Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹in commune› · Ep. XVI · printed under col 703

Ita melius ex potioribus et plerisque nostris codicibus, quam tractandam fuerit apud Quesn., vel tractatum fuerit in aliis editionibus ex mss. collect. 12 et 24 in quibus etiam pro in commune perperam legitur in communione. Mox pro omnia ipsius constituta Vulg. antiquior. cum aliquibus mss. exhibent omnia instituta.

So, better, from the more reliable and most of our manuscripts, than "tractandam fuerit" in Quesnel, or "tractatum fuerit" in other editions, from the manuscripts of collections 12 and 24, in which also "in communione" ("in communion") is wrongly read instead of "in commune". Next, instead of "omnia ipsius constituta" the older Vulgate [editions] with some manuscripts give "omnia instituta" ("all the institutions").

(b) ‹coepiscopos nostros› · Ep. XVI · printed under col 703, continuing under col 704

Vat. Reg., Bacyllum. Vat. collect. 3 cum alio Vat. 542 collect. 21, Pacellum et Paschasium. Vat. Hisp. cum mss. collect. 11 et aliquibus collect. 21, Vacillum, aut Vachillum et Paschasium. Unus Vercell., Vacillium; alius, Bacillum et Paschasium. Paulo post Vat. Reg. collect. 1 et Vindebon. collect. 5, apostolicae sedis statuta.

The Vatican Regius, "Bacyllum". The Vatican of collection 3, with another Vatican, 542, of collection 21, "Pacellum et Paschasium". The Vatican [manuscript] of the Spanish [collection], with the manuscripts of collection 11 and some of collection 21, "Vacillum" or "Vachillum et Paschasium". One Vercelli [manuscript], "Vacillium"; another, "Bacillum et Paschasium". A little after, the Vatican Regius of collection 1 and the Vienna of collection 5, "apostolicae sedis statuta" ("the statutes of the apostolic see").

(a) ‹EPISTOLA XVII.› (call before the caption) · Ep. XVII · printed under col 703

Scripta 21 Octob. 447.

Written 21 October 447.

(b) ‹AD UNIVERSOS EPISCOPOS› (call before the address caption) · Ep. XVII · printed under col 703

In ms. Vat. Ottobon 597 collect. 23 et in simili card. Sirleti, ex quo hanc epistolam Vossius edidit, hic titulus legitur: Edictum S. Leonis papae urbis Romae episcopi ad universas episcopos per Siciliam constitutos. In ms. Vallicell. collect. 8: Incipiunt decreta S. Leonis papae urbis Romae. Leo papa universis episcopis per Siciliam constitutis.

In the Vatican Ottoboni manuscript 597 of collection 23, and in a similar one of Cardinal Sirleto, from which Vossius edited this letter, this title is read: "Edict of St Leo, pope, bishop of the city of Rome, to all the bishops established throughout Sicily." In the Vallicelliana manuscript of collection 8: "Here begin the decrees of St Leo, pope of the city of Rome. Pope Leo to all the bishops established throughout Sicily."

(c) ‹per Siciliam constitutis› · Ep. XVII · printed under col 703

Vulg. addunt, in Domino salutem. Ex codd. collect. 8 delevimus.

The Vulgate [editions] add "in Domino salutem" ("greeting in the Lord"). We have deleted it on the authority of the manuscripts of collection 8.

ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM.

Admonition on the following letter.

1. Quesnellus, qui conjecturis facile indulsit, sequentem epistolam aliquot conjectationibus in suspicionem adducere studuit, ita ut vel supposititia credatur, eo consilio conficta ut praedia alicujus Ecclesiae perperam distracta eidem vindicarentur, vel alteri Leoni posterioris aetatis adjudicetur. Ut autem huic postremae sententiae magis assentiretur, illud in causa fuit quod etsi nullum ejus exemplar manuscriptum nancisci potuit (unde potissimum motus fuit ad dubitandum), pannus tamen ejus, inquit in notis, legitur apud Gratianum, 12, q. 2, cap. 52, ubi et Leoni tribuitur et missa inscribitur universis episcopis per Siciliam constitutis. Sed cujus Leonis sit, an primi an secundi, nec antiquae editiones Gratiani aperiunt, nec recentiores. Tillemontius not. 9, tom. XV, p. 894, in Leonem singulas Quesnelli conjecturas ad calculum revocavit, et ineptas ostendit; sed de codicibus ne verbum quidem. Nos autem, qui potiora ejus argumenta diluemus in annotationibus ipsi epistolae subjiciendis, praestantissimos et vetustos codices reperimus, supra omnem conjectationem hasce litteras nostro Leoni indubitanter vindicabunt.

