PL 54 · cols. 926–929

Leo the Great, Letters

Letters LXXXVII–LXXXVIII

PL 54:926

EPISTOLA LXXXVII.

LETTER LXXXVII.

AD ANATOLIUM EPISCOPUM CP.

To Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople.

LEO episcopus ANATOLIO confratri episcopo Constantinopolitano.

Leo, bishop, to Anatolius, his fellow brother, bishop of Constantinople.

Ad declinandam erroris maculam, qua nonnullos aut Nestoriana impietas, aut Eutychiana labefactavit insania, laudabilem curam filii nostri Basilius et Joannes presbyteri suae aestimationis habuerunt: ut inter compugnantia dogmata falsitatis vera catholicae fidei pace gauderent. Siquidem longinquae peregrinationis labore suscepto, sensum cordis sui in apostolica sede patefecerunt, damnantes utramque haeresim, quarum supra fecimus mentionem, et de incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi non aliud recipientes, quam quod, instruente sancto Spiritu, et didicimus, et docemus.

To avoid the stain of error with which either the Nestorian impiety or the Eutychian madness has shaken some, our sons Basil and John, presbyters, have taken praiseworthy care of their good name, so that amid the conflicting dogmas of falsehood they might rejoice in the true peace of the catholic faith. For, having undertaken the toil of a long journey, they laid open the sense of their heart in the apostolic see, condemning both the heresies which we mentioned above, and accepting, concerning the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, nothing other than what, with the Holy Spirit instructing us, we have both learned and teach.

Per hos ergo, frater charissime, cum testimonio nostro ad propria revertentes, dilectioni tuae nostra scripta direximus, fidenter hortantes ut qui gratia apostolicae communionis ornantur, etiam tuo favore per omnia se gaudeant adjuvari. Data decimo tertio kalendas Julii, Adelfio viro clarissimo consule.

Through them, therefore, dearest brother, as they return home with our testimony, we have directed our writings to your Love, confidently urging that those who are adorned with the grace of apostolic communion may rejoice to be helped in all things by your favour as well. Given on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of July, in the consulship of Adelfius, a man most illustrious.

Editors' notes and page, col. 926

Footnotes

(e) ‹EPISTOLA LXXXVII› · printed under col 925

Al. 67. Quae autem antea 87 erat, nunc 114. Scripta 19 Junii an. 451.

Formerly 67. The one that was formerly 87 is now 114. Written 19 June in the year 451.

(f) ‹AD ANATOLIUM› · printed under col 925

Exstat in mss. collect. 12 et 18 ac in praestantissimo Vat. 1322, ex quo millenariam aetatem praeferente nonnulla emendavimus.

It exists in the mss. of collections 12 and 18 and in the most excellent Vat. 1322, from which, as it shows an age of a thousand years, we have corrected some things.

(g) ‹Siquidem› · printed under col 925

Editi, longinquo. Emendavimus ex laudato Vat.

The editions: longinquo. We have corrected [it] from the Vat. cited.

(h) ‹in apostolica sede› · printed under col 926

Ita melius codd. collect. 12, cum antiquioribus editis. Quesnellus, patefecerunt.

So, better, the codd. of collection 12, with the older editions. Quesnel: patefecerunt.

(i) ‹direximus, fidenter› · printed under col 926

Sic non solum Grim., sed etiam antiquissimus Vat. Quesnellus cum editis et mss. collect. 12, orantes, ut qui. In Grimanico tamen pro qui, habetur quia.

So not only the Grimani [codex], but also the very ancient Vat. Quesnel, with the editions and the mss. of collection 12: orantes, ut qui. In the Grimani, however, quia is found for qui.

(j) ‹adjuvari. Data› · printed under col 926 (its mark is printed "(i)", a second (i); it answers call (j))

Laudatus cod. Vat., XVIII kal. Junias. In hoc autem ms. librarium pro Julias perperam scripsisse Junias suspicamur, cum in epistola 89 certissimo errore Junias pro Julias pariter scripserit. Dies vero pari lapsui tribui nequit: facilius enim ab exscriptoribus erratur omittendo V quam inserendo. At codicum aliarum duarum collectionum 12 et 18 auctoritatem haud deserendam putavimus.

