Moralia in Job 8 part 2/2

Since we read in Gregory that the emperor Tiberius was present at the contest with Eutychius, and since chronographers and historians of better repute constantly assert that his death occurred in the month of August of the year 582, from this a new argument is drawn against the opinion of Baronius concerning the monastic life having been undertaken later by St. Gregory — that is, in either the year 582 or 581, in which he contends that Gregory was still holding the praetorship. Gregory of Tours confirms our chronology, who writes that in the eighth year of King Childebert, Maurice began to reign, that is in the year 582. For, upon his father Sigebert being slain, Childebert succeeded in the year 575, and the fifteenth year of his reign, namely completed, according to the same writer's testimony, agrees with the year 590.

There is added the authority of the venerable Bede. For in Book I, chap. 25, of the Ecclesiastical History he says: "In the year from the incarnation of the Lord five hundred and eighty-two, Maurice, the fifty-fourth from Augustus, taking up the empire, held it for twenty-one years" — namely twenty full years and one begun. With the reckoning of the times thus established upon such unshaken foundations, it may be permitted to ask the defenders of the Baronian chronology, how it can be understood that Gregory was still a layman and praetor in the year 581, afterwards put on the monk's habit, then, torn away from the monastery in which he asserts everywhere that he lived a long time, was made a deacon, soon sent to Constantinople, and there disputed with the patriarch Eutychius, at least in the month of April of the year

582 — since it is agreed, as Baronius himself admits, that the death of Eutychius, according to the testimony of Eustathius who was present, preceded by four months the death of the emperor Tiberius, who, as we have said, departed this life in the month of August of the year 582? But enough of these matters. (Cf. Gregory of Tours, Book VI of the History, nos. 25 and 30; Book X, no. 1.) 9. At the same time that Gregory was sojourning in the royal city, a rumour gained strength about a new heresy — but, as Gregory himself suspects, an imaginary one — concerning which he treated in letter 45 of Book XI. Its followers were said, under the pretext of religion, to dissolve marriages, and to teach that baptism does not entirely take away sins. And that if anyone should do penance for his iniquities for a space of three years, he might afterwards be permitted to live perversely.

"But, my conscience bearing witness," says Gregory, "I confess that I never found in them anything of error, anything of depravity, anything of those things which were said against them. Whence also, holding rumour in contempt, I took care to receive them familiarly, and rather to defend them against their pursuers." By which example we are taught how one ought to deal with those who are gratuitously defamed concerning a false doctrine. 10. Whatever time was free from business, that was spent in reading the sacred Scripture and in pious studies. Then Leander, bishop of Seville, himself also discharging a legation before the emperor, was the one who prompted Gregory to expound the book of Job.

Between those most excellent men a great intimacy had been bound fast by the common profession of the monastic life to both, an almost equal holiness of character, and the same studies. Concerning the legation of St. Leander before the emperor on behalf of Hermenegild, king of the Visigoths, in Spain, the Spanish writers are to be consulted; and chapter 31 of Book III of the Dialogues is to be read. Gregory, being compelled to yield to the prayers of his most friendly man, and also of his brethren, girded himself to unlock the mysteries of such great profundity which lie hidden in the book of Job, being certain, he says, "that it could not be impossible which the charity of brotherly hearts commanded."

But concerning this work, which the holy Doctor dedicated to Leander, it is profitable to read what he prefaces about it, and the admonition which we have prefixed to the same. 11. Besides St. Leander, Gregory gained for himself many other friends in the royal city, among these especially Domitian, kinsman of Maurice Augustus, bishop of Melitene, of whom below; Theoctista, sister of the same emperor; Narses the patrician, most renowned for wars successfully waged against the Persians, whom, the matter not sufficiently examined, Baronius thought to be the same one who, after many victories won over the Goths in Italy, so illustriously achieved, afterwards — the Lombards having been invited to the plunder of Italy for the sake of avenging a private injury — befouled and disgraced them.

Others we pass over, of whom frequent mention will occur in the history of Gregory's pontificate. And to conclude in few words, he indeed obtained the familiarity and friendship of many, but the love and esteem of all. Yet we cannot pass over in silence what Gregory of Tours relates (Book X, chap. 1), that he received the son of Maurice Augustus — the holy Deacon, doubtless the elder by birth — from the sacred laver, while he was still sojourning at Constantinople: how greatly honourable this was to him, there is no one who does not understand. 12. From this testimony of the historian Gregory we can more easily establish in what year the most holy man returned to Rome.

Maurice did not marry Constantina, daughter of Tiberius Augustus, before he became emperor; but he received at once both a wife and, in the name of a dowry, the empire, namely in the year 582, in the month of August, as we have already demonstrated above. Therefore a son could not be born to him except in the following year, in the month of April or May. From these things it is evidently proved that Gregory did not depart from the royal city earlier. But from the letter of Pelagius written to him, which John the Deacon produces (Book I, chap. 32), a much longer stay is gathered; for this letter is read as given in the month of October of the third indiction, and consequently in the year 584.

Nor indeed did Gregory depart from Constantinople in this year, because it is manifest from Book III of the Dialogues, chap. 36, that Maximianus, recalled by the aforesaid letter, as we said above, and having set out from Constantinople in this year or even the following, preceded Gregory's return. How these things can stand together with the opinion of Baronius and of Binius I do not sufficiently see, who are pleased to hold that, immediately after Maurice was proclaimed emperor — which we have already shown to have happened in the month of August of the year 582 — Laurentius was sent by Pelagius to succeed in the office of apocrisiarius.

A proof of a longer stay in the royal city is still furnished by the huge volume of the Morals composed by Gregory in this city, for which several years — especially amid so many affairs — could scarcely have sufficed. Nor indeed would St. Leander, nor Gregory's brethren and companions, have exhorted him to undertake that work, if he were about to make so short a stay at Constantinople, as Baronius holds. 13. Now let us think about restoring Gregory to Rome, and let us follow, as he returns, the one whom we accompanied as he departed. He returned enriched with great gifts, namely with most holy relics — that is, with the arm of St. Andrew the Apostle, and the head of St.

Luke, which sacred pledges, obtained from the emperor, he placed in his Roman monastery, as Baronius relates (At the year 586, no. 24) from the first page of the Vatican codex marked with the number 153. Nor is it contrary to this narration what Gregory himself says (Book IV, letter 30, to Constantina Augusta), that it is not the custom, when the relics of the saints are given, that anyone should presume to touch anything of the body; for he is speaking of the usage and custom of the Romans and Latins, not indeed of the Greeks. To Italy also he brought back from Maurice Augustus the hope of speedy aid, which soon was at hand, under the leadership of Smaragdus the exarch, successor of Longinus.

If, however, anyone should contend that Smaragdus anticipated Gregory's return, on a matter so uncertain I will by no means dispute; for it is not easy to assign with certainty at what time Gregory returned to his homeland. But this is agreed, that by his prayers and solicitations this succour was obtained. Moreover, from the first letter of Pelagius to Elias, bishop of Aquileia, we learn what the arrival of Smaragdus rendered to Italy: for the supreme pontiff gives thanks that, "through the labours and solicitude of the most excellent son Smaragdus the exarch, and of the chartularius of the sacred palace, God has deigned to grant peace and quiet."