Leo the Great, Sermons

officii lectionibus, quas sancta Ecclesia in praecipuis anni solemnitatibus ex magni Leonis Divina eloquentia mutuari solet, menda non pauca residerent, quod in typis renovandis ad ultimam editionem velut emendatiorem soleat recurri. Quare cum diversa exempla typis edita, et fide digna manuscripta antiqua non pauca, quibus caruerat Theophilus Rainaudus, nacti essemus; lucem, quae ex illis copiosa confici poterat, in honorem tanti pontificis scriptorumque ejus optatam restitutionem, et utilitatem Ecclesiae, atque eraditorum voluptatem duximus conferendam. Vale, amice lector; et dum foveris labore nostro, fave, ac si quid melius nosti, prome. »

[…] readings of the office, which holy Church is accustomed to borrow on the principal solemnities of the year from the divine eloquence of the great Leo, not a few faults remained, because in renewing the printing it is usual to have recourse to the latest edition as being the more correct. Wherefore, since we had obtained various printed copies and not a few trustworthy ancient manuscripts, which Theophilus Raynaudus had lacked, we have thought that the light which could be copiously drawn from them should be brought to the honour of so great a pontiff and to the desired restoration of his writings, and to the benefit of the Church and the pleasure of the learned. Farewell, friendly reader; and while you enjoy the benefit of our labour, look on it with favour, and if you know anything better, bring it forth.”

Hic Joan. Baptista Marus, qui hisce studiis delectabatur, an 1644, ex mss, Vaticanis et Barberinis quosdam Augustini sermones, et ex Vat. cod. 1203 dialogos Desiderii abbatis Casinensis, postea Victoris III, ac tandem anno 1655 e. ms. Barberino Pietrum Diaconum de Viris Illustribus Casinensibus Romae ediderat. Observamus autem in laudata praefatione nullam mentionem fieri variarum lectionum Vossii, quas Laurentius Marus memoravit. In codice autem Barberino subduntur plures variantes sermonum ordine nonnunquam perturbato. Pleraeque sumptae sunt ex codicibus basilicae S. Petri, aliae ex Vaticanis, nonnullae ex cod. Bon., id est Bononiensi. Frequentiores sunt in iis sermonibus qui continentur in Lectionariis basilicae S. Petri. Ubi autem haec Lectionaria defuere, rarissimae et quandoque nullae variantes indicantur. Quae sint variantes ex Vossio sumptae, quae autem additae a Maro, discerni nequit. Vossium quidem, qui Romae aliquando studuit, Romanos codices, quoad Leonem contulisse colligitur ex Miscellaneis SS. Patrum subjectis editioni Moguntinae an. 1604 Operum S. Gregorii Thaumaturgi, ubi aliqua Leonis ex Romanis mss. edidit. Plura tamen quam quae innuuntur in epistola Laurentii Mari, eum parasse probant quae idem Vossius tradit in calce Operum S. Ephrem, in qua non solos sermones, sed omnia S. pontificis Opera recognita et illustrata se editurum pollicetur: et in notatione ad tractatum S. Leonis in Entychem vulgatum in laudata editione Moguntina testatur: De pluribus per nos, inquit, in recognitione nostra Leonina observatis, ac ad marginem epistolarum annotatis, ubi, praeter sermones, epistolas pariter a se recognitas, et variantes ad marginem editionis epistolarum annotatas ostendit. Unde etiam Nicolaus Faber in epistola ad eumdem Vossium inter ejusdem Fabri Opuscula pag. 113 et 114 se audisse testatur Michaelem Sonnium Parisiensem typographum exspectare quam citius ipsius editionem Operam S. Leonis. Quesnellus in fine praefationis generalis memorat codicem Operum S. Leonis, quem collatum a doctissimo viro Francisco Pegna cum Romanarum bibliothecarum mss. rodicibus, olim post Pegnae mortem apud Marium Sancti Angeli canonicum viderat Emericus Bigotius. Cum Joannes Baptista Marus paulo ante memoratus S. Angeli in foro piscium canonicus in editis ejus Operibus appelletur, nihil dubium est quin Marius a Quesnello laudatus idem sit ac Joannes Baptista Marus. Quis autem fuerit codex quem Bigotius apud ipsum invenit ex Barberino ms. innotescit; et errore forte Bigotii, quod Vossio erat adjudicandum tributum fuit Pegnae, eo quod Vesii codex in hujus manus venisset antequam in Mari bibliothecam transiret. Nos ipsum codicem seu editionem Leonis a Vossio cum mss. collatam non invenimus, sed Mari lucubrationem nacti sumus in codice Barberino, quae Vossii et Marii variantes complectitur. Hujus vero Barberini manuscripti multa loca contulimus cum Lectionariis basilicae S. Petri; cumque ea exacte notata deprehendimus, a fusiori collatione eorumdem levati fuimus; sicque aliis quampluribus tum ejusdem basilicae, tum Vaticanis, tum aliarum Romanarum bibliothecarum mss. exemplaribus recognoscendis vacare commodius potuimus.

