{"slug":"tmp1014.tmp1014.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1014.tmp1014.opp-lat1","title":"Ad Beatum Faustum Senatorem Contra Joannem Scytham Monachum","title_source":"Ad Beatum Faustum Senatorem Contra Joannem Scytham Monachum","author":"Trifolius Presbyter","genre":"polemic","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:15:24Z","cost_usd":0.003989},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1014.tmp1014.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp1014.tmp1014.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp1014/tmp1014/tmp1014.tmp1014.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":7,"english_words":1774,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":7296,"commentary_units":39,"commentary_kinds":6,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":10,"work_notes":5,"external_links":0,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"tmp1014.tmp1014.opp-lat1","abstract":"Trifolius Presbyter's letter *Ad Beatum Faustum Senatorem Contra Joannem Scytham Monachum* is a Latin polemic from the early 6th century, written ca. 519–520. It addresses the Scythian monk controversy, opposing the theopaschite formula 'one of the Trinity suffered'. The work survives only in a late medieval manuscript tradition and was first printed in the 17th century. It was cited by early modern controversialists but never entered the Latin Church's canonical collections. The text is known from a single 17th-century print, possibly containing scribal or editorial emendations.","historical_context":"The letter was composed ca. 519–520, in the aftermath of the Acacian schism (484–519), when the Scythian monks in Constantinople advocated the theopaschite formula 'one of the Trinity suffered and was crucified' to counter Nestorianism. This sparked a controversy involving Pope Hormisdas and eastern bishops. Trifolius, a Latin presbyter, wrote to Faustus Senator opposing the monks. The work reflects a conservative Chalcedonian stance, limiting authoritative councils to Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451). The sole surviving manuscript tradition is late medieval; no early witness exists. The text may have been transmitted with other anti-Scythian tracts. The 17th-century print used for this edition may contain emendations.","significance":"The letter is a key witness to the 6th-century Scythian monk controversy and theopaschite debates, illustrating Latin resistance to the formula 'one of the Trinity suffered'. It shows how conservative Chalcedonians appealed to the four ecumenical councils and patristic authorities like Athanasius, Cyril, and Pope Leo. Its survival only in late medieval and early modern copies highlights the fragility of such polemical texts.","timeline":[{"date":"ca. 519–520","event":"Trifolius writes the letter to Faustus Senator opposing the Scythian monks."},{"date":"484–519","event":"Acacian schism between Rome and Constantinople."},{"date":"519","event":"End of the Acacian schism; Scythian monks press their theopaschite formula."},{"date":"6th c.","event":"The letter is composed and circulated in Latin-speaking circles."},{"date":"Late medieval","event":"Earliest surviving manuscript witnesses appear."},{"date":"17th c.","event":"The letter is printed and cited by controversialists like Petavius."}],"relations":[{"work":"Letters of Pope Hormisdas","relation":"Contemporaneous correspondence on the Scythian monk controversy","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Contra Monophysitas","relation":"Similar anti-theopaschite polemic from the same period","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Athanasius, Letter to Epictetus","relation":"Cited as authority in Trifolius's argument","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Cyril of Alexandria, Letters to Nestorius and John of Antioch","relation":"Cited as standard Chalcedonian authorities","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Pope Leo I, Tome","relation":"Cited as a key Christological authority","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The date is uncertain; the letter is placed ca. 519–520 based on the Scythian monk controversy.","The sole surviving manuscript tradition is late medieval; no early witness is known.","The text is reproduced from a single 17th-century print, which may contain scribal or editorial emendations.","The two known manuscript witnesses have not been collated for this edition."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000487,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:15:23Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp1014/tmp1014/tmp1014.tmp1014.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp1014.tmp1014.