Key to the Apparatus of Leontius's Florilegia
1. Editions of the Original Texts, outside of the Patristic Corpora
Amphilochius of Iconium, Works: ed. Cornelius Datema, CCG 3 (Leuven, 1978); (cf. F. Cavallera, "Les Fragments de saint Amphiloque dans fHodegos et le tome domatique d' Anastase le Sinane;' RHB 8 ( 1907), 47 4-97).
Antiochus of Ptolemais, Fragments: cf. C. Martin, "Un florilege grec d'homelies christologiques des IV' et V' siecles sur la Nativite (Paris Gr. 1491);' Le Musean 54(1941),17-57.
Apollinarius of Laodicaea, Works and Fragments: ed. H. Lietzmann, Apollinarius von Laodicea und seine Schule (Tilbingen, 1904).
Basil of Caesaraea, Letters: ed. Y Courtonne (3 vols.) (Paris, 1957-66).
Cyril of Alexandria, In D. Joannis Evangelium: ed. P. E. Pusey (3 vols.) (Oxford, 1872).
Epistolae Tres Oecumenicae; Libri Quinque Contra Nestorium; XII Capitum Explanatio; XII Capitum Defensio Utraque; Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti: ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford, 1875).
De Reeta Fide ad Imperatorem; De Incarnatione Unigeniti Dialogus; De Reeta Fide ad Principissas; De Reeta Fide ad Augustas; Quad Unus Sit Christus Dialogus; Apologeticus ad Imperatorem: ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford, 1877). (For On the Incarnation and That Christ is One, see also: Cyrille d' Alexandrie, Deux Dialogues Christologiques, ed. G. M. de Durand; SChr 97; (Paris, 1964).
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses: ed. W. K. Reischl and J. Rupp (2 vols.) (Munich, 1848-70).
Diodore of Tarsus, Fragments: ed. R. Abramowski, "Der theologische Nachlass des Diodor von Tarsus;' ZNW 42(1949),19-69; cf. also R. Abramowski "Untersuchungen zu Diodor von Tarsus;' ZNW 30 (1931), 234-62.
Ephrem Syrus et Graecus, Opera omnia quae exstant graece, latine, syriace: ed. J. S. Assemani (6 vols.) (Rome, 1732-43).
Flavian of Antioch, Fragments: ed. F. Cavallera, in S. Eustathii Episcopi Antiocheni in Lazarum, Mariam et Martham homilia christologica (Paris, 1905), 103-10.
Gelasius of Caesaraea, Fragments: ed. F. Diekamp, Analecta Patristica. Texte und Abhandlungen zur griechischen Patristik (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta 117: Rome, 1938),44-9.
Gregory Nazianzen, Epp. 101-102, 202: ed. Paul Gallay, SChr 208 (Paris, 1998).
Orationes 1-3: ed. Jean Bernardi, SChr 247(Paris,1978).
Key to the Apparatus of Leontius's Florilegia
Orationes 27-31: ed. Paul Gallay, SChr 250 (Paris, 1978).
Qrationes 38-41: ed. C. Moreschini, SChr 358(Paris,1980).
Gregory of Nyssa, Opera: gen. ed. W. Jaeger; particular works ed. W. Jaeger, F. Mueller, J. McDonough, P. Alexander, H. Langerbeck, H. Musurillo, ). P. Cavarnos, V. W. Callahan, G. Heil, A. Van Heck, E. Gebhardt, A. Spira, H. Horner, 0. Lendle, E. Muhlenberg (10 vols. to date, with supplement) (Leiden, 1952- ).
Hippolytus, Fragment De Libra Primo Regum, Quae de Helcana et Samuele: cf. G. Jouassard, "Une citation et un ouvrage d·e saint Hippolyte sous le nom de saint Jrenee?" RevSR 17 (1937), 290-305.
Isidore of Pelusium,Epistolae: ed. P. Evieux: SChr 422 (Paris, 1997); 454 (Paris, 2002).
Nestorius, Fragments: ed. F. Loafs, Nestoriana. Die Fragmente des Nestorius (Halle a. s., 1905).
Paul of Samosata, Fragments: ed. G. Bardy, Paul de Samosate (Louvain, 1929'). Cf. aiso J. W. Feuerlein, Dissertatio de haeresi Pauli Samosateni (Gottingen, 1741); J. G. Ehrlich, Dissertatio de erroribus Pauli Samosateni (Leipzig, 1745); M. J. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae (Oxford, 1814).
Proclus of Constantinople, Homilies 1-5: ed. N. Constas, Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity (Leiden, 2003); for fragments, cf. C. Martin, "Un florilege grec d'homelies christologiques des Ive et V" siecles sur la Nativite (Paris Gr.1491);' Le Museon 54 (1941), 17-57.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Fragments of Christological Works: ed. H.B. Swete, Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii II (Cambridge, 1882), AppendlxA, pp. 289-322.
Timothy of Berytus, Ad Homonium: ed. H. Lietzmann, Apollinarius van Laodicea und seine Schule (Tiibingen, 1904), 277-9.
Valentinus Apollinaristes, Capita Apologiae: ed. H. Lietzmann, Apollinarius von Laodicea und seine Schule (Tiibingen, 1904), 287-91.
2. Florilegia Containing Parallel Texts
(The works are published in Greek unless otherwise noted.)
Anast. Sin., Hod.
Arnobius )nnior, Confl. cum Serap. [Lat.]
Cod. B. M. Syr. Add. 14669 [Syr.]
Cod. Navar. 30, Flor. [Lat.]
Anastasius of Sinai, Hodegos: ed. K.-H. Uthemann, CCG 8. Arnobius Junior, Conflictus cum Serapione: ed. K. Daur, CCL25A.
A fifth- or sixth-century manuscript, containing part of a translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia's De Incarnatione: ed. and tr. E. Sachau, Theodori Mopsuesteni Fragmenta Syriaca (Leipzig, 1869).
Florilegium in cod. Novariensis 30: ed. E. Schwartz, ACO IV, 2, 74-96.
x Key to the Apparatus of Leontius's Florilegia
Cone. Chalc., Ad Council of Chalcedon, Acta: Allocutio ad Marcianum: Marc. ed. E. Schwartz,ACO II, l, 3, 110, 1.10-116, 1.12.
Coll. Sangerm. [Lat.]
Cone. Eph., Coll. Ath.
Coll. Cas. [Lat.]
Coll.Pal. [Lat.]
Coll. Vat.
Cone. Const. II [Lat.]
Cone. Const. II! [Gk. And Lat.]
Ctr.Cal.
Cyr. Alex., Ad Mon. Aeg.
Adv. Nest. Blasph.
De Sect.
Doctr. Patr.
Ephr. Am., Def Cyr.
Ad Domn. Et Joan.
Ad Or.Mon.
Eulog., Or. Def
Euth. Zig., Pan.
Fae. Herm., Def Tr. Cap. [Lat.]
Collectio Sangermanensis: ed. E. Schwartz,ACO II, 5. Council of Ephesus, Acta: Collectio Atheniensis: ed. E. Schwartz,ACO I, 1, 7, 17-167.
Collectio Casinensis: ed. E. Schwartz,ACO I, 3-4.
Collectio Palatina: ed. E. Schwartz,ACO I, 5, 1, 3-215.
Collectio Vaticana: ed. E. Schwartz,ACO I, 1, 1-6.
Second Council of Constantinople (553),Acta: ed. E. Schwartz and). Straub,ACO IV, 1-2.
Third Council of Constantinople (680-1), Acta: ed. R. Riedinger, ACO, Series Secunda.
Anonymous tract Contra Calumniatores Duplicis Naturae (npOs roVs 3vc£8a Ws in Doctr. Pair. 30, Ill, 220.
Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. 1, ad Monachos Aegypti, in Cone. Eph., Coll. Vat.: ACO I, 1, 1, 10-23; cf. also PG 77, 9-40.
id., Adversus Nestorii Blasphemias: ed. P. E. Pusey (Oxford, 1875), 54-239; cf. also PG 76, 9-248.
Ps.-Leontius of Byzantium (Theodore of Raithu?),De Sectis: ed. M. Waegeman (in preparation); cf. incomplete edn. in PG 86, 1193-268.
Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi: ed. F. Diekamp (Milnster, 1907; repr. 1981).
Ephrem of Amida, Defensio Cyrilli Epistulae Secundae ad Succensum in Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 229: ed. R. Henry IV (Paris, 1965), 126-35; cf. also PG 103, 972-81.
Ad Domnum et foannem, ibid.: ed. R. Henry IV, 142-59; cf. also PG 103, 988-1008.
Ad Orientis Monachos, ibid.: ed. R. Henry IV, 159-74; cf. also PG 103, 1008-24.
Eulogius of Alexandria, Orationes, in Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 230: ed. R. HenryV (Paris, 1967), 8-64; cf. also PG 103, 1024-68.
Defensiones (Evv"}yop{ai), in Doctr. Patr. 29,XIII and XV, 209-13.
Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia Dogmatica: PG 130, 33-1360.
Facundus of Hermiane, Pro Defensione Tri um Capitulorum, adfustinianum: ed. ).-M. Clement and R. Vander Plaetse, CCL 90", 3-398; cf. also PL 67, 527-82.
Key to the Apparatus of Leontius's Florilegia xi
Flor. B. M. Syr. Add. 12154 [Syr.]
Flor. B. M. Syr. Add. 12155 [Syr.]
Flor. B. M. Syr. Add. 12156 [Syr.]
Flor. Cyr.
Flor.Edes. [Syr.]
Flor. Len.131
Flor. Marc. 573
Fulg. Rusp., Ep. [Lat.]
Gelasius, De Duab. Nat. [Lat.]
A monophysite florilegium in a manuscript of the eighth or ninth century; cf. W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum II (London, 1871), 976-89. (f.18' pub!. by J.B. Pitra,Analecta Sacra IV (Paris, 1883), 183).
A monophysite florilegium in an eighth-cent. manuscript; cf. Wright II, 921-55. (f. lll' pub!. by J.B. Pitra,Analecta Sacra IV, 183).
An anti-Chalcedonian collection compiled before 562, incorporating florilegia of Timothy Aelurus (q.v.). cf. Wright II, 639-48; E. Schwartz, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431, 117-32.
Florilegium Cyrillianum (Le Florilege Cyrillien refute Par Severe d' Antioche): ed. R. Hespe!, BMus 3 7 (Louvain, 1955).
Florilegium in cod. B. M. Syr. Add. 12156, ff. 69-80: ed. I. Rucker, Plorilegium Edessenum Anonymum, SBAW (1933), 5.
Florilegium in cod. Moscow Lenin 131 (Fund. 339), ff. 15v_23v_
Florilegium in cod. Marcianus Graecus Z573 ff. 3or_47v, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Epistulae: ed. J. Fraipont, CCL 91, 189-444; cf. also PL 65, 303-498.
Pope Gelasius I, De duabus naturis in Christo, adversus Butychem et Nestorium: ed. A. Thiel Epistulae Romanorum Pontificum Genuinae I (Braunsberg, 1868), 530-57; cf. also E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum Acacianischen Schisma (ABAW NF 10: Munich, 1934), 85-106.
Geo. Kaph., Ep. ad Mi'na [Syr.]
lnnoc. Mar. [Lat.]
Joan. Caes.,Apol. Cone. Chalc. [Gk. andSyr.]
Adv. Aphthart.
Ctr.Mon.
Toan. Cass., De Inc. Dom. [Lat.]
Joan. Dam., Ctr.Jae.
