碑銘詩 第 5 章 第 6/8 段

For it does not seem unworthy, august Emperor, that those who thought the judgment of one bishop, Acholius, was so to be awaited that they should reckon him as summoning men from the Western parts to Constantinople, should now have to submit to the deliberation of the bishop of the Roman Church, of the neighboring bishops, and of the Italians. If so much was reserved to this one man, how much more should it be reserved to many? But we, admonished by the most blessed prince, your Piety's brother, that letters should be written to your Clemency, by his command request that, where there is one communion, you would have the judgment also to be common, and the consent harmonious. § II.—The sequence of events is set forth, as devised by those who hold that letter to be genuine; in what year did Maximus the Cynic come to Milan?

To what other council, moreover, was he present, that he might defend his ordination in it? The opinion of Pierre de Marca, of Valois, and of others on this matter; that it is erroneous is shown by reasons and by the authority of Tillemont. Those, then, who hold this Italian council and this letter of it to be true and certain, say that the sequence of events was this (a): Maximus the Cynic, who in the meantime had come into Italy, is present at that same council in the year, according to some, 381, after the celebration of the Council of Aquileia; but according to others, about the middle of the year 382; and by producing the letters of Peter of Alexandria, who had already met his death, he proves himself a Catholic, and besides, by bringing forward false testimonies, proves himself rightly and properly ordained.

But why Tillemont supposes Maximus came into Italy about this time, he offers this reason: because he hoped that it would come to pass that he might restore, in an ecumenical council convened at Rome by Damasus, the fortunes he had lost by the verdict of the Council of Constantinople. The Italian bishops, however, thought nothing should be rashly defined by themselves, so that this cause might be examined by that general council soon to come. Yet, lest in the meantime they should seem to fail in their duty, they both received Maximus into communion and wrote to Theodosius, that he would have regard for his rights and provide for him, for the good of public peace and tranquility. But this former letter, as it seems to these men, perished.

For they say that three letters were written by the same council to Theodosius, of which the one I have transcribed above occupies the second place; the last, indeed, is the other, of which I shall treat in § 4 hereafter. But that this was the substance of his first letter, which perished, they gather from this second one, which therefore they say was transmitted not long after the first—namely at the time when those Italian bishops were informed that the general council convened by Damasus in this year was being shunned by the Easterners, and that another was being assembled by them in the royal city. These letters, then, having been received from the Italian council, now hear, if you please, what Theodosius, according to the invention of those authors, wrote back.

They say the Emperor wrote back that those reasons, on account of which the prelates of Italy had demanded a council in the West, seemed by no means fitting or weighty: for the causes brought forward concerning the ordination of Flavian and Nectarius, having arisen in the East and pertaining to the Eastern Church, were to be examined and defined in the East, and could not be transferred to the judgment of the West, lest the boundaries set by the Fathers should be moved: that therefore an unjust thing was being demanded by them, and one which might rouse the indignation of the Easterners themselves, when they summoned them to a council to be gathered at Rome on account of these matters:

and therefore, if anything were decreed in the West in their absence, it would be void, and would be a greater cause of quarrels between the two Churches: that the Italian bishops, moreover, had either shown themselves too indulgent toward the lying Cynic, beyond the counsels of equity and goodness, or had let themselves be carried away by excessive zeal against the Easterners. But why they think Theodosius wrote these very things back to those Italian prelates, they offer no other reason than this: namely that those prelates excuse themselves before the Emperor in their last letter, and bring forward, in order to defend themselves, the reasons why they judged a general council necessary—or the reasons on account of which, as these men think, they confess they sinned.

But these things, as it seems to me, are more easily invented from imagination than shown to be true. For indeed, that Maximus came into Italy, no one doubts. It may also be that he came into Italy in the year 382, as Tillemont thinks—although the conjecture by which the learned man is moved so to think is assuredly most slight: for Maximus, long since rejected by Damasus, could expect nothing good from that synod, in which it was bound to be ratified that which had pleased the most wise pontiff. Then the examples of Athanasius and of Peter of Alexandria—

these examples, to pass over the rest, could have assured him that the way of recourse and appeal to the Roman pontiffs was open and ready at absolutely every time, and that there was no need of convening a council for that end. And so the testimony of Jerome, who writes thus, makes me the more readily believe that the Cynic came to us in that year: 'Maximus the philosopher, born at Alexandria, was ordained bishop at Constantinople, and being expelled, wrote a remarkable book on the faith against the Arians, which he presented to the prince Gratian at Milan (a).'