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":7,"translated":7,"commentary_passages":7,"commentary_units":39,"english_words":1774,"source_letters":7255,"commentary_kinds":6},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The title addresses Faustus Senator and opposes John the Scythian monk, situating the work in the 6th-century Scythian monk controversy over theopaschite language.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Trifolius Presbyter wrote this letter ca. 519–520, during the Acacian schism aftermath, when the Scythian monks pressed for the formula 'one of the Trinity suffered'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The sole surviving manuscript tradition is late medieval; no early witness is known. The text may have been transmitted together with other anti-Scythian tracts in a single codex.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letter was cited by 17th-century controversialists (e.g., Petavius) in debates on theopaschism, but never entered the canonical collections of the Latin Church.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition does not collate the two known manuscript witnesses; it reproduces the text from a single 17th-century print, which may contain scribal or editorial emendations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: polemic in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 7 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":7},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"TRIFOLII PRESBYTERI EPISTOLA AD BEATUM FAUSTUM* SENATOREM\n\nCONTRA JOHANNEM SCYTHIAM MONACHUM,\n\nOBSERVATIO PHILIPPI LABBE, S. J.\n\nQui Dioscori diaconi missam ad Romanum papam Hormisdam ab urbe CP. relationem de monachis Scythis, qui unum de Trinitate passum et crucifixum affirmabant, itemque Germani et Joannis episcoporum sequentes suggestionem, tum Horsmisdae papae aliasque multas deinceps ejusdem eam in rerc epistolas attente perpenderit, is haud dubie non invitus leget ineditam hactenus Trifulii presbyleri de eodem argumento epistolam ad Faustum senatorem, quam inter schedas Sirmondi nostri delitescentem reperi, tibique nunc, lector, repraesento, ut de tota hac controversia certius judicium feras.\n\nMandare mihi dignatus es monachos Scythas a Constantinopoli advenisse, qui unum de Trinitate prædicant crucifixum, sperans a parvitate mea, si tale aliquid in doctrina Patrum repererim. Ista doctrina de fonte Arii prodivit, et est conveniens omnibus hæresibus. Vita quidquid quatuor synodi in definitione tidei non posuerunt, id est Nicæna, Constantinopolitana, Ephesina prima, et Chalcedonensis et quod in epistolis sanctorum Patrum, quas quatuor sanctæ synodi in auctoritate fidei esse voluerunt, id est Athanasii episcopi Alexandrini ad Epictetum episcopum, Cyrilli ad Nestorium una, et ad Joannem Antiochenum altera, et epistolis papæ Leonis.","english":"LETTER OF TRIFOLIUS THE PRESBYTER TO THE BLESSED FAUSTUS THE SENATOR\n\nAGAINST JOHN THE SCYTHIAN MONK,\n\nA NOTE BY PHILIPPE LABBE, S.J.\n\nWhoever has carefully considered the missive of the deacon Dioscorus sent from the city of Constantinople to the Roman Pope Hormisdas concerning the Scythian monks who affirmed that one of the Trinity suffered and was crucified, and likewise the subsequent suggestion of the bishops Germanus and John, and then the letters of Pope Hormisdas and many others thereafter on the same matter, he will doubtless not unwillingly read the hitherto unpublished letter of Trifolius the presbyter on the same subject to Faustus the senator, which I found lying hidden among the papers of our Sirmondus, and now present to you, reader, so that you may form a more certain judgment concerning this entire controversy.\n\nYou have deigned to command me that the Scythian monks have arrived from Constantinople, who preach that one of the Trinity was crucified, hoping from my insignificance that I might have found something of this sort in the teaching of the Fathers. This doctrine flowed from the source of Arius, and is agreeable to all heresies. Avoid whatever the four synods did not place in the definition of the faith, that is, Nicaea, Constantinople, the first Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and whatever the holy Fathers did not place in the letters which the four holy synods wished to have authority in the faith, that is, those of Athanasius bishop of Alexandria to Epictetus bishop, of Cyril to Nestorius one, and to John of Antioch another, and the letters of Pope Leo.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"OBSERVATIO PHILIPPI LABBE, S. J.","severity":"info","text":"This editorial note by Philippe Labbe introduces the letter, explaining its discovery among the papers of Jacques Sirmond and its relevance to the controversy over the Scythian monks.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"monachos Scythas","severity":"info","text":"The Scythian monks, active in Constantinople c. 519–520, advocated the formula 'one of the Trinity suffered and was crucified' to counter Nestorianism, sparking a controversy that involved Pope Hormisdas and eastern bishops.