Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹EPISTOLA CLXVI› · printed under col 1191

Alias 135. Scripta 24 Octob. an 458.

Elsewhere 135. Written 24 October, in the year 458.

(b) ‹in diversarum› · printed under col 1191

Vat. Hisp. et Isid. cum mss. collect. 11 et 21, et caeteris ejusdem originis, ambiguis.

The Vatican Spanish and Isidorian, with the manuscripts of collections 11 and 21 and the others of the same origin, ambiguis.

(c) ‹Spiritu Dei› · printed under col 1191

Utrique Hisp. et Vat. Isid., instruentes. Exemplum Sichardi, instituente.

Both Spanish [manuscripts] and the Vatican Isidorian, instruentes. Sichard's copy, instituente.

(d) printed under this column, and (e) begun under it; their calls are in col 1192, set in n1192.

fuerit ex antiquissimis diptychis quae in quibusque Ecclesiis jamdiu custodita fuere, nisi quid omnino evidens cogat, retinendus est. Tempus autem et gesta singulis episcopis ascripta, cum ex diptychis, in quibus sola episcoporum nomina describebantur, sumi nequiverint, ex auctorum medii aevi arbitrio, vel etiam ex vulgatis quibusdam praejudiciis pendent, quae in rebus antiquis minimi habenda sunt. Hinc plures fabellae ejusmodi catalogis inveniuntur nonnumquam insertae, quae eruditorum calculis reprobantur; et alia incerta vel contradictoria identidem deteguntur, cum certiora antiqua monumenta in lucem prodeunt. Id cum exploratum sit in catalogis aliarum Ecclesiarum, tum praesertim in Ravennatibus evidentissimum probavimus lib. II Observationum in sacra cardinalis Norisii opera cap. 7, num. 3, tom. IV, pag. 915, ubi etiam ostendimus pugnantibus episcoporum ordine, et rebus ac tempore episcopis tributis, satius esse de errore in rebus ac tempore perperam ascriptis, quam in episcoporum ordine suspicari.

[…] from the most ancient diptychs which were kept for a long time in each of the Churches, is to be retained, unless something wholly evident compels [otherwise]. But the time and deeds ascribed to the individual bishops, since they could not be taken from the diptychs, in which only the names of the bishops were written, depend on the arbitrary judgement of the authors of the Middle Ages, or even on certain popular preconceptions, which in matters of antiquity are to be given the least weight. Hence a number of tales of this kind are sometimes found inserted in catalogues, which are rejected by the verdicts of the learned; and other uncertain or contradictory things are discovered from time to time, when more certain ancient monuments come to light. Since this is established in the catalogues of other Churches, we proved it to be most evident especially in those of Ravenna in book II of the Observations on the sacred works of Cardinal Noris, chap. 7, no. 3, vol. IV, p. 915, where we also showed that, when the order of the bishops conflicts with the deeds and time attributed to the bishops, it is better to suspect an error in the deeds and time wrongly ascribed than in the order of the bishops.

4. Ordo episcoporum Ravennatum hujus aevi in Agnello et reliquis antiquis Ecclesiae Ravennatis scriptoribus hic est: Ursus, Petrus, Neo, Exuperantius, Joannes, Petrus. Cum autem Joanni tribuant privilegium Valentiniani III, secundo Petro hujus successori ascribunt quae de S. Petro Chrysologo certa sunt. His vero obstant tria monumenta posterius edita: primum epistola Leonis ad Neonem, quae episcopo Petri Chrysologi successori congruit; secundum epistola Simplicii papae ad Joannem episcopum Ravennatem, qui post Petrum et Neonem eam sedem obtinuit; tertium synodi Romanae sub Symmacho, in quibus alius Petrus Ravennas subscriptus invenitur. Haec animadvertens P. Bacchinius, ut triplicem nodum solveret, ad duo confugit. Primo suspicatus est Leonis epistolam non ad Neonem Ravennatem missam, sed ad Ravennium Arelatensem, cui aliae ejusdem pontificis epistolae per hoc tempus datae fuerunt; cum de Galliis vastatis ab Attila constet, et de captivis inde deductis, qui ad patriam rediere, ut in hac epistola traditur. Dein ut duobus aliis monumentis satisfaceret, duos episcopos laudatis catalogis adjiciendos credidit, nimirum alterum Joannem, qui sub Simplicio, et tertium Petrum, qui sub Symmacho vixerit; ac si Agnellus et alii veterum catalogorum scriptores in Joanne Angellopte et Petro secundo duos Joannes et duos Petros confuderint. Haec omnino arbitraria inducat oportet, qui de rebus ac temporibus perperam attributis non suspicatur.