It must indeed be noted that he did not come into Italy immediately upon being expelled from Constantinople, but betook himself to the Emperor Theodosius, who was already, in mid-380, residing at Thessalonica; then, being driven from that place again like a dog, he set out for Alexandria; where, when he had created troubles with Peter, the bishop of that city, he was thence too compelled to go into exile by the efforts of the prefect. Finally, as Nazianzen elegantly puts it: 'He seemed to grow quiet, like a cloud that is pregnant with heavy hail, and awaits a wind by which, driven on, it may pour out its hail upon those who do not expect it (b).' And these things being done, it cannot but be that we should assign to them the remainder of that year and the greater part of the next.

Hence indeed we conjecture that that philosopher could not have presented himself at Milan and brought that book to Gratian before the month of March in the year 381, of which the Emperor spent only a few days at Milan—if indeed he spent any there—whereas, on the contrary, it is established from the Theodosian Code that he stayed in that city for nearly the whole of the following year. But this is not what is asked, namely whether the Cynic came to Milan, but to what council he was present in order to plead his cause (for of this there can be no doubt), and moreover from what bishops it was gathered. Pierre de Marca judges that these things took place in the Council of Aquileia:

For, he says, when Nectarius had been ordained in Gregory's place, Maximus, disappointed of his hope, betook himself into Italy, so that, supported by the favor of the Italian pontiffs—but chiefly of Damasus of Rome and Ambrose of Milan, whose authority at that time was supreme—he might, with Nectarius rejected, retain the Church of Constantinople. Now it is established that the ordination of Nectarius did not please Damasus. We can therefore affirm that Damasus and the Western council approved this refuge of Maximus, and eagerly seized that occasion for unfolding the authority of the Roman and Western Church over the see of Constantinople.

Hence it came about that in the Council of Aquileia under Ambrose—which was a general council from the West, and to which it is concluded that Damasus's authority lent itself, among other things from the fact that Gratian wrote to him about convening it, as the authority of the Synodicum, chapter 74, attests—in the Council of Aquileia, I say, the ordination of Nectarius having been condemned, Maximus was so approved that the bishops, from that gathering, wrote back to Theodosius that they had nothing on which they could doubt concerning his episcopate (c). This opinion Basnage also eagerly seized (d), and Valois agrees with it, although he recognized it to be little firm, when he writes thus:

'The bishops of Italy, then, who had been gathered into a council at Aquileia, having read the letters of Maximus, received him into communion... and moreover, afterwards, when Nectarius had been ordained bishop of that same city in the Council of Constantinople, they refused his communion, and wrote to the Emperor Theodosius that a council should be held at Rome, in which the cause of Nectarius and Maximus might be disputed... At the beginning, indeed, Damasus disapproved the ordination of Maximus; afterwards, however, he seems to have favored Maximus; for the council of the bishops of Italy would not have received Maximus into communion, nor ever have petitioned the Emperor that a synod should be held at Rome concerning his ordination, except by the consent of Damasus.

But whether Maximus was received into communion by Damasus is obscure (e).' But this opinion, which Baluze too, Valois, Dupin, Coustant, and others have embraced, is overturned by the very acts of the Council of Aquileia and by what followed it. For if the Fathers of that council had examined the cause of Maximus, if they had judged it consonant with right, why does none of this appear in those very acts which still survive?

Moreover, if they had asked Theodosius to provide for that philosopher for the good of public peace and concord, why do they treat only of the Antiochene dispute over the ordination of Flavian, and of the troubles inflicted on Timothy of Alexandria, but pass over the affair of Maximus in silence in the letters sent to that same Theodosius? Those letters survive as witnesses of this same matter (f); there likewise survive, in Theodoret (g), others which the Eastern bishops wrote back to the Westerners in the year 382 already advanced; and I have already discussed elsewhere why, when in them mention is made of those received letters of the Council of Aquileia, there is absolutely no word at all about Maximus, none about his refuge to this council.

