A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology

Smith, William

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. William Smith, LLD, ed. 1890

(Σευῆρος). Greeks, literary and ecclesiastical. The name of Severus, though of pure Latin original, passed into the East, and was borne by various writers, whose works, chiefly in Arabic, are still extant in MSS. Only three persons of the name, however, require notice here, the two haeresiarchs (Severus the Encratite and Severus of Antioch) and Severus the rhetorician. For the others the reader is referred to Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis ; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. p. 106, ed. Oxford, 1740-43; and Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. x. p. 623, &c.

1. ACEPHALORUM PRINCEPS [No. 2.].

2. Of ANTIOCH. An eminent leader of the Monophysites in the earlier part of the sixth century, whence he is designated HAERESIARCHA and ACEPHALUS (the Acephali, Ἀκέφαλοι, " the headless," were the stricter Monophysites, and were so called because they renounced the communion of Peter Mongus, the trimming head of their party), not to enumerate the other reproachful epithets heaped upon hint by the members of the orthodox Greek and Latin churches. As a compensation for all this abuse, it may be observed that he enjoys, to this day, the highest reputation among the Jacobites of Syria and other parts of the East. He was born at Sozopolis, a town of Pisidia, in Asia Minor ; and was in early life a pleader at Berytus in Syria, being at that time a heathen. He is charged by his adversaries with having practised magic (Evagrius, H. E. 3.33; Epistola Orthodoxor. Episcop. Orientalium, and Libellus Monachor. ad Mennam apud Concil. vol. v. col. 40, 120, 121, ed. Labbe). Having, however, embraced Christianity and been baptized in the church of St. Leontius, the Martyr, at Tripolis in Syria, he quitted the bar and devoted himself to a monastic life, in a monastery of Palestine, between Gaza and its port Maiuma. He appears to have embraced the Monophysite doctrine almost immediately after his conversion; for he is charged (Libellus Monachor. l.c.) with renouncing, before the days of his baptism were complete, the church into which he had been baptized; " calling the holy temples of God receptacles of heresy and impiety " (ibid.). It is probable, and indeed Theophanes distinctly asserts it (Chronog. p. 241, ed. Bonn.), that the monastery to which he withdrew, was a monastery of the Monophysites; and it was there that he met with Peter the Iberian, bishop of Gaza, a strenuous Monophysite and a follower of Timotheus Aelurus [TIMOTHEUS], whose banishment he had shared. Severus was so earnest a Monophysite that he rejected the Henoticon of the emperor Zeno [ZENO], and anathematized Peter Mongus, the more moderate Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria [PETRUS, literary and ecclesiastical, No. 22.], because he received the Henoticon (Liberat. Breviar. 100.19). Severus ridiculed the emperor's edict in his writings, calling it not the " Henoticon" (ἑνωτικόν, " edict of union"), but Kenoticon (κενωτικόν, " edict of vanity"), and Diaereticon (διαιρετικόν, " edict of disunion"). From his monastery in Palestine, Severus appears to have removed to another monastery in Egypt, of which Nephalius was abbot. Possibly his ultra opinions had rendered him a dangerous or a disagreeable inmate of his Palestinian monastery and he hoped to find a more cordial welcome or a securer shelter with Nephalius. In this hope he was disappointed : Nephalius embraced the side of Council of Chalcedon, and Severus and others were expelled from the monastery (Evagr. l.c.). Hereupon he fled to Constantinople, to plead his own cause and that of his fellow-sufferers; and in this way became known to the emperor Anastasius, who had (A. D. 491) succeeded Zeno. Severus is charged (Libellus Monachor. l.c.) with exciting troubles in the city of Alexandria, and occasioning the burning of many houses and the slaughter of many citizens, though the city had afforded him a shelter " in his adversity :" but it is difficult to fix the time to which these charges refer. If he was in Alexandria after leaving the monastery in Palestine, and before entering that of Nephalius, the expression " in his adversity " intimates that he had been diven from his monastery in Palestine : but it is not unlikely that the disturbances at Alexandria may have been consequent on his expulsion and that of his fellow-monks by Nephalius ; and the term "his adversity" may be understood as referring to that expulsion.

