Sermon XCV.
A Homily on the Beatitudes, St. Matt. v. 1-9
I. Introduction of the subject.
When our Lord Jesus Christ, beloved, was preaching the gospel of the
Kingdom, and was healing divers sicknesses through the whole of
Galilee, the fame of His mighty works had spread into all Syria: large
crowds too from all parts of Judæa were flocking to the heavenly
Physician [1219] . For as human ignorance is slow in believing what it
does not see, and in hoping for what it does not know, those who were
to be instructed in the divine lore [1220] , needed to be aroused by
bodily benefits and visible miracles: so that they might have no doubt
as to the wholesomeness of His teaching when they actually experienced
His benignant power. And therefore that the Lord might use outward
healings as an introduction to inward remedies, and after healing
bodies might work cures in the soul, He separated Himself from the
surrounding crowd, ascended into the retirement of a neighbouring
mountain, and called His apostles to Him there, that from the height of
that mystic seat He might instruct them in the loftier doctrines,
signifying from the very nature of the place and act that He it was who
had once honoured Moses by speaking to him: then indeed with a more
terrifying justice, but now with a holier mercifulness, that what had
been promised might be fulfilled when the Prophet Jeremiah says:
"behold the days come when I will complete a new covenant [1221] for
the house of Israel and for the house of Judah. After those days,
saith the Lord, I will put My laws in their minds [1222] , and in their
heart will I write them [1223] ." He therefore who had spoken to
Moses, spoke also to the apostles, and the swift hand of the Word wrote
and deposited the secrets of the new covenant [1224] in the disciples'
hearts: there were no thick clouds surrounding Him as of old, nor were
the people frightened off from approaching the mountain by frightful
sounds and lightning [1225] , but quietly and freely His discourse
reached the ears of those who stood by: that the harshness of the law
might give way before the gentleness of grace, and "the spirit of
adoption" might dispel the terrors of bondage [1226] .
II. The blessedness of humility discussed.
The nature then of Christ's teaching is attested by His own holy
statements: that they who wish to arrive at eternal blessedness may
understand the steps of ascent to that high happiness. "Blessed," He
saith, "are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven
[1227] ." It would perhaps be doubtful what poor He was speaking of,
if in saying "blessed are the poor" He had added nothing which would
explain the sort of poor: and then that poverty by itself would appear
sufficient to win the kingdom of heaven which many suffer from hard and
heavy necessity. But when He says "blessed are the poor in spirit," He
shows that the kingdom of heaven must be assigned to those who are
recommended by the humility of their spirits rather than by the
smallness of their means. Yet it cannot be doubted that this
possession of humility is more easily acquired by the poor than the
rich: for submissiveness is the companion of those that want, while
loftiness of mind dwells with riches [1228] . Notwithstanding, even in
many of the rich is found that spirit which uses its abundance not for
the increasing of its pride but on works of kindness, and counts that
for the greatest gain which it expends in the relief of others'
hardships. It is given to every kind and rank of men to share in this
virtue, because men may be equal in will, though unequal in fortune:
and it does not matter how different they are in earthly means, who are
found equal in spiritual possessions. Blessed, therefore, is poverty
which is not possessed with a love of temporal things, and does not
seek to be increased with the riches of the world, but is eager to
amass heavenly possessions.
III. Scriptural examples of humility.
Of this high-souled humility the Apostles first [1229] , after the
Lord, have given us example, who, leaving all that they had without
difference at the voice of the heavenly Master, were turned by a ready
change from the catching of fish to be fishers of men, and made many
like themselves through the imitation of their faith, when with those
first-begotten sons of the Church, "the heart of all was one, and the
spirit one, of those that believed [1230] :" for they, putting away
the whole of their things and possessions, enriched themselves with
eternal goods, through the most devoted poverty, and in accordance with
the Apostles' preaching rejoiced to have nothing of the world and
possess all things with Christ. Hence the blessed Apostle Peter, when
he was going up into the temple, and was asked for alms by the lame
man, said, "Silver and gold is not mine, but what I have that I give
thee: in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk [1231]
." What more sublime than this humility? what richer than this
poverty? He hath not stores of money [1232] , but he hath gifts of
nature. He whom his mother had brought forth lame from the womb, is
made whole by Peter with a word; and he who gave not Cæsar's image in a
coin, restored Christ's image on the man. And by the riches of this
treasure not he only was aided whose power of walking was restored, but
5,000 men also, who then believed at the Apostle's exhortation on
account of the wonder of this cure. And that poor man who had not what
to give to the asker, bestowed so great a bounty of Divine Grace, that,
as he had set one man straight on his feet, so he healed these many
thousands of believers in their hearts, and made them "leap as an hart"
in Christ whom he had found limping in Jewish unbelief.
IV. The blessedness of mourning discussed.
After the assertion of this most happy humility, the Lord hath added,
saying, "Blessed are they which mourn, for they shall be comforted
[1233] ." This mourning, beloved, to which eternal comforting is
promised, is not the same as the affliction of this world: nor do
those laments which are poured out in the sorrowings of the whole human
race make any one blessed. The reason for holy groanings, the cause of
blessed tears, is very different. Religious grief mourns sin either
that of others' or one's own: nor does it mourn for that which is
wrought by God's justice, but it laments over that which is committed
by man's iniquity, where he that does wrong is more to be deplored than
he who suffers it, because the unjust man's wrongdoing plunges him into
punishment, but the just man's endurance leads him on to glory.
V. The blessedness of the meek.
Next the Lord says: "blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the
earth by inheritance [1234] ." To the meek and gentle, to the humble
and modest, and to those who are prepared to endure all injuries, the
earth is promised for their possession. And this is not to be reckoned
a small or cheap inheritance, as if it were distinct from our heavenly
dwelling, since it is no other than these who are understood to enter
the kingdom of heaven. The earth, then, which is promised to the meek,
and is to be given to the gentle in possession, is the flesh of the
saints, which in reward for their humility will be changed in a happy
resurrection, and clothed with the glory of immortality, in nothing now
to act contrary to the spirit, and to be in complete unity and
agreement with the will of the soul [1235] . For then the outer man
will be the peaceful and unblemished possession of the inner man: then
the mind, engrossed in beholding God, will be hampered by no obstacles
of human weakness nor will it any more have to be said "The body which
is corrupted, weigheth upon the soul, and its earthly house presseth
down the sense which thinketh many things [1236] :" for the earth will
not struggle against its tenant, and will not venture on any
insubordination against the rule of its governor. For the meek shall
possess it in perpetual peace, and nothing shall be taken from their
rights, "when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this
mortal shall have put on immortality [1237] :" that their danger may
turn into reward, and what was a burden become an honour [1238] .
VI. The blessedness of desiring righteousness.
After this the Lord goes on to say: "blessed are they who hunger and
thirst after righteousness, for they shall be satisfied [1239] ." It
is nothing bodily, nothing earthly, that this hunger, this thirst seeks
for: but it desires to be satiated with the good food of
righteousness, and wants to be admitted to all the deepest mysteries,
and be filled with the Lord Himself. Happy the mind that craves this
food and is eager for such drink: which it certainly would not seek
for if it had never tasted of its sweetness. But hearing the Prophet's
spirit saying to him: "taste and see that the Lord is sweet [1240] ;"
it has received some portion of sweetness from on high, and blazed out
into love of the purest pleasure, so that spurning all things temporal,
it is seized with the utmost eagerness for eating and drinking
righteousness, and grasps the truth of that first commandment which
says: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God out of all thy heart, and out
of all thy mind, and out of all thy strength [1241] :" since to love
God is nothing else but to love righteousness [1242] . In fine, as in
that passage the care for one's neighbour is joined to the love of God,
so, too, here the virtue of mercy is linked to the desire for
righteousness, and it is said:
VII. The blessedness of the merciful.
"Blessed are the merciful, for God shall have mercy on them [1243] ."
Recognize, Christian, the worth of thy wisdom, and understand to what
rewards thou art called, and by what methods of discipline thou must
attain thereto. Mercy wishes thee to be merciful, righteousness to be
righteous, that the Creator may be seen in His creature, and the image
of God may be reflected in the mirror of the human heart expressed by
the lines of imitation. The faith of those who do good [1244] is free
from anxiety: thou shalt have all thy desires, and shalt obtain
without end what thou lovest. And since through thine alms-giving all
things are pure to thee, to that blessedness also thou shalt attain
which is promised in consequence where the Lord says:
VIII. The blessedness of a pure heart.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God [1245] ." Great
is the happiness, beloved, of him for whom so great a reward is
prepared. What, then, is it to have the heart pure, but to strive
after those virtues which are mentioned above? And how great the
blessedness of seeing God, what mind can conceive, what tongue
declare? And yet this shall ensue when man's nature is transformed, so
that no longer "in a mirror," nor "in a riddle," but "face to face
[1246] " it sees the very Godhead "as He is [1247] ," which no man
could see [1248] ; and through the unspeakable joy of eternal
contemplation obtains that "which eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
neither has entered into the heart of man [1249] ." Rightly is this
blessedness promised to purity of heart. For the brightness of the
true light will not be able to be seen by the unclean sight: and that
which will be happiness to minds that are bright and clean, will be a
punishment to those that are stained. Therefore, let the mists of
earth's vanities be shunned, and your inward eyes purged from all the
filth of wickedness, that the sight may be free to feed on this great
manifestation of God. For to the attainment of this we understand what
follows to lead.
IX. The blessedness of peace-making.
"Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the sons of God
[1250] ." This blessedness, beloved, belongs not to any and every kind
of agreement and harmony, but to that of which the Apostle speaks:
"have peace towards God [1251] ;" and of which the Prophet David
speaks: "Much peace have they that love Thy law, and they have no
cause of offences [1252] ." This peace even the closest ties of
friendship and the exactest likeness of mind do not really gain, if
they do not agree with God's will. Similarity of bad desires, leagues
in crimes, associations of vice, cannot merit this peace. The love of
the world does not consort with the love of God, nor doth he enter the
alliance of the sons of God who will not separate himself from the
children of this generation. [1253] Whereas they who are in mind
always with God, "giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace [1254] ," never dissent from the eternal law,
uttering that prayer of faith, "Thy will be done as in heaven so on
earth [1255] ." These are "the peacemakers," these are thoroughly of
one mind, and fully harmonious, and are to be called sons "of God and
joint-heirs with Christ [1256] ," because this shall be the record of
the love of God and the love of our neighbour, that we shall suffer no
calamities, be in fear of no offence, but all the strife of trial
ended, rest in God's most perfect peace, through our Lord, Who, with
the Father and the Holy Spirit, liveth and reigneth for ever and ever.
Amen.
[1219] Cf. S. Matt. iv. 23, 24.
[1220] Divina eruditone firmandos = tous didachthesomenous, a common
form of expression in Leo. Cf. Lett. XXVIII. the Tome, chap. 1, quod
voce omnium regenerandorum (= ton anagennethesomenon), depromitur.
[1221] Or testament (Lat. testamentum).
[1222] In sensu ipsorum.
[1223] Jer. xxxi. 31 and part of 33: the passage is quoted in full,
Heb. viii. 8-12.
[1224] Or testament (Lat. testamentum).
[1225] Cf. Heb. xii. 18 and foll.
[1226] S. Paul's language (Rom. viii. 15) is in his mind.
[1227] Matt. v. 3.
[1228] Et illis in tenuitate amica est mansuetudo et istis divitiis
familiaris elatio.
[1229] The mss. vary between primum and primi. The rendering above
given practically represents either. If primi, however, is read, it
may be questioned whether the true rendering is not "the first apostles
after the Lord," which would be interesting as suggesting that S. Leo
did not necessarily confine the title "apostle" to the Twelve.
[1230] Acts iv. 32.
[1231] Acts iii. 6.
[1232] Præsidia pecuniæ.
[1233] S. Matt. v. 4.
[1234] S. Matt. v. 5. It will be observed that Leo's order for the 2nd
and 3rd beatitudes is that of the English version, not that of the
Vulgate.
[1235] In nullo iam spiritui futura contraria et cum voluntate animi
perfectæ unitatis habitura consensum: compare S. Aug. de Fide et
symbolo, cap. 23, "est autem animæ natura perfecta cum spiritui suo
subditur et cum sequitur sequentum Deum--non est desperandum etiam
corpus restitui naturæ propriæ--tempore opportuno in novissima tuba,
cum mortui resurgent incorrupti et nos immutabimur." The
interpretation of this beatitude in this way is fantastic, and very
strange to modern notions.
[1236] Wisdom ix. 15.
[1237] 1 Cor. xv. 53.
[1238] Quod fuit oneri, sit honori, the play on the words (which is
quite classical) may perhaps be represented by the difference between
onerous and honorary.
[1239] S. Matt. v. 6.
[1240] Ps. xxxiv. 8: suavis, A.V. and R.V. good, P.B.V. gracious, LXX.
chrestos.
[1241] Deut. vi. 5, quoted, it will be remembered, by our Lord, as "the
first and great commandment" in the law, S. Matt. xxii. 37; S. Mark
xii. 30; S. Luke x. 27.