1. Quesnel, who readily indulged in conjectures, tried by several guesses to bring the following letter under suspicion, so that it should either be believed spurious, forged with the design that the estates of some Church, wrongly alienated, might be reclaimed for it, or be assigned to another Leo of a later age. That he inclined rather to this last opinion was due to this: that although he could obtain no manuscript copy of it (which above all moved him to doubt), yet "a scrap of it," he says in the notes, "is read in Gratian, 12, q. 2, cap. 52, where it is both attributed to Leo and inscribed as sent" to all the bishops established throughout Sicily. "But which Leo's it is, whether the first's or the second's, neither the old editions of Gratian reveal, nor the more recent." Tillemont, note 9, vol. XV, p. 894, on Leo, called each of Quesnel's conjectures to account and showed them to be inept; but about the manuscripts not even a word. We, however, who will refute his weightier arguments in the notes to be placed under the letter itself, have found most excellent and ancient manuscripts, [which] beyond all conjecture will claim this letter without doubt for our Leo.

2. Haec itaque epistola nobis conservata fuit in codd. collect. 8, e quibus quatuor memoramus, antiquissimum Vat. 5845, Vallicell. A. 5 saeculi IX, unum Vercellensem satis vetustum, et Vat. 1353, qui e vetustissimo Bergomate descriptus fuit. Hujus autem collectionis auctor, qui Dionysio plura valde rara documenta adjecit, usus fuit alia nobis ignota collectione, quae in Gelasio terminabat, et saeculo VI condita fuerat. Nam usque ad Gelasium monumenta adduntur chronico ordine satis congruo, qui antiquae collectionis ad hoc usque tempus productae indicium est, de quo plura dicentur in tractatu de antiquis Canonum et Constitutionum Collectionibus tom. III. Leoni autem Magno eadem epistola in his codicibus explorate asseritur non solum ex consulatu qui in Leonis pontificatum cadit, verum etiam ex eo quod inter alias quindecim genuinas epistolas ejusdem pontificis describitur, ita ut de hac una dubium adhuc promovere absque ullo argumento satis certo temerarium sit.

2. This letter, then, has been preserved for us in the manuscripts of collection 8, of which we mention four: the very ancient Vatican 5845, the Vallicelliana A. 5 of the ninth century, one Vercelli manuscript of fair age, and Vatican 1353, which was copied from a very ancient one of Bergamo. The author of this collection, who added many very rare documents to Dionysius, used another collection unknown to us, which ended with Gelasius and had been compiled in the sixth century. For documents are added down to Gelasius in a fairly consistent chronological order, which is an indication of an ancient collection carried down to that time, about which more will be said in the treatise on the ancient Collections of Canons and Constitutions, vol. III. And in these manuscripts the same letter is assuredly assigned to Leo the Great, not only by the consulship, which falls within Leo's pontificate, but also by the fact that it is copied among fifteen other genuine letters of the same pontiff, so that it would be rash still to raise a doubt about this one alone without any sufficiently certain argument.

Synopsis. — Constitutione perpetua episcopis prohibet, quod in duabus Siciliae Ecclesiis improbe gestum, injusteque per episcopos ibidem praesumptum est; qui Ecclesiarum suarum bonum illicite alienaverant: cujus decreti violatores ordine et communione privandos edicit.

Synopsis. — By a perpetual constitution he forbids to bishops what was wickedly done in two Churches of Sicily and unjustly presumed there by the bishops, who had unlawfully alienated the property of their Churches; and he decrees that violators of this decree are to be deprived of their order and of communion.

(c) ‹Novembr.› · Ep. XVI · printed under col 704 (the siglum is printed like "(e)")

Ita emendavimus ex Vat. Reginae collect. 1. Confer. annot. 85 in epist. praecedentem. Quidam codices chronica nota carent. Alii pro Calepio praeferunt Calepodio vel Calapodio. Vulgati, Alipio.

So we have corrected from the Vatican [manuscript] of the Queen, of collection 1. Compare note 85 on the preceding letter. Some manuscripts lack the chronological note. Others, instead of "Calepio", give "Calepodio" or "Calapodio". The Vulgate [editions], "Alipio".

(d) ‹providentiae generalis› · Ep. XVII · printed under col 704

Ms. Vallicell., indixit. Mox apud Deus dedit ut quod in duobus provinciis in Ecclesiis improbe gestum; apud Gerhohum vero, ut quod in duabus provinciae nostrae Ecclesiis.

The Vallicelliana manuscript, "indixit" ("imposed"). Next, in Deusdedit, "ut quod in duobus provinciis in Ecclesiis improbe gestum" ("that what was wickedly done in two provinces in the Churches"); but in Gerhoh, "ut quod in duabus provinciae nostrae Ecclesiis" ("that what in two Churches of our province").

(e) ‹perpetua ab› · Ep. XVII · printed under col 704

Praetulimus omnium auctoritate potiorum codd. duorum Vat. et unius Vallicell. collect. 8. Al., omni. Mox in iisdem duobus Vatt., Tauromenitanis.