In what year Severus went to Constantinople, or how long he abode there, is not clear. Tillemont places his arrival in A. D. 510; but he probably relied on a passage in Theophanes (Chronoy. ad A. M. 6002) which is ambiguous. The fellow-monks for whom Severus came to plead, were partisans of Peter Mongus [PETRUS, No. 22.]; and Severus, because he had formerly anathematized Peter, was reproached with inconsistency in taking their part (Liberat l.c.). He appears to have been at Constantinople, A. D. 512; when, in consequence of the disturbances, excited on account of Flavian, patriarch of Antioch [FLAVIANUS, Ecclesiastics, No. 2.], that prelate was deposed and banished to Petra in Idumaea (Evagr. H. E. 3.32), and Anastasius eagerly seized the opportunity afforded by this vacancy to procure the appointment of Severus to the patriarchate. The appointment was most offensive to the orthodox party. Whether Anastasius or Severus took any steps to abate its offensiveness is not clear. A letter of Epiphanius, archbishop of Tyre, and some other prelates to the synod of Constantinople states it as a matter of common report, vet with a cautious expression of doubt as to its truth, that Severus, before his consecration as patriarch, renounced the ordination to the office of presbyter, which he had received when among the Monophysites. This renunciation, if it really took place, implies that he was re-ordained to the priesthood by some orthodox prelate. Theodore Anagnostes or Lector (Hist. Eccles. 2.31) states, on the authority of Joannes Diacrinomenus, or John the Dissenter [comp. JOANNES, literary and ecclesiastical, No. 2.], that Anastasius obliged Severus to swear that he would not anathematize the Council of Chalcedon (comp. Synodicon, apud Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. xii. p. 401, and apud Concilia, vol. iv. col. 1414); but that Severus on the very day of his consecration, which appears to have taken place at Antioch, yielded to the urgent solicitations of his Monophysite friends, and, ascending the pulpit, publicly anathematized the Council, and afterwards (A. D. 413) obtained the confirmation of the anathema by a council which he assembled at Antioch (Synodicon,

