Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹EPISTOLA [call] LIII.› · printed full width under cols 853–854

Al. post epist 51. Quae autem erat 55, nunc 71. Scripta sub finem anni 449.

Elsewhere after letter 51. And the one that was 55 is now 71. Written about the end of the year 449.

ADMONITIO IN SEQUENTIS EPISTOLAE FRAGMENTUM.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING FRAGMENT OF A LETTER.

1. Insigne quod subjicimus epistolae Anatolii fragmentum, ex quo hunc post Flaviani mortem ordinatum discimus, e codice Regio 940 a Cotelerio editum fuit inter Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta tom. I, pag. 66. Istud Quesnellus secundae Leonis editioni inseruit, praemisitque epistolis 69, 70 et 71, datis mense Julio an. 450, in quibus de ipsius Anatolii ordinatione sermo est. In observationibus autem ad hoc fragmentum affirmat, circa haec tempora (praedictarum scilicet epistolarum Leonis) Flavianum obiisse; cui proinde Anatolius suffectus, circa idem tempus eam ad eumdem Leonem epistolam dederit ex qua hoc fragmentum excerptum fuit. Non assentimur. Flavianum enim paulo post Ephesinum latrocinium habitum mense Augusto anni 449, inter manus eorum a quibus in exsilium ducebatur glorioso ad Christum fine transisse eodem an. 449 testatur Prosper in Chronico. Concinit Historia Eutychianistarum, quae eum, dum in exsilium deportaretur, ipso in itinere apud Epipam Lydiae civitatem defunctum indicat. Potuit quidem haec mors a Flaviani inimicis aliquamdiu occultari ob Constantinopolitanos qui illi maxime favebant; unde archimandritae, clerus et populus Constantinopolitanae urbis qui ad Leonem litteras dedere citius circa Octobrem an. 449 (ut colligere licebit ex admonitione in epistolam 59), ejusdem episcopi mortem ignorabant. At nihilominus Anatolium ordinatum fuisse ante finem anni 449, ex Theodoro lectore manifestum est. In fragmentis enim ejusdem a Valesio collectis, ordinatione Anatolii ac nonnullis ejusdem ordinationis circumstantiis commemoratis, ait: Agebantur autem haec consulatu Protogenis et Asterii. Igitur sub finem ejusdem anni haec epistola ad Leonem scripta videtur; sicut et alia ordinatorum ejus, cujus fit mentio in epistola 74; nam statim post ordinationem ejus modl epistolae scribebantur.

1. The remarkable fragment of a letter of Anatolius which we append, from which we learn that he was ordained after the death of Flavian, was edited by Cotelier from the Royal codex 940 among the Monuments of the Greek Church, vol. I, p. 66. Quesnel inserted it in the second edition of Leo and placed it before letters 69, 70 and 71, dated in the month of July in the year 450, in which the ordination of Anatolius himself is discussed. In his observations on this fragment, moreover, he asserts that Flavian died about these times (that is, the times of the aforesaid letters of Leo), and that Anatolius, substituted for him, accordingly sent about the same time the letter to the same Leo from which this fragment was excerpted. We do not agree. For Prosper in his Chronicle testifies that Flavian, shortly after the Ephesine robber-synod held in the month of August of the year 449, 'passed to Christ by a glorious end in the hands of those by whom he was being led into exile', in the same year 449. The History of the Eutychianists agrees, indicating that he died while he was being deported into exile, on the journey itself, at Epipa, a city of Lydia. This death could indeed have been concealed for some time by Flavian's enemies on account of the people of Constantinople, who favoured him greatly; hence the archimandrites, clergy and people of the city of Constantinople, who sent a letter to Leo rather early, about October of the year 449 (as may be gathered from the admonition on letter 59), did not know of the death of that bishop. But nonetheless it is clear from Theodore the Reader that Anatolius was ordained before the end of the year 449. For in his fragments collected by Valesius, having mentioned the ordination of Anatolius and some circumstances of that ordination, he says: 'Now these things were done in the consulship of Protogenes and Asterius.' Therefore this letter to Leo seems to have been written about the end of the same year; as also the other letter, from those who ordained him, of which mention is made in letter 74; for letters of this kind were written immediately after his ordination.

