¹ ‘Ego quid feci? Ego quid feci? Sedebam mihi super lactucam. Venit illa et momordit me’: Gregory the Great, Dialogues i.4.7, in Grégoire le Grand: Dialogues, trans. Antin, P. and ed. de Vogüé, A., SC ccli cclx cclxv, Paris 1978–80Google Scholar.

² Wiliam D. McCready provides the best discussion of responses to this story: Signs of sanctity: miracles in the thought of Gregory the Great, Toronto 1989, 176–8Google Scholar. It is not possible to list all citations of this tale, but it is discussed as an example of humour in Shanzer, Danuta, ‘Laughter and humour in the early medieval latin West’, in Halsall, Guy (ed.), Humour, history and politics in late antiquity and the Middle Ages, Cambridge 2002, 25–47 Google Scholar at p. 46. It is also interpreted as comical in Huber-Rebenich, Gerlinde, ‘Hagiographic fiction as entertainment’, trans. Stoneman, Richard in Hofmann, Heinz (ed.), Latin fiction: the Latin novel in context, London–New York 2004, 187–212 Google Scholar at p. 204. The devil is called ‘comical’ and the tale described as ‘grotesque humour’ in Auerbach, Erich, Literary language and its public in late Latin antiquity and in the Middle Ages, Cambridge, Ma 1965, 98 Google Scholar. It is referred to as an ‘amusing tale’ in Caciola, Nancy, Discerning spirits: divine and demonic possession in the Middle Ages, Ithaca–London 2003, 42 Google Scholar. The devil is understood to be (in part) a harmless trickster in Straw, Carole, Gregory the Great: perfection in imperfection, Los Angeles, Ca 1988, 50 Google Scholar, 64–5, 257. See also Russell, Jeffrey Burton, Lucifer: the devil in the Middle Ages, Ithaca 1984, 155–6Google Scholar. Peter Dendel refers to ‘trivial anecdotes’ containing the devil in the first book of Gregory's Dialogues: Satan unbound: the devil in Old English narrative literature, Toronto 2001 Google Scholar. See also Clark, Francis, The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues, Leiden 1987, ii. 637–8Google Scholar. This interpretation is so embedded in the scholarship that it can also be found in works that do not concern the Middle Ages: Kallendorf, Hilaire, Exorcism and its texts: subjectivity in early modern literature of England and Spain, Toronto 2003, 22 Google Scholar.

³ Clark, Francis, The ‘Gregorian’ Dialogues and the origins of Benedictine monasticism, Leiden 2003, 108 Google Scholar; cf. Straw, Gregory the Great, 64.

⁴ Burton, Dan and Grandy, David, Magic, mystery and science: the occult in western civilization, Bloomington, In 2004, 135 Google Scholar.

⁵ Auerbach, Literary language, 98–9.

⁶ Ibid. 98.

⁷ Huber-Rebenich, ‘Hagiographic fiction’, 204. The nun is also said to have been heckled or harrassed (‘vessata’) by the devil: Gajano, Sofia Boesch, Gregorio Magno: alle origini del medioevo, Rome 2004, 289 Google Scholar n. 87.

⁸ Kelly, Henry Angsar, The devil, demonology, and witchcraft: the development of Christian beliefs in evil spirits, Eugene, Or 1974, 76 Google Scholar; Russell, Lucifer, 155–6; Auerbach, Literary language, 97.