799

l.c.). He anathematized Macedonius, the deposed patriarch of Constantinople [MACEDONIUS, No. 4.], and his own predecessor at Antioch, Flavianus. But he accepted the Henoticon of Zeno, and declared himself to be in communion with Timotheus and Joannes, or John III., the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria; and restored to the diptychs the name of Peter Mongus [PETRUS, No. 22.], whom he had once anathematized. At the same time he received into communion Peter the Iberian, his old comrade in the monastery in Palestine, who had retained the more rigid Monophysite views which had marked the early years of Severus himself, and continued out of communion with the more moderate Monophysites of Alexandria who had received the Henoticon. In fact, from the time of his going to Constantinople, Severus's policy appears to have been to unite all the Monophysites, whether moderates or ultras, into one great body, and to resist the orthodox or supporters of the Council of Chalcedon, by whom his appointment was not recognized, and against whom, if the representations of his opponents may be believed, he directed a fierce persecution with atrocious cruelty (Relatio Archimandritarum Syriae apud Concil. vol. iv. coll. 1461, 1462; Libell. Monachor. l.c.; Supplicatio Clericor. Antioch. and Epistola Epiphanii Tyrii, apud Concilia, vol. v. col. 157, 194, &c.). He is especially charged, in conjunction with Peter of Apameia, with having engaged a " band of Jewish robbers," and placing them in ambush for a company of three hundred and fifty of the orthodox, who were all slain, and their limbs left unburied and scattered about the road. Many of the bishops of Severus's patriarchate fled from their sees, others were banished, and others apparently were compelled to conceal their real sentiments. Elias I., patriarch of Jerusalem [ELIAS, No. 1.], was deposed, and the Monophysite party became triumphant in most parts of the East. Their triumph indeed was not complete, nor of long duration. Some bishops of Severus's own patriarchate renounced communion with him : two of them, Cosmas of Epiphaneia, and Severianus of Arethusa, had the audacity to send to him a document declaring him deposed; and so strongly were they supported by the people of their dioceses, that the emperor, who had sentenced them to banishment for their contumacy, was obliged to leave them in possession of their sees, finding he could not remove them without bloodshed (Evagr. H. E. 3.34). The patriarch of Jerusalem who succeeded Elias, prompted by the Anachorets Saba [SABA] and Theodosius, adhered to the orthodox faith, which was also supported by the pope and the Roman Church. Still, notwithstanding this opposition, the Monophysites having men of their own party in the patriarchal sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, possessed a decided superiority. But the accession of Justin I., who adhered to the Council of Chalcedon [JUSTINUS I.], occasioned their overthrow; for in the balanced state of parties, and the servility or timidity of the ecclesiastics and people, the predominance of one side or the other depended on the individual filling the imperial throne. While the heretical Anastasius survived, heresy was in the ascendant; it succumbed to orthodoxy, on the accession of the orthodox Justin. Another circumstance which, perhaps, conduced to the overthrow of the Monophysites, was the re-action occasioned in many minds by their abuse of their pre-eminence. Among those who were thus led to return to the orthodox faith was Mamas, abbot of the convent near Gaza, under whom Severus had passed the earlier part of his monastic life. Early in the reign of Justin I. [JUSTINUS I.], that emperor, at the instigation perhaps of Vitalian, commanded that Severus should be deposed and apprehended : according to some accounts he ordered his tongue to be cut out, and he was anathematized in a council held at Constantinople (A. D. 518). Severus, however, eluded the emperor's severity; and taking ship at Seleuceia, the port of Antioch, fled with Julian bishop of Halicarnassus, to Alexandria (A. D. 518 or 519). Paul was chosen patriarch of Antioch in his room (Evagrius, H. E. 4.4) : and the change was followed by the secession from the church of the followers of the deposed patriarch, and by the pronouncing, in various ecclesiastical councils, of anathemas upon him (Concilia, vol. iv. col. 1673 ; Liberat. Breriar. 100.19). Meanwhile Severus remained at Alexandria, protected by the patriarch Timotheus : and, as if it was his destiny to be the troubler of the Church, he and his fellow-exile Julian started the controversy on the corruptibility of Christ's human body before the resurrection, Severus affirming, and Julian denying, that it was corruptible; the patriarch Timotheus rather inclined to the side of Severus. After the death of Justin, and the accession of Justinian I., the prospects of Severus became more favourable ; for although the new emperor himself [JUSTINIANUS I.] supported the Council of Chalcedon, his empress Theodora favoured the Monophysite party, and by her influence Severus obtained the emperor's permission to return to Constantinople (Evagrius. l.c.). On his arrival, Severus found that Anthimus, who had just obtained the patriarchate of Constantinople, A. D. 535, was a Monophysite, and he prevailed on him to avow his sentiments. Timotheus of Alexandria was a Monophysite also, and the avowal of that obnoxious heresy by the heads of the church, naturally excited the alarm of the orthodox party. Anthimus and Timotheus were both deposed; and in the councils of Constantinople and Jerusalem (A. D. 536), and in an imperial edict, Severus was again anathematized ; his writings also were ordered to be burned. These decisive measures secured the predominance of the orthodox : and Evagrius boasts that the church remained from thenceforth united and pure. But this result was obtained by the separation of Monophysites, and the formation of the great Jacobite schismatical churches of Egypt and the East, by whom Severus has been ever regarded as, to his death, legitimate patriarch of Antioch. Some authorities state that Severus was compelled through the interference of Pope Agapetus (A. D. 535, 536) to leave Constantinople and return to Alexandria. The date of his death is uncertain : Joannes, bishop of Tela, his contemporary, in his Liber Directionum (apud Assemani, Biblioth. Orient. vol. ii. p. 54) places it in the year of the Greeks, i. e. the Seleucidae, 849 = A. D. 538; the Chronicon of Gregorius Bar Hebraeus, or Abulpharagius (apud eundem, p. 321), in the year of the Greeks 850= A. D. 539; and Assemani himself (ibid. note), in A. D. 542. It is said to have taken place at Alexandria, where he lurked in the disguise of a monk. The Jacobites recognize Sergius as his successor in the patriarchate. (Marcellinus, Chronicon Victor

800

Tunnunensis, Chronicon ; Theophanes, Chronog. pp. 130-142. ed. Paris, pp. 104-113, ed. Venice, pp. 233-255, ed. Bonn; Evagrius, H. E. ll. cc.; Concilia, ll. cc.; Liberatus, Brexiarium Caussae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, 100.19; Nicephorus Callisti H. E. lib. 16.29-32, 34, 45, 17.2, 8, 9, 18.45, 49, 50; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 513, vol. i. p. 499; Tillemont Mémoires, xvi. pp. 632, &100.709, &c.; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. ii. col. 730; Abulpbaragius, Hist. Dynastiarnm, pp. 93, 94 of Pococke's Latin Version, 4to. Oxon, 1663; L'Art de vérifier lcs Dates, 8vo. Paris, 1818, vol. iv. p. 16, &c.)

