The Remarkable Christmas Homily of Kyros Panopolites Gregory, Timothy E Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1975; 16, 3; ProQuest pg. 317

The Remarkable Christmas Homily 
of Kyros Panopolites 

Timothy E. Gregory 

A N IMPORTANT piece of evidence for the life and times of Kyros 
of Panopolis is a most unusual sermon which the ex-prefect 
gave on a Christmas Day in the 440' s before a hostile congre­

gation. I Many observers have cited this sermon and used it to support 
their views concerning the personality and religious persuasion of 
Kyros; in addition, the interpretation one puts on this sermon and its 
reception by Kyros' audience has significant implications for any 
understanding of the nature of popular religious feeling in the mid­
fifth century. Nevertheless, the remarkable character of this homily, 
and its wording in particular, have not received the close analysis they 
deserve. 

K yros, a poet of some repute, came to Constantinople from his 
native Egypt and used his literary ability and the patronage of the 
empress Eudokia to become praefectus urbi about 435 and praefectus 
praetorio by 439.2 He held both offices simultaneously for about four 
years, but his career was ruined when Theodosius II accused him of 
being a pagan, removed him from power, and confiscated his prop­
erty.a Whether paganism was really the issue is difficult to say, as 

1 Two recent articles represent modern scholarship on Kyros: Alan Cameron, "Wander­
ing Poets: A Literary Movement in Byzantine Egypt," Historia 14 (1965) 470-509, esp. 
473-74 and 497-98, and Demetrios J. Constantelos, "Kyros Panopolites, Rebuilder of 
Constantinople," GRBS 12 (1971) 451-64. These two articles are complementary in their 
treatment of Kyros, as Cameron traces his literary milieu while Constante1os focuses on 
historical and religious questions. 

2 On chronology see o. Seeck, "4i,\&OVLOC KIJpoc," RE 12 (1924) 188-90, and Constantelos, 
op.cit. (supra n.l) 452-53. 

3 The sources represent at least two separate traditions concerning Kyros. One of these, 
quoted by the Paschal Chronicle, ed. B. G. Niebuhr (CSHB, Bonn 1832) 588-89 (=ed. 
C. Muller, FGH IV [Paris 1868] 73), and echoed by Malalas, Theophanes and the Suda, is 
derived from Priskos of Panion, who was a younger contemporary of Kyros. The other is 
the Vita S. Danielis Stylitae, ed. H. De1ehaye, Anal&1l32 (1913) 121-229, which is also nearly 
contemporary. A primary problem for any reconstruction of the life of Kyros is, however, 
the disagreement of the sources, even those presumably based on Priskos, concerning 
many details. Kyros' supposed paganism and the charge against him is a good example of 

317 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



318 THE REMARKABLE CHRISTMAS HOMILY 

several sources claimed that the emperor's real motive was envy of 
Kyros' popularity among the people of Constantinople.« 

Stripped of his office, K yros sought sanctuary in the church and 
became a priest. Then, on the emperor's orders, he was sent as bishop 
to Kotyaion in Phrygia.5 The rather unusual choice of an accused 
pagan as an episcopal appointee was explained by the reputation of 
the people of Kotyaion. They had killed four of their previous bishops, 
and Theodosius supposedly hoped that they would do the same to 
K yros. thus ridding him once and for all of a dangerous rival. 

Kyros arrived in Kotyaion at Christmas-time and was officiating in 
the church when the people, who had learned that he might be a 
pagan, suddenly (E~alc/JV'1JC) called out for him to preach, presumably 
to test the validity of the report. It was under these circumstances that 
K yros delivered his only recorded sermon. He ascended the ambo, 
gave the greeting of peace, and spoke: 

2tvapEc aaEAc/Jol. 'ri ytVV'TIC&C TOU 8EOiJ leal cwTfjpoc 'rip.wv 'j7]coiJ 

X - - , 8 " , - " \ '.1..8 ' -P&CTOV C&WTrfI T&p.ac 00, on aleo,!/ lea& P.OV'!J CVVEI\7]", 7] EV T'[J 

., 8 ' • - 8 - \ ' , - • ~'l: ' _\ - • -ay&~ 'Trap EVqJ 0 TOV EOV I\oyoc· aVTqJ 7] oo~a E&C TOVC a&wva.c. 
, , . 

ap.7]v. 

