Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹quam negata› · printed under col 813

Codd. Vat. et Venetus collect. 12, veritate carnis Christi.

The Vatican and Venetian codices of collection 12 have veritate carnis Christi.

(b) ‹in carne (I Tim. III, 16)?› · printed under col 813

Ratisp., Et quid tam. Mox in laudatis mss. collect. 12 desunt voces nativitatis et.

The Ratisbon has Et quid tam. Shortly after, in the cited manuscripts of collection 12, the words nativitatis et are lacking.

(c) ‹esset corde patefecimus: ne› · printed under col 813

Sic ms. Ratisp. Alias, de illis. Postea in eodem codice, videri posset.

So the Ratisbon manuscript. Otherwise, de illis. Afterwards, in the same codex, videri posset.

(d) ‹singularemque suscipiunt,› · printed under col 813

Ita nostri codices et vulgati ante Quesn. qui praetulit misericordiae eisdem episcopalis benevolentia non negetur.

So our codices and the editions before Quesnel, who preferred misericordiae eisdem episcopalis benevolentia non negetur.

(e) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 813

Al. 35. Quae autem antea 39 erat, nunc 43. Scripta 11 August. an. 449.

Otherwise 35. The one that was formerly 39 is now 43. Written 11 August in the year 449.

(f) ‹XXXIX› · printed under col 813

Hanc epistolam invenimus tantum in mss. collectionis 12, ex quibus contulimus Vat. 1340 et Ven. 169.

We have found this letter only in the manuscripts of collection 12, of which we collated Vatican 1340 and Venice 169.

SYNOPSIS. — De ejus silentio conqueritur, cujus causa Leoni tunc ignota erat Ephesina depraedatio.

SYNOPSIS. — He complains of his silence, the cause of which, the plundering at Ephesus, was then unknown to Leo.

(g) ‹amabilem nobis virum› · printed under col 813

Vulgati ante Quesn. cum Merlino, Esitium. Nostri codices, Esychium. Quesnellus ex alio codice forte Grimanico, Eupsychium.

The editions before Quesnel, with Merlin, have Esitium. Our codices have Esychium. Quesnel, from another codex, perhaps the Grimani, Eupsychium.

(h) ‹ut tota celeritate› · printed under col 813

Nostri codd., scriptis nostris.

Our codices have scriptis nostris.

(i) ‹nosque subinde de tuis› · printed under col 813

Vulgati ante Quesn. cum nostris mss., actibus. In verba autem, de totius causae absolutione facias certiores, hanc postillam Quesnellus apposuit: Causarum absolutio conciliorum est. Hic non est Leoninorum verborum sensus. Num concilium Ephesi habendum, quod hic Leo respicit, totam causam absolverit, an potius Eutychis absolutione et S. Flaviani condemnatione implicaverit seu potius everterit; quae sane absolvenda fuerat, si Leonis litterae non occultatae, sed lectae et a Patribus exsecutioni mandatae fuissent, ut in anteriori vero Ephesino concilio accidit, in quo Caelestini judicium in Nestorii causa Patres secuti sunt; quisque rerum utrobique gestarum peritus facile intelliget.

The editions before Quesnel, with our manuscripts, have actibus. On the words de totius causae absolutione facias certiores Quesnel added this gloss: 'The settlement of cases belongs to councils.' This is not the sense of Leo's words. Whether the council to be held at Ephesus, which Leo has in view here, settled the whole case, or rather entangled or even overturned it by the acquittal of Eutyches and the condemnation of St Flavian, when it should certainly have been settled if Leo's letter had not been suppressed but read and committed by the Fathers to execution, as happened in the earlier, true council of Ephesus, in which the Fathers followed Celestine's judgement in the case of Nestorius: anyone versed in what was done at both will easily understand.

(j) ‹prosperioribus› · printed under col 814

Quesnellus, nuntiatis. Vulgatam lectionem ex nostris codd. revocavimus, quippe quae Leonis stylo congruentior videtur.

Quesnel has nuntiatis. We have restored the common reading from our codices, since it seems more in keeping with Leo's style.

(k) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 814

Al. 39. Quae autem 40 erat, nunc 47. Scripta 22 August. an. 449.

Otherwise 39. The one that was 40 is now 47. Written 22 August in the year 449.

(l) ‹XL.› · printed under col 814

Exstat in una collectione Arelatensi 15. Baronius eam primus edidit ex antiquo ms. Ecclesiae Arelatensis, cujus apographum e Gallia transmissum, et in cod. Vallicell. G. 99, contentum non inutiliter relegimus. Utemur etiam editione Sirmondi, qui alia hujus collectionis exemplaria in Galliis perspexit.

It is extant only in the Arles collection, 15. Baronius first published it from an ancient manuscript of the church of Arles, a copy of which, sent from Gaul and contained in the Vallicelliana codex G. 99, we have re-read not without profit. We shall also use the edition of Sirmond, who examined other copies of this collection in Gaul.

(m) ‹AUGUSTALI,› · printed under col 814

Ita cum Sirmondo Quesnellus. Caeteri vulgati cum Baronio et ms. Vallicell., Hymuatio; qui tamen codex in alia epist. 65 habet Unantio, V pro Y facile commutato. In concilio Arelatensi sub Ravennio, quod Sirmondus evulgarit ex ms. Lugdunensis Ecclesiae tom. V Concil., pag. 25 editionis Venetae, Ynantius scribitur.

So Quesnel with Sirmond. The other editions, with Baronius and the Vallicelliana manuscript, have Hymuatio; yet that codex in another letter, 65, has Unantio, V being easily exchanged for Y. In the council of Arles under Ravennius, which Sirmond published from a manuscript of the church of Lyons, vol. V of the Councils, p. 25 of the Venice edition, Ynantius is written.

