Praefatio

In the year of the Lord 556. Liberatus, deacon of Carthage. Preface to the Breviarium of the Deacon Liberatus. I. Liberatus, deacon of the Church of Carthage, one of the African defenders of the Three Chapters, wrote a little book on the Nestorian and Eutychian heresy, in which he teaches from what parents each was born, and whom it had afterwards, up to the fifth synod, whether as propagators or as principal defenders. ii. For what purpose he wrote, he openly reveals at the end. For after he has set forth in the whole work the battles and arts of fighting of the Nestorians and Eutychians, long practiced by use, and finally has explained the secret machinations of the emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora, he has attempted, with a certain crafty subtlety, to lead the mind of the incautious reader, little by little and imperceptibly, into this opinion: that he considers the fifth synod not a legitimate judgment of the Church, but a political collusion of bishops flattering the emperor.

III. Since he was more inclined toward Nestorius, or at least toward Theodoretus, a friend of Nestorius, he was less than fair in his attitude toward Cyril and the Emperor Theodosius. This cause drove a man indulging his feelings to accuse Cyril of envy and Theodosius of perverse governance, as if each had been the occasion—or even the author—of the tumults, or, as he himself says, of the scandals. IV. He does not present a very detailed account of chronology: for, content to narrate the events themselves and the succession of bishops, he does not always carefully note the years in which each thing occurred. But if he is joined with his two other Africans—Facundus of Hermiane, who wrote twelve books on the case of the Three Chapters, and Victor of Tunnuna, who wrote a Chronicle—the history of the events pertaining to the fifth synod will be more certain than from Theophanes or Nicephorus, whether the Constantinopolitan or Callistus. For the former committed to writing things of which they were largely a part; the latter were far removed, since Theophanes was three centuries distant, and Nicephorus nearly eight.

V. He gave the work the title *Breviarium*, partly because it was compiled from abridged longer records, and partly because it covers the history of one hundred and twenty-five years in twenty-four chapters, and those not excessively long; for that many years intervened between the ordination of Nestorius, from which it takes its beginning, and the Fifth Synod, to which it seems to adhere; since the ordination of Nestorius occurred in the year [428], on the tenth day of April; the synod is said to have begun in the year 553, on the fourth day of May. VI. From where he obtained what he transmits in the *Breviarium*, he partly reveals himself, and partly it is detected by not obscure indications: "From the ecclesiastical history," he says, "recently translated from Greek into Latin, and from the synodal acts, or the letters of the holy Fathers, I have collected this *Breviarium*, weaving into the course of time those things which I received in a Greek writing from Alexandria, or learned by the faithful narration of the most serious men." Concerning each of the sources he mentions and several others, we will speak shortly.

VII. Now how much he has profited from the *Breviarium* of the history of the Eutychianists, the eyes of the readers themselves declare; for he often uses the very words and the continuous narrative. But since the *Breviarium* does not extend beyond the condemnation of Acacius, he took the events of the following years partly from John the rhetorician and others, partly he himself saw them, or learned of them from the report of his contemporaries, whether while he was staying at Rome or while he was in the East: for which reason we have placed no author’s name before the last five chapters. VIII. Now the *Breviarium* itself, which we have mentioned, covers a history of nearly fifty years, in which span of time many things were done which, since the author could not have witnessed them with his own eyes, he certainly took from elsewhere, namely from the archives of the Roman Church, in which were preserved both the acts of synods, and the reports of apocrisiarii, and the letters which the pontiffs either received or sent, and many other things of that kind.