The cited Vat. codex: XVIII kal. Junias. In this ms., however, we suspect that the copyist wrongly wrote Junias for Julias, since in letter 89 he likewise wrote Junias for Julias by a most certain error. The day, however, cannot be put down to a like slip: for copyists err more easily by omitting a V than by inserting one. But we thought that the authority of the codices of the two other collections, 12 and 18, should by no means be abandoned.

Editors' prose

SYNOPSIS. — Ei commendat Basilium et Joannem presbyteros, qui haeresis accusati Romam venerant rationem fidei suae reddituri.

Synopsis. — He commends to him the presbyters Basil and John, who, accused of heresy, had come to Rome to render an account of their faith.

ADMONITIO

Admonition

in epistolam sequentem, et in coeteras inferius afferendas, quae agunt de Paschate anni 455.

on the following letter, and on the others to be brought forward below, which deal with the Easter of the year 455.

1. Quaestio jamdiu ante agitata circa Pascha anni 444, sollicitum Leonem effecit, ut maturius scriberet circa diem Paschatis ann. 455, in quo Romanorum et Alexandrinorum cyclos dissidere non ignorabat. Hinc jam inde ab an. 451, quo sequens epistola scripta fuit, in hanc diem unanimi consensu statuendam studium intendit. Novem praeterea ejusdem pontificis epistolas subsequentibus annis in eamdem rem exaratas habemus, praeter alias non paucas, quae desiderantur; et unam Proterii Alexandrini ad eumdem pontificem, quas suis locis dabimus.

1. The question agitated long before concerning the Easter of the year 444 made Leo anxious to write in good time about the day of Easter in the year 455, in which he was well aware that the cycles of the Romans and of the Alexandrians disagreed. Hence, already from the year 451, in which the following letter was written, he bent his zeal to having this day fixed by unanimous consent. We have, besides, nine letters of the same pontiff written on the same matter in the following years, apart from not a few others which are missing; and one of Proterius of Alexandria to the same pontiff: these we shall give in their places.

2. Ex laterculo Paschali Theophili Alexandrini annorum centum, quod ex cyclis quinque decemnovennalibus, et annis quinque constabat, Pascha an. 455 affigebatur VIII kal. Maias. Ex cyclo autem Latinorum annorum LXXXIV ascriibebatur XV kal. ejusdem mensis, ac propterea octo dierum discrimen intercedebat. Hoc autem discrimen oriebatur ex lunae saltibus, quos Latini crebriores, Alexandrini autem rariores admittebant. Cum enim Alexandrini ex suo cyclo decemnovennali lunae saltus, quibus aetati lunae una dies per saltum augetur, decimo nono quoque anno astruerent, Latini vero ex suo cyclo annorum LXXXIV usque ad emendationem Prosperi eos saltus admitterent quovis anno duodecimo, post emendationem autem Prosperi singulis quatuordecim annis: aetas lunae, ex qua paschalis dies decernitur, apud Romanos ob crebriores quam apud Alexandrinos saltus anno 455 triduo crescebat, adeo ut quae Alexandrinis eo anno XV kal. Maii die Dominico erat luna 14, Romanis esset luna 17. Cum vero luna 14 nequeat celebrari Pascha, ne cum Hebraeis conveniamus, hinc Alexandrini in Dominicam sequentem VIII kal. Maii Pascha protrahere cogebantur. Apud Latinos vero cum eo die XV kal. Maias esset luna 17, nihil prohibebat quin Pascha eo die celebrarent: plura autem obstabant ne cum Alexandrinis illud festum transferrent in diem VIII kal. Maias.