[1242] The two words for "love" here are different, and speak for
themselves, diligere (agapan) Deum and amare (eran) iustitiam.
[1243] S. Matt. v. 7.
[1244] Operantium: operatio is the regular patristic term for the
doing of charitable actions; for this application of the beatitude and
its promised reward, compare Ps. xli. 1-3.
[1245] S. Matt. v. 8.
[1246] 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
[1247] 1 John iii. 2.
[1248] Exod. xxxiii. 20; John. i. 18; 1 Tim. vi. 16.
[1249] Is. lxiv. 4 ; 1 Cor. ii. 9.
[1250] S. Matt. v. 9.
[1251] Rom. v. 1, where "we have" or "let us have" is the exact phrase.
[1252] Ps. cxix. 165.
[1253] A carnali generatione.
[1254] Eph. iv. 3.
[1255] S. Matt. vi. 10.
[1256] Rom. viii. 17.
THE
Book of Pastoral Rule,
and
Selected Epistles,
OF
GREGORY THE GREAT
BISHOP OF ROME,
Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices,
by the
REV. jAMES bARMBY, d.d.,
vICAR OF nORTHALLERTON, yORKSHIRE.
Prefatory Note.
------------------------
The Text followed in these Translations is the Benedictine one, as
given by Migne in Patrologia, Vol. LXXVII., Sancti Gregorii Magni, Vol.
III. The same Text of the Regula Pastoralis has been published with an
English Translation by the Rev. H. R. Bramley (James Parker and Co.,
1874). The Translation now given is an original one, though the
translator desires to express his obligations to his predecessor in the
same task. The selection of Epistles translated has been made with the
view of exhibiting Gregory's various activities, his various styles of
correspondence, his views and character, as well as of illustrating the
history of his time. Those which relate to certain important
subjects--such as the Lombard invasion, the English Mission, the
dispute about the title of OEcumenical Bishop,' correspondence with the
Emperors and with the Potentates of Gaul--have been given in their
entirety. Of such as relate to subjects of less moment specimens only
have been selected, but sufficient, it is hoped, for presenting a
picture of the writer under his various aspects, and in his various
spheres of work. It is hoped also that the appended notes may serve to
shew the connexion of the several Epistles with each other, and with
the circumstances they refer to, as well as to explain obscure words or
passages. For a better understanding of the correspondence relating to
the Church in Gaul, a pedigree of the contemporary Merovingian Kings is
appended.
Prolegomena.
------------------------
FOR an understanding of Gregory's position, and of the purport of a
great part of those of his epistles which are translated in this
Series, a brief survey of the state of things, politically and
ecclesiastically, at the time of his accession may in the first place
be of service. There was now no separate Emperor of the West; what
remained of the once great Western Empire being governed in the name of
the Eastern Emperor, who had his court at Constantinople, by the Exarch
of Italy, resident at Ravenna. The Kingdom of the Goths in Italy had
ceased to be, the country having been recovered from them under
Justinian about half a century before Gregory's accession, as well as
the province of Africa from the Vandals.
But the Emperor's hold on Italy was limited and precarious, a large
portion of it being already occupied by the Lombards, whose first
invasion, under Alboin, had been in 568: and accordingly Gregory,
writing in the thirteenth Indiction (a.d. 594-5), speaks of their
having been in Italy for twenty-seven years, and in the sixth Indiction
(a.d. 602-3) of their having been there for thirty-five years [Epp.,
Lib. V., Ep. 21, and Lib. XIII., Ep. 38]. Subsequently the Lombard
King Autharis had advanced on Alboin's conquests, and is said to have
proceeded to Rhegium, at the very toe of Italy, and there, riding up to
a column on the shore through the tidal waves, to have touched it with
the point of his spear and said, "So far shall extend the boundary of
the Lombards" (Paul. Warnefr., de gestis Longob., III. 33]. Autharis
died in the first year of Gregory's popedom [Epp., Lib. I., Ep. 17],
and was succeeded by Agilulph, previously duke of Turin, whom
Theodelinda, the widow of the deceased king, had selected as her
consort. Under him, his royal seat being at Ticinum (Pavia), the
Lombard dominion included the greater part of Northern Italy, reaching
northward to the Alpine passes, the two great dukedoms of Spoletum and
Beneventum in Southern Italy, with partial hold on Tuscia and
elsewhere. The only parts that now distinctly acknowledged the sway of
the Exarch were the Exarchate of Ravenna, on the eastern side of Italy,
with Istria and Venetia further north, the duchies of Rome and Naples
on the western side, portions of territory at the heel and toe of
Italy, and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. But beyond
the limits of their actual occupation the Lombards kept the country in
a continual state of disturbance and alarm; a great part of it appears
to have been debatable ground, and no one could say definitely to whom
it belonged.
No previous invaders seem to have been viewed by contemporaries with
more horror, or painted in blacker colours, than the Lombards. Their
Arian Christianity does not appear to have rendered them less odious
than heathens would have been, or to have softened their alleged
savagery. Gregory repeatedly in his letters speaks in the strongest
possible terms of the misery of Italy "among the swords of the
Lombards:" and it was doubtless the state of general distress thence
arising, together with disorganization of the country from other
causes, and the prevalence of calamity on whatever side he looked, that
caused him continually to express his conviction that the signs of the
times betokened the speedy approach of the Second Advent. It is in
connexion with such a state of things that he stands out prominently as
a political administrator of no common order. His position was one of
peculiar difficulty. Though virtually, as bishop, the ruler of Rome,
he was not a temporal potentate with power to act independently. He
was but a subject of the Emperor, as he continually acknowledged, under
the dominion of the Exarch of Ravenna, and possessed theoretically of
spiritual jurisdiction only. And in his efforts to do good he was
continually thwarted. He complains repeatedly in his letters of the
insufficient aid afforded him by the distant Emperor, the counteraction
of his own designs by the Exarch, and the corruption and iniquitous
conduct of the imperial officers in Italy, which in more than one place
he describes as even more trying than the oppressions of the Lombards.
Still, in virtue of his high and influential position as bishop of old
Rome, his commanding character, his indefatigable zeal, and his
diplomatic talents, he did exert great political influence; and
whatever success was attained in the defence of Italy against further
aggression, or in effecting truces with the enemy, to him alone such
success appears to have been due. Many of the letters translated in
this volume shew his activity in this regard. A short summary of what
may be gathered from them will be given below. All Europe, to the
north of Italy, was now severed from the Western Empire. Britain had
long been relinquished: the old provinces of Gaul were ruled and
contended for by the descendants of Clovis of the Merovingian dynasty:
Spain, with Narbonensian Gaul, was an independent Visigothic kingdom.
The relations of these kingdoms to the Empire were at this time
amicable; and it was in ecclesiastical, and not temporal, matters that
Gregory had dealings with them, as will appear below.
His talents and activity in secular affairs were shewn also in his
management of the possessions in various quarters with which the See of
Rome had been endowed, known as "St. Peter's patrimony." In Sicily
especially, and also in Campania, Calabria, Dalmatia and elsewhere, and
to a small extent in Gaul, the Roman Church held lands so called, over
all of which Gregory exercised personal superintendence by letters to
his various agents, shewing a remarkable knowledge of the state of
things in the several localities, and giving minute directions. While,
on the one hand, he took care that the Church should not be defrauded
of her just dues, on the other hand we find him repeatedly and strongly
forbidding any unjust claims, or any oppression of the natives who
cultivated the Church lands. The patrimony was commonly managed, under
him, by agents on the spot, called rectores patrimonii, and often by
deacons, or subdeacons, sent from Rome, to control the ordinary
rectores, or act in the same capacity. We find bishops also in some
cases acting as rectores. There was also a class of officials called
defensores ecclesiæ, or Guardians of the Church, who were required to
be authorized by letters from Rome under the Pope's hand (see V. 29;
IX, 62; XI. 38). These letters of appointment, of which we have
specimens in V. 29 and XI. 38, specified the protection of the poor as
their primary duty. But their office had a much wider scope. We find
them commissioned, not only to carry out various works of charity, but
also to maintain the rights and property of churches, to rectify abuses
in monasteries and hospitals (see e.g. I. 52; XIV. 2), to see to the
canonical election of bishops (e.g. X. 77), and to the supply of
episcopal ministrations during the suspension or incapacity of the
holders of Sees (XIV. 2), to assist bishops in the exercise of
discipline (X. I), and even to rebuke and coerce bishops themselves
when negligent of duty (III. 36; X. 10; XIII. 26, 27; XIV. 4). In some
cases they were also themselves rectores patrimonii (IX. 18). Further,
they constituted a schola, as did also the notaries and subdeacons; and
in the first Indiction (a.d. 598) Gregory appointed that seven of their
number should thenceforth be dignified with the name of regionarii (as
was already the case with the notaries and subdeacons), which gave them
rank, and entitled them to sit in assemblies of the clergy (VIII. 14).
Though entrusted with such large powers in matters ecclesiastical, they
do not seem to have been of necessity in sacred orders, and might marry
and have families (cf. III. 21; XII. 25). Some were subdeacons, as
Anthemius, subdeacon and defensor of Campania (VII. 23). They might be
apt, it seems, to take too much upon them: for we find Romanus, the
defensor of Sicily, sharply rebuked for trenching on the prerogatives
of a bishop (XI. 37). Though entitled, by special commission from the
Roman See, to call even bishops to account, they were not to usurp
their junctions. In some cases we find sworn notarii (otherwise called
chartularii) attached to the patrimonies in addition to the rectores.
Thus Adrian receives instructions as being notarius Siciliæ; and, on
his being made rector, Pantaleo is appointed notarius (XIII. 18 and
34).
Notable among the subdeacons invested with authority for the number and
particularity of the letters addressed to him is Peter, whom Gregory
sent at once in the first year of his pontificate to Sicily, not only
to look after the patrimony there and after the supply of corn sent
annually thence to Rome, but also, for a time at least, to exercise
delegated authority, in matters ecclesiastical, over the bishops of the
island (see Lib. 1., Ep. I). From the letters to this Peter we learn a
good deal about the way in which the lands of the patrimony, in Sicily
at least, were cultivated, and how the revenues were derived from
them. (See especially Lib. I., Ep. 44.) They were cultivated by
native peasants, called by Gregory rustici, or coloni, who enjoyed the
fruit of their labour, subject only to customary dues to the lords of
the land; in this case to the Roman See. The principal dues we find
referred to were, in the first place, a kind of land-tax, called
burdatio, and further, the tithe of all the produce, which might be
paid in kind, but seems to have been often commuted for a money
payment. Among the prevalent abuses which Gregory peremptorily
required to be corrected were excessive valuation of the tithe,
irrespective of the current price of corn, when a money equivalent was
paid, and in other cases the use of measures of too large capacity, and
exactions in various ways of more than was fairly due. He orders
schedules to be made and authorised, copies of which were to be given
to the rustici in all the farms of the church, shewing what their legal
payments were, so as to guard against their being wronged in future.
There were other customary payments of smaller amounts, such as fees on
the marriage of peasants, which, under limitations, he allows to be
continued. It appears also from Lib. XII., Ep. 25, that these rustici,
or coloni, were ascripti glebæ, so as not to be allowed to migrate from
the estate (massa) to which they were attached, or to contract
marriages beyond its limits. The several estates constituting the
patrimony were called massæ, each of which might comprise several
fundi; and it was customary to let these massæ to farmers
(conductores), who were left to deal with the rustici, or coloni, being
themselves responsible for a certain amount, whether in money or
produce, to the officials of the Church. Gregory directed, among other
things, that these conductores, should not be arbitrarily disturbed in
their holdings, and that, on their death, members of their family
should succeed them, guardians being appointed in case of their
children being under age. Sicily was of great importance to Rome, as
being a corn-growing country from which especially the Romans were
supplied. Among Gregory's temporal responsibilities was that of seeing
to a regular and adequate supply, a failure in which might be followed
by famine in Rome: and we find him attentive to this duty, giving
particular directions as to the procuring, storing, and shipping of the
corn. (See e.g. Lib. l., Ep. 2, 44, 72.) In fact, provision generally
for the welfare of the Roman citizens, and the general charge of the
city, seems to have devolved upon the Pope. And it was doubtless his
responsibilities in this regard, together with his more general
political ones, in addition to his "care of all the churches," that
caused him so continually to bemoan in his letters the billows of
worldly business, incident to his office, which overwhelmed him, and
hindered his advancement in the spiritual life. Remarkable, indeed,
must have been his mental activity and his varied abilities, in that he
was able, as appears from his epistles, to make himself accurately
acquainted with, and personally attend to, so many matters, finding
time also for theological composition and letters of spiritual counsel,
and retaining his religious aspirations in the midst of all. And all
this is the more striking when one considers the distressing state of
health, especially from gout, of which he continually complains, and
the fact also that, with his strong monastic predilections, matters of
worldly business would be likely to be peculiarly distasteful to him.
