Leo the Great, Letters

(e) ‹possit absolvi.› · printed under col 1081

Ita ex eodem Ratisp., ut in duabus epistolis praecedentibus. Quesnellus ex Grimanico, VII idus.

So from the same Regensburg manuscript, as in the two preceding letters. Quesnel, from the Grimani, VII idus.

(f) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 1081

Alias post. epist. 105. Quae autem antea 132 erat, nunc 162. Scripta circa April. an. 454.

Elsewhere after Letter 105. The one that was formerly 132 is now 162. Written about April, in the year 454.

(g) ‹EPISTOLA CXXXII.› · printed under col 1081, running on under col 1082

Est in una collectione 16 Thessalonicensi. Contulimus cum cod. Barber, 3336, ex quo illam Holstenius edidit. Ante eum vero eamdem ediderat Allatius in Concordia Ecclesia Occident. ex codice Vaticano, quem frustra quaesivimus. Quoad tempus, dum Leo die 8 Martii anni praesentis 454 scripsit epistolam 128, nondum has quas exspectabat ab Anatolio litteras acceperat; ibidemque idcirco ab imperatore petiit, efficeret ut idem episcopus ea rescriberet quae his litteris continentur. Id Marcianus praestitit, ut liquet ex cap. 1 epistolae praesentis. Leo autem epist. 136, data die 29, Maii, cap., 1, se hanc Anatolii epistolam nunc accepisse testatur una cum ejusdem imperatoris litteris; unde utrisque statim respondit epist. 135 et 136. Ut autem congruum tempus detur transmissioni litterarum ac responsioni, hanc epistolam Anatolii post Martium et ante Maium exaratam, seu circa Aprilem collocamus. Cum porro in fine dicatur. Et subscriptio litteris Graecis, hic proculdubio indicatur autographa ipsius Anatolii subscriptio, qui cum Latinam scripturam ignoraret, Graecis litteris usus est. Hinc etiam significatur, exemplum hujus epistolae ad Leonem transmissum, fuisse scriptum Latine, et solam Anatolii subscriptionem Graecam fuisse. Anatolium quidem Graece lucubrasse hanc epistolam, sicut Graece scripsit epistolam 101 quam nunc primum edidimus, nihil dubitandum videtur. At sicuti S. Cyrillus ut promptiorem et faciliorem Coelestino papae redderet lectionem quorumdam documentorum quae Graece erant scripta, ea antea Latine interpretanda curavit, ac Latine reddita ad eumdem pontificem misit, quemadmodum liquet ex epistola ejusdem octava inter epistolas Coelestini apud P. Coustantium num. 9, ita etiam Anatolius hanc epistolam abs se quidem Graece scriptam, at Latine per alios redditam, et abs se litteris Graecis signatam ad Leonem misisse videtur; unde hic Latinus textus pro ipso originali Anatolii manu subscripto haberi debet.

It is in one collection, the 16th, the Thessalonian. We have collated it with the Barberini manuscript 3336, from which Holstenius published it. Before him Allatius had published it in the Concordia Ecclesia[e] Occident[alis] from a Vatican manuscript, which we have sought in vain. As to the date: when Leo wrote Letter 128 on 8 March of this present year 454, he had not yet received this letter which he was expecting from Anatolius; and for that reason he asked the emperor in that very letter to see to it that the same bishop should write back the things contained in this letter. Marcian did so, as is clear from ch. 1 of the present letter. And Leo, in Letter 136, given on 29 May, ch. 1, testifies that he has now received this letter of Anatolius together with a letter of the same emperor; hence he at once answered both in Letters 135 and 136. To allow a suitable time for the conveyance of the letters and the answer, we place this letter of Anatolius as written after March and before May, that is, about April. Further, since it is said at the end, And the subscription in Greek letters, this without doubt indicates Anatolius's own autograph subscription, who, since he did not know Latin writing, used Greek letters. It is also signified by this that the copy of this letter sent to Leo was written in Latin, and that only Anatolius's subscription was Greek. That Anatolius composed this letter in Greek, as he wrote in Greek Letter 101, which we now publish for the first time, seems beyond doubt. But just as St Cyril, to make the reading of certain documents written in Greek readier and easier for Pope Celestine, first had them translated into Latin and sent them rendered into Latin to that same pontiff, as is clear from his letter, the eighth among the letters of Celestine in Fr. Coustant, no. 9, so too Anatolius seems to have sent Leo this letter, written by himself in Greek but rendered into Latin by others, and signed by himself in Greek letters; hence this Latin text ought to be held as the very original subscribed by Anatolius's hand.

(h) ‹anxietas, quam› · printed under col 1082

Allatius, diuturna.

Allatius, diuturna.

(i) ‹epistolae, quae› · printed under col 1082

Ita melius Allatius quam alias magis.

So Allatius, better than magis elsewhere.

SYNOPSIS. — I. De intermisso litterarum commercio amice conqueritur. Debitam pontifici obedientiam ostendit. — II. Aetium restitutum esse. Andream vero depositum scribit. — III. Litteris sancti pontificis recreari peroptat. — IV. Ambitionis culpam a se amolitur, eamque in cleri sui episcoporumque Orientalium studium refundit. Gestorum Chalcedonensium confirmatio pontificiae auctoritati reservata traditur.

SYNOPSIS. — I. He complains in friendly fashion of the interrupted exchange of letters. He shows the obedience due to the pontiff. — II. He writes that Aetius has been restored, but Andrew deposed. — III. He earnestly wishes to be refreshed by the holy pontiff's letters. — IV. He puts away from himself the blame of ambition and turns it back upon the zeal of his clergy and of the Eastern bishops. The confirmation of the acts of Chalcedon is declared to be reserved to the pontifical authority.

(a) ‹cum quibus aemula› · printed under col 1083

Allatius, pietatis Ecclesia non cesset. Cod. Barb., pietatis zelo non cesset. In depravato loco vulgatam lectionem mutare noluimus.

Allatius, pietatis Ecclesia non cesset. The Barberini manuscript, pietatis zelo non cesset. In a corrupt passage we have not wished to change the common reading.

(b) ‹eis ut placita› · printed under col 1083

Cod. Barb. cum Allatio, nobis implevit. Holstenii emendationem sensus postulat.

The Barberini manuscript, with Allatius, nobis implevit. The sense requires Holstenius's emendation.

(c) ‹honore ecclesiastico› · printed under col 1083

Lege, a nobis.

Read a nobis.

(d) ‹omne quod› · printed under col 1083

Forte, episcopii.

Perhaps episcopii.

(e) ‹modeste faciens› · printed under col 1083

Quid hoc loco corrupto et valde obscuro indicetur, colligi potest ex illis epist. 127, cap. 3, Aetium presbyterum, quem asseris fuisse discussum, gratulamur cognitione habita in omnibus fuisse purgatum. Archidiaconus fuerat, et forte circa administrationem bonorum accusationem aliquam incurrerat.

