{"slug":"tmp895.tmp895.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp895.tmp895.opp-lat1","title":"De Epistolis Deperditis","title_source":"De Epistolis Deperditis","author":"SS Leo I. Magnus","genre":"letter","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T07:21:36Z","cost_usd":0.017752},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp895.tmp895.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp895.tmp895.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp895/tmp895/tmp895.tmp895.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":38,"english_words":8672,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":36386,"commentary_units":214,"commentary_kinds":10,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":59,"work_notes":5,"external_links":0,"timeline":4},"summary":{"work":"tmp895.tmp895.opp-lat1","abstract":"De Epistolis Deperditis is a collection of lost letters attributed to Pope Leo I (r. 440–461), preserved only in later manuscript copies. The letters address ecclesiastical disputes, jurisdictional questions, and doctrinal matters, reflecting Leo's active role in shaping Western church governance. Several were excerpted in canonical collections like the Dionysiana and cited in medieval conciliar decrees. The edition does not collate all known witnesses, and some letters are of disputed authenticity.","historical_context":"The letters date from Leo I's pontificate (440–461), a period of significant papal centralization and doctrinal controversy, including the Council of Chalcedon (451). They survive only in later manuscripts, with no autograph or contemporary witness. The collection was transmitted through canonical collections and medieval copies, often excerpted for legal precedents. The letters reflect Leo's involvement in Gallic and German church affairs, such as the dispute between Hilarius of Arles and the bishop of Vienne over metropolitan rights. The community is the Latin-speaking Western church, with the letters serving as instruments of papal authority. The genre is epistolary, but the deperdita status means the original texts are lost, reconstructed from citations and excerpts.","significance":"This collection is crucial for understanding Leo I's exercise of papal authority and the development of canon law. The letters were cited as precedents for papal jurisdiction over episcopal privileges and in medieval conciliar decrees. They also illuminate 5th-century ecclesiastical politics in Gaul and Germany, particularly the role of chorepiscopi and metropolitan disputes.","timeline":[{"date":"440–461","event":"Pontificate of Leo I; letters composed."},{"date":"5th–6th c.","event":"Letters excerpted in canonical collections like the Dionysiana."},{"date":"Medieval period","event":"Letters cited in conciliar decrees and canon law."},{"date":"Undated","event":"Manuscript copies made; no autograph survives."}],"relations":[{"work":"Dionysiana","relation":"Excerpts of these letters appear in this canonical collection.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Letters of Leo I (extant)","relation":"Part of the same corpus; deperdita are lost counterparts.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon","relation":"Leo's letters influenced and were cited in conciliar acts.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Quesnel's dissertation","relation":"Referenced in the edition for full text of some letters.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["Dating relies on internal references and manuscript colophons; no contemporary witnesses survive.","Some letters are of disputed authenticity; the edition notes doubts only in individual apparatus.","The edition does not collate all known manuscript witnesses; variant readings are not systematically reported."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000348,"generated":"2026-11-15T07:21:36Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp895/tmp895/tmp895.tmp895.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp895.tmp895.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":38,"translated":38,"commentary_passages":38,"commentary_units":214,"english_words":8672,"source_letters":35974,"commentary_kinds":10},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The letters survive only in later manuscript copies; no autograph or contemporary witness is extant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Dating of the deperdita relies on internal references to events in Leo’s pontificate (440–461) and on manuscript colophons.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Several of these letters were excerpted in canonical collections (e.g., the Dionysiana) and cited in medieval conciliar decrees.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The edition does not collate all known manuscript witnesses; variant readings from later recensions are not systematically reported.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Some letters attributed to Leo in this collection are of disputed authenticity; the edition notes doubts only in individual apparatus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: letter in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 38 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":38},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"DE EPISTOLIS DEPERDITIS\n\nTum S. Leonis ad alios, tum aliorum ad S. Leonem, ac de aliis monumentis ad epistolas perti-nentibus, dispositis ordine chronologico.\n\nEPISTOLA I.\n\nAd episcopos Gallicanos provinciæ Viennemis.\n\nDilectissimis fratribus per Gallias et Viennensemprovinciam episcopis constitutis, LEO episcopus.\n\nQuali pertinacia Hilarius Arelatensis episcopus judicium nostrum effugerit, sancta vestra fraternitas non ignorat. Unde et justum esse videmus,ut quia principis apostolorum magnam in judiciis modera tionem, quam in potestate per vicarios suos semper exhibet, Arelatensis episcopus. non exspectavit, a privilegio suæ civitatis submotus humili loco discat, quod in magno gratis munere prædecessorum nostrorum concesso tenere noluit.Sitque redintegantum Viennensi archiepiscopo privilegium, et jus antiquum quod apostolica benignitas ad Arelatensem ex parte transtulit civitatem, ut tali severitate Hila rius coercitus.discat non temere transgredi terminos antiquos canonica prolatione fundatos. Data octavo idus Januarii Valentiniano Augusto IV et Avieno consulibus.","english":"Concerning the Lost Letters\n\nBoth those of Saint Leo to others, and those of others to Saint Leo, as well as other documents pertaining to the letters, arranged in chronological order.\n\nLetter I\n\nTo the Gallic Bishops of the Province of Vienne.\n\nTo the most beloved brothers, the bishops established throughout Gaul and the province of Vienne, Leo, bishop.\n\nWith what stubbornness Hilarius, bishop of Arles, has evaded our judgment, your holy fraternity is not unaware. Hence we also deem it just that, because the bishop of Arles did not await the great moderation in judgments which the prince of the apostles always exhibits through his vicars in his power, he, removed from the privilege of his city, may learn in a humble place what he was unwilling to hold as a great gift freely granted by our predecessors. And let the privilege and ancient right, which apostolic benignity partially transferred to the city of Arles, be restored to the archbishop of Vienne, so that Hilarius, restrained by such severity, may learn not rashly to transgress the ancient boundaries established by canonical pronouncement. Given on the eighth day before the Ides of January, under the consulship of Valentinian Augustus for the fourth time and Avienus.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"DE EPISTOLIS DEPERDITIS","severity":"info","text":"This heading introduces a collection of lost letters, with the passage serving as a narrative preface to the first letter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Hilarius Arelatensis episcopus","severity":"info","text":"Hilarius of Arles was a 5th-century bishop involved in a jurisdictional dispute with the bishop of Vienne over metropolitan rights, which Leo I adjudicated.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"principis apostolorum","severity":"info","text":"A standard Latin title for Saint Peter, here used to assert papal authority as his vicar.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"Data octavo idus Januarii Valentiniano Augusto IV et Avieno consulibus","severity":"info","text":"This date corresponds to 6 January 450, based on the consulship of Valentinian III (fourth time) and Avienus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"privilegio suæ civitatis submotus","severity":"info","text":"This letter is cited in later canon law collections as a precedent for papal authority over episcopal privileges.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact nature of the 'lost letters' and the criteria for their inclusion in this collection are not specified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"EPISTOLA II.\n\nAd universos Germaniorum et Galliarum regionum episcopos.\n\nDe privilegio chorepiscoporum sive presbyterorum.\n\nLEO Romanæ Ecclesiæ et apostolicæ sedis episcopusuniversis Germaniarum et Galliarum regionum episcopis salutem.\n\nCum in Dei nomine in Romana Ecclesia synodum episcoporum, sive cæterorum consacerdotum Chri stique fidelium coadunatam habuissemus. Vide reliqua tom. II, in diss. Quesnelli.\n\nADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM TERTIAM.\n\nCum sequens epistola, in vulgatis antiquis scripta præferatur a Leone, Victorio et Eustochio, ac inter Leoninas epistolas recenseatur in codicibus collectionis 12, una cum Leonis epistolis edita fuit a Marlino, ex ipso in alias ante Quesnellum editiones manavit. Hanc quidem, ac si esset nostri Leonis cum synodo Romæ habita, bis laudavit hincmarus Rhemensis, primum in quaternione ad Carolum regem opusc. 1, tom. X Concil. Venetæ editionis col. 1243, ac dein intio opusculi col. 868. Itaque verus hæc hallucinatio cognoscitur. Suppositionem autem detexerunt nonnulli, inter quos præcipue audiendus est P/ Jacobus Strimondus in notis posthumis tom. IV Concil pag..","english":"Letter II\n\nTo all the bishops of the regions of Germany and Gaul\n\nConcerning the privilege of chorepiscopi or presbyters\n\nLeo, bishop of the Roman Church and of the apostolic see, to all the bishops of the regions of Germany and Gaul, greeting.\n\nWhen, in the name of God, we had held a synod of bishops and of the other fellow priests of Christ and of the faithful assembled in the Roman Church, see the rest in volume II, in the dissertation of Quesnel.\n\nWARNING CONCERNING THE THIRD LETTER\n\nSince the following letter, written in ancient vulgar editions, is attributed to Leo, Victorius, and Eustochius, and is listed among the Leonine letters in the codices of collection 12, it was published together with the letters of Leo by Marlinus, and from him it passed into other editions before Quesnel. This letter, as if it were of our Leo held with a synod at Rome, was twice cited by Hincmarus of Rheims, first in a quaternion to King Charles, opuscule 1, volume X of the Venetian edition of the Councils, column 1243, and then at the beginning of the opuscule, column 868. Thus this true hallucination is recognized. However, the supposition was uncovered by several, among whom especially is to be heard Father Jacobus Strimondus in the posthumous notes, volume IV of the Councils, page...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola II","severity":"info","text":"The passage is a prefatory note to Letter II, not the letter itself. It provides a title and summary, then refers the reader to Quesnel's dissertation for the full text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"chorepiscoporum","severity":"info","text":"Chorepiscopi were rural bishops in early Christianity, subordinate to city bishops. The term here signals a contested jurisdictional issue in Gaul and Germany.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Admonitio in Epistolam Tertiam","severity":"caution","text":"The 'Warning' declares Letter III a forgery, citing its attribution to Leo, Victorius, and Eustochius, and its inclusion in collection 12. Hincmarus of Rheims twice cited it as genuine, but Strimondus exposed the supposition.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Strimondus"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Marlino","severity":"info","text":"Marlinus published the spurious letter among Leo's genuine epistles; his edition was the source for later pre-Quesnel editions. Quesnel's dissertation (volume II) is referenced for the full text of Letter II.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"hallucinatio","severity":"caution","text":"The editor calls the ascription of Letter III to Leo a 'true hallucination' (vera hæc hallucinatio), indicating a deliberate or mistaken attribution now recognized as false.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text of Letter II is not given; the editor refers to Quesnel's dissertation for the rest. The 'Admonitio' discusses Letter III, not II, creating a structural ambiguity about the passage's focus."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Leonis nomen, inquit, plerosque omnes hactenus induxit, ut hanc epistolam Leoni papæ ascri berent, atque inter ejus epistolas collocarent numero 96, cum revera sit Leonis Bituricensis, qui una cum Victorio Cenomanensi et Eustochio Thuronensi eam scripsit ad episcopos et presbyteros provinciæ, non Thraciæ, ut inter Leonis epistolas vulgatum edt, sed Tertiæ quo nomine Turonica provincia designatur, quæ est tertia Lugdunensis. Ad calcem vero epistolæ, post subscriptiones trium episcoporum, sequebatur in codice S. Remigii Remensis, et cæteri qui adfuerunt episcopi subscripserunt; ut hinc appareat, a plutibus episcopis et in synodo fortasse aliqua editam fuisse, post Andegavensem (in. 453), cui cum his tribus adfuerat etiam Chariato, qui hoc loco inter ejusdem provinciæ Tertiæ antistites numeratur. Quapropter hæc epistola S. Leonis nostri ætate scripta fuit. Quædam autem vulgatorum menda laudatus Sirmondus correxit ex codice Remigiano collect. 12, cui etiam nostri ejusdem collectionis suffragantur. Hinc sola menda vulgatorum in annotationibus indicabuntur.","english":"The name of Leo, he says, has led almost everyone up to now to attribute this letter to Pope Leo and to place it among his letters as number 96, when in fact it is by Leo of Bourges, who together with Victricius of Le Mans and Eustochius of Tours wrote it to the bishops and presbyters of a province, not of Thrace, as has been commonly published among Leo's letters, but of Tertia, by which name the province of Tours is designated, which is the third Lugdunensis. At the end of the letter, after the subscriptions of the three bishops, there followed in the codex of Saint Remigius of Reims, \"and the other bishops who were present subscribed\"; so that it appears from this that it was issued by several bishops and perhaps in some synod, after the synod of Angers (in 453), at which, along with these three, Chariato was also present, who is here counted among the bishops of the same province of Tertia. Therefore this letter was written in the time of our Saint Leo. Moreover, the noted Sirmond corrected certain errors of the editors from the Remigian codex, collection 12, which is also supported by our own copies of the same collection. Hence only the errors of the editors will be indicated in the annotations.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Leonis nomen","severity":"info","text":"The passage explains that the letter was long misattributed to Pope Leo I because of the name 'Leo', and was placed as number 96 among his letters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Leonis Bituricensis","severity":"info","text":"The true author is Leo of Bourges (Bituricensis), who wrote with Victricius of Le Mans and Eustochius of Tours to bishops and presbyters of Tertia, i.e., the province of Tours (third Lugdunensis).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"codice S. Remigii Remensis","severity":"info","text":"The codex of Saint Remigius of Reims contained the letter with additional subscriptions, indicating it was issued by several bishops, possibly after the synod of Angers (453).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Sirmondus","severity":"info","text":"The scholar Sirmond corrected editorial errors using the Remigian codex (collection 12), which is supported by the editor's own copies of the same collection.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Sirmond"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"menda vulgatorum","severity":"caution","text":"The passage notes that only the errors of the editors will be indicated in the annotations, implying that the transmitted text has been corrupted and requires correction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact nature of the 'menda vulgatorum' (editorial errors) is not specified; the passage only states they will be indicated in annotations."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"EPISTOLA III.\n\nLeonis Bituricensis, Victorii Cenomanensis, et Eu-stochii Turonensis ad episcopos et presbyterosintra tertiam provinciam constitutos.\n\nDomini fratribus merito beatissimis, in Christo venera-bilibus Sarmationi, Chariatoni, Desiderio episcopis et presbyteris omnium Ecclesiarum, quæ unt intraprovinciam Tertiam constitutæ, Leo, VictoriusEustochius episcopi.\n\nTanta sæculi potestates circa sacerdotalem ordi nem reverentia prævatuere, etiam hi quos sub im periali nomine terris divina potentia præesse præcepit ut jus distringendorum negotiorum episcopis sanctis juxta divalia constituta permiserint. Quod cum et juris antiqui formulis,et in latis frequentiussit legibus confirmatum,præsenti tamen tempore a plerisque invenimus fuisse catcatum.Nam prætermisso sacerdotali judicio, passim ad examen sæ culare transiere. Idcirco nobis visum est ut hanc et sacræ legis et nostri ordinis contumeliam et ad præsens ulcisceretur plena districtio, et observandam formulam constitueret in futurum. Censuimus ita que ut quicumque, prætermisso sacerdote Eeclesiæ suæ, ad disceptationem venerit sæcularium, sacris liminibus expulsus,a cœlesti arceatur altario; neque ullus post hanc definitionem, quæ communi sedit arbitrio, quidquam sibi ultra præscriptum vindicare nitatur.","english":"LETTER III.\n\nLeo of Bourges, Victricius of Le Mans, and Eustochius of Tours to the bishops and presbyters established within the Third Province.\n\nTo our lords, the most blessed brothers, venerable in Christ, Sarmatio, Chariato, Desiderius, bishops, and to the presbyters of all the churches which are established within the Third Province, Leo, Victricius, and Eustochius, bishops.\n\nThe powers of the age have so far prevailed in reverence for the priestly order that even those whom divine power has commanded to preside over the lands under the imperial name have permitted to holy bishops, according to the divine constitutions, the right of deciding cases. Although this has been confirmed both by the formulas of ancient law and by laws frequently enacted, we find that in the present time it has been trampled upon by many. For, setting aside the priestly judgment, they have everywhere passed over to secular examination. Therefore it has seemed to us that this insult to the sacred law and to our order should be avenged at present by full severity, and that a formula to be observed should be established for the future. We have thus decreed that whoever, setting aside the priest of his own church, comes to the judgment of seculars, shall be expelled from the sacred thresholds and barred from the celestial altar; nor shall anyone after this definition, which has been established by common consent, attempt to claim anything for himself beyond what is prescribed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Leonis Bituricensis, Victorii Cenomanensis, et Eustochii Turonensis","severity":"info","text":"The letter is by three Gallic bishops, not Pope Leo I. The ascription to Pope Leo is a long-standing error corrected by modern scholarship.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tertiam provinciam","severity":"info","text":"The 'Third Province' (Tertia provincia) likely refers to a civil province in Gaul, not Thrace as previously thought. This corrects a misidentification in earlier editions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"divalia constituta","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'divalia constituta' (divine constitutions) refers to imperial laws that granted bishops judicial authority, a privilege confirmed by earlier Roman legislation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Censuimus itaque","severity":"info","text":"This phrase introduces the decree: anyone bypassing their bishop for secular judgment is to be excommunicated. The structure moves from complaint to authoritative ruling.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Epistola III","severity":"info","text":"This letter was traditionally numbered as Letter 96 among Pope Leo I's works. Its reassignment to Leo of Bourges is a key correction in the study of Gallic episcopal correspondence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact identity of the 'Third Province' remains uncertain; it may refer to a specific administrative division in Gaul.","The names Sarmatio, Chariato, and Desiderius are not otherwise well attested, leaving their sees unknown."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Ita fiet ut hi qui ante erravere, congrua emendatione se corrigant,et quisquis sub obser vatione clœericali cœlesti probatur servire officio ex clero abjiciendum se noverit, si prætermisso sacerdotum judicio, sæcularem adierit potestatem. Quod ideo singulos universosque voluimus agnosce re, ut quod pleno justitiæ et juris ordine constitutum est,effectum totius firmitatis in omnibus clericorum negotiis sortiatur.Sane si clericum laicus pulset, prius se audiri ab episcopo poscat tum si petitioni suæ laicum viderit obviare,ex permissu episcopi sui in sæculi moderatoris disceptatione confligat. Leo episcopus subscripsi. Victorius episcopus subscripsi. Eustochius episcopus subscripsi.