Here John Baptist Marus, who took delight in these studies, had published at Rome in the year 1644 certain sermons of Augustine from Vatican and Barberini manuscripts, and from Vat. cod. 1203 the dialogues of Desiderius, abbot of Monte Cassino, afterwards Victor III, and finally in the year 1655, from a Barberini manuscript, Peter the Deacon, On the Illustrious Men of Monte Cassino. We observe, however, that in the preface cited no mention is made of the variant readings of Vossius which Laurentius Marus recorded. In the Barberini codex, moreover, several variants are set down, the order of the sermons being sometimes disturbed. Most are taken from the codices of the basilica of St Peter, others from the Vatican ones, some from cod. Bon., that is, the Bologna codex. They are more frequent in those sermons which are contained in the Lectionaries of the basilica of St Peter; but where these Lectionaries were lacking, variants are indicated very rarely, and sometimes not at all. Which variants were taken from Vossius and which were added by Marus cannot be distinguished. That Vossius, who studied for a time at Rome, collated Roman codices as far as Leo is concerned is gathered from the Miscellanies of the Holy Fathers appended to the Mainz edition of 1604 of the Works of St Gregory Thaumaturgus, where he published some pieces of Leo from Roman manuscripts. That he had prepared more, however, than is hinted in the letter of Laurentius Marus is proved by what the same Vossius relates at the end of the Works of St Ephrem, in which he promises that he will publish, revised and illustrated, not the sermons alone but all the Works of the holy pontiff; and in the note to the treatise of St Leo against Eutyches, published in the Mainz edition cited, he testifies, “Concerning many things,” he says, “observed by us in our revision of Leo, and noted in the margin of the letters”; where he shows that, besides the sermons, the letters too had been revised by him, and variants noted in the margin of the edition of the letters. Hence also Nicolas Faber, in a letter to the same Vossius among the Opuscula of the same Faber, pp. 113 and 114, testifies that he had heard that Michael Sonnius, a Parisian printer, was awaiting “as soon as possible his edition of the Works of St Leo.” Quesnel, at the end of his general preface, mentions “a codex of the Works of St Leo” which, collated by the most learned Francis Pegna with the manuscript codices of the Roman libraries, Emeric Bigot had formerly seen, after Pegna’s death, in the possession of Marius, canon of Sant’Angelo. Since John Baptist Marus, mentioned a little above, is called in his published Works “canon of Sant’Angelo in the Fish Market,” there is no doubt that the Marius cited by Quesnel is the same as John Baptist Marus. What codex it was, however, that Bigot found with him becomes known from the Barberini manuscript; and by an error, perhaps Bigot’s, what should have been assigned to Vossius was attributed to Pegna, because the codex of Vossius had come into Pegna’s hands before it passed into the library of Marus. We have not found the codex itself, or edition of Leo, collated by Vossius with the manuscripts; but we have obtained the work of Marus in the Barberini codex, which comprises the variants of Vossius and of Marus. Many passages of this Barberini manuscript we compared with the Lectionaries of the basilica of St Peter; and since we found them exactly noted, we were relieved of a fuller collation of them; and so we were able more conveniently to give our time to examining very many other manuscript exemplars, both of the same basilica and of the Vatican, and of the other Roman libraries.

