講道與書信 第 81 章 第 2/3 段

so that, except by his consent, a council of another province be not appointed by your holiness, and that he be honoured by all of you, as his age and probity demand, the metropolitans' dignity of their own privilege being preserved. For it is equitable, nor does any injury seem to be done to the brethren, if to those who precede in antiquity of priesthood, according to the merit of their age, deference be given in their provinces by the rest of the priests. May God keep you safe, dearest brethren. To Aetius, illustrious man, count and master of both services, and patrician. It is certain both for us and for our empire that our sole protection is in the favour of the supernal Godhead, toward the meriting of which the Christian faith and the religion venerable to us especially lend their support.

Since therefore the merit of St. Peter (who is the prince of the episcopal crown), and the dignity of the Roman city, and also the authority of the sacred synod, have confirmed the primacy of the Apostolic See, let not presumption strive to attempt anything unlawful beyond the authority of that See. For then at last will the peace of the Churches everywhere be preserved, if the whole body acknowledge its ruler. Since these things have hitherto been inviolably guarded, Hilary of Arles, as we have learned by the faithful report of the venerable man Leo the Roman pope, with contumacious daring attempted certain unlawful things by presuming them; and therefore an abominable tumult invaded the transalpine Churches, as a most recent example especially attests.

For Hilary, who is called bishop of Arles, without consulting the pontiff of the Roman Church of the City, by mere rashness usurped and invaded the judgments and ordinations of bishops.

For he incompetently removed some, and indecently ordained others with the citizens unwilling and resisting. And since he was not easily received by those who had not chosen him, he drew to himself an armed band, and either encircled the enclosures of the walls in hostile fashion by siege, or forced them open by assault, and led those who were to preach peace to the seat of quiet through wars. These things being committed both against the majesty of the empire and against the reverence of the Apostolic See, and examined in order by the cognizance of the religious man the pope of the City, a definite sentence was pronounced against him and concerning those whom he had ill-ordained. And that sentence indeed would have been valid throughout the Gauls even without imperial sanction.

For what would not be permitted in the Churches to so great a pontifical authority? But this reason has approved our precept also: that no longer be it permitted, either to Hilary (whom hitherto the humanity of a gentle prelate suffers to be called bishop) or to anyone else, to mingle arms with ecclesiastical matters, or to oppose the precepts of the Roman prelate. For by such daring the faith and reverence of our empire is violated. And we remove not only this—which is of the greatest criminality—but, lest even a slight disturbance arise among the Churches,

or the discipline of religion seem to be diminished in any respect, we decree by this perpetual sanction: that it be permitted neither to the Gallican bishops nor to those of other provinces to attempt anything against ancient custom without the authority of the venerable man the pope of the eternal City. But let this be as law to them and to all: whatever the authority of the Apostolic See has sanctioned or shall sanction; so that whosoever of the bishops, summoned to the judgment of the Roman prelate, shall have neglected to come, be compelled to attend through the moderator of that same province: all things being preserved which our divine parents conferred upon the Roman Church. Enacted [and dated]…

Whence your illustrious and distinguished magnificence, by the authority of the present edictal law, shall cause the things established above to be observed, a fine of ten pounds of gold being forthwith exacted from every judge who shall have allowed our precepts to be violated. And in the divine hand: May the Godhead keep you safe for many years, dearest parent. Given the 7th before the Ides of July at Rome, in the consulship of Valentinian Augustus for the 6th time and of Nomus, most distinguished man. 1. Since a threefold notable variety, by which the following letter is wont to be found in the manuscript codices, and which thence has issued into the editions in a threefold reasoning or form, casts in very much difficulty;

and since, moreover, the disputation of Quesnel, inserted among his notes and observations—by which he strove to retain and defend one reasoning, but to reject the other two, and to cast away a great part of the letter as an addition fabricated by some impostor—so increases the difficulty, that without any new codex, which might properly reconcile the whole matter, it seems impossible to establish and publish anything certain. 2. The first form of the letter, edited by Merlin and Sichard, and to be edited by us also in the second place, produces the letter only up to the middle chapter and no further, and terminates with those words of the same chapter, 'let us punish with just vengeance hereafter.' This same form is found in the manuscript codices

of collection 5 published by Quesnel, of which he mentions two, the Thuanean and the Puteanean; but we can add two of the Caesarean library, marked no. 39 and 42. It exists also in the manuscripts of collection 10 of Isidore, and of collection 12, to which pertains that codex which alone among the later collections exhibits this form of the letter; and moreover among codices of this kind are to be reckoned the Victorine, the Regniacensis, and that of St. Martin of Auxerre, which, the same annotator noting, present the same collection 24 with the letter of this form. To these codices Quesnel in the second edition added two others, the description of which he received from Rome after the first impression, namely Barberini 77 and 2888.