What is indicated in this corrupt and very obscure passage can be gathered from these words of Letter 127, ch. 3: We rejoice that the priest Aetius, who you assert was examined, has been cleared in all things after an inquiry was held. He had been archdeacon, and had perhaps incurred some accusation concerning the administration of property.

(f) ‹fuerat honoratus,› · printed under col 1083

Ita editi et codex, non vero, ut legendum credit Tillemontius art. 62, in Leone, ab ecclesiasticis separatus est. Leo quidem epist. 135, c. 2, et 136, c. 3, Andream ab archidiaconi ministerio submotum tantummodo indicat. Cum autem haec epistola apud Graecos Latine reddita fuerit, ut annot. 1 (Col. 1081, n. g) vidimus, forte interpres minus peritus non satis ante ab Ecclesia separatum reddidit, ut significaret Andream fuisse omni gradu et officio ecclesiastico privatum, quoad Leo rescriberet quid de ipso agendum judicaret.

So the printed editions and the manuscript, and not, as Tillemont, art. 62 on Leo, thinks should be read, ab ecclesiasticis separatus est. Leo indeed, in Letter 135, ch. 2, and 136, ch. 3, only indicates that Andrew was removed from the office of archdeacon. But since this letter was rendered into Latin among the Greeks, as we saw in note 1 (col. 1081, n. g), perhaps a less skilled translator rendered not very aptly [ante as printed] ab Ecclesia separatum, to mean that Andrew had been deprived of every ecclesiastical grade and office until Leo should write back what he judged ought to be done about him.

(g) ‹placitum› · printed under col 1083

Allatius, susperstitibus.

Allatius, susperstitibus [probably superstitibus].

(h) printed under this column; its call is in col 1084, set in n1084 (i) printed under this column; its call is in col 1084, set in n1084

(h) ‹reverentissimus› · printed under col 1083

Hoc testimonium laudat Gelasius in epistola ad Dardanos, uti auctior edita est ex praestantissima collectione 14 Avellana, et legitur tom. V Concilior. Venetae editionis pag. 333: Audiant, inquit. Anatolium, ejusdem sedis antistitem, clerum potius Constantinopolitanum, quam se tentasse talia confitentem, atque in apostolici praesulis totum dicentem positum potestate.

Gelasius cites this testimony in the letter to the Dardanians, as it was published in fuller form from the most excellent collection 14, the Avellana, and is read in vol. V of the Councils, Venice edition, p. 333: Let them hear, he says, Anatolius, bishop of that same see, confessing that it was the clergy of Constantinople rather than himself who had attempted such things, and saying that the whole was placed in the power of the apostolic prelate.

(i) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 1083

Alias post epist. 103. Quae autem antea erat 133, nunc 164. Scripta paulo post 3 April. an. 454.

Elsewhere after Letter 103. The one that was formerly 133 is now 164. Written a little after 3 April, in the year 454.

(j) ‹EPISTOLA CXXXIII› · printed under col 1084

Duplex hujus epistolae a Proterio Graece scriptae Latina versio exstitit. Alia vetustior Leonis tempore translata ab interprete Latini sermonis minus perito, cujus fragmentum recitatur ab Hadriano I, in epistola 97, ad episcopos Hispaniae, et a Quesnello in observationibus exhibetur; altera est haec, quam esse Dionysii Exigui, cujus meminit Sigebertus in Catalogo scriptorum ecclesiasticorum c. 27; immo ipse Dionysius in praefatione ad Cyclum Paschalem, ubi eam a se translatam eidem operi subjecisse testatur, illud evidenter evincit, quod ei quidem Cyclo subjecta in codicibus inventa est. Istam ex Sirmondiano ms. ediderunt Petavius in append. operis de Doctr. temp. tom. II; Aegidius Bucherius in Comment. ad Victorii Canonem Paschalem pag. 82, et accuratius P. Labbeus in Conciliis. Quesnellus ad Oxoniensem codicem eamdem relegit. Tandem Joannes Guillelmus Janus in Historia Cycli Dionysiani edit. Vittemberg. an. 1718, pag. 95, emendatiorem recusit ex tribus Dionysii codd. Bodleiano, Cottoniano, et Digbaeano, e quibus multum profecimus. Agitur in hac epistola de die Paschatis anni 455, et scripta fuit post Pascha anni 454, indictione septima; nam c. 3, Pascha, de quo quaerebatur, solemnitas futura, et c. 1, octava indictio ejusdem Paschatis indictio futura vocatur. Igitur post diem 4 Aprilis septimae indictionis, in quem inciderat Pascha anni 454, scripta fuit; cumque illam jam recepisset die 29 Maii ex epist. 136, c. 1, palam fit inter diem 4 Aprilis, et 29 Maii an. 454 fuisse exaratam; et, ut congruum tempus detur transmissioni ejusdem Romam ex Aegypto, paulo post diem 4 Aprilis.

Of this letter, written in Greek by Proterius, there existed a twofold Latin version. One, older, was translated in Leo's time by an interpreter not very skilled in the Latin language; a fragment of it is quoted by Hadrian I in Letter 97, to the bishops of Spain, and is shown by Quesnel in his observations. The other is this one, which is that of Dionysius Exiguus, mentioned by Sigebert in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, ch. 27; indeed Dionysius himself, in the preface to his Easter Cycle, where he testifies that he translated it and appended it to that same work, clearly proves it, since it is found in the manuscripts appended to that Cycle. It was published from the Sirmond manuscript by Petau in the appendix of his work De doctrina temporum, vol. II; by Gilles Boucher in his Commentary on the Easter Canon of Victorius, p. 82; and more accurately by Fr. Labbe in the Councils. Quesnel read it again against the Oxford manuscript. Finally Johann Wilhelm Jan, in his History of the Dionysian Cycle, Wittenberg edition, 1718, p. 95, reprinted it in a more correct form from three manuscripts of Dionysius, the Bodleian, the Cottonian and the Digby, from which we have profited much. This letter deals with the day of Easter of the year 455, and it was written after Easter of the year 454, in the seventh indiction; for in ch. 3 the Easter in question is called the coming solemnity, and in ch. 1 the eighth indiction, that of the same Easter, is called the coming indiction. It was therefore written after 4 April of the seventh indiction, on which Easter of the year 454 had fallen; and since he had already received it on 29 May, from Letter 136, ch. 1, it becomes clear that it was composed between 4 April and 29 May of the year 454; and, to allow a suitable time for its conveyance from Egypt to Rome, a little after 4 April.

(k) ‹Marcianus litteris› · printed under col 1084

Janus, nuper ad nos; et post pauca, Domino praestante.

Jan, nuper ad nos; and a little after, Domino praestante.

(a) ‹sed quia› · printed under col 1085

Vid. epist. 121, c. 2; epist. 127, c. 2; et epist. 131. c. 1.

