Leo the Great, Letters

SANCTI LEONIS MAGNI ROMANI PONTIFICIS OPERUM GENUINORUM PARS ALTERA CONTINENS S. PATRIS EPISTOLAS.

OF SAINT LEO THE GREAT, ROMAN PONTIFF, THE GENUINE WORKS, SECOND PART, CONTAINING THE HOLY FATHER'S LETTERS.

PRAEFATIO

PREFACE

De mss. codicibus, qui in emendandis epistolis usui fuere.

On the manuscript codices which were of use in emending the letters.

§ 1. Distinctio collectionum manuscriptarum quae Leonis epistolas continent.

§ 1. The distinction of the manuscript collections which contain Leo's letters.

1. Tria distinguenda sunt genera codicum in quibus Leonis epistolae continentur. Primum genus sunt collectiones generales canonum et constitutionum Romanorum pontificum, in quibus aliquot integrae Leonis epistolae descriptae fuere. Alterum sunt collectiones particulares seu quarumdam Ecclesiarum, seu epistolarum solius Leonis, quae ex vetustis, vel etiam primaevis exemplaribus olim compactae, antiquissimam originem praeseferunt. Tertium sunt collectiones particulares epistolarum S. Leonis, sed recentiores, quae nimirum ex primi generis collectionibus in partem maximam profluunt.

1. Three kinds of codices are to be distinguished in which the letters of Leo are contained. The first kind are the general collections of the canons and constitutions of the Roman pontiffs, in which some entire letters of Leo were copied. The second are particular collections, either of certain Churches or of the letters of Leo alone, which, having been put together long ago from old or even primitive exemplars, display a very ancient origin. The third are particular collections of the letters of St Leo, but more recent ones, which, to be sure, flow for the most part from the collections of the first kind.

2. Sicut nulla exstat Leoni coaeva aut suppar omnium ejus sermonum collectio, ut in praefatione ad Sermones animadvertimus, ita nullam quoque coaevam, aut supparem omnium epistolarum ejus collectionem factam fuisse, nobis certissimum est. Hinc in editionem Leonis nullum codicem invenire aut sperare licet, qui omnes ejus epistolas praeferat; neque enim olim omnes perinde fuerunt in unum corpus, aut regestum, uti vocant, collectae, ut S. Gregorii Magni epistolis evenit. Initio quidem omnes collocatas fuisse et custoditas quam diligentissime in scriniis seu archivo sedis apostolicae inter caeteras constitutiones aliorum pontificum, vetusta consuetudo Romanae Ecclesiae suadet, de qua legi potest P. Coustantius in praefatione ad Epistolas Romanorum pontificum n. 44 et seqq. Enimvero auctor Pontificalis Romani, qui Anastasii Bibliothecarii

2. Just as there exists no collection of all his sermons contemporary with Leo or close to his time, as we observed in the preface to the Sermons, so too it is most certain to us that no contemporary or near-contemporary collection of all his letters was made either. Hence for an edition of Leo one may not find or hope for any codex which presents all his letters; for they were not all gathered long ago into one body, or register, as they call it, in the way that happened with the letters of St Gregory the Great. That at the beginning, indeed, all were placed and kept most carefully in the scrinia, or archive, of the apostolic see among the other constitutions of other pontiffs is suggested by the ancient custom of the Roman Church, on which P. Coustant may be read in the preface to the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, n. 44 and following. Indeed the author of the Roman Pontifical, who [… by the name] of Anastasius the Librarian […]

nomine appellari solet, et Leonis vitam scripsit serius saeculo VIII, haec de ejusdem epistolis tradit: Idem beatissimus Leo archiepiscopus multas epistolas fidei misit, quae hodie archivo Ecclesiae Romanae reconditae tenentur. Hic firmavit frequenter suis epistolis synodum Chalcedonensem. Ad Martianum Augustum misit epistolas XII, ad Leonem Augustum epistolas XIII, ad Flavianum episcopum epistolas IX, ad episcopos per Orientem epistalas XVIII, per quas fidem synodi confirmavit. Vides archivum apostolicum hoc quoque tempore allegari, in quo Leonis epistolae servabantur; et licet memorentur solae epistolae pro catholica fide contra Eutychianam haeresim scriptae, plures tamen quam quae ad nos pervenerunt, in eo archivo tum exstitisse cognoscimus; neque enim epistolae quae exstant ad Leonem Augustum sunt XIII, ad Flavianum IX.

[…] is usually called by name, and who wrote the life of Leo later, in the eighth century, reports this about his letters: "The same most blessed archbishop Leo sent many letters of the faith, which are today kept laid up in the archive of the Roman Church. He frequently confirmed the synod of Chalcedon by his letters. To Marcian Augustus he sent twelve letters, to Leo Augustus thirteen letters, to Flavian the bishop nine letters, to the bishops throughout the East eighteen letters, by which he confirmed the faith of the synod." You see that the apostolic archive, in which Leo's letters were kept, is cited at this time too; and although only the letters written for the catholic faith against the Eutychian heresy are mentioned, we nevertheless learn that more of them than have come down to us existed in that archive at that time; for the letters to Leo Augustus that survive are not thirteen, nor those to Flavian nine.

3. At cum collectiones generales canonum et epistolarum Romanorum pontificum a privatis hominibus olim compositae in privatum usum, ita propagari et obtinere coeperunt, ut iidem Romani antistites epistolas decessorum saepius non ex apostolicis scriniis, sed ex iis collectionibus sumerent; tunc factum est ut earumdem epistolarum autographa exemplaria, quae erant in apostolico archivo, sensim neglecta, temporum vicissitudinibus interciderint, ac propterea antiquae istae generales collectiones sint vetustiores ac celebriores fontes ex quibus antiquiorum pontificum constitutiones accepimus, adeo ut non aliae quorumdam Romanorum antistitum epistolae ad nos pervenerint, nisi quae ejusmodi collectionibus conservatae fuerunt. De his collectionibus, et de mss. codicibus, qui eas complectuntur, fusius agendum erit in tractatu quem tomo tertio insertum reperies.

3. But when the general collections of the canons and letters of the Roman pontiffs, composed long ago by private men for private use, began to spread and prevail to such an extent that the Roman bishops themselves quite often took the letters of their predecessors not from the apostolic scrinia but from those collections, it then came about that the autograph exemplars of those same letters which were in the apostolic archive, being gradually neglected, perished in the vicissitudes of the times; and for that reason those ancient general collections are the older and more celebrated sources from which we have received the constitutions of the more ancient pontiffs, so much so that no letters of certain Roman bishops have come down to us other than those which were preserved in collections of this kind. Of these collections, and of the manuscript codices that contain them, we shall have to treat more fully in the treatise which you will find inserted in the third volume.

4. Nunc de solis epistolis Leonis acturi, ea tantum debemus expendere quae in iisdem collectionibus ad easdem epistolas pertinent: id interim praemonentes, quod ex dictis sequitur, has vetustas generales collectiones habendas esse veluti originarios fontes, ad quos epistolarum editio revocanda erit. Inter fontes vero pari ratione originarios censendae sunt etiam nonnullae antiquae collectiones particulares sive quarumdam Ecclesiarum, sive epistolarum Leonis, quae cum ex laudatis generalibus collectionibus sumptae non fuerint, ex primaevis Leonis exemplaribus prodiere.

4. Being now about to treat of the letters of Leo alone, we need weigh only those things in these same collections which pertain to those letters: giving warning meanwhile, as follows from what has been said, that these old general collections are to be held as, so to speak, the original sources, to which the edition of the letters will have to be referred back. Among the original sources, moreover, by the same reasoning some ancient particular collections must also be reckoned, whether of certain Churches or of the letters of Leo, which, since they were not taken from the aforesaid general collections, came forth from Leo's primitive exemplars.

5. Collectiones autem, quae ita solas Leonis epistolas exhibent, ut maximam saltem istarum partem ex antecedentibus collectionibus evidenter sumpserint, posteriores noscuntur, et eatenus originariae dici nequeunt, nec tales ut antiquioribus, ex quibus derivatae fuerunt, praeferendae sint. Utile tamen fuit istarum codices pariter conferre; quae enim provenerunt ex emendatioribus manuscriptis antiquarum collectionum, lectiones meliores et emendationes non contemnendas identidem praebuere. Quaedam etiam ex his epistolas continent, quae cum in antiquis notis collectionibus non inveniantur, sumptae fuere ex aliis antiquis collectionibus plane ignotis: unde in hac parte pro originariis haberi debent. Haec generalis collectionum distinctio praemittenda fuit, ut non omnes quae mox indicabuntur aeque aestimentur; et quae originariae et antiquae, quae vero recentiores et profectitiae sunt, discernantur, quod ad eorum usum in recolendis epistolis recte instituendum, et ad alia multa, quae suis locis aperientur, utiliter cognoscenda, maxime necessarium experti sumus.

5. But the collections which present Leo's letters alone in such a way that they have evidently taken at least the greatest part of them from the preceding collections are recognized as later, and to that extent cannot be called original, nor are they such as to be preferred to the older ones from which they were derived. Yet it was useful to collate the codices of these as well; for those which came from the more correct manuscripts of the ancient collections have now and then furnished better readings and emendations not to be despised. Some of them also contain letters which, since they are not found in the known ancient collections, were taken from other ancient collections wholly unknown: hence in this respect they ought to be held as original. This general distinction of the collections had to be set out first, so that not all those which will presently be indicated may be valued equally, and so that those which are original and ancient may be told apart from those which are more recent and derivative; this we have found most necessary for rightly ordering their use in revising the letters, and useful to know for many other things which will be made plain in their places.

6. Collectiones autem manuscriptae epistolarum S. Leonis nobis adhuc cognitae sunt quatuor et viginti. Ex his XIII ad collectiones antiquas generales referuntur, sex ad antiquis particulares, quinque vero sunt collectiones recentiores ejusdem pontificis peculiares. Quemadmodum vero hae singulae inter se epistolarum numero, ordine, aliisque characteribus discrepantes diversam originem produnt, ita omnes cujusque collectionis codices adeo plerumque ipsis lectionibus congruunt, ut (quod in praefatione ad Sermones de iisdem sermonibus monuimus) supervacaneum plerumque sit plures consulere, majoremque utilitatem referat qui duos aut tres diversarum collectionum mss. libros, quam qui permultos unius collectionis evolverit. Nunc de singulis peculiaria, quoad Leonis epistolas; nam caetera quae ad generalium collectionum intimam cognitionem spectant, in tractatu quem tomo tertio inseremus exponenda remittimus.

6. Now the manuscript collections of the letters of St Leo known to us so far are twenty-four. Of these, thirteen are referred to the ancient general collections, six to the ancient particular ones, and five are more recent collections peculiar to this same pontiff. And just as these, each differing from the others in the number and order of the letters and in other characteristics, betray a different origin, so all the codices of each collection for the most part agree so closely in their very readings that (as we pointed out about the same sermons in the preface to the Sermons) it is for the most part superfluous to consult several, and he who has gone through two or three manuscript books of different collections brings more profit than he who has gone through a great many of a single collection. Now [we give] particulars about each, as far as the letters of Leo are concerned; for the other matters that bear on a thorough knowledge of the general collections we put off, to be set out in the treatise which we shall insert in the third volume.

§ II. De ms. Vaticano Reginae Sueciae collectionis primae.

§ II. On the Vatican manuscript of the Queen of Sweden, of the first collection.

7. Prima generalis collectio omnium, ut credimus, antiquissima, et hactenus ignota, invenitur in codice Vaticano Reginae Sueciae 1997, Octo Leonis epistolas exhibet: I, Rustico in nostra editione epist. 167; II, episcopis Mauritaniae epist. 12; III, Flaviano epist. 28; IV. Turribio epist. 15; V, Siculis epist. 16; VI, Nicetae epist. 159; VII, Aquileiensi episcopo epist. 1; VIII, Septimo epist. 2.

7. The first general collection, the most ancient of all, as we believe, and hitherto unknown, is found in the Vatican codex of the Queen of Sweden 1997. It presents eight letters of Leo: I, to Rusticus, in our edition ep. 167; II, to the bishops of Mauretania, ep. 12; III, to Flavian, ep. 28; IV, to Turribius, ep. 15; V, to the Sicilians, ep. 16; VI, to Nicetas, ep. 159; VII, to the bishop of Aquileia, ep. 1; VIII, to Septimus, ep. 2.

§ III. De collectione secunda.

§ III. On the second collection.

8. Huic collectioni Vaticano Regiae, in qua Catalogus Romanorum pontificum desinit in Hormisda, subjicimus aliam quae catalogum praefert in Vigilio desinentem, et continetur in ms. Corbeiensi venerandae antiquitatis in bibliotheca S. Germani a Pratis PP. Benedictinorum Parisiensium, unde Corbeiensis collectio a Coustantio appellatur. Licet nullum hujus collectionis codicem nacti simus, cum tamen Quesnellus ea usus sit, et memoratum codicem indicet, quoties sive in variantibus, sive in notis Corbeiensem ms. laudat, ut ex Notitia manuscriptorum ab eodem descripta manifestum est, omitti a nobis non poterat, cum praesertim etiam nos ex Quesnello eam identidem memoraturi simus. Plures Leonis epistolae in ea leguntur. Cum P. Coustantius, qui de tam insigni collectione pluribus agit in praefatione ad Epistolas Romanorum Pontificum, num. 61, distinctum earumdem epistolarum catalogum non praebeat, exactum numerum et ordinem agnoscere

8. To this collection of the Vatican [codex] of the Queen, in which the Catalogue of the Roman pontiffs ends with Hormisdas, we add another, which presents a catalogue ending with Vigilius and is contained in the Corbie manuscript, of venerable antiquity, in the library of Saint-Germain-des-Prés of the Benedictine Fathers of Paris; hence it is called by Coustant the Corbie collection. Although we have not obtained any codex of this collection, yet since Quesnel used it, and points to the said codex whenever he cites the Corbie manuscript, whether in the variants or in the notes, as is plain from the Notice of manuscripts which he drew up, it could not be left out by us, especially since we too shall mention it from time to time on Quesnel's authority. Several letters of Leo are read in it. Since P. Coustant, who treats at length of so notable a collection in the preface to the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, num. 61, does not provide a distinct catalogue of those letters, [their] exact number and order [we have been unable] to ascertain […]

nequivimus. Ex iis tamen, quae tum ab eodem Constantio tum a Quesnello indicantur, certum fit in eo ms. contineri epistolas sequentes, quas deficiente ordine codicis, juxta editionis nostrae seriem allegamus: I, Campanis epist. 4; II, Italis epist. 7; III, Viennensibus epist. 10; IV, Anastasio epist. 14; V, Turribio epist. 15; VI, Flaviani ad Leonem epist. 22; VII, Flaviano epist. 28; VIII, Theodosio epist. 29; IX, Pulcheriae epist. 31; X, Juliano epist. 35; XI, Constantinopolitanis epist. 59; XII, Ravennio et Gallis epist. 103; XIII, Juvenali epist. 139; XIV, Leoni Augusto epist. 165. Quesnellus nota prima in epist. X, ad episcopos provinciae Viennensis Thuaneum codicem allegat, qui hujus collectionis esse videtur. De hoc enim inquit; Qui Corbeiensi ita similis est, ut ex eo transcriptum eum existimem. Thuaneum primum in postillis et notis appellare solet, et una cum Corbeiensi identidem citat, quod similes lectiones utrique praeferant.

[…] we have been unable [to ascertain]. From those, however, which are indicated now by the same Coustant, now by Quesnel, it becomes certain that the following letters are contained in that manuscript, which, since the order of the codex is lacking, we cite according to the sequence of our edition: I, to the Campanians, ep. 4; II, to the Italians, ep. 7; III, to the Viennese, ep. 10; IV, to Anastasius, ep. 14; V, to Turribius, ep. 15; VI, Flavian's to Leo, ep. 22; VII, to Flavian, ep. 28; VIII, to Theodosius, ep. 29; IX, to Pulcheria, ep. 31; X, to Julian, ep. 35; XI, to the Constantinopolitans, ep. 59; XII, to Ravennius and the Gauls, ep. 103; XIII, to Juvenal, ep. 139; XIV, to Leo Augustus, ep. 165. Quesnel, in the first note on ep. X, to the bishops of the province of Vienne, cites the Thou codex, which appears to be of this collection. For of it he says: "Which is so like the Corbie one that I would judge it to have been transcribed from it." He usually calls the Thou codex the first in his postils and notes, and cites it from time to time together with the Corbie one, because both present similar readings.

§ IV. De mss. tertiae collectionis.

§ IV. On the manuscripts of the third collection.

9. Tertio loco aliam ignotam, at vetustissimam et praestantem collectionem ponimus, quae exstat in duobus perantiquis codicibus Barberino 2888 et Vaticano 1342. Sex et decem Leonis epistolas complectitur ordine sequenti: I, Anastasio epist. 14; II, Rustico epist. 167; III, Siculis epist, 16; IV, Aquileiensi epist. 1; V, Mauris epist. 12; VI, Nicetae epist. 159; VII, Dioscoro epist. 9; VIII, Juvenali epist. 139; IX, Leoni Augusto epist. 145; X, Maximo epist. 119; XI, Flaviano epist 23; XII, Flaviani ad Leonem epist. 22; XIII, Eutycheti epist. 20; XIV, Flaviano epist. 28; XV, Leoni Augusto epist. 165; XVI, Anatolio Constantinopolitano epist. 80.

9. In the third place we put another collection, unknown but very old and excellent, which exists in two very ancient codices, Barberini 2888 and Vatican 1342. It comprises sixteen letters of Leo in the following order: I, to Anastasius, ep. 14; II, to Rusticus, ep. 167; III, to the Sicilians, ep. 16; IV, to the bishop of Aquileia, ep. 1; V, to the Mauri, ep. 12; VI, to Nicetas, ep. 159; VII, to Dioscorus, ep. 9; VIII, to Juvenal, ep. 139; IX, to Leo Augustus, ep. 145; X, to Maximus, ep. 119; XI, to Flavian, ep. 23; XII, Flavian's to Leo, ep. 22; XIII, to Eutyches, ep. 20; XIV, to Flavian, ep. 28; XV, to Leo Augustus, ep. 165; XVI, to Anatolius of Constantinople, ep. 80.

§ V. De codicibus collectionis quartae.

§ V. On the codices of the fourth collection.

10. Quarta collectio est in antiquo codice capituli Lucensis, cujus descriptionem accuratissimam debemus P. Joanni Dominico Mansi in opusculo de celebri codice saeculo Caroli Magni scripto, quod editum leges tom. XLV Opusculorum P. Calogera. Eadem collectio exstat quoque in ms. codice olim Colbertino 784, qui ab Antelmio et Pagio maxime commendatur, nec non a P. Coustantio, qui hanc collectionem Italicam agnovit, fusiusque describit in saepius laudata praefat. n. 89. Quatuor tantum Leonis epistolas praebuit, quarum variantes ex Lucensi codice memoratus P. Mansi ad nos perhumaniter misit. Epistolae autem hoc ordine describuntur: I, Rustico epist. 167: II, Mauris epist. 12; III, Aquileiensi epist. 1; IV, Septimo epist. 2.

10. The fourth collection is in an ancient codex of the chapter of Lucca, for the most accurate description of which we are indebted to P. Giovanni Domenico Mansi, in the little work On a celebrated codex written in the age of Charlemagne, which you will read published in vol. XLV of the Opuscula of P. Calogerà. The same collection also exists in the manuscript codex formerly Colbert 784, which is highly commended by Antelmi and Pagi, and also by P. Coustant, who recognized this collection as Italian and describes it more fully in the often-cited preface, n. 89. It has furnished only four letters of Leo, whose variants from the Lucca codex the aforementioned P. Mansi most kindly sent us. The letters are copied in this order: I, to Rusticus, ep. 167; II, to the Mauri, ep. 12; III, to the bishop of Aquileia, ep. 1; IV, to Septimus, ep. 2.

§ VI. De collectione quinta, Quesnelliana, ejusdemque codicibus.

§ VI. On the fifth collection, the Quesnellian, and its codices.

11. Quintam collectionem Quesnellianam vocamus; est enim illa quam Quesnellus edidit cum titulo ab eodem perperam praefixo: Codex canonum et constitutionum Ecclesiae Romanae. Hanc collectionem claudunt Leonis epistolae duae supra triginta hoc ordine: I. Leoni Augusto epist. nostrae editionis 165; II, Juvenali Hierosolymitano epist. 139; III Flaviano Constantinopolitano epist. 28; IV, Theodoro Forojuliensi in Gallia episcopo epist. 108; V, Turbio (sic) id est Turribio Asturicensi epist. 16; VI, Rustico Narbonens epist. 167; VII, Anastasio Thessalonicensi epist. 14: VIII, Nicetae Aquileiensi epist. 159; IX, Januario Aquileiensi epist. 18; X, episcopis Campaniae, Piceni et Tusciae epist. 4; XI, episcopis Italiae epist. 7; XII, episcopis Siculis. epist. 16; XIII, Pulcheriae Augustae epist. 31; XIV, Constantinopolitanis epist. 59; XV, Palaestinis epist. 124; XVI, Aquileiensi episcopo epist. 1; XVII, Septimo Altinensi episcopo epist. 2; XVIII, episcopis Mauritaniae epist. 12; XIX. synodo Ephesinae epist. 33: XX, Theodosio Augusto epist. 44; XXI, Pulcheriae Augustae epist. 45; XXII, Juliano Coensi episcopo epist 25; XXIII, Theodosio Augusto epist 29; XXIV, Marciano Augusto epist. 104; XXV, Anatolio Constantinopolitano epist. 106; XXVI, synodo Chalcedonensi epist. 114; XXVII, Anatolio Constantinopolitano epist. 155; XXVIII, Leoni Augusto epist. 162; XXIX, Anatolio epist. 163; XXX, eidem epist. 135; XXXI synodo Chalcedonensi epist. 93; XXXII, Doro Beneventano epist. 19. Has praecedunt in pluribus codicibus tres aliae aliorum epistolae ad Leonem, quae inter Leoninas edentur; I, Eusebii et synodi Mediolanensis in nostra editione epist. 97; II Ravenii aliorumque episcoporum Galliae epist. 99; III, tandem Ceretii, Salonii, et Verani eriscoporum Gallorum epist. ⟨6⟩8.

11. The fifth collection we call the Quesnellian; for it is the one which Quesnel published with a title wrongly prefixed by him: "Codex of the canons and constitutions of the Roman Church". This collection is closed by thirty-two letters of Leo in this order: I, to Leo Augustus, ep. 165 of our edition; II, to Juvenal of Jerusalem, ep. 139; III, to Flavian of Constantinople, ep. 28; IV, to Theodore, bishop of Fréjus in Gaul, ep. 108; V, to Turbius (sic), that is, Turribius of Astorga, ep. 16; VI, to Rusticus of Narbonne, ep. 167; VII, to Anastasius of Thessalonica, ep. 14; VIII, to Nicetas of Aquileia, ep. 159; IX, to Januarius of Aquileia, ep. 18; X, to the bishops of Campania, Picenum and Tuscia, ep. 4; XI, to the bishops of Italy, ep. 7; XII, to the Sicilian bishops, ep. 16; XIII, to Pulcheria Augusta, ep. 31; XIV, to the Constantinopolitans, ep. 59; XV, to the Palestinians, ep. 124; XVI, to the bishop of Aquileia, ep. 1; XVII, to Septimus, bishop of Altinum, ep. 2; XVIII, to the bishops of Mauretania, ep. 12; XIX, to the synod of Ephesus, ep. 33; XX, to Theodosius Augustus, ep. 44; XXI, to Pulcheria Augusta, ep. 45; XXII, to Julian, bishop of Cos, ep. 25; XXIII, to Theodosius Augustus, ep. 29; XXIV, to Marcian Augustus, ep. 104; XXV, to Anatolius of Constantinople, ep. 106; XXVI, to the synod of Chalcedon, ep. 114; XXVII, to Anatolius of Constantinople, ep. 155; XXVIII, to Leo Augustus, ep. 162; XXIX, to Anatolius, ep. 163; XXX, to the same, ep. 135; XXXI, to the synod of Chalcedon, ep. 93; XXXII, to Dorus of Benevento, ep. 19. In several codices these are preceded by three other letters, of others to Leo, which will be published among Leo's: I, of Eusebius and the synod of Milan, in our edition ep. 97; II, of Ravennius and other bishops of Gaul, ep. 99; III, lastly, of Ceretius, Salonius and Veranus, bishops of the Gauls, ep. 68.

12. Aliquot hujus collectionis codices valde praestantes satis cogniti in Gallicanis bibliothecis inveniuntur. Quesnellus licet in edenda hac collectione usus sit ms. Oxoniensi, multo recentiori et non parum mendoso, in emendandis tamen Leoninis epistolis potissimum adhibuit alios duos insignes ejusdem collectionis codices Gallicanos nimirum Thuaneum postea Colbertinum 932, qui novissime in bibliothecam Regiam transivit, et Trecopithaeanum, qui in Trecensi bibliotheca PP. Oratorii custoditur. Hinc ex Quesnelli notationibus hujus collectionis lectiones colligi satis tute potuissent. Ut autem ex novo aliquo et insigni hujus collectionis manuscripto aliquid praecipuum huic editioni accederet, cum nullum exemplar Romae aut alibi in Italia reperire licuerit, in Germaniam diligentiam protendentes, invenimus vetustissimum exemplar bibliothecae Caesareae Vindebonensis 39, ejusque diligentissimam collationem aliquot locis emendandis utilem procuravimus. Alius ejusdem Caesareae bibliothecae codex antiquus, sed praecedenti aliquanto recentior, signatus num. 42, hanc eamdem collectionem nonnullis insertis additamentis exhibet: nam in Leone alias epistolas viginti addititias recepit ex collectione Hispanica, seu Isidoriana, de quibus postea num. 17 et 21 erit sermo. Thuaneum quoque codicem aliquot additamenta recepisse ipse Quesnellus in praefatione generali indicavit, in quam confer nostram annot. 9. (Col. 41, n. a.)

12. Several very excellent codices of this collection, well enough known, are found in the libraries of France. Although in editing this collection Quesnel used the Oxford manuscript, much more recent and not a little faulty, yet in emending Leo's letters he chiefly employed two other notable French codices of the same collection, namely the Thou codex, afterwards Colbert 932, which has very recently passed into the Royal library, and the Pithou codex of Troyes, which is kept in the library of the Fathers of the Oratory at Troyes. Hence the readings of this collection could have been gathered safely enough from Quesnel's annotations. But so that something special might accrue to this edition from some new and notable manuscript of this collection, since it was not possible to find any exemplar at Rome or elsewhere in Italy, we extended our diligence into Germany and found a very old exemplar of the Imperial library of Vienna, 39, and procured a most careful collation of it, useful for emending some passages. Another ancient codex of the same Imperial library, but somewhat more recent than the preceding, marked num. 42, presents this same collection with some additions inserted: for in Leo it has taken in twenty other, additional letters from the Spanish or Isidorian collection, of which there will be discussion below, num. 17 and 21. That the Thou codex too took in some additions Quesnel himself indicated in the general preface, on which compare our annot. 9. (Col. 41, n. a.)

13. Antequam ad alia progredimur, animadvertendum hic est quatuor ex memoratis quinque collectionibus

13. Before we proceed to other matters, it is to be observed here that four of the five collections mentioned […]

quae praeferunt Leonis epistolam 167 ad Rusticum, eam describere cum Inquisitionibus ipsius Rustici, quae ad probe intelligendas S. pontificis responsiones necessariae sunt. Hinc autem in editionem nostram hae collectiones noscuntur praeferendae collectioni Dionysii, qui cum ex sua methodo Inquisitionibus titulos supposuerit, eam epistolam nec omnino integram nec talem edidit qualis a Leone cum Inquisitionibus scripta fuit. Hinc etiam agnoscimus harum collectionum originem a Dyonisio peti non posse, sed ab exemplaribus antiquioribus atque sinceris.

[…] which present Leo's letter 167 to Rusticus, copy it with the Inquiries of Rusticus himself, which are necessary for properly understanding the holy pontiff's responses. Hence for our edition these collections are recognized as preferable to the collection of Dionysius, who, since by his method he put titles in place of the Inquiries, published that letter neither wholly complete nor such as it was written by Leo with the Inquiries. Hence also we recognize that the origin of these collections cannot be sought from Dionysius, but from older and genuine exemplars.

§ VII. De collectione sexta Dionysii Exigui, et de collectione Cresconii.

§ VII. On the sixth collection, of Dionysius Exiguus, and on the collection of Cresconius.

14. Sexta collectio est Dionysiana. In hac (uti a Dionysio Exiguo sub Hormisdae tempora lucubrata fuit) septem tantum Leonis epistolae recensentur, nimirum: I, Campanis epistola nostrae editionis 4: II, Italis epistola 7; III, Siculis epist. 16; IV, Januario Aquileiensi epist. 18; V, Rustico Narbonensi epist. 167; VI, Anastasio Thessalonicensi epist. 14; VII, Nicetae Aquileiensi epist. 159. Alia Leonis epistola ad episcopos Mauros, quae in vulgatis Dionysii legitur, posterioribus additamentis tribuenda est, ut suo loco videbimus. Hujus collectionis mss. libri qui additamentis insertis careant, adeo rari sunt, ut duo tantum hactenus nominentur, Vaticanus et Regius Parisiensis. Inter hos maxime commendatur Vaticanus 5845, quem diligenter contulimus.

14. The sixth collection is the Dionysian. In it (as it was worked up by Dionysius Exiguus about the times of Hormisdas) only seven letters of Leo are listed, namely: I, to the Campanians, letter 4 of our edition; II, to the Italians, letter 7; III, to the Sicilians, ep. 16; IV, to Januarius of Aquileia, ep. 18; V, to Rusticus of Narbonne, ep. 167; VI, to Anastasius of Thessalonica, ep. 14; VII, to Nicetas of Aquileia, ep. 159. Another letter of Leo, to the bishops of the Mauri, which is read in the printed editions of Dionysius, is to be assigned to the later additions, as we shall see in its place. Manuscript books of this collection which lack the inserted additions are so rare that only two are named so far, the Vatican and the Royal one of Paris. Of these the Vatican 5845 is the most commended, and we have carefully collated it.

15. Cum vero purae Dionysianae manuscriptis usus sit Cresconius Africanus, qui totam Dionysii collectionem in certos titulos distributam suo operi inseruit, codices Cresconiani pro puris Dionysianis haberi queunt. Plures Romae vidimus Vallicell. XVIII, Vat. 1347, Vat. Reginae 849, Vat. Palat. 579. Sed praecipue contulimus ms. capituli Veronensis 60, qui liber saeculo VIII charactere papiraceo scriptus fuit.

15. Since, moreover, Cresconius the African, who inserted the whole collection of Dionysius into his work distributed under certain titles, used manuscripts of the pure Dionysian [collection], the Cresconian codices can be held as pure Dionysian ones. We have seen several at Rome: Vallicell. XVIII, Vat. 1347, Vat. Reginae 849, Vat. Palat. 579. But above all we collated the manuscript of the chapter of Verona 60, a book written in the eighth century in papyrus-style script.

§ VIII. De mss. collectionis septimae Hadrianeae.

§ VIII. On the manuscripts of the seventh collection, the Hadrianic.

16. Eadem Dionysii collectio cum aliquot additamentis suo loco insertis septimam collectionem a Dionysiana nequaquam disjugendam constituit. Dionysio-Hadrianea, seu Hadrianea vocatur, non quod haec additamenta sub Hadriano I Dionysio accesserint, aut fuerint inserta, sed quod hic pontifex hanc collectionem ad regem Carolum miserit. Plerique mss. codices, qui Dionysiani vulgo creduntur, immo etiam editi, hanc Dionysio-Hadrianeam collectionem praeferunt. Multos mss. Romae observavimus, inter quos memorandi antiquiores scripti nono vel decimo saeculo Vat. 4969, Vat. Palat. 578, Vat. Reginae 1021 et 1047, nec non Vat. 1337, qui a correctoribus Romanis in editione Gratiani Codex Canonum appellatur, ac duos Vallicell. A. S. et XVIII. Inter additamenta vero hujus collectionis septem Leonis epistolis a Dionysio descriptis una tantum accessit, nimirum epistola 12, ad episcopos Mauritaniae. Inter editiones vero mentionem facimus Parisiensis an. 1661, Voelli et Justelli, quam identidem allegabimus. Licet enim hi puram Dionysii collectionem, additamentis separatis, edere consilium ceperint, cum tamen nullum Dionysianum codicem inspexerint, non omnia additamenta praesertim in Leone internoscere ac separare potuerunt.

