ressure from Justinian, —the name of Theodore bad been erased from the diptychs of that Church, and the name of Cyril substituted, as far back at any rate as the end of the 5th century.
For the Eastern empire the action of Justinian and his councils was final: the Chalcedonian party in the Greek Church had enough to do to maintain their own orthodoxy and that of the Fourth Council without taking under their protection the favourite teacher of the Nestorians; Theodore’s writings, Biblical as well as theological, were placed under a tacit ban, and circulated only, so far as they circulated at all, in fragmentary and emasculated form in the Catenz. But the Latins were less trammelled by fear of emperors or Mono- physites ; the resistance, indeed, of pope Vigilius was after a time overcome, but the Churches of Africa and North-eastern Italy broke off com- munion (and the latter body maintained their separation for over a century) from men who had dared to anathematize not only the opinions, but the name, of one who had ‘ departed this life in the peace of the Church and the praise of the Fathers.’ Justinian employed force ; the opposition resorted to the pen. Rusticus, the pope’s nephew and deacon, published an improved Latin version of the Acts of Chalcedon. The Breviarium of Liber- atus, archdeacon of Carthage, and the pro Defen- stone Trium Capitulorum of another African, Facundus, bishop of Hermiana, state the contem- porary case against the condemnation, Facundus especially giving us valuable particulars in regard to Theodore’s life and writings. Junilius, an African official at Constantinople, introduced Theo- dore’s principles of exegesis to the West under the title Instituta regularia Divine Legis; while it was probably about the same time, and perhaps also in Africa, that the commentaries of Theodore on the lesser Pauline epistles were translated into Latin and so preserved for the use of future genera- tions. But the controversy of the Three Chapters died out at last, and the same silence about the person and history of Theodore as already pre- vailed among the Greeks overspread the Western Church also.
2. GENERAL ESTIMATE OF THEODORH’S STYLE (AS GIVEN BY PHoTTUS).—Before all first-hand knowledge of Theodore’s works had quite dis- appeared, the patriarch Photius, in the 9th cent., placed on record the only criticism we possess of ‘the Interpreter’s’ literary style. The three books which came into Photius’ hands were (a) the 25 or 28 books brép Bagidelov kara Edvoulov, cod. 4, with which in cod. 6 Photius compares and con- trasts the treatise, bearing the same title, by Gregory of Nyssa ; (8) the commentary in 7 tomes
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
bY
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES 509
a SE EE EEE
on Genesis, cod. 38; (y) the 5 books Ipds rovs Aéyovras ice kal od yroun wralew rods avOpwrous, cod. 177. According to his custom, Photius sup- lements his account of each work with a summary judgment of the merits or defects both of its style and of its subject-matter; and, by combining the three notices, we may form a fair general idea of the impression made by Theodore’s writings on a competent and not wholly unsympathetic reader. Strong in power of thought and in his handling of Scripture, Theodore’s weak points, according to Photius, are obscurity and prolixity. His style (gpdors) cannot be called lucid (cad7s)—although his vocabulary is simple enough—still less brilliant (Aaurpés); it is, in fact, ungraceful and unpleasing (axapis Kai dndzs). Its obscurity is due to long- winded periods (cxeworevécr mepiddos) ; to the ac- cumulation of parentheses (apeuBodats a\derad- AAAows), Which distract the mind from the subject ; to fondness for oblique cases and participial con- structions (rats r&v évoudrwy mraylos Kat Tats wero- xixats Meo) ; to continual and inartistic tautology, in which the repetitions are more circumstantial than the original statements (ras émavadijpers wAEov Tov dunyioewy Tats TepioTdcect MewerT@o Oa). On the other hand, Theodore’s writings are packed close with thought and argument (vais diavoims Kai rois emixeiphuac. lay wuxvés); in fertility and in mas- siveness of proof (rd rAHO0s T&v émixerpyudrwv Kal 7d yévywov) he is as much superior to Gregor of Nyssa as he is his inferior in beauty, b iL liancy, and charm («dé\d\e re kal awmpéryte Kal To jourdrw). Whatever his other faults, the con- tinuous labour he spent on Holy Scripture (:Ao- movisrepov SiareOjva), and his wealth of apposite citations from it (rats ypagixats dpiora mAourev paptuplacs), deserve full recognition. Asan exegete, he avoided allegory as far as possible, and inter- preted historically.
The criticisms passed by Photius upon Theodore’s style and method would perhaps apply less seriously to exegesis than to some other departments of literature. A wide acquaintance with Scripture, an wnwearied devotion to its study, when combined with unusual powers of thought, albeit not of ex- pression, are no contemptible equipment for ‘the Interpreter’ of St. Paul.
3. HISTORY OF THEODORE’S COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES.—(i.) The first complete list.—The fullest information about Theodore’s commen- taries, and the first quite definite statement that he expounded the whole series of Pauline epistles, come to us from the great catalogue of Syriac writers drawn up for the Nestorians by their metropolitan Ebed-jesu (died A.D. 1318), and printed in vol. iii. pp. 1-362 of J. S. Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana (Rome, A.D. 1725: for Theodore, see pp. 30-35, ch. xix.). The bulk of Theodore’s works, Ebed-jesu begins by telling us, amounted to 150 times that of the Prophets : as they were arranged in 41 [it is possible that we ought to read 51] ‘ divisions’ or ‘ parts,’ each part must have been thrice the size of the sixteen Prophets put together. Of these parts, the com- mentaries on the Old Testament appear to have occupied 18; St. Matthew, St. Luke, St. John, and the Acts, one each ; and the Pauline epistles 5. The latter are enumerated as follows (Assemani gives, in parallel columns, the Syriac text and a literal translation into Latin) :— ,