I have now submitted my MA Dissertation. In this final journal entry, I want to discuss some of my other findings (apart from the plurivocality of experience) and raise potential areas of research.

A finding that excites me a lot and raises lots of interesting questions is how time acted for Gregory. I would suggest it was completely unlike a linear conception of time. For Gregory, the experiential temporal boundaries were collapsible. In other words, the past, present and future all intersected with each other. In Gregory’s Homilies on Ezekiel we find out that prophecy makes this possible. Gregory writes ‘sometimes the past is proven through future events, sometimes the future from the past.’. He also states ‘sometimes the Prophet is touched from the past and present and also the future.’ Although a nonlinear conception of time is not alien to modern thinking, for example consider how Derrida comments on the deferred nature of consciousness, we do not often use it when thinking about how we understand the past. However, how would this alter our practice of history and how does it contribute to my meta-theory that aims to understand Gregory the Great’s experience?

Mainly, we would be required to see references to scripture as more than just a literary exercise. For Gregory, the past, present and future all blended with each other when it comes to experience. Thus, in the story of Nonnosus, in Gregory’s Dialogues, we find that there is a miracle that is similar to 2 Kings 4:1-7. In both instances, we have a miraculous filling of a jar. Meanwhile, Libertinus’ resurrection of a child through using Honoratus’ sandal is compared to the Elisha using Elijah’s mantle to clear a path through water. Different events indicate a period of time different from their own. Past, present and future are blended. I see my argument, in this instance, as a pointer to a possible direction of future research, perhaps we need to think about how we approach time when studying Late Antique history?

The other main finding of my dissertation centred around the spiritual/carnal divide. The spiritual refers to matters of the interior, whereas carnal indicates the bodily. There is plenty of discussion of this issue in the literature on Gregory. For example, Markus and Moorhead focus on the interiority of experience, in other words that Gregory cared more about the inwardness of experience rather than the outer. Meanwhile, Demacopoulos and Evans take an intermediary approach, suggesting that the spiritual and carnal seep into each other on occasion. Straw, who I agree with, sees the spritual and carnal as points on a continuum, in other words they interact with each other on plenty of occasions. Her proposition is radical and forces to rethink how understand Gregory’s world. The divine and mundane intersect on a continuing basis.

My evidence for this in the Homilies on Ezekiel came in two forms. Firstly, one needs to look at the importance Gregory attaches to the flesh. For example, he states that are minds are to be cut off from carnal pleasures, ‘but not from the necessary care of the flesh.’ He also describes how the body is given life from God. The second form of evidence comes through the presence of figurative language. Gregory writes the the body has eyes and that Israel has a hard forehead. The body is used to discuss spiritual truths, so instead of seeing them as opposites, we must instead see them as poles on a continuum.

Based on my discussion of spirituality and carnality, I came up with three propositions:

1. We must consider other radical ontologies that were part of Gregory’s experience.
2. Metaphysically speaking, the landscape of the world is imbued with spirituality.
3. The inward/outward division needs to be abandoned when discussing Gregory- he was neither ‘in’ or ‘out’ of it.

These, of course, are radical propositions. While I do not want to go into detail in this post, I do want to suggest ways that my ideas might be applied practically. Firstly, the idea that there are other ontologies refers to the fact that there were unique ways of being in the Dialogues. In particular, possession by a spirit would change how think about the composition of a person, in them the spiritual and carnal would touch even closer. Some Lombards, for example, were possessed by a spirit when they entered the Church of St Lawrence and a nun was also possessed for eating a lettuce without the customary blessing. Instead, of viewing such instances as ‘culture’ or as psychotic, we should take these other forms of being seriously. The spiritual and carnal were not separate. I admit, I would like to return to this topic at some point, especially whether people with such experiences are ontologically different from those who do not have them (including in modernity, as well as Late Antiquity).

The idea that the landscape is imbued with spirituality means we have to consider the metaphysical ‘otherness’ of Gregory’s world. For example, consider how ‘water’ occupies a position in two stories in the Dialogues. In Honoratus’ story, water prevents two Goths from crossing a river after stealing a horse. Meanwhile, in Libertinus’ instance, water provides the necessary conditions for a fish to miraculously slip in a bucket, in an area where virtually no fish are found. Water, one of the constituents of the world, is directed spiritually.

Finally, the inward/outward division should be abandoned. In other words, beings are not separate from the world, but are part of it. The prime example, for Gregory, is Christ who inhabited the world through a body. Humans are not at a distance from the world, but are part of it.

I have briefly described some of my findings and ideas, hopefully this has provided some insight into my dissertation, even if this post cannot be comprehensive. I will now end this dissertation journal entry by raising two conclusions. I begin by suggesting it may be possible to go ”beyond Gregory’ with the hermeneutic phenomenological aims of my dissertation. Firstly, it might be possible to establish a experiential or phenomenological community, which Gregory and others were part of. In many of Gregory’s letters we find scriptural references, suggesting his ideas might have had influence beyond his own personal experience. Letter VII: 7 quotes 1 Corinthians, Psalms and 2 Kings among many other Biblical books. Meanwhile, Letter III:53 contains references to Wisdom and Matthew. The ideas found in Gregory’s exegesis, and their matching points in Ricoeur, may have influenced the experience of others beyond an individual level. It may even be possible to expand the temporal boundaries of my ‘meta-theory’. In 914, a monk called Gomez, composed a manuscripts of Gregory’s Commentary on Job and in 1275 a manuscript of Gregory’s Homilies on Ezekiel was in circulation. Of course, such a proposal needs further research, but perhaps reception studies would be a good framework for exploring this topic.

Finally, I want to end with reference to some of my ideas as outlined in my first MA dissertation journal. In this, I proposed a new model of history based on comparing modern and Late Antique insights. I even called myself an empiricist (though not in the sense of looking for ‘facts’). In other words, I wanted to question whether Gregory and Ricoeur’s thinking were compatible with each other. What I would say is that my dissertation suggests they partially are comparable, especially on plurivocality. Based on this, future research could take the direction of pursuing the possiblity of creating meta-theories, such as the one in my dissertation. Can we apply theory within an empirical framework? Such a discussion is not only potentially fruitful, but necessary for our understanding of Late Antiquity.

I hope you have enjoyed reading my dissertation journal entries. I have thoroughly enjoyed my project and believe it not only shines light on Gregory the Great’s experience, but opens up potential future areas of research. Nevertheless, my project still questions different aspects of Gregory’s experience from the unique vantage point of hermeneutic phenomenology.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Anonymous, Gregory the Great’s Homilies on Ezekiel. Accessed 05/10/2021 at https://digital.tcl.sc.edu/digital/collection/pfp/id/3219

Gregory the Great, Dialogues in St Gregory the Great: Dialogues translated by Odo J. Zimmerman. New York: Fathers of the Church Inc, 1959.

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

Gregory the Great. Letters translated by James Barmby. Accessed 10/10/2021 at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3602.htm.

Gomez, Gregory the Great’s Commentary on Job. Accessed 05/10/2021 at https://www.digitalcollections.manchester.ac.uk/view/MS-LATIN-00083/1

Secondary Sources

Demacopoulos, George E. Gregory the Great: Ascetic, Pastor and First Man of Rome. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2015.

Evans, Gillian R. The Thought of Gregory the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986)

Markus, Robert A. Gregory the Great and His World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Markus, Robert A. Signs and Meanings: World and Text in Ancient Christianity. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,1996.

Moorhead, John. Gregory the Great. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005.

Straw, Carole E. Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.