See Letter 121, ch. 2; Letter 127, ch. 2; and Letter 131, ch. 1.

(b) ‹scripta tuae› · printed under col 1085

Ms. Oxon., fraternitatis; et postea teneret pro contineret.

The Oxford manuscript, fraternitatis; and afterwards teneret for contineret.

(c) ‹tempore, quo› · printed under col 1085

Hoc Leonis commonitorium ad Proterium de Paschate ann. 455 desideratur.

This memorandum of Leo to Proterius about the Easter of the year 455 is lost.

(d) ‹habuerim, nunc› · printed under col 1085

Legalium librorum nomine videtur intelligere libros legis Moysis, in quibus primum Pascha praeceptum fuit, et ascriptum primo mensi, qui et Novorum vocatur, luna 14.

By the name of the books of the Law he seems to mean the books of the law of Moses, in which the Pasch was first commanded and assigned to the first month, which is also called the month of New Corn, on the 14th moon.

(e) ‹nunc antiquorum› · printed under col 1085

M. Cotton., dicta instituta. Melius cod. Oxon., docta instituta. Intelligere videtur Cyclos et monumenta paschalia antiquiora centenario Theophili Laterculo seu cursu, de quo sane paulo post testatur: Qui antiquorum paginis omnino concordat.

The Cottonian manuscript, dicta instituta. Better the Oxford manuscript, docta instituta. He seems to mean the cycles and paschal records older than Theophilus's hundred-year table or cycle, of which indeed he testifies a little later: Which agrees entirely with the pages of the ancients.

(f) ‹beatissimo patre et› · printed under col 1085

Janus, coepiscopo nostro Theophilo, omnemque decurrens.

Jan, coepiscopo nostro Theophilo, omnemque decurrens.

(g) ‹reprehendere› · printed under col 1085

In mss. Oxon. voces ac vituperare omittuntur.

In the Oxford manuscript the words ac vituperare are omitted.

(h) ‹tua sanctitas› · printed under col 1085

Mss. Cotton. et Digb., scripsit.

The Cottonian and Digby manuscripts, scripsit.

(i) ‹mendosi codicis› · printed under col 1085

Erat in editis, aut scriptoris librarii. Quesnellus notavit haec omnia deesse in ms. Oxon. Solam vocem scriptoris, quae abundat, auctoritate trium codicum Jani delevimus.

In the printed editions there was aut scriptoris librarii. Quesnel noted that all this is missing in the Oxford manuscript. We have deleted only the word scriptoris, which is superfluous, on the authority of Jan's three manuscripts.

(j) ‹propterea nos› · printed under col 1085

Codd. Cotton. et Digb., oportet. In Theophili Laterculo ac Alexandrinorum computatione Pascha anni 455 statuebatur VIII kal. Maii; ex Leonis autem sententia, qui errorem in eo Laterculo irrepsisse putabat, transferendum erat pascha in diem XV kal. ejusdem mensis, ut Latinis videbatur.

The Cottonian and Digby manuscripts, oportet. In Theophilus's table and in the Alexandrians' computation, Easter of the year 455 was fixed on the eighth day before the Kalends of May; but in the opinion of Leo, who thought an error had crept into that table, Easter was to be moved to the fifteenth day before the Kalends of the same month, as seemed right to the Latins.

(k) ‹festivitatis transferre,› · printed under col 1085, running on under col 1086

Edit ex Sirmondianis schedis, quod abiit. Quesnellus ex ms. Oxon. et Janus ex tribus suis codd. emendarunt.

Published from Sirmond's papers, quod abiit. Quesnel from the Oxford manuscript and Jan from his three manuscripts emended it.

(l) ‹quod absit.› · printed under col 1086

Ita legendum cum Jano ex ms. Cotton., pro celebratur, quod erat in aliis editis.

So it is to be read, with Jan, from the Cottonian manuscript, instead of celebratur, which was in the other printed editions.

(m) ‹patris nostri et› · printed under col 1086

Editio Jani, coepiscopi.

Jan's edition, coepiscopi.

(n) ‹atque Oriens universus,› · printed under col 1086

Cod. Digb., sic ipsius diei celebraturi auctoritatem sumus.

The Digby manuscript, sic ipsius diei celebraturi auctoritatem sumus.

(k) continued from col 1085, set in n1085

(l), (m), (n) printed under this column; their calls are in col 1085, set in n1085

(o) ‹Ut autem non› · printed under col 1086

Arbitremur passive hic sumitur pro existimemur, uti passive pariter sumitur a Coelio apud Priscianum lib. VIII, et ab Ulpiano D. II, 7, 12.

Arbitremur is taken here passively for existimemur, as it is likewise taken passively by Caelius in Priscian, book VIII, and by Ulpian, Digest II, 7, 12.

(p) ‹inseruimus› · printed under col 1086

Particula etiam ex Jani editione et mss. inserta est. Mox forte deest in ms. Oxon., et spernere pro reprehendere.

The particle etiam has been inserted from Jan's edition and the manuscripts. Next, forte is missing in the Oxford manuscript, and [it has] spernere for reprehendere.

(q) ‹homo fieri,› · printed under col 1086

Ita ex ms. Oxon, et tribus codd. Jani, pro quinta feria, ut erat in editis.

So from the Oxford manuscript and Jan's three manuscripts, instead of quinta feria, as it was in the printed editions.

(r) ‹traditur, et› · printed under col 1086

Voces sequenti die absunt a ms. Oxon.

The words sequenti die are absent from the Oxford manuscript.

(s) ‹vespere sabbati lucescente› · printed under col 1086

Apud Labbeum Dominus pro Dominico, perperam. Respiciuntur illa Evangelii: Vespere autem sabbati, quae lucescit in prima sabbati, id est Dominica, qua Christus resurrexit.

In Labbe, Dominus for Dominico, wrongly. The reference is to those words of the Gospel: But at evening on the sabbath, which dawns on the first day of the week, that is, the Lord's day, on which Christ rose again.

(t) ‹plenilunium› · printed under col 1086

Ita Bucherius, et ms. Oxon., ac Janus ex cod. Digb. rectius quam in aliis, editis super occurrerit, et paulo post, tolletur, quae sensum plane perturbant.

So Boucher and the Oxford manuscript, and Jan from the Digby manuscript, more correctly than in the others, the printed editions: super occurrerit, and a little later tolletur, which plainly disturb the sense.

