¹ Thus Schwartz named the collection, which he edited in his Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, I, 5, pars prior (Berlin and Leipzig, 1924–1925). This edition will hereafter be referred to as ACO I, 5. Roman numerals with ACO I, 5 refer to the first preface.

² See the concluding passage of what appears to be the original collection, ACO I, 5, 181. Additional translations have been appended but these almost certainly do not belong to the work as it left the hands of its author. Schwartz appropriately called them additamenta.

³ ACO I, 5, VIII and Sitzungsb. d. Bay. Akad. zu München, hist.-phil. Klasse, 1922, 9. This work will be cited hereafter as Bay. Akad.

⁴ ACO I, 5, VIII.

⁵ See Schwartz's whole discussion of this subject in his study ‘Die sogenannten Gegenanathematismen des Nestorius’ in Bay. Akad., 1922, but particularly pp. 15–21. Maxentius quotes the anathemas in his Libellus fidei, which was laid before the papal legates in Constantinople on May 25, 519 and then submitted to the pope in August of the same year. See also Nisters, B., ‘Die Collectio Palatina,’ in Theologische Quartalschrift, Augsburg, 1932, 113, 119–137Google Scholar and Schurr, Viktor, Die Trinitätslehre des Boethius im Lichte der „skythischen Kontroversen,” Paderborn, 1935, 180Google Scholar. Both of these works are hereafter cited by the author's name.

⁶ Recensions of Dionysius's translations are also to be found in the Collection of the Vatican MS., so named by Maassen, and in the Hadriana aucta. See Bay. Akad., 18–19.

⁷ Schurr believes that Dionysius translated the synodical letter late in 518 or, more likely, in 519, in opposition to Schwartz, who favored the year 497. Schurr makes a good case for the later date. See his discussion of his own and Schwartz's point of view, 174–181.

⁸ For Maassen's discussion see Geschichte der Quellen … 1, 131–135, 424.

⁹ There is still another tie between Maxentius and the Palatine Collection. Among the additamenta is a translation of Cyril's Scholia de incarnatione unigeniti, a work capable of giving support to the views adopted by the Scythian monks in the Theopaschite controversy. The inclusion of the work here becomes more significant when Schwartz points out, ACO I, 5, XIV, that John Maxentius used the Palatine translation of the Scholia in his libellus of 519. It is impossible to say with any certainty who translated the Scholia but a reasonable conjecture may be made. The translator used repeatedly by the Scythian monks was Dionysius Exiguus, who was as well versed in Greek as in Latin, according to his friend Cassiodorus, Institutiones I, 23 (ed. Mynors, p. 61). Dionysius was moreover clearly devoted to the theological teachings of Cyril of Alexandria and in the preface to his translation of Cyril's letters 45 and 46 he declared that he would translate still more of the Alexandrine's writings for the monks. Yet his only other known translation is that of the synodical letter. Did the canonist for some reason fail to oblige his brothers or did he do more translations which have somehow become lost? The latter seems to me much more likely and the version of the Scholia quoted by Maxentius may be one of the lost translations. For a discussion of the known translations made by Dionysius for the Theopaschite controversy see Schurr, 168–197.

¹⁰ Note that the second work was not directed against the Eutychians in general but against those dissident Acephali who despised not only Chalcedon but even those who had accepted the Henoticon. For the Acephali see Duchesne, L., L'église au VIe siècle, Paris, 1925, 72Google Scholar. The Scythian attacked the Eutychians in his Libellus fidei, ACO IV, 2, 8–9.

¹¹ ACO I, 5, 180.

¹² Morin, G., ‘Le témoinage perdu de Jean évêque de Tomi sur les hérésies de Nestorius et d'Eutychès,’ in The Journal of Theological Studies, 7 (1906), 74–77Google Scholar. Schurr mentions Morin's find, but little more.

¹³ As Morin, 76, remarked, simply ‘words’ and not ‘sermons’ were meant by ‘sermonibus.’

¹⁴ So I learned by consulting H. O. Coxe, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Bodleianae, pars secunda, fascic. primus, 99, as the MS. itself was not available to me.

¹⁵ This valuable information about Laud. Misc. 92 and 580 was derived from a letter of February 7, 1935 written by Dr. E. A. Lowe to Professor M. L. W. Laistner, who had made inquiries of Dr. Lowe on my behalf.

¹⁶ The excerpt, unidentified by Coxe and not mentioned by Morin, was taken, I believe, from Ambrose's De fide orthodoxa contra Arianos, PL 17, 558 C–559 D. Coxe described the passage only as ‘ex libro Sancti Ambrosii de Substantia,’ and quoted only the beginning and ending. He gives the beginning as, ‘Ergo ipsum prodest hoc erit substantia ejus rei….” The De fide, PL 17, 558 C, begins ‘Ergo ipsum quod est, hoc est substantia ejus rei, quae est …,’ etc. Coxe gives the ending as ‘ Secundum id quod indigna similitudine aestimari potest….’ The De fide, PL 17, 559 D has, ‘Secundum id quod Deus est, condigna similitudine aestimari potest, quippe cum …,’ etc. Note that the quotation as given in Laud. Misc. 92 ended in the middle of a sentence. Strangely enough, however, the copyist stopped writing in the middle of the last line of the last page (folio 175^v).

