A Companion to Gregory the Great

Brill’s Companions to the

Christian Tradition

A series of handbooks and reference works

on the intellectual and religious life of Europe,
500–1800

Editor-in-Chief
Christopher M. Bellitto
(Kean University)

VOLUME 47

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bcct

 A Companion to
Gregory the Great

Edited by
Bronwen Neil and Matthew Dal Santo

LEIDEN • BOSTON
2013
Cover illustration: Pope Gregory I leading a rogatory procession past Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome.
From Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, MS 65, Musée Condé (Chantilly), fol. 71v. Used with
permission of the Agence Photographique de la RMN et du Grand Palais.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A companion to Gregory the Great / edited by Bronwen Neil and Matthew Dal Santo.
  pages cm. — (Brill’s companions to the Christian tradition ; 47)
 Includes bibliographical references and index.
 ISBN 978-90-04-25775-7 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-25776-4 (e-book : alk. paper)
 1. Gregory I, Pope, approximately 540–604. I. Neil, Bronwen. II. Dal Santo, Matthew.

 BR65.G56C65 2013
 270.2092—dc23

2013027544

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 1871-6377
ISBN 978-90-04-25775-7 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-25776-4 (e-book)

Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

To Robert Markus
 CONTENTS

Contributors ...................................................................................................... xi
Abbreviations .................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures .................................................................................................... xv
Editors’ Preface ................................................................................................. xvii

Part 1
The Life and Context of Gregory I

1. The Papacy in the Age of Gregory the Great .................................... 3

Bronwen Neil

2. Gregory’s Missions to the Barbarians .................................................. 29

Cristina Ricci

3. Gregory the Great, the Empire and the Emperor ............................ 57

Matthew Dal Santo

4. Gregory the Great and Monasticism .................................................... 83

Barbara Müller

5. Gregory and the Greek East ................................................................... 109

Phil Booth

Part 2

Gregory’s Theological Vision

6. The Theology of Gregory the Great: Christ, Salvation and

the Church ................................................................................................... 135
Bernard Green

7. Gregory’s Eschatology ............................................................................... 157

Jane Baun
viii contents

8. Gregory’s Moral Theology: Divine Providence and Human

Responsibility ............................................................................................. 177
Carole Straw

9. Gregory’s Model of Spiritual Direction in the Liber Regulae

Pastoralis ..................................................................................................... 205
George E. Demacopoulos

10. Hagiography and the Cult of Saints .................................................... 225

Stephen Lake

Part 3
Literary Aspects of Gregory’s Works

11. Gregory’s Literary Inheritance .............................................................. 249

John Moorhead

12. Gregory’s Exegesis: Old and New Ways of Approaching the

Scriptural Text ........................................................................................... 269
Scott DeGregorio

13. A Cooperative Correspondence: The Letters of Gregory the

Great ............................................................................................................. 291
Richard Matthew Pollard

Part 4
Reception

14. The Legacy of Gregory the Great in the Latin West . ..................... 315
Constant J. Mews and Claire Renkin

15. Gregory the Great in the Byzantine Tradition ................................ 343

Andrew Louth

16. The Reception of Gregory in the Renaissance and

Reformation . ............................................................................................... 359
Ann Kuzdale
 contents ix

Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 387
General Index .................................................................................................... 419
 Contributors

Dr Jane BAUN, University of Oxford

Dr Philip BOOTH, Trinity College, Oxford
Dr Matthew DAL SANTO, Trinity College, Cambridge
Dr Scott DEGREGORIO, University of Michigan
Dr George E. DEMACOPOULOS, Fordham University
Dr Bernard GREEN, Campion Hall, Oxford
Dr Ann KUZDALE, Chicago State University
Dr Stephen LAKE, Independent Scholar
Prof Andrew LOUTH, University of Durham
Prof Constant J. MEWS, Monash University
Prof John MOORHEAD, University of Queensland
Prof Dr Barbara MÜLLER, University of Hamburg
Dr Bronwen NEIL, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane
Dr Richard M. POLLARD, University of British Columbia
Dr Claire RENKIN, United Faculty of Theology, Melbourne
Dr Cristina RICCI, University of Basel
Prof Carole STRAW, Mount Holyoke College
 Abbreviations

Ep. Epistola
Epp. Epistolae
l. line
ll. lines
n.d. no date
n.p. no place
n.s. new series

Editions

ACO Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum

CCCM Corpus Christianorum continuatio medievalis
CCSG Corpus Christianorum series graeca
CCSL Corpus Christianorum series latina
CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum
GCS Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller
GNO Gregorii Nysseni opera
MGH Monumenta Germaniae historica
AA Auctores antiquissimi
Chron. Min. Chronica minora
Epp. Epistolae
SS Scriptores
SSRL Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum
SSRM Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum
PG Patrologia graeca
PL Patrologia latina
SC Sources chrétiennes

Works of Gregory

Dial. Dialogorum libri IV de miraculis patrum italicorum (SC 251, 260,

265)
HEv. Homiliae in Evangelia (CCSL 141)
HEz. Homiliae in Hiezechielem (CCSL 142)
xiv abbreviations

Cant. In canticum canticorum (CCSL 144)

I Reg. In I librum Regum (CCSL 144)
Mor. Moralia in Iob (CCSL 143, 143A, 143B)
Reg. Registrum epistolarum (CCSL 140 and 140A)
RP Regula pastoralis (SC 381 and 382)

Other Ancient/Medieval Works

Augustine, De civ. Dei De civitate Dei

Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. Enarrationes in Psalmos

Gregory of Tours
HF Historia Francorum

HE Historia Ecclesiastica
LP Liber Pontificalis
LPR Liber Pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis

Paul the Deacon

HL Historia Langobardorum

Reference Works

RAC Realenzyklopädie für Antike und Christentum

RE Realenzyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. Pauly-
Wissowa
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie

Other abbreviations of works as in Thesaurus Linguae Latinae.

 List of Figures

1 St. Gallen, “Gregory the Great”, from the Hartker Antiphonal,

St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 390, p. 13 c.990–1000
[photo used with permission] ................................................................ 340
2 Taddeo Gaddi, “The Supper in the House of the Pharisee”,
detail from the Refectory, Santa Croce, Florence c.1330–40
[photo used with permission] ................................................................ 341
3 Israhel van Meckenhem, “Mass of St. Gregory”, engraving,
1480–90. London, British Museum [photo used with
permission] .................................................................................................. 342
 Editors’ Preface

A companion to Gregory the Great should be wide-ranging and gather

together the best of scholarship—old and new—on the subject in an
interesting format. We have aimed to assemble a range of chapters that
address the best of Gregorian scholarship over the past 200 years. The
recent 1400-year anniversary in 2004 of Gregory’s death makes this all the
more timely. The most obvious question for a volume like this to answer
is: What made Gregory “great”? While the Middle Ages had no difficulty
recognizing Gregory among its most authoritative points of reference,
modern readers have not always found this question as easy to answer.1
As with any great figure, however, there are two sides to Gregory—the his-
torical and the universal. This handbook hopes to capture Gregory’s “great-
ness” from both of these angles: what made Gregory stand out among his
contemporaries (as well as wherein he did not); and what is unique about
Gregory’s contribution (preserved above all in his literary works) to the
development of human thought and described human experience.

The Historical Gregory

Regarding the historical Gregory, recent scholarship has focused on ques-

tions of continuity—was Gregory a late antique leader, or a medieval one?
A Roman bishop or Byzantine patriarch? A classical scholar or Christian
exegete? A spiritual teacher or pragmatic ecclesiastical manager? The
spiritual and practical challenges of 6th-century life in Rome emerge as
the two driving forces behind his pontificate.2 Born around the year 540,
as a youth Gregory was probably forced to leave Rome with his aristo-
cratic family in the wake of Justinian’s reconquest and the resulting Gothic
Wars. He would have returned to a city where the infrastructure and
social institutions lay in ruins after successive sieges and waves of plague
and famine. Rome’s precarious situation was underscored from 568 by the

1 See, for example, James J. O’Donnell, “The Holiness of Gregory the Great,” in Gregory
the Great: A Symposium, ed. John Cavadini, Notre Dame Studies in Theology 2 (Notre
Dame, IN, 1995), pp. 62–81.
2 For Gregory’s life and times, see above all Robert A. Markus, Gregory the Great and
His World (Cambridge, 1997).
xviii editors’ preface

Lombard invasion of Italy. Gregory’s profound commitment to the ideal

of a Christian empire and the general sense of Rome’s abandonment by
Constantinople shaped his ambivalent attitude towards the empire and
its rulers. Rome’s relationship with the church of Constantinople had also
been battered by the Three Chapters controversy.
Sent in 579 to the eastern capital as an apocrisiarius, Gregory became
familiar with the important players of the age, and carried the day in his
debate on the resurrection of the body with Eutychius of Constantinople.
On his return to Rome, Gregory had hoped to return to a life of contem-
plation in the Monastery of St Andrew which he had founded on his fam-
ily estate on the Caelian Hill. However, with his election in 590 to the
pontificate following floods that devastated the city of Rome, he had to
turn his mind to more prosaic problems: how to feed, shelter, and man-
age a city that had been beaten by war and natural disasters, as well as
governing its ecclesiastical hierarchy and that of the wider church of Italy
and Sicily? Gregory’s many letters on these subjects have been made more
accessible as a scholarly resource by Dag Norberg’s edition of the Regis-
trum, published in 1982, and John Martyn’s three-volume English transla-
tion, which appeared in 2004. Over the centuries, the practical wisdom
and knowledge of Roman and canon law found in these letters contrib-
uted mightily to a tradition that saw in Gregory not only a great Roman
administrator in the classical style (so much so that Gregory has emerged,
on occasion, as the “last of the Romans”), but also the first truly medieval
pope whose policies laid the material and organizational foundations for
an autonomous Republic of St Peter. These assumptions have since been
questioned, but even if opinions of Gregory were controversial in the
city he helped administer in the immediate aftermath of his death in 604,
it is clear that by the 9th century, at the latest, this aspect of Gregory’s
“greatness” had been firmly established.
Yet Gregory has always been more than merely a historical personality,
leaving behind in his literary works a legacy that exerted a powerful influ-
ence generations after his death. Throughout the Middle Ages, Gregory
was acknowledged as a master of the spiritual life. The Moralia in Iob,
a commentary on the Old Testament Book of Job and Gregory’s longest
work, was copied and circulated for centuries across medieval Europe.
In it, Gregory explored the nature of the soul’s yearning for and ascent
towards God, which he depicted as a two-steps-forward, one-step-back
process at whose heart lay an attitude of compunction (compunctio), or
repentance. For Gregory believed that the closer the soul in contemplation
of the Scriptures approached the divine light, the more conscious it grew
 editors’ preface xix

of its own sinfulness, hence its need to turn again to tears, repentance,
and compunction. Thanks to God’s mercy in Christ (typically, in Gregory’s
thought, the “Mediator” between God and man), these tears of compunc-
tion served to inaugurate anew the soul’s path of ascent, which Gregory
was apt to call “conversion” (conversio). While many, if not all, of these
themes can be found in the patristic tradition he inherited, Gregory
stands out in the intensity of his focus on the interior life and his desire
to weave the doctrinal and ascetic wisdom of the patristic age into a sus-
tained account of the Christian’s spiritual experience. As Claude Dagens,
one of Gregory’s most distinguished recent students, put it:3
[Gregory] desires to analyze minutely the inward life of the soul that seeks
God. This is nothing less than the effort to seize the movement of man’s
passage towards God, a psychological and moral exploration of the Christian
life.
Added to this is Gregory’s great skill in universalizing his own experience
as well as his discussion of it: his works are free of the historically contin-
gent in a way that Augustine’s or Jerome’s are not.4 It is easy to appreciate
how a work of such themes, thus handled, appealed to monastic audi-
ences long after Gregory’s immediate readership had passed away.5 In the
words of the 7th-century Isidore of Seville: “Blessed and more than blessed
is he who has been able to know all his [sc. Gregory’s] works.”6
His appeal to monastic audiences throughout the Middle Ages can be
further explained by the fact that Gregory was himself the first monk to
become pope. While Gregory was a great believer in the monastic life, he
did not, however, believe that contemplation alone was enough to secure
the soul’s progress. For Gregory, the vita contemplativa led naturally to
a compromise with the vita activa, which he believed was perfected in
discipleship, the care of souls. Gregory believed that the movement from
meditation to contemplation and thence to pastoral care or discipleship
is immediate and compelling—and arguably for all his emphasis on the
soul’s passage towards God, it is not so much mystical contemplation that

3 Claude Dagens, Saint Grégoire le grand. Culture et expérience chrétiennes (Paris, 1977),
p. 24: “il désire analyser minutieusement la vie intérieure de l’âme qui cherche Dieu. Ce
n’est rien d’autre qu’un effort pour saisir le mouvement continu et concret de l’homme
vers Dieu, une exploration psychologique et morale de la vie chrétienne.”
4 O’Donnell, “Holiness of Gregory the Great,” p. 68.
5 See further Jean Leclerq, L’amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu: Initiation aux auteurs
monastiques du Moyen Âge (Paris, 1957), pp. 30–9.
6 Isidore of Seville, De viris illustribus, 40.50: “Felix tamen et nimium felix qui omnia
studiorum eius potuit conoscere.” Cited in Dagens, Saint Grégoire le grand, p. 17.
xx editors’ preface

stands at the centre of his reflection and work as much as discipleship,

pastoral care and morals, the formation of Christian character. Whether
he was writing to friends at court in Constantinople or other monks, these
concerns show themselves again and again in his letters. He expressed his
ideas in this regard most fully in his short tract, the Regula Pastoralis, or
Rule of Pastoral Care, a work which in its practical theology remained almost
unique in the history of Christian literature until the modern period.7 While
it may seem natural today to consider such pastoral care a normal part of
the role of the Christian priesthood, Gregory was among the first to insist
on its centrality and theorize about its practice.8 With its gentleness and
psychological sensitivity, Gregory’s Rule of Pastoral Care rightly deserves
its place among the Christian classics.
Yet, with the exceptions of his Rule of Pastoral Care and, to a lesser
extent, the Dialogues, Gregory chose to write in an allegorical style that
appeals little to modern tastes. In his commentaries on Ezekiel and the
Song of Songs, Gregory returned to many of the topics familiar to readers
of his Moralia—contemplation, compunction, conversion. Through the
allegorical techniques Gregory loved, the mysterious words of the Scrip-
tures allowed these ideas to be explored again and again from a multitude
of angles, without ever exhausting all the possibilities of their meaning.
His Homilies on the Gospels performed a similar operation on many of
Jesus’ parables and even the Dialogues, it has been argued, represent an
allegorical reading of the miracles of the saints. Perhaps this love of alle-
gory, more than any other factor, has deterred Gregory’s latter-day readers.
Gregory rarely, if ever, develops a subject in a truly linear way in the man-
ner of Augustine or Jerome, to name two of the most important influences
on Gregory’s own formation.9 Guided always by the words of Scripture
he is commenting on, Gregory takes his reader on a roundabout journey
that demands a sustained effort to persevere with its frequent sense of
repetition and arbitrariness. Equally difficult for modern audiences, the
supernatural impinges heavily and constantly on his thought, from the
saints and their miracles to the hand of God itself which Gregory takes to
stand behind everything that happens in Creation, whether for good or ill.

7 Robert Gillet, “Grégoire le Grand,” Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésias-

tiques 21 (1986) cols 1387–420 at col. 1408.
8 George E. Demacopoulos, Five Models of Spiritual Direction in the Early Church (Notre
Dame, IN, 2007), p. 134.
9 John Moorhead, Gregory the Great, The Early Church Fathers (Abingdon – New York,
2005), p. 12.
 editors’ preface xxi

As a result, he is apt to attribute to God what we would very often prefer

to leave to chance or the devil.10
For all this, Gregory was not a speculative or systematic theologian and
it has been noted before that “in the history of Christian theology his place
is secondary”.11 But if Gregory’s greatness is to be found anywhere, it is
in his awareness that the human heart is itself no less a maze than the
Scriptural mysteries he was so fond of allegorizing and that it requires all
the discretion (discretio) of the spiritual director, trained in contempla-
tion and perfected in the care of souls, to navigate its secrets. At the end
of the 13th century, Boniface VIII sealed Gregory’s status by naming him
fourth Doctor of the Church, thereby elevating him to the same status as
the great 4th-century fathers, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome.12 Although
Gregory was unusual among Roman pontiffs in attracting fame in the
Greek Church, it was above all in the medieval West that his reputation
was made.
This, however, returns us briefly to the historical Gregory. For it has
always been tempting to read “back” from the vantage point of a rich and
secure Benedictine cloister of 1100 into Gregory’s situation at the end of
the 6th century, a turning point in history. In his many works on Pope
Gregory, Robert Markus argued forcefully against such a skewed view of
him.13 Suffice it to say that we are potentially still too prone to read Greg-
ory’s works and view his place in our narratives through what we know
of later history as perceived from a certain angle. We still need to bring
Gregory’s output into dialogue with texts, in Latin, Greek, Syriac, and Ara-
bic, from his own age and from across the Mediterranean world whose
horizons, as far afield as Arabia, Gregory clearly scanned. For in this age
of Justinian and Muhammad, Gregory still seems more of an outsider than
he really should have been.14 Any view of Gregory as a medieval church-
man ahead of his time must be resisted, in spite of his construction in this
way by reformers and humanists of later centuries.

10 There is a particularly good discussion of this in Carole Straw, Gregory the Great.
Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley, 1988), pp. 8–12.
11  Moorhead, Gregory the Great, p. 26.
12 Dagens, Saint Grégoire le grand, p. 14.
13 The locus classicus is Robert Markus, “Gregory the Great’s Europe,” in Transactions of
the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 31 (London, 1981), pp. 21–36.
14 For a survey of this world, see Peter Sarris, Empires of Faith: The Fall of Rome to the
Rise of Islam, 500–700 (Oxford, 2011). For a recent attempt to position one aspect of Greg-
ory’s thoughts and activities in this age, see Matthew Dal Santo, Debating the Saints’ Cult
in the Age of Gregory the Great (Oxford, 2012).
xxii editors’ preface

Finally, recent scholarly assessments of Gregory’s intellectual “great-

ness” have frequently turned on the vexed question of Gregory’s knowl-
edge of Greek. While the case certainly can be made, it seems difficult to
conclude that Gregory knew no Greek at all: the picture that emerges from
his correspondence is of a man with an extensive network of friendships
and acquaintances with Greek speakers that cannot have passed through
the mediation of interpreters and translators exclusively. Similarly, while
it is difficult to identify Greek works not already translated into Latin that
Gregory may have known, he is the first western author to acknowledge
the influence of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and his thought seems
heavily imbued with the ascetic wisdom of the eastern tradition.15 The
horizons of Gregory’s thought world, at least, were clearly not limited by
what was known only in Latin. On the contrary, his was a practical age
and it can readily be imagined that Gregory could communicate a point
in contemporary ecclesiastical Greek without necessarily possessing the
ability to approach, let alone compose in, the classical language with
ease16—and given the early training that many eastern churchmen had
in Roman law, we might suppose that many of Gregory’s Greek-speaking
friends could do the same in simple, but serviceable, Latin.

Overview of the Contents

Our first five chapters place Gregory’s life and achievements in their histor-
ical contexts, precariously situated as he was between the Roman empire
of the East and a new, ‘barbarian’, West. In the first chapter, Bronwen Neil
demonstrates that Gregory’s attempt to manage the Roman church in the
style of a Byzantine patriarch, while also maintaining a degree of spiritual
and practical autonomy, made his papacy unique in both Late Antiquity
and the Middle Ages. Cristina Ricci examines the rationale behind the
various Roman missions to churches in England, Spain, and the Frank-
ish and Lombard territories in Gregory’s time, and questions the different
motivations for each of these missions. Matthew Dal Santo shows how
Gregory’s profound but otherwise abstract commitment to the notion
of Christian empire was firmly grounded in the networks he developed
during his apocrisiariate in Constantinople. Gregory’s promulgation of a

15 Straw, Gregory the Great, p. 15; Erich Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums: von den Anfän-
gen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, 2 vols (Tübingen, 1930–33), 2: 399.
16 Cf. Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, p. 36.
 editors’ preface xxiii

distinctive type of monasticism is the subject of Barbara Müller’s chap-

ter, in which she examines the degree to which his monastic inclinations
shaped his administration of the see of Rome. Philip Booth considers
Gregory’s position in relation to the patriarchs of the East, especially Anas-
tasius of Antioch and Eulogius of Alexandria, and illuminates Gregory’s
connections with a tight-knit group of eastern monks that included John
Moschus and Sophronius of Jerusalem, with implications for the future
monothelete controversy in the mid-to-late 7th century.
In Section 2, we turn to Gregory’s theological vision and his place within
the patristic tradition. In Chapter 6, Bernard Green looks at Gregory’s sal-
vation theology and its sources, finding strong links with the soteriology
of Cyril of Alexandria in his stress on the single subject of Christ. Influ-
ences from Augustine’s and Leo the Great’s understandings of Christ as
God incarnate are also identified. Jane Baun’s contribution uncovers new
aspects of Gregorian eschatology, stressing the strong apocalyptic expec-
tations that characterized his age. She shows that the Last Things were
never far from his mind, both in respect to individual judgement after
death, and the universal Last Judgement which would follow the Second
Coming, and foreshadow the consummation of all things. Carole Straw
examines Gregory’s moral theology in terms of the vexed relationship
between divine justice and human responsibility, the struggle to come
to terms with which she locates firmly in the perils and challenges of
his pontificate. Studies of two of Gregory’s most influential works follow.
George Demacopoulos considers Gregory’s contribution to the practice
of pastoral care, and interprets the Regula Pastoralis as a training manual
aimed primarily at clerics with monastic backgrounds, and at providing
them with a workable model for balancing the very different requirements
of both active and contemplative lives. Stephen Lake places the important
and well known text of the Dialogues within the wider context of Ital-
ian hagiography of the period. He outlines the rationale behind Gregory’s
choice of subjects in each of the four books of the Dialogues, with particu-
lar focus on the Life of Benedict in Book 2.
Section 3 deals with literary aspects of Gregory’s works. The carefully
hidden evidence of Gregory’s classical learning and his knowledge of
Greek language and literature is traced and evaluated by John Moorhead.
Scott DeGregorio studies Gregory’s exegetical methods in works as diverse
as the Moralia in Iob and the Dialogues, considering which of his ways
of approaching the scriptural text were traditional and which were inno-
vative. Richard Pollard sketches the changes in style and Latinity in the
papal scrinium that took place under Gregory and successors, shining a
xxiv editors’ preface

light on some of the hidden talents that helped make Gregory’s papacy
so effective.
The reception of Gregory’s theological oeuvre is the subject of Section 4.
Although he was arguably under-appreciated in his own time, Gregory
was to become one of the greatest saints of the western church, with an
influence comparable to that of Augustine. Each of the chapters in Sec-
tion 4 concentrates upon a different facet of Gregory’s theology, refracted
through the specific circumstances of the end of the 6th century, and pol-
ished with lapidary skill by future generations of Christians. His Nachleben
is evident in the numerous translations of his works produced in medieval
German, French, Dutch, Norse-Icelandic, and English. Gregory’s reception
in the Latin West is the subject of Constant Mews and Claire Renkin’s
chapter, a study of the literary and visual evidence for his cult. Mews and
Renkin divide the construction of Gregory’s reputation into four stages:
prior to 780; from 780–1100; in the age of monastic reform and early scho-
lasticism; and in the mendicant culture of 1200–1500. Gregory had a sub-
stantial impact on the eastern churches as well through translations of
his works, and particularly in the florilegium of Evergetinus, although this
is much more difficult to trace, as Andrew Louth demonstrates. In our
final chapter, Ann Kuzdale examines Gregory’s continuing influence on
the West in the Renaissance and Reformation, and the use that was made
of him in the sectarian debates of the early modern period. Kuzdale pro-
vides in an appendix a list of all incunabula and early printed Latin books
of Gregory the Great (c.1460–1619).
It is part of the purpose of this volume to introduce a new generation
of historians, theologians, and classicists to one of the most voluminous
authors of Latin antiquity whose works have come down to us. Neverthe-
less, Gregory’s writings hide far more than they reveal of the true charac-
ter of their author; perhaps they were even designed to do so. The “real
Gregory” will always offer much material for academic debate: haughty
aristocrat/humble monk, Italian patriot/loyal servant of the emperor,
doyen of classical Latin/hostile guerrilla in the church’s campaign to bury
“pagan” culture, visionary evangelist of England/powerless observer of
a corrupt Gallic church. We hope that this volume will be both broad
enough to serve the reader with an informed general interest in church
history or Late Antiquity, while also having something to offer the special-
ist on Gregory’s theology and his many influential works, if only to point
the way to new scholarship on the subject.
We wish to express our gratitude to the dedicated team at Brill. The
editors would like to thank Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition
 editors’ preface xxv

series editor Christopher Bellitto and the anonymous reviewers for their
suggestions for improvement of the volume. Thanks also to Sandra Sewell
for her careful proofreading; to Marianne Ehrhardt, who translated Bar-
bara Müller’s chapter from German, and Stefano Girola, who translated
Cristina Ricci’s chapter from Italian. Finally, we are delighted to dedicate
this volume to the memory of Robert Markus, who has done more than
any other modern scholar to bring Gregory the Great out of the shadows
of history. The author of many works that bridged the traditional schol-
arly divide between the later Roman Empire and the early Middle Ages,
Robert Markus was a kindly colleague and mentor to many, and a source
of inspiration to every contributor to this volume, one of whom, Bernard
Green, has now passed away. We remember them both with gratitude and
deep respect.

12 March, 2012
Feast of St Gregory the Great
 Part 1

The Life and Context of Gregory I

 Chapter One

The Papacy in the Age of Gregory the Great

Bronwen Neil

Gregory the Great’s Homilies on Ezekiel contain a long and well-known

list of disasters that offered incontrovertible proof to him that the world’s
end was at hand:1
[C]ities have been destroyed, forts overturned, fields deserted, the earth
emptied in solitude. . . . For since the Senate has failed, the people have per-
ished, and the sufferings and groans of the few who remain are multiplied
each day. Rome, now empty, is burning!
This utterance, perhaps more than any other, has characterized the mod-
ern view of Gregory as a doomsayer, an apocalyptical opportunist, who
always kept an eye on the next world. This image of him has overshad-
owed his more pragmatic and business-like concern for the things of this
world, especially in his governance of the Church. From a study of his
letters in particular, Gregory emerges as a competent civic leader in the
Byzantine mode of patriarch, whose breadth of activities in the temporal
sphere was not based on a new, “medieval” conception of the papacy as a
secular monarchy, but rather was a response to the unique exigencies of
his times. In this respect he is the continuator of a 150-year old tradition
of bishops of Rome as civic leaders, in the line of Leo the Great (440–61),
Gelasius (492–96), and Pelagius I (556–61), and not, as he is often dubbed,
“the first medieval pope”.2

1  HEz. 2.6.22 (CCSL 142:310–12): “Destructae urbes, euersa sunt castra, depopulati agri,
in solitudine terra redacta est. . . . Quia enim senatus deest, populus interiit, et tamen in
paucis qui sunt dolores et gemitus cotidie multiplicantur, iam uacua ardet Roma.” Cf. HEz.
1.9.9; Reg. 5.37 to Emperor Maurice (June 595); Dial. 2.15.3; HEv. 17.17 and 28.3. Translations
are my own unless otherwise specified.
2 E.g. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Post-Classical World, ed. Glen W. Bowersock, Peter
R.L. Brown, and Oleg Grabar (Harvard, 1999) s.v. “Gregory the Great,” p. 478; F. Donald
Logan, A History of the Church in the Middle Ages (London—New York, 2002), p. 47, on
candidates for the greatest pope of the Middle Ages: “at the head of any such list should be
the name of Pope Gregory the Great”; Joan Barclay-Lloyd, “Sixth-century Art and Architec-
ture in ‘Old Rome’: End or Beginning?” in The Sixth Century. End or Beginning? eds Pauline
Allen and Elizabeth M. Jeffreys, Byzantina Australiensia 10 (Brisbane, 1996), pp. 224–35, at
4 bronwen neil

Leaving the sequestered life in the monastery of St Andrew’s that he

founded as a young man in his family home on the Caelian Hill, Gregory
took up the burdens of the leadership of the Roman Church in Septem-
ber 590 with some reluctance. While still a deacon, Gregory had been
employed for about six years as papal apocrisiarius for Pelagius II in the
imperial capital, a formative experience with implications for a continued
intellectual exchange between Rome and Constantinople during his pon-
tificate. The many letters Gregory sent to the Byzantine imperial family,
other bishops, and significant lay persons during his pontificate, reflect
his talents as an administrator, petitioner and negotiator. The reception
of so many of Gregory’s letters into medieval canon law is testimony to
his spiritual authority, particularly in the West, but also in the eastern
churches. The extent and success of his activities in the areas of pastoral
care and crisis management must also be counted in any assessment of
Gregory’s contribution as bishop of Rome.
Two major foci can be identified in Gregory’s activities as bishop of
Rome: the spiritual leadership of the Church of Italy and the wider Church;
and the administration both of the dioceses of Italy and the wider Church.
It is appropriate to treat his roles as spiritual leader and administrator
together because, as Adam Serfass has clearly demonstrated in relation
to the issue of slavery, Gregory’s administrative responses were always
informed by pastoral considerations. His first concern was the preserva-
tion of the social order in order to facilitate the salvation of souls.3 The
tension between the twin demands of pastoral care and administration
plagued Gregory, who maintained that he felt torn between the demands
of the job and his personal desire to devote himself to his monastic voca-
tion.4 This tension was typical of bishops in Late Antiquity, when they
were called upon to shoulder more burdens for civic administration than
previously, due to the breakdown of municipal government, the demise
of the Roman senate and, from 476 until 536, the lack of an imperial pres-

235: “By [Gregory’s] time, through the trials of the sixth century, Rome had seen the world
of antiquity come to an end. A new era, the Middle Ages, was beginning.”
3 Adam Serfass, “Slavery and Pope Gregory the Great”, Journal of Early Christian Studies
14.1 (2006), 77–103, at 78 and 102.
4 Mor., pref. (ed. MGH Epp. 1, Ep. 5.53a.1). See also Reg. 1.7 and 1.24 on the burdens of
pastoral care. See Robert A. Markus, Gregory the Great and His World (Cambridge, 1997),
pp. 9–11.
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 5

ence in the Western Empire.5 Gregory’s struggle to resolve this tension is

a major theme of early hagiographers of his life and works.
Starting with an analysis of the earliest sources on Gregory’s life—
the contemporary entry in the LP, and the earliest Life of Gregory from
Whitby—we will gain a picture of how Gregory’s contemporaries evalu-
ated his leadership. I then survey the institutional structures of the papacy
in the 6th to 8th centuries, looking for any innovations made by Gregory.
Then, using the papal letter collections of Leo I, Gelasius, and Pelagius I as
a background, I examine what Gregory’s letters tell us about his spiritual
leadership and administration of the dioceses subject to Rome. Finally
I examine Gregory’s relationship to the wider Church, and close with an
assessment of Gregory’s style of leadership against existing Byzantine and
Roman models.

Early Representations of Gregory’s Life and Works

Let us start with an analysis of the earliest sources on Gregory’s life—

the contemporary entry in the LP, and the earliest Life of Gregory from
Whitby—in order to gain a picture of how Gregory’s contemporaries
evaluated his leadership. LP, a record of the bishops of Rome and their
achievements in the style of imperial res gestae, is concerned to name the
place of birth, the father of each of its bishops, and the father’s occupa-
tion, and Gregory is no exception. Gregory, the son of Gordian, was born
in Rome,6 c.540. By his era, the range of social backgrounds of successful
candidates had narrowed considerably. In 5th-century Rome, popes were
raised from a range of geographic and social backgrounds. Outsiders, or
non-Romans, included Pope Innocent I from the city of Albanum, just
outside Rome; Zosimus, a Greek; two Sardinians, Hilary, and Symmachus;
and from the Italian provinces Celestine, a Campanian; Leo I, a Tuscan;
and Simplicius, a Tiburian. In 483 AD, Gregory’s great-great-grandfather
Felix III was the first bishop to be appointed from the Roman aristocracy,
the candidate of Basilius, head of the senatorial order.7 Up to this point,
members of the Roman senate had shown no interest in interfering in

5 For other examples of such bishops, see Andrea Sterk, Renouncing the World Yet Lead-
ing the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass. 2004).
6 LP 1:312.
7 Jeffrey Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages 476–752 (London—
New York, 1979), p. 235. Gregory refers to Felix as his atavus in Dial. 4.17.
6 bronwen neil

episcopal elections. In the following century, only the first three out of
fourteen bishops originated from the provinces.8 All the rest were born
in Rome, and six—Boniface II, Agapitus, Vigilius, Pelagius I, John III, and
Gregory I—were from the Roman aristocracy.9
It may surprise the modern reader to learn that the LP had very little
to say about Gregory’s pontificate. The entry is of no more than average
length, and its tone strikingly neutral. While some of his major works are
listed (Homiliae in Evangelia, Moralia in Iob, Homiliae in Hiezechielem,
Regula pastoralis, and Dialogi), the letters go unmentioned.10 His defeat
of the Lombard threat in northern Italy was attributed to the exarch of
Ravenna, Romanus, who took back various cities from Lombard control
between Rome and Ravenna. Gregory’s mission to the English is men-
tioned without special praise. An equally important contribution, accord-
ing to this source, was his addition of a few phrases to the recital of the
Canon of the Mass. He gave donations of purple cloth, gold, and silver to
the shrines of Rome’s saintly protectors, Peter and Paul, and a silver four-
columned canopy (ciborium) and altar over each of their tombs so that
Mass could be celebrated there.11 He reconciled an Arian church in the
Subura, St Agatha of the Goths, and established his own house on the Cae-
lian Hill as a monastery.12 He performed ordinations of thirty-nine priests
and five deacons in Rome; he ordained some sixty-two bishops for “vari-
ous places”.13 Apart from the notice of his death and burial in St Peter’s,
following the custom of the four preceding popes,14 this is the sum total of
information given about Gregory’s almost fourteen year pontificate. Only
his many written works serve to distinguish this bishop’s res gestae from
any of his predecessors’.

8 Popes Hormisdas from Frusino, Campania; his son Silverius; John I from Tuscany;
and Felix IV from Samnium.
9 See Richards, Popes and the Papacy, pp. 240–42; on Gregory I’s background, see Enci-
clopedia dei papi 1 (Rome, 2000), pp. 546–74, and John Moorhead, “On Becoming Pope in
Late Antiquity,” Journal of Religious History 30.3 (2006), pp. 279–93.
10 LP 1:312.
11 Barclay-Lloyd, “Sixth-Century Art and Architecture,” p. 234.
12 His biographer John the Deacon described the monastery buildings as including an
atrium, cells for monks, stables, a cellar, and chapels for Sts. Barbara and Mary: Vita Gre-
gorii Magni (PL 75:65 and 229–34).
13 This was not an excessive number when compared with the numbers of bishops
ordained by his predecessors Pelagius I (49); John III (61); Benedict (21); and Pelagius II
(48).
14 Pelagius I, John III, Benedict I, and Pelagius II.
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 7

By contrast, the earliest Vita of Gregory, composed c.713 by a monk

of Whitby, presages the magnitude of Gregory’s future reputation in the
Middle Ages.15 The Life presents a very sympathetic picture of Gregory,
celebrating the pope as the founder of the English Church. The Life orig-
inated within Gregory’s own circle and its account was spread far and
wide across the Mediterranean world.16 Its sympathetic portrayal did not
extend to Gregory’s successor Sabinian, however. The Whitby monk gives
“a very unpleasant account”17 of Gregory’s appearance in a dream to his
successor to reproach him for his jealousy and greed. Sabinian remained
obdurate and unrepentant, so Gregory kicked him in the head, causing
his death. The Whitby source relays some information—such as the name
of Gregory’s mother, Silvia—independently of Bede, the LP or the brief Vita
Gregorii Magni by Paul the Deacon, composed between 770 and 780, and
supplemented by Paul’s Historia Langobardorum.18 The late 9th-century
Vita by John the Deacon provides a little more information.19
Gregory’s entry in the LP may be compared with the entry in Ravenna’s
Liber Pontificalis for Marinian (595–606), the bishop of Ravenna whose
rule was almost contiguous with that of Gregory I.20 Marinian was a
Roman-born monk who had lived in Gregory’s monastery of St Andrew’s.
Gregory rejected two other candidates whom the people of Ravenna had
proposed when the see became vacant in 595, and put forward Marinian.

15 Liber beati et laudabili viri Gregorii papae urbis Romae de vita atque virtutibus, ed. Ber-
tram Colgrave, The Earliest Life of St. Gregory the Great by an Anonymous Monk of Whitby
(Cambridge, 1968). Bede used this early Latin life as a source for HE 2, ch. 1 (eds and trans
Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People,
Oxford Medieval Texts [Oxford, 1969], pp. 122–34). See Peter Llewellyn, “The Roman
Church in the Seventh Century: the Legacy of Gregory the Great,” Journal of Ecclesiastical
History 25 (1974), 363–80.
16 A. Thacker, “Memorializing Gregory the Great: the Origin and Transmission of a Papal
Cult in the Seventh and Early Eighth Centuries,” Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998), 59–84.
17 Bertram Colgrave, “The Earliest Life of St. Gregory the Great, written by a Whitby
Monk,” in Celt and Saxon: Studies in the Early British Border, ed. Nora Chadwick (Cambridge,
1963), pp. 119–37, at 126.
18 MGH SSRL, pp. 45–187.
19 PL 75:61–242. John’s preface notes that Pope John VIII (872–82) requested a Life of
Gregory, since the Roman Church had none while the English and Lombards both had
one: PL 75:61. Gregory of Tours gave a contemporary account of Gregory’s election in
HF 10.1; ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH SSRM 1,1,2, pp. 477–81. For the sake of completeness we
should also mention two 7th-century Spanish sources, Isidore of Seville’s De viris illustribus
40 and Ildefonsus of Toledo’s De virorum illustrium scriptis 1, the latter chapter being a
later edition to Ildefonsus’ work: Jacques Fontaine, “Chronique de littérature wisigothique
(1970–1972),” Revue des études augustiniennes 19 (1973), 163–76, at 171.
20 LPR 99–100 (ed. Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis, CCCM 199 [Turnhout, 2006], pp.
268–69).
8 bronwen neil

Gregory and Marinian shared an extensive correspondence between 595

and 603.21 According to Gregory’s biographers, the Regula pastoralis was
dedicated to Marinian’s predecessor John II. However, Agnellus claims
that it was written expressly for Marinian who, like Gregory, had been
reluctant to take up the episcopal office.22 This 9th-century text sums up
the different challenges of temporal and episcopal leadership thus:23
If you want to consider, a bishop is greater than a king . . . [T]he king [thinks]
that he might lead rebels captive, the bishop that he might purchase, redeem,
and release captives; the one, that he might pass a quiet night in sleep, the
other that he might last the whole night in divine prayers. And what more?
Just that the king asks the bishop to pray to God for him.

Institutional Structures of the 6th-Century Papacy

The Liber Pontificalis of Ravenna is also a valuable comparative source on

the institutional structures of the papacy in the 6th century. Our sources
unfortunately do not preserve a clear picture of the practical day-to-day
workings of the papal court during Gregory’s pontificate. Rome was tech-
nically a duchy under the imperial exarch of Italy, based in Ravenna.24
However, it was the Church of Rome that administered the city in the
late 500s. In a letter of instruction preserved only in the Liber Pontificalis
of Ravenna, Pope Felix IV (526–30) gave a direction to Bishop Ecclesius
(522–32) of the Church of Ravenna to keep a registry of documents so
that it would be possible to produce both letters sent and received in any
given case:25

21  Reg. 5.61; 6.1; 6.2; 6.24; 6.28; 7.39; 7.40; 8.16; 8.17; 8.18; 8.20; 9.118; 9.132; 9.139; 9.149;
9.156; 9.178; 9.189; 11.21; 13.28; 14.6. Cited by Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis (trans.), The Book
of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna (Washington DC, 2004), p. 215, n. 1.
22 LPR 99 (CCCM 199:268). Deliyannis (Book of Pontiffs, p. 215 n. 2) suggests that Agnel-
lus must have seen a personal dedication to Marinian in a copy of the RP. Marinian was
also the dedicatee of Gregory’s Homilies on Ezekiel.
23 LPR 100, trans. Deliyannis, pp. 216–17 (CCCM 199:269): “Si considerare uultis episco-
pus plus est quam rex. . . . [R]ex ut captiuos ducat rebelles, episcopus ut emat captiuos,
redimat et absoluat; iste ut quieta nocte somnum ducat, ille nocte tota in laudibus persistat
diuinis. Et quid plura? Etiam et ipse rex episcopum, ut pro eo Deum deprecetur, rogat.”
24 Peter Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages, 2nd ed. (London, 1993), p. 141.
25 Constitutum de ecclesia Ravennatensi (CPL 1687), conserved in LPR 60, trans. Deliyan-
nis, p. 175 (CCCM 199:229): “Notarii uero iuxta ordinem matriculae, primicerii, secundi­
cerii, tercius, quartus, quintus, sextus et septimus, suo periculo in conspectu presbiterum
et diaconorum documenta ecclesiastica sub fidelium breuium descriptione suscipiant.”
Deliyannis has translated suo periculo “in their legal register”.
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 9

Let the notaries in order of office, primicerius, secundicerius, third, fourth,

fifth, sixth, and seventh maintain the ecclesiastical documents in their legal
register in the sight of the priests and deacons according to a list of precise
inventories . . .
This text has been taken to indicate that the Roman Church had seven
notaries of the kind Felix suggests.26 However, there is no indication that,
even in the time of Gregory I, the papal administration included the num-
ber of notaries who appeared later. Felix’s letter is signed by clerics of the
Church of Ravenna, who were part of Bishop Ecclesius’ retinue in his visit
to Rome. The signatories included the defensor, notary defensor, senior
defensor, and superintendent of stores (horrearius),27 a clear indication
that these four offices at least existed in the early 6th-century Ravennan
Church.
By the 8th century, the Roman curia’s primary institutional units
were the seven iudices de clero, whose offices were modeled on imperial
dignitaries.28 The retinue of the Syrian Pope Constantine (708–15)
included: 1. primicerius notariorum, or chief secretary, who supervised the
notaries and the papal library and archives in the 7th century;29 2. secundi-
carius, his deputy; 3. primicerius defensorum, head of the defensores, who
defended the legal rights of the poor and oppressed, and later the rights
of the Church in general (one of Gregory’s first acts was to appoint his
friend Peter the subdeacon as defensor of Sicily in 590);30 4. sacellarius

26 Cf. Deliyannis, Book of Pontiffs, p. 175 n. 9, where she surmises: “This organization
seems to imitate the administration of the Roman Church, which contained seven regional
notaries.” She cites Thomas F.X. Noble, The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State
from 680–825 (Philadelphia, 1984), p. 219.
27 LPR 60, trans. Deliyannis, pp. 176–77 (CCCM 199:230–31).
28 Cf. Llewellyn’s reconstruction in Rome in the Dark Ages, pp. 114–22, where he
attributes to Gregory the extension of the collegiate system of Roman administration to
two new colleges, one of lay regional notaries and the other of defensores ecclesiae, both
of which were headed by a primicerius and his deputy, the secundicerius.
29 The primicerius notariorum is first mentioned in LP Julius (337–52), as the officer
responsible for Church documents including bonds, deed, donations, exchanges, trans-
fers, wills, declarations and manumissions (LP 1:205). In LP Constantine, he is called the
scriniarius (LP 1:389).
30 Reg. 1.1 to the bishops of Sicily, dated September 590 (CCSL 140:1): “Nec enim de eius
actibus dubitare possumus cui, Deo auxiliante, totum nostrae ecclesiae noscimur patri-
monium commisisse.” “Nor can we doubt as to the conduct of [Peter] to whom, with the
help of God, we are known to have committed the charge of the whole patrimony of our
Church.” Men posing as defensores of the apostolic see in Sicily in order to defraud bishops
are mentioned in Reg. 1.68 and Reg. 9.22. A full list of defenders in Gregory’s letters is given
in John R.C. Martyn, “Six Notes on Gregory the Great,” Medievalia et Humanistica, n.s. 29
(2003), 1–25, at 1–7. Martyn is incorrect in his suggestion that the defensor ecclesiae, mod-
elled on the secular defensor plebis, may have been an invention of Gregory’s (John R.C.
10 bronwen neil

or paymaster; 5. nomenclator, possibly the master of ceremonies at the

papal court, who was assisted by an ordinator;31 6. arcarius or treasurer,
who looked after financial matters;32 and finally 7. vicedominus, the chief
steward of the papal residence (episcopium), and perhaps the head of the
chamberlains (cubicularii).33 A vicedominus appeared as early as Vigilius’
pontificate (537–55), when the priest Ampliatus was sent back to Rome
to look after the Church “as his vicedominus” while the pope was away in
Constantinople.34 The late-7th century Ordo Romanus lists the vicedomi-
nus as one of four dignitaries to ride behind the pope’s horse.35 The other
three were the vestiarius, who was in charge of much of the Church’s
wealth, the nomenclator and sacellarius. The papal librarian (bibliothecar-
ius) was not numbered among the iudices de clero in the 8th century,36
but seems to have developed into a separate office, distinct from the prim-
icerius notariorum, by this time.37 This is not an exhaustive list of offices
in Gregory’s day, and the offices listed were not mutually exclusive. For
instance, Gregory’s personal secretary (chartularius) was sent to manage
the Sicilian patrimony in 603 (Reg. 13.20).
Seven suburbicarian bishops were appointed by the pope to the major
sees in the vicinity of the city of Rome, and were assigned special privi-
leges: for example, from the 4th century the bishop of Ostia was usually
the one chosen to consecrate the bishop of Rome. Two clerical offices in
this period were crucial for elevation to the papacy: prior experience as an
apocrisiarius in Constantinople, and appointment to the office of deacon.38

Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the Great, Mediaeval Sources in Translation, 3 vols [Toronto,
2004] 1:92). There are many instances of the former in the 5th century, e.g. in the letters of
Augustine of Hippo and Pope Gelasius.
31  Raymond Davis, The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis). The Ancient Biographies of
the First Ninety Roman Bishops to AD 715, 2nd ed. Translated Texts for Historians 6 (Liver-
pool, 2000) Glossary, p. 132.
32 The arcarius appears in the pontificate of Agatho (678–81), according to Davis (Book
of Pontiffs, Glossary, s.v. “Arcarius”, p. 117), but the chapter in question (Ch. 17) is missing
from his translated text of the entry for Agatho (Davis, Book of Pontiffs, p. 79).
33 LP 1:389–90.
34 LP 1:297.
35 Ordo Romanus 1 (ed. Michel Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du Haut Moyen Âge: Tome
2: Les Textes (Ordines 1–13) [Leuven, 1971], p. 70). Cf. Davis, Book of Pontiffs, Glossary, p. 141,
s.v. “Vicedominus”.
36 See further Noble, Republic, pp. 221–24 on the iudices de clero in a later period.
37 Henri Leclerq, “Rome: Bibliothèque et archives pontificales,” Dictionnaire d’Archéologie
chrétienne et de liturgie 14.2:3107 n. 1.
38 Moorhead, “On Becoming Pope,” 28–92.
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 11

Gregory, as we know, held both offices, as did his immediate successors

Sabinian and Boniface III.39
There was no regular diplomatic institution during the early medieval
period, and apocrisiarii to the imperial capital from the 5th century to the
730s were little more than messengers, without plenipotentiary powers.40
The notaries of the papal scrinium, or archive, were among the pope’s
closest advisors and were often used as envoys, due to the knowledge
they had gained in the course of producing papal documents,41 particu-
larly letters on sensitive subjects. To speak of “implementing policies” in
the modern sense is to attribute too rigid an organizational structure to
decision-making processes within the curia. However, thanks to his stint
as apocrisiarius in Constantinople, Gregory made lasting connections with
other apocrisiarii, especially Anastasius of Antioch, with whom he was to
correspond frequently during his pontificate.42 Anastasius also translated
Gregory’s Regula pastoralis into Greek.43 Gregory’s knowledge of Greek
has been the subject of much debate, but most scholars now concur that
he knew at least enough to function as an emissary to the Greek-speaking
capital.44
Gregory speaks often in his letters of actores or agents whom he
entrusted with the task of procuring slaves for his estates or patrimonies.45
Papal properties, stretching from Sicily through Calabria to Bruttium,
Lucania, and the Cottian Alps, were managed by a rector.46 The Roman

39 Reg. 5.6 and 14.8.

40 Noble, Republic, p. 239.
41  Noble, Republic, p. 219, referring to the period he called the “Republic of St. Peter”,
from 680 to 825. Peter Llewellyn rightly added the caveat that the term “republic” carries
notions of sovereignty which cannot justly be attributed to the papacy before the 13th
century: Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages, p. 321 n. 10.
42 E.g. Reg. 1.7; 1.24, Gregory’s synodical letter to the four patriarchs of Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as well as the ex-patriarch Anastasius; Reg. 1.25 (CCSL
140:34.36), in which Gregory offers consolation to Anastasius in his exile, and sends him
as a gift the keys of St. Peter “which are accustomed to shine with many miracles when
placed over the sick.” “. . . quae super aegros positae multis solent miraculis coruscare.” See
also Reg. 5.41; 5.42; 7.24; 7.31; and 8.2.
43 Reg. 12.6 (CCSL 140A:976.56).
44 Gregory confesses his own ignorance of Greek in Reg.7.29 (CCSL 140A:487.6–7)
to Anastasius of Jerusalem: “Et quamuis in multis occupatus, quamuis Graecae linguae
nescius . . .”. See Lellia Cracco Ruggini, “Greco,” Enciclopedia Gregoriana. La vita, l’opera
e la fortuna di Gregorio Magno, eds Giuseppe Cremascoli and Antonella Degl’Innocenti
(Florence, 2008), pp. 161–62. See the discussion of Gregory’s knowledge of Greek in the
Editors’ Preface supra.
45 E.g. Reg. 1.53; 4.43; 9.124.
46 E.g. the rectors of Palermo and Syracuse, who managed Sicilian estates from 593: Reg.
2.50; 3.27; 9.23; 13.20. See Robert A. Markus, “Gregory the Great’s rector and his Genesis,”
12 bronwen neil

Church was required to pay various taxes to Constantinople, including

poll-taxes on persons and livestock held on its patrimonies.47

Earlier Papal Letters and Letter Collections

An evaluation of Gregory’s uniqueness must be framed against the con-

tributions of previous late-antique bishops of Rome. The best source for
these is the corpus of papal letters, the main vehicle of communication
between bishops, their clerical colleagues and subjects, and their impe-
rial masters in Late Antiquity. A brief survey of the major collections of
papal correspondence in the 5th and 6th centuries will establish whether
Gregory’s pontificate exemplifies the continuity of an existing tradition
of administrative and pastoral letter-writing in the papacy, or something
new and innovative. Two of the largest Latin corpora of episcopal letters
before Gregory’s were produced by Leo the Great (440–61) and Gelasius
(492–96). The third largest was that of Pelagius I (556–61).

Leo the Great

The great bulk of Leo’s 143 letters concern matters of clerical discipline,
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the Eutychian controversy. Along with
seventeen decretals by Leo on Church discipline, the decretals of Popes
Siricius, Innocent, Zosimus, Boniface, Celestine, and Sixtus III were pre-
served in early canon law collections. Leo’s addressees number among
the most influential figures of the age: the eastern emperors Marcian and
Theodosius II, Theodosius’ sister and Marcian’s wife Pulcheria, and Galla
Placidia, mother of the western emperor Valentinian III; the archiman-
drite Eutyches; Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, as well as many other
bishops of note. The letters, however, contain very few indications of papal
concern for the needy or the lowly. On matters of social history—famine,
plague, the flight of refugees, relief of poverty, etc.—there is precious little
to find in any letters of early 5th-century bishops, an interesting fact in
itself. Such indications as there are of Leo’s involvement with providing

in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine, Robert Gillet, and Stan Pellistrandi, Chantilly,
Centre culturel, Les Fontaines, 15–19 Septembre 1982 (Paris, 1986), pp. 137–46.
47 John V (LP 1:36), while still a deacon under Pope Agatho, brought imperial mandates
back from the 6th Ecumenical Synod of Constantinople (680/81), which abolished various
taxes, including the annonocapita (poll-taxes), for the patrimonies of Sicily and Calabria.
See Davis, Book of Pontiffs, Glossary, p. 116, s.v. “Annonocapita”.
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 13

for the poor, ransoming captives, rebuilding and refurnishing churches

destroyed in barbarian sieges, and undertaking diplomatic missions—for
example, to Attila in 452—occur in his ninety-seven homilies and in other
authors’ accounts of his pontificate, especially Prosper Tiro’s Epitome
Chronicon.48 Leo’s sole reference to slavery is found in a letter to Italian
bishops prohibiting the ordination of slaves and coloni, as well as clerical
and lay usury.49 The other decretals deal with matters of marriage, pen-
ance, baptism, ordination, ecclesiastical hierarchy, ownership and sale of
church property, and the proper punishment of heresy.50 Three heretical
groups were targeted apart from the Eutychians and followers of Nesto-
rius: Pelagians, Priscillianists, and Manichees.51
The first letter of recommendation in the 5th-century Roman corpus on
behalf of any individual, other than clergy involved in religious controver-
sies or disciplinary enquiries, is written by Felix III (483–92) to Emperor
Zeno, dated 483.52 In it, the bishop recommends Terrentianus, a vir cla-
rissimus who had come to Italy a short while before, requesting that he
might carry letters of Felix to Zeno, which request Felix approved.

Gelasius I
The letters of Gelasius (sixty-one letters and forty-nine fragments) indi-
cate a definite shift in focus of papal activity, with more evidence of inter-
ventions on behalf of individuals and financial management. This may

48 Prosper Tiro, Epitome chronicon edita primum a. CCCXXXIII continuata ad a. CCCCLV,

1367 (ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA Chron. min. 9 [Berlin, 1892], p. 482).
49 Leo, Ep. 4.1 and 4.3 to the bishops of Catania, Etruria, Picenum and all the provinces
(ed. Hubertus Wurm, “Epistula decretalis S. Leonis magni Romani pontificis,” Apollinaris 12
[1939], 79–93). While the prohibition of usury for clergy was quite normal, Leo’s extension
of it to the laity was not. See Pauline Allen, Bronwen Neil, and Wendy Mayer, Preaching
Poverty in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Realities, Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologie-
geschichte 28 (Leipzig, 2009), pp. 198–200.
50 Bronwen Neil (intro. and trans.), Leo the Great, The Early Church Fathers (London—
New York, 2009), pp. 46–49.
51  Leo I, Epp. 1 and 2 (Pelagian clergy in northern Italy); Ep. 7 (Manichees in Italy);
Ep. 15 (Prisicillianists in Gallicia, Spain). For discussion of these letters, see Bronwen Neil,
“A Crisis of Orthodoxy: Leo I’s Fight Against the ‘Deadly Disease’ of Heresy,” in Ancient Jewish
and Christian Texts as Crisis Management Literature. Thematic Studies from the Centre for
Early Christian Studies, eds David Sim and Pauline Allen (London, 2012), pp. 144–58.
52 Felix III, Ep. 5 (ed. Andreas Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum genuinae et quae
ad eos scriptae sunt a s. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, Fasciculus I [1867; repr. Hildesheim,
2004], p. 242). LP (1:252), tells us that he was born in Rome, son of the cleric Felix, priest
of the titulus of Fasciola.
14 bronwen neil

be due to the fact that Gelasius was of African origin.53 Gelasius penned
letters for his predecessor Felix III (e.g. Ep. 14), and we find letters written
in Gelasius’ name even before he became bishop (Ep. 1, Tract. 1).
Most of Gelasius’ surviving letters concern the Acacian schism, con-
tinuing his predecessor’s excommunication of Acacius and his followers.
He also took up the pen against the resurgence of Pelagianism in Dalmatia
(Epp. 4 and 5), and in a letter to the bishops of Picenum described it as
“more dangerous” than the Gothic incursions against Rome’s neighbour-
ing provinces in the same year (Ep. 6). Religious controversy continued to
prevail in importance over all other crises, even war.
However, the Gelasian corpus provides evidence of papal activity on
behalf of many individuals, of varied social backgrounds. Five letters deal
with cases of slaves or indentured labourers who have been illegitimately
ordained to the clergy (Epp. 20–24). Gelasius intervenes with two Italian
bishops on behalf of a nobleman, Amandianus, some of whose bonds-
men have been ordained and are now priests or deacons (Ep. 20). Gelasius
issues a decree about two slaves belonging to a noblewoman, Placidia,
who had complained to the pope that her slaves were ordained when their
mistress was absent. Two letters take up the case of two former slaves
who claim to have been manumitted before they were ordained, but were
now being reclaimed by their former master’s heir, one Theodora (Epp.
23 and 24). The clerics had lodged a tearful complaint of violent oppres-
sion by their new mistress. Two brief letters, which Thiel calls creditor’s
receipts (apochae),54 show Gelasius managing the Roman Church’s finan-
cial affairs, much as we later see Gregory doing.
Very few letters in the 5th-century corpus pertain to the distribution
of church funds to the poor. Simplicius established the fourfold distri-
bution of funds known as the quadraticum, with a quarter being dedi-
cated to the needs of the poor.55 Gelasius directs the bishops of Sicily
to distribute church funds to the needy in the following order: widows,
orphans, paupers, and clerics; the remainder they may claim for them-

53 LP (1:255) claims that he was African; Gelasius confirms this in Ep. 12 (ed. Thiel, Epis-
tolae Romanorum, p. 350): “sicut Romanus natus Romanum principem amo”; “as one who
is Roman-born, I love the Roman emperor”. Thiel (Epistolae Romanorum, p. 350 n. 5) points
out that Gelasius may have just been referring to his Roman citizenship. However, three
manuscripts read: Romae natus, a phrase which points more explicitly to Roman birth.
54 Gelasius, Ep. 31 and 32 (ed. Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum, pp. 447–48).
55 Gelasius, Ep. 1.2 (ed. Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum, pp. 176–77).
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 15

selves, so that they can offer largesse to pilgrims (peregrini) and captives.56
In this respect, we can see that a real change in papal leadership style was
effected by the time of Gregory I, with his increased interest in the fates
of various impoverished widows, disabled persons, runaway slaves, and
others who sought refuge or material aid from the Roman Church.
The major letter collections of the early- to mid-6th century are those of
Hormisdas (514–23) and Vigilius (537–55), which are narrowly concerned
with the Acacian schism and the Three Chapters controversy respectively.57
The brief pontificate of Agapitus (535–36), probably an ancestor of Gre-
gory’s, demonstrates more concern with clerical discipline in the seven
letters which survive.58 In two of them Agapitus addresses the continuing
struggle against the Arian heresy in North Africa.59 The most interesting is
his letter to Caesarius of Arles, perhaps a response to Caesarius’ request for
funds to help the poor, where Agapitus rules that church property cannot
be alienated to help another, but that he will furnish funds to Caesarius.60
The library of Agapitus, which Gregory transferred to his new abode in the
Lateran palace, may well have contained these seven letters.61

Pelagius I and Pelagius II

The correspondence of Pelagius I, consisting of ninety-six surviving
letters from his five year pontificate, indicates that the shift to “micro-
management” had taken place. Pelagius tried to combat famine in Rome
by giving away the produce and revenues of papal estates (Ep. 4.9). This
is one of very few references in the Roman epistolary record to the waves
of plague and famine that wracked Italy from the 540s. Pelagius I also

56 Gelasius, Ep. 17.1 (ed. Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum, pp. 381–82). See also Gelasius, frag.
20 (ed. Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum, pp. 494–95).
57 Hormisdas: 67 letters (ed. Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum, pp. 741–990). Vigilius: 19 let-
ters (PL 69:15–68).
58 Moorhead, “On Becoming Pope,” 281, argues that Agapitus was very probably
another member of Gregory’s family; Henri-Irénée Marrou, “Autour de la bibliothèque de
Pape Agapit,” Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’École française de Rome 48 (1931),
125–69, at 131, claimed the opposite. Gregory’s and Agapitus’ fathers shared the same name,
Gordianus.
59 Agapitus, Ep. 3 (ed. Otto Guenther, Collectio Avellana, CSEL 135:330–47); Ep. 4 (CSEL
135:347).
60 Ep. 5 (PL 66:46).
61  The transfer is witnessed by an inscription in the new library: Marrou, “Autour,”
167; cf. E. Giuliani and C. Pavolini, “La ‘Biblioteca di Agapito’ e la Basilica di S. Agnese,” in
William V. Harris, The Transformation of Urbs Roma in Late Antiquity, Journal of Roman
Archeology Supplement 33 (Portsmouth, RI, 1999), pp. 85–107, at 103–06.
16 bronwen neil

appealed to the praetorian prefect of Africa, Boethius, complaining in a

letter of 560 about the size of the refugee problem and the devastation of
Italy in the Gothic wars.62 In 556 he begged the bishop of Arles, Sapau-
dus, to send him supplies of clothing for the citizens of Rome: even the
formerly wealthy had not enough to wear.63
The trend continued in Pelagius II’s (579–90) six surviving letters, four
of which are transmitted only in Gregory’s Registrum.64 In one, addressed
to the future pope Gregory,65 Pelagius II instructed his deacon and apoc-
risiarius Gregory to petition Emperor Maurice for military aid against the
Lombard attacks in Italy. His appeal was sadly unsuccessful. In 590 Pela-
gius II died of the plague, a malign by-product of the floods that engulfed
Italy in 589 to 591.
It seems then from a comparison of the 5th-century corpora with the
6th-century correspondence of Agapitus, Hormisdas, Pelagius I, and Pela-
gius II, that increasing use was made of letters by the papacy from the 6th
century onwards as tools of patronage, as well as for exercising pastoral
care. These letter collections indicate that Gregory’s letter-writing on a
variety of administrative and spiritual subjects was the continuation of a
tradition begun by Leo I. The keeping of a papal register by Gregory’s
scrinium had gained a higher priority, but what survives—approximately
one letter per week for nearly fourteen years—is probably only a fraction
of his total epistolary output.
As in the preceding centuries, there are almost no letters to individuals
resident in the city of Rome.66 The letters of Gregory, who came from an
old Roman family that had generated a previous bishop of Rome, dem-
onstrate his fulfilment of all the normal duties of an elite patron, making
many bequests of money, food, grain, and wine to the needy, many of
whom were impoverished elites, their widows and children. His exercise
of such duties will be discussed below, together with his spiritual leader-
ship of his subjects, which was inextricably bound up with his more pas-
toral concerns for his subjects in Italy and in the wider Church.

62 Pelagius I, Ep. 85 (eds Pius M. Gassó and Columba M. Batlle, Pelagii I Papae epistulae
quae supersunt (556–561), Scripta et Documenta 8 [Montserrat, 1956]), pp. 207–08.
63 Pelagius I, Ep. 4 (eds Gassó and Batlle), pp. 11–13.
64 Three of Pelagius II’s letters were addressed to Elias of Aquileia and the other bish-
ops of Istria seeking unity on the Three Chapters question (eds Paul Ewald and Ludwig M.
Hartmann, MGH Epp. 2, Appendix 3 [Berlin, 1899], pp. 442–67).
65 Pelagius II, Ep. 2 (MGH Epp. 2, pp. 440–41). October 584.
66 Jean Durliat, “Gregory I,” The Papacy: An Encyclopedia, ed. Philippe Levillain, trans.
from French, vol. 2 (London—New York, 2002), pp. 639–42, at 640.
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 17

Spiritual Leader and Administrator of the Dioceses Subject to Rome

Gregory’s challenges in leading the churches of Italy and Sicily included

maintaining clerical discipline and imposing degrees of penance for
infringements; making shrewd episcopal appointments, especially in Sic-
ily; managing the papal patrimonies and their slave labour force; and
managing crises such as famine, flood and plague, and the threat of war.

Clerical Discipline
Gregory was no stranger to problems among the clergy of his far-flung dio-
ceses. In two sermons in his commentary on the Gospel of John, Gregory
admonishes bishops for various crimes,67 but, as Deliyannis notes, “Greg-
ory is more concerned with the crime of remaining silent in the face of
sin among the flock . . . than with outright financial corruption.”68 Gregory
condemned the sale of clerical office (the “simoniac heresy”) in sees out-
side Rome’s authority in Reg. 5.16 (in eastern Illyricum), Reg. 5.58 (in Gaul),
and Reg. 9.135, 11.28 and 13.44 (in the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem respectively).69 The Roman Church was not alone in these
vices. Agnellus’ chapter on Gregory’s counterpart in Ravenna, Marinian,
gives a comprehensive list of similar clerical abuses, including simony,
bribery, fraud, and unfair arbitration of cases:70
[Marinian] was not like others, who devour the possessions of the Church
for episcopal honor, who even take bribes of[f] another, and become debt-
ors. And if a dispute arises between two persons, they so traffic in the dignity
of their honor, as to sell out one of the parties. And they send spies between
each other, to find out how much money the other wants to give.
Rome acted as a court of appeal for bishops and priests from Antioch,
Alexandria, and Constantinople.71 A bishop could only be deposed for

67 Hev. 14.2–3 (CCSL 141:97–99) seeking temporal rewards from clerical office; and 17.14
(CCSL 141:129) stealing property; seeking earthly glory.
68 Deliyannis, CCCM 199, p. 40.
69 Cf. HEv. 17.13 (CCSL 141:126–27).
70 LPR 100, trans. Deliyannis, pp. 215–16 (CCCM 199:268): “Non fuit iste ut ceteri qui
res ecclesiae deuorant pro episcopati honore, etiam alterius sumunt munera, et debitores
fiunt. Et si contingerit orta intentio de duabus personis, sic mercantur sui honoris digni-
tatem, quomodo aliquem uenundent. Et mittunt inter se exploratores, quantam ille largire
pecuniam uult.”
71  George Demacopoulos, “Gregory the Great and the Sixth-Century Dispute over the
Ecumenical Title,” Theological Studies 70 (2009), 600–21, at 604–05 discusses in detail the
cases of John of Chalcedon and Athanasius of Isauria, found guilty of heresy by a Synod of
18 bronwen neil

his crimes, and not for health reasons, even if he had lost his mind, as
Bishop Aetherius of Lyons alleged of one of his confreres. Not even Queen
Brunichild’s wish that the bishop be deposed convinced Gregory, although
he conceded that this unnamed bishop should be allowed to resign
voluntarily.72
Gregory wrote various letters concerning the treatment of clerics who
were undergoing the sacrament of penance. He admonished the subdea-
con Peter, his vicar in Sicily, to see to it that Marcellus of the Barutanian
church, who had been assigned penance in the monastery of St. Adrian
in the Sicilian city of Panormus, be given sufficient food, clothing, and
bedding, and that provision also be made for Marcellus’ manservant
(Reg. 1.18). A second letter was addressed to the same Peter concerning
the disposal of property belonging to lapsed clergy who were undergo-
ing penance (Reg. 1.44). These clergy were to be housed in monasteries
with sufficient resources to support themselves. The third was addressed
to Bishop Venantius in Luna, Etruria, in November 594, recommending
that the deposed deacon and abbot of the Port of Venus should never
be restored to sacred orders.73 Gregory also ruled there that sub-deacons
could never be restored to their office, although they might receive com-
munion among the laity.74 In a letter to Bishop Constantius of Milan, he
advises: “If permission is granted to the lapsed to return to their orders, the
strength of canonical discipline is doubtless shattered, since no one will
fear to conceive the desire for evil acts if there is hope of restoration.”75

Control of Episcopal Appointments

Part of the way that Gregory extended his powers throughout Italy was
through control of episcopal elections, especially in the remote islands

Constantinople. See also Chris Hanlon, “The Horizons of a Bishop’s World: The Letters of
Gregory the Great,” in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church 4: The Spiritual Life, eds
Wendy Mayer, Pauline Allen, and Lawrence Cross (Strathfield, NSW, 2006), pp. 339–49,
at 341.
72 Reg. 13.7; 13.8. The case is discussed by John A. Eidenschink, The Election of Bishops in
the Letters of Gregory the Great, Canon Law Studies 215 (Washington DC, 1945), pp. 57–58.
73 Cf. Reg. 5.18 (CCSL 140:286), where the deacon is identified as Jobinus.
74 Reg. 5.17 (CCSL 140:284). Similarly, Reg. 4.26 to Januarius (CCSL 140:245). Both letters
(Reg. 5.17 and 5.18) are discussed by Patrick Saint-Roch, La Pénitence dans les Conciles et
les lettres des papes des origines à la mort de Grégoire le grand, Studi di antichità cristiana
(Vatican City, 1991), p. 173 et passim.
75 Reg. 5.18 (CCSL 140:285): “Si lapsis ad suum ordinem reuertendi licentia concedatur,
uigor canonicae procul dubio frangitur disciplinae, dum spe reuersionis prauae actionis
desideria quisque concipere non formidat.”
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 19

of Sicily and Corsica which were under Roman control.76 Challenges to

Gregory’s authority from the dioceses of Sicily required him to articulate
the basis for the authority he claimed over Italian bishops. He spent the
first five years of his pontificate installing his own candidates in vacated
sees subject to Rome, but then stepped back, allowing incumbents to do
their jobs there with less interference. His hasty appointment of Peter
as papal vicar to oversee the patrimonies and appointment of bishops
in Sicily upon his consecration in September 590 was a case in point.
Maximian of Syracuse was appointed to replace him just over a year
later.77 The papal estates in Italy and Sicily were important sources of
revenue for the pope’s “good works”, providing food, clothing, shelter, and
alms to the poor, as well as financially supporting the clergy.
Gregory’s intervention in appointments outside of Rome’s control is a
more striking novelty. In Sardinia, he instructed the metropolitan bishop
not to appoint all bishops from the clergy of his own church in Cagliari.78
In the powerful see of Milan, Gregory rejected King Agilulf ’s chosen can-
didate, since the king was an Arian.79 Gregory’s choice, Deusdedit, was
unanimously elected. He tried unsuccessfully from 593 to 594 to prevent
Constantinople from installing its own candidate, Maximus, in Salona, an
archbishopric in Croatia that had long been filled by Rome’s candidates.80

Slavery
The possession of slaves by the Church of Rome on its extensive rural
estates made the pope perhaps the biggest slave-owner in the western
Empire. The papal patrimony had been amplified by the acquisition of
Arian churches and estates formerly owned by the Ostrogoths. Several of
Gregory’s letters respond to appeals against agents (actores) whose job it
was to acquire papal slaves. In Reg. 1.53 Gregory seeks to help Gaudiosus
and his wife Sirica, an ex-slave, whose sons have been claimed as slaves by
the papal agents. Sirica claims that she had been manumitted before she

76 Eidenschink, Election, pp. 29–44; on Sicilian elections, see Richards, Popes and the
Papacy, pp. 342–62, esp. 361: “Of the 14 elections known to have occurred in Sicily under
Gregory, six, including Boniface of Rhegium’s appointment to Carina, were certainly Gre-
gorian patronage appointments; two were probably so (Trajan of Melita and John of Pano-
rum) and one was possibly (Secundinus of Tauromenium).”
77 Peter: Reg. 1.1 (CCSL 140:1); Maximian: Reg. 2.5 (CCSL 140:93) and 4.11 (CCSL 140:228–
30).
78 Reg. 14.2 to his defensor in Sardinia (CCSL 140A:1067).
79 Reg. 11.6 to the Milanese clergy (CCSL 140A:868).
80 Demacopoulos, “Sixth-Century Dispute,” pp. 606–07.
20 bronwen neil

gave birth to the boys,81 which made her sons freeborn. Gregory’s interests
were not confined to Romans. He intervened on behalf of a debt-ridden
Syrian whose sons had been sold into slavery (Reg. 4.43). He authorized
his agents to buy slaves from the pagan Barbaricini in Sardinia to work
in a Roman parish’s ministry to the poor (Reg. 9.124).82 His rulings on
the ownership of Christian slaves firmly endorse the Justinianic principle
that “no Jews are permitted to have Christian slaves”,83 while eschewing
fines or the death penalty imposed by Justinianic law—Serfass demon-
strates that his major concern is the Christian slaves’ spiritual welfare.84
Conversely, Jewish slaves of Christian masters who refused to convert to
Christianity could be punished by torture (Reg. 9.205).

Crisis Management: Famine, Flood, Plague and War

Gregory’s many letters are rich in material that is conspicuously absent in
the letters of early 6th-century Roman bishops. For instance, Gregory peti-
tioned the emperor on behalf of Sardinian landowners who were unable
to bear the increasing burden of imperial taxes. After the flooding of the
Tiber River in 589, he petitioned the governor of Sicily for grain supplies,
desperately needed in the capital buffeted by waves of plague and famine.
Gregory’s successor Sabinian (604–06) charged such extortionate prices
for grain at a time of serious famine that the Roman citizenry tried to dis-
rupt his funeral procession with a riot. The author of LP glosses over this,
merely mentioning that Sabinian opened the church’s granaries and made
corn available for the price of thirty modii for one solidus.
Gregory also helped the nameless poor of Rome through distributions
of food—grain, wine, cheese, vegetables, meat, fish, and oil—and sending
out from the Lateran palace a “meals on wheels” service for the sick. How-
ever, the record of such actions is preserved in his 9th-century Vita, not in
his Registrum. It is Gregory’s interventions on behalf of the déclassé rich
in the Vita Gregorii that have been noted in recent scholarship.85

81  Sirica’s manumission was given by her mistress via letter: Reg. 1.53 (CCSL 140:66).
82 Serfass, “Slavery,” 87.
83 Reg. 2.45 (CCSL 140:137): “eis [Hebraeis] Christiana mancipia habere non liceat”. See
also Reg. 4.21 to Venantius, bishop of Luna in Etruria (CCSL 140:239).
84 Serfass, “Slavery,” 99.
85 Vita Gregorii 2.28 (PL 75:97C); Peter R.L. Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later
Roman Empire, The Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures (Hanover NH—London, 2002),
p. 60 and n. 64.
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 21

Richards singles Gregory out from other bishops of Rome as one whose
exercise of charity extended far beyond the city itself, and to people of all
backgrounds and conditions.86 In his letters we find Gregory helping the
formerly wealthy as often as he helped the perennially poor: gentlewomen
of Campania (1.39), a governor who had fled his office in Samnium (2.28),
a lawyer from Naples (9.136), the blind son of a farmer-soldier (colonus)
(3.55), a debt-ridden Syrian whose sons had been sold into slavery (4.43),
and the children of a Jewish convert, already mentioned above.87 The ref-
ugees with whom he shared his table were almost certainly of the upper
class.88 Gregory’s annual subsidy of 80 pounds of gold for 3000 Roman
nuns89 can be seen as contributing to the welfare of the Church in the
same way as his financial support for clerics. The main focus in the Regi-
strum, however, is on Gregory’s interventions on behalf of the (formerly)
rich and the clergy.
Formerly wealthy recipients of Gregory’s largesse include Filimuth,
“son of a most worthy gentleman, who is blind and short of provisions”,
to whom Gregory allocates 20 casks of wine, 24 measures of wheat and
12 of beans.90 In several letters, we find Gregory intervening on behalf of
rich widows, including Theodora the widow of Petronius, a former church
secretary (Reg. 1.63), and Palatina (Reg. 1.57).91 In a petition to the exarch
of Africa, Gregory advocates for clerics in Porto Torres, Sardinia, who—
along with the unnamed poor—have been badly hit by sharp rises in the
cost of commodities.92 Pastor, who is nearly blind but has to support a
wife and slaves, receives a gift of wheat and beans.93 The bishops of Sic-
ily are exempted from transport payments imposed by “false defenders
(defensores) of the apostolic see”.94 Jewish converts to Christianity also

86 Richards, Popes and the Papacy, p. 54.

87 Reg. 1.39; 2.38; 3.55; 4.28; 4.31; 4.43; 9.136.
88 John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii, 2.24–30 (PL 75:96D–98A).
89 John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii 2.27 (PL 75:97B–C); Brown, Poverty and Leadership,
p. 60, states that they were refugees who had settled in Rome, citing (n. 62) Reg. 7.23 (CCSL
140A:476).
90 Reg. 1.44 (CCSL 140:58): “<Filimuth uirum dignissimum> non solum amissione uisus
sed etiam inopie uictus egestatem pati conspeximus . . .”. We note that the phrase “uirum
dignissimum” is not present in all manuscripts, and is found only in the apparatus criticus
of CCSL 140:58 l. 6.
91  Theodora: CCSL 140:73; Palatina: CCSL 140:69. See also Reg. 1.60; 1.61; 1.62 (CCSL
140:71–73).
92 Reg. 1.59 (CCSL 140:70–71).
93 Reg. 1.65 to Peter, a cleric (CCSL 140:74–75).
94 Reg. 1.68 (CCSL 140:77): “simulantes se sedis apostolicae defensores”; cf. 9.22 to the
defensor Romanus (CCSL 140A:582).
22 bronwen neil

merited Gregory’s charitable concern. Cyriacus and his wife, a Jewish con-
vert, bore a letter of recommendation to Gregory’s vicar in Sicily, so that
they might be treated fairly.95
In the crisis caused by the Lombard threat to Rome, Gregory undertook
various actions typically assigned to the emperor: appointing comman-
dants for imperial garrisons charged with defending Rome in 592, paying
the imperial garrison from the church’s treasury, buying peace from the
duke of Spoleto for 500 pounds of gold, and negotiating peace between
the new exarch of Italy and the Lombards in 598. Logan sums up the
pope’s achievements in the theatre of war this way:96
When the Lombard duke of Spoleto threatened Rome, it was Gregory who
took control, dispatched troops and tactical advice to the imperial com-
mander in the field. When in 592 the exarch [Romanus] refused to appoint
commandants at Lepe and Naples, which were key to the imperial defences
of Rome, it was Gregory who sent Leontius and Constantius to take charge
of the imperial garrisons. When, at the same time, the garrison in Rome
was near mutiny for lack of pay, it was Gregory who paid them from the
church’s treasury.
For Logan, these achievements are proof of a shift to a medieval model of
leadership, in which the bishop of Rome exercised powers equivalent to
those of a secular monarch. However, he is right to judge Gregory’s actions
as extensions of pastoral care to the practical end of securing the safety
and well-being of the people of Rome, rather than enlarging the power of
the papacy for its own sake.97 For Gregory, as for Leo the Great, the city
and its people were coterminous with the Church of Rome.98

Relationship with the Wider Church

Gregory’s relationship with the emperor in Constantinople and the

imperial exarch in Ravenna proved equally challenging as his domes-
tic concerns. Gregory sought to maintain his authority within the wider
Church through his rulings on doctrinal controversies, and his missions to
churches in England, Lombardy and Francia.

95 Reg. 1.69 to Peter the Subdeacon (CCSL 140:77–78).

96 Logan, History of the Church, p. 50.
97 Logan, History of the Church, p. 50.
98 E.g. Leo I, hom. 82B on the Feast of the Apostles, trans. Neil, pp. 115–18 (ed. Antoine
Chavasse, Sancti Leonis magni Romani pontificis tractatus septem et nonaginta, CCSL 138A
[Turnhout, 1973], pp. 508–18).
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 23

Gregory’s relationship with the Church of Constantinople has been

treated by Matthew dal Santo in this volume, so here we will limit our
focus to imperial approval of Gregory’s election. In the late-6th century
the bishop of Rome’s relationship with Constantinople was increasingly
conditioned by its relations with the Lombards. The impact of the Lom-
bard invasions even disrupted the traditional request for the Byzantine
emperor’s approval of a papal candidate before his consecration. Relations
with Constantinople had reached an all-time low during the pontificate
of Vigilius (537–55), who had recanted on the Three Chapters Controversy,
and refused to follow the emperor’s decree on the matter. The archdeacon
Pelagius (later Pelagius I) had been the candidate of Narses, chosen to
replace the recalcitrant Vigilius. As a consequence, he was not accepted
by the Roman clergy or the nobility, and the Roman bishops refused to
ordain him. “Since there were no bishops who would ordain him, two bish-
ops were found, John of Perusia and Bonus of Ferentinum, and Andrew,
a priest from Ostia; these ordained him pontiff ”.99 Without a church to
lead, Pelagius I had to avow his innocence in public before the entire
populace and the plebs, before they would enter into communion with
him. The Lombard incursions posed another major problem to bishops
of Rome from 567, with one major northern Italian city after another fall-
ing to the invaders. According to LP, “[Pelagius II] was ordained without
the emperor’s mandate because the Lombards were besieging Rome and
causing much devastation in Italy.”100 Gregory’s own election took almost
seven months to be ratified.101
Rome’s relationship with Ravenna continued to be vexed by disagree-
ment and rivalry during Gregory’s pontificate, and these long-standing
difficulties were obvious in Gregory’s fraught relationship with the Byzan-
tine exarch Romanus.102 In 595 Romanus accused the pope of treason for
negotiating an armistice with the Lombards in his absence, earning the

99 Trans. Davis, p. 61 (LP 1:303): “Et dum non essent episcopi qui eum ordinarent,
inventi sunt duo episcopi, Iohannis de Perusia et Bonus de Ferentino et Andreas presbiter
de Hostis et ordinaverunt eum pontificem.”
100 Davis, trans., p. 63 (LP 1:309): “Hic ordinatur absque iussione principis eo quod Lan-
gobardi obsederunt civitatem Romanam et multa vastatio ab eis in Italia fieret.”
101  Gregory’s election was not ratified by the emperor until September, almost seven
months after the death of Pelagius II from the plague. Gregory wrote to the emperor
Maurice asking to be excused from the office of pope, according to Gregory of Tours,
HF 10.1 (MGH SSRM 1.1.2, p. 478).
102 See Markus, Gregory the Great and his World, pp. 104–06.
24 bronwen neil

pope a reprimand from Emperor Maurice for foolishness.103 By waiting

until he had the new exarch’s approval for the new peace he had negoti-
ated with the Lombards in 598, Gregory demonstrated his loyalty to the
Byzantine Empire.
The Church of Ravenna claimed certain privileges that not even Rome
could contest. Gregory’s success in installing his own candidate in the see,
the Roman monk from Gregory’s monastery of St. Andrew’s, Marinian,
caused widespread disquiet, not least with the exarch whose wishes he
opposed. A long-running dispute between Gregory and John II of Ravenna
over the latter’s right to wear the pallium—a stole that symbolized Roman
episcopal authority—revealed the cracks in the apparent good relation-
ship between the two sees. Ravenna was a metropolitan see, meaning that
it could ordain its own bishops. Previous popes had conferred the pallium
on Ravenna’s bishop, but John II assumed the right to wear it at all times,
according to the eastern custom, as he claimed, and not just in the Mass.
He did not wait for Gregory to give him permission, and refused to change
his behaviour in the face of threats from Gregory that he would have to
render his account to God at the last judgement. Presumably Rome liked
to confer the pallium in order to preserve a semblance of authority over
such a powerful neighbour. Eidenschink’s claim that the primacy of the
pope over the entire church at this time was unquestioned seems to me to
be invalid, even though he was right to say that Gregory “made frequent
use of his rights as successor of St. Peter”.104 Rather, Gregory objected to
John of Constantinople’s arrogation of the title of “universal patriarch”,
reminding him that only Rome, Alexandria and Antioch could claim apos-
tolic credentials, due to their close links with St. Peter, while Constan-
tinople’s second place of honour depended on imperial authority.105 He
refused the same title for himself, arguing to Eulogius of Alexandria that if
one patriarch is called universal, the title is diminished for the rest of the
patriarchs.106 “My honour is the honour of the universal Church. My hon-
our is the solid strength of my brethren. Then have I truly been honoured,

103 Reg. 5.36 (CCSL 140:304–05). Gregory remarked to Sebastian, a bishop in Dalmatia,

that the exarch’s ill-will towards him was “worse than Lombard swords”: Reg. 5.40 (CCSL
140:319): “Breuiter tamen dico quia eius in nos malitia gladios Langobardorum vicit.”
104 Eidenschink, Election, pp. 1–2.
105 For a balanced assessment of the controversy, see Demacopoulos, “Sixth-Century
Dispute,” 620–21.
106 See Hanlon, “Horizons,” pp. 340–42.
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 25

when the honour owed to each individual is not denied.”107 By appealing

to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch to use their influence against
the pride of John IV (582–95) and later Cyriacus (596–606) (Reg. 5.41), and
reiterating the authority of Church councils, Gregory laid the basis for a
real collegiality between the five patriarchs of the pentarchy.108
Gregory’s dispute in Constantinople with Patriarch Eutychius over the
nature of the resurrection body gave him a distaste for Greek sophistry
in theological matters,109 even though his own belief in the fully corpo-
real nature of the resurrection body was eventually upheld by Emperor
Tiberius II. Gregory was also embroiled in the fallout of the Three Chap-
ters controversy. Moorhead notes that Gregory’s identification in Moralia
of the three friends of Job with heretics may indicate disquiet over the
unresolved dispute over the Three Chapters that was greater than is usu-
ally thought.110 Unlike his predecessors Leo, Gelasius, and Hormisdas,
Gregory seems to have become embroiled in such controversies with
some reluctance.
Linked to his concern for doctrinal purity was Gregory’s concern to
convert pagans, Arian Christians and Jews. Gregory’s missions to Eng-
land, the Franks and the Lombards are treated in this volume by Cristina
Ricci. Suffice it to note here that Gregory sent letters of congratulation on
their conversions from Arian to Catholic Christianity to King Reccared of
Spain, and later to Adaloald, future heir to the Lombard throne. Gregory
was also concerned to convert “worshippers of idols” (idolorum cultores),
which included Jews, even at the point of torture, if they happened to be

107 Reg. 8.29 to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, trans. Martyn, 3:525 (CCSL 140A:552):
“Meus namque honor est honor uniuersalis ecclesiae. Meus honor est fratrum meorum
solidus uigor. Tunc ego uere honoratus sum, cum singulis quibusque honor debitus non
negatur.”
108 Demacopoulos, “Sixth-Century Dispute,” 621: “In sum, Gregory’s correspondence
throughout the controversy denied the universalist claims of any bishop, including the
bishop of Rome; but it also promoted a greater sense of Petrine authority than many con-
temporary Orthodox would be willing to accept.”
109 Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome, p. 11, puts it more strongly: “The affair with Patriarch
Eutychius would cause Gregory to leave Constantinople with a bitter taste for the theologi-
cal speculation of the East that would extend to an almost virulent dislike of the Greek lan-
guage and a deep suspicion toward the disingenuous Orientals.” The dispute is discussed
in Matthew dal Santo’s chapter infra.
110 John Moorhead, Gregory the Great, The Early Church Fathers (Abingdon—New
York, 2005), p. 27.
26 bronwen neil

slaves of Christian masters.111 If they were freeborn, Jews were to be pro-

tected from forced conversions.112

Conclusion: A Byzantine Model of Leadership?

In the pontificate and crisis-management style of Gregory the Great we

find a long process of transition to a new style of papal leadership brought
to completion. To what extent did Gregory embody Greek rather than
Roman ideals of episcopal leadership? Some scholars, such as Ekonomou,
emphasize the Byzantine character of his pontificate: “First as a monk and
then as ‘teacher, protector, sustainer, and father of the believers entrusted
to his care’, Gregory patterned himself on the eastern ideal of a bishop.”113
If a Byzantine patriarch was characterized by fidelity to the emperor in
Constantinople, then Gregory was certainly a Byzantine. He had good dip-
lomatic relations with Anastasius of Antioch and with Emperor Maurice,
for whose son he was chosen to be godfather. His distrust of the exarch
Romanus can be explained mostly by the fact that Romanus seemed to
him to put the interests of Ravenna before those of Rome. While Grego-
ry’s allegiances were naturally influenced by his own contact with eastern
monasticism, he reserved the right to make his own judgments on mat-
ters of orthodoxy, rather than blindly following Constantinople’s lead.114
He strongly resisted the claims of Constantinople’s bishop to the title of
“ecumenical patriarch”.
Gregory’s pontificate was not, as Ullmann posited, the beginning of
a distinctly medieval brand of papacy, marked by popes whose secular
authority extended into civil matters and went well beyond the bounds of
the city.115 This extension of powers was, as we have seen, well under way
by the pontificates of Leo and Gelasius in the 5th century. It is implicit in
Gregory’s letters and actions that he respected his predecessor Gelasius’
“two swords” theory, emphasizing the strict separation between the secu-
lar power of the emperor and the spiritual power of the church. That this

111  Reg. 9.205 (CCSL 140A:764).

112 Reg. 1.45 to Virgilius of Arles and Theodore of Marseilles (CCSL 140:59).
113 Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome, p. 24 and n. 243, where he cites Vera von Falkenhausen,
“Bishops,” in The Byzantines, ed. Guglielmo Cavallo, English translation (Chicago, 1997),
p. 172.
114 The same could be said of Popes Leo I and Vigilius.
115 Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the
Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power, 3rd ed. (London, 1970); idem, A Short History
of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London, 1972; repr. 2003).
 the papacy in the age of gregory the great 27

did not prevent Gelasius from being involved in temporal affairs in Rome
is evident from his correspondence. Durliat surely finds the right balance
by making a distinction between how Gregory was perceived in his own
day, and how he was constructed in the Middle Ages:116
In the eyes of his contemporaries, Gregory appeared to be the model of the
western Byzantine patriarch, faithful to the emperor while at the same time
being spokesman for populations placed under his religious and administra-
tive authority, in discussion with the Germanic kings only if their relations
with the sovereign from Constantinople were good or nonexistent. After his
death, he was increasingly presented as the staunch manager of papal patri-
monies that represented the earliest foundations of the Papal States . . . 
Gregory represented the temporal interests of Rome when it became obvi-
ous that these were being neglected by the exarch of Ravenna. Rather
than considering Gregory the first medieval pope, we might better con-
sider him a late-antique patriarch who successfully negotiated the See
of Rome’s right to govern itself independently from Byzantium, the first
bishop of Rome to achieve this status after Justinian’s “restoration” of
Italy. The Gothic wars had freed the bishop of Rome from being a pawn
of the Gothic kings. Rather than being a disillusioned monk giving in to
dispirited apocalypticism in the face of the many threats to Rome and its
church at the turn of the 6th century, Gregory I was a bishop determined
to make the best of a bad situation, with his eye fixed firmly on the affairs
of the Church in this world, as well as on the spiritual health of Rome and
the wider Church.

116 Durliat, “Gregory I,” p. 641. For the view that Gregory is properly seen as a Byzantine
patriarch, see also Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages, pp. 141 and 316.
 Chapter two

Gregory’s Missions to the Barbarians

Cristina Ricci

When Gregory was ordained bishop, Rome—though in theory still one of

the empire’s dual capitals—had become in fact a provincial town, subject
to the imperial government in Constantinople. Its representatives in Italy,
the exarchs based in Ravenna, were sometimes perceived as corrupt and
uninterested in Rome’s fortunes. As a result, Gregory took on a leadership
role that was not only pastoral and spiritual, but also civic and political.1
This combination of roles characterized his relationships with the Lom-
bards, Visigoths, Franks and Anglo-Saxons settled in the territories of the
former Roman Empire.
In order to avoid misunderstandings in such an ideological “mine-
field” as that of the relationships between the Romans and other peoples,
a few preliminary clarifications on the use of some terms derived from
our sources are appropriate. Gregory used the terms gentes and barbari
to refer to non-Romans, following a terminology common in the Latin
sources.2 The term “barbarians”, devoid of its original negative connota-
tions, will thus be used here, in addition to “Germans”, when referring
to peoples such as the Lombards, Visigoths, Franks and Anglo-Saxons.3

1 For a recent overview of Byzantine Italy and the functions carried out by Gregory,
see Rade Kisić, Patria Caelestis. Die eschatologische Dimension der Theologie Gregors des
Großen (Tübingen, 2011), pp. 37–52; Bronwen Neil, “The Papacy in the Age of Gregory the
Great”, and Matthew Dal Santo, “Gregory the Great, the Empire and the Emperor”, both in
this volume. With regards to Gregory, I will use the terms “bishop” (of Rome) and “pontiff ”
interchangeably.
2 E.g. HEz. 1.11.6 (CCSL 142:171 l. 143): barbarorum gladiis; Dial. 3.6.2 (SC 260:278 l. 15): rex
barbarus; Reg. 6.51 (CCSL 140:423 l. 4): gens referred to a non-Roman people; for gentes with
the meaning of “pagans”, see Mor. 7.10.11 (CCSL 143:342); Mor. 18.31.50 (CCSL 143A:918) etc.
In general, see Ilona Opelt and Wolfgang Speyer, “Barbar I,” RAC Suppl. 1 (2001), 811–95.
3 Defining “barbarian” or “German” identities in Late Antiquity is complicated because
of the multiplicity of factors involved (language, culture, ethnic descent, political organi-
zation etc.). Current-day social and political issues have also impinged. See Walter Pohl,
Die Germanen (München, 2000), pp. 1–10; Ian Wood, “Barbarians, Historians, and the Con-
struction of National Identities”, Journal of Late Antiquity 1 (2008), 61–81. For a brief up-
to-date account on the Visigoths, Lombards, Franks and Anglo-Saxons see Hans-Werner
30 cristina ricci

Furthermore, following Gregory’s terminology, we will define as “pagan”

all non-Christian (and non-Judaic) cults. Finally, we will use the term
“Arian” for the type of “Homoean” Christianity widespread among the
“Germans” and distinct from the “Nicene” Christianity professed by the
Roman Church.

Gregory and the Visigoths4

The Visigoths came to south-western Europe (first Italy, then southern

Gaul) near the beginning of the 5th century, and by the middle of the
6th had established their sovereignty over most of Spain in the so-called
Kingdom of Toledo. In 589, King Reccared (586–601) convoked a council
of Spanish bishops (subsequently called the Council of Toledo). The coun-
cil sanctioned the official acceptance of Catholicism by the Visigoths, who
were mostly Arian. This turning point followed the conversion of Recca-
red himself who, after succeeding his father Leovigild (568–86), adopted
religious policies opposed to those of Leovigild, a strong supporter of
Arianism. But both kings conceived of their opposing policies as pursuing
the same purpose: the integration of their people into the local Hispanic-
Roman population.
The influence of Leander, bishop of Seville (579–601), not only on Recca-
red but also on his brother Hermenegild, was decisive in the shift towards
Catholicism. Hermenegild, after his father had appointed him regent of

Goetz, Europa im frühen Mittelalter 500–1050 (Stuttgart, 2003), pp. 37–40, 44–46, 49–73
(esp. 50–56), and 42–43 respectively.
4 For the Church in Spain, see Knut Schäferdiek, Die Kirche in den Reichen der West-
goten und Suewen bis zur Errichtung der westgotischen katholischen Staatskirche (Berlin,
1967), pp. 137–57, and 192–233. On the people mentioned here and their relationships with
Gregory, see “Ermenegildus,” in The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE), eds
Arnold H.M. Jones and John R. Martindale (Cambridge, 1971–92), 3A:449–50; “Leovigildus,”
PLRE 3B:782–85; “Reccaredus I,” PLRE 3B:1079–80; Georg Jenal, “Ermenegildo” and “Leovi-
gildo,” in Enciclopedia Gregoriana, eds Giuseppe Cremascoli and Antonella Degl’Innocenti
(Florence, 2008), p. 132 and pp. 203–04; Valentina Lunardini, “Leandro di Siviglia,” ibid.,
p. 201; Antonio Cacciari, “Reccaredo,” ibid., p. 291. On Gregory and Spain see also Freder-
ick Homes Dudden, Gregory the Great. His Place in History and Thought, 2 vols (London,
1905), 1:403–14; Jeffrey Richards, Consul of God. The Life and Times of Gregory the Great
(London, 1980), pp. 209–12; Josep Vilella Masana, “Gregorio Magno e Hispania,” in Gregorio
Magno e il suo tempo, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 33–34 (Rome, 1991), 1:167–86;
Domingo Ramos-Lissón, “Grégoire le grand, Léandre et Reccarède,” ibid., 1:187–98; Claudio
Azzara, L’ideologia del potere regio nel papato altomedievale (secoli VI–VIII) (Spoleto, 1997),
pp. 96–100, 143–45; Robert A. Markus, Gregory the Great and his World (Cambridge, 1997),
pp. 164–68; Barbara Müller, Führung im Denken und Handeln Gregors des Grossen (Tübin-
gen, 2009), pp. 95–99.
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 31

Seville, clashed with Leovigild. Among the reasons for this conflict is often
cited Hermenegild’s decision to forsake Arianism, probably prompted by
his own Catholic wife and by Leander.5 In 583, Leovigild besieged Seville
and Cordova and imprisoned his son, whom he then murdered for not
renouncing his new faith.
These dramatic events are narrated in hagiographical tones in Gregory
the Great’s Dialogi, where Hermenegild is called a “king and martyr”6 and
his bloody death is portrayed as a sacrifice destined to produce new con-
versions like that of his brother Reccared and, as a consequence, of his
own people.7
It appears that by 591 Gregory already knew about the conversion of
the Visigoths: in a letter of this time to Leander,8 his friend since a mutual
sojourn in Constantinople (580–c.586) and probably also his best informer
on religious matters in Spain, Gregory urged him to ensure that Reccared
accomplished the good work begun with his acceptance of Catholicism.9
Warm recommendations against pride and in support of orthodoxy in
the Visigothic kingdom are found in the only letter that Gregory wrote to
Reccared, dated August 599.10 The reason why the pontiff wrote this letter
such a long time (ten years) after the Council of Toledo is still an open
question: perhaps because he did not want to interfere in the close but
fragile relationships that existed between the Visigothic monarchy and
the Catholic Roman-Hispanic hierarchy, chiefly represented by Leander.
He may also have been loath to get involved in a diplomatic controversy,
in view of the fact that the Byzantine empire, whose subject Gregory was,
also ruled a strip of coastal Spain.11 However, the delay may simply have
been occasional. In fact, Gregory mentioned some gifts sent by Reccared

  5 See Greg. Tur., HF 5.38 (ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH SSRM 1.1 [Hannover, 1937], p. 244.15–17).
On the reasons for this conflict see Roger Collins, Visigothic Spain, 409–711 (Malden, MA,
2004), pp. 56–58.
  6 Dial. 3.31.5 (SC 260:386): “corpus eiusdem regis et martyris . . . atque ideo ueraciter
regis quia martyris.” For Hermenegild’s story see Dial. 3.31 (SC 260:384–90).
  7 See Dial. 3.31.7–8 (SC 260:388–90). On the contrary, see Leovigild’s case, ibid., 6
(SC 260:388): “uera esset fides catholica agnouit, sed gentis suae timore perterritus ad hanc
peruenire non meruit.”
 8 See. Reg. 5.53a (eds Paul Ewald and Ludwig Hartmann, MGH Reg. 1 [Hannover, 1891],
p. 353) and The Letters of Gregory the Great, trans. John R.C. Martyn, Mediaeval Sources in
Translation 40, 3 vols (Toronto, 2004), 2:379, n. 208.
  9 Reg. 1.41 (CCSL 140:48): “erga eundem suum [scil. Reccaredum] uestra sollertius sancti-
tas uigilet, ut bene coepta perficiat, nec se de perfectis bonis operibus extollat, ut fidem
cognitam uitae quoque meritis teneat.”
10 Reg. 9.229 (CCSL 140A:805–09).
11  Ibid. (CCSL 140A:810–811 ll. 137–151).
32 cristina ricci

that ­initially did not reach their destination because of some obstacles
along the way, but later arrived; hence, he wrote to thank the sovereign,
but above all to offer for his edification a Christian ethic in government,
inspired by the biblical model of the king-shepherd, who rules over the flock
of his subjects with moderation and solicitude for their orthodox faith.
Unlike his extensive dealings with the Lombards, Franks and Anglo-
Saxons, Gregory’s dealings with the Visigoths were infrequent and mainly
transactional. They appear to have been too distant to have played an
important part in any of the pope’s wider objectives. The Visigoths do,
however, seem to have occupied an important place in Gregory’s mind
in connection with Catholic orthodoxy. His letter to Reccared, which
extolled his conversion and represented him as a model and guide for
his people, resonates with the story about Hermenegild that Gregory had
narrated five or six years earlier in the Dialogi.12 As we have seen, Gregory
represented the prince as a “martyr” who died for the faith after revolt-
ing against his heretical father and king, Leovigild. That this story was
designed to strengthen his audience’s commitment to orthodoxy in the
face of “barbarian heresy” is suggested by the fact that it was strategically
inserted among some anecdotes regarding the conflict between Catholic
Romans and Arians or pagans, most of whom were Lombards.13

Gregory and the Lombards14

In 568 the Lombards invaded the Italian peninsula. They settled mainly
in the North, but also gained control of portions of the centre and south,
including the important duchies of Spoleto and Benevento. Rome and
most of the coastal areas remained under imperial control. In Gregory’s
relationship with the Lombards three things are immediately apparent:
the diverse typology of the sources that document this relationship (Regi-
strum epistolarum, Dialogi, Homiliae in Hiezechielem and in Euangelia);

12 The Dialogi were written in 593/94.

13 Dial. 3.27–32 (SC 260:372–92); see also de Vogüé’s introduction to the Dialogi
(SC 251:40).
14 On the Lombards and Gregory’s relationship with them, see Dudden, Gregory,
1:80–98, 158–86, and 2:3–42; Richards, Consul of God, pp. 181–94; Claudio Azzara, “Grego-
rio, i Longobardi e l’Occidente barbarico. Costanti e peculiarità di un rapporto,” Bollettino
dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 97 (1991), 1–74; Markus, Gregory, pp. 97–107
and 137–40; Walter Pohl (ed.), Kingdoms of the Empire: the Integration of Barbarians in
Late Antiquity (Leiden, 1997), pp. 75–77 and 103–12; Müller, Führung, pp. 28–85, 314–18 and
390–91; Martyn, Letters, 1:30–32.
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 33

its wide chronological spectrum, which corresponds to the whole duration

of Gregory’s pontificate; finally the complexity of the personal, political and
pastoral components that characterized this relationship. The Registrum
epistolarum allows us to follow the development of the relationship from
the beginning of Gregory’s papacy until almost the end (from September 590
to December 603).15 The picture that emerges from Gregory’s writings is
enriched by other sources, such as the Historia Langobardorum by Paul
the Deacon (written almost two centuries later) and the Liber Pontificalis,
especially where it deals with Gregory’s biography.16
The beginnings of the “Lombard question” go back to the period before
Gregory’s pontificate; in fact, in a letter of 595 to the Empress Constantina,
he complained that Rome had been afflicted by the Lombards’ swords
for almost twenty-seven years.17 Tales of devastation and abuses carried
out by the Lombards even before the beginning of Gregory’s pontificate
are narrated in the Dialogi. An example is Gregory’s description of the
destruction of the Monte Cassino monastery, apparently based on an
account given to the pontiff by one of the monks who had escaped the
Lombard assault and taken shelter in Rome.18 In narrating such stories,
Gregory bestowed a hagiographical aura on those—bishops, monks, or
ordinary people19—who fell victim to the barbarians’ violence. In so doing,
he probably wanted to show the Catholic faith as a force for resistance
and cohesion in the chaos of a society decimated by massacres—mostly
caused by the Lombards—and lacking any form of protection both at the
social and military level.
An indication of these intentions can be found in the way the author
accounts for cases of opposition by the indigenous Christians towards
pagan cults imposed on them by the Lombard rulers. In this regard, two

15 The first letter (September 590) is Reg. 1.3 (CCSL 140:3–4); the last one (December
603) is Reg. 14.12 (CCSL 140A:1082–83).
16 LP 66 (ed. Louis Duchesne [Paris, 1886–92], 1:312–14). On the relationship between
Gregory and the Lombards and the peace of 598, see Paul. Diac., HL 4.8–9 (MGH SSRL,
pp. 118–20).
17 Reg. 5.39 (CCSL 140:316): “Viginti autem iam et septem annos ducimus, quod in hac
urbe inter Langobardorum gladios uiuimus.”
18 See Dial. 2.17.1–2 (SC 260:192) and the testimony of the Chronicle of the Monte
Cassino monastery written by Leo Marsicanus: Chron. mon. Cas. 1.2 (ed. Wilhelm Watten-
bach, MGH SS 7 [Hannover, 1846; repr. Stuttgart, New York, 1963], pp. 580–81): “Fugientes
itaque ex eodem coenobio fratres, Romam profecti sunt . . . Atque ex concessione Romani
pontificis Pelagii . . . iuxta Lateranense patriarchium monasterium statuerunt.”
19 Isolated examples of martyrdoms caused by the Lombard’s violence are narrated in
Dial. 4.23–24 (SC 265:78–80) (murder of Soranus, abbot of Sora; and the beheading of a
deacon of Marsica).
34 cristina ricci

episodes involving ordinary people are exemplary: in the first, 40 peasants

decline to eat the meat offered by the Lombards to their idols;20 in the
second, 400 prisoners refuse to comply with a pagan rite imposed on them
by the Lombard jailers. This rite can probably be identified as a saraband
in honour of the warrior god Wotan, accompanied by a chant and by the
stabbing of a goat’s skin. After the rite was completed—Gregory wrote—
the enemies stabbed those who, by declining to participate in this blas-
phemous ceremony, chose death in the hope of obtaining eternal life.21
By placing these episodes in a vague but not too distant past (probably
the 570s to 580s) and in unspecified places, the author seems interested in
extolling examples of civil resistance “from the bottom up”, which go back
to the beginnings of the Lombards’ domination and which focus—at least
from the bishop’s perspective, but perhaps also in reality—not on matters
of politics, but on ones of faith and religion.22
These accounts of idolatry are followed by others regarding the Arian
Lombards and their efforts to impose their cult, defined by Gregory as
error, the same term used for the pagan cult.23 This happened in Spoleto,
for example, where the Arian Lombard bishop, unable to obtain a church
from the indigenous Catholics, tried to take possession by force of the
church of St. Paul—perhaps located on the site of the present church of
St. Paul inter uineas.24 When the bishop arrived with his followers at
sunrise one day, the church’s doors miraculously opened wide and the
internal lamps, which had been extinguished the night before by the local
keeper, suddenly turned on with a light diffused from above, blinding the

20 Dial. 3.27 (SC 260:372–74); for the number 40 in the biblical and hagiographic lit-
erature, see ibid., p. 373, note to chapter 27. On pagan rites in the Gregorian Dialogi, see
Stefano Gasparri, La cultura tradizionale dei Longobardi. Struttura tribale e resistenze
pagane (Spoleto, 1983), esp. pp. 45–52.
21  For this episode, which happened around 579 in an unknown place, see Dial. 3.28
(SC 260:374).
22 The idea of civil resistance is suggested also by the expressions used e.g. in Dial.
3.27 (SC 260:372.4–8): “Qui cum ualde resisterent . . . fideliter perstiterunt”; Dial. 3.28
(SC 260:374.9): (the multitude of the prisoners) “obtemperare iussis sacrilegis noluit”.
23 See Dial. 3.28 (SC 260:374 l. 13) and ibid. 29.2 (SC 260:376 l. 9) with reference respec-
tively to the pagan cult involving a goat’s head and the Arian cult.
24 For this episode, see Dial. 3.29.2–4 (SC 260:376–78). With regard to the church of
St. Paul, see Letizia Pani Ermini, “Le vicende dell’alto Medioevo,” in Spoleto. Argomenti di
storia urbana, eds Guglielmo de Angelis D’Ossat and Bruno Toscano (Cinisello Balsamo
[Milan], 1985), pp. 25–42, at p. 29.
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 35

heretic bishop and preventing him from completing his sacrilegious act.
Gregory commented:25
The miracle is noteworthy for the way it took place. The lamps of the church
had at first been extinguished because of the Arian bishop; then, at the very
moment light was restored to the church, the bishop lost his sight.
This epilogue can be read as an example of a re-interpretation of the Bible
in hagiographical form and for present concerns: in fact, the blinding of
the Arian bishop recalls that of Elymas the magician who, having hindered
the apostle Paul’s preaching to the proconsul Sergius Paul, was punished
with blindness (Acts 13:8–11). The miracle performed to the detriment of
the Lombard bishop, based on the dualism “darkness of error” (Arian) /
“light of the truth” (Catholic), seems to convey also a message of religious
politics: if on one hand the pontiff did not explicitly challenge the territo-
rial dominion of the Lombards, on the other he defended the exclusive
rights of indigenous Catholics to the peninsula’s religious space, on which
the rulers advanced their claims in vain.
Some of Gregory’s early letters to Italian bishops suggest that he tried
to attract Lombards to the Roman Church.26 Later, however, he seems to
have aimed above all at peaceful cohabitation with the invaders, which
was necessary to alleviate the sufferings of the indigenous population,
especially those living in the countryside where they were more exposed
to the Lombard raids.27 This emerges from Gregory’s correspondence
with various figures, both members of the clergy and others, includ-
ing the Lombard King Agilulf (590–616) and above all his Catholic wife
Theodelinda. The combination of missionary and political strategies is
particularly evident in the letters to the queen, as will be highlighted later
in this ­chapter.28
In the first months of his pontificate ( January 591), Gregory wrote to
the Italian bishops urging them to promote conversions to Catholicism

25 Dial. 3.29.4 (SC 260:378): “Miro etenim modo res gesta est, ut, quia eiusdem arriani
causa lampades in ecclesia beati Pauli fuerant extinctae, uno eodemque tempore et ipse
lumen perderet et in ecclesia lumen rediret.” (trans. Odo John Zimmermann, Saint Gregory
the Great, Dialogues, Fathers of the Church 39 [New York, 1959], p. 164).
26 See Reg. 1.17 and 2.2 (see below, n. 29 and n. 31).
27 See Reg. 9.66 to Agilulf (November–December 598) (CCSL 140A:622.7–9).
28 See below, text and n. 48 and 57. On the two sovereigns, see “Agilulfus,” PLRE 3A:27–29;
“Theodelinda,” PLRE 3B:1235–36; Antonio Cacciari, “Agilulfo,” in Enciclopedia Gregoriana,
p. 4; Valentina Lunardini, “Teodolinda (or Teodelinda),” in Enciclopedia Gregoriana,
pp. 347–48; Ross Balzaretti, “Theodelinda, ‘most glorious queen’: Gender and Power in
Lombard Italy”, The Mediaeval History Journal 2 (1992), 183–207.
36 cristina ricci

among the Lombards.29 He was worried that those who were not able to
be baptized as Catholics because of the prohibition issued by the recently
deceased King Autharit would die as heretics, unreconciled with God. The
fact that the king had to use his authority to check this process, probably
means that Catholicism was growing among the Lombards—perhaps also
because of the influence of their Roman subjects.30 Gregory supposed that
God had punished Autharit since he died less than a year after promulgat-
ing the aforesaid prohibition and just before Easter, the feast of the resur-
rection and traditional occasion for the celebration of baptisms.
In the same year (591), which was marked by widespread high mortal-
ity, Gregory wrote to the bishop of Narni, Praejecticius, asking him to urge
all those in his diocese, including the Lombards, to convert, abandon their
error and accept the orthodox faith, so that they could free themselves
from spiritual evil and possibly even from a physical one, namely, from
the risk of an impending death.31
These types of warnings demonstrate the duty of pastoral care that
Gregory conceived towards the Lombards. But, naturally, there were also
political implications (as we will see later): the more Lombards accepted
the Nicene faith, the more, it was hoped, causes of conflict with the Cath-
olic subjects would disappear in favour of peaceful cohabitation.
This dual perspective, pastoral and political, helps us better understand
the definition of Langobardorum episcopus that Gregory applied to him-
self in a letter of 591 to John, former consul at Constantinople. The title
not only seems to imply that in the territories that made up his dio-
cesan territorial jurisdiction the Lombards were almost prevailing over
the indigenous peoples, many of whom had been imprisoned or killed; it
also seems to hint at the responsibility, even burden, Gregory felt towards
supervising (according to the etymology of the word episcopus) and lead-
ing to faith a people of pagans and heretics, “whose treaties (sinthichiae)
are swords (spatae) and whose gratitude is revenge”.32

29 Reg. 1.17 (CCSL 140:16–17).

30 See Neil Christie, The Lombards. The Ancient Longobards (Oxford, 1995), p. 185; in
particular on Autharit’s prohibition of baptisms see Dominique Petit, Histoire sociale des
Lombards (Paris, 2003), p. 4; see also “Authari 2,” PLRE 3A:158–59 and the entries “Autari,”
edited by Antonio Cacciari and Georg Jenal, in Enciclopedia Gregoriana, p. 20 and p. 21.
31  See Reg. 2.2 (CCSL 140:90 l. 3) and Reg. 1.17 (CCSL 140:17 l. 7), where the current high
mortality rate is mentioned.
32 Reg. 1.30 (CCSL 140:37): “sicut peccata mea merebantur, non Romanorum sed Lango-
bardorum episcopus factus sum, quorum sinthichiae spatae sunt et gratia poena” (trans.
Martyn, Letters, 1:151). See also Pohl, Kingdoms, p. 75 and Martyn, Letters, 1:151, n. 181. On
the etymology of episcopus and its link to the concept of “supervision, overseeing”, see
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 37

The image of the sword recurs in contexts regarding these barbarians,

often in formulas such as “enemy swords” and “barbarian swords” (hostiles
gladii, barbarorum gladii).33 The sword, apart from its literal meaning, also
has a symbolic value which, already in the Bible, is sometimes connected
to the idea of punitive justice and other times to martyrdom, as in the
case of 400 prisoners slain for rejecting the idolatrous practices imposed
on them.34 Such were the snares laid by the Lombards that the bishop
of Rome called them “wolves” (lupi): like wolves, they caused slaughter
and dispersal of the flock and were the cause of the physical and spiritual
death of many Romans.35
The biblical metaphor of wolves conveys the idea of “barbarian sav-
agery” (barbarica feritas) that Gregory ascribed to the invaders, follow-
ing the negative opinions the Romans held towards Germanic peoples,
whom they also called “barbarians” (barbari).36 The pejorative connota-
tion inherent in this term is also found in Gregory’s writings as a typical
sign of his Roman aristocratic mentality. However, in his case it is linked
more to the Lombards’ religion (namely their pagan or Arian error) rather
than to their ethics or civil status.
The combination of the terms highlighted above (barbari, gladii, lupi)
can also be found in a lamentation contained in Gregory’s 11th homily on
Ezekiel: “I am constrained . . . to groans by the attacking swords of barbar-
ians, and to fear the wolves that lie in wait for the flock entrusted (to me).”37
Here the attack of the Lombard swords could hint at King Agilulf ’s march
against Rome (593), mentioned in the foreword to the second book of
the Homiliae in Hiezechielem,38 or to previous attacks by Ariulf, duke
of Spoleto, denounced by the bishop of Rome in a letter to the bishop of

Christine Mohrmann, Episkopos—speculator, in eadem, Études sur le Latin des Chrétiens

(Rome, 1958–77), 4:231–52.
33 See HEz. 1.11.6 and 26 (CCSL 142:171 l. 103 and 182 l. 505); also Reg. 1.3 (CCSL 140:4
ll. 15–16); 5.37 (CCSL 140:308 l. 16); 5.43 (CCSL 140:328 l. 4); 8.2 (CCSL 140A:516 l. 49); 13.39
(CCSL 140A:1042 l. 25); 13:43 (CCSL 140A:1048 l. 28); Dial. 1.4.21 (SC 260:58 l. 253), and ibid.
3.28 (SC 260:374 l. 12). For the biblical symbol of the sword, see Is. 1:20; Jer. 9:16; Ez. 14:21
and 21:9–11; Matt. 10:34 and 26:52.
34 Dial. 3.28 (SC 260:374) (see above, n. 21).
35 For the biblical symbol of the wolf, see Jer. 5:6; Matt. 7:15; John 10:12; Acts 20:29.
36 With regards to the feritas and crudelitas of the Lombards, see e.g. Reg. 1.48 (CCSL
140:62 l. 7); 3.30 (CCSL 140:176 ll. 10–11); 11.31 (CCSL 140A:920 l. 12); Dial. 3.11.6 (SC 260:296
l. 56).
37 HEz. 1.11.6 (CCSL 142:171): “Cogor . . . de irruentibus barbarorum gladiis gemere, et
commisso gregi insidiantes lupos timere.” (Bronwen Neil’s translation).
38 HEz. 2, praef. (CCSL 142:205): “iam Agilulphum Langobardorum regem ad obsidi-
onem nostram summopere festinantem Padum transisse cognouimus.”
38 cristina ricci

Ravenna.39 More generally, it could refer to the threat continuously posed

to Rome and its surrounding areas by the Lombards.
During 592, Ariulf occupied various cities north and south of Spoleto
(Perugia, Todi, Amelia, Orte, Sutri), interrupting the communication
between Rome and Ravenna. He then moved against the Urbs, undefended
by imperial troops. Hence, the bishop of Rome was forced to defend the
city with arms, and then to begin truce negotiations at the expense of the
Roman Church, which were even so hindered by the exarch,40 who had
initiated military operations to re-conquer the cities that had fallen into
Lombard hands. As a consequence, the Lombard king, Agilulf, intervened
to block the exarch and directed his army first to Perugia and then to
Rome. He besieged the Urbs between the end of 593 and the beginning
of 594. Oppressed by such troubles, Gregory was forced to interrupt his
preaching on Ezekiel in order to concentrate on the urgent needs of the
moment.41
We do not know how the siege ended. According to some chronicles,
Agilulf suspended it out of a sort of reverence for the pope.42 We only
learn from Gregory that in 595 the Lombard king seemed to be willing
to enter into peace negotiations, but the exarch Romanus (590–96) was
opposed to them. Gregory had to avail himself of the mediation of Severus,
scholasticus of the exarch, in order to convince the latter to adopt a more
conciliatory attitude.43 As a result, Gregory carried the burden of dealing
with the invaders and even of ransoming Roman prisoners with Church

39 Reg. 2.38 (July 592) (CCSL 140:122): “Ariulfus ad Romanam urbem ueniens alios
occidit, alios detruncauit.” See also “Ariulfus” (591/592–601/602), PLRE 3A:119–20; Antonio
Cacciari, “Ariulfo,” in Enciclopedia Gregoriana, p. 18.
40 See. Reg. 2.27 and 28 (CCSL 140:113–15), addressed to the magistri militum Vitalian
and Maurice (June 592); on the tribute paid for the truce, see Reg. 5.36 to Emperor Mau-
rice, June 595 (CCSL 140:304–07).
41  See HEz. 2.10.24 (CCSL 142:397).
42 See Auctarii Hauniensis Extrema 17 (ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA Chron. Min.
saec. IV–VII [Berlin, 1892], 1:339): “Postremum [Agilulfus] cum totius robore (robur in H)
exercitus ad obsidionem urbis Romae perrexit ibique cum beatum Gregorium . . . sibi ad
gradus basilicae beati Petri apostolorum principis occurrentem reperisset, eius (cuius in
H) precibus fractus et sapientia atque religionis grauitate tanti uiri permotus ab urbis obsi-
dione abscedit.” See also Markus, Gregory, p. 103; Müller, Führung, p. 285.
43 See Reg. 5.34 to Severus (May 595) (CCSL 140:301–02); also Reg. 5.40 to Sebastian,
bishop of Risano (CCSL 140:319): “Quae . . . de amici uestri domni Romani persona in hac
terra patimur, loqui minime ualemus.” On Gregory’s relationships with the exarchs, see
Martyn, Letters, 1:20–23.
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 39

funds. There is evidence for this in some letters in which Gregory thanked
his benefactors for their financial support.44
Romanus’ successor Callinicus (596–603)45 was more inclined to peace
agreements. He agreed to a pax generalis with King Agilulf and Duke
­Ariulf. The truce was reached thanks to the mediation of Probus, the abbot
of the Roman monasteries of St. Andrew and St. Lucia and a man trusted
by the pontiff.46 Various letters written in 598 refer to these negotiations.
One was addressed to the bishop of Cagliari, who was urged to prepare
against possible attacks by the Lombards before the armistice was signed;
in another, sent to a Ravennan magistrate named Theodore, Gregory com-
plained about the fact that Ariulf, unlike Agilulf, was willing to accept
peace only sub condicione. Gregory therefore declared that he would not
be prepared to add his signature to the truce with Ariulf, afraid as he was
of creating a diplomatic incident with the emperor.47 Not long after this,
however, Gregory thanked King Agilulf and his wife, Theodelinda, for their
commitment to the agreement just reached. He expressed his gratitude to
the queen, who as a Catholic was particularly suitable to mediate between
Gregory and Agilulf. He also expressed his confidence that she could con-
vince her husband to make a pact of amicitia with the empire.48
Six months later ( July 599), Gregory confessed to the bishop of Cagli-
ari his fear that the agreement reached in 598 would not be renewed;49
however, it lasted until March 601, as confirmed by a letter of July 600.50

44 Reg. 5.46 to the benefactor Theodore, the emperor’s physician (CCSL 140:339); 7.23 to
the benefactors Andrew and Theoctista, the emperor’s sister (CCSL 140:477); in Reg. 5.30
to Emperor Maurice (CCSL 140:296–97), Gregory thanked the emperor for the money he
received to deal with situations of penury and infirmity.
45 On the two exarchs, see “Callinicus 10,” PLRE 3A:264–65; “Romanus 7,” PLRE 3B:1092–93.
46 With regard to Probus, see Martyn, Letters, 2:571, n. 129.
47 See the letters written in October 598: Reg. 9.11 to Januarius, bishop of Cagliari, and
9.44 to Theodore, curator in Ravenna (CCSL 140A:572 and 602–03, esp. ll. 28–38).
48 See Reg. 9.66 to Agilulf (CCSL 140A:621–22) and 9.68 to Theodelinda (CCSL 140A:624):
“hortamur ut apud excellentissimum coniugem uestrum illa agatis, quatenus christianae
reipublicae societatem non rennuat. Nam sicut et uos scire credimus, multis modis est
utile, si se ad eius amicitias conferre uoluerit.” On the meaning of amicitia in the relation-
ships between the empire and other peoples, see Verena Epp, Amicitia: zur Geschichte
personaler, sozialer, politischer und geistlicher Beziehungen im frühen Mittelalter (Stuttgart,
1999), pp. 176–86, esp. p. 177.
49 Reg. 9.196 (CCSL 140A:752): “Quia uero non minorem de uobis, quam de nobis solli-
citudinem gerimus, hoc quoque pariter indicandum curauimus, quod finita hac pace Agi-
lulfus Langobardorum rex pacem non faciat.”
50 Reg. 10.16 to Innocentius, Prefect of the Praetorium in Africa (CCSL 140A:845): “sol-
licitudinem uestram desiderato nuntio releuamus, indicantes cum Langobardorum rege
usque ad mensem Martium futurae quartae indictionis de pace propitiante Domino con-
uenisse.”
40 cristina ricci

Once the terms of the truce had expired, it was the exarch Callinicus who
took the offensive again, attacking Parma, subject to the Lombards, and
taking Agilulf ’s daughter captive. Agilulf then joined forces with the Avars
and the Slavs, who were threatening imperial territories in Istria, against
the exarch.51 The resumption of widespread hostilities worried Gregory,
who in February 601 warned the bishops of Sicily of the danger of enemy
invasions, urging them to avert this risk by supplications and good works
appreciated by God.52 In 603, probably after Agilulf laid siege to Mantua,
Cremona and Brexillum, the pontiff, writing to the new emperor, Phocas,
complained that he had had to endure for thirty-five years the incursions
of the Lombards. Here he explicitly described them as crudeles inimicos
(“cruel enemies”)53—elsewhere, he called them inimici nostri (“our ene-
mies”) or hostes (“foes”).54
The new exarch Smaragdus (603–08),55 who succeeded Callinicus,
reached a truce with Agilulf that would expire after Gregory’s death on
12 March, 604. In a letter shortly before his death, the pontiff thanked
Theodelinda and, through her, Agilulf, for helping to reach this goal. He
praised their commitment to peace and expressed his hope that it would
endure into the future; in addition, he congratulated the two sovereigns on
the Catholic baptism of their son, Adaloald.56 This event probably nour-
ished Gregory’s hopes that the Lombards would come nearer to Catholi-
cism. In order to smooth the way for them in this direction, he reassured
the queen about the crucial point in the controversy between the Roman
Church and some churches in northern Italy that were against the con-
demnation of the Three Chapters by Justinian (553), to which latter party
Theodelinda belonged.57 This disagreement on dogma had political impli-
cations: in fact, the churches that rejected the imperial condemnation

51  Reg. 10.15 to Maximus, bishop of Salona (CCSL 140A:842): “Et quidem de Sclauorum
gente, quae uobis ualde imminet, . . . affligor in his quae iam in uobis patior; conturbor,
quia per Histriae aditum iam ad Italiam intrare coeperunt.”
52 Reg. 11.31 (CCSL 140A:919–20).
53 Reg. 13.39 (CCSL 140A:1042–43, esp. ll. 25–30).
54 See e.g. Reg. 11.31 (February 601) (CCSL 140A:919–20) ll. 3–4 (inimicos nostros), ll.
21–22 (saeuientis inimici . . . gladius), and l. 28 (ab hoste).
55 See “Smaragdus 2,” PLRE 3B:1165–66.
56 Reg. 14.12 (CCSL 140A:1082–83).
57 For discussions on dogma in the letters to Theodelinda, see Reg. 4.4 (CCSL 140:220–
21); 4.33 (CCSL 140:252–53) (=5.52 [CCSL 140:346–47]); 14.12 (CCSL 140A:1083). On the con-
troversy over the Three Chapters see Markus, Gregory, pp. 125–42.
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 41

of the Three Chapters, and in particular those in the diocese of ­Aquileia,

used their submission to the Lombards to claim their independence both
from the Roman Church and the imperial government. Theodelinda’s entry
to communion with Rome, Gregory hoped, would bring a rapprochement
between the Lombard rulers and the Roman Church and a significant con-
sequence of this would be the loss of Lombard cover for the northern Italian
dissenters, thereby weakening their resistance and facilitating a resolution
of the schism. This goal was actually reached only after Gregory’s death, at
the Synod of Pavia in 698 under the Lombard king, Cunicpert.58
The unity of the Church and the end of internal divisions was a recur-
ring topic in the correspondence between Gregory and Theodelinda, but
also between the pope and Constantius, bishop of Milan (592–600). With
his friend, Gregory corresponded frequently in regard to the supporters
of the Three Chapters and the queen.59 The delicate role of interlocutor
and mediator that the queen assumed after her marriage to Agilulf (590)
undoubtedly opened avenues of conciliation with the Lombards that the
pontiff did not fail to exploit.
However, as we can infer from the language often used by Gregory in
reference to the Lombards, a certain mistrust towards them persisted. This
feeling was certainly stronger in his initial years as pontiff and, although
it subsequently abated, it would never disappear altogether.60 Gregory’s
mistrust reveals the anxiety which filled his relationships with the invad-
ers and the imperial administration in Italy. Sometimes periods of military
truce seemed to mitigate this feeling of anxiety, other times it was intensi-
fied by a recrudescence of hostilities. An aggravating factor was the fact
that the hostilities came from more than one front, relatively autonomous
one from the other, as with the armistice of 598,61 when the Lombard king
and the dukes of Spoleto and Benevento acted quite separately.62

58 See Ottorino Bertolini, “Riflessi politici delle controversie religiose con Bisanzio nelle
vicende del secolo VII in Italia,” in Caratteri del secolo VII in Occidente, Settimane di Studio
del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 5/2 (Spoleto, 1958), pp. 733–89, at 746–49
and 786–89 on the Synod of Pavia; Azzara, L’ideologia, pp. 106–07.
59 See Reg. 4.2 (CCSL 140:218); 4.3 (CCSL 140:219–20); 4.37 (CCSL 140:257–58); 9.187
(CCSL 140A:743).
60 See Reg. 9.44 (October 598) (CCSL 140A:602): “de eisdem hostibus de quibus suspecti
nunc usque fuimus adhuc et in posterum suspecti sumus”; see also Reg. 8.2 (CCSL 140A:516
ll. 49–50) and 9.206 (CCSL 140A:765).
61  See Reg. 9.44 (CCSL 140A:602–03) (see above, n. 47).
62 Gregory had also contacts with Arechis (or Arogis) from Benevento: see Reg. 9.125
and 127 (CCSL 140A:676 and 677).
42 cristina ricci

The texts we have considered highlight the multi-sided relationship

that Gregory had with the Lombards. It was a relationship which com-
bined the reservations of the Roman towards the “barbarians” with the
pain of the oppressed under an invader’s yoke; but it also combined the
subtlety of the politician, as he dealt with the powerful of his times, with
the pastoral solicitude of the bishop focused on protecting his flock in
every way. The same pastoral solicitude can be seen in Gregory’s corre-
spondence with the Franks and Anglo-Saxons.

Gregory and the Franks63

The Franks lived in the Lower Rhine and in northern Gaul. Under King
Clovis (481/82–511) they expanded their realm to include most of southern
Gaul. They also became the first barbarian people to convert officially to
Catholic Christianity. Upon the death of a Frankish ruler, the kingdom
and the royal title were typically divided among all his male heirs. As a
result, there were frequently several Frankish kings, with seats of power
located in different centres across Gaul. The main divisions were between
Neustria in the north-west, Austrasia in the north-east, Aquitaine in the
south-west and Burgundy in the centre-east of the kingdom. Modern his-
torians use the term “Merovingian” to describe the dynasty descended
from Clovis.64
Gregory’s correspondence with the Franks began in the year follow-
ing the Lombard siege of Rome (593–94).65 The pope’s relationship with
the Frankish political and Church leaders was based on different foun-
dations from the one with the Lombards and the Anglo-Saxons, because
the Franks had mostly been Catholic for almost a century. Hence Gregory

63 On the relationships between Gregory and figures of the Gallic and Frankish world,
see Dudden, Gregory, 2:43–98, esp. pp. 55–98; Richards, Consul of God, pp. 212–16; J. Michael
Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (Oxford, 1983), pp. 114–18; Luce Pietri, “Grégoire le
grand et la Gaule: le projet pour la réforme de l’Église Gauloise,” in Gregorio Magno e il
suo tempo, 1:109–28; Markus, Gregory, pp. 168–77; Martyn, Letters, 1:51–58; Müller, Führung,
pp. 329–31 and 366–79. On the partition of power amongst the Merovingians after the
death of Childebert II and the political implications of their correspondence with Gregory,
see Ian Wood, “Augustine and Gaul,” in St. Augustine and the Conversion of England, ed.
Richard Gameson (Stroud, 1999), pp. 68–82.
64 On the Merovingian Franks, see Ian N. Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751
(London, 1994).
65 A hint at the turbulences caused by the Lombards is found in Reg. 5.60 to Childebert
(August 595) (CCSL 140:362): “Quae etiam dudum scriberem, si uoluntatem meam occupa-
tiones innumerae minime praepedissent.”
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 43

acknowledged their pre-eminence above other German peoples, as he

stated in a letter of 595 to King Childebert II (575–96).66 For this reason,
Gregory repeatedly appealed to the Frankish sovereigns’ responsibility to
protect Catholicism at various levels: promoting its taking root among
their subjects; offering logistical support to the missionaries sent from
Rome to Britain; helping the activity of the presbyter Candidus, sent in
595 to administer the possessions of the Roman Church in Gaul (patrimo-
nium sancti Petri).67
Among the sovereigns who corresponded with Gregory, Childebert II
was the recipient of only two letters, since he died in 596. A longer period
(595–602) was covered by Gregory’s correspondence with Theoderic II
(596–613) and Theodebert II (596–612), Childebert’s sons and successors
in the kingdoms of Burgundy and Austrasia, and with Brunhild, their
grandmother and regent in the government (c.567–613), and finally with
their rival Chlothar II, king of Neustria (584–629).68
The problems confronted in the correspondence with the sovereigns
are present in large part also in the letters that the pontiff sent to Church
leaders of the Frankish kingdom. Among these, Gregory assigned a promi-
nent role to Bishop Virgilius of Arles (580–610), whom he appointed as
his vicar, allowing him to use the pallium and entrusting the supervision

66 Reg. 6.6 (CCSL 140:73–74): “Esse autem regem, quia sunt et alii, non mirum est, sed
esse catholicum, quod alii non merentur, hoc satis est.” (trans. Martyn, Letters, 2:405).
67 Recommendations in favour of Candidus can be found in the following letters sent
to sovereigns and members of the clergy: Reg. 6.5 (CCSL 140:373); 6.6 (CCSL 140:374); 6.51
(CCSL 140:424); 6.52 (CCSL 140:425); 6.54 (CCSL 140:427); 6.55 (CCSL 140:428); 6.56 (CCSL
140:429); 6.59 (CCSL 140:432); 6.60 (CCSL 140:433); 11.44 (CCSL 140A:942). On the patri-
monium Petri in general, see Girolamo Arnaldi, “Patrimonio di s. Pietro,” in Enciclopedia
Gregoriana, pp. 259–63.
68 The first epistle that deals with Frankish issues is Reg. 5.31 (April 595) (CCSL 140:298–9);
the last one is Reg. 13.11 (November 602) (CCSL 140A:1009–11). Wood, “Augustine,” p. 76,
argues that, beyond the known letters, there were others sent to Gregory by the Mero-
vingian sovereigns, now lost. For the approximate use of the geographical designations of
Gallia (the more “Roman” part of the Frankish kingdom, in the South) and Germania (the
northernmost region) in the Gregorian epistolary, see Robert A. Markus, “The Chronology
of the Gregorian Mission to England: Bede’s Narrative and Gregory’s Correspondence,”
Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14 (1963), 16–30, at 27; repr. in idem, From Augustine to
Gregory the Great. History and Christianity in Late Antiquity (London, 1983), X; Richards,
Consul of God, p. 249. On the Merovingian sovereigns, see “Brunichildis,” PLRE 3A:248–51;
“Childebertus II,” PLRE 3A:287–91; “Chlotarius II,” PLRE 3A:299–301; “Theodebertus II,”
PLRE 3B:1231–32; “Theodericus, 4 = Theoderic II,” PLRE 3B:1237–39; Cacciari, “Brunichilda”
and “Childeberto,” in Enciclopedia Gregoriana, pp. 45–46 and p. 58; Lunardini, “Teodeberto
II d’Austrasia” and “Teoderico II di Burgundia,” ibid., p. 345 and pp. 346–47.
44 cristina ricci

of the Frankish Church to him, in defence of orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

Gregory urged the other bishops in Gaul to obey Virgilius.69
It seems likely that this task was entrusted to Virgilius because Greg-
ory wanted to watch over the Frankish Church more directly. The main
aim was to fight forms of corruption caused by patronage links between
the political and ecclesiastical elites, which Gregory denounced both in
his letters to the bishops and in those to the sovereigns.70 We can infer
from these letters how widespread the episcopal ordination of lay per-
sons was, lacking in pastoral skills, throughout the Frankish kingdom.
There were also many cases of venality of the sacred order, that Gregory
called “simony”. Its origins lay in abuse of the Merovingian kings’ right to
approve episcopal appointments, which led to such consequences: it was
always a temptation for the king to sell a bishopric to the highest seller,
regardless of his spiritual qualifications.71
The pontiff was also aware of cases of simony in other churches: for
example, in the ordination of Maximus, bishop of Salona in Dalmatia,72
and of other clergy in Epirus, in Alexandria and in other eastern ­dioceses.73
In the Frankish Church, however, this phenomenon was probably sever-
est, if we consider that in 599 Gregory insisted that a Frankish synod
be summoned to condemn simony and the episcopal ordination of lay
people. A synodical decree condemning both, he thought, would be an

69 See Reg. 5.58 to Virgilius of Arles (August 595) (CCSL 140:354–55) and 5.59 to the
Gallic bishops (especially CCSL 140:358). On the pallium in general and also with reference
to Gregory’s letters, see John Albert Eidenschink, The Election of Bishops in the Letters of
Gregory the Great with an Appendix on the Pallium, Canon Law Studies 215 (Washington
DC, 1945), pp. 101–43.
70 See Reg. 5.58 to Virgilius of Arles (CCSL 140:355–56); 5.59 to the Gallic bishops
(CCSL 140:359–60); 5.60, to Childebert (CCSL 140:361–2); three Reg. to Brunhild: 8.4 (CCSL
140A:520), 9.214 (CCSL 140A:772–74) and 11.49 (CCSL 140A:948); 9.216 to Theoderic and
Theodebert (CCSL 140A:777–78); 9.219 to some bishops in Gaul (CCSL 140A:783–88); 9.220
and 11.42, to Bishop Aregius of Gap (CCSL 140A:792; CCSL 140A:939); 11.38 to Virgilius of
Arles (CCSL 140A:932–33); 11.40 to Aetherius, bishop of Lyon (CCSL 140A:936–37); 11.47
to Theoderic (CCSL 140A:945); 11.50 to Theodebert (CCSL 140A:949–50); 11.51 to Chlothar
(CCSL 140A:951).
71  See Eidenschink, The Election, pp. 58–59. For the expression “the Simoniac heresy”,
see Reg. 4.13 (CCSL 140:231 ll. 22–23); 5.16 (CCSL 140:283 l. 39); 5.58 (CCSL 140:356 l. 45).
72 See Reg. 6.3 and 6.25 to Maximus of Salona (CCSL 140:371; CCSL 140:395); 6.26 to
members of the clergy and the aristocracy of Salona (CCSL 140:397–98); 9.156 to Marin-
ianus of Ravenna on the case of Maximus (CCSL 140A:713–14).
73 See Reg. 6.7 to bishops of the Epirus (CCSL 140:376); 9.136 to Anastasius of Antioch
(CCSL 140A:687); 13.42 to Eulogius of Alexandria (CCSL 140A:1046–47).
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 45

efficient deterrent against all those who might be tempted towards these
practices.74
Letters to two successive abbots of Lerins refer to other issues affecting
Frankish monastic life.75 Sometimes the pontiff addressed social and eco-
nomic problems, above all those connected to the administration of the
patrimonium sancti Petri,76 and to the problem of Christian slaves owned
by Jews. He argued against this practice in a letter of 597 to Candidus,
whom he urged to invest the resources necessary to free these slaves,77
and in letters written in 599 to Brunhild, Theoderic, and Theodebert.78
Among Gregory’s letters to the Frankish Church can also be found
a record of his debate with Serenus, bishop of Marseille, about sacred
­images.79 In 599, Gregory reproached Serenus for promoting the destruc-
tion of images of saints in churches under his control. Serenus intended
to repress the adoration of their images because, in his opinion, there was
the risk of idolatry, that is, the worship of things instead of the cult of God
in spirit. Gregory’s criticism of this attitude reveals a different insight into
the role of images in Christian worship. Gregory warned him:80
Your Fraternity should have preserved them [the images in the churches]
and should have prohibited the people from their adoration, so that both
the illiterate might have a way of acquiring some knowledge of history, and
the people would not be sinning at all in their adoration of a picture.

