<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:L.leo_37</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:L.leo_37</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:base="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><body xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><div type="textpart" subtype="alphabetic_letter" n="L"><div type="textpart" subtype="entry" xml:id="leo-bio-37" n="leo_37"><head><persName xml:lang="la"><surname full="yes">Leo</surname></persName></head><p>Latin ecclesiastics.</p><p>1. The first of that name who occupied the papal throne, is usually styled the <hi rend="smallcaps">GREAT.</hi> He was a native of Rome, and must have been born towards the
      close of the fourth century, although the precise year is unknown. Nothing has been recorded
      concerning his parents, except that his father was called Quintianus, nor with regard to his
      early training; but when we remark the erudition and polished accuracy displayed in his
      writings, and the early age at which he rose to offices of high trust, it becomes manifest
      that his great natural talents must have been cultivated with uncommon assiduity and skill.
      While yet an acolyte he was despatched, in <date when-custom="418">A. D. 418</date>, to Carthage,
      for the purpose of conveying to Aurelius and the other African bishops the sentiments of
      Zosimus concerning the Pelagian doctrines of Coelestius. [<hi rend="smallcaps">COELESTIUS.</hi>] Under Coelestinus [<hi rend="smallcaps">COELESTINUS</hi>] he discharged
      the duties of a deacon; and the reputation even then (431) enjoyed by him is clearly indicated
      by the terms of the epistle prefixed to the seven books, <hi rend="ital">De Incarnatione
       Christi,</hi> of Cassianus, who at his request had undertaken this work against the Nestorian
      heresy. Having obtained the full confidence of Sixtus III., to whom he rendered much good
      service, he attracted the notice of Valentinian III., and by the orders of the emperor
      undertook a mission to Gaul, in order to soothe the formidable dissensions of Aetius and
      Albinus. [<hi rend="smallcaps">AETIUS.</hi>] While Leo was engaged in this delicate
      negotiation, which was conducted with singular prudence and perfect success, the chief pontiff
      died, and by the unanimous voice of the clergy and laity the absent deacon was chosen to fill
      the vacant seat, and on his return was solemnly installed, <date when-custom="440">A. D.
      440</date>.</p><p>From the earliest ages until this epoch no man who combined lofty ambition with commanding
      intellect and political dexterity had presided over the Roman see: and although its influence
      had gradually increased, and many popes had sought to extend and confirm that influence, yet
      they had merely availed themselves of accidental circumstances to augment their own personal
      authority, without acting upon any distinct and well devised scheme. But Leo, while he
      sedulously watched over the purity of his own peculiar flock, concentrated <pb n="747"/> all
      the powers of his energetic mind upon one great design, which he seems to have formed at a
      very early period, which he kept stedfastly in view during a long and eventful life, and which
      he followed out with consummate boldness, perseverance, and talent. This was nothing less than
      to establish the " Apostolic Chair" in acknowledged spiritual supremacy over every branch of
      the Catholic church, and to appropriate to its occupant exclusively the title of <title xml:lang="la">Papa,</title> or father of the whole Christian world. Nor were the evil days
      amid which his lot was cast unfavourable, as might at first sight be imagined, to such a
      project. The church, it is true, was every where distracted and torn by the strife of parties,
      and by innumerable heresies, while the character of its ministers had grievously degenerated.