We get a further view of his multifarious engagements from what his
biographer, John the Deacon, tells us of his having himself seen to the
fourfold distribution--to the bishop, the clergy, the fabrics and
services of the churches, and the poor--of the revenues of the See; his
having himself caused to be sought out, and kept a list of, the
recipients of charity; and himself taught the choristers in the
Orphanotrophium which he had himself founded in Rome. It appears to
have been his principle and practice to rely on others for nothing
which he could possibly do himself.
With regard to the state of things in the ecclesiastical sphere during
Gregory's popedom, it may be observed first, that there was now a
comparative cessation for a time of controversial warfare. The battle
no longer raged over Arian, Nestorian, Monophysite, or Pelagian
heresies; the Monothelitic controversy had not yet begun. Catholic
orthodoxy, as defined by the first four Councils, was accepted
generally, and enforced by the imperial power, with Gregory's full
approval of coercive measures (see e.g. Lib. IX., Ep. 49; Lib. XI., Ep.
46) [1257] ; while outside the limits of the Empire it was professed
and upheld by the Frankish rulers of Gaul, and at length at the
commencement of Gregory's reign accepted in Spain by the Visigothic
Reccared. The Lombards, indeed, with their king Agilulph, were still
Arians; but his queen Theodelinda, with whom Gregory corresponded, was
herself a devout Catholic. Hence he was not called on to come forward
prominently in the field of controversy, for which indeed he does not
appear to have been peculiarly fitted. For, though able to state
clearly, and give the received reasons for, accepted dogmas, he nowhere
evinces any great originality of conception, or depth of insight of his
own. He is content to rest on authority; that especially of the four
Councils, which he regards as the unassailable bulwarks of the true
faith (see I. 25; III. 10; IV. 37), or of ancient fathers of the
Church. Nor does he seem to have been well versed in the past history
of controversy. An instance of his imperfect knowledge in this regard
is found in the letters which he wrote after receiving from Cyriacus,
the newly-appointed bishop of Constantinople, his confession of faith,
in which Eudoxius, who had been prominent in the course of the Arian
controversy, was condemned. Gregory had never heard of this noted
heretic, though he had come across the name of a sect called Eudoxiani,
and, not finding his name in the Latin books he was able to consult at
Rome, he takes objection to his condemnation by Cyriacus (Lib. VII.,
Ep. 4); and it was not till he had consulted Eulogius of Alexandria,
who was more learned than himself, that he was satisfied; and this
simply on being informed that ancient fathers of repute had condemned
this Eudoxius. "We know him (he writes) to be manifestly slain,
against whom our heroes have cast so many darts" (VII. 34; VIII. 30).
Again, in writing to the same Eulogius against the sect of Agnoitæ, who
taught a certain limitation of our Lord's human knowledge, he appears
to draw all his arguments from what he found in Augustine and other
Latin Fathers, and he rejoices to hear that Eulogius had found the
Greek Fathers (whom he himself, being wholly ignorant of Greek, was
unable to consult) consentient (Lib. X., Epp. 35, 39).
But one subject of controversy there was, which especially troubled
him; viz., that of "the three Chapters" (tria capitula), consequent
upon the condemnation of the documents so-called, and of their deceased
authors, at the instance of the Emperor Justinian, by the fifth General
Council (a.d. 553). This condemnation had been in fact forced upon the
Church by the Emperor in the said Council under his presidency at
Constantinople, in spite of the protest of the great majority of the
Western bishops, and of the then bishop of Rome, Vigilius. The grounds
of objection to the condemnation were, that it was held to contravene
the Council of Chalcedon, at which two of the writers whom it was
proposed to condemn---Theodoret and Ibas--had been expressly acquitted
of heresy; that to anathematize the dead, whatever their opinions might
have been, was wrong; and further, that the condemnation was intended
to conciliate the Monophysites, to whom the writers in question had
been peculiarly obnoxious, and was in fact a concession to their
heresy. Nor can it be doubted that a design to conciliate the
Monophysite party, still strong and resolute in spite of its
condemnation at Chalcedon, had been a main motive with Justinian in
forcing a decree against the Three Chapters on the Church. Vigilius,
however, had afterwards yielded to pressure, and assented, however
inconsistently, to the condemnation of the Chapters; as did his
successors in the See of Rome, including Gregory. Consequently several
Churches of the West had renounced communion with Rome; and the schism
thus arising--as in Liguria, which was under the metropolitan of Milan,
and still more decidedly in Istria and Venetia under the metropolis of
Aquileia--continued throughout the reign of Gregory. He in vain
endeavoured, either by remonstrance or by trying to enlist the
emperor's aid, to bring back the Istrian bishops to conformity; and it
must have been distressing to him, that even the Lombard queen,
Theodelinda, who was so orthodox a Catholic, and whom he esteemed so
highly, and corresponded with so cordially, herself could not be
induced to accept the fifth Council, so far as the condemnation of the
Three Chapters was concerned. In his last extant letter to her,
written in the year of his death, he regrets that severe illness
prevented him from replying to certain arguments on the subject by an
abbot, Secundus, which she had sent for his consideration, but
transmits to her a copy of the Acts of the fifth council, and again
repeats his constant protest that his acceptance of that Council by no
means implied any disparagement of the previous councils, or of the
Tome of pope Leo (Lib. XIV., Ep. 12). Further, the schism of the
Donatists still lingered in the African provinces, though no longer
powerful, and though a series of Imperial edicts had been issued for
their suppression. We find Gregory, in many letters, urging measures
against them, and more rigid enforcement of the penal laws.
With regard to the spiritual authority over the Church at large,
claimed in the time of Gregory, and by him asserted, and the extent to
which such claims were then acknowledged, the following remarks may be
made.
Beyond the episcopal jurisdiction of the bishops of Rome over their own
proper diocese, which comprised only the city of Rome, and their
metropolitan jurisdiction over the seven suffragan bishops of the Roman
territory--viz., those of Ostia, Portus, Silva Candida, Sabina,
Præneste, Tusculum, and Albanum,--they had long exercised a more
extended patriarchal jurisdiction, which (according to Rufinus towards
the end of the fourth century) seems originally to have extended over
the suburban provinces which were under the civil jurisdiction of the
vicarius urbis, including the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and
Corsica. But, being the only patriarchs of the West, they had long
exercised authority, more or less defined, over a much wider area,
including Northern Italy, with its metropolis at Milan, Illyricum East
and West, and Northern Africa. It is not necessary to attempt any
review here of the growth, as years had gone on, of such extended
jurisdiction, or of the degree and kind of authority over Churches that
had been consequently claimed. Nor need we consider now the well-known
instances of resistance to such authority, as notably in Africa by St.
Cyprian in the third century, and at a later date in the same province
when Zosimus was pope, in the case of Apiarius. For our present
purpose it may be enough to say that the bishop of Rome was now
generally acknowledged to be not only the sole Patriarch in the West,
but also the highest in rank of all the bishops of Christendom. Still,
even in some provinces where his authority was not openly disputed,
there appears to have been, at any rate, jealousy of its exercise. For
proofs of this in Africa, see II. 47, n. 1; IV. 34, n. 1 ; IX. 58, n.
1. For a notable instance in Western Illyricum, in the case of
Maximus, bishop of Salona, see III. 47, and note there. At Ravenna
also, the seat of the Exarch, there seems to have been jealousy of the
claims of Rome, seeing that John, bishop of that See, in a letter to
Gregory, though expressing himself as personally devoted to the Roman
See, says that he had provoked no little ill-will of many enemies
against himself for his defence of its authority (III. 57).
In Gaul, under the Merovingian princes, there are no signs of any
dispute of the pope's spiritual jurisdiction, which was constantly
asserted, over the Churches there: but the ancient Celtic Churches of
the British islands still retained their independence. This last fact
is apparent, not only from what Bede relates of the attitude of the
British and Scottish Christians towards Augustine and the Roman
mission, but also from the tone of the letter of the Irish Columbanus
to Gregory, which will be found among the epistles (see Lib. IX., Ep.
127). With the Church in Spain, after its renunciation of Arianism
under King Reccared at the beginning of Gregory's episcopate, he seems
to have had little communication. He corresponded indeed with his
friend Leander, of Seville, about the King's conversion, and wrote a
letter to the latter (IX. 122), who had sent an offering to Rome.
Further, he sent into Spain the abbot Cyriacus, who had been employed
to bring about the assembling of a Council in Gaul, commending him in a
somewhat adulatory epistle to one Claudius, who appears to have been a
person of influence in the court of Reccared (IX. 120). But for what
special purpose he was sent does not appear. There is, moreover, a
long document, comprised under XIII. 45 in the Benedictine edition of
the epistles, relating to two bishops who were said to have been
uncanonically deposed, for the adjudication of whose case one John, a
defensor ecclesiæ, is said to have been sent, and to have pronounced
sentence. But this epistle is not found in all codices; nor does it
appear from it, even if it were considered genuine, whether John's
decision was accepted in Spain. On the whole, there is no sufficient
evidence, but rather the contrary, of papal jurisdiction being
recognized at that time in Spain as it certainly was in Gaul. It
remains only to note the historical fact, that the whole Eastern branch
of the Church Catholic never at any time submitted itself to the Roman
See, notwithstanding occasional appeals to it by bishops or others when
suffering under grievances.
With regard to Gregory's own view of the prerogatives of the Roman See
beyond the limits of its proper metropolitan or patriarchal
jurisdiction, he undoubtedly claimed for it a primacy not of rank only,
but also of authority in the Church Universal; and this of divine
right, as representing the See of the Prince of the apostles. Such
claim had come, in his day, to be the tradition of the Roman Church,
which he accepted as a matter of course, and handed on. In assertion
of this claim he says in more than one place, "Petro totius ecclesiæ
cura et principatus commissa est;" and again, "quis nesciat sanctam
Ecclesiam in apostolorum principis soliditate firmatam....Itaque, cum
multi sint apostoli, pro ipso tamen principatu sola apostolorum
principis sedes in auctoritate convaluit" (Lib. VII., Ep. 40); and he
certainly regarded the like authority as residing still in what was
called St. Peter's See. But we nowhere find him asserting it in such a
way as to merge the general episcopal commission in the Papacy, or to
interfere with the canonical exercise of their independent jurisdiction
by other patriarchs of ancient Apostolic Sees. He sent according to
custom, after his accession, his confession of faith to the four
Eastern patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and
Constantinople, as to brethren: he never, even where his jurisdiction
was acknowledged, interfered with the free election of bishops by their
several Churches, except where he saw some canonical impediment,
reserving only to himself the right of confirming the election (see
e.g. Lib. II., Ep. 6; Lib. V., Ep. 17, &c.): and, lastly, his
memorable emphatic protest against the assumption of the title of
Universal Bishop by the patriarchs of Constantinople, with his total
renunciation of any right of his own to assume such a title, has often
been quoted as a standing protest against such papal supremacy as has
subsequently been claimed and exercised. He seems to have regarded the
See of St. Peter as everywhere supreme only in the sense of its being
its prerogative to conserve inviolate the catholic faith and observance
of the canons, wherever heresy or uncanonical proceedings called for
protest and correction. He writes thus to John, bishop of Syracuse,
"Si qua culpa in episcopis invenitur, nescio quis ei [Sedi apostolicæ]
subjectus non sit: cum vero culpa non exigit, omnes secundum rationem
humilitatis æquales sunt" (Lib. IX., Ep. 59). Again, to the defensor
Romanus, "Si qua unicuique episcopo jurisdictio non servatur, quid
aliud agitur, nisi ut per nos, per quos ecclesiasticus custodiri debuit
ordo, confundatur?" (Lib. XI., Ep. 37). Again to Eulogius of
Alexandria, protesting against being addressed as Universal Pope, and
against the expression, sicut jussistis, "Quod verbum jussionis peto a
meo auditu removere, quia scio qui sum, qui estis. Loco quim mihi
fratres estis, moribus patres. Non ergo jussi, sed quæ utilia visa
sunt indicare curavi....Nec honorem esse deputo in quo fratres meos
honorem suum perdere cognosco. Si enim universalem me Papam vestra
sanctitas dicit, negat se hoc esse, quod me fatetur universum. Sed
absit hoc." (Lib. VIII., Ep. 30). Further, there is the notable fact,
that he distinctly accords to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch
equal shares with himself in the primacy of St. Peter's See;--to the
former on the ground of his See having been founded by St. Mark, who
had been sent by St. Peter; to the latter because (according to the
Clementine tradition, which he takes for granted) St. Peter had been
for seven years bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome. To Eulogius
of Alexandria he writes, "Cum ergo unius atque una sit sedes, cui ex
auctoritate divina tres nunc episcopi præsident, quicquid ergo de vobis
boni audio, hoc mihi imputo. Si quid de me boni creditis, hoc vestris
meritis imputate, quia in illo unum sumus qui ait, Ut omnes unum sint,
sicut et tu Pater in me, et ego in te, et ipsi in nobis unum sint"
(Lib. VII., Ep. 40. Cf. V. 39; X. 35; XIII. 41). He wrote thus in his
anxiety to induce those two patriarchs to support him in his resistance
to the assumptions of Constantinople; but his view of the principality
of St. Peter's See not being vested exclusively in the See of Rome
remains no less distinctly on record. The view to which he gives
expression of the unity of the three Sees may perhaps have arisen
thus. The tradition of the peculiarly Petrine origin of the Roman See,
and hence its claim as of divine right to supremacy, having come by
this time to be accepted in the West, the undoubted ancient
jurisdiction, independently of Rome, of the great patriarchal sees of
the East in their own regions, had to be accounted for in accordance
with this theory: and hence they too were regarded as deriving their
authority from St. Peter. Accordingly we do not find Gregory in any of
his letters to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch addressing them
in a tone of command. It is true that in one letter to Eulogius of
Alexandria he remonstrates with him urgently for allowing (as was
alleged) simony in his diocese; but it is brotherly remonstrance only
(Lib. XIII., Ep. 41).
