Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹EPISTOLA [call] LV.› · printed under col 857

Al. post epist. 47. Quae autem erat 55, nunc 74. Scripta sub finem Febr. an. 450.

Elsewhere after letter 47. And the one that was 55 is now 74. Written about the end of February in the year 450.

(b) ‹[Latin version] Domino [call] meo THEODOSIO› · printed under col 857, continued under col 858

Vulgati Graeco textui cohaerentius omittunt meo, et dein habent glorioso. Lectionem mss. coll. Chalcedonensis tum nostrorum, tum Baluzii edidimus.

The printed editions, more consistently with the Greek text, omit 'meo', and then have 'glorioso'. We have printed the reading of the MSS of the Chalcedonian collection, both ours and Baluze's.

hortatu sancti Leonis totiusque synodi, ex qua et cujus nomine datae sunt superiores pontificis litterae. Has igitur pro utrarumque affinitate hoc loco excudendas putavimus. Nam et clariorem illius synodi nobis ingerunt notitiam, cujus locum, tempus, materiem aliasque circumstantias aperiunt; et ab ipso Leone dictatae videntur. De quibus plura in dissertatione 4 de Vita et rebus gestis S. Leonis ad annum 449. Ipsae epistolae tres imperiales ad Theodosium, et alia ad Pulcheriam Leonis consilium palam testantur; has vero ab ipso Leone dictatas nihil indicat; quin nonnulla Leoninae scribendi rationi haudquaquam congruunt.

[…] exhortation of St Leo and of the whole synod, from which and in whose name the preceding letters of the pontiff were given. We have therefore thought that they should be printed in this place because of the affinity of the two. For they also give us a clearer knowledge of that synod, disclosing its place, time, subject and other circumstances; and they seem to have been dictated by Leo himself.' More on these in dissertation 4 on the Life and Acts of St Leo, at the year 449. The three imperial letters to Theodosius themselves, and the other to Pulcheria, openly attest Leo's counsel; but nothing indicates that they were dictated by Leo himself; indeed some things in them by no means agree with Leo's manner of writing.

2. Quoad tempus vero, cum omnes tum quae traditae tum quae redditae fuerunt Augustorum epistolae, in una Chalcedonensi collectione exhibitae, chronica notatione careant, alii aliter opinati sunt. De quatuor prioribus epistolis in Orientem missis in primis statuendum est. Totum pendet ex interpretatione illorum verborum Valentiniani epist. 55: Cum advenissem Romam ad Divinitatem placandam, sequenti die ad basilicam apostoli Petri processi, et illic post venerabilem noctem diei Apostoli, et a Romano episcopo, et ab aliis cum eo ex diversis provinciis congregatis rogatus sum scribere tuae mansuetudini. Ex recitatis autem verbis colligitur Valentinianum Romam accessisse pridie ante festivitatem apostoli Petri; die autem sequenti, id est ipso die festo ad basilicam apostoli Petri processisse; et illic post nocturnum officium a Leone aliisque episcopis qui ad idem festum convenerant, exoratum fuisse ut ad Theodosium scriberet. Idipsum Placidiam et Eudoxiam Augustas rogatas fuisse, ex aliis earumdem epistolis liquet.

2. As to the time, however, since all the letters of the Augusti, both those sent and those given in reply, which are presented only in the Chalcedonian collection, lack a date, different people have held different opinions. A decision must be made first of all about the four earlier letters sent to the East. Everything depends on the interpretation of these words of Valentinian, letter 55: 'When I had come to Rome to propitiate the Divinity, on the following day I went in procession to the basilica of the apostle Peter, and there, after the venerable night of the Apostle's day, I was asked, both by the Roman bishop and by others gathered with him from various provinces, to write to your mildness.' From the words quoted it is gathered that Valentinian arrived at Rome on the day before the feast of the apostle Peter; and that on the following day, that is on the feast day itself, he went in procession to the basilica of the apostle Peter; and that there, after the night office, he was entreated by Leo and the other bishops who had come together for the same feast to write to Theodosius. That the Augustae Placidia and Eudoxia were asked the same thing is clear from their other letters.

