Leo the Great, Letters

(g) continued from col 712, set in n712.

(d) ‹EPISTOLA [XX]› · printed under col 713

Al. 19. Quae autem antea 20 erat, nunc 23. Scripta 1 Junii an, 448.

Otherwise 19. But what was formerly 20 is now 23. Written 1 June in the year 448.

(e) ‹AD EUTYCHEM› · printed under col 713

Sicut haec epistola continetur in mss. collect. 3, 8 Hisp., Isid. 11, 12, 17, 21, 23 et 24, nec non apud Sichardum, ita ad praestantiores omnium harum collectionum codices eamdem relegimus. Graecam versionem ex Graecis mss. collect., 17 Chalcedonensis adjecimus.

As this letter is contained in the manuscripts of collections 3, 8, the Hispana, the Isidorian, 11, 12, 17, 21, 23 and 24, and also in Sichard, so we have re-read it against the better manuscripts of all these collections. We have added the Greek version from the Greek manuscripts of collection 17, the Chalcedonian.

(f) ‹Synopsis› · printed under col 713

Codices collect. Hispanicae hunc brevem titulum praeferunt: Ad Eutychen Constantinopolitanum abbatem adversus Nestorianam haeresim.

The manuscripts of the Hispanic collection show this short title: "To Eutyches, abbot at Constantinople, against the Nestorian heresy."

(g) ‹Dilectissimo› · printed under col 713

Codices Latini collectionis Chalcedonensis, inter quos Veronensis saeculi VIII, Graeco textui cohaerentius praeferunt desiderantissimo filio; omittunt autem presbyterio, licet hoc nomen in Graeco non desit.

The Latin manuscripts of the Chalcedonian collection, among them the Verona manuscript of the eighth century, show, more consistently with the Greek text, "desiderantissimo filio"; but they omit "presbytero", although this word is not lacking in the Greek.

(h) ‹tuae dilectionis› · printed under cols 713–714

Plerique nostri codices, ac praesertim illi collectionis Chalcedonensis habent litteris. Retinuimus tamen epistola auctoritate praesertim vetustissimorum codd. collect. 3 et 8. Nunc subjicimus satis opportunam Quesnelli observationem. « Epistolam, inquit» hanc ab Eutyche scriptam fuisse ante factam erroris sui publicationem, ideo monemus, quia a nonnullis hoc animadversum non fuisse intelligimus: quibus errandi forsitan occasio fuit, quod in capite Actorum Chalcedonensium posita est, tamquam ad eamdem synodum pertineret. Ante eam, inquam, erroris publicationem, quae Constantinopoli in Flaviani synodo facta est, non vero, quantum conjici potest, ante detecta Domni Antiocheni episcopi studio infandi dogmatis semina. Priusquam enim ad episcopale judicium deferretur ab Eusebio Dorylaei episcopo, jam apud imperatorem Theodosium delata fuerat a Domno accusatio de reviviscente, Eutychis industria et artibus, Apollinaris haeresi. Hujus rei testem locupletem habemus Facundum lib. VIII, cap. 5, cujus verba in dissertatione de causa Eutychis referemus cum Domni synodica. Ex quibus et compertum habemus quinam illi essent quos Eutyches apud S. Leonem infamabat tamquam Nestorii sequaces et patronos: clarum est enim de Domno, Theodoreto et aliis hujusmodi haec esse intelligenda, qui de anathematizatis per Eutychen Diodoro et Theodoro apud Theodosium conquesti fuerant. » Hactenus ille.

Most of our manuscripts, and especially those of the Chalcedonian collection, have "litteris". We have kept "epistola", however, on the authority chiefly of the very old manuscripts of collections 3 and 8. We now add Quesnel's quite apt observation. "We point out", he says, "that this letter was written by Eutyches before the public exposure of his error, because we understand that this has not been noticed by some: for whom perhaps the occasion of error was that it is placed at the head of the Acts of Chalcedon, as though it belonged to that synod. Before that exposure of the error, I say, which was made at Constantinople in Flavian's synod, but not, as far as can be conjectured, before the seeds of the unspeakable dogma had been detected through the zeal of Domnus, bishop of Antioch. For before he was brought to episcopal judgement by Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, an accusation had already been laid by Domnus before the emperor Theodosius concerning the heresy of Apollinaris reviving through the industry and arts of Eutyches. Of this we have a rich witness in Facundus, book 8, chapter 5, whose words we shall give in the dissertation on the case of Eutyches, with the synodal letter of Domnus. From these we have also learned who those were whom Eutyches was defaming before St Leo as followers and patrons of Nestorius: for it is clear that these things are to be understood of Domnus, Theodoret and others of this kind, who had complained before Theodosius about Diodorus and Theodore being anathematized by Eutyches." Thus far he.

(i) ‹unde› · printed under col 714

Editi ante Quesn. cum aliquot mss., non ambigimus. Quesnellus cum aliis codd., praesertim collect. 17 Chalcedon., non ambigis. Praetulimus lectionem antiquissimi Vat. 5845 et Vallicell. A. S. collect. 8, cui etiam Graeca interpretatio concinit.

The editions before Quesnel, with some manuscripts, "non ambigimus". Quesnel, with other manuscripts, especially of collection 17, the Chalcedonian, "non ambigis". We have preferred the reading of the very ancient Vatican 5845 and the Vallicelliana A. S. of collection 8, with which the Greek translation also agrees.

(j) ‹hoc› · printed under col 714

Mss. collect. 21, importunitate; melius in mss. collect. 8, pravitate.

The manuscripts of collection 21, "importunitate"; better, in the manuscripts of collection 8, "pravitate".

(k) ‹exstingui.› · printed under col 714

Exemplaria collect. Chalcedon., Deus te salvum custodiat, fili desideratissime.

The copies of the Chalcedonian collection, "Deus te salvum custodiat, fili desideratissime".

(l) ‹fili.› · printed under col 714

Hanc chronicam notationem servarunt codd. collect. 17 Chalcedon. et 21.

This chronological notation has been preserved by the manuscripts of collection 17, the Chalcedonian, and of 21.

(m) ‹EPISTOLA [XXI]› · printed under col 714

Quae autem erat 21, nunc 24. Scripta post 22 Novemb. 448.

But what was 21 is now 24. Written after 22 November 448.

