Liber Pontificalis de vitis Romanorum Pontif- cum, Gksta Rojianorum Pontificum, Liber gesto- i:uM roxTiFicALirM, are the names of a history of the bishops of Rome from the apostle Peter down to Nicolas I (f 867), to which those of Adrian II and of Ste])hen VI (t 891) were subsequently added. On the author- ity of Onuphrio Pavini, the first editors of this Liber Pontifc(dis considered as its author Anastasius, abbot of a convent at Rome, and librarian of the church under Nicolas I ; Init more thorough researches have proved tliis liber to vary greatly in style, and even in views manifested in the different biographies, and therefore led to the supposition that the work is not all by the same author. This belief is further strengthened by the fact that already Anastasius, on some occasions, m.-ide use of passages from the Libir Pou/if calls, and that there arc MSS. extant which can with certainty be ascrilied to the close of the 7th or the beginning of the 8th centurj-, and which contain extracts from the Liber Pontif calls. In the early part of the 17th century, several writers put forth arguments in favor of the last- mentioned views. Among them are EmanueJ of Schel- strate. lilirarian of the Valiijan {IHssertalio de antiquis Romanorum Poutifcum catalogis, ex guibu's fAber Pontifi- calis concinnatus sit, et de Libri L'outif calls aiictore ac pi-cEstantia [Rom;e, 1692, fob; reprinted in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, iii, 1 sq.]), Joannes Ciam-
pini (magister brevium gratiae : Examen Libri Pontifica- lis sire vitarum Romanormn Pontificum, quce sub nomine Anastasii bibliothecarii circumferuntur [Rom. 1688, 4to; reprinted in Muratori, p. 33 sq.]), and others. The sup- position that the codex was compiled by pope Damasus, the successor of Liberius, as maintained by the authors of the Origines, is untenable. The correspondence be- tween Damasus and Jerome which is adduced in support of this view is evidently spurious (see Schelstrate, Dis- sertatio, etc.). The author or authors are unknown, but the information it contains is valuable. It is now gen- erally thought to have been written about the 4th cen- tury.
The oldest source known at present of the liber is generally considered to have been a list of the popes down to Liberius, and probably written during his life (352-366), as it makes no mention of his death (see Schelstrate, LHssertatio, etc., cli. ii, iii ; Hefele, Tiibinger theolog. Quartalschrift, 1845, p. 312 sq.). The original MS. of this so-called Codex Liberii is now lost. In 1634 a co]>y was made of it from an Antwerp MS. by Bucher, the Bollandists give one in the Acta Sanctorum, April, vol. i, 1675, and Schelstrate another I'rom a Vienna co- dex. These three texts are given side by side in the Origines de Veglise Romaine, par les membres de la com- munaute de Solermes (Paris, 1826), vol. i.
Another list of the popes extends down to Felix IV (f 530). It was first published in a codex of the Vati- can Library by Christine of Sweden, afterwards by Syl- vester of Henschen and Papebroch, and is also found in the introduction of the first volume of the Acta Sancto- rum for April, in Schelstrate, and in the above-mention- cil Origines, p. 212. There are transcripts of French origin, and the original MS. of this so-called Catalogus Feliris /ris lost, but the two at jiresent in existence are evidently copies of the same original, as results from a careful comparison of them by Schelstrate. That the author of it must have consulted the Cafalogifs Libeiil is evident from the fact that its errors are repeated in it. Thej' both omit the names of the consuls and em- perors between Liberius and John I (523), and com- mence again at the reign of the latter, and of his suc- cessor, Felix IV (al. III). Schelstrate already correctly surmised from this fact that the author lived in the time of these two popes, which view is also supported by the completeness and thoroughness with ^vhich their history, in particular, is treated. Still, as to the author, there is no definite information. The numerous refer- ences to the archives of the Roman Church, in which, moreover, the first MS. was discovered, would make it probable that the author was himself a librarian of the archives, if the confusion and even incorrectness of some parts did not militate against this view. Aside from the similarity of this collection with the Catalogus Liberii, which extends so far that whole jiassagcs are copied literall}', or nearly so, from the one into the other, the Catalogus Felicis 7 L differs from the Liberii prin- cipally by its full particulars on the ordination, by its mention of the birthplace of the popes, and their fune- rals, which the author may have derived from tradition and other similar sources, pseudo-decretals and canons, martyrologies, etc. The only parts which have licrcto- fore been considered worthy ol' full confidence are those which coincide with the Catalogus Liberii, and those which refer to the times of John and Felix, wlicn the author would be better acquainted with the lacts than with those of precedhig periods.
I?oth lists were subsequently continued, and tliis is what produced the Liber Pontificalia. This filiation, however, can only be traced by the aid of MSS. The oldest copy known belongs to the close of the 7th or the beginning of the 8th century. It ends at the death of Conon ((■)8(i-6.s7). A rather incomi)lete Codex rescrip- tus, discovered by Pertz (Archir. \\ 50 sq.) at Naples, gives the list of the popes down to Conon ; it must have been written, at the latest, in the early part of the 8th century. Another is found in a codex of the cathedral