Appendix prima et secunda ad secundam partem operum S. Leonis Magni: Epistolae ad S. Leonem pertinentes; Fragmenta S. Leoni Magno attributa

(a) printed under this page; its call is in col 1233, in the text of the preceding unit (ed_epistolis_deperditis), set in that unit's n1233.

PRAEFATIO.

PREFACE.

1. Haec appendix trium documentorum genera complectetur. Primum epistolas Leoni afflictas, et sententiam de apocryphis ex Leonis epistola ad Turribium ex parte transcriptam. Dein duas epistolas a Quesnello

1. This appendix will comprise three kinds of documents. First, the letters falsely fastened upon Leo, and the pronouncement "on the apocryphal books" transcribed in part from Leo's letter to Turribius. Next, two letters by Quesnel

<!-- note: The Ballerini PRAEFATIO to Appendix I is printed full width in the lower part of the page (cols 1233-1234), below the footnote rule and the display title "APPENDIX PRIMA AD SECUNDAM PARTEM OPERUM S. LEONIS MAGNI" (title not set here; it is in the part). Only the heading and the first two full-width lines of §1 stand on this page; the prose breaks off mid-sentence at the page foot after "a Quesnello" and runs on into the next page (col 1235). Above the title stand the end of the preceding editors' matter (the Quesnel admonition and the DECRETA LEONI PAPAE TRIBUTA) and footnote (a), none of which is set here. UNSURE: the word set as "afflictas" is read so from the image, but the sense requires "affictas" (falsely attributed), and the English follows that sense; the print may in fact read "affictas" — check at higher zoom. The words "de apocryphis" are in italic on the page; italic not marked (no italic markup in this unit), quotation marks in the English only. Q3a re-read: both lines and the title agree with the page; "afflictas" read the same way again and left UNSURE; foot note (a) had been set here although its call lies in the preceding unit, where it is already set: replaced by a pointer; italic markup removed. -->

Leoninis adjectas, alteram Turribii ad Idatium et Ceponium episcopos, alteram Juliani Coensis ad Leonem Augustum. Subjiciemus tertiam ex codice Casinensi editam a Christiano Lupo et Baluzio, qua coaevus auctor anonymus refellit Eutychis epistolam 21 ad Leonem scriptam. Tandem duo monumenta ad Leonis epistolas pertinentia, nimirum fragmentum gestorum Constantinopolitani concilii ex vita S. Abundii Comensis editum, in quo epistola 28 Leonis ad Flavianum recepta fuit, et actionem ineditam concilii Chalcedonensis, in qua Leonis epistola 93 ad synodum Nicaeae primum indictam, postea vero Chalcedone habitam, Latine ac Graece recitata cognoscitur.

added to the Leonine [letters], the one of Turribius to the bishops Idatius and Ceponius, the other of Julian of Cos to the emperor Leo. We shall subjoin a third, published from a codex of Monte Cassino by Christianus Lupus and Baluze, in which a contemporary anonymous author refutes the letter of Eutyches written to Leo, [letter] 21. Lastly, two documents pertaining to Leo's letters, namely a fragment of the acts of the council of Constantinople, published from the Life of St Abundius of Como, in which Leo's letter 28 to Flavian was received, and an unpublished session of the council of Chalcedon, in which Leo's letter 93 to the synod first summoned at Nicaea, but afterwards held at Chalcedon, is known to have been read out in Latin and in Greek.

2. In serie autem epistolarum quae Leoni perperam tributae fuere, hic non recensuimus epistolam ad Demetriadem, quia haec longior tractatus est, non disjungendus a duobus libris de Vocatione omnium gentium, qui secundo tomo reservantur. Inserendum potius hoc loco videbatur breve illud fragmentum anathematismatum adversus errores Manichaeorum et Priscillanistarum, quod e vetustissimo ms. Ambrosianae bibliothecae Ludovicus Muratorius edidit tom. II Anecdot. Latin. pag. 112. Cum enim istorum haereticorum errores S. Leo condemnaverit, hunc ille eorumdem anathematismatum auctorem suspicatus est. Hinc P. Mansius in Leone hoc fragmentum recusit tom. I Supplementi Conciliorum pag. 118. Sed cum de Leone nihil certi affirmari queat, adeo ut idem Muratorius scripserit pag. 119 : An is qui hos anathematismos antiquitus proposuit Leo Magnus fuerit, an quisquam alius, nolo divinare ; hoc fragmentum indicasse sufficiat, ut ne tamen ex simplici suspicione, qua, ipso codice non suffragante, Leoni tributum dici nequit, eodem appendicem augendam putemus.

