Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹EPISTOLA› (printed CXLVII, for CXLVIII) · printed under col 1117

Alias 122. Scripta 1 Septemb. an. 457.

Otherwise 122. Written 1 September in the year 457.

(b) ‹AD LEONEM AUGUSTUM (call before the caption)› · printed under col 1117

Edita olim fuit ex mss. collect. 12. In Ratisp. eamdem invenimus.

It was formerly edited from the manuscripts of collection 12. We have found it in the Ratisbon manuscript.

(c) ‹clementiam vestram› (before gemina) · printed under col 1117

Nimirum epistolam gratulatoriam pro assumptione Leonis ad imperium, quae desideratur, et epistolam 145 datam V idus Julias.

Namely, the letter of congratulation on Leo's accession to the empire, which is lost, and Letter 145, given on the fifth day before the Ides of July.

(d) ‹impleret,› (before aliud) · printed under col 1118

Ratisp.. et aliud.

The Ratisbon manuscript: "et aliud".

(e) ‹supplicaret,› (before tamen) · printed under col 1118

Idem Ratisp., etiam hac tamen occasione.

The same Ratisbon manuscript: "etiam hac tamen occasione".

(f) ‹cujusquam preces› (before constituendo) · printed under col 1118

Vide annot. 11 (Col. 1114, n. l) in epist. 145.

See annotation 11 (col. 1114, note l) on Letter 145.

SYNOPSIS. — Gaudet Augustum synodi Chalcedonensis esse custodem, et ab eodem pertinacem et insidiosam haereticorum contentionem compesci postulat.

SYNOPSIS. — He rejoices that the Augustus is the guardian of the synod of Chalcedon, and asks that the obstinate and insidious contention of the heretics be restrained by him.

(d) printed under this column; its call is in col 1117, set in n1117. (e) printed under this column; its call is in col 1117, set in n1117. (f) printed under this column; its call is in col 1117, set in n1117.

(g) ‹ut profiteremini› (before in totius) · printed under col 1118

Sic ex mss. Veneto S. Marci collect. 12, et Ratisp. Al., ad totius.... custodem.

So from the manuscripts, the Venetian one of St Mark of collection 12, and the Ratisbon. Otherwise, "ad totius.... custodem".

(h) ‹contentio illico› (before conquiescit) · printed under col 1118

Ita iidem codices Al., conquiescet.

So the same manuscripts. Otherwise, "conquiescet".

ADMONITIO IN DUAS SEQUENTES EPISTOLAS.

ADMONITION ON THE TWO FOLLOWING LETTERS.

1. Quesnellus in codice Grimanico duas sequentes epistolas distinctas reperit, alteram Basilio Antiocheno, alteram Euxitheo Thessalonicensi et Juvenali Jerosolymitano inscriptam. In codice vero Ratisponensi una tantum profertur, sed cum inscriptione: Leo episcopus Basilio, Juvenali, Euxitheo, Petro, et Lucae episcopis. Hi duo postremi, ut ex codice encyclio discimus, sunt Petrus Corinthius et Lucas Dyrrachenus, ad quos pariter eamdem epistolam directam agnoscimus. Post primam periodum solius Basilii Antiocheni propriam, in eodem codice notatur: Usque huc Basilio; ex quo monemur, sequentia. Cognitis quae apud Alexandriam, etc., ad Basilium aeque ac ad caeteros in inscriptione nominatos scripta fuisse a pari. Haec Ratisponensis codicis inscriptio atque notatio maxime congruit cum iis quae S. Leo scribit epist. 153: Placuit etiam nobis ut ad metropolitanos episcopos generales litteras mitteremus, quae animum eorum firment et roborent... De quibus epistolis unam ad Antiochenum, alteram ad Jerosolymitanum... dirigetis. Nos autem ad Illyrios episcopos similia jam scripta transmisimus. Hic tria similis epistolae exempla indicantur, ad Basilium Antiochenum, ad Juvenalem Jerosolymitanum, et ad Illyricos episcopos, id est ad Euxitheum Thessalonicensem, Petrum Corinthium, et Lucam Dyrrachenum, qui accuratius in inscriptione nostri codicis Ratisponensis nominantur. Ex Grimanico vero codice illud elicimus, in exemplo epistolae 150 ad Euxitheum caeterosque metropolitas Illyrici postremae periodo insertas fuisse voces per Illyricum: quae cum Juvenali Jerosolymitano nequaquam conveniant, in epistola ad eumdem certissime defuerunt, et idcirco Juvenalis nomen in inscriptione ejusdem epistolae delendum credidimus.

