Christopher Walter. The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches). Revue des études byzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206

8/3/2019 Christopher Walter. The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches). Revue des tudes b

1/27

Christopher Walter

The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus

(planches)In: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Walter Christopher. The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches). In: Revue des tudesbyzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206.

doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1970.1435

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1970_num_28_1_1435
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_98http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.1970.1435http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1970_num_28_1_1435http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1970_num_28_1_1435http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.1970.1435http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_98


2/27

THE NAMES OF THE COUNCIL FATHERSAT SAINT SOZOMENUS, CYPRUSChristopher WALTER

Among the churches of Cyprus decorated in Byzantine or post-Byzantinetimes only one, so far as I know, has a series of representations of the sevenecumenical councils. This church, one of the three in the village of Galatawhich were decorated in the early sixteenth century, is dedicated to SaintSozomenus. An inscription over the door gives the year of its decorationas 15131. The councils are set out in two zones on the outer wall. The firstfour councils in the upper zone are well preserved ; the succeeding threein the lower zone have undergone varying degrees of damage. The eighthspace is occupied by a representation of the Restoration of Images.The schema used by the artist, Symeon Axenti, was in common usein Byzantine and post-Byzantine art. The emperor presides, seated upona throne with a suppedaneum ; to his left and right bishops are seated,wearing the polystaurion ; they and the emperor have a nimbus. Behindthem may be seen other council fathers, without, however, a nimbus ;in the foreground crouch the condemned heretics (fig. 12).It is evident that the composition is conventional. It belongs to the genreof official imagery taken over by Byzantine artists from their Antiquepredecessors. They were not concerned to represent what actually happened.For example the Pope of Rome figures in each representation, althoughhe was not present at any of the seven first councils. Similarly the emperorappears in the picture of the Council of Ephesus, although Theodosius IIdid not attend. In fact the artist has represented what might have happened.He has used realistic elements in order to communicate an idea : the emperor nd bishops by their authority guarantee the orthodox doctrine ofthe Church and condemn those who are opposed to it .

1. A. and J.A. Stylianou, The Painted Churches of Cyprus, London 1964, p. 42-51.The conclusions of this article were presented as a communication at the First International ongress of Cypriot Studies, 1969. I take the opportunity again of thanking Mrand Mrs Stylianou first for calling my attention to this church and then providing mewith unpublished material concerning it. I also thank the Department of Antiquitiesof Cyprus for supplying me with photographs of these frescoes. The Church of SaintSozomenus is number 40 in the repertoire of my Iconographie des conciles dans la tradition byzantine, Paris 1970, p. 87-89.


3/27

190 REVUE DES TUDES BYZANTINESThe particular interest of the Saint Sozomenus series of councils isafforded by the epigraphs. Unfortunately some of those accompanyingthe lower series of pictures are destroyed ; however for five councils theyare still intact. Above each council its name is inscribed (incorrectly in the

case of the 1st Council of Nicaea which is called the Council of Constantinople)each heretic is also named ; finally the bishops who have a nimbushave their name inscribed on it .I do not know of another case where a council father's name is inscribedupon his nimbus. However it was common practice to add a text to apicture of a council ; the names of one or more of the bishops presentat the council might figure in the inscription ; alternatively they mightbe inscribed beside the bishops as in the frescoes at Decani (Fig. 2) . I givea table of the names accompanying the bishops in the paintings of councils t Saint Sozomenus and four other churches : the Pantocrator, Decani ; Saints Peter and Paul, Tirnovo ; Saint George, Harlu ; the Nativity, Arbanasi2. In my lists the occupants of the five patriarchal sees aregiven first in the following order : Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,Antioch, Jerusalem (Table I).It is at once evident that there were several principles of selection. AtArbanasi only the patriarch of Constantinople (or in the case of the Councilof Ephesus the patriarch of Alexandria), at Hrlau only the pope and thepatriarch of Constantinople are given. For Tirnovo and Decani the principlef selection is not immediately obvious ; at Saint Sozomenus a clearpreponderance is given to the patriarchal sees. Now it seems less likelythat the artist selected the names himself than that he took them froman already established list. Since however the picture and the names gotogether, there would probably be a concordance between them. We haveseen that pictures of councils are not mere portrait groups ; they alsoproclaim a theory of authority in the Church. Is the same true for thelists of names ? Can a closer study of the names of the bishops at SaintSozomenus yield a more precise notion of the ecclesiology which thesepictures of the seven councils proclaim ?

I begin by asking whether, so far as we can know, the bishops whosenames are given at Saint Sozomenus were actually present at the councilin question.

