Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 66(1-2), 37-61. doi: 10.2143/JECS.66.1.

3064556
© 2014 by Journal of Eastern Christian Studies. All rights reserved.

A TALE OF TWO SYNODS

THE ARCHIMANDRITE BARSUMAS AT EPHESUS IN 449

AND AT CHALCEDON IN 451

ANDREW PALMER*

The editio princeps of the Syriac Life of Barṣawmo (V. Bars.) and the appearance
of a multi-author commentary on that text in the series ‘The Transformation
of the Classical Heritage’ invite us to reassess the place of the hero, Barsu-
mas.1 The argument presented here is that the denunciation, at the Synod
of Chalcedon, of ‘the monk Barsumas’, is best understood as a diversionary
manoeuvre, executed in an attempt to prevent a petition from being heard;
that the presence of ‘the priest and archimandrite Barsumas’ at the Synod of
Ephesus, two years earlier, had nothing to do with the military intimidation
of which the opponents of Dioscorus immediately complained; and that the

* Andrew Palmer is a specialist of Syriac literature and has written extensively on the subject.
In this essay primary sources are referred to using abbreviations. These are:
ACC Acts of the Council of Chalcedon
ACE[1] Acts of the First Council of Ephesus
ACE[2a], ACE[2b] Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus, first and last Sessions
ACO Acta Conciliorum Œcumenicorum
CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium
Eccl. Hist. Ecclesiastical History
Ep. Epistula
ROC Revue de l’Orient Chrétien
V. Alex. Vita Alexandri
V. Bars. Vita Barsumae
V. Dan. Vita Danielis
V. Sab. Vita Sabae
V. Sym. Vita Symeonis
Full references can be found in the annex on p. 58-61.
1
 The Latin name, derived from the Greek Βαρσουμᾶς, will be used, except when quoting
Syriac texts; the Syriac ,# or     being variously transcribed as Bar Ṣōmā,
 ,
Barṣaumā, Barṣawmo etc. See Lucas Van Rompay, ‘Barṣawmo’, in The Gorgias Encyclope-
dic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, edited by Sebastian P. Brock et al. (Piscataway, NJ,
2011), p. 59.
38 ANDREW PALMER

bishops who denounced him at Chalcedon may in reality have feared his
political and moral influence, though they claimed he and his monks had
offered them physical violence at Ephesus, an accusation which had not been
made in 449.
In that year Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, was instructed by
the Emperor Theodosius II to have the Church, represented by a synod
of bishops, reinstate the archimandrite Eutyches. Troops were put at his
disposal to ensure that the synod complied with the Emperor’s will. Before
Dioscorus could reinstate Eutyches, he would have to remove a powerful
bishop: the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was this patriarch, Flavian,
who, together with Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum, had presided over the
deposition of Eutyches. These two men had the support of a number of
bishops who disliked the teaching of that archimandrite. The Emperor
invited a representative of the monks of the East to take his seat with the
bishops who were to be assembled at Ephesus. This representative was
Barsumas.
It has been argued that, seeing that Barsumas was ignorant of Greek, he
cannot have been summoned to Ephesus in order to take part in the delib-
erations of the synod and must therefore have been there to back up, with
the help of his monks, the soldiers who were the strong arm of Dioscorus.2
This reasoning is fallacious. Barsumas was assigned an interpreter.3 Thanks
to this interpreter he was able to make statements approving of the reinstate-
ment of Eutyches and the deposition of Flavian of Constantinople and Euse-
bius of Dorylaeum. Presumably the interpreter also made sure he understood
everything else that went on.
The belief that Barsumas must have been summoned in order to help
Dioscorus intimidate the supporters of Flavian is based on the claims made

2
 Timothy E. Gregory, Vox populi. Popular Opinion and Violence in the Religious Contro-
versies of the Fifth Century A.D. (Columbus, Ohio, 1979), p. 143. This argument conforms
with the dominant western tradition, which is hostile to Barsumas: Andrew N. Palmer,
‘The West-Syrian Monastic Founder Barṣawmo. A Historical Review of the Scholarly
Literature,’ in Orientalia Christiana. Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag,
eds. Peter Bruns and Heinz O. Luthe. Eichstätter Beiträge zum Christlichen Orient, 3
(Wiesbaden, 2013), pp. 399-413.
3
 At Chalcedon he was not assigned an official interpreter; his Syriac intervention was
translated by one of his own men.
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 39

by these bishops at Chalcedon. But these claims are suspect, because they
were the bishops’ excuse for supporting, at Chalcedon, theological formulas
which they had execrated at Ephesus. Besides, the claims had not been made
immediately after the synod of 449. On the basis of reports by Flavian,
Eusebius and his own deacon Hilarus, Pope Leo formed the impression that
the synod held at Ephesus in 449 was a latrocinium, ‘a meeting dominated
by ruffians’; but these reports, of which we have copies, complain of soldiers,
not of monks. If the troops at Ephesus had needed auxiliaries, these could
have been recruited locally; there was no need to mobilize monks, however
zealous, from distant Samosata.
Barsumas’ role at Ephesus and Chalcedon needs to be reassessed. To this
end, the sources must be carefully and freshly interpreted in context. These
sources are: 1) the summons of May 449, by which the Emperor called
Barsumas to the synod; 2) the proceedings of the synod itself, which are
partly lost, partly preserved in the minutes of Chalcedon, and partly in Syriac
translations of excerpts; 3) the proceedings of Chalcedon in 451.
Next, it needs to be shown that Barsumas was a man of considerable
political and moral influence in the east. Two hagiographical sources from
the second half of the fifth century, both now being edited for the first time,
attest this influence, even when allowance is made for the hyperbole inherent
in the genre: 4) The Life of Barsumas (V. Bars.), which may have been writ-
ten as early as 456; and 5) the Life of Daniel of Aghlosh (V. Dan.), which
must have been written after 486. The reasons given by the V. Bars. for this
influence suggest the hypothesis that the division between rich and poor
may, after all, have been a cause of ecclesiastical schism in the mid-fifth
century.4

4
 Arthur H.M. Jones, ‘Were Ancient Heresies National or Social Movements in Dis-
guise?’, Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 10 (1959), pp. 280-298, came to the conclusion
that ancient heresies were neither social, nor national movements in disguise. The reason-
ing in that article needs to be subjected to further scrutiny.
40 ANDREW PALMER

1. THEODOSIUS II, EPISTLE TO THE ARCHIMANDRITE BARSUMAS, MAY 449

A ‘sacred epistle’ (Greek: θεῖον γράμμα, Latin: sacra) dictated by the Emperor
Theodosius II on 14 May 449 at Alexandrianae in Thrace, is addressed to
the archimandrite (Greek: ἀρχιμανδρίτηι)5 Barsumas.6

‘It will not have escaped your Grace in what a struggle the pious and holy archi-
mandrites in the region of the East are engaged, fighting as they do on behalf of
the Orthodox Faith and turning their faces away from the bishops of certain
cities in the Orient, who are sick with the impious doctrine of Nestorius, while
the Orthodox congregations stand shoulder to shoulder with the same pious
archimandrites in the common struggle (τῶν ὀρθοδόξων λαῶν συναγωνιζομένων
τοῖς αὐτοῖς θεοσεβεστάτοις ἀρχιμανδρίταις). So seeing that your Holiness has
also endured, on behalf of the Orthodox Faith, the very considerable toil of pay-
ing a visit to our Piety, we consider it appropriate that your Sanctity, having a
good reputation for purity of life and Orthodox Faith, come to the city of the
Ephesians and take your seat with the holy Synod which has been appointed to
assemble there, as representative of all the pious archimandrites in the East, and
ordain, together with the other holy Fathers and bishops, those things which are

5
 This title (lit. ‘head of a sheepfold’) is translated into Syriac as ‘head of a monastery’;
but it was also applied, in the fifth and sixth centuries, to the representatives of all the
monks in a great city or province. Barsumas was probably invited to the Synod in the
latter capacity. After his death the Emperor Leo I, instead of holding another Synod,
consulted all those whom he would have invited to such a Synod; these included Symeon,
Baradatus and Jacob, the leading ascetics of Syria I, Syria II and Euphratesia, respectively
(Evagrius, Eccl. Hist., 2.9). Barsumas may have been a predecessor of Jacob in this position.
In Constantinople, from 431 at the latest, there was an ‘archimandrite’, later called
‘Exarch’ (AD 539), of all the monasteries (ACE[1] 1.1.2: 6610f. [No. 67]; see ACE[1]
1.1.8: 33, s.v. Dalmatios for further refs; Justinian, Nov. 133.4). On the use of the Greek
word ‘archimandrite’ to refer to such monastic ‘generals’, see John Binns, Ascetics and
Ambassadors of Christ: the Monasteries of Palestine, 314-631 (Oxford, 1994), pp. 175-178;
Joseph Patrich, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism: a Comparative Study in Eastern
Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 32 (Washington,
1995), pp. 287-299; Daniel Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks. Spiritual Authority and the
Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage,
33 (Berkeley, 2002), pp. 240-241. Dan Caner’s assistance with this footnote is gratefully
acknowledged by the author.
6
 The translation is new; the first sentence has been collated with the Syriac translation
of an almost identical text at the beginning of the same Emperor’s Ep. ad Jacobum.
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 41

pleasing to God’. (Theodosius II, Ep. ad Barsumam, omitting address and date
– translated by Andrew Palmer.)