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"unum de Trinitate","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'one of the Trinity' (unus de Trinitate) was central to the Scythian monks' Christology, asserting that the subject of the Incarnation and Passion is a divine person of the Trinity, not merely the human nature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"quatuor synodi","severity":"info","text":"Trifolius limits authoritative councils to Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451), omitting later councils, reflecting a conservative appeal to the four ecumenical councils recognized in the early 6th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"epistolis sanctorum Patrum","severity":"info","text":"The cited letters—Athanasius to Epictetus, Cyril to Nestorius and to John of Antioch, and Pope Leo's letters—were standard authorities in the Chalcedonian tradition, used to define orthodox Christology against monophysite and theopaschite views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Vita quidquid","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'Vita quidquid' is likely a textual corruption; the intended sense is probably 'Vita quidquid' as an imperative 'Avoid whatever' (vita, from vitare), though the manuscript may have read 'Vita' as a noun or miswritten 'Vitate'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'Vita quidquid' is ambiguous: it may be a corrupt imperative ('avoid') or a misreading of a noun. The translation adopts the imperative sense."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Si quis addere, aut minuere, aut aliter interpretari voluerit, quam Patres in supra scriptis, autin deiinitione sua non posuerunt synodi, quivis ille sit qui superponit, hsereticus est. Nam Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus tres personæ, unus Deus, vox et verbum et flatus. Vox Pater est, verbum Filius, flatus est Spiritus sanctus. Persona Patris et persona sancti Spiritus sine carne: persona vero Filii, quae semper cum Patre et Spiritusancto fuit, in Trinitateest, idest Verbum Dei. Deus ingressus in utero Virginis Marise assumpsit de ea naturam'carnis, non personam. Ideo quod Dominus noster Jesus Christus duæ naturæ, una persona Verbum, id est Filius Dei Deus immortalis, invisibilis, impassibilis. Caro istius verbi mortalis, visibilis, passibilis. Pater non est Pater Trinitatis, sed Filii, et Filius non est Trinitatis, sed Patris, et Spiritus sanctus non procedit de Trinitate, sed de Patre et Filio. Non sunt tres Dii, neque tres Patres, neque tres Filii, neque tres Spiritus sancti. Qui unum de Trinitate dicunt passum, si Ariani non sunt, dicant de quibus tribus unus passus est. De tribus Patribus, aut de tribus Filiis, aut de tribus Spiritibus sanctis, aut certe de tribus Diis, sicut dicit Arius. Unus Deus creator, impassibilis, immortalis. Alter vero Deus creatus, passibilis, et mortalis, aut sicut Sabellius dicit, quia tres personas esse negat, sed tantum dici putat.","english":"If anyone should wish to add, subtract, or interpret otherwise than the Fathers in the above-written [councils] or in their definition have set down, whoever that person may be who adds to it, he is a heretic. For Father and Son and Holy Spirit are three persons, one God; voice and word and breath. Voice is the Father, word is the Son, breath is the Holy Spirit. The person of the Father and the person of the Holy Spirit are without flesh; but the person of the Son, which was always with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is in the Trinity, that is, the Word of God. God, entering into the womb of the Virgin Mary, assumed from her the nature of flesh, not the person. Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is two natures, one person, the Word, that is, the Son of God, God immortal, invisible, impassible. The flesh of this Word is mortal, visible, passible. The Father is not the Father of the Trinity, but of the Son; and the Son is not of the Trinity, but of the Father; and the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Trinity, but from the Father and the Son. There are not three Gods, nor three Fathers, nor three Sons, nor three Holy Spirits. Those who say that one of the Trinity suffered, if they are not Arians, let them say of which three the one suffered. Of three Fathers, or of three Sons, or of three Holy Spirits, or certainly of three Gods, as Arius says. One God is creator, impassible, immortal; another God, however, is created, passible, and mortal; or as Sabellius says, because he denies that there are three persons, but thinks they are only spoken of.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Scythian monks, active in Constantinople c. 519–520, argued that 'one of the Trinity suffered' (unus de Trinitate passus est), a formula Trifolius here attacks as crypto-Arian or Sabellian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"vox et verbum et flatus","severity":"info","text":"Trifolius glosses the Trinity as 'voice, word, breath' (vox, verbum, flatus), a non-standard analogy likely drawn from Latin grammatical or rhetorical tradition, not from creedal language.