74 Reg. 11.38 to Virgilius of Arles (CCSL 140A:933): “ut synodus ad eradendam ipsam
haeresim congregari possit, insiste, quatenus cum dilectionis uestrae mercede melius ab
omnibus caueatur, quod auctore Deo omnium fuerit constitutione damnatum.”
75 Reg. 6.57 to the abbot Stephanus (CCSL 140:430) and 11.9 to the abbot Conon (CCSL
140A:871–72).
76 See above, n. 67.
77  Reg. 7.21 (CCSL 140:472).
78 Reg. 9.214 and 216 (CCSL 140A:774–75 and 779). On the Christian slaves of Jews, see
Amnon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit, 1987), pp. 82–85 and the
references to the relevant laws (in particular nr. 11, pp. 144–51).
79 On the debate with Serenus and its historical context, see Robert A. Markus, “The
Cult of Icons in Sixth-Century Gaul,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 29 (1978), 151–57,
repr. in idem, From Augustine, XII; Luce Pietri, “Serenus de Marseille et Grégoire le grand:
une première querelle des images,” in Historiam perscrutari. Miscellanea di studi offerti
al prof. Ottorino Pasquato, ed. Mario Maritano (Rome, 2002), pp. 327–41, esp. p. 332 and
pp. 339–41.
80 Reg. 9.209 ( July 599) (CCSL 140A:768): “Tua ergo fraternitas et illa seruare et ab
eorum adoratu populum prohibere debuit, quatenus et litterarum nescii haberent, unde
scientiam historiae colligerent, et populus in picturae adoratione minime peccaret” (trans.
Martyn, Letters, 2:674).
46 cristina ricci

Gregory insisted on the purely didactic purpose of images for the forma-
tion of the illiterate, writing again to Serenus a year later. The pontiff
agreed with him in condemning the worship of images, but disagreed with
him on their destruction, which deprived the illiterate of an accessible
tool for learning more about the Lives of the saints.81
We should wonder how relevant Gregory’s argument was to the issue
of the adoration of images in Marseille. Serenus, in fact, seems to have
attacked the sanctorum imagines,82 static portraits of the saints or “icons”,
that had become objects of adoration across the Mediterranean world
during the 6th century.83 Yet it appears that, although he mentioned
them in his correspondence with Serenus, Gregory was not really defend-
ing the sanctorum imagines but rather trying to defend the sanctorum
historiae,84 pictorial scenes depicting episodes from the Lives of the saints,
which Gregory viewed as narrating for the illiterate the same educational
message as the written texts they drew on. Of course, it is possible that
Serenus objected to both kinds of images. Either way, it is clear that the
Frankish Church was witnessing an expansion of role of images in Chris-
tian worship, as was occurring elsewhere in the Mediterranean world dur-
ing this period.
Yet if Gregory was indulgent towards expressions of popular devotion
to sacred images, he was intolerant towards rites of pagan origin that per-
sisted among Christians peoples. In a letter written in 597, he invited Queen
Brunhild to repress with coercive measures all remaining idolatrous cults,
so that those Catholic subjects who still practised ­non-Christian rites be
forced to abstain from them.85 In the same letter, Gregory thanked the

81  Reg. 11.10 (October 600) (CCSL 140A:874): “Aliud est enim picturam adorare, aliud
per picturae historiam quid sit adorandum addiscere. Nam quod legentibus scriptura, hoc
idiotis praestat pictura cernentibus, quia in ipsa ignorantes uident quod sequi debeant, in
ipsa legunt qui litteras nesciunt.” (trans. Martyn, Letters, 3:745).
82 Reg. 11.10 (CCSL 140A:873 l. 16).
83 See above all Ernst Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images in the Period before Iconoclasm,”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954), 85–150, esp. 132; and more recently, Matthew Dal Santo,
“Text, Image and the ‘Visionary Body’ in Early Byzantine Hagiography: Incubation and the
Rise of the Christian Image Cult,” Journal of Late Antiquity 4 (2011), 30–54.
84 Reg. 11.10 (CCSL 140A:874 ll. 31–32). Gregory insists on the concept of pictorial historia
and of uisio rei gestae (ibid., p. 875, ll. 49, 55 and 59–62): “Sed hoc sollicite fraternitas tua
admoneat ut ex uisione rei gestae ardorem compunctionis percipiant et in adoratione
solius omnipotentis sanctae Trinitatis humiliter prosternantur.” See further Celia Chazelle,
“Pictures, books and the illiterate: Gregory I’s letters to Serenus of Marseilles,” Word and
Image 6 (1990), 13–53, esp. 141 and 150.
85 Reg. 8.4 (CCSL 140A:521): the cults here mentioned recall those described in Dial. 3.28
(SC 260:374) with regards to the pagan Lombards.
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 47

queen for her support for Augustine, sent to preach the gospel among the
Anglo-Saxons.86
In fact, the Frankish Church also played an important role in ­Gregory’s
mission to the Anglo-Saxons. From 596, the pontiff often recommended
his missionaries to the sovereigns and bishops in Gaul, in order to facilitate
their journey and at the same time to stimulate in the Frankish Church
a more active cooperation with an enterprise that he could only follow
from a distance.87 According to Ian Wood, Brunhild and later Chlothar
welcomed this request from the pontiff with zeal because they realized
that their involvement in the mission in Britain could benefit both of
them in their competition for political hegemony within the Merovingian
kingdom.88 In any case, in letters written between 599 and 601, Gregory
thanked the sovereigns and also the bishops who welcomed and supported
his monks on their way to Britain, and he hoped for the same support for
those whom he sent to help these pioneers in the work of evangelizing
the Anglo-Saxons.89

Gregory and the Anglo-Saxons90

We know from two letters of July 596 to Queen Brunhild and to the princes
Theoderic and Theodebert that Gregory sent from his monastery on the

86 Reg. 8.4 (CCSL 140A:520).

87 Recommendations in favour of Augustine can be found in Reg. 6.51 (CCSL 140:424);
6.52 (CCSL 140:425); 6.54 (CCSL 140:427); 6.55 (CCSL 140:428); 6.59 (CCSL 140:432); 6.60
(CCSL 140:433).
88 See Wood, “Augustine,” pp. 76–80.
89 The epistles of thanks and recommendations for the second group of missionaries
are Reg. 9.223 (CCSL 140A:725); 11.40 (CCSL 140A:937); 11.34 (CCSL 140A:922–23); 11.38 (CCSL
140A:934); 11.40 (CCSL 140A:937); 11.41 (CCSL 140A:938); 11.42 (CCSL 140A:939–40); 11.45
(CCSL 140A:942); 11.47 (CCSL 140A:946); 11.48 (CCSL 140A:946–47); 11.50 (CCSL 140A:950);
11.51 (CCSL 140A:951).
90 For Gregory’s relationships with the Anglo-Saxons, see Dudden, Gregory, 2:99–147;
Suso Brechter, Die Quellen zur Angelsachsenmission Gregors des Großen (Münster, 1941);
Richards, Consul of God, pp. 238–50; Georg Jenal, “Gregor der Große und die Anfänge der
Angelsachsenmission (596–604),” in Angli e Sassoni al di qua e al di là del mare, Setti-
mane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 32, 2 vols (Spoleto, 1986),
2:793–849; Henry Chadwick, “Gregory the Great and the Mission to the Anglo-Saxons,” in
Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo, 1:199–212; Wood, “The Mission,” pp. 1–17; Azzara, L’ideologia,
pp. 90–96; Richard Gameson, “Augustine of Canterbury: Context and Achievement,” in
St. Augustine and the Conversion of England, pp. 1–40; Jean Chélini, “La mission d’Augustin
de Cantorbéry dans la vision missionaire de saint Grégoire le grand,” and Adalbert de
Vogüé, “Les vues de Grégoire le grand sur l’action missionaire en Angleterre,” in L’Église et
la Mission au VIe siècle. La mission d’Augustin de Cantorbéry et les Églises de Gaule sous l’im-
pulsion de Grégoire le grand, Actes du Colloque d’Arles de 1998, ed. Christophe De Dreuille
(Paris, 2000), pp. 41–53 and pp. 55–64 respectively; Martyn, Letters, 1:58–72.
48 cristina ricci

Caelian Hill a group of monks with their prior, Augustine, to evangelize

the Anglo-Saxons.91 During their journey through the Frankish kingdom,
the missionaries heard frightful stories about the Anglo-Saxons, so they
asked Augustine to go back to Rome in order to obtain from the pope the
revocation of their mandate.92 Gregory, instead, firm in his desire to real-
ize a well-pondered missionary plan, sent Augustine back with two letters
of recommendation that would ensure for him good will and logistical
support from bishops and other authorities in Gaul.93 In one of these let-
ters, sent to Theoderic and Theodebert, Gregory expressed the wish that
some presbyters who commanded the language spoken in Britain might
accompany the Latin-speaking monks and act as interpreters between the
missionaries and the Anglo-Saxons.94
Ethnically German, the Anglo-Saxons occupied a large part of lowland
Britain between the 5th century and the first half of the 6th century,
while the indigenous Romanised Celtic population found refuge in the
mountainous west of the island. In this way, Britain found itself divided
between a Celtic area of Roman and Christian traditions and an Anglo-
Saxon area, mostly pagan. Power in the latter was divided among many
different kings, with one (called Bretwalda) sometimes occupying a more
dominant position over the others. Among these dominant kings may
have been Æthelbert of Kent, who had a crucial role in the Christianiza-
tion of the Anglo-Saxons.
The reasons why Gregory committed himself to this enterprise can only
be hypothesized. The only explicit clue is in the letters of 596 (mentioned
above) to the Frankish sovereigns.95 It seems that it was the ­Anglo-Saxons

91 See Reg. 6.51 and 60 (see also below, n. 95).

92 See Reg. 6.53 to the missionaries, encouraged to continue their journey (CCSL
140A:426).
93 See Reg. 9.223 to Syagrus, bishop of Autun (CCSL 140A:795): “in praedicationis opere,
quam diu cogitans Anglorum genti per Augustinum quondam monasterii mei praeposi-
tum, nunc fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum, impendere studui, ita sollicitum ac deuotum
adiutoremque in omnibus te, ut oportuit, fuisse cognouimus.” The letters in support of the
missionaries have been listed above, n. 87 and n. 89.
94 Reg. 6.51 (CCSL 140:424): “Quibus [scil. Augustino et aliis seruis Dei] etiam iniunxi-
mus ut aliquos secum e uicino debeant presbyteros ducere, cum quibus eorum possint
mentes agnoscere et uoluntates admonitione sua, quantum Deus donauerit, adiuuare.”
On the presence of members of the Frankish clergy alongside the Roman missionaries, see
Wood, “Augustine,” pp. 77 and 79.
95 Reg. 6.51 to Theoderic and Theodebert, July 596 (CCSL 140:424): “Atque ideo peruenit
ad nos Anglorum gentem ad fidem Christianam Deo miserante desideranter uelle conuerti
sed sacerdotes e uicino neglegere et desideria eorum cessare sua adhortatione succendere.
Ob hoc igitur Augustinum . . . cum aliis seruis Dei illic praeuidimus dirigendum”; Reg. 6.60
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 49

themselves who expressed the need to know more about Christian-

ity. Theirs was a need that apparently had been overlooked by nearby
priests (sacerdotes e uicino), perhaps identifiable with bishops from the
westernmost parts of Britain or from Merovingian Gaul, hence subjects of
the Franks.
Even in the lands conquered by the pagan Anglo-Saxons, ancient
Roman-Celtic Christian shrines still existed. Probably one of these was the
church of St. Martin in Canterbury, seat of Æthelbert: it was the place of
worship of the King’s wife, Bertha, of Frankish origins and Catholic faith,
and of her adviser, the Frankish priest Liudhard. Also the queen’s faith
may have had an impact on Æthelbert’s approach towards Christianity.
It could also have been that the Anglo-Saxon king preferred to express
his interest in Christianity to the bishop of Rome rather than to Frankish
bishops, because the involvement of the latter in the religious matters of
his kingdom could have led to political interference by the Merovingian
sovereigns. A missionary initiative coming from Rome may have seemed
less “dangerous” to Æthelbert, because it involved fewer consequences at
the political level.96
The Roman monks arrived in Britain in the spring of 597 armed only
with the cross and the gospel.97 Æthelbert allowed them freedom of
preaching and the use of old churches, like that of St. Martin mentioned
above. The first fruits of the missionary activity were announced in a let-
ter of July 598, addressed by Gregory to Eulogius of Alexandria: “[It] was
reported that our brother and fellow-bishop baptized more than 10,000
English”.98

to Brunhild, July 596 (CCSL 140:433): “indicamus ad nos peruenisse Anglorum gentem Deo
annuente uelle fieri Christianam, sed sacerdotes qui in uicino sunt pastoralem erga eos sol-
licitudinem non habere”. On the identification of sacerdotes e uicino see Markus, Gregory,
p. 181, n. 76; Wood, “The Mission,” p. 8; Gameson, “Augustine,” p. 7; Martyn, Letters, 1:55.
96 On the use of the church of St. Martin, see Bede, HE 1.26.1 (eds André Crépin, Michael
Lapidge, Pierre Monat and Philippe Robin, SC 489 [Paris, 2005], p. 204). On the sovereigns,
see “Aethelbert,” PLRE 3A:20 and on Bertha see Wood, “Augustine,” pp. 70–74. On the role
of Bertha and Liudhard in the process of Christianization and on the attitudes of Æthel-
bert, see Arnold Angenendt, “The Conversion of the Anglo-Saxons Considered against the
Background of the Early Medieval Mission,” in Angli e Sassoni, pp. 779–81; Markus, Gregory,
pp. 178–79; Gameson, “Augustine,” pp. 16–18.
97 See Bede, HE 1.25.2 (SC 489:202.5–10) and, on the beginnings of the mission, the
whole of chapter 25 (SC 489:198–204).
98 Reg. 8.29 (CCSL 140A:551): “plus quam decem milia Angli ab eodem nuntiati sunt
fratre et coepiscopo nostro baptizati” (trans. Martyn, Letters, 2:524 and n. 116 on the other
sources that refer to this episode).
50 cristina ricci

From the enthusiastic account made by the bishop of Rome to his

Egyptian colleague it appears that Augustine, appointed as abbot by the
pope for the purposes of the mission,99 had subsequently been conse-
crated bishop in Frankish territory, either en route or during a return visit
to Gaul after it appeared that the English mission was bearing fruit.100 For
soon after Augustine’s arrival in Britain, Gregory reports, many among the
Anglo-Saxons converted, thanks to preaching skills of the Roman monks
and the miracles they performed. 10,000 converts seem to have been bap-
tized on the missionaries’ first Christmas day in Britain. The historical
accuracy of this date and of the number of converts is less relevant than
their symbolic value, which points to a multitude of people born again
spiritually on the very day which celebrates the birth of Christ, whose gos-
pel they accepted. Moreover, by using the number 10,000—whose com-
ponents, 10 and 1000, symbolize perfection and totality101—Gregory seems
to suggest the idea that the growth of the Church in Britain was part of a
process of universal growth among the community of the faithful, just as
the Church in Alexandria was also increasing through Eulogius’s actions
to combat heresy. This process of growth, Gregory believed, would reach
its perfection at the end of time, after the conversion of all peoples even
at the furthest reaches of the earth.
From the letter to Eulogius, we can conclude that it was precisely Greg-
ory’s concern for universal salvation that convinced him to send preach-
ers to a people settled in mundi angulo,102 that is, in one of the territories
located, according to the parameters of Roman imperial geography, at the
furthest reaches of the earth.
A similar motivation can be inferred from the well-known legend
handed down more than a century later by Bede, who called Gregory the

  99 See Reg. 6.53 (CCSL 140:426) to the missionary monks, July 596: “Remeanti autem
Augustino praeposito uestro, quem et abbatem uobis constituimus, in omnibus humiliter
oboedite”: see also Bede, HE 1.23.2 (SC 489:194 ll. 9–11).
100 Otherwise, as a monk, Augustine would not have been able to baptize the future
converts and hence to start the foundation of a church. According to Bede, HE 1.27.1
(SC 489:206–08), Augustine was consecrated bishop by Aetherius of Arles, but the author
seems to confuse Aetherius, actually the bishop of Lyon, and Virgilius of Arles (see
SC 489:197, n. 3 and SC 489:208, n. 1); on this issue see also Markus, “The Chronology,”
pp. 25–29; Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church, p. 115; Richards, Consul of God, pp. 248–50;
Martyn, Letters, 1:55; Müller, Führung, p. 332.
101  On the symbolic values of 10, 1000 and 10,000 with reference to Gregorian loci,
see Heinz Meyer and Rudolf Suntrup, Lexikon der mittelalterlichen Zahlenbedeutungen
(Munich, 1987), cols 591–615; 848–56; 879–82.
102 Reg. 8.29 (CCSL 140A:551 l. 22).
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 51

“apostle” of the Anglo-Saxons.103 Sometime before becoming pope, Greg-

ory met among the multi-ethnic crowd in the Roman forum a small group
of Anglo-Saxon boys with an “angelic” look, who were being sold as slaves.
When he asked which people they belonged to, what their place of origin
was and the name of their king, he heard that they were called Angli, their
region Deiri and their king Aelle. Inspired by the similarity between these
names and some words of his own Latin language, Gregory felt that it was
urgent to evangelize the Angli, so that they might become coheirs of the
angels (angeli), learn to sing the Alleluia (A(e)lle[luia]), and escape God’s
wrath (De-ir[a De]i). He remembered this wish later and tried to carry it
out during his pontificate.104
Did this legend rely on a historical basis? It is hard to give a definitive
answer, but the Registrum offers an interesting clue. In a letter of Septem-
ber 595, the pontiff urged Candidus, administrator of Church property in
Gaul, to use some of the land revenues to buy some Anglo-Saxon pagan
boys and bring them into monasteries, so that “they may progress in the
service of God”.105 His concern was to redeem these young boys, usually
traded as slaves between Gaul and Britain, and introduce them to monas-
tic life.
Both the sources quoted, Bede and the letter to Candidus, confirm the
pontiff ’s wish to call as many souls as possible to salvation in Christ, a
wish that recurs in his other writings. This should not necessarily be inter-
preted as a desire to extend to Britain and north-western Europe Rome’s
influence as a centre of ecclesiastical rather than political power; even if

103 Bede, HE 2.1.1 (SC 489:270): “[Gregorium] quia nostram, id est Anglorum, gentem
de potestate Satanae ad fidem Christi sua industria conuertit, . . . recte nostrum appellare
possumus et debemus apostolum.”
104 See Bede, HE 2.1.11 (SC 489:284–86) and Anon. Whitby, Vita Greg. 9 (= The Earliest
Life of Gregory the Great by an Anonymous Monk of Whitby, ed. Bertram Colgrave [Cam-
bridge, 1985], p. 90).
105 Reg. 6.10 (CCSL 140:378–79): “Pergens auxiliante Domino Deo nostro Iesu Christo
ad patrimonium quod est in Galliis gubernandum uolumus ut dilectio tua ex solidis quos
acceperit uestimenta pauperum uel pueros Anglos, qui sint ab annis decem et septem uel
decem et octo, ut in monasteriis dati Deo proficiant, comparet, quatenus solidi Galliarum,
qui in terra nostra expendi non possunt, apud locum proprium utiliter expendantur. . . .
Sed quia pagani sunt, qui illic inueniri possunt, uolo ut cum eis presbyter transmittatur,
ne quid aegritudinis contingat in uia, ut quos morituros conspexerit debeat baptizare.” On
this letter, see also Martyn, Letters, 1:54–55 and 67–68; Robert A. Markus, “Augustine and
Gregory the Great,” in St. Augustine and the Conversion of England, ed. Richard Gameson
(Stroud, 1999), pp. 41–49, at p. 45; Charles Verlinden, L’esclavage dans l’Europe médiévale,
2 vols (Bruges, 1955/1977), 2:95–96 with reference to the pueri Angli, and pp. 92–96 more
generally on Gregory’s attitudes towards slaves.
52 cristina ricci

this is, at least in part, what actually happened. Above all, Gregory was
inspired by the desire to spread the Christian message of salvation as
widely as possible. His desire was the more urgent because, in his Welt-
anschauung, the end of the world was fast approaching.106
Yet the process of conversion was far from straightforward. In a letter
of June 601, the pontiff warned King Æthelbert to prepare himself for the
end of the world and the final judgement by committing himself to good
deeds, such as those recommended in the first lines of the letter. Here
Gregory begged the king to make every effort to propagate Christianity
among the Anglo-Saxons by persecuting idolatrous cults and destroying
pagan temples and, furthermore, by obeying Augustine’s instructions.107
He argued that the sovereign had a political-religious responsibility, which
entailed both the sovereign’s submission to the spiritual authority of the
local bishop and the active use of his royal powers to repress paganism—
as we have already seen in the case of Brunhild108—and of persuasion
with words and good deeds in order to promote Christianity among his
subjects. In a letter sent in the same period to Queen Bertha, Gregory
invited her to exert more pressure on her husband so that the Christian
faith could prevail among their people.109 We can assume from this warn-
ing that the king had converted to the new religion, but that he had not
wanted or been able to impose it on his subjects, obviously still attached
to their ancient rites.
This resistance is probably why, not long afterwards, Gregory suggested
another kind of missionary strategy to Abbot Mellitus, whom he sent with
the presbyter Laurentius and other monks to increase the group of the
missionaries. In July 601 he sent Augustine the following instructions
through Mellitus:110

106 On the predominantly pastoral character of Gregory’s intentions in the foundation

of the Anglo-Saxon mission there is agreement between Markus, Gregory, p. 187; Richards,
Consul of God, p. 250; Jenal, “Gregor der Große,” pp. 827–28 and 847–49; Gameson, “Augus-
tine,” pp. 7–8. However, other scholars believe that behind the mission there were also
interests of ecclesiastical politics. For an overview of those who maintain these positions,
see Azzara, L’ideologia, pp. 91–92, n. 3.
107 Reg. 11.37 (CCSL 140A:930–31).
108 Reg. 8.4 (CCSL 140A:521); see above, n. 85.
109 Reg. 11.35 (June 601) (CCSL 140A:924).
110  Reg. 11.56 (CCSL 140:961): “. . . fana idolorum destrui in eadem gente minime debe-
ant, sed ipsa, quae in eis sunt, idola destruantur. Aqua benedicta fiat, in eisdem fanis
aspargatur, altaria construantur, reliquiae ponantur, quia, si fana eadem bene constructa
sunt, necesse est ut a cultu daemonum in obsequio ueri Dei debeant commutari, ut, dum
gens ipsa eadem fana sua non uidet destrui, de corde errorem deponat et Deum uerum
cognoscens ac adorans ad loca quae consueuit familiarius concurrat.” (trans. George
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 53

[T]he shrines of idols in that land should not be destroyed, but rather . . . the
idols that are in them should be. Let holy water be prepared and sprin-
kled in these shrines, and altars constructed, and relics deposited, because,
as long as these shrines are well built, it is necessary that they should be
transformed from the cult of demons to the service of the true God. For
when the people themselves see that these shrines were not destroyed, they
will lay aside the error of their heart, and knowing and adoring the true
God, they will flock with more familiarity to the places to which they are
­accustomed.
Augustine was hence instructed to destroy only the statues of the pagan
gods, so that the people could be attracted to faith in the true God with-
out abandoning their familiar places of worship. At first sight, this advice
seems to countermand that given earlier to Æthelbert. Yet this change was
probably not due to a change of mind, but rather to the fact that Gregory
was writing to a bishop and not to a recently converted king: the latter
had to demonstrate his commitment to his new religion, whereas the for-
mer needed pastoral tact in promoting conversions among foreign people.
Therefore both letters are likely to be different expressions of Gregory’s
deep insights about the psychology of conversion in different subjects and
situations.111
The course of action that he recommended to the missionaries, more-
over, was inspired by practical considerations (to re-use the same buildings
rather than knock them down to build new ones) and biblical examples
(the Israelites in Egypt, instructed by God not to sacrifice to idols anymore
but only to him). Gregory’s instructions thus represented an attempt to
bring about a pastoral accommodation (condescensio) for the sake of the
non-believers, in order to bring them to the faith. That is to say, Gregory
sought to facilitate the penetration of Christianity by grafting it on to the
local customs and places regarded as sacred by the indigenous people,
with the expectation that the passage from one religion to another would

Demacopoulos, “Gregory the Great and the Pagan Shrines in Kent”, Journal of Late Anti-
quity 1 (2008), 353–69, at 366–367).
111 He states (Reg. 11.56, CCSL 140A:962): “Nam duris mentibus simul omnia abscidere
impossibile esse non dubium est, quia is qui summum locum ascendere nititur gradibus
uel passibus, non autem saltibus eleuatur.” On the proposal to Mellitus and Augustine
and for a comparison with this proposal and that to Æthelbert, see Ken Dowden, Euro-
pean Paganism. The Realities of Cult from Antiquity to the Middle Ages (London, 2000),
pp. 146–48; Ian Wood, “Some Historical Re-identifications and the Christianization of
Kent,” in Christianizing Peoples and Converting Individuals, eds Guyda Armstrong and
Ian Wood (Turnhout, 2000), pp. 27–35; Demacopoulos, “Gregory the Great and the Pagan
Shrines in Kent”, esp. 353–54 and 357–69.
54 cristina ricci

be less traumatic and more efficient as a result. As such, Gregory’s advice

is an example of Christian “enculturation” in a context where paganism
was entrenched.
A certain degree of pragmatism, coupled with a regard for local cus-
toms and rites, also emerges from Gregory’s reply to Augustine on the
question of whether to accept into the Anglo-Saxon Church some litur-
gical forms which were different from those of the Roman Church. The
pontiff ’s advice was to choose those that seemed best and to adopt them
into the newly-founded Church.112 Bede gave evidence for this in report-
ing the so-called Libellus responsionum that Gregory seems to have sent to
Augustine in 601 to answer questions put by the latter in his role as bishop
of Canterbury. Augustine’s questions dealt with various aspects of the life
of the new Church entrusted to him.113
Augustine is mentioned in the Gregorian Registrum as the recipient of
two letters: one regards the organization of the bishopric in the noua Anglo-
rum ecclesia (Reg. 11.39);114 the other, an earlier one, is a ­congratulatory
letter for the successes of the mission and, at the same time, a warning
against the risks of deriving from these successes any reason for vainglory
(Reg. 11.36). Gregory stressed that the merit for so many conversions had
to be attributed only to God and not to the miracles performed by the
missionary; hence, Augustine should beware of taking pride in having per-
formed them, and instead should only hope to receive the same salvation
that he announced among the pagans.115
In other writings, including the Dialogi, Gregory insisted on the impor-
tance of humility and self-control against the temptation of ­self-exaltation,
with particular reference to thaumaturgy.116 This message assumes a spe-
cial relevance in Reg. 11.36 to Augustine because in another letter sent to
him (the above mentioned Reg. 11.39), Gregory put him at the head of the

112 See Bede, HE 1.27.6 (SC 489:210–12): “Ex singulis ergo quibusque ecclesiis quae pia,
quae religiosa, quae recta sunt elige, et haec quasi in fasciculum collecta apud Anglorum
mentes in consuetudinem depone.”
113 See Bede, HE 1.27 (SC 489:206–40). On contents, dating, textual translation and prob-
lems of authenticity of the Libellus responsionum, see Müller, Führung, pp. 341–60.
114 Reg. 11.39 ( June 601) (CCSL 140A:934–35, esp. p. 935 ll. 7–8).
115 Reg. 11.36 ( June 601) (CCSL 140A:925–29, esp. pp. 926–27 ll. 43–44 and ll. 49–51):
“Restat itaque, frater carissime, ut inter ea quae operante Deo exterius facis semper te
interius subtiliter iudices . . . Et quicquid de faciendis signis acceperis, uel accepisti, haec
non tibi sed illis deputes donata, pro quorum tibi salute collata sunt.” On these two letters,
see Müller, Führung, pp. 382–84. A warning against boasting of the successes obtained in
the work of conversion is contained also in the Reg. 9.229 to Reccared (see above, n. 10).
116 Dial. 1.2.7 (SC 260:30, esp. ll. 81–82): “Perpendis, Petre, quantum in exhibendis
uirtutibus humilitas ualet?”
 gregory’s missions to the barbarians 55

other bishops of the new Church, so that they, subject to his authority,
may learn from him “the nature of true belief and of a good life from (his)
words and life”.117 If Augustine was to set an example for others, it was
necessary that he be far-sighted and self-controlled, corresponding to the
model of the episcopus-speculator illustrated by the pontiff in a paradig-
matic way in Homiliae in Hiezechielem, which he addressed around eight
years earlier to an audience which probably included bishops.118
In his first letter to Augustine (Reg. 11.36), Gregory focused not only on
the importance of humility and self-control, but also set this warning in
the context of a broader meditation on the history of salvation, that he
opened and closed with the cry of exultation of the angels at the birth
of Christ, quoted at the beginning and at the end of the letter: “Glory to
God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will” (Luke 2:14).119
With this ouverture interwoven with gospel and Pauline echoes, Gregory
highlighted a link between the Christianization of Britain and the first
evangelization carried out by Christ and the apostles. He saw the mission
promoted by himself and carried out by Augustine as part of the history of
salvation. He also emphatically attributed the mission’s “authorship” to the
Lord, who shows his power by realizing his great works through preach-
ers who are weak (infirmi) and unlearned (sine litteris).120 We should not
infer from these last words that the monks sent from Rome were illiter-
ate. We should instead grasp the author’s intention to draw attention to
God’s logic, which turns upside-down the human hierarchies of power, as
shown in Paul’s speech to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:26–27), at which Greg-
ory hinted. This emerges also in an excursus on the mission in Britain,
included in the Moralia in Iob, where the author celebrates the irresistible
power of God that, revealing itself in history and in nature, is able to lead
back to itself the most impenetrable extremities of the earth.121

Conclusion

A comparative evaluation of the texts here examined allows us to demons

trate how Gregory, in his relationships with the Lombards, Visigoths,

117  Reg. 11.39, trans. Martyn, Letters, 3:786 (CCSL 140A:935, esp. ll. 31–32): “ex lingua
et uita . . . et recte credendi et bene uiuendi formam”.
118  HEz. 1.11.7 (CCSL 142:172).
119  Reg. 11.36 (CCSL 140A:925 l. 2 and 929 l. 114).
120 Reg. 11.36 (CCSL 140A:925.17–20).
121  Mor. 27.11.21 (CCSL 143B:1346); on this passage see Dudden, Gregory, 2:147; Markus,
Gregory, p. 186, esp. n. 99.
56 cristina ricci

Franks and Anglo-Saxons, did not pursue an ideological programme aimed

at assimilating non-Roman peoples into the political-religious sphere of
the Roman-Byzantine Empire; his programme was rather pastoral and his
horizon universal. In carrying out this programme and in his search for
collaborators, the pontiff turned to the high clergy of the Germanic king-
doms and he chose his vicars from among its ranks; he also turned to the
sovereigns, whose power he did not challenge, even as he remained faith-
ful to the emperor at Constantinople. Hence, he acted with respect for the
hierarchies while, at the same time, meting out his interventions accord-
ing to the type of interlocutor and the particular context. He also showed
a certain sensibility in respecting and valuing local peculiarities, as long as
they were useful to his general objective: the promotion of that Christian
faith that he defined as “the right faith” ( fides recta).122 Gregory hoped and
believed that this faith, which he acknowledged as having been formu-
lated in the four ecumenical councils,123 was destined to spread amongst
all peoples before the end of ages was fulfilled.

122 E.g. Reg. 1.17 (CCSL 140:17 l. 10); 9.229 (CCSL 140A:806 l. 7); 11.35 (CCSL 140A:924
l. 20).
123 E.g. Reg. 4.33 to Theodelinda (CCSL 140:253).
 Chapter Three

Gregory the Great, the Empire and the Emperor

Matthew Dal Santo

Gregory the Great (c.540–604) left behind no treatise dedicated to “secu-

lar” authority and his views on the nature and origins of imperial power,
the office of the emperor and the wider purpose of the Roman Empire in
history, have to be distilled from diverse references to imperial author-
ity found above all in his collected correspondence.1 Gregory’s lifetime
spanned the reigns of five emperors: Justinian (527–65), his nephew Justin II
(565–78), Tiberius II (578–82), Maurice (582–602) and Phocas (602–10).
Gregory always approached the imperial office, whoever its occupant,
with deference, and never conceived of a future for the Roman Church
separate from the political and spiritual community of the Roman Empire,
even if the latter was, in his day, ruled from Constantinople. Gregory knew
well that, as individuals, emperors could err in their judgements and poli-
cies. When this occurred, he protested with all the vigour that his belief in
the supremacy of God’s interests over every human concern could inspire.
This act of protest was, for Gregory, part of the duty he owed as a min-
ister of God to the divinely appointed ruler of what was for him God’s
“holy commonwealth” (sancta res publica), and for us the (East) Roman, or
Byzantine, Empire. It is therefore mistaken to see in Gregory’s pontificate,
as some have done, an anticipation of the mental or physical boundaries
of later medieval western “Christendom”, a political community based
above all on the universal use of Latin and the acknowledgement of the
supreme spiritual authority of the bishop of Rome (“Pope”).2

1  Robert A. Markus, Gregory the Great and his World (Cambridge, 1997), p. 84. Cf. Carole
Straw, “Gregory’s Politics: Theory and Practice,” in Gregorio magno e il suo tempo: XIX
incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana in collaborazione con l’École Française de Rome,
Roma, 9–12 maggio 1990, Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 33–34, 2 vols (Rome, 1991),
1:47–63; David Hipshon, “Gregory the Great’s Political Thought,” Journal of Ecclesiastical
History 53 (2002), 439–53.
2 Robert A. Markus, “Gregory the Great’s Europe,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical
Society, 5th ser. 31 (London, 1981), pp. 21–36, repr. in idem, From Augustine to Gregory the
Great: History and Christianity in Late Antiquity (London, 1983), XV; and idem, Gregory the
Great and his World, pp. 83–96.
58 matthew dal santo

We get a glimpse of the important role the emperor played in Gregory’s

thought in a letter he wrote to Emperor Maurice in October 596:3
Almighty God who has made Your Majesty the guardian of the peace of our
Church, preserves you with the very faith which you preserve in the unity of
the priesthood, and when you subject your heart humbly beneath the yoke
of heavenly piety, through heavenly grace it is brought about that you tread
on your enemies with the foot of fortitude.
Set over the Christian community as the guardian of its peace, the em-
peror’s authority flowed directly from God for the protection of his priestly
ministers, the bishops. Many of Gregory’s letters to the emperor, the
empress and other members of the imperial court at Constantinople con-
firm his view that the emperor—and, indeed, the Christian empire that
he ruled—played an indispensable part in the “economy”—structure or
dispensation—that God in his mercy and wisdom had established for the
salvation of the human race.4 For Gregory, the emperor was “the most
pious of princes” (piissimos dominos), “our most serene Lord of all things”
(serenissimis rerum dominis), whose office was inseparably bound up
with the purposes of God.5 “For power over all men has been given by
Heaven to my Lordship’s piety for this reason”, Gregory wrote to Maurice,
“that those who seek good things are given help, that the path to Heaven
is opened more widely, and that the earthly kingdom is in service to
the heavenly kingdom.”6 The emperor’s authority came from God for the
furtherance of righteousness and good-living among human beings, the
defence and extension of the gospel through the protection and patron-
age of the Church. The emperor’s God-appointed task was to realize, in
co-operation with leaders of the Church, God’s own empire on earth, the
reflection here below of the kingdom of heaven above.

3 Reg. 7.6, trans. John R.C. Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the Great, Medieval Sources
in Translation, 3 vols (Toronto, 2004), 2:459 (CCSL 140:452–3): “Omnipotens Deus, qui
pietatem uestram pacis ecclesiasticae fecit esse custodem, ipsa uos fide seruat, quam
uos in sacerdotali unitate seruatis, cumque supernae pietatis iugo cor humiliter subditis,
caelesti gratia agitur, ut hostes uestros pede fortitudinis prematis.” Gregory uses the impe-
rial plural.
4 Paul Magdalino, “Church, Empire and Christendom in c.600 and c.1075: The View
from the Registers of Popes Gregory I and Gregory VII,” in Cristianità d’Occidente e Cris-
tianità d’Oriente (secoli VI–XI), Settimane di Studio del Centro italiano di Studi sull’alto
Medioevo 51 (Spoleto, 2004), 1:1–30.
5 Reg. 1.27, 1.6.
6 Reg. 3.61, trans. Martyn, 1:281 (CCSL 140:210): “Ad hoc enim potestas super omnes
homines pietati dominorum meorum caelitus data est, ut qui bona appetunt adiuuentur,
ut caelorum uia largius pateat, ut terrestre regnum caelesti regno famuletur.”
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 59

As we shall see, it is too much to dismiss these utterances as the empty

flattery of diplomatic protocol. Rather, Gregory owed his conception of
the role of the emperor in Christian society to a range of developments
that had transformed the relationship between the Roman state and the
Christian Church in Late Antiquity from one of antagonism to profound
complementarity. In addition, tight personal bonds bound Gregory in a
close, if not always easy, relationship to the emperor Maurice, the primary
incumbent of imperial office during his pontificate, and his family and
court.
Gregory came from one of the privileged, aristocratic families of the
6th-century city of Rome.7 Ordained priest, Gregory was sent, in 579,
to act as papal responsary, or apocrisarius, on behalf of Pope Pelagius II
(579–90) at the imperial court at Constantinople, where he remained until
his return to Italy in 585/6.8 Gregory’s arrival in the imperial capital fol-
lowed shortly upon the accession of a new emperor, Tiberius II. During
this reign the financial and strategic strains that had been accumulating
for a generation continued to mount.9 Despite Justinian’s construction
of defensive fortresses in the Balkans, throughout the second half of the
6th century Gepid, Avar, and later Slav, incursions destabilized these
provinces, with Constantinople itself occasionally threatened with siege.10
In 573, Sasanian Persia temporarily reversed the balance of power between
the two great states of the contemporary Near East by capturing the
Roman frontier stronghold of Dara.11 In Italy, the fragile peace that had
emerged with the conclusion of the Gothic Wars in 554 was shattered
by the violent movement of the Lombards into the peninsula from 568.12
The Lombard menace preoccupied the citizens of Rome: the senatorial
embassy that travelled to Constantinople to present Tiberius with the

7 For Gregory’s life and times, see also Sofia Boesch Gajano, Gregorio Magno: Alle
origini del Medioevo (Rome, 2004); and Barbara Müller, Führung im Denken und Handeln
Gregors des Grossen (Tübingen, 2009).
8 The apocrisarius served as the pope’s representative in Constantinople: Peter
Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages (London, 1971), pp. 117–19; Markus, Gregory the Great
and his World, pp. 10–12. Rome was not alone in sending an apocrisarius to Constantinople
and the post should be viewed as an internal position within the imperial Church, not as
the equivalent of a foreign ambassador.
9 Peter Sarris, Economy and Society in the Age of Justinian (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 222–7.
10 Michael Whitby, Emperor Maurice and his Historian (Oxford, 1988), pp. 69–89.
11  Geoffrey Greatrex and Samuel N.C. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian
Wars. Part II: AD 363–600. A Narrative Sourcebook (London, 2002), pp. 173–4.
12 Thomas S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic
Power in Byzantine Italy A.D. 554–800 (London, 1984), pp. 1–21.
60 matthew dal santo

gold that was customarily paid on the accession of a new emperor was
instructed to return to Italy and use the money to raise an army to defend
Rome that the imperial government itself could not afford to send.13 As
the representative of Pope Pelagius II, Gregory renewed these appeals for
help with as little success, and it is in this context—of an empire strug-
gling to meet a host of challenges both fiscal and strategic, with the social
pressures these generated—that oppressed Italian peasants sometimes
fled to Lombard-held territories.14 Given the contrast between the inflated
claims of imperial rhetoric and the reality of the empire’s straitened con-
dition, it is not surprising that the biblical text that Gregory should have
selected to expound at Constantinople was the Old Testament Book of
Job, an extended reflection on the reversal of worldly fortune at the heart
of the Hebrew Scriptures. But the choice itself suggests that he identi-
fied personally with the empire whose fortunes seemed to be so clearly in
decline, even if his attitude towards its “worldly” capital was lukewarm.15
With the normal conditions of civilian and economic life in Italy dis-
rupted, many members of the Italian aristocracy emigrated to the greater
security of Constantinople.16 As apocrisarius, Gregory naturally formed
familiar and affectionate bonds with members of this group, well repre-
sented at court. From the letters which he continued to write to a number
of these after his return to Italy, we learn that Gregory took particular
pleasure and comfort from his relationship with a Roman matron named
Rusticiana, a member of the distinguished senatorial gens Anicii and Sym-
machi, and her children, especially her daughters Eusebia and Gregoriana,
lady-in-waiting to the empress.17 With estates in Italy and Sicily and an
ongoing interest in affairs at Rome, Rusticiana, whose daughter Eusebia
married a representative of the great Egyptian land-owning family, the
Apions, reflects the pan-Mediterranean character of court-society at Con-
stantinople during the last decades of the 6th century.18 Also belonging
to this circle of Latin émigrés and their families were the devout Count

13 Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, pp. 21–2, and 33–4.

14 This emerges clearly from Gregory’s letters. See, for example, Reg. 5.38; also Whitby,
Emperor Maurice, pp. 11–13 and 24.
15 Reg. 4.44, 8.22.
16 Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, pp. 27–30.
17 On Rusticiana, see Averil Cameron, “A Nativity Poem of the Sixth Century, A.D.,”
Classical Philology 79 (1979), 222–32, repr. in eadem, Continuity and Change in Sixth-century
Byzantium (Aldershot, 1981), XIV.
18 Sarris, Economy and Society, pp. 17–24.
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 61

Narses and Lady Dominica.19 Despite occasional assertions of the collapse

of Latin letters at Constantinople after the reign of Justinian, Gregory’s
correspondence shows us that it would be a mistake to imagine that
the sole vehicle for communication in this world was Greek, or that
its horizons failed to embrace the largely Latin-dominated territories of
the West.20
Lodged, with a party of monks who had accompanied him from Rome,
in the Palace of Hormisdas that stood alongside the church of Sts. Sergius
and Bacchus at the southern end of the great complex of imperial buildings
occupying the eastern projection of Constantinople’s peninsula, Gregory
developed a range of friendships and acquaintances with other figures at
court who remained important to him throughout his life.21 Among these
were envoys from the other patriarchal sees of the empire, such as Eulo-
gius, a priest from Alexandria who later rose to become patriarch of that
ancient see and remained one of Gregory’s most frequent correspondents.
Gregory also formed a close bond with Patriarch Anastasius of Antioch,
who had been deposed by Justin II and had taken up residence in exile at
Constantinople. Gregory, once elected bishop of Rome, invited the exiled
patriarch to transfer his residence to the city that housed “the tomb of
St. Peter . . . that, as far as it may thus please God, he allow you to live
here with me.”22 Gregory also developed a strong alliance with Domitian,
Archbishop of Melitene in Cappadocia, nephew to the emperor and one
of Maurice’s closest advisers.23 As pope, Gregory continued to correspond
with Domitian in order to keep abreast of developments in other parts of
the empire.24 He also befriended the imperial physicians, Theodore and
Theotimus (who also treated Gregory himself ),25 and was familiar with
the imperial secretary, Aristobulus; the quaestor and ex-consul, John; the

19 Reg. 1.6, 3.63, 6.14, 7.27.

20 Averil Cameron, “Old and New Rome: Roman Studies in Sixth-century Constantino-
ple,” in The Transformations of Late Antiquity: Essays for Peter Brown, eds Philip Rousseau
and Manolis Papoutsakis (Aldershot, 2009), pp. 15–36; cf. Gilbert Dagron, “Aux origines de
la civilisation byzantine: langue de culture et langue d’État,” Revue historique (1969), 23–56,
repr. in idem, La Romanité chrétienne en Orient (London, 1984), I. On the state of Latinity
in Italy during this period see Richard Pollard’s chapter infra.
21  There is a colourful if out-dated description of the city in F. Homes Dudden, Gregory
the Great. His Place in History and Thought, 2 vols (London, 1905), 1:123–57.
22 Reg. 1.7, trans. Martyn, 1:126 (CCSL 140:9): “ad sancti Petri apostolorum principis
limina uenire et quousque ita Deo placuerit hic mecum uiuere concedat . . .”. Maurice
restored Anastasius to his see in 593.
23 Whitby, Emperor Maurice, p. 14.
24 See, for instance, Reg. 3.62.
25 Reg. 3.64, 5.46, 7.25 (Theodore); 3.65 (Theotimus).
62 matthew dal santo

chief of the imperial body guard, Philip; the patrician and general, Priscus;
Gordia and Theoctista, the emperor’s sisters; Theoctistus, the emperor’s
cousin; the Empress Constantina and Gregoriana, her lady-in-waiting.26
The emperor himself Gregory viewed not only as a subject, but also as a
friend.27 Relationships such as these display Gregory’s close involvement
in the affairs of the court, and he retained many friends—and not a few
enemies—at Constantinople.
That Gregory enjoyed the confidence of the imperial family was dis-
played in 584 when Emperor Maurice chose him as godfather for his son,
Theodosius, the first imperial prince born to a reigning emperor since the
early 5th century.28 Although no letter addressed to this imperial god-
son survives, the longest extant letter in Gregory’s collection is in fact
addressed to Theoctista, the emperor’s sister charged with the care of the
imperial children.29 Other letters are addressed to their tutor, Andrew.30
Tragically, all of these children were the victims of the bloody coup d’état
that overthrew Maurice in favour of the general Phocas in 602. Writing
before this coup, Gregory, as his letters show, also thought about the suc-
cession. Fearful for the security of the empire, he instructed their nurse
Theoctista to take particular care in the formation of the princes’ moral
character:31
I beg you also to take care especially to teach morality to the dear young
Lordships, whose nurse you are, and to remind the glorious eunuchs who
have been allotted to them, that they should discuss those things with them
that may make their minds contrite in their mutual love for each other,
and in their clemency towards their subjects. Otherwise, if they should now
feel some hatred between themselves, it might break out afterwards in the
open.

26 Reg. 1.28 (Aristobulus); 1.30 (John); 1.31 (Philip); 3.51 (Priscus); 7.27 (Gordia); 1.5, 7.23,
11.27 (Theoctista); 6.17 (Theoctistus); 4.30, 5.38 (Constantina); 7.22 (Gregoria). See also John
R. Martindale, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1992).
27 Reg. 3.61 (CCSL 140:209).
28 The child was born on 4 August 583: Whitby, Emperor Maurice, p. 18; Markus, Greg-
ory the Great and his World, p. 12.
29 Reg. 11.27; Martyn, Letters of Gregory the Great, 3:771, n. 172.
30 Reg. 1.29, 7.23.
31  Reg. 7.23, trans. Martyn, 2:476 (CCSL 140:476): “Peto autem ut paruulos dominos quos
nutritis praecipue moribus instituere curetis et gloriosos eunuchos qui eis deputati sunt
admonere ut ea illis loqui debeant, quae eorum mentes in caritate circa se inuicem et
erga subiectos in mansuetudine compungant, ne, si quid odii inter se modo conceperint,
in aperto postea erumpat.”
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 63

Indeed, by the third decade of the 7th century, it was believed that Mau-
rice had, in a revival of ancient custom, intended to divide the eastern and
Western Empire between his two eldest sons, a sign that at Constantinople
the western provinces were still considered a going imperial concern.32
As apocrisarius, Gregory was also involved in the intellectual life of
the capital.33 The route for this engagement lay in his extensive contacts
among the clergy of the Great Church, with some of whom he was on
clearly friendly terms, if not with others. Among the former were two
future patriarchs of the city, John the Faster and Cyriacus. Although as
pope Gregory would later clash with both over the contested matter of the
patriarch’s “ecumenical” title, Gregory’s letters, whether to these men or to
the emperor, inform us that he thought highly of their personal sanctity.
Given his own commitment to the ascetic lifestyle, Gregory must have had
a natural admiration for the sainted John, whose personal privations and
reports of miracles made him famous in his own lifetime and, in death,
a subject of the emperor’s devotions.34 With Eutychius, the incumbent
patriarch of the city during the first part of Gregory’s sojourn as apocri-
sarius, however, Gregory entertained much more difficult relations.35 Not
long after his arrival, Gregory took offence at a theological tract that Euty-
chius had composed on the nature of the resurrection body.36 Although
there was some support for Eutychius’ views in the Greek fathers (as
Eustratius, Eutychius’ disciple and later apologist, argued in his Life of the
patriarch), Eutychius’ more immediate inspiration was a pamphlet on the

32 Gilbert Dagron, “Rome et l’Italie vues de Byzance (IVe–VIIe siècles),” in Bisanzio,

Roma e l’Italia nell’alto Medioevo, Settimane di Studio del Centro italiano di Studi sull’alto
Medioevo 34 (Spoleto, 1988), 45–64.
33 Matthew Dal Santo, Debating the Saints’ Cult in the Age of Gregory the Great (Oxford,
2012), pp. 31–3.
34 See Theophylact Simocatta, Historia 7.6.1–5 (ed. Carl de Boor [Leipzig, 1887]; trans.
Michael and Mary Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta [Oxford, 1986], p. 186).
35 Averil Cameron, “Models of the Past in the Late Sixth Century: the Life of the Patri-
arch Eutychius,” in Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, ed. Graeme Clarke (Rushcutters Bay,
NSW, 1990), pp. 205–23, repr. in eadem, Changing Cultures in Early Byzantium (Aldershot,
1996), II.
36 Gregory the Great, Mor. 14.72 (CCSL 143A:743–44); Yves-Marie Duval, “La discussion
entre l’apocrisiaire Grégoire et le patriarche Eutychios au sujet de la résurrection de la chair:
l’arrière-plan doctrinal oriental et occidental,” in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine
et al. (Paris, 1986), pp. 347–66.
64 matthew dal santo

same subject published c.575 by the Alexandrian philosopher-theologian

John Philoponus.37
It is commonplace to cast Gregory’s argument in favour of a fully cor-
poreal resurrection as a reflection of the lower standards of contempo-
rary Latin theology and a failure to understand the complex issues under
discussion. However, a comparison with a third contemporary text shows
that Gregory’s position was itself part of the contemporary Greek debate,
not a vulgarization of it.38 In any case, Gregory’s view received the appro-
bation of Emperor Tiberius and Eutychius’ tract was publicly burned. This
victory garnered little favour for Gregory with those sections of the local
clergy that supported their patriarch and Eustratius probably had Gregory
in mind when, in his Life of Eutychius, he referred to the “wretches” who
had defamed the orthodoxy of his patron.39 Although he was in this case
the accuser, when he looked back on his time at Constantinople, Gregory
regretted the back-biting and heresy-hunting which he thought denatured
spiritual life in the capital.40 Indeed, Gregory’s words suggest that the very
high value placed on orthodoxy and personal piety at court created an
atmosphere ripe for “witch hunts” against those who failed to subscribe
to a range of religious opinions of questionable significance.
Even after his return to Rome, Gregory maintained a network of friend-
ships with a range of men and women in Constantinopolitan society.41 His
personal circle clearly embraced both native Latin- and Greek-speakers,
with consequences for his widely asserted ignorance of Greek.42 Gregory

37 John of Ephesus, HE 2.42 (ed. and trans. Payne Smith [Oxford, 1860], p. 149). Frag-
ments of John’s tract survive in Syriac (ed. Albert van Roey, “Un traité cononite contre la
doctrine de Jean Philopon sur la résurrection,” in Antidoron: Hulde aan Maurits Geerard bij
de voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum Graecorum / Hommage à Maurits Geerard pour célébrer
l’achèvement de la Clavis Patrum Graecorum [Brussels, 1984], pp. 123–39).
38 Dal Santo, Debating the Saints’ Cult, pp. 134–48. The text in question is Stephen
Gobar’s compendium of opposing sentences: Adolph von Harnack, “The ‘Sic et Non’ of
Stephen Gobarus,” Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923), 205–34.
39 Eustratius of Constantinople, Vita Eutychii (CCSG 25:2454–58). On Eustratius, see
Nicholas Constas, “An Apology for the Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity: Eustratius Presbyter
of Constantinople, On the State of Souls after Death,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 10
(2002), 267–85.
40 Reg. 11.27. See also Reg. 6.16.
41  See further Franca Ela Consolino, “Il papa e le regine: potere femminile e politica
ecclesiastica nell’epistolario di Gregorio Magno,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo, 1:225–49.
42 See most recently Gerard J.M. Bartelink, “Pope Gregory the Great’s Knowledge of
Greek,” trans. Paul Meyvaert, in Gregory the Great: a Symposium, ed. John C. Cavadini,
Notre Dame Studies in Theology 2 (Notre Dame, IN, 1995), pp. 117–36; cf. Joan Petersen,
“Did Gregory the Great know Greek?,” in The Orthodox Churches and the West, ed. D. Baker,
Studies in Church History 13 (Oxford, 1976), pp. 121–34.
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 65

disavowed any ability in the language, and it is unlikely that he was fully
bilingual. Nevertheless, friendships such as those he maintained with men
like Eulogius, Anastasius and Domitian can hardly have been conducted
through interpreters alone. His relationship with his theological opponent,
Eutychius, and his disciple, Eustratius, is equally complex, and it is diffi-
cult to imagine that Gregory took up such a prolonged and impassioned
campaign against the bishop of the imperial city solely on the basis of a
(putative) second-hand Latin translation of the latter’s offending Greek
tract. Similarly, Gregory seems to have been conversant with a contem-
porary Constantinopolitan debate about the posthumous activity of the
souls of the saints that we otherwise hear about only in Greek.43 On one
occasion in his letters, it is true, Gregory informed his friend, the count
Narses, that he had declined to reply to the missive sent to him by Lady
Dominica, a mutual friend, “because although she is a Latin, she wrote to
me in Greek.”44 But the lady in question would have scarcely written to
him in that language if she believed her correspondent unable to com-
prehend the contents of her letter. Likewise, although Gregory bemoaned
the word-for-word Greek translations of his letters that were made at
Constantinople, the very complaint suggests that he was able to tell the
difference between the official versions on offer and his view of the bet-
ter Greek rendering.45 Gregory’s lamentations here might reflect the low
quality of civil service recruits generally, rather than a serious contraction
of the use of Latin at court or its extinction among the upper classes.
It has sometimes been implied in modern scholarship that as pope
from 590 to 604 Gregory was merely a reluctant subject of the emperor
at Constantinople. With his frequent invocation of Gregory’s peculiarly
“Roman” sensibilities, Erich Caspar’s magisterial account implicitly cast
the “Greeks” from the “East” as foreign intruders into Gregory’s Italy.46
In one of the most influential 20th-century analyses, Walter Ullmann
held that Gregory was the author of a “policy of bifurcation” (“one fork

43 Matthew Dal Santo, “Gregory the Great and Eustratius of Constantinople: the
Dialogues on the Miracles of the Italian Fathers as an Apology for the Cult of the Saints,”
Journal of Early Christian Studies 17 (2009), 421–57.
44 Reg. 3.63, trans. Martyn, 1:285 (CCSL 140:214): “cum sit Latina Graece mihi scripsit.”
45 Reg. 1.28, 7.27; Martyn, Letters of Gregory the Great, 1:101.
46 Erich Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums: von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der
Weltherrschaft, 2 vols (Tübingen, 1930–33), 2:347–8, and esp. 457. Nevertheless, Caspar
recognized that Gregory was fundamentally at home in the imperial Church (“Reichskirke”)
of the 6th century. See also Dagens, Saint Grégoire le grand, p. 436: “Ce Romain [. . .] est
rempli de réserves à l’égard du monde oriental. [. . .] Grégoire est un fervent nationnaliste
[. . .].”
66 matthew dal santo

to the East, one the West”), the “Father of Europe”, the long-term result
of whose policies was the successful emancipation of the papacy from
the old empire, if not the liberation of Western Europe from a Byzantine
captivity.47 But, as Robert Markus has argued convincingly, Gregory enter-
tained a view of the empire and of the emperor’s place in Christian soci-
ety (still largely coterminous in Gregory’s day with the imperial frontiers
or their maximum historical limits, even after the mission to the Anglo-
Saxons) that fundamentally resonated with, and did not contradict, that
which was observed and promoted by the emperor himself and his court
at Constantinople.48 Early last century, Homes Dudden, an astute student
of Gregory, affirmed that:49
This reverence for the Imperial Majesty was inculcated by no one more
emphatically than by Gregory the Great. In the opinion of this Pope, the
ruler’s power was given to him by God. He was the Lord’s anointed, God’s
earthly representative. . . . Nowhere in the works of the early Fathers do we
find so explicit an affirmation of the Divine right of the ruler and of the
necessity of absolute obedience to his commands.
Indeed, Gregory’s conception of the nature of the emperor and his author-
ity should be seen as part of a Justinianic inheritance from the first half
of the 6th century.
It is mistaken to conceive of Gregory and his relationship to the empire
outside this thought world. Christianity first secured the state’s legal sanc-
tion under Constantine (305–37), and then a unique status under Theodo-
sius II (408–50) as the sole official religion of the empire. Under Justinian,
however, the Christian God and his ministers were acknowledged not
only as playing an important role in the operation of the Roman state,
but as actually representing the source of the emperor’s authority and,
indeed, the very origins of the imperial office.50 In 535 Emperor Justinian,
whose armies would soon set about the reconquest of Italy, addressed an

47 Walter Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London, 1972; repr.
2003), pp. 54–8; and idem, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in
the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power (London, 1955), pp. 36–8. Marc Reydellet,
La Royauté dans la littérature latine de Sidoine Appolinaire à Isidore de Seville (Rome, 1981),
pp. 441–503, partly revives it.
48 Markus, “Gregory the Great’s Europe,” p. 34. See also Eugen H. Fischer, “Gregor der
Große und Byzanz: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Politik,” Zeitschrift für
Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 36 (1950), 15–144.
49 Dudden, Gregory the Great, 2:248–9.
50 See further Jean Gaudemet, “La législation anti-païenne de Constantin à Justinien,”
Cristianesimo nella Storia 11 (1990), 449–68.
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 67

edict to the patriarch of Constantinople. In its preface he set out his view
of the nature of the imperial office and its relationship to the Christian
Church and its leaders:51
The greatest gifts that God’s heavenly philanthropia have bestowed upon
men are the sacerdotium and the basileia, of which the former serves divine
matters, the latter presides and watches over human affairs, and both pro-
ceed from one and the same principle and regulate human life. For this
reason, nothing should claim the emperors’ care so much as the saintliness
of the priests, since these constantly pray to God for them [i.e. the emper-
ors]. For, if the priesthood is in every way blameless and acceptable to God,
and the basileia rules justly and properly over the state entrusted to it, good
harmony will result, which will bestow whatever is beneficial upon the
human race.
Whereas earlier representations of the political compact by which the
Roman state was governed had perceived the origins of the imperial office
as lying in the magistracies established by the citizens of the city of Rome
during the Republic, Justinian identified God alone as the fount of both
its theoretical legitimacy and its practical power to command obedience.52
This was a significant milestone in the historical development of the con-
stitution of the Roman Empire. Frequent references to the Corpus iuris
civilis in Gregory’s correspondence indicate his familiarity with Justinian’s
legal works.53 We need not be surprised, therefore, if we find in Gregory’s
letters a conception of the imperial office, the empire and the relationship
of both to the Church that echo Justinian’s.
By the end of the 6th century, Justinian’s conception of the role of the
emperor had become an accepted element of the worldview of a wide
section of Roman/Christian society.54 Both the empire and emperor were

51  Justinian, Novella 6, Preface, cited in Francis Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine
Political Philosophy: Origins and Background, 2 vols (Washington, D.C., 1966), 2:816. For the
Greek with Latin translation, see Corpus iuris civilis, eds Rudolph Schöll, William Kroll,
Theodor Mommsen and Paul Krüger, 3 vols, 9th ed. (Frankfurt, 1954; repr. Zürich, 1968),
3:35–6.
52 Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy, 2:716–23, 838; Gilbert
Dagron, Empereur et prêtre: Étude sur le “césaropapisme” byzantin (Paris, 1996), pp. 312–13.
53 Markus, Gregory, p. 83 n. 2; Fischer, “Gregor der Große,” 137–38; and Jenal, Italia
ascetica atque monastica, 2:824. In his early career, Gregory served either as praetor (chief
legal officer) or Urban Prefect of Rome (or perhaps both). Knowledge of the existing laws
would have been a necessity: Martyn, Letters of Gregory the Great, 1:3–4.
54 Acceptance of the Christianization of the imperial office was not, however, universal.
See Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy, 2:711–12, who points to the
“revolutionary criticism” of this principle, c.557–60, by the philosopher John Philoponus;
Matthew Dal Santo, “The God-guarded empire? Scepticism towards the saints’ cult in early
68 matthew dal santo

now defined as being expressly “Christian”, and were understood by con-

temporaries as imbued with a special purpose in God’s merciful dispen-
sation towards humankind. From this flowed the almost unquestioned
authority of the emperor and his agents to intervene, where appropriate,
to ensure the peace and order of the Church and the holiness of its min-
isters; in return, the emperor enjoyed the right to count on the unfail-
ing prayers which the latter offered before God for the prosperity of the
Christian empire. Gregory shared both of these assumptions. He was gen-
erally prepared to accept the emperor’s involvement in the removal and
appointment of bishops,55 and the unceasing duty of the priests of the
church to intercede on behalf of his “most pious Lord” (piissimus domi-
nus), the emperor, and the “most holy commonwealth” (sanctissima res
publica) is a constant theme of his surviving letters. In a letter to Patriarch
Cyriacus of Constantinople, Gregory thus asserted that “we [i.e. as priests]
must pray incessantly for the life of our most serene Majesty, and for his
holy offspring also, praying that almighty God subject barbarous nations
beneath their feet and grant them long and happy lives, so that the faith
which is in Christ may reign throughout a Christian empire.”56 Similarly,
to all the bishops of Greece, the pope expressed his hope that they would
join with him in order to “continually pray with one heart on behalf of our
most serene Majesty and his holy offspring as best we can, and with many
tears, asking that heavenly grace may protect and safeguard their lives,
and subject the necks of all nations to the Christian empire.”57
To Gregory, the emperor was, quite simply, “appointed by God”, and his
life was “extremely necessary for the world.”58 Thus, Gregory addressed
Maurice as “[o]ur most pious Lordship, appointed by God”, who, faith-
ful to the Justinianic paradigm, “among the other cares of imperial bur-
dens, also pays attention to the preservation of the rightness of priestly

Byzantium,” in An Age of Saints? Power, Conflict and Dissent in Early Medieval Christianity,
eds Peter Sarris, Matthew Dal Santo and Phil Booth (Leiden, 2011), pp. 129–49.
55 Reg. 11.29.
56 Reg. 7.5 (CCSL 140:452): “pro serenissum dominorum uita, pro pia quoque subole
incessanter orandum est, ut omnipotens Deus eorum pedibus barbaras nationes subicat,
longa eis et felicia tempora concedat, quatenus per christianum imperium ea quae in
Christo est fides regnet.”
57 Reg. 7.7, trans. Martyn, 2:462 (CCSL 140:456): “pro serenissimis dominis eorumque
subole cum magnis in quantum possumus assidue fletibus oremus, ut eorum uitam prote-
gens gratia superna custodiat et christiano imperio gentium colla substernat.”
58 Reg. 5.37 (CCSL 140:308): a Deo constitutus; Reg. 7.24 (CCSL 140:480): “ualde est uita
eius mundo necessaria.”
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 69

love with spiritual zeal.”59 Gregory prayed, moreover, that “almighty God
watch over the life of our most serene Lordship, for a long length of time,
both for the peace of the Holy Church and for the advantage of the Roman
republic.”60
But perhaps nowhere did Gregory give stronger expression to his fun-
damentally “Justinianic” conception of the interpenetrating vocation of
Church and empire than in the following passage, written to the emperor
in the context of the disputed politics of the Church in Africa. Hoping that
Maurice would use his “earthly” authority to compel “Donatist” schismat-
ics to return to the imperial Church, Gregory stated that:61
Among the cares of warfare and countless worries which you endure with
tireless zeal, for the sake of governing a Christian republic, there is a great
cause of joy for me and the entire world, because your Piety always looks
after the custody of our faith with that special concern with which the
empire of your Lordship shines brightly. I am entirely confident, therefore,
that just as you protect the rights of God with the love of a religious mind,
even so God protects and assists yours with the grace of his majesty.
Clearly, such rhetoric was often employed to sway the emperor towards
those courses of action that Gregory himself favoured. But it cannot be
doubted that Gregory subscribed to this dispensation that linked, in a
relationship of mutual benefit, the emperor’s pious endeavours on behalf
of the faith to God’s expected preservation of the internal peace and exter-
nal security of the Christian empire. In this, the empress too had a role to
play. To Constantina, Maurice’s consort, Gregory wrote:62

59 Reg. 5.37, trans. Martyn 2:351 (CCSL 140:308): “Piissimus atque a Deo constitutus
dominus noster inter ceteras augustorum ponderum curas pro conseruanda quoque sacer-
dotalis caritatis rectitudine studio spiritali inuigilat.”
60 Reg. 7.30, trans. Martyn, 2:287 (CCSL 140:491): “Omnipotens autem Deus serenissimi
domini nostri uitam et ad pacem sanctae ecclesiae et ad utilitatem Romanae reipublicae
per tempora longa custodiat.”
61  Reg. 6.64, trans. Martyn, 2:248 (modified) (CCSL 140:439): “Inter armorum curas et
innumeras sollicitudines, quas indefesso studio pro christianae reipublicae regimine susti-
netis, magna mihi cum uniuerso mundo laetitiae causa est, quod pietas uestra custodiae
fidei, qua dominorum fulget imperium, praecipua sollicitudine semper inuigilat. Vnde
omnino confido quia, sicut uos Dei causas religiosae mentis amore tuemini, ita Deus
uestras maiestatis suae gratia tuetur et adiuuat.” For Africa, see Markus, Gregory the Great
and his World, pp. 193–9.
62 Reg. 5.39, trans. Martyn, 2:355–6 (CCSL 140:314–15): “Omnipotens Deus, qui pietatis
uestrae cor suae dextera maiestatis tenet, et nos ex uobis protegit et uobis pro temporalibus
actibus praemia remunerationis parat. . . . Vestra itaque pietas, quam omnipotens Deus cum
serenissimo domino uniuerso mundo praeesse constituit, illi per fauorem iustitiae suum
famulatum reddat, a quo ius tantae potestatis accepit, ut quanto uerius in exsecutione
ueritatis auctori omnium seruit, tanto securius comisso mundo dominetur.”
70 matthew dal santo

Almighty God, who holds the heart of your Piety in the right hand of his
majesty, both gives us protection through you, and provides you with
rewards of eternal recompense in return for your actions here on earth. . . . .
And so, as Almighty God has established you as ruler of the universal world,
together with your most serene Lordship, may your Piety through the favour
of justice render your service to Him, from whom you received the right of
such great power. Thus the more truly you serve the Creator of all things in
the execution of the truth, the more securely you would control the world
entrusted to you.
These were lofty ideas and they did not exclude, in practice, disagreement
between pope and emperor, as we shall see.
To be sure, the Roman papacy had a history of contesting the authority
of Roman emperors in ecclesiastical affairs, a tradition represented above
all by the conflicts that coloured the pontificate of Gelasius at the end
of the 5th century.63 But it is best to repeat the conclusion that Robert
Markus reached when surveying the same evidence:64
The Empire—the Empire of Justinian and his immediate successors—was
both the major sphere of the pope’s activities and the permanent backdrop
to all his awareness. Justinian was the watershed which divided the papacy
of Gregory I from that of Gelasius a century before him.
In other words, Gregory was very much a man of his time and it is a
mistake to try to understand his conception of the relationship between
the imperial and ecclesiastical spheres from either a pre-Justinianic or
medieval point of view. For these spheres were not at all separate, but
inter-penetrating in their rights and duties.
In the second half of the 6th century, moreover, Christian symbols
and rituals assumed an ever greater role in the life of the court, help-
ing promote the notion that the Roman empire was “God-protected”.65 It
was a vision that Gregory seems to have internalized deeply. In a letter
addressed to Leontia, consort of the usurper Phocas in 603, Gregory zeal-
ously besought the empress to:66

63 Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy, 2:804–9.

64 Markus, “Gregory the Great’s Europe,” p. 22.
65 See esp. Averil Cameron, “Images of Authority: Elites and Icons in Late Sixth-century
Byzantium,” Past and Present 84 (1979), 3–35, repr. in eadem, Continuity and Change, XVIII.
66 Reg. 13.40, trans. Martyn, 3:855 (CCSL 140A:1044): “Ipse igitur sit uestri custos imperii,
sit uobis protector in terra, sit pro uobis intercessor in caelo, ut per hoc, quod releuatis
duris ponderibus in uestro imperio subiectos gaudere facitis, post multa annorum tempora
in caelesti regno gaudeatis.”
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 71

[L]et God himself be the guardian of your empire, let him be your protector
on earth and let him intercede for you in heaven, so that through the fact
that you make the subjects of your empire rejoice by relieving their harsh
burdens, you may yourself rejoice in the heavenly kingdom after many peri-
ods of years.
Reflecting the importance of public intercession for the emperor at this
time, Gregory understood that the peace of this “God-guarded empire”
was secured through the prayers of the leaders of the Church.67 Gregory
asked of Maurice:68
For what human virtue, most serene Lordship, what mortal strength of arm
would presume to raise its irreligious hands against the glory of your most
Christian empire, if the minds of priests burned to beseech their Redeemer
as one, on your behalf, and, as was proper, of your merits?
His squabble with the patriarch of Constantinople over the “ecumenical”
title which was frequently attributed to the latter was so grave precisely
because it threatened the unity of the priesthood whose intercessions
ensured the empire’s safety.69 Not a political theorist, Gregory the Great
was nevertheless a master observer of the political ideals of his day.
The heightened Christian ethos of Maurice’s court was also reflected
in the ostentatious piety of that segment of Constantinople’s aristocracy
with which Gregory corresponded.70 The prominence of the Bible and
biblical metaphors in this correspondence is striking and, to a very large
extent, the Bible and Bible-reading provided the common language and
habits of thought and activity that knit Gregory and his correspondents
together.71 This dependence on the Bible was complemented practically
with public almsgiving.72 They went hand-in-hand, as when, in June 595,
Gregory wrote to thank Theodore, the court physician, for the gold he

67 Averil Cameron, “The Theotokos in Sixth-century Constantinople: A City Finds its

Symbol,” Journal of Theological Studies n. s. 29 (1978), 79–108 at 106, repr. in eadem, Chang-
ing Cultures, XVI.
68 Reg. 5.37, trans. Martyn, 2:351 (CCSL 140:308): “Quae enim, serenissime domine, uir-
tus humana, quod carnei robur brachii contra uestri christianissimi culmen imperii irre-
ligiosas praesumat manus erigere, si studeret concors sacerdotum mens redemptorem
suum lingua pro uobis atque, ut oportebat, meritis exorare?”
69 Reg. 7.28, 9.136; Markus, Gregory the Great and his World, pp. 91–5.
70 Nevertheless, appreciation for classical culture persisted well into the 7th century:
Ruth E. Leader-Newby, Silver and Society in Late Antiquity: Functions and meanings of silver
plate in the fourth to seventh centuries (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 173–7, 204–8; Sarris, Economy
and Society, pp. 221–2.
71  See Reg. 3.62, 3.63, 3.65.
72 Note Maurice’s very public almsgiving for the poor of Rome: Reg. 5.30.
72 matthew dal santo

sent to Rome to embellish the tomb of St. Peter. For Gregory concluded
his epistle with an exhortation that Theodore carry on with his daily Bible
reading, a habit he had evidently given the pope reason to believe he was
neglecting. “What is Holy Scripture other than a letter of almighty God
to his creation?” Gregory remonstrated. “Study, I beg you, and each day
meditate on the words of your Creator.”73
The imperial physician was not alone in receiving pious encouragement
of this kind and Gregory seems to have acted as a spiritual confessor for
many members of Constantinople’s court circle. He had a reputation as an
esteemed spiritual writer: Anatolius, a Roman deacon and one of Gregory’s
own representatives at Constantinople after his election as pope, thought
it worthwhile to present a copy of Gregory’s celebrated (and Latin) Rule
of Pastoral Care to the Emperor Maurice, who was “seeking and ordering
a copy” (quaerenti ac iubenti), while Gregory’s friend, Anastasius of Anti-
och, translated it into Greek.74 Another courtier asked Gregory to write an
edifying tract on the spiritual life for the monasteries that he had estab-
lished in Constantinople; although Gregory declined to do so, he asked
for news of the spiritual progress of a number of high-ranking members of
society.75 To Gregoriana, lady-in-waiting to the empress, Gregory offered
spiritual direction based on the gospel story of Mary and Martha, urging
her every day to bewail her sins.76 The empress herself was offered similar
advice.77 Many others received, as tokens of thanks for the alms they had
sent over to Rome, filings from St. Peter’s chains.78 The most remarkable
gift of this kind (a key imbued with the apostle’s blessing) was that which
Gregory dispatched to Theoctista (a woman Gregory elsewhere described
as “spending [her] life incessantly in reading the Bible, in weeping and
in acts of charity”),79 nurse to the imperial offspring, whose miraculous
powers Gregory confirmed with the story of a miracle which the relic was

73 Reg. 5.46, trans. Martyn, 2:373 (CCSL 140:399–40): “Quid autem est scriptura sacra
nisi quaedem epistula omnipotentis Dei ad creaturam suam? . . . Stude, quaeso, et cotidie
creatoris tui uerba meditare.”
74 Reg. 12.6, trans. Martyn, 3:811 (CCSL 140A:976). Both actions allegedly displeased the
humble pope! See further Rita Lizzi, “La traduzione greca delle opere di Gregorio Magno
dalla Regula Pastoralis ai Dialogi,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo (Rome, 1991), 2:41–57.
75 Reg. 7.27.
76 Reg. 7.22.
77 See Reg. 7.23.
78 See Grazia Rispardi, “I doni nell’epistolario di Gregorio Magno,” in Gregorio Magno
e il suo tempo, 2:285–300.
79 Reg. 11.27, trans. Martyn, 3:771 (CCSL 140A:913): “in lectione, in lacrimis atque in elem-
osinis incessabiliter uiuit.”
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 73

allegedly responsible for performing when held by its previous Lombard

owners north of the Po.80
The tokens (benedictiones) associated with St. Peter that Gregory
bestowed upon his friends perhaps reflect the important role that patron-
age of saints’ cults played in promoting the pious image of the court. As
part of his programme, Maurice sought to add significantly to the saintly
relics conserved at Constantinople.81 Yet, when Empress Constantina
asked Gregory to contribute to this project by sending to Constantinople
the head of St. Paul (which was conserved with his body at Rome), Greg-
ory politely declined.82 Explaining that Roman custom did not permit the
dismemberment of the saints’ bodies, Gregory volunteered to expedite
instead some portions from the chains that had been used to bind the
apostle and which, he assured her, were producing many miracles in pub-
lic.83 He prayed that the empress would “always enjoy the power of the
holy apostles, whom you love with all your heart and mind, not because
of their bodily presence, but their protection.”84
Gregory’s handling of the empress’s request testifies to the forthright-
ness with which Gregory could assert his own opinions and judgements
vis-à-vis the court. For neither Gregory’s devotion to the emperor’s God-
given role in Christian society, nor his belief that the extension of the
Christian empire played a fundamental role in God’s plan for the salvation
of humankind, prevented the bishop of Rome from voicing disagreement
with the policies pursued by the emperor. In 592/3, Maurice enacted a
law that sought to prevent office holders in the civil administration and the
army, throughout the empire, from escaping their responsibilities by tak-
ing holy orders as a priest or entering a monastery.85 Gregory remonstrated

80 Reg. 7.23. For Gregory’s love of miracle stories, see also Reg. 11.26; and Matthew Dal
Santo, “The Shadow of a Doubt? A Note on the Dialogues and Registrum Epistolarum of
Pope Gregory the Great (590–604),” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 61 (2010), 3–17.
81  Whitby, Emperor Maurice, pp. 22–3.
82 Reg. 4.30 (CCSL 140:150).
83 Ibid. (CCSL 140:150). On this episode see John McCulloh, “The Cult of Relics in the
Letters and Dialogues of Gregory the Great: A Lexicographical Study,” Traditio 32 (1976),
145–84. On Gregory and the cult of relics, see further Conrad Leyser, “The temptations of
cult: Roman martyr piety in the age of Gregory the Great,” Early Medieval Europe 9 (2000),
289–307.
84 Ibid., trans. Martyn, 1:312 (CCSL 140:150): “sanctorum apostolorum uirtutem, quos tot
corde et mente diligitis, non ex corporali praesentia sed ex protectione semper habebitis.”
Note the comparable reaction of Bishop Eusebius of Thessalonica when ordered to send
some of the relics of his city’s patron, St. Demetrius, to Constantinople: Paul Lemerle, Les
plus anciens recueils des miracles de saint Démétrius, 2 vols (Paris, 1979), 1:87.
85 Markus, Gregory the Great and his World, pp. 87–9.
74 matthew dal santo

vigorously with the emperor to repeal the new law.86 Arguing that no
emperor since the reviled Julian the Apostate (361–3) had enacted legisla-
tion so inimical to the interests of God, Gregory even presumed to speak
with the voice of Christ himself, reviewing his friend’s curriculum vitae.
The passage reveals again Gregory’s innate, and very “Byzantine”, sense
of the origins of the imperial office in an election made by Christ and its
incumbent’s duties towards the Christian priesthood:87
[B]ehold, Christ answers through me, the lowest of his servants and of yours,
saying: “From notary I made you commander of the imperial guard, from
commander of the imperial guard I made you crown prince, from crown
prince I made you emperor, and not just this, but even I made you father of
emperors. I have entrusted my priests to your hand, and you withdraw your
soldiers from my service.”
Nevertheless, Gregory, “being subject to the emperor’s command” (ius-
sione subiectus), was prepared to publish the law. Eventually, it seems,
Maurice did modify it in response to Gregory’s protests so that only those
still under a legal obligation or financially indebted to the state found
their paths to holy orders blocked.88
Another conflict (“the severest crisis of Gregory’s pontificate”)89 emerged
over Gregory’s attempt in 595 to conclude a peace treaty with the Lom-
bard king, Agilulf. Although a fragile agreement was eventually secured,
this was not until after the emperor had accused Gregory of dangerous
naivety in the confidence he was willing to place in Lombard promises,
while Gregory made the counter-accusation that Maurice and his govern-
ment were being negligent in their defence of Italy.90 Gregory is some-
times portrayed as having treated unilaterally with the Lombards in this
affair, but his own account reveals that he acted in concert with the two
highest-ranking imperial officials in Italy after the exarch, the praetorian
prefect and Rome’s magister militum.91 Gregory and Maurice were also at

86 See Reg. 3.61, 3.64.

87 Reg. 3.61, trans. Martyn, 1:281 (CCSL 140:210): “ecce per me seruum ultimum suum et
uestrum respondit Christus, dicens: Ego te de notario comitem scubitorum, de comite scu-
bitorum caesarem, de caesare imperatorem, nec solum hoc, sed etiam patrem imperatorum
feci. Sacerdotes meos tuae manui commisi, et tu a meo seruitio milites tuos subtrahis.”
88 Ibid., 1:282 (CCSL 140:210). See further Reg. 8.10, 10.9.
89 Markus, Gregory the Great and his World, pp. 104–6.
90 Reg. 5.36.
91  The name of the latter was Castus. He is described as “chief of the household guard”
in Reg. 5.30, and was involved with the pope in the payment of the troops defending
Rome.
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 75

loggerheads about the best way to handle the schismatic bishops of the
churches of Istria in northern Italy, a dispute in which Gregory might be
accused of having attempted to be more “orthodox than emperor”.92 While
Maurice was prepared to tolerate the schismatics until the war against the
Lombards could be concluded, Gregory pressed for their arrest and force-
ful return to the bosom of the imperial Church forthwith.93 In this case,
his complaint stemmed not from an excess of imperial “interference” in
church affairs, but a deficiency in it.
It was once alleged that Gregory, through his careful re-organization
of the Church’s patrimony or landed estates, laid the foundations for the
fiscal base of the independent papal state of the Middle Ages.94 But impe-
rial officials were clearly still involved in regulating the grain supply to
Rome, Naples and other Italian cities.95 In any case, the problem here, for
western medievalists, seems to be one of perspective. For at the end of
the 6th century the secular responsibilities which Gregory assumed
as bishop of one of the empire’s major cities were not unusual. On the
contrary, these duties (overseeing the peace of the city, the collection
of taxes, the distribution of bread and the payment and provisioning of
local units of the army) were among the long-term results of Justinian’s
restructuring of government across the empire.96 A comparison can be
made with the patriarchs of Alexandria, also called “popes”.97 Patriarch
John the Almsgiver (610–19) was credited with a significant role in the civil
administration of the city, while his successor, Cyrus (631–43), was effec-
tively governor of Egypt on the eve of the Arab conquest.98 In Antioch,

92 Markus, Gregory the Great and his World, pp. 125–33; Claire Sotinel, “The Three Chap-
ters and the Transformations of Italy,” in The Crisis of the Oikoumene: The Three Chapters
and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-century Mediterranean, eds Celia Chazelle and
Catherine Cubitt (Turnhout, 2007), pp. 85–120.
93 Paul Meyvaert, “A Letter of Pelagius II Composed by Gregory the Great,” in Greg-
ory the Great, ed. Cavadini, pp. 94–116; and Robert Coates-Stephens, “Sulla fondazione di
S. Maria in Domnica,” in Scavi e scoperte recenti nelle chiese di Roma—Atti della giornata
tematica dei Seminari di Archeologia Cristiana, Roma—13 marzo 2008, eds Hugo Branden-
burg and Federico Guidobaldi, Sussidi allo studio delle Antichità Cristiane 21 (Vatican City,
2012), pp. 77–91.
94 Ullmann, Short History of the Papacy, pp. 53–4. Cf. Markus, Gregory the Great and his
World, 2012, pp. 112–24.
95 Reg. 9.116, 10.8.
96 Sarris, Economy and Society, p. 207; also Mark Whittow, “Ruling the Late Roman and
Early Byzantine City: A Continuous History,” Past and Present 129 (1990), 3–29 at 12.
97 On the title in this period, see John Moorhead, “Papa as ‘bishop of Rome’,” Journal of
Ecclesiastical History (1985), 337–50.
98 See the Life of John the Almsgiver in Léontios de Néapolis: Vie de Syméon le Fou, Vie
de Jean de Chypre, eds André-Jean Festugière and Lennart Rydén (Paris, 1974); Walter E.
76 matthew dal santo

too, Patriarch Gregory I (570–92) provisioned and equipped the impe-

rial army.99 Hence, while the magister militum referred to in a number
of Gregory’s letters was responsible for the defence of the city of Rome,
Gregory, as the army’s self-styled “paymaster”, was fulfilling the role allot-
ted to him as bishop within the imperial system, not usurping a “secular”
responsibility for the sake of establishing an alternative episcopal power-
base. In the Justinianic dispensation that Gregory clearly accepted, there
was no room for an opposition between “secular” and “spiritual” authori-
ties, as both were mingled for the benefit of a single Christian empire.100
It is also important not to downplay the extent of the emperor’s author-
ity in early “Byzantine” Rome, which remained significant throughout
this period.101 The supreme embodiment of imperial authority in Greg-
ory’s Italy was the exarch at Ravenna. This post combined military and
civilian responsibilities and Gregory’s relationship with its incumbent
could be very strained.102 In Rome itself, a subordinate military governor
appears to have resided in the old imperial palace on the Palatine Hill, the
emperors’ ancient seat.103 Friction could and did arise between Gregory
and other imperial officials when, as in the case of an imperial investiga-
tion into high-level corruption in Sicily, Gregory believed the emperor’s
agents abused their powers.104 Yet he famously reminded Leontius, prae-
tor of Sicily, that the emperor’s laws had always to be respected: “For
there is a difference between people’s kings and a Roman emperor: the

Kaegi, “Egypt on the eve of the Muslim conquest,” in The Cambridge History of Egypt,
vol. 1, Islamic Egypt, 640–1517 (Cambridge, 1998), 34–61.
99 Evagrius Scholasticus, HE 6.11 (eds J. Bidez and L. Parmentier [London, 1898], pp.
228–9; trans. Michael Whitby, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus [Liverpool,
2000], pp. 301–2).
100 Markus, “Gregory the Great’s Europe,” p. 22.
101  Mark Humphries, “From Emperor to Pope? Ceremonial, Space, and Authority at
Rome from Constantine to Gregory the Great,” in Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early
Christian Rome, 300–900, eds Kate Cooper and Julia Hillner (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 21–58;
Robert Coates-Stephens, “Byzantine Building Patronage in Post-reconquest Rome,” in Les
Cités de l’Italie tardo-antique (IVe–VIe siècle): Institutions, économie, société, culture et reli-
gion, eds Massimiliano Ghilardi, Christophe J. Goddard and Pierfrancesco Porena, Collec-
tion de l’École française de Rome 369 (Rome, 2006), pp. 149–66.
102 Markus, Gregory the Great and his World, p. 102.
103 Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, pp. 54–5; Andrea Augenti, “Continuity and discon-
tinuity of a seat of power: the Palatine Hill from the fifth to the tenth century,” in Early
Medieval Rome and the Christian West: Essays in Honour of Donald A. Bullough, ed. Julia M.
H. Smith (Leiden, 2000), pp. 43–53.
104 Reg. 8.33, 9.32, 9.34, 9.46, 9.55, 11.4; Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, pp. 152–3.
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 77

kings of peoples are masters of slaves, but a Roman emperor is master of

free men.”105
Some have argued that Gregory’s attitudes towards secular power
were profoundly ambivalent.106 But although Gregory in his Moralia lik-
ened imperial power to a “rhinoceros”, the destructive potential of whose
unbridled might the agents of the Church must direct towards useful pur-
poses, it would be an error to interpret Gregory’s frustrations as antipa-
thy towards the emperor or the imperial dispensation he represented. An
imperial commander prosecuting the war against the Lombards in Italy,
for example, Gregory exhorted to “do whatever remains for you to do for
the good of the Republic, with the help of God.”107 In 592, he informed
the soldiery of Naples that “[t]he highest military glory among other wor-
thy services is this, to offer obedience to what benefits our holy republic,
and to submit to whatever has been ordered for its advantage.”108 They
were thus to submit in obedience to the imperial commander set over
them “for the interests of our most serene Lordship” (pro serenissimorum
dominorum utilitate).109 Gregory’s loyalty was due, at least in part, to the
fundamental role which the Christian empire always retained in God’s
purposes. This is well demonstrated in the words of Gregory’s admonition
to the exarch of Africa. War against the barbarians was to be waged,110
not from a desire to pour out men’s blood, but for the sake of extending the
republic’s domain, in which we see the worship of God, so that the name
of Christ spreads in every direction through the subject nations through the
preaching of the faith.
As the empire’s bounds grew wider, so, Gregory imagined, did the salva-
tion of God through the offices of the imperial Church.

105 Reg. 11.4, trans. Martyn, 3:738 (CCSL 140A:862): “Hoc enim inter reges gentium et
imperatorem Romanorum distat, quia reges gentium domini seruorum sunt, imperator
uero Romanorum dominus liberorum.”
106 Straw, “Gregory’s Politics,” 1:58–60; cf. Hipshon, “Gregory the Great’s Political
Thought,” 449–50 (as in n. 1); Reydellet, Royauté dans la littérature latine, pp. 474–9.
107 Reg. 2.4, trans. Martyn, 1:195 (CCSL 140:92): “quaecumque uobis Deo adiutore pro
utilitate rei publicae steterint, facite.”
108 Reg. 2.47, trans. Martyn, 1:227 (CCSL 140:138–9): “Summa militiae laus inter alia bona
merita haec est, oboedientiam sanctae rei publicae utilitatibus exhibere, quodque sibi uti-
liter imperatum fuerit obtemperare.”
109 Ibid. (CCSL 140:139).
110  Reg. 1.73, trans. Martyn, 1:187 (CCSL 140:81–2): “bella uos frequenter appetere non
desiderio fundendi sanguinis sed dilatandae causa rei publicae, in qua Deum coli con-
spicimus, loqueretur, quatenus Christi nomen per subditas gentes fidei praedicatione
circumquaque discurreret.”
78 matthew dal santo

It is also an error to see in the mission that Gregory sent to the kingdom
of Kent an effort to liberate the Roman Church from the confines of the
empire.111 Indeed, as Robert Markus has shown, the empire was a model
for the Anglo-Saxons’ conversion in Gregory’s letters to the Kentish king,
Æthelbert.112 News of the mission had reached the emperor’s ears and
thrilled Constantinople, Gregory reported: Æthelbert should now conduct
himself as a new Constantine, his queen, Bertha, as a new Helena.113 One
of the attractions with which Gregory hoped to entice his new converts
was thus participation in the splendid spiritual éclat of a greater imperial
commonwealth. Neither were Gregory’s missionary and “strategic” inter-
ests confined to the West. He was concerned about the health and secu-
rity of the empire’s frontier in the East, too, and used his contacts with
Domitian of Melitene to keep informed about the attempted, if ultimately
abortive, conversion of the Persian king, Khusro II.114 Gregory, like others
at the time, clearly felt some misgivings about the alliance towards which
Maurice guided the Christian empire and its ancient foe.115 But despite
the strains and disagreements that evidently attended their friendship,
Gregory and the emperor did not grow permanently embittered. “Let your
Lordship’s piety consider me your personal friend”, Gregory wrote on one
occasion, “as you have always specially supported and preserved me.
For I desire to offer my obedience to you.”116 The words could describe
the attitude that Gregory maintained throughout his pontificate and,
indeed, his life towards a sovereign to whom personal bonds committed
him as much as the Justinianic ideology of the God-appointed Christian
emperor.117

111  Ullmann, Short History of the Papacy, pp. 54–5; also Reydellet, Royauté dans la lit-
térature latine, pp. 454–5. Cf. Charles and Luce Pietri, “Église universelle et respublica chris-
tiana selon Grégoire le grand,” in Memoriam Sanctorum Venerantes: Miscellanea in onore di
Monsignor Victor Saxer (Vatican City, 1992), 647–65.
112 Markus, “Gregory the Great’s Europe,” p. 25.
113 Reg. 11.35, 11.37.
114 Reg. 3.62, 3.64.
115 Reg. 3.62. See also John of Nikiu, Chronicon, 96.12 in Robert H. Charles, The Chronicle
of John, Bishop of Nikiu (London, 1916), p. 156.
116 Reg. 5.37, trans. Martyn, 2:353 (CCSL 140:311): “Cogitet igitur dominorum pietas de
me proprio suo, quem specialiter prae ceteris semper fouit atque continuit, qui et uobis
oboedentiam praebere desidero.”
117 See also Reg. 6.16, trans. Martyn, 2:414 (CCSL 140:385): “sincera in uobis, christianissme
principum, uelt emissum caelitus iubar fidei rectitudo resplendeat.” That Maurice had called
him “naive” (fatuus) only a few months before (Reg. 5.36) seems to have been forgotten. In
599 he affirmed Maurice’s solicitousness for the security of Rome (Reg. 9.240), and in 601
he wrote to his friend, Theoctista, the emperor’s sister, that “we should pray for the same
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 79

Yet this only makes the enthusiasm with which Gregory greeted the
news of the accession of the new emperor, Phocas, all the more per-
plexing. The latter overthrew Maurice in a bloody putsch in November
602 after the emperor had ordered the armies serving in the Balkans to
winter beyond the Danube.118 Maurice was arrested and executed with
his heirs, although it was rumoured for a time that Theodosius had sur-
vived and fled to the Persians. Despite his being godfather to Theodosius,
Gregory nevertheless chose to greet the new emperor with the words of
the angels to the shepherds at Bethlehem: “Glory to God in the highest”
(Luke 2:14).119 His opening letter to the new empress, Leontia, was even
more obsequious.120 Given his close connections to Maurice, Gregory prob-
ably feared that his loyalty would be questioned if not strongly affirmed,
and he knew that the consequences of being too closely associated with
the old regime could be dangerous. Certainly, Gregory tried to persuade
Eusebia, daughter of his old friend, Rusticiana, and a figure at Maurice’s
court, to escape the “tumultuous entanglements of the imperial city”,
the “overflowing tumults of that city”, by relocating to Rome.121 Indeed,
his correspondence with Phocas can be read as containing an implicit
warning. Gregory asserted:122
Sometimes, when the sins of many are to be punished, one man arises,
through whose harshness his subjects’ necks may be crushed under a yoke
of tribulation . . . At other times, when a merciful God decides to revive the
grieving hearts of many men with consolation, he raises one man to the
highest rule and through the depths of his mercy pours the grace of his
exultation into the minds of all men.

Lordship continually, asking that his life and those of all his family may be preserved by
the protection of heavenly grace for a long and peaceful time”: Reg. 11.27, trans. Martyn,
3:763 (CCSL 140A:902): “pro eisdem dominis continue nobis orandum est, ut eorum uita
cum suis omnibus protegente caelesti gratia per longa tempora et tranquilla seruetur.”
118 Whitby, Emperor Maurice, pp. 24–7.
119 Reg. 13.32.
120 Reg. 13.40.
121  Reg. 13.33, trans. Martyn, 3:849 (CCSL 140A:1034–5): “regiae ciuitatis tumultuosis
implicationibus . . . , ciuitatis illius superfluis tumultibus.” Martyn views the letter as a
coded invitation to join the pontiff in Rome.
122 Reg. 13.32, trans. Martyn, 3:848 (CCSL 140A:1033): “aliquando, cum multorum peccata
ferienda sunt, unus erigitur, per cuius duritiam tribulationis iugo subiectorum colla depri-
mantur . . . . Aliquando uero cum misericors Deus maerentia multorum corda sua decernit
consolatione refouere, unum ad regiminis culmen prouehit et per eius misericordiae uis-
cera in cunctorum mentibus exsultationis suae gratiam infundit.”
80 matthew dal santo

Doubtless, Gregory meant it to be understood that Maurice was the for-

mer and Phocas the latter, but he does not explicitly identify either man,
and other meanings can be implied. Moreover, Gregory exhorted Phocas
to act with restraint and be mindful of the requirements of divine jus-
tice, which presupposed the possibility of further cruelties on the new
emperor’s part.
However much a murderer, Phocas was now the emperor: he had to be
obeyed for the greater glory of God in the Christian empire. One of the
final entries in the collection of Gregory’s correspondence is a description
of the arrival in the city in April 603 of the images of Phocas and his con-
sort, Leontia, and their reception by the pope and Senate:123
the icon of the . . . Augusti, Phocas and Leontia, came to Rome on the sev-
enth day before the Kalends of May (25 April), and all the clergy and Senate
acclaimed them in the Lateran in the Julian basilica: ‘Hear us, Christ! Life
to Phocas, emperor, and to Leontia, empress.’ Then the most blessed and
apostolic Pope Gregory ordered the icon itself to be deposited in the oratory
of Saint Caesarius, inside the royal palace.
For modern audiences, the commitment of a man like Gregory to a hier-
archical and “multi-national” state like the later Roman Empire is perhaps
difficult to understand. Empires, as a means for arranging political relation-
ships between groups of peoples, are not at all fashionable today.124 In this
sense, Gregory’s letters reconnect us with a world before the advent of the
modern nation state. They help us to appreciate what others, far removed
from ourselves, may have valued in these old empires and, indeed, what
it was that bound them together. In Gregory’s case, religion was the glue
that held the empire together—apart from the historical events that had
re-joined Italy to the provinces ruled by the emperor at Constantinople
by force of arms—and particularly the notion that the Christian God had
ordained a certain political order at whose apex stood a quasi-sacerdotal
emperor, with a specific role to play in the unfolding of God’s purposes

123 Appendix 8, trans. Martyn, 3:886 (CCSL 140A:1101): “Venit autem icona . . . Focae et

Leontiae Augustorum Romae septimo Kalendarum Maiarum, et acclamatum est eis in Late-
ranis in basilica Iulii ab omni clero uel senatu: ‘Exaudi Christe! Focae Augusto et Leontiae
Augustae uita!’ Tunc iussit ipsam iconam domnus beatissimus et apostolicus Gregorius
papa reponi eam in oratorio sancti Caesarii intra palatio.”
124 For renewed scholarly interest in empires, see Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper,
Empires in World History: Power and the politics of difference (Princeton, NJ, 2010); Ian
Morris and Walter Scheidel, The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to
Byzantium (Oxford, 2009); and Herfried Münkler, Imperien: Die Logik der Weltherrschaft
vom Alten Rom bis zu den Vereinigten Staaten (Berlin, 2005).
 gregory the great, the empire and the emperor 81

with humankind. Although traditional Roman religion had played a part

in the political community of the classical, pre-Christian empire, by the
6th century it was Christianity that had come to explain and justify the
universal authority of the emperor over all the peoples he ruled (and many
of those he did not or did no longer). Yet what is truly remarkable about
the period in which Gregory lived and worked is that across the broad
sweep of Eurasia, from Rome to the capital of the Sasanian kings at Cte-
siphon and beyond even this as far as the capital of the Chinese empire
at Chang’an, the rulers of the conglomerate states we label empires were
all looking to religion to cement, and somehow sacralise as never before,
the authority of the ruler.125 It was as if the art of governing had itself
grown more difficult—a sentiment with which Gregory and Maurice, his
emperor, patron and friend, would doubtless have concurred.

125 See the interesting perspectives revealed in Walter Scheidel (ed.), Rome and China:
Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires (Oxford, 2009); and Thomas Jansen,
“New Tendencies, Religious and Philosophical, in the Chinese World of the Third through
Sixth Centuries,” in Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome compared, eds Fritz-Heiner
Mutschler and Achim Mittag (Oxford, 2008), pp. 397–419.
 Chapter Four

Gregory the Great and Monasticism

Barbara Müller

Gregory the Great is connected with some very important aspects of

monasticism. His relationship with the movement of Benedict of Nursia
stands at the beginning of the development of what became the very
influential Benedictinism. Gregory, as the first monk to become pope, also
directed ecclesiastical policy for fourteen decisive years in a manner that
was, at least in part, shaped by his monastic ideals.1 Finally, it is Gregory’s
numerous writings, which deal with his regulation of monastic affairs as
well as his attitude to being a monk, that give a unique insight into the
diverse nature of monastic life during the 6th and early 7th centuries.

Gregory the Monk in the Context of Monastic Tradition

Gregory was not the first of his family to turn towards the monastic life.
He himself mentions three of his aunts on his father’s side, Tarsilla, Gordi-
ana, and Aemiliana, who lived as virgins dedicated to God according to a
strict rule in their own house—presumably the family home—as a reli-
gious community.2 Gregory’s aunts, then, belong to a line of women of the
Roman senatorial aristocracy that can be traced back to the second half of
the 4th century, who lived mainly in the family home in a monastic fash-
ion under a private or public vow.3 As an example of commitment to their

1  Despite more recent studies on Gregory and monasticism, still of outstanding impor-
tance are: Erich Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums (Tübingen, 1933), 2:339. More recently:
Georg Jenal, Italia ascetica atque monastica. Das Asketen- und Mönchtum in Italien von den
Anfängen bis zur Zeit der Langobarden (ca. 150/250–604) (Stuttgart, 1995), 2:827–31; Con-
rad Leyser, Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great (Oxford, 2000),
pp. 131–87; George E. Demacopoulos, Five Models of Spiritual Direction in the Early Church
(Notre Dame, IN, 2007), pp. 127–69.
2 HEv. 38.15 (CCSL 141:374): “Tres pater meus sorores habuit, quae cunctae tres sacrae
virgines fuerunt . . . Uno omnes ardore conversae, uno eodemque tempore sacratae, sub
districtione regulari degentes, in domo propria socialem vitam ducebant.” See also: Dial.
4.17 (SC 265:68–70).
3 See Jenal, Italia ascetica atque monastica, 1:131–32; 266.
84 barbara müller

vocation, however, Gregory could only instance Tarsilla and Aemiliana;

Gordiana’s religious fervour cooled and she turned progressively towards
the world and especially towards the steward of her estates—the women
do not appear to have given up all their worldly goods—whom she later
married.4 The sisters appear to have prayed so intensely that the skin on
Tarsilla’s elbows and knees became as hard “as a camel’s”.5 At much the
same time as Gregory, shortly after his father’s death, his mother Silvia
also took up the monastic life. She entered the convent Cella Nova near
the basilica of St. Paul. In doing so she chose a way of life that was, at the
time, common for older aristocratic widows.
On his own conversion to the monastic life which occurred in about
574, Gregory goes into detail in only one passage in his works. In the dedi-
cation of his commentary on Job to his friend Leander of Seville, written
at least twenty years after the event, Gregory describes his lengthy struggle
to realize the “grace of conversion” (conversionis gratia).6 Self-critically,
he admits that he had too long allowed ingrown habits to restrict him
(inolta me consuetudo devinxerat).7 The restraining habit that he cites is
his office as prefect of the city of Rome, which he had undertaken in patri-
otic enthusiasm combined perhaps with a certain amount of vanity. The
death of his father Gordianus delivered the final impetus for giving up his
worldly career and taking up the religious life.
In about 574 Gregory used the fortune of his late father to found seven
monasteries, six in Sicily and one in Rome.8 He converted his family home,
at the foot of Mons Caelius on the clivus Scauri, into a Roman monastery,
dedicated to St. Andrew the Apostle, and entered it himself.9 Gregory was
never the abbot of his monastery. His biographer, John the Deacon, inter-
prets this as showing Gregory’s preference for a subordinate role.10 How
many monks there were in Gregory’s community is unknown. The first
abbot of St. Andrew’s monastery was Valentius, an abbot who had fled

4 HEv. 38:15 (CCSL 141:376).

5 “camelorum more”, HEv. 38:15 (CCSL 141:375); cf. Dial. 4.17.3 (SC 265:70); in Dial. 4.17.1
Gregory speaks of “virtute continuae orationis” (SC 265:68).
6 Mor. praef. 1 (CCSL 143:1).
7 Mor. praef. 1 (CCSL 143:1); on the Augustinian language and the corresponding par-
allels in content, see Claude Dagens, Saint Grégoire le grand. Culture et expèrience chré-
tiennes (Paris, 1977), pp. 297–98.
8 Gregory of Tours, HF 10.1 (MGH SSRM 1.1:477–78).
9 LP 66.5 (ed. Duchesne, 1:312). On the lay-out, appearance, and dedication of the mon-
astery of St. Andrew, see Barbara Müller, Führung im Denken und Handeln Gregors des
Grossen (Tübingen, 2009), pp. 27–40.
10 “cum subesse mallet”, John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii 1.6 (PL 75:65B).
 gregory the great and monasticism 85

to Rome from the invading Lombards.11 Others of Gregory’s fellow monks

were also monastic refugees from the province of Valeria adjoining Rome
to the north-east. From Gregory’s scanty remarks about his brethren, we
gather that the St. Andrew’s monastery received established monks, even
several abbots and their followers, and also various talented new converts.12
Some of Gregory’s fellows can be identified as members of the upper-
classes, so T.S. Brown’s description of St. Andrew’s as a “fashionably
aristocratic monastery” is probably accurate.13
The ascetic life of the monks of St. Andrew’s was marked by fasting but,
at least in Gregory’s case, can hardly have been too rigorous.14 The hos-
pitality and openness that characterized the monastery of St. Andrew are
evidence enough for that. Gregory and his fellow monks appear to have
carried out detailed biblical studies, practising the lectio divina.15 This
means that based on the study of Holy Scripture they were aiming for con-
templative experiences—a practice and experience which Gregory longed
for later in his very busy life as pope.16 In line with ancient monastic tra-
ditions, the monks of St. Andrew’s tried to attain the compunctio cordis
in their biblical meditations. Translated literally they were seeking the
“piercing of the heart”; in a spiritual context it signified being so deeply
touched by the word of God that contact with God became possible in the
innermost core of one’s being.17 The monks of St. Andrew’s would have
been instructed in this spiritual praxis by their monastic fathers as well as
from the relevant literature.18 This consideration and also Gregory’s com-
mentary on the Song of Songs—most probably composed during his first
period in the monastery of St. Andrew and containing noticeable parallels
to Origen’s exegesis—indicate that the study of theological writings must
also have formed part of the routine of the monks of St. Andrew’s.19 It is

11  Dial. 4.22.1 (SC 265:78); he was succeeded by Maximian and Peter, cf. Müller, Füh-
rung, pp. 45–46.
12 On Gregory’s fellow monks and his references to them, see Müller, Führung, pp.
45–46.
13 Thomas S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers. Imperial Administration and Aristocratic
Power in Byzantine Italy A.D. 554–800 (London, 1984), p. 78; cf. Jenal, Italia ascetica, 1:266.
14 Dial. 3.33.8 (SC 260:398).
15 See for instance Gregory, Dial. 4.49.2 (SC 260:168).
16 Cf. Dial. 1, Prol. 1–5 (SC 260:10–14).
17 A detailed discussion of “compunctio” is found in Dial. 3.34 (SC 260:400–04).
18 Especially John Cassian, Conlationes 9:26–30 (CSEL 13:273–76).
19 Cf. Susanne Müller, “Fervorem discamus amoris”. Das Hohelied und seine Auslegung
bei Gregor dem Grossen (St. Ottilien, 1991), pp. 236–38. A new, much later dating, i.e. during
Gregory’s pontificate, is suggested by Mark DelCogliano (trans.), Gregory the Great. On the
Song of Songs (Collegeville, 2012), pp. 33–36. See further Scott DeGregorio’s article infra.
86 barbara müller

hard to imagine that Gregory was alone in his study of theology. Indeed,
his dedication of the homilies on Ezekiel to Bishop Mari[ni]anus of
Ravenna, an ex-monk of St. Andrew’s, in which Gregory quotes Augustine
and Ambrose as sources, suggests that many of the monks of St. Andrew’s
studied theology.20 The monastery of St. Andrew then, seems also to have
been a place for theological study and learning.
Gregory’s commentary on the Song of Songs, that is, his exegesis of
Songs 1:1–8, is based on lectures he gave in his own monastery, probably
in 575–79, although he did not undertake its final editing until the turn of
the century.21 In these lectures on the Song of Songs, there is on the one
hand detailed discussion of the compunctio cordis, and thus of the piety
of the monks of St. Andrew’s, sustained by the Bible. On the other hand,
Gregory criticizes the ecclesiastical teachers (magistri) and priests (sac-
erdotes), accusing them of setting no sort of example by their way of life
to the faithful committed to their charge.22 What he demands of Church
leaders, on the contrary, is an exemplary life, in particular a unity of teach-
ing and conduct. This unity results from a combination of contemplation
and service as it is expressed concretely in actions in and for the world, as
well as in preaching.23 Gregory does not explicitly mention monks in his
observations on the Song of Songs, but the way in which he incorporates
the ascetic and contemplative life as the breeding ground for true and
correct ecclesiastical action, and at the same time criticizes the ecclesias-
tical leadership trapped in this world, suggests that he was thinking of a
renewal of the Church in a spirit of monasticism.
What was the rule of life for the monks of St. Andrew’s? Contrary to
earlier scholarly theories it was not the Benedictine Rule.24 Given the
contemporary multiplicity of rules, it would have been a mixed rule (reg-
ula mixta). This would be a house rule composed of various regulations
which had already been tried and tested in earlier monastic times and in

20 HEz. praef. (CCSL 142:3, l. 10–11). Deborah Mauskopf (The Book of Pontiffs of the
Church of Ravenna [Washington DC, 2004], pp. 42–43) identifies Marianus with the bishop
Marinian, Gregory’s contemporary, not the bishop of Ravenna from 546 to 556. Marinian
(595–606) was possibly also the original dedicatee of the RP: see Bronwen Neil’s chapter
supra.
21  Cf. Müller, “Fervorem discamus amoris”, p. 26.
22 Cant. 43 (CCSL 144:41).
23 Cant. 43 (CCSL 144:42).
24 On the earlier research into Gregory’s alleged Benedictine Rule of life, see Kassius
Hallinger, “Papst Gregor der Grosse und der Hl. Benedikt,” in Studia Anselmiana 42, Com-
mentationes in Regulam S. Benedicti, ed. Basilius Steidle (Rome, 1957), pp. 231–319, at pp.
231–34.
 gregory the great and monasticism 87

different rules, but specific to each individual monastery.25 The era of these
mixed rules (regulae mixtae) extended from the 4th–5th centuries into
the 9th century.26 We do not know exactly what the rule at St. Andrew’s
was. Gregory only twice refers explicitly to the rule of his own monastery
in his writings: in one case, the phrase “the regulations of our monastery”
(monasterii nostri . . . regula) means the regulations of the monastery of
St. Andrew according to which the brothers live communally and are not
allowed personal possessions.27 In the other case, he is speaking of the
admission of a new monk: “According to the rule he was kept waiting for
a long time and finally admitted.”28 These two regulations are to be found
often in early monastic rules and thus it is not possible to assign them to
any specific rule.29
As already mentioned, various monks from the province of Valeria
were among the earliest inmates of the monastery of St. Andrew. That
province’s rural areas made it an ideal setting for a secluded monastic
life.30 One of the monastic fathers of the province of Valeria whose per-
sonality can be sensed is Abbot Equitius of Amiterno (c.480/90–571). Equi-
tius was clearly a formative influence on Valentius, Gregory’s first abbot,
and thus probably on the whole monastic community of St. Andrew.31
Gregory devoted an extensive chapter of his Dialogues (Dial. 1.4) to Equi-
tius, depicting him as a worker of miracles and a charismatic person,
although acting at times at cross purposes with the institutional Church.
His appearance was unpretentious and peasant-like, but he must have

25 Gregory’s remark to Augustine, former monk of St. Andrew’s and later bishop of
Canterbury, “tuae fraternitas monasterii regulis erudita”, in Bede, HE 1.27 (eds. and trans.
Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors, Oxford Medieval Texts [Oxford, 1969], p. 80), can be
interpreted to mean that the monks of St. Andrew’s were familiar with various monastic
rules.
26 Cf. Hallinger, “Papst Gregor,” pp. 264–65.
27 Dial. 4.57.10 (SC 265:188) “. . . quia eisudem monasterii nostri semper regula fuerat, ut
cuncti fratres ita communiter viverent, quatenus eis singulis nulla habere propria liceret.”
28 HEv. 38.16 (CCSL 141:376): “qui diu regulariter protractus, quandoque susceptus est.”
29 Cf. Regula Benedicti 58. 1–3 (CSEL 75:133): “Nobiter [sic!] veniens quis ad conversatio-
nem, non ei facilis tribuatur ingressus, sed sicut ait apostolus: Probate spiritus, si ex deo
sunt.” Cf. 1 John 4:1.
30 See Peter Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages, 2nd ed. (London, 1993), p. 135; Gregorio
Penco, “Conditions and Currents in Sixth-century Italian Monasticism,” American Benedic-
tine Review 50 (1999), 161–79, at 169.
31  Cf. Giacinto Marinangeli, “Equizio Amiternino e il suo movimento monastico,” Bul-
letino della deputazione abruzzese di storia patria 64 (1974), 281–343; idem, “Influssi ‘Equi-
ziani’ nel monastero Gregoriano ad Clivum Scauri?” Bulletino della deputazione abruzzese
di storia patria 71 (1981), 57–84, at 6–465; Gregorio Penco, Storia del monachesimo in Italia
dalle origini alla fine dell Medio Evo (Rome, 1959), pp. 23–24.
88 barbara müller

had a certain level of education.32 According to Robert Markus, Equitius

was a “free-lance preacher” who was immediately opposed by the pope
because of his unauthorized preaching, an opposition which, however, was
miraculously reversed.33 Equitius’ main interest, supposing that Gregory
did not attribute one of his own interests to the charismatic predecessor
of his Valerian fellow monks, was to inflame the hearers of his preach-
ing with “love for their heavenly home”.34 We might therefore conclude
that Gregory’s notable ideal of preaching, supported by monastic con-
templation, was owed partly to the formation of his fellow monks from
the province of Valeria and thus ultimately to Equitius. Similarly, we may
speculate about the influence Equitius had on the rule of the monastery
of St. Andrew. This, however, cannot be deduced with certainty since the
only information we have on Equitius, apart from his mere name, comes
from Gregory’s pen which makes it impossible to check or compare his
description of Equitius.
The great historical success of the Benedictine Rule to some extent
obstructs the recognition of other early monastic traditions and influ-
ences that decisively formed Gregory’s own monastic life and thinking—
and possibly even more strongly than the Benedictine ideal of the monk.
In the first place, there is Gregory’s friend the Spanish bishop, Leander of
Seville, (c.540–600) with whom he spent several years in Constantinople
(580–85). Leander, like Gregory, preferred the monastic life, which in his
case resulted in the formulation of a rule.35 There are echoes of Leander’s
Rule in Gregory’s works.36 Given the profound life-long friendship between
the two men it is likely that their conversations in Constantinople would
have included the monastic life as well as or in the context of the Book of
Job, on which Gregory wrote a long commentary at this time and which
he later sent to Leander.37 In his manner of life Leander belongs to the
category of monk-bishops: he was originally a monk who later, as bishop,
acted within the entire Church but without ever forgetting his personal

32 Dial. 1.4.10 (SC 260:46): “Erat uero valde vilis in vestibus, atque ita despectus, ut si
quis illum fortasse nesciret, salutatus etiam resalutare despiceret. . . . Semper semetipsum
sacros codices in pelliciis sacculis missos dextro laevoque latere portabat . . .”.
33 Robert Markus, Gregory the Great and His World (Cambridge, 1997), p. 67.
34 “. . . corda audentium ad amorem patriae caelestis excitaret.” Dial. 1.4.10 (SC 260:46),
cf. Dial. 1. Prol. 9 (SC 260:16).
35 Leander of Seville, Regula de institutione uirginum, ed. Jaime Velazquez (Madrid,
1979), pp. 97–174.
36 For instance Leander, Reg. 31.1 and Reg. 31.10 (ed. Velazquez, p. 170; p. 173) are remi-
niscent of Gregory, Mor. praef., 1 (CCSL 143:1) and Dial. 1, Prol. 5 (SC 260:12).
37 See DeGregorio infra.
 gregory the great and monasticism 89

preference for the monastic life.38 In Constantinople Gregory also met

other bishops with monastic backgrounds similar to Leander’s, but from
the eastern Churches, especially Patriarch Eulogios of Alexandria.39 What
these men had in common was their actualization of the ideal, sketched in
Gregory’s commentary on the Song of Songs, of an ecclesiastical leader as
a contemplative and also as a preacher. In these men, who had exchanged
the purely contemplative monastic life for active participation in eccle-
siastical politics, Gregory found credible representatives of an ideal that
he had had in mind, at least theoretically, for some time, of a life at once
active and contemplative. This life he himself also led, at least after his
election as bishop.
Gregory’s ideal of monasticism would naturally also have been influ-
enced by every monastic community with which he was in contact. In
addition, there were the fruits of Gregory’s wide reading, which can be
shown to have included monastic literature such as the works of John
Cassian, the Vitae Patrum, Theodoret’s history of monasticism, and the
Vita Antonii.40

Gregory the Great and Benedict of Nursia

In the Life of Gregory by John the Deacon in 873, we find the first descrip-
tion of Gregory as a Benedictine.41 The earlier Lives by the Anonymous
of Whitby and Paul the Deacon do not say that Gregory’s community
followed the Rule of St. Benedict. This difference among the sources
mirrors the rise and establishment of the Benedictine Rule as the exclusive

38 This is reflected, for instance, in his sermon Homilia in laudem ecclesiae, published in
Concilios visigoticos e hispano-romanos, eds José Vives et al. (Barcelona, 1963), pp. 139–44,
and generally in his prolonged campaign to wean the Spanish Church from Arianism.
On the character of the episcopal monk, although mainly in the East, cf. Andrea Sterk,
Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: the Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity (Cam-
bridge, MA, 2004), and Claudia Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian
Leadership in an Age of Transition (Berkeley, 2005), pp. 137–52.
39 On Eulogios and his connection with Gregory, cf. Müller, Führung, pp. 93–95.
40 John Cassian, Conlationes, eds Michael Petschenig and Gottfried Kreuz, 2nd ed.
(Vienna, 2004); John Cassian, De institutis coenobiorum et de octo principalium uitiorum
remedies, ed. Jean-Claude Guy (Paris, 1965); Vitae patrum sive historiae eremiticorum decem
(PL 73:89–1234); Athanasius of Alexandria, Vita Antonii, ed. G.J.M. Bartelink, SC 400, (Paris,
1994); Theodoret of Cyrus, Historia religiosa, eds Pierre Canivet and Alice Leroy-Molinghen,
SC 234; SC 257 (Paris, 1977/1979). The reminiscences of these works are found especially in
the Dialogues, cf. Joan M. Petersen, The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in their Late Antique
Cultural Background, Studies and Texts 69 (Toronto, 1984), pp. 151–88.
41  Joh. Diac., Vita Gregorii 4.80 (PL 75:228BC).
90 barbara müller

monastic practice in the Carolingian era. In consequence of this exclusive

legitimacy, it clearly became impossible from the Carolingian era until
very recently to think of Gregory the monk and biographer of Benedict as
anything but a Benedictine himself. This description, however, runs coun-
ter to the historical facts, as Kassius Hallinger has already demonstrated
in his trail-blazing study of Gregory and Benedict.42 It is true that Gregory
was aware of the Benedictine Rule, as can be seen in this quotation from
his Dialogues:43
With all the renown he gained by his numerous miracles, the holy man was
no less outstanding for the wisdom of his teaching. He wrote a Rule for
Monks that is remarkable for its discretion and its clarity of language. Any-
one who wishes to know about his life and character can discover in his
Rule exactly what he was like as abbot, for his life could not have differed
from his teaching.
But as already mentioned, in spite of this praise of the Benedictine Rule
in the Dialogues and notable borrowings from it in the Regula pastoralis,
Gregory and his brethren did not live exclusively by the Benedictine Rule.
We may speculate that, as in the case of Equitius, so with the Rule of
St. Benedict, and certain elements of it made their way into the regu-
lations of the monastery of St. Andrew. Even then it is incorrect to call
Gregory a Benedictine.
All the same, Benedict must have been important to Gregory and his
fellow monks; how else can we explain Gregory’s exhaustive biography
of Benedict which takes up a whole book of his Dialogues (Dial. 2)? The
idea that recurs, although it never predominates among researchers, that
Benedict never existed except as Gregory’s literary product, invented as an
ideal man of God and given a highly symbolic name “Benedictus vir” (the
blessed man), appears unlikely, in spite of some stereotypical characteris-
tics in Benedict, considering the historical reliability of Gregory’s writings

42 Hallinger, Papst Gregor. Most recently on Gregory and Benedict: Demacopoulos,

Five Models, pp. 158–63.
43 Dial. 2.36 (SC 260:242): “Hoc autem nolo te lateat, quod vir Dei inter tot miracula,
quibus in mundo claruit, doctrinae quoque verbo non mediocriter fulsit. Nam scripsit
monachorum regulam discretione praecipuam, sermone luculentam. Cuius si quis velit
subtilius mores vitamque cognoscere, potest in eadem institutione regulae omnes mag-
isterii illius actus invenire, quia sanctus vir nullo modo potuit aliter docere quam vixit.”
Trans. Odo John Zimmerman, Saint Gregory the Great, Dialogues, Fathers of the Church 39
(New York, 1959), p. 107. Whether this actually refers to the Regula Benedicti and not the
Master’s Rule was a subject of dispute but it has now been generally accepted, cf. Adalbert
de Vogüé, Introduction, SC 251:156–57.
 gregory the great and monasticism 91

shown here and elsewhere.44 There must have been an Umbrian monk
who directed several monasteries in the valley of Subiaco during the first
half of the 6th century, and in about 530 founded a monastery on Monte
Cassino from which, after his death (c.555/560), the monks fled before
the incursion of the Lombards in 585.45 The Benedictine ideal survived the
Lombard invasions in Subiaco and even longer on Monte Cassino and
the monastic foundations that depended on it.46 Gregory understood this
through actual monastic personalities.47 He names them in Dial. 2.2:48
I know [his deeds] from the lips of four of his own disciples: Constantine,
the holy man who succeeded him as abbot [at Monte Cassino]; Valentinian,
for many years superior of the monastery at the Lateran; Simplicius, Bene-
dict’s second successor; and Honoratus, who is still abbot of the monastery
where the man of God first lived [Subiaco].
Even in Rome, in the monastery of St. Pancras in the Lateran, there were
some disciples of Benedict but not, certainly, the whole community from
Monte Cassino, as some have assumed.49 However, this gave Gregory easy
access to information about the Rule of St. Benedict as well as details
about his personality.

Monk and Pope

On becoming pope, Gregory moved from the monastery of St. Andrew to

the Lateran palace; but there too he adhered to the monastic life.50 He
established a papal way of life structurally by decreeing that only clerics or

44 de Vogüé, Introduction, SC 251:157–58; 160–61; there are similar doubts about Bene-
dict’s sister Scholastica. Wansborough interprets her name as an otium and considers
her a personification of contemplation: J. Henry Wansborough, “St. Gregory’s intention
in the stories of St. Scholastica and St. Benedict,” Revue bénédictine 75 (1965), 147–48. On
the other hand, Adalbert de Vogüé, “La rencontre de Benoît et de Scholastique. Essai
d’interprétation,” Revue d’histoire de la spiritualité 48 (1972), 257–74, considers her a real
person.
45 Cf. Jenal, Italia ascetica, 1:196–203.
46 The monastery on Monte Cassino was rebuilt in 718; cf. Jenal, Italia ascetica, 1:203.
47 de Vogüé, Introduction, SC 251:158.
48 Dial. 2, Prol. 2 (SC 260:128): “quattuor discipulis illius . . . agnovi: Constantino scilicet,
reverentissimo valde viro, qui ei in monasterii regimine successit; Valentiniano quoque,
qui multis annis Lateranensi monasterio praefuit; Simplicio, qui congregationem illius
post eum tertius rexit; Honorato etiam, qui nunc adhuc cellae eius, in qua prius conversa-
tus fuit, praeest.” Trans. Zimmerman, Fathers of the Church 39:56.
49 On the monastery of St. Pancras in Rome, see Jenal, Italia ascetica, 1:196; 1:203.
50 Cf. Reg. 3.50 (CCSL 140:195).
92 barbara müller

monastics, not lay persons, were to be employed in the papal household.51

The reason given for this measure was that those close to him would
derive benefit from the papal example.52 At the end of 590 he granted the
monastery of St. Andrew a papal privilege, giving it the right in perpetuity
to dispose of the extensive properties and estates which he had made over
to it when he was a deacon.53
Gregory answered several letters of congratulation from friends on his
election to the papacy by lamenting that he had thus lost the monastic
life; for instance, in a letter of October 580 to Theoctista, the sister of the
emperor: “For I have lost the profound joys of my peace and quiet, and I
seem to have risen externally, while falling internally. Wherefore, I deplore
my expulsion far from the face of my Creator.”54 According to his earliest
biographer, the unnamed monastic of Whitby, Gregory even attempted
flight after his election to escape the papacy.55 Gregory’s lamentations
immediately after taking up his post and also in later years, and the leg-
end of his attempted flight, form part of the image of the tragic monk
doomed to worldly exile which he fostered among his monastic friends
for the rest of his life. It may be assumed that Gregory willingly accepted
the loss of his monastic life in exchange for being able to determine
the fate of the Roman Church and thus of Rome and Italy as a whole—
and perhaps to undertake reforms in a spirit of monasticism. During his
pontificate Gregory occasionally mentioned his situation as a former
monk. These utterances speak of longing for the monastic life. However,
this longing is likely to have been for the tranquillity which was not to be
had in his crowded papal routine, but could be found in the cloister. He
appears to have observed and experienced the spiritual actions proper to
a monk even after his consecration as bishop, at least occasionally, and
one gets the impression that as he grew older he felt more and more a
contradiction between tranquillity and turmoil rather than between the
cloister and the world. In this sense he successfully enjoyed, even as pope,

51  Joh. Diac., Vita Gregorii 2.11 (PL 75:92A); see Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages, p. 104.
52 Reg. 5.57a (MGH Epp 1:363).
53 Reg. appendix 2 (CCSL 140A:1094–95).
54 “Alta enim quies meae gaudia perdidi et intus corruens ascendisse exterius videor.
Unde mea conditoris mei facie longe expulsum deploro.” Reg. 1.5 (CCSL 140:5; trans. Mar-
tyn, 1:122).
55 Anonymous of Whitby, Liber beati et laudabilis viri Gregorio papae urbis Romae de
vita atque eius virtutibus, 7, ed. Bertram Colgrave (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 84–86. Colgrave
puts the date of the biography in the years 704–714 (ibid., Introduction, p. 49).
 gregory the great and monasticism 93

the rare moments of quasi-monastic tranquillity that he valued so much.

As he wrote to Theoctista, the emperor’s sister:56
Therefore, let us give thanks to that Spirit which lifts up the hearts that it
fills, and which amid the tumult of humans creates a place of retreat in
the mind, and in its presence every place is free of care for a soul feeling
remorse.
As the years passed his conception of rest also expanded from the spe-
cifically monastic tranquillity to private moments of quiet contemplation
and finally to a public form of rest in the shape of peace.57 The older
Gregory appears to have experienced a satisfaction from peace-making
similar to that which his younger self had had from the daily monastic
routine. In his personal life Gregory did not merely physically exit the
monastic walls when he left the monastery of St. Andrew for the papal
palace, he also broke them down in his mind, thus expanding the “place
of retreat” into ecclesiastical politics.

Monastic Vocabulary58

As pope, Gregory seems to have described himself as servus servorum Dei

from the beginning, as can be seen from a document dated March 591.59
He thus introduced a contemporary monastic title into the papacy which
is still used by popes today. The title is programmatic for Gregory since it
expresses the aspect of service in the monastic spirit, linked to a superla-
tive which makes the monk the highest servant of all.60
In the wider monastic context Gregory’s vocabulary is marked by pre-
cision, beginning with a clear terminological distinction between clerics
and monks.61 Gregory mostly uses the terms monachus and religiosus or
religiosa to describe monastics. Basically monachus denotes a monk bound

56 “Agamus ergo gratias ei spiritui qui corda quae implet levat, qui inter tumultus homi-
num solitudinem in mente facit, in cuius praesentia nullus locus compunctae animae non
est secretus.” Reg. 7.23 (CCSL 140:475; trans. Martyn, 2:474 modified).
57 See Reg. 11.28 (CCSL 140A:917; trans. Martyn 3:774).
58 Cf. Pietrina Pellegrini, Militia clericatus, monachici ordines. Istituzioni eclesiastiche e
società in Gregorio Magno, 2nd ed. (Catania, 2008), pp. 149–206; with references to further
literature. But Pellegrini has not covered all the terms: she does not, for instance, consider
continens.
59 Reg. appendices 1 and 2 (CCSL 140A:1092 and 1094).
60 See Pellegrini, Militia, p. 164.
61  E.g. Reg. 1.40 (CCSL 140:46; trans. Martyn, 1:159); Reg. 4.11 (CCSL 140:229; trans.
Martyn, 1:296).
94 barbara müller

to a particular monastery by its rule, typically a coenobite.62 The term

religiosus or religiosa is more difficult to define. Religiosi might lead their
ascetic life in a monastic setting, in which case they were also monachi or
monachae, honoured for their religious fervour with the title religiosus or
religiosa.63 Religiosi might also live a pious ascetic life outside the cloister.64
In general, however, religiosi were closer to the regular monastic life than
to the life of a God-fearing lay person.65
Most of the monks mentioned by Gregory lived in monastic commu-
nities; only a few were hermits. Gregory calls this solitary life the vita
solitaria,66 and vita eremetica,67 and the ones who led it inclausus68 or
solitarius.69 Monastic communities, whether of men or women, were con-
gregationes in the Gregorian terminology.70 Their superiors were called
abbas for the men71 and abbatissa or mater for the women.72 The abbot,
who may also have been called rector,73 and the abbess, who both directed
the community in all affairs, were responsible for the spiritual and mate-
rial life of the monks and for all the business of the monastery.74 The
assistants of these monastic superiors were the overseers, the praepositus
or praeposita, whose tasks differed depending on whether the monas-
tic institution was for men or for women, since the external affairs of
nunneries were handled by clerics.75 Ordinary monks without special
duties were called monachus; the same coenobitic life is presupposed in
such terms as exmonachus, monachus veteranus, monachus puer, discipulus,

62 Pellegrini, Militia, p. 152.

63 For instance, in Reg. 9.87 (CCSL 140A:641; trans. Martyn, 2:596) the ancilla Dei, that
is the nun, Adeodata, is described as religiosa.
64 For instance, Gregory’s friend Narses in Constantinople was one such religiosus who
did not live in a monastery, although he was a patron of monasteries: Reg. 7.27 (CCSL
140A:483–84; trans. Martyn, 2:481V82); cf. Reg. 11.17 (CCSL 140A:886; trans. Martyn 3:752).
65 Cf. Pellegrini, Militia, p. 154.
66 E.g. Reg. 9.148 (CCSL 140A:699; trans. Martyn, 2:631).
67 E.g. Dial. 4.16.1 (SC 265:62).
68 E.g. Reg. 11.55 (CCSL 140A:959; trans. Martyn, 3:801).
69 E.g. Reg. 11.15 (CCSL 140A:882; trans. Martyn, 3:750).
70 E.g. Reg. 1.39 (CCSL 140:45; trans. Martyn, 1:159); Reg. 3.17 (CCSL 140:164; trans. Martyn,
1:247).
71  E.g. Reg. 2.38 (CCSL 140:124; trans. Martyn, 1:216). More references in Pellegrini, Mili-
tia, p. 158.
72 E.g. Reg. 1.46 (CCSL 140:60; trans. Martyn, 1:172); Dial. 4.14.5 (SC 265:58).
73 E.g. Reg. 1.39 (CCSL 140:45; trans. Martyn, 1:159).
74 Pellegrini, Militia, pp. 158–60, referring to “abbas”.
75 E.g. Reg. 5.4 (CCSL 140:269; trans. Martyn, 2:325); Reg. 4.9 (CCSL 140:225; trans. Mar-
tyn, 1:293); cf. Pellegrini, Militia, pp. 160–61 and 169. Monasteries also sometimes had an
additional person outside who dealt with external administrative affairs, e.g. Reg. 1.67
(CCSL 140:76; trans. Martyn, 1:181–83).
 gregory the great and monasticism 95

filius, famulus Dei, servi Domini nostri, and frater which may carry par-
ticular nuances and qualifications.76 The only exceptions were monks
who were also clerics and able to perform internally the priestly offices
necessary for the monastery. For such persons Gregory adds the clerical
title to the monastic one and speaks of presbyter and monachus.77 Female
inmates of convents were usually described as ancilla Dei.78

Regulation of Monastic Affairs

According to a statement by Gregory in June 597, he had the care of 3000

monastic institutions.79 Consequently, in the course of his pontificate, he
determined innumerable monastic affairs, ranging from routine problems
to special cases, as can be seen from his descriptions and regulations in
the Registrum.
Gregory’s administrative proceedings were marked in the main by his
endeavour to decide correctly and in accordance with the law. This is how
he and his ecclesiastical collaborators acted in monastic contexts as well—
at least, normally. A blatant exception was Gregory’s dealings with his
friend the patricius Venantius, who lived in Sicily but whose influence
extended from the Frankish kingdom to Constantinople.80 Venantius
had broken his monastic vows and married. Gregory rebuked him but
did not impose any sanctions for the breaking of the oath.81 For lesser
persons, leaving their monastery would result in a forcible return and
possibly a punitive sojourn in a different monastery.82 This did not happen
to Venantius: in fact, when he was ill, Gregory offered to let Venantius
assume his monk’s robe again on his death-bed so that he would be judged
more leniently for his broken oath at the Last Judgment.83
What were Gregory’s criteria in regulating monastic affairs? In the first
place there were the imperial laws, especially Justinian’s Corpus iuris civilis,
and among them most particularly Novella 123, “On the most holy and

76 Cf. Pellegrini, Militia, pp. 161–66.

77 E.g. Reg. 9.18 (CCSL 140A:578; trans. Martyn, 2:556).
78 E.g. Reg. 5.4 (CCSL 140:269; trans. Martyn, 2:325); for other less common terms for
nuns, cf. Pellegrini, Militia, pp. 169–71.
79 Reg. 7.23 (CCSL 140:477; trans. Martyn, 2:476).
80 Gregory similarly shielded Venantius’ wife Italica, cf. Reg. 3.57 (CCSL 140:205–06;
trans. Martyn, 1:277–78).
81  Reg. 1.33 (CCSL 140:39–40; trans. Martyn, 1:152–54).
82 E.g. Reg. 8.8 (CCSL 140A:525–26; trans. Martyn, 2:506–07).
83 Reg. 11.25 (CCSL 140A:895–96; trans. Martyn, 3:758).
96 barbara müller

most God-pleasing and most venerable bishops and clerics and monks.”84
Obedience to the imperial laws was the minimum acceptable to Gregory,
especially if a legal dispute went beyond the narrow ecclesiastical bound-
aries.85 He usually based his judgments on both secular and ecclesiastical
laws, on leges as well as canones.86 In cases where ecclesiastical laws dif-
fered from the secular, Gregory pronounced in favour of the former, as
in the case of the husband of Agathosa who had taken up the monastic
life against the wishes of his wife. This was permissible under secular law
but the lex divina required the agreement of the spouse: “For although
secular law provides that a marriage can be broken for the sake of conver-
sion, against the wish of either party, yet divine law does not allow this
to happen.”87
The extent of ecclesiastical legal criteria in Gregory’s time is still unclear.
There were not only papal decretals and decisions of councils, but also
biblical precepts, sayings of the fathers and the rules of individual monastic
communities.88 In the monastic context, the decisions of the Council of
Chalcedon in 451 concerning monasticism, to which Gregory had access in
the Latin translation by Dionysius Exiguus, were especially important.89
Gregory was well versed in legal matters and, as previously noted,
endeavoured to adhere to existing law. He reacted immediately there-
fore, when in 593 Emperor Maurice, modifying the Justinian precept,
restricted access to the monastic life by decree.90 The law, which has not
been preserved, forbade Maurice’s soldiers to take up the monastic life
and forbade civil servants to do the same or to become clerics.91 Maurice’s

84 “De sanctissimis et Deo amabilibus et reverentissimis episcopis et clericis et mona-

chis”: Corpus iuris civilis, vol. 3: Novellae, eds Rudolf Schöll et al., 9th ed. (Dublin—Zurich,
1968), pp. 593–625. On other collections of laws used by Gregory see Pellegrini, Militia, pp.
210–11. See also Giuseppe Damizia, “Il Registrum epistolarum di S. Gregorio Magno ed il
Corpus Juris Civilis,” Benedictina 2 (1948), 195–226.
85 E.g. Reg. 9.48 (CCSL 140A:607; trans. Martyn, 2:574–75).
86 E.g. Reg. 7.35 (CCSL 140:498; trans. Martyn, 2:491), cf. Pellegrini, Militia, pp. 211–12.
87 “. . . etsi mundane lex praecipit conversionis gratia utrolibet invite solvi posse coniu-
gium, divina haec lex fieri non permittit.” Reg. 11.30 (CCSL 140A:918; trans. Martyn, 3:755);
divina lex refers to Matt. 19:6.
88 Pellegrini, Militia, pp. 216–28.
89 Conc. Calc. a. 451, can. 4 (ACO 2,2,2:88); can. 24 (ACO 2,2,2:92). On Gregory’s use of
the canons of Chalcedon see Leo Ueding, “Die Kanones von Chalcedon in ihrer Bedeutung
für Mönchtum und Klerus,” in Das Konzil von Chalcedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 2,
eds Aloys Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht (Würzburg, 1954), pp. 569–676, at pp. 648–58.
90 The emperor changed the provisions of Novell. Iust. 5.2 (Corpus iuris civilis, 3:29), in
which access to the monastic life was described as open to all.
91  Gregory’s letters on this subject: Reg. 3.61 (CCSL 140:209; trans. Martyn, 1:280–82);
Reg. 3.64 (CCSL 140:214–15; trans. Martyn, 2:285–86); Reg. 8.10 (CCSL 140A:527–27; trans.
Martyn, 2:508).
 gregory the great and monasticism 97

object in this decree was probably not so much to stem the flow into
the cloisters as to make it impossible for soldiers and civil servants with
professional or financial problems to seek refuge in a monastery and thus
escape their temporal responsibilities. Gregory, who did not lack under-
standing for pragmatic proceedings, recognized and accepted this reason
for preventing civil servants from becoming clerics. However, he harshly
criticized the provisions concerning monasticism in the new law since,
in his eyes, Christians who were honestly seeking the monastic life were
being barred from the cloister and their striving for salvation hampered.
Gregory bluntly reminded the emperor of the seriousness of the guilt he
was assuming with his law and described in detail how he would have to
face Christ, the judge, who would call him to account for prohibiting entry
to the monastic life.92
Gregory countered the argument that the army would be weakened by
an influx of soldiers into the monasteries by pointing out that the recent
victory over the Persians had been primarily due to the emperor’s prayer
and not to the engagement of the soldiers.93 Gregory acknowledged that
postulant monks could resolve financial problems by entering a monas-
tery and that their motives might therefore not be purely, or at least not
primarily, religious and suggested a compromise:94 namely that postulant
civil servants or soldiers must put their financial affairs in order before
entering the monastery and that they could only become monks after three
years’ probation.95 In this transitional period Gregory believed it would
be possible to sort out the black sheep among the aspiring monks, while
the honest candidates could legitimately be accepted into the monastic
community. It seems that the emperor accepted this compromise. A letter
of the year 600 shows that, in the case of a soldier who wished to enter
a monastery in the diocese of Naples, Gregory insisted on his obtaining
official papal permission, which means that such cases were in practice
regulated centrally in Rome.96
Gregory meticulously supervised the lawful functions of the monasteries.
He was especially concerned that bishops should exercise their oversight

92 Reg. 3.61 (CCSL 140:210; trans. Martyn, 1:282). On this law, see also Matthew Dal
Santo’s article in this volume.
93 Reg. 3.64 (CCSL 140:214–15; trans. Martyn, 1:285).
94 Reg. 3.61 (CCSL 140:210; trans. Martyn, 1:285): “aut interpretando pietas vestra, aut
immutando vigorem eiusdem legis inflectat”; “. . . let your Piety reduce the force of the law
by interpretation, or by alternation”.
95 Reg. 8.10 (CCSL 140A:527; trans. Martyn, 2:508).
96 Reg. 10.9 (CCSL 140A:835–36; trans. Martyn, 3:720).
98 barbara müller

over the monasteries correctly and not misuse their power by interfering
in their internal affairs, or actively conniving with those who disputed the
claim of a monastery to lands to which it was entitled.97 Gregory received
reports of these and other irregularities from his administrative assistants
on the spot and acted immediately on such reports and also on complaints
from anyone affected by illegal occurrences. For instance, he ordered
Bishop Januarius of Cagliari to appoint administrators for the convents in
Sardinia so that the nuns would not continually need to deal with secular
matters and thus with the affairs of men.98 He also took up the case of a
nun in Naples who had been raped by a soldier.99 As well, he organized
material support for monasteries and their inmates in a non-bureaucratic
and speedy manner. Such effort on behalf of the material well-being of the
monasteries is also the reason why bishops and other clerics were inten-
tionally sent to expiate their sins in the poorer monasteries, which then
received financial subsidies for sheltering the offenders.100
Gregory showed no mercy if he learned of unlawful practices in monas-
teries; the reported transgressions are varied. Examples include a nun in
Palermo who practiced simony, giving away articles belonging to the con-
vent to buy herself the post of prioress.101 The Sardinian nuns mentioned
earlier, who frequently left their convent because of their bishop’s neglect
of his duty of care, were apparently sometimes involved in fornication.102
On Capri there was an investigation into whether the monks were indeed
guilty of criminal activities.103 In the St. Vitus monastery at the foot of
Mount Etna, the monks were living together with women.104 Monks and
nuns who broke their vows were singled out for punishment.105
In cases where punishment was warranted, Gregory would generally
intervene indirectly by ordering the relevant authorities—in other words,
the bishops—to exercise their neglected duty of oversight over the mon-
asteries. In particular circumstances, however, Gregory would also inter-
vene directly, for instance in 602 when he objected to the election of the

97 E.g. Reg. 1.9 (CCSL 140:11; trans. Martyn, 1:127–28); Reg. 2.50 (CCSL 140:141; trans. Mar-
tyn, 1:229).
98 Reg. 4.9 (CCSL 140:225; trans. Martyn, 1:293).
99 Reg. 14.10 (CCSL 140A:1079–80; trans. Martyn, 3:876).
100 “in monasterio mittendus [Paulus episcopus] est . . .”: Reg. 12.10 (CCSL 140A:983;
trans. Martyn, 3:817).
101  Reg. 5.4 (CCSL 140:269; trans. Martyn, 2:325).
102 Reg. 4.9 (CCSL 140:225–26; trans. Martyn, 1:293).
103 Reg. 13.47 (CCSL 140A:1056; trans. Martyn, 3:862).
104 Reg. 14.17 (CCSL 140A:1090–91; trans. Martyn, 3:883).
105 Reg. 8.8 (CCSL 140A:525–26; trans. Martyn, 2:506–507).
 gregory the great and monasticism 99

new abbot of Sts. John and Stephen in Classe and demanded that Bishop
John of Ravenna should instead install and consecrate the cellararius
Maurus.106 There were also cases which he was obliged to settle himself,
like the granting of privileges to newly established monasteries.107
The abbots and abbesses were primarily responsible for the internal
affairs of their communities. What Gregory expected of an abbot, over
and above strict legality, can be gathered from a letter he wrote in Octo-
ber 600 to Abbot Conon of Lerins. In it he described the abbot’s duty of
leadership as follows: “The concern of those in authority is the security of
their subjects, because the person who watches over something entrusted
to him avoids the snares of the enemy.”108 Gregory praises Conon for his
responsible vigilance (vigilantia, custodia) in his relations with the breth-
ren; he should even increase it to ward off from the brethren the attacks of
the adversary which result in the spread of gluttony, avarice, evil-speaking,
and impurity. These vices must be met with a wise balance of strictness
and love. In a medical metaphor he exhorts Conon not to press the iron
too heavily on the wounds and not to be too strict; his mildness, however,
must not become a false leniency.109 Gregory’s idea of abbatial leadership
here and also in other contexts appears very general and noticeably simi-
lar to his demands on future and actual clerics in the Regula pastoralis.
We may conclude that Gregory considered the function of the abbot in
his community to be the same as that of a bishop among the Christians
in his diocese. In this sense, this Regula pastoralis can be seen as at least
partly designed to encourage the very often reluctant ascetics to undergo
ordination in order to fill what Gregory saw as “the pastoral void” in the
Church.110
This mirrors the general place and importance which Gregory accorded
to the monasteries within the Church. For him, they were primarily places
and communities where the Christian life was lived and were thus not
fundamentally different from other Christian environments. Of course,
there was more likelihood of encountering committed Christians inside
rather than outside the cloister, which made the abbots and monks poten-
tially more appealing to Gregory as Church leaders.

106 Greg. Mag., Reg. 12.6 (CCSL 140A:974–75; trans. Martyn, 3:810–11).

107 E.g. Reg. 13.5 (CCSL 140A:997; trans. Martyn, 3:826).
108 “Praepositorum sollicitudo subiectorum cautela est, quia, qui super rem creditam
vigilat, hostis insidias declinat.” Reg. 11.9 (CCSL 140A:871; trans. Martyn, 3:743).
109 Reg. 11.9 (CCSL 140A:871–72; trans. Martyn, 3:743–44).
110 George E. Demacopoulos (trans.), Introduction, in: St. Gregory, The Book of Pastoral
Rule, (Crestwood, NY, 2007), p. 15.
100 barbara müller

As shown above, Gregory made a clear distinction in his nomencla-

ture between monastics and non-monastics, whether clerics or lay per-
sons. Correspondingly, he also opted in various letters for a strict division
between the tasks of monastics and of clerics, as in this one to Maximian
of Syracuse: “Thus the ecclesiastical order would impede the monastic life,
and in turn the rule of monasticism would also impede the ecclesiastical
benefits.”111
There is probably some criticism of clerics’ tendency to become entan-
gled in legal affairs in Gregory’s warning that monks should avoid “foren-
sic disputes”.112 While they were not in any sense officially both monks
and clerics, we know that there were a number of monks who perma-
nently or occasionally performed duties in the Church. Gregory was in
principle reluctant to disturb the monastic tranquillity of monks, but he
also had obvious sympathy for clerics from the monasteries and did not
always refuse the employment of monks in the Church. In the course of
his pontificate he promoted several former monks to important posts
in the Church, beginning with his former brethren in the monastery of
St. Andrew, his “kitchen cabinet”.113 He entrusted high ecclesiastical
office to some of these ex-monks: Peter, who was both monk and deacon,
became Gregory’s deputy in Sicily at the outset of his papacy, Maximian
became bishop of Syracuse, Marinian bishop of Ravenna, and Augustine
bishop of Canterbury. Others also, who had not been members of the
monastery of St. Andrew, were given special ecclesiastical commissions,
as for instance to Abbot Urbicus the determination of the amount of dam-
ages payable for ecclesiastical excesses against the Jews,114 to Abbot Pro-
bus the very delicate diplomatic duty of concluding a peace treaty with
the Lombards,115 and to Abbot Kyriakos the mission to Sardinia.116 These
instances show that Gregory put such great faith in monks that even his
promotion of his monastic friends should not be considered primarily or
purely as nepotism.

111  “. . . sicque invicem et ecclesiasticus ordo vitae monachicae, et ecclesiasticis utili-

tatibus regula monachatus impediat.” Reg. 4.11 (CCSL 140:229; trans. Martyn, 1:296). He
asserted a similar principle in his letter to John of Ravenna, Reg. 5.1 (CCSL 140:266; trans.
Martyn, 2:323).
112 litigiis foralibus: Reg. 1.67 (CCSL 140:76). Martyn’s suggested translation “the state’s
legal system” (1:182) does not make much sense.
113 Jeffrey Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages 476–752 (London,
1979), p. 305.
114 Reg. 9.38 (CCSL 140A:597; trans. Martyn, 2:568–69).
115 Reg. 9.44 (CCSL 140A:602–603; trans. Martyn, 2:571–72).
116 Reg. 4.32 (CCSL 140:241–42; trans. Martyn, 1:304–305).
 gregory the great and monasticism 101

Such commissions also came with dangers for those who undertook
them successfully. In a personal letter to Augustine, Gregory admonishes
him about his miracle working.117 He warns him not to take credit for
the gift of miracles with which he had been favoured or to fall into the
sin of pride. As in an important passage in the Dialogues, so in his letter
to Augustine Gregory bases his summons to recognize God’s grace on
John 5:17.118 Even so, Gregory recommends Augustine to the Anglo-Saxon
king Æthelbert as a sort of mouthpiece of God.119
In the beginning at least, before Gregory was better informed on the
ecclesiastical politics and religious circumstances in the Anglo-Saxon
kingdom, the mission to the Anglo-Saxons was conducted according to
the thaumaturgical concepts of the Dialogues. Although it was in con-
sequence rooted in the monastic spirit, the endeavours of Gregory’s
missionaries in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom encountered opposition, in
particular from local Christians who belonged to the Celtic and therefore
largely monastically oriented Church, which had different ideas about the
Christian life. This is shown by passages in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History.120
Gregory’s Libellus responsionum, containing his answers to the questions
of his missionary Augustine, who seems to have come under fire from
other Christians, indicates that Augustine’s and Gregory’s ecclesiology
gave offence to the local Christians, moulded by another form of monas-
ticism, both in matters of penitence and purity and also in the administra-
tion of Church property.121 From Gregory’s answers to Augustine and from
other comments about the mission to the Anglo-Saxons, it is clear that in
his missionary venture into the Anglo-Saxon kingdom he was primarily
interested, with his characteristic adaptability, in implanting the Roman

117 Reg. 11.36 (CCSL 140A:925–29; trans. Martyn, 3:779–82).

118 Reg. 11.36 (CCSL 140A:930–31; trans. Martyn, 3:783); Dial. 1.7.6 (SC 260:70).
119 Reg. 11.37 (CCSL 140A:930–31; trans. Martyn, 3:783).
120 Bede, HE 2.1 (eds Colgrave and Mynors, pp. 134–36).
121  The Libellus is recorded in Bede, HE 1.27 (eds Colgrave and Mynors, pp. 78–102).
On the history and content of the Libellus see Paul Meyvaert, “Bede’s Text of the Libellus
Responsionum of Gregory the Great to Augustine of Canterbury,” in England before the
Conquest: Studies presented to Dorothy Whitelock, eds Peter Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes
(Cambridge, 1971), pp. 15–33; idem, “Le libellus responsionum à Augustin de Canterbéry:
un oeuvre authentique de saint Grégoire le grand,” in Grégoire le grand. Chantilly, Centre
culturel Les Fontaines, 15–19 septembre 1982, eds Jacques Fontaine et al. (Paris, 1986), pp.
543–49; Müller, Führung, pp. 341–60.
102 barbara müller

ecclesiastical system in England rather than importing his monastic ideals.

Here, as elsewhere, monasticism had to serve the Church in general.122

The Monastic Ideal in Gregory’s Literary Works

Does the above conclusion, which has been drawn mainly from cases that
can be reconstructed from Gregory’s letters, correspond with Gregory’s state-
ments on the function and value of the monastic life in his literary works?
Such a comparison is difficult since Gregory, as previously remarked, does
not explicitly mention monks and monasteries in his works, except in the
Dialogues and the illustrative narratives in his gospel homilies. The ques-
tion cannot, therefore, be answered directly by examining the technical
monastic terms such as monk (monachus), monastic life (vita monastica),
and monastery (monasterium), but must be approached indirectly by
looking for related terms and for elements of the monastic life.
A term clearly related to technical monastic terms is the description of
monastics as the “abstinent” (continentes). This includes the celibate and
thus also monastics. In his homilies on Ezekiel, Gregory sketches three
“classes of believers” ( fidelium ordines), consisting of the “class of preach-
ers” (ordo praedicantium), that of “the abstinent” (continentium), and that
of “the virtuous wedded” (bonorum coniugum), as exemplified by Noah
(preacher), Daniel (abstinent), and Job (wedded).123 Gregory considers
the three classes equal in value since all three work towards the same
end, which is the blissful unity in Christ that can be reached by any of
the three ways of life.124 In the temporal order, however, Gregory finds a
“great difference in virtues of individuals”,125 and consequently a hierar-
chy, as can be seen from the question he poses: “For since the excellence
of the preachers is a long way from that of the celibate and the silent, and
the eminence of the celibates is far removed from that of the married, why
is it that the three are of one measure?”126 So the imitators of Noah—who

122 On the mission to the Anglo-Saxons, see further Christina Ricci’s article in this
volume.
123 HEz. 2.4.5 (CCSL 142:261–62), referring to Ezek. 14:14, cf. Leyser, Authority and Asceti-
cism (as in n. 1), pp. 156–57.
124 HEz. 2.4.6 (CCSL 142:263).
125 “in eis meritorum magna est diversitas”, HEz. 2.4.6 (CCSL 142:262).
126 “Cum enim longe sit a continentibus et tacentibus excellentia praedicatorum, et
valde a coniugatis distet eminentia continentium, quid est quod una mensura dicitur
trium?” HEz. 2.4.6 (CCSL 142:262; trans. Theodosia Gray, Homilies of St. Gregory the Great
on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel [Etna, CA, 1990], p. 197).
 gregory the great and monasticism 103

for Gregory is the type of the ecclesiastical office-bearer as both preacher

and director—are the most worthy in ecclesiastical though not in escha-
tological terms. Gregory sees the advantage of the imitators of Noah in the
fact that they not only live a life free from transgression, they lead others
to the faith and keep them from sinning.127 The way of life of preachers
and directors—that is, of clerics—although they form a distinct class, is
not completely separate from that of the abstinent who are mainly the
monastics. In the passage quoted above, Gregory explicitly couples absti-
nence with silence in describing the continentes.128 The preachers who are
also ecclesiastical administrators may conversely be described as absti-
nent but not silent, monks who are active in the world. Their way of life
is blended, partly worldly but always abstinent according to the monastic
model. The abstinent who are not silent move between the poles of the
vita activa, engaging with the world, and the vita contemplativa, striving
for the vision of God which in this life is most easily attained by monas-
tics. Gregory describes the vita contemplativa as follows: “Truly the con-
templative life is to hold fast with the whole mind, at least to the charity
of God, our neighbour, but to abstain from external action.”129 Gregory
sees biblical types of this way of life in Leah and Martha, as contrasted
with Rachel and Mary.130 Using these figures as a starting point enables
Gregory to criticize the purely contemplative life:131
Then Rachel was a seer, and sterile, Leah truly purblind, but fertile, Rachel
beautiful and barren, because the contemplative life is splendid in the spirit
but, whereas it seeks to rest in silence, it does not produce sons from preach-
ing. It sees and does not bring forth, because in zeal for its quiet life it is less
kindled in the collection of others, and does not suffice to reveal to others
by preaching how much it inwardly perceives.
In his class of preachers (ordo praedicatorum), whose way of life moves
between the active and contemplative, Gregory shaped a third, blended way
of life which is, however, still rooted in the monastic contemplative way.

127 Ibid. [HEz. 2.4.6 (CCSL 142:262).]

128 continentibus et tacentibus: HEz. 2.4.6 (CCSL 142:262).
129 “Contemplativa vero vita est caritatem quidam Dei proximi tota mente retinere, sed
ab exteriore actione quiescere . . .” HEz. 2.2.8 (CCSL 142:230; trans. Gray, p. 174).
130 HEz 2.2.9–10 (CCSL 142:230–32), cf. Reg. 1.5 (CCSL 140:6; trans. Martyn, 1:123).
131  “Erat Rachel videns, et sterilis, Lia vero lippa, sed fecunda, Rachel pulchra et infecunda,
quia contemplativa vita speciosa est in animo, sed dum quiescere in silentio appetit, filios
non generat ex praedicatione. Videt et non parit, quia quietis suae studio, minus se in
aliorum collectione succendit, et quantum introrsus conspicit, aperire aliis praedicando
non sufficit.” HEz. 2.2.10 (CCSL 142:231–32; trans. Gray, p. 176).
104 barbara müller

For it is from contemplation that the blended way of life receives its
stimulus for proclamation and for taking an active part in shaping secu-
lar affairs. Gregory himself exemplifies the fact that this contemplative
monastic anchor does not necessitate a physical location in a monastery.132
The concentrated orientation towards God and the occasional act of con-
templation are decisive, and these can also occur, if not as easily, outside
the cloister. The achievement of this way of life, which seems from the
outside only intermittently monastic, appears to be very difficult so that
one may guess—as is confirmed by the material in the Registrum and
other works of Gregory—that for Gregory the ideal representative of the
order of preachers and directors—in fact, the bishop—is a former monk.
Combining what he has to say about the three orders of believers in his
descriptions of the vita activa and the vita contemplativa, we conclude
that for Gregory the monastic life ranked ecclesiastically lower in this
world than the clerical preaching life. But since ecclesiastical preachers
receive their spiritual nourishment from contemplation, it comes to them
from monastic spiritual practice. Gregory thus promoted the ideal of a
monastic lifestyle in the world, although it was not legally recognized. He
who follows this way of life will always be torn between the two poles of
world and cloister. He shares this division, however, with those who opt
for a purely contemplative way of life which can be followed only incom-
pletely in this life, since its pure form is only to be found in the beyond.
More about Gregory’s attitude to the monastic life can be deduced if
one looks for words and expressions which are traditionally, and therefore
most probably in his case also, connected with aspects of the monastic
life. One such, which has already been considered in the context of the
understanding of Scripture by the monks of St. Andrew’s, is compunctio
cordis, an effect that is typically associated with the lectio divina as prac-
tised in monastic settings.133 By holding this up as an ideal in his com-
mentary on the Song of Songs and elsewhere, Gregory promoted the use
of Holy Scripture associated with monastic concentration and readiness
to be pervaded by the biblical message. This confirms the observation
made several times already that Gregory was concerned to stimulate the
Church in general with an infusion of monastic spirit.

132 Cf. Mor. praef. (CCSL 143:2), where he describes how, when in Constantinople, he
was again vexed by secular anxieties, his brethren—by their prayers and thus by their
monastic life—held him fast as if by an anchor cable (quasi anchorae fune).
133 Cf. especially John Cassian, Conlationes 9, 23–30 (CSEL 13:273–76).
 gregory the great and monasticism 105

Other typically monastic terms are used prominently in the Regula pas-
toralis. The second part of this text, which deals with the way of life of
the director or superintendent, includes a chapter under the rubric, “That
the spiritual director be discerning in silence and profitable in speech”.134
Gregory here places priestly preaching on a lower level than the typical
monastic virtue of “discernment” (discretio). Discretio is the gift of distin-
guishing which allows a person to understand a situation correctly and
react suitably to it.135 This is the virtue which particularly distinguishes
the master in spirituality or the abbot from the newcomers to monasticism,
whose understanding and actions are still distorted by secular models. Dis-
cretio is typically described in the Benedictine Rule as “the mother of all
virtues” and was required as the characteristic qualification for an abbot.136
The third part of Gregory’s Regula pastoralis, which is devoted to the
various ways in which persons of different kinds are to be admonished,
assumes this fundamental ability to distinguish; in fact, it develops what
was merely a general remark in Regula pastoralis 2.4. Overall Gregory’s
profile of the (ecclesiastical) leader as seen in the Regula pastoralis is
reminiscent of the Benedictine Rule, which he certainly knew, but also
draws on other monastic sources, especially John Cassian and Caesarius
of Arles.137 Dividing the sources Gregory used to form the mosaic of his
Regula pastoralis between patristic and monastic ones is a questionable
undertaking since the monastic sources contain numerous ideas and for-
mulations by authors who cannot be defined as narrowly monastic. It is
true that, when reading the Regula pastoralis, one is strongly reminded of
the Benedictine Rule; Gregory’s characterization of a leader in this work is
strikingly similar to that of an abbot in the Benedictine Rule. It does not
follow, however, that Gregory when writing the Regula pastoralis prefer-
entially aligned himself with the Benedictine Rule. Gregory, like Benedict,
was drawing on the general spiritual traditions of his age and thus came to
formulate principles that monastic authors also affirmed. Unlike Benedict,
however, Gregory characteristically combines monastic and general eccle-
siastical elements, demanding that the ways of life and teachings of leaders

134 “Ut sit rector discretius in silentio, utilis in verbo”, RP 2.4 (SC 381:186), trans. Dema-
copoulos, The Book of Pastoral Rule, p. 54. On ascetic language in the RP see Demacopou-
los, ibid., pp. 20–23.
135 See further Carole Straw, “Gregory’s Moral Theology”, infra.
136 matris virtutum: Regula Benedicti 64.19 (CSEL 75:151).
137 Cf. Judic, Introduction, pp. 61–62.
106 barbara müller

in the Church should be based on monastic virtues and practices. In this

regard Gregory also goes beyond the immediate scope of monasticism.
This is again shown by the term regula which he uses in the title of
his Regula pastoralis. Examining Gregory’s various uses of the term regula
in his different works, one discovers a wide variety of meanings.138 Most
notably, Gregory does not use this term, which had already accumulated
a number of meanings over time, only in the sense of a monastic rule. In
fact his understanding of “rule” includes everything that makes for good
order as measured by Christ. This includes “the rule of truth” as well as
ecclesiastical and civil laws. At the same time he uses the term regula
most commonly in monastic contexts, so that we may conclude that he
felt that the Christian standard of discipleship was most perfectly achiev-
able in a monastic context. But Gregory’s use of the concept of a monastic
rule does not promote a rigid standard; he was concerned to show the
advantages of a life guided by such a standard. This is shown in exemplary
form in his portrayal of Benedict of Nursia, which takes up 38 chapters
of his Dialogues, where the rule is mentioned in a single paragraph in
one chapter.139 The actual deeds of Benedict and the teachings which he
addressed to named persons clearly seemed better suited to inspire imita-
tion than a longer description of the abstract standards of the rule.
When Gregory called his work on leadership Regula pastoralis, he was
using a term that had a strong monastic connotation in his vocabulary,
and applying it to the Church in general. Given the similarities between
the Pastoral Rule and monastic traditions, and also its links to specific
clerical actions such as the consecration of bishops, the office as Gregory
sketches it in the Regula pastoralis can best be filled by someone who
has been a monk.140 In this work, which outlines Gregory’s objectives, he
again demonstrates his preference for those who embody monastic virtues
even though they may not actually be monks. The conspicuous vagueness
of the ecclesiological terminology in the Regula pastoralis—bishops and
priests are only infrequently mentioned—is intended to allow candidates
from the monasteries access to ecclesiastical office, without necessarily
having ascended the ladder of a clerical career.141 By the principles of
leadership formulated in his Pastoral Rule Gregory made it possible for

138 Cf. Müller, Führung, p. 143.

139 Dial. 2.36 (SC 260:242).
140 Müller, Führung, p. 144; cf. George Demacopoulos’ chapter infra.
141  On Gregory’s selection of clerics and promoting ascetics see Demacopoulos, Five
Models, pp. 131–34.
 gregory the great and monasticism 107

monastic elements to penetrate the clerical order, again without expressly

naming them. In spite of its title, the Regula pastoralis is a standard that
points beyond the closed monastic community and has in its sights pas-
toral ministry for the whole Church.