(u) ‹sabbato, luna XIII› · printed under col 1086, running on under col 1087

Duas Proterius rationes affert quibus eo casu quo luna 14 incidit in Dominicam, Pascha celebrari nequeat ipsa die Dominica luna 14, sed differendum sit in Dominicam sequentem, 1° quia tunc paschale festum celebrari nequit, 2° quia pridie, sabbato, luna 13, jejunium solvere non licet. Has easdem rationes, quas Proterius interum urget c. 5 eodem scopo in simili controversia jam diu ante proluerant etiam Ambrosius in epistola ad episcopos per Aemiliam constitutos, ac Theophilus Alexandrinus in Prologo Paschali agentes de Paschate an. 387. Ex horum autem testimoniis colligitur totam earum rationum vim ad jejunium revocari, ita ut sensus sit paschale festum non posse die Dominica luna 14 celebrari, eo quod nec junare liceat ea die luna 14, nec liceat antepaschale jejunium solvere seu terminare luna 13. Si nimirum celebrandum esset paschale festum luna 14 cum incidit in Dominicam, hac eadem luna jejunium esset servandum, et solvendum solum in vespere, ut lex praecipiebat; sicque jejunandum esset die Dominico, quod tamen omnino faciendum non est, ne cum Manichaeis Dominica jejunantibus consentiamus. Si vero ob evitandam hanc cum Manicaehis similitudinem non jejunemus ipso Dominico die luna 14, quo Pascha celebrandum putemus, jejunium antepaschale cogemur solvere, seu terminare die sabbati praecedentis luna 13, quod tamen ex veteris legis praeceptione ante decimam quartam lunam, qua agnus paschalis comedendus erat, solvi seu terminari nequit. Vide c. 5 hujus epistolae. Igitur ut declinetur utrumque, paschale festum in Dominicam sequentem protrahendum est.

Proterius brings forward two reasons why, in the case where the 14th moon falls on a Sunday, Easter cannot be celebrated on that Sunday, the 14th moon, but must be deferred to the following Sunday: first, because the paschal feast cannot be celebrated then; second, because it is not lawful to break the fast on the day before, the sabbath, the 13th moon. These same reasons, which Proterius presses again [interum as printed] in ch. 5, had long before been put forward [proluerant as printed] to the same end in a similar controversy by Ambrose too, in the letter to the bishops established throughout Aemilia, and by Theophilus of Alexandria in the Paschal Prologue, both dealing with the Easter of the year 387. From their testimonies it is gathered that the whole force of those reasons comes back to the fast, so that the sense is that the paschal feast cannot be celebrated on a Sunday, the 14th moon, because it is neither lawful to fast [junare as printed] on that day, the 14th moon, nor lawful to break or end the pre-paschal fast on the 13th moon. For if the paschal feast had to be celebrated on the 14th moon when it falls on a Sunday, the fast would have to be kept on that same moon and broken only in the evening, as the law prescribed; and so one would have to fast on the Lord's day, which, however, is by no means to be done, lest we agree with the Manichaeans, who fast on Sunday. But if, to avoid this likeness to the Manichaeans, we do not fast on the Sunday itself, the 14th moon, on which we think Easter is to be celebrated, we shall be forced to break or end the pre-paschal fast on the preceding sabbath, the 13th moon, which, however, by the precept of the old law cannot be broken or ended before the fourteenth moon, on which the paschal lamb was to be eaten. See ch. 5 of this letter. Therefore, to avoid both, the paschal feast must be put off to the following Sunday.

(u) continued from col 1086, set in n1086

(a) ‹differendum est.› · printed under col 1087

Ms. Oxon., Maxime quod; et paulo post perperam, 14 lunam pro 15. Indicatur autem intra eam septimanam sequentem haberi lunam 15, qua Christus passus est, quaeque in hypothesi lunae 14 concurrentis cum die Dominica, in feriam secundam incidit; et similiter intra eam septimanam haberi lunam 17, qua Christus resurrexit, quaeque in feriam quartam eadem in hypothesi incurrit. Hoc autem argumento, quo pariter usi fuerant S. Ambrosius ac Theophilus, Proterius insinuare nititur. Paschatis dilationem in Dominicam sequentem esse licitam, quia in eadem septimana per ejusmodi dilationem lunares dies passionis et resurrectionis Christi comprehenduntur, quos utrosque subsequi sane potest dies Paschatis, praecedere autem non potest. Haec probe statuebantur in supputatione Alexandrinorum, in qua dies XV kal. Maii anni 455 concurrebat cum luna 14 die Dominico, non vero in Latinorum supputatione, quibus alio cyclo utentibus dies XV kal. Maii eo anno incidebat in lunam 17, ut annot 27 (Infra. n. e) explicabimus. Quare totum hoc Proterii argumentum, pro Alexandrinis quid⟨d⟩am congruum, Romanos movere non poterat.

The Oxford manuscript, Maxime quod; and a little later, wrongly, 14 lunam for 15. It is indicated that within that following week there is the 15th moon, on which Christ suffered, and which, on the hypothesis of the 14th moon coinciding with a Sunday, falls on the second weekday; and likewise that within that week there is the 17th moon, on which Christ rose again, and which on the same hypothesis falls on the fourth weekday. By this argument, which St Ambrose and Theophilus had likewise used, Proterius tries to suggest: that the deferment of Easter to the following Sunday is lawful, because within that same week, through such a deferment, the lunar days of Christ's passion and resurrection are included, both of which the day of Easter may indeed follow but may not precede. These things were rightly laid down in the reckoning of the Alexandrians, in which the fifteenth day before the Kalends of May of the year 455 coincided with the 14th moon on a Sunday, but not in the reckoning of the Latins, for whom, using another cycle, the fifteenth day before the Kalends of May in that year fell on the 17th moon, as we shall explain in note 27 (below, n. e). Therefore this whole argument of Proterius, somewhat suited to the Alexandrians, could not move the Romans.

(b) ‹sequenti› · printed under col 1087

Particulam vero adjecimus et per eam planiorem sensum reddidimus, ope mss. Cotton. et Digb.

We have added the particle vero, and by it made the sense plainer, with the help of the Cottonian and Digby manuscripts.

(c) ‹sabbati lucessente› · printed under col 1087

Vox dominico abest a ms. Oxon. Vide annot. 20 (Col. 1086, n. s).

The word dominico is absent from the Oxford manuscript. See note 20 (col. 1086, n. s).

(d) ‹XXII die› · printed under col 1087

Editi ante Janum hic inserit vocem Dominico quae in codd. Cotton. et Digb. abest, et abundabat.

The editions before Jan insert here the word Dominico, which is absent in the Cottonian and Digby manuscripts and was superfluous.

(e) ‹kalendas Maias,› · printed under col 1088

Ita ex Jano reposuimus pro occurrerit, uti etiam contextus postulat. Indictione autem 8 an. 452, luna 14 occurrebat quidem XV kal. Maii ex Alexandrinorum supputatione, non vero apud Romanos, qui eo die habebant lunam 17. Tantum vero discrimen inter Alexandrinos et Romanos ex diverso cyclo, et ex lunae saltibus diversimode constitutis oriebatur. Cum enim illi ex suo cyclo decemnovennali decimo nono quoque anno saltum lunae admitterent, isti vero ex cyclo annnorum 84 olim quidem duodecimo quoque anno, postremum vero anno quolibet decimo quarto eumdem saltum receperint, successu temporis evenit ut aetas lunae an. 455 triduo discreparet, et Romanis XV kal. Maii esset luna 17, quae Alexandrinis erat 14. Hinc Romanis ea dies apta erat Paschati, quae si apud ipsos fuisset luna 14, uti erat apud Alexandrinos, non solum ex Alexandrinorum, verum etiam ex Romanorum regulis paschalis esse non potuisset. Mirum vero accidit Proterium non advertisse hanc lunae aetatem apud Romanos diversam, quam satis indicaverat S. Cyrillus in Prologo Paschali, quamque si ille pariter observasset, deprehendisset suum argumentum soli lunae 14 innixum exindenutare, nisi in alia lunae aetate statuenda Romanos errare docuisset.