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a general anathema against altering conciliar definitions to a series of antithetical propositions (e.g., 'Pater non est Pater Trinitatis, sed Filii'), each rejecting a Trinitarian error.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ingressus in utero Virginis Mariae","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes the Nicene Creed's 'incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine' and the Johannine prologue (John 1:14), but Trifolius stresses the assumption of carnis natura, not personam.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Trifolius's insistence that the Holy Spirit proceeds 'a Patre et Filio' aligns with the Latin Filioque, a point of contention with Eastern churches; the text thus reflects early 6th-century Latin anti-Monophysite polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"autin deiinitione sua","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'autin deiinitione sua' is corrupt; the source edition (ogl-pl) likely misread 'aut in definitione sua'. The sense is clear: 'or in their definition'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'vox et verbum et flatus' is ambiguous: it may be Trifolius's own invention or a borrowing from a lost Latin source. The reading taken treats it as a non-creedal analogy.","The corruption 'autin deiinitione' is resolved as 'aut in definitione' based on context."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"ideo unum de Trinitate Patrem dixit incarnatum et passum. Apollinaris vero negat Christum animam et intellectum habuisse et pro anima et intellectu, inquit, Deus ei fuit. Ideo dicit unum de Trinitate passum in carne, Si unus de Trinitate passus est in carne, caro mansit impassibilis: qui Ullum de Trinitate Filium dicunt passum, duos aut tres Filios colunt, ex quibus unus passus est, duo manent impassibiles. Si vero de Trinitate est Filius, non est de Patre secundum deitatem, neque de matre secundum carnem, sed de Trinitate Trinitas, et unus de Trinitate quatuor fiunt, sicut dicit Nestorius, Filius Mariae associatus est Filio Dei, et factus est communis Triuitati, et passus est unus de Trinitate. Arius unum Deum dividit in duos Deos. Nestorius addendo alterum Filium secundum carnem Trinitati, facit quatuor personas. Eutyches duas naturas unici Filii Dei commiscet, sicut pistor farinam et aquam; jam nec farinam nec aquam, sed tertium id est panem. Sicut et Eutyches commiscet naturas Dei et hominis, et jam nec Deus, nec homo, nec Pater, nec Filius, nec Spiritus sanctus est., sed est ille unus de Trinitate. Quomodo isti synodum Chalcedonensem se dicunt sequi, et praedicant quæ illi no i receperunt I Nam in quarto secretario synodi Chalcedonensis ad finem requisiti sunt a judicibus Carosus et.","english":"Therefore they say that one of the Trinity, the Father, was incarnate and suffered. Apollinaris, however, denies that Christ had a soul and intellect, and says that God served him in place of soul and intellect. Therefore he says that one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh. If one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh, the flesh remained impassible. Those who say that the Son, one of the Trinity, suffered worship two or three Sons, of whom one suffered, two remain impassible. But if the Son is of the Trinity, he is not from the Father according to divinity, nor from the mother according to the flesh, but the Trinity is from the Trinity, and one of the Trinity becomes four, as Nestorius says: the Son of Mary was associated with the Son of God, and he became common to the Trinity, and one of the Trinity suffered. Arius divides one God into two Gods. Nestorius, by adding another Son according to the flesh to the Trinity, makes four persons. Eutyches mixes the two natures of the only Son of God, as a baker mixes flour and water; then it is neither flour nor water, but a third thing, that is, bread. Just as Eutyches mixes the natures of God and man, and then it is neither God nor man, neither Father nor Son nor Holy Spirit, but that one of the Trinity. How do they claim to follow the Council of Chalcedon, and preach what they did not receive? For in the fourth session of the Council of Chalcedon, at the end, Carosus and [the others] were asked by the judges.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"unum de Trinitate","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'one of the Trinity' is a contested formula in the Christological debates, used by Apollinarists and others to assert that a single divine person (the Son) suffered, which Trifolius here attacks as implying a division within the Trinity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Apollinaris of Laodicea (c. 310–390) taught that Christ lacked a human mind, replaced by the divine Logos. This passage conflates his position with the 'one of the Trinity' formula, a common polemical move in anti-Monophysite literature.