教牧守則·對話錄與書信 第 54 章

But amid these things we are turned back, by zeal of charity, to what we have said above, that every devout preacher should resound in deeds rather than in words, and by living well should imprint footprints upon his followers rather than by speaking point out the path along which they are to walk. For even that cock, which the Lord takes up in his discourse to express the character of the good preacher, when it is now preparing to give forth its crow, first shakes its wings, and by striking itself renders itself more watchful; because assuredly it is necessary that those who utter the words of holy preaching should first awake through the earnest pursuit of good action, lest, being themselves sluggish in works, they rouse others by their voice; that they should first shake themselves by lofty deeds, and then make others solicitous for living well.

let them first strike themselves with the wings of their thoughts; whatever lies uselessly torpid within them let them detect by careful searching, and correct by strict rebuke; and then at last let them by their words set in order the lives of others; let them first take care to punish their own faults with weeping, and then denounce what in others is to be punished; and before they resound the words of exhortation, let them proclaim by their works all that they are about to speak.

But because often, while preaching is poured forth abundantly in fitting manner, the mind of the speaker is lifted up within itself with a hidden joy over the display of his own gifts, there is need of great care that it may bite itself with the laceration of fear, lest one who by healing recalls the wounds of others to salvation should himself swell up through negligence of his own salvation; lest by helping his neighbours he desert himself; lest by raising others he fall. For to certain men the greatness of their virtue has often been the occasion of their ruin; so that, while they are inordinately secure from confidence in their own strength, they die unexpectedly through negligence. For when virtue struggles against vices, the mind flatters itself with a certain delight in it; and it comes to pass that the mind of one acting well casts away the fear of its own

circumspection, and rests secure in confidence of itself; and to it, now grown sluggish, the cunning seducer enumerates all the good it has done, and exalts it, as though pre-eminent above the rest, in the fear of a self-flattering thought. Whence it comes about that before the eyes of the just Judge the memory of virtue becomes a pit for the mind; because by recalling what it has done, while it raises itself up before itself, it falls before the Author of humility. For hence it is said to the proud soul: 'Whom dost thou surpass in beauty? Go down, and sleep with the uncircumcised' (Ezek. XXXII, 19). As if it were openly said: Because thou liftest thyself up out of the comeliness of thy virtues, thou art driven by thine own very beauty to fall. Hence, under the figure of Jerusalem, the soul that is proud of its virtue is reproved, when it is said:

'Thou wast perfect in my beauty, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord; and having confidence in thy beauty, thou didst play the harlot in thy own name' (Ezek. XVI, 14, 15). For the mind is lifted up in confidence of its own beauty, when with glad self-security it glories in the merits of its virtues. But through this same confidence it is led to fornication; because, when its own thoughts deceive the mind thus intercepted, the malignant spirits corrupt it by seducing it through countless vices. And it is to be noted that it is said: 'Thou didst play the harlot in thy own name'; because when the mind forsakes the regard of the heavenly Ruler, it straightway seeks its own private praise, and begins to arrogate to itself every good which it received in order to serve the herald of the Giver;

it desires to spread abroad the glory of its own reputation, and busies itself that it may become marvellous and known to all. In its own name, therefore, it plays the harlot, when, forsaking the wedded union of the lawful marriage-bed, it prostrates itself beneath the corrupting spirit in the appetite for praise. Hence David says: 'He delivered their strength into captivity, and their beauty into the hands of the enemy' (Ps. LXXVII, 61). For strength and beauty are given into captivity, into the hands of the enemy, when over a deceived mind the ancient foe holds dominion through the elation that springs from good work: which elation over virtue, although it does not fully overcome, nevertheless in some measure often tempts even the minds of the elect; but he who is lifted up is forsaken, and being forsaken is recalled to fear. Hence David again says:

'I said in my abundance, I shall never be moved' (Ps. XXIX, 7). But because he had swelled up from confidence in his virtue, a little after he added what he suffered: 'Thou didst turn away thy face from me, and I became troubled' (Ibid., 8). As if he openly said: I believed myself strong amid my virtues, but I recognized, being forsaken, of how great weakness I was. Hence again he says: 'I have sworn and am resolved to keep the judgments of thy righteousness' (Ps. CXVIII, 106). But because it was not in his own strength to abide in the keeping which he swore, being straightway troubled he found out his own weakness. Whence also he suddenly betook himself to the aid of prayer, saying: 'I am humbled exceedingly, O Lord; quicken me according to thy word' (Ibid., 107).

But sometimes the supernal governance, before it advances a man by its gifts, recalls to his mind the memory of his weakness, lest he swell up over the virtues received. Whence the prophet Ezekiel, as often as he is led to contemplate heavenly things, is first called son of man; as if the Lord openly admonished him, saying: Lest thou lift up thy heart in elation over the things which thou seest, weigh cautiously what thou art; so that when thou penetratest the highest things thou mayest recognize that thou art a man, in order that, while thou art carried beyond thyself, thou mayest be solicitously recalled to thyself by the reproof of thy weakness. Whence it is necessary that when an abundance of virtues flatters us, the eye of the mind should return to its own infirmities, and press itself salutarily downward; and should aspire not to the right things it has done, but to the things it has neglected to do;

so that while the heart is worn down by the memory of its weakness, it may be more robustly established in virtue before the Author of humility. For very often almighty God, for this reason, though he in great part perfects the very hearts of rulers, nevertheless leaves them imperfect in some small part; so that when they shine with wondrous virtues, they may pine away with weariness at their own imperfection, and may by no means exalt themselves over great things, while they still labour striving against the least; but because they cannot overcome the very least, they may not dare to be proud over their chief actions. Behold, good man, compelled by the necessity of my reproof, while I keep vigil to show what manner of man the Pastor ought to be, I, a foul painter, have painted a fair man;

and I direct others to the shore of perfection, I who am still tossed amid the waves of my faults. But in the shipwreck of this life, I beg thee, sustain me with the plank of thy prayer, so that, since my own weight presses me down, the hand of thy merit may raise me up. This purpose was set before the most holy and most learned pontiff Gregory: that whatsoever things established and precepts concerning pastoral care he had committed to his writings, he should express them truly and solidly by the examples of bishops in Italy, most flourishing both in holiness of life and in the discipline of episcopal virtue.

