Sources for the study of HH St. Dioscorus, 25th Patriarch of Alexandria

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
As there are elsewhere right now other threads going on which slander the name and memory of the 25th Patriarch of Alexandria, HH St. Dioscorus (who is called in the Coptic tradition Pensakh, 'Our teacher'), accusing him of all kinds of evil and heresy out of the standardized histories of the Chalcedonians, I thought I would at least attempt to present the Oriental Orthodox (particularly Coptic) viewpoint of the man, which is actually somewhat difficult to come by in a historical context for reasons that should become obvious shortly. Nevertheless, what little I have been able to gather will I hope be of use to someone who might come here willing to look at something outside of their own received wisdom concerning this important leader, who is remembered by the Copts, Syrians, and Ethiopians as a valiant champion and fighter for Orthodoxy. (The Armenians have never venerated HH St. Dioscorus.)

I will assume that if you are reading this you have access to a decent translation of the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. If you do not, I recommend to you Price and Gaddis' 2006 two-volume translation that is part of Liverpool University Press' excellent Translated Texts for Historians series. It is available on Amazon as of this posting, but as you might imagine, such a Herculean work does not come cheap (try inter-library loan).

With that, everyone should know the background, which prepares us to take a closer look at the man.

First, we should deal with his so-called 'biography' by his disciple Theopistus, as this is what is likely to be known in West (and then only ever so slightly) outside of Chalcedon's minutes, as a French version was published from the Syriac by Nau in the early 1900s. It is the closest thing that we have to a real-time account of the man's life, though a critical analysis of it reveals it to be of rather limited scope and usefulness, as it is in fact a composite work, with only some dating back to Theopistus. On this, I refer you to the ever-useful, ever-informative blog On Coptic Nationalism by Mr. Dioscorus Boles, wherein we read the following concerning the layers of its composition:

First, its first layer was written by Theopistus, after the death of Dioscorus as Theopistus tells us, and with a terminus post quem not later than 477 AD. This point of history is taken because scholars agree that Peter, the other disciple of Dioscorus, besides Theopistus, mentioned in the story, was actually Peter Mongus, who later became the 27th Patriarch of Alexandria (477 – 489 AD). This part reveals an Egyptian milieu, and Egyptian figures, like Shenute the Archimandrite, Macarius the Bishop of Tkoou and Paphnutius the Superior of the Bachomian Monastery, figure prominently in it. It is a part concerned mostly with what happened from the time Marcian called the Egyptian bishops to Constantinople in 451 AD, the Council of Chalcedon and Dioscorus’ role in it, and his exile to Gangra until his death in 454 AD.

Second, another layer was later added to the original Egyptian nucleus by a person of a Palestinian background, “one of the orators of the school of Peter the Iberian,” as Nau says. This layer has a terminus a quo not earlier than 512 AD. This is because in it Severus, the famous Patriarch of Antioch (513 – 518 AD), is mentioned. The Palestinian origin is revealed by the frequent mentioning of personalities from Palestine, such as John of Maiuma, Peter the Iberian, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and Leontius of Ascalon.

It can, therefore, be said that the Egyptian nucleus of the Histoire de Dioscore, which is what interests us more, was written sometime between 454 and 477 AD. The Polish historian Felix Haase (1882 – 1965), writing in 1902, who defends the authenticity of Histoire de Dioscore and thinks that it was indeed written by Theopistus, and in Greek, puts its date more precisely, in 455 AD.[24]

It is not clear to me which of these layers corresponds to which part of the biography as it exists today, but as it has yet to be published in English in its entirety, it will not be analyzed in the present thread beyond the analysis presented above (and you can find more at the link; it's really quite an excellent blog). Small amounts of it have been translated unofficially (i.e., not in scholarly/academic publications) from Nau's French version and are available here, if anyone is interested.

I am choosing to pass over that because obviously it is most laudatory/hagiographic, having been written by his disciple (which is not to say that is it without value, but that its value as a source of study regarding his life is probably not most evident in the recounting of his deeds, at least not if you are interested in the historical figure rather than the saint...since for most, of course, he is not one). The same could also be said of his synaxarium entry, which I will not even link here because it is woefully inadequate, as pointed out in the blog post above by Mr. Boles, which also handily deals with the portion of the History of the Patriarchs which concerns HH St. Dioscorus' time upon the throne and the controversies that surrounded the Church at that time. So a lot can be found at the first link already provided, if you are so inclined (particularly via the footnotes).

Much more interesting to me are things like the reference to HH in the Coptic Encyclopedia entry on the Chalcedonian Patriarch at Alexandria who took the place of HH Timothy II (Aulerus) during his first exile, Timothy Salophakiolos (r. 460-482):

The Carthaginian deacon Liberatus records in the next century (Breviarium 16) that the Alexandrians told him, "Even if we do not communicate with you, we love you." He restored the name of Patriarch Dioscorus to the diptychs, an act that increased the affection in which he was held even by opponents.

(...)

Timothy entered into relations with Zeno, who had been restored to the throne (August 476), and with Pope Simplicius (468-483), whom he assured of his orthodoxy and his cancellation of his commemoration of Dioscorus.
Comparing the history as found in the full entry (which is obviously written by a Chalcedonian) with letter 171 from Leo, Pope of Rome, which was sent in August of 460 to congratulate Salophakiolos on his coming to the throne and to warn him to be on guard for any remnants of Eutychianism or Nestorianism in his new domain, and encourage him to bring as many to Chalcedonianism as he could, it seems unlikely that Salophakiolos would've restored HH's name to the diptych prior to Leo I's death in November of that year. Pope Simplicius, mentioned above, is said in Roman sources (Thiel 1868, as per wiki) to have "rehabilitated" Salophakiolos, and he was elected in February of 468. Even if we assume this rehabilitation took place immediately, that still leaves considerable time during which HH was commemorated by the Chalcedonians in Egypt, even as those who were of the non-Chalcedonian party still refused to communicate with them (while appreciating that this has happened). That is mighty interesting, in light of what happened later to the name of Dioscorus in the Chalcedonian churches. The Chalcedonian may be disposed to say that this is a signal of Salophakiolos' gentle and agreeable nature (which honestly to me seems fair enough), though it is also worth remembering from the minutes of Chacledon itself that it was declared there that HH was not deposed for heresy. (See here the third session, as recorded in the previously-mentioned translation of the Acts, vol 1. For further commentary from a Chalcedonian perspective, you may also see Fr. John S. Romanides' comparison of Leo's support for Theodoret and Discorus' support for Eutyches.)

There exist also more direct attestations of HH's thought, such as his letter to the monks of Hennaton, which is also worth studying, but of the remainder of his literary corpus, it seems that very little is known. It is entirely possible that there is more available in Egypt or elsewhere in Arabic, Syriac, Coptic, etc., but nothing systematic or exhaustive appears to have come out in any place, unlike other major Coptic figures like (for instance) St. Shenouda the Archimandrite.