Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹Data› · printed under col 1055

Vulgati ante Quesn. cum nostris codicibus collect. 11, 12, 21 et 24, ac exemplo Sichardi, iv idus. Solus Quesnellus ex cod. Grim., iii idus. Id autem immutare noluimus, propterea quod hoc eodem die signetur epistola 119, ad Maximum, cum qua haec simul eadem occasione transmissa, ac ex Leonis more eodem die signata credenda sit. Secus epistola ad Maximum, quae hic scripta praesumitur, die sequenti exarata fuisset. Facile autem fuit librariis ex iii idus, duabus unitatibus junctis, iv idus scribere.

The printed editions before Quesnel, with our codices of collections 11, 12, 21 and 24 and Sichardus's copy: iv idus. Quesnel alone, from the Grimani codex: iii idus. This we did not wish to change, because Letter 119, to Maximus, is dated on this same day, and this letter must be believed to have been sent together with it on the same occasion and, by Leo's custom, dated on the same day. Otherwise the letter to Maximus, which is presupposed here as already written, would have been drawn up on the following day. And it was easy for copyists to write iv idus from iii idus by joining two units.

(b) ‹EPISTOLA› (in the heading of Letter CXXI) · printed under col 1055

Alias 94. Quae autem antea 121 erat, nunc 153. Scripta 15 Junii an. 453.

Formerly 94. The letter that was formerly 121 is now 153. Written 15 June in the year 453.

(c) ‹AD MARCIANUM AUGUSTUM› (call before the address) · printed under col 1055

Exstat in mss. collect. 12, 18, 19 et 24, ac in Vat. 541.

It is found in the mss. of collections 12, 18, 19 and 24, and in Vatican 541.

(d) ‹LEO episcopus› (call before the greeting) · printed under col 1055

Cod. Ratisp., Leo papa.

The Ratisbon codex: Leo papa.

(e) ‹CAP. I. —› (call before Tam multis) · printed under col 1055

Etiam multis in mss. Laurentiano Florentino et Fesulano. Jam multis in Vat. 1340, in quo etiam paulo post, geratur pro generatur.

Etiam multis in the Laurentian ms. of Florence and the Fiesole ms. Jam multis in Vatican 1340, in which also, a little after, geratur for generatur.

(f), (g), (h) printed under this column; their calls are in col 1056, set in n1056.

SYNOPSIS. — I. Curam paschalis cycli Alexandrino episcopo olim esse demandatam. — II. Quid difficultatis ex illo ortum sit. — III. Ut de hac difficultate jubeat inquiri, postulat.

SYNOPSIS. — I. That the care of the Paschal cycle was formerly entrusted to the bishop of Alexandria. — II. What difficulty has arisen from it. — III. He asks [the emperor] to order an inquiry into this difficulty.

(f) ‹ambigua› · printed under col 1055

Prima editio Quesn. cum anterioribus editis, currat. Emendatum fuit in editione secunda, ut in potioribus nostris codd.

Quesnel's first edition, with the earlier editions: currat. It was corrected in the second edition, as in our better codices.

(g) ‹Alexandrino› · printed under col 1055

Ms. Ratisp., antistiti. Alluditur Nicaenis Patribus, de quibus Cyrillus cum Leone consentiens, in Prologo Paschali tradiderat an. 437: Sanctorum totius orbis synodi consensione decretum est, ut quoniam apud Alexandriam talis esset reperta Ecclesia, quae in hujus scientia clareret, quota kalendarum, vel iduum, quota luna Pascha debeat celebrari, per singulos annos Romanae Ecclesiae litteris intimaret, unde apostolica auctoritate universalis Ecclesia per totum orbem definitum Paschae diem sine ulla disceptatione cognosceret.

The Ratisbon ms.: antistiti. The allusion is to the Fathers of Nicaea, of whom Cyril, agreeing with Leo, had related in his Paschal Prologue in the year 437: By the consent of the synod of the saints of the whole world it was decreed that, since at Alexandria such a Church had been found as was distinguished in this science, it should make known each year by letter to the Roman Church on which day of the Kalends or Ides, and on which moon, Easter ought to be celebrated, so that from there, by apostolic authority, the universal Church throughout the whole world might know the fixed day of Easter without any dispute.