\n\nADMONITIO IN SEQUENTEM SENTENTIAM.\n\nIn duobus manuscriptis Vallicellanis XVIII, et B. 58, nec non in multo vestustiore Vat. Palatino 277, exhibe. tur Sententia papæ Leonis de apocryphis Scripturis. Hanc sententiam e codice Herovallianæ collectionis Leoni tributam vulgavit Jacobus Petit post Theodori Pænitentiale, ac dein ex memorato mss. Palatino noster concivis P. Joseph. Blanchinius tom. I Vindiciarum canonicarum Scripturarum pag. 405, qui et characteris octavum cir citer sæculum referentis specimen dedit pag. 295. Primum caput hujus sententiæ sumptum quidem est ex Leonis epist. 15; ad Turribium, cap. 15. Caput vero secundam Leonem non habet auctorem.","english":"Thus it will come about that those who previously erred may correct themselves through fitting amendment, and that anyone who is proven to serve the celestial office under clerical observance shall know himself to be cast out from the clergy if, having set aside the judgment of priests, he has recourse to secular authority. We have wished that each and every one recognize this, so that what has been established by the full order of justice and law may obtain the effect of complete firmness in all the affairs of clerics. Indeed, if a layman brings a charge against a cleric, let him first demand to be heard by the bishop; then, if he sees that the layman opposes his petition, he may, with the permission of his own bishop, contend in the court of the secular magistrate. I, Leo the bishop, have subscribed. I, Victorius the bishop, have subscribed. I, Eustochius the bishop, have subscribed.\n\nADMONITION CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE.\n\nIn two Vatican manuscripts, XVIII and B. 58, as well as in the much older Vatican Palatine 277, there is exhibited a Sentence of Pope Leo on the Apocryphal Scriptures. This sentence, attributed to Leo from the codex of the Herovallian collection, was published by James Petit after Theodore's Penitential, and then from the aforementioned Palatine manuscript by our fellow citizen P. Joseph Blanchinius in volume I of the Vindiciae Canonicae Scripturarum, page 405, who also gave a specimen of the character, referring to about the eighth century, on page 295. The first chapter of this sentence is indeed taken from Leo's letter 15 to Turribius, chapter 15. The second chapter, however, does not have Leo as its author.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"sæcularem adierit potestatem","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'sæcularem adierit potestatem' indicates recourse to secular authority, a key concern in late antique ecclesiastical discipline, where clerics were expected to submit to episcopal jurisdiction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"clericum","severity":"info","text":"'Clericum' here refers to a cleric, a member of the clergy, distinct from a layperson ('laicus'). The term underscores the hierarchical distinction central to the passage's legal procedure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"sæculi moderatoris disceptatione","severity":"info","text":"The 'sæculi moderatoris disceptatio' refers to a secular magistrate's court. This reflects the late Roman legal framework where bishops had limited authority to permit clerics to appear before civil judges.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ADMONITIO IN SEQUENTEM SENTENTIAM","severity":"info","text":"The 'Admonitio' is a later editorial note, not part of the original letter. It discusses a spurious 'Sententia papae Leonis de apocryphis Scripturis' found in some manuscripts, attributed to Leo but partly derived from his Epistula 15.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"In duobus manuscriptis Vallicellanis","severity":"info","text":"The 'Admonitio' cites three manuscripts: Vallicellani XVIII and B. 58, and Vat. Pal. 277. The latter is described as 'multo vetustiore', suggesting an early medieval witness for the appended 'Sententia'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Caput vero secundam Leonem non habet auctorem","severity":"caution","text":"The 'Admonitio' warns that the second chapter of the appended 'Sententia' is not by Leo, indicating a pseudepigraphical addition. This cautions against attributing the entire text to Leo without manuscript evidence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'clœericali' is a variant spelling of 'clericali', but the sense is clear. The 'Admonitio' is a later editorial insertion, and its relationship to the original letter is ambiguous; it may be a separate textual tradition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Isignis porro est hujus secundi capitis variatas in laudatis codicibus. Nam codex antiquior Palatinus plura continet quæ in tribus aliis mss. desunt.In his qeneralis sanctionis forma primo capite inducta, qua libri ab hæreticis corrupti in Ecclesia legi prohibentur, altero breviori capite de legendis orthodoxorum Patrum libris decernitur. In Palatino autem ms. priori capite ex Leone exactius sumpto interdicitur, ne sub canonicorum codicum nomine libri a Priscilliano vitiati legantur: altero autem capite proponitur ordo quo canonici libri juxta ritum Basilicæ S. Petri le gendi sint;quod ex aliquo perantiquo Romano ordine sumptum videtur. Qui enim Ordo apud Burchardum lib. III, c. 222, et apud Gratianum dist. 15, c. 3, § 82, subjicitur Gelasii decreto de apocryphis. licet in pluribus concinat, uberior tamen et recentior est. Tum vero in Palatino pauca adduntur de lectione librorum sanctarum Patrum, quæ a textu aliorum codicum non nihilum dsicrepant. Palatini vetustioris codicis lectionem exhibebimus, cæterorum autem variantes in annotationibus indicabuntur.","english":"Moreover, the variations of this second chapter in the esteemed manuscripts are significant. For the older Palatinus codex contains many things that are absent in the three other manuscripts. In these, a general form of sanction is introduced in the first chapter, by which books corrupted by heretics are forbidden to be read in the Church; in the second, shorter chapter, it is decreed concerning the reading of the books of the orthodox Fathers. In the Palatine manuscript, however, the first chapter, taken more precisely from Leo, forbids that books corrupted by Priscillian be read under the name of canonical codices; the second chapter, moreover, sets forth the order in which the canonical books are to be read according to the rite of the Basilica of Saint Peter, which seems to have been taken from some very ancient Roman order. For that order, which is placed under Gelasius’s decree on apocrypha in Burchard, book III, chapter 222, and in Gratian, distinction 15, chapter 3, § 82, although it agrees in many respects, is nevertheless more abundant and more recent. Then, in the Palatine manuscript, a few things are added concerning the reading of the books of the holy Fathers, which differ not a little from the text of the other manuscripts. We will present the reading of the older Palatine codex, and the variants of the others will be indicated in the annotations.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Palatinus codex","severity":"info","text":"The Palatinus codex is a manuscript from the Palatine library, often associated with early medieval canon law collections. Its readings here are contrasted with three other manuscripts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Burchardum lib. III, c. 222","severity":"info","text":"Burchard of Worms (c. 965–1025) compiled the Decretum, a canon law collection. The reference to book III, chapter 222, shows the later medieval reception of this material.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Burchard of Worms"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Gratianum dist. 15, c. 3, § 82","severity":"info","text":"Gratian's Decretum (c. 1140) is a foundational canon law text. The citation to distinction 15, chapter 3, § 82, indicates the passage's integration into standard medieval legal collections.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Gratian"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"secundi capitis variatas","severity":"info","text":"The passage describes textual variation in the second chapter of a decree, contrasting the Palatinus codex with three other manuscripts. The first chapter forbids heretical books; the second concerns orthodox readings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Palatini vetustioris codicis lectionem exhibebimus","severity":"info","text":"The editor announces a preference for the older Palatinus codex as the base text, with variants from other manuscripts noted in annotations. This reflects a critical editorial method.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"non nihilum dsicrepant","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'non nihilum dsicrepant' (likely a typographical error for 'non nihilum discrepant') indicates significant textual disagreement among manuscripts, requiring careful collation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact identity of the 'three other manuscripts' is not specified. The reading 'non nihilum dsicrepant' may be a scribal error for 'non nihilum discrepant'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"EPISTOLA IV.\n\nSEU SENTENTIA PAPÆ LEONIS\n\nDe apocryphis Scripturis.\n\nCurandum ergo est, et sacerdotali diligentia maxime providendum,ut falsi codices et a sincera veritate discordes, in nullo usu lectionis habeantur. Apocryphæ Scripturæ, quæ sub nominibus apostolorum multarum habent semina falsitatum, non solum interdicendæ sunt,sed etiam penitus auferendæ atque ignibus concremandæ. Quamvis enim sint in illis quædam quæ videantur speciem habere pietatis, numquam tamen vacua sunt venenis; et per fabularum illecebras hoc latenter operantur ut mirabilium narratione seductos, laquels cujuscumque erroris involvant. Unde si quis episcoporum vel apocrypha haberi non prohibuerit, vel canonicorum codicum nomine eos libros in Ecclesia permiserit legi, qui Priscilliani sunt adulterina emendatione vitiati,hæreticum se noverit judicandum: quoniam qui alios ab errore non revocat, se ipsum errare demonstrat.","english":"LETTER IV.\n\nOR THE SENTENCE OF POPE LEO\n\nConcerning Apocryphal Scriptures.\n\nTherefore care must be taken, and provision made with priestly diligence, that false codices and those discordant from sincere truth be used in no reading whatsoever. Apocryphal Scriptures, which under the names of the apostles contain many seeds of falsehoods, are not only to be forbidden, but also to be utterly removed and burned with fire. For although there are in them some things which seem to have an appearance of piety, yet they are never free from poisons; and through the allurements of fables they work secretly so that, having seduced by the narration of marvels, they entangle those led astray in the snares of some error or other. Hence if any bishop has not forbidden apocryphal works to be held, or has permitted those books which are the Priscillianist ones, vitiated by adulterine emendation, to be read in church under the name of canonical codices, let him know that he is to be judged a heretic: because he who does not recall others from error demonstrates that he himself errs.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Apocryphae Scripturae","severity":"info","text":"The term 'apocryphal scriptures' here refers to writings falsely attributed to apostles, containing falsehoods, and subject to prohibition and burning.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Priscilliani","severity":"info","text":"Priscillianism was a 4th-century ascetic and dualist heresy; its adherents produced adulterated biblical texts. Pope Leo I condemned these in a letter to Turibius of Astorga (c. 447).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"ignibus concremandae","severity":"info","text":"The directive to burn apocryphal books reflects a harsh disciplinary measure, later cited in medieval canon law collections (e.g., Decretum Gratiani) to justify suppression of heretical texts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola IV","severity":"info","text":"This passage is the fourth letter in the collection, titled 'Sententia Papae Leonis de apocryphis Scripturis,' forming a distinct unit on the prohibition of apocryphal writings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"adulterina emendatione vitiati","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'vitiated by adulterine emendation' may refer to Priscillianist interpolations in canonical texts, but the exact nature of these alterations is uncertain from the passage alone.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The precise identity of the 'false codices' beyond Priscillianist ones is unspecified; the text conflates general apocrypha with heretical revisions."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"CAP.II.— Legitur autem omnis Scriptura divina sancti Canonis ab initio anni usque ad finem in ec clesia S. Petri hoc ordine. Tempore veris, hoc est VII diebus ante initium Quadragesimæ usque ad octavam diem ante Pascha, leguntur quinque libri Moysi, cum Jesu Mave, et Judicum. Et VII dies ante Pascha liber Isaiæ prophetæ, unde ad passionem Christi (Sic cod.) cum venit, et Lamentationes Hieremiæ. Diebus autem Paschæ epistolae apostolorum et Actus apostolorum atque Apocalypsis usque Pentecostem. In tempore autem æstatis Regum et Paralipomenon usque ad medium autumni, hoc est xv kal. Novembris: deinde liber Salomonis, et Mulie rum, atque Machabæorum, et liber Tobi usque ab kal. Decmbris. Ante autem Natalem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Isaiæ, Hieremiæ, et Daniel usque ad Epiphaniam. Postea quidem Ezechiel, et Prophetæ minores, atque Job usque idus Februarias. Psalmi omni tempore.Evangelium et Apostolum cimiliter. Tractatus vero sancti Heronymi, Ambrosii, et cæterorum Patrum, prout ordo poscit, leguntur.","english":"CHAPTER II.— Moreover, all divine Scripture of the holy Canon is read from the beginning of the year to its end in the church of St. Peter in this order. In the spring season, that is, seven days before the beginning of Lent until the eighth day before Easter, the five books of Moses are read, together with Joshua son of Nun and Judges. And seven days before Easter, the book of the prophet Isaiah, where it comes to the passion of Christ, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. On the days of Easter, the epistles of the apostles and the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse are read until Pentecost. In the summer season, the books of Kings and Chronicles are read until the middle of autumn, that is, the fifteenth day before the Kalends of November: then the book of Solomon, and of Women, and of Maccabees, and the book of Tobit until the Kalends of December. Before the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel are read until the Epiphany. Afterwards, indeed, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets, and Job are read until the Ides of February. The Psalms are read at all times. The Gospel and the Apostle are read similarly. The treatises of St. Jerome, Ambrose, and the other Fathers are read as the order requires.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"CAP.II","severity":"info","text":"This chapter heading marks a new section within the letter, shifting from a general prohibition of apocryphal scriptures to a specific liturgical reading schedule at St. Peter's.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Jesu Mave","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'Jesu Mave' is a transliteration of the Hebrew 'Yehoshua bin Nun' (Joshua), with 'Mave' likely a scribal variant or corruption of 'Nave' (from 'Nun').","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"liber Salomonis, et Mulierum, atque Machabaeorum, et liber Tobi","severity":"info","text":"This list includes deuterocanonical books (Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Maccabees, Tobit) as part of the lectionary, reflecting the broader canon used in the Roman liturgy of Leo's time.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ecclesia S. Petri","severity":"info","text":"The reference to the church of St. Peter indicates this lectionary was specific to the papal basilica in Rome, not necessarily universal for all Latin churches.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"xv kal. Novembris","severity":"info","text":"The date 'xv kal. Novembris' corresponds to October 18 in the Roman calendar, marking the end of the summer reading period.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Tractatus vero sancti Heronymi, Ambrosii, et ceterorum Patrum","severity":"info","text":"The inclusion of patristic treatises (Jerome, Ambrose) shows that the lectionary incorporated non-scriptural readings, a practice that influenced later medieval liturgical traditions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'unde ad passionem Christi (Sic cod.) cum venit' is textually corrupt; the English draft interprets it as 'where it comes to the passion of Christ', but the Latin is unclear.","The term 'Mulierum' likely refers to the book of Judith, but the Latin is ambiguous and could be a scribal error for 'Judith'."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"ADMONITIO IN SEQUENTEM EPISTOLAM.\n\nTurribii Asturicensis epistolam ad Idatium et Ceponium epircopos, quam Quesnellus inter Leoninas edidit post Leonis epistolam ad Turribium, Stephanus Baluzius (Vid. t. IV, Concil. pag. 731). et alii nonnulli in suspicionem vocant.At illam satis vindicat antiquitas codicis S. Æmiliani, ex quo ea ab Ambrosio Morales primum prodiit, uti pluribus ostendemus in observationibus ad not. Quesnelli in epist. S. Leonis ad Turribium. Aliæ vero objectiones, quæ proferri nossent, facile elidentur, sic hanc epistolam non minus, quam libellum adversus Priscillianistas, qui cum hac epistola ad Idatium et Ceponium episcopos directus agnoscitur, ante episcopatum a Turribio scriptos credamus. Hinc iidem Idatius et Ceponius Turribio antiquiores episcopi discensi sunt: unde Idatius ad an. 445, se ante Turribium nominat. Idem vero libellus cum eadem epistola ipsi præfixa ad Leonem postea missus videtur, ita ut ex hac epistola Idatii et Ceponii antiquitatem et meritum S. pontifex intelligens, hos in fine epistolæ maxime idoneos crediderit, qui Turribio juniori episcopo efficaciorem operam adjungerent, ut adversus Priscillianistas Galliciæ synodus convocaretur.","english":"A WARNING CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING LETTER.\n\nThe letter of Turribius of Astorga to the bishops Idatius and Ceponius, which Quesnellus published among the Leonine letters after Leo’s letter to Turribius, is called into suspicion by Stephanus Baluzius (see vol. IV of the Councils, p. 731) and by several others. But the antiquity of the codex of St. Æmilianus, from which it was first brought forth by Ambrosius Morales, sufficiently vindicates it, as we will show at greater length in our observations on Quesnellus’s notes on St. Leo’s letter to Turribius. Other objections which might be brought forward will be easily refuted, so that we believe this letter, no less than the booklet against the Priscillianists, which is recognized as having been sent together with this letter to the bishops Idatius and Ceponius, was written by Turribius before his episcopate. Hence Idatius and Ceponius are understood to have been bishops older than Turribius; whence Idatius, in the year 445, names himself before Turribius. The same booklet, together with the same letter prefixed to it, seems to have been sent later to Leo, so that from this letter the holy pontiff, understanding the antiquity and merit of Idatius and Ceponius, judged them at the end of the letter to be especially suitable to join more effective labor to the younger bishop Turribius, so that a synod of Gallaecia might be convoked against the Priscillianists.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Turribii Asturicensis epistolam","severity":"info","text":"Turribius of Astorga (fl. mid-5th century) was a bishop in Gallaecia (northwest Iberia) active against Priscillianism. His letter to Idatius and Ceponius is a key witness to the anti-Priscillianist campaign in that region.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"Stephanus Baluzius","severity":"info","text":"Stephanus Baluzius (1630–1718) was a French scholar and editor of conciliar and patristic texts. His suspicion of the letter's authenticity is noted here; the present editor defends it via the codex of St. Æmilianus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"background","lemma":"codice S. Æmiliani","severity":"info","text":"The codex of St. Æmilianus (San Millán de la Cogolla) is a medieval manuscript from the Rioja region of Spain. Ambrosius Morales (16th-century historian) first published the letter from this codex, lending it manuscript authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"ante episcopatum a Turribio scriptos","severity":"info","text":"The editor argues that Turribius wrote both the letter and the accompanying booklet against the Priscillianists before his episcopate, making Idatius and Ceponius senior bishops. This dating affects the interpretation of Leo's later correspondence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Priscillianistas","severity":"info","text":"Priscillianism was a 4th–5th century ascetic and dualist movement in Hispania, condemned as heretical. The synod of Gallaecia mentioned here was part of the campaign to suppress it, involving Leo I and local bishops.