Wikipedia:Peer review/Gregorian mission/archive1

Gregorian mission

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It's passed GA, and I'd like to make sure that it's understandable to the non-historian as well as no outstanding prose glitches before heading off to FAC.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I had no trouble following this interesting article. I've suggested a few wikilinks of terms that not everybody will be familiar with. Otherwise, my comments mostly address minor prose issues and a couple of thoughts about the images.

Section heads

• The word "mission", which is part of the main title, should be avoided in the section heads and subheads, if possible. Maybe just "Background" would solve the problem in the first instance. Perhaps "Preparations" could substitute for "Sending the mission". The third one is tougher because the "Aspects" section is diffuse. Perhaps "Operational success" or something like that might work.

Lead

• "After the Roman Empire recalled the legions" - "Its" legions rather than "the" legions?
• Wikilink pagan on first use in the lead?
• "Gregory probably also wished to expand the areas acknowledging the primacy of the popes, as well as a desire to influence the rising power of the Kentish state." - The construction is not quite parallel. How about "Gregory probably also wished to expand the areas acknowledging the primacy of the popes and desired to influence the rising power of the Kentish state"?
• "who was the prior of Gregory's own monastic foundation" - Wikilink prior?
• "Æthelberht was converted, but the exact date of his conversion is unknown, but it occurred before 601." - Double "but". Perhaps simply replacing the second ", but" with a semicolon would solve the problem. Or replacing the first ", but" with a terminal period.
• "and the see, or bishopric, at London was abandoned" - Wikilink see?
• "Metropolitan" links to a dab. Perhaps linking "metropolitan archbishop" to Metropolitan bishop would solve the problem.

Background

• Wikilink Saxons in the first sentence?
• "and a Gaulish bishop went to the island" - Wikilink Gaul?

Gregory the Great and his motivations

• "He was told they were Angles... ". Wikilink Angles?
• "Available archaeological remains support the notion that there were cultural influences from Francia in England at that time." - Tighten by deleting "available"? Wikilink Francia?

Sending the mission

• "The Pope wrote to a number of Frankish bishops" - Delete "a number of"?

Arrival and first efforts

• "Augustine asked for Gregory's advice on a number of issues" - Delete "a number of"?

Relations with the British Christians

• "This meeting took place at a tree later named "Augustine's Oak", which by the time of Bede was on the border of the Kentish kingdom.[40] This meeting took place around 602 to 604 and the location is probably around the boundary between Somerset and Gloucestershire." - Suggestion: recast to avoid starting both sentences in exactly the same way. "Near" would probably be better than "around" in the second sentence.
• "Augustine apparently argued that the British church should give up any of their customs" - "Its" customs rather than "their"?
• "This problem had two aspects, 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." - Suggestion for tightening a bit: "This problem had two aspects: the first was that the British were unwilling to preach to the invaders of their country, and the second was that the invaders saw the natives as second-class citizens and would have been unwilling to listen to any conversion efforts."
• "were divided into a number of small political units" - Delete "a number of"?

Spread of bishoprics

• "he hedged his bets and worshiped" - Slang. Maybe just "he worshiped"?
• "In the north of Britain, progress was made in when Edwin of Northumbria married a daughter" - Maybe just "In the north of Britain, Christianity advanced when Edwin... " The word "progress" is tricky because not everyone saw it as such.
• The one-sentence orphan paragraph at the end should probably be merged with the paragraph above it.

"Aspects of the mission

• "It is possible that Gregory, when he sent the missionaries out... " - Tighten by deleting "out"?
• "One monastery was established at Canterbury, what later was St Augustine's, Canterbury... " - To avoid repetition of "Canterbury", perhaps just "St. Augustine's Abbey" would do.
• "Pastoral services were centralized, with churches being built in the larger villages of the cities territorial rule." - This sentence contains one of those dreaded "with plus -ing" constructions being pounced on at FAC, and it lacks a possessive apostrophe. - Suggestion: "Pastoral services were centralized, and churches were built in the larger villages of the cities' territorial rule."
• "derived from the Latin for church" - "Church" in italics?
• "most of the Gregorian missionaries were concerned with appearing with the Roman virtue of gravitas" _ Tighten to "most of the Gregorian missionaries were concerned with the Roman virtue of gravitas... "?
• "Also important was Gregory's flexibility and willingness to allow the missionaries to adjust their liturgies and behavior, which the pope communicated to Augustine and his fellow missionaries." - Tighten to "Also important was Gregory's flexibility and willingness to allow the missionaries to adjust their liturgies and behavior."?
• "were the archetype for the Anglo-Saxon missionaries to Germany" - Maybe "model" rather than "archetype" just because it's a more familiar word?

Images

• A nice illustrative group. I'd like to see one in the upper right, if possible. The Statue of Paulinus bumps into the section head below it on my screen. The image description page for the Statue of Paulinus is a little odd since it doesn't include a date for the underlying work or a tag saying that the underlying work is in the public domain. I think it probably is, but the question may arise later.

