Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹dilectionem vestram› · printed under col 663

Quesnellus retinuit lectionem Vulgat. quae ex Hadrianea editione inserit haec verba, Per David fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum, qui et sacerdotii merito nobis est probatus, et moribus. Sed praetermittantur in omnibus mss. decurtatae editionis collect. 1, 3, 4, 5, Hisp., Isid., Vat. 1340 collect. 12, et Barb. 77. Inveniuntur autem in solis mss. collect. 24, et apud Merlinum atque Sichardum. Nonnulli etiam codices editionis mixtae, qui bis hanc periodum repetunt, ut in admonitione notavimus, num. 4, primo quidem loco ex Hadrianea editione sumpto ea verba exhibent; secundo vero loco sumpto ex mss. editionis decurtatae iisdem verbis carent. Ita cod. S. Crucis collect. 20 et mss. collect. 21.

Quesnel kept the reading of the common editions, which from the Hadrian edition inserts these words, Per David fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum, qui et sacerdotii merito nobis est probatus, et moribus [through David, our brother and fellow bishop, who is approved by us both by the merit of his priesthood and by his morals]. But they are passed over in all the manuscripts of the shortened edition, of collections 1, 3, 4, 5, the Spanish, the Isidorian, Vatican 1340 of collection 12, and Barberini 77. They are found, however, only in the manuscripts of collection 24, and in Merlin and Sichard. Some manuscripts of the mixed edition also, which repeat this passage twice, as we noted in the admonition, no. 4, show those words in the first place, taken from the Hadrian edition; but in the second place, taken from the manuscripts of the shortened edition, they lack the same words. So the Holy Cross manuscript of collection 20 and the manuscripts of collection 21.

(b) ‹superest, fratres,› · printed under col 663

Sic omnes mss. libri editionis decurtatae etiam collectionis 24, nec non Sichardus, et ante laudati editionis mixtae secundo loco. Quenellus Hadrianeam lectionem induxit, ut concorditer. Confer annot. 48 (col 65, n. k) in epist. integram. Dein, per concertationem pro per contentionem in quinque mss. editionis decurtatae.

So all the manuscript books of the shortened edition, even of collection 24, and also Sichard, and those of the mixed edition cited before, in the second place. Quesnel brought in the Hadrian reading, ut concorditer. Compare note 48 (col. 65[4], n. k) on the letter in full. Then, per concertationem for per contentionem in five manuscripts of the shortened edition.

(c) ‹apostolicis constitutionibus› · printed under col 663

Sic fere omnes, et praestantissimi codices formae decurtatae. Quesnellus cum aliis, pareatis.

So almost all, and the most excellent, manuscripts of the shortened form. Quesnel with others, pareatis.

(d) ‹patiamini› · printed under col 663

Idem Quesn. cum lectione Hadrianea, providentissima. Reposuimus pia ex laudatis codicibus et editionibus formae decurtatae.

The same Quesnel, with the Hadrian reading, providentissima [most provident]. We have restored pia from the cited manuscripts and editions of the shortened form.

(e) ‹justa› · printed under col 663

Melior visa est hae optimorum codicum lectio, quam caeterorum qui cum editis habent post haec.

This reading of the best manuscripts seemed better than that of the others, which with the editions have post haec.

(f) ‹EPISTOLA XIII.› · printed under col 663

Scripta 6 Jan. an. 446.

Written 6 January in the year 446.

(g) ‹AD EPISCOPOS METROPOLITANOS› · printed under col 663

Edita fuit in collectione Romana Lucae Holstenii ex unico codice Barberino 3386 collectionis 16 Thessalonicensis, cum quo eamdem non inutiliter relegimus.

It was published in the Roman collection of Lucas Holstenius from the single Barberini manuscript 3386 of the Thessalonian collection 16, against which we have re-read it, not without profit.

SYNOPSIS. — I. Gratulatur Illyrici metropolitanis se subjicientibus auctoritati datae Anastasio, in majoribus praesertim causis. — II. Ut vocati ad concilium ab Anastasio venire non renuant, hortatur. — III. Ut nemo sine consensu plebis ordinetur episcopus. — IV. Ut nullus episcopus alterius inviti clericum sibi vindicet.

SYNOPSIS. — I. He congratulates the metropolitans of Illyricum on submitting themselves to the authority given to Anastasius, especially in the greater cases. — II. He exhorts them not to refuse to come when called to a council by Anastasius. — III. That no one be ordained bishop without the consent of the people. — IV. That no bishop claim for himself the cleric of another against his will.

(h) ‹VIGILANTIO metropolitanis› · printed under cols 663–664

Editi, et ipse Barberinus codex, per Achaiam provinciam, sed omnino perperam; neque enim Achaia, quae unica erat provincia, plures metropolitanos in ipsa inscriptione appellatos continebat: neque in omnibus metropolitarum ad quos hae litterae diriguntur, recensetur nomen metropolitani Achaiae, contra quem tertio capite sermo est. Tutissime igitur ac necessario emendavimus: nam et ad metropolitas per Illyricum constitutos data fuit epistola 5, quae citatur cap. 1, et trium etiam metropolitanorum quibus haec epistola inscribitur, provincias optime collegit Holstenius, quae omnes ad Illyricum pertinent. Vide not. Quesn. Idem Holstenius pro Antiocho legendum suspicatur Attico, qui fuit Epiri veteris metropolita Nicopolitanus. Non assentimur. Nicopolitanus enim metropolita, ut ex sequenti epistola patebit coactus delatae Thessalonicensi vicario auctoritati se subjecit, non autem sponte, ut illi fecerunt ad quos haec epistola data fuit.

The editions, and the Barberini manuscript itself, per Achaiam provinciam [throughout the province of Achaia], but quite wrongly; for Achaia, which was a single province, did not contain several metropolitans such as are named in the address itself: nor among all the metropolitans to whom this letter is directed is the name of the metropolitan of Achaia listed, against whom the discourse is in the third chapter. We have therefore corrected it most safely and necessarily: for Letter 5, which is cited in chap. 1, was also given to the metropolitans established throughout Illyricum, and Holstenius very well gathered the provinces of three of the metropolitans to whom this letter is addressed, all of which belong to Illyricum. See Quesnel's note. The same Holstenius suspects that Attico should be read for Antiocho, Atticus having been metropolitan of Nicopolis in Old Epirus. We do not agree. For the metropolitan of Nicopolis, as will be clear from the following letter, submitted to the authority conferred on the vicar of Thessalonica under compulsion, and not of his own accord, as did those to whom this letter was given.

(i) ‹Grato animo› · printed under col 664

Significari creduntur epistolae 5 et 6, quas superius dedimus. At si voces epistolas nostras a vestra dilectione susceptas, plures epistolas ad ipsos Illyrici episcopos traditas indicant (qualis non est epistola 6, quae uni Anastasio data fuit), alia saltem epistola, quae perierit, ad eosdem episcopos scripta dici deceret post epistolam 5, cum praesertim incredibile sit eos epistolae Leonis fere ante biennium scriptae, quae citum responsum flagitaverat, tamdiu distulisse respondere, ut huic responsioni has litteras pontifex reddiderit. Enimvero cum Leo Illyricianis dedit epistolam quintam, sextam epistolam tradidit Anastasio. Anastasium vero his litteris ante hoc tempus respondisse, et aliquot alias epistolas hinc inde fuisse datas et redditas patebit ex an. 1 (col. 666 m) in epistolam sequentem. Verisimillimum itaque est Illyricianos quoque citius eadem qua Anastasius sollicitudine respondisse epistolae quintae; tum vero nonullas alias accepisse litteras Leonis, quarum hic plurali numero fit mentio. Solus tamen pluralis numerus epistolas non cogeret. Leo enim epist. 102, c. 1, unicam Gallorum epistolam 99 spectans, plurali numero utitur: Diu exspectatas epistolas.... gratanter accepimus. Et similiter epist. 107, de unica Juliani epistola ait: Rescribens itaque ad epistolas tuas: ac epist. 117, cap. 1, de unica epistola ad Anatolium: Ad Constantinopolitanum episcopum epistolas dederim. Mox in cod. Barberino a tua dilectione; et post pauca in provinciis suis, seu potius in provincia tua; et c. 2, tua noverit dilectio; quae suspicionem afferunt hanc epistolam datam fuisse a pari. Sed captis 4 formulae pluralis numeri Holstenii emendationem in his tribus testibus satis aequam suaserunt, nisi quis forte capitis 4 verba potius emendanda et singulari numero efferenda existimet. Monemus tamen in epist. 150, quae pluribus metropolitis a pari data fuit, in codice Grimanico nunc singulari numero tua, nunc vestra numero plurali scriptum reperiri.