2. From the Easter table of Theophilus of Alexandria, of a hundred years, which consisted of five nineteen-year cycles and five years, Easter in the year 455 was fixed on the eighth day before the Kalends of May. But by the Latins' cycle of eighty-four years it was assigned to the fifteenth day before the Kalends of the same month, and therefore a difference of eight days lay between them. This difference arose from the lunar leaps, which the Latins admitted more often, and the Alexandrians more rarely. For whereas the Alexandrians, following their nineteen-year cycle, inserted the lunar leaps (by which one day is added to the moon's age by a leap) in every nineteenth year, while the Latins, following their cycle of eighty-four years, admitted those leaps in every twelfth year up to Prosper's emendation, but after Prosper's emendation in every fourteenth year: the moon's age, from which the day of Easter is determined, was greater by three days among the Romans in the year 455, because of the leaps being more frequent than among the Alexandrians, so that what for the Alexandrians in that year, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of May, a Sunday, was the fourteenth moon, was for the Romans the seventeenth moon. But since Easter cannot be celebrated on the fourteenth moon, lest we agree with the Hebrews, the Alexandrians were for this reason compelled to put Easter off to the following Sunday, the eighth day before the Kalends of May. Among the Latins, however, since on that day, the fifteenth before the Kalends of May, it was the seventeenth moon, nothing prevented them from celebrating Easter on that day; but several things stood in the way of their transferring that feast, with the Alexandrians, to the eighth day before the Kalends of May.

3. Primum hoc diu ipsis erat lunae aetas 24, quo si celebrassent Pascha, excessissent biduo extremum lunae aetatis limitem, qui penes ipsos erat luna 22. Deinde excessissent praeterea triduo limitem ultimum Dominicarum paschalium, qui ipsis erat XI kal. Maias. Quoad hos quidem Dominicarum paschalium limites anno 444 res conciliata est, eo quod persuasum Leoni fuit sufficere, si eum limitem XI kal. Maias Passionis dies

3. First, on this day [printed diu, for die] the moon's age for them was 24; had they celebrated Easter on it, they would have exceeded by two days the extreme limit of the moon's age, which with them was the twenty-second moon. Next, they would further have exceeded by three days the last limit of the Easter Sundays, which for them was the eleventh day before the Kalends of May. As to these limits of the Easter Sundays, indeed, the matter was reconciled in the year 444, because Leo was persuaded that it sufficed if the day of the Passion […] that limit, the eleventh day before the Kalends of May […]

Page

running head: EPISTOLA LXXXVII. · 926 (across the page, page number over this column)
marginal letters: A ‹1054 EPISTOLA LXXXVII›; B ‹mentionem, et de incarnatione›; C ‹autem ms. librarium› (in the footnotes, note j); D (none seen)
old-edition numerals: 1054 before ‹EPISTOLA LXXXVII›
signature: none
other: the ADMONITIO on the Easter of 455 is printed in full-width lines across the lower half of page 925/926, below both columns' footnotes; set here in reading order (the page's right column), per the E29 rule; it continues on the next page (n927).

PL 54:927

EPISTOLA LXXXVIII.

LETTER LXXXVIII.

AD PASCHASINUM EPISCOPUM LYLIBAETANUM.

To Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybaeum.

LEO episcopus PASCHASINO episcopo Lylibaetano.

Leo, bishop, to Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybaeum.

CAP. I. — Quamvis non dubitem fraternitati tuae omnem originem scandalorum, quae de incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Orientalibus Ecclesiis commota sunt, ad plenum esse comperta, tamen ne quid forte sollicitudinem tuam latere potuisset, epistolam nostram, quam ad sanctae memoriae Flavianum de hac re plenissimam misimus, quamque Ecclesia universalis amplectitur, diligentius tibi recensendam cognoscendamque direxi: ut intelligens qua plenitudine totius hujus erroris impietas, Deo adjuvante, destructa sit, ipse quoque eumdem spiritum pro tuo in Deum amore suscipias, sciasque penitus detestandos qui secundum Eutychis impietatem atque dementiam in Domino nostro unigenito Filio Dei suscipientis in se reparationem salutis humanae, dicere ausi sunt duas non esse naturas, hoc est perfectae Divinitatis et perfectae humanitatis; et putant quod possint nostram dilligentiam fallere, cum aiunt se unam Verbi naturam credere incarnatam; cum utique Verbo Dei in Divinitate Patris, et sua, et Spiritus sancti, una natura sit; suscepta autem veritate carnis