⁹ Francis Clark argues that the Dialogues were not written by Gregory but by a ‘Dialogist’ in Rome who inserted authentic Gregorian passages (IGPs) into the work, with these authentic passages amounting to about 25% of the total text: Clark, Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues. Most scholars accept the Dialogues as a genuine Gregorian work, although Marilyn Dunn too believes that they were not Gregorian, arguing that they were written in the 670s in Anglo-Saxon England: ‘Gregory the Great, the vision of Fursey and the origins of purgatory’, Peritia xiv (2001), 238–54Google Scholar at pp. 238, 240. Robert Gillet also accepts the inauthenticity of the Dialogues: ‘Les Dialogues sont-ils de Grégoire?’, Revue des études augustiniennes xxxvi/2 (1990), 309–14Google Scholar. The main arguments against Clark can be found in Paul Meyvaert, ‘The enigma of Gregory the Great's Dialogues: a response to Francis Clark’, this Journal xxxix (1988), 385–81, and de Vogüé, Adalbert, ‘Grégoire le Grand et ses “Dialogues” d'après deux ouvrages récents’, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique lxxxiii (1988), 281–348 Google Scholar, and ‘Du Nouveau sur les Dialogues de saint Grégoire?’, Collectanea Cisterciensia lxii (2000), 193–8Google Scholar. This story of the nun and the lettuce is not contained in one of the IGPs and therefore, according to Clark, is not the work of Gregory.

¹⁰ J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, quoted in Cranz, F. Edward, Dean, Ruth J., Luniansky, Robert M. and others, ‘Memoirs of Fellows and Corresponding Fellows of the Medieval Academy of America’, Speculum lxi (1986), 759–69Google Scholar at p. 768.

¹¹ R. A. Markus’ astute work on Gregory excluded discussion of the Dialogues as he believed that the work concerned different questions: Gregory the Great and his world. Cambridge 1997, 16 Google Scholar. John Moorhead discussed the Dialogues very little, whilst quoting from Gregory's other works extensively: Gregory the Great, Abingdon 2005. The best works on the Dialogues (necessarily) demonstrate an impressive understanding of their place within early medieval hagiography, focusing less on their relationship to Gregory's other writings: Santo, Matthew Dal, Debating the saints’ cult in the age of Gregory the Great, Cambridge 2012 Google Scholar. There have, however, been attempts to demonstrate the unity of Gregory's works: Dagens, Claude, Saint Grégoire le Grand: culture et experience chretiennes, Paris 1977 Google Scholar.

¹² Dudden, F. Homes, Gregory the Great: his place in history and thought, London 1905, ii. 367–8Google Scholar.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ See also Harnack, Adolph, History of dogma, trans. Millar, James, London 1898, v. 263–4Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Brown, Peter, The cult of the saints in late antiquity: its rise and function in Latin Christianity, Chicago 1981 Google Scholar. They can, however, be found in the work of Francis Clark, who speaks of the Dialogues as being ‘sub-Christian’ and ‘religiously inferior’.

¹⁶ Shanzer has gone furthest in demonstrating its exegetical nature: ‘Humour’, 46. William W. McCready has discussed its complexities and difficult historiography: Signs of sanctity, 176–8.

¹⁷ Straw, Gregory the Great, 64.

¹⁸ Kelly, Devil, 76.

¹⁹ Dendel, Satan unbound, 58.

²⁰ Clark, Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues, ii. 638.

²¹ The link between Gregory's hagiography and exegesis has been convincingly demonstrated in Petersen, Joan, The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in their late antique cultural background, Toronto 1984 Google Scholar. Several writers have identified the biblical and hagiographical debts of the Dialogues: Mähler, M., ‘Évocations bibliques et hagiographiques dans la vie de saint Benoît par saint Grégoire’, Revue bénedictine lxxxiii (1973), 145–84Google Scholar; Cusack, Pearse, An interpretation of the second Dialogue of Gregory the Great: hagiography and Saint Benedict, Lewiston, NY 1993 Google Scholar. Joan Petersen differs from Mähler by arguing that Gregory was not intending to make exact biblical and literary correspondences, but that these parallels were the result of Gregory interpreting events in a typological manner.

²² Gregory, Dialogues iii.21.1–4. Gregory's exegesis of Matthew viii.31 can be found in Gregory, Moralia ii.10.16, in Gregorius Magnus: Moralia in Iob, ed. M Adriaen, CCSL cxliii cxliiiA xcliiiB, Turnhout 1979; cf. John Cassian, Collationes, vii.22.1, in Collationes XIIII, ed. Petschenig, Michael, CSEL xiii, Vienna 2004 Google Scholar.

