Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹frater charissime. Datum› · printed under col 735

Haec chronica notatio deest in omnibus mss. collect., quas vidimus, tribus exceptis Chalcedon. 17. Ratisp., 19, et 21. Quidam codd. hujus postremae collect. 21, cum editis ante Quesn., perperam habent XII kal. Maii; nam hae litterae mense Aprili Constantinopoli receptae fuerunt, ut patet ex interlocutione Seleuci habita in conventu Constantinopolitano vidus Aprilis, ubi de Eutychis appellatione in hisce litteris memorata fit mentio. Vide tomum IV Concil. Venetae editionis pag. 1067. Alii autem ejusdem collectioni codices et multo praestantiores Ratisp. et Chalcedon. diem et mensem textui insertos praeferunt. Porro Asturio pro Asterio tum in hac tum in sequentibus hujus anni epistolis edidimus, ut in codice Ratisponensi et in perantiquo Veronensi 57 aliisque Chalcedonensibus mss. legitur. Immo ita constanter legi etiam in codice Grimanico, idem Quesnellus Norisio confessus est per litteras, quarum hic meminit in Cenotaphiis Pisanis diss. 4, c. 2, §. 1, tom. III pag. 691. In Diptyco quidem Leodiensi quod illustravit Alexander Vilthemius Astyrius habetur. Sed y pro u, non autem pro e veteres non semel usurpasse notissimum est. Prosper et Idatius coaevi auctores Asturium in plerisque codd. exhibent, in nonnullis Astyrium.

This chronological note is lacking in all the manuscripts of the collections that we have seen, except three: the Chalcedonian 17, the Regensburg 19, and 21. Some manuscripts of this last collection, 21, with the editions before Quesnel, wrongly have XII kal. Maii; for this letter was received at Constantinople in the month of April, as is clear from the interjection of Seleucus made in the assembly at Constantinople on the [sixth day before the] Ides of April, where mention is made of the appeal of Eutyches recorded in this letter. See volume IV of the Councils, Venetian edition, page 1067. The other manuscripts of the same collection, however, and the far better Regensburg and Chalcedonian ones, show the day and month inserted in the text. Further, we have printed Asturio for Asterio both in this and in the following letters of this year, as is read in the Regensburg manuscript, in the very old Verona 57, and in other Chalcedonian manuscripts. Indeed, that it is read so consistently in the Grimani manuscript too, Quesnel himself admitted to Noris by letter, which Noris mentions in the Cenotaphia Pisana, diss. 4, ch. 2, §1, vol. III, p. 691. In the diptych of Liège, indeed, which Alexander Wiltheim illustrated, Astyrius is found. But it is very well known that the ancients more than once used y for u, but not for e. Prosper and Idatius, contemporary authors, show Asturius in most manuscripts, Astyrius in some.

(b) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 735

Al. 21. Quae autem antea 24 erat nunc 28. Scripta 18 Februarii an. 449.

Elsewhere 21. The one that was formerly 24 is now 28. Written on 18 February in the year 449.

(c) ‹EPISTOLA XXIV.› · printed under col 735

Quesnellus hanc epistolam in solo ms. Grimanico collect. 18 reperit; nos in praeclarissimo Ratispon. collect. 19 et in codd. collect. 12 ac 24, nec non apud Sichardum; et cum his eamdem contulimus. In mss. collect. 12, Pulcheriae, vel Theodosio inscribitur.

Quesnel found this letter only in the Grimani manuscript of collection 18; we [found it] in the most distinguished Regensburg [manuscript] of collection 19, in the manuscripts of collections 12 and 24, and also in Sichardus; and we have collated it with these. In the manuscripts of collection 12 it is addressed to Pulcheria, or to Theodosius.

(d) ‹Christianae religionis› · printed under col 735

Ms. Ratisp., habeatis.

The Regensburg manuscript: habeatis.

(e) ‹incommutabili Trinitati› · printed under col 735

Ita ex ms. Ratisp. emendavimus. Alias, omissa praepositione in, habetur, unius Deitatis confessione. Post vocem servitur Quesnellus addidit gloriosissime, quod nostri codd. et praecipue Ratisp. ignorant.

