EXCURSUS I.

On the date of the Roman Council which petitioned Gratian on the subject of the trial of bishops in the letter Et hoc Gloriae Vestrae. (See p. 145.)

STRICTLY speaking, it is not necessary for my argument in Lecture IV. to ascertain the date of this council. But as, in my opinion, the effects of Gratian's reply to the petition of the council were very far-reaching, it is a matter of considerable historical interest to me to determine what the date of the council really was. I am not satisfied with the conclusions of previous writers on this matter, and I venture to propose a new solution of the problem.1

Usually this council has been assigned to the latter part of the year 378, principally on the ground that, according to the heading. of its synodical letter, as that heading appears in the great collections of the councils, the letter was addressed to the Emperors Gratian and Valentinian II., no mention being made of either Valens or Theodosius.3 Now, Valens died on August 9, 378; and Theodosius was proclaimed joint Emperor with Gratian and Valentinian II. on January 19, 379. Blondel, Labbe, Pagi, Tillemont, Mansi, Günther, and others, draw the conclusion that the Roman Council must have been held in the autumn or in the beginning of the winter of 378. On the other hand, Merenda argues 10 in favour of the date 380; and he is followed by Hefele,11 Langen,12 and Duchesne.13 Meyer mentions both opinions, but

1 Ihm (Studia Ambrosiana, p. 7) observes with great truth, "Chronologia Damasiana nondum satis constat, sed ut de illa accuratius inquiratur necesse est. Similarly, Dr. Robertson (Athanasius, p. 488) says, "The history of the synods held by Damasus seems hopelessly obscure."

2 This letter, which commences with the words, Et hoc Gloriae Vestrae, is printed, not only in the Collections of the councils, but also in Migne's Patrol. Lat., xiii. 575-584.

3

Similarly, the rescript, addressed to Aquilinus, which was written in response to the Roman Council's letter, has in its inscription only the names of Gratian and Valentinian. This rescript is printed in P. L., xiii. 583-588.

Blondel, De la Primauté dans l'Église, edit. 1641, p. 194.

Labbe, quoted in Coleti, ii. 1191, 1192.

Pagi, Critica, ad ann. 378, n. xvii., edit. 1728, tom. i. p. 549.

7 Tillemont, viii. 776.

8 Mansi, Concilia, iii. 624, 627.

9 Avellana Collectio, edit. Günther, 1895, p. 54.

10 Merenda, De S. Damasi Opusculis et Gestis, cap. xiii. § 2, P. L., xiii. 189.

11 Hefele, E. tr., ii. 292.

12 Langen, Geschichte der Römischen Kirche, tom. i. p. 506, n. 2.

13 Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, p. 214.

without deciding in favour of either one or the other. In his view "nescitur annus et Aquilini1 vicarii et concilii Romani."2

I agree with Merenda that no very great stress can be laid on the fact that only two Emperors are named in the heading of the synodical epistle, as that heading appears in the printed editions. All the editions of the epistle depend on the first edition, published by Sirmond in 1631. He took the letter from a manuscript in the Royal Library at Paris. But there is evidence to show that a manuscript copy of the letter found a place, near the end of the eleventh century, in the library of the celebrated monastery of Pomposa, near Ravenna, in which copy the name of Theodosius occurred after the names of Gratian and Valentinian. The truth of this fact rests on the evidence of a certain clerk, Henry, who was living in the abbey of Pomposa somewhere near the year 1100. The evidence in regard to the heading of the letter would therefore seem to be in a measure conflicting. The name of Theodosius was apparently absent from the Paris manuscript used by Sirmondus, but, if we may trust the testimony of the above-mentioned Henry, it was present in the Pomposa manuscript.

However, even if the common reading of the names of the Augusti in the heading of the synodical letter, as it is usually printed, rested on a considerable number of concordant manuscripts, as, I suppose, is the case in regard to the inscription of the rescript to Aquilinus, it would still remain the fact that it is not at all an unusual thing to find that the

1 Aquilinus was the functionary to whom Gratian's rescript in reply to the petition of the council was addressed.

2 Index Scholarum in Academia Georgia Augusta per semestre aestivum 1888 habendarum. Insunt epistulae imperatorum romanorum ex collectione canonum Avellana a Guilelmo Meyer Spirensi editae, Gottingae, p. 11.

3 See Sirmond's preface to his appendix to the Theodosian Code (Opera Varia, edit. Venet., 1728, tom. i. inter columnas 402 et 403). Meyer (Op. cit., p. 10) speaks of the codex used by Sirmond as nunc ignotus."

