Leo the Great, Letters

(f) ‹cassandi. Nostrae› · printed under col 635

Sic Quesn. et nostri codd. Al., enim gratulationi. Mox pro custodiam Sirmondus concordiam.

So Quesnel and our manuscripts. Others, "enim gratulationi" [for (our) rejoicing]. Shortly after, for "custodiam" [guarding] Sirmond has "concordiam" [concord].

(g) ‹quod suum est,› · printed under col 635

Ita cum Sirmondo Quesnellus. Anteriores editiones cum Vat. collect. 24, pro novis. Melius in aliis tribus nostris codd., novis.

So Quesnel with Sirmond. The earlier editions, with the Vatican manuscript of collection 24, "pro novis" [for new things]. Better in three other manuscripts of ours, "novis" [by new].

(h) ‹fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum› · printed under cols 635–636

Huic Leontio, de quo vide nostram observationem in not. 11 Quesnelli, sola praerogativa in convocandis diversarum provinciarum synodis, qua Hilarius potiebatur, hoc loco tribuitur. Caeterum vero jus metropoliticum eidem Hilario ademptum, alia Leonis epistola, quae desideratur, in Viennensem episcopum fuisse traductum liquet ex epist. 66, c. 2. Confer quae hac de re pluribus dicentur in observationibus ad dissert. 5 Quesnelli, part. 3.

To this Leontius, on whom see our observation on Quesnel's note 11, is attributed in this place only the prerogative of convoking synods of different provinces, which Hilary had enjoyed. But that the rest of the metropolitan right taken from the same Hilary was transferred to the bishop of Vienne by another letter of Leo, which is lost, is clear from letter 66, ch. 2. Compare what will be said at more length on this matter in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, part 3.

(i) ‹quemadmodum vetustas› · printed under col 636

Vox ejus, a Quesnello omissa, ex omnibus nostris mss. et caeteris editionibus revocatur.

The word "ejus" [his], omitted by Quesnel, is restored from all our manuscripts and the other editions.

(j) ‹EPISTOLA XI› · printed under col 636

Scripta 8 Julii an. 445.

Written 8 July in the year 445.

(k) ‹CONSTITUTIO VALENTINIANI III AUGUSTI› · printed under col 636

Quesnellus in secunda editione varias lectiones apposuit ex ms. Thuaneo Colbertino. Nos eamdem recognovimus cum ms. Vat. 3833 collectionis canonum cardinalis Deus dedit, qui hanc legem ex vetustiori exemplari sumptam eidem collectioni inseruit lib. I, pag. 48. Ex ms. Ottobon. Vat. solius chronicae notae lectionem posterius accepimus.

Quesnel in his second edition added variant readings from the Thou–Colbert manuscript. We have collated the same with the Vatican manuscript 3833 of the collection of canons of Cardinal Deusdedit, who inserted this law, taken from an older exemplar, in that collection, book I, page 48. From the Ottoboni Vatican manuscript we afterwards received the reading of the chronological note alone.

(l) ‹una cum praecedenti› · printed under col 636

Quae sequuntur apposita fuerunt a P. Sirmondo, et exinde a Quesnello; ac probabilissimum est Leonis decretalem una cum hac lege in Gallias missam fuisse, ne exsecutioni ejus impedimentum opponeretur.

The words that follow were added by Fr Sirmond, and thereafter by Quesnel; and it is most probable that Leo's decretal was sent into Gaul together with this law, so that no obstacle should be set against its execution.

(m) ‹Imperatores› · printed under cols 636–637

Mss. Thuan. et Vat. hanc inscriptionem praeferunt: Imperator Valentinianus Augustus omnibus sub imperio aeternae urbis Romae ubique terrarum degentibus. Licet occasione quidem controversiae Gallicanae ob nonnulla Hilarii Arelatensis gesta haec lex edita fuerit, non tamen pro solis Gallicanis, sed pro universis imperii provinciis latam fuisse patet ex illis verbis: Ne quid tam episcopis Gallicanis quam aliarum provinciarum contra consuetudinem veterem liceat viri sui venerabilis papae Urbis aeternae auctoritate tentare: sed hoc illis omnibusque pro lege sit, etc. Hinc congrua videtur generali lege generalis istorum mss. inscriptio. In his sane codicibus omittuntur quae peculiaria sunt Aetii magistri utriusque militiae in Galliis, et ea sola leguntur quibus lex generalis exprimitur, ac desinit in verbis Romanae Ecclesiae contulerunt. Inscriptio autem textui inserta et in aliis cod. inventa convenit eidem legi, qualis in Gallias missa fuit, ubi erat maxime necessaria, et ad Aetium, qui potiori auctoritate in Galliis utebatur, peculiari additamento sub finem expresso directa, ut ibidem exsecutioni mandaretur. Forte etiam simili modo transmissa credi potest ad alios aliarum provinciarum praefectos, seu rectores, ut aliis ejusdem generis legibus evenisse compertum est.

The Thou and Vatican manuscripts carry this heading: "The Emperor Valentinian Augustus to all dwelling anywhere on earth under the rule of the eternal city of Rome." Although this law was issued on the occasion of the Gallican controversy because of certain acts of Hilary of Arles, it is clear from these words that it was enacted not for the Gallicans alone but for all the provinces of the empire: "Let it not be permitted to the bishops either of Gaul or of the other provinces to attempt anything against ancient custom [without] the authority of the venerable man, the pope of the eternal City; but let this be as law to them and to all," etc. Hence the general heading of these manuscripts seems fitting for a general law. In these manuscripts, indeed, what is particular to Aetius, master of both services in Gaul, is omitted, and only those words are read by which the general law is expressed, and it ends with the words "have conferred on the Roman Church." But the heading inserted in the text and found in other manuscripts fits the same law as it was sent into Gaul, where it was most needed, and directed to Aetius, who held the greater authority in Gaul, by a particular addition expressed towards the end, so that it should be put into execution there. Perhaps it may also be believed to have been sent in a similar manner to other prefects or governors of other provinces, as is known to have happened with other laws of the same kind.

(m) continued from col 636, set in n636

(a) ‹promerendum praecipue› · printed under col 637

Laudata mss., Christianorum fides.

The manuscripts cited, "Christianorum fides" [the faith of Christians].

(b) ‹sacrae etiam synodi› · printed under col 637

Eadem mss., firment.

The same manuscripts, "firment" [(should) confirm].

(c) ‹inlicita quaedam› · printed under col 637

Ita melius ex iisdem mss. Vulg. praesumenda.

So, better, from the same manuscripts. The common text, "praesumenda" [to be presumed].

(d) ‹qui episcopus› · printed under col 637

Quesnellus in utraque editione addidit civitatis, quam vocem et Vaticanus cod. et editi omnes ignorant. Unde porro hanc ille inseruerit etiam primae editioni, cum Thuaneum codicem nondum viderat, divinare non possumus.

Quesnel in both editions added "civitatis" [of the city], a word which both the Vatican manuscript and all the printed editions lack. From where, moreover, he inserted it even in his first edition, when he had not yet seen the Thou manuscript, we cannot guess.