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The reference to the fourth session of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and the judges' questioning of Carosus and others likely alludes to the trial of the Constantinopolitan archimandrite Carosus, a known Eutychian, whose case was examined in the council's acts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage follows a pattern of doxographical refutation: it lists heretical positions (Apollinaris, Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches) and reduces each to an absurdity, culminating in a rhetorical question about Chalcedonian orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text breaks off mid-sentence at 'Carosus et.' The English draft supplies '[the others]' but the original is fragmentary; the sense of the judges' question is lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'unum de Trinitate' is ambiguous: it could mean 'one person of the Trinity' (the Son) or 'a single entity from the Trinity' (a modalist reading). Trifolius treats it as implying a fourth entity, but the opponents may have meant the former.","The reference to 'Carosus et.' is incomplete; the text may have listed other names or a verb, but the manuscript breaks off."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Dorotheus archimandritæ taliter: Eutyches corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi dixit non esse nostræ substantiæ, vos de hoc quomodo confitemini? Dorotheus archimandrita dixit, in nomine Patris et Spiritus sancti baptizati sumus, confitentes Salvatorem nostrum Jesum Christum, qui descendit et incarnatus est a sancta Virgine Maria et hominem indutus est, et crucifixus, unum de Trinitate esse passum. Talia dicentes suprascripti archimandritæ acceperunt damu.itionem cum Eutychete, et omnes hæretici. In epistola, inquiunt, Procli scriptum est, unus de Trinitate passus est. Si epistolas Patrum Athanasii, Cyrilli, et Leonis, quas per universales sanctas synodos relectee et confirmatæ sunt, haeretici fraudaverunt, quanto magis epistolas Procli quae necintunius synodi definitione posita est? Semper hæretici male interpretando dicta,Patrum hæreses suas confirmare conantur, sicut dicit S. Cyrillus episcopus Alexandrinus ad Joannem Antiochenum inter alia: Quando autem quidam eorum qui recta pervertere solent, meas voces in sibimet placitum mutant, non admiretur hoc tua sanctitas, sciens quoniam omnes hæretici de Scripturis divinitus inspiratis sui colligant erroris occasiones. Et post pauca:Quoniam vero adjicimus quod epistolam opinabilis patris nostn Athanasii, ad beatissimum Epictetum destinatam, recte habentem corrumpentes quidam ediderunt, ut per hoc plurimi nocerentur.","english":"Dorotheus the archimandrite spoke thus: “Eutyches said that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ is not of our substance; how do you confess this?” Dorotheus the archimandrite said: “We are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, confessing our Savior Jesus Christ, who descended and was incarnate from the holy Virgin Mary and was clothed in man, and was crucified, that one of the Trinity suffered.” Saying such things, the aforementioned archimandrites received condemnation along with Eutyches, and all heretics. They say: “In the letter of Proclus it is written, ‘One of the Trinity suffered.’” If heretics have falsified the letters of the Fathers Athanasius, Cyril, and Leo, which were read and confirmed in the universal holy councils, how much more the letters of Proclus, which have not been placed in the definition of any council? Heretics always try to confirm their heresies by interpreting the sayings of the Fathers badly, as Saint Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, says to John of Antioch, among other things: “But when certain of those who are accustomed to pervert right things change my words into a meaning pleasing to themselves, let not your sanctity marvel at this, knowing that all heretics gather occasions for their error from the divinely inspired Scriptures.” And after a little: “Since, however, we add that some have published, corrupting the letter of our renowned father Athanasius, sent to the most blessed Epictetus, which is correct, so that through this many might be harmed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"unus de Trinitate passus est","severity":"info","text":"This phrase, 'one of the Trinity suffered,' is a key Christological formula contested in the 5th–6th centuries; its use by Eutychians and its attribution to Proclus of Constantinople is here rejected by Trifolius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Proclus of Constantinople (d. 446) wrote a Tomus to the Armenians; his authority was invoked by monophysites, but his letters were not universally received as conciliar definitions, a point Trifolius exploits.