In addition to this epistle, the Emperor addresses others to Dioscorus of

Alexandria and to Juvenal of Jerusalem (Theodosius II, Ep. ad Dioscorum
Juvenalemque; cf. ACC I 108f.), recommending that ‘the priest and archi-
mandrite’ (ACE[2a] 405) Barsumas be admitted to the Synod as repre-
sentative of all the archimandrites in the East (τὸν τόπον ἐπέχοντα πάντων
τῶν ἐν τῆι Ἀνατολῆι θεοσεβεστάτων ἀρχιμανδριτῶν – the very words used
in the Ep. ad Barsumam). A month later he invites certain archimandrites,
probably of a rank inferior to that of Barsumas, also (Theodosius II, Ep.
ad Jacobum). But these are only admitted to the session at which Hībo
(Greek: Ibas), the metropolitan of Edessa in Osrhoene († 457), is deposed
(ACE[2b] 1210-18).

2. ACTS OF THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS, AUGUST 449

The Emperor Theodosius had appointed Dioscorus president of the Synod

and given him Juvenal of Jerusalem and Thalassius of Caesarea in Cap-
padocia as assistants (Theodosius II, Ep. ad Dioscorum). He had made
the Count Elpidius responsible for ‘the accomplishment of what is com-
manded’ and ordered certain judges to assist him in this, assigning to
him for this purpose ‘the soldiers quartered there,’ i.e., at Ephesus (Theo-
dosius II, Ep. ad Elpidium, 409). In the Acts of the Synod Juvenal asks that
the Ep. ad Dioscorum Juvenalemque be read out and minuted7 and when
this has been done, admits Barsumas formally to the Synod.8 The ‘priest
and archimandrite’ Barsumas is duly registered as a participant and speaks
in Syriac, through a certain Eusebius, who interprets in Greek.9 He claims
to speak only ‘as a child obeying his parents’ and follows all others in
agreeing to the reinstatement of Eutyches and the deposition of Flavian

7
 ACC I 86 = ACO 2.1.1: 8322f. (Greek); 2.3.1: 591 (Latin); cf. ACE[2a] 405.
8
 ACC I 108, 109 = ACO 2.1.1: 858-12 (Greek); 2.3.1: 6022-6 (Latin).
9
 ACC I 78.131 and 884.112/3 = ACO 2.1.1: 8133 and 1864 (Greek); 2.3.1: 5711 and 1926
(Latin); ACE[2b] 822 (Syriac).
42 ANDREW PALMER

and Eusebius.10 He is the only monk to set his signature to the decisions
of the Synod.11
The decisions of this Synod were in line with the policy of Theodosius’
latter years (441-450), when he was allegedly guided in all things by his
Grand Chamberlain (cubicularius), the eunuch Chrysaphius. Considering
that this eunuch was a godson of the deposed archimandrite of all the mon-
asteries in Constantinople, Eutyches,12 whom the Synod of 449 was sum-
moned to reinstate, one might be inclined to see Barsumas as a person on
whom Chrysaphius could rely for support: a member, or at least an instru-
ment, of the party of Eutyches. But when Chrysaphius was executed by a
new emperor with a different policy, Barsumas, unlike Juvenal of Jerusalem
and many others, resisted pressure to conform, even though this meant being
deposed and harassed. Evidently his loyalty was rooted in something more
constant than the way the political wind was blowing.
As Honigmann writes, it was only after the death of Theodosius II that
the ‘loyal believers’ who attended the Synod of Ephesus were treated as
‘bands of murderers’.13 In particular, the accusation that Dioscorus (or, accord-
ing to Diogenes of Cyzicus, Barsumas) ‘killed’ Flavian of Constantinople, was
only formulated in 451.14 All such accusations will therefore be considered

10
 ACC I 884.112/3 and 1066/9 = ACO 2.1.1: 1865-8 and 19437f. (Greek); 2.3.1: 1927-9
and 25215-19 (the Latin in the latter case is fuller). ACE[2a], the unpublished Syriac Acts
of the first session of the Second Council of Ephesus (cf. Fergus Millar, ‘The Evolution of
the Syrian Orthodox Church in the Pre-Islamic Period: from Greek to Syriac?’, Journal of
Early Christian Studies, 21.1 (2013), pp. 43-92, here 74-75), allude briefly to Barsumas’
having spoken, agreeing with all the bishops, in favour of the reinstatement of Eutyches and
the deposition of Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylaeum (Samuel G. Perry,
N50; B( E N4 " [sūnhados d-tartēn d-etkanšat b-efesos] The Second
Synod of Ephesus, together with Certain Extracts Relating to It, from Syriac MSS. Preserved
in the British Museum (Dartford, 1881), p. 428, 431). Fergus Millar’s help with this foot-
note is gladly acknowledged by the author.
11
 ACC I 1070.133 = ACO 2.1.1: 2.3.1: 2581 (only in the Latin).
12
 Liberatus, Breviarium 11: 114; cf. Whitby’s notes, especially n. 81, on p. 26f. of his
translation of Evagrius, Eccl. Hist.
13
 Ernest Honigmann, Le couvent de Barṣaumā et le patriarcat jacobite d’Antioche et de Syrie,
CSCO 146. Subsidia, 7 (Louvain, 1954), p. 8.
14
 Otto Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt. Volume 6 (Stuttgart, 1920),
p. 267; Eduard Schwartz, ‘Review of V. Grumel and E. Garland, Le Patriarcat Byzantin.
Recherches de diplomatique, d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift,
34 (1934), pp. 130-142, here 141-142; Honigmann, Couvent, p. 9. It may be relevant, as
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 43

with the evidence for the Synod of Chalcedon, not as primary evidence for
what happened in 449.
Neither Flavian’s nor Eusebius of Dorylaeum’s Appeal to Leo, nor Hilarus’
Ep. ad Pulcheriam, nor Leo’s Ep. ad Flavianum, nor even Nestorius’ Book of
Heraclides says anything about monks in its description of Flavian’s arrest at
Ephesus by the soldiers at the command of the Counts. Prosper of Aquitaine
(Epitoma Chronicon, p. 480, a. 448, 135818f.) says many bishops were compelled
to agree ‘by force and by the fear of the Counts, or rather the soldiers’ (vi et
metu comitum vel militum); but he, too, is silent about monks. All these sources
are contemporary, favourable to Flavian, and hostile to Dioscorus and Barsumas.

