Of the numerous printed editions of Leo I's works, the first was published hy Sweynheym and Pannartz (Rome, 1 170, fol.), under the inspection of Andrew, bish- ()|) of Aleria, comprising ;)2 Sennmu'S and ."> Epistol(e. Tlie best two editions were published at Paris (167o, 2 vols. 4to) by Pasipiier ()uesnel and l)y the Ballerini (Verona, 17o5-o7, 3 vols. fol.). Of (.^uesnel's edition it is due to say that, l)v the aid of a large number of JMSS., ])reservcd chiefly in the libraries of France, he %'as en- abled to introduce such essential iin|)rovement*into the text, and l)y bis erudite imhijtry illustrated so clearly the obscurities in which many of the documents were involved, that the works of Loo 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. Uijon attentive perusal the notes and disser- tations 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 Koman see, that the volumes fell under the ban of the Inciuisition very shortly after their publication, and were included in the Index Librorum Prohihitorum of 1082. Notwithstanding these denun- ciations, the book enjoj-ed great popularity, and was re- printed, without any suppression or modification of the obnoxious passages, at Lyons, in 1700. Hence the heads of the Komish 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 labors (S. Leonis Magni Opera omnia [Kome, 1753-1755, 2 vols, fol.] ; Exercitationes in Universa S. Leonis Magni Opera [Kome, 1751, fol.]) might have attracted attention and praise had they not been, at the very moment when the}' were brought to a close, entirely thrown into the shade by those of the brothers Peter and Jerome Balle- rini, presbyters of Verona. Their edition, indeed, is en- titled to take the first place, both on account of the pu- rity of the text, corrected from a great number of MSS., chiefly Koman, not before collated, the arrangement of the different parts, and the notes and disquisitions. A fidl description of these volumes, as ^vell as of those of Quesnel and Cacciari, is to be found in .Schiinemann {Bibl. Patrum Lat. vol. ii, § 42), who has bestowed more than usual care upon this section. See IMaimbourg, Histoire du Pontifical de Lion (Paris, 1687, 4to); Arendt, Leo d.Grosse (Mainz, 1835, 8 vo); Gesch. d.Rom. Literat. (Supi)l. Band. 2d part, § 159-162) ; Alex, de Saint-Che- Ton, Histoire du Pontifical de St. Leon le Grand et de son siecle (2 vols. 8vo.) ; Ph. de JNIornay, Histoire Pontificale (1612, 12mo, p. 71); l^mys, Hist, des Papes (La Haye, 1732, 5 vols. 4to), i, 218; Baronius, Ammles Ecclesiastici (Lucques, 1738, 19 vols, fol.), vii, 535-638; viii, 1-240; G. Bertazzolo, Breve Descrittione della Vita di san Leone primo et di Attila Flagello di Dio (Mantua, 1014, 4to); Gfrorer, Kirchengesch. ii, 1 ; E. Perthel, Pahst Leo's I Leben u. Lehren (1843) ; C. T. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. ii ; iMilman, Hist. Latin Christianity, vol. i, ch. iv; Neander, Church History, ii, 104, 169 sq.,'508 sq., 708 sq. ; Dumoulin, Vie et Religion de deux hons Papes Leon I et Gregnirel (1650) ; Baxmann, PoftVil- derPdpste, i, 13 sq. j Lea, Studies in Ch. Hist. (Phil. 1869, 8vo : see its Index) ; Riddle, Hist. Papacy, i, 171 sq.; Schrockh, Kirchengesch. xvii, 90 sq.; Herzog,i?e«Wi«cyX-/. viii, 290-31]-, Smith, Diet, of Greek and Roman Biog. and Myth, ii, 740 sq. ; Migne, Nonv. Encyc. Theol. ii, 1152 ; Bergier, Diet, de Thiol, iv, 34 sq. ; Hoefer, Nonv. Biog. Ginirale, xxx, 704 -708; Engl. Cyclop, s. v.; Christian Remembrancer. \Sb^, p. 291 sq.
Leo II, Pope, was born at Cedelle. in Sicily, in the early part of the 7th century. He became first canon regular, then cardinal priest, and finally pope, as suc- cessor of Agatho. Although his predecessor had died in January of the same year, he was installed as late as August. 082, by the emperor Constantine V, as "the most holy and blessed archbishop of old Rome, and uni- versal pope." The reasons of this delay are unknown. Soon after his election Constantine requested him to send to Constantinople an ambassador, with full author- ity to decide at once on all questions of dogmi.s and canons, and other ecclesiastical interests. But Loo, per- ceiving the aim of the request, sent only a sub-deacon, who would not act iu matters of any importance without first consulting with Kome. He also immediately as- sembled a synod to approve of the acts of the sixth cecumenical oounojl held at Constantinople iu 081, which had been brought to Kome liy the logates of Agatho. In 083 he sent a legate to Constantine, with a letter anathematizing the heresy of the IMonothelites, and also pope Honorius (025-038), "who, instead of purifying the Apostolic Church by the doctrines of the apostles,
LEO III
359
LEO III
has come near overthrowing the faith by his treason" (Labbc, Cone, vi, 1'24G). Leo sought to induce all the churches to accept the decisions of that council, and for tliat purpose translated them from Greek into Latin, sending a copy of tlicm in the latter language to the Spanish bishops. He iippears also to have given his ambassador four letters, somewhat similar as to their contents (sec Mansi, xi, 1050-1058), addressed to the bisln)ps of Ustrogothia, count Simplicius, king Erwig, and the metropolitan bishop Quiricus of Toledo, ex- pressing his wish that all the bishops of Spain would indorse the acts of the Council of Constantinople. In these letters he saj-s : " Honorius has falsified the invi- olable rule of apostolic succession which he had received from his predecessors." Baronius, wishing to rehabili- tate Leo, denies the authenticity of these letters, while I'agi attem|its to uphold it ; Gfrurer {Kircheiir/esch. vol. iii, pt. i, p. 397 sq.) also maintains their genuineness, and adduces in proof of it their corresponding ]3reci£ely with the decisions of the fourteenth Council of Toledo. Leo also obtained from Constantine a promise that after the death of the titidar archbishop of Kavenna his succes- sors should, according to an old custom fallen into dis- use, come to Rome to be consecrated. In exchange for this concession, Leo relieved the see of Kavenna from the obligation of paying the taxes formerly levied on the occasion of sucli consecration. Leo was a great friend of Church music, and did much towards improv- ing the Gregorian chant. He built a church to St. Paul, and is said to have originated the custom of sprink- ling the people with holy water. He died in July, C83 : the exact date is not ascertained, and the l!<iman Cath- olic Church commemorates him on the 28tli of June. See Dupin, Bihliolh. des A uteurs EccUs. v, 105 ; Platina, Historia ddle Vite dti Sommi Pontcftci ; Ciaconius, 1 eVre et Res gestce Pontijicum Romanorinn (L'om. 1077, 4 vols, folio), i, 478; Heizog, Hecd-Enci/Llo]). viii, 311 ; Hotter, Aoiiv. Biofj. Generule, xxx, 708; Baxmann, i'oto'A; der J'dpsic, i, 185 ; Bower, History of the Ponies, iii, 184 sq. ; Kiddle, Hist, of the Papaaj, i, 300.