PL 54 · cols. 1237–1241

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

Letters I–IV

PL 54:1237

EPISTOLA I.

LETTER I.

Ad episcopos Gallicanos provinciae Viennensis.

To the Gallic bishops of the province of Vienne.

Dilectissimis fratribus per Gallias et Viennensem provinciam episcopis constitutis, Leo episcopus.

To the most beloved brethren, the bishops established throughout the Gauls and the province of Vienne, Leo, bishop.

Quali pertinacia Hilarius Arelatensis episcopus judicium nostrum effugerit, sancta vestra fraternitas non ignorat. Unde et justum esse videmus, ut quia principis apostolorum magnam in judiciis moderationem, quam in potestate per vicarios suos semper exhibet, Arelatensis episcopus non exspectavit, a privilegio suae civitatis submotus humili loco discat, quod in magno gratis munere praedecessorum nostrorum concesso tenere noluit. Sitque redintegratum Viennensi archiepiscopo privilegium, et jus antiquum quod apostolica benignitas ad Arelatensem ex parte transtulit civitatem, ut tali severitate Hilarius

With what obstinacy Hilary, bishop of Arles, fled from our judgement, your holy brotherhood is not unaware. Hence we also see it to be just that, because the bishop of Arles did not wait for the great moderation in judgements of the prince of the apostles, which he always shows in his power through his vicars, he should, removed from the privilege of his city, learn in a lowly place what he was unwilling to hold in the great gift freely granted by our predecessors. And let there be restored to the archbishop of Vienne the privilege and the ancient right which apostolic kindness transferred in part to the city of Arles, so that by such severity Hilary

Editors' notes and page, col. 1237

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: EPISTOLA› · call in col 1237

Apud Quesnel. inter Leoninas 9.

In Quesnel, no. 9 among the Leonine letters.

(printed under page 624)

Editors' prose

si non ad Februarii initia, saltem ad finem Januarii referendum videtur; ac propterea probabilissimum est nondum pontificem publicis saltem litteris quidquam statuisse in Hilarium. cum is Arelatem reversus illum placaturus Romam misit primo Ravennium presbyterum, deinde Nectarium atque Constantium episcopos; cumque Auxiliaris Praefectus ad Hilarium rescribens, mitius eidem consilium suasit. Quod si ad haec concilianda cum Tillemontio quispiam suspicetur, in Leonis epistola pro VIII id. Jan. legendum VIII id Jun., ut in Valentiniani novella inter Leonis epistolas relata epist. 11, editum fuerat: cum novellam datam ostenderimus VIII id Julii, non Junii, haec conciliandi ratio haudquaquam subsistit.

must, it seems, be referred, if not to the beginning of February, at least to the end of January; and therefore it is most probable that the pontiff had not yet, at least by public letters, decreed anything against Hilary, when the latter, having returned to Arles, sent to Rome to appease him first the presbyter Ravennius, then the bishops Nectarius and Constantius; and when the Prefect Auxiliaris, writing back to Hilary, urged upon him a milder counsel. But if anyone, in order to reconcile these things, should suspect with Tillemont that in Leo's letter, in place of "the eighth day before the Ides of January", there should be read "the eighth day before the Ides of June", as had been published in Valentinian's novel reported among Leo's letters as letter 11: since we have shown that the novel was given on the eighth day before the Ides of July, not of June, this way of reconciling them by no means holds good.

3. Tandem addendum est suppositionis argumentum nostro quidem judicio maximum. Haec epistola in bibliotheca Floriacensi prodiit ex Viennensis Ecclesiae archivo, ex quo aliae pariter decretales ejusdem Ecclesiae praerogativas et privilegia ingerentes, ibidem editae sunt. Cum vero caeterae omnes antiquiorum pontificum epistolae eo ex libro vulgatae, apocryphae et commentiae sint, ut videre est apud P. Coustantium (Tom. I Epist. Rom, pontif. ), qui eas idcirco in appendicem spuriarum cum opportunis monitis rejecit, quis hanc pariter aliquot praesertim falsitatis indiciis inspersam eadem impostura fabricatam nequaquam agnoscat? Recte siquidem P. Sirmondus in notis posthumis tom. IV Concil. pag. 697, eamdem, praesertim ex manifesto errore chronicae notationis, subdititiam pronuntians, monuit haud laborandum in hoc vitio excusando et tribuendo scriptoribus, cum in caeteris pontificum ad episcopos Viennenses epistolis, quae in eo volumine continentur, alia sint plurima tam aperte falsa, ut merito detrahant etiam probabilibus fidem.

3. Finally there must be added an argument of spuriousness which is, in our judgement at least, the greatest. This letter appeared in the Bibliotheca Floriacensis from the archive of the Church of Vienne, from which other decretals likewise, pressing the prerogatives and privileges of the same Church, were published in the same place. Now since all the other letters of the earlier pontiffs made public from that book are apocryphal and fictitious, as may be seen in Father Coustant (vol. I of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs), who for that reason relegated them, with suitable admonitions, to the appendix of spurious pieces, who would not recognize that this one likewise, sprinkled as it is especially with several marks of falsity, was fabricated by the same imposture? Rightly indeed Father Sirmond, in his posthumous notes, vol. IV of the Councils, p. 697, pronouncing the same letter supposititious, especially on the ground of the manifest error of its chronological notation, warned that no trouble should be taken in excusing this fault and attributing it to the copyists, "since in the other letters of the pontiffs to the bishops of Vienne which are contained in that volume there are very many other things so openly false that they deservedly take away credit even from the probable ones."

