Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹quia› · printed under col 597

Dist. 86, Inferiorum culpae. c. 1.

[Gratian,] Dist. 86, c. 1, Inferiorum culpae.

(b) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 597

Al. 7. Quae autem antea 2 erat, nunc 167. Scripta circa an. 442.

Elsewhere 7. The one that was formerly 2 is now 167. Written about the year 442.

(c) ‹AD SEPTIMUM› · printed under col 597

Cur Septimum, non autem, ut in editis, Septimium scripserimus, vide annot. 3 (Col. 593, c) in epistolam antecedentem. Civitatis nomen plures quidem et antiqui codices omittunt; at legitur in mss. codd. collect. 12, 23 et 24, ac praesertim pervetustae collect. 8. Erat in editis Altinum ex codd. collect. 12 et 24, sed hoc ipsius civitatis nomen est. Altinatem ex probae notae auctoribus scribendum fuisset: sed ex mss. Vallicell. collect. 8 et Ottobon. collect. 23 Altinensem reposuimus; ita enim ferme hujus urbis episcopi in conciliis memorati appellari solent. Vide concil. Aquileien. an. 381. Invenimus autem hanc epistolam in mss. novem collectionum recensitis in admonitione praemissa epistolae superiori, num. 5 et 7, ex quibus sinceritatem harum litterarum vindicamus num. 11, et num. 14 difficultates a Quesnello objectas disjecimus.

For why we have written Septimum and not, as in the editions, Septimium, see annot. 3 (col. 593, c) on the preceding letter. Many manuscripts, indeed ancient ones, omit the name of the city; but it is read in the manuscripts of collections 12, 23 and 24, and especially of the very old collection 8. The editions had Altinum, from the manuscripts of collections 12 and 24, but this is the name of the city itself. Altinatem ought to have been written, following authors of good repute; but from the manuscripts Vallicell. of collection 8 and Ottobon. of collection 23 we have restored Altinensem, for so the bishops of this city mentioned in councils are generally called. See the council of Aquileia of the year 381. We have found this letter in the manuscripts of nine collections, listed in the admonition set before the preceding letter, nums. 5 and 7; from them we vindicate the genuineness of this letter in num. 11, and in num. 14 we have disposed of the difficulties raised by Quesnel.

(d) ‹SYNOPSIS› (call before the word) · printed under col 597, continued under col 598

In indice mss. collect 5 hic titulus legitur cap. 83: Ad Septimum episcopum de suprascriptis titulis. Respiciuntur autem tituli superioris epistolae, cui haec in omnibus collectionibus constanter subjicitur: unde eodem tempore scriptam confirmare licet.

In the index of the manuscripts of collection 5 this title is read, chap. 83: "To Bishop Septimus, on the headings written above." The headings meant are those of the preceding letter, to which this one is constantly subjoined in all the collections; hence it may be confirmed that it was written at the same time.

(e) ‹fidei tuae› · printed under col 598

Vulgati, quam. Emendavimus ex mss. Vat. Reg. collect. 1, Vat. 5845 collect. 8 et Florentino S. Marci collect. 13, cum praesertim similiter legatur capite 1 epist. 18 ad Januarium, quod ex hac epistola exscriptum fuit.

The common editions, quam. We have emended from the manuscripts Vat. Reg. of collection 1, Vat. 5845 of collection 8, and the Florence manuscript of San Marco of collection 13, especially since it is read likewise in chapter 1 of epist. 18 to Januarius, which was copied from this letter.

(f) ‹(Matth. VII, 15)› · printed under col 598

Quinque codd. diversarum collectionum, bestiarum saevitia.

Five manuscripts of different collections, bestiarum saevitia [with the savagery of beasts].

(g) ‹ea quae sunt› · printed under col 598

Quatuor praestantes codd., sancta.

Four excellent manuscripts, sancta [holy].

SYNOPSIS.—I. Pelagianos nonnisi cum erroris ejuratione esse recipiendos. — II. Unumquemque clericum in ea Ecclesia permanere debere, in qua est ordinatus.

SYNOPSIS. — I. That Pelagians are to be received only with abjuration of their error. — II. That every cleric must remain in the church in which he was ordained.

(d) continued from col 597, set in n597

(h) ‹habeatur.› (call before Saluberrimum) · printed under col 598

1, quaest. 7, Saluberrimum enim, c. 21.

[Gratian, Causa] 1, quaest. 7, c. 21, Saluberrimum enim.

(i) ‹nulla› · printed under col 598

Quesnellus, spirandi, et in margine rejecit vulgatam lectionem sperandi; quam tamen omnes nostri codices approbant, sicut etiam probatur in epistola ad Januarium, quae hanc eamdem sententiam totidem verbis repetit.

Quesnel, spirandi [of breathing], and he relegated the common reading sperandi to the margin; yet all our manuscripts approve it, as it is also confirmed in the letter to Januarius, which repeats this same sentence in as many words.

(j) ‹multo minus› (call read as (l) in the text, UNSURE) · printed under col 598

Melior visa est haec lectio duobus optimae notae mss. probata Vat. collect. 8 et Florentino, quibus concinit etiam epistola ad Januarium. Al., debeat.

This reading seemed better, being approved by two manuscripts of the best repute, the Vat. of collection 8 and the Florence manuscript, with which the letter to Januarius also agrees. Elsewhere, debeat.

(k) ‹laudabiliter› · printed under col 598

Al., sunt gesta.

Elsewhere, sunt gesta.

ADMONITIO

ADMONITION

In fragmentum epistolae S. Cyrilli Alexandrini de Paschate an. 444, ad S. Leonem, quae ad illustrandam etiam subsequentem epistolam Paschasini plurimum conferet.

On the fragment of the letter of St Cyril of Alexandria on the Easter of the year 444, to St Leo, which will also contribute very much to illustrating the following letter of Paschasinus.

1. De quaestione Paschatis anni 444 S. Leonem duas saltem scripsisse epistolas, alteram ad Cyrillum episcopum Alexandrinum, ad Paschasinum episcopum Lilybetanum alteram, ex Paschasini litteris manifestum est. Sed utraeque injuria temporum intercidere. Solam Paschasini responsionem superesse existimatum fuit; ac propterea eam unam Quesnellus edidit. At ejus quoque epistolae, quam Cyrillum, Leoni reddidisse idem Pachasinus testatur, non exiguum fragmentum ad nos transmissum credimus; quod ut statuatur, nonnulla observanda sunt.

