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

(a) ‹anchor: Seu FRAGMENTUM› · call in col 1248

Gesta hujus synodi ad S. pontificem missa, laudantur epist. 80. Horum tantum fragmentum superest insertum Vitae S. Abundii Comensis, qui unus fuit e quatuor legatis a S. Leone missis ad pacem cum Orientalibus ea ratione componendam, ut ejus epistolam ad Flavianum reciperent, eidemque subscriberent. Etsi hujus Vitae auctor nec coaevus nec valde antiquus sit, cum ipsa tamen synodi acta invenerit, hac in parte summam fidem meretur; unde illud fragmentum card. Baronius Annalibus jure inseruit ad an. 450, n. 29, ac exinde in editionibus Conciliorum descriptum fuit. Hoc vero nos in appendice daturos promisimus annot. 6 (Col. 913, n. d) in epist. 80.

The acts of this synod, sent to the holy pontiff, are cited in letter 80. Of them only a fragment survives, inserted in the Life of St. Abundius of Como, who was one of the four legates sent by St. Leo to settle peace with the Easterners on these terms: that they should receive his letter to Flavian and subscribe to it. Although the author of this Life is neither contemporary nor very ancient, yet since he found the very acts of the synod, in this part he deserves the fullest credit; hence Cardinal Baronius rightly inserted that fragment in his Annals at the year 450, n. 29, and from there it was copied into the editions of the Councils. We promised to give it in the appendix, in annotation 6 (col. 913, n. d) on letter 80.

(printed under page 629)

(b) ‹anchor: conspectum omnium› · call in col 1248

Haec narratio ab auctore Vitae ex synodi gestis derivata omnino concinit cum Leonis verbis insertis epistolae 88, c. 3, ad Paschasinum.

This account, drawn by the author of the Life from the acts of the synod, agrees entirely with Leo's words inserted in letter 88, ch. 3, to Paschasinus.

(printed under page 629)

(c) ‹anchor: archimandritae atque diaconi.› · call in col 1248

Hic incipit gestorum fragmentum.

Here the fragment of the acts begins.

(printed under page 629)

(1) ‹anchor: SEU› · call in col 1249 (in the heading set across both columns)

Cum in laudatis mss. Venetis canones Chalcedonenses actioni 15 in editis ascripti, optime collocentur actione 7, de quo alibi plura, haec actio subjicitur actioni de Sabiniano episcopo Perrhae habita eodem die 31 Octobris, quae in vulgatis quidem est actio 14, at in iisdem codicibus est actio 15.

Since in the said Venetian manuscripts the canons of Chalcedon, assigned in the printed editions to session 15, are very rightly placed at session 7 (of which more elsewhere), this session is set after the session on Sabinianus, bishop of Perrha, held on the same day, 31 October, which in the common editions is indeed session 14, but in these same codices is session 15.

(printed under page 630)

ADMONITIO

NOTICE

In sequentem actionem hactenus ineditam concilii Chalcedonensis.

On the following session of the council of Chalcedon, hitherto unpublished.

1. Graeci codices concilii Chalcedonensis bibliothecae Venetae S. Marci 164 et 555, locupletiores sunt iis quibus Romani editores usi fuerunt. Lacunae quae in Graeco punctis signantur initio actionis 4 in iisdem codicibus supplentur, ita ut in lacuna tertia notata tom. IV Concil. editionis Venetae pag. 1357, duas integras paginas impleant episcoporum nomina, quae in ipsa antiqua versione Latina e regione posita desiderantur. Supplentur quoque episcoporum nomina initio actionis 6, quae in Graeco vulgato desunt, et in sola antiqua interpretatione Latina leguntur, ac propterea omittuntur illa, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ὁσιωτάτων καὶ εὐσεβεστάτων ἐπισκόπων, et caeteris sanctissimis ac religiosissimis episcopis, quae integro episcoporum catalogo recitato locum non habent. Actione 14 de Sabiniano Perrhenorum episcopo, quae in codd. Venetis est 15, Graecus textus editus quaedam sola nomina praefert, quae omnino desunt in antiqua versione: plura autem iidem codices addunt, et solum per saltum antiqui librarii intermedia quaedam nomina omissa fuere. Idipsum accidit actione in vulgatis 16, in iisdem autem manuscriptis 17; quae enim nomina in antiqua interpretatione exhibita, desunt in Graeco vulgato, ex laudatis codicibus hauriri poterunt, sicut et alia, quae conferentibus patefient.

1. The Greek codices of the council of Chalcedon in the Venetian library of St Mark, 164 and 555, are fuller than those which the Roman editors used. The gaps which in the Greek are marked with dots at the beginning of session 4 are supplied in these same codices, so that in the third gap, noted in vol. IV of the Councils in the Venetian edition, p. 1357, two whole pages are filled by names of bishops which are wanting in the ancient Latin version itself set opposite. The names of bishops are also supplied at the beginning of session 6, which are lacking in the printed Greek and are read only in the ancient Latin translation; and for that reason those words are omitted, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ὁσιωτάτων καὶ εὐσεβεστάτων ἐπισκόπων, "and the other most holy and most religious bishops", which have no place once the complete list of bishops has been recited. In session 14, concerning Sabinianus, bishop of the people of Perrha, which in the Venetian codices is the 15th, the published Greek text presents only certain names, which are altogether wanting in the ancient version; but the same codices add more, and it was only through a leap of the ancient copyist that certain intervening names were omitted. The very same thing happened in the session which is 16 in the printed texts, but 17 in these same manuscripts; for the names which, though exhibited in the ancient translation, are wanting in the printed Greek can be drawn from the codices mentioned, as can other things also, which will become plain to those who compare them.

2. Quod autem in his praecipuum invenitur, est Actio 16 hactenus ignota, in qua lecta fuit Leonis epistola 93. Id vel maxime eam sententiam confirmat, in codicibus Graecis concilii Chalcedonensis non omnes actiones collectas fuisse, nec ex eo quod aliqua actio deest in uno vel pluribus codicibus Graecis, illam repudiari posse. Ita actio de Domino in codicibus nostris Graecis nec non in Romanis non legitur, et deerat etiam in eo exemplo ex quo antiqua versio prodiit; at in ms. Patriciae Juliae a Rustico inventa fuit. Actio de Photio Tyri episcopo, quae aberat ab exemplis antiqui interpretis et Rustici, in Graecis Romanis, et nostris codicibus invenitur in fine caeterarum actionum, quemadmodum erat in codice quem Balsamon laudat. Ita etiam Graeci codices, qui noti sunt, concilii Ephesini, carent aliquot actionibus, quae cum ex antiqua versione supersint, in aliquo antiquo codice Graeco inventae fuere. Cur id acciderit optime explicat Baluzius in praefatione ad versionem antiquam synodi Chalcedonensis num. 40 et 41. Hanc quidem ineditam actionem, quam soli codices Veneti suppeditarunt, in suppositionem vocari non posse, praeter manuscriptorum auctoritatem, ex eo manifestum fit, quia ex omnium conciliorum more litterae summi pontificis ad concilium semper lectae fuerunt. Haec igitur actio, quae ad S. Leonem nostrum maxime pertinet, appendicem claudet.

2. But the chief thing found in them is Session 16, hitherto unknown, in which Leo's letter 93 was read. This confirms above all the opinion that not all the sessions were gathered in the Greek codices of the council of Chalcedon, and that a session cannot be rejected on the ground that it is wanting in one or several Greek codices. Thus the session concerning Domnus [printed: Domino] is not read in our Greek codices nor in the Roman ones, and it was wanting also in the exemplar from which the ancient version issued; yet it was found by Rusticus in the manuscript of the patrician lady Juliana [printed: Patriciae Juliae]. The session concerning Photius, bishop of Tyre, which was absent from the exemplars of the ancient translator and of Rusticus, is found in the Roman Greek codices and in ours at the end of the other sessions, just as it stood in the codex which Balsamon cites. So too the known Greek codices of the council of Ephesus lack several sessions which, since they survive from the ancient version, were found in some ancient Greek codex. Why this happened Baluze explains excellently in his preface to the ancient version of the synod of Chalcedon, nos. 40 and 41. That this unpublished session, which the Venetian codices alone have furnished, cannot be called into suspicion of forgery is made manifest, besides the authority of the manuscripts, from this: that by the custom of all the councils the letters of the supreme pontiff to a council were always read. This session, therefore, which pertains most closely to our St Leo, shall close the appendix.

