Gregory the Great and the Pagan Shrines of Kent

r r th r t nd th P n hr n f nt

r D p l

Journal of Late Antiquity, Volume 1, Number 2, Fall 2008, pp. 353-369(Article)

P bl h d b Th J hn H p n n v r t PrDOI: 10.1353/jla.0.0018

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Fordham University Library (22 Feb 2015 18:07 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jla/summary/v001/1.2.demacopoulos.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jla/summary/v001/1.2.demacopoulos.html

Journal of Late Antiquity 1.2 (Fall): 353–369 © 2008 The Johns Hopkins University Press 353

George Demacopoulos

Gregory the Great and the Pagan Shrines of Kent

This study challenges the prevailing scholarly opinion that pope Gregory I’s instruction to transform the pagan shrines of Kent into Christian churches was a direct countermand to his earlier missive that the shrines should be destroyed. By exploring Gregory’s multi-faceted understanding of conver-sion and considering the depth and nuance of his pastoral strategies, it argues that the initial letter to Ethelbert, king of Kent, identifi ed the destruction of shrines as an example of the type of behavior that would be expected of a Christian monarch, but did not refl ect a carefully constructed strategy for conversion. Thus, the letter to Ethelbert was designed for the spiritual edifi cation of the king himself, whereas the subsequent epistle to Mellitus provided a clarifi cation of Gregory’s plan for the pagan shrines and more fully refl ected the pope’s syncretistic strategies for the conversion of non-Christian populations. In this way, both letters signify aspects of Gregory’s rich pastoral consciousness and are more consistent with each other than is generally understood.

Gregory the Great’s mission to the Anglo-Saxons long has been a subject of scholarly interest because it raises fundamental questions about Christian leadership, Christian practice, and the intersection of Roman Christianity with other traditions and cultures at the close of Late Antiquity.1 This study

1 See, inter alios, Robert A. Markus, “Gregory the Great and a Papal Missionary Strategy,” Studies in Church History 6 (1970), 29–38; Rob Meens, “A Background to Augustine’s Mis-sion to Anglo-Saxon England,” Anglo-Saxon England 23 (1994), 5–17; Clare Stancliffe, “Kings and Conversion: Some Comparisons between the Roman Mission to England and Patrick’s to Ireland,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 14 (1980), 59–94; Ian Wood, “The Mission of Augustine of Canterbury to the English,” Speculum 69 (1994), 1–17; also R.A. Markus, “Gregory the Great’s Pagans,” in Richard Gameson, Henrietta Leyser, eds., Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages: Stud-ies Presented to Henry Mayr-Harting (New York, 2001), 23–34; I. Wood, “Some Historical Re-Identifi cations and the Christianization of Kent,” in G. Armstrong, I. Wood, eds., Christianizing Peoples and Converting Individuals (Turnhout, 2000), 27–35. Gregory’s works are abbreviated as follows: Dial. = Dialogorum Libri IV (SC 251, 260, 265); Epist. = Registrum epistularum (CCL 140–140A); Hom.evang. = Homiliae in evangelia (CCL 141); Reg.past. = Liber regulae pastoralis (SC 381–382).

354 Journal of Late Antiquity

revisits one of the most familiar aspects of the mission, the apparent contra-diction presented by Gregory’s Epistle 11.37, written to Ethelbert, the Anglo-Saxon king of Kent on 22 June 601, and Epistle 11.56 (dated 18 July), written to Mellitus, the monastic leader who had been sent to England by Gregory a few weeks earlier.2 The fi rst letter instructs the newly converted king to over-turn the buildings of the shrines (“fanorum aedifi cia everte”) in his realm; the second states that the shrines should not be destroyed but rather transformed into Christian churches. This supposed about-face typically is described as being an example of Gregory’s good pastoral sense and his willingness to adjust to any situation; Markus, for example, argues that Gregory changed his mind to pursue a new policy of religious syncretism to enable further the spread of the Christian faith among the Anglo-Saxons.3 The standard inter-pretation, however, does not fully appreciate the depth of Gregory’s pastoral intuitions. Chadwick, for example, perhaps the lone modern opponent of the standard thesis, suggests that the two letters “do not necessarily refl ect a total change of mind” but could indicate Gregory’s willingness to offer distinct instructions to different recipients, while maintaining a common pastoral aim (that is, the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons).4 And, in general, a more satisfac-tory explanation of the apparent differences between the two letters requires a comprehensive understanding of Gregory’s pastoral practices, including a more thorough assessment of his approach to conversion.

Mission and ConversionAmong the fi rst things to consider is that Gregory did not have a comprehen-sive strategy for evangelism that was systematically distinct from his general pastoral philosophy, that both non-Christians and Christians needed to learn more about the Gospel and cultivate a life in Christ. When Markus and oth-ers attach the phrase “mission strategy” to Gregory’s initiatives in Kent and

2 The numbering sequence used for Gregory’s letters is that of D. Norberg, ed., CCL 140–140A, which often is different from that of the Patrologia latina; for translations, see John Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the Great, vol. 1–3 (Toronto, 2004), which follows Norberg’s numbering.

3 Markus, “Papal Missionary Strategy,” and “Gregory the Great’s Pagans”; also Richard Game-son, “Augustine of Canterbury: Context and Achievement,” in Idem, ed., St. Augustine and the Conversion of England (Stroud, 1999), 1–40, at 31–33; Wood, “The Mission of Augustine,” 12; Adalbert de Vogüé, “Les vues de Grégoire le Grand sur l’action missionnaire en Angleterre,” in C. de Dreuille, ed., L’Église et la mission au vi siècle: La mission d’Augustin de Cantorbéry et les églises de Gaule sous l’impulsion de Grégoire le Grand (Paris, 2000), 55–64; Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton, 1987), 169–71.