2. In the series, however, of the letters that have been wrongly attributed to Leo, we have not here reckoned the letter to Demetrias, because this is a rather long treatise, not to be separated from the two books On the Calling of All Nations, which are reserved for the second volume. It seemed rather that there should be inserted in this place that short fragment of anathematisms against the errors of the Manichaeans and Priscillianists, which Ludovicus Muratorius published from a very ancient manuscript of the Ambrosian library, vol. II of the Anecdota Latina, p. 112. For since St Leo condemned the errors of those heretics, he suspected him to be the author of these same anathematisms. Hence Father Mansi reprinted this fragment under Leo, vol. I of the Supplement to the Councils, p. 118. But since nothing certain can be affirmed concerning Leo, so much so that the same Muratorius wrote on p. 119: "Whether he" who of old put forward these anathematisms "was Leo the Great, or anyone else, I do not wish to divine;" let it suffice to have pointed out this fragment, yet so that we do not think the appendix ought to be enlarged with it on the ground of a mere suspicion, by which, the codex itself lending no support, it cannot be said to be attributed to Leo.

3. Inter documenta ad Leonis epistolas pertinentia proferri potuisset liber quartus Vigilii Tapsensis adversus Eutychianos, editus tom. VIII Bibliothecae Patrum pag. 730, necnon quae codice 228 excerpsit Photius ex libris S. Ephremii Theopolitani, ac Eulogii Alexandrini contra Severianos et Acephalos, in quibus apologia luculentissima texitur Leoninae epistolae 28 ad Flavianum. Sed ne nimium augeretur editio, sola hujus generis documenta Leoni coaeva in hac appendice collocanda credidimus.

3. Among the documents pertaining to Leo's letters there could have been brought forward the fourth book of Vigilius of Thapsus against the Eutychians, published in vol. VIII of the Bibliotheca Patrum, p. 730, and likewise what Photius excerpted in codex 228 from the books of St Ephrem of Theopolis [Antioch] and of Eulogius of Alexandria against the Severians and the Acephali, in which a most brilliant defence is woven of the Leonine letter 28 to Flavian. But lest the edition be enlarged too much, we have judged that only the documents of this kind contemporary with Leo should be placed in this appendix.

<!-- note: full-width page (cols 1235–1236). The prose runs over from the previous page: the first paragraph here is the close of n. 1 of the Ballerini PRAEFATIO, beginning mid-sentence at the top of the page ("Leoninis adjectas…"); nn. 2 and 3 follow and end at the rule. Below the rule stands the ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM PRIMAM (nn. 1–2, running on to the next page), not set here. In n. 1 the numeral in "epistolam 21" is printed with a broken second digit; read as 21. In n. 2 Muratori's words ("An is" and "Leo Magnus fuerit … nolo divinare ;") are in italic on the page; italic not marked (no italic markup in this unit), quotation marks in the English only. Q3a re-read: the three paragraphs agree with the page word for word; italic markup removed. -->

ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM PRIMAM.

ADMONITION ON THE FIRST EPISTLE.