66

Montfaucon, in his Diarium Italicum (edit. 1702, pp. 81-96), quotes a letter written by a certain clerk, named Henry, to one Stephen, in which is found a catalogue of the manuscripts in the Pomposa Library, drawn up near the end of the eleventh century. On pp. 92, 93 may be read the following items in this catalogue: "Legatio Aquileiensis concilii ad Imperatores, Gratianum, Valentinianum, et Theodosium: hic liber sic incipit: Imperatoribus clementissimis et christianissimis.' Item Ambrosii ad eosdem: 'Imperatoribus clementissimis et christianissimis.' Item alia ejusdem concilii: 'Imperatoribus clementissimis.' Item alia ad eosdem : Et hoc gloriae vestrae clementissimus princeps.' It is to be observed that the last entry does not attribute the letter Et hoc gloriae vestrae to S. Ambrose, as Merenda wrongly declares (De S. Damasi Opusculis et Gestis, cap. xvi. § 2, P. L., xiii. 208), nor need it necessarily be understood as attributing it to the Council of Aquileia, as Merenda also wrongly asserts (loc. cit.); but it does imply that the letter with which we are dealing was addressed to the three Emperors, Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius. Henry's letter to Stephen was in the library of the Duke of Modena at the end of the 17th century (see Montfaucon's Diarium Italicum, p. 80), and it is in that same library, now usually called the Biblioteca Estense, at the present time (see the Statistica delle Biblioteche, parte i. vol. i. P. 185).

5 But Günther has shown, in his Prolegomena to the Vienna edition of the Collectio Avellana (pp. xxv., xxxiii., and xxxix.), that all the existing manuscripts of that collection depend on the Codex Vaticanus 3787, usually known as V, so that the text of the imperial rescript is based, like the text of the synodical petition, on the evidence of only one manuscript.

name of an Emperor has dropped out from an inscription or heading of an imperial constitution at a very early stage, before that constitution was incorporated into one or other of the codes. Meyer rightly calls attention to this fact, when speaking of those who uphold the date 378 on the ground that only the names of Gratian and Valentinian II. appear in the heading of the synodical letter, and in the inscription of the rescript, "although," he says, " inscriptionibus multorum edictorum desit nomen unius alteriusve Augusti." 1

But, even if we assume that the name of Theodosius was absent from the heading of the synodical letter and from the rescript, as they were originally written, it will not by any means necessarily follow that these letters were written during the five months which intervened between the death of Valens and the accession of Theodosius. There are instances of petitions addressed, not to all the Emperors, but to the Eastern alone or the Western alone; and there are also instances of legislative acts emanating from either the Eastern or the Western Emperor or Emperors. Thus the second Ecumenical Council petitioned Theodosius to confirm its decrees. The council made no reference in its petition to any wish on its part that its decrees should be confirmed by Gratian and Valentinian II. The synodical letter embodying the petition is given by Coleti. Socrates and Sozomen tell us that, as a matter of fact, the decrees of the council were confirmed by Theodosius. Unfortunately, his rescript of confirmation is not extant. If it were, I think that it would be found that Gratian and Valentinian II. were not mentioned in the inscription. However that might be, we have in this letter of the second Ecumenical Council an instance of an Eastern synod petitioning the Eastern Emperor to take legislative action, just as the Roman synod, the date of which we are investigating, asked the two Western Emperors to take legislative action.

Similarly, two synodical letters from the bishops of North Italy were addressed to Theodosius only, in 381 or 382.5 Both letters have the same inscription, which runs thus: "Beatissimo imperatori, et clementissimo principi Theodosio, Ambrosius et caeteri episcopi Italiae." No mention is made of either Gratian or Valentinian II.

On October 11, 449, S. Leo and a synod at Rome sent a letter of petition to the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius the Younger, praying him to set aside the Robber-council of Ephesus, and to summon a larger council. The inscription of this synodical letter runs thus: "Leo episcopus et sancta Synodus, quae in urbe Roma convenit, Theodosio augusto." No mention is made of Valentinian III., the Western Emperor.

6

These are all instances of synodical petitions addressed, not to

1 Meyer, Op. cit., p. 11. It may be well to give three or four instances of such inaccuracies, which are to be found in considerable numbers in the Theodosian Code. Gratian's name has dropped out of the inscription in Cod. Theod., xvi. 5, 3, and also in xvi. 6, 1. The name of Arcadius has dropped out in Cod. Theod., xv. I, 22. On the other hand, the name of Gratian has been wrongly added to those of Valentinian and Valens in Cod. Theod., xiv. 15, 2. 3 v. 8. vii. 9.

2 ii. 1123.

Cf. Epp. inter Ambrosianas xiii. et xiv., P. L., xvi. 990–995.
Coleti, iv. 802.

all the Emperors, but to the Eastern Emperor only. I go on to give examples of imperial legislative acts emanating from the Emperor of the West only.