4 See H. Chadwick, “Gregory the Great and the Anglo-Saxons,” in Gregorio Magno e il suo tempo: XIX Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana (Roma, 9–12 maggio 1990) (Rome, 1991), 199–212, at 203. Markus, “Papal Missionary Strategy,” 34, rejected the idea that the dif-ference in the two letters was tied to their distinct audiences.

DEMACOPOULOS ^ Gregory the Great and the Pagan Shrines of Kent 355

elsewhere, they suggest that the pontiff carefully developed a comprehensive approach to the conversion of non-Christians.5 But even if we de-specify Gregory’s plan to the point of saying that he simply relied upon the coer-cive infl uence of persons in power (whether secular or episcopal) to initiate baptism—this is the prevailing opinion—two erroneous conclusions are likely to be drawn.6 First, that Gregory’s letters to persons of infl uence were, in large part, designed as individual admonishments for their recipient’s own spiritual edifi cation; even letters that spoke directly to an addressee’s role in the conversion of his or her subjects rarely issued step-by-step instructions.7 And second, that Gregory’s pastoral interest in “conversion” was confi ned to these same non-Christian populations when, on the contrary, the pontiff understood the potential for conversion (employing the Latin verb convertere or the noun conversio) to encompass a much broader set of persons, including pagans, heretics, and, most importantly, practicing Christians.8

Like Benedict of Nursia and other ascetic authors of Late Antiquity, Greg-ory referred to a Christian’s decision to join a monastery as a conversion.9 For example, when Gregory wrote to Urbicus, the abbot of a Sicilian monastery founded by Gregory, he began the letter with the phrase, “Whoever is com-pelled by divine inspiration to abandon his secular activities and is in a hurry to be converted to God (“ad deum converti festinat”) should be received with love and in all ways welcomed with inviting encouragement.”10 Writing to the papal rector in Campania, Gregory similarly referred to clerics who had previously

5 See Markus “Papal Missionary Strategy,” and Idem, “Gregory the Great’s Pagans”; also Jef-frey Richards, Consul of God: The Life and Times of Gregory the Great (London, 1980), 228–250. Stancliffe, “Kings and Conversion,” 60–62, traces the model to Hellenistic philosophical principles and Roman law; and Chadwick, “Gregory the Great,” 201, emphasizes the infl uence of Augustine of Hippo.

6 See Markus, “Papal Missionary Strategy,” also Jean Chélini, “Mission de saint Augustin de Cantorbéry dans la perspective missionnaire de saint Grégoire le Grand,” in de Dreuille, L’Église et la mission, 41–54. Others have shown, however, that Gregory’s handling of the mission to England lacked the preparation and resources that one would expect of a comprehensive strategy. See, for example, J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, “Rome and the Early English Church: Some Questions of Trans-mission,” in Idem, Early Medieval History (Oxford, 1975), 115–137, at 117.

7 E.g., Greg.Mag. Epist. 5.39, 6.51, 7.27, 9.229; letters requesting that the addressee “assist” in the conversion of pagans include Epist. 6.52, 6.54, 6.55, 6.59, and 6.60.

8 For a connection between the conversion of non-Christians and Gregory’s pastoral attempts to lead sinners to repentance, see Carole Straw, Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley, 1988), 194–235.

9 E.g., Greg.Mag. Hom.evang. 38.16, Epist. 3.64, 6.12, 6.49, and 8.10. The opening of Bene-dict’s Regula suggests that anchorites are “no longer in the fervor of their conversion” (“non conversionis fervore”), and Regula 63 describes entrance into the monastery as the moment of a monk’s conversion. See also Cass. Inst. 4.1, and Coll.3.4 for the start of St. Anthony’s monastic life as a “conversio’”

10 Greg.Mag. Epist. 6.48.


joined monasteries as having undergone a “conversion.”11 Obviously, the transition into monastic life was different from the initial conversion through baptism, but, like that fi rst conversion, it refl ected a transformation of self that constituted a new identity.12

Gregory also used the same terms (convertere and conversio) to describe other, less dramatic, religious advances, including the acquisition of the fear of God, the adoption of ascetic disciplines, and the commitment to repentance. For example, Gregory described physical pain as something that converts the soul (“animum convertit”) to an appropriate fear of the Lord.13 Fear of God, he continued, enables a complete conversion of mind (“tota mentis conversione”), which, in turn, is necessary to avoid the torments of hell.14 In his Homilies on the Gospels, Gregory used the idea of conversion to distinguish between the Christian who suffers from pride and the Christian who by the grace of God is converted to Christ and, as a consequence, becomes humble.15

Similarly, Gregory also used the verb convertere to describe the need of the Frankish rulers to instill a more complete conversion among their already-Christian subjects.16 And in his Pastoral Rule, he spoke of a priest’s need to convert to the life of penance whenever he erred in his instruction of subor-dinates.17 In the same text, he differentiated between those who sinned but had not lost the assurance of conversion (“conversionis fi duciam non amittit”) through repentance and those who, despite their conversion to Christ, had become lukewarm and lost the availability of forgiveness.18

The fi nal section of the thirty-eighth of Gregory’s Homilies on the Gos-pels provides a fascinating synchronism of many of these distinct applica-tions of the words convertere and conversio. Here, two brothers had joined a monastery.19 The fi rst came prompted by the “grace of conversion” (“gratia conversationis venit”),20 but the second came not out of a desire to be a monk

11 “Si quos autem a clericatu in monachicam conversionem venire contigerit”: Greg.Mag. Epist. 1.40.

12 See George E. Demacopoulos, Five Models of Spiritual Direction in the Early Church (Notre Dame, 2007), 130–53.

13 Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.18.14 Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.18.15 “Si conversus ad Christum humilis factus est”: Greg.Mag. Hom.evang. 32.2. 16 “Quod subiectos vestros ad eam converti”: Greg.Mag. Epist. 6.51. This passage might sug-

gest that conversion from paganism to Christianity was meant, but Epist. 8.4 shows that Gregory was well aware of the perpetuation of pagan practices among baptized Christians in Gaul.