3. ACTS OF THE SYNOD OF CHALCEDON, OCTOBER 451

Barsumas received no imperial summons to the Synod of Chalcedon. On 17

October 451 (as we read in the Acts) he makes his entrance with a large
number of monks led by the eunuch Calopodius, who obtains permission
for their petition to be read out.15 This petition opens with the names of
eighteen archimandrites, beginning with Carosus and Dorotheus.16 Barsu-
mas is no longer an archimandrite; but the fact that he answers the bishops
directly after Carosus and Dorotheus shows that his personal authority was
greater than that of sixteen of their colleagues and of all the other monks.
Tactlessly contrasting the situation under the new emperor with the ‘peace-
ful’ reign of his ‘great and blessed’ predecessor, the petition, which claims
wide support among the clergy and the laity, begins:

‘The Roman Empire has always filled the world with peace, but especially under
Theodosius, the great and blessed (Emperor), by engaging in a struggle on behalf
of the Orthodox Faith. But because each man now seeks his own advantage, no
longer caring for his neighbour, as Holy Scripture admonishes, everything has been
dissolved, the Faith of the Apostles has been disturbed, and the side of our enemies,

Schwartz (p. 141) points out, in connection with Flavian, that ‘murder’ is commonly used
in the ACC as ‘hyperbolic jargon’ for ‘depose’. Cf. Henry Chadwick, ‘The Exile and Death
of Flavian of Constantinople. A Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon’, Journal of Theo-
logical Studies, n.s. 6.1 (1955), pp. 17-34, here 22-23.
15
 ACC IV 66 = ACO 2.1.2: 115 [311]15-20 (Greek); 2.3.2: 120 [379]15-19 (Latin).
16
 ACC IV 76 = ACO 2.1.2: 11540f.-1161-24 (Greek); 2.3.2: 121 [380]8-122 [381]7 (Latin).
44 ANDREW PALMER

the Jews and the pagans, is established in peace, even if this is the worst possible
thing, whereas our side has become involved in an internal war without truce’.
(ACO 2.1.2: 1163-8 [Greek]; 2.3.2: 12112-18 [Latin]; translated by Andrew Palmer)

The petitioners appeal to the Christian Emperor to ‘do the right thing’ by
supporting ‘the Faith’ and not to allow Orthodoxy to be divided by a schism.
They support his intention to resolve matters by an General, or Œcumenical
Synod; but they bring to his attention certain ‘disturbances’, certain ‘forced
signatures’, certain instances of ‘persecution’ by members of the clergy who
have been acting in his name, though surely without his knowledge. The
actually nub of their vague and general preliminary demands seems to lie in
the following sentence.

‘We ask your Divinity not to let anyone be expelled either from a monastery, or
from a church, or from a martyr’s basilica, until the Holy Synod has passed
upright judgement, lest these things, which are due to the unruly behaviour of
others, be ascribed to your Piety’. (ACO 2.1.2: 11617-19 [Greek]; 2.3.2: 12126-
1222 [Latin]; translated by Andrew Palmer)

The petition ends with conditional flattery, implying that the petitioners
may cease to pray for the Emperors – that is, expunge their names from the
Book of Life – should their demands not be met. When viewed in the light
of this thinly veiled insolence, the plea to support the petitioners’ version of
the Faith and not to allow a schism to occur is really an ultimatum.
At this point, no doubt by arrangement, Diogenes of Cyzicus (a signatory,
nota bene, to the Second Synod of Ephesus) accuses Barsumas of murder and
demands his expulsion.17 The accusation, after it has had its effect, is cun-
ningly qualified. Now he merely says Barsumas urged others to murder Flavian
at Ephesus.18 Hereupon ‘all the bishops’ shout: ‘(At that time,) Barsumas
led astray (ἠφάνισεν, aorist)19 the whole of Syria. (Now) he has brought

17
 Diogenes is a ‘very unreliable witness’, in the words of Geoffrey E. M. De Sainte Croix,
Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy, edited by Michael Whitby and Joseph
Streeter (London, 2006), p. 313.
18
 ACC IV 77 = ACO 2.1.2: 11626-8 (Greek); 2.3.2: 1228-10 (Latin).
19
 For this sense of the word, see Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford,
1961), p. 273, s.v. ἀφανίζω, 2.
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 45

(ἐπήγαγεν, perfect) a thousand monks against us.’20 Carosus and Dorotheus

ask for their libellus to be read, upon which the bishops shout: ‘Throw out
the murderer Barsumas! (Send) the murderer to the lions (lit. ‘to the stadium’)!
etc.’21
This is the only place where Barsumas is accused of murder. Some sources,
mainly Greek, following the accusations made at the Council of Chalcedon
(ACC I 54, 257), claim Dioscorus was responsible for Flavian’s death;22 but
those scholars who have looked into the matter with the greatest care23 give
the greater weight to a few independent contemporary sources and to the
sixth-century Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes, the Count Marcellinus, all of
which attest to Flavian’s death on his way into exile.24 Nestorius, indeed,
who, in his place of exile, seems to have received a detailed account of the
events from a reliable source, blames the Emperor for not giving Flavian time
to recover from the violence he suffered at the hands of the soldiers in Ephesus.
It was mid-winter (probably February) when he was forced by a murderous
guard to walk over mountains covered in snow to Hypaepae in Lydia.
He was too weak to complete the journey to his place of exile and died on
the fourth day.

20
 ACC IV 78 = ACO 2.1.2: 11629f. (Greek); 2.3.2: 12211f. (Latin). Only the Greek dis-
tinguishes between the historic past of the first verb and the present perfect of the second.
21
 ACC IV 80f. = ACO 2.1.2: 11636-9 (Greek); 2.3.2: 12218-21 (Latin).
22
 Leo, Ep. ad Theodoretum (Dioscorus was ultimately responsible for Flavian’s death –
some scholars doubt the authenticity of this letter); Liberatus, Breviarium 12 (Flavian died
from violence inflicted at Ephesus); Evagrius, Eccl. Hist. 2.2 (according to Eusebius of
Dorylaeum, Dioscorus himself participated in this violence); V. Sab. 56 (Dioscorus killed
Flavian); Theophanes 1.100 and Zonaras 13.23, 43 C, 10717-1084 (Flavian died at Ephe-
sus, three days after Dioscorus had jumped on his chest). These authorities were preferred
by Caesar Baronius in his Martyrologium Romanum ad novam kalendarii rationem et eccle-
siasticae historiae veritatem restitutum. Gregorii XIII. Pontificis Maximi iussu editum. Acces-
serunt notationes atque tractatus de Martyrologio Romano (Rome, 1586; Reprint: Vatican,
2005; German translation: Regensburg, 1935), p. 90 [d], who thus vindicates Flavian as
a ‘martyr’, while preserving Pulcheria’s reputation for sanctity; for if Nestorius and the
others tell the truth, she was responsible for Flavian’s death. She needed her own man to
preside over the Synod of Chalcedon and the Pope refused to recognise Anatolius (who
would be Pulcheria’s man) as bishop of Constantinople, so long as Flavian lived.
23
 Schwartz, ‘Review’, pp. 141-142; Chadwick, ‘Exile and Death’, pp. 20-21.
24
 Nestorius’ Book of Heraclides, 49413-49513 (originally in Greek); Prosper of Aquitaine,
Epitoma Chronicon [p. 481, a. 448, 135831f.]; Gesta de nomine Acaci 99 (before 490; variously
dated to c. 486 and to 488), 44315; Marcellinus Comes, Chron. 8314-17 a. 449.
46 ANDREW PALMER

Having shown that the allegation of murder made against Barsumas by

Diogenes of Cyzicus and the other bishops at Chalcedon was groundless, we
resume here our commentary on that Synod.
The diversion caused by Diogenes’ intervention is ignored by the distin-
guished lay commissioners the Emperor has appointed to govern the Synod.
Instead, the libellus addressed by the monks to the Synod is read. The sec-
retary only gets as far as the monks’ request that Bishop Dioscorus and his
bishops be readmitted, for at that point the bishops interrupt him, shouting:
‘Christ has deposed Dioscorus! Throw these (monks) out! Stop the harass-
ment (Greek: hybris) of the Synod! etc.’ The archimandrites, ironical, retort:
‘Stop the harassment of the monasteries!’ The bishops shout, ‘This petition
cannot be heard: they have dared to call a deposed bishop by his former title
in defiance of the whole Synod.’25
Overruling the bishops, the commissioners order the rest of the libellus to
be read out. Dioscorus ought to be readmitted, the petition continues, in
order to ensure, in accordance with what was decided at Ephesus in 431,
that nothing be added to the Creed of Nicaea. The bishops demand that the
monks declare whether they will uphold the teaching of the present Synod,
citing against any who might refuse to do so the canon on insubordination.
One after another, the archimandrites Carosus and Dorotheus and ‘the most
pious monks’ Barsumas and Elpidius, followed by others unnamed, declare
their loyalty to the Creed of Nicaea and their refusal to accept any other
Faith.26 Barsumas’s statement is made in Syriac and interpreted by one of
his own followers.

