Sermones S. Leoni Magno attributi (Appendix ad primam partem operum S. Leonis Magni), I-XX

Nunc primum editus ex ms. Casinensi.

Now first published from a manuscript of Monte Cassino.

ADMONITIO IN SERMONEM SEQUENTEM.

NOTICE ON THE FOLLOWING SERMON.

Prolixum Quesnelli monitum ex instituto nostro, quo omnia illius huic editioni insertum iri polliciti sumus, proferre cogimur. « Sermo iste, inquit, utrum habitus sit in festo septem fratrum martyrum Machabaeorum, an vero in festo septem fratrum filiorum S. Felicitatis martyris, id est Januarii, Felicis, Philippi, Sylvani, Alexandri, Vitalis, et Martialis, qui tempore Antonini imperatoris martyrio coronati sunt, erit fortasse qui dubitet, si oculos a titulo paulisper averterit, cujus fidem, ut et aliorum hujusmodi, in suspicionem adducere nefas non est apud eruditos. Etsi vero horum celebris Romae memoria ex antiquo fuerit, quoniam ipsam Urbem suo agone nobilitaverant, priorum tamen, id est Machabaeorum, triumpho consecratum fuisse hunc sermonem existismamus, tum quia ex sacris Scripturis recitatam commemorat martyrii illorum historiam: Causam, inquit solemnitatis hodiernae, dilectissimi, plenissime sacrae historiae lectione didicistis; tum quia non imperatoris vel praefecti Romani credulitati tribuit tale martyrium, sed saevissimi regis impietati, nempe Antiochi.

We are compelled by our plan, under which we promised that everything of his would be inserted in this edition, to bring forward Quesnel's lengthy monitum. "Whether this sermon," he says, "was delivered on the feast of the seven brothers, the Maccabee martyrs, or rather on the feast of the seven brothers, the sons of St Felicitas the martyr, that is, Januarius, Felix, Philip, Sylvanus, Alexander, Vitalis and Martialis, who were crowned with martyrdom in the time of the emperor Antoninus, there will perhaps be someone to doubt, if he turns his eyes for a little from the title, whose trustworthiness, like that of others of this kind, it is no crime among the learned to bring under suspicion. But although the memory of the latter was celebrated at Rome from of old, since they had ennobled the City itself by their contest, we nevertheless judge that this sermon was devoted to the triumph of the former, that is, of the Maccabees: first because it mentions that the history of their martyrdom was read out from the sacred Scriptures: The cause of today's solemnity, dearly beloved, he says, you have learned most fully from the reading of the sacred history; and next because it attributes such a martyrdom not to the credulity of a Roman emperor or prefect, but to the impiety of a most cruel king, namely Antiochus.

« Porro huic martyrum solemnitati aliud festum subjunctum fuisse indicat S. Leo, Natalem scilicet, ut ait, seu dedicationem ecclesiae, cujus consecratione antiquam festivitatem geminatam esse inferius asserit. Sed cujus ecclesiae natalis, et cujus consecrationis solemnitas ista esset, nec ipse aperit, nec quisquam post ipsum inquirere sategit: quod videlicet, ut opinor, pro certo habuerint omnes de dedicatione basilicae S. Petri ad Vincula istud esse intelligendum, cum etiamnum hodie una sit dedicationis istius et martyrii Machabaeorum festivitas kalendis Augustis affixa.

"Further, St Leo indicates that another feast was joined to this solemnity of the martyrs, namely, as he says, the birthday or dedication of a church, by whose consecration he asserts further down that the ancient festival was doubled. But of what church it was the birthday, and of what consecration this was the solemnity, he neither discloses himself, nor has anyone after him troubled to inquire: because, I suppose, all have held it for certain that this is to be understood of the dedication of the basilica of St Peter ad Vincula, since even today there is one festival of that dedication and of the martyrdom of the Maccabees, fixed to the kalends of August.