Chap. I. — Although I do not doubt that the whole origin of the scandals which have been stirred up in the Eastern Churches concerning the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ is fully known to your Fraternity, nevertheless, lest anything should perhaps have escaped your solicitude, I have sent you our letter, most full on this matter, which we sent to Flavian of holy memory and which the universal Church embraces, for you to review and study more carefully: so that, understanding with what fullness the impiety of this whole error has, with God's help, been destroyed, you yourself too may take up the same spirit out of your love for God, and may know that those are utterly to be detested who, following the impiety and madness of Eutyches, have dared to say that in our Lord, the only-begotten Son of God, who took upon Himself the restoration of human salvation, there are not two natures, that is, of perfect Godhead and of perfect manhood; and they think that they can deceive our diligence when they say that they believe the one nature of the Word to be incarnate; whereas the Word of God assuredly has one nature in the Godhead of the Father, and His own, and of the Holy Spirit; but that, when the reality of [our] flesh was taken up […]

Editors' notes and page, col. 927

Footnotes

(a) ‹EPISTOLA› · printed under col 927

Al. 68. Quae autem antea 88 erat, nunc 117 Scripta 24 Junii an. 452.

Formerly 68. The one that was formerly 88 is now 117. Written 24 June in the year 452.

(b) ‹AD PASCHASINUM› · printed under col 927

Hanc epistolam, quam ex ms. Grim. collect. 18 Quesnellus edidit, contulimus cum ms. Ratisp. collect. 19.

This letter, which Quesnel published from the Grimani ms. of collection 18, we have collated with the Ratisbon ms. of collection 19.

Hanc inscriptionem exegimus ad ms. Ratisp. Quesnellus ex Grim., Leo Paschasino episcopo.

We have checked this heading against the Ratisbon ms. Quesnel, from the Grimani: Leo Paschasino episcopo.

(d) ‹impietas, Deo adjuvante› · printed under col 927

Voces Deo adjuvante desunt in ms. Ratisp.

The words Deo adjuvante are missing in the Ratisbon ms.

(e) ‹fallere, cum aiunt› · printed under cols 927–928 (runs over to the head of the footnotes under col 928)

Eutychiani scilicet hac formula se posse fallere putabant catholicos, eo quod eamdem a Cyrillo usurpatam ingererent. At Cyrillus ita unam naturam Verbi incarnatam dixit, ut divinae humanaeque naturae distinctionem pluribus in locis professus earum unionem hypostaticam in incarnatione adversus Nestorianos astrueret, uti Petavius late ostendit lib. IV de Incarn. cap. 7 et seqq., quo quidem catholico sensu haec locutio a nonnullis catholicis, a synodo V recepta fuit. Eutychiani vero ita unam naturam Verbi dicebant incarnatam, ut duarum naturarum distinctionem tollentes, humanam a divina absorptam traderent, et hac ratione veritatem carnis humanae in Christo Domino nostro negando vacuarent; quem haereticum sensum Leo capite sequenti detegit atque perstringit.

The Eutychians, namely, thought they could deceive catholics with this formula, because they pressed it upon them as one used by Cyril. But Cyril spoke of one incarnate nature of the Word in such a way that, having professed in many places the distinction of the divine and the human nature, he asserted against the Nestorians their hypostatic union in the incarnation, as Petavius shows at length in book IV of De Incarnatione, ch. 7 ff.; and in this catholic sense the expression was received by some catholics, and by the fifth synod. The Eutychians, however, called the nature of the Word one and incarnate in such a way that, removing the distinction of the two natures, they taught that the human was absorbed by the divine, and in this way, by denying it, made void the reality of human flesh in Christ our Lord: this heretical sense Leo exposes and censures in the following chapter.

(f) ‹cum utique› · printed under col 928

Codex Ratisp., Verbi Dei in Deitate; et deinceps, Deitatis sit credenda; et mox, Deitas atque humanitas, et similiter in sequentibus.

The Ratisbon codex: Verbi Dei in Deitate; and next, Deitatis sit credenda; and presently, Deitas atque humanitas; and likewise in what follows.

Editors' prose

nequaquam excederet: quo factum est ut, servato hoc limite, in quem tum incurrit dies Passionis, Pascha etiam a Latinis Alexandrinorum calculum secutis anno eo celebratum fuerit biduo post, id est IX kal. Maii. Sed haec conciliandi ratio nihil proderat in quaestione de Paschate anni 455, quo non solum biduum, sed triduum paschali die prorogato, ipse dies Passionis eum limitem ultimum praeteribat. Putabant tandem Latini in Alexandrinorum rationem Pascha celebratum iri mense secundo, cum ex lege primo mense celebrandum sit; primum enim mensem a die aequinoctii 21 Martii ad diem 21 Aprilis computasse videntur.