IX. I know that the fifth and sixth centuries were most productive of writers who committed to memory the same events that Liberatus did; nor do I deny that writers of this kind could have been consulted by Liberatus, either read by him if he knew Greek well enough, or consulted through another interpreter—which is quite probable, though I would hardly affirm it. Besides the three most famous—Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates—a history was composed by Priscus of Panium under Theodosius the Younger, John of Aegae under Zeno, and Candidus of Isauria under Zeno, Eustathius the Syrian under Anastasius, Theodore the Lector under Justin the Elder, John the Rhetor, Basil the Cilician, and Zacharias the Rhetor under Justinian, and others whom Evagrius, Theophanes, and Nicephorus—abridgers of earlier writers—mention. X. Baronius accuses Liberatus of having sometimes believed too imprudently in historians favorable to Nestorius, and thus less fair to Catholics. Some inquire—perhaps more curiously than usefully—who such historians might be, and they think they need not look beyond the eight already listed; for what others could one suspect? Nothing is more likely than to suppose Zacharias the Rhetor, because Evagrius says he was driven by emotion to write, and among many other things, especially that at the Council of Chalcedon, Nestorius himself was summoned. It could also be conjectured that this Zacharias is no different from the Nestorian historian of whom mention is made in the Alexandrian Chronicle.

But that Zacharias followed the party of the Eutychianists is shown by Evagrius, book III, chapter 7, who at the same time indicates that the bias which drove him to write his history was directed not against Nestorius but against Eutyches, and that Nestorius was summoned to the council by him, certainly as a defendant to be judged, not as a bishop to deliberate. XI. As for what is alleged concerning a Nestorian heretic, it is a very slight, indeed a vain, conjecture, unless I am mistaken: for that historian is praised in the Alexandrian Chronicle, certainly composed by Catholics, as a most wise man. Therefore I believe that this is the same man whom Liberatus calls Nestorius of Phlagonea, and who at the Council of Chalcedon condemned Dioscorus, and upon his return, together with three other Catholic bishops, ordained Proterius. Time, name, and the man’s faith support this opinion: for this chronographer, of whom we speak, brought his history down to Leo the Younger, that is, to the year 474, which is the twenty-third year after the Council of Chalcedon, up to which time he could easily have lived, even if he had been fifty years old when he attended the council in 451. Moreover, the similarity of name, both of the chronographer and of the bishop, offers no slight conjecture, especially since I recall having read somewhere among the Fathers of the council “Nestorius of Phlagonea.” And what of the fact that both were Catholics?

Add that it is quite credible that a man who had been a major part of the affairs concerning the Alexandrian Church would have committed their history to writing; and finally, since no chronicler makes mention of Nestorius except the Alexandrians, it should seem not far from the truth to believe that this same man wrote in Egypt. XII. This little work appears to have been written after the year 564; for first, in the beginning, mention is made of the death suffered by Pope Vigilius, who died at Syracuse at the beginning of the year. Next, the journey spoken of in chapter I was certainly none other than that in which the deacon accompanied his bishop Reparatus when he was exiled to Euchaita. Now Reparatus was exiled in the year 553, and died there at the beginning of the year 563. The chronology fits with other circumstances: for Liberatus states that he writes when Apollinarius ruled the Alexandrian Church, and when Primosus, the condemned one of the Three Chapters, who succeeded Reparatus in the see of Carthage, had died. Now Apollinarius still ruled the Alexandrian Church in the year 564, since he is said to have been ordained in the year 551, and is said by Nicephorus of Constantinople to have held the see for seventeen years. Primosus, however, died around the year 562, at which time Theodosius of Alexandria was still alive, as he ceased to live in the year of Justin the Younger, which is AD 566.

XIII. There are those who greatly praise this kind of Breviary, and those who praise it less: the former commend the brevity of the book and the breadth of its subject matter, which are two enticements for minds to read; the latter complain of the lesser than fitting thoroughness in examining the documents of so great a case on both sides, and of excessive facility in giving credence to men who are not entirely sincere; indeed, they also accuse it of excessive partiality for its own side, for the author was involved in the schism because of the more obstinate defense of the Three Chapters. XIV. Although the humility of the diction, and its almost incredible unevenness, due to the inserted opinions of authors rendered from Greek into not very idiomatic Latin, may deter a fastidious reader, it ought not, however, deter a student of history; for whatever fault there is, it is compensated for by the variety of matters, which are scarcely found anywhere else, or at least not so collected together; for the records from which he drew most of his material have for the most part perished. XV. It recently appeared with countless errors, which it now lacks thanks to the aid of three manuscript codices of the best quality: the Tellerian, the Bellovacensis, and our own. The published editions also helped not a little, at least to give weight to conjectures, and also the Greek authors themselves, whose works have been condensed into a compendium. We have preferred to completely expunge the errors of the old editions from the text, rather than, as is often done, to retain them to the great detriment or annoyance of readers; however, it seemed good to write what has been corrected in a different typeface, so that it can be more easily distinguished, and, if desired, compared with the published books.