‘My Creed, likewise, is that of the 318 [Fathers of the Synod in Nicaea] and I
was likewise baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as
the Lord taught the Apostles’. (ACC IV 95 = ACO 2.1.2: 11831-3; 2.3.2: 1259f.;
translated by Andrew Palmer)

The unstated point is that the Creed which the bishops are being forced to
adopt at Chalcedon is incompatible with this tradition.27 At the conclusion

25
 ACC IV 82-86 = ACO 2.1.2: 1171-20 (Greek); 2.3.2: 12224-12314 (Latin).
26
 ACC IV 87-97 = ACO 2.1.2: 11721-11836 (Greek); 2.3.2: 12315-12514 (Latin).
27
 There is ‘explicit evidence that Emperor Marcian, even before [...] the expression of any
episcopal consensus, had every intention of crushing the monophysites’ (De Ste. Croix,
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 47

of the Synod’s deliberations, Barsumas and his associates are given until
15 November to acquiesce in its decisions concerning the Faith, or else be
deposed and excommunicated.28 There is no record of the sequel, except in
the Syriac Vita Barsumae.
Even before this ultimatum Barsumas has been present as a mere monk
(μοναχός, μονάζων). How is it, then, that he has ‘brought a thousand monks’
against the Synod? It seems that he still has an impressive following in the
area where Syriac is spoken.
There is wisdom in Michael Whitby’s remark that ‘the violence [at Ephesus
in 449] may have been exaggerated when many of the bishops reassembled
at Chalcedon in 451 and had to explain why they had subscribed to decisions
that were now contrary to imperial policy’.29 On 15 October, for example,
addressing Dioscorus before the latter’s deposition, Basil of Seleucia (in Isau-
ria) claims to have signed at Ephesus under compulsion.

‘You put us under enormous pressure then, not only by the words you chose,
but also by means external to yourself; for armed soldiers ran into the Church;
and Barsumas and his monks were standing there, together with attendants of
the sick – and a great mob besides’. (ACC I 851 = ACO 2.1.1: 17925-8 [Greek];
2.3.1: 16914-17 [Latin]; translated by Andrew Palmer)30

By associating Barsumas with a mob Basil of Seleucia meant to suggest that

he was only there to provide Dioscorus with additional muscle. Attendants
of the sick (parabalani), according to Pharr, ‘tended to espouse the cause of the
poor and the oppressed’ and so were regarded – evidently by the wealthy –

Persecution, p. 279). This evidence is a letter, dated 22 September 451, from Marcian to
the Synod (Marcian, Ep. ad Synodum).
28
 ACC XVII 18.11 = ACO 2.1.3: 10113-28 (Greek; no Latin version is extant).
29
 Evagrius, Eccl. Hist. I 10, p. 29 of the English translation, n. 100; cf. De Ste. Croix,
Persecution, p. 313.
30
 The claim of the eastern bishops at Chalcedon (as translated by De Ste. Croix, Persecu-
tion, p. 312) was ‘Soldiers with clubs and swords stood by, and we took fright at the
clubs and swords. We were intimidated into signing. Where there are soldiers and clubs,
what kind of Council is it? That is why he [Dioscorus] accepted soldiers.’ ACC I 54 =
ACO 2.1.1: 7512-14 (Greek); 2.3.1: 507-9 (Latin). Liberatus of Carthage (Breviarium 12 =
ACO 2.5: 117f.), writing a century afterwards, cunningly merges this with the passage
quoted above to create the impression that Barsumas and his monks were also armed with
clubs (‘soldiers and monks with swords and clubs’).
48 ANDREW PALMER

‘as a potential source of sedition’.31 From another perspective, perhaps, the

monks, the male nurses and the so-called ‘mob’ constituted a show of strength
and solidarity on the part of the people of Syria and Egypt, who wanted to
see a victory for the one-nature doctrine with which they identified.
It seems, though, that this same bishop, Basil of Seleucia, who now treated
this monophysite demonstration as sedition, had always preached in his own
city against the doctrine of two natures in the Incarnate Christ.32 Certainly,
he took an energetic part in the proceedings at Ephesus in 449, anathema-
tizing anyone who maintained this teaching (ACE[2a] 420f., 424f., 428).
At Chalcedon, therefore, where he was obliged to retract his opposition to
dyophysitism on pain of losing his see, he wooed his audience by painting
his participation in the Second Synod of Ephesus as involuntary, alleging
that it was due only to his fear of the potential violence of the oppressed and
their allies, amongst whom Barsumas was prominent. This was a fear his pow-
erful hearers must have shared. As Geoffrey de Ste. Croix writes: ‘The ben-
efits to be gained at Chalcedon from allegations of intimidation at Second
Ephesus mean that these should be investigated critically rather than accepted
as self-evidently true, which is the usual verdict.’33

31
 For this reason they were forbidden by a law of 416 (Codex Theosodianus 16.2.42 –
Pharr’s note is attached to his translation of this law) ‘to attend any public spectacle
whatever or to enter the meeting place of a municipal council or a court-room’. Public
health care was the responsibility of the Church and each bishop employed up to 600
nurses, designated as parabalani (Codex Theosodianus 16.2.43). Timothy E. Gregory, Art.
‘Parabalani.’ The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium, edited by Alexander P. Kazhdan and
Alice-Mary Talbot (Oxford, 1991), p. 1582, adds that these male nurses ‘were occasionally
used by bishops in violent encounters with their opponents’. Caner (Wandering, p. 273
n. 148) compares them with the pallbearers used, with the permission of bishop Theodo-
tus of Antioch, to give Alexander Akoimêtos and his monks a beating and drive them out
of the city (V. Alex. § 40f.).
32
 John Rufus, Proofs, 22f., 54f. [454f.], quoting Stephen, archimandrite of the monastery
of Tāgūn, at Seleucia, who was surprised when Basil returned from Chalcedon having
supported this doctrine there.
33
 De Ste. Croix, Persecution, p. 311; see also ibid., p. 313: ‘At one point the commis-
sioners responded rather sharply, “Yet you declared earlier that you were forced by violence
and compulsion to sign the deposition of Flavian, of sacred memory, on a blank sheet”.
The implication was that the bishops would not be acknowledging a sin if they had really
been intimidated.’ The passage referred to is ACC I 182 = ACO 2.1.1: 9415-17 (Greek);
2.3.1: 7110-12 (Latin.)
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 49

4. THE SYRIAC LIFE OF BARSAWMO (V. BARS.)

˙
The chronology of Barsumas’ life is summed up in Table 1.34

Table 1. Chronology of Barsumas’ life, with references to chapter and

section of the V. Bars. and to other sources.

c. 385 Birth A woman called Sakhiya gives birth to a son in Beth ˁAwton,
a village near Samosata (§ 3.1)
c. 395 Monastic He is abducted by a vagrant ascetic called Abraham, after
initiation running away from his mother and stepfather during a visit
to the annual fair at Samosata (§ 3)
400 1st journey to After his pilgrimage to J’lem he passes two winters in a
J(erusa)lem she-bear’s den (§§ 4-6); then the fifty-four years of standing
and abstinence begin, only to end with his death (§§ 7, 10)
402 Commitment to He begins to stay on his feet day and night, never even sit-
harsh asceticism ting down, and practises abstinence from bread, wine, oil,
water and ‘all that is sown with the plough’ (§§ 7, 10)
c. 410 Journey ‘from the Source: V. Dan. Not recorded in the V. Bars., except per-
West to the East’ haps as a reminiscence of a journey to Persia, seeking death
(§ 110.16; § 145.3).
c. 412 Ordination as He and Zachariah/Zuṭo are ordained deacons [and priests]
deacon [& priest] by Gemellinus of Perrha (§ 12), to whom Rabbula (412-36)
addressed a letter about hypocritical ascetics in that diocese
c. 425 Elected ‘Head of At some date between the 2nd and 3rd pilgrimages he is given
the Mourners’ the title of ‘Head of the Mourners in the Northern Massif’,
probably after an election (§ 54, cf. § 166).
c. 433? Melitene journey He visits Acacius, bishop of Melitene (§ 60), a speaker at the
First Synod of Ephesus in 431 (ACE[1])
438 3rd J’lem journey His 3rd pilgrimage to J’lem coincides with the Empress
Eudocia’s 1st pilgrimage (§ 83)
442? Cyrrhus journey On his way to J’lem for the 4th time he visits Jacob [of Kafro
Rḥīmo] in Cyrrhestica (§ 90)

