Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Seventh Ecumenical Council/Excursus 3

Excursus on the Two Letters of Gregory II. To the Emperor Leo.

(J. B. Bury, Appendix 14 to Vol. V. of his edition of Gibbon&#8217;s Rome. 1898.)

It is incorrect to say that &#8220;the two epistles of Gregory II. have been preserved in the Acts of the Nicene Council&#8221; [as Gibbon does].&#160; In modern collections of the Acts of Ecclesiastical Councils, they have been printed at the end of the Acts of the Second Nicene Council.&#160; But they first came to light at the end of the $th$. century and were printed for the first time in the Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius, who had obtained them from Fronton le Duc.&#160; This scholar had copied the text from a Greek at Rheims.&#160; Since then other  have been found, the earliest belonging to the $th$., if not the Xth century.

In another case we should say that the external evidence for the genuineness of the epistles was good.&#160; We know on the authority of Theophanes that Gregory wrote one or more letters to Leo (&#7952;&#960;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#955;&#8052;&#957; &#948;&#959;&#947;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#8053;&#957;, sub . 6172, &#959;&#953; &#7952;&#960;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#955;&#8182;&#957;, sub . 6221); and we should have no external reasons to suspect copies dating from about 300 years later.&#160; But the omission of these letters in the Acts of the Nicene Council, though they are stated to have been read at the council, introduces a shadow of suspicion.&#160; If they were preserved, how comes it that they were not preserved in the Acts of the Council, like the letter of Gregory to the Patriarch Germanus?&#160; There is no trace anywhere of the Latin originals.

Turning to the contents, we find enough to convert suspicion into a practical certainty that the documents are forgeries.&#160; This is the opinion of M. l&#8217;abb&#233; Duchesne (the editor of the Liber Pontificalis), M. L. Gu&#233;rard (M&#233;langes d&#8217;Arch&#233;ologie et d&#8217;Histoire, p. 44 sqq., 1890); Mr. Hodgkin (Italy and her Invaders, Vol. vi., p. 501 sqq.).&#160; A false date (the beginning of Leo&#8217;s reign is placed in the $th$. instead of the $th$. indiction), and the false implication that the Imperial territory of the &#8220;Ducatus Rom&#230;&#8221; terminated at twenty-four stadia, or three miles, from Rome, point to an author who was neither a contemporary of Leo nor a resident in Rome.&#160; But the insolent tone of the letters is enough to condemn them.&#160; Gregory II. would never have addressed to his sovereign the crude abuse with which these documents teem.&#160; Another objection (which I have never seen noticed) is that in the First Letter the famous image of Christ which was pulled down by Leo, is stated to have been in the &#8220;Chalkoprateia&#8221; (bronzesmith&#8217;s quarter), whereas, according to the trustworthy sources, it was above the Chalk&#226; gate of the Palace.

Rejecting the letters on these grounds&#8212;which are supported by a number of smaller points&#8212;we get rid of the difficulty about a Lombard siege of Ravenna before 727:&#160; a siege which is not mentioned elsewhere and was doubtless created by the confused knowledge of the fabricator.