Valois, therefore, who well perceived the difficulty, in order to escape it, posits two things out of his own invention: first, that Maximus was not present at the council, but pleaded his cause only through letters written to Aquileia; second, that it was not the entire Aquileian council itself, which had already been concluded and dissolved, but those Italian bishops who—if you believe Valois himself—had very opportunely stayed on at Aquileia, that heard Maximus's cause set forth in writing, and wrote to Theodosius the letter of which we are treating. But how ludicrous, how falsely contrived these things are, the very words of that letter, if they be but read, plainly demonstrate.

Add to this that the genuine letters of the Aquileian council and the fictitious ones of the 'Italian' council conflict and disagree with each other: for the Aquileian Fathers demand that a council be gathered at Alexandria, that all the Easterners may convene there; but the Italian prelates summon those very Easterners to Rome. And who would believe that both letters proceeded from the bishops of one and the same council? Rightly, therefore, does Tillemont reject that opinion, with whom Pagi, Fleury, and other learned writers agree. § III.—Tillemont's own opinion is brought forward, weighed, and rejected.

Let arguments be brought forward, drawn from this same letter and from other contemporary documents, by which it is established that that letter could never have been either of any Italian council, nor genuine, nor moreover of Ambrose, but must be held to be a forgery. A brief excursus in tracing out its author. It now remains for us to inquire whether the opinion of those is preferable who, setting aside the Council of Aquileia, think that Maximus took refuge with this Italian council—gathered, namely, from those bishops who were subject to Ambrose—and was present at it. But this the reader himself will be able to judge, after some difficulties have been proposed by me.

In the first place, then, I am not at all satisfied with the heading of this council which is called 'Italian,' by which no certain and known place in Italy is designated in which it could be said to have been held and celebrated. For this is unusual, and foreign to the received ecclesiastical custom by which all councils—down to that time, and those also celebrated thereafter—had taken their denomination from some certain and determinate place. Hence Jerome, questioning Rufinus who asserted that he had been approved by the judgment of a synod, asks: 'In what city was the synod? Tell the names of the bishops, produce the opinions of the subscribers, show who were the consuls there; what emperor ordered this synod to be convened; assuredly, for what cause was the synod gathered (a)?'

Secondly. Scarcely can any council be cited around these times which was called 'Italian' and not rather 'Roman.' For all Italy still obeyed the Roman bishop as its metropolitan; and scarcely had the bishop of Milan or of Aquileia begun, by the prerogative of his see, to be distinguished from the other bishops and to exercise that right which they afterwards used—as Bacchini learnedly proves in his dissertation on the origins of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (b)—by the clear testimony of Eusebius, who calls 'Roman' a council gathered by Cornelius, in the case of Novatian, from all Italy as far as it extends. But, not to go far from the age of Damasus, Julius, writing from his synod to the Eusebians, says:

'It is necessary,' he says, 'to make known to you that, even though I alone have written, that opinion is nonetheless not mine alone, but of all those who are in ITALY and who dwell in these parts (c).' Liberius moreover, in the letters written to the Easterners which Socrates quotes (d), calls himself bishop 'of Italy,' and speaks alone with the voice of the Italians and Westerners; and Theodoret says that the first Roman synod under Damasus was gathered from Italy and Gaul (e). Let Father Anthony Blancus also be consulted, of the Observant family, a learned man, who excellently confirms this opinion against the ravings of Jannon (f).

From these things, then, it is gathered that there was at that time but one council in Italy, and that the Roman one, gathered from all Italy; and that therefore another 'Italian' council, separate and distinct from the Roman one, was either nonexistent or of a later age. Hence, since Jerome (g), from a misunderstood passage of Eusebius, seemed to acknowledge a Roman synod distinct from the Italian where he treats of Cornelius, Pearson rightly observes that nothing is clear concerning this Italian synod, and says he doubts whether that 'Italian' council was rightly fabricated by Jerome (h). Thirdly. The council at which Maximus was present, if credit be given to this letter, was convened under the episcopate of Gregory of Nazianzus. I give the words from which this is established.