34
 The editio princeps by Andrew Palmer is forthcoming in the series of ‘Eastern Christian
Texts’, published by Brigham Young University Press, Provo UT, USA. There is a summary,
including many excerpts in Syriac and in translation: François Nau, ‘Résumé de mono-
graphies syriaques [Parts One and Two]’, ROC, 18 (1913), pp. 270-276 [I Barṣauma 1];
379-389 [I Barṣauma 2]; ‘Résumé de monographies syriaques [Parts Three and Four]’,
ROC, 19 (1914), pp. 113-134 [I Barṣauma 3]; 278-289 [I Barṣauma 4].
50 ANDREW PALMER

442? 4th J’lem journey On his 4th pilgrimage he frustrates the pro-Jewish policy of
the Empress Eudocia (§ 93-6)
443? 1st journey to He sees Theodosius II (402-50) about Zachariah, bp. of
Constantinople Samosata, who has been stoned to death by Roman soldiers,
allegedly bribed by his enemies (§ 103; cf. Honigmann
1954: 30)
449 Ephesus journey He is summoned to take part in the Second Synod of Ephe-
sus (§ 107; ACC; ACE[2b])
449 Antioch journey He attends, probably as its president, the Synod which elects
[Maximus] as successor to Domnus of Antioch (§ 107)
450 At Antioch He curses General [Zeno], who dies – but not immediately,
for he is attested as Patrikios in 451 (§ 109; cf. Martindale
1980: 1199f., Zeno 6; ACC XIX 7 = ACO 2.1.3: 105 [464]6f.)
450 2nd journey to Falsely accused of hypocrisy, luxurious living and amassing
Constantinople gold, he proves his innocence to the Emperor Theodosius II
(§§ 111f.)
450 Change of Theodosius II dies, and Pulcheria, having chosen Marcian
imperial politics as his successor, replaces her brother’s Church politics with
her own, which is unacceptable to Barsumas (§§ 113f.)
450-1 Stripped of his At Chalcedon Barsumas is referred to as ‘the very pious monk’
rank and title (ACC), which may mean he has been stripped of the titles
‘priest and archimandrite’ (viz ‘Head of the Mourners’?)
451 Supports petition Petition to the Emperor to annul the expulsion from the
at Chalcedon monasteries of opponents of Leo’s Tome, reinstate Dioscorus
& rescind innovations as to Faith (ACC, see above; cf. § 116)
452 3rd journey to He is arrested in ‘the city of Tenedos’ by troops under the
Constantinople command of the Count of the Straits (Dardanelles?), then tried
inconclusively and detained at Constantinople (§§ 121-6)
452-3 Stay at He is detained under military guard at Nicomedia through-
Nicomedia out the winter months (§ 127)
453 Confined to his The Empress Pulcheria dies while Barsumas is on his way
‘home district’? from Nicomedia to the Northern Massif, where he is probably
confined to his home district by imperial decree (§ 128, 131)
453-5 Under attack The Chalcedonian bishops attempt first to isolate, then to
kill him (§§ 133-50)
c. 455 ‘Teacher of the The bishops address him cunningly as ‘Teacher of the
Mourners’ Mourners’ (§ 143), no longer as their ‘Head’, a title of
which, presumably, as an opponent of Chalcedon, he has
been stripped
1-2-456 Death His death forestalls an expedition of the Roman army
against him (§ 152-7)
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 51

As usual with hagiographical compositions, the V. Bars. has a tendency to

exaggerate. For example, it claims that ‘the heroic Barṣawmo gave the orders
for everything that was done’ [at Ephesus in 449] (§ 107.2). The extant
minutes of the Synod show that Barsumas’ role in it was a more modest one.
Barsumas is also supposed to have ‘presided over’ the Synod of Antioch
which elected Maximus as the successor of Domnus of Antioch after the
latter’s deposition at Second Ephesus (V. Bars., § 107). This, though, is
more likely to be true, since Maximus went on to become a Chalcedonian.
The hagiographer, whom a second colophon identifies as the priest Samuel,
a disciple of Barsumas, suppresses the name of the turncoat Maximus, while
retaining the potentially embarrassing information that Barsumas played a
leading role in electing him. His only motive for mentioning Barsumas’
participation in this election was the honour which was done to him in making
him its president.
While we must allow for the exaggeration of Barsumas’ importance, there
may be historical value in the portrayal of Barsumas as the people’s champion
against a corrupt élite (V. Bars., § 63; cf. V. Bars., § 61f.). The solidarity of
the people with the monks in their theological struggle against ‘Nestorianism’
in high places is likely to have been due to the gratitude of the people for the
monks’ solidarity with them. What is meant by this can be illustrated from an
event at Edessa a month before the Emperor wrote to Barsumas. On 14 April
449 a mass of artisans and ordinary citizens asked the governor of Edessa to
report to the highest authorities their dissatisfaction with their bishop.

‘His relations have received Church property. The Church’s property should be
returned to the Church. The property of the poor should be returned to the
poor. [...] Hibo has embezzled what belongs to us all. [...] He has plundered many
Churches and is now selling Church property’. (ACE[2b] 185f., 15, 23-4; translated
by Andrew Palmer)

‘Unanimity’35 existed on this occasion between the people and those clerics
and monks who suspected their bishop of ‘Nestorianism’. Only when
emboldened by this additional theological grievance did the people appeal
to the authorities, perhaps because they knew that a bishop could be exiled

 ACE[2b] 1616, emending  to  .

35
52 ANDREW PALMER

by a synod of bishops on the grounds of false teaching (Codex Theosodianus,

Sirm. 2), and that the Emperor’s summons was required for such a synod to
be held. The people of Edessa accordingly appealed, through the appropriate
channels, to their Lord, the reigning Augustus, to come to the aid of his city
(ACE[2b] 1828, 30).
All this is relevant to the interpretation of the passage about the people in
Theodosius’ Ep. ad Barsumam, which may be inspired by the notion that
the Emperor’s own sovereignty as Augustus was originally derived from that
of the people, for the original Augustus claimed to be their defender against
oppression by the Few; and which suggests that the Emperor saw the poorest
monks as the people’s representatives and some, at least, of the wealthier
bishops as being in league with the ‘oligarchs’.
‘All those who were oppressed and coerced by violence flocked to him from all
countries; and each man’s case was judged with rectitude without bribery and
the iniquitous respect of persons. The poor and the oppressed rejoiced in his
greatness, while plunderers and graspers could only grind their teeth. All the
wicked were struck down by him, while the righteous prospered by his elevation.
In short, the side of the apostates was put to shame by the faith of the hero,
whereas the side of the Orthodox rejoiced in the teaching of that upright man’.
(V. Bars., § 108.6, translated by Andrew Palmer)

In this key passage the ‘plunderers and graspers’ are identified with the
‘apostates’, raising the question whether there was indeed a correlation
between the schism after Chalcedon and the economic fault-line between the
oppressed and their oppressors. Hopes of a new social order in which a
government which imposed the Law of God would bring justice, peace and
the integrity of Creation (cf. Psalm 72) may have been awakened by Theo-
dosius when he invited the Barsumas to take part in the Synod of Ephesus.
The imperial decree quoted in § 108.2-4 is conceivably an embellished ver-
sion of a lost document. If so, this decree will certainly have been abolished by
Marcian. Any idea of reform seems to have been smothered in October 451,
leaving the party of the author of the V. Bars. only the fantasy-world of lit-
erature in which to realise its goals.
The clash between Barsumas and a ‘friend of the Emperor’s’, for whom
‘all the bishops and the judges had a high regard’, although he was involved
in criminal activities on a large scale (§ 63), is all the more credible because
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 53

it qualifies the otherwise ideal picture of Theodosius II in the V. Bars.36 The

V. Bars. compares Theodosius with Josiah, the king of Israel, ‘full of zeal and
faith’ (§ 113.3; cf. 2 Kings 22f.). Theodosius’ reign had to be portrayed as
ideal, in order to form a stark contrast with that of his successor.37 This
contrast plays the same role in the petition of Carosus and Dorotheus at
Chalcedon (Source 3, above) as in the V. Bars. To preserve the ideal picture
of Theodosius nothing is said in the V. Bars. about the Emperor’s laws
addressed to Asclepiodotus, Praetorian Prefect for the East, on 15 February,
9 April and 8 June of the year 432 (Codex Theosodianus 16.8.25-7).38
Instead, the disgraced Empress, still living at the time the V. Bars. was
written and recently reconciled to Chalcedon, is rendered a literary scapegoat
for the ‘pro-Jewish policy’ of which her late uncle Asclepiodotus (not men-
tioned here) was the hated executive. This is probably the purpose by which
the narrative of Barsumas’s fourth pilgrimage was shaped.39
Note the fact that the undeniable past benefactions of the Empress to
Barsumas’ monastery (V. Bars., § 83.28-30) are reduced to a single veil
(V. Bars., § 96.13-15): they have become an embarrassment to the narrator,
although the imperial connection is too prestigious to be altogether sup-
pressed. Eudocia gives the Jews permission to enter Jerusalem for the Feast
of Tabernacles – a ‘scandal’ of iniquitous equity which even ‘came to the
hearing of the Emperor Theodosius’ (V. Bars., § 89.1), as if he had never

