Liberius, Bishop of Rome and the Councils of Sirmium

Contents I. Chronological boundaries of one of the Sirmian cathedrals II. Disputes about one place at St. Ilaria III. Formula Profitemur IV. S. North is not an authority V. Text of St. Ilaria VI. Milan Cathedrals VII. Sirmium Cathedral VIII. “Council” and “dispute”: the chronological question of Sardik or Serdik? Rehabilitation of four documents 343 IX. “Dispute” before the “council” on the content of the first Sirmian formula X. The message with “Profitemur” after the first Sirmian formula and is explained from the “dispute” I. Chronological boundaries of one of the Sirmian cathedrals In historical details, perhaps those that are considered generally accepted deserve the least confidence. Often this last, honorable difference is precisely described only by the fact that for a very long time no one verified the foundations on which these indisputable provisions rest, and did not try to challenge them. This, however, is understandable. Establishing small details is sometimes more difficult than correctly drawing the main, defining lines of fact; it is necessary to compare and weigh a lot of evidence in order to speak affirmatively about some dry detail. And often the labor expended is not rewarded with anything other than the irremovable Non liquet. Even in those happy cases when the study ends with the conviction that the details need to be presented exactly this way and not otherwise, this new or, at least, firm statement does not expand them and does not change the historical perspective, does not bring new light to the meaning of the facts. Therefore, in small things they very often rely on the authority of previous scientists, with silent consent they rewrite their provisions again and again 1 2 . But if the starting point of all historical research should be the conviction that everything that has existed has the right to be known in the best possible way, then work on trifles takes on the character of a moral obligation - especially when there are some reasons to suspect that the existing opinion is at least not indisputable. – A number of similar details constitute the subject of the sketch offered to the reader. That Liberius, Bishop of Rome, exiled in August 355 for his firm defense of the cause of Orthodoxy and Athanasius c. before imp. Constantius, then (in 357) changed his convictions, signed 3 some kind of Arian creed, and at the cost of this transaction with his conscience bought himself a return to the Roman see, this is a historical fact, indisputably firmly attested. But the question of which specific creed (resp. which specific creeds) Liberius signed remains controversial to this day. Of primary importance in this dispute are the data in the so-called fragmenta ex opere historico of St. Hilary of Pictavia 4. This highly important historical monument preserves the message of Liberius “Pro deifico”, addressed to “the most beloved brethren, presbyters and fellow bishops of the East.” Here he declares that he no longer defends Athanasius and philosophizes in faith completely in accordance with the Eastern ones, since he, without any contradiction, accepted the “Catholic faith” set forth, accepted and signed by the “brothers and co-bishops” in Sirmium. This faith, which the “lord and brother” Dimophilus [Bishop of Beria of Thracia] was pleased to expound to him, he, Liberius, follows, he maintains it. Based on all this, he earnestly asks the Easterners to use all their influence so that he, Liberia, is returned from exile to his see. Neither Liberius nor St. Hilary, they do not quote one word from this Sirmian creed; but, instead, in the explanation accompanying this letter the names of 22 bishops are listed who wrote this “perfidia” in Sirmium; this list opens with the names of Narcissus, Theodore, and Vasily. Their episcopal sees are not named, but it is not difficult to identify 5 of these figures. At this time, between the outstanding leaders of the Eusebians, Narkissus, bishop of Neroniad-Irinupol in Cilicia, and Theodore, bishop of Herakleia in Thracian Europe, represented the same indissoluble pair 6 in the east as the notorious Ursacius, bishop of Singidun, and Valens, bishop of Murs were in the west. - But back in August 355, Liberius himself declared to the emperor. Constantius that Theodore of Irakli had already died 7. This categorically establishes the terminus ante quem of the Syrian creed proposed by Dimophilus to Liberius: Theodore could not take part in the composition of even the so-called second Sirmian formula 8, published (in August?) 357; and Vasily, obviously the Bishop of Ancyra, who signed the third under the statement of faith in which we are talking, would never have signed the second Sirmium formula: it was the energetic struggle against this latter that deservedly glorified the name of Vasily and his like-minded people. Apparently there is no other choice but to admit that the creed signed by Liberius is the so-called first Sirmian formula 9, compiled at the end of 351. II. Disputes about one place at St. Ilaria But having resolved the issue in this sense, we move towards a new task. As Tilmon aptly puts it, 10 “the most important difficulty here is how to reconcile St. Hilaria with himself,” with the view he holds especially in his work de synodis. These difficulties boil down to three points: to the judgment of Hilary a) about the first formula of Sirmium, b) about some of the bishops who took part in its presentation, and c) about Liberia itself. a) In op. de synodis, admittedly, St. Hilary speaks extremely condescendingly about the first Sirmian formula 11: he cites it textually as proof of the closeness of its authors to Catholic teaching, comments on it in the Orthodox sense line by line, and in the current circumstances of the Eastern Church he sees sufficient justification for the Eastern bishops who, after the Nicene symbol, decide to publish such formulas. In a word, in this formula he recognizes a bright phenomenon. Not so in the “fragments”: here the author calls the creed signed by Liberius “perfidia ariana”, for signing it he calls Liberius “apostata” and “praevaricator” and proclaims cum sociis anathema to him three times. b) It is not difficult to see that this anathema also falls on the compilers of the formula, the list of whose names ends short and clear: omnes haeretici. Meanwhile, the third on this list is Basil, obviously of Ankyra, the seventh is Silvanus, in whom it is not difficult to recognize Basil’s faithful associate, Silvanus, Bishop of Tarsus 12 - that “wonderful Silvanus”, whom Theodoret of Cyrus 13 portrays as a wise, courageous and daring fighter for the apostolic dogmas - that Silvanus, whom Basil the Great 14 calls only "Blessed Silvanus" – To St. Basil of Ancyra. Hilary in de synodis 15 addresses himself with the words: “vos, sanctissimi viri Basili et Eustathi et Eleusi.” And by placing Silvanus in the ranks of “heretics,” Hilary, the author of the “opus historicam,” diverges not from his work de synodis (Sylvanus is not mentioned there), but from his own “opus historicum”: from this same work we learn that Silvanus of Tarsus was the first of 18 eastern bishops who, in his letter “Unitati et verae paci” to the Ariminian deputies at the end of December 359. warned them against entering into church communion with the eastern coalition of the Omians and Anomians 16. This letter, together with another addressed by the same bishops to Hilary himself, was presented by him to the Paris Council, and on the basis of these documents and the recommendation of Hilary himself, the Gallic fathers responded to this oriental, for their part, sociable letter “Omni quidem vitae” 17. Finally, c) no matter how harshly one looks at the “fall” of Liberius 18 and the fact remains indisputable that after 358 he was recognized by the entire Catholic Church as an Orthodox bishop of Rome, was not involved in the “general fall” of the Westerners in Ariminum, and on September 24, 366 he died in the bosom of the Catholic Church. “Opus historicum” by Hilary was completed in 367. 19 Aren’t these four 20 anathemas heard over the fresh grave of the Bishop of Rome strange? St. Hilary could not help but condemn the actions of Liberius; but the anathemas are directed not only against the act, but also against the very person of Liberius. – It should then be noted that in the sense of a literary device, these anathemas are very inconvenient: one could censure, condemn, or trash Liberius’ message in the accompanying commentary, but not delicately interrupt Liberius’ speech three times: this is sanguinism, not characteristic of Hilary’s rank, age, or high education. - It is difficult, therefore, to dispute those who claim that the message “Pro deifico” - in the form in which it is given in the present text of the “fragments” - is unworthy of St. Ilaria 21. Given this state of affairs, a variety of views on the “fragment” under consideration is quite natural. And if some with greater or less skill defend the text as it is given in manuscripts 22; then others find that this “fragment,” unworthy of Hilary, does not belong to him and that the message “Pro deifico” is a forgery of pseudo-liberius 23; and still others 24 believe that both the message “Pro deifico” is genuine and the anathemas against Liberius were actually pronounced by Hilary; but someone erroneously gave the wrong list of the Sirmian Council, which should have been written out according to Hilary’s intentions: Liberius signed not the first (as it appears on the basis of the list of 22 names), but the second Sirmian formula, the most recent and modern - from an Arian point of view - dogmatic monument for 357. And Hilary never looked at the second Sirmian formula as anything other than “blasphemy”. Readers will see that the stubborn conservatism of some and the radicalism of others on this issue, which is clearly tendentious or simply bold, has its inconveniences. The middle, smooth and natural path was indicated long ago - by Cardinal Baronius, unjustly forgotten by the latest scientists, but appreciated by V. N. Samuilov 25. For anyone who reads the message “Pro deifico”, it becomes clear that anathemas are interpolations that interrupt the text without any logical necessity. One has only to omit them, and a whole series of perplexities disappear without a trace. These interpolations were attributed to Hilary himself only through a misunderstanding by a narrow-minded scribe who copied them from a very ancient manuscript. It is not difficult to guess that the hand of the Luciferian fanatic 26 attributed them to the field of creations of St. Hilaria: the hatred of this sect for the “apostate” bishop could not die down even after the death of Liberius, and the anathema at his grave was completely in the tone of Luciferian fanaticism. - So, the text “Pro deifico”, cleared of interpolations, is quite appropriate in the work of St. Ilaria. But the same hand that dotted the field with its anathematisms also placed its REQUIRENDUM at the end of the list of bishops. And it was not the strange name “Junior” 27 that aroused such interest in the fanatical sectarian; he asked: was there even one Orthodox Christian in the spirit of Lucifer of Calaris among these 22 bishops? Based on the information - probably with the complete acts of the Council of Sirmium - the Luciferian came to the conclusion: omnes haeretici. - Tone of St. Hilaria, with this understanding, remains dignified, objective and calm: he judges as a theologian, calling this “faith” “perfidia”, but he does not brand all bishops with the name of heretics, among whom were persons worthy and not such “brothers and co-bishops” as Eudoxius, Ursacius and Valens - there were people of aspirations so pure as St. himself. Hilary honored them with the name “vir sanctissimi”. What remains, much lessened, is the difference in view of the “faith expounded at Sirmium.” But in the last years of his life, St. Hilary became convinced by experience that the hopes that the energetic struggle of the Basilians against the Omians and Anomians aroused in him were not yet close to being realized: this party, as a church force, was broken by the external pressure of the events of 360, and as a dogmatic trend, it began to emerge as a refuge for many champions of the “golden [and in reality, false] mean.” Therefore, he now looked at the theological errors of the Basilians less condescendingly; he saw “perfidia” in what had previously seemed to him a promising ear that would ripen and bear purely Catholic fruit. – This (usual) explanation is good enough – for lack of a better one. From the text of the “fragment” under consideration, a firm conclusion emerges that Liberius signed a certain Sirmian creed, compiled before 355. Let’s call this historical “formula of Dimophilus.” But was it only the first formula published in Sirmium before 355? They usually answer: yes, or – more accurately – they don’t even ask the question: to such an extent this positive answer seems natural. Meanwhile, the answer should be: no. In the previous “fragments” of the same “opus historicum”, Hilary polemicizes against one epistle, as is rightly believed 28, sent to the west from the Council of Sirmium, and to the “confession of faith” (“Profitemur enim ita”) contained in this epistle, he attaches the expression: “haec perfidia, non fides” 29. This “confession” is not identical with the first Sirmian formula, and in the text of the epistle itself such indications are given of the anti-Nicene tendencies of these Sirmian fathers that an illusion in this regard was impossible 30 . This letter was undoubtedly written before 355, 31 and the statement of faith contained in it corresponds, therefore, to the main feature of a certain statement of faith, which Liberius signed in 857. What can be said for identifying this “Dimophilian formula” with the first Sirmian formula also applies to this “confession of faith.” The fact that the first formula received greater fame than this “Profitemur” is, of course, a plus in favor of identifying the “Dimophilian formula” with the first Sirmian one. But the unity of the dogmatic characterization made in the same “opus historicum” 32 constitutes a point in favor of the identity of the “Dimophilian formula” with “Profitemur”. It can also be noted that the “Dimophilic formula” is designated as “perfidia, which Liberius calls catholic.” In general, this detail is applicable to absolutely any formula, not only to the first Sirmian, but in “Profitemur”, apparently 33, a special effort was noticeable by its authors - to pass off this “confession” as catholic, absolutely universally in the West, content. There are no objections to the identity of “Profitemur” with the “formula of Dimophilus” in the underlying literature, if only because the very relationship of “Profitemur” to the first Sirmian formula is not at all clear, and even in determining the year of the Sirmian council that published “Profitemur”, scientists fluctuate between 347 and 350. In my opinion, neither one nor the other chronological boundary is correct. But the path to the correct solution of this chronological question is cluttered with existing scientific works, which cannot be ignored, and it goes to the very center of the question of the mutual relationship of the two named formulas and requires preliminary illumination of their meaning. IV. S. The North is not an authority The year 349 is proposed as the terminus post quem non of the council from which Profitemur enim was sent, based on Sulpicius Severus, who undoubtedly speaks about this message and assures that by issuing it, the Arians wanted to influence the emperors in a certain way. And since soon after January 18, 350, the Western Emperor Constantius was killed and Constantius, having put an end to the usurpation of Vetranion and Magnentius, remained in 353 as the sole emperor, which he had been legally for the East and West since 350, the message could only be published before 350. Everything here obviously depends on whether this plural “imperatorum” is accurate. Sulpicius Severus himself cannot have any authority in chronological matters of this period: his chronicle presents so many absurdities in this regard. Its entire meaning rests on the fact that the “opus historicum” of St. Ilaria Sever read it in full and undoubtedly used it here. But it is equally certain that one cannot guarantee that Severus conveys the words of Hilary diplomatically accurately. And above all - and this is the main thing - it is more than likely that Severus in this place of the chronicle wrote not “imperatorum”, but “imperitorum” 35. - This obviously radically eliminates the authority of Sulpicius Severus and forces us to turn directly to the “opus historicum”. Data from the "opus historicum" of St. Hilary leaves much to be desired in terms of clarity and distinctness. It is possible that this largely depends on the unsatisfactory nature of the text that has survived to us 36. Having promised 37 to expound in the shortest words the case of Marcellus and Photinus, St. Hilary reports the following: Bishop Photinus of Sirmite, a disciple of Marcellus, fell into heresy, α) In order to deprive the episcopal rank of Photinus, who had already been condemned as a heretic two years ago at the Council of Milan, bishops from many provinces gathered for a council, β) They were very concerned about the turmoil in church affairs and believed that even before that they should have “cut off from the church” many bishops who were guilty or slander against Athanasius v. or in communion with the Arians, γ) On this occasion, Ursacius and Valens turned to the Roman Bishop Julius with a request to accept them into church communion. Julius took into account that the reunification of Ursacius and Valens with the church deprived the Arian party of very energetic members and served as brilliant proof of Athanasius's innocence. and denunciation of the Arian heresy, and decided to condescend to their request, δ) To be accepted into church communion, Ursacius and Valens had to turn to “Mr. Most Blessed Pope Julius” with the [open] message Quoniam constat, completely written by the hand of Valens himself and signed by Ursacius. ε) In this message they stated that their previous testimony against Athanasius c. - lies and fabrications, devoid of any power. They anathematized the heretic Arius, all his “satellites” and his teaching, and in their previous petition, submitted by them in Milan, they anathematize now, as always. ζ) “This message,” explains Hilary, “was sent two years after the heresy of Photinus was condemned by the Romans.” η) And a little later Ursacius and Valens from Aquileia sent a sociable message ["Dedit se occasio"] to Athanasius himself. – θ ) “Having submitted the above-mentioned message ["Quoniam constat"], they were received into communion with the Catholic Church; this leniency was granted to them especially because their very message testified to the truth of the Council of Serdica.” O “Meanwhile, a council took place in Sirmium. Photinus, who was accused of heresy, was already found guilty of this and even earlier excommunicated from the church - even then he could not be removed from the pulpit due to the resistance of the flock [who stood for him], κ) But Athanasius himself c. after the Council of Serdica, Marcellus was refused communion not because of his teaching, which was contained in his famous work, but because of some innovations that brought him closer to Photinus. λ) However, after the Council of Serdica, no other council judged Marcellus, and the Westerners informed the Easterners of their verdict only over Photinus. μ) But the eastern ones, in their reply message, slyly raised again the question of both Marcellus and Athanasius himself. ν ) But the logic of their message is untenable. From this essay it is clear that the presentation in the “opus historicum” is not distinguished by either strict subject matter 38 or chronological sequence, and is not free from repetition 39. Therefore, when the question is posed: where was a council convened from very many provinces to depose Photinus? It seems most natural to assume that point ι is only a repetition of point α, and “Photinus’ case” takes the following form: For the first time, the Westerners condemned Photinus at the Mediolan Council of 345. 40 To the same Council, Ursacius and Valens submitted a petition to be accepted into church communion and at the same time anathematized Arius, Arians and Arianism. However, the fathers of the Council of Milan obviously refused to communicate with them. Only in 347, when a new council was appointed against Photinus in Sirmium, were Ursacia and Valens able to be won over to the mercy of Julius of Rome, who accepted them into communion. Meanwhile, the Sirmian Council of 347 could only repeat the condemnation against Photinus, but in fact it was not possible to deprive him of the see due to the resistance of the Sirmian flock. The fathers of the cathedral had no choice but to inform the Easterners about the canonical deposition of Photinus and thereby warn them against ecclesiastical relations with him. The Easterners responded to this with their message - it is not known from which council, most naturally - from the council or Antioch, or at least from Asia or Pontus. It cannot be disputed that such a presentation of the matter most closely corresponds to the literal meaning of “opus historicum,” and it is not for nothing that no less a person than Tilmon himself is behind such a presentation. However, against this there is one full-fledged evidence from the same opus historicum, and rightly modern luminaries of church historical science 42 disagree here with Tilmov. Did Ursacius and Valens really submit their libellus to the First Council of Milan in 345? This is the key question, on the correct answer to which a lot depends. Information about this step of the two bishops survived in their message “Quoniam constat”. When persons with ecclesiastical positions, Ursacius and Valens, are forced to say about themselves that they “lied and made up things,” then obviously life has mercilessly laid its heavy hand on them, and they are forced, as sub iugum. missi, swallow even the bitterest pills without any gilding. In such a document, they certainly would not have been allowed 43 to refer to their libellus if either the anathema to Arianism was ambiguous there 44 or they would have done something similar to tergiversatio, to a renunciation of this libellus. Let us not forget that the First Council of Milan in 345 is the same council from which the representatives of the East left “in extreme irritation” when the council demanded from them an anathema against the Arian teaching. Consequently, libellus favorably distinguished Ursacius and Valens from Eudoxius of Germanicia and Dimophilus of Verria, and this was a new reason to show leniency to the petitioners. And all those motives that guided Julius in 347: the weakening of the Arian party, the shameful exposure of Arian deceit and - eo ipso - proof of the innocence of Athanasius. and the correctness of the Serdica council - were equally important in 345. And yet the council - this assumption is inevitable 45, since the fact that Julius accepted Ursacius and Valens into communion only two years later - did not show them the requested leniency. It can be assumed that the council of 345 considered it inconvenient to cancel the still recently decided verdict of the Sirdik council, which deprived Ursacius and Valens of the episcopal rank. – This is a valid consideration, but there is a downside to this pedal. The Serdic fathers did not subject these Danube bishops to temporary excommunication (ban, ἀφορισμὸς), but to deposition (καθαίρεσις). And this was a punishment so severe that it was - characteristically - sometimes called “murder” 46. The defrocked person did not, due to repentance, become a bishop again, and the consecration was not repeated. Restoration to rank was canonically difficult to achieve, because it was done to the detriment of the authority of the deposing council: it was necessary to admit that the sentence was pronounced illegally. Life sometimes found roundabout paths... Ursacius and Valens, of course, had no desire to lose their sees and therefore ignored, as long as possible, the very fact of the verdict that befell them and the authority of the Serdika cathedral... To ask - hopelessly - for the abolition of this sentence would mean to document that they know that they were deposed and recognize the competence of the Serdika cathedral. On the other hand, the affairs of the Arian party in 345 were not brilliant, but not so bad that Ursacius and Valens saw an urgent need to desert from under their party banner. It is impossible to indicate at what exact moment they could have submitted their libellus in 345. When Eudoxius cum sociis with ἔκθεσιζ μακρόστίχος went to Mediolanus for a council, then Ursacius and Valens could hope that the Easterners would be able to make peace with the Westerners on more or less tolerable terms, and the abolition of the Serdic verdict would undoubtedly be one of these treaty points. And when, “in extreme irritation”, having suffered complete failure, the eastern delegates left the Council of Milan, the state of affairs nevertheless became clear: the eastern ones did not intend to give up, they would continue their opposition to the Serdica Council, and now, as before, their Danube associates could rely on their united forces. To compromise oneself now before the Easterners, to anathematize Arianism without a sure hope of forgiveness from the Westerners, is such a risky step that such experienced sons of their age as Ursacius and Valens were hardly capable of taking. One of the fragments of the 47th “opus historicum” preserves the message of the Ariminian council (“Jubente Deo”) to the emperor Constantius, written at the end of July 359. The fathers of the council, who again excommunicated Ursacius and Valens, who reaped only 12 years after their reunion with Julius, certainly had the most accurate information about their past. “Ursacius and Valens,” say the Ariminian fathers, “were once suspected of the Arian heresy and deprived of church communion. They, as can be seen from their messages, asked for forgiveness and then received it from the Council of Milan, at which the legates of the Roman Church were also present.” - They rightly admit that this evidence resolves the question of the place of that council “from very many provinces”, which was convened against Photinus in 347. Not to the Council of Milan I of 345 48, but to this Council of Milan II. 347 Ursacius and Valens submitted their libellus, and then 49 received forgiveness. And they were moral, seeing in the consciousness of this council a “favorable reason” 50 for their repentance: apparently, tacite Western bishops already agreed to look at those condemned by the Council of Serdica not as deposed, but only as deprived of communion 51 It is not difficult to understand why the final reunion took place in Rome: apparently, the fathers of the Milan Cathedral, for their part, agreed to forgive 52 “excommunicated”, but The final word was given to Yuliy Rizhsky. Ursacius and Valens had every incentive to immediately go to Rome: Julius himself was not present at the Council of Milan, and I could not agree with the judgment of my representative presbyters on this particular point. But the Second Council of Milan dealt with more than just specific questions about Photinus and Ursacius Valens: it solemnly spoke out for the immutable preservation of the faith set forth by the fathers of the Council of Nicaea 53 . In the same sense, the Iserdik Council spoke out, considering its primary task to establish the holy faith intact 54. The bishops who gathered for the council in 347 were especially concerned about the disorder in church affairs, since some bishops who had previously been convicted of communicating with the Arians or for slandering Athanasius should have been cut off from the church long ago. In other words: the fathers of this council had the intention of energetically pursuing the [expedient] implementation of the decisions of the Serdica council. This relation of the Milan II Council of 347 to the Serdic Council explains, in my opinion, the following still - as far as is known - unsolved confusion in historical evidence. Only very recently, comparatively, after the publication in 1848 of the Easter messages of Athanasius. with their κεφάλια, it became known that the Council of Serdica was in 343; until then, all 55 attributed it to 347. Everyone was led into this error by Socrates and Sozomen. “It was the eleventh year after the death of the father of the two Augusts [Constantine v. + May 22, 337], and the consuls were Rufinus and Eusebius when the Council of Serdica took place,” writes Socrates 56, and his words could not be more clearly pointing to the year 347. And since the year 343 corresponds to the mark “Maecio Memmio Placido et Romulo coss.” 57, i.e. the names of the consuls of 343 and 347 are not at all similar, it is impossible to explain the words of Socrates by a random mixture of consular pairs. – It is very significant that Sozomen 58, who sometimes corrects the mistakes of his predecessor, here follows him and repeats both “the eleventh year” and “Rufina and Eusebius.” Undoubtedly, Sozomen cannot be considered a lover of scrupulous accuracy in chronology: while Socrates has 62 years in consular pairs, Sozomen has only 12 59, and, moreover, important political events fall on 10 of these 12 years. On this side 347 not famous for anything; therefore, Sozomen included it on his pages only because he considered the important date of the Council of Serdica to be very firmly attested. – Then, Socrates, three lines after the above date, quotes Savinus. From the Συναγωγὴ τῶν συνόδων of this bishop of Herakleia, Sozomen, of course, borrowed his news about the Council of Philippopolis, which Socrates does not have 60 . – It is natural to assume that both of them found the false date already from Savin, who lived c. 380. Consequently, there was something special with the Cathedral of Serdica, if after 30–40 years its date was unknown even to Savin. On the other hand, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, writing in 377, says 61 that Photinus was condemned by the Council of Serdica; Meanwhile, from the surviving monuments it is clear that in 343 there was no talk of Photinus either in Serdika or in Philippopolis. It seems that both irregularities are explained by the same thing. In 343, the decrees of the Council of Serdica could not gain wide access to the east simply because the eastern bishops - one might say in corpore - were against the Council of Serdica and disseminated their Philippopolitan decrees, deliberately inscribing them with the name of the Council of Serdica. When in April 344 the delegates of the true Council of Serdica arrived in Antioch with its resolutions, Stephen of Antioch met them with extreme hostility. And of course, it was not the eastern delegates, who withdrew in irritation from the First Council of Milan in 345, who took care to acquaint the east with the actions of the true Serdica council. – But in 347, the fathers of the Second Council of Milan informed the eastern ones about the deposition of Photinus. It is possible that at the same time the very acts of the council were sent to the east, which, according to Western custom, 62 began with the most precise date: “Rufino et Eusebio, un. cc.,coss." It would not be at all surprising if the acts of this council also dealt with the Serdica decrees: the libellus of Ursacius and Valens, which confirmed the correctness of the Serdica council, gave reason to mention this latter and in itself deserved to be brought to the attention of the eastern in a timely manner. – In this (probable) composition, the message of the II Council of Milan penetrated to the east and was there the primary source of information about the true Council of Serdica, to which the act against Photinus and the date of the II Council of Milan were then erroneously attributed 63. What kind of character was that Sirmian cathedral about which St. speaks? Ilarius? a) The simplest assumption would be that it was a council of Orthodox Western bishops, who informed the Eastern ones about the condemnation of Photinus. But with such a composition, the Sirmium Cathedral is almost aimless. It is clear that the Council of Milan II was a numerous council, a kind of concilium plenarium of the Western, for which it was most natural to write to the East on behalf of all Westerners. The deposition of Photinus carried out by this council did not need confirmation from any other council, and the council itself in Sirmium was unnecessary: either Photinus was disposed to bow before the canonical court of the West - and then he would have obeyed the verdict of the Milan II Council, or, on the contrary, it was impossible to influence the bishop of Sirmium by means of a purely moral order - and then, since Photinus decided to ignore the verdict of the Milanese fathers, a new the cathedral in Sirmium was doomed to failure in advance. b) But the text of the “fragment” does not exclude another idea about the composition of the Sirmium Cathedral: it was a Eusebian cathedral in tendency, a cathedral of the eastern, who played the main role in it - the cathedral that sent to the west a response to the message of the II Milan Cathedral, which also contained “Profitemur”. This view of the matter is strongly supported by the fact that St. Hilary, having spoken about the council in Sirmium, begins to clarify in some detail the attitude of St. Athanasius to Marcellus: for understanding the message of the Westerners, this clarification is completely unnecessary, but is essential for assessing the response of the Easterners. To the question about the year of this council, Tsan 64 answers: a) the words of Hilary: “meanwhile a council took place in Sirmium” are directly adjacent to the story of the reunion of Ursacius and Valens, and b) the reader does not feel that there is any gap in this place 65. - But this last (b) observation is hardly fair: from the previous one, the reader has not yet learned either where the council was meeting, or how exactly the case of Photinus ended there; the very message of the council to the eastern is discussed for the first time in relation to the response of the eastern. For all these details, the natural place is after the episode about Ursacius and Valens 66. That the promise “to speak about the case of Marcellus and Photinus in the shortest words” cannot be understood quite literally, this is evidenced by the very episode about the Danube bishops and the textually cited two of their messages. It is more than possible that at this point in the opus historicum there was a story about Milan II. the cathedral is so detailed that Photinus himself remained, as it were, in the shadows; therefore, speaking about the Sirmian Cathedral, St. Hilary considers it not superfluous to again present a short sketch of the case of Photinus. What the words Verum inter haec directly related to in the full text of “opus historicum” is unknown to us, and this already makes Zahn’s conclusion that the Council of Sirmium took place in the same year 347 very problematic. The Council of Sirmium, which, by all accounts, ended in failure. The words: Photinus – ne tum quidem per factionem populi potuit amoveri are understood in the sense that the Eusebian Syrian Council failed to actually depose Photinus. I would prefer a less literal interpretation of this phrase: it seems that here the author wanted to say that even the Milan P. Cathedral did not actually succeed in depriving Photinus of the throne, i.e. in the “opus historicum” these