3. Cardinalis Baronius ad an. 449, n. 164, arbitratus est has quatuor epistolas eodem anno scriptas fuisse post diem dedicationis basilicae S. Petri, quae celebrari solet die decima octava Novembris, et ad eam diem usque retentos fuisse existimat episcopos, qui synodo Romanae superioribus epistolis 44 et seqq. memoratae interfuerant. Sed praeterquam quod non est verosimile episcopos, qui III kal. Octobris in Urbe convenerant, per quinquaginta dies Romae fuisse detentos absoluta jam synodo die 13, aut serius 15 Octobris, ut liquet ex epist. 44 et sequentibus; praeter hoc, inquam, nullum antiqum documentum superest, quo probetur Leone pontifice dedicationem basilicae S. Petri celebratam fuisse die 18 Novembris. Adde quod Valentinianum an. 449 Romae fuisse nullum aliunde indicium est; nonnulla autem suppetunt documenta quae eum anno 450 ibidem exstitisse probant.

3. Cardinal Baronius, at the year 449, n. 164, judged that these four letters were written in that same year after the day of the dedication of the basilica of St Peter, which is customarily celebrated on the eighteenth day of November, and he thinks that the bishops who had attended the Roman synod mentioned in the preceding letters 44 ff. were kept back until that day. But besides the fact that it is not likely that the bishops who had assembled in the City on the third day before the Kalends of October were detained at Rome for fifty days, when the synod had already been concluded on the 13th, or at latest the 15th, of October, as is clear from letter 44 and those following; besides this, I say, no ancient document survives by which it may be proved that under Pope Leo the dedication of the basilica of St Peter was celebrated on 18 November. Add that there is no indication from any other source that Valentinian was at Rome in the year 449; whereas some documents are available which prove that he was there in the year 450.

4. Quesnellus diss. 1 ad an. 450, n. 1, Baronii sententiam impugnans, in aliam apertius erroneam transiit, contendens has epistolas scriptas fuisse post festum S. Petri die 29 Junii an. 450. Error ex duobus manifeste detegitur. Primum quia hoc anno Valentinianus Romae erat mense Martio, quo legem edidit Novellis insertam tit. 7, de Indulgentiis reliquorum, nec non mense Aprili ex tit. 38, de Naviculariis annuis, etc., ex quibus dies festus S. Petri, ante quem ille pridie Romam advenerat, dies 29 Junii esse non potest. Secundo quia cum Theodosius obierit die 28 Julii anni ejusdem 450, si post diem 29 Junii scriptae ac missae ad eum fuissent epistolae, post ejus mortem Constantinopolim pervenissent, nec potuisset alias, quae exstant, epistolas reddere. Alius igitur dies festus S. Petri cum Tillemontio et Pagio quaerendus est, et anterior quidem die III nonas Martii an. 450, quo memorata lex de Indulgentiis reliquorum data fuit. Ex antiquissimo Kalendario Bucheriano, in quo dies festi Romanae Ecclesiae notantur, discimus VIII kal. Martii Romae celebratum fuisse festum hoc titulo ibidem signatum: Natale Petri de Cathedra. Hoc itaque anno Valentinianus cum Augustis Romam pervenit IX kal. Martii; ipso autem festo Leo cum episcopis ab eisdem petiit ut ad Theodosium scriberent. Porro ex Placidiae epist. 58 ad Pulcheriam colligitur eos scripsisse antequam eamdem Pulcheriam bonae causae favere ex ipsius litteris exploratum fieret; alias hujus rei aliqua mentio a Placidia eidem epistolae inserta fuisset. Id autem Romae innotuit ante diem 17 Martii hujus anni 450, quo S. Leo hac de re gratulatus Pulcheriae dedit epistolam 60 Igitur quatuor priores epistolae exaratae fuerunt paulo post diem 22 Februarii, et ante diem 17 Martii anni ejusdem, ac probabilius sub Februarii finem.