Summary

To describe Gregory the Great as “the monk pope” requires some quali-
fication since his attitude to monasticism was certainly generally posi-
tive, but could be quite complex in detail.142 His positive attitude to the
monastic life does not need much discussion since he had chosen this way
of life for himself. Until the end of his life, Pope Gregory mourned the loss
of monastic tranquillity, although in the course of his pontificate he found
portions of time in which he could enjoy it, and he also experienced a
similar satisfaction in achieving peaceful conditions in the Church.
Even so, the monastic life was always a matter close to Gregory’s heart.
This can be seen as much in his regulation of monastic affairs as in his
ecclesiastical politics. He was continually concerned to protect the mon-
asteries, the monks and nuns, urging the bishops who were responsible
for them according to ecclesiastical law to do their duty in monitoring and
supervising. At the same time, Gregory did not give the monastic com-
munities any preferential treatment, and their affairs did not occupy an
inordinately large part of his papal activities. Both Gregory’s administra-
tive attention and the standards he enforced in his monastic policy were
in strict accord with the contemporary legal framework.
However, Gregory’s ecclesiology—both theoretical and in practice—
was strongly marked by monasticism. On the one hand, he urged spiritual
virtues and practices on his clerics that are clearly rooted in the monastic
life, as for instance lectio divina and compunctio cordis, or discretio. On the
other hand the interchangeability between the monastic life and clerical
activities—which was both structurally and practically observable—
shows that Gregory preferred to recruit his ecclesiastical officials from
the monasteries. In this world he considered the blended life, consisting
of vita activa and vita contemplativa, the most useful—more meritorious
because of its social dimension even than the totally enclosed and silent
life in the monastery. According to this significant conclusion, Gregory’s

142 Cf. Jenal, Italia ascetica, 2:30–31.

108 barbara müller

ideal would have been a monastic life outside the cloister, or a life dedi-
cated to the Church in general but connected with a monastic life. This
shows that, for Gregory, complete monastic tranquillity was ultimately
only attainable in the beyond, making the monastic life in this world seem
as imperfect to him as that of married persons. Given the eschatologi-
cal quality which Gregory thus ascribes to monasticism, his application
and extension of monastic standards to the Church in general can hardly
be put down to his being no more than a “popularizer” of monasticism.143
Monasticism came among the common people to this extent at least: that
for Gregory the ideal of the activity of the ecclesiastical elite was action
in the monastic spirit.

143 Richards, Popes, p. 255.

 Chapter five

Gregory and the Greek East

Phil Booth

It has long been recognized that Gregory the Great stood at a crossroads,
both geographical and chronological. For those historians who look back
to the age of Jerome, Gregory appears as the last of a vanishing species,
a cultured Roman with extensive links to the eastern Mediterranean; and
for those who look forward to the world of Charlemagne and his heirs, he
looks like the first medieval pope, an aristocratic monoglot who extended
the tentacles of papal influence deep into Western Europe. This, perhaps,
is the central paradox for the historian of Gregory, and how we present
his career, thought and context will to a large extent depend on both the
chronological and geographical viewpoint which we assume. This paper
eschews any attempt to implicate Gregory’s life within a grander narra-
tive of rise or decline, important though such attempts are, and assays
instead to situate and understand him within his own context. The per-
spective, however, is avowedly eastern; not because the western mate-
rial is less interesting or less important of course, but rather because an
eastern perspective provides an important corrective to any temptation to
regard Gregory, in reductionist terms, as “the Father of the Middle Ages”.
Complex and multifarious networks still bound Gregory to the eastern
Mediterranean. Indeed, the existence of those same networks provides a
crucial context for comprehending Gregory’s cult, a cult which first mani-
fested not in Latin circles, but in a group of Greek monks exiled in Rome.

Gregory in Eastern Perspective

In 579, before his election as pope, Gregory had been dispatched to

Constantinople as apocrisarius. Although this formative period makes
little explicit impact upon his extant corpus,1 he was here to earn the

1 See the brief comments on staying within a community of fellow Roman monks at:
Gregory, Reg. ad Leandrum, ed. Marc Adriaen (CCSL 143:1–2). Cf. the negative comments
on his time at: Gregory, Reg. 11.27; CCSL 140:908–09; and the claim that he resided with
110 phil booth

­acquaintance of the East’s most pre-eminent Greek-speaking persons. On

the basis both of his mission and the friendships manifested in the Letters,
it has sometimes been suggested—contrary to what Gregory himself tells
us in no uncertain terms2—that the pope must have had a high degree
of competence in Greek, demonstrated in Gregory’s intermittent use of
Greek words (both in the original and in transliteration), his occasional
claims to have consulted Greek manuscripts, and, in particular, his fre-
quent reference to Greek patristic texts.3 As several scholars have argued,
however, there is no unambiguous instance in which Gregory can be shown
to have consulted a Greek manuscript in the original, rather than in Latin
translation,4 and he himself in fact bemoans the problem of depending
on the translations of his Roman contemporaries.5 We should, therefore,
distinguish between different zones of competence, that is, between com-
prehension and communication.6 There is some indication of a limited
aptitude in Gregory’s reading; little, however, in writing or speaking.

Eulogius of Alexandria at: John Moschus, Pratum spirituale 147 (PG 87C:3012A). I am doubt-
ful of the contention of John R.C. Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the Great, 3 vols (Toronto,
2004), 3:768 that the statement of Reg. 11.27 to the empress Theoctista, “cum apud vesti-
gia dominorum in regia urbe demorarer” (CCSL 140A:908), can be treated as evidence for
Gregory’s residence in the imperial palace.
2 For Gregory’s famous denials of competence in Greek, see Reg. 7.29, 11.55, and the
somewhat ambiguous statement in Reg. 3.63 (CCSL 140:214): “Give my greetings to the Lady
Dominica, to whom I have not responded, because although she speaks Latin she wrote to
me in Greek”; “Domnae Dominicae salutes meas dicite, cui minime respondi, quia cum sit
Latina Graece mihi scripsit.” All translations are my own unless otherwise stated.
3 See esp. Joan M. Petersen, “Did Gregory the Great Know Greek?” in The Orthodox
Churches and the West, ed. D. Baker, Studies in Church History 13 (Oxford 1976), pp. 121–34;
also eadem, “Greek Influences upon Gregory the Great’s Exegesis of Luke 15.1–10 in Home-
lia in Evangelium 2, 34,” in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al. (Rome, 1986),
pp. 521–29; ead. “The Influence of Origen upon Gregory the Great’s Exegesis of the Song of
Songs,” Studia Patristica 18:1 (1989), 343–47.
4 See e.g. Gerard J.M. Bartelink, “Pope Gregory the Great’s Knowledge of Greek” in John
C. Cavadini (ed.), Gregory the Great: A Symposium (Notre Dame, IN, 1995), pp. 117–36; and
not least Petersen, in “ ‘Homo omnino latinus’? The Theological and Cultural Background
of Pope Gregory the Great,” Speculum 62 (1987), 529–51 (arguing that Gregory did not
access Ps.-Dionysius in the original).
5 See Reg. 10.21 (CCSL 140A:855): “For there are none who can express the sense, but
always want to translate word for word, and confound all sense of what has been said.
Thus it is that we are by no means able to understand what has been translated except
with great labour.” “Dum enim non sunt, qui sensum de sensu exprimant sed transferre
verborum semper proprietatem volunt, omnem dictorum sensum confundunt. Unde
agitur ut ea quae translata fuerint nisi cum gravi labore intellegere nullomodo valeamus.”
Cf. Reg. 1.28 (on translation sense for sense), and Reg. 7.27 (bemoaning the lack of good
translators from Latin at Constantinople).
6 Emphasized in Guglielmo Cavallo, “Quale Bisanzio nel mondo di Gregorio Magno?”
Augustinianum 47 (2007), 209–26.
 gregory and the greek east 111

We must nonetheless not allow the decline of classical bilingualism,

which the Roman aristocrat Gregory so powerfully exemplifies, to be
mapped too readily onto a narrative of the estrangement of East and
West. For while Gregory’s apparent difficulties in Greek might have made
Cicero blush, the creeping gap between Greek and Latin speakers was
a process now centuries old. Furthermore, his own Letters, to which we
now turn in more detail, provide a fragmented but nevertheless invalu-
able window onto the extensive networks of culture, communication and
friendship which still bound together the Latin and Greek speaking elites
of the Roman Empire.7
Elsewhere within this volume, Matthew Dal Santo has demonstrated
the pope’s extensive connections with the Constantinopolitan secular
elite, including several persons within the imperial household.8 The extent
of this secular correspondence, and the various social, economic and reli-
gious concerns which it reveals, on the one hand points to the remarkable
ascent of the bishop (in Rome but also elsewhere) as a significant social
actor at the local level; but, for our immediate purposes, it also demon-
strates the degree to which Gregory himself was situated within a network
of communication and mutual support which still bound together the
elites of the old Roman Empire, despite the processes of cultural region-
alisation and linguistic differentiation which would lead, in the end, to the
world of the Middle Ages. Simplistic divides between “West” and “East”,
on the one hand, or between Latin speakers and Greek speakers, on the
other, cannot capture the complexity of Gregory’s position, nor indeed his
continued commitment to a political philosophy wedded to the Eusebian
notion of a pious Roman Empire under God.9
That consciousness of belonging to a world which was integrated
within the eastern Mediterranean is expressed not only in Gregory’s let-
ters to the members of the imperial regime at Constantinople, but also in

7 In respect of the letters and my topic, I regret that I have not been able to access
Daniel Valle Ribeiro, “O Oriente e o Ocidente na correspondência de Gregório Magno,”
Signum: Revista da ABREM 4 (2002), 153–79; Silvia Acerbi, Entre Roma y Bizancio: la Italia
de Gregorio Magno a través de su Registrum Epistularum (Madrid, 2006).
8 Matthew J. Dal Santo, “Gregory the Great, the Empire, and the Emperor,” infra.
9 For a rejection of the simplicity of a posited separation of “East and West” or “Greek
and Latin” in the 6th century, see recently Averil Cameron, “Old and New Rome: Roman
Studies in Sixth-Century Constantinople,” in Transformations of Late Antiquity: Essays for
Peter Brown, eds Philip Rousseau and Manolis Papoutsakis (Aldershot, 2009), pp. 15–36.
For Gregory’s political philosophy, Dal Santo, “Gregory the Great, the Empire, and the
Emperor” (this volume).
112 phil booth

his ­ecclesiastical correspondence with his eastern counterparts.10 While

Gregory’s pontificate, situated between the Three Chapters crisis of the
6th century and the monothelete schism of the 7th, lacked the Chris-
tological drama which would so often characterize Latin-Greek Church
relations in the aftermath of Chalcedon, he would nevertheless find him-
self enmeshed in a series of ecclesiastical controversies which pepper
his correspondence with the East, and which demonstrate his sustained
commitment to the intellectual and ecclesiological traditions of a pan-
Mediterranean Church. Although in a letter to the emperor’s sister he
would express his distaste for the pernicious theological machinations
which he had thought to characterize the Constantinopolitan ecclesiasti-
cal scene,11 as apocrisarius he himself had become embroiled in a doctrinal
controversy with the Constantinopolitan patriarch Eutychius. According
to Gregory’s account in the Moralia in Iob, the latter had declared that the
post-resurrection body would be “impalpable” (impalpabile), prompting
the apocrisarius to confront him and engage in a long exchange of bibli-
cal quotations. When the discussion broke down into mutual hatred, the
Emperor Tiberius summoned them to a private audience and, deciding in
favour of Gregory’s position, declared that Eutychius’ book on the resur-
rection should be burned. Gregory, however, recoiled from prosecuting
the task, for soon after that the repentant patriarch died.12
As both Yves Marie-Duval and Dal Santo have demonstrated, this
question was not ex nihilo, but rather partook of a far wider debate
upon the resurrection within eastern circles, a debate which resonated
with broader discussions on Origenism and Aphthartodocetism, on the
nature of the individual post-mortem, and on the Church’s ritual care for,

10 For other contributions on this subject, see Paul Goubert, “Patriarches d’Antioche
et d’Alexandrie contemporains de saint Grégoire le grand: Notes de prosopographie
byzantine,” Revue des Études byzantines 25 (1967), 65–76; Igino Grego, “S. Gregorio Magno
e i Patriarchi d’Oriente,” Studia orientalia christiana 21 (1988), 267–93.
11  See Reg. 11.27, describing how, as apocrisarius, numerous appellants had approached
him under accusation of some contravention of sacramental protocol, and how he had in
all instances thought such accusations contrived.
12 Moralia in Iob 14.56 (CCSL 143A:743–44). Cf. the rather veiled reference to the con-
troversy in Eustratius Presbyter, Vita Eutychii (ed. C. Laga, Eustratii Presbyteri Vita Eutychii
Patriarchae Constantinopolitani, CCSG 25 [Turnhout, 1992] p. 79, ll. 2449–58), speaking of
“the child-minded” (οἱ νηπιόφρονες) who opposed Eutychius on the question of the resur-
rection; and the later treatments in Bede, HE 2.1; Paul the Deacon, Vita Greg. 9; John the
Deacon, Vita Greg. 1.28–30. See also the description of Eutychius’ adherence to “those who
denied the resurrection of the body,” and the scandal which it reportedly caused, in John
of Ephesus, HE 2.36, 3.17.
 gregory and the greek east 113

and ­condemnation of, the dead.13 Nevertheless, as Dal Santo has rightly
argued, we need not suppose that Gregory’s intervention represented an
inapposite intrusion in a sophisticated eastern debate, the meaning and
significance of which he could not have comprehended, for his own Dia-
logues demonstrate a full engagement with, and appreciation of, those
same Christological, sacramental and eschatological debates.14 The par-
ticipation of Gregory therein thus demonstrates the sustained integration
of Latin thought within the urbane intellectual currents so visible in the
Greek theological milieu.
Although Gregory would often find himself at odds with his eastern, in
particular Constantinopolitan, contemporaries, his very interest in east-
ern affairs cautions against too pronounced a separation of western and
eastern thought in this period. Thus, while the different stances adopted
in several controversies point to divergent modes of thinking which would
come to characterize the divide between Latin and Greek Christendom,
we should not overstate the novelty of that divergence, nor retroject the
position of the medieval papacy onto the earlier period.
The most prominent of such controversies was, of course, that which
concerned the Constantinopolitan patriarch’s adoption of the title “ecu-
menical”. Although others had applied that title to the bishop of the east-
ern capital since the early 6th century, the controversy reportedly erupted
when in 588 the patriarch John the Faster applied it to himself in a letter
to Gregory’s predecessor Pelagius.15 Gregory’s own denunciation of the
title is first extant in a series of missives dispatched on 1 June 595 to Mau-
rice, the Empress Constantina, the Constantinopolitan patriarch John and

13 See Yves-Marie Duval, “La discussion entre l’apocrisiaire Grégoire et le patriarche

Eutychios au sujet de la résurrection de la chair: l’arrière-plan doctrinal oriental et occi-
dental,” in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al. (Paris, 1986), pp. 347–66, esp.
348–50.
14 See esp. Matthew J. Dal Santo, “Philosophy, Hagiology and the Byzantine Origins of
Purgatory” in The Church, the Afterlife and the Fate of the Soul, eds Peter Clarke and Tony
Claydon, Studies in Church History 45 (Woodbridge, 2009), pp. 52–63; idem, “Gregory the
Great and Eustratius of Constantinople: the Dialogues on the Miracles of the Italian Fathers
as an Apology for the Cult of the Saints,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17 (2009), 421–57;
contra Duval “La discussion,” esp. 358–59.
15 Gregory refers to his predecessor’s opposition to the title in Reg. 5.39, 5.41, 5.44, 9.157.
For that opposition, see Siméon Vailhé, “Le Titre de Patriarche oecouménique avant saint
Grégoire le grand,” and “Saint Grégoire le grand et le titre de Patriarche oecouménique,”
Echos d’Orient 11 (1908), 65–69, 161–71; André Tuilier, “Le Sens de l’adjectif oikoumenikos dans
la tradition patristique et dans la tradition byzantine,” Studia Patristica 7 (1966), 413–24;
George E. Demacopoulos, “Gregory the Great and the Sixth-century Dispute over the Ecu-
menical Title,” Theological Studies 70 (2009), 600–21, at 602–3.
114 phil booth

the eastern patriarchs Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch

(the latter deposed but, in the pope’s view, still legitimate).16 The pope’s
position on the use of the title was clear and consistent, and continued
upon the election of John’s successor Cyriacus: the title was alien to the
precepts of the canons and the fathers, and represented an unwarranted
proclamation of episcopal arrogance, for the Church alone, and not an indi-
vidual, could be considered “universal”. Indeed, Gregory claimed, St. Peter
had never been called “universal apostle”, and Pope Leo himself had
refused the title “universal” at the Council of Chalcedon. Why then should
Constantinople, whose patriarchs in the past had often lapsed into heresy,
presume to adopt it now? The patriarchs’ arrogance in assuming it, the
pope dramatically concluded, foreshadowed the Antichrist.17
Gregory’s protest occurred at a time of considerable tension with the
emperor and patriarch at Constantinople, when the pope had signed an
independent treaty with the Lombards (and suffered a rebuke from the
emperor for his trouble),18 and when papal jurisdiction in the Balkans was
under threat from the usurpation of its privileges at Constantinople.19 In
the East, however, Gregory’s dramatic protestations appear to have fallen
for the most part on deaf ears: Anastasius of Antioch considered it “of no
consequence” (causam nullum esse); the emperor Maurice dismissed the
issue as “frivolous” ( frivolus); and even Eulogius of Alexandria, who had
dramatically submitted to papal authority on the issue in 598, appeared
somewhat unwilling to discuss it.20 In the East, the use of the title not
only had a significant pedigree, but also expressed a long-standing reality,
that is, the political and canonical precedence of Constantinople within
the eastern Church. But in Rome, where the Greek οἰκουμενικός was
rendered in Latin with the perhaps unfortunate universalis,21 its assump-
tion represented a further ecclesiological challenge to Roman claims to

16 See Reg. 5.37, 5.39, 5.41, 5.44.

17 For the various objections to the controversy, see Reg. 5.37, 5.39, 5.41, 5.44, 7.5, 7.24,
7.28, 7.30, 7.31, 8.29, 9.157, 9.176, 13.41. For the dramatic claim concerning the Antichrist,
see Reg. 5.39, 7.28, 7.30. For discussion, see André Tuilier, “Grégoire le grand et le titre de
patriarche oecuménique” in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al. (Paris, 1986),
pp. 69–82; Demacopoulos, “Sixth-century Dispute”.
18 See Reg. 5.36.
19 For this affair, revolving around the election of Maximus of Salona, see Reg. 4.16, 4.20,
4.38, 5.6, 5.29, 5.39, 6.3, 6.25, 6.26, 6.48, 7.17, 8.11, 8.24, 8.36.
20 See respectively, Reg. 7.24 (CCSL 140:479); 7.30 (CCSL 140:491); 6.61 (CCSL 140:434);
also, again frustrated at Eulogius’ reticence, Reg. 9.176 (CCSL 140A:733).
21  For the tension between these two terms, see esp. Demacopoulos, “Sixth-century
Dispute,” 616–19.
 gregory and the greek east 115

­ re-eminence amongst the patriarchal sees, and a pastoral affront to Greg-

p
ory’s own convictions on the necessity for episcopal humility. Thus, when
Eulogius had ceded to papal objections to the title, stating “as you have
commanded” (sicut iussistis), and calling Gregory “universal pope” (uni-
versalis papas), his correspondent had rewarded him with a swift rebuke.22
The pope was simply servus servorum Dei, and nothing more.
These same ecclesiological concerns inform a simultaneous, inter-
related disagreement in which Gregory assumed a polemical position
against his Constantinopolitan counterpart. That disagreement revolved
around a doctrinal dispute at Constantinople concerning John of Chal-
cedon and Anastasius of Isauria, two priests accused of heresy who had,
according to Gregory, been beaten within the cathedral church of Constan-
tinople.23 Although John the Faster denied the latter charge, it is evident
from Gregory’s correspondence with him that he proceeded to convene
a council to examine John and Anastasius, and condemned them both as
heretics (the pair were accused, it appears, of contravening the Council
of Ephesus, perhaps under an accusation of Messalianism).24 Before that
council, Gregory had warned his correspondent Narses that, although the
Constantinopolitan patriarch had claimed to be acting according to the

22 See Reg. 8.29 (CCSL 140A:552).

23 See Reg. 3.52 (CCSL 140:197–99).
24 The importance of Ephesus is emphasized in Reg. 6.14 and 7.31. In the latter, to Eulo-
gius and Athanasius, Gregory states: “Besides which, three years ago, compelled by the
case of the Isaurian monks who were accused of heresy, in order to satisfy me, my lord,
late brother and fellow priest John sent me letters in which he attempted to show that
they had contradicted the definitions of the Ephesian synod, and he dispatched certain
chapters to us, as if from the same synod, to which those men were opposed. But among
others things therein was contained a statement on the soul of Adam, that it did not die
in sin, and that the devil did not enter into the heart of man, and that anyone who said
such things would be anathema.” “Praeterea ante triennium cogente causa monachorum
Isauriae, qui haeretici accusabantur, satisfaciens mihi quondam frater et consacerdos
meus domnus Iohannes litteras missit, quibus nitebatur ostendere eos Ephesinae synodi
definitionibus contradixerunt, velut ex eadem synodo certa nobis, quibus ipsi obsister-
ent, capitula destinavit. Inter alia autem scriptum illic continebatur de Adae anima, quia
in peccato mortua non fuerit et quod diabolus in cor hominis non ingrediatur et, si quis
haec dixisset, anathema esset.” (CCSL 140:493–94). The latter doctrine appears to reflect
the Messalian belief in an indwelling psychological demon after the Fall. Messalianism was
indeed condemned at Ephesus, although no specific doctrines were referred to; see Acta of
the Concilium universale Ephesenum (ed. Eduard Schwartz, ACO 1,1:117–8; ACO 1,4:354–5).
Different western and eastern interpretations of Adam’s sin would continue to be a prob-
lem after Gregory’s lifetime; see e.g. Maximus Confessor’s defence of Pope Theodore on
the subject in Opusculum 10, Ad Marinum Cypri presbyterum (PG 91:133B–137C). I cannot
concur with the position of Tuilier, “Grégoire le grand et le titre,” p. 73, that Athanasius
was condemned for not accepting the Council of 553.
116 phil booth

canons, the pope intended to bring all his influence to bear on the case, and
when the Acts of the case arrived in Rome—Acts in which, we should note,
John the Faster had repeatedly used the title “ecumenical patriarch”—
he concluded that the priest Anastasius was indeed a Manichaean, but
furthermore that the person who had marked the latter’s confession for
doctrinal deviation was himself a Pelagian. The priest John, moreover, he
absolved altogether, and wrote to his Constantinopolitan equivalent repu-
diating his condemnation as a Marcionist.25
In the aftermath of the pair’s condemnation in the capital, Anastasius
had appealed to the pope in Rome, repenting his innocent reading of
heretical books, confessing the four ecumenical councils and accepting
the fifth.26 That appeal perhaps indicates something of the substance of
the papal involvement, for whatever Gregory’s opinions on the content
of the accusations launched at John and Anastasius, the controversy had
profound implications for the respective hierarchical placement of Rome
and Constantinople. From the perspective of the condemned, an appeal
to Rome perhaps represented a final resort, an expedient exploitation of
its exteriority to the eastern ecclesiastical scene and, no doubt, of papal
ecclesiological aspirations. (Such appeals, we should note, could work
in both directions—elsewhere, Gregory writes to his Constantinopoli-
tan apocrisarius warning him of an “apostate” who has come to appeal
his case before the patriarch.27) From the perspectives of the competing
patriarchs, however, the dispute represented a test case of their respective
jurisdictions, an episode in the perpetual struggle for position. It must be
emphasized, however, that such disputes were nothing new—rather than
showing the increasing estrangement of Rome from the East, these con-
troversies in fact serve to demonstrate Rome’s sustained investment in a
long-standing game of ecclesiological chess with Constantinople.28
This investment is also evident in Gregory’s substantial correspondence
with the other eastern patriarchs of the period, in particular, the afore-
mentioned patriarchs Anastasius of Antioch and Eulogius of Alexandria.

25 See Reg. 3.63, 5.44, 5.45, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17.

26 See Reg. 6.65 for Athanasius’ visit; cf. Gregory, Dial. 4.40 (SC 265:144), which refers to
“nunc apud nos Athanasius, Isauriae presbiter”. For Gregory’s connection to Isauria and
its monks, see also Reg. 5.35.
27 Reg. 5.6; cf also Reg. 8.6, to Amos of Jerusalem, describing that an acolyte serving
under the papal apocrisarius in Constantinople has fled to his church.
28 As rightly emphasized in Robert A. Markus, “Gregory the Great’s Europe,” Transac-
tions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, 31 (1981), 21–36, at 29–34.
 gregory and the greek east 117

From a later Greek source we ascertain that Gregory’s friendship with

Eulogius was formed while he was apocrisarius in Constantinople,29 and
it must have been in the same period that he encountered Anastasius,
for under Justin II the latter had been deposed from the patriarchate of
Antioch, and exiled to the capital.30 Gregory nevertheless continued to
treat him as de facto patriarch, interceding with the emperor on his behalf
and including him amongst the recipients of his synodical.31 Indeed, when
Anastasius was restored to his former position in 593, the pope dispatched
a letter expressing his delight at his friend’s restoration.32
Gregory’s correspondence with these two eastern friends is rich in
detail, demonstrating the continued integration of their world (not
least, some wonderful wrangling over shipments of timber from Rome
to Alexandria).33 One particular theme of note concerns the status of
particular texts or, rather, the Roman suspicion that forgeries were rife
within the East. Thus in a letter to Anastasius, Gregory complained that
the Constantinopolitan patriarch Cyriacus had in a letter condemned one
Eudoxius, whom he could not identify. Gregory asked his correspondent
to identify Eudoxius in the writings of the fathers (in fact, Eulogius of
Alexandria would provide the evidence which reassured him).34 Further-
more, he added to Anastasius in the same letter, when John of Constan-
tinople had condemned the aforementioned John and Anastasius, he had
sent to Rome copies of the Acts of Ephesus which contained passages with
no correspondents in either the Roman or Ravennan copies, and indeed
containing heresies (elsewhere, Gregory suggested to Anastasius’ succes-
sor Anastasius II that the Constantinopolitan documents had become

29 See John Moschus, Pratum 147 (PG 87C:3012A).

30 Anastasius was deposed by Justin II in 570; see Evagrius Scholasticus, HE 5.5–6 (eds
Joseph Bidez and Léon Parmentier [London, 1898], pp. 201–02); Theophanes, Chrono-
graphia, AM 6062 (ed. Carl de Boor [Leipzig, 1883], p. 243).
31  For the intervention with Maurice, and the attempt to bring Anastasius to Rome,
see Reg. 1.6, 1.7. For Anastasius’ inclusion within the encyclical sent to the other patriarchs,
see Reg. 1.24, 1.25.
32 Reg. 5.42.
33 See the extraordinary references to a trade in timber between Rome and the patri-
arch of Alexandria, at Reg. 7.37, 8.28, 9.176, 10.21, 13.43. For the same trade between Italy
and the patriarch of Alexandria, cf. Leontius of Neapolis, Vita Iohannis Elimosynensis 11, 28
(ed. André-Jean Festugière in idem and Lennart Rydén, Léontios de Néapolis: Vie de Syméon
le Fou, Vie de Jean de Chypre [Paris, 1974], pp. 359, 380).
34 See Reg. 7.31; cf. Reg. 7.31, 8.29.
118 phil booth

contaminated with the Acts of the Ephesian Latrocinium).35 For Gregory,

therefore, the patriarchs were able to provide an invaluable service, vali-
dating (or invalidating) eastern texts which the papacy considered cor-
rupted. The papal position in these letters was, of course, polemical and
patriotic; but the important implication is not the assumption or asser-
tion of Roman or Latin superiority, but rather the sustained devotion to
a thought world which transcended the parochial, and which demanded
dialogue rather than diktats or simple disinterest.36
As we have seen, throughout the dispute over the Constantinopolitan
use of the title “ecumenical patriarch”, Gregory repeatedly attempted to
recruit both Anastasius and Eulogius to the Roman cause. Eulogius, who
was celebrated as a staunch defender of both Chalcedon and the Tome
of Leo, appears on several occasions to have deferred to papal opinion
and, as we have seen, once received a reprimand for his excessive defer-
ence. Elsewhere he seems even to have acknowledged papal claims to
pre-eminence amongst the other patriarchates. In a letter sent to the
Alexandrian patriarch in July 596, Gregory explained the special bond
which tied together the sees of St. Peter and St. Mark:37
For as it is clear to all that the blessed evangelist Mark was sent to Alexan-
dria by St. Peter, the apostle and his master, so we are bound together by
the unity of this master and disciple, so that I seem to preside over the see
of the disciple because of the master, and you over the see of the master
because of the disciple.

35 See Reg. 7.31; cf. on the same issue, Reg. 6.14 (CCSL 140:383): “(A)nd we think that, just
as the Council of Chalcedon was falsified in one place by the Constantinopolitan Church,
something similar was done in the case of the Council of Ephesus.” “et existimamus quia,
sicut Chalcedonensis synodus in uno loco ab ecclesia Constantinopolitana falsata est, sic
aliquid et in Ephesiana synodo factum est.” For the suggestion (made to Anastasius II) of
contamination, see Reg. 9.136. The latter, we should note, is named as the translator into
Greek of Gregory’s RP; see Reg. 12.24; and Rita Lizzi, “La traduzione greca delle opere di
Gregorio Magno: dalla Regula Pastoralis ai Dialogi,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo: XIX
Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana in collaborazione con l’École française de Rome,
Roma, 9–12 maggio 1990, I. Studi storici, 2 vols (Rome, 1991), 2:41–57.
36 For this universalism in Gregory’s thought, see also Sofia Boesch Gajano, “Tra oriente
e occidente: le coordinate geopolitiche del pontificato di Gregorio Magno” in L’Orbis Chris-
tianus Antiquus di Gregorio Magno, ed. Letizia Pani (Rome, 2007), pp. 1–18.
37 Reg. 6.61 (CCSL 140:434): “Nam sicut omnibus liquet quod beatus evangelista Marcus
a sancto Petro apostolo magistro suo Alexandriam sit transmissus, huius nos magistri et
discipuli unitate constringimur, ut et ego sedi discipuli praesidere videar propter magis-
trum et vos sedi magistri propter discipulum.” For the same theme of Mark as the disciple
of Peter, cf. Reg. 8.28, 10.14.
 gregory and the greek east 119

Eulogius, rather than rejecting Gregory’s veiled declaration of seniority,

instead seems to have acknowledged it, for in a letter of the subsequent
year the pope referred to his correspondent’s acknowledgement that
“St Peter, head of the apostles” sits upon the papal throne “right up to now
in his successors”.38
Gregory’s rhetoric of the shared Petrine foundation of the Roman and
Alexandrian sees extended also to Antioch. Thus, in a letter to Anastasius
he referred to the fact that “we have in common [St Ignatius’] master, the
prince of the apostles, even so none of us has the disciple of the same
prince as his alone,”39 while in the response to that letter in which Eulo-
gius had acknowledged the papal rhetoric of the pope as the successor of
St. Peter, he stated:40
And whence, while there are many apostles, yet with regard to the princi-
pality itself, the see of the prince of the apostles alone has strengthened in
authority, which is in three places and of one. For he himself elevated the
see [of Rome], in which he even deemed it worthy to rest and to end the
present life. He himself adorned the see [of Alexandria], to which he sent
his disciple as evangelist. He himself fortified the see [of Antioch], in which
he sat for seven years, although he would leave it. Therefore, since the see is
one and of one, over which from divine authority three bishops now preside,
whatever good I hear about you, I impute this to myself.
At a time when ecclesiological tensions with the capital had reached
a notable peak, therefore, Gregory deployed a rhetoric which at once
emphasized both the historical ties which bound together the three sees

38 Reg. 7.37 (CCSL 140:500). Cf. Reg. 10.21 (CCSL 140A:852), in which Gregory praises
Eulogius for defending a Roman cause (perhaps the issue of the ecumenical title) at Con-
stantinople: “For as a minister of truth, a follower of Peter and a preacher of the holy
Church, I know that you were able to say through a learned mouth those things which
ought to come forth from the see of the apostle Peter.” “Nam veritatis minister, Petri sequax
et sanctae ecclesiae praedictor illa scio quia loqui potuisti, quae de sede Petri apostoli per
os doctoris sonare debuerunt.”
39 Reg. 5.42 (CCSL 140:327): “Sicut enim magistrum eius apostolorum principem
habemus communem, ita quoque eiusdem principis discipulum nullus nostrum habet
­privatum.”
40 Reg. 7.37 (CCSL 140:501): “Unde et, cum multi sint apostoli, pro ipso tamen principatu
sola apostolorum principis sedes in auctoritate convaluit, quae in tribus locis unius est.
Ipse enim sublimavit sedem, in qua etiam quiescere et praesentem vitam finire dignatus
est; ipse decoravit sedem, in quam evangelistam discipulum misit; ipse firmavit sedem, in
qua septem annis, quamvis discessurus, sedit. Cum ergo unius atque una sit sedes, cui ex
auctoritate divina tres nunc episcopi praesident, quicquid ego de vobis boni audio, hoc
mihi imputo.”
120 phil booth

of St. Peter, and Constantinople’s own distinct lack of an apostolic past.41

His target, we should note, was not an undifferentiated “Byzantium”.42

Gregory from Eastern Perspective

Both Anastasius and Eulogius were prominent members of an eastern reli-

gious elite in which the dividing lines between the different Chalcedonian
patriarchates had become blurred. Before his election as patriarch of Anti-
och, Anastasius had been his predecessor’s apocrisarius at Alexandria;43
while Eulogius, before his ascent to the throne of Alexandria, had served
as a cleric in Antioch.44 Both, therefore, were members of an eastern
Chalcedonian episcopate bound together across the different provinces
through mutual ties of friendship. In his affectionate correspondence with
the two patriarchs—and with his own credentials as a former diplomat
within the East—Gregory was thus integrated into a Chalcedonian com-
monwealth which stretched across the eastern Mediterranean. This same
commonwealth was, in the end, to guarantee his own reputation both in
the East and, indeed, in the West.
Within that eastern world, divisions between the leaders of the monas-
tic and clerical vocations were also becoming less distinct—Anastasius
of Antioch, for example, was a former Palestinian monk, and his own
successor, Gregory, was erstwhile head of monasteries both at Jerusa-
lem and on Sinai.45 Gregory the Great, in fact, had his own associations

41  For the rhetoric of the tripartite organisation of the Church, cf. the analysis of Claude
Dagens, “L’Église universelle et le monde oriental chez saint Grégoire le grand,” Istina 20
(1975), 466–69; Demacopoulos, “Sixth-century Dispute,” 613–14.
42 For this point made with force, see Lellia Cracco Ruggini, “Grégoire le grand et le
monde byzantin,” in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al. (Paris, 1986), pp. 83–94.
43 See John of Ephesus, HE 1.41 (ed. Edward W. Brooks, Iohannis Ephesini Historiae eccle-
siasticae pars tertia [Louvain, 1952], p. 79); also Vita Symeoni Iunioris 204 (ed. Paul Van
den Ven, La vie ancienne de S. Syméon le Stylite le Jeune, 2 vols [Brussels, 1962], 1:177–78).
Anastasius’ biography is difficult to reconstruct due to his frequent confusion with his
successor Anastasius II and with Anastasius Sinaita; for some of the problems, see Günter
Weiss, Studia Anastasiana I (Munich, 1965); Stergios N. Sakkos, Περὶ Ἀναστασίων Σιναϊτῶν
(Thessaloniki, 1964).
44 For Eulogius as “the head of a hospice at Antioch” prior to his election as patriarch,
and for his involvement with Gregory of Antioch in the famous scandal concerning the
sacrifice of a child, see John of Ephesus, HE 1.40; 3.29. See also the short biography con-
tained within Photius, Bibliotheca 226 (ed. René Henry, Photius: Bibliothèque [Paris, 1959–
91], 4:111), which describes Eulogius, before his election, as priest at Antioch and leader
“of the Monastery of the All-holy Theotokos, called Justinian’s”.
45 Anastasius: Vita Symeoni Iunioris 204 (ed. Van den Ven, 1:277–78); Gregory: John
Moschus, Pratum 139 (PG 87C:3002B–3004A). For the phenomenon of monastic ordination
 gregory and the greek east 121

with those same regions and in particular with their monastic communi-
ties. In September 600 he dispatched two famous letters to ascetics on
Sinai: in the first, addressed to the priest Palladius, he warned him not to
listen to his detractors (an indication, perhaps, that the latter had appealed
for papal intervention in a dispute); while in the second, he thanked one
abbot John for his letter, and informed him of a dispatch of monies and
provisions, having heard of the want of bedding in Sinai’s ­hierochomium.46
That beneficence towards eastern monastic institutions extended also to
Jerusalem, for in a late letter addressed to an otherwise unknown priest
named Philip, Gregory refers to the construction of a monastery in the
Holy City, funded through a bequest by “our son and abbot Probus”
(perhaps the abbot of Gregory’s own Monastery of St. Andrew). Philip,
it appears, had requested that the construction work stop, but Gregory
proclaimed that he was unable to do so. Instead, he sent Philip fifty gold
coins (a considerable sum) as a blessing.47
Although Gregory did not consider the patriarch of Jerusalem as equiv-
alent to those of Antioch and Alexandria—since it lacked a comparable
association with St. Peter—it is nevertheless evident that he cultivated
monastic correspondents in Palestine. In June of 597 he had written a let-
ter to Anastasius, priest and higoumen of the Nea Monastery, an adjunct to
that famous church which Justinian had constructed at Jerusalem.48 The
pope, it appears, had been asked to intervene in a quarrel concerning the
spiritual virtues of fear and charity, and had found in his correspondent’s
favour. Nevertheless, he warned Anastasius:
[Y]ou could have seemed to me much higher, much more sublime, if you
had not assumed the leadership of the monastery which is called Nea, since
in the same monastery, as I hear it, a certain type of monk is retained, and
indeed many secular things are done under the pretence of holiness . . . But
because quarrels have tended always to occur between the father of the
same monastery and the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem, I believe that for
that reason almighty God wanted your beloved and most holy brother, and

in general in this period, see Andrea Sterk, Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church:
The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA, 2004).
46 Reg. 11.1; 11.2.
47 Reg. 13.26. For Probus, cf. Reg. 9.44, 9.68, 11.15.
48 For the church see the famous description in Procopius, De aedificiis 5.6 (ed. Henry B.
Dewing, Procopius, vol. 7, LCL [Cambridge, MA, 1954], pp. 342–8); and the spectacular epi-
graphic confirmation of its Justinianic origins in Nahman Avigad, “A Building Inscription
of the Emperor Justinian and the Nea in Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal 27 (1977),
145–61.
122 phil booth

my co-priest, Amos to be in Jerusalem at the same time, so that the quarrels

which I spoke of before might be put to an end.49
In a later letter to Amos, concerning an apostate Roman priest en route
from Constantinople, Gregory did not mention the issue, but when Isaac
succeeded Amos as patriarch of Jerusalem, Gregory’s acknowledgement
of his synodical once again referred to the same tensions, and warned the
new patriarch to guard against strife.50
Against the background of the networks which still operated between
Rome and the Eastern Roman Empire, and in the light of Gregory’s gen-
erosity towards monastic communities there, it is perhaps less surpris-
ing to discover that the pope’s famous sobriquet “the Great” appears for
the first time not in a Latin, but rather in a Greek text. Indeed, Gregory’s
immediate reception in native Roman circles was, it appears, decidedly
unenthusiastic. A short and relatively unadorned entry in the Liber Pon-
tificalis simply records his major works, missionary and liturgical activi-
ties, and some small acts of euergetism; while the first Latin Life written
in Rome was not completed until the 9th century, some two hundred
years after his death.51 In itself, this lack of Roman interest is, perhaps,
not so unusual. But elsewhere within Western Europe, Gregory enjoyed
a comparative posthumous popularity: in Britain, at the beginning of the
8th century, an anonymous monk of the monastery of Whitby composed
the first full biography of the pope in Latin; and in the late 8th century
Paul the Deacon, the celebrated historian of the Lombards, assembled
his own biography of the pope.52 It was, however, in eastern circles that
Gregory’s memory was most immediately and conspicuously cultivated.

49 Reg. 7.29 (CCSL 140:488): “Multo autem mihi altior, multo sublimior videri poteras,
si neque ducatum monasterii quod Neas dicitur suscepisses, quod in eodem monasterio,
sicut audio, monachorum quidem species tenetur, multa vero sub sanctitatis habitu saecu-
laria aguntur . . . Sed quia inter patrem eiusdem monasterii et pastorem Hierosolymorum
ecclesiae semper esse iurgia consueuerunt, credo quod omnipotens Deus idcirco dilec-
tionem tuam et sanctissimum fratrem et consacerdotem meum Amos esse uno tempore
Hierosolymis voluit, ut ea quae praedixi iurgia tollerentur.”
50 Reg. 11.28. For Gregory’s ties to Sinai, Palestine and indeed Arabia (on which see
Reg. 11.20), see also Michele Piccirillo, “Gregorio Magno e le province orientali di Palestina
e Arabia” in Liber Annuus 54 (2004), 321–41.
51  See John the Deacon, Vita Greg. (PL 75:63–242); LP 66 (eds Duchesne and Vogel,
1:312).
52 See Anonymous of Whitby, Liber beati et laudabili viri Gregorii papae urbis Romae
de vita atque virtutibus (ed. and trans. Bertram Colgrave, The Earliest Life of Gregory
the Great by an Anonymous Monk of Whitby [Cambridge, 1968]); Paul the Deacon, Vita
 gregory and the greek east 123

The Greek author who first labelled Gregory “the Great” was John
Moschus, a Cilician contemporary who had travelled amongst the mon-
asteries of the eastern Mediterranean and who would, as a refugee from
the Persian occupation of the eastern provinces, end his life at Rome.53
Moschus’ hagiographic opus, the Pratum spirituale, provides a convenient
barometer of Gregory’s own implication within eastern circles. Moschus,
for example, knew a “John, higoumen of Raithou,” perhaps that same
John, the abbot of Sinai, with whom Gregory corresponded;54 Moschus
had furthermore attended the patriarchal consecration of Amos, and was
perhaps the author of a monastic tale which denigrated the patriarch of
Jerusalem as “a hater of monks”;55 and Moschus appears to have known
Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, a former Palestinian monk whom he men-
tions several times in the Pratum, and who received Gregory the Great’s
synodical letter.56 These few examples, therefore, once again allow us to
amplify the evidence of the Letters, and to perceive how small were the
degrees which separated the western Gregory from a far greater number
of eastern clerics and ascetics. Moschus and Gregory never met, of course;

Greg. (PL 75:41–62). For the Whitby Life see Oronzo Limone, “La Vita di Gregorio Magno
dell’Anonimo di Whitby,” Studi Medievali 3rd series, 19 (1978), 37–68.
53 See the prologue to the Pratum spirituale, ed. Hermann Usener, Der heilige Tychon
(Leipzig, 1907), pp. 91–3, with the interpretation of Andrew Louth, “Did John Moschus
Really Die in Constantinople?” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 49 (1988), 149–54; con-
tra Enrica Follieri, “Dove e quando morì Giovanni Mosco?” Rivista di studi bizantini e
neoellenici n.s. 25 (1988), 3–39.
54 See Pratum 115 (PG 87C:2980B). It is tempting to identify this “John the Cilician, hig-
oumen of Raithou” with the dedicatee of John Climacus’ Scala paradisi (and in turn to
make John Climacus the correspondent of Gregory). The issue has been discussed many
times; see e.g. Derwas J. Chitty, The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian
and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire (Oxford, 1966), pp. 170–3.
55 See Pratum 122 (PG 87C:2983–86) (Latine). The tale in which Amos is presented as
anti-monastic is absent from the standard PG edition but was published in François Nau,
“Vies et récits d’anchorètes (IVe–VIIe siècles), I: Analyse du ms. grec de Paris 1596,” Revue
de l’orient chrétien 8 (1903), 58–99, at 92–93, and perhaps belongs to Moschus. It describes
how Amos, himself a former monk, once stripped a monk of his habit, and was admon-
ished by John the Baptist in a vision. In atonement, the tale alleges, Amos constructed a
church to the saint outside of Jerusalem, but then the Baptist appeared to him once more
to inform him that he would, nevertheless, not be forgiven. The tale concludes that this is
why his name does not appear in the diptychs.
56 For references to Gregory, see Pratum 40 (PG 87C:2892D); Pratum 42 (PG 87C:2896D);
Pratum 140 (PG 87C:3004B). It seems that Moschus was close to Gregory of Antioch’s circle,
for the Pratum shares several tales with the Ecclesiastical History of the patriarch’s admirer
Evagrius Scholasticus; see Henry Chadwick, “John Moschus and His Friend Sophronius the
Sophist,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 25 (1974), 41–74, at 47–48. Cf. Gregory, Reg. 1.24;
also Reg. 5.44; 9.157.
124 phil booth

but had they done so the former would immediately have discovered that
the latter had corresponded with several of his own acquaintances.
Not least, Moschus too was an admirer of Eulogius, patriarch of Alex-
andria. Like Eulogius, the itinerant Moschus was familiar with both the
Antiochene and the Alexandrian ecclesiastical scenes. Moschus had him-
self spent two sojourns in Alexandria, and it is possible that he encoun-
tered Eulogius then;57 his disciple Sophronius several times referred to the
patriarch with approval.58 Moschus’ own Pratum, furthermore, contains a
series of three consecutive notices centred on the patriarch, two of which
reinforce Eulogius’ reputation as a staunch defender of Chalcedonian doc-
trine and his close connections both with Rome and with Gregory the
Great.59
In the first, Menas relates an anecdote which Eulogius had heard from
the Roman apocrisarius and future pope, Gregory, while a guest at his
house in Constantinople (from which we ascertain their association in
the capital). According to that tale, when Pope Leo had composed his
celebrated Letter to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople—better known
as the dogmatic Tome recognized at Chalcedon—he had placed it “on the
tomb of Peter, head of the apostles”, and entreated the first of the dis-
ciples to correct it; forty days later, following a vision, Eulogius re-opened
the Letter and found it corrected in the apostle’s hand.60 In the second,
Theodore of Dara relates that when he had been a σύγκελλος of Eulo-
gius in Alexandria, he saw in a dream a large, solemn-looking man who
said, “Announce me to the sainted Pope Eulogius.” When Theodore then
asked the visitor how he wished to be announced, the latter replied, “I am
Leo, the Roman pope.” Leo had come to thank Eulogius for his efforts in
defence of the Chalcedonian definition.61

57 For these sojourns, the first c.580 and the second c.607–14 (coterminous within the
end of Eulogius’ patriarchate), see Chadwick, “John Moschus” 49.
58 Sophronius, Epigrammata in locum hospitibus destinatum (PG 87C:4009B); idem,
Miracula sanctorum Cyri et Johannis, 1, 8, 9, 62, ed. Natalio Fernández Marcos, Los Thau-
mata de Sofronio: Contribucion al Estudio de La Incubatio Cristiana (Madrid, 1975), pp. 243,
253, 257, 379.
59 For the other, see Pratum 146 (PG 87C:3009D), in which the martyr Julian appears to
Eulogius to ask him to rebuild his shrine. Eulogius’ output survives in meagre fragments;
see Clavis Patrum Graecorum, ed. Mauritius Geerard, vol. 3, 2nd ed., Corpus Christianorum
(Turnhout, 2003), pp. 319–21, nos 6971–9. However, Photius ascribes to him various works
(noted at ibid., p. 320, no. 6976), of which the most relevant for our purposes is the large
Defence of the Council of Chalcedon; see Photius, Bibliotheca 103 (ed. Henry, 5:11–39).
60 Pratum 147 (PG 87C:3012A–B): τοῦ κορυφαίου τῶν ἀποστόλων Πέτρου.
61 Pratum 148 (PG 87C:3012C–3013A).
 gregory and the greek east 125

Alongside these celebrations of Eulogius within the Pratum, Gregory

the Great is a conspicuous presence. We have seen how he appears as the
author of a tale told to Eulogius while the latter was in Constantinople as
his guest; but he also appears in two tales in which he is the actual sub-
ject. In one—which first appears in Gregory’s own Dialogues, and which
Moschus attributes to a Roman priest Peter, perhaps the interlocutor
of that work—he relates how the pope once excommunicated a monk
for contravening a rule that no monk should own any property. A little
while later the monk, still under the punishment of exclusion, died, and
Gregory was grieved, and gave an order that his archdeacon should read
a prayer of redemption over the monk’s burial place. That night the dead
monk appeared to the same archdeacon, and related that he had now
been released from prison. “And so,” Moschus concludes, “it was known
to all that in the hour that the archdeacon read the prayer over the tomb,
in that same hour his soul was released from excommunication, and lib-
erated from judgement.”62 This tale, we should note, survives in several
Greek versions, and would later appear in Gregory’s first full hagiography,
the so-called Whitby Life.63
The other, which concerns Gregory’s generosity towards a Palestinian
monk at Rome, is worth quoting in extenso:64

62 Pratum 192 (PG 87C:3072A–C). Cf. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4.57 (SC 265:188–94).
63 See Anonymous of Whitby, Vita Greg. 28 (ed. Colgrave, p. 124). The story is repeated
in Georgius Monachus, Chronicon (eds Carl De Boor and Peter Wirth, Georgius Monachus:
Chronicon, 2 vols [Leipzig, 1904], 2:748–9), and variant versions have been attributed also
to Anastasius II of Antioch and Ps.-Anastasius of Sinai; see respectively Jean-Baptiste
Pitra, Iuris ecclesiastici graecorum historia et monumenta, 2 vols (Rome, 1868), 2:276–7;
François Nau, “Le texte grec des récits utiles à l’âme d’Anastase (le Sinaïte),” Oriens chris-
tianus 3 (1903), 56–90, at 84–85 (no. 54). Ivan Havener, “Two Early Anecdotes Concerning
Gregory the Great from the Greek Tradition” in The Medieval Mediterranean: Cross-
Cultural Contacts, eds Marilyn J. Chiat and Kathryn L. Reyerson (St Cloud, MN, 1988),
pp. 19–24, at 21 argues convincingly that the Greek version contained in the Migne edition
of Moschus’ Pratum is a secondary rendering of an original by Anastasius II, the translator
also of Gregory’s RP (see Gregory, Reg. 12.24). He also makes the tantalising suggestion
that Moschus, as a refugee at Antioch in the early 600s, might have heard the tale from
Anastasius directly. For Gregory in the Pratum, see also Bazyli Degórski, “San Leone Magno
e San Gregorio Magno nel Pratum Spirituale di Giovanni Mosco” in Church, Society and
Monasticism: Acts of the International Symposium, Rome, May 31–June 3 2006, Studia Ansel-
miana 146, eds Eduardo López, Tello García and Benedetta Selene Zorzi (Rome, 2009), pp.
403–21, at 412–8.
64 Pratum 151 (PG 87:3016D–3017A): Παρεβάλομεν εἰς τὰ μονίδια τῷ ἀββᾷ Ἰωάννῃ Πέρσῃ,
καὶ διηγήσατο ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ μεγάλου Γρηγορίου τοῦ μακαριωτάτου τῆς ‘Ρώμης προσκυνῆσαι
τὰς θήκας τῶν ἁγιῶν ἀποστόλων Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου· καὶ ἐν μιᾷ, ὡς ἱστάμην εἰς τὸ μέσον τῆς
πόλεως, θεωρῶ τὸν πάπαν Γρηγόριον δι’ ἐμοῦ μέλλοντα παριέναι. Ἐλογισάμην οὖν βαλεῖν αὐτῷ
μετάνοιαν. Ἰδόντες δέ με οἱ τοῦ ὀψικίου αὐτοῦ, ἤρξαντο ὁ καθεὶς αὐτῶν λέγειν μοι· Ἀββᾶ, μὴ
126 phil booth

We came to Abba John the Persian at Monidia, and he told us the following
about the most blessed Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome: ‘I went to Rome
to worship at the tombs of the holy apostles Peter and Paul. One day, as
I stood in the middle of the city, I saw Pope Gregory about to go past me,
and so I thought I would prostrate myself before him. When those who were
in his entourage saw me, one by one they began to say to me, ‘Abba, do not
prostrate yourself.’ But I did not know why they said this to me. Besides,
I considered it out of place not to prostrate myself before him. And so when
the pope came near and saw that I was going to prostrate myself—may God
be my witness, brothers—he prostrated himself on the ground first, and did
not stand up before I had been pulled up. And he embraced me with much
humility, and gave me three nomismata by hand, and ordered that I be given
a cloak, and that all my needs be provided for. And so I glorified God who
had bestowed upon him such humility, charity and love.
This story, in turn, was included in the first Roman biography of Gregory
by John the Deacon, “from the stories of the Greeks recently translated
for me”.65
Intriguingly, however, this celebration of Gregory was not limited to
Moschus alone, but extended to others within his circle. In the 1960s,
Gérard Garitte published an appendix of spiritual tales contained within
a Georgian manuscript of the Pratum, which he regarded as the product of
a single author and dated, on internal evidence, to the period ­c.590–668.66
The career of the author appears to mirror that of Moschus in several
obvious ways: he was interested in the monasteries of Palestine, and was
perhaps a monk of St. Sabas; he knew Moschus’ disciple Sophronius as

βάλε μετάνοιαν. Ἐγὼ δὲ ἠγνόουν διατί μοι τοῦτο λέγουσιν. Πλὴν ἄτοπον εἶναι ἐνόμισα μὴ βαλεῖν
αὐτῷ μετάνοιαν. Ὡς οὖν πλησίον μου ἐγένετο ὁ πάπας, θεωρήσας ὅτι ὑπῆγον βαλεὶν μετάνοιαν,
ὡς ἐπὶ κυρίῳ, ἀδελφοί· πρῶτος ἔβαλεν εἰς τὴν γῆν μετάνοιαν, καὶ οὐ πρότερον ἀνέστη, ἕως οὗ ἐγὼ
πρῶτος ἠγέρθην. Καὶ ἀσπασάμενός με μετὰ οὗ ἐγὼ πρῶτος ἠγέρθην. Καὶ ἀσπασάμενός με μετὰ
πολλῆς ταπεινοφροσύνης, παρέσχεν μοι διὰ χειρὸς νομίσματα τρία, κελεύσας δοθῆναί μοι καὶ
κουσσούλιν, καὶ τὰς χρείας μου πάσας. Ἐδόξασα οὖν τὸν Θεὸν, τὸν χαρισάμενον αὐτῷ τοιαύτην
ταπείνωσιν πρὸς ἅπαντας, καὶ ἐλεημοσύνην, καὶ ἀγάπην. For analysis, see also Havener, “Two
Early Anecdotes,” pp. 19–20; Degórski “San Leone Magno,” pp. 413–14.
65 John the Deacon, Vita Greg. 4.63 (PL 75:213C–D): “ex Graecorum relationibus ad me
nuper interpretatis”. It should be noted that the Greek tale of Gregory and the pauper/
angel printed in Rudolf Abicht and Hermann Schmidt, “Quellennachweise zum Codex
Suprasliensis,” Archiv für slavische Philologie 18 (1896), 138–55, at 152–5, contains various
Latinisms and is undoubtedly a translation from Latin; cf. John the Deacon, Vita Greg.
1.6, 9–10; 2.23. For Gregory’s Greek hagiographic corpus, see also Hippolyte Delehaye,
“S. Grégoire le grand dans l’hagiographie grecque,” Analecta Bollandiana 23 (1904), 449–54;
François Halkin, “Le pape S. Grégoire le grand dans l’hagiographie byzantine,” Orientalia
Christiana Periodica 21 (Rome, 1955), 109–14.
66 See Gérard Garitte, “Histoires édifiantes géorgiennes,” Byzantion 36 (1966), 398–423,
at 398–406. Cf. idem, “La version géorgienne du Pré spirituel,” in Mélanges Eugène Tisser-
ant, 2 vols (Rome, 1964), 2:179–85.
 gregory and the greek east 127

patriarch of Jerusalem, and regarded him as a champion of orthodox doc-

trine; and he had travelled in the Latin West, to Rome and ­Ravenna.67 It
is unsurprising, therefore, that Jean-Marie Sansterre has suggested that he
was one of those twelve disciples of Moschus described within the brief
biographical prologue attached to some manuscripts of the Pratum.68 The
author of the Georgian appendix, like Moschus, chose to include an anec-
dote which centres on Gregory the Great. Thus we are told that, while in
Rome, one Abba Paul the scribe, from Cilicia, related how in the time of
Gregory “who is called the wonder-worker” (qui dictus est miraculorum
patrator) some Franks came to him and requested a relic of St. Peter, in
order to place it in a new church named for the apostle. The pope, wish-
ing to fulfil their request, cut a rag from the altar-cloth in the apostle’s
(Roman) church and, placing it in a box with a prayer, he left it at Peter’s
tomb for three days. The Franks accepted the box with delight but, upon
returning home and opening it, discovered the small rag contained within.
Enraged at the apparent deception, they returned to Rome to confront the
pope. He wanted to reassure them, and so he led the Franks in a proces-
sion of clerics and others to the church of St. Peter where he opened the
box and cut the rag with scissors. To the great dread and regret of its
doubters, the cloth began to bleed.69
This striking tale was later integrated into another source which shares
a connection with Moschus: Gregory’s first full hagiography, composed
by an anonymous monk of Whitby in the early 8th century.70 As Alan
Thacker has argued in a recent article, these correspondences suggest that
both authors drew upon a common corpus of written Gregorian material
emanating from the pope’s own circles in Rome;71 but he also suggests

67 See the Georgian Appendix to the Pratum spirituale, Latin trans. by Garitte, “Histoires
édifiantes géorgiennes,” 406–23; chs 12–13 (set in Italy); chs 14–19 (set amidst the mon-
asteries of Palestine); chs 18–19 (referring to Sophronius); and 30 (referring to the laura
of Sabas). It should also be noted that the author shares Moschus’ predilection for topo-
graphical and prosopographical precision, as well as a pervasive interest in the Eucharist;
on the latter, see ibid., chs 13, 14, 16, 20, 22, 27, 28, and 30.
68 Jean-Marie Sansterre, Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome aux époques byzantine et
carolingienne (milieu du VIe s.–fin du IXe s.), 2 vols (Brussels, 1983), 1:57–61.
69 See the Georgian Appendix to the Pratum Spirituale 12 (Latin trans. Garitte 406–8).
The same tale also survives in Arabic; see Joseph-Marie Sauget, “S. Grégoire le grand et les
reliques de S. Pierre dans la tradition arabe chrétienne,” Rivista di archeologia cristiana 49
(1973), 301–9. The story is reminiscent of a similar tale told by Gregory himself of Pope
Leo, at Reg. 4.30.
70 See Anonymous of Whitby, Vita Greg. 21 (ed. Colgrave, pp. 108–10).
71  Alan Thacker, “Memorializing Gregory the Great: The Origin and Transmission of
a Papal Cult in the Seventh and Early Eighth Centuries,” Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998),
128 phil booth

that the composition of the Whitby Life occurred on the back of Gregory’s
promotion in England by Theodore of Tarsus, the 7th-century archbishop
of Canterbury.72 Like Moschus, Theodore was a Cilician ascetic who had
settled in Rome in the aftermath of the Persian invasions;73 like Moschus,
he seems to have known Sophronius and Maximus Confessor;74 and like
Moschus again, he appears to have been acquainted with Clement’s lost
Hypotyposeis (even more remarkable since it was also cited in the works of
Maximus and, it seems, Sophronius).75 Theodore of Tarsus, therefore, can

59–84, at 61–7, making the mistake, however, that the Georgian Appendix derives from the
Pratum itself, rather than from an author close to Moschus who continued to write after
the latter’s death.
72 Thacker, “Memorializing Gregory,” 75–77.
73 For Theodore’s biography, see Henry Chadwick, “Theodore of Tarsus and Mono-
theletism,” in Logos: Festschrift für Luise Abramowski zum 8 Juli 1993, eds Hanns Christof
Brennecke et al. (Berlin, 1993), pp. 524–44; Bernhard Bischoff and Michael Lapidge (eds),
Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge,
1994), pp. 5–81; Michael Lapidge, “The Career of Archbishop Theodore,” in Archbishop
Theodore: Commemorative Studies on his Life and Influence, ed. Michael Lapidge (Cam-
bridge, 1995), pp. 1–29. For Theodore’s connection to the Palestinian circle of Moschus,
see also his ties to St. Anastasius the Persian—whose Acts had reportedly been composed
by Modestus, co-monk of Moschus and Sophronius and briefly patriarch of Jerusalem, and
whose cult Palestinians had transferred to Rome—in Carmela Vircillo Franklin, “Theodore
of Tarsus and the Passio S. Anastasii (BHL 410b),” in Archbishop Theodore, ed. Lapidge, pp.
175–203; ead., The Latin Dossier of Anastasius the Persian: Hagiographic Translations and
Transformations (Toronto, 2004).
74 See Canterbury Commentator, First Commentary on the Pentateuch 35 (eds Bischoff
and Lapidge), citing Sophronius as an authority on the etymology of the toponym Emmaus
(which does not appear in his extant works). For the correspondence between Theodore’s
and Maximus’ corpora see Bischoff and Lapidge (eds), Biblical Commentaries, p. 225;
Lapidge “The Career,” p. 24.
75 See Pratum 176 (PG 87C:3045C–D), with Harry E. Echle, “The Baptism of the Apostles:
A Fragment of Clement of Alexandria’s Lost Work Hypotyposeis in the Pratum Spirituale of
John Moschus,” Traditio 3 (1945), 365–8; cf. Canterbury Commentator, Second Canterbury
Commentary on the Gospels 82, eds Bischoff and Lapidge, p. 412. It is possible that the
author of the Commentary cites directly from Moschus’ Pratum, as suggested in Bischoff
and Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries, p. 226. The same scholars also suggest a direct con-
nection between the same passage, Pratum 176, and Theodore of Canterbury, Iudicia 2.4.4,
both of which cite Gregory Nazianzus as an authority on baptism by tears. For Maximus’
citation of Clement’s Hypotyposeis see Maximus Confessor, Scholia on Ps.-Dionysius’ On the
Divine Names (PG 4:228A); Scholia on Ps.-Dionysius’ On Mystical Theology (PG 4:421B–C).
The latter passage reads: “But I have read ‘seven heavens’ also in the Disputation of
Papiscus and Jason ascribed to Aristo of Pella, and which Clement of Alexandria in the
eighth book of Hypotyposeis says Saint Luke wrote.” Sophronius, On the Circumcision 23–27
also refers to the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus and ascribes it to St. Luke, perhaps indi-
cating that he too knew the Hypotyposeis. For analysis of the newly discovered sermon
by Sophronius see John Duffy, “New Fragments of Sophronius of Jerusalem and Aristo of
Pella?” in Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient: Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburt-
stag, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 187, eds Dmitrij Bumazhnov et al. (Leuven, 2011)
pp. 15–28, noting the connection with Clement, Moschus, and Maximus. For the baptism
 gregory and the greek east 129

be considered as a relative intimate of the Moschan circle. And alongside

both Moschus and the author of the Georgian appendix to the Pratum, he
can also be considered, through his connection with the Whitby Life, one
of the earliest promoters of Gregory’s cult.
This coincidence, which demonstrates the remarkable prestige which
Gregory enjoyed within Moschus’ monastic circle, perhaps represents
nothing more than simple admiration for a pope whose connections with
the Chalcedonian East, and with Moschus’ own associates, had been exten-
sive.76 In a recent article Robert Coates-Stephens has nevertheless pointed
to a further possible context, and one which allows us to view Moschus’
tale of Gregory’s generosity towards a Palestinian monk within the frame-
work of a new community of eastern ascetics in 7th-century Rome. In
649, according to the Acts of a Lateran Council which had converged to
condemn the eastern doctrine of monotheletism, the assembled western
bishops were petitioned by a delegation of eastern monks who—like
Moschus, Theodore and the author of the Georgian Appendix—had now
settled in Rome, and who included representatives from two monasteries
named for the Palestinian hero St. Sabas: the famed laura near Jerusalem,
and a satellite of that same laura now in North Africa.77 Most scholars
now agree that in this same period a monastic institution at Cella Nova in
Rome was renamed for Sabas, and populated, no doubt, with those same
monks of Sabas whose leaders attended the Lateran (including, we should
note, Maximus Confessor).78 On the basis of various textual, ­archaeological

by tears, see also Anonymous of Whitby, Vita Greg. 29 (on Gregory’s baptism by tears of
the soul of Trajan); on the latter, cf. in Greek Ps.-John of Damascus, Oratio de his qui in
fide dormierunt (PG 95:261D–264A). I am grateful to Robert Coates-Stephens for bringing
the latter to my attention.
76 For this, see also Claude Dagens, “Grégoire le grand et le monde oriental,” Rivista di
storia e letteratura religiosa 17 (1981), 243–52, and suggesting also that Gregory’s reception
in eastern circles is in part explained by the eastern quality of his own spirituality. For this
quality, cf. Cavallo, “Quale Bisanzio.”
77 See Acta Concilii Lateranensis (ed. Rudolf Riedinger, ACO ser. 2,1:50, 57). We should also
note that at least three monks from Moschus and Sophronius’ Monastery of Theodosius at
Jerusalem were in Rome at the time of the council; see Pope Martin’s letter to John of Phila-
delphia (PL 87:154B, 162A); and Martin’s letter to George, Archimandrite of the monastery of
St. Theodosius (PL 87:167B).
78 For discussion, see Sansterre, Les moines grecs 1:22–31; Robert Coates-Stephens,
“S. Saba and the xenodochium de via Nova,” Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 83 (2007),
223–31. For Maximus’ settlement of Cella Nova with other “Nestorian” monks from North
Africa before the Lateran Synod, see George of Resh‛aina, Vita Maximi syriaca 19, 24 (ed.
Sebastian Brock, “An Early Syriac Life of Maximus the Confessor,” Analecta Bollandiana
91 [1973], 299–346; repr. in idem, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity, Collected Studies
Series 199 [London, 1984], XII).
130 phil booth

and epigraphic data, however, Coates-Stephens has argued that the same
site was a continuation of a much earlier settlement, a xenodochium de
via nova referred to in the correspondence of Gregory, and established by
him for the reception of religious notables at Rome.79 In this regard, it is
perhaps significant therefore, that Moschus included within the Pratum a
seemingly original tale which recorded Gregory’s beneficence towards a
Palestinian monk. In view of the Pratum’s composition at Rome, and the
settlement there of eastern monks within a Gregorian institution soon to
be named for St. Sabas, that tale perhaps constitutes something of a foun-
dation myth for the community at Cella Nova, a retrospective celebration
of papal patronage of eastern monks in exile.80

Conclusion

Although the title of this chapter has spoken of “Gregory and the Greek
East,” it is in many ways problematic to speak of the former as if he were
somehow external to the latter. While Gregory’s abilities in the Greek lan-
guage were limited at best, he nevertheless remained integrated within the
eastern Mediterranean through a complex network of political, economic
and cultural ties, as well as the personal bonds of amicitia so evident in
the Letters. In a context of Lombard pressure and ­Constantinopolitan
interference within Roman jurisdiction, Gregory raised a vociferous pro-
test over the arrogance of the “ecumenical patriarch” and his unwar-
ranted condemnation of certain appellants to Rome, but these anxieties
over Roman privilege were long-standing, and demonstrate above all the
pope’s sustained commitment to an ecclesiological dialogue with the East.
Not least, Gregory emphasized at the same time the shared Petrine history
which bound Rome indissolubly to Antioch and Alexandria.

79 Coates-Stephens, “S. Saba”, 231–56. For the identification of Cella Nova and St. Sabas,
as well as the link to Gregory, see esp. John the Deacon, Vita Greg. 1.9, who claimed that
Gregory’s mother Silvia lived “at that time next to the Gate of the Blessed Apostle Paul,
in the place which is called Cella Nova, where now is the oratory dedicated to his name,
and the famous monastery of the confessor of Christ Saint Baba . . .” (PL 75:66A): “. . . matre
Silvia, tunc temporis juxta portam beati Pauli apostoli, loco qui dicitur Cella nova, quo
hactenus oratorium nomini ejus dedicatum est, et famosum sancti Babae confessoris
Christi monasterium . . . degente . . .”.
80 Cf. the comments of Havener, “Two Early Anecdotes,” p. 20 on the same story: “Given
the legendary character of the story . . . it does not seem wise to press its historicity. Far
more significant, perhaps, is the attitude of openness between eastern Christianity and the
Latin Church so clearly expressed in this story . . . We find a complete absence of antago-
nism on the part of this Greek writer toward the Latin Church.”
 gregory and the greek east 131

Looking ahead, we could consider the gathering of western bishops and

eastern ascetics at the Lateran Council in 649 in many ways as continu-
ing the legacy of Gregory the Great.81 At the most basic level, it expressed
Rome’s sustained commitment to asserting itself in conflicts which had
arisen in the eastern provinces, as well as the continued willingness of
eastern monks both to exploit the right of appeal to the papacy and to
play upon the Roman rhetoric of patriarchal pre-eminence.82 It was appo-
site, then, that in Rome those monks came to reside in a Gregorian institu-
tion established for the reception of foreign dignitaries, and thence to lead
the way in celebrating the memory of a figure who, both then and now,
defies attempts at neat geographical or cultural categorization, whether
East or West, Greek or Latin.

81 On the council and its Acts, which were composed by Maximus Confessor and his
allies, see esp. the collected articles of Rudolf Riedinger, Kleine Schriften zu den Konzilsak-
ten des 7. Jahrhunderts (Turnhout, 1998); also now Andrew J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome
and the Greek Popes. Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to
Zacharias, 590–752 A.D. (Lanham, MD, 2007), pp. 113–57; Catherine Cubitt, “The ­Lateran
Council of 649 as an Ecumenical Council,” in Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400–
700, eds Mary Whitby and Richard Price (Liverpool, 2009), pp. 133–47.
82 On this latter point, see Christophe von Schönborn, “La primauté romaine vue
d’Orient pendant la querelle du monoénergisme et du monothélisme (VIIe siècle),” Istina
20 (1975), 476–92; Jean-Claude Larchet, Maxime le Confesseur, médiateur entre l’Orient et
l’Occident (Paris, 1998), pp. 127–76.
 part 2

Gregory’s Theological Vision

 Chapter six

The Theology of Gregory the Great:

Christ, Salvation and the Church

Bernard Green

Gregory was not a systematic theologian in the sense of exploring and

developing ideas in a systematic way.1 He did not write theological trea-
tises dedicated to particular doctrinal problems. He was rarely caught up
in theological disputes.2 He showed little interest in technical vocabulary.
Though at times capable of unexpected subtlety of thought, his was not a
mind much given to speculation; his creativity is most apparent in his viv-
idly imaginative reading of Scripture, not in the exploration of theological
dilemmas. Nevertheless, his writings reveal clear and consistent theologi-
cal views which underpin his exegesis and his spiritual teaching.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in his Christology. It is true that
Gregory would happily use words such as natura or substantia inter-
changeably, made no attempt to probe their meaning, and showed little

1  The most comprehensive survey remains Frederick Homes Dudden, Gregory the Great.
His Place in History and Thought, 2 vols (London, 1905), 2:324–36; Carole Straw, Gregory the
Great. Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley, 1988), pp. 162–78 offers a more sympathetic and
penetrating study.
2 The controversy concerning the Three Chapters, which were works of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa condemned by imperial decree in
c.543 and at the second Council of Constantinople in 553, had led to a schism in northern
Italy. Though Gregory’s preoccupation with the schism was more political than doctrinal,
he was not unaware of the theological issues; see Paul Maevert, “A Letter of Pelagius II
composed by Gregory the Great,” in Gregory the Great: A Symposium, ed. John Cavadini
(Notre Dame, IN, 1995), pp. 94–116. For the lead-up to the Council of 553 and its acts, see
Richard Price, The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553, with related texts on the
Three Chapters controversy, 2 vols (Liverpool, 2009). For the Council’s fallout, including in
Italy, see Celia Chazelle and Catherine Cubitt, The Crisis of the Oikumene: The Three Chap-
ters and the failed quest for unity in the sixth-century Mediterranean (Turnhout, 2007). Rare
examples of his engagement with purely theological disputes include his disagreement
with the Patriarch Eutychios concerning the nature of the resurrected flesh: see Matthew
Dal Santo’s chapter in this volume; Yves-Marie Duval, “La discussion entre l’apocrisiaire
Grégoire et le patriarche Eutychios au sujet de la résurrection de la chair. L’arrière-plan
doctrinal oriental et occidental,” in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al. (Paris,
1986), pp. 347–66; and his debate with the Patriarch Eulogius over the ignorance of Christ:
Ep. 10.21 (CCSL 140A:852–56).
136 bernard green

interest in the formulas canonized in Leo’s Tome or by Chalcedon. Yet he

had a robust, coherent and consistent view of the identity of Christ and
the relationship between his divine and human natures which shaped his
understanding of salvation and the Church. This chapter will attempt to
sketch the salient features of Gregory’s theology in these three areas.

Christ

For Gregory, Christ was the Word of God incarnate. The single identity
and sole actor in Christ was the Son of God. This made him deeply wary of
what he took “Nestorianism”3 to be, the belief that there were two distinct
persons in Christ.4 The titles for Christ that he liked to use were concrete
and biblical: the incarnate Lord,5 incarnate Word,6 Lord God,7 God Man8
or God and man.9 His best-loved terms by far were Mediator,10 a favou-
rite of both Augustine and Leo, which he employed about 50 times, and
Redeemer,11 which he used over 900 times. Mediator and Redeemer are
soteriological titles, describing what Christ accomplished, but for Gregory
both implied Christ’s identity as God made man.
According to Gregory, Christ, as God, is born eternally and is thus
perfect,12 consubstantial, coeternal, co-equal with the Father, of whom

  3 Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople 428–31, was accused of two distinct but over-
lapping errors: adoptionism and the doctrine of two Sons. Adoptionism was the view that
Christ was a perfect man, adopted into a relationship of Sonship by God, and was taken to
amount to a denial of Christ’s divinity. The doctrine of two Sons was the view that Christ as
Son of God and Son of Man, or Son of David, were two distinct identities and two agents.
The latter accusation had some force, given Nestorius’ presentation of the human acts of
Christ as being performed by his humanity, and this was the account of “Nestorianism”
followed by Gregory the Great. For Nestorius, see Frances M. Young with Andrew Teal,
From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background, 2nd ed. (London,
2010), pp. 288–98. For the way Cyril of Alexandria constructed an accusation of heresy out
of Nestorius’ teachings, see Susan Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy:
The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2004).
 4 This concern is voiced, for instance, in his letter to the Patriarchs of Constantino-
ple, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem in February 591, Ep. 1.24 (CCSL 140:32) and to the
Emperor Maurice in June 595, Ep. 5.37 (CCSL 140:310).
  5 Incarnatus Dominus (Mor. 30.21.66, CCSL 143B:1536).
  6 Incarnatum Verbum (HEz 1.1.8, CCSL 142:9).
  7 Deus Dominus (Mor. Praef 9.19, CCSL 143:23).
  8 Deus homo (I Reg. 1.2, CCSL 144:56).
 9 Deus et homo (Mor. 2.23.42, CCSL 143:85).
10 Mediator Dei et hominum, citing 1 Tim 2:5 (Mor. 22.17.42, CCSL 143A:1121).
11  Redemptor, alluding to Job 19:25 or Acts 7:35 (Mor. 9.38.61, CCSL 143:501).
12 Mor. 29.1.1 (CCSL 143:1434).
 the theology of gregory the great 137

he is the strength and wisdom.13 Christ, as man, is born in time in a way

that the human mind cannot comprehend.14 The double birth of Christ,
in eternity of the Father and in time of the Virgin Mary, had long been
presented as a way of showing that there was a single subject in Christ,
the divine Word, and yet a duality of natures—as for example in Cyril’s
second letter to Nestorius,15 the Formula of Reunion of 433,16 Leo’s Tome17
and the Chalcedonian Definition.18 This is the kernel of Gregory’s Chris-
tology. It made him repeatedly insistent that Christ is not God by adop-
tion, which again he plainly, though mistakenly, took to be another aspect
of the underlying error of Nestorius.19
Gregory can occasionally be found using the more formal language of
official definitions, usually in the context of a warning against error. For
instance, he rejected the notion that Christ was made up of two persons:20
Thus God the Father performed the nuptials of the Son when he united
him to a human nature in the Virgin’s womb, when he desired—[he who
was] God before the ages—to become a man at the end of the ages. But
because such a union usually takes place between two persons, we must
firmly exclude the belief that the person of God and man, our Redeemer
Jesus Christ, is united out of two persons. We say that he exists from two
natures and in two natures but we avoid as sinful believing that he is com-
posed of two persons.

13  HEv. 25.6 (CCSL 141:211).

14  “sed huius incarnationis mysterium humanus oculus penetrare non sufficit. Investi-
gare etenim nullatenus potest quomodo corporatur Verbum, quomodo summus et uiuifi-
cator spiritus intra uterum matris animator, quomodo is qui initium non habet, et existit
et concipitus.” HEv. 7.3 (CCSL 141:50); see also HEv. 22.8 (CCSL 141:188–89) and HEv. 25.6
(CCSL 141:211).
15 ACO 2,1,6, pp. 151–62. For a translation, see Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, trans,
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols., Translated Texts for Historians 45 (Liverpool,
2005), 1:173–77.
16 ACO 1,1,4, pp. 15–20; see Price and Gaddis, Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 1:178–83.
17 Ed. Carlos Silva-Tarouca, Textus et Documenta 9, pp. 20–33; for an English translation
of the Greek translation read out at Chalcedon, see Price and Gaddis, Acts of the Council
of Chalcedon, 2:14–24.
18  ACO 2,1,2, pp. 129–30; see Price and Gaddis, Acts of Chalcedon, 2:203–05.
19  Mor. 1.18. 26 (CCSL 143:39); Mor. 18.52.85 (CCSL 143A:948); HEz 1.8.3 (CCSL 142:101–
103); Ep. 11.52 (CCSL 140A:954–55).
20 “Tunc enim Deus Pater Filio nuptias fecit, quando hunc in utero uirginis humanae
naturae coniunxit, quando Deum ante saecula fieri uoluit hominem in fine saeculorum.
Sed quia ex duabus personis fieri solet ista coniunxio, absit hoc ab intellectibus nostris,
ut personam Dei et hominis Redemptoris nostri Iesu Christi ex duabus personis credamus
unitam. Ex duabus quippe atque in duabus hunc naturis existere dicimus, sed duabus
personis compositum credi, ut nefas, uitamus.” HEv 38.3 (CCSL 141:361). All translations
are my own unless otherwise stated.
138 bernard green

Here we catch an unexpected glimpse of Gregory’s deeper and wider

knowledge. Cyril of Alexandria had deployed the expression “from two
natures” and the original draft of the Chalcedonian Definition had fol-
lowed him; it was amended at the insistence of the papal legates to “in two
natures”, the form preferred by Leo the Great.21 “In two natures” expressed
the continued reality of the natures in the incarnate Christ more securely
than “from”, which was not immune to a “monophysite” interpretation.22
The use of the classical formulas has led Gregory here to depict Christ
in strikingly compositional terms, as the union of divine and human
in one person, rather than the divine Word taking up a second nature.
Augustine and Leo usually offered accounts of Christ in which his person
was the fruit of the union of the divine and human natures, while main-
taining that his sole identity was the divine Word. Though Cyril did at
times use compositional language, he preferred to speak of Christ as the
hypostasis of the Logos incarnate, in which the Logos took on a human
nature in his hypostasis.23 But in the Formula of Reunion of 433, which
healed the breach between Alexandria and Antioch caused by the Council
of Ephesus of 431, Cyril endorsed a compositional account: Christ was the
product of the union of two natures. Cyril was criticized sharply for this
and repeatedly had to defend his acceptance of the Formula of Reunion,
for instance in his letters to Succensus.24 Cyril argued that the error of
Nestorius was to posit two agents and two persons in Christ whereas he
had acknowledged only one person but two natures. All of this was fresh

21  See Richard Price, “The Council of Chalcedon (451): A Narrative,” in Chalcedon in
Context: Church Councils 400–700, eds Richard Price and Mary Whitby, Translated Texts for
Historians, Contexts 1 (Liverpool, 2009), pp. 79–81. An example of Leo’s use of the formula
is his Tractate 28.3, “in unam personam gemina conueniente natura” (CCSL 138:141).
22 One of Cyril of Alexandria’s most controversial slogans was that Christ was “one
incarnate nature of the divine Word” (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη). To his critics,
it appeared to mean that Christ had only one nature, either the divine nature or a mixture
of the divine and human natures. This led them to accuse those of Cyril’s supporters who
rejected Chalcedon of being “Monophysites”, believers in only one nature in Christ. In
fact, Cyril must have meant something more like “concrete reality” by the word physis in
this formula (see John McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy,
Its History, Theology, and Texts [Crestwood NY, 2004], pp. 207–12), and his followers who
turned the slogan into a battle-cry saw it as a defence against what they saw as Chalce-
don’s endorsement of a “Nestorian” account of Christ as two persons. For that reason, the
term “Miaphysite” has been recently coined to describe their belief that Christ was one
concrete reality.
23 See Richard A. Norris, “Christological Models in Cyril of Alexandria,” Studia Patristica
13 (1975), 255–68.
24 ACO 1,1,6, pp. 151–62; see Graham Gould, “Cyril of Alexandria and the Formula of
Reunion,” Downside Review 106 (1988), 235–52.
 the theology of gregory the great 139

in the minds of the participants at the Council of Chalcedon where the

Formula of Reunion and Leo’s Tome were given official recognition and a
Definition produced which described Christ as one hypostasis or prosopon
“in two natures”, plainly a compositional account. This proved unaccept-
able in Egypt and Palestine to those who saw in it a betrayal of Cyril and
the triumph of Nestorianism. The schisms that followed have lasted for
over 1600 years.25
Gregory’s emphasis, by contrast, seems regularly to be that Christ has
no other identity than the Son of God. For example, in a passage that
could have come from the pen of Cyril:26
Though he is one thing [aliud] from the Father and another thing [aliud]
from the Virgin, he is not however one person [alius] from the Father and
another person [alius] from the Virgin, but he is eternal from the Father and
he is temporal from his mother. He who made is he who was made. He who
is ‘fairer than the children of men’ (Ps. 45:2) through his divinity is also he of
whom it was said, ‘there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have
seen him, and there is no sightliness’ (Is. 53:2), through his humanity. He is
before the ages from his Father without a mother; he is at the end of the ages
from his mother without a father. He is the temple of the builder and he is
the builder of the temple. He is the author of the work and he is work of the
author. Remaining one from both and in both natures, neither a mixture by
the uniting of the natures nor twinned by the distinction of the natures.
The repeated emphasis on he (ipse), the single subject of all Christ’s acts,
is intended to assert his divine identity. It is the same God who is born
eternally of the Father and who was born in time of the Virgin. ­Gregory

25 For the sixth-century unfolding of these disputes, see Lucas van Rompay, “Society
and Community in the Christian East,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justin-
ian, ed. Michael Maas (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 239–66.
26 “Et quamuis ipse aliud ex Patre, aliud ex uirgine, non tamen alius ex Patre, alius ex
uirgine, sed ipse est aeternus ex Patre, ipse temporalis ex matre; ipse qui fecit, ipse qui
factus est; ipse speciosus forma prae filiis hominum (Ps 45:2) per diuinitatem et ipse de quo
dictum est: Vidimus eum et non erat aspectus; et non est species ei neque decor (Is 53:2), per
humanitatem. Ipse ante saecula de Patre sine matre, ipse in fine saeculorum de matre sine
patre. Ipse conditoris templum, ipse conditor templi; ipse auctor operis, ipse opus auctoris;
manens unus ex utraque et in utraque natura, nec naturarum copulatione confusus, nec
naturarum distinctione geminatus.” Mor. 18.52.85 (CCSL 143A:948–49); another example of
the single subject using the “in two natures” formula, asserted in terms of double birth, is:
HEz 1.8.24 (CCSL 142:115): “Unus quippe in utraque natura, quoniam qui Deus ante saecula
exstitit, homo factus est in fine saeculorum.”
140 bernard green

was aware and approved of Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas,27 the fourth of which
condemned the division of Christ’s acts as though they were performed by
two different personal agents and the last of which, as a corollary, insisted
on the need to believe that God was born in the flesh and died in the flesh
in Christ. He was as insistent as Cyril on the divine identity and agency of
Christ, while being as careful as Cyril to avoid any distribution of Christ’s
acts as though they were performed by two persons—and more careful
than Leo, whose attribution in the Tome of the divine and human acts to
his two forms, divine and human, provoked accusations of Nestorianism
at Chalcedon.28
Yet at the same time, Gregory is as emphatic as Augustine and Leo
that Christ does have two full and distinct natures and that it is their
union in Christ which brings salvation. Christ is described as participat-
ing in human nature,29 which suggests that human nature is a universal
in which he shares along with all other people, affirming his unity with
all humanity. This is central to Gregory’s thinking: it is Christ’s humanity
which provides the bond between God and the human race, by which
people can be brought back into unity with God.
Though Gregory was clear that the union of divine and human in Christ
happens at the level of his identity—it is the one person, the divine Word,
who is both God and man—he could use dangerously misleading lan-
guage to describe the union of the natures. For instance, he was attracted
by the image of electrum, a mixture of gold and silver, to explain how
Christ fused the divine with the human.30 This is an unfortunate way of
speaking, as it makes of Christ a new hybrid, neither truly God nor truly
man, and envisages each of the natures changing in the mixture.31 But
this is not in fact Gregory’s point. He was commenting on Ezekiel 1:27 and

27 Ep. 7.31 (CCSL 140:495); the Twelve Anathemas were attached to his third letter to
Nestorius: ACO 1,1,1, pp. 33–42.
28 See Bernard Green, The Soteriology of Leo the Great, Oxford Theological Monographs
(Oxford, 2008), pp. 217–22 and 228. For the debate at Chalcedon, see Price and Gaddis, Acts
of the Council of Chalcedon, 2:25–26.
29 Mor. 30.21.66 (CCSL 143B:1536); I Reg. 1.86 (CCSL 144:103), 5.98 (CCSL 144:479), 6.110
(CCSL 144:611).
30 HEz. 1.2.14 (CCSL 142:25–26). See also Mor. 18.1.5 (CCSL 143B:1398).
31  Gregory was not alone in using misleading images. Origen likened the union of the
soul and the Logos in Christ to iron in fire in De principiis 2.6.6 (GCS 22:145) and was fol-
lowed by Basil the Great in a sermon on the Nativity (PG 31:1460). Gregory of Nyssa repeat-
edly used the image of a drop of vinegar lost in the ocean as an image of the relationship of
the humanity with the divinity of Christ: Antirrheticus (GNO 3. 1:201); Ad Theophilum (GNO
3. 1:126); Contra Eunomium 3.4 (GNO 2:150). Both these famous images imply the blending
and mutation of both elements.
 the theology of gregory the great 141

needed to find a spiritual or theological significance in the vision of the

man enthroned above the four living creatures, who is depicted as having
the appearance of electrum: the Christological reading of the passage was
compelling. It was not so much how the natures are united that caught
Gregory’s attention as the way the natures interact: the divine elevates
the human while the human makes the divine accessible. In other words,
Gregory was willing to risk talking about the natures mixing in order to
articulate the salvific effect of the “exchange of properties” (communicatio
idiomatum).32
In much the same way, Gregory used the language of indwelling to
describe the relationship of the divine and human in Christ. This too
is unfortunate, suggesting that the humanity is external and ultimately
alien to the divinity, while the humanity’s function is merely instrumen-
tal, rather like the space suit which allows the astronaut to walk on the
moon. Gregory seems insensitive to these risks, readily using the image of
the wall for Christ, inwardly God and outwardly the God Man.33 He says
that he takes up his flesh like a garment,34 that he is both the Temple and
the one who inhabits the Temple,35 or that the form of a servant covers
(tegeret) the divinity.36 Christ is the lamp and the divinity is the flame
that illuminates it.37
This inward-outward depiction of the relationship of the natures is per-
haps revealing, as it is so casually adopted, but Gregory’s delight in images
should not be underestimated. The garment, the Temple and the lamp,
display the reality contained within; the covering conceals it (tego can
mean to conceal as well as to cover). The image of the defensive wall is
more complex, since the Christian is on the inside of the wall with God’s
own nature, while the God Man is the external face of the wall defending

32 At its simplest, this means that the properties of each nature can be predicated to
the one person of Christ; it is thus equally true to say that Christ is God and Christ is a
human. This allowed the Virgin Mary to be given the title Mother of God. At its more wide-
ranging, it describes attempts to say how the human nature expresses the divine and the
divine nature is communicated to the human. For the use of the communicatio idiomatum
by Augustine, which plainly influenced Gregory, see Tarcisius van Bavel, Recherches sur
la Christologie de saint Augustin: l’humain et le divin dans le Christ d’après saint Augustin
(Fribourg, 1954), pp. 57–73.
33 HEz. 2.2.5 (CCSL 142:228): “Murus est enim nobis intus est Deus, murus uero foris
est Deus homo.”
34 HEz. 2.1.9 (CCSL 142:215).
35 Mor. 33.16.32 (CCSL 143B:1701).
36 Mor. 2.23.42 (CCSL 143:85).
37 HEv. 34.6 (CCSL 141:304).
142 bernard green

the Christian from the enemy. Gregory thought of Christ’s humanity as

both disclosing God and, for those unable to see, concealing him. Those
who fail to believe in him might glimpse the divinity in his miracles but
refuse to believe he is God when they see his humility and his sufferings.38
In fact, of course, the humility is the most profound manifestation of the
divinity.39 Again, these images are offered not so much as an explanation
of how the divine and human are united in Christ as of how they interact
and work together.
Gregory thus showed a practical and soteriological interest in the com-
position of Christ’s identity and natures rather than a speculative one.
Nevertheless, his Christology was always securely based on the outcome
of the late-4th and early-5th-century disputes; for instance: “Wisdom built
herself a house when the only-begotten Son of God in himself created for
himself a human body, with the mediation of a soul, in the womb of the
Virgin.”40
Gregory is alluding to Proverbs 9:1, and follows the traditional identi-
fication of Wisdom as the Son of God. He might have defined the house
built by Wisdom as a human nature, but Gregory clearly prefers to regard
humanity as a universal in which Christ shares; to describe the house as
an individual human nature would run the risk of personifying it, turn-
ing Christ’s humanity into a second person. Instead, with a characteris-
tic concern with the concrete, Gregory prefers to describe the house as
Christ’s body, but to avoid the impression that it is therefore merely a
shell inhabited by the divine Word, an external covering only and not
really human, he inserts the phrase “with the mediation of a soul”. The
soul is thus depicted, as in the Cappadocians, as the meeting place of
the Word and his material body: akin to the Word as spiritual, akin to the
body as native to it.41

38 Discussing Song of Songs 2:9, HEz. 2.1.15: “Sed quia et diuina fecit, et humana pertulit,
quasi per fenestras uel per cancellas ad homines prospexit, ut Deus et appararet ex mira-
culis, et lateret ex passionibus, et homo cerneretur ex passionibus, sed tamen esse ultra
hominem ex miraculis agnosceretur.”
39 For this aspect of Gregory, see Carole Straw, Gregory the Great, pp. 172–73. For the
idea that the humility of Christ, and especially the sufferings of Christ, were a manifesta-
tion of his divinity, see Paul Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics
of Patristic Thought, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2004).
40 Mor. 33.16.32 (CCSL 143B:1701): “Sapientia quippe domum sibi condidit, cum uni-
genitus Dei Filius in seipso intra uterum uirginis mediante anima, humanum sibi corpus
creauit.”
41  Following Origen, De principiis 2.6.4 (GCS 22:143) and 4.4.4 (GCS 22:354–55), Gregory
of Nazianzus argues that Christ’s soul is the bond between the Logos and his body in
Ep. 101. 48–49 (SC 208:57).
 the theology of gregory the great 143

The same idea can be found in a passage where, for once, Gregory’s
fascination with vivid images led to convolution to the point of obscu-
rity. Discussing Job 39:18 (“When time shall be, she sets up her wings on
high: she scorns the horse and his rider”), Gregory depicted the horse as
the body, the rider as the soul, and the Word as riding upon the soul.42
Again, the soul mediates between the Word and the material body, allow-
ing them to be united.
The humanity that the Son of God has taken to himself is sinless. Fol-
lowing Augustine and Leo, he explained the sinlessness of Christ as the
result of the virgin birth.43 In other words, he accepted the Augustinian
account of the transmission of original sin by sexual intercourse. Thus
Christ shared in human nature but not in sin: “Nature was taken up by
him, not guilt”.44 This did not, however, make Christ immune to the pains
and sufferings of life inflicted on Adam as a penalty for his sin. Christ
accepted them freely, not as a punishment.45 He did this on account of
his humility:46
Among human beings, the only Son of God was made the perfect human
being who did not have his own sins but undertook the thorns of our wick-
edness and lowered himself to be humbled for us even as far as his passion
and to undertake in himself the fire of our tribulation.
Fire among thorns is an allusion is to Psalm 117 [118]:12, the last of the
psalms of deliverance sung at the end of the Passover meal,47 which lent
itself readily to a Christological reading. Since Christ was guilty of no sin,
his suffering and death could only be attributed to his freely undertaking
them in humility. However, Gregory was in no way speculating that Christ
might have chosen to lead a painless and immortal existence. In a suffer-
ing world, that would not have been consistent with the humility which
is the most profound expression of his divinity. Instead, Christ was subject
like everyone else to exhaustion, hunger, thirst, pain and even death.48

42 Mor. 31.23.42 (CCSL 143B:1578).

43 Mor. 2.22.41 (CCSL 143:84–85); 11.52.70 (CCSL 143A:626); 17.30.46 (CCSL 143A:878).
44 Mor. 17.30.46 (CCSL 143A, 878): “sumpta est ab illo natura, non culpa”; see also
Mor. 18.52.84 (CCSL 143A:948); 24.2.2 (CCSL 143B:1189); 27.2.3 (CCSL 143B:1332); 30.21.66
(CCSL 143B:1536).
45 Mor. 30.22.67 (CCSL 143B:1536–37).
46 HEz. 1.7.10 (CCSL 142:89): “Inter homines enim perfectus homo factus est unicus Dei
Filius, qui sua peccata non habuit, sed spinas nostrae nequitiae suscepit atque usque ad
passionem pro nobis humiliari dignatus est, et in semetipso ignem tribulationis nostrae
suscipere.”
47 Mark 14:26.
48 Mor. 30.22.67 (CCSL 143B:1536); HEz. 2.1.15 (CCSL 142:219).
144 bernard green

These are bodily afflictions. How far did Gregory acknowledge mental
and emotional anguish in Christ? This was always difficult territory for
early Christian writers, seeking to harmonize the perfection and the weak-
ness of Christ. Gregory is bolder than most in exploring the experiences
of Christ’s mind and heart, trying to envisage Christ as simultaneously
truly God and really human, and also a model of perfection.49 Gregory
attempted to reconcile the two by maintaining that Christ’s sufferings
were real, that they were controlled by the divine Word and that they did
not disturb his tranquillity so that his endurance in suffering becomes a
model for all Christians.50 It is not quite the case that Gregory is saying
that the divine Word limited Christ’s sufferings to the level at which they
could be endured or to the point at which they had to be sustained as an
encouragement to others. Rather, he needed to insist that the Word was
not removed from the experience of suffering, allowing it to happen:51
The devil cannot shatter the mind of the Mediator of God and humanity
with temptation. For he so lowered himself to undertake all this externally
that his mind, inwardly adhering to his divinity, could remain unshaken.
And if he is said when disturbed in spirit to have groaned, he did in his
divine nature arrange how much he should be disturbed in his human
nature, changelessly presiding over everything and yet showing himself
changeable in satisfying weakness. And thus remaining tranquil in himself,
he arranged whatever he did, even with a disturbed spirit, to show in his
humanity what he had assumed.
This was a difficult balance to strike. If Gregory had excluded the Word
from the equation and presented the humanity suffering and triumphing
alone, he could have been accused of Nestorianism and its sister heresy

49 Homes Dudden, Gregory the Great, 2:328–35, concluded that Gregory was docetic in
his account of Christ’s mental sufferings. The response from Joseph Lebon, “Le Prétendu
docétisme de la Christologie de s. Grégoire le grand,” Recherches de théologie et philosophie
médiévales 1 (1929), 177–201, is conclusive.
50 Gregory was probably aware of contemporary eastern disputes concerning the real-
ity of Christ’s sufferings; see van Rompay, “Society and Community in the Christian East,”
pp. 253–54.
51  “[Hostis] mentem tamen mediatoris Dei et hominum tentatione quassare non ualuit.
Sic enim dignatus est haec exterius cuncta suscipere, ut tamen eius mens interius diuinitati
suae inhaerens inconcussa permaneret. Qui et si quando turbatus spiritu infremuisse dici-
tur, ipse diuinitus disponebat quantum ipse humanitus turbaretur, immutabiliter omnibus
praesidens et semetipsum mutabilem in satisfactione infirmitatis ostendens. Quietus ergo
in semetipso manens, disposuit quidquid pro ostendenda humanitate quam susceperat
etiam turbulentus fecit.” Mor. 3.16.30 (CCSL 143:134–35).
 the theology of gregory the great 145

of Pelagianism.52 If Gregory had presented the Word as limiting the suf-

fering, then Christ’s human endurance would offer no encouragement
to believers. Gregory thus wanted to say that the Word was ultimately
in control of the suffering, allowing it to provide a model of perfection.
Though the Word arranged it (disponebat) and the Word also arranged
(disposuit) what he did even when disturbed to show the humanity he
had undertaken, Gregory did not connect the two concepts and say that
the Word only allowed his humanity to suffer as much as was needed
to show that he is human. Much depends on the word quantum—“how
much”—the Word arranged for the human nature to suffer. If translated
“how greatly he should be disturbed in his human nature”, for instance,
the passage has an entirely different sense.
Gregory was wrestling, with limited success, with a problem all patristic
writers found intractable. It is noteworthy, however, that his contribution
lies not in holding the natures apart or in contrast with each other, but in
cooperation with each other. This does not mean that the natures become
confused in Gregory’s account or that Christ’s perfection makes him less
than human. On the contrary, Gregory would clearly have seen Christ as
more fully and truly human than anyone else who has ever lived.
This is apparent in his view of Christ’s perfect knowledge. Christ’s occa-
sional admissions of ignorance were difficult for patristic writers as they
suggested a gulf between his limited human understanding and the divine
Word which spoke through his mind and voice in preaching and revealed
itself through his actions. Gregory, like most of his predecessors, attributed

52 In the period 412–30, Augustine had a series of disputes with Pelagius, Caelestius
and Julian of Eclanum which led him to clarify and systematize his ideas about sin and
grace. Against them, he insisted that the Fall of Adam caused his descendants to inherit
the guilt of his sin, so that they had to pay the double penalty of physical mortality and
spiritual mortality, and to inherit concupiscence, the radical disorder of desire. Pelagian-
ism was therefore taken to be the view that people are born sinless and have in prin-
ciple the capacity to remain sinless, which reduced the work of Christ merely to offering
guidance and encouragement, though in this form it was largely a construct of Augus-
tine’s polemic; see Bryn Rees, Pelagius: A Reluctant Heretic (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1988).
A connection between the Christology of Nestorius, which could be construed as depicting
Christ’s perfect humanity enduring temptation and suffering independently of his divinity,
was made at a very early date by John Cassian in his De incarnatione (CSEL 17:233–391);
but the connection was not accepted by others, notably Leo who had commissioned the
work: see Green, Soteriology of Leo the Great, pp. 28–35. The fact that Nestorius offered
shelter to Julian of Eclanum at Constantinople had lent spurious credibility to the accusa-
tion that he was a Pelagian. See Lionel Wickham, “Pelagianism in the East,” in The Making
of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. Rowan Williams (Cambridge, 1989),
pp. 200–13.
146 bernard green

Christ’s ignorance to his skill as a teacher or his need to act appropriately—

questioning the doctors in the Temple at the age of twelve, for instance,
rather than instructing them.53 Unusually, Gregory discussed this problem
directly at some length, in a letter to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria,
who had written to Gregory for guidance on account of the fact that the
opposite view (which Eulogius considered a heresy) was being widely pro-
moted in Egypt.54 He followed the usual route of pointing out that most
cases where Christ asked questions suggesting ignorance were merely rhe-
torical questions to advance the conversation. The most important case
of expressed ignorance was in response to the question about the Day of
Judgement (Mt 24:36) where Christ replied that not even the Son knew
the hour. Gregory claimed that Christ did know the hour but not from his
human nature; he knew it in his human nature but only from his divine
nature. This looks like subtlety to the point of sophistry but in fact the
implications of it are considerable. Gregory was not explicitly excluding
the possibility of human ignorance in Christ (that he must have known,
for instance, of the eventual existence of Beijing) but he was certainly
excluding the possibility of Christ knowing the mind of God through his
human capabilities. Christ knew the mysteries of God in his divine nature
and this informed his human mind. In other words, while holding the
natures distinct, Gregory insisted on their interaction.
This is the central concern of Gregory’s great mentors, Augustine and
Leo, in their understanding of Christ as God incarnate. The natures are
distinct but they correlate and cooperate. This preoccupation led both
Augustine and Leo to choose Mediator as the most fruitful title for Christ,
the Mediator in whom divine and human meet, in whom there is an
exchange. Indeed, Gregory often draws the reader’s attention to the con-
trast of the natures: “Impassible and suffering, immortal and dying, exist-
ing before time and yet being able to be temporal at the end of time”.55
To Gregory, Christ’s two forms, that of God and that of the servant
(Phil 2:6–7), show him to be equal to the Father and less than the Father.56
Christ is both the creator and created, the builder of the Temple and the

53 HEz. 1.2.3 (CCSL 142:18); see also I Reg. 3.17 (CCSL 144:212): “Nescire ergo dominum
dicitur non ignorantia cognitionis sed praetextu simplicitatis.”
54 Ep. 10.21 (CCSL 140A:852–856). Further on the agnoete controversy and its setting, see
Leslie S.B. MacCoull, “The historical context of John Philoponus’s De Opificio Mundi in the
culture of Byzantine-Coptic Egypt,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 9 (2006), 397–423.
55 Mor. 18.52.85 (CCSL 143A:948): “impassibilis pati, et immortalis mori, et aeternus ante
saecula temporalis posset esse in fine saeculorum”.
56 Mor. 30.21.66 (CCSL 143B:1536).
 the theology of gregory the great 147

Temple.57 He gives all things as God, he receives all things at the Father’s
hand as man.58 He is called a lamb on account of his innocence, a lion
on account of his power.59 He is capable of dying through his human
nature and capable of purifying through his righteousness.60 He was dead
through humility but immortal through divinity.61 What he assumes in his
human nature, he conquers in his divine nature.62 He is beyond the world
by the power of his divinity but confined to the Virgin’s womb by the
substance of his weakness.63 He teaches the angels in heaven through his
divinity but questions the doctors in the Temple.64 He appeared visible
through his humanity and remained invisible in his divinity.65 He was of
the earth through the substance of his humanity but invisible through the
height of his divinity.66 He was comprehensible through the flesh, incom-
prehensible through his divinity.67 A man among others in humility, he
was beyond all humanity in divinity.68
In this way, the natures are distinct but they work together for salva-
tion. The human nature, in its humility, is the vehicle by which the divine
makes itself known:69
When the humility of the flesh was assumed, it brought no injury to the
majesty because, so that he should both undertake what he was to save and
yet preserve what he had, neither was the divine lessened by the humanity
nor was the humanity consumed by the divine. Because, although it is said
through Paul, ‘Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be
equal with God but emptied himself and took upon him the form of a ser-
vant’ (Phil 2:6–7), for him to have emptied himself is to show himself visible

57  Mor. 18.52.85 (CCSL 143A:948–49).

58 Mor. 2.37.60 (CCSL 143:97).
59 Mor. 30.21.66 (CCSL 143B:1535–36).
60 Mor. 17.30.46 (CCSL 143A:878).
61  HEz. 1.7.10 (CCSL 142:89).
62 Mor. 14.55.69 (CCSL 143A:741).
63 Mor. 30.25.73 (CCSL 143B:1542).
64 HEz. 1.2.3 (CCSL 142:18).
65 HEz. 2.1.15 (CCSL 142:219).
66 HEz. 2.1.4 (CCSL 142:210).
67 Mor. 17.27.39 (CCSL 143A:874).
68 HEv 25.2 (CCSL 141:206).
69 Mor. 2.23.42 (CCSL 143:85): “Nec maiestati iniuriam assumpta humilitas carnis, quia
et ut seruanda susciperet, nec tamen habita permutaret, nec diuina humanitate minuit,
nec humana diuinitate consumpsit. Quia etsi per Paulum dicitur: Qui cum in forma Dei
esset non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo sed semetipsum exinaniuit formam
serui accipiens (Phil 2:6–7), ei semetipsum exinanisse est ab inuisibilitatis suae magnitu-
dine se uisibilem demonstrasse ut serui forma tegeret hoc quod incircumscripte omnia ex
diuinitate penetraret.”
148 bernard green

from the greatness of his invisibility so that the form of a servant should
cover that which penetrates all things without limit through his divinity.
This passage is more significant than it might immediately appear, for
two reasons. First, it is vital that the unknowable God should be made
accessible for salvation—as Gregory asked his congregation in a sermon,
“How can I love one I do not know?”70 In the incarnation, God made
himself knowable.71 This, for Gregory, is the true meaning of “emptying”
(Gk. kenosis); it is always connected to revelation, self-communication,
teaching.72 Secondly, it is significant because it was precisely the humility
of Christ’s humanity which was the most fitting way for God to express
himself to humanity. The self-emptying of the Son of God is manifested
in the humble obedience and love of his human life.
This is stated at some length in one of Gregory’s homilies, where he
spoke of the meekness of God who came to deliver humanity from their
sins, to suffer and not to show his power.73 Gregory was very struck by
the fact that Christ did not defeat evil by an assertion of power but by
defenceless love. The loftiness of the divine nature was made low and its
strength made into weakness to elevate humanity.74 The righteousness of
God is channelled through the innocent suffering of Christ. This is why
the figure of Job was so compelling to Gregory and why he devoted his
greatest work to an exposition of the Book of Job. Job was the wholly righ-
teous and innocent man who suffered much but never fell back into pride
or anger or self-pity, accepting everything from God in humble obedience.
He is the perfect type of Christ the righteous victim. Righteousness is a
divine quality, attributed to Christ’s humanity.75 Christ can thus present
his perfect humanity before God to intercede on behalf of humanity and
his perfect humanity will propitiate God’s demand for righteousness from
humanity.76

70 HEv 30.10 (CCSL 141:266).

71 Dial. 4.1.4 (SC 265:20).
72 Mor. 24.2.2 (CCSL 143B:1189–91); 34.23.54 (CCSL 143B:1770–71).
73 HEv 16.1–4 (CCSL 141:104–07).
74 Mor. 14.54.67 (CCSL 143A:739).
75 Mor. 24.3.5 (CCSL 143B:1191–92).
76 Mor. 24.3.5–6 (CCSL 143B:1191–93).
 the theology of gregory the great 149

Salvation77

Gregory’s account of the saving work of Christ is theandric: that is, it

depends entirely on Christ’s identity as human and divine, which enables
and gives significance to his saving acts.78 The union and interaction of
divine and human in Christ reconciles humanity with God and allows for
a reciprocal exchange in which humanity receives forgiveness, righteous-
ness and love from God and humanity can make the perfect and sinless
offering of Christ to the Father. It is the application of Gregory’s Chris-
tology, so that the two form one coherent understanding of Christ. It is
profoundly indebted to Gregory’s pedagogues, Augustine and Leo, and to
that extent is notably different from soteriologies, such as that of Cyril of
Alexandria, where the humanity of Christ is depicted as the passive recipi-
ent of the divine life bestowed on it by the Word and instrumental as the
means by which that divine life can be shared with believers. For Gregory,
as for Augustine and Leo, it is the balance and interchange of the natures
that matters, the two natures working together, both therefore active in
the work of salvation. Gregory explained:79
Now, to be scourged and smeared with spittle, to be crucified, to die and to
be buried, these are not the work of God in his own nature but the work of
sinful man, who has merited all these things through his sin. ‘But he himself
bore our sins in his body upon the tree’ (1 Pet 2:4). He who always remains
incomprehensible in his own nature has condescended to be comprehended
in our nature and to be scourged, for if he had not taken upon himself that
which belonged to our weakness, he could never have lifted us up to the
power of his strength. So that therefore he might do his work, . . . in order to

77 Though the most complete survey remains Homes Dudden, Gregory the Great 2:336–
47, he reads Gregory through the lens of later theology; Carole Straw, Gregory the Great,
pp. 147–61 is a more sympathetic and subtle account.
78 For the importance of the theandric underpinning of Christ’s salvific acts in patristic
thought, see Jean-Pierre Jossua, Le Salut: incarnation ou mystère pascal chez les pères de
l’Église de saint Irénée à saint Léon le grand (Paris, 1968).
79 HEz. 2.4.20 (CCSL 142:272–73): “Flagellari autem atque sputis illini, crucifigi, mori,
ac sepeliri, non hoc in sua substantia opus Dei est, sed opus hominis peccatoris, qui haec
omnia meruit per peccatum. Sed peccata nostra ipse pertulit in corpore suo super lignum
(1 Pet 2:4). Et qui in natura sua manet semper incomprehensibilis, in natura nostra com-
prehendi dignatus est ac flagellari, quia nisi ea quae errant infirmitatis nostrae susciperet,
numquam nos ad suae fortitudinis potentiam subleuaret. Vt ergo faciat opus suum, . . . quia
incarnatus Deus, ut nos ad suam iustitiam colligeret, dignatus pro nobis est tamquam
peccator homo uapulare. Et alienum opus fecit ut faceret proprium, quia per hoc quod
infirmans mala nostra sustinuit, nos qui creatura illius sumus, ad fortitudinis suae gloriam
perduxit.”
150 bernard green

gather us together to his justice, God incarnate condescended to be flogged

for us as though he were a sinner. He did a work alien to him so that he
might do his proper work, because in undertaking our evils in his weakness,
he led us who are his creatures to the glory of his strength.
The paradoxes—enfleshed to make spiritual, humbled in order to lift up,
visible to reveal the invisible, dead to give life80—are depicted here as
the undertaking of a work foreign to God in order to accomplish a work
characteristic of him. It is also a work foreign to the sinless humanity
to endure the dreadful condition of the sinner, subject to violence and
suffering and death, but whereas God cannot undergo suffering, the sin-
less human nature can. The two natures, divine and human, though so
very different, work together to accomplish salvation; each undertakes in
union with the other an alien work.
Closely connected with this idea of the human nature performing the
divine work of salvation is the idea of Christ as the union of divine and
human providing a way of returning to God:81
He helped man, being made man so that, because there was no way open to
mere man of returning to God, he might make a way of returning through
the God-man. For we, mortal and unjust, were far away from the just and
immortal one. But between the immortal and just one and us, mortal and
unjust, the Mediator of God and humanity appeared, mortal and just, who
might both experience death with men and justice with God. Because
through our depth we were distant from the heights, he joined our depth
with the heights in his one self, so that he might make a way of returning
for us from himself, who united his heights with our depth.
This is a theandric account. Though Christ’s mortality is an essential aspect
of the humanity he shares with sinners, it is not Christ’s death on which
Gregory focuses but his uniting of the divine and human in himself.

80 Ibid. (CCSL 142:272): “Caro enim factus est ut nos spiritales faceret, benigne inclina-
tus est ut leuaret, exiit ut introduceret, uisibilis apparuit ut inuisibilia monstraret, flagella
pertulit ut sanaret, opprobria et irrisiones sustinuit ut ab opprobrio aeterno liberaret, mor-
tuus est ut uiuificaret.”
81 Mor. 22.17.42 (CCSL 143A:1121–22): “Ipse quippe adiuuit hominem factus homo, ut
quia puro homini uia redeundi non patebat ad Deum, uia redeundi fieret per hominem
Deum. Longe quippe distabamus a iusto et immortali, nos mortales et iniusti. Sed inter
immortalem iustum et nos mortales iniustos apparuit Mediator Dei et hominum mortalis
et iustus, qui et mortem haberet cum hominibus, et iustitiam cum Deo; ut quia per ima
nostra longe distabamus a summis, in seipso uno iungeret ima cum summis, atque ex eo
nobis uia redeundi fieret, quo summis suis ima nostra copularet.”
 the theology of gregory the great 151

The reversal of humanity’s plight is an act of humility on the part of

God, abandoning his majesty, expressed in the humility and patience of
the suffering Christ.82 Christ is the second Adam, humble and obedient,
unlike the first Adam.83 The human nature is thus aligned with the divine
nature, doing the same work and effecting the divine purpose. While it
might seem at first sight as though Christ’s humanity is so very unlike his
divinity in his fragility and mortality, it is in fact an image or manifesta-
tion of the divinity in human form. The flesh is used for salvation, espe-
cially the suffering in the flesh.84 Incorruptibility is restored to the flesh
by the Resurrection.85
It is in this way that Christ is the teacher whose example is the pattern
of how to return to God. Since in his humanity he is the expression of
the divinity, his words and actions reveal God. He delivers sinners from
blindness by his teaching and example.86 He came as a human being in
order to be seen; he wanted to be seen so that he would be imitated.87
Everything he did was for the instruction of humanity.88 The likeness of
God is restored through imitating Christ’s humility and justice89 and the
imitation of Christ delivers from sin.90
In Christ, God and humanity are reconciled. Gregory understood that
no sinner could achieve reconciliation with God, but the Mediator with
his uniquely just human nature was the perfect intercessor:91

82 Mor. 20.36.69 (CCSL 143A:1054); 34.23.54 (CCSL 143B:1770–71).

83 Mor. 3.14.26 (CCSL 143:131).
84 Mor. 3.19.34 (CCSL 143:137).
85 HEz. 1.4.3 (CCSL 142:49); HEv. 34.6 (CCSL 141:304).
86 Mor. 20.36.69 (CCSL 143A:1054–55); 21.6.11 (CCSL 143A:1073–74); 24.2.2 (CCSL
143B:1189–90).
87 Mor. 29.1.1 (CCSL 143B:1434).
88 HEz. 2.2.6 (CCSL 142:228–29).
89 Mor. 18.48.79 (CCSL 143A:942–43); I Reg. 2.106 (CCSL 144:176); HEz. 1.2.19 (CCSL
142:28–30).
90  HEz. 1.2.19 (CCSL 142:28–30).
91 Mor. 24.3.6 (CCSL 143B:1193): “Ac si aperte Mediator Dei et hominum dicat: Quia
nullus hominum fuit qui coram Deo intercessor iustus pro hominibus appararet, meme-
tipsum ad propitiandum hominibus hominem feci, et dum me hominem exhibui, in quo
iusto homine hominibus propitiarer inueni. Et quia infirmitatem suscipiens Dominus,
dum poenam nostram moriendo tolerauit, corruptionem nostram resurgendo mutauit,
bene iste angelus mortalitatis nostrae flagella subiungit eorumque miseretur.”
152 bernard green

And so the Mediator of God and humanity said openly: ‘Because there was
no one to be the just intercessor in the presence of God, I made myself a
man in order to propitiate by humanity, and when I showed myself a man,
in that just man I found I was propitiated by humanity.’ And because the
Lord undertook weakness when he bore our punishment by dying, he trans-
formed our corruption by rising. This messenger fittingly subjugated the
scourges of our mortality and had compassion upon them.
The passion of the incarnate Son is thus a living example of humility and
sacrifice, as is all Christ’s life.92 Consequently, Christ’s death can be seen
as a sacrifice made in satisfaction for the sinner who cannot make satisfac-
tion for himself,93 appeasing the wrath of the Judge.94 The seeds might be
found here of a theory of substitutionary atonement, but that was far from
Gregory’s mind. For him, the reconciliation between God and humanity
is achieved within Christ himself in the uniting of justice and mortality
in one Mediator. He is quite clear that God could have found some other
way of reconciling humanity with himself but chose to undertake the suf-
fering of the world in his wounds.95
Christ’s perfect humanity is thus an expression of his divinity. The true
unlikeness is not between the divine majesty and the human vulnerabil-
ity of Christ but between his sinlessness and the sinfulness of the world.
Like many writers before him, not least Augustine, Gregory used medi-
cal imagery of Christ as the doctor applying homeopathic and allopathic
remedies:96
It is the practice of the doctor to cure sometimes by applying similar to
similar, sometimes by applying contrary to contrary. For he is accustomed
often to heal with hot to hot or cold to cold; or often [to heal] with cold to
hot or hot to cold. Therefore our doctor, coming to us from above, finding
us oppressed with so much feebleness, applied to us similar and contrary

92 Mor. 1.24.32 (CCSL 143:42–43); 22.17.42 (CCSL 143A:1121–22); 24.2.3–3.5 (CCSL

143B:1190–92).
93 Mor. 3.14.27 (CCSL 143:132); 17.30.46 (CCSL 143A:877–78); HEv. 33.8 (CCSL 141:296).
94 Mor. 9.38.61 (CCSL 143:500–01).
95 Mor. 20.36.69 (CCSL 143A:1054–55); 34.23.54 (CCSL 143B:1770–71).
96 Mor. 24.2.2 (CCSL 143B:1189): “Mos medicinae est ut aliquando similia similibus, ali-
quando contraria contrariis curet. Nam saepe calida calidis, frigida frigidis; saepe autem
frigida calidis, calida frigidis sanare consueuit. Veniens ergo ad nos desuper medicus
noster, tantisque nos inueniens laguoribus pressos, quiddam nobis simile, et quiddam con-
trarium apposuit. Ad homines quippe homo uenit, sed ad peccatores iustus. Concordauit
nobis ueritate naturae, sed discrepauit a nobis uigore iustitiae.” See also HEz. 1.2.9 (CCSL
142:22–23). This passage is very similar to Augustine’s first great depiction of the Mediator
as just and mortal in Confessions 10.42.68 (ed. Lucas Verheijen, Confessionum libri XII, CCSL
27 [Turnhout, 1981], p. 192).
 the theology of gregory the great 153

remedies. He came as a human being to human beings, but as a just man to

sinners. He agreed with us in the truth of his nature but differed from us in
the power of his justice.
Salvation was therefore understood by Gregory as the triumph and resto-
ration of justice. Following ancient tradition, he expressed it in personified
form as the overturning of the power of the devil. The devil has rights over
sinful humanity as a result of the Fall.97 In other words, sinners are justly
under the penalty of death and damnation.98 The victory over the devil
must therefore be a triumph of justice, not simply of force; the victory of
reason, not power.99 When the devil killed Christ, he exceeded his own
rights, as the sinless Christ was not subject to his legitimate rights over
sinners.100 This, exquisitely, was achieved by the devil’s deceiving himself
through his own pride. The devil simply could not believe that Christ’s
humility and humble sufferings were compatible with his being God and
so concluded he was merely a man.101 Gregory used the old image of the
bait, humanity, catching the devil on the hook of Christ’s divinity.102 The
deceiver deceived himself and lost his power, blinded by his own pride, a
reversal of the Fall in which justice triumphed over power.
What, in practice, did this mean for Gregory? He followed Augustine
in his account of the effects of the Fall. The descendants of Adam inher-
ited from him the double death of the body and of the soul.103 Through
Christ’s death and Resurrection, the latter could be forgiven by baptism
and damnation averted, while the former would be surpassed in the glory
of the Resurrection. But humanity also inherited from Adam concupis-
cence, disordered desire, by which the will was weakened104 and flesh and
spirit set at odds.105 People are now attached to transitory goods and are
constantly lamenting their loss.106
This is the territory where so much of Gregory’s effort was expended,
urging his hearers and readers to the life of stringent discipline through

  97 Mor. 2.10.17 (CCSL 143:70); 2.22.41 (CCSL 143:84–85); 14.38.46 (CCSL 143A:725–27);
18.2.4 (CCSL 143A:887–88); 33.14.28 (CCSL 143B:1697–98).
  98 Mor. 11.17.26 (CCSL 143A:601–02).
99 Mor. 17.30.46 (CCSL 143A:877–78).
100 Mor. 17.30.47 (CCSL 143A:878–79).
101 Mor. 2.22.41–42 (CCSL 143:84–85); 3.15.28 (CCSL 143:132–33); 3.20.38 (CCSL 143:139);
17.30.47 (CCSL 143A:878); HEv. 25.8 (CCSL 141:213–14).
102 Mor. 33.2.14 (CCSL 143B:1672–73); I Reg. 1.5.10 (CCSL 144:422); HEv. 25.8 (CCSL 213–14).
103 Mor. 17.30.46 (CCSL 143A:877–78); 19.1.2 (CCSL 143A:957); 29.10.21 (CCSL 143B:1448).
104 Mor. 8.31.51 (CCSL 143:422).
105 Mor. 9.5.5 (CCSL 143:458–59); 26.17.28 (CCSL 143B:1285–87).
106 Mor. 8.32.54 (CCSL 143:424).
154 bernard green

which the will could be re-educated.107 Toil and struggle in working out
salvation is the lot of the Christian,108 who must be devoted to good works
and penance.
To a later generation, this might have looked Pelagian. Gregory main-
tained that Christ’s saving work was not complete and Christians had to
work hard to win their salvation:109
Something is indeed left over, because Christ did not fulfil everything for us.
He certainly redeemed everyone by his cross, but it remains that the person
who strives to be redeemed and to reign with him should be crucified with
him. Indeed [Paul] saw what remained and said, ‘If we suffer with him, we
shall also reign with him’ (2 Tim 2:12), as if he said, ‘What Christ fulfilled is
not effective for him unless he completes what remains.’ Hence the blessed
apostle Peter said, ‘Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example that we
should follow his footsteps’ (1 Pet 2:21). Hence Paul said, ‘I fill up those things
which are wanting in the passion of Christ, in my body’ (Col 1:24).
It would be a mistake to read this as though Gregory regarded Christ’s
saving work as inadequate and the efforts of Christians as separate and
supplementary to it. He is absolutely clear that Christ’s passion and death
have redeemed humanity; he is equally clear that the Christian is sharing
in that passion as they strive to fulfil it—con-crucified with Christ. There
is no discrete area of human activity in which salvation can be attained.
Rather the Christian must work with Christ, following his example, enact-
ing and making effective the salvation won in Christ’s passion.110
This becomes more apparent when Gregory’s understanding of the
Church is examined. While he could call it the Kingdom of Heaven111 or
the garment of Christ,112 he was very clear that the visible Church was an

107 Mor. 11.50.68 (CCSL 143A:624–26).

108 Mor. 35.17.43 (CCSL 143B:1803–05).
109  I Reg. 4.136 (CCSL 144:366): “Remansit quidem, quia non omnia nostra Christus exp-
leuit. Per crucem quippe suam omnes redemit; sed remansit, ut, qui redimi et regnare cum
eo nititur, concrucifigatur. Hoc profecto residuum uiderat, qui dicebat: Si conpatimur, et
conregnabimus (2 Tim 2:12). Quasi dicat: ‘Quod expleuit Christus, non ualet nisi ei, qui id
quod remansit adinplet.’ Hinc beatus Petrus apostolus dicit: Christus passus est pro nobis,
nobis relinquens exemplum, ut sequamur uestigia eius (1 Pet 2:21). Hinc Paulus ait: Adinpleo
ea, quae desunt passioni Christi, in corpore meo (Col 1:24).”
110  It echoes Augustine’s often-repeated account of Christ suffering in the Church and
its members, see In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus 108.5 (CCSL 36:617–18); De Trinitate
3.10.20 (CCSL 50:148), 4.3.6 (CCSL 50:168); Enarr. in Ps. 36.3.4 (CCSL 38:270), 52.1 (CCSL
39:636), 61.4 (CCSL 39:774).
111  Mor. 33.18.34 (CCSL 143B:1704).
112  Mor. 20.29.58 (CCSL 143A:1046); 29.6.13 (CCSL 143B:1441–42).
 the theology of gregory the great 155

assembly of sinners as well as saints. It is effectively a training ground,

where the bad can be inspired by the example of the good and be con-
verted from their sin, while the good have to strive against the tempta-
tions presented by the wicked.113 He was repeatedly insistent that, despite
the sins of its members, the Church is holy.114 This is partly because it is
a school of holiness, indeed the only means of holiness, but more funda-
mentally because it is holy with the holiness of Christ and after the Last
Judgement it will be the Church of the saints, and all its members will
be holy.115

The Church116

In what sense, then, is the Church the Body of Christ? Gregory regularly
links the title Body of Christ with the assertion that the Church is one per-
son with Christ in a phrase which echoes the classic formula that Christ
is one person in two natures.117 The Church mirrors Christ in his dual-
ity as well as his singularity. Gregory, interestingly, does not distinguish
between Christ’s mystical body, made up of the elect, and the external vis-
ible assembly which mixes the mystical body with sinners. Just as Christ
is God and man, so the Church is Christ and Christians. Just as Christ is
just and yet mortal, so the Church is pure but steeped in the suffering
and corruption of the world. Just as Christ could not suffer as God but
suffered in his human nature, so the Church is both glorious in heaven
but suffering on earth:118
But because at the start of this work, when we dealt with the unity of the
head and the body, we sent ahead with watchful attention how much
should be the union of love in them, because undoubtedly the Lord both

113 Mor. 20.39.76 (CCSL 143A:1059–60); 31.15.28 (CCSL 143B:1570–71); HEv. 38.8 (CCSL
141:367).
114 Mor. 25.8.21 (CCSL 143B:1246); 26.41.76 (CCSL 143B:1322–23); HEz. 2.4.17 (CCSL
142:270–71); HEv. 38.8 (CCSL 141:367).
115 Mor. 9.11.18 (CCSL 143:469); 20.17.43 (CCSL 143A:1034–35); 31.15.28 (CCSL 143B:1570–71).
116 See Homes Dudden, Gregory the Great, 2:405–14.
117 Mor. Praef 14 (CCSL 140:19); 4.11.18 (CCSL 140:175–76); 19.14.22 (CCSL 143A:973–74);
20.3.8 (CCSL. 143A:1007–08); 23.1.2 (CCSL 143B:1145); 35.14.24 (CCSL 143B:1789).
118 Mor. 3.13.25 (CCSL 143:130): “Sed quia in exordio huius operis dum de unitate capitis
et corporis tractaremus, sollicita intentione praemisimus quanta in eis sit compago cari-
tatis, quia nimirum et Dominus multa adhuc per corpus quod nos sumus, patitur et iam
corpus eius, id est Ecclesia, de suo capite, uidelicet Domino, in caelo gloriatur. Ita nunc
passiones exprimi eiusdem capitis debent ut ostendatur quam multa etiam in suo corpore
sustinet.”
156 bernard green

suffers greatly now through the body which we are, that is the Church, as he
is glorified in his head, that is the Lord, in heaven. Thus now the sufferings
of his head should be described so that how much he also sustains in his
body might be shown.
To reinforce this image of the glorified head in heaven, who still suffers
with his members in this world, Gregory quoted three important scrip-
tural texts: Acts 9:4, when Saul on the road to Damascus heard the voice
of Christ asking why he was persecuting him; Col 1:24 where Paul spoke
about making up in his flesh those things that were wanting in the suf-
ferings of Christ; and Eph 2:6 where Paul said that God has raised us up
together and made us sit together with Christ in the heavens. When Chris-
tians are persecuted, Christ is persecuted. When Christians strive to follow
the example of Christ, they fulfil his passion. In heaven, Christians are
raised up and enthroned with Christ.
To conclude, Gregory’s ecclesiology reflected his soteriology which in
turn reflected his Christology. Everywhere, Gregory saw the balance and
reconciliation of opposites through humility and love. The striving after
perfection that Gregory urged upon his audience was a journey through
humility to union with Christ, in whose humility human and divine were
made one.
 Chapter Seven

Gregory’s Eschatology1

Jane Baun

For why, magnificent son, do you not realize that the world is at its end?
Everything is under pressure every day. We are being led to the eternal and
terrifying Judge to render our accounts. What then should we think about,
other than his arrival?2
Thus Gregory the Great, writing in June 597, to Andrew, a friend seek-
ing preferment at the court in Constantinople. The “last things”, whether
individual (death, judgement, heaven and hell) or universal (the Second
Coming, Last Judgement, and consummation of all things), were never
far from Gregory’s mind.3 Eschatological awareness weaves a matrix of
stern expectation, aspiration, and motivation that undergirds Gregory’s
thought-world like a steel mesh.4 Whether teaching, dispensing pasto-
ral advice, responding to queries, ruling on papal matters, or writing to

1  Claude Dagens, Saint Grégoire le grand. Culture et experience chrétiennes (Paris, 1977),
chs. 7–9, provides a masterful overview of Gregory’s eschatology; Robert A. Markus, Gre-
gory the Great and his World (Cambridge, 1997), ch. 4, a thoughtful, elegant synthesis. Par-
ticular studies include Claude Dagens, “La fin des temps et l’Église selon S. Grégoire le
grand,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 58 (1970), 273–88; Kevin Hester, Eschatology and
Pain in St. Gregory the Great: The Christological Synthesis of Gregory’s Morals on the Book
of Job (Milton Keynes, 2007); Rade Kisić, Patria caelestis. Die eschatologische Dimension der
Theologie Gregors des Grossen (Tübingen, 2011). This chapter, while informed by previous
scholarly work, aims primarily to immerse the reader directly in Gregory’s own words and
images. Special thanks are due to Leen Van Broeck for expert assistance.
2 Reg. 7.26, trans. in John R.C. Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the Great (Toronto, 2004),
2:480, modified (CCSL 140:482, ll. 14–17): “Cur enim, magnifice fili, non consideras quia
mundus in fine est? Omnia urguentur cotidie. Ad reddendas rationes aeterno et tremendo
iudici ducimur. Quid ergo aliud nisi de aduentu illius cogitare debemus?”
3 This chapter will treat mainly universal eschatology; for Gregory’s views on individual
eschatology—judgement, heaven, and hell—see Dagens, Saint Grégoire, pp. 401–29; also
Jane Baun, “Last Things,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 3, Early Medieval
Christianities, c.600–c.1100 (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 606–24, and Isabel Moreira, Heaven’s
Purge. Purgatory in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2010), pp. 85–94.
4 Markus (Gregory the Great, p. 54) notes the lack of obvious predecessors or succes-
sors for Gregory’s heightened eschatological sense among major Latin Church figures. For
patristic context, especially the contrasts with Ambrose and Augustine, see Brian Daley,
The Hope of the Early Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge, 1991), chap-
ters 8, 10, and 12; also Hester, Eschatology and Pain, pp. 15–20.
158 jane baun

intimate friends, Gregory’s conviction that all must face the Judge—soon—
infused his every word and deed with urgency. Throughout his pontificate,
Gregory’s focus on the End and its implications for present-day behaviour
was consistent, no matter who the audience; none escaped his call for
increased eschatological mindfulness. In the first month of his pontificate
(September 590), Gregory admonished Justin, praetor of Sicily, to keep the
End in mind, as a sure defence against temptation:5
Let no bribes draw you to injustice, and let neither threats nor friendship
deflect you from the path of righteousness. Look at how brief life is, contem-
plate before what judge you are going to appear, and how soon, you who
exercise judicial power.
Fearless in expressing the same message to both small and great, Gregory
was liable to launch into motivational full-scale rehearsals of the Last
Judgement whether writing fondly to friends or sternly to the emperor,
fellow clerics, or aristocratic landowners.6 His eschatological concern
could be expressed in several different registers. Writing to intimates,
such as his old friend, Rusticiana patricia, and her daughter Eusebia patri-
cia, Gregory wrote with gentle, though still urgent, concern for their well-
being. In June 603, Gregory admonished Rusticiana to:7
Consider all things as transitory. You would then every day consider cease-
lessly with fear and tears the terrifying trial of the Judge soon to come, and
you should fearfully think again about that day on which all things are to
be thrown into confusion, so that you no longer fear the anger of the Judge
on the day itself.
Writing to Emperor Maurice in opposition to a new law, Gregory pulled
no eschatological punches:8

5 Ep. 1.2, trans. Martyn, 1:120, modifed (CCSL 140:2, ll. 15–19): “Nulla uos lucra ad iniusti-
tiam pertrahant, nullius uel minae uel amicitiae ab itinere rectitudinis deflectant. Quam
sit uita breuis aspicite, ad quem quandoque ituri estis iudicem, qui iudiciariam potestatem
geritis, cogitate.”
6 For example, Reg. 4.44, 3.61, 3.29, 4.23; see Martyn, Letters, 1:282 n. 205.
7 Reg. 13.33, trans. Martyn, 3:849, modified (CCSL 140A:1035, ll. 9–13): “Transitoria esse
omnia perpendat. Venturi iudicis examen tremendum cum metu et lacrimis cotidie sine
cessatione consideret illumque diem, in quo perturbanda sunt omnia, cum timore ad ani-
mum reducat, ut iram iudicis in ipso iam die non timeat.”
8 Reg. 3.61, trans. Martyn, 1:281–82 (CCSL 140:210, ll. 48–59): “Requirat rogo dominus
meus quis prior imperator talem legem dederit, et subtilius aestimet si debuit dari. Et con-
siderandum ualde est quia eo iam tempore prohibentur quique relinquere saeculum, quo
appropinquauit finis ipse saeculorum. Ecce enim mora non erit, et ardente caelo, ardente
terra, coruscantibus elementis, cum angelis et archangelis, cum thronis et dominationibus,
cum principatibus et potestatibus tremendus iudex apparebit. Si omnia peccata dimiserit,
 gregory’s eschatology 159

Let my Lordship inquire, I beg you, what previous emperor enacted such
a law, and judge more carefully if it should have been enacted . . . now, at
the very time when the end of the world itself has drawn nigh. For behold,
there will be no delay, and as the Heavens blaze, the earth blazes and the
elements flash, the terrifying judge will appear with angels and archan-
gels, with thrones and dominions, and with principalities and powers. If he
should pardon all sins, and say that this law alone was enacted against his
will, what excuse will there be, I ask you? Therefore, I pray you through the
same terrifying judge that all those tears, all those prayers, all that fasting,
and all that almsgiving of my Lordship, should not for any reason be black-
ened before the eyes of almighty God.
Judgement weighs heavily in all four of Gregory’s major letters to Emperor
Maurice.9 It is not surprising then, that Maurice seems at some point to
have fought back with the same sort of eschatological rhetoric, when
criticising Gregory’s independent negotiations with the Lombards. In his
most fraught letter to the emperor—a catalogue of the terrible failures of
imperial policy in Italy—Gregory implies that Maurice had thrown the
eschatological onus back onto the pope. This, he warns, with grim and
startling frankness, is a dangerous game:10
But as the piety of my Lordship threatens me with that fearful and terrible
Judgement of almighty God, I beg you through the same almighty Lord not
to do so any more. For we do not know as yet what sort of future each has
there. . . . However I say this briefly, that as an unworthy sinner, I have more
confidence in the mercy of Jesus when he comes than in the justice of your
Piety. And there are many things which men do not know about His judge-
ment, for perhaps he condemns what you praise, and what you condemn,
he will praise.

et solum hanc legem contra se dixerit prolatam, quae rogo erit excusatio? Vnde per eun-
dem tremendum iudicem deprecor ne illae tantae lacrimae, tantae orationes, tanta ieiunia
tantae que elemosynae domini mei ex qualibet occasione apud omnipotentis dei oculos
fuscentur.”
9 Four short letters of request to Maurice have little or no eschatological content (Reg.
5.30, 6.16, 6.64, 7.6), but his four major letters, on the ban on soldiers’ becoming monks
(Reg. 3.61), Italian sufferings under the Lombards (5.36, 5.37), and the assumption by the
Constantinopolitan patriarch of the title of ecumenical patriarch (5.37, 7.30), smoulder
with eschatological rhetoric.
10 Reg. 5.36, trans. Martyn 2:350 (CCSL 140:307, ll. 96–105): “Quia autem dominorum
pietas illud mihi pauendum et terribile omnipotentis dei iudicium intentat, rogo per eun-
dem omnipotentem dominum, ne hoc ulterius faciat. Nam adhuc nescimus, quis ibi qua-
lis sit. . . . Hoc tamen breuiter dico quoniam peccator et indignus plus de uenientis iesu
misericordia, quam de uestrae pietatis iustitia praesumo. Et sunt multa quae de iudicio
illius homines ignorant, quia fortasse quae uos laudatis ille reprehendit et quae uos rep-
rehenditis ille laudabit.”
160 jane baun

Gregory does not claim to know the mind of God better than Maurice;
rather, he warns him off having too much certainty regarding the Last
Things. When he cautions that “we do not know as yet what sort of future
each has there,” that “we” includes Gregory himself. Gregory’s own stance
regarding his own fate in the coming judgement is constantly one of
dread, and extreme humility. Reference to the judgement represented for
Gregory much more than simply a stick for keeping the flock in line: it
welled up from a deep personal culture of contemplation and compunc-
tion, as the frequent self-reproaches and mentions of tears in his letters
demonstrate. His reply to Maurice ends on a sombre, personal note:11
And so among all this uncertainty I return to tears alone, praying that the
same almighty God may rule both our most pious Lordship with his hand
here, and in that terrible Judgement, may find him free of all sins, that he
makes me please men, if it is necessary, in such a way that I do not offend
against His eternal grace.

The Anger of the Judge—and His Mercy

The anger of the Judge and the terror of the judgement are frequent
themes in Gregory’s discussions of the End, whether in letters, homilies, or
scriptural commentaries.12 His magisterial Moralia in Iob offer particularly
terrifying and detailed discussion.13 No one can stand before the Almighty
without trembling; in his presence, the wicked will stand instantly
convicted, and their chastisement will be overwhelming, inexorable, and
eternal.14 Even the righteous, who have been chastised and purified on
this earth by tribulations, have cause to fear the terrible judgement, which
will exceed anything previously known to man.15 A recent violent storm,

11  Reg. 5.36, trans. Martyn, 2:350–51 (CCSL 140:307, ll. 106–10): “Inter ergo omnia incerta
ad solas lacrimas redeo, petens ut isdem omnipotens deus piissimum dominum nostrum
et sua hic manu regat et in illo terribili iudicio liberum ab omnibus delictis inueniat et me
ita placere, si necesse est, hominibus faciat, ut aeternam eius gratiam non offendam.”
12 This present study focuses on HEv. (see below) and Mor.; for the Ezekiel homilies
(HEz.), see Scott DeGregorio, this volume, pp. 4–5, 18–21.
13 Mor., ed. Marc Adriaen, CCSL 143, 143A, 143B (Turnhout, 1979–85); scrupulous English
trans. of PL 75–76 in [anon.], Morals on the Book of Job, Library of the Fathers (hereafter,
LF), vols 18, 21, 23 (Oxford, 1844–50); excerpts from LF and new translations from CCSL
(sometimes less faithful to the Latin than LF) in Manlio Simonetti and Marco Conti, eds,
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament, vol. 6, Job (Downers’ Grove, IL,
2006); see also DeGregorio, this volume, pp. 11–15 and n. 25.
14 Mor. 7.31.46–47, 14.33.79, 18.20.32–18.25.38.
15 Among many mentions, Mor. 21.22.36.
 gregory’s eschatology 161

which had uprooted an orchard, destroyed homes and churches, and killed
many, provided Gregory the preacher with a useful measure of scale:16
We must reflect that to bring these things about our unseen Judge caused
the movement of a very slight breeze; he called a storm out of a single cloud
and overthrew the earth, he struck the foundations of many buildings, caus-
ing them to fall. What will the Judge do when he comes in person, when his
anger is burning to punish sinners, if we cannot bear him when he strikes
us with an insignificant cloud? What flesh will withstand the presence of his
anger . . . ? A tempest and fire accompany the severity of such strict justice,
the tempest testing those whom the fire burns.
Gregory locates the source of divine anger in human sinfulness, a natural
conclusion, given his thorough immersion in the Old Testament. More-
over, God’s wrath at our sins is not reserved for the Last Judgement only,
but expresses itself even now in the Lombard scourge and the natural
disasters being suffered by Italy. Writing again to Maurice, in June 595,
Gregory blamed above all his own sins and failures, and those of his fellow
priests, not only for their lack of success in averting God’s wrath, but also
for their active role in bringing it upon the people (Reg. 5.37):17
Or what sword of a most ferocious race would proceed violently and so
cruelly to destroy the faithful, if the lives of us who are called priests, and
are not priests, were not weighed down by most wicked deeds? But while
we leave what is appropriate for us and consider what is inappropriate for
us, we associate our sins with barbarian forces. Our sin has sharpened the
enemy’s swords.
Gregory has no doubt that the sufferings of the present time result in part
directly from human sinfulness, and that the life of each Christian must
be spent in repentance and reparation, a life that he modelled in full.

16 Homilia in Evangelia (hereafter, HEv.) 1.6. Latin text ed. Raymond Étaix in CCSL 141
(Turnhout, 1999); English trans. of PG 76 in David Hurst, Gregory the Great. Forty Gos-
pel Homilies (Kalamazoo, MI, 1990); this quotation at p. 19. (CCSL 141:10, ll. 124–37): “Sed
considerandum nobis est quod ad haec agenda inuisibilis iudex uenti tenuissimi spiritum
mouit, unius procellam nubis excitauit et terram subruit, casura tot aedificiorum fun-
damenta concussit. Quid ergo iudex iste facturus est cum per semetipsum uenerit et in
ultionem peccatorum ira eius exarserit, si portari non potest cum nos per tenuissimam
nubem ferit? In irae eius praesentia quae caro subsistit . . . ? Districtionem quippe tantae
iustitiae tempestas ignis que comitantur, quia tempestas examinat quos ignis exurat.”
17 Reg. 5.37, trans. Martyn 2:351 (CCSL 140:308, ll. 11–16): “Aut quis ferocissimae gen-
tis gladius in nece fidelium tanta crudelitate grassaretur, nisi nostra uita, qui sacerdotes
nominamur et non sumus, a prauissimis grauaretur operibus? Sed dum nos competentia
nobis relinquimus et nobis incompetentia cogitamus, peccata nostra barbaricis uiribus
sociamus, et culpa nostra hostium gladios exacuit.”
162 jane baun

He expresses hope that sufferings borne patiently and faithfully in this

life may serve as penance to lessen the severity of the final judgement.
In another letter to Maurice written in the same month, Gregory sets the
heavy blows of a failed truce, famine, and the slaughter and enslavement
of his flock in this context (Reg. 5.36):18
For I am human and a sinner, and because every day I transgress incessantly
before almighty God, I suspect that there is a remedy for this for me before
the fearful Judgement, if each day I am beaten by incessant blows.
Human sin invites punishment and suffering, whether in this life or the
next, but suffering is not always the result of human sin. Throughout his
great commentary on the Book of Job, Gregory vigorously defends the
blamelessness and righteousness of Job against the three friends who
accuse him. The example of Job provides Gregory with an opportunity to
explain that, while most sufferings follow naturally from the sinful inclina-
tions and actions of fallen man, suffering and chastisement can also afflict
the blameless and the righteous, especially as the End approaches and
Antichrist steps up his activity.
Job presents Gregory with a model of the afflictions of the righteous
on three different levels: as a figure of the individual Christian, of Christ
himself, and of holy Church.19 In Job’s experience Gregory plumbs an alle-
gorical depth that both foreshadows and illuminates past, present, and
future events. In Gregory’s hands, every verse of the ancient text resonates
with moral and spiritual edification for the present-day hearer—in the
first instance, those Roman monastic exiles who gathered around him for
Bible study in Constantinople. As Gregory works systematically through
the biblical story, Job’s longing for release from his present torments and
restoration to his former life, and his perplexity at the meaning and pur-
pose of his experiences, give voice to the parallel longings of Gregory’s
circle of Italian exiles. They were indeed living this Scripture.
Eschatology provides in Gregory’s exegesis of Job, as in his letters and in
his homilies, the ultimate interpretative key which can unlock the mean-
ing of human experience, giving purposeful shape to the kind of personal
and collective afflictions with which Italians in the later 6th century were

18 Reg. 5.36, trans. Martyn, 2:349 (CCSL 140:306, ll. 66–71): “Ego enim peccator homo
sum et, quia omnipotenti deo incessanter cotidie delinquo, aliquod mihi apud tremendum
examen illius esse remedium suspicor, si incessantibus cotidie plagis ferior.”
19 Simonetti and Conti, Ancient Christian Commentary, pp. xxiv–v; of Christ, esp. Mor.
3.14.26; of the Church, Mor. 8.10.23, 20.2.22–0.3.9, 20.18.44–20.21.47.
 gregory’s eschatology 163

so familiar. His eschatological exegesis of Job lifts the book above all the
unresolved questions that plague a literal reading, offering the believer a
life’s model, and a way of understanding, that can turn doubt into trust,
lament into praise, desolation into consolation, and despair into hope.
In his commentary on Job, as well as in his Ezekiel and gospel homilies,
more so than in his letters, Gregory tends to balance the fear of judgement
and hell with a pastorally-minded hope of heaven as a motivating force.
He speaks movingly of the Christian longing for the heavenly homeland
(patria caelestis), and of the good things prepared for those who love God.20
A homily on the parable of the fig tree (Luke 13:6–13) glows with compas-
sion and hope, assuring those who long for the heavenly home and repent
in this life that, “We won’t be long in weeping, because the joys that last
will quickly cleanse away our fleeting tears.”21 In an otherwise stern hom-
ily on Luke’s apocalypse, Gregory expands on Jesus’ encouraging words to
the elect (Luke 21:28) with a counsel of joy:22
When these things begin to take place, look up and lift your heads, because your
redemption is coming near. Truth is exhorting his elect by saying, “When the
disasters of the world become more frequent, when the outraged powers
reveal the terror of judgement, lift up your heads, that is, let your hearts
exult! While the world which is not your friend is coming to an end, the
redemption you have sought is coming near.” In Holy Scripture, “head” often
means “mind”, because as the head controls our members, so the mind organ-
izes our thoughts. To lift up our heads, then, is to direct our minds to the
joys of our heavenly homeland. Those who love God are ordered to rejoice
and be merry at the world’s end. They will soon find him whom they love,
while what they have not loved is passing away.
Although so much of Gregory’s eschatological rhetoric was intended to
stir up fear and a sense of urgency, the last word for Gregory on the Last
Things was however the patience and mercy of God, and confidence

20 On Gregory’s longing for the heavenly home (caeleste desiderium), see Dagens, Saint
Grégoire, pp. 387–92; Kisić, Patria caelestis, pp. 117–41.
21  HEv. 31.8, trans. Hurst, p. 255 (CCSL 141:276, ll. 178–79): “Nec mora erit in fletibus, quia
tergent citius transeuntes lacrimas gaudia mansura.”
22 HEv. 1.3, trans. Hurst, pp. 16–17 (CCSL 141:7, ll. 46–58): “His autem fieri incipientibus,
respicite et leuate capita uestra, quoniam appropinquat redemptio uestra. Ac si aperte
Veritas electos suos admoneat dicens: Cum plagae mundi crebrescunt, cum terror iudicii
uirtutibus commotis ostenditur, leuate uos capita, id est exhilarate corda, quia dum finitur
mundus cui amici non estis, prope fit redemptio quam quaesistis. In scriptura etenim sacra
saepe caput pro mente ponitur, quia sicut capite reguntur membra, ita cogitationes mente
disponuntur. Leuare itaque est capita mentes nostras ad gaudia patriae caelestis erigere.
Qui ergo Deum diligunt, ex mundi fine gaudere atque hilarescere iubentur, quia uidelicet
eum quem amant mox inueniunt, dum transit is quem non amauerunt.”
164 jane baun

in Jesus Christ as both advocate and judge. The heart of God longs for
our return, and does not rejoice in the justice that he must exact. “What
tongue,” marvels Gregory at the close of a stern homily on the workers
in the vineyard, “can describe the heart of the divine mercy? What mind
is not amazed by the riches of such great love?”23 Gregory counsels the
sinner never to lose heart, since we have “as our helper the Mediator
between God and men.”24
Reading the homilies in the light of the heavy heart of the letters, it
seems that in preaching to his flock, Gregory reassures himself as well:25
Look at the liberality of heavenly love, and come with tears to your merciful
judge, while he is still waiting for you. Keep in mind that he is just, and do
not disregard your sins; keep in mind that he is kindly, and do not lose hope.
The human God offers humans confidence with God. There is great hope for
us if we repent, because our advocate has become our judge.