So we have emended from the Regensburg manuscript. Elsewhere, with the preposition in omitted, there is found unius Deitatis confessione. After the word servitur Quesnel added gloriosissime, which our manuscripts, and especially the Regensburg, do not know.

(f) ‹Constantinopolitana Ecclesia› · printed under col 736

Ratisp., turbationis. Postea, coepiscopum meum, pro coepiscopum nostrum; et cohaerenter, nondum potui evidenter agnoscere, pro nondum potuimus evidenter cognoscere, ex nostris mss. collect. 24, ac praesertim ex Ratisp. praetulimus. Verbum potui etiam apud Sichardum legitur.

Regensburg: turbationis. Afterwards we have preferred coepiscopum meum to coepiscopum nostrum, and consistently nondum potui evidenter agnoscere to nondum potuimus evidenter cognoscere, from our manuscripts of collection 24, and especially from the Regensburg. The word potui is also read in Sichardus.

(g) ‹sedem apostolicam› · printed under col 736

Libellus quo doloris sui querimoniam Eutyches ad apostolicam sedem misit, ipsa est Eutychis ad Leonem epist. 21. Vide annot. 7 (col. 752, n. (n) in illam praecedentem.

The petition by which Eutyches sent the complaint of his grief to the apostolic see is Eutyches' letter 21 to Leo itself. See note 7 (col. 752, n. (n)) on the preceding one.

SYNOPSIS. — I. Laudata imperatoris fide querimoniam Eutychis exponit. — II. Silentium Flaviani argusti; instrui se postulat.

SYNOPSIS. — I. Having praised the emperor's faith, he sets out the complaint of Eutyches. — II. [He censures] the silence of Flavian; he asks to be informed.

(h) ‹CAP. II. —› · printed under col 736

Vide not. 1 Quesn.

See Quesnel's note 1.

(i) ‹exemplaria ad nos› · printed under col 736

Ita ms. Ratisp. Alias, praedictus.

So the Regensburg manuscript. Elsewhere, praedictus.

(j) ‹episcopus Nicaenae synodi› · printed under col 736

Sic melius ex eodem codice. Quesnellus, profiteatur se inhaerere. Caeteri editi, profiteatur in hac re se esse decretis. Cod. Vat. collect. 24 hanc eamdem lectionem praeferens omittit se. In hac re essse pro inhaerere librariorum lapsu scriptum apparet.

So, better, from the same manuscript. Quesnel: profiteatur se inhaerere. The other editions: profiteatur in hac re se esse decretis. The Vatican manuscript of collection 24, showing this same reading, omits se. In hac re esse evidently was written for inhaerere by a slip of the copyists.

(k) ‹non habuimus unde› · printed under col 736

Optima haec lectio ex optimo codice Ratisponensi sumpta est. Quesnellus ex ms. Grimanico, aliquid diceremus, et similiter Sichardus; alii editi, aliud disceremus. Vide not. 2 Quesnelli.

This excellent reading is taken from the excellent Regensburg manuscript. Quesnel, from the Grimani manuscript: aliquid diceremus, and Sichardus likewise; other editions: aliud disceremus. See Quesnel's note 2.

(l) ‹vestrae pietatis› · printed under col 736

Editi ante Quaesn. cum Ratispon. et mss. collect. 24 ac exemplo Sichardi, exegit. Subauditur, ut de hac causa judicium feram, quemadmodum ex sequentibus palam colligitur.

The editions before Quesnel, with the Regensburg [manuscript], the manuscripts of collection 24 and the copy of Sichardus: exegit. Understand: ut de hac causa judicium feram, as is plainly gathered from what follows.

(m) ‹in tanta causa gesta fuerant› · printed under col 736

Quidam editi ante Quesn., etiam nimio silentio reticeret; alii, etiam nunc silentio reticeret. Cod. Vat. collect. 24, deticeret. Lectionem textus praeferunt codd. Grim. et Ratisp.