4. Quesnel, diss. 1 at the year 450, n. 1, attacking Baronius's opinion, passed over to another, more plainly erroneous, contending that these letters were written after the feast of St Peter on 29 June of the year 450. The error is plainly detected from two things. First, because in that year Valentinian was at Rome in the month of March, in which he issued the law inserted in the Novels, title 7, On the remission of arrears, and also in the month of April, from title 38, On the annual shippers, etc.; from which it follows that the feast day of St Peter, on the eve of which he had arrived at Rome, cannot be 29 June. Secondly, because, since Theodosius died on 28 July of the same year 450, if the letters had been written and sent to him after 29 June, they would have reached Constantinople after his death, and he could not have given in reply the other letters which are extant. Another feast day of St Peter must therefore be sought, with Tillemont and Pagi, and indeed one earlier than the third day before the Nones of March of the year 450, on which the said law on the remission of arrears was given. From the very ancient Bucherian Calendar, in which the feast days of the Roman Church are noted, we learn that on the eighth day before the Kalends of March a feast was celebrated at Rome, marked there with this title: The Birthday of Peter of the Chair. In that year, then, Valentinian came to Rome with the Augustae on the ninth day before the Kalends of March; and on the feast itself Leo with the bishops asked them to write to Theodosius. Further, it is gathered from Placidia's letter 58 to Pulcheria that they wrote before it had been ascertained from Pulcheria's own letter that she favoured the good cause; otherwise some mention of this would have been inserted by Placidia in that letter. This, however, became known at Rome before 17 March of this year 450, on which day St Leo, congratulating Pulcheria on this matter, gave letter 60. Therefore the four earlier letters were written shortly after 22 February and before 17 March of the same year, and more probably towards the end of February.

5. Cuique epistolae sive a Valentiniano, sive ab Augustis scriptae Quesnellus subjecit epistolam quam Theodosius reddidit. Nos collectionis Chalcedonensis methodum et rationem etiam temporis sequendam putavimus. Ut autem idoneum intervallum tribuatur transmissioni litterarum, Theodosii epistolae in Aprilem referendae videntur, ac propterea post epistolas 60 et 61 scriptas mense Martio easdem locavimus.

5. After each letter written either by Valentinian or by the Augustae, Quesnel placed the letter which Theodosius gave in reply. We have thought that the method of the Chalcedonian collection, and also the order of time, should be followed. And so that a suitable interval may be allowed for the transmission of the letters, the letters of Theodosius seem to belong to April, and we have therefore placed them after letters 60 and 61, written in the month of March.

6. Quamvis probabilius existimemus omnes has epistolas scriptas fuisse Latine, uti Latine pariter scribebantur leges, etiamsi in Oriente darentur, interiisse tamen credimus originale Latinum, solamque superesse Graecam versionem, et Latina exempla, quae ad nos transmissa fuerunt, esse antiquam interpretationem ex Graeco, eamque ab homine lucubratam Latini sermonis minus perito, ut constabit ex aliquot locis valde obscuris et pessime redditis, quae Augustorum originali nequaquam congruunt. Hac etiam de causa notatio temporis a Graeco collectore semper omissa, in Latino textu pariter desideratur, quae suppleta fuit, cum Latinae Chalcedonensis collectionis auctor Latina originalia invenit. Confer Praefat. in epistolas num 36.

6. Although we think it more probable that all these letters were written in Latin, as laws too were likewise written in Latin even when they were issued in the East, we nevertheless believe that the Latin original has perished and that only the Greek version survives, and that the Latin copies which have come down to us are an ancient translation from the Greek, and one produced by a man not very skilled in the Latin language, as will be evident from a number of very obscure and very badly rendered passages which by no means befit an original of the Augusti. For this reason too the date, always omitted by the Greek collector, is likewise lacking in the Latin text; it was supplied when the compiler of the Latin Chalcedonian collection found the Latin originals. Compare the Preface to the letters, no. 36.

7. Nunc titulum, qui tribus imperialibus epistolis 55, 56 et 57, in collectione Chalcedonensi praefigitur, exhibemus. In Graeca collectione sic: Θεῖον γράμμα καταπεμφθὲν, τοῦτο μὲν τοῦ δεσπότου ἡμῶν Οὐαλεντινιανοῦ, τοῦτο δὲ τῆς θείας μνήμης Πλακιδίας, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς προσκυνητῆς Βασιλίδος Εὐδοξίας, πρὸς τὸν τῆς θείας μνήμης Θεοδόσιου, ὥστε κελεῦσαι ἐν τοῖς μέρεσι τῆς Ἰταλίας σύνοδον ἐπιτελεσθῆναι. In Latina vero nostri codices ita reddunt: Sacrae litterae tam a domino nostro Valentiniano, quam a divae memoriae Placidia, nec non et Eudoxia Augusta ad Theodosium divae memoriae, ut juberet in partibus Italiae concilium celebrari.

