Crises in the History of the Papacy: A study of twenty famous popes whose careers and whose influence were important in the development of the church and in the history of the worldMcCabe, Joseph
History
Crises in the History of the Papacy: A study of twenty famous popes whose careers and whose influence were important in the development of the church and in the history of the world
McCabe, Joseph
Catholic Church -- History; Papacy -- History
[Footnote 77: Another of them, Gelasius (492-496), is, or was until
recently, regarded as the author of the first canon of Scriptures
and the first list of prohibited books. But this so-called "Gelasian
Decree" does not bear the name of Gelasius in some of the older
manuscripts, and is now much disputed. Father Grisar thinks that "we
may take it as certain that it did not emanate from him" (_History of
Rome and the Popes_, iii., 236). The canon is probably due to Damasus
(see p. 36) and the rather loosely written list of books which follows
it is ascribed to the later age of Hormisdas (514-523). Gelasius was an
able and vigorous Pope, and would hardly issue so poor a decree.]
[Footnote 78: Lives of Gregory must be read with discretion. The best
and most ample source of knowledge is the stout volume of his letters,
but there are early biographies by Paul the Deacon and John the Deacon.
Paul wrote about 780, but his fairly sober sketch--into which miracles
have been interpolated--does not help us much. John wrote about a
century after this, and his fantastic and utterly undiscriminating work
is almost useless. The best biography of Gregory is the learned and
generally candid work of W.F.H. Dudden (_Gregory the Great_, 2 vols.,
1905).]
[Footnote 79: _Ep._, ix., 69.]
[Footnote 80: See Dudden's _Gregory the Great_, i., 264-276.]
[Footnote 81: _Ep._, vi., 54.]
[Footnote 82: Dr. H.A. Mann (_The Lives of the Popes in the Early
Middle Ages_, 1902, etc.) would show that Gregory had a regard for
culture by quoting much praise of secular learning from the _Commentary
on the First Book of Kings_. This is not a work of Gregory at all. Even
the Benedictine editors of the Migne edition claim only that it was
written by an admirer who took notes of Gregory's homilies, and they
admit that it frequently departs from Gregory's ideas.]
[Footnote 83: See John of Salisbury, _Polycraticus_, ii., 26. It is
difficult to conceive that so unflattering a tradition was entirely an
invention.]
[Footnote 84: _Ep._, ix., 6, etc.]
[Footnote 85: _Ep._, ii., 32.]
[Footnote 86: _Ep._, vii., 1.]
[Footnote 87: III., 56.]
[Footnote 88: V., 11.]
[Footnote 89: V., 15.]
[Footnote 90: XIII., 33.]
[Footnote 91: II., 46; v., 36.]
[Footnote 92: V., 36.]
[Footnote 93: It is first found in the unreliable Continuer of
Prosper's _Chronicle_, and seems to be founded on the meeting of Leo
and Attila. Neither Gregory nor Paul, the Deacon speaks of a meeting
with the Lombard king.]
[Footnote 94: V., 36.]
[Footnote 95: V., 40.]
[Footnote 96: IX., ii.]
[Footnote 97: IV., 26.]
[Footnote 98: IX., 65.]
[Footnote 99: I., 84.]
[Footnote 100: I., 74.]
[Footnote 101: See _Ep._, vii., 5, 50, 59 etc.]
[Footnote 102: XI., 35.]
[Footnote 103: XI., 47.]
[Footnote 104: III., 53.]
[Footnote 105: V., 43.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account