I hope these comments and suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I dealt with most of these, just left in a few of the "number of" bits. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's pretty needed to state that there were more than a few of something. Let me know if you find anything else. (Are you up to being my new copyeditor, since I seem to have lost my old one due to ANI fun?) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I take the request as a great compliment. If only I had time. Finetooth (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll certainly be taking more stuff through PR ... (sighs) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

llywrch comments

A comprehensive, well-organized presentation of this event. I do have some comments, which may not be entirely relevant:

• Your background implies that the Anglo-Saxons came slaughtering & burning their way into Britain, which is an old view of this event. More recent studies (well, those written from mid-1950s up to 1990 when I stopped following the topic) point out that there is very little -- if any -- evidence for this destructive advent, & what little evidence that exists indicates that the A-S entry was far more peaceful than previously thought, & where possible they worked to preserve what little there was. While not exactly relevant to your central narrative, perhaps it would be better to say that Roam civilization vanished as the Anglo-Saxons migrated into Britain.

I"ll have to reread the sources (which I believe are based on Yorke, Kirby and Stenton but I'll double check) but I suspect Fletcher's Barbarian Conversion covers some of this. I'll admit that the beginning part of this article is taken from Augustine of Canterbury, which I supplemented. The later parts are all new, but the early parts are built on the basis of Augustine's article which went FA over a year ago...Ealdgyth - Talk 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit more (because of course the article needed more prose...) See if that works a bit better? I'm on sinus pills right now so I can't swear that everything makes the best sense right now. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• I seem to remember (four words which always means "treat the following with at least a pinch of salt") that there were few formal missionary activities before the Gregorian mission; this was an original activity by Pope Gregory the Great, & one which I believe was not repeated directly by the Papacy. This unique character should be mentioned somewhere -- if you can find an authority who points this out, of course -- or at least its uncommonness should be pointed out.

I think the current thinking is that there were missionary efforts before and after, just not many that were started by the pope or from Rome. One of the big things that the Gregorian mission ran into was the Irish missionaries, and the two groupings merged into the continental missionaries (such as Wilibrod and Boniface). Again, I'll mine Fletcher for info. I also have a few other more current works I can check out. (Thank the gods for Peter Brown...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing that discusses anything unique about this. There is more thought now that there were more missionary activities that were sent out now. Fletcher discusses a number of missionaries before Augustine, including Patrick. I don't have anything that specifically mentions Gregory as the only pope who sent out a formal mission. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did qualify myself on this point. Had I the time to backtrack through my reading, I wouldn't be surprised if what I was alluding to was an off-the-cuff comment made by a writer now considered obsolete. -- llywrch (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not mis-remembering. I know I've read something of the sort in the past, but it's not showing in up the normal "stuff" I have here. Probably something from my undergrad days, and that's a scary thought... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Further, this missionary activity made Pope Gregory revered in Britain/England -- which was far different from how he was remembered in the rest of Western Christiandom. Because he was a monk-turned-prelate, the regular clergy had plenty of reason not to honor his memory; his brief biography in the Liber Pontificalis is an example of their damning with faint praise. It could be argued that had Gregory not encouraged this mission, there might have been even less reason to preserve his works (& the considerable chunks of his invaluable correspondence), & we might know him today only as a mysterious name.

I've tried to draw this out some, any suggestions on further bits that might help bring this out? Right now there is a whole paragraph on him in the Legacy section : "Another effect of the mission was the promotion of the cult of Pope Gregory the Great. Northumbrians and other English promoted this cult, and the first Life of Gregory is from Whitby Abbey in Northumbria. Gregory was not popular in Rome, and it wasn't until Bede's Ecclesisastical History began to circulate that Gregory's cult took root in Rome too.[62] Bede gives a leading role in the conversion of Northumbria to Gregorian missionaries, especially in his Chronica Maiora, where no mention is made of any Irish missionaries at all." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote the above, I had in mind R.A. Markus' book, Gregory the Great and his world (Cambridge: University Press, 1997). He goes into more detail about Gregory's lack of respect from the following generation, & discusses a few things about Gregory's motivations in sending this mission to the English. (However, what I wrote was not meant to represent anything Markus wrote; he might vociferously object to what I said.) Have a look at this book & see if you can make use of it. -- llywrch (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't own that work by Markus (I have some others though) and if there is information on motivations in there that isn't in the article, please feel free to add it. Anything more on the "legacy" though, I'm inclined to leave for Gregory's article (which I am NOT writing! I've still got a huge pile of English medieval bishops to worry about) though, unless I've missed something important? (I'll freely admit that one reason I dont have the Markus Gregory book is that sometimes I find Markus a bit... dense. Of course, Ramsay MacMullen is worse...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can add. Markus raises the possibility that Gregory's efforts towards the English & the Franks was out of frustration with his relations with Constantinople -- yet emphasizes that the Gregory's situation & his motivations were more complex than that. I think these larger geopolitical considerations need to be mentioned; Gregory & his people did not work in a vacuum. As for keeping your workload under control, I know what you mean ... sheesh, I've put aside numerous topics just to keep from letting our coverage of Ethiopian topics appear even more haphazard. -- llywrch (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've also made a few copy edits to this article, & may make one or two more; hopefully nothing that would change the meaning of the text, or offend you. -- llywrch (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting is VERY welcome. My prose is readable but hardly brilliant. I'm not so attached to my prose that I can't recognize improvements! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)