(e) ‹Ecclesiae Romanae urbis› · printed under col 637

Erat in editis etiam Quesnelli, inconsulto pontifice indebitas ordinationes episcoporum. Rectior visa est lectio utriusque ms. et contextui uniformior. Nam quod subjicitur, alios incompetenter removit, refertur ad judicia ob Celidonium, quem Hilarius ab episcopatu deposuerat, et cujus praesertim de causa Leonis decretalis et imperialis lex editae fuerunt: illa vero, indecenter alios invitis et repugnantibus civibus ordinavit, ad ordinationes pertinent, quibus vel Celidonio remoto, vel Projecto aegrotanti, vel aliis episcopis vota functis ab eodem Hilario successores dati fuerunt, uti traditur epistola antecedenti cap. 6.

In the printed editions, Quesnel's too, it was "without consulting the pontiff, undue ordinations of bishops." The reading of both manuscripts seemed more correct and more consistent with the context. For what follows, "some he removed without competence," refers to the "judgements," on account of Celidonius, whom Hilary had deposed from the episcopate, and on whose case especially Leo's decretal and the imperial law were issued; but the words "others he ordained unbecomingly against the will and resistance of the citizens" belong to the "ordinations," by which successors were given by the same Hilary either to Celidonius when removed, or to Projectus when ill, or to other bishops who had died, as is related in the preceding letter, ch. 6.

(f) ‹usurpans invasit.› · printed under col 638

Cod. Thuaneus habet: Nam aliquos invitis et repugnantibus civibus ordinavit, deletis caeteris.

The Thou manuscript has: "For some he ordained against the will and resistance of the citizens," the rest being deleted.

(g) ‹civibus ordinavit. Qui› · printed under col 638

Idem cod. omittit quidem.

The same manuscript omits "quidem" [indeed].

(h) ‹per ordinem› · printed under col 638

Mss. Thuan. et Vat. delent religiosi viri.

The Thou and Vatican manuscripts delete "religiosi viri" [of the religious man].

(i) ‹discussis, certa› · printed under col 638

Ita ex laudatis codd. et Quesnellus in secunda editione. Al., in eum ex his. Pater Lupus diss. 1, c. 3, de Appellationibus, notavit mox legi, quos male ordinaverat, ut indicetur lata sententia etiam in eos quos Hilarius in Celidonii ac Projecti sedes subrogaverat.

So from the manuscripts cited, and Quesnel in his second edition. Others, "in eum ex his" [against him from these]. Fr Lupus, dissertation 1, ch. 3, On Appeals, noted that shortly after one reads "whom he had wrongly ordained," so that the sentence is shown to have been passed also against those whom Hilary had put in the place of Celidonius and Projectus in their sees.

(j) ‹pontificis auctoritati› · printed under col 638

Sic emendavit Quesn. in secunda editione ex ms. Thuan., cui Vaticanus pariter favet. Antea, in Ecclesias.

So Quesnel emended in his second edition from the Thou manuscript, which the Vatican likewise supports. Formerly, "in Ecclesias" [into the Churches].

(k) ‹in Ecclesiis non liceret?› · printed under col 638

Haec lectio antea vulgatorum, quae item est codicis Vaticani, magis placuit quam illa a Quesnello inserta editioni secundae, nullo allegato codice, nimirum: Sed nostra quoque praeceptio et ratio probavit ne ulterius vel Hilario, etc. Porro vel Hilario habebant quidem etiam caeterae editiones; sed ex eodem Vat. corrigendum credidimus nec Hilario, eo quia concinit cum sequentibus, nec cuiquam alteri.

This reading of the earlier printed texts, which is also that of the Vatican manuscript, pleased us more than the one inserted by Quesnel in his second edition without citing any manuscript, namely: "But our command and reason too has approved that no longer either to Hilary," etc. Further, the other editions too had "vel Hilario"; but from the same Vatican manuscript we thought it should be corrected to "nec Hilario," because it agrees with what follows, "nec cuiquam alteri."

(l) ‹maximi criminis,› · printed under col 638

Ita duo laudata mss. et editi, excepto Quesnello, qui submovimus in textu scripsit, apposita in margine lectione Thuanei codicis.

So the two manuscripts cited and the printed editions, except Quesnel, who wrote "submovimus" [we have removed] in the text, putting the reading of the Thou manuscript in the margin.

(m) ‹perenni sanctione› · printed under col 638

Ex utrisque mss. censemus scripsimus pro decernimus. Censere quidem frequentius adhibetur in legibus quam decernere, ut ex glossario Nomico Cod. Theodos. perspicies.

From both manuscripts we have written "censemus" for "decernimus" [we decree]. "Censere" is indeed used more often in laws than "decernere," as you will see from the legal glossary of the Theodosian Code.

(n) ‹tentare. Sed› · printed under col 638

Pronomen hoc adjectum a Quesn. in secunda editione fortassis ex ms. Thuan. praefertur in nostro Vat.

The pronoun "hoc," added by Quesnel in his second edition perhaps from the Thou manuscript, is carried in our Vatican manuscript.

(o) ‹Romanae Ecclesiae› · printed under col 638

Sic utrique codd. Al., detulerunt. Hic desinit generalis lex in iisdem codicibus, subjecta statim chronica notatione: Dat. VIII id. Julii Romae Valentiniano Augusto. Caetera peculiaria Aetii imperialibus litteris in Gallias missis addita fuerunt, uti monuimus not. (Col. 636 (m).

So both manuscripts. Others, "detulerunt" [have brought]. Here the general law ends in the same manuscripts, the chronological note following at once: "Given on the eighth day before the Ides of July at Rome, Valentinian Augustus [being consul]." The rest, particular to Aetius, was added to the imperial letter sent into Gaul, as we noted in note (col. 636 (m).

(none; note (a) printed under cols 639–640 belongs to the call in col 640 and is set in n640)

ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER.

1. Cum triplex insignis varietas, qua sequens epistola reperiri solet in mss. codicibus, et exinde triplici ratione seu forma in editis prodiit, plurimum difficultatis injicit; tum vero Quesnelli disputatio notis et observationibus ejus inserta, qua unam rationem retinere ac defendere, alias vero duas repudiare, et magnam epistolae partem veluti additamentum ab aliquo impostore confictum rejicere studuit, ita difficultatem adauget, ut sine ullo novo codice, qui rem omnem probe conciliet, certum aliquid statuere et edere impossibile videatur.

1. Since the remarkable threefold variety in which the following letter is usually found in the manuscripts, and in which it has consequently appeared in the printed editions in a threefold arrangement or form, causes a great deal of difficulty; and since Quesnel's discussion, inserted in his notes and observations, in which he endeavoured to retain and defend one arrangement, to repudiate the other two, and to reject a large part of the letter as an addition forged by some impostor, so increases the difficulty that without some new manuscript to reconcile the whole matter properly it seems impossible to establish and publish anything certain.

