PL 54 · cols. 606–609

Leo the Great, Letters

Letter III

mortuus est Adam in anima pro peccato in paradiso, et in eodem obiit in corpore. Responsum est, ut opinor, omnibus quibus interrogastis me.

[…] Adam died in the soul for sin in paradise, and on the same [day] he died in the body. An answer has been given, I think, to all the questions you asked me.

EPISTOLA III.

LETTER III.

PASCHASINI EPISCOPI LILYBETANI AD LEONEM PAPAM.

OF PASCHASINUS, BISHOP OF LILYBAEUM, TO POPE LEO.

De Paschate anni 444.

On the Easter of the year 444.

Domino vere sancto atque beatissimo ac apostolico, mihique post Dominum plurimum colendo papae Leoni Paschasinus episcopus.

To the truly holy and most blessed and apostolic lord, and to me after the Lord most greatly to be revered, Pope Leo, Paschasinus, bishop.

CAP. I. — Apostolatus vestri scripta diacono Panormitanae Ecclesiae Silano deferente percepi, quae nuditati meae atque aerummis, quas amarissima captivitate faciente incurri, solatium in omnibus atque remedium attulerunt, coelesti rore meum animum recreantes, atque omne quod triste fuerat, abstergentes, domine venerabilis papa. Jubere dignata est corona vestra, ut quid paschalis supputationis veritas anni post hunc futuri haberet, sacrosanctis auribus vestris exiguitas mea intimaret. Cui praecepto pio inobediens existere non potui omnino, nec debui. Diutino itaque tractatu, vel ratiocinatione id verum invenimus, quod ab Alexandrinae Ecclesiae antistite beatitudini vestrae rescriptum est. Nam cum Romana supputatio, quae cyclo concluditur, cujus ipse, de quo agitur, erit sexagesimus tertius

CHAP. I. — I received the letter of your Apostleship, brought by Silanus, deacon of the Church of Palermo, which brought comfort in all things and relief to my destitution and to the hardships which I have incurred through a most bitter captivity, refreshing my soul with heavenly dew and wiping away all that had been sorrowful, venerable lord Pope. Your Crown deigned to command that my littleness should make known to your most sacred ears what the truth of the paschal reckoning holds for the year after this one. This dutiful command I neither could nor ought in any way to disobey. And so, by long treatment or reasoning, we have found that to be true which was written in reply to your Beatitude by the prelate of the Church of Alexandria. For since the Roman reckoning, which is contained in a cycle of which the year in question will be the sixty-third […]

Editors' notes and page, col. 606

Footnotes

(b) ‹interrogastis me› · printed under col 605

Adduntur in fine exemplaris Sirmondiani: Et omnia scripta authentica synodi Nicaenae protuli. Haec autem glossema sunt ab eo additum, qui postquam hanc epistolam subjecit litteris Cyrilli ad Africanos, eo quod ejus partem, vel appendicem crederet, hanc clausulam, quae ad easdem litteras refertur, perperam posuit.

At the end of Sirmond's copy is added: And I have brought forward all the authentic writings of the synod of Nicaea. But this is a gloss added by him who, after appending this letter to Cyril's letter to the Africans, because he believed it to be a part or appendix of it, wrongly placed here this closing clause, which refers to that same letter.

Hanc epistolam relegimus cum ms. Vat. Reginae 586 saeculi XI pag. 115 Paschali Operi insertam. Vide observationem Quesnelli tom. II nostrae editionis, et confer annotationes in praemissum Cyrilli fragmentum, ac praesertim annot. 1 (Col. 601, n. (a), ubi quaestionis potissima ratio exponitur.

We have re-read this letter against the Vatican manuscript of the Queen [of Sweden], no. 586, of the eleventh century, where it is inserted in a Paschal Work at p. 115. See Quesnel's observation in vol. II of our edition, and compare the notes on the Cyril fragment given above, and especially note 1 (col. 601, n. (a)), where the chief ground of the question is set out.