16. The same collection of Dionysius, with some additions inserted in their places, makes up the seventh collection, which is by no means to be separated from the Dionysian. It is called the Dionysio-Hadrianic, or Hadrianic, not because these additions were joined to Dionysius or inserted under Hadrian I, but because this pontiff sent this collection to King Charles. Most manuscript codices which are commonly believed to be Dionysian, and indeed the printed editions too, present this Dionysio-Hadrianic collection. We examined many manuscripts at Rome, among which the older ones deserving mention, written in the ninth or tenth century, are Vat. 4969, Vat. Palat. 578, Vat. Reginae 1021 and 1047, and also Vat. 1337, which is called the Codex Canonum by the Roman correctors in the edition of Gratian, and two Vallicelliana manuscripts, A. S. and XVIII. Among the additions of this collection, however, only one was added to the seven letters of Leo copied by Dionysius, namely letter 12, to the bishops of Mauretania. Among the editions we mention the Paris edition of the year 1661, of Voel and Justel, which we shall cite from time to time. For although these men resolved to publish the pure collection of Dionysius with the additions separated, yet since they inspected no Dionysian codex, they could not distinguish and separate all the additions, especially in Leo.

§ IX. De collectione octava.

§ IX. On the eighth collection.

17. Omnia vero haec additamenta a puro Dionysio sejuncta, et post Dionysium descripta invenimus in supra laudato antiquo ms. Vat. 5845. His porro aliae additiones multo majores in eodem codice subjiciuntur, quas Hadriani collectioni subjectas deprehendimus in codicibus Vallicellano A. L. Vat. 1333, ac in uno Capituli Vercellensis. Hae additiones veluti supplementum Dionysianae vel Hadrianeae collectionum haberi queunt: ea enim documenta, quae in Dionysio deerant, auctor posterior ex aliis fontibus colligens, Dionysio adjecit. Cum vero hae additiones numquam fuerint insertae Dionysii aut Hadriani collectionibus, veluti separata quaedam collectio jure censentur, quam octavam collectionem vocabimus. In his additionibus quindecim Leonis epistolae proferuntur: I, ad Dioscorum epistola nostrae editionis 9; II, ad Turribium epist. 15; III, ad Aquileiensem epist. 1; IV, ad Septimum Altini episcopum epist. 2; V. ad Theodorum epist. 108; VI, ad Siculos epist. 17; VII, ad Eutychen epist. 20; VIII, ad Flavianum epist. 23; IX, Flaviani ad Leonem epist. 22; X, ad Flavianum epist. 28; XI, ad Juvenalem epist. 139; XII, ad Maximum epist. 179; XIII, ad Anatolium epist. 80; XIV, ad Leonem Augustum epist. 145; XV, ad eumdem imperatorem epist. 165.

17. All these additions, however, separated from the pure Dionysius and copied after Dionysius, we found in the ancient ms. Vat. 5845 praised above. To these, moreover, other much larger additions are appended in the same codex, which we found appended to the collection of Hadrian in the codices Vallicelliana A. L., Vat. 1333, and in one of the Chapter of Vercelli. These additions can be regarded as a kind of supplement to the Dionysian or Hadrianic collections; for a later author, gathering from other sources the documents that were missing in Dionysius, added them to Dionysius. But since these additions were never inserted into the collections of Dionysius or of Hadrian, they are rightly reckoned a separate collection, as it were, which we shall call the eighth collection. In these additions fifteen letters of Leo are set out: I, to Dioscorus, letter 9 of our edition; II, to Turribius, ep. 15; III, to the bishop of Aquileia, ep. 1; IV, to Septimus, bishop of Altinum, ep. 2; V, to Theodore, ep. 108; VI, to the Sicilians, ep. 17; VII, to Eutyches, ep. 20; VIII, to Flavian, ep. 23; IX, Flavian's to Leo, ep. 22; X, to Flavian, ep. 28; XI, to Juvenal, ep. 139; XII, to Maximus, ep. 179; XIII, to Anatolius, ep. 80; XIV, to Leo Augustus, ep. 145; XV, to the same emperor, ep. 165.

§ X. De collectione nona Hispanica.

§ X. On the ninth collection, the Spanish.

18. Hispanicae collectioni, quae ante Coustantium non satis erat cognita, nonum locum tribuimus. Hujus auctor epistolas a Dionysio recitatas cum iisdem titulis sumpsit. In una epistola ad Rusticum addidit titulum et caput, qui in Dionysio desunt, ut suo loco dicetur. Praeter septem Leonis epistolas sumptas e collectione Dionysii, adjecit alias triginta Leonis, et unam Petri Chrysologi ad Eutychen, atque aliam Flaviani ad Leonem, quae in editionem inserendae erunt. Itaque omnes epistolae simul sunt 39, hac serie dispositae: I, ad Eutychen epistola nostrae editionis 20; II, ad Flavianum epist. 23; III, Flaviani ad Leonem epist. 22; IV, Leonis ad Flavianum epist. 28; V, Petri Ravennatis ad Eutychen epist. 25; VI, Leonis ad synodum Ephesinam epist 33; VII, ad Theodosium epist. 44; VIII, ad Pulcheriam epist. 45; IX, ad eamdem epist. 60; X, ad Martinum et Faustum epist. 61; XI, ad Theodosium Augustum epist. 69; XII, ad Pulcheriam epist. 70; XIII, ad Faustum, Martinum et caeteros epist. 71; XIV, ad Pulcheriam epist. 79; XV, ad Anatolium epist, 80; XVI, ad Martianum epist. 82; XVII, ad eumdem imperatorem epist. 83; XVII, ad Anatolium

18. To the Spanish collection, which before Coustant was not well enough known, we assign the ninth place. Its author took the letters recited by Dionysius with the same titles. In one letter, to Rusticus, he added a title and a chapter which are missing in Dionysius, as will be said in its place. Besides the seven letters of Leo taken from the collection of Dionysius, he added thirty others of Leo, and one of Peter Chrysologus to Eutyches, and another of Flavian to Leo, which will have to be inserted in the edition. Thus all the letters together are 39, arranged in this series: I, to Eutyches, letter 20 of our edition; II, to Flavian, ep. 23; III, Flavian's to Leo, ep. 22; IV, Leo's to Flavian, ep. 28; V, Peter of Ravenna's to Eutyches, ep. 25; VI, Leo's to the synod of Ephesus, ep. 33; VII, to Theodosius, ep. 44; VIII, to Pulcheria, ep. 45; IX, to the same, ep. 60; X, to Martinus and Faustus, ep. 61; XI, to Theodosius Augustus, ep. 69; XII, to Pulcheria, ep. 70; XIII, to Faustus, Martinus and the rest, ep. 71; XIV, to Pulcheria, ep. 79; XV, to Anatolius, ep. 80; XVI, to Marcian, ep. 82; XVII, to the same emperor, ep. 83; XVII, to Anatolius […]

epist. 85; XIX, ad Marcianum epist. 90; XX, ad synodum Chalcedonensem epist. 93; XXI, ad Marcianum epist. 104; XXII, ad Anatolium epist. 105; XXIII, ad Marcianum epist. 115; XXIV, ad eumdem epist. 130; XXV, ad eumdem epist. 134; XXVI, ad Leonem imperatorem epist 165. XXVII. ad Turribium Asturicensem epist. 15; XXVIII, ad Italos epist. 7; XXIX, ad Siculos epist, 16; XXX, ad episcopos per Campaniam, etc. epist. 4; XXXI, ad Januarium epist. 18; XXXII, ad Rusticum epist. 167; XXXIII, ad Anatasium epist. 41; XXXIV, ad Nicetam epist. 159; XXXV, ad Africanos epist. 12; XXXVI, ad Theodorum epist. 108; XXXVII, ad Leonem (seu Neonem) Ravennatem epist. 166; XXXVIII, ad Dioscorum epist. 9; XXXIX, ad Campanos epist. 168.

[…] ep. 85; XIX, to Marcian, ep. 90; XX, to the synod of Chalcedon, ep. 93; XXI, to Marcian, ep. 104; XXII, to Anatolius, ep. 105; XXIII, to Marcian, ep. 115; XXIV, to the same, ep. 130; XXV, to the same, ep. 134; XXVI, to Leo the emperor, ep. 165; XXVII, to Turribius of Astorga, ep. 15; XXVIII, to the Italians, ep. 7; XXIX, to the Sicilians, ep. 16; XXX, to the bishops throughout Campania, etc., ep. 4; XXXI, to Januarius, ep. 18; XXXII, to Rusticus, ep. 167; XXXIII, to Anastasius, ep. 41; XXXIV, to Nicetas, ep. 159; XXXV, to the Africans, ep. 12; XXXVI, to Theodore, ep. 108; XXXVII, to Leo (or Neo) of Ravenna, ep. 166; XXXVIII, to Dioscorus, ep. 9; XXXIX, to the Campanians, ep. 168.

19. Monendum hoc loco est, in indice decretorum Romanorum pontificum huic collectioni praefixo, tum in codicibus quos vidimus, tum apud Coustantium tres Leonis epistolas ad Marcianum censeri num. 51, 52 et 53, ex quibus quadraginta tituli ad Leonem pertinent. At in ipso collectionis corpore in omnibus mss., immo etiam apud Isidorum, qui totam Hispanicam collectionem descripsit, duae tantum epistolae ad Marcianum eo loco inveniuntur; ac propterea omnes sunt tantum 39. Notabile est etiam epistolam 12 ad episcopos Africanos, seu Mauros, in hac collectione exhiberi decurtatam ac diversam ab ea quae in collectione septima Hadrianea legitur. Id autem manifestum facit Hispanae collectionis auctori purum Dionysii codicem fuisse, in quo haec epistola deerat; alias hanc non minus quam caeteras septem Leonis epistolas ex suo Dionysiano codice descripsisset in eamdem rationem qua Dionysio in Hadrianea addita fuit.

19. It must be pointed out in this place that in the index of the decrees of the Roman pontiffs prefixed to this collection, both in the codices we have seen and in Coustant, three letters of Leo to Marcian are counted, num. 51, 52 and 53, which bring the titles pertaining to Leo to forty. But in the body of the collection itself, in all the manuscripts, and indeed also in Isidore, who copied the whole Spanish collection, only two letters to Marcian are found in that place; and therefore they are all only 39. It is noteworthy also that letter 12, to the African bishops, or Mauri, is presented in this collection cut short and different from the one which is read in the seventh collection, the Hadrianic. This makes it plain that the author of the Spanish collection had a pure codex of Dionysius, in which this letter was lacking; otherwise he would have copied it from his Dionysian codex, no less than the other seven letters of Leo, in the same form in which it was added to Dionysius in the Hadrianic.

20. Haec collectio post Dionysianam meliorem ordinem praefert. Sicut autem ejus auctor Dionysium secutus titulos Dionysii retinuit in epistolis quas ex ipso sumpsit, ita in aliis qnas adjecit eadem methodo titulos ipse praefixit, quos suis in locis dabimus. Codices hujus collectionis valde rari sunt. Nos duos diligenter collatos allegabimus. Vaticanum 1341 et Caesarem Vindebonensem 41, olim 281, omnes saeculi circiter IX, quorum primus e Gallicanis, alter vero ex Hispanicis purioribus exemplis originem duxit, de quo plura in tractatu de antiquis Collectionibus et Collectoribus canonum tomo tertio agetur. Hic vero praemonere maxime interest codicem Vindebonensem non paucis in locis erroneas lectiones praeferre, quae in Vaticano emendatae satis aptum sensum plerumque referunt. Ex collatione autem codicum aliarum quae primaevam Leonis lectionem concorditer exhibent, deprehendimus ad hanc saepius accedere ipsum errorem ms. Vindebonensis, plurimum vero abesse illam ms. Vaticani, ita ut arbitraria emendatio manifesta fiat. Hinc liquet primum studiosum librarium qui hanc collectionem exscripsit ex codice aliquo Hispanico, sed mendoso, multa libertate in corrigendis erroribus usum fuisse, unde his emendationibus, licet optimum sensum praeferant, non multum fidendum fuit. Ex codice autem perinde emendato profiscuntur ea exemplaria collectionis Hispanicae quae Gallicana appellamus, uti est codex Vat. 1341, et alii similes, quos in laudato tractatu allegabimus. Cum porro ex Gallicano exemplo collectionis Hispanicae Leonis epistolas sumpserit auctor collectionis quae Isidoriana vocatur, ex Isidoro autem derivaverint easdem epistolas auctores aliarum posteriorum collectionum, uti deinceps notabimus, hinc in omnibus easdem fere lectiones invenimus ac in Vat. Hisp. 1341. Ex hac autem animadversione facile est colligere quam minimi faciendas esse lectiones horum omnium codicum, quae cum lectione Vaticani Hisp. conveniunt, a Vindebonensi autem dissentiunt. Hac de causa non inutile fuit pluribus in locis lectiones mendosas Vindebonensis Hisp. in annotationibus describere, et Vaticani, variantes annotare, ut scilicet emendationes patefiant quae ex ipso genuino textu arbitrariae cognoscentur. Aliae utilitates hujus diligentiae ex memorato tractatu patebunt.

20. This collection, after the Dionysian, presents the better order. And just as its author, following Dionysius, kept Dionysius's titles in the letters which he took from him, so in the others which he added he himself prefixed titles by the same method, and we shall give these in their places. Codices of this collection are very rare. We shall cite two, carefully collated: Vatican 1341 and the Imperial one of Vienna 41, formerly 281, all of about the ninth century, of which the first drew its origin from Gallican exemplars, the other from purer Spanish ones; more will be said of this in the treatise on the ancient Collections and Collectors of canons in the third volume. Here, however, it is most important to warn beforehand that the Vienna codex in not a few places presents erroneous readings, which, emended in the Vatican one, for the most part give a quite fitting sense. But from a collation of other codices which concordantly present Leo's original reading, we found that the very error of the Vienna manuscript quite often comes close to this reading, whereas that of the Vatican manuscript is very far from it, so that the emendation shows itself to be arbitrary. Hence it is plain that the first, studious copyist who transcribed this collection from some Spanish but faulty codex used much liberty in correcting errors, so that not much trust was to be placed in these emendations, although they present an excellent sense. From the codex thus emended, moreover, derive those exemplars of the Spanish collection which we call Gallican, such as the codex Vat. 1341 and others like it, which we shall cite in the treatise mentioned. Since, further, the author of the collection called the Isidorian took Leo's letters from a Gallican exemplar of the Spanish collection, while the authors of other, later collections derived the same letters from Isidore, as we shall note hereafter, we therefore find in all of them almost the same readings as in Vat. Hisp. 1341. From this observation it is easy to gather how little account is to be made of the readings of all these codices which agree with the reading of the Vatican Hisp. but dissent from the Vienna one. For this reason it was not useless in many places to copy the faulty readings of the Vienna Hisp. into the annotations, and to note the variants of the Vatican, so that the emendations may be exposed which are recognized from the genuine text itself as arbitrary. Other advantages of this diligence will be plain from the treatise mentioned.

§ XI. De collectione decima, Isidoriana.

§ XI. On the tenth collection, the Isidorian.

21. Isidori Mercatoris collectio post Hispanicam, quoad Leonis epistolas, distincte non esset memoranda; purus enim Isidori codex easdem nec plures, nec pauciores Leonis epistolas continet, quae quidem in eum ex Hispanica collectione, sine ulla fictione vel additione, fuerunt traductae, ut patet ex codice Vaticano 630, saeculi circiter IX, quem accurate contulimus, et ex Vaticano 631, saeculi circiter XIII. Caeteri codices, quia alia additamenta in Leone recipiunt, etsi in caeteris plerisque Isidoriani sint, in Leonis tamen epistolis purum Isidorum non referunt, ut mox videbimus; unde pro Isidoriana pura perperam habetur collectio, quam Merlinus edidit. Deprehendimus praeterea easdem fere lectiones cum iisdem plerumque erroribus inveniri in Vat. 1341 collectionis Hispanicae, ac in Vat. 630 puri Isidori, ita ut alter ab altero videatur exscriptus, adeo ambae collectiones in Leone consentiunt. Cum tamen Hispanica parum nota sit, Isidoriana autem uti notior citari soleat, et aliquot collectionis Isidorianae codicis Quesnellus alleget, etiam a nobis distincte erit appellanda, ut propterea decimae collectionis nomine eam hic designare necessarium sit.

21. The collection of Isidore Mercator would not need separate mention after the Spanish, as far as Leo's letters are concerned; for the pure codex of Isidore contains the same letters of Leo, neither more nor fewer, which were indeed carried over into it from the Spanish collection without any fabrication or addition, as is plain from the Vatican codex 630, of about the ninth century, which we have carefully collated, and from Vatican 631, of about the thirteenth century. The other codices, because they take in other additions in Leo, although in most other respects they are Isidorian, yet in Leo's letters do not reproduce the pure Isidore, as we shall presently see; hence the collection which Merlin published is wrongly taken for the pure Isidorian. We found, moreover, almost the same readings, with for the most part the same errors, in Vat. 1341 of the Spanish collection and in Vat. 630 of the pure Isidore, so that the one seems to have been copied from the other, so closely do both collections agree in Leo. Yet since the Spanish is little known, while the Isidorian, as the better known, is usually cited, and Quesnel cites some codices of the Isidorian collection, it too will have to be named separately by us, so that it is therefore necessary to designate it here by the name of the tenth collection.

§ XII. De collectione undecima.

§ XII. On the eleventh collection.

22. Quaedam vero collectiones quae ex Isidoriana promanant, in Leone quasdam epistolas praebent quae cum in Isidoro et in Hispanica desint, aliam originem ostendunt, ac propterea pro collectionibus ab Isidoriana diversis quoad Leonem recenseri queunt. Undecima itaque collectio est in duobus mss. Isidorianis, nimirum in Vaticano Ottoboniano 93, saeculi IX, vel X, qui etsi in fine mutilus non omnes Leonis epistolas

22. Certain collections, however, which flow from the Isidorian present in Leo certain letters which, since they are missing in Isidore and in the Spanish, show another origin, and can therefore be reckoned, as far as Leo is concerned, as collections distinct from the Isidorian. The eleventh collection, accordingly, is in two Isidorian manuscripts, namely in the Vatican Ottoboni 93, of the ninth or tenth century, which, although, being mutilated at the end, [it does] not [present] all the letters of Leo […]

hujus collectionis proprias exhibeat, integrum tamen numerum collegimus ex alio ms. Vat. 3791, saeculi XI. Praeter epistolas XXXIX quae ex collectione Isidori describuntur, mutato aliquantulum ordine, aliae decem et octo epistolae adjiciuntur, unde omnes sunt epistolae LVII, quo numero comprehendimus epistolam 28 ad Flavianum, quae ex duobus fontibus in hac collectione bis recitatur. Isidorianis praemittuntur epistolae XVI sequentes: I, ad Theodoretum epist. 120; II, Eusebii et synodi Mediolanensis ad Leonem epist. 97; III, Ravennii et aliorum episcoporum Galliae ad Leonem epist. 99; IV, Leonis ad Juvenalem epist. 139; V, ad Flavianum Constantinopolitanum epist. 28, sumpta ex lectione quam in Homiliariis antiquissimis reperimus et dissimilis lectioni Isidorianae, qua haec epistola inter Isidoriana iterum recensetur; VI, ad Pulcheriam epist. 31; VII, ad clerum Constantinopolitanum epist. 59; VIII, ad Palaestinos epist. 124; IX, ad Aquileiensem epist. 1; X, ad Julianum epist. 35; XI, ad Theodosium epist. 29; XII, ad synodum Chalcedonensem epist. 114; XIII, ad Anatolium epist. 155, XIV, ad Leonem Augustum epist. 162; XV, ad Anatolium epist. 163; XVI, ad eumdem epist. 135. Subjiciuntur epistolae 39 editionis Isidori, inter quas inseritur epistola nobis 19, ad Dorum Beneventanum, quae in Isodoro desideratur. Notatu vero dignum est epistolam ad Africanos Mauros, quae inter Isidorianas numeratur, hic non proferri ex editione Isidori decurtata, sed ex Hadrianea, ac postea eidem velut appendiculam subjici quidquid in Isidoro praeterea legitur: quae editionis ratio in posteriores aliquot collectiones ex hoc, ut videtur, fonte manavit. Tandem profertur epistola Leoni in hac collectione primum, quod sciamus, attributa, ad episcopos Germaniae et Galliae: unde vetus hujus suppositionis origo cognoscitur; quae cum in puro Isidoro desit, eam ab Isidoro confictam Blondellus aliique nonnulli perperam credidere.

[…] proper to this collection, we have nevertheless gathered the full number from another manuscript, Vat. 3791, of the eleventh century. Besides the 39 letters which are copied from the collection of Isidore, with the order somewhat changed, eighteen other letters are added, so that all the letters are 57; in this number we include letter 28 to Flavian, which is recited twice in this collection, from two sources. The following sixteen letters are placed before the Isidorian ones: I, to Theodoret, ep. 120; II, of Eusebius and the synod of Milan to Leo, ep. 97; III, of Ravennius and the other bishops of Gaul to Leo, ep. 99; IV, Leo's to Juvenal, ep. 139; V, to Flavian of Constantinople, ep. 28, taken from the text which we find in very ancient Homiliaries, and unlike the Isidorian text, in which this letter is listed again among the Isidorian ones; VI, to Pulcheria, ep. 31; VII, to the clergy of Constantinople, ep. 59; VIII, to the Palestinians, ep. 124; IX, to the bishop of Aquileia, ep. 1; X, to Julian, ep. 35; XI, to Theodosius, ep. 29; XII, to the synod of Chalcedon, ep. 114; XIII, to Anatolius, ep. 155; XIV, to Leo Augustus, ep. 162; XV, to Anatolius, ep. 163; XVI, to the same, ep. 135. The 39 letters of Isidore's edition follow, among which is inserted our letter 19, to Dorus of Benevento, which is wanting in Isidore. It is worth noting, however, that the letter to the African Mauri, which is numbered among the Isidorian ones, is presented here not from Isidore's edition, cut short, but from the Hadrianic, and that whatever else is read in Isidore is afterwards appended to it as a kind of little appendix: this manner of editing passed, it seems, from this source into some later collections. Finally there is presented a letter to the bishops of Germany and Gaul, attributed to Leo in this collection for the first time, as far as we know: whence the old origin of this forgery is recognized; since it is absent from the pure Isidore, Blondel and some others wrongly believed it to have been forged by Isidore.

23. Hujus autem collectionis antiquitatem non solum probat cod. Vat. Ottob. 93, saeculi, uti diximus, IX aut X, sed multo magis Hincmarus, qui Opusc. I, c. 5, pag. 23, edit. Parisiensis Joan. Cordesii, epistolam ad Mauros compendio memorans, prius Lupicini, dein Donati, tum Maximi ac tandem Aggari et Tiberiani causas in ea descriptas refert. Hic ordo cum in nulla alia antiquiore collectione inveniatur, Hincmarus hac collectione undecima usus fuisse videtur, ac propterea Hincmari aetate jam invaluerat.

23. The antiquity of this collection, moreover, is proved not only by cod. Vat. Ottob. 93, of the ninth or tenth century, as we said, but much more by Hincmar, who, in Opusc. I, c. 5, p. 23, of the Paris edition of Jean Cordesius, recalling the letter to the Mauri in summary, relates the cases described in it first of Lupicinus, then of Donatus, then of Maximus, and finally of Aggarus and Tiberianus. Since this order is found in no other, older collection, Hincmar appears to have used this eleventh collection, and it had therefore already gained currency in Hincmar's time.

24. Ad hanc collectionem referendi videntur duo alii mss. libri, qui ad Isidorum nihilum pertinent, nimirum Barberimus 57, a Quesnello memoratus in Notitia ms. secundae editioni praefixa, et Vat. 4902. Barberinus enim scriptus saeculo circiter XII, licet in fine mutilus, eo tamen ordine praefert Leonis epistolas viginti tres, in quibus deficit, ut ex collectione undecima sumptae noscantur. Vaticanus vero 4901 aetate multo inferior, at plenior, ex simili fonte dimanat.

24. To this collection two other manuscript books seem to be referable, which have nothing to do with Isidore, namely Barberini 57, mentioned by Quesnel in the Notice of manuscripts prefixed to the second edition, and Vat. 4902. For the Barberini, written about the twelfth century, although mutilated at the end, nevertheless presents the twenty-three letters of Leo with which it breaks off in such an order that they are recognized as taken from the eleventh collection. The Vatican 4901, however, much inferior in age but fuller, flows from a similar source.

§ XIII. De collectione duodecima a Merlino edita. Item de Sichardiana.

§ XIII. On the twelfth collection, published by Merlin. Likewise on the Sichardian.

25. Locupletiora sunt additamenta Isidoro subjecta in ms. Vaticano 1340, quae separato volumine descripta invenimus in cod. Veneto S. Marci 169. Haec additamenta, quae pro collectione duodecima haberi queunt, perveniunt usque ad concilium Remense an. 1148. Unde collectoris aetatem conjicere licet, et fortassis etiam nationem; alia enim Gallicana monumenta his additamentis comprehensa praesertim in Leone collectorem Gallum produnt. Epistolae Leonis, vel ad Leonem scriptae, sunt novem et nonaginta; ac propterea haec collectio (si decimam octavam excipias) est ditissima omnium; ex qua quidem non solum plures epistolae antea ignotae primum prodiere, quae postea in rarissimis tantum codicibus inventae sunt, sed aliquot etiam adhuc supersunt quae in nullo alius collectionis codice reperiri potuere. Hinc autem eximia collectoris diligentia, et hujus collectionis origo ab aliis collectionibus diversa cognoscitur. Haec collectio continet epistolas XXXIX collectionis 10 Isidori (inter quas est epistola decurtata ad episcopos Africanos) et alias epistolas XVI additas in collectione antecedenti, omissa una epistola 97 Eusebii Mediolanensis, ac sine repetitione epistolae 28 ad Flavianum. Quae autem de novo adjiciuntur, sunt epistolae XLIV, quarum catalogum hic appendimus: I, Theodosio epist. 24; II, Galliae episcopis epist, 102; III, Marciano epist. 121; IV, Eudochiae (legendum Juliano) epist. 122; V, Septimo Altini episcopo epist. 2; VI, Viennensibus epist. 10; VII, Ravennio epist. 41; VIII, Pulcheriae epist. 95; IX, Marciano epist. 94; X, Pulcheriae epist. 112; XI, Juliano Coensi epist. 113; XII, Marciano epist. 111: XIII, Pulcheriae epist. 112; XIV, Juliano epist, 118; XV, Eudoxiae epist. 123; XVI, Juliano epist. 125; XVII, eidem Juliano epist. 127; XVIII, Ceretii, Salonii, et Verani ad Leonem epist. 68; XIX, Leonis, Victorii, et Eustochii episcopis et presbyteris infra tertiam provinciam, in appendice edenda; XX, Leonis papae Ravennio, et aliis Galliae episcopis epist. 103; XXI, Gallis et Hispanis epist. 138; XXII, Theodosio epist. 64; XXIII, Juliano epist. 34; XXIV, Flaviano epist. 36; XXV, Theodosio epist. 37; XXVI, Flaviano epist. 38; XXVII, eidem epist. 39; XXVIII, Constantinopolitanis epist. 50; XXIX, Anastasio epist. 47; XXX, Flaviano epist. 49; XXXI, Juliano epist. 48; XXXII, archimandritis Constantinopolitanis epist. 51; XXXIII, Marciano epist. 74; XXXIV, eidem epist. 78; XXXV, Juliano epist. 81; XXXVI. Pulcheriae epist. 45; XXXVII, Anatolio epist. 86; XXXVIII, Marciano epist 89; XXXIX, Pulcheriae epist. 116; XL, Maximo epist. 119; XLI, Leoni Augusto epist. 146; XLII, eidem epist. 148; XLIII, eidem epist. 156; XLIV, Pulcheriae epist. 38.

25. Richer are the additions appended to Isidore in the manuscript Vatican 1340, which we found copied in a separate volume in the Venetian codex of St Mark 169. These additions, which can be held as a twelfth collection, reach as far as the council of Reims of the year 1148. Hence one may conjecture the collector's age, and perhaps his nation too; for other Gallican monuments included in these additions, especially in Leo, betray a Gallic collector. The letters of Leo, or written to Leo, are ninety-nine; and therefore this collection (if you except the eighteenth) is the richest of all; from it indeed not only did several letters previously unknown first come forth, which were afterwards found only in very rare codices, but some also survive even now which could be found in no codex of any other collection. From this both the collector's exceptional diligence and the origin of this collection, distinct from the other collections, are recognized. This collection contains the 39 letters of collection 10, Isidore's (among which is the letter to the African bishops, cut short), and the other 16 letters added in the preceding collection, with the one letter 97, of Eusebius of Milan, omitted and without the repetition of letter 28 to Flavian. Those which are newly added are 44 letters, whose catalogue we append here: I, to Theodosius, ep. 24; II, to the bishops of Gaul, ep. 102; III, to Marcian, ep. 121; IV, to Eudocia (read Julian), ep. 122; V, to Septimus, bishop of Altinum, ep. 2; VI, to the Viennese, ep. 10; VII, to Ravennius, ep. 41; VIII, to Pulcheria, ep. 95; IX, to Marcian, ep. 94; X, to Pulcheria, ep. 112; XI, to Julian of Cos, ep. 113; XII, to Marcian, ep. 111; XIII, to Pulcheria, ep. 112; XIV, to Julian, ep. 118; XV, to Eudoxia, ep. 123; XVI, to Julian, ep. 125; XVII, to the same Julian, ep. 127; XVIII, of Ceretius, Salonius and Veranus to Leo, ep. 68; XIX, of Leo, Victorius and Eustochius to the bishops and presbyters within the third province, to be published in the appendix; XX, of Pope Leo to Ravennius and the other bishops of Gaul, ep. 103; XXI, to the Gauls and Spaniards, ep. 138; XXII, to Theodosius, ep. 64; XXIII, to Julian, ep. 34; XXIV, to Flavian, ep. 36; XXV, to Theodosius, ep. 37; XXVI, to Flavian, ep. 38; XXVII, to the same, ep. 39; XXVIII, to the Constantinopolitans, ep. 50; XXIX, to Anastasius, ep. 47; XXX, to Flavian, ep. 49; XXXI, to Julian, ep. 48; XXXII, to the archimandrites of Constantinople, ep. 51; XXXIII, to Marcian, ep. 74; XXXIV, to the same, ep. 78; XXXV, to Julian, ep. 81; XXXVI, to Pulcheria, ep. 45; XXXVII, to Anatolius, ep. 86; XXXVIII, to Marcian, ep. 89; XXXIX, to Pulcheria, ep. 116; XL, to Maximus, ep. 119; XLI, to Leo Augustus, ep. 146; XLII, to the same, ep. 148; XLIII, to the same, ep. 156; XLIV, to Pulcheria, ep. 38.

26. Pleraeque ex his epistolis in nulla jam descripta collectione inveniuntur. Quod si nonnullae postea inventae fuerunt in quibusdam raris codicibus, aliae vero in manuscriptis collectionis 24, ex qua auctor profecisse videtur, quinque tamen Leonis epistolas in nulla alia collectione adhuc exhibitas ex aliquo ignoto

26. Most of these letters are found in no collection so far described. And if some were afterwards found in certain rare codices, and others in the manuscripts of collection 24, from which the author seems to have drawn, yet five letters of Leo, presented so far in no other collection, from some unknown […]

codice sumpsit, nimirum epist. 39, ad Flavianum, 47 ad Anastasium, 48 ad Julianum, 74 ad Marcianum, et 138 ad Gallos et Hispanos. Praeterea cum hic collector quaecumque Leonis nomine inscripta suis in codicibus reperit, huic collectioni adjecerit, perperam inseruit epistolam Leonis, Victorii, et Eustochii ad episcopos et presbyteros intra tertiam provinciam constitutos, non adnimadvertens Leonem istum esse episcopum Bituricensem, unde haec epistola in appendicem rejicietur.