2. Prima epistolae ratio a Merlino edita atque Sichardo, et per nos etiam secundo loco edenda, epistolam tantummodo producit ad medium caput nonum usque, atque terminat illis ejusdem capitis verbis, justa posthac ultione plectamus. Haec eadem ratio invenitur in mss. codd. collectionis 5 a Quesnello vulgatae, ex quibus duos ille commemorat, Thuaneum et Trecopithaeanum, nos vero duos bibliothecae Caesareae adjicere possumus signatos num. 39 et 42. Exstat etiam in mss. collect. 10 Isidori et collect. 12, ad quam pertinet quae sola inter collectiones posteriores hanc epistolae formam exhibet; ac praeterea inter hujusmodi codices censendi Victorinus, Regniacensis, et S. Martini Altisiodorensis, qui eamdem collect. 24 cum epistola hujus formae eodem annotante praeseferunt. His codicibus Quesnellus in secunda editione abjecit alios duos, quorum descriptionem post primam impressionem Roma accepit, nimirum Barber. 77 et 2888. Horum primus a nobis item observatus atque collatus, est XII circiter saeculi, et varia opuscula etiam posterioris aevi continet, ex Leone autem hanc unicam epistolam exhibet. Alter vero antiquissimus et majusculis litteris scriptus complectitur vetustam collect. 3, cui alium similem invenimus in perantiquo Vat. 1342. Nos insuper hanc eamdem epistolae decurtatae (sic enim appellabimus) rationem nacti sumus in tribus aliis collectionibus, nimirum in ms. Vat. Reginae collect. 1, in vetusto cod. Lucensi collect. 3 simili Colbertino 784, qui a Coustantio laudatur in praefat. ad Epistolas Roman. pontif. num. 89, ac praeterea in manuscriptis collectionis 9 Hispanicae, Vat, 1341 et Vindebon. Caesareo 41, ut praetereamus alia plura scripta exemplaria memoratarum collectionum 10, 12 et 24, quae in praefat. ad epistolas recensuimus. Ita octo collectiones 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12 et 24, ac peculiaris cod. Barb. 77, hanc primam epistolae formam exhibent.

2. The first arrangement of the letter, published by Merlin and Sichard, and to be published by us too in the second place, carries the letter only as far as the middle of the ninth chapter, and ends it with these words of that chapter: "let us punish with just vengeance hereafter." This same arrangement is found in the manuscripts of collection 5, made public by Quesnel, of which he mentions two, the Thou and the Trecopithaean, while we can add two of the Imperial library, marked nos. 39 and 42. It is also extant in the manuscripts of collection 10, of Isidore, and of collection 12, to which belongs [the codex] which alone among the later collections shows this form of the letter; and besides, among manuscripts of this kind are to be reckoned the Victorine, the Regniacensis and that of St Martin of Auxerre, which display the same collection 24 with the letter in this form, as the same [Quesnel] notes. To these manuscripts Quesnel in his second edition added two others, a description of which he received from Rome after the first printing, namely Barberini 77 and 2888. The first of these, likewise examined and collated by us, is of about the twelfth century, and contains various small works also of a later age, but of Leo it shows this letter alone. The other, very ancient and written in majuscule letters, contains the old collection 3, to which we have found another like it in the very ancient Vatican 1342. We have moreover found this same arrangement of the curtailed letter (for so we shall call it) in three other collections, namely in the Vatican manuscript of the Queen, collection 1; in the old Lucca manuscript of collection 3, like the Colbert 784, which is cited by Coustant in the preface to the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, no. 89; and besides in the manuscripts of collection 9, the Spanish, Vatican 1341 and the Vienna Imperial 41; to pass over many other written copies of the collections mentioned, 10, 12 and 24, which we have reviewed in the preface to the letters. Thus eight collections, 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12 and 24, and the particular manuscript Barberini 77, show this first form of the letter.

3. Secunda ejusdem forma edita est primum a Wendelino, dein a Pithaeo, ac demum a Voello et Justello in collectione Dionysii Exigui. Haec autem omittit tria integra capita, sextum, septimum, et octavum, quae in prima forma decurtata exhibentur; et postremis verbis ejusdem primae formae, justa posthac ultione plectamus, caetera addit, quae usque ad finem integrae epistolae proferentur. Haec forma exhibetur in omnibus mss. codd. ejus collectionis quae Dionysiana vocatur, at verius Hadrianea appellanda est, cum omnes hi codices ad Hadrianam collectionem 7 vere pertineant, ad eam scilicet quam aliquot additamentis Dionysiana auctiorem, Hadrianus I pontifex Carolo Magno in usum Occidentalium Ecclesiarum tradidit. Hinc plurima hujus collectionis inveniuntur ubique exemplaria, quae hanc epistolae formam tuentur. Duos tantum codices Thuaneos Galllicanos laudavit Quesnellus: sed multo plures in Galliis diffusos memorat P. Coustantius in praefatione laudata num. 128, inter quos unus est anni 805. Multos item antiquos ipsi Romae vidimus, quos nominavimus in praefat. ad epistolas num. 16. His addi possunt etiam codices collectionis 8, num. 17 indicati, qui Hadrianeam collectionem initio exhibent.

3. The second form of the same was published first by Wendelin, then by Pithou, and finally by Voel and Justel in the collection of Dionysius Exiguus. This omits three whole chapters, the sixth, seventh and eighth, which are shown in the first, curtailed form; and to the last words of that same first form, "let us punish with just vengeance hereafter," it adds the rest, which will be given down to the end of the complete letter. This form is shown in all the manuscripts of that collection which is called the Dionysian, but should more truly be named the Hadrianic, since all these manuscripts truly belong to the Hadrianic collection 7, namely to that which Pope Hadrian I, enlarged from the Dionysian by some additions, handed to Charlemagne for the use of the Western Churches. Hence very many copies of this collection are found everywhere, which maintain this form of the letter. Quesnel cited only two Gallican manuscripts of Thou; but Fr Coustant, in the preface cited, no. 128, mentions many more scattered through the Gauls, among which one is of the year 805. We ourselves likewise saw many old ones at Rome, which we named in the preface to the letters, no. 16. To these can be added also the manuscripts of collection 8, indicated at no. 17, which show the Hadrianic collection at the beginning.

(a) ‹parens karissime,› · printed under cols 639–640

Editi: Dat. VIII id. Jan. Romae Valentiniano A. VI cos. Emendavimus mensem ex duobus memoratis mss. libris nec non ex Ottoboniano, nunc Vat., qui etiam integram consulatus notationem praebuit, qualis legitur in anteriori hujus anni Constitutione superius descripta epist. 8 et in aliis ejusdem anni Novellis.

The printed editions: "Given on the eighth day before the Ides of January at Rome, Valentinian Augustus being consul for the sixth time." We have corrected the month from the two manuscript books mentioned, and also from the Ottoboni, now Vatican, which also supplied the complete notation of the consulship, as it is read in the earlier Constitution of this year, given above as letter 8, and in other Novels of the same year.