« Huic autem sententiae accedere nequaquam possumus. Nam basilica S. Petri ad Vincula ab Eudoxia Valentiniani Augusti uxore aedificata est in monte Exquilino, unde et titulus Eudoxiae dictus est, quod minime concinit his quae de loco isto a Leone dicuntur. Siquidem manifestum est non a femina, sed ab homine exstructam esse basilicam, cujus consecrationis memoria tunc agebatur. Magnificus, inquit, structor parietum, etc. Deinde in eum qui basilicam de qua inquirimus erexit ea omnia convenire debent, quae Leo edisserit, ut scilicet, 1º ipse suis sumptibus et munificentia aedem aedificari jusserit: Magnificus structor parietum, etc., habitando quod condidit. 2º Et eam ipse consecraverit seu dedicaverit ecclesiam: Qui hoc die antiquam festivitatem hujus loci consecratione geminavit. 3º Ut animarum idem curam habuerit: Sed magnificentior aedificator animarum; imo et docendi munere in urbe Roma, ac proinde episcopi, perfunctus fuerit; faciendo quod docuit. 5º Ut is fuerit, cujus memoriam justo honore venerari possent Romani, et martyrum solemnitati subjungere Non solum, inquit martyres ac martyrum matrem, sed etiam illius memoriam justo honore veneramini, qui hoc die antiquam festivitatem hujus loci consecratione geminavit. 5º Denique, ut Leoni coaevus fuerit, et in oculis eorum quos alloquebatur pietatis opera ediderit, ex quorum memoria, non minus quam ex templi quod cernebant conspectu, ad virtutis profectum accendi possent; sensus est enim horum verborum: Omnia ergo, dilectissimi, quae oculis cernitis, et mente meministis, ad profectum vestrae aedificationis assumite, etc. Haec autem omnia in Eudoxiam cadere non possunt: necesse est porro in aliquem ex pontificibus Romanis, ad quos unice pertinebat ecclesias in Urbe dedicare, animarumque in ea doctores atque aedificatores agere. Facile quidem de Coelestino papa ista dici queunt, qui nimirum sanctitate conspicuus fuit, et basilicam Julii fecisse legitur. Verum pronior sum ut illa ad Sixum III Leonis nostri ultimum decessorem referam. Primum enim manifestum est ecclesiam cujus dedicationis festus tunc dies agebatur,

"To this opinion, however, we can by no means accede. For the basilica of St Peter ad Vincula was built by Eudoxia, wife of Valentinian Augustus, on the Esquiline hill, whence it was also called the title of Eudoxia; which in no way agrees with what is said of this place by Leo. For it is plain that the basilica, the memory of whose consecration was then being kept, was erected not by a woman but by a man. A magnificent builder of walls, he says, etc. Next, all those things which Leo sets forth must fit the man who raised the basilica we are inquiring about, namely: 1. that he himself ordered the building to be built at his own expense and by his own munificence: A magnificent builder of walls, etc., by dwelling in what he founded. 2. And that he himself consecrated or dedicated that church: Who on this day doubled the ancient festival by the consecration of this place. 3. That the same man had the care of souls: But a more magnificent builder of souls; indeed that he also discharged the office of teaching in the city of Rome, and therefore that of a bishop: by doing what he taught. 5. That he was one whose memory the Romans could venerate with due honour, and join to the solemnity of the martyrs: Not only, he says, the martyrs and the mother of the martyrs, but also the memory of him do you venerate with due honour, who on this day doubled the ancient festival by the consecration of this place. 5. Lastly, that he was a contemporary of Leo, and performed works of piety before the eyes of those whom Leo was addressing, by the memory of which, no less than by the sight of the temple which they beheld, they could be kindled to progress in virtue; for that is the sense of these words: All things therefore, dearly beloved, which you behold with your eyes and remember in your mind, take up for the progress of your edification, etc. Now all these things cannot fall upon Eudoxia: they must moreover fall upon some one of the Roman pontiffs, to whom alone it belonged to dedicate churches in the City and to act in it as teachers and builders of souls. These things can indeed easily be said of Pope Celestine, who was certainly conspicuous for holiness, and is read to have made the basilica of Julius. But I am more inclined to refer them to Sixtus III, the last predecessor of our Leo. For first it is plain that the church, the feast day of whose dedication was then being kept,

