Leo the Great, Letters

(a) ‹anchor: "omnes Gallias sibi" (the call stands after "sibi" at the head of the column)› · printed under col 883

Apostolica quaedam delegatio hic indicatur Arelatensi episcopo Zosimi litteris concessa, cum praecepit ut quicumque ex qualibet Galliarum parte Romam aut alio proficisceretur, ab eodem episcopo formatas acciperet. Jus etiam cogendae synodi ex alienis quoque Galliarum provinciis ab eodem Zosimo, ut videtur, attributum, hanc delegatam vicem magis magisque constituit. Confer quae in hanc rem dicemus in observ. ad Dissert. 5, part. II, c. 6, num. 8.

A certain apostolic delegation is indicated here, granted to the bishop of Arles by the letter of Zosimus, when he ordered that whoever set out from any part of the Gauls to Rome or elsewhere should receive formatae (letters of communion) from that same bishop. The right, too, of convening a synod even from the other provinces of the Gauls, attributed, as it seems, by the same Zosimus, established this delegated vicariate more and more. Compare what we shall say on this matter in the observations on Dissertation 5, part II, ch. 6, no. 8.

(b) ‹anchor: "sicut superius indicavimus"› · printed under col 883

Haec ad S. Trophimum referuntur, de quo supra annot. 10 (Col 881, n. (a) Sequentia vero, vel postea auctoritate sedis apostolicae vindicavit, indicant ea, quae cum apostolicae sedis vice Arelatensi episcopo collata antecendenti annotatione memoravimus.

These words refer to St Trophimus, of whom see note 10 above (col. 881, note (a)). The following words, however, or afterwards claimed by the authority of the apostolic see, indicate the things which we mentioned in the preceding note as conferred on the bishop of Arles together with the vicariate of the apostolic see.

(c) ‹anchor: "EPISTOLA" (caption of Letter LXVI)› · printed under col 883

Al. 50. Quae autem antea 66, nunc 86. Scr. 5 Maii an. 450.

Formerly 50. And the letter that was formerly 66 is now 86. Written 5 May of the year 450.

(d) ‹anchor: "SANCTI LEONIS" (caption of Letter LXVI)› · printed under col 883

Invenitur in collectione 15 Arelatensi, in qua exstat superior.

It is found in collection 15, of Arles, in which the preceding letter survives.

(e) ‹anchor: "CONSTANTINO,"› · printed under col 883

Baronius, secutus antiquae manus corrrectionem in codice Vallicellano G. 99, indicatam edidit Armantario, cum prima manu legeretur, ut apud Quesnellum Armantario. Praetulimus lectionem Sirmondi, quam exhibent etiam subscriptiones epistolae 99 et inscriptio epistolae 102.

Baronius, following the correction of an ancient hand indicated in the Vallicelliana manuscript G. 99, printed Armantario, although the first hand read, as in Quesnel, Armantario [the two forms are printed alike]. We have preferred Sirmond's reading, which the subscriptions of Letter 99 and the heading of Letter 102 also show.

(f) ‹anchor: "SUPERVENTORI,"› · printed under col 883

Baronius cum cod. Vallic., Unantio. V et Y in mss. facile commutantur, Ynantius legitur in utrisque laudatis epist. 99 et 102.

Baronius, with the Vallicelliana manuscript: Unantio. V and Y are easily interchanged in manuscripts; Ynantius is read in both the said Letters 99 and 102.

(g) ‹anchor: "presbyter et"› · printed under col 883

Cod. Vallicell. Regulinus. At in sequenti epistola habetur, Regulum.

The Vallicelliana manuscript: Regulinus. But in the following letter it has Regulum.

(h) ‹anchor: "ordinationem sibi"› · printed under col 883

Male Vasatensis in quibusdam codicibus, ut notavit Quesn. in margine.

Wrongly Vasatensis ("of Bazas") in some manuscripts, as Quesnel noted in the margin.