7. We now present the title which is prefixed to the three imperial letters 55, 56 and 57 in the Chalcedonian collection. In the Greek collection it runs thus: 'A divine letter sent, from our master Valentinian, and from Placidia of divine memory, and moreover from the adorable Empress Eudoxia, to Theodosius of divine memory, that he should order a synod to be held in the regions of Italy.' In the Latin, however, our codices render it thus: 'Sacred letters, both from our lord Valentinian and from Placidia of divine memory, and also from Eudoxia Augusta, to Theodosius of divine memory, that he should order a council to be held in the regions of Italy.'

Domino meo THEODOSIO, gloriosissimo, victori et triumphatori, perpetuo imperatori et patri, VALENTINIANUS gloriosus, victor ac triumphator semper Augustus et filius. Cum advenissem in urbem Romam ad Divinitatem placandam, sequenti die ad basilicam apostoli Petri processi, et illic post venerabilem noctem diei apostoli, et a Romano episcopo, et ab aliis cum eo ex

(b) continued from col 857, set in n857

(a) ‹domine sacratissime pater› · printed under col 859

Ita iidem codices. Editi, sanctissime pater.... Hujus enim rei gratia; quae lectio, etsi Graeci textus vim melius exprimit, antiquam tamen interpretationem edere volentibus textui inserenda non fuit.

So the same manuscripts. The printed editions have "sanctissime pater" [most holy father] .... "Hujus enim rei gratia" [for on account of this thing]; a reading which, although it expresses the force of the Greek text better, was nevertheless not to be inserted into the text by those who wish to publish the ancient translation.

(b) ‹Hac enim gratia› · printed under col 859

Id est ex Graeco secundum usum seu consuetudinem conciliorum. Pluralis numerus conciliorum non unum, sed plura concilia indicat. in quibus Romani pontifices ex suo principatu sacerdotii exercuere facultatem quam habent, de fide et sacerdotibus judicare; sicut Julius papa in Romana synodo judicavit in causa Athanasii, et Innocentius in causa Joannis Chrysostomi, etc., qui in Oriente depositi ad apostolicam sedem confugerant. Forte etiam respicitur synodus Sardicensis, quae consuetudinem appellandi ad summum pontificem disertis canonibus comprobat.

That is, from the Greek, "according to the use" or "custom of councils". The plural number "of councils" indicates not one but several councils, in which the Roman pontiffs, by their own primacy of the priesthood, exercised the power which they have "to judge concerning the faith and concerning priests"; as Pope Julius judged in the Roman synod in the case of Athanasius, and Innocent in the case of John Chrysostom, etc., who, deposed in the East, had fled for refuge to the apostolic see. Perhaps the synod of Sardica is also in view, which approves the custom of appealing to the supreme pontiff in express canons.

(c) ‹nostris temporibus› · printed under col 859

Cod. Divionensis Baluzii, adversus religionem. Male in aliis, atque religione. Noster Veronensis 57, fidei atque religioni.

Baluze's Dijon manuscript has "adversus religionem" [against religion]. Wrongly in others, "atque religione" [and by religion]. Our Verona manuscript 57 has "fidei atque religioni" [to faith and religion].

(d) ‹petulantia praevalere› · printed under col 859

Ita mss. libri. Editi melius cum. Sed antiquam versionem damus.

So the manuscript books. The printed editions better, "cum" [since]. But we give the ancient version.

(e) ‹Ad perfectiorem vero agnitionem vestrae› · printed under col 859, running on under col 860

Sic melius antiqui codices, quam in excusis, dignitatis.

So, better, the ancient manuscripts, rather than "dignitatis" [of dignity], as in the printed copies.

(f) ‹direximus etiam› · printed under col 860

Haec gesta et exclamationes, nec non episcoporum congregatorum mentio innuunt speciem quamdam synodi habitae ipso die festo S. Petri 22 Februarii an. 450. De quo die vide admonit. num. 4. Dein pro exclamationes cod. Divionensis habet explanationem, at in margine exclamationes.