1. Sequentem Leonis epistolam ad Gallicanos provinciae Viennensis Quesnellus non exiguis argumentis in suspicionem adduxit, quae tamen ex aliorum potius quam ex suo sensu ita explicare et emollire studuit, ut eam, licet suspectae fidei, a Leonis plane expungendam haudquaquam crediderit, eademque praeterea velut indubio Leonis fetu usus sit in diss. 5, part. I, c. 8. Integram ejus observationem notis ejusdem insertam in primis apponamus: Vix digna erat haec epistola, quae ex bibliotheca Floriacensi prodit, ut inter Leoninas locum obtineret, cum suppositionis characteres plurimos prae se ferat. Primum enim abhorret omnino a Leoninae dictionis nitore, vixque intelligi potest aliquot in locis. 2° Ipsa epistolae inscriptio Per Callias et Viennensem provinciam insulsa est. Quasi vero extra Gallias constituta esset Vienna! 3° Etsi vices suas nonnullis dederit S. Leo, episcopis videlicet Thessalonicensibus, numquam tamen eosdem vicarios suos appellavit, nec ea voce usus est uspiam. Sic etiam ea utitur suppositor hoc loco, quasi plurimos per regiones vicarios haberet, cum unicus Thessalonicensis ejus vices tunc temporis gereret. Vicariatus enim Arelatensis constitutio posterioris est aevi. 4° Archiepiscopi nomen aliam aetatem, et quidem recentiorem, arguit; etsi enim Graecis etiam tunc in usu erat, at Latinis nequaquam. 5° Consularis nota nullo modo convenit anno quo Leonem inter et Hilarium orta est contentio, atque in hunc ab illo lata sententia. Immo nec ulli anno congruit: cum enim Valentinianus Augustus quartum gessit consulatum anno scilicet 435, nec Avienum collegam habuit, sed Theodosium Augustum, nec Leo pontificatum adeptus erat; cum vero Avienus consul fuit an. 450, Valentinianus septimum agebat consulatum, et Hilarius jam e vivis exierat. Denique valde inutilis erat brevior haec epistola, cum prolixiorem, quae sequitur scripserit ad ejusdem provinciae episcopos eodem anno et eodem consilio. Qui tamen hujus epistolae αὐθεντίαν tueri voluerit, respondere poterit scribarum errore factum ut archiepiscopi nomen pro episcopi voce suppositum fuerit: dum scilicet aevi sui usum ob oculos haberent: eorumdem oscitantiae tribuendum, quod IV pro VI in Valentiniani consulatu scriptum sit, et Avieno pro Nomo; unum enim pro altero sumi in mss. codd. facile fuit. Denique quod stylus minus accuratus est, inde evenit quod statim atque discessit ab urbe Hilarius, Leo, judicio quod inchoatum fuerat perfecto, confestim in Gallias currente calamo scripsit perbreves has litteras, ut adventum narrationemque Hilarii praeveniret, scripturus postmodum prolixiorem per otium epistolam. Quamobrem nec inutilis, inquient, videtur omnino epistola, immo necessaria, cum inter utramque sex fere mensium intervallum fuerit; et altera mense Januario, altera Junio scripta videatur. Hiemis videlicet tempore e Galliis profectum Hillarium narrat ejus Vitae scriptor: unde et Januario mense scribere potuit sanctus Leo ad Gallicanos episcopos, quos cum didicisset nihilo secius in Hilarium propensos, nec quidquam de sua in illum gratia et obsequiis remisisse, tunc Leo prolixiorem epistolam scripsit, quam et Valentiniani edicto praemuniri curavit, ut parendi necessitas Gallicanis episcopis imponeretur.

1. The following epistle of Leo to the Gallican bishops of the province of Vienne Quesnel brought under suspicion by arguments of no small weight; which arguments, however, he was at pains so to explain and soften, rather from the mind of others than from his own, that he by no means believed that it, though of suspect credit, ought to be struck out altogether from Leo's [epistles], and moreover made use of the same as an undoubted offspring of Leo in diss. 5, part I, c. 8. Let us first of all set down his observation entire, as inserted in his notes: This epistle, which comes forth from the library of Fleury, was scarcely worthy to hold a place among Leo's, since it bears upon its face very many marks of forgery. For, first, it is altogether at variance with the polish of Leo's diction, and in some places can scarcely be understood. 2° The very superscription of the epistle, Through the Gauls and the province of Vienne, is absurd. As though indeed Vienne were situated outside the Gauls! 3° Although St Leo gave his own authority to act in his stead to some, namely to the bishops of Thessalonica, yet he never called them his vicars, nor did he anywhere use that word. So too the forger uses it in this place, as though he had very many vicars throughout the regions, whereas at that time the bishop of Thessalonica alone acted in his stead. For the establishment of the vicariate of Arles belongs to a later age. 4° The name of archbishop betrays another age, and indeed a more recent one; for although it was even then in use among the Greeks, yet among the Latins it was by no means so. 5° The consular date in no way agrees with the year in which the dispute arose between Leo and Hilary, and sentence was passed by the former upon the latter. Nay, it does not fit any year at all: for when Valentinian Augustus held his fourth consulship, namely in the year 435, he neither had Avienus as colleague, but Theodosius Augustus, nor had Leo attained the pontificate; but when Avienus was consul in the year 450, Valentinian was holding his seventh consulship, and Hilary had already departed from among the living. Finally, this shorter epistle was quite useless, since he wrote the longer one, which follows, to the bishops of the same province in the same year and with the same purpose. Yet whoever should wish to defend the authenticity of this epistle will be able to reply that it came about by the error of the scribes that the name of archbishop was substituted for the word bishop, namely while they had the usage of their own age before their eyes; that it is to be put down to the carelessness of the same men that IV was written for VI in Valentinian's consulship, and Avienus for Nomus; for it was easy in the manuscript codices for the one to be taken for the other. Finally, that the style is less careful came about from this, that as soon as Hilary departed from the city, Leo, the judgement which had been begun being completed, at once wrote this very brief letter to the Gauls with a running pen, in order to anticipate Hilary's arrival and his account, intending afterwards to write a longer epistle at leisure. Wherefore, they will say, the epistle does not seem altogether useless either, nay rather necessary, since there was an interval of about six months between the two; and the one appears to have been written in the month of January, the other in June. For the writer of his Life relates that Hilary set out from the Gauls in the season of winter: whence also St Leo could have written in the month of January to the Gallican bishops; and when he had learned that they were none the less well disposed towards Hilary, and had abated nothing of their favour and deference towards him, then Leo wrote the longer epistle, which he also took care to have fortified by an edict of Valentinian, so that the necessity of obeying might be laid upon the Gallican bishops.