"Brethren, let the birth of God our Savior Jesus Christ be honored 
with silence, because the Word of God was conceived in the holy 
Virgin through hearing alone. To him be glory for ever. Amen." 

this difficulty. Malalas, ed. Niebuhr (CSHB, Bonn 1831) 361~2, says he was deposed J,c 
• E>J.:'lv. Theophanes, Chronographia A.M. 5937, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig 1883) 96-sn, however, 
says merely VtA",V#pova, while the text of Prisk os as it is preserved in the paschal Chronicle 
says nothing about paganism as the basis for Kyros' removal from office, only that the 
people of his church learned In We· EM",va cWTOV & Bac&AE1lc JIC€& brklCO'flOv J."ol",uv. To com­
plete the confusion, the Sudit, s.n. 8€o3Ocwc (ed. A. Adler, II [Leipzig 1931] 695) adds that 
Kyros was removed We -EM",v ICed Pcc&A€lav ~"'{'ClJv. 

, The Vita S. Danielis 31, ed. Delehaye (supra n.3) ISO, blamed the eunuch Chrysaphios 
for Kyros' fall. This does not contradict the account of Prisk os, as Chrysaphios was probably 
the cause of the emperor's envy. Constantelos' division of the court into parties, including 
a 'conservative' and a 'Hellenic Christian', is unconvincing. While it should not be sur­
prising that Eudokia and Kyros had much in common, it is unlikely that Chrysaphios 
would align himselfwith a conservative, orthodox party ofPulcheria. even had one existed. 
The ambition of the eunuch is enough to explain the fall of K yros. 

6 Constantelos has argued convincingly that Kyros was sent to Kotyaion, rather than to 
Smyrna as Priskos and Theophanes report. 

• Theophanes. loc.cit. (supra n.3); Malalas 36Z has essentially the same text, while the 
other sources preserve their own particular variants, none of which affect the argument. 
Cf. J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire 1 (London 1923, repro New York 1955) 
ll7 n.6. 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



TIMOTHY E. GREGORY 319 

The sermon had taken perhaps half a minute, and the reaction of 
the people was instant and unanimous. Instead of killing Kyros on 
the spot, they rejoiced and praised him (€Xap"l 0 AaOc Kat. €iJ</n}fL"lcav 
a6'Tov),7 and he lived on to administer his see piously for many years. 
Kyros was a figure around whom Christian lore collected Ccf the 
story of the miraculous ikon, infra p.323), and an element of hagiog­
raphy may be operating in our accounts of this event. But we should 
remember that the evidence for Kyros' sermon seems to come 
originally from Priskos of Panion, a contemporary observer and one 
not always favorable to Christian luminaries. To the extent that we 
can accept the historical reality of the event as described by the sources, 
both the sermon and its reception by the people of Kotyaion call for 
analysis and explanation. 

In the view of Alan Cameron, Kyros' congregation was "evidently 
too taken aback to lynch him."8 This reconstruction is hardly con­
vincing since the Byzantine Aaoc was rarely characterized by either 
inaction or a good sense of humor. If the people of Kotyaion had been 
displeased with K yros' sermon, the new bishop would quickly have 
joined the ranks of his predecessors. 