36
 That the author was aware of this danger is suggested by the fact that he does not name
the Emperor in this connection.
37
 Cf. John Rufus, Proofs, 10, 26 [426]8-10, where Marcian interprets the contrast between
an eclipse and the reappearance of the sun as a divine reference to that between his pre-
decessor’s reign – a time of darkness – and his own – a time of enlightenment. Further
on (Proofs, 27 and 32), the author reverses this.
38
 According to the V. Sym. § 130 (p. 636), ‘Asclepiades’ (sc. Asclepiodotus) was the
maternal uncle of the Empress Eudocia. The legislation prohibited the violent destruction
of synagogues and their illegal conversion into Churches and ordered damages to be paid
to the Jews for the loss of sacred property, or else the return of that property, if it had not
already been consecrated to Christian use. Repeated decrees were necessary because of the
indignation which these fair measures provoked on the part of fanatical Christians.
39
 The Jewish incidents in V. Bars. have been written about by François Nau: ‘Deux
épisodes de l’histoire juive sous Théodose II (423 et 438) d’après la Vie de Barṣauma le
Syrien’, Revue des études juives, 93 (1927), pp. 184-206 ; and ‘Sur la synagogue de Rabbat
Moab (422) et un mouvement sioniste favorisé par l’impératrice Eudocie (438) d’après la
Vie de Barṣauma le Syrien’, Journal Asiatique, 210 (1927), pp. 189-192.
54 ANDREW PALMER

issued any decree of his own in favour of the Jews! – and the Jews misrep-
resent this to their people as a decree of ‘the Emperors’ (V. Bars., § 91). The
resounding defeat of the Jews on this occasion is reported by the Governor
to the Emperor, suggesting he will be as irate with his wife for trying to help
the Jews as he will be pleased that her attempt has come to nothing (V. Bars.,
§ 96.11), with the result that the Empress, very frightened, tries to influence
Barsumas in her favour by putting her entire wealth at his disposal (V. Bars.,
§ 96.13).
Wishful thinking has so embroidered these events as to make them semi-
fictional. In actual fact, Theodosius ignored the protests against religious
toleration: his just laws were not abolished, but were ‘incorporated in the
Codex Theodosianus’ and were made (in Lietzmann’s words) ‘valid for the
future from 1 January 439’.40
Ernest Honigmann speaks aptly – in connection with the anti-Chalcedo-
nian literature about Juvenal of Jerusalem – of ‘the literary revenge taken by
monophysites as a compensation for their inability to translate their feelings
into action’.41 In the ‘Barṣawmo’ of the Vita the real person is effaced, and
makes room for a figurehead, a construct.42 In the fiction of his invincibility,
40
 Heinrich Hilgenfeld and Hans Lietzmann, Das Leben des heiligen Symeon Stylites. Texte
und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 32.4 (Leipzig, 1908),
p. 24719-25: ‘The prohibition of their harassment was interpreted as preferential treatment
of the Jews; it shattered confidence in the Orthodoxy of the Government.’ Symeon the
Stylite – egged on by anti-Semitic bishops, who would not have dared to write to Theo-
dosius themselves – protested with insolence against the ‘pro-Jewish’ law; according to the
V. Sym. § 131 (637f.) this caused the Emperor to rescind his edict and dismiss the ‘dis-
graced’ Governor (still in place in 425); cf. John R. Martindale, (ed.), Prosopography of the
Later Roman Empire. Volume 2 of 3 [4]. A.D. 395-527 (Cambridge, 1980), p. 160; ‘the
Jews and the pagans’, who had put on white clothes to celebrate, were now ‘the laughing-
stock of the world’ (V. Sym. § 130, 636f.; cf. V. Bars. § 91.3). In fact, the edict was
reiterated; but those whom its fairness infuriated found ways to circumvent the law and
frustrate the hopes of all non-Christian communities. The V. Bars. fits perfectly in this
context; cf. Philip Wood, ‘We have no king but Christ.’ Christian Political Thought in
Greater Syria on the Eve of the Arab Conquest (c. 400-585), Oxford Studies in Byzantium
(Oxford, 2010), p. 106, n. 77.
41
 Ernest Honigmann, ‘Juvenal of Jerusalem’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 5 (1950), pp. 209-
279, here 263.
42
 The characterisation of Barsumas as ‘a disorderly fanatic’ (Carl H. Cornill, ‘Glaubens-
bekenntnis des Jacob Baradaeus in äthiopischer Übersetzung’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 30 (1896), pp. 417-466, here 453) misses the point that the
Barsumas of the V. Bars. is a myth. The author, Samuel, though he knew the man, projects
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 55

and in the fear which he unrealistically inspires in his adversaries, we can feel
the inverse impression of its diametric opposite: the powerlessness of the
peasantry.43

5. JACOB OF SERUGH, LIFE OF DANIEL (V. DAN.)

The Vita of Daniel of Mount Aghlosh († 439) testifies to the early fame of
‘the Mourner44 Barṣawmo’. The MSS of this text carry an attribution to
Jacob of Serugh († 521).45 The V. Dan. may be dated just after the death,
in 486, of its oral source, Lazarus. Jacob says that others, one of whom was
probably Sozomen (in the 440s), have written about Daniel before him.46
The V. Dan. has not been edited, but there is a short summary.47 From this
the passage concerning Barsumas may be quoted.48

the disappointed hopes of the political movement to which he belonged onto his dead
master, whose merely human character is unworthy of his theme, seeing that what is
needed for his purpose is a superhuman hero. Nevertheless, elements of his real character
remain, resulting in certain contradictions. But even by isolating those traits which con-
tradict the myth of his perfection we cannot discover what the real Barsumas was like, for
Samuel may have exaggerated these in order to aggrandize himself, following a deeply
rooted need of self-promotion, which makes him – contrary to his duty as a eulogist –
portray Barsumas, on occasion (e. g. V. Bars., § 70, § 90.4f. and § 144), as naive, cowardly
and hard-hearted, so that his disciple can be assigned the role of the shrewd, courageous
and compassionate adviser.
43
 Samuel’s own social background can only be guessed at from his style and his politics;
but he portrays his hero as a kind of eagle among men, temperamentally unsuited to city-life,
saying that he was ‘reared in the midst of the pastures’ (V. Bars., § 105.2), by which we
should understand that his birthplace, Beth ˁAwton, like the village near which he settled,
where his parents were known (V. Bars., § 5.3), depended on the high pastures for its living.
44
 The Syriac appellation, inspired by the Gospel (Mt 5.4), is abīlo ‘Mourner’.
45
 Only one other prose hagiography – that of Ḥnīno, who died around 500 – is attrib-
uted to this poet. Editions of this and the V. Dan. are now being prepared by Andrew
Palmer.
46
 V. Dan., 346-8; f. 97b↑6-2; Sozomen 3.14.30 (1235-8); cf. Andrew N. Palmer, Monk and
Mason on the Tigris Frontier. The Early History of Ṭūr ˁAbdīn, University of Cambridge
Oriental Publications, 39 (Cambridge, 1990), p. 74.
47
 François Nau, ‘Hagiographie syriaque [Part One]. Saint Alexis. Jean et Paul. Daniel de
Galaš. Ḥannina. Euphémie’, ROC, 1 (1910), pp. 53-72.
48
 MS 12/17 of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchal Collection (D). V. Dan. occupies ff. 97b-101b,
following V. Bars. Reference is made first to CFMM 273 here, because this reasonably
accurate copy of D is more accessible than the late 12th-cent. original. It can be consulted
through www.hmml.org.
56 ANDREW PALMER