(n) ‹Synopsis [of Letter XXI]› · printed under cols 714–715

Haec epistola est antiqua versio ex Graeco textu, qui desideratur. Subjecta legitur collectioni veterum documentorum ad Nestorianismum pertinentium, quam ex ms. Casinensi Christianus Lupus, ac dein Stephanus Baluzius ediderunt. Exhibetur autem in hac collectione, capite 222, eidemque adjciuntur tria alia capitula, nimirum, cap. 223, fragmentum professionis fidei ab eodem haeretico editae; cap. 224, testimonium ex epistola Julio papae afficta; et cap. 225, anonymi litterae, quibus ipsa Eutychis epistola ad Leonem confutatur. Quesnellus in secunda editione operum S. Leonis solam Eutychis epistolam descripsit in appendice dissertationis 7. quae De causa Eutychis inscribitur. Cum vero ad Leonem fuerit tradita, ex instituti nostri ratione inter ejus epistolas inserenda fuit; cum praesertim duabus epistolis 23 et 24 occasionem dederit. Nec ab ea disjungenda fuere duo sequentia capitula, quae ab eodem Eutyche epistolae subnexa sunt. Anonymi vero litterae, cum nec ad Leonem datae fuerint, nec cum epistola Eutychis sint necessario conjunctae, hoc loco non sunt exhibendae. Ne tamen lectores hoc documento fraudentur, eas in appendicem rejecimus. Scripta autem fuit haec epistola ab Eutyche postquam ipsum damnavit S. Flavianus in Constantinopolitana synodo die 22 Novembris an. 448. Est idem titulus, qui in ms. Casinensi legitur. Initio autem epistolae adjecimus voces et fide, quas in antea vulgatis omissas suggessit codex Vat. 1319 a P. Cacciario adhibitus.

This letter is an ancient version from the Greek text, which is lost. It is read appended to the collection of old documents pertaining to Nestorianism which Christian Lupus, and then Étienne Baluze, published from the Monte Cassino manuscript. It is shown in this collection in chapter 222, and three other chapters are added to it, namely: chapter 223, a fragment of the profession of faith put forth by the same heretic; chapter 224, a testimony from a letter falsely attributed to Pope Julius; and chapter 225, an anonymous letter by which Eutyches's letter to Leo is itself refuted. Quesnel, in the second edition of the works of St Leo, copied only the letter of Eutyches, in the appendix to dissertation 7, which is entitled On the Case of Eutyches. But since it was delivered to Leo, by the plan of our undertaking it had to be inserted among his letters, especially since it gave occasion to two letters, 23 and 24. Nor were the two following chapters, which were attached to the letter by the same Eutyches, to be separated from it. But the anonymous letter, since it was neither addressed to Leo nor necessarily joined with Eutyches's letter, is not to be shown in this place. Yet, that readers may not be deprived of this document, we have put it off to the appendix. This letter was written by Eutyches after St Flavian had condemned him in the synod of Constantinople on 22 November in the year 448. The title is the same as is read in the Monte Cassino manuscript. At the beginning of the letter we have added the words "et fide", omitted in the earlier editions, which the Vatican manuscript 1319 used by Fr Cacciari suggested.

Synopsis. — Rescribit, sibi de Nestoriana haeresi reviviscente Eutychis litteris admonito, zelum illius placuisse.

Synopsis. — He writes back that, having been warned by Eutyches's letter of the reviving Nestorian heresy, he was pleased by his zeal.

Nunc primum inter Leonis epistolas inserta.

Now for the first time inserted among Leo's letters.

Synopsis. — Epistola Eutychetis haeretici: ubi scribens ab papam urbis Romae Leonem, negat in Christo duas naturas, id est Divinitatis et humanitatis.

Synopsis. — Letter of the heretic Eutyches: in which, writing to the pope of the city of Rome, Leo, he denies two natures in Christ, that is, of the Divinity and of the humanity.

(h) continued from col 713, set in n713.

(i)–(m) are printed under col 714 but called in col 713: set in n713. (n) is printed under cols 714–715 and called in col 713 (the Synopsis of Letter XXI): set in n713.

(a) ‹nostro› · printed under col 713

Mss. S. Crucis collect. 20 et Vat. collect. 11, Juliano. Quidam opinantur Julium Puteolanum intelligi, quem anno sequenti Leo ad Ephesinam synodum legatum misit.

The Santa Croce manuscripts of collection 20 and the Vatican of collection 11, "Juliano". Some think that Julius of Puteoli is meant, whom Leo sent the following year as legate to the synod of Ephesus.

(b) ‹omnia› · printed under col 713

Legebatur illi. Quesnellus illic corrigendum in margine suspicatus est. Veram lectionem suggessit codex Florentinus S. Marci collect. 13.

"Illi" used to be read. Quesnel in the margin suspected that it should be corrected to "illic". The Florence manuscript of St Mark, collection 13, suggested the true reading.

(c) ‹Data› · printed under col 713

Quidam codices et editi ante Quesn., id. Martii. At vetustiores et potiores VIII idus, vel chronica nota carent.

Some manuscripts and the editions before Quesnel, "the Ides of March". But the older and better ones [have] "the eighth before the Ides", or lack the chronological note.

Τῷ ποθεινοτάτῳ υἱῷ Εὐτυχεῖ πρεσβυτέρῳ Λέων ἐπίσκοπος. Εἰς γνῶσιν ἡμετέραν διὰ τῶν τῆς σῆς ἀγάπης ἐπιστολῶν ἀνήνεγκας, ὅτι ἡ Νεστοριανὴ αἵρεσις τινῶν πάλιν ταῖς σπουδαῖς ἀνθεῖ. Τὸν ζῆλον τὸν σὸν ἐκ τούτου τοῦ μέρους ἡμῖν ἀρέσαντα ἀντιγράφομεν, ἐπειδὴ μηνυτὴς τοῦ σοῦ λογισμοῦ ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ὃν ἐδεξάμεθα. Διὸ μὴ ἀμφιβάλῃς τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς καθολικῆς πίστεως τὸν Δεσπότην ἐν πᾶσί σοι παρεσόμενον. Ἡμεῖς δὲ ὅτε πληρέστερον ὧν τῇ ἀναιδείᾳ τοῦτο γίνεται δυνηθῶμεν γνῶναι, ἐπάναγκές ἐστι, τοῦ Δεσπότου βοηθοῦντος, προνοῆσαι ἄχρις οὗ ὁ ἀθέμιτος ἰὸς ὁ πάλαι κατακριθεὶς, ῥιζόθεν δυνηθῇ ἐσβεσθῆναι. Ὁ Θεὸς ὑγιῆ σε διαφυλάξαι, υἱὲ ποθεινότατε.