Scripture and Signs

Gregory’s firm eschatological conviction was based on close reading of two

sources side-by-side: the Scriptures, and the signs of the times. Founded
on deep knowledge of the whole range of biblical eschatology, his writ-
ing is lent extra force by his observation of current events. It was only
in the context of biblical prophecy and eschatology that current events
made sense. While his contemporaries viewed invasion, atrocity, plague
and natural disaster as new, strange, unprecedented, and unpredictable
events, for Gregory they seemed all too old, familiar, and predictable,
signs of a world groaning in its old age. Writing in April 593 to the Milan
clergy during their exile in Genoa, he observed that Italians were now liv-
ing a life straight out of the Bible:26

23 HEv. 19.3, trans. Hurst, p. 85 (CCSL 141:151, ll. 213–15): “Quae ergo lingua narrare uiscera
diuinae misericordiae sufficit? Quis spiritus tantae pietatis diuitias non obstupescat?”
24 HEv. 36.13, trans. Hurst, p. 325 (CCSL 141:346, ll. 376): “habemus Mediatorem Dei
et hominum adiutorem nostrum”; on Christ as mediator, see Kisić, Patria caelestis, pp.
146–81.
25 HEv. 34.18, trans. Hurst, p. 299, modified (CCSL 141:319, ll. 531–37): “Largitatem super-
nae pietatis aspicite et ad misericordem iudicem, dum adhuc exspectat, cum lacrimis uen-
ite. Considerantes namque quod iustus sit, peccata uestra nolite negligere, considerantes
uero quod pius sit, nolite desperare. Praebet apud Deum homini fiduciam Deus homo. Est
nobis spes magna paenitentibus, quia aduocatus noster factus est iudex noster.”
26 Reg. 3.29, trans. Martyn 1:255 (CCSL 140:175, ll. 36–42): “Ecce iam mundi huius omnia
perdita conspicimus, quae in sacris paginis audiebamus peritura. Euersae urbes, castra
eruta, ecclesiae destructae, nullus in terra nostra cultor inhabitat. In nobis ipsis paucis-
 gregory’s eschatology 165

Look, we now see everything in this world destroyed, as we heard in the

Holy Scripture that it would perish. Cities have been sacked, fortresses
razed to the ground, churches destroyed and no farmer inhabits our land. A
human sword is raging incessantly against the very few of us who have been
left behind for the time being, with disastrous blows from above. Thus we
look at the evils of the world that we have long heard were to come; the very
destruction of the world has come to look like the pages of our scripture.
Preaching on Luke (21:25–33), probably on the first Sunday of Advent in
November 590 at St. Peter’s, Gregory asserted that all the signs of the End
predicted in the gospels were now evident:27
We see some of these things already coming to pass, and dread that the rest
are soon to follow. We see nation rising up against nation and the distress
that follows on the earth, more now in our day than we have read about in
books. You know how often we have heard from other parts of the world
that earthquakes have destroyed countless cities; we have suffered pesti-
lence without relief; we do not yet clearly see the signs in the sun and moon
and stars, but from the change in the air now we gather that these too are
not far off. Before Italy was handed over to be struck by the pagans’ sword,
we saw fiery flashes in the sky indicating the blood of the human race that
was later shed. No new confusion of sea and waves has yet welled up. But
when many of the things foretold have already come to pass, there is no
doubt but that even the few that remain will follow, for the accomplishment
of things past is a clear indication of things to come.
The end times were hastening not only in Italy, however; writing to Æthel-
bert of Kent, on 22 June 601, Gregory warns the English king that,28

simis, qui ad modicum derelicti sumus, cum supernae percussionis cladibus humanus gla-
dius incessanter saeuit. Mundi igitur mala quae dudum uentura audiebamus, aspicimus;
quasi paginae nobis codicum factae sunt ipsae iam plagae terrarum.”
27 HEv. 1.1, trans. Hurst, pp. 15–16, modified (CCSL 141:6, ll. 13–27): “Ex quibus profecto
omnibus alia iam facta cernimus, alia e proximo uentura formidamus. Nam gentem super
gentem exsurgere earum que pressuram terris insistere plus iam in nostris tribulationibus
quam in codicibus legimus. Quod terraemotus urbes innumeras subruat, ex aliis mundi
partibus scitis quam frequenter audimus. Pestilentias sine cessatione patimur. Signa uero
in sole et luna et stellis adhuc aperte minime uidimus, sed quia et haec non longe sint ex
ipsa iam aeris immutatione colligimus. Quamuis priusquam Italia gentili gladio ferienda
traderetur, igneas in caelo acies uidimus et ipsum qui postea humani generis fusus est
sanguinem coruscantem. Confusio autem maris et fluctuum necdum noua exorta est. Sed
cum multa iam praenuntiata completa sunt, dubium non est quod sequantur etiam pauca
quae restant, quia sequentium rerum certitudo est praeteritarum exhibitio.” For dating,
see CCSL 141:lxx.
28 Reg. 11.37, trans. Martyn, 3:784 (CCSL 140A:931, ll. 46–49): “. . . praesentis mundi iam
terminus iuxta est et sanctorum regnum uenturum est, quod nullo umquam poterit fine
terminari. Appropinquante autem eodem mundi termino multa imminent quae antea non
166 jane baun

The end of the present world is now close at hand, and the kingdom of
saints is about to come, and it will not be possible for their kingdom ever to
be terminated with any end. And as the same end of the world is approach-
ing, many things threaten us that did not exist before, namely changes in
the air and terrors from the sky and tempests, contrary to the order of the
seasons, as well as wars, famines, plagues and earthquakes in many places.
Taking his cue from the gospels, Gregory advised Æthelbert, however, “not
to be perturbed,” since the End would not come just yet.29 Gregory’s let-
ter paraphrases parts of the “synoptic apocalypse,” Jesus’ narration of the
end times common to the three synoptic Gospels (Matthew 24, Mark 13,
Luke 21). In general, Gregory’s letters and gospel homilies tend to follow
the synoptic apocalypse rather than the Apocalypse of John (Revelation),
which he saves for the Moralia. Gregory’s usual list of the signs of the End
includes items from the standard synoptic list—wars, earthquakes, fam-
ines, pestilences, terrors and great signs from heaven—seemingly from
memory, rather than as an exact quotation from any one Gospel.30
Gregory tackles gospel eschatology head on in many of the gospel hom-
ilies, preaching to mixed congregations in various Roman churches at the
beginning of his pontificate. Throughout the gospel homilies, Gregory’s
teaching is consistent with that of the letters, although whereas the letters
stress judgement, the homilies tend to stress the desire of a loving God not
to condemn. One common theme, found also in Reg. 13.33 to the patricia
Eusebia, is announced in the second sentence of Gregory’s Advent homily
on Luke: we must learn to fear God now, before the End, so that we will
not have to fear him as judge at the End.31 The Advent sermon begins and
concludes on this same note:32
Our Lord and Redeemer, wanting to find us ready, denounced the evils that
would accompany the ageing world in order to restrain us from loving it.

fuerunt, uidelicet immutationes aeris terroresque de caelo et contra ordinationem tempo-

rum tempestates, bella, fames, pestilentiae, terrae motus per loca.”
29 Reg. 11.37, trans. Martyn, 3:784 (CCSL 140A:931, ll. 51–55): “nullomodo uestrum ani-
mum perturbetis.”
30 Matt. 24:6–7; Mark 13:7–8; Luke 21:9–11.
31  Reg. 13.33 to patricia Eusebia (CCSL 140A:1035, ll. 9–13).
32 HEv. 1.1, trans. Hurst, p. 15, modified (CCSL 141:5–6, ll. 1–6): “Dominus ac Redemp-
tor noster paratos nos inuenire desiderans, senescentem mundum quae mala sequantur
denuntiat, ut nos ab eius amore compescat. Appropinquantem eius terminum quantae
percussiones praeueniant innotescit, ut si Deum metuere in tranquillitate non uolumus,
uicinum eius iudicium uel percussionibus attriti timeamus.” HEv. 1.6, trans. Hurst, p. 20
(CCSL 141:11, ll. 153–55): “Aduentum namque aeterni iudicis tanto securiores quandoque
uidebitis, quanto nunc districtionem illius timendo praeuenitis.”
 gregory’s eschatology 167

He made known what great disruptions would precede its approaching end
so that if we chose not to fear God during peacetime, when we were struck
by its disruptions we would be afraid of this judgement when it was near.
(HEv. 1.1)
The more you now anticipate his severity by fear, the more securely will
you behold the coming of your eternal Judge. (HEv. 1.6)
Nearly three in four of the gospel homilies conclude with some refer-
ence to the coming judgement, with its threat of final condemnation and
eternal punishment, and an exhortation to repentance and good deeds.
This is true even of homilies that have few other apocalyptic references.
A third of the homilies treat lessons usually assigned to Advent, pre-Lent,
and Lent—traditional times to consider repentance and judgement—but
judgement was a year-round theme for Gregory. The flock enjoyed a brief
break from the topic in Eastertide, but Ascension found him firmly back
in eschatological mode, expounding a theme which also occurs frequently
in the Moralia, that of the absolute proportionality of divine grace and
justice, expressed here as a contrast between mildness and terror, gentle-
ness and strictness, patience and swift judgement:33
We must consider very carefully that he who was mild at his ascent will be
terrible at his return. He will demand from us with great strictness whatever
he has commanded of us with gentleness. Let no one take lightly the time of
repentance granted us, let no one neglect to have concern for himself while
he can do so, because our Redeemer will come with great strictness in pro-
portion to the great patience he has shown us before the Judgement.
The feast days of martyrs, for which ten of the gospel homilies were
preached, also put Gregory in an eschatological mood, since the martyrs
were models of those who had passed through the great tribulation and
already enjoyed the Kingdom.34 Gregory counsels his congregation to
seek the holy martyrs,35

33 HEv. 29.11, trans. Hurst, p. 234 (CCSL 141:254, ll. 241–47): “Et hoc nobis magnopere
perpendendum, quia is qui placidus ascendit terribilis redit, et quidquid nobis cum man-
suetudine praecepit, hoc a nobis cum districtione exigit. Nemo ergo indulta paenitentiae
tempora paruipendat, nemo curam sui, dum ualet, agere negligat, quia Redemptor noster
tanto tunc in iudicium districtior ueniet, quanto nobis ante iudicium magnam patientiam
praerogauit.”
34 Markus, Gregory the Great, pp. 59–62, discusses the especial significance for Gregory
of the martyrs’ legacy.
35 HEv. 32.8, trans. Hurst, p. 266 (CCSL 141:286, ll. 241–47): “Hos ergo adiutores uestrae
orationis quaerite, hos protectores uestri reatus inuenite, quia ne punire peccatores debeat
rogari uult et ipse qui iudicat. Vnde et tam longo tempore comminatur iram, et tamen
misericorditer exspectat.”
168 jane baun

as helpers in your prayer, find them protectors in your guilt. Even the one
who is Judge wants to be asked so that he won’t have to punish sinners. For
this reason he threatens us with his anger over so long a period of time, and
yet waits for us with mercy.
In his mercy, and in his good time, God is waiting patiently for our repen-
tance, but in the meantime, in our time, the End hastens. In several homi-
lies, Gregory personifies the world, clearly in its last age:36
So too the world was strong in its early years, as in its youth: lusty in getting
offspring for the human race, green in its physical health, teeming with a
wealth of resources. Now it is weighed down by its old age, and it is pressed
by its increasing troubles as if towards an impending death.
These troubles offer only a foretaste of how terrible the End will be,
and how complete the destruction of this world. This world was clearly
doomed—it had outlived its usefulness and would be conclusively shat-
tered; to love any part of it was folly.37

The Elect and their Tribulations

In Gregory’s view, the tribulations of the elect which presage the End had
already begun, in Italy and elsewhere, providing an invaluable rehearsal
for the last days. This conviction drives all of Gregory’s exegetical works.
The manifold tribulations of Job serve in the Moralia as a type of the afflic-
tions that beset holy Church and her elect, tormented by persecution,
false witness, false prophets and preachers, Satan, and Antichrist. Job’s
laments are those of holy Church and the elect, as they search their hearts
and souls in anticipation of the dread judgement.38
Who are these elect, and how did they become so chosen? Their true
identity will be revealed only at the judgement, when all will become
known.39 Not everyone who belongs to the Church in her earthly mani-

36 HEv. 1.5, trans. Hurst, pp. 18–19, modified (CCSL 141:9, ll. 110–14): “Ita mundus in annis
prioribus uelut in iuuentute uiguit, ad propagandam humani generis prolem robustus fuit,
salute corporum uiridis, opulentia rerum pinguis; at nunc ipsa sua senectute deprimitur et
quasi ad uicinam mortem molestiis crescentibus urgetur.”
37 Markus (Gregory the Great, p. 53) finds Gregory even more pessimistic than Augus-
tine, who at least had anticipated the regeneration of this world.
38 The theme pervades the Mor.; particularly concentrated statements in bks 4, 6, 13
(esp. §44–46), 14 (esp. §26–28), 15, 19 (esp. §15–18), 20 (esp. §44–47), 28, 29; for Mor.’s
presentation of the role of redemptive pain in salvation, see Hester, Eschatology and Pain,
esp. pp. 71–82.
39 Mor. 22.8.18–19.
 gregory’s eschatology 169

festation will be chosen: some will fall by the wayside, unable to endure
tribulation, and others who currently serve the Church as teachers and
leaders will be revealed as secret vessels of Antichrist:40
For the cause of Antichrist is continually promoted among the ungodly,
because he is even now secretly working his mystery in their hearts. And
even if many, now seemingly established within the Church, pretend to be
what they are not, they will yet at the coming of the Judge be exposed, as
they are.
The elect may be recognized by their compunction, tears, humility, dis-
regard of earthly things and love of things heavenly, daily self-examination,
sacrificial self-offering and, especially, by the fire of love for God and
desire for eternity that burns in their hearts, kindled by the Spirit.41 Like
Job, they have been chosen by God to be bruised, chastened and corrected
on earth by infirmity and tribulations, purified by sufferings on this earth,
so as to be able to bear him at the last:42
For suffering is here the portion of the elect, so they may be trained for the
rewards of their heavenly inheritance. It is our portion to receive stripes
here, for whom an eternity of joy is reserved. Hence it is written, “He scourges
every son whom he receives” (Heb 12:6).
For the Lord doubtless turns into sorrow the life of him whom He has
filled with His illumination; and the more He suggests to the enlightened
mind eternal punishments, the more cruelly does He weary it with sorrow
for its past wickedness.43

40 Mor. 29.7.17, trans. LF 3:313 (CCSL 143B:1445, ll. 105–10): “Apud iniquos namque coti-
die res antichristi agitur, quia in eorum cordibus mysterium suum iam nunc occultus
operatur. Et si multi nunc specie tenus intra Ecclesiam constituti simulant se esse quod
non sunt, in aduentu tamen iudicis prodentur quod sunt . . .”
41  Mor. 15.10.12–25.13.16; HEv. 30.5 (CCSL 141:260, ll. 121–26): “Bene ergo in igne apparuit
Spiritus, quia ab omni corde quod replet torporem frigoris excutit et hoc in desiderio suae
aeternitatis accendit.”
42 See esp. Mor. 6.22.39–6.24.41, 24.11.34–24.12.35, 26.21.37, 27.19.39–27.21.41; quotation
at 26.21.37, trans. LF 3:161 (CCSL 143B:1294, ll. 4–7): “Electorum namque est hic conteri,
ut ad praemia debeant aeternae hereditatis erudiri. Nostrum est hic flagella percipere,
quibus seruatur de aeternitate gaudere. Hinc enim scriptum est: Flagellat omnem filium
quem recipit.”
43 Mor. 27.19.39–41, quotation at §39, trans. LF 3:228 (CCSL 143B:1360, ll. 1–5): “Quem
enim Dominus illustrando repleuerit, eius uitam proculdubio in lamentum uertit; atque
illuminatae menti quo magis aeterna supplicia insinuat, eo hanc durius de transacta neq-
uitia gemitibus fatigat.” Cf. trans. in Simonetti and Conti, Ancient Christian Commentary,
p. 190, reading “God” for dominus and “soul” for mens: “Certainly God transforms into tears
the life of him whom he filled with his illumination, and the more he reminds the illu-
minated soul of eternal punishments, the harder he submits it to the groans for its past
wickedness.”
170 jane baun

Gregory in the Moralia returns frequently to the description of the elect as

those who, through God’s grace, glow with the fire of love and longing for
God, and the light of Christ, often in contrast to the wicked and damned,
who dwell in an inner darkness that nothing can illumine.44 Their illu-
mination and Christ-likeness will be consummated at the last day, when
holy Church and her elect will arise in splendour like the dawn.45
Although the virtues characteristic of the elect, and the moral and spir-
itual imperative to live those virtues, comprise a favourite topic in the Mor-
alia, Gregory never suggests that one may “earn” election through one’s
own merits or efforts. It is only through grace that the elect are enabled to
cooperate with grace, should they choose, of their free will, to do so.46 And
none should presume certainty as to his own status, or that of others—an
oft-repeated theme in the homilies, which emphasize the hidden nature of
the identity of the elect. Jesus’ chilling saying, “Many are called, but few are
chosen” (multi sunt uocati, pauci uero electi) runs like a mantra through the
final sections of Homily 38, on Matthew’s parable of the marriage feast.47 It
surfaces again in Homily 19, on the labourers in the vineyard:48
Then there are two things we must consider carefully. Since there are many
who are called but few who are chosen, the first thing is that no one should
be presumptuous about himself. Even though he has already been called to
the faith, he does not know whether he may be considered worthy of the
eternal kingdom. Secondly, no one should presume to despair of a neigh-
bour, even if he sees him steeped in vice. He does not know the riches of
the divine mercy.
While Gregory does transmit biblical assertions that the names of the elect
are written in heaven (Luke 10:20), and that the total number of the elect
has already been determined by God,49 he does not offer systematic discus-

44 Mor. 16.26.31–16.27.33 for the elect; for the wicked, punishment, and hell, esp. Mor.
9 and 15.
45 Mor. 4.11.19.
46 For Gregory on predestination, grace, and free will, see Carol Straw, Gregory the
Great: Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley, 1988), pp. 137–41, and 200, esp. 140, n. 77, with
multiple citations from the Mor. and HEz.; also Dagens, Saint Grégoire, pp. 247–51.
47 Matthew 22:2–14, saying at 22:14; HEv. 38.14–16 (CCSL 141:373–78, ll. 343, 360, 426,
487).
48 Matt. 20:1–16; HEv. 19.6, trans. Hurst, p. 83 (CCSL 141:149, ll. 153–59): “Duo ergo sunt
quae sollicite pensare debemus. Quia enim multi uocati, sed pauci electi sunt, primum est
ut de se quisque minime praesumat, quia etsi iam ad fidem uocatus est, utrum perenni
regno dignus sit nescit. Secundum uero est ut unusquisque proximum, quem fortasse iacere
in uitiis conspicit, desperare non audeat, quia diuinae misericordiae diuitias ignorat.”
49 For example, Mor. 25.8.20.
 gregory’s eschatology 171

sion of predestination, or detailed consideration of the extent to which

the elect have already been chosen. Such apophaticism, one suspects, was
pastorally astute. On a related matter, that the elect will be raised in both
soul and body, Gregory displays no such reticence, vehemently defending
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The two-fold restoration to
Job of his livestock, Gregory asserts at both the beginning and the end of
Moralia, prefigures the two-fold restoration at the final, universal judge-
ment to holy Church of all her elect members, in both soul and body.50

Antichrist

For he will be cast down in the sight of all, because when the eternal Judge
then terribly appears, when legions of Angels stand at his side, when the
whole ministry of heavenly powers is attending, and all the elect are brought
to behold this spectacle, this cruel and mighty monster is brought captive
into the midst, and with his own body, that is, with all reprobates, is con-
signed to the eternal fires of hell.51
Gregory seizes on biblical prophecies of the coming Antichrist (Daniel 7,
Revelation 13) with alacrity.52 The Antichrist and his minions thread their
way throughout the Moralia and the homilies like serpents hissing men-
ace, finally emerging in full wickedness at the end of Moralia, where Greg-
ory devotes three substantial books to their elusive identities, nefarious
activities, and final, comprehensive defeat by God and his angels.53 In this
culmination to his exegesis of Job, Gregory does not shrink from the most
difficult questions of theodicy, but tackles head on the problems of evil,
the present-day suffering of the innocent and apparent flourishing of the

50 Mor. pref.10.20 (CCSL 143:23, ll. 8–22); 35.14.25 (CCSL 143B:1789). Gregory’s views on
the bodily resurrection in Mor. 14, 55.68–57.77 with mention of the patriarch Eutychios at
§72–74 (CCSL 143A:740–46); for the dispute with Eutychios, see Daley, Hope of the Early
Church, pp. 213–14, and Matthew Dal Santo, this volume, pp. 7–8.
51  Mor. 33.20.37, trans. LF 3:593 (CCSL 143B:1707, ll. 7–13): “Cunctis enim uidentibus
praecipitabitur, quia aeterno tunc iudice terribiliter apparente, astantibus legionibus
angelorum, assistente cuncto ministerio caelestium potestatum; atque electis omnibus ad
hoc spectaculum deductis, ista belua crudelis et fortis in medium captiua deducitur; et
cum suo corpore, id est cum reprobis omnibus, aeternis gehennae incendiis mancipatur.”
52 Dagens, Saint Grégoire, p. 353, for references and biblical foundations. Gregory’s dis-
tillation in the Moralia of biblical teachings on Antichrist would have a long Nachleben in
medieval western eschatology, with elements being paraphrased in sermons and saints’
lives well into the 12th century; see Adriaan H. Bredero, “The Announcement of the Com-
ing of the Antichrist and the Medieval Concept of Time,” in Prophecy and Eschatology, ed.
Michael Wilks, Studies in Church History 10 (Oxford, 1994), pp. 3–13.
53 Mor. 32–34 (CCSL 143B:1625–1773).
172 jane baun

wicked. He counsels his hearers that everything happens for a purpose,

that God is fully in control, and that they should always look to the com-
ing judgement, at which evil will finally be vanquished, and every sorrow
banished, and God will be all in all. Thus, eschatology is the answer to
theodicy.
Gregory leaves his hearers in no doubt that the forces of evil are real,
and that Antichrist lies in wait to loose himself on the world, gather fol-
lowers to himself, and inaugurate a reign of terror against the elect and
the Church.54 He will slay Enoch and Elijah, returned at the end of time.55
He counts wicked temporal rulers among his earthly associates, men nota-
ble for their overweening arrogance, pride and self-promotion.56 Through
clandestine agents, both lay and clerical, he is active already in the
Church.57 Nor are patriarchs immune to his temptations. In a remarkable
fulmination to Emperor Maurice, Gregory likens the behaviour of John
of Constantinople, who had assumed the title “Ecumenical Patriarch,” to
that of a forerunner of Antichrist: “But I say confidently that, whoever
calls himself a ‘universal’ priest, and desires to be called so, anticipates
Antichrist in his pride.”58
At times, Gregory speaks of Antichrist as a man, subject to judgement
and eternal punishment like any mortal, into whom Satan will enter; he is
the exalted prince of the wicked, who will draw many to himself, but whose
power Christ at his coming will destroy, consigning him to eternal dam-
nation.59 Gregory also equates Antichrist with Satan or with monstrous
biblical enemies of mankind such as Behemoth, Leviathan, the snake in
the garden, and the dragon.60 He is a monstrous beast who makes his den
in men’s hearts, and is constantly at work there, but only for a time.61 He
also represents the forces of wickedness that will be unleashed openly
at the End, through his body, which is made up in its various parts of all
the wicked, in the same manner that the body of Christ is made up of the
Church and its righteous elect.62

54 Esp. Mor. 14.21.25–14.23.27; 32.

55 Mor. 14.23.27.
56 Mor. 25.16.34–35.
57 Mor. 32.20.35–39.
58 Reg. 7.30, trans. Martyn, 2:486–87; quotation at 487 (CCSL 140:491, ll. 34–36): “Ego
autem fidenter dico quia, quisquis se uniuersalem sacerdotem uocat uel uocari desiderat,
in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit”; for context, see Dal Santo, this volume, p. 7.
59 Among many possible references: Mor. 15.58.69, 15.61.72, 33.20.37, 34.13.24.
60 Mor. 19.9.15; books 32–34, passim, esp. 33, 15.30 and 33.57–35.59.
61  Mor. 27.26.49; 29.7.15–8.18.
62 Mor. 32.16.28, 32.17.29, 33.20.37.
 gregory’s eschatology 173

Whatever his ultimate bodily form, this ancient enemy will finally be
let loose at the end of time, crawling out of the pit in which he has been
imprisoned:63
For now, as it is said by John, the dragon is imprisoned and held fast in the
bottomless pit, because the wickedness of the devil is hidden from sight in
their crafty hearts. But, as is there said, the dragon shall be brought forth out
of the bottomless pit, because whatsoever is now covered over from fear,
then against the Church openly out of the hearts of the wicked is all that
serpent’s venom brought to light.
Although Gregory at times does adopt dragon imagery for Satan, similar
to that of Revelation 12–13, he adds his own twist to the story. He does
not elaborate Revelation’s vision of the great war in heaven, in which
the archangel Michael defeats the dragon (Rev 12:7), but teaches instead
that the elect see only the aftermath, once the monstrous adversary has
already been defeated, bound, and led captive; they do not see the ter-
rible final battle in which the beast is defeated.64 The elect do participate
in many minor battles and skirmishes before the End, however, in their
personal struggles for virtue, and preachers also have a special role in the
combat. Gregory expresses the highest regard for the power of preaching
in combating evil and Antichrist: the words of preachers are teeth, swords,
spears, bow and arrows, sling and stones, deployed in the service of God
on the front lines against evil.65

The In-Gathering of the Nations

So because both Judaea and the Gentile world are gathered to eternal rest
as a portion of the elect, [Job] is rightly related to have possessed 500 yoke
of oxen, and 500 she-asses.66

63 Rev 20:3; Mor. 19.9.15, trans. LF 2:406 (CCSL 140A:967, ll. 22–27): “Nunc enim sicut per
ioannem dicitur, draco in abysso clausus tenetur, quia diabolica malitia in eorum subdolis
cordibus occultatur. Sed sicut illic dictum est, educitur draco de puteo abyssi, quia quod
modo prae timore tegitur, tunc contra ecclesiam publice de iniquorum cordibus omne
serpentinum uirus aperitur.”
64 Mor. 33.20.37.
65 Extended treatment in Mor. 34.8.17–34.13.24.
66 Mor. 1.16.24, trans. LF, 1:45 (CCSL 143:38, ll. 68–70): “Quia ergo ad aeternam requiem
pro electorum parte iudaea gentilitas que colligitur, recte quingenta iuga boum et quin-
gentae asinae haberi perhibentur.”
174 jane baun

A more positive harbinger of the End than the revelation of Antichrist was
the in-gathering of the nations, and especially the conversion of pagan
nations to Christianity, a venture in which Gregory cooperated whole-
heartedly. This would be crowned by the end-time conversion of the Jew-
ish nation. Gregory introduces and concludes his massive exposition of
Job in the Moralia with just this theme. The two-fold restoration of Job
after his trials, with twice as many sheep, camels, oxen and donkeys as
before (Job 1:3, 42:12), strikes Gregory as a type of the Church, in several
senses. After her trials, holy Church will finally receive the Gentile nations
in full, and will at the last add the converted Jewish nation—then, both
will be like obedient flocks in submission to Christ.67
Gregory devoted himself with enthusiasm to the task of bringing into
the harvest the remaining pagan nations:68
By the brilliant miracles of preachers, he has brought even the ends of the
world to the faith. For, lo! He has now penetrated the hearts of almost all
nations; lo! He has joined together in one faith the boundaries of the East
and of the West; lo! the tongue of Britain, which knew only how to grate
barbarian sounds, has begun long since to resound in the divine praises the
Hebrew Alleluia.
Gregory was of course intimately involved in the in-gathering of the Angles,
having sent a party out from his own Roman monastery of St. Andrew,
headed by its abbot, Augustine, whom he consecrated to become the first
archbishop for the English nation.69 The ever-increasing harvest of Gen-
tiles was a sure sign that God’s purpose for the redemption of the world, in
part through the sufferings and self-sacrifice of his elect, was drawing ever
closer to its fulfilment, and from this the faithful could derive consolation.
After the fevered pitch of books 32–34, discussing evil and its defeat, the
pace slows in the last book of the Moralia, the serenity and calm assur-
ance of which come as welcome relief:70

67 Mor. pref.10.20, 1.16.23–4, 35.14.25.

68 Mor. 27.11.21, trans. LF, 3:213–14 (CCSL 143B:1346, ll. 64–70): “. . . quia emicantibus
praedicatorum miraculis, ad fidem etiam terminos mundi perduxit. Ecce enim paene
cunctarum iam gentium corda penetrauit; ecce in una fide orientis limitem occidentis
que coniunxit; ecce lingua britanniae, quae nihil aliud nouerat, quam barbarum frendere,
iam dudum in diuinis laudibus hebraeum coepit alleluia resonare.”
69 See Marilyn Dunn, The Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons c.597–c.700: Discourses of
Life, Death and Afterlife (London, 2009), ch. 3; also Jeffrey Richards, Consul of God: The Life
and Times of Gregory the Great (London, 1980), ch. 14; and Cristina Ricci, in this volume.
70 Mor. 35.15.35, trans. LF, 3:686 (CCSL 143B:1797, ll. 1–9): “Haec historice facta credimus,
haec mystice facienda speramus. Magis enim nouissimis iob quam principio benedicitur,
quia quantum ad israelitici populi susceptionem pertinet, urgente fine praesentis saeculi,
 gregory’s eschatology 175

We believe that these things have taken place historically, we hope that they
are to take place mystically. For the latter end of Job is blessed more than his
beginning, because as far as concerns the admission of the people of Israel,
when the end of the present world is pressing on, the Lord consoles the
pain of Holy Church by a manifold in-gathering of souls. For then she will
be the more abundantly enriched, the more clearly it becomes known that
the temporal condition of the present life is hurrying to its close.
When?
When, finally, would the End come? While Gregory wrote constantly
that the End was drawing near, ever orthodox and faithful to Scripture, he
refused to be drawn on exactly how near it was, or when exactly it would
come. He faithfully transmitted prophetic warnings regarding the immi-
nence of the End, but did not counsel taking them literally.71 As a sinner,
he hoped for God’s patience, and sufficient time for amendment of life.
While striving to instil a sense of urgency in his correspondents, he never-
theless seems to have felt that the world was currently experiencing only
initial warning signs, and that the Lord would tarry a bit longer. In June
601, he assured King Æthelbert of Kent that, “not all of these are going to
come in our days, but they will all follow after our time.”72 His letter to
Eusebia patricia spells out the urgency of preparing for “the terrifying trial
of the Judge soon to come”, but then closes with the wish that God would
allow Eusebia to “live here in tranquillity with your most noble husband”
and “allow you to come to eternal rewards after a long life.”73
What would happen once the End did come? Gregory’s apocalyptic
interests seem to end with the End itself: he was not much interested in
speculating on what might happen once Christ had come, either before
or after the set piece of the Last Judgement. Ever allegorically-minded, he
resists literal interpretations of biblical numbers and time spans, interpret-
ing references to “1000 years” as representing the totality or perfection of

dolorem sanctae ecclesiae dominus animarum multiplici collectione consolatur. Tanto

quippe locupletius ditabitur, quanto et manifestius innotescit quod ad finem praesentis
uitae temporalitas urgetur.”
71  A typical example is Gregory’s quotation, without elaboration, of Zephaniah (1:14–16)
towards the end of the homily for Advent I: HEv. 1.6 (CCSL 141: 10, ll. 139–44).
72 Reg. 11.37, trans. Martyn, 3:784 (CCSL 140A:931, ll. 50–51): “Quae tamen non omnia
nostris diebus uentura sunt, sed post nostros dies omnia subsequentur.”
73 Reg. 13.33, trans. Martyn, 3:849 (CCSL 140A:1035, ll. 9–10): “venturi iudicis examen
tremendum”; 13–17: “Omnipotens autem deus haec uestris cogitationibus aspiratione sui
spiritus infundat uos que et hic cum nobilissimo coniuge tranquille uiuere et de domni
strategii salute gaudere faciat atque post longa tempora ad aeterna praemia peruenire
concedat.”
176 jane baun

a period, rather than a precise number of years to count.74 The millennial

reign of Christ over a renewed cosmos—the “new heaven and the new
earth” of Revelation 20—does not seem to feature in Gregory’s thought
at all. This is not surprising, given the condemnation (most notably, by
Augustine of Hippo) of millenarianism.75 Gregory’s primary concern was
not speculation on events that lay far ahead in the future, and were largely
beyond our control, but salvation of the souls gathered in front of him
here and now. Gregory strained with his utmost art and persuasive power
for the conversion of his flock, to turn them from love of this world, decay-
ing and hastening towards its end, to love of the true and lasting home-
land, the patria caelestis. That was all he as pastor could finally do for his
sheep; the rest was in the hands of God.

74 E.g., Mor. 9.3.3, 18.42.67, 32.15.22.

75 For Augustine, see Daley, Hope of the Early Church, pp. 133–34.
 Chapter eight

Gregory’s Moral Theology:

Divine Providence and Human Responsibility

Carole Straw

Gregory ends his sermons on Ezekiel abruptly in 593, overwhelmed by

events. Tribulations increase daily; swords surround them; death seems
imminent. Like Job, he is “weary of life” (10:1), and asks:1
What therefore remains except to give thanks with tears amidst the lashes
we suffer for our sins? But he who created us also became the father to us
through the spirit of adoption which he gave. Sometimes he nourishes his
sons with bread and other times corrects them with the whip; through sor-
rows and wounds, and gifts, he trains them for their eternal inheritance.
At that moment, the Lombards were besieging Rome, just the latest mis-
fortune in the decades of hardship that had convinced Gregory the End
had begun.2 An apocalyptic urgency intensified his sense of life as a war
between good and evil, a relentless trial of one’s strength and resource-
fulness. Christians are combatants: soldiers and athletes.3 Trained with
whips ( flagella), they are challenged to maintain equanimity (equanimi-
tas) amidst this terrible combination of sorrows, wounds and gifts.

1  HEz. 2.10.24 (CCSL 142:397): “Quid igitur restat, nisi ut inter flagella quae ex nostris
iniquitatibus patimur cum lacrimis gratias agamus? Ipse etenim qui nos creauit etiam
pater nobis factus est per adoptionis spiritum quem dedit. Et aliquando filios pane nutrit,
aliquando flagello corrigit, quia per dolores et uulnera et munera ad hereditatem perpe-
tuam erudit”; Ep. ad Lean.5 (CCSL 143:6): “Omnis filius, qui a Deo recipitur, flagellatur”.
Cf. Heb. 12:6.
2 Cf. Reg. 3.29 (CCSL 140:175); Reg. 3.61 (CCSL 140:209–11); Reg. 11.37 (CCSL 140A:931–32).
For Gregory’s apocalypticism, see Claude Dagens, “La Fin des temps et l’église selon saint
Grégoire le grand,” Recherches de science religieuse 58 (1970), 273–88; René Wasselynck,
“L’Orientation eschatologique de la vie chrétienne d’après saint Grégoire le grand”, Assem-
blées du Seigneur 2 (1962), 66–80.
3 E.g. Mor. 1.3.4 (CCSL 143:27); Mor. 3.21.39–41 (CCSL 143:141–42); Mor. 10.1.1 (CCSL 143:534);
Mor. 8.2.2 (CCSL 143:383); Mor. 18.26.43 (CCSL 143A:913); Mor. 8.6.8–9 (CCSL 143:386–388);
Reg. 3.51 (CCSL 140:196); Mor. 12.7.10 (CCSL 143A:634); HEz. 2.7.20 (CCSL 142:333); RP 3.10
(SC 282:308). For the agon in Gregory, see Carole Straw, “The Classical Heritage and a
New Spiritual Synthesis,” Gregorio Magno: nel XIV centenario della morte, Atti dei Convegni
Lincei 209 (Rome, 2004), pp. 107–31.
178 carole straw

This agonistic rigour links Gregory with the ascetic tradition of the
desert fathers, Ambrose, Jerome, and Cassian, a tradition of education
(paideia) conveying the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics on
self-mastery (enkrateia) and temperance (sophrosyne).4 Like the Stoic
sage, his models of virtue are athletes and wrestlers in training for contests
and soldiers fighting in battles. Disciplined to have courage, strength, and
endure suffering, they have stability, weathering changes of fortune with
equanimity.5 Using discretio,6 they monitor their thoughts continuously in
the “citadel of the mind” (arx mentis), moderating their behaviour to mark
the virtuous mean between extremes. Gregory adapts the Stoic technol-
ogy of the self (and its supporting science and philosophy) to advance
Christian values, particularly of patience, self-sacrifice, and compassion.7
Stoicism provides a comprehensive unity, a philosophical “skeleton” for a
“body” of moral theology.
Stoicism is nothing new to Christianity. Paul’s letters reflect Stoic teach-
ings, logic, rhetoric, and love of paradox:8 ways of thinking that helped
him formulate the relationship of Old and New Dispensations, still a con-
stant in Christian thought. Paul separates Christianity from the Judaism
that validates it by explaining how Old and New are opposed as outward,
carnal law and inward, spiritual grace, yet continuous. Grace is the fulfill-
ment of the law, and the old external letter and law is essential as the very
means of reaching the internal spirit and grace.9 Gregory goes beyond

4 Pierre Hadot, Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique (Paris, 1981), esp. 25–74;
Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Oxford, 1961); idem, Paideia: The Ideals
of Greek Culture, trans. Gilbert Highet, 3 vols (New York, 1939–44).
5 For the Stoic sage, see esp. Ludwig Edelstein, The Meaning of Stoicism (Cambridge,
MA, 1966), pp. 1–25. Gregory adapts the Stoic virtues of fortitudo, patientia, stabilitas, con-
stantia, continentia, prudentia, iustitia and temperantia.
6 André Cabassut defines discretio as the ability to discern virtue (the mean between
extremes) along with other spiritual truths, as well as the ability to control or moderate
behavior to conform to the ideal, in “Discretion,” Dictionnaire de la Spiritualité, 9:1311–30.
Exact translation depends on context, see section below, “Discretio and Self-husbandry”.
7 Gregory marks a watershed in the development of the idea of compassion; see Carole
Straw, “Gregory and the Tradition of Compassion,” Gregorio Magno e le origini dell’Europa,
SISMEL (forthcoming).
8 Cf. Quint. inst. 9.3.81–6; Cic. Parad (entire); see Claude Dagens, Saint Grégoire le
grand: Culture et experience chrétiennes (Paris, 1977), pp. 124–34.
9 The Old and New Dispensations are ethically opposed, as external, carnal law and
internal, spiritual grace. Yet they are continuous: the New is the fulfillment of the Old,
grace is the fulfillment of the Law. In time, Old precedes New; in order, Old is subordinate
to New. In aspect, the Old is exterior to the interior of the New. In function, Old is the
means to the end of the New: through the external letter one reaches the inner meaning.
See Gerard Caspary’s full exposition in Politics and Exegesis: Origen and the Two Swords
(Berkeley, 1979).
 gregory’s moral theology 179

Paul’s dialectic of flesh and spirit to stress the reciprocity and complemen-
tarity of the carnal and spiritual sides of experience, whether in active and
contemplative lives, adversity and prosperity, virtue and sin, or even God
and the devil. The ultimate unity of the divine dispensation transcends
(although it does not negate) divisions of good and evil to create a harmo-
nious vase-painting in which the black highlights the red or white.10
An expert witness to God’s plan,11 Gregory presents his rhetorical expla‑
nations of God’s order as probative, and his own spiritual directions
derive seamlessly from his analysis of it. Surely, if order can be demon-
strated logically, it must exist objectively! Gregory explains the intrinsic,
often ironic logic of the various antitheses, paradoxes, complementarities
ordering the universe taking it as proof that God has ordered the universe
“fittingly”, “justly”, or “fairly” (iuste, recte, aeque). God’s “marvellous dispen-
sation” (mira dispensatio) is “nature” or “necesssity” itself (necessitas)—the
way things are and must be.12 Such brilliant patterns of order can only
be God’s work, which must mean he cares for humanity. Gregory shares
the Stoic conviction that Providence allows nothing disordered or random
in the universe; everything is rational and purposeful.13 God has a plan,
predestined from eternity, and it must be for the good. Most importantly,
God has not abandoned the world to the devil, as some fear.14 Gregory’s
Pastoral Care provides reassurances of God’s providence, but at the same
time he warns of God’s unpredictable severity (as we shall see).

The Mediated Universe

Encouraging evidence of Providence is everywhere, even on the gen-

tlest breeze. Natural, political, and personal events carry God’s messages.

10 Cf. Mor. 33.14.29 (CCSL 143B:1698–99). A Stoic idea, see John Rist, Stoic Philosophy
(Cambridge, 1969), pp. 37–54.
11  Gregory felt divinely inspired; see Ep. ad Leand. 2 (CCSL 143:3).
12 That justice is what is fitting, appropriate, right, and proper according to nature and
God’s order, that everything has a proper place and role in the larger entity, goes back to
Plato and Aristotle, subsequently adopted by Stoics; see Plato, Rep. 4.427C–445D. One’s
place in the hierarchy was deemed just—a reflection of one’s true merit—because it was
validated by the honour and privileges each person enjoyed or lacked, a status bequeathed
to heirs. In other words, “nature” was defined by society, reinforcing the existing aristoc-
racy of honour and wealth. Gregory’s various descriptors—iuste, recte, etc.—flag the work-
ing of Providence.
13 See Michel Spanneut, Le Stoïcisme des Pères de l’Église de Clément de Rome à Clément
d’Alexandrie (Paris, 1969), p. 401.
14 Cf. Mor. 27.17.34 (CCSL 143B:1356).
180 carole straw

­Prosperity (prosperitas) is the good fortune of his smile, grace, blessings,

and rewards: wealth, honour, health, family—all the sources of hap-
piness.15 Spiritually, success in contemplation, continence—virtue in
general—is prosperity.16 Ironically, the Church’s prosperity is worldly
and carnal: wealth, power, and involvement in secular affairs; a historical
change from the adversity of persecution by secular authorities. Now,
unhappily, adversity is the internal persecution of heretics and hypo-
crites.17 Adversity (aduersitas) is misfortune in general. The loss of God’s
gifts, his whippings or beatings ( flagella), are his wrath, discipline, chas-
tisement, punishment, and affliction manifested variously in the tribula-
tions affecting the larger world (e.g., earthquakes, war, famine, etc.) as
well as personal losses (death, poverty, illness, shame, etc.).18 Spiritually,
adversity is abandonment by God, evinced in sin and temptation.19 What
one experiences in life is not at all random. God uses adversity and pros-
perity as paideia to teach and train humanity. His involvement in daily life
is intimate and inescapable. Nothing is neutral or indifferent: everything
has meaning. God is everywhere at all times.20
This feeling of being in God’s presence, or of experiencing a supernatu-
ral reality, is particularly evoked by places, people, or actions that link this
world and the next. This is the “mixed” reality of medieval texts, where
visible and invisible, natural and supernatural, human and divine, carnal
and spiritual exist side-by-side and are interwoven so closely that one can
easily be deceived by a demon disguised as a stranger, or awed to discover
that a leper is Christ in disguise.21 The two worlds are joined materially,
being literally continuous. Hell is beneath the earth, visible in fiery volca-
noes that warn of future punishments, while the afterlife of rewards is in

15  E.g. Mor. 20.3.8 (CCSL 143A:1007–8); Mor. 30.10.38 (CCSL 143B:1519–20); Mor. 9.13.20
(CCSL 143:470–71); Mor. 5.2.2 (CCSL 143:219–20); Mor. 10.10.16–19 (CCSL 143:549–51); HEz.
2.7.20 (CCSL 142:332–34); Mor. 8.54.91–92 (CCSL 143:453–55).
16  E.g.. Mor. 23.25–27.51–54 (CCSL 143B:1184–87); Mor. 10.10.16–19 (CCSL 143:549–51);
Mor. 2.52.83 (CCSL 143:109–10); Mor. 2.49.78–79 (CCSL 143:106–8).
17  E.g. Mor. 20.33.65 (CCSL 143A:1051); Mor. 14.6.7 (CCSL 143A:701); Mor. 15.5.6 (CCSL
143A:752); Mor. 26.40.73 (CCSL 143B:1320–21); Mor. 26.41.76 (CCSL 143B:1322–23).
18  E.g. Mor. 20.19–22.45–49 (CCSL 143A:103–39); Mor. 20.3.8 (CCSL 143A:1007–8); Mor.
7.25–26.31–32 (CCSL 143:355–56); Mor. 2.13–14.22–23 (CCSL 143:73–74); Mor. 26.46–47.84–85
(CCSL 143B:1328–29).
19  E.g. Mor. 9.13.20 (CCSL 143:470–71); Mor. 20.3.8 (CCSL 143A:1007–8); Mor. 23.26.52ff.
(CCSL 143B:1185ff.); Mor. 10.10.16–19 (CCSL 143:549–51); Mor. 6.22.39 (CCSL 143:312–13); Mor.
2.49.78–79 (CCSL 143:106–8).
20 See Michael Frickel, Deus totus ubique simul (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1956).
21  Dial. 1.10.7 (SC 260:98); HEv. 2.39.10 (CCSL 141:391).
 gregory’s moral theology 181

the sky: transcendent heaven is literally in the physical heavens.22 Natural

causes yield to supernatural explanations. Demons make rocks immov-
able, not their massive weight; and should a wall collapse, or a kitchen
catch fire, blame the demon’s malice, not the worker’s negligence.23
Active mediators join this world and the next. The saint is inhabited
by God as an earthly temple; his speech carries God’s authority, and his
miracles reveal his participation in God’s power.24 In daily life, holy men
can be called upon to reach across worlds and return the dead to life. The
martyrs’ bones work miracles on earth, proving that they truly live after
death.25 Holiness is so tangible it rubs off on successive contacts with rel-
ics. A cloth (brandeum) folded in a box and placed near the body of a saint
absorbs so much holiness that it bleeds when cut.26 The power to work
miracles can even be transferred from a holy man to an ordinary monk.27
Ordinary boundaries dissolve. Salvation can be accomplished even after
death by Masses offered on behalf of the departed, the good works of
proxies pays the debts of others to clear their path to heaven.28
The Eucharist becomes central. Mediating with God through the sacri-
fice of the Mass, the Eucharist replicates and continues Christ’s sacrifice
on behalf of humanity.29 In Dialogues 4.60.3, Gregory describes the media-
tion transpiring at the sacrifice of the Eucharist (the hostia or “victim”):30

22 Dial. 4.44.1–3 (SC 265:156–58) and Dial. 4.36.12 (SC 265:122).

23 Rocks, Dial. 1.7.2 (SC 260:66–68); the wall, Dial. 2.111–13 (SC 260:172–74); the fire Dial.
2.10.1–2 (SC 260:170–72); see also Sofia Boesch Gajano, “Demoni et miracoli nei Dialogi
di Gregorio Magno,” in Hagiographie, cultures et sociétés des iv–xii siécles (Paris, 1981),
pp. 263–81, at p. 267; Pierre Boglioni, “Miracle et nature chez Grégoire le grand,” in Cahiers
d’études médiévales, I: Epopées, légendes et miracles (Montreal and Paris, 1974), pp. 28–35.
24 Cf. Dial. 1.9.9 (SC 260:84).
25 Dial. 4.6.1–2 (SC 265:38–40).
26 Reg. 4.30 (CCSL 140:249). On relics, see John M. McCulloh, “The Cult of Relics in the
Letters and ‘Dialogues’ of Pope Gregory the Great: A Lexicographical Study,” Traditio 32
(1976), 145–84.
27 Dial. 2.7.1–4 (SC 260:156–160).
28 Dial. 4.57.1–17 (SC 265:184–94).
29 Dial. 4.60.3 (SC 265: 202); HEv. 2.37.9 (CCSL 141:355); Mor. 13.18.26 (CCSL 143A:683); cf.
Ruf. Orig. in lev. 9.2. See Henry Ashworth, “The Liturgical Prayers of St. Gregory the Great,”
Traditio 15 (1959), 107–62, at 119; Johannes Betz, “Eucharistie als zentrales Mysterium” in
Mysterium Salutis: Grundriss heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik, eds Johannes Feiner and Mag-
nus Lohrer (Einsiedeln, 1973), vol. 4, pt. 2, pp. 185–313, at pp. 229–30; Philipp Oppenheim,
“Eucharistischer Kult und Messopfer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Wandels der eucha-
ristischen Frömmigkeit,” in Miscellanea Pio Paschini, Studi di Storia Ecclesiastica (Rome,
1948), 1:237–68.
30 Dial. 4.60.3 (SC 265:202): “Quis enim fidelium habere dubium possit ipsa immolatio-
nis hora ad sacerdotis uocem caelos aperiri, in illo Iesu Christi mysterio angelorum cho-
ros adesse, summis ima sociari, terram caelestibus iungi, unum quid ex uisibilibus atque
inuisibilibus fieri?”
182 carole straw

. . . for who of the faithful can have any doubt that at the moment of the
immolation, at the sound of the priest’s voice, the heavens stand open and
choirs of angels are present at the ministry of Jesus Christ? There at the altar
the lowest is joined to the highest, earth is joined to heaven, the visible and
invisible somehow merge into one.
Miraculously, the sacrifice joins two realities: the present, carnal and mor-
tal world of humanity and the transcendent, spiritual, immortal world of
the divine. By Gregory’s time, the Eucharist is no longer principally the
thanksgiving of the Apostolic Church, but assumes new importance as the
sacrifice of the ‘victim’.31 Acting as the earthly image of Christ, the priest
dispenses the sacrament that mystically unites the members with Christ.
By participating in the sacrifice of the head of their Church on earth, they
will join him in heaven.
Gregory gives the Eucharist a new centrality that shapes the future; he
is a forerunner of the Eucharistic piety of later medieval and Counter Ref-
ormation Christianity. He speaks of the daily Mass32 and of confession to
pastors,33 uncommon at the time. A propagandist of Masses for the dead,
he presents the Eucharist as the agent of a wide range of miracles, outside
the miracle of the Mass.34 Gregory also places the Mass at the centre of
individual moral discipline, as we shall see.

The Providential Order of Creation

Proof of Providence lies in the harmony, the brilliant order, of all things.
Following other Christians, Gregory adopts the Stoic teachings about
world order, nature, science, and medicine, even legal and political philos-
ophy to illuminate this order.35 Our place is optimal, midway (in medio) in

31 For these changes, see esp. Betz, “Eucharistie als zentrales Mysterium,” pp. 229ff.
32 Dial. 4.60.2–3 (SC 265:200–02). See Cyril Vogel, “Deux conséquences de l’escatolo-
gie grégorienne: la multiplication des messes privées et les moines-prêtres,” in Grégoire le
grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al. (Paris, 1986), pp. 267–76, at 270–71.
33 See Hermann Josef Vogt, “Liturgy,” in The Imperial Church from Constantine to the
Early Middle Ages, eds Karl Baus et al., trans. Anselm Biggs, History of the Church, ed. Her-
bert Jedin (New York, 1969), 2:678–84, at pp. 678, 681–84.
34 Dial. 3.3.1–2 (SC 260:268–70); Dial. 4.59.1–4.60.1 (SC 265:196–200); HEv. 2.37.8–9 (CCSL
141:354–56); Dial. 1.8.5 (SC 260:74); Dial. 2.24.1–2 (SC 260:210–12).
35 See esp. Samuel Sambursky, The Physical World of Late Antiquity (London, 1962);
Wesley D. Smith, The Hippocratic Tradition (Ithaca and London, 1979), pp. 108ff.; F.H. Sand-
bach, The Stoics (New York, 1975), pp. 71–78; Jackie Pigeaud, La Maladie de l’âme: étude sur
la relation de l’âme et du corps dans la tradition medico-philosophique antique (Paris, 1981).
Cf. Cic. Tusc. 1.24.56; 4.10.23.
 gregory’s moral theology 183

creation. Above beasts and below angels, we share something with both,
having a sensible body and a rational mind.36 Moreover, we have “a great
communion” (magna communio uniuersitatis) with all of creation. Like
stones, we exist; like trees, we live; like beasts, we feel; and like angels,
we understand, and share an immortal spirit.37 Humanity spans the great
divide between the spiritual and rational existence of immutable, eternal
heaven and the material and sensible existence of the mutable, temporal
earth; God created us as a microcosm, gathering “together another world
in miniature”, uniting visible and invisible, soul and body, spirit and clay.38
In fact, we are a “universe” (uniuersitas) given our likeness to it.39
The sensible body and rational soul are both sympathetic and antago-
nistic, so their unity is paradoxical—a marvel proving God’s hand in the
design, for it is by his power that “spirit and clay are mixed in such great
harmony that when the flesh is weakened, the spirit droops, and when the
spirit is afflicted the flesh wastes away”.40 Materially, humours connect
body and soul through excesses (superflua). The inward swelling (tumor)
of pride descends to the genitals as lust, its outward analogue. Gluttony
fuels not only lust, but excessive talking, and leuitas operis, “a lack of seri-
ousness for work”.41 Gregory knew the unity of mind and body from per-
sonal experience. Calling the body the “instrument of the heart” (organum

36 Dial. 4.3.2 (SC 265:24); cf. Ambr. hex. 9.7.42 and 6.7.43; Ambr. instit. virg. 20; Ambr.
exc. Sat. 2.130; Ambr. Noe 86 and 99; Ambr. in Psalm. 118 serm.10.13–15; Ambr. in psalm. 43.
37 Mor. 6.16.20 (CCSL 143:298); Mor. 6.15.18 (CCSL 143:296); HEz. 1.8.16 (CCSL 142:109);
Cf. Ambr. hex. 6.9.55. See Spanneut, Le Stoïcisme, pp. 410ff.; and Marie-Therese d’Alverny,
“L’Homme comme symbole. Le microcosme,” in Simbol e Simbologia nell’ alto medioevo.
Settimane di Studio del Centro italiano di Studi sull’alto Medioevo 23 (Spoleto, 1976),
pp. 123–145.
38 Mor. 6.15.18 (CCSL 143:296): “in breui colligens mundum alterum”; see also HEz. 1.8.16
(CCSL 142:109); cf. Ambr, hex. 6.55; Arist. HA 8.1.5886.
39 Mor. 6.16.29 (CCSL 143:298). Stoic ideas of sympathy and concord are materialistic,
being predicated on the continuity of matter in the universe; the soul and even the logos
are highly-refined matter. With Platonists, Christians see the duality and opposition of
matter and spirit, visible and invisible, body and soul, etc., so their unity is highly para-
doxical. See Jacques Brunschwig, “Stoic Metaphysics,” in The Cambridge Companion to the
Stoics, ed. Brian Inwood (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 206–32, at pp. 210–11.
40 HEz. 2.8.9 (CCSL 142:343): “Certe ex spiritu es creatus et limo, uno inuisibili, altero
uisibili, uno sensibili, altero insensibili. Quomodo ergo permisceri in te potuit spiritus
et limus atque ex diuerso fieri res non diuersa, ita ut in tanta conuenientia misceretur
spiritus et limus, ut cum caro atteritur spiritus marceat, et cum spiritus affligitur caro
contabescat?”
41  See Mor. 26.17.28 (CCSL 143B:1286); Mor. 26.17.28 (CCSL 143B:1286); Mor. 7.28.35
(CCSL 143:359); HEz. 1.12.27–28 (CCSL 142:199).
184 carole straw

cordis), he complains to Leander of Seville that when the flesh is too weak
to sustain speech, the mind cannot convey its meaning.42
Yet body is the enemy of the inner person, variously called the “soul”
(anima), “rational soul” (animus), “mind” (mens), “spirit” (spiritus), or
“heart” (cor). Our link to God in contemplation, it discerns spiritual truths
and moral ideals, and is the source of virtue.43 Our likeness (similitudo)
and image (imago) of God,44 it is our true identity, while the body is mere
clay (lutum). Possessing humours, the body shares the qualities of the four
elements—fire, air, water, and earth—that make up the universe (heat,
cold, moisture, and dryness), and is affected by changes that nourish or
diminish various humours, such as climate, weather, diet, seasons, and
even individual habits.45 These humours determine temperaments and
proclivities to specific vices, as is evident in the contrasting categories
of believers in Pastoral Rule, Book III.46 Since we share the senses and
instincts of animals as well as their mortality, our minds suffer danger-
ous needs that can exceed to pleasure (food, rest, shelter, etc.), and our
senses bombard us constantly with temptations of sight, sound, taste, and
touch.47 The soul’s antithesis, the body, is sensible, material, temporal,
and mortal.
Gregory applies Paul’s war of flesh against spirit (Gal 5:17) to body and
soul, “for as the flesh is nourished by softness, the spirit is nourished by
hardness. Mildness pampers the one, harshness exercises the other. One
is fed by delights, the other flourishes on bitterness”.48 Each undermines
the other. When the flesh is rapt in pleasure, the spirit fails; and when the

42 Ep. ad Leand. 5 (CCSL 143:6–7).

43 Mor. 5.34.63 (CCSL 143:262); Mor. 11.50.68 (CCSL 143A:624–25); Mor. 12.15.19 (CCSL
143A:640); Mor. 25.3.4 (CCSL 143B:1232); Mor. 14.15.17 (CCSL 143A:707–8).
44 Mor. 32.12.17 (CCSL 143B:1641–42); Mor. 5.34.63 (CCSL 143:262); Mor. 29.10.21 (CCSL
143B:1448), Mor. 9.49.75 (CCSL 143:509); cf. Aug., trin. 11.5.8; Aug. quaest. Simpl. 51.2; Aug.
De civ. Dei 12.23; Ambr. hex. 9.7A3.
45 For the four elements, see Mor. 35.16.42 (CCSL 143B:1802); cf. Cic. Tusc. 1.17. On
temperaments and various vices, see Mor. 14.13.15 (CCSL 143A:706–7); Mor. 3.22.45 (CCSL
143:143), Mor. 9.58.88 (CCSL 143:519). See esp. RP 3, which addresses how to advise the
faithful according to differences in temperament, social status, habits, marital status, etc.
For the general theory of humours, see W. Balzer and A. Eleftheriadis, “A Reconstruction
of the Hippocratic Humoral Theory of Health,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 22
(1991), 207–227. Cf. Cic. Tusc. 1.24.56; 4.10.23.
46 See also Mor. 29.22.45 (CCSL 143B:1464–65).
47 Cf. Aug. De civ. Dei 12.21; Ruf. Greg. Naz. orat. 38.11.
48 Mor. 10.24.42 (CCSL 143:567): “spiritus deficit, ubi caro requiescit.Vt enim caro molli-
bus, sic anima duris nutritur: illam blanda refouent, hanc aspera exercent; illa delectationi-
bus pascitur, haec amaritudinibus uegetatur. Et sicut carnem dura sauciant, sic spiritum
mollia necant; sicut illam laboriosa interimunt, ita hunc delectabilia exstinguunt”.
 gregory’s moral theology 185

spirit soars heavenward, the flesh is enfeebled, overwhelmed by the task.49

In equating “the flesh” with the body, and “the spirit” with the inner, ratio-
nal side of humanity, Gregory conflates the Stoic cosmology of body and
soul with Paul’s (and Augustine’s) complex notion of carnality and spiritu-
ality. Significantly, Gregory ignores Augustine’s insistence on the neutral-
ity of the body and culpability of the will for sin. Instead, his anthropology
recalls the dualism of classical, as well as Christian, ascetic traditions: 50
For the flesh drags us to the depths, lest the spirit puff us up, and the spirit
draws us to the heights, lest the flesh fall down. For if the spirit did not raise
us, we would be in the depths, and if the flesh did not weigh us down, we
would exalt ourselves because of the heights.
Marvellously (providentially), enemies become friends! The body and
soul no longer simply oppose, but complement each other. Outwardly,
the body pulls the soul earthward to sin, unless inwardly, the soul rises
heavenward in contemplation; while inwardly, the soul would exalt itself
in pride, were not outwardly, the body to humble the soul with temp-
tation.51 But “by a certain control” (certo moderamine), the saints unite
them so that each checks the sinful extreme of its opponent. The result
is humility and hope, a balance-point—a mean between extremes—the
Stoic ideal of moderation and virtue.
Adversity and prosperity share an analogous complementarity. By
remembering adversity in prosperity, one stays humble; and by recall-
ing prosperity in adversity, one recovers hope.52 The soul has a dynamic
equilibrium, avoiding twin extremes of “pride” (superbia) and “disposses-
sion” or “depression” (deiectio), as well as “overconfidence” (securitas) and
“despair” (desperatio).53 In fact, a whole range of spiritual and carnal pairs
are complementary: Church and state,54 mercy and justice, mildness and
severity, humility and pride, love and fear, contemplation and penitence,

49 See Mor. 4.27.49 (CCSL 143:193) and Dial. 3.24.3 (SC 260:362–64); cf. Vitae patr.
5.10.17.
50 Mor. 19.6.12 (CCSL 143A:964); “Ad ima quippe trahit caro ne extollat spiritus; et
ad summa trahit spiritus ne prosternat caro. Spiritus leuat ne iaceamus in infimis; caro
aggrauat ne extollamur ex summis. Rursum uero si non temptante carne ad summa nos
spiritus subleuaret, in superbiae casu ipsa nos peius subleuatione prosterneret”. Cf. Cass.
conl. 4.12.
51  Ibid.
52 See esp. HEz. 2.7.15–20 (CCSL 142:329–34) and n. 134.
53 Mor. 3.9.16 (CCSL 143:125); Mor. 5.36.71 (CCSL 143:271); Mor. 33.12.24 (CCSL 143B:1694);
Mor. 7.32.48–49 (CCSL 143:370–71); Mor. 26.17.30 (CCSL 143B:1287).
54 See Carole Straw, “Gregory’s Politics: Theory and Practice,” in Gregorio Magno e il
suo tempo, pp. 47–63.
186 carole straw

grace and law, love of one’s neighbour and love of God, Christ, as redeemer
and teacher, man and God, advocate and judge. Complementarity is the
fundamental principle of providential order, the “shape” of harmony.

The Order of Heavenly Government and Concord

The complementarity of opposing pairs begins with hierarchical subor-

dination. Antagonism fades—a fight or war is averted—when one party
submits to the authority of the other. This order is natural and self-evident
(or so it seems); by definition, high is above low. As “soul and flesh”, we
are “composed of strength and weakness”;55 obviously, irrational flesh
should obey rational soul. This “order of heavenly government” (superni
moderaminis dispositio)56 preserves peace. Each has a proper place, which
is “justice” as the ancient philosophers defined it.57 A distributive justice
defines the privileges and obligations of each member, while a retribu-
tive justice avenges overstepping one’s proper place, or conversely, falling
short. All things corporate are subject to this just order, and can enjoy its
concord, the body, the family, the state, the universe itself.
The Church manifests these classical ideals perfectly as a compago,
“a joining together, or unity” “of Christ’s body” or “of his members”, a com-
pago “of love”, “hearts”, or “concord”; the strong are the “bones” and the
weak are the “skin”.58 The interconnections of this body are mystical, as
found in Paul, 1 Cor 12:26, “And if one member suffer anything, all the
members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice
with it”, and Rom 8:17, “And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God and
joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also
glorified with him”.59 Members have roles appropriate to their natures. The

55 Mor. 14.15.17 (CCSL 143A:707–8): “Omnis itaque homo, quia ex anima et carne con-
stat, quasi ex robore et infirmitate compositus est”.
56 Mor. 9.5.5 (CCSL 143:458).
57 See n. 12 above.
58 E.g. corpus Christi, Reg. 2.40 (CCSL 140:127); membrorum, Mor 19.25.42–43 (CCSL
143A:990–91); caritatis, Reg. 2.44 (CCSL 140:134); RP 2.5 (SC 381:198); cordium, Mor. 33.8.15
(CCSL 143B:1686); concordiae, Reg. 13.41 (CCSL 140A:1045 ); ossa, cutis, corporis, Mor. 20.40.77
(CCSL143A:1060). The locus classicus of concord is Arist. Pol. 1.1252a1–1255b1.
59 I Cor 12:26: “et si quid patitur unum membrum conpatiuntur omnia membra siue
gloriatur unum membrum congaudent omnia membra”; Rom. 8:17: “si autem filii et here-
des heredes quidem Dei coheredes autem Christi si tamen conpatimur ut et conglorifice-
mur”. See esp. Ep. 3.9 (MGH Epp. 2, eds Paul Ewald and Ludwig M. Hartmann [Hannover,
1899], Appendix III, p. 450) analysed in Carole Straw, “Much Ado About Nothing: Gregory
the Great’s Apology to the Istrians,” in The Crisis of the Oikoumene: The Three Chapters
 gregory’s moral theology 187

spiritual members, the “eyes” (oculi), direct the Church, while the carnal
members, the “feet” (pedes) serve the Church in the “dust” (puluis) of
the world. Diversity is essential; members would not be a body if they
all did the same thing. Lacking sight, the “feet” should not try to see, nor
should the “eyes” try to work, because they would be blinded by the world’s
dust.60 The lesson is not only to accept class differences, but rather that
no one is self-sufficient. Only part of a whole, each needs the other. Shar-
ing what they have and receiving what they lack, they are united through
love and acts of compassion, just as God ordained.
Universally, concord depends on hierarchy. Subjects must submit to
authorities, who rule by God’s ordinance and on his behalf, and obey
authorities as they do God, instantly and implicitly, like St. Benedict’s
monks in Gregory’s Dialogues. What matters is the Church’s purview.
Gregory legitimates the “carnal” power of the Church and its vicars, and
their activities in the world. Rulers can earn a special reward if they sub-
mit to God and rule for the benefit of their subjects.61 Always imagining
themselves before the divine judge, rulers can remain inwardly humble
while outwardly in power. Gregory’s affirmation of worldly involvement
is, of course, balanced by his emphasis on the contemplative life, but it
is a positive adaptation to the needs of Christians in an era of declining
secular institutions.

The Fall and the Nature of Sin

Violations of this heavenly government of hierarchy explain our present

fallen state. Gregory follows, but modifies Augustine (De civ. Dei 12–14).
Without obedience to authority, Paradise is lost and suffering begins. Both
the devil and Adam are driven by a libido dominandi, a “desire to be in
control.” Seeking autonomy, they rebel against God’s authority, throwing
off the heavenly government necessary for order and harmony.62 Like the
devil, Adam believed he could find satisfaction in himself, so he sought
to be his own law to gratify his selfish desires.63 But the Creator’s role

and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-Century Mediterranean, eds Celia Chazelle and
Catherine Cubitt (Turnholt, 2007), pp. 121–60.
60 Mor. 28.10.24 (CCSL 143B:1414).
61  Mor. 26.26.44 (CCSL 143B:1299); RP 2.6 (SC 381:204).
62 Mor. 9.5.5 (CCSL 143:458); cf. Mor. 29.7.15 (CCSL 143B:1444).
63 Gregory links pride, self-love and pleasure. Adam rejects God in order to pursue
the selfish pleasures of the body; the desire for pleasure and a craving for autonomy
188 carole straw

is to rule; the creature’s is to obey. This pride or insolence is the same

transgression the ancient Greeks call hubris, or the high treason implicit
in the French lèse majesté. God avenges this outrage with retributive jus-
tice, “justly” and “rightly” punishing Adam’s rebellion with that of his own
servant, the body.64 Now roles reverse; servant rules master in a perverse
tyranny. Taking Adam captive, the devil enslaves him to sin.65 Justly, the
mutability and sin Adam sought willingly he now bears unwillingly, as
punishment.66
With the original relationship of soul ruling body inverted, human
nature is now one of weakness (infirmitas) and corruption (corruptio),
bequeathed to future generations in Original Sin.67 Contemplative union
with God is lost; the mind is darkened (obscuritas, tenebrae), and reason is
blind (caecus).68 The mind has no sense of direction and, quite bewildered,
becomes scattered (dispergitus) and lost (perditus).69 Deprived of reason’s
strength, the soul cannot overcome the body’s corruption—its vulner-
ability to pleasure.70 Taking charge, the body compels the soul to follow,
dragging it down to earth and sin. Gregory assigns major responsibility
for sin to the body, inherently weak and corrupt. Siding with ascetics, he
departs from Augustine for whom the locus of sin was the will, whether
divided, or gratuitously evil. Disgustingly, the “garment” of the body gen-
erates its own destruction, being the source of pleasurable ­sensations

are inseparable. See Mor. 34.21.40 (CCSL 143B:1761–62); Mor. 29.8.18 (CCSL 143B:1446);
Mor. 8.10.19 (CCSL 143:395); Mor. 26.44.79 (CCSL 143B:1325–26); Mor. 29.8.18 (CCSL
143B:1446); HEv. 1.19.2 (CCSL 141:143). In contrast, Augustine views pride and self-love as
the primary sin. The desire to be independent of God precedes the appetite for pleasure,
which is its punishment, see De civ. Dei 14.13ff.
64 Mor. 26.17.28 (CCSL 143B:1286); Mor. 8.32.51 (CCSL 143:422), Mor. 8.6.8 (CCSL 143:386);
Mor. 9.5.5 (CCSL 143:458); cf. Aug. De civ. Dei 14.17 and in psalm. 58, 2.11. These ideas are
traditional; see Norman P. Williams, Ideas of the Fall and Original Sin (London, 1938),
p. 244; and Hastings Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (London, 1919),
p. 243.
65 The devil even forcefully abducted Adam, who resisted, and dragged him to consent,
see Mor. 15.15.19 (CCSL 143A:790). See also, e.g. Mor. 32.21.40 (CCSL 143B:1659); HEz. 1.11.24
(CCSL 142:179–80); Mor. 9.36.58 (CCSL 143:498–99); Mor. 35.17.43 (CCSL 143B:1805).
66 Mor. 4.25.47 (CCSL 143:192); cf. Mor. 8.32.52 (CCSL 143:423); Mor. 4.28.51 (CCSL
143:194–96.
67 Mor. 24.2.4 (CCSL 143B:1191). On Original Sin, see Weber, Hauptfragen, pp. 230–33.
68 For the fall, see esp. Mor. 4.1.4 (CCSL 143:166); Mor. 4.27.49 (CCSL 143:193); Mor. 8.18.34
(CCSL 143:406); Dial. 4.1.1–3 (SC 265:18–20).
69 A Plotinian theme, see Aug. conf. 2.1.1ff.; 2.20.18; 4.7.12; 7.10.16; 10.29.40.
70 Mor. 4.27.49 (CCSL 143:193). See esp. the overview by Ferruccio Gastaldelli, “II mec-
canismo psicologico del peccato nei Moralia in Job di San Gregorio Magno,” Salesianum 27
(1965), 563–605, at 565–66; idem, “Prospettive sul peccato in San Gregorio Magno,” Sale-
sianum 28 (1966), 65–94.
 gregory’s moral theology 189

which fly into the soul like “moths” (cf. Job 13:28).71 Similarly, “the worms
are our mother and sister” (cf. Job 17:14). Born in corruption, we carry it
with us and cannot escape its pollution.72 Inexorably, sin becomes the
punishment of sin.73
To manage sin, Gregory creates various categories. Adapting Augus-
tine, he identifies three “ways” (modi) of explaining why we sin—from
“ignorance” (ignorantia), “weakness” (infirmitas), or “deliberate intention”
(studium).74 Using Augustine’s three stages of sin (suggestion, pleasure,
and consent), Gregory explains sin as a process, almost a drama. Some-
times he adds a fourth stage (as Augustine did), the defensionis audacia,
a shameless defense of sin, highlighting penitence:75 had Adam repented,
he would not have lost Paradise. Gregory’s tropological exegesis of the
Fall implies that the fatal seduction of pleasure causes most sins. Reca-
pitulating the stages of Adam’s sin, from the exterior inward, the ser-
pent tempts, because the enemy insinuates evil into the heart; Eve was
delighted, because the flesh takes pleasure; Adam, though placed above
Eve, nevertheless consented, because when the flesh enjoys pleasure, the
spirit is weakened and incapable of righteousness; nor would Adam con-
fess, because the more sin separates the spirit from truth, the more wick-
edness hardens in audacity.76 Sin progresses like falling dominoes; but by
labeling each part, Gregory marks where the sequence might be halted
or undone. Avoid temptations. If tempted, repress pleasure. If delighted,
refuse consent. If sinful, confess.
In Mor. 31.45.87, Gregory adapts Cassian’s taxonomy of principal vices
to defend the heavenly order of hierarchy.77 Reversing Cassian’s order
(and following Augustine’s sentiments), Gregory places Cassian’s ­gluttony

71  Job 13:28, “qui quasi putredo consumendus sum et quasi vestimentum quod comedi-
tur a tinea”: Mor. 5.38.68 (CCSL 143:268); cf. Mor. 11.48.64 (CCSL 143A:622).
72 Job 17:14, “putredini dixi pater meus es mater mea et soror mea vermibus”: Mor.
13.45.50 (CCSL 143A:695).
73 HEz. 1.11.24 (CCSL 142:179–80).
74 Mor. 25.11.28 (CCSL 143B:1253–54); probably inspired by Aug. lib. arb. 3.20. Apart
from rare instances of deliberate evil (e.g. the malice of hypocrites), sin is the result of
seduction.
75 Mor. 4.27.49 (CCSL 143:193). Four stages of sin appear also in RP 3.29 (SC 383:474).
Three stages appear in HEv. 1.16.1 (CCSL 141:110); Ep. 11.56a.9 (MGH Epp. 2:343), Mor. 32.19.33
(CCSL 143B:1654). The differing stages are best seen as variations determined by Gregory’s
exegetical and pastoral concerns, because it is not a chronological evolution.
76 Mor. 4.27.49 (CCSL 143:193); see also Mor. 32.21.40 (CCSL 143B:1659).
77 Mor. 31.45.87–90 (CCSL 143B:1610–12); see Carole Straw, “Gregory, Cassian, and the
Cardinal Vices,” in In the Garden of Evil: Vices and Culture in the Middle Ages, ed. Richard
Newhauser, Papers in Mediaeval Studies 18 (Toronto, 2005), pp. 35–58.
190 carole straw

with pride, calling it the root of all evil.78 When discretio is lost, the soul
is defenseless. Pride conquers the heart, unleashing an army of vices.
In succession, “vainglory”, “envy”, “anger”, “melancholy”, “avarice”, “glut-
tony” and “lust” lay waste to the soul.79 Moral devolution begins when,
like Adam, subjects break free of authority to gratify themselves unre-
strainedly. Full of themselves, they preen in false glory and grow envious
of others. When thwarted, they get angry like spoiled children, then sullen
and melancholy. To fill that inner loss, sinners become avaricious, greedy
for possessions, and then greedy for food. Their gluttony generates exces-
sive humours that fuel lust, the final, bestial depravity.80 Gregory’s selfish
sinners aggrandize themselves to the point of bursting. “Scattering” and
“losing” themselves in the world, they are haunted by an inner emptiness.
In comparison, saints are focused. “Self-collected” (se colligere), continent
(continens) and “stable” (stabilis), they possess soliditas caritatis, the firm
and enduring strength of love, the mother of virtue.81

Lessons of the Fall: Love and the Imitation of Christ

The lessons of the Fall are not only that rational control of the body
depends on submission to God, but that despising justice—the heavenly
government of hierarchy—endangers the whole community.82 To seek
autonomy is profoundly selfish. Harmony is impossible if every man is
for himself; the result is anarchy and war. Obedience to authority guar-
antees that each keeps a proper place; humility is fundamental. Diversity
means the reciprocal sharing of gifts in compassion, interdependence and
concord. Love of one’s neighbour as well as love of God define Christian
identity: “Not otherwise than by clinging to God in contemplation, and
having compassion for [our] neighbour are we made members of our
Redeemer”.83

78  Mor. 31.45.87 (CCSL 143B:1610); Mor. 34.23.47 (CCSL 143B:1766).

79 Superbia, inanis gloria, inuidia, ira, melancholia, auaritia, uentris ingluuies, luxuria:
Mor. 31.45.87 (CCSL 143B:1610); cf. Mor. 1.32.42 (CCSL 143:84). On the affinity of vices, see
also HEz. 1.12.25–28 (CCSL 142:197–99); Mor. 7.28.35 (CCSL 143:359).
80 Cf. HEz. 2.7.16–20 (CCSL 142:329–33).
81  See Straw, Gregory the Great, chs 3–4.
82  Mor. 9.5.5 (CCSL 143:458).
83 HEv. 2.39.9 (CCSL 141:390): “Neque enim aliter Redemptoris nostri membra efficimur,
nisi inhaerendo Deo et compatiendo proximo”.
 gregory’s moral theology 191

Selfishness is, in effect, the archetypal sin; selflessness—disinterested

love (caritas) and compassion (compassio)—are the remedies. Love is the
“root” (radix) and “mother” (mater) of all virtues.84 Virtues are intercon-
nected, as the Stoics taught;85 and compassion is best understood as love
in action. The basis of ideal social and political order,86 love is the founda-
tion of morality since it unites the dissociated, joins the diverse, and sets
right what is wrong.87 Compassion goes beyond the golden rule of “do
unto others” (cf. Matt. 7:12) to return good for evil;88 it is ­self-sacrificial.
To paraphrase Gregory, you must give of yourself in compassion for oth-
ers, even as Christ did. Unless you take on grief yourself, you do not really
share their tribulations, or relieve their burdens.89 Compassion is the sac-
rifice of one’s soul, as abstinence is of the body, and Christians must suffer
this “cross through affliction of the soul with compassion for [thy] neigh-
bour” as they do a “cross through affliction of the body with abstinence”.90
In fact, “the more sharply we control ourselves, and are tortured with the
compassion of love toward our neighbours”, the more truly we follow
Christ.91
For Gregory, the active life of compassion means a special sacrifice of
contemplative retreat and ascetic perfection, putting one’s own soul at
risk. Adjusting to this, he concludes that perfection actually lies in imper-
fection: in engaging in the world, despite its sin; in humbly confessing
one’s inevitable sin.92 The change from a contemplative life to a mixed life

84 Radix, HEv. 2.27.1 (CCSL 141:229); mater, Reg. 5.46 (CCSL 140:338).
85 E.g. Mor. 22.1.2–3 (CCSL 143B:1042–43); Mor. 1.27.38 (CCSL 143:82–83); HEz.1.3.8 (CCSL
142:37); HEz. 2.7.7 (CCSL 142:320–22); HEz. 2.20.18 (CCSL 142:393–94); HEz. 1.9.31 (CCSL
142:159–60). Cf. Ambr. off. 2.43; also 1.129; 2.48. See Odo Lottin, “La Connexion des ver-
tues avant saint Thomas d’Aquin,” Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale 2 (1930),
21–53.
86 HEv. 2.27.1 (CCSL 141:230); Reg. 7.28 (CCSL 140:486); Mor. 1.26.37 (CCSL 143:45);
Mor. 10.6.9 (CCSL 143:541); Reg. 9.223 (CCSL 140A:795); Reg. 6.61 (CCSL 140:434); Mor.
31.45.87 (CCSL 143B:1610). See Patrick Catry, “L’Amour du prochain chez saint Grégoire le
grand,” Studia monastica 20 (1978), pp. 287–344.
87  Reg. 9.223 (CCSL 140A:794–95); cf. Reg. 7.27 (CCSL 140:486) and Reg. 6.61 (CCSL
140:434).
88 Mor. 10.6.8 (CCSL 143:540); see also RP 3.27 (SC 382:250).
89 HEz. 1.11.27 (CCSL 142:183); Mor. 20.36.70 (CCSL 143A:1055); also Mor. 20.36.68 (CCSL
143A:1053).
90 Cf. HEv. 2.32.3 (CCSL 141:280): “aut per abstinentiam afficitur corpus, aut per compas-
sionem proximi affligitur animus”; repeated in HEv. 2.39.10 (CCSL 141:391).
91  Mor. 30.25.74 (CCSL 143B:1542): “quanto acrius et se edomant, et erga proximos suos
caritatis compassione cruciantur”.
92 E.g. Mor. 5.4.5 (CCSL 143:222): Mor. 31.13.25 (CCSL 143B:1568); Mor. 4.23.43 (CCSL
143:189); Mor. 34.22.45 (CCSL 143B:1765); Mor. 4.36.72 (CCSL 143:216–17); Mor. 5.16.33 (CCSL
192 carole straw

of activity and contemplation is, in the end, progress. At first, the righteous
seek a contemplative life, separated from earthly men and their business,
but are unable to prefer adversity and the tortures of the present life.93
Then the soul “cared only for its own interests” and “loathed to bear the
burdens of others”; “sympathizing too little with others”, it could not “bear
adversities”.94 But “progressing” (proficiens), the soul bears “the weakness
of the neighbour” and gains the strength to “surmount adversity”, because
paradoxically the soul becomes “upright by bending, expanded by near-
ing others [and] strengthened by compassion”. Now, the soul “seeks the
tortures of this life” it once feared, and “deems sweet whatever is bitter in
life”.95 Marvellously, contemplation actually depends on active compassion
for one’s neighbour: “for love, which lowers us according to the power of
our compassion, lifts us the higher toward the peak of contemplation”.96
This synthesis rationalizing the “mixed life” is a milestone. Gregory’s
affirmation of involvement in the world (including the secular power of
the Church), his recognition of human frailty and his emphasis on com-
passion enhanced the chances of the Church’s long-term survival as an
inclusive Church embracing members of dissimilar wealth, education, sex,
occupations, and interests, while acknowledging the material as well as
spiritual needs of believers.97

143:241); Mor. 5.3.4–4.5 (CCSL 143:220–22); Mor. 3.16.30 (CCSL 143:134–35); HEv. 2.21.4 (CCSL
141:176).
93 Mor. 7.13.16 (CCSL 143:343–45).
94 Mor. 7.15.18 (CCSL 143:345–46): “Mens enim iusti proficiens quae prius, dum sola pro-
pria curaret, ferre aliena fastidiebat; quae minus alienis compatiens, conualescere contra
aduersa non poterat, cum ad toleranda proximi infirma se attrahit ad aduersa superanda
conualescit. Ita ut pro amore ueritatis praesentis uitae cruciatus tanto post fortis appetat,
quanto prius infirma fugiebat. Inclinatione namque sua erigitur, attractione tenditur, com-
passione roboratur; cumque se in amorem proximi dilatat quasi ex meditatione colligit
quanta fortitudine in auctorem surgat. Caritas namque quae nos ad uim compassionis
humiliat, altius in culmine contemplationis leuat; et multiplicata iam maioribus desideriis
aestuat, iam peruenire ad uitam spiritus, etiam per cruciatus corporis, anhelat. Quod ergo
prius tangere nolebat, hoc post prae angustia comedit qui desideria sua uix capiens, et
ipsas quas dudum timuerat, iam prae amore caelestis patriae poenas amat. Si enim mens
in deum forti intentione dirigitur, quicquid sibi in hac uita amarum fit, dulce aestimat,
omne quod affligit requiem putat.”
95 Mor. 7.15.17 (CCSL 143:345): “Quos enim ad fortia trahere nitimur, eorum necesse est
ut infirma toleremus quia nec iacentem erigit, nisi qui status sui rectitudinem per com-
passionem flectit.”
96 Mor. 7.15.18 (CCSL 143:345).
97 See esp. his letter of advice to Augustine of Canterbury, Ep. 11.56a.8 (MGH Epp. 2:338).
 gregory’s moral theology 193

Redemption, the Body and Christ

The body plays a central role in salvation, just as it did in the Fall. Because
Adam bore weakness from the flesh, humanity deserves mercy after sin-
ning; but the devil had no body and no excuses.98 Marvellously, God’s
mercy is justice: to redeem and bring back the one who had fallen, to
restore the flesh that sinned.99 Paradoxically (providentially), the muta-
bility that caused ruin brings restoration; the curse becomes a blessing:
“Indeed, the human soul would not fall if it were not changeable; and
banished from the joys of paradise, if it were not changeable, it would
never return to life”.100 Now a vessel of discipline, the body’s sufferings
benefit the soul. The corruption Adam sought becomes his punishment;
and the punishment, the cure:101
Because we have followed the flesh through the sight of the eyes, we are
tortured by that very flesh which we preferred to God’s commands. We suf-
fer sorrow, torture, and death in it daily so that by a marvellous dispensation
the Lord might convert the cause of sin into a means of punishment; so that
the severity of punishment might arise from the same source as sin, so that
man might be disciplined to life by the bitter suffering of that very flesh by
whose prideful delight man drew near death.
Providentially, the body’s sinful pleasure is reversed to purgative suffer-
ing. Penitence replaces pleasure.102 “If we sin much through the delights
of the flesh, we are purged by the afflictions of the flesh”.103 Dialectically,
“through whippings, the sinner is brought back to peace with God”.104 Suf-
fering is penitence, both punishment and a cure of sin.

  98 Mor. 4.3.8 (CCSL 143:168–69).

  99 Mor. 4.3.8 (CCSL 143:168–69).
100 Mor. 25.6.10 (CCSL 143B:1235); “Humana quippe anima in lapsum non caderet, si
mutabilis non fuisset; quae a paradisi quoque gaudiis expulsa, si mutabilis non esset, ad
uitam minime rediret”; also Mor. 29.10.21 (CCSL 143B:1448).
101  Mor. 24.4.7 (CCSL 143B:1193); “Et quia per oculorum uisum carnem secuti sumus, de
ipsa carne, quam praeceptis Dei praeposuimus, flagellamur. In ipsa quippe cotidie gemi-
tum, in ipsa cruciatum, in ipsa interitum patimur, ut hoc nobis mira dispositione Dominus
in poenam uerteret, per quod fecimus culpam; nec aliunde esset interim censura supplicii,
nisi unde fuerat causa peccati, ut eius carnis amaritudine homo erudiretur ad uitam, cuius
oblectatione superbiae peruenit ad mortem”; cf. Aug. quaest. Simpl. 83. q. 82.3; Ruf. Orig.
prin. 2.10.6.
102 HEv. 1.2.8 (CCSL 141:8); HEz. 1.5.2 (CCSL 142:758).
103 Reg. 11.18 (CCSL 140A:887): “Quoniam qui ex carnis blandimento multa peccauimus,
ex carnis afflictione purgamur”.
104 Mor. 3.9.15 (CCSL 143:124): “ad pacem illius per flagella redeamus”.
194 carole straw

Gregory also stresses Christ’s suffering and sacrifice in humanity’s

redemption, though he also reiterates old traditions. The devil’s legal
claim on humanity’s debt of sin is paid—redeemed—by Christ.105 Christ’s
divinity is a hook, his humanity the bait used to trick and to catch the
really big fish, Leviathan.106 Christ dies vicariously to recompense human-
ity’s offense against God; his innocent suffering and death propitiate God’s
wrath.107 But Gregory wants to highlight human responsibility, so Christ’s
natures and actions become complementary. The person of Christ is elec-
trum, an alloy of gold and silver, his two natures. As gold is tempered by
silver, so manhood’s suffering tempers divinity, and as silver is enhanced
by gold, so divinity renders humanity more glorious.108 As physician of
like and unlike remedies, Christ applies his manhood to agree with our
nature, and yet offers his divine righteousness to cure our sin.109 He is
both redeemer and teacher because salvation requires both. As mediator,
Christ teaches “the guilty righteousness by the same means he placated
the angry Judge”.110 His Passion not only redeems humanity, it teaches by
example, just as the whole of his incarnate life teaches us and is also a sac-
rificial offering that atones for our sins.111 Salvation is a cooperative ven-
ture; free will must respond to grace; predestination is arranged so that
the elect attain it “through their own effort” (ex labore).112 That Christ’s
death propitiates God means that he may look favourably on our good
works and penitence. Conditions are set for God’s mercy, but there are
no guarantees.

105 Mor. 3.16.29 (CCSL 143:133–34); Mor. 17.30.46 (CCSL 143A:877–78); Mor. 17.30.46
(CCSL 143A:877–78), cf. Ambr. Ep. 72.8; Isaac. 1.3.10; Ep. 41.7; Aug. trin. 13.15.
106 Gregory of Nyssa’s fishhook story comes via Ruf. symb. 16.
107 Mor. 3.14.26–7 (CCSL 143:131–32); Mor. 24.2.2 (CCSL 143B:1189–90); Mor. 2.22.41 (CCSL
143:84); cf. Mor. 3.20.38 (CCSL 143:139); Mor. 17.30.46 (CCSL 143A:877–78). See Jean Rivière,
Le Dogme de la rédemption après saint Augustin (Paris, 1930), p. 94; Gustaf Aulen, Christus
Victor, trans. A.G. Herbert (New York, 1969), p. 68.
108 Mor. 28.1.5 (CCSL 143B:1398); cf. HEz. 1.2.14 (CCSL 142:25).
109 Mor. 24.2.2 (CCSL 143B:1189); HEz. 1.2.9ff. (CCSL 142:22ff). See esp. Adolf Harnack,
Medizinisches aus der ältesten Kirchengeschichte (Leipzig, 1892), 4:136ff. G. Dumeige, “Le
Christ médecin dans la littérature chrétienne des premiers siècles,” Rivista de archeologia
cristiana 48 (1972), 115–41.
110  Mor. 9.38.61 (CCSL 143:501): “unde reum recta docuit, inde iratum iudicem placauit”.
111  Mor. 34.23.54 (CCSL143B:1772); RP 1.3 (SC 381:138), cf. Leo, Tractatus. 67.5; 45.2; 63.1. 45.
112  Dial. 1.8.5 (SC 260:74). On cooperation, see Mor. 16.25.30 (CCSL 143A:816); Mor.
33.21.40 (CCSL 143B:1710): Mor. 24.10.24 (CCSL 143B:1204): Mor. 18.40.63 (CCSL 143A:929);
Mor. 24.7.13 (CCSL 143B:1196–97); HEz. 1.9.2 (CCSL 142:124). Gregory’s ideas of grace are
closest to those of Cassian; see esp. conl. 13.618, and Owen Chadwick, John Cassian, 2nd
ed. (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 110–36.
 gregory’s moral theology 195

Christ’s mediation with God on our behalf is not distant and abstract,
but concrete, and immediately available in the Mass through the mystical
participation of Christ’s members in his sacrifice. Significantly, Gregory
also makes the Mass the occasion for individual vows of self-sacrifice, so
it is both a sacrament and an individual discipline:113
We must immolate ourselves to God in contrition of heart whenever we
offer the Mass, since we who celebrate the mysteries of the Lord’s Passion
ought to imitate what we do. For then the Victim will be truly offered to God
or us, when we offer ourselves as victim.
To make the sacrifice of the Mass truly effective, Christians must pledge
themselves as sacrifices. Imitation is necessary not only to activate Christ’s
sacrifice; it is what one owes him (i.e. distributive justice).114 Christians
should be martyrs in times of peace,115 willing to suffer without complaint,
given the redeemer’s suffering, and like Paul, continue Christ’s suffering
in their bodies (Col 1:24).116 Fortunately, sacrifice includes offerings of
good works generally: contemplation, charitable deeds, prayer; virtually
any good. Although such sacrifices are necessary as repayment of Christ’s
redemption,117 they can still atone for sins, and earn reward.118 (Similarly,
gifts of grace must be returned to God as good works, but they can still
earn merit.)119 Christ’s redemption means a just universe in which human
actions are not dismissed out of hand by an omnipotent God; they matter.

Theodicy

Gregory’s just order of Providence assumes the underlying unity of cre-

ation, despite the oppositions of this world and the next, body and soul,

113 Dial. 4.61.1 (SC 265:202); “sed necesse est ut, cum hoc agimus, nosmetipsos deo in
cordis contritione mactemus, quia qui passionis dominicae mysteria celebramus, debemus
imitari quod agimus. Tunc ergo uere pro nobis deo hostia erit, cum nos ipsos hostiam
fecerit”. See also Cant. 4 (CCSL 144:6–7); HEv. 2.37.7–9 (CCSL 141:354–55), cf. Ruf. Orig. in
lev. 9.2.
114 Mor. 13.23.26 (CCSL 143A:683); HEv. 1.5.2 (CCSL 141:34).
115 Dial. 3.26.9 (SC 260:372).
116 HEz. 2.9.22 (CCSL 142:376–77); Mor. 29.1.1 (CCSL 143B:1434); Mor. 30.1.3 (CCSL
143B:1492–93); Mor. 29.14.26 (CCSL 143B: 1451–52).
117 Mor. 13.23.26 (CCSL 143A:682–83); Mor. 33.12.24 (CCSL 143B:1694); Mor. 9.43.95 (CCSL
143:524); Mor. 12.51.57 (CCSL 143A:662–63).
118 Mor. 6.37.56 (CCSL 143:325–26); see also HEz. 2.9.2 (CCSL 142:356–57); HEz. 2.10.19f.
(CCSL 142:394ff.). Cf. Aug. De civ. Dei 10.6; Ruf. Orig. in lev. 2.4.
119 Mor. 9.41.64 (CCSL 143:503).
196 carole straw

etc., but that of God and the devil is perhaps more disturbing than mar-
vellous, because evil is so massive a force. Since the Creator is almighty
and the devil has no power, fine distinctions must shield God from blame.
A legal “contract” (pactum) specifies their collaboration. Derived from
God, the devil’s power to destroy is just, but he acts from his own wicked-
ness. The devil acts as God’s servant, fulfilling God’s will in exchange for
the gratification of his own depravity. Both the will of the Just Dispensator
and the perverse desires of the devil are satisfied.120 This providential rela-
tionship is bizarrely dialectical: “in the secret order of the dispensation,
when the devil is permitted to rage, then the kindness of God is brought
about in mercy”.121 God is the judge, and the devil is his exactor, the agent
delivering the punishment of God’s strict severity.122 As collaborators, the
devil’s robbers are also God’s robbers; evil spirits, spirits of the Lord.123
Apparently, the devil is just a faithful instrument of God’s wrath with
benefits. In fact, evil is so ominous, Gregory comments that God is proved
almighty by cutting short the devil’s whipping of Job,124 as if it were a relief
to learn that God actually could restrain the devil, if he so chose. That God
is in charge of the devil only makes God the more frightening. He is like a
mother, who, one moment, beats her child as if she had never loved him,
and the next, loves him as if she had never beaten him.125 God’s power is
ambivalent and capricious—mercy and justice, grace and wrath. To know
that God is the author of suffering, that his will is by definition justice, is
not necessarily reassuring.
So it is for Job, whose story is universal (or nearly so). For most, life is
a mixture of good and evil. Fortune does not always reflect one’s work or
moral character (or lack of either). Challenged by the devil, God afflicts
Job as a loyalty test. Would Job thank God for his beatings, even as he
thanked him for his gifts?126 Or is Job’s piety dependent upon God’s gifts?

120 Mor. 33.14.28 (CCSL 143B:1697–98): “Haec ipsa ergo temptationis licentia pactum
uocatur, in qua et desiderium temptatoris agitur, et tamen per eam miro modo uoluntas
iusti dispensatoris impletur”.
121  Mor. 33.14.28 (CCSL 143B:1698): “secreto ergo dispensationis ordine, unde saeuire
permittitur iniquitas diaboli, inde pie perficitur benignitas dei”.
122 HEv. 2.39.5 (CCSL 141:385); Mor. 4.35.69 (CCSL 143:214); cf. Mor. 4.35.69 (CCSL
143:214); Mor. 2.11.19 (CCSL 143:71); Mor. 32.24.50 (CCSL 143B:1668). For Augustine the devil
is also the exactor; cf. Jean Rivière, Le Dogme de la rédemption après saint Augustin (Paris,
1930), p. 71.
123 Mor. 14.51–52.59–60 (CCSL 143A:733–34); Mor. 18.2.4 (CCSL 143A:887–88).
124 Mor. Praef. 5.12 (CCSL 143:18).
125 HEz. 1.1.18 (CCSL 142:15).
126 Mor. Praef. 3.7 (CCSL 143:13).
 gregory’s moral theology 197

God sends his wrath to prove Job’s virtue, adversity being the “whip” that
reveals the raw “bones” of virtue hidden under the “fat” of prosperity.127
Job endures suffering (patientia) and continues to thank God. His righ-
teousness is proved by confessing God’s absolute power, while he is but
“dust and ashes”.
The lesson is that prosperity can mean either election or abandonment;
but then so can adversity. Throughout his works, Gregory spells out the
various possibilities of God’s ambiguous providential order, departing from
Augustine for whom mystery vouchsafes God’s transcendence. Unwilling
to leave believers in suspense, Gregory offers a roadmap with clear direc-
tions home. Granted, at times signs may point both ways, but a map is still
preferable to a mystery. Space permits only an outline of his roadmap,128
which embodies the same penchant for systematizing data found in Pas-
toral Rule. Prosperity may reward virtue in anticipation of heaven; its rec-
ollection can console Christians in tough times, saving them from ruin.
Or, it can seduce the soul with myriad temptations, or lead to pride - the
mistaken belief one actually deserves God’s gracious gifts. It may turn out
to be the only happiness the damned ever enjoy. Adversity may be a fore-
taste of hell’s punishments. Or it can be a temporary “beating” that purges
sin, restoring the soul to health. Alternatively, it can break the soul if it
evokes blasphemous anger or leads to despair. But it can also prove the
soul’s mettle, by exposing virtues hidden in prosperity. It can even be an
opportunity to increase merits. While God is in Gregory’s details, the short
solution is for Christians to treat everything as a trial.
Gregory confesses what Augustine never does, that in afflicting Job,
God punished an innocent man. Yet, God does not afflict unjustly, not
because Original Sin makes Job guilty, as Augustine claimed, but because
God recompenses suffering that is in excess of the debt owed for sin. God
rewarded Job with twice the blessings lost.129 This is an important legacy
for the future. Gregory embraces suffering and affliction as necessary for
salvation, as a purification of sins, a trial proving virtue, an opportunity to
earn merit, a sacrifice in imitation of Christ, and a repayment of Christ’s
sacrifice. Gregory gilds the Christian tradition that life is suffering, and

127 Mor. 23.25.52 (CCSL 143B:1185).

128 See Carole Straw, “ ‘Adversitas’ et ‘prosperitas’: une illustration du motif structurel
de la complémentarité,” in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al., pp. 277–288; also
treated throughout Straw, Gregory the Great.
129 Job 42:10. Mor. 32.4.5 (CCSL 143B:1630–31); Mor. 14.31.36 (CCSL 143A:719–20); Mor.
24.18.44 (CCSL 143B:1221–22).
198 carole straw

while he condemns excesses,130 his rhetoric of the flagella Dei could nev-
ertheless support them.

Discretio and Self-Husbandry

Following the ancient tradition of spiritual training, especially the ­Stoics’s

use of discretio,131 Gregory elaborates methods and strategies to manage
sin: how to pique conscience, strengthen self-control, and defeat sin; how
to examine one’s conscience for sins, eradicate them, and cleanse away
guilt. His step-by-step analysis of conscience and techniques of self-
control are a significant contribution to the tradition of penitence. Always
the pedagogue, his exhaustive descriptions of mental processes and emo-
tional changes serve as “how-to” instructions to practice on one’s own.
Variously imagined,132 discretio is a spirit, virtue, power, or art that is
exact, zealous, and anxious. Sharpened by contemplation, it can be a dis-
criminating nose, an illuminating light, or an eye; all perceive spiritual
realities or ideals: invisible spirits, the condition of a soul, the examples
of saints, or the nature of virtue itself. These truths can be painful. In con-
templation of God’s perfection, discretio also measures one’s distance from
it, causing the soul to rebound (reuerberatio), humbled by the recognition
of its faults.133 This makes discretio essential to penitence. Discretio can
also represent ideals of human behaviour. As a line, rule, way, or measure,
it marks the mean between extremes,134 and it distinguishes necessary

130 See Mor. 20.41.78 (CCSL 143A:1061) and Mor. 9.66.106 (CCSL 143:531–32).
131  On discretio, see esp. Eloi Dekkers, “ ‘Discretio’ chez Benoit et saint Grégoire,”
Collectanea Cisterciensia 46 (1984), 79–88; Dagens, Grégoire, pp. 117–24. On Cassian’s idea
of discretio, see Owen Chadwick, John Cassian, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1968), esp. pp. 82–136
and 148–62.
132 E.g. spiritus, HEz. 2.9.19 (CCSL 143:373); uirtus, Mor. 11.6.8 (CCSL 143A:389); uis,
HEv.2.24.1 (CCSL 141:197); ars, RP 3.37 (SC 382:524); subtilitas, Mor. 28.11.26 (CCSL 143B:1415);
zelum, HEz. 2.1018 CCSL 142:39); sollicitudo, Mor. 1.35.50 (CCSL 143:51); nasus, RP 1.11
(SC 381:166); lumen, Mor. 28.11.30 (CCSL 143B:1419); oculum, Mor. 33.35.60 (CCSL 143B:1724–
26); libra, Mor. 3.13.24 (CCSL 143:130); truitina, Mor. 8.4.5 (CCSL 143:384); examen, Mor.
6.16.25 (CCSL 143:302); regula, Mor. 5.30.53 (CCSL 143:255); uia, Mor. 15.51.57 (CCSL 143A:785);
mensura, RP 1.11 (SC 381:166); chorda, Mor. 1.8.11 (CCSL 143:30); ordo, Mor. 1.30.42 (CCSL
143:47); ratio, Mor. 30.10.40 (CCSL 143B:1519); moderamen, Mor. 7.30.42 (CCSL 143:366). All
have the genitive, discretionis.
133 E.g. HEz. 2.5.10 (CCSL 142:282); Mor. 6.37.53 (CCSL 143:829).
134 E.g. HEz. 1.5.3 (CCSL 142:58); Mor. 2.49.76 (CCSL 143:105); Mor. 9.66.106 (CCSL 143:531);
Mor. 1.34.47 (CCSL 143:51); HEz. 1.7.2 (CCSL 142:83–84); Mor. 28.11.29 (CCSL 143B:1417): Mor.
9.25.39 (CCSL 143:483–84); HEz. 1.3.8 (CCSL 142:37); cf. Ambr. Isaac. 2.5–6; Cic. Tusc. 3.7.15;
4.20.46; 8.16–18; Arist. Nich. Eth. 2.5.
 gregory’s moral theology 199

needs from pleasurable excess.135 It is both the ideal of moderation, and

the ability to moderate behaviour. As scales, balances, or the tongue of a
balance, discretio calculates, reckons, or weighs evidence, or apportions
things so they are equitable and just. As a bow or stringed instrument
kept at the proper tension, it manifests the ability to restrain, or redouble
efforts when necessary. Discretio is order, computation; a means of man-
aging or governing, basically the faculty of self-control.
Discretio and reason guard the soul,136 defending the innermost doors
of consent against intruders. Discretio is a wily horse whose nose sniffs
the battle at a distance and warns of enemies. As a rod or hand, it repels
enemies, dismisses temptations, or restrains sinful impulses. Using discre-
tio, one makes a rational decision to combat sins, to act in spite of one’s
own desires (redarguere). To limit temptation, the monastic grave is saf-
est, where monk and world are dead to each other, a mutual crucifixion.137
But if one must live in the world, discretio preserves an internal separation
from the external world and the office assumed. Outwardly, one acts with
authority on God’s behalf; but inwardly, one imagines his strict judgement
and is humble. Sometimes, the mind-body connection affords diversion-
ary tactics. In tranquility, the mind can easily succumb to the adversary’s
temptations, Gregory observes, but by divine medicine, external burdens—
just keeping busy—can preserve the soul from harm. Similarly, external
hardships, or “beatings”, protect one from internal wounds, just as phy-
sicians draw out inflammation of the bowels by causing an itching of
the skin (or Benedict cures his lust with thorns).138 In this case, worldly
involvement is actually curative.
Consent to pleasure brings culpability; discretio is the rational power to
“just say ‘No’ ” to pleasurable sensations one cannot help feeling. But this
simple rational rejection is not always effective; discretio cannot always
shut the gates. Adversity can overturn the soul, leaving it prey to anger and
despair. Demons can sneak into the soul uninvited;139 the devil can ambush

135 Mor. 20.14.28 (CCSL 143A:1024–25); Mor. 30.18.61–63 (CCSL 143B:1532–34); Mor.

15.48.54 (CCSL 143A:782–83); cf. Cass. inst. 5.6.
136 Selective examples of guardian imagery are: ianua cordis, Mor. 27.26.50 (CCSL
143B:1370–71); equus, Mor. 31.44.85 (CCSL 143B:1608–9); manus, Mor. 16.43.53 (CCSL 143A:
829); Mor. 28.11.26–29 (CCSL 143B:1415–18); uirga, RP 2.6 (SC 381:216).
137 Mor. 6.37.56 (CCSL 143:325–26) and Mor. 5.3.4 (CCSL 143:220–21).
138 Mor. 33.19.35 (CCSL 143B:1797); for Benedict see Dial. 2.2.2 (SC 260:138).
139 That demons enter the soul or heart (cf. John 13:27; 13:2) is not heterodoxy, but a
statement of fact about our weakened condition. To reject this is Pelagianism, a denial
of humanity’s inborn sinfulness; see Reg. 7.31 (CCSL 140:494); cf. Mor. 32.19.34 (CCSL
143B:1655); Mor. 33.3.6 (CCSL 143B:1674).
200 carole straw

the soul and invade it forcibly. Once inside, sins stick to the soul and can-
not be dismissed at will. Once settled, sins are very difficult to dislodge.
Should sin seem unavoidable, Gregory offers a fail-safe strategy. Peter
“opened the gate of his heart” by denying Christ (Mark 14:66–72); but sud-
denly recovering himself, he “shut it with tears”.140 Penitential tears drown
temptation; fear of judgement freezes desire in its tracks. As a discipline,
a deliberate practice, crying whenever temptation strikes is a means of
self-control. The success of all such “behavioural modifications” is not the
eradication of feelings, but rather the rational decision to practice the
techniques over and over again—to submit to the discipline. The goal is
not victory, but perseverance. “In patience he has possession of his own
soul”, Gregory quotes Luke 21:19, imagining the soul as an embattled cita-
del. “By the strength through which he conquered all adversities, he has
conquered himself, and made master of himself ”.141 The ability to endure,
to suffer assaults without giving up the fight, is self-mastery.

Penitence as the Cornerstone of Christian Life

Admittedly, vulnerabilities seem limitless. Because “we are conceived

in sin and born in iniquity, we either commit evils viciously, or even in
doing right things, we sin unintentionally”.142 While evil works might eas-
ily be avoided, “who can comprehend how many evils we commit each
moment through the inconstant motions of our thoughts?”143 As much as
Augustine, Gregory is haunted by the unknown movements of the human
heart. Judgement seems unbearable. We may shun known evils, but we
fear more unknown evils and face judgement with a more subtle terror.144
Because one must recompense so much sin—the known, the probable,
the possible, and even the unknown—the burden of guilt is incalculable,
along with the dread of punishment.

140 Mor. 27. 26.50 (CCSL 143B:1371): “ianuam cordis Petrus negando aperuit, sed citius
cognoscendo restitit, flendo clausit”.
141  Mor. 5.16.33 (CCSL 143:241): “quia inde contra aduersa omnia fortis efficitur, unde
sibi et semetipsum uincendo dominator”.
142 Mor. 9.48.73 (CCSL 143:508): “Quia autem nos in delicto concepti, in iniquitatibus
editi, aut noxie praua perpetramus, aut incaute etiam recta agendo delinquimus, districtus
iudex unde nobis fiat placabilis, non habemus”.
143 Mor. 24.11.32 (CCSL 143B:1211): “Quis enim considerare ualeat quanta mala per
momenta temporum ipsis inconstantibus cogitationum motibus perpetramus?” Cf. Aug.
conf. 4.14.22.
144 Mor. 24.11.32 (CCSL 143B:1212).
 gregory’s moral theology 201

The only solution for such unlimited liability is supererogatory paeni-

tentia (“penitence” or repentance of sin”). Penitence must be lavish enough
to atone for everything—penitence even if one is just.145 Penitence
becomes the cornerstone of Christian life. As compunction, a piercing
feeling, penitence is the means of re-connecting with God after sin, since
fear of punishment, when exhausted, leads to contemplative love.146 Peni-
tence should be continuous, a memory of sin, repentance of sin, and a
fear of judgement so profound it becomes an internal disposition, which
it is, in humility. Penitence is the critical turning point in Providence’s
plan. “Heavenly medicine” abounds for us, because God both “gave man
commandments so he should not sin, but nevertheless gave the sinner a
remedy that he should not despair”.147 Having this hopeful remedy in our
own hands should inspire us to act. Gregory’s “how-to” descriptions of
repentance can only be sketched briefly here. Threads of imagery—legal,
medical, and biblical—are interwoven and, at times, mismatched.
Penitence is inseparable from the rigorous self-examination of discretio.
Legally, sin is a debt; penitence punishes the sinner to settle accounts with
God, preventing punishment in the afterlife.148 The Sinner replicates the
procedures of a criminal court, “conscience accuses, reason judges, fear
binds him fast, and pain tortures him”.149 Discretio investigates the guilty
conscience, reckons the evidence, and judges the accused.150 Convicted,
the sinner allies himself with God to punish the guilty.151 In a “contest”
against himself, he “hates himself as he remembers himself to have been;
and through the very one he presently is, he persecutes what he was in the
past”.152 Now, “in the secret chamber of inward judgement, constrained
by the sentence of their own conscience, they chasten in ­penitence
what they committed in pride”.153 This inner struggle brings forth peace
with God.

145 HEv. 2.34.5 (CCSL 141:303).

146 See n. 169 below.
147 HEv. 2.25.9 (CCSL 141:215): “Vbique ergo nobis occurrit superna medicina, quia et
dedit homini praecepta ne peccet, et tamen peccanti dedit remedia ne desperet”.
148 Mor. 4.15.27 (CCSL 143:181).
149 Mor. 25.7.13 (CCSL 143B:1238): “Nam conscientia accusat, ratio iudicat, timor ligat,
dolor excruciat”.
150 Mor. 3.13.24 (CCSL 143:129–30); Mor. 33.35.60 (CCSL 143B:1725–26), cf. Cass. conl. 1.20;
Mor. 9.25.39 (CCSL 143:483); Mor. 5.37.67 (CCSL 143:267).
151  Mor. 32.5.4: “In uindicta enim sua deo se socians, sese contra se erigit”.
152 Mor. 25.7.13 (CCSL 143B:1238): “odit se qualem fuisse se meminit, et ipse qui est,
per semetipsum insequitur illum qui fuit, atque ab ipso homine aduersus semetipsum fit
quaedam rixa in animo, parturiens pacem cum deo”.
153 Mor. 25.7.13 (CCSL 143B:1238): “atque in hoc secreto interioris iudicii ipsa mentis
suae exsecutione constricti, paenitendo feriunt quod superbiendo commiserunt”.
202 carole straw

Penitence is also a medicine that cures the soul by cleansing and

removing the sickness of sin. The “wound” of sin is cured by the “wound”
of penitence, a remedy of likeness. Pain makes it effective as a punish-
ment and a cure.154 Humoral theories flow beneath the surface. Gregory
likens penitential tears to the soul’s blood.155 In Job 2:8, Job scrapes the
humours oozing from his wounds with a potsherd, meaning that thoughts
of judgement should rid us of the rottenness of all pleasure.156 Just as beat-
ings to the belly cleanse evil (cf. Prov 20:30), compunction wounds the
mind, cleansing it of pride.157 Both are relieved of humours. Similarly,
the sharp severity of penitence chastens and cleanses every appetite, dis-
solute thought, and wound of pleasure.158 Now humours flow as tears to
scrub away the marks sin leaves on the soul, the stains (macula) of sin.159
Penitence has a sacramental aura, an aid to its ritualization. As a sac-
rifice, a sin-offering, it pays debts and removes guilt, and by atoning for
sins in this life, it averts God’s anger in the future.160 As a second bap-
tism, penitence replicates the original conversion from unbelief as a con-
version from sin to righteousness. A second immolation of one’s sinful
identity, penitence washes away sins committed since the first baptism.161
This baptism of tears cleanses the conscience,162 and restores the robe of
innocence.163 As rebirth, regeneration, and resurrection, penitence revives
those dead in sin, just as Lazarus arose from the tomb.164
Penitence accounts for spiritual progress, conveying the soul from the
compunction of fear to that of love. First sinners cry, fearing punishment,

154 Paenitentia, Mor. 33.12.23 (CCSL 143B:1693–94); Mor. 3.22.43 (CCSL 143:142–43);

HEz. 1.10.28 (CCSL 142:157); Mor. 23.21.40 (CCSL 143B:1174–75); confessio, Mor. 8.21.37 (CCSL
143:408); Mor. 7.4.5 (CCSL 143:337).
155 HEv. 1.20.13 (CCSL 141:165).
156 Mor. 3.30.58 (CCSL 143:151).
157 Mor. 23.21.40 (CCSL 143B:1174–75).
158 Cf. Mor. 3.29.57 (CCSL 143:150–51).
159 HEz. 2.2.1 (CCSL 142:225); Mor. 31.27.54 (CCSL 143B:1589); Mor. 6.25.42 (CCSL 143:315);
Mor. 8.24.41 (CCSL 143:412); Mor. 27.2.4 (CCSL 143B:1332–33).
160 HEz. 2.8.19 (CCSL 142:350–51); Mor. 8.20.36 (CCSL 143:407); Mor. 24.24.51 (CCSL
143B:1226); Mor. 2.14.23 (CCSL 143:74); Mor. 4.15.27 (CCSL 143:181), Mor. 4.25.46 (CCSL
143:191–92); Mor. 33.12.23 (CCSL 143B:1693–94); Mor. 4.19.36 (CCSL 143:186); Mor. 25.6.8
(CCSL 143B:1234–35); Mor. 8.20.36 (CCSL 143:407–8).
161 E.g. HEv. 1.10.7 (CCSL 141:79); Mor. 30.19.64 (CCSL 143B:1534–35).
162 HEv. 1.10.7 (CCSL 141:72).
163 HEv. 1.10.7 (CCSL 141:71 and 72): “Puniamus fletibus culpas. . . . baptizemus lacri-
mis conscientiam”; cf. HEz. 1.10.29 (CCSL 142:158); Mor. 12.6.9 (CCSL 143A:633–34): “uestis
innocentiae”.
164 Mor. 27.18.38 (CCSL 143B:1359–60); Mor. 12.6.9 (CCSL 143A:633–34); Mor. 4.27.52
(CCSL 143:196–97); Mor. 22.10.21 (CCSL 143A:1108).
 gregory’s moral theology 203

but then they cry more bitterly from love; longing for God, this misery is
sweet.165 These stages correlate with Old and New Dispensations.166 A car-
nal compunction of fear is associated with the Old Testament, the death
of the ‘Old Man’, sacrifices of the flesh, and sin-offerings.167 The second
compunction of love is associated with the New Testament, the rebirth of
the ‘New Man’, whole-burnt offerings (holocausts) of the spirit, and vows
to renounce the world in praise of God, the resurrection, and the kingdom
to come.168
The perfection of this first stage of fear draws the soul to a second,
higher compunction of love and contemplative union with God.169 “When
fear has been consumed by a prolonged anxiety and grief, then a certain
security is born from the anticipation of forgiveness”.170 Compunction is
the powerful ‘engine’ (machina)171 drawing the soul forward, but it also
runs in reverse. Penitence and contemplation are related dialectically, sug-
gesting why progress reverses and repeats itself as it does. Fear and regret
re-emerge because they were never entirely overcome. Penitence pre-
cedes contemplation; union with God depends on rejection of the sinful
self: “he who does not know how to lament what weighs him down cannot
produce what lifts him up”,172 and “the more he abases himself in self-
contempt outwardly, the more he is uplifted by contemplation inwardly”.173
We are “lifted to heavenly joys through tears”.174 Regrettably, the joy of

165 HEz. 2.2.1 (CCSL 142:225); HEz. 2.4.3 (CCSL 142:259–60); Cant. 1.31 (CCSL 144:31); Dial.
3.34.2 (SC 260:400).
166 For these two compunctions, see esp. Dial. 3.34.1–6 (SC260:400–404); HEz. 2.10.20–
21 (CCSL 142:395–96); Reg. 7.23 (CCSL 140:475–76); Cant. 18 (CCSL 144: 19–21). Cf. Cass.
conl. 1.17; 1.19; 2.11; 4.5; 4.19; 9.28–29; Cass. inst. 4.43.1; 12.15.1; 12.18.1; 12.27.5. For Augustine’s
influence, see Jean Doignon, “ ‘Blessure d’affliction’ et ‘blessure d’amour’ (Moralia 6.25.42):
une jonction de thèmes de la spiritualité patristique de Cyprien à Augustin,” in Grégoire le
grand, eds Fontaine et al., pp. 297–303.
167 HEz. 2.10.20–21 (CCSL 142:395–96); Mor. 32.3.4 (CCSL 143B, 1629). For compunction
as fire, see esp. Mor. 3.30.59 (CCSL 143:152): HEz. 1.5.7–8 (CCSL 142:60); HEv. 2.30.6 (CCSL
141:283).
168 HEz. 2.10.4 (CCSL 142:382).
169 Reg. 7.23 (CCSL 140:475–76); “quam flebat prius, cum mala aeterna metuebat, sicque
fit ut perfecta compunctio formidinis trahat animum compunctioni dilectionis”.
170 Dial. 3.34.2 (SC 260:400): “At uero cum longa moeroris anxietudine fuerit formido
consumpta, quaedam iam de praesumptione ueniae securitas nascitur”. Reg. 7.23 (CCSL
140:475).
171  Mor. 1.34.48 (CCSL 143:50).
172 Mor. 31.46.93 (CCSL 143B:1613–14): “qui nescit lugere quod grauat, non ualet proferre
quod subleuat”.
173 Mor. 30.19.64 (CCSL 143B:1534–35): “sancti enim uiri quanto magis se exterius despi-
ciendo deiciunt, tanto amplius interius reuelationum contemplatione pascuntur”.
174 Mor. 5.8.14 (CCSL 143:227): “ad superna gaudia flendo subleuatur”.
204 carole straw

contemplation is only half an hour (Rev 8:1). Unwelcome thoughts force

themselves back into the mind, the flesh stirs, or the soul simply recoils,
having discerned its distance from God’s perfection.175 This reuerberatio
sends the soul back to earth again, fearful and repentant, trembling as
if the Lord had “overturned the heavens” (cf. Job 11:10), or devastated, as
if enemies had sneaked into a city.176 But because Christians persevere,
the cycle begins anew: penitence, contemplation, reverberation. Life is an
endless alternation: we ascend and descend impelled by “the movement
of alternating thoughts”.177 The thistle (carduus) of temptation may be
trampled by a crowd of anxieties, but it returns when the grace of con-
version removes those anxieties from the pathway of the heart.178 Trial
(probatio) follows as well as precedes conversion, a continuing contest
(certamen) that ends only at death.179
On one hand, Christians have reason to hope as sinners have the power
to cleanse sins. Christ’s propitiation of God means that human actions can
count, but it does not guarantee God’s acceptance. Uncertainty haunts
Gregory. Even the just man bows before God’s omnipotence. “No one can
resist [God’s] power” or “check [his] punishments by the merits of his
own virtue”.180 Again, the answer lies in the logical order of God’s Provi-
dence. Citing Job 10:7 (“Since there is no man that can deliver out of your
hand”) Gregory explains the logic and rationality that would be manifest
in God saving humanity. “What is left for you, except to spare, since no
one can resist your power? . . . so let your mercy spare him”, Gregory imag-
ines Job arguing.181 It would be absurd otherwise. Surely, God would not
unjustly (inique) spurn what he has mercifully (benigne) created; and he
who made the world from nothing would never desert unjustly (iniuste)
that which exists.182 Such must be the order of Providence. Gregory’s logic
is impeccable. How could it not be true? But is it?

175 Cf. Mor. 30.16.53 (CCSL 143B:1527); cf. HEz. 2.2.14 (CCSL 142:234); Mor. 24.11.30 (CCSL
143B:1209–10).
176 Mor. 10.10.16 (CCSL 143:549); Mor. 26.45.82 (CCSL 143B:1327–28).
177 Mor. 9.19.29 (CCSL 143:478). “Motus itaque animi dum inter uota et uitia alternant,
nimirum sibi certitudinem exauditionis obnubilant”.
178  Mor. 24.11.30 (CCSL 143B:1209–10).
179 Mor. 24.11.32 (CCSL 143B:1211). The entire section 11:24–34 is relevant.
180 Mor. 9.48.73 (CCSL 143:508): “nemo est qui animaduersionem tuam ex merito suae
uirtutis retineat, eo a se facilius tua pietas exigat ut parcat.”
181 Mor. 9.48.73 (CCSL 143:508): “quid tibi restat nisi parcere, cuius uirtuti nullus ualet
obuiare?”
182 Mor. 26.20.35 (CCSL 143B:1292–93); see also Mor. 9.15.22 (CCSL 143:472) and Mor.
9.48.73 (CCSL 143:508): “quia sub iusto examine dignum non est tuae placationi quod feci,
pensa misericorditer, ne pereat quod fecisti”.
 Chapter Nine

Gregory’s Model of Spiritual Direction

in the Liber Regulae Pastoralis

George E. Demacopoulos

In keeping with the spirit of Brill’s Companion Series, the following

essay introduces the major themes and scholarly discussions related to
Gregory the Great’s approach to the “art” of spiritual direction, which is
best represented in his Liber Regulae Pastoralis (Book of Pastoral Rule),
which was the most copied and influential of his writings in the Middle
Ages.1 Following a cursory summary of the competing ideas about spiri-
tual direction that circulated among Christian authors prior to Gregory’s
pontificate, this essay will examine the context, structure, and content of
the Pastoral Rule. In doing so, I will argue that Gregory’s vision of spiritual
direction was a sophisticated synthesis of multiple (previously compet-
ing) traditions about pastoral care that he generally, although not always,
attempted to put into action during his tenure as bishop of Rome. The
essay concludes with a brief appraisal of the text’s reception in later gen-
erations along with an analysis of the ways in which it inspired subse-
quent ideas about the relationship between leadership, responsibility and
accountability, whether clerical or otherwise.

Pastoral Care in the Post-Constantinian World

With a few notable exceptions, both the criteria for spiritual authority
and the exercise of spiritual leadership in the pre-Constantinian period
were largely uniform from one Christian community to another, and are
reflected in a few surviving texts, often known as “Church orders”—the

1   Over 500 medieval manuscripts (an astonishing number) of the Pastoral Rule survive in
libraries from Moscow to Madrid. This essay draws, in part, from several previous publica-
tions concerning Gregory’s approach to spiritual direction in general and his Pastoral Rule in
particular. Most notably, see George Demacopoulos, Five Models of Spiritual Direction in the
Early Church (Notre Dame, 2007), pp. 127–64; idem, “Introduction” in St. Gregory the Great:
The Book of Pastoral Rule with Introduction and Translation, Popular Patristic Texts Series
(Crestwood, NY, 2007), pp. 9–25.
206 george e. demacopoulos

Didascalia apostolorum offering, perhaps, the best example.2 These texts

located authority in the person of the bishop and prescribed specific
requirements for episcopal election. They also identified several episco-
pal responsibilities, both administrative and pastoral. The legalization of
Christianity in the early 4th century, however, led to a widening of the
difference between what we might distinguish as lay versus ascetic (even-
tually monastic) communities. The divergence in Christian practice, in
turn, led to the development of distinctive patterns of spiritual guidance
designed to accommodate those practices—this was true both in terms of
the qualities that were understood to be necessary for spiritual leadership
and in terms of the actual techniques of spiritual supervision that leaders
employed for the benefit of those in their care.3
Thus, we can observe that by the middle of the 4th century that the
patterns of spiritual direction began to coalesce around the bifurcated
pastoral needs of the “parish” and the monastery. The first focused on
the lay community, was directed by an ordained clergy, and emphasized
doctrinal instruction, the distribution of charity, and the performance
of the sacraments. The second developed in a monastic setting, taking a
more personal and interactive approach through a spiritual father/spiri-
tual disciple model of apprenticeship that was, in many ways, modeled
upon Greco-Roman traditions of philosophical discipleship and training.4
But the 4th century was a period of tremendous change for the Christian
world and by the end of the century, the divide between monastic and
lay patterns of spiritual direction had become integrated in new ways as
professed ascetics began to rise to positions of episcopal authority.
It was precisely during this period of change and uncertainty that a
new genre of Christian literature—the pastoral treatise—emerged to nav-
igate the uneven waters of post-Constantinian spiritual direction. Gregory
Nazianzen, Ambrose of Milan, and John Chrysostom authored substantial
treatises on the goals and techniques of spiritual direction. Their texts
define who should and who should not receive ordination, they identify
the director’s practical responsibilities, and they anticipate many of the

2 See Demacopoulos, Five Models, pp. 4–9 and Claudia Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late
Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition (Berkeley, 2005). The
­exceptions, of course, would stem from those communities that did not recognize the
authority of the episcopate.
3 See Demacopoulos, Five Models, pp. 3–16.
4 For more on the idea of philosophy as a way of life, see the work of Pierre Hadot,
especially a collection of his essays, Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from
Socrates to Foucault, ed. Arnold Davidson, trans. Michael Chase (Oxford, 1995).
 gregory’s model of spiritual direction 207

pastoral challenges of leadership. Although there is a great deal of slip-

page between the terms used for the leader in these texts (i.e. it was not
always explicit whether the director was a bishop, priest, or even a monas-
tic director who was not a member of the clergy), each of their authors
fit the model of an ascetic-bishop, and each sought to resolve the tension
between their ascetic idealism and the realities of pastoral ministry.5 It is
quite likely, in fact, that the genre of pastoral literature was born from a
desire to reconcile that tension.
Unlike previous reflections about pastoral responsibility, the pastoral
treatise provided its authors with the opportunity to explore in detail
both the criteria for authority and the techniques of spiritual leadership.
In his On the Priesthood, for example, John Chrysostom identified ascetic
experience as a prerequisite for leadership, but he also asserted that a suc-
cessful ministry was not guaranteed by monastic training alone. Likewise,
Gregory Nazianzen expressed his deepest uncertainties about his ability
to balance care for his flock with his own private meditation.6
It is with these 4th-century treatises that we find the earliest attempts
to combine the pastoral strategies of the monastic and lay communities.
Ambrose, for example, understood the priest’s duties to include doctri-
nal instruction, the celebration of the sacraments, and the supervision
of female ascetics. He also identified the need to mentor inexperienced
clerics. Referring to the ideal relationship of Joshua and Moses, Ambrose
affirmed that spiritual authority could be transferred from a spiritual
leader to his disciple.7 Though not fully developed, Ambrose’s description
of the experienced adviser is similar to the spiritual father/spiritual dis-
ciple pattern of direction that was developing in the ascetic communities
of Egypt and elsewhere.
The bridge between the ascetic and lay patterns is even more explicit
in Gregory Nazianzen’s second oration, often known as On his Flight to
Pontus. Here, he concluded that the ideal candidate for the priesthood
was a man who had the benefits of wealth and education (in antiquity,
only the wealthy received an education) but who had abandoned the
pleasures of the aristocratic life and adopted the life of abstemiousness

5 For more on the emergence of the monk-bishop or ascetic-bishop in an Eastern Chris-

tian context, see Andrea Sterk, Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk
Bishop in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 2004).
6 For more on Nazianzen’s ideas, see Demacopoulos, Five Models, pp. 51–81.
7 Ambrose, On the Offices 1.43, 2.20; ed. Maurice Testard, De officiis, CCSL 15 (Turnholt,
1957), pp. 78–79, and 132–34.
208 george e. demacopoulos

and contemplation (i.e. the life of the monk).8 Nazianzen went on to

describe the priest’s responsibilities as a combination of the active life
of pastoral administration and the prayerful life of the remote ascetic. It
was Nazianzen who first proposed a combination of action and contem-
plation, and this grouping became the model for priestly service for the
Byzantine Church.
Although he did not author a pastoral treatise in the mould of Nazian-
zen or Ambrose, John Cassian perhaps did as much as anyone to spread
the pastoral strategies of Eastern ascetic communities to the Latin West
and his corpus testifies to the continued development of an ascetic pas-
toral tradition well into the 5th century. Two of Cassian’s surviving trea-
tises (Conferences and Institutes) offer detailed (if idealized) accounts of
Eastern Christian ascetic practice and the techniques by which spiritual
authorities would impart instruction to their disciples. The heroes of Cas-
sian’s texts were not bishops or even priests but holy ascetics who pos-
sessed a range of spiritual gifts, the most important being discernment
(discretio).9 Drawing from a tradition popularized in the literature of the
Egyptian desert, Cassian described spiritual discernment as a mystical
quality that enabled an elder to know the difference between an angel
and demon or to acquire spiritual enlightenment for his own sake. In the
context of spiritual direction, however, spiritual discernment was the key
supernatural gift that enabled an elder to offer effective guidance to those
in his care. Thus, for Cassian, it functioned as a pastoral, if mystical, qual-
ity that was bestowed by God upon all those who legitimately exercised a
position of authority over disciples. And, in a key move that very much set
the stage for Gregory the Great, Cassian held that it was the responsibility
of these experienced monks to suspend their own spiritual enlightenment
for the sake of instructing novice disciples.10
Although Cassian’s texts reflect a monastic milieu and very much ideal-
ize a specific form of monastic training, it is important to note that many
of the original recipients of his texts were bishops, eventual bishops, or
the abbots of the most prestigious monastic communities in Gaul that, in
time, provided candidates for the episcopate throughout the Gallic Church
during the 5th and 6th centuries.11 Eventually, the increasing number of

   8 See George Demacopoulos, “Leadership in the Post-Constantinian Church According

to Gregory Nazianzen”, Louvain Studies 30 (2005), 223–39.
   9 See Demacopoulos, Five Models, pp. 111–14.
10 See Demacopoulos, Five Models, pp. 121–23.
11   See Demacopoulos, Five Models, pp. 108–09.
 gregory’s model of spiritual direction 209

monks who entered the episcopate in Gaul and elsewhere forced a sea-
change in the practice of spiritual direction in the lay Church, because,
again in time, pastoral care in the broader Church became more ascetic.
Many of the tenets of the lay model persisted (e.g. the authority of the
clergy, the emphasis on preaching, and a concern for administrative com-
petence), but even those considerations evolved to reflect ascetic ideals.
As we will see, Gregory the Great understood pastoral authority to belong
to the clergy but suggested that ascetic experience was the most impor-
tant criterion for a priestly ministry.
As other essays in this volume have well demonstrated, Gregory came
to St. Peter’s chair with a background that perfectly fit the kind of experi-
ence and training that Gregory Nazianzen had identified two centuries
earlier as being the primary criteria for spiritual authority. Not only did
Pope Gregory have the benefit of education and good breeding, but he
had committed years of his life to ascetic discipline and spiritual con-
templation. Added to those qualities, of course, Gregory also boasted a
wealth of experience in public administration and estate management.
As we will see, Pope Gregory appropriated and expanded upon Gregory
Nazianzen’s thesis that the ideal spiritual leader was the one who, pos-
sessing the appropriate qualities, learned to balance his own life of con-
templation with the active life of service.

The Context and Audience of Gregory’s Pastoral Rule

Soon after his election in September of 590, Gregory sent a copy of the
Pastoral Rule to John, archbishop of Ravenna. A few years later, he sent
a copy to a friend he had met in Constantinople, Leander, then bishop
of Seville.12 In the original letter to John, which accompanied the trea-
tise, Gregory hints that he had opposed his own election to the episco-
pate on the grounds that he was unworthy of office.13 He has authored
the Pastoral Rule, he tells John, so that those who are unprepared and
inexperienced might learn what is expected of their conduct and activity.
Most of all, Gregory writes, the inexperienced and ambitious must learn
of the weight of responsibility that accompanies spiritual leadership and,
in turn, must realize the extent to which their own salvation has been put
in jeopardy by assuming pastoral care. In some sense, we might say that

12 Gregory, Reg. 5.53 (CCSL 140:348).

13 Gregory, RP, prol. (SC 381:124–26).
210 george e. demacopoulos

Gregory authored the Pastoral Rule as a kind of rhetorical justification for

his own election.
By the late 6th century, it had become commonplace for Christian lead-
ers to protest their worthiness and to assert, if only formulaically, that they
did not desire a position of leadership. Gregory of Tours records a sympa-
thetic and legendary account in which he says that Pope Gregory desired
to avoid election so strongly that he had hidden himself outside of Rome.14
The topos of the leader who shuns leadership, of course, has both Christian
and Greco-Roman precedents. On the Christian side, the refusal to pursue
the prestige or dignity of leadership corresponded with the Christian virtue
of humility and became a hallmark of Christian writing by the 4th century;
on the Greco-Roman side, the tradition went back to Plato, whose premise of
the philosopher king asserted that no one who desired authority could be
trusted with authority—only the one who had no interest in leadership
could be trusted with the power of leadership because only that person
would govern for the good rather than govern with self-interest.
As formulaic as Gregory’s protestations may have been, his uneasiness
with the responsibility of office in the opening years of his pontificate
appears genuine, even if his rhetoric of humility may also have provided
Gregory with certain political advantages.15 Writing to his former associ-
ates in Constantinople, he likened the Church of Rome to an “old and
leaky ship” cast about by the waves of the world.16 Having been placed at
the helm of this ship, he has been “made a slave to worldly cares while
wearing the disguise of a bishop.”17 And he considers his life “ruined” by
the responsibility of public service.18 Upon learning that one of his epis-
copal friends had supported his election, he lamented that the burden his
friend has placed upon him was too great to bear, that it was breaking
his back, and that it would be only a matter of time before he would be
“cast to the depths of this great tempest.”19 The ship of the world, it would

14 Gregory of Tours, HF 10.1 (MGH SSRM 1,1,2, p. 481).

15 On the significance of the rhetoric of humility as exercise and defense of authority, see
Conrad Leyser, Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great (Oxford, 2000).
16 Reg. 1.4 (CCSL 140:4): “Sed quia uetustam nauim uehementurque confractam indig-
nus ego infirmusque suscepi, undique enim fluctus intrant et cotidiana ac ualida tem-
pestate quassatae putridae naufragium tabulae sonant . . .”
17 Reg. 1.5 (CCSL 140:5): “Miror autem quod in me collatas dudum contenentias uestras
ex hac moderna pastoralis officii continentia distraxistis, in qua sub colore episcopatus ad
saeculum sum reductus, in qua tantis terrae curis inseruio . . .”
18 Reg. 1.6 (CCSL 140:7).
19   Reg. 1.7 (CCSL 140:9): “Multis enim causarum fluctibus quatior et tumultuosae uitae
tempestatibus affligor, ita ut recte dicam: Veni in altitudinem maris et tempestas demersit
me (Ps. 68:3).”
 gregory’s model of spiritual direction 211

seem, was falling apart, and, as some kind of cosmic joke, God was requir-
ing Gregory to be the last one to man the rudder.20
Although Gregory first distributed the book to a fellow bishop (and one
well-placed at that), there is little reason to hold, as scholars once did, that
he envisioned the audience of the Pastoral Rule to be restricted to the
episcopate. On this count, Gregory’s terminology for the spiritual director
is particularly relevant. He employs a variety of terms to refer to the prac-
titioner of spiritual leadership, such as sacerdos, rector, praedicator, and
pastor.21 Intriguingly, episcopus is not one of them. Nevertheless, several
20th-century commentators presumed that Gregory was writing solely
about the episcopate.22 Such a position not only fails to account for the
pontiff’s terminology, it under-appreciates the extent to which Gregory
advanced the very same ideas about spiritual leadership in other trea-
tises and letters that were intended primarily for ascetic audiences. This
is particularly true of the Moralia, which in many ways is an extended
excursus on the qualities and techniques of spiritual leadership and which
was first delivered to Gregory’s monastic community in Constantinople.
Among other things, Gregory first developed the long list of personality
traits set in opposition to one another, which is the subject of Part III of
the Pastoral Rule, during his preparation of the Moralia.23

The Structure and Argument of the Pastoral Rule

The Pastoral Rule is comprised of four books and runs to about 180 pages
in modern translations.24 Part I emphasizes who should and who should
not take on the responsibility of spiritual leadership. Part II describes
many of the pastor’s responsibilities and the need for the pastor to retain

20 Peter Iver Kaufman, Church, Book, and Bishop. Conflict and Authority in Early Latin
Christianity (Boulder, CO, 1996), pp. 120–21.
21   Sacerdos is used 19 times, rector 43 times, praedicator 21 times, and pastor 19 times.
22 See, especially, Wilhelm Gessel, “Reform am Haupt: Die Pastoralregel Gregors des
Grossen und die Bestzung von Bischofsstühlen,” in Papsttum und Kirchenreform: Histo-
rische Beiträge. Festchrift für Georg Schwaiger zum 65. Geburtstag, eds Manfred Weitlauff
and Karl Hausberger (St Ottilien, 1990), pp. 17–36. See also Robert Markus, “Gregory the
Great’s ‘rector’ and his Genesis,” in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al. (Paris,
1986), pp. 137–45.
23 In general, it is impossible to know what elements of the Moralia were original
to Constantinople and what was added through the editorial process after Gregory had
become pope.
24 In addition to my own translation of the text, published in St. Vladimir’s Popular
Patristic Texts Series, see Henry Davis (trans.), Pastoral Care, Ancient Christian Writers 12
(Westminister, 1959).
212 george e. demacopoulos

humility in light of his position of privilege. Part III, the longest section
and most original aspect of the text, introduces 36 pairs of personal-
ity traits set in opposition to one another (e.g. old and young, rich and
poor, male and female); for each pairing, Gregory prescribes a regimen
to advance the individual’s spiritual standing and to help them overcome
any challenges that might accompany these conditions. The final section,
the shortest in the book, offers a final exhortation toward humility, and
it also reminds the reader that the spiritual director will need to balance
a host of considerations when speaking in public or private consultation.
While speaking in public, the pastor will need to realize that his audience
will consist of persons requiring very different things; whereas when he
speaks privately the pastor will need to understand that each individual
is a microcosm of the whole because each individual possesses competing
traits and needs that must be balanced against one another. In short, the
spiritual director must employ discernment in everything he does and in
everything he says.
At the outset of Part I, Gregory notes that “no one presumes to teach
an art that he has not first mastered through study. How foolish it is
therefore for the inexperienced to assume pastoral authority when the
care of souls is the art of arts.”25 Perhaps what is most significant as we
consider Gregory’s approach is that the criteria he reckons to qualify as
“experience” are all filtered through an ascetic register. In other words,
the spiritual director was above all other things an experienced ascetic.
We see this throughout the text, but especially in Part I where both the
statements about who is qualified and the statements about who is not
qualified reflect ascetic ideals. One of his longer inventories proclaims:26
Therefore, [the pastor] should be an example of good living, someone who is
already dead to the passions and therefore living a spiritual life, who disre-
gards worldly prosperity, who does not fear adversity, who seeks the interior
life only; someone who has a healthy balance between a body that is not

25 RP 1.1 (SC 381:127): “Nulla ars doceri praesumitur, nisi intenta prius meditatione
discatur. Ab imperitis ergo pastorale magisterium qua temeritate suscipitur, quando ars
est artium regimen animarum.” All translations of the RP are taken from Demacopoulos
(trans.), St. Gregory the Great: The Book of Pastoral Rule (Crestwood, NY, 2008). The phrase
“art of arts” is a deferential acknowledgement of Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration 2.
26 RP 1.10 (SC 381:160–62). “Ille igitur, ille modis omnibus debet ad exemplum uiuendi
pertrahi, qui cunctis carnis passionibus moriens iam spiritaliter uiuit, qui prospera mundi
postposuit, qui nulla aduersa pertimescit, qui sola interna desiderat. Cuius intentioni bene
congruens, nec omnino per imbecillitatem corpus, nec ualde per contumeliam repugnat
spiritus. Qui ad aliena cupienda non ducitur, sed propria largitur. Qui per pietatis uiscera
citius ad ignoscendum flectitur, sed numquam plus quam deceat ignoscens . . .”
 gregory’s model of spiritual direction 213

always weak nor a spirit opposed by discord; someone who does not covet
the possessions of others but gives freely of his own; someone who through
compassion is quickly moved to pardon, yet never pardons excessively.
Many of these attributes, of course, convey ascetic ideals as reflected in
the works of Cassian, Benedict, or the writings of the Christian East. Note,
for example, the use of the language of renunciation in contrasting terms
such as “passions” versus “spiritual living”, or “body” versus “spirit”, in his
description of the consummate leader.
In a similar vein, Gregory acknowledges the obstacles that will prevent
one from offering legitimate and effective leadership. For example, he
extols the importance of intercession by excluding from office those who
lack the capacity to engage in it:27
How can anyone seize upon the post of intercession with God for the people,
who does not know himself to be in his grace through the merit of his own
life? And how can he ask for pardon for others while not knowing whether
he is himself reconciled to God?
Additional shortcomings further prohibit one from spiritual leadership,
including pride, vainglory, greed, lust, and pursuit of prestige.28 In short,
it is precisely those vices that had been identified in previous generations
by ascetic authors that pose for Gregory the greatest obstacles to spiritual
leadership.
Illuminating is Gregory’s turn to Leviticus 21.17–18 (a list of physical
impediments to the Jewish priesthood). Utilizing a hermeneutic of ascetic

27 RP 1.10 (SC 381:162). “Si ergo homo apud hominem de quo minime praesumit fieri
intercessor erubescit, qua mente apud Deum intercessionis locum pro populo arripit, qui
familiarem se eius gratiae esse per uitae meritum nescit? Aut ab eo quomodo aliis ueniam
postulat, qui utrum sibi sit placatus ignorat?”
28 RP 1.11 (SC 381:166–72). See, for example, on pride: “Albuginem uero habet in oculo,
qui ueritatis lucem uidere non sinitur, quia arrogantia sapientiae seu iustitiae caecatur. . . . 
Si autem candorem sibi iustitiae seu sapientiae tribuit, a luce se supernae cognitionis
excludit; et eo claritatem ueri luminis nequaquam penetrat, quo se apud se per arrogan-
tiam exaltat” (SC 381:168–70). On vainglory: “Sed sunt nonnulli qui dum aestimari hebetes
nolunt, saepe se in quibusdam inquisitionibus plus quam necesse est exercentes, ex nimia
subtilitate falluntur” (SC 381:166). On greed: “Impetiginem quoque habet in corpore, quis-
quis auaritia uastatur in mente, quae si in paruis non compescitur, nimirum sine mensura
dilatatur. . . .  Sed decor membrorum perditur, quia aliarum quoque uirtutum per hanc
pulchritudo deprauatur; et quasi totum corpus exasperat, quia per uniuersa uitia animum
suplantat” (SC 381:170). On lust: “Lippus uero est, cuius quidem ingenium ad cognitionem
ueritatis emicat, sed tamen hoc carnalia opera obscurant. . . .  Et sunt nonnulli quorum
sensum carnalis uitae operatio sauciat, qui uidere recta subtiliter per ingenium poterant,
sed usu prauorum actuum caligant. Lippus itaque est, cuius sensum natura exacuit; sed
conversationis prauitas confundit” (SC 381:168).
214 george e. demacopoulos

purity, Gregory restricts the Christian priesthood to experienced ­ascetics.

For example, he compares a blind man to “one who is ignorant of the
light of celestial contemplation.”29 Thus a blind man is allegorized to be
unfit for spiritual leadership because he is “oppressed by the darkness
of the present life . . . and does not see where to go himself.”30 A second
example, a small nose, symbolizes a person who lacks spiritual discern-
ment, ­discretio: “Just as the nose discerns the difference between a sweet
smell and stench, [a successful pastor] applies discernment to distin-
guish between sin and virtue.”31 Indeed, Gregory insists that the two most
important criteria for spiritual authority are the possession of discretio
and contemplatio. By the 6th century, the two had long been synonymous
with the ascetic endeavour.32
Part of Gregory’s challenge, however, was that he faced resistance to his
model on two fronts. In Rome, the clerical establishment was opposed to
Gregory’s ascetic-minded reforms—Gregory, of course, was the first monk
to become pope. But the pontiff also struggled to convince ascetics that
they should abandon the monastery and enter the service of the Church
more broadly. To address the latter concern, Gregory established two
important precedents: (1) he used the Pastoral Rule as a means to recruit
ascetics to office and, (2) he recalibrated the lay/ascetic binary according
to a three-tiered hierarchy in which the spiritual director or priest was
superior to both the lay person and the individual ascetic.
Concerning the former, we find Gregory using the Pastoral Rule to
rebuke those qualified ascetics who resist the role of supervision. Affirm-
ing their qualifications, he notes:33
[F]or there are several who possess incredible virtues and who are exalted
by great talents for training others; men who are spotless in the pursuit of
chastity, stout in the vigour of fasting, satiated in the feasts of doctrine,
humble in the longsuffering of patience, erect in the fortitude of authority,
tender in the grace of kindness, and strict in the severity of judgment.

29 RP 1.11 (SC 381:164): “Caecus quippe est, qui supernae contemplationis lumen
ignorat . . .”
30 RP 1.11 (SC 381:164): “. . . qui praesentis uitae tenebris pressus, . . . quo gressus operis
porrigat nescit.”
31 RP 1.11 (SC 381:166): “Naso quippe odores foetoresque discernimus. Recte ergo per
nasum discretio exprimitur, per quam uirtutes eligimus, delicta reprobamus.”
32 See Demacopoulos, Five Models, p. 132.
33 RP 1.5 (SC 381:144): “Nam sunt nonnulli, qui eximia uirtutum dona percipiunt, et pro
excitatione ceterorum magnis muneribus exaltantur, qui studio castitatis mundi, abstinen-
tiae robore ualidi, doctrinae dapibus referti, patientiae longanimitate humiles, auctoritatis
fortitudine erecti, pietatis gratia benigni, iustitiae seueritate destricti sunt.”
 gregory’s model of spiritual direction 215

And, yet, these men refuse to accept responsibility for others:34

If they refuse to accept a position of spiritual leadership when they are
called, they forfeit the majority of their gifts—gifts that they have received
not for themselves only but also for others. When these men contemplate
their own spiritual advantages and do not consider anyone else, they lose
these goods because they desire to keep them for themselves.
By using the Pastoral Rule to recruit would-be priests into active ministry,
Gregory effectively broke with the tradition of Ambrose, Nazianzen, and
John Chrysostom who had used their own pastoral treatises to discourage
ordination.35
But Gregory’s position was more than a simple request that ascetics
accept responsibility—his entire ascetic theology was one in which he
placed the summit of spiritual and ascetic achievement in the very act
of humbling oneself for the service of others. This, more than anything
else, differentiates Gregory’s ascetic theology from that of his predeces-
sors, whether John Cassian (whose writings Gregory knew well) or others.
For Cassian and the ascetic writers of the Christian East, the summit of
the ascetic life was described as a mystical encounter with God, which
was brought on by virtue and stillness. For Gregory, however, the summit
was achieved only by the ascetic who had experienced that encounter but
willingly suspended it for the service of others. In other words, for Gregory,
the apex of the spiritual life was to be found in personal sacrifice offered
for others. Obviously, that position sits well within a pastoral framework
and helps to explain the mutual dependency between Gregory’s ascetic
theology and his pastoral theology.36
Given Gregory’s explicit desire to restrict spiritual leadership to those
with sufficient ascetic credentials, it should not surprise us that Gregory
also described spiritual supervision in ways that corresponded to the spir-
itual father/spiritual disciple model of mentorship that grew out of the
ascetic tradition. Like Gregory Nazianzen, Pope Gregory understood suc-
cessful pastoral leadership to require both renunciation and service. As a

34 Ibid. “Qui nimirum culmen regiminum si uocati suscipere rennuunt, ipsa sibi ple-
rumque dona adimunt, quae non pro se tantummodo, sed etiam pro aliis acceperunt.
Cumque sua et non aliorum lucra cogitant, ipsis se, quae priuata habere appetunt, bonis
priuant.”
35 See Demacopoulos, Five Models, p. 133.
36 The relationship between Gregory’s ascetic theology and his pastoral theology is
particularly well expressed in his Dialogues and will be one of the primary subjects of my
forthcoming monograph on Gregory’s theology.
216 george e. demacopoulos

consequence, his ideal spiritual director was one who could balance the
contemplatio of the isolated ascetic and the actio of the well-trained pub-
lic administrator. Gregory’s “active contemplative” was not only a more
effective leader but even a better Christian than either the recluse or the
administrator. Indeed, in Part II of the Pastoral Rule, Gregory describes a
healthy tension between the desires for action and contemplation as an
actual source for spiritual well-being. The director who desires one and
not the other is unbalanced and, therefore, cannot adequately lead others
to God.37
But Gregory’s model for direction incorporated the spiritual father/
spiritual disciple tradition in other ways as well. Perhaps most impor-
tantly, he incorporated the idea that a true spiritual director could discern
the unique needs of individual disciples and then set them on a path to
spiritual well-being through a combination of ritualized and introspective
techniques. Speaking of the responsibility of the spiritual advisor to inves-
tigate the individual needs of his disciples, Gregory writes:38
[Certain vices], however, lie hidden and require keen investigation so that
their symptoms may be brought to light. The rector must know these great
vices by their small signs, and he must investigate the hidden thoughts of
his subordinates and then intervene with the proper rebuke before it is
too late.
Through discernment, the rector distinguishes between virtue and vice
that is disguised as virtue.39 Drawing from Cassian, Benedict, and others,
Gregory recommends that the spiritual director set a path for recovery
according to the specific situation and strength of the disciple. And, when
needed, the remedy should allow for a certain degree of flexibility in order
that the long-term benefit can be maximized.
By applying the concept of condescensio, the rector or pastor is instructed
to tolerate certain sins while rooting out a more serious malady. Then,

37 RP 2.7 (SC 381:218–30).

38 RP 2.10 (SC 381:240): “Nonnulla autem sunt subtiliter occulta perscrutanda, ut quibus-
dam signis erumpentibus, rector in subditorum mente omne quod clausum latet, inueniat,
et interueniente correptionis articulo, ex minimis maiora cognoscat.”
39 RP 2.9 (SC 382:236): “Scire etiam rector debet quod plerumque uitia uirtutes se esse
mentiuntur. Nam saepe sub parsimoniae nomine se tenacia palliat, contraque se effusio
sub appellatione largitatis occultat. Saepe inordinata remissio pietas creditur, et effrenata
ira spiritalis zeli uirtus aestimatur.” “The rector ought to know that there are many vices
that appear as virtues. For example, greed disguises itself as frugality, and wastefulness is
ascribed to generosity. Often laziness is accounted loving kindness and wrath appears to
be spiritual zeal.”
 gregory’s model of spiritual direction 217

later, he should return to other spiritual illnesses and treat them as well:
“When the preacher does this, he does not aggravate the overall illness
but rescues the life of the one infected, thus enabling him to find a more
fitting time to administer the [spiritual] medicine for the lesser fault as
well.”40 The comparisons to medical physicians and treatment are fre-
quent and offer Gregory a large body of practical examples.
In order to facilitate this process as much as possible, Gregory dedi-
cates the longest section in the treatise, Part III, to an exhaustive list of
personality profiles set in opposition to one another. He distinguishes
between men and women, rich and poor, young and old, among others,
indicating the spiritual advantages and disadvantages of every condition.
Nazianzen had suggested something similar in his Oration 2, but Pope
Gregory’s discussion displays a much richer and more exhaustive analysis.
He notes that even honorable traits like patience or generosity are not
without their own pitfalls—for example, is a patient man truly patient or
does he harbour resentment? Moreover, Pope Gregory notes that there
are significant differences within the same condition that are not imme-
diately obvious—such as whether chastity is lifelong or recent, or whether
a person who does not commit good works is unwilling to try them or
unable to complete them. In short, the pontiff attempts to bring a degree
of spiritual supervision to the lay Church that had previously existed only
in the spiritual father/spiritual disciple setting of the monastic world. As
a consequence, he established an ideal for pastoral supervision that had
heretofore never been pursued in the wider Church.