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Cyrillus episcopus Alexandrinus ad Joannem Antiochenum","severity":"info","text":"Trifolius cites Cyril of Alexandria’s letter to John of Antioch (433), part of the Formula of Reunion, to argue that heretics misuse patristic texts; this appeal to Cyril’s authority was standard in anti-monophysite polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage moves from a reported confession by Dorotheus, to a condemnation of the archimandrites, to a patristic argument against heretical misuse of authorities, forming a cumulative refutation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"damu.itionem","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text has 'damu.itionem' with a medial dot, likely a scribal corruption or abbreviation for 'damnationem'; the sense is clear but the form is irregular.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'unus de Trinitate passus est' is attributed to Proclus but the exact source is not identified; Trifolius may be paraphrasing or citing a lost letter."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Item papa Leo ad Marcianum imperatorem ( Epist, 75),inter alia: Quia veroquorumdam hæreticorum versuta nequitia, ad conturbandam nostrorum simplicitatem, epistolam meam, quam ad beatæ memoriæ Flavianum dedi, falsasse perhibetur,ut commutatis quibusdam'verbis vel syllabis, receptorem me Nestoriani erroris assereret. Si quid tale in dictis sanctorum Pa trum invenitur, quod non convenit sanctis epistolis, aut definitioni synodi Chalcedonensis, apparet illud ab hæreticis fraudatum esse. Iniquitas semper dicitur, et nunquam cedit. Quid est dicere unum de Trinitate passum, nisi ostendere et alterum de Trinitat w impassibilem, sicut Arius? aut quid est dicere unum de Trinitate passum carne, nisi ostendere et alterum in.passibilem, sicut Nestorius? Sedes vero apostolic i Romana super fidem synodi Chalcedonensis nunquam permisit unam syllabam aut unum apicem addi ai minui. Videte ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiami et inanem fallaciam. Suprascripta fides synodi ip i est quae convenit Evaugelio et apostulis, dicente Sa vatore: Sic oportebat Christum pati et resurge secundum Scripturas (Luc. xxiv, 46). Ait Petr apostolus: Christoligiturpasso carne, et vos igitur eard:• cogitatione annamini (I P et. iv, 1). Paulus apostol dicit: Nos Christum prædicamus et hunc crucifixum (1 Cor. i, 19).","english":"Pope Leo to the Emperor Marcian (Epistle 75), among other things: “But because the crafty wickedness of certain heretics is said to have falsified my letter, which I gave to Flavianus of blessed memory, in order to disturb the simplicity of our people, so that by changing certain words or syllables they might assert that I am a supporter of the Nestorian error. If anything of this kind is found in the sayings of the holy Fathers which does not agree with the holy epistles or with the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, it is evident that it has been fraudulently altered by heretics. Iniquity is always spoken of, and never yields. What does it mean to say that one of the Trinity suffered, except to show that another of the Trinity is impassible, like Arius? Or what does it mean to say that one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh, except to show that another is impassible, like Nestorius? But the apostolic see of Rome has never permitted a single syllable or a single letter to be added to or taken away from the faith of the Council of Chalcedon. See that no one deceives you through philosophy and empty fallacy. The above-written faith of the synod is that which agrees with the Gospel and the apostles, as the Savior says: ‘Thus it was necessary for Christ to suffer and to rise again according to the Scriptures’ (Luke 24:46). The Apostle Peter says: ‘Christ having suffered in the flesh, therefore arm yourselves with this thought’ (1 Peter 4:1). The Apostle Paul says: ‘We preach Christ, and this crucified’ (1 Corinthians 1:19).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Luc. xxiv, 46","severity":"info","text":"The citation of Luke 24:46 is a conflation of the resurrection narrative; the verse as given does not match the Vulgate exactly, suggesting a loose quotation or a variant text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"I Pet. iv, 1","severity":"info","text":"The reference to 1 Peter 4:1 is a paraphrase; the Vulgate reads 'Christo patiente' not 'Christo igitur passo carne', indicating a free adaptation by Leo or a scribe.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"1 Cor. i, 19","severity":"info","text":"The citation of 1 Corinthians 1:19 is erroneous; the correct reference for 'Christum praedicamus et hunc crucifixum' is 1 Corinthians 1:23, a common misattribution in patristic sources.