Sermons & Letters 96

We wish you to be circumspect and solicitous, lest presumption—which deserves to be punished—be able to claim anything for itself; which, when it has found entrance by a false stealth, extends itself to greater rashness under the name of a usurped dignity. We have learned by the certain report of your clerics that a certain Petronianus, a vagabond and always erratic, has boasted throughout Gaul that he is our deacon, and under the pretext of that honor has gone about the various Churches of that province. Whose so wicked audacity we wish your charity, dearest brother, so to oppose, that, the bishops of the whole province also having been warned, you may expel him, detected in his falsehood, from the communion of all the Churches, lest he usurp this any further.

May the Lord keep you unharmed, dearest brother. Given on the seventh day before the Kalends of September, in the consulship of the most illustrious men Asturius and Protogenes. 1. The two following letters, 43 and 44, written—as is presented—on the same matter and on the same day to the same emperor Theodosius, exhibit for the most part nearly the same, if you regard the Latin text, not only sentiments but even words. This has injected some suspicion of forgery. Furthermore, letter 43 labors under a manifest double fault. First, it presents a certain error against the truth of history in these words of chapter 1: These things have been ascertained by us from the most reverend bishops themselves, who were sent by us. For Julius, bishop of Puteoli, alone was sent as legate to the synod:

and moreover one Hilarus, a deacon, who fled from the pseudo-synod of Ephesus, is recorded in letters 44 and 45 to have reported the deeds in person to the pontiff, no mention ever being made of Julius himself. Then, in the same chapter 1, an open lacuna is detected. For since the words 'according to the judgment of the aforesaid priest' are referred to Dioscorus, they intimate that a mention of Dioscorus had preceded, as it does precede in letter 44; which mention, however, does not appear in letter 43. Wherefore this letter seemed to some to be repudiated as spurious, among whom Tillemont is to be read, note 31 on the life of Leo. 2.

But we, lest we should suspect this letter of forgery and falsehood, are compelled by the authority of the Greek Chalcedonian collection, in which this letter is described no less than letter 44. For although the Latin Chalcedonian collection, which, elaborated before the middle of the sixth century, exhibits this letter, could sufficiently vindicate the same letter, yet the Greek collection ought much more evidently to remove all suspicion, inasmuch as it was compiled in Leo's own lifetime, between the years 453 and 455, as we demonstrated in the preface to the letters, number 34. Therefore at this time there existed among the Greeks a Latin autograph of this letter, from which the Greek translation flowed.

A greater and more ancient testimony of genuineness cannot be desired, so that neither by any lacuna nor by any error—such as now appear in that letter—can it be called into doubt: otherwise other documents, which have come down to us with errors or lacunae, even if they were most certain from another source, could be repudiated or called into suspicion. 3. But while, on account of so great an authority, it stands that this letter 43 is not spurious; as regards those things which cause difficulty, even if it will not be permitted to define them equally certainly, yet it will be permitted to conjecture something not improbably. But first it must be premised, that hitherto indeed it had been presumed that letter 43, as it was edited in Latin from the Latin Chalcedonian collection, is itself the original Latin of St.

Leo, which the ancient collector found and inserted into his collection, as happened in most of the other letters of Leo, and especially in letter 44, whose original Latin, found by the same collector, was inserted into the Latin collection: which the chronological note affixed to this Latin letter seems able to confirm, which—since in the Greek version it was omitted according to the custom of the Greek translator—seems to be derived from the found original Latin. But that this presumption is false, and that the Latin text which we have of letter 43 is not the original, nor a copy of the original Latin, we have detected quite manifestly. For since in the Greek version of this letter there is that not small lacuna which we indicated a little before;

If the compiler of the Latin collection of Chalcedon had obtained a Latin copy to insert, the aforesaid lacuna would be read as filled in the Latin text of the letter itself, just as, from the Latin copy which he found of Letter 33 to Julian, four lacunae are known to have been supplied which are detected in the Greek translation of that same letter — although from these the sense of the letter itself is not equally corrupted, as the sense of Letter 43 is most damaged by a single one. Therefore the compiler did not supply in the Latin text of the Greek version the lacuna of this letter, precisely because he in no way found the Latin original or a copy of it.

Add to this that, had the compiler found a Latin copy, he would not only have supplied the lacuna but would also thereupon have corrected an error contrary to historical truth. For that the Latin exemplar found by him was equally faulty and mutilated, just as the Greek version is faulty and mutilated, is altogether incredible. Of the chronological note which is set before the Latin text we shall speak a little later. Since, then, the Latin compiler lacked the original or a Latin exemplar of this letter, and had before his eyes only the Greek version, we judge that the Latin text which he gave was thus put together by himself.