Letters 5 and 6, which we gave above, are believed to be meant. But if the words epistolas nostras a vestra dilectione susceptas indicate several letters delivered to the bishops of Illyricum themselves (which Letter 6 is not, since it was given to Anastasius alone), then at least one other letter, which has perished, would have to be said to have been written to the same bishops after Letter 5, especially since it is incredible that they should have put off replying so long to a letter of Leo written almost two years before, which had demanded a speedy answer, that the pontiff should have returned this letter to that reply. For indeed, when Leo gave the fifth letter to the Illyrians, he delivered the sixth letter to Anastasius. That Anastasius replied to this letter before this time, and that several other letters were given and returned on either side, will be clear from note 1 (col. 666 m) on the following letter. It is therefore most likely that the Illyrians too replied to the fifth letter rather quickly, with the same solicitude as Anastasius; and then that they received some other letters of Leo, which are mentioned here in the plural number. Yet the plural number epistolas alone would not compel this. For Leo in Letter 102, c. 1, with reference to the single letter 99 of the Gauls, uses the plural number: Diu exspectatas epistolas.... gratanter accepimus [the long-awaited letters ... we have gratefully received]. And similarly in Letter 107 he says of a single letter of Julian: Rescribens itaque ad epistolas tuas [writing back, then, to your letters]; and in Letter 117, chap. 1, of a single letter to Anatolius: Ad Constantinopolitanum episcopum epistolas dederim [I had given letters to the bishop of Constantinople]. Soon after, in the Barberini manuscript, a tua dilectione; and a little after, in provinciis suis, or rather in provincia tua; and in c. 2, tua noverit dilectio; which raise the suspicion that this letter was given a pari [in identical copies]. But the formulas of the plural number in chap. 4 persuaded us that Holstenius's correction was fair enough against these three witnesses, unless someone perhaps thinks that the words of chap. 4 should rather be corrected and put in the singular number. We point out, however, that in Letter 150, which was given a pari to several metropolitans, in the Grimani manuscript is found written now tua in the singular number, now vestra in the plural number.

(j) ‹sedis apostolicae auctoritas› · printed under col 664

Respicit anteriorum pontificum, et suas epistolas de vicariatu apostolico episcopi Thessalonicensis.

He has in view the letters of earlier pontiffs, and his own, concerning the apostolic vicariate of the bishop of Thessalonica.

(k) ‹Ut si quae› · printed under col 664

Vide not. 1 Quesn. et observationem nostram.

See Quesnel's note 1 and our observation.

Synopsis of Letter XIII (item IV) continued from col 663, set in n663

(a) ‹Invitati fratres› · printed under col 665

Vide not. 2 Quesn. Mox, finiri pro finire emendandum credidimus.

See Quesnel's note 2. Soon after, we believed finire should be corrected to finiri.

(b) ‹retinentur,› · printed under col 665

In ms. Barb. corrupte habetur fraternos studios. Holstenius, quem secutus est Quesnellus, correxit fraterno se studio. Cum vero ex ingenio emendandum sit, fraternum studium magis placet: nisi aliquid supplendum videatur ex epist. 5, cap. 4, et sexta, cap. 5, hoc modo: fraterno se studio sanctae congregationi non denegent.

In the Barberini manuscript is found, corruptly, fraternos studios. Holstenius, whom Quesnel followed, corrected it to fraterno se studio. But since it must be corrected by conjecture, fraternum studium pleases more: unless something seems to need supplying from Letter 5, chap. 4, and the sixth, chap. 5, in this way: fraterno se studio sanctae congregationi non denegent [let them not deny themselves with brotherly zeal to the holy assembly].

(c) ‹moderatio nostra› · printed under col 665

Quesnellus in margine indicavit hic significari sequentem epistolam ad Anastasium cap. 10, ac si haec antea scripta fuisset; cum tamen eam postea lucubratam probaturi simus. Aliae ergo innuuntur Leonis ad eumdem Anastasium litterae, quas ante sequentem epistolam datas ac deperditas ostendemus annot. 1 (infra m) id ep. sequentem. Neque novum, si de eadem re etiam in sequenti epistola sermo sit cap. 10. Similia enim in pluribus litteris a Leone repetita inveniuntur.

Quesnel indicated in the margin that the following letter to Anastasius, chap. 10, is meant here, as if that had been written before; whereas we shall prove that it was composed afterwards. Other letters of Leo to the same Anastasius are therefore hinted at, which we shall show in note 1 (below, m) on the following letter to have been given before the following letter and lost. Nor is it anything new if in the following letter too, chap. 10, the discourse is about the same matter. For similar things are found repeated by Leo in several letters.

(d) ‹necessitas indicatur;› · printed under col 665

In ms. habetur et.... nosve episcopos. Holstenius supplevit, ut credimus, satis tute, cum epistola sequenti, cap. 10, binos episcopos ex singulis provinciis Thessalonicam proficisci S. pontifex jusserit: qui numerus posterius constitutus non impedit quin antea Leo, cum hanc epistolam dedit, latius binos ternosve poteruit scribere. In epistola quae desideratur ad Anastasium, uti superiori annot. indicavimus, quaeque una cum his litteris transmissa fuit, hac eadem latiori formula usus credi potest.

In the manuscript is found et.... nosve episcopos. Holstenius supplied it, as we believe, safely enough, since in the following letter, chap. 10, the holy pontiff ordered two bishops from each province to set out for Thessalonica: which number, fixed later, does not prevent Leo from having been able earlier, when he gave this letter, to write more broadly binos ternosve [two or three]. In the letter to Anastasius that is missing, as we indicated in the preceding note, and which was sent together with this letter, he may be believed to have used this same broader formula.

(e) ‹Achaiae provinciae› · printed under cols 665–666

Holstenius Petrum Corinthi episcopum credit, qui adfuit synodo Chalcedonensi an. 451. Sed potius judicandus est praedecessor ejus Erasistratus, qui pseudo-synodo Ephesinae an. 449, interfuit.

Holstenius believes it to be Peter, bishop of Corinth, who was present at the synod of Chalcedon in the year 451. But rather his predecessor Erasistratus is to be judged meant, who took part in the pseudo-synod of Ephesus in the year 449.

(f) ‹non visum episcopum consecraret;› · printed under col 666

Lectionem codicis revocavimus, quam Holstenius nulla re cogente mutavit sic: illi prorsus metropolitano hoc licere non permittimus. Ex abusu scilicet metropolitani Achaiae non singulare illi praeceptum, sed generalem legem omnibus praestitutam, et a nullo violandam se praescribere S. pontifex innuit, cum quo consentit generale decretum propositum epistola sequenti c. 5.

We have restored the reading of the manuscript, which Holstenius, with nothing compelling him, changed thus: illi prorsus metropolitano hoc licere non permittimus [we do not at all permit this to be lawful for that metropolitan]. For the holy pontiff indicates that, on account of the abuse of the metropolitan of Achaia, he is prescribing not a precept peculiar to him, but a general law set before all and to be violated by none, with which the general decree set forth in the following letter, c. 5, agrees.

(e) continued from col 665, set in n665

(f): called in col 665, printed under col 666, set in n665

(g) ‹cum custodientem› · printed under col 666

Ita codex, et Holstenius. In Quesnelli editione errore typographorum, talis.

So the manuscript, and Holstenius. In Quesnel's edition, by a printers' error, talis.

(h) ‹a Domino uberior› · printed under col 666

Corrigendum videtur subsequatur: neque enim obsequor in subsequendi significatione apud probatos scriptores reperimus.

It seems it should be corrected to subsequatur: for we do not find obsequor in the sense of following after in approved writers.