George of Kaphra, Ep. ad Mi'ntl: tr. 0. Braun, Das Buch der Synhados (Stuttgart and Vienna, 1900), 348-71.
Innocent of Maroneia, Ep. ad Thomam Presbyterum, de collatione cum Severianis habita: ed. E. Schwartz, ACO IV, 2, 169-84.
John of Caesaraea,Apologia Concilii Chalcedonensis, Fragments: ed. M. Richard CCG 1, 6-58.
Adversus Aphthartodocetas: ibid. 69-78.
Capitula XVII contra Monophysitas: ibid. 61-6.
John Cassian, De Incarnatione Domini: ed. M. Petschenig, CSEL 17; cf. also PL 50, 9-272.
John Damascene, Contra ]acobitas: ed. Bonifatius Kotter, Die Schriften des hi. Johannes van Damaskos IV (Berlin, 1981), 109-53.
xii Key to the Apparatus of Leontius's Florilegia
Joan. Max., Lib. Fid. [Lat.]
just., Ctr. Mon.
fohn Maxentius, Libellus Fidei: ed. E. Schwartz, ACO IV, 2, 3-10; cf. also PG 86, 79-86.
Justinian, Contra Monophysitas (Schreiben an Alexandrinische Manche): ed. E. Schwartz, Drei dogmatische Schriften Justinians (ABAW, NF 8(Munich,1939), 5-43); cf. also PG 86, 1104-45.
Conf Rect. Fid.
Ctr. Tr. Cap.
Leo, TomusI
Tomus II [Flor. in Lat]
Leon\. Byz., CNE
APA
CA DTN
Leon\. )er., Ctr. Mon.
Max. Conf., Ep.15
Nest., Sermones
Niceph., Antirrh. II
Antirrh.IV Pamph.
Pelagius II, Ep. 3 ad Episc.Histr. [Lat.]
Petrus Diaconus et al., Epist. ad Episc. [Lat.]
Ps.-joan.Mar. [Syr.]
Confessio Rectae Fidei (Edikt uber den rechten Glauben): ed. E. Schwartz, ibid. 72-111; cf. also PG 86, 993-1035.
Contra Tria Capitula: ed. E. Schwartz, ibid. 47-69; cf. also PG 86, 1041-95.
Pope Leo I, Tomus ad Flavianum (= Ep. 28): in Cone. Chalc., Acta, ed. E. Schwartz,ACO II, 1, 1, 10-20; cf. also PL 54, 755-82.
Tamus ad Leonem Augustum (= Ep.165): ibid.,ACO Il,4, 113-31; cf. also PL 54, 1155-90.
Leontius of Byzantium, Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos: thisvol.,pp. l-74.
Adversus Fraudes Apollinaristarum: this vol., pp. 201-25. ContraAphthartodocetas: this vol., pp. 109-44.
Deprehensio et Triumphus super Nestorianos: this vol., pp.145-200.
Leontius offerusalem, Contra Monophysitas PG 86, 1769-901.
Maximus Confessor, Ep.15, ad Cosmam Diaconum: PG 91, 544-76.
Nestorius, Sermones: ed. F. Loofs, Nestoriana: die Fragments des Nestorius (Halle, 1905).
Nicephorus the Patriarch, Antirrhetica II: ed. f. B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense I (Paris, 1852), 302-70.
Antirrhetica IV: part I: ibid. 371-503; part 2: ibid. IV (Paris, 1858), 292-380.
Pamphilus of Jerusalem, Quaestiones et Responsiones: ed. fose Declerck, CCG 19.
Pope Pelagius II, Epistula 3 ad Episcopos Histriae: ed. E. Schwartz,ACO IV, 2, 112, 1.15-132, !. 37; cf. also PL 72, 715-38.
Peter the Deacon and others, Epistula ad Episcopos (included among the works of Fulgentius ofRuspe): ed. f. Fraipont, CCL 91 ', 551-62; cf. also PL 65, 442-51.
Pseudo-fohn Maron, Libellus Fidei: ed. Michael Breydy, CSCO 497-8(Leuven,1988).
Key to the Apparatus of Leontius's Florilegia xiii
Ps. -Leoni. Byz., Flor. de Corr. et Incorr.
Rust. Diac., Syn. [Lat.]
"Sermo maior de Fide"
Sev. Ant., ad Neph, [Syr.]
Ad Serg. [Syr.]
Antiljul. [Syr.]
Ctr. Gram. [Syr.]
Pseudo-Leontius of Byzantiwn, Florilegium de Corruptibili et Incorruptibili, in cod. Vatopedi 236: for contents and partial publication, cf. M. Richard, Le Mus eon 86 ( 1973 ), 249-73.
Rusticus Diaconus, Synodicon ( Coll. Gas.): ed. E. Schwartz, ACO l,3-4.
Pseudo-Athanasius, "Sermo maior de Fide" (florilegiwn in cod. Laur. Gr. IV, 23): ed.E. Schwartz, SBAW (1924), 6.
Severus of Antioch, Orationes ad Nephalium: ed. and tr. J. Lebon, CSCO Script. Syr. IV, 7(Louvain,1949).
Epistulae ad Sergium: ed. and tr. J. Lebon, CSCO Script. Syr.IV, 7(Louvain,1949).
Antijulianistica (La Polemique Antijulianiste) I-III: ed. and tr. R. Hespel, CSCO Script. Syr.104-5, 124-7, 136-7 (Louvaln, 1964- 71).
Liber contra Impium Grammaticum: ed. and tr. J. Lebon: Orat. 1-11: CSCO Script. Syr. 58-9 (Louvain, 1952); Oral. III, I: CSCO Script. Syr IV, 5 (Louvain, 1929); Oral. III, 2: CSCO Script. Syr. IV, 6(Paris,1933).
Exp.Fid.
Phil. [Syr.]
Syn. Hispal. [Lat.]
Syn. Lat. [Gr. and Lat.]
Syn. Sel. Ctes. [Syr.]
Thdt.,Eran.
Haer. Fab. Comp.
Theod. bar Konl,Lib.
Schol [Syr.]
Theor., Disp. I
Disp. ll
Tim. Ael., Ep. de Isaia [Syr.]
Expositio Fidei, Fragments: in Doctr. Patr. 2 LI (24, 1.17-25, 1.15).
Philalethes (Le Philalethe): ed. and tr. R. Hespel CSCO Script. Syr. 68-9(Louvaln,1952).
Synod of Seville (619),Acta: Mansi X, 555-68; cf. also J. Vives, Concilios Visig6ticos e Hispano-Romanos (Barcelona and Madrid, 1963), 163-85.
Lateran Synod (649),Acta: Mansi X, 865-1186.
Synod (Nestorian) of Seleucia Ctesiphon ( 612): tr. 0. Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 315-31.
Theodore\ Eranistes: ed. G. Ettlinger (Oxford, 1975); cf. also PG 83, 28-333.
Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium: PG 83, 336-556.
Theodore bar Konl, Liber Scholiorum: ed. A. Scher, CSCO Script. Syr. II, 66(Paris,1912).
Theorian, Orthodoxi Disputatio cum Armenorum Catholico I: PG 133, 120-212.
Orthodoxi Disputatio cum Armenorum Catholico II: ibid. 212-97.
Timothy Aelurus, Letter about Isaiah of Hermoupolis and Theophilus ofAlexandria, in the Syriac continuation of Zachary of Mytilene, Hist. Eccl. IV, 12: ed. E.W. Brooks, CSCO III, 5 (Louvain, 1919), 186, 1.16-202, I. 7; tr.129, 1.19-140, I. 7.
xiv Key to the Apparatus of Leontius's Florilegia
Ref Cone. Chalc. [Arm.]
Tim. Ael. (?) Liber ctr. Syn. Chalc. [Syr.]
Vat. Gr.1431
Vigilius, Const. I [Lat.]
Refutation of the Council of Chalcedon (Widerlegung der auf der Synode zu Chalcedon festgesetzten Lehre): ed.
K. Ter-Mekerttschian and E. Ter-Minassiantz (Leipzig and Etchmiadzin, 1908); cf. E. Schwartz, Vat.gr.1431, 97-132.
Timothy Aelurus (?), Liber contra Synodum Chalcedonensem: florilegium in cod. B. M. Syr. Add.12156, ff.1-91'; excerpts from Theodore of Mopsuestia, ff. 83b-86': ed. P. de Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca (Leipzig, !SSS), 100; tr. E. Sachau, Theodori Mopsuesteni Fragmenta Syriaca (Leipzig, 1869), 63. cf.
E.Schwartz, Vat.gr.1431,126.
Florilegial and II in cod. Vat. Gr.1431, ff. 299-322: ed. E. Schwartz, Codex Vaticanusgr.1431: eine anti-chalkedonische Sammlung aus der Zeit Kaiser Zenos (ABAW XXXll, 6: Munich, 1927), nos. 65-6 (pp. 28-49).
Pope Vigilius I, Constitutum I, in Collectio Avellana, Ep. 83: ed. 0. Guenther, CSEL 35 (1895), 230-320; cf. also PL 69,67-114.
1. Corpora
ACO
Cath
CCG
CCL
Corp.Apo!.
csco
CSEL
DSp
GCS
Mansi
PG
PL
PO
SC
Abbreviations
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Berlin, 1914- .
Catholicisme. Paris, 194 7- 75.
Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca. Turnhout/Louvain, 1977-.
Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina. Turnhout, 1953-.
CorpusApologetarum Christianorum Saeculi Secundi. Jena, 1847-81.
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Rome/Paris/ Louvain/Washington, 1903-
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna, 1866-.
Dictionnaire de spiritualite. Paris, 1932-95.
Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Drei )ahrhnnderte. Berlin, 1897-
Sacrorum Conciliornm Nova etAmplissima Collectio (ed.). D.Mansi). Florence, 1759-1827.
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, accurante J.-P. Migne: Series Graeca. Paris, 1857-66.
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, accurante J.-P. Migne: Series Latina. Paris, 1841-55.
Patrologia Orientalis. Paris, etc., 1907- . Sources chretiennes. Paris, 1941-.
2. Other Collections and Periodicals
ABAW
AB la
AFLF(N)
An Gr
Bess
BMus
Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosopisch-philologische und historische K.lasse (Munich, 1909-28).
id., philosophisch-historische Abteilung, NS (Munich, 1929- ). 'AvaAeKrn BAaTa8wv (Thessaloniki, 1967).
Annali della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia, Universita di Napoli (Naples, 1951c ).
Analecta Gregoriana (Rome, 1930- ).
Bessarione (Rome, 1896-1923).
Bibliotheque du Museon (Leuven, 1929-68).
xvi
BZ
ByzF
Chalkedon
ChH
CrSt
DOP
DOS
DThC
EOr
EThL
GOTR
Gr
HJ
HTR
IThQ
JTS
Kl
MS
MSR
NAWG
OCA
OLA
OLoP
OS
PBR
PTS
RB
RE'
REB
REG
RevSR
RHB
RHLR
Abbreviations
Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Leipzig, etc., 1892- ).
Byzantinische Forschungen (Amsterdam, 1975- ).
A. Grillmeier and H. Bach! (eds.), Das Konzil van Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart (Wiirzburg, 1951-4).
Church History (Chicago, etc., 1932- ).
Cristianesimo nella storia (Bologna, 1980- ).
Dumbarton Oaks Papers (Cambridge, Mass., 1941- ) .
Dumbarton Oaks Studies (Cambridge, Mass., 1950- ) .
Dictionnaire de thealogie catholique (Paris, 1899-1950).
Echos d'Orient (Bucharest, 1897/8-1942/3).
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses (Louvain, etc., 1924- ).
