Talk:Gregorian mission

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gregorian mission/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The article generally satisfies GA criteria, but I have a few comments:

1. In the lead the sentence When Edwin died in 633, however, his widow and Justus were forced to flee to Kent. mentions Justus, but does not explain who he was.

   Fixed. Should have been Paulinus, not Justus. For some reason, I get those two confused all the time. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

2. In the first section This native British Church developed in isolation from Rome under the influence of missionaries from Ireland. You mean that British church (before Roman legions left) was developed under the influence of Irish missionaries? Or that it developed under their influence after departure of Romans?\

   After the legions left is correct. Clarified in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

3. In the 'Arrival and first efforts' section This theory contradicts Bede's version of events, however. What was Bede's version of events? The article does not mention it.

   Clarified that the whole paragraph before dervives from Bede. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

4. in 'Relations with the British Christians' the meaning of the following sentence is unclear for me This would have been a two-edged sword, as not only would the British have been unwilling to preach to the invaders of their country, but the invaders themselves saw the natives as second-class citizens so would have been unwilling to listen to any conversion efforts. Please, clarify.

   Changed to "This problem had two aspect, the first being that the British have been unwilling to preach to the invaders of their country, and the second that the invaders themselves saw the natives as second-class citizens so would have been unwilling to listen to any conversion efforts." which hopefully explains it a bit better. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Another issue was political, as the missionaries would have been seen not only as agents of the Roman church, but as agents of the invaders, who were attempting to expand into the western part of Britain at the time of the meeting at Augustine's Oak. This is indistinguishable from the first reason, in my opinion.

   I got lost in my own metaphors. I meant the Roman church as a third political force. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

6. In 'Spread of bishoprics' I read About the time that Edwin died, a member of the East Anglian royal family. It is better to say "In 633, when Edwin died, ...", because the year of his death is mentioned further in the text.

   Changed to include date of death. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

7. In 'Aspects of the mission' the sentence The historian Henry Mayr-Harting argues that in addition, most of the Gregorian missionaries were concerned with appearing with the Roman virtue of gravitas, and this would have limited the colourful stories available about them. needs clarification.

   expanded a bit on what gravitas was Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

8. The second paragraph in 'Aspects of the mission' duplicates the last paragraph in 'Relations with the British Christians'. These paragraphs should probably be merged.

   Cut the duplicated information from the second occurance. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

9. In 'Legacy' the first sentence reads The last of Gregory's missionaries died in 653, when Archbishop Honorius died on 30 September. I suggest "The last of Gregory's missionaries, Archbishop Honorius, died on 30 September 653."

   done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

10. The missionaries developed the idea that an archbishop needed a pallium in order to exercise their archiepiscopal authority derives from the Gregorian mission If "derives" is the predicate, it needs a subject, I guess.

    Changed to "The idea that an archbishop needed a pallium in order to exercise their archiepiscopal authority derives from the Gregorian mission... " which hopefully is less convoluted. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

11. The article still contains weasel words like "also", "in addition", which in many cases are unnecessary.

    I wasn't aware that "also" or "in addition" were weasel words. They may be unneeded, but adding of additonal information usually requires some sort of connection in order to make it clear. Suggestions of other spots to cut them would be welcomed, I have a great tendancy towards wordiness. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

    I removed some of words myself, so it is not a problem now. Ruslik (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I will read the article the second time tomorrow and provide more comments. Ruslik (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I have two last comments/suggestions:

1. In the note 1 there is a sentence However, as Gregory in his letter of 601 to the king and queen strongly implies that the queen was unable to effect the conversion of her husband, the problem of the dating is likely a chronological error on Bede's part, which I do not understand. What is the connection between his wife's inability to effect the conversion and Bede's chronology. Please, clarify.

   Explained a bit more. Basically, if Bede's dates are right, Aethelbert was convereted by someone other than the mission, but both Bede and Gregory state that the mission converted Aethelbert so Bede's dates must be off. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

2. I think the article might benefit from additional images. For instance, this one of St. Augustine and this one of Gregory look good to me.

   I've added two images, but not those. The Augustine one has no source for where its from, so when this article goes to FAC, I'd just have to remove it. The Gregory one, I prefer to try to get as close as possible in time to the subject of the article. Gregory's portrait there is from the 17th century, while the one I put in is from the 10th/11th, much closer in time and much closer in feel. I also put in a manuscript image of St Boniface in the legacy section. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, the article currently meets all GA criteria, and I will promote it. Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

FA review

Is there someone who can tell what miss in this article to reach FA stat? --Vojvodaeist 09:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

British or American spelling? If the former, there's 18 words spelt with a zee that need to be changed. Ning-ning (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not native speaker so I cannot help about it. Can you make these corrections?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Left the book titles alone though. Ning-ning (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting question

• From Spread of bishoprics and church affairs: "The Kentish church sent Justus and Peter, the abbot of Sts Peter and Paul Abbey in Canterbury to the Council of Paris in 614...". I can't quite work this out. Are two abbeys being talked about here? St Peter Abbey and St Paul Abbey? If so, did they share abbots? It's the "the abbot of" bit I can't quite reconcile.