1. That on the question of the Easter of the year 444 St Leo wrote at least two letters, one to Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, the other to Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybaeum, is plain from the letter of Paschasinus. But both have perished through the injury of time. It was thought that only the reply of Paschasinus survived, and for that reason Quesnel published it alone. But of the letter too which the same Paschasinus testifies that Cyril returned to Leo, we believe that no small fragment has been transmitted to us; and to establish this some things must be observed.

2. Eam nimirum Cyrilli epistolam de Paschate Africani concilii Patribus traditam, quam Dionysius Exiguus suae collectioni integram inseruerat num. 1†5, ex Sirmondi schedis cum longiori additione ediderant primum Petavius tom. II De Doctrina temporum, in fine, ac dein Bucherius in Commentario ad Canonem paschalem Victorii, cap. 1, pag. 72. Duae vero in ea quam Petavius et Bucherius ediderunt partes distinguendae, nimirum ipsa Cyrilli epistola ad Africanos, quae legitur correctior apud Dionysium; et ejus additio, quae ad aliam ejusdem Cyrilli epistolam pertinet. Has quidem duas distinctasque Cyrilli epistolas cum imperitus quidam reperisset agentes de Paschate, de eodem Paschate utrasque agere credidit: et idcirco epistolae ad Africanos, quam ex Dionysio primum descripsit, paucis verbis suo arbitrio

2. That letter of Cyril on Easter, namely, delivered to the Fathers of the African council, which Dionysius Exiguus had inserted whole into his collection as num. 1†5, Petavius first published from Sirmond's papers with a longer addition, in vol. II of De Doctrina temporum, at the end, and afterwards Bucherius in his Commentary on the Paschal Canon of Victorius, chap. 1, p. 72. But in the text which Petavius and Bucherius published two parts must be distinguished: namely, Cyril's letter to the Africans itself, which is read in a more correct form in Dionysius; and its addition, which belongs to another letter of the same Cyril. When some unskilled person had found these two distinct letters of Cyril treating of Easter, he believed that both treated of the same Easter; and therefore to the letter to the Africans, which he first copied from Dionysius, with a few words of his own choosing […]

immutatis, alteram, quae Bedae temporibus integra legebatur, initio praetermisso, subjecit atque inseruit; quae cum denuntiet diem Paschatis anni 444, eidem diei accomodata fuit a librario dies designata in priori ad Africanos epistola, nimirum IX kal. Maii. Hinc Bucherius non duas, sed unam epistolam habuit totum hoc documentum, eodemque credidit sermonem esse de solo Paschate ann. 444.

[…] altered, and then appended and inserted the other, which in Bede's time was read whole, with its beginning left out; and since this announces the day of Easter of the year 444, the day named in the earlier letter to the Africans was adjusted by the copyist to that same day, namely the ninth before the Kalends of May. Hence Bucherius held this whole document to be not two letters but one, and believed that it spoke of the Easter of the year 444 alone.

3. Sed si conferatur prima hujus pars cum Cyrilli epistola ad Africanos, quae a Dionysio conservata est, eadem reperientur verba paucis vocibus exceptis, quas librarius mutavit; ut nihil dubii sit quin ea prima pars pertineat ad Pascha an. 420. Ita sane cum ibidem optime dicatur inscripta Aurelio, et Valentino, sed et omni S. congregationi in Carthaginensi synodo congregatae, et in ea Cyrillus, affirmet se mittere exemplaria concilii Nicaeni (quae innuunt concilium Cathaginense an. 419), perperam, ubi agitur de Paschate, subjicitur celebrandum IX kal. Maii. Haec enim chronica notatio indicat Pascha an. 344, quod toto tempore episcopatus Cyrilli apud Alexandrinos hoc solo anno in eam diem incidit; ac propterea haec epistola scripta fuisse an, 443, cum quo nequaquam cohaeret concilium Carthaginense, jamdiu ante an. 443 e vivis excesserat. Itaque recte Petavius hanc epistolam scriptam tradiderat an 419, et agere de Paschate anni 420, ac proinde loco IX kal. Maii. legendum XIV kal. Maii. quo die Pascha celebratum fuit an. 420.

3. But if the first part of this is compared with Cyril's letter to the Africans, which has been preserved by Dionysius, the same words will be found, a few expressions excepted which the copyist changed; so that there is no doubt that this first part belongs to the Easter of the year 420. Thus indeed, since it is there very rightly said to be addressed to Aurelius and Valentinus, and also to the whole holy assembly gathered in the synod of Carthage, and in it Cyril affirms that he is sending copies of the council of Nicaea (which points to the council of Carthage of the year 419), wrongly, where Easter is treated, it is added that it is to be celebrated on the ninth before the Kalends of May. For this date in the calendar indicates the Easter of the year 444, because in the whole time of Cyril's episcopate at Alexandria Easter fell on that day in this year alone; and therefore that this letter was written in the year 443, with which the council of Carthage by no means agrees, [Aurelius] having departed this life long before the year 443. And so Petavius had rightly held that this letter was written in the year 419 and deals with the Easter of the year 420, and consequently that in place of the ninth before the Kalends of May one must read the fourteenth before the Kalends of May, the day on which Easter was celebrated in the year 420.

4. Apud Dionysium quidem legitur XVII kal. Maii, in quem diem incidit Pascha an, 423. Sed praeterquam quod frequentius de Paschate anni sequentis rarius de Paschate post aliquot annos celebrandum petebatur, ipsa Cyrilli epistola, quae Pascha futurae indictionis, id est anni sequentis indicit, apud Dionysium transmissa dicitur ad Bonifacium una cum alia Attici epistola post consulatum Honorii XII et Theodosii VIII, id est an. 419. Facile autem fuit numerales notas XIV librariorum lapsu duabus junctis unitatibus deflectere in XVII. Neque textum Graecum opponas ex Ecclesiae Africanae codice, uti vocant, ubi similer ac apud vulgatum Dionysium haec numeralis nota legitur. Nam Graecus Africani codicis textus non est originalis Cyrilli, sed ex Latino Dionysii antiqua interpretatio Graeca, quae ex vitiato Dionysii textu derivat, et veterem esse hunc librariorum lapsum confirmat. Hinc ergo manifestum fit veram lectionem in ms. Sirmondi fuisse corruptam ab illo antiquario, qui cum huic epistolae alteram partem subjecit, et ex duabus epistolis unam compegit, diem Paschatis in hac postrema parte designatum, de quo pluribus agitur, ad priorem quoque partem transferendum putavit. Hac libertate in inscriptione eadem Cyrilli epistola data dicitur Carthaginensi synodo congregatae V kal. Decembris, cum apud Dionysium nulla talis notatio in incriptione occurrat, sed in titulo Dionysius notaverit diem VI kal. Decembris, quo ea epistola ab Africanis ad Bonifacium pontificem missa fuit. Hactenus de epistola ad Carthaginense concilium.