That Severus was a man of indomitable courage and perseverance is obvious from his history. He was, in fact, the leader of the Monophysite party, and may be regarded as the principal author of the great Jacobite schism. His career was consistent, and, to all appearance, guided by integrity : and if lie largely partook of the bitter and uncharitable temper which the religious struggles of his day had generated, the general prevalence of his fault may be pleaded as extenuating the guilt of the individual. To which it must be added, that we know Him almost entirely from the representations of his opponents. His life was written by a contemporary ; but the work is lost, and is known to us only in the citations and references of Evagrius (H. E. 3.33), and Liberatus (Breriar. 100.19). A life of Severus in Syriac was noticed by Assemani among the MSS. of the Syriac convent of St. Mary, at Scete in the desert of Nitria, in Egypt, but it is not certain if it was the life of Severus of Antioch. (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. vol. iii. part 1, p. 19). Some statements of very doubtful credit, made by the Nestorians respecting him, are given by Assemani (ibid. p. 334, &c.).

3. ENCRATITA. There were two Severi emiment as leaders of bodies accounted heretical. The earlier was a leader of one of the divisions of the Gnostic body; the latter, and far more celebrated was the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch [See No. 2.] We speak here of the former, who appears to have lived in the latter part of the second century. Little is known of his personal history. Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.29), speaking of the sect of the Encratitae and their founder Tatian [TATIANUS], says that a certain person named Severus having strengthened the sect, gave occcasion to their being called, after his own name, Severiani. Theodoret also makes Severus posterior to Tatian (Haeret. Fabul. Comp. 1.21). Epiplanius, on the other hand, makes Severus anterior to Tatian. But the silence of Irenaeus, who mentions Tatian, but not Severus, makes it probable that Tatian was the earlier. Our account of the opinions of the Severiani is very obscure. According to Eusebius they admitted the Law and the Prophets (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.29), while according to Augustin they rejected them (De Haeres. c. xxiv.). It is not improbable that they admitted them as an authentic record of the Old or Mosaic Dispensation, promulgated by the Demiurgos, and as such may have used them, and argued from them ; but yet denied their authority as binding upon themselves, who had embraced the New Dispensation, which rested not on the authority of the Demiurgos, but on the higher and opposite authority of the Supreme and All-merciful God. This explanation of two apparently opposite statements is at any rate consistent with the leading principles of Gnosticism. The curious opinions of Severus, at least of the Severiani, as to the genealogy of the Devil, and the origin of the vine, and of the formation of woman and man, are noticed elsewhere [TATIANUS]. Severus denied the apostolic office of Paul, and consequently the authority of his writings; going in these respects beyond Tatian. His followers also denied, according to Augustin, the resurrection of the body, which is likely enough. It is not impossible that these differences may have led to the temporary division of the sect of the Encratitae to which Severus and Tatian both belonged, and to the formation of separate bodies under the respective names of Tatiani and Severiani, who afterwards reunited under the old and generic name of Encratitae. The ascetic features, abstinence from marriage and from the use of animal food and wine, appear to have been common to the whole body, whether designated Tatiani, Severiani, or Encratitae. [TATIANUS]. (Euseb. l.c. ; Epiphan. Haeres. xlv. ; Augustin. l.c. ; Theodoret. l.c. ; Ittigius, De Haeresiarchis, sect. ii. c. 12. § xv.; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. ii. p. 414; Neander, Church History (by Rose), vol. ii. p. 111; and (by Torrey) vol. ii. p. 167, note 3.)

4. HAERESIARCHA. [Nos. 2, 3.]

5. MONOPHYSITA. [No. 2.]

6. RHETOR. Of this writer nothing certain is known. Fabricius is disposed to identify him with the Σεβῆρος σοφιστὴς Ῥωμαῖος, Severus Sophista Romans, mentioned by Suidas (s. v.) and by Photius, in his abstract of the life of Isidorus by Damascius (Biblioth. Cod. 242). The Severus of Photius resided at Alexandria in the latter part of the fifth century, in the enjoyment of an ample library, and of literary leisure, and was a great patron and encourager of learned men, circumstances which bespeak him to have been a man of fortune. The prospect of the revival of the Western Empire during the brief reign of the Emperor Anthemius [ANTHEMIUS], led him to visit Rome, where he obtained the honour of the consulship (A. D. 470), which honour, according to Damascius, was portended by the circumstance, deemed a prodigy, that his horse, when rubbed down, emitted from his skin an abundance of sparks.

[J.C.M]