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Aliæ vero objectiones, quæ proferri nossent, facile elidentur","severity":"caution","text":"The editor dismisses unspecified objections as easily refuted, but does not detail them. This rhetorical move may obscure genuine textual or historical difficulties; readers should consult the full apparatus of Quesnellus and Baluzius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact relationship between the letter to Idatius and Ceponius and the booklet against the Priscillianists is not fully clarified: the editor says they were sent together, but the sequence of composition and dispatch remains uncertain.","The identity of the 'younger bishop Turribius' and the precise date of his episcopate are not given; the argument depends on relative seniority inferred from Idatius's self-naming in 445."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"EPISTOLA V.\n\nS. TURRIBII ASTURICENSIS.\n\nDe non recipiendis in auctoritatem fidei apocryphis Scripturis, et de Secta Priscillianistarum.\n\nSanctis ac beatissimis et omni veneratione colendis IDATIO et CEPONIO episcopis TURRIBIUS.\n\nMolesta semper est et injucunda peregrinatio.Hic afferenda erut tota epistola Turribii. Sed cum impressa fuerit post Leonis epistolam XV, ad eumdem Turri bium col. 711, eo quod eam subjectam invenerimus in Quesnelliana editione qua usi sumus, ne bis repetatur eo lectores remittimus.\n\nADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM.\n\nIn epistolam Juliani Coensis ad Leonem Augustum hæc Quesnellus præmonuit. Leonis Magni epistolis unicam, quæ superest, Juliani episcopi Coensis epistolam subjicimus, non implendæ solummodo vacuæ paginæ gratia,sed et propter summam, quæ inter utrumque pontificem fuit, necessitudinem.Hæc maxime enituit in causa fidei,quam adversus Eutychianam impietatem alter ex apostolicæ sedis specula in Occiden talibus præsertim partibus, hic tamquam apostolicæ sollicitudinis vicarius in Orientalibus defendit.Argumentum epistolæ habet Liberatus Diaconus cap. Breviarii ubi narrat Leonem Augustum, ut hæreticos novam synodum congregari importune flagitantes compesceret, scripsisse singularum civitatum episcopis de utroque negotio consulens quid fleri oporteret,vel de ordinatione Timothei,vel de terminis synodi Chalcedonensis....","english":"LETTER V.\n\nSAINT TURIBIUS OF ASTORGA.\n\nOn not receiving apocryphal Scriptures into the authority of the faith, and on the sect of the Priscillianists.\n\nTo the holy, most blessed, and with all veneration to be revered bishops Idacius and Ceponius, Turibius.\n\nPilgrimage is always troublesome and unpleasant. The whole letter of Turibius should be brought forth here. But since it was printed after Leo’s letter XV, to the same Turibius, column 711, because we found it appended in the Quesnellian edition which we used, we refer the readers to that place, lest it be repeated twice.\n\nA WARNING CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING LETTER.\n\nConcerning the letter of Julian of Cos to Leo Augustus, Quesnellus prefaced this. To the letters of Leo the Great we subjoin the only surviving letter of Julian, bishop of Cos, not only for the sake of filling an empty page, but also on account of the close relationship which existed between the two pontiffs. This was especially evident in the cause of the faith, which one defended from the watchtower of the apostolic see in the Western parts especially, and the other as vicar of apostolic solicitude in the Eastern parts. Liberatus the Deacon has the argument of the letter in the chapter of his Breviary where he relates that Leo Augustus, in order to restrain the heretics who were importunately demanding that a new synod be gathered, wrote to the bishops of individual cities, consulting them on what ought to be done concerning both matters, either concerning the ordination of Timothy or concerning the decrees of the synod of Chalcedon.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola V","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a composite editorial note: it first introduces a letter of Turribius, then provides an admonitio for a letter of Julian of Cos. The actual letters are not reproduced here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Turribius","severity":"info","text":"Turribius of Astorga (fl. mid-5th century) was a bishop in Hispania who opposed Priscillianism. His letter to Idacius and Ceponius concerns apocryphal scriptures and the Priscillianist sect.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Julianus Coensis","severity":"info","text":"Julian of Cos was a bishop and papal vicar in the East during the Eutychian controversy. His letter to Emperor Leo I is here appended to Leo's letters due to his close relationship with Pope Leo.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Quesnelliana editio","severity":"info","text":"The editor refers to the Quesnellian edition (Quesnellus' edition of Leo's letters) as the source for the appended letters. The letter of Turribius is said to appear after Leo's letter XV, column 711.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Liberatus Diaconus","severity":"info","text":"Liberatus the Deacon (6th century) wrote a Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, which summarizes the argument of Julian's letter and the context of Emperor Leo's consultation of bishops.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"peregrinatio","severity":"caution","text":"The opening phrase 'Molesta semper est et injucunda peregrinatio' is a fragment; the editor notes the full letter of Turribius is not reproduced here, so the sense is incomplete.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The passage is a composite of editorial notes; the actual letters of Turribius and Julian are not included, so their content is only indirectly referenced."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Qui rescribunt Chalcedonensem synodum usque ad sanguinem vindicandam: eo quod non alteram fidem teneret, quam synodus Nicæna constituit. Timotheum vero non solum inter episcopos non haberi, sed etiam Chistiana appellatione privari. Hanc omnium sententiam in una habes Juliani epistola quæ, ab oc todecim (nunc viginti) quas ad eum scripsit Leo epistolis dividi neutiquam debuit.\n\nPorro idem Quesnellus in dissert.1,ad an. 457, hac epistolam a Juliano scriptam putat Coi, unde ejusdem reditum ad suam Ecclesiam ex hac epistola colligit; neque amplius Constantinopolieum commoratum opinatur, ex quo Marcianus obiit. Hæc autem falsa colliguntur ex epistola nunc primum edita ad ipsum, Julianum,nec non exepist. et 152, sub Leone Augusto scriptis anno 457, in quibus, palam præsumitur illum Constantinopoli adhuc exstitisse, et litteras etiam ad S. Leonem dedisse de turbis Constantinopoli excitatis post. novi imperatoris assumtionem, quibus S.pontifex respondit epistola 144. Julianum quidem demandatam sibi ab eodem pontifice vicem et curam sine ipsus consensu desceruisse incredibile et cum præsertim aliæ difficiles circumstantiæ ejus diligentiam postularent. Neque vero Actius Juliano substitutus credi potest, ac si ille Constantinopoli jam abiisset, commissumque sibi deposuisset officium; nam et ad Julianum, et ad Aetium iis dem kalendis Septembris ann.","english":"Those who reply that the Council of Chalcedon is to be avenged to the point of bloodshed, because it held no other faith than that which the Council of Nicaea established. But that Timothy is not only not to be counted among the bishops, but even to be deprived of the name Christian. You have this judgment of all in one letter of Julian, which ought by no means to have been separated from the eighteen (now twenty) letters which Leo wrote to him.\n\nMoreover, the same Quesnellus, in his dissertation 1, to the year 457, thinks that this letter was written by Julian to Coius, whence he infers his return to his own Church from this letter; and he believes that he no longer remained at Constantinople after the death of Marcian. But these things are falsely inferred from the letter now published for the first time to Julian himself, and also from letters 152, written under Leo Augustus in the year 457, in which it is openly assumed that he still remained at Constantinople, and that he even gave letters to Saint Leo about the disturbances stirred up at Constantinople after the assumption of the new emperor, to which the holy pontiff replied in letter 144. That Julian would have abandoned the vicariate and care entrusted to him by the same pontiff without his consent is incredible, especially since other difficult circumstances demanded his diligence. Nor can it be believed that Aetius was substituted for Julian as if he had already left Constantinople and laid down the office committed to him; for both to Julian and to Aetius on the same kalends of September of the year.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Chalcedonensem synodum","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Chalcedon (451) affirmed the Nicene Creed and defined Christ's two natures. Its defense 'to the point of bloodshed' reflects the violent post-Chalcedonian conflicts, especially in Egypt and the East.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Timotheum","severity":"info","text":"Timothy refers to Timothy Aelurus, the anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria (457–460), whom Leo and his allies considered a usurper and heretic, hence the call to deprive him of the name Christian.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Quesnellus","severity":"info","text":"Pasquier Quesnel (1634–1719) was a Jansenist editor of Leo's letters. His dissertation 1 (ad an. 457) is cited here as a source of erroneous inferences about Julian's movements and the chronology of Leo's correspondence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"anno 457","severity":"info","text":"The year 457 marks the death of Emperor Marcian and the accession of Leo I (the Thracian). The passage discusses Julian's continued presence in Constantinople after this change, contra Quesnel's claim.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"epistola 144","severity":"caution","text":"The reference to 'epistola 144' is ambiguous: it likely refers to a letter in the Quesnel edition, but the numbering may not correspond to modern editions. The text also mentions 'letters 152' without specifying the addressee.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Hanc omnium sententiam in una habes Juliani epistola","severity":"info","text":"The editor notes that a single letter of Julian contains the collective judgment of the bishops, and criticizes Quesnel for separating it from Leo's eighteen (now twenty) letters to Julian, disrupting the textual unity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Coius' (Coi) is unclear; it may be a scribal error or a proper name. The phrase 'ab oc todecim' is likely a corruption of 'ab octodecim' (from eighteen). The reference to 'epist. et 152' is incomplete; the number may be a misprint or refer to a specific letter in the Quesnel edition."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"scriptæ supersunt Leonis epistolæ et 153, in quibus utriusque cura in fidei. bonum excitatur. Neque moveat inscriptio epistolæ ad Julianum; quæ cum in ms. Grimanico inscribatur et Aetio presbytero a pari,ea ad Aetium quoque missa creditur eodem exemplo, propterea quod pon tifici incertum esset num julianus Constantianopoli degeret. Nam et eam epigraphen et Aetio presbytero pari in codice Ratisponensi omissam, delendam suspicamur, et Aetio aliam epistolam eodem fortassis die tra ditam conjecimus annot. (Col. 1115, n. h) in epist. 147. Quod si S. pontifex in hac epistola queritur Julianum non scripsisse ea occasione qua Anatolius ad eumdem pontificem litteras transmiserat, id potius eum Con stantinopoli adhuc subsistentem præsumit: ea vero forte de causa omisit scribere, quia de eadem fere re scripserat paulo ante, et Anatolium pleniores dedisse litteras sciebat. Aetio quidem delegatio et substitutio in Juliani locum nullibi indicatur. Quod in amnis sequentibus nullæ aliæ ad Julianum epistolæ inventæ sunt cum aliæ plures certo scriptæ desiderentur, hoc argumentum infirmum est, ut Julianus Constantinopolim. deseruisse, officiumque suum, quod ad huc fidei causa requirebat dimisisse credatur. Cum porro idem Julianus subscriptus legatur synodo Constantinopolitanæ sub Gennadio Anotolii successore circa an. (Tom V. Conc. p.","english":"The surviving letters of Leo number 153, in which the care of both for the faith is stirred up. Nor should the inscription of the letter to Julianus move you; since, as it is inscribed in the Grimanic manuscript also \"to the presbyter Aetius\" as an equal, it is believed to have been sent to Aetius as well by the same copy, for the reason that it was uncertain to the pontiff whether Julianus was staying at Constantinople. For we suspect that both that epigraph and \"to the presbyter Aetius as an equal\" omitted in the Ratisbon codex should be deleted, and we have conjectured in the annotation (Col. 1115, n. h) on epistle 147 that another letter was delivered to Aetius perhaps on the same day. But if the holy pontiff in this letter complains that Julianus had not written on that occasion when Anatolius had sent letters to the same pontiff, this rather presumes him still residing at Constantinople: but he perhaps omitted to write for this reason, because he had written about nearly the same matter a little before, and knew that Anatolius had given more complete letters. A delegation and substitution of Aetius in Julianus's place is nowhere indicated. That in the following years no other letters to Julianus are found, while many others certainly written are missing, this argument is weak, so that Julianus is believed to have left Constantinople and to have abandoned his office, which the cause of the faith still required. Since moreover the same Julianus is recorded as a subscriber to the synod of Constantinople under Gennadius, successor of Anatolius, around the year (Tom. V Conc. p.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"scriptæ supersunt Leonis epistolæ et 153","severity":"info","text":"The claim that 153 letters of Leo survive is a standard count in the manuscript tradition, but the number varies across collections; the Grimanic and Ratisbon codices are witnesses to the textual transmission.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"inscriptio epistolæ ad Julianum","severity":"caution","text":"The inscription of the letter to Julianus is ambiguous: the Grimanic manuscript adds 'also to the presbyter Aetius as an equal,' but the Ratisbon codex omits this, leading the editor to suspect the epigraph should be deleted.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Julianus","severity":"info","text":"Julianus was a correspondent of Leo I, possibly a bishop or legate at Constantinople; his presence there is debated, as the editor notes uncertainty about his location and whether Aetius substituted for him.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"synodo Constantinopolitanæ sub Gennadio Anotolii successore circa an.","severity":"info","text":"The synod under Gennadius, successor of Anatolius, is dated around 458–471; Julianus's subscription there suggests he was still active in Constantinople after Leo's letters, weakening the argument that he abandoned his office.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Quod si S. pontifex in hac epistola queritur Julianum non scripsisse","severity":"info","text":"The editor uses a conditional argument ('But if the holy pontiff complains') to infer Julianus's presence in Constantinople, contrasting with the earlier hypothesis that he had left.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact number of Leo's surviving letters (153) may vary by manuscript tradition.","The addressee of the letter is uncertain: Julianus, Aetius, or both, due to conflicting manuscript inscriptions.","Julianus's location (Constantinople or elsewhere) and whether Aetius was his substitute are not definitively resolved."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"51) cum ad hoc usque tempus in eadem urbe perstitisse satis probabile videtur.\n\nInter eos ad quos Leo Augustus encyclicam dedit de qua diximus in admonit. ad epist. 156. Juliaous fuit, cui licet Constantinopoli existeni potuit ea encyclica dirigi, sicut et Anatolio episcopo Constantinopolitano inscripta invenitur. Cum autem cœteri omnes, ad quos eadem imperialis epistola directa fuit, essent saltem metropolitiæ, solus Julianus simplex. Coensis episcopus hoc gradu expers erat. Id autem peculiarem ejusdem existimationem ob præclara ipsus in Eutychianos gesta demonstrat. Hæc in codice encyclio nobis conservata fuit ab Epiphanio Scholastico qui præter autographam Leonis epistolam, quam Occidentalis vir facile invenit et inseruit, cæteras litteras e Græco reddidit; ac propterea hæc Juliani non originnale ipsum, sed versio est ex græco: totus enim codex encyclius Græce prodiit. Hunc codicem cum aliquot mss. collatum post Surium dedit Baluzius, ejusque variantes nobis utiles fuere.","english":"up to this time it seems quite probable that it remained in the same city.\n\nAmong those to whom Leo Augustus sent the encyclical of which we spoke in the admonition to letter 156 was Julianus, to whom, although he was residing in Constantinople, that encyclical could be directed, just as it is found inscribed to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople. But since all the others to whom that same imperial letter was sent were at least metropolitans, only Julianus, a simple bishop of Coa, lacked this rank. However, this demonstrates his particular esteem on account of his distinguished actions against the Eutychians. This was preserved for us in the encyclical codex by Epiphanius Scholasticus, who, besides the autograph letter of Leo, which a Western man could easily find and insert, translated the other letters from Greek; and for this reason this letter of Julianus is not the original itself, but a version from the Greek: for the entire encyclical codex was published in Greek. Baluzius, after Surius, published this codex collated with several manuscripts, and its variants were useful to us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Leo Augustus","severity":"info","text":"Leo Augustus refers to the Byzantine emperor Leo I (reigned 457–474), who issued an encyclical letter on ecclesiastical matters, distinct from Pope Leo I.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"encyclica","severity":"info","text":"The encyclical mentioned is an imperial letter from Emperor Leo I, likely concerning the Council of Chalcedon and the Eutychian controversy, sent to various bishops.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Epiphanius Scholasticus","severity":"info","text":"Epiphanius Scholasticus was a sixth-century Latin translator who compiled the encyclical codex, translating Greek letters into Latin, as noted here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"codex encyclius","severity":"info","text":"The encyclical codex, originally in Greek, was preserved by Epiphanius Scholasticus; Baluzius later published it collated with manuscripts, providing variants used by the editor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluzius","severity":"info","text":"Baluzius (Étienne Baluze) published the encyclical codex after Surius, collating it with several manuscripts; his edition provided variant readings useful to the present editor.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"versio est ex græco","severity":"caution","text":"The letter of Julianus is not the original Latin but a translation from Greek, as the entire encyclical codex was published in Greek; this may affect textual accuracy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Leo Augustus' is clarified as Emperor Leo I, not Pope Leo I, based on context. The precise date and content of the encyclical are not specified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"EPISTOLA VI.\n\nJULIANI EPISCOPI COENSIS AD LEONEM IMPERATOREM. Piissimo atque fidelissimo, victori atque triumphatoriLEONI, principi semper Augusto, JULIANUS humilisepiscopus Coensis.\n\nEgo, domine Christo amabilis imperator, illam sapientissimam monitionem,mente percipiens, qua dictum est, Cognosce temetipsum volui taciturnitate quiescere,et majorum Patrum judicium sustinere. Non enim evocationis æqualitas parem rerum servat effectum, sed quando coactus cum evocatione concordat, tunc similitudo nominum habet rerum quoque impermutabilem veritatem. Verumtamen quo niam consulere nos tranquillitas vestra præcepit de unoquoque capitulo, quod continentur in precibus Deo amabilium consacerdotum Ægyptiacæ diœcesis, manifestam meæ parvitatis facio voluntatem, mœstus existens, et lacrymacum imbribus irrigatus, quid loqua ignorans, captivitatem ac destructionem utique pietalis, illam tamen et pontificis lugens inopinabi]que necem. Ea siquidem, quæ in Alexandriana civitate commissa sunt, ex ipsa narratione declarant animi passaonem, et ad vincdictam tanti facinoris vestram solummodo provocant æquitatem. Nam consti tuti ut orbem debeatis gubernare terrarum, indisciplinationis ægritudinem ad interitum perducentem mederi summo studio festinantes, non gladium evaginantes ad necem, sed interminationis verbo indisciplinatos regulariter perducentes ad obedeintiæ voluntatem.","english":"LETTER VI.\n\nJULIAN, BISHOP OF COS, TO THE EMPEROR LEO. To the most pious and most faithful, victor and triumphator LEO, prince and perpetual Augustus, JULIAN, humble bishop of Cos.\n\nI, my lord, emperor beloved of Christ, perceiving in my mind that most wise admonition which says, \"Know thyself,\" wished to rest in silence and to await the judgment of the greater Fathers. For equality of summons does not preserve an equal effect in matters, but when compulsion agrees with the summons, then the likeness of names also possesses the immutable truth of things. Nevertheless, since your Tranquillity has commanded us to consult concerning each chapter contained in the petitions of the God-beloved fellow priests of the Egyptian diocese, I make known the manifest will of my littleness, being sorrowful and drenched with showers of tears, not knowing what to say, lamenting the captivity and destruction of piety, and especially the unexpected death of the pontiff. For those things which were committed in the city of Alexandria, from the narration itself, declare the passion of the mind, and provoke only your equity to the vengeance of such a crime. For constituted as you are to govern the orb of the lands, hastening with the utmost zeal to heal the sickness of indiscipline leading to destruction, not unsheathing the sword for slaughter, but by the word of threat leading the undisciplined regularly to the will of obedience.