• From Art and architecture: "Traditionally, this work has been associated with the Gregorian mission,[122] and it a sixth century work from Italy." Not sure what that means ...

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's one abbey, and it was dedicated to both Peter and Paul. It later became St Augustine's Abbey. Phrasing that is going to be a bear though. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw that in the last section. I don't understand tha "abbot" bit now though. Is "Justus and Peter" the name of one man? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ghits reveal "the Abbey of St Peter and St Paul", "Saint Peter and Saint Paul Abbey" and "SS Peter and Paul Abbey" (P&O). Ning-ning (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On the second point, I believe it should be "and it IS a sixth century work from Italy..." I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Celtic Christianity

I have tried to cite Yorke's The Conversion of Britain: Religion, Politics and Society in Britain c. 600–800 at the article Celtic Christianity [1], based on the material regarding Augustine's prophecy at this article (I also cited John Edward Lloyd, who has much the same interpretation). Can someone double check me and make sure I used it correctly?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

More info needed

Gregory intended Augustine to be the metropolitan archbishop of the southern part of the British Isles, and gave him authority over the British clergy but in a series of meetings with Augustine the local bishops refused to acknowledge this.

This sentence in the introduction seems to indicate that there were already churches well enough established to have "local bishops".

Hey, up to this point, the reader would be led to think that there was no church in England and that this was the first real mission. So somewhere, prior to this sentence, there needs to be a statement that the Christian church was already established.

Amandajm (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Angle, Saxon or Jute ?

So Augustine went to Canterbury, which according to the diagram was neither Angle nor Saxon, but Jute. And if you look up Aetherberht, it doesn't say what he was.Eregli bob (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, originally the article read "Germanic tribes" ... but some folks have kept messing with things all day... I've given up and will try to sort everything out after it's off the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mere coincidence?

The third paragraph of the background section starts:

The Anglo-Saxon invasions coincided with the disappearance of most remnants of Roman civilisation in the areas held by the Anglo-Saxons, including the economic and religious structures.[15] Whether this was a result of the Angles themselves, as the early medieval writer Gildas argued,[16] or mere coincidence is unclear.

In the second sentence, the attribution to Gildas is referenced to Yorke, but I read her as saying that Gildas blamed the decline of civilisation in British controlled areas on the sins of the Britons. In the Anglo-Saxon areas, the disappearance of Roman civilisation was presumably inevitable, and it seems odd to say that it might be "mere coincidence". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Location of "Augustine's Oak"

The text currently reads;

... Augustine arranged a meeting with some of the native clergy some time between 602 and 604.<ref name=Coming71/> The meeting took place at a tree later given the name "Augustine's Oak", which by the time of Bede was on the border of the Kingdom of Kent,<ref name=Conversion118/> probably around the present-day boundary between Somerset and Gloucestershire.<ref name=Church29>Blair ''Church in Anglo-Saxon Society'' p. 29</ref>"

When did Kent extend to the border of Somerset and Gloucestershire? I would be inclined to remove the mention of "the border of the Kingdom of Kent" but it appears to be cited. Anyone have a copy of Yorke's Conversion to confirm what is meant? Nedrutland (talk)

Bede states "id est robur Augustini, in confinio Huicciorum et Occidentalium Saxonum appellatur" so I would prefer "on the border of the Hwicce and West Saxons." Nedrutland (talk)

I've just removed the phrase about where it was in Bede's day - it's not really relevant to know. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Importance to English script

Nothing in the current article but how influential was the mission on English orthography?

Wikipedia's articles on runes generally credit the Hiberno-Scottish Missions with having supplanted the Germanic scripts. Insular script says that it developed from a melding of the Irish styles with Augustine's separate uncial system. Was there an official policy on scripts? and was it generally influential on the English prior to the arrival of the Irish and Scots? — LlywelynII 13:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I've ever seen on the Gregorian mission says anything about it's influence on orthography - but that doesn't mean there isn't something somewhere... I see the claim in insular script is unsourced. I'll dig in some databases a bit and see if I can see anything. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like E. A. Lowe's English Unical (Oxford 1960) is referred to often - here on page 3 McKittrick says "Quite apart from 'English uncial' whichhas been fully documented" and then footnotes Lowe's work complete. I'll see if I can get it through ILL. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As I remember from my reading on St Cuthbert Gospel there was an influence - it would have been rather astonishing if there had not been, no? - but I don't know I have much to hand on it. There's a little at: Brown, Michelle P., Manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon Age, 2007, British Library, ISBN 9780712306805, p. 13., which supports the claim in Insular script. I don't quite know what is meant by "prior to the arrival of the Irish and Scots" - really they were there first. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