1. Quesnel found in the Grimani manuscript the two following letters as distinct letters, one addressed to Basil of Antioch, the other to Euxitheus of Thessalonica and Juvenal of Jerusalem. But in the Ratisbon manuscript only one is presented, yet with the address: "Bishop Leo to Bishops Basil, Juvenal, Euxitheus, Peter and Luke." These last two, as we learn from the Codex Encyclius, are Peter of Corinth and Luke of Dyrrachium, to whom we recognize that the same letter was likewise directed. After the first period, which belongs to Basil of Antioch alone, it is noted in the same manuscript: "Thus far to Basil"; from which we are advised that what follows, "Cognitis quae apud Alexandriam", etc., was written in like terms to Basil as well as to the others named in the address. This address and notation of the Ratisbon manuscript agree very well with what St Leo writes in Letter 153: "It has also pleased us to send general letters to the metropolitan bishops, to strengthen and fortify their minds... Of which letters you will direct one to the bishop of Antioch, another to the bishop of Jerusalem... We ourselves have already sent similar letters to the bishops of Illyricum." Here three copies of a similar letter are indicated: to Basil of Antioch, to Juvenal of Jerusalem, and to the bishops of Illyricum, that is, to Euxitheus of Thessalonica, Peter of Corinth and Luke of Dyrrachium, who are named more accurately in the address of our Ratisbon manuscript. From the Grimani manuscript, however, we gather that in the copy of Letter 150 to Euxitheus and the other metropolitans of Illyricum the words "per Illyricum" were inserted in the last period: and since these in no way fit Juvenal of Jerusalem, they were most certainly absent from the letter to him, and therefore we have judged that Juvenal's name should be deleted from the address of that letter.

2. Eaedem duae epistolae suspectae fidei fuerunt Pagio ad an. 457, n. 7, sicut etiam epistola 153, ob imploratum auxilium Patricii Asparis, quae duo nomina separatim posita in epist. 149 et 150 pro duabus personis accepit, primum filii, alterum patris, cum tamen unum Hasparem significent, qui patricii dignitate ornabatur, unde in epist. 153 Patricius Aspar vocatur. Cum vero Aspar esset Arianus, incredibile visum est Pagio S. pontificem ab Ariano opem postulasse contra Eutychianos et contra Timotheum Aelurum, cujus patrocinium Aspar susceperat. Sed cum Leo imperator Patricio Aspari imperium deberet, necessarium fuit ad eum confugere qui summam apud principem auctoritatem obtinebat, ut vel faveret vel non obsisteret. Cum vero olim catholicis adversus Eutychianos favisset, adeo ut apud Marcianum intercesserit pro Theodoreto, qui gratias illi reddidit epist. 139, S. pontifex fortassis ex insinuatione Anatolii vel Aetii ad eumdem scribens, auxilium aliquod sperare se posse existimavit. Timothei patrocinium non statim initio detectum fuerat vel saltem spes erat fore ut Leonis litteris et officiis moveretur, uti eadem spe S. Leo scripsit ad imperatorem Theodosium, licet eum et Eutychi et latrocinio Ephesino patrocinari sciret. Stylus certe ac totus rerum complexus Leonem refert, ut idem Pagius negare non potuit. Pelagii etiam II epistola 3 ad Eliam et caeteros episcopos Istriae, ubi ex sequenti epistola duo testimonia recitat, de ipsius authenticitate dubitare non sinit. Duorum vero ac tam insignium diversae originis codicum, Grimanici et Ratisponensis, auctoritas ita Patricii et Asparis nomina vindicant, ut commentitium plane sit haec nomina pro aliorum magnatum nominibus his litteris inserta suspicari, ut laudatus Pagius in fine suae annotationis conjecit: cum praesertim Patricii nomen in alia epistola 151, quam ex Ratisponensi edemus, similiter legatur.