4. In Dionysius, indeed, one reads the seventeenth before the Kalends of May, the day on which Easter fell in the year 423. But besides the fact that [the date of] the Easter of the following year was more often requested, and [that of] an Easter to be celebrated some years later more rarely, this very letter of Cyril, which announces the Easter of the coming indiction, that is, of the following year, is said in Dionysius to have been sent to Boniface together with another letter of Atticus after the twelfth consulship of Honorius and the eighth of Theodosius, that is, in the year 419. And it was easy, through a slip of the copyists joining two units, to turn the numeral XIV into XVII. Nor should you set against this the Greek text from the codex of the African Church, as they call it, where this numeral is read likewise as in the common Dionysius. For the Greek text of the African codex is not Cyril's original, but an ancient Greek translation from the Latin of Dionysius, which derives from the corrupted text of Dionysius, and it confirms that this slip of the copyists is old. From this, then, it becomes plain that the true reading in Sirmond's manuscript was corrupted by that copyist who, when he appended the other part to this letter and made one letter out of two, thought that the day of Easter named in this latter part, which is treated at greater length, should be transferred to the former part as well. With the same freedom, in the address, the same letter of Cyril is said to have been given to the synod assembled at Carthage on the fifth before the Kalends of December, although in Dionysius no such date occurs in the address; rather, Dionysius noted in the title the sixth before the Kalends of December, the day on which that letter was sent by the Africans to Pope Boniface. So much for the letter to the council of Carthage.

5. Nunc de additione, seu de alia Cyrilli epistola, quae nostri instituti propria est. Haec nimirum agit de Paschate celebrando an. 444. Dicitur enim Pascha celebrandum apud Alexandrinos IX kal. Maii propter rationem embolismi anni, Latinos autem meditari celebrare illud VII kal. Aprilis luna XXII, ita ut communem annum facerent de embolismo. Hi omnes characteres conveniunt soli Pachati an. 444, quales quidem etiam in Paschasini epistola dein subjicienda deprehenduntur; ac proinde haec Cyrilli, uti et Paschasini episla, pertinet ad an. 443.

5. Now of the addition, that is, of the other letter of Cyril, which belongs properly to our undertaking. This, namely, deals with the Easter to be celebrated in the year 444. For it says that Easter is to be celebrated among the Alexandrians on the ninth before the Kalends of May on account of the reckoning of the embolismic year, but that the Latins were planning to celebrate it on the seventh before the Kalends of April, on the twenty-second day of the moon, so that they would make a common year out of an embolismic one. All these marks fit the Easter of the year 444 alone, and the same are indeed found also in the letter of Paschasinus to be given next; and therefore this letter of Cyril, like that of Paschasinus, belongs to the year 443.

6. Petavius in notis ad hanc additionem tom. II de Doctrin. temp. hic innu affirmat Pascha ann. 607, et inde concludit hanc non esse Cyrilli epistolam, sed auctoris qui duobus ferme saeculis posterior fuit. Sed tota ejus ratiocinatio nititur fictitio cyclo decemnovennali, quem Romanis perperam tribuit, eo quod ipsi esset ignotus cyclus annorum 84 apud Latinos hoc tempore receptus: unde nihili facienda est. Pagius vero ad an. 419, n. 28, cum vidisset omnes characteres congruere Paschati an. 444, et omnes tum codices, tum sriptores hanc epistolam Cyrillo tribuere, recessit a Petavii sententia, sed ipsam a Cyrillo datam credidit ad quosdam monachos his argumentis: quia, inquit, non ad unum, sed ad plures scripta est; et hos quidem Cyrillo inferiores ac subditos innuunt verba. Praecipio vobis ne faciatis, etc.; monachos vero indicare videtur Pachomii monachi exemplum, quod iisdem litteris inseritur. At cum scripta sit ad Latinos, qui Pascha celebrare volebant VII kal. Aprilis, ad inferiores et Cyrilli subditos tradita dici nequit. Sicuti vero librarii arbitrio in epistola ad Africanos scriptum fuit mandamus vobis, ubi apud Dionysium legitur nuntiamus; ita eodem arbitrio in hac epistola scriptum credimus praecipio vobis, ubi aliud in originali ejusque versione modestius aliquid legebatur. Monachi autem exemplum ad propositum comprobandum allatum, nihil conficit, ut ea epistola monachis tradita statuatur; cum praesertim Latinos monachos Cyrillum de Paschate an. 444 interrogasse ne suspicari quidem liceat.

6. Petavius, in his notes on this addition in volume II of De Doctrina temporum, affirms that the Easter of the year 607 is indicated here [sic: innu], and concludes from this that this letter is not Cyril's but that of an author who lived almost two centuries later. But his whole reasoning rests on a fictitious nineteen-year cycle which he wrongly attributes to the Romans, because the cycle of 84 years received among the Latins at this time was unknown to him: hence it is to be reckoned worthless. Pagi, however, at the year 419, n. 28, having seen that all the marks agree with the Easter of the year 444, and that both all the manuscripts and all the writers attribute this letter to Cyril, departed from Petavius's opinion, but believed that it was sent by Cyril to certain monks, on these arguments: because, he says, it is written not to one but to several; and the words "I command you not to do", etc., point to these as Cyril's inferiors and subjects; while the example of the monk Pachomius, which is inserted in the same letter, seems to indicate monks. But since it was written to Latins, who wished to celebrate Easter on the seventh before the Kalends of April, it cannot be said to have been sent to inferiors and Cyril's subjects. And just as in the letter to the Africans "we command you" was written at a copyist's discretion, where in Dionysius one reads "we announce", so we believe that by the same discretion "I command you" was written in this letter, where something else, somewhat more modest, was read in the original and in its translation. And the example of the monk, brought forward to prove the point, does nothing to establish that the letter was sent to monks, especially since it may not even be suspected that Latin monks questioned Cyril about the Easter of the year 444.

7. Utrum tandem ad unum, an ad plures, scripta fuerit, dubitari potest. Tillemontius in Cyril⟨l⟩i Vita, art. 147, quibusdam Occidentis episcopis datam existimat. Si id collegit ex verbis quod optamus, charissimi fratres, non advertit haec pertinere ad finem epistolae, quae Africanis tradita fuit. Si vero deduxit ex illis quae huic posteriori fragmento inseruntur, charissimi domini mei, in mente habetote, quae Cyrilli potius quam Pachomii verba esse videntur, fortiora quidem sunt, sed non omnino convincunt; cum fieri potuerit ut is qui hanc epistolam anteriori ad Africanos subjecit, ita haec loca plurali numero afferret, ut cohaererent cum antecedentibus, quemadmodum alia proprio ingenio eum immutasse cognoscimus.

