Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 739

Quae erat 25, nunc 35. Scr. circa Febr. an. 449.

Which was 25, now 35. Written about February in the year 449.

(b) ‹AD EUTYCHEM PRESBYTERUM› · printed under col 739

Codd. collect Hispanicae, qui hanc epistolam decurtatam praeferunt, synopsis loco addunt: contra ejus errores, in qua illi apto exemplo respondit.

The manuscripts of the Spanish collection, which show this letter shortened, add in place of a synopsis: contra ejus errores, in qua illi apto exemplo respondit.

(c) ‹Dilectissimo filio› (call before the address) · printed under col 739

Ita codd. qui ex Hispanica collect. proveniunt. Exemplaria vero Latina collect. Chalcedon. sic: Dilectissimo et honore digno filio Eutychi presbytero Petrus episcopus Ravennae.

So the manuscripts which come from the Spanish collection. But the Latin copies of the Chalcedonian collection [read] thus: Dilectissimo et honore digno filio Eutychi presbytero Petrus episcopus Ravennae.

(d) ‹moerore debito› · printed under col 739

Quidam codd., percucurri; alii, cucurri. Figurata locutio Chrysologo familiaris moesta moerore, quam Graecus interpres apte non reddidit, originale Latinum indicat.

Some manuscripts: percucurri; others: cucurri. The figured expression moesta moerore, familiar to Chrysologus, which the Greek translator did not render aptly, indicates the Latin original.

(e) ‹tranquillitas plebis,› · printed under col 739, continued under col 740

Ita ex omnibus mss. collect. Chalcedon. Vulgata lectio, audire facit gaudium coeleste praefertur in caeteris codd. qui ex collect. Isidori et ex Hispanica minus emendata profluunt, uti est cod. Vat. 1341 ejusdem collect. Hispanicae. At codex Vindebon. Hisp., qui puriorem collectionem Hispanicam exbibet, ad lectionem nostram et exemplarium Chalcedon. accedit; habet enim audere facit gaudio coelesti; ubi alii posteriores librarii non advertentes in voce audere deesse solam litteram g, emendandum putarunt audire facit gaudium coeleste.

So from all the manuscripts of the Chalcedonian collection. The common reading, audire facit gaudium coeleste, is shown in the other manuscripts, which flow from the collection of Isidore and from the less correct Spanish, such as the Vatican manuscript 1341 of the same Spanish collection. But the Vienna manuscript of the Spanish [collection], which shows the purer Spanish collection, comes close to our reading and that of the Chalcedonian copies; for it has audere facit gaudio coelesti; where other later copyists, not noticing that only the letter g was missing in the word audere, thought it should be emended to audire facit gaudium coeleste.

(note (f), called in this column, is printed under col 740: set in n740)

hujus exemplum apud ipsum auctorem et apud Latinos exstiterit, ac solum ex Graeca, quae statim in Oriente facta fuit, interpretatione, Latinitate donari potuerit. Quidquid vero hac in re probabilius videatur, certe secundum hoc epistolae caput, quod in causa Euthychis potissimum ac necessarium est, et tam antiqua cum Graeca cum Latina versione comprobatur, in suspicionem suppositionis adduci nequit.

[…] copy of it existed with the author himself and among the Latins, and it could be given Latin form only from the Greek translation, which was made at once in the East. But whatever may seem more probable in this matter, certainly this second chapter of the letter, which in the case of Eutyches is the most important and necessary, and is confirmed by an ancient version, Greek as well as Latin, cannot be brought under suspicion of forgery.

6. Restat ut statuamus de tempore. Jam fere omnes post Quesnellum hanc epistolam scriptam censent post mensem maium an. 449, siquidem his verbis cap. 2, ut iis quae a beatissimo papa Romanae civitatis scripta sunt obedienter attendas, indicari putant celebrem Leonis epistolam 28 ad Flavianum datam idibus Junii anni ejusdem, qua de tota Eutychis causa decisum fuit. In eamdem sententiam nos pariter transivimus lib. II Observationum in card. Norisii Opera, c. 7, num. 2. Num aliam sententiam inducere cogimur. Omnes enim ex una parte assentiuntur, et S. Petrum Chrysologum his litteris respondere epistolae Eutychis, et Eutychem eodem tempore quo ad Leonem scripsit, etiam ad Chrysologum dedisse litteras, quibus eum quoque adversus Flaviani sententiam citissime praeoccuparet. Ex alia autem parte certum est Leonem Februario mense anni 449 Eutychis epistolam accepisse, et hac de causa eodem mense rescripsisse epistolas 23 ac 24.

6. It remains for us to settle the date. Almost everyone after Quesnel now judges that this letter was written after the month of May of the year 449, since they think that by these words of ch. 2, ut iis quae a beatissimo papa Romanae civitatis scripta sunt obedienter attendas, Leo's celebrated letter 28 to Flavian is indicated, given on the Ides of June of the same year, by which the whole case of Eutyches was decided. We likewise went over to the same opinion in book II of the Observations on the Works of Cardinal Noris, ch. 7, no. 2. [Now] we are compelled to introduce another opinion. For on the one side all agree both that St Peter Chrysologus is answering the letter of Eutyches in this letter, and that Eutyches, at the same time as he wrote to Leo, also sent a letter to Chrysologus, by which he might very quickly win him too over in advance against the sentence of Flavian. On the other side it is certain that Leo received the letter of Eutyches in the month of February of the year 449, and for this reason wrote letters 23 and 24 in reply in the same month.

SYNOPSIS. — I. Jam olim praescriptum esse docet contra errores incarnationem Verbi impugnantes; nec discutiendam esse, sed cum honore et timore credendam. — II. Suadet Eutgchi ut Romani pontificis scriptis obedienter attendat, quia Petrus suae sedis rectores dirigens, praestat quaerentibus fidei veritatem.

SYNOPSIS. — I. He teaches that a ruling was laid down long ago against the errors that attack the incarnation of the Word; and that it is not to be debated, but believed with honour and fear. — II. He urges Eutyches to attend obediently to the writings of the Roman pontiff, because Peter, directing the rulers of his see, provides the truth of the faith to those who seek it.

(f) ‹oriatur ex causis.› · printed under col 740

Similiter idem Chrysologus in serm. 145: Humanae leges intra triginta annos litigiosas omnes interimunt quaestiones: et Christus circa quingentos annos nativitatis suae causas praestat, ortus sui lites patitur, status sui sustinet quaestiones. Singula, quae sequuntur, in eodem sermone repetita sunt contra errorem Nestorii. Quesnellus pro triginta notavit in margine; Al., decem, nullis in codicibus invenire potuimus.

Similarly the same Chrysologus in sermon 145: Humanae leges intra triginta annos litigiosas omnes interimunt quaestiones: et Christus circa quingentos annos nativitatis suae causas praestat, ortus sui lites patitur, status sui sustinet quaestiones. The several things that follow are repeated in the same sermon against the error of Nestorius. For triginta Quesnel noted in the margin: Elsewhere, decem; we have been able to find it in no manuscripts.