Greek Orthodox Theological Review (Brookline, Mass., 1954- ).
Gregorianum (Rome, 1920- ).
Historisches Jahrbuch der Gorres-Gesellschaft (Munich, etc., 1880- ).
Harvard Theological Review (Cambridge, Mass., 1908- ).
Irish Theological Quarterly (Maynooth,etc., 1906- ).
Journal of Theological Studies (Oxford, etc., 1899-49; NS 1950- ). (Thessalonike, 1969- ).
Mediaeval Studies (Toronto, 1939- ).
Melanges de science religieuse (Lille, 1944- ) .
Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in GOttingen (Gottingen, 1941- ).
Orientalia Christiana Analecta (Rome, 1923- ).
Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta (Leuven, 1975- ) .
Orientalia LovanensiaPeriodica (Leuven, 1970-2000).
Ostkirchliche Studien (Wiirzburg, 1952- ).
Patristic and Byzantine Review (Kingston, NY, 1982- ).
Patristische Texte und Studien (Berlin, 1969- ).
Revue biblique (Paris, 1892-94; NS 1915- ).
Realencyklopiidie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche. Founded by ). ). Herzog (1854); 3rdedn., ed. A. Hauck(Gotha, 1896-1913).
Revue des etudes byzantines (Paris, 1946- ).
Revue des etudes grecques (Paris, 1888- ).
Revue des sciences religieuses (Strasbourg, 1921- ).
Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique (Louvain, 1900- ).
Revue d'histoire et de litterature religieuses (Paris, 1896-1907; NS 1910-22).
ROG
RSPhTh
SBAW
SCH(L)
SHAW
SROC
ST
StAns
StPatr
Theol(A)
ThQ
TS
TU
ZNW
ZSRG
Abbreviations xvii
Revue de /'Orient chretien (Paris, 1896-1946).
Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques (Paris, etc., 1907- ).
Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Munchen. Philosophisch-philologisch und historische Klasse (Munich, 1871-97;NS 1898- ).
Studies in Church History (London, 1964- ).
Sitzungberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Philosophisch-historische Klasse (Heidelberg, 1910- ).
Studi e ricerche sull'Oriente Cristiano (Rome, 1978- ).
Studi e Testi (Vatican City, 1900- ).
StudiaAnselmiana (Rome, 1933- ).
Studio Patristica (Berlin, etc., 1957- ).
Beo;\oyia (Athens, 1923- ).
Theologische Quartalschrift (Tiibingen, etc., 1818- ).
Theological Studies (Woodstock, Md., etc., 1940- ).
Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (Berlin, etc., 1882- ).
Zeitschrift fii.r die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche (Berlin, etc., 1900- ).
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftungfar Rechtsgeschichte (kanonische Abteilung) (Weimar, 1880- ).
Introduction
I. THE AUTHOR AND HIS TIMES
Modern attempts to speak of the person of Jesus within the framework of the Christian tradition usually begin with the dense, technically worded formulation produced, after several decades of heated controversy, by the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451; for most Christians, this statement provides the necessary foundation for an orthodox understanding of who and what Jesus is. There, after reviewing the earlier creedal formulas for Christian theism promulgated by the Councils ofNicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), which present, in summary form, the biblically based narrative of creation, Incarnation, and Christian hope, and after reviewing the more sharply focused questions aboiit the personal identity of Christ that had arisen, mainly in the Greekspeaking world, in the years since the Council of Constantinople, the bishops at Chalcedon added their own terse, carefully balanced attempt to express clearly how the Churches, building on that classical base, must understand Jesus:
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we have all learned to confess with one voice that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son: the same one complete in his divinity and complete in his humanity, the same one truly God and truly human, with rational soul and body; of one substance with the Father in his divinity, the same one of one substance with us in his humanity, "like us in all respects apart from sin''. .. ; recognized in two natures without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation, in such a way that the distinction of his natures is never destroyed by their union, but rather that the particular character of each nature co1nes together to form one persona and one hypostasis-so1nething not divided or distinguished into two personae, but one and the same only-begotten Son, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ ... 1
Much has been written, and continues to be written, about the import of this statement for Christan faith and practice; about the historical context, origins, and intended signification of the terms being used; and about the complex history of the reception and theological use of the statement, especially in the three or four centuries immediately following its formulation. Carefully crafted to reflect the language and emphases of a number of different voices in the
1 Council of Chalcedon, Formula of faith, in G. Alberigo and N. P. Tanner (eds.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils I (London and Washington, DC, 1990), 86. For a careful analysis of the terminology of this famous definition and its intended meaning, see esp. Andre de Halleux, "La Definition christologique de Chalcedoine," Revue thiologique de Louvain 7 (1976), 3-23.
Introduction
debates about the person of Christ during the late fourth and early centuries, the Chalcedonian formulation was-and still is-capable vo'i"'" of interpretations. It can be read as a cautious affirmation of the emphasis of Alexandria had increasingly articulated, on Christ's personal, sul>je1;ti1re unity as Son of God and divine Savior, during his long debate with Nesta>riu1s and his followers in the two decades after 429; it can also be read as an att1empt to express, in widely acceptable terms, the symmetry and balance Ch.ristiatlS recognize between Christ's human and divine characteristics, as the the,olc>ghms and exegetes of the Antiochene tradition had stressed. Taken by ityself, seems to reflect a studied ambiguity.
And as is well known, the immediate effect of Chalcedon's formula was to be the basis for reconciliation among dissenting parties in the Churches the Eastern Empire-despite the fact that, with the sanction of the impe1cial government, it immediately attained the force of law. The statement instead, to be the cause of even more long-lasting and bitter divisions. To Christians in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, it was simply Nestorian Chris1tolcigy thinly disguised-the triumph of a way of thinking about Jesus that focused the irreconcilable differences between his full human reality and the M'.st<erv nt God that he personally revealed; ta others, intellectual heirs of the Antia,ch<,ne school, it seems to have represented compromise and pious obscurantism, pointed up the need to be still more explicit about not confusing God and human in the person and work of Jesus. During the reigns of the emperms Zena (474-91) and his successor Anastasius I (491-518), imperial policy clearly leaning away from relying on the Chalcedonian formula to about a religious reconciliation in the even though no later emperor formally disowned what Chalcedon had produced.
In the second decade of the sixth century, the direction of official the,olc>gy changed. The emperor Justin (518-27), along with his gifted, ambitious, theologically learned nephew and successor Justinian (527-65), tried to rebuild consensus through ecclesiastical diplomacy, through negotiation, and through promoting a careful, subtly expressed reinterpretation and even a rephrasing of the Chalcedonian portrait of Christ, which made the Council's language appear to be more unambiguously friendly to the vision of Cyril of Alexandria than had been obvious before. This attempt to recast Chalcedon in more unitive, Word-centered terms has been called by some modern Western scholars "neo-Chalcedonian'' Christology. 2 And while the term has not been universally accepted-especially by those who want ta emphasize doctrinal continuity and consistency in the Church's classical pronouncements-the reality of an increasingly unitive, increasingly God-centered interpretation of what
2 Seep. 13 and n. 73.
I. The Author and his Times 3
Chalcedon had said about the person of Christ is clearly expressed in the write ings of such sixth-century theologians as John of Caesaraea, Ephrem of Amida, •_and the emperor Justinian himself, as well as by such Latin writers as John ··• Maxentius and the celebrated "Scythian monks;' who campaigned together in and West for such an understanding of Christ in the 520s. This approach receiving and expressing Chalcedonian Christology became official Church <:•aioc1:rtne--ana imperial law-with the decrees and canons of the Second of Constantinople, in 553. 3
The late fifth to early sixth century, then-the century between Chalcedon and Constantinople II-was a time of enormous importance for the developroent of Christian theology and institutions, mainly centered on the continuing .:(:,reception of Chalcedon's vision of Christ. Christian theology, from the midfifth century on, was characterized to an unusual degree by a new, "scholastic" style of thought and expression: by a rhetoric and a style of argument derived roore from academic debates than from ecclesiastical preaching or polemics. Question-and-answer format, sets of theses or provocatively formulated state:.·'"«"'' chains of syllogisms, and the use of massive dossiers of excerpts from classical Christian authorities to lend weight to an author's argument all became standard features of theological controversy. Accuracy in terminology, coherent argument, and theological consistency and precision became increasingly the central concern on all sides of Church debates, and the terms used .,.,. ..,.0 frequently those of the philosophical schools-especially of the Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle. 4 This is the cultural and historical context, clearly, in which the theological writings edited here, all focuS<'d on defining the person and the reality of Christ, all reflecting the heat and intensity of sixth-century post-Chalcedonian debate, must be located.
The six theological works associated with the name of Leontius of Byzantium provide little clue to the author's life or personality. Indeed, the manuscripts of his works give no place of origin for their author at all, but refer to him simply
J For a full treatment of the complex events and theological currents of the century between Chalcedon and Constantinople II, see esp. W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (Cambridge, 1972); Patrick T. R. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451-553) (Leiden, 1979);Aloys Grillmeier (with Theresia Hainthaler), Christ in Christian Tradition, Il/2 (London and Louisville, 1995); Carlo dell'Osso, Cristo e Logos; il Calcedonismo del VI Secolo in Oriente (Rome, 2010). For a study specifically focused on theological developments at this period in Palestine, see Lorenzo Perrone, La Chiesa di Palestina e le controversie Cristologiche (Brescia, 1980), 4 For a survey of these developments, especially as background for understanding the theological works of Boethius, see my article, "Boethius' Theological Tracts and Early Byzantine Scholasticism;' Mediaeval Studies 46 (1984), 158-91. See aso my article, "'A Richer Union': Leontius of Byzantium and the Relationship of Human and Divine in Christ;' Studia Patristica 24 (Leuven, 1993), esp. 244-5.
Introduction
as a monk: "the "blessed monk Leontius;'s "the blessed hermit Leontius;'' "Leontius the ascetic;'' ''Abba Leontius:' 8 And the tracts themselves do not add much to our information. Their author was once, we read, when still young, an enthusiastic member of a group of Chalcedonian Christians, whose theological heroes were Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, 9 but he was providentially"converted'' 10 to a more orthodox understanding of the Church's official Christology. Now, apparently after some years of strenuous theological controversy, he has been urged by pious friends to put his own position in writing, 11 and a "just cause;' 12 as well as the duties of friendship, move him to comply. He tells us no more, however, about what that just cause might be.
Besides these direct autobiographical references, the works themselves give a few further hints to the identity, career, and date of Leonti us the monk.Although he claims, with conventional modesty, to have had neither secular education nor experience as a writer, 13 the author of these tracts was clearly a man of considerable dialectical and philosophical training, with extraordinary sharpness of mind and strong theological passions. All of his extant works are polemical in nature. The first three treatises in the collection-the Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos (CNE), the Epilyseis (Epil.) or Solutiones Argumentorum Severi, and the Epaporemata (Epap.) or Triginta Capita contra Severum-are undoubtedly directed first of all against the anti-Chalcedonian supporters of Severus of Antioch. The fourth tract, Contra Aphthartodocetas (CA), is aimed against Chalcedonians who have adopted Julian of Halicarnassus's theory of the innate incorruptibility of Christ's body. The Deprehensio et Triumphus super Nestorianos (DTN) is a tirade against the more extreme representatives of Antiochene Christology. Even Leontius's remaining work, the florilegium of extracts from the Apollinarian writings known as the Adversus Fraudes Apollinaristarum (APA), though it contains no substantial theological arguments of the author's own, has the polemical purpose of proving that many of the patristic proof-texts
5 See below, p. 114, title. (Henceforth I shall refer to passages in the text of Leontius simply by the page and line-number in this edition.)