(i) ‹anchor: "ut ad conservandam"› · printed under col 883, continuing under col 884

Vulgati cum mss. Baronii et Sirmondi, intra Viennensem et Arelatensem provincias. Quesnellus emendavit ex suo codice: « Unica enim, inquit, erat tunc provincia Viennensis appellata. » Quinam fuerit hic suus codex in postilla non indicat. Sed Thuaneum fuisse ex notatione ejusdem huic epistolae subjecta colligi potest. Sic enim ille: Superius Leonis rescriptum primus emisit in lucem eminentissimus cardinalis Baronius cum ipso supplici libello et aliis epistolis quae res Arelatensis Ecclesiae attinent: easque accepisse se testatur ex Arelatensi cod. ms. In eumdem nos codicem incidimus, ni fallor; qui quidem in bibliotheca Thuanea asservatur. Etsi enim nonnullae discriminis notae appareant, leviores tamen sunt quam ut alter codex credatur a Baroniano, cum quo in caeteris convenit; velut in additione subjecta superiori epistolae de confirmato Leonis decreto per Symmachum papam. » Hunc vero non eumdem esse codicem ex quo Baronius hanc epistolam edidit, ipsae variantes lectiones quantumvis leviores ostendunt. Ejusdem quidem collectionis Arelatensis uterque Baronii et Quesnelli codex fuit, sicut et caeteri omnes ad eamdem collectionem pertinentes: unde nil mirum si in plerisque conveniant et omnes additionem in fine subjectam exhibeant. Sed lectiones alicubi discrepantes, ac inter caeteras haec non omnino levis, diversa ejusdem collectionis exemplaria manifestant. Duos hujus collectionis mss. libri bibliothecae Colbertinae, in quam Thuanie transierunt, P. Coustantius memorat in praefatione ad tom. I Epist. Roman. pontificum, n. 161. Unus ex his fuit quondam Arelatensis, cujus exemplum diligenter exscriptum, ad Baronium a Fabro transmissum fuit, et in hoc nunc Vallic. G. 99, exstat vulgata lectio, intra Viennensem et Arelatensem provincias. Alius autem Thuaneus codex a Baroniano diversus erit ille qui correctionem Quesnello suggessit. Hanc autem idcirco amplectimur, quia Leo in hac epistola semper unius provinciae, non duarum meminit, uti patebit ex c. 2, intra provinciam vestram, reliquae civitates ejusdem provinciae. Confer annot. sequentem.

The printed editions, with the manuscripts of Baronius and Sirmond: within the provinces of Vienne and Arles. Quesnel corrected it from his manuscript: « For there was then, he says, only one province, called that of Vienne. » Which manuscript of his this was he does not indicate in his marginal note. But that it was the de Thou manuscript can be gathered from his remark appended to this letter. For he says: The above rescript of Leo was first brought to light by the most eminent Cardinal Baronius, together with the petition itself and other letters which concern the affairs of the Church of Arles; and he testifies that he received them from a manuscript of Arles. We have come upon the same manuscript, unless I am mistaken; it is kept in the de Thou library. For although some marks of difference appear, they are too slight for it to be thought a different manuscript from Baronius's, with which it agrees in everything else; as, for instance, in the addition appended to the letter above, on the confirmation of Leo's decree by Pope Symmachus. » But that this is not the same manuscript from which Baronius published this letter, the variant readings themselves, however slight, show. Both the manuscript of Baronius and that of Quesnel belonged to the same collection of Arles, as do all the others belonging to that collection: hence it is no wonder if they agree in most things and all show the addition appended at the end. But readings differing in places, and among the rest this one, not altogether slight, show them to be different copies of the same collection. Two manuscript books of this collection belonging to the Colbert library, into which the de Thou books passed, are mentioned by Fr Coustant in the preface to vol. I of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, no. 161. One of these was formerly of Arles; a copy of it, carefully transcribed, was sent to Baronius by Faber, and in this copy, now Vallicelliana G. 99, the common reading within the provinces of Vienne and Arles is found. The other de Thou manuscript, different from Baronius's, will be the one which suggested the correction to Quesnel. We adopt the correction for this reason, that Leo in this letter always speaks of one province, not of two, as will be plain from ch. 2: within your province, the remaining cities of the same province. Compare the following note.

