Gregory the Great, A Symposium (review)

The volume comprises the papers presented at a symposium on Gregory the Great at the University of Notre Dame in March 1993, on the occasion of Robert Markus’s tenure as visiting professor. The contents are as follows: Robert A. Markus, “The Jew as a Hermeneutic Device: The Inner Life of a Gregorian Topos” (pp. 1–15); Carole Straw, “Purity and Death” (pp. 16–37); Conrad Leyser, “Expertise and Authority in Gregory the Great: The Social Function of Peritia” (pp. 38–61); James J. O’Donnell, “The Holiness of Gregory” (pp. 62–81); Rodrigue Bélanger, “La dialectique Parole-Chair dans la christologie de Grégoire le Grand” (pp. 82–93); Paul Meyvaert, “A Letter of Pelagius II Composed by Gregory the Great” (pp. 94–116); G. J. M. Bartelink, “Pope Gregory the Great’s Knowledge of Greek,” trans. by Paul Meyvaert; originally published as “De kennis van het Grieks bij Gregorius de Grote,” in Noctes Noviomagenses J. C. F. Nuchelmans XIII lustris pr. Kal. Sept. anno Domini MCMLXXXV feliciter peractis rude donato ab amicis oblatae (Weesp, 1985), pp. 3–18. The translator notes that the author approved the translation, and that some small modifications result in a new numbering of footnotes [sic] (pp. 117–36). Translator’s Appendix: “Gregory the Great and Astronomy” (pp. 137–45); Bernard McGinn, “Contemplation in Gregory the Great” (pp. 146–67); Grover A. Zinn, “Exegesis and Spirituality in the Writings of Gregory the Great” (pp. 168–80); Celia Chazelle, “Memory, Instruction, Worship: ‘Gregory’s’ Influence on Early Medieval Doctrines of the Artistic Image” (pp. 181–215); E. Ann Matter, “Gregory the Great in the Twelfth Century: The Glossa Ordinaria” (pp. 216–26).

Paul Meyvaert was unable to attend but contributed markedly to the Proceedings. His offerings are distinguished by a profitable use of the technological advance represented by Cetedoc Library of Christian Latin Texts (Brepols CD-ROM, 1991).

Some general features of the seminar presentations are to noted. The subject range of the contributions illustrates the literal “greatness” of Gregory, and the almost encyclopedic relevance of Gregory’s writings. There is a prevailing awareness of variegation of subject. O’Donnell comments: “There are at least four Gregories in circulation” (62), while other writers attend to the varying reception of Gregory. Matter draws attention to one of the reasons for the variety. It depends on the fact of selection. Only certain parts of Gregory’s writings (as in the case of all other authorities) circulated widely through such media as the Glossa Ordinaria. Matter draws attention to the implications of “the changing tastes of biblical compilers over the centuries of the Middle Ages” (222). Chazelle reminds us that “Latin theologians selected texts by Gregory . . . focussed on certain ‘Gregorian’ doctrines at the expense of others . . .” (203). To borrow a phrase from the Editor’s Preface, there is a significant interest in an “interpreted Gregory” (xiii). Another feature is the sense of participating in “[l]e renouveau actuel des études grégoriennes” (Bélanger, 82). Bélanger protests the way the thought of this “brave pape” has been stigmatized by such as Harnack (82, 91; cf. O’Donnell, 75–76, n.2). O’Donnell marvels that the debunking of Gregory has not been more sustained, and notes that Trevor-Roper’s characterization of Gregory as “the Stalin of the early Church” is somewhat exceptional (64, 77). Markus proposes to contribute to the effort “to chip away a bit more” of the “patina that the centuries have deposited on his [Gregory’s] thought” (2). There is a clear consensus that Francis Clark’s attempt to decanonize the Dialogi has not succeeded (e.g., Straw [24]; O’Donnell [62, 77–78, n.12]; Bartelink [127]).

The editing is uniform and meticulous; I noted only “espcially” (204); “devils’” (14, n.36) should read “devil’s,” I believe, since Gregory is speaking of “Leviathan” in the passage referenced; “remediarum” should probably read “remediarium” (cf. 180, n.21). Each piece has...