(i) ‹quoniam hoc et› · printed under col 666

Vide not. 3 Quesn.

See Quesnel's note 3.

(j) ‹a nobis› · printed under col 666

Sic in ms. Quesnellus cum Holstenio, piae.

So in the manuscript. Quesnel with Holstenius, piae.

(k) ‹Anastasium› · printed under col 666

Quesnellus not. 1 in sequentem epistolam hunc locum de eadem epistola intelligit. Sed in litteris de quibus hic sermo est, S. Leo Anastasio praeceperat ut quae decrevit in notitiam Illyricianorum litteris perduceret; quod in sequenti epistola praeceptum nullibi legitur. Similiter epist. 6, ubi alia monita eidem Anastasio dedit, ut ea in omnium fratrum faceret notitiam pervenire, cap. 6 expresse mandaverat. Hinc alia ad Anastasium epistola, quae perit, hoc loco designatur.

Quesnel, in note 1 on the following letter, understands this passage of that same letter. But in the letter spoken of here St Leo had instructed Anastasius to bring what he had decreed to the knowledge of the Illyrians by letter; which precept is nowhere read in the following letter. Similarly in Letter 6, where he gave other admonitions to the same Anastasius, he had expressly commanded, in chap. 6, that he should make them come to the knowledge of all the brethren. Hence another letter to Anastasius, which is lost, is meant in this place.

(l) ‹EPISTOLA XIV› · printed under col 666

Al. 12. Quae autem erat 14, nunc 18. Scripta ⟨p⟩ost praecedentem.

Elsewhere 12. The one that was 14 is now 18. Written after the preceding one.

(m) ‹AD ANASTASIUM THESSALONICENSEM› · printed under cols 666–668

Quesnellus not. 1 hanc epistolam, quae in omnibus mss. chronica notatione caret, ante praecedentem an. 445 scriptam eidemque praemittendam arbitratus est, eo quod ob aliquam sententiarum similitudinem, quae in utrisque continentur, eam esse credidit quae in praecedenti allegatur cap. ult., illis verbis: Plenius vero observare debent quae caveri ad ipsum fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum Anastasium scripsimus. Cum vero similes hujusmodi sententiae seu decreta similia Leo identidem inculcare soleat in epistolis diversis (nonnihil sane simile reperitur epistola 6), haec similitudo nihil cogit. Potiora autem nobis suppetunt momenta quibus hanc epistolam diversam et posteriorem putemus. In praecedenti epistola cap. 1 S. Leo non solum affirmat se ad Anastasium scripsisse quae cavenda essent, verum etiam addit: Eaque in vestram notitiam in litteris ipsius volumus pervenire; quam praecepti partem in his litteris non reperiri observavimus annot. 16 (col. 666 k) in epist. antecedentem. Praeterea in his litteris cap. 10 Anastasii facultatem in vocandis ad synodum episcopis moderaturus statuit, binos de singulis provinciis episcopos sufficere, eosque a metropolitis eligendos, qui non ultra dies 15 retardentur. Cum moderationem Thessalonicensi im⟨p⟩ositam Illyricianis significare in antecedentibus litteris Leoni expediret, nihil horum praetermisisset, si ea epistola post hanc fuisset scripta, nec latiori et vago sensu binos ternosve episcopos sufficere indicasset, si binos tantum satis esse antea statuisset. Adde quod in litteris ad Illyricianos cap. 3 traditur Anastasius relationem misisse de Corinthiorum episcopo Achaiae metropolita. De hac autem re aliquid Anastasio rescripsisset S. Leo in hac epistola, si ea scripta fuisset aut eodem die aut paulo ante quam laudatas litteras ad Illyricianos traderet. Porro plures litteras a Leone Anastasio datas vel redditas indicant illa cap. 1: Abundant enim apud te monitorum scripta nostrorum, quibus de omnium actionum temperantia frequenter instruximus. Aliae igitur epistolae ante hanc scriptae ea videntur praetulisse quae in praemissis ad Illyricianos litteris indicantur, ita ut haec epistola non anterior, sed posterior habenda sit, id est scripta post diem 6 Januarii an. 446. Porro factum Attici Epiri metropolitae Anastasio curante Thessalonicam adducti, quod eidem scribendae occasionem dedit, hieme contigit ex cap. 1. Num id pertineat ad hiemem exeuntis anni 445, aut ineuntis 446, an vero ad hiemem subsequentem, dubitari posset. At ne ad subsequentem protrahamus, impedit sollicitudo Anastasii, quae in cogendis citius ad officium Illyrici metropolitis longiores moras non videtur tulisse erga Atticum solius infirmitatis impedimenta allegantem, ne evocatus Thessalonicam accederet. Confer quae in hanc rem addidimus in dissert. de Epistolis deperditis num. 14. Si autem hoc factum Attici affigendum sit hiemi exeuntis anni 445 vel ineuntis 446, ut congruum tempus detur profectioni ejus Romam, ubi de vi sibi illata conquestus est, quo et Anastasii diaconi cum ejusdem litteris transmissi fuere, haec epistola ipso anno 446 aliquanto post Januarium exarata dici debet. Haec vero epistola exstat in mss. collect. 2, 3 et 5 usque ad 13, atque in 20 usque ad 24. Reperitur etiam in Vat. Reginae 849, nec non capitibus 3 et 4 per saltum omissis in Vat. 1347 ac Palatino 579. — In tabula titulorum praemissa collect. 5 in ms. Thuaneo haec leguntur num. 72: Ad Anastasium episcopum Thessalonicensem super nimietatis arrogantia vicis apostolicae sedis redargutio cum subjectis sex titulis decretorum. Indicantur autem decreta seu capita sex quae longo epistolae prooemio subjiciuntur. Primum caput incipit a capite tertio nostrae editionis; caput secundum a verbis cap. 6, Metropolitano vero defuncto; tertium a cap. 7; quartum a cap. 8; quintum a cap. 9; sextum a cap. 10 usque ad finem epistolae. Synopsim, quam ex Dionysio praemisimus, ad Vaticanum purum Dionysianum cod. 5845 revocavimus.