(n) continued from col 714, set in n713.

(a) ‹Dorylaeensis,› · printed under col 715

Hic libellus adversus Eutychem Flaviano et caeteris Patribus Constantinopolitanae synodi oblatus, exstat act. 1 concilii Chalcedonensis tom. IV Concil. pag. 930 edit. Venetae.

This petition against Eutyches, offered to Flavian and the other Fathers of the synod of Constantinople, is extant in session 1 of the council of Chalcedon, vol. 4 of the Councils, p. 930 of the Venice edition.

(b) ‹causas suas› · printed under col 715

Perperam in Vulgatis, evenerant. Mox pro accusationem movens, cod. Vat. 1319, ab accusationem motus.

Wrongly in the printed editions, "evenerant". Just after, for "accusationem movens", the Vatican manuscript 1319, "ab accusationem motus".

(c) ‹Et quidem› · printed under cols 715–716

Intelligit appellationis libellum sua subscriptione signatum, quem una cum scriptis professionis fidei suae Flaviano et Patribus Constantinopolitanae synodi ante sententiam oblatum, nec susceptum queritur. Appellationis libellus vocatur a Leone epist. 23, de quo vide annot. 10 (col. 752, n q) in eamdem epistolam. Sicut autem hae Eutychis litterae ad Leonem missae, solius Leonis nomen in inscriptione praeferunt (unde etiam anonymus, in epistola quae in appendice profertur, has ad beatissimum papam sedis apostolicae Leonem scriptas prodit), ita et appellationis libellus his litteris annexus appellationem ad solum Leonem expressisse dicendus est. Caeterum quod de oblato appellationis libello traditur, mendacium est. Solam enim chartam professionis fidei, non vero appellationis libellum ante sententiam Eutychem obtulisse liquet ex actis Constantinopolitanae synodi laudatae, et multo luculentius ex eorumdem actorum relectione in Constantinopolitano conventu habito die 13 Aprilis an. 449, quae omnia actioni primae concilii Chalcedonensis inserta inveniuntur. Post sententiam vero, turba facta et dissoluto conventu, eum aliquid de appellatione silenter indicasse Florentio Patricio, ita ut nemo alius audierit, ex iisdem gestis manifestum est. Vide pag. 1066 tom. IV Concil. Oblatam autem fidei professionem Flavianus quidem noluit suscipere, sed ut eam ipse Eutyches legeret, praecepit. Hinc cum Eutyches judicii tempore libellos se dedisse appellationis et nobis et huic convenienti sancto concilio, et appellasse vestram sanctitatem in litteris ad Leonem professus est, eum mentitum affirmavit Flavianus epist. 26.

He means the petition of appeal signed with his subscription, which, together with the writings of his profession of faith, he complains was offered before the sentence to Flavian and the Fathers of the synod of Constantinople, and not received. It is called a petition of appeal by Leo in letter 23, on which see annotation 10 (col. 752, n. q) on that letter. And just as this letter of Eutyches sent to Leo shows in its address the name of Leo alone (whence also the anonymous writer, in the letter which is given in the appendix, declares it written to the most blessed pope of the apostolic see, Leo), so too the petition of appeal attached to this letter must be said to have expressed an appeal to Leo alone. But what is said about the offering of a petition of appeal is a lie. For it is plain from the acts of the synod of Constantinople cited that Eutyches offered before the sentence only the paper of his profession of faith, and not a petition of appeal; and much more clearly from the re-reading of those same acts in the assembly held at Constantinople on 13 April in the year 449, all of which are found inserted in the first session of the council of Chalcedon. But that after the sentence, when a tumult had arisen and the assembly was dissolved, he quietly indicated something about an appeal to Florentius the patrician, so that no one else heard, is manifest from the same proceedings. See p. 1066 of vol. 4 of the Councils. The profession of faith that was offered Flavian indeed would not receive, but ordered that Eutyches himself read it. Hence, when Eutyches professed in his letter to Leo that at the time of the judgement he "had given petitions of appeal both to us and to this holy council assembled, and had appealed to your holiness", Flavian affirmed in letter 26 that he had lied.

(c) continued from col 715, set in n715.

(d) ‹ipsis verbis› · printed under col 716

Addidimus eam ex cod. Vat. 1319. Qua mente Eutyches et deinceps ejus discipuli solam Nicaenam fidem ingesserint, explicabitur annot. 6 (col. 855 n. g) in epist. 54.

We have added "eam" from the Vatican manuscript 1319. With what intent Eutyches and afterwards his disciples thrust forward the Nicene faith alone will be explained in annotation 6 (col. 855, n. g) on letter 54.

(e) ‹definitionem› · printed under col 716

Synodum Ephesinam intelligit, quae aliam fidem praeter Nicaenam interdixit. Id autem adversus Nestorianos interdictum fuit, qui aliam fidei expositionem pravis dogmatibus refertam ediderant. Eutyches vero hoc nomine cogi nolebat ad profitendas duas in Christo naturas, ac si haec catholica professio esset nova fides ab Ephesino concilio interdicta. Hanc eamdem rationem idem Eutyches proposuit in pseudosynodo Ephesina tom. IV Concil., pag. 919, lit. D.: Ego vero timens praevaricari prolatam definitionem a sancta synodo, quae hic Dei voluntate prius congregata est, et ea quae definita erant de fide a sanctis Patribus, qui Nicaeae convenerunt, rogabam, etc. Confer etiam pag. 911, C.

He means the synod of Ephesus, which forbade any other faith besides the Nicene. But that was forbidden against the Nestorians, who had put out another exposition of faith stuffed with depraved dogmas. Eutyches, however, on this ground refused to be compelled to profess two natures in Christ, as if this catholic profession were a new faith forbidden by the council of Ephesus. The same Eutyches put forward this same reasoning in the pseudo-synod of Ephesus, vol. 4 of the Councils, p. 919, letter D: "But I, fearing to transgress the definition put forth by the holy synod which by God's will was formerly assembled here, and the things which had been defined concerning the faith by the holy Fathers who met at Nicaea, asked", etc. Compare also p. 911, C.