‘A little time afterwards, a famous man of God, my lord Barṣawmo, the Mourner,
was passing through on his way from the west to the east. The blessed Barṣawmo’s
route lay on the south side of Mount Izlo. All those who lived in that district
flocked to see him in the hope of obtaining various kinds of help from him.
The young Daniel also went to be blessed by the holy man and to share in the
much-coveted sight of him. As soon as the blessed Barṣawmo saw him, he knew
by spiritual insight that he was holy – a chosen instrument of God – and that
God would not only perform miracles through him (while he lived), but also
provide healings and various kinds of help through his bones (after his death).
Moreover, the blessed Barṣawmo told many people about the young man; and
all those who heard him saying this held the young Daniel in high esteem, look-
ing at him and waiting to see when the things which had been said about him
by the holy Barṣawmo would begin to come true’. (V. Dan., 386-18; f. 98b.12-27)

The Life of Barṣawmo says only that this journey to the east happened ‘long
ago’ (V. Bars. § 145.3) and omits it from the narrative of Barsumas’s early years
altogether. There is a second retrospective allusion to this visit at § 110.16.
The V. Dan. relates the journey (if it is the same one) in more detail than
either of these passages.
In order to establish the date of the journey ‘from the west to the east’,
we must study the chronology of V. Dan. When he meets Barsumas, Daniel
is a young man, recently married, with a pregnant wife (V. Dan., 365-21;
f. 98a.219–31). He dies on 2 May, a Sunday (V. Dan., 627f.; f. 101b.31-4).
The Seleucid date given for his demise is 750 (AD 439), but 2 May fell on
a Tuesday in that year; probably, then, the true date is 30 April 439. It is
easy to see how this mistake was made: 2 May was probably the day on
which Daniel was commemorated, being the anniversary of his funeral,
which, as V. Dan. tells us, took place three days after his death. Jacob of
Serugh mistakenly calls it the anniversary of his death. He becomes a hermit
before his wife is delivered of their child, Lazarus, who, at the age of twelve,
is adopted by his father as a disciple (V. Dan., 5217; f. 100a.3↑5–b.16). After
Daniel’s death, Lazarus takes his place in the enclosure vacated by his father
and stays there until his own death, forty-seven years later (V. Dan., 6213;
f. 101b.312f.), probably in 484. What age he reached we do not know exactly;
but he is still referred to as a young man (Syriac: ṭalyo) shortly before his father
dies (V. Dan., 6018, 617; f. 101b.143; b.210). He has already spent two years
touring the Mediterranean as far as Rome to collect funds with which to
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 57

build a Church and a burial-vault for his father, returning by way of Arme-
nia (V. Dan., 58ult., 501f., 601-6; f. 101a.319-23, f. 101b.111-21). What prompted
him to set off on this fund-raising journey was an event which took place
twenty-four years after Daniel began to live as a recluse, which was probably
about a year after Lazarus’ birth (V. Dan. 531, 58ult.; f. 100b.115, f. 101a.323).
So Lazarus would have been about twenty-seven years of age when he
returned from his journey and must have been about seventy-five at his death.
In that case, Barsumas’ journey took place c. 410.
While this hagiography contains its fair share of the mirabilia which were
expected of the genre, it is no mere panegyric: a credible biography can be
distilled from it. But however good the credentials of this source, the value
of the passage relevant to our subject is qualified by the fact that Barsumas’
prediction serves to justify Daniel in leaving, without an explanation, his
pregnant wife. He is persuaded to do so by a certain Mārī, a vagrant ascetic
to whom he becomes attached. When his father, a wealthy citizen of Āmīd,
hears of his disappearance, he arranges for four Roman cavalrymen to ride
after him to bring him back, intending to have Mari flogged for abducting
his son. When the soldiers come back empty-handed, the father immediately
suspects they have been bribed; others remember the prophecy of Barsumas
(V. Dan. 419f.; f. 99a.123-5) and see ‘the Hand of God’ in the event. The
‘prophecy’ is as suspect as any other prediction related after the event; that
it fulfils a rhetorical purpose renders it doubly so. But the encounter between
Daniel and Barsumas is likely to have been the truth upon which this inven-
tion was embroidered. Not long before 484, by which year Jacob had heard
the story from Lazarus, Barsumas’s fame was still fresh in the memory of his
readers. Around 410, then, Barsumas was already well-known outside his
homeland as a source of help for the people of Mesopotamia.

CONCLUSION

A critical reading of the sources for the Synods of 449 and 451 suggests
that the portrayal of Barsumas as a leader of ruffians served the rhetorical
purposes of his political opponents and should not be regarded as histori-
cal. Further research may document a connection between the monophysite
movement and the many people in Syria and Egypt who suffered from the
oppression of grasping landowners. But while Barsumas may seem more
58 ANDREW PALMER

attractive when understood as a champion of the poor, there is no escaping

the fact that he, like Symeon the Stylite, another champion of economic
justice, was a zealous opponent of the imperial policy of the early fifth cen-
tury, which guaranteed certain rights of the Jews; indeed, there is no reason
to doubt the literal truth of the stories about arson committed against Jewish,
Samaritan and polytheistic places of worship by Barsumas and his monks.
The holy man is portrayed, echoing the description of Moses in the Epistle
to the Hebrews 3.15, as God’s slave, that is, the legitimate agent of the
supreme Ruler. The Emperor might offer the Jews redress against arson and
theft, but a higher Authority was believed to require that all religions other
than Christianity be abolished.49

ANNEX: PRIMARY SOURCES

Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (ACO). Edited by Eduard Schwartz. Tomes 1-4.

[In 26 parts.] Berlin, Strasbourg. 1927-49.
Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (ACC). Extant Greek edition. ACO 2.1.1-3. Latin
version. ACO 2.2.1-2, 2.3.1-2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6. Berlin 1933-5, 1935-8. English
translation, using both the Greek and the Latin, with a concordance to both: The
Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Translated by Richard M. Price and Michael
Gaddis. Volumes 1-3. Translated Texts for Historians 45. Liverpool 2005.
Acts of the First Council of Ephesus in 431 (ACE[1]) = ACO 1. [In 11 parts.] Berlin
1922-1930.
Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, first session (ACE[2a]) = London, BL
Add. 12,156, ff. 51b-60b. Unedited. English translation: Perry 1881: 401-36.
Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, second session (ACE[2b]) = Akten der
ephesinischen Synode vom Jahre 449. Syriac translation of the proceedings of the
last day of the Council (from the lost Greek). Edited by Johannes Flemming
with an annotated German translation by Georg Hoffmann. Abhandlungen der
Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philosophisch-
historische Klasse. New series 15.1. Berlin 1917. English translation of an earlier
edition: Perry 1881. French translation made from the London MS Add.
14,530: Jean-Pierre P. Martin, Actes du Brigandage d’Éphèse (extract from Revue
des sciences ecclésiastiques). Amiens 1874.