6 p.114, title (in manuscript 0). 7 p. 126, title (in manuscript G).
8 p. 336, title (0). All four of these epithets could be applied almost interchangeably to a monk of the desert, particularly to one who had lived in the semi-eremitical conununity of a lavra. They also reflect the image associated with the author of our tracts by later writers. Sophronius of Jerusalem, according to Photius, quoted AE6vTior; 6 TTJV noAtTE"uiv Kal T0v µov6.8a k,\6µEvor; in the florilegium of his Synodikon (Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. 231: ed. R. Henry, V (Paris, 1967), 66; PG 103, 1092 A5-6), and Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople refers to AE6v-rior; 6 T7jr; µovax6s (De Haer. et Syn. 33: PG 98, 72 Al-2); both references appear to be to our Leontius.
9 On his membership, seep. 412, 11.15-28; on the adherence of the group to Chalcedon, p. 416, ll. 5-10; on their following of Theodore and Diodore, p. 416; p. 418, 11. 17-19; p. 440, ll. 1-2.
rn p.412,1.22-p.414,l.8. "p.116,ll.1-6,19-21. "p.414,ll.145-7.
13 p.116,ll. 8-15.
The Author and his Times 5 used by his opponents-presumably, again, the party of Severus-are really taken from the writings of Apollinarins or his followers. 14 In addition to this fairly well-defined set of opponents, Leontins occasionally refers in a veiled but more personal way to the other enemies against whom he wields his pen: these are "the wise ones of today (oi viiv aocpoi);' 15 the "top philosophers ( aKpocpiAoaocpoi);' 16 who hold the traditions of the Fathers in contempt, 17 and who hope, by the nse of their influence at court, to "make themselves wise men by decree:' 18 Clearly politics, as well as theology, is in the air.
All of these polemical references, taken together, suggest the reign of Justinian, the emperor-theologian in whose court theological controversy seethed through all the toils of political and personal intrigue; 19 more specifically, they suggest the 530s, when the controversy over Julian of Halicarnassus's doctrine of the incorruptibility of Christ had spread beyond Egyptian and Palestinian "monophysite" circles to the Byzantine Church, and when the emperor's policy of promoting conciliation towards Severus and his followers had led to heated public debate between Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian theologiansw Further, Leontius's allusions to the Pseudo-Dionysius in the CNE, 21 and his inclusion of a passage from the De Divinis Nominibus in the florilegium of the CA, 22 make it unlikely that he was writing much before 532, the year of the first known reference to the Dionysian corpus within the Chalcedonian Church. 23 There are, it is true, two apparent references to Leonti us by Byzantine writers, which suggest a somewhat later date for his writings than Justinian's reign, but neither of them has a strong claim to credibility as a source. 24 And two references in the DTN seem to confirm a date of composition
" p. 526, ll. 1-14; p. 568, ll. 6-10 " p. 116, 1.12; p. 126, 1.3
16 p.126,1.17. 17 p.116,l1.12-14;p.126,ll.7-12 18 p.126,ll.15-16
19 Cf. E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire II (Paris, Brussels, and Amsterdam, 1949), 369-95 and 623-90; E. Schwartz, "Zur Kirchenpolitik Justinians," Sitzb. der hayer. Akad. der Wiss., phil-hist. Abt. (1940), 2, II, 32-72.
2° Cf. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire II, 377-9 and n. l, 377.
' 1 CNE 4: p.146, 11.17-19; CNE 7: p. 172,ll.15-18. " CA Flor., Test.I: p. 388, ll. 7-10.
23 At the so-called "Collatio cum Severianis;' described by the pro-Chalcedonian Latin bishop Innocent of Maroneia (in Thrace), in his Epistula ad Thomam Presbyterum: ACO rv, 2, 173,11.12-18.
24 The Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733), in his De Haeresibus et Synodis 33 (PG 98, 69 C9-72 work notable for its confused both "Leontius,monk of the desert:' defender of the Chalcedonian Christology, and John Philoponus, with the Patriarch Anastasius of Antioch (559-70, 593-8), and puts them all before his account of the reign of Justinian (c. 34) and the schism of Severus (c. 35)! The Byzantine historian Nicephorus Kallistos Xanthopoulos (c.1256-1335) makes "the monkLeontius:'whom he recognizes as the author of"a book (against the monophysites) in 30 chapters" (cf. n. 236) and as a strong opponent of the Severan party, a much older contemporary of George of Pisidia (fl. 610-41) (Hist. Eccl. 18, 48: PG 147, 428 B12-C4). As Friedrich Loafs has shown (Leontius van Byzanz und die gleichnamigen Schriftsteller der griechischen Kirche (=TU III, 1-2: Leipzig, 1887), 130-2), Nicephorus, too, is often confused about dates in the sixth and seventh centuries.
Introduction
in the middle of Justinian's reign: an allusion to Antioch, in DTN 10, as Brnv7Tollis, 25 a short-lived title conferred on that city when it was rebuilt after the disastrous earthquake of 29 November 528,26 which provides a termic nus post quern of 529; and a reference to the Council of Chalcedon as rEAEvrala 1TaaWv avvOOwv, 27 which shows-as a terminus ante quern-that the author did not yet know of the Conncil of 553. In fact, since he concedes, in DTN 43, that Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia have not yet been officially condemned,28 and since he makes no mention of !bas of Edessa or Theodore! of Cyrus in his polemic against the "Nestorians" of the previous century, it is ahnost equally certain that the "collected edition'' of Leontius's works, as described in his Foreword or 7Tpo8ewpia, was complete before Justinian issued his first edict condemning the "Three Chapters" in 544 or early 545. 29
Besides these few tantalizing hints of time and circumstance, there is little in the works of Leontius the monk to suggest who he was, or how his writings fit into the complicated theological struggles of his age. Cyril of Skythopolis (c.523-c.558), however, in his colorful Life of St Sabas and in other lives of early Palestinian monks, frequently mentions, with bitter hostility, a Palestinian monk named Leonti us of Byzantium'° who was a ringleader of the "Origenist" party in
20 p.420,1.20.
26 Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia (ed. C. De Boor, I (Leipzig, 1883), 177, I. 22-178, l. 7. "DTN42:p.444,ll.19-20. "DTN43:p.444,l.27.
29 This edict must have been issued at least several months after Justinian's edict condemning Origen, which was promulgated in Jerusalem in February of 543. And since Facundus of Hermiane (Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum IV, 4, 8-9: CCL 90A, 124-5,ll. 58-63; PL 67, 626 B4-9) tells us that Ephrem of Amida signed the edict against the Three Chapters under the threat of removal from his office as Patriarch of Antioch, and since Theophanes ( Chron. I, 224-5) and other chroniclers place Ephrem's death before the end of August 545, the most probable time for this edict seems to be 544 or the beginning of 545. Stein (Histoire du Bas-Empire II, 634) wants to place the publication of the edict against the Antiochenes somewhat earlier, "vers la fin de 543 ou en 544;' since he assumes Ephrem delayed as long as possible between its publication and his signing. Facundus only mentions imperial pressure on Ephrem, however, not temporal delay; and the events that seem to have elapsed between these two theological edicts of Justinian suggest a later rather than an earlier date for the second of them. Cf. E. Amann, "Trois-Chapitres;' DThC XV (1947), 1889.
30 Tis TWv ... µovaxWv, Bvi;ci.vTios T<j> yEVEi, AE6vTios Ov6µ,aTi: Vita Sabae (VS) 72: ed. E. Schwartz, Kyrillos von Skythopolis (=TU XLIX, 2 (Leipzig, 1939)), 176, ll 11-12; AEDvTios o 'Bvcavnos: VS 74, 179, I. 9; 83; 189, 11. 1-2; 84: 190, ll. 4, 8; Vita Cyriaci (VG) 13; 230, IL 29-30. Cyril's monastic lives have been translated into English by Richard Price, with an introduction by John Binns: Cyril of Skythopolis: Lives of the Monks of Palestine (Kalamazoo, 1991). For the history and spirituality of Palestinian monasticism in the fifth and sixth centuries, see John Binns, Ascetics and Ambassadors for Christ: The Monasteries of Palestine, 314-631 (Oxford, 1994); Jennifer L. Hevelone-Harper, Disciples of the Desert: Monks, Laity and Spiritual Authority in Sixth-Century Gaza (Baltimore, 2005). For an archeological study of the remains of these monasteries, see Yizhar Hirschfeld, The Judaean Desert Monasteries in the Byzantine Period (New Haven, 1992).
I. The Author and his Times 7 the desert monasteries during the 530s and early 540s, and who exercised, for a v>time, strong influence at Justinian's court. Since the works of the monk Leontius first published, in Francisco Torres's careful Latin translation, in 1603,31 ·'.;scholars have debated whether the author is indeed the same Leonti us as Cyril's ',brigenist from the judaean desert. Before we attempt to reach our own it may be useful to summarize briefly what Cyril has to say. · · first mentions Leontius of Byzantium as a member of the party of - '·" '""n accompanied St Sabas, the influential Palestinian monastic founder .;;.jllld 1eaLaer, on a mission to Constantinople in April 531, to petition the emperor economic aid for Christian Palestine, which had recently been devastated blf s,nnaritan raids. 32 In return for the emperor's help, Sabas predicts success for 2.j:ustinian in his reconquest of the territory lost by his predecessors: success as of God's plan for ridding the capital and the world of"the heresy of Arius those of Nestorius and Origen:' 33 His mention of Arianism here is enough, since much of the empire Justinian hoped to regain then held by Arian Goths; but Sabas mentioned Nestorianism and Cyril tells us, because he had discovered that some of the monks in company, who were now busily holding disputations in the capital with (d7TaaxiaTa1), were in fact tainted with these two heresies. 34 two classical heresies seem to be associated in Cyril's mind, for reasons I explore further; and Leontius of Byzantium is the one Origenist Cyril •mtpUicitly names. 35 About 514, a monk named Nonnus and three of his friends expelled from the Nea Lavra, one of the smaller communities in the for holding the "atheistic" doctrines of Origen, Evagrius
·:•· and Didymus the Blind. 36 Five years later, under a new hegumen, the i\:•i.•.()ri:gerlist group had been quietly readmitted; then, if not before, Leontius had •. 'i:'Pl&een one of their number. Now Sabas discovered again, in Constantinople, the £'•. of Leontius and his party; accordingly, he "sent them away and
•7+•;•·•·¢ll:clu1de.dthem from his companY:'"
Sabas sailed home the following September, leaving Leontius and the other .. Ci!{: SIUSF>eCt monks behind. 38 Until the Old Man's death in December 532, Cyril us, "a single confession of faith prevailed in all the monasteries of the
31 In H. Canisius, Antiquae Lectionis, Tomus IV, 1 (Ingolstadt, 1603), 1-171. :u VS 70, 173, ll. 4-11; 72, 175, 11. 7-19. Cyril, usually exact and reliable in his chronology, gives ''''"·'"" as 530; but, as Franz Diekamp has shown (Die Origenistischen Streitigkeiten im sechsten >;jJahrhu•ndertund das fanfte allgemeine Concil (Miinster, 1899), 11-15), Cyril's indictional dates in '.'.'./AL the Vita Sabae are all one year early, for some unexplained reason, after he narrates the departure Constantinople.
31 VS72,175,l.23-176,l.2. "VS36,124,l.21-125,l.24. "VS73,176,ll.7-15. 37 vs 72, 176, ll. 18-20. "VS73,176,ll.11-15. 38 VS74,179,ll.8-11.