(h) ‹peritia)› · printed under col 1055, running over to the head of the notes under col 1056

Lectionem vetustissimi Ratisponensis ms. praeferendam duximus, quae potior et clarior est, et cum Cyrilli testimonio, antecedenti annotatione descripto, ex quo forte Leo sententiam sumpsit, maxime congruit. In editis antiquioribus Leoninis corrupte legebatur: Per quam quamvis singulis dies praedictae solemnitatis eveniret. Sedi apostolicae indicaretur, ut hujus scripti ad longinquiores Ecclesias judicium generaliter percurreret. Idem legitur in vulgatis Concil. cum Merlino ex codd. collect. 12, hac sola exceptione, cui annis pro quamvis. Hanc postremam lectionem Quesnellus suscipiens, duas emendationes addidit, cujus scriptis pro ut hujus scripti, et indicium pro judicium, ut in aliis nostris codicibus reperimus.

We have judged that the reading of the very ancient Ratisbon ms. is to be preferred, as it is better and clearer, and agrees best with Cyril's testimony, copied out in the preceding annotation, from which Leo perhaps took his statement. In the older editions of Leo it was corruptly read: Per quam quamvis singulis dies praedictae solemnitatis eveniret. Sedi apostolicae indicaretur, ut hujus scripti ad longinquiores Ecclesias judicium generaliter percurreret. The same is read in the printed Councils, with Merlin, from the codices of collection 12, with this one exception, cui annis for quamvis. Quesnel, adopting this last reading, added two emendations, cujus scriptis for ut hujus scripti, and indicium for judicium, as we find in our other codices.

(i) ‹Theophilus› · printed under col 1056

Ratisp., Alexandrinae urbis.

Ratisbon: Alexandrinae urbis.

(j) ‹annos› · printed under col 1056 (its mark appears printed as a second (i))

Theophili Laterculum Paschale annorum centum hic indicatur, quod incipiebat ab anno 380. ita ut annus 76 hujus Laterculi incideret in an. 455, de cujus Paschate praesens vertebatur quaestio. Distinguendum est autem hoc Laterculum a periodo seu circulo paschali ejusdem Theophili annorum 418, quos Cyrillus in Prologo paschali expresse memorat; non vero annorum 437, uti Quesnellus not. 1 in hanc epistolam scripsit. Neque Laterculum, ut idem Quesnellus eadem nota asseruit, annos centum a periodo memorata decerptos exhibebat. Nam periodum annorum 418 initium sumpsisse ab anno Christi 475, post quinque Cyclos decemnovennales, quos Theophilus in Laterculo ediderat, absolutos anno ejusdem Laterculi 96, optime demonstravit Joannes Vander Haagen in dissertatione de Theophili Cyclo paschali 418 annorum, § 8.

Theophilus's Paschal table of a hundred years is meant here, which began from the year 380, so that the 76th year of this table fell in the year 455, about whose Easter the present question turned. This table must, however, be distinguished from the Paschal period or circle of the same Theophilus of 418 years, which Cyril expressly mentions in his Paschal Prologue; not of 437 years, as Quesnel wrote in note 1 on this letter. Nor did the table, as the same Quesnel asserted in the same note, present a hundred years taken from the period mentioned. For that the period of 418 years took its beginning from the year of Christ 475, after the five nineteen-year cycles which Theophilus had set out in the table, completed in the 96th year of that table, Johannes van der Hagen has demonstrated excellently in his dissertation on Theophilus's Paschal cycle of 418 years, § 8.

(k) ‹constituit.› (call before Nam) · printed under col 1056

Particula Nam deest in editis ante Quesnellum, sicut etiam in nostris codicibus, excepto Ratisponensi, qui eam exhibet. Vide not. 2 Quesn.

The particle Nam is missing in the editions before Quesnel, as also in our codices, except the Ratisbon, which has it. See Quesnel's note 2.

(l) ‹Theodosii senioris› · printed under col 1056

Anno 380.

In the year 380.

(m) ‹consulatu› · printed under col 1056

Ita cum Quesn. idem cod. Ratisp. Alii editi cum caeteris nostris mss., succedentes sibi sacrae observantiae ordines.

So, with Quesnel, the same Ratisbon codex. The other editions, with the rest of our mss.: succedentes sibi sacrae observantiae ordines.