XVI. Scholia have been added that would correspond to the work, that is, very brief ones, and there was a great need for them, so that light might be shed upon the text, if at any time it has been made rather obscure by brevity, or the author’s opinion might be corrected when it disagrees with better and more recent writers. XVII. As for the effort I have contributed, it can be seen as a kind of continuation of the Nestorian history, which I placed before the latter part of the works of Marius Mercator; indeed, also as an appendix to the life of Theodoret, which will soon be published. For I applied my mind to examining Liberatus more carefully in order to be accurate in both, for several reasons, but especially for this one alone: that, having been led astray at some time by this author into error, I thought others should be warned, lest, because of a preconceived opinion about him and a greater credulity than is warranted, they either run into danger or even be deceived. XVIII. Furthermore, what I said in no. 4—that what is lacking in Liberatus must be supplied from other authors, especially Facundus of Hermiane and Victor of Tunnuna—should be understood to apply to the things that were done in the sixth century and in which they took part; for the rest, one must consult better sources, such as the acts of the councils, the letters of the pontiffs, the imperial rescripts, to which the note of the times is attached; one must also consult the most approved writers who have composed the series of bishops of each major church and have more carefully affixed the marks of time to events.

XIX. Beware, however, among these writers, when dealing with precise chronology, that you do not include Theophanes and Nicephorus of Constantinople: for the former indeed compiled a table of times, the latter a catalogue of five patriarchs; but each in such a way that, although Theophanes is a credible historian, neither stands as a praiseworthy chronographer. Therefore, readers ought not to be overly learned, as a certain recent disputant, who commends it under the name of most excellent chronology, would have it. XX. Lest I seem to speak slanderously about Nicephorus and Theophanes, this must be demonstrated with two very clear examples. First, how far Nicephorus deviates from the truth in describing the years each bishop sat, of whose catalogue he made, and especially those mentioned in Liberatus. Second, how great is the partnership in error between Theophanes and Nicephorus in this matter. XXI. Nicephorus, then, when he composed the catalogue of Roman pontiffs, places forty-eight years between the death of Anastasius and the death of Coelestinus. For he assigns to Innocent I, who succeeded Anastasius, fifteen years, to Zosimus eight, to Boniface four, to Coelestinus twenty-one; yet it is established by indisputable evidence that no more than thirty years elapsed, since Anastasius died in the year [AD 402] on the 19th of April, Coelestinus in the year 432 on the 6th of April: therefore Nicephorus's computation exceeds by eighteen years.

Then if eight years are attributed to Zosimus, as Nicephorus does, Zosimus must have held the apostolic see until the year 425; for he began to sit in that see in the year 417, after the death of Innocent I. But how far this is from the truth, no one is unaware, since Coelestinus, the successor of Boniface, had already begun to sit in the year after Zosimus, as is established from a letter of Augustine and other certain records. Further, if Coelestinus sat for twenty-one years, as Nicephorus reports, and began to sit in the year 425, in the month of November, he must have held the see until the year 446; but Saint Leo began his pontificate already in the year 440, and yet he did not succeed Coelestinus, but Sixtus, who succeeded Coelestinus. And there is another evident error of Nicephorus in the catalogue of Roman pontiffs: John Mercurius ascended the apostolic see in the year 532, in the month of January, Pelagius I in the year 555, or, as others think, 556; therefore between the entry of each, twenty-three or twenty-four years elapsed. Yet in Nicephorus’s catalogue, from the edition of Contius, only eleven years are placed, since three years are assigned to John, one to Agapetus, two to Silverius, five to Vigilius, than which nothing more monstrous can be said; for in this way the entire history of the synod, insofar as it concerns Vigilius, would be undermined.