words were not part of the narrative about the Sirmium Cathedral, but formed part of the historical information about this cathedral. This sirenka served as an answer to the question; For what purpose did this council take place in Sirmium? And further information about the attitude of Athanasius V. to Marcellus - very consistently - illuminates the message of the Council of Sirmium. The question of the year and the result of the Council of Sirmium, however, depends not on the impression that the reader gets from the text of the “opus historicum”, but on considerations that are far from being so subjective. Firstly, when modern scientists 67 say that the Second Council of Milan in 347 “communicated its decrees to the eastern bishops, and these latter gathered at the same time for a council and precisely in the Sirmian cathedral city of Photina”: then they apparently forget to ask: is it possible for a council of the Eusebians in Sirmium in 347? This council took place either at the request of Photinus himself or against his will. But the first seems absurd: to assume that from the court of western bishops the bishop of Sirmium appealed to the impartiality of the eastern bishops means to represent Photinus as childishly naive: it was the eastern ones who were the irreconcilable enemies of the doctrine of him and his teacher Marcellus; in the east a storm arose against Photinus - there they were already politely calling him Σκοτεινός 68 - and the verdict of the two Milan councils was apparently caused by these eastern indications of Photinus as a heretic. Consequently, the Council of Sirmium in 347 could only take place against the wishes of the bishop of Sirmium himself. But then the Eusebians arrived in Sirmium - contrary to common sense. Already the experience of the two Milan councils showed that it was not easy to deprive Photinus of the see: the attachment to him of the flock, who decided to defend him despite the verdicts of the councils, was hardly a secret for the eastern ones. Their Danube associates, Ursacius and Valens, betrayed them. Where could the Eusebians have the confidence that they would achieve what the Council of Milan failed to achieve with its authority? Moreover, it was not at all the business of the East to depose Photinus: Sirmium, the metropolis of lower Pannonia, lay in the Illyrian prefecture and, in ecclesiastical terms, undoubtedly abutted the west, not the east. It was easy to foresee that Photinus would greet uninvited guests from the east with anathema 70, like the Arians and banning all churches before them, and the Sirmians would carry out - more than accurately - all his orders in this sense 71. This alone would have put the Eastern deposers in a rather pitiful position. And “brachium saeculare” was still alien to Western church relations 72 and of course imp. Constans would have provided not the eastern, but the western bishops with police assistance against Photinus, if the latter had not preferred to do without this foreign force. For the same reasons, the Council of Sirmium was not possible in 348 and in 349 and in 350. It, contrary to the wishes of Photinus, took place when the Bishop of Sirmium reluctantly submitted to the Eastern court; therefore, when these latter could rely on the “brachium saeculare”; therefore, when Fotin became a subject of the emperor himself. Constance; therefore, after December 25, 350, when the usurpation of Vetranion ended, and probably even after the victory of Constantius at Murs on September 28, 351, because until the outcome of the struggle with Magnentius was clear, there was probably no time for councils... Secondly, in their message, the Eastern ones behave very diplomatically: “astuto consilio”, slyly, they go towards their goal; however, such strength is already felt behind them 73 that the Westerners cannot simply ignore this Sirmian response; they have to sign this document, which circulates so widely that even Peacock, the bishop of Trevir, which is not close to Sirmium, is forced to reckon with it. I think that this significance was conveyed to the message of the Sirmian Council by the secular authorities who stood behind it. Thirdly, the author of the “fragments” would have fulfilled his task very unsatisfactorily 74 if he – as is usually imagined – ended the “case of Photinus” with some kind of Sirmian council, which did not even succeed in removing the deposed bishop from the see, and kept silent about that Sirmian council, which actually deposed Photinus. That this desired Sirmian council really ends the outline of this matter is not subject to the slightest dispute. Meanwhile, “opus historicam” is the work of such an experienced writer as St. Hilary, and even in the fragmentary form in which it has come down to us, it reveals the solid logic of its plan. From all this I believe that the cathedral of Sirmium, of which St. speaks. Hilary, there is the same Sirmian council of 351, which issued the 1st Sirmian formula 75. VIII. “Council” and “dispute”: a chronological question The actual deposition of Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, took place, according to Socrates, in this way: the Council of Sirmium (351), which set out the first Sirmian formula, condemned Photinus and sentenced him to defrocking. But at the end of their meetings, the fathers decided to invite Photinus to sign the conciliar statement of faith, promising to return his bishopric to him for this. But Fotin only did not agree with her statement of faith, but summoned the fathers themselves to a dispute, εἰκ διάλεξιν. This debate took place in the presence of bishops and several senators, by appointment of the emperor 76. Fotin's opponent was Basil of Ancyra. The debate was recorded by tachographs. Photin was declared defeated and sent into exile. - St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, who read the record of this debate, reports several very valuable details about its content, and tells the following about the historical situation of this debate: Photinus was deposed by the Western Council of “Cerdica” for his blasphemous teaching. As a skilled dialectician, Photinus “deceived” many with his sophistic arguments. Many denounced him even after the bishops in Serdika demanded from him an account of his teaching (then Photinus defended himself, but was deposed). He himself turned to Constantius with a complaint about this unjust deposition and asked to give him “again” arbitrators, and he, Photinus, would expose his dogmatic opponents before them 77 . Constantius sent Thalassius [praefectus praetorio per Orientem in 353], Datian [consul ordinarius 358], Cerealia [praefectus Urbis Romae) as judges of the dispute from September 26. 352, consul ordinarius 358], Taurus [as early as July 21, 353, if not earlier, praefectus praetorio, per Illyricum, and in 355 praefectus praetorio Italiae, consul ordinarius 361], Marcellina [comes Orientis 3 Oct. 349; this may be the father of the historian Ammianus Marcellinus], Evanthia, Olympia and Leontius [comes Orientis 6 atip. 349, praefectus Urbis Romae rally 355] 78 . Fotin behaved bravely to the point of swagger and assured that in defense of his convictions he cited “100 pieces of evidence” (from scripture). His dispute with Vasily Anchirsky turned out to be quite lengthy. The debate was recorded by 7 tachygraphs: Basil's deacon Anisius, Callicrates, exceptor Rufinus [praetorian prefect Gaul], memorarii Olympius, Nikita and Basil, and Basil's notaries Eutychius and Theodulus. Acts of dispute were drawn up in triplicate. One copy was sealed and sent to the emperor, the other was left to the “council under Vasily”, the third, also sealed, was kept by the “comets”. – Did the arbitrators make any decision, St. Epiphanius does not speak and apparently does not use the Sirmian first formula when presenting Photinus’s heresy. For a long time it was believed that this dispute took place in the winter from 351 to 352. But Gwatkin spoke out against this 79 and after chronological research, striking with its apparent thoroughness and surrounded by weighty scientific authorities, came to the conclusion that the Sirmian dispute took place in the spring of 355. This new guess can serve as a good 1001st memento that the scientist and one should not rely on the best scientific authorities without strictly independently verifying the very grounds they present. 1. This dispute, says Guotkin, took place at a time when imp. Constantius was not in Sirmium. He was not present at the debate [This is indisputable]. But if he had been in Sirmium, he would hardly have resisted the temptation to personally attend such brilliant scientific and theological debates [Constantius could have denied himself this pleasure out of pure delicacy: with his presence he would have embarrassed and embarrassed one of the disputants, and perhaps both, to the detriment of the clarification of the truth. Track. This consideration by Guotkin proves nothing]. – 2. Apparently, back in March 351, Thalassius (as praefectus praetorio per Orientem) went under Caesar Galle to Syria [Videbimus!] and did not return from there until Domitian was appointed to his place in 353. – 3. Cerealius could hardly leave Rome (where from September 352 to December 353 he was praefectus Urbis) to Sirmium [Vesco]. – 4. Leontius in 353 was sent to the East with the rank of quaestor and only in the winter of 354 returned to the West, and from July - August [after July 6] 355 he was in Rome as praefectus Urbis [Vesco]. – 5. In turn, Tahir was already on April 6, 355. is in the rank of praefectus praetorio Italiae (the main city of this prefecture is Mediolan) [Veski]. Therefore, in the first months of 355, it was most convenient for 8 dignitaries to gather in Sirmium. But Guotikin, of course, knows very well that from the words of Ammianus Marcellinus 80 other scientists 81 see that already in 353 Thalassius died in the East; that in S. Artemii passio of John the monk [Damascus] 82 the same thing is expressed with a positivity that does not allow any reinterpretation. To this Gwotkin replies: “in Hardthausen’s edition of Marcellinus, in this place it reads: eum odisse, and this, it seems, is the correct reading. See also Sieyers, Libanius, 227." So, in support of his guess, Guotkin puts forward the authority of Hardthausen, the learned publisher of Ammianus Marcellinus, and the authority of Sievers, whose book Das Leben des Libanius [Berlin 1868] amazes with the scrupulous thoroughness of the study of the mass of historical material that, like rudis indigestaque moles, lies both in the speeches and in the volume of letters of Libanius, and with the rare art of chronological establishment of facts based on broad erudition. Ammianus Marcellinus (14, 1, 2. 10), finding out how the fate of the ill-fated Caesar Gall Constantius developed, writes that this man, hot-tempered and tough by nature, incited by his shrew-wife to do everything cruel, began to rage in the East; and Thalassius, the praetorian prefect, sent to the East essentially to supervise Caesar, did not consider it necessary to soften him with meek advice, but protested his measures in a tone of authority, sharply condemned him and then made Augustus Constantius frequent and exaggeratedly black ideas about the actions of Caesar. All this drove the latter almost to the point of rage. Haec subinde Constantius audiens et quaedam referente Thalassio doctus, quem eum odisse iam compererat lege communi, wrote kindly to Caesar and instructed Domitian, who was appointed prefect of the eastern praetoria (Domitiano ex comite largitionum praefecto), as soon as he arrived in Syria, to kindly and respectfully persuade Caesar Gall to go to Italy. Domitian arrived in Antioch with accelerated speed, debuted his relations with Caesar with a gross violation of etiquette and irritated Gall so much that he set the Antiochian soldiers against the new prefect, and Domitian and the quaestor Montius were brutally killed. This is the connection of facts. – The expression quem eum odisse was written by the learned publisher himself ex conjectura. In the only manuscript for this passage by Ammianus Marcellinus [cod. Yaticanus 1873] the words are read: quèmouisse, i.e. quem movisse. Since the meaning turns out to be very unsatisfactory 83, already in 1609 F. Lindenbrog suggested reading quemouisse, i.e. e quem ouisse = obîsse = obiisse 9). The confusion of b and u is a very common phenomenon in manuscripts and inscriptions, and Lindenbrog's guess is so artlessly simple - he only assumes that the stroke over e is placed erroneously - that it can be called a special reading of a given text rather than a conjecture. On the contrary, Harthausen needed to a) insert two letters eu and b) change the letter to δ. But the meaning turned out to be far from the best. I do not understand α ) by what “general law” Constantius learned that Thalassius hated Caesar Gallus, β ) nor by what “general law” Thalassius hated Gallus, γ ) nor why Marcellinus, reporting that Domitian was appointed prefect of the praetorium, forgets to say what happened to the former praefectus praetorio Thalassius. On the contrary, one has only to read the text together with Lindenbrog, and everything becomes clear as day, a) Thalassius died “according to the general law,” that is, a natural death: the meaning of the words is completely clear, β) This detail should have been mentioned in view of the fact that Domitian and Montius died a violent death, and the reader, knowing that relations between Gallus and Thalassius had become very strained, could naturally suspect that Thalassius also died due to slander Caesar, y) Upon learning of the death of Thalassius, imp. Constantius appoints Domitian as his successor: and this connection of facts is completely clear. δ) Lindenbrog's reading is brilliantly confirmed by the news in S. Artemii passio. But, objecting to Lindenbrog, Hardthausfn notes: “sed cf. 22 9, 16" 84. In the indicated place A. Marcellinus writes that a certain Thalassius ex proximo libellorum once intrigued against Caesar Gall and under the emperor. Juliana fell into disgrace. When Julian (in July 362) arrived in Antioch, a crowd of people who had a lawsuit with Thalassius appeared to him and shouted: “Your Majesty’s enemy Thalassius has forcibly taken our property from us.” But the emperor, in response to this, forbade the court to proceed with the trial of their claim until he himself, the emperor, as the main enemy of Thalassius, reconciled with him. And soon he really returned his favor to Thalassia. So, it was this Thalassius, who was alive in July - August 362, that the venerable Leipzig scholar infausta die identified with Thalassius praefectus praetorio 353 and - doubted the correctness of the reading "obisse" 85, and Guotkin - did not consider to what extent this stillborn guess is untenable. Umm. Marzfllin says categorically that Thalassius of 362 was ex proximo libellorum, that is, an official of a rather modest rank, who hardly rose to the title of vir clarissimus, something like a retired departmental secretary 86. And Thalassius praefectus praetorio per Orientem was vir illustris, rose to the very top of the Byzantine table of ranks, was, if not the Minister of the Interior, then at least the Governor-General of the most important region. And in addition, A. Marcellinus begins the story: Thalassium qdendam ex proximo libellorum. If we were talking about the praetorian prefect, then of course the historian, according to custom, 87 would say: Thalassium, cuius in actibus Galli meminimus or: Thalassium, quem supra monstranimus Gallo nsidiasse. In any case, Thalassius the prefect would appear as a historically already known person, and not as “one Thalassius.” Sievers also doubts the correctness of the reading “obisse”, because in the letters of Livanius he finds one of the Thalassii, who was alive in 354-355 and died undoubtedly “not during his prefecture.” But the complex string of Thalassii mentioned by Livanius, 88 Sievers did not fully explain and - looked at those details that indicate that the Thalassius, who really needs to be recognized as a praefectus praetorio, died - and according to Lebanon - several years before the reign of Julian. So the Sirmian dispute could not have taken place in 355, 89 because at that time Thalassius was no longer alive. This conclusion is in complete harmony with one detail, which - to the disadvantage of his chronological work - was overlooked by Gwotkin. The above 90 data from St. Epiphanius clearly shows that he makes diplomatically precise extracts from the acts of the dispute: he cites not only the names of such modest figures as tachographers, but also clearly notes the difference in their official positions. This, one might say, obliges us to assume that regarding the official position of persons of undoubted importance, arbitrators of the dispute, the famous hereseologist speaks without falling into error, which is strange to expect from a contemporary writer. Therefore, if St. Epiphanius called all the judges of the dispute comites, then they really were in the rank of comites. But at that time, power, both civil and military, consisted of three layers: lower - potestas ordinaria, middle – potestas spectabilis, and the highest – potestas illustris. At the head of the administration of the "provinces" (or, in Greek terminology, "dioceses") were praesides, judices ordinarii, with the title viri clarissimi, therefore in the rank of senator, οἱ συγκ λητικοί. These were the then governors. Above them stood the heads of the districts (dioecesis, διοίκησις), consisting of several provinces, who bore the title of “vicars”, “vicarii, qui pro praefectis dioeceses sibi creditas temperarunt” 91; because they were truly “vicars” of their superiors, “prefects.” Vicars were judices spectabiles. Above them stood the judices illustres, who each ruled a quarter of the Roman Empire, praefecti praetorio 92. A Byzantine official who rose to the rank of illustris stood at the top of the administrative ladder; He had nowhere to go further, because, like illustris, he was already sublimitas, celsitudo. The “actual privy councilor” of our time can in the future expect rewards not in the form of further promotion in the table of ranks, but only in the form of orders or the title of count: similarly, the Byzantine vir illustris could only be awarded the award of either “consul” or “patrician”. From this it is clear that to confuse one who was already vir illustris with viri spectabiles, from the Byzantine point of view, would be the same indelicate blunder as in your days mistaking a general for a colonel. But the comites were precisely viri spectabiles 93 . The concept of “comes” (“companion”) contains the same moment of limitation that lies in the Russian title “comrade” (minister, trustee, prosecutor): comites were not the main commanders in the units they controlled. But if the disiut took place at the beginning of 355, then the number of 8 κριταί καὶ ἀκροαταί were three viri illustres ex praefectis, and then Epiphanius would call the judges a potiori “iparchs” and not “comites”. Thus the expression μετὰ τῶν κομήτων indicates the terminus post quem non of this dispute: it took place no later than September 26, 352, when the third of these judges, Cerealia, ceased to be a comite, becoming vir illustris praefectus Urbis Romae 94. But even earlier than this, Thalassius was no longer “comes spectabilis”, but “vir illustris praefectus praetorio per Orientem. And since there is not the slightest reason to suspect that the - not at all long - list of names of judges was preserved in manuscripts not in full order, then Datian, about whose appointment to the prefecture there is no news, who therefore needs to be titled vir spectabilis, in second place between the first and third viri illustres turns out to be a pure impossibility in the official document. Consequently, the dispute - and for this additional reason - took place even when all 8 συγκλητικοὶ were nothing more than viri spectabiles comites. The time when Thalassius became prefect is a terminus ante quem, extremely close to the terminus quo, the very date of the dispute. Guotkin thinks that shortly after March 15, 351, when Gall, under the name Flavius ​​Julius Constantius, was appointed Caesar, he and him, with the rank of praefectus praetorio per Orientem, departed for the “East” to Antioch and Thalassium. And in confirmation of the correctness of this presentation of the matter, an English scientist could refer to the text of S. Artemii passio 95. However, this presentation of the matter is undoubtedly erroneous: in July–August (probably August 7) ​​351, Thalassius was still with the emperor in Pannonia 96 and apparently left for the “East” after the emperor’s troops won a decisive victory over Magnentius at Mursa on September 28, 351. During this time, nothing extraordinary happened in the “East”, and before the general battle it would have been unlikely that one of the commanders of the Guards Corps 97 would have been appointed to a civil administrative post, which, like Thalassius, had a den, renommée almost the second general in the entire army. – In the post of praefectus praetorio per Orientem, Thalassius was Philip’s successor, consul ordinarius 348. There is reason 98 to believe that Philip was deprived of his position even before November 6, 351; Therefore, in November - December, Thalassius could leave for the “East”. But in this case, there is almost no time left for a “dispute” after the “council”. The generally accepted opinion that the dispute took place after the council rests only on the authority of Socrates and Sozomen. And in this case this authority is undoubtedly weak, since it is in their story about the Sirmian councils that the chronological confusion reaches its highest limit 99. And the consonant testimony of these writers about the Burden of the dispute practically vouches for the fact that in Savin’s Συναγωγὴ the acts of the dispute stood after the acts of the council. If you look more closely, the generally accepted placement of events does not seem particularly likely. The Council of Sirmium, composed of bishops who had influence on the emperor, condemns the teaching of Photinus as heresy, and yet condescendingly invites him to renounce his opinions; He stubbornly refuses, summons the fathers of the council to a debate, and the emperor respects his request and implicitly cassates the resolution of the council. Does this mean that the council fathers decided on a dogmatic question without really investigating it? Why didn’t Fotin defend his convictions at the council before the verdict was pronounced? It is completely incredible that the council tried and condemned Photinus in absentia. And since he was given the right to defend himself, this dispute after the council looks like an unmotivated insult to the fathers of the council, and distrust of him on the part of the emperor. If, without the usual preconceptions, we read the words of St. Epiphany, then one can get a completely different idea of ​​the progress of the case. True, Photinus asks for himself “again,” α ὗ θίς , arbitrators, but he protests against the long-standing sentence pronounced on him by the “Serdic”, that is, in my opinion 100, the Milan P. Cathedral of 347. That this sentence was confirmed again by the Sirmium Cathedral is not visible. It is also unknown whether the dispute ended with a verdict from the arbitrators. While the acts of meetings of this kind usually end with the formula “Edantur” 101, the two copies of the acts of the dispute, on the contrary, are sealed like a secret document or corpus delicti. These details become clear if we put the “dispute” before the “council”. Photinus sees that he cannot escape the Eusebian court, and wants to have arbitrators more impartial than his theological opponents. The emperor appoints 8 committees. Some of the bishops have already gathered in Sirmium and are present at the dispute, but as outsiders. The dispute should clarify Photinus’ system and provide objective material for the conciliar verdict. The role of the secular judges - often external: they, as was the case at the Carthaginensis collatio of 411 and at the Council of Chalcedon, with their authoritative interlocutiones should not allow either deviations from the subject of the dispute, or fruitless wrangling on issues that have been exhausted. Only one copy of the acts was left to Basil and the council, ἐν τ ῇ κατὰ. Βασίλειον σονόδ ῳ, the other two are sealed as material evidence, as a document pendentis litis, for the “publication” of which the time has not yet come, because the council has not yet uttered its decisive word. (Spelling question). Many, of course, recognize this issue 102 as already resolved by the mere certificate that Prof. prefers to write Serdica, not Sardica. Kiepert 103, between specialists in ancient geography facile princeps. And those who place a premium on authoritative names will deign to hear the following: We are interested in “Serdica” of 343, which belonged to Illyricum, Serdica, which spoke Latin, and for us it is not at all interesting to know in what way the later Byzantine Greeks mutilated this geographical name: we, Russians, know our “Moscow”, and all sorts of Moskau and Moscou are orthographically indifferent to us. But a) back in 1731, Cellarius-Schwartz 104 contrasted a [dubious?] coin with the stamp C ΑΡΔΙΚΕΩΝ with a coin with O YΛΙΑ AS SERDIKNS and supported this latter with one inscription, in which one soldier NAT[ione] TNKAHCIVITATE SERDICÄ speaks of himself as a local native, he authority in this matter. b) People of the 4th century could know the correct pronunciation of this city, which suddenly became famous for the fact that Caius Galerius Valerius Maximian, in Dacia haud longe a Serdica natus, became first Caesar, and then Augustus. Eutropius 105, who reports this, was also with. magister memoriae under the emperor. Valente (364–378), that is, he was the 106th head of that department of the office under the magister officiorum, from where adnotationes and answers to petitions came, next. a person of undisputed competence in this orthographic issue. c) Since the time of Diocletian, Serdica has often been the residence of emperors, who issued laws there. In Codex Theodosianus ed. G. Haenel (Bonnae 1837) and in Codex Iust-nianus ed. P. Krueger (ed. 4-ta, Berolini 1888) these laws bear the date "Serdicae"; variants in codd 107: "Serdice, Sirdice, Syrdlcae, Serditiae, Serdicie". Consequently, Sardica would not even look like an option here, but simply a spelling error. In the oldest manuscript for the Codex Theodosianus, the Turin manuscript. V-VII centuries the date "in Serdica" is preserved five times and reads: Serdicae (three times), Serd. (twice) 108 . d) Amyianus Marcellinus, who is also authoritative as a writer of the 5th century. and as a person keenly interested in geography, Serdica is mentioned three times, twice in the Excerpta Valesiana: all five times it reads “Serdica” without variations 109 . e) In the famous Latin monuments “Itineratium Burdigalense”, “Itinerarium Antonini augusti” and “Ravennatia anonymi cosmographia” it reads “Serdica”, in “Tabula Peutinperiana” - “Sertica” 110. f) In Sulpicii Severi chronica 2,36, 5 in a single place the only manuscript P 111 gives “Serdicam”. g) In the works of St. Ilaria Serdica Cathedral is mentioned very often. In the text - probably hoping to please their readers - the publishers (Coustant 1693, Maffei 1730) usually print Sardica eardicensis; but in Index [Migne, S. L., t. 10, 1000] there is a rich clause: “vel ut in mss. constant; Serdicensis." But even they are in fr. 2, 15 [col. 642B] offer in the captions to the message of the council: “Prothogenes a Dacia de Serdica.” This one place - if it is accurate - resolves our question categorically: of course, Protogenes of Serdica himself knew how to write the word Serdica. h) If we then listen to the echoes of this name in the Slavic language, we will encounter the Bulgarian “Sredets” and the Old Russian “Seredoken” 112. Both "Seredokeya" and "Sredets" obviously imply "Serdica", not "Sardica". i) Regarding the Greek manuscripts, it must be assumed that Σαρδική appears in them quite early; but if we ask the question: is Σερδική in them spoiled in Σαρδική, or vice versa? then only one answer is possible: Σερδιχὴ is the original reading, corrupted - probably by [false] analogy with names so famous as σάρδιον σαρδώνιος γέλως Σαρδανάπαλος Σάρδεις Sardinia - in Σαρδική, while for the reverse relation there are no analogies: at least there is no commonly used Greek word beginning with σερδ. Therefore, - k) in the “chronography of Theophanes” under 5849 de-Boor 113 thoroughly accepts the reading Σερδικ ῇ into the text. l) The works of Athanasius V., and precisely the “apology against the Arians,” are of particular interest. The best manuscripts in the critical apparatus (codex Basileensis and codex Regius 2284, close to it in antiquity, late 10th - early 11th centuries) at the beginning of the “apology” offer successively Σαρδίκή; but when the less usual εἰς τὴν Σερδῶν πόλιν was encountered in the documents of the Serdica Council. then code. Ras. here - and almost forever - he breaks up with the usual a; cod. Beg. here it still holds it, but does not withstand it to the end: it is obvious in the manuscript from which cod. Reg., unusual ε declares itself with such persistence that cod. Reg. leaves the vulgar α, gives successively Σερδῶν Σερδών and ends - in the signatures - with the reading: ΙΙρωτογένης Σερδιχής 114. Wed. above g. m) But the ancients codd. Bas. Reg. young compared to cod. Mas. Brit. Add. 14,569, – with a Syrian manuscript of the 8th century. 115, in which "κεφάλαια" is preserved. And the common source for “κεφάλαια” and “historia acephala” was undoubtedly a detailed Alexandrian history compiled by someone else during the life of Theophilus of Alexandria (between July 20, 384 - October 15, 412), maybe around 385, which was already used by Sozomen 116. In "χεφάλαι" Serdika is mentioned twice, and this name is written סהריקי and יהרדיסקי. Comparison of this transcription with names such as דאהכםאדריא הפיםקומום = επίσκοπος Ἀλεξανδρείας, = Πέτρος קהםאר = καῖσαρ . φαμενώθ 117, does not leave the slightest doubt that the translator read not Σαρδική, but Σερδική. On the other hand, anyone who has even touched Syriac grammar with just the tip of a fingernail knows that this conditional ה for rendering the Greek ε gives the cited Syriac words such a strange flavor that it would be a completely natural error of the copyist if he either omitted it completely or replaced it with the walking א; on the contrary, it is impossible to think that “Shrdiqi” in the 8th century. appeared instead of the original “Sardiqi. Consequently, “Shrdiqi” was retained only because the translator himself wrote it that way, and the latter wrote it that way only because the Greek text contained ΣΕΡΔΙΚΗ. This is, therefore, how the Alexandrian Greeks pronounced this name in 385; so, Σερδική Serdica, St. also wrote it. Athanasius and Protogenes of Serdica. Quod erat probandum. That Sardica is also written by Western theologians, this proves, of course, very little: it is strange to think that the orthography that philologists abandon is suitable for theologians. That pure spelling purism is almost unattainable; that compromises with current spelling take their toll, I know this εἰ καὶ τις ἄλλος: I myself should have written on page 305 “Constantius”, 312 “Lucifer”, 310 “to the Council of Paris” and above all 305 “Liberius, Bishop of Roma”. But from the fact that complete purity in spelling cannot be achieved, it does not follow that it is necessary to leave all sorts of growths in this field. "Sardine" has not yet acquired the same "citizenship rights" as "Paris" and "Rome". And history shows that sometimes even “citizens” are sent away. After all, we sent away the Polish “papage” who had climbed onto the pages of our ancient chronicle, replacing him with the historically correct “papa”. I hope that someday it will be the same with the Czech-Polish “Rome”: the historical “Roma” will appear in its place. Whoever thinks that this is impossible, because it is already accepted to write this way, has already been universally established; let him weigh only the following couple of facts: Back at the beginning of the 19th century. The Russians - instead of “Spain” - very seriously wrote “Gishpania”. Now, almost only “Spanish flies” remind us of this spelling, and one can only talk about “Gishpania” for the sake of laughter. Back in the early 60s of this century, undoubtedly educated people wrote “genvar”. This month has to be mentioned incomparably more often than the entire Iberian Peninsula. However, now the pathetic cripple “January”, despite any rights of literary citizenship, has cleared the way for the healthy historical “January” everywhere. Foreign, especially historical and geographical names represent an element easily subject to the influence of logic. A couple of good textbooks on geography and general history, issued under the firm hand of a proofreader who is not only familiar with the spelling of foreign proper names 118, would be enough for ten years later to announce a generation so literate that not only “Gishpania” and “Genvar” would seem strange to them, but also some other generally accepted conventions of our time. Rehabilitation of four documents of 343 Whoever writes about the authenticity of any work declared inauthentic by previous scientists finds himself in a position that is not particularly advantageous. Firstly, he appears before the reader’s face already surrounded in advance by an atmosphere of “uncriticality”, which rarely passes completely without leaving a trace on the integrity of their mutual relations. Secondly, such an author rarely takes up his pen if the matter is about something foreign to him: it is usually important for him that his thesis is recognized by others; and this leaves the impression that the author breaks feathers pro domo sua, is himself an interested party, whose impartiality can not be trusted; and everyday, psychological thinking with “can and” quite often replaces it with the imperative “should.” And as a result of these sediments, a psychological judgment is often obtained: the defense is weaker than the objections, which, with logical verification, would hardly turn out to be valid. The writer of these lines is in a different position: accepting the full weight of the prejudice in “uncriticality,” he decisively rejects any suspicion of interest in such or another solution to this issue. The reader sees for himself that the message “Quod semper” was cited 119 only to prove the (acceptable and without evidence) idea that the Serdica council also dealt with the issue of faith, and not only with the affairs of Athanasius. and Markella. This position is sufficiently confirmed by the authoritative “tomos of the Council of Alexandria (362) to the Antiochians.” Therefore, for my studies, the authenticity or falsity of “Quod semper” is rather indifferent. But it is precisely this advantageous side of my position - the opportunity to defend authenticity based solely on the conviction of the justice of this particular solution to the issue without any other motives - this feeling of neutral ground under my feet, and it disposes me to take up this issue in order to provide the reader with the opportunity - on one of the indifferent examples - to check the comparative value of “criticality” and “non-criticality”. And the other three monuments, the question of the authenticity of which will be raised here, have no significance in ecclesiastical or religious terms. It is only about scientific truth and historical truth, and nothing else. With the well-known anti-papist “trop de zèle”, both Old Catholic