Documenta Varia

APPENDIX. EXCERPT FROM THE LETTER OF SAINT MAXIMUS TO MARINUS THE PRESBYTER, MAKING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, AN APOLOGY FOR HONORIUS. (Mansi, Conciliorum Collectio, vol. XII) I do not think that Honorius, the Roman pope, denies a duality of wills in Christ naturally, in the letter which he wrote to Sergius, because he said “one will”; but rather that he confesses it, and perhaps even confirms it. For he said this not in rejection of the Saviour’s human and natural will, but because his conception, which was without seed, or his incorrupt nativity, was in no way preceded by a will of the flesh or a sinful thought.

For only the divine and paternal will, through the only-begotten Son working through Himself, accomplished His own incarnation and the coming together of the Holy Spirit; and that he follows this meaning is evident from this: for when he had said that on account of the ineffable unity of the human and divine natures, God is said to suffer, and humanity is said to have descended from heaven with humanity, and in this way he had shown the complete exchange of those things which naturally inhere in each nature of the one Christ and Son of God, he adds: "Whence," he says, "we confess one will of the Lord Jesus Christ," how he says: "Because indeed our nature was assumed by the divinity, not guilt," that is, not from sin, almost as if speaking with the great Athanasius, who writes this against the impious Apollinarius: "He was born of a woman, raising up for himself the form of the first formation of man in the display of flesh without carnal wills and human thoughts in the image of newness. For the will alone is of the divinity, because the whole nature is of the divinity. Finally, the progression of the Word's birth in the flesh for us, above us, took place.

For not the vicious will or thought of the flesh preceded, as is seen in us, because of the desire of the race, which obtained from the deception of the first parent, but the will of the divinity alone through the Son, who according to the good pleasure of the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, his own, as I said, through himself worked his own incarnation, bearing in himself and through himself the newly discovered mode of nature of birth, and without seed accomplishing his own conception from the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary. Therefore, with this ineffable reason of his nativity examined, that one indeed said only the will of the divinity in him, this one said the one will of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because indeed, he says, from the divinity our nature was assumed, not the fault, without carnal wills and human thoughts, as the most sacred Athanasius says. Yet he did not preclude that he, as a man, because he is also God by nature, does not have a human and natural will, just as he has a divine and paternal one. The same thing, moreover, he also intimates in the following, asserting: "He was conceived without sin from the Holy Spirit and the holy immaculate ever-virgin Mother of God Mary, and without contagion was born from her according to the flesh.

The Divine Scripture also brings forth the memory of the flesh in praise and blame; it warns that the flesh of the Lord is to be understood as not other in nature and substance than our own, far from it, for He knew this flesh to have been assumed from our substance, that is, from the holy viscera of the ever-virgin and Mother of God, who is born of our race, but alien from vice, and in no way having the law of transgression, as we do, in the members resisting the law of the spirit. For it is said that the flesh assumed by the Savior was not corrupted by sin, which would resist the law of His mind. For whose sowing, which is effected through sin, the law of generation did not precede, that one has it in the members not at all, but the law of divine justice shown to us for imagination, and it also perfectly demolishes that which was brought in from the transgression of nature. For He came without sin to seek and save what had perished, that is, the nature of the human race which had sinned. For there was no other law in His members, nor a diverse or adverse will in the Savior. Hence it shows, not that He did not have a human and natural will (for He does not seem to have said this), but that as a man, neither according to the body through the members does He have any operation contrary to the laws of nature; nor again according to the soul does He have a contrary or irrational movement of will, as we old ones do, because He was born above the law of human nature.

More explicitly, however, in what follows he proves that his discourse was only about distinguishing the corrupted and non-natural will from the Savior, and that in the natural and human will it is indeed fitted to the paternal and divine will, but would have no diversity from it by way of opposition. Moreover, giving us himself as a model, he voluntarily subjected what was properly his own, and commended the paternal will, so that we, imitating him, might reject what is ours and fulfill with all zeal what is divine, speaking thus: "For although it is written: 'I have not come to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me, the Father' (John 6), and 'Not what I will, but what you, Father, will,' these are not of a diverse will, that is, contrary and repugnant, but of the dispensation of the assumed humanity, which compassionately did what is ours. For he said these things on our account, to whom the master gave an example of piety, that we might follow his footsteps, each of us preferring not his own will, but rather the Lord's will in all things." Therefore, as I have said, he does not bring about the abolition of the natural and human will, but of the vicious will and that which is outside nature; and let us confess entirely that God is free from all sin, he testifies, who was incarnated according to us and for our sake. And to speak concisely, I conjecture that by "one will" he indicates that only his birth according to the flesh preceded the divine will.