¹⁷ See Schwartz, ACO IV, 2, XIII, who makes the reasonable suggestion that all Maxentius's works were sent to Fulgentius, among whose works and papers they were found and copied by some thoughtful person.

¹⁸ Ep. 16 and 17 among Fulgentius's letters, PL 65, 442–493. See also Duchesne, L'église au VIe siècle, 62–63.

¹⁹ The interruption of the excerpt in the middle of a sentence poses several difficult questions. Was the sentence finished on the next folio? If so, why did the copyist stop in the middle of the last line on the page? Perhaps he found he had less space than he had calculated and thought it better not to begin on the final clause of the sentence. Were there other writings in the two missing folios, including some explanation of the works of John and Ambrose? The answers will probably never be known, but if the writings were continued on the next folio, it is very difficult to see why the copyist stopped where he did. On the other hand, Dr. Lowe remarked that the first folio of the quire, as well as the last two, is missing, causing a gap in the last work of Fulgentius. Since one inscribed folio apparently has been removed, others may have been too.

²⁰ JTS 7, 75–76. There is a point, small but not unworthy of mention in the discourse on the Nestorians. John announces that Nestorius ‘adserebat sanctam virginem Mariam theodochon, non theotocon, hoc est susceptricem dei esse, non genitricem.’ Morin, in his apparatus criticus, p. 75, says of ‘theodochon, non theotocon’ ‘Cette formule est moins connue que l'autre, χριστοτόκον non θεοτόκον. On la trouve cependant dans le VII^e sermon de Nestorius, n. 48 (Migne P. L. 48, 800): θεοδόχον dico, non θεοτόκον. Cyrille d'Alexandrie la réfute dans sa lettre à ses clercs qui se trouvaient à Constantinople (Migne, ibid., 815 sq.)’ John's citation of this rare formula, which is to be found among the Nestorian and Cyrillan translations of Marius Mercator, forges yet another link in the chain of evidence binding the Palatine collector and John of Tomi.

²¹ JTS 7, 76. ‘Alii autem eiusdem perfidiae sectatores dicunt . quod filius dei non de Mariae uirginis carne hoc est nostrae naturae sed passibilem unde uoluit sibi adsumpsit . alii de caelestibus eum & spiritalibus coaeternam habuisse existimant . ac per uterum Mariae uirginis ueluti aquam per fistulam nihil ex ea carnis adsumens transisse contendunt . omnes tamen hi uerbum & carnem unius esse naturae impia permixtione con fusioneque confirmant.’

²² Cap. 7, pp. 100, 102, 120 of E. K. Rand's edition of the Opuscula Sacra in the Loeb Classical Library. Boethius is not here describing two sects of Eutychians but two interpretations of the heretical views of Eutyches. His discussion is nevertheless particularly significant, because these two views closely resemble those presented by John of Tomi. This similarity becomes even more striking in view of Father Schurr's contention that Boethius was stimulated to write his fifth theological tractate, the Liber contra Eutychen et Nestorium, by the famous letter addressed to Pope Symmachus by the Eastern bishops in 512. Boethius thought the controversy over the question ‘ex duabus et in duabus naturis’ deserved much more attention than was given it. See Boethius, Tr. V, introduction, and Schurr, 124–125, 135–136. It may also be more than coincidence that in their letter the Eastern bishops complained that Catholics suffered at the hands of those who maintained that there was no middle way between Nestorius and Eutyches. This is very close to the complaint made by the Palatine collector, when he announced that it would be necessary to quote the words of John of Tomi. For the bishops' letter, see Thiel, ep. 12 of Symmachus, p. 714.

²³ Pro def. trium capit., I, 5, in PL 67, 548.

²⁴ PL 63, 503, and Collectio Avellana, CSEL 35, 704.

²⁵ For further information see Liberatus PL 68, 1034; Leontius Byzantinus, Confutatio utriusque fictionis inter se contrariae Nestorii et Eutychis, PG 86, 1351; Timotheus Presbyter, De iis qui ad ecclesiam accedunt, PG 86, 58; J. A. Dorner, Person of Christ, translated by D. W. Simon, div. II, vol. I, pp. 130 ff.; Pargoire, J., L'église byzantine (2nd edition, Paris, 1905), 30Google Scholar; A. Michel, ‘Hypostatique (Union)’ in DTC 7, 492.