If we consult the same catalogue in the Royal edition, the sum will no longer fall short by thirteen years, but will exceed by three or four; for to Silverius, which is plainly astonishing, eighteen years are attributed, and thus Silverius from the year 536, when he succeeded Agapetus, would have reached as far as the year 554, that is, beyond the time of the fifth synod, than which what is more incredible? But if it be said, as indeed it must, that a double error has crept into the Greek text, that the years which belong to Vigilius have been attributed to Silverius, and that it should be written, not, everything indeed somehow agrees. But who would trust books which must be corrected before they can be usefully praised? I pass over many other far greater outrages of the same catalogue. XXII. Nor indeed is he more accurate in the bishops of Jerusalem than in those of Rome. I produce a single example, but a most effective one, in which he errs most grievously in the fourth place in computing the years of three bishops, John, Praylius, and Juvenal. It is established by a certain reckoning of time that between the ordination of John and the death of Juvenal seventy-one years elapsed, since Cyril died in the year of John 586, Juvenal in the year of Anastasius 457. Nicephorus records that seventy-four elapsed. This is the first error. He attributes to John fifteen years in all, when he sat for thirty, for he died in the year 417, as is clear from the letters of Augustine and Zosimus, and he succeeded Cyril, whose death occurred in the year of Theodosius M., that is, in the year 386, as Jerome records, chapter.

from the Ecclesiastical Writers. That is the second. The third is far more astonishing, if not more absurd: it attributes twenty years to Praylius, who succeeded John, by which reckoning he should be said to have sat until the year 457. But how does this conflict with history? For Juvenal, who succeeded Praylius, attended the Synod of Ephesus in the year 431, received letters from Saints Celestine and Cyril in the year 430, and was ruling the Church of Jerusalem in the year in which Theodoret records that Theodotus died, that is, the year 427. Indeed, as will soon be shown, he began his episcopate in that year; and thus Praylius ruled the Church of Jerusalem for scarcely eight years. The fourth is like the former ones. Nicephorus attributes thirty-eight years to Juvenal, by which reasoning he should be said to have died in the year 462, if he began to sit in the year 424; yet he died in the year 457, since the eighth year of Anastasius, who succeeded Juvenal, coincides with the ninth year of the Emperor Leo I, and thus with the year 405 of Christ, as is clearly gathered from the monk Cyril in the Life of Saint Cyriacus.

XXIII. What shall I say concerning the Alexandrians? He fabricates things which no one moderately skilled in ecclesiastical history can read patiently. It is established by indubitable reasoning that Dioscorus succeeded the blessed Cyril upon his death in the year 444, and that Apollinaris succeeded after the deposition of Zoilus in the year 551. Therefore, approximately one hundred and seven years elapsed between the ordination of Dioscorus and the ordination of Apollinaris; but Nicephorus posits only eighty: thus twenty-seven years are missing; nor is such a deficiency remedied by one who adds the seventeen years which others attribute to Timothy, Asterius, and whose see had no number of years assigned by Nicephorus: for about ten years would still be lacking. Furthermore, Nicephorus attributes only five years to Dioscorus, although he was ordained at the beginning of February in the year 444, and deposed at Chalcedon in the year 451, in the month of October; and thus he sat for about eight years. He attributes only fifteen years to Timothy Salophaciolus, or the White; Liberatus reports that the same man, of about the same age as Timothy, died in the twenty-third year of his pontificate. He attributes one year to Gaianus; Liberatus gives one hundred and three days, or as another reading has it, sixty-three days. He attributes two years to Theodosius; Liberatus gives one year and four months: why should I pursue more curiously the rest, carelessly written? I pass on to the Antiochenes.