When he had found the Latin exemplar of Letter 44 alone — which presents many sentences similar to Letter 43 — wherever he detected things similar or nearly similar in both, refraining from translating the Greek text of this letter (which had to be regarded as standing in place of the original), he transcribed Latin words and whole periods from the Latin original of Letter 44 and adapted them to Letter 43. But where he perceived differing sentences which do not occur in Letter 44, as happens especially at the beginning of the letter, he was compelled to make a translation from the Greek. Indeed, an indication of translation is betrayed in certain passages of the first chapter, which depart not a little from Leo's manner of writing, and also in that imperial title at the beginning of the chapter.

— namely, 'tranquillissime principum' (most tranquil of princes) inserted at the beginning of chapter 2, which, being foreign to Leo's formulas and approaching more closely to the Greek phrasing, the same Tillemont perceived in the passage cited. Likewise the title 'reverendissimi' (most reverend), which in the first chapter is attributed to the bishops who are legates, is alien to Leo's usage and is recognized to flow from the Greek; for what is written in Greek as 'θεοφιλέστατος' is rendered in the ancient version of the Council of Chalcedon as 'reverendissimus.' 5. But if the Latin text, thus made up at will by the author of the Latin collection of Chalcedon, neither is nor can be held to be the original Leonine text,

then the whole investigation must revolve not around the Latin text but around the Greek, which, having proceeded from the original sent to the East, must — where the Latin original is lacking — be held in place of the original. And to those who weigh the Greek text it will become plain that not merely the opening of the letter differs from the opening of Letter 44, but that the whole missives diverge, so that, although similar sentences for the most part run together in both, yet in several though minute points they differ: which must be ascribed not to a different translation of the same missives, but to dissimilar Latin originals. For some sentences set forth in briefer words in the Greek of Letter 43 are more amply explained in Letter 44,

and they omit certain clauses which a translator would not have passed over; while others are set forth in a different manner as well — as, for example, is that passage: 'And let those whose case is graver either acquiesce in counsels or be cut off from the one Church' — which sentence is otherwise expressed in Letter 44 in these words: 'And let those very ones whose case is harsher, if they acquiesce in better counsels, not fall away from the unity of the Church.' This twofold manner of explaining the same sentence manifestly depends not on a different Greek translator of the same letter, but on a different Latin exemplar. From all this there is no room for doubt that Letter 43, which upon comparison of the Greek text is found to differ in so many chapters from Letter 44, is another letter;

and accordingly it was necessary to give a Latin translation of the Greek text, which stands in place of the original, not only that the manifest distinction might be evident to those less skilled in the Greek tongue, but also that this letter, which survives only in Greek, might be had in Latin. For the Latin text which we possess is neither the original nor a complete version, as we have seen, and for the most part presents Letter 44 rather than Letter 43. 6. It must indeed be admitted that in the Greek text, besides the lacuna and the historical error which we mentioned at the outset, other passages are found either dislocated and corrupted, or at any rate obscure and entangled.

But that the historical error can be corrected by an easy change of two letters in the Greek text, yet in no way in the old Latin translation, and that it must be ascribed to an ancient copyist rather than to the Greek translator, we shall observe in note 5. As for the lacuna which is evident in the first chapter, whether it derives from a leap of the translator or rather of the amanuensis cannot be determined. But the other passages, dislocated or entangled and convoluted, proceed partly perhaps from the amanuensis, partly indeed from the unskilled translator himself — which, however, is common to other Greek versions inserted in this collection;

for again and again the Greek translator, on account of his unskilfulness in the Latin speech, did not very exactly attain the author's meaning, and rendered certain passages less correctly, which are known — to those who thoroughly understand the Latin tongue, from a comparison of the originals that survive — to have had to be rendered otherwise. But what these obscure and entangled passages signify according to Leo's mind can indeed be gathered from the Latin original of Letter 44, which presents similar sentences; yet the same words are not to be transferred from this into Letter 43, as the Latin compiler did. For although it was Leo's custom sometimes to renew the same letter, and not only to carry the same sentences but almost the same words over into a later copy, as is plain from Letters 30 and 31 to Pulcheria,

since nevertheless he was also accustomed to add, or subtract, or alter certain things, it is uncertain whether anything of the kind occurred in the passages mentioned. Only in the notes will it be permitted to indicate the words which either seem to need supplying or will open up Leo's mind — yet in such a way that we cannot affirm that they were inserted into this letter by him. Thus have been resolved either all, or at least the chief, of the difficulties which were urged against this letter, so that even from this there is nothing to be doubted concerning its genuineness. 7. But in that question, why two letters so similar were delivered to the same emperor, Quesnel surmised that Letter 43 was perhaps the exemplar of Letter 44, which, with some things changed, holy

Leo sent to the Augusta Pulcheria; for in Letter 45, writing to her, he testifies that he is sending her such an exemplar. But on the hypothesis of the same chronological notation in each letter this can appear to be said cleverly enough, yet not probably; for it is most likely that Leo sent to Pulcheria an exemplar corresponding to the original delivered to Theodosius. The hypothesis, moreover, of the same day marked in the letter depends on the Latin text, which we have already shown not to be proper to this letter but taken from Letter 44. But this hypothesis being rejected, it can be conjectured that it happened thus. The holy pontiff first wrote Letter 43.

