PG 65 · cols. 877–884
Proclus of Constantinople, Mai's series: Sermon on the Ascension, Treatise on the Mass, Letters, Fragments
Letters V–XII
Migne Reading Room
PG 65 · cols. 877–884
Letters V–XII
(90) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 877 (call not visible; column inferred)
Divinitatem. Ita Liberatus. Sed Facundus, deitatem.
"Divinitatem." So Liberatus; but Facundus has "deitatem".
(printed under page 447)
(91) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 877 (call not visible; column inferred)
Hujus item epistolae fragmentum servavit nobis Facundus lib. i, cap. 1, pag. 405, c.
A fragment of this letter too has been preserved for us by Facundus, book 1, ch. 1, p. 405c.
(printed under page 447)
(92) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 877 (call not visible; column inferred)
Theodosio. Riccardus ex cod. Vat. Theodoto. Et mox, ejus dispos. Sed Veneta Facundi editio ad vetustissimum codicem Veronensem exacta consona est Sirmondianae.
"Theodosio." Riccardi, from the Vatican manuscript, has "Theodoto"; and just after, "ejus dispos[itione]". But the Venice edition of Facundus, collated with the very old Verona manuscript, agrees with Sirmond's.
(printed under page 447)
(93) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 877 (call not visible; column inferred)
Et petivimus, et cum omni delectatione. Ita Sirmondus, consentiente codice Veronensi. At Riccardus, expetivimus et cum omni dilectione : apud quem paulo post, quanta ipsa. Minus recte omnia, ut videtur.
"Et petivimus, et cum omni delectatione." So Sirmond, with the Verona manuscript agreeing. But Riccardi has "expetivimus et cum omni dilectione", and a little after, "quanta ipsa". All less correct, it seems.
(printed under page 447)
(94) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 877 (call not visible; column inferred)
Regalem — viam. Sic recte codex Veron. : quam quidem lectionem confirmat sequens verbum pergebas. In editione Sirmond. deest viam : et Riccardus mendose, regulam — pergebas.
"Regalem — viam." So, rightly, the Verona manuscript; and the following verb "pergebas" confirms the reading. In Sirmond's edition "viam" is missing, and Riccardi has, wrongly, "regulam — pergebas".
(printed under page 447)
(95) ‹anchor: EPISTOLA VI.› · call in col 877
Exstat apud Facundum lib. viii, cap. 1, pag. 639, c.
It is extant in Facundus, book 8, ch. 1, p. 639c.
(printed under page 447)
(96) ‹anchor: nullam alicubi detractionem› · call in col 877
Detractionem. Ita Riccardus ex cod. Vat. At Sirmondus, detrectationem. Paulo ante Riccard. sed etiam haec, qui — Theod.
"Detractionem." So Riccardi, from the Vatican manuscript; but Sirmond has "detrectationem". A little before, Riccardi has "sed etiam haec, qui — Theod[orus]".
(printed under page 447)
(97) ‹anchor: adversus errores› · call in col 877
Errores. Riccardus, haereses.
"Errores." Riccardi has "haereses".
(printed under page 447)
(98) ‹anchor: haereticorum sunt› · call in col 877
Haereticorum sunt — et illis proximus. Riccardi lectionem retinemus. Vox item proximus legitur in cod. Veron. Sed Sirmondus omittit sunt, et habet primus. Non bene. Mox vero cum Riccardo legimus : Haec nos — compleverunt. Neque aliter codex Veron. At Sirmondus, Hac.
"Haereticorum sunt — et illis proximus." We keep Riccardi's reading; the word "proximus" is also read in the Verona manuscript. But Sirmond omits "sunt" and has "primus" — not well. Just after, we read with Riccardi "Haec nos — compleverunt", and the Verona manuscript has no other reading; but Sirmond has "Hac".
(printed under page 447)
(99) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 878 (call not visible; column inferred)
Theodori. Sirmondus, B. Theodori : qui mox habet reliquum, prout edidimus. Riccardus vero, aliquod.
"Theodori." Sirmond has "B[eati] Theodori", and just after he has "reliquum", as we have printed it; but Riccardi has "aliquod".