[…] took from [that] codex, namely letter 39, to Flavian, 47 to Anastasius, 48 to Julian, 74 to Marcian, and 138 to the Gauls and Spaniards. Moreover, since this collector added to this collection whatever he found in his codices inscribed with the name of Leo, he wrongly inserted the letter of Leo, Victorius and Eustochius to the bishops and presbyters established within the Third Province, not noticing that this Leo was the bishop of Bourges; hence this letter will be relegated to the appendix.

27. Hanc collectionem vulgavit Merlinus, quippe qui Isidorianum codicem similem Vaticano 1340 typis dedit. Solum in epistolis Leonis apud ipsum numerantur epistolae xcvii; in hac enim serie omisit epistolam 25 Petri Ravennatis ad Eutychen, et epistolam 68 Ceretii, Salonii et Verani ad Leonem, quae inter Leoninas in hujus collectionis codicibus inseruntur. Praeterea epistolarum ordinem, qui in mss. exemplaribus visitur, alicubi immutavit. Merlini exemplum collaturi, usi sumus ejus editione Coloniensi an. 1530. Codex Isidorianus, quem Quesnellus identidem citat, et Herovallianum vocat, ex pluribus indiciis ad hanc collectionem pertinet. Collectionem non multo dissimilem exhiberi in codice Remensi S. Remigii, quem idem Quesnellus saepe laudat, cum ex multis variantibus colligimus, tum ex Coustantii praefatione in Epist. Rom. pont. n. 163, ubi eumdem Remigianum codicem et Isidorianum esse, et pluribus Leonis epistolis auctum testatur.

27. This collection was published by Merlin, inasmuch as he printed an Isidorian codex similar to Vatican 1340. Among the letters of Leo in his [edition] only xcvii letters are counted; for in this series he omitted letter 25, of Peter of Ravenna to Eutyches, and letter 68, of Ceretius, Salonius and Veranus to Leo, which are inserted among Leo's [letters] in the codices of this collection. He also changed in places the order of the letters that is seen in the manuscript copies. In order to collate Merlin's copy we have used his Cologne edition of the year 1530. The Isidorian codex, which Quesnel cites again and again and calls the Hérouval [codex], belongs to this collection on several indications. That a collection not much different is presented in the codex of Saint-Remi at Reims, which the same Quesnel often praises, we gather both from many variants and from Coustant's preface to the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, no. 163, where he testifies that this same Remigian codex is both Isidorian and enlarged with several letters of Leo.

28. Huc pariter revocari potest codex Isidorianus, ex quo Joannes Sichardus Romanorum pontificum epistolas edidit. Pleraeque anteriorum pontificum supposititiae, sunt ex Isidori officina; Leonis vero epistolae quinquaginta, quae editionem claudunt, quaeque praeterea insertam habent epistolam 22 Flaviani ad Leonem, omnes sunt sincerae, et in collectionis 12 codicibus continentur. Ex diverso tamen ordine ac numero epistolarum, Sichardi codicem fuisse a nostris diversum liquet. Lectiones vero, et praesertim pannus, quem Sichardi codex praefert in epist. 1, ad Aquileiensem episcopum, diverso loco assutus, ac in praesenti collectione, cum post ea verba subjiciatur, post quae insertus legitur in mss. collect. 24, ut annot. 25 ad epist. 1 annotabimus, ab eodem fonte ex quo collectio 24 profecta est, auctorem exempli Sichardiani ebibisse insinuat. Quesnellus dum Sichardum allegat, usus est editione Parisiensi an. 1568, quae ad Victorinos codices forte Isidorianos, non autem Sichardiano similes emendata fuit. Nos adhibuimus vetustiorem editionem Basileensem an. 1536, quae purum Sichardi codicem exhibet.

28. To this [collection] likewise can be referred the Isidorian codex from which Johannes Sichardus edited the letters of the Roman pontiffs. Most [letters] of the earlier pontiffs are spurious, from Isidore's workshop; but the fifty letters of Leo which close the edition, and which besides have inserted [among them] letter 22, of Flavian to Leo, are all genuine, and are contained in the codices of collection 12. From the different order and number of the letters, however, it is clear that Sichardus's codex was different from ours. But the readings, and especially the patch which Sichardus's codex displays in letter 1, to the bishop of Aquileia, sewn on at a different place than in the present collection (since it is placed after those words after which it is read inserted in the manuscripts of collection 24, as we shall note in annotation 25 on letter 1), suggest that the author of the Sichardian copy drew from the same source from which collection 24 came. Quesnel, when he cites Sichardus, used the Paris edition of the year 1568, which was emended against the codices of Saint-Victor, perhaps Isidorian ones, but not similar to Sichardus's. We have used the older Basel edition of the year 1536, which presents Sichardus's codex unmixed.

§ XIV. De collectione decima tertia.

§ XIV. On the thirteenth collection.

29. Tertiam decimam collectionem appellamus quae exstat in manuscripto libro Florentino S. Marci 182, saeculi xii. Solas exhibet epistolas Romanorum pontificum. Ex apocryphis autem, quas una cum sinceris epistolis profert usque ad Systum III, Leonis praedecessorem, Isidorianus agnoscitur. In Leone autem ab Isidorianis codicibus omnium maxime discrepat. Non solum enim epistolarum ordine et qualitate ab Isidoro, immo et a quacumque alia collectione diversus est: sed epistolarum 12 ad Africanos Mauritaniae integram et exacte descriptam hic unus codex exhibet: quod peculiarem et praestantissimam hujus collectionis originem plane demonstrat. Tres et viginti integras epistolas continet, at vigesima quarta fine caret: est enim codex mutilus; unde quot aliae epistolae in hac collectione fuerint, ignoramus. Singularum indicem damus: I, episcopis per universas provincias constitutis epistola nostrae editionis 4; II, Italis epist. 7; III, Siculis epist. 16; IV, Januario Aquileiensi epist. 18; V, Rustico epist. 167; VI, Anastasio epist. 14; VII, Nicetae epist. 150; VIII, Mauris epist. 12; IX, Palaestinis epist. 124; X, Constantinopolitanis epist. 59; XI, Ephesinae synodo epist. 33; XII, Theodosio epist. 44; XIII, Pulcheriae epist 45; XIV, Theodosio epist. 29; XV, Juliano epist. 35; XVI, Pulcheriae epist. 31; XVII, ..... Aquileiensi epist. 1; XVIII, Septimo epist. 2; XIX, Anatalio epist. 163; XX, eidem epist. 135; XXI, Chalcedonensi synodo epist. 95; XXII, Doro epist. 19⟨;⟩ XXIII, Flaviano epist. 28; XXIV, Marciano perperam inscribitur; subjicitur enim epistola 165; cujus initium Promisisse me, quae ad Leonem Augustum tradita fuit. Octo priores epistolae Hadrianae collectionis ordinem praeferunt: at octava ad episcopos Mauritaniae editionem Hadrianeam non sequitur, sicut nec Isidorianam, ut paulo ante monuimus.

29. We call the thirteenth collection the one which exists in the Florentine manuscript book of San Marco 182, of the twelfth century. It presents only letters of Roman pontiffs. From the apocryphal ones, which it brings forward together with the genuine letters down to Sixtus III, Leo's predecessor, it is recognized as Isidorian. But in Leo it differs most of all from the Isidorian codices. For not only is it different from Isidore, indeed from any other collection whatever, in the order and character of the letters, but this one codex presents letter 12, to the Africans of Mauretania, complete and exactly copied: which plainly shows the distinctive and most excellent origin of this collection. It contains twenty-three complete letters, but the twenty-fourth lacks its end, for the codex is mutilated; hence we do not know how many other letters there were in this collection. We give a list of them one by one: I, to the bishops established throughout all the provinces, letter 4 of our edition; II, to the Italians, letter 7; III, to the Sicilians, letter 16; IV, to Januarius of Aquileia, letter 18; V, to Rusticus, letter 167; VI, to Anastasius, letter 14; VII, to Nicetas, letter 150; VIII, to the Mauretanians, letter 12; IX, to the Palestinians, letter 124; X, to the Constantinopolitans, letter 59; XI, to the synod of Ephesus, letter 33; XII, to Theodosius, letter 44; XIII, to Pulcheria, letter 45; XIV, to Theodosius, letter 29; XV, to Julian, letter 35; XVI, to Pulcheria, letter 31; XVII, to ..... of Aquileia, letter 1; XVIII, to Septimus, letter 2; XIX, to Anatolius, letter 163; XX, to the same, letter 135; XXI, to the synod of Chalcedon, letter 95; XXII, to Dorus, letter 19; XXIII, to Flavian, letter 28; XXIV is wrongly inscribed to Marcian, for there follows letter 165, whose beginning is Promisisse me, which was delivered to the emperor Leo. The first eight letters display the order of the Hadrian collection; but the eighth, to the bishops of Mauretania, does not follow the Hadrian edition, just as it does not follow the Isidorian, as we noted a little before.

§ XV. De collectione decima quarta, Avellana.

§ XV. On the fourteenth collection, the Avellana.

30. A collectionibus generalibus transimus ad peculiares, et primum ad eas quae peculiaria quarumdam Ecclesiarum documenta continent. Romanae Ecclesiae praecipua est collectio decima quarta, quam Avellanam vocamus; auctor enim qui sub Vigilii tempora Romae, ut videtur, floruit, multa Romanorum pontificum et Romanae Ecclesiae specialia collegit, quae in caeteris collectionibus vel omnino desunt, vel diversa editione prodiere. Avellanam vero appellavimus, eo quod celeberrimus et antiquissimus hujus collectionis codex Vaticanus 4961 pertinuit ad monasterium S. Crucis Fontis Avellanae in Umbria. Alia tamen ejusdem collectionis exemplaria invenimus: Romae tria Vaticana 378⟨6⟩, 3787 et 4903, unum Corsinianum, et aliud bibliothecae Angelicae; Venetiis autem duo S. Marci 171 et 172. Inter haec Vaticanum exemplar 3787, saeculi xii, et Veneta duo ab Avellano nequaquam pendent. Haec collectio, in quam tam peculiaria Romanae Ecclesiae monumenta non nisi ex scriniis apostolicis derivari potuerunt, quinque tantum Leonis epistolas nobis praebuit a Surio primum vulgatas, quas in aliis codicibus aut collectionibus frustra requiras. Sunt autem: I, Leoni Augusto epist. 169; II, Gennadio Constantinopolitano epist. 170; III, Timotheo Alexandrino

30. From the general collections we pass to the particular ones, and first to those which contain documents particular to certain Churches. The chief [collection] of the Roman Church is the fourteenth collection, which we call the Avellana; for its author, who flourished at Rome about the time of Vigilius, as it seems, collected many special [documents] of the Roman pontiffs and of the Roman Church which in the other collections are either wholly lacking or have appeared in a different edition. We have called it the Avellana because the most celebrated and most ancient codex of this collection, Vatican 4961, belonged to the monastery of the Holy Cross of Fonte Avellana in Umbria. We have, however, found other copies of the same collection: at Rome three Vatican ones, 3786, 3787 and 4903, one Corsini [codex], and another of the Angelica library; and at Venice two of San Marco, 171 and 172. Among these the Vatican copy 3787, of the twelfth century, and the two Venetian ones by no means depend on the Avellana [codex]. This collection, into which such distinctive monuments of the Roman Church could have been drawn only from the apostolic archives, has furnished us with only five letters of Leo, first published by Surius, which you would look for in vain in other codices or collections. They are these: I, to the emperor Leo, letter 169; II, to Gennadius of Constantinople, letter 170; III, to Timothy of Alexandria

epist. 171; IV, presbyteris et diaconibus Alexandrinis epist. 172; V, Theophilo et aliis episcopis Aegyptiis epist. 173.

[…] letter 171; IV, to the presbyters and deacons of Alexandria, letter 172; V, to Theophilus and the other Egyptian bishops, letter 173.

§ XVI. De collectione decima quinta, Arelatensi.

§ XVI. On the fifteenth collection, that of Arles.

31. Decima quinta collectio Arelatensis Ecclesiae propria epistolas Romanorum pontificum ad suos episcopos, vel suorum episcoporum ad Romanos pontifices complectitur, quibus sua privilegia aut jura probarentur. Huic collectioni debemus tres epistolas Leonis, et unam ad Leonem, quae alias periissent, nimirum: I, Leonis ad Constantium, aliosque episcopos Galliarum epist. 40; II, ad Ravennium Arelatensem epist. 42; III, preces Gallorum ad Leonem epist. 65; IV, rescriptum S. Leonis ad epistolam superiorem epist. 66. Laudantur duo antiqui codices Regius et Colbertinus. Nos recentiorem quidem ms. Vallicellanum G 99, sed sumptum exactissime ex pervetusto Arelatensi recognovimus; ex quo licet memoratae epistolae a card. Baronio editae fuerint, nonnulla tamen emendare licuit, quae ob characterem difficiliorem apographi legenti obrepsere.

31. The fifteenth collection, proper to the Church of Arles, comprises letters of the Roman pontiffs to its bishops, or of its bishops to the Roman pontiffs, by which its privileges or rights might be proved. To this collection we owe three letters of Leo, and one to Leo, which would otherwise have perished, namely: I, of Leo to Constantius and the other bishops of the Gauls, letter 40; II, to Ravennius of Arles, letter 42; III, the petition of the Gauls to Leo, letter 65; IV, St Leo's rescript to the preceding letter, letter 66. Two ancient codices are cited, the Royal and the Colbert. We have examined the Vallicelliana manuscript G 99, which is more recent indeed, but copied most exactly from a very ancient [codex] of Arles; and although the letters mentioned were edited from it by Cardinal Baronius, we have nevertheless been able to correct some things which, because of the rather difficult script of the copy, crept in on him as he read.

§. XVII. De collectione decima sexta, Thessalonicensis Ecclesiae.

§ XVII. On the sixteenth collection, that of the Church of Thessalonica.

32. Collectio decima sexta est propria Ecclesiae Thessalonicensis. Ejusmodi autem habenda est synodus Romana sub Bonifacio II, anni 531, in qua non paucae epistolae pontificum Romanorum ad eamdem Ecclesiam pertinentes productae et insertae fuerunt. Huic collectioni auctoritatem conciliat Nicolaus I, qui cum quasdam epistolas in hac una collectione contentas saepius laudat, toti collectioni fidem facit. Exstat haec collectio, seu synodus Romana in ms. Barberino 3386, ex quo Holstenii editio prodiit. Pleraque monumenta ibidem recitata aliunde non suppetunt. Leo Allatius in Concordia Ecclesiae Orientalis cum Occidentali, pag. 1370 et 1371, nonnulla fragmenta vulgaverat ex codice Vaticano, quem pag. 1364 vetustissimum et luxatum, ac in nonnullis depravatum testatur. Barberius codex, qui praeter Romanam synodum alia nonnulla ab Holstenio item impressa continet, recentior est, et ex duobus antiquioribus Vaticanis tunc signatis num. 5751, fol. 55, et 6339, fol. 12, qui in prima pagina indicantur, exscriptus agnoscitur. Alterum ex his Allatium adhibuisse credimus, cum ea fragmenta recitavit. Sed quantacumque in inquirendo diligentia usus sim, neutrum codicem reperire licuit. Non solum enim codices, qui hoc tempore numeris indicatis notantur, nihil ejusmodi exhibent; sed nec indices, nec inventaria Vaticana suffragari potuere. Quod si codex Barberinus Holstenii cura descriptus est, ut ex numero Vaticanorum manuscriptorum ejus manu initio annotatis colligere licet; de exemplo ad fidem Vaticani accurate scripto dubitare non licet, adeo ut ipsi errores codicis Barberini, quos ille in editione postea emendavit, et paucae quaedam lacunae, quae in eodem cernuntur, in editione autem Holstenti fuerunt suppletae, Vaticano exemplari tribuendae sint. Cur autem Barberinum ms. potius quam Vaticanum editor allegaverit, latet. Non pauca Holstenius in editione emendavit, vel supplevit ex ingenio, nihil admonens quid esset in codice. Nos quidquid id est indicabimus, ipsumque codicem consulere aliquot locis restituendis non inutile experti sumus.

32. The sixteenth collection is proper to the Church of Thessalonica. As such is to be regarded the Roman synod under Boniface II, of the year 531, in which not a few letters of the Roman pontiffs relating to that same Church were produced and inserted. Authority is won for this collection by Nicholas I, who, since he quite often cites certain letters contained in this collection alone, gives credit to the whole collection. This collection, or Roman synod, exists in the Barberini manuscript 3386, from which Holstenius's edition came out. Most of the documents recited there are not available from anywhere else. Leo Allatius, in the Agreement of the Eastern Church with the Western, pp. 1370 and 1371, had published some fragments from a Vatican codex which, on p. 1364, he testifies was very old and dislocated, and in some places corrupt. The Barberini codex, which besides the Roman synod contains some other things likewise printed by Holstenius, is more recent, and is recognized to have been copied from two older Vatican [codices], then marked with the numbers 5751, fol. 55, and 6339, fol. 12, which are indicated on its first page. We believe that Allatius used one of these when he recited those fragments. But however much diligence I have used in searching, I have been able to find neither codex. For not only do the codices which are now marked with the numbers indicated contain nothing of the kind, but neither the Vatican indexes nor the inventories could lend support. But if the Barberini codex was copied under Holstenius's care, as can be gathered from the number of the Vatican manuscripts noted at the beginning in his hand, one cannot doubt that the copy was accurately written according to the Vatican [codex], so that the very errors of the Barberini codex, which he afterwards corrected in the edition, and certain few lacunae which are seen in it but were filled in Holstenius's edition, are to be attributed to the Vatican exemplar. But why the editor cited the Barberini manuscript rather than the Vatican is not known. Holstenius corrected not a few things in the edition, or supplied them by conjecture, giving no warning of what was in the codex. We shall indicate whatever this is, and we have found it not unprofitable to consult the codex itself for restoring a number of places.

Porro omittendum non est synodum Romanam hoc in ms. integram non haberi, et desinere in epistola Leoni perperam tributa ad Anastasium Thessalonicensem, quae incipit: Credebamus post epistolas nostras. Ex contextu enim et consulari nota manifestum est eam spectare ad Bonifacium I, et ad Rufum Thessalonicae episcopum. Hinc jure Holstenius eam typis impressit inter epistolas Bonifacii num. 7, hac inscriptione: Dilectissimo fratri Rufo Bonifacius: monere tamen debebat erroris qui in manuscriptum librum irrepserat. Cum vero haec Romana synodus, ut exstat in manuscripto, reipsa abrumpatur in epistolis Leonis, quemadmodum ostendunt ultima codicis verba descriptis ejusdem epistolis subjecta, Item recitata est, quae aliam epistolam subsequentem et in ms. deficientem indicant; num haec ad Leonem spectarit, et unane an plures subsecutae fuerint, ignoramus. Allatius in memorato opere Concordia, pag. 1371, ex Vaticano hujus Romanae synodi exemplo testimonium citat epistolae Leonis ad Anastasium Thessalonicensem, quod in editis Leoninis non legitur. Ne quis vero existimet esse fragmentum alterius epistolae quam Barberini codicis librarius sub finem omiserit, sciendum est eum locum pertinere ad laudatam epistolam Bonifacii ad Rufum, quae proinde aeque in Vaticano ac Barberino ms. Leoni ad Anastasium perperam inscribebatur: unde Batherinum codicem ex hoc eodem Vaticano exacte descriptum, et amanuensem in ipsis erroribus transcribendis accuratum cognoscimus. Nunc catalogum earum epistolarum, quae in hac collectione supersunt, exhibemus: I, Marciani ad Leonem epist. 100; II, Leonis ad Marcianum epist. 104; III, ad Anatolium epist. 106; IV, ad Marcianum epist. 136; V, Anatolii ad Leonem epist. 132; VI, Leonis ad Anatolium epist. 135; VII, ad Anastasium epist. 6; VIII, ad metropolitanos per Illyricum constitutos epist. 5; IX, ad Senecionem et alios Achaiae episcopos epist. 13. Sex ex his ante Holstenium ineditae huic collectioni debentur, id est prima, quarta, quinta, septima, octava, et nona. Nos quartam in ms. Ratisponensi invenimus, Quesnellus in Grimanico: primam vero Marciani Arnoldus deinceps Graece scriptam in Blodeiano codice reperit, nos autem in Vaticano Graeco 1455.

Furthermore, it must not be omitted that the Roman synod is not had complete in this manuscript, and that it ends with the letter wrongly attributed to Leo, to Anastasius of Thessalonica, which begins: Credebamus post epistolas nostras. For from the context and the consular date it is manifest that it belongs to Boniface I, and to Rufus, bishop of Thessalonica. Hence Holstenius rightly printed it among the letters of Boniface as no. 7, with this inscription: Dilectissimo fratri Rufo Bonifacius; he ought, however, to have given warning of the error which had crept into the manuscript book. But since this Roman synod, as it exists in the manuscript, actually breaks off in the letters of Leo, as is shown by the last words of the codex, placed after the copied letters of the same, Item recitata est, which indicate another letter following and lacking in the manuscript, we do not know whether this related to Leo, and whether one or several followed. Allatius, in the work mentioned, the Concordia, p. 1371, cites from the Vatican copy of this Roman synod a testimony of a letter of Leo to Anastasius of Thessalonica which is not read in the editions of Leo. But lest anyone think it to be a fragment of another letter which the copyist of the Barberini codex left out near the end, it must be known that the passage belongs to the aforesaid letter of Boniface to Rufus, which accordingly was wrongly inscribed to Anastasius under Leo's name equally in the Vatican and in the Barberini manuscript: whence we recognize that the Barberini codex was exactly copied from this same Vatican one, and that the amanuensis was accurate even in transcribing its errors. We now present a catalogue of those letters which survive in this collection: I, of Marcian to Leo, letter 100; II, of Leo to Marcian, letter 104; III, to Anatolius, letter 106; IV, to Marcian, letter 136; V, of Anatolius to Leo, letter 132; VI, of Leo to Anatolius, letter 135; VII, to Anastasius, letter 6; VIII, to the metropolitans established throughout Illyricum, letter 5; IX, to Senecio and the other bishops of Achaia, letter 13. Six of these, unpublished before Holstenius, are owed to this collection, that is, the first, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth and ninth. We found the fourth in a Regensburg manuscript, Quesnel in the Grimani [codex]; while the first, Marcian's, Arnold later found written in Greek in the Bodleian codex, and we in the Vatican Greek 1455.

§ VIII. De collectione decima septima, Chalcedonensi.

§ VIII [read XVIII]. On the seventeenth collection, that of Chalcedon.

33. Inter collectiones particulares referenda est illa quae ad Chalcedonensem synodum pertinet. Cum haec plures sive Leonis, sive ad Leonem spectantes epistolas contineat, quae in hac editione describentur, eademque sit antiquissima omnium, quasi Leonis peculiaris caeteris ejus vetustis collectionibus praemittenda

33. Among the particular collections must be reckoned that which belongs to the synod of Chalcedon. Since it contains several letters, relating either to Leo or [written] to Leo, which will be copied out in this edition, and since it is also the most ancient of all, it had to be placed, as if peculiar to Leo, before his other ancient collections […]

fuit. Haec collectis dividitur in partes tres. Prima documenta exhibet quae praecesserunt gesta concilii; secunda ipsas concilii actiones comprehendit; tertia vero exhibet quae post synodum acta fuerunt. In prima parte, quae a Rustico appellatur ante gesta, epistolae in editione nostra collocandae, sunt septem et viginti, quarum seriem ex Latinis codicibus appendimus: I, Leonis ad Eutychen epist. 20; II, Petri Ravennatis ad Eutychen epist. 25; III, Leonis ad Flavianum epist. 23; IV, Flaviani ad Leonem epist. 22; V, Leonis ad Faustum epist. 72; VI, Flaviani ac Leonem epist. 26; VII, Leonis ad Julianum epist. 35; VIII, ad Faustum et caeteros Constantinopolitanos epist. 32; IX ad Theodosium epist. 29; X, ad Pulcheriam epist. 30; XI, ad synodum Ephesinam epist. 33; XII, ad Theodosium epist. 43; XIII, ad eumdem epist. 44; XIV, ad Pulcheriam epist. 45; XV, Hilarii diaconi ad Pulcheriam epist. 46; XVI, Placidiae ad Pulcheriam epist. 58; XVII, Valentiniani ad Theodosium epist. 55; XVIII, Placidiae ad eumdem epist. 56; XIX, Eudoxiae ad eumdem epist. 57; XX, Theodosii ad Valentinianum epist. 62; XXI, ad Placidiam epist. 63; XXII, ad Eudoxiam epist. 64; XXIII, Leonis ad Constantinopolitanos epist. 50; XXIV, ad archimandritas Constantinopolitanos epist. 54; XXV, Marciani ad Leonem epist. 73; XXVI, ad eumdem epist. 76; XXVII, Pulcheriae ad eumdem Leonem epist. 77. Una inserta est actioni quae in vulgatis vocatur secundo, nimirum Leonis ad Flavianum epist. 28. Duae tandem parte tertia post concilii gesta, id est synodi Chalcedonensis ad Leonem epist. 98, et Leonis ad eamdem synodum epist. 114. Graeci autem codices, qui hanc postremam ignorant, aliam epistolam praeferunt ante gesta, videlicet Leonis ad synodum Nicaenam epist. 93. Graeci mss. libri Veneti S. Marci non solum eamdem epistolam ponunt ante gesta cum inscriptione ad synodum in Nicaea, quo primum indictum fuerat concilium: verum etiam illam repetunt in inedita actione concilii Chalcedonensis in appendice monumentorum publicanda, cui ejus epistolae lectio occasionem dedit. Hic autem pro in Nicaea legitur in Chalcedone, mutata fortasse a legatis inscriptione, cum ob variatam indictionem concilii vere in Chalcedone Patres convenerint.

[…]. This collection is divided into three parts. The first presents the documents which preceded the proceedings of the council; the second comprises the sessions of the council themselves; the third presents what was done after the synod. In the first part, which Rusticus calls ante gesta, the letters to be placed in our edition are twenty-seven, whose series we append from the Latin codices: I, of Leo to Eutyches, letter 20; II, of Peter of Ravenna to Eutyches, letter 25; III, of Leo to Flavian, letter 23; IV, of Flavian to Leo, letter 22; V, of Leo to Faustus, letter 72; VI, of Flavian to Leo, letter 26; VII, of Leo to Julian, letter 35; VIII, to Faustus and the other Constantinopolitans, letter 32; IX, to Theodosius, letter 29; X, to Pulcheria, letter 30; XI, to the synod of Ephesus, letter 33; XII, to Theodosius, letter 43; XIII, to the same, letter 44; XIV, to Pulcheria, letter 45; XV, of Hilary the deacon to Pulcheria, letter 46; XVI, of Placidia to Pulcheria, letter 58; XVII, of Valentinian to Theodosius, letter 55; XVIII, of Placidia to the same, letter 56; XIX, of Eudoxia to the same, letter 57; XX, of Theodosius to Valentinian, letter 62; XXI, to Placidia, letter 63; XXII, to Eudoxia, letter 64; XXIII, of Leo to the Constantinopolitans, letter 50; XXIV, to the archimandrites of Constantinople, letter 54; XXV, of Marcian to Leo, letter 73; XXVI, to the same, letter 76; XXVII, of Pulcheria to the same Leo, letter 77. One is inserted in the session which in the printed editions is called the second, namely Leo's letter 28, to Flavian. Finally two [are] in the third part, after the proceedings of the council, that is, of the synod of Chalcedon to Leo, letter 98, and of Leo to the same synod, letter 114. The Greek codices, however, which do not know this last, display another letter before the proceedings, namely Leo's to the synod of Nicaea, letter 93. The Greek manuscript books of San Marco at Venice not only place the same letter before the proceedings with the inscription to the synod at Nicaea, where the council had first been summoned, but also repeat it in an unpublished session of the council of Chalcedon, to be published in the appendix of documents, to which the reading of that letter gave occasion. Here, however, instead of at Nicaea is read at Chalcedon, the inscription having perhaps been changed by the legates, since, because the summons of the council had been altered, the Fathers had actually assembled at Chalcedon.

34. Haec collectio est vetustissima omnium. Graece enim compacta fuisse videtur ipso Leo vivente inter annum 453 et 455. Quod cum deinceps rebus multis utile futurum sit, distincte statuere et memoria retinere plurimum refert. Duae epigraphes a collectore scriptae id evidenter demonstrant. Etsi enim epistolae saltem aliquae Latinae originis, quae in Graeca collectione continentur, ab ipso Graecae collectionis auctore in Graecum traductae non fuerint, sed quas antea Graece redditas invenit, solum collegerit et in unum corpus digesserit; epigraphes tamen, quae longioribus identidem verbis et cum historicis quibusdam notitiis praefiguntur epistolis, eidem Graeco collectori referendas, et collectionis tempore scriptas indubium credimus.

34. This collection is the most ancient of all. For it seems to have been put together in Greek while Leo himself was living, between the years 453 and 455. Since this will afterwards be useful in many matters, it is of the greatest importance to establish it distinctly and to retain it in memory. Two headings written by the collector plainly demonstrate it. For although at least some letters of Latin origin which are contained in the Greek collection were not translated into Greek by the author of the Greek collection himself, but he only collected and arranged into one body those which he found already rendered in Greek, yet we believe it beyond doubt that the headings, which are prefixed to the letters, again and again in rather long words and with certain historical notices, are to be referred to the same Greek collector and were written at the time of the collection.

Graecus autem collector in epigraphe quam praefixit epistolis Valentiniani, Placidiae et Eudoxiae ad imperatorem Theodosium, hunc et Placidiam, quia collectionis tempore e vivis excesserant, divae memoriae titulo appellat; Valentinianum autem, cum adhuc viveret, non divae memoriae, sed dominum vocat. Integram epigraphen dabimus in admonit. praemissa epistolae 55, num. 7. Igitur haec collectio a Graeco auctore digesta fuit ante Valentiniani mortem. Porro ex epigraphe ab eodem collectore praefixa epistolae 77 Pulcheriae ad Leonem (in nostra editione dabitur loco synopsis), haec divae memoriae titulo nominatur; quae formula eam jam defunctam ostendit. Pulcheria supremum diem obiit an. 453. Valentinianus vero anno 455. Itaque haec collectio quoad originem Graecam inter an. 453 et 455 collocanda est. Id confirmari potest ex omissione aliarum caeteroquin insignium, at posteriorum, epistolarum Leonis, ac praesertim epist. 165 ad Leonem Augustum. Cum enim haec etiam apud Graecos celeberrima esset, uti in admonitione ad eamdem ostendetur, nihil dubium est quin hanc praecipue hujus collectionis auctor inseruisset, si post has litteras missas in Orientem anno 458 collectionem concinasset. Ex quo vero eam contexuit paulo post concilium. Chalcedonense ante annum 455, solas litteras ante Chalcedonense scriptas, et quae mox sub idem concilium editae fuerunt, colligere potuit. Cum vero hanc epistolarum collectionem per hocce tempus apud Graecos compactam dicimus, non idcirco credimus omnes epistolas quae nunc eidem collectioni insertae sunt, eodem tempore simul fuisse collectas. Alia enim Graeca exemplaria plures, alia pauciores litteras praeferunt. Totum discrimen est in Leoninis, vel ad Leonem pertinentibus. In mss. Graecis codicibus, quibus Romani editores usi fuerunt, et similiter in duobus Venetis desunt epistolae sex, nimirum epist. 26, Flaviani ad Leonem; epist. 15, Leonis ad Pulcherium; epist. 46, Hilarii ad eamdem; epist. 50, Leonis ad Constantinopolitanos; epist. 51, ejusdem ad archimandritas; et epist. 58, Placidiae ad Pulcheriam. Has vero in duobus mss. Parisiensibus invenit et edidit Cotelerius: quae cum in prima collectione desint, posterius additae noscuntur. Antiquissima tamen haec additio est; nam codices Parisiensibus similes nactus est Rusticus, cum sub medium saeculum vi hanc collectionem recognovit. Cumque jam tum vulgati essent ejusmodi codices, multo ante et fortassis paulo post primam collectionem illae sex epistolae adjectae fuere. Quae vero laudatas epigraphes praeferunt, ad primam collectionem pertinent, quam inter an. 453 et 455 factam ostendimus.