Introduction
desert;" 39 under his less experienced successor Melitas, however, theological strife broke out with unprecedented force. The followers of Nonnus began to sow seeds of unrest in the minds of their confreres, 40 the "intellectuals" (>wyidiTEpoi) of the Nea Lavra, as well as among the brethren of the monastery of Martyrius and the lavra of Firmin us. Jn a short time, even Sabas's own Great Lavra, and many of the other desert communities, were tainted with the Origenist heresy. Two of the chief representatives of the new movement, Domitian, the new hegumen of the monastery of Martyrius, and Theodore Askidas, leader 41 of the Origenists in the Nea Lavra, went up to the capital themselves "about this time;' 42 Cyril tells us, and while "pretending to fight for the Synod of Chalcedon'' they set about disseminating Origenist doctrine there. 43 Their first contact in Constantinople was Leonti us of Byzantium, whom presumably they knew from Palestine; he introduced them to the influential rrarra<; Eusebius-a presbyter, treasurer of the Constantinople Patriarchate, and a leading Chalcedonian, who seems to have taken a particular interest in the Church in Palestine44-and Eusebius presented them to Justinian. By concealing their true theological opinions, Cyril asserts, these two newcomers acquired a strong influence ( rrpdiTYJ rrappriaia) at court, and eventually were
" vs 83, 188, 11. 7-9; cf. 36, 125, 11. 22-4.
40 Literally, "they gave their neighbours dangerously upsetting ideas to drink (E7r0Ti,ov Tciv dva-rpo71'Yjv 8oAEpdv)": VS 83, 188, 1. 17. On the events described here and in the following three paragraphs, up to the appointment of Macarius to the See of Jerusalem in 552, cf. vs 83-90, 188, I. 3-198,1.17.
41 Etdpxwv (VS 83: 188, ll. 26-7): presumably not a canonical title here.
42 VS 83: 188, 1124-5; the date is probably in 535 or early 536, as we shall see later (p.19).
43 VS 83: 188, 1. 28-189,l. 4. Cyril's suspicion that a defense of Chalcedonian Christology may be a cover for an Origenisttheological agenda is worth noting here; we shall see it again (e.g. pp. 13-14).
44 When news reached the capital of Sabas's coming embassy to Justinian in 531, Cyril tells us (VS 71: 173, ll. 13-17), the treasurer Eusebius sent his own representatives, along with representatives of the Patriarch Epiphanius and of Hypatius, bishop of Ephesus, on the imperial corvette to meet Sabas's party at sea. In Novella 51, of 8 May 536 (ed. C. E. Zachariae vonLingenthal I (Leipzig, 1881), 350, ll. 8-10), Justinian refers approvingly to Eusebius's recent work as imperial envoy to Jerusalem to review the financial affairs of the Patriarchal See. Cf. also the letter of Patriarch Menas to Peter of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Synod, of 19 Sept. 536 (ACO III, 124, ll. 23-5) and Cyril's reference to Eusebius's work in VS 54, 146, l. 27-147, 1. 2. As we shall see, Eusebius was, with Leontius, one of the Chalcedonian observers at the collatio of 532, at which the spokesman for the Chalcedonian side was Hypatius of Ephesus (Innocent of Maroneia, 170, ll. 2-3). Eusebius is sometimes referred to in modern works as "treasurer of the Hagia Sophia:' probably because he is designated as KElf.1-EAldpx'fJs -rijs Ka-rd -ri}v -raDT'fJV 1T6Aiv O.yu.u-rd-rr;s EKKAr;alas in Novella 51; this phrase, however, seems to have a Mder reference than simply the Hagia Sophia, and the title "great Church of Christ" was applied not only to Justinian's new basilica (still under construction in 536!), but also to the Patriarchate and even to the whole Byzantine communion. Cf. R. Janin, La Geographie eccliisiastique de l'empire byzantine, I, 3 (Paris, 1969), 456. For a summary of what is known about Hypatius of Ephesus, as well as the fragments of his writings, cf. F. Diekamp, Analecta Patristica (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta 117: Rome, 1938), 108-53.
I. The Author and his Times
···b.othgiven major bishoprics: Domitian that of Ancyra in Galatia, and Theodore .•· at of Caesaraea in Cappadocia. 4 ' Sabas's successor, thehegumeu Melitas, died in 537, and was succeeded at the reatLavra by Gelasius, a long-time disciple of St Sabas and a strong opponent f the Origenists. On the advice of the venerable bishop john the Hesychastother confirmed anti-Origenist4 6-Gelasius began a campaign against Abbot }llonnns and his disciples by having Antipater of Bostra's tract against Origen read in the Church of the Great Lavra. The Origenist group there seem to ve protested-Cyril says they "strirred up trouble (hapaaaov)" 47 -and 'snme forty of them were again expelled. They withdrew to the Nea Lavra, to Nonnus, "and to Leontius of Byzantium, who at that time had returned from :,,.Constantinople and who was fanatically opposed to the successors of blessed ·:\t'Sabas:'" A general caucus of the Origenist party seems to have been called. The 2'(ifugitives complained about their treatment at the hands of Abba Gelasius and the brethren of the Great Lavra, and Leonti us, "who bore an old grudge against the blessed Sabas, advised them all to give vent to their arrogance and to make j\taid on the Great Lavra, so that it would no longer be habitable:' 49 Origenist itnonks from all around gathered at the Nea Lavra and set out, with Leontius the forty exiles, on a mission of assault. First, says Cyril, they attempted to monastery of St Theodosius (some 6 km north-west of the Great dri!0c<La>""J and kidnap the hegumen Sophronius 50 and his senior monks, "but their was frustrated and they went away in shame:' 51 Then some of Leontius's collected "picks and shovels and crowbars of iron, and other of destruction;''' and set out, with a band of peasant reinforce·:,; .1ne1m, to attack the Great Lavra itself. This move, too, was frustrated by divine 2<ilnt<,,venltion, according to Cyril: "at the second hour, mist and darkness came x.u«muon them, and they spent the whole day in close quarters, 53 groping their through rough and inaccessible places:' 54 The next morning, they found •<•.••> ,,,., had only reached the monastery of St Marcianus (still some 5 km west of • Great Lavra), so they abandoned the plan and went home.
VS 83: 189,113-7. The date of their promotion must be after June 536, since in the Acta ·2\Z;;;oftheHome Synod of 2 May-4 June of that year they still appear as Palestinian monks: Domitian a presbyter and hegumen of the lavra of Martyrius (e.g. ACO III, 36, I. 30) and Theodore as a >(1s;•;i)!eacon (e.g.,ACO III, 37, I. 3).
" Cf. Cyril, Vita Johannis (Vn 20, 216,ll.13-15; 27, 221, ll.19-21.
47 vs 84, 189,l. 23. 48 vs 84, 190,ll. 4-6. 49 vs 84, 190,ll. 8-10.
50 the successor of Theodosius, was at this time chief archimandrite of all the ;.:):cf.>. crnmolJitic monasteries in Palestine: cf. ACO III, 133, 1. 36-134, 1. 2.
51 VS84,190,ll.15-16. 52 VS84,190,ll.18-19.
53 Reading avyK,\tta8,vTES' for avyKAaa&EvTES: VS 84, 190, I. 23. M VS84,190,ll.21-3.
Introduction
''.About this time;' says Cyril, Ephrem of Amida, the "neo-Chalcedoniarr' Patriarch of Antioch and a trusted adviser of Justinian, had come to Palestine, along with rraTra;; Eusebius, to settle the deposition of Patriarch Paul the Tabennesiot from the see of Alexandria. 55 When their synod was over, according to Cyril, Eusebius went on to Jerusalem and met his old friend Leontius, who presented to him the Origenist exiles from the Great Lavra. They pleaded their case against Abba Gelasius, and Eusebius, "deceived by the words of Leontius and knowing nothing about the heresy;' 56 summoned the hegumen of the Great Lavra and ordered him either to accept the Origenist faction back or to expel their adversaries as well. Gelasius and his advisers preferred the second alternative, and sent away six of the Lavra's leading anti-Origenists; they went directly to Antioch and won Patriarch Ephrem to their side, showing him the treatise of Antipater ofBostra which had begun the whole controversy. Ephrem then joined the fray with vigor, Cyril reports, and anathematized Origen in a local synod at Antioch. By the time news of this reached Jerusalem, Leontius had already returned to the capital; Nonnus and the Palestinian Origenists enlisted his help there, along with that of his former proteges, the bishops Domitian and Theodore Askidas, to force Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem to remove Ephrem's name from the diptychs. Pressure was duly applied, "but Peter quietly asked the two leading monastic leaders of Palestine, Sophronius and Gelasius, to compose a libellus of incriminating texts, arguing the case against the Origenists, and he then forwarded it to the emperor, along with his own complaint about their 'revolutionary doctrines'." 57 Justinian-who loved settling doctrinal disputes by imperial decree, as another ancient writer drily
55 The occasion was the Synod of Gaza, also attended by Peter, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Hypatius of Ephesus, and the Roman deacon Pelagius, who represented Pope Vigilius in Constantinople. It seems to have been essentially a gathering of Chakedonian leaders, held at Justinian's order to tighten discipline within the ranks; specifically, its purpose was to deal with the complaints of brutal maladministration made against Paul, a Chalcedonian monk installed forcibly at Alexandria by Justinian two years before, The ancient sources conflict over the date of Paul's deposition, as they do over much of the chronology of the Patriarchs of Alexandria in the sixth and seventh centuries. A. von Gutschmid ("Verzeichnis der Patriarchen von Alexandrien:' Kleine Schriften II (Leipzig, 1890), 460-9), following Theophanes, L1beratus, and Victor of Tunnuna, puts the deposition of Paul at the end of 542. Diekamp (Die Origenistischen Streitigkeiten, 42-5) accepts Von Gutschmid's dating in general, but wants to move the synod back to Easter, 542, to allow time for all the events Cyril narrates between that meeting and Justinian's edict against Origen of February; 543. A. Jiilicher, however ("Die Liste der alexandrinischen Patriarchen in16. und 7. Jahrhundert;' Festgabe Karl MUiler (Tiibingen, 1922), 18) argues forcibly for accepting Zacharias Rhetor's date of 539/40, and he is followed in this by J. Maspero (Histoire des Patriarches d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1923), 148: "milieu de 539?"), Schwartz (Kyrillos, 401, n. 3: 539), and Stein (Histoire du Bas- Empire II, 391: "vers les premieres mo is de 540"). Although the date of the synod does not directly affect the chronology of Leonti us, the earlier date would allow more time for the intrigues Cyril tells 0£ 56 VS 85, 191, ll. 8-9. 57 VS 85, 191,L 32.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
even to forgotten and moth-eaten twopenny pamphlets, which may be used to the disadvantage of his own country. But, as to the Hartford Convention, sir, allow me to say that the proceedings of that body seem now to be less read and studied in New England than farther south. They appear to be looked to, not in New England, but elsewhere, for the purpose of seeing how far they may serve as a precedent. But they will not answer the purpose—they are quite too tame. The latitude in which they originated was too cold. Other conventions, of more recent existence, have gone a whole bar’s length beyond it. The learned doctors of Colleton and Abbeville have pushed their commentaries on the Hartford collect so far that the original text writers are thrown entirely into the shade. I have nothing to do, sir, with the Hartford Convention. Its journal, which the gentleman has quoted, I never read. So far as the honorable member may discover in its proceedings a spirit in any degree resembling that which was avowed and justified in those other conventions to which I have alluded, or so far as those proceedings can be shown to be disloyal to the constitution, or tending to disunion, so far I shall be as ready as any one to bestow on them reprehension and censure.