3. Quoniam vero de manuscriptorum Graecorum S. Marci utilitate hoc loco incidit mentio, aliam observationem gratam futuram arbitramur, quam ex alio Graeco codice ejusdem bibliothecae Venetae signato num. 165 eruimus. In hoc, qui partem actorum Chalcedonensium continet, descripti leguntur canones 27 ejusdem concilii, affixo cuique canoni numero 1 2 3, etc., usque ad 27, eo quod hi sint canones una eademque actione constituti. Tum vero post ultimum canonem ducta linea, quae canonum finem indicat, post intervallum quoddam subjiciuntur sine ulla numerali nota tres alii addititii canones, qui in solis Graecis collectionibus canonum una cum caeteris proferuntur, simulque omnes efficiunt canones 30, uti ex collectionibus et collectoribus canonum Graecis editi sunt tom. IV Conciliorum pag. 1691. Canon primus qui in vulgatis est 28, Constantinopolitanae sedis privilegia decernit, iisdemque verbis exprimitur ac in vulgatis, et sumptus est ex actione ultima. At duo alii canones uberiores sunt quam in editis. Nam canon in vulgatis 29 excerptus ex actione pro Photio Tyri metropolita, incipit a verbis ejusdem actionis pag. 1440, D. Οἱ μεγαλοπρεπέστατοι καὶ ἐνδοξότατοι ἄρχοντες εἶπον Περὶ τῶν ἐπισκοπῶ, etc., usque ad τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ, quibus petitio judicum ad canonem intelligendum necessaria exprimitur. Tum subjiciuntur interlocutiones legatorum apostolicae sedis et Anatolii, ex quibus vulgatus canon compactus est. Tandem approbatio synodi ex eadem actione pag. 1449, C; canon vero in vulgatis 30, ex actione 4 male digestus, in nostro codice incipit ab interlocutione judicum et senatus pag. 1407, D. et subjecta interlocutione Paschasini legati apostolicae sedis, eorumdem judicum et senatus sententia concluditur usque ad pag. 1410, A. Eadem quoad hos canones leguntur in collectione Graeca canonum, quae continetur in vetusto codice XIX monachorum S. Basili Romae pag. 54. Ex his quid et unde tres isti addititii canones sint, perspicue cognoscitur.

3. Since, however, mention has here arisen of the usefulness of the Greek manuscripts of St Mark, we think another observation will be welcome, which we have drawn from another Greek codex of the same Venetian library, marked no. 165. In this codex, which contains part of the acts of Chalcedon, 27 canons of the same council are read transcribed, with a number attached to each canon, 1, 2, 3, etc., up to 27, because these are the canons established in one and the same session. Then, after the last canon, a line having been drawn which indicates the end of the canons, there are subjoined after a certain interval, without any numerical mark, three other additional canons, which are produced together with the rest only in the Greek collections of canons, and which together make up 30 canons in all, as they have been published from the Greek collections and collectors of canons in vol. IV of the Councils, p. 1691. The first canon, which in the printed texts is the 28th, decrees the privileges of the see of Constantinople, and is expressed in the same words as in the printed texts, and was taken from the last session. But the two other canons are fuller than in the editions. For the canon which is 29 in the printed texts, excerpted from the session on behalf of Photius, metropolitan of Tyre, begins from the words of the same session, p. 1440, D, Οἱ μεγαλοπρεπέστατοι καὶ ἐνδοξότατοι ἄρχοντες εἶπον Περὶ τῶν ἐπισκοπῶ, etc. ("The most magnificent and most glorious officials said: Concerning the bishops", etc.), as far as τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ ("to the holy synod"), words in which the request of the judges, necessary for understanding the canon, is expressed. Then are subjoined the interlocutions of the legates of the apostolic see and of Anatolius, out of which the printed canon was put together. Lastly the approbation of the synod from the same session, p. 1449, C; while the canon which is 30 in the printed texts, badly arranged out of session 4, begins in our codex from the interlocution of the judges and senate, p. 1407, D, and, the interlocution of Paschasinus, legate of the apostolic see, being subjoined, is concluded with the sentence of the same judges and senate, as far as p. 1410, A. The same things regarding these canons are read in the Greek collection of canons which is contained in the ancient codex XIX of the monks of St Basil at Rome, p. 54. From these it is clearly learned what these three additional canons are and whence they come.

<!-- note: The Admonitio is complete in this column pair: it is set full width (spanning cols 1249-1250) in italic, beginning below the rule that follows the last lines of Letter VIII (which end "...anathema similiter dicere.") and ending at "perspicue cognoscitur." It is followed by the title EPISTOLA IX. / SEU ACTIO XVI CHALCEDONENSIS. and the italic rubric "Nunc primum edita ex mss. Graecis..." (title matter, not set here), then the Latin (col. 1249) and Greek (col. 1250) text of the session, and footnote 1 at the foot. Set as printed: "de Domino" (for Domno), "Patriciae Juliae", "collectoribus", "S. Basili", "1 2 3" without commas. The Greek "ἐπισκοπῶ" is printed thus, truncated before "etc." In the first Greek phrase the scan is faint at "εὐσεβεστάτων" (the β is unclear, possibly printed as υ); read from the editors' own Latin rendering "religiosissimis". -->

Consulatu domini nostri Marciani semper Augusti, et qui erit nuntiandus, pridie kalendas Novembris Chalcedone juxta mandatum divinissimi et piissimi domini nostri Marciani semper Augusti congregatis in sanctissima Ecclesia sanctae martyris Euphemiae,

magnificentissimo et gloriosissimo magistro militum, ex consule, et Patricio Anatolio, et magnificentissimo ac gloriosissimo praefecto sacrorum praetoriorum Palladio, et magnificentissimo atque gloriosissimo magistro divinorum officiorum Vincomalo; convenientibus quoque reverendissimis episcopis Paschasino et Lucentio, et reverendissimo presbytero Bonifacio locum habentibus sanctissimi archiepiscopi senioris Romae Leonis, et Anatolio reverendissimo archiepiscopo magni nominis Constantinopolis, et Maximo reverendissimo episcopo Antiochiae Syriae, et Juvenali reverendissimo episcopo Jerosolymorum, et Quintillo revendissimo episcopo Heracleae Macedoniae locum habente sanctissimi archiepiscopi Thessalonicensium Anastasii, et Thalassio reverendissimo episcopo Cesareae Cappadociae, et Stephano reverendissimo episcopo Ephesi, et Luciano reverendissimo episcopo Byzae tenente locum Deo amantissimi Cyriaci episcopi Heracleae Thraciae, et Eusebio reverendissimo episcopo Ancyrae Galatiae, et Diogene reverendissimo episcopo Cycizi, et Petro reverendissimo episcopo Corinthi, et Florentio reverendissimo episcopo Sardium, et Eunomio reverendissimo episcopo Nicomediae, et Anastasio reverendissimo episcopo Nicaeae, et Juliano reverendissimo episcopo Coensi locum habente etiam ipso apostolicae sedis Romae, et Eleutherio reverendissimo episcopo Chalcedonensium, et Basilio reverendissimo episcopo Seleuciae Isauriae, et Meletio reverendissimo episcopo Larissae locum habente reverendissimi episcopi Apamae Syriae Domni, et Amphilochio reverendissimo episcopo Sidae, et Theodoro reverendissimo episcopo Tapsi, et Cyro reverendissimo episcopo Anazarbi, et Constantino reverendissimo episcopo Bostrorum, et Photio reverendissimo episcopo Tyri, et Theodoro reverendissimo episcopo Damasci, et Stephano reverendissimo episcopo Hierapoleos, et Symeone reverendissimo episcopo Amidae, et Epiphanio reverendissimo episcopo locum habente reverendissimi Olympii episcopi Constantiae, et Joanne reverendissimo episcopo Sebastiae, et Selenco reverendissimo episcopo Amasiae, et Constantino reverendissimo episcopo Melitenae, et Patricio reverendissimo episcopo Tyanorum, et Petro reverendissimo episcopo Gangrorum, et Eustathio reverendissimo episcopo Beryti, et Apragmonio reverendissimo episcopo locum habente reverendissimi episcopi Claudiopolis Calogeri, et Atarbio reverendissimo episcopo Trapezuntis, locum habente Dorothei reverendissimi episcopi Neocaesareae, et Photino archidiacono locum habente Theoctisti reverendissimi episcopi Pissinuntis,

(1) ‹anchor: μάρτυρος Εὐφημίας·› · call in col 1252

Nomina judicum et episcoporum hujus eadem sunt in codicibus Venetis, ac in actionibus 15 et 17, si pauca excipias, quae in sequentibus annotationibus indicabuntur; ac propterea unica hac actione Graeca trium actionum nomina, uti sunt in iisdem mss. proferuntur, quae in vulgato textu vel mutila sunt, vel omnino desunt. Observavimus autem episcoporum nomina eadem fere esse, ac eodem ordine recenseri ac in versione antiqua primae actionis a Baluzio edita tom. IV Concil. edit. Venetae pag. 1987, nec non in versione actionum 6, 7 et 8.