      The empire in the West was pressed on every side by hordes of barbarians, who were threatening
      to pour down upon Italy itself. But in this season of confusion the contending factions among
      the orthodox clergy, terrified by the rapid progress of Arianism, were well disposed to refer
      their own minor disputes to arbitration, and to acquiesce in the decision of one pre-eminent
      in learning and dignity. Leo, who well knew, from the example of his predecessor Innocentits,
      that the transition is easy from instruction to command, in the numerous and elaborate replies
      which he addressed to inquiries proceeding from various quarters, while he conveyed the
      information sought, or resolved the doubts proposed, studiously adopted a tone of absolute
      infallibility, and assumed the right of enforcing obedience to his dictates as an
      unquestionable prerogative of his office. On the other hand, the barbarian chiefs whose power
      was not yet consolidated were eager to propitiate one who possessed such weight with the
      priesthood, and through them could either calm into submission or excite to rebellion an
      ignorant and fanatic multitude. Hence these also proved powerful, although unconscious,
      instruments in forwarding the great enterprise. But even after the minds of men were in some
      degree prepared and disposed to yield to such domination, it was scarcely to be expected that
      it could be firmly fixed without exciting jealousy and resistance. Accordingly, a strong
      opposition was speedily organised both in the West pand in the East, which soon assumed the
      attitude of open defiance. In the West the contest was brought to an issue by the controversy
      with Hilarius of Aries concerning the deposition of Chelidonius. [<hi rend="smallcaps">HILARIUS</hi>
      <hi rend="ital">Arelatensis.</hi> ] The total defeat and severe punishment of the Gaulish
      bishop filled his supporters with terror, and the edict of Valentinian issued upon this
      occasion served as a sort of charter, in virtue of which the Roman bishops exercised for
      centuries undisputed jurisdiction over France, Spain, Germany, and Britain.</p><p>In the East the struggle was much more complicated, the result much less satisfactory. The
      Archimandrite Eutyches [ <hi rend="smallcaps">EUTYCHES</hi>], in his ve-hement denunciation of
      Nestorius, having been betrayed into errors, very different indeed, but equally dangerous, was
      anathematised, deposed, and excommunicated, in <date when-custom="448">A. D. 448</date>, by the
      synod of Constantinople. Against this sentence he sought redress, by soliciting the
      interference of the bishops of Alexandria and Rome. By the former his cause was eagerly
      espoused; the latter, although at first disposed to listen favourably to a complaint which he
      chose to regard as an appeal from an inferior to a higher court, was eventually induced,
      either by policy or conviction, to reject the application, and drew up an elaborate epistle to
      the patriarch Flavianus, in which the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation was authoritatively
      expounded and defined. Meanwhile, a general council was summoned to be held on the 1st of
      August, 449, at Ephesus, and thither the ambassadors of Leo repaired, for the purpose of
      reading publicly the above letter. But a great majority of the congregated fathers acting
      under control of the president, Dioscuros of Alexandria, refused to listen to the document,
      passed tumultuously a series of resolutions favourable to Eutyches, excommunicated the most
      zealous of his opponents, and not only treated the Roman envoys with indignity, but even
      offered violence to their persons. Hence this assembly, whose acts were all subsequently
      annulled, is known in ecclesiastical history as the <hi rend="ital">Synodus Latrocinalis.</hi>
      The vehement complaints addressed to Theodosius by the orthodox leaders proved fruitless, and
      the triumph of their opponents was for a time complete, when the sudden death of the emperor
      in 450 again awakened the hopes and called forth the exertions of Leo. In consequence of the
      pressing representations of his envoys, Anatolius, the successor of Flavianus, together with
      all the clergy of Constantinople, were induced to subscribe the Confession of Faith contained
      in the Epistle to Flavianus, and to transmit it for signature to all the dioceses of the East.