Through what he says, however—that there is no diversity of his will—he does not assert that he lacks anything contrary or repugnant, but rather that it is fitting and entirely united. Hence, when he says that our nature was assumed by the will of the divinity, he makes mention of one. But that which he introduces—"I did not come to do my own will"—he places the word in the middle, omitting the number. "These are not," he says, "of diverse will," that is, of contrary and adversarial will. From this it is clearly gathered that two wills exist by nature in the Savior. For if he did not have a contrary will, he had a natural will, as a man. For what is not contrary is certainly natural, and no one denies it. Indeed, nothing in nature, or in those things which are according to nature, is entirely contrary. (Therefore it is fearful to think that what is not written in his own words, and that adversaries, as a veil for their own opinion—as if it were not good—falsely refer to the letters of that man according to both, contrary to his intention. For the discourse of reason, which he has as an advocate, drives away every assault of the slanderer. And I indeed consider his sense to be thus, purged of all suspicion.

The most holy presbyter, namely lord Anastasius the abbot, returning from elder Rome, made me more certain of this—a man, that is, incomparable, and adorned with divine virtue and prudence; who asserted that he had stirred up much discussion among the most sacred men of that great Church, on account of the letter which had been written by him to Sergius, inquiring for what reason, or in what manner, one will had been inserted into it, and he found them hesitating in this, and giving reasons. Moreover, even he who had dictated this in Latin words by his command, namely the most holy abbot John, the symponus, affirming that he had in no way made mention in it of a single will in any manner whatsoever, although this is now feigned by those who have interpreted it into the Greek tongue; nor indeed any exinanition or abolition of the natural will of the Savior according to his humanity, but rather the perfect casting down and destruction of that will which is ours, and which has been made reprobate. According to which, even a war arises between those things which are of one kind. Wishing to show that the assumed flesh is pure from every sin, according to the tradition of the most sacred scriptures and paternal teachings. And it appears how discourses of this kind are in harmony with those which have now been recited by my insignificance, and like supporters of the defense made for Honorius.

I, when he had replied reasoning in this way, was amazed, fully recognizing their subtlety, and I was somehow stupefied at the cunning of those who, for the sake of one thing, impiously dare and wish to manage everything in vain, as has long been their custom and still is, by means of stealthy and false narratives, to draw to themselves those who contend magnanimously against them, even without any reason, and to defraud the understanding of one who in no way follows them. Therefore, having also learned this necessary matter, I made it known to you, lord, honorable father, so that you might be fully fortified in how to pursue the phalanxes of the adversaries, casting forth tirelessly with word, and powerfully overcoming by faith, having the glory of the Only-Begotten as your proclamation, and the diadem of communion with him through grace and unity. II. EXCERPT FROM THE LETTER OF SAINT MAXIMUS TO PETRUS ILLUSTRIS. He makes mention of Pyrrhus and of Saint Sophronius, bishop of Jerusalem, and of Pope Honorius, proceeding thus after some remarks.

You deigned to signify to your unworthy servant, on account of Abbot Pyrrhus, with your praiseworthy syllables. And after a few words: And it would indeed have come to pass that, perhaps for this reason, for the refutation of him and of all who, according to him, follow that impious novelty, I would indifferently hasten to the divinely preserved and most renowned footsteps of yours, so that all who are lovers of piety according to you might know the overflowing abundance of impiety, together with the complete ignorance, of those men. But I feared lest I be thought to do anything outside the sacred laws, beyond the will of the most holy apostolic men who well guide the whole fullness of the Catholic Church and lead it in an orderly manner according to the divine law. For by this divine law, indeed, the celestial and the terrestrial consist, and it is necessary never to deviate from it, but to do those things which are divine according to God, for those who have proposed to live holily according to you, so that they may have God as the overseer of their deeds, and reception without success. For, most renowned lord, worse than this is the new faith and exposition, which I have also previously indicated, even from the ancient heretics.