ADMONITIO IN DUOS SEQUENTES SERMONES,

ADMONITION ON THE TWO FOLLOWING SERMONS,

Qui in antecedentibus editionibus, sicut et in non paucis mss. exemplaribus in unum perperam coaluerunt.

Which in the preceding editions, as also in not a few manuscript copies, were wrongly run together into one.

In anterioribus editionibus unus erat sermo qui nunc a nobis in duos divisus profertur. Hujus facti rationem ut, lector, intelligas, nonnulla praemonenda sunt. In vulgatis ante Quesnellum editionibus primo sermoni ex duobus sequentibus compacto hic titulus praefigebatur: In anniversario de die assumptionis ejus ad summi

In the earlier editions there was one sermon which is now presented by us divided into two. That you may understand the reason for this, reader, some things must be said beforehand. In the editions published before Quesnel, the following title was prefixed to the first sermon, which was compounded of the two that follow: On the anniversary of the day of his elevation to the […] of the supreme […]

pontificis. Romani culmen et onus. At Quesnellus, qui in prima editione eumdem titulum receperat, in secunda mutandum censuit hoc modo: In octava consecrationis ejus. Id longa observatione probare studuit, quam hic integram subjicimus.

[…] Roman pontiff’s height and burden. But Quesnel, who in his first edition had taken over the same title, judged in the second that it should be changed as follows: On the octave of his consecration. This he endeavoured to prove by a long observation, which we subjoin here in full.

Primum hunc. S, Leonis sermonem, velut in anniversario die assumptionis dictum, sub eodem quo pridem gaudebat titulo veteres editiones omnes secutus in prima mea editione reliqui, tametsi scrupulus nonnullus remorderet. Ut rem iterato examini subjicerem, in causa fuere eruditorum e societate virorum Joannis Garnerii et Danielis Papebrokii nova in eumdum sermonem cogitata. Ille pagina 33 Libri Diurni Romanorum pontificum. haec scribit; S. Leo in ipso suae assumptionis die sermonem huic concioni (quem secundae professioni fidei Gregorii PP, II insertam dicit) similem fecit, nisi quod fidem sermoni non perinde subjunxit. Fortasse tunc nondum usu receptum erat alteram professionem edere, quam quae ad corpus S. Petri fiebat. Fortasse, quod magis reor, fides omissa fuit a collectore sermonum Leonis, propterea quod forma communis erat, et a symbolo apostolico Romano non diversa. Et in appendice pag. 172, scribit vocem anniversario in titulum irrepsisse, quod sermo, inquit, ipse ⟨d⟩ocet, seque habitum in ipso assumptionis die evidenter ostendit....... Enimvero si, inquit pag. 174, anniversarius dies significari debeat, et non ipsemet natalis, quorsum dicitur: Obsequium consecrati pontificis inchoari? Quorsum mentio reditus a longa peregrinatione? Quorsum actio gratiarum pro electione? Quorsum praesentis temporis verbum provehit, si jam unum saltem annum, totum in pontificali sede transegisset? Dictus igitur sermo, ut putat, recurrente electionis die, ut scilicet qui electus fuerat feria 6, quae dies 29 Martii, ordinaretur eadem feria, quae dies 19 Maii.

“This first sermon of St Leo, as though delivered on the anniversary of the day of his elevation, I left in my first edition under the same title that it had long enjoyed, following all the old editions, although some scruple kept troubling me. The cause of my submitting the matter to a renewed examination was the new thoughts on this same sermon of two learned men of the Society, John Garnier and Daniel Papebroch. The former, on page 33 of the Liber Diurnus of the Roman pontiffs, writes this: ‘St Leo, on the very day of his elevation, delivered a sermon like this address (which he says was inserted into the second profession of faith of Pope Gregory II), except that he did not in the same way attach the faith to the sermon. Perhaps it was not yet the custom at that time to issue a second profession besides the one made at the body of St Peter. Perhaps, as I rather think, the faith was omitted by the compiler of Leo’s sermons, because it was of the common form and not different from the Roman apostolic creed.’ And in the appendix, p. 172, he writes that the word anniversario crept into the title, because ‘the sermon itself,’ he says, ‘teaches, and shows evidently, that it was delivered on the very day of his elevation…….’ ‘For if,’ he says on p. 174, ‘the anniversary day is meant, and not the birthday itself, to what purpose is it said that the service of the consecrated pontiff is being begun? To what purpose the mention of a return from a long journey? To what purpose the thanksgiving for his election? To what purpose does he put forward a word of the present time, if he had already spent at least one whole year in the pontifical see?’ The said sermon, then, as he thinks, [was delivered] on the recurring day of his election: namely, so that he who had been elected on the sixth feria, which was 29 March, was ordained on the same feria, which was 19 May.