Some editions before Quesnel: etiam nimio silentio reticeret; others: etiam nunc silentio reticeret. The Vatican manuscript of collection 24: deticeret. The Grimani and Regensburg manuscripts show the reading of the text.

(n) ‹judicetur. Data› · printed under col 736

Diem emendavimus ex ms. Ratispon., cum quo concinit cod. Venetus collect. 12. Eodem nimirum die quo superior haec quoque epistola scripta fuit, et utraque simul Constantinopolim transmissa; unde superioris epistolae ad Flavianum hic mentio facta est. cap. 2. Quesnellus cum Grimanico et alii seditis Leonis: Data die kalendarum Martii: vel, ad kalendas Martii; in editis autem Conciliorum, ad kalendas Maii.

We have emended the day from the Regensburg manuscript, with which the Venice manuscript of collection 12 agrees. This letter too, of course, was written on the same day as the one above, and both were sent together to Constantinople; hence mention is made here, in ch. 2, of the letter above to Flavian. Quesnel, with the Grimani [manuscript], and other editions of Leo: Data die kalendarum Martii, or ad kalendas Martii; in the editions of the Councils, however: ad kalendas Maii.

τὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχουσαι, καὶ εἰς τὴν τελειότητα τῆς πίστεως ἀνήκουσαι, φαύλῃ τινὸς ἑρμηνείᾳ μολυνθῶσιν. Ὁ Θεὸς ὑγιῆ σε διαφυλάξαι, ἀδελφὲ τιμιώτατε.

ADMONITIO IN SEQUENTEM EPISTOLAM.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER.

1. Duae litterarum S. Petri Chrysologi ad Eutychem Latinae editiones prodiere: altera, quae unicum seu primum tantum caput exhibet; altera, quae duo capitula complectitur. Quesnellus cum hanc prolixiorem epistolam et editionem genuinam haberet, quonam fato illa decurtata et non potius haec integra inserta fuerit in Vulgatis S. Leonis editionibus, se non assequi in notis professus est. Ex codicibus autem, qui eam fere decurtatam praeferunt, magna inter eruditos exstitit dubitatio, num secundum caput sincerum, an supposititium sit. Omnis autem evanescet difficultas, si utriusque editionis originem detegamus. Id ex observatione quamplurium codicum ac ex discrimine collectionum quas diligenter expendimus, nobis innotuit.

1. Two Latin editions of the letter of St Peter Chrysologus to Eutyches have appeared: one which shows a single chapter, that is, only the first; the other, which comprises two chapters. Since Quesnel held this longer letter and edition to be genuine, he professed in his notes that he could not make out by what fate the shortened one, and not rather this entire one, was inserted in the common editions of St Leo. From the manuscripts, however, which for the most part show it shortened, great doubt arose among the learned whether the second chapter is genuine or spurious. But all difficulty will vanish if we uncover the origin of each edition. This became known to us from the observation of a great many manuscripts and from the distinction of the collections, which we have carefully weighed.

2. Editio decurtata, quae sola invenitur in Leonis codicibus et in plerisque collectionibus, ex collectione Hispanica proficiscitur: nam ex Hispanica haec mutila editio, quae terminat in verbis, His omnibus respondi, frater, litteris tuis, manavit in Isidorianam, ex Isidoriana autem, quae frequentior et magis obvia fuit, in collectiones 11, 12, 21 et 23, quarum auctores cum transcripserint quotquot Leonis epistolas in Isidoriana collectione reperere, transcripserunt etiam S. Petri Chrysologi epistolam, quemadmodum inter Leoninas in eadem collectione, sicut et in Hispanica, inserta fuerat. Licet ergo multi sint codices, et collectiones multae, quae decurtatam hujus epistolae editionem praeferunt; unica tamen omnium origo est, auctor scilicet collectionis Hispanicae, in cujus manus solum primum epistolae caput pervenisse, perspicuum fiet, in integrae editionis originem potioris et antiquitatis et auctoritatis esse ostendamus.