4. The order of the bishops of Ravenna of this age in Agnellus and the other ancient writers of the Church of Ravenna is this: Ursus, Peter, Neo, Exuperantius, John, Peter. But while they attribute to John the privilege of Valentinian III, they ascribe to the second Peter, his successor, what is certain about St Peter Chrysologus. Against this, however, stand three monuments published later: first, the letter of Leo to Neo, which fits a bishop who succeeded Peter Chrysologus; second, the letter of Pope Simplicius to John, bishop of Ravenna, who held that see after Peter and Neo; third, the synods of Rome under Symmachus, in which another Peter of Ravenna is found among the signatories. Noticing this, Father Bacchini, in order to untie the threefold knot, had recourse to two [expedients]. First he suspected that Leo's letter was sent not to Neo of Ravenna but to Ravennius of Arles, to whom other letters of the same pontiff were given at this time; since it is established that the Gauls were laid waste by Attila, and there were captives led away from there who returned to their homeland, as is related in this letter. Then, to satisfy the two other monuments, he believed that two bishops should be added to the catalogues cited, namely a second John, who lived under Simplicius, and a third Peter, who lived under Symmachus; as if Agnellus and the other writers of the old catalogues had confused two Johns and two Peters in John Angeloptes and the second Peter. Such wholly arbitrary things must be brought in by anyone who does not suspect [an error] in deeds and times wrongly attributed.

5. Ravennium quidem Arelatensem inscriptioni epistolae Leonis subjicere, contra omnium codicum fidem pugnat. Non solae Galliae vastatae fuerunt ab Attila, sed is in ipsa Italia ad Padum usque pervenit, ultra quod flumen Ravennatis provincia, et pars etiam dioeceseos extendebatur. Quid quod haec epistola ex contextu encyclica videtur ad plures, ut ne peculiaris ratio pro Ravennate requirenda sit? Additio porro duorum episcoporum Joannis et Petri probabilis esset, si nulla alia ratio suppeteret conciliandi omnia. Quando autem in catalogis error aliquis certus est, et sola emendatione rerum ac temporum, quae ex auctorum arbitrio ascititia aut praejudiciis constituta sunt, sanari potest, non est deserendus aut addi⟨t⟩ionibus perturbandus episcoporum ordo, qui ex antiquissimis diptychis originem duxit. Hac regula satis evidenti, quae in aliis aliarum Ecclesiarum catalogis perutilis invenietur, deteges in re praesenti totam difficultatem et confusionem a catalogis inductam ex eo proficisci, quod ex duobus Petris Ravennatibus ascripta fuerint secundo, quae primo adjudicanda fuerant; ita enim anteriorem aetatem Neoni et caeteris tribuerunt. Hic autem error si corrigatur, et primus Petrus, non autem secundus credatur S. Petrus Chrysologus, statim omnia sanata optime congruere invenientur. Ille enim is erit qui celebres ad Eutychem litteras dedit. Huic deinde successit Neo, ad quem S. Pontifex sequentem epistolam scripsit. Dein post Exuperantium Neonis successorem Joannes sub Simplicio, et tandem alius Petrus sub Symmacho optime sequuntur. Si Agnellus et auctores catalogorum veterum haec monumenta vidissent, nihil dubitamus quin ordine episcoporum custodito, eadem monumenta similiter conciliassent, ut Rubeus et Ughellus fecere; sicque vera Neonis aetas ex iisdem confirmaretur. Ignoratio vero monumentorum, quae tunc obtinebat, certae codicum fidei, qui hanc epistolam Neoni Ravennati inscribunt, praejudicare nequit.

5. To put Ravennius of Arles into the inscription of Leo's letter conflicts, to be sure, with the testimony of all the manuscripts. Not only the Gauls were laid waste by Attila, but he came into Italy itself as far as the Po, beyond which river the province of Ravenna, and even part of its diocese, extended. What of the fact that this letter, from its context, seems to be an encyclical to several, so that no reason peculiar to Ravenna need be sought? The addition of two bishops, John and Peter, would be probable if no other means were at hand of reconciling everything. But when some error in the catalogues is certain, and can be cured by the emendation alone of the deeds and times which were adopted by the arbitrary judgement of authors or set up from preconceptions, the order of the bishops, which took its origin from the most ancient diptychs, is not to be abandoned or disturbed by additions. By this quite evident rule, which will be found very useful in other catalogues of other Churches, you will discover that in the present case the whole difficulty and confusion brought in by the catalogues arises from this: that of the two Peters of Ravenna, things were ascribed to the second which should have been assigned to the first; for in this way they attributed an earlier age to Neo and the rest. But if this error is corrected, and the first Peter, not the second, is believed to be St Peter Chrysologus, at once everything will be found healed and in perfect agreement. For he will be the one who gave the celebrated letter to Eutyches. Then Neo succeeded him, to whom the holy pontiff wrote the following letter. Then, after Exuperantius, Neo's successor, John under Simplicius, and finally another Peter under Symmachus, follow most fittingly. Had Agnellus and the authors of the old catalogues seen these monuments, we have no doubt that, keeping the order of the bishops, they would have reconciled the same monuments in the same way, as Rubeus and Ughelli did; and so the true age of Neo would have been confirmed by them. But the ignorance of the monuments that prevailed at that time cannot prejudice the certain testimony of the manuscripts which address this letter to Neo of Ravenna.