The Greek collector, in the heading which he prefixed to the letters of Valentinian, Placidia and Eudoxia to the emperor Theodosius, calls the latter and Placidia by the title of divine memory, because at the time of the collection they had departed from among the living; but Valentinian, since he was still alive, he calls not of divine memory but lord. We shall give the heading in full in the admonition set before letter 55, no. 7. Therefore this collection was arranged by the Greek author before the death of Valentinian. Further, in the heading prefixed by the same collector to letter 77, of Pulcheria to Leo (in our edition it will be given in place of a synopsis), she is named with the title of divine memory; which formula shows her to have been already dead. Pulcheria died in the year 453, and Valentinian in the year 455. Accordingly this collection, as regards its Greek origin, is to be placed between the years 453 and 455. This can be confirmed from the omission of other letters of Leo, notable in other respects but later, and especially of letter 165, to the emperor Leo. For since this was very celebrated among the Greeks too, as will be shown in the admonition to it, there is no doubt that the author of this collection would have inserted it above all, if he had put the collection together after this letter was sent to the East in the year 458. But since he compiled it shortly after the council of Chalcedon, before the year 455, he could collect only the letters written before the [council of] Chalcedon, and those which were issued soon after, about the time of that same council. But when we say that this collection of letters was put together among the Greeks at about this time, we do not therefore believe that all the letters which are now inserted in that collection were collected together at the same time. For some Greek copies display more letters, others fewer. The whole difference lies in those of Leo, or those relating to Leo. In the Greek manuscript codices which the Roman editors used, and likewise in the two Venetian ones, six letters are lacking, namely letter 26, of Flavian to Leo; letter 15, of Leo to Pulcheria; letter 46, of Hilary to the same; letter 50, of Leo to the Constantinopolitans; letter 51, of the same to the archimandrites; and letter 58, of Placidia to Pulcheria. These Cotelier found and edited from two Paris manuscripts: since they are lacking in the first collection, they are recognized as added later. This addition is nevertheless very ancient; for Rusticus obtained codices similar to the Paris ones when, about the middle of the sixth century, he revised this collection. And since codices of this kind were already in circulation then, those six letters were added long before, and perhaps shortly after the first collection. But those which display the aforesaid headings belong to the first collection, which we have shown was made between the years 453 and 455.

35. Eadem porro Graeca collectio Latine reddita fuit ante Vigilium papam, uti probat Baluzius in praefatione ad versionem antiquam concilii Chalcedonensis, num. 3. Ea vero documenta interpres tantummodo transtulit in Latinum, quae ex sua origine Graece scripta fuerant, vel quorum originale Latinum nequaquam invenit. Quorum autem originale Latinum reperit, hoc in Latinis codicibus inseruit. Ita pleraeque Leoni

35. Further, the same Greek collection was rendered into Latin before Pope Vigilius, as Baluze proves in the preface to the ancient version of the council of Chalcedon, no. 3. The translator, however, translated into Latin only those documents which had been written in Greek from their origin, or whose Latin original he did not find at all. But where he found the Latin original, he inserted this in the Latin codices. Thus most of Leo's […]

epistolae, quae Graece redditae, a Graeco collectore compilatae fuerunt, in Latinis ejusdem collectionis exemplaribus non interpretationes ex Graeco, sed ipsum sunt originale Latinum. Id manifestum fit non solum ex syntaxi Leonis, quae in plerisque Latinis hujus collectionis epistolis elucescit, sed multo magis ex iis litteris quarum exemplaria Latinae utique originis, contenta in aliis Latinis collectionibus, atque codicibus, qui a Graeco non prodeunt, eadem verba referunt quae leguntur in Latinis codicibus collectionis Chalcedonensis, ut patebit conferentibus praesertim epistolas 23, 28, 29, 30, 32, 50 et 51. Idipsum mirifice confirmat Leonis epistola 35, ad Julianum. Haec enim codicibus Latinis collectionis Chalcedonensis non perinde mutila est tribus in locis, ut in omnibus mss. Graecis invenitur; ac praeterea caret quibusdam additamensis, quae in solo Graeco textu leguntur: unde in ipsis Latinis mss. ejusdem collectionis, non ex Graeco reddita, sed ex originali Latino sumpta cognoscitur. Hinc Latini praecipue codices hujus collectionis editioni nostrae maximo usui erunt.

[…] letters, which, rendered into Greek, were compiled by the Greek collector, are in the Latin copies of the same collection not translations from the Greek, but the Latin original itself. This becomes manifest not only from Leo's syntax, which shines out in most of the Latin letters of this collection, but much more from those letters whose copies, certainly of Latin origin, contained in other Latin collections and codices which do not derive from the Greek, give the same words as are read in the Latin codices of the Chalcedonian collection, as will be evident to those who compare especially letters 23, 28, 29, 30, 32, 50 and 51. Leo's letter 35, to Julian, confirms this very thing wonderfully. For in the Latin codices of the Chalcedonian collection it is not mutilated in three places in the same way as it is found in all the Greek manuscripts; and besides, it lacks certain additions which are read in the Greek text alone: whence in the Latin manuscripts of the same collection it is recognized as not rendered from the Greek but taken from the Latin original. Hence the Latin codices of this collection above all will be of the greatest use to our edition.

36. Cum vero Latinus interpres in nonnullis epistolis pro Latino originali textu, quem reperire non potuit, interpretationem ex Graeco suis codicibus inseruerit, interpretationes epistolarum ab originalibus hoc indicio facillime discernentur (de solis epistolis quae ab auctoribus Latine scriptae fuerunt sermo est). Quae chronicam notationem in Latinis mss. praeferunt, sumptae fuerunt ex Latinis originalibus exemplis, in quibus chronica notatio signabatur. Quae vero hac notatione carent, interpretationes sunt ex Graeco, in quo chronicas notationes Graecus interpres omisit. Hac ex animadversione nova confirmatio accedit, qua magis magisque comprobatur, quod paulo ante statuimus, epistolas Latinas, quarum chronica notatio ex Graeco sumi non potuit, in codices Latinos concilii Chalcedonensis ex Latinis exemplaribus ejusmodi notatione haudquaquam carentibus fuisse traductas. Hic autem omittendnm non est, Leonis epistolam 93, ad synodum Nicaenam, quae in Graeco ante gesta describitur, diem et mensem exhibere. Sed haec epistola in Latinis codicibus Chalcedonensis collectionis deest, nec fuit in antiqua Graeca collectione, alias a Latino interprete in Latinis exemplaribus non fuisset omissa. Hinc autem quae hodie legitur in mss. Graecis, posteriori additamento tribuenda est. Et sane veluti addititia in mss. Graecis Venetis postremo loco ponitur ante gesta, cum a Graeco collectore aliis quibusdam monumentis suo more praeposita fuisset.

36. But since the Latin translator, in some letters, inserted in his codices a translation from the Greek in place of the original Latin text, which he could not find, the translations of letters will very easily be distinguished from the originals by this sign (we are speaking only of letters which were written in Latin by their authors). Those which display a date in the Latin manuscripts were taken from Latin original copies in which the date was marked. But those which lack this notation are translations from the Greek, in which the Greek translator omitted the dates. From this observation a new confirmation is added, by which what we established a little before is proved more and more: that the Latin letters, whose date could not be taken from the Greek, were carried over into the Latin codices of the council of Chalcedon from Latin exemplars by no means lacking such a notation. Here, however, it must not be omitted that Leo's letter 93, to the synod of Nicaea, which in the Greek is copied before the proceedings, displays the day and month. But this letter is lacking in the Latin codices of the Chalcedonian collection, and was not in the ancient Greek collection; otherwise it would not have been omitted by the Latin translator in the Latin copies. Hence the fact that it is read today in the Greek manuscripts is to be attributed to a later addition. And indeed, as if added, it is placed in the last position before the proceedings in the Greek manuscripts of Venice, whereas by the Greek collector, after his manner, it would have been placed before certain other documents.

37. Nunc memorandi sunt codices quibus utemur. De solis Latinis hic dicendum est, cum pleraeque epistolae ad hanc collectionem exigendae Latine scriptae, et ex originali Latino, ut probavimus, sumptae fuerint. De Graecis vero codicibus separatim agemus postea. Duo mss. exemplaria Thuanea Quesnellus aliquando adhibuit. Nos autem non solum profecimus ex tribus codicibus Corbeiensi, Divionensi, et Colbertina, quorum variantes edidit diligentissimus Baluzius in recensione totius Chalcedonensis collectionis; verum etiam quatuor alios exacte contulimus, Chigianum 483, Vat. 1323, alium Vat. 4166, et unum praestantissimum capituli Veronensis 57, qui majori forma in quadratum vergente, et scriptura in duas columnas discreta exaratus, ad septimum circiter saeculum pertinet. Neque omittendus est aeque antiquus Vaticanus 1322, qui inter gesta Chalcedonensia epistolam 28, ad Flavianum, et relationem synodi ad S. Leonem ex antiqua versione, et cum episcoporum subscriptionibus exhibet.

37. Now the codices which we shall use must be mentioned. Here we must speak of the Latin ones only, since most of the letters to be checked against this collection were written in Latin and, as we have proved, taken from the Latin original. Of the Greek codices we shall treat separately later. Quesnel at times used two manuscript copies of de Thou. We, however, have not only profited from the three codices of Corbie, Dijon and Colbert, whose variants the most diligent Baluze published in his recension of the whole Chalcedonian collection, but have also exactly collated four others: Chigi 483, Vatican 1323, another, Vatican 4166, and one most excellent [codex] of the chapter of Verona, 57, which, written in a larger format tending to the square and with the writing divided into two columns, belongs to about the seventh century. Nor must the equally ancient Vatican 1322 be omitted, which among the Chalcedonian proceedings presents letter 28, to Flavian, and the report of the synod to St Leo, in the ancient version and with the subscriptions of the bishops.

§ XIX. De collectione decima octava.

§ XIX. On the eighteenth collection.

38. Nunc de antiqnis peculiaribus epistolarum S. Leonis collectionibus. In vetusto Catalogo manuscriptorum bibliothecae monasterii Bobiensis, quem ex Ambrosiano codice saeculi ix, vel x, vulgavit Muratorius tom. III. Antiquit. Italic. diss. 49, pag. 819, haec leguntur: Item de canonibus inter majores et minores habentur libri canonum xv, et libri epistolarum Leonis ii. Haec procul dubio peculiaris erat epistolarum Leonis collectio, cujus duo exempla duorum librorum nomine indicatur. Si catalogus pertinet ad saeculum ix, vel x, de vetustate ipsarum collectionum seu codicum qui in eo laudantur, quis dubitet? Desiderium Montis Casini abbatem, qui postea fuit Victor papa III, inter caeteros codices quos bibliothecae Casinensi acquisivit, praeter librum sermonum S. Leonis comparasse etiam collectionem epistolarum, Leo Hostiensis tradit lib. III, c. 63, ubi hanc registrum Leonis papae appellat. Liber sermonum in ea bibliotheca adhuc servatur; 21 registrum epistolarum defecit. Sed haec epistolarum collectio recentioris aevi, scilicet saeculi xi, probabilius fuit, sicut et collectionem sermonum, quae superest, recentiorem esse, in praefatione ad sermones animadvertimus.

38. Now of the ancient particular collections of the letters of St Leo. In the old Catalogue of the manuscripts of the library of the monastery of Bobbio, which Muratori published from an Ambrosian codex of the ninth or tenth century, in vol. III of the Antiquitates Italicae, diss. 49, p. 819, these words are read: Likewise, concerning canons, there are, among greater and lesser, xv books of canons, and ii books of the letters of Leo. This was without doubt a particular collection of the letters of Leo, two copies of which are indicated under the name of two books. If the catalogue belongs to the ninth or tenth century, who would doubt the antiquity of the collections or codices themselves which are mentioned in it? Leo of Ostia relates, book III, ch. 63, that Desiderius, abbot of Monte Cassino, who was afterwards Pope Victor III, among the other codices which he acquired for the library of Cassino, besides a book of the sermons of St Leo, also procured a collection of letters; there he calls it the register of Pope Leo. The book of sermons is still kept in that library; [but] the register of letters has been lost. But this collection of letters was more probably of a more recent age, namely of the eleventh century, just as we observed in the preface to the sermons that the collection of sermons which survives is more recent.

39. Hic autem cum de antiquis collectionibus sermo sit, in quas olim ex archivis omnia, vel saltem plurima fuere derivata, codex Grimanitus, quo Quesnellus suam editionem maxime illustravit, sese primum offert. Cum de hac insigni collectione, cui decimum octavum locum tribuimus, multa Quesnellus tradiderit in generali praefatione, quam nostrae item generali subjecimus, eo lectorem remittimus; neque enim eadem repetere opus est. Solum advertimus P. Coustantium, in praefatione ad Epist. Rom. pontif. n. 166, opinari hunc codicem ante annos 700 fuisse descriptum, id est x circiter saeculo; ipsam autem collectionem derivatam putat ex archivo Ecclesiae Romanae; adeo enim multas peculiares epistolas exhibet, quas alibi potu⟨i⟩sse reperiri difficile est. Inter epistolas scilicet 107 Leonis, quae in eo codice continentur, epistolae xxviii antea ineditae exinde prodierunt nimirum una ad Flavianum, epist. 27; una ad Faustum, epist. 75; octo ad Julianum, epist. 86, 92, 117, 131, 140, 141, 147 et 152; una ad Paschasinum, epist 88; quatuor ad Anatolium,

39. Here, however, since the discussion is of ancient collections into which formerly all, or at least very many, [letters] were drawn from the archives, the Grimani codex, by which Quesnel greatly illuminated his edition, presents itself first. Since Quesnel has related much about this remarkable collection, to which we assign the eighteenth place, in his general preface, which we have likewise appended to our own general [preface], we refer the reader there; for there is no need to repeat the same things. We only note that Father Coustant, in the preface to the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, no. 166, thinks that this codex was copied 700 years ago, that is, about the tenth century; and he thinks the collection itself was derived from the archive of the Roman Church; for it presents so many particular letters which it is difficult to have been able to find elsewhere. That is, among the 107 letters of Leo which are contained in that codex, xxviii previously unpublished letters came out from it, namely one to Flavian, letter 27; one to Faustus, letter 75; eight to Julian, letters 86, 92, 117, 131, 140, 141, 147 and 152; one to Paschasinus, letter 88; four to Anatolius,

epist. 91, 143, 146 et 157: quatuor ad Marcianum, epist. 126, 128, 137 et 142; una ad Proterium Alexandrinum, epist. 129; una ad Aetium, epist. 153; una ad Basilium Antiochenum epist. 149; una ad Euxitheum Thessalonicensem, epist. 150; tres ad Aegyptios, epist. 154, 158 et 160; una ad clericos Constantinopolitanos, epist. 161; et una ad Leonem Augustum, epist. 164.

[…] letters 91, 143, 146 and 157; four to Marcian, letters 126, 128, 137 and 142; one to Proterius of Alexandria, letter 129; one to Aetius, letter 153; one to Basil of Antioch, letter 149; one to Euxitheus of Thessalonica, letter 150; three to the Egyptians, letters 154, 158 and 160; one to the clergy of Constantinople, letter 161; and one to the emperor Leo, letter 164.

40. Non omnes tamen hujus collectionis ex Romano aut ex alio quovis archivo desumptae dici queunt. Nam cum epistolae ad Rusticum tituli Dionysiani praefixi legantur, aliqua collectorem et Dionysio sumpsisse negari non potest. Alia similiter derivare potuit ex aliis collectionibus antiquioribus, ac praesertim ex 17 Chalcedonensi, ex qua sane sola haurire potuit epistolam 43, ad Theodosium; nam praecipue quaedam ejus lectiones, lacuna et menda a Graeco textu ejusdem collectionis pendent, ut in admonitione eamdem epistolam fusius ostendemus. Fortassis etiam aliquid posterius a quopiam amanuense additum fuit; et probabilius quidem posteriori additamento tribuendum videtur unica Symmachi epistola, quae in fine hujus codicis legitur.

40. Not all [the letters] of this collection, however, can be said to have been taken from the Roman archive or from any other. For since Dionysian titles are read prefixed to the letter to Rusticus, it cannot be denied that the collector took some things from Dionysius. Others he could likewise derive from other more ancient collections, and especially from the 17th, the Chalcedonian, from which alone indeed he could have drawn letter 43, to Theodosius; for certain readings of it in particular, a lacuna and faults, depend on the Greek text of that same collection, as we shall show more fully in the admonition [to] that same letter. Perhaps also something was added later by some amanuensis; and more probably indeed the single letter of Symmachus, which is read at the end of this codex, seems to be attributed to a later addition.

41. Solum epistolae ad Eutychianam haeresim pertinentes, quae in hac collectione plures quam alibi, et rarissimae, inveniantur, si non fuerunt petitae ex ipso Romano archivo, in quo epistolas de fide suo quoque tempore fuisse custoditas, auctorem Pontificalis Romani testatum vidimus num. 2, ex aliqua certe vetustiore collectione, quae ex eodem archivo sumpta fuit, originem ducere videntur. Simplicius, in epistola 4 ad Zenonem Augustum, scribit se ad Acacium misisse exemplaria litterarum Leonis de fide; at solas memorat epistolas ad Marcianum, Leonem Augustum, et synodum Chalcedonensem. Pleniorem vero ejusdem argumenti collectionem Vigilius papa ad Justitianum misit; nam epist. 4 ad eumdem ait: Ut cuncta pietatem vestram informent .... beatae recordationis praedecessoris nostri papae Leonis, quae diversis ad Orientem sunt directa temporibus constituta, quanta de plurimis in praesenti necessaria credimus, superadjecimus, rogantes .... ut universa legere pietas vestra dignetur, ne aliquid supersit quod minime relegatur. Aliquam certe ejusmodi collectionem epistolarum Leonis de fide contra Eutychianos olim apud Latinos vulgatam fuisse probare videtur antiqua professionis formula, quae legitur etiam tom. X Conciliorum pag. 1388 edit. Venetae, his verbis expressa: Sed et epistolam beatae recordationis Leonis apostolicae sedis antistitis ad Flavianum Constantinopolitanum episcopum datam, et omnes ejus epistolas, de fidei firmitate perscriptas, per omnia, et in omnibus inviolabiliter custodire, et libere semper praedicare profiteor. Hanc vero collectionem Vigilii, quam in cod. Ratisponensi nobis conservatam numero sequenti satis probabiliter ostendemus, Grimanicae collectionis auctor non adhibuit; neque enim omnes quae in ea continentur epistolas descripsit, ac propterea ex aliis ignotis fontibus ebibit.

41. Only the letters relating to the Eutychian heresy, which are found in this collection in greater number than elsewhere, and very rare ones, seem, if they were not sought from the Roman archive itself (in which, as we saw at no. 2, the author of the Roman Pontifical testifies that letters on the faith were kept in their own time too), to take their origin certainly from some older collection which was taken from the same archive. Simplicius, in letter 4, to the emperor Zeno, writes that he sent to Acacius copies of the letters of Leo on the faith; but he mentions only the letters to Marcian, to the emperor Leo, and to the synod of Chalcedon. A fuller collection on the same subject Pope Vigilius sent to Justinian; for in letter 4 to him he says: That all things may inform your Piety .... we have added so many of the decrees of our predecessor of blessed memory, Pope Leo, which were directed to the East at various times, as out of very many we believe necessary at present, asking .... that your Piety deign to read them all, so that nothing remains which is not read through. That some such collection of Leo's letters on the faith against the Eutychians was formerly in circulation among the Latins seems to be proved by an ancient formula of profession, which is read also in vol. X of the Councils, p. 1388 of the Venice edition, expressed in these words: But I also profess to guard inviolably, through all things and in all things, the letter of Leo of blessed memory, prelate of the apostolic see, given to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, and all his letters written on the firmness of the faith, and always freely to proclaim them. But this collection of Vigilius, which we shall show fairly probably in the following number to have been preserved for us in the Regensburg codex, the author of the Grimani collection did not use; for he did not copy all the letters which are contained in it, and therefore drew from other, unknown sources.

§ XX. De praestantissima collectione decima nona, Ratisponensi, cujus auctor videtur fuisse Vigilius papa.

§ XX. On the most excellent nineteenth collection, that of Regensburg, whose author seems to have been Pope Vigilius.

42. Antiquiorem vero Grimanica, et aliquanto etiam praestantiorem credimus collectionem Ratisponensem, quam invenimus in codice bibliothecae S. Emmerami. Is enim codex, qui nulli hactenus editioni usui fuit, non solum exhibuit decem et sex epistolas olim ineditas, antequam ex ms. Grimanico prodirent, ac octo quae solum leguntur in mss. collectionis 12, et unam quae exstat in rarissima collection. 16, atque aliam, quae in sola collection. 23, verum etiam tres alias hactenus incognitas nobis suppeditavit ad Eutychianam historiam illustrandam maxime utiles, nimirum duas ad Julianum epist. 109 et 144, et aliam ad Anatolium epist. 151. Praeterea hic codex emendatior est multo: unde hujus praesidio quasdam lectiones tute confirmare, plura autem loca ante depravata corrigere et restituere licuit. Solas epistolas ad Eutychianam haeresim pertinentes haec collectio complectitur, non tamen omnes; desunt enim aliquae ejusdem argumenti, quae in aliis quibusdam peculiaribus collectionibus tantummodo reperiuntur. Hinc autem ejusmodi collectionem Leonis aevo supparem haud esse colligimus; si enim sub Leonis aetatem compacta fuisset, omnes in ea epistolae ad Eutychianos pertinentes collectae legerentur. Forte haec est illa collectio quam Vigilium pontificem ad Justinianum misisse vidimus numero praecedenti. Pelagius enim secundus in epist. 3, ad Eliam Aquileiensem, cap. 3, t. VI Concil., editionis Ven. pag. 261, hanc, ut videtur, Vigilii praedecessoris cui collectionem respiciens, scribit: A dilectione igitur vestra primum testimonium sancti praedecessoris nostri Leonis ponitur, quod in ejus epistola ultima continetur. Est autem testimonium ex epist. 162, quae cum ultima quidem sit in ms. Ratisponensi, hic codex Vigilii collectionem continere credi potest. In hac sane non omnes, sed aliquot tantum praecipuas Leonis epistolas de plurimis ac Eutichianam haeresim pertinentibus Vigilius se collegisse testatur quod collectioni Ratisponensi maxime congruit. Solas porro epistolas Leonis compilator collegit, non vero aliorum ad Leonem. Ordinem chronologicum secutus est, sex epistolis exceptis, quae extra proprium locum collocatae leguntur. Epistolae quae in hac collectione describuntur, sunt duae et septuaginta, ita tamen ut num. 71, loco epistolae, describantur exemplaria testimoniorum, seu illa Patrum testimonia quae subjiciuntur epistolae S. Leonis in nostra editione 165, ad Leonem Augustum. Ultima porro epistola mutila est, eo quod codex postrema pagina careat. Antiquitatem hujus codicis prodit notatio quae legitur in prima pagina his verbis: Istum librum dedit Luog ad Sanctum Emmeramum pro Tutone episcopo, et pro remedio animae suae. Hic autem Tuto Ratisponensi Ecclesiae praefuit ab an. 891 usque ad an. 930. Character noni, vel decimi saeculi, similis est illi cujus specimen exhibuit P. Mabillonius de Re Diplomatica tab 57.

42. We believe the Regensburg collection, which we found in a codex of the library of St Emmeram, to be older than the Grimani, and somewhat more excellent as well. For this codex, which up to now has been of use to no edition, not only presented sixteen letters once unpublished, before they came out from the Grimani manuscript, and eight which are read only in the manuscripts of collection 12, and one which exists in the very rare collection 16, and another which [exists] only in collection 23, but it has also supplied us with three others hitherto unknown, extremely useful for illuminating the history of Eutyches, namely two to Julian, letters 109 and 144, and another to Anatolius, letter 151. Moreover, this codex is much more correct: hence with its help we have been able to confirm certain readings safely, and to correct and restore many places previously corrupt. This collection comprises only letters relating to the Eutychian heresy, yet not all of them; for some on the same subject are lacking, which are found only in certain other particular collections. Hence we gather that a collection of this kind is not nearly contemporary with Leo's age; for if it had been put together about Leo's time, all the letters relating to the Eutychians would be read collected in it. Perhaps this is that collection which we saw in the preceding number that Pope Vigilius sent to Justinian. For Pelagius II, in letter 3, to Elias of Aquileia, ch. 3, vol. VI of the Councils, Venice edition, p. 261, having in view, as it seems, this collection of Vigilius his predecessor, writes: By your Love, then, the first testimony set down is that of our holy predecessor Leo, which is contained in his last letter. Now the testimony is from letter 162; and since this is indeed the last in the Regensburg manuscript, this codex can be believed to contain the collection of Vigilius. In it, indeed, Vigilius testifies that he collected not all, but only some principal letters of Leo, out of very many pertaining to the Eutychian heresy, which agrees very well with the Regensburg collection. Further, the compiler collected only letters of Leo, not those of others to Leo. He followed the chronological order, except for six letters which are read placed outside their proper position. The letters which are copied in this collection are seventy-two, yet in such a way that at no. 71, in place of a letter, are copied the exemplaria testimoniorum, that is, those testimonies of the Fathers which are appended to St Leo's letter 165 in our edition, to the emperor Leo. The last letter, further, is mutilated, because the codex lacks its final page. The antiquity of this codex is revealed by a note which is read on the first page in these words: Luog gave this book to Saint Emmeram for Bishop Tuto and for the remedy of his own soul. This Tuto presided over the Church of Regensburg from the year 891 to the year 930. The script, of the ninth or tenth century, is similar to that of which Father Mabillon displayed a specimen in De Re Diplomatica, plate 57.

43. Ne omnium epistolarum prolixum catalogum demus, satis erit ad cognoscendum et distinguendum ordinem hujus collectionis priores quatuor, et quatuor postremas epistolas indicare: I, Leonis ad Theodosium epist. 24; II, ad Flavianum epist. 23; III ad Theodosium epist. 29; IV, ad Pulcheriam epist. 30. Notabile est post epistolam hujus collectionis 36 ad Pulcheriam, quae in nostra editione est epistola 96, hanc peculiarem notationem apponi: Expliciunt epistolae sanctissimi papae Leonis, quae sancto Chalcedonensi concilio sunt praemissae; et dein, a capite: Incipiunt quae post gesta subsecutae sunt; et subjicitur epist. 37, nobis 104, ad Marcianum, post concilium scripta. Nunc quatuor postremas innuimus: LXIX, ad Leonem Augustum epist. 164; LXX, ad eumdem epist. 165; LXXI, exemplarium testimoniorum, quae antecedenti epistolae subjici solent; LXXII, ad eumdem Leonem epist. 162. Hujus praestantissimi codicis et collectionis exemplum quam accuratissime transcriptum, quibus debeamus, in generali praefatione grato animo testati sumus, num. 6.

43. So as not to give a lengthy catalogue of all the letters, it will be enough, for recognizing and distinguishing the order of this collection, to indicate the first four and the last four letters: I, of Leo to Theodosius, letter 24; II, to Flavian, letter 23; III, to Theodosius, letter 29; IV, to Pulcheria, letter 30. It is noteworthy that after letter 36 of this collection, to Pulcheria, which in our edition is letter 96, this particular note is added: Here end the letters of the most holy Pope Leo which were sent before the holy council of Chalcedon; and then, at the head [of a new section]: Here begin those which followed after the proceedings; and there follows letter 37, our 104, to Marcian, written after the council. Now we point out the last four: LXIX, to the emperor Leo, letter 164; LXX, to the same, letter 165; LXXI, of the exemplaria testimoniorum, which are usually appended to the preceding letter; LXXII, to the same Leo, letter 162. To whom we owe a copy of this most excellent codex and collection, transcribed as accurately as possible, we have gratefully testified in the general preface, no. 6.

§ XXI. De collectione vicesima.

§ XXI. On the twentieth collection.

44. Hanc invenimus in Romano ms. 237 S. Crucis in Jerusalem saeculi circiter xi, qui tamen liber initio et fine caret; ac propterea solas exhibet epistolas xxvii, quarum prima et ultima mutilae sunt. Ordo postremarum undecim epistolarum in aliis collectionibus frequens est. At sexdecim priores epistolae ita ab omnibus collectionibus diversum ordinem praeferunt, ut hac de causa distinctam collectionem huic codici tribuendam putarimus. Initio enim, ex. gr., post epistolam nostrae editionis 28 ad Flavianum, subjicit epistolam 35 ad Julianum, tum epist. 31 ad Pulcheriam, epist. 59 ad Constantinopolitanos, epist. 124 ad Palaestinos, epist. 1 ad Aquileiensem episcopum, epist. 163 ad Anatolium, epist. 165 ad Leonem Augustum, etc., qui perturbatus ordo in hac una collectione invenitur. Caeterum in epistolis quae surpersunt nulla est quae in collectione sequenti non legatur. Hic codex epistolam 12 ad Mauros cum appendicula exhibet. Inter Leoninas refert suppositiam ad Germaniarum et Galliarum episcopos, ac litteras ad Dorum Beneventanum Theodoro inscribit. Plura de hac collectione dicere opus non est.

44. We found this in the Roman manuscript 237 of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, of about the eleventh century, which book, however, lacks its beginning and end; and therefore it presents only xxvii letters, of which the first and the last are mutilated. The order of the last eleven letters is frequent in other collections. But the first sixteen letters display an order so different from all the collections that for this reason we thought a distinct collection must be assigned to this codex. For at the beginning, for example, after letter 28 of our edition, to Flavian, it places letter 35, to Julian, then letter 31, to Pulcheria, letter 59, to the Constantinopolitans, letter 124, to the Palestinians, letter 1, to the bishop of Aquileia, letter 163, to Anatolius, letter 165, to the emperor Leo, etc.; this disordered sequence is found in this one collection alone. For the rest, among the letters which remain there is none which is not read in the following collection. This codex presents letter 12, to the Mauretanians, with the little appendix. Among Leo's [letters] it includes the spurious one to the bishops of the Germanies and the Gauls, and it inscribes the letter to Dorus of Benevento to Theodore. There is no need to say more about this collection.

§ XXII. De collectione vicesima prima.

§ XXII. On the twenty-first collection.

45. Haec collectio in mss. frequentior easdem epistolas lvi exhibet, quas in collectione 11 recensuimus; sed ordine et lectionibus ita diversis, ut diversam originem prodere videatur. Incipit ab epistola Leonis ad Eutychen, nobis epist. 20, et desinit in epistola ad episcopos Campaniae, nobis epist. 168. Vetustius hujus collectionis exemplar, quod vidimus, est ms. 170 bibliothecae Venetae S. Marci saeculi circiter xii. Solas epistolas continet, non minus quam duo alii codices Vatt. 542 et 543, saeculi xix. Epistolas vero una cum sermonibus collectionis 4 exhibent mss. libri Vatt. 546 et 547, Vat. Urbin. 65, unus Angelicae Patrum Augustinianorum Romae 5, 10, duo Florentini Medicei 11 et 23, pluteo 21, et unus Fesulanus canonicorum Lateranensium signatus num. 7, pluteo 3. Haec eadem collectio una cum sermonibus legitur etiam in codice Vat. 541, qui Nicolao V traditus fuit an. 1452. Hic autem codex post epistolas lxi hujus collectionis proprias additionem habet aliarum duodecim epistolarum, quarum undecim in collectione 24 continentur. At cum hic codex omnes Leoninas epistolas collectionis 24 non referat, et duodecima seu ultima ad Maximum Antiochenum in hac vicesima quarta desit, ejus additionis auctor ex alio fonte hausisse videtur. Cum vero harum duodecim epistolarum variantes fere concordent cum mss. collectionis 12, has ex eodem fonte utriusque collectores hausisse credibile est.