2. These churches all figure in my repertoire (cf. preceding note) and a translation ofthe inscriptions is given in an appendix to the same study : Pantocrator, Decani (number77) ; Saints Peter and Paul, Tirnovo (number 37) ; Saint George, Harlu (number 61) ;Nativity, Arbanasi (number 39).


4/27

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS 191TABLE I

I Nicaea

I Cple

Ephesus

Chalcedon

II Cple

III Cple

II Nicaea

SOZOMENUSSylvesterMetrophanesAlexanderEustathiusMacariusNicolasSpyridonDamasusNectariusTimothyMeletiusCyrilGregoryAmphilociusCelestineCyrilJohnJuvenalMemnonLeoAnatoliusMaximusJuvenal

HonoriusGeorgeCyrus?

HadrianTarasiusPolitianusTheodoritusElias

DecaniSylvesterMetrophanesAlexanderEustathius

DamasusNectariusMeletiusCyril

CelestineCyrilJuvenalMemnonMethodiusAnatoliusMaximusEusebius

EutychesApollinariusTimothyEutychesPeter

EpiphaniusMacarius

TlRNOVO Harlau

|

CyrilJuvenal !LeoAnatoliusMaximusJuvenalAnastasiusStephen

AgathonGeorge

ArbanasiAlexander

Nectarius

Cyril

Anatolius_

EutychesGeorge

_Tarasius


5/27

192 REVUE DES TUDES BYZANTINES

TABLE

I Nicaea

I Cple

Ephesus

Chalcedon

II Cple

III Cple

II Nicaea

GermanusJulius

Synodicon VetusVitus and VincentAlexander vice MetrophanesAlexanderEustathiusMacarius

CelestineGregoryTimothyMeletiusCyrilCelestineCyril(John)JuvenalLegates vice LeoAnatoliusMaximusJuvenalLegates viceVigiliusEutychesApollinariusLegates viceAgathonGeorge

AlexanderEustathiusMacariusGregoryTimothyMeletiusCyril

Cyril(John)Juvenal.

Vigilius was presertheEutychesApollinariusDomnusTheodore etc

George PeteiTheophanesPeter ancTarasiusJohn andThomas locumtenentes

Photius and Blastaresvice Julius and SylvesterAlexanderAlexanderEustathiusMacarius

Damasus ( confirmavit )Gregory and NectariusTimothyMeletiusCyril(Cyril presided for Celestine)CyrilJuvenalPaschasinus, etc. vice LeoAnatolius_MaximusJuvenal

it in the city bu t did no t attendcouncilMenas and EutychesApollinariusDomnusDidymus and Evagrius (!)vice Eustochiusvice AgathonGeorger locum tenensGeorge locum tenens

: Paul vice HadrianTarasiusJohn and \ I ApollinariusThomas locum, Theodoritustenentes ) (Elias


6/27

Illustration non autorise la diffusion

:*

PLANCHE I

t *

^ ''''' * : ^' **

Fig. 1. Icon. Saint Catherine's, Mount Sinai (Photograph by courtesy of ProfessorKurt Weitzmann and the Ann Arbor Institute).


7/27


PLANCHE II

Fig. 2. Eleousa ikon. Hermitage of Saint Neophytos, Cyprus (Photograph bycourtesy of the Dumbarton Oaks Field Committee).


8/27

PLANCHE III

Fig. 3. Eleousa ikon. Kykkos, Cyprus (XVIIIth century engraving).


9/27

PLANCHE IV

Fig. 4. Templon. Hermitage of Saint Neophytos, Cyprus (Photograph by courtesyof the Dumbarton Oaks Field Committee).


10/27

PLANCHE V

Fig. 5. Frontispiece to Book of Proverbs. Arsenal Bible, Paris.

Fig. 6. Prayer, miniature in Sinaiticus graecus 418.


11/27


PLANCHE VI

Fig. 7. Tempion Saint Peter's Rome (?). Casket, Pola.

Fig. 8. Tempion (?). Riha paten, Dumbarton Oaks Collection.


12/27



PLANCHE VII

Fig. 9. Diptych of Anastasius. Cabinet de Mdailles, Paris.

Fig. 10 . Ikon. Saint Catherine's, Mount Sinai.

Fig. 11 . Chancel. Fresco from the House of the Vetti, Pompeii. Museo Nazionale,Naples,


13/27

PLANCHE VIII

Fig. 12 . Council of Ephesus. Church of Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus.

Fig. 13 . First council of Nicaea. Deani.


