(1..) We meet in this book with the first allusion to the operations of the Lombards in Italy (Ep. 3); and hence this may be a suitable place for giving a brief sketch of Gregory's dealings with regard to them in the light thrown on the subject of his epistles. The Lombard King, Agilulf (as has been said above, p. vii.), had his headquarters at Ticinum (Pavia), the extensive dukedoms of Beneventum and Spoletum in Southern Italy being in the possession of his dukes. Early in the year before us (the 10th Indiction), it appears that Ariulf, duke of Spoletum was believed to be marching towards Ravenna or Rome. (See Ep. 3, which is dated in the Collection of Paul the Deacon and in Cod. Colberi. "die V. Kalend. Octob. Indict. 10," i.e. 27 Sept., A.D. 591.) Later in the same Indiction Gregory becomes aware of his approach, and addresses letters (Epp. 29,30) to officers in command of the imperial forces with the purpose of urging them to meet the impending danger. Subsequently in the same in the same year it appears from a letter to the Bishop of Ravenna (Ep.46) that Ariulf was already besieging Rome. Gregory in this letter gives a sad account of the savagery of the besieger outside the walls, his own illness and depression, and the difficulties he had to contend with. He complains, in this as in other letters, of the conduct of Romanus Patricius, the Exarch at Ravenna, who would neither send aid nor sanction terms of peace. Further, troops had, he says, been withdrawn from Rome before the siege, so as to leave it insufficiently defended; and the soldiers of a legion that remained there, not receiving their pay, had refused to man the walls. In these straits Gregory appears at length to have come to terms with Ariulf on his own responsibility; for doing which he was afterwards blamed and reproached as having been duped by Ariulf. (See Lib. V., Ep. 40.) The peace, however, was not of long duration. The Exarch (probably soon afterwards, though the date is not clear) marched himself to Rome, and on his return seized certain cities — Satrium, Polimartium, Horta, Tudertua, Ameria, Perusia, Luceoli, and others — which had been ceded to the Lombards under treaty — perhaps that which Gregory himself had made. (Paul. Diac. De Gestis Longobard, IV. 8. Of Epp., Lib. V., Ep. 40.) Agilulf, the Lombard King, incensed by this breach of faith, now came with an army from Ticinum, recaptured Perusia, and again besieged Rome. In a letter addressed some time afterwards to the Emperor (Lib. V., Ep. 40), Gregory gives a lamentable account of the misery that had ensued. Since the departure of Ariulf, he says, "troops had still further been withdrawn from the city for the fruitless defense of Perusia, the supply of corn had failed, while from the walls they saw Romans led away with ropes round their necks like dogs to be sold in France." He, with the praefect of the city, also called Gregory, and the military commander Castorius, had done all they could under extreme difficulty to guard the walls, for which he complains they afterwards got no thanks, but rather blame for neglect of duty in letting the corn run short. He himself, when the besiegers arrived, had been delivering his well-known course of homilies on Ezekiel, which he had been obliged to break off abruptly. The last ends this: — "Let no one blame me if henceforth I cease my speaking, since, as you all see, our tribulations have increased; we are surrounded on all sides by swords; on all sides we are afraid for imminent danger of death. Some return to us with their hands cut off; others are reported to us as taken captive or slain. I am now forced to withhold my tongue from exposition, for my soul is weary of life." How long this siege lasted, or on what terms of agreement Agilulf at length departed, we are not told. Whatever arrangements was made, it was evidently due to Gregory alone. Paul the Deacon says only (De gest. Longob., IV. 8), "that King Agilulf, matters being arranged, returned to Ticinum;" and adds, "and not long afterwards, at the suggestion especially of his wife Queen Theodelinda, as the blessed Gregory often admonished her in his letter, he concluded a most firm peace with the same most holy Pope Gregory, and with the Romans." But it is plain from epistles written subsequently that it was not till some years later that anything like a settled truce was concluded: for it was not till the second indiction, i.e. A.D. 598-9 (if the letters are rightly arranged, as they appear to be, by the Benedictine editors), that we find letters of thanks from Gregory to King Agilulf for peace at length concluded, and to Theodelinda for her good offices (Lib. IX., Epp. 42,43). In the meantime, as appears from various letters, Gregory continued to urge the Emperor or the Exarch to arrange terms of peace, for which he asserts, though he was not believed, that Agilulf was prepared. He declares also that he could have himself made a separate peace with him so as to secure himself and Rome; but that he had been unwilling to do so, having the welfare of the whole republic at heart. He