We have preferred "omnium" on the authority of the better manuscripts, two Vatican and one Vallicelliana, of collection 8. Elsewhere, "omni". Next, in the same two Vatican [manuscripts], "Tauromenitanis".

(f) ‹ordinatus antistes,› · Ep. XVII · printed under col 704, continuing under col 705

Erat in editis, sicut et in aliquot codicibus, similem querimoniarum... causam detulerunt. Melior visa est lectio cod. Vallicell. et Gerhohi, quam confirmat etiam Vat. 5845, qui causam omittens, accusativum querimoniam exigit. Vossius cum mss. Ottob. et Vat. 1353, cui praeesse debebamus textui inseruit: in margine autem notavit, quod in aliis omnibus mss. reperimus, cui praesidebamus. Praeterea duo codices pro de usurpatione habent de usurpationibus. Synodum cujus hoc loco fit mentio habitam credimus III kal. Octobr., illamque fuisse ad quam terni ex Sicilia episcopi occurrere debebant, uti ex praecedenti epistola c. 7 liquet.

The editions had, as do some manuscripts, "similem querimoniarum ... causam detulerunt" ("brought a similar cause of complaints"). The reading of the Vallicelliana manuscript and of Gerhoh seemed better, and it is confirmed also by Vatican 5845, which, omitting "causam", requires the accusative "querimoniam". Vossius, with the Ottoboni manuscripts and Vatican 1353, put "cui praeesse debebamus" ("over which we were to preside") into the text; but in the margin he noted "cui praesidebamus" ("over which we presided"), which we have found in all the other manuscripts. Besides, two manuscripts have "de usurpationibus" instead of "de usurpatione". The synod mentioned in this place we believe was held on the third day before the kalends of October, and was the one which three bishops from Sicily were to attend, as is clear from the preceding letter, c. 7.

3. Invenitur praeterea haec eadem epistola in mss. libro Vat. 1343 saeculi X, qui fuit Ticinensis Ecclesiae, nec non in Vat. Ottobon. 297 collect. 23. Accedunt duo auctores antiquiores Gratiano, qui ex eadem epistola nonnulla suis collectionibus inseruerunt, nimirum cardinalis Deusdedit lib. III, cap. 34, in mss. Vat. 3833, et S. Anselmus lib. V, cap. 69, et lib. VI, cap. 189, in pluribus codd. Vaticanis. Tandem, ut alia testimonia omittamus, Gerhohus praepositus Reichespergensis ineunte saeculo XII totam epistolam ex Germanico codice descripsit in opere de Aedificio Dei, cap. 60, quod editum est a P. Pez. in Thesauro Anecdot. tom. II, part. II, unde etiam in Germania hujus epistolae exemplum inveniebatur.

3. This same letter is found, besides, in the manuscript book Vatican 1343 of the tenth century, which belonged to the Church of Pavia, and also in Vatican Ottoboni 297 of collection 23. There are added two authors older than Gratian who inserted some things from this same letter in their collections, namely Cardinal Deusdedit, book III, chap. 34, in the Vatican manuscript 3833, and St Anselm, book V, chap. 69, and book VI, chap. 189, in several Vatican manuscripts. Finally, to pass over other testimonies, Gerhoh, provost of Reichersberg, at the beginning of the twelfth century copied the whole letter from a German manuscript in his work On the Building of God, chap. 60, which was edited by P. Pez in the Thesaurus Anecdotorum, vol. II, part II; whence a copy of this letter was also found in Germany.

4. Hic tandem monendum est Gerardum Vossium, praepositum Tungrensem, qui primus omnium in appendice Operum S. Gregorii Thaumaturgi editionis Moguntinae an. 1604 hanc epistolam typis dedit, usum fuisse codice card. Sirleti. Ex complexu autem caeterorum monumentorum, quae ex eodem codice se edidisse testatur, nec non ex titulo peculiari quem his litteris ex eodem mss. praefixit, colligimus eum codicem fuisse similem laudato ms. Vat. Ottobon. collect. 23. Potior autem aliorum quos laudavimus codicum auctoritas majorem epistolae fidem conciliat.

4. Here, finally, it must be noted that Gerard Voss, provost of Tongeren, who first of all printed this letter in the appendix to the Works of St Gregory Thaumaturgus in the Mainz edition of the year 1604, used a manuscript of Cardinal Sirleto. From the collection of the other documents which he testifies he edited from the same manuscript, and also from the particular title which he prefixed to this letter from the same manuscript, we gather that that manuscript was similar to the Vatican Ottoboni manuscript of collection 23 cited above. But the weightier authority of the other manuscripts we have cited wins greater credit for the letter.

(a) ‹Quamvis ergo› · printed under col 705

Particula jam adjicienda fuit ex praestantioribus mss. Vat. 5845. et Vallicell. ac Gerhoho; decretumque jam in Romana synodo latum indicat. Hoc autem peculiare Leonis decretum pro Taurominitana et Panormitana Ecclesiis desideratur, ut desunt alia multa Leonis celebriora: et solum hoc generale ad universos Siculos decretum ab auctore collect. 8 nobis conservatum fuit. Id autem ad cujusdam Quesnellianae objectionis imbecillitatem ostendendam indicandum fuerat.