Socii sui opinionem Daniel Papebrokius in suo conatu ad chronologiam summorum pontificum amplexus est quod eam partem quae sermonem ipsi consecrationis diei assignat: ad alteram vero quae consecrationem ipsam feria 6 celebratam indicat, vidit vir doctissimus quam immanis hallucinatio; cum ex apostolorum doctrina et institutione veram asserat Leo ipse auctoritatem consuetudinis, qua semper observatum, ut his qui consecrandi sunt sacerdotali vel levitica ordinatione, numquam benedictio nisi in die Dominicae Resurrectionis, hoc est die Dominica, tribuatur.

“Daniel Papebroch, in his essay towards a chronology of the supreme pontiffs, embraced his colleague’s opinion as to that part which assigns the sermon to the very day of the consecration; but as to the other, which indicates that the consecration itself was celebrated on the sixth feria, the most learned man saw what an enormous blunder it was, since Leo himself asserts, from the teaching and institution of the apostles, the true authority of the custom by which it has always been observed that for those who are to be consecrated by priestly or levitical ordination the blessing is never conferred except on the day of the Lord’s Resurrection, that is, on the Lord’s day.

Certum est mihi pariter Diei anniversario assignari non posse primum istum sermonem; sed nec ipsi consecrationis diei ascribi debere, manifestum faciunt vel haec sola Leonis verba: Recurrente igitur per suum ordinem die, quo me Dominus episcopalis officii voluit habere principium, etc. Principium enim episcopalis officit ordinationem esse nemo non videt: recurrentem vero per suum ordinem hujus principii seu ordinationis diem, esse alteram Dominicam quae ordinationem proxime secuta est, seu octavam ab ordinatione diem, necesse est asserere, ⟨u⟩t Leo cum Leone concordet. In ipsa igitur ordinationis solemnitate, seu in die octava, quae parse clausula illius erat, dictum puto primum hunc S. Leonis sermonem, recurrente consecrationis die per ordinem suum, hoc est post elapsos septem hebdomadae dies, primo seu Dominico die per ordinem dierum redeunte. Quod profecto in alium sensum trahi non potest, si semel constet de anniversario die explicari non posse, ut revera constat ex tota sermonis ipsius serie.

“It is equally certain to me that this first sermon cannot be assigned to the anniversary day; but that it ought not to be ascribed to the very day of the consecration either, these words of Leo alone make plain: ‘The day, therefore, recurring in its order, on which the Lord willed me to have the beginning of the episcopal office,’ etc. For no one fails to see that the beginning of the episcopal office is the ordination; but the day of this beginning or ordination, recurring in its order, must be asserted to be the second Lord’s day, the one which next followed the ordination, that is, the eighth day from the ordination, so that Leo may agree with Leo. On the very solemnity of the ordination, then, that is, on the octave day, which was part and close of it, I think this first sermon of St Leo was delivered, the day of consecration recurring in its order, that is, after the seven days of the week had elapsed, the first or Lord’s day returning in the order of days. This certainly cannot be drawn to another sense, once it is established that it cannot be explained of the anniversary day, as in fact is established from the whole tenor of the sermon itself.