Synopsis (Ex collectione Hispanica). — I. De parvulis qui in captivitatem devenerunt, et baptismi gratiam non reminiscuntur. — II. Ut ab haereticis baptizatus, per manus impositionem accipiat Spiritum sanctum.

Synopsis (from the Spanish collection). — I. On little children who went into captivity and do not remember the grace of baptism. — II. That one baptized by heretics should receive the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands.

(d) ‹colligentes; sed› · printed under col 1191

Ita Vulg. cum mss. collect. 24 et exemplis Merlini ac Sichardi. Vindeb. Hisp., nunc per in synodum, quam corruptam lectionem emendavit auctor mss. Hisp. originis Gallicanae sic: Nunc periculosum novum, quae arbitraria et falsa emendatio legitur in Vat. Hisp., Isid. et aliis codd. collectionum, 11, 21, etc., inde profectis, ad quos duo illi a Quesnello allegati in margine referendi sunt.

So the Vulgate [editions], with the manuscripts of collection 24 and the copies of Merlin and Sichard. The Vienna Spanish, nunc per in synodum, a corrupt reading which the author of the Spanish manuscripts of Gallican origin emended thus: Nunc periculosum novum; this arbitrary and false emendation is read in the Vatican Spanish, the Isidorian and other manuscripts of collections 11, 21, etc., derived from there, to which those two cited by Quesnel in the margin are to be referred.

(e) ‹ad sedes suas› · printed under cols 1191–1192

Vulg. ante Quesn. cum mss. collect. 24 et Merlino ac Sichardo, libertatemque redeuntes; et mox, pervenerint.

The Vulgate [editions] before Quesnel, with the manuscripts of collection 24 and Merlin and Sichard, libertatemque redeuntes; and shortly after, pervenerint.

(f) ‹quae nullius rei› · printed under col 1192

Hanc lectionem ex mss. collect. 24 praetulimus; nam et Vindeb. Hisp. huc accedit mendose praeferens, forma poterit. Vulg. ante Quesn. cum Merlino, firmam poterat. Quesnellus vero ferme poterat cum nostris codd. Vat Hisp., Isid. aliisque ejusdem originis; qui codices mox implorant pro implorare.

We have preferred this reading from the manuscripts of collection 24; for the Vienna Spanish also comes close to it, faultily giving forma poterit. The Vulgate [editions] before Quesnel, with Merlin, firmam poterat. Quesnel, however, ferme poterat, with our Vatican Spanish and Isidorian manuscripts and others of the same origin; and these manuscripts shortly after have implorant for implorare.

(g) ‹sed utrum› · printed under col 1192

Ita cum Quesnello tres ipsius codd. ac plures nostri collect. Vat. Hisp., Isid, aliique collect. 11, 21 et 24. Caeterae editiones, ejusdem mysterii ante sacramenta perceperint; cui lectioni, quae inserit ante, favere videtur corrupta lectio Vindeb. Hisp., ejusdem is ter be antes ac sacramenta. Sichardus, ejusdem remedii ante sacramenta.

So, with Quesnel, his three manuscripts and several of ours: the Vatican Spanish, the Isidorian, and others of collections 11, 21 and 24. The other editions, ejusdem mysterii ante sacramenta perceperint; this reading, which inserts ante, seems to be supported by the corrupt reading of the Vienna Spanish, ejusdem is ter be antes ac sacramenta. Sichard, ejusdem remedii ante sacramenta.

(h) ‹sub hoc› · printed under col 1192, running over to the head of the footnotes of col 1193

Retinuimus vulgatam lectionem, quam nonnulli codd. probant; pro qua alii exigua et minus congrua variatione habent latentes vel latenter. Quesnellus ex conjectura correxit jacentes.

We have kept the common reading, which some manuscripts support; in its place others, with a slight and less fitting variation, have latentes or latenter. Quesnel corrected [it] by conjecture to jacentes.

(h) of page 601, continued at the head of the footnotes of this column; its call is in col 1192, set in n1192.

(a) ‹fratrum formido› · printed under col 1193

Ita cum vulg. antiquis plerique codd. Quesn. cum Vat. Hisp., titubaret.

So, with the Vulgate [editions], most of the ancient manuscripts. Quesnel, with the Vatican Spanish, titubaret.

(b) ‹quam diligentius› · printed under col 1193

Idem Vulg. cum Vat. collect. 24, ac exempla Sichardi, discuti, et pro uniuscujusque.

Likewise the Vulgate [editions], with the Vatican [manuscript] of collection 24, and Sichard's copies, discuti, et pro uniuscujusque.

(c) ‹quo ad veritatem› · printed under col 1193

Vindeb. Hisp., ad cognitionem, male. Emendatum in Vat. Hisp. ac Isid., ob cognitionem. Cod. Vat. collect. 24 et Sichardus, adhibita cogitatione. Dein possimus in utrisque Hisp. et Isid.