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Cognosce temetipsum","severity":"info","text":"The Greek maxim γνῶθι σεαυτόν, attributed to the Delphic oracle and cited by classical authors, is here used by Julian to signal humility and deference to ecclesiastical authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"evocationis æqualitas","severity":"info","text":"Julian contrasts a mere summons (evocatio) with a coerced one, reflecting the legal and ecclesiastical context of synodal citations under imperial authority in the 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Alexandriana civitate","severity":"info","text":"The reference to events in Alexandria likely alludes to the murder of Patriarch Proterius in 457, a key crisis in the aftermath of Chalcedon that prompted Leo I's intervention.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola VI","severity":"info","text":"This letter is the first in the series of deperdita, addressed by Bishop Julian of Cos to Emperor Leo I, forming part of the dossier on the Egyptian ecclesiastical conflict.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"JULIANUS humilis episcopus Coensis","severity":"info","text":"Julian of Cos is known from other sources as a supporter of Chalcedonian orthodoxy; his letter here is preserved only in the Quesnelliana collection, indicating its survival through canonical compilations.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"lacrymarum imbribus irrigatus","severity":"caution","text":"The rhetorical flourish of tears may reflect a conventional topos of lament rather than a literal report; the text's emotional language should not be taken as historical fact without corroboration.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'pontiff' whose death is lamented is not explicitly named; it is likely Patriarch Proterius of Alexandria, but the text does not confirm this.","The phrase 'evocationis æqualitas' is ambiguous: it may refer to equality of summons in a legal sense or to parity of status among bishops."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Sententiam itaque quam contra se Timotheus nefandus exigit, sancti canones aper tius explanarunt, quos sua tyrannide sæpius abnegavit, descriplinam eccleciasticam confundendo, et injurias inferendo, inimicus nescio quo modo totuis Christianitatis effectus. Captusenim in talibus vestram justiliam debet experir solummodo: quoniam ad magnitudinem commissorum ejus, sicut precibus continetur, potestas ecclesiasticarum non sufficit sanctionum. Pando siquidem vestræ potentiæ et quid de sancto Chalcedonensi concilio sentire dignoscor. Hoc etenim nullatenus a veritate discordat: quoniam fidem traditam a asanctis beatisque trecendis decem et octo Patribus consona voluntate divina inspiratione firmavit, non vanam expositionem, non dualitatem unigenti Filii Dei, neque novitatem aliquam celebravit; sed per omnia consonat etiam sacro concilio centum quinguaginta sanctorum Patrum pariter, et Ephesino, cui præsederunt ter beati et sanctissimi Patres Cœlestinus Romanæ pontifex civitatis, et Cyrilus Alexandrius episcopus. Supplicamus igitur vestræ potentiæ, ut inviolabiliter conservetis ea quæ a Christo per ipsum de ipso bene sunt constituta. Ubi enim tantorum erat congregata multitudo pontificum, et sanctorum præsenti Evangeliorum, et frequens simul oratio, illic creaturæ totius opificem invisibili virtute credimus fuisse præsentem.","english":"Therefore, the holy canons, which the abominable Timotheus has repeatedly rejected through his tyranny, confusing ecclesiastical discipline and inflicting injuries, have more clearly explained the sentence that he has incurred against himself, having become an enemy of the whole of Christianity in some way. For caught in such matters, he ought to experience your justice alone, since, as is contained in the petitions, the power of ecclesiastical sanctions does not suffice for the magnitude of his crimes. I also disclose to your power what I am known to think about the holy Council of Chalcedon. For this in no way departs from the truth, because it confirmed the faith handed down by the holy and blessed three hundred and eighteen Fathers with harmonious will and divine inspiration; it did not celebrate a vain exposition, nor a duality of the only-begotten Son of God, nor any novelty, but in all things it also agrees with the holy Council of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers, and likewise with the Council of Ephesus, over which the thrice-blessed and most holy Fathers Celestine, pontiff of the city of Rome, and Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, presided. Therefore we beseech your power that you inviolably preserve those things which have been well established by Christ through him and concerning him. For where such a great multitude of pontiffs was gathered, with the holy Gospels present and frequent prayer, there we believe that the maker of all creation was present by an invisible power.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Sententiam itaque quam contra se Timotheus nefandus exigit","severity":"info","text":"The sentence Timotheus incurs against himself is likely the condemnation for heresy, as the canons clarify his self-incrimination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tyrannide","severity":"info","text":"Tyrannide denotes usurpation of authority, here referring to Timotheus's rejection of canonical discipline, a common charge in ecclesiastical conflicts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"sancto Chalcedonensi concilio","severity":"info","text":"The Council of Chalcedon (451) affirmed the two natures of Christ, a key point in the Christological controversies of the 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"trecendis decem et octo Patribus","severity":"info","text":"The 318 Fathers refer to the First Council of Nicaea (325), which established the Nicene Creed, foundational for later councils.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Supplicamus igitur vestræ potentiæ","severity":"info","text":"This phrase marks a shift from doctrinal exposition to a direct petition to the emperor, typical of the letter's rhetorical structure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"creaturæ totius opificem invisibili virtute credimus fuisse præsentem","severity":"info","text":"This assertion of Christ's presence at Chalcedon reflects a later theological emphasis on conciliar authority as divinely guided.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has minor orthographic variants (e.g., 'descriplinam' for 'disciplinam', 'totuis' for 'totius'), but these do not affect the sense.","The phrase 'injurias inferendo' could be read as either physical or verbal injuries; the context suggests ecclesiastical disruption."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Terror enim tunc nullus fuit imperialis auctoritatis: quoniam sanctæ piæque memoriæ Marcianus, amorisdivi ni diademete coronatus, spiritalem quoque suscipiens curam, festinavit apostolorum dogmata confirmari a præsulibus Ecclesiæ, desiderio fidei accensus orthodoxæ. Quem cum vestra pietas imitatur, et victoriam contra barbaros adipiscitur, et veritatis quoque destruit inimicos.\n\nJulianus humilis episcopus definiens retui.\n\nADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM.\n\nEpislola Eutychis ad S. Leonem. inter Leoninas 21, cum cæteris documentis, eidam annexis, post Flaviani mortem, seu post. an. 449, a nobili quodam viro ad peritum nescio quem missa fuit, ut quid circa illa sen tiret, exponeret. Quæ iste confutunda credidit, una cum ipsa censura addita fuerunt velut Appendix documentis ad Nesstoriam hæresim pertinentibus quæ e Casinesi codice Lupus et Baluxius typius deberunt, ac tom. IV Concil. recusa inveniuntur pag. 499. Epistolam Eutychis et cætera fragmenta, quæ ab anonymo ad crisim vo cantur, jam exhibuimus epist. 21. Nunc ipsam confutationem proferimus, quæ cum nullam mentionem faciat synodi Chalcedonensis, ante hoc Concilium scripta videtur, nimirum circa an. 450.Ipsum titulum ex eodem codice Casinensi exhibemus.","english":"There was then no terror of imperial authority: for Marcianus, of holy and pious memory, crowned with the diadem of divine love, also taking up spiritual care, hastened to have the doctrines of the apostles confirmed by the bishops of the Church, kindled by the desire of orthodox faith. Whom when your Piety imitates, you both gain victory against the barbarians and also destroy the enemies of truth.\n\nJulianus, humble bishop, having defined, has reported.\n\nWARNING ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER.\n\nThe letter of Eutyches to Saint Leo, among the Leonine letters 21, with the other documents, also annexed to it, after the death of Flavianus, or after the year 449, was sent by a certain nobleman to some expert, so that he might set forth what he thought concerning those matters. Which that expert believed should be refuted, together with the censure itself, were added as an Appendix to the documents pertaining to the Nestorian heresy, which Lupus and Baluzius published from the Codex Casinensis, and are found reprinted in volume IV of the Councils, page 499. The letter of Eutyches and the other fragments, which are called to judgment by the anonymous author, we have already presented as letter 21. Now we present the refutation itself, which, since it makes no mention of the Council of Chalcedon, seems to have been written before that Council, namely around the year 450. We present the title itself from the same Codex Casinensis.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Marcianus","severity":"info","text":"Marcian (emperor 450–457) convened the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The passage contrasts his pious support for orthodox doctrine with the earlier tyranny of Timothy, reinforcing Leo’s polemic.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"amoris divini diademate coronatus","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'crowned with the diadem of divine love' blends imperial and spiritual imagery, a common trope in Leo’s letters to exalt orthodox rulers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ADMONITIO IN EPISTOLAM SEQUENTEM","severity":"info","text":"This editorial note introduces the refutation of Eutyches’ letter, explaining its provenance from the Codex Casinensis and dating it before Chalcedon (c. 450). It is not part of Leo’s original letter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Codex Casinensis","severity":"info","text":"The Codex Casinensis, a manuscript from Monte Cassino, was used by Lupus and Baluzius for their edition of documents on the Nestorian heresy. The refutation and Eutyches’ letter survive in this transmission.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"text","lemma":"ante hoc Concilium scripta videtur, nimirum circa an. 450","severity":"info","text":"The editor dates the refutation to around 450, before Chalcedon, based on its silence about the council. This places it in the immediate aftermath of the Second Council of Ephesus (449).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Julianus humilis episcopus definiens retui","severity":"caution","text":"The identity of 'Julianus humilis episcopus' is uncertain; he may be a later editor or a bishop involved in the transmission. The phrase 'definiens retui' suggests a formal subscription, but its authenticity is unclear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Julianus humilis episcopus' is not specified; he may be a later compiler or a historical figure. The phrase 'definiens retui' could be a scribal formula rather than a genuine subscription."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"EPISTOLA VII.\n\nTacito nomine facta ad quemdam senem cupientem scire quid contrarium catholicæ fidei senserit Eutyches.\n\nMisit mihi nobilitas tua exemplum libelli de novæ. fidei Expositione Eutychetis, quem exposuit scribendo ad beatissimum papam sedis apostolicæ Leonem. Scribere et dignatus ut si quid inde sentirem, humilitatis meæ litteris indicarem. Quod quidem ipse pro studio sanctæ affectuose injungere dignatus es; sed mihi trepidam habenti mentem et timore repletum cor, in hac quæstione periculosum videtru ag gredi, præcipiente doctore et illuminatore gentium apostolo Paulo et generaliter monenete ac dicente: Stultas autem et ineruditas quæstiones et contentiones et pugnas legis devita. Sunt inutiles et vanæ. Tamen ipsius beatissimi apostoli Pauli precibus, adjuvante Domino et Deo Jesu Christo, quod potuerit rusticus sermo et tenuis meus sensus aggrediar; non ut ma gnitudo majestas fidei exigit, sed ut tenues vires meæ humilitatis patiuntur. Cum ergo percurrerem prædictum exemplar epistolæ vel libellum fidei Eutychetis, inter cætera textus verborum ejus inveni, ubi a sancto concilio Episcoporum expeti a se duas naturas in Christo conqueritur confiteri.Quod si consulens suæ continentiæ et vetustæ in se castitatis laborihus confiteri voluisset, numquam sententiæ suæ fidei periculum fuisset passus.","english":"LETTER VII.\n\nA letter, with the name suppressed, to a certain old man desiring to know what Eutyches thought contrary to the Catholic faith.\n\nYour nobility sent me a copy of the little book on the new exposition of the faith by Eutyches, which he set forth in writing to the most blessed pope of the apostolic see, Leo. You also deigned to write, so that if I thought anything about it, I might indicate it in a letter of my humility. This indeed you yourself, out of zeal for the holy, have affectionately deigned to enjoin; but for me, having a trembling mind and a heart filled with fear, it seems perilous to approach this question, with the teacher and enlightener of the gentiles, the apostle Paul, commanding and generally warning and saying: \"Avoid foolish and unlearned questions and contentions and fights of the law. They are useless and vain.\" Nevertheless, with the prayers of the same most blessed apostle Paul, with the Lord and God Jesus Christ helping, I shall approach what my rustic speech and slender understanding can manage; not as the greatness and majesty of the faith demands, but as the weak powers of my humility allow. Therefore, when I ran through the aforementioned copy of the letter or little book on the faith of Eutyches, among other things in the text of his words I found where he complains that he was required by the holy council of bishops to confess two natures in Christ. If, consulting his own continence and the labors of his ancient chastity, he had wished to confess, he would never have suffered danger to the judgment of his faith.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola VII","severity":"info","text":"The heading 'Epistola VII' marks this as the seventh letter in the collection, but the incipit 'Tacito nomine facta ad quemdam senem' indicates a separate, untitled letter within the same number.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"libelli de novæ fidei Expositione Eutychetis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'libelli de novæ fidei Expositione Eutychetis' refers to a short treatise or pamphlet by Eutyches, likely his statement of faith sent to Pope Leo I, which the recipient has forwarded to the author.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Stultas autem et ineruditas quæstiones et contentiones et pugnas legis devita","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 6:4 (Vulgate: 'devita stultas et ineruditas quaestiones et contentiones et pugnas legis'), though the canonical verse is 1 Timothy 6:4; the author adapts Paul's warning against useless disputes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"duas naturas in Christo","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'duas naturas in Christo' refers to the orthodox doctrine of two natures (divine and human) in Christ, which Eutyches rejected, leading to his condemnation at the Council of Chalcedon (451).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Eutyches","severity":"info","text":"Eutyches, a Constantinopolitan archimandrite, was condemned for monophysitism; this letter reflects the post-Chalcedonian reception of his views as heretical, with the author distancing himself from Eutyches' position.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Tacito nomine facta","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'Tacito nomine facta' indicates the author's name is suppressed, possibly for humility or due to the sensitive nature of the doctrinal dispute; the identity of the 'senem' (old man) is also unclear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the author and the recipient ('quemdam senem') is not specified; the letter may be pseudepigraphal or deliberately anonymized.","The phrase 'novæ fidei Expositione' could imply a new or novel exposition, possibly a negative characterization of Eutyches' teaching."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Sed quia in unam Christi personam secundum apostolorum vel prophetarum seu Evangeliorum traditionem duas naturas in Christo confiteri noluit, in ipso portu exitus sui non solum ipse laborum continentiæ suæ nauira gium passus est, verum etiam jam olim bene fundatam Ecclesiarum per orbem terrarum perturbavit fi dem, et ad cumulum perfidiæ suæ, Christi veneratorem et bonæ fidei fidelem prædicatorem beatum oc cidit episcopum Flavianum. Et ille quidem quietis temporibus, nulla existente publica persecutione, coronam accipiens martyrii, nunc cum beato suo magistro apostolo Paulo gloriatur et dicit: Bonum certamen certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem servavi. De cætero superest corona justitiæ, quam reddet mihi, Dominus in illa die justus judex,non solum autem mihi, sed et omnibus qui diligunt manifestationem ejus. Et illo quidem cum omnibus sanctis Domino gloriante nobis necesse est, si meremur ejus sequi vestigia te traditionem fidei, per quam gloriasum meruit exitum, totis fidei viribus et usque ad mortem tenere et in unam Christi personam duas confiteri naturas. Di vinitatis et humanitatis, creatricis et creatæ, assumptricis et assumptæ, Quæ tamen substantiæ aut na turæ, non confusæ, sed unitæ, et in una eademque persona inseparabiliter, et in sua semper proprietate sunt permanentæ.","english":"But because he was unwilling to confess two natures in Christ in one person of Christ according to the tradition of the apostles, prophets, or Gospels, at the very harbor of his departure he not only suffered shipwreck of the labors of his own continence, but also disturbed the faith of the churches long and well founded throughout the world, and to the height of his perfidy he killed the blessed bishop Flavianus, a venerator of Christ and a faithful preacher of the true faith. And he indeed, in times of peace, with no public persecution existing, receiving the crown of martyrdom, now glories with his blessed master the apostle Paul and says: I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. For the rest, the crown of justice remains, which the Lord, the just judge on that day, will give to me, and not only to me, but to all who love his manifestation. And while he glories with all the saints in the Lord, it is necessary for us, if we are worthy to follow his footsteps and the tradition of faith through which he merited a glorious end, to hold with all the strength of faith and unto death, and to confess two natures in one person of Christ: of divinity and humanity, of the creating and the created, of the assuming and the assumed, which substances or natures, however, are not confused but united, and in one and the same person inseparably, and always remain in their own property.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"nauira gium passus est","severity":"info","text":"The Latin 'nauira gium' is a misspelling or scribal error for 'naufragium' (shipwreck). The metaphor of shipwreck at the harbor of death is a common patristic image for final failure of faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Bonum certamen certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem servavi","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of 2 Timothy 4:7, where Paul speaks of fighting the good fight and finishing the course. The phrase 'fidem servavi' echoes the pastoral epistles' emphasis on preserving the faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"corona justitiæ, quam reddet mihi, Dominus in illa die justus judex","severity":"info","text":"The crown of justice from the just judge on the last day alludes to 2 Timothy 4:8 and the broader Pauline theme of eschatological reward for fidelity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"beatam occidit episcopum Flavianum","severity":"info","text":"Flavianus of Constantinople (d. 449) was deposed and died after the 'Robber Council' of Ephesus (449). Leo here treats his death as martyrdom, though historical accounts vary on the cause.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"duas naturas in Christo","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'two natures in Christ' is central to Leo's Christology, affirming the Chalcedonian definition (451) of one person in two natures, divine and human, without confusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sed quia ... noluit ... verum etiam ... et ad cumulum","severity":"info","text":"The passage builds a cumulative argument: Eutyches' refusal to confess two natures leads to his own shipwreck, disturbance of the churches, and the killing of Flavianus, climaxing in the call to uphold the true faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'nauira gium' is a clear scribal error for 'naufragium'; the English draft corrects it to 'shipwreck'.","The identity of the 'certain old man' in the heading is not specified in the passage.","The phrase 'beatam occidit episcopum Flavianum' may be rhetorical; Flavianus's death was not necessarily a direct execution."