On December 3, 408, Honorius alone addressed a law to Theodorus, Prefect of the praetorium of Italy. In the inscription no mention is made of Theodosius II., who had been proclaimed Augustus six years before, and whose name appears in the inscription of a law dated nine days earlier, and of another dated ten days later.3

On January 18, 417, Honorius alone, without any mention of Theodosius II., addressed a law to the patrician Constantius.*

I have reserved for the last a very remarkable parallel to the two documents which we are considering, that is to say, to the petition of the Roman Council to the Western Emperors, Gratian and Valentinian II., and to the subsequent rescript of those Emperors to Aquilinus. On July 1, 420, Pope Boniface of Rome addressed a supplication to Honorius, the heading of which runs thus: "Supplicatio papae, Bonifatii, ut constituatur a principe, quatenus in urbe Roma numquam per ambitum ordinetur antistes." The inscription is worded as follows: "Bonifatius episcopus Honorio Augusto." In reply to this supplication, Honorius sent a rescript, of which the heading runs thus: "Epistola Imperatoris Honorii ad Bonifatium Episcopum Rom., qua statuit ut si ordinati fuerint duo Episcopi ambo de civitate pellantur." The rescript has the following inscription: "Victor Honorius inclytus triumphator semper Augustus sancto ac venerabili Bonifatio papae urbis aeternae."5 In neither the supplication nor the rescript is any mention made of Theodosius the Younger. I leave the details of the parallel to the reader's discrimination.

These various instances of the absence of one or more of the names of the Emperors from the headings and inscriptions of petitions and rescripts make it quite allowable to suppose that the name of Theodosius was intentionally omitted from the heading of the synodical letter Et hoc gloriae vestrae, and from the inscription of the rescript to Aquilinus. And this supposition seems to be all the more justifiable when we observe that both the petition and the rescript are limited in their scope to the Western Empire. It follows from all that has been said, that no conclusive argument in regard to the date of the Roman Council, about which we are speaking, can be deduced from the

1 Append. Cod. Theod., lex xvi., Sirmond. Opp., edit. Venet., 1728, i. 415, 416.

2

Op. cit., lex xii., Sirmond. Opp., i. 411, 412.

3 Op. cit., lex xviii., Sirmond. Opp., i. 416.

Op. cit., lex xix., Sirmond. Opp., i. 417.

A critical edition of these two documents will be found in Meyer's edition of certain portions of the Collectio Avellana (pars ii. pp. 33-37). This second part of Meyer's work was published at Göttingen, in the Index Scholarum for the winter term of 1888-89.

Merenda (Op. cit., cap. xiii. § 2, P. L., xiii. 188, 189) says, "Neque semper omnium imperatorum nomina exprimebantur in litteris, quae ad eos pro rerum opportunitate scribebantur, neque id necesse videbatur, cum satis esset ut litterae aut rescripta eorum principum nomen praeferrent, quorum erat iis in locis imperium ac potestas, quod (ne ego non necessario labore defungar) ex Symmacho colligi potest."

heading of its synodical letter, as it stands printed in the collections of councils.

I have set forth the arguments and evidence on this point at what may seem needless length, because Günther, Rauschen,1 and other recent writers seem to regard the argument from the headings as conclusive in favour of the date 378.

In order that we may obtain light on the question of the date of our Roman Council, which was mainly occupied with scandals arising out of the proceedings of the anti-pope Ursinus, it will be well to get such information as may be attainable about the doings and whereabouts of this anti-pope during the term of years within which the synodical letter Et hoc gloriae vestrae must have been written. And our best source of information on this subject will, I think, be found in the letter Provisum est2 of the Council of Aquileia.

The date of the Council of Aquileia, as it appears in the acts of the .council, is September, 381, and I accept that date as a chronological fact which cannot be shaken.*

In their letter Provisum est, the Aquileian Fathers make it clear that Ursinus was not cooped up during the year 381 in some one place of confinement in distant Gaul, but that (1) not very long before the Council of Aquileia he had been at Milan, leaguing himself with the Arians there ; and that (2) at the time when the Council of Aquileia was being held there was considerable danger of his being received in audience by the Emperor Gratian. I will take these two points in their order.

(1) The following passage occurs in the Aquileian letter, with which we are dealing: "Often as he, [Ursinus], has been found guilty of turbulence, he still goes on (incedit adhuc) as if his past conduct was calculated to inspire no horror. He was often, as we have ascertained and seen in the present council, in union and combination with the Arians at the time when he was endeavouring, in company with Valens, to disturb the Church of Milan with their detestable assembly; organizing secret mixed meetings, sometimes before the doors of the synagogue and sometimes in the houses of the Arians, and uniting his friends to them; and, as he could not go openly himself to their congregations, teaching and informing them in what way the Church's peace might be disturbed.” 5

It will be noticed that these proceedings of Ursinus at Milan are brought forward to illustrate the charge that "he still goes on" with his turbulence. Such an illustration of that charge would hardly have been thought of, if the proceedings had not been recent. And this conclusion is corroborated by what is said about Ursinus' league with Valens. For when was Valens at Milan? We can gather the answer to this question from another synodical letter of the Council of Aquileia, the letter

1 Rauschen, Jahrbücher der Christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius dem Grossen, p. 31, n. 3.

2

Ep. inter Ambrosianas xi., P. L., xvi. 985-987.

Gestt. Concil. Aquil. § 1, S. Ambros. Opp., P. L., xvi. 955.

4 I say this notwithstanding Rade's attempt (Damasus, Bischof von Rom, 1882, p. 63) to assign the council to the year 380. On this attempt, see what I have written below on p. 515, n. 4.

Ep. inter Ambrosianas xi. § 3, P. L., xvi. 986.