The first of these, likewise examined and collated by us, is of about the twelfth century, and contains various small works even of a later age, but from Leo exhibits this one letter only. The other, most ancient and written in majuscule letters, comprises the old collection 3, to which we found another similar in the very ancient Vatican 1342. We have moreover obtained this same form of the abridged letter (for so we shall call it) in three other collections, namely in the manuscript Vatican Reginensis collection 1, in the old Lucca codex collection 3, and in the like Colbertine 784, which is praised by Coustant in the preface to the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, no. 89; and moreover in the manuscripts of the Spanish collection 9, Vatican 1341 and Vindobonensis

Caesareus 41, to pass over several other written exemplars of the aforesaid collections 10, 12 and 24, which we have reviewed in the preface to the letters. Thus eight collections—1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12 and 24—together with the peculiar codex Barberini 77, exhibit this first form of the letter. 3. The second form of the same was edited first by Wendelin, then by Pithou, and at last by Voel and Justel in the collection of Dionysius Exiguus. But this omits three whole chapters—the sixth, seventh, and eighth—which are exhibited in the first abridged form; and to the last words of the same first form, 'let us punish with just vengeance hereafter,' it adds the rest, which are carried on to the end of the entire letter. This form is exhibited in all the manuscript codices

of that collection which are called Dionysian, but ought more truly to be called Hadrianean, since all these codices truly pertain to the Hadrianean collection 7, namely to that which Pope Hadrian I, enlarged beyond the Dionysian by some additions, handed over to Charlemagne for the use of the western Churches. Hence very many copies of this collection are found everywhere, which maintain this form of the letter. Quesnel praised only two Thuanean Gallican codices; but P. Coustant, in the preface cited at no. 128, mentions many more diffused throughout the Gauls, among which one is of the year 805. We ourselves also saw many ancient ones at Rome, which we named in the preface to the letters, no. 16.

To these may also be added the codices of collection 8, indicated at no. 17, which exhibit the Hadrianean collection at the beginning. 4. The third form of the edition, blended from both the previous ones—which edition we shall call the mixed—is found one way in the manuscripts, another in the printed editions. For in the codices which we saw, chapters 6, 7, 8, and half of the ninth being omitted, the whole Hadrianean edition is first exhibited, nearly with the chronological note 'Given the 4th before the Ides of August.' Then there are subjoined, as an appendix, the omitted chapters mentioned, taken from the first abridged edition down to its end, so that those words are repeated: 'Since therefore concerning all, etc.,' which in the abridged edition close the letter, but in the Hadrianean had been inserted in their place in the ninth chapter.

This reading Quesnel found in two Thuanean manuscripts and one Cantabrigian; we found it in the manuscripts of four collections, 11, 20, and 23, to which we do not doubt the three codices praised by Quesnel are to be referred. Collection 11, from which the other collections seem to have taken this form of the edition, is especially to be considered, since it is more ancient than the age of Hincmar, as we have proved in the preface to the letters, no. 23. In one codex only, the Venetian St. Mark 79 of collection 22, we obtained this third reasoning without the repetition of the final chapter 'Since therefore concerning all, etc.,' so that to the Hadrianean reading only three chapters omitted from the abridged edition are subjoined, down to those words, 'or to have lost even the body.'

But in the editions of Leo prior to Quesnel, and in the vulgate editions of the Councils which proceeded from codices of this third reading, the editors, since they had detected this form to be incongruous—both on account of the chronological note placed before the three chapters 6, 7 and 8, and on account of the importunate repetition of the period 'Since therefore concerning all'—gave first, supported by the authority of no codices, the Hadrianean edition, except the last period, 'But if there are indeed other causes,' terminating with those words, 'he should except him who was being consecrated'; then they subjoined from the abridged edition the three chapters 6, 7 and 8, omitting the repetition of the period 'Since therefore concerning all'; and finally, after the words of the eighth chapter, they rejected the period,

'But if there are other causes, etc.,' together with the chronological note, with which they concluded the letter. 5. Hence indeed it is no wonder if Quesnel, solicitous about correcting, from the trustworthiness of the codices, the errors of the vulgate edition of St. Leo, repudiated this printed edition, which relies on no manuscripts. But since he perceived so great a variety in the codices themselves, and could obtain no single codex which might suggest a fitting manner of reconciling all things, the first form of the edition—which he saw in the more ancient collections, and described in manuscript—

he judged should be retained and vindicated. But the second form, that of the Hadrianean edition, he the more willingly rejected, because in it certain prerogatives of the Roman See are put forward—toward which, since he was not well disposed, he seemed to himself to see an open interpolation, and several degrees of imposture in the additions of that edition (as he calls them), which he set forth most fully in his notes.