These "acts" and "outcries", and also the mention of the bishops gathered together, suggest a kind of synod held on the very feast day of St Peter, 22 February in the year 450. On this day see the admonition, no. 4. Then, for "exclamationes" [outcries] the Dijon manuscript has "explanationem" [explanation], but in the margin "exclamationes".

(g) ‹EPISTOLA LVI› · printed under col 860

Quae erat 56, nunc 75. Scripta eodem tempore quo praecedens.

Formerly 56, now 75. Written at the same time as the preceding.

(h) ‹Dum in ipso ingressu› · printed under col 860

Editi melius Cum. Sed non quid melius, at quid vetus interpres reddiderit quaerendum est, cum antiqua versio exhibetur; antiqua autem versio, quae in mss. exstat Dum praefert

The printed editions better, "Cum" [when]. But when the ancient version is presented, what must be sought is not what is better but what the old translator rendered; and the ancient version, which survives in the manuscripts, has "Dum" [while]

(1) ‹τῷ μακαρίῳ› · printed under col 860

In marg. edit. Rom., μακαριωτάτῳ; codex vero Ven., μακαρίῳ τε.

In the margin of the Roman edition, "μακαριωτάτῳ" [most blessed]; but the Venice manuscript has "μακαρίῳ τε" [and blessed].

(2) ‹ἕνεκα τῆς ἀνακυψάσης› · printed under col 860

In marg. edit. Rom., περικυψάσης.

In the margin of the Roman edition, "περικυψάσης".

(3) ‹Τοῦτο οὖν αἰτοῦντι› · printed under col 860

In marg. edit. Rom., τούτῳ L.

In the margin of the Roman edition, "τούτῳ" [to him] L.

(4) ‹ἡ ὑμετέρα εὐσέβεια› · printed under col 860

Ita ms. Ven., atque ita postulat textus Latinus, pietas vestra. In vulgatis male, ἡ ἡμετέρα εὐσέβεια.

So the Venice manuscript, and so the Latin text requires, "pietas vestra" [your piety]. In the printed editions, wrongly, "ἡ ἡμετέρα εὐσέβεια" [our piety].

diversis provinciis congregatis rogatus sum scribere vestrae mansuetudini de fide, quae cum sit conservatrix omnium fidelium animarum, dicitur perturbata: quam nos a nostris majoribus traditam, debemus cum omni competenti devotione defendere, et dignitatem propriae venerationis beato apostolo Petro intemeratam et in nostris temporibus conservare: quatenus beatissimus Romanae civitatis episcopus, cui principatum sacerdotii super omnes antiquitas contulit, locum habeat ac facultatem de fide et sacerdotibus judicare, domine sacratissime pater, et venerabilis imperator. Hac enim gratia secundum solemnitatem conciliorum et Constantinopolitanus episcopus eum per libellos appellavit, propter contentionem quae orta est de fide. Huic itaque postulanti et conjuranti salutem nostram communem annuere non negavi, quatenus ad tuam mansuetudinem meam petitionem ingererem, ut praedictus sacerdos congregatis ex omni orbe etiam reliquis sacerdotibus intra Italiam, omni praejudicio submoto, a principio omnem causam quae vertitur, sollicita probatione cognoscens, sententiam ferat, quam fides et ratio verae Divinitatis expostulat. Non debet enim nostris temporibus contra religionem turbarum petulantia praevalere, dum incommota fides hactenus fuerit conservata. Ad perfectiorem vero agnitionem vestrae divinitatis, direximus etiam gesta per quae et desideria et exclamationes omnium pietas vestra cognoscat. Domino victori THEODOSIO et triumphatori, semper Augusto filio, GALLA PLACIDIA piissima et florens, perpetua Augusta et mater. Dum in ipso ingressu civitatis antiquae hanc curam habuissemus ut cultum beatissimo Petro apostolo redderemus, in ipso adorando altari martyris reverendissimus LEO episcopus, paululum se post orationem retinens, propter catholicam fidem apud nos deflevit, ipsum similiter summum apostolorum

(5) ‹ἀνθοῦσα,› · printed under col 860

Ms. Ven., ἀεὶ βασιλίς.

The Venice manuscript has "ἀεὶ βασιλίς" [ever empress].