Putting Theory into Practice

As other essays in this volume have demonstrated, Gregory’s corpus

is one of the largest from the ancient world to survive to the present
day—his correspondence, especially, is unprecedented in its size. As a
consequence, we have a great deal of material by which we can assess the
extent to which Gregory put the strategies of the Pastoral Rule into prac-
tice. While this essay is not the proper setting to explore all of Gregory’s
pastoral initiatives in his fourteen-year tenure as bishop, we will examine
two relevant arenas in which Gregory pursued policies that were ­consistent

40 RP 3.38 (SC 382:526): “Quod cum agit, non morbum exaggerat, sed uulnerati sui,
cui medicamentum adhibet, uitam seruat, ut exquirendae salutis congruum tempus
inueniat.”
218 george e. demacopoulos

with ideas and ideals expressed in the Pastoral Rule: (1) his promotion of
ascetics to positions of authority, and (2) his willingness to take a gradual
and flexible approach to spiritual growth.
At the conclusion of most papal biographies in the Liber Pontificalis
there is an indication of how many clerics were raised to the episcopate or
priesthood during the tenure of a particular pontiff. In most cases, we know
very little about who these men were, which sees they governed, or why
they were selected. By comparison, through Gregory’s correspondence,
we know a great deal about the bishops that were elected in Italy, Sicily,
and the Balkans during Gregory’s tenure, and we also know why Gregory
either supported them or opposed them. Indeed, Gregory was very active
in his promotion of certain candidates in regions traditionally beyond
the reach of Roman jurisdiction. For Gregory’s 9th-century biographers,
his promotion of various ascetic-minded and “Roman” candidates was an
important testimony to the pontiff’s ability to govern and regulate the
Church in a way that corresponded to the specific concerns of 9th-­century
papal ideology.41 Many of Gregory’s appointees, in fact, were identified
by John and/or Paul the deacon as having been members of Gregory’s
monastery in Rome. Several of Gregory’s 20th-century biographers simply
took these 9th-century testimonies as fact and presumed that there was
an effective “Gregorianization” of the Italian and, especially, the Sicilian
episcopate during his tenure.42 While it is very difficult to demonstrate
with any certainty that the majority of these candidates were “Roman,”
it is far easier to show that Gregory cared a great deal about the ascetic
credentials of potential bishops.43 This is true both in those cases where
he backed specific individuals that he knew personally and in those cases
where he was simply offering Roman approval of a local deliberation.
For example, in 595, Gregory intervened in the election of the arch-
bishop of Ravenna. The imperial exarch at Ravenna, a man at odds with
Gregory on so many matters, had backed Donatus. Gregory, in turn, backed
and ultimately ensured the election of Marinianus who had been a pro-
tégé of Gregory’s in Rome. Indeed, in his narration of the election after the
fact, Gregory boasted that Marinianus was “our venerable brother . . . who

41   John the Deacon, Sancti Gregorii papae vita (PL 75:63–242).

42 See, especially, Jeffrey Richards, Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages
­(London, 1979), p. 352. See also John Martyn’s notes sprinkled throughout his translation
of Gregory’s letters (3 vols).
43 See George Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter. Apostolic Discourse and Papal
Authority in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia, 2013), pp. 134–62.
 gregory’s model of spiritual direction 219

was with [me] for a long time in the monastery.”44 Although Marinianus
had himself refused the election, Gregory was able to “persuade” him
and proclaimed his total confidence that Marinianus would be able to
simultaneously “maintain the internal life” and “administer his external
responsibilities.”45
It was one thing for Gregory to interfere in the see of Ravenna—Marin-
ianus’ predecessor had been a Roman cleric prior to his election—it was
quite another to get involved in the see of Milan, which had traditionally
enjoyed a privileged position in northern Italy.46 The Roman usurpation
of Milanese autonomy in the late 6th century need not concern us apart
from the simple recognition that the Lombard disruption of northern
Italy, combined with the continuation of the Three Chapters Schism, pro-
vided the Roman see with an opportunity to assert itself in the Milanese
Church.47 The election of Constantius in 593 was the first time in which
Rome played a pivotal role in a Milanese election. Aware that his involve-
ment was unprecedented, Gregory was more circumspect in this election
than he was in regions where the Roman see had been accustomed to
asserting its influence. Nevertheless, he was delighted to secure the elec-
tion of Constantius, a cleric he had known in Constantinople and who we
have every reason to believe shared the pontiff’s ascetic inclinations.48
It is in Sicily, however, where we see most clearly the priorities govern-
ing Gregory’s involvement in the selection of other bishops. Of the nine
episcopal elections that occurred in Sicily during Gregory’s pontificate,
there were only two in which Gregory openly interfered, and in both
cases, the episcopal see in question was Syracuse, the senior of the two

44 Gregory, Reg. 5.51 (CCSL 140:345): “. . . tandem uenerabilem fratrem Marinianum

presbyterum, quem diu mecum didicere in monasterio conuersatum . . .”
45 Gregory, Reg. 5.51 (CCSL 140:346): “Ego autem magnam confidentiam habe quia
omnipotens Deus, qui eum in suo est dignatus grege praeponere, et ad interiora illum
curanda exacuit et ad exteriora gerenda gratiae suae pietate confortat.”
46 In fact, prior to the election of John in Ravenna, that see had been administered by
the see of Milan. More than anything, the change in circumstance was precipitated by the
Lombard disruption.
47 In short, the survival of the Milanese Church depended upon financial assistance
from its estates in southern Italy, but military pressures put Milan in a client relationship
to Rome, which demanded in exchange for its assistance the acceptance of the Roman
position on the Three Chapters question. When the bishops of Milan were forced to go
into exile in Genoa due to the Lombard presence in northern Italy, Rome pressured Milan
to accept the condemnation of the Three Chapters and, with time, was able to insert itself
into episcopal elections. See Markus, Gregory the Great and His World, pp. 133–37.
48 See Demacopoulos, Five Models, pp. 148–49.
220 george e. demacopoulos

archdioceses of the island.49 The first appointment went to Maximian,

who had been abbot of Gregory’s monastery in Rome, who had accompa-
nied him to Constantinople in the 580s, and who was the subject of one
of the miraculous stories of the Dialogues.50 Clearly, this man fit Gregory’s
model of a spiritual leader and upon his arrival in Syracuse, the pontiff
made him the senior rector of the papal estates in Sicily. But the election
of Maximian’s successor, John, in 595, brings into question the notion that
Gregory always appointed Roman clerics. While it is true that Maximian
had been a member of the Roman clergy, John was a member of the Sicil-
ian clergy. He possessed the ascetic credentials and administrative com-
petence that Gregory required and it does not at all appear to have been
a problem that he was not a Roman cleric, even for a see as prominent as
that of Syracuse.51
Gregory’s willingness to advance local clerics is revealing, and it defies
20th-century scholarly narratives of Gregory’s activity.52 Of the seven
other cases of Sicilian elections that occurred during the pontiff’s tenure
(Lipari, Triocala, Tyndari, Messina, Lilybaeum, Malta, and Palermo), the
surviving contemporary evidence reveals nothing about the elections in
four of them (Lipari, Triocala, Messina, and Tyndari), apart from the fact
that Benenatus, the bishop of Tyndari, had been a priest in the diocese
prior to his election—thus, he too was likely a native Sicilian.53 In the
final three cases (the sees of Lilybaeum, Malta, and Palermo), we learn
that Gregory instructed his agents to encourage the clergy and people
to select a candidate from among the local clergy.54 As long as the local
populations never advanced a candidate that Gregory knew to lack ascetic

49 See Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter, pp. 142–46.

50 Cf. Dialogues 3.36. The story is repeated in HEv. 34. See Demacopoulos, Five Models,
p. 226 n. 159.
51   Gregory, Reg. 5.54 and 6.18 (CCSL 140:349, 388). The only thing that we know for
certain about John is that he was serving in the see of Catania, which, without other evi-
dence, suggests that he was a native Sicilian. Given the fact that Catania is located on
the eastern shore of the island, which had the largest Greek population, John’s principal
language and liturgical tradition would likely have been Greek. See Demacopoulos, The
Invention of Peter, pp. 143–46.
52 For more on Richards’ (Popes and the Papacy) and Martyn’s (Letters) ideas concern-
ing Gregory’s activity in Sicily, see Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter, pp. 145–46.
53 This is evinced by a comparison of Reg. 3.59 and Reg. 9.181.
54 For example, when Gregory wrote to his rector Cyprian concerning the vacancy in
the see of Lilybaeum, he did not advocate for any candidate—the eventual bishop, Decius,
was a member of local clergy. See Gregory, Reg. 5.23 and 6.13 (CCSL 140:290, 382).
 gregory’s model of spiritual direction 221

credentials, he was perfectly willing to accept their choice and refrained

from promoting his own candidate.55
As an important corollary to the selection of bishops, Gregory’s cor-
respondence also offers ample evidence of the pontiff’s scrutiny of exist-
ing bishops. Indeed, Sicily offers several examples of Gregory’s scrutiny
of subordinate bishops who lacked the precepts of spiritual leadership
outlined in the Pastoral Rule. During Gregory’s tenure, his agents brought
six Sicilian bishops to trial for alleged crimes.56 In nearly every case, the
bishops stood accused of moral crimes, which in Gregory’s theological
imagination, were akin to a lack of ascetic discipline. Although only three
of these men were ultimately condemned, each case demonstrates Greg-
ory’s willingness to investigate the conduct of regional bishops who were
accused of impropriety by their local communities.57
Turning our attention now to Gregory’s own exercise of spiritual leader-
ship, we find ample evidence of the pontiff employing a gradual or flexible
approach to spiritual supervision as outlined in his Pastoral Rule. This is
true both with respect to his personal interactions with individual corre-
spondents and with respect to his broader plan of spreading Christianity
among Germanic and Jewish populations. As we noted in the discussion
of the Pastoral Rule, Gregory understood the spiritual advancement of an
individual to require a specific long-term plan. When an aristocratic cor-
respondent returned to lay life after a brief stint as a monk, Gregory cau-
tiously criticized the decision but remained in correspondence with him
for many years so that he could keep apprised of his spiritual develop-
ment and offer advice as needed.58
The correspondence between Gregory and Augustine of Canterbury,
however, offers the most revealing insight into Gregory’s implementation
of the spiritual father/spiritual disciple model for supervision. Gregory had
selected Augustine from among his monks in Rome to lead the mission
to Kent. As the mission progressed, Gregory boasted to his episcopal col-
leagues that thousands of converts to Christianity in England were com-
ing to the faith through the miracles attributed to Augustine. But in his
correspondence with Augustine, Gregory restrained his excitement and

55 Interestingly, the candidate selected by the people of Malta in 598 was the same
Trajan that Gregory had rejected for the see of Syracuse in 595. It is worth noting that even
in this case, Gregory did not do anything to oppose the will of the local population. See
Gregory, Reg. 9.25 and 10.1 (CCSL 140A:585–86, 825–27).
56 See Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter, pp. 141–42.
57 See Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter, pp. 141–42.
58 See Gregory, Reg. 1.33, 6.42 and 11.18 (CCSL 140/140A:394–1, 414–15, 887–88).
222 george e. demacopoulos

even cautioned his disciple that success could easily lead to pride and, as
a consequence, could undo the good already achieved.59
But Augustine was now a spiritual director in his own right and, as such,
was faced with a series of pastoral decisions regarding the recently con-
verted Angli. Seeking guidance from his own director, Augustine wrote to
Gregory with a series of questions regarding the extent to which he should
bend the rules in pursuit of a greater pastoral good. Gregory’s response to
Augustine, often known as the Responsa, offers the single best example of
Gregory’s pastoral philosophy put into practice.60 For example, Gregory
permitted the marriage of second cousins and reduced the impediments
to the reception of the Eucharist. In doing so, he explained the pastoral
rationale of condescensio:61
At this time, indeed, the holy Church corrects some things through fer-
vour, tolerates some things through clemency, suppresses some things with
consideration and at the same time endures the same things, so that it
often happens that she might subdue what is withstood by enduring and
suppressing.
The best example, of course, of Gregory’s willingness to pursue a policy of
temporary accommodation for a long-term pastoral good, is his decision
to repurpose the pagan shrines of Kent for Christian use. As I have argued
elsewhere, this was not a change in position (as it is typically understood),
but a deliberate and consistent policy of allowing the particular circum-

59 Gregory, Reg. 11.36 (CCSL 140A:926): “Scio enim quia omnipotens Deus per dilec-
tionem tuam in gente quam eligi uoluit magna miracula ostendit. Vnde necesse est ut
de eodem dono caelesti et timendo gaudeas et gaudendo pertimescas: gaudeas uidelicet,
quia Anglorum animae per exteriora miracula ad interiorem gratiam pertrahuntur, per-
timescas uero, ne inter signa quae fiunt infirmus animus in sui praesumptione se eleuet
et, unde foras in honorem tollitur, inde per inanem gloriam intus cadat.” “For I know that
almighty God has displayed great miracles through your love in the nation that he has cho-
sen. Wherefore, you should rejoice with fear and trembling for this heavenly gift. Rejoice
because the souls of the Angli are drawn by outward miracles to inward grace; but tremble
because these signs that are performed through you . . . might give rise to vainglory.”
60 Because the Responsa does not survive among the Roman collections of Gregory’s
correspondence (it survives through Bede), some scholars have questioned its authentic-
ity. For the prevailing defence of authenticity, see Margaret Deanesly and Paul Grosjean,
“The Canterbury Edition of the Answers of Pope Gregory I to St. Augustine,” Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 10 (1959), 1–49.
61   Gregory, Responsa in Bede, HE 1.27 (SC 489: 216): “In hoc enim tempore sancta
ecclesia quaedam per fervorem corrigit, quaedam per mansuetudinem tolerat, quaedam
per considerationem dissimulat, atque ita portat et dissimulat, ut saepe malum quod
adversatur portando et dissimulando compescat.”
 gregory’s model of spiritual direction 223

stance of a situation to guide the pastoral solution.62 In short, Gregory

believed that, because the Angli were accustomed to gather at these
shrines for religious purposes, it would be more beneficial in the long-
run simply to transform those sites into Christian churches rather than to
disrupt local tradition by destroying the shrines.63
We find a similar long-term approach to his conversion of other groups
as well. Perhaps the most surprising example stems from his policy regard-
ing the Jewish farmers on the papal estates in Sicily. Although Gregory was
adamant that the Jews could not be forced, through violence or intimida-
tion, to convert to Christianity and even though he consistently protected
the freedom of Jews to practice their faith, he was at the same time per-
fectly willing to employ otherwise questionable techniques to secure their
adoption of Christianity.64 When it came to his attention that there were
a large number of tenant farmers on the papal estates in Sicily, Gregory
advised his rector that all the Jews who converted to Christianity would
have their rent reduced by one third. Even though he was perfectly aware
that most who accepted the offer would be doing so for the wrong reason
(i.e. out of financial gain rather than faith), Gregory determined that a
greater good could be achieved because their children and grand-children
would be raised within the Church.65 We might say that this was taking
the idea of gradual conversion to an extreme.

The Legacy of Gregory’s “pastor”

It has often been noted that Gregory’s Pastoral Rule was one of the
only Latin texts translated into Greek and circulated within the Greek
Church during its author’s lifetime.66 In part, of course, we can attribute
this privileged position to the fact that Gregory was so well connected
with the imperial court—he was godfather to the emperor’s oldest son,
Theodosius.67 But at least part of the reason that the Pastoral Rule, and

62 Demacopoulos, “Gregory the Great and the Pagan Shrines of Kent,” Journal of Late
Antiquity 1 (2008), 353–69. For an alternative interpretation, see Robert Markus, “Gregory
the Great and a Papal Mission Strategy,” Studies in Church History 6 (1970), 29–38.
63 Gregory, Reg. 11.56 (CCSL 140A:961–62).
64 Concerning his arguments against the use of violence, see Reg. 2.4, 3.37, 4.9, and 4.21
(CCSL 140:92–93, 182–83, 226, 239). Concerning his rebuke of a bishop who destroyed a
Jewish synagogue, see Reg. 1.34 (CCSL 140:42).
65 Gregory, Reg. 5.7 (CCSL 140:273).
66 See Andrew Louth, “Gregory in the Byzantine Tradition”, in this volume.
67 See Matthew Dal Santo, “Gregory, the Emperor and the Empire”, in this volume.
224 george e. demacopoulos

Gregory’s ­reputation more generally, was well received in the Christian East
is because it was in many ways a refinement and expansion on a pastoral
tradition first articulated by Gregory Nazianzen and then subsequently
adopted by the Byzantine Church. Pope Gregory had, in effect, developed
Nazianzen’s idea of the active/contemplative, and he similarly insisted on
measuring one’s aptitude for spiritual leadership in accordance with the
ascetic and administrative registers that Nazianzen had first identified.
It is, in fact, worth noting that Nazianzen is the only Christian authority,
save the biblical authors, cited by Pope Gregory in the Pastoral Rule.
In the West, Gregory’s Pastoral Rule was even better known. Not only
was it among the most copied manuscripts to circulate in the Middle
Ages, its ideas and ideals can be found in many subsequent medieval atti-
tudes concerning leadership, the link between leadership and responsibil-
ity, and the reflexive connection between moral character and effective
leadership. We need look no further than Alfred the Great’s decision to
translate the Pastoral Rule into Anglo Saxon and disseminate it among his
clients as the premier example of (secular) governance. So, too, we might
describe the Pastoral Rule as an important (albeit largely overlooked)
source for the western Church’s eventual decision to pursue a policy of
clerical celibacy in all of its ranks. Although Gregory’s language of spir-
itual leadership in the Pastoral Rule is much broader (and perhaps even
more exalted) than the parish priest, he leaves little room in his treatise
for a married man to maintain the degree of ascetic detachment that he
believed to be necessary for a successful pastoral ministry.
In the end, we might conclude by noting that the Pastoral Rule demon-
strates Gregory to have been a far more sophisticated and nuanced thinker
than has generally been observed. Not only does the text synthesize and
mediate a great variety of ascetic and pastoral ideas from earlier centuries,
it showcases Gregory’s unique vision of spirituality, which identified the
summit of perfection in the service of others.
 Chapter Ten

Hagiography and the Cult of Saints

Stephen Lake

Gregory’s Dialogi are the most important hagiographical text written

in Italy in Late Antiquity, and they enjoyed considerable popularity in
Europe through the Middle Ages. At first sight, however, they have often
seemed to be an anomaly when compared with the remaining corpus of
his writings. Partly for this reason, a sustained effort has been made to
show that they were not written by Gregory.
The authenticity of the Dialogi was first challenged by humanist schol-
ars in the 16th century, who were unable to reconcile Gregorian author-
ship with their literary style and language and the apparent superstition
which they reflect; they were held to diverge markedly from Gregory’s
other writings. Protestant polemic contributed to the debate, in which
scholars were reluctant to see in Gregory a proponent of notions such as
purgatory, the magical power of alms-giving and the Mass. It was subse-
quently observed that there is a striking silence concerning the Dialogi
during the 7th century, which, it was assumed, there would not have
been had Gregory been their author. In his 1987 monograph, Francis Clark
rehearsed the history of this question, and argued that the Dialogi were
published only c.670–80: on this view, the discussion between Gregory
and the deacon Peter, which provides the formal structure of the text,
was constructed from authentic Gregorian writings deposited in the papal
archive, while the miracle stories which serve to illustrate the discussion
were composed by a forger, who presented the whole as a genuine work
by the pope.1 Clark’s interpretation seeks to preserve an impression of
Gregory as a spiritual author palatable to those who do not wish to see
in him a naïve believer in the miraculous or an advocate of questionable
Catholic practices; it thus makes a less able, more credulous individual
responsible for those elements.
The resulting modern debate has challenged scholars to re-examine the
work, and to provide cogent explanations for those elements ­vulnerable to

1 Francis Clark, The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues, 2 vols (Leiden, 1987).

226 stephen lake

an argument such as Clark’s; the overwhelming conclusion has nonethe-

less been a renewed defence of their authenticity.2 Gregory was a man of
his time, and there is little in the Dialogi which cannot be found in other
texts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries onward; it would indeed be more
difficult to account for a Gregory who questioned or denied beliefs which
by his time had become so prevalent. We therefore do not improve our
understanding of him by attempting to deny that he held beliefs which
were also held by his contemporaries. His correspondence shows that
he sent relics as gifts and therefore presumably also believed in their
efficacy,3 and he repeated nine stories in the Dialogi which he had already
recounted in his Homiliae in evangelia.4 Other writings whose authenticity
is not in dispute thus suggest that elements of the Dialogi are genuinely
Gregorian.5 The fact that the Dialogi do not seem to have circulated widely
in the 7th century is not significant, insofar as the same is true of many
other writings; in this period, there is proportionately less evidence for the
copying and study of manuscripts than for almost any other century in
European history, irrespective of the reputations of their authors.6
The aim of the present chapter is to provide a guide to the reading
and interpretation of the Dialogi, and to situate them within the broader
hagiographical context primarily of late antique Italy. In the context of
hagiography, I would distinguish three interlocking but separate subjects:
concepts of (living) saints or holy men and women; the cult of (dead)
saints and their tombs; and the literary representation of these saints,
or “hagiography”. We are here concerned primarily with that literary

2 For summary and further bibliography, including other publications by Clark and res-
ponses to him, see Salvatore Pricoco et al., “Dialogi: Autenticità,” in Enciclopedia gregoriana,
eds Giusseppe Cremascoli and Antonella Degl’Innocenti (Florence, 2008), pp. 88–89.
3 See e.g. John M. McCulloh, “The Cult of Relics in the Letters and ‘Dialogues’ of Pope
Gregory the Great: A Lexicographical Study,” Traditio 32 (1976), 145–84, with references.
Gregory, Reg. 4.30 (CCSL 140:248–50), for example, also attests to portents and death
attending the disturbance of saints’ tombs, reflecting ideas comparable with those in
stories in the Dialogi.
4 Dial. 4.15; 4.16; 4.17; 4.20; 4.28; 4.40.2–5; 4.40.6–9; 4.58; 4.59.1 (eds Adalbert de Vogüé
and Paul Antin, S. Gregorii Magni Dialogi, SC 251, 260, 265 [Paris, 1978/1979/1980]). De
Vogüé (SC 251:93) notes that these stories are used differently within the context of the
Dialogi. All references to the Dialogi are taken from the SC edition.
5 de Vogüé, SC 251:29–31, mentions additional correspondences.
6 This is based on the few surviving manuscripts from this period and the use of
palimpsests, implying a shortage of parchment; extant library catalogues; and limited
evidence of the citing of other works in, or their obvious influence on, writings from
this period. De Vogüé, SC 251:141–43, summarizes evidence of circulation in the 7th and
8th centuries.
 hagiography and the cult of saints 227

r­ epresentation. As with all attempts to classify literary genres, there is

some dispute over the extent to which hagiography may be defined as a
genre; here, it is assumed to be a genre constituted primarily by an adap-
tation of classical biography and Christian Gospels, and characterized by
the elements discussed throughout this chapter.

The Dialogi: Composition, Structure, and Themes

The writing of the Dialogi can be dated on the evidence of letters and inter-
nal indications to the period between July 593 and November 594.7 The
work is said to have been composed at the request of some of Gregory’s
fellow monks who wished to know more about Italian saints.8 Gregory
also justifies both the composition of the Moralia in Iob and the Hom-
iliae in Ezechielem by claiming that he wrote them at the request of his
“fratres”.9 It should be noted, though, that it was a classical rhetorical con-
vention, adopted by Christian authors, to claim that books were written at
the insistence of others and not on one’s own initiative, as it was deemed
unbecoming of well-born men to be seen as professional authors.10 To this
extent at least, it therefore remains less than certain whether the Dialogi
are in some manner a response to the demands of others, or whether they
are entirely the creation of Gregory himself. In outward form, they consist
of reports of four discussions held between Gregory and his deacon Peter,11
apparently over four consecutive days, in which Gregory undertakes to
demonstrate that there have been saints in Italy just as there have been in
other regions; he was conceivably seeking to provide an Italian equivalent
to Gallic and eastern saints.
The Dialogi are arranged in four books, the third and fourth of which
are approximately twice as long as the first and second. Books 1 and 3
consist essentially of a series of miracle stories associated with a total of
49 individuals and groups. Book 2 diverges from this pattern in that it
consists of a full-length Vita of Benedict of Nursia, and so includes stories
exclusively associated with him. On the other hand, Book 2 preserves the

   7 See de Vogüé, SC 251:25–27.

   8 See Gregory, Reg. 3.50 (CCSL 140:195–96).
   9 See Francesco Tateo, “La struttura dei dialoghi di Gregorio Magno,” Vetera Christianorum
2 (1965), 101–27, at 104–06, who notes themes common to all three proemia.
10 See further e.g. Tore Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions
(Stockholm, 1964).
11   For Peter, see de Vogüé, SC 251:44–45.
228 stephen lake

formal structure of a discussion, several themes addressed in Book 2 are

also taken up elsewhere, and stories similar to those narrated there also
occur in the remaining books.12 Book 4 is superficially like the preceding
three. However, it displays a more carefully argued exposition around the
nature of the soul, death, and the afterlife. The proemium to Book 4 takes
up the theme of contemplation and its loss, which is also the starting
point of the proemium of Book 1, so that Book 4 appears in a sense to be
making a new beginning. Unlike the earlier books, it includes a significant
number of stories in which saints are not the protagonists, all of the sto-
ries borrowed from his Homiliae in evangelia (590–91) are inserted here,
the arrangement and content of many of the stories are less complex and
include several blocks of “doublets”, and many types of miracle common
in the earlier books are absent. It would therefore appear that Book 4 rep-
resents a clear development over the first three books in Gregory’s con-
ception and purpose in writing the Dialogi; if so, it might then be further
argued that it is the content of this book which was most important to
him. While the formal literary structure of a discussion combined with the
narration of illustrative stories is maintained throughout the four books,
the character of the books varies in the respects just indicated.
Even if we assume that the Dialogi did originate in an actual collo-
quy between Gregory, Peter, and perhaps other monks, the work must
at least have been subjected to some revision. While it includes details
of verisimilitude, it is too carefully constructed to be a verbatim report,
and omits potentially extraneous material. Peter serves as an interlocutor
who poses questions, expresses doubt and uncertainty, or approbation,
and who moves the discussion from one subject to the next, but other-
wise makes no significant contribution of his own.13 The dialogue was a
pedagogical literary genre in both Classical Antiquity, familiar from Plato

12 De Vogüé, Dialogues 1, SC 251, esp. pp. 51–65, considers aspects of this structure
and sees a triptych formed by Books 1–3 with Book 2 as its centrepiece. This is strictly
speaking true, as long as we are not anachronistic in the significance which we ascribe to
Benedict there: for Gregory, Benedict is not the founder of a monastic “order” but merely
an exemplary figure.
13 Marc Van Uytfanghe, “Scepticisme doctrinal au seuil du Moyen Âge? Les objections
du diacre Pierre dans les Dialogues de Grégoire le grand,” in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques
Fontaine et al. (Paris, 1986), pp. 315–26, has argued that Peter’s interjections may reflect
genuine uncertainty about the subjects discussed. See also Matthew Dal Santo, “Gregory
the Great and Eustratius of Constantinople: The Dialogues on the Miracles of the Italian
Fathers as an Apology for the Cult of Saints,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17 (2009),
421–57; idem, Debating the Saints’ Cult in the Age of Gregory the Great (Oxford, 2012).
 hagiography and the cult of saints 229

and Cicero, for example, and in early and medieval Christianity, used by,
among others, Minucius Felix, Augustine, Cassian and later, Eriugena;
it was not a condition of this genre that such writings were necessarily
records of actual discussions.14 Gregory need not have modelled his work
on any particular author, but the form should have been familiar to any
educated reader.
Besides the discussion which structures the work, Gregory has inserted
around 170 pericopae which consist of short accounts of the characters
and miracles of a large number of saints.15 Christian hagiography as a lit-
erary genre began with records of the arrest, interrogation, and deaths
of martyrs (acta martyrum);16 these were not full-length accounts of the
lives of confessors and martyrs, but concentrated on the events which
made them deserving of being remembered. Such reports, whether those
which have survived or others like them, were sometimes read publicly in
Church communities on the anniversaries of their deaths. The Vita Cypri-
ani (Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, d. c.258) represents a transition from an
account of a martyrdom to a more extensive account of the martyr’s life,17
although it would be another century before a proliferation of Lives of
male and female saints (Greek, hagioi)—and after 312 usually, no longer
martyrs, but almost invariably ascetics and clergy—began to proliferate,
following the appearance of Athanasius’ Vita Antonii.18 While these are
typically chronological narratives running from the birth to the death of
their subjects, hagiographical elements were also adopted by Church his-
torians, as well as in a range of other kinds of works. These other works
include collections of short portraits of a group of individual saints, which
often omit much of the material usually included in a Vita, and may do

14 See further John Moorhead in this volume; also e.g. Bernd Rainer Voss, Der Dialog in
der frühchristlichen Literatur (Munich, 1970).
15 The calculation of such a total can vary marginally, depending upon how passages
are analysed, whether every individual incident and comment is counted separately, or
whether in some cases an introductory explanation is included together with a miracle
report which follows it. Strict separation is extremely difficult; de Vogüé, SC 251:85 and n.
2, finds c.45 (Book 1), 45 (Book 2), 70 (Book 3), and 50 (Book 4). My calculation includes
passages which do not report a miracle but which can be viewed as not belonging to
Gregory and Peter’s discussion, and all stories not pertaining to saints.
16 The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, ed. Herbert Musurillo (Oxford, 1972).
17 Pontius, Vita Caecilii Cypriani, in Vita di Cipriano. Vita di Ambrogio. Vita di Agostino, ed.
A.A.R. Bastiaensen, trans. Luca Canali and Carlo Carena, 4th ed. (Milan, 1997), pp. 4–49.
18 Athanasius of Alexandria, Vita Antonii, ed. Gerard J.M. Bartelink, SC 400 (Paris,
1994).
230 stephen lake

little more than provide one or two exemplary stories and a summary of
a saint’s teaching.19
With the exception of Book 2, Gregory’s Dialogi are also such a work.
Other examples include the anonymous Historia monachorum in Aegypto,
Palladius’ Historia Lausiaca, Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ Historia religiosa, Cas-
sian’s Conlationes, the apophthegmata collections, and Gregory of Tours’
Liber in gloria confessorum, Liber in gloria martyrum, and Liber vitae
patrum.20 Sulpicius Severus’ Dialogi assume the dialogue form, and were
possibly known to Gregory, but are primarily concerned with Martin of
Tours.21 Theodoret’s work bears some resemblance to Gregory’s Dialogi,
and de Vogüé lists a number of parallels between them, at least one of
which seems probable.22 At the same time, however, Gregory did not know
Greek sufficiently to have been able to have read a Greek source, so that
any alleged borrowings from such sources must therefore be explained
either by use of a Latin translation, or of a translator, or the mediation
of an oral tradition.23 The Historia monachorum, the Historia Lausiaca, as
well as Athanasius’ Vita Antonii (which has considerably coloured parts

19   For our purposes, see e.g. F. Scorza Barcellona, “Agli inizi dell’agiografia occidentale,”
in Hagiographies: Histoire internationale de la littérature hagiographique latine et
vernaculaire en Occident des origines à 1550, ed. Guy Philippart, vol. 3 (Turnhout, 2001), pp.
17–97, and vol. 5, Hagiographie d’Italie (Turnhout, 2010). Claudia Rapp, “Saints and Holy
Men,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 2, Constantine to c.600, eds Augustine
Casiday and Frederick W. Norris (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 548–66, provides a convenient
summary of some aspects of this subject; see also below, n. 69.
20 Historia Monachorum in Aegypto. Édition critique du texte grec et traduction annotée
(ed. André-Jean Festugière, Subsidia Hagiographica 53 [Brussels, 1971]), and in the Latin
version of Rufinus (ed. Eva Schulz-Flügel, Tyrannius Rufinus, Historia Monachorum sive
De vita sanctorum patrum, Patristische Texte und Studien 34 [Berlin, 1990]); Palladius,
Historia Lausiaca (Latin) (PL 73:1091–1218; new ed. and trans. Adelheid Wellhausen, Die
lateinische Übersetzung der Historia Lausiaca des Palladius: Textausgabe mit Einleitung,
Patristische Texte und Studien 51 [Berlin, 2003]); Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Historia religiosa
(eds Pierre Canivet and Alice Leroy-Molinghen, Histoire des Moines en Syrie, 2 vols, SC
234, 257 [Paris, 1977–79]); John Cassian, Conlationes (eds Michael Petschenig and Gottfried
Kreuz, CSEL 13, 2nd ed. [Vienna, 2004]); Apophthegmata patrum (the alphabetical collec-
tion: PG 65:71–440; the systematic collection: ed. Jean-Claude Guy, Les apophthègmes des
pères, collection systématique, 3 vols, SC 387, 474, 498 [Paris, 1993, 2003, 2005]); Gregory
of Tours (ed. Bruno Krusch, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis Miracula et opera minora, MGH
SSRM 1,2 [Hannover, 1969]).
21   Sulpicius Severus’ Dialogi libri II de vita sancti Martini (CSEL 1:152–216).
22 Dial. 3.16.9; cf. Theodoret, Historia religiosa 26.10 (SC 257:178–80).
23 See discussion in Joan M. Petersen, The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in their
Late Antique Cultural Context (Toronto, 1984), here pp. 181–88; Petersen seeks to explore
a broader possible eastern background. See also, idem, “ ‘Homo omnino Latinus’? The
Theological and Cultural Background of Pope Gregory the Great,” Speculum 62 (1987),
529–51.
 hagiography and the cult of saints 231

of Gregory’s depiction of Benedict)24 were all translated into Latin, but

Theodoret was not.
Gregory was indubitably familiar with a wide range of hagiographical
as well as other writings, though to none of which he explicitly refers in
the Dialogi.25 In his edition of this work, Adalbert de Vogüé has included
parallels between many of Gregory’s stories and other works from which
he arguably borrowed, thereby also giving an impression of the range
of Gregory’s reading. Yet de Vogüé’s apparatus is comprehensive rather
than complete, and does not provide a detailed analysis of every parallel
in order to determine whether in fact Gregory had borrowed from these
sources, and if so, then in what way; such an analysis remains for the pres-
ent a desideratum. However, the Dialogi are unlike any of these other texts.
Other hagiographical texts provide a narrative, the exemplary character of
which is assumed to be self-evident and sufficient in itself. Cassian’s Con-
lationes are not a hagiographical text in this sense, providing only brief
vignettes of a small number of desert fathers and an occasional anecdote;
the bulk of those conversations consist in discussions of spiritual and
theological subjects supported by numerous biblical examples. Gregory’s
Dialogi resemble this approach in some respects, but at the same time
diverge from it, as they do from more conventional hagiographical writ-
ings. Gregory narrates his stories not for their own self-evident exemplary
character, but in order to illustrate his teaching: the stories are therefore
subordinate to his didactic purpose. Perhaps the text which most closely
resembles the Dialogi is Gregory of Tours’ Liber vitae patrum, each chapter
of which includes a didactic preface;26 it was only completed c.592, but
might have been known to the pope. Yet Gregory the Great departs from
any of his possible models, and has thereby created a new form of hagio-
graphical writing.
The claim that the Dialogi are based upon colloquies which occurred
within a monastic setting, and that they were written in response to a

24 See also Dial. 3.4.2, and de Vogüé’s notes, ibid.

25 Excepting Rufinus’ HE and the Passio Donati (Donatus, bishop of Arezzo, d. 362) at
Dial. 1.7.2–3; and Uranius Presbyter’s De obitu Paulini ad Pacatum (PL 53:859–66) at Dial.
3.1.9. Gregory has also used works by Augustine here, including Enchiridion, De cura pro
mortuis gerenda and De civ. Dei, though without ever mentioning him.
26 On this text, see e.g. Adele Monaci Castagno, “Il vescovo, l’abate e l’eremita: tipologia
della santità nel Liber Vitae Patrum di Gregorio di Tours,” Augustinianum 24 (1984), 235–
64; Conrad Leyser, “ ‘Divine Power Flowed from this Book’: Ascetic Language and Episcopal
Authority in Gregory of Tours’ Life of the Fathers,” in The World of Gregory of Tours, eds
Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood (Leiden, 2002), pp. 281–94.
232 stephen lake

request, suggests that Gregory’s immediately envisaged audience was

monastic and clerical. With the exception of some of the episodes
included in Book 4, the protagonists of the Dialogi are also all monks or
nuns and clergy. However literate the wider population may have been
in this period—always a difficult question to answer27—the probability
in terms of the copying and circulation of books is that the readership
would likewise have been confined to monks and clergy, and an occa-
sional interested nobleman. The fact that (contrary to some interpreta-
tions) Gregory’s language and writing style are formal would support this
conclusion. Although the themes of the work, such as the living of a vir-
tuous life, are in principle equally pertinent to all professing Christians,
much of the discussion concerns a manner of life only pursued by monks.
The stories which he took from his Homiliae in evangelia had presumably
been preached to the general public, yet if the content of the Dialogi was
to reach a wider audience, it would best do so through being preached or
mediated in other ways by its principal readership.28
The preface to the first book introduces three aspects which are devel-
oped throughout the work: the task of biblical exposition, the theme of
contemplation, and the desire to demonstrate that there had also been
saints in Italy. Gregory apologizes that, in order to talk about saints, it
is necessary to interrupt the usual occupation of expounding the Bible.29
While the Dialogi appear to be an altogether different kind of work from
biblical exposition, there is in fact a measure of continuity. The inclusion
here of anecdotes which had already been used in his Homiliae in evan-
gelia suggests that, like other preachers before him, Gregory had already
come to view examples of Christian experience as confirming or illustrat-
ing biblical teaching, and the entire Dialogi can be viewed from this per-
spective if, in this case, biblical exposition is not taken to be sequential
commentary on a particular book but rather a more distilled summary of
its teaching on the Christian life. Many of the interjections made by Peter

27 See e.g. Erich Auerbach, Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Spätantike
und im Mittelalter (Bern, 1958).
28 On the general problem of audience, see e.g. Dieter Von Der Nahmer, Die lateini-
sche Heiligenvita. Eine Einführung in die lateinische Hagiographie (Darmstadt, 1994), pp.
170–78; Wolfert S. Van Egmond, “The Audience of Early Medieval Hagiographical Texts,”
in New Approaches to Medieval Communication, ed. Marco Mostert (Turnhout, 1999), pp.
41–68. On Gregory’s language and audience, see also de Vogüé, SC 251:31–44. None of these
considerations, however, are conclusive.
29 Gregory, Dialogi 1, praef. On Gregory’s biblical exposition, see Scott de Gregorio in
this volume.
 hagiography and the cult of saints 233

lead Gregory to cite and expound biblical passages in order to answer his
questions, so that this pattern might be considered as continuing precisely
their ostensibly interrupted practice. Many stories included in the Dialogi
also either explicitly imitate biblical narratives or are less overtly inspired
by them. In this way, Gregory’s saints are like the patriarchs, prophets,
apostles, and even Jesus himself. The fact that Gregory, although he bor-
rowed many of his stories from other hagiographical sources, refers to no
sources other than the Bible and his own homilies, also serves to empha-
size continuity between the biblical epoch and the present.
The work begins with Gregory lamenting that his episcopal responsibili-
ties have deprived him of the tranquillity of soul necessary to contemplate
spiritual truth and reality, and as a consolation, he considers reflecting
on the lives of men who have renounced the world.30 Peter then asks
him to recount stories of Italian thaumaturges. The principal theme of
the first books is the humility of the saints, despite their ability to perform
miracles; yet a variety of other questions are posed, including whether
miracles are performed through prayer or virtue or the will of the saint,
the quality of patience, the respect which should be shown to saints (alive
or dead), the way in which they imitate biblical figures (conscious imita-
tion of Jesus is a means towards salvation), and whether predestination
can be influenced by prayer. Other sub-themes include God’s protection
of his servants; that those who appear to be virtuous may not always be so
in fact; unforeseen outcomes of the saints’ charismata; and that purity of
speech should come from contemplation and separation from the world.
Book 2 represents Benedict as gradually growing in virtue and experi-
ence through many challenges posed by the devil, and eventually acquiring
a gift of prophecy. This gift allows him to see or know hidden things—
the secrets of God, the future, and the actions of men and demons which
others cannot see—and in turn to assist or warn others. Benedict’s meet-
ing with his sister Scholastica occasions a return to the theme of contem-
plation: this is the discussion of heavenly matters which Benedict enjoyed
with Scholastica, but which Gregory is also conducting with Peter (and
his audience) precisely in the Dialogi, and this enables the soul to see
invisible things. At the end of this book, we have stories of souls visibly
ascending to heaven, a subject which is resumed in Book 4.31

30 On Gregory’s understanding of contemplation, see Carole Straw in this volume.

31   The belief that souls could be seen ascending to heaven is not originally a Christian
belief: see e.g. Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, Divus Iulius 88; C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Die
234 stephen lake

In Book 3, Peter expresses wonder at stories of the dead being raised, but
Gregory suggests that a greater miracle is to lead a soul to conversion—
a spiritual resurrection. There are two kinds of martyrdom: the physical
or public, and the “white” or secret martyrdom, which is the practice of
asceticism. We then have a series of “exempla” about Christians who pre-
ferred to die rather than submit to either pagan rites or Arianism. There
are also two kinds of compunction, or tears: in the soul which thirsts for
God, and weeping in repentance. The book opens and concludes with
examples of men who were willing to give their lives for those of others
as Jesus did.
Book 4 commences with a preface which parallels that of Book 1, in
which he now states that Adam and Eve had once enjoyed the unhindered
contemplation of God, but as a result of their sin, they were deprived of
it; when compared with his own deprivation through worldly duties, this
implies a harsh view of the temporal and physical world. The central sub-
ject of this book may be seen as the immortality of the soul, while a series
of questions arise from that belief. Gregory therefore depicts the deaths of
the saints, how they often knew the times of their deaths in advance, and
how other saints or angels come to escort their souls, which can some-
times be seen in corporeal forms, to heaven; on the other hand, demons
come for the souls of sinners. An unpleasant death may be a means of
purging some hidden sin, and wicked men may have power over people
to kill them. The souls of some Christians, but not all, are received into
heaven before the general judgement, while other souls begin their eter-
nal suffering in hell before the judgement, and there is also a purifying
fire from which the redeemed are eventually released. Gregory argues
that a material fire is able to torment or purify an immaterial soul. It is
to the advantage of nobody who dies in a state of sin to be buried in a
church or near the tomb of a saint, as they may be tormented, or expelled
from their tombs and the church. Alms-giving, whether by the living on
behalf of the dead or prior to their own deaths, can hasten the release of
souls from purgatory, and the sacrifice of the Mass can also benefit people
in adversity.32
Gregory’s exposition of his themes is, as it were, “proven” by the stories;
these function as classical exempla. Miracles are central to these stories,

Kaiserviten/De vita Caesarum, Berühmte Männer/De viris illustribus, ed. and trans. Hans
Martinet, 2nd ed. (Düsseldorf—Zurich, 2000), p. 138.
32 Gregory also views the end of the world as imminent: e.g. Dial. 3.38.1–4; 4.36.12. On
his eschatology, see Jane Baun in this volume.
 hagiography and the cult of saints 235

and yet Gregory claims that miracles, some of which appear quite trivial,
have no importance in themselves, and the ability to perform them adds
nothing to a man’s virtue or sanctity. While this might initially seem a
specious claim in this context, he is nonetheless echoing other authors,
such as Cassian in his Conlatio 15;33 some Vitae are also almost or entirely
devoid of any miraculous element. It is the virtue which is manifested
through miracles in which the Christian life truly consists. In his Hom-
iliae in evangelia 4.3–4, Gregory says that miracles were intended to facili-
tate the spreading of the gospel in the age of the apostles,34 which would
appear to limit them to that period of time, but in the Dialogi he gives
no clear definition of a miracle; it may be that he sought to console the
population in an era of protracted tribulation.

An Analysis of the Stories

Gregory is obviously familiar with hagiographical conventions. Through-

out the Dialogi, he deploys a variety of “commonplaces” or topoi.35 His
most conspicuous use of a topos, however, is his appeal to authorities for
the stories which he narrates; there are proportionately few for which
he indicates no witness, although these are not always named or clearly
specified. In this respect, he is strikingly more assiduous than most hagio-
graphical authors; yet it is equally striking that he almost never claims to
have witnessed anything himself.36
William McCready’s book Signs of Sanctity represents a sustained
attempt to argue that Gregory is sincere and that, irrespective of the
improbability of any of the stories, Gregory had indeed been told them
by those from whom he claims to have heard them, rather than having

33 CSEL 13:425–36.
34 See also Moralia in Iob 27.18.36–37 (CCSL 143B:1358–59).
35 For example: a saint is already an old man in his youth (e.g. Dial. 2, Praef. 1; 3.18.1);
he has a vocation from his earliest youth for the monastic life (1.1.1); he anticipates his
own death (2.37.1); his body may remain uncorrupted (3.13.3); the scent of perfume attends
death (4.15.5; 4.17.2; 4.49.5); souls are seen ascending from bodies, accompanied by angels
or other saints (2.39.1); the author will tell only one story among many (2.36); the widow
who loses her only son (1.2.5–6; 3.1.1; 4.36.7–9); the image of stormy seas and the refuge of
a harbour (1, Praef. 5); the imagery of the desert (2.1.1); the saint commands a beneficiary
not to reveal a miracle (1.9.5); and a saint’s deeds are consistent with his words (2.36).
36 See the lists in William D. McCready, Signs of Sanctity: Miracles in the Thought of
Gregory the Great (Toronto, 1989), pp. 261–71. Only in Dial. 3.33.7–9 is the witness clearly
Gregory himself, as the beneficiary of healing, although he may have witnessed several
other episodes.
236 stephen lake

invented or adapted any of them from other sources himself. In the view
of the present author, however, this argument amounts to defending a
particular view of Gregory divorced from the literary conventions of his
day in the same way that other scholars have questioned Gregory’s author-
ship. It is not possible to discuss this argument in detail here. Nonetheless,
the letter in which Gregory requests information from Bishop Maxim-
ian of Syracuse about Nonnosus, about whom Maximian had obviously
already spoken to him,37 would seem to be the exception rather than the
rule: we have no corroborating evidence that he attempted to investigate
most of those to whom he ascribes stories, and his claims to this effect in
the work itself have no independent value. At best, we might place some
confidence in his having received a comparatively detailed account of
Benedict from monks who fled from Monte Cassino after the abbey’s first
destruction in c.577,38 which might also explain why he wrote about Bene-
dict alone at such length. As Gregory was not the advocate of Benedictine
monasticism that he was once taken to be,39 the disproportionate amount
of attention which he devotes to Benedict requires another explanation.
This is not to suggest that all of the stories, and perhaps even many of the
protagonists, are entirely fictitious, but the fact remains that much of the
Dialogi cannot be verified; even in the case of many bishops, we have no
independent record of them. The fact that purported witnesses might still
have been alive at the time of writing, or that they were allegedly known
to Peter, is not an infallible argument against Gregory’s having invented
stories. Moreover, if, as will be suggested below, many of the stories are
adaptations of material borrowed from other sources, then the likelihood
increases that, from a modern perspective, Gregory’s claims are—consis-
tent with the convention—disingenuous.
Another practice which is unusually frequent in the Dialogi is the use
of “doublets”. Doublets are two similar stories which occur within a nar-
rative either in direct sequence or in close proximity. Given the fact that
particular types of story usually occur in hagiographical sources, and that

37 Reg. 3.50. See also e.g. Dial. 1.10.11; 1.10.19–20; 4.28.1; 4.31.1. Nonnosus is depicted in
Dial. 1.7, where Maximian is named as a source. Yet even the veracity of the three miracles
attributed to Nonnosus is open to question: Dial. 1.7.2 is one of several “rock” miracles (see
below, n. 41), 1.7.3 is a doublet with 2.1.1–2 and echoes the Passio Donati, and 1.7.5–6 reports
the multiplication of oil, which may have a biblical model.
38 See Dial. 2, Praef. 2, and 2.15.4; 2.26; 2.27.1–3.
39 See Kassius Hallinger, “Papst Gregor der Grosse und der hl. Benedikt,” in
Commentationes in regulam S. Benedicti, ed. Basilius Steidle (Rome, 1957), pp. 231–319; and
Barbara Müller, “Gregory the Great and Monasticism”, in this volume.
 hagiography and the cult of saints 237

some of these are all but inevitable—for example, healing miracles, or a

resurrection—it might not seem surprising that they should occur. They
would seem to be a particularly Christian element, and perhaps imitate
the fact that in the gospels, similar reports occur on a number of occa-
sions, both within a single gospel and especially between the synoptic
gospels. At the same time, they may also serve rhetorical functions of
emphasis, as a mnemonic aid, and even as stylistic adornment; we might
also think of the technique in fiction of narrating a sub-plot which mirrors
the principal story.
In many hagiographical sources, there are no doublets, or only one or
two pairs might be included; they are common, but not frequent. In the
Dialogi, by contrast, there is a doublet quality about a substantial majority
of the pericopae, so much so that it seems to provide an additional super-
structure to the work as a whole. Again, this constitutes a distinctively
Gregorian trait. I am extending the concept of doublet here beyond its
strict definition, to denote not only stories which resemble one another
in subject, but also those which, while substantially different in content,
nevertheless include details which tie them to other stories.
Stories may be comparatively simple duplicates: for example, two sto-
ries recount how a messenger who has been commissioned to bring gifts
to a saint conceals one of the baskets, intending to keep it for himself, but
the saint is aware of the deception and warns that there is a snake in the
concealed basket.40 Numerous stories are less similar in their content and
may have been told for different reasons, but still include some details in
common, and thereby recall one another: for example, several stories in
Books 1–3 concern monastic communities in the mountains and the pres-
ence of threatening rocks,41 or are set in a cloister garden.42 Some stories
are explicitly associated by the fact that they occurred in the same region,
whether or not they all have the same protagonist; or they occurred dur-
ing the same period, for example, during a recent plague in Rome, or
during the Lombard conquest. A number of stories replicate biblical nar-
ratives in some form: for example, oil, wine, bread or other commodi-
ties are miraculously multiplied.43 In Books 1–2, such doublets are often
scattered, so that they do not immediately follow upon one another, but
in Books 3–4, there are instances in which groups of very similar stories

40 Dial. 2.18; 3.14.9.

41   E.g. Dial. 1.1.4; 1.7.2; 1.8.2; 2.9.1; 3.16.5–10.
42 E.g. Dial. 1.3.2–4; 1.4.7; 1.9.15; 3.14.6–7.
43 E.g. Dial. 1.1.1–2; 1.5.2; 1.7.5–6; 1.9.2–4; 1.9.14; 1.9.17; 2.21.1–2; 2.28–29; 3.37.2–7.
238 stephen lake

are told in sequence: for example, Gregory tells a group of stories about
Catholic Christians martyred by Arians, and groups of stories about the
machinations of the devil, death-bed scenes, the fate of sinners buried in
churches, and the visibility of souls ascending to heaven.44
Some stories may also have aspects which associate them with not one
but several other different stories simultaneously. As a complex example
of a doublet, we may instance an anecdote concerning the saint Constan-
tius at Dial. 1.5.4–6. He had acquired a reputation, so that people came
to see him. One peasant thus sought him out, and found him on a ladder
lighting lamps. Constantius was a dwarf of mean outward appearance, so
that the peasant was unwilling to recognize him as a renowned saint and
held him in disdain. Constantius, however, was delighted and said that
the peasant was the only person to see him for what he was, and thereby
demonstrated his own humility, which contrasted with worldly notions
of honour and glory. This story contains details and elements which at
the same time associate it with other pericopae. At 1.4.13–14, a servant
and a noble had shown disrespect towards the saint Equitius, and con-
sequently suffered a physical indisposition, and in his following remarks,
Gregory had already commented on the humility of saints and the decep-
tiveness of outward appearances. At 1.4.20, a peasant in ignorance placed
something on the tomb of Equitius in a martyr’s church, an act which
demonstrated disrespect, whereupon the box was miraculously projected
from the tomb. Constantius was lighting lamps, which had also been the
subject of a story at 1.5.2, in which lamps that lacked oil had miraculously
burned with water; two further stories concerning lamps occur at 1.7.3
(itself a doublet with 2.1.1–2) and 1.7.5–6. Shortly afterwards, at 1.6.1–2,
Gregory tells the story of Bishop Marcellinus, physically deformed like
Constantius, this time by gout, who stopped a town fire. Constantius did
not punish the contemptuous peasant, but the details of disrespect shown
to saints and their humility, as well those of churches, lamps, and physi-
cal deformity, illustrate the way in which many of Gregory’s narratives
share motifs with one another, not all of which are germane to the essen-
tial message of the stories. Doublets can also assume an opposite or con-

44 E.g. Dial. 1.4.3–6, 1.4.7 (nuns possessed); 1.4.1, 1.4.8 (visions granting exceptional gifts);
1.10.2–5, 2.2.1, 2.4.2–3, 2.8.12–11.2, 2.13.1–3, 3.4.1–3, 3.7.1–9, 3.16.3–4, 3.20.1–2, 3.21.1–4, 3.26.2,
3.33.2–5, 4.19, 4.20.2 (devils); 2.34.1, 2.35.2–3, 2.37.2–3, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11 (souls ascending);
4.12, 4.14, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18, 4.20.4, 4.27–4.28, 4.35, 4.36.1–9, 4.40, 4.48–49, 4.51, 4.57.8–14 (death-
bed scenes, including visions); 4.31.2–4, 4.32, 4.37.3–14 (other visions, including of the
afterlife); 4.50–51 (discussion of dreams). For martyrs, see below, n. 64.
 hagiography and the cult of saints 239

trasting form, as, for example, when two deaths are reported, in the first
of which the deceased dies in grace and is attended by saints or angels,
whereas the second dies in sin and is attended by demons.45
The effect of this technique is to weave a web which joins the mate-
rial simultaneously at many junctures, thereby creating an impression of
unity and consistency. It is also an effective story-telling technique, in
which the mind—both Gregory’s and the reader’s—moves smoothly from
one story to another.
A further element which is common in hagiographical texts is the
ascription of miracle stories taken from the Bible to the subjects of Vitae.
The models for these stories may occur in either the Old or the New Testa-
ment. They may be direct imitations with the essential details being little
changed, or a motif may be employed in a significantly different context.46
Biblical quotations and imagery may also occur, independent of any mir-
acle narrative. All of this usage is also to be found in the Dialogi. We have
noted above that this work is partly organized around a mise en scène in
which Gregory was accustomed to expound the Bible to his monks, and
that such exposition occurs within his discussion.
In some cases, this imitation of biblical models is obvious. In Book 2, for
example, a series of five episodes is narrated in association with Benedict:
a spring of water is created in a rock, an iron axe-head is accidentally lost
in a lake but then made to float, a monk walks on water in order to res-
cue a drowning boy, a bird obediently disposes of some poisoned bread,
and Benedict experiences remorse at the death by divine punishment
of a priest who had been his enemy. In the subsequent discussion with
Peter, it is explicitly stated that each of these events replicates a biblical
model: Moses, Elisha, the apostle Peter, Elijah, and David, respectively.47
These stories are relatively direct and uncomplicated imitations. Gregory
argues that the servants of God receive the gift to perform such miracles,
which places them within the same historically continuous community
of faith with their models. On a different level, it is conceivably immate-
rial whether or not these stories occurred as Gregory reports them: they
are true because the same miracles occurred in biblical history, and they

45 E.g. Dial. 1.10.17–18 with 1.12.1–3.

46 See further e.g. Marc Van Uytfanghe, “Modèles bibliques dans l’hagiographie,” in
Le Moyen Âge et la Bible, eds Pierre Riché and Guy Lobrichon, Bibles de tous les temps,
vol. 4 (Paris, 1984), pp. 449–88.
47 Dial. 2.5.1–8.9.
240 stephen lake

therefore could occur again. And if any of Gregory’s miracles could be

regarded as being “true”, then by implication, all of them could be.
Other stories are also obvious imitations of biblical episodes, but Greg-
ory does not make any explicit reference to their models; yet he must have
expected his audience to have recognized them. In a virtual doublet, for
example, Gregory first tells the story of a brother of two sisters who dies,
but who is then resurrected by a saint. Following a brief report of another
miracle, Gregory then narrates another resurrection story, according to
which the priest Severus is sent for because of a sick man, but he delays
going, so that the man dies; he then also raises this man from the dead.48
In the one case, the restored man reports seeing angels and lives for a
long time afterwards, while in the second case, demons were seen and
the man dies (this time, permanently) after having performed penance.
In this case, there is no explicit reference to the story of Lazarus (John
11:1–44), yet the resemblance is difficult to overlook. Parallels are distrib-
uted between the two episodes: a Christian lived together with his two sis-
ters, the saint delays his coming so that the sick man dies, whereupon his
relatives complain that had he come earlier, the man would not have died
(he opened the eyes of the blind, could he then not also have prevented
this death?), the dead man is summoned by name from the dead, death is
likened to sleep, the saint is sorrowful at the man’s death.49 From one bib-
lical episode, Gregory has made two stories. Lazarus’ two sisters, Mary and
Martha, were also familiar in the Christian tradition in a separate context,
namely, as the models for the contemplative and the active lives.
A larger group of stories are less directly adapted from the Bible, but are
arguably similarly indebted to it. These include a range of miracles which,
in the central event, repeat or echo biblical events but in which there are
few or no other parallels, for example, in context or detail. Exorcisms,
healings, resurrections, the motif of the widow who loses her only son, the
commanding of nature, obedient or tame wild animals, the multiplication
of food, wine and oil and the transformation of elements (such as water
into oil), and the survival of a storm all take their models from the Bible,
even if the details between the biblical and the hagiographical narratives
are not in agreement and no explicit parallel is drawn by Gregory. Other
stories may not immediately be recognized as owing their inspiration to

48 Dial. 1.10.17–18 and 1.12.1–3. De Vogüé, ibid., adduces non-biblical parallels here, but
they would seem to be superfluous.
49 There may also be an echo of Luke 16:19–31 here.
 hagiography and the cult of saints 241

the Bible, but plausibly do so; for example, the story of a nun who desired
and ate something in the cloister garden and was immediately possessed,
contains elements of the story of Eve.50 Gregory includes a substantial
number of such pericopae, all of which, it may be argued, he has entirely
invented or at least coloured in the telling with a biblical source. They also
demonstrate the extent to which the Bible shaped such men’s thought
and the way in which they interpreted their experience.
This survey establishes the Bible as an important source for the Dialogi.
Other hagiographical texts—which themselves also often invent biblically
inspired stories—were also sources for Gregory. To take but one exam-
ple, at Dial. 1.4.1–2 he narrates the story of Equitius, who as a young man
experienced sexual temptation, until he had a dream in which an angel
emasculated him; he subsequently supervised women’s cloisters, but
warned other monks against following his example. Gregory here seems
to have adapted two sources: Cassian’s Conlationes and the Latin version
of Palladius’ Historia Lausiaca.51 Cassian narrates the struggles of Serenus
to attain perfect chastity until, in a night vision, an angel performed an
abdominal surgical procedure which had the same effect of eliminating
sexual desire. Cassian says nothing about him supervising women’s clois-
ters, but Palladius reports that an ascetic did so after having been freed of
sexual desire. Gregory thus appears to have retold a story more succinctly
and in his own words, with the one significant variation in the depiction
of the surgical operation, and to have combined it with an example from
a second source.52
The story according to which Paulinus of Nola sold himself into servi-
tude among the Vandals in order to redeem a widow’s only son, and who
thereby redeemed all of the captives taken from Campania, is clearly an
invention by Gregory.53 It is not attested of Paulinus independently, but
it is also chronologically impossible, as Paulinus died in 431, while the

50 Dial. 1.4.7. The resemblances include a woman, the setting of the garden, desiring
something to eat, and the presence of the devil.
51   Cassian, Conlationes 7.2.1–2 (CSEL 13:180–81); Palladius, Historia Lausiaca 29.2–5
(PL 73:1130–31). I have not been able to consult the new edition of Wellhausen, Die
lateinische Übersetzung.
52 For several short comparisons, see de Vogüé, SC 251:128–38; although de Vogüé is also
ambivalent about conceding that Gregory has entirely invented stories. It should be noted
that when we consider how Late Antique and medieval authors have used other literary
sources (and for our purposes, this includes use of the Bible), it becomes clear that they do
so in a variety of ways, so that the absence of either verbal similarity or similarity of detail
is not conclusive proof that there is no indebtedness.
53 Dial. 3.1.1–8; see de Vogüé’s notes, ibid.
242 stephen lake

­ andals began to raid Italy only from 455. The story is explicitly mod-
V
elled on Christ’s sacrifice, and it includes motifs which can be regarded
as topoi—assistance offered for a widow’s only son, the fact that he has
no other means of helping which then occasions a miracle,54 and the vis-
ibility of nobility and its evidence of virtue. Other stories which may be
indebted to literary sources have likewise been manipulated in Gregory’s
retelling of them.55 His stories then cannot all be regarded as having been
reported to him as factual events in the way that he has depicted them.

Gregory’s Saints

One stated aim of the Dialogi is to demonstrate that there have been
exemplary and wonder-working Christians in Italy. Yet Gregory has not
drawn upon a range of sources which recount the lives of Italian saints; he
has drawn upon a range of other sources in a covert fashion. These unused
sources include Paulinus’ Vita Ambrosii; Gerontius’ Vita Melaniae; several
chapters of Palladius’ Historia Lausiaca; Jerome’s epistulae 39, 60, 66, and
77, Ennodius’ Vita Epifanii and Vita Antonii; Eugippius’ Vita Severini; the
LP (or its proto-versions); and the acts of a number of martyrs, includ-
ing the Milanese Protasius and Gervasius, and Felix of Nola.56 He might
also, perhaps, have written about figures such as Boethius, Eugippius, and
Cassiodorus.57 While at least several of these sources were known to Greg-
ory, if not all of them, it is not his use of sources as such which places his

54 The same motif occurs at Dial. 1.9.10; 2.27.1–2.

55 See e.g. Dial. 3.31; 3.2.1–2, and de Vogüé’s notes, ibid.
56 Paulinus of Milan, Life of St. Ambrose, ed. Marco Navoni, Vita di Sant’Ambrogio
(Milan, 1996); Santa Melania giuniore, Senatrice romana, ed. Cardinal Rampolla del Tin-
daro (Rome, 1905); Palladius, Historia Lausiaca (Greek), ed. and trans. A. Lucot, Histoire
lausiaque, Textes et documents pour l’étude historique du christianisme (Paris, 1912);
Jerome, ep. 39 (CSEL 54:293–308); ep. 60 (CSEL 54:548–75); ep. 66 (CSEL 54:647–65); ep.
77 (CSEL 55:37–49); Ennodius, Vita beatissimi viri Epifani episcopi Ticinensis ecclesiae, and
De vita beati Antoni, ed. Frederich Vogel, MGH AA 7 (Berlin, 1885), pp. 84–109, 185–90;
Eugippius, Vie de saint Séverin, ed. Philipp Régerat, SC 374 (Paris, 1991); Le Liber Pontificalis.
Texte, eds L. Duchesne and C. Vogel, 2nd ed., 3 vols (Paris, 1955–57); Ps. Ambrose, Inventio
et passio SS Geruasii et Protasii (PL 17:742); Gregory of Tours, Liber in gloria martyrum 103
on Felix (MGH, SSRM 1,2:107–09), says that he is not aware of any passio for Felix and bases
his account on Paulinus’ Carmina (S. Pontii metropii Paulini Nolani opera, pars 2, Carmina,
eds Wilhelm von Hartel and Margit Kamptner, CSEL 30 [Vienna, 1999]), which Gregory
the Great might also have done.
57 In this context, his reference to Symachus at Dial. 4.31.3–4 is the more striking;
Symachus was also the father of Galla (see 4.14.1), while he does also tell stories of Popes
John I (also mentioned here) and Agapetus; see n. 59 below.
 hagiography and the cult of saints 243

purported purpose in question: it is that he has not undertaken to write

an account of familiar Italian saints at all. Moreover, almost all of the sto-
ries which he recounts are set in the 6th century, with a few exceptions
such as that of Paulinus of Nola.
It has been suggested that Gregory’s neglect of the Roman martyrs in
the Dialogi was due to a conflict between himself and elements of the
Roman clergy who had not supported his election,58 although this argu-
ment is largely speculative. Again, if we consider the other material which
he has similarly neglected, it becomes probable that all of this neglect is
due not to partisanship but rather to his underlying intentions in writing
the Dialogi. He reports three stories about popes, one about his aunts,
one about Paulinus of Nola, and he devotes all of Book 2 to Benedict of
Nursia. The stories about Popes John I and Agapetus are not included in
the Liber pontificalis and may have been invented,59 and that about Pau-
linus of Nola is clearly fictive. The Vita of Benedict may be based upon
the reliable testimony of a group of “Benedictine” monks, but at the time,
Benedict would have been all but unknown; use of his Rule outside of his
own foundations and outside of Italy is only attested for the first time
a few years later,60 while it is the Dialogi themselves which helped to
make him known. With these possible exceptions, few, if any of Gregory’s
saints would probably have been known or recognized as saints; and it is
unlikely that this fact is coincidental.
Yet Gregory was familiar with the cult of saints, and he accepted cur-
rent practices. As pope, he sent relics of the apostles and other martyrs
(but not any of his own saints) to privileged recipients.61 In the Dialogi,
he reports the use of a relic to perform a healing miracle, the dedication
of a chapel with a martyr’s relics, the list of miracles kept at the tomb of
a saint who presumably attracted pilgrims and the miracles that occurred
at another tomb. He discusses the fact that Benedict’s cave at Subiaco
attracted pilgrims, the appearance of saints in visions and the power they

58 See e.g. Conrad Leyser, “The Temptations of Cult: Roman Martyr Piety in the Age
of Gregory the Great,” Early Medieval Europe 9 (2000), 289–307; further, Alan Thacker,
“Rome of the Martyrs: Saints, Cults and Relics, Fourth to Seventh Centuries,” in Roma
felix: Formation and Reflections of Medieval Rome, ed. Éamonn Ó Carragáin (Aldershot,
2007), pp. 13–49.
59 Dial. 3.2–3; see de Vogüé’s notes, ibid. Two of these stories are doublets. The Lives
of John I and Agapetus occur in the LP 55 and 59 resp. (eds Duchesne and Vogel, 1:275–6;
1:287–88).
60 The earliest attestation comes from Altaripa near Albi c.620/630, and Luxeuil, c.629.
61   See above, n. 3.
244 stephen lake

could exercise after their deaths, and the practice of being buried near
saints’ shrines.62 He also includes several reports of martyrs, but these are
Catholic Christians martyred by Arian Goths, Lombards, and Vandals, not
martyrs from the first Christian centuries. Many of these details reflecting
cults of saints are mentioned almost in passing, and Gregory appears to
take them for granted; they are not central to the concerns of the Dialogi.
Some hagiography encourages the veneration of its subjects, and antici-
pates the establishment of their local cult; obvious examples of this ten-
dency include Martin of Tours and Felix of Nola. Gregory, however, is not
writing to this end: he is not encouraging the veneration of any of his
saints, nor, more significantly, is he known to have actively sponsored the
establishment of a cult around any of them. Some Vitae are intended to
present their saints in an apologetic fashion as defenders of theological
orthodoxy; Ferrand’s Vita Fulgentii and perhaps Athanasius’ Vita Antonii,
for example, can be seen in this light.63 Again, while Gregory does give
space to Arianism,64 this is not a central theme of his work.
The most frequent designation of his saints is “man of God” (vir Dei)
or “man of the Lord” (vir Domini), although “holy man” (vir sanctus) and
“servant of God” ( famulus Dei) are not unusual; such designations are
conventional.65 As with other saints, Gregory’s are monks and clergy, not
laymen, excepting his martyrs (who do not perform miracles)66 and, of

62 E.g. Dial. 1.2.5–6, 3.15.18 (“relics”); 1.10.2 (dedication); 1.10.19 (list of miracles); 1.4.20
(disrespect towards a saint’s tomb); 1.4.21 (a deceased abbot protects his monks); 2.22,
3.1.6, 3.24.1–2, 3.25.1–2, 3.38.2 (appearing in visions); 2.23.2–5, 2.24, 4.33, 4.53, 4.54, 4.55, 4.56
(bodies buried in churches tormented or expelled); 2.38 (miracles at Subiaco and relics of
martyrs); 3.22 (a dead saint stops a thief); 3.23.1–4 (a dead abbot makes room for a second
corpse); see also 4.22, 4.23, 4.24.1.
63 Vie de saint Fulgence de Ruspe de Ferrand, diacre de Carthage, ed. G.G. Laypere (Paris,
1929); Athanasius, Vie d’Antoine, ed. Bartelink.
64 Notably at Dial. 3.11.1–13.3; 3.27–32.
65 Dal Santo, “Gregory and Eustratius,” and now Debating the Saints’ Cult, argues that
Gregory is attempting a defence of the cult of saints against suspicions that it constituted
a form of idolatry, and thus that his designations assume a more particular significance;
he also suggests Gregory’s indebtedness, notably in Dial. 4, to an eastern discussion about
resurrection and the immortality of the soul.
66 In the East there are examples of lay men and women as saints, for example, in the
desert literature in which a monk enquires who is greater than he in asceticism, only to be
shown examples of laypeople (see e.g. Paphnutius, in the Historia monachorum 14; Historia
Monachorum in Aegypto, ed. André-Jean Festugière, [Brussels, 1971], pp. 102–09), or the
many lay saints in John of Ephesus’ Lives of the Eastern Saints (ed. and trans. Edward W.
Brooks, John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints. Syriac Text, 3 parts, Patrologia Orien-
talis 17.1 [Paris, 1923]; 18.4 [Paris, 1924]; 19.2 [Paris, 1926]) or the charitable associations of
laypeople such as the philoponi, the spoudaioi, and synoikiai. Such groups and perceptions
are not evident in the West.
 hagiography and the cult of saints 245

around one third of them, we are told no personal details. Gregory con-
cedes that saints may have flaws of which they still need to be purged—
for example, one displayed an uncontrolled and inappropriate disposition
to hilarity, and another sided with the wrong contender for the papacy
in the Laurentian schism67—but despite such imperfections they could
still be vessels of divine intervention. Aside from this trait, the actors of
the Dialogi are possessed of the same virtues and gifts as other saints,
and they perform the same range of miracles. Gregory depicts groups of
nuns, but only three women might be included in the ranks of his saints:
Scholastica, the sister of Benedict, one of his aunts, and Galla, who once
widowed, refused to remarry.68 While there is an occasional attempt to
redeem captives or to warn a brutal and unjust ruler, and while they
display a seemly concern for the poor, they are not “holy men” in Peter
Brown’s sense, and neither are they supernatural intercessors.69 Their
sphere of action is local.
On this showing, it is difficult to conclude that in the Dialogi Gregory
was primarily interested in a cult of saints, whether Italians or any others.
Given that he was not averse to manipulating stories taken from available
sources, and as his audience would arguably not have taken offence at fic-
tion painted as fact, he could easily have ascribed invented stories even
to more familiar Italian saints; yet with one or two exceptions, he did not
do so. The Dialogi recount stories about saints because the lives of saints
illustrate the highest form of the Christian life, and because through such
stories Gregory is able to instruct his audience in the pursuit of virtue and,
ultimately, preparation for death.

Conclusion

The foregoing survey offers an initial approach to the Dialogi and indi-
cates a number of critical questions. Further examination of the text
would certainly detect additional examples of the themes which have
been mentioned and details of its structure. Gregory’s literary technique

67 Dial. 3.14.10–11; 4.42.1–3.

68 Dial. 2.33.2–34.2; 4.17; 4.14.
69 See Peter Brown, “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity,” Journal
of Roman Studies 61 (1971), 80–101; idem, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin
Christianity (Chicago, 1981).
246 stephen lake

is as complex as would be expected from any classically educated author.70

The Dialogi should also be more broadly situated within the literary con-
text of Late Antique hagiography, and the sources of each of the stories,
where they exist, need to be itemized and their adaptation analysed. The
interpretation of the Dialogi continues to be determined by the assump-
tions which we make about what Gregory would or would not have done.
I have shown here that a substantial number of his stories are obvious
adaptations of biblical narratives or borrowings from other hagiographi-
cal texts, which suggests that, while Gregory may also have recounted
episodes which he had indeed been told over a period of many years, it
cannot be assumed that the Dialogi in their entirety are a record of such
reports. The text is also a valuable source for monastic and social history,
as well as for aspects of medieval Christianity.

70 Tateo, “La struttura dei dialoghi di Gregorio Magno,” esp. pp. 109–27, discusses
examples of Gregory’s style.
 Part 3

Literary Aspects of Gregory’s Works

 Chapter Eleven

Gregory’s Literary Inheritance

John Moorhead

Gregory the Great can give the impression of standing at a vast distance
from traditional Roman culture.1 His world view is overwhelmingly Christ-
ian, his inevitable point of reference the Bible, and his works religious
in origin and content. He seems to have turned his back on the ancient
world; not surprisingly, a story was told in the 12th century that he had
had non-Christian books burned, so that the Bible would be more care-
fully studied.2 Yet the 6th century had begun in Rome with the enormous
intellectual labours of Boethius, deeply rooted in the traditions of Greek
and Latin thought and carried out in a climate which saw the works of
Virgil and other standard authors being copied. Such concerns continued
for some way into the century. In 534 Securus Melior Felix, prefect of the
city of Rome, prepared an edition of the De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii,
a storehouse of classical knowledge based on the seven liberal arts writ-
ten in Africa by Martianus Capella during the 5th century; this figure is
presumably identical with the orator named Felix who helped the for-
mer consul Vettius Agorius Basilius Mavortius edit Horace.3 Cassiodorus
complained that the study of secular works was prospering, while public
teachers of the Scriptures were lacking, so that he and Pope Agapetus

1   Among discussions of this topic, I have learned most from Sofia Boesch Gajano,
Grégoire le grand, trans. J. Martin-Bagnauder and N. Lucas (Paris, 2007), pp. 25–31; Claude
Dagens, Saint Grégoire le grand. Culture et expérience chrétiennes (Paris, 1977), pp. 16–20,
and the same author’s “Grégoire le Grand et la culture. De la sapientia huius mundi à la
docta ignorantia,” Revue des études augustiniennes 14 (1968), 17–26; Robert A. Markus,
Gregory the Great and his World (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 34–40; Pierre Riché, Education and
Culture in the Barbarian West, trans. John J. Contreni (Columbia SC, 1976), pp. 152–57.
2 John of Salisbury, Policraticus, 2.26, 8.19 (CCCM 118/1:146, CCCM 118/2:370–71); such
legends are discussed by Gregory T. Buddensieg, “Gregory the Great, the Destroyer of
Pagan Idols. The History of a Medieval Legend concerning the Decline of Ancient Art and
Literature,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965), 44–65. Burnings of
non-Christian books did occur in the 6th century, but in Constantinople: John Malalas,
Chronographia 491, trans. Elizabeth Jeffreys et al. (Melbourne, 1986), p. 300. A story was
later told that when famine struck Rome after Gregory’s death, his enemies began to burn
the books he had written: John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii, 4.69 (PL 75:221–22).
3 Martianus Capella (ed. James Willis [Leipzig, 1983], p. vi).
250 john moorhead

(535–36) sought to raise funds to deal with this problem, and at about that
time one Maximianus represented himself as having been in his youth an
orator known throughout the world and a poet.4 But there the trail stops,
for a reason all too clear.
In 536 the Gothic war launched by Justinian came to mainland Italy,
where it continued to devastating effect for some two decades. During its
course Rome was captured five times and, at its lowest ebb, stood uninhab-
ited for forty days; the senatorial estates that tended to be concentrated in
the south of mainland Italy and had supplied the material support for the
pursuits of the learned class were largely destroyed; and the class of high
bureaucrats whose formation had relied on the traditional literary educa-
tion amply displayed in the letters of Cassiodorus, came to lose its func-
tion as society became dominated by generals and bishops. The changed
circumstances entailed a catastrophic decline in literary studies.
Gregory was born during this period of rapid change, probably around
540. In 554 the Pragmatic Constitution that the Emperor Justinian issued
to regulate the life of the newly conquered Italy ordered that annonae
were to be paid to grammarians and orators, so that young men educated
in the liberal arts would flourish in his empire.5 We do not know whether
this legislation had practical import in Rome, and in any case Gregory
may have been too old by then to have taken advantage of such instruc-
tion. Letters may have fared better outside Rome. The poet Venantius
Fortunatus, who seems to have been a few years older than Gregory, had
been educated at Ravenna, and the poems he went on to write while in
Gaul show how much classical poetry he absorbed; but Ravenna was a
government town, and escaped the worst of the war.6 By the middle of
the 6th century, Constantinople had become the centre of Latin culture,
to which it is reasonable to suppose that Gregory had access during his
stay there (c.580–c.586) and, on returning to Rome, he kept in touch with
people he knew there. One of them, Rusticiana, is of particular interest.
A holder of the rank of patricia who held property in Italy and Sicily, she
was close to Gregory, who wrote inviting her to visit Rome again.7 She

4 Cassiodorus, Institutiones, 1 praef. 1 (ed. R.A.B. Mynors [Oxford, 1937], p. 3). Maximianus:
Elegiae 1.9ff. (ed. Aemilius Baehrens, Poetae Latinae Minores 5 [Leipzig, 1883], p. 317).
5 Prag. Sanct. app. 7.22 (ed. R. Schöll, Corpus iuris civilis 3 [Berlin, 1912], p. 302).
6 Michael Roberts, Humblest Sparrow. The Poetry of Venantius Fortunatus (Ann Arbor
MI, 2009).
7 Property: Reg. 9.84, 13.24. Visit Rome again: Gregory hopes she will see St. Peter’s again
(Reg. 8.22); he mentions her “return” towards the end of 13.24. Her sending Gregory gold for
the redemption of captives (Reg. 8.22) and gifts to the monastery he founded (Reg. 11.26)
 gregory’s literary inheritance 251

shared her name with the widow of Boethius, who was still in Rome in
546, begging for bread.8 Gregory’s friendship with her may have been a
literary one, and have begun when Rusticiana was still living in Rome;
conceivably for years he close to a near relative of Boethius.
But apart from the issue of what secular culture his education in Rome
and years in Constantinople may have placed at Gregory’s disposal, there
is the question of what such culture would have meant to him. Two
predecessors in 6th-century Italy offered different approaches. One was
provided by one of Gregory’s heroes, the monk Benedict. In a passage
of the Dialogues worded with typical exuberance, Gregory describes the
young Benedict living freely (libere) in the land, but coming to despise
the world. Born to a free family (liberiore genere), he went to Rome for an
education in liberal studies in letters (liberalibus litterarum studiis) but,
coming to despise the study of letters (despectis . . . literarum studiis), he
went on to withdraw, having become knowledgeably ignorant and wisely
unlearned (scienter nescius et sapienter indoctus).9 One is tempted to see
here a statement of Gregory’s values rather than Benedict’s, but judging by
the Latinity of the Regula Benedicti, Gregory’s judgement was not overly
critical, and while the Rule of Benedict enjoins on monks the practice
of divine reading (lectio divina), its requirement that every monk receive
a book from the library at the beginning of Lent which he was “to read
through in order” suggests a low priority being given to intellectual work.10
Romantic notions that have sometimes been entertained of Benedictine
monks lovingly transcribing and preserving the classics find no support
in Benedict himself.
Cassiodorus, on the other hand, was concerned that the monks of the
community which he formed read both divine and secular texts, and in

suggest close friendship, as does the phrase used with reference to her, “cuius susceptus
ante episcopatum proprius fui” (Reg. 11.26, CCSL 140A: 898, l. 8); see further, Roberta Rizzo,
Papa Gregorio Magno e la nobilità in Sicilia (Palermo, 2008), p. 18, although she is too ready
to see signs of Gregory having been affiliated with the Anicii gens.
    8 Procopius, History of the Wars, 7.20.27–31 (ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing, Procopius,
Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge MA, 1924], p. 332.
   9 Dial. 2, praef. At Dial. 3.37.20 Gregory proposes a comparison between hac nostra
indocta scientia and the doctam ignorantiam of an illiterate holy man; see further Mor.
10.29.48 for his hostility to the wisdom of this world, and the advice that wise people be
admonished ut amittant scire quae sciunt (RP 3.6). Paradoxes of this kind recall those of
Byzantine liturgical poetry, such as occur in the Akathistos.
10 Lectio divina: Benedicti Regula 48.1 (CSEL 75:125); following portions in this chapter
indicate hours each day in which monks were free for reading. Book in Lent: Benedicti
Regula 48.15–16 (CSEL 75:129).
252 john moorhead

his Institutes he has a fair bit to say about copying such texts. But even
here, secular learning was not seen as autonomous, but rather as some-
thing one engaged in so as to understand the Scriptures better. While
we have little information as to the kind of monastic life observed in the
monastery Gregory established on the Caelian Hill, in this respect he gives
every impression of standing closer to Benedict than Cassiodorus. Further,
both Benedict and Gregory seem to have approached the Bible as a text
one heard rather than read, whereas Cassiodorus was concerned with the
needs of those who read texts in silence.11 Gregory certainly treated the
Bible as a text he knew in his mind, rather than consulted on the page,
and whatever use he made of secular texts may well have been based
on his memories of earlier reading, with implications for the accuracy of
his recollections. In the enquiry that follows, I begin by examining two
utterances that seem to suggest a negative view of literary culture. I then
enquire, as precisely as possible, into what Gregory may have known of
classical literary culture, restricting myself to what would have been avail-
able to him in Latin; his knowledge of Greek seems to have been scanty,
and the parallels with Latin authors that occur within his works, while
often oblique, are far closer to any parallels with Greek authors. Finally,
and very briefly, I seek to place some of the broad themes of his activity
against those of his period.
Gregory is famous for two utterances that suggest a dour view of non-
Christian culture, of which the first is the more complicated. It occurs
towards the end of a long letter he wrote to bishop Leander of Seville in
595 that accompanied a copy of his Moralia in Iob. In what can be read
as a frontal attack on correct Latin, Gregory informed Leander that he
disdained to observe the art of speaking that the teachings of an exterior
discipline recommended, having in mind teaching exterior to Christian-
ity. As would be clear from the style of the letter he was writing, he did not
avoid the collision of metacisms and the confusion of barbarism; more-
over, he was not in the slightest concerned with “syntax and moods and
the cases taken by prepositions”, for it would have been utterly unworthy
to bind the words of the Bible with the rules of Donatus, which in any

11 Benedict: John Moorhead, “Hearing in St. Benedict,” Studia monastica 47 (2005),

7–17. Gregory: John Moorhead, Gregory the Great (Abingdon—New York, 2005), pp. 22–23.
Cassiodorus: John Moorhead, “Hearers and Readers of Christian Texts in Late Antiquity,”
in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 14, ed. Carl Deroux (Brussels, 2008),
pp. 476–97 at 496–97.
 gregory’s literary inheritance 253

case, Gregory claimed, had not been followed by any interpreters of the
authority of the Bible.12
These are alarming words, not made any easier by the pride that the
great biblical commentator Jerome had taken in having been a student
of the grammarian Donatus,13 but they are not meant to be taken at face
value. The technical vocabulary he used suggests, at the very least, that
the enemy was one Gregory was well acquainted with. Metacism refers
to the disappearance of the letter m between two vowels, as for example
could occur whenever the accusative singular form of most nouns was
followed by a word beginning with a vowel. By Gregory’s time, such an
m at the end of a word was probably not pronounced. Donatus includes
the fault in a list of barbarisms, but the example Martianus Capella gives
of this awkward usage is certainly meant as a joke (mammam ipsam amo
quam meam animam: “I love that breast more than my life”), and we may
suspect that the failing was not always taken seriously.14 Similarly, refer-
ences in late antique texts to barbarisms of speech are sometimes meant
in a jocular way.15 Moreover, it has long been recognized that Gregory’s
words in this passage are related to some written by Cassiodorus in his
Institutes.16 Addressing himself a few decades earlier to people charged

12 Reg. 5.53a (CCSL 143:7, l. 215–23). I have benefitted from the translation of John R.C.
Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the Great (Toronto, 2004), 2:385, from which the quoted
words are taken.
13 Praeceptoris mei Donati: Apologia contra Rufinum 1.16 (CCSL 79:15).
14 Donatus: H. Keil, Grammatici Latini 4 (Leipzig, 1864), p. 393. Martianus Capella,
5.5.14; (eds A. Dick and J. Préuax [Stuttgart, 1978], p. 254). One cannot imagine Gregory
making a joke of this kind.
15 “Te praesente formidet linguae suae facere barbarus barbarismum”: Sidonius
Apollinaris, Ep. 5.5.3 to Syagrius (ed. W.B. Anderson [London, 1965], p. 182).
16 Similarities had already been noticed by Maurice Roger, L’enseignement des lettres
classiques d’Ausone à Alcuin: Introduction à l’histoire des écoles carolingiennes (Paris, 1905),
p. 188. The key study is Louis Holtz, “Le context grammatical du défi à la grammaire:
Grégoire et Cassiodore,” in Grégoire le grand (Paris, 1986), pp. 531–40, arguing for complex
intertexuality and malice in the way Gregory dealt with Cassiodorus; gentler is Tore Janson,
Latin Prose Prefaces (Stockholm, 1964), p. 167, suggesting that bad memory or mistaken
quotation, always on the cards with Gregory, may have been at issue. See further on the
interpretation of this letter, Ubaldo Pizzani, “S. Gregorio magno, Cassiodoro e le arti liberali,”
in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo (Rome, 1991), 2:121–36. The question is complicated by
uncertainty as to the text of Cassiodorus that would have been available to Gregory; see
Holtz’s discussion, “Quelques aspects de la tradition et de la diffusion des Institutiones,” in
Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro (Rubbettino, 1986), pp. 281–312, and further the somewhat
diffuse study of Fabio Troncarelli, Vivarium: I libri, il destino (Turnhout, 1998); more
recently, Mark Vessey, in Cassiodorus: Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning, trans.
James W. Halporn, intro. Mark Vessey (Liverpool, 2004), pp. 39ff. F. Weissengruber, “Zu
Gregors des Großen Verhalten gegenüber der antiken Profanbildung,” in Gregorio magno
2, pp. 105–19, is generally persuasive, although a good deal of the argument rests on a
254 john moorhead

with correcting errors found in manuscripts of the Scriptures, Cassiodo-

rus told them to pay special attention to words in the accusative or abla-
tive cases, distinguishing between the states of rest and motion (situm
motumque) that were associated with these cases respectively in nouns
governed by prepositions; among other things, they were to be on their
guard against the letter m dropping out or being added at the ends of
words, a clear sign of uncertainty as to its pronunciation in this position.17
Gregory may have changed one word: while situs remains the same, Cas-
siodorus’ motus seems to have become modus.18 Assuming that Gregory
has replaced one word by another, whether intentionally or not, the new
word works equally well, for Quintilian used it of the voice of verbs, whether
active or passive, and of confusion in the use of deponent verbs.19
The clinching argument for not taking Gregory’s words at face value
is the obvious one. Despite his assertion to the contrary, throughout his
letter to Leander, the Moralia, and every other book written by Gregory,
there is no sign of him committing such schoolboy errors as confusing
cases after prepositions; his Latin is of a very different quality to that of
Benedict. Perhaps, in a period when spoken Latin was diverging from the
traditional form in which authors such as Gregory wrote it, the distinction
between the accusative and ablative forms of some nouns would have
been blurred in pronunciation, but when it came to writing them he was
as correct as Cicero. In the following century, the English author Aldhelm
claimed that he had avoided the Scylla of solecism, the Charybdis of col-
loquialism, the rocks of labdacism and the whirlpools of metacism; he
may have been deliberately imitating Gregory’s words to Leander, but in
any case Aldhelm, like Gregory an accomplished Latin stylist, was oper-
ating in a rhetorical manner similar to that of Gregory.20 Writing a few
decades after Gregory had sent a copy of the Moralia to his brother, Isi-
dore of Seville asserted that it would be beyond the power of wise people
to explain the verbal ornaments contained in the Moralia, a judgement

passage in the In I Librum Regum attributed to Gregory that I would prefer not to take as
a guide to his thought.
17   Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1.15.9, ed. R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford, 1937), p. 46. Very helpful
is the translation of Halporn, Cassiodorus: Institutions, p. 142.
18  Note, however, that motus is a possible reading; consult the critical apparatus
provided by Adriaen (CCSL 143:7, at l. 219), and compare Paul Ewald and Ludwig M.
Hartmann (eds), MGH Epp. 1:357 n. (f).
19   Quintilian, Institutiones 9.3.7 (ed. Michael Winterbottom [Oxford, 1970], p. 513).
20 Aldhelm, De virginitate 59 (MGH AA 15:320–21.)
 gregory’s literary inheritance 255

that may be closer to the truth than that which Gregory ostensibly passed
on himself.21
It is also worth considering the place in which Gregory expressed these
sentiments. It was conventional for an author to deploy a topos of humil-
ity in a dedicatory letter by drawing attention to his incompetence, and
the comments we have been considering seem undercut by a passage
that occurs immediately prior to them in which Gregory apologized to
Leander in case his correspondent found anything uncouth (incultum) in
the Moralia, and claimed he had not been able to increase his studies of
rhetoric because of illness.22 His remarks were made in the same spirit as
those of another formidable stylist, Sidonius Apollinaris, himself a bishop
and in this case addressing another bishop, when he apologized for the
lack of literary style in a homily he forwarded to him.23 This is not the
only instance we shall find of Gregory’s “sense of ironic self-deprecation”,
which enables his words to Leander to be seen as “an ironic joke between
two cultured friends”.24 Similar self-deprecating sentiments are visible in
the letter sent to bishop Marinianus of Ravenna which stands before the
Homilies on Ezekiel and that addressed to bishop John of Ravenna at the
end of the Pastoral Care,25 but we have particular reason to be sceptical of
the apparent modesty in the letter to Leander. As he came to the end of
the Moralia, Gregory confessed that “somehow or other a desire for human
praise has furtively, I do not know how, planted itself in the middle of that
very desire with which I am so keen to please God”,26 and we may hazard
a guess that a form of pride lay behind his profession of modesty.
The second passage we shall consider was written six years later to
another bishop among Gregory’s familiar correspondents, Desiderius of
Vienne. Having begun by stating that he had heard good things of the
bishop’s studies, Gregory proceeded to write of his amazement and

21   Isidore writes of the Moralia: “quanta clareant ornamenta verborum, nemo sapiens
explicare valebit etiam si omnes artus eius vertantur in linguas”: De viris illustribus 40.54
(PL 83:1102).
22 Reg. 5.53a.5, ll. 186–89. Yet a few years later Gregory wrote to a hermit of his pleasure
in finding no cultus of eloquence or prideful use of language in a letter from him (Reg.
9.148). See in general, Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces; Gregory is discussed at pp. 162–67.
23 Ep. 7.9.1–2, ed. W.B. Anderson, 2 (London 1965), p. 336.
24 Self-deprecation: Conrad Leyser, Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory
the Great (Oxford, 2000), p. 142. Ironic joke: John R.C. Martyn, “Four Notes on the Registrum
of Gregory the Great,” Parergon 19/2 (2002), 6–38 at 9.
25 HeZ., praef.; RP 4, p. 540.
26 Mor. 35.20.47, trans. Moorhead, Gregory the Great, p. 156. The conclusion of the
Moralia is one of the most beautiful and self-aware pieces of Gregory’s writing.
256 john moorhead

s­ adness at hearing that the bishop was teaching grammar, for the praises
of Christ did not belong in the one mouth with the praises of Jupiter, and
he urged his correspondent to consider how serious and unspeakable it
would be for a bishop to sing something that was unsuitable for a religious
layperson. Gregory had heard from a priest that Desiderius was innocent;
if the bishop had not been studying pieces of nonsense and secular writ-
ing, Gregory thanked God for having kept his heart free from being defiled
by the blasphemous utterances of unspeakable people.27
It cannot be denied that this is not a particularly positive passage, the
effect of which is heightened by the repetition of one of Gregory’s favou-
rite words, “unspeakable” (nefandissimum). Nevertheless, it is awkward. Its
opening words suggest that, in principle, Gregory was happy with bishops
undertaking “studies” (studia), a sentiment that would be congruent with
the defensive statement in his letter to Leander that ill health had made his
own rhetorical studies languish, so he could hardly have opposed a brother
bishop’s being engaged in such activities.28 Perhaps his criticism was not
of bishops engaging in studies, but their teaching grammar, an activity he
describes in what looks like formal language (grammaticam . . . exponere),
and it is worth remembering that the discipline of grammar included the
study of poetry; it may have been this, rather than what we now think of
as grammar, that Gregory was concerned with.29 Yet Gregory seems to
change direction midstream, for he proceeds to express optimism that
Desiderius may not be studying (studere) trifles and secular letters. Hence,
a positive interpretation of the letter would see Gregory merely forbidding
a bishop to teach grammar, something perhaps compromised by the study
of poetry this necessitated; a negative reading, on the other hand, would
see Gregory condemn even private study. Needless to say, there had been
a long tradition of polemic against such study, Jerome having written to
Pope Damasus of clergy reading comedies, singing the amorous lyrics of
bucolic verses, and holding copies of Virgil. It has been suggested that an
awareness of an incompatibility between profane and Christian culture

27 Reg. 11.34. Gregory’s aversion to the praise of Jupiter presumably arose from knowledge
of the activities attributed to him; cf Aen. 1.46f, and Gregory of Tours’ reference to “Iovis
omnium stuprorum spurcissimus perpetrator”: HF 2.29 (MGH SSRM 1:74).
28 “Nam dum molestia corpus atteritur, afflicta mente etiam dicendi studia languescunt”
(Ep. 5.53a.5, CCSL 143:6, ll. 187–89).
29 Cicero, De Divinatione 1.51.116 (ed. W.A. Falconer [London, 1923], p. 348); Quintillian,
Institutiones 1.4.2 (ed. Winterbottom, p. 22).
 gregory’s literary inheritance 257

had developed during the 5th century, particularly among bishops,30 and
Gregory’s attitude would find a place within it.
On the basis of the evidence of these letters, Gregory emerges as not
having been as hostile to secular letters as he may first appear to have
been, and indeed elsewhere he gives evidence of operating according to
principles very different to those a hasty reading of his letters to Leander
and Desiderius may suggest. In the prologue to his Dialogues, he wrote
that if he had reproduced the words used by his informants, such a turn-
ing of the pen of the writer to “rustic use” would not have been fitting.31
As so often with Gregory, a moral judgement may underlie one ostensibly
made on other grounds, here stylistic, and the notion of rusticity carries
a note of criticism, as when he has the malevolent enemies of a preacher
ask the pope, “Who is this rustic?”32 He shared this particular concern with
Quintilian, according to whom one’s utterance should be smooth, distinct,
agreeable, and urbane, so that nothing rustic or exotic could be heard in
it.33 Such fastidiousness, which Gregory also expressed in an aversion to
“vulgar” words,34 contrasts with the attitude of his ­contemporary Gregory

30 Ep. 21 (Lettres, ed. J. Labourt, 2 vols [Paris, 1949], 1:94); in the preceding passage,
Jerome interprets Paul as discouraging the reading of philosophers, orators, and poets.
The argument for a perception of incompatibility is made by Riché, Education and Culture,
pp. 95–99; I am not sure what significance to place on an article in the Statuta ecclesiae
antiqua of the second half of the 5th century; “Ut episcopus gentilium libros non legat,
haereticum autem pro necessitate temporis”, quoted p. 97 n. 115; something similar has
been attributed to the fourth council of Carthage (398): Sacrorum Conciliorum nova
amplissima collectio (ed. Giovanni Domenico Mansi, 14 vols [Florence, 1759–71; repr. Graz,
1960–61] 3:952). But the suggestion that Ennodius must have known the canon is not well
grounded, for the passages quoted, like all his surviving works, come from the period of his
diaconate; a case could be made on the negative ground that none of his surviving works
date from the period of his episcopate, perhaps suggesting that on becoming a bishop he
turned aside from literary culture.
31   Dial. 1 prol. 10 (rusticano usu); when Gregory states that for some of his informants
he has given the sense of what they say, for others their words with the sense, he deploys
standard terms used by Jerome (sensus, verbum) of translating from one language to
another in a manner that suggests that some of what Gregory’s informants told him
needed to be “translated”! See in general Michel Banniard, Viva voce: communication écrite
et communication orale du IVe au IXe siècle en occident Latin (Paris, 1992).
32 Dial. 1.4.11. Note too the hostile portrayal of a rusticus who heard things in mente
rusticana at Dial. 1.5.4–6; ab stulto rusticorum populo (2.8.10); an evil sacristan was said to
have used the “rustic word” inpostor of a holy bishop (3.14.3). Rustici appear in a good light
at 3.27. Elsewhere in the Dialogues, Gregory seems apologetic at providing a rustic form
for a place name (1.12.1); the mention of a place name in lingua rustica in a sermon to the
people is without awkwardness (HEv. 12.7).
33 “Facile, explanatum, iucundum, urbanum id est in qua nulla neque rusticitas neque
peregrinitas resonet”: Institutiones 11.3.30 (ed. Winterbottom, p. 659).
34 Hence his flagging the words merola and flascones as vulgo: (Dial. 2.2.1, 2.18.1).
258 john moorhead

of Tours, who seems to have worn the label ‘rustic’ as a badge of honour.
In the preface to his Books of Histories, he observes that few people under-
stand a rhetor as he philosophizes, but many a rustic as he speaks, clearly
placing himself in the latter category. At the beginning of his book on the
glory of the confessors, he imagines educated people saying to him “O
rustic and ignorant person, why do you place your name among the writ-
ers?” And while the confession Gregory of Tours made at the beginning
of another of his works that he did not know how to decline (discernere)
nouns, used feminine for masculine, neuter for feminine, and masculine
for neuter, and confused the accusative and ablative cases in nouns gov-
erned by prepositions was all too justified, a similar profession by Pope
Gregory, cast in much more elegant language, was, as we have seen, false.35
Gregory of Tours felt that Gregory the Great’s education in grammar,
dialectic, and rhetoric meant that he was considered second to none in
Rome;36 he may not have been told that this was so, but to such a person
the pope would have seemed a man of impressive literary culture.
With this in mind, we may turn to the occasions when Gregory him-
self quotes from classical authors. Two phrases he uses, one from Virgil
and the other from Cicero, had become clichés, as they remain to this
day; they may have been recollections from his early days, and one recalls
Augustine’s remark that children were exposed to Virgil at an early age
so that he would not easily be forgotten, or they may have come to his
mind as nothing more than phrases of no particular provenance familiar
to educated people.37 Two passages in the prologue to the Dialogues, how-

35 Few people understand a rhetor: Gregory of Tours, HF praef; Gregory asserts that in
contemporary Gaul “nec repperire posit quisquam peritus dialectica in arte grammaticus”:
HF praef. prima (MGH SSRM 1:1). Rustic and ignorant person: Liber in gloria confessorum
praef. (MGH SSRM 1,2:298), where his inability to decline nouns is mentioned.
36 Gregory of Tours, HF 10.1 (MGH SSRM 1:478), apparently followed by Paul the Deacon,
Vita Gregorii 2 (PL 75:42), whose perception that such study was still (adhuc) flourishing
then is interesting. But neither Gregory nor Paul need have had definite information, still
less the Carolingian author John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii 2.13 (PL 75:92).
37 This is particularly the case with auri sacra fames (Aen. 3.57) quoted in Reg.
11.40, a letter to Bishop Aetherius of Gaul dealing with the problem of simony; oddly
enough, the same phrase occurs independently in a law of 469 dealing with the same
issue (Codex Iustinianus, 1.3.30, ed. Paul Krueger [Berlin, 1915], p. 22), but it had surely
become a cliché; the historian Jordanes, no great scholar, used it (Getica 134, ed. MGH
AA 5,1: 93); Gregory’s use of Virgil may be set against that impressive deployment of him
by Ambrose: M.D. Diederich, Virgil in the Works of St. Ambrose (Washington DC, 1931).
Augustine mentions children learning Virgil at De civ. Dei 1.3 (CCSL 47:3). Note as well
the phrase o tempora, o mores! (used several times by Cicero) in a letter to the emperor
Maurice, Reg. 5.37, but again, this is nothing compared to Ambrose’s use of Cicero in his
De officiis. This listing is tentative; anyone who has tried to establish Gregory’s use of the
 gregory’s literary inheritance 259

ever, cut far more deeply, and are most suggestive. Gregory was a lover of
contemplative solitude, and at the beginning of his Dialogues he tells of
an occasion when, weighed down by the tumults of people of the world,
he sought out a secret place (secretum locum petii) that was favourable to
a feeling of sorrow (Dial. 1, prol. 1). He used a very similar expression in
a letter to the bishop of Constantinople, a correspondent from whom he
could have expected some sympathy, writing that on ascending to high
office he had been aware of his weakness and had sought out secret places
(secretiora loca petere; Ep. 7.5). Again, in a homily on Ezekiel, Gregory
told his hearers that those who disapproved of the lives of their neigh-
bours tried to change their place and choose a more remote life in secret
(mutare locum conamur, secretum vitae remotioris eligere; HEz. 1.9.23). The
expression was clearly a favourite with Gregory, and one with a classical
pedigree, having been used by Horace (secreta petit loca) and Livy, who
wrote of a commander seeking a position from which he could launch a
surprise attack (locum maxime secretum ab tumultu petit).38 Perhaps the
form of words was in the air, rather than a conscious imitation by Gregory,
although if it were the latter we may hazard the guess that Livy is the more
likely source. This would be something of a surprise, for patristic authors
tended to take little interest in Livy, turning for preference among histori-
ans to the moralizing Sallust. But one circumstance suggests that Gregory
may have drawn directly on Livy. In the first of the passages quoted here,
Gregory speaks of himself as having been weighed down by tumults, just
as Livy writes of a place remote from tumult. The occurrence of this word
in both authors suggests direct borrowing.
Another metaphor that could be used to describe a deeply felt experi-
ence came easily to Gregory. He loved to compare his situation to that of
a person at sea, tossed about in the waves of a great storm and hardly able
to see the harbour from which he had departed (Dial. 1, prol. 5). The same
notion occurs in some of his letters, where he describes himself as shaken
by waves of things he had to deal with and oppressed by storms (Ep 1.5
to Theoctista, the sister of the emperor) and, again, shaken by waves and
afflicted by the storms of a confused life.39 Elsewhere, Gregory writes to
his old friend Bishop Leander that, shaken as he is by great waves ­crashing

Fathers will have encountered difficulties arising from his tendency to be free rather than
literal in quoting them.
38 Horace: Ars poetica 298 (ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey [Stuttgart, 1991], p. 322). Livy: Ab
urbe condita 4.278 (ed. R.G. Ogilvie [Oxford, 1974], p. 277).
39 Reg. 1.5 (CCSL 140:6); 1.7 (CCSL 140:9); and 1.25 (CCSL 140:31).
260 john moorhead

in from every side, he is unable to direct his ship towards the harbour
(Ep. 1.41, where the metaphor is extended at length). Less precise are the
shipwreck he informs Bishop John of Constantinople is threatening him
(1.4), a fleeting reference to the storms of the times at the conclusion of a
letter to Bishop Natalis of Salona (1.20), and the image of a ship having to
return to harbour in a letter to the ex-prefect Aristobulus (1.28). A beauti-
ful working out of the image occurs in the letter to Leander that forms
the preface to the Moralia, when Gregory writes of the monks who had
accompanied him to Constantinople making it possible for him, tossed
about as he was because of secular issues, to be tied firmly to the peaceful
shore of prayer, and to flee to their company as to a bosom of the safest
of harbours (Ep. 5.53a.1). He uses similar language to describe a real storm
encountered by the bishop of Palermo and a sailor while on their way to
Rome, from which the latter was only delivered by the bishop’s having the
holy sacrifice celebrated (Dial. 4.59.2–5).
Where did this notion come from? On another occasion, when he
describes himself as escaping from a shipwreck naked, Gregory recycles a
metaphor used in a very similar way by Paulinus of Nola, and it is possible
that he took it directly from him.40 But the broad metaphor of a peace-
ful harbour was an ancient one that remained current among Christian
writers.41 Not long before Gregory’s time it had been used by Cassiodorus
when, at the beginning of the preface to his De anima, he wrote of his
peace after finishing work on the Variae, his correspondence written on
behalf of the Ostrogothic state: a quiet harbour had received him after he
had been tossed about as he composed its twelve books.42 And somewhere
in the background to Gregory’s language stands Virgil’s account of a storm
that had been raised at Juno’s behest to impede the passage of Aeneas and
his followers (Aen. 1.81–123), but exact parallels are lacking, and Courcelle
well expresses the relationship between Gregory and Virgil here when he
states that at one point Gregory seems to be dreaming of the storm in the
Aeneid; I am not certain we can be more precise than this.43

40 “De hoc mundo quasi de naufragio nudus evadam” (Paulinus, Ep. 4.3; PL 61:166);
“ex huius vitae naufragio nudus evasi” (Gregory, Ep. 5.53a.1).
41   C. Bonner, “Desired Haven,” Harvard Theological Review 34 (1941), 50–67 discusses
usages of λιμήν and portus, without showing them being applied by an author to his own
situation as Gregory does to his.
42 De anima 1 (CCSL 96:534, ll. 2–3).
43 Pierre Courcelle, Lecteurs païens et chrétiens de l’Énéide (Paris, 1984), p. 45. Another
“dream”, of Aen. 12.862–66, is said to have inspired “parva avis . . . faciem . . . importune” at
Dial. 2.2.1; Courcelle, Lecteurs p. 698 n. 102–3.
 gregory’s literary inheritance 261

Sometimes, however, Gregory can be pinned down. Writing in October

590 to Narses, Gregory claimed that his correspondent had called some-
one who was really an ape a lion, but for his part he felt that that this was
like referring to scabby young dogs as panthers or tigers. A similar image
occurs in abbreviated form in the immediately preceding letter, sent by
Gregory to the emperor’s sister Theoctista in October 590, in which he
commented that, in ordering him to assume pontifical office, the emperor
had ordered an ape to become a lion; but while he could order an ape to
be called a lion, he could not order him to become one. Certainly in the
first case, and probably in the second, Gregory will have had in mind a pas-
sage in Juvenal’s Satires which refers to lazy dogs given the ironic names
Panther, Tiger or Lion.44 Writing to the patrician Venantius, whom he
believed to have been influenced to do wrong by his friends, he produces
an apposite comment from Seneca, rather coyly described as a secular
author: “You should discuss everything with your friends, but first [assess
the men] themselves.”45 It has been suggested that two of the best known
parts of the Aeneid were drawn on by Gregory, the description of the fall
of Troy in the second book having been used to supply language for the
impact of the Lombards on Rome and, more compellingly, the account of
the underworld in the sixth book for language to describe what a Chris-
tian visitor to the same region saw.46 A brief mention in the Moralia of

44 Gregory to Narses: Reg. 1.6 (CCSL 140: 8). Gregory to Theoctista: Reg. 1.5 (CCSL 140:7).
Juvenal: Sat. 8.34–37 (ed. and trans. Susanna Morton Braund [Cambridge MA, 2004],
p. 326). These matters are very helpfully discussed by Pierre Courcelle, “Grégoire le
grand à l’école de Juvénal,” Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 38 (1967), 170–74.
However, I am not persuaded by the argument Courcelle develops for Gregory’s use of
the phrases habitare secum and secum esse in Dial. 2.3.5–9 being based on Persius’ tecum
habita (Sat. 4.52): “ ‘Habitare secum’ selon Perse et selon Grégoire le grand,” Revue des
études anciennes 69 (1967), 266–79; while the sentiment is certainly classical, this way of
expressing it could have occurred to Gregory independently. Further discussion in the
commentary of Salvatore Pricoco to Manlio Simonetti’s edition of the Dialogi: Gregorio
Magno. Storie di santi e di diavoli, 1: Libri I–II (Rome, 2005), pp. 313–14.
45 “cum amicis omnia tractanda sunt, sed prius de ipsis”: Gregory, Reg. 1.33; cf. “tu vero
omnia cum amico delibera, sed de ipso prius”, Seneca, Ad Lucilium epistulae morales 1.3.2
(ed. Leighton D. Reynolds, vol. 1 [Oxford, 1965], p. 4).
46 Lombards: compare Gregory’s “ubique mors, ubique luctus” (HEz. 2.6.22) with Vir-
gil’s “luctus, ubique pavor et plurima mortis imago” (Aen. 2.369). Underworld: Gregory’s
“amoena erant prata atque virentia, odoriferis herbarum floribus exornata” appositely
brings together phrases from Aeneid 6.638, 656–58, 708: Courcelle, Lecteurs, p. 467 n. 163.
Courcelle convincingly connects Gregory’s noctem insomnem duceret (HEv. 2.26.11) with
Aen. 9.166–67 (noctem custodia ducit insomnem), p. 619, but I am not persuaded that multa
viri virtus (Aen. 4.3) lies behind Gregory’s viri virtute (Dial. 2.16.9) and tantae virtutis virum
(Dial. 3.35.3), suggested at p. 282 n. 6, such expressions being very Gregorian.
262 john moorhead

the habits of hinds when swimming follows Pliny,47 and the same work
contains a brief allusion to the story of Atlas, when Gregory acknowledges
the vain fables of Hesiod, Aratus and Callimachus.48
It must be said that this is not a great harvest. The works of Gregory
yield nothing like the long lists of quotations of and allusions to classical
authors that accompany those of Ambrose and Augustine; still less is there
a sense of wrestling with ideas that were to be taken seriously and needed
intellectual engagement. But perhaps this is not as bad as it seems. The
works Gregory wrote were not of a kind where one would necessarily look
for such things; there is no De officiis or De civitate Dei in his oeuvre, and
the works of his predecessors on the Bible, like his own, were orally deliv-
ered performances, not products of the study, in which classical material
was naturally thin on the ground. Moreover, Gregory is remarkably hard
to catch in the act of reading even his Christian predecessors. He cer-
tainly knew of them, asking the dedicatee of the Homilies on Ezekiel, with
a typical deployment of the modesty topos that does not conceal a pos-
sible element of pride, why he did not turn to the flowing torrents of the
blessed fathers Ambrose and Augustine rather than the brackish stream
his work constituted.49 All that can safely be deduced from this is that
Gregory was familiar with the names of his great predecessors, not that
he had mastered their works. In this set of homilies Gregory went on to
develop themes explicitly in opposition to Pelagius and Caelestius, in an
account of grace and God’s gifts that seems likely to have originated in a
reading of Augustine but points away from his thought.50 Given the dif-
ficulty of pinning down Gregory’s debt to earlier Christian authors, some-
thing that can be very overt in the case of Ambrose, it is not surprising
to find the extent of his knowledge of classical writers hard to establish.

47 Pliny: capita imponentes praecedentium, of hinds swimming across the seas (Nat. hist.
8.50.118, ed. H. Rockham [Cambridge MA/London, 1968], p. 84). Gregory: when crossing
rivers, “capitum suorum onera dorsis praecedentium superponunt” (Mor. 30.10.36).
48 Mor. 9.11.12, evidence that Gregory had heard the names of authors rather than for
his familiarity with them.
49 Note as well a recommendation to a correspondent in Africa to read the work of his
fellow countryman Augustine on Job, whose work was white flour compared to Gregory’s
bran (Reg. 10.16), yet another case of self-deprecation. I am not sure such a comparison
would occur to anyone who placed Augustine’s Adnotationes in Iob against Gregory’s
Moralia.
50 HEz 1.9.2. Another apparent failure to comprehend something on the part of Gregory
is suggested by John A. Demetracopoulos, “Gregory the Great and Contemporary Byzantine
Theology,” in L’eredità spirituale di Gregorio Magno tra Occidente e Oriente, ed. Guido Inno-
cenzo Gargano (Verona, 2005), pp. 87–138.
 gregory’s literary inheritance 263

Yet, while the quotations and allusions are too few to suggest anything
definite about how Gregory’s knowledge is to be placed against the range
of material that would have been potentially available to him, there are
enough of them to allow some observations about how they stand within
Gregory’s own output.
The borrowings we have mentioned do not occur at random within
Gregory’s writings. In particular, those that occur in letters and give the
impression of having been intended to be spotted as borrowings, rather
than being habitual forms of expression date from the very beginning of
his pontificate. If we take it that Gregory followed what may have been
a convention that the display of classical learning was incompatible with
the office of bishop, this would not have been surprising; if he found it
impossible to go cold turkey at the beginning of his pontificate, neverthe-
less the density of allusion rapidly diminished. It is also noteworthy how
many borrowings occur in letters to personal friends who were themselves
important figures, letters that stand apart from many in the collection
as being presumably the work of Gregory himself, suggesting that their
use may have been a means of flashing signs of inclusion in an educated
and literary in-group.51 Just as with the Variae of Cassiodorus, many of
the longest letters in Gregory’s Register are those addressed to important
people, and the purpose of such letters was to maintain social networks,
in a way paralleled by the personal letters of Symmachus and Ennodius.
And, just as Gregory’s utterances that apparently disparage secular let-
ters occur in correspondence with clerics, conversely a disproportionate
number of his classical allusions occur in letters to laity, another sign of
their being regarded as unseemly in discourse among clergy, just what one
would expect from his letter to Desiderius.
Another possibility may be raised more tentatively. A surprising num-
ber of these allusions are employed to describe Gregory’s own situation.
Words that may be from Livy express his desire for solitude, words from
Juvenal his feeling of unworthiness for office, and a very traditional meta-
phor persistently drawn on to convey the unwelcome turbulence to which
that office made him subject. In other words, while Gregory does not
seem to draw on the resources of the classical tradition for ideas it would
be interesting to engage with, or to make use of it more than occasionally

51 On the authorship of letters in the collection, Dag Norberg, “Qui a composé les let-
tres de saint Grégoire le Grand?” Studi medievali 21 (1980), 1–17, and “Style personnel et
style administratif dans le Registrum Epistularum de saint Grégoire le grand,” in Grégoire
le grand (Paris, 1986), pp. 489–97.
264 john moorhead

to supply verbal embellishments to his prose, he persistently used it in a

stylish way to make points about himself, perhaps to give them greater
resonance and depth. But pursuing this point would take us into Gregory’s
psychology, and away from the present discussion.
Let us now turn to more general issues. Most of Gregory’s works are
structured around portions of the Bible, which he systematically goes
through and explains, line by line: the Book of Job in the Moralia, the
beginning and end of the Book of Ezekiel in a series of homilies, part
of the Song of Songs in two homilies, and liturgical pericopes from the
gospels in his Forty Homilies. These works share another characteristic;
having originated in discourses spoken before audiences. His other works
differ in both respects, but while the Dialogues and Pastoral Rule are orga-
nized along different lines, they too frequently involve exposition of the
Bible. And while many of the letters sent in Gregory’s name must have
been written by clerks in the papal office, the longer personal ones that
we may attribute to Gregory himself are peppered with biblical quota-
tions and allusions. His preoccupations, in short, seem thoroughly bibli-
cal. Yet, while the text that was central to Gregory’s concerns was outside
the body of classical works, the method in which he approached it was
traditional, and it will be worth our while to see how closely he conforms
to ways of accessing texts that were standard in Late Antiquity.
His period was one during which people became more concerned with
the systematic study of important texts. The tendency may have begun
around the 1st century BC, when the oral teaching of philosophy was
replaced by the reading and exegesis of texts, a teacher’s function com-
ing to be seen as expounding a text that formed part of a canon.52 But it
spread far beyond such circles, and the 4th and 5th centuries, in particu-
lar, were awash with people commenting on texts. Jerome’s teacher Dona-
tus wrote on Virgil and Terence, Tiberius Claudius Donatus wrote twelve
books interpreting Virgil, Servius produced a commentary on Virgil that
has come down in two quite different versions, while Macrobius wrote
a commentary on the Somnium Scipionis that occurs in the last book of
Cicero’s De republica and, in his Saturnalia, what are purported to have
been a series of discussions on Virgil in which Servius participated. An
obscure African author, Fabius Planciades Fulgentius, who has sometimes
been unpersuasively identified with bishop Fulgentius of Ruspe, produced

52 Pierre Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy? trans. Michael Chase (Cambridge MA,
2002), pp. 150–52.
 gregory’s literary inheritance 265

an exposition of Virgil, while a number of Lives of Virgil produced in Late

Antiquity constitute a by-product of the interest displayed in him during
the period.53 One sees here an adumbration of the canon of authors who
stand at the centre of the modern teaching of Latin; I forebear discus-
sion as to just why this should be so. But it was not a great jump from
a scholar seated in a cathedra expounding a text to a bishop, similarly
seated, expounding the Bible. Of course, Gregory could not make the
activity of such scholars his own; Macrobius, for example, was interested
in what the correct reading of the text might be,54 and dealt with a text
in a thematic rather than sequential manner. But he and Gregory were
engaged in the same activity.
Hence, while the status Scripture enjoyed among its Christian exegetes
far transcended that accorded any text among non-Christian commenta-
tors, it could be approached in similar ways. Indeed, in many respects
Gregory’s approach to the Book of Job was that of a teacher of grammar:
in establishing the text, offering a résumé of the general sense of the book,
then a word-for-word explanation in which difficult words and points of
natural science were clarified and an explanation of the text provided
according to historical sense and moral teaching; Gregory was operating
according to a standard pedagogical format.55 In Gregory’s repeated state-
ment, “You need to know”, we hear the voice of a patient teacher who
reproduces what is effectively a verbal tic of Servius in, for example, his
commentary on Virgil’s Georgics.56 But it was not merely a commentarial
approach to his text that Gregory shared with the expositors of classical
texts, for he also interpreted his text in a way similar to the manner in
which they did theirs. While Servius’s commentary on the Bucolics, for
example, is more concerned than Gregory’s exposition to explain how

53 Fabio Stok, “Virgil between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” International
Journal of the Classical Tradition 1/2 (1994), 15–22 at 15–16.
54 Hence, at Aen. 5.238 he accepts porriciam instead of proiciam; Virgil’s editor for the
Oxford Classical Texts disagrees with him. Gregory, on the other hand, was prepared to
move from one translation of the Bible to another as served his purpose (causa probationis,
Ep. 5.53a (CCSL 143:7, l. 226), in some ways a problematic principle!
55 P. Cazier, “Analogies entre l‘encyclopédie chrétienne des Moralia et l’enseignement
du grammaticus: l’exemple de l’angélologie,” in Grégoire le grand (Paris, 1986), pp. 419–28.
Needless to say, Gregory’s interest in allegory forms an additional element.
56 The word sciendum is frequent in the opening portions of Servius’ commentary on
Virgil’s Georgics, as in the discussions of ll. 1, 33, 43, 52 (ed. Georg Thilo, Servii Grammatici
qui feruntur in Vergilii Georgica Liber 1.1–100 Commentarius [Leipzig, 1887], pp. 129, 140, 143,
146). Gregory uses it often, as in Mor. praef. 3.8 (CCSL 143A:14 l. 55), 1.36.51 (52 l. 8), 2.7.8
(64 l. 25), but its greatest frequency seems to be in the heavily didactic material towards
the end of the fourth book of the Dialogues: 41.6, 50.2, 59.6; 62.1.
266 john moorhead

his text functions grammatically, allegory raises its head as early as the
first line.57 Moreover, the approach that led to his greatest work being
called the Moralia reflected the ethical emphasis of the Stoicism that was
popular in Late Antiquity, and he has been shown to have made use of
a “thoroughly Christianized Stoicism,” although one has the sense that
his access to this tradition was by way of Christian sources rather than
an independent reading of classical texts.58 In particular, the process of
self-examination at the end of the Moralia and that recommended in the
fourth book of the Regula Pastoralis stand in the tradition of self-exami-
nation that was a feature of ancient philosophy.59
A scholar has recently observed that Gregory marks a definite break
with a long tradition,60 but the statement may be qualified. Elements of
that tradition were known to him, with which he was able to assert a rela-
tionship in a playful style and which he could appropriate with elegance.
While he stood within an established tradition of Christian denial of secu-
lar literary concerns, and the position of bishop he held was one in which
interest in such concerns was discouraged, in practice he went some way
towards subverting this convention. Moreover, Gregory’s text-based form
of writing and his way of approaching his text, which we may be tempted
to regard as purely Christian, reflect the concerns and techniques that had
developed within the ancient world. What set him apart from the pre-
Christian past was a feeling that it had nothing to teach him, but, rather
than seeing him as having wilfully turned his back on this past we may
interpret him, a man who lived after the caesura that the mid-6th century
had marked in Italian life, as not knowing enough about it to make it
seem interesting. The interaction with antiquity in which Boethius had
engaged was no longer possible, the ancient world having become too

57 Servii Grammatici Commmentarius (ed. Thilo, p. 5).

58 Marcia Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages 2 Stoicism
in Christian Latin Thought through the Sixth Century (Leiden, 1990), pp. 257–58; Colish
is not an entirely sound guide to Gregory. The indebtedness to Seneca of Gregory’s
near contemporary Martin of Braga, on the other hand, is all too clear: Martini episcopi
Bracarensis opera omnia, ed. Claude W. Barlow (New Haven, CO, 1959), pp. 53 with n. 8
(pp. 61–62), 206–7, while his is a strong presence in Boethius. Similarly, Gregory has been
seen as drawing on and appealing to traditions, without it being clear how they came to
him: Leyser, Authority and Asceticism, pp. 150–51, 161, 173.
59 Gregory can be set within the tradition described by Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a
Way of Life, ed. I. Arnold Davidson, trans. Michael Chase (Oxford, 1995).
60 Ubaldo Pizzani, “Autori Pagani (conoscenza di Gregorio Magno degli),” in Enciclopedia
Gregoriana, eds. Giuseppe Cremascoli and Antonella Degl’Innocenti (Florence, 2008),
pp. 23–25 at p. 24.
 gregory’s literary inheritance 267

distant to pose a threat; “[t]here was no pagan culture now”.61 In a passage

of his Moralia, Gregory observed that there had been many gentiles who
had devoted themselves to the disciplines of the wise of this world, pay-
ing attention to the things that people regard as honourable, in the belief
that they would be saved by the honour that they maintained; they did
not seek the mediator between God and humans, holding as they did that
the teaching of the philosophers was sufficient.62 Ambrose and Augus-
tine, who knew the teachings of these gentiles, had found it necessary
to wrestle with them; Gregory did not. Elsewhere, however, there were
other possibilities, and before long the insatiably curious Isidore of Seville
would turn to them again.

61 Robert A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 220–221.
I wish to state how much I owe to this author’s intellectual example and sustained
friendship.
62 Mor. 18.45.73.
 Chapter Twelve

Gregory’s Exegesis: Old and New Ways

of Approaching the Scriptural Text

Scott DeGregorio

Gregory’s enshrinement as one of the four doctors of the western Church,

as well as his epithet “the Great”, vividly underscore his pivotal role in the
life of that institution over which he alone among the four great doctors
presided as pope. This chapter will survey his exegetical writings. These
were neither as prolific nor as dedicated to theology proper as those of
Ambrose, Augustine or Jerome, and yet their influence on subsequent
centuries was in no way less profound. For medieval commentators,
Gregory was a constant source and an acknowledged inspiration.1 In the
modern consensus, he is the key intermediary biblical exegete between
the earlier age of the fathers and the medieval tradition, and is indeed,
as Evans has suggested, “perhaps the most significant single influence
upon the detailed working out in the West of the system of interpretation
adumbrated in the writings of Origen and Augustine, and involving literal,
allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses.”2 In his magisterial study of the
exegetical tradition, de Lubac had already implied as much, speaking, in
his treatment of allegory, of “The Gregorian Middle Ages”.3 The earlier
view of von Harnack that Gregory was merely a “vulgarizer” derived in
part from misconceived comparisons to Augustine.4 By contrast, recent

1   See Réne Wasselynck, “L’influence de l’exégèse de S.Grégoire le grand sur les com-
mentaires bibliques médiévaux (VIIe–XII s.),” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale
32 (1965), 157–204; E. Ann Matter, “Gregory the Great in the Twelfth Century: The Glossa
Ordinaria,” in Gregory the Great: A Symposium, ed. John C. Cavadini (Notre Dame, IN,
1995), pp. 216–26; Rolf H. Bremmer, Jr., Kees Dekker, and David F. Johnson (eds), Rome
and the North: The Early Reception of Gregory the Great in Germanic Europe, Mediaevalia
Groningana n.s. 4 (Paris and Leuven, 2001).
2 Gillian R. Evans, The Thought of Gregory the Great (Cambridge, 1986), p. 147.
3 Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, trans. Mark Sebanc
and E.M. Macierowski, 3 vols (Grand Rapids, MI, 2000), 2:117–25.
4 Adolf von Harnack, An Outline of the History of Dogma, trans. Edwin Knox Mitchell
(London, 1893), pp. 387–91. For good rebuttals of his view, see Raoul Manselli, “Gregorio
Magno e la Bibbia,” in La Bibbia nell’alto medioevo (Spoleto, 1963), pp. 67–101, at 68–70; and
de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, 2:206.
270 scott degregorio

scholarship has stressed the fundamental differences between Augustine

and Gregory and their respective worlds, and emphasized how those
differences altered Gregory’s view of the Bible and its interpretation.5
This will be our first topic, the redrawing of intellectual boundaries in
the span between Augustine and Gregory that determined his approach
to Scripture. Discussion will turn thereafter to his exegetical corpus and
hermeneutic method, and then finally and briefly to the nature of his
wide-ranging influence on the ensuing tradition.

Changed Worlds: Gregory’s Biblical Horizons

Gregory was born in 540, some 200 years after Augustine. The gap in time
is sizable, as are the attendant changes in culture and outlook. One might
explain them as reflecting the transition from the late antique to the medi-
eval world,6 but Markus’ distinction between secular and sacred realms
of experience offers a more supple framework for what is at stake.7 The
age of Augustine was marked by the centralizing of Christianity’s posi-
tion in the empire. Christians were no longer an insignificant minority,
but neither did they inhabit a world purged of secular Roman customs.
Instead, secular and sacred overlapped. Augustine knew the realities of
Roman secular power, its cultural and political traditions, the flourishing
municipal life of the great cities, and their religious cults. Such matters
formed the primary contexts for his thought and promoted his attempt to
distinguish the ciuitas Dei from the ciuitas terrena. The cultural influence
and theological structures of Christianity had yet to become a unified and
totalizing discourse, the only conceivable horizon.8

5 In addition to the work of Robert Markus cited below in note 7, see Carole Straw,
Authors of the Middle Ages, vol. 12: Gregory the Great, Historical and Religious Writers of the
Latin West, ed. Patrick Geary (Aldershot, 1996), pp. 41–46, and her more extensive earlier
treatment in Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley, 1988), esp. pp. 9–20.
6 Jeffrey Richards, Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great (London, 1980),
1, 4–24.
7 Robert A. Markus, “The Sacred and the Secular: From Augustine to Gregory the Great,”
Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1985), 84–96, reprinted in Sacred and Secular. Studies on
Augustine and Latin Christianity (London, 1994). See also his further development of the
argument in The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 213–28, and Gregory the
Great and His World (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 34–41; also Peter R.L. Brown, The World of Late
Antiquity, AD 150–750 (London, 1971). I draw freely from these in what follows.
8 See Averil Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Chris-
tian Discourse (Berkeley, CA, 1991).
 gregory’s exegesis 271

In Gregory’s time, two centuries later, the cultural and intellectual land-
scape had been fundamentally altered, in two ways. First, by the end of
the 6th century the status of the secular order which had engulfed Augus-
tine was no longer ultimate. Rome’s greatness had reached its nadir. Peace
and stability had given way to invasion, plague and decay. Hence, Gregory
took a pervasively eschatological view of the world in its extreme old age,
indeed on the brink of its dissolution.9 Interpreting the boiling pot in Eze-
kiel 24, he would write:10
Rome herself once appeared to be the mistress of the world, yet you see
what now remains of her . . . For where is the senate? Where now are the
people? Her bones have wasted away, her flesh has been consumed, every
order of earthly dignity in her is extinct. The whole of it has been boiled dry.
As for those of us who have remained, not few in number, each day we are
still even now oppressed by swords and countless tribulations. Therefore it
can be said: “Then set it empty upon burning coals.” For because there is no
longer any senate, the people have perished and yet, among the few who
survive, grief and lamentation are daily multiplied. Rome is now empty and
burning.
As if such an apocalyptic scenario proved insufficient, Gregory hurried
to offer another image, that of an aged eagle balding from head to toe,
“because a city which has lost its people has shed its feathers. The pin-
ions of its wings, with which it was wont to fly to its prey, have fallen
because all its powerful men by whom it used to snatch others’ goods
are extinct.”11

   9 See Raoul Manselli, “L’escatologismo di Gregorio Magno,” in Atti del I° congresso

di Studi Longobardi (Spoleto, 1952), pp. 72–83; and Claude Dagens, “La fin des temps et
l’Église selon S. Grégoire le grand,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 58 (1970), 273–88.
10 HEz. 2.6.22 (CCSL 142:311–12, ll. 534–6, 560–9): “Ipsa autem quae aliquando mundi
domina esse uidebatur qualis remanserit Roma conspicitis . . . Vbi enim senatus? Vbi iam
populus? Contabuerunt ossa, consumptae sunt carnes, omnis in ea saecularium dignitatum
ordo exstinctus est. Excocta est uniuersa compositio eius. Et tamen ipsos non paucos qui
remansimus adhuc cotidie gladii, adhuc cotidie innumerae tribulationes premunt. Dicatur
ergo: Pone quoque eam super prunas uacuam. Quia enim senatus deest, populus interiit,
et tamen in paucis qui sunt dolores et gemitus cotidie multiplicantur, iam uacua ardet
Roma.” Translations throughout are my own unless otherwise noted. Richards, Consul of
God, p. 54, sees the Ezekiel homilies as “an extended lamentation over the destruction of
Rome . . . It is clear that for him Rome equaled civilization, and its decline was a paradigm
of the approaching end of civilization.”
11 HEz. 2.6.23 (CCSL 142:312–13, ll. 593–7): “Caluitium ergo suum sicut aquila dilatat, quia
plumas perdidit, quae populum amisit. Alarum quoque pennae ceciderunt, cum quibus
uolare ad praedam consueuerat, quia omnes eius potentes exstincti sunt, per quos aliena
rapiebat.” Trans. Theodosia Gray, p. 229.
272 scott degregorio

Such catastrophic upheaval led inexorably to a second alteration. As

Roman imperium, the senate and other traditions withered away, a fun-
damentally Christian orientation came to replace them. No longer was the
Church eclipsed by the power of the old secular order. Rather, the demise
of secular Rome meant the full ascendency of the ecclesiastical establish-
ment and its community of Christian adherents, the only true haven in
a time fraught with apocalyptic expectation. Ascetic values surged and
fostered a bourgeoning monastic movement. A thoroughly biblical cul-
ture now trumped the secular disciplines of earlier tradition. Gregory’s
reminder to Desiderius, bishop of Gaul, that “in one mouth praises of
Christ do not harmonize with praise of Jupiter”12 and his brusque dis-
missal of “the rules of Donatus”13 in his prefatory letter to the Moralia,
show how the tide had turned.
The implications of these changes for Gregory’s exegesis were pro-
found. As the frameworks of his world-view changed, so too did his hori-
zons for interpreting Scripture. Addressing audiences that were already
Christian, and moreover often marked by an ascetic-monastic inclination,
Gregory developed an exegetical program whose major theological thrust
was pastoral, moral, and spiritual, oriented towards illuminating experi-
ence, reforming behaviour and enflaming desire for God.14 In this Greg-
ory eschewed the speculative or purely theological interests of Origen or
Ambrose; his focus was practical, befitting the needs of the professional
monastic audience for whom he wrote, with its intense desire for a practi-

12 Ep. 11.34 (CCSL 140A:922, ll. 6–8): “Quam rem ita moleste suscepimus ac sumus uehe-
mentius aspernati, ut ea quae prius dicta fuerant in gemitu et tristitia uerteremus, quia in
uno se ore cum iouis laudibus Christi laudes non capiunt.”
13 Mor. ad Leandrum 5 (CCSL 143:7, ll. 220–2): “quia indignum uehementer existimo,
ut uerba caelestis oraculi restringam sub regulis Donati.” On the superiority of Scripture,
cf. Mor. 20, (CCSL 143A:1003, ll. 12–15): “ut ergo de rerum pondere taceam, scientias tamen
omnes atque doctrinas ipso etiam locutionis suae more transcendit, quia uno eodemque
sermone dum narrat textum, prodit mysterium . . .” However, the view of F. Homes Dud-
den, Gregory the Great, His Place in History and Thought, 2 vols (London, 1905), 1:74, that
Gregory’s writings show little trace of classical training is surely wrong. The opinion of
Straw is preferable: “Gregory’s education was probably the best available in sixth-century
Rome . . .” (Carole Straw, Gregory the Great. Perfection in Imperfection [Berkeley, 1988],
p. 5). On Gregory’s careful self-positioning vis-à-vis secular literature, see Markus, Gregory
the Great and His World, pp. 34–40, and John Moorhead, “Gregory’s Literary Inheritance,”
infra.
14 On this key Gregorian trait, see Bernard de Vregille, “Écriture saint et vie spirituelle
dans la tradition; B. Du 6e au 12e siècle,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité 4/1 (Paris, 1960), cols
169–87; Claude Dagens, Saint Grégoire le grand. Culture et expérience chrétiennes (Paris,
1977), pp. 55–81; and Patrick Catry, “Lire l’écriture selon saint Grégoire le grand,” Collecta-
nea Cisterciensia 34 (1972), 177–201, at 191–3, 201.
 gregory’s exegesis 273

cal guide to the serious task of progress in the spiritual life. Kessler puts
it well: “Gregory was not a systematic theologian. His aim was the inter-
pretation of the Bible in the sight of a committed Christian life. Conver-
sion, culminating in the ascetic life of contemplation, is his perspective of
understanding the Scriptures.”15

The Gregorian Exegetical Corpus

The Bible formed the natural context for everything that Gregory wrote.
His writings show how indelibly monastic formation had saturated
his mind with Scripture.16 “No reader of Gregory’s works,” so Petersen
observes, “can fail to be struck by his immense and detailed knowledge of
the subject matter of the Bible and by the way it permeates his thought
and writing.”17 Hence even his works that are themselves not expressly
exegetical are suffused with exegetical aims and methods, in their use of
biblical quotation, for instance, or in their application of scriptural teach-
ing to the practicalities of life. Petersen’s own analysis of typology in the
Dialogi suggests the methods used in Gregory’s genuine exegetical works
were here recast in story-form for wider audiences.18 In the Regula Pasto-
ralis the ideal rector is himself an astute exegete who “meditates diligently
and every day on the precepts of the sacred Word”.19 To endorse the point,
Gregory offers a spiritual interpretation of Exodus 25:12–15:20

15   Stephan Kessler, “Gregory the Great (c.540–604),” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis,

ed. Charles Kannengiesser, 2 vols (Leiden, 2004), 2:1336. Cf. Giorgio Zeveni, “La Metodolo-
gia dell’ intelligenze spirituale della sacra scrittura come esegesi biblica secondo Gregorio
Magno,” in Parole e Spirito. Studi in onore de Settimio Cipriani (Brescia, 1982), pp. 867–915,
at 888–89, who describes Gregory’s contemplative-pastoral approach as “esegesi totale”.
16   Benedetto Calati, “San Gregorio Magno e la Bibbia. La vita spirituale come riposta e
compinmento della parola ispirata,” in Bibbia e spiritualità, ed. Cipriano Vagaggini (Rome,
1967), pp. 121–78, at 124–5, and Manselli, “Gregorio Magno e la Bibbia,” p. 69, who speaks of
Gregory’s “passionate and relentless study of the Bible” (suo studio appassionato ed inces-
sante della Bibbia).
17   Joan M. Petersen, The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in their Late Antique Cultural
Background (Toronto, 1984), p. 25. See also Dagens, Saint Grégoire, pp. 55–81, for the view
that Scripture for Gregory presented an entire “culture biblique”, as the ultimate source of
knowledge and spiritual authority for Christian behaviour.
18   See Petersen, Dialogues, pp. 25–55.
19   RP 2.11 (SC 381:252, ll. 3–5): “Sed omne hoc rite a rectore agitur, si supernae formidinis
et dilectionis spiritu afflatus, studiose cotidie sacri eloquii praecepta meditetur.”
20 RP 2.11 (SC 381:254, ll. 24–34): “Quid per arcam nisi sancta Ecclesia figuratur? Cui
quattuor circuli aurei per quattuor angulos iubentur adiungi, quia in eo quod per quattuor
mundi patres dilatata tenditur, procul dubio quattuor sancti Euangelii libris accincta pra-
edicatur. Vectesque de lignis sethim fiunt, qui isdem ad portandum circulis insertuntur;
274 scott degregorio

What is symbolized by the ark but the Holy Church? It is commanded that
it is to be provided with four rings of gold in the four corners, which, inso-
far as it extends to the four parts of the world, doubtless is declared to be
equipped with the four books of the Holy Gospels. And staves of wood are
made and inserted into these rings for carrying it, because courageous and
persevering teachers, like incorruptible timbers, are to be sought out, who
by always adhering to the teaching of the sacred books can proclaim the
unity of Holy Church, and who by being inserted as it were into the rings,
carry the ark.
The same exegetical strain marks even many of Gregory’s letters. ­Martyn’s
recent English translation counts over 500 biblical quotations in the pope’s
voluminous correspondence, probably instances of quotation from mem-
ory. Throughout his letters, it is a constant concern for Gregory to speak
through Scripture and to encourage his addressees to take its teaching
to heart. In one memorable passage, he urges the physician Theodore to
embrace the study of Scripture with special eagerness, since Scripture is,
he explains, nothing less than God’s “own letters” to humanity.21
In the strict sense, Gregory’s exegetical works are represented by his
preaching on the Old and New Testaments. To the former category belong
his treatment of Job, Ezekiel and the Song of Songs. A letter of 602 informs
us that, in addition, he gave homiletic discourses on the Heptateuch, the
Prophets, Proverbs, and the Book of Kings.22 But the commentary on the
latter surviving under Gregory’s name, In I Librum Regum, is now known

quia fortes perseuerantesque doctores uelut imputribilia linga quaerendi sunt, qui instruc-
tioni sacrorum uoluminum semper inhaerentes, sanctae Ecclesiae unitatem denuntient, et
quasi intromissi circulis arcam portent.”
21 Ep. 5.46 (CCSL 140:339–40, ll. 37–38, 42–47): “Quid autem est scriptura sacra nisi qua-
edam epistula omnipotentis Dei ad creaturam suam? . . . Imperator caeli, dominus homi-
num et angelorum pro uita tua tibi suas epistulas transmisit, et tamen, gloriose fili, easdem
epistulas ardenter legere neglegis. Stude, quaeso, et cotidie creatoris tui uerba meditare;
disce cor Dei in uerbis Dei, ut ardentius ad aeterna suspires, ut mens uestra ad caelestia
gaudia maioribus desideriis accendatur.” Trans. John R.C. Martyn, The Letters of Gregory
the Great (Toronto, 2004), 2:373. On the view of Scripture as a letter inspired by God, see
Catry, “Lire l’écriture,” 179–81; and Dagens, Saint Grégoire, p. 59.
22 Reg. 12.6 (CCSL 140A:975, ll. 31–36): “Praeterea quia isdem carissimus quondam filius
meus Claudius aliqua me loquente de prouerbiis, de canticis canticorum, de prophetis, de
libris quoque regum et de eptatico audierat, quae ego scripto tradere prae infirmitate non
potui, ipse ea suo sensu dictauit, ne obliuione deperirent, ut apto tempore haec eadem
mihi inferret et emendatius dictarentur.” Cf. Reg. 9.13 (CCSL 140A:575, ll. 4–7). Where
Gregory, writing to the Sicilian patrician Venatius regarding his request for “an allegorical
interpretation of the deeds of Sampson” (quaedam . . . vobis de Sampsoni factis allegorice)
explains that he has been too ill to fulfill that request. Trans. Martyn, Letters, 2:554.
 gregory’s exegesis 275

to be the work of a 12th-century monk of Cava,23 while work on the other

books no longer survives.24 Meanwhile, Gregory’s New Testament exegesis
is represented principally by a series of forty gospel homilies he preached
during the liturgy. Hence just four works, Moralia in Iob, In Canticum Can-
ticorum, Homiliae in Hiezechielem, and Homiliae in Evangelia, are what
remain of his exegesis. They will be the focus of the rest of this chapter.
Gregory’s first exegetical enterprise belongs to the late 570s when his
position of apocrisiarius or papal legate brought him to Constantinople.
He was accompanied there by a group of monks from Rome. The Moralia
in Iob, Gregory’s first, greatest and most influential work began as dis-
courses for this close circle of initiates.25 The dedicatory letter to Leander
of Seville explains the seminal role these monks played not only in the
conception but also the very design of the commentary:26
To the burden of their petition they added as well the stipulation that I
should not only discuss the words of the story through their allegorical
meanings, but should also direct the allegorical meanings towards moral
edification; and that I should also—a still heavier burden—support my
interpretations with other scriptural texts and should even add explanations
of those passages if they seemed difficult enough to require untangling.
One wonders whether these fratres could have anticipated that their pleas
would lead to a massive work of thirty-five books in six volumes, surely
one of the longest in the patristic tradition. The introductory letter also
illuminates the method of composition. Gregory delivered the first part
of the book as oral recitations recorded in short-hand form by notaries,

23 Adalbert de Vogüé, “L’auteur du Commentaire des Rois attribué à saint Grégoire: un

moine de Cava?” Revue bénédictine 106 (1996), 319–31, and his edition of the text, Commen-
taire sur le Premier Livre des Rois (SC 432 [Paris, 1998], pp. 9–28). On the possibility of this
work nevertheless containing authentic Gregorian material, see Francis Clark, “Authorship
of the Commentary ‘In I Regum’: Implications of A. de Vogüé’s Discovery,” Revue bénédic-
tine 108 (1998), 61–79.
24 Judith McClure, “Gregory the Great: Exegesis and Audience,” (Oxford Univ., D. Phil.
thesis, 1979), pp. 52–103. I return to Reg. 12.6 below.
25 Moralia in Iob (ed. Marc Adriaen, CCSL 143, 143A, 143B [Turnhout, 1979–85]); Gré-
goire le grand: Morales sur Job (eds and trans Robert Gillet et al., SC 32, 212, 221, 476, 525,
538 [Paris, 1975–2010]). These volumes cover Books 1–2, 11–16 and 28–35; the other books
remain to be done. On the enormity of the work’s influence, see de Lubac, Medieval Exege-
sis, 2:121–2.
26 Mor. ad Leandrum 1 (CCSL 143:2, ll. 46–53: “Qui hoc quoque mihi in onere suae peti-
tionis addiderunt, ut non solum uerba historiae per allegoriarum sensus excuterem, sed
allegoriarum sensus protinus in exercitium moralitatis inclinarem, adhuc aliquid grauius
adiungentes, ut intellecta quaeque testimoniis cingerem et prolata testimonia, si implicita
fortasse uiderentur interpositione superadditae expositionis enodarem.”
276 scott degregorio

while the rest of his exposition he dictated to a scribe. When he returned

to Rome and had leisure to work, he revised much of his text27 and turned
it into book form.28 It is this revised text that has come down to us,29 and
it appears those revisions occupied Gregory well into the 590s.30 It was
work that was clearly dear to him. He identified with the suffering Job,
as he would with the visionary Ezekiel,31 and tapped the mainline of the
biblical text by developing its overriding themes of righteous suffering
with regard to the individual Christian on the one hand and Christ and
the Church on the other.32 The original audience was close to his heart
too, as the initial setting of the monastic collatio makes clear: Gregory
was speaking intimately to a select group of like-minded ascetic compan-
ions, who, like him, had devoted themselves to a life of contemplation
and were eager to hear him expound the Book of Job with a view to their

27 The third part of Moralia, Books 11–22, remains unrevised. See Mor. ad. Leandrum
2 (CCSL 143:3, ll. 83–86): “. . . quamuis tertiam huius operis partem, ut colloquendo prot-
uli, paene ita dereliqui, quia, cum me fratres ad alia pertahant, hanc suptilius emendari
noluerunt.”
28 Mor. ad Leandrum 2 (CCSL 143:3, ll. 72–79): “Vnde mox eisdem coram positis frat-
ribus priora libri sub oculis dixi et, quia tempus paulo uacantius repperi, posteriora trac-
tando dictaui, cum que mihi spatia largiora suppeterent, multa augens pauca subtrahens
atque ita, ut inuenta sunt, nonnulla derelinquens ea, quae me loquente excepta sub oculis
fuerant, per libros emendando composui, quia et cum postrema dictarem, quo stilo prima
dixeram, sollicite attendi.” For Gregory, the terms loqui and dictare represent two distinct
methods of composition: loqui signaling ex tempore oral delivery recorded by notaries, dict-
are indicating spoken exposition addressed to a scribe explicitly to create a written text.
For discussion of these terms, see Paul Meyvaert, “The Date of Gregory the Great’s Com-
mentaries on the Canticle of Canticles and on I Kings,” Sacris erudiri 23 (1978), 191–216,
at 207.
29 On the possibility of an early form of the work having existed, see Paul Meyvaert,
“Uncovering a Lost Work of Gregory the Great: Fragments of the Early Commentary on
Job,” Traditio 50 (1995), 55–74.
30 This is the implication from Gregory’s letters to Leander, bishop of Seville: see Reg.
1.41, written in April of 591, and Reg. 5.53, written in 595 and eventually affixed to the Mora-
lia as a preface. Gregory first promised to send him a copy as early as 591, but could not
fulfill that promise until 595. Meanwhile, the reference in Mor. 27.12.21 (CCSL 143B:1346,
ll. 66–80) to the conversion of the English may suggest that Gregory’s revisions continued
even into the late 590s. But see McClure, “Exegesis and Audience,” pp. 3–6, for an argu-
ment that he had completed the Moralia before April 591.
31 Mor. ad Leandrum 5 (CCSL 143:3, ll. 195–7): “Et fortasse hoc diuinae prouidentiae
consilium fuit, ut percussum Iob percussus exponerem, et flagellati mentem melius per
flagella sentirem.” See also Mor. 35.20.49 (CCSL 143B:1810–11, ll. 78–127) for Gregory’s deeply
personal conclusion to the work. On Ezekiel, see below.
32 The three subjects of Job (the individual Christian, the Church, and Christ) obviously
relate to the three interpretative levels that Gregory distinguishes—historical, allegori-
cal, and tropological. For more on this, see McClure, “Exegesis and Audience,” pp. 20–23,
31–36.
 gregory’s exegesis 277

specialized calling.33 Indeed, he was not pleased to learn that a bishop in

Ravenna had read out parts of the Moralia to the public during vigils: “For
it is not a work for the general public, and it produces an obstacle rather
than assistance for ill-educated readers.”34
It used to be thought Gregory’s treatment of the Song of Songs, In Canti-
cum Canticorum,35 also belonged to an early period in his career, when he
was still a monk at St. Andrew’s. But the consensus now puts it within the
period of his pontificate, specifically the years 594 to 598.36 The evidence
for such precise dating relates to the role played by Claudius of Ravenna
in redacting the text. It is necessary to return here to Gregory’s letter of
602, which includes the Song of Songs among the list of Old Testament
books on which Gregory, then ill, had given homilies. Claudius took notes
and later revised the material into book form, but Gregory, the letter
reveals, was not pleased with the results.37 While Claudius was never a
monk at Saint Andrew’s, he did stay with Gregory in Rome between 594
and 598, making this the more likely period for the work. Debate exists
over how much of the surviving text reflects Claudius’ editorial work and
how much Gregory’s original unrevised oral discourse.38 Debate also sur-
rounds the state of the text itself, for the oldest manuscripts preserve a

33 McClure, “Exegesis and Audience,” p. 3, pictures them, I think rightly, as including

ascetics “of some calibre and intellectual attainment”. See her further remarks, pp. 4–6,
20–23, 46–47.
34 Ep. 12.6 (CCSL 140A:975, ll. 45–49): “Illud autem quod ad me quorundam relatione
perlatum est, quia reuerentissimus frater et coepiscopus meus Marinianus legi commenta
beati Iob publice ad uigilias faciat, non grate suscepi, quia non est illud opus populare
et rudibus auditoribus impedimentum magis quam prouectum generat.” Trans. Martyn,
Letters, 3:811.
35 Cant. (ed. Patrick Verbraken, CCSL 144 [Turnhout, 1963]); and Grégoire le grand:
Commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques (ed. Rodrigue Bélanger, SC 314 [Paris, 1984]).
An English translation of the work has just been published: Gregory the Great: On the Song
of Songs, trans. Mark DelCogliano, Cistercian Studies Series 244 (Collegeville, MN, 2012).
On the work’s authenticity, see Bernard Capelle, “Les homelies de saint Grégoire sur le
cantique,” Revue bénédictine 41 (1929), 204–17, and DelCogliano’s introduction, pp. 29–33.
36 Meyvaert, “The Date,” 207; and Bélanger, Commentaire, pp. 22–28. For support for the
earlier date, see Barbara Müller’s article in this volume, supra.
37 Ep. 12.6 (CCSL 140A:975 ll. 36–42): “Quae cum mihi legisset, inueni dictorum meo-
rum sensum ualde inutilius fuisse permutatum. Vnde necesse est ut tua experientia, omni
excusatione atque mora cessante, ad eius monasterium accedat, conuenire fratres faciat
et sub omni ueritate, quantascumque de diuersis scripturae cartulas detulit, ad medium
deducant, quas tu suscipe et mihi celerrime transmitte.” For the first half of this passage,
see note 22 above. On these so-called “Claudian recensions”, see McClure, “Exegesis and
Audience,” pp. 52–103.
38 For the view that our text reflects Claudius’ revisions, see Capelle, “Les homelies,”
215, and Bélanger, Commentaire, pp. 15–28. For a dissenting view, see Meyvaert, “The
Date,” 213–16, who claims the text better corresponds to a notary’s unrevised ­transcription.
278 scott degregorio

seemingly fragmentary work, containing an exposition of the Song’s first

eight verses only.39 The Irish missionary Columbanus appears to have
known a longer text,40 and indeed Verbraken and Bélanger, the work’s
two modern editors, surmise a continuous commentary existed but was
truncated through the vicissitudes of transmission.41 Nevertheless, its
importance within Gregory’s oeuvre is not diminished thereby. Its long
prologue is of the utmost importance for its theoretical discussion of alle-
gory (see below); the exegesis itself has proved fruitful for the mining of
sources—a lamentably impoverished area in Gregorian studies—showing
reliance on Origen in particular; and its reception demonstrates that it
was widely studied and acclaimed.42 Overall, Gregory follows the main
lines established by tradition.43 The love for the Bride stands sometimes
for the corporate love of Christ for his Church, at others for a burning
desire for God experienced by the individual soul. Yet a distinctive Gre-
gorian stamp may be discerned in the varying of historical, allegorical and
tropological modes of interpretation, and even more in the overall mystic-
monastic cast that covers the whole. Like Origen, Gregory understands
the Song to teach about mystical union with God, and yet he endeav-
ours, through a variety of exegetical strategies, to wrest from this elusive
and most profound text, meanings that can apply to the whole Church in
its varied make-up of different interpretive capacities. Thus he makes a
point of indicating, right at the start of this commentary, that whereas the
companions of the Bridegroom stand for either angels or those who have
reached perfection, the young girls who attend the Bride may be taken
to represent spiritual novices, that is mere beginners in the faith. “There-
fore,” he continues, “since we have said that the Bridegroom is the Lord

DelCogliano’s new translation provides a good summary of the issue: see introduction,
pp. 33–43.
39 Patrick Verbraken, “La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Saint Grégoire sur
le Cantique des Cantiques,” Revue bénédictine 73 (1963), 277–88, and “Un nouveau manu-
scrit du Commentaire de S. Grégoire sur le Cantique des Cantiques,” Revue bénédictine 75
(1965), 143–5.
40 Columbanus, Ep. 1 (ed. G.S.M. Walker, Sancti Columbani Opera, Scriptores Latini
Hiberniae, vol. 2 [Dublin, 1957], pp. 2–12).
41   Verbraken, “La tradition manuscrite,” 280; Bélanger, Commentaire, p. 22.
42 On sources, see Paul Meyvaert, “A New Edition of Gregory the Great’s Commentaries
on the Canticle and on I Kings,” Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968): 215–25; Joan M.
Petersen, “The Influence of Origen upon Gregory the Great’s Exegesis of the Song of Songs,”
Studia Patristica 18:1 (1985), 343–47; and Domingo Ramos-Lissón, “En torno a la exégesis de
San Gregorio Magno sobre el ‘Cantar de los Cantares’,” Teología y vida 42 (2001), 241–65.
43 See the comprehensive study by Vincenzo Recchia, L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno al
cantico dei cantici (Turin, 1967).
 gregory’s exegesis 279

and the Bride is the Church, let us as though we were young girls or com-
panions listen to the words of the Bridegroom, let us listen to the words
of the Bride, and from their speech let us learn the fervour of love.”44 Dis-
tinctively, Gregory’s handling of the Song thus fuses the pastoral impulse
with mystical yearning. Matter’s conclusion is apt: “The desire for God
that echoes through this commentary is unmistakably monastic; it shows
the perfectionism of the monastic ideal extended out into the Church and
every human soul.”45
The Homiliae in Hiezechielem,46 containing Gregory’s preaching on Eze-
kiel, may be dated to 593, though it seems likely that his engagements
with this difficult prophetic book were not restricted to a single year but
involved long gestation.47 Nevertheless, the preface to Book 2 mentions
the Lombard Agilulf’s invasion of Rome, usually dated to 593.48 Moreover,
the preface to the first book explains that Gregory published the work
eight years later; it also reveals that he preached these homilies “before
the people” (coram populo), the setting being non-liturgical and the audi-
ence mixed though very likely predominantly monastic.49 The work
does not provide a lectio continua of Ezekiel. Book 1, containing twelve

44 Cant. 3 (CCSL 144:14, ll. 239–42): “Quia igitur sponsum et sponsam dominum et eccle-
siam diximus, uelut adulescentulae uel ut sodales audiamus uerba sponsi, audiamus uerba
sponsae, et in eorum sermonibus feruerem discamus amoris.”
45 E. Ann Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Chris-
tianity (Philadelphia, 1990), p. 96.
46 Homiliae in Hiezechielem (ed. Marc Adriaen, CCSL 142 [Turnhout, 1971]; Grégoire
le grand: Homélies sur Ezéchiel, ed. Charles Morel, 2 vols, SC 327 and 360 [Paris, 1986,
1990]).
47 Meyvaert, “The Date,” 202, n. 25, suggests the homilies could have been delivered
over a more extended period than the single year of 593.
48 HEz. 2, praef. (CCSL 142:205, ll. 10–12): “Aliud, quod iam Agilulphum Langobardorum
regem ad obsidionem nostram summopere festinantem Padum transisse cognouimus.” On
the date of the work, see Meyvaert, “The Date,” 202, n. 25; Morel, SC 327:10–11; and Stephan
Kessler, Gregor der Grosse als Exeget: Eine theologische Interpretation der Ezechielhomilien
(Innsbruck, 1995), pp. 64–72.
49 HEz. 1, praef. (CCSL 142:3, ll. 1–8): “Homilias, quae in beatum Hiezechihelem
prophetam, ita ut coram populo loquebar, exceptae sunt, multis curis irruentibus in abo-
litione reliqueram. Sed post annos octo, petentibus fratribus, notariorum schedas requir-
ere studui, easque fauente Domino transcurrens, in quantum ab angustiis tribulationum
licuit, emendaui.” McClure, “Exegesis and Audience,” p. 218, characterizes the audience
as “composed mainly of the monks of St. Andrew’s but open to others of his disciples,”
while Meyvaert, “The Date,” 202, n. 25, posits a more diverse group of listeners: “Perhaps
they were given in an open church to a predominantly monastic audience—outside of
any liturgical celebration—and with the understanding that any pious lay people, zeal-
ous about the word of God, could attend.” For a similar view, see Vincenzo Recchia, Le
Omelie di Gregorio Magno su Ezechiele (1–5). Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum 8 (Bari,
1974), pp. 32–35.
280 scott degregorio

­ omilies, treats only Ezekiel’s opening vision and prophetic call, and so
h
stops near Ezekiel chapter 4. The ten homilies of Book 2 then deal exclu-
sively with Ezekiel chapter 40, the prophet’s vision of the new temple. As
the preface to Book 2 explains, the Lombard threat had greatly curtailed
Gregory’s time, forcing him to move directly to the temple vision which
his audience implored him to elucidate.50 Possibly, then, Gregory would
have explicated all of Ezekiel had the current political circumstances not
thwarted him.
These twenty-two homilies contain some of his most profound exege-
sis. After a first homily on the nature of prophecy, the exegesis ranges
over a number of typically Gregorian themes—the practice of the virtues,
compunction, the life of prayer, scriptural understanding, the reciprocity
of action and contemplation, the Church, and the office of preaching. Yet
it is the detailed and spiritually sensitive nature of the analyses of these
themes that make Gregory’s work so profound. Especially significant here
is his interweaving of the active and contemplative lives, and beyond that
of the two lives with the study, reading, and teaching of Scripture. Thus in
Homily 1.5 Gregory probes the interface between the two lives, the soul’s
attempt to rise from one to the other, and its falling back (reuerberatio)
upon itself and return to the practice of good works.51 Gregory is aware,
in other words, that setbacks, even failure, naturally accompany progress
in the spiritual life and that spiritual overreach is a constant temptation
for the disciple of contemplation, one which only a return to practical
concerns can remedy.
At the same time, however, Gregory teaches that exegesis, through the
hard work involved in the reading and interpretation of the Bible, can
itself serve as a practical good work, able to put the exhausted or confused
soul back on the path of spiritual growth. In fact, Gregory links the stages
of spiritual advancement to varying levels of scriptural understanding:52
For the reader, if he seeks something moral or historical in them [sc. divine
words], a sense of moral history follows; if he seeks something allegorical,
before long it will recognize an allegory; if he seeks something contemplative,

50 HEz. 2, praef.: cf. n. 48 above.

51   HEz. 1.5.12 (CCSL 142:88–89, ll. 195–244).
52 HEz. 1.7.9 (CCSL 142:88, ll. 172–77): “Legentis enim spiritus, si quid in eis scire morale
aut historicum quaerit, sensus hunc moralis historiae sequitur. Si quid typicum, mox figu-
rata locutio agnoscitur. Si quid contemplatiuum, statim rotae quasi pennas accipiunt et in
aere suspenduntur, quia in uerbis sacri eloquii intellegentia caelestis aperitur.”
 gregory’s exegesis 281

immediately the wheels as it were take wing and hang in the air, because in
the words of the sacred message a divine intelligence is revealed.
For Gregory, in a word, Scripture reading should lead to contemplation,
action, and further contemplation in a process where these two exist as
a constant, necessary dialectic. There is much greater systemization here
than in Origen, reflecting Gregory’s sense that he was writing for spiritual
professionals with the structures already (above all, the monastery) in place
to adopt and enact a practical, life-long programme of spiritual growth.
As in his work on Job, Gregory here again displays a strong sense of
fascination and personal involvement with the head character, this time
Ezekiel, the speculator or “watchman” of the House of Israel (see Ezk. 3:17).
In one long and remarkable passage, Gregory, sensing the affinity between
Ezekiel’s besieged Jerusalem and his own imperiled Rome, laments his
own short-coming as the speculator of Rome and its Church:53
O how hard these things that I am saying are for me, because when I speak
I hurt myself. My tongue does not contain the preaching that it should, nor,
in so far as my tongue does contain it, does my life follow my tongue. I am
often entangled in idle words and, lazy and negligent as I am, I cease from
the exhortation and edification of my neighbours.
The personal dimension that Gregory finds resonating with him through-
out the text, along with the high level of obscurity and bizarre imagery
at the literal level which also captivated him, demanding as it did highly
spiritualized allegorical modes of reading, would make this one of his
most sophisticated and impressive pieces of exegetical analysis. Indeed,
although Gregory speaks in this work as a preacher, “he attends to every
detail of the text, moving through it verse by verse, as if he were writing
a commentary”.54

53 HEz. 1.11.5 (CCSL 142:171, ll. 82–87): “O quam dura mihi sunt ista quae loquor, quia
memetipsum loquendo ferio, cuius neque lingua, ut dignum est, praedicationem tenet,
neque inquantum tenere sufficit uita sequitur linguam. Qui otiosis uerbis saepe implicor et
ab exhortatione atque aedificatione proximorum torpens et negligens cesso.” For insight-
ful commentary on this passage, see Conrad Leyser, “ ‘Let Me Speak, Let Me Speak’: Vul-
nerability and Authority in Gregory the Great’s Homilies on Ezekiel,” in Gregorio Magno
e il suo tempo, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 33–34, 2 vols (Rome, 1991), 2:169–82,
and his further remarks in Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great
(Oxford, 2000), pp. 160–87.
54 Angela Russell Christman, What Did Ezekiel See?: Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision
of the Chariot from Irenaeus to Gregory the Great (Leiden, 2005), p. 18, n. 15.
282 scott degregorio

In contrast to the aforementioned exegetical works, the Homiliae in

Evangelia55 are popular liturgical homilies, forty in all, which were preached
within the liturgical context of the mass and addressed to the laity, hence
to a broad audience, not a select cadre of monks.56 Gregory delivered them
over a two-year period, between 590–92, during the first two years of his
pontificate,57 when suddenly his role as a mediator of scriptural text had
been decisively altered, pushed beyond elite religious circles to encompass
the people at large.58 These homilies were connected to specific liturgical
occasions and delivered mainly on Sundays, major feasts, and saints’ days
in the designated stational churches in or around Rome.59 The prefatory
letter to the collection addressed to the Sicilian bishop Secundinus explains
that, because of poor health, Gregory had dictated the first twenty homi-
lies to a notary who read them to the people, but preached twenty more
coram populo because the people wished to hear him uiua uoce, which was
clearly not an easy business for Gregory.60 He then had the two groups of
homilies placed in two separate codices, in the order of their presentation.61
Although varying in length, these homilies are uniform in their methods
and objectives. Their main task is to explain the gospel reading; this takes
the form of straightforward verse-by-verse discussion of the text, first in its
literal dimensions and then its higher spiritual senses, though with far less
emphasis on arcana than the Old Testament pieces. Indeed, Gregory’s care
to lead his ­audience gently along is everywhere present: “In the words of

55 Homiliae in Evangelia (ed. Raymond Étaix, CCSL 141 [Turnhout, 1999]; Grégoire le
grand: Homélies dur l’Èvangile, livre I (1–20), livre II (21–40), eds Raymond Étaix, Charles
Morel, and M. Bruno Judic, 2 vols, SC 485 and 522 [Paris, 2005, 2008]). On the transmission
of the work, see, in addition to the relevant sections in these critical editions, Raymond
Étaix, “Répertoire des manuscrits des homélies sur l’Evangile de saint Grégoire le grand,”
Sacris erudiri 36 (1996), 107–45.
56 All but one are addressed to the laity: HEv. 17 addresses a group of bishops.
57 Jeremiah P. Coffey, Gregory the Great “Ad populum”: A Reading of XL Homiliarum in
Evangelia libri duo (New York, 1988), pp. 14–15.
58 McClure, “Exegesis and Audience,” p. 149.
59 Coffey, Gregory “Ad populum”, pp. 11–12.
60 HEv., Ep. ad Secundinum (CCSL 141:1, ll. 5–9): “Inter sacra missarum sollemnia, ex his
quae diebus certis in hac ecclesia legi ex more solent, sancti euangelii quadraginta lec-
tiones exposui. Et quarumdam quidem dictata expositio assistenti plebi est per notarium
recitata, quarumdam uero explanationem coram populo ipse locutus sum atque ita ut
loquebar excepta est.” At the beginning of one homily, Gregory alludes to the people’s
disinterest in dictated material: see HEv. 21.1 (CCSL 141:173, ll. 15–17). On the difficulties
Gregory’s health posed for his preaching, see further HEv. 22.1 (CCSL 141:181, ll. 1–4); and
34.1 (CCSL 141:300, ll. 1–3).
61   HEv., Ep. ad Secundinum (CCSL 141:1, ll. 18–21): “Easdem quoque homilias eo quo dic-
tae sunt ordine in duobus codicibus ponere curaui, ut et priores uiginti quae dictatae sunt,
et posteriores totidem quae sub oculis dictae, in singulis essent distinctae corporibus.”
 gregory’s exegesis 283

holy Scripture, dearly beloved, we must first attend to the literal truth, and
then seek to ­understand the spiritual allegory”;62 “I have completed my lit-
eral explanation of this story. Now let me give a mystical interpretation of
what has been said, if that seems good”;63 “I have determined to examine
the meaning of the Gospel reading summarily and not word by word, lest
an overlong explanation be a burden upon your kindness.”64 Such chari-
ness, wholly absent from Gregory’s Old Testament exegesis, points up his
desire to provide simple and clear teaching that would offer effective moral
guidance to his audience. For this reason he also incorporates a number
of exempla or extended narratives into his preaching: many of these are
reused to great effect in the Dialogi.65 Such variations in method show that
Gregory was willing to adapt his methods to the needs of his audience,
combining and even simplifying the interpretive modes used in his monas-
tic discourses with rhetorical strategies crafted to suit liturgical popular
homiletics. For this, among other reasons, the Homiliae in Evangelia were
enormously useful to preachers long after Gregory’s time.66 Still, some
have questioned how much this kind of popular preaching really suited
Gregory.67 He seems to have been done with it after 593, when he gladly
turned back to the Old Testament and preached on Ezekiel as his monks
had requested, and surely that work and his other Old Testament pieces
do reveal the special knack Gregory had for more monasticized modes of
preaching. Yet the Homiliae in Evangelia are important precisely because
they are not addressed to a spiritual elite. If they display an exegesis that
is less ­allegorical and more direct than the Old Testament commentaries,

62 HEv. 40.1 (CCSL 141:394, ll. 1–3): “In uerbis sacri eloquii, fratres carissimi, prius seruanda
est ueritas historiae, et postmodum requirenda spiritalis intelligentia allegoriae.”
63 HEv. 33.5 (CCSL 141:292, ll. 102–3): “Haec, fratres carissimi, historica expositione tran-
scurrimus, nunc si placet, ea quae dicta sunt mystico intellectu disseramus.”
64 HEv. 23.1 (CCSL 141:193, ll. 3–6): “Lectionis ergo euangelicae summatim sensum statui
non per singula uerba discutere, ne dilectionem uestram ualeat sermo prolixior expositio-
nis onerare.”
65 There are eleven exempla in all. For discussion, see McClure, “Exegesis and Audi-
ence,” p. 149; and Coffey, Gregory “Ad populum”, pp. 11–12. On the overlap between the
Homiliae in Evangelia and Dialogi, see Conrad Leyser, “The Temptations of Cult: Roman
Martyr Piety in the Age of Gregory the Great,” Early Medieval Europe 9 (2000), 289–307.
66 See Patrica Allwin Deleeuw, “Gregory the Great’s ‘Homilies on the Gospels’ in the
Early Middle Ages,” Studi Medievali 26 (1985), 855–69; and de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis,
1:176.
67 Both McClure, “Exegesis and Audience,” pp. 171–4 and Leyser, Authority and Asceti-
cism, p. 139 emphasize Gregory’s disenchantment with popular preaching; but Coffey,
Gregory “Ad populum”, pp. 21–22, disagrees: “Gregory is most at home in the sphere of
practical guidance of the faithful.”
284 scott degregorio

they are still wholly Gregorian in their development of such characteristic

themes as the need for penitence and compunction, the centrality of good
works and proper morals, and the impending doom of Judgment Day.