(d) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 606

Al. post. ep. 2. Quae erat 3, nunc 4. Scripta an. 443.

Elsewhere, after letter 2. What was 3 is now 4. Written in the year 443.

(e) ‹vestri› · printed under col 606

Indicatur Leonis epistola ad Paschasinum, quae desideratur, de Paschate scripta hoc eodem anno 433, in qua mentio fiebat litterarum Cyrilli ad Leonem, quarum fragmentum jam dedimus. Quod autem traditur S. pontificis epistola nuditati et aerumnis Paschasini solatium in omnibus atque remedium attulisse, respicit Siciliae magnam partem occupatam a Vandalis an. 440, qua occasione Paschasinus non tam captivitatem quam bonorum suae Ecclesiae jacturam passus fuerat. Res quidem Ecclesiarum aliquamdiu fisco addictas fuisse a barbaris, colligi videtur ex papyro Ecclesiae Ravennatis exarata paulo post an. 444, et a marchione Maffeio edita in Hist. diplomatica pag. 132, ubi conductoribus patrimonii ejusdem Ecclesiae in Sicilia degentibus inter caeteras pensiones solvendi traduntur aurei solidi 75 pro pensione tritici, sive hordei, quod ante barbarico fisco praestabatur. Inter has aerumnas Leo una cum litteris aliquod Paschasino subsidium attulit. Mox pro Silano Quesn. in margine: al., Silvano.

The letter of Leo to Paschasinus is meant, which is lost, written on Easter in this same year 443, in which mention was made of Cyril's letter to Leo, a fragment of which we have already given. And that the holy pontiff's letter is said to have brought comfort in all things and relief to Paschasinus's destitution and hardships refers to the occupation of a great part of Sicily by the Vandals in the year 440, on which occasion Paschasinus had suffered not so much captivity as the loss of his Church's goods. That the property of the Churches was for some time assigned to the treasury by the barbarians seems to be gathered from a papyrus of the Church of Ravenna written shortly after the year 444 and published by the Marchese Maffei in the Istoria diplomatica, p. 132, where the tenants of the patrimony of that same Church living in Sicily are, among the other rents to be paid, charged with 75 gold solidi as the rent for wheat or barley, which was formerly paid to the barbarian treasury. Amid these hardships Leo, together with his letter, brought Paschasinus some assistance. Shortly after, for Silano Quesnel has in the margin: elsewhere, Silvano.

(f) ‹ut› · printed under col 606

Editi, quod. Melius ex nostro Vaticano Reg.

The printed editions, quod. Better, from our Vatican Reg. [manuscript].

(g) ‹veritas› · printed under col 606

Aerae Christianae 444.

Of the Christian era 444.

(h) ‹praecepto› · printed under col 606

Idem codex omittit pio.

The same manuscript omits pio.

(i) ‹Ecclesiae› · printed under col 606

Scilicet Cyrillo, qui die 9 Junii anni 444 obiit. Fragmentum hujus rescripti jam praemisimus.

That is, Cyril, who died on 9 June of the year 444. We have already given a fragment of this reply above.

(j) ‹erit› · printed under col 606 and continued under col 607

In antiquioribus vulgatis erronee legebatur 64. Recte emendavit Bucherius ex ms. codice in Comment. ad Victorii Canonem. Idem habetur in duobus mss. quibus usus est Usserius in Britann. Eccles. Antiquit. et in nostro Vaticano codice: enim vero sermo est de Latinorum cyclo annorum 84, qui cum inceperit, ut Paschasimus monstravit, a consulatu Antonini et Siagrii an. 382, jam annus 444 de quo vertebatur quaestio, et annus cycli 63.