45. This collection, more frequent in the manuscripts, presents the same lvi letters which we reviewed in collection 11, but with an order and readings so different that it seems to betray a different origin. It begins with the letter of Leo to Eutyches, our letter 20, and ends with the letter to the bishops of Campania, our letter 168. The older copy of this collection which we have seen is manuscript 170 of the Venetian library of San Marco, of about the twelfth century. It contains the letters alone, no less than two other codices, Vatican 542 and 543, of the nineteenth [sic] century. But the letters together with the sermons of collection 4 are presented by the manuscript books Vatican 546 and 547, Vatican Urbinas 65, one of the Angelica of the Augustinian Fathers at Rome, 5, 10, two Florentine Medicean ones, 11 and 23, pluteus 21, and one of Fiesole of the Lateran canons, marked no. 7, pluteus 3. This same collection together with the sermons is read also in the codex Vatican 541, which was delivered to Nicholas V in the year 1452. This codex, however, after the lxi letters proper to this collection, has an addition of twelve other letters, eleven of which are contained in collection 24. But since this codex does not give all the Leonine letters of collection 24, and the twelfth or last, to Maximus of Antioch, is lacking in this twenty-fourth [collection], the author of that addition seems to have drawn from another source. And since the variants of these twelve letters almost agree with the manuscripts of collection 12, it is credible that the collectors of both drew them from the same source.

46. Ad hanc collectionem referri possunt duo mss. libri Vat. 3137 et Vat. Ottobonianus 332, qui easdem lvi epistolas complectuntur. Licet enim undecim epistolae abstractae a fine hujus collectionis, in his codicibus insertae legantur post epistolam 26, ac dein prosequantur caeterae epistolae a 27 ad 45, cum tamen omnes invicem eumdem ordinem servent qui in hac collectione deprehenditur, et in iisdem lectionibus fere conveniant, haec mutatio ordinis alicujus librarii arbitrio potius quam diversae origini tribuenda videtur.

46. To this collection can be referred two manuscript books, Vatican 3137 and Vatican Ottobonianus 332, which comprise the same lvi letters. For although eleven letters, taken away from the end of this collection, are read inserted in these codices after letter 26, and the other letters from 27 to 45 then follow on, yet since all keep among themselves the same order which is found in this collection, and agree almost entirely in the same readings, this change of order seems to be attributed to the choice of some copyist rather than to a different origin.

§ XXIII. De collectione vicesima secunda.

§ XXIII. On the twenty-second collection.

47. Codex Venetus S. Marci 79, praeter sermones collectionis 4 distinctam epistolarum collectionem praebet. Duarum collectionum 17 et 21 epistolas continet, hoc ordine; primum priores epist. xxvi collectionis 21, eadem serie; dein inseruntur epistolae omnes Chalcedonensi collectionis 17, eodem pariter ordine, duabus tantum omissis, quae inter praecedentes xxvi descriptae fuerant. Tandem subjiciuntur caeterae epistolae collectionis 21, sed tribus omissis, et ordine non modicum immutato, lectionibus identidem valde dissimilibus, quae aliam originem manifestissime ostendunt. Epistolae omissae sunt Eusebii Mediolanensis ad Leonem, nobis epist. 97; Ravenii ad eumdem epist. 99, et Leonis ad episcopos Campaniae epist. 168.

47. The Venetian codex of San Marco 79, besides the sermons of collection 4, furnishes a distinct collection of letters. It contains the letters of the two collections 17 and 21, in this order: first the first xxvi letters of collection 21, in the same series; then are inserted all the letters of the Chalcedonian collection 17, likewise in the same order, with only two omitted which had been copied among the preceding xxvi. Finally the remaining letters of collection 21 are appended, but with three omitted and the order changed not a little, with readings again and again very dissimilar, which most manifestly show another origin. The letters omitted are that of Eusebius of Milan to Leo, our letter 97; that of Ravennius to the same, letter 99; and that of Leo to the bishops of Campania, letter 168.

§ XXIV. De collectione vicesima tertia.

§ XXIV. On the twenty-third collection.

48. Peculiaris est collectio quae exstat in cod. Vat. Ottobon. 297 saeculi xii. Initio praebet Leonis epistolas quindecim antea recensitas in collectione 8, quarum decima quinta est epistola 165, ad Leonem Augustum. Post hanc vero epistolam, et ante testimonia Patrum eidem subjecta, inseruntur epistolae Innocentii I ad Decentium, Bonifacii I ad Honorium Augustum, responsio Honorii, et Coelestini epistola ad Venerium. Tum subjiciuntur testimonia Patrum, quae pertinent ad laudatam epist. 165. Dein sequuntur epistolae lvi collect. 21, iis exceptis quae inter priores epistolas xv descriptae fuerant, et ordine alicubi immutato. Tandem adduntur

48. A peculiar collection is the one which exists in the codex Vatican Ottoboni 297, of the twelfth century. At the beginning it furnishes fifteen letters of Leo previously reviewed in collection 8, of which the fifteenth is letter 165, to the emperor Leo. But after this letter, and before the testimonies of the Fathers appended to it, are inserted the letters of Innocent I to Decentius, of Boniface I to the emperor Honorius, the reply of Honorius, and the letter of Celestine to Venerius. Then are appended the testimonies of the Fathers which belong to the aforesaid letter 165. Next follow the lvi letters of collection 21, except those which had been copied among the first xv letters, and with the order changed in places. Finally there are added […]

in fine quatuor perrarae epistolae : ad Julianum epist. 107, ad Constantinopolitanos epist. 50, ad Flavianum epist. 49, ac ad Martinum et Faustum epist. 51. Gerardus Vossius praepositus Tungrensis ex ms. libro hujus collectionis, qui erat cardinalis Sirleti, duas epistolas tunc ineditas vulgavit, alteram ad Siculos in nostra editione epist. 7, alteram ad Julianum ep. 107, ut videre licet in appendice opusculorum subjecta editioni Moguntinae an. 1604 Operum S. Gregorii Thaumaturgi.

[…] at the end four very rare letters: to Julian, ep. 107, to the people of Constantinople, ep. 50, to Flavian, ep. 49, and to Martin and Faustus, ep. 51. Gerard Vossius, provost of Tongeren, published from a manuscript book of this collection, which belonged to Cardinal Sirleto, two letters then unpublished, one to the Sicilians, ep. 7 in our edition, the other to Julian, ep. 107, as may be seen in the appendix of minor works attached to the Mainz edition of 1604 of the Works of St Gregory Thaumaturgus.

§ XXV. De collectione vicesima quarta.

§ XXV. On the twenty-fourth collection.

49. Postremum locum damus collectioni epistolarum quas reperimus una cum sermonibus collectioni 5. In hac sunt epistolae LXXI, nimirum LIV epistolae collectionis 21 (omissis duabus Petri Chrysologi ad Eutychen, et Eusebii Mediolanensis ad Leonem), et aliae insuper rarae epistolae XVII quae in collectione 12 reperiuntur, nimirum epistolae nostrae editionis 2, 10, 24, 41, 94, 95, 102, 105, 111, 112, 113, 118, 121, 122, 123, 125 et 127. Epistolae LIV credi possent sumptae ex collectione 24 vel 11. At ne id credamus, efficit epistola 12 ad Mauros, quae licet inter LIV censeatur, in hac tamen collectione est decurtata, in collectionibus autem 11 et 21 appendiculae additionem praefert. Similiter epistolae XVII dici nequeunt sumptae ex collectione 12, quippe si ex hac collector profecisset, non has solas XVII epistolas, sed alias pariter exinde exscripsisset. His adde observationem quam fecimus, cum de Sichardi collectione, num. 28, locuti sumus. Praeterea ordo omnium harum epistolarum LXXI diversus ab ordine utriusque collectionis 12 ac 21, et lectiones item discrepantes alium ignotum fontem demonstrant : unde in conferendis quibusdam epistolis hanc collectionem veluti originale a caeteris diversum experti sumus ; adeo ut in iisdem non derivet a collectione Hispanica, a qua illae in caeteras posteriores collectiones dimanarunt. Hujus collectionis sunt codices Vaticanus 544 saeculi XII, Vat. Regius 139 saeculi XIII, Caesenas Patrum Minorum Conventualium S. Francisci, et Laurentianus Florentinus 14, pluteo 21, qui duas praeterea epistolas addit, videlicet 119 et 145. Quesnellus trium mss. hujus collectionis notitiam habuit, Victorini, Regniacensis, et S. Martini Antissiodorensis, ut patet ex Admonit. in epist. 13, n. 2 ; at solo Victorino ms. plerumque usus est. In codice Fesulano 10, pluteo 3, solum epistolae XXV hujus collectionis descriptae fuerunt, quarum pleraeque sunt ex XVII indicatis ; epistola autem ad Mauros est decurtatae editionis. Hactenus de collectionibus. Neque tamen credimus alias non posse reperiri ; auctor enim collectionis 12 quinque singulares epistolas e collectionibus adhuc incognitis procul dubio derivavit, ut superius, num. 26, observavimus.

49. The last place we give to a collection of letters which we found together with the sermons of collection 5. In it are 71 letters, namely the 54 letters of collection 21 (omitting the two, of Peter Chrysologus to Eutyches and of Eusebius of Milan to Leo), and besides these 17 other rare letters which are found in collection 12, namely letters 2, 10, 24, 41, 94, 95, 102, 105, 111, 112, 113, 118, 121, 122, 123, 125 and 127 of our edition. The 54 letters could be believed to have been taken from collection 24 or 11. But letter 12, to the Mauretanians, prevents us from believing this: although it is counted among the 54, in this collection it is nevertheless cut short, whereas in collections 11 and 21 it displays the addition of the small appendix. Likewise the 17 letters cannot be said to have been taken from collection 12, since if the collector had drawn on it, he would have copied from it not these 17 letters alone but others as well. Add to these the observation we made when we spoke of Sichard's collection, no. 28. Moreover, the order of all these 71 letters, which differs from the order of both collections 12 and 21, and likewise their divergent readings, show another, unknown source: hence in collating certain letters we have found this collection to be, as it were, an original different from the rest, so much so that in those letters it does not derive from the Spanish collection, from which they flowed into the other, later collections. To this collection belong the codices Vatican 544 of the twelfth century, Vat. Regius 139 of the thirteenth century, the Cesena manuscript of the Friars Minor Conventual of St Francis, and Laurentianus Florentinus 14, pluteus 21, which adds two letters besides, namely 119 and 145. Quesnel had knowledge of three manuscripts of this collection, the Victorine, that of Reigny and that of St Martin of Auxerre, as is clear from the Admonition to ep. 13, no. 2; but for the most part he used the Victorine manuscript alone. In the Fiesole codex 10, pluteus 3, only 25 letters of this collection were copied, most of which are among the 17 indicated; and the letter to the Mauretanians is of the shortened recension. So much for the collections. Yet we do not believe that others cannot be found; for the compiler of collection 12 undoubtedly derived five unique letters from collections still unknown, as we observed above, no. 26.

§ XXVI. De quibusdam codicibus qui praeter laudatas collectiones usui fuerunt.

§ XXVI. On certain codices which were of use besides the collections mentioned.

50. Nunc de iis codicibus breviter dicendum, qui licet collectiones epistolarum non sint, aliquas tamen Leonis epistolas praebuere. Tres vetustissimi mille circiter annorum mss. libri inprimis commemorandi sunt. Veronensis 8, post epistolas Catholicas novi Testamenti, dedit epistolam 28 Leonis ad Flavianum. Alter Veronensis 58, duarum synodorum Ephesinae et Chalcedonensis varia documenta complectens, eamdem epistolam ad Flavianum, et aliam ad Rusticum Narbonensem, cum Inquisitionibus praebuit. Alius Veronensis, nunc Vaticanus 1322, ante gesta Chalcedonensia, quinque Leonis epistolas exhibuit, nimirum epist. 87, 89, 93, 94 et 114. In ms. Vat. Reginae 293 saeculi XII, post libros De Vocatione omnium gentium describuntur quatuor epistolae S. Leonis 31, 35, 139 et 165 Similem codicem Thuaneum Quesnellus habuisse videtur, ut ex mss. ejus notitia colligi potest. In ms. Vallicellano 18 saeculi XI, qui codex varia opuscula continet, opusculo 73 inseruntur duae Leonis epistolae, nimirum tit. 398 epist. 106, et tit. 399 epist. 93. In Vaticano 1343 saeculi X, qui fuit Ecclesiae Ticinensis, et Miscellanea Dionysianae et Isidorianae collectionum exhibet, quatuor Leonis epistolae praeferuntur, quae ex additionibus Dionysianis, seu ex collectione 8 sumptae videntur, nimirum epistolae 9, 17, 20 et 108. Codex Vat. 1347 saeculi X, et similes Vat. Palat. 579, ac Vat. Reginae 849, unam epistolam 14 ad Anastasium praebuere. Barberimus codex 77, quia Quesnello memoratur in secunda editione, solam obtulit epistolam 12 ad episcopos Mauritaniae decurtatam. Exemplum primae editionis sermonum S. Leonis, quam vulgavit Joannes Andreas episcopus Aleriensis, praeter epistolam 28 ad Flavianum, quatuor alias sermonibus subjectas praestitit, videlicet epist. 80, 119, 145 et 165. Caeteri ejusdem generis mss. libri, qui peculiaribus epistolis Paschasini et Proterii ad Leonem emendandis profuere, suis locis indicabuntur : sicut etiam illi qui ad nonnullas leges huic editioni inserendas aliquid contulerunt.

50. Now something must briefly be said of those codices which, although they are not collections of letters, nevertheless supplied some letters of Leo. Three very ancient manuscript books, about a thousand years old, are to be mentioned first of all. Verona 8, after the Catholic Epistles of the New Testament, gave Leo's letter 28 to Flavian. A second Verona manuscript, 58, containing various documents of the two synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon, supplied the same letter to Flavian, and another to Rusticus of Narbonne, with the Inquiries. Another Verona manuscript, now Vatican 1322, before the acts of Chalcedon, presented five letters of Leo, namely epp. 87, 89, 93, 94 and 114. In ms. Vat. Reginae 293 of the twelfth century, after the books On the Calling of All the Nations, four letters of St Leo are copied, 31, 35, 139 and 165. Quesnel seems to have had a similar codex, the Thuanus, as can be gathered from his account of the manuscripts. In ms. Vallicellianus 18 of the eleventh century, a codex that contains various small works, two letters of Leo are inserted in small work 73, namely, as title 398, ep. 106, and as title 399, ep. 93. In Vatican 1343 of the tenth century, which belonged to the Church of Pavia and presents a miscellany of the Dionysian and Isidorian collections, four letters of Leo are displayed which seem to have been taken from the Dionysian additions, that is, from collection 8, namely letters 9, 17, 20 and 108. Codex Vat. 1347 of the tenth century, and the similar Vat. Palat. 579 and Vat. Reginae 849, supplied one letter, 14, to Anastasius. The Barberini codex 77, because it is mentioned by Quesnel in the second edition, offered only letter 12, to the bishops of Mauretania, in shortened form. A copy of the first edition of the sermons of St Leo, which John Andrew, bishop of Aleria, published, furnished, besides letter 28 to Flavian, four others appended to the sermons, namely epp. 80, 119, 145 and 165. The other manuscript books of the same kind, which were of help in correcting particular letters of Paschasinus and Proterius to Leo, will be indicated in their places, as will those which contributed something towards certain laws to be inserted in this edition.

§ XXVII. De mauuscriptis Graecis.

§ XXVII. On the Greek manuscripts.

51. Epistolas Leonis Chalcedonensi collectioni 17 praemissas, mox Graece redditas et compilatas fuisse inter an. 453 et 455 probavimus num. 34. Idem subinde factum fuisse de caeteris ejusdem litteris, quas eadem super re in Orientem transmisit, dubitare non licet : unde celeberrima inter Graecos vel olim exstitit epist. 175, ad Leonem Augustum, cujus Graeca versio omnium accuratissima est. Diximus accuratissimam omnium, eo quod caeterae interpretationes Graecae obscurae et implicatae plerumque inveniantur. Neque id ab eo antiquo tempore alienum credatur. Sicut enim hac aetate apud Latinos rari erant qui Graecam linguam probe callerent, et exactam versionem e Graeco redderent ; ita apud Graecos rari qui perfecte tenerent linguam Latinam, accuratamque interpretationem ex Latino producerent. Quoad Latinos satis indicio est illud Coelestini epist. 13 ad Nestorium, num. 2, ubi serius ad ejus epistolas se respondisse affirmat hac una de

51. That the letters of Leo placed at the head of the Chalcedonian collection 17 were soon rendered into Greek and compiled between the years 453 and 455, we proved in no. 34. That the same was afterwards done with his other letters, which he sent to the East on the same matter, cannot be doubted: hence ep. 175, to the Emperor Leo, was most celebrated among the Greeks even in former times, and its Greek version is the most accurate of all. We said the most accurate of all because the other Greek translations are for the most part found to be obscure and involved. Nor should this be thought foreign to that ancient time. For just as in that age there were few among the Latins who were thoroughly versed in the Greek tongue and could render an exact version from the Greek, so among the Greeks there were few who had a perfect hold of the Latin tongue and could produce an accurate translation from the Latin. As for the Latins, that passage of Celestine, ep. 13 to Nestorius, no. 2, is sufficient evidence, where he states that he had answered his letters rather late for this one […]

(a) ‹promptiorem usum› · printed under the full-width page 294 (cols 577–578), in two short columns

(a) Quantum licuit inquit; neque enim facile sperabat Proterius ut Alexandrini sui temporis Graeca scripta Latine diligenter redderent, ut videre est epist. 131, c. 9.

(a) "As far as was possible", he says; for Proterius did not readily hope that the Alexandrians of his time would render Greek writings carefully into Latin, as may be seen in ep. 131, ch. 9.

causa : Erat enim in Latinum sermo vertendus; ac si difficile fuerit Romae expeditum interpretem invenire. Id autem adeo notum fuisse videtur Cyrillo, ut Graeca quaedam documenta ad eumdem Coelestinum missurus, ea ob faciliorem et promptiorem usum quantum licuit per eos qui Alexandriae vitam degebant, Latine reddenda curaverit, ut ipse testatur epist. 8 ad Coelestinum num. 9. Hinc etiam S. Leo, epist. 113, c. 4, postquam affirmavit gestorum Chalcedonensium instructionem apud Romanos fuisse parum claram propter diversitatem linguae Graecae, qua illa scripta erant, de perito interprete Romae inveniendo diffidens, a Juliano Coensi enixe petiit ut ea Constantinopoli Latine transferenda curaret. Illae ipsae antiquae versiones Latinae quorumdam documentorum ante Dionysium Exiguum adeo implexae sunt, ut hanc eamdem difficultatem satis superque confirment. Idem vero accidisse apud Graecos, cum reddenda essent Graece documenta Latina, versiones pariter antiquae Graecae, quae sive in Ephesino, sive in Chalcedonensi concilio lectae fuere, testimonium locupletissimum afferunt: idque per haec quoque tempora dici potuit quod suo aevo scripsit S. Gregorius, lib. VII, epist. 13 ad Narsetem: Quia hodie in Constantinopoli civitate, qui de Latino in Graecum dictata bene transferant non sunt; dum enim verba custodiunt, et sensus minime attendunt, nec verba intelligere faciunt, et sensus frangunt. Nihil igitur mirum sit, si Graecae versiones epistolarum Leonis non adamussim respondent originali Latino, cujus sententiam Graecus interpres nonnumquam minus assecutus agnoscitur.

[…] reason: "For the discourse had to be turned into Latin"; as if it had been difficult to find a ready interpreter at Rome. And this seems to have been so well known to Cyril that, when about to send certain Greek documents to the same Celestine, he had them rendered into Latin, for easier and readier use, as far as was possible, by those who lived at Alexandria, as he himself testifies in ep. 8 to Celestine, no. 9. Hence also St Leo, ep. 113, ch. 4, after stating that the account of the acts of Chalcedon was not very clear among the Romans because of the difference of the Greek language in which they had been written, distrusting that a skilled interpreter could be found at Rome, earnestly asked Julian of Cos to have them translated into Latin at Constantinople. The very ancient Latin versions of certain documents made before Dionysius Exiguus are so involved that they confirm this same difficulty more than enough. That the same happened among the Greeks, when Latin documents had to be rendered into Greek, the likewise ancient Greek versions which were read either at the council of Ephesus or at that of Chalcedon furnish the fullest testimony; and of these times too could be said what St Gregory wrote of his own age, book VII, ep. 13 to Narses: "For today in the city of Constantinople there are none who translate well what is dictated from Latin into Greek; for while they keep the words and pay no attention to the sense, they do not make the words understood, and they break the sense." It is no wonder, therefore, if the Greek versions of Leo's letters do not correspond exactly to the Latin original, whose meaning the Greek interpreter is recognized sometimes to have grasped less well.

52. Neque tamen idcirco hae versiones minoris habendae sunt; nam sub Hormisda, reconciliatis Orientalibus cum Occidentali Ecclesia, illi non solum epistolam S. Leonis ad Flavianum, sed omnes ipsius epistolas ejusdem argumenti profiteri solebant. Id ut exigerent, in mandatis dederat laudatus pontifex suis legatis Constantinopolim transmissis, ut patet ex indiculo eisdem tradito, quod legitur tom. V Concil. pag. 567. edit. Venetae. Hinc Joannes episcopus Nicopolitanus, in epistola ad eumdem pontificem, pag. 578, a : Sequens, inquit, in omnibus synodicas et apostolicas epistolas scriptas a vero praesule Romanae Ecclesiae Leone. In professione Orientalium edita et ad eumdem pontificem missa an. 517, pag. 583, a, legitur: Suscipimus et approbamus omnes epistolas Leonis papae universas quas de religione Christiana conscripsit. Joannes Constantinopolitanus, in epistola ad eumdem, pag. 622, d: Probamus et amplectimur epistolas omnes B. Leonis papae urbis Romae, quas conscripsit de recta fide. Et ut alia id genus testimonia omittamus, ipse imperator Justinianus, in epistola ad Agapitum papam, pag. 947, e: Probantes per omnia atque amplectentes epistolas B. memoriae Leonis omnes quas de fide Christiana conscripsit. Epistolae quas isti probabant atque amplectebantur, erant interpretationis Graecae. Graecus itaque istarum textus non ut privatum scriptum habendus est, sed ut publicum Ecclesiae Orientalis monumentum ab eadem probatum atque receptum ad statuendam contra Eutychianos catholicam fidem.

52. Yet these versions are not for that reason to be held of less account; for under Hormisdas, when the Easterners were reconciled with the Western Church, they used to profess not only St Leo's letter to Flavian but all his letters on the same subject. That they should require this, the aforesaid pontiff had laid down in his instructions to his legates sent to Constantinople, as is clear from the memorandum given to them, which is read in vol. V of the Councils, p. 567, Venice edition. Hence John, bishop of Nicopolis, in a letter to the same pontiff, p. 578, a: "Following," he says, "in all things the synodical and apostolic letters written by the true prelate of the Roman Church, Leo." In the profession of the Easterners issued and sent to the same pontiff in the year 517, p. 583, a, one reads: "We receive and approve all the letters of Pope Leo, every one, which he wrote on the Christian religion." John of Constantinople, in a letter to the same, p. 622, d: "We approve and embrace all the letters of the blessed Leo, pope of the city of Rome, which he wrote on the right faith." And to omit other testimonies of that kind, the Emperor Justinian himself, in a letter to Pope Agapetus, p. 947, e: "Approving in all things and embracing all the letters of Leo of blessed memory which he wrote on the Christian faith." The letters which these men approved and embraced were of the Greek translation. The Greek text of them, therefore, is to be held not as a private writing but as a public monument of the Eastern Church, approved and received by it for establishing the catholic faith against the Eutychians.

Hinc autem quanta harum interpretationum auctoritas sit, quantumque intersit earum editio, nemo est qui non videat. Aliae porro epistolae a Graecis auctoribus ad Leonem datae et inter Leoninas recensendae, Graece scriptae fuerunt; unde Graecum exemplar originale omittendum non fuit. Duae item epistolae Leonis 43 et 72, una Hilari Romanae Ecclesiae diaconi ad Pulcheriam epist. 46, et pars epistolae 25 Petri Ravennatis ad Eutychen, licet ab auctoribus Latine scriptae fuerint; cum tamen Latinus originalis earum textus desideretur, Graeca antiqua versio, quae ab aliis postea Latine reddita fuit, pro originali textu habenda est. Ejusdem generis sunt quatuor epistolae imperiales 55, 56, 57 et 58, ex Occidente missae in Orientem, quae Latino originali deperdito, sola antiqua Graeca versio posterius Latine traducta, loco originalis haberi debet.

Hence, moreover, there is no one who does not see how great the authority of these translations is, and how much their publication matters. Further, other letters addressed to Leo by Greek authors and to be counted among Leo's were written in Greek; hence the original Greek exemplar was not to be omitted. Likewise two letters of Leo, 43 and 72, one of Hilary, deacon of the Roman Church, to Pulcheria, ep. 46, and part of letter 25, of Peter of Ravenna to Eutyches, although written in Latin by their authors, yet since their original Latin text is wanting, the ancient Greek version, which was afterwards rendered into Latin by others, is to be held as the original text. Of the same kind are the four imperial letters 55, 56, 57 and 58, sent from the West to the East, for which, the Latin original being lost, the ancient Greek version alone, later translated into Latin, must be held in place of the original.

53. Quesnellus in prima editione duodecim tantum epistolarum Graecum textum edidit, earum scilicet quas aut ab origine Graece scriptas, aut pro originalibus habendas credidit, nimirum epist. 22, 52, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 73, 76, 77 et 98. In secunda vero editione addidit alias duas Graecas 26 et 53, quae a Cotelerio, et item 100 et 110, quae ab Arnoldo post priorem editionem typis datae fuerunt. Ita decem et sex epistolas Graecas ex vulgatis excerpsit. Nos vero, quibus propositum est omnium epistolarum Graecum textum producere, iis de causis quas supra explicavimus, addemus Graecum textum aliarum epistolarum viginti et quinque, ita ut omnes Graecae epistolae hac in nostro editione futurae sint XLI. Inter has epistola 101 Anatolii ad Leonem originalis ex ms. Graeco Vaticano 1455 nunc primum prodibit. Ex eodem codice accedent etiam quinque antiquae interpretationes Graecae, quae nondum lucem viderunt, videlicet epistolarum 104, 106, 114, 115 et 139. Addemus praeterea ex Vossio Graecam exactissimam versionem epistolae 165, Leonis ad Leonem Augustum, quae nec in editis Conciliorum legitur. Caeterarum vero omnium epistolarum non exscriptores tantum erimus ex editis, ut hactenus factum est; codices enim Graecos investigavimus, et invenimus, cum quibus omnes fere epistolas Graecas conferre licuit, et illas etiam rarissimas quas Arnoldus vulgavit. Cotelerius in bibliotheca Regia Pariensi perfectum exemplar Graecum collectionis Chalcedonensis nactus est, ei omnino simile, quod antiquus Latinus interpres ejusdem collectionis adhibuit. Sex enim epistolas Graecas, quae apud interpretem Latinum ante gesta leguntur, at in codicibus qui usui fuerunt Romanis editoribus in edendo Graeco textu desunt, ex eodem ms. Regio typis dedit. In caeteris vero epistolis Graecis nemo adhuc inventus est qui Graecum textum cum

53. Quesnel in his first edition published the Greek text of only twelve letters, namely of those which he believed either to have been written in Greek from the beginning or to be held as originals, that is, epp. 22, 52, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 73, 76, 77 and 98. In the second edition he added two other Greek ones, 26 and 53, which had been printed by Cotelier, and likewise 100 and 110, which had been printed by Arnold after the first edition. Thus he extracted sixteen Greek letters from the printed editions. We, however, whose purpose is to produce the Greek text of all the letters, for the reasons we have explained above, shall add the Greek text of twenty-five other letters, so that all the Greek letters in this our edition will be 41. Among these, letter 101, of Anatolius to Leo, will appear for the first time in the original, from the Greek manuscript Vatican 1455. From the same codex there will be added also five ancient Greek translations which have not yet seen the light, namely of letters 104, 106, 114, 115 and 139. We shall add besides, from Vossius, the very exact Greek version of letter 165, of Leo to the Emperor Leo, which is not read even in the printed editions of the Councils. Of all the other letters we shall not be mere copyists from the printed editions, as has been done hitherto; for we have searched for Greek codices and found them, with which we were able to collate almost all the Greek letters, and even those very rare ones which Arnold published. Cotelier found in the Royal Library of Paris a complete Greek exemplar of the Chalcedonian collection, altogether similar to the one which the ancient Latin translator of the same collection used. For six Greek letters which are read in the Latin translator before the acts, but are missing in the codices which the Roman editors used in editing the Greek text, he printed from the same Royal manuscript. In the other Greek letters, however, no one has yet been found who […] the Greek text with […]

(a) ‹ad synodum lecta fuit› · printed under the full-width page 295 (cols 579–580), in full-width lines

(a) In addendis ad calcem tomi II positis, Romani editores insuper in hoc loco legenda sequentia inserunt; « Cum vero post editum primum tomum prodiisset Romana editio P. Petri Thomae Cacciari alii codices Vaticani Graeci quos ipsi licuit conferre, utiles nobis fuerunt, tum ut nonnulla loca emendaremus, tum ut tria Graeca fragmenta antea inedita in appendiculam referrentur. »

(a) In the addenda placed at the end of vol. II, the Roman editors further insert the following, to be read at this place: "But when, after the first volume had been published, the Roman edition of Fr Pietro Tommaso Cacciari had appeared, other Vatican Greek codices which he was able to collate were useful to us, both for correcting some passages and for bringing three Greek fragments, previously unpublished, into a small appendix."

aliquo codice recoleret et emendaret. Nos vero in mss. Graecis bibliothecae Venetae S. Marci, opem ferente cl. v. Antonio Zanetto ejusdem bibliothecae custode, epistolas a Romanis editas relegere potuimus cum duobus Graecis exemplaribus ejusdem collectionis 555 saeculi XI vel XII, et 164 saeculi recentioris, quae alterius originis et melioris notae sunt quam quae Romanis editoribus usui fuere. In mss. vero Graeco ejusdem bibliothecae 165, quod nonnulla continet ejusdem collectionis documenta, unam nacti sumus ex sex epistolis a Cotelerio vulgatis, nimirum Flaviani epist. 26, una cum interpretatione epistolae 28 Leonis ad eumdem. Has duas epistolas pariter reperimus in antiquo ms. Romano 19 Patrum Basilianorum, et cum utrisque codicibus ambas contulimus. Horum autem codicum subsidio plura Graeci textus loca sanare licuit, in quo plurimum nos debere fatemur Patri Juliano Ferrario congregationis Oratorii Veronensis presbytero, qui inter caetera litterarum atque optimarum disciplinarum ornamenta peculiari Graecae linguae peritia fulget. Praeterea ex duobus laudatis mss. Venetis 164 et 555, ineditam actionem concilii Chalcedonensis in appendice epistolarum proferemus, in qua Leonis epistola 93 ad synodum lecta fuit.

[…] some codex would review and correct. We, however, in the Greek manuscripts of the Venetian library of St Mark, with the help of that distinguished man Antonio Zanetti, keeper of the same library, were able to re-read the letters published by the Romans against two Greek exemplars of the same collection, 555, of the eleventh or twelfth century, and 164, of a more recent century, which are of another origin and of better quality than those the Roman editors used. In the Greek manuscript 165 of the same library, which contains some documents of the same collection, we found one of the six letters published by Cotelier, namely Flavian's ep. 26, together with the translation of Leo's letter 28 to him. These two letters we likewise found in the ancient Roman manuscript 19 of the Basilian Fathers, and we collated both of them with both codices. With the help of these codices it was possible to heal many passages of the Greek text, in which we confess that we owe very much to Father Giuliano Ferrari, priest of the congregation of the Oratory of Verona, who, among his other ornaments of letters and of the best disciplines, shines with a particular skill in the Greek language. Moreover, from the two Venetian manuscripts mentioned, 164 and 555, we shall bring forward in the appendix of the letters an unpublished session of the council of Chalcedon, in which Leo's letter 93 to the synod was read.