6. But those who, not being equally hostile toward the privilege of the Roman pontiffs, even though imbued with Gallican principles, called Quesnel's notes to account, judged indeed that the abridged edition of the first Form was to be approved, yet did not on that account think the additions of the Hadrianic edition should be rejected, nor did they consider what Quesnel brings forward against them to be either effective or convincing. Among these Stephen Baluze, in volume II of the Capitularies, page 1249, having weighed his arguments, declared: 'I see nothing contrary to the discipline then received in the Roman Church.'

But although Quesnel, in his second edition, dismissed this observation of Baluze as feeble and unworthy of a reply, on the ground that Baluze, there treating the matter only incidentally, did not think fit to set forth his proofs more fully in the manner of a dissertation, nevertheless how firm and well-grounded what he affirmed ought to be held will be made plain from those things which we shall note upon Quesnel's remarks.

Coustant, who read both Quesnel's first and second editions, and whose great skill and critical judgement in the celebrated edition of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs is acknowledged by all the learned, not only held as genuine the fragment of the Hadrianic edition rejected by Quesnel, but even, at the beginning of the second volume which he had prepared for publication, undertook to vindicate that same fragment from Quesnel's censures, as Fr. Simon Mopinot testifies in his letter Concerning the new edition of the Letters of the Supreme Pontiffs, printed in the year 1724, where, having indicated the chapters of the second volume in which Coustant chiefly laboured, these things are related concerning the Letters of Leo:

To the same pope will be restored certain letters rashly consigned to the class of the spurious, among which holds no lowly place that noteworthy fragment concerning the appeal of bishop Lupicinus to the Apostolic See, wrongly, as it seems, inserted into the first letter (in our numbering the 12th, to the Africans). There is a fragment of this letter contained in the Hadrianic edition, which is struck out by Quesnel. 7. From these words of Fr. Mopinot it is clear that Coustant certainly wished to defend this fragment. Yet he seems to have believed that it was not to be inserted into the letter itself, but to be appended to it as an addition, as those very words of Coustant himself in volume I of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, page 969, note (a), also suggest,

in which, about to adduce this Leonine and genuine fragment as it was to be published by him in the second volume, he uses these words: 'In the additions to the first letter of Leo.' This arose from the fact that he found no manuscript presenting the whole and genuine reading and form of this letter, whereby a proper place might be assigned to that fragment. But this fortune has happily fallen to us. For by the very kind favour of Fr. Lector Philippus Maria Serenus of the Order of Preachers, a copy of this letter was communicated to us, transcribed with the greatest diligence from a particular Florentine manuscript, marked collection 13, number 182, of the twelfth century, concerning whose more ancient and pre-eminent origin as regards the Letters of Leo we have said enough in the preface, number 29.

But in this copy all the words of both the abridged and the Hadrianic edition, which stand forth in so many ancient manuscripts and are manifestly of the Leonine style throughout, are duly connected in one natural context, so that nothing is excluded and nothing is perverted. 8. The manuscripts for the abridged edition, whether produced by Quesnel or discovered by us, on which chiefly his argument rests, prove this one thing only: that this part of the letter is genuine; they do not, however, demonstrate that the whole letter is thereby exhibited. And that this may seem strange to no one, let him consider other things similarly abridged in the same manuscripts and collections. Thus the manuscript books of the Spanish and Isidorian collection, and the manuscripts also of the Works and Letters of St.

Leo, collection 24, which present this letter in abridged form, likewise offer in abridged form the letter of St. Peter Chrysologus to Eutyches, indeed deficient in its middle part, which nevertheless is read entire in all the codices of the Council of Chalcedon, both Greek and Latin, of collection 17. In all collections too, and in the Latin manuscripts, the Council of Sardica is presented mutilated, without the three final canons which are contained in the Greek exemplars. In codex Vatican 1341, and in three other Gallican codices praised by Coustant (Volume I of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, p.