For this reason, with many in whom he persisted for years in the episcopate, to manifest his reprobate mind (for God often knows how to endure patiently even to the disclosure of wickedness, not to make it greater through delays, but to punish it more justly when it has become greater), his predecessor indeed impiously nourished it in the womb, but he more impiously gave birth to it, and again later ones cultivate these things in contempt of divinity. And a little later: And what is even worse than that custom, and like a special sign of all perverse heretics, is that they describe even those who are guilty of their own impiety as innocent. For they whisper that Sophronius, who prudently taught and proclaimed the dogmas of the Catholic Church, moved himself into error by this and that. And after a little: For the divine Sophronius, as you yourselves testify, most praiseworthy ones, was staying with me and with all the foreign monks in the region of the Africans, when they were fabricating those perversities against all. And after a little: And indeed the house of all was, by divine concord and unanimity, with God's favoring grace, in the whole which exists under the sun, peaceful and tranquil for the Churches fortified in faith.

But those who begrudged this harmony and confession in Christ God, like a certain dark cloud and a roaring or heavy wave of the sea and of barbarians, with no one moving them except the sole friend of disturbance, the demon, who incited the human race to discord, suddenly devised a new Ecthesis against the true Christian faith; then sentences and unjust compositions for it; then actions of monuments; then robber synods, and gatherings of bishops not assembling by choice but dragged together by violence, not hastening by exhortation but setting out abroad from the flight of barbarians; then orders and threats sent here and there against the pious. For they reduced the one who then ruled to servitude by sophistical gifts. And after a few things: They persuaded him to produce an Ecthesis in his own name. A little later: But the enemy of these things becomes likewise their defender, or rather, let it be asserted, their patron and accuser, publishing their argument and making known that he himself was by no means moved of his own accord, but compelled by them, and that he made the most impious Ecthesis in writing, saying this on his own behalf and giving an account to John of blessed memory, formerly the elder pope of Rome. And after a very little: They convict themselves that they themselves, very manifestly the strongest, did this, and not he at all. For he had no zeal whatsoever concerning this, as he was carried about to other matters. After a brief space.

Concerning all of which, the wretches have not even become aware of the apostolic see, and, what is laughable—or rather, as we may more properly say, most worthy of lament, as it demonstrates their audacity—they have not even been ashamed to lie rashly against the apostolic see itself; but, as if they had become part of its council, and as if by some decree received from it, they have taken the great Honorius along with them in their woven-together actions for the impious ecthesis, making a display of their presumption to others, a man of the greatest eminence in the cause of piety. Who, then, O most renowned one, and what kind of Sophronius, persuaded them to do these things so atrociously and for so long a time with these falsehoods? What church did not ask them? What pious and orthodox bishop did not supplicate them, crying out and adjuring them to cease from their own heresy? Indeed, the sacred Arcadius was breathing his last and giving up his spirit to God, but he did not cease to ask them even up to that hour. And after a few things: But what of the divine Honorius, and what of the old man Severinus after him, and finally what of the sacred John who came after him? Moreover, the most blessed pope who now presides, has he omitted anything fitting for supplication? Has not the whole East and West equally brought tears, lamentations, entreaties, and supplications both to God through prayers and to them through letters? But God indeed has admitted the faith of these blessed men, and has preserved a recompense for it throughout the ages.

But they, despising the Lord's respite, while kindly exhorting these to conversion, and numbed by the supplications of these distinguished men over so long a time, by no means allowed the heavenly faith to take precedence over their own. After some things: Therefore the divine and great Sophronius, coming then to Alexandria, soon from the first reading (for Cyrus himself had given him those nine impious chapters to review), cried out something mournful and immense, poured forth streams of tears, fervently beseeching, supplicating, expostulating with him, prostrate at his very footsteps, that he preach none of these things from the ambo against the catholic Church of God, since these were clearly the impious doctrines of Apollinarius. And a little later: Thus the men, O head most reverend to me above all, were tearing each other apart with god-detested insults and, as it were, theatrical mockeries, and they in no way consoled the most holy Sophronius, who lamented so pitiably, as if bewailing the contrition of the catholic Church like a second Jeremiah, and deploring so great a fall of divine dogmas with great goodness and compassion. And after some things: For if the Roman see knows Pyrrhus not only as reprobate, but also as wrong-thinking and wrong-believing, it is certainly clear that whoever anathematizes those who reprobated Pyrrhus, anathematizes the Roman see, that is, the catholic Church.