The names of the judges and bishops of this [session] are the same in the Venetian codices as in sessions 15 and 17, a few excepted, which will be pointed out in the following annotations; and therefore in this single Greek session the names of three sessions are produced as they stand in those manuscripts, names which in the common text are either mutilated or wholly wanting. We have observed, moreover, that the bishops' names are nearly the same, and are listed in the same order, as in the ancient version of the first session published by Baluze, vol. IV of the Councils, Venice edition, p. 1987, and likewise in the version of sessions 6, 7 and 8.

(printed under page 631)

(2) ‹anchor: Καππαδοκίας, καὶ› · call in col 1252

Hic Stephanus in hac et praecedenti actione habitis pridie kal. Novembris adhuc nominatur episcopus Ephesinus, cum tamen act. 13, in vulgatis 12, pridie depositus fuerit, id est tertio kal. Novembris. Id ex notariorum oscitantia ortum credimus, qui episcoporum nomina transcripsere ex anterioribus actionibus, in quibus Stephanus nondum depositus recensebatur.

This Stephen, in this and the preceding session, held on the day before the kalends of November, is still named bishop of Ephesus, although in session 13 (12 in the common editions) he had been deposed the day before, that is, on the third day before the kalends of November. We believe this arose from the carelessness of the notaries, who transcribed the bishops' names from earlier sessions, in which Stephen, not yet deposed, was listed.

(printed under page 631)

(3) ‹anchor: ἱερᾶς πόλεως ἐπισκόπου,› · call in col 1252

In nostris mss. actione 15 additur, καὶ Νόννου τοῦ εὐλαβεστάτου ἐπισκόπου Ἐδέσσης. In versione etiam actionum 1, 6 et 8, idem Nonnus eodem loco et ordine quem in nostris mss. Graecis habet act. 15 inseritur. In versione autem vulgatae actionis 16, quae in nostris codicibus est 17, loco Nonni legitur Ibas. Nostri autem Graeci codices non solum actione hac inedita 16, verum etiam 17, utrumque nomen praetereunt. Cum Ibas actione 10 restitutus fuerit; actione 15 Ibas, non autem Nonnus inserendus, nec in sequentibus omittendus fuerat, cum praesertim actioni 17 subscriptus legatur. Quid ita? Nimirum quia notarii exscribentes episcoporum nomina in actione 15, non animadverterunt Nonnum esse expungendum; in actionibus autem 16 et 17 cautius praeterierunt quidem hoc nomen, at de Iba substituendo non cogitarunt. Alii autem notarii, ex quibus antiqua versio traducta fuit, Ibam pro Nonno actione ultima jure recensuere.

In our manuscripts, in session 15, there is added: καὶ Νόννου τοῦ εὐλαβεστάτου ἐπισκόπου Ἐδέσσης ("and Nonnus, the most reverent bishop of Edessa"). In the version of sessions 1, 6 and 8 too, the same Nonnus is inserted in the same place and order that he holds in our Greek manuscripts in session 15. But in the version of the common session 16, which in our codices is 17, in place of Nonnus one reads Ibas. Our Greek codices, however, pass over both names not only in this unpublished session 16 but also in 17. Since Ibas was restored in session 10, in session 15 Ibas, and not Nonnus, ought to have been inserted, nor ought he to have been omitted in the following ones, especially as he is read among the subscribers to session 17. Why so? Evidently because the notaries, copying out the bishops' names in session 15, did not notice that Nonnus was to be struck out; in sessions 16 and 17 they more cautiously passed over this name indeed, but did not think of substituting Ibas. Other notaries, however, from whom the ancient version was translated, rightly listed Ibas in place of Nonnus in the last session.

(printed under page 631)

(4) ‹anchor: ἐπισκόπου Γαγγρῶν,› · call in col 1252

Eustathii Berytensis nomen ac solum in actione 16 inter metropolitas legitur, uti in versione actionis 5. At in praecedenti 15 et in sequenti 17 hunc episcopum jure omittunt nostri codices, quemadmodum hoc loco inter metropolitas deest in interpretatione antiqua actionum 1, 6, et 8, in quibus vel omittitur, vel inter episcopos posterius recensetur.

The name of Eustathius of Berytus is read among the metropolitans in this [the page prints ac, apparently for hac] session 16 alone, as in the version of session 5. But in the preceding session 15 and the following 17 our codices rightly omit this bishop, just as he is absent at this place among the metropolitans in the ancient translation of sessions 1, 6 and 8, in which he is either omitted or listed later among the bishops.

(printed under page 631)

et Romano reverendissimo episcopo Myrorum Lyciae, et Nunechio reverendissimo episcopo Aphrodisiadis Cariae, et Critoniano reverendissimo episcopo Laodiceae Phrygiae, et Mariniano reverendissimo episcopo Synadorum, et Onesiphoro reverendissimo episcopo Iconii et Pergamio reverendissimo episcopo Antiochiae Pisidiae, et Epiphanio reverendissimo episcopo Pergae, et Attico reverendissimo episcopo Nicopolis Epiri, et Martyrio reverendissimo episcopo Gortynae, et Luca reverendissimo episcopo Dyrrhachii, et Vigilantio reverendissimo episcopo Larissae Thessaliae, et Francione reverendissimo episcopo Philippopolis, et Sebastiano reverendissimo episcopo Beroae, et Basilio reverendissimo episcopo Trajanopolis, et Triphone reverendissimo Chii locum habente Joannis episcopi Rhodi, et Theoctisto reverendissimo episcopo Beroeae, et Gerontis reverendissimo episcopo Seleuciae Syriae et Eusebio presbytero locum habente Macarii episcopi Laodiceae Syriae, et Eusebio reverendissimo episcopo Dorilei, et reliqua sancta et oecumenica synodo, quae secundum sanctionem divinissimi et piissimi Domini nostri in Chalcedonensium civitate collecta; et residentibus omnibus ante cancellos sacri altaris Bonifacius presbyter locum habens apostolicae sedis senioris Romae ait: Apostolicus episcopus, et apostolicae fidei Romae Leo dominus meus ad sactissimam synodum epistolam misit: jubete ut recipiatur et legatur. Gloriosissimi judices dixerunt: Legatur epistola Leonis reverendissimi archiepiscopi Romae. Et praebente Juliano reverendissimo episcopo civitatis Coensium locum habente etiam ipso apostolicae sedis, cum authenticam Latinam epistolam, tum ejusdem interpretationem Constantinus devotissimus secretarius sic habentem legit: Leo episcopus sanctae synodo apud Chalcedonem constitutae, dilectissimis in Domino fratribus salutem. Optaveram quidem... et caetera, uti legitur epistola 95, usque ad illa: Bene valete in Domino, fratres charissimi.

(5) ‹καὶ Ἀπραγμονίου› · call in col 1254 (printed BEFORE these words, at the column head, after the tail of the word carried back to col 1252)

In actione sequenti tum in editis Latinis, tum in nostris mss. Graecis aliter habetur: Et Calogero reverendissimo episcopo Claudiopolis, et Apragmonio reverendissimo episcopo Tii. In hac autem actione 16 legitur, ut in actione 15, nec non in antiqua versione actionum 1, 5, 6, et 8, et rectius quidem, cum hoc loco soli metropolitae describantur. Apragmonius autem inter hos locum non habet, nisi quatenus Calogeri metropolitani Claudiopolis vicem gerit. Rectius, inquam: nam cum in subscriptionibus actionis sequentis 17 Calogerus non per Apragmonium, sed per Stephanum presbyterum subscripserit sicut et Relationi synodi ad S. Leonem subscripsit per Euphrosinum diaconum, Apragmonius locum ejus in actione 17 non amplius tenuisse videtur. Hic quoque error ex notariis originem ducit, qui episcopus ex anterioribus actionibus descripsere, in quibus Apragmonius Calogeri vices gerebat.

