Simeon Stylites, Letters. Journal of the American Oriental Society 20 (1899) pp.253-276.
The Letters of Simeon the Stylite.
By Charles C. Torrey, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.
Saint Simeon of the Pillar has always been one of the extremely interesting figures in the history of the Oriental church, as he is certainly one of the most characteristic. We are fortunate, too, in possessing considerable detailed information as to his life and work, derived for the most part from contemporary sources. This information is not always, nor even generally, trustworthy, to be sure; but the portion which we can use with confidence is sufficient to give ns a satisfactory idea of the course of his life, while even the portion which is least reliable as biography has its value for the church historian. As is well known, our chief sources for Simeon's biography are, first, the old Syriac Life, written in the year 473 A.D. by Simeon, son of Apollonius, and Bar Hattar, son of 'Udan, and published by S. E. Assemani in his Acta Sanctorum Martyrum, ii. 268 ff., and by Bedjan in his Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, iv. 507 ff.; and, second, the account of Simeon given by his contemporary, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (died 457), in his Religious History. The main facts of his life are these: He was born in Sis, a small town in the neighborhood of Nicopolis, in northern Syria, probably between the years 385 and 390. When about sixteen years of age, he entered a monastery near Antioch. Nine or ten years later, he repaired to Telnesse, some fifty miles northeast of Antioch, where he remained, the most renowned ascetic in the East, until his death in the year 459. The last thirty-seven years of his life were spent on the top of pillars of increasing height; the one occupied |254 by him during the last thirty years being more than sixty feet high. After his death, his body was carried with great pomp to Antioch, and buried there; though Constantinople coveted the honor, and the Emperor Leo himself had planned to have the body brought to that city.
Of the few writings attributed to Simeon, only the Letters can lay any claim to genuineness. These---some of them very well known and often referred to---are found in different places; and, with a single exception, are concerned with the theological controversies which rent the Eastern church asunder in the middle of the fifth century. Three of these letters, found only in certain ancient manuscripts of the British Museum, have never been published, though attention has often been called to them, e. g., by Wright, Syrian Literature, p. 55, and by Noldeke, Orientalische Skizzen, p. 239. It is the principal purpose of this article to edit and examine these three, with especial reference to the question of their genuineness; though as this purpose necessarily involves at least a partial comparison of the other letters, I have thought it best to bring them all together here.
One of the most celebrated of the letters which Simeon is said to have written is the one concerning the Jewish synagogues, addressed to the Emperor Theodosius II. (408-450 A.D.). At the time when Simeon was beginning to be famous, Jews and Christians were in bitter strife; and the latter having the power in their hands, the former were in danger of losing their rights as well as their property. Many synagogues, especially, were either burned, or seized and made to serve as Christian churches; and the efforts of the emperor to secure to the Jews their rights as citizens, and partially to restore the property stolen from them, were very displeasing to many of the warmer partisans of the church. The text of the letter is given in the Life. I reproduce it here from Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, i. 254, and add the variant readings of Bedjan's manuscript ( Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, iv. 637, line 11 ff.).
[Syriac omitted] |255
"Because in the pride of your heart you have forgotten the Lord your God, who gave you the crown of majesty and the royal throne, and have become a friend and comrade and abettor of the unbelieving Jews; know that of a sudden the righteous judgment of God will overtake you and all those 'who are of one mind with you in this matter. Then you will lift up your hands to heaven, and say in your distress, Of a truth because I dealt falsely with the Lord God this punishment has come upon me."
The story of this letter, according to the Life, was the following. The emperor's prefect, Asclepiodotus by name, issued an order commanding the Christians in this region to restore to the Jews all the synagogues which had been taken from them by violence. This order produced great consternation among the Christians, while the Jews were in high feather. A number of bishops came to Simeon and told him what was being done; whereupon he wrote this letter. The emperor, upon receiving it, revoked the obnoxious edict, dismissed Asclepiodotus from his office, and sent a humble reply to Simeon.