17 “Si ad poenitentiae lamenta conversus”: Greg.Mag. Reg.past. 2.10; for “conversion” as repen-tance, see also Reg.past. 3.7, Hom.evang. 20.14.

18 Greg.Mag. Reg.past. 3.34.19 Repeated, e.g., at Hom.evang. 19.7, Dial. 4.38.20 This is the only extant instance where Gregory uses conversatio rather than conversio to

describe a monastic conversion. For the use of conversatio in late Latin to mean “an entrance on


but out of affection for his brother. This second brother was a terrible monk. As he approached death, he was tormented by a vision of a dragon, which was restrained only by the prayers of his fellow monks. Coming to his senses, the dying man declared that he fi nally had realized the error of his ways and was ready “to be converted and relinquish his worldly life” (“converti para-tus sum, et saecularem vitam funditus relinquere”) and to “convert himself entirely to God” (“toto ad Deum corde conversus est”).21 One could interpret this as a long-awaited acceptance of the life of monasticism; but given that the man died only a few days later, it may be that Gregory looked to emphasize the man’s spiritual awakening, which offered the hope of salvation regardless of his standing in the monastery.22

In short, Gregory employed the language of conversion in many ways to signal various degrees of spiritual progress, all of which contributed to sal-vation. To be sure, Gregory also referred to the conversion of pagans in the modern sense of the initial transition from pagan to Christian. But he used the same words to describe many progressions in virtue (including the adoption of the monastic life) and to apply to persons at any stage of religious commit-ment, ranging from the pagan catechumen to the experienced monk.23 It is within this broader application of conversion that we must consider Gregory’s letters concerning the shrines of the Anglo-Saxons. Only with this in mind can we nuance Gregory’s instructions to Ethelbert. For Gregory, conversion was not a one-time event concluded at baptism but was a life-long process that demanded continuous supervision from those charged with pastoral author-ity, a point that was as true for Roman aristocrats and Benedictine monks as it was for the recently baptized king of Kent.24

Gregory’s Approach to Spiritual DirectionGregory’s vision of spiritual direction was steeped in the ascetic tradition of the Christian east, at least as it was mediated by John Cassian.25 Several aspects of this tradition are relevant to understanding Gregory’s letters to Kent in 601.

the monastic life,” see Alexander Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 (Oxford, 1949), 78; and Benedict, Regula, prol., describes conversion to the monastic life as “processu vero conversa-tionis et fi dei.”

21 Greg.Mag. Hom.evang. 38.15.22 Benedict, Regulae 7, also used convertere to describe a future, more perfect, religious transfor-

mation, and Cassian, Inst. 4.39, described spiritual advancement as the “initium conversionis.”23 See, e.g., Greg.Mag. Reg.past. 3.6, Hom.evang. 38.16.24 See Greg.Mag. Epist. 1.11, 1.43, 6.42, also Vita Bendicti (Dial. 2) for Benedict’s struggles to

correct his disciples.25 See Demacopoulos, Five Models, 108–126; on Cassian, see also Robert Markus, The End

of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge, 1990), 181–211; Conrad Leyser, Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great (Oxford, 2000); and, for Cassian’s infl uence on Gregory, C.


For example, he embraced the spiritual father/spiritual disciple model of lead-ership that fi rst was developed by the monks of the Egyptian desert and, in doing so, he appropriated their concepts of authority and obedience.26 Within the ascetic tradition, an elder was expected to discern the spiritual needs of his disciples and adjust his instruction accordingly.27 What is more, it was believed that spiritual advancement should be gradual and that the instruction of subordinates should remain individualized.28 As we will see, each of these aspects is in play in the letter to Ethelbert.

A second critical aspect of Gregory’s pastoral method that bears upon his letters to Ethelbert and Mellitus is his tactic for allowing the unique circum-stance of a pastoral situation or a particular set of personal characteristics to dictate the pastoral prescription for spiritual advancement.29 In the Pastoral Rule, Gregory submitted,

One and the same exhortation is not suited for everyone because not every-one shares the same quality of character. For example, what often helps some people will cause harm in others, just as herbs that are nutritious to some animals will kill others or the way that gentle hissing will calm a horse but excite a puppy.30

This approach to individualized care was certainly not new, having been advo-cated in different ways by Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine, and Cassian, but in the Pastoral Rule Gregory provided the most extensive investigation into this area of any patristic author.31

Of particular interest to this investigation is Gregory’s opinion about a secular ruler’s responsibility with respect to those under his care. Gregory wrote, “For leaders ought to know that if they ever do anything wrong, they will deserve as many deaths as they engender among their subordinates. It

Leyser, “Expertise and Authority in Gregory the Great: The Social Function of Peritia,” in William Klingshirn, Mark Vessey, eds., Limits of Ancient Christianity (Ann Arbor, 1999), 188–206.

26 See Reg.past. 2.5; and Demacopoulos, Five Models, 127–164; also Iréné Hausherr, Spiri-tual Direction in the Early Christian East, A. Gythiel, tr. (Kalamazoo, 1990); and Philip Rous-seau, Ascetics, Authority and the Church in the Age of Jerome and John Cassian (Oxford, 1978), 19–32, 49–55.

27 Greg.Mag. Reg.past. 2.9.28 As described in book 3 of the Reg.past. 29 E.g., Gregory instructed Augustine to live with his clergy, a practice unlike that in Rome; see

Greg.Mag. Libellus 1; also Bill Friesen, “Answers and Echoes: The Libellus responsionum and the Hagiography of North-Western European Mission,” Early Medieval Europe 14 (2006), 153–172, esp. 160–161. As noted above, Chadwick, “Gregory the Great,” 203, suggested that the difference between Gregory’s letters to Ethelbert and Mellitus could be explained by the distinction of their pastoral situations.

