The Ecclesiastical History of Anonymous Cyzicenus finds little purchase among modern scholars, eclipsed as it is by the works of the canonical fifth-century church historians and their sixth-century compilers and continuators. To “rectify the neglect of the Ecclesiastical History by placing the text back into its late fifth-century context” is the goal of the authors of the present volume (p. IX) which represents the first translation of this text into English—and only the second into any modern language. Going far beyond a mere translation, the volume boasts a thorough introduction and extensive commentary from which Anonymous Cyzicenus emerges as both a primary witness to the post-Chalcedonian commemoration of the Council of Nicaea and the gatekeeper of the council’s documentary tradition. Dispelling prejudices against the Ecclesiastical History as a mindless compilation of source material, the authors succeed in teasing out the careful editorial efforts and blatant, at times, textual manipulation through which Anonymous Cyzicenus crafted a distinct vision of Nicaea aligned with the theological and church political requirements of his day.
The introduction offers an accessible overview of what we (do not) know about Anonymous Cyzicenus, his work, and the context in which it was penned (1–47). While clearly targeted at those grappling with Anonymous Cyzicenus’ history for the first time, it still offers sufficient depth for beneficial study by his more seasoned readers. It opens by sketching how, in the late sixteenth century, the Ecclesiastical History came to be misattributed to Gelasius of Cyzicus and why it is far more likely that its author was a different, anonymous individual from the same city in the Hellespont (1–4). A brief summary of what little personal information can be extracted from the proem establishes that its author was likely a monk who took up the quill at some point between 475/6-491, after settling in Bithynia (4–7). The following synopsis of the contents and structure of the Ecclesiastical History calls attention to the fact that the tripartite structure of the history—the build-up to Nicaea, the council itself, and its aftermath—was the result of a two-step writing process in which the third and final book was a later addition. It further features a helpful table highlighting those episodes and documents unique to it (7–12). Two sections examine the position of Anonymous Cyzicenus and his history within the theological trench warfare between supporters and opponents of the Council of Chalcedon. While the review of the underlying Christological issues along central passages from writings of the main voices in the debate would have benefitted from the inclusion of some of the recent scholarly treatments in this field, it does well in underlining the importance of historical memory within this conflict.[1] At a time when both sides claimed to be the true heirs of the Council of Nicaea, the Ecclesiastical History filled a gap in providing the pro-Chalcedonian side with a historical narrative of the council as anticipating contemporary hallmarks of orthodoxy (12–25).
The introduction reserves its most extensive treatment to the question of what sources Anonymous Cyzicenus drew on when drafting his history as well as the methodological principles he followed in this exercise. Regarding the latter, the authors trace “a careful editorial hand at work” which had few scruples tampering with the source material, be it to include theological key-vocabulary in support of Chalcedon, to assert a teleological perspective on Nicaea, or to absolve the heroes of his narrative. This is an important take-away of this volume: rather than to expect an authentic reproduction of preexisting source material, the modern reader of the Ecclesiastical History is well advised to approach it as a carefully manicured work shaped by Anonymous Cyzicenus’ late fifth-century biases (25–29). The discussion of the individual sources used and in-parts named by Anonymous Cyzicenus touches on a thornier issue. While some are simply unknown to us and still others are obvious in their direct influence, the nature of Anonymous Cyzicenus’ most important source, the Ecclesiastical History by Gelasius of Caesarea, has been hotly debated in modern scholarship. While some believe that around 400 CE, Gelasius wrote a now lost historical master-narrative which served as model for the fifth-century church historians, others have suggested that Anonymous Cyzicenus was a pseudonymous writer who synchronised earlier narratives only at some point in the second half of the fifth century. The authors of this volume firmly side with the former camp, tacitly relegating the latter to the footnotes without considering some of the more recent publications in support of their position.[2] For the interpretation of Anonymous Cyzicenus’ own work and methodology, the implications of this debate are of secondary importance. However, as Anonymous Cyzicenus is our main witness to Gelasius’ lost history, a more nuanced approach to this topic would have provided the chance to meaningfully contribute to this ongoing debate (29–41).[3]
Concluding the introduction is a brief overview of the textual tradition of Anonymous Cyzicenus’ Ecclesiastical History and its reception in both the Greek East and the Latin West. It describes the widening of its readership from the relatively small circulation of the text in monastic circles to the more widespread dissemination during the Counter-Reformation (41–47). The subsequent translator’s note prefacing the translation explains the decision to transliterate rather than translate several Greek theological terms, such as ousia, hypostasis or homoousios in order not to overdetermine their meaning in light of their evolving meanings through time. The outlining of the semantic spectrum of these terms helps to make the translation more accessible and will be a particularly handy addition for anyone planning to use this volume in teaching (49–51).