2. These same two letters were of doubtful authenticity to Pagi, on the year 457, no. 7, as was Letter 153 too, because of the help sought from Patricius Aspar; he took these two names, placed separately in Letters 149 and 150, for two persons, the first the son, the other the father, although they signify one Aspar, who was adorned with the dignity of patrician, whence in Letter 153 he is called Patricius Aspar. And since Aspar was an Arian, it seemed incredible to Pagi that the holy pontiff should have asked help from an Arian against the Eutychians and against Timothy Aelurus, whose patronage Aspar had undertaken. But since the emperor Leo owed his empire to Patricius Aspar, it was necessary to have recourse to the man who held the highest authority with the prince, so that he might either favour or not resist. And since he had formerly favoured the catholics against the Eutychians, so far as to intercede with Marcian for Theodoret, who thanked him in Letter 139, the holy pontiff, writing to him perhaps at the suggestion of Anatolius or Aetius, thought he could hope for some help. His patronage of Timothy had not been detected at the very beginning, or at least there was hope that he would be moved by Leo's letters and good offices, just as St Leo with the same hope wrote to the emperor Theodosius, although he knew that he protected both Eutyches and the Robber Synod of Ephesus. Certainly the style and the whole compass of the matter recall Leo, as the same Pagi could not deny. The third letter of Pelagius II, too, to Elias and the other bishops of Istria, where he cites two testimonies from the following letter, does not allow its authenticity to be doubted. Moreover, the authority of two manuscripts so notable and of different origin, the Grimani and the Ratisbon, so vindicates the names of Patricius and Aspar that it is plainly a fiction to suspect that these names were inserted in this letter in place of the names of other magnates, as the said Pagi conjectured at the end of his annotation: especially since the name of Patricius is read likewise in another letter, 151, which we shall edit from the Ratisbon manuscript.

3. Harum epistolarum tempus apud Quesnellum ex Grimanico codice signatum errore manifesto laborat. Cum enim in textu allegato ex epist. 153 Leo Aetio commiserit ut epistolam ad Basilium Antiochenum dirigeret, haec proculdubio una cum ipsis ad Aetium litteris transmissa fuit, ac proinde eodem die ex Leonis more signata, nimirum kalendis Septembris. Praeterea ex eadem ad Aetium epistola discimus alias litteras simul missas fuisse ad imperatorem, ad Asparem et alios. Habemus autem epistolam 148 ad imperatorem Leonem, epist. 151 ad Anatolium, et 152 ad Julianum; cumque hae omnes kal: Septembris notentur, nihil dubium est quin duae etiam sequentes eadem die signatae fuerint, uti sane ex Ratisponensi emendavimus.

3. The date of these letters in Quesnel, marked from the Grimani manuscript, suffers from a manifest error. For since in the passage cited from Letter 153 Leo entrusted Aetius with directing the letter to Basil of Antioch, this was without doubt sent together with the letter to Aetius itself, and therefore, according to Leo's custom, signed on the same day, namely on the Kalends of September. Moreover, from the same letter to Aetius we learn that other letters were sent at the same time to the emperor, to Aspar and to others. And we have Letter 148 to the emperor Leo, Letter 151 to Anatolius and 152 to Julian; and since all these are dated on the Kalends of September, there is no doubt that the two following letters also were signed on the same day, as indeed we have corrected them from the Ratisbon manuscript.

(a) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 1119

Alias 118. Scripta 1 Sept. an. 457.

Formerly 118. Written 1 September in the year 457.

(b) ‹provincialium episcoporum› · printed under col 1119

Ratisp. cod. debueram. Mos erat Ecclesiarum Orientis ad Romanum pontificem ordinationem episcoporum majorum sedium referre per litteras ordinati et ordinatorum ejus, ut patet inter caetera ex epist. 53 Anatolii ad Leonem, ex epist. 71, 86, c. 3; epistola vero 171, c. 2, necessarie et ex more id factum traditur. Vide etiam epist. 172 et 173. Hic Basilius in Maximi locum vivo adhuc Marciano subrogatus fuerat. Si voces, quem novimus, Basilium Leoni jam antea cognitum indicant, forte hic est ille Basilius diaconus qui Marciani Augusti et Anatolii litteras ad pontificem attulit an. 452. Vide epist. 104 et 106.