(note (e) of col 739 continued at the head of this column's notes: set in n739)

Plures conjecturas cum Quesnello exquirere, ut longioris dilationis causae in responsione Chrysologi afferantur, opus non est. Etenim prima occasione hunc rescripsisse satis credibile fit ex ipso contextu, in quo Chrysologus se de ipsa causa nihil aliunde instructum prodit, nisi ex Eutychis litteris; idque adeo exiliter, ut de Nestorianismo potius quam de Eutychianismo metuisse videatur, eaque primo capite obtrudat quae sermone 145 contra Nestorianam haeresim Eutychianae contrariam manifestissime disserit. Id autem non accidisset, si responsionem differens, antea de tota re exactius voluisset edoceri, uti Quesnellus in notis conjecit. Enim vero si S. Petrus non scripsisset epistolam, nisi postquam Romam allata fuissent Constantinopolitanae synodi gesta, in quibus Eutychianus error tam manifeste detectus, et ipse Eutyches velut pertinax damnatus fuerat; et nisi postquam eidem innotuisset Leonis epistola qua Constantinopolitanum judicium confirmatum fuit; quomodo se ignorare Constantinopolitanorum Patrum sensum potuisset affirmare: Quid intellexerint, eorum taciturnitate nescimus? Quomodo eum Eutyche ita indifferenter egisset, ut nec innocentem nec reum judicarit? Quomodo eum post tam solemnem condemnationem a Romano etiam pontifice confirmatam, dilectissimum filium, honorantissimum, et merito honorabilem presbyterum appellasset? Haec hominem statim respondentem, dum rei non esset instructus, patefaciunt. Neque repugnant verba, ut iis quae a beatissimo papa Romanae civitatis scripta sunt obedienter attendas. Eutyches enim in suis litteris memorasse videtur epistolam quam cum aliquot documentis ad Leonem pontificem dederat. Hic autem verbis Chrysologus indicare voluit eas litteras quas Leonem melius instructum plenius reddidisse aut brevi redditurum praesumebat. Enim vero si has dogmaticas Leonis litteras ille legisset, non videtur scripturus fuisse: Extra consensum Romanae civitatis episcopi causas fidei audire (seu ex Graeco cognoscere, aut dijudicare) non possumus; quae verba nondum sibi notam Romani episcopi sententiam declarant. Igitur haec Chrysologi epistola sub item tempus data videtur, quo Leo scripsit epistolas 23 et 24, id est circa Februarium an. 449. Forte idem ille vir, qui Theodosii atque Eutychis litteras ad S. Leonem attulit, Ravennam etiam cum ejusdem Theodosii litteris ad Valentinianum transivit, et hac occasionne epistolam Eutychis ad Chrysologum detulit. Huic autem Constantinopolim revertenti, dum Valentiniani responsa referret, Chrysologus tradidit hanc epistolam ad Eutychem, ut citius ac tutius traderetur. Certe autem non scripsit post notitiam actorum in Eutychem, aut definitivo Leonis epistolae, ut in Quesnelli sententia praesumendum est.

There is no need to seek out several conjectures with Quesnel, so that reasons may be brought for a longer delay in Chrysologus' reply. For that he wrote back at the first opportunity is made credible enough by the context itself, in which Chrysologus reveals that he had been informed about the case itself from nowhere else than from Eutyches' letter; and that so thinly that he seems to have feared Nestorianism rather than Eutychianism, and in the first chapter he thrusts forward the things which, in sermon 145, he sets out most plainly against the Nestorian heresy, the opposite of the Eutychian. This would not have happened if, deferring his reply, he had wished first to be informed more exactly about the whole matter, as Quesnel conjectured in his notes. For if St Peter had not written the letter until after the acts of the synod of Constantinople had been brought to Rome, in which the Eutychian error had been so plainly exposed and Eutyches himself condemned as obstinate, and until after the letter of Leo by which the judgement of Constantinople was confirmed had become known to him, how could he have affirmed that he did not know the mind of the Fathers of Constantinople: Quid intellexerint, eorum taciturnitate nescimus? How would he have dealt with Eutyches so neutrally as to judge him neither innocent nor guilty? How would he, after so solemn a condemnation, confirmed even by the Roman pontiff, have called him most beloved son, most honouring, and deservedly honourable presbyter? These things show a man replying at once, while he had not been informed of the matter. Nor do the words ut iis quae a beatissimo papa Romanae civitatis scripta sunt obedienter attendas stand in the way. For Eutyches seems in his letter to have mentioned the letter which he had sent, with some documents, to Pope Leo. By these words, however, Chrysologus wished to indicate the letter which he presumed that Leo, better informed, had sent in reply more fully, or would shortly send. Indeed, if he had read these dogmatic letters of Leo, he does not seem likely to have written: Extra consensum Romanae civitatis episcopi causas fidei audire (or, from the Greek, cognoscere, or dijudicare) non possumus; which words declare that the Roman bishop's sentence was not yet known to him. This letter of Chrysologus therefore seems to have been given about the same time as Leo wrote letters 23 and 24, that is, about February of the year 449. Perhaps that same man who brought the letters of Theodosius and of Eutyches to St Leo also passed on to Ravenna with letters of the same Theodosius to Valentinian, and on this occasion delivered Eutyches' letter to Chrysologus. And to him, as he returned to Constantinople carrying back Valentinian's replies, Chrysologus handed this letter to Eutyches, so that it might be delivered more quickly and more safely. Certainly, however, he did not write after knowledge of the acts against Eutyches, or of Leo's definitive letter, as must be presumed on Quesnel's view.

Τῷ ἀγαπητῷ, καὶ ἀξιοτιμήτω υἱῷ Εὐτυχεῖ, Πέτρος ἐπίσκοπος Ῥαβέννης. Στυγνῶς ἀνέγνων τὰς στυγνάς σου ἐπιστολὰς, καὶ τὰ γράμματά σου τὰ στυγνὰ τῆ προσηκούση λύπη διέδραμον· ἐπειδὴ ὥσπερ ἡμᾶς ἡ εἰρήνη τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν, ἡ ὁμόνοια τῶν ἱερέων, ἡ γαλήνη τοῦ δήμου χαίρειν ποιεῖ οὐρανίῳ χαρᾷ, οὕτως ἡμᾶς καταπονεῖ, καὶ καταβάλλει ἡ ἀδελφικὴ διχόνοια· καὶ μάλιστα, ὅταν ἐκ τοιούτων ἀναφύηται αἰτιῶν. Τριάκοντα ἔτεσιν οἱ ἀνθρώπινοι νόμοι τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας ἀνατρέπουσι ζητήσεις· ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γέννη-

(a) ‹quomodo Nestorius› · printed under col 741

Ita codd. collect. Chalcedon, et Vindebon. Hisp. Quesnellus ex mss. collect. Hispanicae minus emendatae et Isid., lapsus est.

So the manuscripts of the Chalcedonian collection and the Vienna [manuscript] of the Spanish. Quesnel, from the manuscripts of the less correct Spanish collection and the Isidorian: lapsus est.

(b) ‹prudentiam tuam. Magi› · printed under col 741

Graecus textus τὸν Χριστὸν, Christum, et similiter deinceps, ὁ Χριστὸς, Christus, ubi in Latino est Jesus non solum in mss. libris, qui ex Hispanica prodeunt, verum etiam in omnibus Chalcedonensibus, quos vel nos vidimus, vel Baluzius consuluit. Hinc autem manifestum fit, hoc caput etiam in mss. Chalcedonensibus ex originali Latino derivatum fuisse, ut in Hispanica, non autem ex Graeco Latinitate donatum.

The Greek text has τὸν Χριστὸν, Christum, and similarly thereafter ὁ Χριστὸς, Christus, where in the Latin there is Jesus, not only in the manuscript books which come from the Spanish [collection], but also in all the Chalcedonian ones which either we have seen or Baluze consulted. From this it becomes clear that this chapter, in the Chalcedonian manuscripts too, was derived from the Latin original, as in the Spanish, and not given Latin form from the Greek.

(c) ‹Jesum in cunabulis› · printed under col 741

Chrysologus, serm. 145, in Nestorianos, qui Christum natum Deum negabant, similia obtrudit. Quare cum hic perinde voci Dei aliisque insistat, et nihil Eutychianum uspiam subindicet, credidisse videtur de Nestoriana haeresi nunc pariter agi, nec contrarium Eutychis errorem detexisse. Similiter S. Leo, epist. 34, fatetur se ex solis litteris Eutychis de ipsius erroribus non potuisse quidquam cognoscere nec intelligere quo tenderet ejus causatio, qua de Nestoriana haeresi repullulante querebatur. Id ex solis gestis a Flaviano transmissis cognitum fuit.