(n) ‹YNANTIO, et› · printed under col 814

Quesn. in marg.: Al., Chrisatio, cum nullum tamen codicem nisi Arelatensem annot. 1 indicatum viderit, in quo legitur Chrysaphio; hanc variantem colligere potuit ex synodo Arelatensi ante laudata, ubi tamen Chrysantius appellatur, sicut et in concilio Carthaginensi an. 525, in quo ejusdem Arelatensis synodi documentum insertum fuit. Num vero idem hic, an vero alius sit qui Leoninae epistolae inscribitur, nisi alios codices observare liceat, definiri nequit. Certe in epist. 99 et 102 inter Gallicanos episcopos Chrisaphius censetur.

Quesnel in the margin: Otherwise, Chrisatio, although he saw no codex except the Arles one indicated in note 1, in which Chrysaphio is read; he could have gathered this variant from the synod of Arles cited above, where, however, he is called Chrysantius, as also in the council of Carthage of the year 525, into which a document of the same synod of Arles was inserted. Whether he is the same man here, or another who is named in the address of Leo's letter, cannot be determined unless other codices can be examined. Certainly in letters 99 and 102 a Chrisaphius is counted among the bishops of Gaul.

(o) ‹Justa et rationabilis› · printed under col 814

Pronomen nobis a Baronio omissum et a Sirmondo atque Quesnello suppletum invenimus in ms. Vallicell.

The pronoun nobis, omitted by Baronius and supplied by Sirmond and Quesnel, we have found in the Vallicelliana manuscript.

SYNOPSIS. — Gaudet de bona ac pacifica electione Ravennii: cui ut bonae de eo conceptae opinioni satisfaciat, exoptat.

SYNOPSIS. — He rejoices at the good and peaceful election of Ravennius, and wishes that he may live up to the good opinion formed of him.

(a) ‹nostro judicio roboramus› · printed under col 815

Cod. Vallicel., Qui; quae lectio, si esset admittenda, aliam interpunctionem flagitaret.

The Vallicellian manuscript has Qui; a reading which, if it were to be admitted, would require a different punctuation.

(b) ‹fratres charissimi. Data› · printed under col 815

Quesnellus cum Rainaudo pro xi kal. posuit ii kal., ubi numerum Romanum ii pro Arabico 11 sumpsisse videtur; nam in margine notavit diem 22 Augusti, qui respondet diei 11 kal. Septembris. Erronee quidem die ii kal. poneretur, cum epist. 42, data vii kal. ejusdem mensis hisce litteris posterior sit. Sirmondus has quoque litteras signavit vii kal. Septembris. Secuti sumus codicem Vallicellanum.

Quesnel, with Raynaud, put ii kal. for xi kal., where he seems to have taken the Roman numeral ii for the Arabic 11; for in the margin he noted the day 22 August, which corresponds to the 11th day before the Kalends of September. It would indeed be put wrongly on the 2nd day before the Kalends, since letter 42, given on the 7th day before the Kalends of the same month, is later than this letter. Sirmond also marked this letter vii kal. Septembris. We have followed the Vallicellian manuscript.

(c) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 815

Al. 37. Quae autem 41 erat, nunc 45. Scr. sub idem tempus antecedentis.

Otherwise 37. The one that was 41 is now 45. Written at about the same time as the preceding one.

(d) ‹EPISTOLA XLI.› · printed under col 815

Invenitur in mss. coll. 12 et 24 ac in Vat. 541.

It is found in the manuscripts of collections 12 and 24 and in Vat. 541.

(e) ‹ARELATENSEM EPISCOPUM.› · printed under col 815

Quesnellus cum vulgatis Leonis et nonnullis codd., Domino fratri. Insuetum titulum emendavimus ex Vat. 541, cui emendationi editiones conciliorum post Sirmondum et sequentis epistolae inscriptio concinunt; ex quo jure expungenda fuit Quesnelli postilla: Nota Domino.

Quesnel, with the printed editions of Leo and some manuscripts, has Domino fratri. We have corrected the unusual title from Vat. 541, and with this correction the editions of the councils after Sirmond, and the inscription of the following letter, agree; hence Quesnel's marginal note, Nota Domino, had rightly to be struck out.

(f) ‹animi tui secundum› · printed under col 815

Ita cum ms. Thuaneo legendum, non vero praesentem, ut habent editi et plerique codd., optime statuit Quesnellus not. 1, cui et Sirmondi lectio suffragatur.

Quesnel, note 1, very rightly determined that it should be read thus, with the Thuanean manuscript, and not praesentem, as the printed editions and most manuscripts have; Sirmond's reading also supports him.

(g) ‹senserimus, justissime nos› · printed under col 815

Editi Leonis, agnoscitis, quod non cohaeret cum antecedenti, non ignoras. Correximus ex duobus nostris codd. Vat. 541 et Veneto 167. Sirmondus etiam favet.

The printed editions of Leo have agnoscitis, which does not agree with the preceding non ignoras. We have corrected it from two of our manuscripts, Vat. 541 and Veneto 167. Sirmond also supports this.

(h) printed under col 815 (its call is in col 816): set in n816.

SYNOPSIS. — Ravennio in episcopum electo gratulatur; virtutes episcopales commendat; ut ad ipsum saepius scribat hortatur.

SYNOPSIS. — He congratulates Ravennius on his election as bishop; he commends the episcopal virtues; he urges him to write to him often.