7. Whether, finally, it was written to one person or to several may be doubted. Tillemont, in the Life of Cyril, art. 147, thinks it was sent to certain bishops of the West. If he gathered this from the words "which we desire, dearest brothers", he did not notice that these belong to the end of the letter that was sent to the Africans. But if he inferred it from those that are inserted in this latter fragment, "my dearest lords, bear in mind", which seem to be Cyril's words rather than Pachomius's, they are indeed stronger, but not wholly convincing; since it may have happened that he who appended this letter to the earlier one to the Africans put these passages in the plural so that they would agree with what went before, just as we know that he altered other things by his own invention.

8. Joannes Vander Haagen, auctor operis inscripti: Observationes in veterum Patrum et pontificum prologos et epistolas paschales, Amstelodami an. 1734, pag. 97, eam Cyrilli epistolam esse, et ad Leonem pontificem traditam propugnat. Id autem exinde potissimum statuit, quod ex una parte certum sit ex Paschasino S. Cyrillum Leoni interroganti de Paschate an. 444 per litteras eidem directas respondisse; ex alia vero parte textum qui in hoc fragmento legitur Beda tribuat epistolae Cyrilli ad S. Leonem, in ipso fragmento agatur quidem de quaestione Paschatis anni 444, de qua eum Leoni respondisse Paschasinus prodidit. Idem vero auctor allegat tria Bedae testimonia: duo quibus ea epistola Cyrillo vindicatur, nimirum ex libro de temporum Ratione, et ex epistola ad Wichredam; tertium vero ex opusculo de Argumentis lunae, ubi ad Leonem scripta dicitur testibus Petavio et Bucherio sed locum se non potuisse invenire fatetur. Certe in editione Coloniensi an. 1688, tom. I pag. 151, in eo tractatu de Argumentis lunae haec reperimus: Sic legitur in epistola quam beatus Cyrillus ad Leonem papam scripsit: Indicabo enim vobis, quid Bachumius (lege Pachomius (monachus, etc. quae quidem in fragmento mox recitando invenientur, sicut in eo leguntur etiam illa quae tum in opusculo de temporum ratione ejusdem editionis cap. 41, tom. II pag. 83, tum in epistola ad Wichredam eodem tomo pag. 230. ex eadem Cyrilli epistola Beda recitat. Grave quidem est hoc testimonium Bedae, qui cum ipsam epistolam non ad Africanos, sed ad Leonem traditam pronuntiet, hanc non subjectam perperam epistolae ad Africanos, sed separatam et Leoni inscriptam reperisse deprehenditur, ac propterea iis vocibus carentem, quibus ea ad plures data praefertur. Nihil vero dubitamus quin Cyrillus in sincera epistola ad Leonem iis formulis honoris et observantiae erga apostolicam sedem usus sit, quae in

8. Joannes Vander Haagen, author of the work entitled Observationes in veterum Patrum et pontificum prologos et epistolas paschales (Amsterdam, 1734), p. 97, maintains that this is Cyril's letter and that it was sent to Pope Leo. He establishes this chiefly from the fact that, on the one hand, it is certain from Paschasinus that St Cyril answered Leo, who had asked him about the Easter of the year 444, by a letter addressed to him; and on the other hand, that Bede attributes the text read in this fragment to Cyril's letter to St Leo, and the fragment itself does indeed deal with the question of the Easter of the year 444, on which Paschasinus reported that he answered Leo. The same author also adduces three testimonies of Bede: two by which the letter is claimed for Cyril, namely from the book De temporum ratione and from the letter to Wichred; and the third from the little work De argumentis lunae, where it is said to have been written to Leo on the witness of Petavius and Bucherius, but he admits that he could not find the passage. Certainly in the Cologne edition of 1688, vol. I, p. 151, in that treatise De argumentis lunae we find this: "Thus it is read in the letter which blessed Cyril wrote to Pope Leo: For I will show you what Bachumius (read Pachomius) the monk", etc.; and these words will indeed be found in the fragment about to be quoted, just as there are also read in it those words which Bede quotes from the same letter of Cyril, both in the little work De temporum ratione of the same edition, ch. 41, vol. II, p. 83, and in the letter to Wichred in the same volume, p. 230. This testimony of Bede is indeed weighty: since he declares that this letter was sent not to the Africans but to Leo, he is found to have come upon it not wrongly appended to the letter to the Africans but separate and addressed to Leo, and therefore lacking those words by which it is presented as sent to several persons. And we have no doubt that Cyril, in the genuine letter to Leo, used those formulas of honour and deference towards the apostolic see which […]

(a) ‹celebremus› · printed under col 601

Loquitur de Paschate an. 444, juxta cyclum decemnovennalem Alexandrinorum, in quo hic annus ogdoadis octavus erat embolismalis, ut ex Paschasini epistola liquebit. Et propter hanc quidem rationem embolismi anni Alexandrini contendebant Pascha hoc anno celebrandum IX kal. Maii, non vero cum Latinis VII kal. Aprilis, ac si annus esset non embolismalis, sed communis. In hos scilicet tota, vel potior discriminis ratio sita erat inter Alixandrinos et Romanos circa Pascha hujus anni 444. Quod ut cuivis planum fiat, sciendum est lunares annos alios esse communes, alios embolismales. Communes dicuntur, qui constant ex mensibus lunaribus 12 et diebus 354. Lunares enim menses nunc diebus 29, nunc diebus 30, alternatim computantur. Embolismales vero anni appellantur ii, quibus post duodecim menses lunares additur alius mensis item lunaris dierum 29 (sive is mensis decimus tertius vocetur, sive alter duodecimus), ita ut annus embolismalis constet ex diebus 383. Hic embolismus anno lunari identidem inseritur, ut aliorum annorum lunarium defectus ad solaris anni rationem hoc additamento suppleatur, et ita lunares anni cum solaribus aliqua ratione coaequentur: quod ad inveniendam paschalem lunam primi mensis, quae ab aequinoctio solis plurimum pendet, necessarium est. Hac autem de causa tam apud Alexandrinos, quam apud Romanos embolismales anni recepti fuerunt: sed methodo diversa, ut diversus ipsorum cyclus ferebat. In cyclo decemnovennali Alexandrinorum anni tertius, sextus, octavus, undecimus, decimus quartus, et decimus nonus erant embolismales; caeteri autem erant communes. Ita post duos annos communes apud ipsos sequebatur unus embolismalis, exceptis octavo et decimo nono, qui post unicum annum communem subjiciebantur. In cyclo autem Romanorum annorum 84 anni embolismates post duos communes nulla exceptione collocabantur. Cum porro in hoc Romanorum cyclo annus sexagesimus tertius, in quem cadebat annus vulgaris aerae 444, esset annus communis; in cyclo autem Alexandrinorum annus octavus eidem anno 444 respondens esset embolismalis; palam fit primum paschalem mensem apud Romanos, Alexandrinis ob rationem embolismi fuisse decimum tertium, seu alterum duodecimum mensem anni lunaris praecedentis, qui Paschati non poterat convenire: et hac potissimum de causa in statuendo Paschatis die ejus anni alteri ab alteris mense integro dissidebant. Diximus vero totam, vel potiorem discriminis rationem in hoc sitam esset. Alia enim Latinis accessit difficultas, ne in Alexandrinorum sententiam transirent, nimirum ob limites paschales diversos, ut not. 17 (col. 608, n. k). ad Paschasini epistolam dicitur.