In the following session, both in the printed Latin texts and in our Greek manuscripts, the reading is different: "And Calogerus, most reverend bishop of Claudiopolis, and Apragmonius, most reverend bishop of Tium." In this sixteenth session, however, the reading is as in session 15, and likewise in the ancient version of sessions 1, 5, 6 and 8, and indeed more correctly, since in this place only the metropolitans are listed. Apragmonius has no place among these, except in so far as he acts in the stead of Calogerus, metropolitan of Claudiopolis. "More correctly", I say: for since in the subscriptions of the following session 17 Calogerus subscribed not through Apragmonius but through the presbyter Stephen, just as he also subscribed the synod's Report to St Leo through the deacon Euphrosinus, Apragmonius seems no longer to have held his place in session 17. This error too takes its origin from the notaries, who copied out the bishops [printed episcopus, for episcopos] from the earlier sessions, in which Apragmonius was acting in Calogerus's stead.

(printed under page 632)

(1) ‹τῆς Λυκιᾶς, καὶ› · call in col 1254

Hic notarii vel amanuensis error manifestus est ex aliis locis quampluribus hujus synodi, in quibus Nunechius Laodiceae Phrygiae, et Critonianus Aphodisiadis episcopus traditur. Recte igitur in ipsis codicibus Venetis act. 16 et 17 legitur: Καὶ Χριτωνιανοῦ τοῦ εὐλαβεστάτου ἐπισκόπου Ἀφροισιάδος Καρίας, καὶ Νουνεχίου τοῦ εὐλαβεστάτου ἐπισκόπου Λαοδικείας Φρυγίας.

Here the error of the notary or copyist is plain from a great many other places of this synod, in which Nunechius is recorded as bishop of Laodicea in Phrygia and Critonianus as bishop of Aphrodisias. Rightly, therefore, in the Venetian codices themselves, in sessions 16 and 17, the reading is: "And Critonianus, the most reverent bishop of Aphrodisias in Caria, and Nunechius, the most reverent bishop of Laodicea in Phrygia."

(printed under page 632)

(2) ‹ἐπισκόπου Ἰκονίου,› · call in col 1254

Sequentes episcopi usque ad Tryphonem Chium inclusive librarii saltu desunt in Graeco act. 15 nostrorum codicum, sed leguntur in Graeco, et in antiqua versione act. 17, eodem ordine et iisdem verbis.

The bishops that follow, down to and including Tryphon of Chios, are missing through a copyist's skip in the Greek of session 15 in our codices, but they are read in the Greek, and in the ancient version, of session 17, in the same order and in the same words.

(printed under page 632)

(3) ‹ἐπισκόπου Χίου,› · call in col 1254

Optime hic Triphon dicitur locum tenens Joannis episcopi Rhodi, uti semper in Chalcedonensi haec delegatio exprimitur, unde perperam omittitur in versione actionis vulgatae 16.

Tryphon is here very rightly said to be "holding the place of John, bishop of Rhodes", as this delegation is always expressed in the council of Chalcedon; hence it is wrongly omitted in the version of the commonly received session 16.

(printed under page 632)

(4) ‹Ῥώμης. » Καὶ› · call in col 1254

Juliani peritia in utraque lingua Latina et Graeca notissima est. Is enim Italus origine Latinam linguam tenebat, Graecae autem Ecclesiae praefectus linguam Graecam ignorare non poterat. Hinc Leo interpretationem epistolae 28, ad Flavianum, a Juliano fieri desideravit ex epist. 131. Cur porro is non autem Bonifacius paulo ante memoratus, qui petierat ut haec epistola legeretur; is inquam, Julianus eam produxerit una cum interpretatione Graeca, non alia probabilior videtur ratio, nisi quia ipse Julianus hujus interpretationis auctor fuit Latinum porro originale una cum Graeca versione oblatum traditur, quia Philippo presbytero apostolicae sedis legata in Ephesina synodo testante act. 2: Consuetudo erat ut apostolicae sedis litterae Latine in primis legerentur. In actis vero Graecis solae Graecae versiones descriptae inveniuntur.

Julian's skill in both tongues, Latin and Greek, is very well known. For being Italian by origin he had the Latin tongue, while as one set over a Greek church he could not be ignorant of Greek. Hence Leo wished the translation of letter 28, to Flavian, to be made by Julian, as appears from letter 131. Further, as to why he, and not Boniface, mentioned a little earlier, who had asked that this letter be read — why Julian, I say, produced it together with the Greek translation — no other reason seems more probable than that Julian himself was the author of this translation. The Latin original, moreover, is recorded as having been presented together with the Greek version because, as the presbyter Philip, legate [printed legata] of the apostolic see, testifies at the synod of Ephesus, session 2: "It was the custom that the letters of the apostolic see be read first in Latin." In the Greek acts, however, only the Greek versions are found copied out.

(printed under page 632)

(5) ‹ἐν Κυρίῳ› · call in col 1254 (full-width lines)

Vide annot. 3 (Col. 936, n, (k) in epist. 93, ubi integram hujus epistolae versionem huic actioni insertam dedimus.

See annotation 3 (col. 936, note (k)) on letter 93, where we have given the entire version of this letter inserted in this session.

(printed under page 632)

(6) ‹ἀδελφοὶ προσφιλέστατοι› · call in col 1254 (full-width lines)

Chronica notatio, quae huic epistolae in mss. Graecis ante gesta descriptae affigitur; deest hoc loco, et sic actio 16 desinit.

The date-note which is attached to this letter where it is copied before the acts in the Greek manuscripts is missing in this place, and so session 16 ends.

(printed under page 632)

(a) ‹primum nostrae editionis› · call in col 1255 (full-width Admonitio)

Hanc appendicem edebant Ballerinii sub finem tomi II editionis suae EDIT.

The Ballerini published this appendix towards the end of volume II of their edition. — EDITOR.

(printed under page 633)

ADMONITIO.

ADMONITION.

Post vulgatum tomum primum nostrae editionis (a), in quo praeter Sermones Epistolae etiam S. Leonis ad codices praesertim Romanos exactae et emendatae continentur, e Romanis typis Josephi Collini prodiit in lucem illa pars Operum ejusdem S. doctoris quae ipsius Epistolas ad eosdem fere codices recognitas exhibet. Circa hos vero codices, qui et nostrae et Romanae editioni usui fuere, unum monere necessarium ducimus, ne quis forte de fide nostra in iisdem mss. exemplaribus allegandis addubitet. In praefatione Romanae editionis haec admonitio legitur pag. 53 : In hac nostra (editione) erudito lectori notae manuscriptorum indices, quae in omnibus aliis desiderantur, occurrunt : quod ea quidem ducti ratione fecimus, ut a lectorum animo omnem suspicionem removeremus, nos potius conjecturis indulsisse, quam religiose eorumdem mss. codicum lectionibus et auctoritatibus institisse. Quare in posterum cuique de nostra fide dubitanti omnino facile esse poterit ad nostros indicatos fontes provocare, atque subinde cognoscere an variae lectiones, vel a nobis ad calcem cujuscumque epistolae, aut momumenti annotatae, vel in textum inductae, vere atque sincere iis fontibus respondeant, ex quibus easdem haustas fuisse indicavimus. Conferentes vero Vaticanos codices in hac editione ad cujusque epistolae marginem indicatos cum iis quos nos in nostra editione allegavimus, deprehendimus nonnumquam in ea Romana editione notari hanc vel illam Leonis epistolam inveniri in aliquibus Romanis codicibus, qui eis certissime carent. Exactissimum enim catalogum epistolarum, quae in quovis codice describuntur, separatis paginis, ne confusio irreperet, contexuimus ; nec plures vel pauciores in singulis codicibus seu mss. collectionibus reperiri Leonis epistolas, quam quae a nobis vel in praefatione vel in notis recensitae fuerunt, certissimi sumus, ut et conferentibus ipsos codices palam fiet. Romana autem editio codices non raro assignat epistolis quae in ipsis desunt, idque certo errori tribuendum ex eadem editione evincere possumus.