(f) ‹patres nostros› · printed under col 716

Unicum testimonium Julio papae tributum, quale suae epistolae subjectum fuit ab Eutyche, in ms. Casinensi conservatum nobis fuit, uti post ipsam epistolam dabitur. Certum vero est Acephalos, in collatione habita an. 533, eorumdem Patrum Julii, Felicis, Athanasii ac Gregorii Thaumaturgi testimonia, veluti Eutychianae sententiae faventia opposuisse; sed ea ab Apollinaristis olim conficta catholici reposuere. Certe testimonium Julio papae ascriptum, ex ipsius Apollinaris epistola sumptum est; cui Apollinaristae, ut auctoritatem crearent, Julii pontificis nomen inscripsere. Vide paulo post annot. 17 (col. 718, n. h).

A single testimony attributed to Pope Julius, such as was appended by Eutyches to his letter, has been preserved for us in the Monte Cassino manuscript, as will be given after the letter itself. But it is certain that the Acephali, in the conference held in the year 533, put forward testimonies of these same Fathers, Julius, Felix, Athanasius and Gregory Thaumaturgus, as favouring the Eutychian opinion; but the catholics replied that they had been forged long ago by the Apollinarists. Certainly the testimony ascribed to Pope Julius was taken from a letter of Apollinaris himself, on which the Apollinarists, to create authority, inscribed the name of Pope Julius. See shortly below annotation 17 (col. 718, n. h).

(g) ‹modis› · printed under col 716

Haec respicere videntur ea quae in relectione actorum habita die 13 Aprilis an 449, unus Basilius Seleuciae episcopus testatus est: Scio quia dixit religiosus archimandrita Eutyches: Si praeceperint mihi Patres Romanus et Alexandrinus, dico hoc ipsum. Haec autem non quasi appellans, dixit, sed dicens: Non sum ausus dicere propter Patres. Post nonnulla sub initium capitis sequentis adjecimus septem voces ante cognitionem parabant, in tantum adversum me, auctoritate laudati ms. Vat. 1319. quae ob repetitionem adversum me per saltum omissae fuere.

These words seem to look to what Basil alone, bishop of Seleucia, testified at the re-reading of the acts held on 13 April in the year 449: "I know that the religious archimandrite Eutyches said: If the Fathers of Rome and Alexandria command me, I say this very thing. But he said this not as one appealing, but saying: I have not dared to say it because of the Fathers." A little further on, near the beginning of the following chapter, we have added the seven words "ante cognitionem parabant, in tantum adversum me" on the authority of the Vatican manuscript 1319 cited, which had been omitted by a skip of the eye because of the repetition of "adversum me".

(a) ‹Tunc› · printed under col 717

Hi forte sunt illi abbates viginti tres, qui in Eutychis condemnationem Constantinopolitanae Synodo subscripti inveniuntur.

These are perhaps those twenty-three abbots who are found subscribed to the condemnation of Eutyches at the synod of Constantinople.

(b) ‹quod› · printed under col 717

Id numquam acciderat, quia numquam antea abbates inventi fuerant qui haeresim inducerent, ac monasteria adversus episcopos commoverent.

This had never happened, because never before had abbots been found who introduced heresy and stirred up monasteries against bishops.

(c) ‹verum et› · printed under col 717

Non sola fidei professio, sed et querelae injuriarum ac maledictionum plenae in hoc libello Constantinopoli publice affixo continebantur, ut Flavianus narrat epist. 26. Refixus autem ejusmodi libellus hoc loco indicatur.

Not only the profession of faith, but also complaints full of insults and curses were contained in this notice publicly posted at Constantinople, as Flavian relates in letter 26. The taking down of such a notice is indicated in this place.

(d) ‹meis› · printed under col 717

Quatuor documenta hic Eutyches distinguit ipsi epistolae ab eodem subjecta. Primo libellum accusationis quem Eusebius Dorylaeensis episcopus adversus illum in Constantinopolitana synodo obtulerat. 2° Libellum appellationis, quem Eutyches ante damnationis sententiam se obtulisse mentitus est. 3° Professionem fidei ejusdem Constantinopoli propositam. 4° Testimonia nonnullorum Patrum. Uterque libellus in ms. Casinensi omissus fuit. Solum fragmentum profertur professionis fidei, et unicum testimonium Julio papae tributum. Cum enim coaevus auctor anonymus rogatus ut sententiam suam diceret de Eutychis epistola ad Leonem pontificem, ipsi epistolae et his duobus tantum fragmentis respondendum duxerit; hinc factum fuisse arbitramur ut in codice Casinensi haec sola fragmenta epistolae subjecta una cum anonymi confutatione describerentur, caeteris omissis, quae anonymus praetermisit.

Eutyches here distinguishes four documents appended by himself to the letter. First, the petition of accusation which Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, had offered against him in the synod of Constantinople. 2nd, the petition of appeal, which Eutyches falsely claimed to have offered before the sentence of condemnation. 3rd, the same man's profession of faith, posted at Constantinople. 4th, the testimonies of some Fathers. Both petitions were omitted in the Monte Cassino manuscript. Only a fragment of the profession of faith is given, and the single testimony attributed to Pope Julius. For since a contemporary anonymous author, asked to give his opinion on Eutyches's letter to Pope Leo, thought fit to answer only the letter itself and these two fragments, we judge that it came about from this that in the Monte Cassino manuscript only these fragments appended to the letter were copied together with the anonymous writer's refutation, the rest, which the anonymous writer passed over, being omitted.

(e) ‹et› · printed under cols 717–718

Editio fidei meae appellatur libellus professionis fidei Eutychis, quia publice Constantinopoli propositus fuit, ut idem Eutyches indicavit paulo ante illis meae verbis: Ut ad satisfaciendum plebi proponerem fidei confessiones. Confer annot. 12 (col. 733, n. b) in epist. 23.

The petition of Eutyches's profession of faith is called "the statement of my faith" because it was publicly posted at Constantinople, as the same Eutyches indicated a little before in those words of his: "that I set forth the confessions of faith to satisfy the people". Compare annotation 12 (col. 733, n. b) on letter 23.

(f) ‹Item verba Eutychetis.› · printed under col 718

Est fragmentum professionis fidei, quam Eutyches edidit. Concinit cum illo libello qui pseudosynodo Ephesinae ab Eutyche oblatus, actione prima synodi Chalcedonensis legitur. Aliquanto post pro quam confirmavit vulgati habebant quam conservavit. Emendationem ex ms. Vat. 1319 inductam comprobant eam fidem quae Nicaeae exposita est a sancta synodo, CONFIRMATA vero apud Ephesum.