[…] should by no means exceed: whence it came about that, this limit being kept (on which the day of the Passion then fell), Easter was celebrated in that year by the Latins too, following the Alexandrians' reckoning, two days later, that is, on the ninth day before the Kalends of May. But this way of reconciling was of no use in the question of the Easter of the year 455, in which, since the Easter day was put off not by two days only but by three, the day of the Passion itself went beyond that last limit. Finally, the Latins held that on the Alexandrians' reckoning Easter would be celebrated in the second month, whereas by the law it must be celebrated in the first month; for they seem to have reckoned the first month from the day of the equinox, 21 March, to 21 April.

4. Multa Alexandrini adversus haec Latinorum objecta protulerunt. Sed cum semper disputaverint in hypothesi quod VIII kal. Maii esset luna 14, nec umquam, saltem ex monumentis quae supersunt, erroris convicerint Latinos, dum ea die diversam aetatem lunae tribuebant, nec quidquam attigerint de lunae saltibus diversis, ex quibus diversa lunae aetas proficiscebatur (in quo si persuasissent Latinos errare, proculdubio obtiunissent eorumdem assensum: neque enim hi luna solum 14, verum etiam 15 Pascha celebrare ex suis regulis vetabantur), nihil mirum si S. Leo se Alexandrinorum rationibus non convictum prodidit, et solum studio unitatis ac pacis, Pascha in ipsorum sententiam indixit. Haec paucis praemonuisse satis sit, ut ea quae in epistolis de hac controversia exhibendis indicantur, intelligi queant. Alia nonnulla, ubi opus fuerit, in annotationibus subjicientur. Hanc autem admonitionem sequenti epistolae praefiximus, eo quod prima sit quae de hac controversia paschali indicium praebet.

4. The Alexandrians put forward many things against these objections of the Latins. But since they always argued on the assumption that the eighth day before the Kalends of May was the fourteenth moon, and never, at least from the records that survive, convicted the Latins of error when these assigned a different age to the moon on that day, and never touched at all on the differing lunar leaps from which the differing age of the moon arose (had they persuaded the Latins that they erred in this, they would without doubt have obtained their assent: for by their rules these were forbidden to celebrate Easter not only on the fourteenth moon but also on the fifteenth), it is no wonder that St Leo declared himself not convinced by the Alexandrians' reasons, and appointed Easter according to their view solely out of zeal for unity and peace. Let it suffice to have given this brief forewarning, so that what is indicated in the letters on this controversy which are to be presented may be understood. Some other things will be added in the notes where needed. We have set this admonition before the following letter because it is the first that gives an indication of this Easter controversy.

SYNOPSIS. — I. Mittit ad Paschasinum celebrem suam ad Flavianum CP. epistolam, qua legatus in synodo futurus instrueretur. — II. Duplicem in Christo asserit naturam adversus Eutychen. — III. Testimonia SS. Patrum de incarnatione Domini mittit, nuntiatque Orientalis dioecesis epicopos subscripsisse eidem epistolae ad Flavianum. — De Paschate anno 455 diligentius inquiri postulat.

Synopsis. — I. He sends Paschasinus his celebrated letter to Flavian of CP., by which he, who was to be a legate at the synod, might be instructed. — II. He asserts the twofold nature in Christ against Eutyches. — III. He sends testimonies of the holy Fathers on the incarnation of the Lord, and announces that the bishops of the Eastern diocese have subscribed that same letter to Flavian. — He asks that the Easter of the year 455 be inquired into more carefully.

Page

running head: 927 · S. LEONIS MAGNI EPISTOLAE. (across the page, page number over this column)
marginal letters: A ‹1057 EPISTOLA (a) LXXXVIII› (the A stands in the gutter at the head of the two columns); B ‹de hac re plenissimam›; C (in the gutter at the head of the footnotes); D (none seen)
old-edition numerals: 1057 before ‹EPISTOLA LXXXVIII›; 1058 after ‹ut intelligens qua›
signature: none
other: the top of page 927/928 carries, in full-width lines, the end of the ADMONITIO begun on page 925/926 (set here, the page's left column, per the E29 rule); the two columns begin below it with Letter LXXXVIII.