scholars, Langen and Friedrich, declared the letter “Quod semper”, which the Catholic Bishop of Rottenburg K. I. von Hefele considers genuine, to be a forgery. This, so to speak, is a critical step beyond Hefele. But hypercritical here, they rather uncritically go in tow with Hefele, accepting as a ready given the result of his criticism of the documents relating to the Serdic collection. The case is about Athanasius's epistles. to “all elders and deacons of St. Catholic Church in Alexandria and Paremvola" "Haec scribentes", about the message of the Serdica Council to the Mareotian churches "Etiam ex his" and the message of Athanasius. to the “presbyters, deacons and people of the Catholic Church in Mareota, most beloved and longed-for brethren” with Sancta synodus laudavit.” These three monuments survive only in a Latin translation and only in an aqueous manuscript - Capituli Veronensia cod. lx. 58 membr. – VIII century. The contents of this manuscript are well known 120 . It ends with a note, perhaps 121 only copied from the ancient RKP: HEC DE MENDOSIS EXEMPLARIBVS TEANSTVLI TANDEM ET QVEDAM QVIDEM QVA... NON VT VOLVIT TAMEN POTVI RECORREXIT... - THEODOSIVS DIACONVS AND really CONSISTS mainly of translations from Greek. This RKP. preserved for us the precious “historia acephala”, which begins after the message “Sancta synodus laudavit”. And two pages after the “historia acephala” three famous documents begin, illuminating the historically dark beginning of the Melitian schism: the letter of the Egyptian bishops Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodore and Philaeus [to the Bishop of Lycopolis] “Melitias beloved and co-servant” “Simplici ratione incerta verba”, a historical explanation by an unknown author: “Hanc epistulam postquam suscepit" and the message of Peter of Alexandria "to the beloved brethren established in the faith of God" with Quoniam cognovi Meletium nihili. It shows that the codex Veronensis represents a treasury of the rarest documents on the history of the Alexandrian church and that the messages "Haec scribentes", "Etiam ex bis" and "Sancta synodus" - judging by their proximity to the "historia acephala" - probably come from the Alexandrian archive; in any case, their proximity is hardly a mere coincidence, and it must be taken into account when deciding the question of their authenticity. It would be strange to think that such loci topici criticism should be remembered when talking about such a scientist as Hefele. But, be that as it may, he, without mentioning anything about the place occupied by the three epistles in the codex Veronensis, briefly outlining their contents, pronounces 122 the following judgment about them: “These excerpts – I believe – sufficiently demonstrate the non-authenticity of these three documents. [A] Well, is it conceivable that the Eusebians would ever say about themselves: “we are the enemies of Christ”? [B] But besides this, the entire content of these three messages is lifeless and sluggish, the constant repetition of identical words is unbearable, their tone and syllable are completely ordinary and trivial. [C] Moreover, [a] all Christian antiquity did not know about these three documents, and [b] they are not found anywhere except this Verona manuscript. For all this, we cannot recognize them as genuine.” Thus, Hefele offers three arguments against the authenticity of the messages: an objective-historical argument A, a subjective-aesthetic argument B, and an indirect ad hominem argument C. I'll start reviewing them with the latter. Hefele successfully places it in last place, because C is a kind of zero, capable of increasing (although not tenfold) the impression of previous evidence if it stands behind them, but it can also weaken and even completely ruin this impression if placed in front of them. Sa. “The whole of Christian antiquity knew nothing about these documents.” Of course: all Christian antiquity known to us. But when we undoubtedly know how many documents the zeal and love of reading books of those generations that replaced the great and small figures of the 4th century managed to lose on the earth’s surface; when we, even without leaving the limits of only the 4th century, can boast that α) all the Easter messages of Athanasius are lost to us. in the Greek original [only fragments in Greek and a few complete epistles in Syrian have survived]; β ) all Easter messages of Athanasius's successors. in the 4th century; γ) detailed Alexandrian church chronicle of the time of Athanasius c. – common source of “historia acephala”, “κεφάλαια” and Sozomen; δ) chronicle of the Egyptian monk Panodorus; ε) chronicle of the Egyptian monk Annian; ς) Alexandrian source for "Excerpta latina barbari" if not identical with γ or 8 or ε; and from non-Alexandrian literary monuments ζ ) Συναγωγὴ τῶν συνόδων Savina of Irakliysk; η) history of Philostorgius; θ ) Χριστιανιχὴ ἵ στορία of Philip of Side: then we can easily agree that your competence in the question of what all Christian antiquity knew and did not know is very modest. But if nothing had been lost for us, and yet there had been no indications of these three messages anywhere, then this argumentum a silentio would have weighed very little. Why would ancient writers quote from these messages? After all, all of them are, in the full sense, compositions on occasion and only for a given occasion, without a dogmatic element in the content. However, even now this silence is far from being as complete as it seems according to Hefele: undoubtedly - and according to Hefele - the genuine message of the Serdica Council “to the presbyters, deacons and the entire holy church of God, resident in Alexandria, beloved brethren” “Καὶ πρὶν μὲν” assumes as a matter of course that they will Athanasius himself wrote the message. 123 And the question becomes more complex: it is required to prove that “Haec scribentes” is not the authentic message of Athanasius. Cb) But these messages, argues Hefele, “are not even found in any other manuscript except the codex Veronensis.” But what follows from this?! Wasn’t it preserved in the manuscript alone? Are Tertulliani ad nationes, are Sulpicii Severi chronica published in more than one book? Isn’t it essentially the same with Arnobius, and with Zosimus, and with the Syrian translation of Athanasius’s Easter messages? Wasn't it just one manuscript that preserved Excerpta latina barbari? Or only codex Veronensis lx is suspicious. 58? Not at all. And according to Hefele, “historiaacephala”, preserved only here and until 1848, striking in its loneliness, is a highly valuable monument. And according to Hefele 124, the message of Hosius and Protogenes to “the most beloved brother Julius” of Rome “Meminimus et tenemus” is authentic; and it survived only in cod.Veronensis. But nothing shows more clearly that Hefele holds his critical scales crookedly than his following 125 judgment about the messages on the Melitian schism: “no one doubts the authenticity of these three documents, and their importance is recognized by everyone.” But isn't it in the one and only cod. Veron, are these documents preserved? And in addition, about the messages “Haec scribentes”, “Etiam” and “Sancta”, in the worst case, one can only say that they are not confirmed by other monuments known to us, while about the “Simplici ratione”, “Hanc epistolam” and “Quoniam cognovi Meletium” it has to be said that they differ significantly from the news of Epiphan. haer. 68. 69, 3. For all this, I cannot recognize any evidentiary force for C [as, of course, Hefele himself does not recognize]. This is a good zero (“an aggravating circumstance”), but only in the case when the ones preceding it are strong. Of these, A should go for the strongest. In the message “Haec scribentes” the following lines are read: “Et nunc, cum Sardicam adveni sent – quemadmodum tunc daemones de sepulcris – sic Theodorus, Narcissus et Ursacius cum suis verba dicebant: Omittë quid nobis et vobis hominibus Christi? Novimus quod veri estis, et timemus convinci; veremur in personam reco gnoscere calumnias. Nihil est nobis et vobis: christiani enim estis vos, nos vero Christo repugnantes; et apud vos quidem veritas pollet, nos vero circumvenire didicimus. Putavimus abscondi nostra; non jam credebamus in judicium venirë quid ante tempus nostra convincitis, et ante diem nos convincentes vexatis?” “Is it conceivable,” asks Hefele, “that the Eusebians would ever say about themselves: We are the enemies of Christ?” This question hits the mark so tactilely that, as an argument, it is worth either everything or nothing. In the clearest signs of Afanasiev's confidential style, Hefele, dormitante Minervâ, saw evidence of the non-authenticity of the message!! These are the words of Afanasy V. in another of his creations 126 puts into the mouths of the same Eusebians: οὐκἀκούει. Δεῖ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίληπτον ε ἶ ναι [1 Tim. 3, 2]. ἀλλὰ μόνον Φρονεί κατὰ Χριστοῦ, καὶ μὴ φρόντιζε περὶ τρόπων ἀρκεῖ γὰρ ἐκεῖνό σοι πρὸς σύστασιν, καὶ πρὸς βασιλέως φιλίαν. – [In 339 they] ' ἡμῶν , – Ἄ ρζαι διώκειν , – καὶ πέμφον Φιλάγριον δεύτερον ἔπαρχον τῆς Αἰγύπτου αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐπιτηδείως δύναται διώκειν - καὶ παραβάτης ὤ ν . – Ὡ ς δὲ ἀπαντήσαντες [to Serdika] ἑωράκασιν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν δίκην μονήν ?? συνελάλουν * Ἤ λθομεν ἐπ ’ ἄλλοίς, καὶ ἄλλα βλέπομεν, ἀπηντησαμεν μετὰ κομήτῶν , καὶ χωρὶς κομήτων ἡ κρίσις γίνεται · κατακρινόμεθα πάντως. – Ἔ χουσεν οἱ περὶ Ἀθανάσιον τά ἐν τῷ Μαρεώτ ῃ ὑπομνήματα, ἐξ ὧ ν αὐτὸς μὲν καθαρίζεται, ἡμεῖς δὲ καταισχυνόμεθα. Τί δὴ ο ὖ ν μέλλομεν; τί βραδυνομεν; ?? . Βέλτιον φεύγοντας ἐρυθρι ᾶ ν, ἢ ἐλεγχ & έντας συκοφάντας καταισχύνεαθαι. Ἐὰν φύγωμεν, – ἔχομεν βασιλέα προστάτην. – [In 352] ὖ ν διώκειν, καὶ πρόστα τῆς αἰρέσεω; καὶ γὰρ καὶ α ὕ τή σὲ βασιλέα ἔχει . – Προσελθόντες τοίνυν Κωνσταντίω [in 356], τοιούτοις πάλιν ἐχρήσαντο ῥ ἡμ ᾶ ςι · Πάντα μὲν πεποιήκαμεν , καὶ ἐξωρίσαμεν τὸν ῥ ωμαίων ἐπίσκοπον – πάντα τε τόπον φόβου πεπληρώκαμεν , άλλ ’ εἰς οὐδὲν ἡμῖν ἐστι τὰ τηλικαῦτα σου ἔργα , οὐδὲ κατώρβωται ὁτιοῦν ἡμῖν , ἕ ως ᾿Όσιος περιλείπεται . – Ἄ ν τοίνυν ο ὖ τος μείν ῃ, – ἡ α ἵ ρεσής ἡμῶν ἐκποδ ὼ ν γίγνεται . Ἄ ρξαι τοίνυν καὶ τοῦτον διώκειν , καὶ μή φείς ῃ, κἄν ἀρχαῖος ᾖ. καὶ γὰρ ἡ α ἵ ρεσις ἡμῶν οὐκ ο ἶ δεν οὐδὲ γερόντῶν τιμ ᾶ ν πολιάν. and says to Hosea: Ἀθανασίου ὁ γὰρ κατ ’ ἐκείνου γραφών πάντως τὰ ἀρείανῶν μεθ ’ ἡμῶν φρονήσει. – Reading such expressions, shall we, together with Hefele, begin to ask: Where in aller Welt did the Eusebians say at consecrations, “Be wise against Christ, and do not worry about morality”? When, before Constantius, did they call his zealous measures persecution, their own and his religion - heresy, which does not respect the gray hair of even 100-year-old elders, Constantius himself - the king and representative of heresy, and recommending people to him, certified them as experienced persecutors and apostates from Christianity, et caetera et caetera? Isn’t it obvious that just as there, forcing the Eusebians to speak in the language of the demoniac (Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24-34), so here Athanasius c. and does not think of passing off his presentation as a shorthand recording of the true words of his dogmatic opponents? He only wants to clearly express their meaning, their essence, from his point of view: this is how he looks and wants to look at the words of the Eusebians, no matter what streams of unctuous sweetness they flow in reality. And this very boldness of contrast with the historically possible does not alone serve as sufficient proof of the authenticity of “Haec scribentes” - a guarantee that it is written by the author himself, who does not need to create guarantees that his message is not forged, and not by a forger who needs to forge, copy, who would not flaunt such self-evident impossibilities, so as not to arouse the suspicion of his later ones! – readers? In critical questions like the present, the proposition: credo, quia absurdum est should serve as a guiding maxim. And finally, why, cui bono, would anyone falsify documents of the kind in question? There is no dogma in them at all, no historical - generally interesting - information: everything is known to us more fully from other works of Athanasius. It is, in fact, impossible to think that the falsifier wanted to assure anyone of the literal accuracy of the words of the Eusebians - this is impossible because in this case he would have repeated similar speeches in the other two documents; but there is no trace of them there. It seems that the 19th century was left to understand this tirade in this way and choose it as the starting point of critical skepticism! 127 The Alexandrian was known throughout the ancient intelligent world for his lively, mocking tongue, 128 and sometimes even paid for his witticisms with his blood. The Alexandrian commoner, ἰδιώτης, was also capable of surprisingly accurately capturing the very essence of the false situation and expressing his observation very caustically 129. The same boiling Alexandrian blood flowed in the veins of the great Athanasius, and what is surprising if Opt, an Alexandrian by upbringing, sometimes spoke Alexandrian with his selflessly devoted Alexandrians? Other expressions of the message also bear the characteristic stamp of Athanasian language. Christiani estis vos, nos vero Christo repugnantes.] χριστομάχους γενέσθαι. – Ἡ χριστομλαχος α ἵ ρεσις – one of the most constant epithets of the “Ariomanites” in Athanasius. 130 qui apud multos putantur esse terribiles] φοβερούς ἑαυτούς ἔδείκνυον ο ἷ ς ἐβουλοντο 131 non solum eos alienos judicavit ab ecclesia, sed nec dignos vocari Christianos aestimavit.] μηδὲ ὀφείλοντα χριστιανὸν ὀνομάζεσθαι 132. Quis enim non lacrymatus est dum vestrae litterae legerentur? quis non ingemuit aspiciens quos exsiliaverunt isti? quis non existimavit vestras suas esse tribulationes?] Τίς ο ὗ ν ταῦτα βλέπων ἤ ἀκούων , τίς ὁρῶν τὴν ἀλαζονείαν τῶν ἀσεβῶν – οὐ στενάξειεν; τίς , τούτων γιγνομένων καὶ τῆς ἀσεβείας τοσαύτην ἀναισχυντίαν λαβοόσης , ἔτι τολμ ᾷ λέγειν Κοστύλλιον χριστιανὸν , καὶ οὐ μ ᾶ λλον ἀντίχριστου τὴν εἰκόνα ; A series of questions with one initial τίς; or πόσος; or πῶς; - Afanasy V.’s favorite turn of phrase, so he uses it - despite the somewhat rhetorical overtones of this technique - even in letters 134. If the objective-historical proof [A] is untenable, then very little can be built on the purely subjective B. Aesthetic assessment is a matter of taste. Unfortunately, once it has been given the value of proof, the rules of De gustibus non disputandum can no longer be fully applied to it. There is “repetition” in this message and in others; the speech about “the unbearable, constant repetition of the same words” is rhetorical - more nervous than eloquent - hyperbole that does not correspond to reality at all. Lines like the following: “they saw [in the Serdic fathers] faithful men who valued righteousness, or better yet, they saw in them our Lord Himself... Having witnesses before their eyes, they became like Cain, like him, and fled because they had sinned gravely; but having become like Cain in flight, they also accepted condemnation. The Holy Council understood their deeds, heard our crying blood, heard the cries of those offended by them, “whether they are really “lifeless and lethargic,” let the reader judge. I will then quote the parenetic part of the message in full. “Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, do not weaken. As servants of God, professing the faith of Christ, stand this test valiantly in the Lord. Do not lose heart in sorrow, do not lose heart in the misfortunes that the heretics bring upon you. After all, the whole world has compassion for you and - what is even more important - has all of you in mind 135. I think that those deceived by them, seeing the condemnation that befell them at the council, will turn away from them and will be horrified by their wickedness. But if after all this their hand is still high, do not be dismayed, and do not be afraid if they rage. But pray and raise your hands to God, and trust that the Lord will not hurt you, but will do everything for you according to your desire. I wanted to write a long letter to you and inform you in detail about everything; but since the elders and deacons can tell you everything as eyewitnesses, I will not write much. I think it is necessary to remind you of only one thing: have the fear of the Lord before your eyes and put it above everything and in everything, wise and reasonable, act with one accord. Pray for us, taking to heart the needs of widows 136, especially now that the enemies of the truth have taken away their support; but may your love overcome the malice of heretics; for we believe that through your prayers the Lord will allow me to see you soon." Let the reader judge for himself: is all this really just “trivial und geistlos”? So this is an ordinary indication to the persecuted, in the form of moral support, for the sympathy of the entire universe: is it really not high, but only trivial, this combination of a single request: “pray for us” with an appeal to charity, emphasized again by the confidence of a speedy meeting? “Geistlos”, or, on the contrary, the request of the beloved “dad” is subtly expressed here in Alexandrian style: do this for me? Isn’t there a shepherd visible here who perfectly knows the character of his flock, enthusiastic and mobile, but also sensitive to everything that is humanly beautiful, but also responsive to all sorts of noble incentives, starting from this paternal praise: “wise and prudent”, woven into the instruction: “act with one accord” and ending with the stylistic effect of the contrast between the raised hand of the persecutor and the raised hands of those praying to God, starting with excitement only humane: “the whole world sympathizes with you” and ending with a purely Christian joyful hope that maybe prayers are offered for them in sacred moments from end to end of the earth? But if on the Alexandrians Athanasius v. If he knew how to act like an Alexandrian, he also spoke Mareotian with the Mareotians. The Epistle to the Alexandrians takes 143 lines, the Epistle to Mareot only 35. But both this epistle and the Epistle “Etiam ex his” are important not because of how they are written (in the literary sense), but because they are written; all their charm, all their aroma lies in the delicate attentiveness of the great Athanasius to his rural presbyters and deacons, in his care to please his village flock, in his admirable ability to behave simply with the simpletons, to go into their narrow mental horizons, to give them the pleasure that is understandable to them. Mareot was a χώρα (volost, district) south of Alexandria beyond Lake Marie (now “Birkatu-l-Maryut”) 137, bordering the Libyan desert and the outskirts of the Nitrian valley. There were no cities in Mareota, but there were a lot of villages (κώμαι), and over ten of them were very significant. Up to forty of their ruins have survived to this day - mute evidence that in ancient times this area was very densely populated. Numerous and extensive Christian churches then spoke eloquently about the material well-being of the population, and now the word “karm” (“vineyard”), which is very often found in geographical names, and other material remains of winemaking indicate the main source of this contentment. In civil terms, Mareot was considered an independent nome; even a coin was minted with the inscription ΜΑΡΕΩΤΩΝ. Not so in church terms: in this χώρα there were up to twenty parishes, or at least up to 20 presbyters and 20 deacons, but there was never a bishop or chorebishop: Mareot was directly dependent on the bishop of Alexandria. 138 True, even the most remote Mareot village was probably less than 100 kilometers from Alexandria; but according to the ideas of that time, this distance was considered significant, and the enemies of church unity tried to fan the spark of separatism in the Mareots, but without any success. Melitius did not manage to seduce anyone into his schism here... And when the case of the notorious Ischira began in one insignificant Mareot village, the Arians took all kinds of measures - the temptation of violence - to arm Mareot against Athanasius: a church was built in the village of Ischira, he himself was installed as a bishop, and under the encyclical of the pseudo-Serdic (Philippopolis) council in Among others, he signed “Iskhirion, Bishop of Mareot.” But all these attacks by the Arians were dashed by the staunch devotion of the village flock to their shepherd. The notorious six-member investigative commission of 335 did everything in order to surround her verdict against Athanasius with at least some decent evidence collected at the scene of the alleged crime of Presbyter Macarius. But the Mareotian presbyters and deacons so vigorously protested the actions of the Tyrian delegates, but the Mareotian laity so persistently showed only the truth against Ischira, that the commission had to recruit witnesses to such an analysis that the very protocols of the investigation turned into - alas! - into a full-fledged indictment against the delegates themselves, so that the Eusebians had to hide these documents from the eyes of all those less privy to the secrets of their intrigues and take measures to destroy the original draft records. And when a copy of these υπομνήματα nevertheless fell into the hands of Athanasius, the Arians became furious 139: with such a document in runes, the bishop of Alexandria could easily justify himself in any court, somewhat impartial, and the shame of the Arians became inevitable. The Mareotians had to endure a lot from the Arians in the days of Gregory of Alexandria; Especially a lot of suffering fell on the lot of the leading presbyter of the Mareotians, Ingenius. But in the end, at the Council of Serdica, the case of Athanasius ended with his brilliant acquittal, and he owed this outcome essentially to the incorruptible and unyielding truthfulness of the Mareotians. And in gratitude for this, he pleased this flock devoted to him by sending them the messages “Etiam exbis” and “Sancta synodus” “The Holy Council praised your piety in Christ,” this is how Athanasius’ letter began. “Your letters,” he said further, “when they were read at the cathedral, touched everyone to tears... everyone fell in love with you and those who were absent and looked at your suffering as their own. And the proof of their love is the message given to you. Although it would be enough to include you in the holy church of Alexandria, the holy council writes you a special letter.” It goes without saying that the Serdica Council addressed the Mareotian churches with a special message at the request of Athanasius V., who, for his part, from the very first words, without any preamble, emphasizes the meaning of this fact. And the whole message is marked with a different flavor than Haec scribentes. There are no literary embellishments, everything is expressed concisely and instructively simply. One feels that this message will be read in rural churches, where a simple plowman will stand next to a brickmaker, a camel shepherd 141 will stand next to a winegrower; and, perhaps, right away - point by point - they will begin to retell it in Coptic, for greater clarity. Under such conditions, simplicity of presentation is an imperative necessity. The Council of Serdica deprived the bishop of his rank and excommunicated the eight main leaders of the Eusebians. Their names are even listed twice in the letter to the Alexandrians. An educated, knowledgeable Alexandrian understands the importance of both the chairs occupied by the deposed and their personal influence. The interest of the Mareotian villagers did not go that far: what did they care about the Narvisses and Stefans, the Acacians and the Minofantes? But the Thracian Theodore, but Ursakia and Valens from distant Illyricum, were well remembered for their deeds in Alexandria and Mareota, when, eight years ago, they arrived from Tire to sort out the accusations of Ischira; these were living faces for Mareot too. And it is only these three who were deposed that Athanasius mentions. Who knows how a simple Russian peasant of the 19th century writes letters, how they are “filled from top to bottom with bows,” and with what interest, however, non-book addressees listen to these stereotypically stable greetings: he, reading “Etiam ex his” and “Sancta synodus”, will feel that, despite the difference of 3000 kilometers in space and one and a half thousand years in time, the spiritual atmosphere is the same here and there. The Council of Serdica was convened as an ecumenical one, as it seemed in 343. But the message “Etiam ex bis” was signed by only 27 bishops; True, the first to sign was “Bishop Hosea,” long known to the Egyptians from his mission to Alexandria in 343–324, the second was their bishop Athanasius, and the last row of signatures was the name of “Bishop Vincent,” in whom it was easy to recognize the former Roman presbyter Vincent, who was present at the Council of Nicaea. Living, dear faces! But the figure 27 was quite modest and somehow did not reconcile with the grandiose idea of ​​a great cathedral of more than 35 dioceses 142... Anticipating this, Bishop Vincent declares in his signature: “On instructions from my brothers and fellow bishops, I wrote this and signed for others.” And Athanasius himself, in order to dispel this cloud, in the penultimate word of his message notes: “although - as you see - not everyone signed the message of the council to you, but it was written from everyone and those who signed it signed for everyone.” A reservation of which there is not a trace in the message of Haec scribentes! The Alexandrians were knowledgeable enough not to be embarrassed by the number of signatures. But Athanasius v., so that the joy of his simple-minded κωμῆται was complete, did even more: following his signature: “Greet each other with a holy kiss; all the brethren greet you,” the words are read: “Protogenes Bishop, in the Lord I wish you good health, most beloved and longed for,” and then a long row of the same signatures. In the 20th place it says: “Archidamas and Philoxenus the presbyters and Leo the deacon from Rome wish you good health,” and from this place the form of the signatures changes: not only the names of bishops are listed, but the cathedral cities are also clearly indicated, and of course the existence of many, many of them was now heard for the first time in Mareota! Signature - 60th! - the Bishop of Cydonia in Crete ended this message. It’s easy to imagine the powerful, stunning impression on the simple Mareotian children who gathered to listen to what he wrote - and to them! - from across the sea, their “beloved pope” 143 - produced this - unexpected, unprecedented - message to them from the entire ecumenical council and the message of the great Athanasius, which had all the solemnity of a message also from a conciliar. It was a great day, probably never repeated in the history of the Mareotian churches. The signatures of the Serdic fathers under the message Haec scribentes either did not survive or, perhaps, they were not there at all. It was not the first nor the last time that councils wrote to the Alexandrian church. But for Mareot, these two messages were a historical shrine, they were copied word by word, and therefore these lists of names were preserved for history. “It would be enough to classify the Marphotians as members of the holy Alexandrian church,” but, having suffered more than others, they were given special honor. But besides Alexandria and Mareota, Paremvola, which lay only 5 kilometers northeast of Alexandria, also belonged to the Alexandria bishopric. Athanasius, having given such distinction to Marphot, did not forget to please Paremvola, delicately mentioning her explicitly in the address of the letter “Haec scribentes” and thus publicly “counting” her “with the holy catholic church of Alexandria.” Consequently, in this invisible prefix “et Pareambulam” 144 passed by Hefele without any attention, a subtle local historical flavor is reflected: this word itself presupposes the existence of a special message to the Mareotian churches and, in turn, is itself presupposed by the message “Sancta synodus”. This “et Pareambulam” seems to me to be a stroke too subtle for the hands of even a skilled Forger, a kind of watermark certifying the authenticity of this series of Verona documents. There are so many Afanasiev-like characteristics in them, and - on the contrary - not a single line that raises doubts about their authenticity. Hefele’s skepticism is some kind of Fatal, incomprehensible misunderstanding, all the more annoying because it is harsh! - stated on the pages of that deservedly valued scientific work, to which, in matters of secondary importance and not poisoned by the Vatican tendency, church historians turn for information with approximately the same confidence with which a mathematician picks up logarithmic tables. Langen's main objections to the authenticity of the Quod semper credidimus message are as follows: a) Afanasy v. in his “apology” he cites three epistles of the Council of Serdica, and two of them are essentially literally identical to each other, and does not mention a single word about any epistle of the council to Julius. b) Since Hosius and Protogenes 145 wrote to Julius from Serdica, and their message is undoubtedly not identical with the Quod credidimus, this latter - if recognized as authentic - was the second letter to Julius from Serdica. c) In its design, it represents a poor imitation of the message of the Arelat Council of 314 “Communi copula caritatis” to Bishop. to the Roman Sylvester: just as the latter was asked by the Arelatian fathers to communicate the decisions of the council to the bishops within their majoresdioeceses, their metropolitan district, so in the letter Quod semper they ask Julius for the same: “ut per tua scripta qui in Sicilia in Sardinia in Italia sunt fratres nostri quae acta sunt et quae definita cognoscant.” But the Forger forgot that this request on the part of the Serdica Council was completely unnecessary, since with his encyclical “Multa quidem et frequenter” “Πολλὰ μὲν καὶ πολλάκις” he already informed the Catholic Church about his actions and decisions in his own name. It is not difficult to understand that these objections are rather frivolous. α ) Afanasy v. writes not the history of the Cerdic cathedral, much less its outgoing register, but his “apology”; Naturally, he does not provide all the documents - he does not provide, for example. messages “Etiam ex hia” - but only those that best suit his purpose. β) The fact that he cites in full both the letter “Καὶ πρὶν μέν” to “presbyters and deacons and all the holy church of God resident in Alexandria,” and the letter to “bishops and concelebrants in Egypt and Libya,” which essentially constitutes a doublet of the first, shows that he is not concerned at all with diversity 146 content, but only about the expedient selection of monuments. The plan of the “apology” is completely clear. “I was acquitted,” its great author proves, “a) by judges who were well acquainted with the factual side of the case - 80 fathers of the Council of Alexandria, b) by judges free from suspicion of bias, personally in no way concerned with my case - 50 Italian fathers of the Roman Council presided over by Julius, and finally c) by the great council in Serdica, which testified to my innocence aa) before me the Alexandrian flock, bb) before the entire Egyptian episcopate and c) before the entire universal church. – The message Quod semper did not add anything to the strength of this argument (Julius, the former chairman of the Roman council, in the person of his ambassadors-presbyters signed the Council of Serdica, and his agreement with the court of the council is thought of as given), but rather weakened it (Quod semper would introduce an unnecessary stop to the oratorical effect of the concentrically expanding circle: Alexandria - Egypt - the universe) and was not equal in its historical significance with the letter of Julius to the Alexandrian church Συγχαίρω κἀγώ, in which he and in 346 expressed his constant conviction that Athanasius was right γ) The assumption that, next to the encyclical “Multa quidem”, the message “Quod semper” was no longer necessary, therefore unnecessary, therefore inauthentic, responds with the logic of a hungry table to church relations in the 4th century. not applicable. By this logic, both messages “Καὶ πριν”, not to mention “Etiam ex his”, were also unnecessary; Of course, one could limit oneself to one message common to all, and make no exceptions either for Alexandria or for Egypt; however, these exceptions were undoubtedly allowed. In the same way, an exception is natural in relation to the Roman bishop; It’s even strange to assume that the Council of Serdica, having “honored the Apostle Peter” in several of its canons, then considered it necessary to resort to straightforward parity and did not devote even a few lines to Julius. And the message “Meminimus” is in no way a competitor to the message “Quod semper”: it was a completely private, confidential letter from Hosius and Protogenes, and the codexVeronensis itself may have come from a secret church archive (Roman or even Alexandrian). – And it is even likely that so many such “exceptions” were allowed (in the form of special messages to churches whose bishops were acquitted by the council) that they completely resembled the “general rule.” δ) This logic undermines itself and the breadth of its scope. Strictly speaking, all the messages of bishops to bishops were not necessary in ancient times, and therefore unnecessary: ​​then communications were carried out through personally known, trusted donors, especially communications on directly church matters. A presbyter or deacon sent from Alexandria to Rome would have to bring only the “systatica” or “epistola formata”, which proves his identity, then verbally convey the assignment entrusted to him, listen to an oral answer from the Bishop of Rome and verbally communicate it to his “pope”. However, they undoubtedly wrote a lot of messages and answers to them; these latter had a meaning similar to the repayment of credits by recalled envoys at the current courts. And from this side, the message of Quod semper makes complete sense. c) But the very initial assumption that “Quoniam semper” is not necessary, that only the stupid Forger saw the analogy in the provisions of the Councils of Serdica and Arelat, is in fact erroneous. The analogy between 314 and 343 is complete. After all, it is not enough to write an encyclical, but you also need to send it to all the bishops. It was impossible to use postal services for this in 343; the encyclical had to be sent out through deacons or notaries. Is it not obvious that for this purpose the Council of Serdica needed the mediation of the Bishop of Rome? One cannot really think that these duties were assigned to the Serdica or some other (for example, Cordubian or Athenian) clergy. After all, from Serdica only to Rome there were about 1250 Roman miles 147 [up to 1850 kilometers], and there the already tired donor still had to make a whole journey to the south of Italy, to Sicily and Sardinia. The most natural means of publishing an encyclical is indicated in the Quod semper: the acts of the conciliar [including the encyclical] are forwarded to Julius of Rome and asked him to make them known within his metropolitan district 148. The expression “per tua scripta” does not at all exclude the sending of the conciliar encyclical: it was assumed by itself that he would send out his message along with it. Athanasius also does the same: he