📜 Verbum · 聖言
原文誦讀聖經與教父文獻

← 回書卷目次 · 拉丁教父 › 簡史

迦太基的利貝拉圖斯

簡史 第 18 章

拉丁文原文.11 節.部分字詞可點開查義

← 第 17 章第 19 章 →
18:1
Inthronizato autem eo, divisio et discessio populi orta est a, eo quod viveret Dioscorus, et esset in exsilio. Mulla ergo perieul a Proterius passus est, ita ut militari pro custodia indigeret auxilio, plurimo tempore sui pontificatus, et usque ad mortem Marciani imperatoris inimicorum manus valuit evadere. Sed Timotheus quidam cognomento Ælurus, ct Petrus Moggus b diaconus, qui de ordinalione fuerunt Dioscori, ab Alexandrina Ecclesia se separaverunt, nolentes communicare Proterio, quos cum Proterius episcopus ad ministerium proprium revocare non posset, utrosque damnavit.
但當他被立於座上後,民間便起了分裂和分離,因狄奧斯科魯仍然在世,且身在流放中。於是普羅特里烏受了許多危險,以致在其主教任期的大部分時間都需要軍隊看守之助以求保護,直到皇帝馬爾西安去世,他都得以逃脫仇敵的手。但有一位名叫提摩太、別號艾路魯(Aelurus)的人,和執事彼得·蒙古(Peter Mongus),他們是屬狄奧斯科魯的受任的,便從亞歷山大教會分離出去,不願與普羅特里烏交通;當主教普羅特里烏不能召他們回到自己本分的事奉時,便定了他們二人的罪。
But when he had been enthroned, a division and secession of the people arose, because Dioscorus was still living and was in exile. Proterius therefore suffered many perils, so that he needed the aid of a military guard for his protection during a great part of his pontificate, and until the death of the emperor Marcian he managed to escape the hands of his enemies. But a certain Timothy, surnamed Aelurus, and Peter Mongus a deacon, who had belonged to the ordination of Dioscorus, separated themselves from the Alexandrian Church, being unwilling to communicate with Proterius; and when bishop Proterius could not recall them to their proper ministry, he condemned them both.
18:2
At illi captata morte Marciani imperatoris, colleetis turbis hæreticorum, qui Dioscorum sequebantur, ordinato episcopo Timotheo Æluro, veniunt Alexandriam, et ante triduum Paschæ, quo coena Domini celebratur, ab ipsis turbis concluditur in Ecclesia sanctæ memoriæ Prolerius, quo se timore contulerat: ibique eadem die in baptisterio occiditur, laniatur, ejicitur, et funus ejus incenditur, sparguntur et cineres ejus in ventos. Ab isto ergo Timotheo duo episcopi Alexandriæ coeperunt esse, et dum Ecclesias tenuissent, solverunt eam, quam habebant, unitatem, expulsis ab eis plurimis episcopis orthodoxis, qui sub evangelistae erant sede beatissimi Marci.
但他們趁皇帝馬爾西安去世之機,聚集了跟隨狄奧斯科魯的異端群眾,並任命提摩太·艾路魯為主教,便來到亞歷山大;在復活節前三日、即守主的晚餐之日,聖潔紀念的普羅特里烏被那些群眾關在他因懼怕所逃入的教會中;就在那同一日,他在洗禮所被殺、被撕裂、被丟棄,他的屍身被焚燒,他的骨灰被撒於風中。於是從這提摩太起,亞歷山大便開始有了兩位主教;當他們把持眾教會時,便破壞了它原有的合一,許多正統的主教被他們驅逐,這些主教原是在福音書作者、至福的馬可的教座之下。
But they, seizing upon the death of the emperor Marcian, having gathered crowds of the heretics who followed Dioscorus, and having ordained Timothy Aelurus bishop, come to Alexandria; and three days before Easter, on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated, Proterius of holy memory is shut up by those very crowds in the Church, whither he had betaken himself out of fear; and there on that same day he is slain in the baptistery, torn to pieces, cast out, and his corpse is burned, and his ashes are scattered to the winds. From this Timothy, then, there began to be two bishops of Alexandria; and while they held the Churches, they dissolved the unity which it had, very many orthodox bishops being expelled by them, who were under the see of the evangelist, the most blessed Mark.