Chrysologus, in sermon 145, thrusts similar things against the Nestorians, who denied that Christ was born God. Therefore, since here he likewise dwells on the word Dei and on other things, and nowhere hints at anything Eutychian, he seems to have believed that the Nestorian heresy was likewise in question now, and not to have detected the opposite error of Eutyches. Similarly St Leo, in letter 34, admits that from Eutyches' letter alone he could learn nothing about his errors, nor understand what his plea was aiming at, in which he complained of the Nestorian heresy sprouting again. This was learned only from the acts sent by Flavian.

(d) ‹de Spiritu sancto natus est,› · printed under col 741

Quesnellus, in margine, Forte dolosa, quod nulli codices praeferunt. Solum in laudato Chrysologi sermone adversus Nestorianos legitur: Et tu quis sit Jesus, dolosus cognitor nunc requiris? Post pauca in codd. collect. Chalcedon., vagitus.

Quesnel, in the margin: Perhaps dolosa, which no manuscripts show. Only in the cited sermon of Chrysologus against the Nestorians is there read: Et tu quis sit Jesus, dolosus cognitor nunc requiris? A little after, in the manuscripts of the Chalcedonian collection: vagitus.

(e) ‹Jesus in cunis,› · printed under col 741

Mss. collect. 21, gloriam. Vindebon. Hisp., Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis, coelestis, etc.

The manuscripts of collection 21: gloriam. The Vienna [manuscript] of the Spanish: Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis, coelestis, etc.

(f) ‹originis ejus quaestio› · printed under col 741

Ita omnes nostri codices Chalcedon. etiam Baluzii, et Vat. Hisp., ac caeteri exinde profecti. Quesnellus cum solo nostro Vindebon. Hisp., movetur. Mox codd. Chalcedon. Nos, frater charissime, una cum Apostolo, etc.

So all our Chalcedonian manuscripts, and Baluze's too, and the Vatican [manuscript] of the Spanish, and the others derived from it. Quesnel, with only our Vienna [manuscript] of the Spanish: movetur. Next, the Chalcedonian manuscripts: Nos, frater charissime, una cum Apostolo, etc.

(g) ‹Nec possumus› · printed under col 741, continued under col 742

Ita mss. Hisp. et caeteris ex eadem collectione derivatis. Codd. vero Chalced., injuriosa perscrutari. Unus ex his Colbertinus apud Baluzium unius litterulae additamento, injuriosae perscrutari, pro quo Surius et alii post eum notarunt in margine, injuriose; in Conciliis Labbei, curiose perscrutari.

So the Spanish manuscripts and the others derived from the same collection. But the Chalcedonian manuscripts: injuriosa perscrutari. One of them, the Colbert manuscript in Baluze, by the addition of a single letter: injuriosae perscrutari, for which Surius and others after him noted in the margin: injuriose; in Labbe's Councils: curiose perscrutari.

(h) ‹honorem dare,› · printed under col 742

Retinuimus lectionem Hisp. et caeterarum collectionum, quae ex Hispanica hanc epistolam transcripserunt. Concinit etiam Graeca versio. In mss. autem Latinis Chalcedon., omissa particula et, habetur, timorem reddere et exspectare, dum non perscrutandum judicem confitemur.

We have kept the reading of the Spanish [collection] and of the other collections which transcribed this letter from the Spanish. The Greek version also agrees. In the Latin Chalcedonian manuscripts, however, with the particle et omitted, there is found: timorem reddere et exspectare, dum non perscrutandum judicem confitemur.

(i) ‹CAP. II. —› · printed under col 742

In Vat. Hisp. et caeteris cum Quesnello: His omnibus respondi, frater, litteris tuis; quibus etiam desinit editio decurtata in iisdem codicibus. Vindebon. Hisp., Haec in omnibus respondi, etc. Lectionem vero mss. Chalcedonensium, uti meliorem et integrae epistolae congruentiorem praetulimus.

In the Vatican [manuscript] of the Spanish and the others, with Quesnel: His omnibus respondi, frater, litteris tuis; with which words the shortened edition in the same manuscripts also ends. The Vienna [manuscript] of the Spanish: Haec in omnibus respondi, etc. But we have preferred the reading of the Chalcedonian manuscripts, as better and more consistent with the entire letter.

(j) ‹quoniam scripsisti› · printed under col 742

Vetus interpres, quem hoc caput e Graeco reddidisse in admonitione ostendimus, legit, ut in editis, ἡρῆσθαι τὴν ἀκρόασιν, et ideo transtulit, electum judicium; quae ob sensum obscurum et incertum longioris disputationis occasionem dedere. Quesnellus in margine notavit: Al., neglectum. Cum hoc pariter difficile sit, tum vero in nullis nostris aut Baluzii codicibus inventum fuit. Credimus autem procul dubio scriptum fuisse in Graeco, ἀνηρῆσθαι τὴν ἀκρόασιν, et ἂν veteri librarium lapsu excidissse; hinc autem reddendum ex Graeco, ut scribis, tibimetipsi sublatam audientiam; sic enim totus hic locus perspicue intelligitur, et congruit cum epist. 21 ad Leonem, in qua Eutyches questus est suum libellum non fuisse in Constantinopolitano concilio susceptum. Similem querelam etiam apud Petrum Ravennatem eum promovisse nihil ambigimus, ita ut sibi sublatam audientiam scripserit.

The old translator, who, as we showed in the admonition, rendered this chapter from the Greek, read, as in the editions, ἡρῆσθαι τὴν ἀκρόασιν, and therefore translated electum judicium; words which, because of their obscure and uncertain sense, gave occasion for rather long discussion. Quesnel noted in the margin: Elsewhere, neglectum. While this is equally difficult, it has moreover been found in none of our manuscripts or Baluze's. We believe, however, without doubt, that ἀνηρῆσθαι τὴν ἀκρόασιν was written in the Greek, and that ἀν dropped out by a slip of the old copyists; and hence it should be rendered from the Greek: ut scribis, tibimetipsi sublatam audientiam; for so this whole passage is clearly understood, and agrees with letter 21 to Leo, in which Eutyches complained that his petition had not been accepted at the council of Constantinople. We do not doubt at all that he raised a similar complaint with Peter of Ravenna also, so that he wrote that a hearing had been taken away from him.

(k) ‹quos neque› · printed under col 742

Ita nostri mss. codd. et Baluzii. Quesnelius, vidimus et iutellexerunt.

So our manuscripts and Baluze's. Quesnel: vidimus and intellexerunt.

(l) ‹nescimus? Justus› · printed under col 742

Quesnellus in margine. Al., judex.

Quesnel in the margin: Elsewhere, judex.

(1) ‹τῷ θείῳ νόμῳ› (in the Greek version) · printed under col 742

In marg. edit. Rom., ἀνεκδιηγήτως.

In the margin of the Roman edition: ἀνεκδιηγήτως.

(2) ‹Ὠριγένης ὁ τῶν› (in the Greek version) · printed under col 742

Ibid., ἀρχῶν L.

Ibid.: ἀρχῶν L.

(3) ‹ἁγίου τεχθεὶς,› (in the Greek version) · printed under col 742

Ibid., λυπητέᾳ ἐρευ.

Ibid.: λυπητέᾳ ἐρευ.

(4) ‹Οὔτε δυνάμεθα› (in the Greek version) · printed under col 742

Ibid., περιόργως L.

Ibid.: περιόργως L.

(5) ‹οὐκ ἐρευνᾶν› (in the Greek version) · printed under col 742

Ibid., ὃν L.

Ibid.: ὃν L.

