[2312] This letter is inserted in the Act. Synod. (vide Mans. ix. 295) as addressed to John, but Garnerius, with general acceptance, has substituted Domnus. Its genuineness was contested by Baronius (an. vi. 23) not only on the ground of its ascription to John who predeceased Cyril four years; but also because its expressions are at once too Nestorian in doctrine and too extreme in bitterness to have been penned by Theodoret. Garnerius is of opinion that the extreme Nestorianism and bitterness of feeling are no arguments against the authorship of Theodoret; and, as we have already had occasion to notice, our author can on occasion use very strong language, as for instance in Letter CL. p. 324, where he alludes to Cyril as a shepherd not only plague smitten himself but doing his best to inflict more damage on his flock than that caused by beast of prey, by infecting his charge with his disease. "It must be needless to add that Cyril's character is not to be estimated aright by ascribing any serious value to a coarse and ferocious invective against his memory, which was quoted as Theodoret's in the fifth General Council (Theodor. Ep. 180; see Tillemont, xiv. 784). If it were indeed the production of the pen of Theodoret, the reputation which would suffer from it would assuredly be his own." Canon Bright. Dict. Christ. Biog. I. "The long and bitter controversy in which both parties did and said many things they must have had cause deeply to regret, was closed by the death of Cyril, June 9, or 27, 444. With Baronius, the cautious' Tillemont, Cardinal Newman and Dr. Bright, we should be glad to utterly scout' the idea, that the atrocious letter' on Cyril's death ascribed to Theodoret by the Fifth OEcumenical Council (Theod. ed. Schulze, Ep. 180; Labbe, v. 507) which he was said to have delivered by way of pæan (Bright u. s. 176) and the scarcely less scandalous' sermon (ib.) can have been written by him. To treat it as genuine would be to vilify Theodoret.' The Fathers of the Council' writes Dr. Newman are no authority on such a matter' (Hist. Sketches p. 359). A painful suspicion of their genuineness, however, still lingers and troubles our conception of Theodoret. The documents may have been garbled, but the general tone too much resembles that of undisputed polemical writings of Theodoret's to allow us entirely to repudiate them. We wish we could. Neander (vol. iv. p. 13, note, Clark's tr.) is inclined to accept the genuineness of the letter, the arguments against which he does not regard as carrying conviction, and to a large extent deriving their weight from Tillemont's Catholic standpoint.' That Theodoret should speak in this manner of Cyril's character and death cannot, he thinks, appear surprising to those who, without prejudice, contemplate Cyril and his relations to Theodoret. The playful description, after the manner of Lucian, of a voyage to the Shades below, is not to be reckoned a very sharp thing even in Theodoret. The advice to put a heavy stone over his grave to keep Cyril down is sufficient proof that the whole is a bitter jest. The world felt freer now Cyril was gone; and he does not shrink from telling a friend that he could well spare him. The exaggeration of rhetorical polemics requires many grains of allowance.'" Canon Venables. Dict. Christ. Biog. iv.
[2313] 1 Sam. xvii. 26
[2314] Lucian. "Cataplus sive Tyrannus." Cyniscus and Megapenthes come to the shore of Styx in the same batch of ghosts. Megapenthes begs hard of Clotho to let him go back again, but Cyniscus the philosopher, who professes great delight at having died at last, refuses to get into the boat. "No; by Zeus, not till we have bound this fellow here, and set him on board, for I am afraid he will get over you by his entreaties."
[2315] Ps. cxlvi. 4
[2316] Isaiah xxxvii. 29
CLXXXI. Letter to Abundius, Bishop of Como. [2317]
To my dear lord and very holy brother Abundius Theodoretus sends greeting in the Lord. I have discovered that your piety religiously preserves the true and apostolic faith; and I have thanked Almighty God that the truth which was in peril has been renewed and brought to light by your holiness.
Of old, after the flood, it came to pass that Noah and his sons were left for seed of the human race. Just so in our own day are reserved the fathers of the West, that by them the holy churches of the East may be able to preserve that true religion which has been threatened with devastation and destruction by a new and impious heresy. Well may we quote those words of the prophet "Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant we should have been as Sodom and we should have been like unto Gomorrah." [2318] So upon us from this impious heresy the wrath of God has fallen like a flood and invasion.
Now we acknowledge the presence of our Saviour in a human body, and one Son of God, His perfect Godhead and His perfect manhood. We do not divide our one Lord Jesus Christ into two sons for He is one; but we recognise the distinction between God and man; we know that one is of the Father, the other of the seed of David and Abraham, according to the divine Scriptures, and that the divine nature is free from passion, the body which was before subject to passion being now itself too free from passion; for after the resurrection it is plainly delivered from all passion.
This we have learnt from the letter of the very holy and religious Archbishop our lord Leo. For we have read what he wrote to Flavianus, of holy and blessed memory, and have thanked the loving-kindness of the Lord because we have found an advocate and defender of the truth. To this letter I have given my adhesion, and have subjoined a copy of it to my present epistle, which I have also subscribed and have thereby proved that I obey the apostolic rules, that is true doctrines; that I abide in them to this day, and am suffering in their cause.
Assent has also been given by my lord Ibas and my lord Aquilinus against whom the inventors of the new heresy have armed the imperial power.
It remains for you with your very holy colleagues to bring aid to the sacred Church, and to drive away the war that threatens it. Banish the impious party which has been roused against the truth; give back the churches their ancient peace; so will you receive from the Lord, Who has promised to grant this boon, the fruits of your apostolic labours.