In the older printed editions 64 was wrongly read. Bucherius rightly corrected it from a manuscript in his Commentary on the Canon of Victorius. The same is found in two manuscripts which Ussher used in his Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates, and in our Vatican manuscript: for indeed the discussion is about the Latin cycle of 84 years, which, since it began, as Paschasinus showed, from the consulship of Antoninus and Siagrius in the year 382, the year 444, which was in question, was then also the 63rd year of the cycle.

Editors' prose

Synopsis. — Paschasinus de cyclo paschali a Leone consultus, post pauca de Siciliae clade praemissa, Alexandrinam supputationem, Romana posthabita, retinendam esse probat, tum ex Hebraeorum calculo, tum ex miraculo quod Zosimi papae tempore contigit.

Synopsis. — Paschasinus, consulted by Leo about the paschal cycle, after a few preliminary words on the disaster of Sicily, proves that the Alexandrian reckoning is to be kept and the Roman set aside, both from the calculation of the Hebrews and from a miracle which happened in the time of Pope Zosimus.

Page

running head: shared with col 605 (605 EPISTOLA III. 606)
marginal letters (gutter, shared with col 605): A ‹mortuus est Adam›; B ‹Cap. I. Apostolatus vestri›; C ‹confer annotationes› (in note c, at the head of the notes); D ‹tica pag. 132› (in note e)
old-edition numerals: 607 before the heading EPISTOLA III; 608 after ‹aerummis›
signature: none
other: none

PL 54:607

annus, qui cyclus coepit a consulatu Antonini et Siagrii, nobis dubietatem afferret, eo quod septimo kalendarum Aprilium die dies Dominica et luna vigesima secunda incurreret, et iterum nono kalendarum Maiarum die (ut rei veritas habet) Dominica dies et luna decimanona obveniret: in hoc ambiguo fluctuantes, ad Hebraeorum, hoc est legalem supputationem nos convertimus, quae cum a Romanis ignoratur, facile errorem incurrunt. Coepit ergo ogdoas a consulatu virorum clarissimorum Aetii iterum et Sigesvulti, quae clauditur anno de quo quaestio videtur exorta. Talis ratio haec est: Priores duo sunt anni communes, tertius embolismalis, quartus et quintus communes, sextus embolismalis, septimus communis, octavus embolismalis. Pervidet ergo apostolatus vestri prudentia octavum annum ogdoadis fieri aliter non posse nisi embolismum teneamus. Quod si voluerimus illud quod superius diximus, id est, quod primum incurrit Pascha, septimo kalendarum Aprilium die celebrare, communem annum faciemus, et incipiet omnis deinceps subsequentium annorum supputatio vacillare.

[…] year — which cycle began from the consulship of Antoninus and Siagrius — brought us doubt, because on the seventh day before the Kalends of April there fell a Sunday and the twenty-second moon, and again on the ninth day before the Kalends of May (as the truth of the matter holds) there came a Sunday and the nineteenth moon: wavering in this uncertainty, we turned to the reckoning of the Hebrews, that is, the legal one; and since this is unknown to the Romans, they easily fall into error. The ogdoad, then, began from the consulship of the most illustrious men Aetius, for the second time, and Sigisvult, and it closes with the year about which the question seems to have arisen. Its scheme is this: the first two years are common, the third embolismic, the fourth and fifth common, the sixth embolismic, the seventh common, the eighth embolismic. The wisdom of your Apostleship therefore sees that the eighth year of the ogdoad cannot be made otherwise unless we keep the embolism. But if we choose to celebrate on the seventh day before the Kalends of April the Easter which we mentioned above, that is, the one which occurs first, we shall make a common year, and the whole reckoning of the following years will thenceforth begin to waver.

Editors' notes and page, col. 607

Footnotes

(a) ‹consulatu› · printed under col 607

Al., Antonii, perperam. Caeterum ante hunc consulatum, seu ante an. 382, Latini hoc eodem cyclo utebantur, ut ex Fastis consularibus probavit card. Norisius diss. 1. Hic ergo indicatur initium cycli, qui anno 444 decurrebat. Marianus Scotus in Chronico post nomen Siagrii addit anno quarto Gratiani.