18:3
Interea Leo sumit imperium, ad quem tanti facinoris caiholicorum querela pervenit, ascendentibus ad imperialem civitatem cum clericis aliquantis Alexandrinae Ecclesiæ episcopis, qui erant a Timotheo sedibus suis pulsi. Supplicationes ab eisoblatse sunt Leoni imperatori, quatenus mors vindicaretur Proterii, et expelleretur episcopali sede Timotheus Ælurus, tanquam non legaliter institutus. Hæc quidem egerunt episcopi et clerici synodi Chalcedonensis defensores; sed etiam a parte Timothei quidam episcopi et clerici Timothei ascendentes, functi legatione pro Timotheo ituro, dederunt et ipsi petitiones imperatori, contra synodum saepe facientes, ut eadem Chaledom nsis synodus tolleretur;
與此同時,利奧承襲帝位,公教徒就如此重大的罪行向他申訴,亞歷山大教會的某些被提摩太從其教座趕出的主教,便偕同一些教士上到帝都。他們向皇帝利奧呈上請願,求為普羅特里烏的死伸冤,並求把提摩太·艾路魯——一位非合法所立的人——從主教座驅逐。這些事乃是身為迦克墩會議辯護者的主教和教士所行的;但在提摩太那一面,也有提摩太的某些主教和教士上去,為將要前來的提摩太履行使命,他們自己也向皇帝呈上請願,屢次與會議作對,要廢除這同一迦克墩會議;
Meanwhile Leo took the empire, to whom the complaint of the catholics concerning so great a crime came, certain bishops of the Alexandrian Church, who had been driven from their sees by Timothy, going up to the imperial city with some clergy. Supplications were presented by them to the emperor Leo, that the death of Proterius might be avenged, and that Timothy Aelurus, as one not lawfully appointed, might be expelled from the episcopal see. These things indeed the bishops and clergy who were defenders of the Council of Chalcedon did; but also, from the side of Timothy, certain bishops and clergy of Timothy going up, discharging an embassy on behalf of Timothy who was to come, themselves also gave petitions to the emperor, repeatedly acting against the synod, that the same Council of Chalcedon should be abolished;
18:4
e contra illi a parte Pro:erii vindictam sceleris postulabant e. Et ambarum partium supplicationes imperator legens, et considerans nimis esse grave, vexnri tanto itinere sacerdotes, quorum aut ætas, aut infirmitas, aut paupertas hunc laborem subire prohibebat, impossibile judicavit eos congregari, sed scripsit singularum civitatum episcopis de utroque negotio, consulens quid tie i oporteret, vel de ordinalione Timothei, vel de terminis synodi Chalcedonensis. Et direxit per totum Orientem magistrianos, mittit et Anatolius episcopus Asclepiadem diaconum suum, per quos omnes illi episcopi, qui Chalcedone fuerant congregati, quid Alexandriae gestum fuit, agnosccrent.
反之,普羅特里烏一面的人則要求為此罪行伸冤。皇帝讀了兩黨的請願,又顧念使祭司們因如此遙遠的旅途而疲憊乃為太過沉重之事——那些因年歲、或衰弱、或貧窮而不能承受此勞苦的人——便判定不可能使他們聚集;卻寫信給各城的主教,論及這兩件事,徵詢當如何行,無論是論提摩太的受任,或是論迦克墩會議的界限。他又差遣御前官員(magistriani)走遍全東方,主教安那托利也差遣他的執事亞斯克勒皮亞德,藉著他們,使一切曾在迦克墩聚集的主教都能得知亞歷山大所發生之事。
on the contrary, those on the side of Proterius demanded vengeance for the crime. And the emperor, reading the supplications of both parties, and considering it too grievous that priests should be wearied by so great a journey — those whom either age, or infirmity, or poverty prevented from undergoing this labour — judged it impossible for them to be gathered; but he wrote to the bishops of the individual cities concerning both matters, consulting what ought to be done, whether concerning the ordination of Timothy, or concerning the bounds of the Council of Chalcedon. And he sent magistriani throughout the whole East, and Anatolius the bishop also sent his deacon Asclepiades, through whom all those bishops who had been gathered at Chalcedon might learn what had been done at Alexandria.
18:5
Qui rescribunt Charcedonensem synodum usque ad sanguinem vindicandam, eo quod non alteram fidem teneret, quam synodus Nicaena constituit. Timotheum vero non solum inter episcopos non haberi, sed etiam Christiana appellatione privari: et hae epistolæ vel relationes episcoporum omnium in uno codicis cor pore vocantur Encyclia. Quo facto scripsit imperator Leo duci Alexandriae Stilæ, ut pelleret quidem ab episcopatu modis omnibus Timotheum, inthronizaret autem alium, de creto populi, qui synodum vindicaret. Multa ergo pericula Proterius.] De sedilionibus Alexandriae concitatis a populo Dioscori perdite amante, et adversus Pro'erium infenso, lege Evagrium lib. II Hisl. cap.