In note 1 Quesnel judged that this letter, which in all the manuscripts lacks a chronological notation, was written before the preceding one, in the year 445, and should be placed before it, because, on account of a certain similarity of the statements contained in both, he believed it to be the one alleged in the last chapter of the preceding letter in these words: Plenius vero observare debent quae caveri ad ipsum fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum Anastasium scripsimus [but they ought to observe more fully the things which we have written to our brother and fellow bishop Anastasius himself as to be guarded against]. But since Leo is accustomed to inculcate similar statements of this kind, or similar decrees, again and again in different letters (something quite similar is indeed found in Letter 6), this similarity compels nothing. We have, moreover, weightier grounds on which to think this letter a different and later one. In the preceding letter, chap. 1, St Leo not only affirms that he has written to Anastasius what was to be guarded against, but also adds: Eaque in vestram notitiam in litteris ipsius volumus pervenire [and we wish these to come to your knowledge in his letters]; and we observed in note 16 (col. 666 k) on the preceding letter that this part of the precept is not found in this letter. Besides, in this letter, chap. 10, intending to moderate the power of Anastasius in summoning bishops to a synod, he lays down that two bishops from each province suffice, and that they are to be chosen by the metropolitans, and are not to be delayed beyond 15 days. Since it would have been expedient for Leo to make known to the Illyrians in the preceding letter the moderation imposed on the bishop of Thessalonica, he would have passed over none of these things if that letter had been written after this one, nor would he have indicated in a broader and vague sense that two or three bishops suffice, if he had earlier laid down that two only were enough. Add that in the letter to the Illyrians, chap. 3, Anastasius is related to have sent a report concerning the bishop of the Corinthians, the metropolitan of Achaia. St Leo would have written back something about this matter to Anastasius in this letter, if it had been written either on the same day or a little before he delivered the cited letter to the Illyrians. Further, the words of chap. 1 indicate that several letters were given by Leo to Anastasius or returned: Abundant enim apud te monitorum scripta nostrorum, quibus de omnium actionum temperantia frequenter instruximus [for you have in abundance the writings of our admonitions, by which we have frequently instructed you concerning moderation in all your actions]. Other letters written before this one, therefore, seem to have set forth the things indicated in the letter to the Illyrians given above, so that this letter is to be held not earlier but later, that is, written after 6 January in the year 446. Further, the deed done to Atticus, metropolitan of Epirus, who was brought to Thessalonica at the instance of Anastasius, which gave the occasion for writing to him, happened in winter, according to chap. 1. Whether this belongs to the winter at the end of the year 445, or at the beginning of 446, or rather to the following winter, might be doubted. But the solicitude of Anastasius prevents our drawing it out to the following one, since in compelling the metropolitans of Illyricum the more quickly to their duty he does not seem to have borne longer delays towards Atticus, who alleged the hindrances of infirmity alone for not coming to Thessalonica when summoned. Compare what we have added on this matter in the dissertation On the Lost Letters, no. 14. But if this deed done to Atticus is to be assigned to the winter at the end of the year 445 or the beginning of 446, so that a suitable time may be given for his journey to Rome, where he complained of the violence done to him, whither also the deacons of Anastasius were sent with his letters, this letter must be said to have been composed in the year 446 itself, some time after January. This letter survives in the manuscripts of collections 2, 3 and 5 through 13, and in 20 through 24. It is found also in the Vatican Queen's 849, and, with chapters 3 and 4 skipped over, in Vatican 1347 and Palatine 579. — In the table of titles placed before collection 5 in the Thou manuscript these words are read at no. 72: Ad Anastasium episcopum Thessalonicensem super nimietatis arrogantia vicis apostolicae sedis redargutio cum subjectis sex titulis decretorum [to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica, a rebuke concerning the excessive arrogance of the vicariate of the apostolic see, with six titles of decrees subjoined]. The decrees, or six chapters, are meant which are subjoined to the long preface of the letter. The first chapter begins at the third chapter of our edition; the second chapter at the words of chap. 6, Metropolitano vero defuncto; the third at chap. 7; the fourth at chap. 8; the fifth at chap. 9; the sixth from chap. 10 to the end of the letter. The synopsis which we have placed at the front from Dionysius we have brought back to the pure Dionysian Vatican manuscript 5845.

SYNOPSIS (Ex Dionysio Exiguo). — I. Quod semper Thessalonicenses antistites vices apostolicae sedis impleverint. — II. Ut metropolitanis sua jura serventur. — III. Ut a metropolitanis, non laici, non bigami, non viduarum mariti, sed irreprehensibiles ordinentur episcopi. — IV. Quod subdiaconis carnale connubium denegatur. — V. Ut nullus invitus ordinetur antistes. — VI. Ut metropolitanus Epiri de electo quem est ordinaturus in episcopum, ad Thessalonicensem pontificem referat; et de metropolitano electo similiter provinciales episcopi faciant. — VII. Ut bina per annos singulos (Al. per annum provincialia) episcoporum concilia celebrentur; et si res difficilis emerserit, quae non possit Thessalonicensis judicio terminari (Al. et in coll. Hisp., nec fuerit Thessalonicensis episcopi judicio terminata), ad Romanum referatur antistitem. — VIII. Ut si quis episcopus suam deserens civitatem, majorem sedem ambitus causa petierit, non solum ecclesiam obtinere non poterit, sed et sua carere debebit (Al. et in Hisp., nec illam obtinere poterit, et sua carere debebit). — IX. Ut nullus alienum clericum sollicitare vel tenere praesumat, suo episcopo non praebente consensum. — X. Ut in evocandis provincialibus episcopis, (Additur in Hisp., ne sub hoc colore sacerdotalis honor contumeliis addicatur; nec amplius quam bini de provinciis episcopi, quos metropolitani probaverint, dirigantur). — XI. Ut non amplius a statuto concilii tempore, quam dies quindecim remorentur episcopi. (Additur in Hisp., Ut si inter eos de negotio fuerit oborta contentio, cuncta Romano pontifici sub gestorum insinuatione pandantur, ut ab eo quod Deo placuerit ordinetur.)

SYNOPSIS (from Dionysius Exiguus). — I. That the bishops of Thessalonica have always filled the place of the apostolic see. — II. That their rights be kept for the metropolitans. — III. That by the metropolitans not laymen, not the twice-married, not husbands of widows, but irreproachable men be ordained bishops. — IV. That carnal marriage is denied to subdeacons. — V. That no bishop be ordained against the people's will. — VI. That the metropolitan of Epirus report to the bishop of Thessalonica concerning the man elected whom he is to ordain bishop; and that the bishops of the province do likewise concerning an elected metropolitan. — VII. That two councils of bishops be held each year (Al. per annum provincialia [provincial councils each year]); and if a difficult matter arises which cannot be settled by the judgement of the bishop of Thessalonica (Al. and in the Spanish collection, nec fuerit Thessalonicensis episcopi judicio terminata [and has not been settled by the judgement of the bishop of Thessalonica]), it be referred to the Roman bishop. — VIII. That if any bishop, deserting his own city, seeks a greater see for the sake of ambition, not only will he be unable to obtain the church, but he must also lose his own (Al. and in the Spanish, nec illam obtinere poterit, et sua carere debebit). — IX. That no one presume to solicit or keep another's cleric without his own bishop giving consent. — X. That in summoning the bishops of the provinces (the Spanish adds: lest under this pretext the priestly honour be given over to insults; and that no more than two bishops from the provinces, whom the metropolitans have approved, be sent). — XI. That the bishops be not detained more than fifteen days beyond the appointed time of the council. (The Spanish adds: that if contention has arisen among them concerning some business, everything be laid open to the Roman pontiff with a submission of the acts, so that what is pleasing to God may be ordained by him.)

(m) continued from col 666, set in n666

(a) ‹Ut metropolitanus› (in the Synopsis) · printed under col 668

Editi Leonis ante Quesn. omittunt Epiri. In textu quidem generalis lex de omnibus Illyrici metropolitanis fertur. At Dionysius, ex quo tituli sumpti sunt, Epiri scripsit.

The editions of Leo before Quesnel omit Epiri. In the text, indeed, a general law is laid down concerning all the metropolitans of Illyricum. But Dionysius, from whom the titles were taken, wrote Epiri.

Synopsis of Letter XIV (items I, end, to XI) continued from col 666, set in n666

(m) continued from col 667 (note of col 666), set in n666

(a): called in col 667 (Synopsis), printed under col 668, set in n667

(b) ‹Quanta fraternitati tuae› · printed under col 668

Cod. Vindeb. Hisp. delet praepositionem a. Post pauca, mss. collect. 3, 5, et 24, ac Vat. Reg. 849, habent sede pro auctoritate. Sichardus, a beatissimo Petro apostolo. Vide not. 2 Quesn.

The Vienna Spanish manuscript deletes the preposition a. A little after, the manuscripts of collections 3, 5 and 24, and the Vatican Queen's 849, have sede [see] for auctoritate. Sichard, a beatissimo Petro apostolo. See Quesnel's note 2.

(c) ‹imitator nostrae mansuetudinis› · printed under col 668

Collect. Hisp. et Isid. ac mss. collect. 21 cum Ratramno in opere adversus Graecos tom. I Spicilegii Acheriani pag. 110, necnon editi ante Quesnellum addunt effectus. Mox codd. collect. 24 cum Sichardo et antiquoribus editis pro a nobis praeferunt ab apostolica sede. Vide not. 3 Quesn.

The Spanish and Isidorian collections, and the manuscripts of collection 21, with Ratramnus in his work against the Greeks, vol. I of d'Achery's Spicilegium, p. 110, and also the editions before Quesnel, add effectus. Soon after, the manuscripts of collection 24, with Sichard and the older editions, offer ab apostolica sede [from the apostolic see] for a nobis. See Quesnel's note 3.

(d) ‹impenderes:› · printed under col 668

Codd. Dionys. atque Hadrian. pro siquidem habent et. Editi cum mss. collect. 24 et Sichardo, quia de continenti. Mss. Thuan. et Cantab. apud Quesn. in margine: Si quidem convenienti.