Instead, it seems clear that the people found something attractive 
in the short homily. Demetrios Constantelos, following Bury and 
ultimately Harnack, identified this as the bishop's practical, philan­
thropic Christianity. Rather than obscure theological speculation, 
K yros «expressed his preference for ethics and practical issues."9 In 
this way Constantelos would modify the common impression that 
east Roman Christian society was caught up in endless doctrinal 
controversy: despite Gregory of Nyssa's famous description of bakers 
and bathhouse attendants spouting theology, the people of Kotyaion 
applauded Kyros' commonsense refusal to engage in theological 
subtleties.lo 

A point which seems to support this view is the similarity between 
the words of Kyros and those of Evagrios Pontikos, a man described 
by Constantelos as "thrifty in words but rich in societal involve-

1 Theophanes, op.cit. (supra n.3) 97. Priskos and Malalas say that after the sermon Kyros 
E~""'fJ8Ek KarijAfk 

8 Cameron, op.cit. (supra n.1) 473. 
II Constantelos. op.cit. (supra n.l) 463. 
10 Greg.Nyss. Or. de Deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Migne, PG 46 (1863) 557; Constantelos. 

op.cit. (supra n.1) 462. 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke lJniversity, Department of Classical Studies 



320 THE REMARKABLE CHRISTMAS HOMILY 

ment."ll Thus, Kyros' "w7rfj TtJLac8w may be paralleled by Evagrios' 
CLW7rfj TTPOCKVV€lc8w 'T() IlpPTJTov.12 Nevertheless, the force of the com­
parison is weakened when we put Evagrios' statement in context. 
Evagrios was a disciple of Origen and an important although shadowy 
figure in the development of Egyptian monasticism and the apophatic 
tradition.13 He can be said to have evaded theological dispute only in 
the sense that he denied the possibility of the ultimate definition of 
the Godhead. Thus, in the passage in question, quoted by Sokrates 
from Evagrios' Monachikos, he argued that definition was proper only 
for compound objects, which may be divided into their various parts 
( ~, ",., ,.. ~ ..I. ' " 1'~ TTaca TTpOTaCLC ••. TJ Y€VOC €X€L KaT'T}yopovJL€VOV. TJ OLa-popav. TJ €LOOC. 
~ i8LOV, ~ cVJL{1€{1TJKOC, ~ TO €K Tothwv cUYK€lJL€vov). The divinity, how­
ever, is simple (aTTAovc) and may not be divided-or defined fully. 
This is a far cry from a simple, uneducated form of Christianity. 

Indeed, Kyros' language and sentiment reflect a well-known 
patristic topos: the majesty and mystery of God are ultimately beyond 
man's understanding, so reverent awe and pious silence are preferable 
to over-ambitious questioning. Such ideas were expressed by many 
of the Fathers, from Clement of Alexandria to Maximos the Con­
fessor.14 Ps.-Dionysios the Areopagite provides a contemporary 
example: T~V {J1T~p ~JLa.c KpvcpU)T'T}Ta CLYii TtJL7JcavT€cYi 

Kyros, however, went beyond the patristic idea of silence in the 
presence of the divinity. He said, in fact, that the Nativity should be 
honored in silence because the conception of the Word took place 
eXKOfj Kat JL6vrJ. Surprisingly, no one has discussed the new bishop's 
reasoning on this point. Obviously he referred to the Annunciation 
(although Mary was far from silent on that occasion), and he may have 
meant that the Incarnation came about as a result of the <obedience' 
of the Virgin. This use of eXK07J occurs in the Septuagint (1 Kings 15.22: 
eXKO~ {J1T~p Ovclav eXya07J), and the bishop may have found this senti­
ment particularly appropriate in the face of a hostile crowd. Just as 
the Virgin was obedient to the will of God, the people of Kotyaion 
should respect the authority of their bishop (and not disturb the 

11 Constantelos, op.cit. (supra n.l) 462. 
12 Sokrates, Hist.Bce!. 3.7. 
13 On Evagrios Pontikos see Johannes Quasten, Patrology III (Utrecht 1960) 169-76. 
11 Clem.AI. Paedagogos 2.7, Migne, PG 8, 461B and GCS 1(1905) 192.5; Origen, Schcl. in 

Cant. 4.3, Migne, PG 17, 272A; Maximos Confessor, Ambiguorum liber, Migne, PG 91, l057A. 
Cf A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe (Oxford 1961) 1262 S.V. C&;n7. 