²³ The parallel has been noted, but not fully appreciated, by Shanzer: ‘Humour’, 46.

²⁴ ‘In corde namque suggestione, delectatione, consensu et defensionis audacia perpetratur. Fit enim suggestion per aduersarium, delectatio per carnem, consensus per spiritum, defensionis audacia per elationem’: Gregory, Moralia iv.27.49; cf. Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos ii.21, in De Genesi contra Manichaeos, ed. Weber, D., CSEL xci, Vienna 1998 Google Scholar.

²⁵ Gregory the Great, Registrum epistolarum 11.56a, in Registrum epistolarum, ed. Norberg, D., CCSL cxl–cxlA, Turnhout 1981–2Google Scholar; Homiliae in evangelia i.16, in Homiliae in evangelia, ed. Etaix, R., CCSL cxli, Turnhout 1999 Google Scholar; Moralia iv.27.49.

²⁶ Satan ‘whimpers apologetically’: Huber-Rebenich, ‘Hagiographic fiction’, 204.

²⁷ See n. 1 above.

²⁸ Gregory, Moralia xx.15.30.

²⁹ Ibid. xxxiii.28.50.

³⁰ Shanzer, ‘Humour’, 46; Huber-Rebenich, ‘Hagiographic fiction’, 173.

³¹ Gregory, Moralia xxxiii.28.50.

³² See n. 1 above. In Genesis iii.14–15 God condemns the serpent without asking him what he has done.

³³ Gregory, Moralia iv.27.49.

³⁴ Gen. iii.13; 2 Corinthians xi.3.

³⁵ Jager, Eric, The tempter's voice: language and the fall in medieval literature, Ithaca, NY 1993, 4 Google Scholar.

³⁶ John viii.44.

³⁷ Gregory the Great, Regula pastoralis ii.4, in Grégoire le Grand: Règle pastorale, ed. Rommel, F. and trans. Morel, C., SC ccclxxxi ccclxxxii, Paris 1992 Google Scholar.

³⁸ Gregory wrote very little on the fate of unbaptised babies and children. An exception can be found in the Moralia, where Gregory appears uncomfortable with the idea that unbaptised paruuli are condemned. He nevertheless appears to adhere to the belief, expressing the opinion that such things are hidden and should be honoured with humility: Moralia xxvii.4.7.

³⁹ Idem, Dialogues ii.8.12.

⁴⁰ ‘humorous’ game: Straw, Gregory the Great, 64. The devil's words are described as a ‘pun’, ‘tauntings’ and as the devil shouting ‘in exasperation’ in Little, Lester K., Benedictine maledictions: liturgical cursing in romanesque France, London 1993 Google Scholar, p. xiii.

⁴¹ Gregory, Moralia iii.10.18.

⁴² Dendel, Satan unbound, 57–8.

⁴³ ‘Prius enim hunc uocabat ex nomine. Cui cum uir Dei minime responderet, ad eius mox contumelias erumpebat. Nam cum clamaret, dicens: “Benedicte, Benedicte”, et eum sibi nullo modo respondere conspiceret, protinus adiungebat: “Maledicte, non Benedicte, quid mecum habes, quid me persequeris?”’: Gregory, Dialogues ii.8.12.

⁴⁴ Ibid. ii.8.10.

⁴⁵ Straw, Gregory the Great, 64.

⁴⁶ Dudden, Gregory the Great, ii.368.

⁴⁷ Gregory, Moralia iii.10.17.

⁴⁸ ‘Verba enim post uulnera intulit’: ibid. iii.8.14.

⁴⁹ ‘Sed haec antiquus hostis tacite non ferens’: idem, Dialogues ii.8.10.

⁵⁰ ‘uir Dei minime responderet’, ibid.

⁵¹ See n. 43 above.

⁵² Acts ix.4; xxii.7; xxvi.14.