The Dionysian and Hadrian manuscripts have et for siquidem. The editions, with the manuscripts of collection 24 and Sichard, quia de continenti. The Thou and Cambridge manuscripts in Quesnel's margin: Si quidem convenienti.

Synopsis of Letter XIV (end of item XI) continued from col 667, set in n666

(a) ‹Nam cum› · printed under col 669

Mss. Thuan. et Cant., majores causae.

The Thou and Cambridge manuscripts, majores causae.

(b) ‹Abundant enim apud te› · printed under col 669

In mss. collect. 24 et Sichardo, monumentorum. Cum una tantum supersit epist. 6 Anastasio ante id tempus data; alias, quae abundare et frequenter datae dicuntur, desiderari cognoscimus.

In the manuscripts of collection 24 and in Sichard, monumentorum. Since only one letter survives, Letter 6, given to Anastasius before that time, we recognize that the others, which are said to abound and to have been given frequently, are missing.

(c) ‹ad salubritatem› · printed under col 669

In Dionys. atque Hadrian. ac duobus mss. Thuan., audientiae. Mox, existunt in ms. Vindebon. collect. 5, in Vat. Hisp. et Isid., nec non in duobus Hadrian. Vercellensibus, et apud Justellum.

In the Dionysian and Hadrian manuscripts and in two Thou manuscripts, audientiae. Soon after, existunt in the Vienna manuscript of collection 5, in the Vatican Spanish and Isidorian, and also in two Hadrian manuscripts of Vercelli, and in Justel.

(d) ‹desides fratres,› · printed under col 669

Iidem codd. Vat., Hisp. et Isid., quos oporteat. Dein, pro auctoritate, mss. tria Quesnelli, austeritate.

The same Vatican, Spanish and Isidorian manuscripts, quos oporteat. Then, for auctoritate, three manuscripts of Quesnel, austeritate [severity].

(e) ‹coepiscopis› · printed under col 669

Cod. Vindeb. collect. 5 delet nostris.

The Vienna manuscript of collection 5 deletes nostris.

(f) ‹reddenda est? ut› · printed under col 669

Dist. 45, Licet nonnumquam.

Dist. 45, Licet nonnumquam.

(g) ‹plus charitas quam potestas.› · printed under col 669

Hanc lectionem, quam Quesnellus ex suis codicibus not. 4 laudatis emendavit, nostri quoque fere omnes et certe potiores confirmant. Vulgatam lectionem: Sed hi qui quae sua sunt quaerunt, non quae Jesu Christi, facile ab hac lege discernuntur, et dum dominari, praeferunt mss. col. 24 et exemplum Sichardi.

This reading, which Quesnel corrected from his manuscripts cited in note 4, almost all of ours too, and certainly the better ones, confirm. The common reading, Sed hi qui quae sua sunt quaerunt, non quae Jesu Christi, facile ab hac lege discernuntur, et dum dominari [but those who seek the things that are their own, not those of Jesus Christ, are easily distinguished from this law, and while to lord it], is offered by the manuscripts of collection 24 and Sichard's copy.

(h) ‹magis quam consulere› · printed under col 669

Ratramnus loco allegato, et in edit. Concil., subditis quaerunt, placet honor, inflat superbia.

Ratramnus in the place cited, and in the edition of the Councils, subditis quaerunt, placet honor, inflat superbia.

(i) ‹tendit ad noxam:› · printed under col 669

Antiquissimus Vat. 1342 collect. 3: Quod utique necesse habemus, ita dicimus. Alias Vat.: Quod, ut necesse habemus dicere; idque insereremus textui, si aliis probae notae codicibus fulciretur. Justellus quoque legit habemus.

The very ancient Vatican 1342 of collection 3: Quod utique necesse habemus, ita dicimus. Another Vatican: Quod, ut necesse habemus dicere; and we would insert this in the text, if it were supported by other manuscripts of sound character. Justel too reads habemus.

(j) ‹enim quodammodo› · printed under col 669

Al., in culpa sentio. Mox, deviasse pro discessisse in Vulg. ante Quesn. cum mss. collect. 24 et Sichardo. Codd. Vind. col. 5 et Vercell. Hadrian., descivisse.

Elsewhere, in culpa sentio. Soon after, deviasse for discessisse in the common editions before Quesnel, with the manuscripts of collection 24 and Sichard. The Vienna manuscript of collection 5 and the Hadrian manuscripts of Vercelli, descivisse.

(k) ‹a praecessoribus meis› · printed under cols 669–670

Mss. Vat. Hisp. et Isid., cum Ratramno et Justello, atque Vulg. ante Quesn., inveniet, perperam; neque enim in Leonis aut praedecessorum epistolis inveniri poterat ordinatum, quod S. Leo ab Anastasio praesumptum conqueritur. Inveniat urgentis simul et negantis vim habet.

The Vatican Spanish and Isidorian manuscripts, with Ratramnus and Justel, and the common editions before Quesnel, inveniet [he will find], wrongly; for what St Leo complains was presumed by Anastasius could not be found ordained in the letters of Leo or of his predecessors. Inveniat has the force at once of urging and of denying.

(l) ‹veteris Epiri› · printed under col 670

Ita mss. Quidam editi ex Crabbo, Nicopolitanus. Vide not. 5 Quesn.

So the manuscripts. Some editions, from Crabbe, Nicopolitanus. See Quesnel's note 5.

(m) ‹de indignissima› · printed under col 670

Quesnellus praetulit astrictione, quam lectionem ipse in uno, quem not. 6 allegat ms. Victor., nos in Vat. 544 utroque collectionis 24 et apud Sichardum reperimus. Caeterorum omnium cum editorum, tum codicum lectionem restituendam putavimus.

Quesnel preferred astrictione [constraint], a reading which he found in one manuscript, the Saint-Victor one which he cites in note 6, and we in Vatican 544, both of collection 24, and in Sichard. We thought the reading of all the others, both editions and manuscripts, should be restored.

(n) ‹diaconibus tuis, qui› · printed under col 670

Ms. Corb. collect. 2 apud Quesn. in marg., querulis fletibus. Paulo post, Ratramnus cum Vat. Hisp. et Isid., iidem ad me diaconi tui. In Vindeb. collect. 5 et in Vat. Dionysii cum editis ante Quesn. deest tui.

The Corbie manuscript of collection 2, in Quesnel's margin, querulis fletibus. A little after, Ratramnus with the Vatican Spanish and Isidorian, iidem ad me diaconi tui. In the Vienna manuscript of collection 5 and in the Vatican of Dionysius, with the editions before Quesnel, tui is missing.

(o) ‹scripturae professione› · printed under col 670

Cod. Vindebon. collect. 5 inserit sua, et paulo post, possit pro posset, et fuisset pro fuisse, et conscripserit pro conscripserat.

The Vienna manuscript of collection 5 inserts sua, and a little after, possit for posset, and fuisset for fuisse, and conscripserit for conscripserat.

(p) ‹signum› · printed under col 670

Vat. Hisp. cum duobus aliis mss. collect. 21 probatur injuriae.

The Vatican Spanish, with two other manuscripts of collection 21, probatur injuriae.

(q) ‹silentio fuerat adopertum,› · printed under col 670

Mss. collect. 24 cum editis ante Quesn. et Sichardo, adhibitam. Caeteri nostri codices, ut in textu. Solus Vindeb. collect. 5, prima manu, aditam, secunda vero emendatum adhibitam.

The manuscripts of collection 24, with the editions before Quesnel and Sichard, adhibitam [employed]. Our other manuscripts, as in the text. Only the Vienna one of collection 5 has aditam in the first hand, but corrected to adhibitam in the second.

(r) ‹potestatem› · printed under col 670

Vide not. 7 Quesn.

See Quesnel's note 7.

(s) ‹aegritudinis,› · printed under col 670

Cod. Vat. collect. 24 cum Sichardo, non obstantis hiemis; et paulo post, per invias cautes.

The Vatican manuscript of collection 24, with Sichard, non obstantis hiemis; and a little after, per invias cautes [through trackless crags].

(a) ‹Multum stupeo› · printed under col 671

3, qu. 6, Multum, c. 8.

[Gratian, Causa] 3, question 6, Multum, c. 8.