(printed under page 447)
(1) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 878 (call not visible; column inferred)
Antiochenae. Ita rescripsimus cum Sirmondo, pro Antiochiae apud Riccardum.
"Antiochenae." So we have rewritten it, with Sirmond, for Riccardi's "Antiochiae".
(printed under page 447)
(2) ‹anchor: probatissimum doctorem› · call in col 878
Probatissimum. Hanc vocem praeterit Riccardus, quam sumpsimus ex Sirmondo.
"Probatissimum." Riccardi passes over this word, which we have taken from Sirmond.
(printed under page 447)
(3) ‹anchor: ejusmodi nominis› · call in col 878
Ejusmodi nominis. Ista omittit Sirmondus, a Riccardo ex cod. Vat. exhibita. Haec vero et quae sequuntur usque ad finem, refert denuo Facundus lib. viii, cap. 5, pag. 662, his verbis : Et quid de caetero nominis adsit doctrinis, sic admirabilibus et famosissimis viris post mortem damnatis ? Non meum ergo est, etc. Hinc reformandus prior locus apud Sirmondum, ubi habetur, in sic admirab., quam pr[…]m recte omittit Riccardus.
"Ejusmodi nominis." Sirmond omits these words, which Riccardi gives from the Vatican manuscript. This and what follows to the end Facundus quotes again, book 8, ch. 5, p. 662, in these words: "And what further renown can attach to teachings, when men so admirable and so famous have been condemned after death? It is not mine, then," etc. Hence the earlier passage in Sirmond, which reads "in sic admirab.", is to be corrected; Riccardi rightly omits the pr[eposition? — the word is damaged in the scan].
(printed under page 447)
(4) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 879 (call not visible; column inferred)
Exstat hujus epistolae fragmentum apud Facundum lib. viii, cap. 2 et 5, pag. 643, 662.
A fragment of this letter is extant in Facundus, book 8, chs. 2 and 5, pp. 643, 662.
(printed under page 448)
(5) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 879 (call not visible; column inferred)
Feci ment. Ita recte Riccardus : cui lectioni suffragatur codex Veron. Sirmondus, fieri ment.
"Feci ment[ionem]." So, rightly, Riccardi, and the Verona manuscript supports the reading. Sirmond has "fieri ment[ionem]".
(printed under page 448)
(6) ‹anchor: ut anathematizetur› · call in col 879
Anathematizetur. Sic Sirmondus, qui mox habet, aut abdic. omisso ut. Atque ita utrobique : nimirum pag. 643 et 662, ut modo innuimus. Riccardus, anathematizaretur.
"Anathematizetur." So Sirmond, who just after has "aut abdic[etur]", leaving out "ut"; and so in both places, namely pp. 643 and 662, as we have just indicated. Riccardi has "anathematizaretur".
(printed under page 448)
(7) ‹anchor: EPISTOLA XI.› · call in col 879
Hanc recitat Facundus lib. viii, cap. 2, ejusdemque fragmentum mox rescribit cap. 5, pag. 644, 662. Hujus epistolae meminit Liberatus cap. 10.
Facundus quotes this letter in book 8, ch. 2, and soon copies out a fragment of it again in ch. 5, pp. 644, 662. Liberatus mentions this letter in ch. 10.
(printed under page 448)
(8) ‹anchor: Antiochenum episcopum› · call in col 879
Episcopum. Codex Veron. archiepiscopum.
"Episcopum." The Verona manuscript has "archiepiscopum".
(printed under page 448)
(9) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 880 (call not visible; column inferred)
Festina — exquirere. Hunc locum antea mutilum ita restituimus ex codice Veron. Nam apud Riccardum et Sirmondum legitur : Festina (seu festines) sicut filius exquirere. Mox Riccardus, exquirere Sed omnia permitte.
"Festina — exquirere." We have restored this passage, mutilated before, thus from the Verona manuscript; for in Riccardi and Sirmond it reads "Festina (or festines) sicut filius exquirere". Just after, Riccardi has "exquirere Sed omnia permitte".