PL 54:928

nostrae illi inconvertibili substantiae nostram quoque unitam esse naturam: nam nec incarnatio dici posset, nisi caro susciperetur a Verbo. Quae susceptio tanta et talis unitio est, ut a carne animata, non solum in partu beatae Virginis, sed etiam in conceptu nulla Divinitatis sit credenda divisio: quoniam in unitate personae Divinitas atque humanitas et conceptu Virginis convenit et partu.

[…] our nature too was united to that unchangeable substance: for it could not even be called an incarnation unless flesh were taken up by the Word. And this taking up is a union so great and of such a kind that no division of the Godhead from the ensouled flesh is to be believed, not only in the blessed Virgin's giving birth but even in her conceiving: since in the unity of the person Godhead and manhood came together both in the Virgin's conceiving and in her giving birth.

CAP. II. — Abominanda ergo est in Eutyche impietas, quae olim a Patribus in praecedentibus haereticis damnata atque destructa est; quod huic stultissimo homini prodesse dubuerat: ut quod non poterat sensu apprehendere, vel praecedenti caveret exemplo, ne salutis nostrae singulare sacramentum veritatem carnis humanae in Christo Domino nostro negando vacuaret.

Chap. II. — Abominable, therefore, is the impiety in Eutyches, which was long ago condemned and destroyed by the Fathers in earlier heretics; and this ought to have profited this most foolish man: that what he could not grasp with his understanding, he might at least guard against by the precedent example, lest by denying the reality of human flesh in Christ our Lord he should make void the singular mystery of our salvation.

Quoniam si vera et perfecta in illo humanitatis natura non est, nulla est nostra susceptio; et totum quod credimus, quod docemus, secundum ipsius impietatem vanitas est atque mendacium. Sed quia nec mentitur veritas nec passibilis est Divinitas, manet in Deo Verbo utraque substantia in una persona, et ita Salvatorem suum Ecclesia confitetur, ut eum et Divinitate impassibilem, et carne passibilem fateatur, dicente Apostolo: Etsi crucifixus est ex infirmate nostra, sed vivit ex virtute Dei (II Cor. XIII, 4).

For if there is not in Him a true and perfect nature of manhood, there is no taking up of us; and all that we believe, all that we teach, is, according to his impiety, vanity and falsehood. But since the truth does not lie, and the Godhead is not passible, both substances remain in God the Word in one person, and so the Church confesses her Saviour as to acknowledge Him both impassible in Godhead and passible in flesh, as the Apostle says: Though He was crucified out of our weakness, yet He lives by the power of God (2 Cor. 13:4).

CAP. III. — Ut autem in omnibus plenius tua sit instructa dilectio, sanctorum Patrum nostrorum, de sacramento incarnationis Domini quid senserint, et quid Ecclesiis praedicaverint, ut evidenter agnosceres, aliqua ad dilectionem tuam scripta transmisi,

Chap. III. — And that your Love may be more fully instructed in all things, I have sent some writings to your Love, so that you might clearly recognize what our holy Fathers thought concerning the mystery of the Lord's incarnation, and what they preached to the Churches, […]

Editors' notes and page, col. 928

Footnotes

(e) continued from col 927, set in n927

(f) printed under this column; its call is in col 927, set in n927

(g) ‹Abominanda ergo est› · printed under col 928

Sic ex Ratisp. Concinit cum sequentibus, in praecedentibus haereticis. Quesnellus ex Grim., Eutychis.

So from the Ratisbon. It agrees with what follows, in praecedentibus haereticis. Quesnel, from the Grimani: Eutychis.

(h) ‹damnata atque destructa› · printed under col 928

Verbum est ex Ratisp. supplevimus.

We have supplied the word est from the Ratisbon.

(i) ‹sensu apprehendere,› · printed under col 928

Apud Quesn., id praecedenti caveret exemplo; nec salutis nostrae, etc. Melior visa est lectio cod. Ratisp. Vel pro saltem passim usurpatur.

In Quesnel: id praecedenti caveret exemplo; nec salutis nostrae, etc. The reading of the Ratisbon cod. seemed better. Vel is commonly used for saltem.