implies that the Exarch and his adherents were but serving their own ends in opposing terms of peace, their own exactions and oppressions during the continuance of hostilities being even more intolerable than the ravages of the Lombards (see Lib. V., Epp. 40,42). In an urgent letter to the Empress Constantina he complains also of the cruel oppression of the natives of Sicily and Corsica under color of raising funds for the war, and begs her to plead with the Emperor, for his own soul's sake as well as for real advantage to the republic, against the use of such iniquitous means {Lib. V., Ep. 41). These letters (if rightly placed) were written in the 13th Indiction (A.D. 394-5), and in the next we find a letter to one Secundus at Ravenna, in which negotiations with Agilulf with a view to peace are spoken of as still going on, which this Secundus is urged to further (Lib. VI., Ep. 30). But it was not, as has been already said, till the 2nd Indiction (A.D. 598-9) that any definite terms appear to have been agreed to (see Lib. IX., Epp. 4, 6, 42, 43, 98): and then, it seems, only for a limited time (see Lib. IX., Epp. 37: — "indicantes cum Langobardorum rege usque ad mensen Martiam futurae quartae indictionis de pace, propitiante Domino, convenisse"); and even so, Gregory does not appear to have felt secure: for in a letter written at this time to Januarius, bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, alluding to the peace that had been made, he warns him to guard the island well in view still of possible danger from the Lombards (Lib. IX., Ep. 6. Cf. also Lib. X., Ep. 37). After the expiration of this truce (which, as has been seen, was from some time in the 2nd Indiction (588-9) to March in the 4th Indiction (A.D. 601), probably for two years), hostilities having again broken out, a second truce was concluded in September, A.D. 603, as appears from Paul the Deacon (De gest. Longob., IV. 29), until April, A.D. 605: and that Gregory had been instrumental in procuring it through the influence of Queen Theodelinda on her husband, may be concluded from what he says in the last letter he addressed to her, not long before his death (Lib. XIV., Ep. 12).
We thus see how indefatigably active Gregory was in the political sphere of things. Lasting peace or security for Italy at that trying time it was beyond the power of man to bring about: but whatever was done towards mitigation of distress, and temporary cessation of hostilities, or approaches to better understanding with the Lombard King, appears plainly to have been due to Gregory. Nor should we leave out of sight his provision for the redemption of captives taken in war, whether out of ecclesiastical funds or others entrusted to him for the purpose, or by the sale, which he cordially sanctioned, of the sacred vessels of churches (IV. 17,31; VII. 13, 26, 28, 38; IX. 17, etc.).
(2..) Attention may be directed to epistles 22,23 in this book in connection with the spiritual jurisdiction exercised by Rome over East as well as West Illyricum.
(3..) We may observe also the important import of epistle 41, with regard to the exemption of monasteries from episcopal control by Gregory. The constitutions, De privelgiis monasteriorum, therein contained were afterwards promulged by a council under him (called Conciliae Romanum III., sive Lateranense) in April, A.D. 601, being signed by 20 bishops, 14 presbyters, and 3 or 4 deacons.
Book 3. Indiction XL (A.D. 592-3) The following notable incidents are referred to in this Book: — (1..) Two instances of the authority exercised (as above said) over the Illyrian Churches being, for a time at least, resisted or disregarded, and of the support of the Emperor being sought, and more or less obtained, in such resistance or disregard. The first instance was in the case of Adrian, bishop of Thebae Phthioticae in Eastern Illyricum, as to which see note to Ep. 6. The second and more serious one (which has been already alluded to) was in the case of Maximus, elected and consecrated bishop of Salona in Western Illyricum, in defiance of Gregory's prohibition and excommunication. In this case the resistance was pertinacious and long continued, and it was not till after seven years that the matter was compromised and communion restored. A summary of the proceedings, with reference to all the epistles bearing on the case, will be found in a note to Ep. M.
(2..) As illustrative of the relations between Rome and Constantinople, the case of John of Chalecedon and Athanasius of Isauria, whose appeal to the Roman See was entertained by Gregory. See note to Lib. III., Ep. 53.
(3..) The beginning of remonstrances, continued through two years, with the metropolitan bishops of Ravenna with regard to their assumption of dignity above that of other metropolitans, expressed especially by their use of the pallium on other occasions than during Mass. From the letters on this subject we may detect, as has been said above, some jealousy at the seat of the Exarch of the authoritative claims of the Roman See. See Lib. III., Ep. 56, with note and reff.