4. Tertia editionis forma ex utraque anteriori conflata, quam editionem mixtam nuncupabimus, aliter in mss., aliter in editis invenitur. In codicibus enim quos vidimus, omissis capitibus 6, 7, 8, et dimidio noni, tota Hadrianea editio primum exhibetur, fere cum chronica notatione Dat. IV idus Augusti. Dein subjiciuntur velut appendix memoratis capitula omissa et sumpta ex prima decurtata editione usque ad ejus finem, ita ut repetantur illa: Cum itaque omnibus, etc., quae in editione decurtata epistolam claudunt, in Hadrianea autem suo loco capite nono inserta fuerant. Hanc lectionem Quesnellus reperit in duobus mss. Thuaneis, et uno Cantabrigensi. Nos reperimus in mss. quatuor collectionum 11, 20, 21 et 23, ad quas referri tres a Quesnello laudatos codices nihil ambigimus. Collectio 11, a qua caeterae collectiones hanc editionis formam videntur sumpsisse, praecipue consideranda est, cum antiquior sit Hincmari aetate, uti probavimus in praefat. ad epistolas num. 23. In uno tantum codice Veneto S. Marci 79 collectionis 22 hanc tertiam rationem nacti sumus absque repetitione extremi capitis Cum itaque de omnibus, etc., ita ut lectioni Hadrianeae tria tantum capita omissa ex editione decurtata subjiciantur usque ad illa, vel corpore perdidisse. In editis autem Leonis Quesnello anterioribus ac in Conciliorum vulgatis quae ex codicibus hujus tertiae lectionis profecta sunt, editores, cum hanc formam incongruam deprehendissent, tam ob chronicam notam sitam ante tria capitula 6, 7 et 8, quam ob importunam repetitionem periodi Cum itaque de omnibus, nulla licet codicum auctoritate fulti, dederunt primo editionem Hadrianeam, excepta extrema periodo, Si quae vero aliae sunt causae, terminantes illis vocibus, qui consecrabantur exciperet; mox subdiderunt ex decurtata editione tria capitula 6, 7 et 8, omittentes repetitionem periodi, Cum itaque de omnibus; ac tandem post verba octavi capitis rejecerunt periodum. Si vero aliae sunt causae, etc., atque chronicam notam, quibus epistolam conclusere.

4. The third form of the text, fused from both the previous ones, which we shall call the mixed edition, is found in one way in the manuscripts and in another in the printed editions. For in the manuscripts which we have seen, chapters 6, 7, 8 and half of the ninth being omitted, the whole Hadrianic text is given first, commonly with the chronological note "Given on the fourth day before the Ides of August." Then, as a kind of appendix, the omitted chapters mentioned are added, taken from the first, curtailed edition down to its end, so that the words "Cum itaque omnibus," etc., are repeated, which close the letter in the curtailed edition, but in the Hadrianic had been inserted in their own place in the ninth chapter. Quesnel found this reading in two Thou manuscripts and one of Cambridge. We found it in manuscripts of four collections, 11, 20, 21 and 23, to which we have no doubt that the three manuscripts cited by Quesnel are to be referred. Collection 11, from which the other collections seem to have taken this form of the text, is especially to be considered, since it is older than the age of Hincmar, as we proved in the preface to the letters, no. 23. In one manuscript only, the Venetian of St Mark 79, of collection 22, did we find this third arrangement without the repetition of the last chapter, "Cum itaque de omnibus," etc., so that to the Hadrianic reading only the three omitted chapters from the curtailed edition are added, down to the words "vel corpore perdidisse." In the printed editions of Leo before Quesnel, however, and in the common editions of the Councils, which derive from manuscripts of this third reading, the editors, having perceived that this form was incongruous, both because of the chronological note placed before the three chapters 6, 7 and 8 and because of the untimely repetition of the period "Cum itaque de omnibus," though supported by no authority of manuscripts, first gave the Hadrianic text, except the last period, "Si quae vero aliae sunt causae," ending with the words "qui consecrabantur exciperet"; then they added from the curtailed edition the three chapters 6, 7 and 8, omitting the repetition of the period "Cum itaque de omnibus"; and finally, after the words of the eighth chapter, they put back the period "Si vero aliae sunt causae," etc., and the chronological note, with which they concluded the letter.

5. Hinc autem nihil mirum si Quesnellus sollicitus de corrigendis ex fide codicum vulgatae S. Leonis editionis erroribus, hanc impressam editionem, quae nullis ms. nititur, repudiavit. Cum vero in ipsis codicibus tantam varietatem perspiceret, nec nnum codicem nancisci potuisset, qui aptum omnia conciliandi modum suggereret; primam editionis rationem, quam in antiquioribus collectionibus, et ms. descriptam vidit, retinendam et vindicandam putavit, Secundam vero rationem editionis Hadrianeae eo libentius rejecit, quod in ea nonnullae Comanae sedis praerogativae praeferantur, in quas cum non bene esset animatus, apertam interpolationem, pluresque imposturae gradus in ejus editionIs, ut vocat, additamentis videre sibi visus est, quos in notis latissime exposuit.

5. Hence it is no wonder if Quesnel, anxious to correct from the witness of the manuscripts the errors of the common edition of St Leo, repudiated this printed edition, which rests on no manuscripts. But since he perceived so great a variety in the manuscripts themselves, and had not been able to obtain a single manuscript that would suggest a fitting way of reconciling everything, he thought that the first arrangement of the text, which he saw written in the older collections and in manuscript, should be retained and defended, and he rejected the second arrangement, that of the Hadrianic edition, the more willingly because in it certain prerogatives of the Roman see are put forward, towards which he was not well disposed; and so he seemed to himself to see an open interpolation, and several stages of imposture, in the additions of that "edition," as he calls it, which he set out at great length in his notes.

6. Qui vero non perinde in Romanorum pontificum privilegio infensi, etsi Gallicanis principiis imbuti, Quesnelli notas ad calculos revocarunt, approbandam quidem censuerunt editionem decurtatam primae

6. Those, however, who, not equally hostile to the privilege of the Roman pontiffs, though imbued with Gallican principles, have brought Quesnel's notes to account, judged indeed that the curtailed edition of the first […]

formae, at non idcirco repudianda credidere Hadrianeae editionis additamenta, nec efficacia et convincentia existimarunt quae contra haec a Quesnello afferuntur. Inter hos Stephanus Baluzius, tom. II Capitularium pag. 1249, ejus argumentis expensis pronuntiavit: Nihil video disciplinae tum in Ecclesia Romana receptae contrarium. Quamvis autem Quesnellus in secunda editione hanc Baluzii animadversionem veluti infirmum, nec responsione dignam, traduxerit, eo quod ibidem Baluzius hac de re incidenter agens, probationes fusius in dissertationis rationem afferendas non credidit; quam ratum tamen ac firmum haberi debeat quod ab ipso affirmatum est, ex iis quae in Quesnellianas notas observabimus exploratum fiet. Coustantius, qui et primam et secundam Quesnelli editionem legit, quique in celeberrima editione Epistolarum Romanorum pontificum quantae peritiae et critices sit omnibus eruditis constat, non solum sincerum habuit Hadrianeae editionis fragmentum a Quesnello rejectum, verum etiam initio tomi secundi, quem edendum paraverat, idem fragmentum a Quesnelli censuris vindicandum suscepit, uti testatur P. Simon Mopinot in epistola De nova editione Epistolarum summorum pontificum typis impressa an. 1724, ubi indicatis secundi tomi capitibus, in quibus Coustantius praecipue laboravit, haec de Leonis Epistolis traduntur: Asserentur eidem papae litterae quaedam in spuriorum classem temere amandatae, quas inter non infimum sane locum tenet praeclarum illud de Lupicini episcopi ad sedem apostolicam appellatione fragmentum epistolae primae (nobis 12 ad Africanos) perperam, ut videtur, insertum. Est fragmentum hujus epistolae in Hadrianea editione contentum, quod a Quesnello expungitur.