(h) ‹hoc probemus, frater charissime.› · printed under col 815, continued under col 816

Vulgati Leonis ante Quesn. cum mss. collect. 12: Modestiae igitur tuae non auctoritas constantiam, sed mansuetudo commendet. Quesnelli emendationem probant duo nostri codd. Vat. 544 collect. 24 et Vat. 541, atque editio Sirmondi. Vide not. 2 Quesn.

The printed editions of Leo before Quesnel, with the manuscripts of collection 12, have: Let not authority but gentleness commend the constancy of your modesty. Quesnel's correction is supported by two of our manuscripts, Vat. 544 of collection 24 and Vat. 541, and by Sirmond's edition. See Quesnel's note 2.

(i) ‹potestatis tuae jura contineas.› · printed under col 816

Ita cum Quesn. et Sirm. nostri mss. libri collect. 24 et Vat. 541. Caeteri codices et impressi, Justo tamen dicitur.

So our manuscript books of collection 24 and Vat. 541, with Quesnel and Sirmond. The other manuscripts and the printed editions have: Justo tamen dicitur.

(j) ‹cum verus recti amor› · printed under col 816

Editi ante Quesn., in semetipso habeat. Quesn. cum duobus mss. et Hincmaro, quibus et tres nostri codd. favent, edidit in semetipso habet; at simul not. 3 confessus est hanc quoque lectionem carere vero sensu. Etsi enim, inquit, verus recti amor mentem hominis legi Dei subjiciat, perfectamque inspiret pro humanis etiam praeceptis obedientiam, numquam vel apostolicarum auctoritatum, vel canonicarum sanctionum, quae leges, ut aiunt, positivae sunt, notitiam per semetipsum potest impertire. Haec autem difficultas tollitur addendo particulam negativam non, quam cod. Vat. 1348 collect. 12 suppeditavit.

The editions before Quesnel have in semetipso habeat. Quesnel, with two manuscripts and Hincmar, which three of our manuscripts also support, printed in semetipso habet; but at the same time, in note 3, he admitted that this reading too lacks a true sense. For although, he says, the true love of right subjects the mind of man to the law of God, and inspires a perfect obedience even to human precepts, it can never of itself impart knowledge either of the apostolic authorities or of the canonical sanctions, which are, as they say, positive laws. This difficulty, however, is removed by adding the negative particle non, which the manuscript Vat. 1348 of collection 12 supplied.

(k) ‹Deus te incolumen custodiat, frater charissime› · printed under col 816

Licet huic epistolae desit nota chronica, tamen sub idem tempus quo antecedens, scripta fuit, ut Quesnellus probe ostendit not. 4.

Although this letter lacks a date, it was nevertheless written at about the same time as the preceding one, as Quesnel rightly shows in note 4.

(l) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 816

Al. 38. Quae autem 42 erat, nunc 49. Scripta 26 August. an. 449.

Otherwise 38. The one that was 42 is now 49. Written 26 August in the year 449.

(m) ‹EPISTOLA XLII.› · printed under col 816

Baronius hanc quoque epistolam edidit ex laudato codice Arelatensi, cujus apographum ab eo acceptum vidimus in ms. Vallicellano, G, 99.

Baronius also published this letter from the aforesaid manuscript of Arles, a copy of which, received from him, we have seen in the Vallicellian manuscript G 99.

(n) ‹semper erroneum, certa nos› · printed under col 816

Qui scilicet epistolas Ravennii et comprovincialium de ejusdem Ravennii promotione ad Leonem attulerant.

Namely, those who had brought to Leo the letters of Ravennius and of the bishops of his province concerning the promotion of the same Ravennius.

SYNOPSIS. — De Petroniano vago et diaconum se Leonis mentiente admonet, eumque ab omnium Ecclesiarum communione expelli postulat.

SYNOPSIS. — He gives warning about Petronianus, a vagrant who falsely calls himself Leo's deacon, and asks that he be expelled from the communion of all the Churches.

ADMONITIO IN SEQUENTEM EPISTOLAM.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER.

1. Duae sequentes epistolae, 43 et 44, de re eadem ac eodem, uti praefertur, die ad eumdem imperatorem Theodosium scriptae, easdem fere, si Latinum textum spectes, nedum sententias, sed etiam voces in partem maximam exhibent. Id aliquam suppositionis suspicionem injecit. Porro epistola 43 duplici manifesto vitio laborat. Primo certum errorem contra historiae veritatem praefert illis verbis cap. 1: Haec nobis comperta sunt.... ab ipsis reverendissimis episcopis, qui a nobis missi sunt. Solus enim Julius episcopus Puteolanus ad synodum legatus fuit: ac praeterea unus Hilarus diaconus, qui ex pseudosynodo Ephesina fugit, res gestas ad pontificem coram retulisse, nulla umquam ipsius Julii mentione facta, traditur epist. 44 et 45. Deinde eodem cap. 1 aperta lacuna detegitur. Cum enim verba pro supradicti sacerdotis arbitrio ad Dioscorum referantur, Dioscori mentionem praecessisse innuunt, uti praecedit in epist. 44, quae tamen mentio non apparet in epist. 43. Quapropter haec epistola veluti spuria nonnullis repudianda visa est, inter quos legendus Tillemontius not. 31 in Leonis vitam.