(notes (g) continued, and (h)–(l), printed under this column are called in col 741: set in n741)

σις, ἥ τις τῷ θείῳ νόμῳ ἀνεκδιήγητος γέγραπται, μετὰ τοσούτους αἰῶνας διαλογισμῷ ἀπονενοημένῳ ἐρευνᾶται. Τί Ὠριγένης ὁ τῶν παλαιῶν ἐρευνήτης ὑπέμεινε, ποίῳ τρόπῳ Νεστόριος ὠλίσθησε διαλογιζόμενος περὶ φύσεων, οὐ λανθάνει τὴν σὴν σύνεσιν. Οἱ μάγοι τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν σπαργάνοις Θεὸν μυστικοῖς δώροις ὡμολόγουν· καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς, τίς ἐστιν ὁ τῷ παρθενικῷ τοκετῷ ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου τεχθεὶς, ἐπιπόνῳ ἐρευνήσει ἐκζητοῦσιν. Ὅτε βοὴν ἐδίδου ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν τοῖς σπαργάνοις, Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ, οὐράνιος ἀνεβόα στρατός· καὶ νῦν, ὅτε ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμπτει, ἐπουρανίων, καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων, τῆς ἀρχα⟨ι⟩ογονίας αὐτοῦ ζήτησις κινεῖται. Ἡμεῖς δὲ, ἀδελφὲ, μετὰ τοῦ ἀποστόλου λέγομεν· Καὶ εἰ ἐγνώκαμεν Χριστὸν κατὰ σάρκα, ἀλλὰ λοιπὸν νῦν οὐ γινώσκομεν. Οὔτε δυνάμεθα ἐφύβριστα ἐρευνᾶν, οἵ τινες κελευόμεθα τιμὴν διδόναι, φόβον ἀποδιδόναι, καὶ ἐκδέχεσθαι, οὐκ ἐρευνᾶν τὸν κριτὴν ὁμολογοῦμεν. Ταῦτα διὰ βραχέων ἀπεκρινάμην, ἀδελφὲ, τοῖς σοῖς γράμμασι, πλείονα μέλλων γράφειν, εἰ πρὸς ἐμὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς καὶ συνεπίσκοπος ἡμέτερος Φλαυιανός τινα περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος γράμματα ἔπεμψεν. Εἰ γὰρ σοι ἀπαρέσκει, ὅτι περ γράφεις, σαυτῷ ἡρῆσθαι τὴν ἀκρόασιν, ἡμεῖς ποίῳ τρόπῳ περὶ τούτων δικάσαι δυνάμεθα, οὓς μή τε ὁρῶμεν διὰ τὴν ἀπουσίαν, καὶ τί ἐνόησαν, τῆ σιωπῆ αὐτῶν ἀγνοοῦμεν; δίκαιος μεσίτης οὐκ ἔστιν, ὃς ἑνὸς μέρους οὕτως ἀκούει, ὡς ἑτέρῳ μέρει μηδὲν φυλάξαι.

(a) ‹in propria sede› · printed under col 743

Ex nostris codd. et Baluzii addidimus particulam et. Cum haec Petrus Chrysologus scripserit ante celebrem Leonis epistolam 28, adversus Eutychis errores editam, ut in admonitione ostendimus num. 6, quae hic dicuntur non sunt peculiaria pro eadem epistola, ac si eidem Petro nota jam esset atque probata; sed generale principium ac sententiam tum communem et certam indicant, nimirum Petrum adhuc in successoribus viventem praestare quaerentibus fidei veritatem; et idcirco dogmaticis Romanorum pontificum decretis esse obsequendum.

From our manuscripts and Baluze's we have added the particle et. Since Peter Chrysologus wrote this before Leo's celebrated Letter 28, issued against the errors of Eutyches, as we showed in the admonition, no. 6, what is said here is not particular to that letter, as if it were already known to the same Peter and approved by him; rather it indicates a general principle and a view both common and certain, namely that Peter, still living in his successors, grants to those who seek it the truth of the faith; and that therefore the dogmatic decrees of the Roman pontiffs are to be obeyed.

(b) ‹causas fidei› · printed under col 743

Graeci verbi vis cognoscere, dijudicare significat. Ne vero haec asserta a Petro disciplina, singularis aut incredibilis videatur, similem consuetudinem fuisse in Aegypto, ut nihil absque ipso (Antistite Alexandrino) ageretur ab aliquo subjacente episcopo, testati sunt Aegyptii in concilio Chalcedonensi, actione 4, tom. IV edit. Venetae, pag. 1402, idque ex Nicaeno canone derivarunt, atque ejusdem consuetudinis testem appellarunt ipsum Anatolium, qui Alexandrinae Ecclesiae diaconus vel presbyter fuerat. Hac quidem disciplina Aegyptii in Chalcedonensi abusi sunt; excusatione nimirum hujusmodi se subtraxerunt a subscribenda Leonis epistola, et a parendo concilio, illud exinde inferentes, Alexandrini episcopi electionem atque sententiam a se exspectari oportere. Sed ob hunc abusum disciplina ipsa negari non potest: quae si obtinuit in episcopis Alexandrino subjectis, nihil mirum si pariter valuit in episcopis qui Romano totius Ecclesiae primati speciali nomine suberant.

The force of the Greek word signifies to examine, to judge. But lest this discipline asserted by Peter seem singular or incredible: that there was a similar custom in Egypt, that nothing should be done by any subordinate bishop without him (the prelate of Alexandria), the Egyptians testified in the council of Chalcedon, action 4, vol. IV of the Venice edition, p. 1402, and they derived it from the Nicene canon, and called as witness of the same custom Anatolius himself, who had been deacon or presbyter of the Church of Alexandria. The Egyptians indeed abused this discipline at Chalcedon; with an excuse of this kind, namely, they withdrew from subscribing Leo's letter and from obeying the council, inferring from it that the choice and judgement of the bishop of Alexandria had to be awaited by them. But because of this abuse the discipline itself cannot be denied: and if it held among the bishops subject to the bishop of Alexandria, it is no wonder if it held equally among the bishops who were subject by a special title to the Roman primate of the whole Church.

(c) ‹EPISTOLAM› · printed under col 743

Quae erat 26, nunc 29. Scr. circa Martium, an. 449.

Which was 26, now 29. Written about March, in the year 449.

(d) ‹FLAVIANI SECUNDA› · printed under cols 743–744

Hac epistola, quam post epistolam 22 scriptam ostendimus in admonitione ad eamdem epistolam 22, Flavianus respondet epistolae 23 S. Leonis pontificis. Cum vero in conventu Constantinopoli habito die 13 Aprilis anni 449, Seleucus episcopus dixerit epistolam 23 Leonis ante paucos dies sibi communicatam fuisse, eidem autem Flavianus responderit dum generale concilium futurum vulgabatur, quod die 30 Martii indictum fuit, idcirco hanc epistolam a Flaviano scriptam putamus circa Martium ejusdem anni 445, antequam illi certa esset indictio concilii, quod impediri adhuc posse in fine epistolae insinuat. Hanc epistolam Graecam in lucem emisit Joannes Cotelerius tom. I Monument. Eccl. Graecae, pag. 50, ex mss. Regiis 1026 et 2610, et exactam ex Graeco interpretationem adjecit. Quesnellus, qui in prima editione solam antiquam versionem dederat, Graecum textum cum interpretatione Cotelerii editioni secundae inseruit. Duos alios Graecos codices Romae nos nacti sumus, Vat. Graec. 1455, et alium multo antiquiorem monachorum S. Basili signatum num. 18, unum praeterea Venetum 165 Bibliothecae S. Marci.