2. Sub idem tempus de eadem re ad Leonem litteras dedere Theodosius atque Pulcheria, et omnes hae epistolae simul videntur transmissae. Nondum tamen Roman pervenerant mense Martio anni 450, cum Leo scripsit epistolas 60 et 61, in quibus Flavianum adhuc vivum praesumit. Eas pontifex accipere potuit mense Aprili vel Maio; cujus morae quid in causa fuerit ignoramus. Cum autem difficilem rem proponerent, quae maturiorem consultationem flagitabat, forte hac de re Leo habuit illum tractatum, cujus gratia Petronium et Regulum Gallicanos diu se retinuisse scribit epist 67, ad Ravennium, in quam vide annot. 2 (885 d). Haec quidem Anatolii causa adeo magnum pontifici negotium facessivit, ut quatuor legatos eligendos, instruendos, atque Constantinopolim transmittendos crediderit, quod non exiguam in respondendo dilationem flagitabat: unde nihil mirum si epistolae 69, 70 et 71 quibus hac de ordinatione respondet, datae fuerint mense Julio anni 450. Interim hoc fragmentum excerptum ex Anatolii epistola, quae statim post ejus ordinationem ante finem anni 449 exarata fuit, cum certa dies ac mensis lateat, praemittendum censuimus epistolae Leonis ad Theodosium, quae die 25 Decembris signatur.

2. About the same time Theodosius and Pulcheria sent letters to Leo on the same matter, and all these letters seem to have been dispatched together. Yet they had not reached Rome in the month of March of the year 450, when Leo wrote letters 60 and 61, in which he presumes Flavian still alive. The pontiff could have received them in April or May; what was the cause of this delay we do not know. Since, however, they put forward a difficult matter which demanded more mature consultation, perhaps Leo held on this matter that 'deliberation' on account of which he writes, in letter 67 to Ravennius, that he had long kept back Petronius and Regulus of Gaul; on which letter see note 2 (885 d). This affair of Anatolius indeed caused the pontiff so much business that he judged that four legates must be chosen, instructed and sent to Constantinople, which demanded no small delay in replying: hence it is no wonder if letters 69, 70 and 71, in which he replies about this ordination, were dated in the month of July of the year 450. Meanwhile, since its exact day and month are unknown, we have judged that this fragment, excerpted from the letter of Anatolius which was written immediately after his ordination, before the end of the year 449, should be placed before the letter of Leo to Theodosius which is dated on the 25th day of December.

et alios. Et sanctitatem vestram oro ut et paterno affectu illos videat, et sinceras aures vestras illis benignas praebeat, et calumniis vexatam ac sine causa inpugnatam senectutem meam studio et providentia vestra dignetur, tum ante omnia fidei insidiis appetitae quam maximam potest curam gerat, paternamque haereditatem Ecclesiis integram custodiat: ut pro his etiam paratas remunerationes a munifico et liberali Domino sanctitas vestra recipiat. Ex epistola ANATOLII Constantinopolitani ad LEONEM Romanum. Etenim piissimus et Christi amans noster imperatur Theodosius, qui cuncta in secundis post res ad Deum pertinentes ponit, cum sanctissima Constantinopolitana Ecclesia pastore orbata esset, deberetque accipere qui eam posset regere, plurimam ejusce rei curam suscepit. Ac primo quidem demandavit religiosissimo ejusdem urbis clero ut ad gubernationem aptiores decernerent cum probatione, sibi electionem omnium praecipui reservans. Deinde in his exorta immoderata dissensione, cunctisque hinc erga multos in varia studia scissis, jubet imperator conquiri clericos in regia urbe etiam ex aliis civitatibus ob quaedam (ita ut fit) negotia degentes, quo inter illos praestantior absque ullo affectu in episcopalem dignitatem promoveretur. Quod cum factum

(a) ‹EPISTOLA [call] LIV.› · printed under col 855

Al. 23 Quae autem antea 54 erat, nunc 70. Scr. 25 Decemb. an. 449.

Elsewhere 23. And the one that was formerly 54 is now 70. Written 25 December in the year 449.

(b) ‹[before] AD THEODOSIUM AUGUSTUM› · printed under col 855

Relegimus hanc epistolam cum mss. Vat. et Venet. collectionis 12, ex qua edita fuit a Merlino; ac praesertim cum praestantissimo codice Ratisp. collect. 19.