1. The two following letters, 43 and 44, written on the same matter and, as is stated, on the same day to the same emperor Theodosius, present, if you look at the Latin text, nearly the same not only thoughts but for the most part also words. This has cast some suspicion of forgery. Moreover, letter 43 suffers from two manifest faults. First, it displays a certain error against the truth of history in these words of chapter 1: These things were learned by us.... from the most reverend bishops themselves, who were sent by us. For Julius, bishop of Puteoli, alone was legate to the synod; and besides, letters 44 and 45 relate that only Hilarus the deacon, who fled from the pseudo-synod of Ephesus, reported the proceedings to the pontiff in person, with no mention ever made of Julius himself. Secondly, in the same chapter 1 an open lacuna is detected. For since the words pro supradicti sacerdotis arbitrio refer to Dioscorus, they imply that a mention of Dioscorus has gone before, as it does go before in letter 44; yet this mention does not appear in letter 43. For this reason this letter has seemed to some to be rejected as spurious, among whom Tillemont, note 31 on the life of Leo, should be read.

2. Nos vero ne de suppositione ac falsitate hujus epistolae suspicemur, Graecae collectionis Chalcedonensis, in qua non minus haec epistola describitur, quam epistola 44, auctoritas cogit. Etsi enim eamdem epistolam satis vindicare possit Chalcedonensis collectio Latina, quae ante medium vi saeculum lucubrata hanc epistolam exhibet, multo tamen evidentius omnem suspicionem amovere debet Graeca collectio, quippe quae ipso Leone vivente compacta fuit inter an. 453 et 455, ut in praefat. ad epistolas demonstravimus num. 34. Igitur hoc tempore exstitit apud Graecos Latinum hujus epistolae autographum, ex quo Graeca interpretatio manavit. Majus et antiquius germanitatis testimonium desiderari nequit, quod nulla lacuna, errore nullo, qui nunc in ea epistola appareant, vocari potest in dubium: secus alia documenta, quae cum erroribus vel lacunis ad nos pervenerunt, etsi aliunde essent certissima, repudiari vel in suspicionem vocari possent.

2. But the authority of the Greek Chalcedonian collection, in which this letter is copied no less than letter 44, compels us not to suspect forgery and falsity in this letter. For although the Latin Chalcedonian collection, which was compiled before the middle of the sixth century and presents this letter, could sufficiently vindicate it, yet much more evidently must the Greek collection remove all suspicion, since it was put together in Leo's own lifetime, between the years 453 and 455, as we have shown in the preface to the letters, no. 34. At that time, therefore, the Latin autograph of this letter existed among the Greeks, and from it the Greek translation flowed. A greater and more ancient testimony of genuineness cannot be desired, and it cannot be called into doubt by any lacuna or any error that now appears in that letter; otherwise other documents which have come down to us with errors or lacunae, even though they were most certain on other grounds, could be rejected or brought under suspicion.

3. Dum vero ob tantam auctoritatem stet hanc epistolam 43 supposititiam non esse; quoad ea quae difficultatem afferunt, etsi non aeque certo definire, aliquid tamen non improbabiliter conjectari licebit. Antea vero praemittendum est, hactenus quidem praesumptum fuisse epistolam 43, uti Latine edita est ex Latina collectione Chalcedonensi, ipsum esse originale Latinum S. Leonis, quod vetus collector invenerit, suaeque collectioni inseruerit, ut in caeteris plerisque Leonis epistolis accidit, ac praesertim in epistola 44, cujus originale Latinum ab eodem repertum, Latinae collectioni insertum fuit: id quod confirmare posse videtur chronica nota huic epistolae Latinae apposita, quae cum in Graeca versione ex more Graeci interpretis omissa fuerit, ex invento originali Latino derivari videtur. At hanc praesumptionem esse falsam, et Latinum textum, quem habemus epistolae 43, non esse originale, nec originalis Latini exemplum, satis manifeste deteximus. Cum enim in Graeca, versione hujus epistolae ea non exigua lacuna sit, quam paulo ante indicavimus; si auctor Latinae collectionis Chalcedon. Latinum exemplum, quod insereret, nactus fuisset, ita in Latino ipsius epistolae textu suppleta legeretur memorata lacuna, sicuti ex Latino exemplo, quod invenit epistolae 33 ad Julianum, suppletae noscuntur lacunae quatuor quae in Graeca ejusdem interpretatione deprehenduntur: licet ex his non perinde vitietur ipsius epistolae sensus, uti ex unica maxime laeditur sensus epistolae 43. Ideo igitur collector non supplevit in textu Latino versionis Graecae lacunam hujus epistolae, quia Latinum ipsius originale, vel exemplum nequaquam invenit. Adde quod si Latinum exemplum invenisset collector, non solum lacunam supplesset, sed errorem etiam historicae veritati contrarium exinde emendasset. Exemplar enim Latinum aeque mendosum ac mutilum ab eo fuisse inventum, sicuti mendosa ac mutila est Graeca versio, omnino incredibile est. De nota chronica, quae in Latino praefertur, dicemus paulo post.

3. While it stands, then, on account of so great an authority, that this letter 43 is not forged, as to the things that cause difficulty it will be permissible, though not to determine with equal certainty, yet to conjecture something not improbably. First, however, it must be premised that it has hitherto been presumed that letter 43, as it is published in Latin from the Latin Chalcedonian collection, is the very Latin original of St Leo, which the old collector found and inserted in his collection, as happened with most of Leo's other letters, and especially with letter 44, whose Latin original, found by the same man, was inserted in the Latin collection; and this the date attached to this Latin letter seems able to confirm, for since it was omitted in the Greek version according to the Greek translator's custom, it seems to derive from the Latin original that was found. But we have detected quite plainly that this presumption is false, and that the Latin text of letter 43 that we have is neither the original nor a copy of the Latin original. For since in the Greek version of this letter there is that not inconsiderable lacuna which we indicated a little before, if the author of the Latin Chalcedonian collection had obtained a Latin copy to insert, the said lacuna would be read supplied in the Latin text of the letter itself, just as the four lacunae detected in the Greek translation of letter 33 to Julian are known to have been supplied from the Latin copy of it that he found; although the sense of that letter is not so impaired by these as the sense of letter 43 is gravely damaged by its single one. The collector, therefore, did not supply the lacuna of this letter in the Latin text of the Greek version for this reason, that he by no means found its Latin original or a copy. Add that if the collector had found a Latin copy, he would not only have supplied the lacuna but would also have corrected from it the error contrary to historical truth. For that he should have found a Latin exemplar as faulty and mutilated as the Greek version is faulty and mutilated is altogether incredible. Of the date which is prefixed in the Latin we shall speak a little later.