The particle "jam" ("already") had to be added from the better manuscripts, Vatican 5845 and the Vallicelliana, and from Gerhoh; and it indicates that the decree had already been passed in the Roman synod. This particular decree of Leo for the Churches of Tauromenium and Panormus is missing, as many other better-known [writings] of Leo are missing: and only this general decree to all the Sicilians has been preserved for us by the author of collection 8. This had to be pointed out in order to show the weakness of a certain objection of Quesnel's.

(b) ‹perpetuam: qua› · printed under col 705

12, qu. 2, cap Sine exceptione.

[Gratian, Causa] 12, q[uaestio] 2, chapter "Sine exceptione".

(c) ‹qua sine› · printed under col 705

Duo codd. cum Gerhoho, sine exspectatione.

Two manuscripts, with Gerhoh, "sine exspectatione" ("without waiting").

(d) ‹prospiciat, et› · printed under col 705

Inter canones qui concilio IV Carthaginensi in collectione Hispanica, et exinde in vulgatis tribuuntur, hic est canon 32: Irrita erit donatio episcoporum, vel venditio, vel commutatio rei ecclesiasticae absque conniventia et subscriptione clericorum. Licet autem hi canones probabiliter non sint Carthaginensis concilii, antiqui tamen sunt, et in vetustissimis mss. collectionibus Corbeiensi 2, Barberina 2, aliisque etiam Gallicanis diversae originis reperiuntur cum titulo Statuta Ecclesiae antiqua, et alio ordine ille canon est quinquagesimus. Id autem ostendit hanc Ecclesiae disciplinam quae ad alienationem bonorum Ecclesiae cleri consensum et subscriptiones requirebat, non esse posterioris et remissioris aevi, uti Quesnellus opposuit, ac si hoc decretum Leoni magno convenire non possit. Statuta illa antiqua ex antiquitate ipsarum collectionum, in quibus antiqua, id est antiquiora iisdem collectionibus praeferuntur, Leonis aetatem ad mininum attingunt. Quod si Hilarus papa Leonis immediatus successor concilii approbationem in iisdem alienationibus posterius flagitavit, id potius nobis favet: facile enim fuit cautionem a Leone decretam non satis efficacem cursu temporis inventam fuisse, adeo ut majorem cautionem adjiciendam Hilarus censuerit. Unde mirum non est si hanc posteriorem et strictiorem cautionem subsequentes pontifices a Quesnello allegati num. 5 renovarunt: qua tamen posteriori aevo obsoleta prior Leonina cautio rediit.

Among the canons which are attributed to the Fourth Council of Carthage in the Spanish collection, and thence in the Vulgate [editions], this is canon 32: "A donation by bishops, or a sale, or an exchange of church property, without the concurrence and signature of the clergy, shall be void." Although these canons probably do not belong to the council of Carthage, they are nevertheless ancient, and are found in the very old manuscript collections, the second of Corbie, the second Barberini, and other Gallican ones too of diverse origin, with the title "Ancient Statutes of the Church", and in another order that canon is the fiftieth. This shows that this discipline of the Church, which required the consent and signatures of the clergy for the alienation of the Church's goods, is not of a later and laxer age, as Quesnel objected, as if this decree could not suit Leo the Great. Those ancient Statutes, to judge from the antiquity of the collections themselves, in which they are presented as ancient, that is, older than those same collections, reach at least to the age of Leo. And if Pope Hilarus, Leo's immediate successor, later demanded the approval of a council for these same alienations, that rather favours us: for it could easily happen that the safeguard decreed by Leo was found in the course of time not effective enough, so that Hilarus judged that a greater safeguard should be added. Hence it is no wonder if the subsequent pontiffs cited by Quesnel, no. 5, renewed this later and stricter safeguard: yet, when it fell out of use in a later age, the earlier Leonine safeguard returned.

(e) called in col 706, printed under col 705 (continuing under col 706): set in n706.

(e) ‹sciant se› · Ep. XVII · printed under col 705, continuing under col 706

Duplex haec poena Leonis aetate non infligebatur, nisi forte, quod nonnullis placet, propter gravissima omnium facinora, inquit Quesnellus in notis num. 7, et idcirco auctorem epistolae multo recentiorem pronuntiat. At undenam probat inter facinora gravissima accenseri non prtuisse facilem alienationem bonorum Ecclesiae, ex qua plurimum damni in Ecclesiam redibat?

"This double penalty was not inflicted in Leo's age, except perhaps, as some hold, for the gravest crimes of all," says Quesnel in the notes, no. 7, and for that reason he declares the author of the letter to be much more recent. But whence does he prove that the reckless alienation of the Church's goods, from which very great harm came back upon the Church, could not be counted among the gravest crimes?