(j) ‹ad dilectionem tuam› · printed under cols 928–929 (runs over to the head of the footnotes under col 929)

Indicat testimonia sanctorum Patrum quae in Graecis exemplaribus Chalcedonensis concilii ante gesta epistolae 28 Leonis ad Flavianum subjecta inveniuntur; qua de re plura in fine admonitionis ad eamdem epistolam 28. Nostri, quos hic nominat, sunt ii legati qui in Anatolii causa Constantinopolim missi jam redierant.

He means the testimonies of the holy Fathers which, in the Greek copies of the council of Chalcedon, are found appended, before the acts, to Leo's letter 28 to Flavian; on which more at the end of the admonition to the same letter 28. The nostri whom he names here are those legates who, sent to Constantinople in Anatolius's cause, had already returned.

Page

running head: S. LEONIS MAGNI EPISTOLAE. · 928 (across the page, page number over this column)
marginal letters: A ‹nostrae illi inconvertibili›; B ‹negando vacuaret. Quoniam›; C ‹Verbi dicebant incarnatam› (head of the footnotes, continuation of note e); D (none seen)
old-edition numerals: 1059 after ‹Quoniam›
signature: none
other: the full-width end of the ADMONITIO at the top of this page is set in n927.

PL 54:929

quae nostri quoque apud Constantinopolim cum mea epistola allegarunt. Et totam Constantinopolitanam Ecclesiam cum monasteriis omnibus et multis episcopis noveris praebuisse consensum, et subscriptionibus suis Nestorium atque Eutychen cum suis anathematizasse dogmatibus. Noveris etiam proxime me epistolam Constantinopolitani episcopi accepisse, quae refert Antiochenum episcopum missis per provincias suas tractoriis universos episcopos et epistolae meae praebuisse consensum, et Nestorium et Eutychen pari subscriptione damnasse.

[…] which our [envoys] too put forward at Constantinople together with my letter. And know that the whole Church of Constantinople, with all the monasteries and many bishops, has given its consent, and by their subscriptions has anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches together with their dogmas. Know also that I have lately received a letter from the bishop of Constantinople, which reports that the bishop of Antioch, having sent circular letters through his provinces, [to] all the bishops, has both given his consent to my letter and condemned Nestorius and Eutyches by a like subscription.

CAP. IV. — Illud quoque curae tuae credimus injungendum, ut qua ratio paschalis festi experientiam tuam non latet, de eo quod in Theophili annotatione invenimus, quodque nos permovet, diligentius inquiras illic, atque pertractes cum his qui possunt supputationis et regulae istius habere peritiam: qualiter quarti anni futuri Dominicae resurrectionis dies sit tenendus. Nam cum venturum Pascha, propitio Deo, decimo kalendarum aprilium die sit tenendum, sequenti autem pridie idus April. Tertio pridie nonas Aprilis; quarto sanctae memoriae Theophilus kalendas Maii constituit observandum: quod regula ecclesiastica penitus invenimus alienum; in nostris autem paschalibus cyclis, quod bene nosse dignaris, decimo quinto kalend. Maii ejusdem anni Pascha celebrandum esse sit scriptum. Et ideo, ut nobis omnibus ambiguitas auferatur, cum peritis quibusque diligentius hoc tua sollicitudo pertractet, ut in futurum hujusmodi caveamus errorem. Data octavo kalend. Julii, Adelfio viro clarissimo consule.

Chap. IV. — We think this too should be enjoined on your care: that, as the reckoning of the Easter feast is not hidden from your experience, you inquire more carefully there into what we have found in the annotation of Theophilus, and what troubles us, and examine it thoroughly with those who can have skill in that computation and rule: how the day of the Lord's resurrection in the fourth year to come is to be kept. For whereas the coming Easter, God being gracious, is to be kept on the tenth day before the Kalends of April, and the following one on the day before the Ides of April, the third on the day before the Nones of April, for the fourth Theophilus of holy memory appointed the Kalends of May to be observed: which we find wholly foreign to the ecclesiastical rule; whereas in our Easter cycles, as you are well pleased to know, it is written that Easter in that same year is to be celebrated on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of May. And therefore, that all ambiguity may be taken away from us, let your solicitude examine this carefully with all who are skilled, so that in future we may guard against an error of this kind. Given on the eighth day before the Kalends of July, in the consulship of Adelfius, a man most illustrious.