(j) ‹anchor: "intra provinciam vestram"› · printed under col 884, continuing under col 885

Unam provinciam singulari numero, id est Viennensem antea memoratam appellat, intra quam Viennensem et Arelatensem civitates concludit. Hanc provinciam vertram vocat, licet episcopi decem et novem epistolae inscripti trium saltem provinciarum fuerint, Viennensis, Narbonensis secundae, et Alpium maritimarum, uti ostendimus annot. 16 (Col. 881, n. g) in ep. praecedentem. Num Viennensis provinciae nomine non civilem, sed ecclesiasticam provinciam intellexit, quae plures civiles provincias comprehenderet? An praescindere voluit a memorandis iis provinciis, quae ex decreto Bonifacii ad Hilarium Narbonensem singulae suum habere debebant metropolitam, uti pluribus dicemus in observ. ad dissert. 5 Quesn., part. II, c. 6, n. 5, et seqq. Forte vero S. pontifex eam solam controversiam quae inter Viennensem et Arelatensem episcopos mota, ad se delata fuerat, et in qua sola allegationes utrinque fuerant productae, dijudicare in hac epistola voluit; adeo ut hac de causa praeterierit etiam illa quae circa Arelatensis sedis privilegia antistites in praemissis litteris postulaverant. De sola autem Viennensi provincia quaestio fuit ob ordinationem episcopi civitatis Vasensis, quae in ea provincia sita est; et in hanc rem allegationes productae, ac legati utrinque directi.

He names one province, in the singular number, that is, the province of Vienne mentioned before, within which he includes the cities of Vienne and Arles. He calls this your province [printed vertram], although the nineteen bishops to whom the letter is addressed were of at least three provinces, Vienne, Narbonensis Secunda and the Maritime Alps, as we showed in note 16 (col. 881, note g) on the preceding letter. Did he understand by the name of the province of Vienne not the civil but the ecclesiastical province, which comprised several civil provinces? Or did he wish to set aside the mention of those provinces which, by the decree of Boniface to Hilary of Narbonne, were each to have their own metropolitan, as we shall say at more length in the observations on Quesnel's dissertation 5, part II, ch. 6, no. 5 and following? But perhaps the holy pontiff wished in this letter to decide only that controversy which had been raised between the bishops of Vienne and Arles and brought before him, and in which alone pleadings had been produced on both sides; so that for this reason he passed over even the things which the prelates had asked in the preceding letter concerning the privileges of the see of Arles. The question, moreover, concerned the province of Vienne alone, on account of the ordination of the bishop of the city of Vaison, which is situated in that province; and on this matter pleadings were produced and legates sent from both sides.

SYNOPSIS. — Sententiam suam S. Leo interponit super antiqua controversia inter Arelatensem et Viennensem Ecclesias, et cuique suos limites assignat.

SYNOPSIS. — St Leo gives his judgement on the ancient controversy between the Churches of Arles and Vienne, and assigns to each its limits.

(j) continued from col 884, set in n884

(a) ‹anchor: "ipsa Vienna sit"› · printed under col 885

Ita Quesn. et Sirm. Baronius, conjuncta. Cod. Vallicell., juncta pro quinta.

So Quesnel and Sirmond. Baronius: conjuncta ("joined"). The Vallicelliana manuscript: juncta ("joined") instead of quinta ("fifth").

(The notes (b), (c), (d), (e) printed under this column have their calls in col 886 and are set in n886.)

In fine hujus epistolae, haec quae sequuntur verba habentur in codd. Arelatensi et Vallicellano:

At the end of this letter the following words are found in the manuscripts of Arles and of the Vallicelliana:

(b) ‹anchor: "EPISTOLA" (caption of Letter LXVII)› · printed under col 885

Alias 51. Quae autem antea 67 erat, nunc. 87. Scripta 5 Maii an. 450.

Formerly 51. And the letter that was formerly 67 is now 87. Written 5 May of the year 450.

(c) ‹anchor: "AD RAVENIUM" (caption of Letter LXVII)› · printed under col 885

Habetur haec epistola in codicibus solius collectionis 15 Arelatensis.

This letter is found in the manuscripts of collection 15, of Arles, alone.

(d) ‹anchor: "quorumdam errore"› · printed under col 885

Ita cod. Thuanens a Quesnello allegatus, nec non apud Sirmondum. Alias ex Baronio vexata est, cum tamen in ms. Vallicellano G, 99, quo Baronius usus est, legatur incessit, errore utique librarii, pro incessitur.