Having dwelt long on this convention, and other occurrences of that day, in the hope, probably, (which will not be gratified,) that I should leave the course of this debate to follow him at length in those excursions, the honorable member returned, and attempted another object. He referred to a speech of mine in the other house, the same which I had occasion to allude to myself the other day; and has quoted a passage or two from it, with a bold though uneasy and laboring air of confidence, as if he had detected in me an inconsistency. Judging from the gentleman’s manner, a stranger to the course of the debate, and to the point in discussion, would have imagined, from so triumphant a tone, that the honorable member was about to overwhelm me with a manifest contradiction. Any one who heard him, and who had not heard what I had, in fact, previously said, must have thought me routed and discomfited, as the gentleman had promised. Sir, a breath blows all this triumph away. There is not the slightest difference in the sentiments of my remarks on the two occasions. What I said here on Wednesday is in exact accordance with the opinions expressed by me in the other
house in 1825. Though the gentleman had the metaphysics of Hudibras—though he were able
“to sever and divide
A hair ’twixt north and north west side,”
he could not yet insert his metaphysical scissors between the fair reading of my remarks in 1825 and what I said here last week. There is not only no contradiction, no difference, but, in truth, too exact a similarity, both in thought and language, to be entirely in just taste. I had myself quoted the same speech; had recurred to it, and spoke with it open before me; and much of what I said was little more than a repetition from it. In order to make finishing work with this alleged contradiction, permit me to recur to the origin of this debate, and review its course. This seems expedient, and may be done as well now as at any time.
Well, then, its history is this: the honorable member from Connecticut moved a resolution, which constituted the first branch of that which is now before us; that is to say, a resolution instructing the committee on public lands to inquire into the expediency of limiting, for a certain period, the sales of public lands to such as have heretofore been offered for sale; and whether sundry offices, connected with the sales of the lands, might not be abolished without detriment to the public service.
In the progress of the discussion which arose on this resolution, an honorable member from New Hampshire moved to amend the resolution, so as entirely to reverse its object; that is to strike it all out, and insert a direction to the committee to inquire into the expediency of adopting measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys of the lands.
The honorable member from Maine (Mr. Sprague) suggested that both these propositions might well enough go, for consideration, to the committee; and in this state of the question, the member from South Carolina addressed the Senate in his first speech. He rose, he said, to give his own free thoughts on the public lands. I saw him rise, with pleasure, and listened with expectation, though before he concluded I was filled with surprise. Certainly, I was never more surprised than to find him following up, to the extent he did, the
sentiments and opinions which the gentleman from Missouri had put forth, and which it is known he has long entertained.
I need not repeat, at large, the general topics of the honorable gentleman’s speech. When he said, yesterday, that he did not attack the Eastern States, he certainly must have forgotten not only particular remarks, but the whole drift and tenor of his speech; unless he means by not attacking, that he did not commence hostilities, but that another had preceded him in the attack. He, in the first place, disapproved of the whole course of the government for forty years, in regard to its dispositions of the public land; and then, turning northward and eastward, and fancying he had found a cause for alleged narrowness and niggardliness in the “accursed policy” of the tariff, to which he represented the people of New England as wedded, he went on, for a full hour, with remarks, the whole scope of which was to exhibit the results of this policy, in feelings and in measures unfavorable to the west. I thought his opinions unfounded and erroneous, as to the general course of the government, and ventured to reply to them.
The gentleman had remarked on the analogy of other cases, and quoted the conduct of European governments towards their own subjects, settling on this continent, as in point, to show that we had been harsh and rigid in selling when we should have given the public lands to settlers. I thought the honorable member had suffered his judgment to be betrayed by a false analogy; that he was struck with an appearance of resemblance where there was no real similitude. I think so still. The first settlers of North America were enterprising spirits, engaging in private adventure, or fleeing from tyranny at home. When arrived here, they were forgotten by the mother country, or remembered only to be oppressed. Carried away again by the appearance of analogy, or struck with the eloquence of the passage, the honorable member yesterday observed that the conduct of government towards the western emigrants, or my representation of it, brought to his mind a celebrated speech in the British Parliament. It was, sir, the speech of Colonel Barre. On the question of the stamp act, or tea tax, I forget which, Colonel Barre had heard a member on the treasury bench argue, that the people of the United States, being British colonists, planted by the maternal care, nourished by the indulgence, and protected by the arms of England,
would not grudge their mite to relieve the mother country from the heavy burden under which she groaned. The language of Colonel Barre, in reply to this, was, “They planted by your care? Your oppression planted them in America. They fled from your tyranny, and grew by your neglect of them. So soon as you began to care for them, you showed your care by sending persons to spy out their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey upon them, and eat out their substance.”
And does this honorable gentleman mean to maintain that language like this is applicable to the conduct of the government of the United States towards the western emigrants, or to any representation given by me of that conduct? Were the settlers in the west driven thither by our oppression? Have they flourished only by our neglect of them? Has the government done nothing but prey upon them, and eat out their substance? Sir, this fervid eloquence of the British speaker, just when and where it was uttered, and fit to remain an exercise for the schools, is not a little out of place, when it was brought thence to be applied here, to the conduct of our own country towards her own citizens. From America to England it may be true; from Americans to their own government it would be strange language. Let us leave it to be recited and declaimed by our boys against a foreign nation; not introduce it here, to recite and declaim ourselves against our own.
But I come to the point of the alleged contradiction. In my remarks on Wednesday, I contended that we could not give away gratuitously all the public lands; that we held them in trust; that the government had solemnly pledged itself to dispose of them as a common fund for the common benefit, and to sell and settle them as its discretion should dictate. Now, sir, what contradiction does the gentleman find to this sentiment in the speech of 1825? He quotes me as having then said, that we ought not to hug these lands as a very great treasure. Very well, sir; supposing me to be accurately reported in that expression, what is the contradiction? I have not now said, that we should hug these lands as a favorite source of pecuniary income. No such thing. It is not my view. What I have said, and what I do say, is, that they are a common fund—to be disposed of for the common benefit—to be sold at low prices, for the accommodation of settlers, keeping the object of settling the lands as much in view as that of
raising money from them. This I say now, and this I have always said. Is this hugging them as a favorite treasure? Is there no difference between hugging and hoarding this fund, on the one hand, as a great treasure, and on the other of disposing of it at low prices, placing the proceeds in the general treasury of the Union? My opinion is, that as much is to be made of the land, as fair and reasonably may be, selling it all the while at such rates as to give the fullest effect to settlement. This is not giving it all away to the states, as the gentleman would propose, nor is it hugging the fund closely and tenaciously, as a favorite treasure; but it is, in my judgment, a just and wise policy, perfectly according with all the various duties which rest on government. So much for my contradiction. And what is it? Where is the ground of the gentleman’s triumph? What inconsistency, in word or doctrine, has he been able to detect? Sir, if this be a sample of that discomfiture with which the honorable gentleman threatened me, commend me to the word discomfiture for the rest of my life.
But, after all, this is not the point of the debate; and I must bring the gentleman back to that which is the point.
The real question between me and him is, Where has the doctrine been advanced, at the south or the east, that the population of the west should be retarded, or, at least, need not be hastened, on account of its effect to drain off the people from the Atlantic States? Is this doctrine, as has been alleged, of eastern origin? That is the question. Has the gentleman found anything by which he can make good his accusation? I submit to the Senate, that he has entirely failed; and as far as this debate has shown, the only person who has advanced such sentiments is a gentleman from South Carolina, and a friend to the honorable member himself. This honorable gentleman has given no answer to this; there is none which can be given. This simple fact, while it requires no comment to enforce it, defies all argument to refute it. I could refer to the speeches of another southern gentleman, in years before, of the same general character, and to the same effect, as that which has been quoted; but I will not consume the time of the Senate by the reading of them.
So then, sir, New England is guiltless of the policy of retarding western population, and of all envy and jealousy of the growth of the new states. Whatever there be of that policy in the country, no part of
it is hers. If it has a local habitation, the honorable member has probably seen, by this time, where he is to look for it; and if it now has received a name, he himself has christened it.
We approach, at length, sir, to a more important part of the honorable gentleman’s observations. Since it does not accord with my views of justice and policy, to vote away the public lands altogether, as mere matter of gratuity, I am asked, by the honorable gentleman, on what ground it is that I consent to give them away in particular instances. How, he inquires, do I reconcile with these professed sentiments my support of measures appropriating portions of the lands to particular roads, particular canals, particular rivers, and particular institutions of education in the west? This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference in political opinions between the honorable gentleman and myself. On my part, I look upon all these objects as connected with the common good, fairly embraced in its objects and its terms; he, on the contrary, deems them all, if good at all, only local good. This is our difference. The interrogatory which he proceeded to put, at once explains this difference. “What interest,” asks he, “has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio?” Sir, this very question is full of significance. It develops the gentleman’s whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. Here we differ toto cœlo. I look upon a road over the Alleghany, a canal round the falls of the Ohio, or a canal or railway from the Atlantic to the western waters, as being objects large and extensive enough to be fairly said to be for the common benefit. The gentleman thinks otherwise, and this is the key to open his construction of the powers of the government. He may well ask, upon his system, What interest has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio? On that system, it is true, she has no interest. On that system, Ohio and Carolina are different governments and different countries, connected here, it is true, by some slight and ill-defined bond of union, but in all main respects separate and diverse. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. The gentleman, therefore, only follows out his own principles; he does no more than arrive at the natural conclusions of his own doctrines; he only announces the true results of that creed which he has adopted himself, and would persuade others to adopt, when he thus declares that South Carolina has no interest in a public work in Ohio. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. Our notion of things is
entirely different. We look upon the states not as separated, but as united. We love to dwell on that Union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so much promoted, and the common renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country—states united under the same general government, having interests common, associated, intermingled. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. We do not impose geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers, and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. We, who come here as agents and representatives of those narrow-minded and selfish men of New England, consider ourselves as bound to regard, with equal eye, the good of the whole, in whatever is within our power of legislation. Sir, if a railroad or canal, beginning in South Carolina, appeared to me to be of national importance and national magnitude, believing as I do that the power of government extends to the encouragement of works of that description, if I were to stand up here and ask, “What interest has Massachusetts in a railroad in South Carolina?” I should not be willing to face my constituents. These same narrow-minded men would tell me that they had sent me to act for the whole country, and that one who possessed too little comprehension, either of intellect or feeling—one who was not large enough, in mind and heart, to embrace the whole—was not fit to be intrusted with the interest of any part. Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the powers of government by unjustifiable construction, nor to exercise any not within a fair interpretation. But when it is believed that a power does exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised for the general benefit of the whole: so far as respects the exercise of such a power, the states are one. It was the very great object of the constitution to create unity of interests to the extent of the powers of the general government. In war and peace we are one; in commerce one; because the authority of the general government reaches to war and peace, and to the regulation of commerce. I have never seen any more difficulty in erecting lighthouses on the lakes than on the ocean; in improving the harbors of inland seas, than if they were within the ebb and flow of the tide; or of removing obstructions in the vast streams of the west, more than in any work to facilitate commerce on the Atlantic coast. If
there be power for one, there is power also for the other; and they are all and equally for the country.