For recently in a council, when bishop Maximus, after the letters of Peter, a man of holy memory, had been read, had declared that the communion of the Church of Alexandria remained with him, and—because the Arians still held the basilicas—had taught by lucid testimony that secrecy had been [enjoined] upon the mandating bishops who ordained him, we had nothing wherein we could doubt concerning his episcopate; yet, lest with the parties absent we should seem to have presumptuously decided anything, we judged that your clemency ought to be informed by letters dispatched, so that he might be consulted for the welfare of the public peace and concord, because in truth we observed that Gregory was by no means, according to the tradition of the Fathers, claiming for himself the priesthood of the Church of Constantinople. From this point, then, the things that flow of their own accord are these:

First, if Maximus was present at this council, with the Nazianzen confirmed as bishop of Constantinople, his arrival in Italy and his flight thither would necessarily have to be referred to the first months of the year 381, since Gregory ceased to be bishop in May or June; but that this is false is proved both by the reckoning of time and the series of events, which we weighed above; also by the Nazianzen himself in the poem on his own life; and likewise by the Council of Aquileia, since nothing at all is read either in the Synod of Aquileia or in the Nazianzen himself concerning his flight to the Italian bishops, or concerning letters written on his behalf to Theodosius.

Secondly, it is manifest that those err who transfer this matter, and the Italian council, to the year 382, in which there could be no controversy against Gregory—who had already of his own accord yielded the episcopate—on account of which those Italian bishops would then write these things to Theodosius. Valesius and Tillemont, overwhelmed by this difficulty, cut the knot with the sword, and say that in those words of the letter which we have recited there is a corruption, and that in place of Gregory one ought to read Nectarius.

But this reading rests upon and is confirmed by the authority of no codex whatsoever. Then, if anyone rightly observes the series of events set forth in this letter, he will find that there is no room for error, but that everything coheres rightly with itself, and he will concede that the names of Gregory and of Nectarius were each rightly placed in the position where it stands. For three letters, as we said, are feigned to have been written in the cause of the same Maximus: hence, when he first approached those Italian bishops gathered in council and the first letter was written, Gregory of Nazianzus [was bishop]; but when this second and later one [was written], Nectarius already presided over the Church of Constantinople, whose episcopate accordingly they also seem to disapprove.

But since these things are so, either this Italian council must be placed outside the year 382, so that it be referred to the year 381 not yet far advanced, in which Gregory had truly been bishop; or, if it should seem to you by no means to be brought back to that year, and you wish to retain the episcopate of Nectarius, you must necessarily confess that that council, from the [moment] it began, was never afterward dissolved, but was protracted for several months beyond a whole year's space—which surely no one would say. Fourthly. In this council, at which that philosopher was present and offered his cause to be adjudged, we ought to find three things: first, namely, that it was general at least by its convocation;

secondly, that it was held about the time of the Synod of Constantinople, at which Maximus was deposed and Nectarius ordained; thirdly, finally, that it was declined by the Easterns. These three you have from these words of the letter: «We, in that synod which seemed prescribed for the bishops of the whole world, judged that nothing was to be rashly decreed; but AT THAT VERY TIME, those who declined the general council—what are they said to have done at Constantinople? For when they had learned that Maximus had come thither for the sake of pleading his cause in the synod, and had ascertained that he wished to contend against those who had refused his episcopate, they ought certainly to have awaited also our sentence concerning him.»

But now these single points must be weighed, and it must be inquired whether they can be fitted to this Italian council; and—that I may begin from the first head—whether Ambrose ever wrote that that Italian synod of his, of but few bishops, was prescribed for the bishops of the whole world. Let no one even think this. Fleury, therefore, dissembles the difficulty. Tillemont, however, in order to remove it, thinks that one should read «unless in that synod», a single addendum invented to serve his hypothesis, and says that the Italian bishops judged that nothing was to be defined in that synod which they themselves were holding;

namely, that the cause of Maximus might be examined in that general synod which Damasus, having already announced it, was soon about to hold; this too, Pagi says, is here designated; but, without employing the addendum which Tillemont uses, he is forced to do violence to the most evident sense of the words and to deceive the reader. Yet upon what manuscript, or printed codex, or printed books does this reading rest, that it may be allowed to be thrust upon us by Tillemont? Moreover, do not the recited words of that letter and the set-forth series of events reject this correction and addition of his?

For what that synod may be, prescribed for the bishops of the whole world, of which there is here mention, or which judged that nothing was to be rashly decreed, the words presently added clearly explain: «but those who declined the general council»; which express and put forth a synod already held in the cause of Maximus, not one to be held in the future, and which show a matter not to be done but already fitting and past.