It seems therefore to have been done by the best right, that to the Pastoral book we should append those famous books of the Dialogues concerning the life and miracles of the Fathers in Italy, both the Latin and the Greek, sought out in the Vatican Library and emended with the utmost fidelity according to the collation of ancient exemplars. And ancient Greece made so much of these books that, on account of their excellence, it called Gregory by the name of Dialogus (the Dialogist). But when some disputation has been undertaken against the Greeks themselves, very many of the Greeks—not only those worthy of that old Greece, but even those of recent times—have from these very books taken the weapons of arguments against their own people, as is clearly demonstrated in the last part of this argument.

These books are indeed written so pleasantly and so clearly that anyone may recognize their author by his very face to be Gregory the Great, who, when he brings in Peter the Deacon asking questions, opens for himself an entrance and a way, both to those illustrious and divine answers, and to the unfolding of great questions which are difficult of explanation. And indeed, of these, the second book is full of the miracles and examples of the life of the holy Abbot Benedict.

The remaining three, however, are variously besprinkled with instructions and with examples of other perfect and approved men, especially of bishops, such as Paulinus of Nola, Marcellinus of Ancona, Boniface of Ferentino, Fortunatus of Todi, Constantius of Aquino, Fulgentius of Otricoli, Herculanus of Perugia, and of many others, whom it would be too long a task to enumerate in the recounting. There is therefore reason why they should be read by all the more diligently, in that they are the more richly furnished both with instructions and with examples, by which the practice of the holy life may be shaped in every respect. And to the Latin Dialogues we have joined the Greek, since, in the judgment and by the example of wise men, it seems a most excellent thing to do, that the Greek should be joined with the Latin.

And while this is expedient to be done in all other cases, it altogether had to be effected in the edition of these Dialogues, which, harassed by the wicked zeal of certain heretics who rashly assail everything, are for the future fortified with the most firm safeguard of this ancient Greek interpretation; than which nothing could have been more excellently rendered or expressed by so learned a Pontiff, Zacharias—neither as regards clearness of the truth, nor as regards the gravity of the matters that are recorded, nor as regards no small elegance of speech, nor as regards the weight of the sentences, nor as regards the weight of the doctrines.

Now how useful, or rather how necessary, this edition is in every respect, may easily be understood both from many other things, and especially from this: that not only formerly in the Council of Lyons, which Gregory the Tenth held, but even in that of Florence, these Greek Dialogues, together with other monuments of the ancient Greek Fathers, were not only longed for, but had even, from that very time, been carried off from Greece, for the beating back of the audacity of the Greeks themselves, who obstinately dissent from the Latins. Whence it has come about that whenever any disputation has been undertaken against the Greeks, very many even of the Greeks have taken from these very Dialogues the weapons of arguments against their own people.

And this may be observed in many other cases, but especially in Emmanuel Calecas, who, furnished with the doctrines of these Dialogues, in the same Council of Lyons waged illustrious contests of disputation against his own people; and in Gennadius Scholarius, patriarch of Constantinople, who in the very ecumenical Synod of Florence overcame the Greeks—who long contended with the Latin Church over certain decrees of the catholic faith—with the weapons of arguments and doctrines which he took up for combat from the authority of these Greek Dialogues, which both ancient and recent Greece always esteemed most highly. But the matter is plain, and has no need that it should be explained at present in more words.

In order therefore that we might provide for the public interests, we deemed it worth the effort to join to the Latin Dialogues of the most holy Pope Gregory those which the most learned pontiff Zacharias likewise divinely rendered into Greek. But since there could be other and even weightier causes for which we have issued this Greek interpretation of the Dialogues from the Vatican printing-house, we leave them to the judgment of learned men who think well of the catholic commonwealth. For the rest, we must not conceal that in this very edition, especially in the third book, these six chapters are lacking, namely [Greek titles]. Then the second chapter next following. After that, the third chapter. Likewise the fourth chapter next, marked with the letter [Greek].

Likewise another chapter following, namely [Greek]. The last and sixth chapter is [Greek]. These six chapters, indeed, numbered in order, are absent from this Vatican edition, not by guile nor by fraud, but because, even when most carefully investigated, they exist in none of the two most ancient exemplars, of which the one is the Vatican, the other of the most noble Library of Grottaferrata. Nor indeed, if these chapters are lacking, ought this edition of the Greek Dialogues on that account to have been neglected, since the remaining chapters, rendered into Greek, are in every respect most useful and so many for the use of the catholic commonwealth;

while those six that are lacking, since especially in the Latin Gregorian exemplar and in the other Latin monuments they are so beautifully and to such a degree clearly written out, even if they had not been destroyed in these times, whether by the antiquity of the ages or by the fault of men, no loss thereby should be reckoned to have been made. In vindicating for Pope Gregory the First, who is also surnamed the Great, the Dialogues, no one, that I know, has hitherto laboured, both because the constant consensus of very many centuries assigned them to their author, and because the tribe of critics, circumscribing for itself certain fixed bounds of inquiry, had not yet dared to assail with the torments of their doubts any truths whatsoever.

At length some have come forth in our own age who either altogether repudiate these Dialogues, or at least judge them not to belong to holy Gregory, led on, as I reckon, by trifling conjectures. My mind is to refute them, lest a new error, if neglected, creep more widely and infect the minds of the incautious; against which charity bids us guard, and the plan of the task undertaken in editing Gregory demands. And that we may accomplish this with effectiveness, first Gregory himself shall come forth, vindicating the Dialogues for himself; secondly there shall follow very many authors of almost all the centuries from Gregory onward; thirdly there shall stand as witnesses innumerable manuscript codices written by hand, and those of better note; fourthly, in fine, we shall blow away the chief arguments of those critics.