14/27

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS 193TABLE m

I Nicaea

I Cple

Ephesus

Chalcedon

II Cple

III Cple

II Nicaea

NlLUSSylvesterAlexanderAlexanderEustathiusMacarius

DamasusGregoryTimothyMeletiusCyrilNectariusAmphilociusGregory of NyssaCelestineCyrilJuvenalMemnonLeoAnatoliusMaximusJuvenalVigiliusEutychesApollinariusDomnusDamianAgathonGeorge(Peter)TheophanesHadrianTarasiusPolitianusTheodoritusElias

Paris 2403SylvesterAlexanderAlexanderEustathiusMacarius(Athanasius)DamasusGregoryTimothyMeletiusCyrilCelestineCyrilJohnJuvenalMemnonLeoAnatoliusMaximusJuvenalVigiliusEutychesApollinariusDomnusEutychesAgathonGeorgePeterTheophanesHadrianTarasiusPolitianusTheodoritusElias

Coislin 120SylvesterMetrophanesAlexanderEustathiusMacarius

(Damasus)GregoryTimothyMeletiusCyril(Celestine)Cyril(John)Juvenal(Memnon)LeoAnatoliusJuvenal(Vigilius)EutychesApollinariusDomnusEutyches(Agathon)GeorgeTheophanes


15/27

194 REVUE DES TUDES BYZANTINESFirst Council of Nicaea3

1. Sylvester of Rome.He does not figure in the original list, where the presbyters Vitus andVincentius are listed directly after Hosius of Cordoba. However he appearsin the list of 318 Fathers (number 160).

2. Metrophanes of Constantinople.In the list of 318 Fathers Alexander is given. Metrophanes, in fact,probably died in June 3144. However, according to Gelasius of Cyzicus,Metrophanes was represented by Alexander at the Council5.3. Alexander of Alexandria.He figures in the original list (number 2).4. Eustathius of Antioch.He figures in the original list (number 46).5. Macarius of Jerusalem.He figures in the original list (number 19).Nicolas of Myra.He does not figure in the original list but was added to the list of 318Fathers (number 316). Legend attributed to him a particularly ferociousattitude to the Arians6.Spyridon of Trimithonte.He does not figure in the original list but was added to the list of 318Fathers (number 163). Legend also attributed to him a special role in thecouncil7.

3. There are, of course, no Acts and no genuine list of signatories for the 1st Councilof Nicaea. I have used E. Honigmann s reconstituted original list and the list of 318names established before 71 3 ; La liste originale des Pres de Nice, in Byz 14, 1939,p. 44 and p. 61 respectively) : cf. M. Aubineau, Les 318 serviteurs d'Abraham et le nombrede Pres au concile de Nice, in RHC 61 , 1966, p. 5-43, and H. Chadwick, ibid.,p. 808-811.4. S. Vailh, Constantinople (Eglise de) in DTC 3, 1318.5. Gelasius Cyzicenus, Historia Concilii Niceni II. 36 : PG 85 , 1229.6. G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos, II, Leipzig 1917, p. 301.7. Theodore of Paphos, Vie de saint Spyridon, edited by P. Van den Ven, La lgendede saint Spyridon, vque de Trimithonte, Louvain 1953, p. 28.


16/27

ch. walter : council fathers at saint sozomenus 195First Council of Constantinople8

1. Damasus of Rome.Theodoret knew that he was not present at the council, since he givesan account of the synodical letter which was addressed to him.2. Nectarius of Constantinople.He figures in the accounts of both Theodoret and Socrates.3. Timothy of Alexandria.Socrates gives his name.4. Meletius of Antioch.Socrates gives his name ; Theodoret gives that of his successor Flavian.5. Cyril of Jerusalem.Both Theodoret and Socrates give his name.Gregory of Nazianzen.He has told himself in his parting Homily how he came to resign fromthe see of Constantinople during the council. His name is also given bySocrates.Amphilocius of Iconium.Socrates gives his name.

Council of Ephesus91. Celestine of Rome.In the Acts there is no question of his presence ; the council, in fact,addressed a relatio to him10.2. No bishop for Constantinople.Nestorius was, of course, on trial.3. Cyril of Alexandria.He figures at the head of two lists of the bishops present11.8. There are, again, no Acts for the 1st Council of Constantinople. I have used theaccounts of Theodoret {Historia Ecclesiastica V 9 : PG 82 , 1212-17) and of Socrates(Historia Ecclesiastica V. 8 ; PG 67 , 576-81) : cf. N.Q. King, The 150 Holy Fathers ofthe Council of Constantinople, 381 A.D. : some notes on the Bishopslists, in StudiaPatristica I (= Texte un d Untersuchungen 63), Berlin 1957, p. 635-641.9. Act conciliorum cumenicorum, edited by E. Schwartz, Berlin 1927, I i 2 andI.i.3.10 . Ibid., I i 3, p. 5.11 . Ibid., I i 2, p. 3 and p. 55.