(f) ‹totius cleri studio,› · Ep. XVII · printed under col 706

Cod. Vallicell. et Gerhohus ecclesiastica utilitas intemerata servetur. Vox intemerata pro incrementa est pariter in duobus aliis mss.

The Vallicelliana manuscript and Gerhoh, "ecclesiastica utilitas intemerata servetur" ("that the Church's welfare be kept inviolate"). The word "intemerata" instead of "incrementa" is likewise in two other manuscripts.

(g) ‹illibata permaneant,› · Ep. XVII · printed under col 706

Praemissa vox eorum exigit qui, non quae ut in Vulg. habetur, sicut et in aliquibus codd. sic quae pro animarum suarum salute fideles de propria substantia Ecclesiis contulerunt. Ex Vat. 5845 et ex Gerhoho delevimus fideles de, et scripsimus propriam substantiam, quod ultimum etiam legitur in ms. Vercell.

The preceding word "eorum" requires "qui", not "quae" as is had in the Vulgate [editions], as also in some manuscripts, thus: "quae pro animarum suarum salute fideles de propria substantia Ecclesiis contulerunt" ("which the faithful, for the salvation of their souls, conferred on the Churches from their own substance"). From Vatican 5845 and from Gerhoh we have deleted "fideles de" and written "propriam substantiam", which last is also read in the Vercelli manuscript.

(h) ‹contulerunt. Data› · Ep. XVII · printed under col 706

Editi XI kal. Novembris, nullis nostris codicibus suffragantibus, immo etiam refragante Vossii editione, quae, ut in mss. habet, XII kal. Novembr. In duobus antiquioribus codd. pro Data legitur Danda sub die XII kal. Nov., quae formula num innuere possit hoc pariter generale Leonis decretum constitutum fuisse in synodo coacta III kal. Octobris, in qua decretum particulare pro Ecclesiis Taurominitana et Panormitana editum fuit, ita ut formula Danda sub die apposita fuerit ob indicandum diem postea adjiciendum, cum epistola mitteretur, aliorum judicio decidendum relinquimus. Plerique mss. codd. cum editis habent Calipio, sed praetulimus lectionem codicis Vat. Ottobon., Calepio, quam veriorem probavimus annot. 85 (692, j) in epist. 15. Neque mirum sit quod unicus consul Calepius nominetur sine Ardabure collega, qui in caeteris hujus anni epistolis illi conjungitur. Solum enim Calepium Occidentalem consulem appellare satis usitatum erat. Nonnullas Valentiniani leges hoc anno datas habemus, et licet in plerisque utrique consules signentur, tamen in novella 27, de Negotiatoribus, et in novella 3, de Palatinis, solus Calepius notatur. Idem mos ex aliis etiam Leonis documentis liquet. Sic e duabus epistolis anni sequentis 19 et 20 prior ad Dorum solum Posthumianum Occidentis consulem praefert, altera vero Posthumianum et Zenonem jungit. Neque difficultatem moveat hanc epistolam eodem die ad eosdem Siculos datam fuisse quo epistola praecedens data praefertur. Ex epistolis enim 41 et 42 ad Ravennium, 136 et 137 ad Marcianum, et 164 ac 165 ad Leonem Augustum patet nostrum pontificem binas identidem epistolas eodem die scripsisse ad eamdem personam, cum argumentum distinctum suppetebat.

The editions, "XI kal. Novembris" ("the eleventh day before the kalends of November"), with none of our manuscripts supporting it, indeed with even Voss's edition against it, which, as in the manuscripts, has "XII kal. Novembr." In two older manuscripts, instead of "Data" is read "Danda sub die XII kal. Nov." ("to be given on the twelfth day before the kalends of November"); whether this formula may suggest that this general decree of Leo was likewise enacted in the synod assembled on the third day before the kalends of October, in which the particular decree for the Churches of Tauromenium and Panormus was issued, so that the formula "Danda sub die" was put in to indicate a day to be added afterwards, when the letter was sent, we leave to be decided by the judgement of others. Most manuscripts, with the editions, have "Calipio", but we have preferred the reading of the Vatican Ottoboni manuscript, "Calepio", which we proved to be the truer in note 85 (692, j) on letter 15. Nor should it be surprising that Calepius is named as sole consul without his colleague Ardabur, who is joined to him in the other letters of this year. For it was quite usual to name only Calepius, the consul of the West. We have several laws of Valentinian issued in this year, and although in most of them both consuls are marked, yet in novel 27, On Traders, and in novel 3, On the Palatines, Calepius alone is noted. The same custom is clear from other documents of Leo as well. Thus of the two letters of the following year, 19 and 20, the former, to Dorus, gives only Posthumianus, the consul of the West, while the other joins Posthumianus and Zeno. Nor should it raise a difficulty that this letter was given to the same Sicilians on the same day on which the preceding letter is shown as given. For from letters 41 and 42 to Ravennius, 136 and 137 to Marcian, and 164 and 165 to Leo Augustus, it is evident that our pontiff repeatedly wrote two letters on the same day to the same person, when there was a distinct subject.

