TRANSLATION.
The Letters of the Holy Mar Simeon the Stylite which testify concerning him that he did not accept the Council of Chalcedon.
First Letter: To the Emperor Leo, who reigned after Marcian.
When I received the letters of your Royal Highness, I at first expected to rejoice with great joy; because I hoped for the rectifying and annulling of those things which were done not long ago in the accursed council of Chalcedon, so impudently and wickedly, contrary to the word of truth; when the church of God was disturbed by the innovation and false teaching of accursed and perverse heretics. But when some time elapsed, and that which I was hoping for did not come to pass, pains even more grievous than the former came upon my feeble old age, as I saw what things these are, which are perpetrated and done amongst the leaders of the church. But I believe him who said, "In the latter days I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and they shall know me, from the least, of them to the greatest; and no one shall say to his fellow, Know the Lord." To this hope, therefore, I hold fast, as to an anchor, guarding and keeping it unto the end; and all the world cannot move me from it. And I in my weakness beseech your Royal Highness, for the faith of those holy fathers who met at Nicaea, that you preserve it spotless and unimpaired for the holy church of God unto the end.
Second Letter: To Mar Jacob of Kaphra Rhima.
To our Spiritual Brother in Christ; adorned with graces illustrious and divine; zealous for the orthodox faith of the fathers, which we have learned from prophets, apostles, and saints; the Archimandrite, Mar Jacob of Kaphra Rhima; from the mean and weak sinner, Simeon, who stands upon the pillar near the village Telnesi; great and exceeding peace in the Lord.
First of all, I beseech you to offer prayers to God for me, that He may give me strength and patience, on this stone upon which I stand; and I also make supplication to God for my sins.
As for the rest: Since your Reverence has sent to me by Mar Thomas, your pupil, requesting that the anathema which I once uttered upon the council of Chalceclon be put in writing by me and sent to your Reverence; to be used for the consolation and confirmation of the orthodox everywhere, and for the stopping of the mouth of perverse heretics: This I say to you, my Beloved.; that I have hope and confidence in God, whom I serve and worship; and I confess Him and believe in Him, whose truth you and I will keep unto the end. I have not approved, and will not approve, that council of perverse heretics which was convened at Chalcedon; nor the evil which was perpetrated by it, and the sinful and wicked deed which they did to the holy martyr Dioscurus. But I have cursed, and will curse, that wicked council which was convened at Chalcedon; and every one who has approved or shall approve it, or who has been, or shall be, like minded with those who composed it; unless he has repented or shall repent. Moreover, a writing, signed by these calumniators, bears witness for me that I did not approve them, nor did I write anything to that effect; nor can they prove that 1 ever gave them countenance in any way; nor will any one; assert that I did, unless he wishes to destroy his soul by lying and slander. For verily I, the weak and sinful, am a partner with all |266 those holy and saintly fathers, three hundred and eighteen in number, who assembled at Nicaea; and with the hundred and fifty who met at Constantinople; and with the two hundred and twenty who assembled together with the holy Cyril at Ephesus, and cursed and cast out the wicked Nestorius. Moreover, I have been and am a partner with the holy martyr Mar Dioscurus, Patriarch of the metropolis Alexandria; him who was unjustly and wickedly driven into exile, as though he were an evil doer, by perverse heretics, enemies of the truth; those who are like minded with the wicked Nestorius, and with Leo of Rome, and with the unrighteous Emperor Marcian.
As I have already said, the truth which I have learned from apostles and from holy fathers and saints, in this I abide unto the very end of my life; nor will I basely deny that work of grace which was wrought through the coming of God our Saviour in human nature; who came down and was incarnated of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was born of her in her virginity, and endured all that came upon him in order that he might redeem the life of all mankind.
If then, my Lord, there is any one who is of doubting mind, let him be confirmed in the faith of the holy fathers, and in these things which we have written. And do you be in good health, and rejoicing in spirit and body. Pray for me that I may be one of God's elect.