15 Ps.-Dionysios Areopagita, De caelesti hierarchia 15.9, Migne, PG 3, 340B. 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



TIMOTHY E. GREGORY 321 

sanctity of the day with a lynching). Taken literally, however, Kyros 
said that the conception of Christ took place through the ear of the 
Virgin, the implication being that at the time of the Annunciation the 
Word of God entered the body of Mary in this way. Probably Kyros 
meant his congregation to appreciate both these connotations of his 
words. 

Strikingly similar ideas and language are found in the sermons of 
Proklos, bishop of Constantinople.16 In 428 or 429 (before he became 
bishop) Proklos delivered a sermon against Nestorius, who had just 
condemned the use of the title r?ho'T6KOC for the Virgin.l7 This sermon 
was a landmark in the development of Mariology. In it Proklos 
praised Mary simply and eloquently, not only as the instrument of 
salvation but as important in her own right: "servant and mother, 
virgin and heaven, the only bridge for men to God ... the reasonable 
paradise of the Second Adam, the workshop of the union of the 
natures."18 Significant for our purpose is proklos' use of aKo~ in con­
nection with the conception of Christ: "Just as the serpent injected 
the poison through disobedience (7TlXpaKo~), so the Word entered in 
through obedience (S£(X 'Tijc aKoijc ~lc~M}wv) and took upon himself 
humanity."19 At another point Proklos compared the manner of 
Christ's conception to that of his birth: "As God he did not cleave the 
portal of virginity, but he went out from his mother just as he had 
come in through hearing (cu' aK01Jc). Thus he was born as he was 
conceived. Without passion (a.mxOwc) he came in; miraculously 
(acppac'Twc) he went out."20 

In the latter passage at least, reference to the conception of the 
Word ~3t' aKoijc was ultimately connected with the idea of the virgin 
birth and the perpetual virginity of Mary. Furthermore, as this 
sermon clearly shows, Mariology was closely linked to the great 
theological issues of the day. The Nestorian controversy, although 
ultimately concerned with Christology, was openly fought over the 

18 F. X. Bauer, Proklos von Konstantinopel. Bin Beitrag zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte des 
5. ]ahrhunderts (Munich 1919); W. Ensslin, "Proklos," RB 23 (1957) 183-86; and Quasten, 
op.cit. (supra n.l3) 521-25. 

17 E. Schwartz, ed., Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum 1.1 pt.l (Berlin/Leipzig 1927) 103-07; 
older edition Migne, PG 65, 679-92. One of the Marian sermons attributed to Proklos has 
been shown to be much later: A. Kirpitschnikow, "Reimprosa in 5. Jahrlumdert," BZ 1 
(1892) 527-30; cf. P. Maas, "Das Kontakion," BZ 19 (1910) 285-306. 

18 Schwartz, op.cit. (supra n.17) 103, 17 and 12-13. 
18 ibid. 103, 25-26. 
so ibid. 107, 18-19. 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



322 THE REMARKABLE CHRISTMAS HOMILY 

issue of the honor to be paid to the Virgin. The Nestorians refused to 
call Mary the 'Mother of God' «~hO'TOKOC) because, they said, she was 
only the mother of Christ's humanity. Proklos and the 'orthodox' 
party objected to this division of the person of Christ and argued that 
after the Incarnation the divine and the human natures in Christ were 
inseparably jOined. Mary was thus not only a model of virtue but the 
"workshop of the union of the natures," and as the @EO'TOKOC she 
became a symbol of correct belief.21 