is accompanied on the scribentes by the conciliar Καὶ πρίν μέν, and Mareot Etiam ex his receives along with the message of the Sancta synodus of his pope. The practice of civil administration suggested this system to the church: the sacra of the emperors was sent (“praefulgebat”, as they were then expressed) accompanied by the edictum praefectorum praetorio to the competent authorities, and each lower administrator attached his commentary order to the warrant he received from the highest authority 149. Finally η ) one cannot help but notice that Langen’s skepticism at this last point represents a kind of ὕ στερον – πρότερον , an excess of scientific competence. Let us assume that he and Frederick are right that Quoniam semper is a forgery of the 7th century; but even in this case, the falsifier will be more competent than us in solving such an archaeological question as the present one: living conditions of the 7th century. differed less from the 4th century than the current ones, and the falsifier could be very familiar with the practice of sending out encyclicals; therefore, his “per scripta tua” should be taken into account by archeology as a source, and it is too early to begin criticism at this point. Frederick's objections to the authenticity of the Quod semper are as follows: a) In some features of the style, this epistle resembles one [Mombritiana] edition of the Vita Silvestri, which belongs to the category Symmachiana, that is, forgeries ad majorem papae gloriam, caused by the struggle of Symmachus, Bishop of Rome, with Antipope Lawrence [502]. b) The Quod semper also mentions the deacon Leo as a Roman legate; Meanwhile, only the presbyters Archidamus and Philoxeus are historically reliably attested. In Symmachianä Acta Sixti and Causa Polychronii 150, Deacon Leo also appears along with the presbyter Archidamus. But a) the similarity in syllable indicated by Friedrich is far from striking; but even if we accept this point as fully proven, then it follows - from my point of view - only that the editor of Vita Silvestri knew the message of Quod semper and imitated it. b) And the second proof is amazingly weak. a) In Quod semper we read [I have marked especially important words with capitals]: quae gesta sunt, – et chartae continent, et vivae voces carissimorum fratrum et compresbyterorum nostrorum Archidami et Philoxeni et carissimi filii nostri Leonis diaconi verissime et fideliter exponere poterunt. The Causa Polychronii states the following: Sedentibus itaque octoginta et uno episcopo, et quadraginta octo presbyteris et sex diaconis ordinavit universa synodus [Roman under Sixtus III, mythical] et elegit de suo ordine tres episcopos Castum, Felicem et Habandnm et daos diacones cives 151 romanos Lollianum et Leonem et tres presbyteros urbis Hornae Aichidamum, Petrum et Demetrium, et misin in Jerusalem. And below the ambassadors are named in the same order; and then there are expressions: a Casto episcopo, qui directus a sixto episcopo et coepiscopo suo vel a synodo ------- Episcopi vero septuaginta sex [of the Council of Jerusalem] et duo diacones cardinales romani et tres presbyteri et tres episcopi, qui directi. From the passages cited, it is clear first of all that aa) in Causa Polychronii the presbyter Philoxenus is not mentioned at all; but there are 6 other names there that are not in Quod semper. So, quantitatively there are more differences than similarities. bb) Even more important is the qualitative difference in the atmosphere itself, which emanates from both monuments. In Quod semper there is a strictly historical church point of view: only presbyters are brothers and co-presbyters of bishops, while the deacon is only their son. The Bishop of Rome elects his authorized representatives from his clergy, from the presbyters, not from the bishops of the ten provinces under his control. In Causa Polychronii, the author is already at a loss as to how - ad majorem romani pontificis gloriam - he should look at the legate bishops: should we recognize them as delegates of the council [from the point of view of the ancient church, this view is the only acceptable one] or the legates of Sixtus himself, the bishop and co-bishop? The relationship between deacons and presbyters in the delegation is distorted in a new way: deacons-citizens of Rome-cardinals are consistently placed above presbyters. β) Assuring the readers that only legate presbyters are historically authentically attested, Frederick directly refers to Hefele, I, 543. And Heffle refers the reader to Athan. apol. With. ar. p. 50: Ἰ ούλιος Ῥ ώμης δι ’ Ἀρχιδάμου καὶ Φιλόξενου πρεσβυτέρων, and nothing more. But ss) in the epistle of Athanasius. in Mareot “Sancta synodus” the name of Deacon Leo is also read. This is reliably attested to his presence in Serdica at the cathedral. That “Sancta synodus” does not have the slightest point of contact with Symmachiana is clear as day: just think: the legates of the Pope himself, “cives romani”, cardinals, and - sign up in 20th place! dd) What is Athanasius's silence. does not deny anything, it is also not particularly difficult to prove. Afanasy V. speaks in a strictly ecclesiastical tone and in accordance with ancient church practice: he indicates the plenipotentiary primate of the Church of Rome - Bishop Julius 152 and his plenipotentiary deputies, which were only his “brothers and co-presbyters” Archidamus and Philoxenus 153, not his “son” Deacon Leo. At the Council of Eliber [May 15, 306], bishops, presbyters, deacons and laity were present, but their participation was far from equal: Quum consedissentsancti et religiosi episcopi in ecclesia Eliberitana – residentibus etiam viginti et sex presbyteris, adstantibus diaconibus et omni plebe. And the result of this difference: the names of 19 bishops are preserved in all 9 [resp. 11?] manuscripts, the names of 26 elders - only 2 rkpp., the names [and even only the number] of deacons - not in any 154. It is quite natural if the acts of the cathedral “meetings” were not signed by those who did not have the right to “sit” at the cathedral. The deacons were in the retinue of bishops or deputy presbyters and were executors of the orders of the cathedral, not its members 155. And Athanasius himself. in the rank of deacon, he accompanied his “pope” Alexander to the Council of Nicea and was present at its meetings 156; however, in the surviving lists of the Nicene fathers we would search in vain for the name of the deacon of Alexandria Athanasius; these lists, compiled on the basis of the signatures under the conciliar definitions, give only nomina episcoporum. And the omission of the name Leo the Deacon is completely understandable in this place. The message of Sancta synodus and Quoniam semper is a different matter: these were private [maximum - only official] letters, her) And that Frederick is wrong when, on the basis of the name of Deacon Leo, he includes Quod semper in the Symmachiana series, this is also shown by the list of “names of bishops who were present at the Council of Serdica and subscribed to its verdict (in judicio)”, attached to the message of Quod semper. This list lists only 59 bishops; yet the presbyters and deacons, not excluding Archidamus and Philoxenus, are omitted altogether. Of course the author of the Symmachiana would not have tolerated such treatment of papal legates and Roman cardinals and would have supplemented this ancient catalog with the names of Archidamus, Philoxenus and Leo and thus would have certified the existence of this latter, in the creation of which he - according to Frederick - was so interested. ff) One can say even more: based on the fact that Deacon Leo is also mentioned in the Acta Sixti - Causa Polychronii, one should draw the conclusion that Quod semper has nothing genetically in common with these Symmachiana, and this is for two reasons, αα ) It is impossible to assume that the author of Quod semper was so hopelessly mediocre that he did not understand that Deacon Leo, according to Symmachiana, was a prominent church figure under Sixtus III (432 - 440), could not have been a deacon a hundred years ago under Julius I (337 - 352). Therefore, the literary identity of these two deacons is unthinkable, ββ) But even slavish imitation cannot be allowed. In the named Symmachiana, Deacon Leo plays an extremely important role: in all difficult cases he has the leading word. But it is absolutely obvious that in this case the forger wants to paint a portrait of an undoubtedly historical person: this Leo is none other than the successor of Sixtus III in the department, Leo the Great, who really was a deacon under Sixtus. Is it not clear that, working according to the same recipe, the secret of which is not at all tricky to unravel, the author of Quod semper would call the Roman deacon not Leo, but Liberius? The only passage in Quop semder that is unacceptable from any other point of view than the papistic one is the following: Hoc enim optimum et valde congruentissimum videbitur, si ad cadut, id est ad Petri apostoli sedem, de singulis quibusque provinciis Domini referant sacerdotes. But this id est is stylistically so poor that it directly shows that this place was subjected to interpolation and gilding for the glory of Petrova’s department. At the end of the message, this treacherous id est is repeated twice: litteras communicatorias, id est epistolia, and 13 lines below: epistolia, id est litteras communicatorias. Two things are obvious: a) Julius the Bishop of Rome understood without comment what was being said; b) and if - beyond all hope - the litterae commnnicatoriae were so incomprehensible to him that it was necessary to explain them through epistolia, then it was impossible then to explain this understandable word to Julius with the incomprehensible litterae communicatoriae. It is clear that these id est belong to a narrow-minded scribe, who copies in a row everything that he sees both in the text and on the field, but is also capable of introducing something of his own to distort the meaning of the text. From the context it is easy to understand what was said in this place before its distortion. Julius was not present at the council, and the Serdica fathers would have been ready to describe in detail what happened at the council. But since Julius can learn about all this from the acts of the council and from his legates, the fathers consider it completely unnecessary to write about this in their present message. Scientists considered this place to be interpolated a long time ago. Friedrich himself had the same opinion about Quod semper in 1879 157. I think that his δεύτερέ μελέται on this issue in 1889 was not ἀμείνονες. Stamp with the inscription: Unächt is certainly a radical remedy against unhistorical constructions. But isn’t it too often resorted to without any real need? And don’t hypercritical buildings on straw foundations also clutter historical perspectives? IX. “Dispute” before the “council” on the content of the first Sirmian formula According to the general vocation, the fruits of the dogmatic activity of the Sirmian Council of 351 were 27 anathematisms, which were appended to the IV Antiochian formula 158 and gave it the character of the first Sirmian formula. Not all of these anathematisms are equally independent, but up to 20 of them constitute c) Among the anathematisms, some seem completely unnecessary - an original work of the council. Peering into their sequence and comparing them with the data that St. Epiphanius wrote from the acts of the dispute that one cannot help but notice the following - one might say - oddities that need explanation. a) The dispute reveals very little new regarding the doctrine of Photinus. Places of St. the scriptures referred to in the debate, Gen. 1, 26; 18, 25; 19, 24; Ps. 109, 1; John 1, 3, 14; resp. John 1, 1 ; 1 Cor. 25, 47; Dan. 7, 13, - with the exception of the last, are either given or provided for in anathematisms, while others are replaced by equivalent ones. b) During the anathematisms, a strange inconsistency is noticed. Anathematism 3 raises the question of the creation of the world by God the Son, anathematism 13 speaks of the participation of the Son in the creation of man, anathematisms 14–17 explain the Old Testament theophanies, and in between, anathematisms 9–12, speaks of the incarnation and crucifixion of the Son of God. And after all this, in anathematisms 18–22, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is set forth, and in the rest (23–27) we speak again only about the Son of God. This violation of the elementary rules of systematization of dogmas is all the more unexpected since in ἔκθεσίς μακρόστιχος the subject sequence is well maintained by them. It is strange to suspect one of the theologically educated Christians of being St. The Trinity is recognized as three Gods. And when the Council of Philippopolis in 343 anathematized such error, he wanted to clear himself of suspicion of Arianism, because tranquillity was received as a conclusion from the Arian system by its shrewd opponents. And if the dialecticians of the Eusebian camp tried to impose this absurdity on the Orthodox ὁμοούσιον, it is still noticeable that this Philippian anathematism (as the Council of Antioch in 344 honestly admits) has not so much an offensive as a defensive meaning. The Sirmian 1st formula not only textually repeats this Philippopolis anathematism on trebism, but also three times 160 anathematizes bitheism, which historically never existed. All these features can be explained without difficulty if the “dispute” preceded the “council”. a) The Sirmian fathers already had before their eyes the text of this debate and, of course, could exhaust it almost completely, condemning everything that deserved condemnation in the doctrine of Photinus. b) The council directed its anathematisms against the provisions of Photinus in the sequence in which they appeared in the text of the debate. And since Photinus was a skilled dialectician and defended himself in the best ways for his interests, it is clear that a purely deductive presentation of the doctrine polemically directed against him turned out to be impossible: in support of his doctrine of the eternal existence of the Word, Photinus took arguments from Christology, and into the continuous chain of debate about the relationship of the Father to the Son, he inserted in the form of an argument the question of the relationship of the Father to St. Dudus. c) The dialogical nature of the document about which the council discusses very simply explains the excess of defensive anathematisms: Photinus, of course, tried to bring the views of Basil of Ancyra ad absurdum and imposed on him views from which he was as far away as Photinus himself. That this idea of ​​the mutual relationship between the debate and anathematisms is correct, as proof of this I offer the experience of reconstructing this debate on the basis of the sequence of anathematisms 2–23 in connection with the few factual data about the debate that have been preserved by St. Epiphany. It is hardly even necessary to add that I do not stand by every word in this experiment and do not think to assert that this is exactly how the opponents expressed their opinions and not otherwise 161 . The center of the evidentiary weight of this experience, I believe, is that I seem to be able to explain the transition from anathematism to 18–22. In order to understand some of the features of the dispute, perhaps the following preliminary remarks will not be superfluous. 1) Photinus was a student of that stubborn, peculiar “old man” Marcellus, who hated the Arian teaching to the core, who fought against this heresy, but in his own way, defended the Nicene symbol, refraining from using the word ὁμοούσιον, and put forward his dogmatic system so vague that not everyone in it understood his friends, and even less him opponents who saw with horror in the doctrine of Marcellus a turn from the Nicene symbol directly to Sabellianism. Photinus changed a lot in Marcellus’s doctrine, but not as much as is usually believed, and he hardly ever disavowed it as a whole. 2) Vasily of Ancyra was not an Arian. He was one of those Orthodox Christians of that time to whom the Nicene symbol offered more light and understanding than they could comprehend. A man who went through the old school of theological education, which was based on the works of Origen and his followers, Vasily, along with the advantages of this dogmatic system (and among them the first must be put is that it was spontaneously Orthodox, differed from Arianism at its very root, in its cherished tendency) also learned its shortcomings: its persistent subordinatism, often erroneous in tone, but high in purpose (since he wanted to be logical resultant, a synthesis of both fundamental truths of Christianity: faith in one personal God and faith in Christ, the true God), and its inconsistent terminology. 3) For us, who from childhood have been learning “theology” from books based on the clear, terminologically clear dogmatic system of Basil the Great, it is not easy to imagine how difficult it was to communicate with opponents even to the most learned ancient theologians, for whom ὑπόστασις did not differ any noticeably from οὐσία and both was already resolved into a completely vague πρ ᾶ γμα (“reality”) 162, in which - it is true - the signs of the term ὑπόστασις dominated. In this regard, there was no disagreement between Basil of Ancyra and Photinus. And therefore, neither one nor the other was able to correctly understand the meaning " ὁμοούσιον ". With such unity of the ground on which both opponents stood, an agreement between them was impossible: it had to remain with one or the other undivided. 4) Both of the disputants possessed only half the truth. Vasily was certainly right when he demanded from his opponent the recognition that the Son of God from eternity is Λόγος ὑφεστ ὼ ς, a perfect hypostasis. But Photinus was also right when he insisted that the Father is one being with His eternal Word. But both of those arguing were unable to express their views in such a way that it clearly embraced the moment of truth that the enemy’s doctrine wanted to clarify. Photinus's connection with the old monarchist theories was undeniable, and Basil mercilessly revealed this false side in the enemy's doctrine. But Photinus was also quite sharp-sighted, and well-read in the writings of such high polemicists-theologians as Athanasius. and his associates, in order to understand that the pure Arianism of Arius himself is undoubtedly, irreducible, contains a moment of ditheism, a trace. polytheism 163. And Basil, theoretically only very weakly in touch with Arianism (as a subordinationist in the spirit of Origen), historically stood in the same camp with the Eusebians and Arians, and in any case stood within the dialectical blows of his opponent insofar as he did not understand that any theology that does not clearly express that St. The Trinity is numphric (specifically) a single being, and any system that does not go beyond the specific (collective) unity of essence speaks only of one deity, not of one. 5) Basil also inherited the scientific shortcoming of Origen’s school that he was not aware of the difference (in terms of clarity) of the revelation of the Old Testament from the New Testament, and therefore somewhat overestimated the strength of his blows. 6) Finally, the historical position of Basil as bishop of Ancyra explains sufficiently why he did not try to find out how Photinus differs from Marcellus, but, on the contrary, brought both of them under the form of Sabellianism. The debate opened almost by the fact that Fotinus made it quite clear 164 that the “theology” held in Basil’s camp strongly smacks of bitheism [and] and is in disagreement with the priest. scripture - the view that Marcellus of Ancyra also held. Basil asked Fotin how, in his opinion, St. taught. scripture about the Lord the Word of God and does not scripture speak of Him from the very first pages as the Only Begotten, existing from eternity with the Father and assisting Him in the creation of the world. Like Marcellus, Photinus began by distinguishing the names of Christ and, recognizing Him from eternity as existing in the Father as the Word, in whom God created the worlds, did not admit either that the Word is already from eternity the Only Begotten - the Word is the Son by incarnation - nor that He assisted or served the Father during creation as a hypostasis different from the Father, as Basil believed [w]. “But,” Vasily objected caustically, “if the Son is not from eternity, then who became incarnate?” Does this mean that He Himself, whose hypostasis is characterized by the name “Unborn,” or part of the Unborn, was born of the Virgin Mary? [iv]. But Photin resolutely did not admit that the Father Himself was born of a Virgin. The Son became incarnate, if you will, because the Word, according to the foreknowledge of His future birth, “previously and foretellingly” was from time immemorial called the Son. - But in reality, the Son had existence from the Virgin Mary and therefore He was not before Mary? How, after all, did “all that happen”? - But the apostle also says: “man is ringed from earth, second man, the Lord is from heaven.” – And perhaps, in your opinion, it is human nature, the flesh, that descends from heaven? – But it goes without saying that the flesh of Christ is from the Virgin Mary! “And therefore Christ has no existence before Mary.” - But I myself affirm that from time immemorial the Word was, but not as the Son, born of God. He was not yet the Son, but was the Word, just as the Word is in me. A person does what he wants through the word; so the Father, through his own Word, existing in Him, created everything, and therefore “all things were by Him” [v]. - The Holy Evangelist, however, did not say: and the Word was in God, ἐν τῷ θεῷ, but: “The Word was to God, πρὸςτὸνΘεόν, and God was the Word.” Isn’t this a clear preaching that in the particulars of the hypostasis, as a being, “He is from time immemorial to God”? But Photin did not allow that the Word was not in the hypostasis of the Father, and in the change of names “Word” and “God” he saw only an indication of the mysterious movement in the inner life of the one God. “Yes,” Vasily remarked caustically, “so Sabellius is wise: the essence of God sometimes expands, sometimes contracts, and this expansion of His being is the Son [vi, vii]. But Photinus himself believes that Sabellius impiously taught about some kind of extension of God: God is infinite and one and cannot expand. No, Photinus does not speak about the continuity of the Father’s being, but only asserts that the Word was in the Father from time immemorial. – But not as Λόγος ὑφεστώς, but only as Λόγος ἀνύπαρκτος, ἐνδίαθετος ἢ προφορικὸς, like our human word, which exists only in us, but has no existence in itself - isn’t it? [viii]. - But the Word, as the perfect Son, has existence in Himself, καθ ’ ἑαυτόν ὑπάρχει. – But if the Son is an independent hypostasis, then what kind? What do you think is His identity? After all, in your opinion, not as the Son of the Father (you do not allow this), but as the son of Mary, Christ is the Son. And from Mary - human nature. Consequently, Christ has an independent personal existence because He is a personal person, like all people [xi]. “No, He is God and man,” Fotin protested. – And if the divine hypostasis is the basis of Christ’s personal existence, then He is the unborn God Himself, because, according to you, there is no other hypostasis except the Father’s. One of two things: you must think of Christ either only as a man - and on this, perhaps, all the Jews will agree with you - or as God the Father incarnate, as Sabellius philosophized [x]. But Fotin did not see the logical necessity of this dilemma. Before Basil stood a man of the future: a Monophysite of the purest water, more a Monophysite than Dioscorus and Eutyches, than Apollinaris and Arius. Photinus was not bound, like Dioscorus, Eutyches and Apollinaris, in the flight of his speculations by the irrevocable recognition of the Nicene symbol in his catholic understanding, and therefore believed the moment of being, das Werdende, in the being of the Word Itself, allowed progress, the development of being, starting from τὸ ε ἶ ναι τὸν Λόγον ἐνούσιον ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ and ending with τῷκαθ ’ ἑαυτὸν ὑφεστ ᾶ ναι τὸν Yίὸν: first non-hypostatic being in the Father, then - rather humanization than the incarnation of the Word, and precisely as a result of the combination of the non-hypostatic Word with non-hypostatic humanity - the independent hypostasis of the Son. The result was something more Apollinarian than Apollinarianism, straightforward Monophysitism without the moment of ἐκ δύο φύσεων, although with a result unlike Monophysitism to the contrary: so decisively in Photinus’s view the human prevailed over the deity in the God-man. And Photinus believed that it was his system that most precisely corresponded to the gospel truth: “The Word became flesh” and the apostolic word about the “crucified Lord of glory.” But Basil recognized in this doctrine only two gross errors: the transformation of God the Word into flesh [xi] and theopaschity [xii]. Photin eluded Basil's dialectical blows on the question of the creation of the world by means of the twist that, without recognizing that God the Word assisted the Father in creation, he insisted that the Father created everything through the Word. Vasily invited his opponent to speak out on an issue where such a sliding dialectic was not applicable - he offered to explain the words: “And God said: Let us create man.” It seemed impossible for anyone to admit that God the Father conferred with the non-hypostatic λόγος ἑνδιάθετος ἢ προφορικός; but it was precisely this interpretation that Marcellus proposed, and Photinus followed it, and answered: “The Father said this to His Word. What's unclear here? The Word was in the Father, but only but was the Son.” “In other words: God said this to Himself,” Basil sarcastically emphasized [xiii], and drew Photinus’s attention to two Old Testament theophany, in which the hypostatic existence of the Word-Son seemed to be expressed with relief, not allowing for quarrel. “And he appeared to Abraham at the oak of Mamre... Abraham stood still more before the Lord. And...speech:...Judge the whole earth, will you not bring judgment? " “Understand,” Vasily pointed out to his opponent, “that the Son Himself appeared to Abraham, not some spoken word, but the hypostatic God the Word.” Is it conceivable that Abraham addressed such words not to a personal God, but to προφορά τις? And did Jacob really fight with the impersonal προφορά τις as with a man? Basil, like all ancient theologians, was convinced as an immutable axiom that God the Father did not appear on earth, and that, therefore, the God of the Old Testament theophany is the Son of God. But Photinus, recognizing that the hypostatic God appeared to both Abraham and Jacob, did not hesitate to admit that it was God the Father Himself with the Word existing in Him [xiv. xv]. Then Vasily pointed out to Photinus those words where even this cheeky rejection of theological traditions could not help him out, and asked him to explain the text: “And the Lord rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah a bogeyman and fire from the Lord from heaven.” “The Lord has waited from the Lord, that is, the Word that is in the Father,” answered Photinus. “In other words,” Vasily noted, “he expected it from Himself?” But the scripture does not say: the Word of the Lord, but: the Lord is from the Lord, therefore: the Lord the Son is from the Lord the Father [xvi]. Photinus tried to parry this blow with the flexibility of a renowned dialectician. If you pay attention to the content of the concept “Lord”, then the first “Lord” is identical with the second “from the Lord”, and therefore “Lord from the Lord” means a single hypostasis: the Lord Himself from Himself. If Vasily emphasizes formal duality, the repetition of the word “Lord,” then we get two separate beings, two Lords, two Gods. For Fotin himself, this last alternative seemed pure absurdity and, in essence, did not need a refutation on the part of Vasily. All the more serious was his blow against the first exegetical twist: Vasily pointed to the words: “The Lord said to my Lord: sit at My right hand.” And the immediate clear meaning of the text and the further words: “From the womb before the star gave birth to Thee”, even Photinus found it impossible to understand the text in the sense: “The Lord said to Himself,” and probably the favorite χῶς was brought to the stage - προχρηστιχῶς. Meanwhile, the triumphant Vasily began to enlighten his opponent in the spirit of subordinationism, and emphasizing the point that the Son in both places appears as ὑποτεταγμένος τῷ Πατρὶ, he explained, of course, that this moment makes it impossible for the Father and the Son to merge into one hypostasis - person, but especially how This feature completely removes any shadow of suspicion of ditheism, which Photinus so thoughtlessly casts on the dogmatic system of Basil’s like-minded people [xvii]. For the student of Marcellus of Ancyra, these subordinationian outpourings were little convincing and even less attractive. And Fotin parried Vasily’s objections with a blow that was all the more unexpected because it was delivered with a weapon of the same subordination. – Is the Holy Spirit greater or less than the Father? Photin asked his opponent. - “Who is this exaction at your hands?” Vasily protested against this question, which seemed completely unnecessary, only diverting away from the immediate subject of the dispute - an unusual question in any case. Over the 25 years that have elapsed since the Council of Nicaea, the luminaries of “Eastern” theology have set out 5 or 6 formulas of faith, but they have never focused on the dogma of the Holy Spirit with any serious attention. But the Sirmian περιττολόγος stood by its innovation and demanded a solution to the question posed. This decision was, perhaps, somewhat inconvenient for Basil’s religious intuition, but did not represent anything unclear for his theological thought: no less a person than Origen himself raised this question and explicitly resolved it, and this decision was repeated from generation to generation by subsequent Origenist theologians: The Holy Spirit is also ὑποτεταγμένον τῷ Πατρί. With a triumphant look, Photin listened to this answer, which was not at all unexpected for him, and, to the amazement of his antagonist, told him that he worked in vain, noticing subordinative strokes in the relation of the Word to the Father, because they do not prove anything against the identity of God and the Word existing in Him by hypostasis: after all, Basil himself admitted that the Spirit is less than the Father, and the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly identical with the Father in terms of hypostasis. hypostases. – And in Marcellus’ system, the term κατὰ πνεῦμα, in contrast to κατὰσάρκα, means the closest, inseparable and eternal unity of the Word with the Father, ἕ νκαὶ ταύτόν, the identity of the Word with God. At this point, the student went further than his teacher and, to Vasily’s question: “therefore, the Holy Spirit the Comforter is the unborn God Himself?” answered – to one extent or another – in the affirmative [xix] and was not even afraid of the incriminating, overthrowing – according to Basil’s intention – remark into the ditch of Sabellianism: “Consequently, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one person? “[xviii]. But recognizing the essential – hypostatic – personal identity of the Holy. Spirit and Word, Photinus suffered the full brunt of Basil’s blow, who pointed him to the words of Christ Himself: “I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter... The Spirit of truth” [xx]. ἄλλο, and when Photinus began to explain that he also recognizes some difference between the Spirit and the Word, Basil responded with the usual ironic note: “So the Holy Spirit is a part of the Father or the Son!” [xxi]. Then Photinus himself went on the offensive and noticed that, according to the teachings of like-minded Basil, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, of course, not parts, not moments of the existence of a single being, but three completely different, separated beings, and therefore three Gods [xxii], and invited him to reflect on the words of the Lord of Hosts Himself: “I am the first, and I am hereafter, besides Me there is no God.” - Whoever uses this saying, directed against idols and false gods, in the Jewish way - to reject the Only Begotten, Eternal God, let him be anathema [xxiii]. And if you do not recognize God the Word as the Son of God, then your work is in vain, your will and hope and thought are in vain, and you reason no better than the Jews who rejected Christ, the Son of God, This was the content of this “not a short dispute.” X. The message from "Profitemur" after the Sirmian first formula and is explained from the "dispute" If the Sirmian 1st formula was born after the Sirmian “about ὐ μικρά διάλεξις” by Photinus and Basil; if the Sirmian anathematisms in the main and essential consistently replace those “paragraphs” - Nota-Bene; which the Sirmian fathers put in the margins of the tachygraphic record of the dispute: then we can definitely answer the question that is the only important one for the topic of these notes 165 - the question: when did the formula Profitemur enim appear? This creed was written after the Sirmian 1st formula and constitutes its quint-essence, its résumé with special underscores, composed not by the hand of Basil of Ancyra, but by one of his then-companions who, after 7-8 years, became his irreconcilable opponents. In Profitemur, Basil's victory over Photinus is subtly but consistently exploited in the interests of that “Omiyaism” that gave birth to Anomiyaism. a) The debate with Photinus revealed that while recognizing the eternal, but καθ ’ ἑαυτὸ ἀνύπαρκτον the existence of the Word and by no means allowing an independent hypostasis in Him, confessing Him as the Word in the Father, but not τὸνἐν όποστάσει παγί "θεόν Λόγον 166, Photinus, in the essence of the matter, simply identifies the Word with the Father, merges with Him. To counter this, it was considered necessary to introduce into the term about God the Father a definition that was not in any previous formula: “We confess the one unbegotten God the Father.” This the characteristic difference of the first Hypostasis, which is repeatedly brought to light in the Sirmian anathematisms, should counteract the “Sabellian” fusion of the Holy Trinity. b) The debate showed in Photinus a true disciple of Marcellus both aa) on a formal principle, and bb) on a material one. aa) On the formal side, Photinus, just as little as Marcellus, was disposed to bow before the existing scientific and theological authorities of his time; on the contrary, even with an indisputable consensus of their views, he demanded literally clear foundations for everything in the texts of St. scriptures. bb) On the material side, Photinus, again in agreement with Marcellus, proceeded from the assumption that only “Λόγος” is the primary, non-derivative definition of Christ according to His divinity, and the concept of Him as “Son” was timed to coincide with His incarnation. Neither the student nor the teacher allowed the pre-eternal birth of the Son of God, and thereby deprived all Basil's commilitones of the Ancyraan reason for the raspberry against the Nicene symbol. But they took their lion's share here from the other end. It was necessary to affirm the truth that Christ is the Son from eternity, as the Son of God, and not only as the Son of man, and to express this truth in a word taken from St. scriptures. And in Profitemur enim it is said: And His only begotten Son, God from God, light from light, the firstborn of all creation. The last words belong to the Apostle Paul 167 and, of course, no one could object to them, especially since in the sense of the dogmatic term they were already accepted in the symbol of Lucian, highly authoritative for the Council of Sirmium. But of course, for very serious reasons, the Nicene Ecumenical Council did not include in its symbol these words, which were already read in the symbol of the Caesarea Church: if some saw in the apostolic saying precisely the truth that Christ (according to divinity) was born pre-eternally, before all creation - a dogma that the Sirmium Council was supposed to defend against Photinus - then others paid attention only to the words: all creation and wanted to see confirmation in them his opinion that the Son Himself is only the firstfruits of God's creation. And since the words: “begotten, not created” were not in Profitemur (just as they were not in the Antiochian 4th formula); then - proves St. Hilary, a member of the faith about the Only Begotten, had a rather ambiguous character in this letter 168. c) Finally, during the debate, Photinus pointedly raised the question of the Holy Spirit and illuminated this dogma, left in the shadows by Eastern theologians of that time, from a side that for them posed a completely unexpected danger: Photinus identified the Holy Spirit with God the Father - with the Unborn God Himself! - and from here he argued for the hypostatic identity of God the Father and the Word. One could successfully argue ad absurdam for the “Sabellian” fusion of the Father and the Son, substituting the characteristic definitions of the Unborn and the Born; but the Sirmian fathers could not help but feel that the definition “Unborn” does not constitute a self-evident antithesis (oppositio contraria) to the concept of the Holy Spirit: and the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly unborn, οὐ γεννητὸς, and that He is not Unborn, ἀγέννητος, this is for Photina was still a question. Therefore, in Profitemur, the Council of Sirmium most clearly expressed the difference of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son: “Adding a third, the Holy Spirit the Comforter.” “By dividing,” says St. Hilary 169, - by the blasphemous and impious lips of the Son from the Father, as being different in essence and essence (auctoritas), they now count a third essence in the Person of the Holy Spirit, the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, and the Holy Spirit receives from both, and thus in the Holy Spirit the immutable unity of the Holy Trinity is assured. But according to heretical wisdom, He is proclaimed the third and clarifies only the difference in the Trinity.” History has shown that “Athanasius of the West” was quite in character, subjecting this place Profitemur to such severe criticism. The black shadow of a menacing future appeared in this Et tertiun addentes 170; but she was a harbinger not of that thunderstorm that crushes, but also refreshes; it was not “the voice of rainfall” 171, but the first echo of approaching malaria, which left in its wake an exhaustion from which even what was internally healthy could only recover for years. Photinus' question and the harsh answer to it given in Profitemur served, of course, for the uprising, but also for the downfall of many in the East. The pastoral wisdom of the great Vasily, who was everything to everyone, and will save everyone 172, who selflessly decided even - in appearance - to languish with the languishing, acquired for the church many of those weak people who risked getting completely lost on the false paths of the dogmatic wanderings of that time 173, as happened with some even of those of that time luminaries. Thirty years have passed since the First Council of Sirmium. At the second ecumenical council of 381. 