30 Greg.Mag. Reg.past. 3.prol.31 Greg.Naz. Orat. 2.3; Aug. De cat.rud. 16.24; and Cass. Inst. 5.5.


is necessary, therefore, that they guard themselves that much more carefully from sin, because the evil that they commit will kill others also.”32 Gregory’s interpretation here, likely informed by Matthew 18:6, is that the behavior of leaders is imitated by their subordinates. If a leader offers a good example, his followers will likewise do well; if he sets a poor example, however, he is responsible for all those he leads astray. But, the text goes on, it is not enough that a leader set a good example; he must actively work to correct the failings of his subordinates.33

A survey of Gregory’s correspondence demonstrates that he frequently warned secular rulers that their interaction with the church and their pro-motion of the faith among their subjects was directly linked to their own salvation. For example, when he learned that the Byzantine emperor Mau-rice (582–602) had issued a law prohibiting soldiers from becoming monks, Gregory warned the emperor that unless he rescinded the law he would have to account for this loss of souls at the Day of Judgment.34 The pontiff also threatened Romanus, the exarch of Italy, that God would exact ven-geance on him if he did not punish those within his jurisdiction who were openly breaking the laws of the church.35 And after instructing Childebert, the king of Franks, that he must put an end to simony because it was ruin-ous to the success of the church, Gregory added, “And so, most excellent son, I give you this advice because I long for your soul to be saved.”36 On occasion, Gregory advanced the same principle in a more positive fashion. For example, in a letter to the empress Leontia, the wife of the Byzantine usurper Phocas (602–610), Gregory encouraged her that she would fi nd joy in heaven because she and her husband had “relieved the harsh burdens of their subjects.”37

In all of these examples we see that Gregory openly advocated twin goals: (1) he sought some change or commendation in the way that secular rulers dealt with the Christians in their realm, and (2) he maintained that the rul-ers’ personal salvation hung in the balance. Of course, we might interpret Gregory’s intervention in these cases as a veiled attempt to assert his own political authority. But whether Gregory was motivated by personal ambition, pastoral concern, or some combination of the two, it is clear that his letters to Ethelbert and Mellitus adhere to a consistent epistolary and pastoral motif—a

32 Greg.Mag. Reg.past. 3.4.33 Greg.Mag. Reg.past. 3.4.34 Greg.Mag. Epist. 3.61.35 Greg.Mag. Epist. 5.19.36 Greg.Mag. Epist. 5.60; cf. Greg.Mag. Epist. 8.4, for a warning to Childebert’s mother,

Brunhilde.37 Greg.Mag. Epist. 13.40; cf. Epist. 4.7, to Gennadius, exarch of Africa.


king who does not promote (Gregory’s version of) Christianity in his kingdom puts his soul in jeopardy.

Another important pastoral strategy that Gregory employed was con-descensio (or economy), which enabled the spiritual director to relax or strengthen a prescribed reprimand according to individual circumstances. Following the lead of John Cassian, Gregory offered an example of conde-scensio in the Pastoral Rule when he argued that a spiritual director should temporarily permit the sin of pride whenever he fears that his disciple might fall into lust.38 According to Gregory, by allowing a disciple to develop pride in his battle against another sin, the director alleviates the most immediate danger. With time, the director would slowly correct the vice of pride as well. As shall be seen, Gregory applied this technique directly in his correspon-dence with Ethelbert.

Not only do these hallmarks of Gregory’s pastoral approach (that is, the spiritual director, individualized care, and the use of condescensio) provide the foundation of his famous Pastoral Rule; they are also at the core of his prescriptions in Epistle 11.37 and Epistle 11.56. As evidence that Gregory put the strategies of the Pastoral Rule into practice and encouraged his disciples to do the same, we need look no further than his Libellus, a collection of pastoral questions raised by Augustine about the nascent church of Kent and answered by Gregory. The authenticity of the Libellus has been questioned, but the pre-vailing opinion is that it is, for the most part, genuinely Gregorian.39 Perhaps the most compelling argument for authenticity is the pastoral character of the answers. Indeed, the answers are consistent with both Gregory’s pastoral theory (as expressed by the Pastoral Rule) and his practice (as demonstrated elsewhere in his correspondence).

For example, as a clear indication that the situation in Kent required con-descensio, Gregory gave permission to Augustine to consecrate bishops on his own in spite of the canonical requirement for three bishops to do so.40

38 Greg.Mag. Reg.past. 3.38; see Cassian, Coll. 5.12.1.39 Rejected by Heinrich Brechter, Die Quellen zur Angelsachsenmission Gregors des Gros-

sen: eine historiographische Studie (Münster, 1941); but for contra, see Margaret Deanesly, Paul Grosjean, “The Canterbury Edition of the Answers of Pope Gregory I to St. Augustine,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 10 (1959), 1–49. Subsequent discussion often has focused on interpolations, e.g. Paul Meyvaert, “Bede’s Text of the Libellus Responsionum of Gregory the Great to Augustine of Canterbury,” in P. Clemoes, K. Hughes, eds., England Before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock (Cambridge, 1971), 15–33; Rob Meens, “A Background to Augustine’s Mission”; Wood, “Some Historical Re-identifi cations”; Gameson, “Augustine of Canterbury.” For possible dates for the Libellus, see John Martyn, introduction to The Letters of Gregory the Great, 61–66.

40 Greg.Mag. Libellus 6, using Bede’s text of the Libellus; see B. Colgrave, R.A.B. Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford, 1969).