(4..) The conduct of Gregory, at once oustpoken and submissive to imperial edicts, with respect to the recent prohibition by the Emperor of solders becoming monks. See Ep. 65, note and reff. The incident illustrates well Gregory's habitual deference to the authority of the state, except in matters purely spiritual.
(5..) His requirement of Jews not being allowed to obtain or keep possession of Christian slaves. There are other letters on this subject, viz. IV. 9, 21; VI. 32; VII. 24; IX. 36, 110. Even slaves already in the lawful possession of Jews, on declaring their desire to become Christians, were to be thenceforth free without compensation to their owners; only that pagans bought by Jews simply with a view to sale might, on their declaring such desire, be sold by such Jews within three months after their purchase of them; but only to Christian masters. It may be here observed that, though such provisions seem hard upon Jewish owners, and though Jews were legally prohibited from proselytising or building new synagogues, yet we find Gregory in other respects very tender towards them, repeatedly forbidding their being at all molested in the synagogues they had, or being in any way persecuted into accepting baptism (I. 10, 35, 47; VIII. 25; IX. 6, 55; XIII. 12). Those on the estates of the Church might indeed be drawn towards Christianity by the prospect of reduced rents (II. 32, V. 8), but all compulsory conversion of them is denounced as wrong and unavailing (e.g. I. 47). On the other hand, with some apparent inconsistency, pagan peasants on the estates might be compelled to conform by intolerable exactions being laid upon them in case of their refusal (IV. 26), and idolaters or diviners were to be reclaimed, if freemen, by imprisonment, or, if slaves, by stripes and torments (IX. 65).
Book 4. Indiction XII. (A.D. 593-4) In this book we may note: (1..) The continued refusal of many at least of the bishops in Liguria, as well as in Istria and Venetia, to assent to the condemnation of the "Three Chapters" by the fifth Council, and with them of Theodelinda, the Catholic Lombard queen. See Ep. 2 and notes, with Epp. 3,4,38,39.
(2..) The case of Paul, a bishop in Numidia, as indicating the continuance of disinclination to submit fully to the Roman see in the African provinces. SeeEp. 34, with note. Cf. also Ep. 7, and IX. 58,59.
(3..) The directions given by Gregory, and, as thereby shewn, the custom of the Chuch, with regard to the anointing of the baptized (Ep. 9, and Ep. 26, with note); and also his belief in the miraculous effect of the relics of saints, shewn in many other Epistles, but especially in Ep. 30 of this book.
Book 5. Indiction XIII. (A.D. 594-5) (1..) This year is memorable for the commencement of Gregory's earnest protest, continued through his subsequent life, against the title of Oecumenical, or Universal, Bishop (or Patriarch) assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The title itself was not a new one. It appears to have been occasionally given during the fifth century as a title of honor to patriarchs generally, the first known instance being when Olympius Episc. Evazensis gave it to Dioscorus at Concil. Ephes. ii (Giesler's Eccles. Hist. 2nd Period, 1st Division, Ch. iii., 93, note 20; with ref. to Mansi, vi. 855). Justinian also had styled the patriarch of Constantinople "Oecumenical Patriarch" (Cod. 1. 1,7; Novell, iii., v., vi., vii., xvi., xiii.) The first known protest against it from Rome was on its assumption, A.D. 587, by John Jejunator at a synod at Constantinople, when Gregory's predecessor, Pelagius II., had disallowd the acts of the synod in consequence, and had withdrawn his apocrisiarus from communion with the patriarch (Epp. V. 18, 43; Ix. 68). Gregory himself also had, as appears from the epistles above referred to, remonstrated through his representative at Constantinople with the patriarch on the subject, and had received a letter from the emperor desiring him to let the matter rest (V. 19). But he was now provoked to resolute action by having received a communication from the patriarch in reference to the case of John the Presbyter, wherein the title of "Oecumenical Patriarch" was repeatedly assumed (ib.). The peculiar warmth of feeling and strength of language that mark his lengthened correspondence on the subject, are accounted for not only by the old jealousy felt at Rome (which has been noticed above) of any claim of Constantinople, in mere virtue of being the imperial city, to the prerogatives of an ancient Apostolic See, but also by the title being viewed as not being one of honor only, but as meaning really assumption of spiritual authority over the Church at large. Such assumption could only rest on the fact of Constantinople having come to be the imperial city: it had neither a shew of divine right, nor Apostolic tradition, nor canonical authority to go on. Rome, though for himself also Gregory earnestly disclaimed the title of Universal Bishop, was at any rate an ancient apostolic See, and viewed at that time generally as representing the authority of the Prince of the Apostles, to whom Christ himself had given the keys. But no such ancient prestige or apostolical commission could possibly be claimed for Constantinople: its ascendancy over the whole Church would simply mean imperialism, and imperial domination over the whole Church would in fact have been likely to be its practical result: and thus, in his determined protest, Gregory might well fell himself to be contending for heavenly as against earthly jurisdiction, for Christ as against the world, for God as against Caesar.