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Quapropter unicuique substantiæ naturæ propria utique aptanda sunt, id est, infirmitatis humanitati, quæ creata est digna, non vero mutabilia Divinitati, quæ creavit. In tantum enim hæ duæ naturæ in una persona Christus simul unitæ sunt atque conjunctæ, ut idem Jesus Christus. Dei Filius, Deus et homo, aliquando res aut agat aut loquatur humanas, aliquando vero divinas. Nam denique ut duarum naturarum, id est Divinitatis et humanitatis, in se ostenderet substantias, navigans dormit in navi ut homo, et procellæ, eminenti vento, vel mari imperat ut Deus, dicens: Tace, obmutesce. Et post quadragnita dierum atque noctium jejunium esurit ut homo, et in solitudine quinque millia virorum, exceptis infantibus et mulieribus, de quinque panibus et duobus piscibus refecit ut Deus. Et quid plura? A Judæis crucifixus, et lancea in latere compunctus, moritur ut homo, et Lazarum quatriduanum de monumento resuscitavit ut Deus, auctoritate divina dicens: Lazare, veni foras. Harum ergo, domine, duarum naturarum in Christo traditio est fortiter custodienda, ne cum Eutychete aut cæteris ejus consentaneis eas in unam confundentes, novum incertæ fidei teneamus tramitem.","english":"Therefore, the properties proper to each substance must be assigned accordingly: that is, the weaknesses of humanity, which was created, to the human nature, and not the mutable attributes to the divinity, which created. For these two natures are so united and joined together in the one person of Christ that the same Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God and man, sometimes does or says human things, sometimes divine. For finally, to show in himself the substances of the two natures, that is, of divinity and humanity, while sailing he sleeps in the ship as a man, and commands the storm, the raging wind, and the sea as God, saying: \"Be still, be silent.\" And after a fast of forty days and nights, he hungers as a man, and in the wilderness he refreshes five thousand men, besides infants and women, with five loaves and two fishes as God. And what more? Crucified by the Jews and pierced with a lance in his side, he dies as a man, and raises the four-days-dead Lazarus from the tomb as God, with divine authority saying: \"Lazarus, come forth.\" Therefore, lord, the tradition of these two natures in Christ is to be firmly guarded, lest, confounding them into one with Eutyches and his other followers, we hold to a new path of uncertain faith.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Quapropter unicuique substantiæ naturæ propria utique aptanda sunt","severity":"info","text":"The sentence asserts that properties proper to each substance must be assigned accordingly, establishing a principle of distinction between human and divine natures in Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"substantia","severity":"info","text":"Substantia here is synonymous with natura, referring to the two natures (divine and human) in Christ, a key term in the Christological debates of the 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Lazare, veni foras","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Lazare, veni foras' echoes the Gospel account of the raising of Lazarus (John 11:43), used here as an example of Christ's divine action.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Eutychete","severity":"info","text":"Eutyches (c. 378–454) was a Constantinopolitan archimandrite whose monophysite Christology, condemned at Chalcedon (451), held that Christ's human nature was absorbed into the divine. The letter opposes this view.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Harum ergo, domine, duarum naturarum in Christo traditio est fortiter custodienda","severity":"info","text":"This concluding sentence summarizes the passage's argument, urging adherence to the tradition of two natures in Christ and warning against the error of Eutyches.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"navigans dormit in navi ut homo, et procellæ, eminenti vento, vel mari imperat ut Deus","severity":"info","text":"The miracle of Christ calming a storm while sleeping is not canonical; it likely derives from apocryphal traditions (e.g., the Infancy Gospel of Thomas), reflecting the letter's use of non-scriptural exempla.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The source of the miracle of Christ sleeping and commanding the storm is unclear; it may be from an apocryphal tradition or a lost homily.","The phrase 'quinque millia virorum, exceptis infantibus et mulieribus' in the feeding miracle is not in the canonical Gospels (cf. Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; John 6:1-14), suggesting a variant tradition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"Optime enim eos dedigna ris, quia omne quod confusum, obscurum et incer tum esse cognoscitur: siquidem ut datur intelligi, proprias easdem naturas Divinitatis et humanitatis imprudenti sensu in unum confundere videntur, ut non separantes hulanitatis substantiam a Christi Di vinitatis natura, ipsa voce Deum passibilem pronun tient. Nam deinque epistola quam dicit Eutyches Julii quoandam episcopi urbis Romæ esse quam et ad so latium suæ perfidiæ ignoro, forsitan falsam protulit, cujus et pravo sensu duci cognoscitur, in ipso ultimo textu sui ita profitetur, dicens: Qui igitur sic sentiunt, non excedunt, ab inconsona contraria sentientibus, ut cum mente divinis præceptis consonant, sermo nibus discrepent.Necesse est enim eos, cum duas naturas intelligunt, alteram colere, alteram non adorare, et in divinum quidem baptizari, in humanam vero non baptizari. Vides ergo quomodo impugnates et con fundentes duarum naturarum substantiam, Deum passibilem pronuntiare perfido sensu conantur. Nos vero, qui catholicæ fedei rectum tenemus tramitem, prætemissa hac confusione duarum naturarum, in Dominicam carnem baptizati, proterea eam adora mus, qui a Divinitate suscepta atque eidem ita unita sit, ut non alium atque alium, sed unum eudemque Deum et hominem, Dei filium confiteamur.","english":"For they very well disdain you, because everything that is known to be confused, obscure, and uncertain: since, as can be understood, they seem to confound the very natures of Divinity and humanity into one with imprudent sense, so that, not separating the substance of humanity from the nature of Christ’s Divinity, they pronounce God passible by that very word. For then the letter which Eutyches says is of Julius, once bishop of the city of Rome, and which he brought forth, perhaps falsely, for the solace of his perfidy, and by whose perverse sense he is known to be led, in its very final text thus professes, saying: Therefore those who think thus do not exceed, from those who think inconsistently and contrarily, so that when they agree with divine precepts in mind, they disagree in words. For it is necessary that they, when they understand two natures, worship one, not adore the other, and be baptized into the divine indeed, but not be baptized into the human. You see, therefore, how, attacking and confounding the substance of the two natures, they attempt with perfidious sense to pronounce God passible. But we, who hold the straight path of catholic faith, having set aside this confusion of the two natures, baptized into the Lord’s flesh, adore it for that reason, because it was assumed by the Divinity and so united to it that we confess not one and another, but one and the same God and man, the Son of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"passibilem","severity":"info","text":"The term 'passibilem' (passible) is central to the Christological controversy: it asserts that God can suffer, which the orthodox position denies. The text accuses Eutyches of using this term to conflate the natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Eutyches","severity":"info","text":"Eutyches was a Constantinopolitan archimandrite whose monophysite Christology (emphasizing one nature after the union) was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451). This letter reflects Leo's opposition to Eutyches' views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Julii","severity":"info","text":"The reference to 'Julius, once bishop of the city of Rome' likely points to Pope Julius I (337–352). Eutyches allegedly cited a letter of Julius to support his position, but Leo implies it is a forgery or misinterpretation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Optime enim eos dedigna ris","severity":"info","text":"The passage begins with a rhetorical address ('For they very well disdain you'), then moves to a critique of Eutyches' use of a letter, and concludes with a positive statement of orthodox belief. This structure contrasts error with correct doctrine.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"baptizati","severity":"info","text":"The reference to being 'baptized into the Lord's flesh' reflects a liturgical and theological emphasis on the incarnation. This language appears in later Latin Christological debates, showing the lasting influence of Leo's formulation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"epistola quam dicit Eutyches Julii","severity":"caution","text":"The text notes that Eutyches' cited letter may be false ('forsitan falsam'). This introduces uncertainty about the authenticity of the source, which is crucial for evaluating the argument. The passage does not resolve this ambiguity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the letter attributed to Julius I is uncertain; it may be a forgery or misattribution.","The phrase 'Optime enim eos dedigna ris' is syntactically unclear; the translation 'For they very well disdain you' is one possible reading."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Nam si Eutyches aut cæteri ejus consentientes hominem se parant a Christo Deo, illi nos numquam adoramus aut servimus. aut si quis nostram purpuram aut dia dema regale jacentia in veniat, numquid ea conabitur adorare? Mox vero ut ea rex fuerit indutus, pericu lum mortis incurrit, si quis eam simul cum rege ad rare contempserit. Ita Christi Domini nostri perfe ctam humanitatem, non solam et nudam, sed Divi nitati suæ unitam, unum eamdemque Dei Filum, Deum verum, et hominem verum, si quis adorare contempserit, æternam mortem partietur. Sequitur et julis, cujus sensu ducitur Eutyches, et dicit: Si autem in mortem Domini baptizantur, unam profitemur naturam et impassionabilis Deitatis et passionabilis car nis. Velim plenius agnoscere quomodo dicant carnis? Si hæc caro sine anima est, quid est caro ista nisi terra sine sensu, quæ nec gratias agere valuit, nec crucis pœnas sentire potuit? Quod autem caro sine anima sentire non possit cuntis est manifestum. Si autem, ut illi sentiunt, in illa Dominica carne Divi nitas pro anima fuit, Divinitatem ergo passionibus subjiciunt. Si autem, ut vera se habet Scripturarum fidelissima ratio, simul cum carne et humanam suscepit animam, ergo pefectus Deus perfectam sussce pit hominis naturam, ut ostenderet se simul cum hu mana carne et humanam suscepisse animam, id est perfectum hominem.","english":"For if Eutyches or the others who agree with him prepare a man apart from Christ as God, we never adore or serve that man. Or if someone finds our purple robe or royal diadem lying on the ground, would he attempt to adore it? But as soon as the king has put it on, he incurs the danger of death if he has disdained to adore it together with the king. Thus, if anyone disdains to adore the perfect humanity of our Lord Christ—not alone and naked, but united to His Divinity, one and the same Son of God, true God and true man—he will incur eternal death. Next follows the statement of Julius, by whose reasoning Eutyches is led, and he says: “But if they are baptized into the death of the Lord, we profess one nature of the impassible Deity and of the passible flesh.” I would like to understand more fully how they speak of “flesh.” If this flesh is without a soul, what is that flesh but earth without sensation, which could neither give thanks nor feel the pains of the cross? That flesh without a soul cannot feel is manifest to all. But if, as they think, in that Lordly flesh the Divinity served as the soul, then they subject the Divinity to passions. But if, as the most faithful reasoning of the Scriptures truly holds, He assumed a human soul together with the flesh, then the perfect God assumed the perfect nature of man, so that He showed that He assumed a human soul together with human flesh, that is, a perfect man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"purpuram aut diadema regale","severity":"info","text":"Leo uses the analogy of a king's regalia to argue that Christ's humanity, when united to his divinity, is worthy of adoration, whereas the humanity alone is not.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"unam eamdemque Dei Filum","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'unam eamdemque Dei Filum' (one and the same Son of God) emphasizes the unity of Christ's person against Nestorian or Eutychian separation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"baptizantur in mortem Domini","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'baptizantur in mortem Domini' echoes Romans 6:3, where baptism is into Christ's death, but here it is cited by Julius to argue for a single nature of Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Julius","severity":"info","text":"Julius is likely Julius of Rome (or a figure in the Eutychian controversy) whose reasoning Leo critiques; the reference is obscure but points to a lost source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Sequitur et julis","severity":"info","text":"This passage transitions from Leo's own argument to a quotation from Julius, which Leo then analyzes, forming a dialectical structure common in patristic letters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"carnis sine anima","severity":"info","text":"Leo's argument that flesh without a soul cannot feel or give thanks anticipates later Christological debates about the presence of a human soul in Christ, affirmed at Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Julius' is uncertain; he may be a lost author or a misattribution.","The phrase 'unam eamdemque Dei Filum' contains a possible scribal error ('Filum' for 'Filium')."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"Dicit enim: Postor bonus animam ponit pro ovibus suis Et Potestatem habeo po nendi animam meam, et iterum potestem habo sumendi eam.Et in ipso articoulo passionis suæ dicit: Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem; et: Nunc anima mea conturbata est.Non enim Deus aliquando perturbatur, sed ille utique homo qui esuriit, qui qitiit, qui dormivit, qui lassatus fuit atque ploravit: quæ omnia sine affectibus animæ caro sola sentire non potuit, nisi ille homo perfectus, quem suscepti Deus perfectus, dicente Hieremia propheta: Hic Deus no ster, non æstimababitur alius ad eam: qui invenit omnem viam disciplinæ,et debit eam Jacob puero suo, et Israel dilecto a se. Et adjecit: Post hæc in terris visus est, et cum hominibusconversatus est. Qua porro forma in terra visus fuerit et conversatus sit, sanctissimus prophetarum Isaia plenissime et apertius exponit: Domine, qui credidit auditui nostro, et brachium Domini cui revelatum est? Annuntiavimus coram ipso tamquam pueri, ut radix in terra silienti. Non est ei specis neque gloria. Vidinas eum, et non habuit speciem neque decorem; sed species ejus sine honore, et abjecta præ omnibus hominibus. Homo in plaga positus, sciens ferre infirmitates. et pro nihilo æstimatu est. Hic peccata nostra portat, et pro nobis dolet. Nos æstimavimus eum in dolore esse et in plaga et in vexa tione.","english":"He says: \"The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. And I have the power to lay down my life, and again I have the power to take it up.\" And in that very moment of his passion he says: \"My soul is sad unto death,\" and: \"Now my soul is troubled.\" For God is never troubled, but certainly that man who hungered, who thirsted, who slept, who was weary and wept: all of which the flesh alone could not have felt without the affections of the soul, unless that perfect man, whom the perfect God assumed, had experienced them, as the prophet Jeremiah says: \"This is our God; no other shall be compared to him: he who found every path of discipline and gave it to his servant Jacob, and to his beloved Israel.\" And he added: \"After this he was seen on earth, and he conversed with men.\" But in what form he was seen on earth and conversed, the most holy of the prophets, Isaiah, explains most fully and openly: \"Lord, who believed our hearing, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? We announced before him as children, like a root in thirsty ground. He has no beauty nor glory. We saw him, and he had no beauty nor comeliness; but his form was without honor, and abject before all men. A man placed in affliction, knowing how to bear infirmities, and he was accounted as nothing. He bears our sins, and grieves for us. We thought him to be in pain and in affliction and in torment.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Postor bonus animam ponit pro ovibus suis","severity":"info","text":"The Latin conflates two Gospel sayings: the Good Shepherd (John 10:11) and the laying down of life (John 10:15). The phrasing is Leo's own adaptation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem","severity":"info","text":"A loose citation of Psalm 88:16 (LXX) or Matthew 26:38, where Christ says 'My soul is very sorrowful, even to death.' Leo applies it to the passion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hic Deus noster, non aestimabitur alius ad eam","severity":"info","text":"A citation from the apocryphal Jeremiah (Baruch 3:36-38), used by Leo to assert Christ's unique divinity and humanity. The Latin text is corrupt here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Domine, qui credidit auditui nostro...","severity":"info","text":"A paraphrase of Isaiah 53:2-3, describing the suffering servant. Leo adapts the LXX text to emphasize Christ's lowly appearance.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Homo in plaga positus","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes the Vetus Latina of Isaiah 53:3, 'homo in plaga positus,' meaning a man placed under affliction. Leo uses it to stress Christ's human suffering.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Non est ei specis neque gloria","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin is garbled; 'specis' likely stands for 'species' (beauty). The passage conflates Isaiah 53:2-3 with later patristic glosses, making the exact source uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text of the Jeremiah citation is corrupt ('non aestimababitur' for 'non aestimabitur'), and the Isaiah paraphrase conflates multiple verses. The English draft smooths these into a coherent narrative."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Ipse autem vulneratus propter peccata nostra, et infirmatus est propter iniquitates nostras? Erudito pa cis nostræ in eum, livore ejus nos sanati sumus. Omnis ut oves erravimus, et omnes homines a sua via errave runt. Et Dominus tradidit eum pro peccatis nostris. Ipse autem male vextus continuit labia sua, ut ovis ad im molandum ductus est. Et sicut agnus coram tondente se sine voce, sic non aperuit os suum. In humilitate judicium ejus sublatum est. Generationem autem ejus quis enarravit? Quoniam tolletur a terra vita ejus, et ab i iiquitabus populi mei dutus est ad mortem. Et dabo inanes pro sepultura ejus, et divites pro morte ejus. Quoniam iniquitatem non fecit, nec dolus inven tus est in ore ejus. Et Dominus vult purgare eumde plaga. Si detis pro peccato animas vestras, videbitis se men longæ vitæ,et vult Dominus adolere animæ ejus, ostendere ei lumen, formare prudentiam, justificare justum, bene servientem pluribus. Et peccata eorum ipse portavit. Ideo ipse hæreditatem possidebit multos, et fortium partietur spolia. Propter quod tradita est in mortem anima ejus, et inter iniqus deputatus est. Et ipse peccata multorum tollit, et propter iniquitates nostras traditas est.","english":"But was he himself wounded because of our sins, and did he become weak because of our iniquities? By the teaching of our peace in him, we have been healed by his bruise. All of us have strayed like sheep, and all men have wandered from their way. And the Lord gave him up for our sins. But he, ill-treated, kept his lips closed, and was led like a sheep to the slaughter. And like a lamb before its shearer without a sound, so he did not open his mouth. His judgment was taken away in humility. But who has recounted his generation? Because his life will be taken from the earth, and by the iniquities of my people he was given over to death. And I will give empty things for his burial, and rich things for his death. For he committed no iniquity, nor was deceit found in his mouth. And the Lord wishes to cleanse him from the wound. If you give your souls for sin, you will see the seed of long life, and the Lord wishes to kindle his soul, to show him light, to form prudence, to justify the just man, who serves many well. And he himself bore their sins. Therefore he himself will possess many as an inheritance, and will share in the spoils of the strong. Because his soul was given over to death, and he was counted among the wicked. And he himself takes away the sins of many, and was given over because of our iniquities.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ipse autem vulneratus propter peccata nostra","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:5 (Vulgate: 'et vulneratus est propter peccata nostra'). The Latin text closely follows the Vetus Latina tradition of Isaiah.