(n) ‹complexionis› · printed under col 1056

Tria Paschata sibi succedentia in Laterculo Theophiliano notata indicantur, nimirum Pascha an. 453, quod in complexione, seu Laterculo Theophili ad annum 74 assignabatur pridie id. Aprilis; item Pascha anni 454, quod ad an. 75 Laterculi affigebatur pridie nonas Aprilis, et in his nullum erat cum Latinis dissidium; ac tandem Pascha an. 455, quod ad an. 76 Laterculi viii kal. Maii signabatur; et in hoc Paschate Latini ab Alexandrinis dissidebant.

Three successive Easters noted in Theophilus's table are indicated: namely the Easter of the year 453, which in the complexio, that is, Theophilus's table, was assigned at year 74 to the day before the Ides of April; likewise the Easter of the year 454, which at year 75 of the table was set on the day before the Nones of April, and in these there was no disagreement with the Latins; and finally the Easter of the year 455, which at year 76 of the table was marked on the eighth day before the Kalends of May; and on this Easter the Latins disagreed with the Alexandrians.

(o) ‹quartus est annus,› · printed under col 1056

Sic emendavimus ex mss. Ratisp. et Vat. collect. 24. Editi perperam, in qua. Mox sanctum paschale in eodem Ratisp.

So we have emended from the Ratisbon ms. and the Vatican ms. of collection 24. The editions wrongly have in qua. Soon after, sanctum paschale in the same Ratisbon ms.

(p) ‹propitio Deo,› · printed under col 1056

Editi et plerique codd., habenda. Melior visa est lectio ms. Ratisp.

The editions and most codices: habenda. The reading of the Ratisbon ms. seemed better.

(q) ‹festivitas, sicut› · printed under col 1056, running over to the head of the notes under col 1057

Vox regulariter indicat dies paschales annorum 453 et 454 in Theophili Laterculo notatos non discrepasse a regula, seu Cyclo Latinorum annorum 84, quo Romana Ecclesia tum utebatur. Si Latinorum Cyclus aeque ac Laterculum Theophili anno 454 signabant diem Paschatis pridie nonas Aprilis, sequitur evidenter hoc anno Romanos usos fuisse Cyclo annorum 84, quo lunae saltus decimo quarto Cycli anno admittebatur; in Cyclo enim annorum 84, qui recipiebat saltum lunae anno Cycli duodecimo, Pascha notabatur v kal. Aprilis. Hinc autem regulariter susceptam fuisse patet emendationem Cycli Latinorum, qua saltus lunae ab anno 12 ad annum 14 prorogatus fuit. Hic porro observatione dignus est alius textus epist. 88, ad Paschasinum, cap. 4, ubi cum esset sermo de Paschate anni 455, quod Romani affigebant diei xv kal. Maii, S. pontifex scribit: In nostris autem paschalibus Cyclis, quod bene nosse dignaris, xv kal. Maii ejusdem anni Pascha celebrandum esse sit scriptum. Cum non unum, sed plures Latinorum Cyclos indicet, et in omnibus Pascha eo die notari affirmet, proculdubio duos saltem Cyclos designat, quorum alter saltum lunae admittebat singulis annis duodecim, alter singulis quatuordecim annis; ac proinde vel ex hoc testimonio postremus iste Cyclus jam receptus agnoscitur; alias unius tantum Cycli statum lunae astruentis duodecimo quoque anno S. Leo meminisset. Utrosque autem Cyclos pro Paschate anni 455 idcirco indicavit S. pontifex, quia licet hi dissiderent in statuendo Paschate anni 454, in Paschate tamen anni 455 omnes conveniebant. Vulgati cum aliquot mss. habebant, centenariae annorum rationis ordo. Emendationem Quesnelli confirmat cod. Ratisp.