17/27

196 REVUE DES TUDES BYZANTINES4. John of Antioch.As head of the dissident party which supported Nestorius he does notfigure in the lists of signatories. However the Acts include a letter to theemperor signed by him12.5. Juvenal of Jerusalem.He figures second after Cyril in both lists of bishops present13.Memnon of Ephesus.He figures third in one list and fifth in the other14.

Council of Chalcedon151. Leo of Rome.Three delegates sign the definition in the name of Leo of Rome.2. Anatolius of Constantinople.His name figures next after those of the Roman delegates.3. No bishop for Alexandria.Dioscurus was, of course, on trial.4. Maximus of Antioch.His name figures next after that of Anatolius.5. Juvenal of Jerusalem.He had been among the dissident bishops at the Robber Synod of Ephesus.For this reason his name is only 221st in the list of signatories.

Second Council of ConstantinopleThe names are entirely obliterated.

12 . Ibid., I i 3, p. 26.13 Ibid., I i 2, p. 3 and p. 55.14 . Ibid.15 . Acta conciliorum cecumenicorum, edited by E. Schwartz, Berlin 1933, II i 2,p. 34 et seq. V. Laurent, Le nombre des Pres au concile de Chalcdoine, 451, dansBulletin de la section historique de Acadmie roumaine 26 , 1945, p. 33-46.


18/27

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS 197Third Council of Constantinople1 6

1. Honor us of Rome.Honorius was in fact condemned at this council, at which Agathon ofRome was represented by John bishop of Porto.

2. George (Ge..r..) of Constantinople.He figures in the list of those who signed the definition.3. Cyrus (Kiros) of Alexandria.Peter figures in the list of those who signed the definition. Cyrus (pat

riarch 630/1-643/4) was, like Honorius, condemned at this council. Theartist has evidently in each case confused the names in the list of hereticswith those in the list of bishops. This serves to emphasize that what interested him was the name of the patriarchal see and not that of the occupant.

4. ?Theophanes figures in the list of signatories as patriarch of Antioch.5. ?George signed the definition as delegate for the see of Jerusalem, vacant

at the time. Second Council of Nicaea1 71. Hadrian of Rome.In the Acts of the Council two delegates are noted as representing pope

Hadrian.2. Tarasius of Constantinople.Tarasius is included in the list of those who signed the definition.3. Politianus of Alexandria.According to the Acts John and Thomas represented the sees of Alexandria,ntioch and Jerusalem. Ignatius the Deacon, however, gives the nameof the patriarch of Alexandria as Politianus in his Life of Tarasius18.

16 . Mansi 11, 68 3 (heretics condemned) and 731 (signatories of the definition).17 . Mansi 13, 731, et seq.18 . Ignatius the Deacon, Life of Tarasius, in Acta societatis scientiarum Fennicae 17 ,1891, p. 404-5 (edited by I.A. Heikel) ; PG 98 , 1398-9.


19/27

198 REVUE DES TUDES BYZANTINES4. Theodoritus of Antioch.Ignatius the Deacon appears again to be the source for this name.5. Elias of Jerusalem.Ignatius the Deacon appears again to be the source for this name.Although one would naturally turn first to the Acts of a council toestablish nowadays what were the names of the bishops present, this doesnot seem to have been the case with the person responsible for compilingthe list of names used at Saint Sozomenus. For the first two councils inany case the Acts were not available. We find therefore that there has beenused for the first Council of Nicaea a model ultimately dependent on thelate list in which had been included names taken from hagiographicalsources, while Metrophanes seems to come from an independent chroniclesource. For the councils for which the Acts were available no distinctionhas been made between the presence or absence of a representative ofthe see of Rome, the pope is named each time. At the council of EphesusJohn of Antioch is on an equal footing with the other patriarchs, whilethe Acts have been supplemented for the second Council of Nicaea fromthe Life of Tarasius. Only in the case of patriarchs actually condemnedat a council Nestorius at Ephesus and Dioscurus at Chalcedon is aname actually omitted.Ironically the patriarchs who first figured in an inscription concerninga general council were those who had been condemned as heretics. The

inscriptions in the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem give the name ofthe emperor and of the principal heretics condemned, but only the numberof orthodox bishops present19. We have here the first state of an inscriptiononcerning a general council. Dr Stern has reconstituted the text andshown it to be the same as that used in a rsum of the general councilsplaced at the head of a collection of conciliar canons.There are, in fact, numerous short rsums of the first general councils,some of which must date back at least to the early sixth century. One of themost ancient must be that which figures in the account of the institution ofthe commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon20. Others occur in