So we have restored from Jan, instead of occurrerit, as the context also requires. In the 8th indiction, the year 452 [as printed], the 14th moon did indeed fall on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of May by the reckoning of the Alexandrians, but not among the Romans, who had the 17th moon on that day. So great a difference between the Alexandrians and the Romans arose from their different cycles and from the leaps of the moon being placed in different ways. For while the former, by their nineteen-year cycle, admitted the moon's leap every nineteenth year, the latter, by the cycle of 84 years, formerly took the same leap every twelfth year, but latterly every fourteenth year; so in the course of time it came about that the age of the moon in the year 455 differed by three days, and for the Romans the fifteenth day before the Kalends of May was the 17th moon, which for the Alexandrians was the 14th. Hence that day was suitable for Easter for the Romans, whereas if it had been the 14th moon among them, as it was among the Alexandrians, it could not have been paschal, not only by the rules of the Alexandrians but also by those of the Romans. It is surprising that Proterius did not notice this different age of the moon among the Romans, which St Cyril had sufficiently indicated in his Paschal Prologue; and if he had likewise observed it, he would have perceived that his argument, resting on the 14th moon alone, wavered from that point, unless he had shown that the Romans erred in fixing a different age of the moon.

(e) printed under this column; its call is in col 1087, set in n1087

(f) ‹festivitas, sicut in› · printed under col 1088

Alexandrini aera Diocletianea utebantur, quae incipit anno aerae vulgaris 284, unde annus aerae Diocletiani 89 fuit annus aerae vulgaris 373, et annus aerae Diocletianae 93 fuit annus aerae vulgaris 377. Haec autem duo exempla S. Ambrosius in eumdem finem attulerat pro statuendo die Paschatis an. 387 qui fuit annus aerae Diocletiani 103. Licet enim is Latinus esset et Latinae Mediolanensis Ecclesiae episcopus, non tamen Romanorum, sed Alexandrinorum cyclo, mensibus aeraque utebatur, ut ex epistola ad Aemiliae episcopos liquet.

The Alexandrians used the era of Diocletian, which begins in the year 284 of the common era; hence the year 89 of the era of Diocletian was the year 373 of the common era, and the year 93 of the Diocletian era was the year 377 of the common era. St Ambrose had adduced these two examples to the same end for fixing the day of Easter in the year 387, which was the year 103 of the era of Diocletian. For although he was a Latin and bishop of the Latin Church of Milan, he used not the cycle, months and era of the Romans but those of the Alexandrians, as is clear from the letter to the bishops of Aemilia.

(g) ‹patre nostro et episcopo› · printed under col 1088

Editi, Anastasio. Quesnellus emendavit ex codice Oxon. Janus vero ex mss. Bodl. et Digb. Confer illius notam, ubi Athanasium in Paschate anni 315 adhuc superstitem ex hoc testimonio ad fidem unius codicis emendato, cui nunc duo alii codices accedunt, optime colligit, idque nos confirmavimus lib. I Observationum in Hist. Pelagianam card. Norisii c. 2, n. 3, auctoritate anonymi Athanasiani, qui postea ex antiquissimo ms. 57 capituli Veronensis a Marchione Scipione Maffeio editus fuit in append. Hist. Theolog. pag. 269.

The printed editions, Anastasio. Quesnel emended it from the Oxford manuscript, and Jan from the Bodleian and Digby manuscripts. Compare Quesnel's note, where from this testimony, emended on the authority of one manuscript, to which two other manuscripts are now added, he very well gathers that Athanasius was still alive at the Easter of the year 315 [sic; probably 373]; and we confirmed this in book I of the Observations on Cardinal Noris's History of Pelagianism, ch. 2, n. 3, on the authority of the anonymous Athanasian writer, who was afterwards published from the very ancient manuscript 57 of the chapter of Verona by the Marchese Scipione Maffei in the appendix to the Historia Theologica, p. 269.

(h) ‹die XXVIII mensis› · printed under col 1088

Pro Phamenoth editi Phaminoth. Ms. Oxon., Parmothi.

For Phamenoth the printed editions have Phaminoth. The Oxford manuscript, Parmothi.

(i) ‹die Dominico,› · printed under col 1088

Idem ms., in subsequentem Dominicam translatum est Pascha, ita ut pridie kal. Aprilium, etc. Et paulo post, in sequentem item Dominicam pro in sequentem item septimanam. QUESN.

The same manuscript, in subsequentem Dominicam translatum est Pascha, ita ut pridie kal. Aprilium, etc. And a little later, in sequentem item Dominicam for in sequentem item septimanam. QUESNEL.

(a) ‹constat esse celebratum› · printed under col 1089

Haec verba, propter angustiam temporis imminentem, et cap. sequenti, propter apprehendentem angustiam, (quibus concinunt illa Theophili in Prologo Paschali, propter intercurrentem necessitatem), indicant quod si luna 14 tam sero concurrat cum xiv vel xv kal. Maii die Dominico, cum Pascha ea lunae aetate celebrari nequeat, et differendum sit in Dominicam sequentem, propter ejusmodi angustias atque necessitatem ultimus paschalis Latinorum limes, qui figebatur die 22 Aprilis, servari non possit, et Pascha in diem 24 vel 25 Aprilis, transferendum sit.

These words, "because of the pressing narrowness of the time", and in the following chapter, "because of the narrowness that presses upon us" (with which agree those words of Theophilus in the Paschal Prologue, "because of the intervening necessity"), indicate that if the moon 14 coincides so late with a Sunday on the fourteenth or fifteenth day before the kalends of May, since the Pasch cannot be celebrated at that age of the moon and must be postponed to the following Sunday, then because of such narrowness and necessity the last paschal limit of the Latins, which was fixed at 22 April, cannot be kept, and the Pasch must be moved to 24 or 25 April.

(b) ‹qui est xiv kalend. Maiar.› · printed under col 1089

Mss. Bodl. et Digb., occurrit. Sermo est de Paschate anni 444, quod priori controversiae sub pontificatu ipsius Leonis occasionem dedit.

The Bodleian and Digby manuscripts, occurrit. He is speaking of the Pasch of the year 444, which gave occasion to the earlier controversy under the pontificate of Leo himself.