Proklos' sermons on the Nativity (three have survived) reveal much 
the same sentiment. In one of these he again spoke of the conception 
of Christ "through hearing": 0 8E Aoyoc 8,' aKofjc ElcE7T7J8a.22 On 
another occasion he revealed that some persons, Jews in particular, had 
questioned the virgin birth and the perpetual virginity of Mary: El 
E'TEKE 7TapOEYOC, OVK EiLEWE 7TapOEYOc.23 Proklos admitted the seeming 
impossibility of this but said that with God all things were possible: 
"It was miraculous because the birth conquered the law of nature. 
For nature had regard for the mother who was giving birth, while 
grace pointed her out, protected the Virgin, made her a mother, and 
did not affect her purity ... For without being married she became a 
mother ... The infant was born and left the covering of the womb 
intact."2' 

A sermon attributed to Attikos of Constantinople, but probably in 
part the work of Proklos, described the Virgin and the birth of Christ 
in much the same words.26 Through obedience and attentiveness 
Mary opened herself to God; in imitation of her, good Christians 
were to do the same-again sound advice for K yros' congregation in 
Kotyaion. The sermon concluded with a clear statement of the 
Christological significance of the veneration of the Virgin: she should 
be honored because of her son, who was "not an angel or an elder 

11 On the background of the Christological controversies and the dispute over the 
Theotokos see espedally Aloys Grillmeier, "Die theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung 
der christologischen Forme! von Chalkedon," in Aloys Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht, eds. 
Das Kon{il von Chalkedon I (Wtirzburg 1951) 5-202; see also his Christ in Christian Tradition 
(New York 1965) 74, 188 n., 244, 272-74 and 364-71. 

II Prod. Or. m de Inearnatione, Migne, PG 65, 708. 
23 Prod. Or. II de Inearn. Migne, PG 65, 696; cf. Or. IV, 713. 
U Prod. Or. IV de Inearn. Migne, PG 65, 709 and 712. 
n Or. V Laudatio in S. Virginem, Migne, PG 65. 715-22; Syriac text and translationJ. Lebon. 

"Discours d'Atticus de Constantinople sur la sainte Mere de Dieu," Le Museon 46 (1933) 
167-202; and M. Briere, "Une homelie inedite d'Atticus, patriarche de Constantinople," 
RevOChr 2.9 (1933-34) 60-80. 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



TIMOTHY E. GREGORY 323 

[references to ideas which might be characterized as Manichaean and 
Nestorian respectively]; but God himself came, and he saved us." 

That Kyros' inaugural sermon in Kotyaion should echo the thought 
and language of Proklos need not surprise us; Proklos had been bishop 
in Constantinople since 437 and his theological ideas were well-known 
and popular. Kyros, moreover, as praefectus urbi and a leading mem­
ber of the imperial administration, probably met the bishop on many 
occasions. Even more importantly, when Kyros fled to the Church 
after his disgrace, Proklos must have received him and ultimately 
arranged for his ordination. 

Seen in this light, K yros' Christmas sermon was not an expression 
of simple, uneducated Christianity but a clever-one might even say 
wily-statement of orthodox theology. Recent controversies had 
demonstrated the importance of key words and phrases in defining 
doctrinal positions-(9EoT6Koc and ifJ£AbC !J.V(}pW1TOC in the Nestorian 
dispute-and there is every reason to think that K yros' reference to 
the conception of Christ aKofj Kat ,.,,6vn fit the new bishop perfectly 
into a theological slot: he was a follower of Proklos of Constantinople 
and a supporter of the decisions of the Council of Ephesus (431). It is, 
thus, no wonder that the people of Kotyaion rejoiced and praised 
him; there could be no question that he was a heretic or a pagan. 