<!-- note: Two items. (1) The italic line stands in col. 515 directly under the title and subtitle of SERMO XVIII (De sancto Petro. Quomodo de carcere eductus est.), above Cap. I of the sermon. (2) The ADMONITIO IN SERMONEM SEQUENTEM (on Sermo XIX) is printed full width across the foot of the page, below the rule that follows footnote (a), spanning cols 515-516; it is set here whole as far as the page goes. It breaks off mid-sentence at the last words of the page ("tunc dies agebatur,") and continues at the foot of the next page (to be set under Editors' prose in the notes of 517). Readings: the numbering runs 1º, 2º, 3º, 5º, 5º as printed (no 4º; the first numeral is a damaged 1º); "Sixum" is printed so (for Sixtum); "inquit" stands without a following comma twice, as printed; several commas are printed as raised or broken sorts (after "sumus", "Machabaeorum", "Sylvani") and are set as commas; "illius", "nequaquam possumus" and "Romae" are read through damaged type. Only this file was written: the removal of the admonition's quotations from the other lines of the notes of 515 and 516, and the pointer in 516, were NOT carried out here and remain to be done. Q8a re-read against the page: "existismamus" is printed so (for existimamus) and is now kept as printed (translated as existimamus); the italic markup of the quoted words was removed from the Latin and the English (unit rule: no italic markup). Left open by Q8a: "nequaquam" may be printed "nequaquem" (so the other line of 516 reads it): UNSURE, damaged type; and the unit rule would put the lower half of this full-width band (from "Huic autem sententiae") under col. 516, which was not done here. -->

(a) ‹anchor: circumdemus, dicente› · call in col 516

Non Apostolus, sed Christus ipse haec verba profert in Evangelio Lucae, XII, 35. EDIT.

It is not the Apostle but Christ Himself who utters these words, in the Gospel of Luke 12:35. EDITOR.

(printed under page 263)

(a) ‹anchor: call not visible in the page-foot bands; the note bears on the inscription quoted in the full-width Admonitio above› · call in col 517

Haec ergo Eudoxia, quae hoc templum civili bello destructum renovavit post Xystum, quaeque ibidem dicitur ab Hierusalem Romam detulisse vincula Petri, non est Eudoxia Valentiniani III uxor, ut Quesnellus putavit.

This Eudoxia, then, who restored this temple after Xystus when it had been destroyed in civil war, and who is said in the same place to have brought the chains of Peter from Jerusalem to Rome, is not Eudoxia the wife of Valentinian III, as Quesnel supposed.

(printed under page 264)

(b) ‹anchor: martyrum Machabaeorum (title; the call there is printed "(a)", the note is lettered "(b)")› · call in col 517

Quesnellus adjecit, et dedicatione Ecclesiae, eo quod in sermone etiam de Ecclesiae dedicatione agatur. Sed in nullis mss. haec additio invenitur.

Quesnel added "and on the dedication of the Church", because the sermon also treats of the dedication of the Church. But this addition is found in no manuscripts.

(printed under page 264)

(b) ‹anchor: Gratias, dilectissimi,› · call in col 517

Vulgati posteriores prima editione inserunt verbum agamus, quod delendum putavimus auctoritate primae editionis et nostrorum codicum collectionum 2, 3 et 4.

The printed texts later than the first edition insert the word agamus ("let us give"), which we have judged should be deleted on the authority of the first edition and of our codices of collections 2, 3 and 4.

(printed under page 264)

unam aliquam fuisse e praecipuis Romanae urbis basilicis; cujus encaenia ab universa plebe Romana tanta celebritate, tanta festivitatis magnificentia, tam conspiranti studio et devoto animo, tanto populi concursu recolebantur: talis erat procul dubio basilica S. Mariae Majoris, quae et S. Mariae ad Nives, et ad Praesepe, et Liberii basilica dicitur. Hanc autem a Sixto papa III denuo extructam fuisse et consecratam, testatur liber de Romanis pontificibus, et Adrianus papa in epistola ad Carolum Magnum. Hic fecit basilicam S. Mariae matris Domini, quae ab antiquis Liberti cognominabatur, inquit liber ille in Sixto III. De quo ita Adrianus: Sixtus papa, Coelestini successor, fecit basilicam sanctae Dei genitricis Mariae cognomento Majorem, quae et apud Praesepe dicitur. De qua basilica mira sunt quae referuntur a Petro Cluniacensi, Beda, et iis auctoribus qui de septem Urbis ecclesiis scripserunt. Deinde facile credi potest Leo in Sixti laudes erupisse ex occasione solemnitatis quoniam ab illo fuerat educatus, ei semper adhaeserat ut ejus diaconus, eidem proxime successerat ut cui in administrandis rebus ecclesiasticis egregiam navarat operam, cujus etiam recentior omnium erat memoria. Denique et ipse tamquam sanctitatis laude praeclarus inter vindicatos coelites ecclesiasticis tabulis inscriptus reperitur 28 die Martii, ut merito illius memoriam justo honore venerandam dixerit sanctus pontifex.