4. Neque moveat mira quaedam cum rebus gestis hujus temporis convenientia, et simplicissimus antiquitatis candor qui in ea deprehenditur. Impostor enim, ut fraudem antiquitatis et simplicitatis colore velaret, ex antiquis monumentis plura decerpsit, uti animadvertere licet potissimum ex epistola Silvestri pro Ecclesia Viennensi, quae ex genuinis Zosimi litteris pro Ecclesia Arelatensi fere ad verbum excripta fuit. Haec autem Leonis decretalis ex sincera ac fusiore ejusdem epistola ad Viennenses quasdam sententias recepit. In iis porro quae ibidem peculiaria adduntur: Sitque redintegratum Viennensi archiepiscopo privilegium et jus antiquum, quod apostolica benignitas ad Arelatensem ex parte transtulit civitatem; verba ex parte eam ex apostolica auctoritate ante hoc tempus obtinuisse praesumunt Viennensis provinciae divisionem in partes duas, quam posteriori decreto ipse Leo constituit, ita ut haec sententia ex epist. Leonis 66 ad comprovinciales metropolis Arelatensis deducta videatur: unde etiam consularis notatio Valentiniani et Avieni ex eadem transcripta est: quod suppositionem evidentius confirmat atque demonstrat.

4. Nor let anyone be moved by a certain remarkable agreement with the events of this time, and by the very simple candour of antiquity which is found in it. For the impostor, in order to veil his fraud with the colour of antiquity and simplicity, culled a good many things from ancient records, as may be observed above all from the letter of Silvester on behalf of the Church of Vienne, which was copied out almost word for word from the genuine letter of Zosimus on behalf of the Church of Arles. This decretal of Leo, moreover, has taken certain sentences from the same pope's genuine and fuller letter to the bishops of the province of Vienne. Further, in those things which are added there as peculiar to it, "And let there be restored to the archbishop of Vienne the privilege and ancient right which apostolic kindness transferred in part to the city of Arles", the words "in part" presume that before this time it had obtained by apostolic authority that division of the province of Vienne into two parts which Leo himself established by a later decree, so that this sentence appears to have been drawn from Leo's letter 66 to the comprovincial bishops of the metropolis of Arles: whence also the consular notation of Valentinian and Avienus was transcribed from the same letter: which confirms and demonstrates the spuriousness still more evidently.

Page

running head: 1237 EPISTOLAE AD S. LEONEM MAGNUM PERTINENTES. — EPIST. I AD IV. 1238
marginal letters: (none beside this column's text)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Page layout: a full-width band at the head (end of the ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM PRIMAM, nn. 2 end, 3, 4: editors' prose, set above in this file, not in the part), then two columns (the part), then the foot notes, a rule, and a second full-width band (ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM TERTIAM: editors' prose, set in n1238). The last word is printed 'Hila-' at the column end and completed from the first line of col. 1238 ('rius'), which I had in view; col. 1238 therefore begins at 'coercitus'. Foot-note call (a) beside the caption dropped; of the notes (a), (b), (c) at the foot, the Ballerini's, (a) is set above and (b) and (c), called in col. 1238, are set in n1238 (note (c) runs across both columns).

PL 54:1238

coercitus, discat non temere transgredi terminos antiquos canonica prolatione fundatos. Data octavo [Al. tertio] idus Januarii Valentiniano Augusto IV et Avieno consulibus.

restrained, may learn not rashly to overstep the ancient bounds founded on canonical pronouncement. Given on the eighth [elsewhere: the third] day before the Ides of January, in the consulship of Valentinian Augustus, for the fourth time, and of Avienus.

EPISTOLA II.

LETTER II.

Ad universos Germaniorum et Galliarum regionum episcopos.

To all the bishops of the regions of the Germanies and the Gauls.

De privilegio chorepiscoporum sive presbyterorum.

On the privilege of chorepiscopi or presbyters.

Leo Romanae Ecclesiae et apostolicae sedis episcopus universis Germaniarum et Galliarum regionum episcopis salutem.

Leo, bishop of the Roman Church and of the apostolic see, to all the bishops of the regions of the Germanies and the Gauls, greeting.

Cum in Dei nomine in Romana Ecclesia synodum episcoporum, sive caeterorum consacerdotum Christique fidelium coadunatam habuissemus.

When in the name of God we had held, gathered together in the Roman Church, a synod of bishops, or of the other fellow priests and faithful of Christ.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1238

Footnotes

(b) ‹anchor: EPISTOLA› · call in col 1238

Olim inter Leoninas 88.

Formerly no. 88 among the Leonine letters.

(printed under page 624)

Haec, quae in vulgatis editionibus ante Quesnellum erat epistola 88, in codicibus collectionis 11, ac exinde in mss. collect. 12 et 20 usque ad 24 Leoni nostro tribuitur. Isidoro tamen ascribi nequit, cum in codice Vat. 630 purae Isidorianae collectionis non inveniatur. Hanc vero cum Quesnellus apertae suppositionis notatam inseruerit dissert. 11, eo lectores remittimus, ne idem documentum bis repetamus.

This letter, which in the common editions before Quesnel was letter 88, is attributed to our Leo in the codices of collection 11, and thence in the manuscripts of collections 12 and 20 through 24. Yet it cannot be ascribed to Isidore, since it is not found in codex Vat. 630 of the pure Isidorian collection. But since Quesnel inserted it, branded as an open forgery, in his dissertation 11, we refer readers there, so as not to repeat the same document twice.

(printed under page 624)

Editors' prose

Vide reliqua tom. II, in diss. 11 Quesnelli.

See the rest in vol. II, in Quesnel's dissertation 11.

ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM TERTIAM.

ADMONITION ON THE THIRD LETTER.