The word regulariter indicates that the Paschal days of the years 453 and 454 noted in Theophilus's table did not differ from the rule, that is, from the Latins' cycle of 84 years, which the Roman Church was then using. If the Latins' cycle, just like Theophilus's table, marked the day of Easter in the year 454 on the day before the Nones of April, it plainly follows that in this year the Romans used the cycle of 84 years in which the moon's leap was admitted in the fourteenth year of the cycle; for in the cycle of 84 years which took the moon's leap in the twelfth year of the cycle, Easter was marked on the fifth day before the Kalends of April. Hence it is clear that the emendation of the Latins' cycle, by which the moon's leap was moved from the 12th year to the 14th, had been adopted as the rule. Further, another text is worth noting here, Letter 88, to Paschasinus, chap. 4, where, the subject being the Easter of the year 455, which the Romans assigned to the fifteenth day before the Kalends of May, the holy pontiff writes: But in our Paschal cycles, as you are pleased to know well, it is written that the Easter of the same year is to be celebrated on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of May. Since he points to not one but several cycles of the Latins, and affirms that Easter is marked on that day in all of them, he doubtless means at least two cycles, one of which admitted the moon's leap every twelve years, the other every fourteen years; and therefore from this testimony alone the latter cycle is recognized as already adopted; otherwise St Leo would have mentioned only one cycle, setting the state of the moon every twelfth year. The holy pontiff pointed to both cycles for the Easter of the year 455 because, although they disagreed in fixing the Easter of the year 454, yet for the Easter of the year 455 they all agreed. The printed editions, with some mss., had centenariae annorum rationis ordo. The Ratisbon codex confirms Quesnel's emendation.

(q) the end of note (q) heads the notes under this column; its call is in col 1056, set in n1056.

(a) ‹septuagesimus sextus› · printed under col 1057

Ex eodem Ratisp. supplevimus vocem is. Quidam editi cum uno codice, invenietur. Indicatur Paschae dies viii kal. Maii, seu 24 Aprilis, qui in Theophili Laterculo anno tantum 455 notabatur, cum hoc Laterculum inciperet ab anno 380. Quod vero Leo subdit, nullius exempli, nullius constitutionis admittit auctoritas, de Romanis intelligendum est, non autem de Alexandrinis, qui cum semper decemnovennali Cyclo usi sint, anno pariter 371 eodem die Pascha celebraverant. Id autem forte ignoravit S. Leo, quod solum Theophili Laterculum a posteriori anno 380 incipiens cognosceret.

From the same Ratisbon ms. we have supplied the word is. Some editions, with one codex: invenietur. The Easter day indicated is the eighth before the Kalends of May, that is, 24 April, which in Theophilus's table was marked only in the year 455, since this table began from the year 380. But what Leo adds, the authority of no example and of no ordinance admits, must be understood of the Romans, not of the Alexandrians, who, having always used the nineteen-year cycle, had likewise celebrated Easter on the same day in the year 371. St Leo perhaps did not know this, since he knew only Theophilus's table, beginning from the later year 380.

(b) ‹praefinitum,› · printed under col 1057, running over to the head of the notes under col 1058

Editi ante Quesn. cum plerisque mss. perperam legebant, qui anni limitem antiquitus constitutam excedit. Lectioni a Quesnello restitutae suffragatur mss. Ratisp. Diem autem viii kal. Maii, seu Aprilis 24, cui Pascha anni 455 ab Alexandrinis deputabatur, limitem ultimum antiquitus constitutum (scilicet a Latinis) nimie excedere Leo affirmavit, quia limes apud eosdem Latinos ultimus erat xi kal. Maii, seu Aprilis 21, unde tribus diebus excedebat; ac proinde alii, id est iidem Latini, ex suo Cyclo annorum 84 Pascha deputaverant xv kal. Maii, seu Aprilis 17. In hoc autem octo dierum discrimine Latinorum et Alexandrinorum quaestio vertebatur.

The editions before Quesnel, with most mss., wrongly read qui anni limitem antiquitus constitutam excedit. The Ratisbon ms. supports the reading restored by Quesnel. Leo affirmed that the eighth day before the Kalends of May, that is, 24 April, to which the Easter of the year 455 was assigned by the Alexandrians, went excessively beyond the last limit fixed of old (namely by the Latins), because the last limit among those same Latins was the eleventh day before the Kalends of May, that is, 21 April, so that it went beyond it by three days; and accordingly others, that is, the same Latins, had assigned Easter from their cycle of 84 years to the fifteenth day before the Kalends of May, that is, 17 April. On this difference of eight days between the Latins and the Alexandrians the question turned.