The following is a summary of the correspondence that ensued in this and following years: — In this year Gregory despatched five letters to Sabinianus, his apocrisiarius at Constantinople: — LA long one to be delivered to John Jejunator, the Patriarch (Ep. 18), dated Kal. Jan. Indict. 13 (i.e. jany., A.D. 595), containing earnest remonstrances against pride in general, and against this display of it in particular, and expressing the hope that stronger measures may not be needed. 2. A private one to Sabinianus (Ep. 19), in a bitter tone against the patriarch, attributing the mildness of the letter now addressed to the latter to the Emperor's orders, but promising another by and by, such as would not be relished. 3. A long one to the Emperor Maurice (Ep. 20), earnestly desiring him to disallow the title, and, if necessary, coerce the patriarch to compliance. While acknowledging the Emperor's pious desire to promote peace among the Bishops, he contends that the only means to this end was to quell the assumption of the patriarch, the inconsistency of which with his ascetic habits, and his affection of humility, are pointed out ironically. 4. Another to the Empress Constantina (Ep. 21), whose good disposition towards the Roman See he had heard of from Sabinianus. His object is to enlist her influence with the Emperor and his sons in the matter; and it is observable how, in addressing her, he speaks in a way he does not venture on to the Emperor, of the peril to her own soul if St. Peter should be dishonored, to whom the power of binding and loosing had been given. 5. A long one to be transmitted through Sabinianus to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch (Ep. 43), with the purpose of inducing them to join him in his protest. He represents the offensive title as an infringement on the rights and dignity of all patriarchs, not claiming in this letter any peculiar authority for the Roman patriarchate above the rest. He bids them not be afraid of the Emperor in the event, which he hopes will not ensue, of his continuing to support the Constantinopolitan patriarch, but to be ready to face all consequences.
In the following year (Lib. VL, Indict. XIV., i.e. A.D. 595-6) we find an epistle, dated August (i.e. August, A.D. 596), to Eulogius, the patriarch of Alexandria only (Ep. 60), expressing surprise that the latter, in a letter received from him had not even alluded to the subject of the former epistle which had been addressed to the two patriarchs. It seems as if Eulogius had either been afraid to provoke to emperor's displeasure, or had attached less importance to the title than did Gregory himself, and so had maintained a discreet silence. In this epistle Gregory expresses the view, which has been alluded to above, of the sees of Rome and Alexandria being both in a sense St. Peter's, in a virtue of the latter having been founded by St. Mark, whom St. Peter had sent. He had previously, in a letter to Anastasius of Antioch (V. 39), intimated a similar view of the See of Antioch being also in a certain sense St. Peter's; and in a subsequent letter to Eulogius (VII. 40) he set forth more distinctly and at length his noteworthy position of all the three patriarchal Sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, having together the prerogatives of St. Peter's See.
In the following year (Indict. XV., A.D. 596-7) John Jejunator died, and was succeeded by Cyriacus, to whom Gregory wrote on receiving his synodical letter, addressing him in a friendly tone (Ep. 4), but urging in the course of his letter the rejection of the offensive title. He wrote again (Ep.