It is a fragment of the profession of faith which Eutyches put forth. It agrees with that petition offered by Eutyches to the pseudo-synod of Ephesus, which is read in the first session of the synod of Chalcedon. Somewhat further on, for "quam confirmavit" the printed editions had "quam conservavit". The emendation introduced from the Vatican manuscript 1319 is confirmed by [the words] "eam fidem quae Nicaeae exposita est a sancta synodo, CONFIRMATA vero apud Ephesum".

(e) continued from col 717, set in n717.

(f) is printed under col 718 but called in col 717: set in n717.

(g) ‹professionem› · printed under col 718

Verbum habeat, quod desiderabatur sensumque relinquebat imperfectum, supplevimus ex laudato ms Vat. 1319. Mox vero post fidei professionem uno contextu sequebatur contestatio ad populum, de qua vide annot. 12 (col. 733, n. b) in epist. 23.

The word "habeat", which was lacking and left the sense incomplete, we have supplied from the Vatican manuscript 1319 cited. But just after, following the profession of faith, in one continuous text there followed the solemn declaration to the people, on which see annotation 12 (col. 733, n. b) on letter 23.

(h) ‹Exemplar› · printed under col 718, continued at the head of col 719's notes

Corruptus est hic titulus. Pater Coustantius in appendice tomi primi Epistolar. Rom. pontif. pag. 69, legendum putat: Exemplar epistolae Julii... scriptae ad Dionysium. Melior videtur emendatio Baluzii: Ex epistola Julii episcopi urbis Romae, ut asseruit Eutyches, scripta ad Dionysium; neque enim tota epistola hic affertur, sed ejus fragmentum. Integra edita fuit Graece a Muratorio in Anecdotis Graecis: quod autem hic profertur fragmentum ex antiqua versione, circa medium caput quartum desinit. Hanc autem epistolam apud Eutychianos celebrem perperam affictam fuisse Julio pontifisi, ipsius autem Apollinaris opus esse, Julii nomine ab Apollinaristis supposito, luculentissime demonstravit inter caeteros P. Coustantius in monito eidem epistolae praefixo loco citato.

This title is corrupt. Father Coustant, in the appendix to the first volume of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, p. 69, thinks it should be read: "Copy of the letter of Julius... written to Dionysius." Baluze's emendation seems better: "From the letter of Julius, bishop of the city of Rome, as Eutyches asserted, written to Dionysius"; for not the whole letter is brought forward here, but a fragment of it. The whole was published in Greek by Muratori in the Anecdota Graeca: but the fragment given here, from an ancient version, ends about the middle of the fourth chapter. That this letter, famous among the Eutychians, was wrongly ascribed to Pope Julius, and is the work of Apollinaris himself, put forward under Julius's name by the Apollinarists, has been most clearly demonstrated, among others, by Father Coustant in the notice prefixed to that letter, in the place cited.

(h) continued from col 718, set in n718.

(a) ‹alium servum› · printed under col 719

Legendum ex Graeco, impii, seu impie agentes.

It should be read from the Greek: impii [impious], or impie agentes [acting impiously].

(b) ‹et carnem› · printed under col 719

Lege factum.

Read factum.

(c) ‹frustra› · printed under col 719

Corrige ex Graeco conturbant, seu turbas concitant.

Correct from the Greek: conturbant [they throw into confusion], or turbas concitant [they stir up disturbances].

(d) ‹una scilicet natura› · printed under col 720

Dele facta ex Graeco, et in sequentibus corrigendum item ex Graeco, quoniam et unam personam habens, in duo non dividitur, cum nec propria, etc.

Delete facta from the Greek, and in what follows correct likewise from the Greek: quoniam et unam personam habens, in duo non dividitur, cum nec propria [since, having also one person, He is not divided into two, since neither (is) its own], etc.

(e) ‹una tamen› · printed under col 720

Ex Graeco, est hominis natura.

From the Greek: est hominis natura [is the nature of man].

(f) ‹unum est. Et› · printed under col 720

Lupus utrobique edidit haec. Correctionem Baluzii nec textus Graecus confirmat.

Lupus printed haec in both places. The Greek text confirms Baluze's correction nec.

ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER.

1. Quesnelli ex suis praejudiciis magnopere intererat adversus eminentissimum Baronium defendere, S. Flavianum de damnatione Eutychetis ad S. Leonem pontificem nihil scripsisse, nisi postquam hujus litteris fuerat excitatus. Quare duarum Flaviani ad Leonem epistolarum ordinem pervertit Diss. 1, ad an. 449, num. 1 et seqq. et epistolam nobis 26, quam post acceptas a Leone litteras Flavianus scripsit circa Aprilem an. 449, veluti primam traduxit; epistolam vero sequentem veluti secundam posterius traditam statuit, ac in eamdem sententiam traxit ipsum Antonium Pagium, qui idcirco Baronium corrigendum putavit ad an. 448, num. 8. Praecipuum seu potius unicum Quesnelli argumentum a Pagio item repetitum his Flaviani verbis innititur, ex epist. 26, quibus Eutychem damnatum significans, addit: Sicut docebunt vestram sanctitatem omnia, quae super eo sunt gesta, quaeque direximus cum nostris his litteris. In quae ille: Vides ut nihil litterarum vel gestorum synodi ante hanc epistolam acceperat Leo a Flaviano? Cumque Flavianus deinde memoret Leonis literas sibi traditas a Pansophio (est epistola 23) quibus edoctus fuerat, eumdem Eutychem libellos direxisse ad Leonem plenos omni fallacia et calliditate: ex his liquet pariter, subdit Quesnellus nam ante Flavianum de litteris ad Leonem ea de re scribendis cogitasse, quam cum didicit pontificem improbis artibus deceptum, falsam de judicio Constantinopolitano cepisse opinionem.

1. It greatly mattered to Quesnel, on account of his own preconceptions, to maintain against the most eminent Baronius that St Flavian wrote nothing to St Leo the pontiff about the condemnation of Eutyches until he had been roused by the latter's letter. He therefore inverted the order of Flavian's two letters to Leo (Diss. 1, at the year 449, no. 1 and following), and presented as the first the letter that is our 26, which Flavian wrote about April of the year 449 after receiving Leo's letter; but the following letter he declared to be the second, delivered later, and he drew Antoine Pagi himself to the same opinion, who for that reason thought Baronius needed correcting (at the year 448, no. 8). Quesnel's chief, or rather only, argument, repeated likewise by Pagi, rests on these words of Flavian from letter 26, in which, signifying that Eutyches had been condemned, he adds: As all that has been done concerning him will teach your holiness, and what we have sent together with this our letter. On which he [Quesnel remarks]: Do you see that Leo had received no letter or acts of the synod from Flavian before this letter? And since Flavian then mentions Leo's letter delivered to him by Pansophius (it is letter 23), by which he had been informed that the same Eutyches had sent to Leo petitions full of every deceit and cunning, from these words, Quesnel adds, it is equally clear that Flavian did not think of writing a letter to Leo on the matter before he learned that the pontiff, deceived by wicked arts, had formed a false opinion of the judgement at Constantinople.