他們回信說,迦克墩會議當捍衛至流血的地步,因它所持的信仰,無非是尼西亞會議所確立的;但提摩太不僅不可列在主教之中,甚至要被剝奪「基督徒」的稱號。眾主教的這些書信或報告,在一卷法典中合為一體,稱為《通諭》(Encyclia)。此事辦妥後,皇帝利奧寫信給亞歷山大的軍長斯提拉(Stila),要他務必把提摩太從主教職趕出,並憑民眾的議決另立一位捍衛會議的人於座上。〔於是普羅特里烏受了許多危險。〕論到民眾在亞歷山大所煽動的暴亂,他們極端地愛狄奧斯科魯,並對普羅特里烏存敵意,可參閱伊瓦格里烏《教會史》第二卷第〔某〕章,
They write back that the Council of Chalcedon was to be defended even to the shedding of blood, because it held no other faith than that which the Council of Nicaea established; but that Timothy was not only not to be counted among the bishops, but even to be deprived of the Christian appellation. And these letters or reports of all the bishops are called, in one body of a codex, the 'Encyclia.' When this was done, the emperor Leo wrote to Stila, the duke of Alexandria, that he should by all means drive Timothy from the bishopric, and enthrone another by the decree of the people, one who would defend the synod. [Proterius therefore suffered many perils.] Concerning the seditions stirred up at Alexandria by the people, who loved Dioscorus to perdition and were hostile to Proterius, read Evagrius, book II of his History, chapter
18:6
5, atque etiam Theophanem in Chronographia. Usque ad mortem Marciani.] Obiit piissimus imperator die 26 Januarii, anno aetatis suae 64, imperii 7, Christi 457. Sedit ergo Proterius annos quinque et paucos menses; propter quos menses Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus sex annos dixit. Sed Timotheus quidam.] Haec tota ex Breviculo sæpius laudato, paucis verbis interpolatis, desumpta est. Ante triduum Paschæ.] Ut ista quoque ex Breviculo accepta est, ita inde videri potest emeudandum, quod Liberatus dicit Proterium se tinore in ecclesiam contulisse;
見第五章,也可參閱狄奧法尼在其《編年紀》中所述。〔直到馬爾西安去世。〕這至虔誠的皇帝於一月二十六日去世,時年六十四歲,在位第七年,主後四五七年。故此普羅特里烏就座了五年又數月;因這數月之故,君士坦丁堡的尼基弗魯說成六年。〔但有一位名叫提摩太的人。〕這整段是取自那屢屢稱許的小撮要(Breviculus),其中插入了少許字句。〔在復活節前三日。〕因這也是取自《撮要》,故由它可見,利奧帕都所說的——普羅特里烏因懼怕而逃入教會——必須加以修正;
5, and also Theophanes in his Chronographia. [Until the death of Marcian.] The most pious emperor died on the 26th of January, in the 64th year of his age, the 7th of his reign, in the year of Christ 457. Proterius therefore sat for five years and a few months; on account of which months Nicephorus of Constantinople said six years. [But a certain Timothy.] This whole passage is taken from the often-praised little summary (Breviculus), with a few words interpolated. [Three days before Easter.] As this also is taken from the Breviculus, so from it it can be seen that what Liberatus says — that Proterius had betaken himself into the church out of fear — must be amended;
18:7
habet enim Breviculus de more, qua lectio, cum agatur de tempore solemnis baptismi mox celebrandi, credi posset melior, nIsi libellus ab episcopis Ægypti catholicis oblatus I.eoni, et Evagrius, lib. it, cap. 8, Zachariam historicum secutus, similia Liberato haberent a quibus pariter traditur, quod prætermisit cuni Breviculi auctore Li. beratus, occisum a milite Proterium, et ejns viscera a furente populo vorata. Illius porro, quem dixi, Zachariæ meminerunt Evagrius loco mox citato, Nicephorns Callistus et Antonius Verderius in supplempnto Bibliothecæ Gesnerian, tandemque Vossius in Historicis Graecis.