(b) ‹exspectandum tibi› · printed under col 671

Editi ante Quesn. cum Ratramno et ms. Vindeb., Hisp. aliisque codd. collect. 21, fuerat. Hi postremi mox praeferunt quid consulti rescriberemus.

The editions before Quesnel, with Ratramnus and the Vienna manuscript, the Spanish and other manuscripts of collection 21, fuerat. These last shortly after offer quid consulti rescriberemus.

(c) ‹et quam› · printed under col 671

Vide not. 8 Quesn.

See Quesnel's note 8.

(d) ‹motus tuos exsequi› · printed under col 671

Ita Dionysius, tres Thuanei codd. et unus Corb. a Quesnello in margine laudati, nec non plerique et potiores nostri exceptis mss. Hisp., Isid. et alii collect. 24, in quibus cum Ratramno, Sichardo, et anterioribus editis habetur sine dilatione. Mox, aliud disponentis in Vat. collect. 24 et Sichardo.

So Dionysius, three manuscripts of de Thou and one of Corbie cited by Quesnel in the margin, and also most and the better of ours, except the Spanish and Isidorian manuscripts and another of collection 24, in which, with Ratramnus, Sichard and the earlier editions, sine dilatione [without delay] is found. Shortly after, aliud disponentis in the Vatican manuscript of collection 24 and in Sichard.

(e) ‹aliquod tibi facinus› · printed under col 671

Ratramnus et mss. collect. 24 cum Sichardo et Vulg. addunt fratris. Mox, metropolitanum, quod legebatur in editis ante Quesn., restituimus ex plerisque nostris diversarum collectionum codicibus, praesertim Vat. 1342 collect, 3 et alio Vat. puro Dionysiano. In duobus Vindebon., altero collect. 5, altero Hisp., legitur Nicopolitanum, quod sine ullo sensus discrimine Quesnellus recepit; Epiri enim metropolitanus, cujus hic mentio est, erat Nicopolitanus episcopus. Dein, apud te criminis pondus arguebat est in mss. Vat. Hisp. et Isid., nec non in Vat. collect. 3, et in collect. 21. Vindebon. collect. 5 habet tantum arguebat. In codd. autem Vindebon. Hispan., et Vat. collection. 24, ac anterioribus editis, apud te criminis pondus urgebat.

Ratramnus and the manuscripts of collection 24, with Sichard and the common editions, add fratris [of a brother]. Shortly after, metropolitanum, which was read in the editions before Quesnel, we have restored from most of our manuscripts of various collections, especially Vatican 1342 of collection 3 and another Vatican one of pure Dionysius. In two Vienna manuscripts, one of collection 5, the other Spanish, Nicopolitanum is read, which Quesnel adopted without any difference of sense; for the metropolitan of Epirus, of whom mention is made here, was the bishop of Nicopolis. Next, apud te criminis pondus arguebat is in the Vatican Spanish and Isidorian manuscripts, and also in the Vatican one of collection 3, and in collection 21. The Vienna manuscript of collection 5 has only arguebat. But in the Vienna Spanish manuscripts, and the Vatican one of collection 24, and in the earlier editions, apud te criminis pondus urgebat.

(f) ‹nihil ei objiciendo› · printed under col 671

Quatuor codd., confirmasses. Melius in marg. editionis Labb., cognosceris confirmasse. Postea editi ante Quesn. cum mss. collect. 24, gessisset; caeteri codices, committeret.

Four manuscripts, confirmasses. Better, in the margin of Labbe's edition, cognosceris confirmasse [you are known to have confirmed]. Afterwards the editions before Quesnel, with the manuscripts of collection 24, gessisset; the other manuscripts, committeret.

(g) ‹ipse decerneres,› · printed under col 671

Justellus, quam quod nobis placere cognosceres.

Justel, quam quod nobis placere cognosceres.

(h) ‹auferatur,› · printed under col 671

25, qu. 2, Igitur, c. 5.

[Gratian, Causa] 25, question 2, Igitur, c. 5.

(i) ‹bonae vitae› · printed under col 672

Ita cum Quesnello antiquissimus Vat. collect. 3 et Vindebon. collect. 5, necnon codd. collect. 24 et exemplum Sichardi Dionysius. Et aliae collectiones cum caeteris editis, testimonio fulciatur.

So, with Quesnel, the very ancient Vatican manuscript of collection 3 and the Vienna one of collection 5, and also the manuscripts of collection 24 and Sichard's copy of Dionysius. And the other collections, with the remaining editions, testimonio fulciatur [be supported by testimony].

(j) ‹sit maritus,› · printed under col 672

De necessaria hujus loci emendatione, quam plerique nostri antiqui codices praeferunt, vide notam 9 Quesnelli. Solum quidam codices collect. 21, vulgatam lectionem exhibent, aut qui vel unam quidem habeat, vel habuerit, sed nec qui sibi viduam copularit. Alii vero ejusdem collect. cum utroque Hisp. et cum Vat. Isid., aut qui unam quidem habeat, vel habuerit, sed nec quam sibi viduam copularit; at particula nec delenda in Vat. Isid., subducta linea notatur, Ms. Vat. collection. 3, sed quam sibi viduam non copularit.

On the necessary emendation of this passage, which most of our ancient manuscripts offer, see Quesnel's note 9. Only certain manuscripts of collection 21 show the common reading, aut qui vel unam quidem habeat, vel habuerit, sed nec qui sibi viduam copularit. But others of the same collection, with both Spanish ones and with the Vatican Isidorian, aut qui unam quidem habeat, vel habuerit, sed nec quam sibi viduam copularit; but in the Vatican Isidorian the particle nec is marked for deletion by a line drawn under it. The Vatican manuscript of collection 3, sed quam sibi viduam non copularit.

(k) ‹viduam copularit.› · printed under col 672

Dist. 32, Omnium sacerdotum, c. 1.

[Gratian,] Distinction 32, Omnium sacerdotum, c. 1.

(l) ‹Nam cum extra› · printed under col 672

Vide not. 10 Quesn.

See Quesnel's note 10.

(m) ‹procreationi filiorum studere sit› · printed under col 672

Quesnellus nihil indicans, post vocem liberum adjecit arbitrium: quod in Dionysio quidem, in Hisp., Isid. aliisque posterioribus collectionibus reperimus. Sed magis Leonina visa est lectio anteriorum editionum, quae cum mss. collect. 3, 5 et 24, Merlino et Sichardo, hoc substantivum praetermittit.

Quesnel, without indicating it, added arbitrium [choice] after the word liberum: which we find indeed in Dionysius, in the Spanish, the Isidorian and other later collections. But the reading of the earlier editions seemed more Leonine, which, with the manuscripts of collections 3, 5 and 24, Merlin and Sichard, omits this noun.

(n) ‹continentiae puritatem,› · printed under col 672

Vide not. 11 Quesnelli.

See Quesnel's note 11.

(o) ‹magis in primo› · printed under col 672

Cod. Vat. Dionysii et Justellus, vel secundo tertiove. Mox, levitico ministerio in mss. collect. 24 cum editis ante Quesnellum: qui praeterea corrigendus est, cum in postilla marginali notaverit, vocem ministerio in editis additam deleri in omnibus mss. codd. Eam uti maxime congruam insereremus textui, si quibus mss. alterius antiquioris collectionis probaretur.

The Vatican manuscript of Dionysius and Justel, vel secundo tertiove. Shortly after, levitico ministerio [the Levitical ministry] in the manuscripts of collection 24, with the editions before Quesnel: who moreover is to be corrected, since in a marginal note he remarked that the word ministerio, added in the editions, is absent in all the manuscripts. We would insert it into the text as most fitting, if it were supported by any manuscripts of another, more ancient collection.

(a) ‹se a voluptate› · printed under col 673

Justellus, uxoris. Mss. Hisp., Isid. et collect. 21, a voluptate luxuriae.

Justel, uxoris. The Spanish and Isidorian manuscripts and collection 21, a voluptate luxuriae [from the pleasure of lust].

(b) ‹in episcoporum electione.—› · printed under col 673

Dist. 63, Si forte, c. 36; Decret. Ivo. lib. III.