We have re-read this letter against the Vatican and Venetian MSS of collection 12, from which it was edited by Merlin; and especially against the most excellent Regensburg codex of collection 19.

(c) ‹neque falli vos in aliquo› · printed under col 855

Antiquiores vulgati, humanarum calliditatum aemulatione patiatur. Quesnelli lectionem nostri quoque codices approbant.

The older printed editions: 'humanarum calliditatum aemulatione patiatur' [suffer … by the rivalry of human cunning]. Our codices too approve Quesnel's reading.

(d) ‹quae evangelicae› · printed under col 855

Voces atque apostolicae addidimus ex memorato cod. Ratisp. Mox editi ante Quesn., defendat, non tamen nostri codices.

We have added the words 'atque apostolicae' from the Regensburg codex mentioned. Just after, the editions before Quesnel have 'defendat', but not our codices.

(e) ‹satis plene ac lucide› · printed under col 855

Intelligit epistolam 44, quam quidem Epiphanio tribuno traditam ex eo colligimus, quia per Epiphanium directa fuit epistola 50 ad Constantinopolitanos, quae sub idem tempus scripta quo epistola 44, ad imperatorem data est, hujus praesertim transmittendae occasione eidem Epiphanio tradita videtur. Confer epistolam 59, c. 2.

He means letter 44, which we gather was indeed handed to the tribune Epiphanius from the fact that letter 50 to the people of Constantinople was sent through Epiphanius; being written about the same time as letter 44 was given to the emperor, it seems to have been handed to the same Epiphanius chiefly on the occasion of sending the latter. Compare letter 59, ch. 2.

(f) ‹arbitror accepisse,› · printed under col 855

Editi ante Quesn. cum mss. collect. 12 ratum est. Corrupte. Emendationem Quesnelli noster codex Ratisp. confirmat.

The editions before Quesnel, with the MSS of collection 12, have 'ratum est'. Corruptly. Our Regensburg codex confirms Quesnel's emendation.

SYNOPSIS. — Nicaenae fidei se inhaerere scribit; Eutychen non minus quam Nestorium esse damnandum; consilium intra Italiam haberi postulat.

SYNOPSIS. — He writes that he adheres to the Nicene faith; that Eutyches must be condemned no less than Nestorius; he asks that a council be held within Italy.

fuisset, postea placuit iis qui in cuncta potestatem obtinent, permitti clero electionem primatis. Et ecce suffragia in me omnium minimum venerunt; non propter justitiam meam, sed ut Christus Jesus in me ostenderet omnem patientiam suam, juxta Apostolum (I Timoth. I, 16). Unde id operis incubuit sanctae synodo episcoporum Constantinopoli versantium, ut ad me ordinandum sine mora procederent.

(g) ‹quondam apud Nicaeam› · printed under col 855, continued under col 856

Nicaenae fidei apertam professionem facit, eo quod Eutyches ejusque fautores solam hanc fidem efferentes, ut patet ex ipsius Eutychis epist. 21, inter Leoninas, nollent cogi ad duas naturas in Christo profitendas, perinde ac si id contrarium esset Nicaeno Symbolo, cui nihil addendum praedicabant; et hoc nomine se veluti catholicos venditantes, econtra catholicos a Nicaena fide desciscere traducebant. Hinc Theodosius ab Eutychianis deceptus, saepe scripsit se non permissurum ut a Nicaena synodo sacerdotes Domini deviarent. Vide epist. 69, c. 1. Hanc Eutychianorum artem atque censuram solum post pseudosynodum Ephesinam ex posterioribus nuntiis et ex recentibus Theodosii litteris, de quibus in dissert. de epistolis deperditis num. 38, S. pontifex detexit; et idcirco tum in hac, tum in aliis subsequentibus epistolis Nicaenam fidem expresse profitetur; ita tamen ut simul declaret ab hac fide non minus Nestorianos, quibus Eutychiani maxime adversabantur, quam Eutychianos ipsos plurimum dissidere. Confer annot. 5 (col. 886 (g) in epist. 67.