He is speaking of the Easter of the year 444, according to the nineteen-year cycle of the Alexandrians, in which this year, the eighth of the ogdoad, was embolismic, as will be clear from the letter of Paschasinus. And it was on account of this reckoning of the embolismic year that the Alexandrians contended that Easter should be celebrated this year on the ninth before the Kalends of May, and not with the Latins on the seventh before the Kalends of April, as if the year were not embolismic but common. In this [printed hos], that is, lay the whole, or the chief, ground of the disagreement between the Alexandrians and the Romans about the Easter of this year 444. To make this plain to anyone, it must be known that some lunar years are common and others embolismic. Those are called common which consist of 12 lunar months and 354 days; for the lunar months are reckoned alternately at 29 days and at 30. But those years are called embolismic in which after twelve lunar months another month, likewise lunar, of 29 days is added (whether this month is called the thirteenth or a second twelfth), so that the embolismic year consists of 383 days. This embolism is inserted into the lunar year from time to time, so that the shortfall of the other lunar years relative to the solar year may be made up by this addition, and so the lunar years may in some way be made equal to the solar: which is necessary for finding the paschal moon of the first month, which depends chiefly on the equinox of the sun. For this reason embolismic years were received both among the Alexandrians and among the Romans: but by a different method, as their different cycles required. In the nineteen-year cycle of the Alexandrians the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth and nineteenth years were embolismic, and the rest were common. Thus among them, after two common years, one embolismic year followed, except the eighth and the nineteenth, which were placed after a single common year. In the Roman cycle of 84 years, however, the embolismic years were placed after two common ones without any exception. Further, since in this Roman cycle the sixty-third year, into which the year 444 of the common era fell, was a common year, while in the Alexandrian cycle the eighth year, corresponding to the same year 444, was embolismic, it becomes plain that the first paschal month among the Romans was, for the Alexandrians, on account of the embolism, the thirteenth, or second twelfth, month of the preceding lunar year, which could not be suited to Easter; and for this reason chiefly the two sides differed from each other by a whole month in fixing the day of Easter of that year. But we said that the whole, or the chief, ground of the disagreement lay in this. For another difficulty was added for the Latins, to keep them from going over to the opinion of the Alexandrians, namely on account of the different paschal limits, as is said in note 17 (col. 608, n. k) on the letter of Paschasinus.

(b) called in col 602 (‹si faciatis›), printed under col 601: set in n602

(c) called in col 602 (‹dum observatis›), printed at the foot of col 601 and continued under col 602: set in n602

aliis ejus ad Romanos pontifices litteris leguntur. Has vero omnes formulas ab ea qui hoc fragmentum epistolae ad Patres concilii Carthaginensis adjecit immutatas credere oportet. Sed haec ipsa interpolatio nobis persuasit ne hoc fragmentum absolute insereremus huic operi, in quo solas epistolas omnino sinceras describendas putavimus. Cum vero interpolatio inesse videatur in solis vocibus, re autem ipsa totum hoc fragmentum cohaereat cum characteribus Paschatis an. 444, qui in certis Paschasini litteris deprehenduntur, nec non cum ipsius Cyrilli sententiis, quae in aliis ejusdem opusculis paschalibus continentur; illud non omnino omittendum, sed huic monito subjiciendum, et aliquot etiam notationibus illustrandum credidimus.

[…] are read in his other letters to the Roman pontiffs. But one must believe that all these formulas were altered by him who added this fragment to the letter to the Fathers of the council of Carthage. And this very interpolation persuaded us not to insert this fragment outright into this work, in which we thought that only wholly genuine letters should be copied out. But since the interpolation seems to lie only in the wording, while in substance the whole of this fragment agrees with the marks of the Easter of the year 444 which are found in the certain letter of Paschasinus, and also with the opinions of Cyril himself which are contained in his other paschal works, we thought that it should not be omitted altogether, but subjoined to this admonition and also illustrated with some notes.

(b) ‹si faciatis› · printed under col 601

Sermo est de Paschate juxta Latinorum cyclum, in quo, ut diximus, hic annus erat communis; ac propterea cum neomenia paschalis ipsis esset dies 5 Martii, Pascha cadebat in diem Dominicam VII kal. Aprilis, luna XXII, uti etiam Paschasinus notavit, ac sequenti annotatione explicabitur.

He is speaking of Easter according to the cycle of the Latins, in which, as we have said, this year was common; and therefore, since for them the paschal new moon was on 5 March, Easter fell on Sunday the seventh before the Kalends of April, the twenty-second day of the moon, as Paschasinus also noted, and as will be explained in the following note.

(c) ‹dum observatis› · printed at the foot of col 601 and continued under col 602

Latini in suo cyclo notabant kal. Januarii feriam septimanae, et aetatem lunae, ut palam fit ex Victorii cyclo, nec non ex cyclo anonymi Fastis annexo, quem noster cardinalis Norisius edidit, sicuti etiam ex cyclo, qui in Anecdotis Latinis Muratorii tom. III legitur. Ex aetate lunae determinabatur noemenia Januarii, et consequenter etiam Martii: erat enim constans Latinorum regula: Qualis luna est in Januario, talis quoque est in Martio. Ex feria autem facile erat colligere Dominicam Paschatis. Hoc porro anno 444, in cyclo Latinorum kal. Januarii feria notabatur sabbatum, aetas vero lunae XXVII, ut sequenti annotatione ostendemus. Erat ergo neomenia Januarii et Martii die 5, ac propterea dies Dominica Paschatis 26 Martii, luna XXII. Nam cum ille annus esset bissextilis, Dominica quidem incidebat in diem 19 Martii, luna XV. At cum Pascha celebrandum non esset ante aequinoctium, Latinorum vero regula vetaret celebrari ante lunam XVI, differendum fuit in Dominicam sequentem 26 Martii, luna XXII.