36 bishops appeared - Macedonians, but only to declare that they would rather converge with the Arians - hated by them - than accept ὁμοοὑσιον. And at the head of these 36 stood that Eleusius 174 on whom St. Hilary once looked with such joyful hopes as at a “most holy man.” The Omiusians went to meet the ὁμοοὑσιον so clearly and so sincerely that their complete unity with the Catholic Church was only a matter of time. But the question was posed: how do they think about the Holy Spirit? and part of them, exhausted on the previous historical path, which was not strewn with roses for them, froze, powerless for a new upsurge, and began an understandable movement. This is how the Macedonians appeared. For all this, Profitemur enim deserves more attention from historical science, which completely ignores this dogmatic monument. Erected on the basis of the Sirmian 1st formula, it appeared as if an electric anode, which is imperatively looking for a corresponding cathode. This cathode was the Sirmian 2nd formula of 357 (“blasphemy written by Hosius and Potamius”). With the Profitemur tuning fork, she more clearly expressed the tendency to talk about the Father and the Son from the point of view of Their differences, and from their unity, but did not completely exhaust the programmatic content of Profitemur 175. As the message of the same Sirmian council of 351, to which the Sirmian 1st formula belongs, Profitemur could be treated as a document equal to it; interested businessmen ad libitum could put forward one or another of these monuments, and it is clear the names of the fathers of the Sirmium Cathedral listed by St. Ilaria 176, can equally be placed both after the Sirmian formula and after Profitemur. However, I have the courage to consider it more likely that they refer specifically to Profitemur. Lists of bishops who took part in this or that council could be borrowed from three sources, and each of them was distinguished (although exceptions are found in all three) in a special, specific flavor. a) The lists in the minutes of the first act of a given council were usually edited by the secretary of the council (primicerius notariorum), briefly noting the name of the bishop and his see. The following lines from the 1st Act of the Third Ecumenical Council can serve as a typical example: ἐπισκόπων Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξάνδρειάς , δίεποντος καὶ τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἀγεωτάτου καὶ ὁσιωτάτοο ἐπισκόπου τῆς ῥ ωμαίων ἐκκλησίας Κελεστίνου * καὶ Ἰ ουβεναλίου Ἰ εροσολύμων * καὶ Μἐμνονος τῆς Ἐφεσίων, etc. b) All the fathers of the council usually signed the acts and messages of the councils in their own hand with the names of the departments, but in a form often pleonastic. Typical examples from the same 1st Act of the Council of Ephesus: , ἀποφηνάμενος ἄμα τ ῇ ἁ γι ᾳ συνόδ ῳ. ἐπίσκοπος ἐλεει Θεοῦ Ἀνδραπηνῶν ὑπέγραφα , καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς [not the city of Andrapa is subordinated to him as a bishop, but the Christians of Andrapa]. → πόλεως Μαρωνείας ὑπέγραφα, κ. τ. ἑ. Εὐτύχιος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς ἐν Θεοδοσιουπόλεί ἁ γίας τοῦ Θεοῦ καθολίκῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ὑπέγραφα, κ. τ. ἑ. Finally, c) in the addresses of the messages only the names of the addressees and addressees were inscribed, without indicating the departments. A typical example from the acts of the same Ephesian council 177: Κύριλλος, Θεόπεμπτ ῳ, καὶ Δανιήλω, καὶ Ποτάμωνι, ἀγαπητοῖς καὶ συλλειτοοργοῖς, ἐν Κυρί ῳ χαίρειν. Of course, under the messages the addressees signed their prayer requests to the addressee in their own hand, giving both their name and their pulpit; but among the scribes of messages (except in cases of special accuracy), the custom was widespread to put their Explicit in a row after the end of the messages and not to copy the signature. They did this not only to save expensive parchment, but also for another very understandable reason: in ancient times, as now, signatures were written in bold italics, sometimes with strokes; reading such autographs was not easy, some were even impossible to make out; and it seemed useless to labor at copying an incomplete list. It should be noted that the typical features of signatures (b) and inscriptions (c) are observed in the documents of both the Serdica Council and Philippopolis Council of 343 178 , and the councils of 359: Sirmium 179 , Seleucia 180 and Constantinople 181 . What St. Hilary is not bothered by the length of the list of signatures with cathedras; this is proven by the 59 complete signatures of the fathers of the Council of Serdica preserved in the fragmenta ex opere historico and 73 complete, even to the point of excess, 182 signatures of the Council of Philippopolis. St. Hilary obviously could not have talked at all about which bishops set forth the “Damophilian formula”; if he presented a list of 22 names, it was obviously because he wanted to give readers as complete a historical background as possible. In view of this, we have to assume that he gives the names of the Sirmian fathers without designating the departments because he cannot give a completely complete reference, that is, because he borrows his list not from the complete acts of the council, but from the inscription of the message. And the message of this council contained precisely Profitemur enim. Consequently, this incompleteness in the list again leads to the assumption that Liberius signed not the Sirmium 1st formula, but the message of this council. The same conclusion seems most natural from the connection of facts that followed the fall of Liberius. Wed. “Church Bulletin” 1890, No. 42, p. 699. - V. N. Samuilov History of Arianism in the Latin West. (St. Petersburg 1890). Of the ancient scholars, the most important are Tillemont, Mémoires pour 'ervir à l'histoire ecclesiastique (Paris, 1704), t. VI: Les Ariens and Constant in notes to the works of St. Ilaria (Migne, Patrol., S. L, t. 10). Among the newest: C. J. v. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte (2 Aufl., Freiburg i. B., 1873) Bd. I; Th. Zahn, Marcellus ν. Ancyra (Gotha, 1867); N.M. Gwatkin, Studios of Arianism (Cambridge, 1882). This latter is rightly considered “the most thorough recent research” in this area by A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte [2. Aufl., Freiburg i. B., 1888], II, 183: “die gründlichste neuere Untersuchung”). I often have to challenge the opinions of these authorities; quâ par est reverentiä, to build something quickly, having them against you, would probably mean to build ill. —The coherent outline of the events from 344 to 358, with which this study will conclude, will perhaps somewhat compensate the reader for the dryness and tedious details of the opening chapters. Athanas., hist. ar. admon. n. 41: ὁ δὲ Λιβέριος – μετὰ διετῆ χρόνον ὤ κλασε καὶ – ὑπέγραψεν . Hieron., chron.a. Abr. 2365 [ed. A. Schöne in Eusebi chronicorum vol. II, Berolini, 1866]: “Liberias – in heretica pravitate suscribens”; de vir. inlustr. [ed. Herding, Lipsiae 1879], c. 97: “ad subscriptionem hereseos compulit.” fragm. 6, nn. 5 – 7 [Jaffé-Wattenbach, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (ed. 2-da, Lipsiae, 1885) No. 217]: “Dilectissimis fratribus presbyteris et coepiscopis orientalibus, Liberius. Pro deifico timore etc. n. 6: Nam, ut verius sciatis me vera fide per hanc epistolam ea proloqui dominus et trater meus communis Demophilus, qui pro sua benevolentia fidem vestram et catholicam exponere, quae Sirmio a pluribus fratribus et coepiscopis nostris tractata, exposita et suscepta est haec est perfidia ariana, hoc ego notavi, non apostata, Liberius sequentia ab omnibus, qui in praesenti fuerunt: hanc ego libenti animo suscepi, sanctus Hilarius anathema illi dicit: anathema tibi a me dictum, Liberi, et sociis tuis in nullo contradixi, consensum accomodavi, hanc sequor, haec a me tenetur iterum tibi anathema et tertio, praevaricator Liberi. Sane petendam credidi sanctitatem vestram, quia jam pervidetis in o nuibus me vobis consentaneum esse, dignemini communi consilio ac stadio laborare, quatenus de exsilio jam dimittar, et ad sedem quae mihi divinitus médita est reveri 4r. n. 7: Perfidiam autem apud Sirmium descriptam quam dicit Liberius catholicam, a Demophilo sibi expositam, lii sunt qui conscripserunt: 1) Narcissus, Theodorus, Basilius, Emloxius, 5) Demophilus, Cecropius, 7) Silvanum, Uisacius, Valens, 10) Evagrius, 11) Hyrenius, Exuperantius, Terentianus, 14) Bassus, 15) Gaudentius, Macedonius, 17) Marthus, 18) Acticus Julias, 20) Surinus, Simplicius et 22) Junior requirendum omnes haeretici. – The text of these fragmenta is set to ed. I Coastani based on the codex Pithoeus =~ Pi variants of Sirmond =~ Si, which was also used by the ancient ms. s. Remigii Remensis = -Re, finally based on two mss. ex Cresconiana collectione, which were used by the card. Baronius =~ Va. The above text is presented as it appears in Pi. Only the words were inserted by me ex conjecturä and the logical and grammatical meaning of this place (it is also in BA: me veram fidem p. h.e. meam proloqui is not satisfactory) requires this or a similar addition. – Below, instead of fidem vestram BaSi fidens veram. There are no words sanctus Hilarius anathema illi dicit in Va. (Caesaris SRE card. Baronii Annales ecclesiastici, ed. Aug. Theiner [Barri-Duci?, 1865], IV, ann. 357 nn. 49 51). Variants of proper names: 11 Ba Si Irenaeus, 14 Ba Bastus, 17.18 Re Martius Atticus, Ba Marcus Aetius, 20 Ba Severinus, instead of et Jun. – haeretici Ba only et alii, Re et caeteri juniores quibus credidit omnes haeretici. This is how these three individuals are identified with Tillemont, art. 46 rub. 351, and Hefele, I, 641. Together Narcissus and Theodore appear at the Council of Antioch in 341. (Athan., apol.c.ar.n.21), together (Athan. de synod. n 25), in 341 or 342, as delegates of the council, went to Gaul with the so-called 4th Antiochian formula (in Socr. 2, 18, and Soz. 3, 10, their names are side by side, in the form of a pair), together in Athan. ep. encycl. adep. Aeg. et Lib, n. 7 they appear in the row οἱ πρὸς π ᾶ σαν ἀσέβειαν τολμηρότατοι; next to it, in the form of a head pair, μετὰ τούς περὶ ? Νερωνιάδος, higher than even Stephen of Antioch and Acacius of Caesarea, were deprived of their dignity at the Council of Serdica in 343 (Athan. ar. s. ar. nn. 48. 49. 43. 36; hist. ar. ad mon. n. 17; Hilar. fr. 2, 7.8); side by side, as a couple, they stand in the ranks of those who “μεγάλως ᾐ σχὐνοντο “as a result of the events of 347 (Athan. hist. ar. ad mon. n. 28) and as a couple [in 348?] appear at the Council in Antioch (Soz. 4.8, 4) and c. 349 in Constantinople (historia acephala, ed. Sievers in Zeitschrift f. histor. Theo). 1868, S. 149, n. 2). Theodoret. h. e. 2, 16, 10 Valesius [–2, 13 Sirmond]. The current state of the question of the Sirmian councils and the Sirmian formulas is most clearly expressed in Harnack, II, 243 - 249, whose view can be represented in the following diagram: Council 1 of Sirmium (about which information is only in Hilar. fr. 2, 21 – 31) confidently dates only Zahn, 80, and after him Gwatkin, 145, to 347; Harnack, II, 242: could be already in 347”; Hefele I, 640, unable to make a choice between 349, 347 and 350 - The 2nd Sirmian formula named here (Athan; desynod. n. 28; Socr. 2,30, 31-41; Hilar. de synod. n. 11) y Hilaria is characteristically inscribed: “exemplum blasphemiae apud Sirmium per Osium et Potamium conscriptae,” and the 4th Sirmian formula, marked with the date May 22, 359, is called the “dated faith” (Athan. de syn. n. 8; Socr. 2, 37, 18–24; Hilar. fr. 15, 3; Epiphan, haer 73, 22). – Thesis probanda of my present sketch: there were not five Sirmian cathedrals, but only four. Its text is from Athan. de syn. n. 27; Socr. 2, 30, 5–30; Hilar. de syn. n. 38 and commentary by Hilary nn. 39–63. note 55, p. 773: ce qu'il y a de plus difficile en cela, c'est d'accorder S. Hilaire avec luy mesme. This is also recognized by Hefelel, 694 and Gwatkin, 189. This is also identified by Tïllemont, p. 351; Hefele, 1, 641. 688 does not say. Theodoret. h. e. 2.26.7 Val = 2.22 Sirm. : τῷ θαυμασί ῳ Σιλβανῷ : 2, 27, 17 – 21 Val. =~2.23 Sirm. . Basil. magn. ep. 67 (50), – message to Athanasius the Great! –: διὰ τοῦ μακαρίου Σιλουανοῦ : ep. 223 (79), 5; ep. 244 (82), 3: → ἀρχῆς ὑπεδεξαμεθα. Athanasius the Great looks at the fall of Liberius very condescendingly (apol. c. ar. n. 89. 90; hist. ar. admon. n. 41), as a high character and a bright mind that understands everything and forgives everything. Of course, a special incentive for this noble attitude was the fact that Liberius also betrayed the personal affairs of Athanasius. Fourth anathema: “Praevaricatori anathema una cum arianis a me dictum” comes after fr. 6, 8. 9 [Jaffé-Wattenbach RPR, no. 218], where the message of Liberius Ursacio, Valenti et Germiniö “Quia scio vos” is given. A prominent representative of this view is Tillmon. This is the view of Hefele, whose critical views are followed by F. Kaltenbrunner, who processed the most ancient period of the Regesta Poruificum Romanorum for the 2nd edition (auspiciis Wattenbach): No. 217 Pro deifico is considered to be forged, whereas in the 1st edition (Jaffé) it was considered genuine. Gwatkin, 189. - This view, in essence, was already expressed by D. Petavius in 1622. - The second Sirmian formula is implied both by Blondel (in 1641) and by J. Barmby, author of the article "Liberias" in Smith and Wacé's Dictionary of Christian Biography (London, 1882), III, 722. Luciferian zealotism is also seen here by Hefele I, 693 See pr. 4, where the scribe’s insertion is marked in italics, the words of the Luciferian are in ancient. Samuilov, *11, following Kutan. Zahn, 80. - This is an important place (fr. 2, 24): Nam tertius mihi locus praestat, ut fidem, quam epistolae primordio condiderunt, fraudulentam, haereticam, et verbis blandientibus veneno interiore suffusam esse demonstrem. Profitemur enim itä Unum quidem ingenitum esse Deum Patrem, et unum unicum ejus Filium, Deum ex Deo, lumen ex lumine, primogenitum omnis creaturae, et tertium addentes Spiritum sanctum Paracletum: ut cum securitas legentium vel indoctorum simplicitas tam mollibus fuerit intercepta principiis, uno eodemque subscriptionis elicitae assensu, in Photini animadversionem, in Athajqasii reatum, in damnationem fidei catholicae transeatur. See end of pr. 28: in Athanasii reatum. Ero is attributed to the 1st Council of Sirmium (see pr. 8). Having identified the “perfidia” signed by Liberius with “perfidia, non fides” = “Profiremur”, I was pleased to notice later that Tilmon (art. 46, p. 351) was already on the way to this conclusion. Op writes: “if this particular [1 Sirmian] formula was forced to sign by Liberius, which is quite likely (comme il y assesz d’apparence), then he (St. Hilary) characterizes it as perfidia ariana. =~fr.~6,~6. 7. Apparently he speaks about it in another place in his fragments (il semble en parler encore en on autre endroit de ses fragmens), where =~ IV.~2, 24 he calls it fides fraudulenta... However, here we encounter the difficulty that (mais cela n’est pas sans difficulté, dautant que) in this last formula there are words: the firstborn of all creation, which are not in the first Sirmian". – The weak side of this tirade apparently lies in the fact that, having recognized the identity of the “Dimophilian formula” and the first Sirmian at first as “quite probable”, Tilmon in the end considers it almost indisputable, and having seen the complete impossibility of identifying three monuments: a) the first Sirmian formula, b) the “Dimophilian” and c) Profitemur, he does not try to identify b with c; meanwhile, the identity of only a with is impossible - But in any case, not a complete coincidence with the views of such a scientist as Tilmon represents a good argument in favor of the identity of the “Dimophilian formula” with “Profitemur”. fr. 2, 28: Kides fidei comparata falsitatem mentionis [so PiRe] exponit. Nam quae apud Nicaeam ordinata est = Nicene symbol, plena atque perfecta est... haec vero = perfidia, non fides simplicitate blanditur, primum asserens NOS ita credebe, quod absit a quoquam. – It is quite possible that the creed of “Piofitemur” was more detailed and approached the creed in volume, but St. Hilary wrote out (see pr. 28) only the most characteristic expressions from it. - So for example. in fr. 2.27 he gives the full text of the Nicene Creed, and in fr. 2, 32 the content of ero (diligens nicaeni tractatus perfectusque sermo - ita ponens) is conveyed in the words: “we believe in one God the Father - and in His one Son, Jesus Christ - the true God of the true God - born, uncreated, of one essence with the Father - descended,” etc. with the omission of some words. Coustant, aq Hiiar. fr. 2, 20, col. 648C. Sulp. Severi chron. [ed. C. Halm, Vindobonae, 1866] 2, 37, 5. 6: igitur Arriani astuto consilio miscent innoxium criminosis, damnationemque Photini et Marcelli et Athanasii eadem sententia comprehendunt, illud nimirum apud imperitorum animos praestruentes, ut non putarentur de Athanasio perperam iudicasse, qui de Marcello atque Photino uera sensissent, uerumtamen ea tempestate Arriani perfidiam suam occultabant: non ausi palam erroris sui dogmata praedicare catholicos se gerebant. Cp. Xp. Thurs. 1891, I, 314 approx. 33. – In the apparatus criticus it is written: “imperitorum de Pratö imperatorum Pb”, i.e. in the [only for Chronica] cod. Palatin. Vatican. 824 and the editio princeps dependent on it of 1556 it reads “imperatorum”; but already de Prato in 1741 proposed the reading “imperitorum”, which he preferred to the handwritten one and Halm. Indeed, “imperatorum” is not in the style of Sulpicius, who knows only one “Constantius imperator” or even “rex” - In the fragmenta of Illaria there is no parallel place to imperatorum; fr. 2.18. Superest, ut quid de Marcello et Pliotino gestum sit, paucissimis dicam, n. 19. Photinus sirmiensis episcopus fuit a Marcello imbutus – – - α ) Igitur ad, tollendum ex episcopatu Photinum, qui ante biennium jam in mediolanensi synodo erat haereticus damnatus, ex plurimis provinciis congregantur sacerdotes, β ) hoc magis solliciti atque anxii, turbari rursum miscerique omnia, quod jam pridem plures episcopos reos vel falsorum in Athanasio judiciorum vel communionis baeresis arianae, ab ecclesia fuerat necesse resecare, γ ) Quam opportunitatem nacti Ursacius et Valens, romanae plebis episcopum adeunt, recipi se in ecclesiam deprecantur et in communionem per veniam admitti rogant. Iulius ex consilio veniam quam orabant impertit: ut cum lucro catliolicae ecclesiae vires quoque detraheret arianis... δ ) Exemplum epistolae, quam – in urbe Roma holographa manu Valens perscripsit et Ursacius subscripsit. Domino beatissimo papae Julio Valens et Ursacius S. ε ) Quoniam constat, nos antehac multa gravia de nomine Athanasii litteris nostris insinuasse, atque litteris sanctitatis tuae conventi, ejus i ei, de qua significavimus, non praestitisse rationem: profitemur apud sanctitatem taam, cunctis praesentibus presbyteris fratribus nostris, omnia – antehac – falsa a nobis esse insinuata atque omnibus viribus carere... Haereticum vero Arium, sed et satellites ejus – sicut per priorem libellum nostrum, quem apud Mediolanum porreximus, et nunc et semper anathematizasse, hac manu nostra, qua scripsimus, profitemur. It is not out of place to note that Ursacius and Valens apparently received a written summons from Julius before the Council of Serdica (after the Council, written relations with the excommunicated were interrupted - note 49). ζ ) Haec epistola post biennium missa est quam baeresis Photim a romanis damnata est. η) Item exemplum alterius epistolae Valentis et Ursacii quam post aliquantum temporis ab Aquileia, postquam hanc superiorem Romae emiserant, ad Athanasium miserunt et episcopos. Domino fratri Athanasio U. et. V. Dedit se occasio... – In Athan. hist. ar. ad mon. n. 44. Hosius of Corduba writes imp. Constation that Ursacius and Valens ἀνῆλθον εἰς τὴν ’Ρώμην καὶ – ἔγραψαν [of course “Quoniam constata], γραψαντες Obvious inaccuracy: as accepted already in communion with the Roman Church, they send their message to Athanasius. – θ ) Superioribus igitur litteris datis, venia indulgetur orantibus, reditus ad catholicam fidem cum communione donatur: maxime cum serdicensis synodi veritatem ipsae orantium veniam litterae continent, ι ) n. 21. Verum inter haec Sirmium convenitur. Photinus haereticus comprehensus, olim reus pronuntiatus, et a communione jam pridem unitatis abscissus, nec tum quidem per factionem populi potuit amoveri, κ ) Sed idem Athanasius Marcellum qui post recitationem libri quem scriptum ediderat (nam hunc nos quoque habemus) sententia synodi serdicensis episcopatui erat redditus, ubi quaedam alia nova miscere sensit, et ambiguis praedicationibus, ejus in quam Photinus erupit doctrinae viam quaerere, a sua communione separat anteriore tempore quam Photinus arguitur, praeventam judicio meditationem corruptae voluntatis ostendens et non ex libri editione condemnans. Sed quia promptum est e bono malum effici, praebuit non illis quae in Marcellum gesta ante fuerant, sed his quae in Photinum gerenda erant auctoritatem, λ ) n. 22. Illud autem esse cognitum cunctis oportet, nullam unquam adversus Marcellum, praeter eam quae serdicensibus est dissoluta sententiis, deinceps synodum fuisse contractam; neque tunc cum de Photino decretum ab occidentalibus est et ad orien tales est relatum, aliquod in eum expressum fuisse judicium, μ ) Sed homines mente callidos, ingenio subtiles, malitia pertinaces, occasionem revolvendi ejus, quod Athanasii absolutione est dissolutum, quaesiisse judicii; et rescribentes de Photine, Marcelli mentionem velut institutionum talium magistri addidissë ut mortuam de Athanasio ipso jam tempore quaestionem, et seritatis judicio consepultam, in publicam recordationem causae novitas excitaret, et subrepens per Pbotini damnationem Marcelli nomen inveheret. Exstat autem in superioris epistolae corpore, Marcellum ab arianis occasione libri quem de subjectione Domini Christi ediderat, una cum Athanasio fuisse damnatum. Docetur etiam recitatione eiusdem libelli innocentem deprehendi. Falsitatem quoque judicii ariani exstantis adhuc libri fides arguit De Photino autem tantum, sicuti mos poscebat, ad orientales epistolae fiunt non injuria extorquendi, ut nunc agitur, assensum, sed instruendae universorum scientiae consuetudine, v) n. 23: Sed cur abnegatae Marcello communionis Athanasius reus esse rescribitur? Numquid propter libri vitium Marcellus abbentus est? Testes ipsi sunt, ex institutis ejus Photinum perversitatis istius initia sumpsisse. Nam negata sibi ab Athanasio communione, ingressu sese ecclesiae Marcellus abstinuit, o) Ita communio cum eo in ista fide [Constant ex conjecturä inita, rectam fidem] de subjectione et traditione regni docet: negata rursum, pravitate [Constant ex conj: pravitatem] doctrinae alterius ostendit. Ac sic utrumque viri istius judicium caret culpa, cum in data communione synodi sit secutus assensum; in abnegata vero, ipso se Marcello abdicante solo sine ulla synodi auctoritate. Verum omnis ista alterius causae et doloris est quaestio. Et quamquam conceptis jam diu in Athanasium odiis suis satisfiat, in majorem tamen sceleris gradum molitio tanta procedit, n. 24. Nam tertius... See above p. 313, pr. 28. – It remains to note that, starting from Superioribus igitur through catholicae transeatur, the text of the original source is written differently without omitting even one word of “fragments”, without ellipses, which, as a sign of the unknown, could hamper the reader’s own judgment. Now it is good for everyone to interpret this difficult passage according to their own best understanding, with me or against me. γ – θ, the reunion of Ursacius and Valens, is an insertion that is not related to the case of Photinus. θ – γδ. Even in μ, a message to the east announcing the deposition of Photinus is spoken of twice, although of course with different shades in both cases. A. Harnack, II, 242, and: “both Milan Councils, the date of which is not entirely firm (deren Datum nicht ganz sicher i ι), condemned him [Photinus].” To what extent the underlined words are true, the reader can see from the following. data from Athanasius V. (de synodis, nn. 25. 26): ἐν τοῖς ἐγκαινίοις ἐπίσκοποι ἐνενήκοντα, ὑπατεί ᾳ Μαρκελλίνουκαὶ Προβίνου, The 4th Antiochian formula... συλλέγουσι πάλιν τὸ συνέδριον ἑαυτῶν μετὰ ἔτη τρία καὶ ἀποστέλλουσιν Εὐδόξιον , Μαρτύριον καὶ Μακεδὸνιον τὸν ἀπὸ Κιλικίας , καὶ σύν αὐτοῖς ἑτέρους τινὰς εἰς τὰ μέρη τῆς Ἰ ταλίας, ἀποφέροντας πίστιν διὰ πολλῶν γραφεῖσαν [5th Antiochian formula, the so-called ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος ]. And so, the council during the renovation of the church in Antioch was undoubtedly [this is indicated by both the consuls and the indict] in 341 341 3 = 344: in this year, 344, the ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος was compiled. And we can with sufficient grounds admit that it was compiled by the same council of Antioch that ordained Leontius, resp. deposed Stephen, Bishop of Antioch, for the latter's trick with the ambassadors of the Serdica Council "ἐν αὐταῖς ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ ἀγιωτάτου πάσχα" (hist, arian. ad monach. nn. 20. 21), i.e. during Holy Week 344, when Easter was April 15. Ε ἷ τα μετὰ μῆνάς που δέκα τελευτήσαντος Γρηγορίου ... Since (by “κεφάλαια” ad an. 346 in The festal letters of Athanasius, cd. W. Cureton [London 1848], pp. liv. (6); Die Fest-Briefe des heil. v. Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften [Lpz., 1890] II, 434; Gregory of Alexandria died on 2. epiphi = June 26, 345, then the period 10 months before his death corresponds - with the Alexandrian point of view of Athanasius - arithmetically on August 30, 344 = ~ 2. ~ tout ~ 61 ~ the era of Diocletian. Around this time, the Council of Antioch took place in 344. Liberius wrote about the outcome of his embassy to Italy in a letter to the Emperor. Constantius ["Obsecro, tranquillisime" in Hilar. fr. 5, 4 - Jaffé-Watt. RPR No. 212], sent in the form of a protest against the decisions of the Council of Arelat [which was - Gwatkin, XXIV - or in October 353. or later], writes: “quae est pax, clementissime imperator, cum sint ex partibus ipsis = orientalium quatuor episcopi Demopbilus [Berean in Thrace, who apparently was not present at the Council of Antioch and could not be its delegate in the precise sense - already as the bishop of a see not subordinate to the throne of Antioch, and therefore only joined the delegates at their paths to Mediolanum], Macedonius, Eudoxius, Martyrius, qui ante annos octo, cum apud Mediolanum Arii sententiam haereticam noluissent damnare, de concilio animis iratis exierunt?” The words: “eight years ago” establish two facts at once: a) the Council of Mediolan I was not in 344, but in 345 and b) Liberius wrote Obsecro not in 354 (as Kaltenbrunner believes in RPK), but in 353 - Finally, from fr. 2, 20 [approx. 36, αζ ] it is clear that Mediolan II was “post biennium”, “two years” after Mediolan I., next. in 347 - In fact, in the church history of the 4th century there are no other events, the chronology of which is established by monuments as authoritative and as accurate as the chronology of both Milan Councils. Tillemont, 347. 340. 341. 765 note 39. Among the newest scientists, Tillemont is joined by Fowkes (E. S. Ffoulkes, author of the article “Photinus” in Smith & Wace’s Dictionary, III, 394) and Reynolds (H. R. Reynolds, Athanasius, his life and life-work, London, 1889). Fowkes writes "St. Hilary - there is no reasonable reason to doubt it (heyond an have reasonable doubt, fixes it at Sirmium) - believes this [great] council in Sirmium, and this was the first Sirmian council of 349... St. Athanasius [on whose words de synodis n. 10, Coutan refers to as proof that the council was in Mediolan], which was at that time not in Italy, but in Alexandria, simply confuses Mediolan with Sirmium.” In fact, Fowkes himself, worse than just simply, does not realize that the words desyn. n. 10 [see Ave. 46 does not belong to St. Athanasius, but form part of the message of the Ariminian Council. It is clear that studies with such shortcomings are not particularly worthwhile. – Reynolds, b. 77, believes that this was the first council of Sirmium in 347 - But the same Rynolds, r. 63, thinks - and this is after Guotkin’s “studies”! - that Afanasy v. returned to Alexandria “either in the fall of 337 or in the summer of 338.” [and the original source (“κεφάλαια”, see note 39) allows only a dilemma: either November 23, 337 or also November 23, 338 and resolves it in favor of 337]. He, R. 73, writes that Gregory died “in 345 (according to Tilmon, in 349) [as if it did not go without saying that in such matters Tilmon, who wrote before the publication of “κεφάλαια” and “historia acephata”: inevitably made only mistakes]. Finally, R. 176, he puts to death, St. Athanasius "in 371 or 373 ”and only in agreement with “the majority of the best and newest authorities” gives preference to 373 [meanwhile, common sense suggests that since St. Proterius assures in 454 Leo that St. Athanasius March 31 (Easter) 373 [5. farmuti 89 of the era of Diocletian] was still alive, and the year is given decisive importance on the controversial issue in Paschal [er. 133, i. 4, inter Leonis magni epistolas]; since both “historia acephala” and “κεφάλαια” name exactly 373: then there was no point in remembering 371]. If Reynolds is so divided on clear and even indisputable issues, then chronological research is “not his habit,” and his voice on an extremely complex issue means very little, although his book dates back to 1889. - Another trend in resolving our issue is represented by the names of Padgi de Marc and Mansi (Mansi, Concil. collect., III, 161) 163. 94. 118). According to this opinion, after the only Milano, a larger council, which then wrote to the east, was convened in Sirmium, and in Rome an imaginary (see pr. 47) foundation - the words of St. Ilaria in pr. 36, γδ]. Of the newest [scientists, this direction is followed by Klose (C. R. W. Klose, Geschieht, und Lehre des Marcellus und Photinus [Hamburg, 1837], S. 56–59: the councils of 347 in Mediolan, 349 in Rome; about the Sirmian council Hilar. fr. 2, 21 [note 36, ι] Klose does not say anything clearly) and Lischen (J. Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirche [Bonn, 1881], I, 457. 458): which accepts the only council in Milan and the “second, larger council in Rome”, reuniting Ursacius and Valens with the church. “But whether there were discussions about Photinus at this council, we do not know.” – These words already show that, in terms of details, this page in Langen’s venerable work is treated rather superficially; his view of the details of the events of this time is completely unclear. It is Zahn, 80, and Hefele, I, 637 – 640, and after them W. Möller (in Herzog – Plitt) Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 2-te Aufl. [Leipzig, 1877], 1,630), Gwatkin) 126 145, Harnack) II, 242. – Cp. Samuilov, 10. 