因《撮要》如其慣例,有一種讀法,既關乎當時即將舉行的莊嚴洗禮之時,本可信為較佳,若非埃及公教主教們呈給利奧的請願,以及伊瓦格里烏——他在第二卷第八章跟從歷史家撒迦利亞——有與利奧帕都相似的記載。由這些記載同樣傳下(利奧帕都與《撮要》作者所略去之事):普羅特里烏被一兵士所殺,他的腸臟被狂怒的民眾吞食。我所提及的那位撒迦利亞,伊瓦格里烏在剛引述之處提及,尼基弗魯·卡利斯圖和安東尼烏·韋德里烏在格斯納圖書館的補編中亦然,沃西烏(Vossius)最後在其《希臘歷史家》中亦提及。
for the Breviculus has, as is its custom, a reading which, since it concerns the time of the solemn baptism then about to be celebrated, might be believed better, were it not that the petition presented to Leo by the catholic bishops of Egypt, and Evagrius — who in book II, chapter 8, following Zacharias the historian — have things similar to Liberatus. By these it is alike handed down (a thing which Liberatus, along with the author of the Breviculus, omitted) that Proterius was slain by a soldier, and his entrails devoured by the raging people. Of that Zacharias whom I have mentioned, Evagrius makes mention in the place just cited, as do Nicephorus Callistus and Antonius Verderius in the supplement to the Gesnerian Library, and finally Vossius in his Greek Historians.
18:8
Manuscriptam haberi Zachariæ historiam testatur Verderius, sed ea nondum, quod sciam, edita est. — Contra id quod scribit Liberatus, Proterium ante triduum Paschæ, quo coena Domini celebratur, ah ipsis turbis in ecclesia conclusum, et eadem die ibidem in baptisterio occisum, reclamat Viclor Tunonensis, qui interfectum ponit « vi cat. April., feria 6,'qua noster Salvalor et Dominus a Judæis est crucilixus. » Pro Liberato facit Breviculus sæpe laudatus, contra singulos facit supplicatio Ægyptiorum ad Lconem imperatorem; narrant enim hanc cædem tunccontigisse, cum solemnis dies festus salutaris paschalis celebraretur: parvi est momenti omnino lis de quatuor diebus;
韋德里烏作證說,撒迦利亞的歷史尚存於手稿,但據我所知,尚未刊行。——利奧帕都所寫——普羅特里烏在守主的晚餐之復活節前三日,被那些群眾關在教會中,並在那同一日在洗禮所被殺——圖努納的維克托爾反對此說,他把這謀殺定於「四月朔日前第六日、一個星期五,即我們的救主和主被猶太人釘十字架之日。」為利奧帕都作證的是那屢屢稱許的《撮要》;逐一反對二者的,是埃及人致皇帝利奧的請願;因他們敘述這屠殺發生於得救的莊嚴復活節節期正被慶祝之時。關於這四日的爭論完全無足輕重;
Verderius testifies that the history of Zacharias is held in manuscript, but it has not yet, so far as I know, been published. — Against what Liberatus writes — that Proterius, three days before Easter, on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated, was shut up in the church by those very crowds, and on that same day there slain in the baptistery — Victor of Tunnuna objects, who places his killing on 「the 6th day before the Kalends of April, a Friday, on which our Saviour and Lord was crucified by the Jews.」 For Liberatus the often-praised Breviculus makes; against each, individually, the supplication of the Egyptians to the emperor Leo makes; for they narrate that this slaughter then occurred when the solemn festal day of saving Easter was being celebrated. The dispute over the four days is of altogether little moment;
18:9
majoris vero, quod refert Tunonensis, Pascha dominicum tunc IV cal. April. celebratum fuisse, cum ann. 457 littera dominicalis esset F, atque ita dies dominicus Pascha is esset pridie cal. April. Forte irrepsit mendum in notas temporis majoribus litteris expressas, ut iv pro II positum sit, siquidem veteres II cal. dixerunt pro pridie, quomodo Tullius lib. xv, episl. 28: < Pridie quam hæc scriberem, id est II nonarum. Æ Et dum Ecclesias tenuissent,] Aut importuna quaedam parenthesis agnosci debet, aut fatendum aliquid deesse ad apertam sententiam; sed quid facies scrip'ore et Latinitatis et ornatus negligente?