The Latins in their cycle noted, for the Kalends of January, the day of the week and the age of the moon, as is plain from the cycle of Victorius, and also from the cycle of an anonymous author annexed to the Fasti which our Cardinal Noris published, as also from the cycle which is read in Muratori's Anecdota Latina, vol. III. From the age of the moon the new moon of January was determined, and consequently that of March too; for the Latins had a fixed rule: As the moon is in January, so is it also in March. And from the day of the week it was easy to work out the Sunday of Easter. Now in this year 444 the day of the week noted in the Latin cycle for the Kalends of January was Saturday, and the age of the moon 27, as we shall show in the following note. The new moon of January and of March was therefore on the 5th, and consequently the Sunday of Easter was 26 March, the twenty-second day of the moon. For since that year was a leap year, a Sunday did indeed fall on 19 March, the fifteenth day of the moon. But since Easter was not to be celebrated before the equinox, and the rule of the Latins forbade its celebration before the sixteenth day of the moon, it had to be put off to the following Sunday, 26 March, the twenty-second day of the moon.

(d) ‹kal. Januarii› · printed under col 602 and continued at the head of the notes under col 603

Legendum est sabbato, non Dominica, ut ex omnibus cyclis Latinorum liquet. Hunc lapsum sive librario, sive, ut alii suspicantur, Cyrillo tribuas, nihil refert. Perro in cyclo anonymi apud Norisium ad an. cycli 63, in quem incidit annus Christi 444, nec non in vetusto cyclo apud Muratorium, tom. III Anecdotorum Latinorum pag. 204 et seqq., ad an. 62, qui per auctoris lapsum correspondet anno 63, ut videre est apud Joannem Vander Haagen auctorem Observationum in anonymi cyclum a Muratorio editum pag. 278. In his, inquam, cyclis notatur Januarii kal. Sat. id est Saturni dies seu sabbatum; vel feria 7. Luna autem XXVIII, non vero XXVII. Sed hi Latinorum cycli annorum 84 constructi fuerunt eo tempore quo saltus lunae duodecimo quoque anno admissus, ab initio cycli ad annum 63, quinque saltus lunae afferebat. Leonis autem tempore emendante Prospero inductum fuerat ut lunae saltus quarto decimo quoque anno admitteretur, ut probavit laudatus Vander Haagen pag. 217 et seqq. Observationum in Chronicon Prosperi: unde quatuor tantum lunae saltus ab initio cycli ad annum 63 inciderunt. Quilibet autem saltus aetati lunae unam diem addit. Itaque in illis cyclis, qui astruebant quinque saltus, una dies aetati lunae accedebat usque ad annum 63, supra eum cyclum, qui ex correctione Prosperi quatuor tantum saltus recipiebat: ac propterea in illis cyclis in kal. Januacii anni 63 lunae aetas erat XXVIII; in cyclo autem recepto Leonis tempore, XXVII. Ipsa quidem luna incensa, seu neomenia paschalis, quam auctor hoc anno ponit III nonas Martias, sicut in Martii, ita et in Jannuarii kalendis exigit aetatem lunae XXVII. Hic vero notandum est cardin. Norisium in Diagramate cycli anni 84, in quo ad an. 63 kal. Januarii, notavit ex Fastis aetatem lunae XXVIII perperam signasse neomeniam paschalem ejusdem anni die 5 Martii, seu III nonas, cum in hypothesi aetatis lunae XXVIII veteri stylo Fastis appositae neomenia inciderit in diem 4 Martii seu IV non. Martii. Id quidem ille induxit cogentibus hinc certis testibus de die Paschatis an. 444, hinc vero cyclo suis Fastis apposito, quem eodem anno obtinuisse praesumpsit; haecque ut conciliaret, arbitrarium systema lunarum plenarum invexit, quod ipse pariter repudiasset, si de inducta ante eum annum cycli emendatione ita suspicatus fuisset, uti postea dubitavit ob Pascha anni 454.

One must read Saturday, not Sunday, as is clear from all the cycles of the Latins. Whether you attribute this slip to the copyist or, as others suspect, to Cyril, makes no difference. Further, in the anonymous cycle in Noris at the year 63 of the cycle, into which the year of Christ 444 falls, and also in the old cycle in Muratori, Anecdota Latina vol. III, p. 204 ff., at the year 62, which through the author's slip corresponds to the year 63, as may be seen in Joannes Vander Haagen, author of the Observationes on the anonymous cycle published by Muratori, p. 278: in these cycles, I say, the Kalends of January are marked Sat., that is, Saturn's day or Saturday, or the seventh day of the week; and the moon 28, not 27. But these Latin cycles of 84 years were constructed at the time when the leap of the moon, admitted every twelfth year, produced five leaps of the moon from the beginning of the cycle to the year 63. But in Leo's time, through Prosper's correction, it had been introduced that the leap of the moon should be admitted every fourteenth year, as the aforesaid Vander Haagen has proved, p. 217 ff. of the Observationes on Prosper's Chronicle: hence only four leaps of the moon occurred from the beginning of the cycle to the year 63. And each leap adds one day to the age of the moon. Therefore in those cycles which assumed five leaps, one day was added to the age of the moon up to the year 63 over that cycle which, from Prosper's correction, admitted only four leaps; and therefore in those cycles the age of the moon at the Kalends of January of the year 63 was 28, but in the cycle received in Leo's time, 27. Indeed the kindled moon itself, that is, the paschal new moon, which the author places this year on the third before the Nones of March, requires the age of the moon 27 at the Kalends of January as at those of March. Here, however, it must be noted that Cardinal Noris, in the Diagram of the cycle of 84 years, in which at the year 63 he noted for the Kalends of January, from the Fasti, the age of the moon 28, wrongly marked the paschal new moon of the same year on 5 March, that is, the third before the Nones, since on the hypothesis of the age of the moon 28 attached to the Fasti in the old style the new moon would have fallen on 4 March, that is, the fourth before the Nones of March. He introduced this, indeed, being constrained on the one hand by certain witnesses concerning the day of Easter in the year 444, and on the other by the cycle attached to his Fasti, which he presumed to have been in force in that same year; and to reconcile these he brought in an arbitrary system of full moons, which he would likewise have rejected had he suspected, as he afterwards doubted on account of the Easter of the year 454, that a correction of the cycle had been introduced before that year.