31) especially on the subject, still courteously, but pressing the matter strongly. To the emperor we find two letter; the first (Ep. 6) approving of the appointment of Cyriacus, but without any allusion to the burning question; the second (Ep. 33), after receiving one from the emperor, in which the desire had been expressed that the emissaries of the new patriarch should be honorably received at Rome. To this request Gregory replies that he has so received them, and admitted them to communion with him, hoping for the best; but that his own representatives at Constantinople would by no means be allowed to communicate with Cyriacus, unless the title were renounced. The emperor had said that the matter was a frivolous one. "Yes (says Gregory) the title is indeed frivolous, but its meaning and its consequences are serious;" and he repeats his continual assertion that whosoever assumes it is the precursor of Antichrist. In this year also he continued his efforts to induce the patriarchs Anastasius and Eulogius to join him in his protest. Anastasius, it seems, had not, like Eulogius, ignored the subject in his reply to the letter that had been addressed to both, but had said that in his opinion the matter was of little moment and not worth making a disturbance about; at the same time addressing Gregory in flattering terms. Gregory, in his reply (Ep. 27), which is somewhat ironical, insists again. To Eulogius also he writes again (Ep. 40), deprecating the too deferential manner in which he had been addressed by this patriarch, and setting forth his view of the onenes of the three sees. The offensive title itself is not in this letter specifically referred to. There is also a second letter to the two patriarchs jointly, explaining what had been done so far since the accession of Cyriacus, and reiterating his protest against allowance of the title. In the succeeding year (Lib. VIII., Indict. I., A.D. 597-8) there is again a letter (Ep. 30) to Eulogius, who appears to have written a third time to Gregory, at length alluding to the title so far as to say that he did not now use proud titles in addressing certain persons, but still apparently not prepared to take any action. As if to make up for such inaction, he had seemingly been profuse in his compliments to Gregory, using the expression, "as thou hast commanded," and calling him "Universal Pope." Such language Gregory, in reply, earnestly protests against, disclaiming for himself, as much as for any other bishop, the name of Universal. In the following year (Lib. IX., Indict. II., A.D. 598-9) we find two letters; one of them which is an encyclical one (Ep. 68), to Eusebius of Thessalonica and other Eastern bishops, in view of a synod at Constantinople, warning them against being cajoled there into assenting to the title, and threatening them with excommunication in case of their complying. From the second letter assigned to this year, which is again to Eulogius (Ep. 78), it would seem that the synod at Constantinople had been held, and that Eulogius himself had been there, though what had been done does not appear. The letter is in reply to one which had been received with reference to a different subject from Eulogius; and Gregory complains that the latter had still said nothing about the most important subject of all, namely the title. He supposes Eulogius to be waiting till he himself shall take decided action; and he accounts for his own apparent delay by saying that he had been unwilling to be himself the immediate author of schism. It seems as if he had felt at a loss what to do. His remonstrances with Cyriacus and the emperor had been entirely unavailing; he had failed to move the two great Eastern patriarchs, or the bishops of the East generally, to take up the question; and he shrank from so serious a step as breaking off communion with the whole Eastern Church. And so matters appear to have rested. We find no further epistle on the subject till four years later (Lib. XIII., Indict. VI., A.D. 602-3), when in a short letter (Ep. 40) to Cyriacus, with whom he appears to be still in communion, he urges him once more to give up the title. There are in the same year two letters, and one in the previous one (XII. 50), as well as two (X., 35,36) in the third indiction, to Eulogius, in which the subject is not allude to.
(2..) We observe in this year the sending of the pallium to Virgilius, bishop of Aries in Gaul, and with it his delegation (Epp. 53,54, 55) as the Pope's Vicar in the Kingdom of Childebert. As has been said above (see p. xii.), the spiritual authority of Rome over the Gallican Churches was not disputed; and Gregory exercised it vigilantly by means of letters to bishops, and to royal personages, laboring among other things to move them to put down simony, clerical immorality, and other prevalent abuses, and to assemble synods under authority from Rome for the correction of crying evils. But, though we find no resistance to his spiritual authority, neither do we find any evidence of his appeals to the consciences of the potentates of Gaul having much practical effect in the directions indicated. Doubtless ina difficult field of action he did what he could; nor need we doubt that the authoritative voice from Rome was at any rate some check on violence and disorder, though the results may not be very apparent in history.
The main divisions of Gaul at this time were Austrasia on the Eastern Side, including part of what is now Germany, Burgundy to the West and South, and the smaller Neustria on the North-west. The limits as well as the possession of these territories were continually changing during the contests between the descedants of Clovis, some or other of whom before us {Indict. XIII., A.D. 594-5), as is pointed out in a note to Ep. 53, Childebert II., then aged about 25, ruled by far the greatest part of Gaul; and hence the jurisdiction intended to be conferred on Virgilius, when the pallium was sent him, may be taken as equally extensive. We find no instance of spiritual authority so claimed being disputed in Gaul.