I omit to say that certainly even he himself, who is such a one, if only he communicates with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God. I beseech you, therefore, my blessed lord, to command all that they not call Pyrrhus most holy or by an alms-giving name. For the sacred rule does not permit such a thing to be called him. For he has fallen from all sanctity, who manifestly has voluntarily leaped forth from the Catholic Church. For it is not lawful that he be named by any praise whatsoever, who has already long ago been condemned and cast out by the apostolic see of the city of Rome, on account of the sense of an external opinion, until he is received back by it, converted to it, indeed to our Lord, through pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he may receive sanctification and the holy name. Therefore, if he wishes neither to be nor to be called a heretic, let him not satisfy this one or that one; for this is superfluous and irrational, because just as with one scandalized against him all are scandalized, so also with one satisfied, all are without doubt satisfied. Let him hasten to satisfy the Roman See for all. For with it satisfied, everywhere all will commonly proclaim him pious and orthodox. For he speaks in vain who thinks to persuade and deceive those like me, and does not satisfy and implore the most blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the apostolic see, which from the incarnate Word of God itself, the see.

and to all holy synods, according to the sacred canons and definitions, it has received and holds command, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all and through all the holy Churches of God which are throughout the whole world. For with this it binds and looses even in heaven the Word, which rules over the celestial powers. For if someone leads others to be satisfied, and does not at all implore the most blessed Roman pontiff, he does something similar to one who, accused of homicide or some other crime, does not hasten to show himself innocent to him who by law has obtained the right of judging, but only uselessly and without profit strives to display the purity of his act to other private persons, who have no power to absolve him from the crime. Wherefore, my blessed lord, extend still more the precept, which is seen to have been well and according to the will of God by you, so that no one may have license to speak or speak against anything for the sake of dogma. But clearly learn the will of this man, investigating more abundantly, whether he wishes to assent fully to the truth; and if he strives to do this, and hastens to it according to reason, exhort him to make a suitable suggestion to the most blessed Roman pontiff, so that through his divine precept those things which concern him may be regulated in a regular manner and most fittingly to the glory of God and the praise of your sublimity.

III. OBSERVATION OF PHILIPPE Labbe, S.J. Nor indeed should it have been omitted by the royal collector, which was placed at the beginning of the collections edited by Sirmond as a preface: the letter of Anastasius, librarian of the apostolic see, to John, deacon of the city of Rome, which not only explains the rationale of the work undertaken, but also contains a defense of Pope Honorius against the censure of the sixth synod, by which he seemed to be condemned among the Monothelites, as Sirmond teaches. Therefore, receive it briefly, as altogether necessary both for matters just previously set forth concerning Honorius and for those to follow in the next volume. LETTER OF ANASTASIUS, LIBRARIAN OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE, TO JOHN THE DEACON. To his most beloved brother John, worthy Levite of Christ, Anastasius the humble sends greetings in the Lord. I had promised to your industry an ecclesiastical history of scripture for the instruction of many, that I would translate for you from the Greek language into Latin speech certain things. For you had said, and with the highest truth teaching you had affirmed, that you could not confidently begin an ecclesiastical history unless a certain written series of events in both languages had come to your knowledge.

Therefore, since I recognize such great inexperience in myself that I am not even capable of penetrating the force of my own native tongue, let alone a foreign one, and for this reason I would never have presumed to undertake any attempt at interpreting, agreeing rather to be rebuked by teachers than to remove you from the task of composing the aforementioned history on account of my sluggishness, I have hastened to satisfy you to the best of my ability. Clearly trusting that you will correct whatever is distorted in my work and polish whatever is found to be unpolished. Indeed, I confess, with my conscience bearing witness, that I would prefer these and similar things to be done by others, not so much shunning labor as my unskilled knowledge from every side—if indeed it should be called knowledge, and not rather ignorance—not knowing, if I could have omitted these things without prejudice to your fraternity, or to the plan of the history to be written by you; you who surely shine with such great light of wisdom that you seem to have proposed to test from me not what is necessary, but what is rash. Therefore, let it suffice for me, with obedience intervening, to have gathered with a rustic sickle what was sown by others, and to have carried it to the threshing-floor of Latinity on a faithful shoulder, adding or subtracting nothing. But it will be your task, with added judgments, as if with some winnowing-fan of discernment, to expand the work of history and to purge our words, which you will have decided to insert into it, like so much grain.