[…] form was to be approved, but did not on that account believe that the additions of the Hadrianic edition were to be repudiated, nor did they consider effective and convincing what is brought against them by Quesnel. Among these, Étienne Baluze, in volume II of the Capitularies, page 1249, having weighed his arguments, declared: "I see nothing contrary to the discipline then received in the Roman Church." But although Quesnel in his second edition held up this remark of Baluze to ridicule as weak and not worthy of reply, because Baluze, treating the matter there incidentally, did not think that proofs should be brought at greater length in the manner of a dissertation, yet how much what he affirmed ought to be held as settled and firm will become plain from what we shall observe on Quesnel's notes. Coustant, who read both the first and the second edition of Quesnel, and of whose skill and critical judgement all the learned are aware from his most celebrated edition of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, not only held to be genuine the fragment of the Hadrianic edition rejected by Quesnel, but also, at the beginning of the second volume, which he had prepared for publication, undertook to vindicate the same fragment from Quesnel's censures, as Fr Simon Mopinot testifies in his letter On the new edition of the Letters of the supreme pontiffs, printed in the year 1724, where, having indicated the chapters of the second volume on which Coustant chiefly laboured, he says this about the Letters of Leo: "There will be restored to the same pope certain letters rashly relegated to the class of the spurious, among which no mean place is held by that famous fragment on the appeal of Bishop Lupicinus to the apostolic see, inserted, as it seems, wrongly into the first letter" (our 12, to the Africans). It is the fragment of this letter contained in the Hadrianic edition, which Quesnel strikes out.

7. Ex his autem P. Mopinot verbis liquet sane Coustantium voluisse hoc fragmentum defendere. At non in ipsa epistola inserendum, sed velut additamentum eidem subjiciendum credidisse videtur, uti innuunt etiam illa ipsius Coustantii tom. I Epist. Rom. pontif. pag. 909, not. a, quibus hoc fragmentum Leoninum ac sincerum allegaturus, uti a se edendum erat tomo secundo, his verbis utitur: In additamentis ad epistolam primam Leonis. Id ex eo ortum est quia nullum codicem reperit praeferentem integram et genuinam hujus epistolae lectionem ac formam, qua suus proprius locus ei fragmento tribueretur. Haec autem sors nobis feliciter obtigit. Etenim a P. Lectore Philippo Maria Sereno ord. Praed. nobis perhumaniter communicatum fuit hujus epistolae exemplar summa diligentia transcriptum ex peculiari codice Florentino collect. 13 signato num. 182, saeculi XII, de cujus antiquiori ac praecipua origine quoad Leonis Epistolas, in praefatione num. 29 satis diximus. In hoc autem exemplari omnia utriusque editionis decurtatae et Hadrianeae verba, quae in tot antiquis codicibus prostant, etvelle stylo Leonina manifestantur, uno naturali contextu probe connectuntur, ita ut nihil excludatur, pervertatur nihil.

7. From these words of Fr Mopinot it is indeed clear that Coustant wished to defend this fragment. But he seems to have believed that it should not be inserted in the letter itself, but added to it as a kind of supplement, as is suggested also by those words of Coustant himself, volume I of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, page 909, note a, where, about to cite this fragment as Leo's and genuine, as it was to be published by him in the second volume, he uses these words: "In the additions to the first letter of Leo." This arose from the fact that he found no manuscript carrying the complete and genuine reading and form of this letter, by which its own proper place might be assigned to that fragment. This good fortune, however, has happily fallen to us. For there was most kindly communicated to us by Fr Philip Maria Sereno, Lector of the Order of Preachers, a copy of this letter transcribed with the greatest care from a particular Florentine manuscript of collection 13, marked no. 182, of the twelfth century, of whose older and distinguished origin as regards the Letters of Leo we have said enough in the preface, no. 29. In this copy, then, all the words of both editions, the curtailed and the Hadrianic, which stand in so many ancient manuscripts and are shown [to be] Leo's even by their style, are properly joined in one natural sequence, so that nothing is excluded and nothing distorted.

8. Codices pro editione decurtata sive a Quesnello producti, sive a nobis inventi, quibus potissimum illius argumentum innititur, id unum probant, hanc epistolae partem genuinam esse, non vero integram epistolam exhiberi demonstrant. Quod ne cui mirum videatur, alia ⟨s⟩imiliter decurtata in iisdem mss. et collectionibus consideret. Sic mss. libri collectionis Hispanicae et Isidorianae, et mss. etiam Operum et Epistolarum S. Leonis collectionis 24, qui hanc epistolam decurtatam exhibent, decurtatam pariter proferunt epistolam S. Petri Chrysologi ad Eutychem, et media quidem parte deficientem, quae tamen in omnibus tum Graecis tum Latinis concilii Chalcedonensis codicibus collectionis 17 integra legitur. In omnibus etiam collectionibus et mss. Latinis Sardicense concilium mutilum praefertur sine tribus extremis canonibus, qui in Graecis exemplaribus continentur. In cod. Vat. 1341, et in tribus aliis Gallicanis laudatis a Coustantio (Tom. I Epist. Rom. pont., p. 772), qui exhibent collectionem Hispanicam Innocentii I, epistola ad episcopos synodi Toletanae decurtata est, cum in ea desint numeri 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, et pars etiam numeri primi. In mss. collectionis Hadrianeae solum initium describitur litterarum Hormisdae ad praesbyteros, diaconos et archimandritas secundae Syriae, quas manuscripta collectionis praestantissimae 14 integras conservarunt. Et, ut alia ejusdem generis omittamus, in ipsa collect. 5 Quesnelliana num. 51, capite diminuta affertur Gelasii epistola ad Orientales. Quidni igitur pariter mutila proferri potuit epistola Leonis ad Africanos?

8. The manuscripts for the curtailed edition, whether produced by Quesnel or found by us, on which his argument chiefly rests, prove this one thing, that this part of the letter is genuine; but they do not demonstrate that the whole letter is presented. Lest this seem strange to anyone, let him consider other texts similarly curtailed in the same manuscripts and collections. Thus the manuscript books of the Spanish and Isidorian collection, and also the manuscripts of the Works and Letters of St Leo of collection 24, which show this letter curtailed, likewise give curtailed the letter of St Peter Chrysologus to Eutyches, and indeed lacking half, though it is read complete in all the manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, of the council of Chalcedon of collection 17. In all the Latin collections and manuscripts, too, the council of Sardica is carried mutilated, without the three last canons which are contained in the Greek copies. In the Vatican manuscript 1341, and in three other Gallican ones cited by Coustant (Vol. I of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, p. 772), which show the Spanish collection, the letter of Innocent I to the bishops of the synod of Toledo is curtailed, since numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 are missing in it, and part also of the first number. In the manuscripts of the Hadrianic collection only the beginning is copied of the letter of Hormisdas to the priests, deacons and archimandrites of Second Syria, which the manuscripts of the most excellent collection 14 have preserved complete. And, to pass over others of the same kind, in Quesnel's collection 5 itself, no. 51, the letter of Gelasius to the Orientals is given with its head cut off. Why, then, could not the letter of Leo to the Africans likewise be produced mutilated?

9. Exemplar quidem hujus epistolae, quod sine tribus capitibus editionis decurtatae, et cum alio longiori additamento legitur in collectione Hadrianea, esto non sit a Dionysio insertum suae collectioni, uti Quesnellus in notis optime conjecit, immo etiamsi adjectum ei collectioni fuisset circa Gregorii II tempora, quemadmodum ille opinatus est, nimirum circa initium octavi saeculi, non tamen idcirco interpolatum aut supposititium probari potest. In universis enim documentis quae Hadrianeae collectioni leguntur inserta, nihil apocryphum aut interpolatum deprehenditur. Cum vero stylus hujus epistolae totusque contextus Leoni omnino congruant, argumenta autem a Quesnello objecta nihil convincant, ut ex nostris observationibus ad ejus notas patebit, de hujus unius documenti authenticitate ac sinceritate non nisi temere dubitare licet.