19 . H. Stern, Les reprsentations des conciles dans l'glise de la Nativit Bethlem,deuxime partie : les inscriptions, in Byz 13, 1938, p. 415, et seq. Cf. my repertoire,number 36 : op. cit., p. 75-77. The manuscript in question is a XVth century codex(Bibliothque Nationale, fonds arabe 236) ; some of the textes are also to be found in aXHIth century manuscript, Vaticanus arab. 15 4 ; cf. Stern, p. 417-9.20. Mansi 8, 1059.


20/27

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS 199menologia, chronicles and professions of faith. On account of the fact thatit gives only the first four councils the rsum to be found in Parisinusgraecus 1788, written in 1440, may be a copy of an early text21. Anotherpoint in favour of its early date is the fact that it does not give any names ofbishops. For it would seem to be a characteristic of the first state thatthe number of bishops was given but no names.I do not propose to discuss the question of the different rsums and theirtransmission. Not only is it too vast a question but also it seems irrelevantto my present purpose. There is some evidence for the view that the authoror copyist of a rsum took his text from one source and his list of namesfrom another22. It seems likely, in fact, that the accounts of the councilswhich include names simply adapted and added to those which did not.This would perhaps explain why the order of names sometimes varies.Among the rsums of councils which include a list of names of bishopsthere are some which seem more erudite than others. I am thinking particularly of Germanus of Constantinople's treatise on heresies and synods,the Synodicon Vetus, Photius's letter to Michael of Bulgaria and Blastares'Syntagma22 . The list of names given by Blastares is, in fact, the same as

21. For these different accounts, cf. the chapter Inscriptions conciliaires in myIconographie des conciles, p. 151-153. For the many unpublished rsums, cf. the useful listdrawn up by F. Dvornik, Unpublished Anonymous Greek Treatises on the Councils (ThePhotian Schism, History and Legend, Cambridge 1948, Appendix III, p. 452-4). This listshould be supplemented by reference to that of V. BeneSevic (Monumenta vaticanaad ius canonicum pertinentia, in Studi Bizantini, II, 1927, p. 169, et seq.), who has interesting observations to make about the different calculations of the number of yearsbetween each council. Dvornik was perhaps a little pessimistic in supposing that onlyone of these treatises had been published (op. cit., p. 452). Cf. the treatise of Pseudo-Codinus (edited by Th. Preger, Scriptores originum constantinopolitanarum, II, Leipzig1907, p. 210-3) ; Vaticanus graecus 723, f. 99v-100 (edited by BeneSevic, art. cit., p. 169-70),Bruxellensis 11376, f. 170-3 (edited by F. Cumont, Anecdota Bruxellensia, Chroniquesbyzantines du MS 11376, in Recueil de travaux de la Facult de Philosophie de V Universitde Gand, fascicule 10 , 1894). Dvornik has since then himself published Parisinus graecus1712, f. 4-5v (Greek Uniats and the number of Oecumenical Councils, in Studi e Testi,232 [= Mlanges Eugne Tisseront, II, Orient Chrtien, i], p. 96-101). Parisinus graecus2403, f. 172M73, will be found in an appendix to this article.22. For example the rsum to be found in Parisinus graecus 1084, f. 199-205 (Xlthcentury), is, as Dvornik says (op. cit., p. 454), closely related to that published by Justel(C. Justel and G. Voell, Bibliotheca juris canonici veteris, Paris 1661, II, p. 1161 ;G.A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Syntagma, Athens 1852, I, p. 370), bu t a different list ofnames is given for the four first councils.23. Germanus of Constantinople, De haeresibus et synodis, edited by Rhalles andPotles (cf. note 22), p. 339 ; PG 98 , 39 . Germanus was patriarch 715-730. SynodiconVetus (= Synodicon of Pappus), edited by Justel and Voell (cf. note 22), II, p. 1166 ;