(g) ‹cum duas naturas› · printed under col 720

Lege dicant ex eodem Graeco.

Read dicant [they say] from the same Greek.

(notes (d), (e), (f) printed under this column are called in col 719: set in n719)

2. Si epistola 23 legatur attente, Leonem non deceptum, sed cautum et necessaria documenta postulantem ac exspectantem invenies Ad argumentum vero quod pertinet, etiam in epistola 22, Eutychis erroribus expositis, quae πάλαι, dudum seu pridem in eum gesta fuerant, a Flaviano ad Leonem directa traduntur cap. 4, et eodem quidem Graeco verbo ἀπεστείλαμεν direximus, idem Flavianus utitur, quod adhibuit epist. 26. Qua in re ne vox direximus, difficultatem moveat, vide annot. 17 (col. 727, n. b) in eamdem epistolam 22. Cum ergo bis Flavianus de eadem damnatione ad Leonem scribens, bis quoque gesta ad eum transmiserit, nimirum una cum epist. 22, et cum epist. 26 nihil ex hoc uno pro alterutra anteriori asserenda deduci potest.

2. If letter 23 is read attentively, you will find Leo not deceived, but cautious, and asking for and awaiting the necessary documents. As for the argument, in letter 22 too, after the errors of Eutyches have been set out, the things that had been done against him πάλαι, long since or earlier, are said in ch. 4 to have been sent by Flavian to Leo; and indeed the same Flavian uses the same Greek word ἀπεστείλαμεν, direximus [we have sent], that he employed in letter 26. So that the word direximus may raise no difficulty in this matter, see note 17 (col. 727, n. b) on the same letter 22. Since therefore Flavian, writing twice to Leo about the same condemnation, twice also sent him the acts, namely with letter 22 and with letter 26, nothing can be deduced from this one [point] for asserting that either one is the earlier.

3. Ex contextu vero utriusque epistolae si judicium feratur, Tillemontius, licet Quesnello in aliis multis faverit, hac tamen in re assentiri non potuit: unde art. 16, in Leonem, epistolae 22 primum locum adjudicandum nihil addubitavit: Je croy que pour peu de reflexion qu'on y fasse, on reconoistra aisement, qu'elle (epistola nunc 22) a esté ecrite fort peu apres le concile tenu contre Eutyche, et que c'est la première, que Flavien ait ecrit à Rome sur cette affaire, comme l'a cru Baronius. Verba ex Graeco talis nobis nunc apparuit Eutyches, recentissimam haeretici manifestationem et condemnationem declarant. Illa vero sub finem, quibus, ut gesta de eodem in Occidentalium episcoporum deducantur notitiam, Flavianus rogat, ne scientes aliqui quid

3. But if judgement is passed from the context of each letter, Tillemont, though he favoured Quesnel in many other things, could not agree in this matter: hence, in art. 16 on Leo, he did not in the least doubt that the first place is to be assigned to letter 22: I think that with only a little reflection one will easily recognize that it (now letter 22) was written very shortly after the council held against Eutyches, and that it is the first that Flavian wrote to Rome on this affair, as Baronius believed. The words from the Greek, such has Eutyches now appeared to us, declare the very recent exposure and condemnation of the heretic. But those near the end, in which Flavian asks that the acts concerning him be brought to the knowledge of the Western bishops, lest some, knowing […] what […]

ille senserit, quasi ad orthodoxum vel per litteras, vel per aliquam conjunctionem loquantur; haec statim ab initio scripta produnt. Inopportunum enim fuisset Leonem rogare, ut promulgaret Eutychis condemnationem eo tempore, quo notissima erat, seu post epist. 26, cum jam generale concilium ea de causa habendum vulgatum fuerat.

[…] he thought, should speak [to him] as to an orthodox man, either by letter or through some communion: these words show that [the letter] was written straight away, at the outset. For it would have been untimely to ask Leo to promulgate the condemnation of Eutyches at a time when it was very well known, that is, after letter 26, when it had already been made public that a general council was to be held on that account.

4. Sed evidentius argumentum producamus. S. Leo duas Flaviani litteras cum gestis se accepisse tradit. Primum ep. 28, ad eumdem Flavianum scripta Idibus Junii an. 449, his verbis cap. 1: Lectis dilectionis tuae litteris, quas miramur fuisse tam seras, et gestorum episcopalium ordine recensito, tandem quid apud vos scandali contra integritatem fidei exortum fuisset, agnovimus. Hanc eamdem Flaviani epistolam se jam tunc accepisse indicat, cum scripsit epistolam 27, datam die 21 Maii anni ejusdem. Si epistola Flaviani sub hunc diem accepta valde erat sera; ergo multo ante scripta fuerat. Haec de primis Flaviani litteris procul dubio intelligenda sunt. Rursum epistola 36 ad eumdem Flavianum, data XII vel XV kal. Julii anni ejusdem aliae hujus litterae tunc acceptae una cum gestis nominantur sic: Litteras tuae dilectionis accepi cum gestis, quae apud vos de fidei quaestione confecta sunt. Haec de secundis litteris ejusdem Flaviani, quibus acta in Eutychem aeque ac primis annexa fuerant. Porro in hac epistola 36 respici epistolam 26 Flaviani, ex eo manifestum sit, quod Flavianus ep. 26, c. 2, sperare se dicit, remotum iri synodum, quae futura vulgabatur: Leo autem huic articulo respondens epistola 36, concilium impediri non posse significat. Igitur epistola 26, Flaviani secunda est, epistola autem 22, prima ac paulo post Constantinopolitanam synodum missa exeunte an. 448 vel serius ineunte an. 449. Epistolam Eutychis una cum imperatoris litteris quae pro eodem datae fuere, transmissam citius pervenisse nihil sit mirum. Unde vero epistolae Flaviani, quam sero allatam Leo miratus est, morae longiores injectae fuerint, ignoramus. Hinc epistola 22 priora gesta quae usque ad Constantinopolitanam synodum contigerant descripsit: epistola autem 26 posteriora adjecit quae post eamdem synodum Eutyches commoverat. Acta vero synodi iterum huic secundae epistolae fuerunt annexa, eo quod ex Leonis litteris Flavianus metueret, ne forte prior epistola cum actis intercidisset. Quod si in epistola 26 nulla fit mentio epistolae 22, quam antea missam probavimus, nihil movere potest: siquidem nec in epistola 22, quam Quesnellus posteriorem censet, alterius antea scriptae epistolae Flavianus meminit.