Gregory’s Method

What hermeneutic principles inform Gregory’s exegetical writings? The

question requires turning to the works themselves for, unlike Augustine in
the De doctrina christiana, Gregory wrote no separate tract on hermeneu-
tics. This is not surprising, as Markus has observed: “Being a man much
less inclined than was Augustine to analyze troubling intellectual prob-
lems, Gregory took no interest in the theoretical discussion of significa-
tion and meaning.”68 In two places, however, Gregory did pause to reflect
on some key aspects of his exegetical method: in the dedicatory letter to
the Moralia addressed to his friend Leander, and in the preface to In Can-
ticum Canticorum. Let us look first at what he says in the Moralia.69
The letter to Leander, we have seen, divulges that it was while Gregory
was in Constantinople that he assented to the wishes of his close compan-
ions, Leander chief among them, to expound the Book of Job with specific
attention to relating its allegorical meanings to moral edification.70 The
agenda set for him by his friends required, says Gregory, that he “speak
now as a simple expositor of the text, now as a guide on the ascent of
contemplation, and now as a moral preceptor”.71 But he adds that he had
to deviate from this three-fold task, specifically by curtailing “simple”

68 Robert A. Markus, Signs and Meanings: World and Text in Ancient Christianity (Liv-
erpool, 1996), p. 48.
69 For a detailed study of the Leander letter, see Stephan Kessler, “Gregor der Grosse
und seine Theorie der Exegese: Die ‘Epistula ad Leandrum’,” in L’esegesi dei Padri Latini
dalle origini a Gregorio Magno. XXVIII Incontro di studiosi dell’ antichità cristiana, Studia
Ephemeridis Augustinianum 68 (Rome, 2000), pp. 690–700; cf. Manselli, “Gregorio Magno
e la Bibbia,” pp. 74–75.
70 See note 26 above for the full passage. In addition to these two key passages, there
are numerous obiter dicta on exegetical method throughout the Gregorian corpus that
constraints of space prevent me from treating here. Some notable instances include HEz.
1.6.10–12; HEz. 1.9.29–33; HEz. 2.3.16–18; HEz. 2.10.1–3; Mor. 4, praef.; Mor. 18.3.7, Mor. 21.1.1–3;
and HEv. 22.
71   Mor. ad Leandrum 2 (CCSL 143:3, ll. 90–92): “Vnde et in eo saepe quasi postponere
ordinem expositionis inuenior et paulo diutius contemplationis latitudini ac moralitatis
insudo.”
 gregory’s exegesis 285

(i.e. literal) exposition so that he might fruitfully pursue whatever oppor-

tunities arose for amplifying his two higher aims:72
The commentator on divine eloquence should model his behaviour on that
of a river: a river that runs along its bed if it encounters open valleys to one
side immediately diverts the course of its current into them, then—when it
has flooded the channels—immediately flows back again into its bed. Thus
indeed should the commentator on God’s Word act should he find an occa-
sion for proper edification. He should turn the stream of his words out into
the nearby valley and then return to the bed of his discourse when he sees
the fields of related instruction sufficiently watered.
Gregory’s insistence that the exegete must be allowed to prioritize ad hoc
the order of the exposition then leads to another triadic scheme, namely,
the classic division of senses into historical, allegorical and moral levels
of meaning. Again Gregory makes the point through metaphor: “First,
we lay the foundations of historical fact; next, through allegory we erect
a fabric of the mind to be a citadel of faith; finally, through the exposi-
tion of the moral sense we clothe the edifice with a coloured garment.”73
This trichotomy of history, allegory, and moral interpretation or tropol-
ogy places Gregory in the tradition of Origen and Jerome, who also enu-
merated three senses, rather than Augustine and Cassian, who made the
quadruple distinction into history, allegory, tropology, and anagogy.74 In
Gregory’s view, these three senses can be seen to inform any and every
passage of Scripture; the exegete’s role is to discern and explain them,
and especially to proceed by utilizing history and allegory for moral

72 Mor. ad Leandrum 2 (CCSL 143:4, ll. 96–105): “Sacri enim tractator eloquii morem
fluminis debet imitari. Fluuius quippe dum per alueum defluit, si ualles ex latere concauas
contingit, in eas protinus sui impetus cursum diuertit, cumque illas sufficienter impleuerit,
repente sese in alueum refundit. Sic nimirum, sic diuini uerbi esse tractator debet, ut, cum
de qualibet re disserit, si fortasse iuxta positam occasionem congruae aedificationis inue-
nerit, quasi ad uicinam uallem linguae undas intorqueat et, cum subiunctae instructionis
campum sufficienter infuderit, ad sermonis propositi alueum recurrat.”
73 Mor. ad Leandrum 2 (CCSL 143:4, ll. 110–14): “Nam primum quidem fundamenta his-
toriae ponimus; deinde per significationem typicam in arcem fidei fabricam mentis erigi-
mus; ad extremum quoque per moralitatis gratiam, quasi superducto aedificium colore
uestimus.”
74 On Gregory’s inheritance and use of this triad, see de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, 1:132–
59; Manselli, “Gregorio Magno e la Bibbia,” pp. 75–76; McClure, “Exegesis and Audience,”
pp. 20–23; and Zeveni, “La Metodologia,” pp. 871–83. Occasionally Gregory hints at a four-
fold model: e.g. HEz. 2.9.8 (CCSL 142:362–3, ll. 255–64); and Mor. 16.19.24 (CCSL 143A:812–13,
ll. 1–9), which distinguishes a separate contemplative sense which, like anagogy, lifts the
soul to higher things (“. . . ut modo nuda nos pascat historia, modo sub textu litterae uelata
medullitus nos reficiat moralis allegoria, modo ad altiora suspendat contemplatio . . .”).
286 scott degregorio

edification (primum . . . deinde . . . ad extremum).75 In the actual space of

the Moralia, however, this scheme does not hold sway for long: mostly
Gregory distinguishes just two senses, one literal, the other some form of
spiritual meaning; moreover, literal-historical explanations virtually cease
after Book 4, as Gregory’s attention turns exclusively to allegorical and
moral matters. To be sure, in his letter he prioritizes the literal-historical
level as the foundation of the other senses; we even find him worrying
about the exegete who neglects meanings given plainly in the letter or
who twists words violently in pursuit of allegorical significations.76 Yet he
maintains that some passages cannot be treated literally “because when
they are understood superficially they offer no instruction to the reader
but only generate error”.77 The overall impression, no doubt, is that Greg-
ory appears “to be in a bit of a hurry to skip over the step of history so
as to explain allegory at his leisure”.78 But in the “theory” of the letter at
any rate, ideally the exegete must know how to strike a balance between
literal and spiritual modes of analysis, varying the difficulty of his teaching
so that lambs can wade while elephants swim.79

75 On the literal and allegorical as routes to tropology, see Bertrand De Margerie, “Gré-
goire le grand: Intériorise la lecture de l’Écriture,” in Introduction à l’histoire de l’exégèse: IV.
L’Occident latin de Léon le grand à Bernard de Clairvaux (Paris, 1990), pp. 141–85, at 144–7.
76 Mor. ad Leandrum 4 (CCSL 143:5–6, ll. 163–7, 172–3): “Aliquando autem qui uerba
accipere historiae iuxta litteram neglegit, oblatum sibi ueritatis lumen abscondit, cum
que laboriose inuenire in eis aliquid intrinsecus appetit, hoc, quod foris sine difficultate
assequi poterat, amittit. . . . Quae uidelicet si ad allegoriae sensum uiolenter inflectimus,
cuncta eius misericordiae facta uacuamus.” On the dangers of excessive allegorizing, see
further HEz. 1.3.4 (CCSL 142:35, ll. 64–75); and HEv. 40.1 (CCSL 141:394, ll. 1–12); on the pri-
ority of the literal sense, see HEz. 1.6.7 (CCSL 142:70, ll. 106–15), along with the remarks of
de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, 2:45–48; de Vregille, “Écriture saint,” col. 170; and Zeveni, “La
Metodologia,” pp. 874–5.
77 Mor. ad Leandrum 3 (CCSL 143:4, ll. 120–2): “. . . aliquando autem intellegi iuxta lit-
teram nequeunt, quia superficie tenus accepta nequaquam instructionem legentibus, sed
errorem gignunt.” Cf. Mor. 4, praef. (CCSL 143:158, ll. 1–28).
78 de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, 2:128. See also Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the
Middle Ages (Oxford, 1952), pp. 32–35.
79 Mor. ad Leandrum 4 (CCSL 143:6, ll. 177–8): “Quasi quidam quippe est fluuius, ut ita
dixerim, planus et altus, in quo et agnus ambulet et elephas natet.” Cf. HEz. 1.6.2 (CCSL
142:67, ll. 17–25), where Gregory deploys an equally memorable image, that of a wheel,
similarly to underline Scripture’s appeal to different capacities among the faithful: “Quid
autem rota, nisi sacram Scripturam signat, quae ex omni parte ad auditorum mentes
uoluitur et nullo erroris angulo a praedicationis suae uia retinetur? Ex omni autem parte
uoluitur, quia inter aduersa et prospera et recte et humiliter incedit. Circulus quippe prae-
ceptorum illius modo sursum, modo deorsum est, quae perfectioribus spiritaliter dicuntur,
infirmis iuxta litteram congruunt, et ipsa quae paruuli iuxta litteram intellegunt, docti uiri
per spiritalem intelligentiam in altum ducunt.” On this theme, see Catry, “Lire l’écriture,”
187–88; Dagens, Saint Grégoire, pp. 234–35.
 gregory’s exegesis 287

In the prologue to In Canticum Canticorum, the allegorical sense is

treated in greater detail, hardly surprising given the content of this bibli-
cal text. As in the letter to Leander, here too Gregory’s discussion is laden
with provocative imagery. He opens with the present condition of fallen
humanity: banished from the joys of paradise, its cold and unbelieving
heart is consequently blind to spiritual understanding. To reach it in so
listless a state, the divine speech addresses it “in figurative language, and
by way of things with which it is acquainted introduces it to a love with
which it is not acquainted”.80 In this connection, allegory functions like
a crane (quasi quandam machinam) that can hoist the soul from earthly
intelligible words up to God:81
We must notice how marvelously and mercifully he works with us; for in
order to set our hearts on fire and instigate us to sacred love he reaches
down even to the vocabulary of our own sensual love. But just as he hum-
bles himself in speaking, so he elevates us in understanding; for we learn
from the words of this love by what virtue we burn in love of the divine.
There is a danger in this, Gregory observes: instead of elevating the soul up
to God, this sensual language of love, if literalized, could cement attach-
ment to exterior things even more. The words of sacred Scripture equate
to the colours of a painting: fixating on external words is like clinging to
mere colours.82 The cloak of the letter must therefore be penetrated to
reach the deeper mysteries of the spirit concealed within. In a final related
image, Gregory likens Scripture to a mountain from which God descends
into our hearts; at first, the mist of allegory overclouds the mountain, but
the flames of love with which Scripture ignites the soul make its ascent pos-
sible, raising it up “as a burnt offering for the contemplation of God”.83

80 Cant. 1 (CCSL 144:3, ll. 11–13): “Idcirco per quaedam enigmata sermo diuinus animae
torpenti et frigidae loquitur et de rebus, quas nouit, latenter insinuat ei amorem, quem
non nouit.”
81   Cant. 3 (CCSL 144:4, ll. 31–37): “. . . notandum est quam mirabiliter nobis cum et mise-
ricorditer operatur, qui, ut cor nostrum ad instigationem sacri amoris accenderet, usque
ad turpis amoris nostri uerba distendit. Sed, unde se loquendo humiliat, inde nos intel-
lectu exaltat: quia ex sermonibus huius amoris discimus, qua uirtute in diuinitatis amore
ferueamus.”
82 Cant. 4 (CCSL 144:5, ll. 49–54): “Sic est enim scriptura sacra in uerbis et sensibus,
sicut pictura in coloribus et rebus: et nimis stultus est, qui sic picturae coloribus inheret,
ut res, quae pictae sunt, ignoret. Nos enim, si uerba, quae exterius dicuntur, amplectimur
et sensus ignoramus, quasi ignorantes res, quae depictae sunt, solos colores tenemus.”
83 Cant. 5 (CCSL 144:8, ll. 116–19): “Iste ergo ignis, quidquid in nobis est exterius rubig-
inis et uetustatis, exurat: ut mentem nostram uelut holocaustum in dei contemplatione
offerat.”
288 scott degregorio

Of course, neither of these highly poeticized passages intends anything

like a prescriptive, systematic exegetical theory.84 Still, there is much in
them that is illustrative of how Gregory works his way through scriptural
texts: the polarity of letter and spirit; the existence of multiple levels of
meaning; the tension between outer and inner, open and hidden; the
providential nature of obscuritas; the firm insistence on inspiration, that
God’s voice speaks through and is incarnated in the written word; and
the profoundly mystical streak, Scripture and its exegesis as paths to con-
templation. In this as in much else, Gregory was merely traditional. For
him the Bible as a book written intus et foris, “within and without”,85 and
its multilayered message taught something about Christ and the Church,
either through figure and prophecy as in the Old Testament, or through
open proclamation as in the New: like a stone in which fire lies hidden,
the literal words had to be struck with interpretation so that the flame
of spiritual meaning could fly forth and ignite real inner understanding
concerning the mystery of Christ.86 This general Christocentric view of
Scripture and its interpretation, based on the fundamental unity between
the two Testaments, was the legacy Gregory had inherited from Paul and
the early fathers, and so much in his exegesis moves in perfect step with
that tradition, indeed forms the key channel through which patristic doc-
trine reached the Middle Ages.

The Gregorian Legacy

As for Gregory’s own original contribution, at least two areas stand out.
These are perhaps still best understood as instances of degree rather than
kind, but his imprints remain visible here all the same. There is broad

84 Gregory frequently talked of Scripture in metaphorical terms, comparing it to a

gate (HEz. 2.3.2, CCSL 142:238, ll. 43–47), a forest (HEz. 1.5.1, CCSL 142:57, ll. 1–5) a wheel
(HEz. 1.6.2, CCSL 142:67–68, ll. 16–32), food (HEz. 1.10.3, CCSL 142:145, ll. 17–35), and a mirror
(Mor. 2.1.1, CCSL 143:59, ll. 1–3), to name just a few of his more memorable comparisons.
85 HEz. 1.9.30 (CCSL 142:139, ll. 590–1): “Liber enim sacri eloquii intus scriptus est per
allegoriam, foris per historiam.”
86 HEz. 2.10.1 (CCSL 142: 379, ll. 14–18): “Sic etenim, sic uerba sunt sacri eloquii, quae
quidem per narrationem litterae frigida tenentur, sed si quis haec, aspirante Domino,
intento intellectu pulsauerit, de mysticis eius sensibus ignem producit, ut in eis uerbis
post animus spiritaliter ardeat, quae prius per litteram ipse quoque frigidus audiebat.” On
the centrality of Christology to Gregory’s exegetical thought, see Sandra Zimdars-Swartz,
“A Confluence of Imagery: Exegesis and Christology According to Gregory the Great,” in
Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine, Robert Gillet, and Stan Pellistrandi (Paris, 1986),
pp. 327–35; and Dagens, Saint Grégoire, pp. 59–62.
 gregory’s exegesis 289

consensus that his wide reading in western patristic sources,87 and the
fusion of that heritage with his own monastic background and contem-
plative bent, catered to the emergence in his exegesis of something dis-
tinctive, even new.88 The overriding focus on conuersio morum, filtered
through a distinctively monastic spirituality and articulated in vividly
experiential terms, found original and influential expression in Gregory,
the first monastic pope to establish a literary identity as an exegete and to
develop a brand of spiritual exegesis that could bridge the gap between an
earlier patristic age and the bourgeoning monastic culture of the Middle
Ages. The prolific exegetical career of someone like Bede, who looked so
intently to Gregory as a major inspiration, or the many other writers in the
Carolingian age and beyond who came under Gregory’s spell, attests very
well to just how catalyzing was his impact in this regard.89
Secondly, and relatedly, there is the matter of Gregory’s marked pref-
erence for allegorical exposition. An earlier age of modern scholarship,
perhaps understandably, cast this as his greatest fault. But a proper
understanding of it has since been resuscitated, recognizing it as integral
to the radically monastic and deeply contemplative way that Gregory
approached the reading of Scripture.90 His tendency to play down the
literal sense, and to open up a free-play of signification at the allegori-
cal level en route to tropology and, rising beyond that to contemplation,

87 Gregory’s unfamiliarity with Greek sources (save those available through Latin
intermediaries) has been much discussed; for a range of opinion, see Joan M. Petersen,
“Did Gregory the Greek Know Greek?” in The Orthodox Churches and the West, Studies in
Church History 13, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford, 1976), pp. 121–34; eadem, “ ‘Homo omnino lati-
nus?’ The Theological and Cultural Background of Pope Gregory the Great,” Speculum 62
(1987), 529–51; and Gerard J.M. Bartelink, “Pope Gregory the Great’s Knowledge of Greek,”
trans. Paul Meyvaert, in Gregory the Great: A Symposium, ed. John C. Cavadini, pp. 117–36.
See also the Editors’ Preface to this volume.
88 Cf. De Margerie, “Grégoire le grand,” p. 150: “Grégoire reprend et développe les don-
nées qu’il a reçues de la Tradition antérieure, de manière originale, sans la contredire.”
89 On Gregory and Bede, see Scott DeGregorio, “The Venerable Bede and Gregory the
Great: Exegetical Connections, Spiritual Departures,” Early Medieval Europe 18 (2010),
43–60, and Paul Meyvaert, Bede and Gregory the Great, Jarrow Lecture (Jarrow, 1964).
90 On exegesis and contemplation, see chapter 2 of Bernard McGinn’s The Growth of
Mysticism: Gregory the Great through the 12th Century (New York, 1994), and his further
study, “Contemplation in Gregory the Great,” in Gregory the Great: A Symposium, ed. John
C. Cavadini, pp. 146–67; and in the same volume, Grover Zinn, “Exegesis and Spirituality in
the Writings of Gregory the Great,” pp. 168–80. Also Stephan Kessler, “Monastische Mystik
auf biblischer Grundlage: Theorie und Praxis der Kontemplation bei Gregor dem Grossen,”
Erbe und Auftrag 79 (2003), 17–26. The monastic element in Gregory’s exegesis has been
well brought out via comparison to lectio divina: see Benedetto Calati, “La lectio divina
nel pensiero di Gregorio Magno,” in Ascolto della Parola e preghiera. La lectio divina, ed.
Salvatore Panimolle (Vatican City, 1987), pp. 159–67.
290 scott degregorio

marked a departure from the trepidation that Augustine, at least later in

life, felt about the potential perils of allegorical interpretation and textual
obscurity, and put Gregory closer to the hermeneutical stance of Origen
or perhaps Ambrose.91 At the same time, Gregory was a more systematic
and practical exegete than either of these two writers, viewing the inter-
pretation of Scripture from the point of view of the professional ascetic or
monk that wanted from the Bible not so much theological speculation or
contemplation for contemplation’s sake but a practical path to “real” spiri-
tual growth. As such, the careful interpretation of Scripture was always
for Gregory not only a route to contemplation but a practical training in
proper moral behaviour, indispensable to those who would guide others
in the spiritual life. Through this synthesis of the patristic tradition, Greg-
ory’s hermeneutic constituted a powerful legacy to medieval commenta-
tors and preachers, who would turn again and again to the Moralia and
his other writings as the consummate works of the premier master of the
allegorical sense and the doctor of contemplation. Indeed, it is this long
influence as exegete and spiritual guide combined that would become
utterly central to Gregory’s reputation in the centuries to come (as further
chapters will show), and that helps to explain why he would be so readily
accorded a place among the greatest fathers of the western Church.

91 See Markus, Signs and Meanings, pp. 45–70.

 Chapter thirteen

A Cooperative Correspondence:
The Letters of Gregory the Great*

Richard Matthew Pollard

Of all of Gregory’s writings, there is perhaps no passage more striking than

in the prologue to his Dialogues, where he paints a vivid, wistful picture of
his present life as pope in a near poetic nautical metaphor:1
Indeed my troubled mind recalls how once it was in the monastery . . . but
now, in pastoral duties, endures the agitations of worldly men. . . . And so I
weigh what I now bear, I weigh what I have lost; and when I look upon what
I have surrendered, what I bear is made heavier. For look: now I am struck
by the waves of a great sea, and in the ship of my mind I am hammered by
the winds of a fierce storm, and when I recall my previous life, as if I have
sighted the shore with a backward glance, I sigh. And what is still harder to
bear, as I am savaged and roiled by immense waves: I now can scarcely see
the harbour I left behind.
This passage underlines Gregory’s fond memories for his time spent at his
monastery on the Caelian hill, “the happiest time of his life”,2 contrasted
with the weight of papal duties, which Gregory feels he bears alone. Yet
Gregory did not pilot the little boat of the papacy all by himself. Like the
popes that preceded him, and those that followed, the success of Gregory’s
“voyage” was dependent, far more than usually realized, on the abilities

* This essay had a long and sometimes painful genesis. I would like to thank Matthew
Dal Santo and Bronwen Neil for their help and patience in the reshaping process. Further
gratitude goes to Julian Hendrix for his comments on a much earlier version. Finally, this
essay would have taken a very different direction were it not for the anonymous readers.
1 Gregory, Dial., 1, Prol. 3–5 (SC 260:12): “Infelix quippe animus meus . . . meminit qualis
aliquando in monasterio fuit . . . At nunc ex occasione curae pastoralis saecularium homi-
num negotia patitur . . . Perpendo itaque quid tolero, perpendo quid amisi, dumque intu-
eor illud quod perdidi, fit hoc grauius quod porto. Ecce etenim nunc magni maris fluctibus
quatior atque in naui mentis tempestatis ualidae procellis inlidor, et cum prioris uitae
recolo, quasi post tergum ductis oculis uiso litore suspiro. Quodque adhuc est grauius,
dum inmensis fluctibus turbatus feror, uix iam portum ualeo uidere quem reliqui.” Cf.
Ep. 5.53a (eds Paul Ewald and Ludwig Hartmann, MGH Epp. 1 [Berlin, 1891], pp. 353–58,
at 354, ll.5–13). All translations are my own unless otherwise noted.
2 Robert Markus, Gregory the Great and his World (Cambridge, 1997), p. 12.
292 richard matthew pollard

of numerous colleagues. Their legacy is hidden, but a careful study of the

letters produced by the papacy offers a glimpse of where they worked,
who they were, and what abilities they possessed. Such an investigation
also allows us to make a broader assessment of education, and the func-
tioning of the papacy, in Rome c.600 than would be possible looking at
Gregory alone.

Latin Prose-Rhythm

It is a seemingly arcane feature of Latin prose style that will offer the most
help in identifying the men behind Gregory, namely Latin prose-rhythm.3
Prose rhythm was a rhetorical embellishment that involved arranging
words at the end of sentences into particular rhythmical patterns. By
Gregory’s day, it had a very long history in Latin literature: prose-rhythm
had been used by Latin writers since before Cicero, who himself used
rhythm extensively while also describing its practice in detail in his De
0ratore.4 In antiquity, the rhythm was based on syllable quantities (“longs”
and “shorts”, represented here as – and ⏑), much like classical Latin
poetry. A favoured cadence might be nōstră dīrēxĭmūs, a double cretic
(– ⏑ – repeated). In Late Antiquity, cadences came more and more to be
based on word accent, in conjunction with, or instead of syllable length:
hence nóstra diréximus above came to be understood as an accentual
pattern of two word accents, each followed by two unaccented syllables
(óooóoo).5 This accentual system of rhythm is now known as cursus, and
a few patterns of word-accent came to dominate: these are known as velox
(óooooóo, e.g. ultima pervenisse), planus (óooóo, e.g. causa nascatur),
tardus (óooóoo, e.g. nostra direximus), with some authors also using tri-
spondaicus (óoooóo, e.g. corda vagarentur). Despite these changes, prose-

3 On Latin prose-rhythm and its history in antiquity, see now Steven Oberhelman,
Prose Rhythm in Latin Literature of the Roman Empire: First Century B.C. to Fourth Century
A.D. (Lewiston, 2003).
4 Cicero, De oratore 3.44–51 (ed. Augustus Samuel Wilkins [Oxford, 1902], pp. 228–37);
Cicero, Orator 50–71 (ed. Augustus Samuel Wilkins [Oxford, 1903], pp. 164–188). On Cicero’s
use of prose-rhythm, see Thaddäus Zielinski, Das Clauselgesetz in Ciceros Reden. Grundzüge
einer oratorischen Rhythmik (Leipzig, 1904). For briefer summaries see Oberhelman, Prose
Rhythm, pp. 79–184; Albert Willem de Groot, La Prose métrique des anciens (Paris, 1926),
pp. 9–10; Lancelot P. Wilkinson, Golden Latin Artistry (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 135–62.
5 On this transformation, see Harald Hagendahl, La prose metrique d’Arnobe (Göteborg,
1937), esp. pp. 9–90; Steven Oberhelman, “The History and Development of Cursus Mixtus
in Latin Literature,” Classical Quarterly 38 (1988), 228–42.
 a cooperative correspondence 293

rhythm continued to be taught as part of the traditional Roman education

in rhetoric, and was known to Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose, who used
it extensively in their compositions.6 Amongst 6th-century authors like
Ruricius, Cassiodorus, Caesarius of Arles, and Ennodius, the three main
cadences (velox, planus and tardus) typically make up 80–90% (or more)
of all sentence-ends.7 Notably, Cassiodorus uses prose-rhythm even in the
Institutiones, written after his retreat from secular life to his monastary of
Vivarium. The use of prose-rhythm in a text, therefore, was an enduring
sign that the author had enjoyed special training in Latin style and rheto-
ric, and was not something lightly abandoned.
As such, it is very interesting to note that none of Gregory’s personal
compositions shows an intentional use of prose-rhythm.8 Specifically, in
his Moralia, Regula Pastoralis, Dialogi, Homiliae in Evangelia and in Eze-
chielem, the main three cadences sought by users of prose-rhythm make
up only 52% of the sentence-ends.9 This figure is, first of all, the number
of rhythmical cadences we would expect to be produced accidentally by
an author who had not been trained to use cursus. Steven Oberhelman,
for instance, surveyed a number of Latin authors from the early mod-
ern period (long after the practice of cursus was abandoned) and found
that the three main cadences (velox, planus, tardus) were found in only
about 55% of sentence-ends, as a result of unintentional, accidental use.10

6 Steven Oberhelman, Rhetoric and Homiletics in Fourth-century Christian Literature

(Atlanta, 1991).
7 For Caesarius, see Giovanni Orlandi, “Clausulae in Gildas’s De Excidio Britanniae,”
in Gildas: New Approaches, eds Michael Lapidge and David Dumville (Woodbridge, 1984),
p. 147; for Ennodius, see Steven Oberhelman and Ralph Hall, “A New Statistical Analysis
of Accentual Prose Rhythms in Imperial Latin Authors,” Classical Philology 79.2 (1984),
126; for Cassiodorus, see Mary J. Suelzer, The Clausulae in Cassiodorus (Washington, 1944),
p. 10; for Ruricius, Harald Hagendahl, La correspondance de Ruricius (Göteborg, 1952), pp.
32–50.
8 Kathleen Brazzel, The Clausulae in the Works of St. Gregory the Great (Washington,
1939), p. 65. Cf. also Rosanna Bottoni, Il ritmo della prosa latina in età carolingia (unpubl.
diss., Milan, 1993), App. 1, tav. 36–37. Marco Pellegrini, “La prosa ritmica nelle opere di
Gregorio Magno,” Filologia Mediolatina 15 (2008), 217–48, detects very slight rhythmical
preferences in Gregory’s prose (though still completely at odds with earlier writers like
Cassiodorus); I remain in doubt about this conclusion, as it depends on use of enormous
samples for which Tore Janson’s methodology (Tore Janson, Prose rhythm in medieval
Latin from the 9th to the 13th century [Stockholm, 1975]) was not designed. I also reject the
conclusions of John R.C. Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the Great (Toronto, 2004), 1:110–11,
whose analysis offers no statistics and is based on metrical clausulae, ignoring the accen-
tual cadences popular in Gregory’s day.
9 Brazzel, Clausulae, p. 63.
10 Oberhelman, Rhetoric and Homiletics, pp. 8–9, 14. For the abandonment of cursus in
the early modern period, see Gudrun Lindholm, Studien zum mittellateinischen Prosaryth-
mus (Stockholm, 1963).
294 richard matthew pollard

Second, Gregory’s figure of 52% is also manifestly at odds with earlier writ-
ers like Ennodius (83.8%) and Cassiodorus (84.2%). One of the fundamen-
tal features of Late Antique rhetorical training, seen in the language of
Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Ennodius, Ruricius, Caesarius, Cassiodorus,
and others is, therefore, missing (or hidden) in Gregory’s Latin.
If we look at prose-rhythm in Gregory’s letters, on the other hand, we
can begin to see the important role subordinates played in his papacy.
When one examines the letters issued in Gregory’s name, we find that
some follow the rules of accentual rhythm beloved by Caesarius and Cas-
siodorus, while others do not.11 Dag Norberg noted that those letters that
were almost certainly composed by the pope directly, given their very
personal touches (e.g. Reg. 1.41, where Gregory complains of his heavy
responsibilities as pope and discusses his composition of the Moralia),
have very few accentual cadences. Many letters without these personal
touches, however, unfailingly follow the rules for prose rhythm, just like
letters from the papacies preceding and following Gregory.12 This rhyth-
mical difference between Gregory’s personal letters and the others is strik-
ing: for the former, Norberg found that only about 49% of sentence-ends
conform to one of the three main rhythmical typologies (very similar to
the figure of 52% in Gregory’s Moralia and Oberhelman’s non-rhythmical
figure just noted) whereas in the latter we find upwards of 94% sentence-
ends contain these forms.13 In a further statistical analysis of the prose-
rhythm in the Registrum, using the more advanced statistical methodology
of Tore Janson, Norberg found a similar division: those letters with clear
signs of personal composition by the pope do not seem to employ prose-
rhythm in any systematic way, while routine administrative letters (and
many other letters) show a strong statistical preference for rhythmical
sentence-ends.14
It beggars belief that Gregory would only use prose-rhythm in some of
his letters, and not in his most important, personal letters, nor, for that
matter, in any of his other works. Writers in Late Antiquity and the early
Middle Ages tended to be reasonably consistent about using prose-rhythm,

11 Registrum epistularum, ed. Dag Norberg, CCSL 140–140a (Turnhout, 1982); trans. John
R.C. Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the Great, 3 vols (Toronto, 2004).
12 For cursus in the papal letters of the late 6th and 7th centuries, see my “The Decline
of the Cursus in the Papal Chancery,” Studi Medievali 50 (2009), 1–40.
13 Dag Norberg, “Qui a composé les lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand?”, Studi Medievali
21 (1980), 1–17.
14 Dag Norberg, “Style personnel et style administratif dans le Registrum Epistularum de
saint Grégoire,” in Grégoire le Grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al. (Paris, 1986), pp. 489–97,
based on the method devised by Janson, Prose rhythm.
 a cooperative correspondence 295

whatever the genre in which they were writing: Cassiodorus uses prose-
rhythm in nearly all his major compositions, including exegetical works;
the only exception is the late grammatical compilation De orthographia.
If we look later, Paul the Deacon is similarly consistent.15 It seems almost
certain therefore that the differences in prose-rhythm reflect the distinct
styles of different authors, Gregory and his subordinates. Norberg’s con-
clusions (since upheld by Pellegrini’s study of the rhythm in Gregory’s let-
ters) therefore offer very convincing evidence to distinguish letters the
pope dictated himself from those letters written by others in Gregory’s
name.16 Gregory’s major works, the Moralia, the Homiliae, even his Dialogi
may have been written (or at least completed) while he was pope, and
were informed by his experience in that office, but they were—so far as
we can tell—personal works by a man who happened to be pope. His
letters, on the other hand, are not solely the products of Gregory person-
ally, but rather of his papacy, which comprised many more people than
Gregory alone.
Nothing could be more obvious than that popes were dependent on
subordinates to be successful: if the duties of the papacy could have been
accomplished by one man, there would have been none of the papal offi-
cials listed in Bronwen Neil’s chapter infra.17 But it is one thing to entrust
the management of a Sicilian estate to an official, quite another to allow
him to craft statements and arguments that will be issued in the name
of the pope himself. As such, some may not be receptive to the idea that
Gregory did not compose all of his own letters; perhaps Gregory’s exalted
reputation both as an author and a pope makes such a suggestion unpal-
atable.18 Yet no one would be surprised to hear that Roman emperors did
not write (much of) the correspondence that went out in their names:

15 This would seem to counter the objections of Michel Banniard (“Zelum discretione
condire: Langages et styles de Grégoire,” in Papauté, monachisme, et theories politiques,
ed. Pierre Guichard [Lyon, 1994], pp. 29–46; esp. n. 82), who would have Gregory simply
varying his style in these letters that lack rhythm. For consistency of rhythm-use in Cas-
siodorus, see the work of Suelzer, Clausulae; for Paul the Deacon, see my “Paul, Paulinus
and the Rhythm of Elite Latin,” in La culture du haut moyen âge, une question d’élites?, eds
François Bougard, Régine Le Jan and Rosamond McKitterick, Haut Moyen Âge 7 (Turn-
hout, 2010), pp. 63–99.
16 Pellegrini, “La prosa ritmica nelle opere di Gregorio Magno,” 236–41.
17 Cf. also Pietrina Pellegrini, Militia clericatus, monachici ordines. Istituzioni ecclesias-
tiche e società in Gregorio Magno (2nd edn, Catania, 2008).
18 My reasons for rejecting the arguments of Banniard are stated breviter at n. 15 (above)
and n. 43 (below), and will be fully explored in future. Cf. Thomas F.X. Noble, “The Intel-
lectual Culture of the Early Medieval Papacy,” Rome nell’alto medioevo, Settimane di studio
del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 48 (Spoleto, 2001), pp. 179–213, at 190.
296 richard matthew pollard

Suetonius, for example, was the official secretary for Hadrian and must have
composed many letters in the emperor’s name.19 We also know that earlier
bishops of Rome employed others to write correspondence in their names
from a relatively early date. Jerome, for instance, wrote letters for Pope
Damasus, Prosper of Aquitaine for Leo I, and the future pope Gelasius
may well have written for Pope Felix III, Gregory’s great-great-grandfather.20
Even Ennodius of Pavia, mentioned several times above, seemingly wrote
a few letters for Pope Symmachus.21 Furthermore, Gregory himself sug-
gests that when it came to worldly matters (causae terrenae), as opposed
to salvation of souls (de animarum salute), he sometimes allowed a subor-
dinate to compose letters in his name.22 More ambiguously, a few letters
mention that Gregory had dictated (dictauimus) the text to a subordinate,
for it to be written up (scribendam).23 If such figures as Leo the Great and

19 Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Suetonius: the Scholar and his Caesars (London, 1983), pp.
87–90. On frequent “ghost writing” of letters in antiquity, see Hermann Peter, Der Brief in
der römischen Litteratur (Leipzig, 1901), pp. 168–77.
20 See Nelly Ertl, “Diktatoren frühmittelalterlicher Papstbriefe,” Archiv für Urkunden-
forschung 15 (1938), 56–132, at 57–61 (Leo and Prosper), 61–66 (Gelasius and Felix III), 66–67
(Ennodius and Symmachus); Erich Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen
bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft 2 (Tübingen, 1933), p. 283, n. 5; Hugo Koch, Gelasius im
kirchenpolitischen Dienste seiner Vorgänger, der Päpste Simplicius (468–483) und Felix III.
(483–492), Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-
Historische Abteilung 6 (Munich, 1935); Walter Ullmann, Gelasius I. (492–496): Das papst-
tum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1981), pp. 135–41; Wolfgang
Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum, Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft 1.2 (Munich, 1971), p. 34. For Jerome: Ep. 123 (ed. Isidore Hilberg,
CSEL 56.1 [Vienna, 1918], pp. 82.14–16): “ante annos plurimos, cum in chartis ecclesiasticis
iuuarem Damasum, Romanae urbis episcopus, et orientis atque occidentis synodicis con-
sultationibus responderem.”
21  Stefanie A.H. Kennell, Magnus Felix Ennodius: A Gentleman of the Church (Ann
Arbor, 2000), pp. 170 and 202–6; William Townsend and William Wyatt, “Ennodius and
Pope Symmachus,” in Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Edward Kennard Rand,
ed. Leslie Webber Jones (New York, 1938), pp. 277–291.
22 Norberg, “Style personnel,” p. 489. Most revealing is Reg. 6.33 (CCSL 140:407.29–31):
“Pro qua re iam necessarium non fuit ut eum per epistulam meam admonere aliquid
debuissem, sed tantum illa scripsi quae in causis terrenis consiliarius dictare potuit” (“As
such it was not necessary that I should advise him through a letter of mine, instead I only
wrote those things that a consiliarius could dictate in worldly matters”). See also Reg. 6.62
(CCSL 140:436.19–23): “Quia ergo non de rebus terrenis sed de animarum salute tractatur
et uestra atque illius diuersa exsistit assertio, nihil indiscussa ueritate subtiliter respondere
potuimus, quia tempore quo excellentiae uestrae scripta suscepimus corporis aegritudine
tenebamur” (“And so, because it was a question of the salvation of souls and not worldly
matters, and your and his arguments stood apart, we were not able to make a careful
response [not having pondered the truth] since we were overcome with bodily illness at
the time we received what your excellence wrote”).
23 E.g. Reg. 5.26; 6.12; 9.98; 11.15. In the first case, the presence of regular prose-rhythm
suggests that the notary Paterius or some other subordinate composed the letter.
 a cooperative correspondence 297

Damasus did not write all their own letters, then, and if Gregory himself
says that others could write for him, why should we doubt that some of
the letters were composed by subordinates? Prose-rhythm, as noted, sim-
ply offers a suggestion as to which letters these were.
This arrangement of allowing subordinates to write in nomine papae
would, furthermore, have been very familiar to Gregory, who seems to
have been a papal “ghost writer” before he became pope. In the 580s, Pope
Pelagius II was growing increasingly frustrated with the Istrian bishops,
who had gone into schism with Rome over the issue of the Three Chapters
condemned at the council of Constantinople in 553. He sent two letters
to them, arguing Rome’s case, but to no effect. A longer, third letter fol-
lowed, filled with quotations of authorities, in the hope of winning the
Istrians back to the fold.24 This letter, although it was written under Pela-
gius’ name, was long suspected to have been written by Gregory instead,
mostly on the strength of a comment by Paul the Deacon in the Historia
Langobardorum.25 Paul, who was also Gregory’s biographer, claims that
“Pelagius sent a rather useful letter to bishop Helias of Aquileia, [who] did
not want to accept the three chapters of the council of Chalcedon. Blessed
Gregory, while he was still deacon, wrote this [letter]”.26 Furthermore,
Paul Meyvaert recently made a detailed study of the text, and showed
that it contained a surfeit of “Gregorian” traits, which are absent from
the first two letters.27 These include preferences for particular sentence-
structure, verbs (e.g. pensare) and metaphors (e.g. the Church as a “radi-
ant star”), and one could add to this list.28 Meyvaert also points to the

24 For this piece, I have used the three letters in the edition by Paul Ewald and Lud-
wig Hartmann, MGH Epp. 2 (Berlin, 1899), pp. 442–467. More recent edition by Eduard
Schwartz, Concilium uniuersale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum, ACO 4,2
(Strasbourg, 1914), pp. 105–32.
25 E.g. Jeffery Richards, Consul of God (London, 1980), pp. 39–40 (and nn. 74–76, p. 273).
Paul Meyvaert, “A Letter of Pelagius II Composed by Gregory the Great,” in Gregory the
Great: a Symposium, ed. John C. Cavadini, Notre Dame Studies in Theology 2 (Notre Dame
and London, 1996), pp. 94–116, notes that Eduard Schwartz, who edited the letters in ACO
4,2, remained utterly unconvinced that Gregory had written Pelagius II’s letter(s): ACO
4,2, p. xxv, n. 1.
26 Paul the Deacon, HL, 3.20 (eds Ludwig Bethmann and Georg Waitz, MGH SSRL [Han-
nover, 1878], p. 103).
27 Meyvaert, “A Letter of Pelagius II”.
28 To Meyvaert’s list I would add the following Gregorian “traits” (citations refer to
page/line of the MGH edition): the collocation laboribus insudavit (455.36) occurs three
times in Gregory’s other works, but only thirteen times total in the CLCLT ‘A’ database
of Latin texts; verba permut* (456.7 and 13) only occurs three times in the CLCLT, once
in Cicero, once in Gregory, and once in a quotation of Gregory; immoderatius extend*
(463.39) seems characteristically Gregorian, as it occurs only once in the CLCLT, in the
298 richard matthew pollard

letter’s use of Greek sources as evidence that it was (at least partially)
composed while Gregory was still in Constantinople as apocrisarius, that
is, sometime before 587.
Gregory was key to drawing up Pelagius II’s third letter then, but did
he work alone? Again, probably not. As Meyvaert observed, the access to
(and translations of) some Greek sources suggest that Gregory had help
from his bilingual friends in gathering material for the piece.29 But there
is evidence of collaboration or revision by another party in the style of the
letter as well: in particular, the letter uses far more rhythmical forms than
would be characteristic of Gregory’s prose (66% vs. 49–52%, respectively),
though not as many as the two other letters of Pelagius to the Istrians
(nearly 100%).30 The specific rhythmical typologies found in the letter
are also somewhat out of alignment with those that we chance to find in
all of Gregory’s other works.31 It therefore seems possible that Gregory’s
oeuvre was either prepared in collaboration with, or revised by, someone
who wrote rhythmical prose, possibly the author(s) of the first two let-
ters, which are quite rhythmical. This sort of arrangement would not have
been unusual: it seems that one of Ennodius’ commissions for Pope Sym-
machus was revised by “the work of a committee” before being officially
sent as a papal letter.32

Moralia 26.xlvii (CCSL 143B:1330); verba replic* (466.5) is an relatively uncommon col-
location, only occurring five times in the CLCLT database, one of which is in Gregory’s
Moralia 5.xxvii (CCSL 143:251); ratiocinando respond* (467.5) is an extremely uncommon
expression, only occurring at one other place in the CLCLT database, namely in Gregory’s
Moralia, 20.xvii (CCSL 143A:1046).
29 Meyvaert, “A Letter of Pelagius II,” p. 102.
30 The figures for the third letter are from my own analysis, which is much more
detailed than that provided to Meyvaert by Norberg (“A Letter of Pelagius II,” pp. 98–99
and n. 26). I take the figure for the first two letters, however, from Norberg in that note.
31 My results for Pelagius II’s third letter (MGH Epp. 2, pp. 449–467), out of a total of
160 sentence-ends, with quotations excluded: Cursus planus: 46 (28.8%); cursus tardus:
14 (8.8%); cursus velox: 45 (28.1%). Total of main 3 cursus types: 105 (65.6% of 160). Tri-
spondaicus: 46 (28.8%), other: 9 (5.6%). The highest total for velox in any of Gregory’s
genuine works is 17% in the RP (Brazzel, Clausulae, p. 63). In terms of the typologies used
by Janson, Prose Rhythm in Medieval Latin, we find in the letter the following cadences:
p4p (37), pp4p (33), p3p (33), pp3p (9), p3pp (6), others (37). Missing is the p4pp, which is
frequently found in nearly all of Gregory’s works (though I would argue this is probably not
an intentional use of rhythm, but rather a feature of Gregory’s word-choice; cf. n. 8 above):
Pellegrini, “La prosa ritmica,” 217–248, esp. 244.
32 Kennell, Ennodius, pp. 205–6 and n. 162. Cf. Wyatt, “Ennodius and Pope Symma-
chus,” p. 291: “in Dictio VI we have actually a first rough draft of the communication as it
came from the hand of Ennodius. In the Letter [to the eastern bishops] we have the final
form which it took after consultation and deliberation with the Pope himself and other
advisors.”
 a cooperative correspondence 299

If the third letter of Pelagius II was a collaboration, it reminds us that

Pope Gregory may have participated, at some stage, in those letters mainly
drawn up by his helpers. It is certainly possible that in some cases Gregory
gave notes—oral or written—to be drawn up into full letters, or revised
letters that had already been composed. Yet this should not be taken too
far in an attempt to minimize the contributions of his helpers. In the first
case, subordinates would still be crafting the very words of the papacy:
prose-rhythm requires very careful thought as to vocabulary, chosen spe-
cifically for the desired length of clauses and sentences, and as such the
writer would need almost complete control over the contents of those
sentences. In the second case, if Gregory inserted his own sentences into
letters composed by others, they would stand out rhythmically—but most
of the letters that employ prose-rhythm use it in almost every sentence,
something that argues against his substantive participation.33 Finally, as
we saw above and will see further below, we have strong evidence that
secretaries could write “whole-cloth” for other popes—Gregory was prob-
ably no exception.
To summarize, the popes of the 5th and 6th centuries, including Greg-
ory, were not averse to employing others, even groups, to prepare corre-
spondence. Typically these would be members of a special cadre of letter
writers (often in the papal scrinium), who composed following certain
rules of form and style, particularly in the consistent use of prose-rhythm.
But even those who did not belong to this group could be asked to write,
as Gregory’s relatively unrhythmical letter for Pelagius II suggests. There
could be many reasons for this: papal illness, as we would expect in the
case of Gregory;34 the impossibility of a very busy pope dictating each and
every letter that went out in their name; or perhaps more significantly
for us here, because of particular specializations or abilities of subordi-
nates. Gregory’s writing for Pelagius II may be an example of the last case:
Pelagius II (or officials in his scrinium) recognized the failure of the first
two letters, and sought out someone with impressive scriptural and theo-
logical knowledge, who was also well placed in Constantinople to access
pertinent Greek materials. The pope, or other subordinates, however, may
still have had a hand in the final product.

33 On the consistency of prose-rhythm use in the “subordinate” letters, see the results
of Norberg, cited above at nn. 13 and 14.
34 Frederick Homes Dudden, Gregory the Great (London, 1905), 1:243.
300 richard matthew pollard

Gregory’s Subordinates in the Papal Scrinium

All this leads us to wonder who Gregory’s helpers were, and what their
particular specialities might have been.35 Norberg suggests that the dea-
con Boniface might have been one of those who wrote letters in Gregory’s
name: Boniface acted as a kind of “secretary of state”, fielding questions
from senior Church officials throughout Italy, writing letters in his own
name and possibly also in the name of the pope.36 The consiliarius Theo-
dore may also have been one of Gregory’s letter-writers. Theodore con-
siliarius is praised as eloquentissimus in Reg. 3.18, suggestive perhaps of
his writing abilities, and two other letters hint that he may have been a
legal advisor.37 First, in a letter to Bishop Januarius of Sardinia, the pope
advises his colleague to outline some of his troublesome legal cases to
“our most cherished son Peter and Theodorus the consiliarius, so that after
they explain things to us, whatever reason suggests (with the Lord’s rev-
elation) can be put in place”; Norberg suggests it may have been Theodore
(and Peter) who would actually draft the reply.38 The rhythm in this very
letter, however, suggests that it was in fact composed by one of Grego-
ry’s subordinates, perhaps Peter or Theodore himself!39 Another case has
Theodore examining a legal document for Gregory, a cautio relating to
a certain Libertinus, and pronouncing the document execrabilis, lending
support to the “legal advisor” idea.40 Finally, as the quotation just above
would hint, Peter—probably also the interlocutor of the Dialogues—was
one of Gregory’s most trusted friends, and it is not hard to imagine that
Gregory, who entrusted Peter with a variety of diplomatic tasks, could also
have employed him to write letters on particular topics.

35 On the abilities of papal functionaries generally, see Noble, “Literacy and the Papal
Government in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages,” in The Uses of Literarcy in Early
Mediaeval Europe, ed. Rosamond McKitterick (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 82–108.
36 Norberg, “Style personnel,” p. 494; cf. Richards, Consul of God, p. 76. Norberg points
to the following phrase in Reg. 6.31 as evidence of Boniface’s letter-writing: “hoc quod tibi
filius noster diaconus bonifatius et uir magnificus maurentius chartularius scripsit sollicite
attende” (CCSL 140:404), but this could be interpreted as Boniface and Maurentius sending
a letter under their own names.
37 Reg. 3.18 (CCSL 140:164).
38 Reg. 9.11 (CCSL 140A:572–73). Norberg, “Style personnel,” p. 495.
39 Of eighteen sentence-ends in Reg. 9.11 (as edited by Norberg), I find six cursus velox,
ten cursus tardus, two cursus planus: in short, every single sentence-end in this letter is
formed according to strict rules of accentual prose-rhythm.
40 Reg. 11.4 (CCSL 140A:862).
 a cooperative correspondence 301

Even if we can only specifically identify a few of Gregory’s possible ghost-

writers, the abilities and training of all are manifest in the letters, and offer
insights into the intellectual culture of the early medieval papacy.41 The
letter writers managed diverse situations that required good knowledge of
canon and civil law, diplomacy, even military affairs.42 Most significantly,
Gregory seems to have entrusted his entire correspondence with Frankish
royalty to his subordinates. In a revelation shocking on its own, Norberg
noted that all the letters to Queen Brunhilda bear the rhythmical stamp
of a secretary;43 but if we examine the letters to Childebert II, Clothar II,
Theodoric II and Theudebert II, we see that these were very likely all com-
posed by subordinates as well.44 Despite Gregory’s hint (noted above) that
his secretaries could only compose in causis terrenis, some of these letters
deal very much with things de animarum salute: his letter of July 599 to
Theodoric and Theudebert, for example, asks the kings to expunge simony
from their realm and stop ordinations of laypeople as bishops, specifically
warning against those who “out of impudence take it upon themselves
to lead souls” ([d]ucatum animarum impudenter assumunt).45 Even some
of Gregory’s famed letters to his beloved English conversion project may
have been penned by a worthy subordinate.46 That Gregory was happy
to cede even important de animarum salute correspondence to others
suggests he felt they understood the situation as well as or better than

41 Cf. Noble, “The Intellectual Culture,” pp. 179–213.

42 For military knowledge, see for example Reg. 8.19, where Agnellus of Terracina is
advised about keeping a strong watch at the city’s walls. Every sentence-end in the letter
conforms to the rules of accentual prose-rhythm.
43 Norberg, “Style personnel,” pp. 493–4. Norberg surveys the following letters to
Brunhilda: Registrum [following CCSL 140/140A]: 6.5, 58, 60; 8.4; 9.213, 214; 11.46, 48, 49;
13.5. Banniard (“Zelum discretione condire”, pp. 41–43) objects to Norberg’s assignment of
these letters to a subordinate. But one can freely doubt whether “une thématique banale
d’exhortation morale”, “une syntaxe à la fois bien chaînée et translucide”, etc., are charac-
teristics precise enough to argue for Gregorian authorship. Banniard (at n. 68) also cites
the mihi (CCSL 140A:948.21) as evidence of personal composition—yet the letter of Pela-
gius II, largely composed by Gregory, uses a first-person singular pronoun in the very first
line: “Virtutum mater caritas [. . .] me impulit” (MGH Epp. 2, pp. 449.24–25).
44 To list briefly the results of my investigation: Reg. 6.6 (to Childebert), nine out of
ten sentence-ends are main (planus, tardus, velox) forms of prose-rhythm; Reg. 6.51 (to
Theodoric and Theudebert), seven out of seven; Reg. 9.216 (to Theodoric and Theudebert),
tweny-six out of twenty-eight (92.9%); Reg. 9.227 (to Theodoric and Theudebert), seven
out of seven; Reg. 11.47 (to Theodoric), six out of six; Reg. 11.50 (to Theudebert), seven out
of seven; Reg. 11.51 (to Clothar) six out of six; Reg. 13.7 (to Theodoric), ten out of ten.
45 Reg. 9.216 (CCSL 140A:778.50–1).
46 E.g. Reg. 11.39, to Augustine (22 June, 601), where eight of nine sentence-ends (89%)
contain one of the main three types of accentual rhythm.
302 richard matthew pollard

himself; one wonders, especially in the case of the Franks, whether perhaps
letter-writers had geographical remits as well as subject specializations.
In terms of style, Gregory’s writers quietly upheld an older standard
of Latinity—prose-rhythm, in a carefully and strictly devised form—that
the pope had either abandoned or never learned. That they could do so
implies that Gregory did not have strong feelings about the use of earlier,
rhetorical systems of Latinity that were being used in his name: he was
not afraid of the “old order” of Latinity, simply not interested in it.47 And
while most would argue that the letters personally composed by Gregory
are by far the most artful, those put together by his helpers do not lack
stylistic interest: alliteration, in particular, was sometimes trotted out to
amuse the reader in routine letters.48
The letters produced by Gregory’s papacy show him to have been an
incredibly capable, intelligent ecclesiastical figure. But by looking very
closely at the details of their composition, we can see that Gregory’s suc-
cess as pope—at the very highest level—was partially dependent on the
work of other intelligent and educated men, whose training evinced the
sublimation of late antique secular training into ecclesiastical office. Far
from being the only competent cleric in Rome, Gregory seems to have
been surrounded by others much like himself, though with a different
skillset. He was the very obvious and capable face of a much larger, capa-
ble administration.

Papal Letter Writers in the 7th Century

Gregory’s reliance on subordinates to manage particular business was ably

continued by his successors in the 7th century. Popes like Honorius, Mar-
tin and Agatho seem to have had access to equally capable men during
their pontificates, something that allows us to form a reasonably positive

47 Cf. Markus, Gregory the Great, pp. 39–40.

48 E.g. Reg. 1.48, 1.67, and especially 2.12 (CCSL 140:99): “Et quia ecclesiam sanctae
Mariae quae appellatur Pisonis, in tua positam parroechia, presbytero uacare cognoui-
mus, praesentium portitorem Dominicum presbyterum in eadem ecclesia ut praeesse
debeat . . .”. Martyn’s section on the style of Gregory’s letters (Letters of Gregory the Great,
1:101–114) would seem to offer many further examples of the subordinates’ style, given that
Martyn lumps all the letters together. It is not clear whether he accepts or rejects Norberg’s
conclusions: cf. Letters of Gregory the Great, 1:13–14, where he considers the letters to be
“an authentic production of [Gregory’s] pontificate”; elsewhere he treats them mostly as
personal compositions of Gregory.
 a cooperative correspondence 303

impression of the city’s cultural environment in the years immediately

following Gregory.
Pope Honorius, who became pope twenty years after Gregory’s death,
is (in)famous for involving himself in the heated eastern debates over
monothelitism, resulting in the dubious distinction of being formally
condemned by an ecumenical council and his successor Pope Leo II.49
This was occasioned by a letter sent to Sergius I, patriarch of Constanti-
nople, who espoused the view that Christ had one divine will or operation
(θέλημα), against the two wills (divine and human) position that would
be recognized as orthodox. The letter expressed (understandable) impa-
tience with the new Christological debate, saying “It is not our concern
whether [. . .] we ought to consider or speak of deriving a single or dual
operation [of Christ]; we leave such things to the grammarians, who are
accustomed to selling the arcane terms they derive to children”.50 Those
who received the letter, however, claimed that it made the fatal mistake
of saying “we profess there [to be] one will of the Lord”, thereby implicat-
ing the pope in the monothelite heresy.51 What is sometimes less well
remembered is that Pope Honorius did not really compose this letter at
all—rather, it was the work of an abbot John symponus,52 “who produced
this [letter] by Latin dictation on [Honorius’] order”, and claimed that the
offending “one will” statement was added by those who translated the text
into Greek, presumably in Constantinople.53 Maximus Confessor also tells

49 On Honorius, see Anton Thanner, Papst Honorius I (625–638), Studien zur Theologie
und Geschichte 4 (St Ottilien, 1989), in which Talso provides German translations of his
letters; Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton, 1989), pp. 208–14; Erich
Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums 2, pp. 523–6, 531–7, etc.; Jeffrey Richards, The Popes and
the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476–752 (London, 1979), pp. 179–83.
50 PL 80:473C: “Utrum autem propter opera divinitatis et humanitatis, una, an gemi-
nae operationes debeant derivatae dici vel intelligi, ad nos ista pertinere non debent,
relinquentes ea grammaticis, qui solent parvulis exquisita derivando nomina venditare.”
Philipp Jaffé and Paul Ewald, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (Leipzig, 1885) [= JE],
no. 2018.
51 PL 80:472A.
52 The word symponus may be a name, or simply a descriptive “his helper”, transliter-
ating the Greek σύμπονος. Given that Anastasius’ use of the term (see the note below) is
based on a Greek letter, either is perfectly possible.
53 Diffloratio ex epistola s. Maximi ad Marinum, found in Anastasius Bibliothecarius,
Collectanea (PL 129:572B–C): “[. . .] propter epistolam quae ab eo [sc. Honorio] fuerat ad
Sergium scripta, percontans cujus rei gratia, vel qualiter in ea inserta fuerit una volun-
tas, et invenit haesitantes in hoc, et rationem reddentes; insuper et eum, qui hanc per
jussionem ejus [sc. Honorii] Latinis tractaverit dictionibus, dominum videlicet abbatem
Joannem sanctissimum symponum affirmantem, quod nullomodo mentionem in ea per
numerum fecit unius omnimodis voluntatis: licet hoc nunc sit fictum ab his qui hanc in
Graecam vocem interpretati sunt.” Cf. the French translation in Claude-Marie Magnin,
304 richard matthew pollard

us this same abbot John wrote the “Apology for Honorius” sent by Pope
John IV in 641 to Constantine II.54 Clearly it was quite acceptable to two of
Gregory’s successors to delegate the writing of crucial theological letters,
very much within the category de animarum salute. Perhaps, however,
this should be regarded as a sign of pragmatism and humility: Honorius
and John recognized the importance of these matters, and realizing their
own limits, delegated the task to their most suitable subordinate.
If Pelagius II, Gregory, Honorius, and John IV all issued letters written
by capable subordinates, Martin I (649–53) went rather further, allowing
an entire council to be issued in his name. This was the Lateran council
of 649, convened, with the help of Maximus Confessor, to condemn the
aforementioned Monothelite heresy.55 The council was issued in both
Greek and Latin, and it was long thought, despite some particularities in
the latter, that the original text of the council was (mainly) Latin; this
was logical because hardly any of the Italian participants in the council
could have known Greek.56 But the work of Rudolf Riedinger has well-

La papauté considérée dans son origine, dans son développement au moyen age, et dans
son état actuel (Paris, 1841), pp. 404–5. See also Anastasius Bibliothecarius’ preface to his
Collectanea (eds Ernst Perels and Gerhard Laehr, MGH Epp. 7 [Berlin, 1928], pp. 422–26,
at 424): “non ignoremus docente sancto Maximo in epistola sua, quam Marino scripsit
presbitero, sanctissimum hanc [epistulam Honorii] scripsisse Iohannem abbatem”: trans.
Bronwen Neil, Seventh-Century Popes and Martyrs. The Political Hagiography of Anastasius
Bibliothecarius (Turnhout, 2006), p. 153. Similar comments by Maximus Confessor in his
Disputatio cum Pyrrho (PG 91:327–330).
54 Maximus Confessor, Disputatio cum Pyrrho (PG 91:330): “Is igitur ipse [qui eam
epistolam ex persona Honorii scripsit], cum ad sanctum Constantinum imperatorem, ex
persona rursus sancti Joannis papae, de hac epistola scriberet, dixit [. . .]”; Maximus then
summarizes John IV’s letter. (This also shows that abbot John did not become John IV.)
John IV’s letter in question is JE 2042 (PL 80:602–607), surviving in retrograde Latin trans-
lation by Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Cf. Ertl, “Diktatoren,” 71.
55 On Maximus’ and Martin’s fate after the synod, see Neil, Seventh-Century Popes and
Martyrs.
56 See Erich Caspar, “Die Lateransynode von 649,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 51
(1932), 75–137; Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums 2, pp. 553–61. Caspar’s position was rea-
sonably nuanced. He believed that both the Latin and the Greek were original, for their
respective parts (i.e. the Greek transmitted parts conducted in Greek): “Die eingereichten
Aktenstücke sind je in ihrer Originalsprache, lateinisch oder griechisch, aufgenommen
und sogleich mit einer Version in der anderen Sprache versehen worden” (Geschichte,
p. 554). Both were therfore also “authentic”. But in the main, the original was Latin for
Caspar, e.g. he points (554) to the Greek monks’ request (ed. Rudolf Riedinger, Concilium
Lateranense a. 649 celebratum, ACO ser. 2,1 [Berlin, 1984], pp. 55.30–33) that the discus-
sions be translated into Greek, and concludes (p. 559) “Die Lateransynod von 649 stand
mithin theologisch vollkommen unter griechischer Führung, wenn auch nach außen hin
lauter Römer und Lateiner handelnd und redend auftraten.” Cf. also Carlos Silva-Tarouca,
“Nuovi studi sulle antiche lettere dei papi,” Gregorianum 12 (1931), 49–56; Richards, Popes
and the Papacy, p. 273.
 a cooperative correspondence 305

nigh proven the seemingly unlikely contrary scenario: that the entire
council text was composed in Greek and then translated into Latin.57
Riedinger noted, for instance, that many of the Bible quotations in the
Latin text are in fact retrograde translations from the Greek text, rather
than following the Vulgate; there are errors where the Greek is correct,
but the Latin provides a word that must come from a misreading of a
Greek word for a visually-similar one; there are a few small Latin words
(e.g. quoniam, idipsud, propterea) that are used extremely frequently and
consistently not only in texts that were newly translated from Greek (i.e.
quotations of Greek sources) but also in supposedly Latin-original texts,
like the speeches of Pope Martin himself. One could hardly suppose that
texts translated from Greek into Latin would share such uniformity in
vocabulary with nearly every Latin speaker in the synod.58 We are forced
to accept that the original text of Martin’s synod, even the encyclical let-
ter, was Greek, composed almost certainly by Maximus Confessor and his
Greek monks. The “council” itself may simply have been a gathering of
the participants, who read a prepared script.59 On its own, this outcome
may seem shocking, but put in the context of the other popes we have
been discussing, it is really only an extension of what had been happening
before: allowing experts to write in the name of the pope.
Riedinger’s conclusions are in the main quite sound, but I would argue
that he has tried too hard to minimize the role of papal officials in the pro-
duction of some of the synod’s texts.60 In short, even the well-known letter

57 Riedinger’s publications on this subject are numerous. Most important of course is

his edition, which contains a rather abbreviated version of his arguments for the Greek-
to-Latin argument: Riedinger, ACO 2,1. The Greek-to-Latin revelation was first made in his
Lateinische Übersetzungen griechischer Häretikertexte des siebenten Jahrhunderts (Vienna,
1979). See also his “Zwei Briefe aus den Akten der Lateransynode von 649,” Jahrbuch der
Österreichischen Byzantinistik 29 (1980), 37–59; “Sprachschichten in der lateinischen Über-
setzung der Lateranakten von 649,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 92 (1981), 180–203;
“Die Lateransynode von 649 und Maximos der Bekenner,” in Maximus Confessor, eds Felix
Heinzer and Christoph von Schönborn (Freiburg, 1982), pp. 111–21; “Die Lateranakten von
649: ein Werk der Byzantiner um Maximos Homologetes,” Byzantina 13 (1985), 517–34. See
also the recent summation and analyses in Pietro Conte, Il sinodo Lateranense dell’Ottobre
649, Collezione Theologica 3 (Vatican, 1989), esp. pp. 31–38.
58 Cf. Riedinger, “Sprachschichten in der lateinischen Übersetzung,” 190.
59 Conte, Il sinodo Lateranense, pp. 142–45; Riedinger, “Die Lateransynode von 649 und
Maximos,” p. 120.
60 I will not address here the problem of the letters from the African bishops, which
Riedinger argued to be the products of the Greeks despite having no characteristic vocabu-
lary: “Sprachschichten in der lateinischen Übersetzung,” p. 198; Riedinger, Concilium Later-
anense, pp. XVII–III. Their use of Roman canonical collections would also seem to me to
point to a member of the Roman clergy.
306 richard matthew pollard

of Martin to Amandus of Maastricht (JE 2059), which informs the latter of

the results of the synod and survives only in Latin, is argued by Riedinger
to be the work of the Greek monks who translated the rest of the council
into Latin.61 This was on the strength of the presence of a few words (such
as propterea, quoniam) and expressions that mark the work of the Greek
translators in the rest of the 649 council text. And yet, this letter also bears
the unmistakable stamp of the Roman curia: it strictly obeys the rules of
Latin prose-rhythm. The three main rhythmical typologies (tardus, planus,
velox) are found in 87% of the sentences in the letter to Amandus, a figure
similar to other papal letters of the 7th century.62 We also note that this
letter uses some of the same tactics for achieving rhythm that characterize
secretarial letters from Gregory’s pontificate, e.g. final verbs like cognosci-
mur and dinoscitur.63 But it does not seem that the Greek translators knew
Latin prose-rhythm. Riedinger has shown decisively that the Latin version
of the council’s encyclical letter (JE 2058) must have been produced by
the same Greek translators as the rest of the Latin council text: it contains
a surfeit of the characteristic “translator words” (e.g. quoniam, propterea,
idipsud), for example, and its biblical quotations are not from the Latin
Vulgate but rather just translations of the biblical quotations in the Greek
letter.64 Yet this important letter, where we might expect to find prose-
rhythm, has a much lower percentage of rhythmical forms than the letter
to Amandus: only 58% of sentence-ends, while it also lacks the “rhythmical

61 Rudolf Riedinger, “Wer hat den Brief Papst Martins I an Amandus verfaßt?”, Filologia
Mediolatina 3 (1996), 95–104, where the evidence presented to link this letter to the rest
of the council text is not of the highest quality, e.g. Riedinger cites the use of pro qua re
as evidence of the Greek translators, since it is found fifteen times in the Latin council
text—yet it is also found at least three times in the collection of papal documents in the
Liber Diurnus Romanorum pontificum, ed. Theodore Sickel (Vienna, 1889). Cf. Riedinger,
“Sprachschichten in der lateinischen Übersetzung,” p. 200. The letter (JE 2059), which
survives in Milo’s Vita Amandi, is newly edited by Riedinger, Concilium Lateranense, pp.
422–24; older edition in Vita Amandi Episcopi II, ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH SSRM 5 (Han-
nover, 1910), pp. 452–56.
62 The calculation is my own, using Riedinger’s text. The breakdown of cadences is
as follows: nine tardus, four planus, eight velox, to make twenty-one out of twenty-four
sentence-ends, hence 87.1%. For other papal letters, see my “Decline of the Cursus in the
Papal Chancery,” Studi Medievali 50 (2009), 1–40.
63 Cf. Norberg, “Style personnel,” p. 491.
64 Rudolf Riedinger, “Die lateinischen Übersetzungen der Epistula Encyclica Papst Mar-
tins I (CPG 9403) und der Epistula Synodica des Sophronios von Jerusalem (CPG 7635),”
Filologia Mediolatina 1 (1994), 45–69; cf. his earlier “Sprachschichten in der lateinischen
Übersetzung,” esp. 195, 198.
 a cooperative correspondence 307

vocabulary” found in the Amandus letter.65 Likewise, if we look at the

Latin text of the third session of the council itself, even more securely
the product of the Greek monks, we find the same low percentage (58%)
of rhythmical forms.66 Without going into more detail, this suggests that
the Greek translators did not know Latin prose-rhythm, and though they
certainly had some involvement in the letter to Amandus, they were prob-
ably helped by someone with a better knowledge of rhythm, most likely a
member of the papal curia.67
Such a person would have needed to have been aware of the situation
in north-western Europe, been capable in theology (to explain the import
of the council), and probably have had some familiarity with Greek, so as
to work effectively with the Greek translators. Such a person might have
been abbot John, secretary for Honorius and John IV, though it is unclear
whether John could write rhythmical Latin, or knew (or cared) anything
about western European affairs.68 A better possible candidate could be
someone like Boniface, who was to become a trusted officer of the popes

65 Again, the calculation is my own, using Riedinger’s text. The breakdown of cadences
is as follows: eight tardus, four planus, six velox, to make eighteen out of thirty-one sen-
tence-ends, hence 58.1%. One might object that translations from Greek into Latin would
not be expected to be rhythmical. I would answer that Anastasius Bibliothecarius (amongst
others, such as Rufinus) could translate into rhythmical Latin with considerable ease: note
his retrograde Latin version of John IV’s apology for Honorius (JE 2042, PL 80:602–607),
where 80% of the sentence ends are one of the three main types. That this was retrograde,
note Pietro Conte, Chiesa e primato nelle lettere dei Papi del secolo VII (Milan, 1971), pp.
427–29, no. 99, and Gerhard Laehr, “Die Briefe und Prologe des Bibliothekars Anastasius,”
Neues Archiv 47 (1928), 437–468, at 437. We find a similar rhythmicity in the retrograde
translation of Honorius I’s letter to Sergius (JE 2018), completed under Leo II (c.682): see
my “The Decline of the Cursus,” pp. 38–40 for the figures, and n. 68 below for the trans-
lation circumstances. Finally, note Bonifatius consiliarius’ rhythmical translations from
Greek, at nn. 74 and 75 below. The Greek monks could have translated into rhythmical
Latin, therefore, if they had actually known prose-rhythm.
66 My own calculation, using Riedinger’s text. The breakdown of cadences is as follows:
42 tardus, 36 planus, 27 velox, for a total of 105 out of 181 sentence-ends, hence 58%.
67 A Latinate collaborator for this letter was already suggested, on wholly different
evidence, by Conte, Il Sinodo Lateranense, pp. 374–5, where one of Jonas’ colleagues is
posited, which is now perhaps unlikely because Jonas himself did not strongly favour
prose-rhythm: see my “Paul, Paulinus and the Rhythm of Elite Latin”, p. 93; more inter-
esting is Conte, Il Sinodo, p. 374, n. 162, where (future pope) Donus is suggested. Cf. also
Giuseppe Cremascoli, “Le Lettere di Martino I,” in Martino I e il suo tempo (Spoleto, 1992),
p. 245.
68 Both the surviving letters abbot John “ghost-wrote” (JE 2018, for Honorius, and JE
2042, for John IV) survive only in retrograde translations: cf. Conte, Chiesa e primato, pp.
413–14, no. 53, and pp. 427–29, no. 99, who holds both to be retrograde Latin by Anastasius
Bibliothecarius. It is more likely, however, that since Honorius’ letter survives in the acts
of the sixth ecumenical council, it was instead translated back into Latin under Leo II
(c.682): see the LP, trans. Raymond Davis, The Book of Pontiffs (Liverpool, 2000), c.82.2,
308 richard matthew pollard

of the later 7th century.69 We know of Boniface, first of all, from Steph-
anus’ Life of Wilfrid of York (d. c.709).70 When Wilfred arrived in Rome
c.654, he made friends with “Boniface the archdeacon, one of the wisest
of the consiliarii”, who taught young Wilfrid all about the four gospels,
the calculation of Easter, and more.71 When Wilfrid returned to Rome in
679–80, and a third time in 704, Boniface consiliarius seems to have been
involved in sorting out Wilfrid’s difficulties in England.72 In between, Boni-
face consiliarius was sent again and again by Pope Benedict II (684–85)
to attempt to convert the exiled heretic Macarius of Antioch, a task that
would have required a good knowledge of Greek and theology.73 Finally,
it would seem that Boniface consiliarius translated Sophronius’ Miracula
SS.Cyri et Iohannis from Greek into Latin.74 What is more, Boniface’s Latin
translation is almost as rhythmical as one of Gregory I’s administrative

p. 80 and Rudolf Riedinger (ed.), Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertium, ACO

ser. 2,2,2 (Berlin, 1992), p. XV.
69 On whom see Walter Berschin, “Bonifatius Consiliarius. Ein römischer Übersetzer in
der byzantinischen Epoche des Papsttums,” in Lateinische Kultur im VIII. Jahrhundert, eds
Albert Lehner and Walter Berschin (St Ottilien, 1989), pp. 25–40; Benedetta Valtorta, Clavis
scriptorum Latinorum Medii aevi: auctores Italiae, 700–1000 (Florence, 2006), pp. 70–71.
70 Ed. Bertram Colgrave, The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanus (Cambridge,
1927); I have used the older edition by Wilhelm Levison, MGH SSRM 6 (Hannover, 1913),
pp. 163–263.
71 Vita Wilfridi, c.5 (ed. Levison, p. 198); Bede, HE, 5.19 (ed. Charles Plummer [Oxford,
1896], p. 324).
72 When Wilfrid returned to Rome in 704, Boniface was present at a council where
Wilfrid sought restitution for being expelled from his see; Boniface is also said to have
recognized him from his earlier visit during the days of Pope Agatho: Vita Wilfridi, c.5 (ed.
Levison, p. 248); Bede, HE, 5.19 (ed. Plummer, p. 328), where Boniface is described more
specifically as consiliarius apostolici papae. There is also a leaden bull of Boniface surviving
from Whitby, which further underlines the connexion between Wilfrid and Boniface: it is
now in the Whitby museum (reference # WHITM:ARC1028). The obverse reads Bonifatii
and the reverse Archidiac: my thanks to Denise Gildroy at the museum for photographs
of the seal.
73 Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum (ACO ser. 2,3,1, p. 93): “Romae in exilio
erat Macarius hereticus a sexta synodo missus. Et quadraginta dies dedit ei spatium sanc-
tae memoriae pater noster papa Benedictus, et per singulos dies mittebat ad eum Bonifa-
tium consiliarium suum et commonitoriis uerbis docebat eum ex diuina scriptura [. . .]”.
74 Anastasius Bibliothecarius says in his preface to his dossier on Cyrus and John:
“Quorum [sc. Cyri et Iohannis] videlicet miraculorum bonifacius consiliarius, ad petitum
theodori primicerii defensorum ecclesie romane, duodecim cum prefacione capitula olim
interpretatus est”: ed. Berschin, “Bonifatius Consiliarius,” p. 39 (also found in MGH Epp.
7, pp. 426–27). Since Anastasius subsequently translated the rest of the miracles (to make
a total of seventy), we cannot know at the moment whether Boniface translated the first
twelve of the seventy: but if we assume this is the case, Boniface’s contribution is found in
PG 87:3387–422 (the preface) and 3423–62 (the first twelve miracles).
 a cooperative correspondence 309

letters.75 If all these are the same Boniface consiliarius—and why not,
given that Wilfred himself lived this timespan—then someone with his
qualifications would have been ideal to help the Greek translators draft
the Amandus letter: in particular, he would have had better knowledge of
affairs in north-western Europe. Although we have no specific evidence
of such involvement, his existence speaks well of the abilities of Roman
papal bureaucrats at this time, and makes it more imaginable that a
Roman cleric could have helped the Greek translators, even if it was not
Boniface precisely.

Conclusion

Careful study of Latin prose-rhythm shows that Gregory’s papacy con-

tinued the standard practice of employing letterwriters, even if he has
a deserved reputation as an extremely active pope, and that his succes-
sors continued this tradition long after his death.76 Perhaps the wisdom
of such a system is illustrated by Gregory’s own long periods of illness. In
any case, it warns us to remember the limits of what we can say about
Gregory’s activities personally, or indeed about other popes of the 6th or
7th centuries. It is clear that the popes of this period had already realized
that their duties were too important, too diverse, and perhaps too difficult
to be accomplished primarily by one man. As such, we should be care-
ful to remember that a pope (even Gregory), when writing in an official
capacity, is not an “author” like other authors. But their ability to find and
employ the best men (that they could find) is certainly cause for optimism
about their judgement and their organizational abilities.
In terms of literary abilities, Gregory’s failure to use prose-rhythm in
his writings and personal letters could be misused to uphold the old argu-
ment that Gregory (and his era) was either hostile to, or ignorant of, clas-
sical learning, encapsulated in Rand’s claim that Gregory “would throw

75 Based on my own analysis, to be published in full elsewhere. In brief, the results are
for the preface (PG 87:3379–87): of 37 sentence-ends we find 12 planus, 8 tardus, 9 velox, for
a total of 29 rhythmical forms (80.3%); for Miracula 1–11 (PG 87:3423–54C): of 163 sentence-
ends we find 17 planus, 72 tardus, 45 velox, for a total of 134 rhythmical forms (82.2%).
76 One might have extended the treatment beyond Martin, for example to Anastasius
Bibliothecarius and his work for Nicholas I, Hadrian II, and John VIII, on which see Ertl,
“Diktatoren”, 83–128; Ernst Perels, Papst Nikolaus I. und Anastasius bibliothecarius (Berlin,
1920).
310 richard matthew pollard

the [classical] past away”.77 It is certainly true that the traditional Roman
education had lost much of its currency by Gregory’s day: “education was
no longer a channel to advancement” in civil government,78 and there
was no requirement for Christians (or even bishops) to be traditionally
educated.79 Nonetheless, recent scholarship shows that it still had a (lim-
ited) influence on him.80 The lack of rhythm in Gregory’s writings does
warn us, however, against going too far in the other direction, and “mak-
ing Gregory a humanist after making him a barbarian”.81 It certainly gives
us further reason to reject the claim that Gregory was studying rhetoric as
pope, which was perhaps more doubtful than his supposed ability to read
Greek literature or his familiarity with Stoic philosophers.82
Our exploration of the work of papal subordinates also shows that mak-
ing generalizations about 6th-century Rome solely on the basis of Gregory
would be a mistake. While the old schools, with their focus on oratory
and poetry, no longer held sway in Rome, the traditions they upheld had

77 E.g. Ferdinand Lot, La fin du monde antique et le début du moyen âge (Paris, 1951),
p. 430; other references usefully gathered by Paul Riché, Éducation et culture dans l’Occident
barbare (Paris, 1962), p. 187. Quotation from Edward Kenneth Rand, Founders of the Middle
Ages (New York, 1928; repr. 1957), p. 250.
78 For the quotation, Nicholas Everett, Literacy in Lombard Italy, c.568–774 (Cambridge,
2003), p. 35, and cf. Thomas S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and
Aristocratic Power in Byzantine Italy A.D. 554–800 (London—Rome, 1984).
79 Robert Kastner, Guardians of Language: the Grammarian and Society in Late Antiq-
uity (Berkeley, 1988), p. 86, who notes Augustine, De doctrina christiana, 2.14.21 (ed. Roger
P.H. Green [Oxford, 1995], p. 80) on Christians not knowing the Latin auctores; and Augus-
tine, Ep. 101.1 (ed. A. Goldbacher, CSEL 34.2 [Vienna, 1898], p. 540) on Possidius’ lack of
liberal training. For bishops lacking traditional education, cf. Augustine, Ep. 34.6 (CSEL
34.2: 26–27).
80 Riché, Éducation, pp. 187–200, 212–19; Markus, Gregory the Great, pp. 34–40. See also
John Moorhead’s contribution to this volume.
81 Ubaldo Pizzani, “S. Gregorio Magno, Cassiodoro e le arti liberali,” in Gregorio Magno
e il suo Tempo (Rome, 1991), pp. 121–36, at 121.
82 For his supposed rhetorical studies, see Martyn, Letters of Gregory the Great, 1:2,
102–3. This argument rests on the following passage Ep. 5.53a (eds Paul Ewald and Ludwig
Hartmann, MGH Epp. 1 [Berlin, 1891], ch. 5, p. 357): “Nam dum molestia corpus atteritur,
affecta mente etiam dicendi studia languescunt.” Cf. Martyn, 2:384: “. . . even my studies of
rhetoric are languishing”. The phrase studia/studium dicendi most often means “desire to
speak”, as it probably does here, not the “studies of rhetoric” presented by Martyn. For stu-
dium dicendi, as “desire to speak”, see Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 38, 3 (PL 36:414): “aliquando
perturbata studio dicendi”; Victricius of Rouen, De laude sanctorum, ch. 12, (ed. Roland
Demeulenaere, CCSL 64 [Turnhout, 1985], p. 89). For Stoicism, see Marcia Colish, The
Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, 2 (Leiden, 1990), pp. 253–66, contra
Carole Straw, Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley, 1988), p. 15 n. 58. For
Greek, I point to the reversal by Joan Petersen, who once argued strongly for Gregory’s
knowledge of Greek: “Homo omnino Latinus? The Theological and Cultural Background
of Pope Gregory the Great,” Speculum 62 (1987), 529–51.
 a cooperative correspondence 311

nonetheless been maintained in subtle ways.83 We have only a sketchy

idea of the preparation enjoyed by clerics in Rome in the 6th and 7th
centuries.84 Certainly, the complexity of the various offices already found
in Gregory’s time (see Neil’s chapter, infra) would suggest relatively for-
malized systems of education were necessary.85 Given what we have
explored above, it seems clear that some clerics received training in a
variety of fields. That the consiliarius and archdeacon Boniface, whose
name suggests a Latin origin, could learn Greek suggests that despite
Gregory’s relative ignorance of the language, there were still ways for Lat-
ins to study Greek in Rome.86 The continued use of prose-rhythm, on the
other hand, in a variety of papal writings hints that fundamental features
of late antique, baroque Latin style were preserved as part of the training
of papal officials. It is clear that Gregory’s weakness in these areas should
not be understood, therefore, as a complete breakdown of educational
traditions and preferences. If anything, his inabilities point to a subtle
irony: that the Roman aristocracy, which produced Gregory and was the
guardian of liberal education since time immemorial, may have given up
on some of these traditions even as the Church was carefully preserving
them. But even here we must be cautious: Gregory was certainly not the
only former aristocrat within the Church hierarchy, and his consiliarius
Theodore, the legal expert, may well have been a layman.87
The abilities of both Gregory and the papal subordinates argue against
the temptation of seeing 7th-century Rome as a cultural “new world”
formed by momentous political and social changes. Instead, this was a
time of subtle transformation, where the traditions of the past still had
influence but in a way much quieter than before, such that the inattentive
listener risks thinking they had vanished. What threatens to blind us to
this continuity is the much more obvious theological abilities of Gregory,
abbot John, or Bonifatius consiliarius, and their thinking certainly owed
more to Augustine than to Virgil. But Gregory’s writings were couched in

83 Though restoration of schools is called for by Justinian, Sanctio Pragmatica 22

[= Novellae, App. 7.22] (ed. Rudolf Schöll, Corpus Iuris Civilis, 3 [Berlin, 1895], p. 802), but
see Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, pp. 6–7, et passim on the Sanction’s effects. On the mea-
gre evidence for secular instruction in Rome after 550, see Riché, Éducation, pp. 182–87.
84 See Riché, Éducation, pp. 215–19, 393–400; Thomas F.X. Noble, The Republic of St.
Peter (Philadelphia, 1984), pp. 228–30; Noble, “Literacy and the Papal Government,” esp.
pp. 97–106.
85 Cf. Noble, “Literacy and the Papal Government,” p. 104.
86 For “Boniface” as a Latin name, note the entries in The Prosopography of the Later
Roman Empire, ed. John Martindale, 3a (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 237–38.
87 Richards, Popes and the Papacy, p. 299.
312 richard matthew pollard

forms taken almost unconciously from the classical world that was well-
known to Boethius and Augustine (see Moorhead, infra), just as Martin I’s
letter to Amandus was couched in traditional rhythmical Latin. Gregory
may have been to sea upon the stormy waves of papal business, but he did
not row alone—and nor were “the fields of rhetoric and poetry”88 com-
pletely lost to his sight, and especially not to that of his oarsmen.

88 The quotation is an allusion to Ennodius, Opusc. 5 (ed. Friedrich Vogel, MGH AA 7

[Berlin, 1885], p. 301), where the author laments youthful days wasted in the fields of
rhetoric.
 Part 4

RECEPTION
 Chapter fourteen

The Legacy of Gregory the Great in the Latin West

Constant J. Mews and Claire Renkin

Gregory the Great, the first monk to become pope, was such an admired
figure in the Latin West that it is not easy to delineate the extent of his
influence. Revered as the last of the great Latin fathers of the Church,
there was scarcely a library, whether monastic or non-monastic, that did
not have a reasonable collection of his writings. His popularity undoubt-
edly had much to do with the accessibility of his writing. He was not a
philologist like Jerome or an argumentative theologian like Augustine,
and never composed polemical treatises against any specific individual.
Some might find inspiration in the serious tone of his Moralia on Job, a
virtuous gentile unfamiliar with the Law of Moses, a work in which he
reflects on the trials of life. Others might prefer the more conversational
character of his four books of Dialogues with Peter the Deacon about
the miraculous lives and visions of charismatic monks in Italy, Book 2 of
which is totally devoted to St. Benedict, or his Homilies on the Gospels in
which he explored exemplary figures in the gospels. Popes and ecclesiasti-
cal administrators might focus on his correspondence or his Pastoral Care
as providing guidance on how a bishop should attend to the needs of his
flock. Some imagined him as the archetypal pontiff, who established the
authoritative text and music of both the Mass and divine office. For many,
Gregory became a symbol of papal authority, whose image could easily
be manipulated. For those who studied his writings, however, he was an
inspirational preacher, able to use vivid images to illuminate the transi-
tory nature of human experience and our longing for the divine, manifest
through penitence of the heart.
Whereas much has been written about Augustine’s contested influ-
ence on Christian theology, much less attention has been given to
analysing Gregory’s pervasive impact on the literature and art of medieval
Christendom.1 The popularity of Gregory’s writings is borne out by the

1 See however Rolf H. Bremmer, Jr., Kees Dekker, David F. Johnson (eds), Rome and the
North: the Early Reception of Gregory the Great in Germanic Europe (Paris—Leuven, 2001).
316 constant j. mews and claire renkin

number of vernacular translations made of his writings in the Middle

Ages: his Dialogues and Pastoral Care into Old English by the late 9th
century;2 the Moralia into an Old German paraphrase by the 11th century;3
the Dialogues into Old French by the 12th century;4 the Homilies on the
Gospels into Norse-Icelandic by 1150;5 the Dialogues into Middle Dutch in
the 13th century.6 The list can doubtless be much extended. By focusing
on the spiritual life more than on conceptual or exegetical questions,
Gregory’s writings, deeply impregnated with ascetic values deriving from
Greek tradition, helped shape the character of Latin Christianity in a way
that was quite distinct from the philological focus of Jerome or Augus-
tine’s emphasis on the lingering effects of original sin and human depen-
dence on divine grace. Gregory drew on this ascetic tradition to show how
scripture could be read not just as a body of doctrine, but as a way of
helping to re-shape one’s life.

Gregory’s Reputation Prior to 780

Gregory’s preaching and homilies on scripture circulated quickly in Italy,

even during his lifetime, among those committed to asceticism. In a let-

Carole Straw notes a few other studies of Gregory’s influence (notably those of Wasse-
lynck, n. 9 below) at the close of a bibliographical essay in her volume, Gregory the Great.
Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley, 1988), p. 266. See also Gillian R. Evans, The Thought of
Gregory the Great (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 143–5.
2 Hans Hecht, ed., Bischof Waerferth von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des
Grossen, 2 vols (Darmstadt, 1900; repr. 1965); Henry Sweet, ed., King Alfred’s West-Saxon
Version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care, 2 vols, Early English Texts Society, 45, 50 (London,
1871–72; repr. Oxford, 1958); see Kees Dekker, “King Alfred’s Translation of Gregory’s Dia-
logi: Tales for the Unlearned?” in Rome and the North, eds Bremmer et al., pp. 27–50.
3 R. Priebsch, “Eine Ausspruch Gregors des Grossen in ahd. Reimversen aus S. Maximim
zu Trier,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 38 (1912–13), 338–43;
see Brian Murdoch, “Using the Moralia: Gregory the Great in Early Medieval German,” in
Rome and the North, eds Bremmer et al., pp. 189–206.
4 Wendelin Foerster (ed.), Li dialoge Gregoire lo Pape: altfranzosische Übersetzung
des XII. Jahrhunderts der Dialogen des Papstes Gregor (Amsterdam, 1965). See also Sven
Sandqvist (ed.), Le Dyalogue Saint Gregore: les Dialogues de saint Grégoire le grand traduits
en vers français à rimes léonines par un Normand anonyme du XIVe siècle (Lund, 1989);
and Olle Sandvist (ed.), La vie Saint Gregor: poème normand du XIVe siecle, publié avec
introduction, notes et glossaire (Lund, 1989). See also Martine Pagan (ed.), Le Pastoralet.
Traduction médiévale française de la Regula Pastoralis; édition critique du manuscrit 868 de
la Bibliothèque municipale de Lyon (Paris, 2007).
5 Kirsten Wolf, “Gregory’s Influence on Old Norse-Icelandic Religious Literature,” in
Rome and the North, eds Bremmer et al., pp. 255–74.
6 Geert H.M. Claassens, “Gregory’s Dialogi in Middle Dutch Literature,” in Rome and the
North, eds Bremmer et al., pp. 207–38.
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 317

ter to John, subdeacon of Ravenna, written in January 602, he hints at

the problems brought by the fame that his writings had already achieved.
Claudius, an abbot of Ravenna, had taken down comments on the Proph-
ets, the Books of Kings, Proverbs, and the Song of Songs, but in a way that
disregarded his original intention. In the same letter, Gregory complained
that Bishop Marinianus had his Moralia on Job read out in public at vigils,
when “it was not a work for the general public, and it produces an obsta-
cle rather than assistance for ill-educated listeners.”7 He suggested that
a commentary on the psalms would have been more helpful. Even more
embarrassing was his fear that its text was faulty. Gregory was similarly
upset that a copy of his Liber Pastoralis, intended for the edification of
bishops, had been given to the emperor and that a translation into Greek
had already been produced, that he had not been able to check.8
The vast number of surviving copies of the Moralia in Iob (over 500, not
counting the many abbreviations made of the work) attests to its endur-
ing popularity, even beyond the heyday of its influence within monastic
circles in the 11th and 12th centuries.9 Gregory’s method of identifying
three levels of interpretation—the historical foundation of Job’s life, its
allegorical significance as foreshadowing that of Christ, and its signifi-
cance as a guide to behaviour (moralitas)—was of enormous influence
in shaping medieval exegetical tradition. The term Moralia that he chose
for the work had been much used by Ambrose, but not Augustine, who
had been very critical of a commentary on Job produced in the 5th cen-
tury by Julian of Eclanum, a supporter of the British monk, Pelagius, for
emphasising human effort rather than divine grace.10 While Gregory
never sided with the extreme arguments attributed to Pelagius, he was
closer to Cassian than Augustine in the way that he combined emphasis
on both free will and grace and avoided invoking the notion of original

7 Gregory the Great, Reg. 12.6, trans. John R.C. Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the Great,
3 vols (Toronto, 2004), 3:811 (CCSL 140A:975): “. . . quia non est illud opus populare et rudi-
bus auditoribus impedimentum magis quam prouectum generat.”
8 Ibid. (CCSL 140A:976).
9 See the list of MSS given by Marc Adriaen in the introduction to his edition of the
Moralia in Iob (CCSL 143:xix–xxix), and the studies of René Wasselynck, “Les compilations
des Moralia in Job du VIIe au XIIe siècle,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale
29 (1962), 5–32 and “L’influence de l’exégèse de S. Grégoire le grand sur les commentaires
bibliques médiévaux (VIIe–XII s.),” ibid. 32 (1965), 157–204.
10 Julian of Eclanum, Expositio libri Iob (ed. Lucas de Coninck, CCSL 88 [Turnhout,
1988]).
318 constant j. mews and claire renkin

sin, except to say that it had been wiped away in baptism.11 Although
Cassian incurred criticism from fervent Augustinians like Prosper of
Aquitaine and the author of the influential Decretum Gelasianum, falsely
attributed in the early 6th century to Pope Gelasius I, his writings were
still revered by monks in the 5th and 6th centuries, notably by Benedict
of Nursia, who anticipated Gregory in combining an ascetic example with
respect for Roman stability.12 Although Augustine had introduced a new
awareness of human frailty and continuing dependence on divine grace,
Gregory combined Stoicism with an ascetic tradition shaped by Ambrose
and Origen, which emphasized how prayers, penance, and intercession of
the righteous could help bridge the gulf between man and God. Through
their action, the penitent could be helped to achieve union with God.
Gregory’s support for asceticism did not meet universal favour in the
Roman Church. His promotion of monks to positions of influence may
explain the relatively brief and muted account of his life in the Liber pon-
tificalis, a collection of papal biographies that reflects the viewpoint of
senior clergy at the Lateran, the mother church of Rome.13 According to a
tradition transmitted by John the Deacon in the period immediately fol-
lowing Gregory’s death, while famine was raging, certain people in Rome
started to burn his writings, accusing him of plundering the papal treasury
(presumably because he was more concerned with feeding the poor than
building new churches). Peter the Deacon responded by observing that
such action was useless as his writings were already being widely copied,
and that he had seen the Holy Spirit speak to him in the form of a dove.14
In the early 8th century, the anonymous Whitby author of the first known
Life of Gregory reported a similar story in relation to a dove appearing
while he composed the homilies on Ezekiel. The Whitby author claims
that Gregory was so critical of the way his successor, Sabinian (604–08),
neglected the poor that he warned him through visions and eventually

11  Straw, Gregory the Great. Perfection in Imperfection, pp. 139–40. Straw’s analysis dif-
fers from that of Evans, The Thought of Gregory the Great, pp. 71–72, who emphasizes the
influence of Augustine on Gregory.
12 See for example Rebecca Hardin Weaver, Divine Grace and Human Agency. A Study
of the Semi-Pelagian Controversy (Macon, GA, 1996) and Richard Goodrich, Contextualizing
Cassian. Aristocrats, Asceticism and Reformation in Fifth-century Gaul (Oxford, 2007).
13 LP pars prior 66, ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH (Berlin, 1898), pp. 161–62; trans.
R. Davis, The Book of Pontiffs (Liber pontificalis). The Ancient Biographies of the First
Ninety Roman Bishops to AD 715, 2nd ed. (Liverpool, 2000), p. 63.
14 John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii (PL 75:221D–22A).
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 319

caused his death by kicking his successor in the head.15 By contrast, the
Liber pontificalis praises Sabinian for “filling the Church from the clergy”—
a phrase that can only make sense as a silent rebuke to Gregory’s policy of
promoting monks. While Boniface IV (608–15) is mentioned as supporting
a monastic way of life, Deusdedit (615–18) is singled out more enthusiasti-
cally as a pope who “loved the clergy much, and recalled priests and clergy
to their former places.”16 The Whitby Life (which survives in a single copy)
and the Liber pontificalis provide opposing views on the continuing ten-
sion between monastic and clerical forces during the early decades of the
7th century.
Gregory’s reputation was promoted with particular zeal by monastic
friends and correspondents far away from Rome, like Leander, archbishop
of Seville (c.534–c.601), to whom he dedicated his Moralia on Job in 584.
Leander’s younger brother, Isidore (c.560–636), would influentially present
Gregory as equal to Augustine in reputation.17 Not all of Gregory’s writings
circulated quickly. The fact that the Dialogues, presented as recording his
conversations with Peter the Deacon about the ascetic fathers in Italy,
are not mentioned by Isidore or in the earliest recension of the Liber pon-
tificalis has been used by Clark as evidence for the work not having been
composed until the 670s (expanding on otherwise unknown authentic
writings of Gregory).18 Yet these omissions make more sense as reflecting
the work’s slow diffusion, a process that Clark correctly observes. Some-
time in the 630s, Taio of Saragossa travelled to Rome to find a copy of
Gregory’s Moralia that had once been sent to Leander, but could no lon-
ger be located. He reports that he found what he was looking for not in

15 The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great 26 and 28 (ed. Bertram Colgrave [Lawrence, KA,
1968], pp. 122, 124–26).
16 LP 67–71, trans. Davis, pp. 64–65 (ed. Mommsen, pp. 163, 166): “Hic [Sabinianus] eccle-
sia de clero implevit. . . . [Deusdedit] sacerdotes et clerum ad loca pristina revocavit.”
17 Isidore, Carmina 13 (ed. José Maria Sanchez Martin, CCSL 113A [Turnhout, 2000],
p. 225): “Quantum Augustino clares tu Hippone magistro / Tantum Roma suo praesule
Gregorio.”
18 Isidore, De viris illustribus (PL 83:1102A–03A). Francis W. Clark argued that the refer-
ences to the Dialogues in LP were a subsequent addition in The Pseudo-Gregorian Dia-
logues, 2 vols (Leiden, 1987), pp. 54–58 and summarized in The ‘Gregorian’ Dialogues and
the Origins of Benedictine Monasticism (Leiden, 2003), pp. 209–10. For further discussion of
the diffusion of the Dialogues, see inter alia: Francis W. Clark, “Searching for St. Benedict
in the Legacy of St. Gregory the Great,” Peritia 17–18 (2003–04), 110–20; Matthew Dal Santo,
“The Shadow of a Doubt? A Note on the Dialogues and Registrum Epistolarum of Pope
Gregory the Great (590–604),” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 61 (2010), 3–17; Constant J.
Mews, “Gregory the Great, the Rule of Benedict and Roman Liturgy: the Evolution of a
Legend,” Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011), 125–44.
320 constant j. mews and claire renkin

the papal archive, but at St. Peter’s, after Gregory had spoken to him in
a vision.19 This implies that Gregory’s writings were more known to the
monks who served the basilica of St. Peter, just outside the city, than at the
Lateran. Perhaps as a consequence of Taio’s discovery, an Iberian monk
consciously imitated the Dialogues—a work he described as written by an
author inflamed by the Holy Spirit—by writing c.633–38 the Lives of the
Fathers of Merida, demonstrating that Spain could produce charismatic
saints as much as Italy.20 The Dialogues were also included by Paterius,
a secretary of Gregory, in an anthology of writings produced sometime
in the early 7th century.21 These early allusions to the Dialogues are less
likely to be a complex set of forgeries (as Clark maintained) than evidence
of its being transmitted in monastic circles, initially by Peter the Deacon
at St. Peter’s, but not at the Lateran.22 The Dialogues diffuse an image of
heroic miracle-working saints throughout Italy, just as Cassian’s Confer-
ences transmitted the teaching of those desert fathers in Egypt who pro-
vided an alternative to clerical authority by the example of their lives.
Gregory’s writings were also circulating in Ireland from an early date.
His Dialogues were certainly known to Adamnán (d. 703) in his Life of
Columba.23 More work is needed to establish whether they influenced the
Lives of other Irish saints, the exact date of which is uncertain. Our earli-
est evidence of Gregory’s work reaching Ireland is an abbreviation of the
Moralia (that focused more on allegorical rather than moral interpreta-
tions) by Lathcen (d. 661), a monk of Clonfertmulloe in southern Ireland.24

19 For Taio’s account of his journey to Rome, see De inventione librorum Moralium
Sancti Gregorii (PL 75:507–08); Eugenii Toletani episcopi, epistulae (ed. F. Vollmer, MGH
AA 14 [Berlin, 1905], pp. 87–90).
20 Vitas sanctorum patrum Emeratensium (ed. A. Maya Sánchez, CCSL 116 [Turnhout,
1992]). Clark, The ‘Gregorian Dialogues’, pp. 331–53 argues that the work dates from no
earlier than the 670s, possibly later, without knowledge of the dating to the 630s confirmed
by Maya-Sanchez.
21 Paterius, Liber Testimoniorum (PL 79:683–916); see René Wasselynck, “Les compila-
tions des Moralia in Job,” 5–9.
22 That Peter the Deacon was attached to St. Peter’s is suggested by a report that Pope
Eugenius III, a Cistercian pope, was buried with him in the same tomb, according to the
Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae (eds Roberto Valentini and Giuseppe Zucchetti, Codice
topografico della città di Roma, vol. 3 [Rome, 1946]), p. 389.
23 On this influence of the Dialogues, see T.M. Charles-Edwards, “The Structure and
Purpose of Adomnán’s Vita Columbae,” in Adomnán of Iona: Theologian, Lawmaker, Peace-
maker, eds Jonathan Wooding with Rodney Aist, Thomas Owen Clancy, and Thomas
O’Loughlin (Dublin, 2000), pp. 205–18.
24 Lathcen, Egloga (ed. Marc Adriaen, CCSL 145 [Turnhout, 1969]); see Wasselynck, “Les
compilations des Moralia in Job,” 11–14 and Marina Smyth, Understanding the Universe
in Seventh-century Ireland (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1996), pp. 14–15, observing that he could
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 321

The founder of that abbey, Molua, composed a Rule that was reportedly
shown to Gregory in Rome, earning his respect. His biographer claims that
such was the bond between the two men that Molua knew in a vision
when Gregory was made pope, while Gregory was shown in a vision when
Molua himself passed away.25 Several other Irish monks are recorded as
visiting Gregory in Rome, some several times: Abban, ordained by Gregory;
Barra, first bishop of Cork; and Lasrén of Leighlin, whom Gregory report-
edly made an apostolic legate.26 A detail of how St. Carthage (d. 637) vis-
ited Molua carrying two books in scethas (a rare word for book-satchels,
deriving from Greek terminology) hints at how book learning began to
spread in Ireland, stimulated by such contacts with Rome.27 St. Carthage,
a friend of Comgall of Bangor (who ordained Molua), is reported as want-
ing to travel to Rome during the 590s, although nothing is said about his
ever having succeeded in this goal.28 The Moralia, along with certain writ-
ings of Augustine, were used by an Irish monk (himself called Augustine)
within the De mirabilibus sacrae scripturae, dedicated in 655 to various
churches, including that founded by St. Carthage at Lismore, c.635/6.29
This work, the first biblical commentary produced in Ireland, integrated
the scientific learning implicit in the Moralia, as well as of Augustine, into
its presentation of scripture. Gregory, the only pope to be identified by

also be the author of an anonymous commentary on the Catholic Epistles (ed. Robert E.
McNally, Scriptores Hiberniae Minores 1, CCSL 108B [Turnhout, 1973], pp. 1–50).
25 Vita S. Moluae 40, 47, 54 (ed. Charles H. Plummer, Vitae sanctorum Hiberniae [=VSH],
2 vols [Oxford, 1910; repr. Dublin, 1997], 2:220, 222, 225); Vita prior S. Lugidi seu Moluae 47,
64, 69 (ed. William W. Heist, VSH ex codice Salmanticensi nunc Bruxellensi [Brussels, 1965],
pp. 220, 222, 225). A similar story is told about Colman of Lann Elo, who was ordained by
Molua, and who saw in a vision the death of Gregory, confirmed a year later by a monk
who came back to Ireland from Rome, Vita S. Colmani (ed. Plummer, VSH 1:264–65).
26 Vita S. Abbani 17–20 (ed. Plummer, VSH 1:13–16); Vita S. Barri 10 (ed. Plummer, VSH 1:
69): “Post hoc pervenit famulus Dei Barrus ad virum sanctum predictum, et apud eum legit
euangelium secundum Matheum apostolum, et regulas ecclesiasticas, sicut ille a Gregorio
papa accepit et didicit.” Vita S. Lasriani 1 and 7–8 (ed. Heist, pp. 340–2). John R.C. Martyn
identifies various letters of Gregory sent after 592 which he thinks may be connected to
Ireland, and to Columbanus in particular, “Pope Gregory the Great and the Irish,” Journal
of the Australian Early Medieval Association 1 (2005), 65–83.
27 Vita S. Carthagi 18 (ed. Plummer, VSH 1:177) and Vita S. Colmani 24 (ed. Heist, p. 217),
fuller than the shortened form in Vita sancti Colmani 18 (ed. Plummer, VSH 1:270). On
this terminology, see Richard Sharpe, “Latin and Irish words for ‘book-satchel’,” Peritia 4
(1985), 152–56.
28 Vita S. Carthagi 2 (ed. Plummer, VSH 1:170).
29 “Venerandissimis urbium et monasteriorum Episcopis et Presbyteris, maxime
Carthaginensium, Augustinus . . .” (PL 35:2149–200). See Smyth, Understanding the Uni-
verse, pp. 11–12, 23, 26, 54, 138–41.
322 constant j. mews and claire renkin

name in the Irish saints’ Lives, indirectly promoted the flowering of lit-
eracy in 7th-century Ireland.
The fact that Gregory made only passing reference to the Rule of Bene-
dict in his Dialogues, never mandating its observance, reflects his aware-
ness of the multitude of monastic rules then in circulation. Initially,
Benedict’s Rule was combined with others, such as that of Columbanus
(c.543–615), who left Comgall’s foundation at Bangor c.590 to establish
many significant abbeys in Gaul and northern Italy, notably Luxeuil and
Bobbio. Through his influence, the abbey of Fleury was founded c.630,
according to a later witness, as a place where monks could live “according
to the Rule of the most holy Benedict and lord Columbanus.”30 Yet Bene-
dict’s reputation, and thus Gregory’s authority, started to be transformed
c.660, when its abbot, Mommulus, commissioned another monk, Aiulf,
to acquire the remains of Benedict and Scholastica from the abandoned
foundation at Monte Cassino. While the monks of Fleury would remember
this theft as a heroic gesture, they were accused of committing sacrilege
in letters attributed to Pope Vitalian (658–72). Pope Zacharias (c.741–52)
later repeated his demand for their return.31 The official view maintained
at Monte Cassino, however, at least by the 8th century, was to deny that
Benedict’s relics had ever been taken. The enduring controversy between
the two abbeys over who held Benedict’s remains illustrates how monks
in both Gaul and Italy were keen to present themselves as promoting the
vision of Gregory the Great.
Gregory was accorded particular reverence in 7th-century England
because of his role in promoting its evangelization through monks sent
from Rome, in particular to Augustine of Canterbury. English monks, who

30 “in quo monachi iuxta regulam sanctissimi Benedicti et domni Columbani consis-
tere debeant.” Recueil des chartes de l’abbaye de Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire (eds M. Prou and
A. Vidier, 2 vols [Paris, 1900–37], 1:5).
31  Vitalian, Epp. 6–9 (PL 187:1005D–08A); Philipp Jaffé and Wilhelm Wattenbach, Rege-
sta pontificum Romanorum, 2 vols (Leipzig, 1885), 1:236–7, nos. 2099–2103, reprinted by way
of Giovanni Domenico Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Flor-
ence, 1759–98), 11:21–2, from Epitome chronicarum Casinensium (attributed to Anastasius
the Librarian), ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores 2/1 (Milan,
1723), pp. 355–56, from an unknown manuscript. While the authenticity of these letters
of Vitalian has been questioned, because they occur within a clearly fictitious account of
how the relics were returned to Monte Cassino in the 8th century, the fact that they run
counter to traditions at both Fleury and Monte Cassino argues against their having been
forged by one or other abbey. Jacques Hourlier, “La lettre de Zacharie,” Studia monastica 21
(1979), 241–52 argues that the letter of Pope Zachary, which repeats the claims attributed
to Vitalian, is authentic. For further discussion of the complex bibliography surrounding
this debate, see Mews, “Gregory the Great, the Rule of Benedict,” 131–32.
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 323

dominated cathedral cloisters to an extent never found on the continent,

preserved particular respect for Gregory, recalling the feast of his priestly
ordination, as well as his feast day.32 In 667, Pope Vitalian sent holy relics
of Gregory, Peter, and Paul, to Oswiu of Northumbria, to affirm respect for
Roman authority, just after the synod of Whitby had declared in favour
of its liturgical practices over those favoured by many Celtic churches,
especially in the northern parts of Ireland and Britain.33 The first Life of
Pope Gregory to be composed was produced not at Rome, but at Whitby,
in the early 8th century, drawing on traditions transmitted by Archbishop
Theodore of Tarsus, and certainly emanating from Rome.34
Gregory’s name only started to be invoked in Rome as an authority for
liturgical practice some decades after his death. Our earliest witness to
this may be an addition made to a copy of the Liber pontificalis about Pope
Honorius (625–38), observing that he had “confirmed a decree of Gregory
on the Antiphonal and order of offices and psalms” so as to ensure some
uniformity between monastic liturgy in Rome (presumably at St. Peter’s)
with that of churches elsewhere in the city, reducing the liturgy at Easter
and Pentecost to three readings and psalms, as in the Roman Church,
“because of the displeasure of the people”.35 A 12th-century description of
St. Peter refers to this decree, outlining his liturgical instructions for the
city of Rome.36 Bede (c.672–735) never mentions that Gregory composed
an antiphonary, and reports his instructions to Augustine that he should
adopt whatever liturgical customs were appropriate, not just the Roman
customs in which he had been raised.37 Yet even though Bede does not

32 On subsequent reform of this feast, see Paul Hayward, “Gregory the Great as ‘Apostle
of the English’ in Post-Conquest Canterbury,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55 (2004),
19–57.
33 Vitalian, quoted by Bede, HE 3.29 (eds Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors [Oxford,
1969], p. 320).
34 The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great by an anonymous monk of Whitby (ed. Bertram
Colgrave [Cambridge, 1985]). Alan Thacker, “Memorializing Gregory the Great: the Origin
and Transmission of a Papal Cult in the Seventh and Early Eighth centuries,” Early Medi-
eval Europe 7 (1998), 59–84.
35 LP, trans. Davis, p. 67 (ed. Mommsen, p. 173): “et constitutionem sancti Gregorii in
antiphonario et ordine officiorum et psalmorum corroborauit et ut a monachis alleluia
dimitteretur in LXXa et in pasca et in pentecostem sicut Romana ecclesia fecit tres lec-
ciones et tres psalmi propter populi displicenciam recitarentur et totas illas duas ebdoma-
das romano more in officio agerent.”; Mews, “Gregory the Great, the Rule of Benedict and
Roman Liturgy,” 135.
36 Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae 20 (eds Valentini and Zucchetti, Codice topografico
3:404).
37 Bede, HE 1.27 (eds Colgrave and Mynors, pp. 80–82).
324 constant j. mews and claire renkin

explicitly acknowledge Wilfrid’s claim that he was responsible for intro-

ducing Roman antiphonal chant practice, he does report that Roman
chant was introduced by disciples of Gregory, suggesting a connection in
his mind.38 That Gregory was interested in liturgical reform is shown by
a letter, not preserved at the Lateran, but certainly authentic, in which he
criticized ostentatious soloist deacons as unspiritual, and sought to have
chant performed by a choir of clerics no higher than the rank of subdea-
con, as if he wished to implement a monastic style of choir.39 John the
Deacon later claimed that Gregory had established scholae cantorum (cer-
tainly in existence by the late 7th century) at both St. Peter’s and the Lat-
eran, as well as having revised the liturgy of Pope Gelasius.40 An account
of the liturgy of the monasteries attached to the basilica of St. Peter (Ordo
Romanus XIX), likely to be from the late 7th century, mentions Gregory
as one of a number of popes who contributed chant to the cycle of the
liturgical year.41 This Ordo also refers to monks attached to St. Peter’s as
observing the Rule of Benedict, which prescribed the Roman practice of
singing through the psalter, punctuated with appropriate antiphons, once
a week. In 735, Egbert of York mentions that he studied “the antiphonary
of Gregory” in Rome, when he travelled there to receive the pallium, pro-
nouncing it to be the same as that which had been introduced into Eng-
land by Augustine of Canterbury.42 Gregory’s authority was synonymous
with correct observance of the Roman liturgy, at least for pilgrims coming
to St. Peter’s.

38 He refers to several singers who taught chant after the manner of Rome, includ-
ing a certain James at York; Eddi, Wilfrid’s biographer, and Maban of Hexham, taught
“by the successors of the disciples of St. Gregory in Kent,” HE 2.20, 4.2, 5.20 (eds Colgrave
and Mynors, pp. 206, 324, 530). But see Eddi, The Life of Bishop Wilfrid, ch. 47 (ed. and
trans. Bertram Colgrave [Cambridge, 1927], p. 98).
39 Gregory, Epp. 5.53a and 5.57a (eds Paul Ewald and Ludwig M. Hartmann, 2 vols, MGH
Epp. 1–2 [Hannover, 1891–99], 1:353 and 363). They do not occur in Norberg’s edition of
Gregory’s letters, based on the registrum Lateranense, suggesting that its clerics may have
not wanted to remember these reforms, likely preserved at St. Peter’s (as implied by the
vision of Taio). Norberg (CCSL 140:vi–vii) comments that there are authentic letters of
Gregory outside the Register, referring to idem, In Registrum Gregorii Magni studia critica
1–2 (Uppsala, 1937–39). See also Lucia Castaldi, “L’archivum Lateranense e la trasmissione
delle opera di Gregorio Magno,” in Gregorio Magno e l’invenzione del medioevo, ed. Luigi
Giovanni Ricci (Florence, 2006), pp. 67–71.
40 John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii (PL 75:84A, 90CD).
41  On difficulties with the late 8th century date assigned to Ordo Romanus XIX by
Michel Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du Haut Moyen Age, 4 vols (Louvain, 1931–61),
1:330–33, and 3:222–27, and the allusions to the Rule of Benedict in the Ordines XIV–XIX,
likely to be a single text, see Mews, “Gregory the Great, the Rule of Benedict and Roman
Liturgy,” 138–40.
42 Egbert, De institutione catholica dialogus 15 (PL 89:441BC).
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 325

The Image of Gregory 780–1100

Gregory’s reputation only became widely established on the continent

as an authority on monastic and liturgical observance during the time of
Charlemagne (742–814). Monks were required to follow the Rule of Bene-
dict, making them more clericalized than in previous generations. Only
after 780—just when Egbert’s disciple, Alcuin, left York to join the court
of Charlemagne—does a preface (Gregorius praesul) written in the style
of Aldhelm give wide publicity in his realm to the notion that Gregory
had composed the entire chant for the Mass and the cycle of the litur-
gical year. Charlemagne’s monastic advisors needed to invoke Gregory’s
authority in plainchant, as they discovered that Gallican liturgical tradi-
tions and plainchant differed significantly from those observed in Rome.
Monastic chroniclers frequently told the story of the crisis engendered by
this encounter and Charlemagne’s reply that all should go back to the pure
“Gregorian” source. The chant subsequently known as “Gregorian” was the
fruit of a complex interaction between Frankish musical theorists, intent
on transforming Roman chant according to their understanding of the
modes. The so-called “old Roman” style of chant was still observed at the
Lateran and some other Roman churches in the 11th century, when it was
occasionally recorded in manuscripts and attributed to Pope Vitalian—
as if the Lateran clergy refused to adapt to liturgical attributions widely
attributed to Gregory the Great in the time of Charlemagne.43
The first Life of Gregory to be written on the continent was that by Paul
the Deacon (c.720–c.799), who c.787 became a monk of Monte Cassino,
re-established by Pope Gregory II in 717. Paul emphasizes that Gregory
was a vessel of the Holy Spirit, directly inspired in his writing about Eze-
kiel, another great prophet, in an account that would be expanded in the
10th century with details from the Whitby Life.44 Only when John Hym-
monides, also a Roman deacon, prepared a new Life c.873–76, that drew
on archives preserved in Rome, do we get a fuller portrait of Gregory as a
great pope, able to establish his imprint on the Latin West. He did so just
as John’s friend, Anastasius the Librarian, was translating records left by
another 7th-century pope, Martin I. They were both seeking renewal of the

43 Testimonies gathered by Bruno Stäblein, Die Gesänge des altrömischen Graduale

(Kassel, 1970), pp. 140*–150*.
44 Paul the Deacon, Vita Gregorii Magni (ed. H. Grisar, “Die Gregorbiographie des Pau-
lus Diakonus in ihrer ursprünglichen Gestalt, nach italienischen Handschriften,” Zeitschrift
für Katholische Theologie 11 [1887], 158–73; and ed. Sabina Tuzzo, Vita sancti Gregorii Magni
[Pisa, 2002]). PL 75:42–60 provides an interpolated version, from the 10th century.
326 constant j. mews and claire renkin

papacy at a particularly difficult time.45 Most surviving copies of John the

Deacon’s Life of Gregory were produced in the 11th and 12th centuries, with
numbers dropping quite significantly in the 13th and 14th centuries.46
John’s account is remarkable not just for the detail it gives about Greg-
ory, based on documents now lost to us, but for its eye-witness account
of portraits that he saw in the interior of St. Andrew’s, the family villa
of Gregory on the Caelian Hill that he converted into a monastery. He
reports that in its atrium were two images, one of Gregory’s father, Gord-
ian, standing next to a seated St. Peter and wearing a chestnut-coloured
chasuble over a dalmatic, and with a long face, a modest beard, and a
serious expression. The other was of his mother, Silvia, wearing a veil
across her shoulders, with a round and shining face, demonstrating her
beauty even in old age, and carrying a psalterium in her left hand, with
the inscription: “Gregory made this for Silvia, [his] mother.”47 John then
provides an even more detailed description of another portrait, important
because it enabled his readers to imagine exactly how Gregory wanted
to be remembered by his monks, through an image certainly more late
antique than medieval:
But in an apse behind the brothers’ cellarium, Gregory is shown, depicted
on a circle of stucco, just and well formed in stature; his face is tempered
evenly from the length of his father’s countenance and the roundness of
his mother’s, so that it seems to be shaped with a certain fitting roundness;
his beard, like his father’s, is somewhat tawny and sparse. His head is large
and bald, surrounded with dark hair hanging down below the middle of the
ear; two little curls bending towards the right crown a forehead broad and
high. The eyes are of yellow-brown colour, not large, but open; the eyebrows
arched, long, and thin; the under-eyelids full. The nose is aquiline, with open
nostrils. The lips are red and thick, the cheeks shapely, the chin prominent
and well-formed; in complexion eagle-like and high-coloured, but not yet
flushed as happened to him in later life. The expression is gentle, his hands
beautiful, with tapering fingers well adapted to writing. He is standing, clad
in a chestnut-coloured chasuble over a dalmatic. His left hand grasps a book
of the gospels, his right the form of a cross. A modest pallium is led from
around from the right shoulder to under his chest above the stomach, then

45 On the literary achievement of Anastasius, see Bronwen Neil, Seventh-century Popes
and Martyrs. The Political Hagiography of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Studia Antiqua Aus-
traliensia 2 (Turnhout, 2006).
46 See the list of 156 MSS cited by Lucia Castaldi in her prologue to Iohannes Hym-
monides Diaconus Romanus, Vita Gregorii I Papae. La tradizione manoscritta (Florence,
2004), pp. xlix–lii.
47 Vita Gregorii 2.83 (PL 75:229B–230A): “Gregorius Silviae matri fecit.”
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 327

is placed on the back across the left shoulder; its other part, coming over the
same shoulder, properly straight, hangs not across the middle of the body,
but the side. Around the head is not a halo, but the likeness of a picture,
the sign of a living person. From this it is clearly shown that Gregory wished
his picture to be carefully executed in his lifetime, through which he could
more regularly be gazed upon by his monks, not as prideful glory, but as a
caution of known punishment. He composed for it this distich:
 Christ, powerful lord, who endows our honour
 Govern the permitted office with customary piety.48
The image John describes did not include a dove. His explanation of
Gregory being shown with “the likeness of a picture which is a sign that
he is living, not a halo” (circa verticem vero tabulae similitudinem, quod
viventis insigne est . . . non coronam) helps elucidate the significance of the
square nimbus in a papal portrait of Leo IV (847–55) at San Clemente,
produced in Leo’s own lifetime, presumably modelled on that of Gregory.49
A very similar image of a bishop, carrying a book and a cross, but with a
halo, is painted within the opening initial of the second book of Bede’s
Ecclesiastical History, produced at Jarrow after the text’s completion in

48 Vita Gregorii 2.84 (PL 75:230B–231A): “Sed et in absidula post fratrum cellarium Gre-
gorius ejusdem artificis magisterio in rota gypsea pictus ostenditur, statura justa et bene
formata, facie de paternae faciei longitudine et maternae rotunditate ita medie temperata,
ut cum rotunditate quadam decentissime videatur esse deducta, barba paterno more sub-
fulva et modica; ita calvaster, ut in medio frontis gemellos cincinnos rarusculos habeat,
et dextrorsum reflexos; corona rotunda et spatiosa, capillo subnigro et decenter intorto
sub auriculae medium propendente; fronte speciosa, elatis et longis, sed exilibus super-
ciliis; oculis pupilla furvis non quidem magnis sed patulis; subocularibus plenis; naso a
radice vergentium superciliorum subtiliter directo, circa medium latiore, deinde paululum
recurvo et in extremo patulis naribus prominente; ore rubeo; crassis et subdividuis labiis,
genis compositis; mento a confinio maxillarum decibiliter prominente; colore aquilino et
vivido, nondum, sicut ei postea contigit, cardiaco; vultu mitis; manibus pulchris; teretibus
digitis et habilibus ad scribendum. Praeterea planeta super dalmaticam castanea, Evange-
lium in sinistra, modus crucis in dextra; pallio mediocri a dextro videlicet humero sub pec-
tore super stomachum circulatim deducto, deinde sursum per sinistrum humerum post
tergum deposito, cujus pars altera super eumdem humerum veniens propria rectitudine,
non per medium corporis, sed ex latere pendet; circa verticem vero tabulae similitudinem,
quod viventis insigne est, praeferens, non coronam. Ex quo manifestissime declaratur,
quia Gregorius dum adviveret, suam similitudinem depingi salubriter voluit, in qua posset
a suis monachis, non pro elationis gloria, sed pro cognitae districtionis cautela, frequen-
tius intueri. Ubi hujusmodi distichon ipse dictavit: ‘Christe potens Domine, nostri largitor
honoris, Indultum officium solita pietate guberna’.” This translation is adapted and cor-
rected from that given by Frederick Homes Dudden, Gregory the Great, His Place in History
and Thought (1905; New York, 1967), p. 242.
49 John Osborne, “The portrait of Pope Leo IV in San Clemente, Rome: a Re-examina-
tion of the So-called Square Nimbus in Medieval Art,” Papers of the British School at Rome
47 (1979), 58–65.
328 constant j. mews and claire renkin

731, but before 741, perhaps while Bede was still alive.50 Although a later
copyist has added Augustinus around the halo (thinking it represented
Augustine of Canterbury), the fact that it introduces Bede’s account of
Gregory supports Meyvaert’s argument that it provides our earliest surviv-
ing image of the pope, modeled on an image later described by John the
Deacon.51 The practice of showing Gregory in liturgical garments, while
inspired by a dove, derives from combining this description with John’s
account (reported with less detail by Paul the Deacon) of Gregory writing
under divine inspiration, as in the Hartker Antiphonal from St. Gall, in the
early 10th century (Fig. 1), where he is shown composing chant recorded
as neumes by a scribe. John the Deacon helped create an image of Gregory
that few medieval readers could forget.
This image of Gregory as an inspired pope was strengthened further
by Guido of Arezzo (991–1050), who sought to communicate with new
facility the chant he believed had been composed by Gregory the Great.
In his prologue to the Antiphonarium of Gregory, Guido lamented that
there were so many antiphonaries circulating in individual churches
(not of Gregory, but of Leo, Albert, and many others) that he set out
to explain how notating chant by pitch could communicate Gregory’s
liturgical vision.52 While traditionally these melodies had been passed
on by memory, Guido’s revolution enabled them to acquire a degree of
uniformity never previously achieved. Only by the time of William of
Hirsau (1030–91) would the chant be specifically referred to as Gregorian.

Gregory, Mary Magdalene and the Power of the Visual Image

Perhaps the most useful of Gregory’s writings for any medieval preacher
were his Homilies on the Gospels, elucidating readings chosen (possibly by
himself) for the cycle of the liturgical year, and delivered in the various
basilicas of Rome.53 Of great impact on medieval visual art, in particu-
lar from the 12th century onwards, was his innovative interpretation of

50 Anglo-Saxon, “St Gregory the Great (wrongly identified as Augustinus)”, from the
St. Petersburg Bede, St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, Lat. Q.v.l.18 fol. 26v (c.740).
51 Paul Meyvaert, Bede and Gregory the Great, Jarrow Lecture, 1964, Plate II and
n. 17, pp. 21–22, reprinted in Bede and his World: the Jarrow Lectures, 1958–1993, ed. Michael
Lapidge (Aldershot, 1994), pp. 107–32, esp. pp. 127–28.
52 Prologus in Antiphonarium, ed. Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, Divitiae musicae artis,
A/III (Buren, 1975), p. 63.
53 On the circumstances of the composition and dating of the sermons and homilies,
see Raymond Étaix’s introduction to HEv. (CCSL 141:v–ix).
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 329

Mary Magdalene, in Homily 25, delivered at the Lateran in the Octave of

Easter, as not just the woman who wept as she stood outside the tomb
(John 20:11), but as the penitent woman described by Luke (7:37–50) who
shed tears over his feet, and whose sins were forgiven by Jesus because of
her great love for him: “Mary Magdalene, who had been a sinner in the
city, loving truth, washed away the stains of her fault and the voice of
Truth was fulfilled, saying, ‘Many sins are forgiven her, because she has
loved much.’”54 Gregory also expanded on the Lukan theme in Homily 33,
preached in 591 in the Roman basilica of San Clemente. Here he explores
the image of God’s unceasing love for his Church, symbolically under-
stood as the Church of the Gentiles, represented by the sinful woman.55
Images of touching, kissing, anointing, and a love that burns but is not
consumed, saturate Gregory’s homily. Visual images rather than theology
carry his meaning in a way that would inspire numerous medieval artists.56
While various eastern fathers had sometimes confused different Marys, no
previous exegete had connected the tears of the sinful woman in Luke to
the tears shed by Mary Magdalene for Jesus as she stood over the tomb.57
For exegetes like Jerome, virginity (above all that of the Virgin Mary) had
been the definitive attribute of the bride of Christ. Gregory was extend-
ing ideas about perfume and love offered by Origen’s commentary on the
Song of Songs, and re-asserting an ancient tradition that linked the bride
(as in a rubric to the Vetus Latina version of the Song of Songs) to Mary
Magdalene as the archetypal bride of Christ.58
Gregory’s devotion to Mary Magdalene did not win immediate
recognition, except in England, where Bede records her feast on 22 July.59
It did not become widely popularized until a sermon attributed to Odo of
Cluny (d. c.942) brought together all the scriptural passages he could find

54 HEv. 25.1 (CCSL 141:205): “Maria Magdalena, quae fuerat in ciuitate peccatrix, amando
ueritatem, lauat lacrimis maculas criminis, et uox Veritatis impletur qua dicitur: Dimissa ei
sunt peccata multa, quia dilexit multum.”
55 On the dating of this sermon see Katherine Ludwig Jansen, The Making of the
Magdalene. Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages (Princeton, 2000),
p. 32.
56 Cynthia Hahn makes a similar point about the efficacy of hagiographical narrative in
effecting spiritual conversion. See her Portrayed on the Heart. Narrative Effect in Pictorial
Lives of Saints from the Tenth through the Thirteenth Century (Berkeley, 2001), pp. 31–32.
57 Origen, Commentarium in Canticum canticorum 2, trans. Rufinus (ed. Willem Adolf
Baehrens, Corpus Berolinense 33 [Berlin, 1925], pp. 61–241 at p. 166).
58 Donatien De Bruyne, “Les anciennes versions latines du Cantique des Cantiques,”
Revue Bénédictine 38 (1926), 97–122.
59 Jansen, The Making of the Magdalen, p. 35.
330 constant j. mews and claire renkin

about her, inspired by Gregory’s teaching.60 Not only did Odo establish the
abbey of Cluny, dedicated to St. Peter, as a model of monastic observance,
but he was also invited to Rome to restore its monasteries to observance
of the Rule of Benedict. Odo’s sermon on Mary Magdalene was matched
by a series of hymns that he composed in honour of the four saints he
considered most important: St. Peter, Mary Magdalene, St. Benedict, and
St. Martin.61 While his respect for Benedict and Martin reflected a careful
balance between Roman and Gallican forms of monasticism, his choice of
both St. Peter and Mary Magdalene reflected the attention he gave to both
figures. Odo helped reinforce Gregory’s perspective of the Magdalene as
both penitent and bride of Christ.
Gregory’s thinking about Mary Magdalene gained further influence
through the increasing popularity of her cult in the 11th and 12th centuries.
There was a special altar dedicated to her in the choir of the Lateran,
according to a description of that church from the early 13th century
(which also mentions that her head was found to be missing, presumably
stolen).62 Her relics were more venerated, however, at the abbey of
Vezelay, which claimed in the 11th century to have rescued them from an
abandoned church in Marseilles.
Just as Gregory evoked the image of Mary Magdalene to communicate
an image of desire for God, so he was aware that visual images had the
capacity to communicate divine truth. Carolingian debates about images
(which extended those taking place in the East) relied on Gregory’s thinking
about the positive spiritual role played by visual imagery. The originality
of his thinking on image-making lies in his discussion of the relationship
and cognitive parallels he discerns between visual images and text, both
spoken and written.63 The original sources for later doctrinal formulations
are two letters written by Gregory to Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, in

60 The authorship of this sermon (PL 173:713–21) is contested. See Dominique Iogna-
Prat, “La Madeleine du Sermo in veneratione sanctae Mariae Magdalenae attribué à Odon
de Cluny,” Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome 104/1 (1992), 37–70, and Jansen, The Mak-
ing of the Magdalen, p. 38.
61 PL 133:514C–15A.
62 Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae 10, in Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae (eds Roberto
Valentini and Giuseppe Zucchetti, Codice topografico della città di Roma, vol. 3 [Rome,
1946], p. 346); on this work, see Eivor Andersen Oftestad, The House of God. The Transla-
tion of the Temple and the Interpretation of the Lateran Cathedral in the Twelfth Century
(University of Oslo, Faculty of Theology, 2010).
63 See Celia Chazelle’s penetrating analysis of Gregory’s letters to Serenus, “Pictures,
books, and the illiterate: Pope Gregory I’s letters to Serenus of Marseilles,” Word & Image
6/2 (1990), 138–53, esp. 144–45. See also Cristina Ricci’s article in this volume.
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 331

which he castigates Serenus for destroying paintings in several churches

in Marseilles.64 His reminder to Serenus of his duty to attend to the
pastoral needs of his flock, above all in preaching, provides the context for
Gregory’s thought on the place of visual images in the life of the Church.
In the second letter to Serenus, we read: “And then you must add that
painted images had been made for the edification of ignorant people,
so that, not knowing how to read, they might learn what was said by
studying the actual story.”65 Gregory affirms that for the illiterate person
the visual image points to that which it signifies.66 These letters, together
with another to the recluse Secundinus, attributed to Gregory, became
especially vital in the iconoclastic debates in the Carolingian era in the
West.67 They generated ever more nuanced readings by the 12th century.68
Honorius Augustodunensis formulated, from the inspiration of Gregory,
a formula of the “threefold purpose” (triplex ratio) of images to instruct,
to recall to memory, and to incite to devotion.69 Under the authority of
Gregory’s name, Greek image theory and an affirmation of the affective
role of visual images were absorbed into western thought and practice.70
Scholars in the past have enlisted Gregory’s thinking to justify a range of
doctrinal and theological positions on the place of images in Christian
devotions and worship. While Celia Chazelle has reminded us that some
of the most oft-repeated claims attributed to Gregory, notably about his
teaching that pictures were the bibles of the poor, cannot be found in

64 Reg. 9.209 (CCSL 140A:768).

65 Reg. 11.10, trans. Martyn, 3:746 (CCSL: 140A:873): “ac deinde subiungendum: quia
picturas imaginum, quae ad aedificationem imperiti populi factae fuerant, ut nescientes
litteras ipsam historiam intendentes, quid dictum sit discerent, transisse in adorationem
uideras, idcirco commotus es, ut eas imagines frangi praeciperes.” See Chazelle, “Pictures,
books,” 139.
66 Chazelle, ibid., 146.
67 Gregory, Reg. 9.148, and an expanded version of this letter, containing discussion of
icons, in Appendix 10 of The Letters of Gregory the Great, 3:889–95. On the disputed author-
ship of the letters see Chazelle, “Pictures, books,” 138, n. 2. Willemien Otten comments on
the central role of Gregory in the Libri Carolini in “The Texture of Tradition: the Role of
the Church Fathers in Carolingian Theology,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the
West: from the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. Irena Backus, 2 vols (Leiden, 1997), 1:3–51,
at p. 23.
68 See Herbert L. Kessler, “Gregory the Great and Image Theory in Northern Europe dur-
ing the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” in A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque
and Gothic in Northern Europe, ed. Conrad Rudolph (Malden MA, 2006), pp. 151–72.
69 Kessler, “Gregory the Great and Image Theory,” p. 152; Jeffrey Hamburger, “The place
of theology in medieval art history: problems, positions, possibilities,” in The Mind’s Eye.
Art and Theological Argument in the Middle Ages, eds Jeffrey Hamburger and Anne-Marie
Bouché (Princeton, 2006), pp. 1–31, esp. p. 15.
70 Kessler, “Gregory the Great and Image Theory,” pp. 152–53.
332 constant j. mews and claire renkin

these two letters to Serenus, they were inspired by Gregory’s sense of the
importance of communicating Scripture to a wide audience.71
Gregory’s teaching on the didactic and devotional place of sacred images
was above all shaped by pastoral concerns. The continued transmission
of his thinking concerning sacred pictures throughout the Middle Ages
guaranteed that the Latin Church remained faithful (at least in theory)
to Gregory’s emphasis on preaching. Visual images, especially narrative
cycles of biblical stories and scenes from saints’ lives, kept before the
faithful the deeds of the holy. By the late Middle Ages the audience for
pictorial cycles extended beyond the uneducated and the laity.72 Through
all the artistic means at the painter’s disposal—colour, line, and above
all gestures and facial expression—the figures depicted reminded the
viewer of the spiritual truth in the story before them. Gregory observed
this process in his commentary on the Song of Songs: “For just as a picture
exists through colours and things, so Holy Scripture exists through words
and senses; for he is foolish who ignores what inheres in the colours of
a picture, like the things that are painted.”73 Such narrative cycles made
the essentials of Christian faith comprehensible to the broadest possible
audience. Visual exegesis depended upon artists rendering meaning in
human experience.
The biblical narratives lie at the heart of the Christian life. Gregory’s
Regula pastoralis made clear the preacher’s duty to educate and lead the
congregation to meditation on and identification of the holy lessons of
the biblical story. He was aware that painted images have the power to
shape what is in the mind.74 In the same way, pictures help the illiterate
to internalize stories through a process that Gregory calls compunction.75
Gregory’s work constantly uses the idea of exempla as a spur to inner
transformation. His homilies show him exploiting the centrality of
pictorial imagery in his theology and spirituality.76 While medieval

71 Chazelle, “Pictures, books,” 138.

72 Kessler, “Gregory the Great and Image Theory,” pp. 156–59.
73 Cant. (ed. Patrick Verbraken, CCSL 144 [Turnhout, 1963], p. 5): “Sic est enim scriptura
sacra in uerbis et sensibus, sicut pictura in coloribus et rebus: et nimis stultus est, qui sic
picturae coloribus inheret, ut res, quae pictae sunt, ignoret.” 
74 Chazelle, “Pictures, books,” 149. See RP 2.10 (SC 381:242) on the mind being attracted
by painted images, repeating a statement in Mor. 26.6 (CCSL 143B:1272).
75 On compunction in Gregory’s writing, as evoked by art, see Hahn, Portrayed on the
Heart, pp. 48–49 with further bibliography.
76 Hamburger comments: “Gregory likewise framed his moral theology in pictorial
terms predicated on a theory of perception.” See Hamburger, “The Place of Theology,”
p. 15.
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 333

theologians might draw more heavily on Augustine for discussion of

doctrinal concepts, Gregory’s writings were particularly relevant to those
creating visual images to communicate scriptural themes.