He similarly allowed members of the lower clergy (presumably Anglo-Saxon converts) to remain married, a practice he sought to eradicate elsewhere.41 Moreover, the economy with which Gregory dealt with issues of ritual purity (for example, a woman entering a church after giving birth or receiving the Eucharist during menstruation) shows him to be more pastorally accommo-dating than most of his contemporaries.42 Approaching these topics, he char-acteristically differentiated between what is acceptable and what is good. He commended the woman who out of extreme piety did not receive the Eucha-rist during menstruation, but he did not require other women to do so.43 Like-wise, he left it to a man’s own judgment whether intercourse with his wife was driven by lust (which would require him to abstain from the Eucharist briefl y) or a desire for offspring (which would not debar him).44 As a testimony to Gregory’s pragmatic solutions to the pastoral challenges in Kent and to his eventual reputation as a missionary patron, the Libellus became a critical document for the formation of subsequent generations of English missionaries to the continent.45

The particular circumstances of Christian life in Kent (as well as they could be ascertained from Rome) led Gregory to encourage Augustine and his disciples to apply the principals of condescensio. Given the pope’s practice elsewhere, however, it is safe to conclude that he viewed many of these con-cessions as temporary—he said as much with respect to the consecration of bishops and we might presume the same for married clergy.46 Once the church in Kent matured, Augustine and subsequent bishops would be expected to return their community to standard levels of discipline.47

Epistle 11.37 and Epistle 11.56The letter to Ethelbert is dated to 22 June 601. It was one of eighteen known letters that were carried by Mellitus when he left Rome at the end of June.48 Also included were two letters to Augustine of Canterbury and one to Bertha, Ethelbert’s wife, a Frankish princess who had been a Christian prior to her

41 Greg.Mag. Libellus 1; for Gregory’s attitude toward clerical celibacy in Sicily, see Epist. 1.42, 4.34.

42 Greg.Mag. Libellus 8.43 Greg.Mag. Libellus 8.44 Greg.Mag. Libellus 8.45 Not all missionaries, however, embraced the pastoral accommodations of the Libellus; see

Friesen, “Answers and Echoes,” esp. 164–169.46 Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.39.47 It may be for these reasons that the Libellus was not preserved in Rome: see Chadwick,

“Gregory the Great,” 209–211.48 Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.34–51; four were destined for Kent and the rest for Gaul. Mellitus also

may have carried the Libellus and other letters; see Gameson, “Augustine of Canterbury,” 24.


marriage and on whose account Liudhard, a Frankish bishop, had been living in Kent prior to Augustine’s arrival in 597.49

The letter to Ethelbert makes at least four pastoral moves: (1) it estab-lishes Augustine’s credentials as a capable spiritual leader; (2) it redefi nes the struggles of all kingdoms (such as plague, famine, and war) in a theological context; (3) it encourages Ethelbert to imitate the example of Constantine; and (4) it exploits the king’s pride in order to achieve a greater pastoral objec-tive, namely the king’s assistance in the conversion of his people.50

From Gregory’s perspective, Augustine was a compelling candidate to lead the English church because he not only had the ascetic training and discipline of the monastic life but also had demonstrated his commitment to the church and to the service of God’s people by his willingness to accept the pasto-ral responsibility.51 No doubt these qualifi cations would have meant little to Ethelbert, who was likely concerned solely with whether or not Augustine was able to infl uence God on the king’s behalf. Knowing this, Gregory advised Ethelbert: “Listen to [Augustine] willingly, enact his instructions devotedly, and preserve them carefully in your memory, because if you hear him speak-ing on behalf of God, the same almighty God will more readily listen to him when he prays on your behalf.”52 But Gregory also was quick to note to the king that Augustine’s intercessory authority would be of little value if Ethel-bert did not listen to Augustine’s pastoral instructions or assist his efforts in spreading the Gospel: “If, heaven forbid, you disregard [Augustine’s] words, how will almighty God be able to hear him pray for your sake, if you failed to listen to him for the sake of God?”53

Gregory also warned Ethelbert that the presence of war, famine, and earthquakes were signs of the coming end of the world. Apocalypticism was a key element of Gregory’s theological perspective and is present most especially in his homilies and correspondence.54 By employing it in this letter to Ethel-bert, Gregory was able to threaten the king about the danger of delaying a real

49 For Bertha’s marriage and its implications for Augustine’s mission, see Wood, “Augustine and Gaul.”

50 Bede was unclear about the date of Ethelbert’s conversion in his Ecclesiastical History. Most modern commentators believe that he had converted by 601 but disagree about precisely when; see Margaret Deanesly, Augustine of Canterbury (London, 1964), 50–51; Gameson, “Augustine of Canterbury,” 21; Robert Markus, “The Chronology of the Gregorian Mission to England: Bede’s Narrative and Gregory’s Correspondence,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14 (1963), 16–30.

51 Gregory, Reg.past. 1.5, identifi ed ascetic expertise as the most important criterion for spiri-tual leadership but bemoaned the paucity of ascetics who were willing to embrace episcopal ser-vice; see Demacopoulos, Five Models, 131–134.

52 Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.37.53 Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.37.54 E.g. Hom.evang. 35; see Leyser, Authority and Asceticism, 151–157.


commitment to the Christian faith, saying, “And if you recognize that some of these things are happening in your lands, do not be worried, because these signs of the end of the world are sent ahead for the reason that we ought to be concerned for our souls.”55 But the apocalyptic turn also allowed Gregory to promote the advantages of submitting to Augustine’s instruction, which promised the imminent afterlife and joys of heaven. In other words, Gregory employed the apocalyptic card not only because it was part of his theological vision but also because it offered clear missionary objectives.

The letter to Ethelbert also carefully establishes Constantine as the ulti-mate example of a Christian sovereign because he had “recalled the Roman Republic from the cult of perverse idols to our all-powerful Lord God, Jesus Christ.”56 The pope presented the example of Constantine on the heels of the initial injunction that Ethelbert should do everything in his power to hasten the conversion of his kingdom. The use of a saintly exemplar was a frequent tool in Gregory’s pastoral arsenal and long had been employed by spiritual leaders in the ascetic community.57

Although it should not surprise us that Gregory selected Constantine as the model for Ethelbert’s emulation (he was the most famous of Christian rul-ers, had lived in England, and, like Ethelbert, was a convert from paganism to Christianity), it is worth noting that there is no evidence that Constantine ordered the destruction of pagan shrines, nor did Gregory suggest that he had done so. If Gregory had been determined to identify a Christian emperor with that particular record, there were several prominent examples from which he could have selected. For example, Theodosius I (379–395) issued several laws closing pagan shrines,58 and Theodosius II (402–450) went a step further, ordering all pagan shrines to be destroyed.59 Of course, it is possible that Gregory would not have known this, but, even if he did not, there is little rea-son to think that he would not have attributed the destruction of temples to Constantine had he wished to promote that type of Christian leadership.