After the publication of the first volume of our edition (a), in which, besides the Sermons, the Letters of St Leo also are contained, collated with and corrected by manuscripts, chiefly Roman ones, there came to light from the Roman press of Giuseppe Collini that part of the Works of the same holy doctor which presents his Letters revised against very nearly the same manuscripts. Now concerning these manuscripts, which served both our edition and the Roman one, we judge it necessary to give one warning, lest anyone should perhaps come to doubt our good faith in citing those same manuscript copies. In the preface of the Roman edition this notice is read at p. 53: "In this our (edition) the learned reader meets with markers pointing to the manuscripts, which are wanting in all the others: and this we have done led by the consideration that we might remove from the reader's mind every suspicion that we had indulged in conjectures rather than scrupulously held to the readings and authorities of those same manuscript codices. Hence for the future it will be altogether easy for anyone who doubts our good faith to appeal to the sources we have indicated, and thereupon to learn whether the variant readings, either noted by us at the foot of each letter or document, or brought into the text, truly and honestly answer to those sources from which we have indicated that they were drawn." But on comparing the Vatican manuscripts indicated in this edition in the margin of each letter with those which we cited in our own edition, we have found that in that Roman edition this or that letter of Leo is sometimes noted as being found in certain Roman manuscripts which most certainly lack it. For we drew up a most exact catalogue of the letters copied in each codex, on separate pages, lest confusion should creep in; and we are most certain that neither more nor fewer letters of Leo are found in the individual codices or manuscript collections than those which were listed by us either in the preface or in the notes, as will also be plain to those who compare the codices themselves. The Roman edition, however, not seldom assigns codices to letters which are wanting in them, and that this is assuredly to be put down to error we are able to prove from that same edition.

In notitia manuscriptorum Vaticanae bibliothecae, quae praefationi ejusdem editionis subjicitur, pag. 66 scribitur Vaticanum codicem 1341 continere epistolas Leoninas unam et quadraginta ; ubi legendum unam de quadraginta : ille enim codex pertinet ad collectionem Hispanicam, quae complectitur tantum Leoninas epistolas 39 a nobis exacte recensitas in praefatione ad Epistolas, § 10, pag. 522 et 523. At in editione Epistolarum, praeter quam quod hujus codicis allegatio omittitur in epistolis decem quae in eo leguntur, numerus ipsius codicis Vat. 1341 affigitur epistolis 45. ex quibus sexdecim in eodem codice desunt, nimirum epistolae 24, 34, 35, 36, 39, 46, 48, 58, 98, 99, nec non una Valentiniani ad Theodosium, Marciani ad Leonem, Pulcheriae, Ceretii ac Salonii, et synodi Chalcedonensis ad eumdem pontificem, quae in nostra editione sunt epistolae 54, 37, 38 39, 62, 50, 51, 72, 67, 123, 124, 55, 73, 77, 68 et 98. In eadem manuscriptorum notitia pag. 65, Vaticano ms. 1342 collectionis tertiae ascribuntur sexdecim S. Leonis epistolae, quod quidem in eodem invenimus. At in corpore editionis numerus ipsius codicis 1342 annotatur epistolis 21, ita ut omissa allegatione ejusdem ad epistolas sex, quae in eo continentur, perperam addatur idem numerus epistolis undecim, quas in ipso nequaquam invenies, nimirum epistolis ejus editionis 3, 7, 8, 14, 15, 73, 81, 91, 95, 139, et synodicae Ravennii ac aliorum Gallorum ad Leonem ; nobis vero epist. 3, 2, 7, 18, 15, 93, 106, 115, 120, 166 et 99. Similes lapsus occurrunt in allegandis aliquot aliis codicibus. Epistolae, ex gr., 24, nobis 54, apponuntur in margine codd. Vat. 1340, 1341, 1343, 1353 et 3791, cum tamen eadem epistola inveniatur in uno ms. 1340, in caeteris desideretur. Epistolae 39, nobis 42, quae exstat in sola collectione Arelatensi ex qua reperire licuit unum codicem Vallicellanum G. 99, ascribuntur in margine codd. Vat. 541, 542, 1349 et 1341, qui ad alias collectiones ea epistola expertes spectant. Idem referre de aliis epistolis supersedemus, cum hactenus indicata sufficiant. Hi errores partim operarum oscitantiae, partim vero confusioni annotationum in adversariis, quae separatam cujusque codicis descriptionem non praeferrent, tribuendi videntur.

In the account of the manuscripts of the Vatican library which is subjoined to the preface of the same edition, it is written at p. 66 that Vatican codex 1341 contains "forty-one" letters of Leo; where one should read "thirty-nine": for that codex belongs to the Spanish collection, which comprises only the 39 letters of Leo exactly listed by us in the preface to the Letters, § 10, pp. 522 and 523. Yet in the edition of the Letters, besides the fact that the citation of this codex is omitted at ten letters which are read in it, the number of that very codex, Vat. 1341, is attached to 45 letters, of which sixteen are wanting in that same codex, namely letters 24, 34, 35, 36, 39, 46, 48, 58, 98, 99, as well as one of Valentinian to Theodosius, of Marcian to Leo, of Pulcheria, of Ceretius and Salonius, and of the synod of Chalcedon to the same pontiff, which in our edition are letters 54, 37, 38, 39, 62, 50, 51, 72, 67, 123, 124, 55, 73, 77, 68 and 98. In the same account of the manuscripts, p. 65, "sixteen letters of St Leo" are ascribed to Vatican ms. 1342 of the third collection, which indeed we have found in it. Yet in the body of the edition the number of that codex 1342 is noted at 21 letters, so that, its citation being omitted at six letters which are contained in it, the same number is wrongly added to eleven letters which you will by no means find in it, namely to letters 3, 7, 8, 14, 15, 73, 81, 91, 95, 139 of that edition, and to the synodical letter of Ravennius and the other Gauls to Leo; but in ours letters 3, 2, 7, 18, 15, 93, 106, 115, 120, 166 and 99. Like slips occur in the citing of several other codices. To letter 24, for example, our 54, there are set in the margin codd. Vat. 1340, 1341, 1343, 1353 and 3791, whereas that letter is found in the one ms. 1340 and is wanting in the rest. To letter 39, our 42, which survives in the Arles collection alone, of which it was possible to find one codex, Vallicellanus G. 99, there are ascribed in the margin codd. Vat. 541, 542, 1349 and 1341, which belong to other collections that lack that letter. We forbear to report the same of other letters, since what has been pointed out thus far suffices. These errors seem to be attributable partly to the carelessness of the printers, and partly to a confusion of the annotations in the notebooks, which did not carry a separate description of each codex.

<!-- note: Full-width page (running numbers 1255 and 1256 stand over one undivided measure). The appendix title (APPENDIX SECUNDA / AD SECUNDAM PARTEM / OPERUM S. LEONIS MAGNI), printed in three lines at the very top, is set once, in the part file under this rail, and is not repeated here. Set here: the heading ADMONITIO and the upper half of the Ballerini's Admonitio, its first two paragraphs (Post vulgatum…, In notitia…). The lower half as it stands on this page (Num vero…, and the opening of Porro in eadem editione Romana…, which runs over into the next page) is set under col. 1256, by the full-width rule; until Q4 (2026-10-12) those two paragraphs stood twice, here and under 1256, and the title lines stood both here and in the part. Foot note (a), signed EDIT., is set above. The Admonitio is printed in italic with the quoted matter in roman; that distinction is not reproduced in the Latin, and the roman quotations are given in quotation marks in the English. Kept as printed: "momumenti", "45. ex quibus", "38 39" (no comma). Uncertain readings: in "106, 115, 120, 166" the points after 106 and 120 look like full stops on the scan and are set as commas; "opera rum" is split over a line end without a hyphen and is joined as "operarum"; UNSURE: in the list for letter 39, "1349 et 1341": the last digit of the first number reads 9 in every crop of the scan and is set so (earlier set 1340, which the sense may favour, Vat. 1340 being named just above). -->

Num vero aliquis pariter error lateat in quibusdam lectionibus huic vel illi codici in eadem editione ascriptis, non vacavit expendere. Certe pag. 1, not. a, dum traditur omnes Vat. codd, antiquiores et insignioris notae, excepto Vat. regio 1997, habere haec verba. In causa Lupicini episcopi manifestus est error: quippe antiquiores quidem et insignioris notae codices in margine laudati Vac. 1341 et 1342, non solum carent iisdem verbis, verum etiam in corpore ipsius epistolae primae, nobis 12, omittunt illud caput, quod ad Lupicini causam pertinet. Pag. 62, not. c, in epistolam 15 ad Turribium affirmatur codicem Vat. Reg. 1997 habere sentinam cum sententiam ibidem legerimus. Pag. 194, not. b et f, in epist 47, nobis 59, lectiones afferuntur ex codd. Vat. 3787 et 4961, qui cum sint collectionis Avellanae, eadem epistola carent: oae autem lectiones a nobis fuerunt repertae in mss. collectionis 21, ad quam spectant mss. codd. Vat. 542 et 543, quos una cum duobus memoratis collectionis Avellanae in ejusdem editionis margine indicatos invenies. Alia observare, quae ad editionem nostram vindicandam necessaria non sunt, praetermittimus.