Saint Gregory, being asked by his familiar friends that, after the example of Jerome, Theodoret, and Cassian, he should describe the more illustrious deeds of those Fathers who had flourished a little before in Italy, consented, and, sending letters to his friends, earnestly begged that they would transmit to him without delay whatever things they knew pertaining to that matter. You may read the 50th letter of Book II, indiction ii, to Maximianus: 'My brethren who live familiarly with me altogether compel me to write in brief something of the miracles of the Fathers which we have heard were done in Italy. For which matter I greatly need the solace of your charity, that whatever things come back to your memory, and whatever you have chanced to know, you would briefly indicate to me.'

'For concerning the lord abbot Nonnosus, who lived near the lord Anastasius of Pentumae, I remember that you related certain things to me, which I have consigned to oblivion. These things therefore, and if there be any others, I ask to be set down in your letters, and to be transmitted to me with speed.' That Maximianus wrote back is clear from chapter 7 of Book I of the Dialogues, where Gregory, making mention of Nonnosus, testifies that he learned all these things from Maximianus—whom he there names a bishop, and indicates to be still among the living. Now it was the fourth year of Gregory's pontificate when he wrote this, in the year of Christ 594. Moreover Maximianus died in the year 596, according to the writers of Sicilian history. He also makes mention of him in Book III of the Dialogues, ch. 36, and Book IV, ch. 32, as also in Homily 34 on the Gospels;

in which places he calls him bishop of Syracuse, and Father of his monastery, to whom also there are very many letters in the Register. The reader will note that in the Homilies and in the Dialogues the same histories are expressed in almost the same words, and are found related as by the same person, as in the Dialogues, ch. 6, and in Book IV, ch. 56, where he speaks of Cassius, bishop of Narni, of whom we also speak in Homily 37 on the Gospels. In the same Book IV, ch. 14, where he speaks of Servulus, whose ancient Martyrologies commemorated on the tenth day before the Kalends of January, he says that he spoke of him in the Homilies, which may be seen in Homily 15 on the Gospels. So also in ch. 15 of the same Book IV, Gregory speaks of Romula, of whom he testifies that he made mention in the Homilies, namely Homily 40 on the Gospels. The same is to be said of ch.

16, where he speaks of Tarsilla, of whom Homily 38, ch. 19; of Stephen, Homily 39, ch. 27; of Theophanius, Homily 36, ch. 37; of Theodore the boy, Homily 38, ch. 38; of Chrysaorius, Homily 12. In the same ch. 38, of Athanasius, presbyter of Isauria, of whom he often makes mention in his letters. In ch. 57 he speaks of Agatho, bishop of Palermo, whom it is agreed from the histories to have lived in the time of Pelagius II, Gregory's predecessor, as he himself says. But also of the same Pelagius, his predecessor, he speaks in express words in ch. 16 of Book III, and elsewhere he often makes mention of him. In ch. 19, of Authari, king of the Lombards, of whom Book I, letter 17, and elsewhere.

But as for the history of Hermenegild, to what times other than Gregory's would anyone refer it, since he himself says that he learned it from his friend Leander, bishop of Seville, who was present at it? He narrates the matter at length in ch. 31 of the same Book. But also in chapters 32, 36, and 37, he reports concerning his own legation to the city of Constantinople, when he was the Apocrisiarius of Pelagius II. And who does not know that Leander, then already discharging in the city of Constantinople the legation on behalf of the king of the Visigoths, was most familiar to Gregory; whence he also inscribed to him the books of the Morals, elaborated at his exhortation, and addressed to him many letters.

Finally, being about to write the Life of Saint Benedict, at the beginning of Book II of the Dialogues, he says that what he is going to relate he received from four disciples of that same saint, two of whom were still among the living. From all these things it is clearer than the noonday how greatly those men erred who assigned these Dialogues to Gregory II, younger than our Gregory by 150 years, since no sane man could either judge or suppose that all these things which we have reported could suit any other than Gregory I. Among the authors who lived after Gregory, I bring forward first Paterius, his intimate and disciple, notary and secundicerius of the holy Roman Church, of whom mention is also made in the Register.

He published a book of Testimonies, collected from all the works of Gregory, and that at the exhortation of the holy Father, as he himself says in the Preface; in which he adduces from the Dialogues themselves more than twenty testimonies, in the very words, as the notes placed in the margin will show to the studious reader. Paterius's book has been subjoined to the works of Gregory. Taius, or Tajo, bishop of Saragossa, who was living in the year 650, published a notable work, which he entitled Collectaneum from the works of Saint Gregory, as he testifies in the proem, and which, divided into five books, he dedicated to Quiricus, bishop of Toledo, a most celebrated man.

In this work more testimonies from the Dialogues of Gregory are brought forward, which for brevity's sake I omit, and which the reader will be able to see in the notable manuscript codex which is preserved in the Thuanean library. Ildefonsus, bishop of Toledo, who died in the year 667, in the book which he composed On Ecclesiastical Writers, ch. 1, records the Dialogues of our Gregory in these words: 'Of the lives of the Fathers dwelling throughout Italy he (Gregory) also published four books, which he compacted into one volume: which codex indeed he preferred to be called of the Dialogues.' Julianus, also bishop of Toledo, in the year 680, published a work which he called Prognosticon of the Future Age, and inscribed to Idalius, bishop of Barcelona; in it he cites many passages from the Dialogues, Book