772), which present the Spanish collection of Innocent I, the letter to the bishops of the Synod of Toledo is abridged, since in it there are lacking sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and even part of the first section. In the manuscripts of the Hadrianic collection only the beginning is written out of the letter of Hormisdas to the presbyters, deacons, and archimandrites of the second Syria, which the manuscripts of the most excellent collection 14 have preserved entire. And, to pass over other things of the same kind, in Quesnel's own collection 5, number 51, the letter of Gelasius to the Orientals is brought forth curtailed at its head. Why then could not the letter of Leo to the Africans likewise be presented mutilated? 9.

The copy of this letter, indeed, which is read in the Hadrianic collection without the three chapters of the abridged edition and with another longer addition, granted that it was not inserted into his collection by Dionysius, as Quesnel most aptly conjectured in his notes, nay, even if it had been added to that collection about the time of Gregory II, as he supposed, namely about the beginning of the eighth century, cannot on that account be proved to be interpolated or spurious. For in all the documents which are read inserted in the Hadrianic collection, nothing apocryphal or interpolated is detected.

But since the style of this letter and its whole context are wholly in keeping with Leo, and since the arguments raised by Quesnel prove nothing—as will be apparent from our observations upon his notes—it is permitted to doubt the authenticity and genuineness of this single document only rashly. 10. Nor let the absence of the three chapters 6, 7, and 8 cause difficulty, which are extant in the abridged edition and are known to be genuine from the most ancient manuscripts and collections. For the adduced examples of similar deficiencies, which we indicated a little before in other documents of excellent collections, show that such deficiencies are not infrequent.

The celebrated letter 14 of Leo, to Anastasius, which is entire in several collections, we have found written out in two ancient manuscripts, Vatican 1347 and Vatican Palatine 579, with the third and fourth chapters omitted; and if other codices or collections had taken it from these, they would present a like deficiency, nor could it on that account be called into suspicion. Are not certain letters of Gelasius also, in some collections, shorter than they were published in the Councils? Most famous is that pontiff's letter to the Dardanians, which not only in Quesnel's collection 5, chapter 50, but also in almost all the manuscripts

of other ancient collections, lacks three longer and nine shorter members, which nevertheless are read in the manuscripts of the most excellent collection 14, and thence were published in the Roman edition of the Letters of the Pontiffs and in the volumes of the Councils; and it cannot be doubted that Facundus of Hermiane used this fuller exemplar. But just as in the manuscripts mentioned a little before, of the letter of Innocent I to the Toledans, only the general decrees being retained, the rest which pertain to individual causes and persons were omitted, so this same thing seems to have pleased the author of the Hadrianic collection in this letter of Leo: for the three omitted chapters concern individual persons and causes. 11.

Furthermore, it is not true, as Quesnel supposed, that this edition of the letter was added to the Dionysian codex in the age of Gregory II, on the ground that the most recent document of the Hadrianic codex pertains to this Gregory. For among the Vatican codices we find one marked number 5845, containing the pure collection of Dionysius, which Coustant praised as most rare, and which ends in the letters of Anastasius II. But in this codex, which is most ancient, and which prefixes to the Decretals the letter of Dionysius to the presbyter Julian, found in this one manuscript alone,

and edited from it, after the pure collection of Dionysius has been written out, there is appended in the same ancient hand an appendix, in which first are placed three councils of Pope Symmachus, one of the year 501, another of the year 502, and a third of the year 499; then are brought forward the titles of six decrees of Pope Hilary, two of Simplicius, and one of Felix; and after the titles the decrees themselves are recited: all of which were afterwards inserted into the Hadrianic collection each in its own place according to the order of the times. But after the decree of Felix, on page 155, is written the letter of Leo with this title: 'In the cause of bishop Lupicinus: Leo to all the bishops established throughout Caesarean Mauretania. Whereas concerning ordinations,' and the rest, with the same form and reading as the Hadrianic edition.

To this letter of Leo, on page 157, is subjoined: 'Letter of Zosimus directed to the presbyters of Ravenna. Admonition of Zosimus to the presbyters and deacons who are at Ravenna. From the report,' etc., which is read in the same Hadrianic codex. Finally, after this letter, as a new addition, there follows a table of 79 chapters, and the documents themselves are subjoined after the table. Of these it must be spoken more fully elsewhere. For now let it suffice to mention the five earlier documents, which are brought forward thus. Page 159. I. Justin Augustus to Hormisdas. 'As we have always been,' etc. Page 160. II. A copy of the petitions from the clergy and monks of Antioch, Jerusalem, etc., to Justin. 'Draw water with gladness,' etc. Page 161. III.