(c) ‹Siquidem› · printed under col 1058

Dies xi kal. Aprilis seu Martii 22 erat apud Romanos limes citimus Dominicarum paschalium; sicut dies xi kal. Maii, seu Aprilis 21, erat ultimus limes. Post pauca pro praefixum Quesnellus in margine: Alias, praefinitum. Confer ejusdem Quesnelli not. 3.

The eleventh day before the Kalends of April, that is, 22 March, was among the Romans the nearest limit of the Paschal Sundays; just as the eleventh day before the Kalends of May, that is, 21 April, was the last limit. A little after, for praefixum Quesnel [has] in the margin: Elsewhere, praefinitum. Compare the same Quesnel's note 3.

(d) ‹videtur› (before nonnumquam) · printed under col 1058

Respicit hoc loco S. Leo pascha anni 444, quod Paschasini et Cyrilli rationibus adductus celebraverat ix kal. Maii; nec non Pascha anni 417, quod ex ejusdem Paschasini epistola nobis 3 celebrandum noverat cum Alexandrinis x kal. Maii ultra ultimum Romanorum limitem, quem in xi kal. Maii serius productum affirmaverat. Hanc autem objectionem S. pontifex ea ratione diluit pro Paschate anni 455, quia etsi dies x et ix kal. Maii extra hunc limitem ultimum supradictis annis exierit, dies tamen passionis eumdem limitem non excesserit; quae ratio Leoni olim persuasit ut in die Paschatis anni 444 Paschasino consentiret. Confer annot. 18 (Col. 608, n. l) in epist. 3. At cum dies viii kal. Maii hanc rationem et conciliationem non reciperet, eo quod hoc casu non tantum Resurrectionis, verum etiam Passionis dies eum limitem praeteriret, hinc Alexandrinis se non posse assentiri profitetur.

In this place St Leo has in view the Easter of the year 444, which, led by the reasons of Paschasinus and Cyril, he had celebrated on the ninth day before the Kalends of May; and also the Easter of the year 417, which he knew from the letter of the same Paschasinus (our no. 3) to have been celebrated with the Alexandrians on the tenth day before the Kalends of May, beyond the last limit of the Romans, which he had affirmed to have been extended later, to the eleventh day before the Kalends of May. This objection the holy pontiff dissolves, for the Easter of the year 455, on this reasoning: that although the tenth and ninth days before the Kalends of May went outside this last limit in the years mentioned above, yet the day of the passion did not exceed that same limit; the reasoning which once persuaded Leo to agree with Paschasinus on the day of Easter of the year 444. Compare annotation 18 (col. 608, note l) on Letter 3. But since the eighth day before the Kalends of May did not admit this reasoning and reconciliation, because in this case not only the day of the Resurrection but also that of the Passion would pass that limit, he therefore declares that he cannot assent to the Alexandrians.

(b) the end of note (b) heads the notes under this column; its call is in col 1057, set in n1057. (c), (d) printed under this column; their calls are in col 1057, set in n1057.

(e) ‹scrupulum› · printed under col 1058

Cod. Ratisp., ejus sollicitudinis. Paulo post editi ante Quesn., ut cum diem generalis obervantia dirigat. Lectionem Quesn. approbat noster Ratisp., qui mox, nec ultra praefixus terminus evagetur.

The Ratisbon codex: ejus sollicitudinis. A little after, the editions before Quesnel: ut cum diem generalis observantia [printed obervantia] dirigat. Our Ratisbon ms. confirms Quesnel's reading; soon after it has nec ultra praefixus terminus evagetur.

(f) ‹Data› · printed under col 1058

Ita vetustus et emendatissimus cod. Ratisp., ut in duabus sequentibus epistolis eadem occasione transmissis. Editi cum aliis mss., decimo sexto kal. Julii.

So the ancient and most correct Ratisbon codex, as in the two following letters sent on the same occasion. The editions, with other mss.: decimo sexto kal. Julii.

(g) ‹EPISTOLA› (in the heading of Letter CXXII) · printed under col 1058

Alias 95. Quae autem antea 122 erat, nunc 148. Scripta 15 Junii an. 453.

Formerly 95. The letter that was formerly 122 is now 148. Written 15 June in the year 453.