11. Cp. pr. 47. This cannot be allowed for the sole reason that such a reference to a very problematic past would be documentary evidence that they anathematize Arianism now as frivolously as they did two years ago. This is against Zahn, who writes: in vain they [the fathers of the Council of Milan of 345] demanded from the Eusebian bishops, as well as (auch) from Ursacius and Valens, who also came to the council (welche erschienen waren), an unambiguous condemnation of Arianism (eine unumwundene Verurteilung des Arianismus)... On the second Milan. cathedral of 347, Ursacia and Valens were again accepted into communion.” Does Zahn (and Harnack) think that Ursacius and Valens already submitted their libellus to the council of 345? This is x; although the answer seems to be yes. Hefele, Möller and Samuilov agree that already at the Council of Milan I. 345, Ursacius and Valens made an attempt to reconcile with the church [of course, in their words “per priorem libellum” (see pr. 36, ε) they see an indication of such a long-standing step of theirs, although the libellus, submitted sa a few weeks before Quoniam constat, was already libellus prior, and although St. Hilary (pr. 36, σγ) puts their appeal in connection only with the great council, not with Mediolan I.]; but then their attempt failed [about this failure, however, there is not the slightest mention in historical monuments, although there are reasons to reproach Ursacius and Valens, these “turbatores ecclesiarum” (Hil. fr. 8, 2i, there was no shortage of this failure, especially at the Arimian Council]. Hefele and Samuilov take the trouble to find out the reason for this failure. Ursacius and Valens, - suggests Hefele, - probably (wohl) agreed in 345 to anathematize Arianism, but, as it seems (wie es scheint; still (doch noch) did not want to enter into communication with Athanasius: they were, after all, his personal opponents (sie waren ja seine persönliche enger). Faux also silently joined this view. – But such a turn of events seems completely implausible to me, a) The expression “personal opponents” is quite ambiguous: Ursacius and Valens had the good fortune or misfortune at the end of August 335 to become members of the six-member Mareotian commission [Athan. apol. With. ar. n. 74. 72] carried out - in a certain direction - an investigation into the case of Athanasius V., that’s all: there is no talk of their personal clashes with him anywhere, β) We must give justice to these Danube bishops that they wanted the triumph of Arianism [no matter what is meant by this name] precisely as a dogma and tried as much as possible to harm Athanasius V., but in the name of a dogmatic goal. But to renounce the goal and think about giving up an unnecessary means is not a smart position at all. γ) Hefele is not consistent: he suggests, II, 637, that Ursacius and Valens tried in 345 to reconcile with the church “because (nachdem) in the thoughts of their patron, Constantius, there was a turn in favor of Athanasius.” This change in the mood of Constantius is a real fact [Athan. hist. ar. ad mon. n. 21]; but it is no less true that Arianism as a doctrine was not threatened in 344. no volte-face on the part of his sovereign patron. And the Danube bishops, who always understood very well which way the wind was blowing under the Eastern Committee, should have taken a conciliatory step precisely on the basis of relations with Athanasius, if possible without concessions in dogma. And they - according to Hefele - did just the opposite δ) Admitting to a lie, of course, is unpleasant; but rubbery natures, like Ursacius and Valens, would not think about their sentiments any longer than necessary; moreover, the year 347 meant surrender to the mercy of the dogmatic winner, who dictated his terms; and in 345 Ursacius and Valens would have pretended to be the negotiating party and could have covered up their retreat with soft phrases, ε) One could finally assume that the dogmatic concession in 345 was more convenient than the renunciation of their position against Athanasius because the former allowed some kind of restrictio mentalis [as happened at the Council of Arimin in 359], while the latter bluntly established an unpleasant fact and did not fit in with any allegorical reinterpretation. But we should not forget that the recipe for persons in the clan of Ursacius and Valens is inexhaustible: always, given the opportunity, one could scream that violence was done to them. They resorted to this panacea in 350 [see. etc. 70] C) Anathematizing Arianism, but refusing to recognize Athanasius c. legitimate bishop of Alexandria, the Danube bishops would have shown themselves to be inveterate opponents of the Serdica council; Without indulging in any logical distinctions, Westerners would simply look at such a refusal as a tergiversatio, casting an extremely dubious light on their renunciation of Arianism. So - and according to Hefele - the Westerners really looked at the matter and - refused to communicate with them. And then, even in 347, Julius would not have allowed reference to this anathematization as an argumentum commovens, and the “converters” themselves would have refrained - out of prudence - from referring to such a circumstance, which spoke little for them, but a lot against them. Samuilov motivates differently. “The likely coincidence” of the formula for anathematization in the libellus of the Danube bishops with the anathematisms in ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος “encouraged the Westerners to leave in force the Serdic decrees about Ursacius and Valens.” But - one of two things: either this libellus did not contain the words “Arium, sed et satellitesejus”, which is read in “Quoniam constat” [approx. 36, ε], respectively Ursacius and Valens refused to utter any words that the Mediolanian fathers demanded of them, and then the anathematisms of the “converters” were ambiguous, and therefore Samuilov’s opinion is identical with the view of Tsan, and therefore fits both under pr. 43 and under ζ of this note; or the cited words (resp. equivalent to them) were already in this libelius, and then the petitioners fulfilled absolutely everything that Western dogmatists could demand of them (after all, Julius was content with only such anathematisms), and in this case, in addition to Samuilov’s intention, his argumentation is identical to Heffel’s: only by explaining the relationship to Athanasius in. “Quoniam constat”, in this case, differed from the previous libellus Cf. Ave. 48. Eg. in Theodoret of Cyrus, epist. 113, with τῇἀνὸμῳ – καθαιρέσει τοῦ ἀγιωτἀτου – Φλαβιανοῦ is compared with τῶν ἄλλων επισκόπων ἡ παραπλησια σφαγή . Ἀλλὰ κὰμὲ, - he continues, - τὸν ἀπόντα ὀμοίως καλἀμ ῳ κατέσφαξεν [Dioscorus at the Council of Ephesus 449 g.]. In epist. 116. 117, 119. 120 he calls the “deposition” σφαγή, and at the Council of Chalcedon he says: τὰς εἰς ἐμέ γενομενας σφαγας. And Eusebius of Dorylaeum at the Council of Chalcedon said to Dioscorus αὐτός με ἤ δη ἐφὸνευσας. Mansi, Concil. coll., VI, 592A 692A.cf.829Ä μιαιφονίαν. Acts of all. cathedrals (Kazan, 1863), III, 150. 243.361. The message "Jubente Deo" is preserved in the Latin original by Hilar. fr. 8, 1 – 4 and – in a peculiar – Greek translation by Athan. de synod. n. 10 (from where it was copied from Socr. 2, 37, 54 – 74; Soz. 4, 18; Theod. 2.19 Val. [2, 15 Sirm]). The ellipses mean places that I have not written down, the asterisks mean places, as can be seen from the Greek translation, that were not preserved in the original. Unfortunately, the Latin text is faulty [the copyist apparently missed several lines], but the Greek translation was made for St. Athanasius was such a dragoman who did not translate exactly, but retold in his own words the contents of the message, and, moreover, not without difficulty, deciphered the - apparently not very clear - Latin manuscript; eg deicommigravit he read: debitam migravit. But from the Greek ἐγνωκὸτες - ἄτοπον ε ἶ ναι it is clear in any case that the Latin “putamus” needs to be corrected in putantes. The Ariminian fathers do not speak these words on their own behalf, but) They, as can be seen from the further Tunc, continue to tell the curriculum vitae of Ursacius and Valens, and do not make decisions (“putamus”). b) Such a resolution was unnecessary here, because, a few lines above, they already stated euoe “Placuit, ut fidem, – quam sernper obtinuimus, teneamus. Nefas enim duximus sanctorum aliquid mutilare et eorum qui in nicaeno tractatu consederant uua cum gloriosae memoriae Constantino patre pietatis tuae.” Consequently, the Ariminian fathers in the tirade of Constantino – removere impose the definition of the fathers of Milan II. Council of 347, and the meaning of this place mutilated in the manuscripts is not difficult to guess. Ursacius and Valens are accepted into communion in Mediolan II. cathedral, and now they are again trying to undermine what was well decreed. This is self-evidently blamed on them because they, in all likelihood, subscribed to the definition of the council from which the most important passage is quoted by the Ariminian fathers. And if it began with the word “sancimus” or “sancientes” [“scimus” or “scientes”, which the dragoman mistook for “scimus” or “scientes”], then Ἐγνωκότες becomes understandable. The content of the definition was approximately as follows: We define that we sacredly and inviolably preserve the exposition of the faith, which the fathers at the [Nicene] Council, in the presence of the glorious memory of Constantine, was written with great consideration and which [containing] he, having been baptized, reposed into the rest of God; and we consider it unlawful to distort anything in it and [thereby] remove in anything [the authority of] so many saints and confessors and successors of the martyrs who wrote this statement of faith; for they themselves preserved all the writings of their Catholic predecessors, which have survived to this day, in which your piety from God the Father through God and our Lord Jesus Christ received royal power over the universe. - Probably this definition was part of the (presumed by me) message of the Milanese fathers to Emperor Constant (and the fathers of the Council of Serdica undoubtedly - Hilar fr. 2, 12. 33; Athan apol. p. ar. n. 39. 43 - addressed the emperors with a message). - The reader would look in vain for this page from the history of the II. Council of Milan Conciliengeschichte von Hefele, I, 638. 639. Apparently Gwatkin, 126, is of the opinion that Ursacius and Valens at the Council of Milan 11. 347, and not Milan I. 345, submitted their libellus; but he does not say this clearly and does not give any arguments. – It is impossible not to admit that Cutan did more than all other scientists to clarify this issue back in 1693. Without “κεφάλαια” and “historia acephala” [approx. 39] he, of course, erroneously located the facts, the chronology of which depends on the Cathedral of Serdica. But despite this fundamental (absolute) error in dates, which, however, to a certain extent simplified and made his task easier [Mansi III, 94], Cutan established that a) the Mediolan I. Council, which condemned Photinus, had nothing to do with Ursacius and Valens; that b) the great council did not take place in Sirmium or in Rome (Coutan’s argument: if this council had been in Rome, then Ursacius and Valens would have had to “Quoniam constat)” serve Julia in front of the bishops at the council, and not just in front of the presbyters of the Roman Church [see. pr. 36. ε ], – breaks through the Pudgy-Lavgen hypothesis [pr. 40] through and through; you can remain silent from it, you cannot refute it), but in Mediolan; Ursacius and Valens presented their libellus to this council and were then accepted into communion; the same council also wrote to the east; that c) Sirmium Cathedral [pr. 36, ι ] there was a council of eastern Eusebians who sent a response to the message of the Council of Milan. Migne, S L., t.10,col. 645–652. That all the scientific notes reprinted by Min on these columns do not belong to Maffei (publisher 1730), but to Cutan, is clear from comparing them with S. Hilar. opera [Parisiis, 1693, fol.] pp. 1295–1296 notae. It is curious that even Tilmon (b. 341. 347) apparently puts up with such a strange presentation of the matter that Ursacius and Valens were accepted into communion at the Council of Milan in 347 [the only one relevant to this story, because the Council of Milan in 345 - for Tilmon - was even before the Serdic], and then, in 349, they were accepted into church fellowship by Julius. However, Tilmon conveys the first news with such objectivity (p. 341) that behind it one can hear as if distrust of the accuracy of this testimony of the Arimin fathers. - Sirmon (Mansi. III, 160) directly considered this news to be erroneous. - Padgi (ib. 161) decided to look this difficulty straight in the face and expressed the following consideration: the Council of Milan, content with the anathema against Arianism, accepted Ursacius and Valens into communion, and Julius also agreed with this decision of the council, but the council then imposed on them the duty - or to prove Athanasius’s guilt before Julius. or enter into church communion with this latter. Being in church communion with Julius and receiving messages from him (see pr. 36, ε, etc. 49) Ursacius and Valens spent two whole years delaying the fulfillment of this obligation in one or another alternative. – This subtle guess, worthy of Paggi, suffers from one, but significant drawback: it is assumed that the Mediolan fathers and Julius agreed with a light heart - in principle - to resolve the matter of St. Athanasius, already decided at the Council of Serdica, and all this - in order to make it easier for Ursacius and Valens to return to the Catholic Church! See project 44, ζ. – De Marc and Ilemo (Mansi, III, 161.186BC) and, it seems, Mansi himself (III, 94.118) think similar to Paggi. See project 36, γ. opporfanitatem nacti. This view could have been all the more convenient since the Council of Serdica subjected them to double punishment (Hilar.fr. 2, 8:.... Ursacium et Valentem – dejecit sancta synodus de episcopatus gradü et judicavimus non solum illos episcopos non esse, sed neque communionem quoque cum fidelibus habere, – – ut neque scribatis ad eos, neque eorum accipiatis litteras): deprivation of a) dignity and b) ecclesiastical communion. This last, highest punishment overshadowed the lower, but also took on the appearance of a temporary punishment. The fathers of the Council of Milan themselves could make the final decision honoris causa [cf. Serdica Cathedral. 3: sancti Petri apostoli memoriam honoremus and glanders. 4. 7. 10]. by analogy with the practice of the Cathedral of Serdica; or maybe they found that it was not unnecessary for the Danube bishops to go through a new degree of historical repentance. Cutanus (col. 646C) believes that Ursacius and Valens asked for forgiveness first to Julius of Rome, uabeoque venia impetrata,” they went to the Council of Mediola, where they submitted their libellus, and then in the letter Quoniam constat they disavowed before Julius their slander against Athanasius. – This is a very complicated procedure, while simplex veri signum, and is not justified by the text of St. Ilaria, fragm 2.20: et quia non est nisi deveritate confessio, nisi de vitio poenitentia, nisi venia de admisso, Valens et Ursrcius admittendi, ut orabant, ad communionem, de Athanasii innocentia, de judicii falsitarc, de arianao haerebis piaculo talibus litteris ante profitentur. Next comes “Quoniam constat” (see pr. 36, δθ). The words admittendi and ante show that St. Hilary understands reunion as the final moment of the entire procedure and posits “Quoniam constat” before reunion. Meanwhile, from this very letter it is clear that those who wrote it themselves look at the matter differently: forgiveness from Julius is already an accomplished fact (maxime cum sanctitas tua pro insita sibi benevolentia, en ori nostro veniam fuerit dare dignata = κατηξίωσε in Athan. apol. c. ar. n. 58), church communion has been restored to them: they are bishops, and the Roman presbyters are their brethren. They do not refer to any document other than their libellus submitted to the Council of Milan; and if they had first given libellus to Julius himself and had received forgiveness even before the council, they would have been encouraged not to remain silent about it. And so, the simple literal meaning of the message “Jubente Deo” (pr. 46) is the most true; the case of Ursacius and Valens both swayed and was decided on Mediolan II. the cathedral, there is the center of gravity of the event; his imprisonment before Julius is not unimportant, but still only an additional detail. fi. 2, 11 [from the epistle of the Council of Serdica to Julius "Quod semper credidimus"]: Tria fuerunt quae tractanda erant. Nam et ipsi religiosissimi imperatores permiserunt, ut de integro universa discussa disputarentur, et ante omnia de sancta fide et do integritate veritatis, quam violaverunt [Arians] – The draft [Ballerini, Gwatkin, 123; Harnack, II, 240, 1.] of the creed was preserved in Theod. 2,8, 37 – 52 Val = 2, 6~ Sirm; but the council did not approve it: ἡ δὲ ἁ γία ᾳ παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ὁμολογηθείς ῃ πίστει .Atbanas tom. ad antioch n. 5.10. 1881 Langen (Gesch. d. röm. K., I, 448) stated that he had the strongest doubts (die schwersten Bedenken zu liegen) about its authenticity; in 1889 Friedrich (J. Friedrich, Die Constantinische Schenkung [Nördlingen, 1889], 91 - 102) very definitely called for it. it is a forgery of the beginning of the 7th century. But back in 1641, Blondell (Blondell, and after him Remi Ceillier, Bower and Fuchs, see Hefele, 1, 611, 1 - more cautiously and more accurately - considered this message only interpolated and precisely in that place, unde irae of the learned Old Catholics. For details of this critical issue, see the note: Rehabilitation of four monuments 343 g. See pr. 39. However, to the praise and honor of learned criticism, be said even on the basis of only the “historia acephala”, published in Scipione Majfei, Osservazione letterarie [Verona, 1738] t. III, 60–83, Mansi (Mansi, Conc. coll. III, 90), in his dissertation De epochis sardicensis et sirmiensium conciliorum in 1748, came to the conclusion that the Council of Serdic was not in 347, but in 344. But - it is not in praise or honor of progress in science that it must be said - in 1827. Wetzer [Wetzer, Reslitutiq verae chronologiae inde ab a. 325 usque ad a. 350, Francofurti ad Moenum, p. 60) and even in 1852 - when Cureton’s “κεφαλαία” had already been published! - Hefele himself (see Hefele, I, 534) came out in defense of 347. C. J. F. Clinton, An Epitome of the Clironology of Rome and Constantinople [Oxford 1853], 109. 110; Th. J. Almeloveen, Fasti Romani Consulares [Amstelaedami, 1740], I, 162; cf. J.R. Schram, Hilfstafeln für Chronologie [Wien, 1883], 26. According to the excellent Indices rerum to Socr., t. 2, 854; Soz, t. 2, 941 – Proemium, 19 in the edition of R. Hussey, Oxonii, 1853. 1860. Soz. 3, 11, 7–9 Hilar. f.. 3, 1 – 29; Socr does not have this data. 2, 20. 9. 2, 22, 1. Epiphan. haer. 71, 1: Φωτεινὸς – ἀπο τῆς ἐν Σαρδικ ῇ συναχθείσης δυτικῆς συνόδου καθαιρεθεὶς δι ’ ἣ ν ἐξήμεσε βλασφημίαν . The inaccuracy of this news is recognized by everyone, from Constant ad Hilar. fr. 2, 20 and Tillemont, 340.765 to Klose, 56, 12, Zahn, 79, and Hefele, I, 634.637. For example, Hilar. fr. 7, 4: 8. 5. If anyone had this, as I suggested, confusion of the Cathedral of Serdica with Milan II. seemed unlikely, he deigns to re-read Socr himself. 2 29 – 30; Soz. 4, b and see with your own eyes what an incredible amalgam this pair of Constantinople scholastics created [or more likely, not even they, but their primary source - Savin], mixing into one the three Sirmian councils of 351, 357 and 359, despite the fact that two dates, 351 and 359, were before their eyes. – I wrote “Serdika” and “Serdika” so many times that an attentive reader might have noticed this innovation in the chapter. For an explanation, see the note below: Serdika or Sardica? That is, between θ and ι ex. 36. Tsang himself suggests that the space falls between ι and κ. In the copy of ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος, formerly in Athan de synod n. 25, vi; but Socr. 2, 19, 16 Φωτεινός; cf. Gwatkin, 125, 2. Möller. Tsang, Hefele and Gwotkin apparently admit this, but in rather vague terms. Wed. eg "historia acephala" n. 2 [Sievers, 149]: secundum autem reversionis ejus [Athanasia] coss. Hypatio et Catulino [of course the second (Alexandrian) year after the return of Athanasius, Limenio et Catulino coss. = 349] Theodorus, Narcissus, Georgius cum ceteris venerunt Constantinopolin, volentes suadere Paulo communicare sibi, qui nec verbo eos suscepit, etiam eorum salutationem anathmatizavit. Wed. eg the following incidents in Ephesus in 431: ἀπήλθομεν – the “easterners” write to the emperor – εἰς τὸ ἀποστὸλιον τοῦ ἁ γίου Ἰ ωαννου τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ – προσεύξασθαι ὑπέρ τοῦ ὑμετέρου κράτους – οἱ δὲ, Θεασάμενοι ἡμ ᾶ ς παραχρήμα τὸν ναὸν ἀπέκλεισαν. , ἐπαν ῄ ειμεν , πλῆθος ἐξῆλθον οἰκετῶν τινων , καὶ τούς μὲν ἐξ ἡμῶν κατέσχον , τῶν δὲ τὰ ζῶα ἀπέσπασαν , ἄλλους τε τραυματίας ἐποιησαν , ἡμ ᾶ ς δὲ ῥ οπάλοις καὶ λίθοις κατεδίωξαν μέχρι πολλοῦ διαστήματος, ὤ ς ἀναγκασθῆναι ἡμᾶ ς μετὰ πολλῆς ἐπείξεως φυγεῖν ὡ ς βαρβάρων διωκὸντῶν . ???? μήτε προσεύξασθαι ἐν εὐκτηρί ῳ οἴκ ῳ...Even earlier, the “Easterns” complained about Memnon and his “πλῆθος ἀγροικικον ·,... μήτε τῆς ἁ γίας πεντηκοστῆς τὴν πανήγυριν ?? λειτουργίας πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ τας ἁ γίας ἐκκλησίας καὶ τὰ ἅ για μαρτύρια ἀποκλεισἀντῶν . Ho audiatur altera pars, and the secret will be explained. Καθ ’ ἑκἀστην δὲ [quotidie] προσκαλούμενος τὸ σεμνόν βουλευτήριον καὶ τούς λαμπροτάτους, writes en. Memnon of Ephesus about John of Antioch - ὤ ς πάντας τούς κατοικοῦντας τὴν πόλιν, ὀρθοδόξους τυγχάνοντας, τούς ? ἡ ἐκείνου προπέτεια καὶ ἀκανόνιστος θρασύτης ἤ διὰ τῶν ?? Ἰ ωάννη τῷ εὐαγγελιστ ῇ ἀνελθῶν, τοῦτο ὑπεμφήνας, ὡ ς ὀφείλει αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ χειροτονῆσαι , στάσιν καὶ ταραχὴν τῷ τόπ ῳ ἐνεποίησε , καὶ μετὰ πλήθους ἀτακτῶν ὡ πλισμένων ἀνελθ ὼ ν , ὡ ? [reported to the emperor] γίας συνόδου. Mansi, IV, 1384 ΑΒ. 1272 Β. 1440CD D.V.S. 1, 790 791. 658. 872. 873 – And that the Western, even the Western forties of the 25th century, could just as vigorously defend their church interests, see Hilar. fr. 2.12: quod Valens relicta ecclesia ecclesiam aliam invadere voluisset, et eo tempore, quo seditionem commovit, unus ex fratribus nostiis, qui fugere non potuit, Viator obruptus et conculcatus in eadem aquileiensium civitate die tertia Refecit: causa utique mortis fuit Valens, qui perturbavit, qui sollicitavit Cf. Soz. 4.15, s. 24, e [apparently from Savin]. Cf. Amm Mar cell. 27, 3, 11–13; Faustini et Marcellini libellus, praefatio [in 366] – Cp. hist aceph., n. 13 (in Sept. 367 in Alexandria). Wed. full of noble indignation, the words of Hosius of Corduba in his letter to Constantius (Athanas., hist. ar. ad mon. n. 44): ὡ μολόγησαν γὰρ [Ursacius and Valens, see pr. 36, γδ .] οὐ βίαν , , , , οὐκ εἰδότος τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου ( οὐκ ἐγίγνετο γὰρ παρ ’ αὐτ ῳ τοιαῦτα , ο ἶ α νῦν γίγνεται , μὴ γένοιτο !), ἀλλ ’ αὐτοὶ θέλοντες ἑαυτοῖς ἀνῆλθον εἰς τὴν Ῥ ώμην καὶ – ἔγραψαν – . Εἰ δὲ βίαν προφασιζουσι, καὶ τοῦτο γινώσκουσι κακὸν, οὐκ ἀποδεχη δὲ οὐδὲ σύ παῦεαι τοῦ βιάζεσθαι καὶ μήτε γράφε, μήτε ?? ποιῶσι. Τἰ γὰρ τοιοῦτον γέγονε παρὰ Κώνσταντος ; τίςεπίσκοπος ἐξωρίσθη ; πότε κρίσεως ἐκκλησιαστικῆς μέσος γέγονε; πογκασε κατὰ τίνος ὑπογράψαι , ἵ να οἱ περὶ Οὐάλεντα τοιαῦτα λέγωσ . Sulpic. Sev chvon. 2, 37, 7. pars episcoporum, quae Arrios sequebatur, damnationem Athanasii [in the epistle discussed in Prop. 35] cupitam accepit: pars coacti metu et factione in studia partium (oncesserant: pauci quibus fides cara et ueritas potior erat, iniustum indicium non receperunt: inter quos Paulinus, episcopus Treverorum, oblata sibi epistola ita sub cripsisse traditur, se in Photini atque Marcelli damnationem praebere consensum, de Athanasio non probare 38, 1 . “Fragmenta”, even in Kutan’s edition, in my opinion, is located incorrectly and should be in the following sequence: 1.3 2.6. 4. 5. 7 – 15. – This is the work of St. Hilary wrote to clarify the outrageously false position in which the Western Church found itself after the Council of Arimin. The beginning of diseases - proves St. Ilarius. - lies in the Arelat cathedral of 353. Western bishops then had the weakness of retreating from the defense of Athanasius V., believing that the matter in this case was only about his personality; whereas this was a question about faith itself. This is evident, firstly, from the fact that the inconsistency of the accusations leveled against St. Athanasius by the Eastern [in Philippopolis, fr. 3], was fully clarified at the Council of Serdica [fr. 2, 1–18], so this question was completely settled already in 343. Secondly, the case of Photinus essentially did not present any reason to raise the question of St. Athanasius [fr. 2, 19 – 23]. And if the Easterners [in 351] again brought this old story to the stage, then their motives are clear enough. From their very message, St. proves. Hilary in the third essay [fr. 2, 24–33], it is clear that they are philosophizing in the Arian way: Athanasius, while still in the rank of deacon at the Council of Nicaea, declared himself an energetic fighter against Arius: inde irae of all Eusebians against Athanasius, as was already recognized by the fathers of the Council of Serdica. From this context it is clear that St. Hilary had to bring the history of the Photinus case to its actual conclusion: to stop at 347 would mean not to prove his [second] position: the Westerners decided to sacrifice the personality of St. Athanasius, after all, only in 353, and the connection of his case with the question of Photinus, unproven in 347, could have been precisely in 351, with the actual deposition of Photinus, and explained by the Easterners. Socr. 2:30, 43 οὐκ ὀλίγοι, ο ὕ ς ἐκελευσε παρεῖναι τ ῇ διαλέξει ὁ βασιλεύς. Soz. 4, 6, 15: συνελθὸντῶν τῶν ἐπισκόπων καὶ δικαστῶν ἐκ προστάγματος ?? τότε τρωτεύειν ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις ἐδὸκουν . Epiph. h. 71.1: πολλούς δὲ δυναμενος ἀπατ ᾶ ν – – πολλἀκις γὰρ ὐπὸ πολλῶν ἐλεγχόμενος καὶ μετὰ τὴν τότε γενομένην ἐν τ ῇ Σαρδικ ῇ αὐτοῦ ἀπολογίαν, ὅ τε ὐπὸ τῶν ἐπισκὸπων ἐκλήθη δοῦναι λόγον περὶ τῆς ὐπ ’ αὐτοῦ προβληθείσης κακοπιστιας . καὶ γὰρ ο ὖ τος ἠ ξίωσε Κωνσταντιον τὸν βασιλέα ὤ ς μἀτην καθηρημένος , ὅ πως ἀκροατάς λάβοι α ὖ θις , τοῦ ἀποδεῖξαι ἑαυτὸν μάτην καθηρημένον . ὅ θεν ὁ μὲν βασιλεύς κατ ’ ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ ἐξέπεμφε κριτας καὶ - - - ἐκέλευσαν ταχυγράφοις γράφειν – – καὶ ἀπεστάλη ἐσφραγισμενος τόμος εἰς τῷ βασιλεῖ Κωνσταντί ῳ, εἰς δὲ ἔμεινεν ἐν τ ῇ κατὰ τὸν Βασίλειον συνόδ ῳ, καὶἀλλος τόμος μετὰ τῶν κομήτῶν, ὡ σαύτως ἐσφραγι – σμένος. It is not superfluous to note that α ὖ θις means not only “again” = again, rursus, but also “in turn,” vicissim, and “then” = further, porro, and “later,” postea (p. Epiph. h. 73, n. 37, ῥ. 885 I). The information given in [ ] about the careers of arbitrators is borrowed mainly from Cod. Theod. 16,8,7 (cf. Athan. h. ar. n. 22: καὶγὰρ καὶ τούς κόμητας αὐτοῦ πεποίηκε γράφαι [imp. Constantius in 346] Φλωρέντιον , ο ἶ ς καὶ μάλλον πιστεύειν ἦ ν . apol. ad Tonst., n. 11, 36, 9; 12, 1, 40. 43. 49; 12, 2, 1; 15 1, 6; 8, 18, 5; 16, 2, 13; Amm. Marc. 15, 7, 1; 15 6. – All these identifications were already proposed by J. Godefroy (Gothofredus) in Prosopographia p. 89 [Cod. Theod. t. VI, 2, ed. J. D. Bitter, Lipsiae 1745] in the form of a question. Tilmont (in Histoire des Empereurs) and - in the main - Gwatkin, 146, 273-281, agree with Godefroy. Gwatkin, 145–146, 281, 5. Amm. Marc. 14, 7, 9 (ed. V. Gardthausen, Lipsiae 1874]. Migne, S.G., t. 96, 1201. 1264 n. 12: Γαλλον – καὶσαρα – ἐν τῷ Σιρμί ῳ προχειρισάμενος – Κωνστάντιος – καὶ ἄρχοντας αὐτῷ δίδωσιν αὐτὸς καταστήσας ’ – Θαλάσσιον μὲν ἀποστειλας ἔπαρχον πραιτωρίων Μὸντιον δὲ , ἐπὶ τῶν βασιλικῶν πραγμάτῶν, ο ὔ ς κοιαίστωρας αὐτοῖς ὀνομάζειν φίλον, ἄμα καὶ πατρίκιον αὐτὸν ποιησάμενος. I think it should be read, πατρικίους αὐτούς: the endings of words in manuscripts were written with abbreviations, which were often mixed by copyists; Meanwhile, it is not entirely probable that only Quaestor Montius was granted patricia, and his highest rank prefect Thalassius was not awarded this distinction, n. 13: Caesar Constantius ( ὁ γὰρ ἔπαρχον Δομετιανον ἐτεθνήκει ), καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιαίστωρος Μόντιον , – – ἀμφοτέρους ἀπεκτεινεν. Cf. Amm. Marc 14, 7, 9–17. The author of Passio undoubtedly had at his disposal ecclesiastical historical monuments more complete than the history of A. Marcellinus; eg n. 13 fin., nn. 16–18. 20 et seq. But at the same time his nn. 14. 15 seems like a shortened extract from Amm. Marc. 14, 11, 6 19. 20 21; 15, 8, 1–4 18. Therefore, the testimony of Thalassius is in any case very important, whether it is extracted from Amm. Marc. 14, 7, 9 (and therefore confirms the correctness of the obisse) or taken from another - undoubtedly good - source. The reading quem movisse iam conpererat, lege communi scribens ad Caesarem Manilius (with a comma before 'ege) is defended in Godefroy's commentary on Cod. Theod. 16 8, 7, who understands it this way: Constantius, having learned that Thalassius had already set out [on a campaign against the Persians - about which Marcellinus does not say], wrote to Caesar affectionately lege communi, i. e. familiariter, like a relative. “Everyone can see to what extent this interpretation is cunning.” A. Marc 14, 7, 9, 27, nota. Cod. Theod. 16, 8, 7 = Cod. Iu t. 1, 7, 1, the law Siquis lege venerabili [to confiscate the property of Christians who have turned to Judaism is a crime quite common in the East] bears the inscription: “Imp. Constantius Аet Iulianus С. ad Thalassium Pf. P." (ms. Lugduno-Batav. and Cod. Inst. et Iulianus C. om and signature: “Dat. v. non. iul. Mediolano Constantio A viiii (in a number of manuscripts option viii) et Iuliano Caes ii coss.” - Fl. Iuliua Constantius A. ix & Fl. Claudius Iulianus ij coss. were in 357; but that on July 3, 357, the law could not be given in the name of Thalassius, this is indisputable - Sievers, Libanius, 223 -: then the praefectus praetorio per Orientem was Στρατήγιος Μουσωνιανός - Cod. Theod. 16, 8, 6 given in 339 (not in 353, as Gwatkin believes, 139); next and lex. 7: “Si quis iege· could have been given earlier than 357. In 353 the consuls were Fl. Iulius Constantius A. vj & Fl. the unpopular and disgraced Caesar Constantius (Galla) was omitted in the copies of the Si quis lege, then the name Iuliano was mistakenly placed in the space before Caes. , Bonnae, 1840, p. 1647 - was on February 25, March 5 and June 24, 352 (Constantio A. v & Constantio Saez. coss) still in Sirmium [according to Itinerarium Burdigaleuse to 663 Roman miles, next about 980 km from Mediolanus], November 3, 352 in Mediolanium, July 21, 353 in Ravenna [up to 187 Roman miles according to Itinerarium Antonini, up to 195 Roman miles according to Itinerarium Burdigalense, traces about 277–288 km from Mediolanus], September 6 in Lugdunum, October 10 in Arelate. Therefore, on July 3, 353, Constantius could have issued a law Si quis lege venerabili in Mediolanus, but it is unlikely that he would have been in this city on July 3, 352 - Therefore, July 3, 353 can be looked at as the correct terminus post quem of the death of Thalassius; at least the news about it had not yet reached the committee by this time. Notitia dignitatum, ed. O. Seeck (Berolini 1876), Or. 11 15 19, 10 ; Col. Theod. lib. 6, tit. 26, especially legg. 2. 10. 11. 17. 18. 16; C. Th.. 6, 11, 1. C. Iust. 12, 9, 1; 12, 19, 1 – 15; Iustiniani novellae (ed. C. E. Zachariae a Lingenthal, Lipsiae 1881), const. 27 [xv. k. June 535]; Eutropi breviarium (ed. F. Ruehl, Lipsiae 1887) p. 1 [cf. Xp. Thurs. 1891, I, 512]; Mansi, VI, 757. 821. 828A. - “Sacrum scrinium libellorum sacrarumque cognitionum” was the third - so to speak - department under the magister officiorum; The officials in scrinia went in this order: In the rescript of March 29, 381, the proximi scriniorum were already called viri clarissimi; in 448 they already had the title spectabiles; but under Valens (364–378) the magister memoriae (of the first department) himself was only vir clarissimus. Eg. 15, 5, 16; 16, 6, 2; 16, 10, 2. 21.8, 1; 22, 13, 3. Here is the list (numbers in brackets Libanii sophistae epistolae, ed. J. C. Wolf, Amstelaedami, 1738): A) Thalassius [951. 840 – 842, etc.], famulus of Lebanon after 380; his father, apparently [333], was also Thalassius. – B) Thalassius [5], who showed great benefit to Lebanon. – B) Daughter of the “late Thalassia [331. 1096]. D) Thalassius, who once showed great benefit to Lebanon and then fell into misfortune. Seeing him as a person not in favor - they burden him with various unfair taxes, level unprovable criminal charges against him, harm him in every possible way, supposedly About the truth καθήμενον ἐταράχθην and asked him why He was silent. This frightened me even more." [305 – ἄρχοντα “] in Syria [185] and enjoyed the favor of Emperor Constantius [261]. Sivers thinks that this Thalassius G. is the praefectus praetorio per Orientem, who supposedly had the misfortune of surviving the days of his greatness. – But this Thalassius, so vulgarly seated in melancholy in the square, does not look like the aristocratically proud “adrogantisingemi” Amm. Marc. 14, 1, 10) Thalassia, who, even in retirement, would still remain “vir illustris ex praefec opraetorio ac patricius (see pr. 7), and therefore would be protected from the petty insults of little people by the privileges of his high position; and if the emperor’s disgrace had befallen him (however, this is not what is discussed in Ep. 535), then both Livanius and Euthymius would be powerless against such force majeure. The reader, however, sees that Sievers provides very little support for Gwatkin’s conjecture; if in 354 - 355 Thalassius ex praefecto praetorio figured in the Antioch square as a dethroned greatness (an assumption without the slightest point of support in Amm. Marc. 14, 1. 7), then at the beginning of 355 he could not be present as a delegate invested with the highest confidence at the Sirmian dispute. – That Thalassius G. and Thalassius B. are one and the same person is extremely probable. It seems to me very possible that this benefactor of Livanius was precisely Tualassius Galli insidiator: in the terrible days that followed the murder of Montius and Domitian, he, as a proximus libellorum, could save Libanius from the danger that threatened the latter; this Thalassius had adversarii, cum quibus litigabat in foro, and for whom stood the loud turba supertan; To such a small man Euthymius, even if he was only judex ordinarius clarissimus, I extend a helping hand. – D) O ἱ Θαλασσίου παῖδες , for whom Livanius [1426 b] intercedes with Gayan, president of Phenicia under the emperor. Julian (after September 3, 362): μελετώ σοιτῶν ἐμῶν συγγενῶν. Taking advantage of the circumstances and doing what the imp pleases. Constantius, the representatives of Thalassius took possession of some pagan temple in Phenicia and turned it into a residential building. The Phoenicians, in turn, took advantage of the new trends, took away this house from the children of Thalassius, and in addition began to demand that they build a church at their own expense, and began to cry before the tribunal about the robbery of Thalassius (οί καταβοῶντες, ὅ τι πάντα ἡρπἀκαμεν ). These cries are so similar to the cry: “Thalassius inimicus pietatis tuae nostra violenter eripuit,” that one might wonder if Libanius’ “relatives” were not the orphaned children of Thalassius ex proximo libellorum. This assumption, however, would be erroneous. Interceding [1209] for the “children of Thalassius” before Anatolius, apparently magister officiorum from 360 to June 26, 363 (Amm. Marc. 20, 9, 8; 25, 3, 14) [and certainly not before the Illyrian prefect of the praetorium, as Sievers thinks, 238. 