(a) ‹quas› · printed under col 603

Haec verba initio non pauca deesse indicant.

These words show that not a little is missing at the beginning.

(b) ‹epactas› · printed under col 603

Quae ab Alexandrinis vocabatur epacta, Latinis aetas lunae dicebatur Nominantur autem epactae lunares in mensibus totius anni. id est non annuae, sed menstruae, eo quod harum investigatio necessaria sit ut legitium Paschatis tempus inveniatur.

What the Alexandrians called the epact was called by the Latins the age of the moon. And they are named lunar epacts in the months of the whole year, that is, not yearly but monthly ones, because their investigation is necessary for finding the lawful time of Easter.

(c) ‹in luna› · printed under col 603

Hanc regulam ob Pascha determinandum maxime observandam Joannes Vander Haagen pag. 105 Observat. in Cyrilli epistolam accuratissime explanat. Intelligitur autem primus mensis anni lunaris sacri Judaici, in principio anni solaris tropici naturalis ab aequinoctio verno incipientis post veris exordium, quod mox figitur diei XII kal. Aprilis. Id cum Cyrilli prologo concinit, ubi aequinoctium vernum, et veris exordium similiter statuitur XII kal. Aprilis, hoc est Martii 21, seu mensis Pharmuti 25. Haec dies maxime observanda in Paschatis computo: et cum dicitur Pascha celebrandum post veris exordium, indicatur ex Alexandrinorum regulis celebrari non potuisse in ipso verni aequinoctii die. Cum enim Pascha celebrari non potuit luna XIV primi mensis, sed die Dominica, quae eam lunam XIV proxime subsequitur, celebrandum sit; Pascha celebrandum post veris exordium, seu post aequinoctium vernum, citius apud Alexandrinos cadere poterat in lunam XV, si haec lunae esset Dominica, et luna XIV cum aequinoctii die concurrisset.

This rule, which is to be most carefully observed in determining Easter, Joannes Vander Haagen explains very accurately at p. 105 of his Observationes on Cyril's letter. By the first month is meant the first month of the sacred Jewish lunar year, at the beginning of the natural tropical solar year, which begins from the spring equinox after the beginning of spring, which is presently fixed at the twelfth day before the Kalends of April. This agrees with Cyril's prologue, where the spring equinox and the beginning of spring are likewise fixed on the twelfth before the Kalends of April, that is, 21 March, or the 25th of the month Pharmuthi. This day is to be most carefully observed in the reckoning of Easter; and when Easter is said to be celebrated after the beginning of spring, it is indicated that by the rules of the Alexandrians it could not be celebrated on the very day of the spring equinox. For since Easter could not be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon of the first month, but must be celebrated on the Sunday which next follows that fourteenth moon, Easter, being celebrated after the beginning of spring, that is, after the spring equinox, could at the earliest fall among the Alexandrians on the fifteenth day of the moon, if this day of the moon were a Sunday and the fourteenth day of the moon had coincided with the day of the equinox.

(d) ‹legalem› · printed under col 603

Hebraeorum scilicet, qui anno lunari et mensibus lunaribus utuntur, ut primum mensem paschalem definiant juxta praeceptum Legis: Custodi primum mensem. Additur secundum supputationem dierum, ita scilicet ut cum ante mensem paschalem inserendus est embolismalis, quemadmodum hoc anno 444 Alexandrini contendebant, in anno embolismali mensium lunarium tredecim supputentur dies 334, ubi in anno communi mensium lunarium duodecim dies 354 computabantur.

Of the Hebrews, that is, who use the lunar year and lunar months, so as to define the first paschal month according to the precept of the Law: Keep the first month. It is added "according to the reckoning of the days", that is, so that when an embolismic [month] is to be inserted before the paschal month, as the Alexandrians contended this year 444, in the embolismic year of thirteen lunar months 384 days are reckoned, whereas in the common year of twelve lunar months 354 days were counted.

(e) ‹quod› · printed under col 603 and continued under col 604

Gennadius, de Vir. Illustr. cap. 47, Pachomii litteras memorat ad omnium monasterium praepositos, quibus praecipitur ut in unum antiquius monasterium, quod lingua Aegyptiaca Baum vocatur, Paschae diem velut aeterna lege celebrent. Integrae hae litterae ex interpretatione Hieronymi ab Holstenio editae sunt post Pachomii regulam. Sed cum nihil ejusmodi, quod in fragmento legitur, contineant, aliae Pachomii litterae, quae perierint, a Cyrillo indicatae videntur. Beda de Temporum ratione c. 41, tom. II edit. Colon. an. 1682 pag. 83, secundo loco; et de Argumentis lunae, tom. I pag. 151, ipsum Cyrilli testimonium de Pachomio recitat; et Joannes Noviomagus, in notatione ad memoratum cap. 41, affirmat apud se fuisse Pachomii opusculum de Paschate, quod se editurum spondet. Num vero uspiam ediderit, ignoramus. Idem vero Beda, de Argumentis lunae pag. 151, addit: Legimus in epistolis Graecorum, quod post passionem apostolorum S. Pachomius abbas in Aegypto cum monachis suis in oratione a Domino rogavit ut ostenderet ei quomodo Pascha deberet celebrare. Et misit Dominus per angelum suum ad praefatum S. Pachomium cyclum decemnovalem hoc modo. Nonae Aprilis norunt quinos, octonae kalendae assim depromunt, etc. Num haec particula, qua cyclus decemnovennalis ad inveniendum Pascha angelo suggerente approbatus fuit, desumpta sit ex epistola Pachomii, quam Cyrillus allegat, aliorum judicium esto.

Gennadius, On Illustrious Men ch. 47, mentions a letter of Pachomius to the superiors of all the monasteries, in which they are commanded to celebrate the day of Easter as by a perpetual law in one more ancient monastery, which in the Egyptian tongue is called Baum. This letter was published entire, in Jerome's translation, by Holstenius after the Rule of Pachomius. But since it contains nothing of the kind that is read in the fragment, another letter of Pachomius seems to be indicated by Cyril, which has perished. Bede, in De temporum ratione ch. 41 (vol. II of the Cologne edition of 1682, p. 83), in the second place, and in De argumentis lunae (vol. I, p. 151), quotes this very testimony of Cyril about Pachomius; and Joannes Noviomagus, in his note on the said ch. 41, affirms that he had in his possession a little work of Pachomius on Easter, which he promises to publish. Whether he ever published it we do not know. The same Bede, De argumentis lunae p. 151, adds: "We read in the letters of the Greeks that after the passion of the apostles St Pachomius, abbot in Egypt, with his monks, asked the Lord in prayer to show him how Easter ought to be celebrated. And the Lord sent by His angel to the aforesaid St Pachomius the nineteen-year cycle in this manner: The Nones of April know the fives, the eighth Kalends bring out the one", etc. Whether this little piece, by which the nineteen-year cycle for finding Easter was approved at an angel's suggestion, was taken from the letter of Pachomius which Cyril cites, let others judge.