There are other objects, apparently more local, or the benefit of which is less general, towards which, nevertheless, I have concurred with others to give aid by donations of land. It is proposed to construct a road in or through one of the new states in which the government possesses large quantities of land. Have the United States no right, as a great and untaxed proprietor—are they under no obligation—to contribute to an object thus calculated to promote the common good of all the proprietors, themselves included? And even with respect to education, which is the extreme case, let the question be considered. In the first place, as we have seen, it was made matter of compact with these states that they should do their part to promote education. In the next place, our whole system of land laws proceeds on the idea that education is for the common good; because, in every division, a certain portion is uniformly reserved and appropriated for the use of schools. And, finally have not these new states singularly strong claims, founded on the ground already stated, that the government is a great untaxed proprietor in the ownership of the soil? It is a consideration of great importance that probably there is in no part of the country, or of the world, so great a call for the means of education as in those new states, owing to the vast number of persons within those ages in which education and instruction are usually received, if received at all. This is the natural consequence of recency of settlement and rapid increase. The census of these states shows how great a proportion of the whole population occupies the classes between infancy and childhood. These are the wide fields, and here is the deep and quick soil for the seeds of knowledge and virtue; and this is the favored season, the spring time for sowing them. Let them be disseminated without stint. Let them be scattered with a bountiful broadcast. Whatever the government can fairly do towards these objects, in my opinion, ought to be done. These, sir, are the grounds, succinctly stated, on which my vote for grants of lands for particular objects rest, while I maintain, at the same time, that it is all a common fund, for the common benefit. And reasons like these, I presume, have influenced the votes of other gentlemen from New England. Those who have a different view of the powers of the government, of course, come to different
conclusions on these as on other questions. I observed, when speaking on this subject before, that if we looked to any measure, whether for a road, a canal, or any thing else intended for the improvement of the west, it would be found, that if the New England ayes were struck out of the list of votes, the southern noes would always have rejected the measure. The truth of this has not been denied, and cannot be denied. In stating this, I thought it just to ascribe it to the constitutional scruples of the south, rather than to any other less favorable or less charitable cause. But no sooner had I done this, than the honorable gentleman asks if I reproach him and his friends with their constitutional scruples. Sir, I reproach nobody. I stated a fact, and gave the most respectful reason for it that occurred to me. The gentleman cannot deny the fact—he may, if he choose, disclaim the reason. It is not long since I had occasion, in presenting a petition from his own state, to account for its being intrusted to my hands by saying, that the constitutional opinions of the gentleman and his worthy colleague prevented them from supporting it. Sir, did I state this as a matter of reproach? Far from it. Did I attempt to find any other cause than an honest one for these scruples? Sir, I did not. It did not become me to doubt, nor to insinuate that the gentleman had either changed his sentiments, or that he had made up a set of constitutional opinions, accommodated to any particular combination of political occurrences. Had I done so, I should have felt, that while I was entitled to little respect in thus questioning other people’s motives, I justified the whole world in suspecting my own.
But how has the gentleman returned this respect for others’ opinions? His own candor and justice, how have they been exhibited towards the motives of others, while he has been at so much pains to maintain—what nobody has disputed—the purity of his own? Why, sir, he has asked when, and how, and why New England votes were found going for measures favorable to the west; he has demanded to be informed whether all this did not begin in 1825, and while the election of President was still pending. Sir, to these questions retort would be justified; and it is both cogent and at hand. Nevertheless, I will answer the inquiry not by retort, but by facts. I will tell the gentleman when, and how, and why New England has supported measures favorable to the west. I have already referred to the early history of the government—to the first acquisition of the lands—to
the original laws for disposing of them and for governing the territories where they lie; and have shown the influence of New England men and New England principles in all these leading measures. I should not be pardoned were I to go over that ground again. Coming to more recent times, and to measures of a less general character, I have endeavored to prove that every thing of this kind designed for western improvement has depended on the votes of New England. All this is true beyond the power of contradiction.
And now, sir, there are two measures to which I will refer, not so ancient as to belong to the early history of the public lands, and not so recent as to be on this side of the period when the gentleman charitably imagines a new direction may have been given to New England feeling and New England votes. These measures, and the New England votes in support of them, may be taken as samples and specimens of all the rest. In 1820, (observe, Mr. President, in 1820,) the people of the west besought Congress for a reduction in the price of lands. In favor of that reduction, New England, with a delegation of forty members in the other house, gave thirty-three votes, and one only against it. The four Southern States, with fifty members, gave thirty-two votes for it, and seven against it. Again, in 1821, (observe again, sir, the time,) the law passed for the relief of the purchasers of the public lands. This was a measure of vital importance to the west, and more especially to the southwest. It authorized the relinquishment of contracts for lands, which had been entered into at high prices, and a reduction, in other cases, of not less than 37½ per cent. on the purchase money. Many millions of dollars, six or seven I believe at least,—probably much more,—were relinquished by this law. On this bill New England, with her forty members, gave more affirmative votes than the four Southern States with their fifty-two or three members. These two are far the most important measures respecting the public lands which have been adopted within the last twenty years. They took place in 1820 and 1821. That is the time when. And as to the manner how, the gentleman already sees that it was by voting, in solid column, for the required relief; and lastly, as to the cause why, I tell the gentleman, it was because the members from New England thought the measures just and salutary; because they entertained towards the west neither envy, hatred, nor malice; because they deemed it becoming them, as just and enlightened public men, to meet the exigency which had arisen in the west with
the appropriate measure of relief; because they felt it due to their own characters of their New England predecessors in this government, to act towards the new states in the spirit of a liberal, patronizing, magnanimous policy. So much, sir, for the cause why; and I hope that by this time, sir, the honorable gentleman is satisfied; if not, I do not know when, or how, or why, he ever will be.
Having recurred to these two important measures, in answer to the gentleman’s inquiries, I must now beg permission to go back to a period still something earlier, for the purpose still further of showing how much, or rather how little reason there is for the gentleman’s insinuation that political hopes, or fears, or party associations, were the grounds of these New England votes. And after what has been said, I hope it may be forgiven me if I allude to some political opinions and votes of my own, of very little public importance, certainly, but which, from the time at which they were given and expressed, may pass for good witnesses on this occasion.
This government, Mr. President, from its origin to the peace of 1815, had been too much engrossed with various other important concerns to be able to turn its thoughts inward, and look to the development of its vast internal resources. In the early part of President Washington’s administration, it was fully occupied with organizing the government, providing for the public debt, defending the frontiers, and maintaining domestic peace. Before the termination of that administration, the fires of the French revolution blazed forth, as from a new opened volcano, and the whole breadth of the ocean did not entirely secure us from its effects. The smoke and the cinders reached us, though not the burning lava. Difficult and agitating questions, embarrassing to government, and dividing public opinion, sprung out of the new state of our foreign relations, and were succeeded by others, and yet again by others, equally embarrassing, and equally exciting division and discord, through the long series of twenty years, till they finally issued in the war with England. Down to the close of that war, no distinct, marked and deliberate attention had been given, or could have been given, to the internal condition of the country, its capacities of improvement, or the constitutional power of the government, in regard to objects connected with such improvement.
The peace, Mr. President, brought about an entirely new and a most interesting state of things; it opened to us other prospects, and suggested other duties; we ourselves were changed, and the whole world was changed. The pacification of Europe, after June, 1815, assumed a firm and permanent aspect. The nations evidently manifested that they were disposed for peace: some agitation of the waves might be expected, even after the storm had subsided; but the tendency was, strongly and rapidly, towards settled repose.
It so happened, sir, that I was at that time a member of Congress, and, like others, naturally turned my attention to the contemplation of the newly-altered condition of the country, and of the world. It appeared plainly enough to me, as well as to wiser and more experienced men, that the policy of the government would necessarily take a start in a new direction, because new directions would necessarily be given to the pursuits and occupations of the people. We had pushed our commerce far and fast, under the advantage of a neutral flag. But there were now no longer flags, either neutral or belligerent. The harvest of neutrality had been great, but we had gathered it all. With the peace of Europe, it was obvious there would spring up, in her circle of nations, a revived and invigorated spirit of trade, and a new activity in all the business and objects of civilized life. Hereafter, our commercial gains were to be earned only by success in a close and intense competition. Other nations would produce for themselves, and carry for themselves, and manufacture for themselves, to the full extent of their abilities. The crops of our plains would no longer sustain European armies, nor our ships longer supply those whom war had rendered unable to supply themselves. It was obvious that under these circumstances, the country would begin to survey itself, and to estimate its own capacity of improvement. And this improvement, how was it to be accomplished, and who was to accomplish it?
We were ten or twelve millions of people, spread over almost half a world. We were twenty-four states, some stretching along the same seaboard, some along the same line of inland frontier, and others on opposite banks of the same vast rivers. Two considerations at once presented themselves, in looking at this state of things, with great force. One was that that great branch of improvement, which consisted in furnishing new facilities of intercourse, necessarily ran
into different states, in every leading instance, and would benefit the citizens of all such states. No one state therefore, in such cases, would assume the whole expense, nor was the co-operation of several states to be expected. Take the instance of the Delaware Breakwater. It will cost several millions of money. Would Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware have united to accomplish it at their joint expense? Certainly not, for the same reason. It could not be done, therefore, but by the general government. The same may be said of the large inland undertakings, except that, in them, government, instead of bearing the whole expense, co-operates with others to bear a part. The other consideration is, that the United States have the means. They enjoy the revenues derived from commerce, and the states have no abundant and easy sources of public income. The custom houses fill the general treasury, while the states have scanty resources, except by resort to heavy direct taxes.
Under this view of things, I thought it necessary to settle, at least for myself, some definite notions, with respect to the powers of government, in regard to internal affairs. It may not savor too much of self-commendation to remark, that, with this object, I considered the constitution, its judicial construction, its contemporaneous exposition, and the whole history of the legislation of Congress under it; and I arrived at the conclusion that government had power to accomplish sundry objects, or aid in their accomplishment, which are now commonly spoken of as I I . That conclusion, sir, may have been right or it may have been wrong. I am not about to argue the grounds of it at large. I say only that it was adopted, and acted on, even so early as in 1816. Yes, Mr. President, I made up my opinion, and determined on my intended course of political conduct on these subjects, in the 14th Congress in 1816. And now, Mr. President, I have further to say, that I made up these opinions, and entered on this course of political conduct, Teucro duce. Yes, sir, I pursued, in all this, a South Carolina track. On the doctrines of internal improvement, South Carolina, as she was then represented in the other house, set forth, in 1816, under a fresh and leading breeze; and I was among the followers. But if my leader sees new lights, and turns a sharp corner, unless I see new lights also, I keep straight on in the same path. I repeat, that leading gentlemen from South Carolina were first and foremost in behalf of the doctrines of internal improvements, when those doctrines first came
to be considered and acted upon in Congress. The debate on the bank question, on the tariff of 1816, and on the direct tax, will show who was who, and what was what, at that time. The tariff of 1816, one of the plain cases of oppression and usurpation, from which, if the government does not recede, individual states may justly secede from the government, is, sir, in truth, a South Carolina tariff, supported by South Carolina votes. But for those votes, it could not have passed in the form in which it did pass; whereas, if it had depended on Massachusetts votes, it would have been lost. Does not the honorable gentleman well know all this? There are certainly those who do full well know it all. I do not say this to reproach South Carolina; I only state the fact, and I think it will appear to be true, that among the earliest and boldest advocates of the tariff, as a measure of protection, and on the express ground of protection, were leading gentlemen of South Carolina in Congress. I did not then, and cannot now, understand their language in any other sense. While this tariff of 1816 was under discussion in the House of Representatives, an honorable gentleman from Georgia, now of this house, (Mr. Forsyth,) moved to reduce the proposed duty on cotton. He failed by four votes, South Carolina giving three votes (enough to have turned the scale) against his motion. The act, sir, then passed, and received on its passage the support of a majority of the representatives of South Carolina present and voting. This act is the first, in the order of those now denounced as plain usurpations. We see it daily in the list by the side of those of 1824 and 1828, as a case of manifest oppression, justifying disunion. I put it home to the honorable member from South Carolina, that his own state was not only “art and part” in this measure, but the causa causans. Without her aid, this seminal principle of mischief, this root of upas, could not have been planted. I have already said—and, it is true—that this act preceded on the ground of protection. It interfered directly with existing interests of great value and amount. It cut up the Calcutta cotton trade by the roots. But it passed, nevertheless, and it passed on the principle of protecting manufactures, on the principle against free trade, on the principle opposed to that which lets us alone.