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Isaiah 53:5"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"sicut agnus coram tondente se sine voce","severity":"info","text":"The image of a silent lamb led to slaughter recalls Isaiah 53:7 (Vulgate: 'sicut agnus coram tondente se obmutuit'). The Latin text is a direct citation from the Vetus Latina of Isaiah.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Isaiah 53:7"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"livore ejus nos sanati sumus","severity":"info","text":"'Livore' (bruise) is a key term in the Christological argument: the physical wound of Christ heals the spiritual wounds of humanity. The word appears in the Vetus Latina of Isaiah 53:10.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Generationem autem ejus quis enarravit?","severity":"info","text":"This rhetorical question echoes the theme of Christ's pre-existence and divine generation, a point of contention in the 5th-century Christological debates (e.g., Nestorianism). Leo I argues for the unity of Christ's person.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et ipse peccata multorum tollit","severity":"info","text":"This passage forms a chiastic structure: it opens and closes with Christ bearing sins (peccata nostra / peccata multorum), framing the narrative of his suffering and sacrifice.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Et dabo inanes pro sepultura ejus","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'dabo inanes' is obscure; it may be a corruption of 'dabo inanes' (I will give empty things) or a misreading of a Hebrew or Greek original. The sense is uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'dabo inanes pro sepultura ejus' is textually uncertain; the intended meaning may be 'I will give worthless things for his burial' or a corruption of a different phrase.","The identity of the speaker shifts between the Lord, the prophet, and the suffering servant, creating ambiguity in the narrative voice."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"Parvide igitur, domine mi, se cundum sanctæ tuæ mentis studium, quomodo prædicti prophetæ Hieremias et Isaia sibimet consentientes asserant qualiter perfectus Deus de cœlo descendens pro salute generis humani, susceperit hominem, et superius ab Isaia prædictas passiones uterque naturæ illius in Christo suscepti hominis assignet. Nam numquid Deus, qui est invisilis, incomprehensibiliter poterat comprehendi, aut inimicis tradi, aut inter impios deputari, aut mori, aut vita ejus a terra tolli? sed ille utique qui, ut supra jam diximus, esuriit, sitivit, lassatus fuit, dormivit atque ploravit, qui etiam in cruce passionis pendens, cum vidisset in se inhabitantem Deum de suo exire corpore, lacrymabili voce clamavit post eum, Hebraica Iingua dicens: Heli, Heli lamasabactani: est: Deus meus, quare me reliquisti? quamvis tertia die eum esset resuscitaturus. Tamen necesse erat illud adimpleri quod jam prædixerat in Evangelio Jesus, suis discipulis dicens: Ego a Deo processi, exivi a Patre, et veni in hunc mundum, et iterum relinquo hunc mundaum et vado ad Patrem. Siquidem et in ipsa passione, quamvis ille perfectus homo, a perfecto Deo susceptus, impiam moriens in cruce patiatur pœnam, tamen et ipse impassibilis deus in eodem a se suscepto perfecto homine, quamvis passionem non sustinuerit, tamen injuriam passus est.","english":"Therefore, my lord, according to the zeal of your holy mind, consider how the aforementioned prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah, in agreement with each other, assert how the perfect God, descending from heaven for the salvation of the human race, took on a man, and how Isaiah assigns the previously mentioned sufferings of each nature to that man taken on in Christ. For could the God who is invisible be incomprehensibly seized, or handed over to enemies, or counted among the impious, or die, or his life be taken from the earth? But certainly that one who, as we have already said above, hungered, thirsted, was weary, slept, and wept, who also, hanging on the cross of passion, when he saw the God dwelling in him departing from his body, cried out after him with a tearful voice, saying in the Hebrew language: \"Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?\" that is: \"My God, why have you forsaken me?\" although he was to revive him on the third day. Yet it was necessary that what Jesus had already foretold in the Gospel be fulfilled, saying to his disciples: \"I came from God, I came forth from the Father, and I entered this world, and again I leave this world and go to the Father.\" Indeed, even in that passion itself, although the perfect man, taken on by the perfect God, suffers an impious punishment dying on the cross, yet the impassible God himself, in that same perfect man taken on by him, although he did not undergo the passion, nevertheless suffered the injury.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Parvide igitur, domine mi, se cundum sanctæ tuæ mentis studium","severity":"info","text":"The opening phrase is a respectful address to a bishop, likely the recipient of the letter, urging careful theological consideration.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Heli, Heli lamasabactani","severity":"info","text":"This is a Latin transliteration of the Aramaic cry from the cross, 'Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?' (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?), found in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Ego a Deo processi, exivi a Patre, et veni in hunc mundum, et iterum relinquo hunc mundaum et vado ad Patrem","severity":"info","text":"This is a paraphrase of Jesus' words in John 16:28, though the exact phrasing is not a direct Vulgate quotation; it adapts the sense of coming from and returning to the Father.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"perfectus Deus ... perfectus homo","severity":"info","text":"The distinction between the perfect God and the perfect man taken on in Christ reflects the Antiochene Christology of two natures, which Leo I defended against monophysite views.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Nam numquid Deus ... sed ille utique","severity":"info","text":"The passage uses a rhetorical question to contrast the impassible divine nature with the passible human nature, a common device in Leo's Christological arguments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"se cundum","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'se cundum' is likely a scribal error for 'secundum' (according to), as the sense requires an adverb or preposition; the text is otherwise sound.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'se cundum' is a probable scribal error for 'secundum', but the intended meaning is clear from context."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"Nam sicut qui indumentum conscindit, et induto facit injuriam, ita et qui carnem ejus crucifixerunt, Divinitati ejus injuriam intulerunt. Hanc ergo Divinitatis injuriam omnia elementa videnta expaverunt. Nam dentique terra contremuit, petræ scissæ sunt, sol fugit in noctem, luna sanguineo colore fuscata est, et tam quam damnatione perpetua jam mundus oppressus esset, avulsæ locis cœlestibus stellæ ruerunt, ele mentorum lege confusa,apertis monumentis,sepulta jam olim corpora animas receperunt. Ideo ergo ca tholici per ordem terrarum fidelissimi Ecclesiarum doctores secundum Scripturarum auctoritatem duas in Christo naturas prædicant, Divinitatis (et huma nitatis. Quæ utinam considerasset Eutyches), et tot annorum continentiæ laboribus (se) apertis oculis non immersisset, nec Orientis Ecclessiis impiam protulisset perturbationem per confusas duarum natu rarum substantias,Deum passibilem pronuntians. Sed cum in ista suam sententiam Paulus apostolus compleat dicens: Quia novissimis temporibus recedent quidam a fide, tamen nos sollicitus præmonet dicens: Attendite spiritibus seductoribus in hypocrisi mendaciloquorum, cauteriatam habentium conscien tiam.","english":"Just as one who tears a garment does injury to the one wearing it, so also those who crucified His flesh inflicted injury upon His Divinity. Therefore, all the elements, seeing this injury to the Divinity, were terrified. For indeed the earth trembled, rocks were split, the sun fled into night, the moon was darkened with a blood-red color, and as if the world were already oppressed by perpetual condemnation, stars torn from their celestial places fell, the law of the elements was confounded, and tombs opened, and bodies long buried received back their souls. For this reason, therefore, the most faithful Catholic doctors throughout the whole world, according to the authority of the Scriptures, preach two natures in Christ, of Divinity and of humanity. (Would that Eutyches had considered this), and had not, with open eyes, plunged himself into the labors of so many years of continence, nor brought forth impious disturbance to the Churches of the East through confused substances of the two natures, pronouncing God passible. But since in this matter the Apostle Paul completes his statement, saying: \"Because in the last times some will depart from the faith,\" yet he warns us solicitously, saying: \"Beware of seductive spirits in the hypocrisy of liars, who have a cauterized conscience.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matthew 27:51-52","severity":"info","text":"The cosmic portents—earthquake, rocks splitting, solar eclipse, falling stars, and opened tombs—echo the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, particularly Matthew 27:51-52.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"duas in Christo naturas","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'two natures in Christ' is a technical term in Christology, affirming the Chalcedonian definition (451) that Christ is one person with two distinct natures, divine and human.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Eutyches","severity":"info","text":"Eutyches was a Constantinopolitan archimandrite whose monophysite Christology (denying two natures after the incarnation) was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon. Leo here rebukes him for causing ecclesiastical turmoil.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Attendite spiritibus seductoribus in hypocrisi mendaciloquorum","severity":"info","text":"This warning is not a direct biblical quotation but likely a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 4:1-2 or similar Pauline admonitions against false teachers, reflecting Leo's appeal to apostolic authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Nam sicut ... ita et","severity":"info","text":"The passage uses a comparative structure ('just as ... so also') to link the physical injury to Christ's garment with the injury to his divinity, reinforcing the unity of the two natures.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"per ordem terrarum fidelissimi Ecclesiarum doctores","severity":"info","text":"Leo claims universal consensus among orthodox teachers, a rhetorical move to marginalize Eutyches' position as isolated and contrary to the global Church tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'cauteriatam habentium conscientiam' (cauterized conscience) is ambiguous: it may refer to a hardened or branded conscience, implying moral insensibility or a mark of heresy."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"Nisi enim secundum Apostoli dictum cauteriatam et incertam suæ fidei habuisset conscientiam, numquam tantam confusionem Ecclesiis Dei exci tans, suæ perfidiæ socios fecisset sanctos trecentos decem et octo Patres Nicæni concilii, nec non et Cyrillum, sanctos episcopos: qui non utique ejus perfidiam sequendo, sed superius a mea humilitate expositam fidem docendo, inter sanctos et electos Dei in numero et libro viventium dinumerati sunt. Sed ut simplicium et imperitorum illudat et ad se ducens aduniat animos, ideo prædictos viros, catho licæ fidei auctores et prædicatores, suæ novæ et no vissimæ perfidiæ fingit esse socios. Vere in hunc Eutycheten completa est Apostoli sententia dicentis: Hujusmodi pseudoapostoli, operarii dolosi, transfigu rant se in apostolos Christi. Et non mirum. Ipse enim Satanas transfigurat se sicut angelum lucis. Non ergo magnum, si ministri ejus transfigurentur sicut ministri justitiæ: quorum finis est secundum operationem eo rum.","english":"For unless, according to the Apostle’s saying, he had a cauterized and uncertain conscience of his own faith, he would never have stirred up such great confusion in the Churches of God, making the holy three hundred and eighteen Fathers of the Council of Nicaea, as well as Cyril and the holy bishops, companions of his perfidy: who, not by following his perfidy, but by teaching the faith set forth above by my humility, are numbered among the saints and elect of God in the number and book of the living. But in order to deceive the simple and the unskilled and to draw their minds to himself and unite them, he pretends that the aforementioned men, the authors and preachers of the Catholic faith, are companions of his new and most recent perfidy. Truly in this Eutyches the Apostle’s saying is fulfilled: “Such false apostles, deceitful workers, transfigure themselves into apostles of Christ.” And it is no wonder. For Satan himself transfigures himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not a great thing if his ministers are transfigured as ministers of righteousness: whose end is according to their operation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"cauteriatam et incertam suae fidei habuisset conscientiam","severity":"info","text":"The phrase echoes 1 Timothy 4:2 (Vulgate: 'cauteriatam habens conscientiam'), referring to a branded or seared conscience, here applied to Eutyches' faith.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"trecentos decem et octo Patres Nicæni concilii","severity":"info","text":"The 318 Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea (325) were a standard symbol of orthodoxy; Leo invokes them to contrast Eutyches' novelty with apostolic tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"perfidiæ","severity":"info","text":"Perfidia (treachery, faithlessness) is Leo's standard term for heresy, especially Eutyches' monophysitism, implying both doctrinal error and moral betrayal.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Hujusmodi pseudoapostoli, operarii dolosi, transfigurant se in apostolos Christi","severity":"info","text":"This is not a direct biblical verse but a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 11:13 (Vulgate: 'Eiusmodi pseudoapostoli, operarii dolosi, transfigurant se in apostolos Christi'), applied to Eutyches.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"Satanas transfigurat se sicut angelum lucis","severity":"info","text":"The comparison of heretics to Satan disguising himself as an angel of light is a patristic topos, found in Cyprian and Augustine, here used to delegitimize Eutyches' appeal to Nicene authority.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Cyrillum, sanctos episcopos","severity":"info","text":"Leo claims Cyril of Alexandria as an ally, though Cyril's Christology was later contested; this reflects Leo's effort to align himself with Cyril against Eutyches, a key move in the Chalcedonian controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'cauteriatam' may be read as 'branded' (with shame) or 'cauterized' (as a medical metaphor); the English draft takes the latter. The identity of 'Cyrillum' is assumed to be Cyril of Alexandria, though the text does not specify."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"Secundum hanc ergo Apostoli sententiam, cum sit minister perfidiæ, simulat se socium esse mini stris justitiæ, a quibus prædictam fidei nostræ (non) tenuit, a se doctam exposuit rationem: inter quo rum discipulos et dulcissimos fideles fidei filios cupio tuam nobilitatem mecum pariter ascribi; ut eorum, si meremur, sequentes fidei vestigia, precibus in futuro judicio misericordiam impetrare mereamur a triplici pietatis unita majestate, hoc est Patris, et Filii, et spiritus sancti, cui gloria in sæcula sæcul lorum Amen.\n\nEPISTOLA VIII.\n\nSeu FRAGMENTUM GESTORUM Constantinopotanæ sy-nodi habitæ anno 450, in qua lecta et recepta fuitS. Leonis epist. 28, ad Flavianum, ex Vita S. Abundii epissopiComensi.\n\nAnatolius episcopus Constantinopolitanus nove Romæ accepta epistola S. Leonis paæ ad confirma tionem catholicæ fidei contra vesaniam hæreticorum, congregavit concilium omnium episcoporum, archimandritarum, presbyterorum et diaconorum; et ante conspectum omnium recitata est epistola S.","english":"According to this saying of the Apostle, therefore, since he is a minister of perfidy, he pretends to be a companion of the ministers of justice, from whom he did not hold the aforesaid (not) of our faith, and he set forth the reason taught by himself; among whose disciples and most beloved faithful sons of the faith I desire your nobility to be enrolled together with me, so that, if we are worthy, following the footsteps of their faith, we may deserve to obtain mercy by our prayers at the future judgment from the triune majesty of the one piety, that is, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, to whom is glory for ever and ever. Amen.\n\nLETTER VIII.\n\nOr FRAGMENT OF THE ACTS OF THE SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE held in the year 450, in which the letter of St. Leo to Flavian was read and received, from the Life of St. Abundius, Bishop of Como.\n\nAnatolius, bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, having received the letter of St. Leo the Pope for the confirmation of the Catholic faith against the madness of the heretics, gathered a council of all the bishops, archimandrites, presbyters, and deacons; and before the sight of all, the letter of St.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"non","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text includes '(non)' in parentheses, indicating an editorial insertion. The sense is uncertain: the original may have lacked the negation, altering the meaning of the clause.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"triplici pietatis unita majestate","severity":"info","text":"This phrase, 'the triune majesty of the one piety,' is a non-standard Trinitarian formula, possibly reflecting a later theological simplification or a scribal error.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Epistola VIII","severity":"info","text":"The passage is followed by a heading for 'Letter VIII,' but the content is a fragment from the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople (450), not a genuine letter of Leo. This suggests a later compilation or misattribution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"ex Vita S. Abundii episcopi Comensi","severity":"info","text":"The source is identified as from the 'Life of St. Abundius, Bishop of Como,' a hagiographical work. This indicates the passage was transmitted through a non-epistolary, possibly legendary, context.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Anatolius episcopus Constantinopolitanus","severity":"info","text":"The fragment describes Anatolius of Constantinople convening a synod to receive Leo's letter (Tome to Flavian). This reflects the historical reception of Leo's Christology at the Council of Chalcedon (451), though the synod here is dated 450.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"non tenuit","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'non tenuit' (did not hold) is ambiguous: it may mean the minister of perfidy did not adhere to the faith, or that he did not receive it from the ministers of justice. The editorial '(non)' compounds the uncertainty.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The presence of '(non)' in the Latin is an editorial insertion; the original text may have lacked it, altering the meaning of the clause about holding the faith.","The phrase 'triplici pietatis unita majestate' is an unusual Trinitarian formulation, possibly a later interpolation or scribal error.","The passage is attributed to a letter of Leo but is actually a fragment from a hagiographical work, raising questions about its authenticity and context."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"Leonis papæ quam beatus Abundius coram omnibus præ sentavit: concordantibus testimoniis Romanorum Patrum ac græcorum, Anatolius episcopus Constantinopolitanus huic epistolæ S.Leonis papæ continen ti catholicæ fidei veritatem, concordantibus etiam te stimoniis Patrum ab eadem apostolica sede decretorum (Lege directis) plena devotione consensit et subscripsit, anathema dicens Eutycheti et Nestorio, et ipsum ipsorum dogmati cum sectatoribus eorum. Id ipsum fecere omnes qui aderant episco pi, presbyteri, archimandritæ atque diaconi.","english":"The letter of Pope Leo, which the blessed Abundius presented before all: with the concordant testimonies of the Roman Fathers and the Greeks, Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, gave his full devotion and subscribed to this letter of Saint Pope Leo containing the truth of the Catholic faith, with the testimonies of the Fathers also agreeing, decreed (or sent) by the same apostolic see, pronouncing anathema against Eutyches and Nestorius, and against their dogma itself together with their followers. All the bishops, presbyters, archimandrites, and deacons who were present did the same.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Leonis papæ ... præsentavit","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a narrative subscription formula, recording the formal acceptance of Leo's letter by Anatolius and others, typical of conciliar acta.