Cum sequens epistola, in vulgatis antiquis 96 scripta praeferatur a Leone, Victorio et Eustochio, ac inter Leoninas epistolas recenseatur in codicibus collectionis 12, una cum Leonis epistolis edita fuit a Merlino, et ex ipso in alias ante Quesnellum editiones manavit. Hanc quidem, ac si esset nostri Leonis cum synodo Romae habita, bis laudavit Hincmarus Rhemensis, primum in quaternione ad Carolum regem opusc. 1, tom. X Concil. Venetae editionis col. 1243, ac dein initio opusculi 2 col. 868. Itaque vetus haec hallucinatio cognoscitur. Suppositionem autem detexerunt nonnulli, inter quos praecipue audiendus est P. Jacobus Sirmondus in notis posthumis tom. IV Concil. pag. 667 : Leonis nomen, inquit, plerosque omnes hactenus induxit, ut hanc epistolam Leoni papae ascriberent, atque inter ejus epistolas collocarent numero 96, cum revera sit Leonis Bituricensis, qui una cum Victurio Cenomanensi et Eustochio Turonensi eam scripsit ad episcopos et presbyteros provinciae, non Thraciae, ut inter Leonis epistolas vulgatum est, sed Tertiae, quo nomine Turonica provincia designatur, quae est tertia Lugdunensis. Ad calcem vero epistolae, post subscriptiones trium episcoporum, sequebatur in codice S. Remigii Remensis, et caeteri qui adfuerunt episcopi subscripserunt, ut hinc appareat, a pluribus episcopis et in synodo fortasse aliqua editam fuisse, post Andegavensem (an. 453), cui cum his tribus adfuerat etiam Chariato, qui hoc loco inter ejusdem provinciae Tertiae antistites numeratur. Quapropter haec epistola S. Leonis nostri aetate scripta fuit. Quaedam autem vulgatorum menda laudatus Sirmondus correxit ex codice Remigiano collect. 12, cui etiam nostri ejusdem collectionis suffragantur. Hinc sola menda vulgatorum in annotationibus indicabuntur.

Since the following letter, number 96 in the old common editions, is presented as written by Leo, Victorius and Eustochius, and is reckoned among the Leonine letters in the manuscripts of collection 12, it was published together with Leo's letters by Merlin, and from him passed into the other editions before Quesnel. Hincmar of Rheims indeed twice cited it as though it were our Leo's, with a synod held at Rome: first in the quire addressed to King Charles, opusculum 1, vol. X of the Councils in the Venice edition, col. 1243, and then at the beginning of opusculum 2, col. 868. Thus this delusion is recognized to be an old one. Several, however, have detected the false attribution, among whom Father Jacques Sirmond is especially to be heard, in his posthumous notes, vol. IV of the Councils, p. 667: "The name of Leo," he says, "has hitherto led almost everyone to ascribe this letter to Pope Leo and to place it among his letters as number 96, whereas in truth it belongs to Leo of Bourges, who together with Victurius of Le Mans and Eustochius of Tours wrote it to the bishops and presbyters of the province, not of Thrace, as has been commonly printed among Leo's letters, but of the Third, by which name the province of Tours is designated, which is the Third Lugdunensis. At the foot of the letter, moreover, after the subscriptions of the three bishops, there followed in the manuscript of Saint-Remi at Rheims, 'and the other bishops who were present subscribed', so that it appears from this that it was issued by several bishops and perhaps in some synod, after that of Angers (in the year 453), at which, with these three, Chariato also had been present, who is here numbered among the prelates of the same Third province." Wherefore this letter was written in the time of our Saint Leo. Certain faults of the common editions, moreover, the aforesaid Sirmond corrected from the Saint-Remi manuscript of collection 12, with which our own manuscripts of the same collection also agree. Hence only the faults of the common editions will be indicated in the annotations.

Page

running head: 1237 EPISTOLAE AD S. LEONEM MAGNUM PERTINENTES. — EPIST. I AD IV. 1238
marginal letters: A rius coercitus, discat non temere; B nostro tribuitur. Isidoro tamen (B stands beside the foot note, not the text)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: The column's first printed syllable 'rius' completes 'Hilarius', set whole at the end of col. 1237; this file begins at 'coercitus'. Letter II is printed as its opening words only; after them the editors add in italic a direction to see the rest in tom. II, in Quesnel's dissertation 11, with foot-note call (c): editors' prose, set above in this file, not in the part. Foot-note call (b) beside the caption dropped. Below the columns: the Ballerini notes (a)-(c), a rule, and the full-width ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM TERTIAM (editors' prose, set above in this file, not in the part; it stands on this page and names cols 1237-1238).

PL 54:1239

EPISTOLA III.

LETTER III.

Leonis Bituricensis, Victorii Cenomanensis, et Eustochii Turonensis ad episcopos et presbyteros intra tertiam provinciam constitutos.

Of Leo of Bourges, Victorius of Le Mans, and Eustochius of Tours, to the bishops and presbyters established within the third province.

Domini fratribus merito beatissimis, in Christo venerabilibus Sarmationi, Chariatoni, Desiderio episcopis et presbyteris omnium Ecclesiarum, quae sunt intra provinciam Tertiam constitutae, Leo, Victorius Eustochius episcopi.

To the lords, brethren deservedly most blessed, venerable in Christ, Sarmatio, Chariato, Desiderius, bishops, and to the presbyters of all the Churches which are established within the Third province, Leo, Victorius, Eustochius, bishops.