So the de Thou manuscript cited by Quesnel, and also in Sirmond. Elsewhere, from Baronius: has been harassed, although in the Vallicelliana manuscript G. 99, which Baronius used, incessit is read, certainly by a scribe's error, for incessitur ("is assailed").

(e) ‹anchor: "nostro interesse"› · printed under col 885

Suspicari quispiam posset hic intelligi tractatum a Leone et multis episcopis habitum, cum Valentinianus, Placidia et Eudoxia Februario mense Romam venerunt, de quo vide annot. 7 (Col. 860. n f) in epist. 55. At ob ejusmodi tractatum, qui Februario mense videtur exactus, Petronius et Regulus usque ad diem 5 Maii retineri non poterant. Alium ergo posteriorem tractatum indicari probabilius est. Conjicimus autem respici tractatum in Anatolii causa, cum scilicet receptis circa Aprilem litteris de ordinatione ejusdem, quae plurimum negotii facessebat, longiori consultatione opus fuit, qua in maximo rerum periculo utile consilium caperetur, et aptae instructiones legatis traderentur. Vide epist. 69, c. 2. Id apertius fiet ex annot. 5 (Infra, n. g).

Someone might suspect that the deliberation meant here is the one held by Leo and many bishops when Valentinian, Placidia and Eudoxia came to Rome in the month of February, on which see note 7 (col. 860, note f) on Letter 55. But on account of such a deliberation, which seems to have been completed in February, Petronius and Regulus could not have been kept back until 5 May. It is more probable, therefore, that another, later deliberation is meant. We conjecture that the deliberation in the case of Anatolius is referred to: when, that is, a letter about his ordination had been received about April, which caused a great deal of trouble, a longer consultation was needed, in which useful counsel might be taken amid the greatest danger to affairs, and fit instructions handed to the legates. See Letter 69, ch. 2. This will become plainer from note 5 (below, note g).

(f) ‹anchor: "pervenire,"› · printed under col 886

Vocem charissime, a Quesnello expunctam, ex codice Vallicellano ac Sirmondo revocavimus, ut in editis legebatur.

The word charissime ("dearest"), struck out by Quesnel, we have restored from the Vallicelliana manuscript and from Sirmond, as it was read in the printed editions.

(g) ‹anchor: "defensione direximus,"› · printed under col 886, continuing under col 887