The Vienna Spanish, ad cognitionem, wrongly. It was emended in the Vatican Spanish and Isidorian to ob cognitionem. The Vatican manuscript of collection 24 and Sichard, adhibita cogitatione. Then possimus in both Spanish [manuscripts] and the Isidorian.

(d) ‹Eadem ergo, quae› · printed under col 1193

Vat. Hisp. et Isid. cum Vat. collect. 11 ac 21, in somnis mihi divina inspiratione, etc.

The Vatican Spanish and Isidorian, with the Vatican [manuscripts] of collections 11 and 21, in somnis mihi divina inspiratione, etc.

(e) ‹speciem quamdam› · printed under col 1193

Utrique codd. Hisp. et Vat. Isid., causationis, minus recte; nam paulo ante praemiserat, dum sub specie cautionis. Mox pro regenerandarum duo codd. Quesnelli, regendarum. Dein suspicionibus in Vindeb. Hisp.

Both Spanish manuscripts and the Vatican Isidorian, causationis, less correctly; for a little before he had said, dum sub specie cautionis. Shortly after, for regenerandarum two of Quesnel's manuscripts have regendarum. Then suspicionibus in the Vienna Spanish.

(f) ‹definiat quod› · printed under col 1193

Utrique Hisp. et Vat. Isid., aliusque collect. 11, Domini manifestatione. Dein pro suspicatur tres codd. est suspicatus.

Both Spanish [manuscripts] and the Vatican Isidorian, and another of collection 11, Domini manifestatione. Then for suspicatur three manuscripts have est suspicatus.

(g) ‹ambigua suspicatur?› · printed under col 1193

De Consecr. dist. 4, Cum itaque baptismi, c. 112.

De Consecratione, distinction 4, Cum itaque baptismi, c. 112.

(h) ‹Cum itaque› · printed under col 1193

Quesnellus cum duobus suis mss. nec non cum Ivon et Gratiano: Cum itaque baptismi sui nihil recordetur. Anteriorum editionum lectionem uti meliorem revocavimus, quam quidem praeferunt mss. collect. 24 cum exemplis Merlini ac Sichardi. Accedit mendosa caeteroquin lectio Vindeb. Hisp.: Cum itaque baptismatum se nihil recordatur, ubi baptismatum pro baptizatum, et se nihil, pro se nec ille per errorem scriptum fuit. Hunc autem errorem auctor exemplarium collectionis Hispanicae originis Gallicanae ex ingenio emendavit, uti Quesnellus edidit ex codicibus qui ex Hispanica Gallicanae originis prodeunt, cujusmodi sunt etiam nostri Vat. Hisp., Isid et Vat. collect. 11 et 21. Sequentia etiam nec alter congruentius exigunt nec ille, quam nihil.

Quesnel, with two of his manuscripts and also with Ivo and Gratian: Cum itaque baptismi sui nihil recordetur. We have restored the reading of the earlier editions as the better one, which indeed the manuscripts of collection 24 give, with the copies of Merlin and Sichard. The otherwise faulty reading of the Vienna Spanish also agrees with it: Cum itaque baptismatum se nihil recordatur, where baptismatum was written in error for baptizatum, and se nihil for se nec ille. This error the author of the copies of the Spanish collection of Gallican origin emended from his own head, as Quesnel published it from the manuscripts which derive from the Spanish [collection] of Gallican origin, of which kind are also our Vatican Spanish, Isidorian, and Vatican [manuscripts] of collections 11 and 21. What follows, too, nec alter, more fittingly requires nec ille than nihil.

(i) ‹attestari de eo possit› · printed under cols 1193–1194

Vulg. ante Quesn. cum exemplis Merlini et Sichardi, quod nesciat. Quesnellus cum nostro Vat. Hisp., qui sciat. Praetulimus lectionem Vindeb. Hisp. et Vat. collect. 11, 21 et 24; hunc enim sensum hic locus habet: Nec alter, qui nesciat consecratum, attestari de eo possit. Coustantius in Vindiciis veterum codd. confirmatis, cap. 12, pag. 413, antiquos libros sic exhibere tradit, qui se nesciat consecratum, ubi qui ad vocem eo revocanda esset. Sed sicut primum relativum qui regenerationis, etc., refertur ad vocem ille, ita secundum qui ad vocem alter aequius referendum est; et idcirco lectionem pluribus codd. approbatam sequendam credidimus. Mox voces nihil est usque ad qui consecratur in Vindeb. Hisp. et Vat. collect. 11 omittuntur per saltum a voce consecratum ad consecratur; et nihilominus praeferunt, qui nesciat consecratum.