(c) ‹qui est ix kalend. Maiar.› · printed under col 1089

Nos pro tunc ex Jano praetulimus. Caeterum etiam S. Leo Paschasini litteris acquiescens, eadem die Pascha celebravit, ut ex integro Chronico Prosperi didicimus.

We have preferred nos to tunc, following Janus. Moreover St. Leo too, acquiescing in the letter of Paschasinus, celebrated the Pasch on the same day, as we have learned from the complete Chronicle of Prosper.

(d) ‹Necesse est igitur et› · printed under col 1089

Editi ex Sirmondi apographo et cod. Cotton. in cclv anno. Ms. Oxon. et Bodl., in clxv anno; Digb., in cclxv anno. Haec varietas mss. errorem innuit, qui evidens fit ex quaestione Paschatis an. 455, de qua hic sermo est. Annus enim 455 aerae vulgaris est annus aerae Diocletiani clxxi, unde textum sine ulla dubitatione correximus, ut sane corrigendum eruditi omnes cognoverunt.

The editions from Sirmond's copy, and the Cotton manuscript, in cclv anno. The Oxford and Bodleian manuscripts, in clxv anno; Digby, in cclxv anno. This variety among the manuscripts points to an error, which becomes evident from the question of the Pasch of the year 455, which is spoken of here. For the year 455 of the common era is the year 171 of the era of Diocletian; hence we have corrected the text without any hesitation, as all the learned have recognized that it must indeed be corrected.

(e) printed under this column; its call is in col 1090, set in n1090. (f) printed under this column (running on under col 1090); its call is in col 1090, set in n1090.

(e) ‹quando crucifixus est› · printed under col 1089

Ex editione et mss. Jani supplevimus vocem Dominus.

From the edition and manuscripts of Janus we have supplied the word Dominus.

(f) ‹quod et in futuro› · printed under col 1089, running on under col 1090

Editi ex Sirmondo, cclxv anno. Mss. Oxon. et Bodl., cclxvii anno. Alius codex S. Augendi, quem in emendationibus citat Bucherius, cclviii anno. Correximus eadem ratione, quam indicavimus annot. 35 (Supra, n. d) cum Auctor loquatur de Paschate anni 482, qui convenit cum anno aerae Diocletiani cxcviii. Janus forte ex suis codd. omisit particulam et ante verba in futuro.

The editions from Sirmond, cclxv anno. The Oxford and Bodleian manuscripts, cclxvii anno. Another manuscript, of St. Eugendus, which Bucherius cites in his emendations, cclviii anno. We have corrected it for the same reason that we indicated in note 35 (above, n. d), since the Author is speaking of the Pasch of the year 482, which corresponds to the year 198 of the era of Diocletian. Janus perhaps omitted the particle et before the words in futuro on the authority of his manuscripts.

(g) ‹Dominicum Pascha› · printed under col 1090

Editi et mss., 28 die Pharmuti, perperam; nam hic dies respondet diei ix kal. Maiarum, ut ipse Proterius cap. antecedenti testatur; ac proinde correctio tutissima est, quam alii margini ascribendam scrupulosius censuere.

The editions and manuscripts, 28 die Pharmuti, wrongly; for this day corresponds to the ninth day before the kalends of May, as Proterius himself testifies in the preceding chapter; and therefore the correction is entirely safe, which others, too scrupulously, judged should be written in the margin.

(h) ‹computi forsitan ignorantes› · printed under col 1090

Ex his et sequentibus, quae de Judaeis traduntur, colligendum videtur Judaeorum supputationem Romanis favisse, quos tamen aeque errasse Auctor pronuntiat.

From these and the following statements made about the Jews, it seems one must infer that the reckoning of the Jews favoured the Romans, whom nevertheless the Author declares to have erred equally.

(i) ‹aestimabunt nos› · printed under col 1090

Haec eadem objectio facta Alexandrinis fuit a Romanis etiam an. 387, cum illi similiter diem Paschatis integra hebdomada post Latinos statuebant, ut ex Ambrosii epistola ad episcopos Aemiliae, ac ex Theophili Prologo Paschali manifestum est; ejusdemque objectionis meminit etiam Cyrillus in Prologo. Quo autem sensu Latini contenderent Alexandrinos celebrare Pascha mense secundo, cum istud in heddomadem protenderent, Proterius indicat capite sequenti in quod vide annot. 47 (Infra, col. 1091, n. d).

This same objection was made to the Alexandrians by the Romans in the year 387 also, when they likewise fixed the day of the Pasch a whole week after the Latins, as is plain from Ambrose's letter to the bishops of Aemilia and from the Paschal Prologue of Theophilus; and Cyril too mentions the same objection in his Prologue. In what sense the Latins contended that the Alexandrians celebrated the Pasch in the second month, when they extended it into [the following] week, Proterius indicates in the following chapter, on which see note 47 (below, col. 1091, n. d).

(j) ‹Nescio prorsus unde hoc› · printed under col 1090

Forte, asserant, vel aliquid desideratur. Mox voces mensis Pharmuti perperam desunt in ms. Oxon.

Perhaps asserant, or something is missing. Shortly after, the words mensis Pharmuti are wrongly missing in the Oxford manuscript.

(k) ‹quomodo querelam sustinebimus› · printed under col 1090

Ita ex editione Jani; al., quia. In sequentibus objectionem in Latinos retorquet, quasi ipsi non tam secundo quam duodecimo mense Pascha celebrent, cum Judaeorum more Pascha celebrant eo mense qui Alexandrinis embolismalis est, ut annot. sequenti explicabimus.

So from the edition of Janus; others, quia. In what follows he turns the objection back upon the Latins, as though they themselves celebrate the Pasch not so much in the second month as in the twelfth, since after the manner of the Jews they celebrate the Pasch in that month which for the Alexandrians is the embolismic one, as we shall explain in the next note.

(l) ‹duodecimo mense Pascha› · printed under col 1090, running on under col 1091

Pronomen se hic additum in plerisque mss. et omnibus editis, excepto Petavio, delevimus auctoritate ms. Cotton., sensu quoque exigente: nam verbum arbitrantur non active sumitur, sed passive pro existimantur, ut supra, cap. 2. Vide annot. 16 (Col. 1086, n. o). Neque enim Judaei umquam arbitrati sunt celebrare Pascha mense 12, sed ita celebrare ab aliis aliquatenus credebantur. Id autem accidit cum Judaei annum faciebant communem, qui Alexandrinis erat embolismalis. Tunc nimirum Judaei celebrabant Pascha mense quidem ipsis primo, sed Alexandrinis qui rectius embolismum admittebant, ultimo, ac proinde ex istorum sententia recedebant a mense primo in lege constituto. Mensis autem embolismalis antecedens mensem primum, licet additus in fine anni praecedentis mensium duodecim, decimus tertius mensis reipsa fuerit, accensebatur tamen a Judaeis mensi duodecimo, eodemque nomine Hebraice appellatus cum 12 mense, quasi alte mensis 12 pro duodecimo mense aliquatenus habebatur.