Gregory in the Age of Monastic Reform and Early Scholasticism

Reforming popes, above all Gregory VII (1073–85), also turned more to
Gregory I’s letters for guidance on governing the Church. They encour-
aged canonists to scour through Gregory’s writings to find legal prec-
edents that could build a firm and cohesive body of canon law.77 The
letters of Gregory VII betray a concern with pastoral detail across Latin
Christendom that show how much he hoped to emulate his great prede-
cessor, even though the political situation had become radically different.
Gregory VII perceived the papacy as a supranational power, independent
from the multitude of new Christian kingdoms developing across Europe,
from Spain in the West to Poland in the East. The precedent set by Greg-
ory the Great in rebuking clergy and bishops who did not live up to the
highest ascetic standards enabled Gregory VII to develop the authority of
the papacy in a way that had never been possible in the late 6th century.
While Gregory VII would encounter particular resistance from Emperor
Henry IV in imposing this vision, subsequent popes in the 12th and
13th centuries would not tire of looking back to the example of Gregory
the Great, as moral guide and authority for rebuking those clergy who
failed to live up to the standards expected of them.
Gregory’s writings were particularly popular in monastic communities
committed to spiritual reform, notably in the Cistercian Order. William of
Champeaux (d. 1121), the Parisian scholastic who established the Abbey of
St. Victor in 1111, but spent most of his last years at Clairvaux, produced an
epitome of the Moralia (not yet edited), preserved at Clairvaux.78 This may
reflect a personal shift towards a more moral and mystical style of thought
than evident in his earlier scholastic teaching. Gregory’s commentary on
the Song of Songs, along with that of Origen, seems to have had a particular
impact on William of St. Thierry (1070–1148) and Bernard of Clairvaux
(1090–1153), who both sought to combine Augustine’s theology of grace
with the emphasis on penitence found in both Cassian and Gregory. In

77 René Wasselynck. “Présence de s. Grégoire le grand dans les recueils canoniques

(X–XII),” Mélanges de science religieuse 22 (1965), 205–19.
78 Wasselynck, “Les compilations des Moralia in Job,” 20–21.
334 constant j. mews and claire renkin

England, William of Malmesbury (1095–1143), a Benedictine monk and

a great historian, produced an anthology culled from various writings of
Gregory’s, divided into four parts, but focusing attention on their moral
instruction. A comment that he makes in introducing his Deflorationes ex
libris beati Gregorii reveals why he found Gregory a continuing source of
inspiration:
You can notice that I have culled nothing about the solution of the most
profound questions, but rather those things which relate to improvement
of life, edification of the soul, and hope for forgiveness. . . . If anyone objects
that questions are raised in the chapters about resurrection, the torments
of hell, and seeing God, let him more appropriately and fittingly turn these
things to morality, in which he will see in a mirror what he ought to hope
for, what to fear.79
William’s remarks suggest that Gregory’s eschatological reflections were
not acceptable to everyone in the 12th century. By identifying Gregory as a
rich source of moral instruction, William was singling out the most endur-
ing aspect of his contribution.
Gregory’s allegorical interpretations were beginning to seem old-
fashioned to exegetes like Rupert of Deutz, who found new energy in
recovering the historical sense of the sacred text, as its initial (although
not only) meaning.80 Yet Gregory’s core insight that, beyond the historical
and allegorical levels of Scripture there lay a tropological or moral level,
continued to exert influence. Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179), not attracted
by Jerome’s scholarly approach to biblical learning, identified with Gregory
the Great as someone who had been directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.
While Hildegard was more interested than Gregory in the workings of the
human body, she shared his profoundly moralistic vision of the mean-
ing of Scripture. A key concept in her thinking was that of viriditas, the
green life-force of divine origin that underpinned creation—a term that
occurs no fewer than 56 times in his Moralia on Job, but only once in

79 Hugh Farmer (ed.), “William of Malmesbury’s Commentary on Lamentations,” Studia

Monastica 4 (1962), 283–311, esp. 302: “Illud porro animaduertere potestis me nichil hic de
solutione profundarum questionum deflorasse, sed ea tantum posuisse que sint ad emen-
dationem uite, ad edificationem anime, ad spem uenie. . . . Quod si quis forte obiecerit
in capitulis de Resurrectione et tormentis gehenne et uidendo Deo questiones uentilare,
commodius et consultius faciet si ad moralitatem ea retorqueat, in quibus quasi e speculo
intuebitur quid maxime debeat sperare, quid timere.” The Deflorationes (studied by Farmer
in an appendix), occurs only in Cambridge University Library, ii.III.20 (unedited except for
the preface). I am grateful to Sigbjørn Sønnesyn for drawing this work to my attention.
80 Wasselynck observes a shift in Rupert from initial enthusiasm to a more cautious
position after 1117, “L’influence de l’exégèse de S. Grégoire le grand,” 177–81.
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 335

Augustine’s City of God.81 Hildegard responded to Gregory’s awareness

of imagery drawn from nature, as well as his preference for visual over
abstract images.
Gregory’s exegetical programme would be developed most fully in the
12th century by Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141), who gave perhaps greater
emphasis to its historical foundation, but maintained awareness of its pro-
foundly mystical character. Whereas Gregory never commented on secu-
lar authors, and had famously asserted that he would not constrain divine
scripture to the rules of Donatus, Hugh defined a programme of study
in his Didascalicon that combined secular and sacred learning.82 Hugh
sought to explain to his students the value of all those classical authors
whom Gregory the Great had taken for granted, without diminishing the
central importance of those biblical books that he saw as vehicles for
grasping divine wisdom. He provided a new structure through which the
insights of Gregory the Great could be integrated with those of the other
fathers of the Church. Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173) would continue this
approach, while arguing that the obscurity of some of Gregory’s interpre-
tations should not prevent exegetes from going further in their analysis.83
Even Peter Abelard (1079–1142), often thought of as more disputatious
than contemplative in spirit, was fascinated by Gregory the Great. He sin-
gles out the smoothness of his prose, observing that it rivalled that of pagan
authors, just as much as Jerome and Augustine matched the ancients in
depth and subtlety.84 In advocating reason, Abelard might seem to ques-
tion Gregory’s much cited comment in his Easter homily that “faith had
no merit if it could be proved by reason”—a quotation that opened every
version of the Sic et Non to debate the relationship between faith and rea-
son.85 In his Theologia “Scholarium”, Abelard argued against those who
used this quotation to provide “solace for their ignorance”. He insisted
that Gregory was saying that faith could only reside in what was unseen,

81 See Constant Mews, “Religious Thinker: ‘A Frail Human Being’,” in Voice of the Living
Light. Hildegard of Bingen and her World, ed. Barbara Newman (Berkeley, 1998), pp. 52–69,
esp. p. 58.
82 For a still excellent study, see the introduction to Jerome Taylor (ed. and trans.), The
Didascalicon of Hugh of St. Victor. A Medieval Guide to the Arts (New York, 1991).
83 See Wasselynck on both Hugh and Richard, “L’influence de l’exégèse de S. Grégoire
le grand,” 192–97.
84 Peter Abelard, Theologia christiana 2.127 (ed. Eligius-Marie Buytaert, CCCM 12 [Turn-
hout, 1969], p. 191).
85 HEv. 2.26 (CCSL 141:218); see Abelard, Sic et Non 1.1 (eds Blanche Boyer and Richard
McKeon [Chicago, 1976–77], p. 113).
336 constant j. mews and claire renkin

and that the doctrine of the Trinity, known by faith, formulated a set of
truths beyond the human eye and only crudely expressed in words.86
In his Theologia christiana Abelard repeated John the Deacon’s account
of Gregory being so moved by a story about the generosity of the Emperor
Trajan towards a widow that he wept tears in St. Peter’s until he had heard
that the emperor had been freed from eternal punishment, even if he had
not entered paradise. Abelard related this story about a virtuous pagan to
another tale, told by Ambrose, about the Emperor Valentinian who had
died before gaining the baptism he desired.87 While Gregory the Great
never wrote about Trajan, the story told by John the Deacon and repeated
by many writers after Abelard, articulated a sense that Gregory had sym-
pathy for the virtuous pagan, even if he had to remain in limbo rather
than enter paradise.88

Gregory the Great and Mendicant Culture 1200–1500

The increasing awareness of the writings of Aristotle in the Latin West

during the 12th and 13th centuries inevitably shifted the direction of theol-
ogy in a scholastic environment away from the contemplative and experi-
ential focus, dominant in a monastic milieu. Yet even if Gregory’s writing
lacked the abstractions that fascinated scholastic theologians, its imagistic
character appealed to preachers in the new mendicant orders, in particu-
lar, the Dominicans and Franciscans. It also had a particular impact on
visual artists, keen to promote the message of Scripture through the tell-
ing image.89 Taddeo Gaddi’s fresco of The Supper in the House of Simon
the Pharisee, which forms part of the decoration of the end wall of the
refectory of the Franciscan convent of Santa Croce, Florence, executed
c.1330–40, illustrates how Gregorian exegesis could be put to visual effect

86 Theologia “Scholarium”, 1.12, 2.44–49 (eds Eligius-Marie Buytaert and Constant J.

Mews, CCCM 13 [Turnhout, 1987], pp. 322–24, 428–33).
87 Theologia christiana 2.112–14 (CCCM 12:182–84), quoting Vita Gregorii 44 (PL 75:105AB)
and the De obitu Valentiniani of Ambrose; passages quoted in Sic et Non 106.22–27 (eds
Boyer and McKeon, pp. 347–49).
88 See John of Salisbury, Policraticus 5.8 (ed. Clemens C.J. Webb [Oxford, 1909], p. 317);
Thomas Aquinas (on the authority of John Damascene, rather than John the Deacon), In
IV Libros Sententiarum 45.2.2.1.5. On this theme, see Marcia Colish, “The Virtuous Pagan:
Dante and the Christian Tradition,” in The Unbounded Community: Papers in Christian Ecu-
menism in Honor of Jaroslav Pelikan, eds William Caferro and Duncan G. Fisher (New York,
1996), pp. 43–91, repr. in Marcia Colish, The Fathers and Beyond. Church Fathers between
Ancient and Medieval Thought (Aldershot, HA, 2008), XVII, esp. pp. 20–22.
89 Hamburger, “The Place of Theology,” pp. 14–16.
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 337

(Fig. 2). Three other scenes—The Stigmatization of St. Francis, St. Louis of
Toulouse Serving a Meal to the Poor, and St. Benedict Rescued from Starva-
tion in the Desert—appear on either side of the central image, The Tree
of Life. The Last Supper is depicted underneath.90 The artist visualizes a
moment from the narrative of Luke 7:36–50 when the unnamed woman
anoints Jesus’s feet while he is seated at table with Simon and a disciple.
By the 12th century, the central iconographic features of this subject were
well-established, so that visual cues such as Christ’s triple-nimbed halo
and the woman stretched prostrate at Christ’s feet enabled a wide spec-
trum of viewers to recognize the source of the narrative in Luke’s Gospel.
Such an image performs three functions: it stands alone by recalling a
biblical story (thus fulfilling Gregory’s requirement that pictorial imag-
ery function mnemonically); it conflates separate moments of the narra-
tive into one (as Gregory himself does when he combines the actions of
weeping and kissing as expressions of God’s love); the image, like preach-
ing, points towards the mystery of God through our identification with
the figures.
Gregory’s instructions to Serenus had particular resonance for a 14th
century artist: “. . . that from the sight of a past deed they should feel the
burning of compunction and prostrate themselves humbly in adoration
solely of the omnipotent, holy Trinity.”91 What lessons might the friars
viewing Gaddi’s images have meditated on as they gazed upon the fres-
cos in their refectory? As for their founder, St. Francis of Assisi, preach-
ing lay at the heart of their religious vocation. Gregory’s pastoral theology
fused with this commitment to preaching, advocated by all the mendicant
orders, in fresh ways in the later Middle Ages. The viewer becomes both
witness and participant in the didactic power of the sacred narrative.

The Mass of St. Gregory and Late Medieval Piety

By the 14th and 15th centuries, the current of evangelical dynamism that
had given birth to the movements inspired by St. Francis and St. Dominic

90 On Gaddi’s fresco see Rab Hatfield, “The Tree of Life and the Holy Cross,” in Christi-
anity and the Renaissance: Image and Religious Imagination in the Quattrocento, eds Timo-
thy Verdon and John Henderson (Syracuse, NY, 1990), pp. 132–60.
91 Reg. 11.10, trans. Martyn, 3:746 (CCSL 140A:746): “Sed hoc sollicite fraternitas tua
admoneat ut ex uisione rei gestae ardorem compunctionis percipiant et in adoratione
solius omnipotentis sanctae trinitatis humiliter prosternantur.” Chazelle, “Pictures, books,”
140.
338 constant j. mews and claire renkin

were in urgent need of renewal. Increasingly, heretical groups were ques-

tioning the authority of ordained clergy to interpret the word of God, and
above all the reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. The establish-
ment of the feast of Corpus Christi by Pope Urban IV, in response to a
request from Juliana of Cornillon in 1266, represented a new move to cre-
ate a focus of community devotion around the Eucharist, as a living sign
of Christ’s presence in the Church. Only in the 14th century, however, did
the feast become widely celebrated and miracles reported that served to
accentuate the reality of divine presence in the Eucharist.
In this climate of heightened eucharistic piety, Gregory the Great
became perceived as the archetypal priest who lived out the sacrifice of
Christ through the celebration of the mass. A core theme of the Dialogues
was that celebration of the Mass could liberate a soul from punishment,
and create harmony between the visible and invisible worlds.92 This
aspect of his spirituality acquired particular importance in the late 14th
and 15th centuries in visual representations of Pope Gregory celebrating
Mass and experiencing a vision of the sorrowing Christ (Fig. 3). As Bynum
has argued, the “Mass of St. Gregory” was not intended to depict the doc-
trine of transubstantiation. Rather, its focus was penitential and soterio-
logical.93 It expands on a core theme of Gregory’s Dialogues: that, through
the sacrifice of the Mass, the penitent priest can glimpse an unseen reality,
namely the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The artist is thus able to evoke
the human suffering of Christ behind the liturgical action of Gregory as a
priest. While the doctrine of purgatory had become much more developed
than it had been at the time of Gregory the Great, its core theme, that
penitent souls had to purge themselves before being worthy of the divine
presence, was one that Gregory had helped establish. Only when reform-
ers like Luther urged a return to the Augustinian emphasis on God’s sav-
ing grace would Gregory’s teaching about the power of the prayers of the
saints fall into disfavour.
While Gregory the Great generated some stories (such as that told by
John the Deacon about his admiration for the Emperor Trajan), another
tradition started to circulate in the 12th century, equally unfounded, that

92 Dial. 4.47–60 (SC 265:188–202); see Straw, Gregory the Great. Perfection in Imperfec-
tion, pp. 103–06.
93 Caroline Walker Bynum, “Seeing and Seeing Beyond: The Mass of St. Gregory in the
Fifteenth Century,” in The Mind’s Eye. Art and Theological Argument in the Middle Ages, eds
Jeffrey Hamburger and Anne-Marie Bouché (Princeton, 2006), pp. 204–40, esp. p. 216.
 the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west 339

he was responsible for destroying a whole library of pagan texts.94 John of

Salisbury reports a story in his Policraticus that Gregory’s love for Scrip-
ture was so great that he had delivered up the pagan library of the Pala-
tine to the flames.95 The story, widely repeated by Renaissance humanists,
may be connected to another, equally apocryphal, told in the 12th or 13th
century by Master Gregory in The Marvels of Rome about a vast bronze
image, thought to be of the sun god. Gregory tried unsuccessfully to
destroy it, after the destruction of other statues in Rome, but then placed
the surviving head and right hand in front of his palace, where it could
still be admired.96 This admirer of Classical Antiquity also claimed, when
introducing his account of a naked Venus, “more like a living creature than
a statue,” that Pope Gregory had destroyed almost all the marble statues
in Rome.97 In the mind of lovers of antiquity, Pope Gregory had effectively
become a symbol of ecclesiastical authority, critical of pagan culture.
Such attitudes, whether hostile or enthusiastic, were not based on
profound knowledge of Gregory’s writing. Nonetheless, they reveal the
way Gregory’s name had become synonymous by the later Middle Ages
with values of religious faith and piety far removed from those of clas-
sical antiquity. When sermons were no longer written in Latin, Gregory
no longer exercised the same influence as a preacher. In some ways, the
temper of the 16th century was more suited to rediscovering the philologi-
cal expertise of Jerome and the theological introspection of Augustine. Yet
Gregory’s writings, printed first in the late 15th century and then many
times subsequently, continued to attract attention.98 Gregory might no
longer have been the object of a devotional cult, but he would never be
forgotten.

94 Tilmann Buddensieg, “Gregory the Great, the Destroyer of Pagan Idols. The History
of a Medieval Legend Concerning the Decline of Ancient Art and Literature,” Journal of
the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965), 44–65. See further Ann Kuzdale’s chapter
infra.
95 John of Salisbury, Policraticus 2.26 (ed. K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, CCCM 118 [Turnhout,
1993], p. 146).
96 Magistri Gregorii De mirabilibus Urbis Romae 6, eds Valentini and Zucchetti, Codice
topografico, 3:150; Master Gregory, The Marvels of Rome, trans. John Osborne (Toronto,
1987), pp. 22–23, 48–51.
97 De mirabilibus 12, in Codice topografico (eds Valentini and Zucchetti, 3:153): “Nunc
vero pauca subiciam de signis marmoreis, quae paene omnes a beato Gregorio aut deletae
aut deturpatae sunt.” Trans. Osborne, pp. 12, 59–60.
98 The first collected edition of Gregory’s Opera was that of Bertholdus Rembolt (Paris,
1518), although many individual works had been published since the Pastoral Care in
Mainz, 1460. See Appendix at the end of Ann Kuzdale’s chapter, infra.
340 constant j. mews and claire renkin

Fig. 1 St. Gallen, “Gregory the Great,” from The Hartker Antiphonal, St. Gallen,
Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 390, p. 13, c.990–1000 [photo used with permission].

the legacy of gregory the great in the latin west

Fig. 2 Taddeo Gaddi, “The Supper in the House of the Pharisee,” detail from the Refectory, Santa Croce, Florence, c.1330–40
341

[photo used with permission].

342 constant j. mews and claire renkin

Fig. 3 Israhel van Meckenhem, “Mass of St. Gregory,” engraving, 1480–90.

London, British Museum [photo used with permission].
 Chapter fifteen

Gregory the Great in the Byzantine Tradition

Andrew Louth

Pope Gregory the Great seems in many ways to have been open to the
Greek East.1 He had, of course, spent several years in Constantinople as
papal apocrisiarius (579–585/6), though it is difficult to be clear about the
state of his Greek language skills.2 Furthermore, although he is deeply
indebted to Augustine, there seems another spirit in his thought and
writings that has been associated with the world of eastern monasticism.
Carole Straw, in her monograph on Gregory, early on remarks:3
This spirit of asceticism from the desert is always a silent partner in his
work, leading Gregory in new directions away from Augustine and the West-
ern Fathers. He will often exhibit striking similarities with others of his era
also steeped in eastern monasticism, such as Dorotheus of Gaza or John
Climacus. This monastic sensibility, the restless vision of the athlete’s battle
with the devil, left a deep impression on Gregory.
Straw also notes another feature of Gregory’s thought that aligns him with
eastern thinkers and distances him from Augustine, namely, his concern
for hierarchical order.4 Given this affinity between Gregory and the East,
it might be thought that Gregory would have been exceptionally welcome

1 See Lellia Cracco Ruggini, “Grégoire le grand et le monde byzantin,” in Grégoire le

grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al., pp. 83–94.
2 Joan M. Petersen, “Did Gregory the Great know Greek?” in The Orthodox Churches and
the West, ed. Derek Baker, Studies in Church History 13 (Oxford, 1976), pp. 121–34. Cracco
Ruggini, “Grégorie le grand,” takes Petersen’s conclusion for granted, that Gregory’s profes-
sion of ignorance of Greek was a humility topos. See further Joan M. Petersen, “Greek Influ-
ences upon Gregory the Great’s Exegesis of Luke 15.1–10 in Homelia in Euangelium II, 34,”
in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al., pp. 521–29. Petersen returned to this issue
still later in: “‘Homo omnino latinus?’ The Theological and Cultural Background of Pope
Gregory the Great,” Speculum 62 (1987), 529–51; cf. the Editors’ Preface to this volume, on
the extent of Gregory’s knowledge of Greek.
3 Carole Straw, Gregory the Great. Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley—Los Angeles—
London, 1988), p. 14. This influence/affinity has been explored in relation to the Dialogues
in Joan M. Petersen, The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in their Late Antique Cultural Back-
ground, Studies and Texts 69 (Toronto, 1984).
4 Straw, Gregory, p. 29 and n. 7. She mentions the eastern writers Dionysius the Are-
opagite, Maximus the Confessor and John Climacus.
344 andrew louth

in the Greek East. This is true, but tracing his influence in detail is no
easy task.
This is partly because Gregory is exceptional in having any influence in
the East at all. The Byzantine Greeks, probably from an inherited sense of
cultural superiority, displayed very little interest in the Latins. It is only
at the very end of the Byzantine era—from the close of the 13th century
onwards—that there is any volume of translation from Latin into Greek.
Then, initially under pressure from Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologus, trans-
lations were made from Latin to facilitate the coming together of minds
necessary if the union between the Churches of East and West, fleetingly
glimpsed at the Council of Lyon in 1274, were to become any kind of
reality. Maximus (Manuel, before his tonsure) Planoudis made a transla-
tion of Augustine’s De trinitate around 1280, following this with a trans-
lation of Boethius’ De consolatione philosophiae (c.1295)—as well as
translations of Ovid. In the following century, several Latin theological
works were made available in Greek translation (notably Thomas Aqui-
nas’ Summa contra gentiles and parts of his Summa theologiae).5 This,
however, was a new phenomenon in Byzantium, triggered by the need
for political support from the West, only available at the cost of theo-
logical union. Gregory is an exception to this neglect (and disdain) by the
West. Already in his lifetime (c.602), Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, had
translated Regula pastoralis into Greek; alas, it is lost, so one can say little
about its influence.6 One of Gregory’s successors, Zacharias (741–52), the
last of the “Greek popes”, made a translation of his Dialogues into Greek,
a work that became very popular in the Greek East, earning for its author
the title ho dialogos, “the writer of the Dialogues”.7 Nevertheless, although
the popularity of this work is an index of its widespread influence, this
influence is hard to trace in detail, precisely because of the affinity with
Byzantine ascetic literature that led to its being translated.

5 See, for example, Elizabeth Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate, the Art of Translation and
the Beholder’s Share,” in Orthodox Readings of Augustine, eds Aristotle Papanikolaou and
George E. Demacopoulus (Crestwood NY, 2008), pp. 41–61.
6 Reg. 12.6 (CCSL 140A:976). On this translation and that in the note below, see further
Rita Lizzi, “La traduzione greca delle opere di Gregorio Magno dalla Regula Pastoralis ai
Dialogi,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo (Rome, 1991), 2:41–57.
7 Zacharias’ Greek Version of the Dialogues is printed in parallel with the Latin text in
PL 77:147–432. A critical addition of the second dialogue can be found in Gianpaolo Rigotti,
ed., Vita di s. Benedetto nella versione greca di papa Zaccaria, Hellenica: Testi e strumenti di
letteratura greca antica, medievale e umanistica 8 (Alessandria, 2001). See also Gianpaolo
Rigotti, “Gregorio il dialogo nel mondo bizantino,” in L’eredità spirituale di Gregorio Magno
tra Occidente e Oriente, ed. Guido Innocenzo Gargano (Verona, 2005), pp. 271–92.
 gregory the great in the byzantine tradition 345

Gregory the Great and John Climacus?

There are, however, a couple of other possible signs of Gregory’s influence

in the East, which it will be useful to discuss first, even though nothing
very conclusive will emerge. We have already seen Carole Straw mention-
ing John Climacus as one with whom Gregory exhibits “striking similari-
ties”. There is a letter from Gregory to a John, abbot of Sinai, who has
sometimes been identified with Climacus.8 It is generally regarded as
unlikely,9 but in any case the letter reveals nothing about the relation-
ship between the two men. However, at the beginning of Step 22, “On
vainglory,” of the Scala paradisi, Climacus remarks:
Some would hold that vainglory is to be distinguished from pride, and so
they give it a special place and chapter. Hence their claim that there are
eight thoughts of wickedness (tous tês kakias logismous). But against this
is the view of Gregory the Theologian and other teachers that in fact the
number is seven. I also hold this view.10
There is, as many have remarked, no evidence that Gregory Nazianzus,
known as “the Theologian”, held that there were seven principal thoughts
(or indeed considered the issue at all).11 Gregory the Great did,12 however,
and it has been suggested that it is the pope to whom Climacus is refer-
ring here, theologos in the text being a mistake for dialogos. Metropolitan
Kallistos remarks that although Gregory believed there were seven prin-
cipal vices, they are not the same seven as Climacus believed there were.
Gregory regards pride as the “root of evil”, the source of the other seven
principalia vitia (in comparison with Evagrius’ traditional list, inserting
envy and dropping akêdia, or assimilating it to tristitia), whereas John
assimilates pride and vainglory (though in practice his listing of the prin-
cipal evil thoughts is not as simple as that).13 But Climacus does not claim

8 Ep. 1.2, dated Sept. 600 (CCSL 140A:860).

9 According to Pierre Minard, “ne peut guère être saint Jean Climaque”: introduction to
Grégoire le grand, Registre des Lettres, tome 1*, ed. Pierre Minard, SC 370:33.
10 John Climacus, Klimax 22 (21).1 (PG 88:948–49): Tines men idiairetôi taxei kai logôi tên
kenodoxeian para tên hyperêfanian filousin horizein; hothen kai oktô tous tês kakias logis-
mous prôteuontas kai epitropous legousin einai. Ho de theologos Grêgorios, kai heteroi epta
palin toutous exedôkan; hois egôge malista syntithesthai peithomai. Trans. (modified) from
John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, trans. Colm Luibheid and Norman Russell,
with an introduction by Kallistos Ware (London, 1982), p. 201.
11 For example, Norman Russell (Ladder, p. 201, n. 81) and Kallistos Ware (Ladder, p.
64, n. 246).
12 See Gregory the Great, Mor. 31.45.87 (CCSL 143B:1610).
13 See Ware, Ladder, pp. 64­–6.
346 andrew louth

that “Gregory” has the same list, just that he has seven, which is true of
Pope Gregory. Could John Climacus have been referring to Gregory the
Great here? If so, he would be an early witness (maybe even a very early
witness)14 to Gregory’s influence in the East. Climacus himself, however,
can hardly have written ho de dialogos Grêgorios, as is suggested by those
who want to see the pope referred to here, for the title ho dialogos must be
later than Pope Zacharias’ translation (mid-8th century), which made the
Dialogi the one work in the East by which Pope Gregory was known. Per-
haps Climacus simply wrote ho de Grêgorios, and a later scribe provided
the epithet, in which case it is much more likely that he added theologos,
far and away the best-known Gregory in the Byzantine world. I think we
can forget the conjecture that theologos is a “correction” of dialogos. Nev-
ertheless, John Climacus may have been referring to the pope, though it
seems unlikely.

The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts

The other apparent index of Gregory the Great’s influence in the East is
the fact that the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is ascribed to “St Gregory
ho dialogos, pope of Rome”. However, the tradition of ascribing the Pre-
sanctified Liturgy to Gregory seems only to have become established in
early modern times; indeed, it is only in printed editions of the liturgical
texts that there can be said to be a tradition.15 Ascription of the Presancti-
fied Liturgy to Gregory in surviving manuscripts is rare and quite late: the
earliest manuscripts are from the 15th century. It looks as if the tradition
in printed texts is due to the chance that it was a manuscript with the rare
ascription to Gregory that formed the basis of early printed editions. There
is no ancient tradition of such ascription; manuscripts generally have no
attribution, though a few ascribe the Presanctified Liturgy to Germanus,
and even fewer to Epiphanius.16 There remains the question as to why the

14 On the vexed question of John Climacus’ chronology, see John Chryssavgis, John Cli-
macus. From the Egyptian Desert to the Sinaite Mountain (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 42–44.
15 And it is a tradition that has been allowed to vanish. Three modern Greek hieratika I
have consulted omit any mention of Gregory the Great, even in the final blessing, which is
written out in full, making clear the omission of any mention of Gregory ho dialogos, pope
of Rome. The Russians seem more conservative: although there is no mention of Gregory
in the title of the liturgy, he is included in the saints mentioned in the final blessing in the
sluzhebnik issued in 1996.
16 See the table in Stefanos Alexopoulos, The Presanctified Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite,
Liturgia Condenda 21 (Leuven, 2009), p. 52.
 gregory the great in the byzantine tradition 347

Liturgy of the Presanctified ever came to be attributed to Pope Gregory. In

a recent book on the Liturgy of the Presanctified, Stefanos Alexopoulos has
suggested that the answer might lie in the disputes between the Greeks
and the Latins over the liturgical nature of weekdays in Lent. Here we
find one of the most striking differences between Greek and Latin liturgi-
cal custom: weekdays in Lent for the Greeks are aliturgical, that is, no full
celebration of the liturgy with consecration of the elements is permitted;
for the Latins, in contrast, provision is made for a full liturgy, including a
special epistle and gospel, for each weekday during Lent. For the Latins,
that is, daily celebration of the Eucharist is enjoined during Lent, whereas
for the Greeks it is forbidden on weekdays and replaced by the Presancti-
fied Liturgy, nowadays on Wednesdays and Fridays,17 though canon 52 of
the Synod in Trullo decreed that the Liturgy of the Presanctified was to be
celebrated every weekday during Lent.18 In the course of these disputes,
Alexopoulos suggests, it was noticed that a Liturgy of the Presanctified
occurs in two late “Gregorian” sacramentaries, assumed to be by Gregory
the Great, referred to in the controversies with the Greeks as “Gregory
ho dialogos”. Furthermore, a medieval commentary on the Ordo Romanus
asserts that the Presanctified Liturgy was in use in Rome by the time of
Gregory the Great. Given these facts it is plausible that ascription of the
Liturgy of the Presanctified to Gregory was bound up with justifying the
Byzantine practice of celebrating the Liturgy of the Presanctified on week-
days during Lent.19

Transmission of the Dialogi

That leaves us with the Greek translation of Gregory the Great’s Dia-
logi, made by Pope Zacharias in the first half of the 8th century.20 As we
have seen, this became so popular that Gregory acquired the nickname

17  The history of the days on which the Liturgy of the Presanctified has been celebrated
in the Byzantine rite is complex: see Alexopoulos, Presanctified Liturgy, pp. 58–80.
18 Canon 52, in The Council in Trullo Revisited, eds George Nedungatt and Michael
Featherstone, Kanonika 6 (Rome, 1995), p. 133.
19 For more on this highly plausible argument, see Alexopoulos, Presanctified Liturgy,
pp. 53–5.
20 On Pope Zacharias, see Andrew J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes:
Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, 590–752
A.D. (Lanham, MD, 2007), especially the epilogue, pp. 298–303. Some version of Zacharias’
Greek translation is printed in parallel columns to the Latin text in Migne (PL 77:147–430,
including Zacharias’ translation of the anonymous preface).
348 andrew louth

ho dialogos.21 Pope Zacharias’ translation was regarded as sufficiently sig-

nificant for it to be recorded as the last item (save for the record of his ordi-
nations) in his entry in the Liber Pontificalis.22 It is possible, as Raymond
Davis suggests in a note to his translation, that the wording (“enlightened
many who do not know how to read Latin”) implies that the translation
was primarily made for Greek monasteries in Rome and Italy, but it seems
to have soon circulated widely in the East. The earliest evidence for the
availability of Gregory’s Dialogi in Byzantium is found, about a century
after their translation, in Photius’ collection of book reviews, called Bib-
liotheca (“The Library”).23 Photius does not exactly review the Dialogi
themselves—his entry is on extracts from a Greek vita of Gregory—
but he immediately mentions Gregory’s “four dialogues most profitable
for living” (biophelestatous tessaras dialogous). From the Greek vita he is
commenting on, he relates two stories. In the first, Gregory is approached
three times in the same day by a beggar, and three times Gregory gives
him the same generous sum. In the second, Gregory is giving a meal to
twelve poor men, but it seems that there are thirteen, the thirteenth being
different from the others. When Gregory approaches him, the thirteenth
poor man reveals himself to be the beggar of the first story, who is in real-
ity an angel; because of Gregory’s generosity, he has been deputed by God
to look after the pope. Photius also remarks that Gregory had composed in
Latin many works profitable for the soul (psychôpheleis), including homi-
lies on the gospel, that he had “laboured to gather together remarkable
lives of people in Italy that taught the way to salvation in four dialogues”,
and that Zacharias had translated not only Gregory’s Dialogi, but other
valuable works. Alas, there is no trace of these.24

21 About twenty-five years ago, Francis Clark raised doubts about the authenticity
of the Dialogues (Francis Clark, The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues, 2 vols, [Leiden, 1987]).
Clark’s doubts have not been widely accepted, and I follow the consensus. See the discus-
sion of Lake in his chapter supra.
22 LP (ed. Louis Duchesne [Paris, 1886], 1:435); trans. Raymond Davis, The Lives of the
Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis). The Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from AD 715
to AD 817, Translated Texts for Historians 13 (Liverpool, 1992), p. 50.
23 Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 252 (ed. René Henry, Photius: Bibliothèque [Paris, 1974],
pp. 207–9).
24 Photius is oddly precise about the date of the translation of the Dialogi, saying that
“for 165 years only those who used the language of the Romans could profit from his
labours”, which implies that Photius thought the Dialogi had been composed by Gregory
in 587 at the latest; the scholarly consensus is 593/4: see Patrologia 4, I Padri latini (secoli
V–VIII), ed. Angelo Di Berardino (Genoa, 1996), pp. 166–7.
 gregory the great in the byzantine tradition 349

“Most profitable for living” and “profitable for the soul”: the Dialogi
(and indeed what we know of the Greek vita of St. Gregory from Photius)
belong to the genre of “tales profitable for the soul” (diêgêseis psychôph-
eleis), or “spiritually beneficial tales”, as John Wortley has it, a scholar who
has devoted much of his time to studying and translating works in this
genre.25 It was an immensely popular genre, both in the East and in the
West, early examples including Palladius’ Historia Lausiaca and the Histo-
ria monachorum in Aegypto, as well as John Moschus’ Pratum spirituale; a
later example is found in the Spiritually Beneficial Tales of Paul, Bishop of
Monemvasia (10th-century). Such works contain the raw materials for the
fully-fledged saint’s vita.
Gregory’s Dialogi are more than a collection of “tales profitable for the
soul”.26 Such a description fits well Books 1 and 3 of the Dialogi, which
gather together stories, mostly miraculous, from 6th-century Italy. Book 3
contains two groups of stories that are a little different: some stories about
the martyrdom of Christians by the pagan Lombards, who invaded Italy
in the 6th century (Dial. 3.27, 28, 31); and other stories in which the mira-
cles are used as evidence of the truth of Orthodoxy over against Arianism
(Dial. 3.29, 30, 32).27 There is also a chapter devoted to the different forms
of compunction, illustrated by an allegorical interpretation of a story from
the Old Testament (Dial. 3.34). Books 2 and 4 are rather different: Book 2
is in effect a life of the great monk St. Benedict, while Book 4 is more like
a real dialogue on death and the afterlife, dealing with problems such as
the nature of the soul, how the soul departs from the body at death, the
nature of hell and its fires (and purgatorial fire), the power of intercession
and especially of the Eucharistic sacrifice.28
In another respect, Gregory’s Dialogi differ from “tales profitable for
the soul”, for they are, as the title indicates, dialogues: dialogues in which
Gregory is in conversation with one of his deacons, named Peter.29 This

25 See, especially, his “Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell in Byzantine ‘Beneficial
Tales’,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55 (2001), 53–69.
26 Ed. Adalbert de Vogüé with intro. and notes, trans. Paul Antin, SC 251, 260, 265 (Paris,
1978–80).
27 This polemical use of “tales profitable for the soul” was already well-established
in the wake of the Council of Chalcedon, in the context of the controversy between the
Orthodox and those they called “monophysites”: on the monophysite side, see John Rufus’
Plêrophoriai (“Assurances”) (ed. François Nau, Patrologia Orientalia 8.1 [Paris, 1912]), and
on the Orthodox side, John Moschos’ Pratum spirituale (PG 87C:2852–3112).
28 For more detail, see Petersen, Dialogues.
29 The use of the genre of dialogue in a hagiographical context was already well-estab-
lished: cf. Sulpicius Severus’ Dialogi libri II de vita sancti Martini, which may well have
350 andrew louth

enables Gregory to draw out the point of the tales he tells, and—especially
in the final book—to discuss various problems concerning the afterlife.
The very affinity with the tradition of “tales profitable for the soul” that
led to the translation of the Dialogi by Pope Zacharias makes it difficult
to trace their influence in the Byzantine world. For the most part, Greg-
ory simply provides one further source of these much-loved tales, and his
contribution is thus fairly indistinguishable. One area in which Gregory’s
tales were to have a significant influence on the Byzantine mind was the
nature of the afterlife, both how to interpret the imagery used to depict
it, and also what kind of relations held between this world and the next.30
However, there is one work that draws on Gregory’s Dialogi through sub-
stantial quotations, and thus gives us the chance to see in some detail the
nature of the influence of Gregory’s Dialogi on the Byzantine mind. That
work is the massive compilation of material on the nature and problems
of the monastic life, the Synagôgê of Paul Evergetinus, the founder of the
Constantinopolitan monastery of the “Beneficent Mother of God” (Theot-
okos evergetis).31

Paul Evergetinus’ Synagôgê

Paul’s Synagôgê, or Evergetinon, was a very popular book in the Byzan-

tine world, to judge from the number of manuscripts that survive,32 so I
think we can take it as a fairly reliable index of the influence of Gregory’s
Dialogi in the Byzantine world, especially among monastics (though it is
possible, even likely, that its readership was not confined to monks). It is
a huge work in four books, each of which treats fifty hypotheses or topics

influenced Gregory (CSEL 1:152–216), and in the East, Palladius’ Dialogus de vita sancti
Johannis Chrysostomi (SC 341).
30 See Jane Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium. Celestial Journey and Local Community
in the Medieval Greek Apocrypha (Cambridge, 2007), esp. pp. 137–44; eadem, “Last Things,”
in The Cambridge History of Christianity, 3. Early Medieval Christianities, c.600–c.1100 (Cam-
bridge, 2008), pp. 606–24.
31 On the monastery of the Theotokos evergetis, see Margaret Mullett and Anthony
Kirby (eds), The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism, Belfast Byzantine
Texts and Translations 6, vol. 1 (Belfast, 1994), and eidem, Work and Worship at the Theot-
okos Evergetis, Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 6, vol. 2 (Belfast, 1997); and more
briefly, my Greek East and Latin West: the Church ad 681–1071 (Crestwood NY, 2007), pp.
281–85.
32 68 known: see John Wortley, “The Genre and Sources of the Synagoge,” in The The-
otokos Evergetis, eds Mullett and Kirby, pp. 306–24, here 306. I have used the edition by
Matthew Laggis: Evergetinos itoi Synagogi, with a modern Greek translation, 4 vols, 6th ed.
(Athens, 1992–93).
 gregory the great in the byzantine tradition 351

by compiling a catena of (often quite substantial) extracts from a variety

of sources: the Gerontikon (“Sayings of the Desert Fathers”), Ephrem the
Syrian (in reality the “Greek” Ephrem), Isaias of Scetis, Mark the Hermit,
Maximus the Confessor, Palladius, Gregory ho dialogos, Isaac the Syrian,
Diadochus of Photikê, Barsanouphius of Gaza, Antiochus author of the
Pandects, the Life of Synklêtiki, in diminishing frequency of citation, and
various other sources cited only a few times.33 The Synagôgê is, then, a
florilegium, a popular genre in Byzantine theological literature. It can be
compared with other, similarly monastic works, such as the 7th-century
Pandects of Antiochus (from whom he draws) and the 8th-century Hiera,
attributed (probably correctly) to John of Damascus, called in western
manuscripts the Sacra parallela. The range and frequency of sources cited
holds few surprises: the Gerontikon is the most popular by a long way
(217 citations); the next most frequent is Ephrem with 111 citations; Greg-
ory’s Dialogues occupies a median position, along with Maximus the Con-
fessor, Palladius, and Isaac the Syrian, all with citations in the 40s.
The four books of the Synagôgê deal with the monastic life in a progres-
sive way. The first book relates to the practical aspects of withdrawal from
the world; the second of issues relating to life in community—psalmody,
work, care of the goods of the monastery—and includes a chapter on self-
love (philautia), the remedy for which is found in the demands of life
in community. Book 3 is concerned with making the virtues one’s own,
with issues such as behaviour under temptation, the constant need for
grace, and the importance of conscience as God’s gift—that peculiarly
monastic temptation, accidie or listlessness, is also discussed. The final
book deals with the aim of the monastic life, union with God, and so dis-
cusses tranquillity (hesychia), love of God, dereliction, unceasing prayer,
lectio divina, and also topics such as intellect (nous), contemplation (theo-
ria), grace, theology, and dispassion (apatheia). There are no surprises
here, either, which presumably accounts for its widespread popularity.
What little literature there is on the Synagôgê generally seeks to com-
pare Paul Evergetinus with Symeon the New Theologian, who belonged
to the immediately preceding generation (Symeon’s dates are probably
949–1022; Paul died in 1054), and finds in Paul a more conservative and
sober monastic teacher.34

33 See Wortley, “The Genre,” 314.

34 See the excellent brief article by Gregory Collins, “A Neglected Manual of the Spiri-
tual Life: the Synagoge of Paul Evergetinos,” Sobornost/incorporating Eastern Churches
Review 12:1 (1990), 47–51, on which I have based this paragraph.
352 andrew louth

The quotations from Gregory’s Dialogues are spread fairly evenly

over the four books of the Synagôgê,35 though such even usage is true of
most of the sources Paul uses at all regularly. There is also a quotation
from the Greek Bios of St. Gregory: oddly the very same passage that Pho-
tius cites in the Bibliotheca (comparison reveals that it has been very con-
siderably abbreviated in Photius’ telling of the story).36 If we look at the
topics for which Paul Evergetinus turns to Gregory for citations, we may
say that the largest group concern matters monastic (about twenty-five),
and within that group there is a large subgroup concerned with author-
ity, while the next largest group concerns death, dreams, and the afterlife;
otherwise, it seems to be odd issues for which Paul turns to Gregory—
liturgical music, providence, the value of pilgrimage.
To gain a precise picture of how Paul uses Gregory the Great in his pre-
sentation of the monastic life, it is necessary first to trace in some detail
how Paul understands the development of the monastic life. The Synagôgê
is such a huge work that, for this paper, we shall confine our attention to
Book 1. As one reads through the list of hypotheses, it quickly becomes
apparent that we are not dealing here, as in some florilegia, with a ran-
dom collection of points to be considered: there is a very clear structure
behind Paul’s marshalling of his authorities. He begins by emphasizing
the fundamental role of repentance (1.1–4); this leads naturally to thought
of death and final judgment, and the joys of heaven (1.5–6). Consider-
ation of the last things leads to a group of hypotheses on death and what
happens when the soul is separated from the body (1.7–11). Thought of
departure from this life recalls our entry into this life, and what we owe
to our parents (1.12), and this leads to a series of reflections on the central
monastic virtue of xeniteia, the state of being an alien in this world once
one has abandoned it (1.13–17). Such xeniteia must be uncompromised,
and issue in an equal love for those who are sharing such a life (1.16). This
leads to another fundamental virtue, that of submission, hypotagê (1.19 ff.),
which Paul pursues, balancing detachment from self and the world with
submission to the “fathers”, and in particular to one’s own spiritual father
(1.20, 21). To live in this state of detachment and submission, endurance
or patience (hypomonê) is necessary (1.28 ff.), and Paul speaks particularly
of the patience that is demanded of the monk whose spiritual father is
negligent or ignorant (1.33–39). Such patience manifests a belief and trust

35 12 in Book 1; 15 in Book 2; 7 in Book 3; 11 in Book 4.

36 Synagôgê 3.46.1 (ed. Laggis, 3:578–79).
 gregory the great in the byzantine tradition 353

in providence, in God who works everything for good for those who love
him (1.38, 43). Living such a life manifests itself in humility, the absolute
basis of the monks’ lives (1.44–8), which should be manifest in external
matters, too, such as what they wear (1.49). A final hypothesis underlines
the absolute necessity of detachment (1.50).
There is manifest here a clear and very traditional structure; it recalls
the underlying structure of John of Sinai’s Ladder of Divine Ascent. How,
then, does Paul draw on Gregory as he presents this picture of monastic
progress? Paul cites Gregory in ten of the hypotheses. They are:37

1.7 That frequently the souls of the virtuous are comforted in death by a
certain divine overshadowing, and so they are separated from the body.
1.8 Concerning those who depart and are again called back, that this
takes place in accordance with the divine economy; and that frequently
sinners, still breathing, behold the punishments of hell and tremble at the
demons; and that so they are separated from the body.
1.9 Proof of how the souls of the dead depart, and of their state after
separation.
1.11 How like are ranked with like after death.
1.15 How it is necessary for those who have abandoned [the world] not
to mingle with their relatives according to the flesh or have any sympathy
for them.
1.22 That it is necessary to turn away from the way things turn out for
inattentive people and their troubles, and that alienation from worldly
matters is necessary for one who wants to be saved.
1.33 That it is necessary for the faithful [monk] to accept eagerly what
his spiritual father prescribes as fitting, even if it is grievous and arduous;
for the mercy of God is given for this goal, as are tribulations.
1.34 That it is necessary that those who are set over us in the Lord
should be obeyed until death, and that they are to be loved and feared.
1.35 That it is necessary to submit to those set over us in the Lord with
simplicity and to receive their judgments as from God without question-
ing, and not to review them or amend them, even if they do not appear
appropriate to the present moment.
1.39 That it is necessary for the faithful [monk] not to be bold in him-
self, but to believe, as through his own spiritual father, and be saved and
be capable of every good, and to ask for his prayers; for they are mighty.

37 Synagôgê 1 (ed. Laggis, vol. 1).

354 andrew louth

There are twelve citations from Gregory in all, for two of the hypotheses
(1. 8, 11) are supported by two citations each from the Dialogues. The first
six—half of them—concern the question of death (supporting hypotheses
1.7, 8, 9, 11); the next two concern detachment—from our earthly relatives
(1.15) and from the negligent and worldly (1.22); the last four are concerned
with the authority of the spiritual father (1.33, 34, 35, 39). Five of the first
six are from book 4 of the Dialogues, which we have already noted was a
valued source of information about the afterlife; the other is from Book 2,
the life of St. Benedict, and includes the account of Benedict’s foreseeing
his own death. The last four are concerned with spiritual authority, a topic
that, along with the afterlife, dominates Paul’s borrowings from Gregory
in general, as we have seen.

The Premonition of Death

Hypothesis 738 is concerned with the premonition of death, in the form

of a “certain divine overshadowing”, with which some of the virtuous are
comforted as death approaches. Apart from a long extract from Gregory,
there are also three other brief extracts: the account of the death of Anthi-
mus from Cyril of Scythopolis’ Vita of St. Sabas (Sabas 43); the account of
the heavenly liturgy Daniel the Stylite celebrated three days before his
death (Vita 96); and the story of Sisoes from the Gerontikon about how
St. Antony and other saints and angels came to fetch this “vessel of the
desert” at his death (Sisoes 14). The extract from Cyril of Scythopolis is
somewhat abridged; the others seem quite accurate transcriptions. These
three short extracts are prefaced by a long quotation from Gregory, con-
sisting of several stories from Book 4 of the Dialogi. The first tells of a
priest from the region of Nursia, who is visited by the apostles Peter and
Paul on the fortieth anniversary of his priesthood, and dies shortly after-
wards: the moral is explicit: “that it often happens to the just, that at their
death they have visions of saints who have gone before, so that they do
not fear the penal sentence of their death” (Dial. 4.12). Then a story is
told of Probus, bishop of Rieti, who is visited on his deathbed by the mar-
tyrs, St. Juvenal and St. Eleutherius (Dial. 4.13). Next there is the account
of Servulus, already told by Gregory in his homilies on the gospels,39 as

38 Synagôgê 1 (ed. Laggis, 1:102–19).

39 Gregory, HEv. 15.5. De Vogüé remarks that this is the first of nine stories in Book 4,
recycled from the Homilies (SC 265:60, n. 2).
 gregory the great in the byzantine tradition 355

he remarks, who, on his deathbed, hears heavenly music and, as his soul
departs, a wonderful fragrance is diffused (tanta fragrantia odoris—tosautê
osphrêsis euôdias) (Dial. 4.14). There follows the story of Redempta, also
taken from the Homilia in evangelia,40 whose death is presaged by a daz-
zling brightness, such that the hearts of those who perceive it are gripped
with an unspeakable fear, while just before her death, there is heard a
heavenly choir of men’s and women’s voices, singing psalms antiphonally
(Dial. 4.16). Another story from the Homilia is told41 about his aunt, Tar-
silla, who before her death was visited by Pope Felix, her relative, and
shown her dwelling place of light (mansio lucis), and who then, on her
deathbed, surrounded by her relations, has a vision of Christ (Dial. 4.17).
Paul then relates a story Gregory says he had heard from Probus, already
mentioned, about his little sister Musa, who had a vision of blessed Mary,
ever Virgin, surrounded by young girls. Musa wanted to join them but
dared not. Mary tells her that she can join them in thirty days if she lives
a sober and serious life. After twenty-five days, she succumbed to a fever,
and saw blessed Mary and her maidens again in a dream before she died
(Dial. 4.18).42 Paul omits a discussion about how, although newly baptized
babies go to heaven, those who can speak can commit sins that will carry
them to hell (Dial. 4.18.4–19.4),43 and continues with the next story, again
drawn from the Homilies on the Gospels, though expanded, about a priest
called Stephen (Dial. 4.20). Paul then records Gregory’s view that some-
times the fate of the just is not made known before death, but afterwards;
the best example being the power of the relics of the holy martyrs (Dial.
4.21). Having followed Gregory fairly closely through several chapters,44
Paul now jumps ahead in Book 4 to section 49 for his two final stories,
one about Antony45 who had the gift of tears and who, five days before
his death, has a dream telling him to get ready to migrate, at the Lord’s
command (Dial. 4.49.2–3), and the other about Merulus, given to tears
and almsgiving, and constant in psalmody, who has a vision of a crown

40 HEv. 40.11.
41 HEv. 38.15.
42 There is not a great deal in Gregory about devotion to Mary, but this small piece of
evidence brings to mind the legend that the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Extrema-
dura was a gift from Pope Gregory to his friend, Leander, bishop of Seville, the image itself
having arrived in Rome as a gift from Constantinople to ward off the plague that was
afflicting Rome at the time.
43 On the story of unbaptized babies, see below.
44 Dial. 4.12–15, 16–18, 20–21 = Synagôgê 1.7.1–8 (first paragraph).
45 Again with parallels in the homilies on the gospels: cf., HEv. 37.9.
356 andrew louth

of white flowers coming down from heaven to rest on his head. He dies
shortly afterwards. Fourteen years later, the prior of the monastery, Peter,
wants to build a proper tomb for Merulus, because of the fragrance of
such sweetness, like the scent of many flowers that emanated from his
relics (Dial. 4.49.4–5).
It is not difficult to see why Paul makes so much of Gregory on this
question of the premonition of death. The Greek accounts are terse and
compelling, but Gregory has story after story, illustrating the theme in dif-
ferent ways: visions of saints, angels, Christ, and the Virgin Mary, heavenly
music and sweet-smelling fragrance.

The Afterlife

Paul also makes use of the questions placed in Peter’s mouth in the Dia-
logi, as a way of bringing out significant points. In Hypothesis 11, both the
extracts from Gregory cited include one of Peter’s questions. This hypothesis
is about the ranking of souls in the afterlife. Paul begins with a composite
extract from Gregory: first, a discussion of the many mansions, promised
in the gospel (John 14:2), followed by a discussion of the separation of
the just from the sinners at the judgment in the light of Matt. 13:30 (Dial.
4.36.13–14). Paul then jumps to a later passage in Book 4, where Peter asks
if it will not be the case in the last days that much that has remained hid-
den about souls will be made manifest, to which Gregory replies that this
is indeed the case, and that as the age to come makes itself felt through
its closeness, more manifest signs will appear. Gregory goes on to speak,
in rather Augustinian terms, about our crepuscular knowledge yielding
before the rising of the sun (Dial. 4.43.1–2). The last extract in Hypothesis
11 is again from Gregory: the passage from Book 4 of the Dialogi, in fact
the passage omitted in the long extract in Syn. 1.7, already discussed. The
passage is introduced by Peter’s question, or rather his comment, that,
because of the many and immeasurable passions to which mankind is
subject, he assumes that most of those in the heavenly Jerusalem will be
babies and infants. Gregory rather chillingly replies that baptized babies
who die can be assured of a place in the heavenly kingdom, but that as
soon as they can speak they are capable of sins that will lead to their
damnation, illustrating this with a story (Dial. 4.18.4–19.4). Paul follows
Gregory in using Peter’s queries to introduce particular points of exegesis,
or in the last hypothesis, difficult and puzzling issues.
 gregory the great in the byzantine tradition 357

Spiritual Authority

The other main preoccupation in Synagôgê Book 1 for which Paul draws on
Gregory is the question of spiritual authority. In Hypothesis 33, he tells the
story from the beginning of the Dialogi about how Libertinus’ endurance
of the violence of his abbot brings the abbot himself to gentleness (Dial.
1.2.8–10); Paul places at the end of the story a comment that in Gregory’s
account introduces the story, thus giving it prominence as the moral of
the story: “I believe this power of endurance to be very much greater than
the signs and wonders that this great man did.” It is not necessary to go
through the rest. Suffice it to say that Paul finds in Gregory many stories
that reflect on the nature of submission to a spiritual father or superior,
even in paradoxical circumstances. This concern for submission to a supe-
rior recalls the interest in hierarchy, noted by Carole Straw above,46 as a
point of affinity with the Byzantine tradition, but the passages cited by
Paul are more concerned with spiritual authority, than the authority of
the clerical hierarchy.
From all this it is evident that Paul values the vividness of the stories
told by Gregory, and looks to him especially for guidance on the ever-
present problem of the afterlife, as well as the fundamental monastic ques-
tion of authority, where he finds plenty of support in Gregory for what
must seem nowadays a somewhat problematic view that it is submission,
obedience, that matters, even if the one to whom one submits is negligent
or incompetent.47 This view, however, is the prevailing view in the ascetic
literature of Byzantium. The vividness of Gregory’s stories is sometimes
dimmed in Paul’s telling, though whether this is the fault of Paul’s tran-
scription, which often modifies or condenses, or Zacharias’ translation, I
have not been able to verify. Furthermore, Paul treats Gregory’s text with
considerable freedom, often abbreviating, or skipping from one place to
another. For instance, over the question of whether there is forgiveness
after death (4.31), Paul begins with the five biblical quotations that he
found in Dial. 4. 41.1, which lay stress on acting now (John 12:35; Isa. 49:8;
2 Cor. 6:2; Eccles. 9:10; Ps. 117:1), and continues with a mention of “light and
little sins”, which Gregory says will be taken seriously after death, if not

46 See n. 4 above.
47 It is worth noting, perhaps, that it is often to Gregory that Paul turns first in giving
his list of exempla: twenty-seven times the citation from Gregory is placed first, so if there
is a citation from Gregory, it is very likely to head the list.
358 andrew louth

already expiated. Paul, however, says something quite different: that they
can be forgiven after death by “the prayers of the living, acts of mercy,
and the offering of sacred sacrifice”, which summarizes what Gregory
says later on, though I cannot find a precise parallel (cf. 4.57.2). Paul then
continues with a closely-followed passage from Dial. 4, in which Peter
questions Gregory over the fires of hell and the justice of eternal torment
(4.46.1–47. 2). It is probably not significant that Paul omits any mention of
purgatorial fire, beginning his selection with Gregory’s response to Peter’s
question about this issue (Dial. 4.40.13).

Conclusion

Gregory’s affinity with the spirituality of the Byzantine world made him
welcome there. His Dialogi became popular in Byzantium, first of all,
because they fitted so well with the genre of “tales profitable for the soul”,
already popular in Byzantine ascetic literature. His influence is further
found in certain specific areas where he had something distinctive to
contribute—notably, the afterlife and the relationship between this life
and the next, and the question of spiritual authority—which he expressed
largely in the form of vivid and memorable tales. To judge from Paul
Evergetinus’ use of Gregory in the Synagôgê, the Byzantine reception of
Gregory was selective, and perhaps tended to present him as more of a
Byzantine than he really was. It is, at any rate, hard to point to anything
specific in Byzantine spirituality that we can label “Gregorian”.
 Chapter sixteen

The Reception of Gregory in the Renaissance

and Reformation1

Ann Kuzdale

An unpublished chronicle of a monk at the Benedictine monastery of

Sts. Ulrich and Afra, in the diocese of Augsburg, may explain in part why
the works of Gregory the Great were important for some people in the
early modern period. The monk Witwer relates that Abbot Melchior,2
although dissuaded by all his friends, resolved in 1472 to set up a printing
press in the monastery itself to the glory of God and to the advancement
of the Catholic Church, and also, to increase the revenue of the monastery,
he insisted on having printed with metal type the Dialogues of Gregory on
morals in the vernacular. It was finished in 1473.
While Abbot Melchior’s may be the most pragmatic example, Gregory
the Great’s works continued to be sought after for many reasons by the
humanists of the Renaissance and the theologians of the Reformation era
as worthy of reading, worthy of study, and worthy of publishing.3
Gregory the Great (590–604) was a Doctor of the Church, an estab-
lished theological authority by the 9th century.4 Citations of all his works,

1 I wish to thank Drs. John King, James Bracken, and Mark Rankin for allowing me
to begin work on this project during an NEH 2009 Summer Seminar, “The History of the
Book,” as well as Drs. Dale Kinney and Birgitta Lindros Wohl for an earlier seminar oppor-
tunity, “The Marvels of Rome,” in 1999.
2 J. Pierpoint Morgan Library, New York: Morgan PML 130 (checklist F 311). Dialogorum
libri quattuor, ed. and trans. Johannes von Speyer (Augsburg, 1473 and 1476): “ob laudem
Dei et universalis Ecclesiae utilitatem nec non sui Monasterii rerum temporalium adcres-
centium, nisus est imprimere stanneis characteribus Dialogorum beati Gregorii in morali-
bus in vulgari qui finitus est 1473.”
3 See the Appendix below for a preliminary list of Latin editions of Gregory’s works. By
the 17th century most of Gregory’s works had been published in vernacular translations.
4 Before he was officially acknowledged as a Doctor as such by the Frankish Caro-
lingians, he was doctor egregius in 7th-century Spain. His works, the Moralia and the
Dialogues, appeared in Spain earlier than elsewhere in northern Europe and were used
extensively by 7th-century Spanish authors. J.N. Hillgarth, “Las Fuentes de San Julián de
Toledo,” Anales Toledanos, 3 (1971), 97–118, at 103–04, discusses the use of this title in the
6th and 7th-centuries. In England, the Anonymous author of the Whitby Life of Gregory
christened him “our Gregory” and “golden-mouthed,” (The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great
360 ann kuzdale

especially the Moralia in Iob, by major and minor authors of the early Mid-
dle Ages indicate an early and wide circulation.5 He influenced medieval
hagiography by his emphasis in the Dialogues on the living holy man and
the need to publicize miracles, most clearly shown in that work’s second
book, the Life of St. Benedict. His homilies, Pastoral Care, and his extant
correspondence, the Registrum, influenced ecclesiology, especially ideas
on conversion and the responsibility bishops and priests had for preach-
ing to souls in their care. In German monasteries, Gregory’s works made
up the core of monastic education while in the Low Countries, his pasto-
ral theology appealed to the followers of the devotio moderna.6 The list of
authors who were influenced by Gregory’s writings reads like a who’s who
of medieval spirituality. In medieval theological commentaries, Gregory
was ranked second to Augustine whose authority trumped that of all the
Latin fathers of the Church, but this never diminished the regard in which
Gregory was held and continued to be held into the modern period.7
Throughout the Middle Ages, stories or legends about Gregory’s life
and interpretations and interpolations about his thought found their way
into popular religious expression and art. The story of the scribe peeking
behind the curtain who sees Gregory dictating while a dove hovers nearby
was first mentioned in the Whitby Life of Gregory and can be found in
works of art from the 9th century onward. Gregory’s association with the
dove became as iconic as Jerome’s lion or Benedict’s crow.8 Gregory had
elaborated on the later Augustine’s views on apocalypticism and escha-
tology that saw a coalescence of the material and spirit worlds which

by an Anonymous Monk of Whitby, ed. and trans. Bertram Colgrave [Lawrence, KA, 1968],
p. 117); in Ireland he was “Gregory of the Moralia”: see Luned Mair Davies, “The ‘Mouth of
Gold’: Gregorian Texts in the Collectio Canonum hibernensis,” in Ireland and Europe in the
Early Middle Ages: Texts and Transmission, eds Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter
(Portland, OR, 2002), pp. 249–67 at 253.
5 Codices Latini Antiquiores; a Paleographical Guide to Latin Manuscripts Prior to the
Ninth Century, ed. Elias Avery Lowe, 11 vols (Oxford, 1934–66) and its Supplement, ed. Elias
Avery Lowe (Oxford, 1971), which indicates that the earliest fragments of Gregory’s works
date from the 7th century.
6 Johannes Schilling, “Luther und Gregor der Grosse,” in Auctoritas Patrum, Contribu-
tions on the Reception of the Church Fathers in the 15th and 16th Centuries, eds Lief Grane
et al., 2 vols (Mainz, 1993 and 1998), 1:175–84.
7 Since the 9th-century Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Gregory were acknowledged
as the Latin Doctors of the Church. Gregory was an established theological authority in
Spain and England before this.
8 The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great, ed. Colgrave, pp. 122–23. See also J. Croquison,
“Les origins de l’iconographie grégorienne,” Cahiers archéologiques 12 (1962), 249–62, at 262,
and Gerhart B. Ladner, Die Papstbildnisse des Altertums des Mittelaters (Vatican, 1941).
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 361

made conversion and penance, including the need for the soul’s purga-
tion before salvation, all the more urgent.9 In 13th-century France and
England, St. Gregory’s Trental, a year-long series of thirty masses said for
a soul in purgatory, developed into a popular devotion that continued
through the Reformation era in spite of official Church protest against it.10
In Spain, Gregory appeared in the legend of Our Lady of Guadalupe where
a herdsman, directed by the Virgin, found a statue of her that Gregory
had allegedly sent to Leander of Seville. The statue had lain buried and
undiscovered in the mountains near the Guadalupe River, hidden there
by priests in flight during the time of the Moorish invasions.11 The most
popular artistic representation of Gregory by the later Middle Ages was
“The Mass of St. Gregory,” a conflation of the legend of Gregory and the
doubting matron, and the appearance of Christ as “the Man of Sorrows” to
Gregory while he was saying Mass.12 The image was said to have inspired
Pope Gregory to grant an indulgence to all who said five Paternosters and
five Ave Marias before an image of the Man of Sorrows. This “Prayer of St.
Gregory” (Oratio sancti Gregorii) became an “indulgenced” picture popu-
lar in England.13 One of the first Christian religious images produced in

9 J.N. Hillgarth, “Eschatological and Political Concepts in the Seventh Century,” in

The Seventh Century: Change and Continuity, Proceedings of a Joint French and Brit-
ish Colloquium held at the Warburg Institute 8–9 July 1988, eds Jacques Fontaine and
J.N. Hillgarth (London, 1992), pp. 212–35. See further Baun’s chapter infra.
10 Richard W. Pfaff, “The English Devotion of St. Gregory’s Trental,” Speculum 49:1
(1974), 74–90; R.R. Atwell, “From Augustine to Gregory the Great: an Evaluation of the
Emergence of the Doctrine of Purgatory,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 38 (1987), 173–86;
Penny J. Cole, “Purgatory and Crusade in St. Gregory’s Trental,” The International History
Review 17: 4 (1995), 713–25; Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in
England 1400–1580 (New Haven, 1992), pp. 293–98 and 370–76.
11  William J. Christian, Jr., Apparitions in Late Medieval and Renaissance Spain (Prince­
ton, NJ, 1981), pp. 88–92.
12 The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great 20 (ed. Colgrave, pp. 105–09) tells the original
legend of Gregory saying Mass during which a woman in the congregation doubted that
the bread which she had baked really became the body of Christ; during the Mass a bloody
finger appeared on the altar to prove the real presence in the Eucharist. See also Michael
Heinlen, “An Early Image of a Mass of St. Gregory and Devotion to the Holy Blood at
Weingarten Abbey,” Gesta 37:1 (1998), 55–62. A detailed analysis and bibliography can be
found in Uwe Westfehling, Die Messe Gregors des Grossen, Vision–Kunst–Realität. Katalog
und Führer zu einer Ausstellung im Schnütgen-Museum der Stadt Köln (Cologne, 1982); the
most recent interpretation is Caroline Walker Bynum, “Seeing and Seeing Beyond: The
Mass of St. Gregory in the Fifteenth Century,” in The Mind’s Eye: Art and Theological Argu-
ment in the Middle Ages, eds Jeffrey F. Hamburger and Anne-Marie Bouché (Princeton,
2006), pp. 204–40.
13 Martha W. Driver, The Image in Print: Book Illustration in Late Medieval England and
its Sources (London, 2004), pp. 206–8. See also Christine Göttler, Last Things. Art and the
362 ann kuzdale

the Spanish New World was an Aztec “featherwork” of the Mass of St.
Gregory from 1539.14
By the 15th century all important monastic, university, royal, or private
library collections contained copies of Gregory’s works. Within ten years
of Gutenberg’s first Bible (1456), Gregory’s Pastoral Care and his Commen-
tary on the Canticle of Canticles were published; ten years after that came
the Moralia, Dialogues, and Homilies on the Gospels. By 1490, less than
forty years after the first Gutenberg Bible, all of Gregory’s major works
and even some wrongly attributed to him were in print.15
The earliest printed work of Gregory’s that I have identified is the 1460
Liber regula pastoralis, published in Mainz by Johann Fust and Peter
Schöffer.16 A few vernacular translations of Gregory’s works appeared in
print by the 1470s and 1480s, although it was not until the 1608 publication
of the Dialogues that any works of Gregory appeared in print in English.17
Collected works of Gregory in manuscript form, either written as such or
bound together for that function, existed in the Middle Ages, but the earli-
est printed opera omnia collection of his works is from Berthold Rembolt
in 1518 in Paris.18
The Augsburg text of Abbot Melchior’s published Dialogues men-
tioned above was one of the first German editions of Gregory’s works to
be printed. In addition to the admission that the Dialogues might be a
money-maker for the monastery, by combining several works together
thematically, this composite work reflects a continuity of the medieval
way of reading, one that focuses on subject rather than author, as James
Hankins has described.19 Abbot Melchior’s volume contained German

Religious Imagination in the Age of Reform (Turnhout, 2010), ch. 1, “Indulgenced Prints of
St. Gregory’s Miraculous Mass.”
14 Donna Pierce, Rogelio Ruiz Gomar, and Clara Bargellini, Painting a New World: Mexi-
can Art and Life, 1521–1821, exhibition catalogue, Denver Art Museum (Denver, 2004), pp.
94–102, describes this Mass of St. Gregory as a featherwork on wood from the School of San
José de los Naturales (Mexico) given to Pope Paul in thanks for his protection of Amerin-
dian rights. The original is now in Musée des Jacobins (Auch, France).
15 Works attributed to Gregory included De Conflictu vitiorum et virtutum (Utrecht,
1473) and the Expositio in VII psalmos poenitentiales (Mainz, 1495).
16 See Appendix below.
17 The Dialogues of S. Gregorie, surnamed the Greate: Pope of Rome, trans. Philip Wood-
ward (Paris [i.e. Douai], 1608). See also Mark Vessey, “English Translations of the Latin
Fathers, 1517–1611,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West from the Carolingians
to the Maurists, ed. Irena Backus, 2 vols (Boston—Leiden, 2001), 2:775–835.
18 See Appendix below. Lester K. Little, “Calvin’s Appreciation of Gregory the Great,”
Harvard Theological Review 56:2 (1963), 145–57, at 148.
19 Charles L. Stinger, “Italian Renaissance Learning and the Church Fathers,” in The
Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: from the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. Irena
Backus, 2 vols (Boston—Leiden, 2001), 1:473–507, at 474–75, cites James Hankins, Plato in
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 363

translations of the “Vision of Tondal,” the “Miraculous legend of Bishop

Fursey,” a miracle from the Speculum Mundi, the Ars moriendi, and an
extract from the Tractatus quattuor novissimorum.20 That the Dialogues
of Gregory was set within the context of vision or miracle literature and
two of the works in this 15th-century collection, the Life of Fursey and
the Vision of the Knight Tondal, drew heavily on Gregory’s Dialogues itself,
indicates how Gregory and his work were perceived.
Much groundwork has been laid by intellectual historians on the use
and influence of patristic authorities in the Renaissance and Reforma-
tion, although how best to measure this influence or even how to date
the Renaissance and Reformation is still debated.21 John Monfasani and
others caution that there is a distinction between those who truly knew or
used or were influenced by patristic authors and those who were merely
“compilers” or “respectful” of them.22 Yet recent contributions and collec-
tions continue to reveal substantial appreciation and understanding of
the Latin and Greek fathers, and Gregory in particular, by Renaissance
and Reformation readers.23

the Italian Renaissance, 2 vols (Leiden, 1990), 1:18–26, that the focus on subject, not author,
might best characterize the difference between the medieval and modern view of texts.
20 Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Early Printed Books from the Libraries of William
Morris, Richard Bennett, Bertram, Fourth Earl of Ashburnham, and Other Sources Now Form-
ing Portion of the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, 3 vols (London, 1907), 1:114.
21 Paul Oskar Kristeller, Renaissance Thought. The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist
Strains (rev. edn New York, 1961), p. 70. Kristeller reminds us that the Renaissance was not
as great a break in thought as many 19th-century scholars had thought. For the purposes
of this article I will follow the traditional dating of the Renaissance from the late 14th into
the 16th century. This overlaps with the Reformation era.
22 John Monfasani, “Renaissance Humanism” in Augustine through the Ages: an Ency-
clopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids, MI—Cambridge, 1999), pp. 713–16, at 714,
distinguishes between Bessarion who collected and recorded Augustine’s passages on Pla-
tonism as an authority, and Marsilio Ficino who acknowledged and quoted Augustine and
whose style and doctrines clearly came from Augustine.
23 For the broadest surveys of this discussion, see Backus, The Reception of the Church
Fathers; Lief Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt (eds), Auctoritas Patrum. Contri-
butions on the Reception of the Church Fathers in the 15th and 16th Centuries, 2 vols (Mainz,
1993 and 1998). See also Charles L. Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers: Ambrogio
Traversari (1386–1439) and Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance (Albany, 1977); idem,
“Greek Patristics and Christian Antiquity in Renaissance Rome,” in Rome in the Renais-
sance: the City and the Myth, Papers of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Center for
Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, ed. Paul A. Ramsay (Binghamton, NY, 1982), pp.
153–69; Mark Vessey, “Cities of the Mind: Renaissance Views of Early Christian Culture and
the End of Antiquity,” in A Companion to Late Antiquity, ed. Philip Rousseau (Chichester,
2009), pp. 45–58. These works belong alongside earlier studies by Paul Oskar Kristeller,
“The Contribution of Religious Orders to Renaissance Thought and Learning,” Ameri-
can Benedictine Review 21 (1970), 1–55, and Giles Constable, “Petrarch and Monasticism,”
364 ann kuzdale

This chapter is less a literary survey of the use and influence of

Gregory’s works than it is about the perception of Gregory in the early
modern period by humanists, reformers, popes, and artists that led them
to construct conflicting “Gregories”. In both the Renaissance and the Ref-
ormation, new questions that challenged Christian unity—the signifi-
cance of Rome, patristic authority, the saints, miracles, the Mass, as well
as the nature and role of the papacy itself—affected the status of Gregory
as an authority or doctor of the Church. The major figures of the Renais-
sance and Reformation had a complex and often contradictory relation-
ship with Gregory the Great.

Renaissance Florence

Renaissance Christian humanism, as it was developed in Florence by

Petrarch (1304–74) and his circle, stressed classical learning, the arts of
discourse (grammar and rhetoric), along with Christian piety and moral
philosophy.24 Petrarch and later Coluccio Salutati (1331–1406), the Flo-
rentine chancellor, and Ambrogio Traversari (1338–1439), the humanist
monk of S. Maria degli Angeli in Florence, were more than admirers of the
Church fathers. They saw them, in Traversari’s words, “as architects of the
institutional church, as writers wise and eloquent . . . as beloved friends,”
whose works were integral to the literary heritage of the Church, and they
encouraged the translation and edition of accurate texts of the Greek and
Latin fathers.25
Salutati articulated a statement of the humanist programme in his
debates with Giovanni da Sanminiato (1360–1428), another monk of S.
Maria degli Angeli, and the Dominican Giovanni Dominici (1357–1419),
who had directly attacked classical studies as unnecessary for the develop-
ment of faith and a programme of study unsuitable for the young.26 Salu-
tati countered with St. Basil’s argument that the study of classics trained
the intellect and inculcated virtues which were essential to preparing the
mind and soul to comprehend the deeper mysteries of Holy Scriptures.

in Francesco Petrarca: Citizen of the World, Proceedings of the World Petrarch Congress
(Washington DC, April 6–13, 1974), Studi sul Petrarca 8 (Padua, 1980), pp. 53–99.
24 Stinger, Humanism, p. 97. See also Charles Trinkhaus, “Humanist Treatises on the Sta-
tus of the Religious: Petrarch, Salutati, Valla,” Studies in the Renaissance 11 (1964), 7–45.
25 Paul Gehl, “Florentine Humanism and the Church Fathers,” Newberry Library Exhibi-
tion, April–July 2000 programme notes (Chicago, 2000).
26 Stinger, Humanism, p. 11.
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 365

“The studia humanitatis and the studia divinitatis are so connected that
true and complete knowledge of one cannot be had without the other.”27
The fathers of the Church, like the ancient pagan authors, were classics
but Christian classics, whose works should be translated and dissemi-
nated. Giovanni da Sanminiato himself was not untouched by the impulse
to make patristic works accessible, and completed an Italian translation of
Gregory’s Moralia that Zanobi da Strada began in the 1350s.28
These 14th-century debates reflected the humanist and scholastic
divide. The humanists looked to the fathers for their eloquence and emo-
tion in contrast to what they perceived as an arid emphasis on logic by
scholastic theologians. Augustine retained pride of place as the leading
authority among the Latin fathers, but Jerome, Gregory, Ambrose, Origen
and the Greek fathers, Basil, John Chrysostom, and Gregory Nazianzen
were equally revered. References to Gregory’s Moralia appear in Salutati’s
De seculo et religione and there are many references to Gregory from Paul
the Deacon’s Vita Gregorii in Salutati’s letters.29 Lorenzo Valla (1406–57)
spoke to the eloquence of the early Church fathers as if they were “playing
a perpetual symphony before God . . . Basil and Ambrose sound the lyre,
Gregory Nazianzen and Jerome the cithara, Chrysostom and Augustine
the lute, Dionysius and Gregory the Great, the flute,” in contrast to the
scholastics, “John of Damascus and St. Thomas [who] clash cymbals”.30
Salutati in his debate with Dominici had earlier noted that the two most
poetic books of the Bible, the Canticle of Canticles and the Book of Job,
were the ones upon which Gregory had commented, thus attesting to
Gregory’s own eloquence.31
Extant library inventories from private lists, monasteries, and royal
inventories reveal what fathers were collected and read. Pearl Kibre notes

27 Stinger, Humanism, pp. 11–12. Vessey, “Cities of the Mind,” p. 51, cautions against the
idea that humanists tried to “reconstitute ancient Christian culture”.
28 Stinger, Humanism, p. 13.
29 Coluccio Salutati, De seculo et religione, ed. B.L. Ullman (Florence, 1957); Epistolario
di Coluccio Salutati, ed. Francesco Novati (Rome, 1891–1905); and De fato et fortuna, ed.
Concetta Bianca (Florence, 1985).
30 Stinger, Humanism, pp. 59–60.
31 Ibid., p. 9, cites Salutati, Epistolario (ed. Novati, 3:290), “Is it possible that anyone can
be considered so foolish and senile, so deceived by false opinion as to condemn the poets
with whose words Jerome overflows, Augustine glistens, and Ambrose blossoms? Gregory
and Bernard are not devoid of them, and on them the vessel of election himself (St. Paul)
did not consider it foolish to rely.” In the same place Stinger quotes Petrarch: “[W]hoever
condemns the nature of poetry condemns Scripture itself which uses the figural and alle-
gorical language of the poets.”
366 ann kuzdale

that “in most libraries there were copies of the Dialogues and Homilies of
Gregory the Great.”32 The future pope Nicholas V, Tommaso Parentucelli,
while employed as the household manager to the bishop of Bologna, was
asked to prepare a bibliographical canon to be used in buying manuscripts
for Cosimo de’Medici’s library in the monastery of San Marco in Florence.33
The only extant copy of Nicholas’ list is a 1463 copy which includes Grego-
ry’s Moralia, Dialogues, Pastoral Care, Homilies “ad populum,” and the Reg-
istrum. 34 Ullman notes the significance of this copy because it “represents
the Florentine humanists’ idea of a collection assembled not for one per-
son, but for general use”.35 Cosimo de’Medici (1389–1464) himself is said
to have spent six months reading the Moralia of St. Gregory.36 Traversari,
writing to Niccolò Niccoli in 1424, noted that Lorenzo de’Medici, Cosimo’s
brother, had likewise taken up Gregory:37
I am extremely pleased with our Lorenzo’s ardent study of sacred letters.
That he has read avidly the Moralia of St. Gregory, and admired it highly, is
in my judgement an indication of a good and sound taste . . .
Certain humanist libraries, like those of Salutati and Niccoli, contained
upwards of 800 books, with a great emphasis on the Church fathers. Nic-
coli’s collection of patristic texts included thirty-four volumes of Augus-
tine, eight of Jerome, six of Gregory, and other Latin and Greek fathers. The
library of Pico della Mirandola (1463–94), considered the most extensive
of its time with approximately 1,100 volumes, included Gregory’s Magna

32 Pearl Kibre, “The Intellectual Interests Reflected in Libraries of the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Centuries,” Journal of the History of Ideas 7:3 (1946), 257–97. See also B.L. Ull-
man, “Petrarch’s favorite books,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological
Association 54 (1923), 21–38, at 31. For the works of the Church fathers in Petrarch’s library
and his interest in them, see especially Pierre de Nolhac, “De patrum et medii aevi scrip-
torum codicibus in bibliotheca Petrarcae olim collectis,” Revue des bibliothèques 2 (1892),
241–79.
33 David Mycue, “Founder of the Vatican Library: Nicholas V or Sixtus IV?” Journal of
Library History 16:1 (1981), 121–33, at 122; see also B.L. Ullman and Philip A. Stadter, The
Public Library of Renaissance Florence, Niccolò Niccoli, Cosimo de’Medici and the Library of
San Marco (Padua, 1972), p. 16.
34 Giovanni Sforza, La Patria, la famiglia e la giovinezza de Papa Niccolò V (Lucca, 1884),
pp. 359–81. After reference to the Old and New Testaments, authors are grouped by Greek
fathers and commentaries (16 in all); Latin fathers (numbering 31), with separate listings
of works for Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and other scholastics; works of Aristotle and
other Greeks; Arab and Hebrew works in translation; Greek philosophers, mathematicians,
rhetoricians, historians, and poets. Each category is arranged chronologically.
35 Ullman and Stadter, The Public Library, p. 15.
36 Kibre, “The Intellectual Interests,” 279, n. 107.
37 Stinger, Humanism, p. 34, quoting Traversari to Niccoli (1424).
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 367

Moralia, his Dialogues, and the Homilies (on gospels and Ezekiel) as part
of his collection of “writings by popes”.38 The catalogue of the library of
San Marco founded by Cosimo de’Medici indicates approximately fifteen
volumes of Gregory’s works, some in multiple copies. There were five cop-
ies of the Moralia, four of the Dialogues, two of the Homilies on the Gospels
and the Pastoral Care, one volume each of the Registrum and Homilies on
the Gospels. Other works included the Life and Miracles of Gregory by John
the Deacon and Gregory’s Responsum to Augustine of Canterbury. The
book list reveals some interesting information on the acquisition and cir-
culation of libraries in this period. After Niccoli and Salutati died, Cosimo
de’Medici and others bought some of their books. The San Marco inven-
tory notes, for example, that Gregory’s responses to Augustine of Canter-
bury had belonged to Coluccio Salutati but came from Niccoli, and that a
copy of the Dialogues belonged to Salutati, but came from Cosimo.39

The Quattrocento Controversy over Gregory

In spite of the humanist appreciation of Gregory’s theological and moral

authority, he became a source of conflict for some of the men of the
Renaissance who tried to reconcile his Christian ascetic and moral author-
ity with a view of Gregory inherited from the later Middle Ages: that of
Gregory, the destroyer of pagan culture.40 Master Gregory, author of The
Marvels of Rome, lamented:41
While Rome flourished, every visitor to the city worshipped it on bended
knee, offering honour to Rome by worshipping its image. But after all the
statues in Rome were pulled down and broken, blessed Gregory destroyed
it in the following manner . . .
Various stories and legends about Gregory and the antiquities of Rome
had been written down and in circulation since the 11th century. He
was memorialized for “Christianizing” Hadrian’s mausoleum (the Castel
Sant’Angelo), for turning the Pantheon into a church, and for a miracle

38 Kibre, “The Intellectual Interests,” 258.

39 Ullman and Stadter, The Public Library, Appendix IV, “San Marco’s Catalogue,” pp.
159–62.
40 Gregory Tilmann Buddensieg, “Gregory the Great, the Destroyer of Pagan Idols: the
History of a Medieval Legend Concerning the Decline of Ancient Art and Literature,” Jour-
nal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965), 44–64.
41 Master Gregory, The Marvels of Rome, trans. John Osborne (Toronto, 1987), p. 19.
368 ann kuzdale

at Castel Sant’Angelo that delivered Rome from the plague, as depicted

on the cover of this volume.42 The three medieval vitae of Gregory by the
Anonymous of Whitby, Paul the Deacon, and John the Deacon report his
intercessory power in liberating the pagan Emperor Trajan from hell.43
In the 12th century, John of Salisbury praised Gregory as doctor sanctis-
simus in his Policraticus because of his vigilance against paganism, though
John gives no source for his account.44 Tilmann Buddensieg has analy-
sed how the story of Gregory burning pagan books came to be joined to
another legend based on The Chronicle of the Emperors and Popes by Mar-
tinus Polonus (d. 1278) in which Gregory had had all the heads and limbs
of the statues in Rome broken so as not to multiply “old heresies”.45 The
view of Gregory as a pope who attacked pagan literature and art would be
perpetuated in other chronicles and in popular pilgrim guides to Rome,
as well as the influential 13th-century Golden Legend of Jacques Voragine.46
Master Gregory twice referred to the loss of Roman statues at the hands
of Gregory the Great. He called the pope “blessed”, but added that the
destruction of some of the best pieces of classical art was performed at
his bidding.47 Well into the 16th century, Gregory, the authoritative father
of the Church, and Gregory, the destroyer of classical art, existed side
by side.
While some Renaissance authors would go so far as to conclude that
all popes after Gregory inherited his anti-intellectual and anti-classical
biases, others interpreted his life and writings differently.48 Petrarch did

42 Richard Krautheimer, Rome. Profile of a City 312–1308 (Princeton, 1980), pp. 73–75.
43 Sarah Blake Wilk, “Donatello’s ‘Dovizia’ as an Image of Florentine Political Propa-
ganda,” Artibus et Historiae, 7:14 (1986), 9–28, at 24–26. While walking in the Forum of
Trajan, Gregory recalled the emperor’s virtuous deed toward a widow which prompted
his tears and prayers.
44 Buddensieg, “Destroyer of Pagan Idols”, 46, cites John of Salisbury’s assertion that
Gregory burned the books of the oracles and astrology from the Capitoline library, and
then a lightning strike ignited and burned the library building and others around it to
the ground as God’s revenge on the viciousness of the reign of Emperor Lucius Antonius
Commodus.
45 Buddensieg, “Destroyer of Pagan Idols”, 47.
46 Buddensieg, “Destroyer of Pagan Idols”, 47–8; Jacques Voragine, The Golden Legend of
Jacobus de Voragine, trans. Granger Ryan and Helmut Ripperger (New York, 1969).
47 Master Gregory, The Marvels of Rome, trans. Osborne, p. 26: “Now I shall turn my
attention to the marble statues, almost all of which were destroyed or toppled by blessed
Gregory . . .”
48 Buddensieg, “Destroyer of Pagan Idols”, 50, notes that John of Salisbury (d. 1180); Mar-
tinus Polonus (d. 1278); Ptolemy of Lucca (1236–1327); the Dominicans Jacobus de Aquis
(c.1328) and Bernardus Guidonis (1261/2–1331); and the Doge of Venice Andrea Dandolo
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 369

not engage in the debates over Gregory’s complicity in the destruction

of pagan art and literature. He understood the fathers of the Church to
be in accord with the ancients, especially in their docta pietas, “learned
asceticism”.49 Petrarch had purchased Gregory’s Homilies on the Gospels
and the Dialogues in Rome in 1337.50 Nine years later in the second book of
his De vita solitaria (1346), Petrarch drew on Gregory’s Dialogues, Homilies
on Ezekiel, Moralia, and letters, as well as other works such as Palladius’
Lausiac History, and Voragine’s Golden Legend, that praised saints who
had escaped from the world and taken refuge in solitude or who offered
examples by their lives.51 Gregory had stressed the importance of publiciz-
ing miracles, but especially the lives of virtuous people, in the Dialogues.
Petrarch urged his friend Francisco Nellio Florentino to read and “delight”

(1306–43) all approved of this portrayal of a Gregory who triumphed over paganism.
Boccaccio, Ghiberti, and others are among those who lamented the loss of antiquity due to
Gregory’s actions. Others included Filippo Villani and Fazzio degli Uberti (d. 1367). In the
15th century, those who believed that Gregory had the heads of all statues broken included
Guglielmo Capello of Ferrara, in his commentary on Fazio (1437); Giovanni Cavallini de
Cerronibus; Cardinal Giovanni Dominici (1356–1419); Francesco da Fiano (d. pre-1425);
Pomponio Leto and his circle. Cencio de’Rustici (1390–c.1445) extended this condemna-
tion of the destruction of antiquities from Gregory to include all the popes. Those who
doubted the truth of these stories about Gregory included Sicco Polenton (c.1414), Guarino
Veronese (c.1450), and Bartolomeo Platina. Still, the anti-Gregory/anti-papal perspective
reemerged in the writings of Raffaele Maffei (Volaterranus) 1506; in Raphael’s letter to Leo
X 1518/19; Pope Paul III (Alessandro Farnese); Giambattista Gelli (1550); and Vasari. As late
as 1545 the view of Gregory as a destroyer of classical culture persisted, repeated in Pietro
Aretino’s letter to Michelangelo. The more moderate perspective on Gregory given by Ber-
nardo Gamucci (1565) was again reversed by Pietro Angelio of Barga by 1589.
49 Buddensieg, “Destroyer of Pagan Idols”, 48 and Vessey, “Cities of the Mind,” p. 51.
Vessey has noted, “The main tendency of early humanist reappropriation of the fathers was
to emphasize the latter’s solidarity with ‘classical’ values, especially in the use of rhetoric
and literary fictions. So much is clear from the repeated attempts to explain away Jerome’s
vision of a conflict between Christianity and Ciceronianism.” Francis X. Murphy, Patris-
tic Heritage in the Renaissance and the Modern World, eds Marie F. Porter and Norman
Shaifer (Tappan, NY, 1990), p. 117, argues that Petrarch tries, “to amalgamate the ancient
wisdom of his pagan poets and orators with the Christian creed within the framework of
the Church . . .” More recently, W. Scott Blanchard in his article, “Petrarch and the Geneal-
ogy of Asceticism,” Journal of the History of Ideas 62:3 (2001), 401–23, at 403, has interpreted
Petrarch’s ascetic pursuits “as a strategy by which he could practice dissent in a more indi-
rect way than had been characteristic of his more openly ‘religious’ predecessors”.
50 Murphy, Patristic Heritage, p. 113, and Pierre de Nolhac, “Le catalogue de la première
bibliothèque de Pétrarque à Vaucluse,” Revue bibliothèques publication mensuelle 16 (1906),
341–44.
51 Murphy, Patristic Heritage, pp. 121, 123.
370 ann kuzdale

in Gregory.52 He wrote to his brother, Gerard, a Carthusian monk, to read

Gregory’s Dialogues.53 In De otio religiosi he writes:54
Furthermore, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory and just about anyone down to
this day who has lived a solitary and reclusive life for love of Christ, are all
your leaders and companions and supporters and helpers. They offer them-
selves as examples to follow as a kind of staff when you are burdened or
tired from your journey . . .
In contrast to those who argued that Jerome and Gregory condemned the
vanities of secular learning, Petrarch took a pragmatic and philosophical
view; Gregory criticized the “ornaments of pride of learning,” not learning
itself.55
I do not forget that Benedict was praised by Gregory for deserting the stud-
ies which he had begun, to devote himself to a solitary and ascetic mode of
life. Benedict, however, had renounced, not the poets especially, but litera-
ture altogether. Moreover, I very much doubt if his admirer [Gregory] would
have been himself admired had he proceeded to adopt the same plan. It is
one thing to have learned, another to be in the process of learning . . .
The programme of humanist studies emphasized reading the fathers of
the Church as a way to understand Scripture as well as a way to personal
piety.56 Outside Italy, this programme is reflected in Spain in the work of
Pero López de Ayala (1332–1407), part of the early Spanish Renaissance,
who translated Gregory’s Moralia into Spanish.57 Helen Nader describes
Ayala’s concern for correct texts and translation. His second translation
of the Moralia was an attempt to perfect what his first translation lacked.
He compared different copies of the Moralia and “worked on the human-
ist assumptions that the original Latin had been clear and elegant and

52 de Nolhac, “De patrum et medii aevi scriptorum codicibus,” 275.

53 See Pietro-Paolo Gerosa, Umanesimo cristiano del Petrarca: Influenza agostiniana,
attinenze medievali (Turin, 1966), p. 109. Gerosa offers a complete list of medieval authors
read by Petrarch.
54 Francisco Petrarch, On Religious Leisure (De otio religioso), ed. and trans. Susan S.
Schreiner (New York, 2002), pp. 71–72.
55 Petrarch’s “Letter to Boccaccio,” cited in James Harvey Robinson, Petrarch. The First
Modern Scholar and Man of Letters (New York, 1899; repr. 1969), pp. 392–3.
56 Stinger, Humanism, p. 8.
57 Helen Nader, The Mendoza Family in the Spanish Renaissance 1350–1550, ch. 3: “Pedro
López de Ayala and the Formation of Mendoza Attitudes,” (Rutgers, 1979), Library of Ibe-
rian Resources Online, http://libro.uca.edu/mendoza/msr3.htm (accessed 8-3-12); see also
E.B. Strong, “Rimado de Palacio: López de Ayala’s Rimed Confession,” Hispanic Review 37:4
(1969), 439–51.
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 371

that obscurities must be attributable to errors in the medieval texts.”58

Ayala’s poem, Rimado de Palacio (1404) was written in the vernacular and
included meditations on life, death, original sin, the fleetingness of the
world, and a critique of contemporary society. He used biblical themes
from Gregory’s Moralia as an allegory of the Great Schism in the Church,
likening it to the ship of St. Peter being torn apart in a storm.

The Renaissance in Rome

The Renaissance papacy is typically associated with decadence and

worldly affairs in the wake of the Avignon papacy, the Great Schism, and
shortly thereafter, the fall of Constantinople. Petrarch and certain human-
ists, however, put their hope in the return of the papacy to Rome, which
they saw as the historic centre of Christendom.59 With regard to Petrarch’s
famous letter to Colonna, Jennifer Summit challenges the interpretation
that Petrarch was dismissive of Rome’s medieval past and looked back-
wards fondly to antiquity, lamenting its loss. Instead, for Petrarch, the
decay of Rome was linked to the “pope’s departure, and its reemergence
would be accomplished with the pope’s return”.60 The post-Avignon
popes themselves hoped that Rome could be returned to its status as the
head of the world.61 The figure of Pope St. Gregory became a useful part
of this plan.

Cult of Gregory in Rome

Pierre Jounel reminds us that the cult of Gregory in the Middle Ages had
an early Roman as well as northern European focus. Though it was not a
“popular” cult, it was found among the clerical hierarchy and monasteries.62

58 Nader, “Pedro López de Ayala and the Formation of Mendoza Attitudes,” http://libro
.uca.edu/mendoza/msr3.htm (accessed 8-3-12).
59 Murphy, Patristic Heritage, p. 116. Petrarch, a critic of the Avignon papacy, advocated
for “the emperor or the king to force the issue, and make the pope resume his proper
station as spiritual lord of the universe”. Gregory XI (sedit 1370–78) was the pope who
returned the papacy to Rome in 1377. This happened shortly after Petrarch died.
60 Jennifer Summit, “Topography as Historiography: Petrarch, Chaucer, and the Mak-
ing of Medieval Rome,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 30:2 (2000), 211–46
at 219.
61 Krautheimer, Rome. Profile of a City 312–1308, pp. 151–52.
62 Pierre Jounel, “Le culte de saint Grégoire le grand” in Grégoire le grand, eds Jacques
Fontaine et al., pp. 671–80, at 673.
372 ann kuzdale

By the 9th century, Gregory’s death date on 12 March was celebrated sol-
emnly in the Vatican Basilica.63 In the 14th century, there were at least
six churches and numerous altars in Rome dedicated to Gregory the
Great.64 From the 15th to the 17th centuries, the cult of Gregory in Rome
grew. Gregory had been buried in old St. Peter’s Basilica, but the church
had undergone numerous renovations and Gregory’s tomb was moved
several times. In 1464 Pope Pius II had Gregory’s body translated to an
altar of St. Peter’s where it was placed with a recently acquired relic of
the head of St. Andrew.65 The connection between Gregory and Andrew
is not so difficult to make. According to Robert Coates-Stephens, “An
undated chronicle of Gregory’s own monastery, copied in a 14th-century
manuscript and used by Mabillon in his Annales ordinis S. Benedicti,
states that prior to his election Gregory brought relics of Sts. Andrew and
Luke to Rome, obtained when he was apocrisarius under the Emperor
Tiberius II.”66 The relics were St. Andrew’s arm and the head of St. Luke.67
Gregory’s monastery on the Caelian Hill had been dedicated to St. Andrew
and his devotion is reflected in his gospel homilies and in his promotion
of St. Andrew in the Roman liturgy.68 In 1606, under different circum-
stances, Pope Paul V would have Gregory’s relics placed in the chapel of
Clement V near the entrance of the modern sacristy.69
In the 16th century the churches associated with Gregory’s life in Rome
were rebuilt or refurbished.70 Construction began in 1527 of a new church
dedicated to Gregory, the Oratorio di S. Gregorio dei Muratori, and was
completed in 1598. Gregory’s monastery was entrusted to the Camaldolese

63 Jounel, “Le culte,” p. 673.

64 Christian Hülsen, Le Chiese di Roma nel Medio Evo (Florence, 1927), pp. 157–502.
Internet edition: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/I/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/
Lazio/Roma/Rome/churches/_Texts/Huelsen/HUECHI*/2/C.html (accessed 25-2-12). These
included S. Gregorio de Cortina, S. Gregorio de Gradellis, S. Gregorio de Grecis, S. Gregorio in
Campo Martio, S. Gregorio in Palatio and S. Gregorio de Ponte Iudeorum. The oldest known
altar to Gregory is in the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls.
65 Jounel, “Le culte,” p. 672.
66 Robert Coates-Stephens, “S. Saba and the Xenodochium de via nova,” Revista di arche-
ologia cristiana 83 (2007), 223–56, at 228.
67 Jean Mabillon, Annales ordinis S. Benedicti occidentalium monachorum patriarchae,
6 vols (Lucca, 1739), 1:166.
68 Homily 2, Gregory the Great. Forty Gospel Homilies, trans. David Hurst (Kalamazoo,
MI, 1990), p. 13.
69 Martin Heinzelmann, “Gregor, III. Kult und Verehrung,” Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol.
4, (Stuttgart—Weimar, 1989), p. 1666.
70 Ferrucio Lombardi, Roma, chiese, conventi, chiostri. Progetto per un inventario 313–1925
(Rome, 1993), p. 356.
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 373

monks in 1573 and in the mid-17th century it would be decorated with

frescos from the life of Gregory.71 In 1602, Cardinal Cesare Baronio (1538–
1607) oversaw the reconstruction and began the decoration of Gregory’s
oratories of St. Barbara and St. Andrew; he constructed a chapel to St. Sil-
via. Cardinal Scipione Caffarelli Borghese completed the decoration and
facades of the buildings after 1609.72 The places most closely associated
with Gregory in Rome might still have supported monastic life, but they
were also monuments to Gregory’s importance to the Church hierarchy.
In the late 16th century Gregory’s importance for the narrative of the
English Recusant community in exile was reflected in the martyr murals
of the English College in Rome, Circignani’s Ecclesiae anglicanae trophae.73
This mural of 1584 emphasized the antiquity of England’s links with the
papacy through Gregory’s mission to the Anglo-Saxons.
Pope Nicholas V (1447–55) is a key figure in the rebuilding programme
in 15th-century Rome and the attempt to return Rome to the centre of
Christendom after the “Babylonian captivity” and schism. His patronage of
humanist literary efforts to translate and publish patristic texts parallels his
own efforts toward the renewal and rebuilding of the city. Although Pope
Martin V (1417–31) had begun the restoration of St. John’s Lateran Church
in the 1420s, Nicholas undertook a much grander scheme of rebuilding,
focusing on Rome’s lucrative pilgrimage industry, some of which was tied
to interest in Gregory.74 Medieval texts of the Libri indulgentiarum, such as
the Stacyons of Rome (c.1370), listed itineraries to the major churches and
shrines of Rome and the indulgences attached to them.75 John Capgrave’s
Ye Solace of Pilgrims (1450) included many references for English pilgrims
to the saints of Rome whom Gregory discussed in his Dialogues.76 Nicholas
V renovated Gregory the Great’s forty stational churches. He also restored
the Castel Sant’Angelo, the site of a miracle associated with Gregory
and St. Michael.77 Nicholas’ pragmatic view of supporting pilgrimage by

71 Ibid., p. 132. Decoration to the altar to the Virgin was added in the Chiesa di S. Grego-
rio Magno al Celio Monasterio dei Camaldolesi. This church was built on the original site
of Pope Agapitus’ library and had been reconstructed in the 12th and 13th centuries.
72 Edizioni Camaldoli, Chiesa di San Gregorio e i tre oratori (Rome, n.d.), p. 2.
73 Anne Dillon, The Construction of Martyrdom in the English Catholic Community
1535–1603 (Aldershot, 2002), 175–239.
74 Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: a History of the Popes (New Haven, 1997), p. 133.
75 Judith F. Champ, The English Pilgrimage to Rome: a Dwelling For the Soul (Bodmin,
2000), pp. 42–43.
76 Champ, The English Pilgrimage, pp. 42, 50. See also John Capgrave, Ye Solace of Pil-
grims. A Description of Rome circa A.D. 1450, ed. C.A. Mills (Oxford, 1911).
77 Charles L. Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome (Bloomington, IN, 1998), p. 34.
374 ann kuzdale

rebuilding churches as well as roads and bridges in Rome helped to rein-

vigorate the cult of Gregory in Rome.78

Humanist Patristic Studies in the 15th Century

By the mid-15th century the centre of humanist studies had shifted from
Florence to Rome.79 Nicholas V collaborated with his friend, and later
cardinal, the Greek Bishop of Nicaea, John Bessarion, to translate Latin
and Greek classical and patristic literature as part of the plan to restore
prestige to Rome as a centre of Christian culture. His collection of manu-
scripts and books laid the foundation for the Vatican Library.80 Nicholas
seems to have consciously associated himself with Gregory. His descrip-
tion of buildings as “sermons in stone” echoed Gregory’s letter to Serenus,
Bishop of Marseilles, in which Gregory chastised the bishop for smashing
images that he feared people were worshipping as idols: “. . . for a picture
is provided in churches for the reason that those who are illiterate may
at least read by looking at the walls what they cannot read in books.”81
Like Gregory’s mission north to the Anglo-Saxons, Nicholas sent “preach-
ers throughout Europe to preach reconciliation and reform” in the Jubilee
year of 1450. He hoped that a plenary indulgence would both revive per-
sonal piety and attract pilgrims to Rome.82
Gregory’s standing in 15th-century Rome remained high among its
humanists even if questions about his attitude toward pagan culture
continued to be raised.83 He appeared in the work of papal historians
Bartolomeo Platina and Jacopo Zeno, and was referred to in liturgical
collections.84 Alison Frazier notes that Giovanni Garzoni (1419–1505), a
Bolognese humanist in Rome, was the only one at the time to revise Jaco-
bus Voragine’s account of Gregory the Great.85 She explains that Garzoni

78 Duffy, Saints and Sinners, p. 133.

79 Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, pp. 5–7.
80 Mycue, “Founder of the Vatican Library”, 121–33.
81 Gregory the Great, Reg. 9.209, trans. John R.C. Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the
Great, 3 vols (Toronto, 2004), 2:674 (CCSL 140A:768, ll. 12–14): “Idcirco enim pictura in
ecclesiis adhibetur, ut hi qui litteras nesciunt saltem in parietibus uidendo legant, quae
legere in codicibus non ualent.” See also Gregory’s second letter to Serenus, Reg. 11.10
(CCSL 140A:873–6).
82 Duffy, Saints and Sinners, pp. 139–40.
83 Buddensieg, “Destroyer of Pagan Idols”, 50.
84 Alison K. Frazier, Possible Lives. Authors and Saints in Renaissance Italy (New York,
2005), p. 203.
85 Ibid., pp. 202–11.
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 375

undertook the Vita Gregorii for personal reasons. During a serious illness
around 1478, he made a vow that if healed he would rewrite the life of
Gregory. Garzoni was also one of Gregory’s defenders on the question
of his role in the destruction of pagan monuments.86 In another place
Garzoni chided the critics of miracle stories in saint’s Lives by comparing
them to the “untrustworthiness” of pagan histories that included appari-
tions and fantastic feats of strength.87

Gregory in Art (1400s–1500s)

In the 15th century aspects of Gregory’s thought and theology on pur-

gatory, penance, and the miraculous appear in art. A long bibliography
accompanies the topic of Gregory the Great in art:88 for this discussion a
few representative examples will have to suffice.
Simon Marmion’s (1425–89) elaborate sequence of illustrations on the
“Vision of Tondal” (c.1470)89 drew inspiration from Gregory’s depictions
of the afterlife in the Dialogues, and the earliest printed edition circulated
together with a copy of Gregory’s Dialogues.90 Domenico Ghirlandaio’s
(1449–94) fresco in the Collegiate Church in San Gimignano portrayed
Gregory in the papal tiara appearing to St. Fina to announce her death.91
In effect, Gregory became a saint like one he described in the Dialogues.
In their famous Book of Hours, copied and illustrated for the Duke of Berry
(c.1412–16), the Limbourg brothers showed Gregory in papal regalia in

86 Ibid., pp. 206–10.

87 Ibid., p. 201.
88 Robert Godding, Bibliografia di Gregorio Magno (1890–1989) (Rome, 1990), s.v.
“Iconografia,” pp. 277–83. This list has been updated in Robert Godding, “Tra due anniver-
sari: Gregorio Magno alla luce degli studi recenti (1991–2003),” in Gregorio Magno nel XIV
centenario della morte: Convegno internazionale, Roma, 22–25 ottobre 2003 (Roma, 2004),
pp. 89–106.
89 Los Angeles, Getty Museum, MS 30, attr. Simon Marmion, “Les Visions du cheva-
lier Tondal,” Flemish and French, Ghent and Valenciennes, c.1470 painted for Margaret
of York, Duchess of Burgundy. The image was exhibited in Illuminating the Renaissance.
The Triumph of Flemish Manuscript Painting in Europe, at Royal Academy of Arts, London,
29 November–22 February 2004.
90 Nigel Palmer, “Illustrated Printed Editions of The Visions of Tondal from the Late
Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries,” in Thomas Kren (ed.), Margaret of York, Simon
Marmion, and The Visions of Tondal (Malibu, CA, 1992), pp. 157–80, at 158.
91 Domenico Ghirlandaio, “Apparition of St. Gregory to St. Fina. Announcement of the
death of St. Fina,” Chapel of Santa Fina, Collegiate Church, San Gimignano, accessed online
at http://www.paesionline.it/toscana/san_gimignano/foto_dettaglio.asp?filename=4661_
san_gimignano_apparizione_di_s_gregorio_a_s_fina_annuncio_della_morte (accessed
8-3-12).
376 ann kuzdale

“The Procession of Saint Gregory” at Castel Sant’Angelo. They placed this

illustration at the beginning of the section on Litanies since it was also
known as “The Great Litany” or “Great Supplication”.92
Images of Gregory offer another perspective as to how he was perceived
in the era of the Renaissance. The 9th-century vita of Gregory by John the
Deacon described a painting of Gregory with no beard that John claimed
he saw in Rome. If Renaissance artists were concerned with Gregory’s
appearance, they disregarded John as a witness. Philipp Fehl has argued
that Roman images of Gregory in the Renaissance almost always showed
him clean-shaven.93 It has been suggested that in Raphael’s (1490–1527)
Disputa the model for his Gregory the Great was the warrior Pope Julius II.94
Fehl argues that Raphael played on an image of Gregory already estab-
lished in Rome “by joining piety with grandeur” in the face.95
The Mass of St. Gregory and the Man of Sorrows remained popular sub-
jects for artists well into the 16th century. Frazier notes that it became
popular among humanists to request that a “Mass of St. Gregory” be said
for their souls after death.96 Hieronymus Bosch (c.1510) portrayed an
uncharacteristically spare, austere altar scene, with a tonsured Gregory at
the altar where the Man of Sorrows appears. Two secular figures, possibly
Bosch’s patron and the patron’s wife, flank Gregory while monks stand off
on the sidelines. Bosch omitted the papal tiara.97 In this period, Gregory is
also almost always portrayed as pope with the tiara and pallium. It is not
surprising that artists commissioned by popes or cardinals would empha-
size his papal status. In the 1539 Aztec featherwork image, a New World
gift intended for Pope Paul III (1534–49), Gregory is also tonsured, but
the papal tiara rests on the altar to his left.98 By the 1540s the image of
Gregory in the papal tiara was so pervasive that Martin Luther pointedly
criticized depictions of him in contemporary papal regalia. He was not

92 Jean Longmon and Raymond Cazelles, “The Procession of Saint Gregory,” in The Très
Riches Heures of Jean, Duke of Berry, trans. Victoria Benedict (New York, 1969; repr. New
York, 1989), p. 199. The original manuscript and image of “The Procession of St. Gregory” is
held at Chantilly, Musée Condé MS 65, fols 71v–72r. See the cover of this volume.
93 Philipp Fehl, “Raphael’s Reconstruction of the Throne of St. Gregory the Great,” The
Art Bulletin 55:3 (1973), 373–79, at 373, 378.
94 See Philipp Fehl and Paul Künzle, “Zur obersten der drei Tiaren auf Raffaels ‘Dis-
puta’,” Römische Quartalschrift 57 (1962), 226–49, at 231–32.
95 Fehl, “Raphael’s Reconstruction,” 379.
96 Frazier, Possible Lives, p. 204.
97 Hieronymous Bosch, Triptych of the Adoration of the Magi (c.1510), Madrid, Prado,
online at: http://www.all-art.org/early_renaissance/bosch12.html (accessed 10-3-12).
98 Pierce et al., Painting a New World, p. 97; the work coincided with Paul III acknowl-
edging the Indians’ lawful access to the Eucharist.
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 377

particularly concerned with the inaccuracy of portraying Gregory in the

three-tiered tiara, which only came into use in the 14th century, but with
portraying Gregory as pope at all. In Luther’s understanding of Church
history, Gregory was the bishop, not the pope, of Rome.99

Gregory and the Reformation: Erasmus and Luther

Certain principles about the fathers of the Church as articulated by

Petrarch and the 14th-century Florentines remained common ground for
humanists throughout the 15th and early 16th centuries. The emphasis on
the early Church fathers in opposition to the speculative scholastic theo-
logians remained most important, as did the ideal of the “learned ascetic”
which the early Greek and Latin fathers represented for them. The philo-
logical goal of perfecting various texts of the fathers by collecting, com-
paring, editing, and making them more accessible through translations
and publication was also continued by later humanists. Erasmus’ prolific
editing and publishing projects and the output of printing houses at the
time attest to this. An interesting example of a composite text that links
the early Church fathers with the studia humanitatis contains Spanish
translations of Petrarch’s Remedies for Fortune Fair and Foul and Gregory’s
Dialogues.100 The context for this work is 15th and 16th-century Spanish
humanism and reform with connections to a Hieronymite community
in Spain.101
From the 9th to the 16th centuries, Gregory’s standing as an authori-
tative father of the Church was unquestioned. On the eve of the Refor-
mation, however, the work of the northern humanist Desiderius Erasmus
signaled a shift in the perception and significance of Gregory.

99 Martin Luther, “Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil” (1545), in
Luther’s Works, vol. 41: Church and Ministry 3, ed. Eric W. Gritsch (Philadelphia, 1966),
p. 291.
100 Cambridge, MA, Houghton Library: Petrarch, De los remedios contra prospera y adu-
ersa fortuna, trans. Francisco de Madrid (Saragossa, 1518) and Los Diálogos del bienaven-
turado papa sant Gregorio sacados del latin en Romance: nuevamente por el reuerendo Padre
Fray Gonzalo de Ocanna (Toledo, 1514).
101 The topic of Gregory in the works of Church reformers in Spain in the 15th and 16th
centuries, particularly the figures of Francisco Ximénes de Cisneros (1436–1517) and Juan
Luis Vives (1493–1540), needs more attention than is possible here. The great example of a
humanist library in Spain is Phillip II’s Escorial in the latter half of the 16th century. Ver-
nacular and Latin texts of the major Church fathers as well as humanists were published
out of several centres in Spain. See Alejandro Coroleu, “Printing Sacred Texts in Early
Modern Barcelona (1480–1530),” The Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 86:6 (2009), 743–50.
378 ann kuzdale

Like Petrarch, Erasmus (c.1466–1536) was committed to early patristic

theology not simply as an alternative to scholasticism for its own sake, but
as a truer reflection of a correct understanding of Christianity.102 He pro-
moted the study of the fathers of the Church in their original languages,
yet worked to make them accessible in translation to those not skilled in
Latin or Greek. He was personally involved in the editing and publishing
of the works of Augustine (1506) and Ambrose (1492) with the publisher
Johannes Amerbach and then with Johann Froben who took over Amer-
bach’s press in 1513.103 In his edition of St. Jerome, whom he preferred
over Augustine, Erasmus included a vita, which he did not do for his other
subjects. He believed it was needed in this case because, like so many
other early Christian authors, Jerome’s teachings had been distorted by
the fragmented nature of their dissemination in sentences, summae, trea-
tises, and specula.104
Yet for all his zeal to edit the texts of the Church fathers and Amer-
bach’s goal to publish them all, Erasmus omitted Gregory. For Erasmus,
the veteres theologi were the Greek and Latin fathers of the early Christian
centuries and he excluded Gregory, Isidore, and Bede from this company.105
In the introduction to his Life of St. Jerome, Erasmus disparaged the tradi-
tion that maintained the “four Doctors” of the church because he saw it
as based on “complacency” and “lack of judgment”:106
. . . it is worthwhile listening to the opinion of that learned crowd which
reduces everything to a set number. It was an attractive idea to have four
Doctors of the church and likewise four senses of Holy Scripture, to corre-
spond of course with the four evangelists. To Gregory they assign tropology,
to Ambrose allegory, to Augustine anagogy, and to Jerome, to assign him
something, they leave the liberal and grammatical sense . . .107

102 See R. Schoeck and Beatrice Corrigan (eds), Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto—
Buffalo, 1974).
103 R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson (eds), The Correspondence of Erasmus, Let-
ters 298–445 (1514–16), Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 3; trans. Margaret Mann Phillips
(Toronto—Buffalo, 1982), p. 4 0n.
104 Nikolaus Staubach, “Memores pristinae perfectionis. The Importance of the Church
Fathers for the Devotio Moderna,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers 1, ed. Irena Backus,
pp. 405–69, at 450.
105 Ibid., p. 451.
106 Ibid., p. 450.
107 Desiderius Erasmus, “The Edition of St. Jerome,” Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 61,
“Patristic Scholarship, The Edition of Jerome,” eds and trans. James F. Brady and John C.
Olin (Toronto—Buffalo, 1992), p. 52.
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 379

Erasmus knew Gregory’s works,108 but they do not inform his own to
any great extent. He cited Gregory infrequently or through second-hand
sources. In his “Paraphrase on Mark” he quoted a passage from Gregory’s
Moralia by way of Thomas Aquinas’ Catena aurea (1265) or Commentary
on the Gospels, a “golden chain” of Church authorities.109 In a letter to
Erard de la Marck (1519), he cited Gregory’s authority through a popularly
quoted text of Gregory’s Responsa to Augustine of Canterbury on sex and
marriage that circulated through the Decretum.110
Unlike Petrarch, Erasmus disparaged the value of vitae sanctorum and
miracle stories with which Gregory was so greatly associated. He respected
Gregory’s “learned piety,” but not the excesses he perceived in writings on
the saints.111
Our predecessors were convinced that they should employ properly fash-
ioned stories to lead the pious and law-abiding Christian in doing good . . .
There is a vulgar credulity that is so deeply ingrained in mortal minds, that
they listen more willingly to fiction than to fact, and give assent to fancy
rather than to truth.
In contrast to Erasmus, the leading churchmen and humanists in Eng-
land, John Colet (1467–1519), Thomas More (1478–1535), and John Fisher
(1459–1535)—all correspondents of Erasmus—remained constant in their
use, understanding and especially reverence for Gregory. Before the con-
troversy over Henry VIII’s marriage in the late 1520s and 1530s absorbed
and ultimately silenced forever John Fisher and Thomas More, their ideas
reflected a continuity with the tradition begun by the Anonymous of
Whitby and reinforced by Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica that Gregory’s mis-
sion to the Anglo-Saxons forever made him “our Gregory” and the English,
his people.
Both Fisher and More cited all of Gregory’s writings in their works.112
Fisher accords Gregory a higher status as an authority than Augustine in
a dispute over the identity of Mary Magdalene in the gospels (John 12:1–8,
John 20:11, Luke 7:36–50). He based his interpretation on Gregory’s view

108 Little, “Calvin’s Appreciation,” 148.

109 Desiderius Erasmus, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 49, “Paraphrase on Mark,”
trans. Erika Rummel (Toronto, 1988), p. 114.
110 Desiderius Erasmus, “Letter to Erard de la Marck,” The Correspondence of Erasmus.
vol. 6, Letters 842 to 992, 1518 to 1519, eds R.A.B. Mynors, D.F.S. Thomson, and P.G. Bietenholz
(Toronto—Buffalo, 1982), p. 245.
111  Murphy, Patristic Heritage, p. 156.
112 Thomas M.C. Lawler, Germain P. Marc’Hadour, and Richard Marius (eds), The Com-
plete Works of St. Thomas More (New Haven—London, 1963–90).
380 ann kuzdale

that the Marys named in the three texts were one and the same person.
Unlike the humanists who praised the Greek fathers, Fisher maintained
an old-fashioned distrust of them, and notes that Gregory’s authority
trumped any of the Greek fathers because in the past the Greek Church
was prone to error.113 On top of this, he claimed that Gregory was a great
preacher and exegete, but “above all he was the Bishop of Rome”, and
even Jerome had submitted himself to Pope Damasus.114
Thomas More, like Fisher, was influenced by Gregory, whom he
regarded as second only to Augustine.115 Like Fisher, More “fell back onto
the patristic interpretations as a guide to his own use of Scripture”.116 In
his discussion of the seven deadly sins—pride, envy, wrath, covetousness,
gluttony, sloth and lechery—More followed the order “established in the
Moralia of Gregory the Great [which was] widely used throughout the
Middle Ages and Renaissance”.117 Gregory’s works became important for
More’s later refutations of Luther. In his “Response to Luther” (1523) and
in his “Dialogue Concerning Heresies” (1528), he repeated the humanist
emphasis on Gregory as a learned and holy Doctor of the Church whose
sanctity, as well as the celibacy of all the early fathers, he contrasted with
the “new sect” of reformers and their wives.118
The 1520s were a turning-point for the Lutheran critique of the Church.
After the Leipzig Debates (1519) and the papacy’s condemnation of Luther
in the Bull Exsurge Domini (1520), theological positions hardened, lan-
guage became more militant, and any shared common ideas among the
humanists ended.119 Lief Grane compares this change with the move

113 Walter L. Moore, “The Role of the Fathers in the Three Marys Controversy,” in Aucto-
ritas Patrum, eds Lief Grane et al., 1:129–41, at 134. See also Guy Bedouelle, “Attacks on the
Biblical Humanism of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples,” in Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism
in the Age of Erasmus, ed. Erika Rummel (Leiden, 2008), pp. 117–41.
114 Moore, “The Role of the Fathers”, p. 134.
115 Germain Marc’Hadour, “Fathers and Doctors of the Church”, in The Complete Works
of St. Thomas More, eds Lawler et al., 6:526–35, at p. 531.
116 Richard C. Marius, “Thomas More and the Early Church Fathers,” Traditio 24 (1968),
379–407, at 381.
117 Katharine Gardiner Rodgers, “The Seven Deadly Sins,” in The Complete Works of St.
Thomas More, vol. 1, eds Anthony S.G. Edwards et al. (New Haven—London, 1963; repr.
1997), pp. lxxxv and 262, n. 153. More’s treatise, “The Four Last Things,” was left unfinished
in 1522.
118 Marc’Hadour, “Fathers and Doctors of the Church,” p. 531. Thomas More, “Response
to Luther,” trans. Scholastica Mandeville, in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 5,
ed. John M. Headley (New Haven—London, 1969), p. 781.
119 Lief Grane, “Some Remarks on the Church Fathers in the First Years of the Reforma-
tion 1516–1520,” in Auctoritas Patrum, eds Lief Grane et al., 1:21–32.
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 381

from Erasmus’ philosophia christiana to Martin Luther’s emphasis on fides

Christi.120 While Petrarch and Erasmus saw the fathers of the Church as
integral to scriptural interpretation and to reform of the Church, for the
Protestant reformers the fathers, with a few exceptions, were seen as part
of the problem; they should be respected for their faith, they could be
useful at times, but they were fallible and at worst had done a disservice
to the Church by their scriptural interpretations and theology.121 Philip
Melanchthon shifted the origin of the decline of the Church from Grego-
ry’s papacy to his successor, Boniface III.122 It was Gregory, however, who
brought in purgatory, private masses, the saints, and miracles, to the detri-
ment of the Church.
By the 1540s the authority of the Church fathers was diminished and
views on Gregory became as polarized as the historical context in which
they were discussed. The Catholic Reformation continued to use Gregory
to underscore the link between the antiquity of the Church and the papacy
in Rome. Pope Gregory XIII (1572–85) intentionally modeled his papacy
on that of Gregory the Great.123 While Protestantism would demote the
authority of Gregory, the University of Alcalá in Spain sealed Gregory’s
place as an authority in its promotion of the cult of the four Doctors of
the Church—Augustine, Jerome, Gregory, and Ambrose. In Tudor and
Stuart England Gregory’s papacy became a battleground for Catholic and
Protestant polemic. English Recusants in the late 16th and 17th centuries
held fast to the idea of “our Gregory” in their institutions abroad. At his
condemnation hearing for treason in 1535, Thomas More quoted Gregory
in his repudiation of Henry’s right to break with the papacy. It is both a
lament and reminder to the court: 124
No more might this Realm of England refuse obedience to the see of Rome
than might the child refuse obedience to his own natural father. For as
St. Paul said of the Corinthians, “I have regenerated you, my children in Christ”,
so St. Gregory, pope of Rome, from whom we first received the Christian

120 Grane, “Some Remarks on the Church Fathers”, pp. 22–23.

121 Martin Luther, “Lectures on Genesis chapters 15–20,” (1535–45) in Luther’s Works,
vol. 3, eds John Lehman and Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis, 1961), p. 350.
122 Peter Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum. The Function of the Patristic Argument in the
Theology of Philip Melanchthon (Geneva, 1961), p. 96; John M. Headley, Luther’s View of the
Church (New Haven—London, 1963), pp. 190–94.
123 Nicola Courtright, The Papacy and the Art of Reform in Sixteenth-century Rome: Greg-
ory XIII’s Tower of the Winds in the Vatican (Cambridge, 2003).
124 Germain P. Marc’Hadour, “Saint Grégoire le grand et saint Thomas More,” in Gré-
goire le grand, eds Jacques Fontaine et al., pp. 621–34, at 630, n. 4 (modified translation).
382 ann kuzdale

faith by St. Augustine his messenger, might truly say of us Englishmen, “You
are my children, because I have given you everlasting salvation, a far higher
and better inheritance than any carnal father can leave to his children, and
by regeneration made you my spiritual children in Christ.”
The men of the Renaissance and early Reformation found much to admire
in Gregory. Petrarch and others found his exegetical writings, his faith, and
his sanctity to reflect the best of the early Church fathers and an inspira-
tion for contemporary Church reform. Yet certain negative impressions
of Gregory persisted, especially that of the Pope Gregory who destroyed
classical antiquities.
In the century to come, Gregory remained a figure who was never far
from the discussion of the new questions that the Protestant and Catholic
Reformations raised. For the Catholic hierarchy Pope Gregory’s papacy
and teachings remained important to its attempt to reclaim Christen-
dom. For the developing Anglican faith which still admired that bishop
of Rome, Gregory needed to be wrested from his papal trappings and
medieval superstition. The construction and reconstruction of Gregory
the Great was not yet over.
 Appendix

Preliminary List of Incunabula and Early Printed Latin

Books of Gregory the Great c.1460–1619125

Commentum super Cantica canticorum

Cologne: Ulrich Zell, 1465–73
Cologne: Bartholomaeus de Unkel, 1480
Paris: Ulrich Gering and Berthold Rembolt, 1498–99, 1509
Basel: Michael Furter, 1496
Paris: Rembolt and Waterloes, c.1509–10
Paris: Iohannes Barbier and Jean Petit, 1511
Lyons: Simon Bevilaqua, 1516
Venice: Melchior Sessas et Petrus de Rauanis, 1519

Dialogorum libri quatuor

Mainz: Peter Schoeffer, 1470
Strassburg: Heinrich Eggestein, 1472–74
Cologne: Ulrich Zell, 1473
Augsburg: Johann Bämler at the Monastery of SS. Ulrich and Afra, 1473
and 1476
Paris: Ulrich Gering, 1479
Augsburg: J. Wiener, 1479
Cologne: Bartholomaeus de Unkel, c.1480, 1481, 1482
Strassburg: Jacob Eber, 1481, 1484
Paris: Georg Wolf, 1490
Venice: Hieronymus de Paganinis, 1492
Paris: Ulrich Gering and Berthold Rembolt, 1494 (1495), 1508, 1513
Basel: Michael Furter, 1496
Paris: Jean Petit, 1511
Paris: B. Rembolt, 1513
Venice: Joannes Rubeus Vercellensis, 1514
Lyons: Simon Beuilaqua, 1516
Venice: Petrus Leichtenstein, 1520
Douai: Baltazar Belleri [Bellère], 1596
Ingolstad: n.p., 1602
Cologne: Bernardi Gualteri, 1611

125 Where possible the place names and publishers have been translated into the ver-
nacular but may reflect inconsistencies in the original publication.
384 ann kuzdale

Homiliae XL super Evangeliis [Homiliae de diversis evangelii lectionibus]

Augsburg: Günther Zainer, 1473
Cologne: Bartholomaeus de Unkel, 1475
Paris: Ulrich Gering, Martin Crantz and Michael Friburger, 1475
Paris: Georg Wolff, 1491
Venice: Peregrinus Pasquale [and D. Bertochus], 1493
Paris: Ulrich Gering and Berchtold Rembolt, 1502, 1508
Antwerp: Theod. Martinus [Thierry Martens] Alost., 1509
Burgensi: Fredericum alemanum de Basilea, 1510
Paris: Jean Petit, 1511
Lyons: Simon Bevilaqua, 1516
Paris: B. Rembolt, 1518

Homiliae super Ezechielem

Brussels: Fratres vitae communis, c.1476–77
Paris: Georg Wolf, 1489–91
Basel: Michael Furter, 1496
Paris: Udalrich Gering and Bertold Rembolt, 1502
Paris: Jean Petit, 1511
Paris: Berthold Rembolt, 1512
Lyons: Simon Bevilaqua, 1515
Paris: Ulrich Gering, or G. Wolff, n.d.

Moralia, sive Expositio in Job

Basel: Berthold Ruppel, 1468, 1470
Nuremberg: Johann Sensenschmidt, 1471
Rome: Sanctum Marcum (Vitus Puecher), 1475
Cologne: Conrad Winters de Homborch, 1475, 1476, 1477, 1479
Venice: Reynaldus de Nouimagio, 1480
Paris: Udalrich Gering and Berthold Rembolt, 1495
Basel: Nicolaus Kesler, 1496, 1503
Venice: Andreas Torresanus de Asula, 1496
Brescia: Angelus Britannicus, 1498
Salamanca: Juan de Gysser [Hans Gysser de Seligenstadt], 1508
Basel: Ludovic Hornken, 1513, 1514
Lyons: Jacob Mareschal, 1518
Paris: François Regnault, 1521
Lyons: Jacobi Giunti, 1530
 the reception of gregory in the renaissance & reformation 385

Liber regulae pastoralis

Mainz: Johann Fust and Peter Schöffer, 1460
Cologne: Ulrich Zell, 1470
Nuremberg: Johann Sensenschmidt, 1471
Basel: Martin Flach, 1472
Cologne: n.p., 1472
Albi: Johann Neumeister, 1478
Cologne: Conrad Winters, de Homborch, 1482
Venice: Johann Herolt, 1492
Venice: Hieronymus de Paganinis, 1492
Paris: Georg Wolf, 1492
Paris: Ulrich Gering and Berthold Rembolt, 1495, 1498
Argentiae: Jordanus de Quedlinburg, 1496
Basel: Michael Furter, 1496
Strasburg: Georg Husner, 1496
Rome: Johann Besicken and Jacobus de Mazochius, 1506
Salamanca: Juan de Gysser [Hans Gysser de Seligenstadt], 1508
Paris: in Lilio aureo vici divi Jacobi Parrhisiis, 1511
Paris: n.p., 1512
Brescia: Damian Turlino, 1550s, 1565
Louvain: Hieronymus Wellaeus, 1562
Rouen: Jean Crevel, 1618
Albi: Johann Neumeister, n.d.
Zwolle: Pieter van Os, n.d.

Liber epistolarum
Augsburg: Günther Zainer, 1472, 1474–76, 1477
Augsburg: J. Wiener, 1479
Venice: Lazarus de Soardis, 1504
Paris: Udalrich Gering and Berthold Rembolt, 1508

Opera Omnia
Paris: B. Rembolt, 1518, 1533, 1542
Paris: François Regnault, 1521
Paris: Claude Chevallon, 1523, 1533
Lyons: Mareschal, 1539
Lyons: n.p., 1540
Lyons: A. Vincen., 1540
Paris: Charlotte [Carola] Guillard, 1542
386 ann kuzdale

Basel: Froben, 1544, 1550, 1551, 1564

Lyons: Hugo à Porta, 1551
Paris: Jean de Roigny, 1551
Paris: Audoën Parvus (Petit), 1551
Paris: Charlotte [Carola] Guillard, widow of Claude Chevellon, and Gui-
lelmus des Boys, 1551
Paris: Gulielmus Merlin, Guilelmus des Boys and Sébastien Niuelle, 1562
Basel: Hieronymus Froben et Nicolaus Episcopus, 1564
Paris: Sébastien Nivelle, 1571
Venice: Bartholomaeus Rota, 1571
Antwerp: widow and heir of Ioannis Stesij, 1571–72
Antwerp: sons of Arnoldi Birckmanni, 1572
Venice: Dominic de Farris, 1583
Paris: Compagnie du grand navire, 1586, 1619
Rome: n.p., 1588–93
Paris: n.p., 1605, 1619
Rome: Apostolic Camera, 1608–13
Antwerp: Peter and Johann Beller, 1615
Antwerp: Johann Keerberg, 1615, 1619
 Bibliography

Primary Sources, Including Translations

ACO 1,1–5: Concilium universale Ephesenum, ed. Eduard Schwartz, 5 vols. (Berlin, 1922–30).
ACO 2,2,1: Concilium universale Chalcedonense, ed. Eduard Schwartz (Berlin, 1932); trans.
Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols., Trans-
lated Texts for Historians 45 (Liverpool, 2005).
ACO 4,1: Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustinianum habitum I: Concilii
actiones VIII, eds. Eduard Schwartz and Johannes Straub (Berlin, 1971).
ACO ser. 2,1: Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum, ed. Rudolf Riedinger (Berlin, 1984).
ACO ser. 2,2: Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertium, ed. Rudolf Riedinger
(Berlin, 1992).
ACO ser. 2,3,1: Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, ed. Erich Lamberz (Berlin, 2008).
Acta martyrum, ed. and trans. Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, Oxford
Early Christian Texts (Oxford, 1972).
Agnellus of Ravenna, Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, ed. Deborah Mauskopf Deli-
yannis, CCCM 199 (Turnhout, 2006). Trans. Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis, The Book of
Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna (Washington DC, 2004).
Aldhelm, De virginitate, ed. R. Ehwald, MGH AA 15 (Berlin, 1919).
Ambrose, De excessu fratris, ed. Otto Faller, CSEL 73 (Vienna, 1897).
Ambrose, De institutione uirginis, ed. Michele Salvati, Corona Patrum salesiana, series latina 6
(Turin, 1955), pp. 303–97.
Ambrose, De Isaac vel anima, ed. E. Dassman, Fontes Christiani 48 (Turnhout, 2003).
Ambrose, De Noe, ed. Carl Schenkl, CSEL 32.1 (Vienna, 1897), pp. 413–97.
Ambrose, De officiis, ed. Maurice Testard, CCSL 15 (Turnholt, 1957).
Ambrose, Hexameron, ed. Carl Schenkl, CSEL 32.1 (Vienna, 1897).
Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Collectanea, PL 129:557–774.
Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Preface to the Collectanea, eds. Ernst Perels and Gerhard Laehr,
MGH Epp. 7 (Berlin, 1928), pp. 422–26.
Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Preface to the Miracula SS.Cyri et Iohannis, ed. Walter Ber-
schin, “Bonifatius Consiliarius. Ein römischer Übersetzer in der byzantinischen Epoche
des Papsttums,” in Lateinische Kultur im VIII. Jahrhundert, eds. Albert Lehner and Walter
Berschin (St Ottilien, 1989), p. 39; eds. Ernst Perels and Gerhard Laehr, MGH Epp. 7
(Berlin, 1928), pp. 426–27.
Anastasius Bibliothecarius (?), Epitome chronicarum Casinensium, ed. Ludovico Antonio
Muratori, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, 2,1 (Milan, 1723).
Anon., Tractatus Hilarii in epistulas catholicas, ed. Robert E. McNally, Scriptores Hiberniae
Minores 1, CCSL 108B (Turnhout, 1973), pp. 3–50.
Anon. of Whitby, Liber beati et laudabili viri Gregorii papae urbis Romae de vita atque eius
virtutibus. ed. and trans. Bertram Colgrave, The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great by an
Anonymous Monk of Whitby (Lawrence, KA, 1968; repr. Cambridge, 1985).
Apophthegmata patrum, PG 65:71–440. Les apophthègmes des pères, collection systématique,
ed. Jean-Claude Guy, 3 vols., SC 387, 474, 498 (Paris, 1993–2005).
Aristotle, Historia Animalia, ed. David M. Balme, Cambridge classical texts and commen-
taries 38 (Cambridge—New York, 2002).
Aristotle, Nichomachian Ethics, ed. J. Bywater (Oxford, 1894) at http://www.perseus.tufts
.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0053&redirect=true.
Athanasius of Alexandria, Vita Antonii, ed. and trans. Gerard J.M. Bartelink, Athanase d’Ale-
xandrie, Vie d’Antoine, SC 400 (Paris, 1994).
388 bibliography

Auctarii Hauniensis Extrema, ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA, Chronica minora saeculo-
rum IV–VII (Berlin, 1892), 1:337–39.
Augustine Hibernicus, De mirabilibus sacrae scripturae, PL 35:2149–200.
Augustine of Hippo, Confessiones.
 Knöll, Pius (ed.), CSEL 33 (Vienna, 1896).
 Verheijen, Lucas (ed.), Confessionum libri XII, CCSL 27 (Turnhout, 1981).
Augustine of Hippo, De civ. Dei, eds. Bernardus Dombart and Alphonsus Kalb, CCSL 47–48
(Turnhout, 1955).
Augustine of Hippo, De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, ed. Almut Mutzenbecher,
CCSL 44 (Turnhout, 1970).
Augustine of Hippo, De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, ed. Almut Mutzenbecher,
CCSL 44A (Turnhout, 1975).
Augustine of Hippo, De doctrina christiana.
 Green, Roger P.H. (ed.) (Oxford, 1995).
 Martin, Joseph (ed.), CCSL 32 (Turnhout, 1962).
Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad litteram libri XII, ed. Joseph Zycha, CSEL 28 (Vienna, 1894).
Augustine of Hippo, De libero arbitrio libri III, ed. W.M. Green, CCSL 29 (Turnhout, 1970).
Augustine of Hippo, De musica, ed. Giovanni Marzi (Florence, 1969).
Augustine of Hippo, De trinitate libri XV, ed. William J. Mountain with Fr. Glorie, CCSL
50–50A (Turnhout, 1968).
Augustine of Hippo, Domini in Monte libros duos: post maurinorum recensionem, ed. Almut
Mutzenbecher, CCSL 35 (Turnhout, 1967).
Augustine of Hippo, Enarr. in Ps., CCSL 38–40 (Turnhout, 1956); PL 36:67–1027.
Augustine of Hippo, Enchiridion ad Laurentium, de fide et spe et caritate liber I, ed. L. Evans,
CCSL 46 (Turnhout, 1969).
Augustine of Hippo, Epistulae, ed. Alois Goldbacher, S. Augustini epistulae, XXXI–CXXIII,
CSEL 34.2 (Vienna, 1898).
Augustine of Hippo, In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus CXXIV, ed. Radbodus Willem, CCSL
36 (Turnhout, 1954; repr. 1990).
Bede, HE.
Plummer, Charles (ed.), 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896).
Colgrave, Bertram and R.A.B. Mynors (eds. and trans.), Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the
English People, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1969).
Lapidge, Michael (ed.), André Crépin (intr. and notes), Pierre Monat and Philippe Robin
(trans.), Bède le vénérable, Histoire ecclésiastique du peuple anglais, 3 vols., SC 489–91
(Paris, 2005).
Benedict of Nursia (?), Regula Benedicti.
de Vogüé, Adalbert (ed. and trans.), SC 181 (Paris, 1972).
Hanslik, Rudolph (ed.), CSEL 75 (Vienna, 1977).
Canterbury Commentator, First Commentary on the Pentateuch, eds. Bernard Bischoff and
Michael Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and
Hadrian (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 298–384.
Canterbury Commentator, Second Canterbury Commentary on the Gospels, eds. Bernard
Bischoff and Michael Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theo-
dore and Hadrian (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 396–422.
Cassiodorus, De anima, CCSL 96.
Cassiodorus, Institutiones.
Halporn, James W. (trans.) and Mark Vessey (intro.), Cassiodorus: Institutions of Divine
and Secular Learning (Liverpool, 2004).
Mynors, R.A.B. (ed.), Institutiones (Oxford, 1937).
Cicero, De divinatione, ed. W.A. Falconer (London, 1923).
Cicero, De officiis, ed. Michael Winterbottom, Oxford Classical Texts (Oxford, 1994).
Cicero, De Oratore, ed. Augustus Samuel Wilkins (Oxford, 1902); trans. idem, Orator
(Oxford, 1903).
 bibliography 389

Cicero, M. Tulli Ciceronis Tusculanarum disputationum libri quinque: a revised text, ed.
Thomas Wilson Dougan (New York, 1979).
Cicero, Paradoxa Stoicorum. ed. Otto Plasberg (Leipzig, 1908).
Collectio Avellana, ed. Otto Guenther, Epistolae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab
a. CCCLXVII usque DLIII datae Avellana quae dicitur collectio, CSEL 35, 2 vols. (Prague,
Vienna, Leipzig, 1895).
Columbanus, Epistulae, ed. G.S.M. Walker, Sancti Columbani Opera, Scriptores Latini
Hiberniae, vol. 2 (Dublin, 1957), pp. 2–12.
Concilia Gallica. ed. C. De Clerq, CCSL 148A (Turnhout, 1963).
Descriptio Basilicae Vaticanae, eds. Roberto Valentini and Giuseppe Zucchetti, Codice
topografico della città di Roma, vol. 3 (Rome, 1946).
Eddi, Stephanus, Vita Wilfridi, ed. and trans. Bertram Colgrave, The Life of Bishop Wilfrid
by Eddius Stephanus (Cambridge, 1927), ed. Wilhelm Levison, MGH SSRM 6 (Hannover,
1913), pp. 163–263.
Egbert, De institutione catholica dialogus, PL 89:435C–442D.
Ennodius, Opera, ed. Friedrich Vogel, MGH AA 7 (Berlin, 1885).
Epistulae Romanorum Pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a s. Hilaro usque ad
Pelagium II, ed. Andreas Thiel, Fasciculus I (1867; repr. Hildesheim, 2004).
Erasmus, Desiderius, Collected Works of Erasmus, eds. R. Schoeck and Beatrice Corrigan
(Toronto—Buffalo, 1974).
Erasmus, Desiderius, “Paraphrase on Mark,” Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 49, trans.
Erika Rummel (Toronto, 1988).
Erasmus, Desiderius, The Correspondence of Erasmus. Letters 842 to 992, 1518 to 1519, eds.
R.A.B. Mynors, D.F.S. Thomson, and P.G. Bietenholz, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 6
(Toronto—Buffalo, 1982).
Erasmus, Desiderius, The Correspondence of Erasmus, Letters 298–445 (1514–16), eds. R.A.B.
Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 3; trans. Margaret Mann
Phillips (Toronto—Buffalo, 1982).
Erasmus, Desiderius, “Patristic Scholarship, The Edition of Jerome,” eds. and trans. James F.
Brady and John C. Olin, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 61 (Toronto—Buffalo, 1992).
Eugenius of Toledo, Eugenii Toletani episcopi, epistulae, ed. F. Vollmer, MGH AA 14 (Berlin,
1905).
Eugippius, Vie de saint Séverin, ed. Philipp Régerat, SC 374 (Paris, 1991).
Eustratius Presbyter, Eustratii Presbyteri Vita Eutychii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani, ed.
Carl Laga, CCSG 25 (Turnhout, 1992).
Evagrius Scholasticus, HE.
Bidez, Joseph and Léon Parmentier (eds.), Historia ecclesiastica (London, 1898).
Whitby, Michael (trans.), The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus (Liverpool,
2000).
Ferrand, deacon of Carthage, Vie de saint Fulgence de Ruspe de Ferrand, diacre de Carthage,
ed. G.G. Laypere (Paris, 1929).
George of Resh‛aina, Vita Maximi syriaca, ed. Sebastian Brock, “An Early Syriac Life of
Maximus the Confessor,” Analecta Bollandiana 91 (1973), 299–346; repr. in idem, Syriac
Perspectives on Late Antiquity, Collected Studies Series 199 (London, 1984), XII.
George the Monk, Chronicon, eds. Carl de Boor and Peter Wirth, Georgius Monachus:
Chronicon, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1904).
Georgian Appendix to the Pratum Spirituale, Latin trans. by Gérard Garitte, “Histoires édi-
fiantes géorgiennes,” Byzantion 36 (1966), 398–423.
Gerontius, Vita Melaniae Junioris, ed. Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, Santa Melania giu-
niore, Senatrice romana (Rome, 1905).
Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. 101, ed. Paul Gallay, SC 208 (Paris, 1974), pp. 36–68.
Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Theophilum, ed. Fridericus Müller, GNO 3.1, Opera dogmatica minora
(Leiden, 1958), pp. 119–28.
390 bibliography

Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrheticus, ed. F. Müller, GNO 3.1, Opera dogmatica minora (Leiden
1958), pp. 131–233.
Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium libri, ed. Werner Jaeger, GNO 2, Pars altera: Liber III
(uulgo III–XII) (Leiden, 1960).
Gregory of Tours, HF.
Krusch, Bruno and Wilhelm Levison (eds.), Historia francorum, MGH SSRM 1.1/2 (Han-
nover, 1951).
Gregory of Tours, Gregorii episcopi Turonensis Miracula et opera minora, ed. Bruno Krusch,
MGH, SSRM 1, pars 2 (1885; repr. Hannover, 1969).
Gregory the Great, Cant.
Bélanger, Rodrigue (ed. and trans.), Grégoire le grand: Commentaire sur le Cantique des
Cantiques, SC 314 (Paris, 1984).
DelCogliano, Mark (trans.), Gregory the Great. On the Song of Songs (Collegeville, 2012).
Verbraken, Patrick (ed.), In Canticum Canticorum, CCSL 144 (Turnhout, 1963).
Gregory the Great, Dial.
De Vogüé, Adalbert and Paul Antin, S. Gregorii Magni Dialogi, SC 251, 260, 265 (Paris,
1978–80).
Foerster, Wendelin (ed.), Li dialoge Gregoire lo Pape: altfranzosische Übersetzung des XII.
Jahrhunderts der Dialogen des Papstes Gregor (Amsterdam, 1965).
Hecht, Hans (trans.), Bischof Waerferth von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors
des Grossen, 2 vols. (Darmstadt, 1900; repr. 1965).
Sandqvist, Sven (ed.), Le Dyalogue Saint Gregore: les Dialogues de saint Grégoire le grand
traduits en vers français à rimes léonines par un Normand anonyme du XIVe siècle
(Lund, 1989).
Simonetti, Manlio (ed.), and Salvatore Pricoco (intro. and commentary), Gregorio
Magno. Storie di santi e di diavoli, 1: Libri I–II (Rome, 2005).
Speyer, Johannes von (ed. and trans.) Dialogorum libri quattuor (Augsburg, 1473 and
1476).
Woodward, Philip (trans.), The Dialogues of S. Gregorie, surnamed the Greate: Pope of
Rome (Paris [i.e. Douai], 1608).
Zimmermann, Odo John (trans.), Saint Gregory the Great, Dialogues, Fathers of the
Church 39 (New York, 1959).
Los Diálogos del bienaventurado papa sant Gregorio sacados del latin en Romance: nueva-
mente por el reuerendo Padre Fray Gonzalo de Ocanna (Toledo, 1514).
Secundus dyalogorum liber beati Gregorij pape de vita ac miraculis beatissimi Benedicti.
Eiusdem almi patris nostri Benedicti regula. Speculum Bernardi abbatis casinensis de
his ad que in professione bolgatur monachus (Venice, 1505).
Zacharias, bishop of Rome: Greek version, PL 77:147–432; Book 2, ed. Gianpaolo Rigotti,
Vita di s. Benedetto nella versione greca di papa Zaccaria, Hellenica: Testi e strumenti
di letteratura greca antica, medievale e umanistica 8 (Alessandria, 2001).
Gregory the Great, HEv.
Étaix, Raymond (ed.), S. Gregorii Magni Homiliae in Evangelia, CCSL 141 (Turnhout, 1999).
Étaix, Raymond, Charles Morel, Bruno Judic, and Georges Blanc (eds. and trans.), Gré-
goire le grand: Homélies sur l’Évangile, SC 485, 522 (Paris, 2005, 2008).
Hurst, David (trans.), Gregory the Great. Forty Gospel Homilies (Kalamazoo, MI, 1990).
Gregory the Great, HEz.
Adriaen, Marc (ed.), S. Gregorii Magni Homiliae in Hiezechielem prophetam, CCSL 142
(Turnhout, 1971).
Morel, Charles (trans.), Grégoire le grand: Homélies sur Ezéchiel, SC 327 and SC 360
(Paris, 1986–90).
Gray, Theodosia (trans.), Homilies of St Gregory the Great on the Book of the Prophet
Ezekiel (Etna, CA, 1990).
Gregory the Great, Mor.
Adriaen, Marc (ed.), S. Gregorii Magni Moralia in Job, CCSL 143, 143A, 143B (Turnhout,
1979, 1985).
 bibliography 391

Gillet, Robert, Marc Adriaen et al. (eds. and trans.), Morales sur Job, 3rd ed., SC 32, 212,
221, 476, 525, 538 (Paris, 1975–2010).
Gregory the Great, I Reg.
Verbraken, Patrick (ed.), In I Librum Regum, CCSL 144 (Turnhout, 1963), pp. 47–641.
DelCogliano, Mark (trans.), Gregory the Great: On the Song of Songs, Cistercian Studies
Series 244 (Collegeville, MN, 2012).
Gregory the Great, Reg.
Ewald, Paul and Ludwig M. Hartmann (eds.), Registrum epistularum, MGH Epp. 1–2
(Hannover, 1891–99).
Martyn, John R.C. (trans.), The Letters of Gregory the Great, 3 vols. (Toronto, 2004).
Norberg, Dag (ed.), S. Gregorii Magni Registrum Epistularum libri I–XIV, CCSL 140, 140A
(Turnhout, 1982).
Gregory the Great, RP.
Davis, Henry (trans.), Pastoral Care, Ancient Christian Writers 12 (Westminister, 1959).
Demacopoulos, George E. (trans., intro.), St Gregory the Great, The Book of Pastoral Rule
with Translation and Introduction, Popular Patristic Texts Series (Crestwood, NY, 2007).
Judic, Bruno, Floribert Rommel, and Charles Morel (eds.), S. Gregorii Magni Regula Pas-
toralis, SC 381, 382 (Paris, 1992).
Pagan, Martine (ed.), Le Pastoralet. Traduction médiévale française de la Regula Pastora-
lis; édition critique du manuscrit 868 de la Bibliothèque municipale de Lyon (Paris, 2007).
Sweet, Henry (ed.), King Alfred’s West-Saxon Version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care, 2 vols.,
Early English Texts Society, 45, 50 (London, 1871–72; repr. Oxford, 1958).
Historia Monachorum in Aegypto. Édition critique du texte grec et traduction annotée, ed.
André-Jean Festugière, Subsidia Hagiographica 53 (Brussels, 1971).
Honorius I, Epistola iv. ad Sergium Constantinopolitanum episcopum, PL 80:470–74.
Horace, Ars poetica, ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey (Stuttgart, 1991).
Hugh of St Victor, Didascalicon, ed. and trans. Jerome Taylor, The Didascalicon of Hugh of
St Victor. A Medieval Guide to the Arts (New York, 1991).
Isidore of Seville, Carmina, ed. José Maria Sanchez Martin, CCSL 113A (Turnhout, 2000).
Isidore of Seville, De viris illustribus, PL 83.
Jerome, Apologia contra Rufinum, ed. Pierre Lardet, CCSL 79 (Turnhout, 1982).
Jerome, Epistulae.
Hilberg, Isidor (ed.), Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, 3 vols., CSEL 54–56 (Vienna—
Leipzig 1910–18).
Labourt, J. (ed. and trans.), Lettres, 2 vols. (Paris, 1949).
John IV, Apologia pro Honorio, PL 80:602–07.
John Capgrave, Ye Solace of Pilgrims. A Description of Rome circa A.D. 1450, ed. C.A. Mills
(Oxford, 1911).
John Cassian, Conlationes, eds. Michael Petschenig and Gottfried Kreuz, Iohannis Cassiani
Conlationes XXIIII, CSEL 13, 2nd ed. (Vienna, 2004).
John Cassian, De Incarnatione, ed. Michael Petschenig, CSEL 17, (Vienna, 1868; repr. 2004),
pp. 233–391.
John Cassian, De institutis coenobiorum et de octo principalium uitiorum remediis.
Guy, Jean-Claude (ed.), Institutions cénobitiques, SC 109 (Paris, 1965).
Petschenig, Michael (ed.), De institutis coenobiorum, CSEL 17 (Vienna, 1868; repr. 2004).
John Climacus, Scala paradisi, PG 88:585–1248.
Luibheid, Colm and Norman Russell (trans.), with an introduction by Kallistos Ware,
The Ladder of Divine Ascent (London, 1982).
John Malalas, Chronographia, trans. Elizabeth Jeffreys et al. (Melbourne, 1986).
John Moschus, Pratum spirituale, PG 87C:2852A–3112B; Prologus, ed. Hermann Usener, Der
heilige Tychon (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 91–93.
John Philoponus, Tract, ed. Albert van Roey, “Un traité cononite contre la doctrine de
Jean Philopon sur la résurrection,” in Antidoron: Hulde aan Maurits Geerard bij de
voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum Graecorum / Hommage à Maurits Geerard pour célébrer
l’achèvement de la Clavis Patrum Graecorum (Brussels, 1984), pp. 123–39.
392 bibliography

John of Ephesus, HE.