[There is indeed a passage in one of Gregory's Epistles (II. 52) which
has been taken to imply a claim to jurisdiction over them. (See note
on passage in Migne's Patrologia.) Natalis, bishop of Salona, had
disregarded the admonitions of two successive bishops of Rome; and
Gregory writes to him, "Quod si quilibet ex quatuor patriarchis
fecisset, sine gravissimo scandalo tanta contumacia transire nullo modo
potuisset." But the intended meaning may be, not that such contumacy
towards Rome would have been scandalous even in one of the great
Eastern patriarchs, but that it could not have been passed over by them
if shewn towards themselves in their own patriarchates. The words, it
is true, suggest the former meaning, but the latter seems more likely
to have been intended.]
On the other hand, towards the patriarch of Constantinople, when he
considered him guilty of uncanonical procedure, he assumed a distinctly
authoritative attitude. On his own authority he declared null and void
(as his predecessor Pelagius II. had done) the synod at which the title
of oecumenical bishop had been conferred on the Constantinopolitan
patriarch (Lib. V., Epp. 18, 21); he entertained the appeal to himself
of the two presbyters John and Athanasius, reversed their condemnation
by the patriarch of Constantinople, and ordered their restitution (Lib.
VI., Epp. 14, 15, 16, 17, &c.); and in a letter to John of Syracuse he
says, "Nam de Constantinopolitana ecclesia quod dicunt, quis eam
dubitet sedi apostolicæ esse subjectam?" (Lib. IX., Ep. 12.) For the
See of Constantinople, though now patriarchal, was not even an ancient
sedes apostolica: its bishop had indeed been assigned honorary rank
(ta presbeia tes times) next after the bishop of Rome by the general
Council of Constantinople (a.d. 381), but this only on the political
ground of Constantinople being new Rome: patriarchal jurisdiction had
indeed been confirmed to it over the Metropolitans of the Pontic,
Arian, and Thracian dioceses by the 28th Canon of the Council of
Chalcedon (a.d. 451); but this Canon had been repudiated at the time by
Pope Leo of Rome. Hence the popes were ever peculiarly jealous of any
new assumption, or uncanonical proceedings, on the part of the
Constantinopolitan See, the ascendancy of which signified to them
imperial domination rather than primitive ecclesiastical order or
prerogative: and hence it is not to be wondered at that on the
assumption of a title that seemed to imply universal supremacy Gregory
was at once in arms, and asserted strongly all the authority that he
believed to be inherent in his own Apostolic See. Such assertion,
however, had no immediate effect in the absence of power to enforce
it: it was disregarded at Constantinople: the Emperor Mauricius, who
alone could have given practical effect to it, was appealed to by
Gregory in vain; and, though Phocas, who succeeded him, is said to have
issued a decree that "the Apostolic See of St. Peter, that is the Roman
Church, should be the head of all Churches" (Anastasius Bibliothec.),
yet it is an historical fact that neither Constantinople nor the
Churches of the East generally, ever submitted to the claims of the
Roman See.
There is no record of the year of Pope Gregory's birth: It was
probably about a.d. 540, some ten years after Benedict of Nursia had
founded the Benedictine order. He was well born, his father Gordianus
being a wealthy Roman of senatorial rank, bearing the title of
"Regionarius," which denoted some office of dignity. He received the
education usual with young Romans of his rank in life, and is said to
have been an apt scholar. The historian Gregory of Tours, who was his
contemporary, states that in grammar, rhetoric, and logic he was
considered second to none in Rome; and he also studied law. Such
education, however, fell somewhat short of what we should now call a
liberal one, leaving him, as it did, entirely unacquainted. with any
language but his own, and so a stranger to all Greek literature; with
no apparent taste, that he anywhere displays in his writings, for art,
poetry, or philosophy; and with scanty historical knowledge. He was,
with regard to intellectual equipment, an educated Roman gentleman of
his day, and no more; regarding the Roman nation as paramount in the
world, and not aspiring beyond the studies thought sufficient for Roman
citizens of rank, at a time when study of Greek literature and
scientific culture had died out at Rome. In later life also, when he
had time to devote himself to study and contemplation, he confined
himself, with a purely devotional purpose, to Holy Scripture, in which
(though of course only in the Latin version) he was thoroughly versed,
or to the orthodox Latin Fathers, St. Augustine being his favourite.
His condemnation of the study of classical heathen literature by
Christians, appears strikingly in his letter to Desiderius (Lib. XI.,
Ep. 54). Still his early education, though thus limited, fitted him
well for dealing with practical matters, for grasping the bearings of
subjects that came before him, and for expressing himself clearly and
often forcibly thereon; though his style is not free from the
artificiality that was probably encouraged by the rhetorical training
of his day. He was intended for, and at first pursued, secular
occupations suitable to his rank in life; and at an unusually early age
(certainly before 573, when he would be little more than 30 years of
age) he was appointed by the Emperor Justin II. to the dignified office
of Prætor Urbanus. In this early period he does not appear to have
been distinguished by any peculiar saintliness of practice or
demeanour. He dressed, at any rate, conformably to his rank: for
Gregory of Tours speaks of the striking contrast of the monastic garb
which he afterwards assumed with the silk attire, the sparkling gems,
and the purple-striped trabea, with which he had formerly paced the
streets of Rome. But, on the other hand, there is not the least reason
to suppose that he had ever been loose or irreligious.
He had been religiously brought up. His father Gordianus is said to
have been himself a religious man: his mother Silvia (who lived in
ascetic seclusion after her husband's death), and the sisters of
Gordianus, Tarsilla and Æmiliana (who lived in their own house as
dedicated virgins), have obtained a place in the calendar of saints:
and his biographer, John the Deacon, speaks of his early training
having been that of a saint among saints. He never, in his own
writings, alludes to any crisis in his early life at which he had
become convinced of sin, saying rather (as in one of his letters) that,
while living in the world, he had tried to live to God also, but had
found it hard. But on the death of his father (the date of which is
not known) his religious aspirations took a decided form; he kept but a
small part of the patrimony that came to him, employing the rest in
charitable uses, and especially in founding monasteries, of which he
endowed six in Sicily, and one, dedicated to St. Andrew, on the site of
his own house near the Church of St. John and St. Paul on the Cælian,
"ad clivum Scauri" which he himself entered as a monk, and of which he
was eventually elected abbot. The religious views of his age, in which
he fully shared, would of necessity suggest to him the monastic life as
the highest form of saintliness; and he may have been especially moved
by the recent example of St. Benedict of Nursia, whom he greatly
admired, and of whom he has left us in his Dialogues many interesting
records. In the ardour of his devotion, his life in the monastery
appears to have been ascetic to an extreme degree. He is said by his
biographer to have been fed on raw vegetables (crudo legumine),
supplied to him by his mother, who had become a recluse in a
neighbouring cell; and his fasts made him continually ill, and
endangered his life. He tells us himself in his Dialogues of one Holy
Week towards the end of which he fainted from exhaustion, and was
hardly kept alive: but before losing consciousness, being shocked at
the idea of breaking his fast before Easter Day, he had requested the
prayers of a very holy monk called Eleutherius; and the result was
that, returning to consciousness, he remembered nothing of his previous
pangs, felt no longer any craving for food, and could have continued
his fast a day longer than was required. (Dialog., Lib. iii. c. 33.)
Such was the idea then entertained, and by him shared, of the way of
attaining to the highest holiness. However he survived all, though the
very weak health of which in his subsequent life he continually
complains may have been due in part to such extreme self-discipline.
Nor did he, it is said, relax his habits of study and prayer in
consequence of the debility induced by his asceticism. It seems not to
have precluded even energetic action of a practical kind. For it was
at this period of his life that, according to John the Deacon his
biographer, the well-known incident occurred of his seeing the English
youths in the Roman slave-market, and obtaining the leave of pope
Benedict I. to undertake a missionary enterprise for the conversion of
the Angli, on an expedition for which purpose he had already set forth
when the pope, moved by the remonstrances of the Roman people, recalled
him to Rome.
Having thus become a devout monk, he remained one in heart throughout
his life. His habits of life were, as far as they could be, still
monastic while he sat upon the papal chair; and he never lost, and
often gave expression to, his ardent longing for a return to monastic
seclusion, as alone allowing closeness to God, as well as peace and
happiness. See, for instance, what he says on this subject soon after
his accession to the Emperor's sister Theoctista (Epp., Lib. I., Ep.
5), or, after longer experience, to his old friend Leander of Seville
(Lib. IX., Ep. 121).
But he was not allowed to enjoy for long the seclusion he so much
desired; being summoned from his monastery by the pope to be ordained
one of the seven deacons of Rome, and afterwards sent to Constantinople
to be the pope's apocrisiarius (or responsalis) at the imperial court.
There is some doubt as to which pope it was that thus ordained and
commissioned him. From a combination of what is said by his
biographers, Paul the Deacon and John the Deacon respectively, it seems
most probable that it was Pope Benedict I. who summoned him from his
monastery and ordained him, perhaps with the view of sending him to
Constantinople, and that it was Pelagius II. (who succeeded Benedict
a.d. 578) under whom he was actually sent. The office of apocrisiarius
was usually filled by a deacon; and hence it is not unlikely that his
employment in that office had been in view from the first, when he was
called from his monastery and ordained. The popes at this time were in
special need of an able representative at Constantinople for procuring,
if possible, some effective aid against the Lombards, the Exarch at
Ravenna having been appealed to in vain. Gregory remained at
Constantinople for several years, probably from a.d. 578 to a.d. 585,
first under the Emperor Tiberius, and then under Mauricius, who
succeeded to the Empire a.d. 582. There is no extant record of
instructions sent to him from Rome till a.d. 584, when Pope Pelagius
wrote to him, representing the miserable state of Italy under the
Lombards, the imminent danger of Rome, and the inaction of the Exarch,
and directing him to press the Emperor for succour. He also desired
him to send back to Rome the monk Maximianus, who, together with other
monks of his monastery, had accompanied Gregory to Constantinople.
This, his official residence in the imperial city, could not fail to be
of advantage to him in the way of preparation for his subsequent
position, as giving him a practical knowledge of the state of parties
there, the ways of the court, and the conduct of political affairs. He
also made friends of position and influence there, with whom he
afterwards corresponded; among whom may be named Theoctista, the
Emperor's sister, who had charge of the imperial children, Narses a
patrician, Theodorus, physician to the Emperor, Gregoria, lady of the
bedchamber to the Empress, and two patrician ladies, Clementina and
Rusticiana. All these were religious persons, over whom he had gained
influence, which he did not allow to die. He also formed at this time
the intimate acquaintance of Leander, Bishop of Seville, who happened
to be sojourning in Constantinople, and to whom he wrote afterwards
very affectionate letters. It was at his instigation that he began,
while at Constantinople, the Magna Moralia, or Exposition of the Book
of Job, which he also dedicated to him in its completed form (Moral.
Libri., Epist. Missoria, c. 1; Epp., Lib. V. Ep. 49). For he found
time from secular business for devotion and study with the monks who
had followed him from Rome, including his particular friend Maximianus,
as has been already mentioned.
"By their example (he writes in his Introduction to the Magna Moralia,
above referred to) I was bound, as it were by the cable of an anchor,
when tossing in the incessant buffeting of secular affairs, to the
placid shore of prayer. For to their society, as to the bosom of a
most safe harbour, I fled for escape from the rollings and the billows
of earthly action; and, though that ministry had torn me from the
monastery, and cut me off by the sword of its occupation from my former
life of quiet, yet among them, through the converse of studious
reading, the aspiration of daily compunction gave me life." He was
engaged also at one time in a long dispute with Eutychius, the
Constantinopolitan patriarch, who had written a treatise on the nature
of the body after the resurrection, maintaining that it would be
impalpable, and more subtle than air. Gregory maintained its
palpability, alleging in proof that of the risen body of Christ. The
Emperor Tiberius at length took cognizance of the dispute, and decided
it in favour of Gregory, ordering the book of Eutychius to be burnt.
The disputants are said to have been so exhausted by the long
controversy that both had to take to their beds at its close (Joan.
Diac., Lib. I., c. 28, 29).