The Regensburg manuscript has debueram. It was the custom of the Churches of the East to report the ordination of the bishops of the greater sees to the Roman pontiff by letters of the one ordained and of those who ordained him, as appears, among other things, from letter 53, of Anatolius to Leo, and from letters 71 and 86, ch. 3; and in letter 171, ch. 2, this is said to have been done necessarily and according to custom. See also letters 172 and 173. This Basil had been substituted in the place of Maximus while Marcian was still alive. If the words "whom we know" indicate that Basil was already known to Leo before, perhaps this is that Basil the deacon who brought the letters of Marcian Augustus and of Anatolius to the pontiff in the year 452. See letters 104 and 106.

(c) ‹quaeque fraternitati› · printed under col 1119

Ita Ratisp. et cohaerentius sequentibus, dilectionem vestram, diligentiae vestrae, etc. Quesn. ex Grim., tuae.

So the Regensburg manuscript, and more consistently with what follows, "your Beloved", "your diligence", etc. Quesnel, from the Grimani manuscript, has tuae.

(d) ‹ne in quoquam› · printed under col 1119

Pelagius II, epist, 3 ad episcopos Istriae, c. 5, hoc Leonis testimonium recitans legit nostra.

Pelagius II, letter 3, to the bishops of Istria, ch. 5, quoting this testimony of Leo, reads nostra.

(e) printed under this column; its call is in col 1120, set in n1120. (f) printed under this column; its call is in col 1120, set in n1120. (g) printed under this column; its call is in col 1120, set in n1120. (h) printed under this column; its call is in col 1120, set in n1120.

SYNOPSIS. — I Praemissa de non misso ordinationis nuntio querela, hortatur ut resistat Eutychianorum furori, qui caeso apud Alexandriam Proterio episcopo, synodum novam, posthabita Chalcedonensi, instaurari poscebant. — II. Leone imper. laudato, omnia in episcoporum constantia posita esse asserit, ne novi tractatus ineantur.

SYNOPSIS. — I. Having first complained that no notice of the ordination was sent, he urges him to resist the fury of the Eutychians, who, after the bishop Proterius had been slain at Alexandria, were demanding that a new synod be set up and the Chalcedonian set aside. — II. Having praised the emperor Leo, he asserts that everything rests on the constancy of the bishops, so that no new proceedings be entered upon.

(e) ‹vocaretur episcopale› · printed under col 1119

Sic non solum cod. Ratisp., sed etiam Grim., Cacciario teste. Quesnellus ex arbitrio edidit judicium. Novum concilium initio imperator volebat. Facundo teste lib. XII, c. 2, sperans fore ut hac via Eutychianos revocaret. In id institisse etiam Eutychianos ex hoc loco discimus. At S. Leo pontifex ne id fieret institit et obtinuit.

So reads not only the Regensburg manuscript but also the Grimani, on Cacciari's testimony. Quesnel at his own discretion printed judicium. The emperor at first wanted a new council, on the testimony of Facundus, book XII, ch. 2, hoping that by this way he would recall the Eutychians. That the Eutychians too pressed for it we learn from this passage. But the pontiff St Leo pressed that it should not be done, and prevailed.

(f) ‹mysterium subruatur› · printed under col 1119

Sequentia refert Pelagius II.

Pelagius II quotes what follows.

(g) ‹obsecro dilectionem› · printed under col 1119

Apud Pelagium loco citato, tuam, et post pauca, animum.

In Pelagius, at the place cited, tuam, and a little after, animum.

(h) ‹imperator et vir› · printed under col 1119

Ratisp., praecipuus Patricius. Est Patricius Aspar, de quo in admonit. n. 2. Forte praecipuus dictus fuit, ut hoc communi nomine inter alios patricios distingueretur Aspar, qui tum apud Augustum summa auctoritate potiebatur.

The Regensburg manuscript has praecipuus Patricius. The Patrician is Aspar, of whom see the admonition, no. 2. Perhaps he was called "chief" so that by this common name Aspar, who then held the highest authority with the Augustus, might be distinguished among the other patricians.

(i) ‹in nullo viderint fluctuare› · printed under col 1120

Haec referunt Pelagius et Vigilius.