Third Letter, also written by Simeon himself: To John of Antioch, concerning Nestorius.
To the holy and God-loving Mar John, Bishop of Antioch, from Simeon the feeble in the Lord, greeting.
Having heard, my Lord, from faithful men that you have been summoned by the most pious emperor to attend the holy council, for which, on account of Nestorius and his blasphemies, he is striving to assemble the holy bishops at Ephesus; and that your Holiness, as is reported, does not wish to join their assembly: I in my insignificance urge your Holiness, not to delay to go up to the holy council of Ephesus, and to become an ally of our holy father Cyril, and a participant in the holy synod which is with him, in cursing the misguided Nestorius---if so be that he come not to repentance.
If this shall not be done by you, I know well that there will be no peace in the churches of the East; but that, on the contrary, |267 great disturbances will arise. Nay, surely it is for you to do this, which will please God, rejoice the king, and establish peace in the churches of the East.
As was remarked above, the manuscript Add. 12155, which contains only the letter to the Emperor Leo, prefixes to it a superscription several lines in length. This superscription, which is rubricated, reads as follows :
[Syriac omitted]
"The Letter which Mar Simeon the Stylite wrote to the Emperor Leo, who reigned after Marcian; which was called forth by the conduct of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the heretic; who approached the blessed Mar Simeon, hoping to lead him astray with the heresy of the Diophysites, and sowed words of blasphemy in the ears of the blessed Mar Simeon. Wherefore he clothed himself with zeal for the faith, and wrote this letter to the Emperor Leo, in distress and anguish of spirit."
In this superscription, the fact appears once more "which has been sufficiently evident throughout these Syriac documents; namely, that whether Simeon Stylites wrote the three letters or not, they are the work of a vehement partisan, and were circulated to serve as Monophysite party weapons. The general superscription found in manuscript A, for example ("Letters of Simeon, which testify that he did not accept the council of Chalcedon"), plainly implies the existence of a more or less widespread belief (held and proclaimed by "impudent and wicked |268 heretics") that Simeon did accept the council of Chalcedon. We know, in fact, that this saint, whose dictum was of such great importance, was claimed not only by Monophysites and Chalcedonians, but also by Nestorians. In at least one of the three letters, moreover, the writer's main purpose is, professedly, to silence his calumniators. The letter addressed to the abbot Jacob of Kaphra Rhlma was intended (to use its own words) "to be used for the consolation and confirmation of the orthodox everywhere, and for the stopping of the mouth of perverse heretics." And a little further on, the writer implies that his Chalcedonian enemies have produced documents (which he brands as forgeries) in support of their assertion. "I did not approve [the council]," he says, "nor did I write anything to that effect, nor can they prove that I ever gave them countenance in any way; nor will any one assert that I did, unless he wishes to destroy his soul by lying and slander." That is, it is not a question of Simeon's conversion from Melkite to Monophysite views; he says here (or is made to say) most distinctly that he never at any time gave the hated 'synod' his support. If, then, this letter to Jacob is genuine, it follows that the letters above quoted or alluded to, preserved by Evagrius, Cyrillus Scythopolitanus, and the rest, are all forgeries.