(h) ‹AD JULIANUM EPISCOPUM› (call before the address; the mark is printed as a second (g)) · printed under col 1058

Exstat in iisdem collectionibus et codicibus in quibus praecedens. In vulgatis inscribebatur, ad Eudochiam Augustam, et deinceps Eudochiae Augustiae. Errorem satis indicat formula fraternitatem tuam, pro qua in editis contra manuscriptorum fidem suppositum fuit serenitatem tuam. Emendationem a Quesnello inductam ex Grimanico noster Ratisp. approbat. Vide ejusdem not. 1.

It is found in the same collections and codices as the preceding one. In the printed editions it was addressed ad Eudochiam Augustam, and then Eudochiae Augustae [printed Augustiae]. The formula fraternitatem tuam shows the error clearly enough, in place of which serenitatem tuam was substituted in the editions against the witness of the manuscripts. Our Ratisbon ms. confirms the emendation introduced by Quesnel from the Grimani codex. See his note 1.

(i) ‹De paschali observantia› (call before the first words of the letter) · printed under col 1058

Haec verba, De paschali observantia, quae tituli loco Quesnellus posuit, ex fide Ratisponensis codicis epistolam inchoant,

These words, De paschali observantia, which Quesnel placed as a title, begin the letter on the authority of the Ratisbon codex.

SYNOPSIS. — Rogat eum ut de controversia Paschalis anni sequentis diligentius inquirat, rescribatque.

SYNOPSIS. — He asks him to inquire more diligently into the controversy over the Easter of the following year, and to write back.

(a) ‹festivitas rationabiliter› · printed under col 1059

Tres codd. cum vulg. ante Quesn., consequitur. Sed cum haec scripta sint anno 453, et hoc loco sit sermo de Paschate anni 454, correctio potioribus mss. fulcitur.

Three manuscripts with the common editions before Quesnel, consequitur. But since these things were written in the year 453, and the discussion at this place concerns the Pascha of the year 454, the correction is supported by the better manuscripts.

(b) ‹annotare. Siquidem … praefinitos› · printed under col 1059

Quidam codices, antiquitatis.

Certain manuscripts, antiquitatis.

(c) ‹limites nimis› · printed under col 1059

Editi cum pluribus mss., audenter. Potior et sententiae aliis epistolis expressae conformior visa est lectio ms. Ratisp. Vide annot. 16 (Col. 1057, n. b) in epistolam praecedentem.

The editions with several manuscripts, audenter. The reading of the Ratisbon manuscript seemed better and more in keeping with the view expressed in other letters. See note 16 (Col. 1057, n. b) on the preceding letter.

(d) ‹sicut constituerunt› · printed under col 1059

Id est Latini. Confer eamdem annotationem.

That is, the Latins. Compare the same note.

(e) ‹haec persuasio› · printed under col 1059

Vulgati antiquiores cum plerisque inferioris notae mss., probaretur. Codd. Grim. et Ratisp. in correctione conveniunt.

The older common editions, with most manuscripts of lower standing, probaretur. The Grimani and Ratisbon manuscripts agree in the correction.

(f) ‹impendat: ut› · printed under col 1059

Alexandrinos praesertim intelligit ex cap. 2 et 3 epistolae antecedentis, ut indicant etiam sequentia.

He means the Alexandrians especially, from chapters 2 and 3 of the preceding letter, as what follows also shows.

(g) ‹Quia vero oportet› · printed under col 1059

Cur editiones ante Quesn. hic praeferant, serenitatem tuam, diximus annot. 1 (Col. 1058, n. h).

Why the editions before Quesnel here prefer serenitatem tuam, we have said in note 1 (Col. 1058, n. h).

(h) ‹accidat praecavere, crebrius› · printed under col 1059

Ratisp. delet, religiosissimo et.

The Ratisbon deletes religiosissimo et.

(i) ‹suggerere, ut indissimulanter› · printed under col 1059

Sic ex Ratisp. Alias, jubeat Aegyptios admonere.

So from the Ratisbon. Elsewhere, jubeat Aegyptios admonere.

(j) printed under this column; its call is in col 1060, set in n1060. (k) printed under this column; its call is in col 1060, set in n1060. (l) printed under this column; its call is in col 1060, set in n1060. (m) printed under this column (running on under col 1060); its call is in col 1060, set in n1060.