Brooks, Edward E. (ed.), Iohannis Ephesini Historiae ecclesiasticae pars tertia, 2 vols.
(Louvain, 1952).
Payne Smith, Robert (trans.), The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John, Bishop
of Ephesus (Oxford, 1860).
John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints. Syriac Text, ed. and trans. Edward W. Brooks,
3 parts, Patrologia Orientalis 17.1 (1923); ibid. 18.4 (1924); ibid. 19.2 (1926).
John of Nikiu, Chronicon, trans. Robert H. Charles, The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu
(London, 1916).
John of Salisbury, Policraticus.
Keats-Rohan, K.S.B., (ed.), Policraticus, CCCM 118, 146 (Turnhout, 1993).
Webb, Clemens C.J. (ed.), Policraticus (Oxford, 1909).
John of Thessalonica, Miracula s. Demetrii, ed. and trans. Paul Lemerle, Les plus anciens
recueils des miracles de saint Démétrius, 2 vols. (Paris, 1979).
John Rufus, Plêrophoriai, ed. François Nau, Patrologia Orientalia 8.1 (Paris, 1912).
John the Deacon, Vita Gregorii, PL 75:63–242.
Jordanes, Getica, MGH AA 5,1, ed. Theodor Mommsen (Berlin, 1882; repr. 1961), pp.
53–138.
Julian of Eclanum, Expositio libri Iob, ed. Lucas de Coninck, CCSL 88 (Turnhout, 1988).
Justinian I, imp. Codex Iustinianus, ed. Paul Krüger (Berlin, 1915).
Justinian I, imp. Corpus iuris civilis, eds. Rudolph Schöll, William Kroll, Theodor Mommsen
and Paul Krüger, 3 vols., 9th ed. (repr. Dublin—Zurich, 1968).
Justinian I, imp., Edicta.
Justinian I, imp., Novellae, eds. Rudolf Schöll et al., Corpus iuris civilis, vol. 3, 9th ed. (Berlin,
1912; repr. Dublin—Zurich, 1968).
Justinian I, imp., Sanctio Pragmatica (= Novellae, App. VII.22), ed. Rudolf Schöll, Corpus
Iuris Civilis, vol. 3 (Berlin, 1895), p. 802.
Juvenal, Satirae, ed. and trans. Susanna Morton Braund, Juvenal and Persius (Cambridge
MA, 2004).
Lathcen, Egloga, ed. Marc Adriaen, CCSL 145 (Turnhout, 1969).
Leander of Seville, Homilia in laudem ecclesiae, Concilios visigoticos e hispano-romanos,
eds. José Vives et al. (Barcelona, 1963), pp. 139–44.
Leander of Seville, Regula de institutione uirginum, ed. Jaime Velazquez (Madrid, 1979),
pp. 97–174.
Leo Marsicanus, Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, MGH SS 7
(Hannover, 1846; repr. Stuttgart—New York, 1963), pp. 574–727.
Leo the Great, Epistulae, ed. Carlo Silva-Tarouca, Textus et documenta series theologica 9,
15, 20, 23 (Rome, 1932–37).
Leo the Great, ep. 4, ed. Hubertus Wurm, “Epistula decretalis S. Leonis magni Romani
pontificis,” Apollinaris 12 (1939), 79–93.
Leo the Great, Homiliae.
Chavasse, Antoine (ed.), Sancti Leonis magni Romani pontificis tractatus septem et
nonaginta, CCSL 138 and 138A (Turnhout, 1973).
Neil, Bronwen (trans.), Leo the Great, The Early Church Fathers (London—New York,
2009) = selected letters and homilies.
Leontius of Neapolis, Vita Iohannis Elimosynensis, eds. André-Jean Festugière and Lennart
Rydén, Léontios de Néapolis: Vie de Syméon le Fou, Vie de Jean de Chypre (Paris, 1974),
pp. 343–437.
Liber diurnus Romanorum pontificum, ed. Theodor Sickel (Vienna, 1889).
LP.
Davis, Raymond (trans.), The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis). The Ancient Biographies
of the First Ninety Roman Bishops to AD 715, Translated Texts for Historians 6, 2nd ed.
(Liverpool, 2000).
Davis, Raymond (trans.), The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis). The
Ancient Biographies of Nine Popes from AD 715 to AD 817, Translated Texts for Histori-
ans 13 (Liverpool, 1992).
 bibliography 393

Duchesne, Louis and Cyrille Vogel (eds.), Le Liber Pontificalis, 3 vols., 2nd ed. (Paris,
1955–57).
Mommsen, Theodor (ed.), Liber pontificalis, Gestorum Pontificum Romanorum (Berlin,
1898).
Livy, Ab urbe condita, ed. R.G. Ogilvie (Oxford, 1974).
Livy, Naturalis historiae, ed. H. Rockham (Cambridge MA—London, 1968).
Luther, Martin, “Lectures on Genesis chapters 15–20,” (1535–45) in Luther’s Works, vol. 3,
eds. John Lehman and Jaroslav Pelikan (St Louis, 1961).
Luther, Martin, “Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil” (1545), in Luther’s
Works, vol. 41: Church and Ministry 3, ed. Eric W. Gritsch (Philadelphia, 1966).
Martianus Capella.
Dick, A. and J. Préuax (eds.) (Stuttgart, 1978).
Willis, James (ed.) (Leipzig, 1983).
Martin of Braga, Martini episcopi Bracarensis opera omnia, ed. Claude W. Barlow (New
Haven, CO, 1959).
Martin I, pope, Epistulae, PL 87:153B–167D.
Master Gregory, De mirabilibus Urbis Romae.
Osborne, John (trans.), The Marvels of Rome (Toronto, 1987).
Valentini, Roberto and Giuseppe Zucchetti (eds.), in Codice topografico della città di
Roma, vol. 3 (Rome, 1946).
Maximianus, Elegiae, in Poetae Latinae Minores 5, ed. Aemilius Baehrens (Leipzig, 1883).
Maximus Confessor [Anastasius Bibliothecarius], Diffloratio ex epistola s. Maximi ad Mari-
num, PL 129:567–74.
Maximus Confessor, Disputatio cum Pyrrho, PG 91:288–353.
Maximus the Confessor, Opusculum 10, Ad Marinum Cypri presbyterum, PG 91:133–37.
Maximus Confessor, Scholia on Ps.-Dionysius, PG 4.
Milo of St Amand, Vita Amandi Episcopi II, ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH SSRM 5 (Hannover,
1910), pp. 452–56.
More, Thomas, The Complete Works of St Thomas More, eds. Thomas M.C. Lawler, Germain
P. Marc’Hadour, and Richard Marius, 15 vols. (New Haven, 1963–90).
More, Thomas, “Response to Luther,” trans. Scholastica Mandeville, in The Complete Works
of St Thomas More, vol. 5, ed. John M. Headley (New Haven—London, 1969).
Ordines Romani, ed. Michel Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du Haut Moyen Âge, 4 vols. (Leu-
ven, 1931–71).
Origen, Commentarium in Canticum canticorum 2, trans. Rufinus, ed. Willem Adolf Baeh-
rens, Corpus Berolinense 33 (Berlin, 1925), pp. 61–241.
Origen, De principiis, ed. Paul Koetschau, Origenes Werke V. De principiis, GCS 22 (Berlin,
1913).
Palladius, Dialogus de vita sancti Johannis Chrysostomi, SC 341.
Palladius, Historia Lausiaca (Greek), ed. and trans. A. Lucot, Histoire lausiaque, Textes et
documents pour l’étude historique du christianisme (Paris, 1912).
Palladius, Historia Lausiaca (Latine), PL 73:1091–218; ed. and trans. Adelheid Wellhausen,
Die lateinische Übersetzung der Historia Lausiaca des Palladius: Textausgabe mit Einlei-
tung, Patristische Texte und Studien 51 (Berlin, 2003).
Paterius, Liber Testimoniorum, PL 79:683–916.
Paul Evergetinus, Synagoge, ed. and trans. Matthew Laggis: Evergetinos itoi Synagogi,
4 vols., 6th ed. (Athens, 1992–93).
Paul the Deacon, HL, eds. Ludwig Bethmann and Georg Waitz, MGH SSRL (Hannover,
1878), pp. 12–187.
Paul the Deacon, Vita Gregorii Magni.
Grisar, H. (ed.), “Die Gregorbiographie des Paulus Diakonus in ihrer ursprünglichen
Gestalt, nach italienischen Handschriften,” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 11
(1887), 158–73.
Tuzzo, Sabina (ed.), Vita Sancti Gregorii Magni (Pisa, 2002).
Paulinus of Milan, Life of St Ambrose, ed. Marco Navoni, Vita di Sant’Ambrogio, (Milan,
1996).
394 bibliography

Paulinus of Nola, Carmina. Pontii metropii Paulini Nolani opera, pars 2, eds. Wilhelm von
Hartel and Margit Kamptner, CSEL 30 (Vienna, 1999).
Paulinus of Nola, Epistulae, PL 61.
Pelagius I, Epistulae, eds. Pius M. Gassó and Columba M. Batlle, Pelagii I Papae epistulae
quae supersunt (556–561), Scripta et Documenta 8 (Montserrat, 1956).
Pelagius II, Epistulae ad episcopos Histriae, eds. Paul Ewald and Ludwig M. Hartmann,
MGH Epp. 2, Appendix 3.1–3, (Berlin, 1899), pp. 442–67; ed. Eduard Schwartz, ACO 4,2,
Concilium uniuersale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum (Strasbourg, 1914),
pp. 105–32.
Pelagius II, ep. 2 ad Gregorium diaconum, eds. Paul Ewald and Ludwig M. Hartmann, MGH
Epp. 2 (Berlin, 1899), pp. 440–41.
Peter Abelard, Sic et Non, eds. Blanche Boyer and Richard McKeon (Chicago, 1976–77).
Peter Abelard, Theologia christiana, ed. Eligius-Marie Buytaert, CCCM 12 (Turnhout, 1969).
Peter of Cava, Commentaire sur le Premier Livre des Rois, SC 432 (Paris, 1998).
Petrarch, Francisco, De los remedios contra prospera y aduersa fortuna, trans. Francisco
de Madrid (Saragossa, 1518).
Petrarch, Francisco, On Religious Leisure (De otio religioso), ed. and trans. Susan S. Schreiner
(New York, 2002).
Photius, Bibliotheca, ed. René Henry, Photius: Bibliothèque, 9 vols. (Paris, 1959–91).
Plato, Res publica, ed. John Burnet, Platonis opera 4 (Oxford, 1924).
Pliny, Naturalis historia, ed. H. Rockham (Cambridge MA—London, 1968).
Pontius, Vita Caecilii Cypriani, in Vita di Cipriano. Vita di Ambrogio. Vita di Agostino,
ed. A.A.R. Bastiaensen, trans. Luca Canali and Carlo Carena, 4th ed. (Milan, 1997),
pp. 4–49.
Procopius of Caesarea, Opera omnia, ed. and trans. Henry B. Dewing, Procopius, 7 vols.,
Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge MA, 1914–40; repr. 2000).
Prologus in Antiphonarium, ed. Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, Divitiae musicae artis,
A/III (Buren, 1975).
Prosper Tiro, Epitome chronicon edita primum a. CCCXXXIII continuata ad a. CCCCLV, 1367,
ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH AA Chron. min. 9 (Berlin, 1892).
Ps. Ambrose, Inventio et passio SS Geruasii et Protasii, PL 17:742.
Ps. Gregory, De Conflictu vitiorum et virtutum (Utrecht, 1473).
Ps. Gregory, Expositio in VII psalmos poenitentiales (Mainz, 1495).
Ps. John of Damascus, Oratio de his qui in fide dormierunt, PG 95:247A–278C.
Quintilian, Institutiones.
Radermacher, Ludwig and V. Buchheit (eds.), Institutionis oratoriae liber XII, (Leipzig,
1959; repr. 1971).
Winterbottom, Michael (ed.), Institutiones (Oxford, 1970).
Recueil des chartes de l’abbaye de Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire, eds. M. Prou and A. Vidier, 2 vols.
(Paris, 1900–37).
Regesta pontificum Romanorum, eds. Philipp Jaffé and Wilhelm Wattenbach, 2 vols. (Leipzig,
1885).
Rufinus, Commentarius in symbolum apostolorum, in Opera, ed. Manlio Simonetti, CCSL
20:125–82 (Turnhout, 1961).
Rufinus, Homiliae xvi Origenis in Leviticum, ed. Marcel Bourrat, Origène, Homélies sur le
Lévitique, 2 vols., SC 286–87 (Paris, 1981).
Rufinus, Origenis libri de principiis, PG 11:111–414.
Rufinus, Tyranni Rufini orationum Gregorii Nazianzeni novem interpretatio, ed. A. Engel-
brecht, CSEL 46 (Vienna, 1908).
Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. Giovanni Domenico Mansi, 14 vols.
(Florence, 1759–71; repr. Graz, 1960–61).
Salutati, Collucio, De fato et fortuna, ed. Concetta Bianca (Florence, 1985).
Salutati, Colluccio, De seculo et religione, ed. B.L. Ullman (Florence, 1957).
 bibliography 395

Salutati, Colluccio, Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, ed. Francesco Novati (Rome, 1891–
1905).
Seneca, Ad Lucilium epistulae morales, ed. Leighton D. Reynolds (Oxford, 1965).
Servius Grammaticus, Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii Georgica Liber 1.1–100 Com-
mentarius, ed. Georg Thilo (Leipzig, 1887).
Sidonius Apollinaris, Epistulae.
Anderson, W.B. (ed.), 2 vols. (London, 1965).
Lütjohann, Christian (ed.), MGH AA 8 (Berlin, 1887).
Sophronius of Jerusalem, De circumcisione, ed. John Duffy, “New Fragments of Sophronius
of Jerusalem and Aristo of Pella?” in Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient: Festschrift
für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 187, eds. Dmitrij
Bumazhnov et al. (Leuven, 2011) pp. 15–28.
Sophronius of Jerusalem, Epigrammata in locum hospitibus destinatum, PG 87c.
Sophronius of Jerusalem, Miracula sanctorum Cyri et Johannis, ed. Natalio Fernández
Marcos, Los Thaumata de Sofronio: Contribucion al Estudio de La Incubatio Cristiana
(Madrid, 1975); trans. Bonifatius Consiliarius and Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Miracula
SS.Cyri et Iohannis, PG 87:3423–675.
Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, Divus Iulius, ed. and trans. Hans Martinet, C. Suetonius Tran-
quillus, Die Kaiserviten/De vita Caesarum, Berühmte Männer/De viris illustribus, 2nd ed.
(Düsseldorf—Zurich, 2000).
Sulpicius Severus, Dialogi libri II de vita sancti Martini, CSEL 1:152–216.
Taio, De inventione librorum Moralium sancti Gregorii, PL 75.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Historia religiosa, eds. Pierre Canivet and Alice Leroy-Molinghen,
Histoire des Moines en Syrie, 2 vols., SC 234, 257 (Paris, 1977–79).
Theologia “Scholarium,” eds. Eligius-Marie Buytaert and Constant J. Mews, CCCM 13 (Turn-
hout, 1987).
Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. Carl de Boor (Leipzig, 1883).
Theophylact Simocatta, Historia, ed. Carl de Boor (Leipzig, 1887); trans. Michael and Mary
Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta (Oxford, 1986).
Uranius Presbyter, De obitu Paulini ad Pacatum (PL 53:859–66).
Victricius of Rouen, De laude sanctorum, ed. Rolando Demeulenaere, CCSL 64 (Turnhout,
1985).
Virgil, Aeneid, ed. R.A.B. Mynors, Oxford Classical Texts (Oxford, 1969).
Vita Gregorii, med. Fr., ed. Olle Sandvist, La vie Saint Gregor: poème normand du XIVe siecle,
publié avec introduction, notes et glossaire (Lund, 1989).
Vita Maximi syriaca, ed. Sebastian Brock, “An Early Syriac Life of Maximus the Confes-
sor,” Analecta Bollandiana 91 (1973), 299–346; repr. in idem, Syriac Perspectives on Late
Antiquity, Collected Studies Series 199 (London, 1984), XII.
Vita prior s. Lugidi seu Moluae, ed. William W. Heist, Vitae sanctorum Hiberniae ex codice
Salmanticensi nunc Bruxellensi (Brussels, 1965).
Vita Symeoni Iunioris, ed. Paul Van den Ven, La vie ancienne de S. Syméon le Stylite le Jeune,
2 vols. (Brussels, 1962).
Vitae patrum sive historiae eremiticae decem, PL 73:89–1234.
Vitae sanctorum Hiberniae, ed. Charles H. Plummer, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1910; repr. Dublin, 1997).
Vitae sanctorum Hiberniae ex codice Salmanticensi nunc Bruxellensi, ed. W.W. Heist
(Brussels, 1965).
Vitalian, pope, Epistulae 6–9, PL 187:1005D–8A.
Vitas sanctorum patrum Emeratensium, ed. A. Maya Sánchez, CCSL 116 (Turnhout, 1992).
Voragine, Jacques, The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine, trans. Granger Ryan and
Helmut Ripperger (London, 1911; repr. New York, 1969).
William of Malmesbury, Abbrevatio Moralium Gregorii, Preface, ed. Hugh Farmer, in
“William of Malmesbury’s Commentary on Lamentations,” Studia monastica 4 (1962),
283–311.
Zacharias, pope: see above, Gregory the Great, Dial.
396 bibliography

Manuscripts

Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, ii.III.20.

Chantilly, Musée Condé MS 65, fols 71v–72r.
J. Pierpoint Morgan Library, New York: Morgan PML 130 (checklist F 311).
St Petersburg, National Library of Russia, Lat. Q.v.l.18 fol. 26v.

Images

Bosch, Hieronymous, Triptych of the Adoration of the Magi (c.1510), Madrid, Prado, online
at: http://www.all-art.org/early_renaissance/bosch12.html (accessed 10-3-12).
Ghirlandaio, Domenico, “Apparition of St Gregory to St Fina. Announcement of the death
of St Fina,” Chapel of Santa Fina, Collegiate Church, San Gimignano, online at: http://
www.paesionline.it/toscana/san_gimignano/foto_dettaglio.asp?filename=4661_san_
gimignano_apparizione_di_s_gregorio_a_s_fina_annuncio_della_morte (accessed
8-3-12).
Longmon, Jean and Raymond Cazelles, “The Procession of Saint Gregory,” in The Très
Riches Heures of Jean, Duke of Berry, trans. Victoria Benedict (New York, 1969; repr. New
York, 1989), p. 199.
Marmion, Simon (attr.), Los Angeles, Getty Museum, MS 30, “Les Visions du chevalier
Tondal,” Flemish and French, Ghent and Valenciennes (c.1470).

Secondary Sources

Abicht, Rudolf and Schmidt, Hermann, “Quellennachweise zum Codex Suprasliensis,”

Archiv für slavische Philologie 18 (1896), 138–55.
Acerbi, Silvia, Entre Roma y Bizancio: la Italia de Gregorio Magno a través de su Registrum
Epistularum (Madrid, 2006).
Alexopoulos, Stefanos, The Presanctified Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite, Liturgia Condenda
21 (Leuven, 2009).
Allen, Pauline, Neil, Bronwen, and Mayer, Wendy, Preaching Poverty in Late Antiquity: Per-
ceptions and Realities, Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte 28 (Leipzig, 2009).
Allers, Rudolph, “Microcosm from Anaximander to Paracelsus,” Traditio 2 (1944),
319–407.
Andersen Oftestad, Eivor, The House of God. The Translation of the Temple and the Interpre-
tation of the Lateran Cathedral in the Twelfth Century (Oslo, 2010).
Angenendt, Arnold, “The Conversion of the Anglo-Saxons Considered against the
Background of the Early Medieval Mission,” in Angli e Sassoni al di qua e al di là del
mare, Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 32, 2 vols.
(Spoleto, 1986), 2:747–81.
Ashworth, Henry, “The Liturgical Prayers of St. Gregory the Great,” Traditio 15 (1959),
107–62.
Atwell, R.R., “From Augustine to Gregory the Great: an Evaluation of the Emergence of the
Doctrine of Purgatory,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 38 (1987), 173–86.
Auerbach, Erich, Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Spätantike und im Mit-
telalter (Bern, 1958).
Augenti, Andrea, “Continuity and discontinuity of a seat of power: the Palatine Hill from
the fifth to the tenth century,” in Early Medieval Rome and the Christian West: Essays in
Honour of Donald A. Bullough, ed. Julia M.H. Smith (Leiden, 2000), pp. 43–53.
Avigad, Nahman, “A Building Inscription of the Emperor Justinian and the Nea in Jerusa-
lem,” Israel Exploration Journal 27 (1977), 145–61.
Azzara, Claudio, “Gregorio, i Longobardi e l’Occidente barbarico. Costanti e peculiarità di
un rapporto,” Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 97 (1991), 1–74.
 bibliography 397

——, L’ideologia del potere regio nel papato altomedievale (secoli VI–VIII) (Spoleto, 1997).
Backus, Irena (ed.), Reception of the Church Fathers in the West from the Carolingians to the
Maurists, 2 vols. (Boston—Leiden, 2001).
Balzaretti, Ross, “Theodelinda, ‘most glorious queen’: Gender and Power in Lombard Italy,”
The Mediaeval History Journal 2 (1999), 183–207.
Balzer, W. and Eleftheriadis, A., “A Reconstruction of the Hippocratic Humoral Theory of
Health,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 22 (1991), 207–27.
Banniard, Michel, “Iuxta uniuscuiusque qualitatem: L’écriture médiatrice chez Grégoire le
grand,” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine et al., pp. 477–88.
——, Viva voce: communication écrite et communication orale du IVe au IXe siècle en occi-
dent Latin (Paris, 1992).
——, “Zelum discretione condire: Langages et styles de Grégoire,” in Papauté, monachisme,
et théories politiques, ed. Pierre Guichard (Lyon, 1994), pp. 29–46.
Barclay-Lloyd, Joan, “Sixth-century Art and Architecture in ‘Old Rome’: End or Beginning?”
in The Sixth Century. End or Beginning?, eds. Pauline Allen and Elizabeth M. Jeffreys,
Byzantina Australiensia 10 (Brisbane, 1996), pp. 224–35.
Bartelink, Gerard J.M., “Pope Gregory the Great’s Knowledge of Greek,” trans. Paul Mey-
vaert, in Gregory the Great: a Symposium, ed. Cavadini, pp. 117–36.
Baun, Jane, Tales from Another Byzantium. Celestial Journey and Local Community in the
Medieval Greek Apocrypha (Cambridge, 2007).
——, “Last Things,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, 3. Early Medieval Christiani-
ties, c.600–c.1100 (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 606–24.
Bedouelle, Guy, “Attacks on the Biblical Humanism of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples,” in Bib-
lical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus, ed. Erika Rummel (Leiden,
2008), pp. 117–41.
Berschin, Walter, “Bonifatius Consiliarius. Ein römischer Übersetzer in der byzantinischen
Epoche des Papsttums,” in Lateinische Kultur im VIII. Jahrhundert, eds. Albert Lehner
and Walter Berschin (St Ottilien, 1989), pp. 25–40.
Bertolini, Ottorino, “Riflessi politici delle controversie religiose con Bisanzio nelle vicende
del secolo VII in Italia,” in Caratteri del secolo VII in Occidente, Settimane di Studio del
Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 5/2 (Spoleto, 1958), pp. 733–89.
Betz, Johannes, “Eucharistie als zentrales Mysterium,” in Mysterium Salutis: Grundriss heils-
geschichtlicher Dogmatik, eds. Johannes Feiner and Magnus Lohrer (Einsiedeln, 1973),
4, pt. 2, pp. 185–313.
Bischoff, Bernard, and Lapidge, Michael (eds.), Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury
School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge, 1994).
Blanchard, W. Scott, “Petrarch and the Genealogy of Asceticism,” Journal of the History of
Ideas 62:3 (2001), 401–23.
Boesch Gajano, Sofia, “Demoni et miracoli nei Dialogi di Gregorio Magno,” in Hagiogra-
phie, cultures et sociétés des IVe–XIIe siècles (Paris, 1981), pp. 263–81.
——, Gregorio Magno: Alle origini del Medioevo (Rome, 2004); trans. J. Martin-Bagnauder
and N. Lucas, Grégoire le grand (Paris, 2007).
——, “Tra oriente e occidente: le coordinate geopolitiche del pontificato di Gregorio
Magno,” in L’Orbis Christianus Antiquus di Gregorio Magno, ed. Letizia Pani (Rome,
2007), pp. 1–18.
Boglioni, Pierre, “Miracle et nature chez Grégoire le grand,” in Cahiers d’études médiévales,
I: Epopées, légendes et miracles (Montreal—Paris, 1974), pp. 28–35.
Bonner, C., “Desired Haven,” Harvard Theological Review 34 (1941), 50–67.
Bottoni, Rosanna, Il ritmo della prosa latina in età carolingia (unpubl. diss., Milan, 1993).
Bowersock, Glen W., Brown, Peter R.L. and Grabar, Oleg (eds.), Late Antiquity: A Guide to
the Post-Classical World (Harvard, 1999).
Brazzel, Kathleen, The Clausulae in the Works of St. Gregory the Great (Washington, 1939).
Brechter, Susan, Die Quellen zur Angelsachsenmission Gregors des Großen (Münster, 1941).
398 bibliography

Bredero, Adriaan H., “The Announcement of the Coming of the Antichrist and the Medi-
eval Concept of Time,” in Prophecy and Eschatology, ed. Michael Wilks (Oxford, 1994),
pp. 3–13.
Bremmer Jr., Rolf H., Dekker, Kees and Johnson, David F. (eds.), Rome and the North: The
Early Reception of Gregory the Great in Germanic Europe, Mediaevalia Groningana n.s.
4 (Paris—Leuven, 2001).
Brooks, Nicholas P., “Bretwalda,” Lexikon des Mittelalters 2 (1983), col. 636.
Brown, Peter R.L., “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity,” Journal
of Roman Studies 61 (1971), 80–101; repr. in idem, Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity
(Berkeley, 1982), pp. 103–52.
——, The Cult of Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago, 1981).
Brown, Peter R.L., Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire, The Menahem Stern
Jerusalem Lectures (Hanover, NH—London, 2002).
Brown, Thomas S., Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power
in Byzantine Italy A.D. 554–800 (London, 1984).
Brunschwig, Jacques, “Stoic Metaphysics,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, ed.
Brian Inwood (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 206–32.
Buddensieg, Gregory Tilmann, “Gregory the Great, the Destroyer of Pagan Idols. The His-
tory of a Medieval Legend Concerning the Decline of Ancient Art and Literature,” Jour-
nal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965), 44–65.
Burbank, Jane and Cooper, Frederick, Empires in World History: Power and the politics of
difference (Princeton, NJ, 2010).
Cabassut, A., “Discrétion,” Le Dictionnaire de la Spiritualité, 9:1311–30.
Calati, Benedetto, “San Gregorio Magno e la Bibbia. La vita spirituale come riposta e com-
pinmento della parola ispirata,” in Bibbia e spiritualità, ed. Cipriano Vagaggini (Rome,
1967), pp. 121–78.
——, “La lectio divina nel pensiero di Gregorio Magno,” in Ascolto della Parola e preghiera.
La “lectio divina,” ed. Salvatore Panimolle (Vatican City, 1987), pp. 159–67.
Cameron, Averil, “The Theotokos in Sixth-century Constantinople: A City Finds its Sym-
bol,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 29 (1978), 79–108; repr. in eadem, Changing Cul-
tures in Early Byzantium (Aldershot, 1996), XVI.
——, “A Nativity Poem of the Sixth Century, A.D.,” Classical Philology 79 (1979) 222–32;
repr. in eadem, Continuity and Change in Sixth-century Byzantium (Aldershot, 1981),
XIV.
——, “Images of Authority: Elites and Icons in Late Sixth-century Byzantium,” Past and
Present 84 (1979), 3–35; repr. in eadem, Continuity and Change in Sixth-century Byzantium
(Aldershot, 1981), XVIII.
——, “Models of the Past in the Late Sixth Century: the Life of the Patriarch Eutychius,” in
Reading the Past in Late Antiquity, ed. Graeme Clarke (Rushcutters Bay, NSW, 1990), pp.
205–23; repr. in eadem, Changing Cultures in Early Byzantium (Aldershot, 1996), II.
——, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse
(Berkeley, CA, 1991).
——, “Old and New Rome: Roman Studies in Sixth-century Constantinople,” in The Trans-
formations of Late Antiquity: Essays for Peter Brown, eds. Philip Rousseau and Manolis
Papoutsakis (Aldershot, 2009), pp. 15–36.
Capelle, Bernard, “Les homelies de saint Grégoire sur Ie cantique,” Revue bénédictine 41
(1929), 204–17.
Caspar, Erich, Geschichte des Papsttums: von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft,
2 vols. (Tübingen, 1930–33).
——, “Die Lateransynode von 649,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 51 (1932), 75–137.
Caspary, Gerard, Politics and Exegesis: Origen and the Two Swords (Berkeley, 1979).
Castaldi, Lucia, Iohannes Hymmonides Diaconus Romanus, Vita Gregorii I Papae. La
tradizione manoscritta, Archivum Gregorianum 1 (Florence, 2004).
 bibliography 399

——, “L’archivum Lateranense e la trasmissione delle opera di Gregorio Magno,” in Gre-

gorio Magno e l’invenzione del medioevo, ed. Luigi Giovanni Ricci (Florence, 2006), pp.
67–71.
Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Early Printed Books from the Libraries of William Morris,
Richard Bennett, Bertram, Fourth Earl of Ashburnham, and Other Sources Now Forming
Portion of the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, 3 vols. (London, 1907).
Catry, Patrick, “Lire l’écriture selon saint Grégoire Ie Grand,” Collectanea cisterciensia 34
(1972), 177–201.
——, “Désir et amour de Dieu chez saint Grégoire le grand,” Recherches augustiniennes 10
(1975), 269–303.
——, “L’Amour du prochain chez saint Grégoire le grand,” Studia monastica 20 (1978),
287–344.
Cavadini, John C. (ed.), Gregory the Great: A Symposium, Notre Dame Studies in Theology
2 (Notre Dame, IN, 1995).
Cavallo, Guglielmo, “Quale Bisanzio nel mondo di Gregorio Magno?” Augustinianum 47
(2007), 209–26.
Cazier, P. “Analogies entre l‘encyclopédie chrétienne des Moralia et l’enseignement du
grammaticus: l’exemple de l’angélologie,” in Grégoire le grand (Paris, 1986), pp. 419–28.
Chadwick, Henry, “John Moschus and His Friend Sophronius the Sophist,” Journal of Theo-
logical Studies n.s. 25 (1974), 41–74.
——, “Gregory the Great and the Mission to the Anglo-Saxons,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo
tempo, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 33–34, 2 vols. (Rome, 1991), 1:199–212.
——, “Theodore of Tarsus and Monotheletism,” in Logos: Festschrift für Luise Abramowski
zum 8 Juli 1993, eds. Hanns Christof Brennecke et al. (Berlin, 1993), pp. 524–44.
Chadwick, Owen, John Cassian, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1968).
Champ, Judith F., The English Pilgrimage to Rome: a Dwelling For the Soul (Bodmin, 2000).
Charles-Edwards, T.M., “The Structure and Purpose of Adomnán’s Vita Columbae,” in
Adomnán of Iona: Theologian, Lawmaker, Peacemaker, eds. Jonathan Wooding with Rod-
ney Aist, Thomas Owen Clancy, and Thomas O’Loughlin (Dublin, 2000), pp. 205–18.
Chazelle, Celia, “Pictures, books, and the illiterate: Pope Gregory I’s letters to Serenus of
Marseilles,” Word and Image 6:2 (1990), 138–53.
Chazelle, Celia, and Cubitt, Catherine (eds.) The Crisis of the Oikoumene: The Three Chap-
ters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-century Mediterranean, Studies in the
Early Middle Ages 14 (Turnhout, 2007).
Chélini, Jean, “La mission d’Augustin de Cantorbéry dans la vision missionaire de saint
Grégoire le grand,” in L’Église et la Mission au VIe siècle. La mission d’Augustin de Can-
torbéry et les Églises de Gaule sous l’impulsion de Grégoire le grand, Actes du Colloque
d’Arles de 1998, ed. Christophe De Dreuille (Paris, 2000), pp. 41–53.
Chitty, Derwas J., The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian
Monasticism under the Christian Empire (Oxford, 1966).
Christian, Jr., William J., Apparitions in Late Medieval and Renaissance Spain (Princeton,
1981).
Christie, Neil, The Lombards. The Ancient Longobards (Oxford, 1995).
Christman, Angela Russell, What Did Ezekiel See? Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the
Chariot from Irenaeus to Gregory the Great (Leiden, 2005).
Chryssavgis, John, John Climacus. From the Egyptian Desert to the Sinaite Mountain (Alder-
shot, 2004).
Claassens, Geert H.M., “Gregory’s Dialogi in Middle Dutch Literature,” in Rome and the
North, eds. Bremmer Jr et al., pp. 207–38.
Clark, Francis W., The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1987).
——, “Authorship of the Commentary ‘In I Regum’: Implications of A. de Vogüé’s Discov-
ery,” Revue bénédictine 108 (1998), 61–79.
——, The ‘Gregorian’ Dialogues and the Origins of Benedictine Monasticism (Leiden, 2003).
——, “Searching for St Benedict in the Legacy of St Gregory the Great,” Peritia 17–18
(2003–4), 110–20.
400 bibliography

Coates-Stephens, Robert, “Byzantine Building Patronage in Post-reconquest Rome,” in Les

Cités de l’Italie tardo-antique (IVe–VIe siècle): Institutions, économie, société, culture et
religion, eds. Massimiliano Ghilardi, Christophe J. Goddard, and Pierfrancesco Porena,
Collection de l’École française de Rome 369 (Rome, 2006), pp. 149–66.
——, “S. Saba and the Xenodochium de via Nova,” Rivista di archeologia cristiana 83 (2007),
223–56.
——, “Sulla fondazione di S. Maria in Domnica,” in Scavi e scoperte recenti nelle chiese
di Roma—Atti della giornata tematica dei Seminari di Archeologia Cristiana, Roma—
13 marzo 2008, eds. Hugo Brandenburg and Federico Guidobaldi, Sussidi allo studio delle
Antichità Cristiane 21 (Vatican City, 2012), pp. 77–91.
Coffey, Jeremiah P., Gregory the Great “Ad populum”: A Reading of XL Homiliarum in Evan-
gelia libri duo (New York, 1988).
Cole, Penny J., “Purgatory and Crusade in St. Gregory’s Trental,” The International History
Review 17:4 (1995), 713–25.
Colgrave, Bertram, “The Earliest Life of St Gregory the Great, written by a Whitby Monk,”
in Celt and Saxon: Studies in the Early British Border, ed. Nora Chadwick (Cambridge,
1963), pp. 119–37.
Colish, Marcia, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Leiden,
1985–90).
——, “The Virtuous Pagan: Dante and the Christian Tradition,” in The Unbounded Community:
Papers in Christian Ecumenism in Honor of Jaroslav Pelikan, eds. William Caferro and
Duncan G. Fisher (New York, 1996), pp. 43–91; repr. in Marcia Colish, The Fathers and
Beyond. Church Fathers between Ancient and Medieval Thought (Aldershot, HA, 2008),
XVII.
Collins, Gregory, “A Neglected Manual of the Spiritual Life: the Synagoge of Paul Everget-
inos,” Sobornost/incorporating Eastern Churches Review 12:1 (1990), 47–51.
Collins, Roger, Visigothic Spain, 409–711 (Malden, MA, 2004).
Conger, George P., Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms in the History of Philosophy
(New York, 1922).
Consolino, Franca Ela, “Il papa e le regine: potere femminile e politica ecclesiastica
nell’epistolario di Gregorio Magno,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo (Rome, 1991),
1:225–49.
Constable, Giles, “Petrarch and Monasticism,” in Francesco Petrarca: Citizen of the World,
Proceedings of the World Petrarch Congress (Washington DC, April 6–13, 1974). Studi
sul Petrarca 8 (Padua, 1980), pp. 53–99.
Constas, Nicholas, “An Apology for the Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity: Eustratius Presbyter
of Constantinople, On the State of Souls after Death,” Journal of Early Christian Studies
10 (2002), 267–85.
Conte, Pietro, Chiesa e primato nelle lettere dei Papi del secolo VII (Milan, 1971).
——, Il sinodo Lateranense dell’Ottobre 649, Collezione Theologica 3 (Vatican, 1989).
Coroleu, Alejandro, “Printing Sacred Texts in Early Modern Barcelona (1480–1530), The
Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 86:6 (2009), 743–50.
Courcelle, Pierre, “Grégoire le grand à l’école de Juvénal,” Studi e materiali di storia delle
religioni 38 (1967), 170–74.
——, “‘Habitare secum’ selon Perse et selon Grégoire le grand,” Revue des études anciennes
69 (1967), 266–79.
——, Lecteurs païens et chrétiens de l’Énéide (Paris, 1984).
Courtright, Nicola, The Papacy and the Art of Reform in Sixteenth-century Rome: Gregory
XIII’s Tower of the Winds in the Vatican (Cambridge, 2003).
Cracco Ruggini, Lellia, “Grégoire le grand et le monde byzantin” in Grégoire le grand, eds.
Fontaine et al., pp. 83–94.
——, “Gregorio Magno e il mondo mediterraneo,” in Gregorio Magno nel XIV centenario
della morte, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 209 (Rome, 2004), pp. 11–51.
 bibliography 401

Cremascoli, Giuseppe, “Le Lettere di Martino I,” in Martino I e il suo tempo (Spoleto, 1992),
pp. 243–58.
Cremascoli, Giuseppe and Degl’Innocenti, Antonella (eds.), Enciclopedia Gregoriana. La
vita, l’opera e la fortuna di Gregorio Magno (Florence, 2008).
Croquison, J., “Les origins de l’iconographie grégorienne,” Cahiers archéologiques 12 (1962),
249–62.
Cubitt, Catherine, “The Lateran Council of 649 as an Ecumenical Council,” in Chalcedon
in Context: Church Councils 400–700, eds. Mary Whitby and Richard Price (Liverpool,
2009), pp. 133–47.
Dagens, Claude, “Grégoire le grand et la culture. De la sapientia huius mundi à la docta
ignorantia,” Revue des études augustiniennes 14 (1968), 17–26.
——, “La conversion de Grégoire le grand,” Revue des études augustiniennes 15 (1969),
149–162.
——, “La fin des temps et l’Église selon S. Grégoire le grand,” Recherches de science
religieuse 58 (1970), 273–88.
——, “L’Eglise universelle et le monde oriental chez saint Grégoire le grand,” Istina 20
(1975), 457–75.
——, Saint Grégoire le grand. Culture et expérience chrétiennes (Paris, 1977).
——, “Grégoire le grand et le monde oriental,” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 17
(1981), 243–52.
Dagron, Gilbert, “Aux origines de la civilisation byzantine: langue de culture et langue
d’État,” Revue historique (1969), 23–56; repr. in idem, La Romanité chrétienne en Orient
(London, 1984), I.
——, “Rome et l’Italie vues de Byzance (IVe–VIIe siècles),” in Bisanzio, Roma e l’Italia
nell’alto Medioevo, Settimane di Studio del Centro italiano di Studi sull’alto Medioevo
34 (Spoleto, 1988), pp. 45–64.
——, Empereur et prêtre: Étude sur le césaropapisme byzantin (Paris, 1996).
Dal Santo, Matthew J., “Philosophy, Hagiology and the Byzantine Origins of Purgatory,” in
The Church, the Afterlife and the Fate of the Soul, eds. Peter Clarke and Tony Claydon,
Studies in Church History 45 (Woodbridge, 2009), pp. 52–63.
——, “Gregory the Great and Eustratius of Constantinople: the Dialogues on the Miracles
of the Italian Fathers as an Apology for the Cult of the Saints,” Journal of Early Christian
Studies 17 (2009), 421–57.
——, “The Shadow of a Doubt? A Note on the Dialogues and Registrum Epistolarum of
Pope Gregory the Great (590–604),” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 61 (2010) 3–17.
——, “The God-guarded empire? Scepticism towards the Saints’ Cult in Early Byzantium,”
in An Age of Saints? Power, Conflict and Dissent in Early Medieval Christianity, eds. Peter
Sarris, Matthew Dal Santo, and Phil Booth (Leiden, 2011), pp. 129–49.
——, “Text, Image and the ‘Visionary Body’ in Early Byzantine Hagiography: Incubation
and the Rise of the Christian Image Cult,” Journal of Late Antiquity 4 (2011), 30–54.
——, Debating the Saints’ Cult in the Age of Gregory the Great (Oxford, 2012).
Daley, Brian, The Hope of the Early Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cam-
bridge, 1991).
d’Alverny, Marie-Thérèse, “L’Homme comme symbole. Le microcosme,” Simbol e Simbolo-
gia nell’alto medioevo, Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto medio-
evo, 2 vols. (Spoleto, 1976), 1:123–83.
Damizia, Giuseppe, “Il ‘Registrum epistolarum’ di S. Gregorio Magno ed il ‘Corpus Juris
Civilis’,” Benedictina 2 (1948), 195–226.
Davies, Luned Mair, “The ‘Mouth of Gold’: Gregorian Texts in the Collectio Canonum
hibernensis,” in Ireland and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: Texts and Transmission,
eds. Próinséas Ní Chatháin and Michael Richter (Portland, OR, 2002), pp. 249–67.
Deanesly, Margaret and Paul Grosjean, “The Canterbury Edition of the Answers of Pope
Gregory I to St. Augustine,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 10 (1959), 1–49.
402 bibliography

De Bruyne, Donatien, “Les anciennes versions latines du Cantique des Cantiques,” Revue
Bénédictine 38 (1926), 97–122.
Degórski, Bazyli, “San Leone Magno e San Gregorio Magno nel Pratum Spirituale di Gio-
vanni Mosco,” in Church, Society and Monasticism: Acts of the International Symposium,
Rome, May 31–June 3 2006, Studia Anselmiana 146, ed. Eduardo López, Tello García, and
Benedetta Selene Zorzi (Rome, 2009), pp. 403–21.
DeGregorio, Scott, “The Venerable Bede and Gregory the Great: Exegetical Connections,
Spiritual Departures,” Early Medieval Europe 18 (2010), 43–60.
de Groot, Albert Willem, La Prose métrique des anciens (Paris, 1926).
Dekker, Kees, “King Alfred’s Translation of Gregory’s Dialogi: Tales for the Unlearned?” in
Rome and the North, eds. Bremmer Jr et al., pp. 27–50.
Dekkers, Eloi, “‘Discretio’ chez Benoît et saint Grégoire,” Collectanea cisterciensia 46 (1984),
79–88.
Deleeuw, Patrica Allwin, “Gregory the Great’s ‘Homilies on the Gospels’ in the Early Middle
Ages,” Studi Medievali 26 (1985), 855–69.
Delehaye, Hippolyte, “S. Grégoire le grand dans l’hagiographie grecque,” Analecta Bollan-
diana 23 (1904), 449–54.
de Lubac, Henri, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, trans. Mark Sebanc and
E.M. Macierowski, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI, 2000).
Demacopoulos, George, “Leadership in the Post-Constantinian Church According to Greg-
ory Nazianzen,” Louvain Studies 30 (2005), 223–39.
——, Five Models of Spiritual Direction in the Early Church (Notre Dame, IN, 2007).
——, “Gregory the Great and the Pagan Shrines of Kent,” Journal of Late Antiquity 1 (2008),
353–69.
——, “Gregory the Great and the Sixth-Century Dispute over the Ecumenical Title,” Theo-
logical Studies 70 (2009), 600–21.
——, “Gregory the Great and the Appeal to Petrine Authority,” Studia Patristica 48 (2010),
333–48.
——, The Invention of Peter. Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity
(Philadelphia, 2013).
De Margerie, Bertrand, “Grégoire le grand: Intériorise la lecture de l’Écriture,” in Introduc-
tion à l’histoire de l’exégèse: IV. L’Occident latin de Léon le grand à Bernard de Clairvaux
(Paris, 1990), pp. 141–85.
Demetracopoulos, John A. “Gregory the Great and Contemporary Byzantine Theology,”
in L’eredità spirituale di Gregorio Magno tra Occidente e Oriente, ed. Guido Innocenzo
Gargano (Verona, 2005), pp. 87–138.
de Nolhac, Pierre, “De patrum et medii aevi scriptorum codicibus in bibliotheca Petrarcae
olim collectis,” Revue des bibliothèques 2 (1892), 241–79.
——, “Le catalogue de la première bibliothèque de Pétrarque à Vaucluse,” Revue bibliothè-
ques publication mensuelle 16 (1906), 341–44.
de Vogüé, Adalbert, “La rencontre de Benoît et de Scholastique. Essai d’interprétation,”
Revue d’histoire de la spiritualité 48 (1972), 257–74.
——, “L’auteur du Commentaire des Rois attribué à saint Grégoire: un moine de Cava?,”
Revue bénédictine 106 (1996), 319–31.
——, “Les vues de Grégoire le grand sur l’action missionaire en Angleterre,” in L’Église et
la Mission au VIe siècle. La mission d’Augustin de Cantorbéry et les Églises de Gaule sous
l’impulsion de Grégoire le grand, Actes du Colloque d’Arles de 1998, ed. Christophe De
Dreuille (Paris, 2000), pp. 55–64.
de Vregille, Bernard, “Écriture saint et vie spirituelle dans la tradition; B. Du 6e au 12e
siècle,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité 4,1 (Paris, 1960), cols. 169–87.
Di Berardino, Angelo (ed.), Patrologia 4, I Padri latini (secoli V–VIII) (Genoa, 1996).
Diederich, M.D. Vergil in the Works of St Ambrose (Washington DC, 1931).
Dillon, Anne, The Construction of Martyrdom in the English Catholic Community 1535–1603
(Aldershot, 2002).
 bibliography 403

Doignon, Jean, “‘Blessure d’affliction’ et ‘blessure d’amour’ (Moralia 6.25.42): une jonction
de thèmes de la spiritualité patristique de Cyprien à Augustin,” in Grégoire le grand, eds.
Fontaine et al., pp. 297–303.
Dowden, Ken, European Paganism. The Realities of Cult from Antiquity to the Middle Ages
(London, 2000).
Driver, Martha W., The Image in Print: Book Illustration in Late Medieval England and its
Sources (London, 2004).
Dudden, Frederick Homes, Gregory the Great. His Place in History and Thought, 2 vols.
(London, 1905).
Duffy, Eamon, Saints and Sinners: a History of the Popes (New Haven, 1997).
——, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400–1580 (New Haven,
1992).
Dumiège, Georges, “Le Christ médecin dans la littérature chrétienne des premiers siècles,”
Rivista de archeologia cristiana 48 (1972), 115–41.
Dunn, Marilyn, The Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons c.597–c.700: Discourses of Life,
Death and Afterlife (London, 2009).
Durliat, Jean, “Gregory I,” ed. Phillippe Levillain, The Papacy: An Encyclopedia, trans. from
French, 3 vols. (London—New York, 2002), 2:639–42.
Duval, Yves-Marie, “La discussion entre l’apocrisiaire Grégoire et le patriarche Eutychios
au sujet de la résurrection de la chair. L’arrière-plan doctrinal oriental et occidental,” in
Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine et al., pp. 347–66.
Dvornik, Francis, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy: Origins and Background,
2 vols. (Washington, DC, 1966).
Echle, Harry E., “The Baptism of the Apostles: A Fragment of Clement of Alexandria’s
Lost Work Hypotyposeis in the Pratum Spirituale of John Moschus,” Traditio 3 (1945),
365–68.
Edelstein, Ludwig, The Meaning of Stoicism (Cambridge, MA, 1966).
Edizioni Camaldoli, Chiesa di San Gregorio e i tre oratori (Rome, n.d.).
Eidenschink, John A. The Election of Bishops in the Letters of Gregory the Great, with an
Appendix on the Pallium, Canon Law Studies 215 (Washington DC, 1945).
Ekonomou, Andrew J., Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome
and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, 590–752 A.D. (Lanham, MD, 2007).
Enciclopedia dei Papi, 3 vols. (Rome, 2000).
Epp, Verena, Amicitia: zur Geschichte personaler, sozialer, politischer und geistlicher Bezie-
hungen im frühen Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1999).
Ertl, Nelly, “Diktatoren frühmittelalterlicher Papstbriefe,” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 15
(1938), 56–132.
Étaix, Raymond, “Répertoire des manuscrits des homelies sur l’Evangile de saint Grégoire
le grand,” Sacris erudiri 36 (1996), 107–45.
Evans, Gillian R. The Thought of Gregory the Great (Cambridge, 1986).
Everett, Nicholas, Literacy in Lombard Italy, c.568–774 (Cambridge, 2003).
Fehl, Philipp, “Raphael’s Reconstruction of the Throne of St. Gregory the Great,” The Art
Bulletin 55:3 (1973), 373–79.
Fehl, Philipp and Paul Künzle, “Zur obersten der drei Tiaren auf Raffaels ‘Disputa’,” Römis-
che Quartalschrift 57 (1962), 226–49.
Fischer, Eugen H., “Gregor der Große und Byzanz: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der päpstlichen
Politik,” Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 36 (1950), 15–144.
Fisher, Elizabeth, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate, the Art of Translation and the Beholder’s
Share,” in Orthodox Readings of Augustine, eds. Aristotle Papanikolaou and George E.
Demacopoulos (Crestwood NY, 2008), pp. 41–61.
Follieri, Enrica, “Dove e quando morì Giovanni Mosco?” Rivista di studi bizantini e
neoellenici n.s. 25 (1988), 3–39.
Fontaine, Jacques, Isidore de Séville et la culture classique, 2 vols. (Paris, 1959).
404 bibliography

——, “Chronique de littérature wisigothique (1970–1972),” Revue des études augustiniennes

19 (1973), 163–76.
Fontaine, Jacques, Gillet, Robert, and Pellistrandi, Stan (eds.), Grégoire le grand, Chantilly,
Centre culturel, Les Fontaines, 15–19 septembre 1982 (Paris, 1986).
Foucault, Michel, Histoire de la sexualité, 3 vols. (Paris, 1984).
——, et al. (eds.), Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault (Amherst, MA,
1988).
Fraenkel, Peter, Testimonia Patrum. The Function of Patristic Argument in the Theology of
Philip Melanchthon (Geneva, 1963).
Frazee, Charles, “Late Roman and Byzantine Legislation on the Monastic Life from the
Fourth to Eighth Centuries,” Church History 51 (1982), 263–79.
Frazier, Alison, Possible Lives. Authors and Saints in Renaissance Italy (New York, 2005).
Frickel, Michael, Deus totus ubique simul (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1956).
Gallagher, Clarence SJ, Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium. A Compara-
tive Study, Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 8 (Aldershot, 2002).
Gameson, Richard, “Augustine of Canterbury: Context and Achievement,” in St. Augustine
and the Conversion of England, ed. Richard Gameson (Stroud, 1999), pp. 1–40.
Garitte, Gérard, “La version géorgienne du Pré spirituel,” in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant,
2 vols. (Rome, 1964), 2:171–85.
Gasparri, Stefano, La cultura tradizionale dei Longobardi. Struttura tribale e resistenze
pagane (Spoleto, 1983).
Gastaldelli, Ferruccio, “II meccanismo psicologico del peccato nei Moralia in Job di San
Gregorio Magno,” Salesianum 27 (1965), 563–605.
——, “Prospettive sul peccato in San Gregorio Magno,” Salesianum 28 (1966), 65–94.
Gaudemet, Jean, “La législation anti-païenne de Constantin à Justinien,” Cristianesimo
nella Storia 11 (1990), 449–68.
Gavrilyuk, Paul, The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought,
Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2004).
Geerard, Mauritius (eds.) Clavis Patrum Graecorum, vol. 3, 2nd ed., Corpus Christianorum
(Turnhout, 2003).
Gehl, Paul, “Florentine Humanism and the Church Fathers,” Newberry Library Exhibition,
April–July 2000 program notes (Chicago, 2000).
Gerosa, Pietro-Paolo, Umanesimo cristiano del Petrarca: Influenza agostiniana, attinenze
medievali (Turin, 1966).
Gessel, Wilhelm, “Reform am Haupt: Die Pastoralregel Gregors des Grossen und die
Bestzung von Bischofsstühlen,” in Papsttum und Kirchenreform: Historische Beiträge.
Festchrift für Georg Schwaiger zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Manfred Weitlauff and Karl
Hausberger (St Ottilien, 1990), 17–36.
Gillet, Robert, “Grégoire le Grand,” Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques
21 (1986) cols. 1387–420.
Giuliani, G. and Pavolini, C., “La ‘Biblioteca di Agapito’ e la Basilica di S. Agnese,” in The
Transformation of Urbs Roma in Late Antiquity, ed. William V. Harris, Journal of Roman
Archeology Supplement 33 (Portsmouth, RI, 1999), pp. 85–107.
Godding, Robert, Bibliografia di Gregorio Magno (1890–1989) (Rome, 1990).
——, “Tra due anniversari: Gregorio Magno alla luce degli studi recenti (1991–2003),” in
Gregorio Magno nel XIV centenario della morte: Convegno internazionale, Roma, 22–25
ottobre 2003 (Roma, 2004), pp. 89–106.
Goetz, Hans-Werner, Europa im frühen Mittelalter 500–1050 (Stuttgart, 2003).
Gometz, Abigail Kathleen, Eugippius of Lucullanum: A Biography (unpublished Ph.D. the-
sis, Leeds, 2008).
Goodrich, Richard, Contextualizing Cassian. Aristocrats, Asceticism and Reformation in
Fifth-century Gaul (Oxford, 2007).
Göttler, Christine, Last Things. Art and the Religious Imagination in the Age of Reform
(Turnhout, 2010).
 bibliography 405

Goubert, Paul, “Patriarches d’Antioche et d’Alexandrie contemporains de saint Grégoire

le grand: Notes de prosopographie byzantine,” Revue des Études byzantines 25 (1967),
65–76.
Gould, Graham, “Cyril of Alexandria and the Formula of Reunion,” Downside Review 106
(1988), 235–52.
Grane, Lief, “Some Remarks on the Church Fathers in the First Years of the Reformation
1516–1520,” in Auctoritas Patrum, eds. Lief Grane et al., 2 vols., 1:21–32.
Grane, Lief, Schindler, Alfred, and Wriedt, Markus (eds.) Auctoritas Patrum. Contributions
on the Reception of the Church Fathers in the 15th and 16th Centuries, 2 vols. (Mainz, 1993
and 1998).
Greatrex, Geoffrey, and Lieu, Samuel N.C., The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian
Wars. Part II: AD 363–600. A Narrative Sourcebook (London, 2002).
Green, Bernard, The Soteriology of Leo the Great, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford,
2009).
Grego, Igino, “S. Gregorio Magno e i Patriarchi d’Oriente,” Studia orientalia christiana 21
(1988), 267–93.
Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo, XIX incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana in collabora-
zione con l’École Française de Rome, Roma, 9–12 maggio 1990, Studia Ephemeridis Augus-
tinianum 33–34, 2 vols. (Rome, 1991).
Hadot, Pierre, Exercises spirituels et philosophie antique (Paris, 1981).
——, Technologies of the Self, eds. L.H. Martin, H. Gutman, and P.H. Hutton (Amherst,
MA, 1988).
——, Philosophy as a Way of Life, ed. I. Arnold Davidson, trans. Michael Chase (Oxford,
1995).
——, What is Ancient Philosophy? trans. Michael Chase (Cambridge, MA, 2002).
Hagendahl, Harald, La prose metrique d’Arnobe (Göteborg, 1937).
——, La correspondance de Ruricius (Göteborg, 1952).
Hahn, Cynthia, Portrayed on the Heart. Narrative Effect in Pictorial Lives of Saints from the
Tenth through the Thirteenth Century (Berkeley, 2001).
Halkin, François, “Le pape S. Grégoire le grand dans l’hagiographie byzantine,” Orientalia
Christiana Periodica 21 (Rome, 1955).
Hallinger, Kassius, “Papst Gregor der Grosse und der hl. Benedikt,” in Commentationes
in Regulam S. Benedicti, ed. Basilius Steidle, Studia Anselmiana 42 (Rome, 1957), pp.
231–319.
Hamburger, Jeffrey, “The place of theology in medieval art history: problems, positions,
possibilities,” in The Mind’s Eye. Art and Theological Argument in the Middle Ages, eds.
Jeffrey Hamburger and Anne-Marie Bouché (Princeton, 2006), pp. 1–31.
Hankins, James, Plato in the Italian Renaissance, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1990).
Hanlon, Chris, “The Horizons of a Bishop’s World: The Letters of Gregory the Great,” in
Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church 4: The Spiritual Life, eds. Wendy Mayer, Pau-
line Allen, and Lawrence Cross (Strathfield, 2006), pp. 339–49.
Hardin Weaver, Rebecca, Divine Grace and Human Agency. A Study of the Semi-Pelagian
Controversy (Macon, GA, 1996).
Harnack, Adolf von, An Outline of the History of Dogma, trans. Edwin Knox Mitchell (Lon-
don, 1893), pp. 387–91.
——, “The ‘Sic et Non’ of Stephen Gobarus,” Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923) 205–34.
Hatfield, Rab, “The Tree of Life and the Holy Cross,” in Christianity and the Renaissance:
Image and Religious Imagination in the Quattrocento, eds. Timothy Verdon and John
Henderson (Syracuse, NY, 1990), pp. 132–60.
Havener, Ivan, “Two Early Anecdotes Concerning Gregory the Great from the Greek Tradi-
tion,” in The Medieval Mediterranean: Cross-Cultural Contacts, eds. Marilyn J. Chiat and
Kathryn L. Reyerson (St Cloud, MN, 1988), pp. 19–24.
Hayward, Paul, “Gregory the Great as ‘Apostle of the English’ in Post-Conquest Canter-
bury,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55 (2004), 19–57.
406 bibliography

Headley, John, Luther’s Views of Church History (New Haven—London, 1963).

Heinlen, Michael, “An Early Image of a Mass of St. Gregory and Devotion to the Holy Blood
at Weingarten Abbey,” Gesta 37:1 (1998), 55–62.
Heinzelmann, Martin, “Gregor, III. Kult und Verehrung,” Lexikon des Mittelalters, 4 (Stutt-
gart—Weimar, 1989), col. 1666.
Herrin, Judith, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton, 1989).
Hesbert, R. “Le Bestiaire de Saint Gregoire,” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine et al., pp.
455–66.
Hester, Kevin L., Eschatology and Pain in St. Gregory the Great. The Christological Synthesis
of Gregory’s Morals on the Book of Job, Studies in Christian History and Thought (Milton
Keynes, 2007).
Hillgarth, J.N., “Las Fuentes de San Julián de Toledo,” Anales Toledanos 3 (1971), 97–118.
——, “Eschatological and Political Concepts in the Seventh Century,” in The Seventh
Century: Change and Continuity, Proceedings of a Joint French and British Colloquium
held at the Warburg Institute 8–9 July 1988, eds. Jacques Fontaine and J.N. Hillgarth
(London, 1992), pp. 212–35.
Hipshon, David, “Gregory the Great’s Political Thought,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History
53 (2002) 439–53.
Holtz, Louis, “Quelques aspects de la tradition et de la diffusion des Institutiones,” in Flavio
Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro (Rubbettino, 1986), pp. 281–312.
Hourlier, Jacques, “La lettre de Zacharie,” Studia monastica 21 (1979), 241–52.
Hülsen, Christian, Le Chiese di Roma nel Medio Evo (Florence, 1927). Internet edition,
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/I/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/
Rome/churches/_Texts/Huelsen/HUECHI*/2/C.html (accessed 25-2-12).
Humphries, Mark, “From Emperor to Pope? Ceremonial, Space, and Authority at Rome
from Constantine to Gregory the Great,” in Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early
Christian Rome, 300–900, eds. Kate Cooper and Julia Hillner (Cambridge, 2007), pp.
21–58.
Iogna-Prat, Dominique, “La Madeleine du Sermo in veneratione sanctae Mariae Magdalenae
attribué à Odon de Cluny,” Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome 104:1 (1992), 37–70.
Jaeger, Werner, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, trans. Gilbert Highet, 3 vols. (New
York, 1939–44).
——, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Oxford, 1961).
Jaffé, Philipp, and Paul Ewald, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (Leipzig, 1885).
Jansen, Katherine Ludwig, The Making of the Magdalen. Preaching and Popular Devotion in
the Later Middle Ages (Princeton, 2000).
Jansen, Thomas, “New tendencies, religious and philosophical, in the Chinese world of the
third through sixth centuries,” in Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared, eds.
Fritz-Heiner Mutschler and Achim Mittag (Oxford, 2008), pp. 397–419.
Janson, Tore, Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions, Studia Latina Stockhol-
mensia 13 (Stockholm, 1964).
——, Prose Rhythm in Medieval Latin from the 9th to the 13th Century (Stockholm, 1975).
Jenal, Georg, “Gregor der Große und die Anfänge der Angelsachsenmission (596–604),” in
Angli e Sassoni al di qua e al di là del mare, Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di
Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 32, 2 vols. (Spoleto, 1986), 2:793–849.
——, Italia ascetica atque monastica. Das Asketen- und Mönchtum in Italien von den Anfän-
gen bis zur Zeit der Langobarden (ca. 150/250–604), 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1995).
Jones, Arnold H.M. and Martindale, John R. (eds.), The Prosopography of the Later Roman
Empire, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1971–92).
Jossua, Jean-Pierre, Le Salut: incarnation ou mystère pascal chez les pères de l’Église de saint
Irénée à saint Léon le grand (Paris, 1968).
Jounel, Pierre, “Le culte de saint Grégoire le grand” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine
et al., pp. 671–80.
 bibliography 407

Kaegi, Walter E., “Egypt on the eve of the Muslim conquest,” in The Cambridge History of
Egypt, vol. 1, Islamic Egypt, 640–1517 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 34–61.
Kastner, Robert, Guardians of Language: the Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity
(Berkeley, 1988).
Kaufman, Peter Iver, Church, Book, and Bishop. Conflict and Authority in Early Latin Chris-
tianity (Boulder, CO, 1996).
Keil, H., Grammatici Latini 4 (Leipzig, 1864).
Kennell, Stefanie A.H., Magnus Felix Ennodius: A Gentleman of the Church (Ann Arbor,
2000).
Kessler, Herbert L., “Gregory the Great and Image Theory in Northern Europe during the
Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” in A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and
Gothic in Northern Europe, ed. Conrad Rudolph (Malden MA, 2006), pp. 151–72.
Kessler, Stephan, Gregor der Grosse als Exeget: Eine theologische Interpretation der Ezechiel-
homilien (Innsbruck, 1995).
——, “Gregor der Grosse und seine Theorie der Exegese: Die ‘Epistula ad Leandrum’,” in
L’esegesi dei Padri Latini dalle origini a Gregorio Magno. XXVIII Incontro di studiosi dell’
antichità cristiana, Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 68 (Rome, 2000), pp. 690–700.
——, “Monastische Mystik auf biblischer Grundlage: Theorie und Praxis der Kontempla-
tion bei Gregor dem Grossen,” Erbe und Auftrag 79 (2003), 17–26.
——, “Gregory the Great (c.540–604),” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, ed. Charles Kan-
nengiesser, 2 vols. (Leiden, 2004), 2:1336–68.
Kibre, Pearl, “The Intellectual Interests Reflected in Libraries of the Fourteenth and Fif-
teenth Centuries,” Journal of the History of Ideas 7:3 (1946), 257–97.
Kisić, Rade, Patria caelestis. Die eschatologische Dimension der Theologie Gregors des
Großen (Tübingen, 2011).
Kitzinger, Ernst, “The Cult of Images in the Period before Iconoclasm,” Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 8 (1954), 85–150.
Knuuttila, Simo, Daniel Elliot Garber, Richard Sorabji, Pauliina Remes, Juha Sihvola
(eds.), Ancient Philosophy of the Self [electronic resource] (Dordrecht, 2008), [electronic
resource] at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8596-3.
Koch, Hugo, Gelasius im kirchenpolitischen Dienste seiner Vorgänger, der Päpste Simplicius
(468–483) und Felix III. (483–492), Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften Philosophisch-Historische Abteilung 6 (Munich, 1935).
Krautheimer, Richard, Rome. Profile of a City 312–1308 (Princeton, 1980).
Kristeller, Paul Oskar, Renaissance Thought. The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains
(rev. ed. New York, 1961).
——, “The Contribution of Religious Orders to Renaissance Thought and Learning,” Ameri-
can Benedictine Review 21 (1970), 1–55.
Ladner, Gerhart B., Die Papstbildnisse des Altertums des Mittelaters (Vatican, 1941).
Laehr, Gerhard, “Die Briefe und Prologe des Bibliothekars Anastasius,” Neues Archiv 47
(1928), 437–68.
Lapidge, Michael, “The Career of Archbishop Theodore,” in Archbishop Theodore: Com-
memorative Studies on his Life and Influence, ed. Michael Lapidge (Cambridge, 1995),
pp. 1–29.
Larchet, Jean-Claude, Maxime le Confesseur, médiateur entre l’Orient et l’Occident (Paris,
1998).
Leader-Newby, Ruth E., Silver and Society in Late Antiquity: Functions and meanings of silver
plate in the fourth to seventh centuries (Aldershot, 2004).
Lebon, Joseph, “Le Prétendu docétisme de la Christologie de s. Grégoire le grand,” Recher-
ches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 1 (1929), 177–201.
Leclerq, Henri, “Rome: Bibliothèque et archives pontificales,” Dictionnaire d’Archéologie
chrétienne et de liturgie 14:2, col. 3107.
408 bibliography

Leclerq, Jean, L’amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu: Initiation aux auteurs monastiques du
Moyen Âge (Paris, 1957).
Levillain, Philippe (ed.), The Papacy: An Encyclopedia, trans. from French, 3 vols. (London—
New York, 2002).
Leyser, Conrad, “‘Let Me Speak, Let Me Speak’: Vulnerability and Authority in Gregory
the Great’s Homilies on Ezekiel,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo, 2 vols. (Rome, 1991),
2:169–82.
——, “The Temptations of Cult: Roman Martyr Piety in the Age of Gregory the Great,”
Early Medieval Europe 9 (2000), 289–307.
——, Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great (Oxford, 2000).
——, “‘Divine Power Flowed from this Book’: Ascetic Language and Episcopal Authority
in Gregory of Tours’ Life of the Fathers,” in The World of Gregory of Tours, eds. Kathleen
Mitchell and Ian Wood (Leiden, 2002), pp. 281–94.
Limone, Oronzo, “La Vita di Gregorio Magno dell’Anonimo di Whitby,” Studi Medievali
3rd series, 19 (1978), 37–68.
Linder, Amnon, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit, 1987).
Lindholm, Gudrun, Studien zum mittellateinischen Prosarhythmus (Stockholm, 1963).
Little, Lester K., “Calvin’s Appreciation of Gregory the Great,” Harvard Theological Review
56:2 (1963), 145–57.
Lizzi, Rita, “La traduzione greca delle opere di Gregorio Magno dalla Regula Pastoralis ai
Dialogi,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo, 2 vols. (Rome, 1991), 2:41–57.
Llewellyn, Peter, Rome in the Dark Ages (London, 1971; 2nd ed. 1993).
——, “The Roman Church in the Seventh Century: the Legacy of Gregory the Great,” Jour-
nal of Ecclesiastical History 25 (1974), 363–80.
Logan, F. Donald, A History of the Church in the Middle Ages (London—New York, 2002).
Lombardi, Ferrucio, Roma, chiese, conventi, chiostri. Progetto per un inventario 313–1925
(Rome, 1993).
Lot, Ferdinand, La Fin du monde antique et le début du moyen âge (Paris, 1951).
Lottin, Odo, “La Connexion des vertus avant saint Thomas d’Aquin,” Recherches de Théo-
logie ancienne et médiévale 2 (1930), 21–53.
Louth, Andrew, “Did John Moschus Really Die in Constantinople?” Journal of Theological
Studies n.s. 49 (1988), 149–54.
——, Greek East and Latin West: the Church ad 681­1071 (Crestwood NY, 2007).
Lowe, Elias Avery (ed.), Codices Latini Antiquiores; a Paleographical Guide to Latin Manu-
scripts Prior to the Ninth Century, 11 vols. (Oxford, 1934–66).
——, Codices Latini Antiquiores. Supplement (Oxford, 1971).
Maas, Michael (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (Cambridge, 2005).
Mabillon, Jean, Annales ordinis S. Benedicti occidentalium monachorum patriarchae, 6 vols.
(Lucca, 1739–45).
MacCoull, Leslie S.B., “The historical context of John Philoponus’s De Opificio Mundi in
the culture of Byzantine-Coptic Egypt,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 9 (2006),
397–423.
Magdalino, Paul, “Church, Empire and Christendom in c.600 and c.1075: The View from
the Registers of Popes Gregory I and Gregory VII,” in Cristianità d’Occidente e Cristianità
d’Oriente (secoli VI–XI), Settimane di Studio del Centro italiano di Studi sull’alto Medio-
evo 51 (Spoleto, 2004), 1:1–30.
Magnin, Claude-Marie, La papauté considérée dans son origine, dans son développement au
moyen age, et dans son état actuel (Paris, 1841).
Manselli, Raoul, “L’escatologismo di Gregorio Magno,” in Atti del I° congresso di Studi Lon-
gobardi (Spoleto, 1952), pp. 72–83.
——, “Gregorio Magno e la Bibbia,” in La Bibbia nell’alto medioevo (Spoleto, 1963), pp.
67–101.
Marc’Hadour, Germain P., “Fathers and Doctors of the Church,” in The Complete Works of
St. Thomas More, vol. 6, eds. Thomas M.C. Lawler, Germain P. Marc’Hadour, and Richard
Marius (New Haven—London, 1981), pp. 526–35.
 bibliography 409

——, “Saint Grégoire le grand et saint Thomas More,” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine
et al., pp. 621–34.
Marinangeli, Giacinto, “Equizio Amiternino e il suo movimento monastico,” Bullettino
della deputazione abruzzese di storia patria 64 (1974), 281–343.
——, “Influssi ‘Equiziani’ nel monastero Gregoriano ad Clivum Scauri?” Bullettino della
deputazione abruzzese di storia patria 71 (1981), 57–84.
Marius, Richard C., “Thomas More and the Early Church Fathers,” Traditio 24 (1968),
379–407.
Markus, Robert A., “The Chronology of the Gregorian Mission to England: Bede’s Narrative
and Gregory’s Correspondence,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14 (1963), 16–30; repr.
in idem, From Augustine to Gregory the Great. History and Christianity in Late Antiquity
(London, 1983), X.
——, “The Cult of Icons in Sixth-Century Gaul,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 29 (1978),
151–57; repr. in idem, From Augustine to Gregory the Great. History and Christianity in
Late Antiquity (London, 1983), XII.
——, “Gregory the Great’s Europe,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th
series, 31 (London, 1981), pp. 21–36; repr. in idem, From Augustine to Gregory the Great:
History and Christianity in Late Antiquity (London, 1983), XV.
——, “The Sacred and the Secular: From Augustine to Gregory the Great,” Journal of Theo-
logical Studies 36 (1985), 84–96; repr. in idem, Sacred and Secular. Studies on Augustine
and Latin Christianity (London, 1994).
——, “Gregory the Great’s ‘rector’ and his Genesis,” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine et
al., pp. 137–46.
——, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge, 1990).
——, “Justinian’s Ecclesiastical Politics and the Western Church,” in Sacred and Secular.
Studies on Augustine and Latin Christianity, ed. Robert A. Markus (London, 1994), pp.
113–24.
——, Signs and Meanings: World and Text in Ancient Christianity (Liverpool, 1996).
——, Gregory the Great and His World (Cambridge, 1997).
——, “Augustine and Gregory the Great,” in St. Augustine and the Conversion of England,
ed. Richard Gameson (Stroud, 1999), pp. 41–49.
Marrou, Henri-Irénée, “Autour de la bibliothèque de Pape Agapit,” Mélanges d’archéologie
et d’histoire de l’École française de Rome 48 (1931), 125–69.
Martindale, John R. Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1992).
Martyn, John R.C. “Four Notes on the Registrum of Gregory the Great,” Parergon 19/2
(2002), 6–38.
——, “Six Notes on Gregory the Great,” Medievalia et humanistica, n.s. 29 (2003), 1–25.
——, “Pope Gregory the Great and the Irish,” Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Asso-
ciation 1 (2005), 65–83.
Matter, E. Ann, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity
(Philadelphia, 1990).
——, “Gregory the Great in the Twelfth Century: The Glossa Ordinaria,” in Gregory the
Great: A Symposium, ed. Cavadini, pp. 216–26.
McClure, Judith, “Gregory the Great: Exegesis and Audience,” (Oxford Univ., D. Phil. thesis,
1979).
McCready, William D., Signs of Sanctity: Miracles in the Thought of Gregory the Great, Stud-
ies and Texts 91 (Toronto, 1989).
McCulloh, John, “The Cult of Relics in the Letters and Dialogues of Pope Gregory the Great:
A Lexicographical Study,” Traditio 32 (1976), 145–84.
McGinn, Bernard, The Growth of Mysticism: Gregory the Great through the 12th Century
(New York, 1994).
——, “Contemplation in Gregory the Great,” in Gregory the Great: A Symposium, ed. Cava-
dini, pp. 146–67.
McGuckin, John, Saint Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theo-
logy, and Texts (Crestwood NY, 2004).
410 bibliography

McKitterick, Rosamond, Charlemagne: The formation of a European identity (Cambridge,

2008).
Mews, Constant, “Religious Thinker: ‘A Frail Human Being’,” in Voice of the Living Light.
Hildegard of Bingen and her World, ed. Barbara Newman (Berkeley, 1998), pp. 52–69.
——, “Gregory the Great, the Rule of Benedict and Roman Liturgy: the Evolution of a
Legend,” Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011), 125–44.
Meyer, Heinz and Suntrup, Rudolf, Lexikon der mittelalterlichen Zahlenbedeutungen
(Munich, 1987).
Meyvaert, Paul, Bede and Gregory the Great, Jarrow Lecture (Jarrow, 1964); repr. in Bede
and his World: the Jarrow Lectures, 1958–1993, ed. Michael Lapidge (Aldershot, 1994), pp.
107–32.
——, “A New Edition of Gregory the Great’s Commentaries on the Canticle and on
I Kings,” Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968), 215–25.
——, “Bede’s Text of the Libellus Responsionum of Gregory the Great to Augustine of Can-
terbury,” in England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy
Whitelock, eds. Peter Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 15–33; repr.
in idem, Benedict, Gregory, Bede and Others (London, 1977).
——, “The Date of Gregory the Great’s Commentaries on the Canticle of Canticles and on
I Kings,” Sacris erudiri 23 (1978), 191–216.
——, “Le libellus responsionum à Augustin de Canterbéry: une oeuvre authentique de
saint Grégoire le grand,” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine et al., pp. 543–49.
——, “Uncovering a Lost Work of Gregory the Great: Fragments of the Early Commentary
on Job,” Traditio 50 (1995), 55–74.
——, “A Letter of Pelagius II Composed by Gregory the Great,” in Gregory the Great: A
Symposium, ed. Cavadini, pp. 94–116.
Moffatt, Ann, “Sixth-Century Ravenna from the Perspective of Abbot Agnellus,” in The
Sixth Century—End or Beginning? eds. Pauline Allen and Elizabeth M. Jeffreys, Byzan-
tina Australiensia 10 (Brisbane, 1996), pp. 236–46.
Mohrmann, Christine, Études sur le Latin des Chrétiens, 4 vols. (Rome, 1958–77).
Monaci Castagno, Adele, “Il vescovo, l’abate e l’eremita: tipologia della santità nel Liber
Vitae Patrum di Gregorio di Tours,” Augustinianum 24 (1984), 235–64.
Monfasani, John, “Renaissance Humanism,” in Augustine through the Ages: an Encyclope-
dia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids, MI—Cambridge, 1999), pp. 713–16.
Moore, Walter L., “The Role of the Fathers in the Three Marys Controversy,” in Auctoritas
Patrum, eds. Lief Grane et al., 2 vols., 1:129–41.
Moorhead, John, “Papa as ‘bishop of Rome’,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History (1985), 337–50.
——, “Hearing in St Benedict,” Studia monastica 47 (2005), 7–17.
——, Gregory the Great, The Early Church Fathers (Abingdon—New York, 2005).
——, “On Becoming Pope in Late Antiquity,” Journal of Religious History 30.3 (2006),
279–93.
——, “Hearers and Readers of Christian Texts in Late Antiquity,” in Studies in Latin Litera-
ture and Roman History 14, ed. Carl Deroux (Brussels, 2008), pp. 476–97.
Moreira, Isabel, Heaven’s Purge. Purgatory in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2010).
Morris, Ian, and Scheidel, Walter, The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from
Assyria to Byzantium (Oxford, 2009).
Müller, Barbara, Führung im Denken und Handeln Gregors des Grossen (Tübingen, 2009).
Müller, Susanne, Fervorem discamus amoris. Das Hohelied und seine Auslegung bei Gregor
dem Grossen (St Ottilien, 1991).
Mullett, Margaret, and Kirby, Anthony (eds.), The Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century
Monasticism, Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 6, vol. 1 (Belfast, 1994).
——, Work and Worship at the Theotokos Evergetis, Belfast Byzantine Texts and Transla-
tions 6, vol. 2 (Belfast, 1997).
Münkler, Herfried, Imperien: Die Logik der Weltherrschaft vom Alten Rom bis zu den Vere-
inigten Staaten (Berlin, 2005).
 bibliography 411

Murdoch, Brian, “Using the Moralia: Gregory the Great in Early Medieval German,” in
Rome and the North, eds. Bremmer Jr et al., pp. 189–206.
Murphy, Francis X., Patristic Heritage in the Renaissance and the Modern World, eds. Marie
F. Porter and Norman Shaifer (Tappan, NY, 1990).
Mycue, David, “Founder of the Vatican Library: Nicholas V or Sixtus IV?” Journal of Library
History 16:1 (1981), 121–33.
Nader, Helen, The Mendoza Family in the Spanish Renaissance 1350–1550 (Rutgers, 1979),
Library of Iberian Resources Online, http://libro.uca.edu/mendoza/msr3.htm (accessed
8-3-12).
Nau, François, “Vies et récits d’anchorètes (IVe–VIIe siècles) I. Analyse du ms. grec de Paris
1596,” Revue de l’orient chrétien 8 (1903), 58–99.
——, “Le texte grec des récits utiles à l’âme d’Anastase (le Sinaïte),” Oriens christianus 3
(1903), 56–90.
Nedungatt, George and Featherstone, Michael (eds.), The Council in Trullo Revisited,
Kanonika 6 (Rome, 1995).
Neil, Bronwen, Seventh-Century Popes and Martyrs. The Political Hagiography of Anastasius
Bibliothecarius, Studia Antiqua Australiensia 2 (Turnhout, 2006).
——, Leo the Great, The Early Church Fathers (London—New York, 2009).
——, “A Crisis of Orthodoxy: Leo I’s Fight Against the ‘Deadly Disease’ of Heresy,” in
Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts as Crisis Management Literature. Thematic Studies
from the Centre for Early Christian Studies, eds. David Sim and Pauline Allen (London,
2012), pp. 144–58.
Noble, Thomas F.X., The Republic of St Peter: The Birth of the Papal State from 680–825
(Philadelphia, 1984).
——, “Literacy and the Papal Government in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages,” in
The Uses of Literarcy in Early Mediaeval Europe, ed. Rosamond McKitterick (Cambridge,
1990), pp. 82–108.
——, “The Intellectual Culture of the Early Medieval Papacy,” Rome nell’alto medioevo,
Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 48 (Spoleto, 2001),
pp. 179–213.
Norberg, Dag, In Registrum Gregorii Magni studia critica, 2 vols. (Uppsala, 1937–39).
——, “Qui a composé les lettres de saint Grégoire le grand?” Studi medievali 21 (1980), 1–17.
——, “Style personnel et style administratif dans le Registrum epistularum de saint Gré-
goire le grand,” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine et al., pp. 489–97.
Norris, Richard A., “Christological Models in Cyril of Alexandria,” Studia Patristica 13 (1975),
255–68.
North, Helen, Sophrosyne (Ithaca, 1966).
Oberhelman, Steven, “The History and Development of Cursus Mixtus in Latin Literature,”
Classical Quarterly 38 (1988), 228–42.
——, Rhetoric and Homiletics in Fourth-century Christian Literature (Atlanta, 1991).
——, Prose Rhythm in Latin Literature of the Roman Empire: First Century B.C. to Fourth
Century A.D. (Lewiston, 2003).
Oberhelman, Steven, and Ralph Hall, “A New Statistical Analysis of Accentual Prose
Rhythms in Imperial Latin Authors,” Classical Philology 79:2 (1984), 114–30.
O’Donnell, James J., “Liberius the Patrician,” Traditio 37 (1981), 31–72.
——, “The Holiness of Gregory the Great,” in Gregory the Great: A Symposium, ed. Cavadini,
pp. 62–81.
O’Malley, B., The Animals of St. Gregory (London, 1981).
Opelt, Ilona and Speyer, Wolfgang, “Barbar I,” RAC, Suppl. 1 (2001), 811–95.
Oppenheim, Philipp, “Eucharistischer Kult und Messopfer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des
Wandels der eucharistischen Frömmigkeit,” in Miscellanea Pio Paschini, Studi di Storia
Ecclesiastica (Rome, 1948), 1:237–68.
Orlandi, Giovanni, “Clausulae in Gildas’s De Excidio Britanniae,” in Gildas: New Approaches,
eds. Michael Lapidge and David Dumville (Woodbridge, 1984), pp. 129–49.
412 bibliography

Osborne, John, “The Portrait of Pope Leo IV in San Clemente, Rome: a Re-examination of
the So-called Square Nimbus in Medieval Art,” Papers of the British School at Rome 47
(1979), 58–65.
Otten, Willemien, “The Texture of Tradition: the Role of the Church Fathers in Carolingian
Theology,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West, ed. Backus, 1:1:3–51.
Palmer, Nigel, “Illustrated Printed Editions of The Visions of Tondal from the Late Fif-
teenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries,” in Margaret of York, Simon Marmion, and The
Visions of Tondal, ed. Thomas Kren (Malibu, CA, 1992), pp. 157–80.
Pani Ermini, Letizia, “Le vicende dell’alto Medioevo,” in Spoleto. Argomenti di storia urbana,
eds. Guglielmo de Angelis D’Ossat and Bruno Toscano (Cinisello Balsamo [Milan], 1985),
pp. 25–42.
Pellegrini, Marco, “La prosa ritmica nelle opere di Gregorio Magno,” Filologia Mediolatina
15 (2008), 217–48.
Pellegrini, Pietrina, Milita clericatus, monachici ordines. Istituzioni ecclesiastiche e società in
Gregorio Magno (2nd edn., Catania, 2008).
Penco, Gregorio, Storia del monachesimo in Italia dalle origini alla fine dell Medio Evo
(Rome, 1959).
——, “Conditions and Currents in Sixth-century Italian Monasticism,” American Benedic-
tine Review 50 (1999), 161–79.
Perels, Ernst, Papst Nikolaus I. und Anastasius bibliothecarius (Berlin, 1920).
Peter, Hermann, Der Brief in der römischen Litteratur (Leipzig, 1901).
Petersen, Joan M., “Did Gregory the Great know Greek?” in The Orthodox Churches and the
West, ed. Derek Baker, Studies in Church History 13 (Oxford, 1976), pp. 121–34.
——, The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in their Late Antique Cultural Background, Studies
and Texts 69 (Toronto, 1984).
——, “The Influence of Origen upon Gregory the Great’s Exegesis of the Song of Songs,”
Studia Patristica 18:1 (1989), 343–47.
——, “Greek Influences upon Gregory the Great’s Exegesis of Luke 15.1–10 in Homelia in
Evangelium II, 34,” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine et al., pp. 521–29.
——, “‘Homo omnino latinus?’ The Theological and Cultural Background of Pope Gregory
the Great,” Speculum 62 (1987), 529–51.
Petit, Dominique, Histoire sociale des Lombards (Paris, 2003).
Pfaff, Richard W., “The English Devotion of St Gregory’s Trental,” Speculum 49:1 (1974),
74–90.
Philippart, Guy (ed.), Hagiographies: Histoire internationale de la littérature hagiographique
latine et vernaculaire en Occident des origines à 1550, 5 vols., Corpus Christianorum Texts
and Studies (Turnhout, 1994–2010).
Piccirillo, Michele, “Gregorio Magno e le province orientali di Palestina e Arabia,” Liber
Annuus 54 (2004), 321–41.
Pierce, Donna, Rogelio Ruiz Gomar, and Clara Bargellini, Painting a New World: Mexican
Art and Life, 1521–1821, exhibition catalogue, Denver Art Museum (Denver, 2004).
Pietri, Charles and Luce, “Église universelle et respublica christiana selon Grégoire le
grand,” in Memoriam Sanctorum Venerantes: Miscellanea in onore di Monsignor Victor
Saxer (Vatican City, 1992), pp. 647–65.
Pietri, Luce, “Grégoire le grand et la Gaule: le projet pour la réforme de l’Église Gauloise,”
in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo, 2 vols. (Rome, 1991), 1:109–28.
——, “Serenus de Marseille et Grégoire le grand: une première querelle des images,” in
Historiam perscrutari. Miscellanea di studi offerti al prof. Ottorino Pasquato, ed. Mario
Maritano (Rome, 2002), pp. 327–41.
Pigeaud, Jackie, La Maladie de l’âme: étude sur la relation de l’âme et du corps dans la tradi-
tion médico-philosophique antique (Paris, 1981).
Pitra, Jean-Baptiste, Iuris ecclesiastici graecorum historia et monumenta, 2 vols. (Rome,
1868).
 bibliography 413

Pizzani, Ubaldo, “S. Gregorio magno, Cassiodoro e le arti liberali,” in Gregorio Magno e il
suo tempo, 2 vols. (Rome, 1991), 2:121–36.
——, “Autori Pagani (conoscenza di Gregorio Magno degli),” in Enciclopedia Gregoriana,
eds. Giuseppe Cremascoli and Antonella Degl’Innocenti (Florence, 2008), pp. 23–25.
Pohl, Walter (ed.), Kingdoms of the Empire: The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity
(Leiden, 1997).
——, Die Germanen (München, 2000).
Pollard, Richard Matthew, “The Decline of the Cursus in the Papal Chancery and its Impli-
cations,” Studi medievali 50 (2009), 1–40.
——, “Paul, Paulinus and the Rhythm of Elite Latin,” in La culture du haut moyen âge,
une question d’élites?, eds. François Bougard, Régine Le Jan and Rosamond McKitterick,
Haut Moyen Âge 7 (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 63–99.
Priebsch, R., “Eine Ausspruch Gregors des Grossen in ahd. Reimversen aus S. Maximim zu
Trier,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 38 (1912–13), 338–43.
Ramos-Lissón, Domingo, “Grégoire le grand, Léandre et Reccarède,” in Gregorio Magno e il
suo tempo, 2 vols. (Rome, 1991), 1:187–98.
——, “En torno a la exégesis de San Gregorio Magno sobre el ‘Cantar de los Cantares’,”
Teología y vida 42 (2001), 241–65.
Rand, Edward Kenneth, Founders of the Middle Ages (New York, 1928; repr. 1957).
Rapp, Claudia, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age
of Transition (Berkeley, 2005).
——, “Saints and Holy Men,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 2, Constantine to
c.600, eds. Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 548–66.
Rashdall, Hastings, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (London, 1919).
Recchia, Vincenzo, L’esegesi di Gregorio Magno al cantico dei cantici (Turin, 1967).
——, Le Omelie di Gregorio Magno su Ezechiele (1– 5), Quaderni di “Vetera Christianorum”
8 (Bari, 1974).
Rees, Bryn, Pelagius: A Reluctant Heretic (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1988).
Reydellet, Marc, La Royauté dans la littérature latine de Sidoine Appolinaire à Isidore de
Seville (Rome, 1981).
Richards, Jeffrey, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages (476–752) (London,
1979).
——, Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great (London, 1980).
Riché, Paul, Éducation et culture dans l’Occident barbare (Paris, 1962).
Riché, Pierre, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West, trans. John J. Contreni (Colum-
bia SC, 1976).
Riedinger, Rudolf, Kleine Schriften zu den Konzilsakten des 7. Jahrhunderts (Turnhout,
1998).
——, “Wer hat den Brief Papst Martins I an Amandus verfaßt?” Filologia Mediolatina 3
(1996), 95–104.
——, “Die lateinischen Übersetzungen der Epistula Encyclica Papst Martins I (CPG 9403)
und der Epistula Synodica des Sophronios von Jerusalem (CPG 7635),” Filologia Medio-
latina 1 (1994), 45–69.
——, “Die Lateranakten von 649: ein Werk der Byzantiner um Maximos Homologetes,”
Byzantina 13 (1985), 517–34.
——, “Die Lateransynode von 649 und Maximos der Bekenner,” in Maximus Confessor,
eds. Felix Heinzer and Christoph von Schönborn (Freibourg, 1982), pp. 111–21.
——, “Sprachschichten in der lateinischen Übersetzung der Lateranakten von 649,”
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 92 (1981), 180–203.
——, “Zwei Briefe aus den Akten der Lateransynode von 649,” Jahrbuch der Österreichi-
schen Byzantinistik 29 (1980), 37–59.
——, Lateinische Übersetzungen griechischer Häretikertexte des siebenten Jahrhunderts
(Vienna, 1979).
414 bibliography

Rigotti, Gianpaolo, “Gregorio il dialogo nel mondo bizantino,” in L’eredità spirituale di Gre-
gorio Magno tra Occidente e Oriente, ed. Guido Innocenzo Gargano (Verona, 2005), pp.
271–92.
Rispardi, Grazia, “I doni nell’epistolario di Gregorio Magno,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo
tempo, 2 vols. (Rome, 1991), 2:285–300.
Rist, John M., Stoic Philosophy (Cambridge, 1969).
Rivière, Jean, Le Dogme de la rédemption après saint Augustin (Paris, 1930).
Rizzo, Roberta, Papa Gregorio Magno e la nobilità in Sicilia (Palermo, 2008).
Roberts, Michael, Humblest Sparrow. The Poetry of Venantius Fortunatus (Ann Arbor, MI,
2009).
Robinson, James Harvey, Petrarch. The First Modern Scholar and Man of Letters (New York,
1899; repr. 1969).
Rodgers, Katharine Gardiner, “The Seven Deadly Sins,” in The Complete Works of St. Thomas
More, vol. 1, eds. Anthony S.G. Edwards, Katharine Gardiner Rodgers, and Clarence H.
Miller (New Haven—London, 1963; repr. 1997).
Roger, Maurice, L’enseignement des lettres classiques d’Ausone à Alcuin: Introduction à l’his-
toire des écoles carolingiennes (Paris, 1905).
Rouche, Michel, “Grégoire le grand face à la situation économique de son temps,” in Gré-
goire le grand, eds. Fontaine et al., pp. 41–57.
Saint-Roch, Patrick, La Pénitence dans les Conciles et les lettres des papes des origines à la
mort de Grégoire le grand, Studi di antichità cristiana (Vatican City, 1991).
Sakkos, Stergios N., Περὶ Ἀναστασίων Σιναϊτῶν (Thessaloniki, 1964).
Sambursky, Samuel, The Physical World of Late Antiquity (London, 1962).
Sandbach, F.H., The Stoics (New York, 1975).
Sansterre, Jean-Marie, Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome aux époques byzantine et caro-
lingienne (milieu du VIe s.—fin du IXe s.), 2 vols. (Brussels, 1983).
Sarris, Peter, Economy and Society in the Age of Justinian (Cambridge, 2006).
——, Empires of Faith: The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam, 500–700 (Oxford, 2011).
Sauget, Joseph-Marie., “S. Grégoire le grand et les reliques de S. Pierre dans la tradition
arabe chrétienne,” Rivista di archeologia cristiana 49 (1973) 301–09.
Schäferdiek, Knut, Die Kirche in den Reichen der Westgoten und Suewen bis zur Errichtung
der westgotischen katholischen Staatskirche (Berlin, 1967).
Scheidel, Walter (ed.), Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires
(Oxford, 2009).
Schilling, Johannes, “Luther und Gregor der Grosse,” in Auctoritas Patrum, eds. Lief Grane
et al., 2 vols., 1:175–84.
Scorza Barcellona, F., “Agli inizi dell’agiografia occidentale,” in Hagiographies: Histoire
internationale de la littérature hagiographique latine et vernaculaire en Occident des
origines à 1550, ed. Guy Philippart, vol. 3, Corpus Christianorum Texts and Studies (Turn-
hout, 2001), pp. 17–97.
Serfass, Adam, “Slavery and Pope Gregory the Great,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 14:1
(2006), 77–103.
Sforza, Giovanni, La Patria, la famiglia e la giovinezza de Papa Niccolò V (Lucca, 1884).
Sharpe, Richard, “Latin and Irish Words for ‘Book-satchel’,” Peritia 4 (1985), 152–56.
Silva-Tarouca, Carlos, “Nuovi studi sulle antiche lettere dei papi,” Gregorianum 12 (1931),
3–56, 349–425, 547–98.
Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1952).
Smith, Wesley D., The Hippocratic Tradition (Ithaca—London, 1979).
Smyth, Marina, Understanding the Universe in Seventh-Century Ireland (Woodbridge, Suf-
folk, 1996).
Sorabji, Richard, Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation
(Oxford, 2002).
Sotinel, Claire, “The Three Chapters and the Transformations of Italy,” in The Crisis of the
Oikoumene: The Three Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-century Medi-
 bibliography 415

terranean, eds. Celia Chazelle and Catherine Cubitt, Studies in the Early Middle Ages 14
(Turnhout, 2007), pp. 85–120.
Spanneut, Michel, Le Stoïcisme des pères de I’église de Clément de Rome à Clément d’Alexan-
drie (Paris, 1969).
Speyer, Wolfgang, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum,
Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 1.2 (Munich, 1971).
Stäblein, Bruno, Die Gesänge des altrömischen Graduale (Kassel, 1970).
Staubach, Nikolaus, “Memores pristinae perfectionis. The Importance of the Church Fathers
for the Devotio Moderna,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West, ed. Backus,
1:405–69.
Sterk, Andrea, Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late
Antiquity (Cambridge, MA, 2004).
Stinger, Charles L., Humanism and the Church Fathers: Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439) and
Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance (Albany, 1977).
——, “Greek Patristics and Christian Antiquity in Renaissance Rome” in Rome in the
Renaissance: the City and the Myth, Papers of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the
Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, ed. Paul A. Ramsay (Binghamton,
NY, 1982), pp. 153–69.
——, The Renaissance in Rome (Bloomington, 1985).
——, “Italian Renaissance Learning and the Church Fathers,” in The Reception of the
Church Fathers in the West, ed. Backus, 1:473–507.
Stok, Fabio, “Virgil between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” International Journal
of the Classical Tradition 1/2 (1994), 15–22.
Straw, Carole, Gregory the Great. Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley, 1988).
——, “‘Adversitas’ et ‘prosperitas’: une illustration du motif structurel de la complémen-
tarité,” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine et al., pp. 277–88.
——, “Gregory’s Politics: Theory and Practice,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo, 2 vols.
(Rome, 1991), 1:47–63.
——, Authors of the Middle Ages, vol. 12. Gregory the Great, Historical and Religious Writers
of the Latin West, ed. Patrick Geary (Aldershot, 1996).
——, “Gregory I,” in Augustine Through the Ages, ed. Allan Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids, 1999),
pp. 402–5.
——, “The Classical Heritage and New Spiritual Synthesis,” in Gregorio Magno: nel XIV
centenario della morte, Atti dei convegni Lincei 209 (Rome, 2004), pp. 107–31.
——, “Gregory, Cassian, and the Cardinal Vices,” in In the Garden of Evil: Vices and Culture
in the Middle Ages, ed. Richard Newhauser, Papers in Mediaeval Studies 18 (Toronto,
2005), pp. 35–58.
——, “Much Ado About Nothing: Gregory the Great’s Apology to the Istrians,” in The Crisis
of the Oikoumene: The Three Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-Century
Mediterranean, eds. Celia Chazelle and Catherine Cubitt, Studies in the Early Middle
Ages 14 (Turnhout, 2007), pp. 121–60.
——, “Gregory and the Tradition of Compassion,” Gregorio Magno e le origini dell’Europa,
SISMEL (forthcoming).
Strong, E.B. “Rimado de Palacio: López de Ayala’s Rimed Confession,” Hispanic Review 37:4
(1969), 439–51.
Suelzer, Mary J., The Clausulae in Cassiodorus (Washington, 1944).
Summit, Jennifer, “Topography as Historiography: Petrarch, Chaucer, and the Making of
Medieval Rome,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 30:2 (2000), 211–46.
Thanner, Anton, Papst Honorius I (625–638), Studien zur Theologie und Geschichte 4 (St
Ottilien, 1989).
Tateo, Francesco, “La struttura dei dialoghi di Gregorio Magno,” Vetera christianorum 2
(1965), 101–27.
Thacker, Alan, “Memorializing Gregory the Great: the Origin and Transmission of a Papal
Cult in the Seventh and Early Eighth Centuries,” Early Medieval Europe 7 (1998), 59–84.
416 bibliography

——, “Rome of the Martyrs: Saints, Cults and Relics, Fourth to Seventh Centuries,” in Roma
felix: Formation and Reflections of Medieval Rome, ed. Éamonn Ó Carragáin (Aldershot,
2007), pp. 13–49.
Townsend, William, and William Wyatt, “Ennodius and Pope Symmachus,” in Classical
and Medieval Studies in Honor of Edward Kennard Rand, ed. Leslie Webber Jones (New
York, 1938), pp. 277–91.
Trinkhaus, Charles, “Humanist Treatises on the Status of the Religious: Petrarch, Salutati,
Valla,” Studies in the Renaissance 11 (1964), 7–45.
Troncarelli, Fabio, Vivarium: I libri, il destino (Turnhout, 1998).
Tuilier, André, “Le sens de l’adjectif oikoumenikos dans la tradition patristique et dans la
tradition byzantine,” Studia Patristica 7 (1966), 413–24.
——, “Grégoire le grand et le titre de patriarche oecuménique,” in Grégoire le grand, eds.
Fontaine et al., pp. 69–82.
Ueding, Leo, “Die Kanones von Chalcedon in ihrer Bedeutung für Mönchtum und Klerus,”
in Das Konzil von Chalcedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 2, eds. Aloys Grillmeier and
Heinrich Bacht (Würzburg, 1954), pp. 569–676.
Ullman, B.L., “Petrarch’s Favorite Books,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American
Philological Association 54 (1923), 21–38.
Ullman, B.L. and Philip A. Stadter, The Public Library of Renaissance Florence, Niccolò Nic-
coli, Cosimo de’Medici and the Library of San Marco (Padua, 1972).
Ullmann, Walter, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideo-
logical Relation of Clerical to Lay Power, 3rd ed. (London, 1970).
——, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London, 1972; repr. 2003).
——, Gelasius I. (492–496): Das papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter
(Stuttgart, 1981).
Vailhé, Siméon. “Le titre de Patriarche oecouménique avant saint Grégoire le grand,” and
“Saint Grégoire le grand et le titre de Patriarche oecouménique,” Echos d’Orient 11 (1908),
65–69, 161–71.
Valle Ribeiro, Daniel, “O Oriente e o Ocidente na correspondência de Gregório Magno,”
Signum: Revista da ABREM 4 (2002), 153–79.
Valtorta, Benedetta, Clavis scriptorum Latinorum Medii aevi: auctores Italiae, 700–1000
(Florence, 2006).
van Bavel, Tarcisius, Recherches sur la Christologie de saint Augustin: l’humain et le divin
dans le Christ d’après saint Augustin (Fribourg, 1954).
Van Egmond, Wolfert S., “The Audience of Early Medieval Hagiographical Texts,” in New
Approaches to Medieval Communication, ed. Marco Mostert, Utrecht Studies in Medieval
Literacy 1 (Turnhout, 1999), pp. 41–68.
van Roey, Albert, “Un traité cononite contre la doctrine de Jean Philopon sur la résurrec-
tion,” in Antidoron: Hulde aan Maurits Geerard bij de voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum
Graecorum / Hommage à Maurits Geerard pour célébrer l’achèvement de la Clavis Patrum
Graecorum (Brussels, 1984), pp. 123–39.
van Rompay, Lucas, “Society and Community in the Christian East,” in The Cambridge
Companion to the Age of Justinian, ed. Michael Maas (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 239–66.
Van Uytfanghe, Marc, “Modèles bibliques dans l’hagiographie,” in Le Moyen Âge et la Bible,
eds. Pierre Riché and Guy Lobrichon, Bibles de tous les temps, vol. 4 (Paris, 1984), pp.
449–88.
——, “Scepticisme doctrinal au seuil du Moyen Âge? Les objections du diacre Pierre
dans les Dialogues de Grégoire le grand,” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine et al., pp.
315–26.
Verbraken, Patrick, “La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Saint Grégoire sur le Can-
tique des Cantiques,” Revue bénédictine 73 (1963), 277–88.
——, “Un nouveau manuscrit du Commentaire de S. Grégoire sur le Cantique des Can-
tiques,” Revue bénédictine 75 (1965), 143–45.
Verlinden, Charles, L’Esclavage dans l’Europe médiévale, 2 vols. (Bruges, 1955–77).
 bibliography 417

Vessey, Mark, “English Translations of the Latin Fathers, 1517–1611,” in The Reception of the
Church Fathers in the West, ed. Backus, 2:775–835.
—— (intro.), Cassiodorus: Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning, trans. James W. Hal-
porn (Liverpool, 2004).
——, “Cities of the Mind: Renaissance Views of Early Christian Culture and the End of
Antiquity,” in A Companion to Late Antiquity, ed. Philip Rousseau (Chichester, 2009),
pp. 45–58.
Vilella Masana, Josep, “Gregorio Magno e Hispania,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo,
2 vols. (Rome, 1991), 1:167–86.
Vircillo Franklin, Carmela, “Theodore of Tarsus and the Passio S. Anastasii (BHL 410b),”
in Archbishop Theodore: Commemorative Studies on his Life and Influence, ed. Michael
Lapidge (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 175–203.
——, The Latin Dossier of Anastasius the Persian: Hagiographic Translations and Transfor-
mations (Toronto, 2004).
Vogel, Cyril, “Deux conséquences de l’escatologie grégorienne: la multiplication des mes-
ses privées et les moines-prêtres,” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine et al., pp. 267–76.
Vogt, Hermann Josef, “Liturgy,” in The Imperial Church from Constantine to the Early Middle
Ages, eds. Karl Baus et al., trans. Anselm Biggs (New York, 1969), 2:678–84.
Von Der Nahmer, Dieter, Die lateinische Heiligenvita. Eine Einführung in die lateinische
Hagiographie (Darmstadt, 1994).
von Falkenhausen, Vera, “Bishops,” in The Byzantines, ed. Guglielmo Cavallo, English trans-
lation (Chicago, 1997), pp. 172–96.
von Schönborn, Christoph, “La primauté romaine vue d’Orient pendant la querelle du
monoénergisme et du monothélisme (VIIe siècle),” Istina 20 (1975), 476–92.
Voss, Bernd Reiner, Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur, Studia et testimonia anti-
qua 9 (Munich, 1970).
Walker Bynum, Caroline, “Seeing and Seeing Beyond: The Mass of St Gregory in the Fif-
teenth Century,” in The Mind’s Eye. Art and Theological Argument in the Middle Ages,
eds. Jeffrey Hamburger and Anne-Marie Bouché (Princeton, 2006), pp. 204–40.
Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew, Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars (London, 1983).
Wallace-Hadrill, J. Michael, The Frankish Church (Oxford, 1983).
Wansbrough, J. Henry, “St. Gregory’s Intention in the Stories of St. Scholastica and
St. Benedict,” Revue bénédictine 75 (1965), 145–51.
Ward-Perkins, Bryan, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (Oxford, 2005).
Wasselynck, René, “L’Orientation eschatologique de la vie chrétienne d’après saint Gré-
goire le grand,” Assemblées du Seigneur 2 (1962), 66–80.
——, “Les compilations des Moralia in Job du VIIe au XIIe siècle,” Recherches de théologie
ancienne et médiévale 29 (1962), 5–32.
——, “Présence de s. Grégoire le grand dans les recueils canoniques (X–XII),” Mélanges de
science religieuse 22 (1965), 205–19.
——, “L’influence de l’exégèse de S. Grégoire le grand sur les commentaires bibliques
médiévaux (VIIe–XII s.),” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 32 (1965),
157–204.
Weiss, Günter, Studia Anastasiana I (Munich, 1965).
Weissengruber, F. “Zu Gregors des Großen Verhalten gegenüber der antiken Profanbil-
dung,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo, 2 vols. (Rome, 1991), 2:105–19.
Wessel, Susan, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and
of a Heretic, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2004).
Westfehling, Uwe, Die Messe Gregors des Grossen, Vision-Kunst-Realität. Katalog und Füh-
rer zu einer Ausstellung im Schnütgen-Museum der Stadt Köln (Cologne, 1982).
Whitby, Mark, Emperor Maurice and his Historian (Oxford, 1988).
Whittow, Mark, “Ruling the Late Roman and Early Byzantine City: A Continuous History,”
Past and Present 129 (1990), 3–29.
Wickham, Chris, Early Medieval Italy (Ann Arbor, 1989).
418 bibliography

Wickham, Lionel, “Pelagianism in the East,” in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour
of Henry Chadwick, ed. Rowan Williams (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 200–e13.
Wilk, Sarah Blake, “Donatello’s ‘Dovizia’ as an Image of Florentine Political Propaganda,”
Artibus et Historiae, 7:14 (1986), 9–28.
Wilkinson, Lancelot P., Golden Latin Artistry (Cambridge, 1963).
Williams, Norman P., Ideas of the Fall and Original Sin (London, 1938).
Wolf, Kirsten, “Gregory’s Influence on Old Norse-Icelandic Religious Literature,” in Rome
and the North, eds. Bremmer Jr. et al., pp. 255–74.
Wood, Ian N., The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751 (London, 1994).
——, “Augustine and Gaul,” in St. Augustine and the Conversion of England, ed. Richard
Gameson (Stroud, 1999), pp. 68–82.
——, “Some Historical Re-identifications and the Christianization of Kent,” in Christianiz-
ing Peoples and Converting Individuals, eds. Guyda Armstrong and Ian Wood (Turnhout,
2000), pp. 27–35.
——, “Barbarians, Historians, and the Construction of National Identities,” Journal of Late
Antiquity 1 (2008), 61–81.
Wortley, John, “The Genre and Sources of the Synagoge,” in The Theotokos Evergetis, eds.
Margaret Mullett and Anthony Kirby, Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 6, vol. 1
(Belfast, 1994), pp. 306–24.
——, “Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell in Byzantine ‘Beneficial Tales’,” Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 55 (2001), 53–69.
Young, Frances M. with Andrew Teal, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature
and its Background, 2nd ed. (London, 2010).
Zeveni, Giorgio, “La Metodologia dell’intelligenze spirituale della sacra scrittura come
esegesi biblica secondo Gregorio Magno,” in Parole e Spirito. Studi in onore de Settimio
Cipriani (Brescia, 1982), pp. 867–915.
Zielinski, Thaddäus, Das Clauselgesetz in Ciceros Reden. Grundzüge einer oratorischen
Rhythmik (Leipzig, 1904).
Zimdars-Swartz, Sandra, “A Confluence of Imagery: Exegesis and Christology According to
Gregory the Great,” in Grégoire le grand, eds. Fontaine et al., pp. 327–35.
Zinn, Grover, “Exegesis and Spirituality in the Writings of Gregory the Great,” in Gregory
the Great: A Symposium, ed. Cavadini, pp. 168–80.
 General Index

Adaloald, King of the Lombards (616–26)  Anglicanism, Anglicans 382

25, 40 Antichrist 114, 114n, 162, 168, 169, 171, 171n,
Adam (see also “Eve”, “Fall”, “sin, original”) 172, 173, 174
115n, 143, 145n, 151, 153, 187–90, 193, 234 Aphthartodocetism 112
administration, public xxiii, 4–5, 9, 41, apocalypse 163, 166
45, 59n, 73, 75, 85n, 101, 208–9, 302, 310n apocrisarius/apocrisiarius xviii, 4, 10, 11,
adversity 179–80, 185, 192, 197, 199, 212, 16, 59, 60, 63, 109, 112, 116–17, 120, 124,
234 275, 343, 372
Aemiliana, aunt to Gregory the Great  Arator, poet 262
83–84 Arian, Arianism 6, 15, 19, 25, 30–32,
Æthelbert, King of Kent (c. 590–616)  34–35, 37, 89n, 234, 238, 244, 349
48–49, 52–53, 78, 101, 165–66, 175 Aristobulus, imperial secretary 61, 62n,
afterlife, the 113n, 174n, 180, 201, 228, 260
238n, 349, 350, 352, 354, 356–58, 375 Ariulf of Spoleto, duke 37–39
Agapetus/Agapitus I, Pope (535–36) 6, army, soldiers 38, 60, 73, 75, 76, 97
15, 16, 242n, 243, 243n, 249, 373n asceticism (see also “monasticism”) 83n,
Agatho, Pope (678–81) 10n, 12n, 302, 102n, 210n, 234, 244n, 255n, 266n, 281n,
308n 283n, 316, 318, 343, 369, 369n
agent, actor 11, 19 atonement 152, 194, 195, 201
Agilulf, King of the Lombards (590–616)  Augustine of Canterbury, Bishop 
19, 35, 37–41, 74 47–49n, 50–55, 83n, 86, 87n, 100, 101,
Agnellus of Ravenna 8, 17, 301n 174, 192n, 221, 222, 229, 322–24, 328,
agnoetes (Egyptian sect) 146n 367, 379
Alfred the Great, King of Wessex (871–99) Augustine of Hippo, Bishop 10n, 42n,
224, 316n 43n, 45n, 57n, 136, 138, 140, 141n, 143,
allegory, allegorical interpretation (see also 145n, 146, 149, 152, 153, 157n, 168n, 176,
“hermeneutics”) xx, 265n, 266, 269, 187–89, 196n, 197, 200, 210n, 231n, 255n,
278, 280, 283, 285–87, 371, 378 258n, 262, 267, 269–71, 281n, 284–85,
alms, almsgiving 19, 71–72, 75, 225, 234 290, 293–94, 301n, 310–12, 315, 317–19,
Ambrose of Milan, Bishop xxi, 86, 157n, 321, 333, 335, 339, 343, 344n, 360–61n,
178, 206–8, 215, 242n, 258n, 262, 267, 363n, 365–66, 370, 378, 379, 380–82
269, 272, 290, 293, 294, 317, 318, 336, Ayala, Pero Lopez de (1332–1407) 370–71
336n, 360n, 365, 378, 381
Amos of Jerusalem, Patriarch (594–601)  Barbarians 13, 29n, 32, 37, 42, 161, 174,
116n, 122–23 249n, 310
Anastasius Bibliothecarius, papal librarian Basil the Great, Bishop 140n, 365
303n, 304n, 307n65, 307n68, 308n, 309n, Bede the Venerable 7, 49–51, 54, 87n,
322n, 325, 326n 101n120, 101n121, 112n, 222n60, 222n61,
Anastasius I of Antioch, Patriarch (561–71, 289, 308n71, 308n72, 323, 328–29, 378
594–99) xxiii, 11, 26, 44n, 61, 65, 72, Benedict II, Pope (684–85) 308
114, 116, 120, 121, 303n52, 303n53, 304n, Benedict of Nursia, saint 6n13, 6n14, 83,
307n65, 307n68, 308n, 309n, 326n, 344 89–91, 105, 106, 199, 213, 216, 227, 228n,
Anastasius of Isauria, priest 115–19 231, 233, 236, 239, 243, 245, 251, 252, 254,
Andrew, imperial tutor 23, 62, 157 315, 318, 319n, 322–325, 330, 337, 349,
Angels 208, 241, 348 354, 360, 370
Angli, Anglo-Saxons (see also “England”) Benedictine Rule, see “Rule of Benedict”
9, 29n, 32, 42, 47–52, 54, 56, 66, 78, Bernard, St, of Clairvaux (1090–1153) 
101, 102n, 174, 174n, 222, 222–24, 328n, 286n, 333, 365n
373–74, 379, 382 Bertha, Queen of Kent 49, 52, 78
420 general index

Bible, scriptures 35, 37, 71, 72, 86, 162, Christ: see also “salvation”
164, 232, 233, 239, 240, 241, 249, 252, 253, as Judge (see also “Final Judgement”,
262, 264, 265, 270, 273, 280, 286n, 288, “God, as Judge”) 97, 164, 167, 186
290, 305 as Mediator xix, 136, 144, 146, 150–52,
Guthenberg Bible 362 164, 194, 267
New Testament 264, 288 as mystery of scriptures 288
Old Testament 264, 288, 365 birth of 50, 55, 137, 139n, 143
bishops, episcopacy 3, 4, 5–10, 13n, 14, Body of, see “church”
16, 18n, 22–27, 29, 34, 35, 40, 42, 44, 52, divinity of 136, 139, 140–45, 147–48,
54, 55, 58, 68, 73, 75, 76, 96, 111, 113, 131, 151–53, 194
206, 301 exchange of properties in
and asceticism 88, 89, 92, 99, 104, 207, (communicatio idiomatum) 141
209, 218, 220, 263, 333 humanity of 136, 139–45, 147–53, 194
educational standards expected of 86, humility of 142–43, 147–48, 151–53, 156
106, 250, 256, 257n, 266, 310 passion of, see suffering of
pastoral responsibilities of 12, 13, 16n, sacrifice of 152, 181, 194–95, 197, 242, 338
17, 19, 20, 21, 97–99, 206, 209, 210, 221, self-emptying of (kenosis) 148
315, 360 sinlessness of 143, 149–50, 152, 153
body suffering of 142–46, 148, 150–56,
disciplining of 183, 184, 187, 213 194–95, 338
relationship to soul 142, 143, 153, 171, theandric activity of 149–50
183n, 185, 186, 188, 349, 352, 353 two natures of 136–42, 145–47, 149–50,
resurrection of 25, 63, 112, 149, 171 155, 194
seat of temptation 172, 187n, 188, 190, two wills of 303
191, 193, 199 church
Boethius 16, 242, 249, 251, 266, 312, 344 administration of 3–10, 12–27
Boniface, archdeacon: see Boniface, as Body of Christ 155, 172
consiliarius as mixture of saints and sinners 
Boniface, consilarius 300, 307–9, 311 154–55
Boniface VIII, Pope xxi Cicero 111, 229, 254, 256n, 258, 264, 292,
bribery (see also “corruption”, “simony”) 297n
17, 158 Ciceronianism 369n
Britain (see also “England”) 43, 47–51, 55, classical education, see “education”
122, 174, 323 classics, the 249–67, 293, 364–65
Brunhild, Queen of the Franks (c.567–613) Climacus, John 123n, 343, 345–46
43–49n, 52, 301 Columbanus, St, abbot 278, 321–22
compunction, compunctio (see also
Caesarius of Arles, Bishop 15, 80, 105, “penitence”, “tears”) xviii–xx, 46n,
293–94 85–86, 104, 107, 160, 169, 201–3, 234, 280,
Callinicus, exarch (596–603) 39–40 284, 332, 337, 349
Cassian, John 85, 89, 104–5, 145n, 178, concord 183n, 186–87, 190
189, 194n, 198n, 208, 213, 215, 216, 229–31, condescensio 53, 216, 222
235, 241, 285, 317, 318, 320, 333 Conon of Lérins, abbot 45n, 99
Cassiodorus 242, 249–54, 260, 263, Constantina, Empress 33, 62, 69, 73, 113
293–95 Constantine I, Emperor (306–37) 66, 78
Cella Nova, monastery 84, 129–30 Constantinople
Celts, Celtic Christianity 48–49, 101, 323 church of xviii, 23, 73, 78, 114, 115, 120
chant, “Gregorian” 324–25, 328 city of 36, 59–61, 65, 72, 95, 122, 145,
Charlemagne, King/Emperor of the Franks 249, 250, 299, 303, 371
(768–814) 109, 325 councils of, see “councils of the church”
Childebert II, King of the Franks (575–96) Gregory’s stay in 4, 10, 11, 22, 23, 25, 31,
42n, 43, 301 59–62, 64, 65, 89, 94n, 104n, 109–11,
Chlothar/Clothar II, King of the Franks 117, 124–25, 162, 209–11, 219–20, 251,
(584–629) 43, 44n, 47, 301 260, 275, 285, 298, 343
 general index 421

imperial court xx, 29, 56–62, 65–66, discernment, discretio 105, 208, 212, 214,
70–73, 79, 111, 157, 223 216
patriarch of 12, 67–68, 71, 124, 136, 259, Dominic, St 337
260, 303 Dominica, lady-in-waiting 61, 65, 110n
relations with Rome (see also “Great Dominicans 336, 364, 368n
Schism”) 4, 12, 17, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, Domitian of Melitene, Archbishop 61,
63, 116, 119, 355, 371 65, 78
Constantius of Milan, Bishop 18, 22, 41 Donatus, grammarian 252, 253, 264, 272,
contemplation, contemplatio xviii–xxi, 335
86, 88, 91, 93, 104, 160, 180, 184–85,
190–92, 195, 198, 203–4, 208–9, 214, 216, education, training
228, 232–34, 273, 276, 280, 281, 284, classical (paideia) 178, 206, 207, 250,
285n, 287–90, 351 258, 272n, 293, 301–2, 310, 360
corruption (see also “bribery”, “simony”)  clerical xxii, xxiii, 302, 311
17, 44, 76 monastic 207–9, 360
councils of the church 25, 56, 96, 115, 116, spiritual 198, 214, 290
303, 308 Elias of Aquileia, Bishop 16n, 297
ecumenical England (see also “Britain”) 128, 322, 329,
of Ephesus (431) 115, 117, 118n, 138 334, 359n, 360n, 361, 373, 379, 381
of Chalcedon (451) 96, 112, 114, 118, Augustine’s mission to xxii, xxiv, 22,
124, 136–40, 198, 349 25, 43, 47n, 51n, 101–2, 221, 308, 322,
of Constantinople (II) (553) 115n, 324, 373
135n, 297 Ennodius of Pavia 242, 257, 263, 293–94,
of Constantinople (III) (680–81)  296, 298, 312
307n Equitius, abbot 87–88, 90, 238, 241
local estates, papal 12, 19, 27, 75
of Carthage (IV) (398) 257n in Gaul 43, 51
of Lyon (1274) 374 in Italy 11–12n, 15, 17, 19, 60
of the Lateran (649) (“Lateran in Sicily 11–12n, 17, 19, 60, 220, 223
Synod”) 129, 131, 304–7 manager of (rector) 11, 220, 223
of Toledo (589) 30, 31 Eucharist (see also “liturgy”, “Mass”) 127n,
in Trullo (692) 347 181–82, 222, 338, 347, 349, 361n, 376n
Cyriacus of Constantinople, Patriarch Eugippius of Lucullanum 242
(596–606) 25, 63, 68, 114, 117 Eulogius of Alexandria, Patriarch
Cyril of Alexandria, Patriarch (412–44)  (581–608) xxiii, 24, 25n, 44n, 49, 50, 61,
xxii, 136–40, 149 65, 110n, 114–20, 124–25, 135n, 146
Twelve Anathemas 140 Eusebia, daughter of Rusticiana 60, 79,
Cyril of Scythopolis 354 158, 166, 175
Cyrus, St 308 Eutyches, Eutychianism 12, 13
Cyrus of Alexandria, Patriarch (631–43)  Eutychius of Constantinople, Patriarch
75 (552–65, 577–82) xviii, 25, 63–65, 112
Eve (see also “Adam”, “Fall, the”, “sin,
Damasus, Pope (366–84) 256, 296, 380 original”) 189, 234, 241
demons 53, 115n, 180, 181, 196, 199, 208, Evergetinus, Paul xxiv, 350–52, 358
233, 234, 238–40, 353 evil (see also “sin”, “theodicy”) 36, 99, 150,
desert fathers 178, 231, 320, 351 165–66, 171–73, 179, 191, 196, 202, 257n,
Desiderius of Vienne, Bishop 255–57, 345
263, 272 means of combatting 18, 148, 174, 177
devil, the (see also “Satan”) xxi, 115n, 144, origin of 188–90, 200
153, 173, 179, 187–88, 193, 196, 199, 233, spirits, see demons
238, 241n, 343 exegesis 85–86, 135, 162, 163, 171, 189, 264,
rights of 153, 194 269–90, 332, 336, 356
self-deception of 153 exempla 34, 86, 106, 228n, 230, 231, 234,
Dionysius Exiguus 96 242, 283, 315, 332, 357n
422 general index

Fall, the (see also “Adam”, “Eve”, “sin, translators of Gregory, see “Anastasius
original”) 115n, 145n, 153, 187–90, 193, of Antioch”, “Zacharias, Pope”
287 use at Rome 109, 130, 311
famine xvii, 12, 15, 17, 20, 162, 166, 180, Gregoriana, lady-in-waiting to Empress
249n, 318n Constantina 60, 62, 72
Fathers of the Church (see also individual Gregory Nazianzen/Nazianzus, Bishop and
entries) xxi, 63, 66, 114, 117, 178, 259n, Theologian 128n, 142n, 206–09, 212n,
262, 269, 288, 290, 315, 329, 335, 343, 360, 215, 217, 224, 345, 365
369–70, 378, 380–82 Gregory I of Antioch, Patriarch (570–92)
Greek 63, 363–66, 370, 377–78, 380 76, 120n, 123
Latin 315, 360, 363–66, 370, 377–78 Gregory of Tours, Bishop 7n, 23n, 84n,
Felix III, Pope (483–92) 5, 13, 14, 296, 355 210, 230, 231, 242n, 256n, 258
Felix IV, Pope (526–30) 6n, 8–9 Gregory I, Pope (590–604) passim
Final Judgement xxiii, 24, 52, 146, 155, and printed editions of whose works 
157–58, 161–63, 167–68, 171–72, 175, 234 4, 8n, 26
Fisher, John 379–80 and vernacular translations of whose
Formula of Reunion (433) 137–39 works 10n, 11
Francis of Assisi 337 as apocrisarius, see apocrisarius/
Franciscans 336 apocrisiarius
Franks (see also “Gaul”) 25, 29, 32, 42, 49, Christology of 135–49, 156
56, 127, 302 cult of 367, 371–74
Fulgentius of Ruspe, Bishop 264 doctor of the church 8, 9, 26, 360n
ecclesiology of 4, 7n15, 7n16, 7n17,
Gaddi, Taddeo 341 7n19, 9n, 155–56
Gaul, Gallic church (see also “Franks”)  education of 209, 251, 258, 272n
xxiv, 17, 30, 42–44, 47–51, 208–9, 227, knowledge of Greek, see “Greek”
250, 258n35, 258n37, 272, 322, 325, 330 lives of 367
Gelasius, Pope (492–96) 3, 5, 10n, 12–15n, by John the Deacon 6n, 7, 21n88,
25–27, 70, 296, 318, 324 21n89, 84, 89, 112, 122, 126, 130n,
God 218n, 249n, 258n, 318, 324, 326, 328,
as Creator 70, 72, 92, 187, 196 336, 367, 368, 376
as Judge (see also “Christ as Judge”, by Paul the Deacon 7, 89, 112n, 122,
“Final Judgement”, “salvation”) 152, 258n, 325, 328, 365, 368
157–59, 160, 161, 166–69, 171, 175, 187, “Whitby Life” 5, 7, 51n, 89, 92, 122,
194, 196, 199 123n, 125, 127–29, 318–19, 323, 325,
mercy of xix, 58, 79, 160, 163, 164, 168, 359n, 360, 367–68, 379
170, 193, 194, 196, 204, 353 soteriology of, see “Christ”, “Final
punishments of ( flagella) 24, 150n, Judgement”, “salvation”
151n, 169n, 177, 180, 193n, 198, 276n Gregory VII, Pope (1073–85) 58n, 333
Gordia, sister to Emperor Maurice 62
Gordian, Gordianus, father to Gregory the Hadrian, Emperor (117–38) 296, 367
Great 5, 15n, 84, 326 hagiography (see also “saints, lives of”)
Gordiana, aunt to Gregory the Great 83, xxiii, 5, 34n, 35, 123, 125, 126n, 127,
84 171n, 225–46, 320–21, 329n, 349n,
Gothic Wars xvii, 14, 16, 27, 59, 250 360
Goths, Ostrogoths 6, 19, 27, 244, 260 heaven 58, 71, 88, 147, 154–57, 159, 163,
Great Schism 371 166, 170, 173, 176, 181–83, 185, 197, 204,
Greece 68 233–34, 238, 352, 355–56
Greek xxi, 5, 11, 25, 26, 61, 63–65, 67, 72, Helena, Empress 78
109–14, 118n, 122, 123, 125, 126, 129–31 hell 157, 163, 170n, 171, 180, 197, 234, 334,
Gregory’s knowledge of xxii–xxiii, 11, 349, 353, 355, 358, 368
25, 26, 64–65, 110–11, 130 heresy 13, 17, 44n, 50, 64, 114, 115, 146,
translations into 11, 72, 252n, 303–5, 303, 304
344, 346–48 Hermenegild 30–32
 general index 423

hermeneutics (see also “morals, moral John II of Ravenna, Bishop 8, 24, 255
interpretation”) 213, 270, 284, 290 John III of Ravenna, Bishop 99, 100n
hierarchy xviii, 13, 31, 102, 179n, 187, John of Syracuse, Bishop 220
189–90, 214, 311, 357, 371, 373, 382 John IV, Pope (640–42) 304, 307
Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179) 334–35 John V, Pope (685–86) 12n
Holy Spirit 169, 318, 320, 325, 334 John, quaestor and ex-consul 61
Homoean, see “Arian, Arianism” John the Deacon 6n, 7, 21n88, 21n89, 84,
Honorius, Pope (625–38) 302–4, 307, 323 89, 112, 122, 126, 130n, 218n, 249n, 258n,
Horace 249, 259 318, 324, 326, 328, 336, 338, 367, 368, 376
Hugh of St Victor (d. 1141) 335 Julian of Eclanum 145n, 317
human beings (see also “microcosm”) 58, Julian the Apostate, Emperor (361–3) 74
143, 152 Justin II, Emperor (565–78) 57, 61, 117
as union of body and soul 183–85, 195 Justinian, Emperor (527–65) xxi, 57, 59,
humanism, humanists xxi, 225, 310, 61, 66–70, 75–76, 78, 120n, 121
339, 359, 364–67, 369n, 370–71, 373–74, condemnation of Three Chapters 40
376–77, 379–80 Corpus Iuris Civilis 20, 27, 67, 95, 96
humility 54–55, 115, 126, 142–43, 147–48, Pragmatic Sanction, Pragmatic
151–53, 156, 160, 169, 185, 190, 201, 210, Constitution 250, 311n
212, 233, 238, 304, 353 reconquest/restoration xvii, 27, 66,
humility topos 210, 255, 343n 250
hypostasis (see also “prosopon”) 138, 139 Justinianic Code, see “Justinian, Corpus
Iuris Civilis”
Ibas of Edessa 135n Juvenal 261, 263
images, cult of 45–46, 70, 330–33, 337,
361, 374 Kent 48, 53n, 78, 165, 175, 221–22
incarnation (see also “Christ”) 137, 148 Khusro II, King of Persia (591–628) 78
intercession, see “prayer”
Isaac of Jerusalem, Patriarch (601–9) 122 Last Judgement, see “Final Judement”
Isidore of Seville, Bishop xix, 7n, 254, Lateran Council/Synod (649), see “councils
255n, 267, 319, 378 of the church, local”
Latin (see also “prose-rhythm”) 249, 251,
Januarius of Cagliari (Sardinia), Bishop  252, 254, 265, 303, 304, 310n, 311, 339,
18n, 39n, 98, 300 344, 347–48, 359n, 370, 377n, 378, 383
Jerome xix–xxi, 109, 178, 242, 253, 256, in Constantinople 250
257n30, 257n31, 264, 269, 285, 293–94, translations into 223, 230–31, 241,
296, 315–16, 329, 334–35, 339, 360, 257n, 289n, 304n, 305–8
365–66, 369n, 370, 378, 380, 381 translators, see “Anastasius
Jerusalem xxiii, 11n42, 11n44, 17, 116n, Bibliothecarius”
120–23, 127–29, 136, 281 leadership 4, 5, 8, 15, 16, 22, 26, 29, 86,
Jews, Judaism 20, 25, 45, 100, 178, 213, 223 106, 121, 205, 209–11, 221, 224
conversion to Christianity 20–22, qualifications for 99, 106–7, 206–7,
25–26, 174, 221, 223 213–15, 221, 224
Job xviii, 25, 60, 84, 88, 102, 136n, 143, Leander of Seville (579–601) 30–1, 84,
162–63, 168–69, 171, 173–75, 177, 189, 88–89, 184, 209, 252, 254–57, 259–60,
196–97, 202, 204, 262n, 264–65, 274, 276, 275, 276n, 284, 287, 319, 355, 361
281, 284, 315, 317, 319, 334, 365, 384 lectio divina 85, 104, 107, 251, 289n, 351
as type of Christ 148, 162, 276n Lent (see also “liturgy”) 167, 251, 347
John Chrysostom, Bishop and Theologian Leo I, Pope (440–61) 3, 5, 12, 13, 16, 22, 25,
206–7, 215, 365 26, 114, 118, 124, 127n, 136–40, 143, 145n,
John of Alexandria, Patriarch (“the 146, 149, 194n, 296
Almsgiver”) (610–19) 75 Leo II, Pope (681–83) 303, 307n65,
John of Chalcedon, priest 17n, 115 307n68
John IV of Constantinople, Patriarch, “the Leo IV, Pope (847–55) 327
Faster” (582–95) 24–25 Leontia, Empress 70, 79, 80
424 general index

Leontius of Sicily, praetor 22, 76 Maximus the Confessor 115n, 128, 129,

Leovigild, King of the Visigoths (568–86) 131n, 303–305, 343n, 351
30–32 meditation, see “contemplation”
Liber pontificalis 5–10, 12n, 13n, 14n, 20, Messalianism 115
23, 23n99, 23n100, 33, 84n, 122, 218, 242, Mellitus, abbot 52, 53n
243, 307n, 318–19, 323, 348 miaphysitism, see monophysitism
Liber pontificalis of Ravenna 7–9, 17n Michael VIII Palaiologus, Emperor
liturgy (see also “Eucharist”,“Mass”) 275, (1259–61) 344
323–24 microcosm, humans as (see also “human
Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts  beings”) 183, 212
346–47 Middle Ages xvii, xviii, xix, xxii, xxv, 3n,
Livy 259, 263 4n, 5n, 7, 26n, 27, 53n, 66n, 75, 100n, 109,
Lombards xvii, xxii, 6, 7n, 16, 22–25, 29, 111, 182n, 189n, 205, 218n, 224, 225, 265n,
32–42, 46n, 55, 59–60, 73–75, 77, 85, 91, 266n, 269, 270n, 283n, 286n, 288, 289,
100, 114, 122, 130, 159, 161, 177, 219, 237, 294, 300n, 303n, 310n, 316, 329n, 331n,
244, 261, 279, 280, 349 332, 337–39, 360–62, 367, 371, 380
love 62, 69, 73, 88, 99, 126, 148, 149, 155, Milan
156, 168, 169, 176, 185, 186, 192, 201, 202, relations with Rome 18, 19, 164, 219
222n, 253, 279, 287, 319, 339, 352, 353 miracles xx, 11n, 35, 50, 54, 63, 65n, 72,
for God/Christ 69, 148, 163, 169–70, 73, 87, 90, 101, 113n, 142, 174, 181–82, 221,
186, 190, 203, 278, 287, 329, 351, 353, 222n, 225–29, 233–37, 239, 240, 242–45,
370 308n, 320, 338, 349, 360, 363–64, 367,
God’s love 164, 196, 278, 329, 337 369, 373, 375, 379, 381
mother of virtue 190n, 191 mixed life (see also “contemplation”,
of neighbour 186, 187, 190–91 “vita activa”) 103–4, 107, 191–92,
self-love 187n, 188n, 351 208–9
Luther, Martin 338, 376–77, 380–81 monasticism, monks (see also “asceticism”,
“education, monastic”) xix, xx, xxiii,
Macrobius 264–65 xxiv, 6n, 7, 26, 33, 45, 47–52, 55, 61,
Magister Gregory, see Master Gregory 83–109, 115n, 116n, 120–23, 125–26, 127,
Manichees, Manicheanism 13, 116 129–30, 131, 159n, 162, 181, 187, 199, 206–8,
Marinianus of Ravenna, Bishop 7–8, 17, 211, 217, 221, 227, 228, 231–32, 235n,
24, 44n, 86n, 100, 218–19, 255, 277n, 317 236–37, 239, 241, 243–44, 246, 251–52,
marriage 13, 41, 96, 170, 222, 379 260, 272–73, 275–79, 28–83, 289–90,
Martianus Capella 249, 253 304n, 305–7, 315, 317–27, 330, 333–34,
Martin, Pope (649–55) 302, 304–6, 309n, 336, 343, 349, 350–53, 357, 359–60, 362,
312, 325 364, 370, 373, 376
martyrs (see also “saints”) 31–32, 33n, 37, as bishops xix, 5n, 7, 24, 26, 27, 50, 83,
73n, 124n, 167, 181, 195, 229–30, 234, 238, 86, 87n–93, 100, 104, 106–7, 120–21,
242–44, 349, 354–55, 373 123, 128n, 207n, 208, 209, 214, 221, 277,
Mary Magdalene 72, 103, 240, 328–30, 315
379 monophysitism 138, 349n
Mary, the Virgin 137, 141n, 329, 355, 356 monothelete, monothelitism xxiii, 112,
Mass (see also “Eucharist”, “liturgy”) 6, 128n, 129, 303–4
24, 181, 182, 195, 225, 234, 282, 315, 325, Monte Cassino/Montecassino 33, 91, 236,
337, 338, 342, 361, 362, 364, 376 322, 325
Master Gregory xviii, 71, 105, 290, 339, morals, moral interpretation (see also
367, 368 “hermeneutics”) xix, xxiii, 62, 105n,
Maurice, Emperor (582–602) 3n, 16, 23n, 162, 170, 178, 182, 184, 190, 196, 221, 224,
24, 26, 38n, 39n, 57–68, 71–75, 78–81, 96, 257, 265, 269, 272, 275, 280, 283–86, 290,
113, 114, 117n, 136n, 158–62, 172, 258n 320, 332–34, 354, 357, 364, 367
Maximian of Syracuse, Bishop 19, 85n, More, Thomas 379–81
100, 220, 236 Moschus, John xxiii, 110n, 117n, 120n,
Maximus of Salona, Bishop 19, 40n, 44, 123–30, 349
114n Muhammad, the Prophet xxi
 general index 425

Narses, count 61, 65, 94n, 115, 261 Peter Abelard (1079–1142) 335–36

Narses, Roman general 23 Peter, apostle and saint (see also “papacy,
Natalis of Salona, Bishop 260 Petrine ideology of”) 11n, 24, 73, 114,
nature, natura (of God, Christ) 25, 63, 118–21, 127, 209, 323, 326, 330, 371
135–53, 155, 194 Basilica of 320, 323, 324, 372
Nestorius, Nestorianism 13, 129n, 136–40, Republic of xviii, 11n
144, 145n tomb of 61, 72
New Testament, see “Bible” Peter, Deacon 100, 225, 227, 315, 318–20,
Nicholas V, Pope (1447–55) 366, 373, 374 349
Petrarch, poet (1304–74) 363–65, 368–71,
Old Testament, see “Bible” 377–79, 381, 382
Origen, Origenism 85, 112, 140n, 142n, Philip, chief of imperial bodyguard 62
269, 272, 278, 281, 285, 290, 318, 329, 333, Philoponus, John 64, 67n
365 Phocas, Emperor (602–10) 40, 57, 62, 70,
Ostrogoths, see “Goths” 79, 80
Photius of Constantinople, Patriarch
pagans, paganism xxiv, 20, 25, 29, 30, (858–67, 877–86) 120n, 124n, 348, 349,
32–34, 36, 37, 46, 48, 49, 51–54, 165, 174, 352
222, 223, 234, 249, 267, 335, 336, 339, plague xvii, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 23n, 164, 166,
349, 365, 367–69, 374, 375 237, 271, 355n, 368
paideia, see “education” Plato 178, 179n, 210, 228
papacy, the Platonism, Platonists 183n, 363n
administrative organization of xviii, Pliny 262
3–27, 95 poor, the 9, 13–15, 19–20, 71n, 245, 318,
letters written by 12–16, 291–312 331, 337
Petrine ideology of (see also “Peter, prayer 8, 68, 71, 97, 104n, 125, 127, 159,
apostle and saint”) 24–25, 114, 119, 168, 195, 208, 233, 260, 280, 318, 338, 351,
130 353, 358, 361, 368n
relations with empire, emperor 57–81, priests, priesthood xx, 6, 9, 14, 17, 49,
109–30 58, 67, 68, 71, 74, 86, 106, 115, 161, 207–8,
pastoral care xix, xx, xxiii, 4, 12, 16, 22, 213–15, 218, 319, 354, 360, 361
29, 33, 36, 42, 44, 52n, 53, 56, 72, 99, Priscillianists 13
105–7, 115, 157, 179, 184, 189n, 197, 205–12, Priscus, patrician and general 62
214–18, 221–24, 255, 264, 272, 273n, 291, Procopius of Caesarea 121n, 251n
315, 316, 331–33, 337, 339n, 360, 362, 366, prose-rhythm, Latin (see also “Latin”) 
367 292–99, 302, 306
patrimonies, see “estates, papal” prosopon (see also “hypostasis”) 139
Paul the Deacon 7, 33, 89, 112n, 122, 218, Prosper of Aquitaine 296, 318
258n, 295, 297, 325, 328, 365, 368 prosperity 68, 179, 180, 185, 197, 212
Paul, St, Apostle 6, 35, 55, 73, 98n, 126, Protestantism, Protestants (see also
147, 154, 156, 178, 179, 184–86, 195, 257n, “Reformation”) 225, 381–82
276n, 284n, 288, 323, 354, 365, 381 Providence 177, 179, 182, 195, 201, 204,
Paulinus of Nola, Bishop 241–43, 260, 352, 353
295n, 307n Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite xxii,
Pelagianism 13, 145 110n, 128n, 343n, 365
Pelagius I, Pope (556–61) 3–6, 12, 15–16,
23 Quintilian 254, 256n, 257
Pelagius II, Pope (579–90) 4, 6n13, 6n14,
16, 23, 59–60, 113, 297–99, 301n, 304 Ravenna 250
penance 13, 17, 18, 154, 162, 240, 318, 361, church of 7–9, 17, 86n, 218–19, 277, 317
375 fall to Lombards 6
penitence, paenitentia (see also relations with Rome 22–23, 38
“compunction”, “tears”) 18n, 101, 167n, seat of exarch 6, 22, 26, 27, 29, 76, 218
185, 189, 193, 194, 198, 200–4, 284, 315, Reccared, King of the Visigoths (586–601)
333 25, 30–32, 54n
426 general index

rector, see “estates, papal”, “spiritual Satan (see also “devil, the”) 51n, 168, 172,
director” 173
Reformation, the (see also “Protestants, Scholastica, St, sister of Benedict of Nursia
Protestantism”) xxiv, 359, 361, 363–64, 91, 233, 245, 322
377–82 scholasticism, scholastics xxiv, 333, 336,
relics (see also “miracles”, “saints”) 53, 365–66, 377–78
72–73, 127, 181, 226, 243, 244n, 322, 323, scrinium xxiii, 11, 16, 299–301
330, 355–56, 372 Senate, the 3–5, 80, 271–72
Renaissance, the xxiv, 337n, 339, 359, Serenus of Marseilles, Bishop 45–46,
361n, 362n, 363–77, 380, 382 330–32, 337, 374
resurrection 237, 240, 334 Sergius of Constantinople, Patriarch
of Christ 36, 151, 153, 203 (610–38) 303, 307n
of Lazarus 202 Sicily xviii, 9n, 11–12, 14, 17–22, 40, 60, 76,
of the body xviii, 25, 63–64, 112–13, 84, 95, 158, 221, 223, 250
135n, 171, 244n appointment of clerics in 9, 19, 100,
spiritual 202, 234 218–20
Romanus, exarch (590–96) 6, 22, 23, 26, Sidonius Appolinaris, Bishop 253n, 255
38, 39 Silvia, mother to Gregory the Great 7, 84,
Rome, city of (see also “Senate”)  130n, 326
xvii–xviii simony (see also “bribery”,
and Gothic Wars xvii, 14, 27, 59, 250 “corruption”) 17, 44, 98, 258, 301
food distribution in 16, 19, 20, 75, 250 sin, sins (see also “evil”, “theodicy”) 17,
imperial presence in 4–5, 22, 38, 101, 115n, 143, 145n, 149, 151, 155, 161–62,
74–76 179–80, 185, 187–89, 191, 193–94, 197–98,
Lombard sieges of xvii, 6, 22–23, 33, 200–3, 214, 234, 239
37–38, 41–42, 59–60, 74, 177, 261, 279 original (see also “Adam”, “Eve”, “Fall,
relationship with Constantinople xviii, the”) 143, 145n, 188, 197, 234, 316–18,
22–27, 41, 57–81, 111–19, 130 371
see of xxiii, 27, 118, 219, 381 Sinai, Mt 120–23, 125n, 345, 353
Rule of Benedict 86, 88, 89, 90, 105, 251, Smaragdus, exarch (603–8) 39
322, 324–25, 330 Sophronius of Jerusalem, Patriarch
Rusticiana, patrician 60, 79, 158, 250–51 (634–38) xxiii, 124, 126–29, 308
soul xviii, xix, 4, 51, 65, 93, 115n, 125n,
Sabinian, Pope (604–6) 7, 11, 20, 318–19 129n, 140n, 142–43, 153, 168, 169n, 171,
sacrament, sacraments (see also 175–76, 183–86, 188–93, 195, 197–200,
“Eucharist”, “liturgy”, “Mass”) 18, 112n, 202–4, 222n, 228, 233–35, 238, 244,
113, 182, 195, 202, 206–7 278–80, 285n, 287, 296, 301, 334, 338,
St Andrew’s, monastery in Rome xviii, 4, 348–50, 352–53, 355–56, 388, 361, 364,
7, 24, 39, 84–88, 90–93, 100, 104, 121, 174, 376
277, 279n, 326, 372 care of (see also “pastoral care”) xix,
St Sabas, monastery in Rome 126, 129, xxi, 212, 360
130 Spain xxii, 13n, 25, 30–31, 320, 333, 359n,
saints (see also “martyrs”, “miracles”, 360n, 361, 370, 377, 381
“relics”) 155, 166, 185, 190, 198, 364 spiritual direction, see “pastoral care”
cult of (see also “Gregory, cult of ”) 181, spiritual director, rector 94, 211, 216, 273
226, 243–45, 381 Stoicism, Stoics  178–79, 182–83, 185, 191,
in Italy 227, 236–45, 320 266, 310, 318
lives of, see “Gregory, lives of ”, substance, substantia (of God) 135, 136,
“hagiography”, “Vita Antonii” 147, 149n
Sallust 259 Suetonius 233n, 296
salvation (see also “Christ”) xxiii, 4, Symmachus, Pope (498–514) 5, 263, 296,
50–52, 54, 55, 58, 73, 77, 97, 136, 140, 298
147–55, 168n, 176, 181, 193–94, 197, 209, Synagôgê, see “Evergetinus, Paul”
233, 296, 348, 361, 382
 general index 427

Tarsilla, aunt to Gregory the Tiberius II, Emperor (578–82) 25, 57, 59,
Great 83–84, 355 64, 112, 372
taxes, taxation 12, 20, 75 Tome of Leo, see “Leo I, Pope”
tears (see also “compunction”, “penitence”) Trajan, Emperor (98–117) 129n, 336, 338,
xix, 68, 128n, 129n, 158–60, 163–64, 169, 368
177, 200, 202–3, 234, 329, 336, 355, 368n Traversari, Ambrogio (1338–1439) 364,
temptation 44, 54, 144, 145n, 155, 158, 172, 366
180, 184–85, 189, 196n, 197, 199–200, 204, Trental (“Gregorian”) of Masses 361
241, 280, 351
Terence 264 union with God 188, 203, 278, 318, 351
Theoctista, sister to Emperor Maurice
39n, 62, 72, 78n, 92, 93, 110n, 259, 261 Valentinian III, Emperor (425–55) 12, 336
Theodebert, King of the Franks (596–612) van Meckenhem, Israhel 342
43–45, 47–48 Venantius Fortunatus, poet 250
Theodelinda, Queen of the Lombards 35, Venantius of Sicily, patrician 95, 261
39–41, 56n Vigilius, Pope (537–55) 6, 10, 15, 23, 26n
Theoderic II/Theodoric, King of the Franks Virgil, poet 249, 256, 258, 260, 261n, 264,
(596–613) 43, 44n, 45, 47–48, 301 265, 311
theodicy (see also “evil”, “sin”) 171–72, Virgilius of Arles, Bishop 26n, 43–44, 50n
195–98 Visigoths (see also “Spain”) 29–32, 55
Theodore, consiliarius 300, 311 vita activa, active life xix, 103, 104, 107,
Theodore, imperial physician 39n, 61, 191, 208, 209
71–72, 274 Vita Antonii, Life of Antony 89, 229, 230,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Bishop 135n 242, 244
Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop 128–29, vita contemplativa, see “contemplation”
323 Vitalian, Pope (658–72) 322–23, 325
Theodore II, Pope (642–49) 115n Voragine, Jacobus de 368–69, 374
Theodoret of Cyrus/Cyrrhus, Bishop 89,
135, 230–31 Whitby Life of Gregory the Great, see
Theodosius II, Emperor (408–50) 12, 66 “Gregory I, Pope, lives of”
Theodosius, prince, son of Emperor Wilfrid of York 308, 324
Maurice 62, 79, 223 William of Malmesbury (1095–1143) 334
Theotimus, imperial physician 61 William of St Thierry (1070–1148) 333
Three Chapters controversy xvii, 15, 16n,
23, 25, 40–41, 75, 112, 135n, 219, 297 Zacharias, Pope (741–52) 322, 344,
346–48, 350, 357