But can Simeon have been the author of these Monophysite epistles? From all that we know of his surroundings and the influences to which he was subjected, we should expect to find him a Chalcedonian. He had passed all his life in the Antiochian district; a district in which sectional pride had been strong during the last decades of his life, while the 'Antiochian party' still held its ground and made its influence felt. It is true that as early as the middle of the fifth century the Syrian theology was losing its hold on the laity, and we know that among the monks, especially, the Monophysite doctrines were more and more decidedly gaining the upper hand in this region, as in most other parts of the East. But the great Monophysite triumphs here came after Simeon's day; while he lived, war was waged in Syria quite as bitterly between Nestorians and men who held views like those of Ibas of Edessa, as between Monophysites and their opponents. What is much more important, Simeon was |269 not a mere monk among monks, but was hand in glove with the Syrian leaders. Theodoret, the pillar of the Antiochians, was his friend. We know that Domnus II. of Antioch (patriarch, 442-449), a steady opponent of the Monophysites from the first, was received by Simeon with especial favor on at least one occasion. See the story told in the Life (ed. Bedjan, p. 581), and repeated, in somewhat different form, by Evagrius, Eccl. Hist., i. 13 (Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, i. 245 f.). The impression of the Stylite which we gain from the Life and from our other sources is that he was in full sympathy and cooperation with those who were the acknowledged leaders of the Syrian church. The council of Chalcedon reinstated Theodoret and Ibas, who, together with Domnus and others, had been deposed at Ephesus in the council of 449. This action may well have given the bishops and clergy of this region a strong added reason for accepting the Chalcedonense, as in fact they generally did. It is natural to suppose that Simeon was of one mind with them in this.
The evidence afforded by the letters (whether genuine or not) given by Evagrius and the Vita Euthymii has already been noticed. Their testimony to Simeon's reputation as a Chalcedonian is weighty; that furnished by the story of Euthymius and the letter to Eudocia deserving, perhaps, especially to be emphasized. And there is another noteworthy bit of evidence of a somewhat similar nature. In the Edessene Chronicle, lxix., the death of Simeon Stylites is recorded, as the event distinguishing the year 771 (A.D. 459). This means, as Hallier remarks, that he is classed as a Chalcedonian. The compiler of the Chronicle, who is a Chalcedonian with an added Nestorian bias, writes with such strong party prejudice that he passes over the Monophysite saints and dignitaries in silence (Hallier, Edess. Chron., p. 74 f.). |270
In view of this array of testimony, direct and indirect, the presumption against the three Monophysite "Letters of Simeon the Stylite" is very strong. The argument from silence, moreover, adds its weight. These letters, if genuine, must have been very widely known. One was addressed to the emperor himself; another to the patriarch of Antioch, about to set out on his ill-fated journey to the first council at Ephesus; the third was expressly intended to be circulated as a campaign document, being the final dogmatic utterance of the great ascetic. But they are never mentioned, either by Monophysite historians or by others; nor does anybody outside of these two Syriac manuscripts seem ever to have heard of them.
In the letters themselves, there are not wanting indications which also tend to show that they are forgeries. With regard to the chronology presupposed in the first letter, this fact is perhaps worthy of notice: Simeon speaks of himself as having waited more than a reasonable time after receiving the emperor's letter (and returning his answer?), in hope that measures would be taken to undo what had been done at Chalcedon. But being disappointed in this hope, he finally wrote the present letter. Now Leo, who came to the throne in February, 457, probably sent out his circular letters in the year 458, but possibly even later. In any case, the interval of time before Simeon's death (September, 459) would be very short---though perhaps not too short---for such a (second) reply as this from the saint.
In the second letter, the self-description in the address, "Simeon, who stands upon the pillar near the village Telnesi," is suspicious. It would hardly have occurred to the saint to describe himself in just this way, especially as he was the only Simeon Stylites in the; world. But at a later day, when there had been other pillar-saints who bore the name Simeon, it would be necessary to mention the locality in order surely to identify the writer of this document.
The third letter is distinctly a vaticinium ex eventu. Whether or not John of Antioch was secretly a friend of Nestorius, and purposely managed to arrive late in Ephesus, it is quite |271 incredible that any one, even in the city of Antioch, could thus have foretold the course which events would take, and the meeting of that "holy synod" which was to be held by Cyril and his monks.
It is, of course, unnecessary to argue that the superscriptions prefixed to the letters in our two manuscripts belong to a later day than that of the Stylite. As for the part played by Theodoret in provoking the epistle to Leo, the death of this friend of Simeon's took place probably before the emperor sent out his circular letter, and certainly before this epistle could have been written.