(printed under page 448)
(10) ‹anchor: Ecclesiis ubique› · call in col 880
Ubique. Ita Riccardus. At Sirmondus, urbis, haud repugnante codice Veron.
"Ubique." So Riccardi; but Sirmond has "urbis", and the Verona manuscript does not contradict him.
(printed under page 448)
(11) ‹anchor: EPISTOLA XII› · call in col 880
Hanc refert Facundus lib. viii, cap. 3, pag. 649. Sacrae hujus meminit Liberatus cap. 10.
Facundus gives this letter in book 8, ch. 3, p. 649. Liberatus mentions this imperial rescript in ch. 10.
(printed under page 448)
(12) ‹anchor: Turbam atque tumultum› · call in col 880
Turbam atque tumultum. Turbabat Orientales, ut est in epistola Cyrilli ad Proclum, quod vir nobilis et defunctus in communione Ecclesiarum anathematizaretur. Hoc itaque est quod rescripto suo nunc vetat Theodosius, ne quis eos lacessat qui in Ecclesiae pace defuncti sunt. Quo fit, ut suspectum sit Theodori nomen quod in Theodosii edicto de damnatione Nestorii adjectum legitur act. 5 synodi v, cum in Ephesina et in codicibus non legatur. Sirmond.
"Turbam atque tumultum." What troubled the Easterners, as Cyril's letter to Proclus says, was that a man of distinction, who had died in the communion of the Churches, was being anathematized. This, then, is what Theodosius now forbids in his rescript: that anyone should assail those who died in the peace of the Church. Hence the name of Theodore, which is read added in Theodosius's edict on the condemnation of Nestorius in session 5 of the Fifth Council, is suspect, since it is not read in the Ephesine council nor in the manuscripts. Sirmond.
(printed under page 448)
(13) ‹anchor: Hac itaque› · call in col 880
Hac itaque — praesumat. Haec ad finem usque desiderantur apud Riccardum, quae leguntur apud Sirmondum.
"Hac itaque — praesumat." These words, to the very end, are wanting in Riccardi; they are read in Sirmond.
(printed under page 448)
(ref. 51) ‹anchor: membra ex membro› · call in col 882 1 Cor. XII, 27; Ephes. V, 30.
1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 5:30.
(printed under page 449)
(14) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 882 (call not visible; column inferred)
Exspectamus — utilius. Haec addidimus ex codice Veronensi, quae ob repetitam vocem utilius exciderunt e Sirmondiano exemplari.
"Exspectamus — utilius." We have added these words from the Verona manuscript; they fell out of Sirmond's copy because the word "utilius" is repeated.
(printed under page 449)
(15) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 882 (call not visible; column inferred)
Interprete Vincentio Riccardo clerico regulari. Exstat haec epistola G. L. Act. 14 concilii Chalcedonensis, tom. IV Concil. edit. Ven.-Labb., pag. 1647. Recusa est a Baluzio ex Dionysii Exigui versione, ibidem pag. 2039, qui tamen interpretem ignorasse videtur. Eamdem quoque ante Riccardum ediderat Elmenhorstius pag. 117. Habetur item ex duplici versione in Bibliotheca Patrum Parisiensi ann. 1644, tom. XV, pag. 648 et 658.
Translated by Vincenzo Riccardi, clerk regular. This letter is extant in Greek and Latin in session 14 of the Council of Chalcedon, vol. IV of the Councils in the Venice edition of Labbe, p. 1647. Baluze reprinted it from the version of Dionysius Exiguus, ibid., p. 2039, though he seems not to have known the translator. Elmenhorst had also published it before Riccardi, p. 117. It is also found in two versions in the Paris Bibliotheca Patrum of 1644, vol. XV, pp. 648 and 658.
(printed under page 449)
(ref. 52) ‹anchor: call above the visible foot› · call in col 883 (call not visible; column inferred) 1 Cor. XII, 26.
1 Corinthians 12:26.
(ref. 53) ‹anchor: locum irae› · call in col 883 Rom. XII, 19.
Romans 12:19.
(printed under page 450)