Tanta saeculi potestates circa sacerdotalem ordinem reverentia praevaluere, etiam hi quos sub imperiali nomine terris divina potentia praeesse praecepit ut jus distringendorum negotiorum episcopis sanctis juxta divalia constituta permiserint. Quod cum et juris antiqui formulis, et in latis frequentius sit legibus confirmatum, praesenti tamen tempore a plerisque invenimus fuisse calcatum. Nam praetermisso sacerdotali judicio, passim ad examen saeculare transiere. Idcirco nobis visum est ut hanc et sacrae legis et nostri ordinis contumeliam et ad praesens ulcisceretur plena districtio, et observandam formulam constitueret in futurum. Censuimus itaque ut quicumque, praetermisso sacerdote Ecclesiae suae, ad disceptationem venerit saecularium, sacris liminibus expulsus, a coelesti arceatur altario; neque ullus post hanc definitionem, quae communi sedit arbitrio, quidquam sibi ultra praescriptum vindicare nitatur. Ita fiet ut hi qui ante erravere, congrua emendatione se corrigant, et quisquis sub observatione clericali coelesti probatur servire officio ex clero abjiciendum se noverit, si praetermisso sacerdotum judicio, saecularem adierit potestatem. Quod ideo singulos universosque voluimus agnoscere, ut quod pleno justitiae et juris ordine constitutum est, effectum totius firmitatis in omnibus clericorum negotiis sortiatur. Sane si clericum laicus pulset, prius se audiri ab episcopo poscat; tum si petitioni suae laicum viderit obviare, ex permissu episcopi sui in saeculi moderatoris disceptatione confligat.

With such reverence towards the priestly order have the powers of the world prevailed, even those whom the divine might has commanded to preside over the lands under the imperial name, that they have permitted to the holy bishops, according to the imperial constitutions, the right of deciding causes. And although this has been confirmed both by the formulas of the ancient law and more frequently in laws enacted, yet at the present time we find that it has been trampled upon by very many. For, the priestly judgement being passed over, they have gone over everywhere to the secular tribunal. Therefore it has seemed good to us that this affront both to the sacred law and to our order should be avenged for the present by full strictness, and that this strictness should establish a rule to be observed for the future. We have accordingly decreed that whoever, passing over the priest of his own Church, comes to the hearing of secular men shall be driven from the sacred thresholds and kept from the heavenly altar; and that no one, after this definition, which has been settled by common decision, shall strive to claim anything for himself beyond what is prescribed. So it will come about that those who erred before may correct themselves by a fitting amendment, and that whoever under clerical observance is shown to serve the heavenly office may know that he is to be cast out of the clergy, if, passing over the judgement of the priests, he approaches the secular power. This we have wished each and all to recognize for this reason, that what has been established in the full order of justice and law may obtain the effect of entire firmness in all the affairs of clerics. Certainly, if a layman brings suit against a cleric, let him first ask to be heard by the bishop; then, if he sees the layman oppose his petition, let him by the permission of his bishop contend in the hearing of the secular governor.

Leo episcopus subscripsi.

I, Leo, bishop, have subscribed.

Victorius episcopus subscripsi.

I, Victorius, bishop, have subscribed.

Eustochius episcopus subscripsi.

I, Eustochius, bishop, have subscribed.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1239

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: EPISTOLA› · call in col 1239

Olim inter Leoninas 96.

Formerly no. 96 among the Leonine letters.

(printed under page 625)

(b) ‹anchor: in Christo venerabilibus› · call in col 1239

Vulgati, Samartioni, Charatoni.

The common editions: Samartioni, Charatoni.

(printed under page 625)

In iisdem vulg., Thraciam.

In the same common editions, Thraciam.

(printed under page 625)

(d) ‹anchor: constitutae, Leo,› · call in col 1239

Al., Victorius. Mox in vulg., Eustachius.

Elsewhere, Victorius. Next, in the common editions, Eustachius.

(printed under page 625)

(e) ‹anchor: praeesse praecepit› · call in col 1239

Particula ut, perperam transposita, ante etiam collocanda videtur. Mox pro distringendorum vulg., distinguendorum.

The particle ut, wrongly transposed, seems to need placing before etiam. Next, for distringendorum the common editions have distinguendorum.

(printed under page 625)

(f) ‹anchor: juris antiqui formulis, et› · call in col 1239

Ibid., illibatis.

In the same, illibatis.

(printed under page 625)

(g) ‹anchor: saeculare transiere.› · call in col 1239

Ibid Quocirca.

In the same, Quocirca.

(printed under page 625)

(a) ‹anchor: SEU› · call in col 1239

Hic titulus legitur in mss. Vat. Palat. 277. Vallicell. B. 58, et in Herovalliano edito a Petit. In alio autem Vallicell. XVIII saeculi XI, De apocryphis Scripturis ex Leone papa.

This title is read in the manuscripts Vat. Palat. 277, Vallicell. B. 58, and in the Herouval manuscript edited by Petit. But in the other Vallicellian, XVIII, of the eleventh century: De apocryphis Scripturis ex Leone papa ("On the apocryphal Scriptures, from Pope Leo").

(printed under page 625)

(b) ‹anchor: et sacerdotali› · call in col 1239

Ita cum cod. Palatino epistola 15 ad Turribium c. 15. Alias, providentia. Paulo post pro falsi melius in laudata epistola, falsati; innuuntur enim codices corrupti a Priscillianistis, de quibus postea.

So, with the Palatine codex, letter 15 to Turribius, ch. 15. Elsewhere, providentia. A little later, for falsi the said letter has, better, falsati; for what is meant are the codices corrupted by the Priscillianists, of which more below.

(printed under page 625)

Sic ms. Palat., concinente Leonina editione. Alii codices quaedam praetermittentes sic prosequuntur: Quia (unus cod. perperam qui) habent semina falsitatum. Non solum autem haec interdicenda sunt, sed etiam penitus auferenda, atque ignibus concremandum (lege, concremanda). Quia quamvis sint in illis, etc.

So the Palatine manuscript, the edition of Leo agreeing. Other codices, passing over some things, go on thus: Quia (one codex wrongly qui) habent semina falsitatum. Non solum autem haec interdicenda sunt, sed etiam penitus auferenda, atque ignibus concremandum (read concremanda). Quia quamvis sint in illis, etc.

(printed under page 625)

Editors' prose

ADMONITIO IN SEQUENTEM SENTENTIAM.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE.