Noldeke pronounces this version of the matter scarcely credible, and with good reason. Still, there is, perhaps, no sufficient ground for denying the genuineness of the letter. Theodoret, an independent witness, writing some time before Simeon's death, plainly refers to this rebuke of the Emperor Theodosius in his Religious History, near the end of his biography of the Stylite. Speaking of Simeon's boldness and zeal for the church, he says ( Opera, ed. Noesselt, vol. iii. p. 1282):
{Greek omitted} |256
where the connection of the clause "sending letters to the emperor about these things" with the preceding, "breaking down the presumption of the Jews," is beyond question, in view of the other narrative. We can hardly doubt, therefore, that some such written communication was sent to Theodosius by the Stylite. Of the letter which we have, this at least may be said, that it is what we should expect a man like Simeon to write under such circumstances. As for the specific occasion, it is true, as Noldeke points out, that the story told here of the order to restore the synagogues seems to be discredited by the witness of a document which has come down to us from that very controversy; namely, an edict of Theodosius addressed to Asclepiodotus, dated in the year 423, commanding that no more synagogues be seized or destroyed, and that restitution be made for those of them which have already been consecrated to Christian use; the implication being that such could no longer be given back to their former owners. But there is abundant evidence that the emperor and his officers had no small difficulty with this matter of the synagogues, and that it had been the subject of lively dispute. See the Codex Theodosianus, xvi. 8, 9. 12. 20. 21; and notice that in this same year 423, between February and June, three successive edicts relating to the matter were promulgated ( ibid., 25. 26. 27). It is not unlikely that the monks and the local civil authorities were on opposite sides here (as, for example, Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. iv. p. 455, takes for granted); and it may be that what called out Simeon's letter was some proceeding on the part of Syrian officials based on the former less definite laws. In that case, the emperor's order to Asclepiodotus, referred to above, might well have been hailed by the monks as a victory for their party. Or, again, it is quite possible that when synagogues were seized after the promulgation of this edict of 423, and in violation of it, the attempt was made to punish the offenders by making them restore the buildings and pay damages, as narrated in our history. Of course the part played by Simeon in this matter was far less important than the popular report made it. The emperor's new edict was called forth by the same disturbances which stirred up the monk to write his letter; and it is not at |257 all likely that the prefect Asclepiodotus was dismissed in the way narrated by Simeon's biographers.
It is intrinsically probable that at this time and in this part of the world a letter to the emperor dictated by such a well known saint as Simeon already was (even if we datethe letter as early as 422 or 423) would have been copied and preserved long enough to have been used by biographers who wrote only a short time after his death. There is nothing, therefore, to decide against the supposition that we have before us the letter actually sent in Simeon's name to Theodosius; though the character of the source in which it stands, and our knowledge of the freedom with which even the best of early historians invented such documents to adorn their narrative, make skepticism justifiable.
The remaining letters ascribed to the Stylite are all concerned with the theological controversies of the fifth century.
The best known among these is the letter approving the council of Chalcedon, quoted in part by Evagrius ( Eccl. Hist., ii. 10), and afterward cited by other historians. The circumstances under which it was written are narrated as follows by Evagrius. The emperor Leo (I.) Thrax (reigned 457-474) sent out, soon after his accession to the throne, a circular letter to the bishops of the empire and to a few of the most celebrated monks, requesting their judgment upon the council of Chalcedon. Simeon Stylites, who was the most noted of the monks addressed, wrote to the emperor in reply, approving the council; and at the same time sent a letter of similar tenor to Basil, bishop of Antioch, who, it seems, had also written to ask for his judgment, perhaps with the added purpose of influencing him to send a favorable reply to the emperor. This letter to Basil is the one quoted by Evagrius, who hints that he had also at his disposal the letter of Simeon to |258 Leo, and would have included it in his history if it had not been too long. The letter ran thus (in the translation of the Bohn Library ):
"To my lord, the most religious and holy servant of God, the archbishop Basil, the sinful and humble Simeon wishes health in the Lord. Well, may we now say, my lord, Blessed be God, who has not rejected our prayer, nor withdrawn his mercy from us sinners. For, on the receipt of the letters of your worthiness, I admired the zeal and piety of our sovereign, beloved of God, which he manifested and still manifests towards the holy fathers and their unshaken faith. And this gift is not from ourselves, as says the holy apostle, but from God, who through your prayers bestowed on him this readiness of mind." .... "On this account I also, though mean and worthless, the refuse of the monks, have conveyed to his majesty my judgment respecting the creed of the 630 holy fathers assembled at Chalcedon, firmly resolving to abide by the faith there revealed by the Holy Spirit; for if, in the midst of two or three who are gathered together in his name, the Saviour is present, how could it be otherwise than that the Holy Spirit should be throughout in the midst of so many and so distinguished holy fathers?" . . . . "Wherefore be stout and courageous in the cause of true piety, as was also Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, in behalf of the Children of Israel. I beg you to salute from me all the reverend clergy who are under your holiness, and the blessed and most faithful laity."