[Gratian,] Distinction 63, Si forte, c. 36; Ivo's Decretum, book 3.

(c) ‹praeponatur quem› · printed under col 673

Vide not. 13 Quesn.

See Quesnel's note 13.

(d) ‹non petentibus ordinetur;› · printed under col 673

Editiones Quesnello anteriores cum ms. Hisp. Isid. et collect. 21, ne plebs invita episcopum. In fine capitis pro voluit, alias voluerit.

The editions earlier than Quesnel, with the Spanish Isidorian manuscript and collection 21, ne plebs invita episcopum. At the end of the chapter, for voluit, elsewhere voluerit.

(e) ‹vicariatum ejus. —› · printed under col 673

Dist. 65, De persona, c. 4.

[Gratian,] Distinction 65, De persona, c. 4.

(f) ‹Metropolitano vero defuncto› · printed under col 673

Dist. 65, Metropolitano, c. 19; et dist. 77, in princip.

[Gratian,] Distinction 65, Metropolitano, c. 19; and Distinction 77, at the beginning.

(g) ‹ex presbyteris› · printed under col 673

Vide not. 14 Quesnelli, et ad verba ex diaconis vide not. ejusdem 15.

See Quesnel's note 14, and on the words ex diaconis see his note 15.

(h) ‹vota poscentium,› · printed under col 673

Vulgat. ante Quesn. cum codd. collect. 24, si quod.

The common editions before Quesnel, with the manuscripts of collection 24, si quod.

(i) ‹non aliud indicimus quam› · printed under col 673

Dist. 18, De conciliis, c. 3; et in Decret. Ivo. lib. IV.

[Gratian,] Distinction 18, De conciliis, c. 3; and in Ivo's Decretum, book 4.

(j) ‹call not found in cols 673–674› · printed under col 673

Vide not. 16 Quesn.

See Quesnel's note 16.

(k)–(n): calls in col 674, printed under col 673 ((n) runs on under col 674); set in n674.

(k) ‹peccatis causa› · printed under col 673

Ms. Vat. Dionys. et codd. collect. 24 cum Merlino et Sichardo, nascatur. In fine capitis, pro transferatur ms. Vindeb. Hisp. habet referatur.

The Vatican manuscript of Dionysius and the manuscripts of collection 24, with Merlin and Sichard, nascatur. At the end of the chapter, for transferatur the Vienna Spanish manuscript has referatur.

(l) ‹episcoporum amputandis.—› · printed under col 673

7, qu. 1, Si quis episcopus, c. 1.

[Gratian, Causa] 7, question 1, Si quis episcopus, c. 1.

(m) ‹Si quis› · printed under col 673

Dionys. cum. mss. Hadrian., Hisp. et Isid., inserunt autem. Vide not. 17 Quesn.

Dionysius with the Hadrianic, Spanish and Isidorian manuscripts insert autem. See Quesnel's note 17.

(n) ‹quacumque› · printed under cols 673–674

Mss. Vat. collect. 3, Vindebon. collect. 5 et codd. collect. 24 cum editis ante Quesn., occasione; caeteri nostri et omnes Quesnelli in margine ab eodem citati, ratione. Mox pellatur pro pelletur in codd. Dionys., Hadrian., Hisp. et Isid.

The Vatican manuscripts of collection 3, the Vienna one of collection 5 and the manuscripts of collection 24, with the editions before Quesnel, occasione [occasion]; our others and all of Quesnel's cited by him in the margin, ratione. Shortly after, pellatur for pelletur in the manuscripts of Dionysius, the Hadrianic, Spanish and Isidorian.

(o) ‹clericis transfugis.—› · printed under col 674

Vide not. 18 Quesn. Post pauca editi ante Quesn. cum mss. Vat. Dionysii et duobus Hadrian. ac Vindeb. Hisp., conveniat.

See Quesnel's note 18. A little after, the editions before Quesnel, with the Vatican manuscripts of Dionysius and two Hadrianic ones and the Vienna Spanish, conveniat.

(p) ‹Alienum› · printed under col 674

19, qu. 2, Alienum clericum, c. 1.

[Gratian, Causa] 19, question 2, Alienum clericum, c. 1.

(q) ‹audet vel› · printed under col 674

Quesnellus in margine: Ita edit. Nicolini, Merlini, Romana, et posteriores omnes, et codices mss. tres. Alii quatuor cum Dion., Cresc., Sichard., Canis. edit., habent abjicere, et hoc male. Omnes fere nostri codices habent allicere, pro quo Vat. Dionysii illicere, aeque bene. Nostra quoque Sichardi editio habet allicere. Soli mss. libri Vat. Hisp. et Isid., abjicere. At Vindebonensis, qui puriorem Hispanicam refert, allicere. Mox, agatur in antiquioribus editionibus non solum cum mss. collect. 24 et Sichardo, verum etiam cum Vindeb. collect. 5, pro agitur. Et paulo post in Vat. Dionysii et Vindeb. Hisp. compellat pro compellet; processit vero pro recessit in antiquis editionibus et mss. collect. 24.

Quesnel in the margin: So the editions of Nicolinus, of Merlin, the Roman, and all later ones, and three manuscripts. Four others, with Dionysius, Cresconius, Sichard and Canisius's edition, have abjicere, and this wrongly. Almost all our manuscripts have allicere, for which the Vatican manuscript of Dionysius has illicere, equally well. Our edition of Sichard also has allicere. Only the Vatican Spanish and Isidorian manuscript books, abjicere. But the Vienna one, which represents the purer Spanish, allicere. Shortly after, agatur in the older editions, not only with the manuscripts of collection 24 and Sichard, but also with the Vienna one of collection 5, for agitur. And a little after, in the Vatican manuscript of Dionysius and the Vienna Spanish, compellat for compellet; and processit for recessit in the old editions and the manuscripts of collection 24.

(r) ‹ob quam› · printed under col 674

Quesnellus ex mss. addidit rationabile, ac. Hae voces leguntur quoque in nostris codicibus. Desunt in mss. collect. 24. Post pauca, suffecerit pro sufficiat in Vat. collect. 3.

Quesnel added rationabile, ac from the manuscripts. These words are read in our manuscripts too. They are lacking in the manuscripts of collection 24. A little after, suffecerit for sufficiat in the Vatican manuscript of collection 3.

(s) ‹sufficiat, ita› · printed under col 674

Hic incip. cap. 11 Dionys. Exig.

Here begins chapter 11 in Dionysius Exiguus.

(a) ‹sub gestorum testificatione› · printed under col 675

Ita plerique mss. libri, et editi cum Dionysio. Quesnellus, referentur.

So most manuscript books, and the editions with Dionysius. Quesnel, referentur.

(b) ‹non similis sit› · printed under col 675

Mss. collect, 24 cum Vulg. ante Quesn., omnium.

The manuscripts of collection 24, with the common editions before Quesnel, omnium.

(c) ‹Unusquisque› · printed under col 675

In mss. Hisp. et Isid. atque in codd. collect. 21 omittitur vestrum. Mox in bono pro in bonum habent editi ante Quesn. cum ms. Vindebon. collect. 5, in quo paulo ante, et sicut Apostolus.

In the Spanish and Isidorian manuscripts and in the manuscripts of collection 21 vestrum is omitted. Shortly after, the editions before Quesnel, with the Vienna manuscript of collection 5, have in bono for in bonum; in that manuscript a little before, et sicut Apostolus.

(d)–(e): calls in col 676, printed under col 675 ((e) runs on under col 676); set in n676.

(d) ‹membra (Rom. XII, 5; I Cor. XII, 12).› · printed under col 675

Idem Vindebon. collect. 5, Haec connexio.

The same Vienna manuscript of collection 5, Haec connexio.