In duobus manuscriptis Vallicellanis XVIII, et B. 58, nec non in multo vetustiore Vat. Palatino 277, exhibetur Sententia papae Leonis de apocryphis Scripturis. Hanc sententiam e codice Herovallianae collectionis Leoni tributam vulgavit Jacobus Petit post Theodori Poenitentiale, ac dein ex memorato ms. Palatino noster concivis P. Joseph. Blanchinius tom. I Vindiciarum canonicarum Scripturarum pag. 405, qui et characteris octavum circiter saeculum referentis specimen dedit pag. 295. Primum caput hujus sententiae sumptum quidem est ex Leonis epist. 15, ad Turribium, cap. 15. Caput vero secundum Leonem non habet auctorem. Insignis porro est hujus secundi capitis varietas in laudatis codicibus. Nam codex antiquior Palatinus plura continet quae in tribus aliis mss. desunt. In his generalis sanctionis forma primo capite inducta, qua libri ab haereticis corrupti in Ecclesia legi prohibentur, altero breviori capite de legendis orthodoxorum Patrum libris decernitur. In Palatino autem ms. priori capite ex Leone exactius sumpto interdicitur, ne sub canonicorum codicum nomine libri a Priscilliano vitiati legantur: altero autem capite proponitur ordo quo canonici libri juxta ritum Basilicae S. Petri legendi sint; quod ex aliquo perantiquo Romano ordine sumptum videtur. Qui enim Ordo apud Burchardum lib. III, c. 222, et apud Gratianum dist. 15, c. 3, § 82, subjicitur Gelasii decreto de apocryphis, licet in pluribus concinat, uberior tamen et recentior est. Tum vero in Palatino pauca adduntur de lectione librorum sanctorum Patrum, quae a textu aliorum codicum non nihilum discrepant. Palatini vetustioris codicis lectionem exhibebimus, caeterorum autem variantes in annotationibus indicabuntur.

In two Vallicellian manuscripts, XVIII and B. 58, and also in the much older Vatican Palatine 277, there is presented a Sentence of Pope Leo on the apocryphal Scriptures. This sentence, attributed to Leo, was published from a codex of the Herouval collection by Jacques Petit after the Penitential of Theodore, and then from the aforesaid Palatine manuscript by our fellow citizen Father Giuseppe Bianchini, in volume I of the Vindiciae canonicarum Scripturarum, page 405, who also gave on page 295 a specimen of its script, which points to about the eighth century. The first chapter of this sentence is indeed taken from Leo's letter 15, to Turribius, chapter 15. The second chapter, however, does not have Leo as its author. Moreover, the variation of this second chapter in the codices mentioned is remarkable. For the older Palatine codex contains a good deal that is wanting in the three other manuscripts. In these, after the form of a general enactment has been introduced in the first chapter, by which books corrupted by heretics are forbidden to be read in the Church, a second and shorter chapter decrees concerning the reading of the books of the orthodox Fathers. In the Palatine manuscript, on the other hand, the first chapter, taken more exactly from Leo, forbids that books falsified by Priscillian be read under the name of canonical codices; while the second chapter sets out the order in which the canonical books are to be read according to the rite of the Basilica of St Peter; which appears to have been taken from some very ancient Roman order. For the Order which in Burchard, book III, chapter 222, and in Gratian, distinction 15, chapter 3, § 82, is appended to the decree of Gelasius on the apocrypha, although it agrees in many points, is nevertheless fuller and more recent. Then, in the Palatine, a few things are added on the reading of the books of the holy Fathers, which differ somewhat from the text of the other codices. We shall present the reading of the older Palatine codex, while the variants of the others will be indicated in the annotations.

Page

running head: 1239 APPENDIX I AD PARTEM II OPP. S. LEONIS MAGNI. 1240
marginal letters: A praesens ulcisceretur plena districtio; B Leo episcopus subscripsi.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Page layout: two columns (Letter III), foot notes (a)-(l), a rule, a full-width ADMONITIO IN SEQUENTEM SENTENTIAM (editors' prose, not set), then two columns again (Letter IV) with their own foot notes. By the reading-order rule the upper halves of BOTH columns (the whole of Letter III, from the caption to the three subscriptions; the printed column break falls after 'contumeliam et ad' / before 'praesens ulcisceretur') stand under this rail; the lower halves (Letter IV) stand under 1240. Foot-note calls (a)-(l) dropped. 'in latis' is printed as two words (the Ballerini note gives the vulgate reading as one word); set as printed. 'Victorius Eustochius' in the salutation has no comma between the names, as printed. The misprint line is offered with reserve: the first word of the salutation lacks its final letter.

PL 54:1240

EPISTOLA IV. SEU SENTENTIA PAPAE LEONIS

LETTER IV. OR THE SENTENCE OF POPE LEO

De apocryphis Scripturis.

On the apocryphal Scriptures.

Curandum ergo est, et sacerdotali diligentia maxime providendum, ut falsi codices et a sincera veritate discordes, in nullo usu lectionis habeantur. Apocryphae Scripturae, quae sub nominibus apostolorum multarum habent semina falsitatum, non solum interdicendae sunt, sed etiam penitus auferendae atque ignibus concremandae. Quamvis enim sint in illis quaedam quae videantur speciem habere pietatis, numquam tamen vacua sunt venenis; et per fabularum illecebras hoc latenter operantur ut mirabilium narratione seductos, laqueis cujuscumque erroris involvant. Unde si quis episcoporum vel apocrypha

Care must therefore be taken, and provision made above all by priestly diligence, that false codices, at variance with the pure truth, be held in no use for reading. The apocryphal Scriptures, which under the names of the apostles hold the seeds of many falsehoods, are not only to be forbidden but also wholly removed and burned up with fire. For although there are in them certain things which seem to have an appearance of piety, yet they are never free of poisons; and through the allurements of fables they secretly work this, that they entangle those seduced by the telling of marvels in the snares of whatever error. Hence if any of the bishops either apocryphal writings

Editors' notes and page, col. 1240

Footnotes

(h) ‹anchor: constitueret in futurum.› · call in col 1240

Editi, censemus.