55 Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.37.56 “Sic enim Constantinus quondam piissimus imperator Romanam rempublicam a perversis

idolorum cultibus revocans omnipotenti Deo domino nostro Iesu Christo”: Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.37.

57 Gregory employed this technique in his dialogues, homilies, and letters; see Demacopoulos, Five Models, 123–124.

58 CTh 14.10.10–12.59 CTh 16.10.25. By the time of Justinian (527–565), most temples in the eastern empire had

been destroyed and much of the anti-pagan legislation therefore was directed at private pagan wor-ship; see K. W. Harl, “Sacrifi ce and Pagan Belief in Fifth- and Sixth-Century Byzantium,” Past and Present 128 (1990), 7–27; Frank Trombley, “Paganism in the Greek World at the End of Antiquity: The Case of Rural Anatolia and Greece,” Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985), 327–352.


Gregory’s letter to Bertha, Ethelbert’s wife, which was delivered at the same time, made a similar move by exhorting the queen to model herself on the life of Helena, Constantine’s mother.60 Just as Helena was a Christian prior to her son and was thought to have been largely responsible for his support of Christianity, so too Bertha, who had been raised as a Christian, should strengthen Ethelbert’s resolve to advance the cause of Christianity. In some ways, Gregory used the example of Helena to shame Bertha, for the latter had the advantages of Christian parents and education. Therefore, in Gregory’s eyes, the queen should have done more, like Helena, to promote an active faith in the king.61

In subtle contrast, Gregory did not use Constantine to shame Ethelbert but, instead, employed Constantine in order to offer Ethelbert, through the example of a saintly emperor, an opportunity for greatness and enduring fame. Promising that God would ensure the king’s legacy, Gregory wrote:

For [God] himself also makes the name of your glory even more glorious for posterity, as you seek and preserve his honor among your people. For thus it came about that Constantine, once our most pious emperor, recalled the Roman Republic from the perverse idols to our all-powerful Lord God, Jesus Christ, and together with those subject to him, converted (“convertit”) himself to Christ wholeheartedly. Thus, it came to be that he surpassed the fame of the ancient emperors with his praises and excelled his predecessors in both reputation and in good works.62

In short, Gregory promised Ethelbert that if he could imitate Constantine, then he too would be forever remembered as the greatest of kings among his people.63 Gregory’s exploitation of the king’s pride was in keeping with a pastoral strategy outlined in the Pastoral Rule (permit one vice temporarily in the hope that it will help to correct a more dangerous one).64 In this case, the pope exploited the king’s pride and ambition to purge his apparent indiffer-ence to the faith of his subjects.

Evidence that Gregory styled Ethelbert’s indifference as jeopardizing his salvation is found in both the letter to Bertha and the one to the king himself. Writing to Bertha, Gregory used the king’s failure to promote Christianity in his realm as an example of the fact that he was not fully committed to

60 Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.35.61 “Et quidem iamdudum gloriosi fi lii nostri coniugis vestri animos prudentiae vestrae bono,

sicut revera christianae, debuistis infl ectere, ut pro regni et animae suae salute fi dem quam colitis sequeretur”: Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.35.

62 Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.37.63 A promise that starkly contrasts with the eschatological elements of the letter. 64 Greg.Mag. Reg.past. 3.38.


the life in Christ. Gregory encouraged her to complete the conversion of her husband “for the sake of his soul” (“animae suae”).65 Epistle 11.37 issued a similar warning to the king, although here Gregory spoke of the king’s incomplete conversion as an opportunity, rather than a failure, saying, “For the more that you wipe away the sins of others among your subjects, the more secure you will become about your own sins before the frightful examination of almighty God.”66 Despite this more positive rendering, there was little question, according to the letter, that the king’s fate was tied directly to his efforts to promote the faith of his subjects. As seen above, Gregory consis-tently asserted that Christian leaders were to do all that they could to promote Catholic Christianity among their subjects; inactivity stemmed from a lack of faith or a failure to understand the responsibility.

It is from this perspective (understanding the king’s personal responsibil-ity) that Gregory’s oft-cited instructions to Ethelbert concerning the destruc-tion of the pagan shrines should be interpreted. Gregory wrote:

Make haste to extend the Christian faith to the people under your care, mul-tiply the zeal of your rectitude in their conversion, reproach the cult of idols, overturn the buildings of the shrines (“fana”), build up the practices of your subjects in great purity of life by exhorting, by terrifying, by enticing, by reforming, and by demonstrating examples of good works.67

Gregory did not emphasize the destruction of the buildings, but rather pre-sented it as just one in a string of examples that refl ected Ethelbert’s responsi-bility to promote the Christian faith as a baptized monarch. Given the context of this particular passage and having ample evidence of Gregory’s pastoral strategies from other sources, it is possible, despite the specifi city of the exam-ples offered, that this portion of Epistle 11.37 refl ects nothing more than the pope’s general desire that the king promote Christianity among his people. In other words, Gregory might have been more concerned with Ethelbert’s acceptance of responsibility for his position (and the actions that would ulti-mately stem from it) than he was committed to any particular course of action that he lists. Thus, it is possible, perhaps probable, that this part of the letter was designed to promote the king’s personal commitment to the evangelism of his people, whereas the responsibility for enacting Gregory’s specifi c agendas