Elsewhere, Antonii, wrongly. Moreover, before this consulship, that is, before the year 382, the Latins used this same cycle, as Cardinal Noris proved from the consular Fasti, diss. 1. Here, then, the beginning is indicated of the cycle which was running in the year 444. Marianus Scotus in his Chronicle adds after the name of Siagrius: in the fourth year of Gratian.

(b) ‹eo quod› · printed under col 607

Idem Marianus a sexto, et paulo post, octavo pro nono kal. Maiarum, perperam. Innuitur nimirum discrimen inter supputationem Romanorum et Alexandrinorum: nam illi ex suo cyclo annorum 84 Pascha anni 444 affigebant VII kal. April., isti vero ex suo annorum 19 prorogabant in IX kal. Maii, ut annot. 1 (Col. 601, n. (a) in Cyrilli fragmentum fusius explicavimus.

The same Marianus has a sexto, and a little later octavo for nono kal. Maiarum, wrongly. The difference, namely, between the reckoning of the Romans and that of the Alexandrians is indicated: for the former, from their cycle of 84 years, fixed the Easter of the year 444 on the seventh before the Kalends of April, while the latter, from theirs of 19 years, put it off to the ninth before the Kalends of May, as we explained more fully in note 1 (col. 601, n. (a)) on the Cyril fragment.

Codex Vat. delet. die. Mox legebatur luna XXI. Emendavimus ex fragmento epistolae Cyrilli ad Leonem. Confer annot. 3 in memoratum fragmentum. Sic pariter die IX kal. Maias inferius notatur luna XIX, quae esse deberet XVIII, si die VII kal. Aprilis fuisset luna XXI.

The Vatican manuscript deletes die. Shortly after, luna XXI used to be read. We have corrected it from the fragment of Cyril's letter to Leo. Compare note 3 on the said fragment. So likewise below, on the ninth day before the Kalends of May, the moon is noted as 19, which would have to be 18 if on the seventh day before the Kalends of April the moon had been 21.

(d) ‹fluctuantes› · printed under col 607

Cur Paschasinus sese converterit in hac controversia ad Hebraeorum legalem supputationem, alii aliter interpretantur. Probabilior autem videtur ratio, quia Alexandrini ex lunis XIX primi mensis a lege Hebaeorum praescriptis, in quas istorum Pascha cadebat, dies Paschae et lunae determinabant, eamdemque anni communis et embolismi methodum sequebantur, quam apud Hebraeos obtinuisse Paschasinus commemorat cap. 2.

Why Paschasinus turned in this controversy to the legal reckoning of the Hebrews, different people explain in different ways. But the more probable reason seems to be that the Alexandrians determined the days of Easter and of the moon from the nineteen moons of the first month prescribed by the law of the Hebrews, on which the Easter of the latter fell, and followed the same method for the common and the embolismic year which Paschasinus relates in ch. 2 to have been in force among the Hebrews.

(e) ‹ergo› · printed under col 607

Alexandrini suam enneadecateridem, seu suum cyclum decemnovennalem, id est annorum 19 dividebant in ogdoadem et hendecadem. Ogdoas primos octo cycli annos complectebatur, hendecas undecim reliquos. Ogdoadis Paschasinus hic expresse meminit et affirmat eam coepisse a consulatu Aetii iterum et Sigesvulti, nimirum anno 437, a quo decemnovennalis Alexandrinorum cyclus per hoc tempus decurrens ordiebatur. Cum vero annus 444 esset hujus ogdoadis ultimus, idcirco subjicit, quae clauditur anno, de quo quaestio videtur exorta; de Paschate enim hujus anni erat disputatio.