11: what a matter Illyrian prefect to τὰ περὶ τὸν Εὐφράτην ?], Livanius ends the letter with a reminder, ὅ τι καὶ ὁ τῶνδε πατήρ μεγάλοις πραγμασιν ἐπιστὰς , πρ ᾳ ότατα προσενήνεκται καὶ ἀσθενέσι καὶ δυνατοῖς. Talking about “great deeds” ex-proximi libellorum would be simply ridiculous. The eldest of the children of Thalassius [1426 b] was Vassian. Interceding for him before Rufinus [1440], apparently Orientis comes with the imp. Julian from December 362 (Amm. Marc. 23.1, 4; Cod. Th. 15.1, 10), Livanius begins the letters like this: “Vassian is the son of Thalassius τοῦ πἀνυ, son-in-law of Elpidia, my relative and, in addition, a student, a wonderful young man.” That Elpidius's father-in-law was the Paphlagopian Elpidius, who traveled with his wife Aristepete and children to St. Anthony, on the way back he visited St. Hilarion (who healed the three sick sons of Elpidius), and then (from February 360 to November 361) was a phenomenally humane praefectus praetiorio per Orientem (Amm. Marc. 21,6,9; Hieronym. vita s. Hilarion., n. 14) - there can be no doubt about this. Vassian [1462] was married to the Paphlagonian Iriska (not Theodora, as it seemed to Sievers, 226: Theodora [696] was either the wife or mother of the author of the epithalamus), and the marriage took place [1463] undoubtedly when Elpidius was already ex-praefecto praetorio, therefore - most likely - in 362. During the prefecture of Elpidius, relations The showers towards him were not entirely smooth [652]; now he maintains family relations with both Elpidius and Aristepete [1463. 1373. 1301]. And this aristocratic “party”, and the apparently significant land property of Vassian in Phenicia and under the Euphrates, and the μεγαλα πραγματα, which were ruled by Vassian’s father, Thalassius ὁπάνυ, i.e. well known to everyone, - all this leads us to see in this Thalassius the famous praefectus praetorio per Orientem, to which Livanius also wrote at one time [16]. – When Vassian married Prisca [1462], he had “τήθη (= ἡ τοῦ πατρός μήτηρ according to Pliotii bibliotheca, ed. I Becker, Berolini 1824, cod. 279, p. 530, 9) θαυμαστὴ, good brothers, noble uncles, γένος πολύ καὶ ῖσως λαμπρόν ": his father and mother were obviously not alive then; the main role in “catching” the singer – τῇ θήρ ᾳ – is played by Vassian’s grandmother, ἡ ἀρίστη Βασσιανή; and much earlier she also managed the estates of Vassian [232.541. 617. 231. 2 6] and in general only her name, not her father or mother, is mentioned where Vassian is discussed: and his daughter - in honor of her great-grandmother - is named Βασσιανὴ ἡ νεωτάτη [1373]. Livanius says: παρ ’ ἐμοί τε καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἐμαῖς διατριβαῖς had to Vassian καὶ τραφῆναι καὶ ἀνδρω – θῆναι [142 b]. And this is easily understandable: the boy, orphaned at 9–10 years of age in 353, lived with his close relative Libanius. In the winter of 354 and January 1. and 18 Feb. 355 imp. Constantius was in Mediolanus, on March 3 in Sirmium. Gwatkin, 292. – If the dispute, according to Gwatkin, took place before March 3 (see p. 63), then it is not clear a) why it took place not apud comitatum (where at that time all 8 dignitaries could have been present), but in Sirmium: an “on-the-spot investigation” against Photinus was unnecessary - he did not deny anything and did not renounce his teaching - but the appearance of the deposed a bishop among the flock who loved him could lead to a dangerous agitation of minds for his successor Herminius (Athan, h. ar., n. 74 fin.); b) why were eight dignitaries sent, when for this purpose one of them would have been enough - in June 411, at the Carthaginian conference, incomparably more important both in the church and in the public sense than the Sirmian dispute, only one was present judex vir clarissimus et spectabilis Flavius Marcianus, tribunus et notarius (Mansi, IV, 51. 18D. 285B) - This second (b) question is easily resolved if the imperial apartment (comitatus) was located either in Sirmium or in its environs: then the dignitaries had only a walk to an interesting meeting. But in any case, Guotkin remains indebted to the reader without attempting to explain c) why Fotinus’s opponent was not his successor in the department, Germanius, a figure quite noticeable in his time. The intervention of an outsider, Basil of Ancyra, cast an unfavorable shadow on the reputation of Herminius as a learned theologian. See above p. 63 etc. 2. Cod. Theod. 6, 26, 4 [28 February 386] Equal in rank with the four praefecti praetorio in 350–355. there were also viri illusties: praefectus Urbis Romae and - a position established only on December 11, 359 - praefectus urbis Constant Inopolitanae. Viri spectabiles vicarii were precisely comites; This, by the way, is evident from the fact that one of the most important vicars has the title: vir spectabilis comes Orientis. There was an inscription on the codicilli of the vicars of the Asiatic, Pontic and Thracian dieties (Notitia dignitatum, Or. 24, a; 25, a; 26, a). COMes ORDinis PRimi. – Gradually, from among the comites, magister equitum peditum, quaestor, magister officiorum, comes sacrarum largitionum, comes rerum privatarum, and finally even comes domesticorum equitum peditum rose to the rank of illustris. Cod. Theod. 6, 7, 1; 6, 9, 1. 2; 6, 26,17; Not. digiiit., Or. 5–15; Mansi, VI, 563–566. In the catalogus Buckerianus praefectorum Urbis (Migne, S. G. t. 92,1116) the following shifts are marked: “vj. kal Octobris [352] , Neratins Cerealis P. U.; Constantio vj et Constantio ij [353]: Neratius Cerealis P. U; vj id. Decembris Vitrasius Orfitus P.U.” See note. 7. I don’t think Gwatkin. 281.5, cf. 143, sub versu, silently meant this evidence. He undoubtedly does not value S. Artemii and passio highly enough, p. 143: otherwise he, of course, on the same page 281, would not have written “Donitianus, 353” [i.e. i.e. Domitian’s religion is unknown], and “† Do nitianus, 353” [i.e. e. Domitian, Christian]. Words Passio, n. 13: Δομετιανὸν – καὶ – Μόντιον – ἀμφοτέρους ἀπέκτεινεν ἄνδρας – ο ὕ ὁ τῆς πὸλεως περιστεῖλας ἐπίσκοπος ἔθαφεν However, this issue seems to be resolved quite clearly. Zosimi historia nova (ed L. Mendelsohn, Lipsiae 1887) B, 48, p. 105, 28: μόνοι Λατῖνος καὶ Θαλάσσιος [so ex conj. Mendelsohn; cod. Vaticanus graec. 156, saeculi xiv, the only manuscript for the text of Zosimus, gives "Θἀλασσος"; but also RKPP. Cod. Theod. 16,8,7 fluctuate between Thalassium and Thalassum, and in Amm. Marc. 14.7, 9 “Thalassio”, and at 14, 1.10 in the critical apparatus it is marked: “V40;Pba [i.e. e. both manuscripts and a couple of ancient editions] thalassus”; at Athanasius v. both times (note 3) Θάλασσον; track. Zosimus and Ammianus have no reason to doubt the identity of the leader], ' αὐτὸν σταλέντα Μαγνέντιος [κατ] εῖχεν, - The state of affairs was as follows: in 350 an embassy with peace proposals arrived to Constantius from Magnentius. at the head of which was the praefectus praetorio Galliarum Woodcatius Rufinus, the maternal uncle of Caesar Gall (Gwatkin, 276.4; Amm. Marc. 14.11. 27), as well as Neratius Cerealia, who was related to the emperor Constantius himself. It is not surprising, therefore, that Rufinus (who was among the tachygraphers of the dispute) remained with Constantius when the proposals of Magnentius were not accepted by him (Excerpta e Petri patricii hist n. 14 in Bonnense Corpus script, hist, byzant., I. 131, a). The emperor successfully and peacefully ended the usurpation of Vetranion on December 25, 350, appointed the nephew of Rufinus and Cerealia Gallus as Caesar on March 15, 351 for the defense of the East against the Persians and with a united army (his own and Vetranion’s) moved against Magnentius. For further understanding (Zosim. B, 45 49) – the geographical location of the following cities: and the approximate distance between them in mp. (Roman miles) and km. (kilometers): Roman troops usually marched 20 – 24 mp. (Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon, Art. “Tagreise”). per day. - Having learned that Magnentius moved from the Petovion valley towards the river. Save and is about to cross it, the emperor sent Philip to him, praefectus praetorio per Orientem, to negotiate peace (Magnentius was recognized as emperor on the condition that he confine himself to the borders of the Gallic province [and Africa] and retreat from Italy); Constantius at the same time hoped that Philip, as an experienced general and statesman, would find out on the spot the position of the Magnentians and outline a plan of military action. Philip, in front of the entire army of Magnentius, made such a strong speech, struck so accurately at the sense of military honor of the Magnentians, emphasizing how basely they acted, raising arms against the son of that great Constantine, who so many times led them to glory and victory and showered them with benefits, that the rebels almost laid down their arms. Magnentius saw that such a parliamentarian as Philip was very dangerous and, after a short thought, he arrested the ambassador, and the next day, with his speech, he so electrified his soldiers that everyone decided to immediately cross the Sava. The garrison of Siskiy offered resistance to Magnentius; but he deceived them, saying that he was crossing the Sava with the permission of the emperor himself, who, through the belly of Philip, was calling him, Magnentius, to himself to make peace - and was let through. Meanwhile, Constantius stood in the fortified camp at Kivala and gave a banquet to his generals and officers (τῶν ταξιάρχων καὶ λοχαγῶν), in which only the two leading generals, Latinus and Thalasius, did not take part, too concerned that Philip had not returned from Magnentius. Soon afterwards, an ambassador from Magnentius, ex-praefecto Urbis Fabius Titian, arrived with very daring, peaceful conditions: Constantia was offered to follow the example of Vetranion: to abdicate in favor of Magnentius and live in peace and prosperity as a private citizen. Naturally, such conditions were rejected; but Titian was released, although Philip was still kept by Magnentius. After this, the usurper unexpectedly attacked Siskiyou and devastated it, plundered the villages along the Sava and set off for Sirmium, hoping to take this city without a fight, and when the Sirmian garrison gave him a proper rebuff, he with the entire army (of course bypassing Kivala) moved to Mursa. But here, too, the gates were locked in time against him, and a garrison appeared on the walls of Mursa. For the Magnentians, this was a completely unexpected surprise: they did not even have siege engines, ο ὖ τε μηχανὰς ἔχων. Meanwhile, Constantius learned about the siege of Mursa and came with the entire army to the aid of the city, and on September 28 a decisive battle took place. – This entire campaign by Magnentius gives the impression of a marauder’s attack: a constant calculation that there will be no resistance. Apparently they took it with the speed of movement, as far as was possible at the given distances for a large army. Two months is enough for all these vicissitudes. In addition, the following changes of prefects of Rome in 351 are known from the catalogus Bucberianus: These frequent appointments suggest that in June Magnentius had not yet performed in Italy at the Alpes Juliae. And since imp. Constantius was born vij. id. Aag. C. J. Aigne, S. L., t. 13,683: Kalendarium antiquum Furii DionysiiFiiocali, a. 354 conscriptum; cf. Amm. Marc. 21.15, 3) = August 7, then it seems very likely to me that the banquet - βασιλέως δειπνοποιοῦντος - was given precisely on August 7, die natali geiiuiuo. Latin, a German by birth, was at the Rhine prope Rauracum (now Augsi) in the spring of 354 with the emperor. Constantius in the rank of domesticorum comes and with the renommée of the first of those, qui tunc ut dextris suis gestantes rempublicam colebantur, but also with the reputation of a man of rather dubious political loyalty (Amm. Marc. 14, 10, 8. 7). Since Thalassius (Project 20) is second next to Latinus, and - according to Not. dign., Or. 15, - the corps of domestics was commanded by two, comes domesticorum equitum and comes domesticorum peditum, then I assume that in August 351 Thalassius was the commander of the guards infantry. A calumnia de Constante et Magnentio (“hist, aceph.” n 2) was imposed on Paul the Confessor, and he was sent in iron shackles, first to Singara, then to Emisa, and finally to Cucus of Cappadocia, where he was strangled. Τοῦ δὲ τοιούτου θανάτου διάκονον [Ath. de fuga, n. 3, even δήμιον ] ἔλεγον γεγενῆσθαι Φίλιππον τὸν γενόμενον ἔπαρχον . But the prefect also suffered God's punishment: καθηρέθη τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁ Φίλιππος, experienced the bitter fate of a disgraced dignitary and died in a foreign land; The last days of his life were poisoned by the constant fear that a man would come sent to kill him. Atii an. Inst, ad mon., n. 7. This information about the death of Paul of Constantinople (and perhaps about Philip) comes from a source of the highest quality: from the story of Philagrius, who at that time was vicar of the diocese of Pontus. The accusation of Magnentianism was possible no earlier than 350; but scientists - from Tillmon, VI, 832, to Gwotkin 280. 146, 1 - rightly believe that Paul’s death followed in the same year 350. If in Gaul (Amm. Marc, 14, 5) the persecution of the Magnentians continued in 353, then this prefecture was a center of usurpation; but it was possible to assume the existence of “Magnentians” in Constantinople under the weight of the first impression, when the emperor was forced to reckon with two usurpations at once - not in 351, when he happily prevailed over both. That in the fall of 350 they were looking for any treason in Constantinople is very likely: on October 25 the memory of St. notaries, who (Soz. 4, 3; 3, 7, 5. 6) were beheaded on suspicion that they had raised the uprising during which magister equitum Hermogenes died in 342. Memory of St. Paul the Confessor takes place on November 6th and there is no reason to think that the day of his death in the monthly calendar is indicated incorrectly. But less than a year later, Philip suffered disgrace, therefore, even before November 6, 351, he was deprived of the post of prefect. Even in July - August 351, he stood at the height of his position, enjoyed the trust of the emperor and himself served him faithfully. Why he fell into disgrace so quickly is not easy to guess; but it would be strange to doubt the possibility of this disgrace. See Chronicle. Thurs. 1891, T, 453, pr. 61. Mansi, VI, 827. 828A; VII, 272A; VIII, 1128В: Φλαὑιος Ἰ ωάννης Πἀλλὰδιος Εὐτυχιανὸς κόμης καὶ Internal combustion engine, internal combustion engine. III, 359; IV, 248. N. Kiepert, Lehrbuch der alten Geographie [Berlin, 1878], 329; H. Kiepert, Atlas antiquus [Berlin, 1886]. Cillarius-Schwartz, Notitia orbis antiqui [Lipsiae, 1731] I, 474. Eutrop. 9.22; Hioron. chron. a. Abr. 2306. – Eutropi breviarium recogn. F. Ruehl [Lipsiae, 1887] – no options for Serdica; The publication is based on almost 8 manuscripts; Hieronymi chron. ed. A. Schoene [in Eusebi chroni. onim vol. II, Beroin, 1866] – Serdica is read in b pmabeb manuscripts undoubtedly without a variant. – Jerome was born “on the border of Dalmatia and Papnonia” [de vir. inlustr. 135] therefore a distance of about 700 Roman miles =±1035~km. from Serdica. But he a) literally repeats Eutropius here and 6) displays such indifference to Serdica that he does not even mention the Serdica cathedral in the “chronicle”. Consequently, the whole significance of Jerome boils down to the fact that he himself was a writer of the 4th century. and 6 manuscripts of his “chronicle” sufficiently vouch for the fact that he also read from Eutropius [and therefore Eutropius himself wrote] precisely “Serdica”, not Sardira. Not tia dignitatum, ed. O. Seeck [Berolini 1876], p. 1, 20. 21; 11, 13; 19, 6. 7. Haenel ad C. Theod. 9, 9, 1, nota k. P. Krueger, Codicis Theodes ani fragmenta Taurinensia [Berolini 1880J, 7; 24, 31. 37; 28, 20; 33, 1; 87, 2 .– In Haenel [Cod. Theod., fascic. 1, p. iij] Turin fragments are listed under the symbols I and 1. Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum libri, ed V. Gardthausen [with appendix Excerpta Valeriana] (Lipsiae, 1874. 1875), cf. vol. 2, 368. W. Wright, Catalog of Syriae M-s. in the British Museum [London, 1871], 406 (cod. 532: “of about the eighth cent.”. Wed. p. 439, pr. 39; p. 307, pr. 6; cf. Gutschmid I, 443. 450; Larsow, 34–37, and especially Sievers, 150 – 160 and §§ 2. 18. – And so, Larsov in 1852 and Zavers in 1868 are well aware of Sozomen’s dependence on this monument; but in 1884 specialist Ieen [L. Jeep, Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Kirchenhistorikern [Leipzig, 1884], 137–154] no longer reveals the slightest knowledge of the existence of this source, which was used only by Sozomen, not Socrates. And criticism - at least in Theologische Literaturzeitung 1884, Sp. 632 – did not wipe the researcher’s glasses in this direction. But cf. Herzosg Plitt, R.E. 2, Bd. 14, 403 416. 417. 419. 420. Meanwhile, Sozomen used this story when it was not yet “historia acephala” - a story without a beginning,” and it is not difficult to guess that Soz. 2, 21 22, 1 – 3 23, 8 . 31 are taken from this source. In Soz. 2, 25 (cf. Socr. 1, 28 29, 1–3. 30–32) we are dealing with an independent reference in Savin’s Συναγωγή; but is Savin the only source here? Some features could also be taken from Alexandrian history. Wed. Soz. 2. 17, 4. - All this is in the form of material to illuminate the question: how much does science gain from modern writing, which in just 16 years manages to cover up the valuable work of previous scientists so densely with new printed paper that it disappears from the eyes of even specialists, as if under the waves of Lethe? After all, even the highly honorable mention of Sivers in 1882 by Guotkin, xviii. 136. 137. 104, did not save his honest name from such persistent oblivion in 1884. Cureton [see p. 439 pr. 39], (5.1.6.7), introduction and years 329 349 353. 329 353. 343. 356 The difference between “Shrdiqi” and “Shrdisqi” under 343) is irrelevant in the question of Serdica Sardica and is explained by the similarity of the Syriac letters s and q: librarius simply forgot the extra s is crossed out. Eg. Egyptian cities should be counted among the most affected. Instead of “Memphi” (or “Menfi”), “Sai”, Tanya” (or rather “Zhani”) it is “customary” to write Memphis, Sais, Tanis genit. Memphis, Sais, Tanis, as if it were not Egyptian - s - indigenous! – The Egyptian gods Osiris, Isis, Apis, Svrapis, and especially this incomparable Horus (vm. Usiri, Isi, Api, Serapi, Or) are also very good. A simple reference with the names Pa-isi-y. Ta-isi-ya, Isi-dor, Pat-api-y, Serapi-on shows that it is not worth wasting even ink on Greek “decorations”; and the champions of such scientific spelling as Horus are pleased to have the courage to remake Origen into Horusogenes - And sometimes Arabic names have a completely bad time when the Russian hand draws them from a German source. “Russian Spelling” by Academician Ya. K. Grot is decidedly incomplete [however, I only have the 5th edition of 1886] in § 90: supposedly Arabic “Tseyla”, “Zulla” [this is ancient ο Ἀδούλη – and “Zulla”!? – ts!!! ], no less, but more uglier than the Uulich Wagon Daruin; Russian writers should be warned not to rush to transfer any German z to Russian c in oriental names: in Arabic there is no this sound, and the Zulla of the German orientalists means only Zulla. - And the commonly used Mohammed (v. the purist Muhammad) in its spelling ugliness is comparable to any “Gishpaniya”. See Chronicle. Thurs. 1891, I, 450, pr. 52; in pr. 69, also with the question of the authenticity of Quod semper, nothing falls. From Ballerini to Migne, S.L., t. 53 col. 143 – 143 and A. Reifferscheid, Bibliotheca patrum latinorum italica in Sitzungsberichte d. k. [wienei] Akademie d. Wissensrii., phil.-hist. Classe, Bd. xlix [1865], 35 – 40. f. 99 b Haec scribentes – f. 112 end of “historia acephala”; f. 114 Simplici – f. 116 end Quoniam cognovi. The very epistles of Haec scribentes Etiam Sancta in Migne, SG., t. 26, col. 1331–1338; SL., t. 53, col. 848–854. All these documents, as well as the message Me inimus (col. 389) by Ballerini, are recognized as authentic. The Ballerini think that Theodosius was simply a copyist of the cod. Veron., not a translator: for this purpose the scribe cod. Veron. was too illiterate. But transtuli - recorrexit could hardly be said about himself by a simple copyist. In any case, the translator lived after the Council of Chalcedon. I, 613–614, “Diese Excerpte zeigen, glaube ich, zur Genüge die Unächtheit dieser drei Stücke. [A] Wo in aller We’t werden die Eusebianer von sick selbst gesagt haben: “wir sind Feinde Christi? [B] Aber auch abgesehen davon, ist der ganze Inhalt dieser drei Briefe matt und lahm, die beständige Wiederholung der gleichen Worte unerträglich, die ganze Art und Weise geistlos und trivial. Dazu kommt, dass [a] das ganze christliche Alterthum von diesen drei Aktenstücken nichts wusste, und [b] sie gar nirgends anders als in jenem veronesischen Codex existiren, so dass wir sie nicht für acht anzuerkennen vermögen.” The letters ABCab were inserted by me, of course. Athan. apol. With. ar. n. 40. I, 555. According to the contents of Meminimus Soz. 3,12,5.6. The authenticity of Meminimus is hardly doubted by Gwatkin, 123, and Harnack, II, 240. - According to Langen, I, 448, 1, it is invented”, “erdichtet”; but this is incomparably easier to say than to prove. I, 343; Wed W. Möller in Herzog, RE 2, Bd. 9.535: “die von Maffei edirten alten Urkunden, jedenfalls die glaubwürdigsten über den Gegenstand.” Athan. hist, arian. ad mon. nn. 3. 9. 15. 30. 42. 43. The judgments of scientists about this work are rather uncertain; eg N. Weingarten (in Herzog, RE 2, Bd. 10,777). “der doch nicht unmittelbar athanasianischen sogenannten historia arianorum ad monachos”; Bright (W. Bright, in Wace and Smith's Dictionary, 1,195, London, 1877), editor of Historical Writings of St. Athanasius [Oxford, 1881]: “it is difficult to resist the impression that at least part of this history was written under the supervision of Athanasius by one of his friends or by his secretary. For the most part, Athanasius is spoken of in the third person; but the first person (“we”) is also found.” – This historia is preceded by a letter τοῖς ἁ πανταχοῦ κατὰ τόπον τὸν μονήρη βίον ἀσκοῦσι, from which it is clear that history was written according to the persistent request of the monastics; and at the end (n. 3) the following lines are read: ἐντυχὸντες – ε ὔ χεσθε μὲν – ὑπερἡμῶν εὐθύς δὲ ἀντιπέμψατε ταῦτα πρὁς ἡμ ᾶ ς * καὶ μηδενὶ τὸ σύνολον ἀντίγραφον ἔκδοτε , μηδὲ ἑαυτοῖς μεταγράψοτε , ἀλλ ’ ἀρκέσθητε ὤ ς δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται τ ῇ ἐντευξει , κ ἂ ν πολλακις ἐντυχεῖν θελήσητε. ? καὶ ἰδιωτῶν ἐστι γράμματα . So, the author allows his recipients to read the story - if desired - even several times, but obliges them, after reading, to immediately return the manuscript to him and not only not let anyone else copy it, but not even keep copies of it for themselves. It is clear that this story was not intended by the author for publication at that time: this work is confidential in the strict sense. And this is quite clear from the nn. given above, and especially from nn. 74 [below before note. 16]. 80 77. 75. 76 67. 68. 69. 54. 30“. To the question: how did this work appear in manuscripts? It seems to me that there are four possible answers. I arrange them in ascending order from possible to most probable, α) The time came when the author himself recognized the seal of confidentiality as no longer unnecessary, β) His will was not respected by his readers: they secretly made a copy of history. γ) Amazing memory - not an entirely rare phenomenon in ancient man - retained the story read several times almost in full; diktat and composed - so to speak - its editio princeps, when its author had already died, δ) The original manuscript was not destroyed by the author, but was found after his death and published. – All these answers do not in the least prevent us from recognizing Athanasius himself as the author of the story. directly; answer γ most simply explains the predominance of the third person (“he”, “Athanasius”) over the first (“we”). – But reading the last lines written above, it is extremely difficult to admit that this is what Afanasy V. is saying: this self-deprecation of the great writer’s words about the incarnation, words against the Arians, an apology for the imp. Constance; does such an author have the right to call himself ὁ ψελλίζων καὶ ἰδιώτης!? – To radically eliminate this difficulty, I would risk putting forward one hypothesis (to justify it I do not have sufficient data in my eyes; but it would hardly be easy for anyone to undermine it scientifically) In what language did Athanasius write? your “history”)? What if it's in Coptic? His relations with the monks of the Tavennisian congregation (Theodore) are indisputable; Of course, there was no shortage of motivation to become familiar with the only generally understood language in Thebaid for one who both wanted and knew how to be everything; as a highly gifted person, Afanasy v. and managed enough in Coptic to try - at least - to dictate in it to a natural Copt, and at the same time did not fall into any illusions regarding the literary merits of his dictate, knowing full well that he, a highly educated Alexandrian Greek, in Coptic only ψελλίζει as ἱδιώτης; that if this record is preserved for posterity, then in a Coptic reader who has not experienced the charm of the moral personality of the great “beloved pope”, this “story” will perhaps cause a smile. – The text, now preserved, is a reverse translation from Coptic, made by a person who was very familiar with Athanasius’s style and may have used the Greek rough sketches of Athanasius himself. Thus the historia arianorum in some parts is the direct creation of Athanasius. in the exact sense, and in the rest - conditionally immediate (immediate in a purer sense than it comes out according to Bright). – The only merit that the Coptic mediation hypothesis claims is that, according to it, Athanasius’s extremely modest review. about one’s work is not a mask that humiliates, but there is a high truthfulness of a strong and bright mind, alien to any exaggeration, which morally adorns it. – A. Eichhorn (A. Eichhorn, Athauasii de vira ascetica testimonia collecta, Halis baxonum, 1886, pp. 57–62 defends the authenticity of hist. ar. in a special Appendix, rightly notes “με” along with “Ἀθανάσιον” in paragraph 21 as evidence of “luce clarius”, that “I” in this work is Athanasius himself, - an argument after which can only be put “ἡμ ᾶ ς” p. 15 and “ἐθελήσωμεν” p. 9, - but, citing ep ad. 5 textually, as if he does not notice the difficulty that the expressions present: ἰδιώτου καὶ μάλιστα περὶ τῶν ἀνωτατων καὶ κορυφαιοτατων δογμάτων , μήποτε τὸ διὰ την ἀσθένειαν ἤ τὸ ἀδιατράνωτον τῆς γλώττηςἐνδεῶς εἰρημένον βλαβην τοῖς ἀναγινώσκουαιν ἐμποιήση ? σκοποῦσιν, ἀλλ ’ ἤ διὰ φθόνον ἢ δι ’ ἔριν, ἦ ς προελήφθησαν κατὰ διάνοιαν δόξης , ὡ ς ἄν θελήσωσιν αὐτοὶ , δέχονται , καὶ "" This aspect of the question was left to him without any explanation, just as Bright did not touch upon it [neither in Dict. nor in the Introduction, lxxvii, to Hist. Wr.]. Eichhorn completely erroneously considers (in view of the alleged contradiction between “τοῖς ἀπανταχοῦ” and the prohibition to make copies) the address before ep. ad mon.: the confidential history of the Arians circulated through the hands of many readers, but only those for whom the author intended it. – To avoid a possible misunderstanding, I’ll make a reservation that the note about Eichhorn was added after note 9 was added. When I wrote these lines, I did not have H:st at hand. Wr. of S. Ath. with an Introduction by Bright. It is with pleasure that I am writing out this book, R. Ihhiiii, next. place: “we thus see that, as a work intended for private circulation, as a work de-signed for secret circulation, histoiia arianorum is marked by that rhetorical freedom that the author would avoid in a book published in the world. More than once expressions are put into the mouths of the Arians that even the most prosaic reader would not think that the Arians actually used. The author does not present such words as a literal statement of what they said or wrote; this is only an ad invidiam reproduction of what is supposed to have been on their minds. Repeatedly is language put info the mouths of Arians which the most prosaic reader could not suppose they actually to have used. It is not, and does not pretend to be, a textual reproduction of what they said and wrote, but a representation ad invidiam, of what is assumed to have been in their minds. See nn. 1.3. 9. 12. 15. 30. 42. 45. 60. The Arians are often credited with the expression “our heresy” - Examples of such a transfer are found in ep. ad ep. Acg. n. 18. προστῆναι τῆς αἰρέσεως “, cp. "circumvenire didicimus", p. 84]; orat. With. ar. 3, 17, and her - so to speak - theory was expressed in de Synod n. 7. ῇ διανοι ᾳ ταύτ ῃ πάντα πεποιήκασί τε καὶ διετάραξαν ].” – Of course, the words in [ ] were added by me. – Wed. A. P. Lebedev, Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. [Moscow, 1879], 16. S. Sharpe ’e Geschichte Egyptens, deutsch bearbeitet von Dr. H. Jolowicz, revidiert und berichtigt von A. v. Gutschmid [Lpz, 1862, 2. Ausg.], II, 138. 139: von den Alexandrinern selbst entwirft ihr Landsmann Dion Chrysostomos [36 p. 670 R 41 RUR 673 L.?] nicht das schönste Bild... Sarkastisches Geschwätz, Witz und Stichelreden waren überdem noch Hauptfehler der Alexandriner.” Cp. ibid., II, 131. 172 [slaughter of the Alexandrians in 216]; cf. Fl. Vopisci Saturnin. 7, 8. I write out from Δίωνος Χρυσοστόμου πρὸς ἀλεξανδρεῖζ λόγος λβ᾿ next. lines: p 360 (653): καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ γελοῖοί ἐστε καὶ ἡδεῖς ... καίτοι τινὲς ἐπαινοῦσιν ὑμ ᾶ ς ὡ ς σοφούς τε καὶ δεινούς ὅ τι ἄμα καὶ τὰ δέοντα ἔννοεῖτε καὶ ταχύ φθέγγεσθε ὁ τι ἂ ν ἐννοήσητε ἐγῶ δὲ μάλλον ἄν ὑμ ᾶ ς ἐπήνουν βραδύ μεν φθεγγοαένους , ἐγκρατῶς δὲ σιγῶντας, ὀρθῶς δὲ διανοουμένους, p. 367 (666) ἀεὶ περίεστε, καὶ ἰδιωτῶν καὶ βασιλέων, p. 389 (691): καὶ ἀπὸρρητα λέγοντες καοῦντες . – To the natural Egyptian, serious, thoughtful, almost sad, the Alexandrians, ν – ρμ – ρακοτε, were antipathetic – by the way – and because they were εν – ρε f- σκοπτει, “mockers.” Steindorff, Gesios u.Isidoros in Zsch. f. äg. Spr. 1883, S. 144 [Chronicle. Thurs. 1884, XI, 608]. Anastasius of Sinai (Ὁ δηγός, p. 10, ῥ. 71. 77, Migne, SG. t. 89, 149.161) once had a public debate in Alexandria with the Theodosians and Gayanites. Previously, he decided to “be corrupt with the obstinate” and, together with his opponents, signed an extremely pleasant for them (essentially giving them victory in advance) συνδοκτικὸν, that the word φύσις, whenever it is applied to Christ, means the same as πρόσωπον. This συνδοκτικὸν was read publicly. Then Anastasius invited the Monophysites to read a rather long τὸμος, which all consisted of extracts from Monophysite authorities (for the most part) and from the works of Cyril of Alexandria and other saints. fathers. On his own behalf, Anastasius added only a brief but forcibly accurate explanation of these quotes based on συνδοκτικόν. The effect of this reading was indescribable, the disgrace of the Monophysites was complete: everywhere and everywhere the absurdity was obtained that both the fathers and the Monophysite theologians preach two persons in Christ. To complete the chagrin of the Monophysites, he mercilessly and loudly teased them. διαλέκτ ῳ ἐπιχωριάζων. Finally, ἐτύπωσαν οἰ αὐτόθι λέγοντες · " Δὸς τῷ θεοδοσιανῷ καὶ γαϊανίτ ῃ εἴ τι ζητεῖ, καὶ εὐθέως ἀπὸλλυται ". Compare the same προλογιν, said in February 356 by the Alexandrian pagans, when the Arians began be very heroic against the Orthodox: " ἐπέγνωσαν «. Athan hist. ar. ad mon. n. 56. Cf. Soz. 7, 20, 5 [выходка по адресу Нила]. Cf. Theophan. a. 5967, ed. deBoor I, 121, 20. Что Афанасий в умел расплатиться с александрийскими ν – ρε f- σκοπτει by Alexandrian coin, shows the following story [Gwatkin, 83, 2] in Soz. 4, 10, 6. 7: λόγος ο ὗ ν, ποτὲ ? κρῶξαι κορώνην παρατυχὸν δὲ πλῆθος ἑλλήνων , ο ἶ α εἰς γὸητα ἀποσκῶπτον, ἐξαιτῆσαι εἰπεῖν αὐτοῖς ὅ, τι λέγοι ἡ κορώνη. [CRAS] ῇ ῥ ωμαίων φων ῇ. τοῦτο τοίνυν κράζουσα , ἀηδ ῇ τὴν α ὔ ριον ὑμῖν ἔσεσθαι ?? κωλυθήσεσθαι ὑμ ᾶ ς τὴν ἑξῆς ἑορτήν ἄγειν. Ἡ δὲ Ἀθανασίου πρὸρρησις, καίπερ γελοιώδης δόξασα, ἀληθὴς ἐφἀνη τ ῇ γὰρ ἐς α ὖ ριον γράμματα το ὖ κρατοῦντος ἀπεδὸθη - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - τε ο ὗ σα καὶ πολυτελής ἔλλησιν . Hist ar., nn. 39. 13. 33. 38. 41 47. 50. 53. 61. 67. 68. 71. 77. 80; apol, c. ar. nn. 2. 60. 90; ep ad ep. Aeg. nn. 6.8; de fuga nn. 24. 27. Hist. ar. n. 17; cf. ad ep. Aeg. n. 13. Hist. ar. nn. 74. 27. 38. 46. 53. 58. 62. 64. 3. 46. 12. 25. 27. 38; or. de incani. nn. 35. 36. 46. 49–51; ep. ad ep Aeg. nn. 4. 7. 9.; epistola ad Dracontium nn. 2. 4. 6. 7. 8 10. This message contains only 10 numori (260 lines ed. Migne); the appeal ἀγαπητὲ Δρακόντιε was repeated 7 times (and one more time ἀγαπητέ): from this it is clear in what a sincere tone the message was written; however, I counted thirty-nine interrogative sentences in it (with τίς; πόσος; πότε; etc.). Habetis enim mundum universum condolentem vobis; et, quoi majus est, habentem omnes vos in mente. So habentem in mente is more important than condolentem. I think the following can help clarify the meaning of this difference. reference. From the collection of prof. N. F. Krasnoseltseva “Materials for the history of the rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" (Kazan, 1889) 1, 27. 66. 111 it is clear that even in the XIII-XV centuries. during hierarchal services, the deacon’s proclamation (after Worthy is before In the first remember): “And everyone and everything” had a more complete form: καὶ ὦ ν ἔκαστος κατὰ διάνοιαν ἔχει [resp. ἔχομεν ] καὶ πάντῶν καὶ πασῶν [And everyone (from us) has them in mind and everyone and everything]. These words form the conclusion of the diptych of the dead that was read secretly before. But - inconsistently - these additional words are not present in the conclusion of the diptych of the living - In the Coptic liturgy of St. Kirill [E. Renaudot, Liturgiaruni orientalium collectio (Parioiis, 1716), I, 42. 44] there is no such inconsistency: there the expression: quos unusquisque nostrum in mente habet the celebrant pronounces at the conclusion of both diptychs, both dead and living. But the same liturgy, which in Coptic bears the name of St. Cyril, in Greek (with abbreviations) called the Liturgy of St. Evangelist Mark. Ancient Alexandrian sign -Memento after va Praefatio before Consecratio [Bickell in Kraus, Real-Encyklopadie d. Christl. Alterthümer (Freiburg im Br., 1886) II, 326] – preserved in both. Therefore, without risk, we can assume that ὧ ν ἐκαστος κατα διάνοιαν ἔχομεν was proclaimed in Egypt under Athanasius V., and he brings this cry to the memory of the Alexandrians as the greatest encouragement for them. Again the same expression: orate pro nobis, habentes in mente viduarum necessitates. Wed. Rome. 15, 30–32. 25–29. That this is a truly Athanasievian turn of phrase, cf. epist. ad Drac. n. 10; convincing the “beloved Drakoptius” to return to Lesser Ermupolis and again take control of the bishopric, Athanasius c. writes in conclusion: σπεῦδε – καὶ ἐπίστρεφε πρὀς τὸν Κύριον , ἵ να τῶν προβάτων αὐτοῦ φροντίζων, μνημόνευσες καὶ ἡμῶν. Birkatu-'l-Marjut, ἡ Μαρεία λίμνη. Cf. Mahmoud-Bey, Mémoire sur l’antique Alexandrie (Copenhague, 1872) 89. 93 [qarm] – 96 [the ruins of the main Mareot village, Παλαιμάρεια κώμη, occupy an area of ​​½ km. length, 800 m. width, near Abu-l-hait, under 30 about 0'55" s. latitude, 29°41'55" e. d. Gr.]; Cellarius-Schwartz, Notitia orbis antiqui (Lipsiae, 1732), II, 766 768; Athan. ap. c. ar. nn. 63 85. 