Pelagius and Vigilius quote these words.

(j) ‹Ut autem› · printed under col 1120

Hoc testimonium recitant et laudatus Pelagius II. loco allegato, et Vigilius in Constituto dato pridie idus Maii an. 553, qui postremus per errorem ad Anatolium Constantinopolitanum episcopum pro ad Basilium Antiochenum hanc epistolam scriptam prodit, et in fine post verbum convellatur addit quasi uno contextu, et quae ex divina sunt inspiratione composita, ulla (lege nulla) patiamini novitate temerari: quae verba in antecedentibus leguntur. Utrique autem hi pontifices habent exhortatio; Ratisp., cohortatio.

This testimony is quoted both by the Pelagius II already praised, at the place adduced, and by Vigilius in the Constitutum given on the day before the ides of May in the year 553; the latter by mistake presents this letter as written to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, instead of to Basil of Antioch, and at the end, after the word convellatur, adds as though in one context, et quae ex divina sunt inspiratione composita, ulla (read nulla) patiamini novitate temerari: words that are read in what precedes. Both these pontiffs have exhortatio; the Regensburg manuscript, cohortatio.

(k) ‹notitiam pervenire› · printed under col 1120

Quesnellus in margine ex Vigilio, diligens fraternitatis cura. At in editione Concil. tom. V, pag. 1356, apud Vigilium legitur, diligentiae vestrae cura perficiat. Pelagius vero, diligenter vestrae fraternitatis cura perspiciat. Post pauca in Ratisp., convellitur.

Quesnel in the margin, from Vigilius, has diligens fraternitatis cura. But in the edition of the Councils, vol. V, p. 1356, one reads in Vigilius diligentiae vestrae cura perficiat. Pelagius, however, has diligenter vestrae fraternitatis cura perspiciat. A little after, the Regensburg manuscript has convellitur.

(l) ‹Datum› · printed under col 1120

Ita codex Ratisp. Male in Vulg. ex Grim. decimo kal. Sept. Vide admonit. num. 3.

So the Regensburg manuscript. Wrongly in the common editions, from the Grimani manuscript, decimo kal. Sept. See the admonition, no. 3.

(m) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 1120

Alias 119. Scripta 1 Septemb. an. 457.

Formerly 119. Written 1 September in the year 457.

(n) ‹AD EUXITHEUM› · printed under col 1120 (the call stands before the address line)

Quesnellus ex Grimanico solum addidit, et Juvenalem Jerosolymorum. Duos alios episcopos eruimus ex cod. Ratisp. Vide Admonitionem antecedenti epistolae praemissam num. 1, ubi etiam monuimus hanc epistolam in Ratisp. a praecedenti non separari, ut in Grimanico factum fuit: quia tota in praecedenti epistola continetur. Duae solae voces per Illiricum postremae periodo insertae in hac epistola leguntur, quae desunt in praecedenti. Ex his autem vocibus cognoscimus hoc fuisse exemplum epistolae ad Illyricianos missae, non vero ad Juvenalem, ad quem Illyricum nihil pertinet; unde hujus nomen ab inscriptione quam dedit Quesnellus expunximus.

Quesnel, from the Grimani manuscript, added only et Juvenalem Jerosolymorum. We have brought out two other bishops from the Regensburg manuscript. See the Admonition placed before the preceding letter, no. 1, where we also noted that in the Regensburg manuscript this letter is not separated from the preceding one, as was done in the Grimani, because it is wholly contained in the preceding letter. Only two words, per Illiricum, inserted in the last period, are read in this letter which are lacking in the preceding one. From these words we recognize that this was the copy of the letter sent to the Illyrians, and not to Juvenal, to whom Illyricum has no relation; hence we have struck out his name from the inscription that Quesnel gave.

SYNOPSIS. — Hortatur ut sceleratis ausibus Eutychianorum, qui Proterium Alex. episc. occiderant, strenue resistant; nec patiantur synodum alteram congregari; sed sua Chalcedonensi firmitas asseratur.

SYNOPSIS. — He urges them to resist strenuously the criminal attempts of the Eutychians, who had killed Proterius, bishop of Alexandria; and not to suffer another synod to be assembled, but that its firmness be asserted for the Chalcedonian.