In this letter, which we showed in the admonition to Letter 22 to have been written after Letter 22, Flavian answers Letter 23 of St Leo the pontiff. But since, in the assembly held at Constantinople on 13 April of the year 449, Bishop Seleucus said that Leo's Letter 23 had been communicated to him a few days before, and Flavian answered it while the future general council was being made public, which was convoked on 30 March, we therefore think this letter was written by Flavian about March of the same year 449, before the convocation of the council was certain to him, which he hints in the end of the letter could still be prevented. Joannes Cotelerius brought this Greek letter to light in vol. I of the Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae, p. 50, from the Royal manuscripts 1026 and 2610, and added an exact translation from the Greek. Quesnel, who in his first edition had given only the ancient version, inserted the Greek text with Cotelerius's translation in his second edition. We obtained two other Greek manuscripts at Rome, Vat. Graec. 1455, and another, much older, of the monks of St Basil, marked no. 18, and besides these one Venetian, 165 of the Library of St Mark.

Epistola Flaviani episcopi Constantinopoleos scripta ad archiepiscopum Leonem veteris Romae. Sanctissimo et beatissimo Patri et comministro Leoni Flavianus in Domino salutem. Pietate et recta verbi veritatis distributione nihil pretiosius sacerdotibus, sicut nosti, Deo dilectissime. Omnis enim nostra spes et salus, ac promissorum bonorum retributio hinc pendent. Propterea igitur cuncta nobis facienda sunt, omnisque labor suscipiendus pro vera fide iisque quae a sanctis Patribus exposita sunt atque dogmatum loco tradita; quo per omnia et in omnigenis rerum circumstantiis integra haec et inviolata conserventur atque custodiantur. Necessarium itaque fuit nunc etiam nos, videntes laedi orthodoxam fidem, ac renovari Apollinaris

(d) continued from col 743, set in n743

(1) ‹ἐκτὸς› · printed under col 744

In editis, συνέσεως; at in margine per conjecturam συναιέσεως. Emendationem probarunt nostri, codd. Veneti. Consonat Latinus textus, extra consensum.

In the editions, συνέσεως; but in the margin, by conjecture, συναιέσεως. Our [manuscripts], the Venetian manuscripts, confirmed the emendation. The Latin text agrees: extra consensum.

(2) ‹χρόνῳ› · printed under col 744

Ita legendmm, ut in mss. Ven., probat exemplar Latinum, ubi legitur, tempore longissimo. In vul., χρόνῳ μxκρῷ.

So it must be read, as in the Venetian manuscripts; the Latin copy proves it, where one reads tempore longissimo. In the common [text], χρόνῳ μακρῷ.

(3) ‹Ἐπιστολὴ› · printed under col 744

Ms. Bas., ἐπιστολὴ Φλαβιανοῦ ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεος πρός Λέοντα ἀρχιεπισκοπον Ρύμη κατ' Εὐτυχοῦς πρό τῆς έυ Χαλκηδόνι συνόδου. Ms. autem Ven., τοῦ μακαριου Φλαβιαοοῦ ἀρχιεπισκοπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως περί Λέοντα τόν ἁγιώτατον τῆς Ῥώμης πάπαν.

The Basilian manuscript: Letter of Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople, to Leo, archbishop of Rome, against Eutyches, before the synod at Chalcedon. But the Venetian manuscript: Of the blessed Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople, to Leo the most holy pope of Rome.

(4) ‹οὐδὲν› · printed under col 744

Ms. Vend., προτιμότερον ἱερεῦσι θεοῦ.

The Venetian manuscript: προτιμότερον ἱερεῦσι θεοῦ (more precious to the priests of God).

(5) ‹πάντα› · printed under col 744

Ms. Bas. et Ven., πονητέον ἡμῖν καί πονητέον.

The Basilian and Venetian manuscripts: πονητέον ἡμῖν καί πονητέον.

(6) ‹ταῦτα› · printed under col 744

Cod. Ven., διασώζεσθαί τε και διαφυλαττεσθαι.

The Venetian manuscript: διασώζεσθαί τε και διαφυλαττεσθαι.

(7) ‹ἦν› · printed under col 744

Addimus καί νῦν ex mss. Basil. et Ven. (in quo postremo deest ἦν), quae vocet etiam in antiqua versione exhibentur. In marg. edit. Cotel.: Al., και νῦν.

We add καί νῦν from the Basilian and Venetian manuscripts (in the latter ἦν is lacking), which words are also shown in the ancient version. In the margin of Cotelerius's edition: Elsewhere, και νῦν.

(8) ‹τοῦ› · printed under col 744

In marg. edit. Cotel.: Al., Ἀπολιναρίου.

In the margin of Cotelerius's edition: Elsewhere, Ἀπολιναρίου.

Ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ προτρεπόμεθά σε, ἀδελφὲ τιμιώτατε, ὥστε τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ μακαριωτάτου πάπα τῆς πόλεως Ῥώμης γραφομένοις πειθαρχοῦντως προσέχειν· ἐπειδὴ ὁ μακάριος Πέτρος, ὃς ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ καθέδρᾳ καὶ ζῇ, καὶ προκάθηται, δίδωσι τοῖς ζητοῦσι τῆς πίστεως τὴν ἀλήθειαν· Ἡμεῖς γὰρ σπουδῇ τῆς εἰρήνης, καὶ τῆς πίστεως, ἐκτὸς συναινέσεως τοῦ Ῥώμης ἐπισκόπου, πίστεως αἰτίας διαγνῶναι οὐ δυνάμεθα. Ὑγιαίνουσαν τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν σὴν ὁ Δεσπότης χρόνῳ μακροτάτῳ διαφυλάξαι καταξιώσοι, ποθεινότατε καὶ ἀξιοτίμητε υἱέ.

(none; notes 1–10 printed under this column are called in col 746 and set in n746)

et Valentini haeresim ab Eutyche impio monacho, non despicere, sed palam errorem detegere ad cautelam populorum. Iste enim, iste Eutyches absconditum in se pravae opinionis morbum retinens, nostram infestando mansuetudinem, inverecunde ac impudenter ad multos propriam impietatem deferre ausus est; dicens ante incarnationem quidem Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi duas naturas esse, divinitatis et humanitatis; post unionem vero unam exstitisse naturam: ignarus quid loquatur ac de quibus affirmet. Neque enim unio duarum naturarum quae in Christo convenerunt, quemadmodum et vestra novit pietas, proprietates earum in unione confundit; sed manent etiam in unione integrae duarum naturarum proprietates. Adjecit autem et aliam impietatem, aiens, quod ex Maria ortum est corpus Domini, non esse nostrae substantiae, neque humanae materiae; sed humanum quidem illud appellat, non tamen consubstantiale nobis, nec ei quae illum peperit secundum carnem. Atque haec cum acta Ephesi a sancta et oecumenica synodo, in epistola scripta ad impium et depositum Nestorium, sic ad verbum habeant: Quod diversae quidem, quae ad unitatem veram convenerunt naturae; unus autem ex ambabus Christus et Filius. Non quasi naturarum discrimen sublatum fuerit per unionem, sed potius quia nobis perfecerunt unum Dominum Jesum Christum eaedem naturae divinitatis et humanitatis, per ineffabilem et incomprehensibilem ad unitatem concursum. Et hoc non latet sanctitatem tuam, cum omnino legerit quae Ephesi confecta sunt gesta. Quae nihili pendens idem Eutyches putat se non daturum poenas per sanctam illam et oecumenicam synodum definitas. Itaque propter haec, cum multi e simplicioribus per ejus disceptationem laederentur in doctrina fidei, eum accusatum a religiosissimo episcopo Eusebio, et occurrentem ad sanctum concilium, propriaque voce quid ipse sentiret Patribus synodi detegentem, ut qui alienus sit a recta fide, deposuimus, prout sanctitatem vestram docebunt cuncta super eo confecta acta; quae et misimus cum hisce nostris litteris. Aequum porro est, mea quidem sententia, ut hoc quoque edoceamini, quod Eutyches idem justae et canonicae depositioni subjectus, cum debuisset saltem secundis curare priora, necnon

(1) ‹παρὰ› · printed under col 745

Ita ex codd. Bas. et Ven. Vulg., Εὐτυχοῦς τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς, et in marg. Cot.: Al., μοναχοῦ. Haec lectio, quae conditionem Eutychis ac genus vitae exprimit, antiqua versione confirmatur.