9. The copy of this letter, indeed, which is read in the Hadrianic collection without the three chapters of the curtailed edition and with another, longer addition, granted that it was not inserted by Dionysius into his collection, as Quesnel very well conjectured in his notes, and even if it had been added to that collection about the time of Gregory II, as he supposed, that is, about the beginning of the eighth century, still it cannot on that account be proved interpolated or spurious. For in all the documents which are read inserted in the Hadrianic collection nothing apocryphal or interpolated is detected. And since the style of this letter and its whole context agree entirely with Leo, while the arguments brought by Quesnel prove nothing, as will appear from our observations on his notes, one may not doubt of the authenticity and genuineness of this one document except rashly.

10. Neque difficultatem moveat defectus trium capitum 6, 7 et 8, quae in editione decurtata exstant, et ex antiquissimis mss. atque collectionibus genuina noscuntur. Allata enim exempla similium defectuum, quae in aliis praestantium collectionum documentis paulo ante indicavimus, hoc defectus non infrequentes ostendunt. Celebrem Leonis epistolam 14, ad Anastasium, quae in pluribus collectionibus integra est, duobus capitibus tertio et quarto praetermissis, descriptam reperimus in duobus antiquis mss. Vat. 1347 et Vat. Palat. 579, ex quibus si alii codices vel collectiones illam sumpsissent, parem defectum praeferrent, nec tamen ea idcirco in suspicionem vocari posset. Nonne quaedam etiam Gelasii litterae in aliquot collectionibus breviores sunt quam in Conciliis editae fuerunt? Celeberrima est ejus pontificis epistola ad Dardanos, quae non solum in Quesnelli collectione 5, cap. 50, verum etiam in omnibus fere mss. aliarum antiquarum collectionum tribus longioribus et novem brevioribus membris caret, quae tamen leguntur in mss. praestantissimae collect. 14, et exinde in Romana Epistolarum pontificum editione, ac in tomis Conciliorum edita sunt; quo ampliori exemplo Facundum Hermianensem usum fuisse haud dubitari potest. Sicut autem in memoratis paulo ante mss. epistolae Innocentii I, ad Toletanos, retentis solis decretis generalibus, caetera quae ad singulares causas et personas pertinent, praetermissa fuerunt, ita idipsum in hac Leonis epistola Hadrianeae collectionis auctori placuisse videtur: tria enim omissa capita singulares personas causasque respiciunt.

10. Nor should the lack of the three chapters 6, 7 and 8, which exist in the curtailed edition and are known to be genuine from very ancient manuscripts and collections, raise any difficulty. For the examples of similar omissions brought forward, which we indicated a little earlier in other documents of excellent collections, show that such omissions are not infrequent. The celebrated letter 14 of Leo, to Anastasius, which is complete in several collections, we found copied with two chapters, the third and fourth, passed over, in two ancient manuscripts, Vatican 1347 and Vatican Palatine 579; if other manuscripts or collections had taken it from these, they would show the same omission, and yet it could not on that account be called into suspicion. Are not some letters of Gelasius too shorter in some collections than they were published in the Councils? Very celebrated is that pontiff's letter to the Dardanians, which not only in Quesnel's collection 5, ch. 50, but also in almost all the manuscripts of other ancient collections lacks three longer and nine shorter members, which are nevertheless read in the manuscripts of the most excellent collection 14, and from there were published in the Roman edition of the Letters of the Pontiffs and in the volumes of the Councils; and it cannot be doubted that Facundus of Hermiane used this fuller copy. And just as, in the manuscripts of the letter of Innocent I to the Toledans mentioned a little earlier, only the general decrees were retained and the rest, which concerns particular cases and persons, was passed over, so the compiler of the Hadrianic collection seems to have chosen to do the very same with this letter of Leo: for the three omitted chapters concern particular persons and cases.

11. Porro verum non est, quod putavit Quesnellus, hanc editionem hujus epistolae sub Gregorii II aetate Dionysiano codici fuisse adjectam, eo quod recentius Hadrianei codicis documentum ad hunc Gregorium pertineat. Inter Vaticanos nimirum codices reperimus signatum num. 5845 continentem puram Dionysii collectionem, quam uti rarissimam Coustantius laudavit, quaeque desinit in epistolis Anastasii II. In hoc autem codice, qui antiquissimus est, et Decretalibus praemittit Dionysii epistolam ad Julianum presbyterum in hoc uno ms. inventam, et ex eodem editam, post descriptam puram collectionem Dionysii eodem antiquo charactere appendix subjicitur, in qua primo ponuntur tria concilia Symmachi papae, unum an. 501, alterum an. 502, ac tertium an. 499, tum vero afferuntur tituli sex decretorum papae Hilari, duo Simplicii, et unus Felicis; ac post titulos ipsa decreta recitantur: quae omnia postea Hadrianeae collectioni suo loco juxta ordinem temporum fuerunt inserta. Post decretum autem Felicis pag. 155 describitur Leonis epistola cum hoc titulo: In causa Lupicini episcopi: Leo universis episcopis per Caesariensem Mauritaniam constitutis. Cum

11. Further, it is not true, as Quesnel thought, that this edition of this letter was added to the Dionysian manuscript in the age of Gregory II, on the ground that the most recent document of the Hadrianic manuscript belongs to this Gregory. For among the Vatican manuscripts we found one marked no. 5845, containing the pure collection of Dionysius, which Coustant praised as very rare, and which ends with the letters of Anastasius II. In this manuscript, which is very ancient, and which places before the Decretals Dionysius' letter to the priest Julian, found in this one manuscript and published from it, after the copy of the pure collection of Dionysius an appendix is added in the same ancient script, in which are placed first three councils of Pope Symmachus, one of the year 501, another of 502 and a third of 499; then the titles of six decrees of Pope Hilary are given, two of Simplicius and one of Felix; and after the titles the decrees themselves are recited: all of which were afterwards inserted in the Hadrianic collection in their own place according to the order of time. After the decree of Felix, on page 155, the letter of Leo is copied with this title: "In the case of Bishop Lupicinus: Leo to all the bishops established throughout Mauretania Caesariensis." "Cum […]"

de ordinationibus, et reliqua cum eadem Hadrianeae editionis forma atque lectione. Subjicitur huic epistolae Leonis pag. 157: Epistola Zosimi ad presbyteros Ravennae directa. Zosimi commonitorium presbyteris et diaconibus qui Ravennae sunt. Ex relatione, etc., quae in eodem Hadrianeo codice legitur. Tandem post hanc epistolam, veluti novum additamentum sequitur tabula capitum 79, ipsaque documenta post tabulam subjiciuntur. De his alibi fusius erit dicendum. Nunc satis sit memorare quinque priora documenta, quae sic afferuntur:

[…] "on ordinations," and the rest, with the same form and reading of the Hadrianic edition. After this letter of Leo there follows, on page 157: "Letter of Zosimus sent to the priests of Ravenna. Commonitory of Zosimus to the priests and deacons who are at Ravenna. From the report," etc., which is read in the same Hadrianic manuscript. Finally, after this letter, as a new addition, there follows a table of 79 chapters, and the documents themselves are added after the table. Of these we shall have to speak more fully elsewhere. For now let it suffice to mention the first five documents, which are given as follows:

Pag. 159. I. Justinus Augustus Hormisdae. Quo fuimus semper, etc.