II, chapters 8, 12, 19, 24, 25, and others. Bede the presbyter, who flourished in the year 730, in Book II of his History, ch. 1, recounting the deeds of Gregory, thus says: 'He also made four books of Dialogues, etc.' And a little before he brings in Saint Gregory complaining of the burden of the Pastorate in these words, which are found at the beginning of the Dialogues: 'My unhappy soul, etc.' Paul the Deacon, who was living in the year 780, in the Life of Gregory, which we have prefixed to his works, thus speaks: 'He also published four books of Dialogues, in which, at the request of Peter his Deacon, [he set forth] the virtues of the saints, etc.' And a little before he reports from the preface of the Dialogues these words:

'But of what sort he was in the monastery, and with how praiseworthy a zeal he led his life, we can gather from his own words, which he himself, now placed in the pontificate, used with weeping while he was conversing with his deacon Peter, saying: My unhappy soul indeed, etc.' Finally, in the history which he entitled Of the Deeds of the Lombards, Book IV, ch. 5, he likewise makes mention of the Dialogues thus: 'The most wise and most blessed Pope of the Roman city, after he had written many other things for the profit of the holy Church, also composed four books on the life of the saints, which codex he called Dialogue, that is, the discourse of two, because he had put it forth as conversing with his deacon Peter.'

'These books, therefore, the aforesaid Pope directed to Queen Theodelinda, whom he knew to be everywhere both devoted to the faith of Christ, and pre-eminent in good works.' Already above, in Book I, ch. 26, he had spoken of these same Dialogues, where, treating of Saint Benedict, he speaks in this manner: 'In those days also the most blessed Benedict, etc., whose life, as is well known, the most blessed Pope Gregory composed in his Dialogues in sweet discourse.' John the Deacon, who flourished about the year 875, and writing most accurately the life of Gregory, diligently turned over all the archives of the Roman Church, in several places makes mention of the Dialogues published by Gregory. Book I, ch.

7, he relates that health was recovered by the prayers of Gregory for Eleutherius the monk, of whom Book III of the Dialogues, ch. 33, and he everywhere recounts many other histories of this sort which are contained in the work of the Dialogues. In Book II, ch. 11, he thus speaks: 'Among his most prudent counsellors and intimates he chose Peter the Deacon, his contemporary, with whom afterwards, disputing, he composed the four books of the Dialogues.' And in Book IV, ch. 75: 'Gregory, interrupting the deeper pursuit of exposition, marked off the miracles of the holy Fathers which he had set forth with his deacon Peter through inquiry and response, by the sole prefixing of their names, and arranged them into four books, etc.' Hadrian, Pope I, in the year

787, in his letter to Charlemagne on behalf of the Seventh Synod, in action 5, ch. 16, cites the Dialogues, ch. 9 of Book I, in these words: 'Saint Gregory in his Dialogues makes mention of Saint Boniface, etc.' Anastasius the Librarian, in the Life of Pope Zacharias, says that he translated the four books of the Dialogues of Saint Gregory from the Latin into the Greek tongue; and he died in the year 887. Alcuin, the disciple of Bede and the preceptor of Charlemagne, at the end of the book On the Divine Offices, where he treats of the 3rd, 7th, and 39th (day) for the dead, brings forward a testimony on that matter from ch. 55 of Book IV of the Dialogues. He flourished in the year 791. Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, who flourished in the year 860, brings forward very many testimonies from the Dialogues of Gregory in his works, as in tome

I, pages 166, 422, 463, 514, 537, 548, and others, which it would be tedious to recount. Paschasius Ratbertus, monk of Corbie, about the year 830, in the book On the Body and Blood of the Lord, praises ch. 58 of Book IV of the Dialogues. Prudentius, bishop of Troyes, in the year 845, wrote a book On Predestination against John Scotus Eriugena, in which he brings forward several testimonies from the Dialogues of Gregory, as in ch. 17, n. 10, ch. 19, n. 2, and others. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the year 870, in his Bibliotheca, codex 252, after the eulogy of Gregory, concerning the four books of the Dialogues written by him, and translated by Pope Zacharias into the Greek tongue, thus speaks:

'Nay more, he composed in four Dialogues the lives of those who had shone forth in Italy, mingling with them wholesome narratives. For through one hundred and sixty-five years those who were ignorant of the Latin tongue were cheated of the usefulness of this work. But Zacharias, who after that time was successor of this holy man, translating into the Greek tongue so great a work, shut up in Italy, kindly exhibited the common usefulness to the whole world.' I pass over very many others among the Greeks, John Damascene, Euthymius, and others, who surnamed Gregory the Dialogist from the Dialogues written by him. Regino, abbot of Prüm, who died in the year 904, in Book II On Ecclesiastical Disciplines, ch. 198, narrates a history which is found in Book

IV of the Dialogues, ch. 32, concerning a certain man who had defiled his own little daughter. The Council of Tribur under Formosus, in the year 895, ch. 17, 'That no one be buried in a church,' cites from Book I of the Dialogues, ch. 53, the history of a certain Valentinus buried in a church, and cast out of it by demons on account of it. Berno, abbot of Reichenau, in the year 1020, in a little book on certain matters pertaining to the Mass, ch. 2, narrates what is written by blessed Gregory concerning Paschasius the Deacon in Book IV of the Dialogues, ch. 40. Burchard, bishop of Worms, brings forward very many testimonies from the book of the Dialogues in his Decrees. He was living in the year 1000. Algerus, monk of Cluny, who flourished in the year 1050, in Book II On the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, brings forward, ch.

Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the year 1080, in his book On the Body and Blood of the Lord, chapters 14 and 20, draws his argument from chapter 58 of Book IV of these same Dialogues. Durandus, Abbot of Troarn, who flourished around the year 1070, does the same in his book On the Body and Blood of Christ, part VI; and so does Guitmund, Archbishop of Aversa, in the year 1070, in his book On the Truth of the Eucharist. Anselm, Bishop of Lucca, who died in the year 1086, in his Collection of Canons, Book V, chapter 11, quotes almost in full chapter 30 of Book III of the Dialogues. In Book II, chapter 159, he adduces a testimony concerning Purgatory from Book IV of the Dialogues, chapter 39, and many others. Alulf, a monk of Tournai, who flourished in the year...