So from the Basilian and Venetian manuscripts. The common text: Εὐτυχοῦς τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς (of Eutyches the impious), and in Cotelerius's margin: Elsewhere, μοναχοῦ. This reading, which expresses the condition and way of life of Eutyches, is confirmed by the ancient version.

(2) ‹λαῶν,› · printed under col 745

Ms. Bas., αὐτὸς γὰρ Εὐτυχής. Edit. Cotel. in morg.: Al., αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ.

The Basilian manuscript: αὐτὸς γὰρ Εὐτυχής. Cotelerius's edition in the margin: Elsewhere, αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ.

(3) ‹κεκρυμμένην› · printed under col 745

In ms. Ven., ἐν ἑαυτῷ δόξαν κατέχων.

In the Venetian manuscript: ἐν ἑαυτῷ δόξαν κατέχων (holding within himself an opinion).

(4) ‹εἶναι,› · printed under col 745

Cod. Bas., θεότητός τε καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος.

The Basilian manuscript: θεότητός τε καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος.

(5) ‹συνελθουσῶν› · printed under col 745

Mss. Ven., ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ.

The Venetian manuscripts: ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ.

(6) ‹ἰδιότητες.› · printed under col 745

In Marg. Cotel.: Al.: προθεῖναι.

In Cotelerius's margin: Elsewhere: προθεῖναι.

(7) ‹αὐτὸ› · printed under col 745

Ms. Ven., ἀπεκαλεῖ.

The Venetian manuscript: ἀπεκαλεῖ.

(8) ‹ἀληθινὴν› · printed under col 745

Vulg. mendose, συνηχθεῖσαι. Cotelerius per conjecturam in margine: Forte, συναχθεῖσαι, vel συνενεχθεῖσαι. Hanc veram lectionem probavit cod. Basil.

The common text, faultily, συνηχθεῖσαι. Cotelerius by conjecture in the margin: Perhaps συναχθεῖσαι, or συνενεχθεῖσαι. The Basilian manuscript proved this [last] to be the true reading.

(9) ‹δὲ› · printed under col 745

Ms. Bas. caret voce μᾶλλον.

The Basilian manuscript lacks the word μᾶλλον.

(10) ‹Χριστόν,› · printed under col 745

Sic elegantius ex eodem cod. Bas., addito τε, quod in editis deerat.

So, more elegantly, from the same Basilian manuscript, with τε added, which was lacking in the editions.

(11) ‹συνδρομῆς.› · printed under col 746

Graecis auribus haec quoque lectio mss. Basil. et Ven., ut putamus, magis placebit quam vulgata, καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔλαθε.

To Greek ears this reading of the Basilian and Venetian manuscripts too will, we think, be more pleasing than the common one, καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔλαθε.

(12) ‹συνόδου.› · printed under col 746

Ms. Bas., διὰ τοιαῦτα. Mox deest ὑπ' ante αὐτοῦ in cod. Ven.

The Basilian manuscript: διὰ τοιαῦτα. Shortly after, ὑπ' before αὐτοῦ is lacking in the Venetian manuscript.

(13) ‹φωνῇ› · printed under col 746

Antea legebatur: τὸ ἴδιον φρόνημα αὐτοῖς ἐκκαλύψαντα. Abest αὐτοῖς a mss. Bas. et Ven., ac abesse debet, quo enim referatur? Nec vetus Latina versio agnoscit, et voce sua propriam sectam retegentem, Cotelerius in sua versione, ut sensum exponeret, vocem αὐτοῖς reddidit, non ipsis, sed Patribus synodi, cum tamen patres in Graeco non nominentur.

Previously one read: τὸ ἴδιον φρόνημα αὐτοῖς ἐκκαλύψαντα. αὐτοῖς is absent from the Basilian and Venetian manuscripts, and ought to be absent, for to what would it refer? Nor does the old Latin version recognize it: et voce sua propriam sectam retegentem. Cotelerius in his version, to set out the sense, rendered the word αὐτοῖς not ipsis but Patribus synodi, although the fathers are not named in the Greek.

(14) ‹ὑπάρχοντα› · printed under col 746

Ms. Bas. τῆς ὀρθοδόξου ἡμῶν πίστεως.

The Basilian manuscript: τῆς ὀρθοδόξου ἡμῶν πίστεως (of our orthodox faith).

(15) ‹ὁσιότητα› · printed under col 746

Ms. Ven., πάντα τὰ ἐπ' αὐτῷ πεπρ.

The Venetian manuscript: πάντα τὰ ἐπ' αὐτῷ πεπρ.

(16) ‹γραμμάτων.› · printed under col 746

Ms. Bas., δίκαιον δὲ ἡγοῦμαι καὶ τοῦτο. In ms. Ven. solum omittitur ὡς.

The Basilian manuscript: δίκαιον δὲ ἡγοῦμαι καὶ τοῦτο. In the Venetian manuscript only ὡς is omitted.

(none; notes 1–5 printed under this column are called in col 748 and set in n748)

per exactam poenitentiam multasque lacrymas Deum placare, et cor nostrum valde in lapsu ejus contristatum, vera resipiscentia delinire; non solum id non fecit, quin immo per omnia connisus est sanctissimam hujusce loci Ecclesiam conturbare; tabulas publice proponens contumeliarum et maledictorum plenas; et insuper haec preces offerens piissimo et Christi amantissimo nostro imperatori, easque arrogantia et petulantia refertas, in omnibus divinos canones conculcare tentans. Verum his ita ex consecutione peractis, redditae nobis sunt litterae sanctitatis vestrae, per comitem omni admiratione dignum Pansophium: ex quibus edocti sumus eumdem Eutychen libellos ad vos misisse plenos fallacia et astu, dicentem se tempore judicii libellos appellationis tradidisse nobis et sanctae episcoporum tunc praesentium synodo, atque appellasse ad vestram sanctitatem: quod nequaquam ab eo factum est, sed hac quoque in parte fefellit, velut pater mendacii, se vestris auribus subrepturum arbitratus. Commotus igitur, sanctissime pater, ob omnia quae ausus est, et propter ea quae adversus nos sanctissimamque Ecclesiam facta sunt atque fiunt, solita fiducia utere, sicut sacerdotio convenit, et vindicans communem rem sanctarumque Ecclesiarum compositionem, dignare per proprias quidem litteras suffragari depositioni canonice adversus eum factae; confirmare vero et piissimi Christumque amantis nostri imperatoris fidem. Res namque solo indiget ex vobis impulsu atque subsidio, quod per vestram prudentiam ad tranquillitatem et pacem cuncta statim translaturum est. Sic enim est quae insurrexit haeresis, et ob eam excitatus tumultus facile cessabit, Deo cooperante, per vestras sacras litteras: prohibebitur vero et quae evulgatur futura esse synodus; ut ne sanctissimae totius orbis Ecclesiae perturbentur. Omnem quae tecum est fraternitatem ego quique mecum sunt, salutamus. Salus in Domino ac pro nobis orans, doneris nobis, Deo dilectissime et sanctissime pater.

(1) ‹τὴν ἡμετέραν καρδίαν› · printed under col 747

Ms. Bas., σφόδρα. Paulo post pro διὰ μεταμελείας idem codex, διὰ μετανοίας.