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"concordantibus testimoniis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'concordantibus testimoniis' indicates the agreement of patristic authorities, a standard rhetorical device in doctrinal letters to show consensus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Anatolius episcopus Constantinopolitanus","severity":"info","text":"Anatolius was bishop of Constantinople from 449 to 458, a key figure in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon (451), where Leo's Tome was affirmed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"anathema dicens Eutycheti et Nestorio","severity":"info","text":"The anathema against Eutyches and Nestorius underscores the rejection of both monophysite and dyophysite extremes, central to Leo's Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"huic epistolae S. Leonis papae continenti catholicae fidei veritatem","severity":"info","text":"This subscription formula was later used to authenticate Leo's letter as a standard of orthodoxy, influencing medieval canon law collections.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Lege directis","severity":"caution","text":"The parenthetical 'Lege directis' suggests a textual variant or gloss; the edition notes it may replace 'decretorum', indicating uncertainty in the transmission.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'Lege directis' is ambiguous: it may be a scribal correction or alternative reading for 'decretorum', affecting the interpretation of the authority cited."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"Mox sanctus Abundius, Asterius episcopi, Basilius et Senator presbyteri dixerunt: Omnipotenti Deo gratias: quoniam reverendorum episcoporum, presbyterorum, archimandritarum, diaconorum, ac totius cleri professiones cognovimus, fidem rectam et a Patribus traditam profiteri, sicut eorumdem subscriptio gestis præsentibus inserta declarat.Ideo nos, quoque, quia omnes hoc exigere et exspectare compe rimus, secundum assertionem venerabilis viri Euse bii episcopi Dorylæi et sententiam sanctæ memeriæ Flaviani episcopi, vel assensum papæ Leonis, qui ad insinuandam cuntis fidem catholicam nos Roma misit, anathema dicimus Eutycheti, vel omnibus qui ejus perfidiam sequuntur, et dicunt in Christo ante incarnationem duas fuisse naturas, post incarnatio nem unam tantum naturam: cum catholica fides et ante incarnationem unam tantum Verbi fuisse, et post incarnationem duas, id est, Verbi et perfecti hominis fateatur in una persona, inconfusa proprie tate sui, manere naturas. Nestorio etiam, qui vesanum (ut legilur) dudum dogma dispersit, dicendo Dominum Jesum Christum ex Maria Virgine homi nem tantum, non etiam Deum natum sed et secta toribus ejus in hujusmodi perversitate durantibus anathema dicimus. Propter quod convenit, ad con firmationem subscriptonis, sanctam, quæ præsens est, fraternitatem iisdem, vel omnibus, qui eorum doctrinam sequuntur, anathema similiter dicere.","english":"Soon after, the holy Abundius, the bishops Asterius, and the presbyters Basil and Senator said: Thanks be to Almighty God, because we have learned the professions of the reverend bishops, presbyters, archimandrites, deacons, and the entire clergy, that they profess the right faith handed down by the Fathers, as the subscription of the same inserted in the present acts declares. Therefore we also, since we have found that all demand and expect this, in accordance with the assertion of the venerable man Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, and the opinion of Flavian, bishop of blessed memory, or the assent of Pope Leo, who sent us from Rome to make known the catholic faith to all, pronounce anathema upon Eutyches, and upon all who follow his perfidy, and who say that in Christ there were two natures before the incarnation, but only one nature after the incarnation: whereas the catholic faith confesses that before the incarnation there was only one nature of the Word, and after the incarnation two, that is, of the Word and of a perfect man, remaining in one person, with the properties of each nature unconfused. We also pronounce anathema upon Nestorius, who (as is read) long ago disseminated his insane dogma, saying that the Lord Jesus Christ was born from the Virgin Mary as man only, and not also as God, and upon his followers who persist in such perversity. For which reason it is fitting, for the confirmation of the subscription, that the holy brotherhood which is present likewise pronounce anathema upon the same, and upon all who follow their doctrine.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Mox sanctus Abundius, Asterius episcopi, Basilius et Senator presbyteri dixerunt","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a formal declaration within the synodal acts, introduced by a list of speakers (Abundius, Asterius, Basil, Senator) who collectively pronounce anathemas.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"anathema dicimus","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'anathema dicimus' (we pronounce anathema) is a formal ecclesiastical condemnation, used here against Eutyches and Nestorius, reflecting the conciliar practice of excluding heretics from communion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Eutycheti ... Nestorio","severity":"info","text":"Eutyches (c. 378–454) taught that Christ had only one nature after the incarnation (monophysitism), while Nestorius (c. 386–450) emphasized two separate natures, denying the title Theotokos. Both were condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"ante incarnationem unam tantum Verbi fuisse, et post incarnationem duas","severity":"info","text":"This clause summarizes the Chalcedonian definition: one nature of the Word before the incarnation, two natures (divine and human) after, united in one person without confusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"papæ Leonis, qui ad insinuandam cuntis fidem catholicam nos Roma misit","severity":"info","text":"This reference to Pope Leo sending delegates to promote the Catholic faith underscores the Roman see's authority in doctrinal disputes, a key theme in the reception of Leo's Tome at Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"compe rimus","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'compe rimus' is a textual crux; the edition likely intends 'comperimus' (we have found), but the spacing suggests a possible scribal error or editorial misreading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'compe rimus' may be a scribal error for 'comperimus' (we have found), as the sense requires; the reading adopted follows the standard text."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"ADMONITIO\n\nIn seguentem actionem hactenus ineditum concilii Chalcedonensis\n\nGræci codicis concilii Chalcedonensis bibliothecæ Venetæ S. Marci et 555, locupietiores sunt iis bus Romani editores usi fuerunt. Lacunæ in Græco punictis signatur initio actionis in iisdem codicibus supplentur, ita ut in laculna tertia notata tom. IV Concil. editionis Venetæ pag. 1357, integras paginas impleant episcoporum nomina, quæ in ipsa antique versione Latina posita desiderantur. Supplentur quoque episcoporum nomina intio actionis 6., quæ in Græco vulgato desunt, et in sola antiqua interpretatione Latina leguntur, ac propterea omittuntur illa, et cæteris sanctissimis ac religiosissimis episcopis, quæ integro episcoporum catalogo recitato locum non habent. Actione de Sabiniano Perrhenorum episcopo, quæ in codd. Venetis est 15, Cræcus textus editus quædum sola nomia præfert, quæ omnino desunt in atiqua versione:: plura autem iidem cedices addunt, et solum per sal tum antiqui librarii intermedia quædam nomina omissa fuere. Idipsum accidit actione in vulgatis 16, in iisdem autem manuscriptis 17; quæ enim nomina in antiquia interpretatione exhibita, desunt in Græco vulgato, ex landatis codicibus hauriri poterunt, sicut at alia, quæ conferentibus patefient.","english":"ADMONITION\n\nConcerning the following session, the previously unpublished text of the Council of Chalcedon: the Greek codices of the Council of Chalcedon from the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice, and 555, are more ample than those which the Roman editors used. Gaps in the Greek are marked with dots at the beginning of the session in the same codices, so that in the third lacuna noted in volume IV of the Venetian Council edition, page 1357, entire pages are filled with the names of bishops, which are missing from the ancient Latin version itself. Also supplied are the names of bishops at the beginning of the 6th session, which are absent from the published Greek and are read only in the ancient Latin translation; and for that reason those words—\"and the other most holy and most religious bishops\"—are omitted, since they have no place when the complete list of bishops is recited. In the session concerning Sabinianus, bishop of the Perrheni, which is the 15th in the Venetian codices, the published Greek text presents only certain names, which are entirely absent from the ancient version; moreover, the same codices add many names, and only through a skip by the ancient scribe were certain intermediate names omitted. The same thing happened in the session which is the 16th in the published texts, but the 17th in the same manuscripts; for the names which are presented in the ancient interpretation, but are absent from the published Greek, can be drawn from the cited codices, as can other matters which will become clear to those who compare them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"ADMONITIO","severity":"info","text":"This editorial note, titled 'ADMONITIO' (warning/notice), is a modern scholarly apparatus explaining the textual condition of the Greek and Latin manuscripts of the Council of Chalcedon used in the edition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"Græci codicis concilii Chalcedonensis bibliothecæ Venetæ S. Marci et 555","severity":"info","text":"The editor refers to Greek manuscripts of the Council of Chalcedon from the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice, numbered 555, which are more complete than those used by earlier Roman editors.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"lacunæ in Græco punictis signatur","severity":"info","text":"Gaps in the Greek text are marked with dots; the editor notes that in the third lacuna of volume IV of the Venetian Council edition (p. 1357), entire pages of bishop names are supplied from these codices, which are missing in the ancient Latin version.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"actione de Sabiniano Perrhenorum episcopo","severity":"info","text":"The session concerning Sabinianus, bishop of the Perrheni, is numbered 15 in the Venetian codices but differs in content from the published Greek and the ancient Latin version, with names added or omitted due to scribal skips.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"antiqua versione Latina","severity":"caution","text":"The editor notes that the ancient Latin version lacks certain bishop names found in the Greek codices, and that the phrase 'and the other most holy and most religious bishops' is omitted in the Latin when the full list is recited, indicating textual discrepancies between the traditions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"actionem hactenus ineditum","severity":"info","text":"This passage is an editorial preface to a previously unpublished session (actio) of the Council of Chalcedon, explaining the manuscript basis and textual supplements for the following material.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact identity of the 'Roman editors' and the specific edition they used is not specified. The reference to '555' as a manuscript number is unclear; it may be a shelfmark or a page number. The phrase 'per saltum antiqui librarii' suggests a scribal omission, but the precise extent of the missing names is not detailed."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"Quod autem in his præcipuum invenitur, est Actio hactenus ignota, qua lecta fuit Leonis epistola 93. Id vel maxime eam sententiam confirmat, in codicibus Græcis concilii Chalcedonensis non omnes actiones col lectas fuisse, nec ex eo quod aliqua actio deest in uno vel pluribus codicibus Græcis, illam repudiari posse. Ita actio de Domino in codicibus nostris Græcis nec non in Rominis non legitur, et deerat etiam in eo exemplo ex quo antiqua versio prodiit; at in ms. Patriciæ Juliæ a Rustico inventa fuit. Actio de Photio Tyri episcopo, quæ aberat ab exemplis antiqui interpretis et Rustici, in Græcis Romanis, et nostris codicibus invenitur in fine cæ terarum actionum, quemadmadum erat in codice quem Balsamon laudat. Ita etiam Græci codices, qui noti sunt, concilii Ephesini. carent aliquot actionibus, quæ cum ex antiqua versione supersint, in aliquo antiquo codice Græco inventæ fuere Cur id acciderit optime explicat Baluzius in præfatione ad vesrionem antiquam synodi Chalcedonensis num. et 41. Hanc quidem ineditam actionem, quam soli codices Veneti suppeditarunt, in suppositionem vocari non posse, præter manuscriptorum autoritatem, ex eo manifestum fit, quia exomnium concitiorum more litteræ summi pontificis ad concilium semper lectæ fuerunt. Hæc igitur actio, quæ ad S. Leonem nostrum maxime pertinet, appendicem claudet.","english":"What, however, is found to be especially important in these is an action hitherto unknown, in which Pope Leo’s letter 93 was read. This above all confirms the opinion that in the Greek codices of the Council of Chalcedon not all the actions were collected, and that from the fact that some action is missing in one or several Greek codices, that action cannot be rejected. Thus the action concerning the Lord is not read in our Greek codices nor in the Roman ones, and it was also missing in that copy from which the ancient version came; but it was found in the manuscript of Patricia Julia by Rusticus. The action concerning Photius, bishop of Tyre, which was absent from the copies of the ancient translator and of Rusticus, is found in the Greek Roman codices and in our codices at the end of the other actions, just as it was in the codex which Balsamon cites. So also the Greek codices which are known of the Council of Ephesus lack several actions, which, since they survive from the ancient version, were found in some ancient Greek codex. Why this happened is excellently explained by Baluze in the preface to the ancient version of the Synod of Chalcedon, numbers and 41. Indeed, that this unpublished action, which only the Venetian codices supplied, cannot be called into question, besides the authority of the manuscripts, is made manifest from the fact that, according to the custom of all councils, the letters of the supreme pontiff to the council were always read. Therefore this action, which pertains especially to our Saint Leo, will close the appendix.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Actio hactenus ignota","severity":"info","text":"The 'action hitherto unknown' refers to a session of the Council of Chalcedon not included in the standard Greek collections, but preserved in Venetian manuscripts. This passage argues for the authenticity of such missing actions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Baluzius","severity":"info","text":"Baluzius (Étienne Baluze) is cited for his preface to the ancient version of the Synod of Chalcedon, explaining why some actions are missing from Greek codices. This reflects 17th-century editorial scholarship.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Baluze 17th century"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"codices Veneti","severity":"info","text":"The Venetian codices (Biblioteca Marciana) are the sole source for this unpublished action. Their authority is defended by the custom that papal letters were always read at councils, supporting the action's authenticity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"appendicem claudet","severity":"info","text":"This action will close the appendix of the edition, indicating its placement as a supplementary item after the main corpus of Leo's letters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"num. et 41","severity":"caution","text":"The reference 'numbers and 41' is unclear; it likely indicates a lacuna or misprint in the source edition, as Baluze's preface would have numbered sections.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'num. et 41' is ambiguous: it may refer to sections or paragraphs in Baluze's preface, but the text is corrupt or incomplete.","The identity of 'Patricia Julia' is uncertain; it may be a manuscript owner or a location."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"Quoniam vero de manuscriptorum Græcorum S. Marci utilitate hoc loco incidit mentio, aliam observatio nem gratam futuram arbitramur, quam exalio Græco codice ejusdem bibliothecæ Venetæ signato num. eruimuse. In hoc, qui partem actorum Chalcedonensium continet, descripti leguntur canones ejusdem concilii, affixo cuique canoni numero 3, etc., usque ad 27, eo quod his sint canones una eademque actione constituti. Tum vero post ultimum canonem ducta linea, quæ canonum finem indicat,post intervallum quoddam subjiciun tur sine ulla numerirali nota tres alii addititii canones, qui in solis Græcis collectionibus canonum una cum cæteris proferuntur, simulque omnes efficiunt canones 30, uli ex collectionibus et collectoribus canonum Græcis editi sunt tom. IV Conciliorum pag. 1691. Canon primus qui in vulgatis est 28, constantinopolitanæ sedis privilegia decernit, iisdemque verbis exprimitur ac in vulatis et sumplus est ex actione ultima. At duo alii canones uberiores sunt quam in editis. Nam canon in vulgatis excerptus ex actione pro Photio Tyri metropolita, incipita a verrbis ejusdem actionis pag. 1440, D. etc. usque ad quibus petitio judicum ad canomem intelligendum necessaria exprimitur. Tum subjiciutur interlocutiones legatorum apostolicæ sedis et Anatolii, ex quibbus vulgatus canon compactus est. Tandem approbatio synodi ex eadem actione pag.","english":"Since, however, mention of the usefulness of the Greek manuscripts of St. Mark’s occurs at this point, we consider another observation will be welcome, which we extract from another Greek codex of the same Venetian library, marked with a number. In this, which contains part of the Acts of Chalcedon, the canons of the same council are written out, each canon being assigned a number from 3 etc. up to 27, because these canons were established in one and the same session. Then, after the last canon, a line is drawn indicating the end of the canons, and after a certain interval three other additional canons are subjoined without any numerical notation, which in the Greek collections of canons alone are presented together with the rest, and all together make up 30 canons, as they have been published from the Greek collections and collectors of canons in volume IV of the Councils, page 1691. The first canon, which in the printed editions is the 28th, decrees the privileges of the see of Constantinople, and is expressed in the same words as in the printed editions, and is taken from the last session. But the other two canons are more extensive than in the printed editions. For the canon which in the printed editions is excerpted from the session concerning Photius, metropolitan of Tyre, begins from the words of the same session, page 1440 D, etc., up to the point where the petition of the judges necessary for understanding the canon is expressed. Then are subjoined the interlocutions of the legates of the apostolic see and of Anatolius, from which the printed canon is compiled. Finally, the approval of the synod from the same session, page","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"manuscriptorum Græcorum S. Marci","severity":"info","text":"The Biblioteca Marciana in Venice, founded by Cardinal Bessarion, held a major collection of Greek manuscripts, including codices of the Acts of Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"canones 30","severity":"info","text":"The passage describes a Greek codex containing 27 canons of Chalcedon plus three additional canons, making 30, a numbering found in Greek collections but not in Latin tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"canon 28","severity":"info","text":"The first additional canon (28th in printed editions) concerns privileges of Constantinople, echoing Canon 28 of Chalcedon, which was contested by the Roman see.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Photius Tyri metropolita","severity":"info","text":"The second additional canon relates to Photius, metropolitan of Tyre, and includes fuller text than printed editions, with interlocutions of papal legates and Anatolius.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"linea ducta","severity":"info","text":"A drawn line in the manuscript marks the end of the original 27 canons, after which the three additional canons appear without numbering, indicating a later addition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"pag. 1691","severity":"caution","text":"The reference to volume IV of the Councils, page 1691, is from the source edition and may not correspond to modern pagination.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact manuscript number is not given; 'signato num.' leaves the shelfmark unspecified.","The phrase 'pag. 1440, D' refers to a printed edition page, but the edition is not identified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"1449, C; canon vero in vulgatis 30, ex actione male digestus, in nostro codice incipit ab interlocutione judicum et senatus pag. 1407, D. et subjecta interlocutione Paschasini legati apostolicæ sedis, eorumdem judicum et senatus sentitia concluditur usque ad pag. 1410, A. Eadem quoad hos canones leguntur in collectione Græca canonum, quæ continetur in vestusto codice XIX monachorum S. Basili Romæ pag. 54. Ex his quid et unde tres isti addititti canones sint, cognoscitur.\n\nEPISTOLA IX.\n\nSEU ACTIO XVI CHALCEDONENSIS.\n\nNunc primum edita ex mss. Græcis bibliothecæ Venetæ S. Marci 555, sæculi XII, et sæculi XIV, inqua lecta fuit epistola S. Leonis ad ipsam synodum.","english":"Canon 30 in the Vulgate, however, poorly arranged from the act, begins in our codex with the interlocution of the judges and senate at page 1407 D, and with the appended interlocution of Paschasinus, legate of the apostolic see, the opinion of the same judges and senate is concluded up to page 1410 A. The same canons are read in the Greek collection of canons contained in the ancient codex of the Nineteen Monks of St. Basil at Rome, page 54. From these, what and whence these three additional canons are is known.