4. Cum ergo Latino collectori defuerit hujus epistolae originale vel exemplar Latinum, ac prae oculis habuerit tantum Graecam versionem, Latinum textum quem dedit sic ab eodem compactum arbitramur. Cum reperisset Latinum exemplar solius epistolae 44, quae plures exhibet sententias similes epistolae 43, ubi similia vel fere similia in utrisque deprehendit, abstinens ab interpretatione Graeci textus hujus epistolae, qui loco originalis habendus erat, transcripsit Latina verba integrasque periodos ex originali Latino epistolae 44, eaque aptavit epistolae 43. Ubi vero diversas sententias perspexit, quae non exstant in epistola 44, uti accidit praesertim in epistolae exordio, interpretationem ex Graeco facere coactus fuit. Interpretationis quidem indicium proditur in nonnullis capitis primi, quae a Leonina ratione scribendi non modicum discrepant, nec non in illo imperatoris titulo initio cap. 2 inserto tranquillissime principum, quem a Leoninis formulis abhorrentem, ad Graecam locutionem propius accedere idem Tillemontius laudato loco persensit. Titulus etiam reverendissimi, qui episcopis legatis capite primo tribuitur, a Leonis more alienus, ex Graeco manare dignoscitur; quod enim Graece εὐλαβέστατος scribitur, in antiqua versione concilii Chalcedonensis reverendissimus redditur.

4. Since, then, the Latin collector lacked the original or a Latin exemplar of this letter, and had before his eyes only the Greek version, we judge that the Latin text he gave was put together by him in this way. Having found a Latin exemplar of letter 44 alone, which presents many thoughts similar to letter 43, where he detected things similar or nearly similar in both, he refrained from translating the Greek text of this letter, which was to be held in place of the original, and transcribed the Latin words and whole periods from the Latin original of letter 44, and fitted them to letter 43. But where he perceived different thoughts, which are not found in letter 44, as happens especially in the opening of the letter, he was compelled to make a translation from the Greek. A sign of translation is indeed betrayed in some things of the first chapter, which differ not a little from Leo's manner of writing, and also in that title of the emperor inserted at the beginning of chapter 2, tranquillissime principum, which, being foreign to Leo's formulas, the same Tillemont, in the place cited, perceived to come closer to a Greek expression. The title reverendissimi also, which is given to the legate bishops in the first chapter, being foreign to Leo's custom, is recognized to flow from the Greek; for what is written in Greek εὐλαβέστατος is rendered reverendissimus in the ancient version of the council of Chalcedon.

5. Si vero Latinus textus ab auctore Latinae collectionis Chalcedonensis ita ex arbitrio confectus, Leoninus originalis nec est, nec haberi potest; jam tota disquisitio versari debet non circa Latinum textum, sed circa Graecum, qui ex originali in Orientem misso profectus, ubi deest originale Latinum, loco originalis habendus est. Graecum autem textum expendentibus palam fiet, non unum exordium epistolae differre ab exordio epistolae 44, sed totas litteras discrepare, adeo ut, licet similes sententiae plerumque concurrant in utrisque, in pluribus tamen quamvis minutioribus differant: quae non interpretationi diversae earumdem litterarum, sed Latinis originalibus dissimilibus tribuenda sunt. Nam aliae sententiae brevioribus verbis in Graeco epistolae 43 expositae, quae latius explicantur in epist. 44, nonnulla commata omittunt, quae interpres non praeterisset; aliae vero diversa etiam ratione proponuntur, ut, exempli gratia, est illud: Atque isti, quorum est causa gravior, vel consiliis acquiescant, vel ab una Ecclesia exscindantur: quae sententia aliter exponitur in epist. 44, his verbis: Ipsique, quorum est causa durior, si consiliis melioribus acquiescant, ab Ecclesiae unitate non excidant. Haec duplex ejusdem sententiae explicandae ratio non a diverso Graeco ejusdem epistolae interprete, sed ab exemplo Latino diverso manifeste pendet. Ex his epistolam 43, quae collato Graeco textu tot capitibus discrepare cognoscitur ab epistola 44, aliam esse epistolam, nihil dubitandum est; ac proinde