The Alexandrians divided their enneadecaeteris, or their decemnovennial cycle, that is, of 19 years, into an ogdoad and a hendecad. The ogdoad comprised the first eight years of the cycle, the hendecad the remaining eleven. Paschasinus here expressly mentions the ogdoad and affirms that it began from the consulship of Aetius, for the second time, and Sigisvult, namely in the year 437, from which the nineteen-year cycle of the Alexandrians running at this time began. And since the year 444 was the last of this ogdoad, he therefore adds: which closes with the year about which the question seems to have arisen; for the dispute was about the Easter of this year.

(f) ‹et› · printed under col 607

Noster codex, Segisvulti, quae concluditur. Quesnellus in margine. Al., Sigismildi.

Our manuscript: Segisvulti, quae concluditur. Quesnel in the margin: elsewhere, Sigismildi.

(g) ‹Talis ratio haec est:› · printed under col 607 and continued under col 608

Ms. Vat.: Duo sunt priores anni communes, tertius embolismus; item quartus et quintus communes. haec autem in Alexandrinorum rationem, a quibus quatenus Romani discreparint in constituendis annis communibus et embolismis, diximus annot. 1 in fragmentum Epistolae Cyrilli.

The Vatican manuscript: Duo sunt priores anni communes, tertius embolismus; item quartus et quintus communes. And these [agree] with the reckoning of the Alexandrians, from whom and how far the Romans differed in fixing the common and the embolismic years, we have stated in note 1 on the fragment of Cyril's letter.

(h) ‹prudentia› · printed under col 608

Cum scilicet annus 444, ex Alexandrinorum cyclo octavus ogdoadis, esset embolismalis, embolismi ratio requirebat ne Pascha celebraretur VII kal. Aprilis, qui erat mensis embolismeus, seu postremus anni sacri, non vero primus, qualis debebat esse mensis paschalis. Vide annot. 1 (Col. 601, n. (a) in laudatum fragmentum.

Since, that is, the year 444, the eighth of the ogdoad in the Alexandrian cycle, was embolismic, the reckoning of the embolism required that Easter should not be celebrated on the seventh before the Kalends of April, which was in the embolismic month, that is, the last of the sacred year, and not the first, as the paschal month had to be. See note 1 (col. 601, n. (a)) on the said fragment.

(i) ‹Quod si› · printed under col 608

Ms. Vat.: Quoniam si voluerimus illud quod superius diximus, idem quod primum incurrit, VII kal. Apr. die celebrare; corrupte.

The Vatican manuscript: Quoniam si voluerimus illud quod superius diximus, idem quod primum incurrit, VII kal. Apr. die celebrare; corruptly.

Page

running head: 607 S. LEONIS MAGNI EPISTOLÆ. 608 (shared with col 608)
marginal letters (gutter, shared with col 608): A ‹annus, qui cyclus coepit›; B ‹ogdoadis fieri aliter›; C ‹drinorum: nam illi› (in note b); D ‹commemorat cap. 2› (in note d)
old-edition numerals: 609 after ‹a consulatu›
signature: none
other: the first lines of the notes under col 607 are the end of note (j) of col 606, set in n606

PL 54:608

CAP. II. — Et ne hoc quod exposuimus beatitudini vestrae obscuritatem aliquam afferat, suggerimus communes annos, apud Hebraeos duodecim tantum lunas, hoc est dies, 354 habere; embolismos vero lunas tredecim habere, hoc est dies 584. Necessitate ergo embolismi cogimur id tenere, quod longius est, ne a vero deviare videamur. Neque nobis aut novum aut erraticum videatur, cum dies passionis undecimo kalendas Maii occurrat, a qua (sicut Graecis videtur) Pascha nomen accepit; licet Hebraeae linguae interpretes tradant Pascha transitum dici, quod tamen idem et Joannis evangelistae dicto firmatur, quo ait, cum de passione loqueretur: Cum venisset hora ut transiret Jesus de hoc mundo ad Patrem (Joan. XIII, 1).