²⁶ Morin, JTS 7, 77. If John had been bishop in the fifth century, it could only have been before the Council of Constantinople, early in 449, for Alexander was present both at that council and at Chalcedon. Alexander was followed by Theotimus in 458. Tillemont, 15, 141–142. If John had come so soon after Chalcedon, he would have mentioned the Council — only later did it become possible and fashionable in some circles to ignore it. If it is still held that John was bishop before 449, the defender of that view will face many difficulties, only one of which is the presence in the Palatine Collection of Dionysius's translations.

²⁷ Schurr, 181.

²⁸ JTS 7, 76. ‘Nulla namque pestis sic adversus ecclesiam praevaluit ut ista nunc usque superstitio exsecrabilis invalescit.’ Morin believed that, since John does not say Eutyches is dead, he must have been writing in the lifetime of the heresiarch. That does not follow, however, since there is no assurance from John that Apollinaris, who is also mentioned, is dead, nor is there any mention of Chalcedon for that matter.

²⁹ Pro def. trium capit., I, 2 in PL 67, 532–533. Cardinal de Noris in Dissertatio I, In historiam controversiae de uno ex trinitate passo, in his Opera omnia, 3 (Verona, 1729), 786 refers to the same condition in the time of the Emperor Anastasius I. See also the letter sent by Eastern bishops to Pope Symmachus, mentioned above. According to the Gesta de nomine Acacii, Mansi 7, 1061 and Col. Avel., CSEL 35, 443, at the time of the Robber Synod the Eutychians regarded all who disagreed with them as Nestorians, but this comment was written more than forty years after the Latrocinium.

³⁰ Dialogus contra Nestorianos, ACO IV, 2, 14 f. and Responsio adversus Hormisdae epistulam, ACO IV, 2, 47 and 52. In the Dialogus, 15, indeed he used language similar to that of the collector, saying of the Nestorians that he thought it necessary to expose their secret and wicked belief, which hides under cover of Catholic words. See also Dioscorus, Col. Avel., CSEL, 35, 224. The Scythian monks were accused of being Eutychian by the Acoemetae, de Noris, Dissertatio I, 797.

³¹ I do not argue for the omniscience of the copyist of John of Tomi in Laud. Misc. 92, but in these particular circumstances coincidence seems to me to be out of the question. Ordinarily it would be wiser to ask how the copyist knew, as in the incident mentioned by Rand, E. K. in his review of Father Schurr's book, Speculum (1936), 153–156Google Scholar.

³² The date is known because Paternus was still bishop in 520. Col. Avel., CSEL 35, 714. Schurr, 181, for some unexplained reason maintains that Maxentius could not have become bishop before 522.

³³ Nisters, 132–137, makes certain interesting but highly debatable and somewhat confused conjectures about the collection. He denies that Maxentius could have had anything to do with the collection, since it makes no mention of Chalcedon, while John was in favor of that council. I must confine myself at present to pointing out the citation of Cyril's anathemas in the translation of Dionysius Exiguus by both Maxentius and the Palatine collector. As for Maxentius's views on Chalcedon, the suggestiones of Dioscorus, the papal legate, to be found in the Collectio Avellana, CSEL 35, provide interesting reading on the subject. How Nisters would interpret the ‘sermones’ of John of Tomi, it would be unfair to guess.

³⁴ Bay. Akad., 8–10.

³⁵ Nisters, 132, holds moreover that the Origenistic doctrines as they were debated in 532 and condemned in 543 were of a different kind from those in the Palatine Collection. Schurr, 181, censures Nisters for not doing justice to the ‘strongly anti-Origenist’ attitude of the collector, which led Schwartz to attribute the collection to the time of the Three Chapters controversy. But Schurr does not explain how these two treatises constitute a ‘strongly anti-Origenist’ attitude. If the collector had wished to combat Origenism, he could easily have done so much more effectively than by the inclusion of two insignificant writings from the beginning of the fifth century.

³⁶ ACO I, 5, 3–4.

³⁷ Ibid., 4–5.

³⁸ de Noris, Hist. Pel., 27.

³⁹ ACO I, 5, 5. Schwartz spaces the words as indicated.

⁴⁰ Cardinal de Noris, Hist. Pel., 26–27, did not hesitate to assign the confession to Rufinus. Can this libellus be the Apologia mentioned by Lietzmann in his article ‘Rufinus 24,’ Pauly-Wissowa, zweite Reihe, la, 1920, 1194, where he says, ‘R. verteidigte sich in einer kurzen Apologia vor dem römischen Bischof Anastasius (403 Vall.) der aber in einem Schreiben an Johannes von Jerusalem den Origenes scharf verdammte, den R. seinem Gewissen überliess (408 Vall.)’? The letter is unquestionably the one under observation here. It is not to be found among the letters of Anastasius in Thiel's Epistolae Romanorum pontificum.

⁴¹ ACO I, 5, 5.

⁴² ACO I, 5, 5–6. Mercator contemptuously described Rufinus as ‘formerly a Syrian,’ but since he added that Rufinus introduced the new doctrine in the time of Anastasius, there can be no doubt that this is Rufinus of Aquileia, the translator of Origen.