The printed editions, censemus.

(printed under page 625)

(i) ‹anchor: se corrigant, et› · call in col 1240

Ibid., qui sub observatione.

In the same, qui sub observatione.

(printed under page 625)

(j) ‹anchor: ex clero abjiciendum› · call in col 1240

Voces se noverit in vulgatis desiderabantur.

The words se noverit were wanting in the common editions.

(printed under page 625)

(k) ‹anchor: Sane si› · call in col 1240

Vulgati contrario sensu et contextu repugnante, clericus laicum. Paulo post, ab episcopis.

The common editions, with the opposite sense and against the context, clericus laicum. A little later, ab episcopis.

(printed under page 625)

(l) ‹anchor: Leo episcopus› · call in col 1240

Vulg., scribit.

The common editions, scribit.

(printed under page 625)

(d) ‹anchor: quaedam quae› · call in col 1240

Alias videntur in duobus Vallicell.

Elsewhere videntur, in the two Vallicellian manuscripts.

(printed under page 625)

(e) ‹anchor: latenter operantur› · call in col 1240

Secuti sumus vetustiorem codicem Palatinum, quippe qui magis concinit cum epistola Leonis, ex qua solum duos ejusdem codicis errores emendavimus, narrationum seductus, et involvant. Primum errorem aliorum codicum exscriptores ex arbitrio emendantes, alia mutarunt. In ms. Herovalliano: Ut mirabilium narrationum seducti, quique admiratione, laqueis cujuscumque erroris implicentur. In cod. Vallicell. B. 58, ut mirabilium narrationum seducti, laqueis cujuscumque erroris implicentur. In alio autem Vallicell., hoc loquuntur quod sperantur, ut simplices quoque mirabilium narratione seducti, laqueis cujuscumque erris implicentur.

We have followed the older Palatine codex, since it agrees more closely with Leo's letter, from which we have corrected only two errors of that codex, narrationum seductus and involvant. The copyists of the other codices, correcting the first error at their own discretion, changed other things. In the Herouval manuscript: Ut mirabilium narrationum seducti, quique admiratione, laqueis cujuscumque erroris implicentur. In codex Vallicell. B. 58: ut mirabilium narrationum seducti, laqueis cujuscumque erroris implicentur. But in the other Vallicellian: hoc loquuntur quod sperantur, ut simplices quoque mirabilium narratione seducti, laqueis cujuscumque erris [so the page appears to print, across a line break, for erroris] implicentur.

(printed under page 625)

(f) ‹anchor: quis episcoporum› · call in col 1240

Quidam codd. delent vel; et mox perperam habere

Some codices delete vel; and next, wrongly, habere. [The note ends here at the foot of the page, without a full stop; nothing runs over to the next page.]

(printed under page 625)

Page

running head: 1239 APPENDIX I AD PARTEM II OPP. S. LEONIS MAGNI. 1240
marginal letters: C lorum multarum habent semina falsitatum; D cumque erroris implicentur. In alio autem Vallicell. (D stands beside the foot note, not the text)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: By the reading-order rule this rail carries the lower halves of BOTH columns of the page (Letter IV from its caption; the printed column break falls after 'aposto-' / before 'lorum multarum', the word set whole); the upper half of the right column (end of Letter III) stands under 1239. The caption is printed in three lines: the numbered heading, the small-capital alternative title, and the italic sub-caption; the first two are set on one line by the numeral-heading rule. The text ends mid-sentence at the foot of the right column and runs on to col. 1241. Foot-note calls (a)-(f) dropped; the Ballerini notes are not set. Between the two bands stands the full-width ADMONITIO IN SEQUENTEM SENTENTIAM (editors' prose, not set).

PL 54:1241

haberi non prohibuerit, vel canonicorum codicum nomine eos libros in Ecclesia permiserit legi, qui Priscilliani sunt adulterina emendatione vitiati, haereticum se noverit judicandum: quoniam qui alios ab errore non revocat, se ipsum errare demonstrat.

has not forbidden to be kept, or has permitted to be read in the Church, under the name of canonical codices, those books which have been corrupted by Priscillian's adulterating emendation, let him know that he is to be judged a heretic: since he who does not call others back from error shows that he himself errs.

CAP. II. — Legitur autem omnis Scriptura divina sancti Canonis ab initio anni usque ad finem in ecclesia S. Petri hoc ordine. Tempore veris, hoc est VII diebus ante initium Quadragesimae usque ad octavam diem ante Pascha, leguntur quinque libri Moysi, cum Jesu Mave, et Judicum. Et VII dies ante Pascha liber Isaiae prophetae, unde ad passionem Christi (Sic cod.) cum venit, et Lamentationes Hieremiae. Diebus autem Paschae epistolae apostolorum et Actus apostolorum atque Apocalypsis usque Pentecostem. In tempore autem aestatis Regum et Paralipomenon usque ad medium autumni, hoc est XV kal. Novembris: deinde liber [Lege libri] Salomonis, et Mulierum, atque Machabaeorum, et liber Tobi usque ad kal. Decembris. Ante autem Natalem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Isaiae, Hieremiae, et Daniel usque ad Epiphaniam. Postea quidem Ezechiel, et Prophetae minores, atque Job usque idus Februarias. Psalmi omni tempore. Evangelium et Apostolum [Lege Apostolus] similiter. Tractatus vero sancti Hieronymi, Ambrosii, et caeterorum Patrum, prout ordo poscit, leguntur.