CHAP. II. — And lest what we have set out should bring any obscurity to your Beatitude, we suggest that common years among the Hebrews have only twelve moons, that is, 354 days, while embolismic years have thirteen moons, that is, 384 days. By the necessity of the embolism, then, we are compelled to hold to what is later, so as not to seem to stray from the truth. Nor should it seem to us either new or erratic, since the day of the Passion falls on the eleventh before the Kalends of May, from which (as the Greeks hold) Easter took its name; although the interpreters of the Hebrew tongue relate that Pascha means passing over, which is nevertheless also confirmed by the saying of John the Evangelist, where he says, speaking of the Passion: When the hour had come that Jesus should pass from this world to the Father (John 13:1).

Non ergo nos dies una longius posita terreat, ne cum hanc vitamus incurramus errorem, sicut evenit tempore beatae recordationis domini mei, praedecessoris apostolatus vestri Zosimi, anno consulatus Honorii Augusti undecimo, et Constantii secundo. Tunc enim, cum declinaretur, ne decimo kalendas Maii dies Paschae teneretur, celebratum octavo die kalendas Aprilis, id est

Let not one day placed later, then, frighten us, lest in avoiding it we fall into error, as happened in the time of my lord of blessed memory, your Apostleship's predecessor Zosimus, in the year of the eleventh consulship of Honorius Augustus and the second of Constantius. For then, when it was avoided that the day of Easter should be kept on the tenth before the Kalends of May, [Easter was] celebrated on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, that is, […]

Editors' notes and page, col. 608

Footnotes

(g) continued from col 607, set in n607

(h), (i) called in col 607, printed under col 608: set in n607

(j) ‹Et ne hoc quod› · printed under col 608

Sic melius ex laudato codice, quemadmodum postea plurali quoque numero, suggerimus. Vulg., exposui.

So, better, from the said manuscript, just as afterwards [it has] suggerimus, also in the plural. The printed editions: exposui.

(k) ‹quod› · printed under col 608

Pascha scilicet IX kal. Maii, non vero VII kal. Aprilis tenendum est, cum embolismi ratio id requirat, uti monuimus annot. 14 (supra (h). Hinc autem patet mensem embolismalem immediate praecedere mensem Paschae, et ipsum Pascha uno mense longius protrudere.

That is, Easter is to be kept on the ninth before the Kalends of May, not on the seventh before the Kalends of April, since the reckoning of the embolism requires it, as we pointed out in note 14 (above, (h)). Hence it is clear that the embolismic month immediately precedes the month of Easter and pushes Easter itself a month further on.

(l) ‹erraticum› · printed under col 608

Apud Marianum, erratum. Erraticum porro Romanis videbatur Pascha protrahere in diem IX kal. Maii, id est in diem aprilis 23. Immo sub Zosimo declinarunt celebrare Pascha X kal. Maii, seu Aprilis 22. Nam limes ultimus Dominicarum paschalium apud eosdem erat XI kal. Maii, seu Aprilis 21. Huic autem objectioni respondet Paschasinus, Dominicam quidem paschalem excedere ultimum Latinorum limitem Aprilis 21, non vero diem Passionis hunc limitem pertransire, idque posse sufficere, quia Pascha, sicuti Graecis videtur, a passione nomen accepit. Similem responsionem indicarunt etiam Ambrosius in epistola ad episcopos Aemiliae, et Cyrillus in Prologo paschali; sed hi per diem Passionis intellexerunt lunam 14, in quam cadebat Pascha legale, quod fuit typus Passionis Christi. Haec tamen Paschasini ratio Leoni persuasit: unde Pascha anni 444 celebratum fuit IX kal. Maii, ut testatur Prosper in Chronico inquiens: Nec erratum est, quia in die XI kal. Maias dies Passionis fuit. Immo ipse Leo, epist. 121 ad Marcianum scripta an. 453, hanc eamdem rationem adoptavit cap. 2.