XXIV. It is certain, on the authority of Theodoret, book V of the *History*, near the end, that Theodotus of Antioch died in the year 427. It is equally certain, from Evagrius, that Euphrasius perished, crushed by the ruin of the city, in the year 526, on a day in May which was a Friday. Therefore, ninety-nine years in total elapsed between the deaths of the two. Nicephorus counts one hundred and six, with seven months. This is the first outrage; that is the second. It is established, as has been said, by the undoubted authority of Theodoret in this matter, that Theodotus died in the year 427, in the time of John; it is equally established, from the acts of both the Robber Synod of Ephesus and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, that Domnus was deposed in the year 449, in the month of August. Therefore, from the accession of John, who succeeded Theodotus, to the accession of Maximus, who was substituted for Domnus, twenty-two years elapsed. Nicephorus counts twenty-six, for he assigns eighteen years to John and eight to Domnus. For this reason—an outrage more enormous than the previous ones—John would have to be said to have held the see of Antioch until the year 445, and Domnus until the year 453, than which nothing is more contrary to the truth. For Maximus, who was substituted for Domnus, participated in the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451, as is evident from the acts. Domnus was deposed at Ephesus in the Robber Synod in the year 449, in the month of August, as the records show.

Domnus was in charge of the Church of Antioch in the year 444, in which year Cyril died, as is clear from the fragments excerpted by Marius Mercator. Moreover, he received letters from Cyril concerning the case of Athanasius, bishop of the Perrheni, and he also received letters from Theodoret concerning the noble Coelestiacus in the year 442. What is more, Theodoret, whom no one knew the years of John more certainly because of his singular friendship and familiar association, demonstrates that he sat for only thirteen years in a letter to Dioscorus, the successor of Cyril. XXV. But it is remarkable how greatly he was deceived even in calculating the years of his own predecessors. It is established, from the acts of the Council of Ephesus, that Nestorius was deposed in the year 451, in the month of June; it is equally established, from the letters of Pope Vigilius and the confession of Eutyches, that Menas died in the year 552. Therefore it is undoubted that between the deposition of Nestorius and the death of Menas one hundred and twenty-one years elapsed. Yet Nicephorus counts only one hundred and ten, and thus errs by a deficiency of eleven years: then he writes that Proclus sat for twelve years and three months; it is nevertheless certain that he sat for thirteen years and six months: for he was ordained on the very day that Maximianus departed from the living, on the day of the major week, the day before the Ides of April, and that character of the year passed on to the heavens on the day of October in the year 447. Therefore he sat for thirteen years and six months.

XXVI. From these things which have been clearly demonstrated concerning Nicephorus, unless I am mistaken, anyone may easily conjecture what he thinks of Theophanes—namely, the same as Nicephorus, who is in error. XXVII. For to begin with the Roman pontiffs, he assigns eight years to Zosimus, four to Boniface, ten to Celestine, eight to Sixtus; by which reckoning Sixtus would have to have died in the year 447, Celestine in 433, Boniface in 449, Zosimus in 425—since Zosimus succeeded Innocent in the year 417, than which nothing could be further from the truth, seeing that Leo, Sixtus’ successor, began his pontificate in the year 440. Certainly, he wrote to the bishops of Campania in the year 443. Sixtus wrote to John of Antioch and Cyril in the year 433. Celestine held the apostolic see for no small time before the ordination of Nestorius, which occurred in the year 428. Boniface gave letters to the bishops of Gaul concerning Maximus of Valentia, under the consulship of Monaxius and Plinta, that is, in the year 419.

XXVIII. Concerning the bishops of Jerusalem, he makes the same error as Nicephorus: for he assigns sixteen years to John, twenty to Praylius, and thirty-eight to Juvenal. These three are extremely erroneous. He likewise errs concerning the bishops of Antioch, and also concerning those of Alexandria, indeed even concerning those of Constantinople, so that the catalogue of Nicephorus seems to have been copied from the lists of Theophanes. XXIX. Since the matter stands thus with respect to Theophanes, it is clearly evident how prudently he was called by the learned translator Goar a more probable historian than a tolerable chronographer; for nothing is more careless or more corrupt than his chronological lists.