CHAPTER II. — Now all the divine Scripture of the holy Canon is read from the beginning of the year to the end in the church of St Peter in this order. In springtime, that is, from seven days before the beginning of Lent until the eighth day before Easter, the five books of Moses are read, with Joshua son of Nun, and Judges. And for seven days before Easter the book of Isaiah the prophet, from which, when it comes to the passion of Christ (thus the codex), and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. But in the days of Easter the epistles of the apostles and the Acts of the apostles and the Apocalypse, until Pentecost. And in the summer season, Kings and Paralipomenon until the middle of autumn, that is, the fifteenth day before the Kalends of November: then the book [read: books] of Solomon, and of the Women, and of the Maccabees, and the book of Tobit, until the Kalends of December. And before the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel, until Epiphany. Afterwards Ezekiel, and the minor Prophets, and Job, until the Ides of February. The Psalms at every season. The Gospel and the Apostle [read: the Apostle, in the nominative] likewise. But the treatises of Saint Jerome, Ambrose, and the other Fathers are read as the order requires.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1241

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: haberi non prohibuerit,› · call in col 1241

Praetulimus lectionem codicis Palatini, cui affinis est Leonis epistola. In aliis vero codicibus Leonis verba de solis Priscilliani libris loquentia, in generalem sanctionem inflectuntur sic: Vel eos libros qui ab haereticis vitiati sunt, in Ecclesia permiserit legi, haereticum se noverit, etc.

We have preferred the reading of the Palatine codex, to which Leo's letter is akin. In the other codices, however, Leo's words, which speak of Priscillian's books alone, are bent into a general enactment thus: Vel eos libros qui ab haereticis vitiati sunt, in Ecclesia permiserit legi, haereticum se noverit, etc.

(printed under page 626)

(b) ‹anchor: quoniam qui› · call in col 1241

Duo codices, alium.

Two codices, alium.

(printed under page 626)

Huc usque ex epist. 15 Leonis ad Turribium.

Thus far from Leo's letter 15 to Turribius.

(printed under page 626)

(d) ‹anchor: CAP. II. —› · call in col 1241

Quae sequuntur usque ad voces Tractatus vero in solo Palatino codice praeferuntur, ordinemque sacrarum lectionum Romanae Ecclesiae omnium qui editi sunt vetustissimum exhibere videntur. Caeteri codices decreti formam prosequentes, haec statim subjiciunt: Tractatus autem S. Hieronymi, Ambrosii (cod. Herovall. addit et Augustini) et caeterorum sanctornm Patrum, expositionesque Veteris et Novi Testamenti, quae a nominatissimis doctorum orthodoxorum (unus cod. Vallicell., orthodoxis) Patribus factae snnt, prout ordo poscet, in Ecclesia legantur. Haec clausula cum clausula Palatini codicis congruit, intersertis in medio vocibus expositionesque, etc., usque ad factae sunt, quae e Regula S. Benedicti, uti apparet, sumptae, ex eadem etiam ad aequiorem lectionem revocari queunt. Sic enim ibidem legitur cap. 9: Codices autem legantur in vigiliis tam Veteris Testamenti quam Novi divinae auctoritatis; sed et expositiones eorum quae a nominatissimis doctoribus orthodoxis et catholicis Patribus factae snnt.

What follows, down to the words Tractatus vero, is given in the Palatine codex alone, and seems to present the order of the sacred readings of the Roman Church that is the oldest of all those published. The other codices, keeping to the form of a decree, add this at once: Tractatus autem S. Hieronymi, Ambrosii (the Herouval codex adds et Augustini) et caeterorum sanctorum Patrum, expositionesque Veteris et Novi Testamenti, quae a nominatissimis doctorum orthodoxorum (one Vallicellian codex, orthodoxis) Patribus factae sunt, prout ordo poscet, in Ecclesia legantur. This closing clause agrees with the closing clause of the Palatine codex, with the words from expositionesque, etc., down to factae sunt inserted in the middle; these, taken, as it appears, from the Rule of St Benedict, can also be restored from it to a sounder reading. For there, in ch. 9, one reads: Codices autem legantur in vigiliis tam Veteris Testamenti quam Novi divinae auctoritatis; sed et expositiones eorum quae a nominatissimis doctoribus orthodoxis et catholicis Patribus factae sunt ("Let the books of divine authority, of the Old Testament as well as the New, be read at the vigils; and also the expositions of them made by the most renowned orthodox doctors and catholic Fathers"). [The page prints sanctornm once and snnt twice, with turned letters.]

(printed under page 626)

Editors' prose

ADMONITIO IN SEQUENTEM EPISTOLAM.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER.

Turribii Asturicensis epistolam ad Idatium et Ceponium episcopos, quam Quesnellus inter Leoninas edidit post Leonis epistolam ad Turribium, Stephanus Baluzius (Vid. t. IV, Concil. pag. 731). et alii nonnulli in suspicionem vocant. At illam satis vindicat antiquitas codicis S. Aemiliani, ex quo ea ab Ambrosio Morales primum prodiit, uti pluribus ostendemus in observationibus ad not. 8 Quesnelli in epist. 15 S. Leonis ad Turribium. Aliae vero objectiones, quae proferri possent, facile elidentur, sic hanc epistolam non minus, quam libellum adversus Priscillianistas, qui cum hac epistola ad Idatium et Ceponium episcopos directus agnoscitur, ante episcopatum a Turribio scriptos credamus. Hinc iidem Idatius et Ceponius Turribio antiquiores episcopi dicendi sunt: unde Idatius ad an. 445, se ante Turribium nominat. Idem vero libellus cum eadem epistola ipsi praefixa ad Leonem postea missus videtur, ita ut ex hac epistola Idatii et Ceponii antiquitatem et meritum S. pontifex intelligens, hos in fine epistolae 15 maxime idoneos crediderit, qui Turribio juniori episcopo efficaciorem operam adjungerent, ut adversus Priscillianistas Galliciae synodus convocaretur.