Gregory was at length (probably a.d. 585) allowed by Pelagius to return
to Rome and reenter his beloved monastery; and it was now probably that
he was elected to be its abbot. But Pelagius appears still to have
made use of him, a letter from that pope to Elias bishop of Aquileia on
the subject of "The Three Chapters" being attributed by Paul the Deacon
to the pen of Gregory (De gestis Longobard., Lib. III.).
That period of peace, lasting some five years, Gregory constantly
refers to, and doubtless with complete sincerity, as the happiest part
of his life. It was interrupted by the death of Pelagius II., who fell
a victim to an epidemic disease then raging on the 8th of February,
a.d. 590, when we are informed that the whole clergy and people of Rome
concurred in electing Gregory to the popedom, as the only man for the
place at that time of peculiar trial. In addition to the general
distress and alarm caused by the advancing Lombards, the Tiber had
overflowed its banks, destroying property and stores of corn, famine
was feared, and fatal disease prevailed. Men's hearts were failing
them for fear, and for looking after those things that were coming on
the earth. Gregory himself often speaks of the signs of the time as
betokening the coming end of all things; and in one of his letters he
compares Rome to an old and shattered ship, letting in the waves on all
sides, tossed by a daily storm, its planks rotten and sounding of
wreck. If anyone could pilot the ship through the storm, there seems
to have been a general feeling that the man was Gregory. He was most
unwilling to undertake the task. When an embassy was sent to
Constantinople for obtaining the Emperor's confirmation of the
election, he sent at the same time a letter imploring him to withhold
it. But the letter was intercepted by the prefect of the city, and
another sent in its place, entreating confirmation. Meanwhile Gregory
employed himself in preaching to the people, and calling them to
repentance, in view of so many symptoms of the wrath of God. He
instituted at this time the "Septiform Litany," to be chanted through
the streets of the city by seven companies--of clergy, of laymen, of
monks, of nuns, of married women, of widows, and of children and
paupers--who, setting out from different churches, were to meet for
common supplication. It was at the close of one such procession that
the vision (not mentioned by any contemporaries, or by Bede) was
afterwards said to have been seen, to which the name of the Castle of
St. Angelo is attributed; the story being that, on approaching the
basilica of St. Peter on the Vatican, Gregory saw above the monument of
Hadrian an angel sheathing his sword in token that the plague was
stayed. At length, the Emperor's confirmation of his election having
arrived at Rome, he is said to have fled in disguise from the city, and
hid himself in a forest cave, to have been pursued and discovered by
means of a pillar of light that disclosed his hiding-place, to have
been brought back to the city in triumph, conducted to the church of
St. Peter, and there at once ordained, on the 3rd of September, a.d.
590 (Paul. Diac., c. 13; Joan. Diac., I. 44).
The four Eastern patriarchs at this time, to whom, according to custom,
he sent letters immediately after his accession continuing his
confession of faith, were John (known as Jejunator, or the Faster) of
Constantinople, Eulogius of Alexandria, Gregory of Antioch, and John of
Jerusalem; to whom is added in the address at the head of the circular
letter, "Anastasius, ex-patriarch of Antioch," who was indeed the true
patriarch, having been deposed by the mere secular authority of the
Emperor, Justin II. (Evagr. H. E., V. 5). Consequently Gregory, though
not venturing to ignore the patriarch in possession, addressed the
deposed one also in his circular, and wrote him also separate letters,
in which he recognized him as the rightful patriarch, and undertook to
intercede with the Emperor Maurice in his behalf (I. 8, 25, 26). On
the restoration of Anastasius to his See (a.d. 593) by the Emperor on
the death of the interloper, Gregory wrote him a warm congratulatory
letter (V. 39).
Of the other patriarchs John of Constantinople was succeeded during
Gregory's pontificate (a.d. 596) by Cyriacus, and John of Jerusalem by
Amos, and he (a.d. 600 or 601) by Isacius (see XI. 46). But the
patriarchs of Jerusalem, though their position was recognized, were not
at that time of any great influence or importance.
A brief summary may now suitably be given of some leading events of
Gregory's pontificate in the order suggested by the successive Books of
his Epistles, which correspond to the years of his reign. His
biographer John the Deacon says of him that, having been pope for a
little more than thirteen and a half years, he left in the archives (in
scrinio) as many books of Epistles as he had reigned years, the last,
or 14th, book being left incomplete because of his not having completed
the 14th year of his reign (Joan. Diac. Vit. S. Greg., IV. 71).
Accordingly the Benedictine Editors of his works have arranged his
extant epistles, according to what, to the best of their judgment, they
conceived to have been the original order, in 14 books, answering to
the successive years of his pontificate. Previous editions had given
them in 12 books only, and many of them evidently placed wrongly in
order of time. (See Patrologiæ Tomus LXXV. Sancti Gregorii magni;
Præfatio in Epistolas.) Hence, supposing the Benedictine arrangement
to be on the whole correct, we have in the successive books as now
arranged reference to the historical events of the successive years to
which the books are assigned. The dates given to the books are
according to the Roman method of Indictions, one Indiction being a
period of 15 years, and the successive years of each of such periods
being called the 1st, 2nd, 3rd year of the Indiction, or the 1st, 2nd,
3rd Indiction, and so on to the 15th. Each Indiction year began with
September; and Gregory, having been ordained on the 3rd of September,
a.d. 590, which was the commencement of the 9th year of the then
Indiction, the date of the first book of the epistles, corresponding to
the first year of his reign, is given as Indiction IX.
Book I. Indiction IX. (a.d. 590-1.)
This first book introduces us at once to a view of the new pope's
immediate vigilance and activity in affairs secular and sacred that
demanded his attention. (1.) We find him providing without delay for
the efficient and just management of the patrimony of St. Peter, which
has been spoken of above; and this especially in Sicily, whither (as
has been also said above) he sent Peter the subdeacon as his agent with
large powers. To him also he gave charge to keep him fully informed of
all that was going on, and further committed to him ecclesiastical
jurisdiction over the bishops of the island, directing him among other
things to convene synods annually, and requiring the bishops to submit
to his control (Ep. I). This, however, seems to have been only a
temporary arrangement, since in the following year he appointed
Maximian, bishop of Syracuse, who had been a monk with himself and his
peculiar friend in the Monastery of St. Andrew, to act as his vicar in
the island. Such vicarial jurisdiction, however, was only conferred on
Maximian personally, as was specified at the time (Lib. II., Ep. 7),
and was not continued to his successor, though he also received the
pallium. [It may be here observed that this decoration, in the time of
Gregory, though usually conferred on Metropolitans, did not of
necessity imply metropolitan jurisdiction. Cf. Epp., Lib. IX., Note to
Ep. 11.] At a later date we find Romanus the Defensor, who had been
made Rector patrimonii in Sicily, charged apparently with an oversight
of the churches similar to what had been entrusted to Peter (Lib. IX.,
Ep. 18; Lib. XI, Ep. 37). (2.) We find him also, through his
commissioned subdeacons, at once careful to correct the irregularities
of monks in Campania, Sicily, Corsica, and other smaller islands; such
as their migrating from monastery to monastery, wandering about exempt
from rule, and even taking to themselves wives, or having women
resident in the same buildings with themselves (Epp. 41, 42, 50, 51,
52). (3.) Frequent directions are given for charitable donations to
such as needed them (e.g. Epp. 18, 24, 39); and his apocrisiarius at
Constantinople is charged to move the Emperors in behalf of the natives
of Sardinia, who were said to be oppressed illegally by the duke of the
island (Ep. 49). (4.) For the due election of bishops to vacant Sees,
and the visitation of Sees during vacancy, in the case of Churches
under his acknowledged jurisdiction, he gives careful orders, as e.g.
in the case of Ariminum (Epp. 57, 58), of Menavia in Umbria (Ep. 81),
and Saona in Corsica (Ep. 78). The canonical rule, which he was
careful to observe, was to leave the people of the place (clergy,
nobles, and commonalty) free to elect their own bishop; but still
reserving to himself power to reject any unfit person. Thus, in one
case, he rejects one Ocleatinus as a candidate for the See of Ariminum
(Epp. 57, 58), and in another, in consequence of delay on the part of
the electors, he departs from his usual practice by himself appointing
a bishop of Saona (Ep. 80). Over remiss or criminal bishops, as soon
as he hears of their defaults--whereof, as of other things, he seems to
have been speedily informed by his agents--he loses no time in bringing
his authority to bear. It was in this, his first year, that he began a
long continued correspondence with and with respect to Januarius,
Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, who appears to have been a frivolous
old man of very doubtful character (see Ep. 62, and reff.). Also with
and with respect to Natalis, the convivial bishop of Salona in Western
Illyricum, with reference both to his own habits and to his quarrel
with the archdeacon Honoratus (see Ep. 19, and note with reff.). (5.)
There will be found also in this first book letters of sympathy and
friendship, such as he never ceased to write, some of which are to
pious ladies of rank, including one to Theoctista, the Emperor's sister
(Ep. 5), which is further interesting as containing a specimen of his
usual way of interpreting Holy Scripture allegorically. Peculiarly
charming as illustrative of his warm and abiding friendship is his long
continued correspondence, begun in this year, with or with regard to
Venantius, who had relinquished monastic for married life (see Ep. 34,
and note with reff.). (6.) To be noted also in this Book, are his
ineffectual attempts, though apparently supported by the Emperor, to
bring the Istrian bishops to submission in the matter of the" Three
Chapters" (see Ep. 16, and notes), and his invoking of the secular arm
for suppression of what remained of the Donatist schism in Africa (see
Ep. 74, and notes). (7.) Lastly, we find, in Ep. 43 to Leander of
Seville, the first intimation of the important event of the conversion
to Catholicity of Reccared, the Visigothic King of Spain.
Most, if not all, of the subjects above noted, or the like, recur
frequently in subsequent years. It may suffice to have drawn attention
to them here, noting only in connexion with the following books any new
subjects that appear of special interest.
Book II. Indiction X. (a.d. 591-2.)
(1.) We meet in this book with the first allusion to the operations of
the Lombards in Italy (Ep. 3); and hence this may be a suitable place
for giving a brief sketch of Gregory's dealings with regard to them in
the light thrown on the subject by his epistles. The Lombard King,
Agilulf (as has been said above, p. vii.), had his headquarters at
Ticinum (Pavia), the extensive dukedoms of Beneventum and Spoletum in
Southern Italy being in the possession of his dukes. Early in the year
before us (the 10th Indiction), it appears that Ariulf, duke of
Spoletum, was believed to be marching either towards Ravenna or Rome.
(See Ep. 3, which is dated in the Collection of Paul the Deacon and in
Cod. Colbert. "die V. Kalend. Octob. Indict. 10," i.e. 27 Sept., a.d.
591.) Later in the same Indiction Gregory becomes aware of his
approach, and addresses letters (Epp. 29, 30) to officers in command of
the imperial forces with the purpose of urging them to meet the
impending danger. Subsequently in the same year it appears from a
letter to the Bishop of Ravenna (Ep. 46) that Ariulf was already
besieging Rome. Gregory in this letter gives a sad account of the
savagery of the besieger outside the walls, his own illness and
depression, and the difficulties he had to contend with. He complains,
in this as in other letters, of the conduct of Romanus Patricius, the
Exarch at Ravenna, who would neither send aid nor sanction terms of
peace. Further, troops had, he says, been withdrawn from Rome before
the siege, so as to leave it insufficiently defended; and the soldiers
of a legion that remained there, not receiving their pay, had refused
to man the walls. In these straits Gregory appears at length to have
come to terms with Ariulf on his own responsibility; for doing which he
was afterwards blamed and reproached as having been duped by Ariulf.
(See Lib. V., Ep. 40.) The peace, however, was not of long duration.
The Exarch (probably soon afterwards, though the date is not clear)
marched himself to Rome, and on his return seized certain
cities--Satrium, Polimartium, Horta, Tudertua, Ameria, Perusia,
Luceoli, and others--which had been ceded to the Lombards under
treaty--perhaps that which Gregory himself had made. (Paul. Diac. De
gestis Longobard, IV. 8. Cf. Epp., Lib. V., Ep. 40.) Agilulf, the
Lombard King, incensed by this breach of faith, now came with an army
from Ticinum, recaptured Perusia, and again besieged Rome. In a letter
addressed some time afterwards to the Emperor (Lib. V., Ep. 40),
Gregory gives a lamentable account of the misery that had ensued.