The Basilian manuscript: σφόδρα. A little after, for διὰ μεταμελείας the same manuscript has διὰ μετανοίας.

(2) ‹διὰ πάντων› · printed under col 747

Ms. Bas., ταράξαι; et post pauca pro προτιθεὶς habet προθεις; et loco πρὸς ἐπὶ τούτοις habet πρὸς ἐπὶ τούτῳ.

The Basilian manuscript: ταράξαι; and a little after, for προτιθεὶς it has προθεις; and in place of πρὸς ἐπὶ τούτοις it has πρὸς ἐπὶ τούτῳ.

(3) ‹τοὺς θείους› · printed under col 747

In marg. edit. Cotel.: Al., καταπατῶν; et mox pro πειρώμενος in eodem margine: Al., καὶ πάσης ἀληθείας κατεπαιρόμενος; cujus lectionis vestigium aliquod exstat in ms. Bas., τοὺς θείους κανόνας, κατὰ πάσης ἀπερώμενος.

In the margin of Cotelerius's edition: Elsewhere, καταπατῶν; and shortly after, for πειρώμενος, in the same margin: Elsewhere, καὶ πάσης ἀληθείας κατεπαιρόμενος (and exalting himself against all truth); of which reading some trace survives in the Basilian manuscript: τοὺς θείους κανόνας, κατὰ πάσης ἀπερώμενος.

(4) ‹διεψεύσατο,› · printed under col 747

Ex ms. Bas. addidimus δὴ particulam expletivam, Graecis non infrequentem, cum praesertim eamdem in uno codice invenerit Cotelerius, qui idcirco notavit in margine: Al., οἷα δή. Mox vocem ὧν idem monuit alias deesse.

From the Basilian manuscript we have added δὴ, an expletive particle not infrequent among the Greeks, especially since Cotelerius found it in one manuscript, and therefore noted in the margin: Elsewhere, οἷα δή. Shortly after, the same [editor] noted that the word ὧν is lacking elsewhere.

(5) ‹Ἐκκλησίαν› · printed under col 747

Ita cod. Basil. Nescimus autem cur Cotelerio magis placuerit γενόμενά τε καὶ γινόμενα, et lectionem a nobis receptam ac in alio codice ab eodem inventam in marginem rejecerit; de praeteritis enim sermo praecesserat, διὰ πάντα παρ' αὐτοῦ τολμηθέντα. Inficiari tamen non possumus lectioni a Cotelerio adoptatae suffragari versionem antiquam, facta sunt atque fiunt. Mox in cod. Ven., παρρησιάσασθαι συνήθως καὶ κατὰ, etc.

So the Basilian manuscript. But we do not know why Cotelerius preferred γενόμενά τε καὶ γινόμενα, and relegated to the margin the reading we have received, which he himself found in another manuscript; for the discourse had gone before about past things, διὰ πάντα παρ' αὐτοῦ τολμηθέντα. We cannot deny, however, that the ancient version supports the reading adopted by Cotelerius: facta sunt atque fiunt. Shortly after, in the Venetian manuscript: παρρησιάσασθαι συνήθως καὶ κατὰ, etc.

(6) ‹τὸ κοινὸν› · printed under col 748

Cod. Bas. delet πρᾶγμα. Post pauca idem cod., κανονικῇ καθαιρέσει.

The Basilian manuscript deletes πρᾶγμα. A little after, the same manuscript: κανονικῇ καθαιρέσει.

(7) ‹οἰκείας› · printed under col 748

Vulg., συνερέσεως. Melius cod. Ven. et alius Cotelerii notatus in margine, quorum lectionem expressit vetus interpres, consensu proprio. Concinit et ms. Bas., in quo συνερέσεως perperam scriptum est pro συναινέσεως.

The common text: συνερέσεως. Better the Venetian manuscript, and another of Cotelerius's noted in the margin, whose reading the old translator expressed: consensu proprio. The Basilian manuscript agrees as well, in which συνερέσεως is wrongly written for συναινέσεως.

(8) ‹εἰρήνην› · printed under col 748 (the call is misprinted as a second 7)

Lectionem hanc optimam et verissimam acceptam referas mss. Bas. et Veneto. Ab alia vulgatorum, παρ' αὐτὰ μετασκευάσαι, quid elici queat bonae frugis, haud sane videmus. Consonat emendationi antiqua versio, cuncta perducere. In marg. etiam edit. Cotel.: Al., πάντα.

This reading, the best and truest, you may credit to the Basilian and Venetian manuscripts. From the other reading, that of the printed editions, παρ' αὐτὰ μετασκευάσαι, we certainly do not see what good fruit could be drawn. The ancient version agrees with the emendation: cuncta perducere. Also in the margin of Cotelerius's edition: Elsewhere, πάντα.

(9) ‹θρυλλομένη› · printed under col 748

Ms. Ven., γενέσθαι. Idem paulo post, ἁπανταχοῦ pro ἁπανταχόσε.

The Venetian manuscript: γενέσθαι. The same a little after: ἁπανταχοῦ for ἁπανταχόσε.

(10) ‹σὺν ἐμοὶ› · printed under col 748

Cod. Ven., πλεῖστα προσαγορευόμενα.

The Venetian manuscript: πλεῖστα προσαγορευόμενα.

(11) ‹ἡμῶν› · printed under col 748

Ita omnino legendum cum mss. Bas. et Ven. Antiqua versio, doneris nobis, χαριτωθῇ ἡμῖν, editorum repudiandum. In margine etiam editionis Cotelerianae lectionem nostram ex alio ms. annotatam invenies. Mox καὶ ἀξιώτατε deest in cod. Bas. et in alio Cotelerii, qui notavit in marg.: Forte ἁγιώτατε.

So it must certainly be read, with the Basilian and Venetian manuscripts. The ancient version: doneris nobis. The editors' χαριτωθῇ ἡμῖν is to be rejected. In the margin of Cotelerius's edition too you will find our reading noted from another manuscript. Shortly after, καὶ ἀξιώτατε is lacking in the Basilian manuscript and in another of Cotelerius's, who noted in the margin: Perhaps ἁγιώτατε.

(a) ‹Antiqua versio› · printed under col 749

Haec versio in mss. collect. 17 Chalcedonensis invenitur, et exinde manavit in codd. collect. 22, cui epistolae collectionis Chalcedonensis additae fuerunt.

This version is found in the manuscripts of collection 17, the Chalcedonian, and from there it passed into the manuscripts of collection 22, to which the letters of the Chalcedonian collection were added.

(b) ‹Iste enim,› · printed under col 749

Ex nostris codd. et Baluzii supplevimus repetitionem vocis iste, quam et Graecus textus approbat.

From our manuscripts and Baluze's we have supplied the repetition of the word iste, which the Greek text also confirms.

(c) ‹humanitatis;› · printed under col 749

Sic omnes codices. Vulgati in margine, post unitionem. Caeterum unitatem dictum frequenter pro unitionem, quae in Graeco significatur.

So all the manuscripts. The printed editions in the margin: post unitionem. For the rest, unitatem is often said for unitionem (union), which is what is meant in the Greek.

(d) ‹naturarum,› · printed under col 749

Locus a Quesnello recte emendatus ex codice Tuaneo, cum antea sine ullo sensu legeretur, sicut una re proprietates. Hanc emendationem non tantum Baluzii et nostri codices, verum etiam Graecus textus confirmat. Dein, in unitate perfecta, cod. Chig.

The passage was rightly emended by Quesnel from the Thou manuscript, since before it was read without any sense, sicut una re proprietates. Not only Baluze's manuscripts and ours but also the Greek text confirm this emendation. Then, in unitate perfecta, the Chigi manuscript.