      Encouraged by this success, Leo solicited the new monarch Marcianus to summon a grand council,
      for the final adjustment of the questions concerning the nature of Christ, which still proved
      a source of discord, and strained every nerve to have it held in Italy, where his own
      adherents would necessarily have preponderated. In this, however, he failed. Nicaea was the
      place first fixed upon, but it eventually met at Chalcedon in October, 451. Although the Roman
      legates, whose language was of the most imperious description, did not fail broadly to assert
      the pretensions put forth by the representative of St. Peter, at first all went smoothly. The
      Epistle to Flavianus was admitted as a rule of faith for the guidance of the universal church,
      and no protest was entered against the spirit of arrogant assumption in which it was
      conceived. But when the whole of the special business was concluded, at the very last sitting,
      a formal resolution was proposed and passed, to the effect that while the Roman see was, in
      virtue of its antiquity, entitled to take formal precedence of every other, the see of
      Constantinople was to stand next in rank, was to be regarded as independent of every other,
      and to exercise full jurisdiction over the churches of Asia, Thrace, and Pontus. The
      resistance of Leo was all in vain. The obnoxious canons were fully confirmed, and thus one
      half of the sovereignty at which he aimed was for ever lost, at the very moment when victory
      seemed no longer doubtful. Two other events in the active life of this remarkable man must not
      be passed over in silence. In 452, when Attila was advancing in full career upon Rome, Leo was
      selected as the chief of an embassy, sent forth in the forlorn hope of propitiating the fierce
      conqueror. What the arguments employed by the eloquent suppliant may have been history has
      failed to record. The result is well known. The Hun not only spared the metropolis, but
      evacuated Italy, and returned with his <pb n="748"/> army to the Danube. Again in 455, when
      the city lay at the mercy of the Vandals, Genseric was persuaded by the entreaties of Leo to
      forego his purpose of general conflagration and massacre, and to be content with pillage--a
      concession which, when we consider the circumstances of the case and the temper of the chief,
      indicates the influence of the pontiff not less forcibly than his success with Attila.</p><p>His last anxiety arose from the tumults excited in the church at Alexandria about 457 by the
      disorderly proceedings of Timotheus Aelurus. Having united with the emperor of the East and
      with the patriarch of Constantinople in restoring order and discipline, and having written a
      congratulatory letter to the clergy of Alexandria upon the happy termination of their
      troubles, he soon after died, on the 10th of November, 461.</p><div><head>Works</head><p>The works of Leo consist of discourses delivered on the great festivals of the church or
       other solemn occasions, and of letters.</p><div><head>I. Sermones</head><p>Of these we possess ninety-six. There are five <title xml:lang="la">De Natali
         ipsius,</title> preached on anniversaries of his ordination, six <title xml:lang="la">De
         Collectis,</title> nine <title xml:lang="la">De Jejunio Decimi Mensis,</title> ten <title xml:lang="la">De Nativitate Domini,</title> eight <title xml:lang="la">In Epiphania
         Domini,</title> twelve <title xml:lang="la">De Quadragesima,</title> one <title xml:lang="la">De Transfiguratione Domini,</title> nineteen <title xml:lang="la">De Passione
         Domini,</title> two <title xml:lang="la">De Resurrectione Domini,</title> two <title xml:lang="la">De Ascensione Domini,</title> three <title xml:lang="la">De
         Pentecoste,</title> four <title xml:lang="la">De Jejunio Pentecostes,</title> one <title xml:lang="la">In Natali Apostolorum Petri et Pauli,</title> one <title xml:lang="la">In
         Natali S. Petri Apostoli,</title> one <title xml:lang="la">In Octavis Apostolorum Petri et
         Pauli,</title> one <title xml:lang="la">In Natali S. Laurentii Martyris,</title> nine
         <title xml:lang="la">De Jejunio Septimi Mensis,</title> one <title xml:lang="la">De
         Gradibus Ascensionis ad Beatitudinem,</title> one <title xml:lang="la">Tractatus contra
         Haeresim Eutychis.</title></p></div><div><head>II. Epistolae</head><p>These, extending to the number of 173, are addressed to the reigning emperors and their
        consorts, to synods, to religious communities, to bishops and other dignitaries, and to
        sundry influential personages connected with the ecclesiastical history of the times. They
        afford an immense mass of most valuable information on the prevailing heresies,
        controversies, and doubts, with regard to matters of doctrine, discipline, and church