65 Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.35.66 “Quanto in subiectis suis etiam aliena peccata deterserit, tanto etiam de peccatis propriis ante

omnipotentis dei terribile examen securior fi at”: Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.37.67 “Christianam fi dem in populis tibi subditis extendere festina, zelum rectitudinis tuae in eorum

conversione multiplica, idolorum cultus insequere, fanorum aedifi cia everte, subditorum mores in magna vitae munditia exhortando, terrendo, blandiendo, corrigendo et boni operas exempla mon-strando aedifi ca”: Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.37.


ultimately rested with Augustine, not Ethelbert. Gregory in fact encouraged Augustine to make practical pastoral decisions concerning the direction of the mission—indeed, this was the cornerstone of his pastoral method in the Pastoral Rule.68

But this brings us to another important question: when Gregory presented these specifi c instructions to Ethelbert, did he have the conversion of the unbaptized pagans in mind, or was he primarily concerned with the spiritual condition of the king? The standard interpretation is that Gregory’s instruc-tions to Ethelbert provide a clear example of Gregory’s use of secular and ecclesiastical leaders to coerce the conversion of non-Christian populations.69 In fact, many studies use this letter as a key source for defending that thesis and extrapolating from it a missionary strategy that applied throughout Late Antiquity.70 Given what we know of Gregory’s pastoral strategies, however, it seems more plausible that these instructions, especially the order to destroy the buildings of the shrines (although interestingly, not the shrines themselves), were motivated not as a specifi c strategy to enact the conversion of the pagans of Kent but as a directive intended specifi cally for the spiritual advancement of the king, for the destruction of pagan buildings offered the most dramatic example of how a king’s action could benefi t the spread of Christianity among his subjects. But this example was bracketed within a litany of other generic actions that Ethelbert needed to take to demonstrate his commitment to his new faith. In other words, these instructions exemplifi ed the pious behav-ior of a Christian monarch; they did not refl ect a specifi c Gregorian plan for the eradication of paganism in Kent. Indeed, we know from elsewhere in Gregory’s correspondence (both prior and subsequent) that he prohibited the destruction of non-Christian shrines and denounced forced baptisms.71

Less than a month after Mellitus had left Rome with the letter to Ethel-bert, Gregory sent a brief letter, Epistle 11.56, by messenger to intercept Mel-litus en route to England. Near the beginning, the letter reads:

And when Almighty God brings you to our most reverend brother and bishop Augustine, tell him that for a long while (“diu”) I have been considering the case of the Angles. It is clear that the shrines of idols (“fana idolorum”) in

68 Gregory no doubt provided Augustine with instructions before he left in 595 and empowered him to develop tactical elements of the mission once he arrived on the scene; he also assisted Augus-tine’s efforts when he answered the missionary’s questions with the Libellus, which encouraged Augustine to follow his pastoral instincts, and then added to them with Epist. 11.56.

69 See Markus, “Papal Missionary Strategy.”70 See Markus, “Papal Missionary Strategy”; Stancliffe, “Kings and Conversion”; Chélini, “Mis-

sion de saint Augustin de Cantorbéry.”71 In particular, Gregory condemned the desecration of Jewish temples and the forced baptism

of Jews: see Epist. 1.34, 1.45, 9.196, 13.13.


that land should not be destroyed, but rather that the idols that are in them should be. Let holy water be prepared and sprinkled in these shrines, and altars constructed, and relics deposited, because, as long as these shrines are well built, it is necessary that they should be transformed from the cult of demons to the service of the true God.72

Gregory continued with a clear explanation for this policy: “For when the people themselves see that these shrines were not destroyed, they will lay aside the error of their heart, and knowing and adoring the true God, they will fl ock with more familiarity to the places to which they are accustomed.”73 Later in the same letter, Gregory instructed Augustine to appropriate and Christianize the pagan sacrifi ce of animals.74 In short, the pontiff endorsed a strategy of religious syncretism because he believed it would, in the end, achieve the pastoral goal of leading souls to Christ.75 This strategy is an obvi-ous example of Gregory’s confi dence in the pastoral application of condescen-sio, a temporary loosening of canonical practice for the purpose of a greater pastoral good. The transformation of shrines also incorporated the gradual and individual aspects of Gregory’s pastoral program. It was gradual in the sense that it would not, as Gregory noted, “cut away everything at once from hardened hearts”; and it was individual in that it was the exact prescription that was needed for the initial acceptance of the faith in Kent.76

72 “Cum vero Deus omnipotens vos ad reverentissimum virum fratrem nostrum Augustinum episcopum perduxerit, dicite ei quid diu mecum de causa Anglorum cogitans tractavi, videlicet quid fana idolorum destrui in eadem gente, minime debeant, sed ipso, quae in eis sunt, idola destru-antur. aqua benedicta fi at, in eisdem fanis aspargatur, altaria construantur, reliquiae ponantur, quid, si fana eadem bene constructa sunt, necesse est ut a cultu daemonum in obsequio veri dei debeant commutari”: Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.56.

73 “Dum gens ipsa eadem fana sua non videt destrui de corde errorem deponat et deum verum cognoscens ac adorans ad loca quae consuevit familiarius concurrat”: Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.56.

74 Elsewhere Gregory demonstrated a willingness to employ images (e.g., Greg.Mag. Epist. 9.209), which offers a syncretistic precedent for the transformation of the shrines in Kent. See Chélini, “Mission de saint Augustin de Cantorbéry.”

75 Carole Cusack, Conversion among the Germanic Peoples (New York, 1998), 124–127, sug-gests that subsequent missionaries, such as those from England to Germany in the eighth cen-tury, emphasized the power of argument and political alliance rather than religious syncretism; and James Russell, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity (Oxford, 1994), 185–189, argues that Gregory’s policy of accommodation contributed to the vitality of pre-Christian Ger-manic religious traditions.