Then, if this Italian council, by which the cause of Maximus was remitted to that already convoked by Damasus, was held at that very time at which the Synod of Constantinople had been gathered, either you draw it back—no otherwise than the recourse of Maximus—to the first months of the year 381, in which the Synod of Constantinople itself had already convened and had ordained Nectarius, but the Roman general [synod] had not yet been convoked by Damasus; or, if you assert that it was gathered in the year 382, you must necessarily refer the ordination of Nectarius himself to the same year, and to that assembly which the Easterns held at that time at Constantinople.

As to the first, do not say it: the silence of Gregory of Nazianzus stands in the way, the acts of the Council of Aquileia stand in the way, and Tillemont himself. As to the second, however, although it pleased John David, yet it is clear that it is altogether false, from law 3 of the Theodosian Code «On the Catholic Faith», which is read as published on the 28th day of July of the year 381, and proves that Nectarius already presided over the Church of Constantinople. It remains, therefore, that you reject this letter among the forgeries, or, with Tillemont himself, at length confess that the one who wrote it was so senseless and so dull-witted that he by no means knew, or directed his mind to, what he was writing.

But in a matter so recent and manifest, and moreover in Ambrose, by whom they reckon the letter itself was written—such great drowsiness? Let him believe this who will; for me, indeed, I shall not allow myself to be persuaded of it. Finally, as to what I proposed in the third place: if the council at which Maximus was present was decimated by the Easterns, and the Italian bishops say that this was reproached to them, you must understand it of either the Aquileian, or that Italian one, or the Roman which Damasus had convoked, so that you choose one of those three. If the first, this perhaps may seem to be rightly said, since the Easterns, to whom the opportunity of attending had been given, preferred to be absent, as is established from the acts.

But, as we have often said, neither was Maximus present at it, nor could he be present, nor was anything done in it concerning his cause. But if you choose the Italian one—namely that which Tillemont says was gathered from the bishops of the vicariate of Italy—this must be deemed to be said rashly and falsely; for by what right could Ambrose go to reproach the Easterns that that council of his, upon which they in no way depended, was declined by them? Or had, moreover, the Eastern bishops themselves been summoned to it? It remains, therefore, that you choose the third, and refer these things to that council which Damasus had convoked at Rome to be gathered from the bishops of West and East, and which afterward was assembled when the year 382 was already drawing to its close.

But if you assert this, you must necessarily confess that it had already become known to Ambrose and those other Italian bishops, when they wrote, that this council had certainly already been declined, or was to be declined, by the Easterns. Now, indeed, I would have you observe these things. Before the middle of summer of this year they had understood nothing about this Roman council; and when, summoned by Theodosius, they had come to Constantinople according to the letters of the Council of Aquileia, then, made more certain both that it had been convoked by Damasus and that they themselves had been summoned, struck by the novelty of the matter, they confess it, and send legates with letters in which they set forth the reasons why all could not be present.

But it is established that these letters were written after midsummer, and so with July already on the wane or elapsed, and were brought by those bishops whom they had sent as legates. Now I ask of you, in what month of that year do you suppose they arrived at Rome, so that Ambrose and those other Italian bishops could know for certain that this Roman council had been declined by the Easterns? It seems to me that their arrival at the City can scarcely be set before the month of October. Either, then, Ambrose and the other Italian bishops had already come to Rome, as I think, or not; if we say the first, did Damasus, or Acholius, or the Eastern legates suffer Ambrose himself to be ignorant of the frauds and the ambition of Maximus?

Not even Tillemont could digest this. Or did, moreover, the prelate of Milan, being present at the council, with Damasus, Acholius, and the other bishops already gathered unconsulted, alone with his own [bishops] undertake so great a matter? Far be it that I should bring this calumny upon a most holy and most prudent man! For it was fitting that satisfaction be given to all who were in the same communion, so that the things done might be the more firmly established by the consent of many, and that peace might not be torn—some cutting off while others were being admitted. Thus, therefore, it was fitting that counsel be entered upon gravely and gently concerning matters pertaining to all the churches of the whole world. But if you should say

that Ambrose, with that Italian council of his, wrote these things before he set out on the Roman journey, you can scarcely persuade me—either that time could have sufficed for him, or that he undertook such great matters when already prepared for the journey, and in the very sight of the general synod soon to be at Rome. Then whence had he learned that the Easterns had declined that general synod, so as to turn this to their fault? But, says Tillemont, he had already understood beforehand that those who ought [to have come], having undertaken the Roman journey, had halted at Constantinople and had instituted their synod already at midsummer. So divining, this author speaks, that he may serve his hypothesis.