The pronoun se, added here in most manuscripts and in all the editions except Petau, we have deleted on the authority of the Cotton manuscript, the sense also requiring it: for the verb arbitrantur is not taken actively but passively, for existimantur, as above, chap. 2. See note 16 (col. 1086, n. o). For the Jews never thought that they celebrated the Pasch in month 12, but they were believed by others to celebrate it so in some measure. This happened when the Jews made a common year which for the Alexandrians was embolismic. Then, to be sure, the Jews celebrated the Pasch in the month that was the first for them, but for the Alexandrians, who admitted the embolism more correctly, in the last; and therefore in these men's view they withdrew from the first month appointed in the Law. For the embolismic month preceding the first month, although, being added at the end of the preceding year of twelve months, it was in reality a thirteenth month, was nevertheless reckoned by the Jews with the twelfth month, and, being called by the same name in Hebrew as the 12th month, as a second [printed alte] month 12, it was held in some measure for the twelfth month.

(l) continued from col 1090, set in n1090.

(a) ‹cyclum decemnovennalem› · printed under col 1091

Voces certius affigentes innuunt Christianos Patres cyclum decemnovennalem melius ordinasse quam Judaei; ac proinde Judaeis tribuere videtur eumdem cyclum, in quo embolismos ac decimas quartas paschales lunas aliter et indiligentius annotaverant, indoctis ducti rationibus, et decepti ficta et falsa prudentia exterorum, hoc est, Graecorum ethnicorum, qui etiam decemnovennalem cyclum adhibebant. Mox verba violari impossibile est desunt in ms. Oxon. Et post pauca Janus omittit vocem eumdem.

The words certius affigentes imply that the Christian Fathers ordered the nineteen-year cycle better than the Jews; and so he seems to attribute the same cycle to the Jews, in which they had noted the embolisms and the paschal fourteenth moons otherwise and less carefully, led by unlearned reasonings and deceived by the feigned and false wisdom of outsiders, that is, of the pagan Greeks, who also used a nineteen-year cycle. Shortly after, the words violari impossibile est are missing in the Oxford manuscript. And a little later Janus omits the word eumdem.

(b) ‹nunc indoctas atque ineptas› · printed under col 1091

Forte, rationes, inquit Bucherius. Dein sed gratia Spiritus sancti in ms. Bodl.

Perhaps rationes, says Bucherius. Then sed gratia Spiritus sancti in the Bodleian manuscript.

(c) ‹decemnovennalis circuli› · printed under col 1091

Lunae tantum 14 paschalis diem in decemnovennali Alexandrinorum cyclo quovis anno notatum indicat. Et licet ex luna paschali 14 facile esset Dominicas paschales colligere, non tamen hae in eo cyclo designabantur, eo quod in revolutione annorum 19 ipsius cycli non ita redirent ad caput paschales Dominicae, sicut redibant lunae decimae quartae. Id in cyclo Romanorum ann. 84 accidebat, qui proinde cyclus erat Dominicarum paschalium, ubi ille erat cyclus lunarum paschalium 14.

He indicates that only the day of the paschal moon 14 was marked for each year in the nineteen-year cycle of the Alexandrians. And although it was easy to derive the paschal Sundays from the paschal moon 14, these were nevertheless not marked in that cycle, because in the revolution of the 19 years of the cycle the paschal Sundays did not return to the head as the fourteenth moons returned. That happened in the Romans' cycle of 84 years, which was therefore a cycle of paschal Sundays, whereas the former was a cycle of paschal moons 14.

(d) ‹quod errent nimium› · printed under col 1091, running on under col 1092

Proterius hic respondere nititur objectioni antecedenti capite propositae, qua Romani opponebant Alexandrinos ex suo cyclo Pascha anni 455 rejicere in mensem secundum, eo quod istud festum celebrarent post diem 21 Aprilis, qui Romanis extremus limes erat Dominicarum paschalium; ac si extremus Dominicarum paschalium limes esset dies ultimus mensis primi. Infert vero eos hac ratione primum mensem inchoare a xii kal. Aprilis, id est, a die 21 Martii, in quem incidit aequinoctium vernum. Id autem ex eo probat erroneum, quia initium primi mensis, qui lunaris est, et juxta lunae cursum computari debet, non est sumendus a die certo aequinoctii verni, sed a cursu lunae, quae cum suum cursum tum annuum tum menstruum citius quam sol absolvat, initium primi mensis non potest certo diei cursus solaris affigi, sed per singulos annos cycli decemnovennalis variet necesse est. Cum porro luna 14 primi mensis hoc anno ex Alexandrinorum supputatione incideret in diem xv kal. Maiarum, sequebatur neomeniam paschalem ac proinde initium primi mensis occurrere pridie non. Aprilis. Hinc dies viii kal. Maii, cui iidem pascha assignabant erat luna 21 seu dies 21 primi mensis, ut ne hoc festum in secundum mensem rejicere dici possent. Lunam autem 14 in eumdem diem xv kal. Maiarum cadere Proterius nullibi probat, ut superius annot. 27 (Col. 1088, n. e) monuimus, sed ex solo cyclo decemnovennali certum praesumit. Monendum praeterea est Victorium Aquitanum in Prologo Paschali aliter ex Latinorum sententia primi mensis initium statuere. Latini namque, inquit, a iii non. Martii usque ad iii nonas Aprilis, diebus scilicet 29 observandum maxime consueverunt, ut quocumque eorum die luna fuerit nata, efficiat primi mensis initium. Igitur primi mensis initium non ab aequinoctio verno, ut illis Proterius tribuit, sumebant, sed Proterius id cum Alexandrinis ex Latinorum objectionibus et ratiociniis collegit. Enimvero haud intelligi potest Alexandrinos rejicientes Pascha anni 455 a die xv kal. Maii, ut Romani volebant, in diem viii kal., seu a die 17 Aprilis in diem 24, ex Romanorum sententia transire in secundum mensem, si Leonis tempore primum mensem incoepissent, ut Victorius postea exposuit, a neomenio paschali. Cum enim haec incidisset apud Romanos in diem primam Aprilis, dies vigesima quarta ejusdem mensis, iu quem Alexandrini Pascha prorogabant, excedebat quidem limitem Dominicarum paschalium Romanorum; at cum esset dies Lunae apud Latinos 24, primi mensis limites non praeteribat, ita ut in secundum mensem a neomenia sequenti inchoandum transiret. Igitur hoc tempore Romani non a neomenia lunae paschalis, sed post ultimum Dominicarum paschalium terminum secundum mensem inchoasse videntur, ac proinde eosdem mensem primum ab aequinoctio verno exorsos Proterius non male argumentatus credi potest. In ms. quidem auctiore Chronici Prosperi, quod Bucherius allegat pag. 89, ad annum 455 haec leguntur, quae in editione Labbei desunt: In quo (Paschate scilicet cum Latinis celebrando die 17 Aprilis) nec in ratione plenilunii, nec in primi mensis limite fuisset erratum; ubi primi mensis limitem pro limite Dominicarum paschalium Auctor videtur accipere.