76 Greg.Mag. Epist. 11.56. In the east, Christians initially usually destroyed pagan temples before later constructing new churches or monasteries on the same sites; see R. P. C. Hanson, “The Transformation of Pagan Temples into Churches in the Early Christian Centuries,” Journal of Semitic Studies 23 (1978), 257–267. Prior to Gregory, the latter practice seems to have been rare in the west, although the Liber Pontifi calis does record that pope Felix VI (526–530) transformed the Templum Sacrae Urbis in Rome into a church dedicated to Sts. Cosmos and Damian” see L. Duchesne, ed., Liber Pontifi calis (Paris, 1886–1892), 1.56.279.


Contradictory or ComplementaryAs noted above, Epistle 11.56 typically is understood to be a direct counter-mand to Epistle 11.37.77 There is no denying that Gregory wrote the letter to Mellitus as a follow-up to the initial letter to Ethelbert, perhaps prompted by a concern in Rome that the epistle to the king might actually be enacted.78 But a number of factors complicate that conclusion. For example, Epistle 11.37 instructs Ethelbert to “overturn the buildings of the shrines” (“fanorum aedi-fi cia everte”), which seems to exempt the shrines themselves from destruc-tion. And Epistle 11.56 likewise commands “that the shrines of idols should not be destroyed” (“quia fana idolorum destrui . . . minime debeant”), just the idols within them. Thus, in neither letter are the fana, the shrines, to be destroyed, just their buildings (“aedifi cia”) and their idols (“idola”), which could be taken to mean that Gregory thought that the fana were acceptable as long as they were purged of buildings and/or idols. If that is the case, or if Gregory changed his understanding of what the fana of Kent were, then the second letter could be viewed as a clarifi cation, rather than a countermand, of what should be done with the fana—they were to be purged of idols and consecrated with altars and relics.79

Second, if Gregory actually had expected Ethelbert to destroy the pagan shrines completely and had wanted the English mission to pursue a policy of shrine destruction, it is curious that he did not mention this in either of the two letters addressed to Augustine himself at the same time.80 Similarly, it is worth noting that Epistle 11.35 to Bertha, which emphasizes her husband’s responsibility for the conversion of his people, also makes no reference to the destruction of pagan shrines. Finally, as noted, there is evidence elsewhere in Gregory’s correspondence to suggest that he objected to the destruction of non-Christian shrines as a means for leading nonbelievers to Christianity.

77 E.g., Markus, “Papal Missionary Strategy,” 34.78 Gregory’s statement that he had been considering the case “for a long time” (“diu mecum . . .

cogitans tractavi”) must mean no longer than some length of time after Mellitus’ departure.79 Epist. 11.37 suggests that Gregory envisioned fana as larger complexes that contained build-

ings that could be “overturned,” but in Epist. 11.56 Gregory seems to think that fana could them-selves be solidly constructed structures that could be converted to Christian use (“si fana eadem bene constructa sunt, necessee est ut . . . in obsequio veri dei debeant commutari”). If Gregory’s understanding of how the fana of Kent were constructed changed over time, this too might have infl uenced how he thought they should be treated.

80 Epist. 11.36, a lengthy exhortation designed to ensure that the bishop’s success in Kent (includ-ing reports of many miracles) would not lead to pride, is a classic example of Gregory’s overtly ascetic approach to spiritual direction. Epist. 11.39 offers a blueprint for the future development of episcopal administration in England, with twelve episcopal sees divided equally among two met-ropolitanates, in London and in York. Neither letter mentions Ethelbert or a plan to destroy pagan shrines, nor is there any reason to believe that the latter existed in any lost correspondence.


It would seem, therefore, that the only way to reconcile the seemingly inconsistent instructions of Epistle 11.37 and 11.56 is to recognize that Greg-ory’s principal objective in the fi rst letter was to cultivate Ethelbert’s sense of the responsibility of Christian leadership. From Gregory’s perspective, pious kings were to do everything they could to promote the faith of their subjects. Throughout his correspondence, as in his letters to Frankish rulers, Gregory called upon secular rulers to use their positions not only to promote the bap-tisms of non-Christians but also to instill in their already-Christian subjects a deeper commitment to the faith.81 The point of Epistle 11.37 is that Gregory wanted Ethelbert to appreciate the type of behavior that characterized good Christian leadership, even if the pope did not, in the end, expect or even want Ethelbert to destroy the pagan shrines in his kingdom. This would explain why this injunction to overturn pagan buildings is unique in Gregory’s corpus and why there is no mention of the issue in Epistle 11.35, 11.36, or 11.39. Within a few days of Mellitus’ departure from Rome, however, Gregory felt compelled to clarify his thoughts about what should be done with the pagan shrines in Kent. From his perspective, the initial letter to Ethelbert and sending a differ-ent set of instructions to Augustine through Mellitus were essentially comple-mentary actions because both refl ected a consistent pastoral objective—the more complete “conversion” of a king and his people.

The Roman mission to Kent has attracted so much scholarly attention that it might improperly lead to the presumption that Gregory consumed him-self with the dilemma of the pagan shrines more than he really did.82 What did consume Gregory, throughout his public career, was the formulation of a comprehensive pastoral strategy that he could activate and then adjust as the situation dictated. The decisions that he himself made with respect to the mis-sion to Kent as well as those that he encouraged the missionaries to make not only refl ected his pastoral concerns, but also were in keeping with the precise, overtly ascetic, model of spiritual direction that he developed in the Pastoral Rule and continued to refi ne throughout his pontifi cate. He understood con-version to be a gradual, even lifelong, process that would require individual-ized prescriptions and an occasional bending of the rules. With this in mind, we can see that his directives to Ethelbert and Mellitus in the summer of 601 were not so different after all.

Fordham University

81 Gregory seems to have viewed the leaders and people in Gaul as only marginally more Chris-tian than the recent converts of Kent; see Greg.Mag. Epist. 8.4, 9.214, 9.219, 11.46, 11.49.

82 See Wallace-Hadrill, “Rome and the Early English Church.”

Gregory the Great and the Pagan Shrines of Kent

Documents

Transcript of Gregory the Great and the Pagan Shrines of Kent