21/27

200 REVUE DES TUDES BYZANTINESthat given by Photius. In the plan I list only the occupants or delegatesof the five patriarchal sees (Table II).Saint Germanus incorporates the six first general councils in his accountof other heresies and the synods convoked to deal with them. He wasaware that legates represented the pope at Chalcedon and at the secondand third Councils of Constantinople. But at the third Council of Constantinople e gives only the representatives of that city and of Rome. This was,in fact, one possible formula24. He was also aware that John of Antiochwas a dissident bishop at Ephesus. Curiously he gives Celestine as popeat the first Council of Constantinople and Julius (337-352) at the firstCouncil of Nicaea. He also holds to the tradition of Gelasius Cyzicenuswith regard to Metrophanes.The Synodicon Vetus gives no pope at any council, indicating his representatives at the first and second Councils of Nicaea and at the second andthird of Constantinople. The author also indicates that John of Antiochwas a dissident bishop at Ephesus. He had not access to a list of the bishopsat the Council of Chalcedon, nor has he gone beyond the information givenby the Acts of the second Council of Nicaea with regard to the sees ofAlexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.Photius's list is, as one would have expected, the most erudite. Nevertheless he gives Menas (died 552) as well as Eutyches as patriarch of Constantinople at the time of the fifth council, while at the sixth council heomits the name of Theophanes of Antioch, who figures in the Acts. Howeverhis most curious error occurs at the fifth council. According to the Acts,Eustochius of Jerusalem was represented by Stephen, George and Damian.But according to Photius he was represented by Didymus and Evagrius.Since Photius well knew that these two Origenists were condemned atthat very council, this is an evident slip. Blastares, however, sedulously

edited J.A. Fabricius and G.C. Harles, Bibliotheca graeca, XII, Hamburg 1809, p.360-412. It is attributed to partisans of Ignatius and was therefore presumably compiledin the late IXth century (cf. Dvornik, op . cit., p. 57 ; H.G. Beck, Kirche un d theologischeLiteratur im byzantinischen Reich, Munich 1959, p. 598). There exists, apparently, abetter unpublished version in Sinaticus graecus 482 (1 117), f. 357V-365V (XIVth century).Cf. F. Dvornik, The Patriarch Photius in the Light of Recent Research, in Berichte zumXL internationalen-byzantinisten Kongress, Munich 1958, p. 34 , note 119. Photius, Letterto Prince Michael of Bulgaria, edited by Rhalles and Potles, I, p. 375 ; PG 102, 632.Matthew Blastares, Syntagma : PG 144, 953, dating from about 1335.24. For example the Synodicon of Justel (cf. note 22) ; Paris, gr . 1712, f. 4-5 v(secondand fifth councils) ; Paris, gr. 1336, f. 5-8v (first and second councils) ; Paris, suppl. gr. 78 ,f. 235v-236 (all the councils) ; Paris, gr. 1084, f. 199-205 (fifth and sixth councils).


22/27

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS 201copies it in his text25.I take as criteria of an erudite list of names the mention of delegatesif the occupant of a see was not present in person and an indication thatJohn of Ephesus, although present at the Council of Ephesus, was a dissidentbishop. The first of these characteristics may be noted in a seventeenthcentury manuscript, Paris, suppl. gr. 78, f. 235v-236. Only the representativesof Rome and Constantinople are given. In the case of Rome the pope'sdelegates are specified at the first, fourth, sixth and seventh councils. Bothcharacteristics are present in the tenth century codex Coislin 120, f. 28-31.Here it is specified that the popes were represented by delegates at all thefirst six councils except the first and fourth, where they are mentioned asif they had been present in person.

A popular list, on the other hand, will ignore these distinctions.Nilus of Rhodes gives such a list in his synodicon26 ; another examplecan be found in Paris, gr. 2403, a thirteenth century manuscript27. I givea list of the names in these two texts beside the more erudite one inCoislin 120 (Table III).So far as the patriarchs are concerned the synodicon of Nilus and Parisinusgraecus 2403 reach a near consensus. In fact they only differ in two particulars : Nilus gives Damian, who was actually a delegate, as patriarchof Jerusalem at the second Council of Constantinople, whereas Parisinusgraecus 2403 correctly specifies Eutyches28. Nilus also exceptionally has