Vel pro et aliquando in nostris ms. Leonis usurpatur, ut videre est annot. 22 (893, n. i) in ep. 80. Certe cum epistola 113, c. 3, ordinato Proterio Alexandrino Leo epistolas se dedisse scripsit ad episcopum, VEL ordinatores ipsius, SEU clericos, VEL et SEU pro ET accepit: ita enim ad singulos, qui distinctis litteris scripserant, distinctas ex more dedit epistolas, quae intercidere, uti distinctas habemus ejusdem epistolas 171, 172 et 173 in ordinatione Timothei Alexandrini, qui Proterio successit. Aliud manifestius exemplum praesto est ex epist. 131, c. 1: Qualia ad clementissimum imperatorem, VEL ad ipsum Alexandrinae urbis episcopum scripta direxerim, subdita huic epistolae exempla monstrabunt. Cum indicentur exempla duarum epistolarum 129, ad Proterium Alexandrinum, et 130, ad Marcianum Augustum, quae quidem supersunt; vel pro et hic quoque sumptum liquet. In re autem praesenti vel pro et adhiberi ex eo cognoscitur quod non ita S. Leo Cyrilli epistolam Gallicanis commendet, ut, si haec illis Ravennii opera innotescat, permittat suam ad Flavianum epistolam supprimi, quam praecipue recipiendam ac subscriptionibus signandam transmisit, uti colligitur ex epist 99. Confer. annot. 8 (Col. 893, n. i) in epist. 70. Innuitur vero Cyrilli epistola secunda ad Nestorium, qua S. Leo adversus Eutychem usus est, ut liquet ex longiori illo ejusdem fragmento, quod subjectum legitur epistolae 165 ad Leonem Augustum. Haec prima hujus epistolae Cyrilli mentio est in Leonis litteris, sicuti dein in epist. 69 et 70 quae scriptae fuerunt in Anatolii causa, et in his (quod maxime observandum est) eadem Cyrilli litterae una cum celebri Leonis epistola 28, ad Flavianum, pari sollicitudine juguntur et commendantur Orientalibus, ut hic Gallicanis; unde Petronium et Regulum ob tractatum in causa Anatolii Romae diu fuisse detentos, atque de toto negotio instructos, vel ex hoc loco maxime comprobatur. Cur vero inter plura Patrum testimonia, quae hoc tempore diligenter collecta, legatis hac de causa in Orientem missis tradita fuerunt, et postea subjecta epistolae 165 vide admonitionem praemissam epist. 28, num. ult.), cur, inquam, haec una Cyrilli epistola et hic et aliis in locis a Leone potissimum ingeratur, et tanta cum sollicitudine conjungatur cum epistola 28, ad Flavianum, satis colligitur ex epist. 69 et 70. Eutychiani scilicet solam Nicaenam fidem efferebant atque inculcabant; et cum se ei adhaerere, tum vero catholicos suis erroribus inimicos ab ea deviare dictitabant. Confer annot. 6 (Col. 855, n. g) in epist. 54. Cum porro iidem Nestorianis essent infensissimi, epistolas Cyrilli, qui Nestorianam haeresim profligaverat, maxime praedicabant. Leo itaque ut omnem Nicaenae fidei laesae suspicionem removeret a catholico dogmate, quod in epistola ad Flavianum vindicaverat, perutilem credidit Cyrilli epistolam secundam ad Nestorium, in qua ille Nicaenam quidem fidem explicans eadem tradidit ac in sua epistola 28. Hinc ergo utramque simul junxit, ut ex utriusque collatione idem dogma Eutychianis contrarium agnosceretur; et simul etiam pateret quam illi perperam Nicaenam fidem venditarent, a qua, ipso Cyrillo interpretante, maxime dissidebant. Ex his porro quae Leo hoc loco tradit missa dignoscitur in Gallias haec Cyrilli epistola; ac idcirco fortassis ex ea versione quam Leo illuc misit et adhibuit in testimoniis subjectis epist. 165 inserta legitur in antiquissima collectione 5 et in alia posteriori 12, quas in Galliis campactas alibi demonstrabimus. Ex hac porro epistola cognoscimus S. Leonem ad Ravennium misisse tum suam epist. 28, ad Flavianum, tum epistolam S. Cyrilli ad Nestorium. Ex Idacio autem Hispano et coaevo scriptore praeterea colligimus transmissam etiam fuisse epistolam ipsius Flaviani ad Leonem cum aliis documentis ad Eutychianam haeresim pertinentibus: quae quidem omnia laudatus Ravennius ex Leonis mandato non ad Gallicanos solum, sed etiam ad Hispanos episcopos direxit. De Galliis, inquit ille in Chronico ad olymp. 130, epistolae deferuntur Flaviani episcopi ad Leonem episcopum missae cum scriptis Cyrilli episcopi Alexandrini ad Nestorium Constantinopolitanum, de Eutychete Ebionita haeretico, et Leonis episcopi ad eumdem responsa: quae cum aliorum episcoporum et gestis (forte synodi CP. contra eumdem Eutychem) et scriptis ad Ecclesias diriguntur. Hinc factum est ut Flaviani epist. 22, quae incipit Nulla res, pluribus Latinis collectionibus et praesertim Hispanicae inserta fuerit.