Since the departure of Ariulf, he says, "troops had still further been
withdrawn from the city for the fruitless defence of Perusia, the
supply of corn had failed, while from the walls they saw Romans led
away with ropes round their necks like dogs to be sold in France." He,
with the præfect of the city, also called Gregory, and the military
commander Castorius, had done all they could under extreme difficulty
to guard the walls, for which he complains they afterwards got no
thanks, but rather blame for neglect of duty in letting the corn run
short. He himself, when the besiegers arrived, had been delivering his
well-known course of homilies on Ezekiel, which he had been obliged to
break off abruptly. The last ends thus:--"Let no one blame me if
henceforth I cease my speaking, since, as you all see, our tribulations
have increased; we are surrounded on all sides by swords; on all sides
we are afraid for imminent danger of death. Some return to us with
their hands cut off; others are reported to us as taken captive or
slain. I am now forced to withhold my tongue from exposition, for my
soul is weary of life." How long this siege lasted, or on what terms
of agreement Agilulf at length departed, we are not told. Whatever
arrangement was made, it was evidently due to Gregory alone. Paul the
Deacon says only (De gest. Longob., IV. 8), "that King Agilulf, matters
being arranged, returned to Ticinum;" and adds, "and not long
afterwards, at the suggestion especially of his wife Queen Theodelinda,
as the blessed Gregory often admonished her in his letters, he
concluded a most firm peace with the same most holy Pope Gregory, and
with the Romans." But it is plain from epistles written subsequently
that it was not till some years later that anything like a settled
truce was concluded: for it was not till the second indiction, i.e.
a.d. 598-9 (if the letters are rightly arranged, as they appear to be,
by the Benedictine editors), that we find letters of thanks from
Gregory to King Agilulf for peace at length concluded, and to
Theodelinda for her good offices (Lib. IX., Epp. 42, 43). In the
meantime, as appears from various letters, Gregory continued to urge
the Emperor or the Exarch to arrange terms of peace, for which he
asserts, though he was not believed, that Agilulf was prepared. He
declares also that he could have himself made a separate peace with him
so as to secure himself and Rome; but that he had been unwilling to do
so, having the welfare of the whole republic at heart. He implies that
the Exarch and his adherents were but serving their own ends in
opposing terms of peace, their own exactions and oppressions during the
continuance of hostilities being even more intolerable than the ravages
of the Lombards (see Lib. V., Epp. 40, 42). In an urgent letter to the
Empress Constantina he complains also of the cruel oppression of the
natives of Sicily and Corsica under colour of raising funds for the
war, and begs her to plead with the Emperor, for his own soul's sake as
well as for real advantage to the republic, against the use of such
iniquitous means (Lib. V., Ep. 41). These letters (if rightly placed)
were written in the 13th Indiction (a.d. 394-5), and in the next we
find a letter to one Secundus at Ravenna, in which negotiations with
Agilulf with a view to peace are spoken of as still going on, which
this Secundus is urged to further (Lib. VI., Ep. 30). But it was not,
as has been already said, till the 2nd Indiction (a.d. 598-9) that any
definite terms appear to have been agreed to (see Lib. IX., Epp. 4, 6,
42, 43, 98): and then, it seems, only for a limited time (see Lib X.,
Ep. 37;--"indicantes cum Langobardorum rege usque ad mensem Martiam
futuræ quartæ indictionis de pace, propitiante Domino, convenisse");
and even so, Gregory does not appear to have felt secure: for in a
letter written at this time to Januarius, bishop of Cagliari in
Sardinia, alluding to the peace that had been made, he warns him to
guard the island well in view still of possible danger from the
Lombards (Lib. IX., Ep. 6. Cf. also Lib. X., Ep. 37). After the
expiration of this truce (which, as has been seen, was from some time
in the 2nd Indiction (588-9) to March in the 4th Indiction (a.d. 601),
probably for two years), hostilities having again broken out, a second
truce was concluded in September, a.d. 603, as appears from Paul the
Deacon (De gest. Longob., IV. 29), until April, a.d. 605: and that
Gregory had been instrumental in procuring it through the influence of
Queen Theodelinda on her husband, may be concluded from what he says in
the last letter he addressed to her, not long before his death (Lib.
XIV., Ep. 12).
We thus see how indefatigably active Gregory was in the political
sphere of things. Lasting peace or security for Italy at that trying
time it was beyond the power of man to bring about: but whatever was
done towards mitigation of distress, and temporary cessation of
hostilities, or approaches to better understanding with the Lombard
King, appears plainly to have been due to Gregory. Nor should we leave
out of sight his provision for the redemption of captives taken in war,
whether out of ecclesiastical funds or others entrusted to him for the
purpose, or by the sale, which he cordially sanctioned, of the sacred
vessels of churches (IV. 17, 31; VII. 13, 26, 28, 38; IX. 17, &c.).
(2.) Attention may be directed to epistles 22, 23 in this book in
connexion with the spiritual jurisdiction exercised by Rome over East
as well as West Illyricum.
(3.) We may observe also the important import of epistle 41, with
regard to the exemption of monasteries from episcopal control by
Gregory. The constitutions, De privelegiis monasteriorum, therein
contained were afterwards promulged by a council under him (called
Conciliæ Romanum III., sive Lateranense) in April, a.d. 601, being
signed by 20 bishops, 14 presbyters, and 3 or 4 deacons.
Book III. Indiction XI. (a.d. 592-3).
The following notable incidents are referred to in this Book :
(1.) Two instances of the authority exercised (as above said) over the
Illyrian Churches being, for a time at least, resisted or disregarded,
and of the support of the Emperor being sought, and more or less
obtained, in such resistance or disregard. The first instance was in
the case of Adrian, bishop of Thebæ Phthioticæ in Eastern Illyricum, as
to which see note to Ep. 6. The second and more serious one (which has
been already alluded to) was in the case of Maximus, elected and
consecrated bishop of Salona in Western Illyricum, in defiance of
Gregory's prohibition and excommunication. In this case the resistance
was pertinacious and long continued, and it was not till after seven
years that the matter was compromised and communion restored. A
summary of the proceedings, with reference to all the epistles bearing
on the case, will be found in a note to Ep. 47.
(2.) As illustrative of the relations between Rome and Constantinople,
the case of John of Chalcedon and Athanasius of Isauria, whose appeal
to the Roman See was entertained by Gregory. See note to Lib. III.,
Ep. 53.
(3.) The beginning of remonstrances, continued through two years, with
the metropolitan bishops of Ravenna with regard to their assumption of
dignity above that of other metropolitans, expressed especially by
their use of the pallium on other occasions than during Mass. From the
letters on this subject we may detect, as has been said above, some
jealousy at the seat of the Exarch of the authoritative claims of the
Roman See. See Lib. III., Ep. 56, with note and reff.
(4.) The conduct of Gregory, at once outspoken and submissive to
imperial edicts, with respect to the recent prohibition by the Emperor
of soldiers becoming monks. See Ep. 65, note and reff. The incident
illustrates well Gregory's habitual deference to the authority of the
state, except in matters purely spiritual.
(5.) His requirement of Jews not being allowed to obtain or keep
possession of Christian slaves. There are other letters on this
subject, viz. IV. 9, 21; VI. 32; VII. 24; IX. 36, 110. Even slaves
already in the lawful possession of Jews, on declaring their desire to
become Christians, were to be thenceforth free without any compensation
to their owners; only that pagans bought by Jews simply with a view to
sale might, on their declaring such desire, be sold by such Jews within
three months after their purchase of them; but only to Christian
masters. It may be here observed that, though such provisions seem
hard upon Jewish owners, and though Jews were legally prohibited from
proselytising or building new synagogues, yet we find Gregory in other
respects very tender towards them, repeatedly forbidding their being at
all molested in the synagogues they had, or being in any way persecuted
into accepting baptism (I. 10, 35, 47; VIII. 25; IX. 6, 55; XIII. 12).
Those on the estates of the Church might indeed be drawn towards
Christianity by the prospect of reduced rents (II. 32, V. 8), but all
compulsory conversion of them is denounced as wrong and unavailing
(e.g. I. 47). On the other hand, with some apparent inconsistency,
pagan peasants on the estates might be compelled to conform by
intolerable exactions being laid upon them in case of their refusal
(IV. 26), and idolaters or diviners were to be reclaimed, if freemen,
by imprisonment, or, if slaves, by stripes and torments (IX. 65).
Book IV. Indiction XII. (a.d. 593-4).
In this book we may note:
(1) The continued refusal of many at least of the bishops in Liguria,
as well as in Istria and Venetia, to assent to the condemnation of the
"Three Chapters" by the fifth Council, and with them of Theodelinda,
the Catholic Lombard queen. See Ep. 2 and notes, with Epp. 3, 4, 38,
39.
(2.) The case of Paul, a bishop in Numidia, as indicating the
continuance of disinclination to submit fully to the Roman See in the
African provinces. See Ep. 34, with note. Cf. also Ep. 7, and IX. 58,
59.
(3.) The directions given by Gregory, and, as thereby shewn, the
custom of the Church, with regard to the anointing of the baptized (Ep.
9, and Ep. 26, with note); and also his belief in the miraculous
efficacy of the relics of saints, shewn in many other Epistles, but
especially in Ep. 30 of this book.
Book V. Indiction XIII. (a.d. 594-5).
(1.) This year is memorable for the commencement of Gregory's earnest
protest, continued through his subsequent life, against the title of
OEcumenical, or Universal, Bishop (or Patriarch) assumed by the
Patriarch of Constantinople. The title itself was not a new one. It
appears to have been occasionally given during the fifth century as a
title of honour to patriarchs generally, the first known instance being
when Olympius Episc. Evazensis gave it to Dioscorus at Concil. Ephes.
ii. (Giesler's Eccles. Hist. 2nd Period, 1st Division, Ch. iii., § 93,
note 20; with ref. to Mansi, vi. 855). Justinian also had styled the
patriarch of Constantinople "OEcumenical Patriarch" (Cod. i. 1, 7;
Novell. iii., v., vi., vii., xvi., xiii.). The first known protest
against it from Rome was on its assumption, a.d. 587 [1258] , by John
Jejunator at a synod at Constantinople, when Gregory's predecessor,
Pelagius II., had disallowed the acts of the synod in consequence, and
had withdrawn his apocrisiarius from communion with the patriarch (Epp.
V. 18, 43; IX. 68). Gregory himself also had, as appears from the
epistles above referred to, remonstrated through his representatives at
Constantinople with the patriarch on the subject, and had received a
letter from the emperor desiring him to let the matter rest (V. 19).
But he was now provoked to resolute action by having received a
communication from the patriarch in reference to the case of John the
Presbyter, wherein the title of "OEcumenical Patriarch" was repeatedly
assumed (ib.). The peculiar warmth of feeling and strength of language
that mark his lengthened correspondence on the subject, are accounted
for not only by the old jealousy felt at Rome (which has been noticed
above) of any claim of Constantinople, in mere virtue of being the
imperial city, to the prerogatives of an ancient Apostolic See, but
also by the title being viewed as not being one of honour only, but as
meaning really assumption of spiritual authority over the Church at
large. Such assumption could only rest on the fact of Constantinople
having come to be the imperial city: it had neither a shew of divine
right, nor Apostolic tradition, nor canonical authority to go on.
Rome, though for himself also Gregory earnestly disclaimed the title of
Universal Bishop, was at any rate an. ancient apostolic See, and viewed
at that time generally as representing the authority of the Prince of
the Apostles, to whom Christ himself had given the keys. But no such
ancient prestige or apostolical commission could possibly be claimed
for Constantinople: its ascendency over the whole Church would simply
mean imperialism, and imperial domination over the whole Church would
in fact have been likely to be its practical result: and thus, in his
determined protest, Gregory might well feel himself to be contending
for heavenly as against earthly jurisdiction, for Christ as against the
world, for God as against Cæsar.
The following is a summary of the correspondence that ensued in this
and following years:--
In this year Gregory despatched five letters to Sabinianus, his
apocrisiarius at Constantinople:--1. A long one to be delivered to
John Jejunator, the Patriarch (Ep. 18), dated Kal. Jan. Indict. 13
(i.e. Jan., a.d. 595), containing earnest remonstrances against pride
in general, and against this display of it in particular, and
expressing the hope that stronger measures may not be needed. 2. A
private one to Sabinianus (Ep. 19), in a bitter tone against the
patriarch, attributing the mildness of the letter now addressed to the
latter to the Emperor's orders, but promising another by and by, such
as would not be relished. 3. A long one to the Emperor Maurice (Ep.
20), earnestly desiring him to disallow the title, and, if necessary,
coerce the patriarch to compliance. While acknowledging the Emperor's
pious desire to promote peace among the Bishops, he contends that the
only means to this end was to quell the assumption of the patriarch,
the inconsistency of which with his ascetic habits, and his affectation
of humility, are pointed out ironically. 4. Another to the Empress
Constantina (Ep. 21), whose good disposition towards the Roman See he
had heard of from Sabinianus. His object is to enlist her influence
with the Emperor and his sons in the matter; and it is observable how,
in addressing her, he speaks in a way he does not venture on to the
Emperor, of the peril to her own soul if St. Peter should be
dishonoured, to whom the power of binding and loosing had been given.
5. A long one to be transmitted through Sabinianus to the patriarchs
of Alexandria and Antioch (Ep. 43), with the purpose of inducing them
to join him in his protest. He represents the offensive title as an
infringement on the rights and dignity of all patriarchs, not claiming
in this letter any peculiar authority for the Roman patriarchate above
the rest. He bids them not be afraid of the Emperor in the event,
which he hopes will not ensue, of his continuing to support the
Constantinopolitan patriarch, but to be ready to face all consequences.