Page 159. I. "Justin Augustus to Hormisdas. Quo fuimus semper," etc.

Pag. 160. II. Exemplar precum a clericis et monachis Antiochenis, Hierosolymitanis. etc., ad Justinum. Haurite aquam cum laetitia, etc.

Page 160. II. "Copy of the petition from the clergy and monks of Antioch, of Jerusalem, etc., to Justin. Haurite aquam cum laetitia," etc.

Pag. 161. III. Hormisda Justino. Interea quae ad unitatem Ecclesiae, etc.

Page 161. III. "Hormisdas to Justin. Interea quae ad unitatem Ecclesiae," etc.

Pag. 164. IV. Hormisda presbyteris, diaconibus et archimandritis secundae Syriae. Lectis litteris, etc.

Page 164. IV. "Hormisdas to the priests, deacons and archimandrites of Second Syria. Lectis litteris," etc.

Eadem pagina. Incipitae constituta papae Gregorii junioris. In nomine Domini, etc.

The same page. "Here begin the constitutions of Pope Gregory the Younger. In nomine Domini," etc.

Haec quoque documenta nec plura nec pauciora sunt illa quae in Hadrianeis mss. Dionysianae collectioni addita, et suo loco in ordinem chronologicum inserta inveniuntur. Ex modo autem diverso quo in hoc codice purae Dionysianae collectioni subjiciuntur, palam fit eidem omnia simul uno eodemque tempore non fuisse adjecta, sed saltem duplici, primum documenta praemissa tabulae capitum 79, dein quinque prima hujus tabulae capita. Haec postrema, quae in Gregorio II desinunt, potuerunt adjici hujus pontificis aevo aut paulo post. Idem vero censendum non est de iis documentis quae huic tabulae praemissa ad multo antiquiores pontifices pertinent, et forte addita fuere paulo post Symmachi mortem, quippe is est ultimus inter pontifices quorum decreta in ea prima appendice recitantur: et primo quidem loco synodi ejusdem referuntur, eo quod hic pontifex recentioris memoriae esset, unde fortasse peculiari formula sanctae memoriae vocatur in titulo synodi an. 502, id quod etiam in ipsa urbe Roma hoc additamentum fuisse subjectum indicare videtur. Enimvero si haec documenta praemissa tabulae capitum 79, post obitum Hormisdae adjecta fuissent, hujus quoque pontificis monumenta collector non disjunxisset a documentis Symmachi immediati ejus praedecessoris, nec ea collectori secundae appendicis subjicienda reliquisset.

These documents, too, are neither more nor fewer than those which are found in the Hadrianic manuscripts added to the Dionysian collection and inserted in their own place in chronological order. But from the different way in which they are appended in this manuscript to the pure Dionysian collection, it becomes plain that they were not all added to it together at one and the same time, but at two times at least: first the documents placed before the table of 79 chapters, then the first five chapters of this table. These last, which end with Gregory II, could have been added in that pontiff's age or a little after. But the same is not to be judged of the documents placed before this table, which belong to much older pontiffs and were perhaps added a little after the death of Symmachus, since he is the last among the pontiffs whose decrees are recited in that first appendix: and in the first place, indeed, his synods are given, because this pontiff was of more recent memory, whence perhaps he is called by the particular formula "of holy memory" in the title of the synod of the year 502, which also seems to indicate that this addition was appended in the very city of Rome. For indeed, if these documents placed before the table of 79 chapters had been added after the death of Hormisdas, the collector would not have separated the records of this pontiff too from the documents of Symmachus, his immediate predecessor, nor left them to the collector of the second appendix to append.

12. Quod si hae observationes et conjecturae judicentur probabiles, uti sane nobis videntur, jam additio epistolae Leonis ad Africanos postea inserta collectioni Hadrianeae cum controverso fragmento ad Dionysii circiter tempora evehitur, cum is quoque post Symmachum sub Hormisda Romae floruerit; et ita verum efficitur, hanc epistolam Dionysianae, collectioni accessisse circa quinquagesimum post Leonem annum, adeo ut summae videatur esse temeritatis (utimur Quesnelli verbis in notis ad hanc epistolam sub initium) suspicari in ipsa urbe Roma scribenti et colligenti authenticos codices defuisse. Sicut enim dubitandum non est de adjecta Zosimi epistola, aut de Symmachi conciliis, ita nec ambigendum de hac epistola Leonis, quae eodem auctore simul addita fuit. Hinc autem Hadrianeae collectionis origo detegitur; neque enim aliud in ea factum est, nisi servato temporum ordine quaedam documenta Dionysianae collectioni inserere, quae duplici additamento ac duplici tempore huic collectioni jam diu ante Hadriani pontificatum, ordine perturbato, subjecta fuerant.

12. But if these observations and conjectures are judged probable, as they certainly seem to us, then the addition of the letter of Leo to the Africans, afterwards inserted in the Hadrianic collection with the disputed fragment, is carried back to about the time of Dionysius, since he too flourished at Rome after Symmachus, under Hormisdas; and so it comes out true that this letter was joined to the Dionysian collection about the fiftieth year after Leo, so that it seems to be "the height of rashness" (we use Quesnel's words in his notes on this letter, near the beginning) "to suspect that authentic manuscripts were lacking to one writing and collecting in the very city of Rome." For just as there is no doubt about the added letter of Zosimus or about the councils of Symmachus, so neither is there any about this letter of Leo, which was added at the same time by the same author. From this, moreover, the origin of the Hadrianic collection is uncovered; for nothing else was done in it but to insert into the Dionysian collection, keeping the order of time, certain documents which, by a double addition and at two times, had been appended to this collection long before the pontificate of Hadrian, with their order disturbed.

13. Porro eximius codex Florentinus S. Marci collect. 13 ex decurtata et Hadrianea editione integram epistolam praefert. Nec mirum sit in unico codice, seu collectione, hanc epistolam integram reperiri, quae in aliis omnibus antiquiorum collectionum varie mutila, seu imperfecta legitur. Nam etiam laudata Gelasii epistola ad Dardanos in pluribus iisque antiquis codicibus et collectionibus brevior est, ac in sola collectione 14 longior reperitur. Idem vero Florentinus codex decurtatae et Hadrianeae editionum partes suo loco probe collocatas repraesentat. Primo enim totam exhibet editionem decurtatam cum iis quoque tribus capitibus 6, 7 et 8, quae in Hadrianea fuerunt praetermissa; tum vero extremis verbis ejusdem editionis decurtatae commode et contextui maxime congruenter subjicit in eos specialius commovendi et reliqua ejus fragmenti, quod in Hadrianea usque ad finem suppletur. Adde quod hic Florentinus codex non solum habet hoc Hadrianeum fragmentum, quod a Quesnello perperam supposititium creditur, verum etiam lectiones plerumque exhibet Hadrianeas in iis pariter capitibus quae decurtatae et Hadrianeae editionibus communia sunt. Quesnellus, qui Hadrianeam formam rejicit, et decurtatae editionis codices effert, lectiones Hadrianeas lectionibus editionis decurtatae non paucis in locis praetulit, quod cum sua hypothesi minus cohaeret. Ita enim alterae ab alteris nonnullibi discrepant, ut non aliquo tantum verbo, sed integris membris atque sententiis dissideant. Id autem suspicionem nobis vehementissimam injicit duplex hujus epistolae exemplar inter ipsius Leonis scripta inventum fuisse, ex quo tantum discrimen prodierit. Amanuensium enim oscitantiae vel arbitrio tribui quidem possunt unius vel alterius vocis variantes, cum praesertim sensum aut stylum vitiant. Sed tanta verborum ac sententiarum varietas, quae etsi pluribus quandoque verbis producta, ejusdem tamen auctoris stylum ubique refert (si praesertim non in omnibus, nec in multis, sed in uno vel altero t⟨a⟩ntum opusculo deprehendatur), non amanuensibus, sed ipsi auctori tribuenda videtur, qui idem opus prima manu scriptum, secundis curis alicubi emendaturus, vel etiam aucturus, diversis verbis ac sententiis inductis iterum scripserit.