In Marianus, erratum. To the Romans, moreover, it seemed erratic to put Easter off to the ninth before the Kalends of May, that is, to 23 April. Indeed under Zosimus they declined to celebrate Easter on the tenth before the Kalends of May, that is, 22 April. For among them the last limit of the paschal Sundays was the eleventh before the Kalends of May, that is, 21 April. To this objection Paschasinus replies that the paschal Sunday does indeed exceed the last limit of the Latins, 21 April, but the day of the Passion does not pass beyond this limit, and that this can suffice, because Easter, as the Greeks hold, took its name from the Passion. A similar answer was indicated also by Ambrose in his letter to the bishops of Aemilia and by Cyril in his paschal Prologue; but these understood by the day of the Passion the fourteenth moon, on which the legal Pasch fell, which was a type of the Passion of Christ. This reasoning of Paschasinus nevertheless persuaded Leo: hence the Easter of the year 444 was celebrated on the ninth before the Kalends of May, as Prosper testifies in his Chronicle, saying: Nor was there an error, because on the eleventh day before the Kalends of May was the day of the Passion. Indeed Leo himself, in letter 121 to Marcian, written in the year 453, adopted this same reasoning, ch. 2.

(m) ‹sicut› · printed under col 608

Marianus delet vocem Graecis. Mox pro accepit in cod. Vat. Reg., accipit.

Marianus deletes the word Graecis. Shortly after, for accepit, the Vatican Reg. manuscript has accipit.

(n) ‹teneretur,› · printed under col 608

Idem cod. Vat., celebrandum est, legendum celebratum est.

The same Vatican manuscript has celebrandum est; read celebratum est.

Page

running head: shared with col 607 (607 S. LEONIS MAGNI EPISTOLÆ. 608)
marginal letters (gutter, shared with col 607): A ‹Cap. II. — Et ne hoc›; B ‹ramus errorem›; C ‹perius diximus› (in note i); D ‹mitem Aprilis 21› (in note l)
old-edition numerals: 610 after ‹dies una longius›
signature: none
other: the notes under col 608 open with the end of note (g) of col 607

PL 54:609

pro embolismo communis est annus tentus, et error gravissimus est ortus, in tantum ut mysterio certo, quod dono sancti Spiritus ministratur, haec veritas probaretur. Quod propterea credidi exponendum, quia locus ipse etiam sancto atque a me venerando fratri meo Libanio diacono notissimus est. Cujus mysterii miraculum tale est.

[…] a common year was held in place of an embolismic one, and a most grievous error arose, so much so that this truth was proved by a sure mystery, which is ministered by the gift of the Holy Spirit. I thought I should set this out because the place itself is also very well known to my holy brother, to be venerated by me, Libanius the deacon. The miracle of this mystery is as follows.

CAP. III. — Quaedam vilissima possessio, Meltinas appellatur in montibus arduis ac silvis densissimis constituta, illicque perparva atque vili opere constructa est Ecclesia. In cujus baptisterio nocte sacrosancta paschali, baptizandi hora, cum nullus canalis, nulla sit fistula, nec aqua omnino vicina, fons ex se repletur, paucisque qui fuerint consecratis, cum deductorium nullum habeat, ut aqua venerat, ex sese discedit. Tunc ergo, sicut supra diximus, sub sanctae memoriae domino quondam meo ac beatissimo papa Zosimo, cum apud Occidentales error ortus fuisset, consuetis lectionibus nocte sancta decursis, cum presbyter secundum morem baptizandi horam requireret, usque ad lucem aqua non veniente, non consecrati, qui baptizandi fuerant, recesserunt. Ut ergo breviter narrem, illa nocte, quae lucescebat in diem Dominicam, decimo die kalendas Maii fons sacer hora competenti repletus est. Evidenti ergo miraculo claruit Occidentalium partium fuisse errorem.