The Vulgate [editions] before Quesnel, with the copies of Merlin and Sichard, quod nesciat. Quesnel, with our Vatican Spanish, qui sciat. We have preferred the reading of the Vienna Spanish and of the Vatican [manuscripts] of collections 11, 21 and 24; for this passage has this sense: Nec alter, qui nesciat consecratum, attestari de eo possit. Coustant, in the Vindiciae veterum codicum confirmatae, chap. 12, p. 413, reports that the ancient books show it thus: qui se nesciat consecratum, where qui would have to be referred back to the word eo. But just as the first relative, qui regenerationis, etc., is referred to the word ille, so the second qui is more fairly referred to the word alter; and therefore we have thought the reading approved by more manuscripts should be followed. Shortly after, the words from nihil est to qui consecratur are omitted in the Vienna Spanish and the Vatican [manuscript] of collection 11 by a skip from the word consecratum to consecratur; and nevertheless they give qui nesciat consecratum.

(j) ‹inexpiabile esse facinus, quoties› · printed under col 1194

Ita Vulg. antiqui cum mss. collect. 24 Merlino et Sichardo. Error cod. Vindeb. Hisp. ad hanc lectionem accedit; ibi enim legitur, juxta haereticorum doctrinam a sanctis Patribus instuta, ubi doctrina pro damnat a erronee scriptum fuit. Lectio vero quam recepit Quesnellus, juxta haereticorum dogma, contra sanctorum Patrum instituta, inventa ab eodem in duobus codd. Thuan. et Cantabrig. a nobis pariter inventa est in Vat. Hisp., Isid. aliisque similibus, qui ex codice Hisp. Gallicanae originis proficiscuntur, ubi arbitrarias emendationes obtinuisse pluribus exemplis vidimus. Hujus autem codicis scriptor cum errorem detexisset in voce doctrina, nec occurrerit substituenda vox damnata, plures voces immutavit, ut supra. Codd. collect. 21 mendose, juxta haereticorum dogma a sanctis Patribus institutum. Vide not. 2 et 3 Quesn.

So the ancient Vulgate [editions], with the manuscripts of collection 24, Merlin and Sichard. The error of the Vienna Spanish manuscript comes close to this reading; for there one reads juxta haereticorum doctrinam a sanctis Patribus instuta, where doctrina was written in error for damnat a. The reading which Quesnel adopted, juxta haereticorum dogma, contra sanctorum Patrum instituta, found by him in two manuscripts, those of Thou and Cambridge, has likewise been found by us in the Vatican Spanish, the Isidorian and others like them, which derive from the Spanish manuscript of Gallican origin, in which, as we have seen from several examples, arbitrary emendations prevailed. For the scribe of this manuscript, having detected the error in the word doctrina, and the word damnata to be put in its place not occurring to him, changed several words, as above. The manuscripts of collection 21 faultily have juxta haereticorum dogma a sanctis Patribus institutum. See Quesnel's notes 2 and 3.

(i) continued from under col 1193 at the head of this column's footnotes; its call is in col 1193, set in n1193.

(j) printed under this column; its call is in col 1193, set in n1193.

(k) ‹apostolica reclamante› · printed under col 1194

Quesnellus cum duobus suis mss. et totidem nostris, sententia. Anteriorum editionum lectionem potioribus et pluribus nostris codd. firmatam restituimus.

Quesnel, with two of his manuscripts and as many of ours, sententia. We have restored the reading of the earlier editions, confirmed by the better and more numerous of our manuscripts.

(l) ‹vestigium.› · printed under col 1194

Vide not. 4 Quesn.

See Quesnel's note 4.

(m) ‹ut per› · printed under col 1194

Sic antiquae editiones cum utrisque Hisp. et Vat. Isid. ac exemplis Merlini et Sichardi. Al., episcopalis. Vide not. 5 Quesn., cum qua confer annot. 25 (Col. 1138 n. q) in epist. 159.

So the ancient editions, with both Spanish [manuscripts] and the Vatican Isidorian and the copies of Merlin and Sichard. Others, episcopalis. See Quesnel's note 5, with which compare annotation 25 (col. 1138, n. q) on Letter 159.

(n) ‹ad omnium› · printed under col 1194

Vocem vestrum a Quesnello expunctam revocavimus cum mss. Vat. collect. 24, Merlino ac Sichardo. Dein metuitur pariter restituimus ex iisdem mss., nec non ex Vat. Hisp., Isid. alioque collect. 11. Quesnellus cum aliis codd., metuimus.

We have restored the word vestrum, struck out by Quesnel, with the Vatican manuscripts of collection 24, Merlin and Sichard. Then we have likewise restored metuitur from the same manuscripts, and also from the Vatican Spanish, the Isidorian and another of collection 11. Quesnel, with other manuscripts, metuimus.

(a) printed under this column (continuing under col 1196); its call is in col 1196, set in n1196.

