The See of Peter

The Early Church and Peter's Primacy

Letter XLVI, from Deacon Hilarius to Empress Pulcheria

Pope Leo I (440-461)
Synopsis: Hilarus, deacon of the Roman Church and later its bishop, writes to Pulcheria Augusta to report how Dioscorus, by force and cunning, attempted to prevent him from returning to Rome — yet he escaped, brought the full account of what was done at Ephesus back to the most blessed pope and the Western council, all of which has been condemned as contrary to the canons — and urges Pulcheria, who began in this cause with such devotion, not to abandon it but to preserve it with the constant will of religious zeal.

Hilarus, deacon, to the most glorious and most pious Pulcheria Augusta.

Chapter I: Dioscorus Attempted to Prevent Hilarus from Reaching Rome

That it was my purpose, after the synod, to come to Constantinople, I need not say — for it was a manifest necessity that compelled me to deliver to Your Clemency and to the most invincible and most Christian emperor the letters of the most blessed pope directed to your piety — so that I might discharge to you and to the emperor alike the duty of reverence I owed. But this fitting purpose of mine was impeded by that which is the enemy of all good and the grief of all Christians: the Bishop of Alexandria, most powerful in the condemnation of blameless men. For after I had been unable to agree with his unjust will and sentence, he attempted to summon me by terror and cunning to another council — so that either, by seductions (which God forbid), he might make me consent to the condemnation of the most holy Bishop Flavian, or else, by holding me as one who resisted, he might prevent me from going to Your Graciousness at Constantinople, or from returning to the Roman Church.

Chapter II: Hilarus Escaped; Leo and the Western Council Have Condemned Ephesus II

Nevertheless, trusting in the help of Christ our God, I preserved myself innocent and whole from the condemnation of the most reverend and most holy men; though no lashes and no torments could have made me consent to his sentence. Having abandoned everything there, I departed, making my way through unknown and pathless places — reaching Rome and proving a worthy narrator of all that was done at Ephesus to the most reverend pope. To you, in fact, the venerable clemency of the most reverend pope with the entire western council has condemned all those things that were done contrary to the canons at Ephesus — and those things transacted by the power of the aforesaid bishop at the cost of the faith and to the injury of the most innocent of men could in no way be received in these regions.

As for what has been announced by me with firm and strong authority on behalf of the faith, I believe it superfluous to narrate — for these things you will be able to learn from the letters of the most blessed pope. Therefore, most splendid lady and most clement Augusta, your venerable piety, in which you began this cause so willingly, ought not to abandon it, but to preserve it with the constant will of religious zeal.

Source/Reference

PL 54:837

Notes / Historical Commentary

Letter XLVI is the only letter in the post-Latrocinium sequence not from Leo himself but from his deacon Hilarus, writing directly to Empress Pulcheria. Hilarus was one of Leo’s three legates at Ephesus II; he is the one who escaped, and his account forms the evidentiary foundation of everything Leo argues in the October 13 letters. That Hilarus writes to Pulcheria separately from Leo — on his own authority as Leo’s representative — shows the degree to which Leo’s post-Latrocinium strategy involved coordinating multiple voices simultaneously directed at the imperial court.

The letter’s primacy content is expressed through Hilarus’s consistent use of Leo’s honorifics and through the key statement that Leo “with the entire western council has condemned all those things done contrary to the canons at Ephesus.” The Western council — the Roman Synod of Letters XLIV and XLV — is the institutional expression of the Apostolic See’s universal responsibility. Hilarus is reporting to Pulcheria that the Apostolic See, speaking collectively, has formally rejected what Dioscorus accomplished. The canonical grounding (“contrary to the canons”) is deliberate: Leo’s condemnation is not personal preference but the application of a canonical tradition the Roman see is charged to uphold.

The closing direction — “you will be able to learn from the letters of the most blessed pope” — places Leo’s own letters as the authoritative account to which Pulcheria should defer. Hilarus’s letter is supplementary testimony; the governing documents are the pope’s. The reader should note that this framing of Hilarus’s own witness as subordinate to and derivative from Leo’s authoritative letters is itself an expression of the Apostolic See’s standing.

The See of Peter

The Early Church and Peter's Primacy