Whether some error likewise lies hidden in certain readings ascribed in the same edition to this or that codex, we have not had leisure to weigh. Certainly at p. 1, note a, where it is stated that all the Vatican codices "that are older and of more distinguished mark", except the Vatican Reginensis 1997, have these words, "In the case of Bishop Lupicinus", the error is manifest: for the codices cited in the margin which are indeed "older and of more distinguished mark", Vat. 1341 and 1342, not only lack those same words, but even in the body of that first epistle, our 12, omit the chapter which pertains to the case of Lupicinus. At p. 62, note c, on epistle 15 to Turribius, it is affirmed that the codex Vat. Reg. 1997 has "sentinam", whereas we read "sententiam" in that place. At p. 194, notes b and f, on epist. 47, our 59, readings are adduced from the codices Vat. 3787 and 4961, which, being of the Avellana collection, lack that same epistle: those readings, however, were found by us in the manuscripts of collection 21, to which belong the manuscript codices Vat. 542 and 543, which you will find indicated in the margin of the same edition together with the two aforementioned ones of the Avellana collection. Other observations, which are not necessary for vindicating our edition, we pass over.

Porro in eadem editione Romana, in qua lucubranda cl. auctor plurimum operae et laboris impendens. Graecos etiam codices recolendos curavit, tria fragmenta Graeca antea inedita invenimus, quae in hac Appendicula recudenda credidimus. Primum e ms. Vat. Graec. 720, saeculi, uti traditur, decimi eductum fuit. Hic codex multa Graecorum Patrum opuscula fragmenta continet. Inter haec legitur pars epistolae S. Leonis ad imperatorem Theodosium. Nihil ex stylo conjicere licuit, cum sit Graeca versio. Substantia vero ipsius fragmenti nihil repugnat: nam rectam fidem eamdemque doctrinam exhibet, quam Leo docuit. Auctor Romanae editionis censet hoc fragmentum pertinere ad epistolam quae a Leone indicatur epist. 24. nobis 54, ad eumdem imperatorem, illis verbis A me autem atque ab omnibus catholicis sacerdotibus, quae evangelicae fidei pietas defendatur, satis plene ac lucide litteris meis, quas clementiam vestram per famulum vestrum Epiphanium tribunum, qui pro hac causa missus est, arbitror accepisse, reseratum est. Id autem illi censuit deceptus erronea hujus epistolae

Further, in the same Roman edition, in the elaboration of which the distinguished author, expending very much effort and labour, saw also to the re-examination of the Greek codices, we have found three Greek fragments previously unpublished, which we have judged ought to be reprinted in this little Appendix. The first was drawn from the manuscript Vat. Graec. 720, of the tenth century, as is reported. This codex contains many short works [and] fragments of the Greek Fathers. Among these is read part of an epistle of St Leo to the emperor Theodosius. Nothing could be conjectured from the style, since it is a Greek version. But the substance of the fragment itself presents no objection: for it exhibits the right faith and the same doctrine that Leo taught. The author of the Roman edition judges that this fragment belongs to the epistle which is indicated by Leo in epist. 24, our 54, to the same emperor, in these words: "Moreover, what piety of the evangelical faith is defended by me and by all Catholic bishops has been disclosed fully and lucidly enough in my letter, which I think your Clemency has received through your servant Epiphanius the tribune, who was sent for this cause." But he so judged, being deceived by this epistle's erroneous

<!-- note: Full-width page (running numbers 1255/1256). Set here: the lower half of the Ballerini ADMONITIO to Appendix secunda as it stands on this page, its third and fourth paragraphs, from "Num vero aliquis pariter error lateat" to the page foot. Preceding on the same page (set under col. 1255): the titles APPENDIX SECUNDA / AD SECUNDAM PARTEM / OPERUM S. LEONIS MAGNI (in the part file), the heading ADMONITIO and the first two paragraphs ("Post vulgatum tomum primum…", "In notitia manuscriptorum Vaticanae bibliothecae…"), with Migne's footnote (a) "Hanc appendicem edebant Ballerinii…". The prose runs over to the next page: the last line breaks mid-word at "epi-", and the word is set whole here ("epistolae") from the tail "stolae" printed at the head of the next page, by the rule for a word hyphenated across the break (Q4, 2026-10-12); the English stops at the same point. NEIGHBOUR TO ALIGN (not written by Q4): the notes of col. 1257 still open with the tail "stolae" and with an English head that repeats this word; both should now begin at "chronica notatione". Printed as found: "codd," (comma for full stop), "Vac. 1341" (for Vat.), "epist 47" (no stop), "oae autem" (for eae), "impendens. Graecos" (full stop for comma), "epist. 24. nobis 54", "opuscula fragmenta" (no conjunction), and the stop after "habere haec verba" before the quoted words "In causa Lupicini episcopi". Italic/roman alternation of the original (quotations in roman within italic text) is not reproduced; in the English the quoted words are placed in quotation marks. -->

chronica notatione, qua in vulgatis signabatur data VIII kal. Junias, id est ante epistolam nobis 44 ad ipsum imperatorem : unde recitatis verbis alia epistola e sacerdotum synodo scripta atque deperdita significari videbatur. Emendata vero ea chronica nota ex nostro optimo codice Ratisponensi sic, VIII kal. Januarias, id est die 25 Decembris anni 449, statim liquet memoratis verbis indicari ipsam epistolam 44, quae quidem jamdiu ante laudatam epistolam 54, nimirum III idus. vel idibus Octobris anni ejusdem data fuerat e synodo. Quid ergo ? Si huic fragmento, quod ex Graeca miscellanea collectione sumptum est, fidendum omnino sit, multo est credibilius huc Leonem respicere in epist. 69, dum ad eumdem imperatorem scribit c. 2 : Quae nostrae forma sit fidei, manifestatis instructionibus qua misimus possitis dignanter agnoscere. In hanc quidem rem a Leone missa fuerunt in Orientem Theodosio tradenda testimonia Patrum, quibus probaret sese in dogmatica epistola 28, non aliam doctrinam docuisse quam quae a sanctis et Latinis et Graecis Patribus tradita fuerat. Vide epist. 71. Sed ex hoc fragmento, si genuinum sit, missa simul videtur alia epistolica declaratio ad ipsum imperatorem directa, quae testimoniis Patrum et legatorum instructioni addita dicenda esset. Cum vero sola epistola 28 celebris sit, huicque uni testimonia Patrum subjecta fuerint in mss. Graecis vetustissimae collectionis Chalcedonensis ante hujus concilii gesta, nec praeter hanc ulla uspiam fiat mentio alius Leoninae declarationis ac veluti formulae fidei ad imperatorem Theodosium, quae post editam dogmaticam epistolam 28 superflua videri potest, hinc de hujusmodi fragmento aliqua suspicio nec omnino levis ingeritur. Quidquid autem id est, ipsum fragmentum in hac appendicula exhibebimus, uti editum fuit.