        government.</p></div><div><head>Tracts of dubious authenticity</head><p>Besides the ninety-six <hi rend="ital">Sermones</hi> and 173 <hi rend="ital">Epistolae</hi> mentioned above, a considerable number of tracts have from time to time
        been ascribed to the same author; but their authenticity is either so doubtful, or their
        spuriousness so evident, that they are now universally set aside. A list of these, and an
        investigation of their origin, will be found in the edition of the brothers Ballerini, more
        particularly described below.</p></div><div><head>MSS</head><p>In consequence of the reputation deservedly enjoyed by Leo, his writings have always been
        eagerly studied. But, although a vast number of MSS. are still in existence, none of these
        exhibit his works in a complete form, and no attempt seems to have been made to bring
        together any portion of them for many hundred years after his death. The
         <title>Sermones</title> were dispersed in the <title>Lectionaria</title> or select
        discourses of distinguished divines, employed in places of public worship until the eleventh
        century, when they first began to be picked out of these cumbrous storehouses, and
        transcribed separately, while the <title>Epistolae</title> were gradually gathered into
        imperfect groups, or remained embodied in the general collections of papal constitutions and
        canons.</p></div><div><head>Editions</head><p>Of the numerous printed editions, which commence with that which issued from the press of
        Sweynheym and Pannartz (Rom. fol. 1470), under the inspection of Andrew, bishop of Aleria,
        comprising ninety-two <hi rend="ital">Sermones</hi> and five <hi rend="ital">Epistolae,</hi>
        it is unnecessary to give any detailed account, since two are decidedly superior to all
        others.</p><p>The first is that published at Paris in 1675, in two large quarto tomes, by Pasquier
        Quesnel, who by the aid of a large number of MSS., preserved chiefly in the libraries of
        France, was enabled to introduce such essential improvements into the text, and by his
        erudite industry illustrated so clearly the obscurities in which many of the documents were
        involved, that the works of Leo now for the first time assumed an unmutilated, intelligible,
        and satisfactory aspect. But the admiration excited by the skill with which the arduous task
        had been executed soon received a check. Upon attentive perusal, the notes and dissertations
        were found to contain such free remarks upon many of the opinions and usages of the
        primitive church, and, above all, to manifest such unequivocal hostility to the despotism of
        the Roman see, that the volumes fell under the ban of the Inquisition within a year after
        their publication, and were included in the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum " of 1682.
        Notwithstanding these denunciations, the book enjoyed great popularity, and was reprinted,
        without any suppression or modification of the obnoxious passages, at Lyons in 1700. Hence
        the heads of the Romish church became anxious to supply an antidote to the poison so
        extensively circulated. This undertaking was first attempted by Peter Cacciari, a Carmelite
        monk of the Propaganda, whose labours (<hi rend="ital">S. Leonis Magni Opera omnia,</hi>
        Rom. 1753-1755, 2 vols. fol.; <hi rend="ital">Exercitationes in Universa S. Leonis Magni
         Opera,</hi> Rom. fol. 1751), might have attracted attention and praise had they not been,
        at the very moment when they were brought to a close, entirely thrown into the shade by
        those of the brothers Peter and Jerome Ballerini, presbyters of Verona, whose edition
        appeared at Verona in three volumes folio in the course of the years 1755-1757, and is
        entitled to take the first place both in purity of the text, corrected from a great number
        of MSS., chiefly Roman, not before collated, in the arrangement of the different parts, and
        in the notes and disquisitions. A full description of these volumes, as well as of those of
        Quesnel and Cacciari, is to be found in Schönemann, who has bestowed more than usual
        care upon this section.</p></div></div><div><head>Further Information</head><p>Maimbourg, <hi rend="ital">Histoire du Pontificat de Léon,</hi> Paris, 4to. 1687;
       the dissertations of <hi rend="ital">Quesnel</hi> and the <title>Ballerini;</title>
       Schönemann, <hi rend="ital">Bibl. Patrum Lat.</hi> vol. 2.42; Arendt, <hi rend="ital">Leo der Grosse,</hi> Mainz. 8vo. 1835; Bähr, <hi rend="ital">Gesch. der Röm.
        Literat.</hi> Suppl. Band. II<hi rend="super">e</hi> Abtheil. § 159-162.</p></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>