5. But if the Latin text, put together thus at will by the author of the Latin Chalcedonian collection, neither is nor can be held to be Leo's original, then the whole inquiry must turn not on the Latin text but on the Greek, which, proceeding from the original sent to the East, is to be held in place of the original where the Latin original is lacking. And to those who weigh the Greek text it will become plain that not only the opening of the letter differs from the opening of letter 44, but that the whole letter differs, so much so that, although similar thoughts for the most part coincide in both, yet in many points, though minor ones, they differ: and these are to be attributed not to a different translation of the same letter, but to dissimilar Latin originals. For some thoughts, set out in shorter words in the Greek of letter 43, which are unfolded more broadly in letter 44, omit some clauses which a translator would not have passed over; others again are put forward even in a different manner, as, for example, is this: And let those whose case is graver either assent to counsels or be cut off from the one Church; which thought is set out otherwise in letter 44 in these words: And let those whose case is harder, if they assent to better counsels, not fall away from the unity of the Church. This twofold manner of expressing the same thought plainly depends not on a different Greek translator of the same letter but on a different Latin exemplar. From these things there is no doubt at all that letter 43, which, when the Greek text is compared, is recognized to differ from letter 44 in so many heads, is a different letter; and accordingly […]

necessarium fuit, Graeci textus, qui originalis vicem gerit, Latinam interpretationem dare, non solum ut Graecae linguae minus peritis patefieret apertum discrimen, verum etiam ut haberetur Latine haec epistola, quae solum Graece prostat; Latinus enim textus, quem habemus, nec originalis, nec integra versio est, ut vidimus, et epistolam 44 potius quam epist. 43 in partem maximam exhibet.

[…] it was necessary to give a Latin translation of the Greek text, which takes the place of the original, not only so that the evident difference might be laid open to those less skilled in the Greek language, but also so that this letter, which survives only in Greek, might be had in Latin; for the Latin text that we have is neither the original nor a complete version, as we have seen, and for the most part presents letter 44 rather than letter 43.

6. Fatendum vero est, in Graeco textu praeter lacunam et errorem historicum, quorum initio meminimus, alia loca vel luxata et corrupta, vel certe obscura et implexa inveniri. At errorem historicum facili duarum litterarum mutatione emendari in Graeco textu, nullo autem modo in veteri interpretatione Latina, eumque antiquo librario potius quam Graeco interpreti tribuendum, annotatione 5 observabimus. Lacuna vero, quae primo capite evidens est, utrum ab interpretis, an vero ab amanuensis saltu derivet, dijudicari nequit. Caetera autem loca luxata, vel implexa et involuta, partim forte ab amanuensi, partim vero ab ipso imperito interprete proficiscuntur, quod tamen aliis Graecis versionibus in hac collectione insertis commune est; identidem enim Graecus interpres ob Latini sermonis imperitiam non admodum exacte auctoris mentem assecutus, minus recte reddidit quaedam loca, quae probe intelligentibus Latinam linguam ex collatione originalium quae supersunt aliter reddenda fuisse noscuntur. Haec autem obscura et implexa loca quid ex Leonis mente significent, colligi quidem potest ex originali Latino epistolae 44, quod similes sententias praefert; at ex hoc eadem verba transferenda non sunt in epistolam 43, ut collector Latinus fecit. Etsi enim Leonis mos fuerit eamdem nonnumquam epistolam renovare, et nedum easdem sententias, sed eadem fere verba in posterius exemplum traducere, ut patet ex epist. 30 et 31 ad Pulcheriam; cum tamen nonnulla etiam addere, vel detrahere, aut mutare consueverit, incertum est num in locis memoratis aliquid tale contigerit. Solum in annotationibus indicare licebit verba quae vel supplenda videntur, vel Leonis mentem aperient, ut ne tamen ea huic epistolae ab eodem inserta affirmare possimus. Ita solutae sunt vel omnes, vel saltem praecipuae difficultates, quae contra hanc epistolam opponebantur, adeo ut vel ex hoc de ejus germanitate nihil sit ambigendum.

6. It must be admitted, however, that in the Greek text, besides the lacuna and the historical error which we mentioned at the beginning, other passages are found either dislocated and corrupt, or at least obscure and tangled. But we shall observe in note 5 that the historical error is corrected in the Greek text by an easy change of two letters, though in no way in the old Latin translation, and that it is to be attributed to an ancient copyist rather than to the Greek translator. Whether the lacuna, which is evident in the first chapter, derives from a skip of the translator or of the copyist cannot be decided. The other passages, dislocated or tangled and involved, proceed partly perhaps from the copyist, but partly from the unskilled translator himself, which is nevertheless common to the other Greek versions inserted in this collection; for again and again the Greek translator, through inexperience of the Latin language, not quite exactly grasping the author's meaning, rendered certain passages less correctly, which, to those who understand the Latin language well, are known from comparison with the originals that survive to have needed to be rendered otherwise. What these obscure and tangled passages signify according to Leo's mind can indeed be gathered from the Latin original of letter 44, which presents similar thoughts; but the same words are not to be transferred from it into letter 43, as the Latin collector did. For although it was Leo's custom sometimes to renew the same letter, and to carry over into the later copy not only the same thoughts but almost the same words, as is clear from letters 30 and 31 to Pulcheria, yet since he was also accustomed to add, or remove, or change some things, it is uncertain whether something of the kind happened in the passages mentioned. It will be permissible only to indicate in the notes the words that seem either to need supplying or to disclose Leo's meaning, without, however, our being able to affirm that they were inserted in this letter by him. Thus either all, or at least the chief, difficulties that were raised against this letter have been solved, so that even on this ground there is no doubt about its genuineness.