was some one of the principal basilicas of the city of Rome; whose dedication-feast was commemorated by the whole Roman people with so great a celebration, so great magnificence of festivity, with zeal so united and mind so devout, with so great a concourse of the people: such beyond doubt was the basilica of St Mary Major, which is also called St Mary of the Snows, and at the Manger, and the basilica of Liberius. Now that this was built anew and consecrated by Pope Sixtus III is attested by the book on the Roman pontiffs, and by Pope Adrian in his letter to Charlemagne. He made the basilica of St Mary the mother of the Lord, which by the ancients was surnamed that of Liberius, says that book under Sixtus III. Of whom Adrian speaks thus: Pope Sixtus, the successor of Celestine, made the basilica of the holy Mother of God Mary, surnamed the Greater, which is also called at the Manger. Of which basilica wonderful are the things related by Peter of Cluny, Bede, and those authors who have written on the seven churches of the City. Next, it can easily be believed that Leo broke out into praises of Sixtus on the occasion of the solemnity, since he had been brought up by him, had always clung to him as his deacon, had succeeded him immediately, as one to whom he had given outstanding service in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, and whose memory was moreover still fresh with all. Finally he too, as one renowned for the praise of sanctity, is found inscribed in the ecclesiastical tables among the acknowledged saints on the 28th day of March, so that the holy pontiff deservedly said that his memory is to be venerated with just honour.

« Unum est quod objici possit, nempe dedicationis S. Mariae solemnitatem alio die peragi, nempe nonis Augusti, nullamque e contra kalendis Augusti ascriptam esse solemnitatem dedicationis in hodierno Martyrologio Ramano, nisi S. Petri ad Vincula. Sed quid mirum, si per tot annorum decursum multa immutata esse reperiantur in ecclesiasticis hujusmodi tabulis, quarum etiam fides non usquequaque certa est et indubitata? Caeterum cum antiquissima illa basilica saepius propter vetustatem de novo suscitari, ac denuo consecrari indiguerit, sicut consuetudo poscebat ut ultimae ejus consecrationis dies inter festa haberetur, ita par erat ut primae constructionis et consecrationis illius memoria non periret, quae plurimis videlicet insignibusque miraculis toto orbe celebris evaserat. Ob eam, ut opinior, rationem illius dedicationis solemnitas, quae a Sixto peracta fuerat, a primo die Augusti ad quintum translata est, ut gemina solemnitas in unam coalesceret, nec festorum dierum numerus cum publicae rei incommodo excresceret. Praesertimque id decuit fieri ob aliam S. Petri ad Vincula dedicationem, cujus solemnitas eadem prima die Augusti celebranda occurrit. »

"One thing there is that could be objected, namely that the solemnity of the dedication of St Mary is kept on another day, namely on the nones of August, and that on the contrary no solemnity of a dedication is assigned to the kalends of August in the present-day Roman Martyrology except that of St Peter in Chains. But what wonder if, in the course of so many years, many things are found to have been changed in ecclesiastical tables of this kind, whose trustworthiness moreover is not in every respect certain and undoubted? Besides, since that most ancient basilica more than once, on account of its age, needed to be raised anew and consecrated again, just as custom required that the day of its last consecration should be held among the feasts, so it was fitting that the memory of its first building and consecration should not perish, which had indeed become famous throughout the whole world by very many and remarkable miracles. For that reason, as I think, the solemnity of that dedication which had been performed by Sixtus was transferred from the first day of August to the fifth, so that the twin solemnity might grow together into one, and the number of feast days not increase to the inconvenience of the commonwealth. And this was especially fitting to be done on account of the other dedication, that of St Peter in Chains, whose solemnity falls to be celebrated on the same first day of August."