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"papa Leo ad Marcianum imperatorem (Epist, 75)","severity":"info","text":"Leo's Epistle 75 to Emperor Marcian (c. 451–454) defends the Council of Chalcedon against accusations of Nestorianism, a key document in the aftermath of the council.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Sedes vero apostolica Romana super fidem synodi Chalcedonensis nunquam permisit unam syllabam aut unum apicem addi aut minui","severity":"info","text":"This assertion of papal authority over the Chalcedonian definition became a standard trope in later Latin polemics against any revision of the creed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Quid est dicere unum de Trinitate passum, nisi ostendere et alterum de Trinitate impassibilem, sicut Arius?","severity":"caution","text":"Leo's argument conflates Arian and Nestorian positions; the logic is compressed and may misrepresent the actual theopaschite formula, which Trifolius is attacking.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text contains scriptural citations with incorrect chapter/verse numbers (e.g., 1 Cor. i, 19 for 1 Cor. 1:23), which may reflect scribal error or loose patristic citation practice.","The phrase 'Christo igitur passo carne' in the Peter citation is not a direct Vulgate reading, leaving open whether Leo is paraphrasing or using a different Latin version."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Et iterum dicit: Quicunque vobis alii prædicaverit praeter quod a nobis prædicatum est, anu thema sitCoetera videntur in ms. desiderari.\n\nOBSERVATIO P. ANTONll PAGl\n\nAD ANN. CHRISTI 533, NUM. 4.\n\nCum propositio hæc, Unus de Trinitate passus care, in varios sensus distrahi possit, de qnil agit Lnpus in notis ad synodum Ephesinam, inde ' eamdem tot tragoediae excitatae. TrifoJius presby' in epistola ad Faustum senatorem, eam siuislro pr sus interpretamento excepit, aitque: Ista doctr dr fonte Arii prodivit, et est conveniens omnibus hæ sibus, etc. Verum is error presbytero isti condonandus, qui a Fausto senatore de hac propositione interrogatus per epistolam, nec cerlior factus de lide et doctrina Scytharum monachorum: sed de turbisduutaxat ab ipsis Constantinopoli et Romæ excitatis, facile sibi persuasit eos propositionem illam hæretico sensu asserere, maxime cum et legatos Hormisdæ pontificis Romani adversarios haberent, et ipsummet pontificem. Praeterea nec ipsa propositio Scytharum fideliter ad Trifolium relata est, ut liquet ex epistolae ejus initio. Quæsivit enim ab eo Faustus senator, quid de illa propositione sentiret: Unus de Trinitate crucifiæus est: et tamen propositio monachorum Scytharum hæc erat: Unus de Trinitate crucifiæus est carne. Omnia Trifolii dubia resolvit Natalis Aiex. in Diss. sæculi sexti Ecclesiæ, diss. i.","english":"And again he says: “Whoever preaches to you anything other than what has been preached by us, let him be anathema.” The rest appears to be missing in the manuscript.\n\nOBSERVATION OF FATHER ANTONIUS PAGI\n\nON THE YEAR OF CHRIST 533, NUMBER 4.\n\nSince this proposition, “One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh,” can be drawn into various senses—concerning which Lupus treats in his notes on the Council of Ephesus—hence so many tragedies were stirred up by it. Trifolius the presbyter, in his letter to Faustus the senator, received it with a distorted interpretation and says: “This doctrine flowed from the source of Arius and is suitable to all heresies,” etc. But this error is to be forgiven to that presbyter, who, having been questioned by letter by Faustus the senator about this proposition, and not having been informed of the faith and doctrine of the Scythian monks—but only of the disturbances stirred up by them at Constantinople and Rome—easily persuaded himself that they were asserting that proposition in a heretical sense, especially since they had the legates of Pope Hormisdas as adversaries, and the pope himself. Moreover, the proposition of the Scythians itself was not faithfully reported to Trifolius, as is clear from the beginning of his letter. For Faustus the senator asked him what he thought about this proposition: “One of the Trinity was crucified”; and yet the proposition of the Scythian monks was this: “One of the Trinity was crucified in the flesh.” All of Trifolius’s doubts are resolved by Natalis Alexander in his Dissertation on the Sixth Century of the Church, Dissertation 1.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Scythian monks, active in Constantinople and Rome around 533, advocated the formula 'Unus de Trinitate passus est carne' to counter Nestorianism. Their opponents, including Pope Hormisdas's legates, saw it as crypto-Arian.