All the very religious and godly presbyters and reverend deacons and brethren by your holiness I greet; and I and all who are with me salute your reverence. [2319]
[2317] This letter may be dated from Nicerte in the autumn of 450 when Abundius was at Constantinople on a mission from Leo, after the failure to get Theodosius to agree to the summary of the Council in the West. Theodosius died a few days after the arrival of the envoys at Constantinople. Theodoret is anxious to encourage the Roman Legates to support the orthodox cause in the Imperial city, to repair the mischief caused by the Latrocinium, and to show the court that he and his friends Ibas and Aquilinus had the support of Leo. Abundius, fourth bishop of Como (450-469) represented Leo at Chalcedon. Manzoni, in the Promessi Sposi, reminds us of the local survival of the name.
[2318] Isaiah i. 9
[2319] After all the storms of controversy and quarrel which we have followed in the course of the dialogues and letters of the Blessed Bishop of Cyrus; after the lurid leap of grim pleasantry which, if not actually penned by Theodoret, indicates a temper that must have often shown itself in these troubled times; there is something pathetic and encouraging in the conciliatory conclusion of this last letter. Cyril has been dead for years, and his weaknesses are forgotten in a confession which his more moderate opponents could accept. The subscription of Theodoret to the tome of Leo is an earnest of harmony and concord. The calmer wisdom of the West asserts the truth which underlay the furious disputes of the subtler East. The last word of the drama is Peace.
Jerome and Gennadius
Lives of Illustrious Men.
Translated, with Introduction and Notes,
by
Ernest Cushing Richardson, Ph.D.
Librarian of Princeton College.
Jerome and Gennadius.
Lives of Illustrious Men.
------------------------
I. Introduction.
This combined work of Jerome and Gennadius is unique and indispensable in the history of early Christian literature, giving as it does a chronological history in biographies of ecclesiastical literature to about the end of the fifth century. For the period after the end of Eusebius' Church History it is of prime value.
1. Time and Place of Composition, and Character.
1. The work of Jerome was written at Bethlehem in 492. It contains 135 writers from Peter up to that date. In his preface Jerome limits the scope of his work to those who have written on Holy Scriptures, but in carrying out his plans he includes all who have written on theological topics; whether Orthodox or Heretic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, and even Jews and Heathen (Josephus, Philo, Seneca). The Syriac writers mentioned are however few. Gennadius apologizes for the scanty representation which they have in Jerome on the ground that the latter did not understand Syriac, and only knew of such as had been translated.
The motive of the work was, as the preface declares, to show the heretics how many and how excellent writers there were among the Christians. The direct occasion of the undertaking was the urgency of his friend Dexter, and his models were first of all Suetonius, and then various Greek and Latin biographical works including the Brutus of Cicero.
Jerome expressly states in his preface that he had no predecessor in his work, but very properly acknowledges his indebtedness to the Church History of Eusebius, from whom he takes much verbatim. The first part of the work is taken almost entirely from Eusebius.
The whole work gives evidence of hasty construction (e.g., in failure to enumerate the works of well-known writers or in giving only selections from the list of their writings) but too much has been made of this, for in such work absolute exhaustiveness is all but impossible, and in the circumstances of those days, such a list of writers and their works is really remarkable. He apologizes in the preface for omitting such as are not known to him in his "Out of the way corner of the earth." He has been accused of too great credulity, in accepting e.g., the letters of Paul to Seneca as genuine, but on the other hand he often shows himself both cautious (Hilary, Song of S.) and critical (Minutius Felix De Fato).
The work was composed with a practical purpose rather than a scientific one and kept in general well within that purpose--giving brief information about writers not generally known. This is perhaps why in writings of the better known writers like Cyprian he does not enumerate their works.
2. The work of Gennadius was written about 430 according to some, or 492 to 495 according to others. Ebert with the Benedictins and others before him, makes an almost conclusive argument in favor of the earlier date on the ground that Gennadius speaks of Timotheus Aelurus who died in 477 as still living. This compels the rejection of the paragraph on Gennadius himself as by a later hand but this should probably be done at any rate, on other grounds. The mss. suggest that Gennadius ended with John of Antioch, although an hypothesis of three editions before the year 500, of which perhaps two were by Gennadius, has grounds. The bulk of the work at least was composed about 480 (probably chapters 1-90) and the remainder added perhaps within a few years by Gennadius or more probably two other hands.
Gennadius style is as bare and more irregular than Jerome's but he more frequently expresses a critical judgment and gives more interesting glimpses of his own--the semi-Pelagian--point of view. The work appears more original than Jerome's and as a whole hardly less valuable, though the period he covers is so much shorter.
2. Literature.
1. The literature on Jerome is immense. The most often quoted general works are Zöckler, Hieronymus. Gotha, 1865 and Thierry, St. Jérome Par. 1867. On Jerome in general the article by Freemantle in Smith and Wace Dict. of Christian Biography is the first for the English reader to turn to. Ceillier and other patrologies, while sufficiently full for their purpose, give very little special treatment to this work, Ebert (Gesch. chr.-Lat.-Lit. Lpz. 1874) being a partial exception to this statement. The best literary sources are the prolegomena and notes to the various editions of the work itself. Much the same may be said of Gennadius though the relative importance of his catalogue among his writings gives that a larger proportionate attention. In English the article by Cazenove in Smith and Wace and in French the account in the Histoire litteraire de la France are the best generally accessible references.