7. In ea vero quaestione, cur duae tam similes epistolae ad eumdem imperatorem traditae fuerint, Quesnellus suspicatus est epistolam 43 forsitan esse exemplar epistolae 44, quod nonnullis mutatis S. Leo miserit ad Pulcheriam Augustam; nam in epist. 45 ad eamdem scribens, ejusmodi exemplar se ad ipsam mittere testatur. At hoc in hypothesi ejusdem chronicae notationis in utraque epistola satis ingeniose dictum videri potest, non tamen probabiliter, verisimillimum enim est Leonem ad Pulcheriam misisse exemplar, quod originali ad Theodosium tradito responderet. Hypothesim vero ejusdem diei in epistola signati, ex Latino textu pendet, quod non esse proprium hujus epistolae, sed ex epist. 44 sumptum jam demonstravimus. Repudiata vero hac hypothesi id ita evenisse conjici potest. S. pontifex primo scripsit epistolam 43. Haec sane in omnibus tum Venetis, tum Vaticanis Graecis codicibus, nec non in illis quos vetus interpres Latinus, seu Rusticus vidit, primo loco constanter describitur ante epistolam 44, quod anterioris temporis indicium est; at post aliquot dies, cum jam discessissent ii quibus epist. 43 tradita fuerat, eamdem S. Leo aliquibus mutatis, ac pluribus additis, renovavit, aliisque tradidit perferendam, ita ut, priori, si fieri posset, revocata vel suppressa, hanc Theodosio offerrent; ejusdemque exemplum litteris ad Pulcheriam scriptis junxit. Ita porro factum est ut ambae in Orientem pervenerint, et a Graeco collectionis Chalcedonensis auctore utraeque inventae et insertae fuerint.

7. On the question why two such similar letters were delivered to the same emperor, Quesnel suspected that letter 43 was perhaps a copy of letter 44, which St Leo, with some changes, sent to Pulcheria Augusta; for writing to her in letter 45 he testifies that he is sending her a copy of that kind. But this, on the hypothesis of the same date in both letters, may seem said ingeniously enough, yet not probably; for it is most likely that Leo sent Pulcheria a copy that corresponded to the original delivered to Theodosius. The hypothesis of the same day marked in the letter depends on the Latin text, which we have already shown is not proper to this letter but taken from letter 44. This hypothesis being rejected, it may be conjectured that things happened thus. The holy pontiff first wrote letter 43. This letter, indeed, in all the Greek manuscripts, both Venetian and Vatican, and also in those which the old Latin translator, that is Rusticus, saw, is constantly copied in the first place, before letter 44, which is a sign of an earlier time; but after some days, when those to whom letter 43 had been delivered had already departed, St Leo renewed it with some things changed and many added, and delivered it to others to carry, so that, the former being recalled or suppressed if that could be done, they should present this one to Theodosius; and he joined a copy of it to the letter written to Pulcheria. And so it came about that both reached the East, and both were found and inserted by the author of the Greek Chalcedonian collection.

8. Tandem dicendum est aliquid de canone, qui licet in vulgatis conciliorum subjiciatur Graecae versioni epistolae 44, eo quod haec editorum arbitrio primo loco edita fuit; in codicibus tamen subnectitur huic epistolae 43, quae in iisdem, uti jam diximus, primo loco describitur. Cum S. pontifex canonum Nicaeae habitorum decreta subter annexa memoret epist. 44, non unum tantum canonem subjecisse videtur, sed plures, illos scilicet qui de appellatione in Sardicensi concilio lati, ex vetusta Latinae ac praesertim Romanae Ecclesiae consuetudine Nicaenis canonibus adjecti Nicaenorum nomine circumferebantur. Cum vero idem pontifex pluralem numerum, ex. gr., epistolae, exemplaria, etc., pro una epistola, uno exemplari significando adhibere soleat, ut vidimus annot. 3 in epist. 13 (Col. 664, i) et 7 in epist. 45 (Col. 833 e) hic quoque laudatis vocibus pluralis numeri unum canonem quartum ejusdem Sardicensis concilii indicasse dicendus est, eo quod hunc unum canonem vetus interpres Graecus reddidit, ut omnes Graeci codices ostendunt. Similiter cum Galla Placidia epist. 56 plurali numero allegavit secundum definitiones Nicaeni concilii, unum canonem quintum Sardicensem innuit, ut in margine editorum notatur. Porro in editionibus conciliorum ex aliquo Romano codice hic titulus canoni praefigitur, qui in tribus Venetis mss. non legitur: Ἀντίτυπον συνεδρίου ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τῶν Καινῶν, ἐν οἷς διελάλησαν; nimirum Latine: Exemplum concilii in loco Novorum, ubi locuti sunt. Canon vero ad Venetos codices exactus sic effertur: Γαυδέντιος ἐπίσκοπος εἶπεν· Εἰ ἀρέσκει προστεθῆναι ταύτῃ τῇ ἀποφάσει, ἥν τινα πλήρη ἁγιότητος προσηνέγκατε, ὁπηνίκα ἄλλος ἐπίσκοπος καθῃρέθη κρίσει ἐπισκόπων, καὶ διεμαρτύρατο ἐν πόγει τῶν Καινῶν κινηθῆναι τὰ τοῦ πράγματος, ὁ δὲ ἕτερος ἐπίσκοπος ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ καθέδρᾳ μετὰ τὴν αἴτησιν τοῦ φαινομένου καθῃρῆσθαι, παντελῶς ἐν ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ τυπωθῆναι τὰ τοῦ πράγματος μὴ δύνασθαι, εἰ μὴ παρὰ τῶν ἐκεῖσε κριτῶν δέξηται τὸν ὅρον. Latine autem sic: Gaudentius episcopus dixit: Si placet, ut adjiciatur huic sententiae, quam plenam sanctitate protulistis; quoties alius (legendum aliquis) episcopus depositus fuerit episcoporum judicio, et proclamaverit ut in civitate Novorum causa agitetur, alter autem episcopus in eadem cathedra post appellationem ejus qui videtur esse depositus, omnino in altero loco causam pro firma haberi non posse, nisi illic a judicibus finem accipiat. Depravatissimam interpretationem ejus Latini canonis quem S. Leo suae epistolae subjecit, verus Latinus canon Sardicensis demonstrabit. Hunc proferimus ex iis antiquissimis codicibus et collectionibus canonum in quibus cum Sardicenses ex Romanae Ecclesiae more Nicaenis accenseantur, lectionem inde sumptam eam esse quam Leo suis litteris subtexuit, indubium videtur: Gaudentius episcopus dixit: Addendum est, si placet, huic sententiae, quam plenam sanctitatis protulistis, ut cum aliquis depositus fuerit episcopus eorum episcoporum judicio qui in vicinis locis commorantur, et proclamaverit agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma; alter episcopus in ejus (al. eadem) cathedra post appellationem ejus qui videtur esse depositus, omnino non ordinetur (quidam codd. addunt in loco ipsius), nisi causa fuerit in judicio Romani episcopi determinata. Nunc si conferas hunc verum canonem cum Graeca versione quam dedimus, omissionem harum vocum qui in vicinis locis commorantur, et sententiam in fine involutissimam deprehendes: ac propterea voces in urbe Roma perperam redditas ἐν πόλει τῶν Καινῶν, in civitate Novorum, et voces in judicio Romani episcopi redditas παρὰ τῶν ἐκεῖσε κριτῶν, illic a judicibus, ita ut Romanae urbis, ac episcopi mentio nulla sit; quod num casu, an consulto acciderit, alii judicent. Jure itaque editores Romani notarunt: Hunc canonem simul cum epistola interpres illius temporis Graece reddidit satis depravatum, et mancum, sicut et caeteras etiam ejusdem B. Leonis epistolas, quae in hoc Chalcedonensi concilio sunt insertae. Jam vero Graecam interpretationem cum Latina ejusdem versione primum exhibeamus; dein subjiciemus antiquam editionem Latinam, quae ex mss. collectionis Chalcedonensis prodiit, licet haec pro originali Leonis epistola haberi non possit.