⁵³ Gregory, Moralia iii.13.25; xxx.1.3; xxxi.16.30; Homilia in evangelia 34; Dialogues ii.8.12. This is according to a search of the Library of Latin Texts, Series A (LLT – A) database that can be found at http://www.brepolis.net/.

⁵⁴ Matt. viii.29; Mark v.7; Luke viii.28.

⁵⁵ Gen. iii.4–5.

⁵⁶ Ambrose, De paradiso xii.36, in Ambrosius Mediolanensis: De paradiso, Library of Latin Texts, Series A, Turnhout 2010, http://www.brepolis.net/. This edition is based upon that of C. Schenkl, CSEL xxxii/1, Vienna 1897.

⁵⁷ 2 Cor. xi.14. Gregory says that the devil was acting as the angel of the light in Gen. iii.5 when he promised good things: Moralia iv.1.6. See also xxxiii.33.57.

⁵⁸ Gregory, Moralia v.15.32.

⁵⁹ Jager, Tempter's voice, 99.

⁶⁰ Ibid. 75.

⁶¹ ‘Veni, diabole, discalcia me’: Gregory, Dialogues iii.20.1.

⁶² Ibid. iii.20.2.

⁶³ Huber-Rebenich, ‘Hagiographic fiction’, 204.

⁶⁴ Shanzer, ‘Humour’, 40

⁶⁵ Gregory, Dialogues iii.19.5.

⁶⁶ Ibid.

⁶⁷ Ibid. iii.20.3.

⁶⁸ ‘foramen’: idem, Homiliae in Hiezechihelem prophetam 1.7.6, ed. Marcus Adriaen, CCSL clii, Turnhout 1971; ‘aditus’: Gregory, ep. ix.220; ‘locum’: ep. ix.219.

⁶⁹ 1 Peter v.8; Gregory, ep. v.41; Moralia v.21.41.

⁷⁰ Brown, Peter, ‘Gloriosus obitus: the end of the ancient other world’, in Klingshirn, W. E. and Vessey, M. (eds.), The limits of ancient Christianity: essays on late antique thought and culture in honor of R. A. Markus, Ann Arbor, Mi 1999, 289–314 Google Scholar at p. 310. Also see Brown, Peter, ‘The decline of the empire of God: amnesty, penance, and the afterlife from late antiquity to the Middle Ages’, in Bynum, C. Walker and Freedman, P. (eds), Last things: death and the apocalypse in the Middle Ages, Philadelphia, Pa 2000, 41–59 Google Scholar, and ‘The end of the ancient other world: death and afterlife between late antiquity and the early Middle Ages’, Tanner Lectures on Human Values xx (1999), 19–85 Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Markus, R. A., The end of ancient Christianity, Cambridge 1990, 15, 199–211 Google Scholar.

⁷² Ibid. 228.

⁷³ Shanzer, ‘Humour’, 40.

⁷⁴ A point suggested by Carolyn Donohue.

⁷⁵ An early manifestation of this is Bolton, W. F., ‘The supra-historical sense in the Dialogues of Gregory i ’, Aevum xxxiii (1959), 206–13Google Scholar. For a more recent example see McCready, Signs of sanctity. McCready asks a similar question albeit with an understanding of early medieval hagiographic genres.

⁷⁶ Moorhead, John, ‘Taking Gregory the Great's Dialogues seriously’, Downside Review cxxi (2003), 197–210 Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ For an idea of the extent of the scholarship see Godding, Robert, Bibliographia di Gregorio Magno (1890/1989), Rome 1990 Google Scholar, and D‘Impero, Francesca Sora, Gregorio Magno: bibliografia per gli anni 1980–2003, Florence 2005 Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ It may not be a coincidence that it has often been French scholarship or that by those with a professed religious affiliation, such as Claude Dagens (a Catholic bishop) or Adalbert de Vogüé (a Benedictine), that has often explored the spiritual, scriptural and theological dimensions of the Dialogues most thoroughly. However, there are certainly many exceptions to this which can be found throughout this article.