2. The shortened edition, which alone is found in the manuscripts of Leo and in most collections, derives from the Spanish collection: for from the Spanish this mutilated edition, which ends with the words His omnibus respondi, frater, litteris tuis, flowed into the Isidorian, and from the Isidorian, which was more common and more readily to hand, into collections 11, 12, 21 and 23; since their compilers transcribed as many letters of Leo as they found in the Isidorian collection, they transcribed also the letter of St Peter Chrysologus, as it had been inserted among Leo's in that same collection, as also in the Spanish. Although, therefore, there are many manuscripts and many collections which show the shortened edition of this letter, the origin of them all is one, namely the compiler of the Spanish collection, into whose hands only the first chapter of the letter came; this will become plain [if] we show the origin of the entire edition to be superior both in antiquity and in authority.

3. Hispanica collectione antiquior et majoris auctoritatis profecto est collectio epistolarum in causa Eutychetis, quae Actionibus Chalcedonensis concilii tum in Latinis, tum in Graecis exemplaribus praemissae aut insertae leguntur. Haec nimirum epistolarum collectio, quam in praefatione decimam septimam appellavimus, Latine erat compacta saltem ante medium sextum saeculum, quo Rusticus Romanae Ecclesiae diaconus collatis eximiis Graecis codicibus peculiarem eidem operam impendit. Multo autem vetustior fuit eadem collectio Graece scripta apud Graecos, qui Latinas epistolas in causa Eutychis Graeca lingua redditas una cum aliis Graecis epistolis ad eamdem causam pertinentibus in unum corpus compegerant. Enim vero Graecam hanc epistolarum collectionem concinnatam fuisse inter an. 453 et 455 in praefatione epistolis praemissa, num. 34, demonstravimus. Id autem quantum auctoritati tribuat huic collectioni Graecae, et exinde etiam collectioni Latinae, quae ex Graeca ducit originem; quantumque propterea haec collectio praestet collectioni Hispanicae, nemo non videt. Inter memoratae vero collectionis Chalcedonensis epistolas cum in Latinis, tum in Graecis codicibus integra describitur illa S. Petri Chrysologi ad Eutychem, a coaevo utique collectore inserta; ac idcirco ex antiquitate atque praestantia hujus collectionis tam apud Graecos, quam apud Latinos receptae, de integrae ejus epistolae sinceritate dubitare non licet. Cum Agnellus Ravennas a Bacchinio et a Muratorio editus, postremi capitis ejus epistolae summam dedit in S. Petri Chrysologi Vita, si non integram epistolam reperit in veteribus Ravennatensis Ecclesiae tabulis, certe aliquod vetustum exemplar hujusmodi collectionis Chalcedonensis prae oculis habuit. Cum vero haec exemplaria rariora fuerint, et non ita multa ex Leone proferant, ut in Isidoriana satis frequenti exhibentur; nihil mirum si posteriores Leoninarum epistolarum collectores hanc epistolam non integram, sed mutilam dedere, uti apud Isidorum ex Hispanica suam collectionem derivantem inventa fuit. Hic autem omittendum non est duos codices Vaticanos epistolarum Leonis a Vossio memoratos, quos hanc epistolam integram continere Quesnellus praesumpsit, eodem Vossio in notatione admonente mutilam exhibere; sunt enim codices posteriorum collectionum quae ex Isidoriana dimanant.