25. Didymus and Evagrius are mentioned as heretics in the same text. For the correctnames of Theophanes of Antioch's representatives, cf. the Acts (Mansi 9, 387) : cf.. Chrysos, Die Bischofslisten des V. kumenischen Konzils, Bonn 1966.26. Nilus of Rhodes, De sanctis et cumenicis synodis enarratio synoptica, edited byJustel and Voell, II, p. 1 1 53 ; edited by Rhalles and Potles, I, p. 389. Nilus was Metropolitan of Rhodes, 1354-69 (cf. K. Krumbacher Geschichte des byzantinischen Literatur,Munich 1897, p. 560). Dvornik continues to maintain, without advancing any newargument in favour of his contention, that the prototype for this treatise is that in aXVth century manuscript in the British Museum, Arundel 528, attributed to the patriarchEuthymius (907-912) ; cf. art. cit. (note 21), p. 94 , note 5. It is regrettable that he makesno allusion there to the cogent arguments advanced by the late Pre Venance Grumel forattributing the treatise in Arundel 528 rather to Euthymius II, patriarch from 1410-1416 :contemporaneity of the manuscript and the patriarch, inference from the phrase that the patriarch was recently dead,anti-Latin tone of the Arundel treatise more consonant with circumstances in the XVththan the Xth century (Cf. Diskussionsbeitrge zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-kongress, Munich 1958, p. 54). If Pre Grumel was right, the treatise of Euthymiuswould depend from that of Nilus and not vice versa.27. Cf. Appendix. It will be noted that once, at the first council, a substitute is specifiedin this manuscript.28. Mansi 9, 387.


23/27

202 REVUE DES TUDES BYZANTINESreserves about Peter and mentions that he was the representative of Alexandria,ot the patriarch, at the third Council of Constantinople. One particular detail relates the two lists : they give the name of the patriarch ofAlexandria at the time of the second Council of Nicaea as Politianus asdoes Ignatius the Deacon, whereas Photius calls him Apollinarius.We may easily discern the ecclesiology underlying these lists. The namesgenerally have a symbolical rather than an empirical value. They stand forthe patriarcal sees rather than attest to the actual presence at the councilof the occupant. It is not the place here to dwell upon the possible nuancesof which the doctrine of the Pentarchy is capable29. For the compilersof these lists the nuances had little importance, with one exception : theyevidently held that, if one or more of the patriarchs is dissident, the othersmay condemn him and, without his concurrence, define or confirm thedoctrine of the Church.The presentation of the doctrine of the Pentarchy which conforms mostclosely to that which inspired these lists is perhaps that of Baanes at thefourth Council of Constantinople :

Posuit Deus ecclesiam suam in quinque patriarchiis et definivit in evangeliissuis ut nunquam aliquando penitus dcidant, eo quod capita ecclesiae sintetenim illud quod dicitur : et postea inferi non praevalebunt adversus earn.Hoc denuntiat, quando duo ceciderint, currunt ad tria ; cum tria ceciderintcurrunt ad duo...30If we turn back to the pictures, we can now determine more clearly therelationship between their inscriptions and the lists of names in treatiseson the councils. At Arbanasi only one name is given, generally that of thepatriarch of Constantinople. This choice corresponds to the list in Parisinusgraecus 1375, f. 9-10v, copied in 1540. At Harlu the pope and the patriarchof Constantinople are specified. This as we have seen is a fairly commonchoice. In one case {Parisinus suppl. gr. 78), we find the erudite form.But inscriptions served a popular rather than an erudite purpose. Consequently, if the list of names had not already been simplified, the artist

would have to undertake this himself. He could suppress the name of anabsent patriarch, substitute the name of his delegate, or give his name asif he had actually been present.Various other considerations might affect his choice of names, which

29. Cf. R. Vancourt, Patriarcats, DTC 11, 2269, et seq.30. Mansi 16, 140-1. Cf. F. Dvornik, Byzance et la primaut romaine, Paris 1964,p. 91 ; D. Stiernon, Constantinople IV, Paris 1967, p. 127-8.


24/27

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS 203are not always easy to determine. At the council of Ephesus the Tirnovoartist gives only the names of Cyril and Juvenal. They were, in fact, theonly two orthodox patriarchs present at the council. In Pseudo-Codinus'slist similarly only two patriarchs are given at this council. But at the councilof Chalcedon the Tirnovo artist includes Leo, who was absent, among thepatriarchs as well as Anastasius of Thessalonika, who, according to theActs, was represented by a delegate. Here, then, no coherent pattern isevident.At Decani only four patriarchs are given at the first two councils. Buthere, no doubt, an aesthetic consideration came into play. The artist usedfor the six councils represented in this church a schema to be found inmany pictures of councils which recommended itself for its symmetry.Two patriarchs are placed each side of the emperor. The artist thereforeomits, no doubt arbitrarily, the names of the patriarch of Jerusalem at thefirst and of that of Alexandria at the second council. At Ephesus he omitsthe heretic Nestorius and the dissident John, filling the gap with the nameof Memnon of Ephesus. His names here are therefore the same as thosegiven by Photius and Nilus. But for the next three councils there are difficulties. Not only are names introduced which do not occur in the Actsbut also there is no evident criterion for their choice.It therefore becomes all the more interesting that alone in the case ofSaint Sozomenus there should be a concordance between the names andthe iconographical schema, giving a coherent doctrinal sense to the frescoes.Whereas it was a fairly common practice to attribute a halo to the bishopseated in the first row of council fathers but not to those behind, nowhereelse does the inscription of the name upon the halo give a precise meaningto this practice. The occasional addition of other bishops traditionallyrenowned for their part in the council proceedings does not detract fromthe general formula. Using a popular list, where the patriarch's name isa symbol of his see rather than an attestation to his presence at the council,the Cypriot artist presents the general councils as a modality of the Pen-tarchy.The ecclesiological situation of Cyprus had always been delicate. Havingearly asserted its independence of Antioch, the Cypriot church neverthelessmade from time to time tentative overtures to Constantinople. At thetime when these frescoes were executed the island was a Venetian possessionand subject to Latin domination31. Both tradition, therefore, and the