8. Finally, something must be said about the canon, which, although in the printed editions of the councils it is appended to the Greek version of letter 44, because that letter was, at the editors' discretion, published in the first place, is yet in the manuscripts attached to this letter 43, which in them, as we have already said, is copied in the first place. Since the holy pontiff in letter 44 mentions the decrees of the canons held at Nicaea annexed below, he seems to have appended not one canon only but several, namely those which, passed at the council of Sardica on appeal, were by the old custom of the Latin and especially of the Roman Church added to the Nicene canons and circulated under the name of the Nicene. But since the same pontiff is accustomed to use the plural number, e.g. epistolae, exemplaria, etc., to signify one letter or one copy, as we saw in note 3 on letter 13 (col. 664, i) and note 7 on letter 45 (col. 833 e), here too he must be said to have indicated by the plural words cited the one fourth canon of the same council of Sardica, because the old Greek translator rendered this one canon, as all the Greek manuscripts show. Similarly, when Galla Placidia in letter 56 alleged in the plural according to the definitions of the Nicene council, she intimated the one fifth canon of Sardica, as is noted in the editors' margin. Further, in the editions of the councils this title, which is not read in the three Venetian manuscripts, is prefixed to the canon from some Roman manuscript: A copy of the synod in the place of the New Ones, in which they spoke; that is, in Latin: Exemplum concilii in loco Novorum, ubi locuti sunt. The canon, however, checked against the Venetian manuscripts, runs thus: Gaudentius the bishop said: If it pleases [you] that there be added to this decision, full of holiness, which you have brought forward, that when another bishop has been deposed by the judgement of bishops and has protested that the matter be raised in the city of the New Ones, and the other bishop [is] in this see after the petition of him who appears to have been deposed, the matter can by no means be settled in another place unless it receive its determination from the judges there. And in Latin thus: Gaudentius the bishop said: If it pleases [you], that there be added to this decision, which you have brought forward full of holiness; whenever another (read: any) bishop has been deposed by the judgement of bishops, and has appealed that the case be conducted in the city of the New Ones, and another bishop [is] in the same see after the appeal of him who appears to have been deposed, the case can by no means be held as settled in another place, unless it receive its end there from the judges. The true Latin canon of Sardica will show how very corrupt is the translation of that Latin canon which St Leo appended to his letter. We bring it forward from those most ancient manuscripts and collections of canons in which, since the Sardican canons are reckoned among the Nicene according to the custom of the Roman Church, it seems beyond doubt that the reading taken from them is the one Leo subjoined to his letter: Gaudentius the bishop said: It must be added, if it pleases [you], to this decision, which you have brought forward full of holiness, that when any bishop has been deposed by the judgement of those bishops who dwell in the neighbouring places, and has appealed that his business be conducted in the city of Rome, no other bishop be ordained at all in his (otherwise: the same) see after the appeal of him who appears to have been deposed (some manuscripts add: in his place), unless the case has been determined in the judgement of the Roman bishop. Now if you compare this true canon with the Greek version we have given, you will detect the omission of these words, who dwell in the neighbouring places, and a most involved sentence at the end; and accordingly the words in urbe Roma wrongly rendered ἐν πόλει τῶν Καινῶν, in the city of the New Ones, and the words in judicio Romani episcopi rendered παρὰ τῶν ἐκεῖσε κριτῶν, from the judges there, so that there is no mention of the city of Rome or of its bishop; whether this happened by chance or on purpose, let others judge. Rightly, therefore, the Roman editors noted: The translator of that time rendered this canon into Greek, together with the letter, rather corrupted and defective, as also the other letters of the same blessed Leo which are inserted in this council of Chalcedon. Now, then, let us first present the Greek translation with a Latin version of it; then we shall subjoin the ancient Latin edition, which came out of the manuscripts of the Chalcedonian collection, although this cannot be held to be Leo's original letter.