chronological notation, by which in the printed editions it was marked as given on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, that is, before the letter which is our 44 to the emperor himself: whence by the words quoted another letter, written from the synod of bishops and now lost, seemed to be signified. But once that chronological note has been emended from our excellent Ratisbon codex thus, the eighth day before the Kalends of January, that is, 25 December of the year 449, it is at once clear that by the words mentioned letter 44 itself is indicated, which indeed had been given from the synod long before the letter 54 cited, namely on the third day before the Ides, or on the Ides, of October of the same year. What then? If this fragment, which has been taken from a Greek miscellaneous collection, is to be trusted at all, it is much more credible that Leo is looking back to this in letter 69, when he writes to the same emperor, ch. 2: What the form of our faith is, you may graciously deign to recognize from the instructions made known which we have sent. To this end indeed there were sent by Leo into the East, to be handed to Theodosius, testimonies of the Fathers, by which he might prove that in the dogmatic letter 28 he had taught no other doctrine than that which had been handed down by the holy Fathers both Latin and Greek. See letter 71. But from this fragment, if it be genuine, there appears to have been sent at the same time another declaration in letter form addressed to the emperor himself, which would have to be said to have been added to the testimonies of the Fathers and to the instruction of the legates. Since, however, letter 28 alone is celebrated, and to it alone the testimonies of the Fathers were subjoined in the Greek manuscripts of the most ancient Chalcedonian collection before the acts of that council, and apart from this no mention is anywhere made of another Leonine declaration and, as it were, formula of faith to the emperor Theodosius, which after the publication of the dogmatic letter 28 can seem superfluous, hence some suspicion, and that not altogether slight, is raised concerning a fragment of this kind. Whatever the case may be, however, we shall present the fragment itself in this little appendix, as it was published.

Secundum est fragmentum libelli S. Flaviani Constantinopolitani episcopi ad S. Leonem, quod suppeditavit codex Vat. Graec. 451. In hoc fragmento nonnulla paulo difficiliora occurunt. Duae in eo partes distinguendae, prior qua libellus quidam fidei proponitur, posterior qua gesta circa Joannem et Gregorium describuntur. In priori parte, seu in libello fidei, laudatur dogmatica Leonis epistola 28, qua duae naturae et una persona declarantur in Christo : In unam enim personam, inquit, sicut et TUA SANCTITAS DOCET (in epist. 28) duae naturae concurrunt. Haec autem Leonis epistola 28 Flaviano tradita fuit non Constantinopoli, sed Ephesi, qua Flavianus ad concilium accesserat. Legati enim pontificis qui easdem literas perferendas acceperant, ob indicti concilii tempus non Constantinopolim, sed Ephesum contendere compulsi fuerunt. Porro gesta quae in posteriori parte narrantur Constantinopoli evenerunt. Joannis enim et Gregorii condemnatio a Flaviano peracta, ac plebis tumultus in eosdem, non Epheso, nec tempori latrocinii Ephesini, quo Eutychianorum factio praevalebat, sed Constantinopoli, convenit ante tempus ejusdem latrocinii, cum Flavianus, damnato Eutyche, catholicam fidem libere propugnabat, populusque favebat. Neque enim rejici potest post idem latrocinium : nam tunc Flavianus non rediit Constantinopolim, sed in exilium pulsus in ipso itinere supremum diem obiit. Vide nostram admonitionem in epist. 53. Cum vero prior pars hujus fragmenti, in qua epistolae Leonis fit mentio, eum fidei libellum contineat, qui ante haec Constantinopolitana gesta circa Joannem et Gregorium lectus traditur (Haec cum libellus contineret, EO LECTO, etc.) ipse quoque libellus Constantinopoli scriptus fuerat, antequam Flavianus Ephesum pergeret. Quomodo igitur in eo laudari potuit Leonis epistola 28, quae solum Ephesi a Flaviano accepta fuit ? Adde quod dum hic libellus Constantinopoli legeretur, Eutyches depositus fuerat. Qui autem Flavianus hominem abs se jam depositum et archimandritae dignitate privatum, archimandritam in ipso libello appellasset? Cum integrum documentum ex quo hoc fragmentum excerptum fuit desideretur, nihil certi affirmari potest Ne vero suppositionis nota eidem inuratur, suspicari licet hoc fragmentum pertinere ad libellum appellationis Flaviani, qui Ephesi scriptus et legatis Leonis traditus fuit. In hoc autem insertus dicendus est libellus fidei qui Constantinopoli lectus fuerat, et gesta de Joanne et Gregorio pariter inserta. Verba quibus laudatur Leonis epist. 28, eidem libello, dum Ephesi exscriberetur, adjecta. Tum vero Flavianus Eutychen vocavit archimandritam, quia is in pseudosynodo restitutus pro archimandrita sese gerebat.

The second is a fragment of the libellus of St Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, to St Leo, which the codex Vat. Graec. 451 has supplied. In this fragment some rather more difficult matters occur. Two parts are to be distinguished in it: the former, in which a certain libellus of faith is set forth; the latter, in which the proceedings concerning John and Gregory are described. In the former part, that is, in the libellus of faith, Leo's dogmatic letter 28 is cited, in which two natures and one person are declared in Christ: For into one person, he says, as YOUR HOLINESS also TEACHES (in letter 28), two natures come together. Now this letter 28 of Leo was delivered to Flavian not at Constantinople but at Ephesus, whither Flavian had come for the council. For the pontiff's legates, who had received that same letter to be carried through, were compelled, on account of the date of the council that had been summoned, to hasten not to Constantinople but to Ephesus. Moreover, the proceedings narrated in the latter part took place at Constantinople. For the condemnation of John and Gregory carried out by Flavian, and the tumult of the people against them, suit not Ephesus, nor the time of the Robber Council of Ephesus, when the faction of the Eutychians was prevailing, but Constantinople, before the time of that same Robber Council, when Flavian, Eutyches having been condemned, was freely defending the Catholic faith and the people were favouring him. Nor indeed can it be put off until after that same Robber Council: for then Flavian did not return to Constantinople, but, driven into exile, met his last day on the journey itself. See our admonition on letter 53. Since, however, the former part of this fragment, in which mention is made of Leo's letter, contains that libellus of faith which is reported to have been read before these Constantinopolitan proceedings concerning John and Gregory (When the libellus contained these things, IT HAVING BEEN READ, etc.), the libellus itself too had been written at Constantinople, before Flavian set out for Ephesus. How then could Leo's letter 28, which was received by Flavian only at Ephesus, have been cited in it? Add that, when this libellus was being read at Constantinople, Eutyches had been deposed. But how would Flavian, in the libellus itself, have called archimandrite a man already deposed by himself and deprived of the dignity of archimandrite? Since the entire document from which this fragment was excerpted is wanting, nothing certain can be affirmed. Yet, lest the brand of forgery be burned upon it, one may suspect that this fragment belongs to the libellus of appeal of Flavian, which was written at Ephesus and delivered to Leo's legates. In this, moreover, the libellus of faith which had been read at Constantinople must be said to have been inserted, and the proceedings concerning John and Gregory likewise inserted. The words in which Leo's letter 28 is cited were added to that same libellus while it was being copied out at Ephesus. And at that time Flavian did call Eutyches archimandrite, because he, restored in the pseudo-synod, was conducting himself as archimandrite.

Tertium fragmentum sumptum ex ms. Vat. Graec. 1455, mera paraphrasis est capitis octavi epistolae 14 Leonis ad Anastasium.

The third fragment, taken from the manuscript Vat. Graec. 1455, is a mere paraphrase of the eighth chapter of Leo's letter 14 to Anastasius.

