted by Eutyches on the subject of the two natures, cf. A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 136.

^{page 29 note 4} A.C.O., i, 1, 4, 66.

^{page 29 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 30 note 1} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 100.

^{page 30 note 2} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 124–9

^{page 30 note 3} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 131–2

^{page 30 note 4} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 138.

^{page 30 note 5} Cf. Liberatus Bremanim, in P.L., lxviii, 998.

^{page 30 note 6} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 139, 143 and 145.

^{page 30 note 7} For the text of the condemnation and the signatories, cf. A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 145–7.

^{page 30 note 8} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 152–3.

^{page 31 note 1} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 149.

^{page 31 note 2} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 151–2.

^{page 31 note 3} For details of the inquiry, together with the final verdict exonerating the notaries, cf. A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 153–177.

^{page 31 note 4} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 177–8.

^{page 31 note 5} Cf. Paul Goubert, ‘Le r^le de Sainte Pulchérie et de l'eunuque Chrysaphius’, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, i, 304–21.

^{page 31 note 6} Theophanes, , Chronographia, ed. de Boor, Carl, Leipzig 1883, 151B.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 7} While differing on some details, the substance of the story is found in Nicephorus Callistus, Historia Ecclesiastica, P.G. cxlvi, 1321; Theophanes, op. cit., 151B. Evagrius merely speaks of the ἔχθρα between them: op. cit., i, 10.

^{page 31 note 8} Nicephorus Callistus, op. cit., 1225.

^{page 32 note 1} Goubert, op. cit., 308–9.

^{page 32 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 32 note 3} Nicephorus Callistus, op. cit., 1235.

^{page 32 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 32 note 5} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 68–g.

^{page 32 note 6} ματααν μΦισβτησιν

^{page 33 note 1} Further details of the ban on Theodoret may be found in the correspondence of the bishop himself. As the most powerful voice of Antiochene theology, his presence at the council would have made it much less easy to attain the objective of Chrysaphius, namely, the exculpation of Eutyches. Hence a ban on his presence was desirable, whatever the pretext. The pretext is quoted, from the imperial edict on the matter, by Theodoret in a letter to Eutrechius: ‘Επειδ τς δτς πλεως πσκπος συνεχςθροζει συνδους κα ταρττει τοτο τος ρθοδοξους …: P.G., lxxxiii, 1257. That Theodoret was not deceived by this is clear: ‘Ἐγὼ γρ ἄλλας μν μαρτας μαυτωι πολλς σνοιδα, οὐ μν ἤ εἰς τν Ἐκκλησαν το θεο ἤ εἰς τν κοινν εὐταξαν οἰδα τι πλημμελσας: P.G. lxxxiii, 1256.

^{page 33 note 2} In a letter of 15 May, Theodosius announced a privileged exception to this latter ordinance. The monk Barsauma was to share in the work of the council and was to be permitted to express his opinions: A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 71. For a sketch of the career of this formidable individual, with his iron tunic, his vow never to sit or recline, and the generally extravagant character of his life, cf. Nau, François, ‘Deux épisodes de l'histoire juive sous Théodose II’, Revue des études juivcs, lxxxiii (1927), 184–206.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 3} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 74.

^{page 33 note 4} Nicephorus Callistus, op. cit., 1225.

^{page 34 note 1} Elpidius and Eulogius were designated as the imperial representatives at the new council. They were to maintain law and order at Ephesus, and Elpidius was to be present at the sessions of the council to ensure the orderly transaction of business. It should be noted also that Elpidius was informed that those who passed judgement at the inquiry concerning Eutyches could be present at the council, but must remain silent and must not have the right to exercise the function of judges. Cf. A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 72–3. This was to lead to a palpable injustice. The ostensible purpose of the council was to determine whether a proper decision had been reached by the synod at which Flavian had presided, yet the right to speak and to make a defence was conceded to only one of the parties in the dispute.

^{page 34 note 2} A.C.O., ii, i, 1, 73–4.

^{page 34 note 3} πσαν μν διαβολικν κκΨαιῤζαν

^{page 34 note 4} The Syriac version of the acts of the council has preserved a letter from Theodosius in which he requests that the bishops take action regarding Ibas. Cf. the translation by Perry, Samuel, The Second Synod of Ephesus, Dartford 1881, 12–13.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} ‘… there were probably very few contemporaries who were able immediately to recognise that Eutyches’ restoration meant a doctrinal aberration, as it was termed two years later’: Honigmann, op. cit., 236.

^{page 35 note 2} Cf. Mansi, vii, 495–8. For a translation of the Syriac version, cf. Perry, op. cit., 364–70. It will be noted that this version, despite a break of what may be several folios in the MS., is considerably longer than the Latin version. Where the MS. resumes after the lacuna, the emperor no longer seems to address a general audience, but rather a particular individual. Perry is probably right in assuming that this individual is Dioscorus.

^{page 35 note 3} In this connexion, cf. the letters of Theodosius to Dioscorus and to Juvenal of Jerusalem: Perry, op. cit., 369–70.

^{page 35 note 4} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 3–4.

^{page 36 note 1} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 5–7.

^{page 36 note 2} A.C.O., ii, 1, 1, 7–8.

^{page 36 note 3} Zonaras, , Epitome, ed. Dindorf, Ludwig, Leipzig 1868, xiii, 23.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 4} P.L., liv., 891.

^{page 36 note 5} C. Th., 16, 5, 1.

^{page 36 note 6} C. Th., 16, 5, 48.

^{page 37 note 1} C. Th., 16, 5, 57.

^{page 37 note 2} C. Th., 16, 6, 6.

^{page 37 note 3} C. Th., 16, 5, 25; 16, 5, 34; 16, 5, 36.

^{page 37 note 4} C. Th., 16, 5, 49.

^{page 37 note 5} C. Th., 16, 6, 7.

^{page 37 note 6} C. Th., 16, 5, 58.

^{page 37 note 7} C. Th., 16, 5, 59.

^{page 37 note 8} C. Th., 16, 10, 24.

^{page 37 note 9} C. Th., 16, 10, 25.

^{page 37 note 10} C. Th., 16, 5, 65.

^{page 37 note 11} Leges Novellae Theodosianae, incorporated in the Mommsen and Meyer edition of the Codex Theodosianus, iii.

^{page 38 note 1} C. Th., 16, 6, 6; 16, 6, 7; 16, 5, 58. Also Corpus Iuris Civilis, ii, Codex Iustinianus, ed. Krueger, Paul, Berlin 1954, 1, 6, 3; 1, 7, 5.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 2} Theodoret, op. cit., v, 36.

^{page 38 note 3} Socrates, op. cit., vii, 22.

^{page 38 note 4} Nicephorus Callistus, op. cit., 1224.

^{page 38 note 5} Zonaras, op. cit., 13, 23.

^{page 38 note 6} Suidae Lexicon, ed. Adler, Ada, Leipzig 1931, 1, 2, 694–5.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 7} Concerning other factors which contributed to this unfavourable picture, cf. Thompson, E. A., ‘The Foreign Policies of Theodosius II and Marcian’, Hermathena, lxxvi (1950), 72.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 8} Thompson, op. cit., 75.