Editors' notes and page, col. 929

Footnotes

(j) continued from col 928, set in n928 (the first lines of the footnotes under this column)

(a) ‹allegarunt. Et› · printed under col 929

Quesnellus in margine. Forte, cui, vel ei.

Quesnel in the margin: "Perhaps cui, or ei."

(b) ‹suas tractoriis› · printed under col 929

Idem Quesn. in margine: Forte, ad universos, vel aliquid aliud deesse videtur. Hac de re in concilio Chalcedonensi actione de Photio Tyri Eustathius Beryti dixit: Cum pauci Constantinopoli convenissent (sub finem anni 450), missa est epistola almi archiepiscopi Leonis iis qui ubique essent metropolitis et subscripta est. Confer aliud Leonis testimonium in fine epistolae 91.

The same Quesnel in the margin: "Perhaps ad universos; or something else seems to be missing." On this matter Eustathius of Berytus said in the council of Chalcedon, in the session on Photius of Tyre: "When a few had assembled at Constantinople" (towards the end of the year 450), "the letter of the kindly archbishop Leo was sent to the metropolitans wherever they were, and was subscribed." Compare another testimony of Leo at the end of letter 91.

Annotatio Theophili idem est ac laterculum Paschale annorum centum ab eodem digestum, de quo vide annot. 8 (Col. 1056, n. (j) in epist. 121.

The annotation of Theophilus is the same as the Easter table of a hundred years drawn up by him, on which see note 8 (col. 1056, n. (j)) on letter 121.

(d) ‹diligentius inquiras› · printed under col 929

Sic ms. Ratisp. Quesnellus, requiras. Particula illic ad annotationem seu laterculum Theophili referenda videtur, in quo de die Paschatis cum peritis ejus supputationis diligenter inquireret jubet.

So the Ratisbon ms. Quesnel: requiras. The particle illic seems to refer to the annotation or table of Theophilus, into which he bids him inquire carefully, concerning the day of Easter, with those skilled in its computation.

(e) ‹qualiter quarti› · printed under col 929

Id est, an. 455.

That is, the year 455.

(f) ‹venturum Pascha› · printed under col 929

Anno 452, die 23 Martii.

In the year 452, on 23 March.

(g) ‹sequenti› · printed under col 929

Anno 453, die 12 April.

In the year 453, on 12 April.

(h) ‹Tertio› · printed under col 929

Anno 454, 4 April.

In the year 454, 4 April.

(i) ‹Theophilus› · printed under col 929

Anno 455. Pascha; secundum Alexand. 24 April., sec. Rom. 17.

The year 455. Easter: according to the Alexandrians 24 April, according to the Romans 17 [April].

(j) ‹quod regula› · printed under col 929

Id est a regulis paschalibus Latinorum, de quibus in praemissa admonitione, num. 3.

That is, from the Easter rules of the Latins, on which [see] the preceding admonition, no. 3.

(k) ‹paschalibus cyclis› · printed under cols 929–930 (runs over to the head of the footnotes under col 930)

Non unum, sed plures paschales cyclos annorum LXXXIV apud Latinos fuisse liquet. Pascha autem an. 455 die XV kal. Maii in omnibus ascribebatur, nimirum tum in illis antiquioribus, qui lunae saltum singulis duodecim annis atmittebant, tum in illis qui Leonis aetate recepti eumdem saltum in singulos annos quatuordecim prorogabant, uti dicemus pluribus annot. 14 (Col. 1056, n (q) in epist. 121. Mox in ms. Ratisp., ejus anni Pascha.

It is clear that among the Latins there were not one but several Easter cycles of eighty-four years. But Easter in the year 455 was assigned in all of them to the fifteenth day before the Kalends of May, both in those older ones which admitted the lunar leap every twelve years, and in those which, received in Leo's age, put off the same leap to every fourteen years, as we shall say more fully in note 14 (col. 1056, n. (q)) on letter 121. Just after, in the Ratisbon ms.: ejus anni Pascha.

(l) ‹Et ideo, ut› · printed under col 930

Ita melius ex ms. Ratisp. quam apud Quesnellum ex Grimanico, modis omnibus.

So, better, from the Ratisbon ms. than [the reading] in Quesnel from the Grimani, modis omnibus.