(i) ‹EPISTOLA› · Ep. XVIII · printed under col 706

Al. 14. Quae autem antea 18 erat, nunc 19. Scripta 30 Decemb. 447.

Elsewhere 14. The one that was formerly 18 is now 19. Written 30 December 447.

(j) ‹AD JANUARIUM› (call before the address caption) · Ep. XVIII · printed under col 706

Hanc epistolam luculenter vindicavimus in admonitione praemissa epistolae primae, ubi etiam mss. et editas collectiones in quibus continetur indicatas invenies.

We have clearly vindicated this letter in the admonition placed before the first letter, where you will also find indicated the manuscripts and printed collections in which it is contained.

(k) ‹Synopsis› (call before the editors' synopsis) · Ep. XVIII · printed under col 706

In tabula collect. 5, num. 75, hic titulus describitur: Ad Januarium episcopum Aquileiensem, de clericis qui in haeresim vel quodlibet schisma prolapsi sunt, minime promovendis.

In the table of collection 5, no. 75, this title is written: "To Januarius, bishop of Aquileia, on clerics who have lapsed into heresy or any schism, that they are by no means to be promoted."

Synopsis (Ex Dionysio Exiguo). — Quod omnis cujuslibet ordinis clericus, qui catholicam deserens,

Synopsis (from Dionysius Exiguus). — That every cleric of whatever order who, deserting the catholic [faith] […] (continues in col 707)

The note from col 706 on this letter's heading, continued at the head of the footnotes under col 707 ("invenies. Contulimus … Vide not. 1 Quesn."): continued from col 706, set in n706.

(a) ‹Leo episcopus› · printed under col 707

Voces urbis Romae omittuntur in ms. Vindeb. collect, 5.

The words "urbis Romae" are omitted in the Vienna manuscript of collection 5.

(b) ‹ad custodiam› · printed under col 707

Idem cod. Vindebon. collect. 5. et mss. collect. 21 et 24 cum antiquioribus editis, gregum Christi.

The same Vienna manuscript of collection 5, and the manuscripts of collections 21 and 24 with the older editions, [read] "gregum Christi" [of the flocks of Christ].

(c) ‹congratulantes … ne› · printed under col 707

Intelligendi sunt Pelagiani, quos in Aquileiensem provinciam olim irrepsisse, et in communionem aliquando sine debita errorum et auctorum condemnatione imprudenter receptos Septimus Altinas monuerat; unde Leo Aquileiensi episcopo, ut probabilius est, praedecessori epistolam I dedit, qua sic imprudenter receptos, cum idoneis cautionibus recipiendos mandavit. Januarius, qui mox successit, hoc mandatum pastorali cura exsecutus est, et idcirco laudatur. Vide admonitionem epistolae 1 praemissam num. 26.

The Pelagians are to be understood, who, as Septimus of Altinum had warned, had formerly crept into the province of Aquileia and had at one time been imprudently received into communion without due condemnation of their errors and authors; whence Leo gave letter 1 to the bishop of Aquileia, the predecessor, as is more probable, by which he ordered that those thus imprudently received be received [only] with suitable safeguards. Januarius, who soon succeeded, carried out this mandate with pastoral care, and is therefore praised. See the admonition prefixed to letter 1, no. 26.

(d) ‹pertinere, si› · printed under col 707

1, qu. 1, Si quis haereticae, c. 42.

[Gratian, Decretum, part 2, cause] 1, question 1, [canon] "Si quis haereticae", c. 42.

(e) ‹haereticorum atque› · printed under cols 707–708

Schismaticorum mentio, et paulo post illa conditio, si tamen iterata tinctione non fuerint maculati, Donatistas vel Novatianos in Aquileiensi provincia detectos indicare visae sunt, in quo vide not. 3 Quesn. At generalis regula hic indicatur, omnibus tum haereticis, tum schismaticis ad Ecclesiam redeuntibus communis, licet occasione peculiaris casus Aquileiensis provinciae proponatur. Nemo scilicet sive schismaticus, sive haereticus ad unitatem catholicam revertens, sine professione legitimae satisfactionis recipi poterat, etsi esset clericus, ea solum conditione restituebatur in suum gradum, si iterato baptismate non fuisset pollutus; qui enim hoc crimine erant infecti non recipiebantur in clerum, sed publicae poenitentiae subjiciebantur. Confer admonitionem in epist. 1, § 4, et annot 25 in epist. 159. Quare opus non est suspicari Leonem hoc loco sermonem fecisse de Donatistis aut Novatianis Aquileiensibus, de quibus aliunde in provincia Aquileiensi nullum indicium est. Mox ex ms. Vindebon. collect. 5 addidimus verbum est.