(e) ‹Corpus quod ex Maria› · printed under col 749 (the call was not seen in the text)

Sic iidem veteres codices. Vulgati editorum arbitrio, Corpus Domini, quod ex Maria factum est, non, etc.; ac mox, conspersionis. Antiquam lectionem emendare noluimus.

So the same old manuscripts. The printed editions, at the editors' discretion: Corpus Domini, quod ex Maria factum est, non, etc.; and shortly after, conspersionis. We did not wish to emend the ancient reading.

(f) called in this column (unus autem (f) ex ambabus); the note is printed under col 750 and set in n750

Synopsis. — I. Partes episcopi explicat. Errorem Eutychis exponit. — II. Quaenam acta sint contra ipsum in synodo. — III. De ementita appellatione Eutychis ad apostolicam sedem. Damnationis ejus confirmationem petit.

Synopsis. — I. He explains the duties of a bishop. He sets out the error of Eutyches. — II. What was done against him in the synod. — III. On Eutyches' feigned appeal to the apostolic see. He asks for the confirmation of his condemnation.

EJUSDEM EPISTOLAE FLAVIANI Antiqua versio. Sanctissimo et beatissimo patri et consacerdoti Leoni Flavianus in Domino salutem. Cap. I. — Pietate et recta praedicatione verbi veritatis nihil honorabilius sacerdotibus, sicut nosti, Deo amantissime. Omnis enim nostra spes atque salus et retributio promissorum bonorum in his est. Propterea omnia facienda a nobis sunt, et laborandum pro vera fide et expositionibus dogmatibusque sanctorum Patrum: quatenus per omnia et inter omnes concussiones rerum integra haec et inviolata serventur et custodiantur. Necessarium itaque fuit nunc etiam videntes nos laedi orthodoxam fidem, et renovari Apollinaris et Valentini haereses ab Eutyche monacho, non hoc despicere, sed in aperto hoc pro cautela populi revelare. Iste enim, iste Eutyches absconditum in se languorem malae sectae retinens, insiliens nostrae mansuetudini, inverecunde et impudenter in multos impietatem propriam praesumpsit inferre, dicens: Ante inhumanationem quidem Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi duas naturas esse, divinitatis et humanitatis; post unitatem vero, unam naturam factam; neque sciens quod dicit, neque de quibus affirmat. Neque enim unitas convenientium in Christo duarum naturarum, sicut et vestra religiositas novit, proprietates suas in unitate confudit, sed manent in unitate perfectae naturarum proprietates. Adjecit autem et aliam impietatem, dicens: Corpus quod ex Maria factum est, Domini non esse nostrae substantiae, neque humanae consparsionis; sed humanum quidem illud vocat, non tamen nobis consubstantiale, neque genitrici ejus secundum carnem. Cap. II. — Et haec aiebat, cum in gestis Ephesi habitis a sancto et universali concilio, in epistola scripta ad impium damnatumque Nestorium aperte sic habeatur: Quia diversae quidem ad unitatem veram concurrere naturae; unus autem ex ambabus Christus et Filius: non tamquam naturarum differentia sit perempta propter unitatem, sed potius effecerit nobis

(f) ‹unus autem› · printed under col 750 (called in col 749)

Ita ex antiquissimo Veronen. collect. 17, cui et Graecus textus respondet. Alii codd. cum Quesn., ex ambobus Christus Dei Filius. In editis Concilior., ex ambabus Christus Dei Filius.

So from the very ancient Verona manuscript of collection 17, to which the Greek text also corresponds. Other manuscripts, with Quesnel: ex ambobus Christus Dei Filius. In the editions of the Councils: ex ambabus Christus Dei Filius.

(g) ‹humanitatis› · printed under col 750

Quesnellus omisit per; in omnibus autem quinque nostris codd. legitur.

Quesnel omitted per; but it is read in all five of our manuscripts.

(h) ‹piissimo› · printed under col 750

Cod. Veron., et Christianissimo.

The Verona manuscript: et Christianissimo.

(i) ‹ita› · printed under col 750

Quesnel. cum edit. Concilior., gestis. Omnia et nostra et Baluzii exemplaria praetulimus.

Quesnel, with the edition of the Councils: gestis. We have preferred all the copies, both ours and Baluze's.

(j) ‹etiam› · printed under col 750

Quidam codd. et editi ante Quesn. post etiam addunt et.

Some manuscripts and the editions before Quesnel add et after etiam.

(k) ‹mentitus est,› · printed under col 750

Legebat interpres, οἷα δι' ἀπάτης τοῦ ψεύδους, cum sit in textu οἷα (nos adjecimus δὴ) πατὴρ ὢν τοῦ ψεύδους, velut pater mendacii existens. Haec Cotelerius.

The translator read οἷα δι' ἀπάτης τοῦ ψεύδους (as through the deceit of falsehood), whereas in the text there is οἷα (we have added δὴ) πατὴρ ὢν τοῦ ψεύδους, as being the father of falsehood. So Cotelerius.

(l) ‹fiunt,› · printed under col 750

Ita omnes codd. Quesn. cum editis Concilior., pro consueta fiducia fiducialiter age.

So all the manuscripts. Quesnel, with the editions of the Councils: pro consueta fiducia fiducialiter age.

(m) ‹decernere› · printed under cols 750–751

Cod. Chig. et in margine edit. Concilior., in damnatione adversus eum regulariter facta. Edit. Concil., damnationem, sine praepositione in.

The Chigi manuscript, and in the margin of the edition of the Councils: in damnatione adversus eum regulariter facta. The edition of the Councils: damnationem, without the preposition in.

unum Dominum Jesum Christum, divinitatis et humanitatis per ineffabilem et inintelligibilem ad unitatem concursionem. Et hoc non latet tuam sanctitatem, dum omnino legerit gesta quae Ephesi sunt confecta, Quae pro nihilo ponens idem Eutyches arbitratur non se daturum poenam praefinitam a sancto illo et universali concilio: quoniam per haec multi simpliciores ex ejus eloquiis in fidei sermone laeduntur. Accusatum vero eum a reverendissimo Eusebio, et occurentem in sanctum concilium, et voce sua sectam propriam retegentem, alienumque existentem a recta fide damnavimus, sicut docebunt vestram sanctitatem omnia quae super eo sunt gesta, quaeque direximus cum nostris his litteris. Justum autem est et hoc vobis, sicut arbitror, intimari: quia idem Eutyches passus justam canonicamque damnationem, cum debuisset secundis salvare priora, et per poenitentiam perfectam multasque lacrymas placare Deum, nostrumque cor vehementer contristatum in ejus ruina, per veram sanare poenitentiam: non solum hoc non fecit, sed etiam per omnia conturbare sanctam quae apud nos est Ecclesiam festinavit, propositiones injuriarum publice ponens et maledictionibus plenas; super haec et preces offerens piissimo et Christi amantissimo nostro imperatori, et easdem arrogantia et petulantia plenas, per omnia divinas regulas conculcare conatus. Cap. III. — Sed his ita secutis, litterae nobis datae sunt vestrae sanctitatis per admirabilem comitem Pansophium, per quas sumus edocti, quia idem Eutyches libellos direxit vobis plenos omni fallacia atque calliditate, dicens: Judicii tempore libellos se dedisse appellationis et nobis et hic convenienti sancto concilio; et appellasse vestram sanctitatem: quod nequaquam ab eodem factum est; sed etiam in hac parte mentitus est, tamquam per fallaciam mendacii subrepere se sanctis vestris auribus putans. Commotus itaque, sanctissime pater, in his omnibus quae ab eo praesumpta sunt, et ob ea quae in nos et sanctissiman Ecclesiam facta sunt atque fiunt, consuete fiducialiter age, secundum quod sacerdotio competit, propriamque faciens communem causam et sanctarum Ecclesiarum disciplinam, simul decernere in damnationem adversus eum regulariter