3. Older than the Spanish collection, and of greater authority, is certainly the collection of letters in the case of Eutyches which are read prefixed to, or inserted in, the Acts of the council of Chalcedon, both in the Latin and in the Greek copies. This collection of letters, namely, which in the preface we called the seventeenth, had been put together in Latin at least before the middle of the sixth century, when Rusticus, deacon of the Roman Church, having collated excellent Greek manuscripts, spent particular labour on it. But much older was the same collection written in Greek among the Greeks, who had joined into one body the Latin letters in the case of Eutyches, rendered into the Greek language, together with other Greek letters pertaining to the same case. Indeed, we have shown in the preface prefixed to the letters, no. 34, that this Greek collection of letters was compiled between the years 453 and 455. How much authority this lends to this Greek collection, and hence also to the Latin collection, which derives its origin from the Greek, and how much, on that account, this collection surpasses the Spanish collection, everyone sees. Among the letters of the Chalcedonian collection mentioned, in both the Latin and the Greek manuscripts, that letter of St Peter Chrysologus to Eutyches is copied entire, inserted, at any rate, by a contemporary compiler; and therefore, from the antiquity and excellence of this collection, received among the Greeks as well as among the Latins, it is not permissible to doubt the genuineness of that letter entire. Since Agnellus of Ravenna, edited by Bacchini and by Muratori, gave the substance of the last chapter of that letter in the Life of St Peter Chrysologus, if he did not find the entire letter in the old records of the Church of Ravenna, he certainly had before his eyes some old copy of this Chalcedonian collection. But since these copies were rarer, and do not bring forward as many letters of Leo as are shown in the fairly common Isidorian, it is no wonder if later compilers of Leo's letters gave this letter not entire but mutilated, as it was found in Isidore, who derived his collection from the Spanish. Here, however, it must not be omitted that the two Vatican manuscripts of Leo's letters mentioned by Voss, which Quesnel presumed to contain this letter entire, show it mutilated, as the same Voss warns in a note; for they are manuscripts of the later collections which flow from the Isidorian.

4. Unum dubitari potest, num haec epistola, quam in Laudatis Latinae collectionis codicibus integram habemus, originalis sit, an e Graeca antiqua versione Latine reddita fuerit. In memorata praefatione satis manifeste probavimus, antiquum illum auctorem, qui priscae versioni concilii Chalcedonensis epistolas Latinorum in Graeca collectione contentas adjecit, originale Latinum posuisse, quando potuit originale invenire: aliquando vero, cum nullum Latini originalis exemplum suppetebat, coactum fuisse ex Graeca versione quaedam Latinorum documenta Latine reddere, uti accidit quibusdam epistolis Valentiniani, Placidiae et Eudoxiae, nec non epistolae Hilarii diaconi, atque etiam litteris S. Leonis, quemadmodum suis in locis notabimus. Hujus versionis indicium ac veluti generalem regulam in laudata praefatione illam posuimus, cum chronica notatio in Graecis codicibus ejusdem collectionis universim emissa, in Latinis etiam desiderari perspicitur. Quando enim originale Latinum a Latino interprete inventum fuit, eo collectioni inserto chronica notatio suppleta invenitur. Discrimen etiam styli, ubi collatis aliis originalibus ejusdem auctoris lucubrationibus deprehendi potest, aliud versionis argumentum est. Hinc autem aliquid interpretationis in Latina integra Petri Chrysologi epistola videre nobis videmur. Chronica enim notatio deest, et inter ipsum primum ac secundum caput nonnulla styli dissimilitudo elucescit. Primum caput, quod exibetur etiam in collectione Hispanica, satis nitidum et congruum est, aliisque Petri Chrysologi operibus stylo simile, adeo ut nonnulla fere verba ejusdem capitis in serm. 145 ejusdem Chrysologi repetita inveniantur. Enim vero Hispanicae collectionis auctor cum a Chalcedonensi collectione hanc epistolam non sumpserit, exemplari procul dubio Latinae orginis usus est. Alterum vero caput valde implexum, et a priori dissimile, versionem e Graeco sapit. Si ipsum Latinum textum utriusque capitis cum Graeco conferas, in priori originale, in posteriori interpretationem deteges. Hinc in primo capite omnes sententiae congrue explicantur, in Graeco autem minus exacte redditae cognoscuntur: in quo, ut alia omittamus quae quisque observare per se poterit, originale Chrysologi est illud in Latino, Origenes principiorum scrutator, quod ad opus illius De Principiis refertur; in Graeco autem nomen principiorum redendum εῶν ἀρχῶν, redditum fuit εῶν παλαιῶν antiquorum, quod interpretem Chrysologi mentem minus assecutum ostendit. E contra in secundo capite etsi Graeca versio alicubi difficultatem injicit; planior tamen est multo quam textus Latinus, adeo ut hic e Graeco perperam scripto vel lecto redditus appareat; ac ex Graeco nonnumquam explicandus sit, ut in annotationibus observabitur: quod profecto non originalis Latini, sed interpretationis indicium est.