In the year 1090, he produced, after the model of Paterius but far more extensive than Paterius, a notable book compiled from all the works of Gregory, which he therefore entitled the Gregorial, in which he collected testimonies on the twelve prophets and on certain other passages of Sacred Scripture which Paterius had omitted. And so, in his excerpts upon both the Old and the New Testament, he brings forth innumerable passages from the various books of Gregory's Dialogues. Moreover, this work of Alulf survives in three volumes, written in an ancient and elegant hand, in the monastery of Longpont, of the Cistercian Order, in the diocese of Soissons.

We could adduce very many illustrious men who approved those Dialogues: Sigebert of Gembloux, Ivo of Chartres, Honorius of Autun, Rupert of Deutz, Bernard of Clairvaux, Gratian, Peter Lombard (called the Master of the Sentences), William of Champeaux (the founder of the Canons of Saint Victor of Paris and afterwards Bishop of Châlons), Peter of Cluny, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and others who flourished down to our own age. But that we may not become tedious, we refer the reader to them.

Nor is it worth the labour to enumerate the manuscript codices of Gregory's Dialogues, since they are found almost everywhere in countless numbers, and there is scarcely any ancient monastery in which two or three written copies of Gregory's Dialogues are not to be discovered. By what engines our adversaries can prevail to break down the force of so many witnesses and testimonies, I do not well see. It remains for us to dissolve the arguments which they draw from reason. Now there are three which they chiefly oppose. The first they draw from the style, which in the Dialogues they say is altogether diverse, uneven, and inelegant, crammed with barbarous and corrupt words, and utterly unworthy of Gregory's genius and majesty. Secondly, in them they marvel at many things which are wholly incredible.

Thirdly, certain things are contrary to Gregory's doctrine, as in Book IV of the Dialogues, chapter 29, where the fire of Gehenna is said to be corporeal, whereas Gregory manifestly declares the contrary in Book XV of the Morals, chapter 17, namely that such fire is incorporeal. As regards the style, I acknowledge some diversity, yet not an utter one. And indeed who does not know that nearly the same thing is observed in all the works of the holy Fathers, and that the style varies according to the variety of treatises and subject matters? For that the style of orations, letters, histories, dialogues, and the like should be one and the same, no sane man would assert. Although in these Dialogues there are many things which recall the style, force, and elegance—nay, even the depth of learning—of the rest of Gregory's works, as is plain to the reader.

But whoever has seen Gregory himself candidly confess that he could not maintain one and the same style even in the single work of the Morals, will not menace us with that very diversity of style. For thus he speaks in Book XI of the Morals, chapter 1: «Although in a lengthy work the mutability of style ought not to be culpable, etc.» And a little after: «My reader, receive the change of style with an even mind, since a diversity of cooking often pleases those who eat the same foods.» As to barbarous phrases and expressions, who does not know that many such are found in the treatises of the holy Fathers, who studied not so much the elegance and purity of speech as truth and simplicity?

And Gregory himself confesses that he did this deliberately in the letter to Leander prefixed to the Morals, where he speaks thus of these matters in chapter 5: «I have disdained to observe that very art of speaking which the disciplines of external instruction inculcate. For, as the very tenor of this letter also declares, I do not flee the collision of metacism, I do not avoid the confusion of barbarism, I scorn to observe the positions and constructions of prepositions and the cases; for I deem it utterly unworthy to constrain the words of the heavenly oracle under the rules of Donatus. Nor indeed have these been observed by any translators in the authority of Sacred Scripture.» The same is to be said of the barbarous words which the barbarism of the Lombards and of other peoples had introduced into Italy.

From this the Latin tongue was already being infected in its purer form, as it were by that dregs. Indeed, Gregory himself professes in the prologue of the Dialogues that even those words which are, so to speak, somewhat more rustic, are not his own but belong to others: «Moreover I wish you to know that in some things I retain only the sense, but in others both the words together with the sense; because if I had wished to hold the very words specifically in the case of all the persons, the writer's style would not aptly admit these words uttered in rustic usage.» Concerning the histories contained in the Dialogues, I have nothing to say, save that Gregory, by relating them just as he had learned them from others, discharged his own good faith. For there are few which he has said that he himself saw, or at which he was present.

He did what very many of the holy Fathers did in many histories which will seem incredible to some, if they are weighed on the balance of human reason. But since they are miracles, that is, things exceeding human faith, who can doubt that they are not to be measured by human judgement? He thought it right to stand by public reports where eyewitnesses themselves were lacking, especially since the piety of the faithful could thereby be increased, and no appearance of error or falsehood appeared from any other quarter. Excellently and aptly to our purpose does Theodoret speak in the preface to his History of the Holy Fathers: «Our discourse will proceed by way of narration, not employing the laws of panegyrics, but relating truthfully a few things only.»

«But I beseech those who shall come upon this holy history, or this form of monastic discipline (let a man call this body of writing whatever he will), that they believe not the less what is said, if they hear anything that surpasses their own powers, and that they do not measure the virtue of those men by themselves; but let them openly know that God from above measures out to pious souls the gifts of the most Holy Spirit, and bestows greater things upon the more perfect. Now these things have been said by me to those who are not yet very accurately initiated into the mysteries of divine things; for the initiates of the sanctuaries of the Spirit know the glory of the Spirit, and what miracles He works through men among men, drawing unbelievers to the knowledge of God.»

