Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria: The Last Pharaoh and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Later Roman Empire by Volker L. Menze (review)

Reviewed by: Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria: The Last Pharaoh and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Later Roman Empire by Volker L. Menze Janet Timbie Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria: The Last Pharaoh and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Later Roman Empire. By Volker L. Menze. Oxford Early Christian Studies. (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2023. Pp. 226. 86. 40. ISBN 978-0-192-87133-6. ) Labeling Dioscorus of Alexandria "the last pharaoh" is done partly because it is a "catchy title" (10), but also as a reminder of the hostile use of the label by Leo of Rome (188). Volker Menze analyzes the period from the Second Council of Ephesus to the Council of Chalcedon in order to explain the downfall of Dioscorus. Earlier scholarship often accepted Leo's negative characterization of Dioscorus, arguing that he organized Ephesus 2 on his own initiative to suppress all dyophysite opposition. Menze offers a very different view of Dioscorus that begins with Ephesus 2 but then focuses on the Council of Chalcedon as the "black swan of late antique ecclesiastical history" (4), using a phrase that refers to something that is unexpected, but seems unavoidable in hindsight. By offering a radically different analysis of the role of Dioscorus, Menze seeks to correct the work of Michael Gaddis, Alois Grillmeier and others in which Dioscorus was the mastermind of the Second Council of Ephesus. He argues that Dioscorus, though a strong supporter of Cyril's Christology, was only "the emperor's henchman" at Ephesus 2. Following an introduction, Menze turns to circumstances that led to Dioscorus becoming patriarch of Alexandria in 444 (chap. 2). He argues that Dioscorus's experience as archdeacon under Cyril equipped him to restore the financial health of the church in Alexandria after years of overspending by Cyril and his relatives (56, bribery and misappropriation). He was chosen by the clergy of Alexandria because of his management skills, not his reputation as a theologian or forceful leader (56-57). For example, early in his tenure, Dioscorus addressed the problem of "Origenism" in Upper Egypt without offering theological explanations. He simply ordered a local monastic leader, Shenoute of Atripe, to suppress the activities of Elias, a priest accused of heresy (63-68). In an unhelpful digression, Menze cites Ariel López, who argued without real evidence that Shenoute attended Ephesus 2, dying in 465. Menze's main thesis is presented in chapters 3 and 4: Theodosius II sought to suppress dyophysite theology and favor stronger Cyrillianism, so he pressed Dioscorus into service to lead Ephesus 2 as the "emperor's henchman. " Menze states, "Dioscorus was neither unscrupulous nor violent, but inexperienced in ecclesiastical politics; he executed the emperor's agenda" (149). After the death of Theodosius in July 450, the new emperor Marcian needed the support of the western imperial and ecclesiastical authorities, which meant accepting the theological position of Pope Leo. The Council of Chalcedon is the black swan event for Menze, but the fall of Dioscorus from acclaim at Ephesus 2 to the status of "murderous heretic" (144) was also unavoidable in hindsight, given the change in imperial priorities. Menze compares the deposition of Dioscorus at his first trial with the deposition of Cyril at Ephesus 1 (171): Cyril was able to reverse this decision by bribing imperial officials; Dioscorus chose not to do this and so was exiled. End Page 406 In conclusion, Menze describes the literary afterlife of Dioscorus, who died in 454, in both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian sources (189–99). He is a heretic for Justinian in the 540s, but a hero for non-Chalcedonians. The strength of this short, densely argued book (199 pages of text) lies in the way Menze aligns imperial agendas with internal ecclesiastical power struggles to explain the downfall of Dioscorus. Also, he shows that while Dioscorus's managerial skill led to his election as patriarch in Alexandria, his weakness as an ecclesiastical politician handicapped him when the battle over the "Cyrillian heritage" (185) had just begun at Chalcedon. Janet Timbie The Catholic University of America Copyright © 2024 The Catholic University of America Press