(a) ‹Novembris,› · printed under cols 1195–1196

Vulgati cum codd. collect. 24, Sichardo et Merlino et aliquibus mss. collect. 24, consulatu Marciani Augusti. Quesnellus, not. 1, errorem in hac consulatus notatione latere, et pro Marciani substituendum esse Majoriani optime sensit. At cum non juvarent codices, qui fere chronicam notam omittunt, epistolam quidem huic anno affixit, sed vulgatum Marciani consulatum retinens, notavit in postilla legendum Majoriani. Nos vero Majoriani consulatum inserere non dubitamus, eo quod hic consulatus notetur in Vindebon. Hisp. sic: Dat. VIII kal. Novemb. consulatu Majoriani Augusti. In die signando antiqui librarii unitatem facilius omittere quam addere solent. Quod vero laudatus Quesnellus in notis num. 3 ait numquam ita a Leone positam esse consularem notam consulatu, sed vel consule, vel consulibus, non omnino liquet: nam in epist. 159, ad Nicetam, eamdem formulam invenimus in codice Florentino S. Marci collect. 13, cumque in eadem epistola sigla Cons. praemittatur genitivo Tariani (legendum Majoriani) Augusti in cod. Vat. Dionysii, et similiter praemittatur in aliis Hadrianeis, pro consulatu manifeste accipienda est: ut enim consulem significaret, scribendum fuisset Majoriano Augusto consule.

The Vulgate [editions], with the manuscripts of collection 24, Sichard and Merlin, and some manuscripts of collection 24, consulatu Marciani Augusti. Quesnel, note 1, perceived very well that an error lies hidden in this consular dating, and that Majoriani should be substituted for Marciani. But since the manuscripts, which mostly omit the chronological mark, did not help, he assigned the letter indeed to this year, but, keeping the common consulship of Marcian, noted in a marginal gloss that Majoriani should be read. We, however, do not hesitate to insert the consulship of Majorian, because this consulship is marked thus in the Vienna Spanish [manuscript]: Dat. VIII kal. Novemb. consulatu Majoriani Augusti. In marking the day the ancient copyists are more apt to omit a unit than to add one. As for the statement of the aforesaid Quesnel in his notes, no. 3, that the consular mark was never set down by Leo in this way, consulatu, but either consule or consulibus, this is not altogether clear: for in Letter 159, to Nicetas, we have found the same formula in the Florentine manuscript of St Mark's, collection 13; and since in the same letter the abbreviation Cons. is set before the genitive Tariani (read Majoriani) Augusti in the Vatican manuscript of Dionysius, and is set before it in the same way in other Hadrianic [manuscripts], it must plainly be taken for consulatu: for to signify consul, Majoriano Augusto consule would have had to be written.

ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER.

1. Quesnellus rationibus judicio Tillemontii valde exilibus sequentem epistolam datam prodidit circa an. 442, 443 et 444. Cum Sirmondus atque Baluzius, nullo tamen allato documento, eamdem affixerint anno 452. Quesnellus conjecit hos ita sensisse, eo quod existimaverint in hac epistola, ubi sermo habetur de his qui ab hostibus in infantia capti fuerant, respici ad eam vastitatem quam Hunni in Galliis intulerunt an. 451. Hujus autem epistolae locum non ad Hunnorum irruptionem referri contendit, sed ad Vandalorum persecutionem, qui Africa potiti sub Genserico, catholicos oppugnarunt; nam inquisit. 18, haec praeferuntur: De his qui ex Africa vel de Mauritania venerunt, et nesciunt in qua secta sint baptizati. Tum Vandalica persecutione descripta, quae Christianis illata fuit in Africa post an. 439, hac occasione non nullos in Gallias sese recipisse existimat, de quibus in eadem epistola sermo sit; et idcirco eam datam credit circa annos indicatos 442, 443 et 444, in quibus ea persecutio grassata est.

1. Quesnel, on grounds that in Tillemont's judgement are very slight, declared that the following letter was given about the years 442, 443 and 444. Whereas Sirmond and Baluze, though without adducing any document, assigned it to the year 452. Quesnel conjectured that they thought so because they judged that in this letter, where there is discussion of those who had been captured by enemies in infancy, the reference is to the devastation which the Huns brought upon the Gauls in the year 451. He contends, however, that the passage of this letter refers not to the invasion of the Huns but to the persecution of the Vandals, who, having taken possession of Africa under Genseric, attacked the Catholics; for in inquiry 18 this is set at the head: On those who came from Africa or from Mauretania, and do not know in which sect they were baptized. Then, having described the Vandal persecution which was inflicted on the Christians in Africa after the year 439, he thinks that on this occasion some took refuge in Gaul, of whom the same letter speaks; and therefore he believes that it was given about the years indicated, 442, 443 and 444, in which that persecution raged.

2. Sed primo evidens argumentum proferimus, quo haec epistola ipso quoque anno 445 posterior demonstratur. Hermes, qui Rustici litteras ad Leonem attulit, in inscriptione Narbonensis Ecclesiae a quesnello in notis recusa Diaconus vocatur. Hanc autem inscriptionem idem Quesnellus Pagio astipulante ad an. 445, num. 24 et 25, adversus Baluzium optime interpretatur, et rectissime insculptam probat an. 445. Porro idem Hermes in exordio epistolae Leonis ad Rusticum Archidiaconus dicitur. Haec ergo epistola post eam incriptionem seu post an. 445 exarata fuit, cum Hermes a diaconatu ad archidiaconatum provectus fuisset.