Hormisdas to the presbyters, deacons, and archimandrites of the second Syria. 'The letters having been read,' etc. On the same page: 'Here begin the constitutions of Pope Gregory the younger. In the name of the Lord,' etc. These documents too are neither more nor fewer than those which are found added in the Hadrianic manuscripts to the Dionysian collection, and inserted each in its own place in chronological order. But from the different manner in which they are subjoined in this codex to the pure Dionysian collection, it becomes plain that all were not added together at one and the same time, but at least at two: first the documents prefixed to the table of 79 chapters, then the five first chapters of this table. These last, which end with Gregory II, could have been added in the age of this pontiff or a little after.

But the same is not to be thought of those documents which, prefixed to this table, pertain to much more ancient pontiffs, and were perhaps added a little after the death of Symmachus, who is the last among the pontiffs whose decrees are recited in that first appendix: and in the first place indeed the councils of that same pontiff are referred to, because this pontiff was of more recent memory, whence perhaps by a special formula he is called 'of holy memory' in the title of the synod of 502—which also seems to indicate that this addition was subjoined in the very city of Rome.

For indeed, if these documents prefixed to the table of 79 chapters had been added after the death of Hormisdas, the collector would not have separated the monuments of this pontiff also from the documents of Symmachus, his immediate predecessor, nor would he have left them to be subjoined by the collector of the second appendix. 12. But if these observations and conjectures be judged probable, as indeed they seem to us, then the addition of Leo's letter to the Africans, afterward inserted into the Hadrianic collection together with the disputed fragment, is carried back to about the time of Dionysius, since he too flourished at Rome after Symmachus, under Hormisdas;

and thus it is made true that this letter came to be added to the Dionysian collection about the fiftieth year after Leo, so that it seems to be of the utmost rashness (we use Quesnel's words in his notes at the beginning of this letter) to suspect that authentic codices were lacking to one writing and collecting in the very city of Rome. For just as there is no doubting concerning the added letter of Zosimus, or concerning the councils of Symmachus, so neither is there room for uncertainty concerning this letter of Leo, which was added at the same time by the same author. And hence the origin of the Hadrianic collection is uncovered;

for nothing else was done in it except that, with the order of the times preserved, certain documents were inserted into the Dionysian collection which by a twofold addition and at a twofold time had been subjoined to this collection long before the pontificate of Hadrian, with the order disturbed. 13. Furthermore, the excellent Florentine codex of St. Mark, collection 13, presents the letter entire, drawn from the abridged and the Hadrianic edition. Nor is it strange that in a single codex, or collection, this letter should be found entire, which in all the others of the more ancient collections is read variously mutilated or imperfect. For the aforesaid letter of Gelasius to the Dardanians too is shorter in several and those ancient codices and collections, and is found longer in collection 14 alone.

But the same Florentine codex represents the parts of the abridged and the Hadrianic editions rightly placed each in its own position. For first it exhibits the whole abridged edition together with those three chapters 6, 7, and 8 also, which had been omitted in the Hadrianic; then to the final words of the same abridged edition it fittingly and most congruously subjoins, in 'in these more particularly to dwell,' and the rest of that fragment, which in the Hadrianic is supplied down to the end. Add that this Florentine codex not only has this Hadrianic fragment, which is wrongly believed by Quesnel to be spurious, but also for the most part exhibits the Hadrianic readings in those chapters likewise which are common to the abridged and the Hadrianic editions.

Quesnel, who rejects the Hadrianic form and extols the codices of the abridged edition, in not a few places preferred the Hadrianic readings to the readings of the abridged edition, which accords ill with his own hypothesis. For thus the one differs from the other in some places, so that they diverge not merely in some single word, but in whole members and sentences. And this casts upon us the most vehement suspicion that a twofold copy of this letter was found among the writings of Leo himself, from which so great a discrepancy arose. For the variants of one or another word can indeed be attributed to the drowsiness or caprice of copyists, especially when they corrupt the sense or the style.

But so great a variety of words and sentences, which, although sometimes set forth in more words, nevertheless everywhere reflects the style of the same author (especially if it be detected not in all, nor in many, but in one or another little work only), seems to be attributed not to copyists but to the author himself, who, having at some point emended or even enlarged the same work written by his first hand, wrote it again with second care, with different words and sentences introduced. 14. Fr. Coustant believed that that discrepancy which we mentioned in the letter of Gelasius to the Dardanians, which in some codices is shorter, in others fuller, depended on this: that that same letter had issued forth from Gelasius himself under a twofold form;