73 – 75: ἐστίν ἐν ταύτῃ σχίσμα Μελίτιος οὐκ ἠ δυνήθη ποιῆσαι , καὶ οὐδέποτε ἐν τ ῇ χώρ ᾳ γέγονεν ἐπίσκοπος , οὐδέ χωρεπισκοπος ἀλλὰ τῷ τ ῇ ς Ἀλεξάνδρειάς ἐπισκὸπ ῳ αί ἐκκλησίαι πάσης τῆς χῶρας ὑπὸκεινται ἕ καστος δὲ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἔχει τὰς ἰδίας κώμας μεγίστας, καὶ ἀριθμ ῳ δέκα που καὶ πλέονας. Under the καθαίρεσις Arius (c. 320) 17 presbyters and 24 deacons of Alexandria and 19 presbyters and 20 deacons of Mareota signed their names; under the protest of [8] September 335, 16 presbyters and 5 [sic] deacons of Alexandria and 15 presbyters and 15 deacons of Mareotia signed (διεμαρτύραντο) - Socr. 1,27, 13: κῶμαι δὲ εἰσιν ἐν αὐτ ῇ [Μαρεώτ ῃ χώρ ᾳ] πολλαὶ σφοδρά καὶ πολυάνθρωποι καὶ ἐν αὐταῖς έκκλησίαι πολλαὶ καὶ λαμπραί Athan. ap. c. ar. nn. 73–77. 14. 15. 85. 83; Hilar. fr. 3, 29; Soz. 3.12, 7. Athan. hist. ar. n. 15 (see page 87). Sophron. ss. Cyri et Joann. miracula [Migne. S.G. t. 87, 3593], με᾿: ὁ κοβιώτης – (τῶν καμήλων) ἐφροντιζε. Cf. names of localities Πλινθίνη and Μονοκάμινον in Ptolem. geogr. 4, 5, 8. 34. Arseny, Bishop of Ipsilia, inscribes his message: Ἀθανασί ῳ μακαρί ῳ πάπ ᾳ, the text reads: γραφομέν σοι, ἀγαπητέ πάπα , in the signature μακαριώτατε πάπα. In their protest, the Mareotian presbyters and deacons call the fathers of the Council of Tyre ἀγαπητοὶ πατέρες, the first to sign under it: Ἰ γγένιος πρεσβύτερος Athan. ap. c. ar. nn. 69. 74. – That the true historical title of the bishop of Alexandria was “pope” [not “patriarch”] and that in the 4th century and subsequent centuries the bishop of Alexandria was called pope almost more often than the bishop of Rome, this is of course known to readers even without my quotations. Ballerini [or also Maffei] correctly (vm. pareambulam handwritten) published parembolam. But they do not know any παρεμβολὴ near Alexandria (ἡ Ἀλεξάνδρου παρεμβολὴ [Ptolem. 4,5,33 at 4° longitude west of Alexandria] and l’arembole near Siina in Itiner. Anton, lie too far from Alexandria) and pose the question: in a genuine vm. καὶ τ ῇ Παρεμβολ ῇ didn’t stand παροικούς ῃ (as in the epistle of the Serdik cathedral Καὶ πρὶν μέν, which in the address really does not mention Paremvola)? “It seems,” they reason, “the words et Parembolam came here by mistake: there is no reason why this letter is addressed [except to Alexandria] specifically to some Paremvola, and not to other more glorious churches of Egypt. And in the letter itself, Athanasius does not address anyone other than the Alexandrians.” The last remark is inaccurate: in the text of the message of Athanasius v. never calls his recipients anything other than “beloved brethren.” – What Hefele means by Paremvola remains unknown, since he omitted this word. But the considerations already given by Ballerini show that “et pareambulam” constitutes such a cipher that it is not easy to forge. In the famous βρεβίον ordained by Melitius [Athan. ar. With. ar. n. 71] Μακάριος πρεσβύτερος τῆς Παρεμβολῆς is mentioned right after the Alexandrian clerics. - When St. Peter of Alexandria was already taken to τὰ Βουκόλου, οὐ – προαστιον ντε πι – αγιος Μαρκος [suburb of St. Mark], St. the archbishop saw two people ευνηου εβολ? εν τι – παρεμβολη ε ?p ηι e- τι – βακι [who walked from Paremvola towards the “city”]; they – it turned out – were Christians and went ε h ουν ε – τι – βακι, to the “city”, to sell leather and συνδονιον ; but their skin and sindon were honored to serve as the first burial shrouds of the holy martyr. V. Hyvernat, Les actes des martyrs de l’Égypte (Paris-Rome, 1887) I, 277. - This place shows quite clearly that Paremvoda lay northeast of Alexandria. – I am hardly mistaken in comparing with this Jo. Malalae chronogr. 69: ἐτυράννησαν οἱ αἰγύπτιοι – - καὶ ἐπεστράτευαε κατ ’ αὐτῶν ὁ αὐτὸ ; ?? ? τὸνἀγωγὸν καὶ στρέφας αὐτόν aro τοῦ λεγομένου Κανῶπου καὶ παρέχοντα χρῆσιν τ ῇ πόλει . – Victor, tunuuensis ecclesiae episcopus, – this chronograph writes about itself under 555, – tertio aiexandrino – – – exsilio mittitur et carceri castelli Diocletiani post praetorianum carcerem truditur. - This Diocletian citadel, qyсur, castellum Diocletiani, is the Παρεμβολή it was apparently a fortified Roman camp, φοσάτα, and such a purpose ἡ Παρεμβολή. - as the name itself shows [cf. Acts 21, 34 37; 22, 24 23, 10] - it retained it later: here were the barracks of the legion that stood near Alexandria under the command of dux Aegypti (that not only soldiers lived in Paremvola, this is clear from the above details of the martyrdom of Peter of Alexandria and the remnants have survived to this day). This Roman fortification is 291 steps long and 266 steps wide with walls 5 – 5/2 steps thick. Its Arabic name is “qaçru-’l-qajâçirah” =~%Г[ka'stron tw~n% καισάρων]. 64) and the author of Murray's Handbook for travelers in Lower and Upper Egypt (London, 1880, p. 141) identify Kasru-l-kayasir with the ancient Nicopolis of Neruios Bey [Dr. Nérovtsos-Bey, L'ancienne Alexandrie (Paris, 1888), pp. 87.116.128. 85] more correctly believes that the “fortress of the Caesars” is only one part of Nicopolis. The tombstone inscriptions in the cemetery adjacent to this citadel gave this scientist the opportunity to find out which legions and cavalry regiments (alae) were quartered in this fortress. Legio secunda Trajana fortia Germanica, from the time of Trajan (G. R. Sievers, Stadien zur Geschichte der römischen Kai er [Berlin, 1870], 136) is mentioned more than once in this cemetery. But from Notitia dignitatum [ed. O. Seeck (Beroiini, 1876) Or. 28, is. was among others Legio secunda Trajana, Paremho'e. The last word indicates the site and - I think - categorically decides the question of what Kasru-l-Kayasira was called at the beginning of the 5th century. But this Paremvola was in Nicopolis and apparently replaced this last name in common use, although in official spheres they still spoke about Nicopolis on September 21, 367, the Arian bishop Lucius was unwise. to appear in Alexandria and almost paid with his life. The most urgent measures were taken to shelter him from the fury of the crowd in the house of dux [chief of troops] Trajan himself, and then dax manicans et habens eum usque Nicopolin tradidit militibus Aegypto deducendum (Historia acephala, n 13). If the dux himself was forced to lead Lucius by the hand and cover him with his personality, then obviously a strong enough escort was required to protect him on his further journey. This convoy was taken in Nikopol and, of course, in Paremvol. – 5.2 km. = distance from Cleopatra's needle. [Καισάριον in antiquity] to Kasrul-Kayasir according to the map of Neroutsos Bey. - Apparently Paremvola - Nikopol constituted the extreme north-eastern point of the territory of the Alexandrian bishop. In ancient Canopus (at a distance of 12 Roman miles = 17.7 kilometers from Alexandria near present-day Abukir, Abûqîr) there was apparently no Christian population until the time of Theophilus (385 - 412). Hieronym. regulae s. Paehom. praef. n. 1; Eunap. vita Acdesii; Cyilli alex. orat, α᾿, β᾿, γ᾿ ( Migne, S. G., t. 77, 1099–1105 = Mai, Spicil. Rom., IV, 248 – 252; Mansi VI, 1025V DVS Ш, 585, [Sophronii?] vita ss. Cyri et Joannis, ιε᾿ . ις᾿ Мigпе , S. G. t. 87, 3688) Rufini h. e. 2, 26 Zoega, Catalog. codd. copt. mss. (Roma, 1810), p 265 [however, this place is on “ιστορια ντεκκλησια”, which is discussed in Chr. Thurs. 1886, I. 141, but since the essence of the news is confirmed by the quotations given above, this muddy source is not without value: it shows that in Egypt they were firmly convinced that only under Theophilus, not under Athanasius. Christianity has become more or less firmly rooted in Canopus]. The notorious κανωβισμός [Cellarius-Schwartz, II, 772; Juvenal. sat. vi. 84; xv, 46; Seueca ep. 51; Sirabon geogr. IZ, 16. 17] sufficiently explains why it was so difficult for Christianity to establish itself here. – Politically, Alexandria was, so to speak, a city without a district. What we would call a “county” constituted a special nome with the main city of Maly Ermunol. Ptolem. geogr. 4, 5, 46: Ἀλεξανδρέων χώρας νομὸς καὶ μητρόπολις Ἑ ρμούπολις μικρά . The same is true in church terms: in Lesser Ermupol (Coptic τιμι - ν -ъ ωρ, Arabic Damanhûr) there was an independent department. Moreover: even closer to Alexandria was the bishopric of Schedia: next to Dracontius, bishop of Lesser Hermoupolis, to τόμος πρὸς τούς ἀντιοχεῖς (n. 10) signed Ἀγαθοδαίμων Σχεδίας καὶ Μενελαῖτου. And his predecessor, Atta, was present at the Council of Nicaea. – By rail from Alexandria to Damanhur – only 62 kilometers; and from Alexandria to Schedia (now “an-Nishu”, “al-Nišû”) only 4 schina (Sirabon, IZ, 16: τετράσχοινον), i.e. 25.2 kilometers [F Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie (2 Bearbeitung, Berlin 1882), 613; Murray's handbook, 146; Meyer''s Reisebuch: Aegypten (Lpz., 1881), 184] Consequently, all the areas beyond the isthmus between lakes Abukir and Maryut lay outside the territory of the Alexandrian bishop; this department was then directly under the jurisdiction only of the places named in the address of Athanasius’ letters, i.e. Alexandria with Paremvoda (Nicopolis) and the city of Mareot, and nothing can be objected to the historical accuracy of the addresses and picky geographical criticism - The position of "tour d'Aboukir" was determined by the astronomer Nouet; a point in Alexandria in front of ancient Caesarion, marked by "Cleopatra's needle", designated on the basis of triangulation data from 1798 and observations by Nue. Damanhur and an-Lishu are taken from the map of lower Egypt (par Jacotin & Jomard, scale 1:500000) in Description de l’Égypte, 2-de édition par Panckoucke [Paris 1830], État mo lerne, t. XVIII, 3, cf. t. XI, 1. – Kilometer0.937398 versts; Roman mile, μίλιον, mille passuum, lapis, σημεῖον = 1.4785 kilometers - 693 Russian fathoms; in other words: the ancient Russian field [Matthew 5:41] was nothing more than a Roman mile. However, Quod semper is unimportant even from the point of view of diversity: to the case of Afanasy v. There are only 7 lines there. According to Itinerarium Burdigalense and – partly – according to Kipert’s Atlas Antiquus [Chron. Thurs. 1891, I, 512.9 511]. In the so-called “decem provinciae, suburbicariae” - with W. Möller, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte [Freiburg i.B., 1889] I, 357, against Lan gen, I, 417. 399 and E. Löning, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts [Strassbürg, 1878], I, 435–450. That "in Italia" (p. 101) presents considerable difficulty is indisputable; but even on the sieve of Lenipg one can hardly calm down. θεῖος νόμος "Τὸ τ ῇ εὐσεβεστάτ ῃ" is followed by διάταγμα τῶν ἐπάρχων " Οὐδὲν ο ὔ τω “, as well as behind the sacra Πρέπειν – edictum praefectorum Καὶ νόμων Mansi, V, 413–420; cf. ibid. 958 – 961 (Synodicon, c. 179. 183. 184, cf. c. 188. 189], where the sacrum is commented on by the magister militum Dionysius in an order to his governor, the committee of domestics Titus, and this in turn comments on the decree in his order to the presid (judex) of Euphrates Libyan. Causa Polychronii proper constitutes the second half of Acta Sixii. Text in Mansi, V, 1161–1178. The title of deacons "Roman citizens" is so - absurdly - strange that its origin should probably be attributed to the illiteracy of the copyist, who abbreviated it as CS.ROM. or CC.R. read civesromanos instead of cardinales romanos. τῶν δὲ ἐν τῇ συνὸδ ῳ γραψἀντων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπισκόπων τὰ ὀνόματἀ ἐστι τάδε. Ὅ σιος ἀπὸ Σπανίας ,Ἰ ούλιος Ῥ ώμης δι ’ Ἀργιδάμου καὶ Φιλοξένου πρεσβυτέρων, Πρωτογένης Σερδικῆς. The personality of the legates completely disappears behind Julius: in them he himself is considered to be present at the council, and if nothing more was known about the Serdica council, then on the basis of this passage one could - and almost should - assume that Julius was personally present at the council and occupied second place, but for some reason ordered the presbyters to sign in his place. A self-evident example in Chr. Thurs. 1891, I, 446, pr. 46: legatis of the original is translated without any extravagances τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. A. W. W. Dale, The Synod of Elvira [London, 1882], 313. 314. 49–52. – H.Th. Bruns, Bibliotheca ecclesiastica [Berolini, 1839], Ιί, 1. Πῶς δὲ, - say the fathers of the Council of Alexandria in 339 about the Eusebians, - σύνοδον ὀνομάζειν τολμῶσιν [Council of Tyre 335], ἦ ς κὸμης προὐκάθητο καὶ παρῆν σπεκουλἀτωρ καὶ κομενταρ [ ησ ] ιος ἡμᾶς εἰσήγεν ἀντὶ διακόνων τῆς εκκλησίας ; Athan. ap. c. ar., n. 8. Indeed, the duties of “bailiffs” at the councils were performed by deacons. Mansi VI, 729C, but 988D. D.V.S., III, 277. but 558. – Iv Nomina episcoporum cum clericis suis [Mansi, IJ, 476] it is clear that at the Council of Arelat in 314 44 departments were represented, of which 33 were represented by the bishops themselves (who were accompanied by presbyters, deacons and lower clergy), legates – 9 presbyters and 2 deacons. Under some legates there were also deacons or lower clergy. But whether the deacons, exorcists and readers signed the acts of the council and - most importantly - in what form is unknown. And we can pose another question: did the legate deacons have the same powers as the legate presbyters? The inscription of the message Communi copula “to the most beloved Pope Sylvester” contains 33 names, of which only 4 or 3 can be identified with legate presbyters, and there is not a single deaconal name. The oldest news about this is in the message of the Alexandrian Cathedral of Athau. ap. with ar., n 6), and then in Hilar. fr. 2, 33. Friedrich, Zur ältesten Geschichte des Primates in der Kirche [Bonn, 1879], 177, see in Die Constantinische Schenkung, 51. The so-called IV Antiochene formula presents the skeleton of the Nicene symbol without its vivus nervus, the diagram without its content, and ends with an abbreviated Nicene anathematism on Arianism. Let's call this anathematism α. In this form, the formula is repeated textually by the Council of Philippopolis in 343, and in the ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος of 344 and in the Sirmian first formula, in which the anathematism of the 1st literally = α. But the Council of Philippopolis supplemented this formula with the following tirade (Hilar. de synod. n. 34): Similiter et eos, [ a ]quidicunt tres esse deos, [ b ] ve Christum non esse Deum, [ c ] et ante saecula neque Christum neque Filiumesse Dei, [ d ] vel ipsum esse Patrem et Filium et Sanctum Spiritum, [e] vel innascibilem Filium, [f] vel quod neque consilio neque voluntate Pater genuerit Filium: anathematizat sancta et catholica ecclesia. In ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος this addition is repeated textually and (together with α) constitutes numerus 2 of this exposition; clarification on a and e is n. 3, on a and b: n. 4, on c = nn. 5.6, on d n. 7, on f pn. 8. 9, conclusion = n. 10. – On the contrary, in the Sirmian 1st formula the Philippopolitan addition is not textually repeated, but its content is exhausted with more or less literalness in anathematisms 22 (a), 18 (d), 25, (f) and 26 (e); The 27th sums up the meaning of the main subject of dispute; anathematism of the 24th (against the Arians) is borrowed from n. 8. ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος. Consequently, only 20 anathematisms constitute the spiritual property of the cathedral. That in the Sirmian 1st formula a response is given to some dogmatic questions put forward after the Council of Antioch in 344, this is noted by both Guotkin, 146 - 147, and Harnack, II, 244, g; but the first is hardly right when he claims that anaf. 5-7 are directed only against Markell. – Anathematisms are preserved in the Greek text in Athan. de synod.n. 27 (and the dependent Socr. 2, 30, 5–30) and in the Latin translation by Hilar. de synod., nn. 38 – 61. The main difference between the text and the translation is that the 11th Greek anathematism in St. Ilaria is ranked 23rd. Since it also occupies a place in Hilary’s own commentary on it (n. 57), it is obvious that such an order was in the list that St. read. Hilary, and this list should be given preference over Afanasyev’s: St. Hilary had every opportunity to receive correct copies of formulas from the Basilians themselves (cf. n. 91: litterarum [of the Council of Ancyra 358] fidem teneo, non a laicis sumptam, sed ab episcopis datam), and Athanasius v. was forced to obtain copies, perhaps from fifth hands. In approx. 32 are canceled with an asterisk * those places where I corrected the Greek text based on the translation and commentary of St. Ilaria. Constant contraction: αε = ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Athan. de syn., n. 26, iv. However, there is not as much “fantasy” in the proposed dialogue as it might seem. This, I hope, is clear from the approx. 32. The main assumption of my experience: St. Epiphanius took advantage of many of Basil's arguments against Photinus and reproduced them in the haer. 71, nn. 2–5, as far as this was not hindered by the difference in views of Basil and Epiphanius himself. Ἐκθ. μακρ ., iv: τρία πράγματα καὶ τρία πρόσωπα . Athan. orat. With. ar. 3, n. 16: διὰ τί ο ὖ ν οἱ ἀρειανοὶ – – οὑ συναριθμοῦσιν ἑαυτούς μετὰ τῶν ἑλλήνων; ep. ad.episc. Aeg. n. 13: ?? n. 17: 17 Cf. n. 4; de synod. n. 50. The symbols “E.2 – E.5” mean: Epiphan. h. 71, un. 2–5. A "[ii], [iii]". etc. in the text mean Sirmian anathematisms. An. II. Πάλιν οὐν ἐρουμεν * Εἴ τις τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν Yίον δύο λέγει θεούς, αε. Marcellus (Epiph. h. 72, n. 3) accused his opponents of this: εἰ γὰρ τις χωρίζει τὸν Yίὸν - θεούς ε ἶ ναι νομίζειν, ὅ περ ἀλλότριον τῆς θείας διδασκαλίας. Ε.2. εἴ ποτε γὰρ ὁ Βασίλειος ἠ ρώτησεν , ὁτι Πῶς αί θεῖαι γραφαὶ διδάσκουσι περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου πρὸ αἰώνων ε ἶ ναι τὸν Μονογενῆ καὶ σύν Πατρί; ὁ Φωτεινὸς μὲν τὸν λόγον ἐδέχετο , τὰ μὲν εἰς Χριστὸν τὴν διαίρεσιν προσάπτῶν. τὰ δὲ εἰς τὸν Λόγον ἀνωτἀτω ἀναλογούμενα . On Marcellus see Zahn, 102 – 104. 112. An. III. Εἴ τις λέγων Θεὸν τὸν Χριστὸν , πρὸ αἰώνων Yίὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπουργηκότα τῷ Πατρὶ εἰς τῆν τῶν ὃ λων δημιουργίαν μή ὁμολογοίη, αε. An. IV. E ἴ τις τὸν ἀγέννητον ἤ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἐκ Μαρίας λέγειν γεγεννῆσθαι * τολμ ᾷ, αε. Ε. 2: καὶ "ε ἷ δον " φηςὶ (Daniel 7, 13) " κατερχὸμενον ἐπἀνω τῶν νεφελῶν ὤ ς υίὸν ἀνθρώπου "τοῦτο, φησὶ, προκαταγγελτικῶς ἔλεγεν, οὐχ ὡ ς ? ?? ἐκ Πνεύματος ἀγίου καὶ ἀπὸ Μαρίας , προχρηστικ ὤ ς , φησὶ , τὰ πάντα ἀναφέρεται εἰς αὐτὸν ἀπ ’ ἀρχῆς . Ε. 3. In response to the remark: Photinus replies τι καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος εἴρηκεν 1 Κο r. 15, 47; οὐκ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δὲ ἡ σὰρξ καταβέβηκεν , ἀλλ ’ ὤ μολόγηται καὶ ἀπὸ τούτο ἀπο Μαρίας ο ὖ σα . It is not surprising that the interpretation of Photinus on Dan is not included in the Sirmian anathematisms. 7.13 and 1 Cor. 15, 47: there was nothing heretical in him. Ε. 4: ὥ ς φησιν αὐτὸς ὁ ἀγύρτης, "Καὶ αὐτὸς φημι ε ἶ ναι τὸν Λόγον ". Ε .2: "ο ὔ πω δὲ ἦ ν [of course Yίὸς ], Λόγος δὲ ἦ ν , καθἀπερ ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ λόγος "Ε .4: καὶ εἰ ο ὔ πω ἦ ν Yίὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ Θεὸς Λόγος, διὰ τίνος τὰ πάντα γεγένηται (John 1:3); "Ἀλλὰ, φηαὶν, ὥ σπερ διὰ λόγου ὁ ἄνθρωπος πράττει ὁ βούλεται, οῦτως διὰ τοῦ ἰδιου Λόγου ὁ Πατὴρ διὰ τοῦ ὄντος ἐν αὐτῷ An. v: εἴ τις κατὰ πρόγνωσιν πρὸ Μαρίας λέγει τὸν ϒ ίὸν ε ἶ ναι καὶ μή πρὸ αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ ΙΙατρός γεγεννημένον πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ε ἶ ναι , καὶ δι ’ αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι τὰ πάντα, αε .4: ἐν ἀρχ ῇ ἦ ν ὀ Λόγος , καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦ ν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ , ἀλλ ’ · ὁ Λόγος ἦ ν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ οὐ λέγει ὅ τι ἐντῳ Θεῷ ἦ ν μόνον , ἀλλὰ Θεὸς ἦ ν ὁ Λόγος , ἀλλ ’ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπ ῳ μὲν λόγος ἐνδιάθετος ἀεὶ καὶ προφορικός υπάρχων οὑ δὑναται λἑγεσθαι ἄνθρωπος , άλλα ἀνθρώπου λόγος . – Expressions; ὑποστάσεων, Yίὸς ὤ ν οὐσία ἐστιν – from Ὑ πομνηματισμὸς of Basil and George y Epiph.h 73, nn. 12. 16; They do not particularly stand for the use of οὐσία in this sense, but justify it by the authority of the Council of Antioch in 269; other termini technici – from ἔκθεσις μακρὸστιχος nn. v. vj. -An. VI: εἴ τις τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ πλατύνεσθαι , ἢ συστέλλεσθαι φἀσκοι, αε. An. VII: ποιεῖν, ἤ τὸν πλατυσμὸν τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ Yίὸν ὁνομάζοι, αε. – Vigilii Tapsensis contra arianos dialogus (Migne S. L., t. 62, 182, p. 122), I, 4, where Photinus (literary fiction!) was brought onto the stage together with Athanasius V., Arius and Sabellius (literary fiction!) dixit: Impie Sabellius professus est Deum Patrem per virginem natum, nescio quod protensionis vitium tantae ingerens majestati, ut per id quod extensus est in virgine, ipse sibi Pater, ipseque sit Filius Caeterum Deas inviolabilis et immensus, nec ex se alium genuit, nec ipse unquam genitus fuit – sed est unicus et singularis, nec generando passioni obnoxius, nec se ipsum protendendo cumulatus. However, Photinus was not without reason suspected of a penchant for the theory of πλατύνεσθαι - συστέλλεσθαι: Marcellus himself held this opinion (Zahn, 151.152), and Nestorius (sermo 12, n. 15, cf. nn. 16.17, Migne, S. L., 48, 856) states: Photinus – hoc appellat Λογοπάτορα – - accipieos ad hoc, pro sui sensus nequitia, illud bene in evangelio dictum: John. I, 1: "Vides", inquiens, "quia Deum Verbum aliquando Deit, aliquando Verbum appellat, tanquam extencum atque collectum". Therefore, Tsan, 195, acts more boldly than scientifically when, on the basis of Vigil, he clears Photinus of all contact with "πλατυσμὸς ", declaring the words of Nestorius for "das ganz unsichere Referat", and anathematia VI. VII recognizes as “directed not against Photinus, but against Marcellus.” “Completely unreliable” supposedly “abstract” is read a) in the sermon of Nestorius, delivered in church on December 13, 430 b) under circumstances too serious for him for him to allow himself “unreliable abstracts” about Photinus (cf. sermo 4, nn. 13.14; sermo 12, n. 31): he himself was publicly accused of being “philosophical” like Fotin"; and he, for his part, applied the words of Proverbs to the accusers. 26, 4; 1 Tim. 1, 7, and therefore, c) citing - as can be seen in his very expressions - a literal quotation from Photinus, of course he took care to write it out accurately, so as not to give unnecessary reason for insinuations to his enemies. It is not superfluous to recall that Vigilius wrote only around 484 and, moreover, in the form of literary fiction, going beyond the boundaries of historical plausibility, and in some places even dogmatic; eg I, 10: Photinus dixit: Ego Domino nostro Jesu Christo initium tribuo, PURUMQUE HOMINEM fuisse affirmo, et per beatae vitae excellentissimum, meritum, divinitatis honorem fuisse adeptum. Something like the quote given by Nestorius. Photinus could have said something (or rather, let it slip) during a debate, and then explained lapsus linguae (respectivë uncomfortable frankness) in generalities in the style of Vigilius. An. VIII: εἴ τις ἐνδιἀθετον ἤ προφορικὸν λόγον λέγει τὸν Yίοῦ Θεοῦ, αε. An. IX: εἴ τις ἄνθρωπον μόνον λέγει τὸν ἐκ Μαρίας Yίὸν, αε. It is possible that here Photinus again spoke with the uncomfortable frankness from which Vigilius and earlier hereseologists proceed. Wed. E. 3: εἰς ἐσχάτην ἐλθ ὼ ν ἀρνηαιθεῖαν. Wed. ἔκθ. μακρ n. vj: ὁμοίως ἰουδαίοις ἀθετοῦσιν . An. X: εἴ τις Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον τὸν ἐκ Μαρίας λέγων , Θεὸν τὸν ἀγέννητον ο ὕ τω νοεῖ, αε. An. XI (Ath. XII) σάρκα μεταβεβλῆσθαι νομίζοι, ἢ τροπὴν ὑπομεμενηκότα ἀνειληφέναι τὴν σάρκα λέγοι, αε. It is not possible to consider these words simply as the Consequenzmacherei of Photinus' enemies in view of E 3: Λόγον ἐκ Πατρὸς προελθὸντα καὶ εἰς σάρκα μεταβεβλημένον ο ὕ τω γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ἠ πατημένην αὐτοῦ ἔννοιαν διηγήσατο περὶ τοῦ ὅ ρου. The same bold flaunting of the paradox of “transformation” is heard in ἀντὶ τῆς σαρκὸς ἀνιέναι (see p. 272). The term Λὸγος ἐνούσιος from Marii Mercatoris ad xij. anath. Nestorii, n. 17: Photinus – Verbum Dei quidem nonnegans esse in substantia (Migne, S. L., t. 48, 928). An. XII (Ath. XIII): εἴ τις τὸν Μονογενῆ Yίὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσταυρωμένον ἀκοόων [cp. 1 Κο r. 2, 8]. ἢ ἀναίρεσιν ἡπομεμενηκέναι λέγοι, αε. Ε. 3: ἢ πρὸς τίνα ὁ Πατὴρ εἴρηκε [Genesis 1, 26]. "Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον"; ἐνδιάθετον αὐτοῦ λόγον , ἢ τὸν προφορικὸν ἐπιτείνετα τὴν συμβουλίαν . Ε. 2: τὸ γὰρ, "Π. ἆ.", τῷ Λόγ ῳ ἑαυτοῦ, φησὶν, ὁ Πατὴρ εἴρηκε τί ο ὖν; ὁ Λὸγος ἐν τῷ ΙΙατρὶ , φησὶν , ἦ ν , ἀλλ ’ οὐκ ἦ ν Yίὸς . Α n. XIII (Ath. XIV) εἴ τις τὸ, "Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον", μὴ τὸν Πατέρα πρὸς τὸν , αε. – According to Marcellus, Zahn, 131: τῷ ἑαυτοῦ Λόγω πρὸς αὐτὸν, ὡ ς πρὸς ἕ τερον. – Proceeding now to the most important part of the reconstruction, I compare the colimnatim text of E. 5 [in it only pleonasms are replaced, not omitting entire tirades] with anathematisms in order to clearly show the identity of the flow of thought in both monuments. Regarding the text of E. 5, I note the following: a) Photinus’ interpretation of Ps. 109, 3 is not mentioned in the anathematisms; Marcellus, Zahn, 113. 114, saw in this text only a prophecy about the birth of Christ in the flesh, and of course Photinus interpreted these words in the same way. Basil of Ankyra undoubtedly (in Ὑ πομνηματισμὸς 359 in Epiph. h.73, n. 20) cited this text as proof that ὁ Yίὸς τοῦ Πατρὸς is ὁ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γνήσιος καὶ ἱδίωςγεγεννημένος Yίὸς but in a polemic with such a person as Photinus, already in view of the variety of translations of this text (Epiph. h. 65, n. 4), Basil might not have used it, or the Sirmium Council did not dare to anathematize the interpretation of Photinus, which he and Marcellus probably did not hold together. Therefore, it is possible that the tirade between ).(and § belongs to St. Epiphanius himself, just as the final words of E. 5 undoubtedly belong to him: ὁμολογῶν – & p.: Basil proved only the hypostatic difference of the Holy Spirit, not γνήσιον τῆς θεότητας and quoted John 14, 16, not 15, 26. b) How the “Eastern” theologians of that time expressed themselves vaguely about the Holy Spirit can be seen in the following. places ἔκθ. μακρ. n. ix: πιστεύοντες – εἰς τὴν – ΤΡΙΑ᾿ΔΑ – τουτἐστιν εἰς τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ εἰς τὸν Yίὸν καὶ εἰς το Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅ γιον , καὶ Θεὸν μὲν τὸν Πατέρα λέγοντες, Θεὸν δὲ καὶ τὸν Yίὸν, οὐ ΔYὈ τούτους Θεούς, ἀλλ ’ ἐν ὁμολογοῦμεν τῆς θεὸτητος ἀξίωμα – – – * τοῦ Yίοῦ – - τὴν τοῦ ἅ γίου [Ινεύ ματος χάριν – - δωρουμένου. c) Termini technici of Marcellus and his teachings on the Holy Spirit in Zahn, 144–147. 152–154. d) Information about how Photinus taught about the Holy Spirit is very scarce. Zahn, 192; Klose, 83. Primary evidence: Epiph.h. 71, 1: τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅ γιόν φησιν, ὥ ς τολμηρός ἀρχιτέκτων. νομίζειν ε ἶ να: τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Augustin, ep. 185 (50) ad Bonif: “haereticus Photinianus, qui eius (Spiritus sancti) omnino negat aliquam esse substantiam, sed unam tantummodo esse Deum Patiem.” Praedestinatus, 1, c. 45: "(Photinus) Spiritum sanctum semper fuisse memorabat." A moderate conclusion would be that Photipus identified the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Word and - apparently - believed that the Holy Spirit was even less different from the Father than Λόγος, termina techicus Λογοπάτωρ, attributed by Nestorius to Photinus, shows that he mainly distinguished only the Word from the Father. Vasily V. knows about such people who recognized the Holy Spirit as unborn, ἁ γέννητον (ep. 125, paragraph 3), placed Him even above the Father (προτιθεντες Πατρὸς, ὑπεοτιθέναι) and called St. Spirit of the Spirit (ep. 151, n. 4; ep. 52, n. 4) It is possible that Photinus the Holy Spirit already taught this, as τοῦ ἀγέννητου ἀνῶτερον, above any οὐσία and therefore null asubstantia; but He semper fait is a single being when defined as Λογοπάτωρ, that is, as οὐσία - ὑπόστασις - Θεός, containing in Himself also τὸν ἐνοὐσιον Λόγον. Then it is clear with what irony he had to meet Vasily’s answer that the Holy Spirit is μικρότερον of the Father; It is also imaginable that there is some difference between the Holy Spirit and the Father and the Word, admitted - as can be seen from an. XXI – Fotin. An XXII (Ath. XXIII)* τρεῖς λέγοι θεούς, αε. An. XXIII (Ath. XI): "Ἐγὤ "(Isaiah 44:6), ? αἰώνων Θεοῦ ἰουδαὶκῶς ἔκλαμβάνοι , αε . Ε . Ε . ἡ ἐλπὶς καὶ ἡ διάνοια , οὐδέν γὰρ περισσότερον τῶν ἄρνησαμένων αὐτὸν ἰουδαίων ο ὖ τος λέγει. Hilar. fr. 2, 29; ut – in primogeniti – confessione ordinem quemdam ab eius ortu creantis [corr. cieatis] mundi rebus assignent. 2, 30: aut, quia primogenitus omnis creaturae est, ordo quidem in eo connexae incognitae creationis exprimitur [below: atque ita – in online creaturarum – primus in numero est], sed non sequitur primogenitum omnis creaturae? fr. 2, 31: Quin etiam haud dissimilis, in Trinitatis nuncupatione [v. e. in the name of the Holy Spirit third],falsitatis eorum contextas est. Ubi enim a [ corr . in] diversis substantiis Filium a Patre, impio et maledico ore disciderint, et in separatis duobus assistat auctoritas, tertia dinumeratur ia Spiritu. Et cum sit Pater ia Filio et Filius in Patre, et Spiritus sanctus accipiat ex utroquë in eo, quod Spiritus [corr. Spiritu] exprimitur sanctae imius inviolabilis unitas [ Constant : fortassis add. Trinitatis], haeretica parte parturiat Trinitas pronunciat [Constant: fort, pronunciata] dissidium. The text is obviously faulty, but its meaning is quite clear. The authors of Profitemur could have motivated the categorical naming of the Holy Spirit as third by the fact that Photinus (see above p. 281 sub versu) probably placed the Holy Spirit above the Father κατὰ τάξιν. 1 Cor. 9, 19–22; 2 Cor. 11, 29. Wed. Gregor. Naz. or. 43 (in laud. Basilii), nn. 81. 68. 69. Gregor. Naz. or. 31 (theol. 5) nn. 5. 1 (cries: τί δ ’ ἄν εἰποις , φασὶ [n. 3: οἱ σφόδρα προπολεμοῦντες τοῦ γράμματος ], περὶ τοῦ ἁ γίου Πνεύματος ; ξένον Θεόν καὶ ἄγραφον; μετριάζοντες!); Socr. 2, 45, 6. Wed. above p. 280 sub. v. Socr. 5, 8, 5–9; Soz. 7, 7, 2–5. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Sirmian 2nd formula - according to translation from Athan. de syn. n. 28: ὁ δὲ Παράκλητος το Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅ γιον, δι ’ Yίὸυ ἀποσταλὲν, ἦ λθε, according to the text y Hilar. de syn. n. 11: Paracletus autem Spiritus sanctus per Filium est, qui missus venit – expresses a well-known tendency incomparably weaker than Et tertium addentes. – The Sirmian 2nd formula, by letter, is, of course, only an Omian document; but the Basilians themselves (in their Ὑ πομνηματισμὸς, which was compiled not in Sirmium shortly after May 22, 359, as Guotkin believes, 168, 1, but after the Council of Seleucia, next in November-December 359 shortly before the letter “Unitati et verae paci” у Hilar. fr. 10,1, ср. Хр. Чт. 1891, I, 310; cf. Epipb. h. 73, un. 14. 15; Socr. 2,40, 31 – з/; Soz. 4.22, 2,.1. Hilar. lib. contra Contant, n. 14; Гарнак, II, 252, видимо dates this document correctly, unless it puts it later than the proper one, cf. II, 251, 3) they look at it as a tendentious anomian creed. Epiph. h. 73, n. 14, p. 8611): δι ’ ὦ ν ἐθήρασαν παρὰ τοῦ αἰδεσίμου ἐπισκόπου . Ὁ σίου γραμμάτων, ἐν ο ἶ ς φέρεται τὸ ἀνόμοιον οὐσίαν. But dishonest homism is equal in tendency to anomieism, only morally inferior to the latter as deceitful. Mansi, IV, 1124. 1213. 1216. 1448; ICE. I, 491. 593–596. 881. Abundant material on this issue is, of course, provided by the acts of the councils, especially the so-called Codex encycbus in Mansi, YΙΙ, 521–627. 787–792; ICE. IV, 462–685. Quite a lot of data is also extracted from Bruns, Bibliotheca ecclesiastica I. II (Berolini 1839). Wed. above pp. 96–97. Signatures of the Serdic Fathers in Hilar. fr. 2, 15; beginning: Ossius ab Spannia cordobensis, Annianus ab Spanniis de Castolona. Signatures of the Philippine Cathedral under the message “Est quidem nobis omnibus” in fr. 3.29: first: Stephanus episcopus Antiochiae provinciae Syriae Coeles, opto vos in Domino Lene valere. Last (73rd): Valens episcopus a Mursa, opto vos in Domino bene valere. And the inscription of the message is even paleographically interesting: In the original, uncorrupted Latin translation, it began like this: Kutan's valuable notes provide evidence that in 411 in Carthage only ex conjectura could identify (and of course absolutely correctly) Donatus with the famous Dovatist bishop of Carthage (Augustin, ep. 44 (163), 3), because this message was even then! – nec additis civitatum nominibus legi solet: quia nec mos est ecclesiasticus, quando episcopi episcopis scribant episto’am (Augustin, contra Crescon. 1. 4, p. 44, cf. 1. 3 p. 34). But some ancient reader, based on the monuments available to him, marked on the floor, of course, under conventional icons (instead of the abcde I put) the cities, and the later copyist had the foolishness to immediately insert everything marked on the margin into the text between Gregorio and Anfioni. - Words of Bl. Augustine show that on the epistle of the bishops of Pisidia - Mansi, VII, 565; ICE. IV, 556 – should be looked at as a strange exception. Epiph. h. 73, n. 22: ὑπέγραφαν ["dated faith"] οὑτως Μάρκος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Ἀρεθουσίας ο ὅ τω πιστεύω – – – Βασίλειος ἐπίσκοπος Ἀγκύρας πιστεύω – – – Hilar. fr. 10 (inscription of the message “Unitati et verae pacis”). See pr. 46; By “excess” I mean the repetition of the signature “I wish you good health in the Lord.” – The most serious objection to this conclusion is that the signatures under the messages in the half of the 4th century. were usually complete, I would consider the reference to Epiph h. 73, paragraph 11, r. 859: καὶ εἰσιν οἱ ὑπογράφαντες [message of the Council of Ancyra 358 “Εὐχὸμεθα μὲν μετὰ τὴν "] Βασίλειος, Εὐστάθιος, Ὑ περέχιος, etc. (9 more names) without designating cities. It would be inconsistent to assume that the names of cities were, for the sake of brevity, omitted by St. Epiphanius. But it would be It is also unfair to lose sight of the fact that this fact is an instance in elevante, a case that has little relevance to this issue. The Council of Ancyra was an ordinary diocesan council (cf. the councils of 517–529 Lugdunense Gerundense Valletanum Arelatense Carpentoractense Arausicanum Vasense in Mansi, VIII, 550. 570. 622. 627. 708. 718. 727, where the signatures are without chairs). Its composition was well known to all those who had an interest or duty to know about it. If in our time a corporation of a theological academies or seminaries sends someone a telegram and signs only their last names under it, then this does not cause any confusion in the addressee; he knows in advance the composition of the corporation and can accurately identify even namesakes. But it’s a different matter if the document was signed by some congress, randomly composed of representatives of the north and south, west and east. Without having a protocol list of members at hand, you can come to the strangest quiproquo. The composition of the Sirmium Council of 351 was random, therefore full signatures (respective appendix to the encyclical protocol of acts) were necessary, as at any extraordinary council.