49
 Acknowledgement: The research represented by this article was funded by the German
Research Council (DFG) as part of a project led by Prof. Dr. Johannes Hahn (Münster)
and Prof. Dr. Volker Menze (Budapest).
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 59

Codex Theodosianus = Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis. Latin

text edited by Theodor Mommsen and Paul M. Meyer. Berlin 1905. English
translation by Clyde Pharr et al. The Codex Theodosianus and Novels and the
Sirmondian Constitutions. New York 1952.
Collectio Novariensis de re Eutychis. ACO 2.2.1, Berlin, 1932.
Cyril of Scythopolis = Kyrillos von Skythopolis. Edited by Eduard Schwartz. Texte
und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 49/2. Leipzig
1939. Translated into French by André-Jean Festugière. Les moines d’Orient.
Parts 1-4. Volumes 1-7. Paris 1961-5. English translation edited by Richard
M. Price and John Binns. Cyril of Scythopolis: Lives of the monks of Palestine.
Cistercian Studies 114. Kalamazoo 1991.
Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Appeal to Pope Leo I = Libellus appellationis ad Leonem
Papam Eusebii Dorslaeorum (sic, for ‘Dorylaeorum’) accusatoris Eutychen (sic, for
‘Eutychis’) archimandritae, Collectio Novariensis de re Eutychis 12, ACO 2.2.1:
7916-8110.
Evagrius, Eccl[esiastical] Hist[ory]. Greek text edited by Joseph Bidez and Léon Par-
mentier. London 1898. English translation by Michael Whitby, The Ecclesiastical
History of Evagrius Scholasticus. Translated Texts for Historians 33. Liverpool
2000.
Flavian of Constantinople. Appeal to Leo of Rome. [From Ephesus.] 8 August 449.
ACO 2.2.1: 777-7918 (No. 11). Berlin 1932.
Gesta de nomine Acaci = Collectio Avellana 99 = Epistulae imperatorum pontificum
aliorum inde ab anno CCCLXVII usque ad annum DLIII datae. Avellana quae
dicitur collectio. Edited by Otto Günther. Part 1. Prolegomena. Epistulae I-CIV.
Vindobonae 1895. Pp. 440-53.
Hilarus (Roman Deacon, later Pope), Ep[istula] ad Pulcheriam. From Rome. [Sep-
tember?] 449 = Leo, Ep. 46 = Collectio Grimanica, Epistula 26, ACO 2.4:
2721-2818 (Latin) = Epistularum collectio H, Epistula 13, ACO 2.1.1: 4827-4920
(Greek).
John Rufus, Proofs = Jean Rufus, évêque de Maïouma, Plérophories, c’est-à-dire
témoignages et révélations (contre le concile de Chalcédoine). Edited and translated
into French by François Nau. PO 8.1: 1-208. Paris 1912.
Justinian, Nov[els] = Iustiniani Novellae. Edited by Rudolf Schöll and Wilhelm Kroll.
Corpus Iuris Civilis 3. Berlin 1954. English translation by Samuel P. Scott in
The Civil Law. Vols. 1-17. Cincinnati 1932. Vols. 16 and 17.
Leo I, Pope, Ep[istula] ad Theodoretum. From Rome. 11 June 453 = Patrologia Latina
54, Leo, Ep. 120 = Collectio Grimanica, Epistula 71, ACO 2.4: 7818-8130.
Liberatus, Breviarium = Liberatus archidiaconus Karthaginensis, Breviarium causae
Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum. ACO 2.5: 98-141. Berlin 1936.
Marcellinus Comes. Chron[icle]. Edited by Theodor Mommsen. Monumenta Germaniae
Historica. Auctores Antiquissimi XI. Chronica Minora 2 (B, 1, 11): 37-108. Berlin
1894. English translation by Brian Croke, Byzantina Australiensia 7 (Sydney 1995).
60 ANDREW PALMER

Marcian, Ep[istula] ad Synodum. From Heraclea [in Thrace]. 22 September 451 =

Epistularum collectio M 16, ACO 2.1.1: 30f. (Greek) = Epistularum ante gesta
collectio 35, ACO 2.3.1: 22f. (Latin) = Rerum Chalcedonensium collectio
Vaticana 3, ACO 2.2.2: 4 [96] f. (another Latin translation).
Nestorius, Book of Heraclides = Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas. Edited by Paul Bedjan.
Paris 1910. Reprint: Piscataway 2007: The ‘Book of Heraclides of Damascus’.
The theological apologia of Mar Nestorius. Translated into French by François
Nau, Paul Bedjan and Maurice Brière as Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas. Paris
1910.
Prosper of Aquitaine. Epitoma chronicon. Edited by Theodor Mommsen. Monumenta
Germaniae Historica 500-1500. Auctores Antiquissimi IX. Chronica Minora
Saec. IV. V. VI. VII. 1 (B, 1, 10): 341-499. Berlin 1892. Reprint: Berlin 1961.
Sozomen = Sozomenus, Kirchengeschichte, ed. Joseph Bidez, revised with an intro-
duction by Gunther C. Hansen (Berlin 1960). Translated into English by
Chester D. Hartranft in the Library of Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers 2.2 (New
York 1890) and into French by André-Jean Festugière in Sources Chrétiennes
306 (Paris 1983).
Theodosius II. Ep[istula] ad Barsumam. From Alexandrianae [in Thrace]. 14 May
449 = ACC I 48 = ACO 2.1.1: 7119-31. Berlin 1933. Not extant in Latin or
Syriac.
Theodosius II. Ep[istula] ad Dioscorum. From Constantinople. 6 August 449 =
ACE[2b] 47-30 (Syriac).
Theodosius II. Ep[istula] ad Dioscorum Juvenalemque. From Therallus [in Thrace].
15 May 449 = ACC I 47 = ACO 2.1.1: 711-15 (Greek) = Collectio Novariensis
de re Eutychis 10, 10, ACO 2.2.1: 4434-456 (Latin: 14 May!). Berlin 1933.
English translation of unpublished Syriac version: ACE[2a] 405 (2 May!).
Theodosius II. Ep[istula] ad Elpidium [Comitem]. From Alexandria [i. e., Alexan-
drianae in Thrace]. May 449 = ACE[2a] 408f. (Syriac).
Theodosius II. Ep[istula] ad Jacobum. From Constantinople. 13 June 449 = ACE[2b]
1219-30 (Syriac).
Theophanes Confessor, Chronicle. Theophanis Chronographia. Greek text edited by
Carl de Boor. Volumes 1-2. Leipzig 1883. English translation by Cyril Mango
et al. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History
AD 284-813. Oxford 1997.
Vita Alexandri = V. Alex. = La Vie d’Alexandre l’Acémète. Edited by Émile de Stroop
with a Latin translation. Patrologia Orientalis 6.5 (Paris 1911), 645-704. Eng-
lish translation in Caner 2002 (see note 5): 250-80.
Vita Barsumae = V. Bars. = The Life of Barṣawmo the Northerner. Edited by Andrew
N. Palmer with an English translation. Forthcoming in ‘Eastern Christian Texts’,
the series published by Brigham Young University Press, 2017.
Vita of Daniel of Aghlosh (Syriac) = V. Dan. = www.hmml.org > Mardin, Church of
the Forty martyrs 273, pp. 279-316: an accurate copy, by Yuḥannon Dolabani,
A TALE OF TWO SYNODS 61

of Damascus Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate 12/17 (1185/6), ff. 97b.3-101b.3,

unedited. Another manuscript (less good): Paris Syriac 235 (xiii s.), ff. 160b-175b.
Summarized by Nau 1910: 60-2. Translated into English by Andrew N. Palmer
(unpublished MS).
Vita of Sabas = V. Sab.; ed. Eduard Schwartz. See Cyril of Scythopolis.
Vita of Symeon the Stylite (Syriac) = V. Sym. Edited by Paulus Bedjan. Acta Mar-
tyrum et Sanctorum. Volumes 1-7. Volume 4. Paris 1894 (reprint Hildesheim
1968): 507-644. Translated into German by Heinrich Hilgenfeld in Lietzmann
and Hilgenfeld 1908. English by Robert Doran. The Lives of Symeon Stylites.
Cistercian Studies Series 112. Kalamazoo 1992.
Zonaras, Epitome historiarum = Ioannis Zonarae Annales. Volumes 1-3. Corpus
Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae 29-31. Volume 3. Edited and translated into
Latin by Theodorus Büttner-Wobst. Bonn 1897. Translated into German by
Erich Trapp. Johannes Zonaras. Militär und Höflinge im Ringen um das Kaisertum.
Graz 1986.

Abstract

The denunciation, at the Synod of Chalcedon, of ‘the monk Barsumas’, is best

understood as a diversionary manoeuvre, executed in an attempt to prevent a
petition from being heard. The presence of ‘the priest and archimandrite Bar-
sumas’ at the Synod of Ephesus, two years earlier, had nothing to do with the
military intimidation of which the opponents of Dioscorus immediately com-
plained. The bishops who denounced him at Chalcedon may in reality have
feared his political and moral influence, though they claimed he and his monks
had offered them physical violence at Ephesus, an accusation which had not
been made in 449. The moral influence of Barsumas is attested by the wording
of the summons to attend that synod at Ephesus; by the Syriac hagiographies
about Daniel of Aghlosh and Barsawmo of Samosata (= Barsumas); and, indi-
rectly, by the Acts of the Synod of˙ Chalcedon.