The translation of the Ecclesiastical History’s three books, which takes up the greatest part of this volume (53–272), shines with its accessibility in both language and typesetting. The English prose is clearly written and effectively breaks down the at-times unwieldy syntax of the Greek without diminishing its aggrandising style, while the ample footnotes highlight notable features in Anonymous Cyzicenus’ phraseology that otherwise might go unnoticed in a translation. Across the translation, the footnotes are of great help to the reader, assiduously referencing biblical quotations and other parallels to Christian as well as non-Christian literature, while providing important information on the historical and theological background of the reported events. They further document, where possible, the differences in wording between the original documents and their text included in the Ecclesiastical History, revealing a persistent pattern of textual tampering by Anonymous Cyzicenus. Particularly appealing is the en-bloc indentation of those passages which Anonymous Cyzicenus quoted directly from his source material, setting them apart visually from the rest of the text and thus facilitating the navigation of the patchwork of quotations and narrative links. The wholesale attribution of some multiple page-long quotations could have been improved by specifying which parts exactly Anonymous Cyzicenus chose to include and which to omit (e.g. 74–78).
Rounding off the volume are its four appendices which compile English translations of texts relevant for contextualising the Ecclesiastical History in its manuscript tradition and reception history (273–303). In order, these are: the three letters attributed to Constantine which in manuscripts are added to the second book of the Ecclesiastical History; the table of contents, pinakes, for the incomplete book three; the testimony of Photius’ ninth-century Bibliotheca for the Ecclesiastical History; and the letter by Frédéric Morel to Robert Balfour from 1598 which is at the root of its century-long misattribution to Gelasius of Cyzicus. Their presence in this volume allows the authors to effectively cross-reference them in their introduction and footnotes, creating a dense web of interrelated texts on which the reader can draw on with ease. The same applies to the indices which offer a thorough catalogue of references to scriptural passages and an expedient list of names of people and places. Overall, this is an excellent volume that will certainly become the first reference work for anyone who is required—or, in the wake of this volume, inspired—to engage—with the fascinating world of Anonymous Cyzicenus’ Ecclesiastical History.
Notes
[1] For the early phase of the conflict, for example, reference to Menze, Volker-Lorenz 2023. Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria: The Last Pharaoh and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford: Oxford University Press. and 2016. The New Judas: The Case of Nestorius in Ecclesiastical Politics. 428-451 CE (Late Antique History and Religion 13), Leuven: Peeters would have helped in providing a more well-rounded and instructive introduction.
[2] Crucially absent are Peter van Nuffelen’s critical review of the methodology applied by the supporters of an authentic authorship by Gelasius of Caesarea (“Review of ‘M. Wallraff/J. Stutz/N. Marinides (eds.) Gelasius of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical history. The extant fragments. With an appendix containing the fragments from dogmatic writings (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 25), Berlin 2018’”, JECH 70,1 (2019), 148–149) as well as his most recent comment on this matter in “True to Their Words. Theodore Lector and His Predecessors”, in Kosinski, Rafał/Szopa, Adrian (eds.), Studies in Theodore Lector (Studi e testi sulla Tarda Antichità 19), Turnhout: Brepols 2021, 23–28.
[3] The episode of the Novatian bishop Acesius attending the Council of Nicaea, for example, is likely to have originated with Socrates of Constantinople who entertained close relationships with the Novatian church and reports in his Ecclesiastical History that he had been conveyed the report personally by a Novatian eyewitness to the council (Socr., EH I 10). This requires either that Anonymous Cyzicenus had direct recourse to Socrates’ history—something which the authors of this volume entertain as an option (36–37)—or that Gelasius’ narrative drew on the history of Socrates which would support the position taken by Peter van Nuffelen.