«But he who will not believe the things that are to be said by me, it is clear that he neither believes as true the things that were done through Moses and Joshua and Elijah and Elisha, but holds even for fables the miracles that were done by the holy apostles. But if he testifies that those are true, let him believe that these also are free from falsehood. For the grace which wrought in them did through them also the things which it did. For perennial grace, choosing those who are worthy, poured forth as it were through certain leaping fountains, through these men, the streams of its operation. Now of the things that are to be told, I myself indeed saw some;»

«but those which I did not see, I heard from those who did see them—men who loved virtue and were worthy to be held fit both to behold those men and to enjoy their teaching. Now the writers of the evangelical doctrine who are worthy of faith are not only Matthew and John, the great and first among the evangelists, who saw the Lord's miracles, but also Luke and Mark, who accurately taught the things which those who from the beginning saw and were ministers of the Word had handed down—not only what the Lord suffered and what He did, but also the things which He continually taught. For since the blessed Luke himself had not seen, he says at the beginning of his work that he narrates the things of which he had been made certain.»

«Therefore, even though we hear that he did not see the things which he narrates, but received this doctrine from others, we believe him and Mark no less than Matthew and John. For each is worthy of faith in narrating, as one who learned from those who saw. We therefore shall relate some things as things seen by us, and others as things narrated by men who saw them, whom we believed—men who imitated their manner of life. But I have used a rather lengthy discourse concerning these matters, wishing to persuade that I shall narrate true things.» Finally, in the third place, it is certain that the opinion of the holy Father is the same in the Dialogues as in the rest of his works.

For it is a frivolous thing that they say, namely that his opinion is diverse—nay, altogether contrary—concerning the fire of hell, which in the Dialogues he professes to be corporeal, namely in Book IV, chapter 29. The words are: «If therefore the devil and his angels, though they are incorporeal, are to be tormented by a corporeal fire, what wonder is it if souls, even before they receive their bodies, can feel corporeal torments?» Whereas, on the contrary, in Book XV of the Morals, chapter 17, he most clearly says that the fire of Gehenna is incorporeal—namely, expounding those words of Job, chapter 20: «A fire that is not kindled shall devour him.» For thus he speaks: «In a wonderful manner indeed, in few words, the fire of Gehenna is expressed; for corporeal fire, that it may have power to be fire, needs corporeal fuel.»

«This fire, since it must needs be preserved, is without doubt nourished by heaped-up wood; nor can it exist unless kindled, nor subsist unless replenished. But on the contrary, the fire of Gehenna, since it is incorporeal, and burns the reprobate cast into it corporeally, is neither kindled by human effort nor nourished by wood. But once created, it endures inextinguishable, and needs no kindling, and lacks no heat.» I confess that in certain Editions it is so read, and even in some manuscript Codices; yet no one but will judge it to be the error of drowsy transcribers and unskilled copyists, when he shall have seen those countless most ancient and most approved manuscript Codices, some of which have been inspected by us: namely in the Vatican Library the manuscript Codices...

of the Morals, nos. 574, 575, 578, 579, 582; the most ancient Codex of the Barberini Library; likewise another manuscript Codex in large folio, on very ancient parchment, which in the time of Alexander VII was brought to Rome from the Urbino Library; and also two of the Chigi Library: all these Codices have written «corporeal.» And although two other manuscripts, nos. 576 and 578, have «incorporeal,» yet it manifestly appears that the syllable «in» has been added above the line by a later hand. But also the ancient Italian translation of the Morals, printed at Florence in the year 1486, thus renders that sentence: «but the fire of hell is quite the contrary. For being a corporeal thing and burning the wretched damned corporeally, etc.»

All these things stated above were sent to me by the most eminent Cardinal Bona, who out of his singular benevolence toward the learned deigned to review them. In the same manner the Gallican Codices have it written: the Sorbonne Codex of 600 years and more; the Codex of the cathedral of Saint Mary of Reims, of 600 years; two of Saint Remigius of Reims, of 800 and 600 years; that of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, of nearly 800 years; the most ancient Codex of the finest quality of the Church of Bayeux; the Codex of the library of that most illustrious and most erudite man Claude Joly, cantor of Paris, of 700 years; that of the Royal Monastery of Mont, of the Cistercian Order, of 600 years; that of the library of the Church of Beauvais, of 700 years; two Codices of Saint-Corneille of Compiègne, one of 899 years and more, the other of 300 years;

the Royal Codex of 410 years; in the library of the Church of Chartres, 400 years; in the library of the illustrious man Émeric Bigot, of 400 years; in the monastery of Cluny a Codex written by the monk Bertram, at the command of the holy Abbot Maiolus, who died in the year 994, with 40 years remaining. But it is established that the authors of the more ancient and more correct Editions likewise read thus. I bring forward the Venetian edition of the year 1480, which is reckoned to have been the first of the Editions of Saint Gregory, by the labour of Bartolomeo of Cremona, canon regular, in which, at Book XV, chapter 50, it is read «corporeal.» So too in another Venetian edition of 1495; in the Parisian editions of the years 1493, 1513, 1521, and others, which for brevity's sake I omit. In the same manner also read those who abridged Gregory's books of the Morals into a compendium.

Of this kind is the manuscript Corbie Codex, from the time of Abbot Adalard, around the year 810, which is preserved in the Library of Saint-Germain-des-Prés—namely, after the letters, number 51, of Saint Gregory sent by Paul the Deacon to the same Adalard, there is found a document whose title is: «Here begins the eclogue which Lathcen, son of Baíth, wrote concerning the Morals of Job which Gregory composed.» There, in Book XV, before the end, it is thus read: «And a fire that is not kindled shall devour him. The fire of Gehenna, since it is corporeal, and burns the reprobate cast into it corporeally,» and so forth, as in Saint Gregory. Odo, Abbot of Cluny, who flourished in the year 940, in his Epitome of the Morals of Saint Gregory, chapter 20, number 26, has it thus:

«But on the contrary, the fire of Gehenna, since it is corporeal, etc.» Garnerus, canon regular of Saint Victor of Paris, under Abbot Hilduin, in the year 1140, in the work which he named the Gregorianum, Book XI, chapter 1, reads in exactly the same manner as above. So too it is read in the manuscript Codex which is preserved in the Library of the Celestines of Paris, and is called the Remediarium conversorum, which was compiled from the sayings of Saint Gregory in the Morals. This, in the third part, Book VI, chapter 7, has in its heading thus: «That the bodies of the damned together with their souls shall be tormented by a corporeal and inextinguishable fire, Book XV of the Morals.» But in the body of the chapter it is thus read: «In the reprobate indeed the conscience burns with longing, and outwardly the fire of Gehenna torments.»