« In eadem Floriacensi bibliotheca, inter vetera monumenta quae res Viennenses attinent exstat epistola Adriani papae I ad Bertericum Viennensem archiepiscopum, in qua testatur pontifex sanctum Leonem post Chalcedonensem synodum singulis metropolitis civitates quos subjectas sibi haberent distinxisse: quod de solis Arelatensi et Viennensi verum est, et quidem ante synodum Chalcedonensem. »

'In the same library of Fleury, among the old records which concern the affairs of Vienne, there is extant an epistle of Pope Adrian I to Bertericus, archbishop of Vienne, in which the pontiff testifies that St Leo, after the synod of Chalcedon, marked out for each of the metropolitans the cities which they were to hold subject to themselves: which is true only of those of Arles and Vienne, and that indeed before the synod of Chalcedon.'

2. Cum ea quae ex suo sensu suoque nomine opposuit Quesnellus satis sunt gravia, tum vero quae ex alieno reposuit, quam sint imbecilla quisque cognoscet. In errore quidem consularis notae etsi facile tribui possit librarii oscitantiae numerales litteras IV pro VI in Valentiniani consulatu signare, non tamen eidem lapsui verti potest Avieno pro Nomo scribere, nec unum ejusmodi nomen pro altero sumi in mss. codicibus facile fuisse quispiam probaverit. Neque verum esse potest hanc epistolam datam fuisse die 6 Januarii an. 445, sex circiter mensibus ante alteram, quam scriptam ostendimus mense non Junio, sed Julio. Hilarium enim Roma discessisse Viennensibus notum initio ejusdem epistolae traditur. Ex Hilarii autem Vita c. 16 liquet eum hiemis tempore peditem per Alpes profectum in Urbem, et postquam ibidem aliquamdiu constisset, hieme pariter exinde aufugisse: quod

2. While the objections which Quesnel raised from his own mind and in his own name are weighty enough, everyone will perceive how feeble are those which he set down in reply from another's. In the matter of the error in the consular date, although the marking of the numeral letters IV for VI in Valentinian's consulship can easily be ascribed to the carelessness of a copyist, yet the writing of Avienus for Nomus cannot be turned to the account of the same slip, nor will anyone prove that it was easy in the manuscript codices for one name of that kind to be taken for another. Nor can it be true that this epistle was given on the 6th day of January in the year 445, about six months before the other, which we have shown to have been written not in the month of June, but in July. For at the beginning of the same epistle it is stated that Hilary's departure from Rome was known to the people of Vienne. Now from the Life of Hilary, c. 16, it is clear that he set out for the City on foot across the Alps in the season of winter, and, after he had stayed there for some time, likewise fled thence in winter: which

<!-- note: full-width page (cols 1235–1236). The upper part of the page (end of the preceding general admonition, nn. 1 end, 2, 3) stands above a rule and is not set here. This file begins at the title ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM PRIMAM below the rule and runs to the page foot: n. 1 (the editors' introduction in italic, then Quesnel's observation in roman, with its second paragraph in guillemets) and the opening of n. 2 (italic), which breaks off mid-sentence at "quod" and continues on the next page. Italic/roman distinction not marked. Readings kept as printed, possibly misprints: "a Leonis plane expungendam" (a noun such as "epistolis" seems wanting; supplied in brackets in the English); "Per Callias" (for Gallias); "Sic etiam ea utitur" (perhaps for Hic); "quae sequitur scripserit" (no closing comma); "Hillarium" (for Hilarium); "civitates quos subjectas" (for quas); "constisset" (for constitisset). "Nomo" is printed both times. Roman numerals IV, VI are in small capitals on the page. -->