From: Unknown sender
To: Unknown recipient (unknown)
Date: ~515-523 AD
Context: Part of the papal correspondence surrounding the Acacian Schism (484-519), the major breach between Rome and Constantinople over the condemnation of the Monophysite patriarch Acacius. Pope Hormisdas (514-523) worked tirelessly to resolve this schism, which was finally healed in 519 under Emperor Justin I.
[This letter is part of the extensive diplomatic correspondence generated by the resolution of the Acacian Schism. The schism had divided the Eastern and Western churches for thirty-five years over the condemnation of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, who had promoted a compromise formula (the Henotikon) that Rome rejected as insufficiently orthodox. Hormisdas conducted negotiations through multiple embassies to Constantinople, exchanging letters with emperors, patriarchs, imperial officials, and powerful aristocratic women at court. The correspondence reveals the machinery of late antique ecclesiastical diplomacy: formal theological demands, careful diplomatic language, networks of lay and clerical allies, and the constant anxiety of a pope trying to manage events happening months away by letter.]
EXEMPLUM EPISTOLAE lUSTINIANI. DOmNO BEATISSIMO ATQUE APOSTOLICO PATRI HORMISI)AE PAPAE
URBI3 ROMAE lusTiNiANus. Quanta reuereutia uestram beati- tudinem ueneremur, multis epistolis, ex quo serenissimus imperator filius uester regnauit, cognoscitis. in praesenti 2 quoque debito pudore salutantes tuam sanctitatem postulamus
^ eniiius, ut assiduis precibus et frequentissimis orationibus pro concordia laboretis ecclesiarum uenerandarum nobisque, sicut per legatos etiam uestros post omnia scripsimus, tam de sermone, quo uertitur controuersia, quam de nominibus episcoporum sub Acacio defunctorum per Eulogium u. s.
80 tribunum et notarium dignetur apostolatus uester integrum indubitatumque destinare responsum, omnibus uidelicet, quae praesentibus legatis uestris ordinata sunt, in perpetuo firmiter duraturis. uir namque religiosus lohannes episcopus, qui uenturus est Bomam, detinetur aegritudine corporali. nihil 3
e enim prohibet ante eius quoque aduentum concordiam proue- nire sublata dubitatione re<Ii>gionis (et eum tamen mox dimit- timus fauente diuinitate, quia iam melius habet), quoniam nec difiQcilia sunt, quae ceciderunt in ambiguitatem, nec expedit diutius causam uitae protrahi sempiternae, ne dilatis
4 transmittemus 6 roma V octub V
200. Data et aceepta ut ep. 199. Edd. Car. P 553; Bar. ad a. 520, 40; Collect. Concil; Thiel 939. 18 <de> quo Bar., at rf. ep. 243 § 25 concordia F, corr. 26 regionis F, corr. Car. dirait- temuB Car.
660
Horraisda lastino; Hormisda lustino
4 temporibus aliquid nascatur incertius. aeternitatis igitur supemae tremendique iudicii non immemor sanctitas uestra, quae sibi commissa sunt, efficaciae tradi deproperet, ut intel- legant cuncti recte uos apostolicae sedis esse primatum sortitos. haec igitur, quae uobis scribuntur a filiis, afFectu paterno iubete quantocius adimpleri. scitis namque, quam sit admirabilis gloria tantorum errores annorum uestri pontificatus tempore stirpitus aboleri.
◆
From:Unknown sender
To:Unknown recipient (unknown)
Date:~515-523 AD
Context:Part of the papal correspondence surrounding the Acacian Schism (484-519), the major breach between Rome and Constantinople over the condemnation of the Monophysite patriarch Acacius. Pope Hormisdas (514-523) worked tirelessly to resolve this schism, which was finally healed in 519 under Emperor Justin I.
[This letter is part of the extensive diplomatic correspondence generated by the resolution of the Acacian Schism. The schism had divided the Eastern and Western churches for thirty-five years over the condemnation of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, who had promoted a compromise formula (the Henotikon) that Rome rejected as insufficiently orthodox. Hormisdas conducted negotiations through multiple embassies to Constantinople, exchanging letters with emperors, patriarchs, imperial officials, and powerful aristocratic women at court. The correspondence reveals the machinery of late antique ecclesiastical diplomacy: formal theological demands, careful diplomatic language, networks of lay and clerical allies, and the constant anxiety of a pope trying to manage events happening months away by letter.]
Modern English rendering for readability. See the 19th-century translation or original Latin/Greek for scholarly use.