The evidence for the genuineness of this letter is in general much like that appealed to in the case of the preceding, but is considerably stronger. Evagrius has an excellent reputation for trustworthiness as a historian, and wrote in Antioch, where a letter dictated by this saint at the pinnacle of his fame (not more than two years before his death) would certainly have been preserved. There seems to be no reason to doubt that Leo wrote to Simeon on this occasion, as attested by Evagrius, the Codex Encyclius , and many subsequent historians, and denied by none. And the testimony is uniform that all of those addressed by the emperor returned answers favorable to the council of Chalcedon, excepting only Timotheus of Alexandria and Amphilochius of Side. Note especially the testimony of the Monophysite historian Zacharias of Mytilene (Land, Anecdota Syriaca, |259 vol. iii. p. 142). The letter to Basil of Antioch has, therefore, strong indirect support; and it is yet more deserving of confidence because of its contents. It is a very uninteresting production, made up largely of commonplace phrases, which are drawn out at considerable length. The only plausible reason for inventing such a letter would have been the purpose to show that Simeon approved the council of Chalcedon; but it is sufficiently obvious that this colorless, almost indifferent utterance could never have been forged as a Chalcedonian party document. There is another letter, said to have been written by Simeon at about this time, in which his adherence to the 'emperor's party' is attested. This is the letter from Simeon to Eudocia, the widow of Theodosius II., quoted by Cyril of Scythopolis (middle of the sixth century), in his Vita Euthymii (Cotelerius, Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta, tom. ii. p. 271), and by Nicephorus Callistus, Eccl. Hist., xv. 13. The latter tells the story as follows. The empress Pulcheria, having become reconciled to her beautiful sister-in-law (now removed to a safe distance), wished to see her become orthodox, and employed every possible influence to this end. Eudocia, half persuaded by the letters and entreaties she received, finally wrote to Simeon Stylites, asking his guidance and promising to follow it. The letter was sent by the chorepiscopus Anastasius. Simeon replied:
"Know, my child, that the devil, seeing the wealth of your virtues, sought to sift you as wheat; moreover, that corrupter Theodosius, having become the receptacle and instrument of the evil one, both darkened and disturbed your God-beloved soul. But be of good courage, for your faith has not left you. I wonder, however, exceedingly at this, that having the fountain close at hand you do not recognize it, but hasten to draw the water from afar. You have near by the inspired Euthymius; follow his counsels and admonitions, and it will be well with you."
Eudocia followed this advice, and was directed by Euthymius to hold to the doctrine of the four councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon.
Regarding this letter there is little to be said. It may well be genuine, though there is, of course, room for doubt. Even if it |260 is a forgery for the glory of Euthymius, as is possible, it shows, at least, what views the Stylite was commonly believed to hold.
But the question as to Simeon's theological position during the last years of his life---that is, at the time when the above-mentioned letters to Leo, Basil, and Eudocia, are supposed to have been written---is raised anew by the three hitherto unpublished letters of which, mention has already been made. All three are decidedly controversial, and in them the Stylite speaks as a bitter opponent of the Chalcedonense.
The letters are found in two ancient Syriac manuscripts of the British Museum, One of these, Add, 12154 (no. DCCCLX. in Wright's Catalogue ), dated by Wright at the end of the 8th or beginning of the 9th century, is a manuscript of miscellaneous contents, of which the first section is a collection of Monophysite party documents (fol. 1-18). The thirty-third section contains the three letters ( Catalogue, vol. ii., p. 986), extending from fol. 1995 to fol. 201a. The first of them is addressed to the Emperor Leo (I.); the second, to the abbot Jacob of Kaphra Rhima; the third, to John, bishop of Antioch (died 442).
The second manuscript, Add. 12155 (no. DCCCLVI1. in the Catalogue), is a large and beautifully written codex of the 8th century. It is a Monophysite compilation; and contains as its twenty-ninth section (fol. 229a; Catalogue, vol. ii. p. 951) the first of the three letters just mentioned, namely the one addressed to the Emperor Leo. There is prefixed to it a superscription occupying several lines; otherwise, the text corresponds closely to that of the other manuscript.
I give here the text of Add. 12154 (A), adding in the case of the letter to Leo the variant readings of Add. 12155 (B). |261
[Syriac] |262 |263 |264