31 . A. Palmieri, Chypre (Eglise de), DTC 11, 2424, et seq.


25/27

204 REVUE DES TUDES BYZANTINEScontemporary situation would have made the notion of the Pentarchyparticularly acceptable in Cyprus. Unfortunately, however, no Cypriotsynodicon has, so far as I know, been identified. But such a document together with the synodicon of Orthodoxy, as these frescoes are followedby a picture of the Restoration of Images would seem to be one proximate source of the artist's inspiration.

APPENDIXParisinus graecus 2403, f. 172M73. This brief treatise concerning theseven ecumenical councils is incongruously placed in a XHIth centurymanuscript consisting otherwise of medical and literary works. The text

was copied by Pre Jean Darrouzs. That the names of the patriarchs aresimply added after that of the emperor without any serious attempt tointegrate them into the sentence is perhaps further evidence in favour ofmy hypothesis that the tradition of the text and that of the names are tobe studied separately.Text

"j" ', , , ' , , ' , ' ', ', ' j"f , - , ' , , ' , ', ' ff , (f. 173), ' , ' ,' ', ' , ' ff , , ', , ' , ' ff eH , , ' , ' , ' ,' , , ' f


26/27

CH. WALTER : COUNCIL FATHERS AT SAINT SOZOMENUS 205J" , , ' ',

, ' , ' ff , , ' ', ', , ' ,' ' "J" , , , ,' , .Translation

The first council took place in Nicaea against Arius. There the HolySymbol was determined up to And in the Holy Spirit in the reign ofthe great Constantine, under Silvester pope of Rome, Alexander of Constantinople, Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria in the placeof this last the great Athanasius (and) Macarius of Jerusalem.The second council (took place) in Constantinople against Macedonius.It terminated the Holy Symbol of the consubstantial and unconfused Trinityin the reign of the great Theodosius, under Damasus pope of Rome, Gregorythe Theologian of Constantinople, Meletius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem,Timothy of Alexandria.The third (council took place) in Ephesus against Nestorius in the reignof Theodosius the Less, under Celestine pope of Rome, Cyril of Alexandria,John of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem32, Memnon of Ephesus.The fourth (council took place) against Dioscurus in the reign of Marcian,under Leo pope of Rome, Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus ofAntioch,Juvenal of Jerusalem.The fifth (council took place) in Constantinople against Origen, Evagriusand Didymus in the reign of Justinian the Great, under Vigilius pope ofRome, Domnus of Antioch, Eutyches of Jerusalem, Eutyches of Constantinople,pollinarius of Alexandria.The sixth (council took place) in Constantinople against the Monothe-lites in the reign of Constantine Pogonatus, under Agathon pope of Rome,32. At this council and the next the name of Juvenal appears in the Nominative insteadof the Genitive case.


27/27

206 REVUE DES TUDES BYZANTINESGeorge of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Theophanes of Antioch.The seventh (council took place) in Nicaea against the Iconoclastsin the reign of Constantine and Irene his mother, under Hadrian pope ofRome, Politian of Alexandria, Tarasius of Constantinople, Theodoritusof Antioch, Elias of Jerusalem.To those, therefore, who do not abide by these same holy and ecumenicalcouncils, at which was promulgated, confirmed and approved the HolySymbol of the lifegiving and consubstantial, the indivisible and unconfusedTrinity, but wish to add or subtract anything, let there be anathema.

Documents

Christopher Walter. The Names of the Council Fathers at Saint Sozomenus, Cyprus (planches). Revue des études byzantines, tome 28, 1970. pp. 189-206