This fire, since it is corporeal, and burns the reprobate cast into it corporeally, etc.» Moreover, this work, without the author's name, is by some ascribed to Peter of Blois, namely in the Catalogue of the manuscript Codices of England. Pits, however, in his book On the Writers of England, ascribes it to a certain Peter, an archdeacon of London, of somewhat more recent date. Finally, it is established that it must be read thus from the common doctrine of the theologians, who, following the Master of the Sentences (in Book IV, distinction 50) and Saint Thomas (in Book IV, distinction 44, question 2, article 3), assert that the fire of hell is corporeal, and rely chiefly on two testimonies, namely of Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory. And indeed Saint Augustine, in Book XII of the City of God, chapter 10, speaks thus:

«But why should we not say that, in ways indeed marvellous yet true, even incorporeal spirits can be afflicted by the pain of corporeal fire.» And a little after: «Let them cling then, if the spirits of demons have no bodies, that the spirits of demons, though incorporeal, are to be tormented by corporeal fires.» And at last he thus concludes: «But that hell shall be a corporeal fire, and shall burn the bodies of the damned, or of both men and demons—the solid bodies of men, the airy bodies of demons, etc.» But holy Gregory, who scarcely ever departs from the opinion of Saint Augustine, teaches the same in those two places which we have cited, namely Book XV of the Morals, chapter 17, and Book IV of the Dialogues, chapter 29 (now number 35), where in express words he says that the fire of Gehenna is corporeal.

But that this is indeed his doctrine, Prudentius, Bishop of Troyes, who lived around the year 830, luculently demonstrates. For in his reply to John Scotus Eriugena he says thus: «First, this opinion of yours is convicted of falsehood on this ground, that it feigns that fire to be called corporeal by Augustine and incorporeal by Gregory. For each of them confesses it, without contradiction, to be corporeal. And because concerning Augustine you yourself have admitted it, we have judged it unnecessary to set forth his opinion. But as to the estimation of Gregory, lest it come into doubt for anyone—although a little above we set down his opinion concerning the same fire in the Morals, whereby he confesses it to be corporeal—»

«yet it does not seem beside the point if we bring forward into the midst another of his opinions from another of his own works. For as his book which is entitled the Dialogues relates, Peter the Deacon, when inquiring concerning the aforesaid fire, thus began, etc.»—he cites the words of chapter 29 of Book IV of the Dialogues. Then he concludes: «Behold, while we set forth certain testimonies of that corporeal fire, a true answer given is proved to almost all the things which you had set down in your aforesaid opinion. For by the authority of so great a doctor, not only is that fire asserted to be corporeal, but it is also probably taught that both the souls of men and the apostate spirits are tormented sensibly in it.»

The same was the opinion of Florus the master, deacon of the Church of Lyons, a contemporary of Prudentius, who in the writing which he published in the name of the Church of Lyons against the same Scotus Eriugena, chapter 17, proves that the fire of hell is corporeal, citing Gregory's testimony in this manner: «The fire of Gehenna, since it is corporeal,» and the rest, as in Saint Gregory, at the cited place of the Morals. These things are taken from the book which is entitled Vindiciae of Predestination and Grace, by the most illustrious man Lord Guillaume Mauguin. The whole matter was excellently elucidated by Sixtus of Siena, in Book V of his Sacred Library, annotation 141, where, after citing the testimony of Saint Gregory from Book XV of the Morals, he says thus:

«It seems that from these words it may be deduced that the fire of hell is incorporeal, and different in kind from this fire of ours, etc. But that Gregory did not so think is clearly demonstrated in Book IV of the Dialogues, chapter 29, etc.» Then he concludes elegantly thus: «Accordingly it must be understood that these words of Gregory are corruptly read in all the Codices of Lyons of Hugo à Porta, and in some manuscript copies, where they have: The fire of Gehenna indeed, since it is incorporeal, etc. The syllable «in» ought to have been deleted, so that instead of the word Incorporeal, Corporeal should be read. For the following words plainly show this.» And in this manner the divine Thomas cites them in the fourth volume of the Sentences, distinction 44, question 2, etc.

From which it appears that he recognized the corruption of certain copies, both manuscript and printed, against which we have set very many Codices of the finest quality, besides the exemplars of the more ancient and more approved Editions, which retained the word «corporeal.» And on that account we have restored it at Book XV of the Morals, chapter 17, whereas in the later Editions the word «incorporeal» was found. But of these things enough and more than enough. From what has been said above it can be plainly (unless I am mistaken) understood and gathered that the four books of the Dialogues ought to be attributed to none other than Gregory the Pope, first of that name; to whom that Roman man, illustrious in birth and wealth, committed to letters the miracles of the Fathers who had flourished in Italy a little before;

just as at the same period Gregory, Bishop of Tours, composed a book On the Lives of the Holy Fathers, or of certain (to use his own term) more blessed men who had shone in Gaul by holiness and miracles, both of bishops and priests, and of abbots and recluses. But which of the two wrote before the other, or which was anticipated by the other in that matter, I could not easily say. Now that the Dialogues have been vindicated for Gregory the Great, it remains for us to advise the reader in a few words what has been accomplished in this Edition. In the first place, we have emended the Latin text, corrupted in many places, according to the authority of very many manuscript Codices, of which it is superfluous to append the index here, since at the beginning of the whole Gregorian work we have provided it abundantly, where...