He makes an open profession of the Nicene faith because Eutyches and his supporters, extolling this faith alone, as is clear from the letter of Eutyches himself, 21 among Leo's, refused to be compelled to profess two natures in Christ, just as if that were contrary to the Nicene Creed, to which they proclaimed nothing must be added; and, parading themselves as catholics on this ground, they on the contrary accused the catholics of falling away from the Nicene faith. Hence Theodosius, deceived by the Eutychians, often wrote that he would not permit the priests of the Lord to depart from the Nicene synod. See letter 69, ch. 1. This artifice and censure of the Eutychians the holy pontiff discovered only after the pseudo-synod of Ephesus, from later reports and from recent letters of Theodosius, on which see the dissertation on the lost letters, no. 38; and therefore both in this and in other following letters he expressly professes the Nicene faith; yet in such a way as to declare at the same time that the Nestorians, whom the Eutychians chiefly opposed, dissent very greatly from this faith, no less than the Eutychians themselves. Compare note 5 (col. 886 (g) on letter 67.

(h) ‹a Domino nostro› · printed under col 856

Ex eodem Ratisp. supplevimus vocem nostro.

From the same Regensburg codex we have supplied the word 'nostro'.

(i) ‹Data› · printed under col 856

Erat in editis octavo kal. Junias. Haec chronica notatio ipsi Quesnello suspecta fuit: unde hanc notam eidem subjecit. « Cum ex epistola 27 (nunc 31) ad Pulcheriam disertis verbis testetur Leo acceptas a se tertio idus Maias litteras synodi a Theodosio convocatae indices, mirum cur de eadem synodo nullam apud principem mentionem faciat. Forte dissimulandum censuit pontifex, ut liberius synodum intra Italiam congregandam postulare a Theodosio posset; vel dicendum in alterutra epistola mendosum esse numerum diei aut mensis. » Adde quod in solis litteris post Ephesinum latrocinium scriptis et datis die 13 Octobris ac in sequentibus concilium in Italia se desiderare Leo indicavit, ut remedium afferretur scandalis, quae ex eodem latrocinio orta fuerant. Epiphanius etiam, qui in hac epistola memoratur, solum mense Octobri Roma discesserat cum epistolis 44 et 50, ut innuimus annot. 4 sup, (e). Igitur in mensem Junium certissimum mendum irrepsit, ac propterea non minus erronea est lectio laudatorum codicum collectionis XII, qui solummodo unum diem antevertunt IX Kal. Junias. Emendavimus autem ex praeclaro codice Ratisp. ex quo facili librariorium lapsu Jan. in Jun. migrasse cognoscitur. Ex hac autem emendatione alia plura corriguntur et componuntur, quae alias magnam confusionem apud eruditos pepererunt.

The editions had 'octavo kal. Junias' [the eighth day before the Kalends of June]. This date was suspect to Quesnel himself: hence he added this note to it: 'Since Leo testifies in express words in letter 27 (now 31) to Pulcheria that he received on the third day before the Ides of May the letter announcing the synod convoked by Theodosius, it is strange that he makes no mention of the same synod to the prince. Perhaps the pontiff judged it should be passed over in silence, so that he might more freely ask Theodosius for a synod to be gathered within Italy; or it must be said that in one of the two letters the number of the day or of the month is faulty.' Add that only in the letter written after the Ephesine robber-synod and dated on 13 October, and in the following ones, did Leo indicate that he desired a council in Italy, so that a remedy might be brought to the scandals which had arisen from that same robber-synod. Epiphanius too, who is mentioned in this letter, had left Rome only in the month of October with letters 44 and 50, as we indicated in note 4 above, (e). Therefore a most certain error crept in as to the month of June, and for that reason the reading of the cited codices of collection XII, which put it only one day earlier, IX Kal. Junias, is no less erroneous. We have emended it, however, from the excellent Regensburg codex, from which it is recognized that by an easy slip of the copyists 'Jan.' passed into 'Jun.'. And from this emendation several other things are corrected and brought into agreement, which have otherwise produced great confusion among the learned.

ADMONITIO IN SEQUENTES IMPERIALES EPISTOLAS.

ADMONITION ON THE FOLLOWING IMPERIAL LETTERS.

1. Cur epistolae sequentes Leoninis insertae fuerint, probe notavit Quesnellus in brevi admonitione eisdem epistolis praemissa his verbis: Ex epistolarum subjectarum serie manifestum est scriptas eas fuisse consilio et

1. Why the following letters have been inserted among Leo's, Quesnel noted well in a brief admonition prefixed to those same letters, in these words: 'From the sequence of the letters placed below it is clear that they were written by the counsel and […]