13. Further, the excellent Florentine manuscript of St Mark, collection 13, carries the complete letter from the curtailed and the Hadrianic edition. Nor should it be thought strange that this letter is found complete in a single manuscript or collection, when in all the others of the older collections it is read variously mutilated or imperfect. For the letter of Gelasius to the Dardanians cited above is also shorter in several manuscripts and collections, and those ancient ones, and is found longer in collection 14 alone. And the same Florentine manuscript presents the parts of the curtailed and the Hadrianic editions properly placed in their own positions. For first it shows the whole curtailed edition, with those three chapters 6, 7 and 8 as well, which were passed over in the Hadrianic; then, to the last words of that same curtailed edition, it adds, conveniently and in the greatest harmony with the context, "in eos specialius commovendi" and the rest of that fragment which in the Hadrianic is supplied down to the end. Add that this Florentine manuscript not only has this Hadrianic fragment, which Quesnel wrongly believes spurious, but also for the most part shows the Hadrianic readings in those chapters likewise which are common to the curtailed and the Hadrianic editions. Quesnel, who rejects the Hadrianic form and extols the manuscripts of the curtailed edition, preferred the Hadrianic readings to the readings of the curtailed edition in not a few places, which agrees poorly with his hypothesis. For the one set differs from the other here and there in such a way that they disagree not merely in some word but in whole members and sentences. This, moreover, raises in us a very strong suspicion that a double copy of this letter was found among the writings of Leo himself, from which so great a difference arose. For variants of one word or another can indeed be attributed to the carelessness or the choice of copyists, especially when they spoil the sense or the style. But so great a variety of words and sentences, which, though sometimes drawn out in more words, yet everywhere reflects the style of the same author (especially if it is detected not in all, nor in many, but in only one or another small work), seems to be attributed not to copyists but to the author himself, who, meaning in a second revision to correct here and there, or even to enlarge, the same work written in a first draft, wrote it again, bringing in different words and sentences.

14. P. Coustantius discrimen illud, quod memoravimus in Gelasii epistola ad Dardanos, quae in aliis codicibus brevior, in aliis prolixior est, ex eo pendere credidit, quod eadem illa epistola sub duplici forma ab ipsomet Gelasio prodierit; idemque postea Hormisdae et Gregorio, antea vero Leoni nostro evenisse opinatus est. Lege Vindic. veter. codd. confirmat. cap. 13, pag. 713. Id huic epistolae contigisse ex antea observatis probabilissimum nobis est. S. Leo scripserat, ut videtur, prima manu epistolam, qualis dabitur ex mss. editionis decurtatae; et ex hoc exemplo olim edito vel invento hanc epistolam sumpserunt auctores collectionum ejusdem editionis. Posteriore vero manu, cum forte supervenisset aliquid novi, ex gr., causa Restituti episcopi, quem nunc quasi post illa quae Potentius retulerat, conquestum tradit cap. 10 S. pontifex exscribens eamdem epistolam, nonnulla aliis verbis exposuit, quaedam autem pro novitate causae adjecit. Ita etiam epistolas 30 et 31, quae partim eisdem, partim diversis verbis eadem super ere ad Pulcheriam datae in distinctis et antiquissimis collectionibus inveniuntur, unius ejusdemque epistolae duplex exemplum esse in admonitione ostendemus. In subjectis vero litteris ad Africanos, illud longum fragmentum, quod in collectione Hadrianea legitur, secundis quidem curis videtur adjectum, ob quasdam notitias quae supervenerunt post relationem Potentii, referente fortassis episcopo David, qui in eo fragmento memoratur, vel aliis qui ex Africa Romam transmigraverant, et indicantur illis lectionis Hadrianeae verbis, commeantium sermo perferret. Hinc S. pontifex primae lectioni editionis decurtatae c. 9, Cum itaque de omnibus, secundis curis inseruit particulam fere, quae in Hadrianea editione legitur, eo quod nonnulla accessissent quae antea scriptis adjicienda fuerunt. Neque difficultatem moveat sermo de virginibus vi barbarica oppressis, repetitus cap. 8 et 11; nam capite 8 docet quid ipsae virgines de se sentire debeant; capite autem undecimo, quid de iisdem sit ab episcopis agendum decernit. Immo haec duplex de ejusmodi virginibus mentio satis insinuat

14. Fr Coustant believed that the difference we mentioned in the letter of Gelasius to the Dardanians, which is shorter in some manuscripts and longer in others, depends on the fact that that same letter came out in a double form from Gelasius himself; and he supposed that the same happened afterwards to Hormisdas and Gregory, and earlier to our Leo. Read the Defence of the Ancient Manuscripts Confirmed, ch. 13, p. 713. That this happened to this letter is, from what was observed earlier, most probable to us. St Leo, it seems, had written the letter in a first draft, such as will be given from the manuscripts of the curtailed edition; and from this copy, once published or found, the compilers of the collections of that edition took this letter. But in a later draft, when perhaps something new had come up, for example the case of Bishop Restitutus, who, as the holy pontiff relates in ch. 10, has now complained, as it were after the things Potentius had reported, copying out the same letter he set out some things in other words and added some on account of the newness of the case. So also we shall show in the admonition that letters 30 and 31, given to Pulcheria on the same matter, partly in the same and partly in different words, which are found in distinct and very ancient collections, are a double copy of one and the same letter. In the letter to the Africans that follows, then, that long fragment which is read in the Hadrianic collection seems to have been added in a second revision, on account of certain pieces of information that arrived after the report of Potentius, perhaps from Bishop David, who is mentioned in that fragment, or from others who had passed from Africa to Rome; and they are indicated by these words of the Hadrianic reading, "commeantium sermo perferret." Hence the holy pontiff, in the second revision, inserted into the first reading of the curtailed edition, ch. 9, "Cum itaque de omnibus," the particle "fere," which is read in the Hadrianic edition, because certain things had come in which had to be added to what was written before. Nor should the treatment of virgins overpowered by barbarian violence, repeated in ch. 8 and 11, raise any difficulty; for in chapter 8 he teaches what the virgins themselves ought to think of themselves, but in the eleventh chapter he decrees what is to be done about them by the bishops. Indeed this double mention of such virgins sufficiently suggests […]