Book 6. Indict ion XIV. (A.D. 595-6) ( 1..) This year is memorable for the mission of Augustine to England, the progress of which, is indicated by the epistles, may be summarized as follows. The missionaries having left Rome, probably in the early spring of the year 596, and proceeded as far as the South coast of France and having there turned faint-hearted, Augustine himself returned to Rome for leave to relinquish the enterprise. Gregory sent him back to his companions with the letter, addressed to them, numbered Ep. 5 1 in this sixth book. It is dated X. Kal. Aug. Indict. 14, i.e. July, A.D. 596. For a view of the circumstances see note to vi. 5 1. He was now charged (as he does not appear to have been when first sent forth) with various letter of commendation, intended to speed him on his journey: viz, to the bishops of Marseilles, Patrician of Gaul, to Theodebert and Theoderic, the two-boy kings of Austrasia and of Burgundy, and to their powerful grandmother Brunehild, who at this time ruled Austrasia as the guardian of Theodebert. The course of the missionaries, after leaving Marseilles, would naturally be up the valley of the Rhone, and so northward as far as Autun, most at least of the letter above name being such as might be delivered on the way. Thence to their place of embarcation for the Isle of Thanet we find no intimation of their route, except that, in passing through Neustria, they were well received and aided by Clotaire II. (nephew of Charibert, the deceased father of Bertha), who at that time ruled the country, having his capital at Soissons. This appears, though there is no extant letter of commendation on this occasion to Clotaire, from a subsequent letter to him (XL 61).
The landing of the missionaries on the Isle of Thanet was, according to Bede, in the following year, A.D. 597 (H.E.. I. 25, V. 24). It must have been early in the year, so as to allow time for the events, to be next noticed, which took place before its close. The next allusion to the mission found in the Epistles is Gregory' s exulting announcement to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, of its remarkable success, and of the baptism of more than ten thousand Angli as early as the Christmas of the same year, 597 (VIII. 30). The date is definitely given in the letter to Eulogius; — "in the solemnity of the Lord's Nativity which was kept in this first indiction-" — The first indiction being from September, 597, to September, 598. In the meantime, as appears from the same letter, Augustine had already been consecrated bishop. The letter says vaguely "a Germanis Episcopis": but, according to John the Deacon (Vit. S. Greg. II. 36), and Bede (H.E., I. 27), it was toVirgilius, bishop of Aries, that Augustine had gone, as directed by Gregory, for consecration.
The next batch of Epistles throwing light on the progress of the mission (after two others, IX. 11 and 108, wherein Queen Brunehild and Syagrius Bishop of Autun are thanked for their attention to the missionaries on their progress) is in Book XL, and thus assigned to Indiction 4, i.e. A.D. 600-1, some three years after the aforesaid letter to Eulogius. It comprises fourteen Epistles, some of which bear their own dates, and others are shewn by their contents to have been written at the same time. It is true that the dates of the dated epistles vary in different MSS. with regard to the time of year; but all the MSS agree in giving the same Indiction, viz. the fourth. The occasion of writing was when Augustin, according to Bede and John the Deacon, had sent the presbyter Laurentius and the monk Peter to Rome, to seek instructions on certain points, and to ask for more missionaries: whereupon, we are told, Gregory sent back the messengers accompanied by Mellitus, Justus, Paulinus, Rufinianus, and others, with replies to Augustine's question, instructions for the constitution of the Church in Britain, the pallium for himself, and books, utensils, and relics for the Churches (Joann. Diac. in Vit. S. Greg., II. 36,37; Bede, H.E., I. 27, 29). We might have supposed from the narratives of John the Deacon and Bede that Augustine had sent Lawrence and Peter to Rome on his return to Britain after his own consecration by the bishop of Aries, and that the new band of missionaries had been sent out without delay. But the dates of the epistles shew, as has been seen above, that several years had intervened, at any rate, between Augustine's return and the sending out of the new missionaries. And indeed Bede himself intimates this in his recapitulation of events (H.E., V. 24), though not in his narrative. For, having given A.D. 597 as the date of Augustine's first arrival in Britain, he gives A.D. 601 as that of sending of the pallium with "more ministers, among whom was Paulinus."
The letters which these new missionaries carried with them were to the bishops Virgilus of Aries (Ep. 55), Desiderius of Vienne (Ep. 54), Aetherius of Lyons (Ep. 56), Arigius of Vapincum (Ep. 57), with a circular to various bishops of Gaul (Ep. 58); also to Queen Brunehild (Ep. 62), to kings Theodebert, Theoderic, and Clotaire (Epp. 59, 60,61): to Augustin himself (Ep. 65), together with a long reply (Ep. 64) to his questions, to Ethelbert king of Kent (Ep. 66), and probably at the same time to Bertha his queen (Ep. 29).