Haec in hyposthesi qua sermo de Machabaeis Leonis esse credebatur, necessaria fuerunt. Supervacanea vero et inutilia in rem praesentem cognoscentur, si eumdem sermonem Leonis non esse demonstravimus. In vetustissimo enim Lectionario ms. Vaticano 3836, quod procul dubio Romanum fuit ad usum basilicae SS. Philippi et Jacobi, ubi alii genuini Leonis sermones ejus nomine inscribuntur, hic pagina 4, non Leoni, sed Augustino tribuitur hoc titulo: Incipit sermo S. Augustini de SS. Machabaeorum kal. Aug.: Quis Leoni Romano pontifici asserere audeat sermonem quem ipsa Romana Ecclesia hoc antiquissimo testimonio ab eodem abjudicat? Posteriorum itaque temporum errore factum est ut in collectionibus 2, 3 et 4, quae sequioris aetatis sunt, Leoni ascriberetur. Hoc unum documenta nobis evidentissimum est.

These things were necessary on the hypothesis by which the sermon on the Maccabees was believed to be Leo's. But they will be recognized as superfluous and useless for the present matter, if we have shown that the same sermon is not Leo's. For in the very ancient manuscript Lectionary Vatican 3836, which beyond doubt was a Roman one for the use of the basilica of SS. Philip and James, where other genuine sermons of Leo are inscribed with his name, this one, on page 4, is attributed not to Leo but to Augustine, under this title: Here begins the sermon of St Augustine on the holy Maccabees, kalends of August. Who would dare to claim for Leo, the Roman pontiff, a sermon which the Roman Church herself by this most ancient testimony adjudges away from him? It was therefore by the error of later times that in collections 2, 3 and 4, which are of a later age, it came to be ascribed to Leo. This one document is to us most evident.

Adde quod hic sermo solemnitatem Machabaeorum in ea urbe in qua habitus fuit celebrem indicat. In Africa quidem celebris fuisse cognoscitur tum ex Carthaginensi, veteri Kalendario, quod Mabillonius in Analectis vulgavit, tum ex Augustini serm. 300 et 301, de eodem festo editis, qui hujus quoque sermonis eum auctorem confirmare queunt. At Romae Leonis aetate nullum de Machabaeis festum celebratum fuisse, ex eo colligitur, quo nulla ejus festi Missa notetur kal. Augusti non solum in antiquissimo Sacramentario Leoni attributo, quod secundo tomo recudetur, verum etiam in priori Sacramentario Gregoriano, quod ex duobus mss. Ludovicus Muratorius typis impressit Liturgiae Rom. veter. tomo II. Quod si in vulgato Gelasiako istud festum astruitur, hoc non esse purum Sacramentarium Gelasianum, et nonnulla posteriora additamenta recepisse certum est, inter quae recensendam esse Missam de Machabeis, ex ipso Missae hujus defectu in posteriori Sacramentario Gregoriano quisque intelliget. Additio autem haec induci potuit ex aliqua Ecclesia ubi Machabaeorum festum peragebatur, uti Leonis quoque tempore peragebatur in Gallia; unde eorum festum signatur in Kalendario Polemii Silvii, quem Gallum scriptorem fuisse et scripsisse in Gallia probabimus in observationibus ad serm. 82, num. 4.

Add that this sermon indicates that the solemnity of the Maccabees was a celebrated one in the city in which it was delivered. In Africa indeed it is known to have been celebrated, both from the old Carthaginian Calendar, which Mabillon published in the Analecta, and from Augustine's sermons 300 and 301, delivered on the same feast, which are able to confirm him as the author of this sermon also. But that at Rome in Leo's time no feast of the Maccabees was celebrated is gathered from this, that no Mass of that feast is noted on the kalends of August, not only in the most ancient Sacramentary attributed to Leo, which will be reprinted in the second volume, but also in the earlier Gregorian Sacramentary, which Ludovico Muratori printed from two manuscripts in volume II of the Liturgia Romana vetus. But if in the published Gelasian that feast is set down, it is certain that this is not the pure Gelasian Sacramentary and that it has received some later additions, among which the Mass of the Maccabees is to be reckoned, as anyone will understand from the very absence of this Mass in the later Gregorian Sacramentary. Now this addition could have been brought in from some Church where the feast of the Maccabees was kept, as it was kept in Leo's time also in Gaul; whence their feast is marked in the Calendar of Polemius Silvius, whom we shall prove to have been a Gallic writer and to have written in Gaul, in the observations on sermon 82, no. 4.