54. Unum hic monendum superest, nonnullas Graecas lectiones affixas margini editionis Romanae Conciliorum, et exinde in alias editiones traductas, et a Quesnello etiam appositas Graecis epistolis, quas Leonis editioni inseruit, non esse variantes sumptas ex aliquo Graeco codice. sed ab ipsis editoribus Romanis partim ex Latino textu, a quo discrepabat Graeca versio, partim vero ex ingenio, ubi difficilis aut corruptus textus videbatur, fuisse compactas. Hinc autem intelliges quid sint illae lectiones Graecae quas ex editoribus Romanis aliquando allegabimus.

54. One thing remains to be pointed out here: certain Greek readings attached to the margin of the Roman edition of the Councils, and carried over from there into other editions, and also appended by Quesnel to the Greek letters which he inserted in his edition of Leo, are not variants taken from some Greek codex, but were put together by the Roman editors themselves, partly from the Latin text, from which the Greek version differed, and partly from conjecture, where the text seemed difficult or corrupt. From this you will understand what those Greek readings are which we shall sometimes cite from the Roman editors.

§ XXVIII. Peculiaria hujus editionis.

§ XXVIII. The particular features of this edition.

55. Ex recensione tot collectionum, ac tot etiam peculiarium et praestantissimorum codicum, quantum adjumenti habuerimus ad perfectiorem quam antea epistolarum S. Leonis editionem parandam, quisque intelliget; nemini enim hactenus plures et vetustiores aut peculiares nostri codices usui fuere. Quibus in collectionibus quaevis epistola inveniatur, initio indicabimus hac vel simili formuia: Exstat in mss. coll. 1, 2, 3, etc. Dionysianam, Hadrianeam, Hispanicam, et Isidorianam, quod notiores sint, ex proprio nomine expresse citabimus: in quo observandum est sub Dionysianae vel Hadrianeae nomine subintelligendos etiam codices collectionis 8, in quibus Hadrianea collectio additionibus Dionysianis praemittitur; et nomine collectionis Isidorianae comprehendi mss. collectionum 11, et 12, quae Isidorianam repetunt; solum enim hae collectiones distincte erunt appellandae, cum sermo erit de epistolis quae ad Hadrianeam vel Isidorianam non pertinent, et ex alio fonte iisdem collectionibus accessere. Eadem ratione Isidori collectio nominanda non fuerat, cum, quoad epistolas Leonis, non sit nisi repetitio collectionis Hispanicae. Sed cur nihilominus ab hujus citatione non fuerit abstinendum, dictum est num. 21.

55. From the examination of so many collections, and of so many particular and most excellent codices as well, everyone will understand how much help we have had in preparing an edition of the letters of St Leo more perfect than before; for no one hitherto has had the use of more, older or more particular codices than ours. In which collections each letter is found we shall indicate at the beginning with this or a similar formula: "It is extant in the mss. of coll. 1, 2, 3, etc." The Dionysian, the Hadrianic, the Spanish and the Isidorian we shall cite expressly by their own name, because they are better known: in this it is to be observed that under the name of the Dionysian or the Hadrianic are also to be understood the codices of collection 8, in which the Hadrianic collection is placed before the Dionysian additions; and that under the name of the Isidorian collection are included the mss. of collections 11 and 12, which repeat the Isidorian; for these collections will be named separately only when the discussion concerns letters which do not belong to the Hadrianic or the Isidorian and came to these same collections from another source. By the same reasoning the collection of Isidore should not have been named, since, as regards the letters of Leo, it is nothing but a repetition of the Spanish collection. But why we nevertheless should not refrain from citing it has been said in no. 21.

56. Quesnellus plerumque omisit antiquos epistolarum titulos, qui in codicibus inveniuntur, ut novas synopses a se compactas, quas aptiores credidit, praefigeret. Nos vero retentis, vel, ubi opus erit, emendatis titulis Quesnelli, omnes antiquos accurate proponemus in annotationibus, nimirum illos qui sunt in collectionibus Dionysiana, Hispanica seu Isidori, ac in quinta Quesnelliana.

56. Quesnel for the most part omitted the ancient titles of the letters which are found in the codices, in order to prefix new synopses put together by himself, which he believed more suitable. We, however, keeping Quesnel's titles, or correcting them where need be, shall set out all the ancient ones accurately in the annotations, namely those that are in the Dionysian collection, the Spanish or Isidore's, and the fifth Quesnellian.

57. Ordo epistolarum necessario mutabitur. Primo enim non paucarum epistolarum chronica notatio ex nostris codicibus corrigenda erit. Alias etiam epistolas quae chronicis notis carent, non levibus argumentis in aliud tempus traducemus, ac exinde series ipsa aliter erit ordinanda. Deinde una epistola a Quesnello recepta expungetur, aliae vero ineditae accedent. Tandem optime ille quidem inter Leonis epistolas vulgavit alias aliorum litteras ad Leonem scriptas, vel ad eum pertinentes; at eas sine ullo numero quo citari et inveniri facile possint, inseruit. Nos praeterquam quod addemus allias nonnullas, probatissimorum editorum exemplum secuti, singulis suum numerum praefigemus, quod numerorum ordinem a Quesnello propositum multo magis subvertet.

57. The order of the letters will necessarily be changed. For in the first place the dating of not a few letters will have to be corrected from our codices. Other letters too which lack dates we shall move, on no light arguments, to another time, and in consequence the series itself will have to be arranged differently. Then one letter admitted by Quesnel will be struck out, and other, unpublished ones will be added. Finally, he did very well to publish among Leo's letters other letters by others, written to Leo or concerning him; but he inserted them without any number by which they could easily be cited and found. We, besides adding some others, following the example of the most approved editors, shall prefix its own number to each, which will overturn the order of numbers proposed by Quesnel much more.

58. Cum in emendando textu Quesnellianas variantes seu margini seu in notis designatas non negligemus, tum vero notas et observationes ejusdem fusiores, quas ipse in secundum tomum post dissertationes rejecit, in secundo pariter tomo hujus editionis per nos identidem, seu illustratas, seu emendatas invenies. Epistolas Leoois excipiet appendix, in qua praeter supposititias alia quaedam documenta ad Leonis litteras pertinentia, et inter haec nonnulla inedita proferentur.

58. While in correcting the text we shall not neglect Quesnel's variants, marked either in the margin or in the notes, you will also find his more extended notes and observations, which he himself put off into the second volume after the dissertations, likewise in the second volume of this edition, now and again either illustrated or corrected by us. The letters of Leo will be followed by an appendix, in which, besides the spurious ones, certain other documents relating to Leo's letters will be brought forward, and among them some unpublished ones.

59. Syllabum codicum singularum collectionum quos in emendandis epistolis adhibuimus, hic non atteximus, quia cum superius suo loco eos distincte nominarimus, ac in plerisque collectionibus unici vel pauci sint, facile erit invenire quis sit ille codex quem ex quavis collectione allegaturi sumus. Solum cum in collectione 21 plura mss. exemplaria nacti simus, monendum est duo potissimum usui fuisse, Vatt. 543 et 546, quae citata intelliges, cum mss. Vatt. collationis 21 allegata reperies. Si qui autem codices praeterea conferendi visi sunt in quibusdam lectionibus, eos proprio nomine laudabimus.

59. A list of the codices of the individual collections which we have used in correcting the letters we do not attach here, because, since we have named them distinctly above in their place, and in most collections they are single or few, it will be easy to find which codex it is that we are going to cite from any collection. Only, since in collection 21 we obtained several manuscript exemplars, it must be pointed out that two were chiefly used, Vatt. 543 and 546, which you will understand to be cited when you find "mss. Vatt. of collection 21" alleged. And if any other codices seemed worth collating for certain readings, we shall cite them by their own name.

60. Hic tandem anidmadvertimus, epistolam Cassiani ad Leonem in serie epistolarum omissam fuisse, eo quod ad Leonem tunc non pontificem, sed Romanae Ecclesiae archidiaconum directa, inter testimonia initio describatur. Libelli vero supplices Theodori et Ischirionis diaconorum, Athanasii presbyteri, ac Stephani laici Alexandrinae Ecclesiae, qui Leoni Romano episcopo, et sancto ac universali concilio Chalcedonensi inscripti, atque in eodem oblati, inseruntur actioni tertiae ipsius concilii, cum non agant de peculiari negotio cum Leone nostro, nec ad eum missi fuerint, inter hujus pontificis epistolas aequum locum habere non posse visi sunt. Inter has potius accensenda fuisset epistola encyclica Gennadii Constantinopolitani et episcoporum 73 adversus simoniacos, quae tom. V Conciliorum editionis Venetae pag. 45 directa traditur ad omnes metropolitas, καὶ πρὸς τὺτ πάπαν Ῥώμης et ad papam Romae. Cum enim haec encyclica scripta fuerit circa annum 457, ad nostrum Leonem missa dicenda esset. At cum ea verba καὶ πρὸς τὸν πάμαν Ῥώμης legantur quidem in editis et in codice Colbertino 4262, sed omittantur in duobus vetustioribus mss. Caesareo et alio Colbertino 924, in quibus subscriptiones leguntur a Baluzio editae ; de hac inscriptionis particula, quae Leonem respiceret, maxime ambigimus, et idcirco hanc epistolam memorare solum hoc loco satis duximus.

60. Here, finally, we point out that the letter of Cassian to Leo has been omitted from the series of letters because, being addressed to Leo when he was not yet pontiff but archdeacon of the Roman Church, it is copied at the beginning among the testimonies. The petitions of Theodore and Ischyrion, deacons, of Athanasius, priest, and of Stephen, layman, of the Church of Alexandria, which are addressed to Leo, bishop of Rome, and to the holy and universal council of Chalcedon, and were presented at that council, are inserted in the third session of the council itself; since they do not deal with any particular business with our Leo, nor were they sent to him, it did not seem that they could rightly have a place among this pontiff's letters. Rather, one might have counted among them the encyclical letter of Gennadius of Constantinople and of 73 bishops against the simoniacs, which in vol. V of the Councils, Venice edition, p. 45, is reported to be addressed to all the metropolitans, "and to the pope of Rome" (given in Greek and in Latin). For since this encyclical was written about the year 457, it would have to be said to have been sent to our Leo. But since those words "and to the pope of Rome" are read indeed in the printed editions and in the Colbert codex 4262, but are omitted in two older manuscripts, the Imperial and another Colbert, 924, in which the subscriptions published by Baluze are read, we are in great doubt about this particle of the address, which would concern Leo, and for that reason we have thought it enough merely to mention this letter here.

SANCTI LEONIS MAGNI ROMANI PONTIFICIS EPISTOLAE.

THE LETTERS OF ST LEO THE GREAT, ROMAN PONTIFF.

ADMONITIO

ADMONITION

In duas epistolas sequentes, I et II, ubi etiam de epistola XVIII.

On the two following letters, I and II, where letter XVIII is also treated.

1. De duabus epistolis 1 ad Aquileiensem episcopum, et 2 ad Septimum Altinensem, quae ex ipso argumento simul jungendae sunt, agi non potest, nisi quaedam dicantur etiam de epistola 18 ad Januarium, quae ob excitatas controversias non exiguum cum illis nexum habere videtur. Ita haec prima admonitio tribus epistolis lucem afferet.

1. The two letters, 1 to the bishop of Aquileia and 2 to Septimus of Altinum, which by their very subject are to be joined together, cannot be treated without something also being said of letter 18 to Januarius, which, because of the controversies raised, seems to have no small connection with them. Thus this first admonition will shed light on three letters.

2. Postquam Card. Norisius in Pelagianae Historiae lib. II c. 12 duabus columnis, e regione edens duas Leonis epistolas ad Septimum, atque Januarium, palam fecit utrasque esse ejusdem exempli, de alterutra dubitari coepit. Quesnellus prolixa observatione epistolam ad Septimum suppositionis accusavit, et imposturae auctorem credidit Isidorum Mercatorem. E contra Josephus Antelmius dissert. 4 de veteris Operibus S. Leonis Magni hanc epistolam genuinam propugnans, illam ad Januarium commentitiam contendit. Aliquot subinde epistolae editae sunt ab utroque, quibus suam quisque sententiam vindicare studuit. Pagius in Critica ad an. 447, n. 8, Antelmii amici et comprovincialis sui opinionem secutus est. Quesnello autem favet P. Bernardus de Rubeis in Monumentis Ecclesiae Aquileiensis c. 15. pag. 140. Tillemontius, tom. XV, not. 3 in Leonis Vit. pag. 890, probe refellit Quesnelli rationes, quibus epistolam ad Septimum rejicere studuit; at opinionem Antelmii, qua epistola ad Januarium exploditur, approbare non audet. Solum in fine pronuntiat. Si haec epistola non niteretur auctoritate non levi, et necesse esset alterutram ad Januarium vel ad Septimum veluti supposititiam repudiare, illam potius quam istam rejiciendam videri. Nihil tamen pro abjudicandi alterutra satis vehemens atque convincens allatum esse fatetur in ipso opere, art. 7, pag. 431.

2. After Cardinal Noris, in book II, ch. 12 of the History of Pelagianism, printing two letters of Leo, to Septimus and to Januarius, side by side in two columns, made it plain that both were of the same exemplar, doubts began to be raised about one or the other. Quesnel, in a lengthy observation, accused the letter to Septimus of being spurious, and believed Isidore Mercator to be the author of the imposture. On the other hand Joseph Antelmy, in dissertation 4 on the old Works of St Leo the Great, defending this letter as genuine, contended that the one to Januarius is fabricated. Several letters were afterwards published by each of them, in which each strove to vindicate his own opinion. Pagi, in the Critica on the year 447, no. 8, followed the opinion of Antelmy, his friend and fellow provincial. P. Bernardo de Rubeis, on the other hand, favours Quesnel in the Monuments of the Church of Aquileia, ch. 15, p. 140. Tillemont, vol. XV, note 3 on the Life of Leo, p. 890, rightly refutes Quesnel's reasons by which he strove to reject the letter to Septimus; but he does not venture to approve Antelmy's opinion, by which the letter to Januarius is rejected. Only at the end does he pronounce: if this letter did not rest on no slight authority, and if it were necessary to repudiate one or the other, to Januarius or to Septimus, as spurious, the former rather than the latter would seem to be rejected. Yet he admits in the work itself, art. 7, p. 431, that nothing sufficiently strong and convincing has been brought forward for rejecting either of them.

§ I De codicibus diversarum collectionum, in quibus memoratae epistolae continentur.

§ I. On the codices of the various collections in which the letters mentioned are contained.

3. Antequam nostram aperiamus sententiam, qua omnes has epistolas vindicandas credimus, memorandi in primis sunt mss. codices et collectiones in quibus una, vel duae, vel tres laudatae epistolae reperiuntur; hinc enim potissimum vindiciarum argumentum elicietur. Sola epistola prima ad Aquileiensem episcopum, de qua nemo ambigit, invenitur in codicibus collectionis tertiae Barber. 2888, et Vat. 1342, necnon in exemplo Sichardi.

3. Before we disclose our opinion, by which we believe that all these letters are to be vindicated, we must first mention the manuscript codices and collections in which one, two or three of the letters mentioned are found; for from this chiefly the argument for their vindication will be drawn. The first letter alone, to the bishop of Aquileia, about which no one is in doubt, is found in the codices of the third collection, Barber. 2888 and Vat. 1342, and also in Sichard's copy.

4. Sola epistola 18 ad Januarium exstat in collectione Dionysii Exigui, et ex Dionysio in Hispanica et Hadrianea et in Isidoriana pura. Hic autem notandum est postremam Isidori collectionem, quoad epistolas Leonis, ne unam quidem habere supra illas quae describuntur in Hispanica, unde illas Isidorus sumpsit: in Hadrianea vero, quae ex Dionysio originem habet, Dionysianis addita legitur una epistola 12 ad Mauros, ut in Admonitione ad eamdem ostendetur. Primum de Isidoriana monendum fuit adversus Quesnellum, qui commentitiam, ut ipse putat, epistolam ad Septimum ex Isidoriana derivatam affirmat, ubi puram Isidori collectionem, quae litteris ad Septimum caret, confundit cum collectione a Merlino edita, quae Isidoriana auctior, et a nobis appellata collectio 12, eas ad Septimum litteras recepit. Alterum vero de collectione Dionysii praenotandum erat adversus Antelmium, qui in primis litteris de hac controversia Gallice scriptis, declinaturus auctoritatem Dionysii, quae pro epistola 18 ad Januarium maxime valet, hanc non a Dionysio insertam, sed ab alio posteriori additam prodit, quemadmodum addita fuit epistola ad Mauros. At haec comparatio est plane inanis. Duo enim codices suppetunt puri Dionysii Vat. 5845, et alius, qui in bibliotheca Regis Galliae servatur. In codice Regis Galliae epistola ad Januarium suo loco exhibetur ; epistola autem ad Mauros, licet genuina et ipsa sit, ut alias videbimus, cum tamen non fuerit a Dionysio inserta, nuspiam apparet. In Vaticano autem codice 5845 explorate discernuntur additiones quae Dionysio posterius accessere : nam hae omnes non suo loco leguntur insertae, ut in collectione Hadriani factum est, sed post descriptam puram collectionem Dionysii in fine additae deprehenduntur, et inter has legitur epistola ad Mauros, ut in admonitione ad eamdem epistolam fusius explicabitur. Ipsa rubrica titulorum Leonis num. 48 tabulae praemissa, cui tituli totidem et non amplius in corpore ejus codicis respondent, epistolam ad

4. Letter 18 alone, to Januarius, is extant in the collection of Dionysius Exiguus, and from Dionysius in the Spanish and the Hadrianic, and in the pure Isidorian. Here, however, it is to be noted that the later collection of Isidore, as regards the letters of Leo, has not even one beyond those which are copied in the Spanish, from which Isidore took them; whereas in the Hadrianic, which has its origin from Dionysius, one letter, 12 to the Mauretanians, is read added to the Dionysian ones, as will be shown in the Admonition to that letter. The first point, about the Isidorian, had to be made against Quesnel, who asserts that the letter to Septimus, fabricated as he thinks, derives from the Isidorian, where he confuses the pure collection of Isidore, which lacks the letter to Septimus, with the collection published by Merlin, which, being an enlarged Isidorian, and called by us collection 12, admitted that letter to Septimus. The other point, about the collection of Dionysius, had to be noted beforehand against Antelmy, who in his first letters on this controversy, written in French, in order to evade the authority of Dionysius, which counts most in favour of letter 18 to Januarius, declares that it was not inserted by Dionysius but added by another, later hand, just as the letter to the Mauretanians was added. But this comparison is plainly empty. For two codices of the pure Dionysius are available, Vat. 5845 and another which is kept in the library of the King of France. In the codex of the King of France the letter to Januarius is presented in its place; but the letter to the Mauretanians, although it too is genuine, as we shall see elsewhere, nevertheless, since it was not inserted by Dionysius, appears nowhere. In the Vatican codex 5845, moreover, the additions which came to Dionysius later are clearly distinguished: for all of them are read not inserted in their place, as was done in the collection of Hadrian, but are found added at the end after the pure collection of Dionysius has been copied out, and among them is read the letter to the Mauretanians, as will be explained more fully in the admonition to that same letter. The very rubric of the titles of Leo, 48 in number, placed before the table, to which just as many titles and no more correspond in the body of that codex, […] the letter to […]

Januarium requirit, epistolam vero ad Mauros, quae in Hadrianeis editionibus num. 49 recensetur, excludit. Hinc sane Cresconius, qui ex puro Dionysio suam collectionem digessit, nihil uspiam refert ex epistola ad Mauros, totam autem epistolam ad Januarium dedit tit. 61. Auctor vero collectionis Hispanicae, qui quaecumque in Dionysio reperit, cum iisdem quoque titulis Dionysianis in suum opus transtulit, habet quidem epistolam ad Januarium cum titulo et lectione Dionysii, epistolam vero ad Mauros, quoniam apud eum minime invenit, ex alia decurtata editione protulit, quae ab editione Dionysio posterius addita discrepat. Adde tandem quod epistola ad Januarium apud Dionysium non in fine epistolarum Leonis collocatur, sed in medio ; est enim inter septem a Dionysio positas epistola quarta ; epistola vero ad Mauros, cum addititia sit, in fine Hadrianeae collectionis, quae additamenta Dionysiana recepit, sita est. Idem accidisset epistolae ad Januarium, si inter additamenta fuisset.

[…] Januarius requires, but excludes the letter to the Mauretanians, which in the Hadrianic editions is counted as no. 49. Hence indeed Cresconius, who arranged his collection from the pure Dionysius, reports nothing anywhere from the letter to the Mauretanians, but gave the whole letter to Januarius as title 61. The author of the Spanish collection, who carried over into his work whatever he found in Dionysius, with the same Dionysian titles too, has the letter to Januarius with the title and reading of Dionysius, but the letter to the Mauretanians, since he did not find it in him, he brought out from another, shortened edition, which differs from the edition added to Dionysius later. Add finally that the letter to Januarius is placed in Dionysius not at the end of the letters of Leo but in the middle; for among the seven set down by Dionysius it is the fourth letter; whereas the letter to the Mauretanians, being an addition, is placed at the end of the Hadrianic collection, which took in the Dionysian additions. The same would have happened to the letter to Januarius if it had been among the additions.

5. Epistolam primum ad Aquileiensem una cum epistola secunda ad Septimum illi immediate subjecta exhibent antiquissimi codices Vat. Reginae 1997 collectionis 1 Lucensis, et similis Colbertinus collectionis quartae, alius codex Parisiensium Jesuitarum ab Antelmio laudatus epist. 1. et a Pagio ad an. 447, cujus recentius documentum pertinet ad an. 615, ac tandem quatuor antiquitate praestantes codices collectionis 8 Vat. 5845, Vallicellanus signatus A. 5, Vercellensis saeculi IX et Vat. 1353, qui ex alio Bergomate saeculi IX transcriptus fuit.

5. The first letter, to the bishop of Aquileia, together with the second letter, to Septimus, placed immediately after it, is presented by the very ancient codices Vat. Reginae 1997 of collection 1; the Lucca codex and the similar Colbert codex of the fourth collection; another codex, of the Jesuits of Paris, cited by Antelmy, ep. 1, and by Pagi on the year 447, whose most recent document belongs to the year 615; and finally four codices of collection 8 outstanding for their antiquity, Vat. 5845, the Vallicellianus marked A. 5, the Vercelli manuscript of the ninth century, and Vat. 1353, which was copied from another, of Bergamo, of the ninth century.

6. Eamdem epistolam 1 ad Aquileiensem una cum epist. 18 ad Januarium, non tamen unitas. sed aliis Leoninis intermediis disjunctas, reperimus in mss. collectionum 11, 20, 21 et 22.

6. The same letter 1, to the bishop of Aquileia, together with ep. 18 to Januarius, not joined, however, but separated by other letters of Leo in between, we find in the manuscripts of collections 11, 20, 21 and 22.

7. Demum omnes hae tres epistolae, prima ad Aquileiensem, et secunda ad Septimum simul junctae, epistola vero 18 ad Januarium seorsim descripta, continentur in mss. antiquissimae collectionis 5, in peculiari ms. Florentino S. Marci collectionis 13, ac in codicibus collectionis 12, 23 et 24, quos in praefatione fusius memoravimus.

7. Finally all three of these letters, the first, to the bishop of Aquileia, and the second, to Septimus, joined together, and letter 18, to Januarius, copied separately, are contained in the manuscripts of the very ancient collection 5, in the particular Florence manuscript of St Mark of collection 13, and in the codices of collections 12, 23 and 24, which we mentioned more fully in the Preface.

§ II Argumentum ex mss. pro statuenda sinceritate epistolarum ad Septimum Altinensuem et ad Januarium Aquileiensem, quae solae a nonnullis in suspicionem vocantur.

§ II. The argument from the manuscripts for establishing the genuineness of the letters to Septimus of Altinum and to Januarius of Aquileia, which alone are called into suspicion by some.

8. Ex hac codicum notitia cognoscimus epistolas ad Septimum et ad Januarium, quae in controversiam cadunt, in diversis collectionibus inveniri, nimirum epistolam ad Septimum in novem collectionibus, epistolam vero ad Januarium in collectionibus tredecim.

8. From this account of the codices we learn that the letters to Septimus and to Januarius, which fall into controversy, are found in different collections, namely the letter to Septimus in nine collections, and the letter to Januarius in thirteen collections.

9. Cum epistola prima ad Aquileiensem a nemine vocatur in dubium, satis erit si epistolae 2 ad Septimum et 18 ad Januarium authenticitatem ex memoratis collectionibus statuamus. Quamvis vero utraeque in pluribus collectionibus describantur, solas tamen antiquas collectiones urgebimus, quae sexto circiter saeculo compactae, majori auctoritate potiuntur, et ex quibus caeterae profectae sunt.

9. Since the first letter, to the bishop of Aquileia, is called into doubt by no one, it will be enough if we establish the authenticity of letter 2 to Septimus and 18 to Januarius from the collections mentioned. And although both are copied in many collections, we shall press only the ancient collections, which, put together about the sixth century, enjoy greater authority, and from which the others proceeded.

10. Epistola ad Septimum legitur in ms. Vat. Reginae collectionis primae ineunte VI saeculo lucubratae, quae nihil apocryphum praefert ; in perantiqua collectione 4 codicum Lucensis et Colbertini ; in vetusta collectione 5 et in collectione 8 ; ac tandem in codice Jesuitarum Parisiensium, qui licet in Conciliis perveniat ad an. 615, cum tamen Catologum pontificum exhibeat desinentem in Felice successore Hormisdae, haec collectio in ipsa origine sub hoc tempus coneinnata, videri potest, cui posteriora documenta subinde accesserint.

10. The letter to Septimus is read in the ms. Vat. Reginae of the first collection, compiled at the beginning of the sixth century, which displays nothing apocryphal; in the very ancient collection 4 of the Lucca and Colbert codices; in the old collection 5 and in collection 8; and finally in the codex of the Jesuits of Paris, which, although in the Councils it reaches the year 615, yet since it presents a Catalogue of the pontiffs ending with Felix, the successor of Hormisdas, this collection may be seen to have been put together in its origin about this time, and later documents to have been added to it afterwards.

Mirum autem videtur, Quesnellum hanc Leonis epistolam veluti spuriam repudiasse, nulla habita ratione codicum saltem collectionis 5, quam codicis Romanae Ecclesiae nomine edidit. Is quidem se ab hac objectione subducere potest, eo quod hunc codicem non totum simul compactum putavit. Leonis autem epistolas inter additamenta posterioris temporis retulit. Sed hoc commentitium effugium est, quod nulla ratione aut auctoritate munitur. Omnes antiqui ejus collectionis codices, qui sive a Pithoeo, sive a Constantio memorantur, et nostri etiam Vindebonenses Leoninas epistolas habent, idemque Quesnellus observat. 1 in epistolam ad Mauros num. 1, de Thuaneo codice loquens, ejusdem collectionis antiquitatem et diligentiam commendavit. Licet autem haec collectio nec sub Leone, nec a Romanis, sed exeunte V vel ineunte VI saeculo est, ut vel ex hac collectione maximum ad secundam epistolam vindicandam testimonium accedat. Addemus etiam aliud non leve. Epistola ad Septimum non sine epistola ad Aquileiensem episcopum, et vicissim epistola ad Aquileiensem non sine epistola ad Septimum in omnibus vetustissimis collectionibus legitur, excepta collectione 3, quae solam epistolam ad Aquileiensem continet ; et semper isti epistolae, de qua nulla dubitatio est, illa immediate subjecta et unita in iisdem collectionibus exhibetur. Id autem indicio est utrasque has litteras in iisdem exemplaribus, ex quibus antiqui collectores illas descripserunt, simul inventas fuisse ; adeo ut dubitari de una nequeat, quin dubitetur de altera ; et si quidem de epistola prima dubitandum non est, neque de secunda dubitari possit.

It seems surprising, however, that Quesnel rejected this letter of Leo as spurious, taking no account at least of the codices of collection 5, which he published under the name of the codex of the Roman Church. He can indeed withdraw himself from this objection because he thought that this codex was not put together all at once, and he assigned the letters of Leo to the additions of a later time. But this is an invented evasion, which is supported by no reason or authority. All the ancient codices of that collection which are mentioned either by Pithou or by Coustant, and our Vienna codices too, have the letters of Leo; and the same Quesnel, in observation 1 on the letter to the Mauretanians, no. 1, speaking of the Thuanus codex, commended the antiquity and carefulness of this same collection. And although this collection is not from Leo's time, nor from the Romans, but from the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century, even so, from this collection the greatest testimony is added for vindicating the second letter. We shall add another point too, and not a light one. The letter to Septimus is not read without the letter to the bishop of Aquileia, and conversely the letter to the bishop of Aquileia is not read without the letter to Septimus, in all the oldest collections, except collection 3, which contains only the letter to the bishop of Aquileia; and the former is always presented in the same collections placed immediately after and joined to the latter, about which there is no doubt. This is an indication that both these letters were found together in the same exemplars from which the ancient collectors copied them; so that one cannot be doubted without the other being doubted; and if indeed the first letter is not to be doubted, neither can the second be doubted.

11. Epistola ad Januarium 18 luculentissime defendi potest sola auctoritate Dionysii, quem paulo post Leonem ex authenticis exemplaribus suam collectionem Romae lucubrasse certissimum est, unde nihil, supposititium attulit. Qnis sine evidentibus argumentis, quae sane nulla sunt, hanc epistolam ab eo, ut vidimus, insertam accusare audeat ? Sed Dionysianae auctoritati additur alia aequalis antiquitatis collectio, nimirum 5 Quesnelliana, quae ex alio fonte dimanat, uti optime animadvertit P. Coustantius in praefat. ad epist. Rom. pontif. n. 87, pag. 78. Hic pariter collector alia in regione Leoninas epistolas colligens, cum in caeteris omnibus sincera exemplaria nactus sit, de exemplari quoque hujus epistolae, quod licet e Dionysio non prodeat, concinit tamen cum Dionysiano, dubitare non licet. Adde quod haec una epistola in utrisque collectionibus die, mense, et consulatu notatur, qui characteres Leonis aetati conveniunt. Id authenticitatem etiam atque etiam confirmat ; supposititiae enim epistolae in ejusmodi notis plerumque repugnant. Neque movere debet Antelmius, cum epistola 1, num. 6, apposuit codices antiquarum collectionum, qui dum sinceram et indubitatam epistolam ad Aquileiensem exhibent, adjunctam quidem habent epistolam ad Septimum, istam vero ad Januarium omittunt : quod in argumentum suppositionis adduxit. Inter vetustissimas enim collectiones profecto est Quesnelliana 5, cujus ille notitiam non satis accuratam habuit. In hac autem, una cum duabus illis epistolis, est etiam epistola ad Januarium, sicuti est quoque in cod. Florentino collectionis 13 et in codd. collectionis 24, qui aliam a Quesnelliana collectione originem agnoscunt. Hinc ergo vel antiquissimis illis temporibus, quibus collectio 5 non multo post Leonem composita fuit, trium harum epistolarum exemplaria exstabant : quae antiquitas, si, ubi nil certi opponitur, ad hujus epistolae authenticitatem probandam non sufficit, nihil erit in ejusmodi collectionibus quod in dubium vocari non possit.

