APPENDIX 535 14. THE LETTERS OF GREGORY II. TO THE EMPEROR LEO— (P. 2.57) It is incorrect to say that " the two epistles of Gregory II. have been preserved in the Acts of the Nicene Council". In modern collections of the Acts of Ecclesi- astical Councils, they have been printed at the end of the Acts of the Second Nicene Council. But they first came to light at the end of the 16th century and were printed for the first time in the Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius, who had obtained them from Frontoii le Due. This scholar had copied the text from a Greek Ms. at Rheims. Since then other Mss. have been found, the earliest belonging to the 11th, if not the 10th, ceuturj-. In another case we should say that the external evidence for the genuineness of the epistles was good. We know on the autlioritj- of Theophanes that Gregory wrote one or more letters to Leo (iiricrroKriv ^oyfiariK-fiu, sub a.m. 6172, Si' (iri(TToa>v, sill) A.M. 6'22l); and we should have no external reasons to suspect coi)ies dating from about 300 years later. But the omission of these letters in the Acts of the Nicene Council, though they are stated to have been lead at the Council, introduces a shadow of suspicion. 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 ? 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. This is the opinion of M. I'Abbe Duchesne (the editor of the Liber Pontificalis), M. L. Guerard (Melanges d'Archeo- logie et d'Histoire, p. 44 sqq., 1890), Mr. Hodgkin (Italy and her Invaders, vol. vi., p. 501 aqq.). A false date (the beginning of Leo's reign is placed in the 14th instead of the 1.5th indiction), and the false implication that the Imperial territory of the Dvicatus Romae terminated at twenty-four stadia, or three miles, from Rome, ])oint to au author who was neither a contemporary of Leo nor a resident in Rome. But the insolent tone of the letters is enough to condemn them. Gregory II. would never have addressed to his sovereign the criide abuse with which these documents teem. Another objection (which I have never seen noticed) is that in the 1st Letter the famous image of Christ which was pulled down by Leo is stated to have been iu the ChaUcoprateia (bronzesmiths' quarter), whereas, according to the trustworthy sources, it was above the Chalke gate of the Palace Rejecting the letters on those grounds — which are supported by a number of smaller ])oints — we get rid of the difficulty about a Lombard siege of Ravenna before a. d. 727 : a siege which is not mentioned elsewhere and was doubtless created by the confused knowledge of the fabricator. 15. THE ICONOCLASTIC EDICTS OF LEO III.— (P. 2.51, 252) Leo issued his first edict against the worship of images in a.d. 725, ^ and began, actively to carry it into effect in the following year (a.d. 726).'- Gibbon (who is followed by Finlay) states that the first edict did not enjoin the removal of images, but only the elevation of them to such a height that they could not be kissed or touched by the faithful. He does not give the authorit3' for this statement, but he derived it from Cardinal Baronius (Ann. Eccl. ix., ad. aun., 726, 5), who founded his assertion on a Latin translation of a Vita Stephani Jxinioris. This document is published iu the edition of the Works of .John of Damascus, by J. Billius (1603), and differs considerably from the Greek text (and Lat. transl. ) jjublished by Montfaucon in his Analecta Gr;eca towards the end of 1 Theoph., A.M. 6127. I do not see that we are justitied in rejecting this date of Theo- phants, as most critics are disposed to do. The First Epistle of Gregory to Leo says " in the tenth year " of Leo's reign, but it is not genuine. ^ Theoph., A.M. 6128.