At Cuthbert I said: "The script is the "capitular" form of uncial, with just a few emphasized letters at the start of sections in "text" uncial.[49] Close analysis of the changing style of details of the forms of letters allows the manuscript to be placed with some confidence within a chronological sequence of the few other manuscripts thought to have been produced at Wearmouth-Jarrow. The Northumbrian scribes "imitate very closely the best Italian manuscripts of about the sixth century",[50]" - refs to Brown (1969); Brown, T. J. (Julian), et al., The Stonyhurst Gospel of Saint John, 1969, Oxford University Press, printed for the Roxburghe Club (reproduces all pages), pp. 6-7, 72. I think the presumption is that they were familiar with MS brought from Italy by Augustine, Benedict Biscop, Adrian of Canterbury, Wilfrid, and others, and perhaps by seeing stuff on visits to Bobbio etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

According to Susan Irvine in the Oxford History of English, the Gregorian Mission was the second watershed in the development of Old English (after the invasion), as it led to the replacement of runes by the Latin alphabet. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Got Lowe's English Unical today. There is a bunch of technical bits but he comes down on the side of the Gregorian mission (with later input from books brought back by Benedict Biscop, Wilfrid, Theodore, and Hadrian) marking the introduction of unical into Britain and that forming the basis for the development of insular script. The specific citation would be to pages 6-8. I think maybe "The books that were brought by Augustine's missionaries marked the beginning of the development of insular script in Britain. The imported books were written in unical and they, along with books brought back by later visitors to the continent such as Wilfrid, Benedict Biscop, and others, were the examples which Anglo-Saxons scribes imitated and improved in the formation of a distinctive insular writing style." (sourced to Lowe - pp. 6-8). Tack it on at the end of the first paragraph of "Art, architecture and music"? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Merovingian support

Hello,

My translation of this article into French (fr:Mission grégorienne) is currently undergoing a peer review to become a Bon article (fr:Discussion:Mission grégorienne/Bon article). However, one of the reviewers pointed out what appears to be an inconsistency:

• In the section #Preparations (which presumably covers events taking place before the beginning of the missionaries' journey), it is said that the pope wrote to the Merovingian kings Theuderic II and Theudebert II.
• in the section #Composition and arrival, it is said that the missionaries may have stopped their journey because of the death of King Childebert II, and that the news of his death may have been brought to Rome by Augustine.

The problem is that Theuderic and Theudebert only became kings after the death of Childebert, which means that Gregory couldn't have written to them as kings before the beginning of the mission. I would greatly appreciate if someone who has access to Higham's and Brooks' books (the references used for these passages) could check them to clarify this discrepancy. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Brooks doesn't mention Childebert on the cited pages; he only says that the "party" had received hospitality in Provence but halted there, "when their fears about the whole venture led Augustine to return to Rome." Gregory then wrote to the Roman monks on 23 July 596 instructing them to resume. "On the same occasion he also provided Augustine with letters of introduction to the Frankish kings, Theuderic and Theudebert …" – quotations are all from p. 4. I don't have access to Higham's book. HTH. Nortonius (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so the thing here is ... Augustine left Rome one time and got as far as somewhere in Gaul. In the summer of 596, he turned back to Rome, and Higham speculates that this was because of the political conditions around Childebert's death. Childebert died in June 596, so the letters of July 596 are after Childebert's death and it appears that Augustine carried them with him when he returned to Gaul on his second trip there (after returning to Rome in the summer 596). We could lessen the confusion by changing "preparations" section to not name the kings - just say "The pope wrote to some of the Merovingian rulers, seeking aid for the mission." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! That's more or less what I imagined the solution to be, but I didn't want to contradict Higham and/or Brooks inadvertently. I'll edit the French article to that effect; I'll let you decide whether you want to do the same here. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes – in effect, when Childebert died, the mission's passport expired. Makes sense. The mission would presumably have carried letters addressed to Childebert (I don't know if that's made explicit anywhere, but Brooks's mention of a register suggests it might be), and the idea of turning up with an introduction to a dead king would've made me wobbly too! Nortonius (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

"Southern Britain"

By the time of the death of the last missionary in 653, the mission had established Christianity in southern Britain.

Were the Britons of what is now Cornwall/West Devon not in southern Britain? And, get me if I am wrong, but weren't they already Christian? cf. Celtic Christianity

Moreover, prior to the Anglo-Saxon migrations, much of Britain had been Christian already. Otherwise what of Saint Alban, archbishop Restitutus of London, and much archeological and historic evidence of Roman Christianity. Indeed, the only form of pre-AS Briton Christianity barred by the Anglo-saxon migrations was that of formal church presence. (all points taken from RS via the linked articles above).

Therefore, the mission did not establish Christianity in southern Britain. I grant that the mission re-established formal church presence in the lands governed by the Anglo-Saxons.

---

20040302 (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree and have amended accordingly. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)