Accedit inscriptio a pluribus edita et novissime recusa a P. abb. Monsacrato in opere de Catenis S. Petri pag. 48, in qua de templo S. Petri in Vinculis haec inter caetera leguntur:

There is in addition an inscription published by many and most recently reprinted by the Rev. Abbot Monsacrati in his work De Catenis S. Petri, page 48, in which, concerning the church of St Peter in Chains, these lines among others are read:

Hoc Domini templum Petro fuit ante dicatum, / Tertius antistes Systus sacraverat olim, / Civili bello destructum post fuit ipsum. / Eudoxia quidem totum renovavit ibidem: / Pelagius rursus sacravit papa beatus, / Corpora sanctorum condens ibi Machabaeorum.

This temple of the Lord was formerly dedicated to Peter; / the bishop Sixtus the Third had consecrated it of old; / afterwards it was itself destroyed in civil war. / Eudoxia indeed renewed the whole in the same place: / the blessed Pope Pelagius consecrated it again, / laying there the bodies of the holy Maccabees.

Si haec inscriptio esset antiqua, genuinamque referret historiam, ita ut ante Gregorium Machabaeorum celebritas sub Pelagio Romae coepisset, adhuc sermo Leoni tribui non posset. Tandem formula charissimi, quae initio capitis 3 inseritur, Augustino quidem familiaris, a Leonis autem consuetudine alienissima est; hocque indicium sermonem Leoni suppositum fuisse vehementius confirmat.

If this inscription were ancient and reported genuine history, so that the celebration of the Maccabees had begun at Rome under Pelagius, before Gregory, even so the sermon could not be attributed to Leo. Lastly, the formula charissimi, which is inserted at the beginning of chapter 3, is indeed familiar to Augustine, but most foreign to Leo's usage; and this sign confirms the more strongly that the sermon was falsely fathered on Leo.

<!-- note: Admonitio in sermonem XIX, end. The prose is printed across the full width of the page (cols 517–518), ABOVE the title of Sermo XIX; it begins mid-sentence, continued from the previous page. The first two paragraphs (roman on the page, the second closing with ») are the Ballerini's quotation; the rest (italic on the page, quoted words in roman) is their own; no italic markup is set, per the unit rule. Verses set on one line with ' / ' between the printed lines. Q3a moved this prose here from parts/c517_a.md, where it stood under a heading of its own: layer 1 is the sermon only. The whole band is set under col. 517; nothing of it stands under col. 518. --> In appendice nunc primum collocatus, quia non Leonis, sed Augustini est.

Now for the first time placed in the appendix, because it is not Leo's but Augustine's.

<!-- note: THIS FILE HOLDS ONLY THE NEW PARAGRAPH. No ep_517.md existed when this pass ran, so the admonition said to be already set in the notes of 517 was not found here and is NOT reproduced: it is printed across the full width of the page head (cols 517-518) and the column bands show only its left half, so it could not be re-set from these images. When merging, place this paragraph AFTER the end of that admonition (which ends "... sermonem Leoni suppositum fuisse vehementius confirmat."). Position on the page: the notice is italic, centred on two lines, in col. 517 proper, under the title SERMO XIX [Al. inter Leoninos serm. LXXXII]. and its rubric In Natali sanctorum septem fratrum martyrum Machabaeorum (a)., and directly above CAP. I. (Gratias, dilectissimi, Domino Deo nostro). The bold inner page number 453 before the title is not set. Only two lines of the sermon stand in the column below it, then footnotes (a) and (b), set elsewhere. English made fresh from the page; the part was not read in this pass. -->

(c) ‹anchor: convenistis, ut› · call in col 518

Cod. Barb. collect. 2, solemnitatis.

The Barberini codex of collection 2: solemnitatis ("of the solemnity").

(printed under page 264)

(d) ‹anchor: in qua et› · call in col 518

Ecclesiae natalis pro die dedicationis accipitur,

The "birthday of the church" is taken to mean the day of its dedication.

(printed under page 264)

(a) ‹anchor: felici exitu,› · call in col 519

Ms. Casanat., quos munitos praemisit; sed cum cod. Barb., pro hortatu habet ornatu.