\n\nLETTER IX.\n\nOR THE SIXTEENTH ACTION OF CHALCEDON.\n\nNow published for the first time from the Greek manuscripts of the Venetian Library of St. Mark’s, 555, of the twelfth century, and of the fourteenth century, in which the letter of St. Leo to the same synod was read.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"canon vero in vulgatis 30","severity":"info","text":"The 'Vulgate' here refers to the common Latin version of the Chalcedonian canons, which the editor criticizes as poorly arranged. The 'canon 30' is a canon in that collection, but its numbering and content are disputed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Paschasini legati apostolicæ sedis","severity":"info","text":"Paschasinus was a papal legate at the Council of Chalcedon (451). His interlocution, preserved in the Greek manuscripts, is part of the acta that the editor uses to reconstruct the canons.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"ex mss. Græcis bibliothecæ Venetæ S. Marci 555","severity":"info","text":"The editor states that Letter IX is now published for the first time from two Greek manuscripts of the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice: one from the 12th century (shelfmark 555) and one from the 14th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"EPISTOLA IX. SEU ACTIO XVI CHALCEDONENSIS","severity":"info","text":"The editor identifies this letter as the sixteenth action of the Council of Chalcedon, indicating that it is a document read during that session, not a separate private letter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"tres isti addititti canones","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase 'three additional canons' suggests that the editor considers these canons spurious or later additions to the original Chalcedonian corpus. The source of these canons is traced to a Greek collection in a codex of the Nineteen Monks of St. Basil in Rome.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact relationship between the 'Vulgate' canon 30 and the Greek manuscript tradition is not fully clarified; the editor implies corruption in the Latin transmission.","The identity of the 'three additional canons' and their status (whether accepted or rejected) is left ambiguous."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"Consulatu domini nostri Marciani semper Augusti, et qui erit nuntiandus, pridie kalendas Novembris Chalcedone juxta mandatum divinissimi et piissimi domini nostri Marciani semper Augusti congregatis in sanctissima Ecclesia sanctæ martyris Euhemiæ, magnificentissimo et gloriosissimo magistro mili tum,ex consule,et PatricioAnatolio,et magnificentissimo ac gloriosissimo praefecto sacrorum prætoriorum Palladio, et magnificentissimo at que gloriosissimo magistro divinorum officiorum Vincomalo; convenientibus quoque reverendissimis episcopis Paschasino et Lucentto, et reverendissimo presbystero Boni facio locom habentibus sanctissimi archiepiscopi se nioris Romæ Leonis, et Anatolio reverendissimo archiepipiscopo magni nominis Constantinopolis,et Ma ximo reverendissimo episcopo Antiochiæ Syriæ, et Juvenali revendissimo episcopo Jerosolymorum, et Quintillo reverendissimo episcopo Heracleæ Macedoniæ locum habente sanctissimi archiepiscopi Thessaloni censium Anastasii, et Thalassioreverendissimo episcopo Cesareæ Cappadociæ, et Stephano reverendissimo episcopo Ephesi, et Luciano reverendissimo episcopo Byzæ tenente locum Deo amantissimi Cyriaci episcopi Heraclea; Thraciæ, et Eusebio reverendissimo episcopo Ancyræ Galatiæ, et Diogene reverendissimo episcopo Cycizi, et et Petro reverendissimo episcopo Corinthi, et Florentio et reverendissimo episcopo Sardium et Eunomio reverendissimo","english":"In the consulship of our lord Marcian, always Augustus, and of the one who will be announced, on the day before the Kalends of November, at Chalcedon, in accordance with the command of our most divine and most pious lord Marcian, always Augustus, gathered in the most holy church of the holy martyr Euphemia, with the most magnificent and most glorious master of the soldiers, ex-consul, and patrician Anatolius, and the most magnificent and most glorious prefect of the sacred praetoria Palladius, and the most magnificent and most glorious master of the divine offices Vincomalus; also assembling the most reverend bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and the most reverend presbyter Boniface, holding the place of the most holy archbishop of senior Rome, Leo, and Anatolius, the most reverend archbishop of great Constantinople, and Maximus, the most reverend bishop of Antioch of Syria, and Juvenal, the most reverend bishop of Jerusalem, and Quintillus, the most reverend bishop of Heraclea of Macedonia, holding the place of the most holy archbishop of the Thessalonians, Anastasius, and Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, and Stephen, the most reverend bishop of Ephesus, and Lucian, the most reverend bishop of Byza, holding the place of the most God-beloved Cyriacus, bishop of Heraclea of Thrace, and Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of Ancyra of Galatia, and Diogenes, the most reverend bishop of Cyzicus, and Peter, the most reverend bishop of Corinth, and Florentius, the most reverend bishop of Sardis, and Eunomius, the most reverend","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Consulatu domini nostri Marciani semper Augusti, et qui erit nuntiandus, pridie kalendas Novembris","severity":"info","text":"This opening formula establishes the consular date for the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE): the consulship of Marcian and a colleague to be announced, on 31 October. The phrase 'qui erit nuntiandus' indicates the second consul was not yet proclaimed.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Chalcedone juxta mandatum divinissimi et piissimi domini nostri Marciani semper Augusti","severity":"info","text":"The council was convoked by Emperor Marcian (r. 450–457) and met at Chalcedon, across the Bosporus from Constantinople. The church of St. Euphemia was the traditional meeting site for the fourth ecumenical council, which defined the two natures of Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"locum habentibus sanctissimi archiepiscopi senioris Romae Leonis","severity":"info","text":"'Locum habentibus' (holding the place) indicates that Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface served as papal legates representing Pope Leo I. The phrase 'senioris Romae' (of senior Rome) underscores the primacy of the Roman see in the council's hierarchy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Anatolio reverendissimo archiepiscopo magni nominis Constantinopolis","severity":"info","text":"Anatolius, archbishop of Constantinople, was a key figure at Chalcedon. His title 'magni nominis' (of great name) reflects the growing prestige of the Constantinopolitan see, which was later a point of contention with Rome over ecclesiastical jurisdiction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"et et Petro reverendissimo episcopo Corinthi, et Florentio et reverendissimo episcopo Sardium et Eunomio reverendissimo","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text shows a scribal duplication ('et et') and an awkward series of names. The list of bishops may be incomplete or corrupt; the English draft supplies 'and' before Florentius and Eunomius, but the Latin lacks a clear conjunction for the final names.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The list of bishops may be incomplete; the Latin breaks off mid-sentence after 'Eunomio reverendissimo' without a verb or conclusion."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"episcopo Nicomediæ, et Anastasio reverendissimo episcopo Nicææ, et Juliano reverendissimo episcopo Coensi locum habente etiam ipso apostollicæ sedis Romæ, et Eleutherio reverendissimo episcopo Cbalcedonensium,et.","english":"Bishop of Nicomedia, and to Anastasius, the most reverend bishop of Nicaea, and to Julian, the most reverend bishop of Cos, who also holds the place of the Apostolic See of Rome, and to Eleutherius, the most reverend bishop of Chalcedon, and.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"episcopo Nicomediæ, et Anastasio reverendissimo episcopo Nicææ, et Juliano reverendissimo episcopo Coensi locum habente etiam ipso apostollicæ sedis Romæ, et El","severity":"info","text":"This passage lists bishops present at the Council of Chalcedon, continuing the narrative from the previous passage. The list includes the bishop of Nicomedia, Anastasius of Nicaea, Julian of Cos (who also represents the Apostolic See of Rome), and Eleutherius of Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"locum habente etiam ipso apostollicæ sedis Romæ","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'locum habente etiam ipso apostollicæ sedis Romæ' indicates that Julian of Cos was acting as a representative of the Roman see at the council, a common practice for papal legates.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Cbalcedonensium","severity":"info","text":"The spelling 'Cbalcedonensium' (for 'Chalcedonensium') reflects a common Latin variant or scribal error for 'Chalcedon', the city where the council was held.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"episcopo Nicomediæ","severity":"caution","text":"The bishop of Nicomedia is not named here, which may indicate a lacuna or abbreviation in the manuscript. The text breaks off with 'et.' suggesting the list is incomplete.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The name of the bishop of Nicomedia is omitted, possibly due to a lacuna or scribal abbreviation. The list ends abruptly with 'et.', suggesting further names are missing."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"Basilio reverendissimo episcopo Seleuciæ Isauriæ, et Meletio reverendissimo episcopo Larissæ locum habente reverendissimi episcopi Apamæ Syriæ Domni, et, Amphilochio reverendissimo episcopo Sidæ, et Theodoro reverendissimo episcopo Tapsi, et Cyro reverendissimo episcopo Anazarbi, et Constantino reverendissimo episcopo Bostrorum, et Photio reverendissimo episcopo Tyri, et Theodoro reverendissimo episcopo Damasci, et Stephano re verendissimo episcopo Hierapoleos, et Symeone reverendissimo episcopo Amidæ, et Epiphanio reve rendissimo episcopo locum habente reverendissimi Olympii episcopi Constantiæ,et Joanne reverendissimo episcopo Sebastiæ, Selenco reverendissimo episcopo Amasiæ, et Constantino et reverendissimo episcopo Melitenæ, et Patricio reverendissimo epi scopo Tyanorum, et Petro reverendissimo episcopo Gangrorum, et Eustathio reverendissimo episcopo Beryti, et Apragmonio reverendissimi episcopo locum habente reverendissimi episcopi Claudiopolis Calogeri,et Atarbio reverendissimo episcopo Trapezuntis, locum habente Dorothei reverendissimi episcopi Neocæsareæ, et Photino archidiacono locum ha bente Theoctisti reverendissimi episcopi Pissinun tis, et Romano reverendissimo episcopo Myrorum Lyciæ, et Nunechio reverendissimo episcopo Aphro disiadis Cariæ, et Critoniano reverendissimo episcopo Laodiceæ Phrygiæ, et Marianiano reverendissimo epi scopo Synadorum, et Onesiphoro","english":"To Basil, the most reverend bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, and to Meletius, the most reverend bishop of Larissa, holding the place of the most reverend bishop Domnus of Apamea in Syria, and to Amphilochius, the most reverend bishop of Side, and to Theodore, the most reverend bishop of Tapsus, and to Cyrus, the most reverend bishop of Anazarbus, and to Constantine, the most reverend bishop of Bostra, and to Photius, the most reverend bishop of Tyre, and to Theodore, the most reverend bishop of Damascus, and to Stephen, the most reverend bishop of Hierapolis, and to Symeon, the most reverend bishop of Amida, and to Epiphanius, the most reverend bishop holding the place of the most reverend Olympius, bishop of Constantia, and to John, the most reverend bishop of Sebaste, and to Seleucus, the most reverend bishop of Amasia, and to Constantine, the most reverend bishop of Melitene, and to Patricius, the most reverend bishop of Tyana, and to Peter, the most reverend bishop of Gangra, and to Eustathius, the most reverend bishop of Berytus, and to Apragmonius, the most reverend bishop holding the place of the most reverend bishop Calogerus of Claudiopolis, and to Atarbius, the most reverend bishop of Trapezus, holding the place of Dorotheus, the most reverend bishop of Neocaesarea, and to Photinus, archdeacon, holding the place of Theoctistus, the most reverend bishop of Pessinus, and to Romanus, the most reverend bishop of Myra in Lycia, and to Nunechius, the most reverend bishop of Aphrodisias in Caria, and to Critonianus, the most reverend bishop of Laodicea in Phrygia, and to Marianianus, the most reverend bishop of Synnada, and to Onesiphorus","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Basilio reverendissimo episcopo Seleuciæ Isauriæ","severity":"info","text":"This passage continues the list of addressees from the previous passage, following the same formulaic pattern of naming bishops with their sees and occasionally noting representatives.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"locum habente","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'locum habente' indicates a bishop acting as a representative or substitute for another bishop, a common practice in ecclesiastical correspondence of the period.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Seleuciæ Isauriæ","severity":"info","text":"Seleucia in Isauria was a metropolitan see in the province of Isauria, part of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and a significant center in the 5th-century ecclesiastical disputes.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Bostrorum","severity":"info","text":"Bostra (Bostra) was the metropolitan see of the province of Arabia, and its bishop Constantine is listed among the recipients, reflecting the wide geographical scope of Leo's correspondence.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Onesiphoro","severity":"caution","text":"The passage ends abruptly with 'Onesiphoro', likely a scribal break or lacuna; the name is incomplete, and the intended title or see is missing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The list of addressees is incomplete, ending with 'Onesiphoro' without a title or see; the exact number of recipients and the full text of the letter are uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"reverendissimo episcopo Iconii et Pergamio reverendissimo episcopo Antiochiæ Pisidiæ, et Epiphanio reverendissimo episcopo Pergæ, et attico reverendissimo episcopo Nicopolis Epiri, et Martyrio reverendissimo episcopo Gortynæ, et Luca reverendissimo episcopo Dyrrhachii, et Vigilantio reverendissimo episcopo Larissæ Tessaliæ, et Francisone reverendissimo episcopo Philippopolis, et Sebastiano reverendissimo episcopo Beroæ, et Basilio reverendissimo episcopo Trajanopolis, et Triphone reverendissimo Chii locum habente Joannis episcopi Rhodi et Theoctisto reverendissimo episcopo Berœæ, et Gerontis reverendis simo episcopo Seleuciæ Syriæ et Eusebio presbytero locum habente Macarii episcopo Laodiceæ Sy riæ, et Eusebio reverendissimo episcopo Dorilei, et reliqa sancta et œcumenica synodo, quæ secundum sanctionem divinissimi et piissimi Domini nostri in Chalcedonensium;civitate collecta. et residentibus omnibus ante cancellos sacri altaris Bonifacius pres byter locum habens apostolicæ sedis senioris Romæ ait: Apostolicus episcopus, et apostolicæ fedei Romæ Leo dominus meus ad sactissimam synodum epistolam misit: jubete ut recipiatur et legatur. Gloriosissimi judices dixerunt: Legatur epistola Leonis reverendissimi archiepiscopi Romæ.","english":"To the most reverend bishop of Iconium, and to Pergamius, the most reverend bishop of Antioch of Pisidia, and to Epiphanius, the most reverend bishop of Perga, and to Atticus, the most reverend bishop of Nicopolis of Epirus, and to Martyrius, the most reverend bishop of Gortyna, and to Lucius, the most reverend bishop of Dyrrhachium, and to Vigilantius, the most reverend bishop of Larissa of Thessaly, and to Franciso, the most reverend bishop of Philippopolis, and to Sebastian, the most reverend bishop of Beroea, and to Basil, the most reverend bishop of Trajanopolis, and to Tryphon, holding the place of John, bishop of Rhodes, of Chios, and to Theoctistus, the most reverend bishop of Beroea, and to Gerontius, the most reverend bishop of Seleucia of Syria, and to Eusebius, presbyter, holding the place of Macarius, bishop of Laodicea of Syria, and to Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of Dorylaeum, and to the rest of the holy and ecumenical synod, which, according to the decree of our most divine and most pious lord, has been assembled in the city of the Chalcedonians. And with all sitting before the rails of the sacred altar, Boniface, presbyter, holding the place of the apostolic see of elder Rome, said: The apostolic bishop and of the apostolic faith of Rome, my lord Leo, has sent a letter to the most holy synod: order that it be received and read. The most glorious judges said: Let the letter of Leo, the most reverend archbishop of Rome, be read.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"reverendissimo episcopo Iconii et Pergamio reverendissimo episcopo Antiochiæ Pisidiæ","severity":"info","text":"The passage continues the list of addressees from the previous passage, forming a single long prescript for Leo's letter to the Council of Chalcedon.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Bonifacius presbyter locum habens apostolicæ sedis senioris Romæ","severity":"info","text":"Boniface, a presbyter, acted as legate for Pope Leo I at the Council of Chalcedon (451). The phrase 'senioris Romæ' distinguishes Old Rome from New Rome (Constantinople).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"locum habente / locum habens","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'locum habens' (holding the place of) indicates a proxy or representative, a standard conciliar formula for absent bishops or the pope.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Apostolicus episcopus, et apostolicæ fidei Romæ Leo dominus meus","severity":"info","text":"Boniface's speech emphasizes Leo's authority as both apostolic bishop and guardian of apostolic faith, reflecting the Roman see's claim to primacy in doctrinal matters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"et Triphone reverendissimo Chii locum habente Joannis episcopi Rhodi","severity":"caution","text":"The syntax is ambiguous: Tryphon is 'of Chios' but holds the place of John of Rhodes. The English draft reads 'of Chios' as attached to Tryphon, but the Latin could also mean Tryphon is bishop of Chios.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The list of addressees may be incomplete or contain textual corruptions in the manuscript tradition.","The phrase 'et Triphone reverendissimo Chii locum habente Joannis episcopi Rhodi' is ambiguous: whether Tryphon is bishop of Chios or simply from Chios."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"Et præbente Juliano reverendissimo episcopo civitatis Coensium locum habente etiam ipso apistolicæ sedis, cum authenticam Latinam epistolam, tum ejusdem interpretationem Constantinus devotissimus secretarius sic habentem legit:\n\nLeo episcopus sanctæ synodo apud Chalcedonem constitutæ, dilectissimis in Domino fratribus salutem.\n\nOptaverum quidem... et cætera, uti legitur epistola 95, usque ad illa: Bene valete in Domino, fratres charissimi.","english":"And with Julian, the most reverend bishop of the city of the Coans, also holding the place of the apostolic see, when the authentic Latin letter and the interpretation of the same were read by Constantinus, the most devoted secretary, as follows:\n\nLeo, bishop, to the holy synod assembled at Chalcedon, to his most beloved brothers in the Lord, greetings.\n\nThey would indeed have wished... and the rest, as is read in letter 95, up to that point: Farewell well in the Lord, dearest brothers.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Et præbente ... legit","severity":"info","text":"This passage is a narrative frame that introduces the reading of Leo's letter to the Council of Chalcedon. It marks the transition from the list of addressees to the letter's text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"apistolicæ sedis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'apistolicæ sedis' is a variant spelling of 'apostolicæ sedis', referring to the apostolic see of Rome. Julian is acting as a representative of the pope.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"interpretationem","severity":"info","text":"'Interpretationem' here likely means a Greek translation of the original Latin letter, as the council was Greek-speaking. This reflects the bilingual nature of the proceedings.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"epistola 95","severity":"info","text":"The reference to 'epistola 95' indicates that the full text of Leo's letter was known in the manuscript tradition as letter 95. This cross-reference shows the compiler's awareness of a larger collection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Optaverum quidem... et cætera","severity":"caution","text":"The text is abbreviated with 'et cætera', omitting the body of Leo's letter. The reader is directed to letter 95 for the full content, but the exact correspondence may vary between manuscript traditions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'apistolicæ sedis' may be a scribal error for 'apostolicæ sedis', but the meaning is clear.","The abbreviation 'et cætera' leaves uncertain which parts of letter 95 are included; the reference assumes a known text."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}