Proterius here tries to answer the objection set out in the preceding chapter, by which the Romans charged that the Alexandrians, following their cycle, threw the Pasch of the year 455 into the second month, because they celebrated this feast after 21 April, which for the Romans was the extreme limit of the paschal Sundays; as though the extreme limit of the paschal Sundays were the last day of the first month. He infers, indeed, that by this reasoning they begin the first month from the twelfth day before the kalends of April, that is, from 21 March, on which the spring equinox falls. And he proves this erroneous from the fact that the beginning of the first month, which is lunar and must be reckoned according to the course of the moon, is not to be taken from a fixed day of the spring equinox but from the course of the moon; and since the moon completes both its yearly and its monthly course more quickly than the sun, the beginning of the first month cannot be fixed to a set day of the solar course, but must vary in each year of the nineteen-year cycle. Further, since by the Alexandrians' reckoning the moon 14 of the first month fell this year on the fifteenth day before the kalends of May, it followed that the paschal new moon, and so the beginning of the first month, fell on the day before the nones of April. Hence the eighth day before the kalends of May, to which they assigned the Pasch, was moon 21, or day 21 of the first month, so that they could not be said to throw this feast into the second month. But Proterius nowhere proves that moon 14 fell on that same fifteenth day before the kalends of May, as we noted above in note 27 (col. 1088, n. e), but presumes it certain from the nineteen-year cycle alone. It must be noted besides that Victorius of Aquitaine, in his Paschal Prologue, sets the beginning of the first month differently, according to the view of the Latins. For the Latins, he says, have been most accustomed to observe from the third day before the nones of March to the third day before the nones of April, that is, 29 days, so that on whichever of these days the moon has been born, it makes the beginning of the first month. Therefore they did not take the beginning of the first month from the spring equinox, as Proterius attributes to them; but Proterius, with the Alexandrians, inferred this from the Latins' objections and reasonings. Indeed it cannot be understood how the Alexandrians, moving the Pasch of the year 455 from the fifteenth day before the kalends of May, as the Romans wished, to the eighth, that is, from 17 April to the 24th, would in the Romans' view pass into the second month, if in Leo's time they had begun the first month, as Victorius later set out, from the paschal new moon. For since this fell among the Romans on the first day of April, the twenty-fourth day of the same month, to which the Alexandrians postponed the Pasch, did indeed exceed the Romans' limit for the paschal Sundays; but since among the Latins it was the 24th day of the moon, it did not pass the limits of the first month, so as to pass into the second month, to be begun from the following new moon. Therefore at this time the Romans seem to have begun the second month not from the new moon of the paschal moon but after the last limit of the paschal Sundays, and consequently Proterius may be believed to have argued not badly that they began the first month from the spring equinox. Indeed in the fuller manuscript of Prosper's Chronicle, which Bucherius cites on p. 89, the following is read at the year 455, which is missing in Labbe's edition: In which (namely the Pasch, if it had been celebrated with the Latins on 17 April) there would have been no error either in the reckoning of the full moon or in the limit of the first month; where the Author seems to take the limit of the first month for the limit of the paschal Sundays.

(e) ‹qui hoc invenire› · printed under col 1092

Ita cum Jano. Alias, voluerunt.

So with Janus. Elsewhere, voluerunt.

(d) continued from col 1091, set in n1091.

(e) printed under this column; its call is in col 1091, set in n1091.

(a) ‹cum lunam tunc xxi› · printed under col 1093

Jani editio, indubitate.

Janus's edition, indubitate.

(b) ‹id est xv kal. Maiar.› · printed under col 1093

Eadem Jani editio omittit die.

The same edition of Janus omits die.

(c) ‹per octavam indictionem Pascha› · printed under col 1093

Ita correximus ex ms. Digb. Al., peragimus. Mox idem codex habet scripta pro scripsi.

So we have corrected from the Digby manuscript. Others, peragimus. Shortly after, the same manuscript has scripta for scripsi.

(d) ‹Sic namque et› · printed under col 1093

Ita Janus cum mss. Bodl. et Digb., quibus concinit Oxonien., praedecessores. Caeteri editi, praecursores. Cod. Bodl., pro nostri, habet mei.

So Janus with the Bodleian and Digby manuscripts; the Oxford manuscript agrees with them, praedecessores. The other editions, praecursores. The Bodleian manuscript has mei for nostri.

(e) ‹ut ubique consonanter ageretur› · printed under col 1093

Janus, sancta.

Janus, sancta.

(f) ‹juxta priscam consuetudinem› · printed under col 1093

Ita Janus ex suis, ut credimus, mss., cui concinunt alii antiquiores editi, qui solum omittunt conjunctionem et ante voces unam solemnitatem. Apud Quesn., debemus in Domino praedicare in Ecclesiis, sicut unam fidem, unum baptisma, ita unam solemnitatem sacratissimam paschalem ab omnibus Christianis ubique celebrari; in quibus celebrari cum verbo debemus non satis cohaeret.

So Janus from his manuscripts, as we believe, with whom the other older editions agree, which only omit the conjunction et before the words unam solemnitatem. In Quesnel, debemus in Domino praedicare in Ecclesiis, sicut unam fidem, unum baptisma, ita unam solemnitatem sacratissimam paschalem ab omnibus Christianis ubique celebrari; in which celebrari does not agree well enough with the verb debemus.

(g) ‹ne forte Graecizantes potius› · printed under col 1093

Magis placuit haec lectio Jani, cui ejus codd. suffragantur, nec non editio Petavii, quam lectio Bucheriana et Quesnelliana, apud vos; agitur enim de his Graecizantibus apud Proterium, quos, cum timeret ne valerent exacte exprimere sermone Latino, noluit hanc epistolam Latine reddere. Mox apud Labbeum et Quesnellum intra parenthesim (nec enim jam valemus haec diligenter exprimere alii vero editi, nec enim jam valentes, etc. quae sensum turbant. Janum sequi maluimus.

This reading of Janus, which his manuscripts support, as does Petau's edition, pleased us more than the reading of Bucherius and Quesnel, apud vos; for it concerns those Greek-speakers in Proterius's company whom he feared would not be able to express it exactly in the Latin tongue, and so he was unwilling to render this letter into Latin. Shortly after, in Labbe and Quesnel, within a parenthesis (nec enim jam valemus haec diligenter exprimere; the other editions, nec enim jam valentes, etc., which disturb the sense. We have preferred to follow Janus.

(h) printed under this column; its call is in col 1094, set in n1094. (i) printed under this column; its call is in col 1094, set in n1094. (j) printed under this column (running on under col 1094); its call is in col 1094, set in n1094.