11. The letter to Januarius, 18, can be defended most clearly by the authority of Dionysius alone, who, it is most certain, compiled his collection at Rome a little after Leo from authentic exemplars, so that he brought in nothing spurious. Who, without evident arguments, which in fact there are none, would dare to accuse this letter, inserted by him, as we have seen? But to the Dionysian authority is added another collection of equal antiquity, namely the fifth Quesnellian, which flows from another source, as Fr Coustant very well observed in the preface to the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, no. 87, p. 78. Since this collector likewise, gathering the letters of Leo in another region, obtained genuine exemplars in all the other cases, one may not doubt about the exemplar of this letter too, which, although it does not come from Dionysius, nevertheless agrees with the Dionysian. Add that this one letter is marked in both collections with the day, the month and the consulate, which characteristics suit the age of Leo. This confirms its authenticity again and again; for spurious letters are for the most part at odds in marks of this kind. Nor should Antelmy move us when, at letter 1, no. 6, he set out the codices of ancient collections which, while they present the genuine and undoubted letter to the bishop of Aquileia, have indeed the letter to Septimus joined to it but omit this one to Januarius: which he adduced as an argument that it was spurious. For among the oldest collections is certainly the fifth Quesnellian, of which he had a not sufficiently accurate knowledge. And in this, together with those two letters, is also the letter to Januarius, as it is also in the Florence codex of collection 13 and in the codices of collection 24, which acknowledge another origin than the Quesnellian collection. Hence, therefore, even in those very ancient times in which collection 5 was composed, not long after Leo, exemplars of these three letters existed: and if this antiquity, where nothing certain is opposed to it, is not enough to prove the authenticity of this letter, there will be nothing in collections of this kind that cannot be called into doubt.

12. Auctoritas itaque codicum et collectionum, praesertim antiquarum, quas tum pro epistola ad Septimum, tum pro epistola ad Januarium hactenus consideravimus, satis esse deberet ad refellendas eas conjectationes quae iisdem opponuntur, adeo ut iisdem nihil respondere oporteret. Hoc enim loco tum contra

12. The authority, therefore, of the codices and collections, especially the ancient ones, which we have so far considered both for the letter to Septimus and for the letter to Januarius, ought to be enough to refute those conjectures which are opposed to them, so that there would be no need to answer them at all. For in this place, both against […]

Quesnellum, tum contra Antelmium maxime valet, quod idem Quesnellus in hac ipsa controversia conjectationibus respondit Antelmii in epistola ad Amicum 15 Augusti an. 1689, nimirum codices collectionum tam antiquarum satis sunt ad convincendum conjecturas per triumphum elatas illusionibus accensendas esse, et alias ejusdem generis quamplurimas demonstrationum nomine propositas ex hoc exemplo suspectas reddi. Praecipuas tamen sine aliqua responsione nolumus praeterire.

[…] Quesnel and against Antelmy, what counts most is what the same Quesnel, in this very controversy, answered to Antelmy's conjectures in the letter to a Friend of 15 August 1689: namely, that the codices of such ancient collections are enough to prove that conjectures carried along in triumph are to be counted as illusions, and that very many others of the same kind, put forward under the name of demonstrations, are rendered suspect by this example. The principal ones, however, we do not wish to pass over without some answer.

§ III. Objectiones adversus epistolam ad Septimum solutae.

§ III. The objections against the letter to Septimus resolved.

13. Quesnellus, in notis epistolae ad Septimum, objicit Aquileiensem in ea appellari Metropolitanum provinciae Venetiae, cum olim haec vocaretur provincia Istriae, ut ex Pelagio, Gregorio, aliisque posterioribus documentis ostendit. Quo tamen argumento statuit hanc provinciam ante Pelagium Istriae, et non Venetiae vocatum fuisse ? Certe S. Ambrosius in epistola ad Vercellenses Liguriae, Aemiliae, Venetiarumque partes vocat ; et in concilio Romano an. 501, tom. V Concil. Ven. edit. pag. 457, similiter appellantur episopi Liguriae, Aemiliae et Venetiarum. S. Leo inter Ambrosii et hujus concilii aetatem floruit, qui si Venetiae, non Venetiarum dixit, nihil refert, cum et in inscriptionibus et in notitia imperii consularis Venetiae, provincia Venetiae, etc., singulari numero inveniatur.

13. Quesnel, in his notes on the letter to Septimus, objects that the bishop of Aquileia is called in it Metropolitan of the province of Venetia, whereas formerly this was called the province of Istria, as he shows from Pelagius, Gregory and other later documents. But by what argument did he establish that before Pelagius this province was called that of Istria, and not of Venetia? Certainly St Ambrose, in the letter to the people of Vercelli, speaks of the regions of Liguria, Aemilia and the Venetias; and in the Roman council of the year 501, vol. V of the Councils, Venice edition, p. 457, the bishops of Liguria, Aemilia and the Venetias are similarly named. St Leo flourished between the age of Ambrose and that of this council, and if he said "of Venetia", not "of the Venetias", it makes no difference, since both in inscriptions and in the Notitia of the Empire "consular of Venetia", "province of Venetia", etc., is found in the singular.

14. Minoris multo faciendum est, quod idem Quesnellus obtrudit, in eadem epistola depositionis minas contineri, cum attente considerantibus idipsum subindicent verba epistolae ad Aquileiensem, quae per omnes germana est : et idem Leo in epist. 10 ad episcopos provinciae Viennensis, c. 7, satis aperte innuat, se pro sedis apostolicae pietate ab Hilarii Gallicani metropolitae depositione supersedisse, quod et in Novella Valentinianus confirmat epist. 11. In causa autem Pelagianorum, de quibus in epistola ad Septimum agitur, hoc insuper accedit, quod Honorii lex adversus Pelagium atque Coelestium amissionem episcopatus sanxerat, non tantum adversus infectos hac haeresi, sed etiam contra illos qui dissimulando conniventiam, aut non damnando favorem noxium praestiterint. In epistola autem ad Septimum de iis rectoribus sermo est qui in Pelagianos negligentius agentes serpenti haeresi conniverent.

14. Of much less account is what the same Quesnel thrusts forward, that threats of deposition are contained in the same letter, since, to those who consider attentively, the words of the letter to the bishop of Aquileia, which is genuine by everyone's account, hint at the very same thing; and the same Leo, in ep. 10 to the bishops of the province of Vienne, ch. 7, indicates plainly enough that out of the kindness of the apostolic see he refrained from deposing Hilary, the Gallic metropolitan, which Valentinian also confirms in the Novel, ep. 11. In the case of the Pelagians, moreover, who are dealt with in the letter to Septimus, there is this besides: that the law of Honorius against Pelagius and Caelestius had decreed the loss of the episcopate not only against those infected with this heresy, but also against those who, by dissembling, showed connivance, or by not condemning, showed harmful favour. And in the letter to Septimus the discourse is about those rulers who, acting too negligently against the Pelagians, connived at the creeping heresy.

§ IV. Diluuntur objecta contra epistolam ad Januarium.

§ IV. The objections against the letter to Januarius are refuted.

15. Antelmius (Ep. 1, n. 13 et seqq.) opponit epistolae ad Januarium, alienum a disciplina ejus temporis fuisse quod ibidem ex canonibus decernitur, nimirum clericis ab haeresi vel schismate revertentibus ex indulgentia concedi ut in eodem gradu permaneant, nec tamen ad altiora promoveantur. Circa quos, inquit S. Leo, etiam illam canonum constitutionem praecipimus custodiri, ut in magno habeant beneficio, si adempta sibi omni spe promotionis, in quo inveniuntur ordine stabilitate perpetua maneant, si tamen iterata tinctione non fuerint maculati. Nullam id genus generalem de omnibus haereticis et schismaticis constitutionem canonum Leonis aevo exstitisse contendit Antelmius. Cum vero Quesnellus affirmarit in notis, n. 3, intelligi Nicaenum canonem 8, reponit Antelmius hunc canonem de solis Catharis, id est Novatianis, statuentem, non potuisse a Leone intelligi, nec allegari pro generali regula de omnibus haereticis atque schismaticis, ac praeterea suadere nititur, receptis in eodem gradu neque hoc Nicaeno, neque ullo alio canone interdictam fuisse promotionem ad ordinem superiorem ; immo eo ipso quo illi recipiebantur in suo gradu, etiam ad altiorem potuisse provehi, aliquot exemplis demonstrare conatur.

15. Antelmy (Ep. 1, no. 13 ff.) objects against the letter to Januarius that what is decreed there from the canons was foreign to the discipline of that time, namely that clerics returning from heresy or schism are granted by indulgence to remain in the same rank, yet are not to be promoted to higher ones. "Concerning these," says St Leo, "we direct that that constitution of the canons also be kept, that they should count it a great kindness if, all hope of promotion being taken from them, they remain with perpetual stability in the order in which they are found, provided, however, that they have not been defiled by a repeated dipping." Antelmy contends that no general constitution of the canons of that kind about all heretics and schismatics existed in Leo's age. And when Quesnel had asserted in the notes, no. 3, that the eighth canon of Nicaea is meant, Antelmy replies that this canon, which makes provision about the Cathari alone, that is, the Novatians, could not have been meant by Leo, nor cited as a general rule about all heretics and schismatics; and moreover he tries to persuade that for those received in the same rank promotion to a higher order was forbidden neither by this Nicene canon nor by any other; indeed, he tries to show by several examples that by the very fact that they were received in their own rank, they could also be advanced to a higher one.

16. Haec autem objectio ut refellatur, praemonendum est primaevam Ecclesiae disciplam fuisse, ne quisquam (sive clericus, sive laicus) ab haeresi rediens in clericatus ordinem reciperetur. Pro hac disciplina Occidentis testes sunt S. Cyprianus epist. 72 ad Stephanum, Innocentius I epist. 17 n. 8, et epist. 24 n. 4, et concilium Italiae inter canones Ecclesiae Africanae cap. 56, ubi quamvis Afri episcopi aequitatem ejus legis agnoscerent, legationem tamen ad Anastasium papam misere, qua ob clericorum inopiam, ut de severitate hujus legis aliquantulum remitteretur postularunt. Quin alii episcopi Africani in epist. ad Joanem II, loquentes de Arianis sacerdotibus ad Ecclesiam revertentibus, affirmarunt : Ex omnium quidem collegarum tacitis motibus nemini placere sensimus ut in suis honoribus suscipiantur (Conc. t. V. p. 901). Idem obtinuisse in Oriente patet ex epistola Athanasii ad Rufinianum, ubi commerorans decretum quo quidam minus rei ab Arianis decepti in clerum admissi fuerant, hoc dispensatione quadam factum esse affirmat. Dispensatio legem contrariam praesumit. Hanc eamdem dispensationem indicat Augustinus epist. 185. n. 44, qua Donatistis objicientibus : Si ergo oportet ut nos extra Ecclesiam et adversus Ecclesiam fuisse poeniteat, quomodo post istam poenitentiam apud vos clerici vel etiam eqiscopi permanemus? respondet : Hoc non fieret, quoniam revera, quod fatendum est, fieri non deberet, nisi pacis ipsius compensatione sanaretur. Fieri non debebat, quia illi utpote cleri honoribus indigni Ecclesiae disciplina excludebantur ; at ob pacis bonum dispensatione utendum fuit. Hinc jure noster Leo haereticos et schismaticos in suum gradum recipere magno beneficio deputandum scripsit. Eadem de causa dispensationi pariter tribuendus est Nicaenus canon 8, quo Catharorum clericis ob idem pacis bonum suus gradus restitutus fuit ; et idipsum sentiendum de caeteris haereticis sive schismaticis similiter receptis. Num vero quibus suus gradus per dispensationem concedebatur, permitteretur etiam ut ad altiorem ascenderent, canon Nicaenus satis videtur innuere : Sic in clero maneant, et dein in eodem ordine permaneant. Certe enim non permanent in eodem ordine, qui ad altiorem ascendunt. Sed hunc canonem uti non satis manifestum omittamus. Cum vero caetera testimonia de aliis in suo gradu receptis similiter loquantur, nihil est quod ex una dispensotione aliam etiam ampliorem colligamus.

16. But in order that this objection may be refuted, it must first be pointed out that the primitive discipline of the Church was that no one (whether cleric or layman) returning from heresy should be received into the order of the clergy. For this discipline of the West the witnesses are St Cyprian, ep. 72 to Stephen; Innocent I, ep. 17, no. 8, and ep. 24, no. 4; and the council of Italy among the canons of the African Church, ch. 56, where, although the African bishops acknowledged the equity of that law, they nevertheless sent an embassy to Pope Anastasius, by which, because of the shortage of clergy, they asked that something of the severity of this law might be relaxed. Indeed other African bishops, in a letter to John II, speaking of Arian priests returning to the Church, stated: "From the silent movements of all our colleagues we have perceived that it pleases no one that they should be received in their honours" (Conc. vol. V, p. 901). That the same held in the East is clear from the letter of Athanasius to Rufinianus, where, recalling the decree by which certain men less guilty, who had been deceived by the Arians, had been admitted to the clergy, he states "that this was done by a certain dispensation". A dispensation presupposes a contrary law. This same dispensation Augustine indicates in ep. 185, no. 44, where, when the Donatists object: "If, then, we ought to repent of having been outside the Church and against the Church, how is it that after this repentance we remain among you as clerics, or even as bishops?", he replies: "This would not happen, since in truth, as must be confessed, it ought not to happen, were it not healed by the compensation of peace itself." It ought not to happen, because they, as unworthy of the honours of the clergy, were excluded by the discipline of the Church; but for the good of peace a dispensation had to be used. Hence our Leo rightly wrote that heretics and schismatics received in their own rank should count it a great kindness. For the same reason the eighth canon of Nicaea too is to be ascribed to dispensation, by which their own rank was restored to the clerics of the Cathari for the same good of peace; and the same is to be thought of the other heretics or schismatics received in like manner. But the Nicene canon seems to indicate clearly enough whether those to whom their rank was granted by dispensation were also permitted to ascend to a higher one: "So let them remain in the clergy", and then, "let them remain in the same order". For certainly those who ascend to a higher order do not remain in the same order. But let us leave this canon aside as not clear enough. Since, however, the other testimonies speak similarly of others received in their own rank, there is no reason for us to infer from one dispensation another, and wider, one.

17. Hanc sane disciplinam, ut qui reciperentur in suum gradum, ad altiorem non ascenderent, in Occidente, vel saltem in Italia et apud Romanam Ecclesiam viguisse, patet ex decreto quo S. Ambrosius in causa Dictinii, qui a Priscillianistis ad Catholicos redierat, statuit bono pacis locum tenere presbyterii, non accipere honoris augmentum: uti testantur Patres synodi Toletanae an. 400, qui proinde conquesti sunt eum nihilominus a Symposio ad episcopatum fuisse promotum ; quod tamen ea excusatione purgatum fuit, quia id a multitudine plebis fuisset extortum. Idem Ambrosii judicium probatum fuisse a Siricio papa, qui in eadem causa epistolam scripsit, satis probabile est, cum iidem Patres in eodem contextu eam Siricii, epistolam laudent. Eamdem disciplinam confirmare videtur Zozimus epist. 4, ad Aurelium et alios episcopos, ubi de Tuentio, qui perperam ordinatus fuerat episcopus, sermo est. Huic inter caetera vitio dat, n. 3, quod cum fuisset Priscillianista, eique apostolicae sedis diligentia curato, ejusdem sedis dudum humanitas et misericordia consuluisset, ita ut beneficium pene praeter exemplum eidem praestiterit ; hoc beneficio non observato, id est eo non contentus, praecipiti impetu ad sacerdotium festinasset, nec in debito loco credidisset sustinendum. Haeretico resipiscenti et curato beneficium pene praeter exemplum dici non potuit eum in unitatem Ecclesiae recipere ; sed suo gradui seu presbyterio restituere. Si autem culpandus fuit quod hoc beneficio et gradu non observato a loco sibi indebito non abstinuisset, procul dubio praesumitur receptis ad haeresi non licuisse ab ulteriorem gradum ascendere. Apertius vero noster Leo hanc disciplinam approbat in epist. 125. Hanc eo

17. That this discipline, that those who were received in their own rank should not ascend to a higher one, flourished in the West, or at least in Italy and in the Roman Church, is clear from the decree by which St Ambrose, in the case of Dictinius, who had returned from the Priscillianists to the Catholics, determined that "for the good of peace he should hold the place of the presbyterate, not receive an increase of honour": as the Fathers of the synod of Toledo of the year 400 testify, who accordingly complained that he had nevertheless been promoted to the episcopate by Symposius; which, however, was excused on the ground that it "had been extorted by the multitude of the people". That the same judgement of Ambrose was approved by Pope Siricius, who wrote a letter on the same case, is quite probable, since the same Fathers in the same context commend that letter of Siricius. Zosimus seems to confirm the same discipline in ep. 4, to Aurelius and other bishops, where the discussion is about Tuentius, who had been wrongly ordained bishop. Among other things he charges him, no. 3, with this: that although he had been a Priscillianist, and "when he had been cured by the diligence of the apostolic see, the humanity and mercy of that same see had long since provided for him", so that it "granted him a kindness almost beyond precedent", "not observing this kindness", that is, not content with it, he "had hastened with headlong impetus to the priesthood, and had not believed he should hold himself in his due place". To receive a heretic who had come to his senses and been cured into the unity of the Church could not be called a kindness almost beyond precedent, but to restore him to his own rank or presbyterate could. And if he was to be blamed because, not observing this kindness and rank, he had not kept away from a place not due to him, it is undoubtedly presumed that those received from heresy were not permitted to ascend to a further rank. Our Leo, however, approves this discipline more openly in ep. 125. This […]

Hanc eo nomine opponit Antelmius, quia ibidem S. pontifex Andream et Eufratam olim Eutychis fautores, ad presbyteratum promoveri jussit. Id autem ex peculiari causa e dispensatione quadam indultum fuisse, ex contextu manifestum est. Leonem pupugerat archidiaconatum Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae, amoto per speciem promotionis Aetio Flaviani defensore, Andreae Eutychianae haeresi quondam addicto et S. Flaviani accusatori fuisse delatum; indignum enim videbatur tanti officii ministerium ab eo auferri qui semper catholice senserat, ut illi crederetur qui haeretica labe aliquando fuerat aspersus. Hinc de ipsius promotione vehementer conquestus, conversionem ejus ab haeresi et satisfactionem, quam Antelmius allegat, hanc unam indulgentiam promereri potuisse affirmat epist. 112, ut in diaconatus gradum reciperetur, non vero ut anteferretur caeteris: Qui etiamsi, inquit, magna satisfactione potuisset indulgentiam promereri, nequaquam debuit his qui in fide permanserunt anteferri; et similiter ep. 111, c. 3: Qui etiamsi magna fuisset satisfactione purgatus, post dubium tamen reversus errorem, catholicis diaconibus postponi debuit, non praeponi. Cum porro Anatolius Leoni satisfacturus Andream ab archidiaconatu removisset, quidque de eo agendum esset pontificio reservasset arbitrio, id Leoni tantum placuit, ut ipsum Andream ac socium ejus Eufratam, qui pariter Flaviani fuerat accusator, dum sese ad errore correctos apertis professionibus probassent, ad presbyteratum promoveri jusserit, eo forte consilio, ne ad archidiaconatum subrepere umquam possent. Peculiari autem dispensatione id fuisse concessum suadet mox subjectum decretum de caeteris, quos par reatus involverat. Hos enim si veniam simili professione cum satisfactione deposcant, non promoveri, sed suis solum ordinibus reformari decernit, hac praeterea conditione servata, ut illi tantum ad officiorum primatum admittantur, quos ab omni errore liberos esse constiterit. Hoc interdictum, ne intra eumdem ordinem quispiam ab haeresi receptus ad ejusdem ordinis primatum provehatur (quod sub S. Gregorio adhuc viguisse liquet ex lib. I, epist. 77), nonne certam praesumit constitutionem expressam in epistola 18 ad Januarium, ne ejusdem generis clerici suis ordinibus reformati ad altiorem ordinem sinantur ascendere? Specialis vero dispensatio, ubi peculiaris incidit causa, generali constitutioni non derogat. Si quae alia similia exempla proferrentur, ad dispensationem similiter revocanda essent. Quae vero Antelmius producit, sunt de receptis in eodem ordine, non autem de promotis ab altiorem; uti illa duo de Maximo et Donato episcopis, quorum est mentio apud Leonem epist. 12, num. 12, cap. 6, nec non alterum de Donatistis apud Augustinum epist. 43, n. 16. Quod autem de Meletianis ingerit ex epistola synodi Nicaenae apud Theodoretum lib. I c. 8 et 9, id solum probat, clericos a Meletio ordinatos, qui in suum gradum ita fuerant recepti, ut post clericos ordinatos a legitimo episcopo, omni auctoritate his reservata, infimum locum tenerent, post illorum mortem in ipsorum locum et auctoritatem subrogari potuisse, si quaedam circumstantiae id flagitarent: quae promotio eumdem ordinem auctoritate praeditum respicit, non autem altiorem. Sed quidquid in hoc ipso videatur, neque hic, neque alius peculiaris casus, qui dispensationi tribui debet, constitutionem ac disciplinam vocare potest in dubium quam et Ambrosii, et Zosimi, et ipsius Leonis testimoniis satis certam ostendimus. Unde nihil est cur ex hoc capite epistolam ad Januarium repudiemus, ac disciplinam eo tempore ignotam praeferat.

Antelmius objects to it on this ground, that in the same place the holy pontiff ordered Andrew and Eufratas, formerly supporters of Eutyches, to be promoted to the priesthood. But that this was granted for a particular cause and by a certain dispensation is plain from the context. It had stung Leo that the archdeaconate of the Church of Constantinople, after Aetius, the defender of Flavian, had been removed under the appearance of a promotion, had been conferred on Andrew, once devoted to the Eutychian heresy and an accuser of St Flavian; for it seemed unworthy that the ministry of so great an office should be taken from one who had always held the catholic faith, in order to be entrusted to one who had at some time been stained with the blot of heresy. Hence, complaining vehemently of his promotion, he affirms in epist. 112 that his conversion from heresy and his satisfaction, which Antelmius alleges, could have earned this one indulgence, that he be received into the rank of the diaconate, but not that he be preferred to the rest: "Even if," he says, "by great satisfaction he could have earned indulgence, he ought by no means to have been preferred to those who remained in the faith"; and likewise ep. 111, c. 3: "Even if he had been cleansed by great satisfaction, yet having returned after a doubtful error, he ought to have been placed after the catholic deacons, not before them." When, moreover, Anatolius, to give satisfaction to Leo, had removed Andrew from the archdeaconate and had reserved to the pontiff's judgement what was to be done about him, it so pleased Leo that he ordered this Andrew and his associate Eufratas, who had likewise been an accuser of Flavian, to be promoted to the priesthood, provided they proved by open professions that they had been corrected from error, perhaps with this design, that they might never be able to creep into the archdeaconate. That this was granted by a particular dispensation is indicated by the decree subjoined shortly after concerning the others whom a like guilt had involved. For he decrees that these, if they ask for pardon with a similar profession together with satisfaction, are not to be promoted, but only restored to their own orders, with this condition further observed, that only those be admitted to the primacy of the offices who have been established to be free of all error. This prohibition, that no one received from heresy be advanced within the same order to the primacy of that order (which, it is clear from bk. I, epist. 77, was still in force under St Gregory), does it not presuppose the definite constitution expressed in epistle 18 to Januarius, that clerics of the same kind, restored to their own orders, are not to be allowed to ascend to a higher order? A special dispensation, where a particular cause arises, does not derogate from a general constitution. If any other similar examples were brought forward, they would likewise have to be referred to dispensation. The examples Antelmius produces concern men received in the same order, not men promoted to a higher one; such as those two concerning the bishops Maximus and Donatus, who are mentioned in Leo, epist. 12, num. 12, cap. 6, and also the other concerning the Donatists in Augustine, epist. 43, n. 16. What he brings in about the Meletians from the letter of the synod of Nicaea in Theodoret, bk. I, c. 8 and 9, proves only this: that clerics ordained by Meletius, who had been received into their own rank on such terms that they were to hold the lowest place after the clerics ordained by the lawful bishop, all authority being reserved to these, could after their death be substituted in their place and authority, if certain circumstances demanded it; and this promotion concerns the same order endowed with authority, not a higher one. But whatever may be thought on this point, neither this nor any other particular case, which must be attributed to dispensation, can call into doubt the constitution and discipline which we have shown to be sufficiently certain from the testimonies of Ambrose, of Zosimus and of Leo himself. Hence there is no reason why, on this head, we should reject the letter to Januarius, as if it displayed a discipline unknown at that time.

18. Quos vero canones Leo intellexerit, cum hac in re canonum constitutionem allegavit; quoniam de disciplina ex dictis constat, si in magna antiquorum monumentorum penuria nullum certum canonem, constitutionem nullam proferre possimus, nihil praejudicat. Forte S. pontifex Nicaenum canonem 8, qui de Catharis seu Novatianis statuit, ex disciplina sui temporis ita intelligendum et indicandum putavit, ut omnes haereticos schismaticosque comprehenderet. Quod si Innocentius I, epist. 17 ad Macedones c. 3, de Novatianis tantum eum canonem loqui, nec ad aliarum haeresum clericos pertinere affirmavit, idem tamen pontifex in eadem epistola non inficiatur hoc beneficium solis Novatianis decretum, nedum ad alios schismaticos sed etiam ad haereticos posse extendi, ubi pacis bonum et necessitas hanc indulgentiam requirant: ac propterea approbandum censuit judicium Anisii et sociorum ejus, qui ordinatos a Bonoso haeretico in suos gradus receperant; et similiter epistola 3 ad synodum Toletanam eodem concilio non solum probavit ejusdem synodi moderationem, dum Priscillianistas conversos in suos gradus recipiendos statuerat, verum etiam illos reprehendit, a quibus haec indulgentia canonibus contraria ferebatur. Hoc autem exemplo indulgentia ejusmodi sensim invaluisse videtur, ita ut Leonis tempore Ecclesiae bonum et necessitas idipsum de omnibus schismaticis et haereticis intelligendum postularent, dummodo iterato baptismate non essent polluti (hos enim omnes canones et constans Ecclesiae disciplina ab ordinibus et clero arcebant), nec alia ratione invaluisse, vel ab Innocentio probata fuisse credenda est, nisi in eam disciplinam, quam ante Innocentium obtinuisse ex Ambrosio ostendimus. Hunc itaque canonem in hanc disciplinam, receptum Leo citare potuit. Quidquid vero de hoc canone sentire libeat, si non rejicienda est epist. 3 Innocentii ad synodum Toletanam, eo quod Nicaenis regulis quasdam sanctiones tribuit, quae in Nicaeno non leguntur; multo minus repudianda erit epistola Leonis ad Januarium Dionysii Exigui, et collectionis quintae auctoritate firmata, quae si constitutionem canonum laudat non tamen Nicaenam appellat, cum Nicaeno autem canone octavo ex disciplina Ecclesiae explicato ac latius extenso satis cohaeret.

18. What canons Leo meant when on this matter he alleged a constitution of the canons: since the discipline is established from what has been said, it is no prejudice if, in the great scarcity of ancient records, we can bring forward no certain canon, no constitution. Perhaps the holy pontiff thought that the eighth canon of Nicaea, which makes provision about the Cathari or Novatians, was, according to the discipline of his own time, to be so understood and indicated as to include all heretics and schismatics. For if Innocent I, in epist. 17 to the Macedonians, c. 3, affirmed that this canon speaks only of the Novatians and does not concern the clerics of other heresies, yet the same pontiff in the same letter does not deny that this benefit, decreed for the Novatians alone, can be extended not only to other schismatics but even to heretics, where the good of peace and necessity require this indulgence; and for that reason he judged that the decision of Anisius and his associates, who had received into their ranks men ordained by the heretic Bonosus, was to be approved; and likewise in epistle 3 to the synod of Toledo, on the same principle, he not only approved the moderation of that synod in having decreed that converted Priscillianists were to be received into their ranks, but also rebuked those by whom this indulgence was held to be contrary to the canons. By this example an indulgence of this kind seems gradually to have prevailed, so that in Leo's time the good and the necessity of the Church required the same to be understood of all schismatics and heretics, provided they had not been polluted by a repeated baptism (for all the canons and the constant discipline of the Church kept such men from orders and from the clergy); and it must be believed that it prevailed, or was approved by Innocent, on no other principle than within that discipline which we have shown from Ambrose to have obtained before Innocent. This canon, then, as received into this discipline, Leo could cite. But whatever one may choose to think of this canon, if epist. 3 of Innocent to the synod of Toledo is not to be rejected because it attributes to the Nicene rules certain enactments that are not read in the Nicene council, much less is the letter of Leo to Januarius, confirmed by the authority of Dionysius Exiguus and of the fifth collection, to be repudiated, which, if it praises a constitution of the canons, yet does not call it Nicene, while it agrees well enough with the eighth canon of Nicaea as explained and more widely extended by the discipline of the Church.

17. Gravior Antelmii objectio ex eo sumitur quod epistola ad Januarium partim ex epistola ad Septimum, partim ex epistola ad Aquileiensem episcopum totidem fere verbis descripta est. Cum verba epistolae ad Septimum in epistola ad Januarium repetita inveniantur, alterutram esse falsam indubium praesumitur. Quesnellus falsitatis accusavit epistolam ad Septimum. Citius autem ex ipsius repetitionis ratione epistolam ad Junuarium repudiandam contendit Antelmius, eo quod in ea non solum repetatur tota epistola ad Septimum, sed etiam extrema illa periodus, quae in ejus fine suspenditur, desumpta sit ex epistola ad Aquileiensem episcopum: incredibile autem sit duplicem epistolam sub idem tempus datam ad eumdem episcopum Aquileiae, eadem periodo concludi, quod in epistola ad Septimum non invenitur.

17 [= 19]. A weightier objection of Antelmius is drawn from the fact that the letter to Januarius is copied, in almost as many words, partly from the letter to Septimus and partly from the letter to the bishop of Aquileia. Since the words of the letter to Septimus are found repeated in the letter to Januarius, it is presumed beyond doubt that one or the other is spurious. Quesnel accused the letter to Septimus of spuriousness. But Antelmius rather contends, from the very manner of the repetition, that the letter to Januarius is to be rejected, because in it not only is the whole letter to Septimus repeated, but also that final period, which is left hanging at its end, has been taken from the letter to the bishop of Aquileia; and it is incredible that two letters, given about the same time to the same bishop of Aquileia, should conclude with the same period, which is not found in the letter to Septimus.

20. Verum haec objectio, licet vim aliquam praeferat, non tamen conjecturae limites excedit: nulla autem conjectura certae auctoritati Dionysii, qui paulo post Leonis aetatem suam collectionem Romae digessit, nec auctoritati antiquioris aut saltem coaevae collectionis 5 Quesnellianae, quibus epistola ad Januarium vindicatur praevalere potest. Caeterum haec objectio, ut in Leone quidquam valeat, duplicem hypothesim praesumat, necesse est, nimirum epistolam primam ad Aquileiensem episcopum traditam fuisse eidem Januario, cui inscribitur epist. 18, et sub idem etiam tempus traditam fuisse. Si enim ad duos diversos Aquileienses episcopos hae duae epistolae datae probentur, vel si eidem episcopo, non tamen sub idem tempus scriptae fuere, omnis in Leone difficultas dispellitur. Constat nimirum hunc pontificem, dum ad diversos srcipsit, litteras nonnumquam tradidisse eodem exemplo paucis immutatis, vel additis, ut accidit in epist. 150 ad Basilium, et 151 ad Euxitheum; nonnumquam vero ex una epistola nonnulla ad verbum descripsisse, uti epistolae 166 ad Leonem Augustum septem integra capita inseruit, quae ex epist. 126 ad Palaestinos excerpta invenientur. Porro epistolas 1 et 18 probabilius ad diversos Aquileienses episcopos datas, certe autem inter utramque non exiguum tempus, sed aliquot annos intercessisse patebit ex paragrapho sequenti, ubi primam epistolam

20. But this objection, although it carries some force, does not go beyond the limits of conjecture; and no conjecture can prevail against the certain authority of Dionysius, who compiled his collection at Rome a little after the age of Leo, nor against the authority of the older, or at least contemporary, fifth Quesnellian collection, by which the letter to Januarius is vindicated. Besides, for this objection to have any force in Leo's case, it must presuppose a twofold hypothesis: namely, that the first letter to the bishop of Aquileia was delivered to the same Januarius to whom epist. 18 is inscribed, and that it was also delivered about the same time. For if these two letters are proved to have been given to two different bishops of Aquileia, or, if to the same bishop, yet not written about the same time, every difficulty in Leo's case is dispelled. It is certain, indeed, that this pontiff, when writing to different persons, sometimes delivered letters in the same copy with a few things changed or added, as happened in epist. 150 to Basil and 151 to Euxitheus; and sometimes copied some things word for word from one letter, as he inserted into epistle 166 to Leo Augustus seven whole chapters which will be found excerpted from epist. 126 to the Palestinians. Further, it will be clear from the following paragraph that epistles 1 and 18 were more probably given to different bishops of Aquileia, and certainly that not a short time, but several years, passed between the one and the other, where [we show that] the first letter […]

non Januario, sed probabilius ejus praedecessori scriptam ostendemus; vel certe (cuicumque tradita fuerit) exaratam fuisse sub initio pontificatus Leonis anno circiter 442, id est quinque circiter annorum intervallo ante epistolam 18, quae exeunte an. 447 Januario tradita fuit. Ita cum ad hunc ultimum litteras hoc anno dedit, primum nonnullis immutatis descripsit epistolam ad Septimum, tum ex epist. 1, jam diu ante probabilius data ad praedecessorem ejus, postremam tantum periodum sumpsit, et litteras clausit: in quo observari potest, hanc postremam periodum veluti formulam seu clausulam quamdam decretorum haberi posse, quemadmodum visa est P. Bernardo de Rubeis, ut ne mirum sit eamdem in diversis ad eumdem epistolis inveniri. Sed quidquid de his responsionibus videatur, Quesnellianae, ut diximus, et Dionysianae collectionum testimonio cuicumque conjecturae et objectioni certissime praestant.