<!-- note: the prose is the end of the Ballerini ADMONITIO to Appendix II, printed full width across cols 1257–1258 from the first line under the running head; it runs over from the previous page, beginning mid-word ("stolae", the end of "epistolae", which is set whole at the end of col. 1256 and is not repeated here), and ends with "ad Anastasium." about two thirds down the page. Only what stands on this page is set. It is followed by the headings FRAGMENTUM I. / Ex cod. Vat. Graec. 720. / LEONIS PAPAE AD THEODOSIUM IMPERATOREM, DE DIVINI VERBI INCARNATIONE. and the fragment itself (Latin in col. 1257, Greek in col. 1258), which are not set here. The admonitio is printed in italic, with the quoted words (from ep. 69 c. 2, from the Flavian fragment, and the word "archimandritam") in roman; that distinction is not reproduced. Printed as it stands: "instructionibus qua misimus", "alius Leoninae declarationis", "III idus. vel idibus", "literas", "occurunt" (for occurrunt; restored as printed in the Q6 re-read), and no full stop after "affirmari potest". The Vatican codex number in the second paragraph, 451, has a faint middle digit in the scan; it agrees with the caption of Fragment II (Ex cod. Vat. Graec. 451). -->

Leonis Romae episcopi exemplum interpretationis partis epistolae, quam ad imperatorem Theodosium scripsit de divina incarnatione, et contra eos qui credunt abominandis dogmatibus haeresiarcharum Photini et Apollinaris atque horum similium. Credimus Filium Dei ab aeterno, et sine exteriori principio, qui cum Patre et Spiritu sancto est, in extremis saeculis perfectum nostrae naturae suscepisse hominem ex Maria semper virgine, et quod Verbum caro factum fuerit, hominem suscipiendo, neque Divinitatem mutasse, neque, ut quidam impie existimarunt, sanctum Spiritum pro semine fuisse; sed per virtutem et sapientiam Conditoris gentium confitemur Christum unam esse personam Filii, duas vero perfectas integrasque substantias Divinitatis atque humanitatis, quae ex anima et corpore constat. Anathema dicimus contra Photinum, qui Christum purum nudumque hominem asserit; similiter et contra Apollinarium, illiusque similes, qui dicunt Filium Dei minus quiddam humana natura suscepisse sive in carne, sive in anima, sive in mente, sive in hominis assumptione, et dissimilem nobis fuisse in eo quod assumptum est: quem hominem sine sola macula peccati (quod peccatum physicum non est), ejusdem formae cum nostra per omnia factum esse credimus. Illorum quoque blasphemiam exsecramur, qui nova inventione dicere conantur, a tempore susceptae

carnis omnia divinae naturae in humanam, atque omnia humanae in divinam commutata fuisse, quod nulla unquam haeresis dicere ausa est. Per hujusmodi enim confessionem, utramque Divinitatis atque humanitatis naturam in aliud quidpiam commutatam esse autumant, neque Deum perfectum, neque perfectum hominem secundum veritatem Filium confitentur. Nos vero ita dicimus assumptam a Filio Dei naturam nostram, Divinitate impatibili permanente: passus est enim Dei Filius non opinione, sed re vera, quaecumque Scriptura testatur, hoc est famem, sitim, defatigationem, laborem, mortem, et reliqua hujusmodi. Secundum autem illud passus est, secundum quod pati potuit, id est non secundum assumentem, sed secundum assumptam naturam. Ipse enim Dei Filius secundum Divinitatem impatibilis est, sicut Pater invisibilis, sicut Pater sub tactum non cadens, sicut Pater immutabilis. Propria enim persona Filii Deus Verbum assumens hominem patibilem, atque in ipso habitans, nihil passa est, sicut Pater et Spiritus sanctus: omnino enim Trinitatem impatibilem confiteri debemus. Cum mortuus igitur Filius Dei fuisset secundum Scripturas, quatenus mori potuit, surrexit ex mortuis tertia die, ascendit ad coelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei, manente substantia carnis ipsius, in qua genitus est, et passus fuit, et resurrexit. Non enim dissoluta aut commutata fuit humanitatis substantia, sed permanens in Divinitate in perpetuum glorificata est. Flaviani episcopi Constantinopolis ex libello quem scripsit ad Leonem Romanum pontificem de incarnationis dispensatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi veri Dei nostri. Verbum, dicit, caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis. Aliud vero habitatio, et aliud est habitans. Non dico, alius et alius ut de duabus personis, sed diversum et diversum, ut in duabus naturis. Omnis enim evangelica et apostolica adhortatio et testificatio de Emmanuel in duos modos dividitur: aliquando quidem solitariam ipsius personam significans, aliquando vero perspicue ipsius duas naturas declarans. Etenim erat duplex, et est unus et solus Filius et Christus, et duplex in ipso ratio, non antequam copularetur, sed post inexplicabilem conjunctionem: perfectus ille tum in Divinitate, tum in humanitate. Si enim simplex erat, quo pacto pati et mori poterat? quo pacto verberari, et clavis affigi, et colaphis caedi, nisi in patibili corpore et terrena natura? Quemadmodum consubstantialis Deo et Patri, cum sit Deus, est perfectus ex perfecto, sic etiam eamdem nobiscum naturam habens, homo perfectus existit. Qui enim in forma Dei erat, formam servi propter nos accepit. Dei vero forma substantiam Dei significat, sicut et forma hominis humanam naturam declarat. Plagae igitur et crux et mors ad hominem pertinent, in quo Dominus Deus Verbum est; gloria vero et potentia Domini est, in quo est servus, id est homo. Si igitur quod pati non potest, ad Divinitatem spectat, perpessio autem in humanitate est, quis recte sentientium unam dixerit, quae duae naturae in ipso sunt? Si vero una est, scilicet semideus carnem assumpsit Deus, et dimidiatae naturae, assumptus est homo. Verum non ita pietatis sanctio docet, quam repulit Eutyches archimandrita unam praedicando naturam increatae Divinitatis et humanitatis Christi, quae cum nostra eadem est. Universus autem sanctorum chorus duplicem substantiam, sive naturam esse Christum confitetur, non vero duplicem subsistentiam, sive personam. In unam enim personam, sicut et vestra sanctitas docet, duae naturae concurrunt, quas etiam dixi et immutabili ratione conservari, et indivisibili modo in Christo confitemur.

Est enim unus et solus unigenitus Filius et Verbum Dei, non quod illius naturae in duas subsistentias diversae sint, sed quod Verbum inexplicabile in unam subsistentiam duas naturas copulaverit: interius quidem sacrosancto corpore per divinum Verbum exornato, exterius vero Spiritu custodoret, ut ex utrisque naturarum perspicuitatem ostendat. Sic enim et manducare illum dicimus, non ante passionem solum, verum etiam postquam resurrexit, naturam credimus corporis ipsius. S⟨i⟩ enim corpus, contra quod haeretici dubitationes movent, natura et substantia appellatur, manifestum porro est in uno Christo utramque naturam, hoc est divinam atque humanam, conservari, et in divina quidem quae Deo conveniebant accepisse, in nostra vero rursus ipsum proferre humana et misera, qui non inquinamentum aliquod, non confusionem, non divisionem circa naturas habet, sed unus Filus et Christus et Dominus et Salvator existit iis qui pie volunt in ipsum credere. Haec cum libellus contineret, eo lecto, respuerunt, abjecerunt, anathemate perculerunt quae in hoc scripta sunt, et Joannes et Gregorius; quibus maledictis atque anathemate proscissis, in medium attulimus sanctorum Patrum libros, ex quibus erant cuncta testimonia quae in libello existunt. Habemus etiam ea in manibus parata, et ex quacumque responsione redargutiones expressas; cumque ostendissemus ex propriis ipsorum libris, non Flavianum maledictis et anathemate perculsum fuisse, sed sancos Patres, minutus populus surrexit, summopere contemnens, et ferme volens eos lapidibus obruere. Hic triumphus, et dedecus fuit, quod Joannes et illius gregales publice passi sunt. LEO episcopus Romae, ANASTASIO episcopo Thessalonicae. Si quis episcopus propriae urbis tenuitatem aspernatus fuerit, ad illustrioris locui ministerium transierit, et ad majorem populum stulto consilio seipsum transtulerit; tum ex aliena cathedra expelletur, tum propria privabitur, ut neque illis praesit quos propter cupiditatem affectavit, neque iis quos ob superbiam despexit. Propriis igitur finibus quisque contentus sit, neque modum potestatis augeri concupiscat. Scias, frater charissime, aliam esse necessitatis atque utilitatis, aliam vero temeritatis ac propriae voluntatis, vel privatae voluptatis (causa) transeundi de civitate in civitatem, sed ob necessitatem atque utilitatem transferri. Nam plurium utilitatem unius utilitati vel voluntati anteponere oportet; aliud enim est transire, aliud transferri: illud enim sponte transcendere est, hoc coacte atque invite progredi. Quapropter hi non urbem mutant, sed mutantur: non enim sua sponte, sed per vim illatam hoc faciunt. Non igitur sciunt ecclesiasticos canones, qui inficiantur utilitatis ac necessitatis causa fieri non posse, quoties communis necessitas utilitasque id suadeat.

(1) ‹Λέων Ἐπίσκοπος Ῥώμης› · call in col 1262

Amanuensis errore in cod. legitur Ἀθανασιῳ pro Ἀναστασιῳ.

By a copyist's error the codex reads "to Athanasius" for "to Anastasius".

(printed under page 636)