Furthermore, K yros was a defender of the honor of the Virgin, 
something which must have counted for much at this time when 
veneration of Mary had become an important part of popular de­
votion.26 There is, indeed, evidence to identify Kyros, at other periods 
in his life, with the worship of the Virgin and the defense of her 
perpetual virginity. Thus, ps.-Kodinos said that Kyros dedicated a 
church to the Theotokos in the region of Constantinople which bore 
his name.27 (In fact, the text states that this occurred during the reign 
of Theodosius II, presumably placing the event before his fall from 
power.) Perhaps describing another foundation, Nikephoros Kallistos 
reported that an ikon of the Virgin had at some time been hidden in a 

28 The best evidence for the growth of popular veneration of the Virgin is the institution 
of a number of festivals in her honor; see M. Jugie, "La premiere fete mariale en Orient 
et en Occident," EchO 22 (1923) 129-52. Another indication of this is the growing importance 
of Mary in the art of the time: G. A. Wellen, Theotokos. Eine ikonographische Abhandlung tiber 
das Gottesmutterbild in fruhchristliche Zeit (Utrecht 1961) 14-29 and 139. 

Z7 Ps.-Kodinos, IIffp~ KTtcft&:rwv ill, Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitarum II, ed. Th. 
Preger (BT, Leipzig 1907) 252. Cf Theophylaktos Simokatta 8.8, ed. I. Bekker (CSHB, Bonn 
1834) 329; and R. janin, Constantinople byz-antineB (Paris 1964) 378-79. 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies 



324 THE REMARKABLE CHRISTMAS HOMILY 

large cypress tree. This tree suddenly began to give off a miraculous 
light, and the ikon was discovered. Kyros was impressed by the 
miracle and dedicated a church to Mary on the spot: nplJv 8~ KfJpoc 

\ A \ \ A \' A t.::I , .~, , 28 'TOV XWPOV, 1TEptKal\J\'Y'J 'TE Kat J-LEytC'TOV 'T1} ~EO'TOKCf> tOpVE'TO 'TEJ-LEVOC. 
Finally, late in his life after he had resigned his episcopacy and 

returned to Constantinople, K yros inscribed his famous poem on the 
column of St Daniel the Stylite.29 This epigram, undoubtedly reflect­
ing the poet's own ideas, described Daniel as vUa K'Y'JPV'T'TWV J-L'Y'J'Tp6C 

cX1TEtpoyaJ-L0v. This reference to Mary as "unwed mother" is certainly 
more than a literary flourish and again demonstrates Kyros' devotion 
to the Virgin. Interestingly enough, these words also echo Proklos, 
who addressed her in much the same way: 'tQ 1Tap8/vE, K6p'Y'J cX1TEtp6-

\' • \ , 30 yal-'E, Kat I-''Y'J'T'Y'JP aI\OXEV'TE. 
This is not to deny the practical Christianity of Kyros. The Vita of 

St Daniel amply attests his kindness toward the poor. But our analysis 
of Kyros' Christmas sermon suggests that even the most pragmatic of 
churchmen, and one trained in the atmosphere of pagan Alexandria, 
would be deeply involved in the complex doctrinal questions of the 
day. Finally, this event is further evidence for the importance and 
centrality of theological issues among all sections of the population. 
While every baker and bathhouse attendant might not philosophize 
on the begotten and the unbegotten, they would at least appreciate 
the issues and react strongly to the proper terminology. Kyros 
realized this, and his Christmas homily spoke clearly and directly to 
that concern. 

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS and 

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 

April, 1975 

2S Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos, Hist.Bcel. 46, Migne, PG 146.2, 1220. This incident 
reminds one of the revelation of the Trisagion to Proklos, presumably during the earth­
quake of 437: Theophanes, op.cit. (supra n.3) A.M. 5930, 93. 

It Anth.PaI. 1.99; if. H. Delehaye, "Une epigramme de I'Anthologie Grecque (1,99)," 
REG 9 (1896) 216-24. 

aD Procl. Or. IV de Inearn. Migne, PG 65, 713. 

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company 
Copyright (c) Duke University, Department of Classical Studies