Vel ("or") is sometimes used for et ("and") in our manuscripts of Leo, as may be seen in note 22 (893, note i) on Letter 80. Certainly, when in Letter 113, ch. 3, Leo wrote that on the ordination of Proterius of Alexandria he had sent letters to the bishop, OR to those who ordained him, OR to the clergy, he took OR and OR for AND: for in this way, as was his custom, he sent separate letters to each of those who had written separate letters, letters which have perished, just as we have separate letters of his, 171, 172 and 173, on the ordination of Timothy of Alexandria, who succeeded Proterius. Another, clearer example is at hand from Letter 131, ch. 1: What I have written to the most clement emperor, OR to the bishop of the city of Alexandria himself, the copies appended to this letter will show. Since copies of two letters are indicated, 129, to Proterius of Alexandria, and 130, to Marcian Augustus, which indeed survive, it is clear that vel is taken for et here too. In the present matter, moreover, that vel is used for et is recognized from this, that St Leo does not so commend Cyril's letter to the Gallic bishops as to permit, if this one becomes known to them through Ravennius, that his own letter to Flavian be suppressed, which he sent above all to be received and signed with subscriptions, as is gathered from Letter 99. Compare note 8 (col. 893, note i) on Letter 70. What is meant is Cyril's second letter to Nestorius, which St Leo used against Eutyches, as is clear from that longer fragment of it which is read appended to Letter 165, to Leo Augustus. This is the first mention of this letter of Cyril in Leo's letters, as later in Letters 69 and 70, which were written in the case of Anatolius; and in these (which is especially to be observed) the same letter of Cyril, together with Leo's celebrated Letter 28, to Flavian, is joined with equal care and commended to the Orientals, as here to the Gallic bishops; whence it is most strongly proved, if only from this passage, that Petronius and Regulus were detained a long time at Rome on account of the deliberation in the case of Anatolius, and were instructed about the whole affair. But why, among the many testimonies of the Fathers which at this time were carefully collected and handed to the legates sent to the East on this account, and afterwards appended to Letter 165 (see the admonition set before Letter 28, last number), why, I say, this one letter of Cyril is urged by Leo above all, both here and in other places, and is joined with such care to Letter 28, to Flavian, is sufficiently gathered from Letters 69 and 70. The Eutychians, that is, extolled and inculcated the Nicene faith alone; and they kept saying both that they adhered to it and that the Catholics, the enemies of their errors, departed from it. Compare note 6 (col. 855, note g) on Letter 54. Since, moreover, these same men were most hostile to the Nestorians, they especially proclaimed the letters of Cyril, who had overthrown the Nestorian heresy. Leo therefore, to remove from the Catholic dogma which he had vindicated in the letter to Flavian every suspicion of injury to the Nicene faith, judged most useful Cyril's second letter to Nestorius, in which Cyril, while expounding the Nicene faith, taught the same things as Leo in his Letter 28. Hence he joined the two together, so that from the comparison of both the same dogma, contrary to the Eutychians, might be recognized; and at the same time it might also be plain how wrongly they paraded the Nicene faith, from which, on Cyril's own interpretation, they most dissented. From what Leo relates in this place, moreover, it is discerned that this letter of Cyril was sent into Gaul; and perhaps for that reason it is read, in the version which Leo sent there and used in the testimonies appended to Letter 165, inserted in the very ancient collection 5 and in another, later one, 12, which we shall show elsewhere to have been compiled in Gaul. From this letter, further, we learn that St Leo sent Ravennius both his own Letter 28, to Flavian, and the letter of St Cyril to Nestorius. From Hydatius, a Spaniard and a contemporary writer, we gather besides that the letter of Flavian himself to Leo was also sent, with other documents pertaining to the Eutychian heresy: all of which the said Ravennius, by Leo's command, sent not only to the Gallic bishops but also to the Spanish. From Gaul, he says in his Chronicle at the 130th Olympiad, letters are brought of Bishop Flavian, sent to Bishop Leo, with the writings of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, to Nestorius of Constantinople, on Eutyches the Ebionite heretic, and the replies of Bishop Leo to him: these, with the acts (perhaps of the synod of Constantinople against the same Eutyches) and writings of other bishops, are sent to the Churches. Hence it came about that Flavian's Letter 22, which begins Nulla res, was inserted in several Latin collections, and especially in the Spanish.

(Note (g) runs on under col 887, at the head of the left footnote column; read and set whole here. n887 should record only "(g) continued from col 886, set in n886".)

(The end of the editors' italic line begun in col 885 is printed at the head of this column; the line is set whole in n885.) SYNOPSIS. — Mittit Ravennio celebrem suam ad Flavianum epistolam de incarnatione Verbi Dei adversus Eutychen, ut pro defensione fidei, per eum haec, vel Cyrilli Alexandrini epistola cunctis Galliae episcopis fideliter innotescat. Secreta etiam mandata legatis commissa indicat.

SYNOPSIS. — He sends Ravennius his celebrated letter to Flavian on the incarnation of the Word of God, against Eutyches, so that, for the defence of the faith, this letter, or that of Cyril of Alexandria, may be faithfully made known through him to all the bishops of Gaul. He also mentions secret instructions entrusted to the legates.