The letter of Turribius of Astorga to the bishops Idatius and Ceponius, which Quesnel published among the Leonine letters after Leo's letter to Turribius, is called into suspicion by Étienne Baluze (see vol. IV of the Councils, p. 731) and by some others. But it is sufficiently vindicated by the antiquity of the codex of St Aemilianus, from which it was first brought out by Ambrosio Morales, as we shall show at greater length in the observations on Quesnel's note 8 to letter 15 of St Leo to Turribius. The other objections, moreover, which might be brought forward will easily be struck down, if [printed: thus] we believe that this letter, no less than the little book against the Priscillianists, which is recognized as having been addressed together with this letter to the bishops Idatius and Ceponius, was written by Turribius before his episcopate. Hence the same Idatius and Ceponius must be called bishops of older standing than Turribius: whence Idatius, at the year 445, names himself before Turribius. The same little book, however, with the same letter prefixed to it, seems to have been sent afterwards to Leo, so that the holy pontiff, perceiving from this letter the seniority and the merit of Idatius and Ceponius, judged them at the end of letter 15 to be the most suitable men to join their more effective effort to that of Turribius, the junior bishop, so that a synod of Gallaecia might be convoked against the Priscillianists.

Hic afferenda erat tota epistola Turribii. Sed cum impressa fuerit post Leonis epistolam XV, ad eumdem Turribium col. 711, eo quod eam subjectam invenerimus in Quesnelliana editione qua usi sumus, ne bis repetatur eo lectores remittimus.

Here the whole letter of Turribius was to have been given. But since it has been printed after Leo's letter XV to the same Turribius, col. 711, because we found it subjoined there in the Quesnellian edition which we have used, we refer readers thither, lest it be repeated twice.

ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER.

1. In epistolam Juliani Coensis ad Leonem Augustum haec Quesnellus praemonuit. Leonis Magni epistolis unicam, quae superest, Juliani episcopi Coensis epistolam subjicimus, non implendae solummodo vacuae paginae gratia, sed et propter summam, quae inter utrumque pontificem fuit, necessitudinem. Haec maxime enituit in causa fidei, quam adversus Eutychianam impietatem alter ex apostolicae sedis specula in Occidentalibus praesertim partibus, hic tamquam apostolicae sollicitudinis vicarius in Orientalibus defendit. Argumentum epistolae habet Liberatus Diaconus cap. 15 Breviarii ubi narrat Leonem Augustum, ut haereticos novam synodum congregari importune flagitantes compesceret, scripsisse singularum civitatum episcopis de utroque negotio consulens quid fieri oporteret, vel de ordinatione Timothei, vel de terminis synodi Chalcedonensis.... Qui rescribunt Chalcedonensem 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 Chistiana appellatione privari. Hanc omnium sententiam in una habes Juliani epistola quae, ab octodecim (nunc viginti) quas ad eum scripsit Leo epistolis dividi neutiquam debuit.

1. On the letter of Julian of Cos to Leo Augustus Quesnel gave this preliminary notice. To the letters of Leo the Great we subjoin the single surviving letter of Julian, bishop of Cos, not merely for the sake of filling an empty page, but also on account of the very close bond that existed between the two prelates. This shone forth above all in the cause of the faith, which against the Eutychian impiety the one defended from the watch-tower of the apostolic see, chiefly in the Western parts, the other, as vicar of the apostolic solicitude, in the Eastern. The subject of the letter is given by Liberatus the Deacon, ch. 15 of the Breviarium, where he relates that Leo Augustus, in order to restrain the heretics who were importunately demanding that a new synod be assembled, wrote to the bishops of the several cities, consulting them on both matters as to what ought to be done, whether concerning the ordination of Timothy or concerning the determinations of the synod of Chalcedon.... They write back that the synod of Chalcedon must be upheld even unto blood, because it held no other faith than that which the Nicene synod established; and that Timothy is not only not to be reckoned among the bishops, but is even to be deprived of the Christian name. This judgement of them all you have in the one letter of Julian, which ought by no means to have been separated from the eighteen (now twenty) letters which Leo wrote to him.

2. Porro idem Quesnellus in dissert. 1, ad an. 457, num 7, hanc epistolam a Juliano scriptam putat Coi, unde ejusdem reditum ad suam Ecclesiam ex hac epistola colligit; neque amplius Constantinopoli eum commoratum opinatur, ex quo Marcianus obiit. Haec autem falsa colliguntur ex epistola nunc primum edita 144 ad ipsum

2. Furthermore the same Quesnel, in dissertation 1, at the year 457, no. 7, thinks that this letter was written by Julian at Cos, whence he infers from this letter his return to his own Church; nor does he suppose that he stayed any longer at Constantinople from the time when Marcian died. But these things are shown to be false from letter 144, now published for the first time, to the same

Page

running head: 1241 EPISTOLAE AD S. LEONEM MAGNUM PERTINENTES. — EPIST. V. 1242
marginal letters: A apostolorum atque Apocalypsis usque Pentecostem.; B poscet, in Ecclesia legantur. Haec clausula (B stands beside the foot note, not the text)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Page layout: two columns (end of Letter IV), foot notes (a)-(d), a rule, the full-width ADMONITIO IN SEQUENTEM EPISTOLAM (editors' prose, not set), two columns again (Letter V), a rule, and the full-width ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM, nn. 1-2 begun (editors' prose, not set). By the reading-order rule the upper halves of BOTH columns (Letter IV to its end; printed column break after 'et Actus' / before 'apostolorum atque') stand under this rail. The first paragraph begins mid-sentence, continuing col. 1240. Kept as printed inside the text: the editors' parenthesis '(Sic cod.)' and their two bracketed corrections '[Lege ...]'; the passage at the parenthesis is defective in the codex and the English follows it as it stands. Kept as printed and listed with reserve (Q3b): 'Jesu Mave' (for 'Nave'), which may be the codex's spelling or the printer's slip. Small-capital numerals set as capitals. Foot-note calls (a)-(d) dropped.