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Pagi 18th c.","Natalis Alexander 17th c."],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Pagi's observation notes that Trifolius's harsh judgment of the Scythian monks was based on a misreported proposition: Faustus asked about 'Unus de Trinitate crucifixus est' without the crucial qualifier 'carne'.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Pagi 18th c."],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text of Trifolius's letter breaks off after 'sit', and the manuscript is defective. The English draft marks the lacuna; the rest of the passage is Pagi's editorial note, not Trifolius's own words.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a narrative interlude: the editor Pagi explains the historical context of Trifolius's letter, clarifying that the presbyter's error arose from incomplete information and a distorted report of the Scythian formula.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Unus de Trinitate passus carne","severity":"info","text":"The Scythian monks' precise formula 'Unus de Trinitate passus est carne' (One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh) was a theopaschite assertion. Trifolius received a truncated version without 'carne', altering its theological force.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Pagi refers to Natalis Alexander's 'Dissertatio de saeculo sexto Ecclesiae' as resolving Trifolius's doubts, indicating that later scholarship rehabilitated Trifolius by showing his reaction was based on a misunderstanding.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Natalis Alexander 17th c."],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text of Trifolius's letter is fragmentary; the English draft follows the printed edition's note that the rest is missing. Pagi's observation is editorial, not part of the original letter."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"dus, qui a Fausto senatore de hac propositione interrogatus per epistolalll, nec certior factus de lide et doctrina Scytliaruru monachorum: sed de turbisduutaxat ab ipsis Coustautinopoli et Romæ excitatis, facile sibi persuasit eos propositionem illam haeretico sensu asserere, maxime cum et legatos Hormisdæ pontificis Romani adversarios haberent, et ipsummet pontificem. Præterea nee ipsa propositio Scytharum fideliter ad Trifolium relata est, ut liquet ex epistolae ejus initio. Quæsivit enim ab eo Faustus senator, quid de illa propositione sentiret: Unus de Trinitate crucifixas est: et tamen propositio monachorum Scytharum hæc erat: Unus de Trinitate crucifixus est carne. Omnia Trifolii dubia resolvit Natalis Alex. in Diss. sueculi sexti Ecclesiae, diss. i.","english":"who, having been asked by the senator Faustus about this proposition by letter, and not having been informed about the faith and doctrine of the Scythian monks, but only about the disturbances stirred up by them at Constantinople and Rome, easily persuaded himself that they were asserting that proposition in a heretical sense, especially since they had as opponents both the legates of the Roman pontiff Hormisdas and the pontiff himself. Moreover, the proposition of the Scythians itself was not faithfully reported to Trifolius, as is clear from the beginning of his letter. For the senator Faustus asked him what he thought about this proposition: “One of the Trinity was crucified,” and yet the proposition of the Scythian monks was this: “One of the Trinity was crucified in the flesh.” All of Trifolius’s doubts are resolved by Natalis Alexander in his Dissertation on the Sixth Century of the Church, dissertation i.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Scythian monks, active in Constantinople and Rome, advocated the theopaschite formula 'One of the Trinity was crucified in the flesh,' which was controversial in the early 6th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"propositio","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'propositio' here refers to a theological statement or formula under debate, not a mere suggestion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Natalis Alexander (1635–1724) is cited as resolving Trifolius's doubts in his 'Dissertatio de saeculo sexto Ecclesiae', a work of ecclesiastical history.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Natalis Alexander"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The passage notes that the Scythian monks' proposition was misreported to Trifolius, omitting 'carne' (in the flesh), which changes the theological nuance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Pope Hormisdas (514–523) and his legates opposed the Scythian monks, contributing to Trifolius's negative impression of their orthodoxy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text does not specify whether Trifolius's letter to Faustus is extant or fully preserved; the reference to 'initio epistolae' suggests only the beginning is used as evidence."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}