The Casanatense manuscript: quos munitos praemisit ("whom she sent ahead fortified"); but, with the Barberini codex, it has ornatu ("adornment") for hortatu ("exhortation").

(printed under page 265)

(b) ‹anchor: in illo ordine› · call in col 519

Solus cod. Casanat., morientium.

The Casanatense codex alone: morientium ("of the dying").

(printed under page 265)

(c) ‹anchor: Sed haec› · call in col 519

Mss. Casanat. et Barb. collect. 2, ad infructuosam.

The Casanatense and Barberini manuscripts of collection 2: ad infructuosam ("for unfruitful").

(printed under page 265)

(d) ‹anchor: et tortor, quia› · call in col 519

Addidimus omnes ex mss. collect. 2 et 4.

We have added omnes ("all") from the manuscripts of collections 2 and 4.

(printed under page 265)

(e) ‹anchor: et omnes› · call in col 519

Editi ante Quesnellum, recursus, perperam.

The editions before Quesnel: recursus ("returns"), wrongly.

(printed under page 265)

(f) ‹anchor: humilitate calcari.› · call in col 519

Ms. Barb., Dissocia te ab ira.

The Barberini manuscript: Dissocia te ab ira ("Dissociate yourself from anger").

(printed under page 265)

(g) ‹anchor: fuge iniquitatem,› · call in col 519

Sic ex prima editione ac mss. collect. 2 et 3 Vulg., omitte falsitatem.

Thus from the first edition and the manuscripts of collections 2 and 3. The printed text: omitte falsitatem ("leave off falsehood").

(printed under page 265)

(h) ‹anchor: occiditur mundo,› · call in col 519

Editi, non terminatione sensum. Correximus ex duobus mss. collect. 2.

The editions: non terminatione sensum. We have corrected it from two manuscripts of collection 2.

(printed under page 265)

(i) ‹anchor: cupiditatum tentationibus› · call in col 519

Ita emendavit Quesnellus, ut etiam in nostris codicibus legitur. Al., creditis. Mox adverbium legitime sententiae maxime congruum adjecimus ex laudatis mss. collect. 2.

So Quesnel emended, as is also read in our codices. Others: creditis ("you believe"). Just after, we have added the adverb legitime ("rightly"), which suits the sentence very well, from the aforesaid manuscripts of collection 2.

(printed under page 265)

(j) ‹anchor: sed etiam› · call in col 519

Cum hic sermo a Leone habitus crederetur in ecclesia S. Petri in Vinculis, Sixtum III hujus ecclesiae consecrationem hoc loco designari omnes hactenus existimarunt; unde etiam Quesnellus postillam huic textui affixit Sixti III elogium. Sed cum hujus sermonis auctor sit Augustinus, ut in admonitione ostendimus, omnis de Sixto III opinio evanescit. Si vero ille ipsum sermonem in Hipponensi ecclesia recitavit, alicujus praedecessoris sui elogium hic attexere voluit. Cum porro idem doctor serm. 300 de Machabaeis disserens basilicam in eorum honorem Antiochiae quidem, non autem in ecclesia, ubi loquebatur, dedicatam memoret num. 6, in praesenti quoque sermone habito occasione dedicationis ecclesiae, quae in diem Machabaeis sacrum inciderat, de utroque argumento sanctorum martyrum et dedicationis sibi egisse videtur.

Since this sermon was believed to have been delivered by Leo in the church of St Peter in Chains, everyone until now has supposed that Sixtus III's consecration of this church is meant in this place; hence Quesnel too attached to this text the marginal note "Eulogy of Sixtus III". But since the author of this sermon is Augustine, as we have shown in the admonition, the whole opinion about Sixtus III vanishes. If indeed he delivered this very sermon in the church of Hippo, he wished to weave in here the eulogy of some predecessor of his. Moreover, since the same doctor, discoursing on the Maccabees in sermon 300, records at no. 6 that a basilica was dedicated in their honour at Antioch, to be sure, but not in the church where he was speaking, in the present sermon also, delivered on the occasion of the dedication of a church which had fallen on the day sacred to the Maccabees, he seems to have treated both subjects, the holy martyrs and the dedication.

(printed under page 265)