The mention of schismatics, and shortly after that condition, "if only they have not been stained by a repeated dipping", have seemed to indicate Donatists or Novatians discovered in the province of Aquileia; on which see Quesnel's note 3. But a general rule is indicated here, common to all, both heretics and schismatics, returning to the Church, although it is set forth on the occasion of a particular case in the province of Aquileia. That is, no one, whether schismatic or heretic, returning to catholic unity could be received without the profession of lawful satisfaction; if he was a cleric, he was restored to his rank only on this condition, that he had not been polluted by a repeated baptism; for those who were infected with this crime were not received into the clergy, but were subjected to public penance. Compare the admonition on letter 1, § 4, and annotation 25 on letter 159. Therefore there is no need to suspect that Leo in this place spoke of Donatists or Novatians of Aquileia, of whom there is no evidence from elsewhere in the province of Aquileia. Just after, from the Vienna manuscript of collection 5, we have added the word "est".

(f) ‹communionis catholica› · printed under col 708

Quinque codd., sine promotions.

Five manuscripts, "sine promotione" [without promotion].

(g) ‹habeatur.› · printed under col 708

1, qu. 7, Saluberrimum, c. 21.

[Gratian, Decretum, part 2, cause] 1, question 7, [canon] "Saluberrimum", c. 21.

(h) ‹sive diaconi,› · printed under col 708

Duas voces vel subdiaconi adjecit Quesnellus ex Dion. Cresc. Nicolini editione et sex mss. codd. Leguntur quoque in plerisque nostris, tribus exceptis, in quibus omittuntur, ut etiam desunt in epist. 2 ad Septimum, in qua haec eadem sentententia repetita invenitur.

Quesnel added the two words "vel subdiaconi" from Dionysius, Cresconius, Nicolini's edition and six manuscripts. They are read also in most of ours, three excepted, in which they are omitted, as they are also lacking in letter 2 to Septimus, in which this same sentence is found repeated.

(i) ‹aut› · printed under col 708

1, qu. 1, Omnis cujuslibet, c. 112.

[Gratian, Decretum, part 2, cause] 1, question 1, [canon] "Omnis cujuslibet", c. 112.

(j) ‹ambiunt, prius› · printed under col 708

Ms. Vindebon. collect. 5, errorem suum et ipsos erroris auctores damnari. Justellus quoque cum duobus codicibus habet tantum, auctores erroris. Alius cod., damnatos pro damnari.

The Vienna manuscript of collection 5, "errorem suum et ipsos erroris auctores damnari". Justel too, with two manuscripts, has only "auctores erroris". Another manuscript, "damnatos" for "damnari".

haereticae se communioni miscuerit, si ad Ecclesiam reversus fuerit, in eo gradu in quo erat (Cresc., quo fuerat) sine promotione remaneat.

[…] has mingled himself in heretical communion, if he has returned to the Church, let him remain without promotion in the rank in which he was (Cresconius, "had been").

(e) continued from col 707, set in n707.

(f)–(j) are printed under col 708 but called in col 707: set in n707.

(k) ‹ut sensibus› · printed under col 708

Cod. Vindeb. collect. 6, pravis et dudum peremptis, uti legitur in epist. 2 ad Septimum. Mox sperandi vocem exhiberi in omnibus et mss. et excursis confessus est in postilla marginali Quesnellus; at « suspicor, inquit, legendum spirandi. » Quinque nostri codices habent, desperandi, caeteri autem sperandi.

The Vienna manuscript of collection 6, "pravis et dudum peremptis", as is read in letter 2 to Septimus. Just after, Quesnel admitted in a marginal gloss that the word "sperandi" is shown in all, both manuscripts and printed [editions]; but "I suspect", he says, "that 'spirandi' should be read." Five of our manuscripts have "desperandi", but the rest "sperandi".

(l) ‹illam› · printed under col 708

Cod. Vat. collect, 11, canonicam. Quae vero hic intelligatur canonum constitutio exposuimus in admonitione ad epist. 1, num. 18. Confer etiam not. 2 Quesnelli.

The Vatican manuscript of collection 11, "canonicam". What constitution of the canons is understood here we have set out in the admonition to letter 1, no. 18. Compare also Quesnel's note 2.

(m) ‹ordine,› · printed under col 708

Vindeb. mss. collect. 5, in perpetua stabilitate permaneant. Mox idem codex, iteratae tinctionis sacrilegio.

The Vienna manuscripts of collection 5, "in perpetua stabilitate permaneant". Just after, the same manuscript, "iteratae tinctionis sacrilegio" [by the sacrilege of a repeated dipping].

(n) ‹de talibus› · printed under col 708

Vulgati ex Dionysio ac caeteris collectionibus quae a Dionysiana originem ducunt, ad sacros promovendos ordines judicarit. Aptior visa est lectio cod. Vindebon. collect. 5, quae aliam a Dionysio originem habet.

