Patriarch Dioscorus is an outstanding historical study brimming with new insights. Avoiding the archetypal discussion of the dueling Christologies of Antioch and Alexandria, Menze scrutinizes imperial and ecclesiastical politics to add a rich layer of complexity to our understanding of Dioscorus, the Synod of Constantinople in 448, Ephesus II in 449 (the so-called “Robber Council”), and the Council of Chalcedon. Still, the volume will challenge those who interpret ecumenical councils through an exclusively theological lens, and it reflects a tangential problem within academia.
Menze prudently dispenses with the saint/heretic dichotomy and scrutinizes the historical Dioscorus (9, 196–197), who emerges here as a pious cleric, an able administrator, and a defender of Cyrillian orthodoxy, although, tragically, he was also devoid of political instincts (7, 79, 84–87, 140, 149). Initially, Menze focuses on Cyril’s success—through loyalty and gold (19–22)—in forming a coalition against John of Antioch (22–30, 35–37). This contrasts with Dioscorus’s failure to forge a similar bulwark at Chalcedon and his inability to negotiate the powerful ecclesio-political currents of his day (7, 84, 91, 140, 149, 161).
Chapter two focuses on archdeacon Dioscorus and his early episcopal career as he displaced Cyril’s relatives and clients from various positions (51, 57–60, 85, 179) and combated “Origenism” in Upper Egypt (63–68). Domestic issues aside, Menze persuasively argues that Dioscorus avoided disputes beyond his jurisdiction until 448 (76–79, 82–84, 93, 104–105). The focus then shifts to the (re-)emergence of Eutychius as a vocal anti-Nestorian and his condemnation in the Synod of 448, which Theodosius II interpreted as a Dyophysite (“Nestorian”) victory and quickly called for Ephesus II (98–108).
Theodosius micromanaged the “Ecumenical Council” of Ephesus II to an unprecedented extent (111–115). (Marcian’s role at Chalcedon was on par, though more deftly executed.) Here, the repeated description of Dioscorus as the emperor’s “henchman” is regrettable. Menze, himself, convincingly nullifies the allegations of violence leveled against Dioscorus (73, 137–140, 149, 162, 164–165); yet, in American English, a “henchman” operates via violence and intimidation. The analysis also maintains that Dioscorus’s peers blamed him for not repudiating Theodosius’s interference (120, 140, 145–146, 149), although I found that argument suggestive rather than demonstrative.
Ephesus II was decisive for the emperor, Dioscorus, and Alexandria; here, Menze expertly parses the dynamics that led to this triumph (9, 96, 141, 144, 183, 186) and its sudden reversal with Marcian’s precarious ascent to the throne. In seeking support from Valentinian III and Pope Leo (142–143, 145, 154), Marcian singly reversed the decisions of Ephesus II (143) and called for another “ecumenical” council (Ch. 4). Pope Leo’s actions were also detailed, although the analysis stops short of framing them within the context of the developing Petrine doctrine. Pope Leo’s strategy was brilliant: secure allies; pressure Dioscorus to acquiesce; and blame everything on him—exculpating the emperor, 200 bishops, the civil administrators, and his own papal delegates (136–137, 150, 156, 175, 188).
At Chalcedon, Dioscorus’s “unsophisticated sincerity” (140) was on display. He failed to rally supporters, unilaterally excommunicated Pope Leo and committed several missteps at the First Session (161, 169–170). Fundamentally, however, Menze unambiguously demonstrates Dioscorus’s unwavering orthodoxy (168, 180–181) and his unjust treatment at Chalcedon (137, 164–166), where ecclesial and imperial politics played a far more decisive role than many would care to admit (145, 164, 172; 155, 159, 162). Moreover, he soundly refutes the allegations that Dioscorus was violent (see above) and that he forced bishops to sign blank papers (73, 137–140, 149, 164–165). Menze goes on to discuss the difficulties Cyrillian-minded bishops had with Leo’s Tome (118, 123, 135, 144, 156, 188)—an often-ignored topic since Chalcedon is typically read in light of Constantinople II. Finally, he notes Pope Leo’s persistent pairing of Eutychius with Dioscorus (192), which led to his labeling as a “heretic” by later authors and councils. Historians, theologians, and participants in ecumenical dialogues will appreciate the clarity and precision Menze provides regarding these sensitive issues.
Patriarch concludes with an accurate, albeit incomplete discussion of Dioscorus’s legacy. Among Miaphysites, he is thinly documented and primarily celebrated as a confessor (192–193). Still, “medieval” liturgical texts (for example, the Anaphora of Dioscorus) and art were overlooked. Conservatively, Dioscorus’s mention in the “Absolution of Ministers” alone reminded Copts of his significance at every liturgical service over the past millennium. Moreover, the well-known hagiographic pericope (enshrined in the Coptic Arabic Synaxarium) where a battered Dioscorus collected his shattered teeth and torn hair as “the fruit of [his] orthodox faith” (183), likely resonated with the generations of “Jacobites” who resisted conversion to Islam on a much deeper level than we can appreciate today.
Broadly speaking (and this is not a critique of Patriarch per se), read through the lens of modern Miaphysite (anti-Chalcedonian) authors, who will welcome many of Menze’s conclusions, the study also reflects the persistence of an insular—in some corners, dismissive—attitude within academia at large. Undeniably, where Menze’s analysis overlaps with that of Miaphysite authors (admittedly an imperfect juxtaposition), he provides a degree of detail and analysis often lacking in those studies; moreover, he does cite Samuel’s Council of Chalcedon Reexamined and Ishak’s Christology and the Council of Chalcedon (though marginally and not where these authors scrutinize historical details). Nevertheless, at least since the 1960s, Miaphysite authors have argued that the tyrannical depictions of Dioscorus contradict early evidence; that the “blank papers” were nothing but polemic; that Dioscorus was orthodox; and that Chalcedon was highly political. (For example, K. Sarkissian, The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church [SPCK, 1965]; I.H. al-Masri, An Intrepid Confessor: Dioscorus I, 25th Pope of Alexandria [Leeds University Oriental Society, 1967]; T.Y. Malaty, The Coptic Orthodox Church as a Church of Erudition and Theology [Anba Ruwis Ufset, 1986]; C. Chaillot, ed., The Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches [Volos Academy Publications, 2016].)
In all, Menze has written an impressive, detailed, and highly reliable volume that forwards significant corrections and insights on the career of a pivotal figure who is often caricatured. More broadly, the study should encourage academics to seriously consider all perspectives, including those of Miaphysite scholars.