In the following year (Lib. VI., Indict. XIV., i.e. a.d. 595-6) we find
an epistle, dated August (i.e. August, a.d. 596), to Eulogius, the
patriarch of Alexandria only (Ep. 60), expressing surprise that the
latter, in a letter received from him had not even alluded to the
subject of the former epistle which had been addressed to the two
patriarchs. It seems as if Eulogius had either been afraid to provoke
the emperor's displeasure, or had attached less importance to the title
than did Gregory himself, and so had maintained a discreet silence. In
this epistle Gregory expresses the view, which has been alluded to
above, of the sees of Rome and Alexandria being both in a sense St.
Peter's, in virtue of the latter having been founded by St. Mark, whom
St. Peter had sent. He had previously, in a letter to Anastasius of
Antioch (V. 39), intimated a similar view of the See of Antioch being
also in a certain sense St. Peter's; and in a subsequent letter to
Eulogius (VII. 40) he sets forth more distinctly and at length his
noteworthy position of all the three patriarchal Sees of Rome, Antioch,
and Alexandria, having together the prerogatives of St. Peter's See.
In the following year (Indict. XV., a.d. 596-7) John Jejunator died,
and was succeeded by Cyriacus, to whom Gregory wrote on receiving his
synodical letter, addressing him in a friendly tone (Ep. 4), but urging
in the course of his letter the rejection of the offensive title. He
wrote again (Ep. 31) especially on the subject, still courteously, but
pressing the matter strongly. To the emperor we find two letters; the
first (Ep. 6) approving of the appointment of Cyriacus, but without any
allusion to the burning question; the second (Ep. 33), after receiving
one from the emperor, in which the desire had been expressed that the
emissaries of the new patriarch should be honourably received at Rome.
To this request Gregory replies that he has so received them, and
admitted them to communion with him, hoping for the best; but that his
own representatives at Constantinople would by no means be allowed to
communicate with Cyriacus, unless the title were renounced. The
emperor had said that the matter was a frivolous one. "Yes (says
Gregory) the title is indeed frivolous, but its meaning and its
consequences are serious;" and he repeals his continual assertion that
whosoever assumes it is the precursor of Antichrist. In this year also
he continued his efforts to induce the patriarchs Anastasius and
Eulogius to join him in his protest. Anastasius, it seems, had not,
like Eulogius, ignored the subject in his reply to the letter that had
been addressed to both, but had said that in his opinion the matter was
of little moment and not worth making a disturbance about; at the same
time addressing Gregory in flattering terms. Gregory, in his reply
(Ep. 27), which is somewhat ironical, insists again. To Eulogius also
he writes again (Ep. 40), deprecating the too deferential manner in
which he had been addressed by this patriarch, and setting forth his
view of the oneness of the three sees. The offensive title itself is
not in this letter specifically referred to. There is also a second
letter to the two patriarchs jointly, explaining what had been done so
far since the accession of Cyriacus, and reiterating his protest
against allowance of the title. In the succeeding year (Lib. VIII.,
Indict. I., a.d. 597-8) there is again a letter (Ep. 30) to Eulogius,
who appears to have written a third time to Gregory, at length alluding
to the title so far as to say that he did not now use proud titles in
addressing certain persons, but still apparently not prepared to take
any action. As if to make up for such inaction, he had seemingly been
profuse in his compliments to Gregory, using the expression, "as thou
hast commanded," and calling him "Universal Pope." Such language
Gregory, in reply, earnestly protests against, disclaiming for himself,
as much as for any other bishop, the name of Universal. In the
following year (Lib. IX., Indict. II., a.d. 598-9) we find two letters;
one of which is an encyclical one (Ep. 68), to Eusebius of Thessalonica
and other Eastern bishops, in view of a synod about to be held at
Constantinople, warning them against being cajoled there into assenting
to the title, and threatening them with excommunication in case of
their complying. From the second letter assigned to this year, which
is again to Eulogius (Ep. 78), it would seem that the synod at
Constantinople had been held, and that Eulogius himself had been there,
though what had been done does not appear. The letter is in reply to
one which had been received with reference to a different subject from
Eulogius; and Gregory complains that the latter had still said nothing
about the most important subject of all, namely the title. He supposes
Eulogius to be waiting till he himself shall take decided action; and
he accounts for his own apparent delay by saying that he had been
unwilling to be himself the immediate author of schism. It seems as if
he had felt at a loss what to do. His remonstrances with Cyriacus and
the emperor had been entirely unavailing; he had failed to move the two
great Eastern patriarchs, or the bishops of the East generally, to take
up the question; and he shrank from so serious a step as breaking off
communion with the whole Eastern Church. And so matters appear to have
rested. We find no further epistle on the subject till four years
later (Lib. XIII, Indict. VI., a.d. 602-3), when in a short letter (Ep.
40) to Cyriacus, with whom he appears to be still in communion, he
urges him once more to give up the title. There are in the same year
two letters, and one in the previous one (XII. 50), as well as two (X.,
35, 39) in the third indiction, to Eulogius, in which the subject is
not alluded to.
(2) We observe in this year the sending of the pallium to Virgilius,
bishop of Arles in Gaul, and with it his delegation (Epp. 53, 54, 55)
as the Pope's Vicar in the Kingdom of Childebert. As has been said
above (see p. xii.), the spiritual authority of Rome over the Gallican
Churches was not disputed; and Gregory exercised it vigilantly by means
of letters to bishops, and to royal personages, labouring among other
things to move them to put down simony, clerical immorality, and other
prevalent abuses, and to assemble synods under authority from Rome for
the correction of crying evils. But, though we find no resistance to
his spiritual authority, neither do we find any evidence of his appeals
to the consciences of the potentates of Gaul having had much practical
effect in the directions indicated. Doubtless in a difficult field of
action he did what he could; nor need we doubt that the authoritative
voice from Rome was at any rate some check on violence and disorder,
though the results may not be very apparent in history.
The main divisions of Gaul at this time were Austrasia on the Eastern
side, including part of what is now Germany, Burgundy to the West and
South, and the smaller Neustria on the North-west. The limits as well
as the possession of these territories were continually changing during
the contests between the descendants of Clovis, some or other of whom
ruled the whole of Gaul; all now professing Catholic Christianity. In
the Indiction now before us (Indict. XIII., a.d. 594-5), as is pointed
out in a note to Ep. 53, Childebert II., then aged about 25, ruled by
far the greatest part of Gaul; and hence the jurisdiction intended to
be conferred on Virgilius, when the pallium was sent him, may be taken
as equally extensive. We find no instance of spiritual authority so
claimed being disputed in Gaul.
Book VI. Indiction XIV. (a.d. 595-6).
(1) This year is memorable for the mission of Augustine to England,
the progress of which, as indicated by the epistles, may be summarized
as follows. The missionaries having left Rome, probably in the early
spring of the year 596, and proceeded as far as the South coast of
France, and having there turned faint-hearted, Augustine himself
returned to Rome for leave to relinquish the enterprize. Gregory sent
him back to his companions with the letter, addressed to them, numbered
Ep. 51 in this sixth book. It is dated X. Kal. Aug. Indict. 14, i.e.
23 July, a.d. 596. For a view of the circumstances see note to vi.
51. He was now charged (as he does not appear to have been when first
sent forth) with various letters of commendation, intended to speed him
on his journey: viz. to the bishops of Marseilles, of Turni (al.
Turon:--Tours?), of Arles, Vienne and Autun, to Arigius, designated as
Patrician of Gaul, to Theodebert and Theoderic, the two boy-kings of
Austrasia and of Burgundy, and to their powerful grandmother Brunehild,
who at this time ruled Austrasia as the guardian of Theodebert. The
course of the missionaries, after leaving Marseilles, would naturally
be up the valley of the Rhone, and so northward as far as Autun, most
at least of the letters above named being such as might be delivered on
the way. Thence to their place of embarcation for the Isle of Thanet
we find no intimation of their route, except that, in passing through
Neustria, they were well received and aided by Clotaire II. (nephew of
Charibert, the deceased father of Bertha), who at that time ruled the
country, having his capital at Soissons. This appears, though there is
no extant letter of commendation on this occasion to Clotaire, from a
subsequent letter to him (XI. 61).
The landing of the missionaries on the Isle of Thanet was, according to
Bede, in the following year, a.d. 597 (H. E., I. 25, V. 24). It must
have been early in the year, so as to allow time for the events, to be
next noticed, which took place before its close. The next allusion to
the mission found in the Epistles is Gregory's exulting announcement to
Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, of its remarkable success, and of the
baptism of more than ten thousand Angli as early as the Christmas of
the same year, 597 (VIII. 30). The date is definitely given in the
letter to Eulogius;--"in the solemnity of the Lord's Nativity which was
kept in this first indiction"--The first indiction being from
September, 597, to September, 598. In the meantime, as appears from
the same letter, Augustine had already been consecrated bishop. The
letter says vaguely "a Germanis Episcopis": but, according to John the
Deacon (Vit. S. Greg. II. 36), and Bede (H. E., I. 27), it was to
Virgilius, bishop of Arles, that Augustine had gone, as directed by
Gregory, for consecration.
The next batch of Epistles throwing light on the progress of the
mission (after two others, IX. 11 and 108, wherein Queen Brunehild and
Syagrius Bishop of Autun are thanked for their attention to the
missionaries on their progress) is in Book XI, and thus assigned to
Indiction 4, i.e. A. D. 600-1, some three years after the aforesaid
letter to Eulogius. It comprises fourteen Epistles, some of which bear
their own dates, and others are shewn by their contents to have been
written at the same time. It is true that the dates of the dated
epistles vary in different mss. with regard to the time of year; but
all the mss. agree in giving the same Indiction, viz. the fourth. The
occasion of writing was when Augustine, according to Bede and John the
Deacon, had sent the presbyter Laurentius and the monk Peter to Rome,
to seek instructions on certain points, and to ask for more
missionaries: whereupon, we are told, Gregory sent back the messengers
accompanied by Mellitus, Justus, Paulinus, Rufinianus, and others, with
replies to Augustine's questions, instructions for the constitution of
the Church in Britain, the pallium for himself, and books, utensils and
relics for the Churches (Joann. Diac. in Vit. S. Greg., II. 36, 37;
Bede, H. E., I. 27, 29). We might have supposed from the narratives of
John the Deacon and Bede that Augustine had sent Lawrence and Peter to
Rome on his return to Britain after his own consecration by the bishop
of Arles, and that the new band of missionaries had been sent out
without delay. But the dates of the epistles shew, as has been seen
above, that several years had intervened, at any rate, between
Augustine's return and the sending out of the new missionaries. And
indeed Bede himself intimates this in his recapitulation of events (H.
E., V. 24), though not in his narrative. For, having given a.d. 597 as
the date of Augustine's first arrival in Britain, he gives a.d. 601 as
that of the sending of the pallium with "more ministers, among whom was
Paulinus."
The letters which these new missionaries carried with them were to the
bishops Virgilius of Arles (Ep. 55), Desiderius of Vienne (Ep. 54),
Aetherius of Lyons (Ep. 56), Arigius of Vapincum (Ep. 57), with a
circular to various bishops of Gaul (Ep. 58); also to Queen Brunehild
(Ep. 62), to kings Theodebert, Theoderic, and Clotaire (Epp. 59, 60,
61): to Augustine himself (Ep. 65), together with a long reply (Ep.
64) to his questions [1259] , to Ethelbert king of Kent (Ep. 66), and
probably at the same time to Bertha his queen (Ep. 29) [1260] .
One more letter relating to the mission in Book XI. remains to be
noticed; viz., Ep. 76, to Mellitus, which was sent after the rest,
being intended to overtake the new band of missionaries on their
journey through Gaul. Its main purpose seems to have been to modify
what had been said in the letter to Ethelbert as to the destruction of
heathen temples. See Note to Ep. 76. This is the last extant epistle
referring to the English mission.
(2) To be noted also in this book is the first of the ten epistles
addressed to the notorious queen Brunehild in Gaul (VI. 5). On her
alleged character, and Gregory's mode of addressing her, see note to
the epistle.
Book VII. Indiction XV. (a.d. 596-7), and Book VIII. Indiction I.
(a.d. 597-8).
Though no historical events of importance come for the first time
before our notice in these books, attention may be drawn (1) to
Gregory's policy of protecting monasteries from episcopal domination
(VII. 12, 43; VIII. 15); (2) his sanction of the sale of church plate
for charitable purposes (VII. 13, 38); (3) Specimens of his letters of
spiritual counsel, especially to pious ladies of rank (VII. 25, 26, 30;
VIII. 22).
Book IX. Indiction II. (a.d. 598-9)
Noticeable in this book are, (1) Gregory's renewed efforts, on Romanus
Patricius being succeeded by Callinicus in the exarchate, to reclaim
the Istrian bishops to communion with Rome (Ep. 9, 10, 93, &c.); (2)
his interesting letter with reference to the ancient liturgical usages
of the Roman Church (Ep. 12); (3) the correspondence between him and
the Visigothic king Reccared in Spain, assigned to this year (Epp. 61,
121, 122); (4) his continued efforts to bring about the assembling of
synods and correction of prevalent abuses in the Church of Gaul (Ep.