we have woven together a catalogue of all the manuscripts which we used in emending the whole work. Next, as regards the Greek version, its author is held to be Pope Zacharias, successor of Gregory the Great after 175 years, who, since he was Greek by nation, out of love for his own people either translated those Dialogues into the Greek tongue or had them translated, so that those who did not know the Latin tongue should not be deprived of the benefit of so great a work, as Photius says in his Library, Codex 252. This is also demonstrated by the anonymous author of the Greek preface, which we have prefixed to the Dialogues rendered by us into Latin, taken from the manuscript Codex of the Library of the Most Christian King, which, because the copyist had corrupted it in many places, we have emended from another manuscript...

the Codex of the Ambrosian Library at Milan: a copy of whose Greek preface the most illustrious man Pietro Paolo Bosca, doctor of theology and prefect of that same library, kindly transmitted to me; he also gave various readings of those same Greek Dialogues, from which several things of the Royal Manuscript have been corrected: whence for so great a kindness I profess that I return the greatest thanks to that most learned and most courteous man. Nor do I feel myself a little indebted to the erudite man Lord Émeric Bigot, most well-known to all men of letters, who greatly assisted me by his most learned conjectures of the greatest judgement upon the Greek text, as well as by the collation which with the utmost labour he made of the second book against the Ingolstadt exemplar.

Furthermore, it is to be noted that the author of this version of the Dialogues did not always adhere to the mind of Saint Gregory; but often used paraphrases and additions, and in translating the words departed from Gregory's sense, as will be demonstrated in the notes. There are also many barbarous words, such as those times bore, in which both the Greek and the Latin tongues were beginning to be corrupted. Very many Latin-Greek words too are found, a list of which we shall append below. Moreover, that Greek version is not everywhere alike in the printed editions and in the Royal Manuscript; nay, in very many places it differs, so that sometimes whole periods are to be found in the Manuscript which are not read in the Editions.

But if it is permissible to use conjecture, I should believe it to have come about from this, that Zacharias perhaps translated those Dialogues twice; which Socrates relates happened to himself, in Book II of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 1, where he says that the things which in the earlier Edition he had reported less accurately, he rendered in the later one more clearly and more carefully. But although we have emended the Greek in many places by the help of the Royal Manuscript, we would nevertheless have done this more accurately if more exemplars had been available. Add to this that in that Royal Manuscript not a few blemishes crept in through the unskillfulness or drowsiness of the copyist. Lastly, we have added notes—few, however, and to the more difficult passages, learned men so demanding;

for I had resolved to illustrate the Epistles too with notes. Yet these, such as they are, the kindly reader will receive with a well-disposed mind and peruse with a benign eye, meanwhile until fuller and more elaborate ones shall be prepared by the learned. I. We who are about to edit the Dialogues that bear the name of Saint Gregory the Pope ought at least to preface a few words, both concerning the author and concerning the work. For although both subjects have already been very copiously and most learnedly disputed, yet it is pleasing to weave in certain things, as briefly as may be, whence more and more light may shine upon the controversies raised on this matter, so that they may be more easily resolved. II. That Gregory, first Roman pontiff of this name, was the parent of those Dialogues, Cedrenus—a Greek man and a stranger in Latin matters—denied;

Huldrich Coccius, Chemnitz, André Rivet, and not a few others among the heterodox have doubted it. But among our own writers, Benedict Haeften, provost of the monastery of Affligem, in his Monastic Disquisitions, prolegomena 2 and following to the Life of Saint Benedict, and John Mabillon, in volume I of the Acts of the Saints of the Order of Saint Benedict, in the preface, from number 17 to 39, have asserted it and demonstrated it by most invincible arguments. Peter Gussanville afterwards performed the same no less strenuously in the Vindiciae which we have thought fit to prefix. But before all others, one of our own confrères treated the same matter most fully and most ornately—he who translated the praised Dialogues from Latin into French and published them in the year 1689, namely...

in the preface with which he fortified this excellent work. This very thing we are here about to embrace and conclude briefly, as in a single syllogism, as it were. III. The writer of the Dialogues shortly to be published, whoever he was, professes everywhere that he had put on the monk's habit, and indeed in the Roman monastery which he himself had founded—namely in the very prologue of the Dialogues, in Book III, chapter 33; Book IV, chapters 21, 58, 47, 55, etc. From the assigned passages, especially from chapter 55 of Book IV, it is clear that he presided over a monastery constituted by himself. That he discharged the office of apocrisiarius at Constantinople is established from Book III, chapter 36. That he was afterwards created Roman pontiff is made plain from chapter 16 of the same book, where he calls Pelagius II, the Pope, his own predecessor, and from Book IV, chapter...

57, where he still makes mention of the same predecessor of his. Sitting at Rome, he delivered Homilies on the Gospels to the people, as he very often testifies, especially in Book IV, chapters 14, 15, 16, 19, 27. In the praised Homilies he in turn speaks of the Dialogues written by himself; most notably in Homily 38, in Book I of the Dialogues, chapter 7. It is about Nonnosus the abbot, where the things he narrates about him, he professes to have received from Maximian, Bishop of Syracuse. Furthermore, in Book III, otherwise 2, indiction 2, formerly letter 50, now 51, Gregory asks the same Maximian to take care to report to him by letters whatever he knew about Nonnosus the abbot and about the miracles of the Italian Fathers; because he was being compelled by his brethren to write on this subject.

This is precisely the same thing that is treated in the Dialogues, as can be understood not obscurely from the very title. IV. Now what man of sound mind would suspect that even a single one of all these traits—by which his life is most perfectly expressed—could fit anyone other than our Gregory? And they certainly agree perfectly with those things which we have learned about the same most holy Father from his undoubted works; namely from the books of the Morals, especially in the prefatory letter to Saint Leander, from the Register of Letters, from the Homilies, etc. V. But, you will say, the writer of the Dialogues who wished to hide beneath the person of Gregory, since he had learned the history of the holy Father to a nicety by assiduous reading of his works, studied to paint and adorn himself with those colours.