4. One thing can be doubted: whether this letter, which we have entire in the cited manuscripts of the Latin collection, is the original, or was rendered into Latin from an ancient Greek version. In the preface mentioned we proved clearly enough that that ancient author who added to the old version of the council of Chalcedon the letters of the Latins contained in the Greek collection set down the Latin original when he could find the original; but sometimes, when no copy of the Latin original was available, he was forced to render certain documents of the Latins into Latin from the Greek version, as happened with certain letters of Valentinian, Placidia and Eudoxia, and also with a letter of the deacon Hilary, and even with letters of St Leo, as we shall note in their places. As an indication of this version, and as it were a general rule, we laid down in the cited preface that the chronological note, which is universally omitted in the Greek manuscripts of the same collection, is seen to be missing in the Latin ones too. For when the Latin original was found by the Latin translator, the chronological note is found supplied, since the original was inserted in the collection. A difference of style, too, where it can be detected by comparing other original writings of the same author, is another proof of a version. Hence we seem to ourselves to see something of translation in the entire Latin letter of Peter Chrysologus. For the chronological note is lacking, and between the first and the second chapter some dissimilarity of style shines out. The first chapter, which is shown also in the Spanish collection, is quite polished and well ordered, and like the other works of Peter Chrysologus in style, so much so that some of the words of that chapter are found repeated almost exactly in sermon 145 of the same Chrysologus. Indeed, since the compiler of the Spanish collection did not take this letter from the Chalcedonian collection, he without doubt used a copy of Latin origin. The other chapter, however, very involved and unlike the first, smacks of a version from the Greek. If you compare the Latin text itself of each chapter with the Greek, you will detect the original in the former and a translation in the latter. Hence in the first chapter all the sentences are fittingly set out, but in the Greek they are recognized as rendered less exactly: in which, to omit other things that anyone can observe for himself, the original of Chrysologus is that phrase in the Latin, Origenes principiorum scrutator, which refers to his work On First Principles; but in the Greek the noun principiorum, which should have been rendered εῶν ἀρχῶν, was rendered εῶν παλαιῶν, of the ancients, which shows that the translator grasped Chrysologus' meaning less well. On the other hand, in the second chapter, although the Greek version raises difficulty in places, it is nevertheless much plainer than the Latin text, so much so that the latter appears to have been rendered here from a Greek wrongly written or read, and must sometimes be explained from the Greek, as will be observed in the notes: which is surely a sign not of a Latin original but of a translation.

5. Hoc quidem secundum caput, quo Eutychetis epistolae directe respondetur, potissimum est; ita ut Chrysologum Eutychi de Flaviani judicio querimodiam moventi, et ejusdem subsidium imploranti, solo priori capite generalia continente, quod et omni finali formula caret, respondisse incredibile sit. Probabile vero nobis est prioris capitis studiosius elaborati manuscriptum exemplar apud Chrysologum superfuisse, quemadmodum iis accidit quae diligentiori cura scribimus; ex hoc autem exemplo alia subinde fuisse transcripta, quae in manus Latini interpretis concilii Chalcedonensis, et auctoris collectionis Hispanicae venerunt. Caput autem secundum peculiare pro Eutyche minus studiose exaratum, ut in familiaribus litteris fere usuvenit, soli autographae epistolae ad Eutychem missae a Chrysologo additum videri potest, ita ut nullum

5. This second chapter, in which the letter of Eutyches is answered directly, is indeed the most important; so that it is incredible that Chrysologus should have answered Eutyches, who was raising a complaint about Flavian's judgement and imploring his help, with only the first chapter, which contains generalities and also lacks any closing formula. It is probable to us, however, that a written copy of the first chapter, worked out with greater care, remained with Chrysologus, as happens with the things we write with more diligent care; and that from this copy others were transcribed from time to time, which came into the hands of the Latin translator of the council of Chalcedon and of the compiler of the Spanish collection. But the second chapter, particular to Eutyches and composed with less care, as usually happens in familiar letters, may be thought to have been added only to the autograph letter sent by Chrysologus to Eutyches, so that no […]