CHAP. III. — A certain very poor estate, called Meltinas, lies among steep mountains and very dense woods, and there a very small church has been built of mean workmanship. In its baptistery, on the most holy paschal night, at the hour of baptizing, although there is no channel, no pipe, and no water at all nearby, the font fills of itself; and when the few who are there have been consecrated, though it has no outlet, the water departs of itself as it had come. Then, therefore, as we said above, under my lord of holy memory, the late most blessed Pope Zosimus, when the error had arisen among the Westerners, after the customary readings had been gone through on the holy night, and the priest, according to custom, awaited the hour of baptizing, the water did not come until daylight, and those who were to be baptized went away unconsecrated. To tell it briefly, then: on that night which dawned into the Sunday on the tenth day before the Kalends of May, the sacred font was filled at the proper hour. By an evident miracle, therefore, it became clear that the error was on the side of the Western regions.

CAP. IV. — Haec prout potui, vel epistolaris brevitas passa est, jubente apostolatu vestro, rescripsi; provolutus obsecrans ut pro mea parvitate, immo pro totius orbis statu, orare dignemini; ut tandem de tot necessitatibus liberati cognoscamus

CHAP. IV. — These things I have written in reply, as well as I could and as the brevity of a letter allowed, at the command of your Apostleship; prostrate, I beseech you to deign to pray for my littleness, nay rather for the state of the whole world, so that, freed at last from so many straits, we may know […]

Editors' notes and page, col. 609

Footnotes

(a) ‹pro embolismo› · printed under col 609

Vulgati, communis est annotatus. Magis placuit lectio cod. Vat., cui Mariani exemplum astipulatur, cum praesertim Paschasino familiare sit verbum teneo, sicut cap. 1: Embolismum teneamus, ita hic, communis annus tentus est.

The printed editions: communis est annotatus. We have preferred the reading of the Vatican manuscript, with which Marianus's copy agrees, especially since the verb teneo is familiar to Paschasinus: as in ch. 1, Embolismum teneamus, so here, communis annus tentus est.

(b) ‹ut› · printed under col 609

Marianus, ministerio.

Marianus: ministerio.

Apud Bucherium, Bolliano. In ms. Vat. Libano, Quesnellus suspicatur legendum forte Silano, qui initio epistolae memoratur.

In Bucherius, Bolliano. In the Vatican manuscript, Libano. Quesnel suspects that perhaps Silano should be read, who is mentioned at the beginning of the letter.

(d) ‹ex sese› · printed under col 609

Quesnellus in margine: Al., descendit. Ms. Vat., discendit.

Quesnel in the margin: elsewhere, descendit. The Vatican manuscript: discendit.

(e) ‹Zosimo› · printed under col 609

Marianus addit, anno nono Honorii; et paulo post pro Occidentales habet Orientales. Legendum autem Occidentales, cum cyclus annorum 84, unde error exortus fuit, apud solos Occidentales obtineret.

Marianus adds: in the ninth year of Honorius; and a little later has Orientales for Occidentales. But Occidentales must be read, since the cycle of 84 years, from which the error arose, was in force among the Westerners alone.

(f) ‹lectionibus› · printed under col 609

Quesnellus in margine: Al., nocte sacra. Mox decursis reposuimus ex cod. Vat., cum antea legeretur discursis.

Quesnel in the margin: elsewhere, nocte sacra. Shortly after we have restored decursis from the Vatican manuscript, where discursis was read before.

(g) ‹Cap. IV.› · printed under col 609

Quae sequuntur usque ad finem ex Mariano Scoto et ex editione Bucheriana ope codicum restituta Quesnellus suae editioni adjecit. Leguntur etiam in nostro ms. Vat., exceptis ultimis verbis, Orate pro me.

What follows, to the end, Quesnel added to his edition from Marianus Scotus and from Bucherius's edition, restored with the help of the manuscripts. It is read also in our Vatican manuscript, except for the last words, Orate pro me.

(h), (i), (j) called in col 610, printed under col 609: set in n610