2. But first we bring forward a clear argument by which this letter is shown to be later even than the year 445 itself. Hermes, who brought Rusticus's letter to Leo, is called Deacon in the inscription of the Church of Narbonne reprinted by Quesnel in his notes. This inscription the same Quesnel, with Pagi agreeing at the year 445, nos. 24 and 25, interprets excellently against Baluze, and proves quite rightly that it was carved in the year 445. Now the same Hermes, at the beginning of Leo's letter to Rusticus, is called Archdeacon. This letter, therefore, was written after that inscription, that is, after the year 445, when Hermes had been promoted from the diaconate to the archdiaconate.

3. Dein licet Africana Vandalorum persecutio efferbuerit post an. 439, Mauritania tamen in Romanorum potestate perstitit usque ad Valentiniani mortem, quae incidit in an. 455. Igitur si ii qui de Mauritania in Gallias venerunt, persecutionis causa, ut opinatur Quesnellus, transmisere, id post an. 455 statuendum esset.

3. Next, although the Vandal persecution in Africa blazed up after the year 439, Mauretania nevertheless remained in the power of the Romans until the death of Valentinian, which fell in the year 455. Therefore, if those who came from Mauretania into Gaul crossed over because of persecution, as Quesnel supposes, this would have to be placed after the year 455.

4. Verum ad exsufflandam Quesnelli conjectationem, et ad statuenduem verum tempus hujus epistolae, alia apertiora et luculentiora ex ipsis Rustici Inquisitionibus suppetunt. Non solum enim inquisit. 18 de his qui ex Africa vel de Mauritania venerunt sermo est, sed etiam inquisit. 17 de his qui parvuli ab hostibus capti sunt, et postea ad Romaniam venerint; inquisit. 19 de his qui parvuli... a gentilibus capti... ad Romaniam adhuc juvenes venerint. Esto casus inquisit. 18 ad illos spectet qui ex Africa in Gallias aliqua de causa tempore persecutionis Vandalicae sese receperent, non tamen eodem pertinere queunt casus inquisit. 17 et 19: hic enim indicantur ii qui parvuli ab hostibus, iisque gentilibus capti, et extra Romanum imperium adducti, tandem adhuc juvenes in Romaniam seu in Romanum imperium redierant, ac ex his nonnulli in Narbonensem provinciam, quorum causa inquisitiones a Rustico propositae fuerunt. Non ergo de Africanis persecutionis causa exsulibus vel profugis agitur, nec de Vandalis, qui non gentiles, sed Ariani erant. Hunnos itaque aliosque barbaros gentiles, eosdemque Ramanorum hostes intelligere oportet, qui postquam Gallias depopulati sunt, ex iisdem pueros captivos secum asportarunt. Celebris est autem illorum irruptio in Gallias et in ipsam Narbonensem provinciam, cujus meminit Hieronymus in epistola ad Ageruchiam an. 409. Si autem de parvulis hoc tempore captis fuisset quaestio, circa an. 442 haud scripsisset, ut videtur, Rusticus inquisit 19, quod ad Romaniam adhuc juvenes venerint. Hunni pariter adversus Gothos pugnarunt in Galliis an. 437 et 439. Sed tum auxiliares fuerunt Romanorum, non hostes. De gentibus autem hostibus Rusticus loquitur, et de captivis qui adhuc juvenes ex hostibus in Romaniam redierunt. Aequius igitur intelligitur Hunnorum irruptio in Gallias an. 451, cum non auxiliares, sed hostes adversus Aetium Romanorum ducem dimicarunt. Si vero de parvulis hoc bello captis inquisitiones Rustici accipiendae credantur, ut congruum tempus relinquatur quo iidem parvuli a gentibus capti juvenes in patriam remeaverint, haec epistola affigi nequit an. 452.

4. But to blow away Quesnel's conjecture, and to establish the true date of this letter, other, plainer and more luminous [arguments] are at hand from Rusticus's Inquiries themselves. For not only in inquiry 18 is there discussion of those who came from Africa or from Mauretania, but also in inquiry 17 of those who were captured as little children by enemies and afterwards came to Romania; in inquiry 19 of those who as little children... captured by pagans... came to Romania while still young. Granted that the case of inquiry 18 concerns those who for some reason took refuge from Africa in Gaul at the time of the Vandal persecution, the cases of inquiries 17 and 19 cannot concern the same: for here are meant those who as little children were captured by enemies, and those pagans, and led outside the Roman empire, and at length, while still young, had returned to Romania, that is, to the Roman empire, and some of them to the province of Narbonne, on whose account the inquiries were put forward by Rusticus. It is not, then, a question of Africans exiled or fled because of persecution, nor of the Vandals, who were not pagans but Arians. One must therefore understand the Huns and other pagan barbarians, enemies of the Romans as well, who, after they had laid waste the Gauls, carried off boys from there with them as captives. Well known is their invasion into Gaul and into the province of Narbonne itself, which Jerome mentions in the letter to Ageruchia, in the year 409. But if the question had been about little children captured at this time, about the year 442, Rusticus would not, it seems, have written in inquiry 19 that they came to Romania while still young. The Huns likewise fought against the Goths in Gaul in the years 437 and 439. But then they were auxiliaries of the Romans, not enemies. Rusticus, however, speaks of hostile pagans, and of captives who returned from the enemy to Romania while still young. It is therefore more fairly understood as the invasion of the Huns into Gaul in the year 451, when they fought not as auxiliaries but as enemies against Aetius, the general of the Romans. And if Rusticus's inquiries are believed to concern little children captured in this war, then, so that a suitable time may be left in which the same little children, captured by the pagans, might have returned to their homeland as young men, this letter cannot be assigned to the year 452.