Such, Mr. President, were the opinions of important and leading gentlemen of South Carolina, on the subject of internal improvement, in 1816. I went out of Congress the next year, and returning again in 1823, thought I found South Carolina where I had
left her. I really supposed that all things remained as they were, and that the South Carolina doctrine of internal improvements would be defended by the same eloquent voices, and the same strong arms as formerly. In the lapse of these six years, it is true, political associations had assumed a new aspect and new divisions. A party had arisen in the south, hostile to the doctrine of internal improvements, and had vigorously attacked that doctrine. Anticonsolidation was the flag under which this party fought, and its supporters inveighed against internal improvements, much after the same manner in which the honorable gentleman has now inveighed against them, as part and parcel of the system of consolidation.
Whether this party arose in South Carolina herself, or in her neighborhood, is more than I know. I think the latter. However that may have been, there were those found in South Carolina ready to make war upon it, and who did make intrepid war upon it. Names being regarded as things, in such controversies, they bestowed on the anti-improvement gentlemen the appellation of radicals. Yes, sir, the name of radicals, as a term of distinction, applicable and applied to those who defended the liberal doctrines of internal improvements, originated, according to the best of my recollection, somewhere between North Carolina and Georgia. Well, sir, those mischievous radicals were to be put down, and the strong arm of South Carolina was stretched out to put them down. About this time, sir, I returned to Congress. The battle with the radicals had been fought, and our South Carolina champions of the doctrine of internal improvements had nobly maintained their ground, and were understood to have achieved a victory. They had driven back the enemy with discomfiture; a thing, by the way, sir, which is not always performed when it is promised. A gentleman, to whom I have already referred in this debate, had come into Congress, during my absence from it, from South Carolina, and had brought with him a high reputation for ability. He came from a school with which we had been acquainted, et noscitur a sociis. I hold in my hand, sir, a printed speech of this distinguished gentleman, (Mr. M D ,) “ON INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS,” delivered about the period to which I now refer, and printed with a few introductory remarks upon consolidation; in which, sir, I think he quite consolidated the arguments of his opponents, the radicals, if to crush be to consolidate. I give you a short but substantive quotation from these remarks. He is speaking
of a pamphlet, then recently published, entitled, “Consolidation;” and having alluded to the question of re-chartering the former Bank of the United States, he says: “Moreover, in the early history of parties, and when Mr. Crawford advocated the renewal of the old charter, it was considered a federal measure; which internal improvement never was, as this author erroneously states. This latter measure originated in the administration of Mr. Jefferson, with the appropriation for the Cumberland road; and was first proposed, as a system, by Mr. Calhoun, and carried through the House of Representatives by a large majority of the republicans, including almost every one of the leading men who carried us through the late war.”
So, then, internal improvement is not one of the federal heresies. One paragraph more, sir.
“The author in question, not content with denouncing as federalists Gen. Jackson, Mr. Adams, Mr. Calhoun, and the majority of the South Carolina delegation in Congress, modestly extends the denunciation to Mr. Monroe and the whole republican party. Here are his words. ‘During the administration of Mr. Monroe, much has passed which the republican party would be glad to approve, if they could!! But the principal feature, and that which has chiefly elicited these observations, is the renewal of the SYSTEM OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.’ Now, this measure was adopted by a vote of 115 to 86, of a republican Congress, and sanctioned by a republican president. Who, then, is this author, who assumes the high prerogative of denouncing, in the name of the republican party, the republican administration of the country—a denunciation including within its sweep Calhoun, Lowndes, and Cheves; men who will be regarded as the brightest ornaments of South Carolina, and the strongest pillars of the republican party, as long as the late war shall be remembered, and talents and patriotism shall be regarded as the proper objects of the admiration and gratitude of a free people!!”
Such are the opinions, sir, which were maintained by South Carolina gentlemen in the House of Representatives on the subject of internal improvements, when I took my seat there as a member from Massachusetts, in 1823. But this is not all; we had a bill before us, and passed it in that house, entitled, “An act to procure the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates upon the subject of roads and canals.”
It authorized the president to cause surveys and estimates to be made of the routes of such roads and canals as he might deem of national importance in a commercial or military point of view, or for the transportation of the mail; and appropriated thirty thousand dollars out of the treasury to defray the expense. This act, though preliminary in its nature, covered the whole ground. It took for granted the complete power of internal improvement, as far as any of its advocates had ever contended for it. Having passed the other house, the bill came up to the Senate, and was here considered and debated in April, 1824. The honorable member from South Carolina was a member of the Senate at that time. While the bill was under consideration here, a motion was made to add the following proviso:
“Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to affirm or admit a power in Congress, on their own authority, to make roads or canals within any of the states of the Union.”
The yeas and nays were taken on this proviso, and the honorable member voted in the negative. The proviso failed.
A motion was then made to add this proviso, viz:—
“Provided, That the faith of the United States is hereby pledged, that no money shall ever be expended for roads or canals except it shall be among the several states, and in the same proportion as direct taxes are laid and assessed by the provisions of the constitution.”
The honorable member voted against this proviso also, and it failed.
The bill was then put on its passage, and the honorable member voted for it, and it passed, and became a law.
Now, it strikes me, sir, that there is no maintaining these votes but upon the power of internal improvement, in its broadest sense. In truth, these bills for surveys and estimates have always been considered as test questions. They show who is for and who against internal improvement. This law itself went the whole length, and assumed the full and complete power. The gentleman’s vote sustained that power, in every form in which the various propositions to amend presented it. He went for the entire and unrestrained authority, without consulting the states, and without
agreeing to any proportionate distribution. And now, suffer me to remind you, Mr. President, that it is this very same power, thus sanctioned, in every form, by the gentleman’s own opinion, that is so plain and manifest a usurpation, that the state of South Carolina is supposed to be justified in refusing submission to any laws carrying the power into effect. Truly, sir, is not this a little too hard? May we not crave some mercy, under favor and protection of the gentleman’s own authority? Admitting that a road or a canal must be written down flat usurpation as ever was committed, may we find no mitigation in our respect for his place, and his vote, as one that knows the law?
The tariff which South Carolina had an efficient hand in establishing in 1816, and this asserted power of internal improvement—advanced by her in the same year, and, as we have seen, approved and sanctioned by her representatives in 1824,— these two measures are the great grounds on which she is now thought to be justified in breaking up the Union, if she sees fit to break it up.
I may now safely say, I think, that we have had the authority of leading and distinguished gentlemen from South Carolina in support of the doctrine of internal improvement. I repeat that, up to 1824, I, for one, followed South Carolina; but when that star in its ascension veered off in an unexpected direction, I relied on its light no longer. [Here the Vice-President said, Does the Chair understand the gentleman from Massachusetts to say that the person now occupying the chair of the Senate has changed his opinion on the subject of internal improvement?] From nothing ever said to me, sir, have I had reason to know of any change in the opinions of the person filling the chair of the Senate. If such change has taken place, I regret it; I speak generally of the state of South Carolina. Individuals we know there are who hold opinions favorable to the power. An application for its exercise in behalf of a public work in South Carolina itself is now pending, I believe, in the other house, presented by members from that state.
I have thus, sir, perhaps not without some tediousness of detail, shown that, if I am in error on the subject of internal improvements, how and in what company I fell into that error. If I am wrong, it is apparent who misled me.
I go to other remarks of the honorable member—and I have to complain of an entire misapprehension of what I said on the subject of the national debt—though I can hardly perceive how any one could misunderstand me. What I said was, not that I wished to put off the payment of the debt, but, on the contrary, that I had always voted for every measure for its reduction, as uniformly as the gentleman himself. He seems to claim the exclusive merit of a disposition to reduce the public charge; I do not allow it to him. As a debt, I was, I am, for paying it; because it is a charge on our finances, and on the industry of the country. But I observed that I thought I perceived a morbid fervor on that subject; an excessive anxiety to pay off the debt; not so much because it is a debt simply, as because, while it lasts, it furnishes one objection to disunion. It is a tie of common interest while it lasts. I did not impute such motive to the honorable member himself; but that there is such a feeling in existence I have not a particle of doubt. The most I said was, that if one effect of the debt was to strengthen our Union, that effect itself was not regretted by me, however much others might regret it. The gentleman has not seen how to reply to this otherwise than by supposing me to have advanced the doctrine that a national debt is a national blessing. Others, I must hope, will find less difficulty in understanding me. I distinctly and pointedly cautioned the honorable member not to understand me as expressing an opinion favorable to the continuance of the debt. I repeated this caution, and repeated it more than once—but it was thrown away.
On yet another point I was still more unaccountably misunderstood. The gentleman had harangued against “consolidation.” I told him, in reply, that there was one kind of consolidation to which I was attached, and that was, the U ; and that this was precisely that consolidation to which I feared others were not attached; that such consolidation was the very end of the constitution—the leading object, as they had informed us themselves, which its framers had kept in view. I turned to their communication, and read their very words,—“the consolidation of the Union,”—and expressed my devotion to this sort of consolidation. I said in terms that I wished not, in the slightest degree, to augment the powers of this government; that my object was to preserve, not to enlarge; and that, by consolidating the Union, I understood no more than the
strengthening of the Union and perpetuating it. Having been thus explicit; having thus read, from the printed book, the precise words which I adopted, as expressing my own sentiments, it passes comprehension, how any man could understand me as contending for an extension of the powers of the government, or for consolidation in the odious sense in which it means an accumulation, in the federal government, of the powers properly belonging to the states.
I repeat, sir, that, in adopting the sentiments of the framers of the constitution, I read their language audibly, and word for word; and I pointed out the distinction, just as fully as I have now done, between the consolidation of the Union and that other obnoxious consolidation which I disclaimed; and yet the honorable gentleman misunderstood me. The gentleman had said that he wished for no fixed revenue—not a shilling. If, by a word, he could convert the Capitol into gold, he would not do it. Why all this fear of revenue? Why, sir, because, as the gentleman told us, it tends to consolidation. Now, this can mean neither more or less than that a common revenue is a common interest, and that all common interests tend to hold the union of the states together. I confess I like that tendency; if the gentleman dislikes it, he is right in deprecating a shilling’s fixed revenue. So much, sir, for consolidation.
As well as I recollect the course of his remarks, the honorable gentleman next recurred to the subject of the tariff. He did not doubt the word must be of unpleasant sound to me, and proceeded, with an effort neither new nor attended with new success, to involve me and my votes in inconsistency and contradiction. I am happy the honorable gentleman has furnished me an opportunity of a timely remark or two on that subject. I was glad he approached it, for it is a question I enter upon without fear from any body. The strenuous toil of the gentleman has been to raise an inconsistency between my dissent to the tariff, in 1824 and my vote in 1828. It is labor lost. He pays undeserved compliment to my speech in 1824; but this is to raise me high, that my fall, as he would have it, in 1828 may be the more signal. Sir, there was no fall at all. Between the ground I stood on in 1824 and that I took in 1828, there was not only no precipice, but no declivity. It was a change of position, to meet new circumstances, but on the same level. A plain tale explains the whole