Novam hanc opinionem confirmat vetus codex bibliothecae Bodleianae, in academia Oxoniensi, ad quem Leonis nostri sermones et epistolas plures contulerat vir doctissimus Edmundus Bernardus in eadem academia Savilianus astronomiae professor, collectasque ex illo codice varias lectiones ad me olim miserat. Codicis antiquitatem commendat haec inscriptio in fronte conspicua: In nomine Dei summi incipiunt tratactus, quos a die ordinationis suae per continuum quinquennium beatissimus papa Leo dixit ad populum. Totus vetustatem spirat titulus iste, indicatque sermones seu tratactus (quae vox Leonis aevo familiaris) descriptos fuisse ex codice pontificis istius aetate exarato. Cum enim ex ipsis sermonibus nnlla indicia prodeant quibus appareat quo quisque anno dictus fuerit, oportet ut statim fere post quinquennium illud descriptum sit primum codicis istius exemplar. In eo autem codice primi sermonis titulus est, non in anniversario, ut in consequentium capite habetur, sed Sermo I de ordinatione sua: qui solus in die ordinationis, ut prior titulus indicat, haberi potuit, nimirum in die recurrente, quemadmodum dixit Leo ipse, seu in octava die.

“This new opinion is confirmed by an old codex of the Bodleian Library in the University of Oxford, with which the most learned Edmund Bernard, Savilian professor of astronomy in the same university, had collated many sermons and letters of our Leo, and he had once sent me the variant readings gathered from that codex. The antiquity of the codex is commended by this inscription, conspicuous on its front: In the name of God most high here begin the tractates which the most blessed Pope Leo spoke to the people from the day of his ordination through a continuous five years. This title breathes antiquity throughout, and indicates that the sermons or tractates (a word familiar in Leo’s age) were copied from a codex written in the lifetime of that pontiff. For since no indications emerge from the sermons themselves by which it may appear in what year each was delivered, the first exemplar of that codex must have been copied almost immediately after that five-year period. Now in that codex the title of the first sermon is not On the anniversary, as is found at the head of those that follow, but Sermon 1, On his ordination: which could only have been delivered on the day of the ordination, as the earlier title indicates, that is to say, on the recurring day, as Leo himself said, or on the octave day.

Porro recte post expletam solemnitatem ordinationis obsequium consecrati pontificis inchoari dicit: nam ipse quidem ordinationis dies principium episcopalis officii fuit, ut disertis verbis habet Leo; at non inchoatio obsequii, seu exercitium suscepti muneris quod tam solemnis diei, diuturnis precibus †se prolixis caeremoniis occupatae spatia non sinebant.

“Moreover, he rightly says that the service of the consecrated pontiff is being begun after the solemnity of the ordination has been completed: for the day of ordination itself was indeed the beginning of the episcopal office, as Leo has it in express words; but not the beginning of the service, that is, the exercise of the charge undertaken, which the hours of so solemn a day, taken up with lengthy prayers and long ceremonies, did not allow.

Caeterum hoc semel constituto, consuetudo celebratae octava diei consecratiorum pontificum solemnitatis innotescit, quam aliunde notam haberi non memini. Sed ita fieri solitum facile persuadent et annua consecrationis festa religiose celebrata, et similis cousuetudo celebratae diei octavae consecrationis baptismalis fidelium, immo et dedicationis sacrarum basilicarum, quae postrema etiam hodie perseverat, etsi ordinatione pontificia longe inferior sit templorum dedicatio.

“For the rest, once this is established, there comes to light the custom of celebrating the octave day of the solemnity of consecrated pontiffs, which I do not recall being known from elsewhere. But that it was customarily done so is readily made persuasive both by the yearly feasts of consecration religiously celebrated, and by the like custom of celebrating the octave day of the baptismal consecration of the faithful, and indeed of the dedication of sacred basilicas, the last of which continues even today, although the dedication of churches is far inferior to a pontifical ordination.”