(f) ‹vocatur› · printed under col 604

Apud Bucherium hoc monasterium vocatur Bonum. Quidam legendum malunt Baum, alias Bau, vel Pabau, quod praecipuum erat inter Pachomii monasteria. Praetulimus lectionem Bedae, qui ipsam Cyrilli ad Leonem epistolam in suis codicibus reperit. Unum Pachomii monasterium nomine Pachnum memoratur.

In Bucherius this monastery is called Bonum. Some prefer to read Baum, otherwise Bau or Pabau, which was the chief among the monasteries of Pachomius. We have preferred the reading of Bede, who found this very letter of Cyril to Leo in his manuscripts. One monastery of Pachomius by the name of Pachnum is mentioned.

(e) continued from col 603, set in n603

(f) called in col 603, printed under col 604: set in n603

(g) ‹embolismo.› · printed under col 604

Hoc loco librarii interpolatio deprehenditur: cum hoc fragmentum epistolae ad synodum Carthaginensem subjecit. Vide admonitionem praemissam num. 7,

At this point the copyist's interpolation is detected, when he appended this fragment to the letter to the synod of Carthage. See the admonition set before, no. 7.

(h) ‹synodus› · printed under col 604 and continued under col 605

Paulo post dicitur scripsisse synodus Nicaena cyclum lunarem primi mensis. Nisi librarii arbitrio vel interpretis minus accurati negligentia mendum irrepsit in vocem scripsisset; Cyrillus quoque sensit cyclum decemnovenalem ab eadem synodo fuisse praescriptum, ut tradiderunt Ambrosius in epistola ad episcopos Aemiliae scribens de Paschate an. 387, et Proterius Cyrilli successor in epistola ad S. Leonem de Paschate an. 455. Sunt qui eumdem cyclum a Nicana synodo institutum velint. Sed illum ab antiquiori Anatolio editum, multo ante in Alexandrina Ecclesia obtinuisse liquet ex Eusebio l. VII c. 32. Itaque Nicaeni Patres illum probare solum et praescribere potuerunt. Id autem etsi nulli veteres historici memorent, hac tamen ratione commode intelligi potest. Cum nimirum iidem Patres sanxerint ut Pascha ab omnibus ubique eadem Dominica celebraretur; id profecto obtineri non poterat, nisi uno eodemque cyclo omnes uterentur. Cum porro in eum finem illi decreverint ut Alexandrina Ecclesia, quae memoratum cyclum adhibebat, et calculandi arte erat celebris, diem Paschatis in ejusdem utique cycli normam Romano episcopo significaret, unde apostolica auctoritate universalis Ecclesia per totum orbem definitum Paschae diem sine ulla diceptatione cognosceret, ut idem Cyrillus in prologo paschali tradit; hoc sane decreto eum cyclum satis approbasse, et quodammodo praescripsisse dici queunt. Notandum vero est hoc decretum Nicaenum, non Romano, sed Alexandrino episcopo praecepisse, ut ad Romanum antistitem in memoratam rationem scribens, ejus assensum auctoritatemque excitaret, qua Pascha eodem die a toto Christiano orbe sine disceptatione celebraretur. Cum vero haec Nicaena decemnovennalis cycli approbatio valde implicita et obscura fuerit, nulloque canone expressa, nihil mirum, si Romani pontifices, qui caeteroquin Nicaenum concilium maxime venerabantur, non deseruerunt suum cyclum annorum 84, qui primis temporibus in determinando Paschate a decemnovennali non discrepabat: etsi, cum posterius quaestiones paschales coeperunt commoveri, non nisi serius Alexandrinum cyclum recepere.

A little later it is said that the synod of Nicaea wrote the lunar cycle of the first month. Unless an error crept into the word scripsisset by the discretion of a copyist or the carelessness of a less accurate translator, Cyril too held that the nineteen-year cycle was prescribed by that same synod, as Ambrose related in his letter to the bishops of Aemilia, writing on the Easter of the year 387, and Proterius, Cyril's successor, in his letter to St Leo on the Easter of the year 455. There are some who would have the same cycle instituted by the synod of Nicaea. But it is clear from Eusebius, bk. VII ch. 32, that it was published by the earlier Anatolius and had long before been in force in the Church of Alexandria. So the Nicene Fathers could only approve and prescribe it. And although no ancient historians record this, it can nevertheless be conveniently understood in this way. Since, namely, those same Fathers decreed that Easter should be celebrated by all everywhere on the same Sunday, this certainly could not be achieved unless all used one and the same cycle. Since, further, they decreed to that end that the Church of Alexandria, which used the said cycle and was famous for the art of calculation, should notify the day of Easter, according of course to the rule of that same cycle, to the Roman bishop, so that by apostolic authority the universal Church throughout the whole world might know the fixed day of Easter without any dispute, as the same Cyril relates in his paschal prologue: by this decree they can well be said to have sufficiently approved that cycle and in a manner prescribed it. It is to be noted, however, that this Nicene decree gave its command not to the Roman but to the Alexandrian bishop, that by writing to the Roman prelate on the said reckoning he should call forth his assent and authority, by which Easter would be celebrated on the same day by the whole Christian world without dispute. But since this Nicene approval of the nineteen-year cycle was very implicit and obscure, and expressed in no canon, it is no wonder if the Roman pontiffs, who otherwise greatly revered the council of Nicaea, did not abandon their own cycle of 84 years, which in early times did not differ from the nineteen-year cycle in determining Easter: although, when paschal questions later began to be stirred up, they received the Alexandrian cycle only rather late.

(h) continued from col 604, set in n604

(a) ‹Ideo› · printed under col 605

In hunc pariter locum irrepsisse aliquod mendum, in admonitione observavimus num. 6.

We observed in the admonition, no. 6, that some error has likewise crept into this passage.

(b) called in col 606 (‹interrogastis me›), printed under col 605: set in n606

(c) called in col 606 (heading EPISTOLA III), printed under col 605 and continued under col 606: set in n606