[…] we shall show [was] written not to Januarius but more probably to his predecessor; or at any rate (to whomever it was delivered) that it was composed at the beginning of Leo's pontificate, about the year 442, that is, at an interval of about five years before epistle 18, which was delivered to Januarius at the end of the year 447. Thus, when he sent a letter to this latter in that year, he first copied the letter to Septimus with some changes, then took only the last period from epist. 1, given more probably long before to his predecessor, and closed the letter; in which it may be observed that this last period can be regarded as a kind of formula or clause of decrees, as it appeared to Fr Bernardo de Rubeis, so that it is no wonder that the same is found in different letters to the same person. But whatever may be thought of these answers, by the testimony of the Quesnellian and Dionysian collections, as we have said, [the letter] most certainly prevails over any conjecture and objection.

§ V. Quis fuerit episcopus Aquileiensis ad quem Leo scripsit epistolam primam: hinc etiam statuitur tempus quo epistolae prima et secunda datae fuere.

§ V. Who was the bishop of Aquileia to whom Leo wrote the first letter; from this is also established the time at which the first and second letters were given.

21. Jam vero vindicata tum epistola ad Septimum, adversus Quesnellum, tum altera ad Januarium adversus Antelmium, quae in dubitationem venerunt, cuinam tradita fuerit epist. 1 ad Aquileiensem, quaerendum est: eademque occasione statuetur de tempore quo et haec et altera ad Septimum, quibus nota chronica deest, datae fuerunt. Epistolam primam ad Januarium Aquileiensem traditam nullo satis certo fundamento praesumitur. Codices enim sine episcopi nomine praeferunt vel ad Aquileiensem episcopum, uti Vat. Reg. collectionis 1, Barber. et Vat. collectionis 3, Lucensis cum Colbertino collectionis 4, Vindobonensis collectionis 5, et Vaticanus 5845, in additionibus Dionysianis collectionis 8, vel Aquileio, uti Vat. et Ottobon, collectionis 11, ms. S. Crucis in Jerusalem collectionis 20 nec non mss. collectionum 21 et 22. Idem de suis codicibus affirmat Quesnellus, qui solum monet, duos posteriores Cisterc. et Isid. habere Ad metropolitanum episcopum Venetiae. Editores Lovanienses, quos alii deinceps secuti sunt, forte fuerunt primi qui absque ullius, quod sciamus, codicis testimonio apposuerunt titulum: Nicetae episcopo Aquileiensi. In mss. vero collectionum 12 et 24 descripta in primis epistola 2 ad Septimum, mox subjicitur epistola 1, Relatione, cum titulo Ad eumdem, ac si eidem Septimo data fuerit: et idcirco quidem in uno codice Fesulano, et altero Florentino S. Laurentii signato num. 14, pluteo 21, qui aliquot epistolas exhibent ex mss. collectionis 24, epistolae primae haec inscriptio praefigitur: Leo Septimo episcopo. Id procul dubio erroneum est, cum Septimus, qui non Aquileiensis, sed Altinas episcopus fuit, in ipso exordio epist. 1 nominetur velut is cujus causa Leo ad Aquileiensem scripsit. Neque tamen hi codices Januario suffragantur.

21. Now that both the letter to Septimus has been vindicated against Quesnel and the other to Januarius against Antelmius, which had been called into doubt, we must inquire to whom epist. 1 to the bishop of Aquileia was delivered; and on the same occasion the time will be established at which both this and the other to Septimus, which lack a chronological note, were given. That the first letter was delivered to Januarius of Aquileia is presumed on no sufficiently certain foundation. For the manuscripts, without the bishop's name, carry either "To the bishop of Aquileia", as the Vat. Reg. of collection 1, the Barber. and Vat. of collection 3, the Lucca manuscript with the Colbert one of collection 4, the Vienna manuscript of collection 5, and Vaticanus 5845 in the Dionysian additions of collection 8; or "To the [bishop] of Aquileia", as the Vat. and Ottobon. of collection 11, the manuscript of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme of collection 20, and also the manuscripts of collections 21 and 22. Quesnel affirms the same of his manuscripts, remarking only that the two latter, the Cisterc. and Isid., have "To the metropolitan bishop of Venetia". The Louvain editors, whom others afterwards followed, were perhaps the first who, without the testimony of any manuscript that we know of, added the title: "To Nicetas, bishop of Aquileia". But in the manuscripts of collections 12 and 24, after epistle 2 to Septimus has been copied first, epistle 1 is subjoined immediately after, Relatione, with the title "To the same", as if it had been given to the same Septimus; and for that reason, in a manuscript of Fiesole and in another at Florence, of San Lorenzo, marked num. 14, pluteus 21, which present some letters from the manuscripts of collection 24, this inscription is prefixed to the first letter: "Leo to Bishop Septimus". This is without doubt erroneous, since Septimus, who was not bishop of Aquileia but of Altinum, is named in the very opening of epist. 1 as the one on whose account Leo wrote to the bishop of Aquileia. Yet these manuscripts do not support Januarius either.

22. Solum cod. Vat. Ottobonianus 297 collectionis 23 et nonnulli codd. collectionis 8, uti Vercellensis et Vat., 1353, Januarium praeferunt. At hoc nomen codicibus collectionis 8 posterius insertum, cum antea in eadem collectione defuerit, manifestum est ex Vallicellano A. 5, et multo magis ex Vat. 5845, qui ad eamdem collectio⟨n⟩em 8 pertinent: nam in Vallicellano legitur in textu, pag. 278, Aquileiensi episcopo, Januarii vero nomen superadditum cernitur; in Vaticano autem omnium vetustissimo codice 5845, in cujus additionibus collectionem 8 referentibus haec epistola legitur, nullum Januarii vestigium apparet. Hinc ergo cognoscimus in mss. hujus collectionis Januarii nomen omnino defuisse, ut in Vat. 5845; dein fuisse superadditum, ut in Vallicellano; tandem in textum irrepsisse, ut in Vercellensi, ac in Vat. 1353. Cum vero auctor collectionis 23, quae continetur in Ottoboniano 297, priores epistolas 15 ex codicibus collectionis 8 eodem ordine ad verbum descripserit; dum Januarii nomen inseruit, codice usus fuit laudatae collectionis 8 qui hoc nomen insertum vel superadditum habeat: unde tota hujus nominis auctoritas revocatur ad solum collectionis 8, quam tamen in ipsa origine hoc nomine carnisse ostendimus, ut eodem sane carent caeteri codices ac praesertim vetustissimarum omnium collectionum. Hinc ms. Florentin. S. Marci collectionis 13, ob Leoninas epistolas aliis nominibus insignis, ut videbimus in Admonit. ad epist. 1†, sic epistolam, de qua agimus, inscribit: Leo Urbis Romae episcopus..... Aquileiensi episcopo; ubi intervallo vacuo episcopi nomen ignotum significatur. Adempta igitur auctoritate quorumdam codicum, qui Januarium praeferunt, nihil fundamenti ex codicibus superest, quo cogamur affirmare epistolam 1 datam eidem Januario, ad quem epist. 18 scriptam fuisse manifestum est.

22. Only the Vat. Ottobonianus 297 of collection 23 and some manuscripts of collection 8, such as the Vercelli manuscript and Vat. 1353, carry Januarius. But that this name was inserted later into the manuscripts of collection 8, having earlier been absent from that collection, is plain from the Vallicelliana A. 5, and much more from Vat. 5845, which belong to the same collection 8: for in the Vallicelliana manuscript one reads in the text, p. 278, "To the bishop of Aquileia", while the name of Januarius is seen added above; and in the Vatican manuscript 5845, the oldest of all, in whose additions reproducing collection 8 this letter is read, no trace of Januarius appears. From this, then, we learn that in the manuscripts of this collection the name of Januarius was at first entirely absent, as in Vat. 5845; then was added above, as in the Vallicelliana; and finally crept into the text, as in the Vercelli manuscript and in Vat. 1353. And since the author of collection 23, which is contained in the Ottobonianus 297, copied the first 15 letters word for word in the same order from manuscripts of collection 8, when he inserted the name of Januarius he used a manuscript of the said collection 8 which had this name inserted or added above; hence the whole authority of this name goes back to collection 8 alone, which, however, we have shown lacked this name at its very origin, just as the other manuscripts, and especially those of the oldest collections of all, certainly lack it. Hence the Florence manuscript of San Marco, of collection 13, remarkable for giving Leo's letters under other names, as we shall see in the Admonition to epist. 1†, inscribes the letter we are treating thus: "Leo, bishop of the City of Rome ..... to the bishop of Aquileia", where the unknown name of the bishop is indicated by an empty space. With the authority of certain manuscripts which carry Januarius thus removed, no foundation remains in the manuscripts which would compel us to affirm that epistle 1 was given to the same Januarius to whom it is plain that epist. 18 was written.

23. Traditum vero fuisse ad aliquem Januarii praecessorem et in ipso quidem pontificatus Leonis exordio, aliunde colligere licet. Photius in Bibliotheca vetustum codicem referens, qui sub saeculi VI initia lucubratus, exactissimam Pelagianorum rerum historiam ex peculiaribus documentis derivatam continebat, haec de Pelagianorum gestis sub Leonis pontificatu tradit cod. 54: Cum temporis deinde progressu sectae hujus homines per haeresis suae adjurationem Ecclesiae restituti essent; iterum malum ab illis renovatum est. At Septimus episcopus pestis renascentis cursum repressit, datis ad Leonem Romae tum sedem apostolicam tenentem litteris, qui Leo ferventi zelo contra impios depugnavit. Post non multum autem rursum tamquam repullulare amara radice non erubescente, Romae quidam pro haeresi libere loquebantur. Sed Prosper quidam vir vere Dei libellis contra ipsos traditis eos evanescere fecit, praedicto Leone adhuc Romanam sedem gubernante. Duo Pelagianorum gesta sub Leone indicantur: alterum, in quo Septimus et Leo operam posuere, cui sane congruunt duae epistolae sequentes: alterum et posterius tempore, in quo S. Prosper libellos accusationum Romae obtulit, uti pluribus explicabimus in observationibus ad diss. † Quesnelli cap. 1. § ultimo. Auctor operis de Promissionibus Leoni coaevus scribit part. IV c. 6: In Italia quoque nobis apud Campaniam constitutis, dum venerabilis et apostolico honore nominandus papa Leo Manichaeos subverteret, et contereret Pelagianos, et maxime Julianum, ambiens tum quidam Florus nomine, etc. Hic contextus utrumque Leonis opus in Manichaeos et Pelagianos eidem tempori adjudicat. Manichaeorum subversionem Prosper in Chronico assignat an. 443; idque huic anno exeunti tribuendum colligitur ex Leonis epist. 4, data die 18 Octobris, qua ad episcopos Campaniae scribens, nihil de vitandis Manichaeis indicavit, uti monuit epist. 7, scripta die 30 Januarii anni sequentis 444 Ex sermone autem quinto de Jejunio decimi mensis habito die Dominica 12 Decembris an. 443, quatuor temporum jejunium indicaturus, gesta in Manichaeos populo denuntiat; quod pariter repetit serm. 4 de nativitate Domini, quem in Natali ejusdem anni habitum liquet. Hoc igitur eodem tempore, quo S. pontifex subvertit Manichaeos, Pelagianos etiam contrivit. Ex duobus autem gestis adversus Pelagianos, qui indicantur in antiquo codice Photii, primum, in quo Leo cum Septimo Altinate operam posuisse traditur, minus convenire videtur cum verbis libri de Promissionibus contereret Pelagianos, et maxime Julianum. In casu enim Septimi de Pelagianis agitur Aquileiensis provinciae, ad quos nihil Julianus aut alii Campani haeretici pertinebant; neque satis congrue illos Leo contrivisse dici potest ob epistolam, qua cautam eorumdem recipiendorum rationem praescripserat. Igitur verbis conterebat Pelagianos et maxime Julianum aptius congruit alterum factum, ex quo cognoscimus Pelagianorum audaciam eo processisse, ut in ipsa Roma non deessent qui libere loquebantur. Julianus in haec Pelagianorum molimina aliquid conferre potuit. Oblatis autem a Prospero accusationum libellis, Pelagianisque mox evanescentibus, Leonem pontificem, quem sane

23. That it was delivered to some predecessor of Januarius, and indeed at the very beginning of Leo's pontificate, may be gathered from elsewhere. Photius in the Bibliotheca, describing an old codex, which was composed about the beginning of the sixth century and contained a most exact history of Pelagian affairs drawn from particular documents, reports the following of the doings of the Pelagians under Leo's pontificate, cod. 54: "When, then, in the course of time the men of this sect had been restored to the Church through the abjuration of their heresy, the evil was renewed by them again. But Bishop Septimus checked the course of the reviving plague by sending a letter to Leo, who then held the apostolic see at Rome; and this Leo fought against the impious with fervent zeal. Not long after, however, as the bitter root was not ashamed to sprout again, as it were, certain men at Rome spoke freely in favour of the heresy. But a certain Prosper, truly a man of God, by pamphlets delivered against them made them vanish, the aforesaid Leo still governing the Roman see." Two episodes of the Pelagians under Leo are indicated: one, in which Septimus and Leo took action, to which the two following letters certainly correspond; the other, and later in time, in which St Prosper presented pamphlets of accusation at Rome, as we shall explain more fully in the observations on Quesnel's diss. †, cap. 1, last §. The author of the work On the Promises, a contemporary of Leo, writes in part IV, c. 6: "In Italy also, when we were settled in Campania, while the venerable pope Leo, to be named with apostolic honour, was overthrowing the Manichaeans and crushing the Pelagians, and above all Julian, a certain man named Florus, then seeking favour," etc. This context assigns both of Leo's works, against the Manichaeans and against the Pelagians, to the same time. Prosper in his Chronicle assigns the overthrow of the Manichaeans to the year 443; and that it is to be attributed to the end of this year is gathered from Leo's epist. 4, given on 18 October, in which, writing to the bishops of Campania, he gave no indication about avoiding the Manichaeans, as he warned in epist. 7, written on 30 January of the following year 444. And from the fifth sermon On the Fast of the Tenth Month, delivered on Sunday 12 December of the year 443, when about to announce the Ember fast, he makes known to the people the proceedings against the Manichaeans; which he likewise repeats in serm. 4 On the Nativity of the Lord, which it is clear was delivered at Christmas of the same year. At this same time, therefore, at which the holy pontiff overthrew the Manichaeans, he also crushed the Pelagians. Of the two actions against the Pelagians indicated in Photius's old codex, the first, in which Leo is said to have taken action together with Septimus of Altinum, seems to agree less well with the words of the book On the Promises, "was crushing the Pelagians, and above all Julian". For in the case of Septimus the question concerns the Pelagians of the province of Aquileia, with whom Julian and the other Campanian heretics had nothing to do; nor can Leo be said with sufficient propriety to have crushed them on account of a letter in which he had prescribed a cautious manner of receiving them. Therefore the words "was crushing the Pelagians and above all Julian" fit better the other event, from which we learn that the boldness of the Pelagians had gone so far that in Rome itself there were not lacking men who "spoke freely". Julian could have contributed something to these designs of the Pelagians. But when the pamphlets of accusation had been presented by Prosper, and the Pelagians soon vanished, Pope Leo, whom certainly […]

iisdem infensissimum, ut aliunde liquet, omnem operam adversus ipsos exercuisse indubium est, eos contrivisse intelligimus. Hoc itaque factum una cum facto Manichaeorum in libro de Promissionibus copulatum pertinet ad finem an. 443. Factum autem Aquileiensis provinciae, in quo Septimus et Leo adversus Pelagianos simul egere, aliquanto ante contigerat, ut indicant illa verba Photii secundo facto praemissa: Post non multum autem rursum, etc., μεν' οὐ πολὺ δὲ πάλιν. Igitur hoc factum Aquileiensis provinciae affigi debet citius ineunti an. 443, aut an. 442. Hinc epistola 1 ad Aquileiensem, quae hoc factum respicit, attribui nequit cuipiam successori Januarii, sed Adelpho, quem laudari credimus a S. Petro Chrysologo serm. 136, aut potius Maximo, qui post Adelphum immediatus Januarii praedecessor ex Catalogis et Chronicis Aquileiensibus traditur: idque eo probabilius affirmandum erit, si Januarii initia in annum 443 collocanda sint, ut Dandulus in chronico notavit.

[…] most hostile to them, as is clear from elsewhere, it is beyond doubt that he exerted every effort against them, [and so] we understand that he crushed them. This event, then, joined in the book On the Promises with the event of the Manichaeans, belongs to the end of the year 443. The event in the province of Aquileia, however, in which Septimus and Leo acted together against the Pelagians, had happened somewhat earlier, as those words of Photius set before the second event indicate: "Not long after, however, again", etc., in Greek "not long after, again". Therefore this event in the province of Aquileia must be assigned rather to the beginning of the year 443, or to the year 442. Hence epistle 1 to the bishop of Aquileia, which concerns this event, cannot be attributed to any successor of Januarius, but to Adelphus, whom we believe to be praised by St Peter Chrysologus, serm. 136, or rather to Maximus, who according to the Catalogues and Chronicles of Aquileia was the immediate predecessor of Januarius after Adelphus; and this will have to be affirmed as the more probable if the beginning of Januarius is to be placed in the year 443, as Dandolo noted in his chronicle.

24. Id confimari potest non minimum ex textu epist. 18 ad ipsum Januarium: Quod ne viperea possit obtinere fallacia, dilectionem tuam duximus commonendam, insinuantes ad animae periculum pertinere, si quisquam de his qui a nobis in haereticorum atque schismaticorum sectam delapsus est, et se utcumque haereticae communionis contagione maculaverit, resipiscens, in communione catholica sine professione legitimae satisfactionis habeatur. Verba dilectionem tuam duximus commonendam non respiciunt anteriorem epistolam 1, eidem Januario datam, in qua similis sententia fusius exponitur; palam enim fit ex antecedentibus sermonem esse de epistola quae post lectas Januarii litteras rescripta fuit: unde sicut initio epist. 18 dicitur: Lectis fraternitatis tuae litteris vigorem fidei tuae agnovimus, congratulantes tibi, etc.; ita postea subditur: duximus commonendam, insinuantes, etc.; et utrumque, congratulatio scilicet et insinuatio, post lectas ipsius litteras eadem epist. 18 epist perficitur. Id etiam efflagitat praemissum verbum possit, et subsequens habeatur. Si enim de praeteritis litteris et de re olim insinuata loqueretur, vi verbi duximus commonendam, omnis rectae syntaxeos ratio posset et haberet exigeret. Id autem si evidens judicetur, epistolam primam ad Januarium traditam non fuisse consequens fit. Ita enim Leo indicat se duxisse eum nunc monere, ac si antea de eadem re numquam monuerit. Igitur epistola prima, in qua eadem monitio fusius ingeritur, non ad Januarium, sed ad aliquem ejus praedecessorum tradita dici debet.

24. This can be confirmed in no small measure from the text of epist. 18 to Januarius himself: "That the viperous deceit may not prevail, we have thought fit to admonish your Charity, intimating that it pertains to the peril of the soul if anyone of those who from among us has fallen into the sect of heretics and schismatics, and has in any way stained himself with the contagion of heretical communion, on coming to his senses is held in catholic communion without the profession of lawful satisfaction." The words "we have thought fit to admonish your Charity" do not look back to an earlier epistle 1, given to the same Januarius, in which a similar statement is set out at greater length; for it is plain from what precedes that the talk is of a letter written in reply after Januarius's letter had been read; hence, just as at the beginning of epist. 18 it is said: "Having read the letter of your Fraternity, we have recognized the vigour of your faith, congratulating you", etc., so afterwards is added: "we have thought fit to admonish, intimating", etc.; and both, namely the congratulation and the intimation, are accomplished after the reading of his letter in the same epist. 18. The word "may" (possit) that precedes, and "is held" (habeatur) that follows, also demand this. For if he were speaking of a past letter and of a matter intimated long before, by force of the words "we have thought fit to admonish" every rule of correct syntax would require "might" (posset) and "were held" (haberet). If this is judged evident, it follows that the first letter was not delivered to Januarius. For Leo thus indicates that he has thought fit to admonish him now, as if he had never admonished him on the same matter before. Therefore the first letter, in which the same admonition is urged at greater length, must be said to have been delivered not to Januarius but to one of his predecessors.

25. Ex his porro tempus duarum sequentium epistolarum elicitur, et cur ab his initium duxerimus, manifestum fiet. Annus 444, cui has epistolas auctoritate libri de Promissionibus adjudicavit Quesnellus, explicato eodem testimonio et auctoritate Photii satis revincitur. Multo autem magis repellitur opinio Antelmii, qui easdem epistolas attribuit anno 447. Non leve in speciem videri potest illud cui potissimum insistit Antelmius epist. 1 num. 11 pag. 7, nimirum in epistola ad Aquileiensem episcopum, c. 1 mentionem fieri decretorum nostrorum, et c. 5 scribi: Olim a sanctis Patribus et a nobis saepe decretum est, dum de interdicto agitur clericorum transitu ab Ecclesia ad Ecclesiam, quibus alia hac super re Leonis decreta ante hanc epistolam edita indicantur. At haud opus est intelligere cum Antelmio epistolas 13 ad Illyrici metropolitas, et 14 ad Anastasium scriptas an 446, in quibus simile decretum legitur. Cum enim ex dictis exploratum videatur epist. 1 ad Aquileiensem datam fuisse anno circiter 442, constet autem plures Leonis epistolas intercidisse, uti multis in locis notabitur; satis probabile est eidem pontifici ante hunc annum 442, sub ipsa pontificatus initia, aliquam occasionem fuisse renovandi antiquam constitutionem quae olim a Patribus, canonibus scilicet Nicaenis et Sardicencibus, a Romana Ecclesia tunc solum receptis lata, et identidem repetita a Damaso aliisque ejus successoribus ac tandem ab ipso Leone renovata, saepe decreta dici potuit. Adde quod annot. 27 in epist. 9 ad Dioscorum ostendemus verba ad nos ibidem non tam de Leone quam de praedecessoribus ejus sumpta. Ita etiam hic voces a nobis et decretorum nostrorum de praedecessorum decretis accipi potuerunt. Cum enim una eademque sit antecessorum et successorum auctoritas, decreta autem pontificia ex hac auctoritate totam vim sortiantur, nostra dici potuerunt decreta, quae ab antecessoribus lata fuere auctoritate successoribus communi; ita ut nostra decreta appellare, idem sit ac dicere edita auctoritate pontificia, quae tum in antecessoribus, tum in successoribus una eademque est. Simili loquendi ratione usus est etiam Gelasius, uti ostendemus in annotationibus ad cap. 50 codicis, quem Quesnellus edidit.

25. From these things, further, the date of the two following letters is drawn out, and it will become clear why we have made our beginning with them. The year 444, to which Quesnel assigned these letters on the authority of the book On the Promises, is sufficiently refuted once that same testimony and the authority of Photius have been explained. Much more is the opinion of Antelmius rejected, who attributes the same letters to the year 447. What Antelmius chiefly insists on, epist. 1, num. 11, p. 7, may seem at first sight no slight matter: namely, that in the letter to the bishop of Aquileia, c. 1, mention is made of "our decrees", and in c. 5 it is written: "It has formerly been decreed by the holy Fathers, and often by us", where the forbidden passing of clerics from church to church is treated; by which other decrees of Leo on this matter, issued before this letter, are indicated. But there is no need to understand with Antelmius the letters 13 to the metropolitans of Illyricum and 14 to Anastasius, written in the year 446, in which a similar decree is read. For since from what has been said it seems established that epist. 1 to the bishop of Aquileia was given about the year 442, and since it is agreed that many of Leo's letters have perished, as will be noted in many places, it is quite probable that the same pontiff, before this year 442, at the very beginning of his pontificate, had some occasion to renew the ancient constitution, which, having been enacted formerly by the Fathers, namely by the canons of Nicaea and Sardica, the only ones then received by the Roman Church, and repeated from time to time by Damasus and his other successors, and finally renewed by Leo himself, could be said to have been "often decreed". Add that in annot. 27 on epist. 9 to Dioscorus we shall show that the words "to us" in that place are used not so much of Leo as of his predecessors. So here too the expressions "by us" and "of our decrees" could be taken of the decrees of predecessors. For since the authority of predecessors and successors is one and the same, and pontifical decrees derive their whole force from this authority, decrees enacted by predecessors by an authority common to their successors could be called "ours"; so that to call them "our decrees" is the same as to say "issued by pontifical authority", which is one and the same both in predecessors and in successors. Gelasius too used a similar manner of speaking, as we shall show in the annotations on chap. 50 of the codex which Quesnel edited.

26. Caeterum sub initia pontificatus Leonis et circa an. 442 scriptas duas sequentes epistolas confirmabit etiam non modicum historica quaedam animadversio, quam primus produxit card. Norisius tom. III pag 1177 et tom. IV, pag. 752; dein Pagius ad an. 418, n. 57; ac tandem P. Bernardus de Rubeis Monument. Aquileien. cap. 14, pag. 120. Sirmondus e ms. Veronensi descripsit libellum fidei a Pelagianis editum; ex apographo autem Sirmondi hunc libellum vulgavit Garnerius in editione Marii Mercatoris, et dein P. P. Benedictini S. Mauri in appendice tom. X Augustini, pag. 110. Hic libellus fidei Pelagianae sic in fine clauditur; Explicit libellus fidei S. I. C. quas siglas Garnerius male interpretatus est Siculorum, cum citius explicandas Sacerdotum Jesu Christi Tillemontius et Benedictini opinentur. Hic libellus Augustino directus noscitur ex voce Augustine, quae libello inserta est. Is autem ipsorum Pelagianorum, qui libellum obtulere, metropolita, primas, aut superior ex contextu deprehenditur. Garnerius et Benedictini, intelligentes id non posse competere S. Augustino episcopo Hipponensi, de errore amanuensium suspicati, Zosime pro Augustine legendum putarunt; et hunc libellum esse credidere alterutrum e duobus quos Julianum Eclanensem cum aliis Pelagianis Zasimo pontifici obtulisse exploratum est. At quamvis libellus a Sirmondo descriptus nonnulla quoad sententiam contineat duobus memoratis libellis communia; verba tamen quae ex his libellis apud Augustinum et Marium Mercatorem supersunt, in eo libello non inveniuntur. Igitur alteruter e duobus Zosimo oblatis indicari nequit; ac propterea alius libellus post tractoriam Zosimi, quae in totum orbem adversus Pelagianos edita, subscriptiones praeceperat, oblatus agnoscitur cuipiam metropolitae, qui Augustinus vocabatur, et epistolam ediderat, qua subscriptiones tractoriae petebantur. Chromatio autem Aquileiensi, ineunte saeculo V celebri, successit Augustinus, qui Zosimo pontifice floruit; huicque jure eum libellum a Pelagianis oblatum Norisius primus omnium annotavit. Hinc Pelagianam haeresim jam ab initio in Aquileiensem provinciam irrepsisse patet; ibidemque adeo invaluerat, Aquileiensem sedem obtinente Augustino, ut auctores libelli memorati non solum recusarint subsignare tractoriam Zosimi, verum etiam ad plenariam synodum ausi sint provocare. Nihil itaque mirum, si Leone pontifice, id est post viginti circiter annos, aliquae Pelagianorum reliquiae inter presbyteros et clericos ejusdem provinciae supererant, de quibus cum Septimus Altinas retulisset ad eumdem pontificem, is praeter epistolam 2, qua Septimo rescripsit, aliam dedit ad Aquileiensem metropolitam, ut hisce reliquiis afficax remedium adhiberet. Id autem aequius in an. 442, circiter, quam in posteriores annos refertur. Probabile enim est Pelagianos hujus provinciae jam inde ab Augustino post Zosimi tractoriam exagitatos, non multo post in unitatem Ecclesiae fuisse receptos; in quam tamen cum nonnullos absque erroris et auctoris damnatione et absque debitis subscriptionibus imprudenter admissos Septimus detexisset, quibus praedictae damnationis et subscriptionis remedium Leo

26. Moreover, that the two following letters were written at the beginning of Leo's pontificate and about the year 442 will also be confirmed in no small measure by a certain historical observation, which Cardinal Noris first produced, vol. III, p. 1177, and vol. IV, p. 752; then Pagi at the year 418, n. 57; and finally Fr Bernardo de Rubeis, Monumenta Aquileiensia, chap. 14, p. 120. Sirmond copied from a Verona manuscript a libellus of faith issued by the Pelagians; from Sirmond's transcript Garnier published this libellus in his edition of Marius Mercator, and afterwards the Benedictine Fathers of St Maur in the appendix to vol. X of Augustine, p. 110. This libellus of the Pelagian faith closes thus at the end: "Here ends the libellus of faith S. I. C.", which initials Garnier wrongly interpreted as "of the Sicilians", whereas Tillemont and the Benedictines think they should rather be explained as "of the Priests of Jesus Christ". That this libellus was addressed to an Augustine is known from the word "Augustine", which is inserted in the libellus. And from the context he is found to be the metropolitan, primate or superior of those very Pelagians who presented the libellus. Garnier and the Benedictines, understanding that this could not apply to St Augustine, bishop of Hippo, suspected an error of the copyists and thought that "Zosimus" should be read for "Augustine"; and they believed this libellus to be one or other of the two which it is established that Julian of Eclanum with other Pelagians presented to Pope Zosimus. But although the libellus copied by Sirmond contains some things in its sense common to the two libelli mentioned, yet the words of those libelli which survive in Augustine and Marius Mercator are not found in it. Therefore neither of the two presented to Zosimus can be meant; and consequently it is recognized as another libellus, presented after the tractoria of Zosimus (which, issued to the whole world against the Pelagians, had required subscriptions) to some metropolitan who was called Augustine and had issued a letter in which subscriptions to the tractoria were demanded. Now Augustine, who flourished under Pope Zosimus, succeeded Chromatius of Aquileia, famous at the beginning of the fifth century; and Noris, first of all, rightly noted that the libellus was presented to him by the Pelagians. Hence it is plain that the Pelagian heresy had crept into the province of Aquileia from the very beginning, and had grown so strong there, while Augustine held the see of Aquileia, that the authors of the said libellus not only refused to subscribe the tractoria of Zosimus but even dared to appeal to a plenary synod. It is no wonder, then, if under Pope Leo, that is, about twenty years later, some remnants of the Pelagians still survived among the priests and clerics of the same province; and when Septimus of Altinum had reported about them to the same pontiff, he, besides epistle 2, in which he replied to Septimus, gave another to the metropolitan of Aquileia, that he might apply an effective remedy to these remnants. And this is more fairly referred to about the year 442 than to later years. For it is probable that the Pelagians of this province, harried by Augustine from the time of Zosimus's tractoria, were received not long afterwards into the unity of the Church; and since Septimus had discovered that some had been imprudently admitted into it without condemnation of the error and of its author and without the due subscriptions, Leo […] the remedy of the aforesaid condemnation and subscription for them […]