This letter, in all the Greek codices, both Venetian and Vatican, as well as in those which the old Latin translator, that is Rusticus, saw, is consistently written in the first place before Letter 44 — which is an indication of earlier time; but after some days, when those to whom Letter 43 had been delivered had already departed, holy Leo, with some things changed and several things added, renewed the same, and gave it to others to carry, so that, the former having been (if it could be done) recalled or suppressed, they might offer this one to Theodosius; and he joined a copy of it to a letter written to Pulcheria. Thus it further came about that both reached the East, and both were found and inserted by the Greek author of the Chalcedonian collection. 8.

At length something must be said about the canon which, though in the printed editions of the councils it is subjoined to the Greek version of Letter 44 (because this was, at the editors' discretion, published in the first place), yet in the codices is annexed to this Letter 43, which in the same, as we have already said, is written in the first place. Since the holy pontiff mentions in Letter 44 the decrees of the canons held at Nicaea as subjoined below, he seems to have subjoined not one canon only, but several — namely those which, enacted concerning appeal in the Council of Sardica, were, by the ancient custom of the Latin and especially the Roman Church, added to the Nicene canons and circulated under the name of the Nicene canons. But since the same pontiff

was accustomed to employ the plural number — e.g., 'letters,' 'exemplars,' etc. — to signify a single letter or a single exemplar, as we saw in note 3 on Letter 13 (col. 664) and on Letter 45 (col. 833e), here too by the praised words of the plural number he must be said to have indicated the single fourth canon of that same Council of Sardica, because this one canon the old Greek translator rendered, as all the Greek codices show. Similarly, when Galla Placidia in Letter 56 alleged in the plural number 'according to the definitions of the Nicene council,' she intimated the single fifth Sardican canon, as is noted in the margin of the editions. Further, in the editions of the councils, from some Roman codex this title is prefixed to the canon, which is not read in three Venetian manuscripts:

'Ἀντίτυπον ἐν τῶν, ἐν οἷς' — that is, in Latin: 'A copy of the council in the place of the Novi, where they spoke.' But the canon, corrected to the Venetian codices, is thus reported: (Greek text) — and in Latin thus: 'Bishop Gaudentius said: If it please you, let it be added to this sentence which you have set forth full of holiness, that whenever another (read: some) bishop shall have been deposed by the judgment of the bishops, and shall have proclaimed that his cause be treated in the city of the Novi, but another bishop in the same chair, after the appeal of him who is seen to be deposed — that in no way can the cause be held as valid in the other place, unless there it receive its conclusion from the judges.'

The true Latin Sardican canon will demonstrate the utterly corrupt translation of that Latin canon which holy Leo subjoined to his letter. We produce it from those most ancient codices and collections of canons in which — since the Sardican canons, by the custom of the Roman Church, are reckoned among the Nicene — it seems beyond doubt that the reading taken from them is that which Leo appended to his letter: 'Bishop Gaudentius said: It must be added, if it please you, to this sentence which you have set forth full of holiness, that when some bishop shall have been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who dwell in neighboring places, and shall have proclaimed that his business must be treated in the city of Rome, another bishop in his (or

the same) chair, after the appeal of him who is seen to be deposed, is in no way to be ordained (some codices add: in his place), unless the cause shall have been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop. Now if you compare this true canon with the Greek version which we have given, you will detect the omission of these words, 'who dwell in neighboring places,' and the sentence most convoluted at the end: and therefore the words 'in the city of Rome' wrongly rendered 'ἐν τῶν' — 'in the city of the Novi' — and the words 'in the judgment of the Roman bishop' rendered 'there by the judges,' so that there is no mention of the city of Rome or of its bishop; whether this happened by chance or by design, let others judge. Rightly, therefore, the Roman editors noted:

'The translator of that time rendered the canon into Greek together with the letter quite corruptly and defectively, just as also the other letters of the same blessed Leo which are inserted in this Council of Chalcedon.' Now let us first present the Greek translation together with its Latin rendering; then we shall subjoin the ancient Latin edition which came forth from the manuscripts of the Chalcedonian collection, although this cannot be held for the original letter of Leo.