Few figures in the history of late antique Christianity have left a more polarised reputation than Dioscorus of Alexandria. Elected bishop as the successor of Cyril in 444 ce, Dioscorus presided over the Second Council of Ephesus (449), but was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451) and died in exile in 454. In east and west, Chalcedon's supporters denounced Dioscorus as a violent tyrant, following the lead of Pope Leo, who famously branded the Ephesus synod as latrocinium or ‘Robber Council’. In the eastern Miaphysite churches, however, Dioscorus was hailed as a saint for his heroic resistance in defence of the orthodox faith. The reconstruction of Dioscorus’ role in the controversies of his time is thus an exceptionally complex task, and scholars and students alike will be deeply grateful to M. for this excellent book, which rises to the challenge of reassessing Dioscorus’ career and legacy. While M. rightly rejects the hostile caricature of Dioscorus, which continues to appear in many modern works, the interpretation presented here is no simple whitewash. The Dioscorus who emerges from the careful re-examination of the contemporary records is a capable administrator with the courage to defend his convictions, but a poor diplomat who lacked the political skills that his great predecessor possessed. A number of the conclusions presented are necessarily speculative, for such is the nature of our evidence. Yet M. draws on impressive wider research to reinforce his arguments and focuses particularly on the acts from the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon to offer important new insights into the dramatically shifting debates that changed the course of Christianity.
A short introduction sets the parameters for the investigation to come, although student readers might have benefited from a little further guidance concerning the polemical sources and the very limited survival of Dioscorus’ writings. The first chapter provides a fascinating in-depth analysis of the extensive distribution of gifts to the imperial court with which Cyril secured his success after the disputed Council of Ephesus in 431. This analysis is highly valuable in its own right, demonstrating the financial scale of the gifts and the targeted choice of recipients, but also provides the background for the second chapter, which assesses Dioscorus as patriarch of Alexandria. M. emphasises the crucial tension between Dioscorus as a theological follower of Cyril and Dioscorus’ election as bishop in 444 in opposition to Cyril's family. The evidence from Dioscorus’ episcopate suggests careful management of church finances after Cyril's lavish expenditure and increased importance placed on the role of the oikonomos (‘steward’), who assisted the bishop in economic management. These internal concerns kept Dioscorus’ attention concentrated upon Alexandria and Egypt in the years immediately after his election, and it was only in 448 that conflicts elsewhere in the empire prompted his involvement in the ongoing Christological debates.
The third and longest chapter presents M.'s detailed reinterpretation of the events surrounding the Council of Ephesus in 449 and the role played by Dioscorus. This chapter offers the greatest challenge to traditional scholarship. Through a close reading of the conciliar acts and letters M. argues that the driving force behind the planning and execution of the council was Theodosius II, with Dioscorus acting as ‘the emperor's henchman’. There is little doubt that imperial involvement has been underestimated, and M.'s vision fits well with other recent re-evaluations of Theodosius II as a far more active ruler than older judgements on his reign allowed. M. perhaps goes too far in reducing Dioscorus to the passive enforcer of Theodosius’ agenda, with little consideration given to how the relationship between emperor and patriarch might have worked in both directions rather than solely by imperial fiat. Nevertheless, this is an important and thought-provoking reassessment of one of the most contentious late antique councils, and M. is unquestionably correct to emphasise that it was the death of Theodosius II in 450 that led to Dioscorus’ sudden reversal of fortune. The allegations of violent behaviour at Ephesus which Dioscorus faced at Chalcedon and which shaped his later polemical image reflected this new environment, for such accusations justified the many bishops who changed their positions between 449 and 451 without attacking the recently deceased Theodosius. Whether M. is correct, therefore, to deny any basis behind the accusations merits further investigation, as Dioscorus’ rapid loss of support may reveal unease at actions for which he was held responsible as well as reflecting his limited political skills. But Dioscorus held firm to his own principles in 451, as M. demonstrates in his last chapter through reconstructing the difficult evidence from the acts of Chalcedon, before a brief conclusion summarises Dioscorus’ afterlife and divided legacy.
The volume is a tightly structured work focused upon the years between 444 and 451. We lack the evidence to write a full biography of Dioscorus, with his earlier life largely unknown, as M. observes; the narrow focus is thus entirely justified. Yet there are times when additional context would have been desirable, particularly on the Alexandrian background (S. Davis, The Early Coptic Papacy [2004] is cited just once and not mentioned in the brief introduction to the Alexandrian see). Setting Dioscorus more fully alongside his predecessors helps us to understand the pressures he faced, and yields interesting comparisons notably with Athanasius, who, like Dioscorus, was accused of violence and exiled, but who was younger and able to return and rehabilitate his image. The discussion of Alexandrian finances and ecclesiastical offices in the first two chapters is exceptionally valuable, but cannot provide a sufficient foundation to assess Dioscorus’ place in the evolution of the Alexandrian patriarchate.
For any book that seeks to overturn an entrenched position there is a natural tendency to develop the argument towards the contrasting viewpoint. M. has performed a great service in bringing the historical Dioscorus to light; and, as he strongly emphasises, Dioscorus and the Christological controversy cannot be approached simply through the history of dogma. Ecclesiastical politics was a fundamental aspect of the late antique world and inseparably intertwined with the imperial politics of the later Roman empire. Theology too remains important, however; and the doctrinal issues under debate are largely absent from M.'s study. A casual reader would be forgiven for assuming that Dioscorus placed far greater weight on politics and finance than on sincere Christian faith, and the repeated description of his theology as ‘Cyrillian’ conceals the heated divisions over Cyril's theological legacy, which are hinted at only in passing. Scholarship on late antique Christian controversies still struggles at times to balance theological and political interpretations, and this balance was not M.'s intended aim. What he has achieved for Dioscorus is to make such a broader approach possible, and for those interested in pursuing these questions his book will be essential reading.