106, &c.); (5) the remarkable letter to him of the Irish saint
Columbanus, illustrating the differences with regard to the computation
of Easter between the Roman and Celtic Churches, and the attitude of
the latter towards the Roman See (Ep. 127).
Book XI. Indiction IV. (a.d. 600-1).
Noticeable in this book are--
(1) The letter to Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, with regard to the
use and abuse of pictures in Churches (Ep. 13).
(2) Two long letters to ladies of rank at Constantinople (Epp. 44,
45), the first of which is interesting, as in other ways, so for the
account contained in it of supposed miracles at the monastery of St.
Andrew in Rome, shewing, as many other epistles do, Gregory's firm
belief in miraculous interventions; while the second is remarkable, not
only for its spiritual counsels, but also for its expression of
Gregory's views on the unlawfulness of married persons entering
monasteries without mutual consent; on the efficacy of baptism; and on
various points of doctrine.
(3) The letter to the bishops of Iberia, setting forth the various
ways of reconciling various kinds of heretics to the Church, and
containing a specimen of Gregory's controversial skill in his
refutation of Nestorianism (Ep. 67).
(4) Evidence of Gregory's unremitted efforts to correct the immorality
prevalent among the clergy in Gaul, shewn in his letter to queen
Brunehild on the subject (Ep. 69).
(5) The letters relating to the English mission, notice of which has
been forestalled under Book VI.
Book XIII. Indiction V. (a.d. 602-3).
In this Book we may note--
(1) Continued correspondence about the Church in Gaul, with references
to a church, monastery, and hospital, founded by queen Brunehild at
Autun, and to the synod for correction of abuses, long desired by
Gregory, for the holding of which she had now requested a fit person to
be sent from Rome (Epp. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
(2) The important event of the accession of Phocas to the empire
(November, a.d. 602), with the letters of Gregory on the occasion to
him and to his wife Leontia (Epp. 31, 38, 39).
The tone of high compliment--nay, of adulation--which marks these
letters has been justly regarded as a blot, much to be regretted, on
the lustre of Gregory's character. There is indeed no reason to
conclude that he knew so far of the peculiar blackness of the usurper's
character, as depicted by contemporary historians, and evinced by his
disastrous and sanguinary reign. And, seeing that it appears from
Epistle 38 that he had had no apocrisiarius resident at Constantinople
towards the end of the reign of Mauricius, it may be that he had not
been fully informed of the cruelties that accompanied the accession of
Phocas to the imperial throne;--how, for instance, five sons of the
former emperor had been murdered in succession before their father's
eyes, and then the emperor himself, their bodies being thrown into the
Tiber, and their heads exposed in Constantinople till putrefaction
began. But, however this might be, Gregory's high-flown compliments
addressed to the new potentates, and his excessive exultation on their
accession, cannot but strike one as unseemly as well as premature. Nor
is it pleasant to observe his exultant way of speaking of the fall of
the late emperor, whose sad fate called for so much sympathy, and to
whom he had himself once written in such terms as these:-- "Since a
sincere rectitude of faith shines in you, most Christian of princes,
like a light sent from heaven, and since it is known to all that your
Serenity embraces with all your heart the pure profession which wins
the favour of God" (VI. 16). Again, "Amidst the cares of warfare, and
innumerable anxieties which you sustain in your unwearied zeal for the
government of the Christian republic, it is a great cause of joy to me,
along with the whole world, that your Piety ever keeps guard over the
faith whereby the empire of our lords is resplendent" (VI. 65). Again,
about him, only some two years before his death, in a letter to the
patriarch of Jerusalem, "Thanks should be given without cease to
Almighty God, and prayer ever made for the life of our most pious and
Christian lord the Emperor, and for his most tranquil spouse, and his
most gentle offspring, in whose times the mouths of heretics are
silent, &c." (XI. 46). Doubtless Maurice's inefficiency with regard to
the Lombards had been exceedingly provoking, and perhaps still more so
to Gregory himself, his support of the Patriarch of Constantinople in
his assumption of the offensive title. And perhaps the gout from which
Gregory appears to have been suffering intensely at the time may partly
account for his having given vent as he did to feelings of irritation
long suppressed. Then, with regard to his adulation of the new
potentates, some excuse may be found in prevalent usage, or his own
habitual deference to the powers that be, or his policy (apparent also
in his letters to Brunehild) of enlisting their support by flattering
addresses to the cause of religion and the Church. But still a painful
impression remains; though, on the other hand, it may be observed with
truth that few great historical characters of whom so much is known are
stained by so few disfiguring blots as that of Gregory. It may be
presumed that a prominent motive of his paying court to the rising suns
was his hope of getting their support against the patriarch. He does
not indeed refer distinctly to the title; but in his letter to Leontia
(whom, rather than the emperor, with characteristic address, he warns
about her spiritual prospects being dependent on the favour of St.
Peter) we can hardly mistake the covert allusion. If so, his policy
was not fruitless. For, though there is no sufficient foundation for
the statement of Baronius, that Phocas formally conferred on pope
Boniface III. the title of "Universal Bishop" which had been assumed by
the patriarch, there seems to be no good reason for doubting that the
new emperor took the pope's part against Cyriacus, who had offended him
by his protection of Constantina and her daughters, and that, when
Boniface, who had been Gregory's apocrisiarius at Constantinople,
himself became pope, an imperial edict of some kind was issued in
favour of the claims of Rome. The words of Anastasius, the biographer
of the popes towards the end of the ninth century, with reference to it
are these: "He (i.e. Boniface) obtained from the emperor Phocas that
the Apostolic See of St. Peter, that is, the Roman Church, should be
the head of all Churches, because the Church of Constantinople wrote
itself the first of all Churches." The authority, however, of
Anastasius, who lived in a time of hierarchical forgeries, cannot be
relied on without reserve.
Book XIV. Indiction VII. (a.d. 603-4.)
In the course of this indiction (on the 12th of March, a.d. 604)
Gregory died. The seventeen Epistles assigned to this last half-year
of his life (one of which is dated December) shew no abatement of his
care for all the Churches, or his activity in correspondence,
notwithstanding his excessive affliction from gout, leaving him
sometimes hardly able to speak, which he alludes to in his letter to
Theodelinda, the Lombard queen (Ep. 12). This letter was probably
written shortly before his death, since he speaks in it of the queen's
messengers having left him between life and death, though he still
contemplates the possibility of recovery. It is a peculiarly
interesting one, not only for this reason, but also as being his last
to her. He congratulates her in it on the recent baptism of her infant
son Adulouvald in the catholic faith, sends for him a cross containing,
as he alleges, wood from the true one, and also jewelled rings for his
sister; he bids her thank her husband for peace concluded, and
influence him, as she had ever done, to continue it; and he promises
her an answer, in case of his recovery, to certain arguments against
the condemnation of the Three Chapters by the fifth council, which she
had sent for his consideration. It thus appears that to the end of his
life he had failed to convince the Lombard queen on this subject,
notwithstanding his influence over her, and the cordial relations ever
subsisting between them.
The view opened to us through this long series of letters into the mind
and character of the great Gregory is of peculiar interest. The man
himself stands out before us therein self-disclosed; his very faults
and frailties, which a panegyrist would have veiled, giving life and
reality to the picture. We may observe in the first place how
conspicuous throughout is his unhesitating faith. No cloud of doubt
seems to have cast its shadow on his certainty of the truth of Holy
Writ and Christianity, and of the divine authority of the Catholic
Church, speaking through Fathers and Councils as its exponents. Nor
were either his temperament or his training such as to expose him to
philosophic questionings. No less clear is the sincerity of his life
as inspired and guided by his religious faith. Whatever inferior human
motives may appear sometimes, there can be no doubt that his paramount
aim was to devote himself to God's service. As was to be expected from
the religious ideas of his age, his theory of the Christian life was
ascetic in the extreme. Continual compunction, fear of judgment,
fastings, tears, almsgiving, and heavenly contemplation, formed his
ideal of holiness. Even lawful marriage he seems to tolerate, as a
Zoar of escape from temptation, rather than to approve: and for a man
to enjoy life as most people aim at doing--to sit, as it were, under
his vine and under his fig-tree--appeared to him at any rate fraught
with danger. Hence the more of both sexes that were able, and could be
induced, to leave the active duties of life for monastic seclusion, the
better he regarded it for them and for the world in whose behalf they
might thus have leisure to pray. Still, on the other hand, such
ascetic views were not found incompatible in his case with tender
regard for others in their earthly joys and sorrows, and interest in
their family life, as expressed in many kind and sympathetic letters to
friends; and he was ever ready to meet their temporal as well as
spiritual needs. His charitable donations in all directions were
bounded only by his means; all oppression of the poor had in him a
resolute opponent; nor can we but be struck by his keen sense of
justice and regard for it in all his dealings. His gentle breeding,
aided by Christian culture, induced a tone of courtesy, with delicate
consideration for the feelings of others, in his letters generally; and
he usually softens even rebuke with gentleness. Partly, it may be, to
this habit may be traced the tone of flattery, which has been remarked
on elsewhere, in his letters to potentates, or to others whom it was
his purpose to conciliate; which was such indeed in some cases as to
lay him open to a charge of insincerity. On the other hand, however,
it is to be remembered that, when strongly moved, he could write with
very outspoken boldness, not without a vein of cutting irony, even to
the Emperor. Witness his two letters (V. 40; VII. 33) to Mauricius on
the two subjects that appear above all others to have distressed and
irritated him. In such letters--and especially in some to various
correspondents about the title of "Universal Bishop"--there are
symptoms, no doubt, of much personal irritation, intensified perhaps by
gout, under provoking circumstances. But, if his politic flattery in
some cases, and his irritability in others, are to some minds
disappointing in a saint, they are interesting to a student of human
nature: and it is greatly to his credit that they nowhere indicate any
merely selfish aims, but rather zeal--however alloyed by policy or by
bitterness--for what he honestly believed to be the cause of God.
As a divine he merits his title of a Doctor of the Church. He was,
indeed, neither original nor deeply learned; as a mystical interpreter
of Scripture he was fanciful, and often, from our point of view,
absurd; owing to his visionary turn and his uncritical credulity he may
have fostered, and perhaps originated, some fond fables and
superstitions, such as infected the general belief of Christians in the
middle ages: but he grasped and set forth clearly the orthodox
doctrines of the Church; in treating difficult theological questions he
displays from time to time no small power of thought and argument; as a
preacher of essential Christian morality he was ever sound and true;
nor has anyone more insisted on spiritual communion of the individual
soul with God, or more strongly maintained the principle of justice,
mercy and truth being of the essence of religion.
His diplomatic and practical talents, and his unwearied industry, have
been already spoken of, and need no further notice in this brief final
survey, the intention of which is to view him rather in his character
as a saint and a divine.
Pedigree of Kings of Gaul
[1257] "Prayer should ever be made for the life of our most pious and
Christian lord the Emperor, and his most tranquil consort, &c., in
whose times the mouths of heretics are silent, since, though their
hearts seethe with the madness of perverse opinion, they presume not in
the time of the catholic Emperor to utter the wrong things they think"
(Lib. IX., Ep. 49).
[1258] That this was the date may be inferred from Gregory, in Epistle
XLIII. of this fifth book, speaking of the synod having been held eight
years ago.
[1259] Another letter to Augustine (Ep. 28), though placed in Book XI.
by the Benedictine editors, may have been written in some previous
year. It is one of congratulation on reported success, and of warning
against elation. It seems to refer to the same news, received from
Britain, that Gregory announced to Eulogius of Alexandria in his letter
to him, a.d. 598, and resembles that letter in its exultant tone.
Containing in itself no intimation of its own date, it seems more
likely that it was written about the same time with the letter to
Eulogius than that Gregory should have let several years elapse before
finding an opportunity of congratulating Augustine on his success.
[1260] The only reason for doubting whether the letter to Bertha was
sent at the same time with that to Ethelbert, is that in the former the
queen is exhorted to move her husband to follow her faith, whereas in
the latter the king is addressed as already a Christian. The letter to
Bertha is shewn by what is said in it to have been written after the
arrival in Rome of Laurence and Peter, and that to Ethelbert, from its
date, to have been sent by Mellitus and his companions when they left
Rome for Britain. But there is nothing to shew that the letter to
Bertha might not have been sent previously. It may be that the news of
the king's conversion did not reach Rome till after the arrival there
of Lawrence and Peter, and that Gregory had found an opportunity,
before sending to Britain the new band of missionaries, of despatching
a letter to the queen, urging her to bring it about. There would be
time enough for his doing so, since the sending of Mellitus seems to
have been delayed for a considerable time, owing, it may be, to
Gregory's state of health at the time. See Preface to XI. 64. On the
other hand, the language used in the letter to Bertha may possibly only
mean that she ought to move her husband to greater zeal in propagating
the faith, already embraced by himself, among his subjects. The exact
date of Ethelbert's baptism is not known. Bede only says that he
allowed the missionaries to preach freely before being himself
converted, and that, after his conversion, he compelled no one to
accept Christianity. It may, then, be only his reported lukewarmness
in this regard that Gregory's exhortation to Bertha refers to.