但更為重要的是圖努納人所報的事,即主的復活節當時是在四月朔日前第四日所守,因四五七年的主日字母(dominical letter)是 F,如此復活節主日便應是四月朔日前一日。也許在以較大字母表達的時間記號中混入了一個錯誤,以致「IV」(四)被誤作「II」(二),因古人以「朔日前第二日」(II Kalends)表示「前一日」——正如圖利烏(西塞羅)在第十五卷第二十八信中所說:「在我寫此信的前一日,即朔日前第二日。」〔當他們把持眾教會時。〕這裏要麼須承認有某種不合宜的插入語,要麼須承認為使語意明白尚缺少了甚麼;但對一位既不顧拉丁文法又不顧文采的作者,你能怎樣呢?
but of greater moment is what Tunnunensis reports, that the Lord's Easter was then celebrated on the 4th before the Kalends of April, since in the year 457 the dominical letter was F, and thus the Easter Sunday would be the day before the Kalends of April. Perhaps an error crept into the notes of time expressed in larger letters, so that 'IV' was put for 'II,' since the ancients said 'II Kalends' for 'the day before' — as Tullius (Cicero) says in book XV, letter 28: 「The day before I wrote this, that is, the 2nd before the Nones.」 [And while they held the Churches.] Either some inopportune parenthesis must be recognized, or it must be confessed that something is lacking for the clear sense; but what will you do with a writer careless of both Latinity and elegance?
18:10
Supplicationes ab eis oblatæ sunt.] Elabentur in 5 parte concilii Chalcedonensis, cap. 2i et 22. Scripsit quoque ad imperatorem Ælurus, sed litterae penerunt. Eo quod non alteram fidem.] Una erat haec qnerela sive monacborum, sive aliorum concilium Chalcedonense oppugnantium, quod confessio fideiChalcedone edita diversa foret a Nicæna. Et epistolæ.] In unum volumen, cui nomen, relatas omnes tradit Evagrius ex his duobus auctoribus Prisco et Zacharia; habentur in 3 parte concilii Chalcedonensis: sunt omnes synodicae, praeter eam quae a Varadato seu Baradato monacho scripta est; omnibus enim nomina metropolitarum et provinciae episcoporum ascribuntur.
關於「他們獻上了懇求」一語。這些見於迦克墩會議第五部分第二十一與二十二章。亞祿魯也曾上書皇帝,但那些信函已散佚。關於「因為這並非另一種信仰」一語。這是一項共同的怨言,無論出自修士或其他攻擊迦克墩會議者之口,即迦克墩所頒布的信仰宣認與尼西亞的有所不同。關於「這些書信」一語。優西比烏(Evagrius)根據普利斯庫斯與撒迦利亞這兩位作者,記載這些信函全都被收入一卷之中,並冠以此名;它們見於迦克墩會議第三部分。除了修士瓦拉達圖(或巴拉達圖)所寫的那一封以外,其餘皆為大公會議性質的書信;因為其餘各封都附有各都主教及各省主教的名字。
On the words, 'Supplications were offered by them.' They are found in part 5 of the Council of Chalcedon, chapters 21 and 22. Aelurus also wrote to the emperor, but the letters have perished. On the words, 'Because it was not another faith.' This was the one complaint, whether of the monks or of others who attacked the Council of Chalcedon, namely that the confession of faith issued at Chalcedon differed from that of Nicaea. On the words, 'And these letters.' Evagrius, on the authority of these two writers Priscus and Zacharias, reports that they were all gathered into a single volume bearing this title; they are found in part 3 of the Council of Chalcedon. They are all synodical, except the one written by the monk Varadatus, or Baradatus; for to all the rest are appended the names of the metropolitans and of the provincial bishops.
18:11
Quot episcoporum porro nomine responsum sit imperatori, non est constans opinio: Eulngius Alexandrinus mille sexcentos numerat, apud Photium cod. 230 et 229. Euphræmius Antiochenus quingentos duntaxat et septuaginta. Observavi nullam Euphratesia' provintiæ, cujus fuit Theodoretus, synodicam iter alias haberi; nullam Ciliciæ secundae, in qua Mopsuestia est.
再者,關於是以多少主教的名義向皇帝作出答覆,眾說並不一致:亞歷山大的優洛吉烏記為一千六百位,見於佛提烏文獻第二三〇與二二九卷;安提阿的優弗拉米烏則僅記為五百七十位。我注意到,在這些書信中找不到任何屬於幼發拉底省(提阿多勒所屬之省)的大公會議書信,也找不到任何屬於第二基利家省(摩普綏提亞所在之省)的書信。
Moreover, as to in the name of how many bishops the reply was given to the emperor, opinion is not settled: Eulogius of Alexandria reckons one thousand six hundred, as in Photius, codices 230 and 229; Euphraemius of Antioch only five hundred and seventy. I have observed that no synodical letter of the province of Euphratensis, to which Theodoret belonged, is found among the others; and none of Cilicia Secunda, in which Mopsuestia lies.
← 第 17 章第 19 章 →
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728