Hactenus Quesnellus. Itaque diem anniversarium primo sermoni, ut editus erat, ascribi non posse vidit, eo quod observante Garnerio, in prima sermonis parte dicatur, obsequium consecrati pontificis inchoari, et mentio fiat reditus a longa peregrinatione, quae diei anniversario nequaquam congruunt. Hinc ipse ordinationis dies admittendus videbatur. Cum autem verba. Recurrente igitur per suum ordinem die, etc., diei ordinationis proprio non conveniant, diem octavae sermoni praefigendam Quesnellus putavit. Verum diei octavae solemnitas, in qua episcoporum congregatio haberetur, ut sermonis verba exigunt, toti antiquitati ignota est, ipso autem non tam ordinationis die quam anniversario episcoporum conventus fieri consuevisse, patet ex Paulini epist., 16, ad Delphinum, Xysti III epist. ad Cyrillum et Hilari papae, qui Leoni successit, epist. ad †Ascanium. Hinc Tillemontius in notatiuncula ad artic. Leonis tom. XV, pag. 417, de duplici sermone perperam juncto suspicatus est.

Thus far Quesnel. He saw, then, that the anniversary day could not be ascribed to the first sermon as it had been published, because, as Garnier observes, in the first part of the sermon it is said that the service of the consecrated pontiff is being begun, and mention is made of a return from a long journey, things which in no way suit the anniversary day. Hence the very day of the ordination seemed to be the one to admit. But since the words, “The day, therefore, recurring in its order,” etc., do not suit the day of ordination itself, Quesnel thought that the octave day should be prefixed to the sermon. But a solemnity of the octave day, at which an assembly of bishops would be held, as the words of the sermon require, is unknown to all antiquity; whereas it is clear from Paulinus, Letter 16, to Delphinus, from the letter of Xystus III to Cyril, and from the letter of Pope Hilarus, who succeeded Leo, to †Laucanius, that assemblies of bishops were customarily held not so much on the very day of the ordination as on its anniversary. Hence Tillemont, in a short note to the article on Leo, vol. XV, p. 417, suspected that two sermons had been wrongly joined.

Hunc vero nodum solverunt sex codices. In tribus scilicet mss, collectionis secundae, id est Barber. 88, basilicae S. Petri 210, et Casanatensi G, n. 7. nec non in lectionario Vallicellano 26 praefertur sermo incipiens. Laudem Domini, qui concluditur verbis, testimonium praestitistis, et cum finali quidem clausula: Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Codex autem Casinensis 126 collectionis primae, qui num, 75 exhibet eundem sermonem cum eodem fine, num. 72. praemiserat uti distinctum sermonem incipientem: Honorabilem mihi dilectissimi, hodiernum diem fecit divina dignatio, etc., qui alibi perperam, inserta post vocem Honorabilem particula igitur, assutus fuerat primo sermoni, efficiebatque caput secundum ac tertium. In mss. etiam lectionario Vallicellano A, 7, eadem utriusque sermonis distinctio deprehenditur, et eodem pariter ordine; prius enim occurrit sermo Honorabilem pag. 185, dein sermo Laudem Domini, pag. 189.

This knot, however, six codices have untied. In three manuscripts, namely, of the second collection, that is, Barber. 88, St Peter’s basilica 210, and Casanatensis G, n. 7, and also in the Vallicelliana lectionary 26, there is set first the sermon beginning, “The praise of the Lord,” which ends with the words, “you have borne witness,” and indeed with the final clause, “Through Christ our Lord.” The Monte Cassino codex 126 of the first collection, moreover, which at no. 75 presents the same sermon with the same ending, had at no. 72 set before it, as a distinct sermon, the one beginning, “Honourable to me, dearly beloved, has the divine condescension made this day,” etc., which elsewhere, with the particle igitur inserted after the word Honorabilem, had wrongly been stitched on to the first sermon, and formed its second and third chapters. In the Vallicelliana manuscript lectionary A, 7, also, the same distinction of the two sermons is found, and in the same order likewise; for first comes the sermon Honorabilem, p. 185, then the sermon Laudem Domini, p. 189.

Ex his optime conciliantur omnia. Nam primus sermo Laudem Domini, qui formulas exhibet diei ordinationis proprias, habitus fuit ipso natalis seu ordinationis die; et prolixior fortassis ejus diei solemnitas longiorem

From these things everything is very well reconciled. For the first sermon, “The praise of the Lord,” which presents formulas proper to the day of ordination, was delivered on the very birthday, that is, the day of ordination; and the solemnity of that day, being perhaps rather lengthy, [did not allow] a longer […]