The printed editions, from Dionysius and the other collections which derive their origin from the Dionysian, [read] "ad sacros promovendos ordines judicarit". The reading of the Vienna manuscript of collection 5, which has an origin other than Dionysius, seemed more fitting.

(o) ‹laudabiliter› · printed under col 708

Editi Quesnello anteriores cum mss. collect. 21, digesta sunt.

The editions earlier than Quesnel, with the manuscripts of collection 21, [read] "digesta sunt".

(p) ‹quia› · printed under col 708

Dist. 86, Inferiorum culpae, c. 1.

[Gratian, Decretum, part 1,] distinction 86, [canon] "Inferiorum culpae", c. 1.

(q) ‹Data› · printed under cols 708–709

Duae sunt antiquae diversae originis collectiones ex quibus haec epistola in alias posteriores derivata videtur, nimirum collectio Dionysiana et quinta. In Dionysiana et apud Cresconium ejus exscriptorem etiam in antiquissimo ms. Veronensi notatur dies III kal. Januar. In mss. vero collectionis 5 duo codd. Thuan. et Trecopithoean., Quesnello teste not. 4, habent kal., vel III kal. Julias. Duo autem nostri Vindeb. ejusdem collect. 5 discrepant; alter enim signatus num. 39, quem uti praestantiorem in variantibus adhibuimus, praefert IV, non Januar., alter vero signatus num, 42, IV kalendas Julias. Codices caeterarum collectionum Vat., Hisp., Isid., Hadrian., et aliarum posteriorum, cum Dionysio conveniunt in mense, et plerumque etiam in die: tres enim mss. libri tantum notant XIII kal. Januarias, unus Vercellensis IV kal. Codex autem Vindebonensis collectionis Hispanicae, et editi ante Quesn. ex mss. collect. 24 et Merlino tum in mense tum in die discordant: primus enim signat diem III kal. Julii, secundi autem pridie, vel II kal. Julias. In hac varietate Dionysii auctoritatem (cum qua in mense convenit etiam unus codex collect. 5 in die autem conveniunt inter caetera unum saltem exemplar ejusdem collect. 5 a Quesnello laudatum, et duo nostra Vindeb. Hisp. et Vat. collect. 24) praeferendam duximus; et hac de causa istam epistolam post litteras ad Turribium et ad Siculos collocavimus, quibus praeponenda fuerat, si ex aliis lectionibus mensi Junio ascribende fuisset. Quoad consularem vero notam editi cum plerisque mss. exhibent Alipio et Ardabure vv. cc. consulibus. Quesnellus in margine: Al., Calipio aut Calepio. Nos invenimus Calipio in duobus mss. Vindeb. collect. 5 et Veneto collect. 12; Calepio edidimus ex rationibus allatis annot. 85 (692 (j) in epist. 15.

There are two ancient collections of different origin from which this letter seems to have been derived into later ones, namely the Dionysian collection and the fifth. In the Dionysian, and in Cresconius its copier, and also in the very ancient Verona manuscript, the day is noted as the third before the Kalends of January. But in the manuscripts of collection 5, two manuscripts, the Thuanus and the Trecopithoeanus, as Quesnel testifies in note 4, have "the Kalends", or "the third before the Kalends of July". Our two Vienna manuscripts of the same collection 5 disagree; for the one marked no. 39, which we have used in the variants as the better, shows "the fourth [before] the Nones of January", while the other, marked no. 42, "the fourth before the Kalends of July". The manuscripts of the other collections, the Vatican, the Hispana, the Isidorian, the Hadrianic and other later ones, agree with Dionysius in the month, and mostly also in the day: for only three manuscript books note "the thirteenth before the Kalends of January", and one of Vercelli "the fourth before the Kalends". But the Vienna manuscript of the Hispanic collection, and the editions before Quesnel from the manuscripts of collection 24 and Merlin, disagree both in month and in day: for the first marks the day "the third before the Kalends of July", the latter "the day before", or "the second before the Kalends of July". In this variety we have thought the authority of Dionysius to be preferred (with which one manuscript of collection 5 also agrees in the month, while in the day there agree, among others, at least one copy of the same collection 5 cited by Quesnel, and our two, the Vienna Hispana and the Vatican of collection 24); and for this reason we have placed this letter after the letters to Turribius and to the Sicilians, before which it would have had to be placed if, on the other readings, it had to be assigned to the month of June. As to the consular note, the editions with most manuscripts show "Alipio et Ardabure vv. cc. consulibus". Quesnel in the margin: "Another [reading], Calipio or Calepio." We have found "Calipio" in two Vienna manuscripts of collection 5 and in the Venice manuscript of collection 12; we have printed "Calepio" for the reasons brought forward in annotation 85 (692 (j)) on letter 15.