In this post, I aim to discuss what I believe is one of the key findings of my dissertation. The idea that Gregory the Great thought there multiple senses of scriptural interpretation is not novel, but the idea this multiplicity affected his experience of the world is. This post shall discuss this finding.

I want to start by using some analogies. I did this in one of my chapters. Imagine a crime scene with multiple witnesses and a detective who is investigating it. Note how each person would take something different from their observations. A neutral observer is shocked by the events that have happened. Meanwhile, a family member is overwhelmed with emotion. Finally, a detective looks at the cold hard facts. In some instances, a person may take multiple interpretations of the events, for example, the family member is also shocked while also being emotional. Nevertheless, the point is clear- multiple interpretations of the same event are possible.

This may not exactly be a shocking revelation- but I want to argue that one person can simultaneously experience things on multiple levels. One person can interpret one thing in multiple senses. Imagine a person with symptoms of psychosis. They may interpret an event in light of their hallucinations , but then later reflect and identify what ‘really’ happened. Of course, some could argue, this analogy does not reflect ordinary experience- but I would raise, especially in a Late Antique setting, psychotic symptoms are far from unusual. For example, Bachrach and Kroll have have compared 134 medieval visions with the experiences of 23 hospitalised patients in Minnesota, they identified that in the former case most of the individuals were not considered psychotic. Therefore, I think my point, about multiple interpretations by an individual stands to an extent.

One question that has been pivotal in my study, is making the leap from text (scripture) to world (experience). I have explained this through how text and world both contain things that signify. However, I believe my analogies reinforce this connection. If multiple interpretations are possible in both world and text, then we can say that there is stronger evidence for comparing them.

Now that I have established this, I now want to focus on what Gregory says about the senses of interpretation. He does not provide an exposition of it in his Homilies on Ezekiel, however if one looks at the Commentary on Job you find out that his interpretative strategy consists of three senses; the historical, allegorical and moral. However, this picture can be complicated further by suggesting that there can be multiple instances of one sense at the same time. When discussing the four creatures that appear at the beginning of the Book of Ezekiel, Gregory suggests they are an allegory for the Four Evangelists, Christ and preaching in the four corners of the world. However, if this appears complex, then one needs to also consider that words can also signify multiple meanings at the same time. ‘Fire’, according to Gregory, signifies the Holy Spirit, despitefulness of mind and God because he cleanses the soul. So what we are faced with is an intricate web of signification, however because of the connection I established earlier between world and text we must also consider how this all affects experience.

This brings me to the final chapter (bar the conclusion) of my dissertation, which aims to apply my meta-theory, including the plurivocal aspect, to Gregory the Great’s Dialogues, a hagiographical collection. The purpose of this is to test my theory and to see how it alters our view of Gregory’s and potentially Late Antique experience in general. It is worth pointing out here, that Ricoeur, the later thinker I am examining for my dissertation, also believes in the plurivocality of scripture, therefore in my meta-theory multiple interpretations hold a prominent place. However, we still have to consider how to make the jump from the Homilies to the Dialogues. How do we know that the meta-theory developed through Gregory and Ricouer is applicable to the Dialogues‘ more everyday accounts as well as scripture? The answer is in Joan Petersen’s 1984 book The Dialogues of St Gregory the Great in their Late Antique Cultural Background. Part of this book argues that Gregory’s Biblical typology can be applied to the Dialogues as well. The connection between the Homilies and the Dialogues is proved by the latter’s constant allusions to Biblical figures. St Benedict is compared to Noah. Honoratus, like John the Baptist and Moses, has the Holy Spirit descend on him. These two instances only form part of the constant reference to the Bible, suggesting Gregory’s interpretative strategies can be applied to the everyday accounts of the Dialogues as well.

However, what actually happens when we apply the scriptural strategies to experience? If one is doing this through the Dialogues, one needs to read between the lines, as while they do contain lots of Biblical allusions, Gregory does not provide exposition on the multiple meanings that events, things, or objects may have in the Dialogues. To illustrate how an account of experience might affected by this plurivocality, I will use the example of Honoratus. This Holy Man abstained from meat and his parents laughed at him. However, when a servant went to collect a bucket of water for him, a fish slipped in that provided enough food for an entire day. The historical sense of interpretation would suggest that a fish genuinely jumped into the bucket, which, although unlikely, is not impossible. The allegorical sense would suggest that Honoratus received spiritual nourishment from God due to his abstinence. The moral sense would be that the man was cleared of ‘dishonour and ridicule’ by the discovery of the fish. As you can see, it is possible to theorise multiple meanings from one account, experience signified all three of these meanings simultaneously.

I hope this post has given some insight into plurivocality and how it relates to an aspect of my meta-theory. The idea that multiple interpretations are possible by an individual is one of the key components of my dissertation and in this post I have discussed some of my ideas pertaining to it.

Bibliography:

Primary Sources

Gregory the Great, Commentary on Job. Accessed 29/09/2021 at http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Epistle.html

Gregory the Great, Dialogues translated by Edmund G. Gardener in The Dialogues of St Gregory the Great. Merchantville: Evolution Publishing and Manufacturing, 2010.

Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel translated by Theodosia Tomkinson in Homilies on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Perrysville: Centre for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2010.

Secondary Sources

Bachrach, Bernard and Jerome Kroll, “Medieval Visions and Contemporary Hallucinations,” Psychological Medicine 12 (1982): 709-721

Joan Petersen, The Dialogues of St Gregory the Great in their Late Antique Cultural Background. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1984.