4. But let us bring forward a clearer argument. St Leo states that he received two letters of Flavian with the acts. The first in ep. 28, written to the same Flavian on the Ides of June in the year 449, in these words of ch. 1: Having read your beloved's letter, which we wonder was so late, and having gone through the record of the episcopal acts, we have at last learned what scandal had arisen among you against the integrity of the faith. He indicates that he had already received this same letter of Flavian when he wrote letter 27, dated 21 May of the same year. If Flavian's letter received about this day was very late, then it had been written long before. This is without doubt to be understood of Flavian's first letter. Again, in letter 36 to the same Flavian, dated the 12th or 15th day before the Kalends of July of the same year, another letter of his, received then together with the acts, is named thus: I have received your beloved's letter with the acts that were drawn up among you on the question of the faith. This refers to the second letter of the same Flavian, to which the acts against Eutyches had been attached just as to the first. Further, that this letter 36 has letter 26 of Flavian in view is plain from the fact that Flavian in ep. 26, ch. 2, says he hopes that the synod which was being announced as about to take place will be called off; while Leo, answering this point in letter 36, indicates that the council cannot be prevented. Therefore letter 26 is Flavian's second, and letter 22 the first, sent shortly after the synod of Constantinople at the end of the year 448 or, later, at the beginning of the year 449. It should be no wonder that Eutyches' letter, sent together with the emperor's letter that was given on his behalf, arrived sooner. But whence the longer delays came upon Flavian's letter, which Leo wondered had been brought so late, we do not know. Hence letter 22 described the earlier acts that had taken place up to the synod of Constantinople, while letter 26 added the later things that Eutyches had stirred up after that same synod. And the acts of the synod were attached again to this second letter, because Flavian feared from Leo's letter that the earlier letter with the acts had perhaps been lost. And if no mention is made in letter 26 of letter 22, which we have proved was sent earlier, that can carry no weight: for neither in letter 22, which Quesnel judges to be the later, does Flavian mention another letter written earlier.

5. Maneat ergo epistolam 22 primum datam fuisse, eamque esse illam, quae a Leone memoratur epistola 28, cuique tota haec celebris Leonis definitio innititur. Hinc quidem evenisse credimus, ut in antiquis collectionibus Latinis 2, 3 et 8, nec non in Hispanica et Isidoriana aliisque posterioribus, quae a vetustis illis fontibus prodeunt, sola Flaviani ad Leonem epistola 22 praemittitur epist. 28, Leonis ad Flavianum. Cumque haec prior Leoni tradita, statim etiam in Latinum versa, et ubique in Occidente divulgata fuerit; idcirco in tot distinctis et antiquis collectionibus insertam putamus: quod confirmabitur ex dicendis in fine annotationis 5 col. 886, n. g), in epist. 67. Id non accidit epistolae 26, quae cum posterius fuerit scripta, res satis cognita per priores litteras, non perinde spargi debuit in vulgum: unde in solis codicibus collectionis 17 Chalcedonensis, ubi quamplurima documenta ad Eutychem pertinentia diligentius collecta fuerunt, reperitur, et ordine quidem post epistolam 22, ut apud Baluzium videre licet tom. IV Concilior. Venetae editionis pag. 1981, quod ipsum hanc priorem, illam posteriorem confirmat.

5. Let it stand, then, that letter 22 was sent first, and that it is the one mentioned by Leo in letter 28, on which this whole celebrated definition of Leo rests. Hence indeed, we believe, it came about that in the ancient Latin collections 2, 3 and 8, and also in the Spanish and the Isidorian and other later ones that derive from those old sources, only Flavian's letter 22 to Leo is placed before ep. 28, Leo's to Flavian. And since this earlier one, delivered to Leo, was at once translated into Latin as well and made known everywhere in the West, we think it was for that reason inserted in so many distinct and ancient collections: which will be confirmed by what is to be said at the end of note 5 (col. 886, n. g) on ep. 67. This did not happen to letter 26, which, since it was written later, when the matter was sufficiently known through the earlier letter, did not need to be spread abroad in the same way: hence it is found only in the manuscripts of collection 17, the Chalcedonian, where a great many documents concerning Eutyches were collected with greater diligence, and indeed in order after letter 22, as may be seen in Baluze, vol. IV of the Councils of the Venetian edition, p. 1981; which itself confirms that this one is the earlier, that one the later.

6. Hinc pariter conjicere licet, interpretationem epistolae 22, incipientem Nulla res diaboli, quae in laudatis antiquis collectionibus exstat, et in nonnullis etiam reperitur una cum actis synodi Canstantinopolitanae in Eutychem eidem epistolae a Flaviano subjectis, primam interpretationem esse, quae statim promulgata, subinde in collectionibus recepta fuit: dum alia interpretatio, quae incipit Nihil est, in sola vetusta collectione Latina Chalcedonensi reperitur, ex qua postmodum in posteriorem collectionem 22, cum aliis documentis Chalcedonensibus traducta fuit. Illa vetustior interpretatio statim ab initio confecta, Leoni usui fuit antequam dogmaticas ad Flavianum litteras scriberet; sicut indubium est, eidem usui fuisse interpretationem actorum synodi Constantinopolitanae in Eutychen, quae simul edita in collectionibus 3 et 8, una cum laudata antiquiori versione epistola 22, recepta legitur: ex hac enim actorum interpretatione nonnulla totidem verbis recitat in iisdem dogmaticis litteris cap. 6.

6. Hence one may likewise conjecture that the translation of letter 22 beginning Nulla res diaboli, which survives in the ancient collections mentioned, and is also found in some together with the acts of the synod of Constantinople against Eutyches that Flavian appended to the same letter, is the first translation, which, published at once, was thereafter received into the collections: whereas the other translation, which begins Nihil est, is found only in the old Latin Chalcedonian collection, from which it was afterwards carried over into the later collection 22 with other Chalcedonian documents. That older translation, made at once, at the outset, was of use to Leo before he wrote the dogmatic letter to Flavian; just as it is beyond doubt that the translation of the acts of the synod of Constantinople against Eutyches was of the same use to him, which, published together [with it] in collections 3 and 8, is read received together with the older version of letter 22 mentioned above: for from this translation of the acts he recites some things in as many words in the same dogmatic letter, ch. 6.