(e) ‹concordiam sacerdotum.› · printed under cols 675–676

De lectione quidem Dionysii dubitandum non est, ut dubitavit Quesnellus not. 19. Nam in antiquissimo Vaticano et puro Dionysiano codice habetur: Quibus etsi dignitas communis non est, tamen ordo generalis est. Concordant mss. libri Vat. Hisp. et Isid., nec non omnes Hadrianei; praeterea Florentinus collect. 13 et codex peculiaris originis Vat. 1347, ac tandem mss. collect. 21. Quesnellus ex suis codd. collect. 2 et 5, nimirum Corbeiensi, et Trecopithaeano, et quatuor aliis Thuaneis hanc aliam lectionem textui inseruit, quam nos in uno Vindebon. Hisp. invenimus: Quibus etsi dignitas sit communis, non est tamen ordo generalis. Clarius vero et cavillationi minus obvium, inquit in laudata nota, habent cod. Victor. ms. et editiones Surii, Merlini, et Nicolini, cum sic legant: Quibus cum dignitas sit communis, non est tamen ordo generalis. Tota mutatio est vocis etsi in cum; cui quoque particulae non raro apud probatos scriptores exemplo tamen subjicitur. Nobis autem haec lectio magis placuit, cum eam praeferant codices Vat. collect. 3. Vindebon. collect. 5, Vat. collect. 24, peculiaris Vat. Reginae 840, et praeter exemplum Merlini collect. 12 etiam exemplum Sichardi. Eodem tamen utraque recidit nostra et Quesnelli lectio: unde haec probatur auctoritate plurium collectionum; quarum tres si non superant aetatem Dionysii, eidem profecto suppares existunt, et ab eodem fonte prodire dici nequeunt. Contextus quidem hanc lectionem videtur postulare. In ejusmodi enim propositionibus ex duplici commate constantibus, postremum comma particula tamen affectum illud est, quod probandum assumitur. Probationes autem quae a Leone subjiciuntur, quaeque discrimen inter episcopos statuunt, non affirmativam propositionem, qualis apud Dionysium legitur, tamen ordo generalis est, videlicet sine discrimine; sed hanc negativam a nobis receptam, non est tamen ordo generalis, efflagitant. Cum porro S. Leo in sequentibus fateatur, sicut olim inter apostolos, ita postea inter episcopos potestatem esse diversam; dignitatem, quam episcopis communem affirmat, non pro potestate et jurisdictione accipit, sed pro episcopatus honore, seu charactere, qui sane idem in omnibus est: ordinem vero, quem dum generalem inter episcopos negat, diversum insinuat, non sumit pro sacro episcopali ordine, ut vocare solemus, sed pro ordine hierarchico, qui cum jurisdictionem et auctoritatem majorem in aliis, in aliis minorem requirat, non est utique generalis, id est idem in omnibus sine jurisdictionis discrimine. Hinc ex apostolorum forma, qua Petrum caeteris auctoritate et jurisdictione praefectum pontifex hoc loco indicat, et aliis in locis apertius declarat, episcoporum distinctionem ortam tradit, in quibus non omnes sibi omnia similiter vindicarent, sed quidam provinciis singulis haberent primam sententiam, uti metropolitae, quidam vero in majoribus urbibus constituti sollicitudinem susciperent ampliorem, nimirum non tam in episcopos quam in metropolitas ipsos, a quibus obedientiam exigerent, uti exarchi, seu patriarchae, ac ipse episcopus Thessalonicensis, quem vicarium sedis apostolicae cum peculiari jure toti Illyrico idem Leo ejusque antecessores praefecerant. Haec autem eo concilio ordinata pronuntiat, ut per hos ad unam Petri sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret, et nihil usquam a suo capite dissideret: quibus summam Romani pontificis auctoritatem, et jurisdictionis primatum, unitatem Ecclesiae prospicientem declarat. Ita quatuor veluti ordines, seu gradus hierarchicos inter episcopos astruit, episcopalem, metropoliticum, exarchicum seu vicarii apostolici, et pontificium: hisque etsi dignitatem episcopalis honoris seu characteris affirmat communem, ordinem tamen hierarchicum generalem non esse monet, cum pro diversitate gradus hierarchici auctoritate et potestate distinguantur. Qui hoc testimonium ad aequale omnium episcoporum jus trahunt, voces dignitatis et ordinis in recentiorem sensum a Leonis mente alienissimum et a contextu dissentientem interpretantes, imperitis fucum facere nituntur.

There is indeed no need to doubt about the reading of Dionysius, as Quesnel doubted in note 19. For in the very ancient Vatican manuscript of pure Dionysius there is: Quibus etsi dignitas communis non est, tamen ordo generalis est [although dignity is not common to them, yet the rank is general]. With it agree the Vatican Spanish and Isidorian manuscript books, and also all the Hadrianic ones; besides, the Florentine of collection 13 and the manuscript of peculiar origin Vatican 1347, and finally the manuscripts of collection 21. Quesnel, from his manuscripts of collections 2 and 5, namely the Corbie one and that of Pithou of Troyes, and four others of de Thou, inserted into the text this other reading, which we have found in one Vienna Spanish manuscript: Quibus etsi dignitas sit communis, non est tamen ordo generalis. But more clearly, he says in the note cited, and less open to cavil, the Saint-Victor manuscript and the editions of Surius, Merlin and Nicolinus have it, since they read thus: Quibus cum dignitas sit communis, non est tamen ordo generalis. The whole change is of the word etsi into cum; to which particle also tamen is not rarely added, after the example of approved writers. But this reading has pleased us more, since it is offered by the manuscripts Vatican of collection 3, Vienna of collection 5, Vatican of collection 24, the peculiar Vatican Reginae 840, and, besides Merlin's copy of collection 12, also Sichard's copy. Yet our reading and Quesnel's both come to the same thing: hence this one is proved by the authority of several collections; three of which, if they do not surpass the age of Dionysius, are certainly nearly contemporary with it, and cannot be said to come from the same source. The context indeed seems to require this reading. For in propositions of this kind consisting of a double clause, the last clause, marked by the particle tamen, is that which is taken up to be proved. But the proofs which Leo adds, and which establish a distinction among bishops, demand not the affirmative proposition such as is read in Dionysius, tamen ordo generalis est, that is, without distinction, but this negative one adopted by us, non est tamen ordo generalis. Moreover, since St Leo acknowledges in what follows that, as once among the apostles, so afterwards among bishops, power is diverse, he takes the dignity which he affirms to be common to bishops not for power and jurisdiction but for the honour, or character, of the episcopate, which is surely the same in all: while the rank (ordo), which, in denying that it is general among bishops, he implies to be diverse, he does not take for the sacred episcopal order, as we are accustomed to call it, but for the hierarchical order, which, since it requires greater jurisdiction and authority in some and less in others, is certainly not general, that is, the same in all without distinction of jurisdiction. Hence he teaches that the distinction of bishops arose from the pattern of the apostles, in which the pontiff indicates in this place, and declares more openly in other places, that Peter was set over the rest in authority and jurisdiction; among which bishops not all should claim all things alike for themselves, but some should have the first opinion in the several provinces, as the metropolitans, while others, established in the greater cities, should take up a wider care, namely not so much over bishops as over the metropolitans themselves, from whom they would demand obedience, as the exarchs or patriarchs, and the bishop of Thessalonica himself, whom the same Leo and his predecessors had set over the whole of Illyricum as vicar of the apostolic see with a peculiar right. And he declares these things to have been ordained with this design, that through them the care of the universal Church should flow together to the one see of Peter, and nothing anywhere should be at variance with its head: by which words he declares the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff, and the primacy of jurisdiction, providing for the unity of the Church. Thus he establishes as it were four orders, or hierarchical grades, among bishops: the episcopal, the metropolitical, the exarchal or that of the apostolic vicar, and the pontifical: and although he affirms that the dignity of the episcopal honour or character is common to them, he warns that the hierarchical rank is nevertheless not general, since they are distinguished in authority and power according to the diversity of hierarchical grade. Those who drag this testimony towards an equal right of all bishops, interpreting the words dignitas and ordo in a more recent sense, most foreign to Leo's mind and at odds with the context, are striving to deceive the unlearned.

(f) ‹Qui ergo scit› · printed under col 676

2, qu. 6, Qui scit se, c. 14.

[Gratian, Causa] 2, question 6, Qui scit se, c. 14.

(g) ‹se quibusdam› · printed under col 676

Cod. Vindebon. collect. 5 et alius Hisp. delent esse.

The Vienna manuscript of collection 5 and another Spanish one delete esse.