But we have undertaken the task of interpreting both these and other matters in such a way that we are seen neither to have departed entirely from the very wording of the text, nor, as far as possible, to have fallen away from the truth of its meaning. Moreover, I have translated certain brief works of recent times, since our predecessors—indeed, our greater forebears—who translated the deeds of earlier times, anticipated us in this kind of work, just as they also far surpassed us in excellence. Therefore, after the Tripartite Chronicle, which we translated at your urging, and certain other very brief works which we interpreted at the request of various of our fathers and brothers, the apology of John, the fourth Roman pontiff, for Pope Honorius, who was attacked by slanderers for having written that our Lord Jesus Christ had only one will, came into our hands. This apology, it seems, renders him quite excusable, although the Sixth Holy Synod anathematized him as a heretic and, with him already placed under the sole judgment of God, pierced him with the dart of reprobation, since a heretic is generated not so much by the deception of error as by an incorrect choice and contentious obstinacy. But who will tell us in the meantime whether he himself actually dictated the letter from which the slanderers took the fuel for anathematizing him, since such a thing could have happened either from the writer’s lack of discipline or from hatred toward the pontiff?

Although we are not unaware, as the holy Maximus teaches in his letter which he wrote to the presbyter Marinus, that the most holy John the abbot wrote this. Even if he himself was the author, who questioned him about this? Who investigated his intention? Who wished to correct him, and did he resist the one who questioned or attempted to correct him, or did he fight back, serving contentions? Especially since in that Gospel passage where it is said: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged" (Luke 6:37), and so forth, nothing else seems to be commanded to the great and already established teachers of the Church, except that we should interpret those deeds, about which it is uncertain with what intention they are done, in a better light. For there are certain neutral deeds, about which we do not know with what intention they are done, since they can be done with either good or bad intent, and it is rash to judge them, especially to condemn them. Finally, there are two situations in which we must beware of rash judgment: when it is uncertain with what intention something was done, or when it is uncertain what kind of person someone will turn out to be, who now appears either evil or good. How much rash judgment is to be avoided, the Lord clearly indicates, who speaks of the Sodomites in our manner, saying: "I will go down and see whether the cry that has come to me has been carried out in deed, or whether it is not so, that I may know" (Gen. 18:21). And again through Moses: "Do not curse the deaf," he says, "nor place a stumbling block before the blind" (Lev. 19:14). The Apostle warns in almost the same words: "Each one of us," he says, "will render an account for himself to God.

Therefore, let us no longer judge one another, but rather judge this: that you place no stumbling block or scandal before a brother (Rom. 13). For who is to be called more deaf or mute than he who, when he lies lifeless and dissolved in the tomb, neither opens his ear to hear solemnly the charges brought, nor opens his mouth to refute them reasonably? But concerning judgments of this kind, what the venerable Anastasius, pontiff of the apostolic see, teaches in writing to the Emperor Anastasius, laden with the weight of sacred Scripture's authority, suffices. Yet, lest we seem to accuse or rashly reproach so holy and so reverend a synod, we think it is permitted for us to hold an opinion about it, which we know the holy fathers held concerning the great Synod of Chalcedon. One of them, namely the holy Pope Gregory, indicated that only the canons themselves were to be received from it. But the blessed Pope Gelasius, equally, in his tome on the bond of anathema, shows by clear examples and several divine testimonies how that same synod is to be received, where he concludes the circumstances of these matters with such deliberation: "These," he says, "and examples of this kind teach us, and divine testimonies confirm, that we are not to accept indiscriminately everything said by anyone or written anywhere, but, retaining the good, to reject what is harmful.

For indeed, the writings of the Greeks testify that this holy synod also promulgated certain canonical chapters, which, however, almost all of them—those which the Apostolic See did not approve—the whole of Latinity rejected. But why do we speak only of this one, when even the second ecumenical synod, which was first celebrated at Constantinople, the Apostolic See does not admit in the matter of the primacy of the Churches; indeed, it decrees that all synods are to be received in such a way that the aforementioned Pope Gelasius describes the Synod of Chalcedon as to be admitted, namely for the communion of faith and the catholic and apostolic truth, for the sake of which the Apostolic See delegated this synod to be held, and confirmed it once held? Truly, if we wish to exaggerate everything that we can gather in excuse of Pope Honorius, the paper will more easily fail us than speech, and we will surely turn the purpose of interpreting into the eloquence of dictation. Yet we will say one thing, which we undoubtedly ought not to pass over in silence: that the said Honorius is as he is also pronounced; but if he was not such, to whom the sentence was prefixed, assuredly he will not be, since as it is written: Man sees in the face, but God in the heart.