5. Probabilius autem anno circiter 4⟨5⟩8 collocanda videtur. In primis enim in duabus epistolis anni 458, altera 159, ad Nicetam Aquileiensem cap. 5, altera 166, ad Neonem Ravennatem, cap. 1, mentio occurrit de Romanis ab infidelium captivitate ad sua redeuntibus, quorum alii dubium injecerant de baptismate, de idolothytis, alii, aeque ac legitur in epistola ad Rusticum Narbonensem. Cum porro omnes hae epistolae congruunt captivis qui sub Attila Hunnorum rege Italiam et Gallias vastante capti fuerant, tum vero non minus epistola ad Rusticum quam aliae duae, circa eumdem annum 458 scripta aequissime agnoscitur.

5. It seems more probable, however, that it should be placed about the year 458. For in the first place, in two letters of the year 458, the one, 159, to Nicetas of Aquileia, chap. 5, the other, 166, to Neo of Ravenna, chap. 1, mention occurs of Romans returning to their homes from captivity among unbelievers, some of whom had raised a doubt about baptism, others about things offered to idols, just as is read in the letter to Rusticus of Narbonne. Since, moreover, all these letters fit captives who had been taken when Attila, king of the Huns, was laying waste Italy and Gaul, then indeed the letter to Rusticus, no less than the other two, is most fairly recognized as written about the same year 458.

6. Dein in epistola ad Neonem, c. 1, Leo ait: Nuper in synodo novum et inauditum antea genus consultationis exortum est. Nam quorumdam fratrum suggestione comperimus aliquos captivorum ad sedes suas libere redeuntes, qui scilicet in captivitatem illa aetate devenerint, quae nullius rei ferme poterat habere notitiam, remedium quidem implorare baptismatis; sed utrum ejusdem mysterium baptismatis ac sacramenta perceperint, infantiae inscientia non posse reminisci. Haec quaestio eadem est ac illa quam Rusticus Narbonensis proposuit. Quomodo autem Leo anno 458 in epist. 166, ad Neonem, hoc novum et inauditum antea genus consultationis potuisset affirmare, si eadem quaestio jamdiu a Rustico illi fuisset proposita? Quomodo in eadem epist. 166 addidisset longiorem in ea solvenda ac diligentiorem discussionem fuisse necessariam, si jamdiu in epistola ad Rusticum illam pari ratione solvisset? Perspicitur itaque prius Neonem, vel potius alium aliquem qui occasionem dedit tradendae epistolae ad Neonem, quam Rusticum de hac questione ad Leonem scripsisse; ac propterea haec epistola ad Rusticum exarata cognoscitur post diem IX kal. Nov. an. 258, quo litterae ad Neonem datae fuerunt. Hanc igitur epistolam litteris ad Neonem subnectimus, eo quod posteriorem esse nihil ambigimus: ut ne tamen hoc eadem an. 458 scriptam affirmare velimus, cum scribi potuerit aliquanto

6. Next, in the letter to Neo, c. 1, Leo says: Recently in a synod a new kind of inquiry, unheard of before, has arisen. For we have learned from the report of certain brethren that some of the captives, returning freely to their homes, who went into captivity at an age which could have almost no knowledge of anything, beg indeed for the remedy of baptism; but whether they received the mystery and sacraments of that same baptism, they cannot remember because of the unknowing of infancy. This question is the same as the one which Rusticus of Narbonne put forward. But how could Leo, in the year 458, in Letter 166, to Neo, have affirmed this to be a new kind of inquiry, unheard of before, if the same question had long since been put to him by Rusticus? How, in the same Letter 166, could he have added that a longer and more careful discussion was needed in resolving it, if he had long since resolved it in the same way in the letter to Rusticus? It is plain, then, that Neo, or rather some other person who gave occasion for the sending of the letter to Neo, wrote to Leo on this question before Rusticus did; and therefore this letter to Rusticus is recognized as written after the ninth day before the Kalends of November of the year 458 [printed 258], on which the letter to Neo was given. We therefore attach this letter to the letter to Neo, because we have no doubt that it is later; yet not so as to wish to affirm that it was written in this same year 458, since it could have been written somewhat […]