7. Ex his autem omnibus perspicuum efficitur, quam inaniter Quesnellus adversus card. Baronium elaboraverit, ut epistolam 22 scriptam suaderet post epistolam 26, ac si Flavianus, qui post Eutychis condemnationem scripsit ad Domnum et ad alios Orientis episcopos, Occidentales, et potisssimum Romanum pontificem de tanta haeresi commonendum neglexerit. Idem Flavianus statim post condemnationem Eutychis satis a Florentio monitus fuerat, dum soluto conventu ad superiorem domus partem ascenderet, ipsum Eutychem ad Romanum, Alexandrinum et Hierosolymitanum episcopos appellasse; unde metuendum ipsi erat ne, si statim ad Leonem non scriberet, is pontificem praeveniret. Sed plura addere ad refellendum Quesnellianum praejudicium sive commentum opus non est.

7. From all this, moreover, it is made plain how vainly Quesnel laboured against Cardinal Baronius to persuade [us] that letter 22 was written after letter 26, as if Flavian, who after the condemnation of Eutyches wrote to Domnus and to the other bishops of the East, had neglected to warn the Westerners, and above all the Roman pontiff, of so great a heresy. The same Flavian, immediately after the condemnation of Eutyches, had been plainly informed by Florentius, while, the assembly having broken up, he was going up to the upper part of the house, that Eutyches himself had appealed to the bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Jerusalem; hence he had to fear that, if he did not write to Leo at once, that man would reach the pontiff first. But there is no need to add more to refute Quesnel's preconception or fabrication.

8. Inter duas porro Latinas versiones quas memoravimus, epistolae sequentis, licet illa quae incipit Nulla res sit prima et antiquior altera, cujus initium Nilhil est, cum tamen a minus perito vel non admodum diligenti interprete Latine reddita, originali Graeco minus exacte respondeat, alia autem versio, quae in Chalcedonensi collectione exhibetur, a peritiore ac diligentiore interprete lucubrata, ad Graecum textum propius accedat, hanc posteriorem quidem, at satis vetustam illi priori anteferentes, Graeco textui e regione annectendam credidimus. Postea vero antiquiorem versionem subjicimus, cui praeter interpretis minus accurati difficultates aliae accesserunt ex amanuensibus, qui in lectionibus mirifice discrepantes, obscuriorem ac magis incertum primaevae versionis textum reddidere. Quesnellus hanc versionem antiquiorem Graeco originali appositam edidit, ut in Conciliorum editionibus profertur, non paucis et identidem longioribus lectionibus in margine descriptis, quae videri possunt variantes ex mss. sumptae, sed vere sunt lectiones ex Graeco a Romanis textus Graeci primis editoribus appositae; quod antiqua versio minus congrua videretur. Immo iidem nonnulla ex Graeco etiam mutarunt in ipso versionis textu, quemadmodum in ipsius Chalcedonensis prisca versione identidem fecerant; et nihilominus Quesnellus, licet aliquot haberet ejus interpretationis codices, et anteriores Leonis editiones, qui aliter legebant, ita Romanam lectionem transcripsit, ut nec codicibus nec caeteris editis usus, antiquam versionem restituere neglexerit; cum tamen ii qui antiquas versiones exhibent non illud proferre debeant quod originali est congruentius, sed illud quod a veteri interprete redditum fuit. Versio autem altera accuratior, quam nos cum Graeco textu priori loco dabimus, edita primum fuit a Quesnello ex ms. Thuaneo collect. 17 Chalcedonen., tum vero ex eodem codice ac duobus aliis ejusdem collectionis Corbeiensi ac Divionensi eamdem recusit Baluzius in antiqua versione concilii Chalcedonensis emendata a Rustico, cap. 5. Nos quoque eam recognovimus cum quatuor mss. laudatae collectionis, vetustissimo Veron., duobus Vaticanis, et Chigiano, nec non cum Veneto S. Marci collect. 22; Graecum vero originale, quod nobis conservavit Graeca collectio concilii Chalcedonensis, contulimus cum duobus codd. Venetis S. Marci.

8. Further, between the two Latin versions of the following letter that we have mentioned, although the one that begins Nulla res is the first and older than the other, whose beginning is Nilhil est, yet since it was rendered into Latin by a less skilled or not very careful translator and corresponds less exactly to the Greek original, while the other version, which is shown in the Chalcedonian collection, worked out by a more skilled and more careful translator, comes nearer to the Greek text, we have thought it right, preferring this later, though fairly old, one to the former, to join it to the Greek text on the facing side. But afterwards we add the older version, to which, besides the difficulties of a less accurate translator, others have been added by the copyists, who, differing astonishingly in their readings, have rendered the text of the original version more obscure and more uncertain. Quesnel published this older version set beside the Greek original, as it is brought forward in the editions of the Councils, with not a few and repeatedly rather long readings written in the margin, which may seem to be variants taken from manuscripts, but are really readings from the Greek placed there by the Roman first editors of the Greek text, because the old version seemed less fitting. Indeed, the same men also changed some things from the Greek in the very text of the version, just as they had repeatedly done in the ancient version of the Chalcedonian [council] itself; and nevertheless Quesnel, although he had several manuscripts of that translation, and the earlier editions of Leo, which read otherwise, so transcribed the Roman reading that, making use neither of the manuscripts nor of the other printed editions, he neglected to restore the old version; whereas those who present old versions ought to bring forward not what agrees better with the original, but what was rendered by the old translator. The other, more accurate version, which we shall give in the first place with the Greek text, was first published by Quesnel from the Thuanus manuscript of collection 17, the Chalcedonian; and then from the same manuscript and two others of the same collection, the Corbie and the Dijon, Baluze reprinted it in the ancient version of the council of Chalcedon corrected by Rusticus, ch. 5. We too have revised it against four manuscripts of the collection mentioned, the very old Verona one, two Vatican ones, and the Chigi one, and also against the Venetian one of St Mark, collection 22; and the Greek original, which the Greek collection of the council of Chalcedon has preserved for us, we have collated with two Venetian manuscripts of St Mark.