But behold, while our preface to you is being drawn out at greater length, we have strayed far from the task of translating, eager to show that on the rock of the apostolic see, as far as faith is concerned, not even through Honorius was any trace of the serpent—that is, of a venomous sect—ever found. Take, then, the already mentioned apology of Pope John for Honorius; take also the apology for the same Honorius, culled from the letter of Maximus the monk—truly a philosopher and a martyr of Christ our God—sent to the presbyter Marinus. For the most blessed Maximus not only in the aforementioned letter, but also in the one he wrote to Abbot Thalassius, defends the aforementioned Honorius. Moreover, in his dogmatic letter, which he wrote to the illustrious Peter, he calls this great man divine. From this letter, indeed, concerning the same Pope Honorius and Sophronius of Jerusalem—of whom we have often made mention in the works translated by us—and concerning Pyrrhus, the heretical patriarch of Constantinople, we bring you certain excerpts, culled and translated.

Furthermore, we have interpreted from the letter of the same Saint Maximus to Marinus the presbyter the circumstance concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, where he indicates that the Greeks vainly bring charges against us, since we do not say that the Son is the cause or principle of the Holy Spirit, as they claim, but, not being ignorant of the unity of substance of the Father and the Son, we confess that just as He proceeds from the Father, so also He proceeds from the Son, understanding mission, of course, as procession; piously interpreting, he instructs those skilled in both languages toward peace, while indeed teaching both us and the Greeks that in one respect the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and in another respect does not proceed, signifying the difficulty of expressing the property of one language into another. Indeed, by such a pious interpretation, Saint Athanasius once united the Easterners and Westerners who were in disagreement over the name of subsistence or person, while teaching thoroughly that both believed the same thing in heart and retained it in meaning, although due to the variety of language they confessed it differently in speech and raged with importunate contentions.

We have also translated certain letters of Pope Theodore, the successor of the aforementioned Pope John, written, as the order required, to Paul, the successor of Pyrrhus, and to his consecrators; the epistolary style of these distinguished prelates of the apostolic see, John and Theodore, clearly breathes Latin eloquence; from this it is evident that they were not composed in Greek, but in Latin. Hence it should be noted that Latinity would have lamented many things published in Latin as utterly buried under the weight of oblivion, had it not drawn them again, with a thirsty heart, from the later source of Greek books, as, for example, the letter of the blessed Pope Felix pronouncing the sentence of condemnation against Peter of Antioch. Moreover, just as Rufinus, writing to Gaudentius, implies that Clement himself was rendered, restored, and returned to our language, and clearly shows that it was written in Latin and lost, and then recovered. I have likewise excerpted, and here present to you translated, a certain narrative circumstance from the letter of Saint Maximus to the abbot, concerning what the Roman legates did at Constantinople, for the sake of inciting constancy in the cause of the greatest piety, to refute the faint-hearted, and to recognize the authority of the apostolic see against those who strive to extort something from it by violence.

Moreover, behold, I herewith present to you the acts of the exile of the holy Pope Martin, which I had published at the request of the venerable Martin, bishop of Narni, together with the Hypomnesticum briefly setting forth the acts of the holy Maximus the Philosopher, and of both Anastasii, as well as of Theodore, and of Euprepius and others. IV. EPITAPH OF POPE HONORIUS I. (Baron. Annal. ad an. 638.) In the apse (which the illustrious pope built) these surrounding verses are read, inscribed in mosaic work beneath images wrought in the same work, in a rude style (as the age bore): Golden pictures rise from cut metals, And, clasped together, the day itself is enclosed. From snowy springs you would think, Aurora, that seized clouds ascend, Watering the fields of the countryside. In the same semicircle of the apse, in a straight line, the following verses are placed: Or what light among the stars the rainbow will bring forth, And the purple peacock itself shining in color. He who was able to give an end to night or day, From the tombs of the martyrs, he repelled that chaos.

Turned upward by a single nod, as is seen by all, Bishop Honorius has offered these dedicated vows. His face is marked by his garments and deeds, and he shines in appearance, bearing a luminous heart.